Replies

Then why doesn't the RC church excommunicate; an act that rarely ever happens?

Excommunication is a topic that a lot of non-Catholics don't understand (along with a lot of Catholics).

A couple of misconceptions:

Excommunication does not render a person non-Catholic. Once you are baptized a Catholic (or received into the Church after baptism), you are a Catholic. Period. End of Story.
Excommunication is not the equivalent to an Amish shunning.

Excommunication is what is known as a "medicinal" penalty. Its goal is to lead the individual to repentance and eventual reconciliation with the Church. Excommunication prevents the excommunicated from receiving the sacraments prior to the excommunication being lifted. In other words, a person may not receive communion, may not be absolved of their sins, may not be married, may not be ordained, and so on and so forth (obviously, this includes ministering the sacraments in the case of ordained clergy who are excommunicated). (Note: in the case of imminent death, the excommunication can automatically be lifted).

There are two types of excommunication: latæ sentinæ and ferendæ sentinæ. The first is automatic. When a person is excommunicated latæ sentinæ, the very doing of the act results in an automatic excommunication. For example, a woman who has an abortion is excommunicated statim ipso facto...at the very moment she has the abortion. On the other hand, a cleric who lives in concubinage could potentially be excommunicated, but only after a canonical trial: that type of excommunication is known as a ferendæ sentinæ excommunication.

Formerly, there were two degrees of excommunication. One of them was known as excommunication Vitandi. The other was known as excommunication Toleranti. The former (vitandi) was a "shunning" like what we, in our normal parlance, call "excommunication." Members of the Church were to avoid all contact with the person who was excommunicated vitandi. Others, who were merely denied access to the sacraments were known as excommunicated toleranti. Generally, only those who were considered a danger to the Faith (such as notorious heretics) were excommunicated vitandi. This concept of two separate degrees of excommunication were suppressed by Pius IX in his 1869 Papal Bull, Apostolicae Sedis Moderationi.

Bottom line is that these people may well be excommunicated...but that doesn't prevent one from calling himself Catholic.

Mark I did know this about Excommnunication. I meant in terms of what these people believe they are not Catholic. The press fails to understand that the Church is not structured along the lines of a U.S. corporation or a political party. She doesn’t form beliefs by polling members. The stock holders don’t get to vote the CEO up or down. The mission statement does not change to reflect cultural shock waves or ripples. They see mainline Protestant churches splitting off over GLBT agenda and figure the Catholic Church is subject to the same sort of denominational split.

Part of this is from ignorance (they are journalists after all) but a great deal is from hostility that the Church will not follow the liberal elitist agenda. So they paint these malcontent harpies and whingers as equality Davids against the repressive misogynist homophobic Goliath of the Church. But even they know to legitimize these useful idiots they must let the world know they are Catholic.

Well if it's a once-catholic-always-catholic issue, than sure, you're point is well taken. But what does "Catholicity" mean if it just a club with a membership card, and nothing substantive? Seems rather meaningless to me.

Scripture addresses church discipline and the final, biblical resolution for an impenitent "christian" is excommunication - treating the person as an unbeliever. This is hardly equal to holding a membership card.