Replies

So technically the woman is not excommunicated.

Please note I didn't say she was.

But isn't excommunication a proper action for the church to take if:

1) a person repeatedly commits a mortal sin;
2) is unrepentant;
3) makes his/her sin known to others;
4) advocates that the sin is not a sin at all, both within and without the church, regardless of the church's teachings ?

I understand repentance and redemption, but in an egregious case of a non-repentant continuing mortal sinner, those things don't seem to apply until the behavior stops and the sin is repented of.

Actually, the bill of particulars you list makes a very good case for a formal act of excommunication, I think...but it's past my paygrade to make such decisions. In the case at hand, Bp. Flynn would lay out the case, probably close to the way you did, and then formally declare the perp/teacher to be excommunicated. The only exception would be that Flynn could not say that the perp 'repeatedly committed the mortal sin,' because I presume Flynn does not have a camcorder in her bedroom. Assumption, in all these cases, is a fatal flaw. OTOH, if she happened to provide oral or written testimony to her actual activity with her 'partner,' that would suffice.

FYI, excommunication is meant to serve as a "pretty strong" warning that one is in proximate danger of losing one's soul (should you die unrepentant, you will be a permanent guest of Lucifer.) It is not really meant to permanently "lose" a member of the Church--it's meant to make them think real hard about their position.

It's important to remember that excommunication is not something the Church does. It's not like they throw people out of the Church. It's just a formal recognition that the person has already thrown himself out of communion with the Church by virtue of their actions, etc.

Lots of people are excommunicated without the Church's formal acknowledgement thereof.

Of course, the penalties of excommunication probably won't be applied if God's the only one who knows about it.