Why Not Excommunication?

[fkjuliano]

I am studying the practice of excommunication with a goal of understanding why it is not applied more often. Why is it that someone like Sr. Chittister (who supports abortion and the ordination of women) is allowed to insult the Church and deride its divinely inspired teachings while still calling herself a Catholic nun? By officially retaining her status as part of the Church she gains undeserved credibility.

Perhaps the Holy Father and the rest of the Hierarchy are just more merciful than I. In fact, I am sure they are, but in the cases of Sr. Chittister, of Maureen Dowd with her ridiculous and mendacious op-eds about the Church, and of any number of other nominal Catholics who publicly and repeatedly disobey and denigrate the one true Faith, what benefit can they possibly derive from taking Holy Communion? Far from their gaining anything spiritually, St. Paul teaches us that precisely the opposite is true:
[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 11:27-29[/BIBLEDRB]

It seems to me, therefore, that their formal exclusion would benefit the faithful while doing the unfaithful no harm.

 

[Rascalking]

It’s a tough question. Excommunication shouldn’t be used without serious, serious thought.

No, I’m not saying Dowd (I had no idea she was Catholic) and Sr. Chittister (I’m fairly certain she’s catholic ) don’t deserve it, it’s just something to be used in the most severe cases-done to save a life, like an amputation or a divorce.

Just my opinion.

 

[prodigalson12]

Sadly, if we were to enforce this, this day in age, compared to how it was in the early church, most of the pews would be empty, and in fact, many of the clergy would be absent as well…this is the state of things in the here and now, and I know, I make no friends in the process for stating the truth.

 

[fkjuliano]

Sadly, if we were to enforce this, this day in age, compared to how it was in the early church, most of the pews would be empty, and in fact, many of the clergy would be absent as well…this is the state of things in the here and now, and I know, I make no friends in the process for stating the truth.

There is truth to that, but an uncompromising stance would cause some to reexamine their attitude and change the error of their ways. But even if it did not, my opinion is that we would be better off as a Church of half a dozen faithful than one of 1.2 billion unfaithful. After all was said and done, though, I think we’d still be in the 10 figures.

I have to say, I have the greatest admiration for the Muslims in this regard. Theirs may be a false faith, but their zeal for it is implacable.

 

[Drawmack]

I am studying the practice of excommunication with a goal of understanding why it is not applied more often. Why is it that someone like Sr. Chittister (who supports abortion and the ordination of women) is allowed to insult the Church and deride its divinely inspired teachings while still calling herself a Catholic nun? By officially retaining her status as part of the Church she gains undeserved credibility.

And, it’s not applied equally – take the Brazil case from a little over a year ago.

 

[fkjuliano]

And, it’s not applied equally – take the Brazil case from a little over a year ago.

Do you refer to the two doctors who were excommunicated for performing an abortion on a little girl who had been raped?

That is a very tough situation, but ultimately the principle of not taking an innocent life was rightfully upheld.

 

[fkjuliano]

I found this in another thread:

PART II.

PENALTIES FOR INDIVIDUAL DELICTS

TITLE I.

DELICTS AGAINST RELIGION AND THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH (Cann. 1364 - 1369)

Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in ⇒ can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.

§2. If contumacy of long duration or the gravity of scandal demands it, other penalties can be added, including dismissal from the clerical state.

Can. 1365 A person guilty of prohibited participation in sacred rites (communicatio in sacris) is to be punished with a just penalty.

Can. 1366 Parents or those who take the place of parents who hand offer their children to be baptized or educated in a non Catholic religion are to be punished with a censure or other just penalty.

Can. 1367 A person who throws away the consecrated species or takes or retains them for a sacrilegious purpose incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; moreover, a cleric can be punished with another penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state.

Can. 1368 A person who commits perjury while asserting or promising something before ecclesiastical authority is to be punished with a just penalty.

Can. 1369 A person who in a public show or speech, in published writing, or in other uses of the instruments of social communication utters blasphemy, gravely injures good morals, expresses insults, or excites hatred or contempt against religion or the Church is to be punished with a just penalty.

On the basis of Can. 1364 and 1369, I wonder if it is permissible to start a petition asking for someone to be excommunicated?

 

[thistle]

I am studying the practice of excommunication with a goal of understanding why it is not applied more often. Why is it that someone like Sr. Chittister (who supports abortion and the ordination of women) is allowed to insult the Church and deride its divinely inspired teachings while still calling herself a Catholic nun? By officially retaining her status as part of the Church she gains undeserved credibility.

Perhaps the Holy Father and the rest of the Hierarchy are just more merciful than I. In fact, I am sure they are, but in the cases of Sr. Chittister, of Maureen Dowd with her ridiculous and mendacious op-eds about the Church, and of any number of other nominal Catholics who publicly and repeatedly disobey and denigrate the one true Faith, what benefit can they possibly derive from taking Holy Communion? Far from their gaining anything spiritually, St. Paul teaches us that precisely the opposite is true:
[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 11:27-29[/BIBLEDRB]

It seems to me, therefore, that their formal exclusion would benefit the faithful while doing the unfaithful no harm.

I don’t know this nun but depending on what she has said or done she may well anyway be excommunicated. Most offenses are subject to automatic excommunication which does not require any public declaration from the Church.

EXCOMMUNICATION

Ferendae Sententiae Excommunication (this requires formal proceedings):

Canon 1378: The pretended celebration of the Eucharist or of sacramental Confession
Canon 1388: Violation of the seal of Confession by an interpreter

Latae Sententiae Excommunication (automatic excommunication):

Canon 1364: Apostasy, heresy or schism
Canon 1367: Violation of the Sacred Species
Canon 1370: Laying violent hands on the Pope
Canon 1378: Absolution of an accomplice
Canon 1382: Episcopal consecration without authorization from the Holy See
Canon 1388: Violation of the seal of Confession by a confessor
Canon 1398: Procuring abortion

 

[Drawmack]

Do you refer to the two doctors who were excommunicated for performing an abortion on a little girl who had been raped?

