What I don't understand is why it is considered a mortal sin to eat meat on Friday's especially during Lent. I thought a mortal sin was something directly against the teachings of the Bible, and I do not believe this is. So why is it considered a mortal sin?

-- Jillian Stevens (chilgirl99@yahoo.com), March 11, 2005

Answers

bump

-- bump (bumppmub@bumpmail.com), March 11, 2005.

It is not a mortal sin to eat meat on Fridays of Lent. The Church, as a matter of discipline, asks us to abstain from eating meat on Fridays of Lent so that we might prepare ourselves, by sacrificing a little, for the remembering of Christ's passion, death and resurrection during the Triduum (Holy Week).

It is a tradition that has lasted from a time when eating red meat usually meant that people were celebrating something. Today, we eat red meat all the time, even when we're not celebrating, so many people miss the point and see it as a trivial tradition. If you forget to abstain, or simply refuse, it isnt a sin because of the actual eating of red meat. But it can become dangerous when people become apathetic and forget that Christ's passion and death is something that we should memorialize and confirm in our actions. The Church asks us to do different things during Lent to prepare ourselves to remember Christ's death, abstaining from red meat on Ash Wendesday and Fridays of Lent is just one of those things.

-- brian (brian@brian.com), March 11, 2005.

There is no such thing as "the teachings of the Bible". Christ gave His teachings to His CHURCH, at which point they became the teachings of the CHURCH. The fact that some teachings of the Church were mentioned in the writings of early Church leaders didn't change the status of these teachings. The fact that the Church bound some of its writings into a book likewise did not affect the status of these teachings. A mortal sin is a serious offense against the teaching of the CHURCH, whether it is recorded in the Bible or not.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 12, 2005.

It is not a mortal sin to eat meat on Fridays of Lent.

This is not correct, Brian.

It IS "a mortal sin to eat meat on Fridays of Lent," if one knows that the Church forbids this as "grave matter" and freely chooses to do it anyway. The gravity comes not from the fact that there is anything wrong with meat, but rather from the fact that it is both an act of disobedience to Jesus and HIi and Church and an act of unwillingness to make this simple sacrifice as a Lenten act of penitence.

-- (RW's@friend.com), March 12, 2005.

Show me. If the Church teaches that it is "grave matter" to eat meat on Friday's of Lent, then show me or direct me toward an official document where the Church has clearly expressed it.

-- brian (brian@brian.com), March 12, 2005.

Furthermore, Paul, if you keep saying that any serious offense against the teachings of the Church is a mortal sin, then you are falling into shady shady theology. Certainly it is not a mortal sin for me to eat a huge meal right before going to mass and overlook the 1 hour fast? I would be going against Church teaching but I would NOT be falling into mortal sin.

For somebody to go against the discplinary teaching of the Church, they would certainly be doing their soul a diservice, but they would not be falling into mortal sin.

-- brian (brian@brian.com), March 12, 2005.

You are in mortal sin every time you wilfully defy a precept of Christ's Holy Church. You place yourself outside her authority, and Christ made her the ONLY authority.

The sin can be venial if you commit it without nderstanding your responsibility. But if the Church tells you what is sinful, you don't have the option of any denial. Commit it consciously and indifferently; it's a mortal sin. (Intentionally ignoring the requirement to fast before receiving the Sacrament is a mortal sin.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 12, 2005.

Brian, please note the word "serious" in my statement. That obviously is what makes the difference between mortal and venial sin. I didn't suggest that ANY offense against the teaching of the Church is a mortal sin!

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 12, 2005.

"A mortal sin is a serious offense against the teaching of the CHURCH" - Paul M.

"You are in mortal sin every time you wilfully defy a precept of Christ's Holy Church" - Eugene Chavez

Hmmm, sounds to me like you are both equating mortal sin with going against any Church teaching. Also sounds like you both are trying to be more Catholic than the Pope.

Boys, mortal sin involves grave matter. The Church teaches us that murder, rape, adultery, etc. fall into the category of grave matter and/or mortal sin. BUT even though we, as loyal and faithful Catholics, adhere to Church teaching, we do not need the Church to tell us that these things are evil. We know this because it is natural law. Now, there are certain things that the Church teaches that lie outside of natural law and do not constitute mortal sin, but are simply orders of discipline. Going against these orders of discipline lead us away from grace and virtue, but the Church cannot and will not ever teach that it constitutes MORTAL SIN, since it is obvously not natural law that we abstain from eating red meat on Friday's of Lent. That's absurd, guys.

