Mormon Religion

[aspirant]

you honestly do not think that it is important for Catholics to know that getting an abortion is not just a mortal sin, but one that results in instant excommunication?

I have never said it was unimportant for Catholics to know about canon law, I said there are things it is far more important for them to know. And I’ve said this many times, for example: “As I said before, most Catholics are a lot more familiar with Catholic doctrine and moral law than they are with canon law. And though I wish more Catholics were familiar with canon law, it is far more important that they are familiar with doctrine and moral law.”

I think you’re capable of understanding the idea of relative importance, that something can be valuable and important even if other things are far more valuable and important.

Knowledge of the U.S. copyright laws is very valuable and important. But for the average citizen, knowledge of basic traffic laws is far and away more valuable and important. American schools recognize this, and students tend to learn a lot more about the latter than the former.

I think it’s very valuable for Christians to have some knowledge of biblical languages like Greek. But I think it is far and away more important for them to believe in Jesus. As a missionary or catechist, I would most definitely begin with the latter.

The text in which it is couched is very clear and simple to understand.

You and I have read the text and have some rudimentary understanding of it. But any good canon lawyer would tell us that we probably think we understand it better than we actually do, since we’re reading it without much knowledge of the guiding principles of canon law.

That’s one of the tricky things about law. To choose an example from American law, reading Title VII, however well written it is, is not necessarily sufficient for a citizen to fully understand how Title VII will apply in an actual case.

There was a time when the norms of the Latin Catholic Church allowed bishops to establish formal devotion to a saint, at least within their own sees. In 1160, the law was changed to reserve that right to the Holy See: only the Pope could canonize. Hildegard of Bingen died after the law was changed. If you simply read the law of the Latin Church at that time, you would think her canonization would be reserved to the Pope. In reality, this would be a mistake. As far as we can tell, formal devotion to St. Hildegard of Bingen was legally established by the local bishop. (She is now listed in the Roman Martyrology as a saint, complete with a hagiography and a feast day.) How could the local bishop do this legally? The principles of canon law inform us that the law only applies to a region after it has been promulgated in that region. Simply reading the law is not always sufficient to understand how it applies.

It seems to me that something like that would be rather…important…to know, especially for Catholics who might be faced with this decision.

Sure. But far, far more important that Catholics know the moral law regarding abortion.

In my own experience, more Catholics are aware of the abortion penalty than of the others, because it is more often mentioned in texts that aren’t about canon law.

You think more Catholics are aware of the canonical consequences of using physical force against the Pope than they are the canonical consequences procuring a completed abortion? I think not.

they didn’t think that most Catholics are aware of it, either.

I don’t think most Catholics are aware of either, but I do think more are aware of the canonical consequences regarding abortion than most of the other matters. This has been my experience, anyway.

As I said, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me that a Catholic would be carefully taught the catachism–and have this rather important bit of information witheld.

As I have explained before, the purpose of catechetics is teaching Catholic doctrine and morality. We are free to study canon law, and I think it is very good when we do, but doctrine and morality are far more important.

As to most of canon law, I can see this. However, this particular aspect of it affects almost every Catholic out there

It affects only the ones who already know the canon law and its consequences.

One cannot become a priest, a nun or a monk without some basic grounding in canon law, can one?

Most have some basic knowledge. But believe me, there are points of canon law with which even trained, full-time canon lawyers are not very familiar.

Much like civil lawyers-- you can consult a tax attorney with questions about criminal law, and he’ll probably know some stuff, but he’ll probably refer you to a criminal lawyer. And vice-versa.

By the way, for anyone who does not already know this: In danger of death any priest, even one deprived of legal faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve a penitent not only of sin but excommunication too.

 

[Stephen168]

I don’t agree, actually. In my own experience, more Catholics are aware of the abortion penalty than of the others, because it is more often mentioned in texts that aren’t about canon law.
dianaiad;6234819:

I would have figured, before I entered into the discussion here, that you would be correct. However, all I really have to go on is the reaction of those Catholics who debated with me on the matter, and almost all of them were quite clear;** they didn’t know about it, and they didn’t think that most Catholics are aware of it, **

either.

”IT,” is Canon Law. Not what might be contained in Canon Law.

As I said, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me that a Catholic would be carefully taught the catachism–and have this rather important bit of information witheld.

The penalty for abortion is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but feel free to continue acting like you were never been told. I don’t want to stop your fun.

I have never said it was unimportant for Catholics to know about canon law, I said there are things it is far more important for them to know. And I’ve said this many times, for example: “As I said before, most Catholics are a lot more familiar with Catholic doctrine and moral law than they are with canon law. And though I wish more Catholics were familiar with canon law, it is far more important that they are familiar with doctrine and moral law.”

True, and as we know moral law is based on the Ten Commandants as part of the Natural Law. Abortion is a violation of the natural law and the fifth commandment; which is the part of the Catechism of the Catholic Church where is it addressed. The Catechism is a wonderful thing every religion should have one.

