Mormon Religion

[dianaiad]

Who’s everybody? Dianaiad reading the Code of Canon Law as though it were civil law, with no understanding of Catholic moral theology, heirarchy, sin and forgiveness?

What is unclear, fuzzy, or complicated about that line in canon law? OR the consequences? The way to get it lifted is an entirely different topic, and so is determining the guilt. According to Catholicism any may be forgiven; this has nothing to do with that, except that repentance for these sins requires an extra step; getting that excommunication lifted. Of course this penalty would not apply to those who are not actually guilty of committing this sin.

By everybody…Rebecca, you didn’t know about this, y’know. It came as a surprise to you. Why didn’t you? Why didn’t half the people who are now getting P’O’d at me?

Perhaps it is best to go back to what John Paul II said, to paraphrase, the Church has nothing to say regarding morals until a person understands the love of God.

Interesting statistic, don’t know that I believe it. But anyway, the Church tells us abortion is a mortal sin. If that isn’t enough, knowing or not knowing an ecclesiastical penalty is the least of the problem.

I have to wonder why it bothers you.

Read my response to answersplease and you’ll get why it 'bothers" me. I actually do not care…except that I AM curious about the nature of a group that prescribes a specific consequence to a specific act…the most serious consequence it has in the arsenal…and then doesn’t tell anybody that they did it. Why bother?

 

[RebeccaJ]

What is unclear, fuzzy, or complicated about that line in canon law? OR the consequences? The way to get it lifted is an entirely different topic, and so is determining the guilt. According to Catholicism any may be forgiven; this has nothing to do with that, except that repentance for these sins requires an extra step; getting that excommunication lifted. Of course this penalty would not apply to those who are not actually guilty of committing this sin.

By everybody…Rebecca, you didn’t know about this, y’know. It came as a surprise to you. Why didn’t you? Why didn’t half the people who are now getting P’O’d at me?

As I said, I don’t care I didn’t know! Seriously. Why would I, or should I? It is like telling me I need to be worried about the civil penalties for some crime I never have an intention of committing. In the case of mortal sin, I already know the consequences for my soul. IF I was ever in a position where I couldn’t make a clear choice, I would seek the advice of a priest.

Read my response to answersplease and you’ll get why it 'bothers" me. I actually do not care…except that I AM curious about the nature of a group that prescribes a specific consequence to a specific act…the most serious consequence it has in the arsenal…and then doesn’t tell anybody that they did it. Why bother?

I don’t think it can be explained any more than it has. St. Augustine was a teacher (I’m not), but he said something I think can be applied here. There is a difference between “having words and having understanding”.

 

[Answersplease]

I think I am coming to see the differences between the Catholic idea of excommunication and the LDS idea…

For the Catholics, it is the sin itself that imposes the excommunication, any pronouncement by their Church is just a clarification in order to avoid general confusion, or at the very least to show the seriousness of the sin to the sinner and others, and to prod the sinner to repentance because the excommunication makes them realize the seriousness of the sin.

My questions do not so much deal with the differences in the nature of excommunication as they do the reasons they are imposed.

The excommunication is really imposed by the sinner on themselves, since all sin cuts people off from Jesus Christ. Christians are grafted onto the True Vine which is Jesus Christ, in this manner, Christians become part of the Body of Christ (the True Vine).

When Christians commit sin, they cut themselves off from Jesus Christ, the sin is why they are no longer worthy to receive the Eucharist. Excommunication is just a formal term for this state of being in sin.

However, venial sins are forgiven during the Catholic mass, and more serious sins are forgiven in the sacrament of Confession when the priest absolves the sinner “in persona Christi.”

Repentance can only come after the sin has been commited, because there is no need to repent before the sin is commited. And the sin itself causes the automatic and instant excommunication. Repent means to turn away from, there is no need to turn away from a path you have not taken.

One thing both faiths have in common is this: excommunication is the most severe penalty/remedy imposed,

The Catholic Church cannot cut anyone off from God, the Holy Bible says nobody can take a Child of God out of Jesus Christ’s hand.

The sin itself cuts the sinner off from Jesus Christ, the sinners excommunicate themselves by committing their sins.

