theophiles.org - World Youth Day a chance to confess abortion, rejoin church

World Youth Day a chance to confess abortion, rejoin church

Written by laika

Tuesday, 16 August 2011 17:43

At The Guardian:

Hundreds of thousands of young people descending on Madrid this week for the Catholic church's World Youth Day – which features processions, group prayers and a mass with Pope Benedict XVI – are to get a "special" concession.
Church leaders have ordered that anyone confessing, during this event, to having had an abortion – a sin punishable by excommunication – will be welcomed back into the church.

"Normally, only certain priests have the power to lift such an excommunication, but the local diocese has decided to give all the priests taking confession at the event this power," said the pope's spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi. Two hundred white wooden confession booths have been set up in Madrid's Buen Retiro park for the event, which started on Tuesday and runs until Sunday. At a time when church attendances in Europe are dipping Lombardi denied the deal on abortion had been dreamed up to attract waverers back to the church. "With so many young people attending there may be those who have had problems of this kind and it makes sense to reach out to them."

Comments

holmegm

|2011-08-19 09:06:56

Um, huh?

Is this implying that before this event, it was a completely unforgivable sin that nobody could repent about?

PineHall - Good question

|2011-08-19 10:29:15

holmegm wrote:

Is this implying that before this event, it was a completely unforgivable sin that nobody could repent about?

I am wondering the same thing. It is not clear that is the case but it seems to be strongly implied. Can someone Catholic explain the Roman Catholic view of abortion (a mortal sin, I guess) and its consequences? You can broaden it to include all mortal sins and what the difference is between mortal and venial sins. I am curious about that too and I think it applies.

laika

|2011-08-19 16:43:08

holmegm wrote:

Is this implying that before this event, it was a completely unforgivable sin that nobody could repent about?

Not according to below. Apparently, forgiveness rested in the hands of a limited number of dispensers (bolding is mine):

the article wrote:

"Normally, only certain priests have the power to lift such an excommunication, but the local diocese has decided to give all the priests taking confession at the event this power," said the pope's spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi.

This event offers it less exclusively, right at ground zero for abortions in Europe. So, if this article is accurate, forgiveness was/is available through certain channels, but at World Youth Day it's being offered wholesale.

edit: This relates nicely to the recent excellent and edifying Ephesians headship discussion. Here we have the cleansing and sanctification of the woman through the authority of the man. There is no other option in this case; there is no way in the hierarchy for sisters to do for themselves or each other.

emperorbma - Hmm. seems limited to one sect though.

|2011-08-19 20:15:42

laika wrote:

This relates nicely to the recent excellent and edifying Ephesians headship discussion.

It seems to be somewhat parochial to the Roman Catholic state of affairs, I think.

For a Roman Catholic, even though a layperson can freely forgive another person, canonical forgiveness can only be received through the Pope, bishop or priest. As for excommunication, which this seems to apply to, the issue is handled at some upper organizational level of this heirarchy.

For Protestants, even those that recognize pastors as having a special office of ordination, they don't generally consider canonical forgiveness to be something that is exclusive to an ordained minister. For excommunication, it is rarely applied simply for having committed a transgression. (like abortion) There are ample means of reconciliation and it is usually treated as a more personal affair and handled pastorally. The major exception is when it involves preaching something contrary to the beliefs of the Church in which case excommunication is sometimes the only answer. If a Protestant group did apply excommunication, usually it is because the entire congregation (or, by proxy, denomination) believes it necessary rather than a ruling of just one set of clergymen. [When it works correctly, of course; there have been abuses regardless] As a result, lifting it would probably involve somebody convincing the denomination to lift its decision that he or she was a threat to sound doctrine.

Not knowing much about Orthodox practice on Confession and Absolution, I couldn't really say much about it, but I suspect they tend toward the former more than the latter.

PineHall - still confused

|2011-08-20 11:57:04

So a woman has an abortion. She is then automatically excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church. Correct? And in normal circumstances when she repents she goes to a priest with special authority to be restored. And at this event all priests have been given the authority to restore her. Do I have it right?

