Mormon Religion

[RebeccaJ]

Were the former missionaries member’s of the ward where Hardy was their Bishop?

I have no idea.

 

[zaffiroborant]

But nothing is fine with them now. They would have been better off excommunicated. There is nothing, and I mean NOTHING, that could have been done to them that would have been worse than being sent home from a mission with dishonor. The two whose missions were completed were disciplined…disfellowshipped…and you can be assured that these three men’s lives have been ruined. They will never hold any sort of important position in the church. They will never be able to run for office, nor get any sort of state license to do anything. They will spend the rest of their lives regretting that action.

.

Hmmmm that’s a lot of power/control your disfellowshipping has.

 

[aspirant]

and when the words 'reserved to the Holy See" are used, it is my understanding that such an excommunication can only be lifted BY the Holy See.

As I’ve already mentioned, this is not the case for abortions that incur excommunication. In the diocese where I live, for example, one would only have to go to the sacrament of reconciliation.

For instance, the Pope himself must lift those 'reserved to the Holy See" and it takes a Bishop to lift others–unless he authorizes the priests in his area to do so. I understand that some do—and some don’t. However, whether they do authorize this or not, it requires something more than a simple confession to take care of the matter.

Actually, no. When a priest is authorized to do it, it occurs in the sacrament of reconciliation. (I’ve already explained this.)

 

[dianaiad]

Thanks for the link, but I used the one that Rebecca supplied.

Abortion is a touchy subject no matter what the circumstances. It is extremely difficult when children are involved.

But here’s the deal. All human life is sacred, from conception until natural death.

In a case like this, people think the church is wrong for its strict stance concerning a 9 year old girl. If the church had made an exception in this case, what would that have done? Plenty, none of which would have been good.

We would have been wrong for caving in to the proabortion crowd.

We would have heard how Catholics changed the rules on that, when are they going to change the rules on issues A, B, or C?

Either way, the church would receive flack.

As far as the stepfather/rapist, I don’t know if he was Catholic. Nothing I have read states one way or the other. If he wasn’t, then of course the Church would have no jurisdiction in that.

Let me go back on one thing here. No one said the 9yr old girl sinned in this case.

As far as the odds of her carrying the babies to term, we have no way of knowing now, do we? There are many documented cases of extremely high risk pregnancies that Dr.s never thought would make it to delivery, but have. Successfully, I might add.

I might also add that you are embelishing a bit. One of the articles states she went to the hospital complaining of “Severe stomach pains”. The articles do not mention that she was in danger of death. Although I am sure, to a 9yr old, whatever she was feeling was painful for her.

No one is saying that she sinned. No one is saying that it isn’t a horrible thing. In fact, if you read the article that Rebecca posted, you will see that the church is calling for punishment against the person that did this.

No, I am not embellishing; several of the articles I read mentioned that the stepfather was Catholic; he was not excommunicated because the Cardinal in charge of things stated that as bad as his sin was, abortion was worse.

As well, the doctors were aware that this child’s pubic bone development was far too small to allow her to give birth–or even provide the space required for her to HAVE twins. It MIGHT have been possible for her, on strict bedrest and with a caesarian section, to carry and give birth to one baby, but not twins.

And her 'stomach pains" were not simply the exageration of an inexperienced 9 year old. Having that sort of stomach pains is NOT NORMAL at 4 months along, no matter how old or young you are.

And the church is calling for the punishment of the rapist? Wonderful. He’s still not being excommunicated though, is he?

Mom is, though…and I have noticed that there is one large difference between latae sententaie excommunication and the more formal type–and that seems to be that while the latae sententaie sort is frequent—and as frequently lifted, the more formal sort is very seldom lifted. As in–almost never.

So here we have a mother who simply made the best choice she could for her daughter, a choice that (according to your beliefs) damns her. Yet the man who raped and abused his step daughter might get jail time, but his eternal salvation is still possible.

You will excuse me if I have a problem with this.

As to what the church would do–well, shoot; you guys allow the medical treatment of fallopian pregnancies and other lifesaving procedures that result in the death of the fetus NOW. What in the name of all that is wonderful would have been different here, except that a nine year old would have been tortured for the next five months–if she lived that long–and almost certainly would have lost her two babies anyway as well as her health for her life long?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yes. There are longstanding principles of legal interpretation that aren’t even part of the Code itself. To become a canon lawyer requires years of study and degrees in canon law, much like becoming a civil lawyer.

