Stephen168
New member
There is no difference, but nice dodge. Continue to crow in your ignorance.
- Status
T
twopekinguys
Guest
I would be interested in learning more about this. Do you have a reference?
D
dianaiad
Guest
Aspirant, I’m sorry. I realize that for people who do not know me and my beliefs regarding what sin is, that my words could be taken to mean ‘accidently’ dropping the Host. I was not referring to an accident, at all. In fact, I am very aware that there are specific things that a priest is instructed to do if the Host is accidently dropped–and none of them involve excommunication.
I am referring, always and only, to deliberate acts. That is one thing that Catholics and Mormons have in common; we both believe that sin is only sin if the sinner knows it is; it’s not the action that counts, but the intent. On the other hand, the code of canon law does separate ‘throwing away’ from ‘deliberate desecration.’ as if they are entirely separate acts, both of which result in latae sententaie excommunication.
T
twopekinguys
Guest
D
dianaiad
Guest
I’m sorry, . What I wrote is directly from the code of canon law, for which I have given you the exact paragraphs and wording that support my claims. this isn’t being anti-Catholic (are you ASHAMED of the canon law? Why do you feel attacked if I quote it? It is what it is.)
I used it as an analogy. I see them as that. I don’t know what their leaders thought.
What they did was specifically for the purpose of display and sexual tittilation of the viewers. I’d say that they were prostituting their position as missionaries in order to get gain. I believe that there is a scripture about that…something about 'lusting in the heart," and another about avoiding even the appearance of evil?
Modern US law states that anything that makes the workplace uncomfortable for someone else can be seen as sexual harrassment…and those pictures of those young men would NOT be allowed in a modern workplace. You know it. I know it. They are exploitive, and they make any Temple type Mormon squirm on a visceral level. They are just…wrong.
Funny would be…that same calendar, with those same missionaries in those same poses–with their white shirts, ties and coats on. Now THAT would be funny. The "muffin’ calendar would also be funny–if the women were all clothed in a way that allowed them to wear their Temple Garments, in those same poses. Also a gentle poke in the perceptions.
What Hardy did wasn’t gentle. It wasn’t kind. It was way beyond the line right into sacriledge…rather like throwing the Host on the floor. It wasn’t that the young MEN were being all that immodest personally–almost all of them show a lot more on the beach. The problem is that they were using the juxtaposition of their former status as missionaries and saying look Ma, I can be as porn star as the rest of them, and rub how far I have fallen in everybody’s face.
It is EXACTLY like having a calendar of priests wearing nothing but their collars. Think about it–in that case, what is being mocked? The human body—or the fact that these are PRIESTS?
That calendar strikes me the way a Black Mass would strike you–and for very much the same reason.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
The mother and dr.s who performed the abortion were excommunicated. The girl was not, nor the entire family. It happened in Brazil last year.
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0901074.htm
T
twopekinguys
Guest
Thanks for the link.
Diania, As you can see, you are wrong again. Please read the article, you will see where your error lies.
D
dianaiad
Guest
I’m sorry, but in this case I’ll have to insist…and refer you to the 1983 code of canon law.
For “dropping the Host,” see Part II, “Penalties for Individual Delicts” Title 1, Delicts against Religion and the Unity of the Church, Cann.1367: " A person who throws away the consecrated species or takes or retains them for a sacrilegious purpose incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; moreover, a cleric can be punished with another penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state."
“Dropping the Host on the floor” (and you should know that I meant a deliberate action, not an accidental one, given that the view on ‘sin’ is very similar between Catholic and LDS beliefs; if you do not intend to sin, and don’t know you are sinning, then there is no sin; if that wasn’t obvious, I’m sorry) is very much covered in the above statute as ‘throwing it away.’
Come to think of it, your statute doesn’t seem to have a lot of ‘give’ in it. One may throw consecrated communion wafers and wine away–even knowing that they WERE consecrated, without intending sacriledge. However, the above statement separates the two concepts, so that *disrespectfully *throwing them away would fall under the OTHER clause: “Takes or retains them for a sacrilegious purpose…” that purpose being disrespectful disposal. “Dropping the Host on the Floor” is a rather deliberate bit of sacrilege, unless one is simply being a true innocent klutz. There are, I understand, rules for how a priest who ACCIDENTALLY drops a wafer should behave.
For attacking the Pope or the Bishop, see:
Can. 1370 §1. A person who uses physical force against the Roman Pontiff incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; if he is a cleric, another penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state, can be added according to the gravity of the delict.
§2. A person who does this against a bishop incurs a latae sententiae interdict and, if he is a cleric, also a latae sententiae suspension.
§3. A person who uses physical force against a cleric or religious out of contempt for the faith, the Church, ecclesiastical power, or the ministry is to be punished with a just penalty.
I’d say ‘taking a swing at a Bishop’ is rather clearly covered by the above.
Hey, it’s not MY canon law. It’s yours. You may become more familiar with it here.
