Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Liturgy and Sacraments
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #1  
Old May 11, '13, 4:49 pm
JMJCatholic JMJCatholic is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2, 2013
Posts: 59
Religion: Catholic
Default 1983 Canon Law not "under pain of mortal sin"

I stumbled upon this:

"During the development process for the 1983 Code of Canon Law it was decided to remove expressions such as "under pain of mortal sin" with respect to the external prescriptions of Church law.

In part this was done to distinguish Church law and the moral law. Church law covers the external relationship of individuals in the Christian community. Since sin also involves internal factors, the law, in itself, does not bind under pain of sin."

"This technical distinction does not mean that no sin is committed by transgressing Church law. The fact that the code no longer binds attending Sunday Mass under pain of mortal sin does not change the fact that willful and inexcusable absence is mortally sinful."

Source:

ZENIT International News Agency
Via della Stazione di Ottavia, 95
00165 Rome, Italy
Courtesy of E.W.T.N.

Can someone explain how this change in Canon Law translates into merely a "technical distinction" and no change? So technically the canon binding one to attend Sunday Mass "does not bind under pain of sin" since it is Church law rather than moral law, yet it remains a mortal sin?

JMJ
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old May 11, '13, 7:26 pm
JimG JimG is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: May 23, 2004
Posts: 22,908
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: 1983 Canon Law not "under pain of mortal sin"

"This technical distinction does not mean that no sin is committed by transgressing Church law. The fact that the code no longer binds attending Sunday Mass under pain of mortal sin does not change the fact that willful and inexcusable absence is mortally sinful."

Pretty good. I used to work for the Federal bureaucracy, and I used to write stuff like that sometimes. That's why nobody likes to read regulations.

But is sure does lack a certain moral clarity, doesn't it?

No wonder people get confused.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old May 11, '13, 7:35 pm
april32010 april32010 is offline
Banned
Prayer Warrior
 
Join Date: September 4, 2011
Posts: 4,551
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: 1983 Canon Law not "under pain of mortal sin"

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimG View Post
"This technical distinction does not mean that no sin is committed by transgressing Church law. The fact that the code no longer binds attending Sunday Mass under pain of mortal sin does not change the fact that willful and inexcusable absence is mortally sinful."
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old May 11, '13, 7:37 pm
Vico's Avatar
Vico Vico is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 27, 2008
Posts: 7,561
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: 1983 Canon Law not "under pain of mortal sin"

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMJCatholic View Post
I stumbled upon this:

"During the development process for the 1983 Code of Canon Law it was decided to remove expressions such as "under pain of mortal sin" with respect to the external prescriptions of Church law.

In part this was done to distinguish Church law and the moral law. Church law covers the external relationship of individuals in the Christian community. Since sin also involves internal factors, the law, in itself, does not bind under pain of sin."

"This technical distinction does not mean that no sin is committed by transgressing Church law. The fact that the code no longer binds attending Sunday Mass under pain of mortal sin does not change the fact that willful and inexcusable absence is mortally sinful."

Source:

ZENIT International News Agency
Via della Stazione di Ottavia, 95
00165 Rome, Italy
Courtesy of E.W.T.N.

Can someone explain how this change in Canon Law translates into merely a "technical distinction" and no change? So technically the canon binding one to attend Sunday Mass "does not bind under pain of sin" since it is Church law rather than moral law, yet it remains a mortal sin?

JMJ
The technical distinction is between church and moral law. It was always the moral law that was binding under pain of sin. As always, it is morally a grave matter, and for a particular instance is may be mortal sin.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old May 11, '13, 7:46 pm
JMJCatholic JMJCatholic is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2, 2013
Posts: 59
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: 1983 Canon Law not "under pain of mortal sin"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vico View Post
The technical distinction is between church and moral law. It was always the moral law that was binding under pain of sin. As always, it is morally a grave matter, and for a particular instance is may be mortal sin.
I think it is important to make this distinction between moral law and ecclesiastical law when Church law is strictly disciplinary. The moral law would be to keep holy the Lord's Day. The Church law or first precept is what is in question, and as I understand the change in the Canon law, making this distinction can be reasonably interpreted that it is not a mortal sin to miss Mass on Sunday if one obeys the moral law to keep the day holy.