And is this true for other Mortal Sins?

laika - re: - still confused

|2011-08-20 12:31:51

PineHall wrote:

That's it. I suppose the abortion would have to be known to the church for one to be formally excommunicated? But yes, you are correct about the rest, about how one would go about being received back into the church.

laika

|2011-08-19 22:23:34

emperorbma wrote:

It seems to be somewhat parochial to the Roman Catholic state of affairs, I think.

I tried to make that clear with, "There is no other option in this case..."

Of course Protestants will vary all over the map, but here the hierarchy of the Roman church conforms literally to Ephesians. In The Church, they might say, the keys to the kingdom are held exclusively by men. Male headship, top to bottom.

Or am I getting carried away?

emperorbma

|2011-08-20 01:49:52

laika wrote:

Of course Protestants will vary all over the map, but here the hierarchy of the Roman church conforms literally to Ephesians. In The Church, they might say, the keys to the kingdom are held exclusively by men. Male headship, top to bottom.

Hmm. I won't deny that you have a point that the pastoral office is somehow related to male headship. [Note that pastor is the closest cognate concept to the Roman Catholic presbyter/bishop in my theological position and I use it to facilitate my discussion of the topic] Nonetheless, I do not believe that male headship was meant to be interpreted as something that is there to take away female freedom or impose oppression, either. In fact, it is specifically written that "In [Christ] and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence." (Ephesians 3:12) Any structure which would demand oppression as a part of headship, then, is entirely opposed to the nature of the God whom we serve.

Now, certainly some offices in the Church are limited to a male membership but not because one is superior to the other or anything. Rather, because it is a reflection of the headship of Christ which is maintained specifically to honor Christ and better serve Him. As you are using Ephesians, it is written there that "Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ." (Ephesians 4:11-13)

Therefore, I see the goal of this hierarchy being to empower everyone who is a member of His Body as His own living members through the means of grace (i.e. the Sacraments) and the preaching of the Word. The pastor is a representative of Christ who serves to facilitate this ministry of Word and Sacrament and to direct the Church to eagerly seek Him and His Kingdom.

However, I also think that I think that the notion that the laity is meant to be inferior to the ordained owes to a misunderstanding of the concept of headship more than the fact of headship itself. Certainly there is an implied honor and respect that one should give to a pastor due to his role as an ordained servant of the Word. Yet, this is not something that exists to the exclusion of lay participation in the central mission of the Church nor is it something that deprives the lay member of the authority to preach the forgiveness of sins or any of the other core elements of the Christian life. In fact, one could argue that there are lay offices which, while not strictly ordained, are entirely valid positions of the church and that some of these are open to females. (e.g. Catholicism recognizes nuns; some forms of Orthodoxy have recognized deaconesses*) Obviously, of course, I am not agreeing with female ordination.

Headship, as I see it is roughly the cognate of respect. Respect is contingent upon a proper authority established in love. Authority, likewise, is contingent upon God who establishes it in love. Authority that is not established in love is corrupt according to His Will. Therefore, an authority which is lacking compassion is subverting the intent of God. God is love and love is not tyranny. As it is written, "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres." (1 Corinthians 13:4-7)

Following from this, then, a headship that is strictly based on dominion and control is not as proper and God pleasing as a dominion that is established in respect and compassion. Likewise, I would argue, a proper ministry would not seek to hoard gifts among its elite but recognize the importance of having the laity be participants in all the blessings of Christ.

Therefore, I would claim personally that I see Ephesians can be just as reflective of Protestantism as well depending on what kind of perspective you come at the Scripture from. Naturally, of course, opinions will vary about this and my opinion will obviously favor my own (Lutheran) position here...

*-as has the LCMS, which is why I make an emphasis of it...

laika - 'I fought the law, and the law won'

|2011-08-20 13:04:08

emperorbma wrote:

Therefore, I would claim personally that I see Ephesians can be just as reflective of Protestantism as well depending on what kind of perspective you come at the Scripture from.

Here you reinforce my point about variance among Protestants, with their myriad perspectives. The Roman church obviously takes a literal perspective, as would many Protestants, for that matter.

emperorbma wrote:

Authority that is not established in love is corrupt according to His Will. Therefore, an authority which is lacking compassion is subverting the intent of God. God is love and love is not tyranny.

