Oh, that’s ever so much better.
The Won says “You Catholics, you don’t have to pay for abortions and birth control. The insurance companies do!
Of course, you have to pay for the insurance, either in employee wages or tax dollars. Oh, you don’t pay tax, that’s right. Well, we’ll fix that soon enough!”
Look, there’s something that people don’t understand; maybe I ought to clear this up.
If you are a shriner, and you get off your decked out Harley, and take off your fez, you are still a shriner.
If you stop playing WOW for a while, and go out and buy a pink tricycle and ride it up and down the street in diapers, you’re still a gamer.
if you put on a fur suit and get down on all fours and bark like a dog, meow like a cat, or bray like a jackass, you are still a human.
There are a lot of things you can do that do not affect the nature of who you are; and in fact it is often possible to do things that are contrary to your nature, and retain your nature. Like the specious concept that ‘If we do X or Y, we become JUST LIKE THEM!!’ If I were to bitchslap everyone I heard utter that ignorance, the population of the world would be much smaller. Hundreds of thousands of men you see every day went off to war and committed acts that would put you on your knees puking up your guts, and came home to be loving husbands and fathers and people you respect, if you like it or if you don’t.
There ARE organizations that have these pesky things called “Rules”. Sure, some organizations are more forgiving if you break their rules, some less. There are some organizations with rules which, by breaking them, automatically separate you from that organization.
The Catholic church is one such organization. Oh, sure, there are a lot of rules you can break and it’s not as big a deal. Stealing hubcaps or lying to mom about whether you did your homework or filling your kids school supplies needs out of the supply cabinet at work are all what are considered venal, minor things. Not that it makes them any less reprehensible, but they’re not such a big deal.
On the other hand, there are actions so egregious that the mere act excommunicates you from the church. if, for instance, you marry, and divorce, and remarry without seeking a church anulment, you are automatically excommunicated. If you commit an act of violence to a cleric, you are automatically excommunicated. Here follows a hunge discussion mostly in latin- but the bottomline is, your own actions separate you from communion with the church. The forms of excommunication you may be familiar with are the dramatic hollywood excommunications like the one seen here in the most excellent movie Becket. This “external” excommunication is the one that the Church imposes from without, and which is visible to all. The other excommunication is internal, and is visible only to the individual (as a general rule)
So when a Catholic votes for a “pro choice” candidate, that action separates him or her from the church, and by definition, that person is no longer a Catholic. They are still bound by the churches laws, and in the church Forgiveness and Redemption are of course always available, but you have to bring yourself back, nobody can do it for you.
This is the way Canon law is written in order to keep the body of the church as unblemished as it can be- when you commit an act egregious enough to self-excommunicate, you are no longer a member of the body of the church, you are no longer, technically, a Catholic.
Of course once you are a real Catholic you can as soon start being a hippo as stop being a Catholic, but you voluntarily separate yourself, and participating in the sacraments, for instance, is further sin- an example of this is the kiddy diddlers in the priesthood. They have by their actions voluntarily excommunicated themselves, and in doing so separate themselves from participating in the sacraments. Continuing to do so after having voluntarily excommunicated yourself is a very, very serious matter. This is why I try not to get too worked up about idiots like Fr Michael Pfleger, because a much better reckoning awaits him than I can possibly deliver.
So to all the people who are saying “Catholics did this” I have to say, no, In fact, you are wrong. Anyone who participated in this bullshit- at ANY LEVEL of the church, is by definition and by their own action, not a Catholic.Catholics didn’t do this. idiots did.
14 comments Og | Uncategorized

Somehow I missed the news that contraceptives are difficult to obtain. Hell, one college has the “morning after” pill available in a vending machine. Are women truely being denied access to birth control drugs and/or devices?
Regardless of your insurance, you can buy any medicine prescribed by your doctor. So I guess now, FREE contraceptives are a Dem-Cong given right.
One thing there Og. The pope and the council of cardinals, have not approved the doctrine of separation for pro choice politicians, or those who vote for them.
This has been promulgated by some bishops in some diocese, and some archbishops; but it is not official doctrine.
Remember, there is a state in between grace and excommunication. There are some actions and beliefs which are schismatic but not heretical or excommunicable.
At this time, the doctrine on pro choice politicians, and those who vote for them, is that they are not in a state of grace with god, but they are not removed from communion with the universal church.
Thus, they cannot take the active sacraments (marriage, communion in eucharist, confirmation, marriage, holy orders), but they can celebrate mass in communion with the universal church, they can take reconciliation and penance if they renounce and repent their schismatic actions or beliefs, they can receive the anointment of the sick and extreme unction, and they can be buried in consecrated ground.
I know this very well, because my wife and I are currently in this state.
My wifes first marriage has been declared invalid, as was mine. Neither were considered either valid or licit.
The bishops council decided that I didn’t even require a declaration of nullity, because in the eyes of the church I was never validly or licitly married (I had a magistrates marriage, my wife was concealing a mental illness, had no intent to maintain a lifetime relationship, or have children, as she was infertile, which she was also concealing from me. I was able to obtain a civil annulment instead of a divorce, because she married me under fraud, due to her undisclosed mental illness and infertility).
