Excommunication: abortion, not murder?

[MarjannaS]

let me make it clear where i stand on the issue of sin, all sin is serious, with that said what i think is being asked is why a person os expelled from the church?

if person remains unrepented and continues to sin then that person must be booted out:
read 1 cor 5

God bless

Hello, Jerry. All sin IS serious, because whether by much distance or by just a little, it separates us from our God. Where we laypersons must be VERY careful, is that we must NOT try to judge anyone else’s sins – only our own. Even our Heavenly Father WAITS to judge us until we are dead – can we poor sinners do any less than He? I work with a bunch of real ‘ornery cusses’ and sometimes, I would take their fears and stubborn shame as “unrepentance” or “pride” – and after a time, I come to realize that would not have been the right judgement. I can only thank God that He is God and I am not. It’s far too much responsibility that I simply could not handle! First Corinthians is one of those epistles that was being written for a specific small group of people who understood the exact situation it was being written for. Two millenia has kind of lost the reason, though we DO understand that we don’t want to REMAIN IN SIN. We know more now, that it separates us from the love of God, and that is the most horrible chasm in the universe.
Peace be with you. Keep praying, and continue working for the Truth. God love you.

 

[Jerry_Marino]

did not understand what you are trying to imply with your statement but God does not change, marjanna. so whatever applied bak then applies today.

God bless

 

[MarjannaS]

did not understand what you are trying to imply with your statement but God does not change, marjanna. so whatever applied bak then applies today.

God bless

Jerry,
I’m NOT subtle, and I don’t deal in riddles. My God does NOT change, and perhaps the MESSAGE doesn’t change, but the audience does. I think if you go back and re-read my prior posts, you will understand what I’ve been saying.
God bless you, and have a wonderful day.

 

[Jerry_Marino]

o.k.

 

[manualman]

Excommunication is NOT primarily a punishment. It is a last ditch teaching effort intended to, as forcefully as possible, convey the seriousness of one’s actions.

Abortion is treated differently than other murders simply because conventional murder doesn’t have a multimillion dollar industry and promotional groups seeking to legitimize that particular sinful behavior. In short, it isn’t necessary to add the instructive penalty of excommunication to conventional murder.

But as the euthanasia movement gains steam, we may well see added penalties for that. Again as a means of reinforcing moral teachings under fire by the culture.

 

[peaceful2]

Hi everyone,
This is my first post here.

On another forum, I found a post that the Catholic church has changed it view of abortion over the years. I was wondering if any of you have enough information to refute what it says. Here it is:

"From the fifth century onward, Aristotle’s view that the embryo goes through stages from vegtable to animal to spiritual was accepted. Only in the final stage was it human. Thus Gregory VI {1045-6} said: ‘He is not a murderer who brings about abortion before the soul is in the body.’

Gregory XIII {1572-85} said it was not homicide to kill an embryo of less than 40 days since it wasn’t human.

His successor, Sixtus V, who rewrote the Bible confused: ?!!?), disagreed. His Bull of 1588 made all abortion for any reason homicide and the cause for excommunication.

His successor, Gregory XIV, reversed that decree. In 1621 the Vatican issued another Pastoral directive permitting abortion up to 40 days. As late as the eighteeth century the Church’s greatest moral theologian, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, still denied that the soul was infused at conception and allowed for flexibility, especially when the mother’s life was in danger.

Finally in 1869, Pope pius IX declared that any destruction of any embryo was an abortion and merited excommunication…a view that remains to this day."

I know there are errors in this post, but I thought perhaps there was an expert here who could set the record straight. Thank you.
peaceful2

 

[peaceful2]

Here is what I posted in response to the above post (on another forum) – but I still hope someone with more information will help me out. Here is what I posted so far:

Dear Wake,

First, I challenge you to explain how ANY pope “rewrote the Bible.” Such a ridiculous thing to say! I’d expect it from a stand up comic.

Second, not everything a pope “says” is part of Catholic church doctrine. – You should know this, Wake. – And, unless a pope is speaking “EX CATHEDRA” (which is quite RARE in the history of the church) then Catholics do not view his statements as “infallible.”

Third, I’m sure you’ve heard the term “quickening.” The word “QUICK” originally meant “ALIVE.” Many people in past times did not realize that an unborn child was alive until the point of “quickening,” that is, the time when its movement was felt by the mother.

Today, with our modern knowledge of conception and embryonic growth, we realize that human life begins at conception. It seems sad to me, at this time when science PROVES that human life begins at conception, so many people reject Christian teachings as well as the scientific definition of human life.

