S
seekdatruth
Guest
I like that point. I agree.
- Status
T
tuviskazinai
Guest
Thank you for your reply, Ender!
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head of what I’m suggesting…I agree with you that I am talking about prudential issues rather than moral ones. It’s just that I think one needs to talk prudential issues. First of all, because as I suggested in my post on Dec 21, there is little question in my mind (to the extent than any human being is capable of judging these things) that Obama is a far more moral person than John McCain. I think Obama is dangerously misguided about abortion, but not malicious, whereas I think McCain is a genuinely wicked, temperamental, and selfish man. For me, Obama passes the Beatitudes test hands down.
Secondly and more importantly, innocent lives are at stake (those of the unborn, not to mention their mothers, many of whose economic struggles dovetail with their moral struggles) – so if there are two strategies for reducing the number of babies who will be killed, is it worth rejecting a more effective and life-saving strategy simply out of principle?
I am not certain of the answer, just throwing that out there. And again, one can argue that McCain’s economic policy would in fact be better, etc etc. – I am just saying that we cannot dismiss Obama without first discussing those “prudential” aspects of the problem.
As for your Normandy argument, it’s a good point. But why does the first step have to be the reversal of Roe? The battle of Normandy was decisive, but it happened near the end of the war – it was preceded by many others. Maybe reducing the number of women demanding abortions (through economic means, whatever) will make it easier to convince people to overturn Roe? Maybe it will prepare families economically so that when Roe is overturned they will not react by doing something even worse, like running to a back-alley abortionist who both kills the fetus and endangers the mother?
I agree that Roe needs to be overturned, and the sooner the better. I also agree that McCain would be more likely to appoint pro-life judges – but it’s not a dead certainty. a) I am not convinced he cares enough about abortion to mar what would almost certainly be his single term with a contentious appointment (remember, the pro-choice Graham and Lieberman were his top VP choices; cynically, he only nominated Palin to get elected); b) some internal reviews have shown that only three of the present justices would actually overturn Roe because the Republicans like having abortion legal to stir up their base and are afraid of deaths resulting from post-Roe back-alley abortions which would make their party look bad; and c) even if Roe is overturned and goes to the States…voila, we are back to the “prudential” argument, because in that case, rather than definitively ending the abortion war, that judicial “Normandy” would only start a new one. And we’d have to think outside the box to figure out pragmatically how to bring abortions down from there.
For life,
+AMDG+
S
Sheeniac
Guest
I’m no expert, but while murder is a (mortal) sin, the Church does not excommunicate for mortal sins. The crimes of killing clergy, abortion, etc perhaps have other theological implications here. Remember, excommunication is a call for repentance and for the person to realize that they have separated themselves from the Church’s thinking.
While I haven’t reviewed the article in depth, it is possible that excommunication penalties exist to address current issues that are rocking the Church and faithful.
J
JDaniel
Guest
Just a few things to clarify:
Having worked as an ambulance driver and attendant for 5 1/2 years, no hospital can refuse emergency medical treatment to someone brought there through the Emergency “door” - unless the hospital cannot provide the services required by that patient. If that hospital does so, they are open to civil and, possibly, criminal charges.
Second, a human dying - in what appears to be less than a day (maybe, less than a few hours) - from a bacterial infection such as that mother described - is pretty rare and pretty odd. My suspicion level rises when I hear things such as those said by the mother. My suspicion says that the baby was sick for a longer period of time than was portrayed. That would seem to indicate that mom had time to take her baby to a facility that accepted her insurance provider. This being said does not remove culpability from the hospital or, possibly, the hospital’s staff - unless they did not have the ability to treat bacterial infections (which would be hard to believe).
I believe that there are issues, particularly among our black brothers and sisters that causes them to believe that the medical community is, somehow, aligned against them - which is the rationale suggested to be why the infant mortality rate among African Americans is more than double most of the remaining ethnic groups in America. This issue has been discussed, both on the local level and on the national level, but, to what end, or what decisions, I do not know. This might be the first place one should start with when suggesting an education process.
Just because a person dies, or gets worse, from some malady, does not always and in every case, translate back to the provision of medical care. Often - in fact, very often - it is the responsibility and decisions of the patients that are the direct causes of their own demise. This is a country (actually, a world) full of self-designed, little gods, who believe they know better than the medical profession how to treat their conditions.
