AUTOMATIC EXCOMMUNICATION

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Is it possible to auotmatically re-instate those who have been automatically excomunicated, I'm especially thinking of those who have procured an abortion and the comming millenium. The Millenium is a special time of grace and what better way for this grace to be extended around the world than for the Pope to offer full participation in the church for those who are bereft of its benefits.

-- Tony Hicks (novusnet@iinet.net.au), November 11, 1999

Answers

Does excommunication mean that you aren't forgiven from whatever you did?

-- Yolanda Duarte (yondelac@nmda-bubba.nmsu.edu), November 11, 1999.

You are forgiven of any sins if you make a good confession ie truly sorry. I think there is an extra process to go thru' after excommunication.

-- Tony Hicks (novusnet@iinet.net.au), November 11, 1999.

Who do you confess to? Who else has the authority to forgive your sins but Christ? Why is there excommunication?

-- Yolanda Duarte (yondelac@nmda-bubba.nmsu.edu), November 11, 1999.

When one is Excommunicated one is "Cut off from the Church". The Church is Christ's Mystical Body, hence one is cut off from Christ, cut off from the vine. The Sacraments are not available to someone who is Excommunicated. However it should be noted that few are Excommunicated. Many have thought that to divorce caused one to be Excommunicated. Not so, the Sacraments and the Life of the Church are open to them. Even to commit Adultry by attempting a second marriage does not Excommunicate a person. They are restricted from receiving some Sacraments, not by Excommunication, but by the state of sin in which they find themselves. Canon Law provides a number of ways that Excommunication can be lifted. It is best that someone who believes that they are Excommunicated speak with their pastor about the situation.

Br. Rich S.F.O.

-- Br. Rich S.F.O. (repsfo@prodigy.net), November 11, 1999.


But who are we but mear mortals to "cut away from the church"? If Christ is the church, then He must be an unforgiving God. From what I have learned, God is a loving, forgiving, caring, God. He would not cut us away from Him. We do that ourselves and that is when we ask for forgiveness and repent. God holds on to us no matter what sin we committ, we are the ones who hold ourselves back from his forgiving love. We forgive each other because He tells us to, but I don't think we are to condem each other by excommunication.

-- Yolanda Duarte (yondelac@nmda-bubba.nmsu.edu), November 11, 1999.


That is correct it is we who "cut ourselves from the vine " by our actions. God does not hold on to us. He always extends His hand to us but never holds us . We are free to walk away from Him if we choose. He gave us the gift of the Sacrament of Reconciliation and empowered His Church to reconcile us. God is Merciful and also Just. See Ch 13 of Luke 1-5. Matthew 25:31-46, John 15:1-9

Br. Rich S.F.O.

Excommunication is not condemnation unless we refuse to repent to the end.

-- Br. Rich S.F.O. (repsfo@prodigy.net), November 11, 1999.


So Bro. is it true that anyone connected with procuring or performing an abortion is auotmatically excommunicated from the body of the church? If this is so what procedures are available to reverse this situation. Also what about those milions around the world who do not know of their excomunication, especially those who have never heard of JC?

-- Tony Hicks (novusnet@iinet.net.au), November 12, 1999.

Cannon Law prescribes who is able to lift an excommunication. Sometimes every priest has this authority (this is the case with abortion; the priest must additionaly tell his Bishop that he has excersized this authority). Other more serious causes for excommunication (such as heresy) may be lifted by the local Bishop and sometimes this lifting is reserved for the Holy See herself.

Excommunication, however regulated by Cannon Law, is not a "Church invention". It comes directly from Scripture, both Old and New Covenants. See for example Mt 16,19;18,17 ; 1Cor 5,5; 1Tim 1,20; Tt 3,10 among other passages.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), November 13, 1999.


Only a person who is Catholic can be Excommunicated.

Can. 1398 A person who actually procures an abortion incurs a latae sententiae (Automatic) excommunication.

Br. Rich S.F.O.

-- Br. Rich S.F.O. (repsfo@prodigy.net), November 13, 1999.


