Skip to comments.Under the New Pope’s Teaching, Should Pelosi and Biden Be Ex-Communicated?
Posted on 03/21/2013 2:30:00 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
click here to read article
"They (Mexican Church leaders) did nothing new, surprising or arbitrary. They simply announced publicly what is contained in the law of the Church... which expresses our appreciation for life and that human individuality, human personality is present from the first moment (of life)".
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.".
making it crystal clear there is such a thing as automatic excommunication people bring on themselves. So, it really doesn't matter what declared means. Unless, of course, your argument is that Pope Benedict XVI was wrong and automatic excommunication isn't really the same as someone being excommunicated by formal declaration.
In 2007, now Pope Francis wrote, we should commit ourselves to Eucharistic coherence, that is, we should be conscious that people cannot receive holy communion and at the same time act or speak against the commandments, in particular when abortions, euthanasia, and other serious crimes against life and family are facilitated. This responsibility applies particularly to legislators, governors, and health professionals.
Both Benedict XVI and Pope Francis have described politicians, parliamentarians, and others who facilitate abortion in some way as an identifiable, distinct, class of persons in the eyes of the Church.
Both Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis say this entire class of persons meet the criteria to be excommunicated and have in fact already excommunicated themselves. This entire class of persons, then, ". . . are not to be admitted to holy communion", therefore it can be argued that this entire, identifiable, self-identifying, class of persons are all already under interdict.
Furthermore, what "declared" means is irrelevant because Canon 915 says, "Those upon whom the penalty of Excommunication or interdict have been imposed or declared and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin . . .", not only "those upon whom the penalty of excommunication has been declared . . .". No formal action on the part of the Church is needed when someone very publicly, ". . . does or backs something which the Church considers a grave sin . . .", especially when that person is a member of a clearly identified class of persons, a self-identified, voluntary, member of that clearly identified class of persons, very public persons at that, who the Church has identified as having automatically excommunicated themselves.
They are public persons, they go on record as obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin, they make public speeches advocating manifest grave sin, no formal declaration by the Church is required when someone publicly, very publicly, obviously declares them self excommunicated by the standard of Canon 915.
The only time what "declared" means mattered was when these individuals declared their own excommunication.
In response to a question from a Mexican reporter Pope Benedict said
In 2007, now Pope Francis wrote,
Banning the person from receiving communion is because they have excommunicated themselves.
and, the bishops have a lot of lee-way in their own dioceses....
Second, I do not think that my argument is disingenuous, neither is my motivation. My own personal background in this is a conversation with a Dominican after that priest who denied communion to an "out" and in his face lesbian was disciplined. After that I read some articles. I am presenting what I read.
Third. Latae sententiae is, arguably, different from "declared." When a law puts in a modifier it suggests a distinction between the thing as modified and another instance of the thing without that modifier.
Fourth. "Declaration" is, so to speak, binary. A thing is either declared (and promulgated) or not. (And right there, with the addition of the IMHO implied "promulgated" we have to two-element "truth table".) But with respect to " others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin" we have two matters of judgment, obstinacy and manifestness, of which both would seem to be necessary. Since they are matters of judgment, the question ceases to be a slam dunk.
Fifth, I dispute the contention that I put myself in a position where I am calling Pope Benedict wrong or mendacious. You write:
Unless, of course, your argument is that Pope Benedict XVI was wrong and automatic excommunication isn't really the same as someone being excommunicated by formal declaration.I think that latae sententiae ("automatic") excommunication DOES differ from excommunication which comes with a declaration or the obstinacy and manifestness discussed above. If not (I suggest), they would not have used those words. If the canon makes the distinction, then the interpreter of the canon must make the distinction or show -- by argument -- how it is not really a distinction. But the DEFAULT interpretation has to be IMHO that they used the words on purpose.
They differ, I argue, precisely in the matter of who enforces and how they enforce. The obligation on the excommunicate person does NOT differ, and the sin committed when he communicates is the same in kind (if different in gravity) in either case.