The problems with “universal” health care begin directly because of the focus on the only things that can be used to control spiraling costs, under such a system: the patients themselves. They are the only “controllable” exigencies. Thus, the huge lines, and incredible times that it takes to get access to health care in those countries who have such systems. All thngs being equal, and across the wide spectrum of medical services offered in this country, the US provides the absolute best medical coverage for its population on earth.
If we constantly go into the “red” in order to provide medical coverage/services, we will also cause the quality of our health care system to decline. No one wants that, I think; at least, I do not. Thus, the method(s) of delivery of health care must be well thought through before jumping into something helter-skelter.
In fact, when one takes a real good look at our system, it may be very hard to figure out a way that tops it. Luckily, we got a chance to look at Canada’s and England’s “universal” systems before we implemented our own.
I have always liked, in many respects, Spain’s system. It was (I don’t know if it’s still the same) a system that sort of combined our system with a generalized universal-type of care. A poor person could pay some small charge - it used to be one paseta (before the Euro) - and a person would get medical services. Doctors were on a rotation. So, a person might get the best heart surgeon in the country, or, a person might get a new doctor with much less experience. If you had money, you could pay the asking price for a doctor’s services. That way, you could choose your doctor.
Lots to consider. But, jumping head-first into a swimming pool before checking to see if there’s any water is clearly imprudent.
God Bless,
jd
K
kage_ar
Guest
Said it once, will say it again - ALL MORTAL SIN separates one from the sacraments. All mortal sin, all mortal sin. When one cannot receive the SACRAMENT of communion, one has chosen to excommunicate oneself.
This applies to all mortal sin. Mortal sin is GRAVE or SERIOUS matter that is done with knowledge and intent.
Some grave matter is, murder, contraception, desecrtation of the Eucharist, not attending Mass on Sunday, abortion, lust, greed, gluttony - all of these things CAN BE mortal sin if done willfully and intentionally.
S
seekdatruth
Guest
“Are you familiar with the term “rationalization?””
Yes, which is what people do in their minds when they use moral issues to twist selfish desires into something good.
Republicans have pulled on the heartstrings of the pro-life agenda to further their own agenda. How do we know they will keep such promises? Look at history. Look at where, unfortunately, the majority stands on abortion. Realistically,voting on that platform alone in this past election was going to do more harm than good in the short and long terms. There was no “ends to a means” justification in my mind. It was what can we do RIGHT NOW to make a difference, even if a politician is not doing it consciously? Obama, despite himself, just might reduce the number of abortions in the short term until we can do something permanent and legal about it. We have to get the hearts of Americans who have been fed the pro-choice bull for 4 decades. I was one who bought that stuff during my “rebellion”. The information spread by Christians as a whole, and the 6-week ultrasound of my daughter, taught me better. Keep spreading the word and the Word. It will work!
Sadly, I feel It’s like talking to a brick wall. I will resign from this thread because I have said all I want to say on the matter without getting ugly.
Peace be with you all!
Yes, which is what people do in their minds when they use moral issues to twist selfish desires into something good.
Republicans have pulled on the heartstrings of the pro-life agenda to further their own agenda. How do we know they will keep such promises? Look at history. Look at where, unfortunately, the majority stands on abortion. Realistically,voting on that platform alone in this past election was going to do more harm than good in the short and long terms. There was no “ends to a means” justification in my mind. It was what can we do RIGHT NOW to make a difference, even if a politician is not doing it consciously? Obama, despite himself, just might reduce the number of abortions in the short term until we can do something permanent and legal about it. We have to get the hearts of Americans who have been fed the pro-choice bull for 4 decades. I was one who bought that stuff during my “rebellion”. The information spread by Christians as a whole, and the 6-week ultrasound of my daughter, taught me better. Keep spreading the word and the Word. It will work!
Sadly, I feel It’s like talking to a brick wall. I will resign from this thread because I have said all I want to say on the matter without getting ugly.
Peace be with you all!
D
D0UBTFIRE
Guest
Here’s the parts that give me that impression:
(5) “All who kill, mutilate, strike, seize, incarcerate, detain or pursue with hostile intent, cardinals, patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, legates or nuncios of the Holy See, or drive them from their dioceses, jurisdictions, estates, or domains, as also those who ratify these measures or further them by aid or countenance.”
…
(2) “Those who efficaciously procure abortion.”
