Judas Iscariot and Communion

[Aristotle]

A quick question for the learned. I've been talking to my folks about Catholicism and how consuming the sacrament of communion in a state of mortal sin is a sacrilege which only further decays the receiver's soul. I explained that in order to properly receive communion and not fall into a deeper pit of sin it's necessary that one partake in the sacrament of reconciliation. But at this point my father raised an interesting question: if God deems it a great offense to receive the host in a state of mortal sin - and if we admit that God, being all good, would not directly guide us into committing sin - then why did Our Lord allow Judas Iscariot (a man most certainly in a state of mortal sin) to receive the sacrament at the last supper? Anyone got any idea?

[Geremia]

According to Cartechini, S.J., De Valore Notarum Theologicarum, it's only a theologically probable opinion Judas received Holy Communion at the Last Supper.

God allows evil (of which sin is the greatest) in order to bring about a greater good (cf. I q. 2 a. 3 ad 1).

[Aristotle]

God allows evil (of which sin is the greatest) in order to bring about a greater good

But in this instance - if Christ really did allow Judas to consume the eucharist - wouldn't that be more than merely allowing evil to be? First, because Christ Himself invited such consumption and thus invited Judas into sinning against Him. That's far more than merely allowing, but rather it is active encouragement. Second, it would be even more treacherous given that Judas Iscariot himself would not know at that instant that he is being led into committing sin. It is one thing that God lead us to murder an innocent - an act whose evil is apparent to conscience and may bring rise to question and objection - but it is another that He lead us to commit sacrilege - which is more obscure in the conscience. 

[Geremia]

God lead us to murder an innocent

He cannot do that. Sin comes entirely from us.

[Aristotle]

He cannot do that. Sin comes entirely from us.

It was an example (imperfect as it may be) used to illustrate a greater point. Christ (supposedly) led Judas into sin, and worse yet, into a sin that Judas himself didn't know he committed. And that sin we call sacrilege. Now, precisely insofar as your comment admits that God cannot lead us into sin it becomes all the more puzzling as to why Christ may have invited all 12 apostles (including Judas) into receiving Holy Communion.

[Geremia]

a sin that Judas himself didn't know he committed.

He didn't?
Sin must be voluntary. One cannot unknowingly/involuntarily commit a sin.

[Aristotle]

Sin must be voluntary. One cannot unknowingly/involuntarily commit a sin.

Perhaps in the case of mortal sin, but what of venial sin? For the catechism states that venial sin is attributable "when [one] disobeys the moral law in a grave matter but without full knowledge or without complete consent" (CCC 1862). All sin is an offense of God, however, and is unjustifiable regardless of it's magnitude. Thus, is it not unfitting at best and incompatible at worse that the Christ would invite Judas into sacrilege? And if yes, would that mean that Christ did not invite Judas into such an act, but instead denied him?

[Geremia]

"when [one] disobeys the moral law in a grave matter but without full knowledge or without complete consent"

That's only one way a sin can be venial (#3 in Prümmer below). (Some moral theologians would even consider this not a sin but an imperfection, as sin must be voluntary.)

Prümmer, O.P., defines venial sin (Handbook of Moral Theology pp. 69-70):

I. There are sins which of their nature are venial, since their moral object implies a slight disorder, such as a jocose lie; 2. other sins are venial because of parvity of matter, namely sins which in themselves are grave but because of slight matter become slight disorders, such as the theft of a shilling; 3. sins may be venial through imperfection in the act when there is wanting full advertence or full consent, v.g., semi-deliberate impure thoughts.

[Aristotle]

That's only one way a sin can be venial (#3 in Prümmer below). (Some moral theologians would even consider this not a sin but an imperfection, as sin must be voluntary.)

True, there are other ways a sin may be venial. But the point is - if it is a sin (and I admit with you that perhaps it might not be) - than we are led into the absurdity that God would invite men into sin, and not indirectly but directly. Further, even if it weren't a sin, it would still be an imperfection as you note. But it is still absurd to believe that in trusting Christ we may be led into imperfection rather than perfection (as Judas - if he received communion - would have been led by Christ, out of his trust for him (even if it wasn't a trust out of love but a trust out opportunism), into greater imperfection rather than perfection. But this seems contrary to Christ, who is our road to greater perfection.