But authority as mandated according to the model nonetheless. Divine Right, one might say.

emperorbma wrote:

Headship, as I see it is roughly the cognate of respect. Respect is contingent upon a proper authority established in love. Authority, likewise, is contingent upon God who establishes it in love.

One generally has no choice but to respect authority. This goes back to Mrs. Bachmann - is it useful to talk about submission (to authority) as synonymous with respect? For good or ill, the two words might be related, but they're not interchangeable, are they?

emperorbma - by the law no man is justified

|2011-08-20 21:00:08

laika wrote:

But authority as mandated according to the model nonetheless. Divine Right, one might say.

But this creates a problem, does it not? Under such an authority is it not possible to justify the genocide of the innocent because your leader (whom has God-given authority) says it is necessary? Would it not demand a woman stay with an abusive husband who constantly injures her? We're getting into the "I was just following orders" problem. We're hitting a situation where raw literalism doesn't serve a benefit when taken to its extreme. (compare it to my example with Bob)

The existence of authority should not abrogate one's own personal responsibility to do what is right and it doesn't mean that someone can't justly oppose oppression under the inspired direction of God, either. There are situations that we must be careful to preserve the Spiritual intent of the message above the strict literal reading. There is a subtlety required in interpreting Scripture correctly. The clue that this is necessary is when taking a seemingly literal reading becomes inconsistent with the nature of God and the doctrine found in the rest of Scripture.

Otherwise, we might as well consider the prophets such as Isaiah and Elijah as heretics because they opposed the king of Israel (i.e. the justly established monarch of Israel by Divine Right) all the time. Moses also opposed a king under the right and just command of God Himself. In fact, even Jesus Himself opposed 3 different authority structures at the same time! One of these were the leaders of the Jewish Temple itself!

Remember that the devil himself can abuse Scripture by removing it from its intended context. The crucial thing is to remember that authority does not replace God, but merely serves Him. As it is written, then, "the letter kills but the Spirit gives life." (2 Corinthians 3:6) When the ruler is unjust or when the husband is oppressive, then something is, in fact, seriously wrong. At a certain point, we need to remember that authority is contingent upon God and when an alleged authority is not acting Godly then is it truly authority? The martyrs of the Church in the Roman Empire never bowed knee to Caesar's delusions of godhood. They did respect the Roman government's authority came from God, but they did not ever submit to that which is NOT its authority; even to the extent that they were murdered by the Romans for denying Caesar's delusions of being a god.

So which authority comes from God? For the government, it is the authority to protect peoples' lives from harm and their property from thievery. For the church, it is the authority to reveal the need for salvation by preaching the Law's dread conviction and to preach the Gospel of salvation which freely gives salvation. For the husband, it is the authority to protect his wife and to ensure his family isn't impoverished. For the pastor, it is the authority to preach the message of Christ crucified and to provide the means of grace that Christ has given. The problem isn't authority but the abuse of the claim of authority to grab that which is not just.

Because of this issue we have governments demanding the worship that belongs to God and taking away peoples' liberties, husbands who demand that their wives can't think or have a personal life, churches trying to impose their morals on government laws and pastors who think they have the right to force control other Christian churches. Authority, even though it be from the throne of God Himself, can be corrupted by the sins of man and when it is corrupted it should not be treated as if God's Will imposed this corruption and relegating it to something that cannot be opposed.

If I have to describe it in another way, I don't think God is "lawful" or "chaotic" but simply "good." We see that laws are sometimes good and falsely believe that they are always good. Law can be a means to do good, but if good comes from opposing a corrupt law then it is good to oppose the "evil" that has corrupted the law...

laika - Question Authority!

|2011-08-21 00:10:40

emperorbma wrote:

Otherwise, we might as well consider the prophets such as Isaiah and Elijah as heretics because they opposed the king of Israel (i.e. the Israel by Divine Right) all the time. Moses also opposed a king under the right and just command of God Himself. In fact, even Jesus Himself opposed 3 different authority structures at the same time! One of these were the leaders of the Jewish Temple itself!

