Excommunication for Brazilian Mother who Allowed Daughter to Abort

[Pusher Man]

god damn

[tlongII]

If I were you, I'd consider reading my posts before commenting on my position. Here's what I wrote in my 1st or 2nd post:

It seems to me that you're confusing excommunication with some kind of ostracism. It has nothing to do with that, quite the opposite. An excommunication is an invitation to repentance, reflection and a deeper involvement with the Church. People are not forbidden of going to the Mass, for example; quite the opposite, they're encouraged to go more.

In which part of my position you don't believe?

Ps. - plus, do you know if those women weren't absolved and therefore aren't excommunicated anymore? All it takes is a single confession, nothing more.

I'm only doing this for Mookie...

from Miriam-Webster...

Main Entry: ex·com·mu·ni·ca·tion
Pronunciation: \-ˌmyü-nə-ˈkā-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1 : an ecclesiastical censure depriving a person of the rights of church membership
2 : exclusion from fellowship in a group or community
— ex·com·mu·ni·ca·tive \-ˈmyü-nə-ˌkā-tiv, -ni-kət-\ adjective

[tlongII]

and I have nothing against mogrovejo...

[mookie2001]

English is not my primary language. Or even my fourth.

here we go


alright phehenomanual

bust out some credentials

[B-Boys]

I have no problem with the Catholics at ST you guys can all pray to Satan as far as I care! But I do have a problem with some of the ways your church does business. So this is directed at the religion as a whole not at anyone here.

But the more I read about this Catholic religion the more it seems like some sort of cult. After all you have to do all kinds of things in order to be able to receive communion and if any rule is broken you must say some sort on mantra over and over as part of the forgiveness process, and now due to a medial condition the church is delegating rights and revoking privileges, But yet a priest does wrong they just transfer him.

Then you have the arch bishop the cardinal, its like I am going to join the masons. And if you notice all topics and posts about the catholic religion is always negative or controversial. You hardly see any fun or good come out of a topic when the Catholic religion is the subject.

I am not a church goer but when I was young my parents took me to a free Methodist church where we could pray to God without having to go through a priest and we didn't have to take a class before we could have communion. But I do remember reading something in the Bible about no man should come between the father or something like that. This catholic religion is like working for Enron you have to know someone if you want to advance but at the end you end up losing everything.

my 2 cents carry on...............

[MannyIsGod]

Mogrovejo should take some of his own advice and learn some more about excommunication because he's gotten things wrong in this case.

[TheProfessor]

No one has yet addressed how this decision squares with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

[jack sommerset]

Honestly, after it is all said and done this family needs to join a new club. There are thousands of religions out there they can choose from. Seriously thousands. They all have bibles,proof of existence,hats to put money in and others to tell them what to do.If they really bought in to this religion they can go to another church. Hopefully somewhere near their home.

[mogrovejo]

I'm only doing this for Mookie...

from Miriam-Webster...

Main Entry: ex·com·mu·ni·ca·tion
Pronunciation: \-ˌmyü-nə-ˈkā-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1 : an ecclesiastical censure depriving a person of the rights of church membership
2 : exclusion from fellowship in a group or community
— ex·com·mu·ni·ca·tive \-ˈmyü-nə-ˌkā-tiv, -ni-kət-\ adjective

I don't think a common dictionary is a good source on this issue. The Catholic Church Canon Law is the oldest continuously functioning legal system in the Western Civilization and the common meaning of a word can be different from the canonic meaning (to the point of being misleading), just like it happens with civil law. I mean, there are different types of excommunication: the Catholic excommunication is different from the Lutheran excommunication or from the Adventist excommunication or from the Takfir (the Muslim form of excommunication). The Catholic Excommunication is actually quite different from what it was in the Middle-Ages or even some decades ago. That definition is too short for such a complex issue. For example, until the Council Vatican II there was an extreme form of excommunication, the Vitandus

Anyway, definition 1 may be applicable to the Catholic Excommunication as the subjects aren't allowed to receive the Eucharist (although they can attend the Liturgy - more than that, they're under the same obligation as any other Catholic). Definition 2, not at all. I think this is pretty clear if you read a couple of articles on the issue, like the one I linked.

You know those Bishops from the SSPX whose excommunication was removed awhile ago? They were still part of the Church and their ordained status as Bishops was never lost - they were just forbidden of exercising their priestly functions.

I think the easiest way to comprehend this is to see the excommunication - in this latae sententiae form - not exactly as a punishment but as a status. If a Catholic breaks certain laws he automatically becomes excommunicated - well, not necessarily, there can be mitigating factors, but these are technicalities (there are some canonists who are against the automatic form of excommunication).

Unfortunately, there are plently of misconceptions about Excommunicatio, ergo this thread.

[mogrovejo]

No one has yet addressed how this decision squares with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Whose decision? I think you're misunderstanding something.

Mogrovejo should take some of his own advice and learn some more about excommunication because he's gotten things wrong in this case.