I was wondering if it is possible for the Pope to automatically lift all the Excommunicaations on those people throughout the world who have procured abortions. As a gift to the world for the new millenium. Allowing The Spirit to fully embrace all those once again. I suspect a lot of Baptised Catholics are excommunicated without knowing it.

-- Tony Hicks (novusnet@iinet.net.au), November 14, 1999.


Sure by the Power of The Keys he could do that.

Br. Rich S.F.O.

-- Br. Rich S.F.O. (repsfo@prodigy.net), November 14, 1999.


So the next time you see the Pope let him know will you?

-- Tony Hicks (novusnet@iinet.net.au), November 15, 1999.

God sees him more often than than I do, ask Him to let the pope know.

Br. Rich S.F.O.

-- Br. Rich S.F.O. (repsfo@prodigy.net), November 16, 1999.



"been there, done that"



-- Dr. Moreau (ULC@hurch.net), November 16, 1999.

Ok so I'll pray for that but we are supposed to act as well aren't we and make the best use we can of our limited human means, so do you know of any contacts?

-- Tony Hicks (novusnet@iinet.net.au), November 17, 1999.


 Excommunication means not out of hate but out of love to know what are you going trough is not good for your eternal salvation.

-- St Charbel for Life (scfl_2000@yahoo.com), January 23, 2004.

I suspect a lot of Baptised Catholics are excommunicated without knowing it.

This is not the case. Automatic excommunication only occurs when the person is aware that abortion results in excommunication at the time of the abortion. This penalty is meant to discourage willful disobedience, not unknowning actions.

So in canon law (unlike civil law), ignorance of the law is an excuse.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), January 23, 2004.


Ignorance of the law THROUGH NO FAULT OF ONE'S OWN is an excuse. Ignorance of the law because one simply has not bothered seeking the truth is NOT an excuse.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 23, 2004.

Also a side note...

While the CIC (Code of Canon Law) has latae sententiae - "automatic" (not the best word since many would not be included in this group - e.g. those under 16 years old, et al) excommunications for certain offenses the Eastern Code of Canon Law (CCEO) does not. Any excommunciations must be imposed after a process or hearing.

Hope that's helpful.

-- Fr. Mike Skrocki, JCL (abounamike@aol.com), January 25, 2004.


Mark: "So in canon law (unlike civil law), ignorance of the law is an excuse."
Paul M: "Ignorance of the law THROUGH NO FAULT OF ONE'S OWN is an excuse. Ignorance of the law because one simply has not bothered seeking the truth is NOT an excuse."

Me: Most "ignorance of" Church law is ignorance "through no fault of one's own." One is excused if one has no reason to "seek the" detailed facts on the matter. [This is a matter of factual discipline, rather than of "truth" or falsity.]

Ordinary Catholics usually do not receive encouragement (from priests, bishops, etc.) to gain a familiarity with Canon Law. Some don't even know that it exists.

Some Catholics don't know that there is such a thing as excommunication, so they have are not moved to find out about it. They are excused.

Others, victims of imperfect information, wrongly think that they know the facts about excommunication. They either believe that it cannot be imposed automatically or that it is not a penalty for abortion. These too have no reason to seek the facts, because they believe that they already have them. They are excused.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 30, 2004.


"They either believe that it cannot be imposed automatically or that it is not a penalty for abortion."

A: "Belief" in the absence of any corroborating evidence is simply assumption. "Believing" that excommunication is not the automatic penalty for abortion, simply because that is what you want to "believe", when the truth could easily be known by asking your parish priest, does not circumvent excommunication if one participates in an abortion. Ignorance through no fault of one's own may mitigate culpability; however, willful ignorance resulting from a deliberate choice to avoid the truth does not. A person who commits a grievous act under these circumstances is just as culpable as a person who actually does consult valid authority, and discovers the truth before acting.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 30, 2004.


Also regarding the ignorance of the law issue...

The Code of Canon Law presumes that all Catholics know the law. This presumption is rather difficult to overcome for Catholics above the age of reason who have the use of their mental facilities.

