D
dianaiad
Guest
Snakes in mailboxes.
Ruinous lawsuits.
Stuff like that.
hmmn… I wonder if Rory is going to ask you to pull YOUR punches.
- Status
Ruinous lawsuits.
Stuff like that.
R
RoryMcKenzie56
Guest
diana
Latae sententiae excommunications aren’t reserved for “anti-Catholic” Catholics. They apply to Catholics, period.
3DOP
Of course canon law applies to all Catholics. But only a Catholic who grievously violates the faith can be excommunicated. That is why I used the expression anti-Catholic Catholic. Unless I physically attack the pope, desecrate the Blessed Sacrament, or aid someone in procuring abortion, I am permitted to be a Catholic in good standing. This seems reasonable to me.
Furthermore, we can’t just willy nilly give holy communion to people who are resistant to the Catholic faith. Holy Communion is to be shared by people of the same faith, and certainly not with those who despise the faith by any of the actions that would warrant excommunication.
Diana
Shoot, I didn’t know that such excommunications even existed until a week or so ago; Offinding out how they worked was quite an interesting insight into Catholicism.
Now I don’t have any problems with it in general; a church has the right to deal with its members any way it wants to, and if there is a sin so horrific that simply committing it causes an instant excommunication, well…that’s your right.
It’s important to y’all, and it’s your church, do what you want. The only problem I have is that such a thing barges into the idea of the separation of church and state rather blatantly.
Rory
Thank you. I am not a Jeffersonian and I don’t even believe in this so-called separation of which you speak that is imagined to exist between politics and religion. Even if it could exist in practice, I would oppose it in principle.
Diana
What a Catholic does and believes in his personal life is one thing; but when he or she is elected to public office, and represents ALL the constituents of his district or state…or nation…then what he does as that representative MUST not be manipulated this way. "Vote according to our specific religious beliefs or be excommunicated?"
Rory
I guess a politician needs to make sure he doesn’t physically attack the pope, desecrate the Sacred Species, or help someone procure abortion…just like everybody else. If you want your representatives to do those things, either don’t vote for a faithful Catholic, or vote for one that doesn’t mind being excommunicated. Your choice.
Diana
Not a really good idea.
At the very least, before he is elected he has to let his constituants know that this is what will happen to him if he so much as thinks support for any law that approves abortion in any way.
…and I know of no politician that has done this. Do you?
Rory
I don’t think the Catholic Church needs to be concerned with whether some non-Catholic voter in America wants those who physically attack the pope, desecrate the Body and Blood of Christ, and/or help someone procure abortion to be exempted from the law which governs every other Catholic simply because they got elected to public office in America.
I think the unity of the faith is a really good idea. As for your Republic, if this frightens you out of voting for Catholics, I don’t care. People should know that only excommunicated Catholics will support abortion. If you want to support abortion you should never vote for unexcommunicated Catholics. How is that so dangerous to the body politic?
PS: I apologize for how the bolded part went. It was unintentional. Something about this website that my computer doesn’t like. When I want get fancy using italics, bold, or colors, it starts freezing up. This is the only place that happens.
Latae sententiae excommunications aren’t reserved for “anti-Catholic” Catholics. They apply to Catholics, period.
3DOP
Of course canon law applies to all Catholics. But only a Catholic who grievously violates the faith can be excommunicated. That is why I used the expression anti-Catholic Catholic. Unless I physically attack the pope, desecrate the Blessed Sacrament, or aid someone in procuring abortion, I am permitted to be a Catholic in good standing. This seems reasonable to me.
Furthermore, we can’t just willy nilly give holy communion to people who are resistant to the Catholic faith. Holy Communion is to be shared by people of the same faith, and certainly not with those who despise the faith by any of the actions that would warrant excommunication.
Diana
Shoot, I didn’t know that such excommunications even existed until a week or so ago; Offinding out how they worked was quite an interesting insight into Catholicism.
Now I don’t have any problems with it in general; a church has the right to deal with its members any way it wants to, and if there is a sin so horrific that simply committing it causes an instant excommunication, well…that’s your right.
It’s important to y’all, and it’s your church, do what you want. The only problem I have is that such a thing barges into the idea of the separation of church and state rather blatantly.
Rory
Thank you. I am not a Jeffersonian and I don’t even believe in this so-called separation of which you speak that is imagined to exist between politics and religion. Even if it could exist in practice, I would oppose it in principle.
Diana
What a Catholic does and believes in his personal life is one thing; but when he or she is elected to public office, and represents ALL the constituents of his district or state…or nation…then what he does as that representative MUST not be manipulated this way. "Vote according to our specific religious beliefs or be excommunicated?"
Rory
I guess a politician needs to make sure he doesn’t physically attack the pope, desecrate the Sacred Species, or help someone procure abortion…just like everybody else. If you want your representatives to do those things, either don’t vote for a faithful Catholic, or vote for one that doesn’t mind being excommunicated. Your choice.
