Should Chief Justice Anthony Kennedy be excommunicated?

[phil19034]

I never said they weren’t. Certainly an ELECTED official ought to take the teachings of his/her faith with him when voting, as we should when voting.

But, this thread is specifically about an APPOINTED justice, whose job it is to INTERPRET, not make, law, and that’s a key distinction. The biggest complaint against the court is that they make up laws as they see fit. This cuts both ways. We don’t get to like it when they make up a law that happens to agree with our side and then turn around and criticize when they make up a law that disagrees with where we are. Again, if you don’t like it, then change the law.

And again, this is a separate question from whether or not I think Justice Kennedy and the other four who sided with him erred in their judicial decision making. I do think they erred. I think it’s a terrible decision judicially speaking that will have far reaching, unintended, consequences. I think it’s a decision grounded more on feeling and emotion than sound judicial reasoning. But to say that Justice Kennedy should have ruled one way based off a tenet of his faith ignores what his job is. Another tenet of his faith is that we ought to uphold the oaths we take. To not do so is a violation of the second commandment. As I read this thread, what I’m seeing are people more or less advocating that Justice Kennedy subvert his oath of office due to a teaching of his faith. I’m proposing that we stop looking at opposition to same-sex marriage as a teaching of the Church and start looking at it from the point of view of natural law. Otherwise, those who accuse us of trying to impose a theocracy are correct.

What I’m saying is that the who argument of “I don’t want to push my religious views on others” is bunk. Their religious views are part of the reason they are appointed.

The US Constitution can quickly be used to defend evil (as it has here) once we stop approaching law from a Christian Value base. This nation was based on Christian values and the Constitution was written by Christian men. There is a reason why say “one nation under God.” The understanding of God for American is the God of the Christians.

We are not one nation under Vishnu, one nation under Buddha, one nation under science, one nation under mother nature, one nation under the universe, one nation under evolution, one nation under humans, one nation under Zeus, nor one nation under the devil,… We are one nation under God. And the understanding of God that American was built on was the general understanding of Christianity. Not the Jewish understanding nor the Muslim understanding, but the Christian one.

And before someone says, we America was built upon Protestant and not Catholic teachings; ALL the Catholic teachings on morality were also shared by our Protestant brothers and sisters until the 20th century. Some protestants were actually more strict than Catholics. So there is NOTHING in Catholic Social Teaching that is against what the Founding Fathers of the Constitution wanted for America.

The Separation of Church and state was really designed to protect the religious from the state, not to protect the government from the religion. Today, we have it backwards; because we have given into the unreligious, non-Christian minority, which has been rallied by Atheists, especially the Atheist Jews who do not believe in God. Bill Maher is a perfect example of an Atheist Jew.

usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-09-26/jew-atheist-god/50553958/1

thehumanist.com/magazine/september-october-2014/humanist-living/jewish-atheists-and-koufax-jews

ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3809043,00.html

patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/12/19/dave-silverman-is-wrong-you-can-be-non-religious-and-jewish/

jewishjournal.com/judaismandscience/item/jewish_atheism_and_jewish_theism_in_america

njjewishnews.com/article/22462/a-jewish-atheist-lets-go-of-the-jewish#.VZLlMyzbLIU

NOTE: I am NOT discrediting other religions. Everyone should be free to practice their faith. But we also should not be forced to practice our faith in hiding or behind closed doors.

God Bless

 

[R_H_Benson]

I’d be careful how you word that. It almost seems to imply a theocracy. Human law isn’t based on Church teaching. In an ideal world, it’s based on natural law. Now, again, in an ideal world, those would be one in the same, as Church teaching, too, is based on natural law.

But, again, a justice is duty bound to uphold the law, not uphold what he or she wishes the law to be.

An unjust “law” is not a law. No one is EVER duty bound to uphold injustice under ANY circumstance. That is common knowledge.

It’s vital that we, and the rest of society, understand that opposition to same-sex marriage is NOT based on anything Jesus said or didn’t say, it’s NOT based on anything the Scriptures say or don’t say, and it’s NOT based on anything the Church teaches or doesn’t teach. Same-sex marriage isn’t wrong because the Church says so. Rather, the Church says so because it’s wrong.