The Catholic Church just formally makes known (pronounces) the excommunication for reasons I have given in an earlier post on this thread.

and both faiths look on excommunication as a ‘remedy,’ rather than a punishment. That is, both faiths impose it as a way to help the sinner repent and come back.

One reason (among several reasons), the Catholic Church pronounces an excommunication is to show the seriousness of the sin to the sinner, then the sinner might repent because they have realized the seriousness of the sin. Excommunication is used as a prod to repentance.

Also, in both faiths, if the sinner is NOT repentant, it is perceived as punishment and rejection.

The Catholic Church cannot reject anyone, because it is the Body of Christ. This is the reason that the Catholic Church will never infallibly declare that someone has gone to hell or that someone will definitely go to hell. The Catholic Church cannot judge anyone in that particular way.

Christians who are in a state of excommunication still have a chance of making it to heaven, even if the excommunication is never formally lifted. It is God who will judge, no other person or organization can judge.

By the same token, Catholics have no right to criticize what we believe excommunication does; it’s our faith. It does what we say it does, when WE do it.

Well, I don’t doubt the sincerity of former Mormons, and there are many here, and there are many former Mormon websites.

Now I understand that there could be a former Mormon who is incorrect, but their claims can be backed up by resources on the internet that show quotes from current and past Mormon leaders, Mormon publications, and Mormon Scriptures.

When we are discussing who GETS excommunicated, I point out that it’s a little…hypocritical…of Catholics to criticize Mormons for attaching excommunications to specific sins, when WE don’t have a list of sins that automatically result in excommunication, but Catholics do.

I answered this point earlier in the first to paragraphs, here is a short synopsis:

For the Catholics, it is the sin itself that imposes the excommunication, any pronouncement by their Church is just a formal clarification in order to avoid general confusion, or at the very least to show the seriousness of the sin to the sinner and others, and to prod the sinner to repentance because the excommunication makes them realize the seriousness of the sin.

Some serious sins have no confusion, and therefore they don’t need a formally pronouced excommunication, because the person who did the sin was already informally excommunicated by the very act of the sin. That person’s sins have cut them off from Jesus Christ, and they are unworthy to receive the Eucharist. Again no formal excummonication is neccessary because the sins in question have no confusion about them.

Sins that do have much confusion about them, need a formally pronounced excommunication in order to show that the Catholic Church really considers the sin to be quite serious. Abortion is an example, many Catholics don’t consider abortion to be a serious sin even after the Catholic Church has stated that it is, so to make the point even more clearly, the Catholic Church formally pronounces the excommunication.

Continued in the next post…

 

[Answersplease]

At the same time we are told that we apply excommunication unevenly, the latae sententiae excommunications are defended by saying that not everybody who has an abortion is actually guilty of the sin of abortion, and even if they are, if they don’t know about the latae sententiae excommunication part, they don’t get excommunicated.

It is a double standard that has me pulling my hair out.

Can you understand why I am getting frustrated with this entire conversation? I’m TRYING here, but it’s not working.

 

[Answersplease]

When we are discussing who GETS excommunicated, I point out that it’s a little…hypocritical…of Catholics to criticize Mormons for attaching excommunications to specific sins, when WE don’t have a list of sins that automatically result in excommunication, but Catholics do.

God bless you again Dianaiad.

There seems to be some confusion about how and why the Catholic Church says someone has been excommunicated.

First we need a little foundation for the topic.

The Holy Bible states that all sin cuts people off from Jesus Christ who Christians and Messianic Jews believe is the one true God.

All sins informally excommunicate people, and makes them unworthy to receive the Eucharist, however they are not totally cut off.

Venial sins are forgiven during the Catholic Mass, but other more serious sins are not and require the sacrament of confession.

So now we can finally answer your question, why do some sins incurr automatic and instant excommunication and other sins don’t.

The answer is that all sins incurr automatic and instant informal excommunication, it is just that some excommunications need to be formally pronounced due to the reasons stated below, either latae sententiae or ferendae sententiae.

Latae sententiae when there is no doubt about the sin.