So when the Pope -- or the beggar in the street -- OBSERVES that someone is excommunicate, that observation is not the same as a declaration. I can observe (and have observed) that Sebelius, Pelosi, and Biden are excommunicate, and would argue cheerfully (given enough coffee or, after five, bourbon) to that effect. But that accurate observation is distinct from any observation concerning who should enforce the excommunication and how it should be enforced. They are simply two different questions.
I think a formal declaration, possibly including specifics about how the excommunication is to be enforced and -- for my money the real acid test -- who can lift it, is overdue. But our Lord delays his coming in patience, and it may be well for the Holy See to wait until every opportunity and then some has been given for some obvious repentance on the part of these scandalous, contumacious, and obstinate sinners.
But I don't see how there is a delict on anybody's part in administering the sacrament to these people -- yet. I am glad that it's not my call and I bear in mind that those without authority often question, sometimes correctly, the courage and responsibility of those with authority. But that is between them and God.
Finally, though the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, and though the Church is Christ's body, still, in their frequent -- and frequently distressing -- reliance on subsidiarity, I think the canons reveal to those who search a deep trust in the true shepherd of souls. It may SEEM namby-pamby to hold off on the imposition of an interdict or the enforcement of excommunication. But I suggest it may be, at least partially, a matter of giving God time to work on the arrogant and unrepentant.
What they did, sets a very, very bad example to those Catholics who have not gone to confession first and in a special, in this this country.
This de faco agreement exists due to both cowardice, and due to a great many priests who know idea that wisdom is the better part of valor. Wisdom dictates that it's easier to claim you're taking a pastoral approach than to explain why a Bishop doesn't back up a priest who is very clearly only obeying Canon Law when they refuse some people communion.
I wasn't aware that calling them as I see them was considered the "take no prisoners" style of advocacy. I'm sorry you feel offended. I should have qualified the use of "disingenuous" as "more often than not disingenuous" so you did not feel like I was singling you out..
if the bishops defy the pope are they not also in defiance of church teachings and hence should be defrocked.....didn’t that happen when the latin mass was replaced and one bishop continued to use ‘the old mass’????
defy, yes. But, as I said, remember, we see things only from our country — why would the Pope need to know who Pelosi is for instance?
because Pelosi has been a major leader in the democratic congresses of the past. are you suggesting that perhaps the pope is sooooo isolated that he does not who the major players are around the world???
Do you know who is the Prime Minister of France for instance? I don't...
some guy named Ayerault (spelling?) appointed last May as recall.
Pelosi is an outspoken ‘catholic’ who routinely misspeaks her piety. Moreover, the US whether you like it or not has more influence in the world than France.
Didn't say I dislike it
What I DID say is that you and I are looking at things from a US perspective
For someone outside, why should they know some two-bit politician from the US? They would know Obama, but not Pelosi. Similarly we know the President of France but not the ex-Prime Minister.
You must mean Fillon or perhaps his predecessor (the prick) de Villipin.
Your point is that you don’t follow things so you figure the pope won’t either.
My point was that we as Americans don't know these two-bit ex-politicians
And I don't expect the Pope, an Argentianian to keep track of a two-bit ex-politico like Pelosi -- and neither should you
While Fillon wasn’t around long enough to get a handle on Dominique was around entirely toooo long and hurt the US enormously through various shenanigans.
Just because you don’t take an interest in politics doesn’t mean it won’t take an interest in you. You had darned well better keep track of folks like Pelosi. She is the vampiress that brought us the legislation that is O care. And she has done oh so much more damage. The fact that you ignore her changes not the damage she has and can do.
Stop jumping to conclusions -- you'll sprain an ankle. I never said I wasn't interested in politics, go back and read what I said.
oh read what you said and noticed your lack of knowledge. I responded and you get all het up. What you said is nonsensical.
I have other threads to read so as they used to say
buh-bye and go away.