Posted on 09/30/2016 4:00:54 AM PDT by C19fan
If it is gravely imputable by reason of malice or negligence, willingly done by a person 16 or over, or not disqualified by other clauses. But which excommunication is effectively meaningless since the one basic duty of RCs is to follow the pastors, and who give the interpretation of RC teaching by what they say and do, and Rome has clearly shown that she does not consider even proabortion, prosodomite pols and their known supports to be excommunicated.
The other alternative is to be as evangelicals which they criticize for ascertaining the veracity of what is taught by examination of the warrant for it, resulting in the factions in Catholicism thereby rather than following the reigning leadership, which papal teaching admonishes them to do.
According to Canon Law, the onus to exclude unrepentant grave sinners from Communion lies both with the minister of the Eucharist (person who distributes Communion) and with the offenders themselves. Can. 915 Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion. Can. 916 Anyone who is conscious of grave sin may not celebrate Mass or receive the Body of the Lord without previously having been to sacramental confession, unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, which includes the resolve to go to confession as soon as possible. That's Canon Law as it stands. The utter failure to preach 916 and to enforce 915 is at the root of the dirty rotten scandal which is corrupting the souls of laity and clergy alike. Good doctrine, bad (or no) disciple
But which is subject to interpretation, and your interpretation contradicts that of leaders such as cardinals as Wuerl:
I stand with the great majority of American bishops and bishops around the world in saying this canon [Canon 915] was never intended to be used this way.'' -- http://www.canonlaw.info/2009/03/abps-wuerl-c-916-burke-cc-915-916-on.html
Moreover, 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. - http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=897
And while Canon 1184 forbids - unless they gave some signs of repentance before death (which also is subject to interpretation), ecclesiastical funerals to "notorious apostates, heretics, and schismatics.." "manifest sinners who cannot be granted ecclesiastical funerals without public scandal of the faithful," yet §2. "If any doubt occurs, the local ordinary is to be consulted, and his judgment must be followed." And the local ordinary, no doubt with Ratzinger's knowledge, gave Teddy K and like anti-Christ pols ecclesiastical funerals, and which effectually conveys to the flock how canon law is to be understood, and again to which they are to look.
It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors. - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.
And to scrutinize the actions of a bishop, to criticize them, does not belong to individual Catholics, but concerns only those who, in the sacred hierarchy, have a superior power; above all, it concerns the Supreme Pontiff, for it is to him that Christ confided the care of feeding not only all the lambs, but even the sheep [cf. John 21:17]. - Est Sane Molestum (1888) Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII
To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors , and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor....
Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.
On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge. It is true that for this he has not only special lights, but still more the knowledge of the needs and conditions of the whole of Christendom, for which, it is fitting, his apostolic care must provide. - Epistola Tua (1885), Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII; http://novusordowatch.org/leo13-epistola-tua/
You mean of Thomas Becket's excommunication of Lord Gilbert for ordering the killing of a priest who had been accused of sexual indiscretions with a young girl?
That's certainly and sadly true: in the case where it is imposed, the offender is commonly impenitent and doesn't give a flip; in the case where it is not imposed, it is worse than useless because it becomes a wellspring of cynicism: unjenforced law is more corrupting than no law at all.
As for criticizing our sacred pastors, I like what it says in Canon Law (after the clause about obedience:)
Can. 212So with obedience comes also this duty to make our "opinions" known, not only to the clergy, but also to each other.
§2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.
We have as exemplars, not our wayward clerics but out holy saints, like St. Catherine of Siena and St. Hildegard of Bingen. They were critics of clerics, correctors of popes, and now honored as "Doctors of the Church" and far more revered than the prelates they corrected.
Yes.
But "without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals" and docile submission to the pastors means you are not free to engage in public dissent, especially on things which require assent of faith or assent of mind and will.
Also, years ago, RCs were forbidden to even publicly debate RC doctrine with the likes of me. But Rome does change.
However, as part of their inconsistency, canon law is marginalized by RCs as changeable when faced with its contradiction of Scripture in requiring virtually all her clergy (beyond deacons) to be celibate, which presumes that all what Paul calls a gift, and pastors were married as the norm.
You ask for too much, since this excommunication that you sometimes like to see for real was by a prelate who held that no clergy was to be dealt with by secular powers, and himself refused a sentence of such and fled justice. And was engaged in multitude excommunications, evidently motivated by political or personal reasons, and even without warning them and despite the pope's request not to engage in such. His contentious nature and the politics involved eventually cost him his life.