Preposterous. Scripture roundly condemns homosexuality and constantly affirms that marriage is between a man and a woman. Catholic opposition to Same Sex “Marriage” is firmly rooted in Sacred Scripture. Same Sex Marriage is wrong precisely because Our Lord says that it is because it is contrary to the Order that He created. And He explicitly reveals this to us in the Scriptures.

I get the logic that elected officials have to “uphold Church teaching,” but I think that this mentality has, in large part, led us to where we’re at. Here’s how the argument typically goes.

If you are a baptized Catholic then foremost - before ANYTHING ELSE you are a Catholic. You are a Catholic before you are a father. You are a Catholic before you are a brother. And you are most certainly a Catholic before you are a judge of the civil law. You have an obligation that your Catholicism takes primacy in every aspect of your life. So - a resounding YES!!! - he DOES have an obligation to uphold the TRUTH!

Premise 1: My faith tells me I’m supposed to be opposed to same-sex marriage.
Premise 2: But, others don’t share my faith.
Premise 3: And I can’t impose my faith on others.
Conclusion: Therefore, I must support same-sex marriage even though my faith tells me it is wrong.

What’s the problem with the argument? Most well-meaning Catholics, I think, want to attack Premise 2 or 3. We might say that others SHOULD share our faith…the old line, “Error has no rights.” (The height of arrogance, I might add, but not pertinent to the overall point.) Or, we might say that since our faith is the fullness of truth that we SHOULD impose it on others. Again, quite arrogant.

To proclaim that “error has no rights” is not arrogant. Far from it. For 1965 years our Holy Church boldly proclaimed that to be the case. Yet you have the audacity to call those who abide by the traditional teachings arrogant? Talk about irony. Does that mean that Leo XIII, St. Pius X, and all the other pre-conciliar popes were arrogant? What about the Saints? The great Jesuit missionaries?

**Do not be ashamed of the Lord. ** Do not be ashamed to possess the beauty of the fullness of Truth. To impose the Truth is to love. It is the opposite of arrogance. It is leading the blind into the light of Jesus Christ’s Holy Church!

Rather, the weakness of the argument is Premise 1. Yes, our faith DOES tell us that we are to oppose same-sex marriage, but NOT because of our faith. Rather, our faith affirms that which we already know by reason. And this is what natural law is–nothing more than the ability to use our brains. I think this is the error that Kennedy makes. You and he both start with the same first premise. But, he comes to the conclusion that he can’t impose that faith on others.

You play down Divine Revelation as if it should be ignored by Catholics when dealing in the public sphere. A fatal error.

So, what’s the solution? Try this argument:

Premise 1: Men and women have demonstrable differences within their respective reproductive systems.
Premise 2: The reproductive differences only makes sense in light of the other sex.
Conclusion: Therefore, due to this sexual difference, marriage ought to be between one man and one woman.

It’s stronger and doesn’t get into the messiness of a theocratic imposition of moral law.

And notice, it’s based, really, on the parts the distinguish us as male and female, not whether or not those respective parts work. Because if we base the argument solely on the ability to reproduce, the other side is quite right to challenge us on cases of couples who are past the fertile age, a man who has had his testicles removed due to testicular cancer, a woman who has had her ovaries removed due to ovarian cancer, etc.

In other words, it’s not about the ability to reproduce, it’s about what parts you have down below. It’s sad that we even have to articulate this, but we really are at a point where we have to spell it out for people that men have penises, and women have vaginas. Apart from each other, they make no sense, but in light of each other, they make total sense.

Logically sound, but emasculated of Catholic Truth. Our power is drawn from the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ - not from flimsy Natural Law arguments that shy away from incorporating Divine Revelation.

 

[buc_fan33]

What I’m saying is that the who argument of “I don’t want to push my religious views on others” is bunk. Their religious views are part of the reason they are appointed.

OK. So, since Nancy Pelosi was duly elected by the people of her district, many of whom are secularists, then she is within her right to force the rest of us to adopt her particular brand of secularism, right? See where this line of reasoning gets you? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

The US Constitution can quickly be used to defend evil (as it has here) once we stop approaching law from a Christian Value base. This nation was based on Christian values and the Constitution was written by Christian men. There is a reason why say “one nation under God.” The understanding of God for American is the God of the Christians.

