Category: Moral Theology

A reader writes:

I have a close relative who was raised Catholic but has been baptized into the Mormon church. This relative is planning to have a Mormon temple wedding later this year. As I’m not Mormon, the question of whether to attend the wedding itself is moot; non-Mormons aren’t allowed into Mormon temples. I’ve been asked to attend the reception and been invited to be present for photos which will be taken in a public area of the temple grounds. I would like your opinion on whether being in the photos and attending the reception would be problematic.

Feel free to use/respond to this in your blog, and thanks for rule 15!

No problem! That’s what it’s there for!

Regarding the marriage situation, I need to bifurcate the question based on a piece of info you don’t mention–namely, whether your relative is already married to the person to whom he or she is planning to have a temple ceremony with. Often Mormons get married outside a temple first and inside the temple later.

If your relative is already married to the person outside the temple then the temple marriage signifies absolutely no change of status objectively. From God’s perspetive there is no such thing as "celestial marriage" between human couples, distinct from regular marriage. If they are already regularly married then objectively nothing will change about their status if they get married in a Mormon temple.

That being the case, to endorse the marriage with one’s presence (e.g., in photos or at the reception) would be to endorse the idea that God really did something in the rite, which is not the case. It would therefore be a form of false witness and I could not recommend that you participate.

On the other hand, what if the couple is not yet married and the temple marriage will be their first marriage ceremony with each other?

Since your relative has apparently defected from the Church by a formal act (joining the Mormon church as an adult from what I can tell and thereby repudiating membership in the Catholic Church) your relative is not bound to observe the Catholic form of marriage and so a valid marriage will not be blocked from coming into existence due to defect of form.

Assuming there is nothing else affecting the situation (like prior spouses who are still alive), the temple marriage will be presumed valid, although it will not result in the kind of eternal union Mormons think it will, nor will it further the apotheosis of the parties.

Could one then attend the reception and be in the photos without one’s presence testifying to something false?

It is tempting to put this union on the same footing as the situation of a person leaving the Catholic Church for Protestantism and say that, since the marriage will be presumed valid, one can attend in testifying to what God is doing in the ceremony.

But it seems to me that there are reasons that argue against this:

1) Mormons are not Christians. They have invalid baptisms in the Church’s judgment as well as horrendously false doctrine. They are neither Christians in their faith or sacramentally. By endorsing polytheism and the idea that men can become gods with their own planets full of their descendants worshipping them and their wive(s), they have produced a horriffic caricature of Christianity.

2) The doctrine of celestial marriage–the kind of marriage performed in a Mormon temple–is central to the Mormon doctrine of apotheosis: If you don’t have a celestial marriage, you can’t be a god. The marriage thus represents not just a ceremony in which God is doing something (validly joining the couple), it is overlayed with the horrible blasphemy that this rite will further the godhood of the participants.

3) It thus seems to me that Mormon celestial marriages, even though they presumably result in a valid union, are not analogous to the marriages of other Christians. Instead, they are more analogous to an extra-marital affair that results in the conception of a child. God steps in to do his part in the conception of the child (endowing it with a soul), but the mere fact that he does this does not mean that the human parties have not introduced into the situation a gravely evil overlay that prevents the event from being an occasion of celebration.

Once can certainly celebrate the birth of a child, even one conceived out of wedlock, but one cannot celebrate the adulterous act by which the child was conceived. In the case of such a pregnancy, there is the passage of time between the adulterous act and the birth of the child, making it possible to untangle the two in terms of celebration, but in the case of the temple marriage the objective good (the valid union of the couple) and the objective evil (that this rite will further the godhood of the participants) cannot be untangled. There isn’t nine months of development between the two things.

Your Mormon relative could say to you: "Hey, I know that you’re Catholic and that you don’t believe that this will further my godhood, so I don’t expect you to be joyful about that."

To which I personally would feel compelled to reply: "No, but you believe that this furthers your godhood, and as long as that horrible blasphemy is part of your joy, I cannot join you in it."

