Mormon Religion

[Xavierlives]

Absolutely

You are absolutely right. Our previous Bishop, who is now the Archbishop of Newark (John J. Meyers) is one of the premier Canon Lawyers in the US. He and I had numerous conversations about becoming a canon lawyer, and different aspects of canon law.

Do you get a JD in that?

 

[twopekinguys]

Do you get a JD in that?

um…no

Personally, I didn’t/don’t like the man as an individual, but I do respect his knowledge and his office.

Let’s just say he isn’t on my Chritmas card list…lol

 

[aspirant]

People are free to choose not to seek reconciliation.

The goal of excommunication is reconciliation.

Being Catholic, you have to.

Being someone who believes scripture, I have to. We are forbidden to do evil, so it can never be necessary to do evil.

In order for her choice to damn her, the act would have to be committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent, and she would also have to refuse to repent wrongdoing for the rest of her life. We do not have sufficient information to know her culpability, and even if she is gravely culpable, she is still alive and free to repent at any time.

Yes. And to have the excommunication lifted, all she has to do is repent and be reconciled.

You seem to share many of the common misconceptions about excommunication. People think, for example, that it cancels Church membership or kicks a person out of the Church. It doesn’t. Excommunicated Catholics are still Catholics. People also labor under the misconception that excommunicated people go to hell. This is not Catholic teaching. The Catholic Church does not claim knowledge regarding who is in hell, or even whether anyone is.

Certainly she can’t go to confession or take communion any more.

She can once she repents and reconciles with the Church. Same as the rest of us Catholics. And since she was excommunicated for procuring an abortion, it’s very likely that sacramental confession is all she needs to have the excommunication lifted.

No more or less possible than the mother’s salvation. Or mine, or yours, or anyone else’s.

The purpose of excommunication, in the Catholic faith, is medicinal. It is, in the words of one canon lawyer, “an urgent call to reform one’s conduct.”

I do like you ‘being unable to save the child’ phrase, though…because that’s what this was in the case of the 9 year old.

Since no attempt was made to save the lives of the girl’s children, that’s not what happened. They were directly killed instead. Trying to save the lives of all three children would be intrinsically good; directly killing two of them was intrinsically evil.

It is not the result alone that determines the morality of an act. Otherwise there would be no moral difference between allowing one’s grandmother to die a natural death and shooting one’s grandmother. The result is the same: grandmother is dead. Morally speaking, the two are as different as night and day.

Directly killing innocent children is just as intrinsically evil as directly killing one’s innocent grandmother.

I’m talking ONLY about abortion that must be done to save the life of the mother here

You have yet to convince your audience that “abortion that must be done to save the life of the mother” is even possible, much less that it exists.

We are talking about choosing to save one life—or lose two.

These were not the only options on the table.

By the way, 'allowing one’s grandmother to die" is ALSO murder, if the means to extend her life comfortably are available.

What I actually said was “allowing one’s grandmother to die a natural death.”

one COULD simply refuse to feed her, or give her water—that isn’t actively shooting her, is it? After all, dying of starvation is also natural causes, isn’t it?

No, deliberately starving a person to death is most certainly not “natural causes.”

 

[Stephen168]

Direct abortion is not allowed even in these cases. Removing a portion of the fallopian tube is considered morally licit. There is a vast moral difference between being unable to save a child (in the latter case) and directly killing the child (in the former).

It is not the result alone that determines the morality of an act. Otherwise there would be no moral difference between allowing one’s grandmother to die a natural death and shooting one’s grandmother. The result is the same: grandmother is dead. Morally speaking, the two are as different as night and day.

The Mormon Church has decided that there are lives not worth living, so they had a ‘revelation’ and now murdering the unborn is OK. So, Dianaid is always trying to justify the horrible decision made by the Mormon Church. It can’t be done, so she tries to twist Catholic teaching into something that matches, in her mind, Mormon teaching. I believe it is the only reason this event made the world media (and this thread); as something to twist and try and use against Catholic teaching. One has to be 16 and no longer a minor to been excommunicated latae sententia. The little girl was neither and therefore not excommunicated. Dianaid was wrong on this fact and the Mormon Church is wrong on abortion.

 

[dianaiad]

So people disciplined by your church are unable to be plumbers or electricians and are unable to open a business such as a restaurant or gas station? I suppose that’s par with denying a degree.

