Can I Formally Ask a Priest to Excommunicate Me?
Posted on: January 8, 2007 - 10:54pm
Offline
Can I Formally Ask a Priest to Excommunicate Me?
Something I've always wondered.
I was "confirmed" in the Catholic religion against my will -- since my parents forced me to.
I am not a Catholic now, and when I go to my friends' Catholic weddings and events, I refuse to pray or accept "communion".
Would I be able to go to a Catholic Church and ask for an excommunication? What do you think a priest would say? Do you think he would even do it? Would he need to draw up some formal papers?
And could I have some Catholic ritual to excommunicate me? Afterwards, I'd have a hell of a party!
REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM.
- Login to post comments
While I don't have the time right now to give a comprehensive answer to rexlunae, I believe I might be able to answer the latest question.
I don't know the details but I can say that this situation sounds fishy. I first doubt anyone would be excommunicated for having a child out of wedlock. It just doesn't happen. The bishop would be the ordinary person to excommunicate somebody. And the parish priest would not ask the bishop to excommunicate them. The ordinary course would be to encourage a marriage, which actually happened. So, there was no need at all for excommunication, nor would there be an excommunication in this case.
Also, even if she was excommunicated, the ordinary course in which the excommunication would be lifted would be that she go to confession to her parish priest. So it doesn't make sense to say that they denied her the sacrament, as this would be the way to bring an end of her excommunication.
I would just have to caution that the details of the story sound a bit like they don't fit together correctly.
Well, I have no idea what a "Mednight brother" is so I can't comment. I am sorry if your mother recieved bad treatment at the hand of a parish priest (which sounds like that might be the case in reality, rather than an excommunication), but recourse to another religion is not the solution to our problems anyway. I would just caution drawing conclusions from this.
This also makes no sense. An excommunication cannot be "appealed" in an ordinary sense. And it would not cost money if you did. The way in which you remove it is to go to confession, or writing a letter to the bishop. But having a child out of wedlock is not a real reason to excommunicate. Maybe to deny someone the sacraments until they repent of their actions and marry, but not excommunication. Again, the facts seem a little strange.
Well, I think the priest lacked any sense of tact or common sense, but it still requires the permission of the bishop or other ordinary (archbishop, cardinal archbishop, ect. who is head of your diocese) for a non-Catholic to marry a Catholic. If the Catholic married you without permission of the Church, he would be in disobedience. But this doesn't ordinarily happen if you were seeking the permission of the ordinary, as this is almost always granted.
I don't want to sound dismissive, but it the story is strange and does not fit together. I recommend that you speak to your parish priest about this and see what he can do to clarify the matter, as I am sure that he could probably figure out what the exact situation is better than I can.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
Its very possible I am being lied to, these are the same people who were supose to protect me and did not and the same people who told me god existed. So I will do my part and ask them for proof. And then RE ASK the question.
The second question however.
You have not answered my question but simply outlined the steps much like was outlined to me prior to getting married.
I want to know why the ordinary has this right to dictate the fate of my husbands "erternal soul". I am not intrested in the proceedures that are required ( or that the answer is almost always yes) I am curiouse where the catholic church finds justification for this power. Are there specific passages with in the bible ? And if it is not written in the bible, but was rather dictated under the 'infallibility' of a pontiff, then where in the bible was said pontiff unconditionally granted the ability to pass judgement for God?
This question is quite broad and I will begin by saying that, yes, the Church possesses Biblical justification for its beliefs in papal primacy and in the jurisdictional authority of bishops. However, I don't think this will really answer your question (I do intend to give Biblical proof, however). Your question is "Why a Church?"
It is first to be pointed out that our Lord, Jesus Christ, came to earth and left the earth without recording (as far as recorded in Sacred Scripture) a single word, let alone a book of literature. Christ came not to write a book, but to gather a Church. The Gospel came about as a record of the preaching of Christ and His Apostles. This message is not merely written on pages like the Law of old, but is rather something alive and living in the Church. In Christ's community of love. Christ's constant message is about the coming of the kingdom of God. God's kingdom is among us as a society gathered in a model of love, based on Christ's own love on the cross.
Christ's kingdom is not one of lordship, but of service, as is clear from His model at the Last Supper washing of feet. He sends the Apostles to preach the Gospel and initially gives them the abillity to work miracles and cast out demons in His name. He likewise called the seventy-two and sends them out later with a like mission. The Apostles are to act as His representatives and to be "fishers of men." These are the first bishops of the Catholic Church. And, at Christ's Passion, He gave them their ability to act truly as priests, giving them His own sacrifice to offer in His name. Thus, "Do this in memory of me." He also gave them the responsibility to act in His name with jurisdiction over the spiritual welfare of His people, forgiving their sins, "Whose sins you forgive are forgiven, and whose sins are retained, they are retained." He gives to His Apostles and, through their successive ordination, every priest and bishop the keys of heaven and earth.