We are not one nation under Vishnu, one nation under Buddha, one nation under science, one nation under mother nature, one nation under the universe, one nation under evolution, one nation under humans, one nation under Zeus, nor one nation under the devil,… We are one nation under God. And the understanding of God that American was built on was the general understanding of Christianity. Not the Jewish understanding nor the Muslim understanding, but the Christian one.

And before someone says, we America was built upon Protestant and not Catholic teachings; ALL the Catholic teachings on morality were also shared by our Protestant brothers and sisters until the 20th century. Some protestants were actually more strict than Catholics. So there is NOTHING in Catholic Social Teaching that is against what the Founding Fathers of the Constitution wanted for America.

Many historians would dispute this. Many say the framers were deists. I don’t know the truth, as I am not a historian and I haven’t studied it enough. But, let’s just for the sake of argument, say the framers were devout Christians. They still saw fit to build the establishment clause right into the First Amendment.

What happens if, 50 years from now, Islam is the dominant faith in our land? What if someone wants to impose Sharia Law? Good luck trying to reason with that individual that we were founded on the Christian understanding of God, even if that is, in fact, true.

This is why I am a firm believer that positive law (meaning human laws) must be based not on a Christian, Jewish, Islamic, shinto, or secularist world view, but rather on natural law. In theory, we should ALL be able to grasp and agree with the dictates of natural law. In practice, it doesn’t always work, but in theory it does. Why is murder illegal in our society? Because Moses and Jesus condemn it? No! They condemn it because it is wrong and violates the natural law by violating the inherent dignity of the human person. If our laws are based on natural law, they WILL line up with Christian values, and it won’t be an “imposition of morality.”

The Separation of Church and state was really designed to protect the religious from the state, not to protect the government from the religion. Today, we have it backwards; because we have given into the unreligious, non-Christian minority, which has been rallied by Atheists, especially the Atheist Jews who do not believe in God. Bill Maher is a perfect example of an Atheist Jew.

I agree. I don’t think you and I are all that far apart. What I’m trying to explain is that your approach will get you and anyone else who articulates it laughed off stage in a public debate. If you actually want to effect change, you can’t argue on the basis of theology with people who by definition don’t accept your premises. You have to argue based on things which we ALL can agree upon. And, that SHOULD be natural law. Again, it isn’t, due to the advancement of relativism. But, the solution there isn’t to impose some ethical system based on Christian ethics, but to PROPOSE an ethical system based on the natural law. To do that, we have to convince the relativist/secularist that the natural law makes sense and following it respects the dignity of the human person. Furthermore, following it is actually good for HIM as an individual AND for society as a whole.

 

[Mulligan2]

Excommunicated for doing his job and interpreting the Constitution and civil laws written as he sees them to be even when Catholics don’t agree with his interpretation? His employment is as a juctice of the SCOTUS. He is not employed in a Vatican or Church position.

Excellent post.

To me there was a huge chasm between Kennedy’s well-reasoned majority opinion and the tantrum from Justice Scalia. A few of Kennedy’s words:

“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than they once were.”

“The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation.”

"It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right

“The right of same-sex couples to marry that is part of the liberty promised by the Fourteenth Amendment is derived, too, from that Amendment’s guarantee of the equal protection of the laws.”

“A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education.”

“As all parties agree, many same-sex couples provide loving and nurturing homes to their children, whether biological or adopted. And hundreds of thousands of children are presently being raised by such couples.”

“Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.”

“This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate.”

 

[buc_fan33]

An unjust “law” is not a law. No one is EVER duty bound to uphold injustice under ANY circumstance. That is common knowledge.

Good. You know Thomas. I agree.

Preposterous. Scripture roundly condemns homosexuality and constantly affirms that marriage is between a man and a woman. Catholic opposition to Same Sex “Marriage” is firmly rooted in Sacred Scripture. Same Sex Marriage is wrong precisely because Our Lord says that it is because it is contrary to the Order that He created. And He explicitly reveals us to this in the Scriptures.

