There is such a thing called latae setentiae excommunication (I hope I spelled it right) in which a person excommunicates his or herself simply by doing a certain act. That is the type of excommunication someone who procures an abortion incurs.
Sure, abortion means excommunication until it is confessed (Fr. Serpa had a post on this). No excommunication attaches to an invalid marriage under the present catechism.
So, does that mean all the contents are out the door as well? Should we throw out the ten Commandments as well?
Unless they are going to go through a wedding ceremony and live as brother and sister, every time they have sex in an invalid marriage they commit the grav sin of fornication - last I checked, that is still a mortal sin. Those in mortal sin cannot recieve communion - thus, they ARE excommunicated.
I don’t know if CCC talks about that in detail one way or the other, but the fact that people don’t care at all is reason for concern.
FYI, in this type of excommunication, the pentitent normally needs to confess to the bishop to get it lifted (the concept called ordinario reservatum, if I spelled it correctly).
I already invited you to refer to the Code of Canon Law as a reference for this kind of topics. Why do you keep mentioning the Baltimore Catechism when referring to disciplines that have been modified? The Dogmas will never change but disciplines can be subject to change. I do not think that it is intellectually correct to mention a reference to a law that might have been abrogated.
absolutely agree.Not true, at least in the United States:
can you please provide some reference or data to support such a statement?
First, the Baltimore Catechism was the standard of educating millions of Catholics in the US, and considering the Mass attendance was much higher and divorce rate much lower back in the pre-Vatican 2 days, it must have done something right and so should be given some respect, even if some of the disciplines and penalties have changed. The ordinary Joey Bagadonuts in the pews had a simple reference book that covered most of the common questions and didn’t have to have a table full of books open to do a research project just to find out if he was committing a mortal sin or not.
That’s why I said “normally”, in case bishops did in fact delegate that authority (the need for which is possibly a sad commentary on the number of abortions in the first place that the Church would have to absolve).
As far as I can tell, this creates the following timeline for handling the above marital situations:
I thought a Catholic would be excommunicated if they got married without the Church’s permission. (I know I won’t be) But I thought a Catholic could…)
Akins is always well informed, and the change is very recent (another poster mentioned this but I did not look it up). The brother of the OP would under the new rules be considered to have an invalid marriage that would need to be convalidated if they return to Catholicism. Or so it would appear.
:clapping:
See I have a hard time with this- when it involves a Catholic who has decided to leave the Catholic Church, and so doesn’t see himself/herself as having an obligation to be married in the Catholic Church. I can see the marriage perhaps not being a sacrament-but fornication???
But is it the Union itself that is sinful? Or is the not being part of the Church. I mean if someone sees themselves as not Catholic-and not obligated to marry in the Church. That may be a different matter than the marriage-in and of itself.