I like the definition of Obstinately that you put forth.
A person is warned by one kind or another of a spiritual adviser, and still persists in holding their views that abortion is OK.
Do I have it right?
“A person is warned by one kind or another of a spiritual adviser, and still persists in holding their views that abortion is OK.”
That's part of it.
Think of Ed Peters’ (the canon lawyer) reaction to the priest in the Archdiocese of Washington who attempted to prevent the Buddhist lesbian from receiving Holy Communion. What he said was, just because the priest may have taken some time before Mass to try to explicate to the woman that her intended actions were problematic didn't mean that the requirements of canon law were fulfilled.
I'm not sure I agree with Peters, but he is a canon lawyer of some repute, whether deserved or not.
I don't know precisely what he has in mind, but clearly, it's more than just some random priest or spiritual advisor stating, “What you believe is heresy,” or “You're living in a state of sin.”
I don't know what level of formality of process some might imagine necessary to be able to define someone as being in a state of obstinate denial of a tenet of the faith.
However, my own view (worth something less than the price of a cup of cheap coffee) is that it should be easier to deny someone the Blessed Sacrament as opposed to define them as excommunicated latae sententiae. Remember that part of the intention of Canon 915 is to prevent scandal of other Catholics. Whether or not the likes of a Buddhist lesbian understand completely the import of her actions and beliefs, if much of the rest of the congregation knows about her living arrangements, the purpose of denying her Communion isn't just about her, but about the others observing her at Mass. Denying her Communion is about protecting others from scandal.
I think this same approach could - and should - be used with public pro-aborts. Regardless of whether these folks are formal heretics, their ability to approach the Sacrament is a scandal, and leads others astray.
I know this as a fact. As a Past Grand Knight of my own Knights of Columbus council, I know folks who aren't really on board with our pro-life activities. I've asked, how can you think yourself Catholic when you're pro-abort? And they answer, “the bishops aren't really serious about that teaching, otherwise they'd never permit folks like the Kennedys, or (in my state) Mikulski, or Schwarzenegger or [fill in the blank pro-abort Catholic politician] to go to Communion.”
So, they reason that if it's okay for the late Chappaquiddick Ted, it must be okay for them. If it's okay for Nazi Pelosi, it must be okay for them. If Arnie Schwarzenegger can go to Communion, then you CAN be pro-abort and be Catholic, and a Catholic in good standing, in spite of the lip service paid by Donna Wuerl and other ecclesiastics of her ilk.
It's like Mr. Nixon used to say, "What what I do, not what I say."
And, you know, they have a point.
sitetest