Posted on 10/18/2004 9:13:08 AM PDT by kerrywearsbotox
Thank you. I posted before seeing your link. Very good article. The church may yet get back on track.
Dear skellmeyer,
I'm not sure that every disagreement regarding how to discipline individual Catholics ought to be defined as schism.
sitetest
Probably best to stick top your own religion.
"Probably best to stick top your own religion."
I have none, but thanks for your advice. However, I will continue to comment on religious matters, despite your misgivings.
Of course you do. Aetheism is a religion. But it's not your fault.
but thanks for your advice.
You are entirely welcome.
However, I will continue to comment on religious matters, despite your misgivings.
I have no misgivings, I was merely commenting on your credibility on religions other than your own. Zero.
Knew I would get caught on that. My mistake. "oops" factor.
"Knew I would get caught on that. My mistake. "oops" factor."
Isn't it funny how often that happens. [grin] Seriously, the database was glitching earlier, delaying posts. I noticed it when my posts weren't showing up immediately, as they usually do. I've learned, though, to be patient when FR is slow, and just wait.
But wait. He did have a meeting with Kerry I think. I will do some research and get back to you.
Kerry has a *plan*...
http://www.asjewelers.com/FRstuff/7/I_have_a_plan.wmv
Well, schism is defined by whether or not one is able to receive the Eucharist. You are correct in saying that some disciplinary measures would not cause schism. When the Eucharist is involved, however, schism is always a possibility hanging at the door.
I think it is possible you've gotten the Catholics mixed up with new-age evangelicals.
Dear skellmeyer,
"When the Eucharist is involved, however, schism is always a possibility hanging at the door."
I don't disagree, but that two bishops might disagree over whether an individual ought to be excommunicated or not is not of itself schism. It's something, if there is a direct conflict, to bring to Rome.
Now, once the Holy See makes a final determination, to directly refuse to obey, acknowledging one's disobedience, would likely be schismatic.
sitetest
Yeah, but let me guess--the Bishops are waiting until AFTER the election to do anything about Kerry's heresy. Always a day late and a dollar short--that's our Good Old Boys.
I'll believe it when I see it, and I have no expectation of seeing it.
MM
The point of the article is that under Canon Law, Kerry is already excommunicated. Any Catholic who assists a woman in obtaining an abortion is automatically excommunicated.
But people like Kerry have been saying that they are not excommunicated because they didn't do anything, they just voted to keep abortion legal.
This says that they're wrong, that voting for abortion is sufficient to cause automatic excommunication.
So now priests are supposed to not give him communion, or any other Catholic politician who votes for abortion.
The problem is that only his confessor knows whether he's repented. I don't think there is a requirement for public repentance. But I am not an expert on canon law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.