-- brian (brian@brian.com), March 12, 2005.

You're absurd, Guy.

I recommend the spiritual direction of a good confessor. And also the contemplation of everything Christ says in the gospels about His Church.

An affront to the Catholic Church is an affront to Him. Who hears the Church hears Him and who rejects the Church rejects Him.

You strike me as a typical lukewarm Catholic. Christ wants us either Hot or Cold. Is He being absurd? Before you go really cold, find out what sin against Church precepts is. Get yourself HOT once more, before Jesus vomits you out of His mouth.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 12, 2005.

Brian, you appears to be arguing that each and every deliberate violation of a Church "discipline" or "precept" is merely a venial sin -- and can never be a mortal sin -- because it comes from the Church, not directly from God.

Eugene will correct me if I am misunderstanding him, but I think that he is saying that each violation of one of the several, formal "Precepts of the Church" is a serious (i.e., mortal) sin -- and can never be a venial sin. I also believe that Eugene has not yet spoken about what kind of sin can be committed when one deliberately violates a "discipline" of the Church that is not called a "precept" (for example, certain less formal requirements of Canon Law or Liturgical Law).

I am not going to try to list all the possibilities of what may or may not be a mortal or venial sin, but I will instead speak about two specific cases that have been mentioned above.

1. One of the six Church Precepts is to "observe the prescribed days of fast and abstinence." Suppose a person knows (for example, by reading Catechism #2041, or by being told in a homily) that obeying the Church Precepts is "obligatory," which means "seriously binding." It follows then, that, if the person deliberately disobeys a Church Precept (for example, by eating meat on a Lenten Friday or by missing Sunday Mass), he/she commits a mortal sin. Therefore Brian is wrong to say that such a person would merely commit a venial sin.

2. Pope Paul VI amended the Eucharistic fast to be one hour before reception of Holy Communion. This is reiterated in Canon Law and Liturgical Law documents. Suppose a person knows that this disciplinary rule (which is not one of the main Church Precepts) is binding, yet the person eats a donut and coffee in his car just before entering the church for Mass. If the person forgets about having eaten and receives Communion, one could argue that he committed a venial sin, since he should not have been so careless (as to eat or to forget). But if the person remembers having eaten and receives Communion anyway (with an attitude of defiant disobedience), one could argue that he has committed a mortal sin, disrespecting the Holy Eucharist and the Church's right to impose disciplines on us. So I believe that, once again, Brian was wrong to say that only a venial sin could be committed in this situation.

A&A

-- (Affirmed@nd.Alydar), March 12, 2005.

I once asked a monsignor if someone could go to eternal hell for eating a piece of meat on Friday during Lent. He said "Yes, and they should!" What a stupid attitude. The Eastern Orthodox have kept the fasts for centuries, in a major way, much more strictly than Catholics. But they don't think it is a sin if you don't fast. Why must Rome be so judgmental on a question of eating and drinking.

-- Patrick (seraph@christian.org), March 12, 2005.

Affirmed,
You understood well, from my brief words. It's possible to cover every aspect of venial & mortal sin in greater depth. For this argument it's unnecessary. Your reference, that [Eugene] ''is saying that each violation of one of the several formal Precepts of the Church is a serious (i.e., mortal) sin -- and can never be a venial sin. I also believe that Eugene has not yet spoken about what kind of sin can be committed when one deliberately violates a "discipline" of the Church that is not called a "precept" (for example, certain less formal requirements of Canon Law or Liturgical Law).'' ................ is correct, although there are fine points could be made about the actual gravity of each kind of offense. You covered the bare bones, as I tried to.

we can cut to the chase by telling Brian the mere truth: It has ALWAYS been a mortal sin in the past, to eat meat on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, when we do that wilfully; in full knowledge the Church forbids it. (Not to mention other Ember days.) We know some changes occurred since the Vatican II reforms; it's not necessary to elaborate here which were in Brian's favor.

