'Fortnight for Freedom': One more reason to be an ex-Catholic

Baltimore Sun ^ | 29 June 2012 | Sandy Covahey

[Natural Law]

"they HAVE been on the inside and know quite well what gets said and done out of the view of the nosy neighbors."

Fortunately, your perceptions do not create reality. Next time you are in try turning the lights on and investigating. What you so often describe is completely unrecognizable to those of us who know whats in there. The demand for deference simply because you claim to have been Catholic is negated by the displayed ignorance.

Although it has been addressed many times in these threads apparently the light has not come on for those who seemingly do not want to see. The fact is that neither you nor I nor any poster on Free Republic, Catholic or otherwise, knows what the Church has said or done behind closed doors with respect to these politicians. People, including public figures, excommunicate themselves. ipso facto, the moment they knowingly and willingly commit certain acts. Acknowledging this in a public statement is rare. Attempting to enforce excommunication in the curse of a Mass would be disruptive and would undermine the solemnity of the occasion.

Excommunication is not some public spectacle performed as a warning to the potentially wayward, to satisfy the blood lust of an angry crowd and certainly not to prove the piety of the Church to the nonbelievers. Neither should it be confused with Penitential exclusion. It is first and foremost medicinal rather than vindictive, meaning its it is intended to correct rather than punish.

Excommunication is not necessarily permanent and excommunicated person does not cease to be Christian nor does excommunication presume to affect anyone's relationship with God or their Salvation.

Pelosi, Cuomo, et al share the same excommunicated status as you. Had you actually known and understood Church teachings I suspect you would still be a practicing Catholic.

Peace be with you

[metmom]

Pope Benedict explained those who support abortion have excommunicated themselves automatically and should not receive Communion

And yet here we have a Church who on one hand claims those apostates have effectively ex-communicated themselves and yet still treats them as faithfully practicing Catholics to the point of serving them communion and giving them Catholic funerals.

And on the other hand says that they should not be receiving communion and has priests who will not follow the dictates of of the pope and the official position of the Catholic church and still serve them communion in deliberate defiance of what they know.

If the RCC refuses to stand behind what it says and hold both priests and parishioners accountanle for their actions, they have effectively redered themselves impotent. They don't mean what they say and everyone knows it.

Small wonder the Catholic church and its parishioners are such a mess and vote liberal. The Church is all bark and no bite.

[Natural Law]

"I think that is an all too typical reaction, by one who has himself exampled a tendency to reject and even falsely charge with falsehood even substantiated Catholic material which exposes the nature of claims of Rome, to an interpretation thereof.

If you are going to accuse me of lying try to be more direct in your language and cite some examples. You may garner sympathy from the anti-Catholics and even tacit approval from the mods, but don't get style points for finessing the rules in the process of sliming a Catholic. It only makes you look weak and pathetic. I will continue to pray for you.

Peace be with you

[ansel12]

Will you take me off your ping list that I never asked to be put on.

Every time I go to check my comments they are filled with your massive posts.

[mtg]

...to recently attack nuns in the United States who are at the forefront of what used to be one of the church's primary missions to aid and comfort the poor and needy.

Boy, is this woman ever mixed up. The Catholic Church does not attack those who help the poor and needy. The Church is however, trying to bring those few liberal nuns in leadership roles back into line with Catholic teaching. That is not attacking anyone.

Sandy, you really need to try a little harder to print the truth and not let your hatred speak for you.

[boatbums]

Pelosi, Cuomo, et al share the same excommunicated status as you. Had you actually known and understood Church teachings I suspect you would still be a practicing Catholic.

Thank God I do not share their liberal, abortion favoring, homosexual glorifying, America shattering tenets! The difference is I do NOT consider myself a Roman Catholic yet they STILL do. I am still a Christian while the status of their souls is questionable. HUGE difference!

[boatbums]

FWIW, I have explained automatic excommunication to daniell1212 ,but he keeps posting things that have no effect about what the Church dogmatically teaches as if they do. It’s dishonest and cunning!