Why I’m thinking this discussion is on the side of the absurd…a very determined mormon lady trying to tell us what the Code of Canon law means. To what purpose? I’m kind of embarrassed for her.

 

[dianaiad]

Surely you are mistaken on the “state license” issue. As much as Mormons control the whole of Utah, they can’t limit state licenses.

No, but background checks deal with more than just the criminal stuff. Any background check, including the one I had when I got my teaching credential, would find this issue, and it would be sufficient to sink any chances of certification.

 

[dianaiad]

Hmmmm that’s a lot of power/control your disfellowshipping has.

The background check for credentialling or licensing would find this stuff. Any attempt on their part to run for any office would result in some muckraker dredging it up and replaying it.

You know this as well as I do.

 

[RebeccaJ]

No, but background checks deal with more than just the criminal stuff. Any background check, including the one I had when I got my teaching credential, would find this issue, and it would be sufficient to sink any chances of certification.

hi. I know all kinds of ex’d, yet certified in the profession, people. Drs, lawyers, therapists, etc…no one checks on your standing in your religion. Only if you work for a Mormon Inc. corporation would this be a problem.

edit to add: politics, yes, the reasons for the excommunication would become public, but this is not always a deal killer. If a person were ex’d for apostasy, I can’t imagine any non-mormon would care.

 

[dianaiad]

As I’ve already mentioned, this is not the case for abortions that incur excommunication. In the diocese where I live, for example, one would only have to go to the sacrament of reconciliation.

I did not claim that latae sententaie excommunications were reserved to the Holy See.

Actually, no. When a priest is authorized to do it, it occurs in the sacrament of reconciliation. (I’ve already explained this.)

But a priest MUST be specifically authorized to do it. Not all are, as you have mentioned that the priests in your area are.

 

[RebeccaJ]

A priest is under, and authorized by his ordinary, for all the Sacraments.

 

[TheosisM]

Why I’m thinking this discussion is on the side of the absurd…a very determined mormon lady trying to tell us what the Code of Canon law means. To what purpose? I’m kind of embarrassed for her.

Yes, this is very odd. I’m sure the people with doctorates in canon law would be shaking their heads.

 

[dianaiad]

Why I’m thinking this discussion is on the side of the absurd…a very determined mormon lady trying to tell us what the Code of Canon law means. To what purpose? I’m kind of embarrassed for her.

Why am I dealing with the code of canon law?

Because y’all have been talking about how much more consistent and better Catholicism is about excommunication than we are, and that (and I’m not certain which this is…) either Hardy WOULD have been excommunicated, or he would not have, or that the models should have been excommunicated–or celebrated–I’m not sure which. As well, Catholics here have been very critical of how the LDS handle excommunication at all, claiming that there are very few excommunications in the Catholic church.

So I find out that no…you not only excommunicate people at least as often as we do, according to canon law, you do it a LOT more than we do; instant and automatic excommunication happens when someone procures an abortion. Since 25% of Catholic pregnancies world wide result in abortion, that means a LOT of excommunications.

The comeback from y’all is very strange, and all over the map: I don’t know what I’m talking about, I’m lying, I don’t understand canon law, it doesn’t count because nobody knows that getting an abortion actually results in excommunication and it only results in excommunication if the person doing it KNOWS it results in excommunication, so nobody is getting excommunicated, but the code is right there and anybody can find it, but nobody is taught it because it’s more important to be taught that abortion is a mortal sin (HUH?..so’s murder, but THAT doesn’t result in instant excommunication…wouldn’t you think that if it’s important enough to be canon law, it’s important enough to TELL people about?)

So I’m struggling to understand all this–getting arguments that directly contradict each other from everybody–and ALSO being told that I’m stupid, that I’m a bigot, and that I’m rabidly anti-Catholic.

Because I went to your canon law and discovered something that few of you knew about your own faith.

What’s the matter, Rebecca; are you upset because canon law is what it is, or is it that now that you know what it is, you can’t plead ignorance if you want to take a swing at your own Bishop?

Here’s the deal with this, and with me: I’m being attacked here, not because I’m WRONG, but because I’m right; no argument against what I have said has actually disagreed with what I quoted, or with what I said. All any of you can do is quibble with specific words: ‘drop’ vs.‘throw…’

I say that these sins involve deliberate acts of people who know what they are doing …and I’m told that I’m a bigot and ignorant, because these sins REALLY involve deliberate acts of people who know what they are doing.