No, “people disciplined by [my] church” are quite able to do all of these things. However young men who have been disciplined (or not, for that matter) because they committed what can only be considered a ‘hate crime,’ whether they were charged or not, will have problems.

It’s not the excommunication/disfellowship that is going to follow THESE young men. It is the reason FOR that disfellowship/excommunication/whatever that is.

We are, remember, speaking not of excommunication and discipline in general, but this case specifically. I have already mentioned that in many cases being ex’d from the LDS church can be an advantage; the ‘ex’ can turn it into a victimization and make a LOT of hay with it.

…but not when the discipline is for desecrating a place sacred to another religious group.

 

[dianaiad]

I was thinking of an anti-catholic bigot who walks into a Catholic Church and then starts telling us all about what we believe. “You worship statues, see they are right there, anyone can see it.” “What? Are you ashamed of them?” At some point you do get embarrassed at their ignorance.

Are you accusing me of claiming that y’all worship statues, Stephen?

 

[dianaiad]

List of Dangerous Animals

1. Wolf
2. Coyote
3. Dogs

Dianaiad: This list sure reflects poorly on the organization with created it. The Asian Cobra kills many more people than any on their list.

Rational Person: I don’t think you understand the list.
Rational Person thinking to themselves: I’m not an authority, but I only see canines on the list.

Dianaiad: Yes, I do it is very clear.

Rational Person: I don’t think you understand the list. You might think about what these things have in common.
Rational Person thinking to themselves: I’m not an authority, but coyotes only live in the Americas.

Dianaiad: I don’t think you understand it. I am a professional educator. It is my job to find things, and I easily found this list, I read, now I fully understand it to the nth degree. Asian Cobra should be on the list.

Rational Person: (shakes head)

I have another list for you:

red
herring
non-sequitur.

 

[zaffiroborant]

No, “people disciplined by [my] church” are quite able to do all of these things. However young men who have been disciplined (or not, for that matter) because they committed what can only be considered a ‘hate crime,’ whether they were charged or not, will have problems.

It’s not the excommunication/disfellowship that is going to follow THESE young men. It is the reason FOR that disfellowship/excommunication/whatever that is.

We are, remember, speaking not of excommunication and discipline in general, but this case specifically. I have already mentioned that in many cases being ex’d from the LDS church can be an advantage; the ‘ex’ can turn it into a victimization and make a LOT of hay with it.

…but not when the discipline is for desecrating a place sacred to another religious group.

So for the rest of their lives the STATE is going to deny them various licenses (they can also kiss barbering and nail tech goodbye) because of something they did although they were never even charged with any sort of crime. Let alone a hate crime.

 

[dianaiad]

If I had assumed you were talking about intentional desecration, you would have said, “oh, you’re assuming something”. I took what you said, “someone dropping the host”, as exactly what you said. You added the intentional bit later. I addressed your statement based on what you stated at the time, not what you added later. Keep the goal post in one spot.

the goal post is as it always has been. If you did not understand that I meant deliberate actions rather than accidental ones, I apologize…and I clarified that. Now you know that whatever you thought, I was not referring to anything BUT deliberate actions. Therefore the goalposts are precisely as they always were.

But you are putting your mormon spin on what a Catholic latae sententaie excommunication is versus ecclesiastical.

Since Mormons do not HAVE anything remotely like latae sententaie excommunication, I can’t put a "mormon spin’ on it.

With this self imposed ex-ing, the churh itself (ie priest, deacon, etc) doesn’t necessarily know about it.

Of course not. It can only recognize it after the fact, which is the whole point of the concept; the sinner knows, and God knows…and the church may later find out. It MUST find out if such an excommunication is to be lifted, but it is an excommunication nonetheless, isn’t it?

The Church trusts that the person will act in an appropriate manner and not approach Holy Communion until the situation is properly rectified. i.e. confession.

Irrelevent to the point. What the church trusts the sinner to do, or what the sinner actually DOES do, is entirely apart, it seems to me, from the fact of the excommunication. The fact that the sinner must actually do something to get it lifted assumes that it is really there to BE lifted–it exists whether the church is officially aware of it or not.

Obviously you’re not understanding.

Oddly enough, I honestly believe I understand more than you think I do.

Excommunication is not excommunication.

What? ARe you channeling Clinton here…it depends upon what ‘is,’ is?

If that were the case ,why would there be two different types, with two different requirements for resolution?