-- Fr. Mike Skrocki, JCL (abounamike@aol.com), January 30, 2004.


Me (last time): "They either believe that it cannot be imposed automatically or that it is not a penalty for abortion."
Paul M: "'Belief' in the absence of any corroborating evidence is simply assumption. 'Believing' that excommunication is not the automatic penalty for abortion, simply because that is what you want to 'believe,' when the truth could easily be known by asking your parish priest, does not circumvent excommunication if one participates in an abortion."

Me (this time): Unfortunately (and ironically), Paul M, your comment was based on your incorrect assumption that the hypothetical person I was referring to "believed" wrongly based on his/her OWN assumption. I neither stated that nor meant that. Too bad you didn't have the courtesy to ask me to expand on my statement, rather than to assume a wrong meaning of it.

When I used the words, "They ... believe," I meant that they hold this belief based on information received from someone they had a reason to trust. As a result, they experienced no doubt and no thought to look further. I repeat, "These too have no reason to seek the facts, because they believe that they already have them. They are excused."

God bless you.
John
PS: I disagree with you, Father. I don't find the presumption difficult to overcome at all. The Code of Canon Law is a series of written statements, not a human being. Therefore it cannot "presume" anything. The legislators "presume" that Catholic know the law, but only after first "presuming" that their pastors have taught it to them. If the pastors have failed, the flock are not held responsible.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), January 31, 2004.


John,

I beg to disagree. The presumption that Catholics know the law is NOT based on it being taught to them. The reason why this Code is available in the vernacular is so that any Catholic can pick it up off a library or bookstore shelf and read it themselves. If they have chosen not to do so then the fault is still theirs.

-- Fr. Mike Skrocki, JCL (abounamike@aol.com), January 31, 2004.


"So in canon law (unlike civil law), ignorance of the law is an excuse."

Mark,

Would that mean that a Catholic ignorant of proper form regarding Marriage could marry in any way and have a valid sacramental marriage?

My understanding is that ignorance alone is no excuse -maybe, your posit is relatively argued and not based in Truth?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), January 31, 2004.


Father Mike,

You said:

‘The presumption that Catholics know the law is NOT based on it being taught to them. The reason why this Code is available in the vernacular is so that any Catholic can pick it up off a library or bookstore shelf and read it themselves. If they have chosen not to do so then the fault is still theirs.’

Any Catholic cannot pick the Code of Canon Law from a library or bookstore and read it for themselves because:

a. They may not even know of its existence…this may surprise you, but many people don’t know there is such a thing as a Code of Canon Law. Some don’t even know of the existence of the Catechism of the Catholic Church as we know it now, thinking there is only the ‘Penny Catechism’ question and answer type of book!

b. Libraries don’t always have the Code (certainly not in this area)

c. It may be cost prohibitive (I just purchased a copy for the office, it cost £60 and this may beyond the budget of some people)

d. Even if the person can get a hold of it to read, they may not be intellectually able to read and comprehend what it is saying. As in all sections of society, some Catholics may be illiterate or semi- literate, thus being unable to properly appreciate what it’s saying, if they‘re able to read it at all.

The General Directory for Catechesis tells us that we must catechise people according to their ability to comprehend; their intellectual ability. We’re told that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is aimed primarily at Bishops and those who are trained to deliver catechesis to the people of God. Obviously many who read and contribute to this forum are well able to read and understand the Catechism. That’s not always the case.

The Church recognises that her people come from all walks of life, and are of varying intellectual abilities. There must be education on all levels, and that’s where the role of the local priest comes in. He must ensure that his parishioners have access to that education, for example by using diocesan initiatives, parish catechists, getting people in to give talks or indeed providing some catechesis himself, according to the needs of his parishioners.

Canon Lawyers spend years in training to learn and understand Canon Law, I think it’s grossly unfair to expect the average lay person to take their catechesis directly from the Code.

God bless

Sara

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), January 31, 2004.


Would that mean that a Catholic ignorant of proper form regarding Marriage could marry in any way and have a valid sacramental marriage?