Diana
Not a really good idea.
At the very least, before he is elected he has to let his constituants know that this is what will happen to him if he so much as thinks support for any law that approves abortion in any way.
…and I know of no politician that has done this. Do you?
Rory
I don’t think the Catholic Church needs to be concerned with whether some non-Catholic voter in America wants those who physically attack the pope, desecrate the Body and Blood of Christ, and/or help someone procure abortion to be exempted from the law which governs every other Catholic simply because they got elected to public office in America.
I think the unity of the faith is a really good idea. As for your Republic, if this frightens you out of voting for Catholics, I don’t care. People should know that only excommunicated Catholics will support abortion. If you want to support abortion you should never vote for unexcommunicated Catholics. How is that so dangerous to the body politic?
PS: I apologize for how the bolded part went. It was unintentional. Something about this website that my computer doesn’t like. When I want get fancy using italics, bold, or colors, it starts freezing up. This is the only place that happens.
R
RoryMcKenzie56
Guest
If only Notre Dame was in danger of losing its status as a Catholic institution…And the poor abortion loving Kennedys. Ohhhhhh the Catholic Church is soooooo mean. The Church insists that people that claim to be members not help others get abortions, participate in physical attacks on the pope, or steal the Body and Blood of Christ for the purpose of doing something blasphemous with it. How restrictive and authoritarian. And what are the consequences?
You can’t receive holy communion. Do you know what happens if you receive holy communion in a state of mortal sin? Instead of blessing, you get damnation, spiritual, physical, maybe even both. The excommunication of an unrepentant mortal sinner is an act of charity, whether they think so, or Mormons think so.
Clearly, Catholic politicians who vote for abortion disagree with the teaching of the Church on Holy Communion too because they seem to have no fear of approaching the Lord’s Table when they are improperly disposed. They are fools and the Church can only try to protect them from themselves.
R
RoryMcKenzie56
Guest
Diana…when I asked if you had heard of “punch pulling”, I was admiring your combinations. For the record, I thought your arguments were fair and just and you had clearly won a knockout victory. I ordinarily deplore what my fellow Catholics say about your faith on this forum. I am ashamed of what gets said most of the time.
In my opinion, when religion is on trial, we must be as careful as when we would try a criminal. Just because a criminal has committed robbery, we can’t accuse of murder. It seems to me like it is never enough for many people of faith merely to believe that their faith is right and another is not the one true faith.
They try to convince themselves that error is illogical, absurd, ridiculous, and crazy. And they succeed, by misrepresenting to themselves what other people believe. I am of the firmest conviction that in religion, the successful error (that which has gained millions of adherents), is never without a strong intellectual appeal. We delude ourselves if we think that any large sect of human believers gain no intellectual satisfaction out of their religious choice. I think your faith and mine, and everyone’s is wilfully misrepresented in the minds of those who don’t believe. We like, we will, we hope, to believe that truth is clear correct and error is clearly stupid. We honor the true faith when we present it as it really is. We also honor the true faith when we present error as it really is, and not worse than it really is.
Stephen168
New member
X
Xavierlives
Guest
Oh, please! That was a tap not even worth noting. I was clearly talking about them.
S
Stylteralmaldo
Guest
catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/?qid=2010
Along the same lines of this topic, I disagree with the approach that Catholic Answers uses regarding John Hus:
Along the same lines of this topic, I disagree with the approach that Catholic Answers uses regarding John Hus:
The Catholic Church ought to stand on it’s own merits - not by pointing out the problems of other faith systems it’s own defense. There ought to be a better way of defending the Catholic position without reporting to ‘well, the Protestants did the same thing’. That just makes Christianity in general look silly. It makes it look like: ‘well, we’re faulty, but you’re faulty too’ instead of saying: ‘well, we have faults, but we contain the truth and here’s why’. Does that make sense?
R
RoryMcKenzie56
Guest
I am not one for admitting to every wrong of which the Church is accused. I can defend the usual charges about Crusades and Inquisitions to my own satisfaction at least. In a way, I defend us in the Jan Hus episode too. But in my opinion, there was guilt on the part of prominent churchmen in this incident.
It seems fair to provide historical context to show that none of the sects were exactly separating church and state. We could show mitigating factors and how politics played a large part. We need to show that what happened to Hus doesn’t reflect the moral teaching of the Church either now or then. When we insist that one of the marks of the Church is Her holiness, we mean that this is the result of obeying Her teachings, not disobeying, as those who apparently lied to Hus did.
So yes. I agree. I don’t like an “apologetic” that merely points out that everyone else was murdering too. We can do better than that.
Rory
X
Xavierlives
Guest
But is apologetics the defense of faith or the defense of history (or both)?