It is my understanding that some sins are so egregious…so far beyond the normal ‘mortal sin,’ that simply engaging in it cuts one off from the church in a far more permanent and grievous way than other, less serious, sins. Commiting a mortal sin is supposed to be sufficient that the sinner should not take communion before going to confession–but these sins that result in latae sententaie excommunication are a step beyond that. Mere confession is not sufficient to get one into a state of grace–worthy of communion. Some added step must be taken. I understand that while some Bishops authorize the priests under them to lift some latae sententaie excommunications in the process of the confessional, that authority depends upon the Bishop confering it; it’s not something every priest has along with his ability to take confession. As well, there are some sins that are ‘reserved to…’ higher authorities; like the Bishop or all the way up to the Holy See; confession to the local parish priest isn’t going to cure it.

It is, in other words, a very real excommunication, and someone who is suffering under it and who does not take the steps to reconcile himself to the church is in grave danger of his soul. If he is laboring under one, and goes to confession (but does not take the extra steps required to reconcile that excommunication) he is simply commiting more and more mortal sins as he takes communion unworthily. It does not MATTER whether the church knows about it. The sinner does, and God does. The church is only concerned at the point when the sinner approaches her in an attempt to fix it.

From this I understand that it is very much more serious than the run of the mill mortal sin like rape or murder or…

In simplest terms, one is a informal, and the other is formal. One you do to yourself, and resolve yourself. The other the Church itself is imposing, and has to resolve.

From what I understand, that’s not quite true either. In both cases the initial attempt to reconcile has to come from the sinner, whether the sin itself caused the split, or whether the church made a formal finding. Also, in both cases more needs to be done than a simple confession to a parish priest; unless he is specifically authorized to do so by his Bishop, no priest has the authority to lift such an excommunication, and SOME of them, as I have mentioned above, have to go to higher authorities. In other words, the process to get a latae sententaie excommunication lifted is pretty much the same as the process to lift a formal one: the sinner has to want a reconciliation, and the SINNER must approach the church. What happens after that depends upon the sin that resulted in the excommunication.

Again, this is something you’re putting a mormon spin, and a lay spin on. As I said before, canon law is written by and interpreted by canon lawyers. Just like civil law.
Also, there are many other steps that are taken before that type of ex-ing

Let me put this as straight forward as I can. It will only require a simple yes or no answer.

Were the gentleman that voluntarily posed for this calendar excommunicated? Yes or No?

YOu already know the answer to that. I said so many times. I never once claimed that any of them WERE. None of them were excommunicated. Many, if not most, of them faced disciplinary hearings, which may have resulted in anything from counseling to disfellowshiping.

 

[dianaiad]

You are still not seeing the inconsistency. On one had you have a beefcake calendar producer, up front, out in the open, helping people with the proceeds(whether you believe it or not) Get’s the big EX, and then you have 3 guys that intentionally desecrate a Shrine, and they get “disciplined” or “disfellowshipped”. BIG inconsistency.

A lot of that has to do with the attitude of the sinner. At least one of these young men was very repentant. Hardy certainly is not. He is gleeful about it and has no intention of repenting.

As for inconsistency, I think it more consistent than the idea of that nine year old’s mother being excommunicated because she made an emergency decision to save her daughter’s life, while the man who raped her was NOT excommunicated.

I find it incredibly inconsistent that you are insisting that these three young men, who repented and were FORGIVEN by the people whose shrine they desecrated, be given harsher punishment than we give Hardy, who, quite frankly, committed exactly the same sin–and who is not only unrepentent, but is gleefully continuing to commit the same sin over and over again.

If it would have been better for these guys to get Ex’d, and disfellowshipping is so horrible, why wasn’t Hardy disfellowshipped?

Because Hardy doesn’t care. He’s not one whit repentant. He’s PROUD of what he did.

As far as your “if they had been Catholic” statement, you are quite wrong. Had the culrpits been a priest, deacon, etc. in their clerical clothing, there would have been consequences. The missionaries were in “uniform”(clerical clothing), name tag and allSee, apples to apples…

Don’t go there. Historically the consequences of CAtholic priests who desecrated the worship places and shrines of others were not…negative. Even now, the punishment for such actions is discipline and their removal from office. You know, like having your mission dishonorably terminated? By the way, there is NO mention in canon law about a penalty for vandalizing someone else’s place of worship.

I’m not condeming anyone. Where on Earth do you come up with this stuff.

As I said before, from the articles I have read, some of which you supplied, there isn’t any mention whether or not the rapist was Catholic.

