Themself, I suppose, and they’re supposed to believe (or have honest intentions, at least) that what they say is true. As in, they can’t just say they’re sorry, they actually have to be sorry, is my understanding. My assumption was that recompense for what they’d done wrong was assumed rather than a hard and fast rule; if they’re genuinely sorry, they would want to make it up to whoever they’ve wronged. I seem to have been fairly accurate on the whole thing, going by your explanation.
So let’s go back to the problem. Our Catholic has committed a mortal sin such that they have been automatically, privately excommunicated. Under what circumstances would this private excommunication motivate them to seek confession when “my soul is in terrible danger” does not? Under what circumstances would a public excommunication - or a private one which is made public by the Catholic in question - motivate them to seek confession when “my soul is in terrible danger” does not? And is there an issue at all that our Catholic is seeking redemption not because of a spiritual concern on their part, but a practical, earthly one, the separation from their community?
As Catholics, we desire to receive communion. It nourishes us. It puts us in touch with God. To be barred (even if no one knows) from communion is a big, big thing. We know that we have to make changes in ourselves to be worthy of communion again.
To one who doesn’t believe, excommunication is meaningless. To one who does, it’s a serious thing. It’s a major impetus to reform.
But I also understand that committing a mortal sin puts one’s soul in serious jeopardy. That seems, admittedly from my outside perspective, a more serious problem than even the serious results of excommunication. And with respect, though I do not believe, I would say that I am capable of understanding that excommunication is a big deal. It isn’t “meaningless”.
If a Catholic is capable of ignoring, or not caring, about the stain of that mortal sin, but does care about their excommunication, doesn’t that call into question the quality of their faith? To use your terms, if I as a lapsed Catholic repent not because of my fear for my soul but because I’m no longer nourished, no longer in touch with God. I go to confession, not in order to right myself spiritually, but because I’m no longer getting what I want.
If that’s the one error, which of course I’ll take heed of, I would say that I was still fairly accurate.
But this leads me to a new question. If confession requires a listener to advise you, then it should be the case that an excommunicated Catholic with no person to take their confession is stuck in that state, no matter their desire to repent or actions taken to make up for their lapse. Is this correct?
G-ddamnit (forgive me Father, for I have sinned), shut up and go away, This potential trainwreck of a thread actually turned into a very very educational and useful conversation until you showed up.
The inability to receive communion is a very large part of community activity, and it is also very visible. People will notice if suddenly you no longer receive communion.
Out of curiosity, is anyone familiar with anyone who has aided in the procurement of an abortion and been restored to full fellowship with the Catholic Church? What did that involve?
Strictly speaking, canon law requires that the local Ordinary – the Bishop, basically – hear the confession; the Bishop has the power to remit a latae sententiate excommunication. But the Bishop can, and many, perhaps most, have formally granted their priests the faculty to do likewise. This delegation is valid under canon law, and in the specific case with which I am familiar, the penitent was able to simply attend confession and have her penalty removed.
Not as much as one might think, since there are other reasons why someone might go to church and not head up; depending on the specific community and person, one more bench-sitter will be noticed or not.
A cathedral that gets lots of tourists, and a person who isn’t particularly active in the parish otherwise: not very noticeable. My brother’s neocathecumenal group: very noticeable because there’s so few of them; the pastor has been told repeatedly to “cut it out” after such things as throwing hellfire on someone for missing a celebration when that someone was out of town visiting their dying father. Any member of my family at my mother’s parish, where we are the priests’ first choice for lectors: very noticeable, not just if we’re having Communion or not but if we’re going to Mass or not and which ones we’ve gone to.
You misunderstand my question. I’m not saying that an excommunicated person would have no person to hear their confession because they are excommunicated. Given that, as I understand, confession is required for communication to be lifted, that wouldn’t make much sense.
No, what I’m asking is this; we have an excommunicated person. They genuinely seek to repent - however, they have no access to a suitable person to whom to confess. Perhaps there are no Catholic priests around. Perhaps they die before they can confess. Such a person would be “stuck” with no means to have their excommunication lifted. Is this correct?
A priest would be ideal, but it’s not necessary. You’re talking about confession in extremis, which can be taken by other people, and even if nobody else is around, then you’re jumping from a situation which only applies when someone is alive to the question of “what happens if someone dies having had time to sin after their last confession”.
Someone who’s dead is outside of the community by reason of being dead: it’s physically impossible to take part in communion when you’re dead. But dying with sins on you (which would be a frequent state of affairs, think for example of anybody who dies in an accident) does not prevent one from going to Heaven - only rejecting the Divine Mercy does that. Basically and in cartoon fashion, you die, Peter is holding the Gates open, but if you insist in staying out he’s not going to drag you inside.
I gave two examples of someone who wouldn’t have someone to confess to - I’m not sure it’s a jump. I’m curious, though; what other people are we talking about who can take confession in extremis? Other Catholics? Just other people in general? I seem to vaguely recall that technically even I as an athiest could baptise people under some denominations, at least, which is why I ask that last question.
Yes, generally. But since “excommunication,” is manifested by being cut off from reception of the sacraments (except for penance), if a person is isolated with no priest to confess to, then he’s not getting any of the sacraments anyway.
I don’t know. It seems to me that the two aren’t that easily separated.
For one thing, we are supposed to repent, not so much because we fear for our souls, but because sin separates us from God, in more ways than just being barred from the communion rail (OK, that’s pre-Vatican II language – there aren’t too many communion rails in use any more). If I confess my sins because I’m not getting what I want, it’s more than likely that what I want is to be closer to God in all ways.
After all, one version of the Act of Contrition says:
(emphasis added)
And, of course, if one confesses merely to meet the formal requirements for receiving communion, without a genuine purpose of repentance, it’s not a good confession.
It’s not all that noticeable if someone doesn’t receive communion. Lots of people go to Mass and choose not to receive communion that day. All the time. Nobody bats an eye, except maybe the parish busybody, and nobody pays any attention to her anyway.
Yes, I know a woman who had an abortion and then was completely reconciled with the Church. Excommunication lifted and everything. All it involved was going to confession and receiving absolution. No public penance or humiliation – confession is completely private. The seal of the confessional is absolutely inviolate.
If you’d like a well-known example of a woman who had an abortion and was later reconciled with the Church, there’s Dorothy Day (a name that will be familiar to nearly all Catholics, or at least nearly all American Catholics), who is currently on the short list for canonization. The fact that she had an abortion (and a child out of wedlock) is only widely known because she wrote about it in her autobiography. Again, there’s no public penance, no declaration to the community of the sin and its remission.
Not sure if this is still the case, but when I was a kid we learned that you’re not supposed to take communion whenever you have ANY unconfessed mortal sin on your “record”. As noted, lots of people don’t take communion, and generally it’s because one hasn’t been to confession recently. Happens all the time.
Yep. To someone who isn’t a churchgoing Catholic, this may seem strange, but it’s utterly unremarkable that someone might not get up and get on the communion line on Sunday.