Ferendae sententiae when a court must rule that a sin was actually commited.

So why are some excommunications formally pronounced and others not?

The answer comes in several reasons:

1.) To show the seriousness of the sin to the person who did it and prod them to repentance.

2.) To show anyone else who is familliar with the person that they should not emulate the persons actions.

3.) Because it is common knowledge that some sins are always wrong and contemptable. But there are some serious sins that some people might think is “no big deal” or “it is not really serious.”
Answersplease;6232754:

To further clarify reason #3,

The Catholic Church must clearly show their position on certain sins that some people might think are “no big deal” or “not really serious.” So the Catholic Church formally pronounces the excommunication in order to show that the Catholic Church really does consider the sins in question to be quite serious.

Other serious sins don’t need that kind of formally pronounced excommunication, because it is common knowledge that those sins are always wrong

and always seriously sinful.

4.) The subject is ambiguous and there must be “no confusion” about the Catholic Churches position on the matter.

I hope that I got everything correct, I apologize to the Catholics if I got some things wrong.

Again, God bless you Dianaiad.

 

[Stephen168]

I think it is good when understanding is achieved.

As I try to understand why someone who is trying to understand can not understand, a question comes to mind. How important are the Ten Commandments to the moral teaching of Mormonism?
The reason I ask is, it seems she assumes the Catholic Church would write a code of canon law which would supersede the Ten Commandments. I would also think if Mormonism was grounded in the Ten Commandments like the Catholic Church they could not change their teaching on abortion like they have. So I am wondering; in the total scheme (various sources) of Mormon moral teaching; how important are the Ten Commandments?

 

[Stephen168]

Perhaps what Rebecca means by all mortal sins having the same consequences is that they have the same eternal consequences. Mortal sin cuts one off from God, symbolized in being cut off from the Eucharist. If one dies in mortal sin, they go to Hell.

Or I could be wrong.

By assuming Rebecca meant something different than eternal consequences, I now wonder what the Mormon understanding for the purpose of Church is? And is that a factor in why someone who is trying to understand can not understand.

 

[Marie5890]

In a general sense, I look at the agrumentative/adversarial tones of this thread by some, comes from the same basic human reaction of people from both faith traditions.

Mormons looks at Catholic beliefs and think…“THATS NUTS!!”
Catholics look at Mormon beliefs and think…“THATS NUTS!!”



And I say that in all Christian love for both faith traditions.

And then comes the inevitable attempts at explanations, attempts at proving one’s point either for their faith tradition, or against another.

Of course both are born from the basic foundational premise that each holds.
That their Church is THE church, the one founded by Christ, holding His authority.

All of this sometimes, IMO anyway, can get in the way of sincerely trying to understand another in love because one so often feels the need to either defend their own faith tradition due to inerrant or unfair attacks, or point out the weaknesses of other’s.

It’s almost like competitive nature of human beings showing up religion rather than the battle field of the sports arena.

Just a general observation too early in the morning without enough coffee yet …

Have a good day all…

 

[Stephen168]

But when I read something like this:

By the same token, Catholics have no right to criticize what we believe excommunication does; it’s our faith. It does what we say it does, when WE do it.

But when Mormons are criticized for the way we apply it…on one hand being told that we don’t care about the sinner, but have a list of sins that, if committed, WILL get you ‘ex’d,’ and on the other, criticized for excommunicating one person, but not another who committed what looks like a similar sin… or when we are criticized because our version of excommunication doesn’t look like YOUR version of excommunication…then a few things arise, and I start comparing apples to apples.

I have to wonder. Instead of trying to explain the actions of the Mormon Church and why their actions are rational, with her last breath will try to make the Catholic Church seem just as irrational. She can not or will not defend the actions of the Mormon Church. Is this someone trying to understand or a little girl throwing a fit? Personally, I’m not sure if the actions of the Mormon Church are rational or not because I never saw a thought out explanation.

 

[Marie5890]

But when I read something like this:

I have to wonder. Instead of trying to explain the actions of the Mormon Church and why their actions are rational, with her last breath will try to make the Catholic Church seem just as irrational. She can not or will not defend the actions of the Mormon Church. Is this someone trying to understand or a little girl throwing a fit? Personally, I’m not sure if the actions of the Mormon Church are rational or not because I never saw a thought out explanation.