But no teaching is ever rolled back to Square One-- i.e., that what was --TRULY MORTAL SIN is not now mortal sin, AS THE CHURCH TEACHES US.

It would require us to accept as true today, that the Church taught error in times past. When that day comes, Christ's Holy Church will no longer be infallible.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 12, 2005.

Dear Patrick:
Your words are brash and condescending here: ''I...asked a monsignor if someone could go to eternal hell for eating a piece of meat on Friday during Lent. He said "Yes, and they should!" --What a stupid attitude.''

It would be a bad attitude on his part; if he had said that without reservations and you asked without any malice. He could have explained:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

It depends on the awareness and the intent of the one who ate meat on a Friday. If he ate innocently; forgetful or distracted; there was no sin. If he ate in disregard or indifference to the precept of the Church and is NOT A CATHOLIC --it would not be a MORTAL sin. It may not even be a less serious one.

--------- If he ate it in disregard or indifference to the precept of the Church and he IS a Catholic, he has been wilfully unfaithful; it's a mortal sin. The sin would not count against a man who ate when he had nothing ELSE to eat, didn't know where his next meal was coming from, and had to keeep from STARVING.---------Even then Patrick; there is no way any sinner will be sent to ''eternal hell for eating a piece of meat on Friday during Lent,'' --as the only possible outcome of eating meat. It would only be so if he never repented of that sin, knowing he had violated a Church precept deliberately. Hell is for those who sin and are not sorry later! That's what a good and holy priest would answer to such a question. And it has NOTHING to do with our Holy Mother Church being ''judgmental.'' Sin is SIN. It can damn us if we do not repent, and for this reason the Church calls us to repentence in the name of Jesus Christ.

Look in your Bible, and find the first word spoken by Christ, beginning upon His public mission; the preaching of the Holy Gospel. That word is ''REPENT.'' -- (Matt 4:17)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 12, 2005.

Eugene, do you think people would not keep the fast if the church did not tell them they would go to hell for not keeping it? Why do you suppose we need to be dangled over the fires of hell to obey? I obey because I honor the Lord, not because I think it is a mortal sin. Per se, God doesn't care if you have shrimp and crab legs while someone else eats a little hamburger. Hell is not God's answer for everything.

-- Patrick (seraph@christian.org), March 12, 2005.

Sorry I d idn't see your last message.

-- Patrick (seraph@christian.org), March 12, 2005.

Its pretty revolting when Christians have completely lost touch with Christ's call to love and compassion. They remember quite well how Christ gave authority to the Church but forget how he humiliated Peter for being so arrogant and self-centered. To be Catholic is to remember that Christ not only calls us to repent, but that he also admonished the Pharisees for dwelling on petty laws and using them as tools of fear.

I love the Church with all my heart, and am loyal to all of Her teachings with diligence and care. But I have also come to learn that our souls are in the hands of a mysterious and intimate God who is with us and guides us in a way the ministers of the Church cannot.

The precepts of the Church must be followed. That, a third grader can understand. What an adult comes to learn, Eugene, is that the teachings of the Church can only take us so far. Following them like robots is as sinful as willingly defying them. If you say that willingly eating red meat on a Lenten Friday results in mortal sin, then your problem is not of bad theology. Your problem is much much worse. Your faith is misguided, and you have replaced Christ's love with the authority of the Church. You have forgotten what it means to be a Christian. If one willingly eats red meat on a Lenten Friday, there is sin there, but mortal sin? The sin that results in us going to hell? Are you serious Eugene?

-- brian (brian@brian.com), March 13, 2005.

Eugene:

Calling Brian a lukewarm Catholic, that Jesus might spit him out of His mouth, is probably the most sinful thing that I have ever seen you say to anyone. There was no charity there, no compassion, no trace of Christ's call to love. Bash his theology all you want, but suggesting that his theology affects the state of his soul? That is truly the worst you can do to any of God's children.

E

-- emilyYY (emilyYY@noemail.com), March 13, 2005.

To be Catholic is to remember that Christ not only calls us to repent, but that he also admonished the Pharisees for dwelling on petty laws and using them as tools of fear.

Two major errors there:
1. The Precepts of the Church -- did you look them up in the Catechism, Brian? -- are not "petty laws," but extremely important ones, and they oblige us seriously.
2. The Precepts of the Church are not "tools of fear," but instruments to help us show our love for God and neigbor. They are no more "tools of fear" than are the Ten Commandments.