 

[Stephen168]

There are also Catholics who actively seek to remove abortion as a sin, or who campaign for pro-choice. I read not too long ago of a nun who actively campaigns for pro-choice. There is no such thing going on for “murder, rape, whatever”.

I’ve seen Catholics for Choice booths at many fairs I’ve attended. It was upsetting that these people were leading non-Catholics to believe the Catholic Church supported abortion; very scandalous. Yeah, I never saw the Catholics for Murder booth or the Catholics for Rape booth.

Yes Actually… NAMBLA is doing precisely that for pedophilia, there are quite a few organizations that are campaigning to make prostitution legal, several for ‘right to die’ organizations…and yes, there are Catholics involved in all of those, as well.

Never saw the Catholics for Euthanasia booth, the Catholics for Pedophilia booth or the Catholics for Prostitution booth, either. But if I had seen a group at my state fair calling themselves Catholic and handing out material contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church, I would not ASSUME its gravity and scope to a world wide Church. You, however, are free to assume anything that makes you feel good. You have done a great deal of it on this thread.

 

[RebeccaJ]

So…to most Catholics, abortion would be put in the same category as murder or rape–at least in terms of consequences, but it isn’t.

Really? No. You are wrong. Most Catholics do not think this way. I have run across only one who does, and he converted to mormonism.

…and by your own statements, most Catholics aren’t aware of that. I can’t help but wonder why that is. It’s just odd to me, I suppose.

I’m sure it is, considering you aren’t grasping anything a Catholic is telling you. I’m not sure if this is by choice, or you just really cannot get outside your mormon view to understand another.

I mean…what in the word do attempting violence against the Pope or a Bishop, defiling the Host, and having an abortion have in common? The first two? Yeah…those are deliberate acts of sacrilege. The last one?

You know, it can be explained again, or, you can go back and read what has already been explained.

Not so much. A Mortal sin, of course–but more serious, or more ‘rebellious against the church’ than, say, murdering an infant or raping one?

Not all sins are rebellion against the Church. Why do you think these are rebellion against the Church?

Actually… NAMBLA is doing precisely that for pedophilia, there are quite a few organizations that are campaigning to make prostitution legal, several for ‘right to die’ organizations…and yes, there are Catholics involved in all of those, as well. Not to mention the number of judges and people who still think that ‘the woman was asking for it’ and excusing the rapist. There are people and organizations for the support of almost everything, Rebecca. Yet Catholicism hasn’t put pedophilia on the latae sententiae list, nor is euthanasia there.

You don’t see laws being passed in every western country that legalizes your list of sins here. You don’t see Catholics, by the millions, going against Church teaching in regards to these sins. In other words, abortion is on a scale that is huge. In the realm of millions of Catholics not in communion with the Church because they are defying Church teaching.

If there comes a time where the same problem is had with these other types of sins, you can look to see if it shows up as specifically directed by the Church that excommunication is the penalty.

…

Beyond that, when you have reduced our faith to a list of rules, you have ceased to understand Catholicism. (If there ever was an understanding.)

 

[dianaiad]

I have never said it was unimportant for Catholics to know about canon law, I said there are things it is far more important for them to know. And I’ve said this many times, for example: “As I said before, most Catholics are a lot more familiar with Catholic doctrine and moral law than they are with canon law. And though I wish more Catholics were familiar with canon law, it is far more important that they are familiar with doctrine and moral law.”

I think you’re capable of understanding the idea of relative importance, that something can be valuable and important even if other things are far more valuable and important.

Knowledge of the U.S. copyright laws is very valuable and important. But for the average citizen, knowledge of basic traffic laws is far and away more valuable and important. American schools recognize this, and students tend to learn a lot more about the latter than the former.

I think it’s very valuable for Christians to have some knowledge of biblical languages like Greek. But I think it is far and away more important for them to believe in Jesus. As a missionary or catechist, I would most definitely begin with the latter.

While I am quite capable of understanding ‘relative importance,’ aspirant, I can’t help but think that your example misses the mark. It is true that most American citizens are going to need a comprehensive knowledge of traffic laws more than they do copyright laws…unless they are actively in danger of violating those laws. Right now, for instance, the average teenager who downloads pirated music from the internet NEEDS to know about the possible consequences of that violation at least as much as he needs to know about the meaning of curb colors in terms of parking violations. More, in fact…because a parking ticket can be $50, while violating copyrights can cost you thousands of dollars.

I also have to wonder at the idea that knowing about latae sententiae excommunication in regard to abortion is of relative unimportance. How can that possibly BE? Excommunication is THE most severe form of discipline that the church can impose, and here is an act that not only MAY result in excommunication, it WILL result in it…instantly. I hope that you will excuse me, but don’t you think that it is of ‘relatively GREAT importance’ that Catholics be told that not only is abortion a mortal sin, like murder, rape…all the other sins that are listed as such, but that getting one gets you EXCOMMUNICATED? One extra sentence; “Getting an abortion results in excommunication.” Six words.Takes three seconds if you talk slow. I don’t see where there are many more important things that a Catholic must learn that eliminates the time required to say those six words.

