“”As to Daniel1212’s assertion about Pelosi, Cuomo, et al, and the reluctance of the Catholic Church hierarchy to ever do anything more than just tsk, tsk at them,””
Pope Benedict explained those who support abortion have excommunicated themselves automatically and should not receive Communion
Excerpts..
“Yes, this excommunication was not an arbitrary one but is allowed by Canon (church) law which says that the killing of an innocent child is incompatible with receiving communion, which is receiving the body of Christ,” he said.
Under Church law, someone who knowingly does or backs something which the Church considers a grave sin, such as abortion, inflicts what is known as “automatic excommunication” on themselves.
FWIW, I have explained automatic excommunication to daniell1212 ,but he keeps posting things that have no effect about what the Church dogmatically teaches as if they do. It’s dishonest and cunning!
And yet here we have a Church who on one hand claims those apostates have effectively ex-communicated themselves and yet still treats them as faithfully practicing Catholics to the point of serving them communion and giving them Catholic funerals.
And on the other hand says that they should not be receiving communion and has priests who will not follow the dictates of of the pope and the official position of the Catholic church and still serve them communion in deliberate defiance of what they know.
If the RCC refuses to stand behind what it says and hold both priests and parishioners accountanle for their actions, they have effectively redered themselves impotent. They don't mean what they say and everyone knows it.
Small wonder the Catholic church and its parishioners are such a mess and vote liberal. The Church is all bark and no bite.
Yes, you have explained the term "automatic excommunication" more than once or twice. But, rather than presume Daniel1212's persistence on the subject is due to his dishonesty or "cunning", why not try to look at the issue from a different angle? Neither Daniel1212 nor I deny that excommunication exists and that "self-excommunication" has been given as a remedy of sorts to those currently being discussed, but when looking at Catholic sources that define this term, such as http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm:
It is easy enough to recognize, both in society as well as in the Church community, that the threat of "personal excommunication" contains no teeth by which such a state is to be feared. That is why nominal Catholics or Catholics in Name Only continue to thumb their collective noses at such empty threats and why their public actions will not be changed. I DO find it interesting in reading the link above that Pope Innocent III admits that "Some persons may be free in the eyes of God but bound in the eyes of the Church; vice versa, some may be free in the eyes of the Church but bound in the eyes of God: for God's judgment is based on the very truth itself, whereas that of the Church is based on arguments and presumptions which are sometimes erroneous.". Those of us who have found the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and, because of that, were compelled to leave the false gospel of the Roman Catholic Church are NOT under any real excommunication from our Lord and Savior because we know that God's judgment IS based the very truth of Holy Scripture and NOT man's feeble attempts to corrupt it. Our allegiance is to Him and not to those who presume to tell God what is or is not His truth nor who is or is not His child.
"I have explained automatic excommunication ,but he keeps posting things that have no effect about what the Church dogmatically teaches as if they do. It’s dishonest and cunning!
Rather, you have hardly dealt with the subject in depth and the problems facing your application, while it is your minimization of the differences between Catholics, and the wishful simplistic portrayal of excommunication, and of Rome's strictness thereof as if words alone constitute teaching, which is not what Scripture teaches, (1Cor. 4:20) and that Rome is consistent in both, that can be said to be dishonest.
And thus I have not simply explained but have documented the substantial differences between Catholics, how pronouncements of excommunication are open to interpretation or are but a paper tiger. For like as faith without works is dead, despite professions prescribing excommunication, the fact remains that Rome treats such as members in life and in death. And if souls like Pelosi died, and they do, they would receive ecclesiastical funerals, and which they daily do. In defense, unless you allow the wide degree of interpretations, you can only engage in special pleading that all such could have gone to confession and repented.
According to Canon 1184 §, unless they gave some signs of repentance before death, the following must be deprived of ecclesiastical funerals:
1/ notorious apostates, heretics, and schismatics;
2/ those who chose the cremation of their bodies for reasons contrary to Christian faith;
3/ other manifest sinners who cannot be granted ecclesiastical funerals without public scandal of the faithful. (http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur280.htm)
Now as with laws regarding excommunication, laws can be cited that portray Rome as upholding a strict policy against pro homosexual politicians and the like having Catholic funerals, but they also are open to interpretation (which includes just what “notorious” means, or whether such was a manifest schismatic, etc., and what would constitute public scandal), with the judgment of the local magisterium being the rule that is to be followed, unless higher authorities intervene — which they almost never do.
"§2. If any doubt occurs, the local ordinary is to be consulted, and his judgment must be followed.
Speaking of which, Canon lawyer Edward Peters offers a rule of thumb for the interpretation of Canon 915, which stipulates that the Eucharist should not be administered to those who have been excommunicated “and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin.”
Unless a substantial majority of the community in question (I’m assuming them to be adults, reasonably aware of Catholic life around them, etc.) knows at the time why a given individual is being denied holy Communion, that’s a pretty good sign that Canon 915 has not been satisfied, and that Canon 912 (and some others norms) has been violated.