The relative might then reply: "Hey, I doubt that I’ll even make it to godhood."

To which I in your place would reply: "I’m sorry, but your church teaches that this rite objectively furthers your chance of becoming a god with countless billions worshipping you, and as long as it teaches that, this rite has a sacrilegious character that prevents me from having anything to do with it."

Which raises one last point:

4) By becoming a Mormon your relative has not simply joined a schismatic church or a heretical church. The relative has, in fact, become an apostate–a person who has completely repudiated the Christian faith. Worse, because of the nature of Mormon teaching, the relative does not realize that this is what has happened because, even though the Mormon church has totally repudiated the Christian faith, it continues to talk about Jesus in a way that deceives its members into thinking that they are Christians when they are not.

The situation of a Mormon is objectively the same as that of a Hindu who is prepared to accept Jesus as "a god" but not as the God. Both are non-Christians who continue to talk about Jesus and his divinity in some way, but neither has embraced the Christian faith. The difference is that the Hindu does not typically claim to be a Christian.

(NOTE: Some might argue that embracing a non-Christian religion is not itself sufficient for apostasy if one still insists on applying the word "Christian" to oneself. If so, then we just need a new word for a person who leaves Christianity for a non-Christian religion. Until we have such a word, I’ll continue to use "apostate" since the two acts of defection are nearly identical in moral character.)

By leaving Christianity for Mormonism, your relative as become an apostate who is more unfortunate than the Hindu just mentioned in that he doesn’t realize that he is not a Christian (or she, if your relative is a woman).

As a result, your relative is in a most unfortunate position and there can be few spiritual priorities more urgent than helping the person realize his objective spiritual status.

If it were me, I would have to say to such an individual, in the most sorrowful, compassionate way possible: "I’m sorry, but by rejecting the Triune God and joining a church that believes in polytheism, you have rejected the Christian faith. I simply cannot celebrate any rites performed by a body that teaches what the Mormon church teaches about man and God. I recognize that you disagree, but I hope that you can respect the fact that my conscience requires me to refuse attendance at any of the festivities."

20

Down yonder, a reader writes:

If you have a cohabiting couple that aren’t engaging in conjugal relations, do they become morally responsible for the misperceptions of others?

To which another reader responded:

If the "misperception" is reasonable and they do nothing to correct it, then yes.

This is correct except for the scare quotes around "misperception." If an individual acts in such a way that his behavior reasonably leads others to believe something that is false and he takes no steps to correct it, he becomes responsible for others believing something that is false. He thereby does damage to that person’s doxastic structure (i.e., his belief system).

People don’t often think about it, but doxastic damage is real damage. It isn’t just a place where we don’t know something about the world; it’s where our beliefs are out of alignment with the way the world is. That is an evil in and of itself, and it becomes worse if the falsehood that the person has been led to include in his belief system has a practical impact on his behavior. The problem is most acute if he is led into sin as the result of the false belief.

That being said, people have fallen intellects and, even under the best of circumstances, they will misperceive things and form false beliefs as a result. Often false beliefs result from misperceptions that are not reasonable.

For example, some folks out of anti-Southern bigotry may conclude from the way I talk or dress that I am of substandard intelligence and a racist. Neither of those things is a reasonable inference to draw simply from the fact that a person is Southern. Consequently, I am not responsible for suppressing the way I talk or changing the way I dress in order to keep others from thinking these things. Indeed, if anything I would regard it as more incumbent on my to openly display these things as a way of helping to break the stereotype that is at the core of anti-Southern bigotry.

There also can be situations in which individuals may reasonably misperceive a situation in which a person does not have an obligation to correct the misperception for another reason.