It is as important as anything else, and more important than most.

You and I have read the text and have some rudimentary understanding of it. But any good canon lawyer would tell us that we probably think we understand it better than we actually do, since we’re reading it without much knowledge of the guiding principles of canon law.

I am not a canon lawyer. I am, however, a speaker and reader of English…and I also have a rudimentary knowledge of Latin. Very rudimentary, true…but still. The words describing the results of getting an abortion are not cloaked in obscurity. There are no loopholes aside from the loopholes that apply to all sinners. If you understand the nature of the act, you understand the results, and you deliberately choose, in the face of that understanding, to get an abortion–then you are incurring the consequences of that decision, which is excommunication. Instant, ‘latae sententiae’ excommunication. That’s very plain. Simple language. Clear terminology…and there is no parsing of “what ‘is’ is.”

The way to reconcile yourself is to get that excommunication lifted. You can’t prevent it except by not committing the act that causes it.

The ONLY reason I can think of for the church NOT to tell the average Catholic that excommunication is the instant result of getting an abortion is because one of the prerequisites is that the sinner understands that excommunication IS the result of committing the sin–and the church doesn’t want that to happen to people. It may be a sort of protective loophole right there…what they don’t know won’t hurt them. However, if THAT’s the reason, why declare abortion to be one of the sins that result in it in the first place?

No, if you are going to declare that this consequence follows that action, then you really need to tell people that. It is, seems to me, of very great relative importance…especially considering the percentage of abortions obtained by Catholics. Don’t you think that if more Catholic women KNEW that abortion wasn’t ‘just’ a mortal sin, but that getting one means instant excommunication, it might make some of them think again? Six words? Two seconds?

Your argument that this is of little relative importance is rather like saying that knowing the rules of traffic on the freeway is more important than knowing the traffic laws around schools. The thing is, it is JUST as important to know one as it is to know the other. In fact, knowing how to drive around schools is going to save more lives than obeying the speed limit on the interstate.

I’ll deal with the rest of this on another post…

 

[dianaiad]

continued…

That’s one of the tricky things about law. To choose an example from American law, reading Title VII, however well written it is, is not necessarily sufficient for a citizen to fully understand how Title VII will apply in an actual case.

There was a time when the norms of the Latin Catholic Church allowed bishops to establish formal devotion to a saint, at least within their own sees. In 1160, the law was changed to reserve that right to the Holy See: only the Pope could canonize. Hildegard of Bingen died after the law was changed. If you simply read the law of the Latin Church at that time, you would think her canonization would be reserved to the Pope. In reality, this would be a mistake. As far as we can tell, formal devotion to St. Hildegard of Bingen was legally established by the local bishop. (She is now listed in the Roman Martyrology as a saint, complete with a hagiography and a feast day.) How could the local bishop do this legally? The principles of canon law inform us that the law only applies to a region after it has been promulgated in that region. Simply reading the law is not always sufficient to understand how it applies.

There doesn’t seem to be a problem with the interpretation of latae sententiae excommunication, though…there is nothing about it being reserved to the Holy See to IMPOSE. The imposition is instant, tied specifically to the sin…and the only fuzziness is in regard to who is allowed to LIFT it. There is no question about whether it needs lifting, though.

Sure. But far, far more important that Catholics know the moral law regarding abortion.

Only in the sense that it is more important for a cop to know how to restrain a prisoner than it is to know that if he doesn’t do it right, the culprit will shoot him. I don’t know about you, but understanding the consequences of an act are as important as understanding the morality of an act, especially if those consequences are as serious as excommunication.

You think more Catholics are aware of the canonical consequences of using physical force against the Pope than they are the canonical consequences procuring a completed abortion? I think not.

Where did THAT come from? I don’t imagine that any Catholic who is unaware of latae sententiae excommunication in regard to abortion has a clue about the same thing in regard to an attack on the Pope. Actually, your point about ‘more important things to know’ is a valid argument in regard to most of the acts which result in latae sententiae excommunication, since in order to actually commit them, one almost needs to be a priest; the regular lay Catholic would find it a little hard to commit them.

However, anybody who is pregnant, or in on the decision making regarding that pregnancy, can have an abortion. THIS is a sin that can be…and IS…committed frequently; according to every statistic I’ve looked at (and I"ve looked at a LOT of studies…)right now around a quarter of pregnant Catholic women end their pregnancies with an abortion.

That tells me that understanding the consequences of getting one is a very important thing. Understanding the moral law regarding it is vital, yes…but evidently that’s not working too well. Since the church HAS declared this ultimate consequence, don’t you think that it is vital to TELL people about it?

