Mortal Sin or Excommunication

[underacloud]

A grave sin is a mortal sin. Do you mean a sin of grave matter?

On your second point I don’t believe that excommunication by mistake or abuse is a valid excommunication.

As for your third point I am not sure that applies when a genuine excommunication penalty is in place but if you can provide me with something to read on this that would work for me. The CCC section on an act of perfect contrition does not cover a situation where excommunication applies. You are assuming it does. I’m not saying you are wrong but I would like to read a document on this matter.

To answer your points:

a) yes, grave sin , mortal sin. What I mean, to be more exact, is that the person may commit an objective mortal sin, in this case resulting in excommunication, but is not guilty of perspnal mortal sin.

b) excommunication is a canonical penalty, so in this case it’s much the same as a person being sent to prison for a crime they did not commit.

c) as above, excommunication is a canonical penalty. It is not a comment on the state of one’s soul. The fact that you will not find a document discussing the circumstances in which perfect contrition restores a soul to grace (along with a purpose to confess) is that it always does so - there are no circumstances, exceptions, etc. Given more time I could try to find some commentary, but I’m surprised this point seems at all contentious.

 

[thistle]

To answer your points:

a) yes, grave sin , mortal sin. What I mean, to be more exact, is that the person may commit an objective mortal sin, in this case resulting in excommunication, but is not guilty of perspnal mortal sin.

b) excommunication is a canonical penalty, so in this case it’s much the same as a person being sent to prison for a crime they did not commit.

c) as above, excommunication is a canonical penalty. It is not a comment on the state of one’s soul. The fact that you will not find a document discussing the circumstances in which perfect contrition restores a soul to grace (along with a purpose to confess) is that it always does so - there are no circumstances, exceptions, etc. Given more time I could try to find some commentary,** but I’m surprised this point seems at all contentious**.

I didn’t say it was contentious. I simply said this particular scenario is not covered in the CCC so I would like to see any other document on this. I also said that I didn’t say you were wrong. Why so defensive?

 

[underacloud]

I didn’t say it was contentious. I simply said this particular scenario is not covered in the CCC so I would like to see any other document on this. I also said that I didn’t say you were wrong. Why so defensive?

It’s contentious in that you seem to disagree with my comments. I don’t mean to be defensive. But I don’t know of any documents that specifically address this issue so can’t comment much further

There is a detailed entry on excommunication here:newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

The entry includes a discussion on the Effects of invalid or unjust excommunication:

An excommunication is said to be null when it is invalid because of some intrinsic or essential defect, e.g. when the person inflicting it has no jurisdiction, when the motive of the excommunication is manifestly incorrect and inconsistent, or when the excommunication is essentially defective in form. Excommunication is said to be unjust when, though valid, it is wrongfully applied to a person really innocent but believed to be guilty. Here, of course, it is not a question of excommunication latæ sententiæ and in foro interno, but only of one imposed or declared by judicial sentence. It is admitted by all that a null excommunication produces no effect whatever, and may be ignored without sin (cap. ii, de const., in VI). But a case of unjust excommunication brings out in a much more general way the possibility of conflict between the forum internum and the forum externum, between legal justice and the real facts. In chapter xxviii, de sent. excomm. (Lib. V, tit. xxxix), Innocent III formally admits the possibility of this conflict. Some persons, he says, may be free in the eyes of God but bound in the eyes of the Church; vice versa, some may be free in the eyes of the Church but bound in the eyes of God: for God’s judgment is based on the very truth itself, whereas that of the Church is based on arguments and presumptions which are sometimes erroneous. He concludes that the chain by which the sinner is bound in the sight of God is loosed by remission of the fault committed, whereas that which binds him in the sight of the Church is severed only by removal of the sentence. Consequently, a person unjustly excommunicated is in the same state as the justly excommunicated sinner who has repented and recovered the grace of God; he has not forfeited internal communion with the Church, and God can bestow upon him all necessary spiritual help. However, while seeking to prove his innocence, the censured person is meanwhile bound to obey legitimate authority and to behave as one under the ban of excommunication, until he is rehabilitated or absolved. Such a case seems practically impossible nowadays.