Peter is designated throughout the Gospels as the "successor" to Christ and His supreme Apostle, set over the others. His name always appears first in the list of Apostles, and it is he that always speaks for the rest. He is the governor (in place of Christ) of this kingdom that Christ brings from God to earth; "Confirm your brethren." And even further, Peter is the shepherd set over the other Apostles, "Peter, feed my sheep." Peter is the Rock on which Christ builds His Church: "You are Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church." It is into his hand that Christ has placed the fulness of the keys to bind heaven and earth. The jurisdiction of the Apostles continues today in the bishops of the world, and Peter's Chair is currently filled with the "new" Peter who acts as specifically Christ's vicar on earth.
Their jurisdiction thus extends to ensure the well-being of their flock. In the case of their jurisdiction in excommunication or forbidding with penalty, this is a medicinal remedy. The Church only desires the conversion of the person. The Church delivers one up to Satan so that the soul might come back into its rightful place. While the priest who may have told you that you or your husband would burn in hell without the bishop's permission to be married, I think he was being stupid and heartless. But that is no reason to hate the Church for it. Because the Church is Christ's bride and is spotless and without stain.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
Sounds like a great reason to hate the church. The church is what sets up these situations which allow certain appointed people to sit in judgement of innocent people. It sucks, and it's immoral, and it's a fundamental byproduct of the structure of the Catholic church.
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
Obviously, again, I'm not the expert, but it seems to me that at one time the Church asserted that it was able to forgive sins or hold them bound. In other words, an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent etc. God delegated the power of salvation or damnation to a bunch of fallible, weak, uncomprehending humans like Peter (who denied Christ three times and who frequently had no idea what Jesus was talking about but ended up with the keys to the church). I understand that's based on what Jesus actually is reported to have said in the Gospels.
To me, this is just another reason to reject the claims of the Catholic Church. To me it is incomprehensible that a God smart enough to create the universe would do something so foolish as to give this power to humans. It's like giving a handgrenade to a chimpanzee.
I think the Church has come off the idea that it gets to damn people whether God likes it or not. The Church still claims to be able to forgive sin, but that's not as bad because one would presume that God would always be happy to see a sinner decide to ask for forgiveness.
The Church also still claims the right to make rules that are binding on the faithful. For instance, no meat on Fridays during Lent (which was the rule at one time--actually no meat on Fridays at all was the rule when I was a kid: I had to have fish or macaroni and cheese on Friday and could not have a hamburger). Fish was not meat. Such an arbitrary rule, based on no scriptural authority and no moral principle is designed only to strengthen the faithful by self-sacrifice, either that or it was written by the apostles who were big in the fishing industry. Again, what kind of God would hand out to mere mortals the right to make new rules?
Thandarr
Thandarr
[email protected]
I see no intrinsic reason why God having representatives on earth is at all a bad thing. Judges in secular courts sit and give ruling over innocent people all the time.
They are weak and fallible humans. God, however, gave them the Holy Spirit as their guide. That much is clear after Pentecost. The Church today remains guided invisibly in its decisions by the same Holy Spirit and gains its authority from the same. I likewise point out that this seems to me a great indication of the supernatural character of the Church - that weak, fallible, and even evil men have been in places of authority within the Catholic Church (witness Judas) and yet the Church remains steadfast in every age. No purely human institution has lasted so long; it was like entrusting the keys to heaven to Larry, Curly, and Moe, but it quickly became Peter, James, and John, for, "God has confounded the wisdom of the world."
God gave the Holy Spirit, which makes sure that they speak for God, not for themselves.
The Church does not damn people whether God likes it or not. That is bad theology. The Church imposes a juridical sentence, like a penance. They might judge them damned, as the old formula of excommunication goes, and cut off all communion with them. But this is not for its own sake. The Church's authority is used in this context only to help the sinner be converted and to recognize the serious sin he has committed.