Maybe it’s someone who is frustrated by the microscope that others put her faith traditions under without putting their own faith traditions under the same microscope.

Sort of looking at the mote that is in the eye of another without looking at or having removed the beam that is one’s own?

I see this happening by people on both sides to be honest.

You know` it comes across like this to me…“You Mormons …you do this, this this and that!!..”

“Well you Catholics do this, this this and that!!..”

Stephen, Im guessing she feel her beliefs and traditions are being attacked and invalidated by those who dont understand those very beliefs and traditions. I get that. I remember feeling the same way when I was LDS.

So she pushes back. I get that too. There are a lot of people who really dont understand Mormonism. There is a lot of misconceptions and twisted facts out there.

She too ends up doing the very same because she doesnt understand Catholic beliefs and traditions. Just like there are a lot of people who dont understand Mormonism, there are also a lot of people who dont understand Catholicism. There is a great deal of misconceptions and twisted facts out there, too, for us to deal with.

I really do many of the reactions that are happening are happing for the same reasons.

Trying to explain the misunderstood; trying to win the argument “We are the church that Christ formed” and trying to prove that; trying to demonstrate why the other side is “NUTS!” and “WRONG!!” ; on and on and on…

I think when you cut thru it all, most of what you see is pretty much coming from the above.

 

[Stephen168]

In a general sense, I look at the agrumentative/adversarial tones of this thread by some, comes from the same basic human reaction of people from both faith traditions.

Mormons looks at Catholic beliefs and think…“THATS NUTS!!”
Catholics look at Mormon beliefs and think…“THATS NUTS!!”

I think this is true to some degree. What I see happening in this board is:

A Catholic will say: Mormons are nuts.

The Mormons will respond with either “No we’re not” –or- “Catholics are nuts, too”

The “Catholics are nuts too” response will usually consist of the Mormon comparing their belief with some assumed twisted understanding of Catholic belief. Because it is not what Catholics actually believe the Catholic rejects the response.

Either way, the Catholic who would like to understand Mormonism is left thinking Mormons are nuts.

After this happens a number of times, the Catholic not only begins to believe Mormons are totally nuts but if Mormons cannot explain their beliefs and practices then how can they not understand they are nuts themselves.

There is one Mormon I see a lot of on this board who does try to explain Mormonism, but he is the rare exception. Of Course, I don’t agree in the end but at least I understand.

 

[Jerusha]

A very accurate series of observations,

 

[Stephen168]

Maybe it’s someone who is frustrated by the microscope that others put her faith traditions under without putting their own faith traditions under the same microscope.

Growing up in the western United States and having more Mormons in my high school class than Catholics, I’ve seen the microscope. It is why I’ve tried to understand Catholicism; so I would no longer feel threatened, by bigoted attacks. Now the attacks can be a chance to learn more about Catholicism.

Note: western United States defined as the area between the Mississippi River and the Cascade-Sierra Mountain range.

 

[SnakeMauler]

Question: What about all this Mormon **** about Native Americans being turned red as punishment from God? We know this not to be true by science, and I don’t think any Mormon would walk up to a Native American and be like “Yeah, you’re skin’s red because you were turned red as punishment from God”. The Native American would probably punch the Mormon in the face, and point out that they’re skin color is due to the level of sun exposure they get and their genetic origins.

Can someone answer this? I mean, besides arguging the obvious aspects of Mormon theology that aren’t at all Christian, why not simply put it aside after looking at the basic concepts that make no sense?

Snakemauler

 

[aspirant]

Once you stop making comments like “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,” I probably will.

If your “disclaimer” were relevant to my objection, I probably would.

 

[Stephen168]

Question: What about all this Mormon **** about Native Americans being turned red as punishment from God? We know this not to be true by science, and I don’t think any Mormon would walk up to a Native American and be like “Yeah, you’re skin’s red because you were turned red as punishment from God”. The Native American would probably punch the Mormon in the face, and point out that they’re skin color is due to the level of sun exposure they get and their genetic origins.