I never said it didn’t. Of course Scripture condemns homosexual actions. I would never dispute that fact. But when we first turn to Scripture to defend marriage, more than half the population immediately tunes out because they don’t accept the basis for our overall argument. And, heck, this doesn’t even take into account the millions of Protestants who have their own understanding of Scripture that differs from ours.

However, if you want to win a debate in the public square, you have to appeal to something that both parties agree on. That’s Debate 101. Good luck convincing a modern secularist of anything by resorting to Scripture. I love Scripture. I pray with it and read it every day. But to win a debate, and more importantly to win a SOUL, you have to find common ground. Appealing to Scripture in an argument with someone who rejects Scripture as a fairy tale is like trying to explain color to a blind person.

If you are a baptized Catholic then foremost - before ANYTHING ELSE you are a Catholic. You are a Catholic before you are a father. You are a Catholic before you are a brother. And you are most certainly a Catholic before you are a judge of the civil law. You have an obligation that your Catholicism takes primacy in ever aspect of your life.

I don’t see how anything I have said disagrees with this. I’m not suggesting that anyone check his or her faith at the door. I’m suggesting that people do their jobs. At the end of the day, the problem isn’t with Anthony Kennedy. The problem is with you and me who have failed to convince the larger populace of a truth accessible to human reason. Am I ticked about the SCOTUS ruling on marriage? You better believe I am! I foresee a day where faithful Catholics are hauled off to jail for defending marriage as between a man and a woman. But I don’t think we can make the leap that we’re here because of Anthony Kennedy and four of his cohorts. We’re here because we have failed to evangelize the culture.

To proclaim that “error has no rights” is not arrogant. For 1965 years our Holy Church boldly proclaimed that to be the case. yet you have the audacity to call those who abide by the traditional teachings that they are arrogant? Talk about irony. Does that mean that Leo XIII, St. Pius X, and all the other pre-conciliar popes were arrogant? Do not be ashamed of the Lord. Do not be ashamed to possess the beauty of the fullness of Truth. To impose the Truth is to love. It is the opposite of arrogance. It is leading the blind into the light of Jesus Christ’s Holy Church!

When used as a stick to beat others over the head, rather than propose the truth that our faith has to offer, yes, it is absolutely arrogant. I am most certainly not ashamed of the Lord. I, try, and often fail, to serve Him daily.

You play down Divine Revelation as if it should be ignored by Catholics when dealing in the public sphere. A fatal error.

No, I don’t. I’m saying that if you want to win a debate, you have to find common ground. If a Muslim were to propose a law based on the Koran, my response would be, “Who care? I don’t follow the Koran. I couldn’t care less what the Koran has to say.” Why should we expect a different response when proposing policy based on Scripture to those who don’t accept Scripture?

Logically sound, but emasculated of Catholic Truth. Our power is drawn from the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ - not from flimsy Natural Law arguments that are fearful of incorporating Divine Revelation.

Go back and reread Aquinas. Nothing in Divine Revelation is opposed to natural law.

 

[phil19034]

OK. So, since Nancy Pelosi was duly elected by the people of her district, many of whom are secularists, then she is within her right to force the rest of us to adopt her particular brand of secularism, right? See where this line of reasoning gets you? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

The difference with Nancy Pelosi is that it is common knowledged that she does not follow the Church’s teaching. My simple point is that a person should NOT be forced to check their religion at the door. Regardless if they are orthodox or heterodox. We should know their personal beliefs, morals, values, etc. Their religious (or lack of it) views are part of that.

The US Constitution can quickly be used to defend evil (as it has here) once we stop approaching law from a Christian Value base. This nation was based on Christian values and the Constitution was written by Christian men. There is a reason why say “one nation under God.” The understanding of God for American is the God of the Christians.

Many historians would dispute this. Many say the framers were deists. I don’t know the truth, as I am not a historian and I haven’t studied it enough. But, let’s just for the sake of argument, say the framers were devout Christians. They still saw fit to build the establishment clause right into the First Amendment.

Some of the framers were deists, but they believed that Christian morality was best for the masses. However, many of them were ordained protestant ministers or studied protestant theology. Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were the most “un-Christian” of the framers, and both of them viewed that morality was important for the foundation of law.