For example, suppose a brother and a sister are living together for economic reasons. Those in the neighborhood may suppose that they are not brother and sister but husband and wife and that they are sleeping together. This is a misperception resulting in a false belief, but it is not reasonable to expect the couple to either (a) stop sharing quarters and incur greater financial hardship or (b) go door-knocking in the neighborhood to make sure everyone knows that they’re brother and sister. The thing to do would be to simply mention the fact if the topic comes up in conversation with neighbors and hope the neighborhood gossip net will take care of the rest.

One aspect of this situation is that, since folks are assuming they’re married, they’re also assuming that the conjugal relations they believe them to be having are marital relations and thus morally licit, so no scandal is being given.

On the other hand, if a couple is living together in a way that reasonably leads others to believe that they are engaging in sinful behavior, even though they are not, then we are in the general territory of the sin of scandal. Conveying a public image of sinfulness weakens society’s moral fabric and encourages others to actually engage in sinful behavior by making it seem socially acceptable. Thus, even if a cohabiting couple is not having conjugal relations, the fact that they are reasonably presumed to be having them can lead others to view cohabiting-with-conjugal-relations as acceptable and engage in it themselves. The number of people and the likelihood that they would be drawn into sin as a result determines the gravity of the scandal.

Down yonder, a reader writes:

If you have a cohabiting couple that aren’t engaging in conjugal relations, do they become morally responsible for the misperceptions of others?

To which another reader responded:

If the "misperception" is reasonable and they do nothing to correct it, then yes.

This is correct except for the scare quotes around "misperception." If an individual acts in such a way that his behavior reasonably leads others to believe something that is false and he takes no steps to correct it, he becomes responsible for others believing something that is false. He thereby does damage to that person’s doxastic structure (i.e., his belief system).

People don’t often think about it, but doxastic damage is real damage. It isn’t just a place where we don’t know something about the world; it’s where our beliefs are out of alignment with the way the world is. That is an evil in and of itself, and it becomes worse if the falsehood that the person has been led to include in his belief system has a practical impact on his behavior. The problem is most acute if he is led into sin as the result of the false belief.

That being said, people have fallen intellects and, even under the best of circumstances, they will misperceive things and form false beliefs as a result. Often false beliefs result from misperceptions that are not reasonable.

For example, some folks out of anti-Southern bigotry may conclude from the way I talk or dress that I am of substandard intelligence and a racist. Neither of those things is a reasonable inference to draw simply from the fact that a person is Southern. Consequently, I am not responsible for suppressing the way I talk or changing the way I dress in order to keep others from thinking these things. Indeed, if anything I would regard it as more incumbent on my to openly display these things as a way of helping to break the stereotype that is at the core of anti-Southern bigotry.

There also can be situations in which individuals may reasonably misperceive a situation in which a person does not have an obligation to correct the misperception for another reason.

For example, suppose a brother and a sister are living together for economic reasons. Those in the neighborhood may suppose that they are not brother and sister but husband and wife and that they are sleeping together. This is a misperception resulting in a false belief, but it is not reasonable to expect the couple to either (a) stop sharing quarters and incur greater financial hardship or (b) go door-knocking in the neighborhood to make sure everyone knows that they’re brother and sister. The thing to do would be to simply mention the fact if the topic comes up in conversation with neighbors and hope the neighborhood gossip net will take care of the rest.

One aspect of this situation is that, since folks are assuming they’re married, they’re also assuming that the conjugal relations they believe them to be having are marital relations and thus morally licit, so no scandal is being given.

On the other hand, if a couple is living together in a way that reasonably leads others to believe that they are engaging in sinful behavior, even though they are not, then we are in the general territory of the sin of scandal. Conveying a public image of sinfulness weakens society’s moral fabric and encourages others to actually engage in sinful behavior by making it seem socially acceptable. Thus, even if a cohabiting couple is not having conjugal relations, the fact that they are reasonably presumed to be having them can lead others to view cohabiting-with-conjugal-relations as acceptable and engage in it themselves. The number of people and the likelihood that they would be drawn into sin as a result determines the gravity of the scandal.