I've been off thinking about how Divine Right could be justified in different times and cultures. Your examples above speak directly to that. You might've added your man Luther to the list in another time and situation of what many would claim was effectively a "justly established monarch." Most of us here in the forum are children in one degree or another of his opposition.

emperorbma wrote:

But this creates a problem, does it not? Under such an authority is it not possible to justify the genocide of the innocent because your leader (whom has God-given authority) says it is necessary?

Of course there are OT examples of God's Chosen going genocidal on this tribe or that. I'm embarrassed to say that I can't recall if anyone questioned such specific instruction.

emperorbma wrote:

Because of this issue we have governments demanding the worship that belongs to God and taking away peoples' liberties, husbands who demand that their wives can't think or have a personal life, churches trying to impose their morals on government laws and pastors who think they have the right to force control other Christian churches. Authority, even though it be from the throne of God Himself, can be corrupted by the sins of man and when it is corrupted it should not be treated as if God's Will imposed this corruption and relegating it to something that cannot be opposed.

One can see how inflexible readings could be used to justify such, and certainly has been. There seems to be a cultural element when one backs up and looks at application historically. We are, for the most part, more comfortable with situational readings and more fluid interpretations of definitions. Going back to the article at hand, that's probably why formal excommunication (effective damnation, if I understand it correctly) being only remedied through certain strictly defined human channels sounds so alien to us.

emperorbma

|2011-08-21 15:07:12

laika wrote:

Of course there are OT examples of God's Chosen going genocidal on this tribe or that. I'm embarrassed to say that I can't recall if anyone questioned such specific instruction.

There are, in fact, instances where the "extermination" order was clearly suspended. In one case, this upset the Lord. Namely, when Saul decided to spare some of the Amalekite assets for his own personal gain. Saul, consequently, lost God's blessing and was eventually defeated in combat by the Philistines.

However, God didn't always get upset when someone from the list was spared and there are cases in Scripture when the cherem was superseded. Consider Rachel, for example. She was a citizen of Jericho and clearly on the hit list but she helped the Israelites and was spared, even being made an honorary member of Israel who was a foremother of David. Likewise, there was Uriah the Hittite, a general in David's army. God didn't seem particularly concerned that a Hittite was spared. Instead, God actually got upset that David turned around and betrayed Uriah. Therefore, it is probably fair to suggest that there was some provision for negotiation concerning the cherem. However, Scripture seems pretty quiet on the topic other than these few oddball cases.

As an interesting side-note, the word cherem, which is normally translated as destroy or exterminate, can also mean consecrated or devoted. One can see this relationship by considering the origin of the English word harem, which derives from a similar Arabic term. In fact, cherem is a direct cognate to the Greek word "anathema" which also has a similar dual-meaning. As we are all familiar in the Christian Church, anathema can refer to excommunication/condemnation but it can also refer to consecration/devotion. In that vein, it is possible to suggest that the meaning is highly contextual and can be interpreted depending on the responses of the subject. A hostile response results in destruction. A friendly response results in being put under a special protection...

Thus is fulfilled the statement that "those who bless you shall be blessed and those who curse you shall be cursed." (Genesis 12:3)

In fact, 'tis a fine line between blessing and curse, as well, as Job might reckon. Job's wife literally says "בָּרֵ֥ךְ אֱלֹהִ֖ים וָמֻֽת," lit. "bless God and die." In context, she MEANS the opposite. It seems that God likes to inspire these dual-meaning terms for some reason and I suspect it's probably because we have a tendency to abuse words that carry only a single meaning like they can never be any more flexible.

The a funny thing is that "anathema" is a kind of double edged sword. It is just as dangerous for the wielder if the wielder misuses it as would be for the person justly under its sentence. It seems God doesn't like people abusing this privilege and the Golden Rule still applies to even this grave sort of transaction...

laika - Rebel

|2011-08-21 23:12:40

emperorbma wrote:

There are, in fact, instances where the "extermination" order was clearly suspended. In one case, this upset the Lord. Namely, when Saul decided to spare some of the Amalekite assets for his own personal gain. Saul, consequently, lost God's blessing and was eventually defeated in combat by the Philistines.

