Formal Defection Loophole Closed, What Will Happen?

  • Thread starter Thread starter masuwerte
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
EasterJoy said:
I’m speaking of excommunication latæ sententiæ: that is, one that automatically follows a chosen action by force of canon law itself. Since you have to be aware that what you are doing is contrary to canon law and freely choose to do it anyway, if you knowingly choose an act that brings an excommunication latæ sententiæ, you have essentially excommunicated yourself. One of the actions that bring on automatic excommunication is being an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic. Schism is the term for someone who leaves the Church by a formal act of separation. IOW: a formal act by which you inform your bishop that you’re leaving communion with the Church is an act that results in the automatic excommunication of the schismatic. Since no act is required by the bishop to effect the excommunication, I’d call that self-excommunication.

Now, you may say that it is the law the Church that excommunicates, and that the person does not literally excommunicate himself or herself. I would grant you that on the grounds of semantics. I think it would be a case of splitting hairs, but I can appreciate people who like to keep the semantics straight.

If you believe Wikapedia, the following persons incur excommunication latæ sententiæ:
an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic
a person who throws away the consecrated Eucharistic species or takes and retains them for a sacrilegious purpose
a person who uses physical force against the Pope
a priest who uses confession as a pretext to solicit the confessor to break the commandment against adultery
a bishop who ordains someone a bishop without a pontifical mandate, and the person who receives the ordination from him
a confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal of confession
a person who procures a completed abortion
accomplices who are not named in a law prescribing latae sententiae excommunication but without whose assistance the violation of the law would not have been committed.
any Catholic who is a convinced member of Freemasonry, “notoriously” adhering to the Masonic vision, is already considered excommunicated latae sententiae.
a person who violates the secrecy of a papal election, or who interferes with it by means such as simony
and, most recently declared, a woman who simulates ordination as a priest or a bishop who simulates the ordination of a woman as a priest

In the last case, there are certain women who have attempted ordination who reportedly “reject their excommunication”. I don’t know what that is even supposed to mean. I suppose it is an attempt at “h*** no, we won’t go”, but excommunication doesn’t work like that. I suppose that case demonstrates how one can incur excommunication latæ sententiæ without intending to excommunicate herself. It takes a certain amount of self-deception, but I guess it is possible.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Yes, I have heard of latæ sententiæ excommunications (and I should have come up with that myself… goodness, I am so dense sometimes).
This was actually the first time though that I heard anything about rejecting one’s baptism in that context. Maybe I just didn’t figure it would be incurred, but now that you’ve said it it does make sense. I guess you’d say it would fall into the category of apostasy or schism (though I am not sure).
That is what kind of throws me off and makes me wonder. Well it certainly doesn’t fit any one of the other categories, so this must be it…
 
Janet1983 said:
Thank you. Yes, I have heard of latæ sententiæ excommunications (and I should have come up with that myself… goodness, I am so dense sometimes).
This was actually the first time though that I heard anything about rejecting one’s baptism in that context. Maybe I just didn’t figure it would be incurred, but now that you’ve said it it does make sense. I guess you’d say it would fall into the category of apostasy or schism (though I am not sure).
That is what kind of throws me off and makes me wonder. Well it certainly doesn’t fit any one of the other categories, so this must be it…
Click to expand...
I’m not a canon lawyer. If someone who was told me that using the terminology of "excommunicating yourself " is not technically correct, I’d believe it.
 
Vico said:
Here is a description by the Vatican of actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica, 2006:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20060313_actus-formalis_en.html
Click to expand...
That is my understanding. It doesn’t happen by accident or out of ignorance. You cannot incur excommunication latæ sententiæ until you are fully aware of what you are doing and what the effects are, and you stand behind the act without repentance. If you are fully aware of what you are doing and what the effects are and decide to deny to yourself that these things are true, though, that does not keep the excommunication from being in effect. You only have to give full consent to the act by which you incur excommunication. The excommunication itself does not require your assent. It is a legal thing that can be appealed for a reversal of decision in some cases, I am sure, but in reality, there is no such thing as “rejecting” an excommunication. That carries no weight.
 
Vico said:
Here is a description by the Vatican of actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica, 2006:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20060313_actus-formalis_en.html
Click to expand...
I guess relating to the thread this part might be of special interest confirming what EasterJoy wrote:
The substance of the act of the will must be the rupture of those bonds of communion – faith, sacraments, and pastoral governance – that permit the Faithful to receive the life of grace within the Church. This means that the formal act of defection must have more than a juridical-administrative character (the removal of one’s name from a Church membership registry maintained by the government in order to produce certain civil consequences), but be configured as a true separation from the constitutive elements of the life of the Church: it supposes, therefore, an act of apostasy, heresy or schism.
Click to expand...
(bold as in the original text)
Someone who formally defects incurs a latæ sententiæ excommunication, as the Church supposes an act of apostasy, heresy or schism.
 