Shoot, not doing so is like the speed traps in the small towns; enacting the speed limits, posting them…and then not telling the drivers that breaking that law will result in an impounded car, ten days on a road crew and a felony conviction. I think that it is rather important to TELL people these things, y’know?

continued on next post…whew, this is long.

 

[dianaiad]

continued…again…

I don’t think most Catholics are aware of either, but I do think more are aware of the canonical consequences regarding abortion than most of the other matters. This has been my experience, anyway.

As I have explained before, the purpose of catechetics is teaching Catholic doctrine and morality. We are free to study canon law, and I think it is very good when we do, but doctrine and morality are far more important.

They are ‘more important…’ only slightly. Canon law which is not likely to affect them is one thing; feel free to put that on the ‘if you want to…’ shelf. But canon law which has such a huge effect on so many Catholics? That’s important.

Basically…if this applies to all who have abortions, then it is as important to tell people about as it is to tell them about the doctrine/morality of it. It is vital.

If, however, it only applies to those who KNOW that getting an abortion will result in latae sententiae excommunication, and y’all don’t tell people about it for that reason, why bother putting it on the list? You are, by not telling everybody about this, sabotaging the reason for declaring it in the first place!

It affects only the ones who already know the canon law and its consequences.

I know.

Do you know how illogical this looks to me? You declare a consequence for an action that applies only to those who know that this consequence will result…and then y’all don’t tell people about it. This negates the whole idea of declaring the consequence in the first place.

Most have some basic knowledge. But believe me, there are points of canon law with which even trained, full-time canon lawyers are not very familiar.

Yep…but this isn’t one of those points.

Much like civil lawyers-- you can consult a tax attorney with questions about criminal law, and he’ll probably know some stuff, but he’ll probably refer you to a criminal lawyer. And vice-versa.

Yes…but y’know what? Nobody needs to be incredibly familiar with the US Tax Code to understand “if you don’t pay your taxes, you will get assessed interest and penalties and you might go to jail.”

As in the code of canon law, the assumption is that the determination has been made; the taxpayer actually did DODGE. That’s settled; these are the consequences.

In the canon law, the assumption is that the determination has been made; somebody got the abortion; knowingly, understanding the consequences. That’s settled. This is the consequence.

If understanding doctrine and moral law is more important, then it seems rather clear that someone would KNOW then that getting an abortion was against Catholic doctrine and moral law. Knowing that, then the act of getting an abortion would be deliberately breaking that moral law; the mortal sin part…

So if the only other requirement for incurring a latae sententiae excommunication is that one must know that a latae sententiae excommunication happens the instant you get an abortion, then telling people this is JUST as important as teaching them the moral law and the doctrine regarding it. If it is not, then why have abortion on the list in the first place?

By the way, for anyone who does not already know this: In danger of death any priest, even one deprived of legal faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve a penitent not only of sin but excommunication too.

 

[aspirant]

It is true that most American citizens are going to need a comprehensive knowledge of traffic laws more than they do copyright laws…unless they are actively in danger of violating those laws.

I think a lot of Americans do violate copyright laws in one way or another, sometimes knowingly and sometimes unwittingly. But one of the more significant differences between American civil law and Catholic canon law is that ignorance of the former cannot exclude you from the penalties!

a parking ticket can be $50, while violating copyrights can cost you thousands of dollars.

And crossing against a light can cost one’s life!

Excommunication is THE most severe form of discipline that the church can impose, and here is an act that not only MAY result in excommunication, it WILL result in it…instantly.

If the requisite conditions are met, including knowledge of it.

don’t you think that it is of ‘relatively GREAT importance’ that Catholics be told that not only is abortion a mortal sin…

If all the conditions for mortal sin are present.

don’t you think that it is of ‘relatively GREAT importance’ that Catholics be told that not only is abortion a mortal sin… but that getting one gets you EXCOMMUNICATED?

But it doesn’t excommunicate you if you don’t know the law and its consequence.

It makes no sense to me that your objection is “people should know that they will be excommunicated” when only people who do already know it can be excommunicated.

I agree that the law is important. I agree that people should know about it. But no one who is ignorant of law is in danger of being excommunicated by it, so it doesn’t make sense to suggest that the danger of excommunication is the reason to inform them.

I don’t see where there are many more important things that a Catholic must learn

This can only be because you do not understand the Catholic faith.

The words describing the results of getting an abortion are not cloaked in obscurity.

Yet your understanding of what excommunication means and entails has had to be corrected several times.

If you understand the nature of the act, you understand the results, and you deliberately choose, in the face of that understanding, to get an abortion–then you are incurring the consequences of that decision, which is excommunication.

If the other conditions necessary for incurring the excommunication also apply.

The thing is, it is JUST as important to know one as it is to know the other.