JMJ
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old May 11, '13, 7:50 pm
JMJCatholic JMJCatholic is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2, 2013
Posts: 59
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: 1983 Canon Law not "under pain of mortal sin"

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimG View Post
"This technical distinction does not mean that no sin is committed by transgressing Church law. The fact that the code no longer binds attending Sunday Mass under pain of mortal sin does not change the fact that willful and inexcusable absence is mortally sinful."

Pretty good. I used to work for the Federal bureaucracy, and I used to write stuff like that sometimes. That's why nobody likes to read regulations.

But is sure does lack a certain moral clarity, doesn't it?

No wonder people get confused.
You said it, Jim!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old May 11, '13, 8:16 pm
johnmann johnmann is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: September 23, 2012
Posts: 625
Default Re: 1983 Canon Law not "under pain of mortal sin"

It's perfectly clear to me. Then again, I'm a lawyer.

Seriously though, the Sunday obligation still binds under pain of mortal sin. Canon law simply stopped talking about mortal sin because it isn't relevant to canon law's purpose.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old May 11, '13, 8:29 pm
JMJCatholic JMJCatholic is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2, 2013
Posts: 59
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: 1983 Canon Law not "under pain of mortal sin"

If not in Canon law, where do we find the teaching of the Church that it is a mortal sin?

JMJ
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old May 11, '13, 8:33 pm
johnmann johnmann is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: September 23, 2012
Posts: 625
Default Re: 1983 Canon Law not "under pain of mortal sin"

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMJCatholic View Post
If not in Canon law, where do we find the teaching of the Church that it is a mortal sin?

JMJ
The Catechism.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old May 11, '13, 8:34 pm
Vico's Avatar
Vico Vico is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 27, 2008
Posts: 7,561
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: 1983 Canon Law not "under pain of mortal sin"

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMJCatholic View Post
I think it is important to make this distinction between moral law and ecclesiastical law when Church law is strictly disciplinary. The moral law would be to keep holy the Lord's Day. The Church law or first precept is what is in question, and as I understand the change in the Canon law, making this distinction can be reasonably interpreted that it is not a mortal sin to miss Mass on Sunday if one obeys the moral law to keep the day holy.

JMJ
They gave that it was because of internal factors involved in sin.

There is also more on the topic in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
2041 The precepts of the Church are set in the context of a moral life bound to and nourished by liturgical life. The obligatory character of these positive laws decreed by the pastoral authorities is meant to guarantee to the faithful the very necessary minimum in the spirit of prayer and moral effort, in the growth in love of God and neighbor:

2042 The first precept ("You shall attend Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation and rest from servile labor") requires the faithful to sanctify the day commemorating the Resurrection of the Lord as well as the principal liturgical feasts honoring the mysteries of the Lord, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the saints; in the first place, by participating in the Eucharistic celebration, in which the Christian community is gathered, and by resting from those works and activities which could impede such a sanctification of these days.82
__________________


Last edited by Vico; May 11, '13 at 8:39 pm. Reason: add CCC
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old May 11, '13, 9:05 pm
Lancer Lancer is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: July 19, 2004
Posts: 1,281
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: 1983 Canon Law not "under pain of mortal sin"

It doesn't seem that confusing to me...Canon Law uses the word "bound"...and given that Mass and Holy Communion it the "source and summit of our Faith as Catholics...the one single event of the week where Christ himself is the actual High Priest and Sacrifice...we must be joined with him in his one sacrificial offering to the Father. Since we need a :grave cause" to not attend Mass on Sunday or a Holy Day of Obligation...this indicates the serious and grave matter that we are dealing with...we clearly know...can't help but know that we are in "mortal sin territory"...when it comes to Sunday Mass and Holy Days of Obligation.
Quote:
EWTN Q&A
Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL

Sunday Mass and Holy Day Obligation

It is both a precept of the Church and Church law that Catholics must worship God on Sunday and Holy Days of Obligation by participating in the Holy Mass. This follows from the fact that in the Mass it is Christ Himself who worships the Father, joining our worship to His. In no other way is it possible to adequately give thanks (eucharistia) to God for the blessings of creation, redemption and our sanctification than by uniting our offerings to that of Jesus Christ Himself. Following the example of the Old Covenant the Church does this weekly, on the day of the Lord's Resurrection.