Can someone answer this? I mean, besides arguging the obvious aspects of Mormon theology that aren’t at all Christian, why not simply put it aside after looking at the basic concepts that make no sense?

Snakemauler

Why would the answer have to be Christian to make sense? Is this a question or a statement?

 

[aspirant]

What is unclear, fuzzy, or complicated about that line in canon law? OR the consequences?

You’ve shown repeatedly that you didn’t understand them. Even late in the conversation you compared excommunication, for example, with being “kicked to the curb.” You are continually making mistakes like this, as when you even more recently said “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.” Your misunderstanding of the meaning of the canon, as well as its context, illustrates very well my previous point that simply knowing what the law says is not sufficient to understand it. And this is why the suggestion that “it only takes two seconds to tell someone ‘get an abortion, get excommunicated,’” is utterly ludicrous. You didn’t really understand “get an abortion, get excommunicated” (and, judging by the words you choose, still do not), so why would we expect other people to understand it without a lot more context?

 

[dianaiad]

As I said, I don’t care I didn’t know! Seriously. Why would I, or should I? It is like telling me I need to be worried about the civil penalties for some crime I never have an intention of committing. In the case of mortal sin, I already know the consequences for my soul. IF I was ever in a position where I couldn’t make a clear choice, I would seek the advice of a priest.

I don’t imagine that most people have any intention of committing murder, either, Rebecca. However, it’s still a good idea that the penalty for it is known so that those few who DO plan on it might think again. You are not, after all, the only Catholic on the planet…and as has been proven many times, the rate of abortion for Catholics hovers around 24% of all pregnancies. In other words, YOU might never plan on getting an abortion, but if you were standing in a room full of newly pregnant Catholic women, the odds are that one in four of them will get an abortion. Don’t you think that telling THEM about this consequence might prevent a few of those?

Does it really only count what you might be planning to do?

I don’t think it can be explained any more than it has. St. Augustine was a teacher (I’m not), but he said something I think can be applied here. There is a difference between “having words and having understanding”.

Go ahead, Rebecca. Please tell me how these words can POSSIBLY be understood differently than I have done:

Can. 1398 A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.

Pretty bald, that. No room for ambiguity, no wiggle room…nothing.

Just BEFORE That statement, the code of canon law deals with murder, kidnapping, mutilation, 'gravely wound[ing] by referring those folks to can. 1336, which prescribes penalties that apply mostly to the clergy, which do not include excommunication.

Really, Rebecca…is there some Catholic only dictionary that redefines all the words in that statement so that they mean something very different from what the rest of us see?

A: indefinate article indicating one object or thing.
person: a human being.
who: relative pronoun, refers to “person.’
procures: verb, cause the effort that brings about the desired result
a: indefinite article indicating one object or thing
completed: adjective; come or bring to a finish or end
abortion: noun: termination of pregnancy
incurs: verb: acquiring or coming into something (usually undesirable)
a: indefinite article indicating one object or thing
latae sententiae: adjective phrase, literally meaning 'given (already passed) sentence”,
excommunication: noun; religious censure used to deprive or suspend membership in a religious community.

So…you might not need to know this. I imagine that the women who are facing this decision and do not know this might WANT to…and the church might want to tell them. After all, their instruction in moral law and doctrine doesn’t seem to be doing the job, and there must be SOME reason that the church felt impelled to put this into canon law. Not making very certain that everybody who might face this situation KNOWS about it seems counterproductive.

 

[dianaiad]

For the Catholics, it is the sin itself that imposes the excommunication, any pronouncement by their Church is just a clarification in order to avoid general confusion, or at the very least to show the seriousness of the sin to the sinner and others, and to prod the sinner to repentance because the excommunication makes them realize the seriousness of the sin.

Yes, I get that…the very idea of latae sententiae excommunication being possible indicates this. I am being told, however, that linking the excommunication to the sin is a bad thing, and only Mormons do that. We don’t…excommunication for us is a far more formal, thing. The sin may prompt the process of determining whether excommunication is the appropriate remedy, but the final decision has a lot more to do with the sinner than the specific sin. That is a difference.
Answersplease;6240408:
The excommunication is really imposed by the sinner on themselves, since all sin cuts people off from Jesus Christ. Christians are grafted onto the True Vine which is Jesus Christ, in this manner, Christians become part of the Body of Christ (the True Vine).

