“Beware of false prophets.”
This is one sermon I wish that I did not have to give.  After six months of considering the importance of and the lack of knowledge concerning the issues involved, I have come up with the following...

We will speak today on three errors in the minds of too many Catholics even among some priests.  I will present these by way of question answer format.

1) May a Catholic in mortal sin freely receive holy Communion as long as he intends to go to confession afterwards? 

Many Catholics are under the impression this may be done.  This is false.

On October 11, 1551, the 13th Session of the Council of Trent issued its Decree on the Most Holy Eucharist.  Chapter 7 states the manner of preparation of receiving this sacrament which in part reads,
“... no one conscious of mortal sin, however, contrite he may seem to himself, should approach the Holy Eucharist without a previous sacramental confession.  This, the holy Synod has decreed, is always to be observed by all Christians, even by those priests on whom by their office it may be incumbent to celebrate, provided the resources of a confessor be not lacking to them.  But if in urgent necessity a priest should celebrate without previous confession, let him confess as soon as possible.”(Dz 880)

Notice that the decree states the sole exception as that of a priest who has to offer holy Mass for the people and no priest is present to hear his confession,

In the 1982 Code of Canon Law, canon 916 states,
“Anyone who is conscious of grave sin may not celebrate Mass or receive the Body of the Lord without previously having been to sacramental confession, unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make a perfect act of contrition, which includes the resolve to go to confession as soon as possible.”

Notice the canon requires a grave reason which will differ for priest and laity as is evident from Trent’s decree.  The priest must offer Mass every Sunday and holy day while the faithful are obliged to receive holy Communion at least once a year during Easter time.  And I interpret “grave reason” with these differences in mind.  

Perhaps someone is dying and an extraordinary eucharistic minister is sent to them... under such circumstances I would favor this type of reception.  If someone spends 15 minutes in confession line but then the priest has to offer Mass... in this case I would say do not receive but wait until you confess properly; someone wants to go to confession but the priest is a good friend... in this case I would say wait until you confess to another priest then receive.

The obligation to attend holy Mass on Sundays and feast days obliges us to hear holy Mass but not to receive holy Communion... that we must do at least once a year during the Easter Season.
 2) May one deliberately commit an act of what St. Paul calls “uncleanness,” from the Latin word immunditia which today is more commonly said ‘impurity’ or ‘self-abuse’, for reasons of health?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes the sin of self-abuse as “the deliberate stimulation of the generative faculty in order to derive physical pleasure.” (#2352)

Some doctors advise such acts as therapeutic... to relieve pain or stress.

Indeed, if one only looked at the given definition, it would seem that an act of impurity done for reasons of health (or fertility counts) but not for pleasure would be legitimate.  This is false. 

The CCC goes on to state that the Church has always firmly maintained that such an act is “intrinsically and gravely disordered.”  

An “intrinsic disorder” means that nothing can make it good i.e, it is evil regardless of the motive; a “grave disorder” means that it is a serious matter i.e., it is matter for mortal sin.

Finally, the CCC states, 
“The deliberate use of the generative faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.”
  
3) May those afflicted with addictions to self-abuse be treated as if these sins were only venial to them ...as long as they showed signs of reform?

Some confessors presume that the addict is not gravely culpable for his crime.  This is false.

On December 29, 1975, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith addressed this very question in its Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics, “Psychology helps one to see how the immaturity of adolescence (which can sometimes persist after that age), psychological imbalance or habit can influence behavior, diminishing the deliberate character of the act and bringing about a situation whereby subjectively there may not always be a serious fault.  But, in general, the absence of serious responsibility must not be presumed; this would be to misunderstand people’s moral capacity.” (p.15)

So, in general, the addict remains responsible for his serious crime; his innocence “must not be presumed.”  Said again, in practice, in dealing addictions of impurity we are to assume that a grave sin has been committed.

Our blessed Savior warns us, “Beware of false prophets.”  One of the offices of a prophet is to teach us the way to heaven.  If false prophets teach error it ought to be combated... which I have  tried to do with all delicacy.  In doing so, I place no judgement on such men who spread the above errors who, in all likelihood, have the best of intentions.  Rather, I simply wish to correct some wrong thinking which I have discovered in the lives of not a few Catholics.  We all know that the road to hell is wide and filled with good intentions; we know that the road to heaven is narrow and filled with hard sayings.  I hope what I have said today is some small help to guide us all on that narrow road to a happy Eternity.