Newsflash!! we can’t excommunicate someone who is not Catholic.

He IS Catholic…and that is specifically addressed by the Cardinal in charge, who, when asked about the matter responded–not with 'he’s not Catholic so we can’t excommunicate him" (though that didn’t stop the Pope who excommunicated Queen Elizabeth I, come to think of it…) but rather “Abortion is far more serious a sin than rape.”

You might want to check. I didn’t call for these guys to get ex-d. By the way, it wasn’t youtube videos, they posted pictures on photobucket.com. Also, it is kind of hard to react to something until you know it occurred right?

And how is it that someone can go for TWO YEARS without noticing that one’s saint was beheaded? I mean…really?

You’re having a real problem with your facts on this aren’t you? People were ex’d, no wait, they were disciplined, no wait, we don’t know. 9 year old ex-d, then no she wasn’t, youtube vs photobucket.

As usual, you are trying to deflect, and move the conversation in another direction. We are talking about the calendar, and the inconsistencies there. Try to stay on topic ok.

No, sir, that’s you. You keep steering the argument into irrelevent minutia, and you are the topic changer.

 

[dianaiad]

So for the rest of their lives the STATE is going to deny them various licenses (they can also kiss barbering and nail tech goodbye) because of something they did although they were never even charged with any sort of crime. Let alone a hate crime.

I’ve seen many background checks. Such an action WILL show up on them. It will be a major problem.

 

[Stephen168]

It is my understanding that some sins are so egregious…so far beyond the normal ‘mortal sin,’…………

List of Dangerous Animals

1. Wolf
2. Coyote
3. Dogs

Dianaiad: This list sure reflects poorly on the organization with created it. The Asian Cobra kills many more people than any on their list.

Rational Person: I don’t think you understand the list.
Rational Person thinking to themselves: I’m not an authority, but I only see canines on the list.

Dianaiad: Yes, I do it is very clear.

Rational Person: I don’t think you understand the list. You might think about what these things have in common.
Rational Person thinking to themselves: I’m not an authority, but coyotes only live in the Americas.

Dianaiad: I don’t think you understand it. I am a professional educator. It is my job to find things, and I easily found this list, I read, now I fully understand it to the nth degree. Asian Cobra should be on the list.

Rational Person: (shakes head) Affected ignorance

 

[Stephen168]

Since Mormons do not HAVE anything remotely like latae sententaie excommunication, I can’t put a "mormon spin’ on it.

Mormons don’t have to have latae sententaie to put a Mormon spin on it, you just have be Mormon. Which you are and you do

 

[Yerusalyim]

Aspirant et al,

Because rape does not incur excommunication. It is gravely wrong, however, and if committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent it is a mortal sin. Mortal sin, if unrepented, damns. The Church cannot impose any penalty comparable to that.

Let’s remember, being in a state of mortal sin is far worse than excommunication. If you die while excommunicated there’s still a hope of salvation, if you die in mortal sin there’s only one destination.

The Mormon Church has decided that there are lives not worth living, so they had a ‘revelation’ and now murdering the unborn is OK. So, Dianaid is always trying to justify the horrible decision made by the Mormon Church. It can’t be done, so she tries to twist Catholic teaching into something that matches, in her mind, Mormon teaching. I believe it is the only reason this event made the world media (and this thread); as something to twist and try and use against Catholic teaching. One has to be 16 and no longer a minor to been excommunicated latae sententia. The little girl was neither and therefore not excommunicated. Dianaid was wrong on this fact and the Mormon Church is wrong on abortion.

The LDS condone abortion? Since when?

 

[zaffiroborant]

I find it incredibly inconsistent that you are insisting that these three young men, who repented and were FORGIVEN by the people whose shrine they desecrated, be given harsher punishment than we give Hardy, who, quite frankly, committed exactly the same sin–and who is not only unrepentent, but is gleefully continuing to commit the same sin over and over again.

I don’t see anyone calling for further punishment for the desecrating missionaries or for the the models. Just pointing out that no one has been punished with the ferocity that Hardy received, not the men who posed for the calendar or the men who desecrated the shrine.

 

[aspirant]

It is my understanding that some sins are so egregious…so far beyond the normal ‘mortal sin,’ that simply engaging in it cuts one off from the church in a far more permanent and grievous way than other, less serious, sins.