Yes, you have explained the term "automatic excommunication" more than once or twice. But, rather than presume Daniel1212's persistence on the subject is due to his dishonesty or "cunning", why not try to look at the issue from a different angle? Neither Daniel1212 nor I deny that excommunication exists and that "self-excommunication" has been given as a remedy of sorts to those currently being discussed, but when looking at Catholic sources that define this term, such as http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm:

Excommunication (Latin ex, out of, and communio or communicatio, communion — exclusion from the communion), the principal and severest censure, is a medicinal, spiritual penalty that deprives the guilty Christian of all participation in the common blessings of ecclesiastical society. Being a penalty, it supposes guilt; and being the most serious penalty that the Church can inflict, it naturally supposes a very grave offence. It is also a medicinal rather than a vindictive penalty, being intended, not so much to punish the culprit, as to correct him and bring him back to the path of righteousness. It necessarily, therefore, contemplates the future, either to prevent the recurrence of certain culpable acts that have grievous external consequences, or, more especially, to induce the delinquent to satisfy the obligations incurred by his offence. Its object and its effect are loss of communion, i.e. of the spiritual benefits shared by all the members of Christian society; hence, it can affect only those who by baptism have been admitted to that society. Undoubtedly there can and do exist other penal measures which entail the loss of certain fixed rights; among them are other censures, e.g. suspension for clerics, interdict for clerics and laymen, irregularity ex delicto, etc. Excommunication, however, is clearly distinguished from these penalties in that it is the privation of all rights resulting from the social status of the Christian as such. The excommunicated person, it is true, does not cease to be a Christian, since his baptism can never be effaced; he can, however, be considered as an exile from Christian society and as non-existent, for a time at least, in the sight of ecclesiastical authority. But such exile can have an end (and the Church desires it), as soon as the offender has given suitable satisfaction. Meanwhile, his status before the Church is that of a stranger. He may not participate in public worship nor receive the Body of Christ or any of the sacraments. Moreover, if he be a cleric, he is forbidden to administer a sacred rite or to exercise an act of spiritual authority.

It is easy enough to recognize, both in society as well as in the Church community, that the threat of "personal excommunication" contains no teeth by which such a state is to be feared. That is why nominal Catholics or Catholics in Name Only continue to thumb their collective noses at such empty threats and why their public actions will not be changed. I DO find it interesting in reading the link above that Pope Innocent III admits that "Some persons may be free in the eyes of God but bound in the eyes of the Church; vice versa, some may be free in the eyes of the Church but bound in the eyes of God: for God's judgment is based on the very truth itself, whereas that of the Church is based on arguments and presumptions which are sometimes erroneous.". Those of us who have found the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and, because of that, were compelled to leave the false gospel of the Roman Catholic Church are NOT under any real excommunication from our Lord and Savior because we know that God's judgment IS based the very truth of Holy Scripture and NOT man's feeble attempts to corrupt it. Our allegiance is to Him and not to those who presume to tell God what is or is not His truth nor who is or is not His child.

[daniel1212]

"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.”

[CynicalBear]

Defending any organized religion is getting dangerous these days.

[Natural Law]

"It is easy enough to recognize, both in society as well as in the Church community, that the threat of "personal excommunication" contains no teeth by which such a state is to be feared."

This is yet another schizophrenic argument by anti-Catholics. Out of one side of your mouths you mischaracterize and complain about the Inquisition bore that 500 years after the fact and then out of the other side of your mouths you mischaracterize and complain about the Church not conducting high profile and wide ranging trials of Catholics to see if they are Catholic enough all the while protesting that the eventual earthly punishments are not severe enough. Do you really expect anyone to believe that you have standing in this issue other than pharisean or that this was the reason you failed as a Catholic? It seems to me you would be protesting a more judgmental Church even more forcefully.