There is no other mention of kill or abortion or murder in the text so I take it that a person who commits murder (of a non-clergy member) is not excommunicated.
S
Sheeniac
Guest
Doubtfire -
One thing to keep in mind is that ALL Catholics --regardless of political persuasion-- agree* on the general Catholic principals.
Political identities enter the fray when we try to talk about the tangible ways to accomplish our goals. Thus, right and left wingers have different ideas! We do a serious disservice when we demonize people and their motives.
For instance, I can respect those Catholics who voted for Obama because they thought his policies would make abortion less common. Mind you - I think they are WRONG, but I understand what they believe.
Mutual respect is key. I’m a libertarian conservative. For example, I get tired of those who say I don’t care about the poor because i think more government is part of the problem. I do care, but think there are better, more effective ways of dealing with things (the notion of subsidiary is something you might want to look into if you are curious about the views of some of your political opposites in this arena).
So yes, there’s room for liberals in the Church. We all need to remember that Christ is King, not our politics.
One thing to keep in mind is that ALL Catholics --regardless of political persuasion-- agree* on the general Catholic principals.
Political identities enter the fray when we try to talk about the tangible ways to accomplish our goals. Thus, right and left wingers have different ideas! We do a serious disservice when we demonize people and their motives.
For instance, I can respect those Catholics who voted for Obama because they thought his policies would make abortion less common. Mind you - I think they are WRONG, but I understand what they believe.
Mutual respect is key. I’m a libertarian conservative. For example, I get tired of those who say I don’t care about the poor because i think more government is part of the problem. I do care, but think there are better, more effective ways of dealing with things (the notion of subsidiary is something you might want to look into if you are curious about the views of some of your political opposites in this arena).
So yes, there’s room for liberals in the Church. We all need to remember that Christ is King, not our politics.
- Yes, a generalization - so the proof of a handful of individuals exists that don’t fit the description does not invalidate my statement.
D
D0UBTFIRE
Guest
I get your point, but I’m talking about a formal excommunication…forgive me if I’m not familiar with the terminology…what I mean is, the way it’s been explained to me, when someone commits a mortal sin, one must go to confession before going participating in communion. Being in the state of mortal sin and not being in a state of grace and thus having to go to confession, as you say is “technically” a form of excommunication…but it’s not the kind I’m speaking of. I don’t know the term, so I refer to it as “formal” excommunication. Would going to confession and repenting of the accused sin be the way of eliminating that “other” excommunication that I speak of? If someone commits willfully and knowingly has an abortion and goes to confession …then are they no longer excommunicated? Or is there another process that needs to take place, more than just going to confession? I’m confused about that because why would there need to be a list of things where people could get excommunicated for if the fact is they are just excommunicated for mortal sins…shouldn’t there just be a list of mortal sins? But in that “list” (the one in that link that someone provided) there is not mention of many mortal sins (contraception, murder, masturbation)…so what gives?
(Are they just trying to confuse me!? lol)
S
seekdatruth
Guest
That’s the problem, there are limited family practice doctors who will accept SCHIP, and those that do are full. Others will say they are “full” if you have SCHIP, but if you call back and say you have Blue Cross or something, their doors automatically open. TRy and prove that one without an expensive lawyer on the case. If anyone knows how, well then please share that secret. You can lie and then go if you have the cash, because they will drop your claim like a hot potato, but if you have the money, then theoretically you wouldn’t be on SCHIP in the first place. Preventative care and timely treatment of infections is hard to come by when on SCHIP. That’s my point.
OK, I HAVE TO GET OFF THIS THING!
Peace.
T
tuviskazinai
Guest
Thanks for your reply, Ender, which I didn’t see till now. But let me respond, because I am not sure I am merely resorting to “slanderous soothsaying”!
Your wheels are coming off already; his actual choice was Palin, who made a difference in the debate simply by being who she was: unapologetically pro-life.
I think this was a political calculation, not a result of honest soul-searching.
This is not just uncharitable and judgmental it is irrelevant. What matters most is who the candidate would nominate to SCOTUS and there is no rational argument that an Obama nominee would be preferable to the pro-life cause than a McCain nominee.
I completely agree with you that McCain would be more likely to nominate a justice both of us would like than Obama. I just don’t think it’s certain. And I think that judging the moral character of a person is important in making a decision! Most politicians “flip-flop” so often (McCain certainly) has that in order to know how they would govern, I think we need to do more than take their campaign websites at their word. We need to look at their personal and moral history, etc.