Janet1983 said:
I guess relating to the thread this part might be of special interest confirming what EasterJoy wrote:

(bold as in the original text)
Someone who formally defects incurs a latæ sententiæ excommunication, as the Church supposes an act of apostasy, heresy or schism.
Click to expand...
Right. You don’t just write a letter to the bishop and “you’re out.” You have to renounce your life in the Church in action, as well.

(Heaven forbid.)
 
There are two interesting statements related to formal defection, that heresy, schism, or apostasy are different from a formal act of defection, and that the sacramental bond is never lost:

“On the other hand, heresy (whether formal or material), schism and apostasy do not in themselves constitute a formal act of defection if they are not externally concretized and manifested to the ecclesiastical authority in the required manner.”

“It remains clear, in any event, that the sacramental bond of belonging to the Body of Christ that is the Church, conferred by the baptismal character, is an ontological and permanent bond which is not lost by reason of any act or fact of defection.”
 
Why the huge concern about people who have departed from the church?

We can assert that they are still part of the church, even though they are gone and probably will not return. But that will not bring them back.

Former Catholics will not be swayed by arguments that they are still bound by the laws of the church. They will not follow the church’s rules of marriage, artificial birth control, or cohabitation.

They have defected, because they do not accept the teachings of the church.

Would not our energies be better expended on keeping the loyal flock in the fold?
 
Magickman said:
Why the huge concern about people who have departed from the church?

We can assert that they are still part of the church, even though they are gone and probably will not return. But that will not bring them back.

Former Catholics will not be swayed by arguments that they are still bound by the laws of the church. They will not follow the church’s rules of marriage, artificial birth control, or cohabitation.

They have defected, because they do not accept the teachings of the church.

Would not our energies be better expended on keeping the loyal flock in the fold?
Click to expand...
Good questions. You can find the answers in the statements referred to from the Vatican.

“The more effectively to safeguard this necessary doctrinal unity and pastoral purpose, the Church’s supreme authority, after careful deliberation, decides, from time to time, to make suitable changes or to introduce additions to the canonical norms.”

The marriage canons are ammended because the 1983 version “…gave rise to numerous pastoral problems. First, in individual cases the definition and practical configuration of such a formal act of separation from the Church has proved difficult to establish, from both a theological and a canonical standpoint.”

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_letters/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apl_20091026_codex-iuris-canonici_en.html

“With the certainty that the Bishops of your Conference, conscious of the salvific dimension of ecclesiastical communion, will well understand the pastoral motivations underlying these norms, I welcome this opportunity to renew my sentiments of fraternal esteem.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20060313_actus-formalis_en.html
 
It is certain that I am not able to argue theological questions with the authorities of the church. That is not my intention at all.

It is the practical results and consequences of actions that draw my interest.

Some Catholics lose their faith and depart the church. After their departure, these individuals no longer feel bound by the rules and traditions of the church.

People who regard themselves as former Catholics have chosen to realign their spiritual loyalties. While the church may claim authority over former Catholics, this is a hollow claim in real terms.

Whether the issue is marriage, divorce, or other human challenges, former Catholics do not act, based on the church’s direction.

It is a waste of everyones time and effort to think otherwise.
 
Magickman said:
It is certain that I am not able to argue theological questions with the authorities of the church. That is not my intention at all.

It is the practical results and consequences of actions that draw my interest.

Some Catholics lose their faith and depart the church. After their departure, these individuals no longer feel bound by the rules and traditions of the church.

People who regard themselves as former Catholics have chosen to realign their spiritual loyalties. While the church may claim authority over former Catholics, this is a hollow claim in real terms.

Whether the issue is marriage, divorce, or other human challenges, former Catholics do not act, based on the church’s direction.

It is a waste of everyones time and effort to think otherwise.
Click to expand...
I do understand what you mean in that some baptised Catholics do not accept the authority of the Church as applying to their actions, when not involving the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church does have authority over non-Catholics (including formally defected Catholics) in their reception of the sacraments through the Catholic Church. This includes matrimony, which is why it is such a practical issue, and shows that is not a “hollow claim in real terms”. So in general, former Catholics are restricted, and thus must sometimes act, based upon the directions of the Catholic Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top