No, it really, really is not. And the only way you could possibly consider knowledge of canon law to be as important as knowledge of the Gospel is a serious misunderstanding of Catholicism.

 

[dianaiad]

Really? No. You are wrong. Most Catholics do not think this way. I have run across only one who does, and he converted to mormonism.

Careful, there…you guys have to make up your minds on this. Either abortion is considered worse than the above sins, in which case y’all have to lay off making me PROVE that you believe it is, or it isn’t, in which case you are going to have to explain to me why ‘most Catholics’ don’t think that abortion is in the realm of mortal sins, like murder or rape.

…and you ARE going to have to explain to me exactly how 'Most Catholics do not think this way" when you specifically have been writing that they actualy do NOT see abortion as being more serious than murder–or rather, that they do not consider that having one results in more serious consequences than commiting other mortal sins.

However, if Catholics honestly think that abortion is different/worst than murder, then why are so many of you GETTING them?

I’m sure it is, considering you aren’t grasping anything a Catholic is telling you. I’m not sure if this is by choice, or you just really cannot get outside your mormon view to understand another.

You know, it can be explained again, or, you can go back and read what has already been explained.

I can…and I’m getting some very contradictory arguments. Abortion is/is not worse than murder. Catholics do/do not understand that the consequences are worse for abortion than they are for murder. It is/is not important that abortion is seen by the church to be in a different class of sin than murder or rape, because the church applies the most serious consequences to abortion, where it does not to other mortal sins.

Rebecca, how can I ‘grasp’ a wind that is blowing at me from several different directions?

Not all sins are rebellion against the Church. Why do you think these are rebellion against the Church?

Why is ABORTION considered ‘rebellion against the church’ in a way that murder is not? It makes no sense. The rest of the sins on that list ARE rebellions specifically against the church, that’s pretty obvious…but abortion is not a sin against the CHURCH any more than murder is…it is a sin against moral law, against the specific victim, against God…but it is not directed against the church. Every other act on that list requires that the sinner actually be THINKING about the church when it is committed; they are ACTIVE ACTS OF REBELLION against church law and authority. In order to commit them, one must either BE a Catholic (most likely a Catholic in official religious life) and be aiming specifically AT Catholicism.

Abortion, however? Since non-Catholics who are not one whit concerned about Catholicism at the time can do this, I do not see why it is on the list. However, since it is on the list, I SURE don’t see why the church doesn’t think it’s important to TELL you guys about it.

You don’t see laws being passed in every western country that legalizes your list of sins here. You don’t see Catholics, by the millions, going against Church teaching in regards to these sins. In other words, abortion is on a scale that is huge. In the realm of millions of Catholics not in communion with the Church because they are defying Church teaching.[/quiote]

Most western countries now have laws that legalize euthanasia and birth control, too…but I don’t see THOSE things on that list.

That aside, let’s agree that the church had good reason to put abortion on that list. Why isn’t it making very sure that y’all KNOW that it is on the list? Why were you getting upset at me for finding out that it is on the list, and why are you defending all the Catholic women who have abortions, by saying 'no, they aren’t excommunicated…it’s all right because they didn’t know that they WOULD be excommunicated if they had abortions."

You really need to figure out what it is you are mad at, Rebecca. It’s no skin off my nose that abortion is on this list. I just think that since it IS, it is rather important that all Catholics know about it, so that the declaration of this consequence might actually do some good–like, perhaps, preventing a few abortions.
RebeccaJ;6235919:

If there comes a time where the same problem is had with these other types of sins, you can look to see if it shows up as specifically directed by the Church that excommunication is the penalty.

Again, WHAT is your argument here?

…

Beyond that, when you have reduced our faith to a list of rules, you have ceased to understand Catholicism. (If there ever was an understanding.)

I have not ‘reduced [your] faith to a list of rules,’ Rebecca. I simply saw a list of actions that result in latae sententiae excommunication, and I have told you about it. I am having a very hard time understanding your objections to that. Are you unhappy that you now KNOW about this, where you did not know it before?

Why?

 

[aspirant]

They are ‘more important…’ only slightly.

They are vastly more important.

But canon law which has such a huge effect on so many Catholics? That’s important.

No one has said it is unimportant.

if this applies to all who have abortions

And we’ve long since established that it doesn’t.

it is as important to tell people about as it is to tell them about the doctrine/morality of it.

No. Doctrine and morality are far more important.

If, however, it only applies to those who KNOW that getting an abortion will result in latae sententiae excommunication, and y’all don’t tell people about it for that reason

No one has said that people are not told for this reason. This is nothing more than fanciful fabrication on your part.

I know.

I might believe that if your words didn’t repeatedly suggest otherwise.

Yes…but y’know what? Nobody needs to be incredibly familiar with the US Tax Code to understand “if you don’t pay your taxes, you will get assessed interest and penalties and you might go to jail.”

The laws concerning who has to pay taxes, which taxes, how much, and so forth, however, are not quite so simple. That’s why so many people seek help, often in the form of professional assistance.