And the last question is: y’all have formal schooling when young. Abortion is HUGE with you; you have no give in you regarding the issue. It is so important that it is one of the few actions, aside from attacking the Pope, outright sacrilege, priests getting married, priests ordaining women to be priests and blatant heresy, that incurs the penalty of latae sententaie excommunication. That’s pretty big…but y’all are telling me that the church, having DONE this, has neglected to TELL any of you about it?

This is not, after all, making you take grad courses in canon law. It’s simply saying 'abortion is a mortal sin and by the way, getting one means that you are instantly excommunicated, so don’t do it."

And you are embarrassed for ME?

Great googly moogly, Rebecca.

 

[dianaiad]

hi. I know all kinds of ex’d, yet certified in the profession, people. Drs, lawyers, therapists, etc…no one checks on your standing in your religion. Only if you work for a Mormon Inc. corporation would this be a problem.

edit to add: politics, yes, the reasons for the excommunication would become public, but this is not always a deal killer. If a person were ex’d for apostasy, I can’t imagine any non-mormon would care.

These young men were not disciplined for apostasy, Rebecca, and I’m talking specifically about these three young men.

Frankly, today being an excommunicated Mormon would be an asset–especially if he were a Democrat, or running with Huckabee or others.

 

[aspirant]

the stepfather was Catholic; he was not excommunicated because

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.

It MIGHT have been possible for her, on strict bedrest and with a caesarian section, to carry and give birth to one baby, but not twins.

They could also have been delivered before term, and some attempt made to save their lives. Even if futile, such attempts would be intrinsically good; directly killing the children, however, is intrinsically wrong.

the more formal sort is very seldom lifted.

People are free to choose not to seek reconciliation.

So here we have a mother who simply made the best choice she could for her daughter

I doubt it.

a choice that (according to your beliefs) damns her.

Not necessarily. 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.

Yet the man who raped and abused his step daughter might get jail time, but his eternal salvation is still possible.

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

As to what the church would do–well, shoot; you guys allow the medical treatment of fallopian pregnancies and other lifesaving procedures that result in the death of the fetus NOW.

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.

 

[dianaiad]

I did not claim that latae sententaie excommunications were reserved to the Holy See.

But a priest MUST be specifically authorized to do it. Not all are, as you have mentioned that the priests in your area are.

Correction. I did not claim that latae sententaie excommunications as a result of ABORTION are reserved to the Holy See. Sorry about that.

 

[dianaiad]

A priest is under, and authorized by his ordinary, for all the Sacraments.

Yes, but not to lift excommunications unless specifically authorized by his Bishop to do so.

 

[aspirant]

Yes, this is very odd. I’m sure the people with doctorates in canon law would be shaking their heads.

No doubt.

 

[RebeccaJ]

These young men were not disciplined for apostasy, Rebecca, and I’m talking specifically about these three young men.

Frankly, today being an excommunicated Mormon would be an asset–especially if he were a Democrat, or running with Huckabee or others.

Professionally, these three young men will have no impact outside of your church. No charges we’re filed, no prosecution, no criminal record. Inside your church, yeah, they will be the oldest elders in their ward, for a long, long time.

 

[aspirant]

you not only excommunicate people at least as often as we do, according to canon law, you do it a LOT more than we do; instant and automatic excommunication happens when someone procures an abortion. Since 25% of Catholic pregnancies world wide result in abortion, that means a LOT of excommunications.

For reasons already discussed, very few of these abortions would actually incur the canonical penalty.

it’s more important to be taught that abortion is a mortal sin

This is not accurate. Abortion is gravely wrong. Whether it is a mortal sin depends on other conditions being met. And yes, that’s a whole helluva lot more important.

And the last question is: y’all have formal schooling when young.

Some, not all, do. Depends on many factors.

 

[RebeccaJ]

And you are embarrassed for ME?

Yes, I am. But I understand, you are back to being a second grader again. I don’t mean that in a bad way. Once, one of our priests who works in our schools gave a homily on what it means to be stiff-necked. His opinion is a second grader standing firm, and won’t budge, no matter what you say, promise, threaten…stiff necked, in a very innocent, if not a self-assured obstinate, manner.

At any rate, those dang Catholics are being very consistent, if you ask me.

I recommend reading up on heresy, what it is, truly, and the ways it can manifest itself. The old encyclopedia has a good explanation. St. Thomas Aquinas has some good points on excommunication in his Summa Theologica. Though, you always have to keep in mind the penalties for heresy are law, not doctrinal, and can and do change.