I love the Church with all my heart, and am loyal to all of Her teachings with diligence and care.

One of the ways a Catholic proves this is by obeying the Precepts of the Church (e.g., contributing to Her support, receiving Holy Communion at least during the Easter season, fasting and abstaining when required, etc.). Deliberately choosing to disobey a Precept is not "diligent" and "careful," but is far worse than sloppy and careless.

see more below, please

-- (Affirmed@nd.Alydar), March 13, 2005.

this is the rest, I hope

But I have also come to learn that our souls are in the hands of a mysterious and intimate God who is with us and guides us in a way the ministers of the Church cannot.

No, you have not "come to learn" that. Rather, you are parroting the voice of Eden's serpent, who has been speaking to you through ex- Catholic dissenters. God gave us Catholic "ministers" to "guide us," and we cannot pretend to be getting better guidance through some personalized supernatural communications that would contradict the popes who give us the Precepts to follow.

If you say that willingly eating red meat on a Lenten Friday results in mortal sin, then your problem is not of bad theology. Your problem is much much worse. Your faith is misguided, and you have replaced Christ's love with the authority of the Church. You have forgotten what it means to be a Christian. If one willingly eats red meat on a Lenten Friday, there is sin there, but mortal sin? The sin that results in us going to hell? Are you serious Eugene?

Of course he is serious! And he is as right as Heaven! I explained this, above, when I told you that the Catechism speaks of the Precepts as "obligatory." In case you don't realize it, Brian, "obligatory" does not mean "optional."

-- (Affirmed@nd.Alydar), March 13, 2005.

Stop it, you're making me cry, Emily.

Did you know Jesus Christ stated (Rev 3:16) that He WAS about to vomit out of His mouth a lukewarm Christian? I don't make those things up. Brian's a Big Boy; and I'm not concerned about speaking sweet nothings in his ear. Let him ignore everything I say, if he wants to. But it has to be said if by saying something he wakes up to his faith. For this type to complain the Church has ''lost touch with Christ's call to love and compassion,'' is ridiculous.

We are a Church. We are committed as a Church, not as free- lancers who can dismiss the Church's authority.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 13, 2005.

Hey, I'm not saying that the Church has lost touch with Christ's call to love and compassion. Eugene, I'm saying that YOU have lost touch of Christ's call to love and compassion. I know that Lenten fasts are a precept of the Church, I know that it is not optional. I never said that it wasn't a precept, I never said it was optional. Furthermore, I will even admit that it is not morally permissable to disobey a precept of the Church.

You guys obviously haven't been paying attention. What I'm saying is that YOU GUYS ARE NOT USING YOUR REASON. Just because lenten abstinances and fasts are precepts of the Church, it does NOT mean the penalty for choosing not to comply is hell. It is simply a matter of discipline and not part of the Deposit of Faith! Hello???

-- brian (brian@brian.com), March 13, 2005.

Brian, with all due respect; because I don't want you to complain you're being attacked--

When the Church exerts her lawful authority and a Catholic WILL NOT obey, the sin is a mortal sin; for which a sinner must REPENT.

There are examples of this in many pages of the Holy Bible; in which a sinner is admonished severely by the Church --who speaks for God;

--in what the apostles called ANATHEMA. --Anathema means accursed, going to hell for an offense against God and/or neighbor.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 13, 2005.

In case we don't understand the ground rules, Christ's prelates (Pope, bishops) have authority to anathemize; and to ex-communicate or otherwise impose penance on sinners. It's not an injustice; it's God's own judgment directed at somebody who fails in the faith. To be faithful to Christ requires being faithful to His Church. Whoever isn't faithful to Christ is condemned.

The actions of a sinner have consequences. God will send you to hell for telling a lie or breaking a vow intentionally. If you break the precepts of his Church you become liable to the same judgment.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 14, 2005.

Eugene,

Why do you attack. Why do you not show God's love? You show all the opposite of God's teachings. Does God say to put down your enemy or friend? God would never do what you are doing. God gives unconditional love to all without judging a person for what they are, what they look like, what they think.

Are you actions teachings of your church or of God?