When Christians commit sin, they cut themselves off from Jesus Christ, the sin is why they are no longer worthy to receive the Eucharist. Excommunication is just a formal term for this state of being in sin.

I see that as well, from the Catholic POV. Mormons do not have a formal term for this state of being, though we do recognize it; I think we simply call it 'not being worthy to take the Sacrament…" Since we have no specifically formal/liturgical way of obtaining absolution, the way Catholics do, this state of being is very personal; in most cases nobody ever knows but the sinner and God. A Catholic who finds him/herself in this position must obtain formal absolution and a lifting of the excommunication, right? Mormons don’t. On the other hand, because excommunication is so formal for us the process of getting there and getting back is also more formal.

[However, venial sins are forgiven during the Catholic mass, and more serious sins are forgiven in the sacrament of Confession when the priest absolves the sinner “in persona Christi.”

Repentance can only come after

the sin has been commited, because there is no need to repent before the sin is commited. And the sin itself causes the automatic and instant excommunication. Repent means to turn away from, there is no need to turn away from a path you have not taken.

I also understand this…and have been roundly criticized for SAYING it. That is how I understand Catholic latae sententiae excommunication to work. One can repent…but one cannot repent in time to prevent the excommunication. It can be lifted, but not prevented except by not committing the sin in the first place. However, I am being told, in VERY insulting terms, that I am deficient in understanding when I say this.

 

[dianaiad]

As I said, I don’t care I didn’t know! Seriously. Why would I, or should I? It is like telling me I need to be worried about the civil penalties for some crime I never have an intention of committing. In the case of mortal sin, I already know the consequences for my soul. IF I was ever in a position where I couldn’t make a clear choice, I would seek the advice of a priest.

I don’t think it can be explained any more than it has. St. Augustine was a teacher (I’m not), but he said something I think can be applied here. There is a difference between “having words and having understanding”.

Rebecca, I have an apology to make. It is true that most of the people who have been arguing with me were caught blindsided by the idea that someone who gets an abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication. It is also true that their ignorance has been hotly defended by these people by claiming that it’s not important…that everything they need to know is found in the catechism, and that is doesn’t MATTER that the church doesn’t teach this to everybody. It is very true that I have been roundly insulted up one side and down the other for wondering WHY the church doesn’t teach something this important to everybody, and not ONE person has come to me and said “well, actually, it does. If Catholics don’t know about it it’s because they aren’t paying attention.” EVERY defense (especially from you, I might add) has been ‘they didn’t teach me because it isn’t important,’ or ‘it’s too difficult to understand if you aren’t a canon lawyer,’ or, more specifically, that I’m a bigoted anti-Catholic and an ignorant arrogant twit for even wondering.

All the above is true…but being rampantly curious, and having REAL problems understanding why the church would impose its most serious penalty/remedy on abortion and not TELL anybody about it, I went looking.

And I found this, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part Three, Life in Christ
Section two/ The Ten Commandments

Chapter Two “You shall love your neighbor as yourself”

Article 5, paragraph 2272:*** Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,” ***

I feel a LOT better about this, y’know? I was wrong. The church DOES teach this, and rather clearly, in the Catechism. You know, the catechism which is written for all CAtholics to read and understand without degrees in canon law. In fact, it actually quotes the statement FROM the code of canon law, verbatim. I guess that means that the church considers her members to have enough brains to understand the sentence without five years of study and a doctoral degree.

It’s right there, in a section that is fairly comprehensive about a topic that the church cares a great deal about. You, who were a convert to the church, had to read the catechism and take classes in it even more than those who were born in the faith.

So the question is…why didn’t you know?

And rather than go look it up in the catechism to see if the church DOES teach this, did you defend your own ignorance as if it were something positive, and approved by the church?

Now me, I feel a lot better about the church knowing that they do clearly teach this in the catechism; it’s a very good thing.