Also, McCain will never say “I think we should go to war with Iran,” to take just one example – but his temperament leads me to believe that he would be far more likely to lead us into one than Obama.
Finally, I think you need to respond to the actual arguments I’ve made about McCain’s character before dismissing them as “uncharitable and judgmental.” People are calling Obama King Herod and a supporter of infanticide, and all for no reason…so I just think we also need to look at McCain’s history and call a spade a spade.
Don’t confuse insult with argument.
I hope the above response has clarified that it’s not just that I dislike McCain personally – it’s that I think he would be a dangerous and irresponsable leader.
It is reasonable to question her qualifications but irrational to cite her lack of experience while ignoring Obama’s. She at least had been a state governor for two years; he has quite literally had zero experience in any executive capacity whatever. Her qualifications, however inadequate you may see them, still exceed his.
I don’t want to get into this, but really briefly: I think a few years’ experience as a small-time mayor and a few months’ experience as governor is not comparable to decades’ experience as a legislator. But I don’t make my decisions based on experience alone: McCain has tons of it, and I still don’t trust him. Rather, I recognize that Palin is (I don’t want to be uncharitable, but she asked for it!) remarkably inarticulate, illogical, and uninformed – her interviews, speeches, etc. attest to that. Whereas Obama, say whatever else you will about him, is clearly brilliant, rational, cool-tempered, and in my view, responsible.
**It must be wonderful to have the ability to see into other men’s souls and to be freed from the prohibition not to judge others.
**
I will admit that my words were a bit strong, but honestly, I think I am right about this one. Check out the “Renegade Maverick” article in Rolling Stone and tell me what you think…
We can be pretty sure those steps will include support for FOCA and the elimination of the Mexico City accords and the Hyde Amendment.
You’re right: I grieve over Mexico City and Hyde. Although FOCA is terrible legislation and even most Senate Democrats admit it’ll never pass.
I consider all of your arguments so far to be classics.
Are you familiar with the term "rationalization?"
I think these comments are a bit snide…are you familiar with the term “ad hominem”?
Seriously, if I put down these arguments it’s because I think they’re worthwhile…please tell me precisely why you think they are not.
Do not conflate prudential issues with moral ones. Positions on most political issues have no moral aspect; the choices are seldom between actual good or evil but simply between what one perceives to be beneficial or harmful.
I hopefully responded to this one in my most recent post.
Hoping that Roe will be overturned does not compensate for acting is such a way as to eliminate the possibility.
Non sequitur…I was just trying to defend myself from ad hominem attacks, here. I don’t think that I am acting in a way that will eliminate the possibility of overturning Roe…I am trying to discern what is the best way to reduce abortions. Don’t forget, I am on your side!!
I believe that AGW is complete nonsense but this is actually a serious argument and much better than the slanderous soothsaying you resorted to above, but this post is already too long for me to get into this one. Let me know if you care to pursue it.
I would be interested in having this discussion at some point, yes. Don’t have the time right now to present my case, but if you start a thread, I will definitely follow along! Perhaps I was a bit hasty in evoking global warming…I believe it is a lot more than complete nonsense, but I do think it has been hyped a bit, and I don’t want to give the impression I think the sky is falling…
Thanks for this spirited exchange! I enjoy it.
Peace!
+AMDG+
Your wheels are coming off already; his actual choice was Palin, who made a difference in the debate simply by being who she was: unapologetically pro-life.
I think this was a political calculation, not a result of honest soul-searching.
This is not just uncharitable and judgmental it is irrelevant. What matters most is who the candidate would nominate to SCOTUS and there is no rational argument that an Obama nominee would be preferable to the pro-life cause than a McCain nominee.
I completely agree with you that McCain would be more likely to nominate a justice both of us would like than Obama. I just don’t think it’s certain. And I think that judging the moral character of a person is important in making a decision! Most politicians “flip-flop” so often (McCain certainly) has that in order to know how they would govern, I think we need to do more than take their campaign websites at their word. We need to look at their personal and moral history, etc.
Also, McCain will never say “I think we should go to war with Iran,” to take just one example – but his temperament leads me to believe that he would be far more likely to lead us into one than Obama.
Finally, I think you need to respond to the actual arguments I’ve made about McCain’s character before dismissing them as “uncharitable and judgmental.” People are calling Obama King Herod and a supporter of infanticide, and all for no reason…so I just think we also need to look at McCain’s history and call a spade a spade.