Peace be with you

[Natural Law]

"...Instead, while he showed no manifest repentance..."

How could you possibly know if or what Edward Kennedy confessed or repented of before his death?

Peace be with you

[RegulatorCountry]

Understanding the meaning of the word “manifest” should clear that mystery right up.

[Natural Law]

"Understanding the meaning of the word “manifest” should clear that mystery right up."

I fully understand the meaning of manifest. A bigger issue is the presentation of syllogism based upon an impossible premise. Daniel1212 cobbled together another tome built entirely upon a hidden "if". The argument can only proceed if one accepts the premise. I only attempted to have Daniel1212 either substantiate or qualify his premise.

Peace be with you

[wintertime]

2/ those who chose the cremation of their bodies for reasons contrary to Christian faith;
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

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.

[wintertime]

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.

[Natural Law]

"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.)"

A funeral is not the disposal of a thing. It is the respect for a deceased person. A Catholic funeral is as much about the living as the dead. It is a prayer for God’s mercy for the deceased and a solace for the living. That your brother wanted it was reason enough.

Peace be with you

[stfassisi]

“”bigger issue is the presentation of syllogism based upon an impossible premise. Daniel1212 cobbled together another tome built entirely upon a hidden “if”. The argument can only proceed if one accepts the premise.””

This is true ,dear friend.

Both Daniell1212 and boatbums post long posts that change nothing about what canon law and what the Church teaching has been ,all they do is point fingers without knowing if someone has repented of grave sin and accuse Priests, Cardinals,Bishops, etc.. of not teaching the faith properly by taking of what some of them say out of context or expecting them to condemn someone without knowing if they repented even during their last breath of life

What really concerns me is how some protestants on FR who know the truth about the Trinity and core Christian beliefs do not openly try and set straight the protestants who don;t believe core Christian beliefs ,but rather band in unity with them against the Catholic Church-who gave them the understanding of these core Christian beliefs given to us by Christ to the Catholic Church

Long day at the lake, I wish you a Blessed evening!

[Natural Law]

"Both Daniell1212 and boatbums post long posts that change nothing about what canon law and what the Church teaching has been ,all they do is point fingers without knowing if someone has repented of grave sin and accuse Priests, Cardinals,Bishops, etc.."

No one will ever accuse either of them of being pithy. There is, however a name for a hypothetical construct created for the purposes of attaching it to a party and then attacking it, it is called a straw man. The simple truth is that a straw man created with 100,000 words is still a straw man.

I would also suggest you become familiar with something we witness often on these threads; the mind projection fallacy. The mind projection fallacy is a logical fallacy in which someone thinks that the way they see the world reflects the way the world really is, going as far as assuming the real existence of imagined objects, or in our case actual Catholic doctrine. That is, someones subjective judgments are "projected" to be inherent properties of an object, rather than being related to personal perception. One consequence is that others may be assumed to share the same perception, or that they are irrational or misinformed if they don't. Another manifestation of the fallacy is when one assumes their own is when someone assumes that their own lack of knowledge about a subject as meaning that the is is not or cannot be understood by others.

Peace be with you, FRiend

[RegulatorCountry]

The mind projection fallacy is a logical fallacy in which someone thinks that the way they see the world reflects the way the world really is, going as far as assuming the real existence of imagined objects, or in our case actual Catholic doctrine.

If you say so.

Another manifestation of the fallacy is when one assumes their own is when someone assumes that their own lack of knowledge about a subject as meaning that the is is not or cannot be understood by others.

Am I to assume that this is such a manifestation?

[Natural Law]

"Am I to assume that this is such a manifestation?"

Thanks for catching that. My granddaughter made some edits by bumping the keybpard while climbing onto my lap and apparently pushed the enter key before I was ready to send. I didn't see it until you pointed it out. The post should have said:

Another manifestation of the fallacy is when one assumes their own lack of knowledge about a subject as meaning that the subject is not or cannot be understood by others.

Peace be with you.