If understanding doctrine and moral law is more important, then it seems rather clear that someone would KNOW then that getting an abortion was against Catholic doctrine and moral law.

And I think most Catholics are aware of this.

So if the only other requirement for incurring a latae sententiae excommunication is that one must know that a latae sententiae excommunication happens the instant you get an abortion

But it’s not, as you’ve already been told.

 

[dianaiad]

I think a lot of Americans do violate copyright laws in one way or another, sometimes knowingly and sometimes unwittingly. But one of the more significant differences between American civil law and Catholic canon law is that ignorance of the former cannot exclude you from the penalties!

Indeed. Which raises the question; why impose a penalty at all if a: not knowing about it excludes you from it and b: the church doesn’t TELL you? It makes imposing the penalty in the first place an excercise in futility, seems to me.

And crossing against a light can cost one’s life!

If the requisite conditions are met, including knowledge of it.

If all the conditions for mortal sin are present.

But it doesn’t excommunicate you if you don’t know the law and its consequence.

I understand that. I always have understood that. It is irrelevent. What you are doing is like telling me that I’m wrong when I tell you that the penalty for 1st degree murder with special circumstances is death because maybe the guy didn’t DO it.

Well, if he didn’t DO it, then he wouldn’t be guilty of murder…and thus the penalty wouldn’t apply. It is taken as a given that once it has been determined that the guy actually committed a 1st degree murder with special circumstances THEN the penalty is death.

JUST like it is a given that only AFTER it is determined that the person obtaining the abortion ‘qualifies…’ THEN the condition of latae sententiae excommunication exists. This isn’t a matter of determining guilt…it’s a matter of what happens AFTER guilt has been determined.

It makes no sense to me that your objection is “people should know that they will be excommunicated” when only people who do already know it can be excommunicated.

Why bother declaring that excommunication is the result, if you are going to take steps to ensure that it won’t be? If the church thinks it is important enough to declare latae sententiae excommunication for abortion, then it is important enough to tell people that so that it imposing it is actually useful in preventing abortion.

I agree that the law is important. I agree that people should know about it. But no one who is ignorant of law is in danger of being excommunicated by it, so it doesn’t make sense to suggest that the danger of excommunication is the reason to inform them.p

The reason to inform them is to add another layer of deterance to the act. Again, it makes NO sense to declare a penalty if you don’t want anybody to know about it…and you don’t want anybody to know about it because if they DID, they would incur it. That’s…incredibly illogical.

This can only be because you do not understand the Catholic faith

Yet your understanding of what excommunication means and entails has had to be corrected several times.

What my understanding of what excommunication MEANS is also irrelevant. What IS relevant is that excommunication (whatever that actually means to Catholics) is the most severe penalty/remedy that the church can impose. Whatever it actually IS, there is nothing worse that the church can do.

If the other conditions necessary for incurring the excommunication also apply.

No, it really, really is not. And the only way you could possibly consider knowledge of canon law to be as important as knowledge of the Gospel is a serious misunderstanding of Catholicism.

Knowing that getting an abortion will get you excommunicated does NOT mean you have to get a PhD in canon law, any more than knowing enough to stop at a red light means you have to have a degree in criminal traffic laws.

In sum…if being ignorant of a law is an excuse to break it, and excuses you from the consequences of breaking it, why pass a law in the first place?

The whole point of passing a law saying you should stop at a traffic light is to keep the drivers and the pedestrians safe. One determines the relative importance of the law by the penalties assessed upon those who break it. This is why running a stop light will get you a ticket and a fine—but driving drunk will get your license suspended, your car impounded and a felony on your record. Lawmakers OBVIOUSLY consider that drunk driving is a wee bit more serious a crime than running a stop light.

the church has seen fit to assess THE most serious penalty it has…excommunication…upon those who get abortions. By this act we can see that it considers abortion to be very, very serious; worth using this most serious of remedies against those who commit this sin.

One of the reasons that governments assess greater penalties to one infraction than to another is to increase the deterance factor; people who know that they are going to go to jail for a year are less likely to drive drunk than people who think that they are only going to have to pay a fine.

…but in order for this deterring factor to work, people have to KNOW about the more severe penalty…and if not knowing about it excuses them from it, then it was useless to declare that harsher penalty in the first place.

So. the church has declared that people who get abortions are excommunicated…but only if they know they will be excommunicated. I mean, really…why bother?

 

[sablouwho]

Right now, for instance, the average teenager who downloads pirated music from the internet NEEDS to know about the possible consequences of that violation at least as much as he needs to know about the meaning of curb colors in terms of parking violations.

Spoken like a true Southern Californian! (I am one too, dianaiad, and unfortunately I’ve had more than a few costly parking tickets here in LA).

Sorry, just felt the desire to add some levity to this thread.

Carry on…

 

[aspirant]

I understand that. I always have understood that. It is irrelevent.

