Well, I don't have a problem with the criticism - but isn't that supposed to be done privately?

Whether one has been excommunicated or not, the sin of abortion must be confessed as the taking of innocent human life (5th Commandment). If the penitent did not know about this law at the time of the abortion then he or she was NOT excommunicated. If the person knew about the law but there were extenuating circumstances (such as mentioned above concerning c. 1323) then these factors should be mentioned to the confessor. He will say whether he has the faculty from the bishop to absolve from this excommunication or whether he even needs to. If he does not, he will privately and secretly obtain absolution from the bishop or send the person to a confessor who has that power.

That would probably depend. If you accidentally killed someone by being careless (reckless discharge of a weapon, drunken driving), I would think that could be a mortal sin. Why do you ask?

Why do you ask?

also, i realize were not worthy of God's grace or mercy, but what if someone asks for forgiveness just so they don't have to go to hell for killing someone, do they get a "get outta jail free" card then?

"just to get out of Hell," but be led by God's grace into a true and strong faith.

, "Well, yes. However, if that is really too much for you, it would be better for you to remarry than to fall into fornication, etc."

Only God can join man and woman into one flesh.

Is it a pastoral approach to tell someone it is OK to do something even though it is wrong?

If they don't have the ability to render a divorce, ("Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.") it is not pastoral to lead someone to believe that they are permitted to remarry.

To be a mortal sin, you have to know it is a sin. If you believe you are married, you would not know that you are sinning and it would not be a mortal sin.

>>At the same time, is it pastoral to forbid someone from doing a lesser wrong that might prevent the occurrence of a greater wrong?

I'm not sure that adultery with only one person is a lesser wrong than adultery with multiple people.

>>did proclaim at least one instance in which divorce is acceptable (i.e., adultery)

As I pointed out in a different post, that could be a mistranslation.

For reference, I think Lutherans believe that a sin is still a sin regardless of knowledge... but that Christ's forgiveness still applies to sins that are unknown.

Hmm...the software won't let me reply to Entity's comment. Little quirks to get used to.

And the EO believe the same. Every Liturgy we pray, immediately before receiving the Eucharist, "pardon my sins, both voluntary and involuntary, in knowledge and in ignorance, in word or in deed..."

We do too, but it would be a venial sin, not a mortal sin.

Mortal sins destroy the grace of God in the heart of the sinner.

Mortal sins destroy the grace of God in the heart of the sinner.

It was the Missouri Synod leader C. F. W. Walther who further argued that not only was such a distinction proper and necessary, but that ‘a person failing to make this distinction does not rightly divide Law and Gospel.’ In other words, Walther considered the distinction integral to faithful evangelical preaching. The great Martin Chemnitz listed three reasons for ‘retaining and earnestly inculcating’ the distinction. First, that we may learn to acknowledge and earnestly avoid mortal sins. Second, that if we are caught in such sins, we may not obstinately persevere and continue in them. And third, that we try the more to restrain and control the sin that dwells in us, lest it become mortal.

From early on in Lutheran theology the distinction was referred to by the scholastic terms ‘ruling and non-ruling sin’ (peccati regnantis et non regnantis), which in turn echo the words of St Paul, ‘Do not let not sin rule (regnet) in your mortal body’ (Rom 6:12). The Lutheran Confessions presuppose the distinction when they differentiate between those sins with which faith and the Holy Spirit cannot co-exist, and sins of weakness and concupiscence which remain in the flesh of the baptised believer. In his Loci Communes Melanchthon habitually calls the former ‘sins against conscience’, that is, the regenerate person’s conscious consent to his sinful fleshly impulses and his voluntary resistance of the Holy Spirit. The Formula of Concord characterises them in terms of ‘a wicked intention to continue and abide in sin.’ Sins of weakness on the other hand are those myriad sins of omission and commission which, according to Luther’s explanation of the Fifth Petition, God daily forgives the Christian ‘even without our asking, or before we ask.’

2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death.

Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery

Finally, we emphasize that no person is expected to stay in an abusive marriage. Some abused women believe that church teaching on the permanence of marriage requires them to stay in an abusive relationship. They may hesitate to seek a separation or divorce. They may fear that they cannot re-marry in the Church. Violence and abuse, not divorce, break up a marriage. We encourage abused persons who have divorced to investigate the possibility of seeking an annulment. An annulment, which determines that the marriage bond is not valid, can frequently open the door to healing.

Finally, there are the radical liberal theologies which eschew all recognition of sin. They tend to be the most lacksadaisical about their approach to sin and let people do whatever they want with no consequences as long as it doesn't conflict with human desires or some vague sense of modernist morality.

They see sin as merely social evils and something we rectify through social action.

He was not exactly the most doctrinally sound, considering he actually denied the Virgin Birth.

but shouldn't we try to rise above social evils? it shouldn't be an excuse to sin..

...our society seems to think divorce is as common as dying your hair whenever you feel like it.

And it is precisely this fact (re: divorce being so common) that makes it all the more important today to hold fast to the Tradition of the Church regarding marriage and divorce. Not to beat people over the head with it (and we should always live under grace, not the law, and so on), but that the light might shine in the darkness of our culture, so that people may find their way to Life.

Many Protestant denominations (and presumably the Orthodox Church) have found this teaching to be too harsh and have changed their doctrine.  Perhaps you will receive a more favorable answer from them.

but shouldn't we try to rise above social evils? it shouldn't be an excuse to sin..

Without the redemption of Christ's death, the "social gospel" is utterly meaningless because we are all sinners and fall short of God's glory. No matter how much good we do, "social gospel" does not replace the true Gospel.

In fact, the true Gospel should be the *power* behind our conviction to help others. However, I don't see "social activism" as the only means of living a life which glorifies God, either. We can do much good without going out of our way either.

Luther's "two kingdoms" means that we are, in a sense, foreigners to this land merely passing through. The Church is not here to use politics, it is here to preach the Kingdom of God regardless of what politics it finds itself in.

like the whole "works" and "faith" working together or they don't mean as much?

if this is not our kingdom (and i dont think it is) what do we do when if our government here passes laws that don't coincide with our laws for our "true" kingdom? oh... and if the Catholic Church can make laws for her people that hold water in heaven, like abortion=mortal sin, and our government says it's o.k. to have abortions, is the government bad?