 

[MarjannaS]

Excommunication is NOT primarily a punishment. It is a last ditch teaching effort intended to, as forcefully as possible, convey the seriousness of one’s actions.

Abortion is treated differently than other murders simply because conventional murder doesn’t have a multimillion dollar industry and promotional groups seeking to legitimize that particular sinful behavior. In short, it isn’t necessary to add the instructive penalty of excommunication to conventional murder.

But as the euthanasia movement gains steam, we may well see added penalties for that. Again as a means of reinforcing moral teachings under fire by the culture.

Hello,
I think you may have meant this for someone else, because I don’t recall that I have posted at any time that excommunication is primarily a punishment. The root of the word itself says what it is – “the removal from communion with” – and in this case, from God and His Church. The person excommunicates him (her) self from God and the Church, by the commission of ANY serious sin. To PERSIST in that sin, and continue to in a sinful manner, deprives the person of God’s Presence. IN ORDER TO remove that manner of ‘excommunication’, it is alway required to make a confession of that sin, requesting forgiveness by God, and of His Church, and making a firm desire to repent. It needs the desire of the penitent to “Go, and sin no more.”
I agree that excommunication is an Instructive Effort by the Church. That’s why it often happens, that the simple THREAT of excommunication is enough to make many sinners stop and realize, perhaps for the first time, that they are on dangerous ground and their souls are in peril.
God bless you. Keep working for the Truth.

 

[Jerry_Marino]

1 Corinthians 5:1 It is widely reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of a kind not found even among pagans–a man living with his father’s wife. 2 And you are inflated with pride. Should you not rather have been sorrowful? The one who did this deed should be expelled from your midst. 3 I, for my part, although absent in body but present in spirit, have already, as if present, pronounced judgment on the one who has committed this deed, 4 in the name of (our) Lord Jesus: when you have gathered together and I am with you in spirit with the power of the Lord Jesus, 5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord. 6 Your boasting is not appropriate. Do you not know that a little yeast 5 leavens all the dough? 7 Clear out the old yeast, so that you may become a fresh batch of dough, inasmuch as you are unleavened. For our paschal lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people, 10 not at all referring to the immoral of this world or the greedy and robbers or idolaters; for you would then have to leave the world. 11 But I now write to you not to associate with anyone named a brother, if he is immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunkard, or a robber, not even to eat with such a person. 12 For why should I be judging outsiders? Is it not your business to judge those within? 13 God will judge those outside. "Purge the evil person from your midst."

*[5:1-6:20] Paul now takes up a number of other matters that require regulation. These have come to his attention by hearsay (1 Cor 5:1), probably in reports brought by “Chloe’s people” (1 Cor 1:11).

[1-13] Paul first deals with the incestuous union of a man with his stepmother (1 Cor 5:1-8) and then attempts to clarify general admonitions he has given about associating with fellow Christians guilty of immorality (1 Cor 5:9-13). Each of these three brief paragraphs expresses the same idea: the need of separation between the holy and the unholy.

[2] Inflated with pride: this remark and the reference to boasting in 1 Cor 5:6 suggest that they are proud of themselves despite the infection in their midst, tolerating and possibly even approving the situation. The attitude expressed in 1 Cor 6:2, 13 may be influencing their thinking in this case.

[5] Deliver this man to Satan: once the sinner is expelled from the church, the sphere of Jesus’ lordship and victory over sin, he will be in the region outside over which Satan is still master. For the destruction of his flesh: the purpose of the penalty is medicinal: through affliction, sin’s grip over him may be destroyed and the path to repentance and reunion laid open. With Paul’s instructions for an excommunication ceremony here, contrast his recommendations for the reconciliation of a sinner in 2 Cor 2:5-11.

[6] A little yeast: yeast, which induces fermentation, is a natural symbol for a source of corruption that becomes all-pervasive. The expression is proverbial.

[7-8] In the Jewish calendar, Passover was followed immediately by the festival of Unleavened Bread. In preparation for this feast all traces of old bread were removed from the house, and during the festival only unleavened bread was eaten. The sequence of these two feasts provides Paul with an image of Christian existence: Christ’s death (the true Passover celebration) is followed by the life of the Christian community, marked by newness, purity, and integrity (a perpetual feast of unleavened bread). Paul may have been writing around Passover time (cf 1 Cor 16:5); this is a little Easter homily, the earliest in Christian literature.

[9-13] Paul here corrects a misunderstanding of his earlier directives against associating with immoral fellow Christians. He concedes the impossibility of avoiding contact with sinners in society at large but urges the Corinthians to maintain the inner purity of their own community.*