No, the "ignorance" rule only applies to the imposition of penalties (e.g., censure, excommunication). The invalidity of a marriage is a not a penalty of Canon Law but a consequence of the nature of marriage.

maybe, your posit is relatively argued and not based in Truth

My posit is from Canon Law, c. 1323 2° and c. 1324 §1 9° (by c. 1324 §3).

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), January 31, 2004.


-canon law is based upon universal truth; therefore, not something arbirarily derived -I would suggest that although the specifics may be unknown -in general all it is all known and inherently imprinted as natural law. -- ignorance as a 'defense' in such case would be but relativistic argument ESPECIALLY when the argument is made in the face of the truth it is argued against...

Daniel////

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), January 31, 2004.


Here is my two cents on the presumption debate. Canon law clearly states the presumption that all Catholics are aware of canon law:

Canon 15 §2 Ignorance or error is not presumed about a law, a penalty, a fact concerning oneself, or a notorious fact concerning another. It is presumed about a fact concerning another which is not notorious, until the contrary is proved.

I have no reason to doubt Father Mike's claim that this presumption is difficult to disprove in a Church tribunal. But I don't really see why this is relevant for latae sententiae penalties. In these cases there is no tribunal, so the burden of proof is irrelevant, only the actual truth. So if in fact a Catholic was ignorant, through no fault of their own, that abortion results in excommunication, then they are not in fact excommunicated.

There is no "presumption" (or any other reason to assume) that the actual ignorance of Catholics about canon law is through their own personal fault.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), January 31, 2004.


Jmj

Thank you, Sara, for that outstanding exposition of fact and logic. I agree with you completely. (Mark, I also agree with your last comment. I have always read that, if the sinner is unaware -- for any reason -- of the grave penalty of latae sententiae excommunication, the penalty is not imposed.)

I have been a Catholic all my life (over fifty years), and I never have come across anything whatsoever like Father Michael's statement ("The presumption that Catholics know the law is NOT based on it being taught to them. The reason why this Code is available in the vernacular is so that any Catholic can pick it up off a library or bookstore shelf and read it themselves. If they have chosen not to do so then the fault is still theirs.")

Father, I am convinced that you are simply mistaken. Even among those Catholics who know that there is such a thing as Canon Law, the belief is almost universal that it is a book to be read only by priests -- and particularly by those priests who have done graduate-level studies in it. I see nothing being done, at the level of the parish or of the bishops' conference or of the Vatican, to dissuade ordinary Catholics from thinking this way. I would argue that this inaction at the various levels of the Church is intentional -- which is the direct opposite of what you have stated (that the laity are obliged to read and study Canon Law).

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), February 01, 2004.


John,

We publish the Scripture and no one needs to be told to read that (though many could read it more), we publish the Catechism and no one needs to be told to read that, we publish encyclicals and other documents and no one needs to be told to read them. But somehow the Code is different?? Before Vatican II the Code could only be published in Latin and no translation was allowed. Now it's translated, commentaries are published. People are writing all sorts of books and articles but people think it's a book for only a select group of priests?? I don't think so. What to know what the duties of your pastor are - look in the Code. What to know what the rights of parents are in regard to religious education - look in the Code. Etc, etc.

The hue and cry since Vatican II has been the involvement of the laity - but where the Code is concerned the laity has no role or responsibility to educate themselves??

None of this changes the fact that there is a presumption of law that Catholics know the Code.

-- Fr. Mike Skrocki, JCL (abounamike@aol.com), February 01, 2004.


It is amazing how adept some can be in finding a rationalization for sin.

In these instances of human error, such as in obtaining an abortion or marrying without proper form, any Catholic with an ounce of conscience would see warning lights flashing. They would be compelled by their conscience, imprinted by the Natural Law, to seek wise counsel.

The Code, whether read directly, or absorbed indirectly from a member of the clergy OR an educated member of the laity, applies to all.

There are no loop-holes to Heaven. Our Holy Father in his speech to the Roman Rota this week emphasized this. And anyone who relies upon a member of the clergy (such as a judge on a marriage tribunal) to make their errors for them so that they can advance the excuse of invincible ignorance still remains culpable.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), February 01, 2004.