A reader writes:

This makes sense, but what about cases where something is valid but illicit, such as a SSPX Mass? Why is it bad? a sin? to go to those? And then why does God show up?

If SSPX marriages were presumed valid then there would be more room for attending them than there is.

In actuality, SSPX marriages are not presumed valid.

The reason:

Can. 1108

§1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. 144, 1112, §1, 1116, and 1127, §§1-2.

Since SSPX priests are seldomnever so delegated by the lawful bishop or pastor of the Catholic faithful they are marrying, the marriages are not valid due to lack of form. (None of the exceptions, incidentally, apply to the SSPX).

SSPXers will use evil trickery to try to argue around this conclusion (esp. using canon 144, but they are no more successful with applying that canon to marriages than they are in applying it to confessions; SEE ANALYSIS HERE), but their evil trickery is nothing more than evil trickery.

The marriages they perform between Catholics ain’t valid.

Consequently, I can’t recommend attending them.

A reader writes:

In our current archdiocesan paper is an article from Rome about the Terry Schiavo case.  They talk about how a court decision to remove the feeding tube would lead us down the slippery slope to euthanasia.

Later in the article, it quotes the Florida Catholic Conference (representing the state’s Catholic bishops, saying: "The said Catholic teaching has a `presumption in favor` of providing nutrition and hydration, but `when the burdens exceed he benefits of providing them, they may be withdrawn or withheld.  …`".  A bit late the article quotes the bishops again, "`While withdrawal of Terri Schiavo’s nutrition and hydration will lead to her death, if this is being done because its provision would be too burdensome for her, it could be acceptable".  This sounds to me like nothing more than a quality of life argument that leads directly to euthanasia and doesn’t seem to square with the Church’s teaching. 

Can you clarify this?

I’ll try.

First, I should note that I am not up on all the recent episcopal pronouncements regarding Terry Schiavo. MORE INFO HERE.

Second, what you quote above is not out of line with Catholic moral teaching. There are conditions in which it is morally licit to remove nutrition and hydration because continuing to provide them itself may be doing damage to the patient.

For example: When my wife was dying, at some point her body stopped manufacturing albumin, which is essential for regulating the distribution of fluids in the body’s tissues. (INFO HERE.) At this point she had completely lost her appetite and was being fed intravenously. The fluid from the IVs were going out into her tissues and collecting there. Without albumin production, her body couldn’t process the fluids out of her system and so she got severe edema all over her body. Not to be too graphic, her arm swelled to elephantine proportions and her hand looked like a balloon with short little fingers sticking out of it.

At this point, the doctors told me that they were going to have to discontinue feeding because the feeding itself was harming her. The doctors explained that if feeding were not stopped, at some point (soon) her skin would rupture and she would have weeping sores, which would be bad for all manner of reasons (infection potential among them). Fortunately, Renee passed before it became necessary to discontinue feeding, but she was rapidly approaching the point where the feeding itself was more destructive than the benefit she was deriving from it. It was getting to the point that it would only be making her suffering worse and hastening her death through other means.

Thus there are situations in which it is morally licit to stop nutrition and hydration, but only when the nutrition and hydration are themselves more destructive to the patient than otherwise.

None of this applies to Terri Schiavo, of course. She is not dying, is not being harmed by her feeding (indeed, she Can Take Food Orally Her Husband Just Doesn’t Want It Given To Her That Way), and it would be murder to starve her to death.

A reader writes:

In our current archdiocesan paper is an article from Rome about the Terry Schiavo case.  They talk about how a court decision to remove the feeding tube would lead us down the slippery slope to euthanasia.

Later in the article, it quotes the Florida Catholic Conference (representing the state’s Catholic bishops, saying: "The said Catholic teaching has a `presumption in favor` of providing nutrition and hydration, but `when the burdens exceed he benefits of providing them, they may be withdrawn or withheld.  …`".  A bit late the article quotes the bishops again, "`While withdrawal of Terri Schiavo’s nutrition and hydration will lead to her death, if this is being done because its provision would be too burdensome for her, it could be acceptable".  This sounds to me like nothing more than a quality of life argument that leads directly to euthanasia and doesn’t seem to square with the Church’s teaching. 