Don’t confuse insult with argument.
I hope the above response has clarified that it’s not just that I dislike McCain personally – it’s that I think he would be a dangerous and irresponsable leader.
It is reasonable to question her qualifications but irrational to cite her lack of experience while ignoring Obama’s. She at least had been a state governor for two years; he has quite literally had zero experience in any executive capacity whatever. Her qualifications, however inadequate you may see them, still exceed his.
I don’t want to get into this, but really briefly: I think a few years’ experience as a small-time mayor and a few months’ experience as governor is not comparable to decades’ experience as a legislator. But I don’t make my decisions based on experience alone: McCain has tons of it, and I still don’t trust him. Rather, I recognize that Palin is (I don’t want to be uncharitable, but she asked for it!) remarkably inarticulate, illogical, and uninformed – her interviews, speeches, etc. attest to that. Whereas Obama, say whatever else you will about him, is clearly brilliant, rational, cool-tempered, and in my view, responsible.
**It must be wonderful to have the ability to see into other men’s souls and to be freed from the prohibition not to judge others.
**
I will admit that my words were a bit strong, but honestly, I think I am right about this one. Check out the “Renegade Maverick” article in Rolling Stone and tell me what you think…
We can be pretty sure those steps will include support for FOCA and the elimination of the Mexico City accords and the Hyde Amendment.
You’re right: I grieve over Mexico City and Hyde. Although FOCA is terrible legislation and even most Senate Democrats admit it’ll never pass.
I consider all of your arguments so far to be classics.
Are you familiar with the term "rationalization?"
I think these comments are a bit snide…are you familiar with the term “ad hominem”?
Seriously, if I put down these arguments it’s because I think they’re worthwhile…please tell me precisely why you think they are not.
Do not conflate prudential issues with moral ones. Positions on most political issues have no moral aspect; the choices are seldom between actual good or evil but simply between what one perceives to be beneficial or harmful.
I hopefully responded to this one in my most recent post.
Hoping that Roe will be overturned does not compensate for acting is such a way as to eliminate the possibility.
Non sequitur…I was just trying to defend myself from ad hominem attacks, here. I don’t think that I am acting in a way that will eliminate the possibility of overturning Roe…I am trying to discern what is the best way to reduce abortions. Don’t forget, I am on your side!!
I believe that AGW is complete nonsense but this is actually a serious argument and much better than the slanderous soothsaying you resorted to above, but this post is already too long for me to get into this one. Let me know if you care to pursue it.
I would be interested in having this discussion at some point, yes. Don’t have the time right now to present my case, but if you start a thread, I will definitely follow along! Perhaps I was a bit hasty in evoking global warming…I believe it is a lot more than complete nonsense, but I do think it has been hyped a bit, and I don’t want to give the impression I think the sky is falling…
Thanks for this spirited exchange! I enjoy it.
Peace!
+AMDG+
T
tuviskazinai
Guest
Great response!! This makes a lot of sense to me.
S
Sheeniac
Guest
The 10 Commandments is a good starting point. However, Christ said he came to fulfill the Law and that the most important things were to love God and love your neighbor. Commentary I have read indicates that once we internalize those 2 points, then lists of sins are not necessary.
Indeed, as others have pointed out, there are conditions for a sin to be a mortal one.
There’s a lot going on in this thread, and I think that some previously address points are being missed, AND… we get so caught up in arguing and debating that we forget some basic Christian points.
D
D0UBTFIRE
Guest
Oh…I can COMPLETELY agree with you! I too am one of those that tends to be able to play devils advocate and even argue on behalf of my opponent…I think that I do not fully understand something unless I can defend it, and I can’t discard it until I can fully understand it. However, from these boards it appears that the ones who are doing the demonizing of the opponent are the social conservatives. I mean, my OP included the question, can one be excommunicated for voting for a pro-choice candidate BECAUSE it seems that people held that stance…that to vote for a candidate who happens to be pro-choice is “evil”…see the demonizing? Atleast, that is the impression that has been given to me. I don’t have a problem with some of the people that disagree with voting for a pro-choice candidate, i just have an issue with the ones that “demonize” others for doing it. Pretty much anything they say goes in one ear and out the other because I find them to be too extreme. I don’t like extreme’s…mainly because I’ve been the victim of extreme ideas…I’ve once held extreme liberal ideas and I’ve once held extreme conservative ideas…and i realize that neither are really the best…that there is something to be said for a middle ground and that being on extreme ends just leads to fanaticism (and bickering.)…well I just went off on a tangent! Just venting…
I like the libertarian party, wish they would have a bigger movement. I’d like to have another real choice when it comes to voting!