Perhaps, I'm frequently wrong. What I've learnt about excommunication was mostly in a couple of seminars on Canon Law and by reading some doctrinal, historic or legal bibliography - although, in all honesty, excommunication was never an issue I was specifically interested on. Anyway, if I'm wrong, I'd appreciate to know why and where, it's always good to learn new things.

[ploto]

No one has yet addressed how this decision squares with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

"If your brother sins, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.

If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that 'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.'

If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector."

[Horn Tooter]

What I've learnt about excommunication was in a couple of seminars on Canon Law and by reading some doctrinal, historic or legal bibliography

[tlongII]

from newadvent.org...

Excommunication (Latin ex, out of, and communio or communicatio, communion -- exclusion from the communion), the principal and severest censure, is a medicinal, spiritual penalty that deprives the guilty Christian of all participation in the common blessings of ecclesiastical society. Being a penalty, it supposes guilt; and being the most serious penalty that the Church can inflict, it naturally supposes a very grave offence. It is also a medicinal rather than a vindictive penalty, being intended, not so much to punish the culprit, as to correct him and bring him back to the path of righteousness. It necessarily, therefore, contemplates the future, either to prevent the recurrence of certain culpable acts that have grievous external consequences, or, more especially, to induce the delinquent to satisfy the obligations incurred by his offence. Its object and its effect are loss of communion, i.e. of the spiritual benefits shared by all the members of Christian society; hence, it can affect only those who by baptism have been admitted to that society. Undoubtedly there can and do exist other penal measures which entail the loss of certain fixed rights; among them are other censures, e.g. suspension for clerics, interdict for clerics and laymen, irregularity ex delicto, etc. Excommunication, however, is clearly distinguished from these penalties in that it is the privation of all rights resulting from the social status of the Christian as such. The excommunicated person, it is true, does not cease to be a Christian, since his baptism can never be effaced; he can, however, be considered as an exile from Christian society and as non-existent, for a time at least, in the sight of ecclesiastical authority. But such exile can have an end (and the Church desires it), as soon as the offender has given suitable satisfaction. Meanwhile, his status before the Church is that of a stranger. He may not participate in public worship nor receive the Body of Christ or any of the sacraments. Moreover, if he be a cleric, he is forbidden to administer a sacred rite or to exercise an act of spiritual authority.

I think it's clear from this that decision-making does indeed go on within the church regarding excommunications. It's also clear to me that the penalized parties are excluded from participating in communion, although not necessarily forever.

[hater]

excomunication is probably the best thing a catholic could achieve in life

[Blake]

The excommunication is automatic. If people commit certain sins, they become automatically excommunicated. So, from a certain perspective, it was a decision, but not from the Church hierarchy.

You should read the article linked (there's no way of "opting out of excommunication" - only thing that can be done is to concede absolution) first; read some more about this particular case second. LOL at the idea that the catholic church tried to publicize this case or bring it to the news.

if this is how the church treats people, then yeah, she needs a new church.

nothing about automatic excommunication in the Bible.

[hater]

excomunnication means the person is banished from catholic church and probably needs to get ready to go burn in .

It is a medieval practice, the catholic church used it hundreds of years ago to scare, blackmail, control the people. It is hilarious that some ppl still beleive in that , and all that other catholic church bull

[TheProfessor]

"If your brother sins, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.

If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that 'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.'

If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector."

Eloquently answered. Unfortunately, the incorrect "sinner" is punished in this context, if she is even that. I see no compassion or understanding.

[TheProfessor]

A Roman Catholic archbishop says the abortion of twins carried by a 9-year-old girl who allegedly was raped by her stepfather means excommunication for the girl's mother and her doctors.

Despite the nature of the case, the church had to hold its line against abortion, Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho said in an interview aired Thursday by Globo television.

Whose decision? I think you're misunderstanding something

Please explain it to me then.

EDIT - Well, reading your answers to Blake, I see what you're getting at. Though fundamentally it is the kind of decision-making that leaves the Catholic Church in the dark ages.

[Blake]

Great. Don't enter the Catholic Church then. You and that Church have different views on that issue. For them, an abortion is always, in every case, something wrong. People who don't agree with that aren't Catholics therefore can't be excommunicated. So, you don't have a problem at all. Quite simple.

Great. If that's the case then the Catholic church sucks and has no business trying to teach the New Testament if they can't even adhere to it themselves.

[Blake]

excomunnication means the person is banished from catholic church and probably needs to get ready to go burn in .

It is a medieval practice, the catholic church used it hundreds of years ago to scare, blackmail, control the people. It is hilarious that some ppl still beleive in that , and all that other catholic church bull

most likely, the mother pays enough money to the church and they let her back in.

[mogrovejo]

from newadvent.org...



I think it's clear from this that decision-making does indeed go on within the church regarding excommunications. It's also clear to me that the penalized parties are excluded from participating in communion, although not necessarily forever.

1. Well, this is getting amusing. Using the definition of a Catholic Encyclopedia is certainly an improvement over a Webster dictionary. However, as I said in a previous post, the Catholic Excommunication is actually quite different from what it was in the Middle-Ages or even some decades ago. For example, until the Council Vatican II there was an extreme form of excommunication, the Vitandus.