Can you clarify this?

I’ll try.

First, I should note that I am not up on all the recent episcopal pronouncements regarding Terry Schiavo. MORE INFO HERE.

Second, what you quote above is not out of line with Catholic moral teaching. There are conditions in which it is morally licit to remove nutrition and hydration because continuing to provide them itself may be doing damage to the patient.

For example: When my wife was dying, at some point her body stopped manufacturing albumin, which is essential for regulating the distribution of fluids in the body’s tissues. (INFO HERE.) At this point she had completely lost her appetite and was being fed intravenously. The fluid from the IVs were going out into her tissues and collecting there. Without albumin production, her body couldn’t process the fluids out of her system and so she got severe edema all over her body. Not to be too graphic, her arm swelled to elephantine proportions and her hand looked like a balloon with short little fingers sticking out of it.

At this point, the doctors told me that they were going to have to discontinue feeding because the feeding itself was harming her. The doctors explained that if feeding were not stopped, at some point (soon) her skin would rupture and she would have weeping sores, which would be bad for all manner of reasons (infection potential among them). Fortunately, Renee passed before it became necessary to discontinue feeding, but she was rapidly approaching the point where the feeding itself was more destructive than the benefit she was deriving from it. It was getting to the point that it would only be making her suffering worse and hastening her death through other means.

Thus there are situations in which it is morally licit to stop nutrition and hydration, but only when the nutrition and hydration are themselves more destructive to the patient than otherwise.

None of this applies to Terri Schiavo, of course. She is not dying, is not being harmed by her feeding (indeed, she Can Take Food Orally Her Husband Just Doesn’t Want It Given To Her That Way), and it would be murder to starve her to death.

A reader writes:

Ok, so to combine a couple of questions you answered recently on your blog:

I’ve got a Catholic friend who is cohabitating in Germany. In Germany, you have to have a civil ceremony before you have a church ceremony. Usually (he tells me) this is done a few hours before the church ceremony, so it’s no big deal. In his instance, they had a civil ceremony several months ahead. They do, however, still intend to have a Catholic wedding.

Assuming, fairly safely, that the German Catholic Church is going to go through with this although they are living together, is the marriage licit? Am I required to forego attending?

Assuming that they have been having conjugal relations in the interim between the civil and ecclesiastical weddings, they have been sinning.

If they repent and go to confession before their ecclesiastical wedding then they will not be in a state of sin at the time that occurs and the wedding will be licit (in conformity with the law).

If they do not repent and go to confession before their ecclesiastical wedding then they will (presumably) be in a state of sin at the time it occurs and the wedding will be illicit (not in conformity with the law) but it will be nevertheless valid (real).

I cannot recommend that folks attend weddings that are invalid as their witness would testify to something that is false (i.e., that this is a valid marriage). However, attendance at a wedding that is merely illicit (not celebrated fully in conformity with the law) is an entirely different matter.

If God honors the wedding such that he brings about a valid marriage as a result of it then, whatever other problems there may be with its celebration, it seems to me that the basic threshold has been crossed in terms of attendance. By showing up, your presence testifies to what God is doing (bringing about a real marriage), and so I can recommend that people show up in such situations (assuming they would otherwise attend).

The parties may be in a state of sin at the time of their wedding, but that’s the way it is wit tons of people–and always has been. God still honors the wedding by "showing up" and bringing about the union of the couple ("What God has joined together . . . "), therefore it’s okay for you to show up, too.

A reader writes:

Hi Jimmy,

Didn’t want to post this question in the comment box in light of rule #20 —

Regarding cohabitation without conjugal relations — is this a mortal sin in of itself, or a near occasion of sin?  I had thought the latter, but I’m really unsure..