That is a very tough situation, but ultimately the principle of not taking an innocent life was rightfully upheld.

Nope, I’m commenting on the fact that the mother – a woman with an elementary school education who was told by those doctors that her daughter’s life was in imminent danger by those two doctors – was also excommunicated.

 

[Drawmack]

Latae Sententiae Excommunication (automatic excommunication):

Canon 1364: Apostasy, heresy or schism
Canon 1367: Violation of the Sacred Species
Canon 1370: Laying violent hands on the Pope
Canon 1378: Absolution of an accomplice
Canon 1382: Episcopal consecration without authorization from the Holy See
Canon 1388: Violation of the seal of Confession by a confessor
Canon 1398: Procuring abortion

What doesn’t seem right to me is some of the things that aren’t on that list.

Punch the pope – excommunicated
Rape a child – not excommunicated

How does that make any sense?

 

[Scoobyshme]

I am studying the practice of excommunication with a goal of understanding why it is not applied more often. Why is it that someone like Sr. Chittister (who supports abortion and the ordination of women) is allowed to insult the Church and deride its divinely inspired teachings while still calling herself a Catholic nun? By officially retaining her status as part of the Church she gains undeserved credibility.

Perhaps the Holy Father and the rest of the Hierarchy are just more merciful than I. In fact, I am sure they are, but in the cases of Sr. Chittister, of Maureen Dowd with her ridiculous and mendacious op-eds about the Church, and of any number of other nominal Catholics who publicly and repeatedly disobey and denigrate the one true Faith, what benefit can they possibly derive from taking Holy Communion? Far from their gaining anything spiritually, St. Paul teaches us that precisely the opposite is true:
[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 11:27-29[/BIBLEDRB]

It seems to me, therefore, that their formal exclusion would benefit the faithful while doing the unfaithful no harm.

It seems to me that excommunicating the unfaithful would do them the most good, because it would highlight the fact that they ARE outside of the Church, in a more formal and poignant way. Only secondarily would it possibly help the faithful by highlighting behavior and stances that are harmful to the soul.

 

[Lutheranteach]

Can. 1366 Parents or those who take the place of parents who hand offer their children to be baptized or educated in a non Catholic religion are to be punished with a censure or other just penalty.

Guilty as charged, and I wouldn’t have it any other way as I think a purely Catholic and Catholic only perspective does one a disservice.

 

[fkjuliano]

Nope, I’m commenting on the fact that the mother – a woman with an elementary school education who was told by those doctors that her daughter’s life was in imminent danger by those two doctors – was also excommunicated.

She can be reinstated through sincere repentance and reconciliation, according to my understanding. However uneducated she may be, she is an adult who understood the basic nature of abortion. Though there are many others even more deserving, her share of guilt cannot be denied.

 

[CMatt25]

She can be reinstated through sincere repentance and reconciliation, according to my understanding. However uneducated she may be, she is an adult who understood the basic nature of abortion. Though there are many others even more deserving, her share of guilt cannot be denied.

While I question whether a 9 yr old child who was raped should be forced to carry to term, it is my understanding as well that excommunicated in the CC only means no sacraments other than reconciliation. Still a Catholic just outside the sacraments until reconciled.

 

[mini_me640]

Sadly, if we were to enforce this, this day in age, compared to how it was in the early church, most of the pews would be empty, and in fact, many of the clergy would be absent as well…this is the state of things in the here and now, and I know, I make no friends in the process for stating the truth.

Because all of the members and clergy of the early Church were nearly perfect…

 

[Slopeshoulder]

Sister Chittester is on my short list of favorite Catholics, representing the true core of the church and its future. Even if I probably mispelled the dear woman’s name.

I suppose she isn’t excommunicated because wiser heads prevail.

 

[Ron_Conte]

In the eyes of God, every single person who commits the sin of apostasy, or of formal heresy, or of formal schism, has cut himself off (excommunicated himself) from the Church. There are today in the world some Cardinals, some Bishops, and all too many priests and religious, who are truly in a state of excommunication, despite continuing to act as if they are full members in good standing of the Church.

 

[Drawmack]

She can be reinstated through sincere repentance and reconciliation, according to my understanding. However uneducated she may be, she is an adult who understood the basic nature of abortion. Though there are many others even more deserving, her share of guilt cannot be denied.

You believe whatever you have to believe to let you sleep at night. However, any church which allows pro-choice politicians to publicly proclaim that faith (Bidden) but excommunicates women who were just doing what doctors told them they had to, to save their daughter’s life. That, I cannot and will not believe is a body led by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Drawmack]

While I question whether a 9 yr old child who was raped should be forced to carry to term, it is my understanding as well that excommunicated in the CC only means no sacraments other than reconciliation. Still a Catholic just outside the sacraments until reconciled.

So the woman how is just doing what doctors told her she has to, in order to save her daughter’s life deserves to be separated from the Sacraments. But, the people who make the laws saying it’s legal to get abortions are not and the monster who raped the little girl for three years doesn’t. Yeah – that sounds like the Gospel Jesus preached to me.

 

[mardukm]

What doesn’t seem right to me is some of the things that aren’t on that list.

Punch the pope – excommunicated
Rape a child – not excommunicated

How does that make any sense?

FYI, every mortal sin incurs a latae sententiae excommunication of a sort. Are you saying that raping a child is not a mortal sin? I don’t know why you are hung up on formal categories and terms.

Blessings