Excommunicated Catholics are not “cut off” from the Church, since they are still Catholics, and excommunication is far from “permanent.” Indeed, its purpose is medicinal. These points have already been explained.

Mere confession is not sufficient to get one into a state of grace–worthy of communion.

In the case of some excommunications, as has already been explained, it is.

If he is laboring under one, and goes to confession (but does not take the extra steps required to reconcile that excommunication)

If a person has been excommunicated and seeks reconciliation, he will be directed to the authorities who have the ability to remove the excommunication so he can be reconciled.

the idea of that nine year old’s mother being excommunicated because she made an emergency decision to save her daughter’s life

The problem is not the goal, but the means. The same goal could have been accomplished by means that were not intrinsically wrong.

not with 'he’s not Catholic so we can’t excommunicate him" (though that didn’t stop the Pope who excommunicated Queen Elizabeth I, come to think of it…)

According to what I’ve read, Queen Elizabeth was baptized Catholic.

Because rape does not incur excommunication. It is gravely wrong, however, and if committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent it is a mortal sin. Mortal sin, if unrepented, damns. The Church cannot impose any penalty comparable to that.

My point exactly. Thank you for phrasing it so well!

 

[aspirant]

Just in case anyone cares, I’ve now read several reports explaining that representatives of the Institute of Children’s Medicine of Pernambuco (IMIP), where the 9 year-old girl was first admitted, revealed before the abortion that she was in no danger of death.

“The IMIP Superintendent assures us [on March 3, 2009, the day before the abortion was performed] that no member of the medical team at the IMIP could certify or declare that the expectant mother’s life was at risk at that time. On the contrary, he stated that the pregnancy could be carried to term, explaining that this was a pregnancy carrying an increased risk, but this did rule out a successful outcome. And he stressed the following: ‘What we have is a high-risk pregnancy and there is no imminent risk to the young girl’s life.’” Marcio Miranda, Lawyer for the Archdiocese of Olinda and Recife

Regarding what I’ve said about moral alternatives, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith agrees: “As for the problem of certain medical treatments with the end of preserving the health of the mother, two different cases should be distinguished: on one hand, a procedure which directly causes the death of the fetus, often called inappropriately a ‘therapeutic’ abortion, cannot be any more licit than the direct murder of an innocent human being; on the other hand, a procedure which is not itself abortive may have, as a collateral consequence, the death of the child: ‘If, for instance, saving the life of the future mother, regardless of her state of pregnancy, would urgently demand a surgical procedure, or other therapeutic measure, which could have, as an accessory consequence, in no way willed by itself, but unavoidably, the death of the fetus, such act could not be called a direct attack against innocent life. In such conditions, the procedure may be considered licit, as other similar medical interventions, as long as a good of great worth, such as life, is involved, and it is not possible to postpone it until after the birth of the child, nor to resort to another efficacious remedy.’” (quoting earlier papal teaching)

 

[Stephen168]

Again, this is something you’re putting a mormon spin, and a lay spin on. As I said before, canon law is written by and interpreted by canon lawyers. Just like civil law.
Also, there are many other steps that are taken before that type of ex-ing.

I think the problem is Mormonism sees the world through a civil law approach while the Catholic Church has a natural moral law view. Mormon leadership like civil leadership can pass a law even if it is contrary to previous law or whether is doesn’t make any sense when considering other laws. In natural moral law that is impossible.

 

[twopekinguys]

Since Mormons do not HAVE anything remotely like latae sententaie excommunication, I can’t put a "mormon spin’ on it.

But you are. Whether you have it or not is not the issue. In one of your previous comments you said “ex-ing is ex-ing”. That is your view as a mormon. It is not or view as Catholics. So yes, you are putting your spin on it because to you all ex-ing is the same.

Of course not. It can only recognize it after the fact, which is the whole point of the concept; the sinner knows, and God knows…and the church may later find out. It MUST find out if such an excommunication is to be lifted, but it is an excommunication nonetheless, isn’t it?

Again, you are not a canon lawyer. You’ve only been exposed to canon law for a week +/-

Irrelevent to the point. What the church trusts the sinner to do, or what the sinner actually DOES do, is entirely apart, it seems to me, from the fact of the excommunication. The fact that the sinner must actually do something to get it lifted assumes that it is really there to BE lifted–it exists whether the church is officially aware of it or not.