The words you choose frequently suggest that you do not understand it at all, and it is far from irrelevant.

if you are going to take steps to ensure that it won’t be?

Where do you come up with this stuff? No steps are being taken to “ensure it won’t be.”

it makes NO sense to declare a penalty if you don’t want anybody to know about it.

And who has said they don’t want anyone to know about it? Please, share with us.

you don’t want anybody to know about it

If you’ve read anything I’ve written, you know that’s not true.

What my understanding of what excommunication MEANS is also irrelevant.

It’s not irrelevant to your prior claims. You claimed: “I am, however, a speaker and reader of English…and I also have a rudimentary knowledge of Latin… The words describing the results of getting an abortion are not cloaked in obscurity.” But you have demonstrated, through your ignorance of the meaning of excommunication, that your ability to read English and a little Latin were not sufficient to understand “the results of getting an abortion.”

if being ignorant of a law is an excuse to break it

It’s not, nor has anyone said it is.

 

[Stephen168]

I have not ‘reduced [your] faith to a list of rules,’ Rebecca. I simply saw a list of actions that result in latae sententiae excommunication, and I have told you about it. I am having a very hard time understanding your objections to that. Are you unhappy that you now KNOW about this, where you did not know it before?

Which code of Canon Law states excommunication latae sententaie are sins of the worst order?

 

[Stephen168]

As I said, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me that a Catholic would be carefully taught the catachism–and have this rather important bit of information witheld

The penalty for abortion is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but feel free to continue acting like you were never been told. I don’t want to stop your fun.

 

[Stephen168]

Indeed. Which raises the question; why impose a penalty at all if a: not knowing about it excludes you from it and b: the church doesn’t TELL you? It makes imposing the penalty in the first place an excercise in futility, seems to me.

I understand that. I always have understood that. It is irrelevent. What you are doing is like telling me that I’m wrong when I tell you that the penalty for 1st degree murder with special circumstances is death because maybe the guy didn’t DO it.

Well, if he didn’t DO it, then he wouldn’t be guilty of murder…and thus the penalty wouldn’t apply. It is taken as a given that once it has been determined that the guy actually committed a 1st degree murder with special circumstances THEN the penalty is death.

JUST like it is a given that only AFTER it is determined that the person obtaining the abortion ‘qualifies…’ THEN the condition of latae sententiae excommunication exists. This isn’t a matter of determining guilt…it’s a matter of what happens AFTER guilt has been determined.

Why bother declaring that excommunication is the result, if you are going to take steps to ensure that it won’t be? If the church thinks it is important enough to declare latae sententiae excommunication for abortion, then it is important enough to tell people that so that it imposing it is actually useful in preventing abortion.

The reason to inform them is to add another layer of deterance to the act. Again, it makes NO sense to declare a penalty if you don’t want anybody to know about it…and you don’t want anybody to know about it because if they DID, they would incur it. That’s…incredibly illogical.

What my understanding of what excommunication MEANS is also irrelevant. What IS relevant is that excommunication (whatever that actually means to Catholics) is the most severe penalty/remedy that the church can impose. Whatever it actually IS, there is nothing worse that the church can do.

Knowing that getting an abortion will get you excommunicated does NOT mean you have to get a PhD in canon law, any more than knowing enough to stop at a red light means you have to have a degree in criminal traffic laws.

In sum…if being ignorant of a law is an excuse to break it, and excuses you from the consequences of breaking it, why pass a law in the first place?

The whole point of passing a law saying you should stop at a traffic light is to keep the drivers and the pedestrians safe. One determines the relative importance of the law by the penalties assessed upon those who break it. This is why running a stop light will get you a ticket and a fine—but driving drunk will get your license suspended, your car impounded and a felony on your record. Lawmakers OBVIOUSLY consider that drunk driving is a wee bit more serious a crime than running a stop light.

the church has seen fit to assess THE most serious penalty it has…excommunication…upon those who get abortions. By this act we can see that it considers abortion to be very, very serious; worth using this most serious of remedies against those who commit this sin.

One of the reasons that governments assess greater penalties to one infraction than to another is to increase the deterance factor; people who know that they are going to go to jail for a year are less likely to drive drunk than people who think that they are only going to have to pay a fine.

…but in order for this deterring factor to work, people have to KNOW about the more severe penalty…and if not knowing about it excuses them from it, then it was useless to declare that harsher penalty in the first place.

So. the church has declared that people who get abortions are excommunicated…but only if they know they will be excommunicated. I mean, really…why bother?

The penalty for abortion is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but feel free to continue acting like you were never been told. I don’t want to stop your fun.

 

[Stephen168]

If you’ve read anything I’ve written, you know that’s not true.

She’s not here to learn.

 

[Stephen168]

I think Diana has this tendency to do exactly what she accuses non-Mormons of doing when it comes to Mormon doctrine.