An exception to the good outcomes of opposition? The weight of your examples, coupled with your denominational and political affiliations would suggest that an appropriate response to authority might be knee-jerk opposition. Oppose first, and let God sort it out ;-)

emperorbma - a servant is neither rebel nor slave, actually.

|2011-08-22 02:43:56

Alas, you've taken my point to the opposite extreme which I wasn't intending to suggest. I was not saying that only opposition is the best policy either. I'm saying that it was contextual and that there is precedent for exceptions to exist. Just because I am emphasizing a certain set of examples does not mean I am denying the other set of examples. I'm merely attempting to steer away from the Scylla to what I'm trying to communicate, but don't think I'm aiming for Charybdis either. Such a strange dichotomy that it appears that I aimed for one pole or the other when I, in fact, aim for neither mire. My approach is far more holistic than you're giving it credit for.

As for denominational affiliation, it is worth noting that Lutherans for the most part do not jettison what is common to the inherited Catholic theology. It was never our intention to be pushed out of their church. They chose to push the Bull, not us. Furthermore, our opposition has always been to specific elements of theology that we have found to be in contradiction with the intent of Scripture, never the whole of Catholic theology. We do not preach disunity but Concord in the true Christian faith which has been (and in many ways is still being) reformed from the strange notions which have crept in and undermined the focus on Jesus. We have clearly and proudly retained every element that is not in contradiction to Scripture insofar as it is conducive to the preaching of the Gospel. There is, in fact, a reason why we call our corpus doctrinae the book of Concord instead of the "Christian rebel's handbook" as you would seem to be implying.

Similarly, I think you might be misunderstanding my political position as well. A libertarian is not an anarchist. Government is just insofar as it is serving its God-given role. The problem is when it overextends and tries to invade other offices that do not belong to its God-given purpose. Personally, and this is personally, I see the idea of libertarianism as being reflective of the description of the office of the state in the book of Concord, whereby it says to the Church that one should "not break into the office of another" (BOC AC 28.12) and that "civil government deals with other things than does the Gospel. The civil rulers defend not minds, but bodies and bodily things against manifest injuries, and restrain men with the sword and bodily punishments in order to preserve civil justice and peace." (BOC AC. 28.11) [Note: It doesn't say the state is your nanny so you should just kowtow to it, either. :P ]

As for the conquests, there is an air of judgment in the conquest that isn't to be overlooked, either. For example, the Amalekites earned that extermination order by attacking a weakened and wearied Israel who had little defense against the marauders. Likewise, the Canaanites were sacrificing their children to their idols. It is just that I see ample evidence that there is room for a Caananite or an Amalekite to repent of their affiliation and be spared from the destruction that would otherwise be theirs. Kind of similar to how there is room for we who are sinners to repent of our sin and come to Christ.

In short, my path is the path of moderation rather than extremes. The same Christ whose compassion led Him to bear the cross also made a whip of cords to drive the money changers from His Father's house.

Quote:

Ecclesiastes 3:1-8
For everything there is a season, a season to sow and a season to reap, a time to weep and a time to laugh, a time to mourn and a time to dance, a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them, a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing, a time to search and a time to give up, a time to keep and a time to throw away, a time to tear and a time to mend, a time to be silent and a time to speak, a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.

To these, I might also note: a time for preaching the Law and a time for preaching the Gospel, a time for thought and a time for action. It is the distinguishment of these times that is the fine art of the theologian, for to distinguish properly between Law and Gospel means to know when to rebuke and when to show mercy.

Therefore, I reiterate, I don't believe God is "lawful" or "chaotic", simply "good." Harmony and diversity both serve the Creator's plan. It takes wisdom to distinguish which season one finds oneself in and to know when Christ has brought a sword (Matthew 10:34-39) or when Christ has brought peace. (John 14:27) As it is written, "I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)

...and even then, God's goodness is not a relative kind of "good" that is in dichotomy with "evil" [i.e. relative absence of goodness] but the absolute form of good that has no opposite as the sole genuine, uncorrupted, reality. God literally HAS no opposite, when perceived in truth and even the devil is merely a fallen angel who cannot completely defy God's sovereign authority. The devil may well have *authoritatively* corrupted the cosmic order into a false dominion through sin, but God is still the true authority. Consequently, this is why all that is called "authority" isn't necessarily good or right, since God has allowed Satan to corrupt it. In that vein, we are completely justified in defying Satan's authority under the higher, and just, authority of God.

