You mention penance - is the excommunicated person with no available means for confession also cut off from a chance at penance?
I think this gets to the heart of my issue regarding excommunication. It would seem, at least to me, that the effects of it are to produce alternative reasons for repentance other than the “correct” one. Even if, per your example, alternative reasons are acceptable in minority, a separation from the community and all that entails would seem to provide more bad than good. And as you say - it’s only “more than likely” that closeness to God in all ways is sought.
What if our hypothetical confessing Catholic repents because they’re genuinely sorry, but because of the practical effects of their excommunication? Let’s say that they find their friends or family within the congregation treat them differently, and that’s what primarily motivates their remorse. They’re truly repentant - because they don’t want people to treat them that way. I’m uncertain whether that is enough to be “acceptable” for the purposes of confession, but either way, it’s the kind of situation that excommunication would seem to create or foster.
I’m so sorry for not being clear. “Penance,” and “confession,” are synonyms for the sacrament: Book IV, Title IV of the Code of Canon Law refers to “The Sacrament of Penance,” and in colloquial discussion the terms are often used interchangeably. Penance also can be used to refer to the tasks given to the penitent following his reception of the sacrament, but it’s not limited to that meaning.
My bad for tossing out Catholic jargon 
Well, being barred from communion might prompt one to reflect on why one is barred, and that might lead to a real examination of conscience and true repentance. So it’s actually helpful in bringing the sinner back to a state of grace.
In the end, though, it’s impossible for anyone (besides God, of course) to know exactly what’s in the penitent’s mind. Maybe even the penitent isn’t all that sure.
The precepts of the Church mandate that Catholic receive the Sacrament of Penance at least once per year, during the Lenten season, if serious sin is involved. That is, a Catholic with no mortal sin on his conscience can certainly refrain from frequent reception of the sacrament without violating any norms.
The figure I have heard is that about 40% of Catholics report that they never receive the sacrament of penance and another 30% say they go once per year or less.
No problem! Part of my job involves teaching people very new to computing how to use them - the number of times I’ve gone into very basic I.T. jargon and then mentally smacked my forehead when they have no idea what I’m talking about is fairly high.
You mention that “penance” can mean tasks given to the penitent, and that’s the meaning I was assuming. Is that something which is necessary? Going by Nava’s explanation earlier, some kind of recompense is required by the penitent, but I’m uncertain as to whether that’s something that requires an order (that is, if I’ve sinned by stealing £50 from my friend, I would have to return that money and apologise, I assume, but would I get some kind of additional task to perform?) Pop culture would say something like “say three Hail Marys” or something like that, but naturally I’m not taking that pat.
It’a no joke. I’d say 90% of the time my penance after confession was: Say 3 Hail Marys and 3 Our Fathers.
We’re back to square one, then, I guess, because I don’t see why that would have an effect on someone who isn’t affected by the thought of risk to their soul. If anything I would tend to say that if a Catholic were not bothered by that factor then anything that motivated them towards repentance would almost necessarily be the right thing for the wrong reasons.
Presumably though they are judged by the penitent’s impression of themselves and not God’s. If I as a Catholic who has sinned believe myself to be truly repentant because of my desire to rededicate myself to Christian virtues, but actually I’m just petrified of hell, or I don’t like the way others in my congregation look at me, I would hope my honest misunderstanding wouldn’t impress upon my judgement.
The idea is you have confessed with the resolve to avoid sin again and have been absolved of your sins. In some cases it’s possible to make amends or recompense for what you did but whether or not that’s possible, you are usually given prayers to say as a penance and to bring you closer to God.
That’s getting into the difference between perfect and imperfect contrition. Perfect contrition is contrition motivated by love of God, imperfect contrition is contrition motivated by fear of punishment or other factors.
I’m glad there’s a term for it! It’s much easier to state my argument; that excommunication seems to me to make the chances of imperfect contrition more likely. Does imperfect contrition not “count” for the purposes of repentance?
Also, thanks to everyone for answering my questions. I appreciate it. I’m sure you’ve seen them all before, too, so thanks for putting up with my boringness!
It counts. To quote the Catechism:
So perfect contrition gets you forgiveness of mortal sins if you intend to go to confession ASAP. Imperfect contrition doesn’t get you forgiveness of mortal sins, but it makes you want to go to confession, which does.
That part about even Mortal Sins being forgiven really disappointed me.
For all the things I dislike about the RCC, I had to admire any group which had the guts to say
“You fucked up big time, and you are going to Hell. Period”.
At last a real, hard line over which one crosses at the cost of Eternal Damnation.
Then I found out even Mortal Sins can be bought off.
Oh well, I make a much better heathen than a devout anything.
Forgiveness comes from God, not from the priest. I used St Pete in the cartoon because he’s the one who gets used in cartoons but yes, God’s Infinite Mercy springs eternal.
So even if our hypothetical Catholic is only sorry for what they did because of… I don’t know, peer pressure, it’s fine so long as it encourages them to go to confession and repent? That would certainly seem to make excommunication have more purpose, but on the other hand it just seems to shift the problem up a level - it seems as though a Catholic could be made right with the Church even though they aren’t actually sorry for what they did, just because of what they did.
Also slightly concerning that it’s a gift from God. Contrition isn’t something we’re capable of on our own? Ouch.
I have to confess (hah!) then that I don’t see the difference between a mortal sin and a venial sin. My impression was that committing a mortal sin was effectively a go straight to Hell, do not pass Go, do not collect £200 card when you die, if you haven’t been forgiven of it.
The Catholic Church, and I think most of Christianity in general, teaches that God’s mercy is endless, and that God actively desires for mankind to repent and be saved…that the entire point of Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection was to make it possible for all humanity to receive divine grace and be forgiven sins.
The deadly sins are seen as the root of any other sin.
Sort of like the six simple machines are the basis of everything else.
When, in your understanding of things, did the Catholic Church EVER say that mortal sins resulted in eternal damnation and were unforgivable?
Peter himself denied Jesus three times. The Church considers him the first Pope.
These are very different concepts. A “latae sententiae” excommunication, which is by far the most common type of excommunication nowadays, happens automatically, ipso facto as a result of the conditions set down in canon law. No formal judgment or sentencing hearing is required, and it can even happen without any priest having any awareness of the excommunication. The person thus excommunicated is expected to approach a priest, disclose the excommunication, and seek to have it lifted via the applicable channels. In other words, it’s sort of like a mortal sin on steroids - you can ignore it without facing social ramifications (unless it somehow becomes public knowledge), but you are probably going to hell if you do so.
The other type of excommunication, a ferendae sententiae excommunication, is one that is formally pronounced by an ecclesiastical court after the proper allegations have been filed, papers served on the alleged sinner, witnesses questioned, etc. Many churches have this sort of procedure in their rules, but actual instances of their use is pretty rare. The Amish practice of Meidung is a non-Catholic example of this kind of excommunication. It’s overt, public, formalized, and provides a clear avenue for one to argue their case and/or appeal.