"There are no loop-holes to Heaven."

I like this recognition. In general terms, standing before the throne of God on judgment day, all the excuses for everything just evaporate away and the individual person is just silenced in the face of the truth.

Pat, it's just mho but I think you are doing right by God taking a stand for the sanctity of marriage; thanks for your efforts.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 01, 2004.


Jmj

Hello, Father Michael.
I will respond to some things you just wrote, because I am convinced that you are completely wrong about this. It seems as though you are letting your own familiarity, studies, and expertise with the Code of Canon Law blind you to certain realities of the life of the laity in the Church.

FM: We publish the Scripture and no one needs to be told to read that (though many could read it more), ...
JG: Yes, some do need to be told, and we are so told. Others are attracted to read on their own, after hearing the scriptures proclaimed in Church. (Not so for the Code. We are not told the read it, and it is not read to us. I myself only began to look at it out of curiosity, not out of any sense of obligation. Even now, I have not read all of it -- and don't intend to. It is not my duty to read it. I know that I could not understand much of it without taking a course at Catholic University.)

FM: we publish the Catechism and no one needs to be told to read that, ...
JG: Yes, we need to be told to read the Catechism. The pope has recommended it to all, but many of the laity don't even know that, because their pastors and bishops do not promote its reading.

FM: we publish encyclicals and other documents and no one needs to be told to read them.
JG: Yes, we need to be told to read them, but we almost never are.

FM: But somehow the Code is different??
JG: Absolutely! Very different. We are not told to read it, and we never will be (in my opinion).

FM: Before Vatican II the Code could only be published in Latin and no translation was allowed. Now it's translated, commentaries are published.
JG: My goodness, Father, what a wrong assumption you've jumped to! The translations and commentaries were not done to make the Code approachable by the laity, but to help the now-ignorant-of-all-Latin priests and seminarians who are studying or applying the Code.

FM: What to know what the duties of your pastor are - look in the Code. What to know what the rights of parents are in regard to religious education - look in the Code. Etc, etc.
JG: I think that you meant "Want," rather than "What." At any rate, I disagree again. The average Catholic cannot "look in the Code" in the situations you mentioned. They often instead need to speak to a canon lawyer -- or read articles in layman's lingo -- to get the proper interpretation of the technical language of the Code.

FM: The hue and cry since Vatican II has been the involvement of the laity - but where the Code is concerned the laity has no role or responsibility to educate themselves??
JG: They have that responsibility, but they "educate themselves" by listening and by reading non-technical interpretations, not the Code itself.

The following was also observed above: "It is amazing how adept some can be in finding a rationalization for sin."

JG: What is actually amazing is how poor some highly educated people's reading (or reasoning) abilities are -- leaving them capable of mis-attributing to others the practice of "rationaliz[ing] sin." Neither Sara nor I came close to doing such a thing as rationalizing a sin. It should have been obvious that we abhor the sin (abortion) -- and that we have been denying only the incorrect claim that every Catholic girl/woman who gets an abortion is automatically excommunicated.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), February 01, 2004.


John,

We're just going to have to disagree on this. Funny that we don't choose ignorance about the civil law. We'll call up our town-hall or our councilmen or congressmen or our local cop or a lawyer to find out what the law is. But you seem to be suggesting that we won't go out and do similar asking about the Church law. And John you are flat out wrong about why the Code is available in the vernacular. The promulgating documents and the chairmen of the Code commission were very clear that they wanted it in the vernacular so that it would be available to the laity.

Anyway, in response to someone earlier on the list serve trying to find a copy of the Code but finding it too expensive. How about asking to borrow your local pastor's copy? How about looking on- line. I know for a fact there's a downloadable version in English. I have both Codes (Eastern & Western) available as Microsoft Word files. If anyone would like them please send me a private email.

Hope that's helpful.

-- Fr. Mike Skrocki, JCL (abounamike@aol.com), February 01, 2004.