Behold, I shall reveal a mystery: The Scripture says "our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." (Ephesians 6:12) That's right, authority. There are two kinds: God is the true, universal, and the devil is the false, cosmic. To simply say all authority is right is to fall into the devil's trap as is to say that all rebellion is right.

If there is rebellion, let it be the right kind of rebellion, the rebellion against sin through Christ who saved us from it. Lest we forget, the devil has authority to deceive just as God has authority to save. As Christians, we do not bow to the tempter's deceptions that he would give us all that we want if we simply bow to him, but rather through Christ say, "Begone Satan, for it is written worship the LORD your God and serve Him only." Indeed, we "seek first the Kingdom of God and His Righteousness" and all that we have need of shall be added unto us.

Short of it is: The devil is attempting to make a mockery of God's intended order. One of the vehicles of this attack is to corrupt authority. The other is to incite rebellion. The only way to spot this mockery is to be aware of the differences between the two actors in the realm of authority. We are not, in fact, dealing with a stupid or weak opponent but we do have an edge in the battle which is the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures which point us to Christ.

P.S. Somehow I always end up writing a wall of text answering your questions... :P

emperorbma

|2011-08-22 03:46:51

Oh, by the way, a second mystery for the evening: Rebellion is simply another form of authority.

But, you say, rebellion opposes authority. On what basis does rebellion oppose authority? Is it not through its own authority? From whence does authority come but from God? Therefore, whether rebellion or governance, both are authority.

Take Libya: By law, Quaddafi is the "legal" authority. By force of arms, the rebellion has the slowly taken the country away from him and his injustice. Under what principle does the rebellion do this? By the same principle of authority. A revolution is simply the changing of who wields authority not the supplanting thereof. The final end of authority, however, is as follows:

Quote:

Psalm 8:4-6
What is mankind that you are mindful of them, a son of man that you care for him? You made them a little lower than the angels; you crowned them with glory and honor and put everything under their feet.

Hebrews 2:8-10
In putting everything under them, God left nothing that is not subject to them. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to them. But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

In bringing many sons and daughters to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through what he suffered.

Philippians 2:5-11:
In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, He made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.

And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!

Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place and gave Him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

1 Corinthians 15:24-28
The end will come, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father after He has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For He “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under Him, it is clear that this does not include God Himself, who put everything under Christ. When He has done this, then the Son Himself will be made subject to Him who put everything under Him, so that God may be all in all.

Therefore, as Christians, our rebellion against the principalities and powers of darkness is the reinstitution of the true authority who reigns over Heaven and Earth forever, the One God who has worked redemption through Christ. We subject to the righteous aspect of authority, but we oppose the unrighteous and the corrupt under the same principle that God alone is the true master and that which is contrary to God is, therefore, not true authority...

It is, therefore, an errant notion I believe to suggest that if one as a Christian is found under a bishop who preaches error in place of the Gospel cannot oppose the errors under the principle that God is the true authority. Similarly, with a king who oppresses his people wrongly. If I am arraigned and taken to a lower court which falsely sentences me, but I appeal to the higher court that rightly acquits me, I am still acquitted. So, also, it is with Divine authority and a corrupt bishopric or a corrupt king. It is God who is the judge, not the bishop nor the king nor the president nor the chairman of the Politburo...

Moreso, in a democracy, the president is the servant of we the people. It is, then, we the people who are the authority with Christ as our head to the glory of God the Father. Why is it, then, that we act as if we are meant to bow to the government's corruption or man's tyranny? Is it not God that we should fear..? As we are governed by Christ, we temper the means in which this dissent can be expressed, so as not to return evil for evil, but by all means are we free to raise our voice against the corruption if it becomes necessary and anathema be any leader who squelches such freedom the same as would any angel preaching another Gospel.

