However, it matters from a juridical standpoint. And, if one were to ever decide to return it would make a very big difference regarding validity of marriage contracted while away and possibly other areas where canon law applies.
So, yes, the Church defines what constitutes “leaving” because it can have an impact on the person’s standing under canon law.
That I can see; however, requiring the potential absentee to formally defect from a body he or she no longer regards as having binding authority would seem to be counter-productive, at the very least.
That is an oversimplification-- there are mitigating circumstances (canons 1323, 1324) and also there must be a finding of one of these through the juridical processes of the Church before the Church would enforce such an excommunication (canon 1331)
You’re quite right in the first point. I did read those canons before I posted; they cover such factors as being under the age of 16, being coerced, being impaired, being simply ignorant – none of these possible mitigating factors I read applied to someone who knew full well what the Church teaches and was of an age to recognize the fact, but simply
lacked faith – in other words, someone like myself.
As to enforcement, that’s the nature of latae sententiae, the sentence laid down: it’s automatic. Not that anything necessarily gets
done about it until, as you said, somebody notices and starts the machinery working, but the excommunication holds from the point of action.
If you’d like to look it up, I am drawing primarily from Can. 1364, which states ‘an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication’; and Can. 1314, which states ‘a penalty is latae sententiae, so that it is incurred ipso facto when the delict is committed’.
MerryAtheist:
I’m not sure it’s worth the effort just to be a “Church-Approved” Apostate.
I’m with you (and I
love your signature!)
