The number is shrinking rapidly. And for good reason.
And you did not address my point concerning Can. 1323 2ƒ, which is directly on point to the issue of imposition of the latae sententiae penalty.
I may have been unclear whether the abortion was done directly as a lifesaving procedure, or whether it was a side-effect. In either case, though, since a mortal sin must involve full advertance of the will, and in this case the nun believed she was following Directive 47, it cannot be a mortal sin.
Now, what you said about Reconciliation is right: one may be refused absolution if one obstinately persists in sin. But in this case, there would have been no sin to begin with, so it’s not an issue.
Yes, well, I went ahead and answered, but I don’t agree that highlighting Ogre’s ridiculous point was being dickish.
Um… no, actually, you’re not. To have that penalty apply, you must be aware of it before the event. Since you (I assume) weren’t, then it doesn’t.
Well, if your OP had said that, I would have either chimed in in agreement or said nothing. I do think there’s a huge gulf of difference between a conscious effort to excommunicate and the mindless, automatic execution of a law with no human agency making it happen. You say that’s a minor point to you – fine. Then ignore it. I thought it was major, and needed explanation.
I never thought I would be in a position of agreeing with “Catholics for Choice,” on any substantive matter, but the fact is, on this issue, they are quoting Canon Law completely and correctly. The diocese’s statement does not mention any of the mitigating factors that the law provides for.
Because even though he’s a murderous, vicious, untrustworthy bastard, Idi Amin is not a cannibal.
How are they doing that?
The US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ directives supercede the plain language of the Catechism?
It’s six pies. Anathematic!
It’s the Bavarian heresy!
The question is not whether the nun committed a mortal sin. The question is whether or not the RCC allows an abortion to save the life of the mother–and they most assuredly do not. The nun may have been ignorant of that fact through misreading the directive you quoted, but that does not change the official Church position.
ETA:
To wit: Your cite did not prove that the nun was right. It was merely the argument for why she *thought *she was right, and one that actually proved she was wrong, in the context of the RCC. You cannot defend the RCC saying that a mother must die rather than undergo an abortion to save her own life by pointing to a directive that confirms that she must die rather than undergo an abortion to save her own life.
No, it doesn’t. It’s in agreement with it. Both confirm that direct abortion is absolutely not allowed under any circumstances.
Oh God, forgive me.
performs 5 Hail Marys, 10 Hello Dollys
What of it? The question is whether the nun’s actions incurred an excommunication how that excommunication might be lifted. For purposes of that analysis, it’s sufficient that I show what her state of mind was. I am perfectly sanguine in the concession that this action was prohibited by a reasonable reading of the catechism.
Well, then I say this with full knowledge that it may result in my automatic excommunication: The host is just a cracker, the wine is just wine. I continue in my refusal to baptize my children, because the doctrine of original sin is a crock of shit. I participate and encourage participation in extra-marital sex. I affirmatively choose to keep my Mirena IUD, and when it needs to come out, will procure a vasectomy for my husband. I deny that abortion is gravely immoral. I vote for candidates based on their support for legal abortion. I think abortion should be legal and readily available. Maybe that’ll do it. 
Not that it really matters that much. Most important - I don’t give money to these bastards or associate myself with them. In fact, this may be a great time to finally defectfrom the church officially.
How are these two situations comparable? Excommunication isn’t like administrative leave, it’s like being fired.
The comparable situation here would be taking the cop’s badge away and sending him home without pay, with the understanding that if he is exonerated, he can have his job back.
The purpose of excommunication is to cut you off from the church, to deny you access to the sacraments so that you may realize the grave danger your actions have to your soul.
In your case, though, you have already voluntarily cut yourself off from the sacraments, so what’s the difference? It’s unclear to me that any of the sentiments you’ve expressed above would result in an automatic excommunication, but you have voluntarily accepted the sanction, it seems.
How do you figure that? Excommunication is not at all like being fired. it’s like being suspended; you can’t come in to work, but you still have your job. All it means it you cannot approach the sacraments – except, of course, the sacrament of penance.
Well, I guess you and the idiot who wrote that New Republic piece just don’t understand Canon Law then, do you? You should consult an attorney. Preferably a Catholic attorney. Even better, consult a Catholic attorney who is a member of the SDMB and doesn’t give a damn that he is going straight to Hell because he cares not a whit that little boys are being butt-fucked with the Pope’s blessing. Yes. That would be the perfect person to ask about this.
Because that sort of person will tell you that NO WHERE in Canon Law does it explicitly state that raping Jesus Christ is a sin.
Now, fucking another man in the ass… that’s a dirty, evil, sin. But fucking thy Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in His ass–forcibly and against His will–is okey-dokey. Dude, it’s all right there in Canon Law.
Quit your evil Catholic-bashing… it makes the baby Ass-Slut Jesus cry!
So she has to eat the cookie and drink the wine or put her soul in grave danger? That’s what’s at the core of the organization you’re devotedly defending, not following the teachings of Jesus?
Why should anyone respect that shit?
You seem to be confused about what people are mad about here.
People are not mad that a nun was excommunicated for misreading Church doctrine in such a way that she thought it was all right to allow a woman to have an abortion in the first trimester in order to save her own life. People are mad that the RCC specifically and explicitly disallows all abortions, including ones that would save the life of the mother, because they consider it less evil to let both the fetus and mother die than to actively kill the fetus so that the mother may live.
Saying, “No, it’s okay, she won’t be excommunicated after all because she didn’t *KNOW *she was sinning when she allowed the abortion!” isn’t helping. At all.
What do you think will happen if the nun says, “I recognize now that I misread the directive, but if I knew then what I know now, I still would have allowed it”?
ETA:
I can’t believe you’re couching excommunication as such a “not a big deal” thing. You are fucking cut off from the Sacraments. You can’t participate in the Eucharist. That should be a Big Fucking Deal for any Catholic, and if you don’t understand that, I must truly question whether you are one.
Well, people are mad about the protecting and enabling kiddie rapists stuff too.
No cite and a bit of a hijack, but my 7th-Day Adventist friend tells me that Islam and the Catholic Church are going to merge soon.
That oughta be good for a few laughs.
So long as we can make sure the woman really suffers for it by having unnecessary damage done to her fallopian tubes, it’s a-okay.
You wouldn’t want her to be able to walk away unscathed, after all.
And when her next pregnancy is also ectopic, we’ll do it again.
And if she ever manages to carry a pregnancy to term, we’ll make sure there’s a child molester waiting at the church.
It’s a great, great plan. And God’s will.
Well, if you want to kill two birds with one stone, you could consider the case of the 9-year-old Brazillian girl whose mother and doctors were excommunicated after they aborted twin fetuses that probably would have killed her, while the stepfather who raped her was allowed to remain in the Church. (Cite 1, 2.)