What happens if, 50 years from now, Islam is the dominant faith in our land? What if someone wants to impose Sharia Law? Good luck trying to reason with that individual that we were founded on the Christian understanding of God, even if that is, in fact, true.

---

If this happens, then we will not be able to stop it because Constitutional Amendments could be passed or Muslim Justices could be appointed. ***

This is why I am a firm believer that positive law (meaning human laws) must be based not on a Christian, Jewish, Islamic, shinto, or secularist world view, but rather on natural law. In theory, we should ALL be able to grasp and agree with the dictates of natural law. In practice, it doesn’t always work, but in theory it does. Why is murder illegal in our society? Because Moses and Jesus condemn it? No! They condemn it because it is wrong and violates the natural law by violating the inherent dignity of the human person. If our laws are based on natural law, they WILL line up with Christian values, and it won’t be an “imposition of morality.”

I think you are missing my point. I do NOT believe that laws should be based on Christian Theology. I believe it should be based on Christian Morality. I.E. the Christian definition of right and wrong (which does correspond with Natural Law). And I do believe that Natural Law is the best approach, but the problem today is that Catholic & some Protestant politicians in the extreme approach of trying to avoid “pushing their religion” are people are hence going against natural law.

I agree. I don’t think you and I are all that far apart. What I’m trying to explain is that your approach will get you and anyone else who articulates it laughed off stage in a public debate. If you actually want to effect change, you can’t argue on the basis of theology with people who by definition don’t accept your premises. You have to argue based on things which we ALL can agree upon. And, that SHOULD be natural law. Again, it isn’t, due to the advancement of relativism. But, the solution there isn’t to impose some ethical system based on Christian ethics, but to PROPOSE an ethical system based on the natural law. To do that, we have to convince the relativist/secularist that the natural law makes sense and following it respects the dignity of the human person. Furthermore, following it is actually good for HIM as an individual AND for society as a whole.

I don’t disagree. The problem is that natural law corresponds with Christian Morality. So the Christian has trouble because they know it as their religion because no one believes the natural law argument when your religion sides with the natural law.

So I agree… we have to get better at these natural law arguments like Trent Horn.

 

[Arandur]

No, He would not be excommunicated.

All he did was trample States rights and reject the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Not a religious concern.

He also contradicted a previous Supreme Court decision…the overturn of the Defense of Marriage law. (DOMA)
Kennedy supported the overturn by writing:

“The history of DOMA’s enactment and its own text demonstrate that interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, a dignity conferred by the States in the exercise of their sovereign power, was more than an incidental effect of the federal statute. It was its essence.”

His latest decision now removes this exercise of sovereign power from the States and puts marriage under control of the Federal Government.

Rather than excommunication, Justice Kennedy should be impeached under Articles I and II of the Constitution.

Yes, but the SCOTUS judges are above the law. The only one who can interpret their oaths are themselves. They are completely unaccountable, save for clear criminal offenses. This is why they are so dangerous. They don’t even have the accountability of term limits.

Someone needs to start printing toilet paper rolls and fire starter logs with the Constitution printed on them, and ship them publicly to the SCOTUS and the President.

As to excommunication, what really would get Kennedy in trouble is not so much his rulings on secular law themselves as his philosophical soapboxes that he gets on when he writes opinions. As he publicly promotes blatant moral relativism and other explicit heresies as what he thinks should be the guiding philosophy of man, he goes well beyond mere interpretation of the law in accordance with his position, and instead openly promotes heresy.

Given his influence, this is an excommunicable offense. However, since excommunication of a judge over their rulings would be perceived instead as the Church excommunicating him over his secular judgments, rather than his philosophical promotion of heresy, it would be unwise to do so. Rather, his bishop should speak with him privately and suggest that he not present himself for Holy Communion until he repents and stops spreading heresy that is so damaging to the souls of many.

 

[R_H_Benson]

I am most certainly not ashamed of the Lord. I, try, and often fail, to serve Him daily.

Forgive me for that rash accusation. I am just worked up about this. Thank you for your thoughtful response.

 

[buc_fan33]

Forgive me for that rash accusation. I am just worked up about this. Thank you for your thoughtful response.

Water under the bridge.

 

[pete_29]

Even if so, are you aware according to Church teaching that even excommunication does not take away that they are Catholics.