I'm having a hard time seeing the points about Vatican II and the venacular translations of the Code of Canon Law, as the presumption of knowldege of canon law (1983 CIC 15) follows the pre-Vatican II canon law presumption (1917 CIC 16) quite closely.

Ignorance about abortion causing excommunication is harder to justify, because it is mentioned in the Catechism, but how many Catholics can name, of the top of their heads, the other four actions that result in automatic excommunication for a member of the laity? I don't know many people at my parish that could even figure this one out if they had a copy of the Code in front of them and an hour to study it.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), February 01, 2004.


Jmj

Yes, Father Michael, we will have to disagree -- that is, until a canon lawyer whose opinion you trust confirms what Mark and I have been telling you!

Earlier, you stated: "The Code of Canon Law presumes that all Catholics know the law. This presumption is rather difficult to overcome for Catholics above the age of reason who have the use of their mental facilities. ... The presumption that Catholics know the law is NOT based on it being taught to them. ... [T]here is a presumption of law that Catholics know the Code."
Mark just gave the number of the pertinent canon. Father, I want to quote the text now, because I have just looked at it for the first time, and I believe that I can see why you and I are in conflict:

Canon 15
§1 Ignorance or error concerning invalidating or incapacitating laws does not prevent the effect of those laws, unless it is expressly provided otherwise.
§2 Ignorance or error is not presumed about a law, a penalty, a fact concerning oneself, or a notorious fact concerning another. It is presumed about a fact concerning another which is not notorious, until the contrary is proved.

Oh, my gosh! That canon is not saying that Catholics are to be encouraged, expected, or required to study the Code of Canon Law -- or to be familiar with its provisions by studying secondary sources. Father, if you believe that the canon is saying any of those things, then I am convinced that you are laboring under a serious misinterpretation of the text.

I am convinced, instead, that Canon 15 is saying that, whenever there is a real-life situation in which there could be uncertainty about whether or not a given Catholic was ignorant of some point in the Law, the Church can presume that the Catholic in question was not ignorant of it, and the Church can act accordingly. In reality, though, the Church knows that some (perhaps many) Catholics will indeed be ignorant of specific provisions in the Law. Therefore, when the Church is apprised of that ignorance, I believe that she will not insist on acting dishonestly (as though the ignorant person was actually not ignorant). Simple justice calls for this.

Now, applying this to the situation we have been discussing ... If a Catholic woman has had an abortion, the Church's presumption is that she was aware of the threat of automatic excommunication. But that mere presumption does not in fact cause the penalty to be incurred. To be so gravely penalized, she must actually (not presumably) be aware of the penalty. As I said, justice calls for this.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), February 02, 2004.


John,

I will be brief.

The woman in your hypothetical would be excommunicated by the fact she had obtained an abortion. She would know she had sinned gravely. Her actual awareness of the penalty does not come to bear.

The citation from the Canon is not relevant to the hypothetical.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), February 02, 2004.


I'm sorry Pat, but it most certainly does come to bear.

Can. 1323 No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept: 1° has not completed the sixteenth year of age; 2° was, without fault, ignorant of violating the law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance

Section 2 of Canon 1323 clearly says that those (without fault) ignorant of the law are not liable to the penalty.

To the good Father: Canon 15 can't mean what you think it means. If you are correct then section 2 of Canon 1323 is null and void since it is impossible for there to be anyone who actualy satisfies those requirements. Since the writers of the code did indeed include ignorance in canon 1323 then it must be the case that they invisioned people who are legitimately ignorant of the canonical penalty.

Simply put, John is right.

Just my bloated opinion,

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), February 02, 2004.


Dan,

Read the text: "was, without fault, ignorant of violating"

Fault is imbued here as it is incumbent upon all Catholics, to know the seriousness of obtaining an abortion. As I stated previously, she would have known the seriousness of the sin. The fact that he/she was not aware of all the precise penalties does not detract from her already knowing it was gravely sinful.

Ergo, he/she would NOT be "without fault."

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), February 02, 2004.


