"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.”
How could you possibly know if or what Edward Kennedy confessed or repented of before his death?
Peace be with you
Regarding cremation and a funeral Mass for a lapsed Catholic and an**avowed** atheist
Last year my mother died at the age of 98. She had been christened a Catholic and was a faithful Catholic into her early forties. For reasons I won't get into she did not attend a Catholic church again except for the rare attendance at a Catholic relative or friend's wedding or funeral. My father was a confirmed atheist until his death at age 96.
Well....My brother became active again in the Catholic faith in his 70s. He arranged a Catholic funeral Mass for my mother and father. Their **cremated** ashes sat on a table in front of the altar and the ceremony was attended by the Catholic side of the family and my brother's Catholic friends.
I didn't attend. It was just too much for even me, (who has been a faithful member of a Protestant denomination for 30 years.)
My parents’ ashes were buried in a Catholic cemetery in a family plot with a priest in attendance.
I have great respect for the Catholic faith. I would be **thrilled** if **all** Catholics fully practiced their religion. Our nation would be healthier, wealthier, and in every respect, more peaceful.
I would be especially thrilled if **all** the bishops, priests, nuns, and Catholic educators fully practiced their faith, kept the First Commandment, and fully worshiped God instead of at the altar of the state.
By the way...my brother lives openly, (without any “manifest” consequences) with his lady friend ( also a weekly Mass attending Catholic) in full knowledge and view of all their many Catholic friends from the parish and the parish priest.
Personally...I don’t get it.
It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this? For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this. So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.
Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people — not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”
I wonder how Paul would have advised them had they been a parish among the mega-church organization today that claims one billion+ members? There is wisdom in having local churches lead by pastors and elders who have as their guide the Holy Scriptures to tell them right from wrong and how God expects them to deal with members whose lives bring shame upon the Body of Christ.