@Nightgaunt, I seem to recall some effort years ago to establish mutual sacramentality between Roman Catholics and Anglicans. That is, Anglicans can receive the Eucharist from Catholic priests, can they not? Or maybe not because Anglicans ordain women and gay men?
No, non Catholics are not supposed to receive the Eucharist from Catholic priests. Likewise, Catholics are directed to not receive the Eucharist from non Catholic churches.
In practice, if you go to a priest in a Catholic service, the priest isn’t going to question your faith unless you specifically tell him, “Yo father, I’m not a Catholic,” at which point he might tell you to get out of line. It’s possible the priest might be chill about it. Probably depends on how strict that particular priest thinks the papal decrees regarding this are.
I’m trying to imagine Jesus in that situation, telling someone to get out of line because they’re just slightly the wrong kind of believer.
I guess what rubs me wrong about the whole thing – even setting aside how one party (the church) very clearly wronged the other (Peyton) – is that as a Christian church, the entire purpose of the church should be welcoming people into the church and trying to save their immortal souls, not kicking them out/excommunicating them. I get stripping him of his deacon status so he is effectively just a member rather than a lay leader, but excommunication seems more like a vindictive action or punishment than anything else. They certainly didn’t need to do it.
There are huge numbers of Catholics here in the United States who leave the church and either join another faith or become atheists/agnostics. Virtually none of them are excommunicated. I get that membership in the Catholic church is a relationship, but excommunication seems (as an outsider) to be a severing of that relationship by an organization which, in theory, should be welcoming anyone to the church at any time.
Again, not a Catholic, despite four very long years of Catholic schooling, so not speaking from an inside/knowledgeable perspective.
EDIT: Scott put it more succinctly in his comment just above mine.
But those folks you are talking about aren’t actually members of the clergy. I’d suspect that in many of those cases, the Church may not even be aware of them leaving in some formal sense.
I mean, on some level, leaving the church kind of excommunicates yourself… but again, it’s kind of meaningless, since presumably you’re leaving the church because you don’t believe they actually hold authority over that kind of thing, so who cares?
In the case of this guy, did he actually commit apostasy? That is, did he actually leave and renounce the church, due to its failure to deal with the molester of his kid? I can certainly see that as being a reasonable action on his part, but I also know that most religions look at apostasy as one of the worst things you can do.
Finally, I believe that you can be absolved from excommunication, although it would of course require that you actually want to return to the church.
This is apropos of nothing, but this reminded me of my sister’s high school best friend’s father, who was an Episcopalian minister and, also, inheritor of a lot of money. He built an entire Episcopalian chuch with his own money (and i think got the be the leader of it in consequence).
But he decided to follow, rather than lead, his congregation chasing intolerance, so when the Episcopal church started ordaining women and accepting gay leadership, he led the majority of his congregation out of the Episcopal church and to an Anglican church affiliated with some African diocese (and built, with help, a significantly less ornate building, again).
Then the Anglican church voted to let women and gay people in.
Now the Episcopal church is a mostly empty LGBTQ space that has a small but (completely different) congregation, and the Anglican church is a mostly empty space that seems to have a nice group of people, and everyone else drifted off into non-denomination Evangelical churches.
According to my very Catholic friend, though, the Roman Church actually has a set of rules that apply specifically to the Anglican church. According to him, the Roman Church does allow Anglicans to take communion in a Catholic mass, but the Anglicans generally won’t do so. The Anglican church will also not allow Catholics to take communion, generally, though the Roman Church doesn’t specifically have a problem with it itself.
Or something like that. It’s all rather wonky.
Huh, I thought there was a papal decree saying otherwise, but maybe there’s some special agreement with anglicans?
Ah, I found some info… like everything, there’s a wiki page for it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican–Roman_Catholic_dialogue#:~:text='-,Liturgical%20rules,not%20receive%20the%20Anglican%20Eucharist
According to Roman Catholic canon law, Roman Catholics should not receive the Anglican Eucharist.[11] The law permits Roman Catholic priests to administer to an Anglican the sacraments of the Eucharist, Penance and the Anointing of the Sick only in danger of death or some other grave and pressing need and provided that the Anglican cannot approach an Anglican priest, spontaneously asks for the sacrament, demonstrates the faith of the Roman Catholic Church in respect of the sacrament and is properly disposed.[12]
One of the things too that you can see about how the Catholic church interacts with Anglicans in some ways demonstrates that there’s less of a punitive element to a lot of this stuff, in that in most cases you can still return to the church (assuming you demonstrate the appropriate penance or whatever). That is, if you leave the church and are excommunicated as a result, that isn’t necessarily permanent. You can always come back.
I think that in a lot of folks’ minds, certainly at one point I regarded it thus, there’s an idea that excommunication is a ticket to hell. While there’s kind of that implication, it’s generally less direct. It’s just that you can’t do the stuff you’re supposed to be doing to get into heaven, so you’re gonna go to hell or purgatory. You can change your ways and go back to doing that stuff if you want, and then you get to get back on the heaven train.