My wifes first marriage (also a magistrate marriage) was also preliminarily declared invalid and illicit, for several reasons (among which, he attempted to force my wife to abort their children). However, because my wifes first marriage produced children, the bishops council decided that she needed a formal declaration of nullity. We were told it would take approximately 4 years after her civil divorce was concluded, and her annulment process was put on hold until that happened.
My wife and I married each other licitly (we made our vows to each other, before god, in church, in accordance with canon law), several years before we were able to have a civil marriage, because of how long her ex husband managed to stretch out the divorce proceedings. We were civilly married one month after her divorce was final. She had converted to catholicism and had a valid baptism, but has not yet been confirmed. She can’t be confirmed yet, because she can’t take communion.
Why?
Because although we are civilly married, and licitly married each other, the church does not consider our marriage valid because of the impediment of prior marriage until she receives her declaration of nullity.
Once she receives her declaration of nullity, we will be able to be remarried in the church; which we intend to do. However, we have moved to a different archdiocese, and they have made us start the entire process over again. And again, it’s going to be something like four years before she receives her declaration of nullity.
However, until then, so long as we keep having sex, we are considered fornicators.
We COULD actually be in a state of grace, if we honestly repented and renounced our fornication, but that would be an insincere repentance. My wife regret having sex with each other, and are not going to stop having sex until a bishop gets off his ass to give her a declaration of nullity.
So, for now, we attend mass, and our girls participate in the church fully, but neither my wife nor I can take communion.
And yes, I am very certain of the canonical validity of all I have said above, because I had some very extensive discussions about it with our priest, and the members of the bishops council.
Having spent six years in Seminary, I have some knowledge of the situation myself, not from a priest, but from canon law itself. Here’s a fairly reasonable explanation of the actual Canon law
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm
which gives the whole deal fairly accurately in lay terms. I quote:
“(a) Minor excommunication is uniformly defined by canonists and by Gregory IX (cap. lix, De sent. exc., lib. V, tit. xxxix) as prohibition from receiving the sacraments, what theologians call the passive use of the sacraments.”
As I described above. Now, as it also says, you can be absolved by an ordinary priest of these infractions, but the act of intercourse (as you say) once again removes you from communion. Now, this was removed by canonists in 1894, but the established practice of the Church is still to treat this in the same manner. On the matter Pope benedict had this to say, in commenting that pro-abortion politicians had voluntarily excommunicated themselves:
“Yes, the excommunication isn’t something arbitrary — it’s part of the code” of church law, the pope said in Italian, in response to a question during the first full-fledged news conference of his two-year pontificate. “The killing of an innocent human child is incompatible with going into communion in the body of Christ.” My scrip to L’osservatore Romano somehow won’t allow me to link to the greater discussion on the subject (Which I highly reccomend reading, if you can, most libraries have scrips)but you can google the quote and find other references to it.
What your local council is doing for you- and it’s what they are supposed to do- is granting you status through the doctrine of Informed Conscience.
I have been living under internal or minor excommunication for eighteen years now, for many of the same reasons you describe,but which I prefer not to discuss online, and I am intimately familiar with all the ins and outs therof. The release from the Canon of the doctrine of minor excommunication is not the act of the Creator making it easier for humans, but the act of men trying to create larger loopholes. Me and the Pope, we’re bitterly clinging to the original interpretation of the rules.
Even though the minor consolation of Spiritual Communion is still there,(and I know you participate frequently) it’s not the same thing, as we both know.
As you might have read in the d’oh, I am very skeptical of the bishops. There are the few FAITHFUL ones we can count on one hand, and the others, who will not enforce the rules regarding communion over the pro-death politicians because it is politically expedient.
I have the consolation of knowing that God keeps very short accounts.
Liz: From your mouth to G-d’s ears.
Catholics are like any other demographic. They have their fair share of impressionable rubes. But I think Asshole stepped into a huge pile of shit with this one. He’s not only united the conservative and liberal Catholics, he now has evangelicals, Muslims, and Pentacostals defending the Catholic church. This is going to be rich.
God, it is so great to be friends with someone else, who is a smart, knowledgeable, sincere catholic, who really understands what catholicism is about, and what the doctrine of conscience really means.
Seriously, I know that sounds corny, but it amazes me how few non-catholic christians know or understand anything true about catholocism; and even worse, how few catholics really understand anything about their professed faith.
Oh and I see your point above. I didn’t realize you were speaking only of minor excommunication (which is the state I was speaking of) and not major excommunicaiton, or public abjurement; which is what some bishops have been promulgating as regards pro-choice politicians.
However, I disagree that voting for a pro-choice politician is an act of rejection of gods law, and a cause for separation of conscience.
Voting does not rise to public intercourse with the excommunicated; and does not imply the rejection of gods enlightenment of your conscience as regards abortion, UNLESS you choose to vote for them BECAUSE they are pro-choice.