emperorbma

|2011-08-22 04:03:03

One more, I think: When the Church has become corrupt to appear like the oppression, a new generation of rebellion is born that opposes the Gospel because it sees people oppressing under a mistaken reading of it. When people finally realize this error and attempt to correct it, the old guard calls them the enemy and ignites the seeds for the next cycle of corruption. Thusly, the ages progress. The new church that opposes corruption, the church that has become corrupted by worldly concerns and grabs power, the church that has an exodus of those seeing it the new Babylon and finally the church which is restored through a new institution of reform. The cycle of backsliding that we observe in the days of the Judges has not ended, it has simply taken on a new form over and over again. It is not the rebellion which is the backslide, however, but the corruption that necessitated the dissent which is the backslide. Yet, we remain oblivious to the plight. This despite the Lord of Glory Himself revealing its dread nature to us by bearing the Cross and instituting the reform that brought us here. It is not as though the sin of the world is not defeated, but we have yet to grasp that defeat and make it our own because we are still in the flesh and our fleshly nature is yet corrupt until He returns in glory. The law of corruption which governs the outward flesh, however, does not govern the inward spirit that rejoices in the Law of God through Christ who redeemed us under it and established the Gospel by which we receive His redemption...

laika - re: - a servant is neither rebel nor slave, actual

|2011-08-22 12:37:19

emperorbma wrote:

Alas, you've taken my point to the opposite extreme which I wasn't intending to suggest.

Oh, I was having a bit of fun with the emperor.

emperorbma wrote:

I was not saying that only opposition is the best policy either. I'm saying that it was contextual and that there is precedent for exceptions to exist.

Understood. See above. It's certainly not a question of you making yourself clear.

emperorbma wrote:

P.S. Somehow I always end up writing a wall of text answering your questions... :P

And some times I go to sleep thinking about what you've said, and wake up thinking about it. And other people are also edified by your walls of text.

emperorbma

|2011-08-22 12:53:51

laika wrote:

Oh, I was having a bit of fun with the emperor.

Ah. I had kind of suspected you might have been but I was already in the Spirit there as soon as Ecclesiastes came up.

Entity - Clearing up some confusion

|2011-08-22 15:40:11

Looks like I chose to pop in on the right day!

A person who procures a successful abortion incurs an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication. This includes the woman who has the abortion and any participants including those who performed the abortion, encouraged the abortion, or provided practical support, such as providing transportation to the clinic. This automatic excommunication means that the participants are excommunicated even if no one in the Church knows about it.

A priest does not have full sacrament of Holy Orders. Only a bishop does. A priest's faculties are through his bishop and the bishop determines which actions a priest may validly take. Due to the serious nature of abortion, the absolution of this sin and lifting of the excommunication is reserved for bishops and the priests they designate. If a priest cannot absolve abortion, he will either obtain the absolution from the bishop in confidence or send the penitent to another priest who can.

There are circumstances where abortion does not lead to automatic excommunication. According to EWTN, "To actually incur the excommunication one must know that it is an excommunicable offense at the time of the abortion. Canon 1323 provides that the following do not incur a sanction, those who are not yet 16, are unaware of a law, do not advert to it or are in error about its scope, were forced or had an unforeseeable accident, acted out of grave fear, or who lacked the use of reason (except culpably, as by drunkenness)."

PineHall - Mortal Sin?

|2011-08-22 22:57:17

Entity - Thank you for your detailed answer.

Does what applies to person who had an abortion also apply to those who had done other mortal sins?

I realize there is no official list of mortal sins and that it depends a little on the situation, but it seems that lists of possible mortal sins or grave sins, include a lot of different sins, including some common sins like "disrespect of parents". (I realize that even the lists I found are not definitive and official.) I have been guilty of some of those potentially mortal sins. So how does the Catholic Church define a mortal sin and how is it different from a venial sin?

Only registered users can write comments!

Our valuable member laika has been with us since Thursday, 03 April 2008.

Show Other Articles

On a Wave of Jubilation* (17 May 2013)
Survey: Provo-Orem area most religious in US (07 April 2013)
Shroud of Turin in the news again (29 March 2013)
War on Christmas Heats Up (12 March 2013)
The Next Bible (12 March 2013)

Feeds

Make a Donation

Current Poll

Support Us!

Latest News

Latest Journals

3.20 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."

Popular

Statistics

Who's Online