I am afraid it is totally relevant. The Catholic church doesn’t keep their thumb on parishoners the way the mormons do. Believe it or not, the Catholic church trusts its members to do what is right. Granted, they don’t always to that, but the element of trust is still there. If a mormon rats out another mormon for doing something they shouldn’t be doing (in the tattle tails point of view), the mormons investigate and call hearings of some sort. The Catholic church doesn’t do that. We tell the tattle tail that they shouldn’t be gossiping, and the tattle-tail doesn’t know if the issue has been resolved or not. In other words, we trust that the person who did something wrong adressed the situation properly.

Oddly enough, I honestly believe I understand more than you think I do.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear that way. You surely haven’t demonstrated it so far.

What? ARe you channeling Clinton here…it depends upon what ‘is,’ is?

See above.

It is my understanding that some sins are so egregious…so far beyond the normal ‘mortal sin,’ that simply engaging in it cuts one off from the church in a far more permanent and grievous way than other, less serious, sins. Commiting a mortal sin is supposed to be sufficient that the sinner should not take communion before going to confession–but these sins that result in latae sententaie excommunication are a step beyond that. Mere confession is not sufficient to get one into a state of grace–worthy of communion. Some added step must be taken. I understand that while some Bishops authorize the priests under them to lift some latae sententaie excommunications in the process of the confessional, that authority depends upon the Bishop confering it; it’s not something every priest has along with his ability to take confession. As well, there are some sins that are ‘reserved to…’ higher authorities; like the Bishop or all the way up to the Holy See; confession to the local parish priest isn’t going to cure it.

It is, in other words, a very real excommunication, and someone who is suffering under it and who does not take the steps to reconcile himself to the church is in grave danger of his soul. If he is laboring under one, and goes to confession (but does not take the extra steps required to reconcile that excommunication) he is simply commiting more and more mortal sins as he takes communion unworthily. It does not MATTER whether the church knows about it. The sinner does, and God does. The church is only concerned at the point when the sinner approaches her in an attempt to fix it.

From this I understand that it is very much more serious than the run of the mill mortal sin like rape or murder or…

Exactly!! From YOUR understanding. As I have said before, you have only been exposed to canon law for one week +/-, and you are looking at it through a mormon perspective.

Let’s just say, based on your knowledge at this point, I wouldn’t want you defending me using canon law.

After all, why do you think that canon lawyers are Catholic? Why do you think canon law was written by Catholics.

I’m sorry but your interpretations are not valid

From what I understand, that’s not quite true either. In both cases the initial attempt to reconcile has to come from the sinner, whether the sin itself caused the split, or whether the church made a formal finding. Also, in both cases more needs to be done than a simple confession to a parish priest; unless he is specifically authorized to do so by his Bishop, no priest has the authority to lift such an excommunication, and SOME of them, as I have mentioned above, have to go to higher authorities. In other words, the process to get a latae sententaie excommunication lifted is pretty much the same as the process to lift a formal one: the sinner has to want a reconciliation, and the SINNER must approach the church. What happens after that depends upon the sin that resulted in the excommunication.

Again, wrong.

In the case of latae (informal), yes, the penitent would seek reconcilliation. In the case of ecclesiastical, it can come from the church. The lady that knocked the Pope down for example was approached by representatives on behalf of the Pope, and was offered forgiveness. Also, even though he wasn’t Catholic, the guy that tried to kill JPII was approached by the Pope himself. So, you see, it can go both ways.

 

[twopekinguys]

continued

YOu already know the answer to that. I said so many times. I never once claimed that any of them WERE. None of them were excommunicated. Many, if not most, of them faced disciplinary hearings, which may have resulted in anything from counseling to disfellowshiping.

So much for a yes or no answer. The answer above shows your speculation. See bolded portion. Then we have…

I don’t know. Perhaps they weren’t ex’d because you don’t need to excommunicate someone twice.

If you can, I can. You are the one assuming that nothing happened to any of these young men, after all. In fact, something **probably **DID–but nobody would know that but them and their immediate priesthood leaders, unless they were all the way excommunicated, and sometimes not even then. As it happens, **some **of the men WERE called to ‘disciplinary hearings,’ but not excommunicated. Since they were not, what happened there is none of our business, any more than what happens to you in the confessional is any of my business.

You have NO idea how this was handled with the individual models. Neither do I…and none of us ever will. Many of them were called to disciplinary hearings. What happened there is NONE OF OUR BUSINESS.

Either you know, or you don’t.
Would you like to try answering that question with a yes or no answer now?