I don’t know if I can do that. I mean, the RCC will excommunicate a Priest for ordaining a woman - but they won’t excommunicate pro-aborts, pro-gay “marriage” people, and sexually immoral priests.
When I see the church enforcing their own teachings, then I will convert.
I understand your point. However, there are some actions that trigger excommunication in themselves, so that formal pronouncement is not necessary. Abortion is such an issue. A person who has an abortion or assist in the procurement of one is automatically ex- communicated. The act in itself trigger it. Although it is a grave moral peril to be “pro” sinful behavior, it is difficult to discern when one has actually crossed the line, so to speak. Only God knows the heart. Jesus said that it is just as sinful to lust for a woman as to commit adultery. Yet, only He can know the heart. If all of us were excommunicated for sexual immorality, the Church would not be a hospital for sinners! I agree that sexual immorality should not be tolerated, whether it is priests or laity. However, this is what the Sacrament of Reconciliation was designed to address. Jesus did not come to call the righteous.
“By their fruits you shall know them.”
I want to see some backbone in the clergy.
I love to see that too, however, that is not the foundation of the Church. The “backbone” of the Church is the cross of Christ, against which He pressed His backbone. All of His disciples, the first clergy, fled in fear. The chief of the Apostles denied Him three times. If we depend for our faith upon the frailities of men, we will be forever lost.
I just want to see consitancy. Speaking out against something that is evil, and then allowing people who promote that evil to remain in the church and defile the Lord’s body by taking communion is wrong.
I too long to see this consistency. However, I have never been put in a position to have to make a decision about whether to welcome or deny communion to anyone. It is a pastoral problem that has become intense. However, it would be much more effective for you to pray for the “backbone” of the priests an bishops that to stand afar and make pot shots.
Then why was excommunication created in the first place?
This is an excellent question! The Apostles understood the Church to be the only “ship” in which we can make it to the shores of heaven. When Jesus is in the boat (Peter’s boat), all is well. Those who reject the teaching of Jesus, or get out of Peter’s boat from which He teaches, they make a shipwreck of their faith.
1 Tim 1:19-2:1
“By rejecting conscience, certain persons have suffered shipwreck in the faith; 20 among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have turned over to Satan, so that they may learn not to blaspheme.”
It was understood by the Apostles that Satan is the god of this world, and that all who were not in Peter’s Boat would flounder and perish. Only those in the bosom of the Church could be protected by Christ. Excommunication, severance of a person from the protection of the Church, was done as a last resort to impress upon the offender the gravity of the sin, and hopefully get them to “snap” and return to the faith.
I beleive it was created for the religious not so much for the lay people. But scripture can support excommunicating someone, if done through the church.
I disagree with this. However, I will say that clergy are more culpable than the layperson, as they are expected to know more, and have taken on greater responsibilities it the faith.
I will say this thou, I don’t beleive it’s common practice to excommunicate lay people any more. The only time it should be enforced in my opinion is when we have someone teaching the flock with intent to mislead them…
There are many practices that automatically separate people from the Church. These have been clarified as such, so formal procedures are not needed.