Well once again, the sins listed are an indication the person is in rebellion. The sin itself can, and is, forgiven in the same manner as any other sin. Excommunication is for the rebellion, not the sin.
The sin is the indication of the rebellion, it is not the direct reason for the excommunication. If a person is still in a particular rebellion, it is an indication that the person should not be given absolution, because they are not repentant. The authority that is solely the Pope’s in certain, very rare cases to give absolution, is based on the person being in a state of repentance.
For LDS the the penalty of excommunication is placed against the action of the sin itself. For Catholics, the penalty is against the act of rebellion, which has been manifested by the sin.
OK, I’m about to 'think aloud." It’s not an argument against you, it’s just me writing to think. I don’t guarantee any sort of logical organization here.
Aren’t ALL sins actually about rebellion? Any time someone sins, it is a rebellion against God’s will. The severity of the sin only measures the level of that rebellion–and sometimes not even that; a person in rebellion against God may not feel like going out and murdering someone, but his lesser sin is committed with the same intent; rebellion.
For LDS the penalty of excommunication is placed against the PERSON who does not repent…and in a long way around, that brings this right back to the original question about why Hardy the calendar maker was excommunicated, but the models were not. If, as you claim, the excommunication is placed against the sin itself, then everybody concerned would have been excommunicated. However, (and this is what the Catholics here were criticizing and looking down their noses at…) they were NOT all excommunicated. Why? Because Hardy is anything BUT repentant; he is proud of his calendars and keeps making them. The models were called to disciplinary hearings…and evidently were repentant. They haven’t repeated the actions, certainly. Repentant, in other words. Therefore, not excommunicated.
But the Catholic view of excommunication latae sententiae does not allow for repentance; the act itself instantly imposes the excommunication, no matter what the sinner regrets or how s/he repents. In LDS thought, repentance often prevents the excommunication…but when a Catholic commits a sin that results in latae sententiae excommunication, repentance can not PREVENT the excommunication; that’s done. All the sinner can do is begin the process to get that excommunication LIFTED.
Ergo, it’s not the rebellion; it is the specific expression of that rebellion that does the damage to a Catholic sinner. He can rebel in other ways…murder, rape, whatever—and not incur an excommunication. However, the Catholic woman who has an abortion, no matter how instantly repentant she may be, is still instantly excommunicated.
One thing I have noticed: all the other sins which result in latae sententiae excommunication have something in common; they are specific sins aimed at rebelling against, or specifically showing sacrilege to, the church. Attacks upon the Pope or a Bishop, showing disrespect to the consecrated Host…priests who ordain women or who break their own vows and marry…apostacy/heresy—all these actions support your claim that latae sententiae excommunication is a matter of rebellion, since these sins are specific to rebellion against the church. In fact, all of them require a deliberate intent to specifically rebel AGAINST the church hierarchy and teachings/ policies. In fact, if abortion were not listed there, the choice of sins and the idea of excommunication as a result would make sense; in every case, the sinner would understand that he was separating himself from the church; his actions are a statement of ‘I’m leaving,’ more or less.
Getting an abortion,doesn’t fit with the rest. It stands out in that list of sins as something very different from them. Unlike the rest of them, a person procuring an abortion probably isn’t thinking about Catholicism at the time–and if s/he is, it’s not 'I’ll show you what I think of your teachings…" the way the other items in the list are, but rather “ooh, the church teaches that this is wrong…” in the way a murderer, rapist, thief or other sort of sinner would think, if the thought of what the church thought even entered their minds.
Well, I’m done writing to think; I’m just throwing some thoughts out to consider. I AM objecting to your idea that Mormons 'aim excommunication at the specific sin." when in fact, unlike Catholics we do not HAVE a list of sins that MUST result in excommunication. What we HAVE is a process whereby excommunication is either applied to an unrepentant sinner (hey…he showed us he wanted to have nothing to do with us…let’s give him his wish) or is given to a repentant sinner who needs it to get his head and his faith together. Either way, it’s the PERSON, and not the sin committed.
With Catholics, though…c’mon, Rebecca, do I have to quote the list of sins that CATHOLICS say result in INSTANT excommunication, no matter who commits them? Do I have to point out the fact that once having committed those sins, the sinner must have that excommuncation LIFTED? That there is no “oh, I see that you had an abortion…but I see that you are contrite and repentant so we won’t excommunicate you,” ever. It’s “well, you had an abortion, which resulted in this excommunication…but you are repentant and contrite so let’s lift that excommunication.”