But Rome itself was rife with politics, and is could be an honor to be excommunicated from such.
Which is as it should be, surely, in any church or creedal association. If you want to dissent from the Divinity of Christ or the indissolubility of the marriage bond, for instance, you're going to have to do it from a stance outside the Church, not in it.
The faithful are particularly free to "dissent" when the clergy themselves are unfaithful. But that is not, perhaps, properly called dissent. It is the defense of doctrine.
"Also, years ago, RCs were forbidden to even publicly debate RC doctrine with the likes of me."
Hildegard of Bingen (12th century), not a cleric, engaged in apologetics in the 12th century, though I'm not sure it was with "the likes of you," whatever that signifies. Do you mean, before the 12th century??
The problem then is that if the magisterium is not manifestly doing its job in censuring such then you become the judge of pastors and popes as to who is unfaithful, based upon your judgment as to what church teaching is, which is essentially the thing RCs criticize us for, ascertaining valid teaching by Scripture, and thus insist we need their pope to submit to. Except when they decide that the pope's teaching (in word or deed) does not warrant assent, from its manifest judgment as to what renders one excommunicated, to the latest encyclical, to teachings of V2, at least in part.
Hildegard of Bingen (12th century), not a cleric, engaged in apologetics in the 12th century, though I'm not sure it was with "the likes of you," whatever that signifies. Do you mean, before the 12th century??
• Quinisext Ecumenical Council [also known as the Council in Trullo], Canon 64 (held in 692 at Constantinople): It does not befit a layman to dispute or teach publicly, thus claiming for himself authority to teach, but he should yield to the order appointed by the Lord, and to open his ears to those who have received the grace to teach,. ... But if any one be found weakening [disobeying] the present canon, he is to be cut off for forty days. — http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3814.htm
• We furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to this decree, let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication. — Pope Alexander IV (1254-1261) in “Sextus Decretalium”, Lib. V, c. ii: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/archive/index.php/t-51631.html
Commenting on the latter, the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia states,
By a decree of Alexander IV (1254-1261) inserted in "Sextus Decretalium", Lib. V, c. ii, and still in force, all laymen are forbidden, under threat of excommunication, to dispute publicly or privately with heretics on the Catholic Faith...This law, like all penal laws, must be very narrowly construed. The terms Catholic Faith and dispute have a technical signification. The former term refers to questions purely theological; the latter to disputations more or less formal, and engrossing the attention of the public.... But when there is a question of dogmatic or moral theology, every intelligent layman will concede the propriety of leaving the exposition and defense of it to the clergy.
But the clergy are not free to engage in public disputes on religion without due authorization. In the Collectanea S. Cong. de Prop. Fide" (p. 102, n. 294) we find the following decree, issued 8 March, 1625: "The Sacred Congregation has ordered that public discussions shall not be held with heretics, because for the most part, either owing to their loquacity or audacity or to the applause of the audience, error prevails and the truth is crushed. But should it happen that such a discussion is unavoidable, notice must first be given to the S. Congregation, which, after weighing the circumstances of time and persons, will prescribe in detail what is to be done... That this legislation is still in force appears from the letter addressed to the bishops of Italy by Cardinal Rampolla in the name of the Cong. for Ecclesiastical Affairs (27 Jan., 1902)
To which are added such voices as:
* “Do not converse with heretics even for the sake of defending the faith, for fear lest their words instil their poison in your mind.” Bl. Isaias Boner of Krakow (Polish, Augustinian priest, theologian, professor of Scripture, d. 1471)
“...the Church forbids the faithful to communicate with those unbelievers who have forsaken the faith they once received, either by corrupting the faith, as heretics, or by entirely renouncing the faith, as apostates, because the Church pronounces sentence of excommunication on both.” St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Article 9, “Whether it is lawful to communicate with unbelievers?”; http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3010.htm
To which is added current canon law:
* Can. 831 §1 Unless there is a just and reasonable cause, no member of Christ's faithful may write in newspapers, pamphlets or periodicals which clearly are accustomed to attack the catholic religion [no wonder RCs want us censored here] or good morals. Clerics and members of religious institutes may write in them only with the permission of the local Ordinary. - http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P2P.HTM
But Rome can change.
I think you’re resisting a vocation to be a canon lawyer.
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.