Yes, the Church does impose discipline binding on the faithful. The rule of fasting and abstinence is a rule that has a long history in Jewish religion, as well as in the history of the Church. God Himself imposed fasts on the Jews during their various liturgical seasons. The practice was carried over into Christianity. Further, it seems clear from history that this practice was normative; indeed, in the early Church, it is fairly apparent that fasting occured every Wednesday and Friday. Further, this has grounding in the Scriptures merely from the authority that was granted to the Church in general. The earliest ecumenical council, described in the book of Acts of the Apostles, depicts the Apostles determining the question of Jewish rites for Gentiles. Their decision likewise imposes discipline on the Gentile converts. There are many other proofs, but this seems fairly clear to me that the Catholic Church has always understood itself to possess the jursidiction over the faithful that it does. Further, it is to be remembered for what we fast - fasting is to united ones self to the Lord in His Passion and Death (on Friday, the day of His death). Our abstinence is an outward act whereby we "take up the cross and follow" Him.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
Of course we let fallible human judges in secular court judge people because unfortunately, we aren't omniscient. We have to administer some kind of justice or have society fall back on revenge and anarchy, so we have judges. All we have are fallible judges, although we try to do a better job of picking them than, say Jesus did with Peter or Paul or Judas. Your proposition is different. You say that a god who has no need of fallible humans chooses to use fallible humans anyway to judge, and exercise not only temporal, but divine power. You'll have to forgive me if I think that's simply inconsistent with what an all-good and all-knowing deity would do.
Oh really? Did the Holy Spirit tell early church fathers to murder Hypatia of Alexandria? Did the Holy Spirit tell the Church to run the crusades or the inquisition or the witch hunts? Did the Holy Spirit guide the Church to sell indulgences? Did the Holy Spirit tell the Church how to handle the Huguenots? How about the persecutions of the Jews done in the name of the Church? And some think these atheists blaspheme the Holy Spirit?
About the only thing that makes it look like the Church may be under the guidance of a supernatural force is that there's no other explanation how an organization so ineptly managed could have survived a couple of weeks, much less 2000 years. Even that falls apart when we realize that mostly the church survived not because it was a divine institution, but because it was real good at politics.
Are we expected to believe that God intentionally misled us? We use our gifts of thought and reason but reach the wrong conclusion because God is playing tricks on us? I thought it was through the wisdom of the world that we were supposed to be able to find God.
Thandarr
P.S. St. Michael,
Occasionally you do make a good point, but in general you're so bound to defend the indefensible your good points get lost. I still don't have a good answer for your abortion analogy. That bothers me.
Thandarr
[email protected]
God uses fallible humans in an infallible way. In the same way, He uses the simple elements of bread and wine to create His Body and Blood in the Mass, or mere water to wash away sin and to create a child of God, or mere perfumed olive oil to send the Holy Spirit Himself into our souls. God has used weak people, like Aaron (who turned to worship of idols when Moses was on Mt. Sinai), or Moses himself (who was weak in speech, ect.) and many other examples could be gleaned. God uses fallible and weak things to prove His primacy over what is percieved as strong in this world and to likewise reflect His goodness in all over creation. Of course, lastly, He Himself assumed a weak human body as a defenseless child born into a manger to a poor family. Then, of course, by the weak wood of the Cross, He redeemed the world. It is His "style."
I begin by saying that these actions are not properly actions of the "Church." Specific people in the Church are not the Church, nor is a bishop or a cardinal. Even the Pope is not himself the entirety of the Church. Only when the Pope acts in an infallible manner, or the Church teaches together with him, or when an ecumenical council is called, does the Church properly act. It might be bad things that happened, but they do not proceed from the Church itself. Further, just because there were immoral people in the Church at any time does not prove anything contrary to the doctrine of the Church itself.
In specific response,
Early Church fathers did not murder Hypatia. In fact, such an act brought lasting disgrace on the diocese and the bishop of Alexandria himself for both the violence and for the act against learning.
The Church never ran a witch hunt in an official capacity. The Crusdades are, in my estimation, a controversial subject because I believe that they were a good thing in the time period. However, in the end, I don't see them as being evil in themselves. Some evil results might have happened (such as the sacking of Constantinople), but these things were never condoned by the Catholic Church and in fact were often cause for penalty (as in the case of the renegade monk who began killing Jews during the time of Saint Bernard; he and all his followers were excommunicated for their acts).
Indulgences of the 1500s were being sold without knowledge of the Pope. I would also point to the fact that the abuse revolved around a perfectly licit practice of attaching indulgences to alms. The Church has since removed such an attachment.
The Hugenots were killed in the Saint Bartholemew day massacre, which was the reaction of the Parisians, not the Catholic Church even in an mildly institutional form.
The persecutions of any Jews was likewise never carried out under the aegis of the Catholic Church. In fact, the Church often and frequently helped the Jews when they were persecuted by other societies. While there might have been bad times, the Church itself remained favorable to their presence and such a bad time was an exception rather than a rule.
Nope. I'd say we seriously screwed up politics too.
This only comes from a misinterpretation. What is meant is that God took a route that would seem counter to the way, for example, human kings show power. They never die to save their people as God did. It is not to say that He confounded all human reason.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.