Time

-- Time (none@none.com), March 14, 2005.

Please understand. I'm not attacking anybody.

The one I'm addressing is in error. You can read it for yourself.

We know the truth, and shouldn't remain silent when we can set the record straight. If I seem too harsh, forgive me. I just come to the point and it's all over.

If you ever met me you'd know very quickly I believe in kindness and courtesy, not personal attacks. This is a matter of religion, and I've only referred to religion, not the sinner.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 14, 2005.

There is a difference between sinning against God and sinning against Man. Defying the disciplinary teachings of the Church is sinning against Man. Murder, rape, enslavement is sinning against God. Christ gave authority to the Church, but not the authority to judge the state of one's soul based on the sin against Man. The Church was given the authority to teach that murder is sinning against God, and to condemn based on sin against God.

But the Church cannot not say, and was not given the authority to say, that I would be in a state of mortal sin if I choose not to seek God through the disciplines of the Church.

-- brian (brian@brian.com), March 14, 2005.

Time,

Take a time out.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), March 14, 2005.

brian,

You are setting yourself apart from the Church. The Church is the authority -you are only well informed through the Church NOT apart from her.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), March 14, 2005.

Well informed through the Church, yes. But can the Church create disciplines that affect my soul? No.

Not only can the Church not say that I must be a Yankees fan or be in mortal sin, but the Church cannot even say that I must follow a certain discipline or else be in mortal sin.

Can the Church say that I must go to mass once a week? Yes, Christ gave it the authority to do so. He instituted the Eucharist and asks us to do that in memory of Him. Meals are often, so the Eucharist often. But no red meat or mortal sin? Please...its a man made discipline. Not instituted by Christ. The Church may oblige us, but not under the penalty of mortal sin.

-- brian (brian@brian.com), March 14, 2005.

Brian, maybe you ought to have noticed by now that EVERYONE is telling you that you are wrong. There is a reason for that ... You ARE wrong!

Let's see if I can get through to you this time. I think that I may have a chance, if you will approach me with good will, instead of a closed mind.

You are off to a good start by saying that you agree to be bound, under pain of mortal sin, by the requirement that you attend Sunday (or vigil) Mass each week. Well, guess what!!! That requirement does NOT come from the Bible (as you thought it did), but from one of the Church's six Precepts. The Third Commandment says, "Remember to keep holy the Sabbath." But notice that the "Sabbath" is Saturday, not Sunday, and the Commandment says nothing about attending a church service. Thus, you are agreeing to be bound, under pain of mortal sin, to attend Mass on Sunday because the Church made that specific Precept as a practical, minimum way of obeying the Third Commandment.

See the rest below

-- (Affirmed@nd.Alydar), March 14, 2005.

Now we can take that same principle and apply it to all the other Church Precepts, including the one that, under pain of mortal sin, requires certain minimal acts of fast and abstinence. It is true none of the Ten Commandments requires fast or abstinence. However, JESUS HIMSELF, under the New Covenant, requires us to perform penitential acts on a regular basis (especially prayer, fasting, and almsgiving). So, again, the Church knows how to be our Mother, leading us into a simple and OBLIGATORY regimen of fasting and abstinence, so that we will obey Jesus's command. Thus (just as with Sunday worship) we are here doing what God requires, not merely what the Church requires.

Do we need to go through the other four precepts, so that you can see the same effect? Or are you ready now to admit that you were mistaken? The Church was given the authority to teach that murder is sinning against God, and to condemn based on sin against God. But the Church cannot not say, and was not given the authority to say, that I would be in a state of mortal sin if I choose not to seek God through the disciplines of the Church.

-- (Affirmed@nd.Alydar), March 14, 2005.

WHOOPS! The last two sentences were not by me, but were an accidentally leftover quotation from your post, Brian. Here it is again: "The Church was given the authority to teach that murder is sinning against God, and to condemn based on sin against God. But the Church cannot not say, and was not given the authority to say, that I would be in a state of mortal sin if I choose not to seek God through the disciplines of the Church."

By now, you should realize that you were wrong about this.

-- (Affirmed@nd.Alydar), March 14, 2005.