Hence, maybe it's not wise to quote an article from the... 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia. Yeah, that's the version published in the NewAdvent site (a great resource on Catholic do ents, btw).

Anyway, addressing what's supposedly clear to you:

I think it's clear from this that decision-making does indeed go on within the church regarding excommunications.

Let me quote part of the article:

Excommunication, especially a jure, is either latæ or ferendæ sententiæ. The first is incurred as soon as the offence is committed and by reason of the offence itself (eo ipso) without intervention of any ecclesiastical judge; it is recognized in the terms used by the legislator, for instance: "the culprit will be excommunicated at once, by the fact itself [statim, ipso facto]". The second is indeed foreseen by the law as a penalty, but is inflicted on the culprit only by a judicial sentence; in other words, the delinquent is rather threatened than visited with the penalty, and incurs it only when the judge has summoned him before his tribunal, declared him guilty, and punished him according to the terms of the law. It is recognized when the law contains these or similar words: "under pain of excommunication"; "the culprit will be excommunicated".

As I've said before this was a latae sententiae excommunication.As the article you quote says it "is incurred as soon as the offence is committed and by reason of the offence itself (eo ipso) without intervention of any ecclesiasticall judge". Thanks for proving me right.
Second:

It's also clear to me that the penalized parties are excluded from participating in communion, although not necessarily forever.

I'd strongly suggest you to re-read my previous post. As I've said, the subjects aren't allowed to receive the Eucharist. I don't know what you mean by excluded from participating in communion - is it the exile? If so, that kind of excommunicated - the vindati - is no longer practiced. And if it was, it would require conditions not fulfiled in this case.

To sum it up: if your Catholic friends aborted, they were excommunicated by latae sententiae. From that moment till the second they confessed and repented their act, they weren't able to receive the communion and some other Church activities (like to help the priest in the liturgy) but they were still able to attend the Mass. At any moment they were excluded from the Church.

I think the lesson here is that if you're going to quote an article, read it till the end - even if it's a wrong one.

There are ways to kick one out of the Catholic Church. However, Excommunication (as defined by the 1983 Code of Canon Law for the Roman Church - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM) is not one of them.

[mogrovejo]

Please explain it to me then.

EDIT - Well, reading your answers to Blake, I see what you're getting at. Though fundamentally it is the kind of decision-making that leaves the Catholic Church in the dark ages.

I really don't understand what you mean. I've repeated 100 times that Excommunication these days is radically different, has a different nature and meaning, than the Excommunication in the Middle-Ages. It's almost opposed.

I still don't understand to what decision you were refereeing to. The Bishop didn't decide the Excommunication, this has been explained ad nauseaum.

excomunnication means the person is banished from catholic church and probably needs to get ready to go burn in .

Impressive. Excommunication has nothing to do with banishment. It's pretty amazing that the Catholic Church is often accused of being obscurantist. Oh, the irony.

And an excommunicated person doesn't go to . He may go or not. That's another common misconception. The Church doesn't judge dead people. The final fate is always decided by God.

[tlongII]

1. Well, this is getting amusing. Using the definition of a Catholic Encyclopedia is certainly an improvement over a Webster dictionary. However, as I said in a previous post, the Catholic Excommunication is actually quite different from what it was in the Middle-Ages or even some decades ago. For example, until the Council Vatican II there was an extreme form of excommunication, the Vitandus.

Hence, maybe it's not wise to quote an article from the... 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia. Yeah, that's the version published in the NewAdvent site (a great resource on Catholic do ents, btw).

Anyway, addressing what's supposedly clear to you:

I think it's clear from this that decision-making does indeed go on within the church regarding excommunications.

Let me quote part of the article:



As I've said before this was a latae sententiae excommunication.As the article you quote says it "is incurred as soon as the offence is committed and by reason of the offence itself (eo ipso) without intervention of any ecclesiasticall judge". Thanks for proving me right.
Second:

It's also clear to me that the penalized parties are excluded from participating in communion, although not necessarily forever.

I'd strongly suggest you to re-read my previous post. As I've said, the subjects aren't allowed to receive the Eucharist. I don't know what you mean by excluded from participating in communion - is it the exile? If so, that kind of excommunicated - the vindati - is no longer practiced. And if it was, it would require conditions not fulfiled in this case.

To sum it up: if your Catholic friends aborted, they were excommunicated by latae sententiae. From that moment till the second they confessed and repented their act, they weren't able to receive the communion and some other Church activities (like to help the priest in the liturgy) but they were still able to attend the Mass. At any moment they were excluded from the Church.

I think the lesson here is that if you're going to quote an article, read it till the end - even if it's a wrong one.

There are ways to kick one out of the Catholic Church. However, Excommunication (as defined by the 1983 Code of Canon Law for the Roman Church - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM) is not one of them.

Why would I read the whole thing? I'm not Catholic!

I'm surprised you don't know what communion is...