Oblivious Priests

[Churchman25]

Say someone is excommunicated for doing something sacrilious with the host like using it in a black mass or something. Then the individual who is catholic wants to repent and go through the process getting that lifted. One problem though when person goes and talks to priests about how to get it lifted they say you are not excommunicated even though he or she is, and they know it. How could they go through the process of getting it lifted, when pretty much all the priests they talk to are, oblivious of this particular law?

Im not excommunicated i was just wondering this.

 

[deprofundis89]

If I am not mistaken there is a process involved in the canon law… bit hazy on that part though… I think the person needs to go to a particular priest or the bishop if one wants to get a excommunication lifted.

 

[Churchman25]

What if the priest doesnt know about that particular law, to help an individual get in touch with the right eccseletial authorities or also the law which the person broke.

How would they get in touch?

 

[Xystus]

if they are that confident they are right then why would they not just ask a second priest? seems rather simple

 

[FrDavid96]

Say someone is excommunicated for doing something sacrilious with the host like using it in a black mass or something. Then the individual who is catholic wants to repent and go through the process getting that lifted. One problem though when person goes and talks to priests about how to get it lifted they say you are not excommunicated even though he or she is, and they know it. How could they go through the process of getting it lifted, when pretty much all the priests they talk to are, oblivious of this particular law?

Im not excommunicated i was just wondering this.

The real problem here is scrupulosity.

If the priest says “not excommunicated” then that person needs to accept his understanding of what the law says.

It is not that “all the priests they talk to are oblivious of this particular law” the problem is that the one asking the question is being scrupulous and will not accept the answers given by those priests.

 

[deprofundis89]

You can directly look up the Code of Canon Law for your own reference… but there is a chance that lay people may have some difficulty understanding what’s written, whereas the priests are taught in the seminary about it

 

[FrDavid96]

You can directly look up the Code of Canon Law for your own reference… but there is a chance that lay people may have some difficulty understanding what’s written, whereas the priests are taught in the seminary about it

The real problem is that some people “want” that excommunication to be there, and just will not accept it when priests tell them that they are not excommunicated.

 

[deprofundis89]

LOL… True that Father!

 

[FrDavid96]

LOL… True that Father!

It is scrupulosity. It is a spiritual illness, one that is exasperated by the internet because the scrupulous person can easily find people online to support and affirm the scrupulous person’s mis-understanding of the law.

 

[KatyCatholic]

Too true!

Doing a brief look thru from the CCC, seems like for almost anyone, simply making a whole and good confession would do the trick, no special need for a bishop as the authority has been handed down to the parish level. So, if you’ve been away and denounced the church for many years, all you need do is call your local parish and make an appointment for a “general confession”, those words will let the priest know to potentially allow for some extra time.

Now, if the excommunication was public, there was formal declarations from the apostate, there may be some special circumstances in which the public declaration needs to be reversed and is directed by a bishop, or even the pope depending on the severity of the public apostasy, and even then, it’s simply a matter of absolution, acceptance, and a good confession, a contrite heart, and acknowledgement of willingness to seek and accept the truth of the church and the truth Christ left with us.

 

[buglady]

If the person goes to Confession and tells the priest “I did this or that to the Sacred Host. I did it three (or how many times)”. If the individual tells the priest exactly what he did, the priest would most likely know what procedure to follow.

 

[1ke]

What if the priest doesnt know about that particular law, to help an individual get in touch with the right eccseletial authorities or also the law which the person broke.

How would they get in touch?

The priest knows very well the procedure for lifting excommunication. Every diocese has one. The priest knows it.

If a priest (or an entire string of priests) says there is no excommunication to lift, it is not because he is ignorant it is because there is no excommunication to lift.

Fr David surmises this is scruples, I concur.

 

[R_H_Benson]

It is scrupulosity. It is a spiritual illness, one that is exasperated by the internet because the scrupulous person can easily find people online to support and affirm the scrupulous person’s mis-understanding of the law.