It gets under her skin when a non-Mormon presents Mormon doctrine in such a way that she knows to be false.

I dont think it she sees she is doing and has done the same thing with Catholic doctrine.

As a non-Catholic she is falsely presenting Catholic doctrine, but I dont think she realizes it. She really thinks she is presenting it accurately, just like non-Mormons think they present Mormon doctrines accurately.

Eventually, hopefully, she will be able to see this. Right now, I dont think she can.

I think you are right. I find it just amazing.

 

[Marie5890]

I think you are right. I find it just amazing.

Stephen, in good faith, Diana does try to understand. She may not always grasp it, but she keeping coming back and trying. And I do see her trying to put her own personal bias aside in order to understand better.

Trust me, it’s not easy for for Mormons to understand Catholicism and vice versa…They are very different faith creatures in many ways.

I give Diana great credit to keep trying.
It’s fair to say, in my view anyway, she often tries harder to understand Catholicism than many Catholics try to understand Mormonism.

It cuts both ways.

 

[dianaiad]

They are vastly more important.

No one has said it is unimportant.

You did, in effect, when you made the claim that it’s ok that Catholics do not know about it and that this is acceptable because other things are more important.

After all, the whole point of ‘relative importance’ is the idea that there is a hierarchy of importance being considered…and something that isn’t important enough to know about can’t be considered all that important.

And we’ve long since established that it doesn’t.

No. Doctrine and morality are far more important.

No one has said that people are not told for this reason. This is nothing more than fanciful fabrication on your part.

Then why aren’t they told? As I have mentioned, it’s not all that hard. Two seconds. Six words. Stuff it in a pause during catechism class when you talk about doctrine and morality as it applies to abortion. You know, …“getting an abortion gets you excommunicated.” There you go. Easy.

That’s a pretty serious consequence to omit mentioning…and considering that the only way one can AVOID incurring that consequence (other than not getting the abortion in the first place) is by not knowing about the consequence, what other reason could there be for not telling people?

That…it’s not IMPORTANT to know that the most severe penalty that the church can impose is automatic in this instance?

I might believe that if your words didn’t repeatedly suggest otherwise.

Aspirant, that is a huge strawman. I have mentioned many times that I am aware that any sin, in order to be a sin, must be deliberate, and committed by someone who is well aware of the nature of the act and its consequences. That view of sin is shared by Catholic and LDS alike. This red herring is starting to stink to high heaven, y’know? NONE of ‘my words repeatedly suggest’ anything else. This isn’t about the nuances of the differences between what excommunication means to Catholics vs. Mormons. It’s not about the determination of guilt. It is about the fact that excommunication for both LDS and Catholics is the most severe form of discipline imposed upon the members, and it is imposed as a penalty/remedy only AFTER the fact of the sin has been established. In the case of abortion, it is a given that the guilty party knew what s/he was doing, knew the gravity of the act, and knew that excommunication was the automatic result.

I’m really tired of being told that I don’t understand anything because Mormon excommunication is different from Catholic excommunication, and I’m REALLY tired of being told that Catholics do not excommunicate people who get abortions because some people who get abortions aren’t guilty of the sin.

The laws concerning who has to pay taxes, which taxes, how much, and so forth, however, are not quite so simple. That’s why so many people seek help, often in the form of professional assistance.

And I think most Catholics are aware of this.

Not according to what most of you have been telling me lately, right here. In fact, from the firestorm of insults I got, you’d think that no Catholic anywhere knew about it–and that I was being an anti-Catholic bigot to bring this to their attention. I was doing everyone a grave disservice to let them know about it.

But it’s not, as you’ve already been told.

(sigh) No, in fact, I have already been told that it is precisely that; one can commit the sin of abortion; be guilty in every way of the mortal sin that IS abortion, but if one isn’t aware that excommunication is the automatic consequence of it, then one is not excommunicated.

THAT is what I’ve ‘already been told,’ ad nauseum. If one does not qualify because one is not aware that abortion is a sin, then getting the abortion is not a sin. If one does not qualify because one is too young, or not responsible for the decision or action, then one is not guilty of the sin of getting an abortion. In order to suffer the consequence of latae sententiae excommunication, one must be guilty of the sin AND know that excommunication is the result.

Therefore, please do me the courtesy of not revisiting this argument again. When I say ‘getting an abortion’ in relation to the consequence of excommunication, I UNDERSTAND, and have ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD, that it does not apply to those who, even if they actually had a pregnancy terminated by abortion, may not actually be guilty of the sin. It only applies to those whose guilt has been determined; who are actually GUILTY OF THE SIN.

If I have to put this disclaimer in every single post to avoid the strawman argument, I can. I’d rather not, though. I was under the impression that the posters here were bright enough to understand the idea of 'presumption…" and in this case, the presumption is ALWAYS that the person in danger of latae sententiae excommunication is actually guilty of the sin, with all that implies.