Former Satanist and now revert -- was my latae sententiae excommunication lifted?

[IntoTheLight]

I will keep things brief. I was raised Catholic, then, after falling away, made friends with a member of the Satanic Temple who convinced me to join. I later decided to rejoin the Church, renouncing my membership with the aforementioned organization and making everything known in confession. The priest who heard my (quite long) confession at that time didn’t mention any other ecclesiastical penalties needing to be lifted. I’ve since been in good standing with the Church for about a year.

Fast forward to today and discovering what triggers latae sententiae (automatic) excommunications. On the day I decided to join the Satanic Temple, I wouldn’t have had any doubt that doing so would’ve incurred excommunication, had I thought about it even for a second. So I’m not exonerating myself on that point.

My question is, if my confessor back then didn’t mention an excommunication that needed to be lifted, and I’ve been receiving the sacraments, going to confession, and so on regularly since then, am I “in the clear,” so to speak? Can I presume that, in my Archdiocese, regular priests have the authority to lift excommunications in confession? Thank you for your time.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Your priest would have said something if you needed an extra procedure. If you want to put your mind at rest, ask at your next confession, but my guess is that you’re fine.

 

[Diaconia]

Can I presume that, in my Archdiocese, regular priests have the authority to lift excommunications in confession?

Yes, you can presume that, because it is true. Yes, the priest would have lifted any penalty that existed.

Rest easy, and welcome back.

Satan is the father of lies, and a sower of discontent.

God bless,
Deacon Christopher

 

[JSRG]

I assume you are referring to canon law 1364, which says “an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication”. In other words, this would apply to anyone who left the church for any other religious group: Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, even any non-Catholic Christian group like Protestantism or Eastern Orthodoxy. I don’t expect anything more would be required to fix this situation than any of those cases would.

The “Satanic Temple”, as far as I understand, isn’t even a religious group and doesn’t even believe in Satan. It’s just an activist group subscribing to an odd version of libertarianism that slapped the name “Satan” onto itself to get attention.

 

[IntoTheLight]

The “Satanic Temple”, as far as I understand, isn’t even a religious group and doesn’t even believe in Satan. It’s just an activist group subscribing to an odd version of libertarianism that slapped the name “Satan” onto itself to get attention.

I had a private conversation with the local leader that, later on in retrospect, cast some doubt on that. I don’t want to derail this thread too much, so PM me for more info.

And, yes, I was referring to 1634.

 

[C.Ray]

I had a private conversation with the local leader that, later on in retrospect, cast some doubt on that.

I never ever ever bought that “we don’t really worship Satan” baloney. Anyone who goes to extravagant lengths to enact formally religious rituals believes in something. Satan as the father of lies is just the sort of person to make that kind of ridiculous claim.

And I’ll second it; welcome back, amen amen.