I’m not telling you what you believe. Only you know that…and evidently you don’t believe that dropping the Host on the floor and taking a swing at a Bishop is worthy of excommunication. Well, in a way you are correct; those things are not WORTHY OF excommunication, as in 'You might get excommunicated if you do these things." They are self accomplishing events. It’s not ‘you might be…’ but “oops, you just excommunicated yourself. Now you need to figure out how to become a communicant again, because as of the instant of the sin, you are ex’d.”
I’m quoting Canon Law to you, chapter and verse. Go look for yourself.
If they had been excommunicated, we would have known. The exact reasons FOR it wouldn’t have been published…but the fact of it would have been known. Any lesser discipline is none of our business.
Who is under more condemnation, sir…Adam and Eve, who ate of the fruit, or Satan, for orchestrating and tempting them?
There very much IS a difference.
Stephen168
New member
No you did not quote from the Code of Canon Law. It was your personal interpretation of the Code and your ignorant assumption of what the Code means. I am very proud of the Code. I am Catholic and think like one. Post #278 affirms the fact you do not what to understand it and you want to remain an anti-Catholic ignorant bigot. The Mormon Church was founded on anti-Catholic bigotry and it seems to be alive and well to this day.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Their choices are theirs…and their free will does not lessen HIS sin, any more than a pimp is any less a pimp because some of his ‘stable’ is content to be there.
Stephen168
New member
Were the former missionaries member’s of the ward where Hardy was their Bishop?
D
dianaiad
Guest
Stephen, she did not say that. She SAID that the Catholic church did NOT help her mother, and that the reason it would not help her is because she was divorced. She SAID that the Catholic school authorities told her to clean out her desk in the middle of class, and kicked her out of school.
She described what the LDS church does in such situations, as a general rule. Our aid may vary somewhat according to region, but not so much by ‘ward.’ The ‘supermarket’ she referred to serves many wards and stakes; the Bishop’s Storehouse that serves my area is about fifty miles from here, so that all the members of the wards around it fill out shopping lists. A truck comes once a week from the store house to specific stake buildings, where the families may pick up their groceries. If that’s not possible, the Relief Society delivers the supplies to the homes of the families who need them. The poorest ward has the same access to the store house that the wealthiest ward does.
That’s here in California. In northern Utah, the Bishops’ storehouses are directly accessable as was described; the families come in and ‘shop,’ picking up their supplies directly from the facility.
Those facilities are also available to the ward members, with professional canning machines so that we can ‘can’ many different items for storage ourselves.
As to Catholic Charities, that IS a great organization. The LDS church worked with Catholic Charities for a very long time. Still do from time to time, when doing so is the most efficient way to get relief to people in disaster areas and in great time of need.
D
dianaiad
Guest
there is no difference?
Stephen, the ignorance here is not mine. If you can actually sit there and claim that the canon law does NOT say what I specifically quote it as saying, then there is something very wrong…
and it’s not with me.
the words are RIGHT THERE.
They cannot be misinterpreted. They are codified, in plain English–and unless you can prove that this document was translated funny, there isn’t a whole lot of wiggleroom here. I didn’t take anything out of context. It’s just, well…there.
I don’t know why you are ashamed of it.
S
stcalixtus
Guest
they are not Christians according to the Catholic cathechism…LDS does not accept polygamy, we a Catholics should not hate LDS, we should be kind to them ECT, WHO CARES WHAT THEY DO? not me.I rather deal with someone who calls themself a christian than a new age don’t believe in god ultra liberal
T
twopekinguys
Guest
First of all, you original comment about dropping the host did not refer to intentional desacration. You only included that in a later post. So that point is moot.
Of course an individual who intentionally defames the blessed sacrament would incur an excommunication, because of intent.
Now, onto the taking a swing at the Bishop.
What you are missing with all of this is " latae sententiae". That is a self imposed excommunication. Meaning that the individual knew what they were doing wrong, they are now in a state of sin, and should not approach the sacraments.
That is far different that a ecclesiastical excommunication, which would be a formal declaration from the Church heirarchy.
With a latae sententiae, if the person was repentant, they would then go to confession, etc. and all would be good.
Let’s look at the lady that climbed the rail at St. Peters on Christmas Eve, pulled the Pope down, and also knocked down a Cardinal (I think he was a Cardinal). Keep in mind this is the second year in a row she has jumped the rail trying to get to the Pope.
Assuming that she was Catholic, it does not mean that she would receive an ecclesiastical excommunication. Based on reports I have seen, it appears the woman was unstable, and therefore was probably not responsible for her actions.
Canon Law is like civil law. Canon Law is written for canon lawyers to interpret, not lay people.
As for the ex-ing of the calendar guys, maybe you haven’t been clear in your previous posts. What do you guys do, print out a newsletter of who got ex-d this week?