Unless a substantial majority of the community in question (I’m assuming them to be adults, reasonably aware of Catholic life around them, etc.) knows at the time why a given individual is being denied holy Communion, that’s a pretty good sign that Canon 915 has not been satisfied, and that Canon 912 (and some others norms) has been violated. http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=897
And under which local judgment you have the case of Father Marcel Guarnizo, the priest who, after he denied Communion to a openly lesbian “Buddhist Catholic” woman, has been suspiciously placed on administrative leave [removed from active ministry] by the Washington archdiocese (ostensibly not as a consequence of treatment of the lesbian), while Cardinal Donald Wuerl of the Washington archdiocese where this incident took place stated that he will not withhold the Eucharist from pro-abortion politicians. (http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=897)
Back to the classic case of Kennedy and Roman Catholic funerals, here was a man with a 100% rating from NARAL who defied the Pope, and who should be considered a schismatic, as his moral views were effectively a “withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff,” (Canon Law # 751) living in mortal sin as this FR article by a priest argues, and which should have caused a public scandal (but not in liberal Catholic MA)
Instead, while he showed no manifest repentance, including in his letter to the Pope which was read at his graveside, he, as with multitude others who affirm the same moral views, was honored with an ecclesiastical funeral. And with a homily which reportedly expressed, "the fruits of [Kennedy's] work in politics well-prepared him for God's kingdom," and "we are confident that Kennedy has entered into the new dwelling of God," while allowing a Protestant to give a euolgy, who even offered a prayer for Teddy's soul! (http://www.canonlaw.info/blogarch09.htm)
Justification offered for this is that Kennedy showed repentance by holding a private family Mass in the living room every Sunday, but that just evidences (contrary to Acts 26:20) how, like Pelosi, he thought he could have his cake and eat it too.
And rather than being a model of discipline and judgment, it is well know how Rome shuffled known problematic pedophilia priests around, evidently wrongly assuming they were repentant, and the autocratic law-giver.
In addition to the present complexity and variety of interpretations as regards canon law, in the past over the course of time,
“the number of canonical excommunications was excessively multiplied, which fact, coupled with their frequent desuetude, made it difficult to know whether many among them were always in force. The difficulty was greater as a large number of these excommunications were reserved, for which reason theologians with much ingenuity construed favourably said reservation and permitted the majority of the faithful to obtain absolution without presenting themselves in Rome, or indeed even writing thither. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm)
The point here is that the complexity (which is understandable) of and interpretive variance on canon law in application disallows dismissing all such Catholics as excommunicated based upon a simplistic view of canon law, as many conservative Catholics do. And while some Catholics boast of doctrinal guidance under their magisterium, when it is not stated or applied rule as they believe they it should, then they assume their interpretation is superior, even advocating bishops declare it sin to vote for Obama (despite Roman Catholic support for government health care).
Pope Benedict explained...
Mere words, and what he said was that he supported the threat to excommunicate what essentially are Mexican versions of Kennedy, as “they simply announced publicly what is contained in the law of the Church,” that this “is allowed by Canon law,” and meaning that it has support, and such normally is based upon local jurisdiction,and something Mexican Cardinal Norberto Rivera has said he has no intention of excommunicating the politicians.
And which judgment Rome seldom opposes when other bishops do the opposite. What is missing is just that, that of the Vatican overruling the local bishops and naming such continually impenitent “notorious sinners” as Kerry, Pelosi as formally excommunicated, which would provide interpretive judgment and send a message to their followers. Instead much the opposite is conveyed.
Under Church law, someone who knowingly does or backs something which the Church considers a grave sin, such as abortion, inflicts what is known as “automatic excommunication” on themselves.
Which is supremacy ineffectual, and often results in the kind of response expressed by Mexico City lawmaker Leticia Quezada who said, “I’m Catholic and I’m going to continue being Catholic even if the church excommunicates me,” “My conscience is clean.”
The pope also made pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, who is also married invalidly to an actress, an honorary secular canon of St. John Lateran’s (maintaining a role in the administration of the cathedral inherited from the Kings of France: http://ncronline.org/news/politics/bishop-decries-combative-tactics-minority-us-bishops),
And while Rome effectively shows little real worry for most of the vast multitudes of liberal Catholics that she counts and buries as members, Benedict said the exodus of Catholics for (conservative) evangelical Protestant “sects” in Latin America was “our biggest worry.” http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-05-09-pope-brazil_N.htm
Meanwhile, while you have majored on one aspect the division in Catholicism, my original statement which you loftily pronounced as wrong, remains true, that “under the Roman model of sola ecclesia, formal divisions and schisms are also apparent. Her interpretation of Tradition, history and Scripture has significant differences with other Catholic groups and churches and others who operate under her sola ecclesia model.”