Canon 1247
On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass; they are also to abstain from those labors and business concerns which impede the worship to be rendered to God, the joy which is proper to the Lord's Day, or the proper relaxation of mind and body.
Since a "grave cause" is needed to excuse one from this obligation it would be a serious or mortal sin to willfully skip Mass on Sunday or a Holy Day of Obligation, as the Church has always taught. Reasons such as the necessity to work to support one's family, child care, personal sickness or the care of the sick, necessary travel etc. would excuse a person on a particular occasions. Those who have continuing reason to be excused should consult their pastor.
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/sunday_mass.htm


To me...all that the 1983 Canon Law change did is "take the bicycle training wheels off" of us as Catholics...another positive Vatican II type action...meaning the Holy Spirit through the Church (Pope and Bishops and The Counsel)...is saying..."so, you call yourself Catholic...a disciple of Christ... OK...show me!?...and boy did we show Him!
Quote:
Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) at Georgetown University--FAS 2012



http://cara.georgetown.edu/CARAServi...ts/mattend.jpg
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old May 12, '13, 6:16 pm
JMJCatholic JMJCatholic is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2, 2013
Posts: 59
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: 1983 Canon Law not "under pain of mortal sin"

Thanks, everyone, but I have to admit it is still unclear to me that "the code no longer binds attending Sunday Mass under pain of mortal sin" yet the CCC contradicts this.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old May 13, '13, 6:43 am
Sirach2's Avatar
Sirach2 Sirach2 is offline
Forum Master
 
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Posts: 12,540
Religion: Catholic, Carmelite OCDS
Default Re: 1983 Canon Law not "under pain of mortal sin"

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMJCatholic View Post
Thanks, everyone, but I have to admit it is still unclear to me that "the code no longer binds attending Sunday Mass under pain of mortal sin" yet the CCC contradicts this.
Canon Law is a summary of ecclesial teachings. Its listing is an outline that denotes these, but merely breaking one of the canons itself is not the sin. The sin is in the conscience which takes on many nuances that makes a person culpable, rather than just the commission of the act.

For instance, the law says we may not run through a red light. If someone is rushing an injured person to the hospital, he would not be internally held responsible for cautiously running the light, since he had a valid reason to break the external law - the saving of a life, which holds a higher precedence than breaking a law.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old May 13, '13, 12:30 pm
JMJCatholic JMJCatholic is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2, 2013
Posts: 59
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: 1983 Canon Law not "under pain of mortal sin"

Sirach, I find no contradiction in what you say, and I know the Church always confirmed this thinking. What is unclear to me: How can Canon law be quoted to confirm Church teaching, when the CCC is not consistent with it?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old May 13, '13, 1:38 pm
Sirach2's Avatar
Sirach2 Sirach2 is offline
Forum Master
 
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Posts: 12,540
Religion: Catholic, Carmelite OCDS
Default Re: 1983 Canon Law not "under pain of mortal sin"

JMJ, I read the actual statement by the priest on Zenit's website, and you are correctly reporting what he said. However, much as I respect and admire Fr. McNamara, I wonder if he was misinforming his audience, unintentionally. If you read the actual introduction in the Code by Pope John Paul II, we find:

Quote:
Finally, by their very nature canonical laws are to be observed. The greatest care has therefore been taken to ensure that in the lengthy preparation of the Code the wording of the norms should be accurate, and that they should be based on a solid juridical, canonical and theological foundation.

I command that for the future it is to have the force of law for the whole Latin Church, and I entrust it to the watchful care of all those concerned in order that it may be observed. So that all may more easily be informed and have a thorough knowledge of these norms before they have juridical binding force, I declare and order that they will have the force of law beginning from the first day of Advent of this year 1983, and this notwithstanding any contrary ordinances, constitutions, privileges (even worthy of special or individual mention), or customs.
There is absolutely no mention anywhere that the Code does not bind under mortal sin, and that to miss mass on Sunday is not a mortal sin, with respect to the Code. I checked the USCCB website as well, and again - no mention of this whatsoever. I think you would be wise to dismiss it, since this priest is not a Bishop entrusted with the grave duty of instructing the flock in his care. Pope John Paul was very explicit in the introduction, and I would place far more credence in this important section of the Code than an isolated statement by a writer for Zenit.

Maybe you could contact a Canon Lawyer to better understand this strange article.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Liturgy and Sacraments

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8458Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: GLam8833
5143CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: UpUpAndAway
4424Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: DesertSister62
4037OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: eschator83
3863SOLITUDE
Last by: beth40n2
3735Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3320Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel
3284Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
3224Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: 4elise
3110For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: flower lady



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:06 am.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.