Don’t worry. This wouln’t be a Rule 20 violation. It’s just a question.

The moral disorder of cohabitation is twofold:

1) It puts the parties (assuming they are normal heterosexuals who are not closely related to each other) in the proximate occasion of sin. Depending on the degree of temptation they experience, this evil is more or less grave. If (theoretically speaking) there is zero temptation then there is no proximity to the occasion of sin and thus (theoretically) no evil in this regard. On the other hand, if the temptation to physical or mental unchastity is grave then the evil in this regard is grave.

2) It can be the cause of scandal. The example that the couple sets may lead others to suppose that what they are doing (living together) or what they are perceived as doing (having conjugal relations outside of marriage) are morally licit–or sufficiently morally licit that others are more inclined to do the same thing(s). The gravity of the evil in this case is determined by the likelihood and the intensity of the scandal that may result (e.g., how many people will be affected by the couple’s example, how likely it is that they will be tempted to do something they shouldn’t, and what precisely that is–whether it is cohabiting or having conjugal relations, which may lead to STDs or pregnancy, which may lead to contraception or abortion, etc., etc., etc.)

A reader writes:

The Catechism states that we should accept the Eucharist at least once a year, especially during Easter.  I am a practicing Catholic, but have not presented myself for the Eucharist for the last 8 months, since I moved in with my girlfriend.  I entered into this situation out of convenience and without knowledge of the severity of this sin.  On going to confession, I learned that I cannot be forgiven for this sin until the situation is resolved.  My confessor explained the sin of scandal, and that even removing sexual intercourse from the situation, by presenting myself for the Eucharist, I could influence another to enter into the same sin.  I am writing to find out if I should continue to refrain from receiving the Eucharist until I have resolved the problem or if I should make an exception and present myself to receive the Holy Sacrament during the Easter Season after confessing my other sins as the Catechism appears to suggest.

I know that my situation is dangerous and want to come to some solution, but for many reasons, mostly, obviously my own unwillingness or fear of standing up for what I know to be right, have not been able to.  I long to receive Christ in Communion, and hope that I come back to full participation in the Church as soon as possible.

Do you have any guidance concerning the Catechism’s statement concerning this and also concerning how to handle my cohabitation situation?

Okay, there are several issues here:

First, I want to compliment you for asking the question. This shows that God is working in your heart and that you are responding to his grace.

Second, what you need to do immediately is stop conjugal relations with your girlfriend (if you have not already done so).

Third, what you need to do is stop cohabiting with your girlfriend unless and until such time as you are validly married in the Catholic Church or with a dispensation for a non-Catholic wedding.

Fourth, you cannot confess your other sins and be validly absolved. One must repent of all of one’s mortal sins and, to the best of one’s ability, confess all of them for the absolution to be valid. Otherwise it is a sacrilege against the sacrament of penance.

Fifth, I’m not 100% convinced of what your confessor said about scandal. The reason is not that scandal in such matters isn’t a grave sin. It is that for scandal to exist there has to be a knowledge of the scandal by others and a likelihood that those individuals will be drawn into sin as a result of their knowledge. I don’t know whether there are such individuals in your case. If there are, your confessor is right.

Sixth, the Easter Duty is not an absolute. According to the Code of Canon Law:

Canon  920

§1. After being initiated into the Most Holy Eucharist, each of the faithful is obliged to receive holy communion at least once a year.

§2. This precept must be fulfilled during the Easter season unless it is fulfilled for a just cause at another time during the year.

Being in a state of mortal sin throughout the Easter season is a just cause to fulfill the Easter obligation at another time during the year.

"Just cause" is a term of art that indicates that the timing of the fulfillment of the obligation is not grave matter. The obligation itself may be grave matter, but the fact that only a just cause–as opposed to a grave cause–is needed to alter the timing shows that the timing is not itself grave. Consequently, there would not be a new grave sin if one failed to repent and receive Communion during the Easter season. There would only be the state of grave sin one is already in.