This discussion essentially shows that yes a person can be excommunicated but not be in mortal sin, which was the original question you had.

 

[glendab]

Hello Underacloud.

Let’s explore…

Die in mortal sin, no excommunication = hell

Die in mortal sin, while excommunicated = hell

Die while not excommunicated, no mortal sin = heaven

Die while excommunicated, no mortal sin = heaven

It is easy to exclude excommunication per se from having any eternal relevance. Its only relevance is that it might be related to mortal sin - which is the point of excommunication.

You’re good to go on three, but the last is more like a snowflake’s chance in h—. 99.999% of persons who get excommunicated ARE in mortal sin. Learn what offenses are those that result in excommunication. Also it might be helpful for you to realize that sometimes, as in the case of public scandal, public repentance must happen BEFORE recourse to the Sacraments can be had. There was a King who had to do public penance and he did so before his Bishop and only afterwards was he even allowed to set foot within the building of the Church again.

So, die while excommunicated = Hell for 99.999% of persons excommunicated.

Two person I think you can count among the .001% are Joan of Arc and some gal in Australia who was recently Canonized, yet she died while excommunicated. But for 99.999% of those who fall under this sentence, you can pretty much count them going straight to Hell upon death. It is as close to being damned while alive as one can get. But in today’s society sin isn’t even talked about, so how can anyone expect anyone else to understand the gravity of sin, let alone excommunication? People just don’t know anymore.

Glenda

 

[Fred_E]

I’m thinking of when Pope Benedict XVI lifted the Excommunicated Bishops. There was no repentance. Just a lifting of a disciplinary action.

Repentance is a requirement for absolution of a sin in the sacrament of Penance.

Excommunication is another matter altogether - in some cases the excommunication is levied in error, for example.

 

[clem456]

1463 Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them. In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication.69

Is it possible to be excommunicated without being in mortal danger, or committed grave sin of some kind?
What does the word excommunicated mean? It certainly has the meaning of “out of communion”. I’m not sure how one could be in heaven while “out of communion”, which is what heaven IS.
?
(I’m not pretending to know the answers to these questions, just trying to make common sense).

 

[underacloud]

Hello Underacloud.

You’re good to go on three, but the last is more like a snowflake’s chance in h—. 99.999% of persons who get excommunicated ARE in mortal sin. Learn what offenses are those that result in excommunication. Also it might be helpful for you to realize that sometimes, as in the case of public scandal, public repentance must happen BEFORE recourse to the Sacraments can be had. There was a King who had to do public penance and he did so before his Bishop and only afterwards was he even allowed to set foot within the building of the Church again.

So, die while excommunicated = Hell for 99.999% of persons excommunicated.

Two person I think you can count among the .001% are Joan of Arc and some gal in Australia who was recently Canonized, yet she died while excommunicated. But for 99.999% of those who fall under this sentence, you can pretty much count them going straight to Hell upon death. It is as close to being damned while alive as one can get. But in today’s society sin isn’t even talked about, so how can anyone expect anyone else to understand the gravity of sin, let alone excommunication? People just don’t know anymore.

Glenda

Thank you for agreeing that point four does in fact happen.

As for your estimate of percentages, IMO it is baseless and unneccessary. But that’s just my opinion, and you have offered yours, and there is little need to hypothesize further on it.

 

[thistle]

Thank you for agreeing that point four does in fact happen.

As for your estimate of percentages, IMO it is baseless and unneccessary. But** that’s just my opinion,** and you have offered yours, and there is little need to hypothesize further on it.

 

[underacloud]

Not sure why you’ve highlighted that, unless of course it’s because you wish to hear even more of my opiion on why it was baseless and unneccessary.

Just joking… happy to let it go.