J
JDaniel
Guest
The problem is: the Church did.My point is like some other posters: People shouldn’t go around telling others they are immoral or excommunicated based solely on their secular voting choice. Just because someone didn’t vote for a certain party does not mean they did not base their judgment on morals. Your perspective is different, but we both made decisions based on moral standards and objections. Therefore neither of us should be condemned for our voting choices. I did what I thought was right. Only time will tell if I was mislead or not. I pray that the cause against abortion prevails, no matter what party is in office.
God bless!
McCain publicly stated he was anti-abortion, prior to the election. Also, his anti-abortion record seems to expose that tendency.
Obama skirted a direct reply to the question with a cleverly worded statement that, “determining when life started was above his pay-grade.” Also, his record of abortion-related support is abysmal.
There’s no doubt that we have had, and voted for, public officials that “appeared” to be pro-life, only to discover that their records did not tend to support our beliefs, or their clever statements. These occurances are unfortunate.
Years ago, the question was not even brought up - except under the cloak of darkness. Voting for many of these politicians, without having full knowledge of where they stood, allowed the door to be opened to leniency towards pro-death laws and policies. Now, the question is asked in the light of day. We, as voters, are entitled to direct answers to direct questions. And, that means Obama too.
God bless,
jd
S
Sheeniac
Guest
LOL - I didn’t want to get pulled into this debate, but I did want to address this.
I didn’t vore for McCain, but I did vote for Sarah - so he got my vote in the tally.
Was it political or soul-searching? You’re probably right - it was political. But to me it didn’t matter the reason - all I cared about was the result. I find it no different than any other VP selection (including Biden and all previous pres/VP candidates over the years).
You didn’t want to criticize Sarah, but did anyway. That’s fine - we all give into temptation at times. But I do disagree with your characterization of Obama - I saw those qualities in him when he was with the teleprompter. But impromptu - I am very unimpressed! If Bush spoke the way Obama does, he’d be ridiculed constantly without fail. And I do get a giggle or two from some of Pres Bush’s … word choices… But you see, I lived in Chicago under both Daley Senior and Junior, so I expect no less than a good laugh when they talk.
S
Sheeniac
Guest
Oh Doubtfire - I never meant to imply that only one side demonizes. BOTH DO, and it is tragic. It muddies the water, and is a sin to boot. I gave my example due to personal reasons - a dear friend is who a Dem has told me that Reps are evil and mean-spirited. And when I tried to discuss it neutrally, she became very upset with me!
Yes - it exists on both sides.
Yes - it exists on both sides.
J
JDaniel
Guest
Before we knew what Hitler would do, or, after? If before and if we knew that his public record was clearly on the side of pro-life, yes, we would have to vote for him.
God bless,
jd
J
JDaniel
Guest
K
kage_ar
Guest
Yes, they are just trying to confuse you
For a moment, remove the word “excommunication” from the discussion.
All mortal sin cuts us off from God, and makes it where one cannot receive Jesus in Communion.
The way that one is forgiven of mortal sin is to repent, and to go to Confession. In Confession, the Priest grants you absolution of your sin.
Before abortion was common, one needed to get absolution by the Bishop - thus, the different name for the kind of separation from Communion. Today in the USA, Bishops could not keep up with the flood of people who committed abortion, in almost every place your local Priest can grant absolution - absolution allows one to return to the Sacraments.
Remember, no one stands there before you present yourself for communion and asks “are you in a state of mortal sin or are you able to recieve”, it is all on the honor system.
If you murder your next door neighbor, one would hope you would realize that you had separated yourself from communion and you’d get to confession and be absolved.
There are other kinds of excommunication that can still only be lifted by a Bishop. Most of these are the kind where you have been public and refuse to repent, and the Bishop publically issues the excommunication. You have to try really hard to get excommunicated in that public way.
For a list of mortal sins? You will not find one.
You can look things up in the Catechism and see if they are grave or serious matter. The determination if they are mortal is if you KNEW they were sinful, and you willingly did them anyway.
- Status