Even though there would not be a new grave sin by fulfilling one’s Easter duty later in the year, this is no excuse to keep living in an objectively sinful situation. The thing to do is to stop conjugal relations immediately, stop cohabiting as soon as possible, go to confession, and fulfill one’s Easter obligation in the Easter season (which, for purposes of the obligation, runs from Ash Wednesday to Trinity Sunday here in America).

Hope that helps. I encourage you to continue to respond to God’s grace and to get these matters taken care of now, and I encourage other readers to pray for you and your girlfriend.

God bless!

20

A reader writes:

The Catechism states that we should accept the Eucharist at least once a year, especially during Easter.  I am a practicing Catholic, but have not presented myself for the Eucharist for the last 8 months, since I moved in with my girlfriend.  I entered into this situation out of convenience and without knowledge of the severity of this sin.  On going to confession, I learned that I cannot be forgiven for this sin until the situation is resolved.  My confessor explained the sin of scandal, and that even removing sexual intercourse from the situation, by presenting myself for the Eucharist, I could influence another to enter into the same sin.  I am writing to find out if I should continue to refrain from receiving the Eucharist until I have resolved the problem or if I should make an exception and present myself to receive the Holy Sacrament during the Easter Season after confessing my other sins as the Catechism appears to suggest.

I know that my situation is dangerous and want to come to some solution, but for many reasons, mostly, obviously my own unwillingness or fear of standing up for what I know to be right, have not been able to.  I long to receive Christ in Communion, and hope that I come back to full participation in the Church as soon as possible.

Do you have any guidance concerning the Catechism’s statement concerning this and also concerning how to handle my cohabitation situation?

Okay, there are several issues here:

First, I want to compliment you for asking the question. This shows that God is working in your heart and that you are responding to his grace.

Second, what you need to do immediately is stop conjugal relations with your girlfriend (if you have not already done so).

Third, what you need to do is stop cohabiting with your girlfriend unless and until such time as you are validly married in the Catholic Church or with a dispensation for a non-Catholic wedding.

Fourth, you cannot confess your other sins and be validly absolved. One must repent of all of one’s mortal sins and, to the best of one’s ability, confess all of them for the absolution to be valid. Otherwise it is a sacrilege against the sacrament of penance.

Fifth, I’m not 100% convinced of what your confessor said about scandal. The reason is not that scandal in such matters isn’t a grave sin. It is that for scandal to exist there has to be a knowledge of the scandal by others and a likelihood that those individuals will be drawn into sin as a result of their knowledge. I don’t know whether there are such individuals in your case. If there are, your confessor is right.

Sixth, the Easter Duty is not an absolute. According to the Code of Canon Law:

Canon  920

§1. After being initiated into the Most Holy Eucharist, each of the faithful is obliged to receive holy communion at least once a year.

§2. This precept must be fulfilled during the Easter season unless it is fulfilled for a just cause at another time during the year.

Being in a state of mortal sin throughout the Easter season is a just cause to fulfill the Easter obligation at another time during the year.

"Just cause" is a term of art that indicates that the timing of the fulfillment of the obligation is not grave matter. The obligation itself may be grave matter, but the fact that only a just cause–as opposed to a grave cause–is needed to alter the timing shows that the timing is not itself grave. Consequently, there would not be a new grave sin if one failed to repent and receive Communion during the Easter season. There would only be the state of grave sin one is already in.

Even though there would not be a new grave sin by fulfilling one’s Easter duty later in the year, this is no excuse to keep living in an objectively sinful situation. The thing to do is to stop conjugal relations immediately, stop cohabiting as soon as possible, go to confession, and fulfill one’s Easter obligation in the Easter season (which, for purposes of the obligation, runs from Ash Wednesday to Trinity Sunday here in America).

Hope that helps. I encourage you to continue to respond to God’s grace and to get these matters taken care of now, and I encourage other readers to pray for you and your girlfriend.

God bless!

20