I asked you why the models didn’t get ex’d, and your response was something like…I don’t know, maybe because they can’t get ex’d twice. Leading one to assume they had been ex’d. Then you said they were disciplined, then you said no one knows.
Let’s look at the inconsistencies of ex-ing in the lds.
You have a guy that created a beefcake calendar that had the models more covered than they would have been at the beach. He gets ex-d.
You have several guys model for the calendar, voluntarily, and sought to be photographed in a beefcake calendar where they have more clothes on than they would at the beach. No-exing.
Now I’m going to back a little further.
How about 3 mssionaries, on their mission who desecrated a Catholic shrine, and post pictures on the internet. No-ex-ing there either.
Do you see the inconsistencies yet?
T
twopekinguys
Guest
If you look at the posts from ldstocatholic, you will see that based on dates and ages given in various posts, they were about in 2nd grade. I’m guessing about 8 yrs old.
I doubt that an 8 yr old sitting there listening to a priest and his mother talking got all of the details, let alone all of the details correct.
You will also see that they go from lds neighbors etc. helping to, wishing the Catholics had something like that.
One post says this was in 1988+/-. Catholic Charities has been around since 1910. This is their centennial year. They have never, and I repeat never turned anyone down because of religious affiliation. St. Vincent DePaul food pantries operated in various parishes have never turned anyone away because of religous affiliation.
A person in need is a person in need, regardless of marital status and religious affiliation.
Now, when it comes to tuition in a Catholic school, that is a different story. I can see where the parish would not subsidize the tuition of a person who is divorced and remarried.
If the parent is divorced only, and not living with someone out of wedlock, I’m sure the parish would assist with tuition for the student if financially able.
I am not saying that this person lied, but I will say they probably don’t have all of the information correct, based on their age at the time of the events.
D
dianaiad
Guest
I have many of them…and after looking at them all, I see that I was incorrect. The victim herself was NOT excommunicated, and that specifically because of her age. Her mother and her doctors WERE excommunicated, but her rapist (her stepfather, who had been sexually abusing her since she was six) was not.
This nine year old was pregnant with twins. This was found out when she was rushed to the hospital complaining of stomach pains…she was four months pregnant and in grave danger of her life. The abortion was an emergency procedure.
The reason I first stated that the nine year old was also excommunicated is because the first articles about it claimed that she was–but it turns out that she was not. I’m very glad to learn that.
I will admit, however, that the church’s actions in this matter really bother me. Here you have a child who had been raped by her stepfather for three years. As a result of this rape, she is made pregnant, and is rushed to the hospital in great pain and in grave danger of her life; her pregnancy was NOT her choice. Her ‘sin’ was NOT her choice. The odds that she would have been able to carry those two babies to term were extremely poor, and the longer she was forced to remain pregnant, the more damage would have been done to her system–and that doesn’t address the emotional trauma she is going through, either.
So the mother was facing an unholy decision; sacrifice the life and health of her child for a CHANCE that two other children might live? As tragic a choice as that was, I believe she made the only one she could have made. This young girl MIGHT have a life; a chance to grow up and have babies. Without that abortion, rather than one life with a ‘maybe’ chance, we would have, in all probability, all three children dead.
…and the church excommunicates the mother and the doctors who chose to save one life rather than lose three, and NOT to excommunicate the man responsible for raping his own stepdaughter.
You can find a pretty good article about this here:
and here
D
dianaiad
Guest
Pretty much, yes. We don’t have everything quite as nailed down as you guys do.
However, whether WE have a specific code of canon law or not is irrelevent. You guys do. It’s right there handy. Whether or not you think WE are secretive or not has nothing to do with this issue.
Why? We aren’t talking about OUR ‘canon law,’ but yours. As to ours, the Bishop’s Handbook has a section on handling disciplinary hearings, but c’mon–we have an almost entirely lay clergy. We handle things a great deal differently than you do. We, as members, have a pretty good idea about the difference between right and wrong, and we don’t have anything like a concept of latae sententaie excommunication. That’s your problem.
But I thank you most sincerely for making my point. You are correct. It is NOT
“much of a secret.” I DID find it, and though I could take a little umbrage at your slur against my research skills, you are correct; if I could find it, then anyone can. It wasn’t hard, y’know.
So…since that is so, why didn’t you know about it? Why all the angst and shock about the idea of latae sententaie excommunication? I mean, if it IS right there, then all Catholics should know it. If they don’t, whose fault is that?
Not mine.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Yes, Stephen, I most certainly did. I refer you to my answer to twopekingguys.
T
twopekinguys
Guest
But the issue of secrecy also leads to widely different interpretations.
Based on the fact that you do handle things differently, and inconsistently, that is your problem. Do you not see a problem with 85 different bishops interpreting things 85 different ways?
There wasn’t any slur. I’m not sure how you got that far.
I didn’t know about this particular case,(the 9yr old with the abortion) as far as canon law, I knew it, I never said I didn’t. I understand latae sententaie quite well.
Back to the abortion thing.
- Status