There is a difference between-- ''sinning against man and sinning against God.''--- Pardon, but that is not a Catholic teaching. A mortal sin is always a possibility, against man or God. You may mean sins against justice, as opposed to the venial variety. Nobody denies there are venial sins; but the Church's precepts aren't man's precepts. Christ's Church is HOLY-- not an earthly institution we can ignore. You offend God by not keeping the Church's laws. This sin trivializes what is holy; in this case a spiritual work offered within the Communion of Saints. It offends God, to whom the CHURCH makes that holy offering as the Mystical Body of Christ; not merely independent roles by you and me. I realise these are fine points that you've never given any contemplation. That's why I'm laying it out for you, as a spiritual work of mercy. Not to enforce anything; to help you see.

Again I recommend you ask your own confessor. Please don't try to force your personal opinions on him; just hear him out and thank him for telling you the truth. (It requires humility, Brian. Pray for humility to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. He will bless you.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 14, 2005.

When I talk about sin against Man, I am talking about disobeying certain disciplines government or Church have imposed upon us that we must follow in order to guide us toward order. The government may ticket us for going 10 miles over the speed limit. But it will certainly not imprison us. Civil law distinguishes between laws that are against natural law, murder, and laws that instill order.

The same goes with the Church. The Church distinguishes between disobeying laws that instill order, and laws based on natural law. If we eat red meat on a Lenten Friday, the Church cannot teach that the penalty is mortal sin. Venial sin, yes. But never mortal sin. Refusing to fast and abstain leads to sin, but not mortal sin.

The Church makes fasting and abstinence a precept because it is extremely important, but it cannot teach that failing to do so is mortal sin. The Church can, however, teach that failing to go to mass on Sunday is mortal sin. Recieving Christ in the Eucharist is not simply about discipline, but it is the source of our faith.

-- brian (brian@brian.com), March 15, 2005.

Brian, I don't think faithful Catholics can decide what the Church can or can't do. God has appointed shepherds; we are under their divine authority, not a civil one.

I'm very sure you would obey a bishop to the letter without the threat of everlasting punishment; just as I will. That's not the point. Even bishops will agree no one is damned to hell here on earth. Jesus Christ is the Judge, not our bishop. But he made them the teachers, not their flock. If they teach there is a penalty, (Hell) it's not by their own authority, but Christ's. A bishop will even admit his own fear of hell for disobedience to the Church. Just ask him. We love God, and for that love we obey his Holy Church. We are NOT her match.

We can't disobey her and hope to please God; and He has power to cast into hell whoever offends Him. No matter how confident that sinner is in his own wisdom. How we discern things like mortal sin and ordinary sin is human wisdom. The Church teaches with divine authority and divine wisdom given her by the apostles.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 15, 2005.

I agree with you. We cannot decide what the Church can and cannot do. The Church teaches not with human authority but with Divine Authority. I admit that I, as a lay person, do not have the authority of my bishop and I must be obedient to the Church's precepts, no matter how petty I believe one of them may be. And I cannot say that there is no penalty for defying Church teachings. You are right, if I say that defiance of certain precepts results in mortal sin then I have to be ready to believe that defiance of any precept results in mortal sin. Not because of my pressumption that the particular precept is petty, but because of the hard truth that it is taught by the Church, and I must follow it.

I guess what i'm having trouble with is:

How can I resolve the fact that a practicing and faithful Catholic, loyal to the precepts of the Church, except fasting, is in a state of mortal sin? It really seems like it is simply a matter of personal piety, not one of conflict with the Deposit of Faith. Personally, I love fasting, and I always abstain. I go to mass almost daily, and go to confession regularly.

Should I come to the decision that the obligatory fast is meaningless to me, and act on it, I can't imagine being in a state of mortal sin when there are so many worse things that I could do.

-- brian (brian@brian.com), March 15, 2005.

Speak to a priest, and don't hesitate to tell him of that doubt. Above all pray. You never have to fear hell, for ANYTHING. Just love God and ask His blessings. I wish I could recommend some good reading besides the Bible. Maybe someone else will.

A passing thought for you; The penalty for willfully neglecting to abstain from meat on Ember Days; (WILLFULL, remember) has been so for centuries in the Church's history. To object to it here is to charge the Catholic Church with having taught error for all that time. It isn't a tenable proposition, is it?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 15, 2005.