No, but they would not be allowed to receive the Eucharist which is basically the main reason to be Catholic.

 

[buc_fan33]

One other thing, if you’re still worked up, check out the daily Mass readings for today…VERY appropriate to our present situation.

First Reading: Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (gee, I can’t possibly find ANY connection with current events there, can you?)

Gospel: Jesus calming the storm at sea. He appeared to be asleep, but was in control all the while.

Saints of the Day: Roman Martyrs. Nero burned down the city of Rome and then blamed it on Christians, killing many of them. Secularists burn down our culture and then blame it on Christians. “You Christians are so judgmental! You’re so intolerant! You hate people! It’s YOUR fault we can’t all just get along.”

Remember, this feast day and these readings were set decades before any of this came up. It’s a call to martyrdom, brothers and sisters. Will we stand with Christ and the Church, even if it means great suffering, or will we cower in fear and give in? I think that history will judge us on how we evangelize the present culture. We have Good News to share with the world! Go do it!

 

[Sy_Noe]

I think most Catholics on here are aware that excommunication does not stop them from being Catholic. Someone who is excommunicated still must attend Mass every Sunday, fast and abstain on required days, and perform penance on Fridays.

Could you please explain why you are making this point? I don’t understand the context of you post, and I’m sure others do not either.

Excommunication is an attempt to save their souls by giving them “tough love” so they come back in line with the teachings of the Church.

The question is: do these two Baptized Catholic Justices attend Mass every Sunday or not? If they don’t, an excommunication will most likely do no good.

Plus, excommunication are not done to make an example out of someone. Meaning the Church will not excommunicate them in order to make a point. They will excommunicate them only if they feel the excommunication would bring them back to the Church.

As an aside: the only major Catholic politician I know of where I think an excommunication MIGHT do some good is Nancy Pelosi. If her Catholic faith is as important as she claims it is, an excommunication might be good thing for her. However, I personally do not know her. I’m not her pastor nor her bishop. I’ve never met her personally not any other pro-choice/pro-SSM Catholic democrat in public office.

Lord Jesus, we pray for our all of our Catholic leaders who have strayed from Church teaching and all other Catholics who have strayed, like my siblings and father. May they seek wisdom and gain understanding through Your Grace. We pray this in Your Name. Amen.

Only because I unfortunately have found on CAF some Catholics who don’t seem to understand who the Church labels as Catholic. But maybe everyone here on the social justice subforum are aware. I wonder though too if excommunication would be of any help to them even if they do now attend. They as you said would still be expected to continue attending Mass etc. But granted, like many who have not been excommunicated are already told, they would be told they are not supposed to receive. And if they already attend etc, excommunication could actually backfire and they might not even do that anymore. Wouldn’t be a chance worth taking to me.

 

[phil19034]

Only because I unfortunately have found on CAF some Catholics who don’t seem to understand who the Church labels as Catholic. But maybe everyone here on the social justice subforum are aware. *** I wonder though too if excommunication would be of any help to them even if they do now attend. They as you said would still be expected to continue attending Mass etc. But granted, like many who have not been excommunicated are already told, they would be told they are not supposed to receive. And if they already attend etc, excommunication could actually backfire and they might not even do that anymore. Wouldn’t be a chance worth taking to me***.

Most people on here know who the Church considers Catholic. They are typically discussing the people who choose to practice the orthodox Catholic faith vs those who choose not to. A Baptized Catholic who bashes the Catholic Church and attends (for example) a Baptist Church and agrees with their believes isn’t Catholic in practice. Technically, they still are according to the Church, but not in practice. That is all people mean.

In regards to the bold text above, this’s why it’s not always used. If the Bishop and Pastor feels that an excommunication would cause a person to leave the Catholic Church or cause others to leave the Church, they will not perform the excommunication. The excommunication is typically done when there is a profound hope that it will be successful and/or not do further damage.

Case in point: Hitler. We all know that Hitler (while a baptized Catholic) was NOT a practicing Catholic. He hated the Church and plotted to have the Pope killed. The Pope also knew that formally excommunicating him would (1) not bring him back to the Church and (2) would potentially endanger innocent German Catholics and Catholics in German controlled areas. No good would have come from publicly excommunicating Hitler.