D
dianaiad
Guest
It will help a lot if you learn two things: first, don’t use the “ribbon” or “toolbar” above the text box to do anything. Put your own tags in. The most important tags to learn are the “quote” tags.
followed by the same
, but with a forward slash between the first “” and “quote”. (I’d type it out, but if I did, you wouldn’t see it.)
the second thing to learn is…use keyboard shortcuts for italics and bolding. Don’t use the CAF toolbar. The tool bar works if you want to add a link, but for anything else? My 'puter doesn’t like it either.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Question:
What is the position of the Catholic church on excommunicated members taking communion?
…and why isn’t murder one of those things that results in automatic excommunication?
D
dianaiad
Guest
Oh, shoot.
How can you argue with a reasonable man taking a reasonable position?
Happy New Year, Rory.
D
dianaiad
Guest
there is indeed only one way a ‘tu quoque’ argument makes any sense–and this use of it isn’t that.
Now, if someone comes to you and says “you are evil/wrong because you did this, and we are good/right,” then they leave themselves wide open. THEN you can, by pointing out their own history of the same, or worse, offenses, can say “well, if we are wrong because of this, then you are also wrong…for the same reasons.”
That’s not saying 'but you do this too so we are good!" It’s saying 'we are both slogging in the same mud here, so if one of is is right and one wrong, it’s because of something ELSE."
X
Xavierlives
Guest
Isn’t that the problem when a religion is based on a man? People will always look to the man and his faults.there is indeed only one way a ‘tu quoque’ argument makes any sense–and this use of it isn’t that.
Now, if someone comes to you and says “you are evil/wrong because you did this, and we are good/right,” then they leave themselves wide open. THEN you can, by pointing out their own history of the same, or worse, offenses, can say “well, if we are wrong because of this, then you are also wrong…for the same reasons.”
That’s not saying 'but you do this too so we are good!" It’s saying 'we are both slogging in the same mud here, so if one of is is right and one wrong, it’s because of something ELSE."
S
soren1
Guest
The definition of “excommunication” is being cut off from the unity of the Church, which entails being barred from the Church’s unifying sacrament of the Church. That is why it’s called “ex-communication.” It is a mortal sin for an excommunicated person to receive the Eucharist.
It is. The Church’s statement of excommunication is an official recognition of what already exists in a person’s soul. Whenever someone commits a mortal sin, they are automatically excommunicated. It is normally not the Church’s procedure to inquire into every member’s sins, but formal excommunication is necessary for scandalous public sins. People are singled out for public excommunication when they are actively in the business of leading others astray. That is why heretics and schismatics get excommunicated more often than criminals. Furthermore, the Church does not excommunicate until it has seen evidence that a person is obstinate in their error, and resists correction.
Oddly enough, excommunication is rarely an effective tool in countering the opponents of the Church. It is only good when it is done sparingly. At some times in history, Popes have caused disasters by excommunicating the wrong people. For instance, the excommunication of Elizabeth I triggered a powerful anti-Catholic backlash and bloody persecution in England. Nowadays, our bishops seems to be erring in the opposite direction, excommunicating too little rather than too much.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Unless of course the religion is based upon Jesus Christ, Who had no faults. Then of course everybody ELSE is food for criticism.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Which, of course, damns that person. So, as the argument was very recently made, if this automatic excommunication is to protect the excommunicant from him/herself, since taking communion while being burdened with a mortal sin is a damning…mortal sin, then what’s the point of the excommunication?
I wonder how many Catholics are aware that even thinking about voting for abortion rights means that they are excommunicated? Or for that matter (and I’m thinking about some stories told by former altar boys who did some…interesting…things with the sacramental wine and the Host) how many know that such ‘innocent adolescent hi-jinks’ resulted in their excommunication, so that they have been committing a mortal sin every time they took confession–even if they didn’t believe they were? Hmmn.
Not according to the rules I read. That particular form of excommunication is fairly restricted.
Evidently that’s not true for the automatic sort of excommunication. Though I have to wonder about the process, given that a priest can lift that excommunication in the confessional…it is intriguing.
I have often wondered about that one. I think that, perhaps, it was a little presumptuous of Pop Pius V to excommunicate Elizabeth, considering that she was never Catholic in the first place–and he did it in order to foment an uprising against her. Not the brightest of moves.
S
Sword_Brethren
Guest
The Holy Inquisition has nothing to do with the things in your list. The Holy Inquisition was good. First of all, Spain was saved from heresies by the Holy Inquisition. Secondly, the faith of Catholic Europe would have been destroyed long before the protestant revolution, if not for the Holy Inquisition.
Stephen168
New member
Do you have reference for this?
Very interesting. Is this faith promoting?
D
dianaiad
Guest
Stephen, aren’t you paying attention to the thread? It wasn’t ME who mentioned that simply the THOUGHT of such a thing is an automatic excommunication. It was one of you guys. However, go here; for a very good examination of this ruling. Don’t worry, it’s very pro-Catholic. You should know by now that I wouldn’t send you anywhere else.
The thing is, helping to enact a law which would result in abortion very much qualifies here.
Ok, explain that.
Or not, as you choose.
- Status