While I agree that scrupulosity is a serious problem, the OP is presenting the hypothesis that the penitent is actually excommunicated. For the priest to tell him otherwise would be incorrect, and he would still be excommunicated while believing that he wasn’t.

Canon 1367 - A person who throws away consecrated species, or takes (or retains) them for a sacrilegious purpose, incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the apostolic see.

 

[FrDavid96]

While I agree that scrupulosity is a serious problem, the OP is presenting the hypothesis that the penitent is actually excommunicated. For the priest to tell him otherwise would be incorrect, and he would still be excommunicated while believing that he wasn’t.

That does not apply because you are assuming that the OP, and not the several priests who have already responded after knowing all the details, is the one who can better interpret the canon. Those priests actually do know that there was no sacrilege. The sacrilege only exists in the OPs scrupulous imagination.

Canon 1367 - A person who throws away consecrated species, or takes (or retains) them for a sacrilegious purpose, incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the apostolic see.

Allow me to explain what is really happening here.

The OP is being scrupulous. We already know that several priests have told the OP “you are not excommunicated.” The scrupulous person does not like or accept that. The scrupulous person then turns to the internet looking for someone to affirm the claim “I am excommunicated.” Congratulations, you have now given the OP exactly what was wanted: affirmation that the priests are all wrong. Now, when the OP goes back to the priest (who KNOWS that there was no excommunication) the OP will say “you’re wrong, I read on the internet that I am excommunicated.” Now, it will only be all the more difficult for the OPs priest to actually move along in the process of healing that scrupulosity.

 

[R_H_Benson]

The OP is being scrupulous. We already know that several priests have told the OP “you are not excommunicated.”

A scrupulous person should have a regular confessor whom he should obey. But, it isn’t necessarily true that the OP is referring to a scrupulous person. What if the person is a canon lawyer who is certain that he has incurred excommunication and the priest(s), for whatever reason, simply won’t believe him? We don’t know. Sadly, there are priests out there who don’t “believe” in things like excommunication anymore. If the OP’s hypothetical person’s conscience is accusing him of an excommunicable offense, and this hypothetical person does not have a history of scrupulosity, then he doesn’t have to settle for a priest wrongly telling him that everything is okay.

 

[FrDavid96]

FrDavid96:

The OP is being scrupulous. We already know that several priests have told the OP “you are not excommunicated.”

A scrupulous person should have a regular confessor whom he should obey. But, it isn’t necessarily true that the OP is referring to a scrupulous person. What if the person is a canon lawyer who is certain that he has incurred excommunication and the priest(s), for whatever reason, simply won’t believe him? We don’t know. Sadly, there are priests out there who don’t “believe” in things like excommunication anymore. If the OP’s hypothetical person’s conscience is accusing him of an excommunicable offense, and this hypothetical person does not have a history of scrupulosity, then he doesn’t have to settle for a priest wrongly telling him that everything is okay.

I know from experience. All I can say is “believe me” I know from experience what is happening here.

I do know.

Warning Moral Theology

[107.] In accordance with what is laid down by the canons, “one who throws away the consecrated species or takes them away or keeps them for a sacrilegious purpose, incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; a cleric, moreover, may be punished by another penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state”.[194] To be regarded as pertaining to this case is any action that is voluntarily and gravely disrespectful of the sacred species. Anyone, therefore, who a…

 

[boldlygo]

Thank you for being an active participant here at CAF…I’m sure you’ve helped a lot of people here.

 

[Churchman25]

I know im not excommunicated. I never said this post was about me and those posts you pulled were from awhile ago.

Im actually surprised you even remember that.

 

[FrDavid96]

I know im not excommunicated. I never said this post was about me and those posts you pulled were from awhile ago.

Im actually surprised you even remember that.

It isn’t my intention to make it personal about you. My intention in referencing the earlier thread was not to say “this is about you” Instead it was to say that there is a history of not trusting priests who say “what you describe does not incur excommunication.”

What I am trying to get across is that priests do know what delicts incur excommunication, and how to interpret the circumstances. When several priest say to someone, anyone “no, you are not excommunicated” the response is not to look for some other means of working around that.