If you are voting for them, in spite of it, and reject that moral precept, I don’t believe that causes a separation of conscience. The church recognizes that temporal lawful authority is, at times, in conflict with gods law. If you are subject to the king, and obedient to his orders, and the king suffers minor excommunication, does that mean you also suffer minor excommunication as well unless you forswear yourself to the king?
I don’t believe the doctrine of conscience requires that.
I for example feel no separation of conscience from god, voting for a libertarian. Libertarians are not necessarily pro choice, they believe that the moral choice you make as regards abortion is YOURS, not theirs, or the governments.
That is what I believe as well.
I believe that abortion is, in almost all cases, morally wrong; however I do not believe I have the right to enforce my moral precept on others through the force of law.
“UNLESS you choose to vote for them BECAUSE they are pro-choice. ”
Indeed. This is part of the foundation of the doctrine of the informed conscience. It is a legitimate thing to vote for a “pro choice” candidate if the individual in question has a track record of doing the right things- even incrementally- to move towards zero abortion, for instance. And especially if your predominant reason for voting for that person was an informed decision based on how the person in question will benefit his/her constituents. There is always mitigation.
Internal or Minor excommunication is the only one you can do by your actions. I bet a lot of Catholics would be shocked to know that they have excommunicated themselves over and over again. The larger and much more dramatic public excommunication is a far different thing, I am sorry if I did not make that adeqyately clear.
“I believe that abortion is, in almost all cases, morally wrong;”
I don’t believe anything, in that regard; it is my opinion that allowing convenience abortion to exist within the reach of my arm and not doing the things in my power to stop them or at least slow the tide, endangers my immortal soul. This is MY burden. One of many. Others can choose the burden they choose. And Chris, yes, it is damned good and rare to find a Catholic who will even bother to discuss his faith. Or isn’t afraid to.
But I think Asshole stepped into a huge pile of shit with this one. He’s not only united the conservative and liberal Catholics, he now has evangelicals, Muslims, and Pentacostals defending the Catholic church. This is going to be rich.
Aw hell Vman, haven’t you been paying attention? Obama is the Great Unifier! There was no Tea Party before 2008, but he put all types of usually mutually exclusive people like Christian conservatives and Ann Ryndian agnostics, pro-life and pro-choice, gays and straights, young and old, country and city folk, under the Gadsden Flag for lower taxes and smaller government. Now he will bring different religions under the same tent in a movement whose name has yet to be coined in a way all the kumbaya singing “we’re all the same anyway no matter what we believe” types couldn’t dream of. Getting “rad trad” Pius X’ers and “Social Justice” Catholics of one accord for the first time is a hat trick the Pope couldn’t even pull off – seeing the Wanderer and the Nat’l Catholic Register with matching editorials is a sign of the Apocalypse. :)
Is taking a swing at a priest in collar an excommunicable offense? It was Pfleger, at a Grant Park music fest in the early 90’s – long story, but he was being lippy and I got annoyed. I hope Confession took care of it; otherwise I have work to do.
I wonder how much of the doctrine of self-excommunication is rooted in the No True Scotsman logical thinking example, and since there is true removal from the Church (as opposed to your nationality) if it is logically true instead of a logical fallacy.
Anyway, I’m sure your ordination in the Universal Life Church excommunicates you enough right there, never mind the other stuff to which you alluded. I used to kick around the idea of getting that from the back pages of the Rolling Stone Classifieds, to get choice clergy parking spots and perform fun yet legally binding marriages performed by the powers vested in me by the State of Intoxication, but when I was told I’d be banned from the Church until I recanted and disavowed the ordination (thus losing the special Bat powers) it took the fun away.
“Is taking a swing at a priest in collar an excommunicable offense?”
Yes, but confession fixes it.
“I’m sure your ordination in the Universal Life Church excommunicates you ”
Indeed. Especially since I immediately used it to marry two seagulls of indeterminate sex, one of which was immediately hit by a garbage truck, and the other started eating it.
“Indeed. This is part of the foundation of the doctrine of the informed conscience.”
Whoa. There’s a whole world of gray in those two words and very little of black or white.
Here’s what the CCC says: 1786 –
Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.
Now I didn’t spend 6 years of my life at St Meinrad but I have eaten blood sausage made there. It seems to me that matters of the conscience all come down to either it is or either it ain’t. If “it is” then no amount of self-informing of your conscience will change that to “it ain’t.” It’s just indelibly black with no gray.
Maj Mike: Didn’t you know that those things being available only count if someone else is paying for them? Otherwise “Women are being DENIED these things!” Etc.
“..I am very skeptical of the bishops.” That reminded me of something from one of Drake’s books, had to look it up:
“Spirit, he thought. he had known good priests, holy men- the Hillchapel chaplain when he was a boy and a goodly number of military clerics since. Priest-doctors and Renunciates; even some monks of the scholarly orders, in East Residence.
Paratier, however… there seemed to be something about promotion beyond Sysup that aceted as a filter mechanism. Perhaps those with a genuine vocation didn’t want to rise that high and become ecclesiastical bureaucrats.”
Arcs: copy/paste where it says “self informed” in my post or comments. As Chris states, this must be done with your priest.