This is circular reasoning…with a bit of ‘true scott’ thrown in, aspirant.
Of course those who are aware of the differences between spontaneous and induced abortion are aware of which incurs latae sententaie excommunication and are comfortable with leaving the language as it is. However, the language IS what it is, saying ‘abortion,’ rather than using ‘induced,’ ‘unnatural’ or some other modifier–because it is expected that all who read it know what the authors meant.
However. doing so leaves things wide open to equivocation, such as the argument that Stephan tried to use about murder; that ‘we don’t know if someone has murdered,’ and therefore the latae sententae excommunication wouldn’t be appropriate for that.
The problem here is that, just like everyone is aware what sort of abortion is being spoken of here, so is everyone aware of what sort of killing is being spoken of. Not the accidental taking of life, or the tragically necessary loss of life that happens in rescue choices, or war–but murder; the deliberate taking of a life because the killer really wants the victim to be dead.
The murderer always knows when he or she has committed murder. God does–and since the belief is that latae sententaie is instant and automatic, there is no need for anyone else to know whether murder was done. As long as the murderer knows…that’s it.
The same goes for procuring an abortion; that’s the other side of the problem with Stephan’s argument. It is quite possible for a woman to have an abortion and hide this from the authorities; it is quite possible for a woman to have an abortion and NOBODY knows about it–but her.
It seems to me that if a latae sententaie excommunication must be recognized as such before it goes into effect, then the whole idea behind it is defeated. The sinner, by desecrating the Host, attacking the Pope or a Bishop, procuring an abortion, ordaining a woman to the priesthood or (if he is a priest or she is a nun) breaking religious vows and getting married (a couple of other things, I think…I forget what…) has excommunicated himself or herself. If this excommunication is never recognized or understood by the church, evidentely, it doesn’t matter; God knows about it. Who else needs to know? It is then up to the sinner to start the rehabilitation process. It’s up to the sinner to go to a priest and say “I have done this thing or that thing…how can I come back?”
Excommunication latae sententaie seems to lay the entire burden upon the sinner–not only to know when and why, but to know what to do. Whereas a formal excommunication, being handled by earthly authorities, is a lot more concrete. Both result in the same thing; excommunication is excommunication; the results to the sinner are precisely the same.
The difference, it seems to me, is that a latae sententaei excommunication seems…like abandonment. The sinner is left standing in the dust with neither map nor instruction book; if he doesn’t do all the work to catch up, he remains excommunicated. A formal excommunication, though it may at first seem harsher (and certainly more public) than a latae sententaie (I’ll remember how to spell that one of these days…) excommunication, very clearly spells out the problem—and the remedy. The sinner has the comfort of knowing exactly where he stands at all times with the church.
That’s a problem with latae sententaie excommunications: this very anonymity. Since it IS automatic, and known only to the sinner and to God at first, the sinner can continue his or her life and lie to everybody else, committing one mortal sin after the other. That is very, very bad for him. One thing I have noticed about the purpose of excommunication for both Catholics and Mormons is that it is considered to be a tool of repentance; if one is not a member of the church, one cannot be judged according to the rules of that church. It gives the sinner time to adjust; to repent, and to come back. That is the stated goal of excomunication for Catholics, just as it is for Mormons. One of the reasons sinners are excommunicated is to give them a breather: (at least for us.) to give them the time, and the support, they need to evaluate the direction their lives have taken so that they may come back.
For Mormons, when one is excommunicated for a serious sin (like adultery or murder or whatever) we are doing them a huge favor. You see, for us, in order to come back, you must be rebaptized. That new baptism does precisely what the old one does: it wipes away all sins; one comes up from the waters of baptism as pure and sinless as the pre-apple Adam. That’s what we believe–so if we formally excommunicate people more than Catholics do, that’s why.
On the other hand, given latae sententaie excommunication and the abortion rate among Catholics (not to mention the other sins to which latae sententaie excommunication applies), it seems fairly obvious that in reality, there are a LOT more excommunicated Catholics wandering around than there are excommunicated Mormons.
If those excommunicated Catholics don’t choose to tell others about their status (including their priests, perhaps) doesn’t mean they are any less excommunicated.
Certainly the excommunication process as the Mormons work it is aimed at getting the excommunicant BACK.