In regards to US Catholic politicians, I believe the Bishops know which ones would simply leave if excommunicated. They also know, that an excommunication would lead to more heterodox Catholics leaving the Church. The Church would rather have these heterodox in the Church, with the hope of conversion, than outside the Church and moving further away from God.

 

[Eddie_Mac]

Any Catholic politician, appointed government official, public figure, celebrity, anyone who publicly proclaims beliefs counter to Church teaching on abortion, homosexuality, or any other grave sin should be denied the sacraments until they publicly admit their error and seek reconciliation from their local bishop. Their parish pastors should be instructed to turn them away from the Eucharist if they present themselves.

Actions have consequences.

The Church can be merciful and strong at the same time.

 

[phil19034]

Any Catholic politician, appointed government official, public figure, celebrity, anyone who publicly proclaims beliefs counter to Church teaching on abortion, homosexuality, or any other grave sin should be denied the sacraments until they publicly admit their error and seek reconciliation from their local bishop. Their parish pastors should be instructed to turn them away from the Eucharist if they present themselves.

Actions have consequences.

The Church can be merciful and strong at the same time.

Agreed. But that’s not technically the same as excommunication. They are living in an objective state of mortal sin, therefore they cannot receive.

The Automatic Excommunication regarding Abortion is discussed here on ETWN’s website: ewtn.com/expert/answers/abortio2.htm

 

[pete_29]

Only because I unfortunately have found on CAF some Catholics who don’t seem to understand who the Church labels as Catholic. But maybe everyone here on the social justice subforum are aware. I wonder though too if excommunication would be of any help to them even if they do now attend. They as you said would still be expected to continue attending Mass etc. But granted, like many who have not been excommunicated are already told, they would be told they are not supposed to receive. And if they already attend etc, excommunication could actually backfire and they might not even do that anymore. Wouldn’t be a chance worth taking to me.

If they don’t attend it is their loss not the Church’s. As a qualifier, I must say that I"m not sure I understood your point.

 

[Eddie_Mac]

Agreed. But that’s not technically the same as excommunication. They are living in an objective state of mortal sin, therefore they cannot receive.

The Automatic Excommunication regarding Abortion is discussed here on ETWN’s website: ewtn.com/expert/answers/abortio2.htm

I am aware of the Automatic Excommunication with respect to abortion.

Why then is it not enforced vigorously?

 

[Sy_Noe]

Most people on here know who the Church considers Catholic. They are typically discussing the people who choose to practice the orthodox Catholic faith vs those who choose not to. A Baptized Catholic who bashes the Catholic Church and attends (for example) a Baptist Church and agrees with their believes isn’t Catholic in practice. Technically, they still are according to the Church, but not in practice. That is all people mean.

In regards to the bold text above, this’s why it’s not always used. If the Bishop and Pastor feels that an excommunication would cause a person to leave the Catholic Church or cause others to leave the Church, they will not perform the excommunication. The excommunication is typically done when there is a profound hope that it will be successful and/or not do further damage.

Case in point: Hitler. We all know that Hitler (while a baptized Catholic) was NOT a practicing Catholic. He hated the Church and plotted to have the Pope killed. The Pope also knew that formally excommunicating him would (1) not bring him back to the Church and (2) would potentially endanger innocent German Catholics and Catholics in German controlled areas. No good would have come from publicly excommunicating Hitler.

In regards to US Catholic politicians, I believe the Bishops know which ones would simply leave if excommunicated. They also know, that an excommunication would lead to more heterodox Catholics leaving the Church. The Church would rather have these heterodox in the Church, with the hope of conversion, than outside the Church and moving further away from God.

I pretty much can concur on all your points here. Now only if it were explained so well and accepted by others so there would be no confusion for those trying to learn the faith.

 

[Rence]

In Muslim countries, most judges will not stray from Islamic teaching.

That is because Muslim laws rule those countries because there is so separation of church and state. It’s also the reason why Christians are tortured and killed for being Christian.

 

[phil19034]

I am aware of the Automatic Excommunication with respect to abortion.

Why then is it not enforced vigorously?

It is. The Bishops and priests don’t announce them (and sometimes don’t know about them). It’s automatic.