Two more cents:

Canon 1323 2° No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept: was, without fault, ignorant of violating the law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance

This would apply to women who did know know that abortion was sinful. I agree that this would be very unlikely.

Canon 1324 §1 9° The perpetrator of a violation is not exempted from penalty, but the penalty prescribed in the law or precept must be diminished, or a penance substituted in its place, if the offence was committed by: one who through no personal fault was unaware that a penalty was attached to the law or precept;

This would apply to women who knew that abortion was sinful, but did not know that it resulted in excommunication. The specific applicability of this canon is due to:

Canon 1324 §3 In the circumstances mentioned in §1, the offender is not bound by a latae sententiae penalty.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), February 02, 2004.


My comment under Canon 1323 2° should be changed to read:

This would apply to women who did not know that abortion was sinful. I agree that this would be very unlikely.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), February 02, 2004.


Mark,

Better stated than Dan, but still the text reads "through no personal fault was unaware".

Sins involving excommunication are generally notorious for being gravely evil. So we return to Father Mike's position that it is incumbent upon Catholics to know the penalties associated with such sins.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), February 02, 2004.


Hi Pat, I missed your point earlier or I would have been more clear. You seem to be confusing the knowledge that something is sinful with the knowledge that it incurs automatic excommunication.

I completely agree that they should darn well know that it is an intrinsic evil. I also argee that the chances of (invincible) ignorance in the matter of its sinfulness are extremely unlikely. (Though here too, the Church envisions this as a possibility.)

However, this is different from whether they know it carries an automatic excommunitation as penalty. The Canons require that they know the fact that it carries this penalty for the penalty to take effect. This is certainly more likely than them not knowing it is sinful. I am not particularilty concerned over calculating the exact probability of this situation coming about, I am just concerned that it is something that is provided for in the Code. The Code clearly envisions that there are cases in which the person is legitametly ignorant of the fact that the act carries this penalty. Under this instance (no matter how unlikely) that person does not suffer the penalty of automatic excommunication.

I hope that is more clear.

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), February 02, 2004.


Pat,

Sins involving excommunication are generally notorious for being gravely evil.

Unlike, say, throwing one's baby in a dumpster to die minutes after it is born, or shooting and killing twenty people in a bank robbery (as long as none of them is a pregnant woman). Yet neither of these gravely evil sins results in excommunication. Are you saying that abortion is obviously much worse than either of these situations? Or that murder (of someone already born) isn't as bad as throwing a rock at the Pope, which does result in excommunication?

So we return to Father Mike's position that it is incumbent upon Catholics to know the penalties associated with such sins.

You seem to be saying that Canon 1324 §1 9° can never apply, and is thus a red herring designed to confuse those ignorant lay persons upon whom it is incumbent to read the Code on their own.

I'm sorry, I just can't see this position as tenable.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), February 02, 2004.


Jmj

I see that I have three people to thank ...

(1) Thank you, Dan, for telling Pat, "Simply put, John is right."

(2) Thank you, Mark, for your clear explanation of the relevant provisions of canons 1323 and 1324 -- to show Pat and Fr. Michael that they are mistaken. [After reading Dan's quotation from 1323, I went and got 1324 to post here -- only to find that you had already done so. Great!]

(3) Thank you, Pat, for telling me, "John, I will be brief" -- and then keeping your word. If you are going to be wrong, it's better to "be brief" about it than long-winded (as lawyers so often are)!

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), February 03, 2004.


I regret not having time to have followed up on this thread. I may be mistaken, but need to review the Canons.

However, I'm thankful that John Gecik is so thankful. Peace be with you all.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), February 04, 2004.


Bump!

-- Pat Bumper (pat@patdelaney.net), February 05, 2004.

"-canon law is based upon universal truth; therefore, not something arbirarily derived -I would suggest that although the specifics may be unknown -in general all it is all known and inherently imprinted as natural law. -- ignorance as a 'defense' in such case would be but relativistic argument ESPECIALLY when the argument is made in the face of the truth it is argued against..."

-yes, still unchalleged...

Daniel////

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 22, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