Ultimately though, it’s also why I don’t really think it’s a big deal for the excommunicated in most of these situations. If you’re being told by an organization that you no longer place authority in that something is gonna happen, it just doesn’t really matter. It’s like if the church of scientology tells me I’m not gonna get to go to the space alien volcano or whatever. I don’t really give a crap.
Yeah it’s hella complex. An Anglican priest, who is married as per the way that church handles things, can become a Catholic priest and keep his wife and family. Which makes sense, because family and sacrament of marriage, etc., but which certainly puts a dent in some of the logic the Vatican uses to prevent its own priests from marrying.
I sincerely appreciate your words, Scott, and I’ll take them to heart.
RE: Sacraments and Anglicans, et al, I’m quite certain that communion is one place where the line is drawn pretty starkly, precisely because it is a sign of, well, communion. It embodies, in sacramental action, the recipient’s unity in faith with the Church as the one mystical body of Christ on earth. (We could spend awhile unpacking that one!)
I didn’t know this before doing some research, but because the Orthodox Churches have the same understanding of the sacraments as Catholics, they get a pass and can receive communion if they request it. The Vatican could theoretically include other churches in this, but as far as I can tell they haven’t.
And as @Timex found, in grave circumstances like the threat of death, any Christian who requests the Eucharist (or penance or anointing) can be given it but only if they accept it with Catholic faith–meaning they would have to accept that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ (not a symbol like many Protestants hold).
Here's the canon:
Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and can. 861, §2.
§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-
Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.
§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.
§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.
§5. For the cases mentioned in §§2, 3, and 4, the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops is not to issue general norms except after consultation at least with the local competent authority of the interested non-Catholic Church or community.
I do believe there are open channels between the Holy See and the Anglican Communion that seek forms of common ground and ecumenism. And like @TheWombat said, Anglican priests who are married and join the Catholic Church can become priests and stay married. That’s because celibacy is considered a salutary discipline for priests in their vocation, to the point where at this moment in history it is mandated for all new Catholic priests, but it is not a sacramental requirement. Married priests were a thing in the past and could be today if the Church wanted to relax that requirement further.
Excommunication = 9th level spell; dooms target to Hell
Communion = 1st level spell; redeems target from doom to Hell
Think about it
Also, there’s no Hell and no spells so the whole thing is just palaver supped upon by dupes and stupes
Also, in the Catholic Church levels are gained by fucking kids, not by slaying devils and demons and daemons
In Protestantism, levels are gained with dollars; $1 = 1 xp
Since hating on the gays is so 15 years ago, it looks like trans hate is the new hotness in Rome. Bonus points for a passing potshot at surrogate mothers as well.
Oh but this Pope is so cool and welcoming blah blah blah.
Fuck off Francis.
For those interested in reading the actual declaration on human dignity, I Believe this is the English text.
https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2024/04/08/240408c.html
Anything issued by the Catholic Church regarding human dignity should start with something like, “So as usual, we’re really really sorry about all that kid rape we allowed.” Then they can proceed on their trans hate with a clear conscience.
Not to defend the church’s actions or statement, but this declaration mentions sexual abuse, as well as the church’s own failures, in this section:
The profound dignity inherent in human beings in their entirety of mind and body also allows us to understand why all sexual abuse leaves deep scars in the hearts of those who suffer it. Indeed, those who suffer sexual abuse experience real wounds in their human dignity. These are “sufferings that can last a lifetime and that no repentance can remedy. This phenomenon is widespread in society and it also affects the Church and represents a serious obstacle to her mission.”[82]From this stems the Church’s ceaseless efforts to put an end to all kinds of abuse, starting from within.
Bishops in the US (and probably elsewhere) have been attempting to formulate guidance for their congregation and for Catholic schools and institutions regarding gender dysmorphia, treatments, and pastoral care of transgender Catholics for many years. The US council of bishops apparently wrote something on the topic and were asked to shelve it because the Vatican was putting together something of its own. The assumption is that this is that document, released years after the USCCB’s was ready to go.
Beyond the more countercultural parts of it getting the attention of the press, and despite it being both a clear philosophical explanation of human dignity in the Catholic tradition and a broad survey of related issues like poverty, war, technology, the death penalty, abortion, human trafficking, etc, to me it’s disappointing because it doesn’t really help Catholics or their pastors navigate the practical space–real or apparent–between “every person, regardless of sexual orientation, ought to be respected in his or her dignity and treated with consideration,” and “biological sex and the socio-cultural role of sex (gender) can be distinguished but not separated” or “we are called to protect our humanity, and this means, in the first place, accepting it and respecting it as it was created.”
Even if I’m confident that these are compatible positions, that doesn’t make explaining, understanding, or accepting them much easier in the day-to-day for trans Catholics and those who love them or serve them. There needs to be a lot more work put in to how to communicate these ideas, and foster gradual understanding starting at likely disagreement, via listening, to dialogue and perhaps a new, shared vision. It doesn’t help that the language in this pronouncement doesn’t evidence much attention to how transgender people talk about themselves. Acknowledgement doesn’t have to entail acceptance of a whole ideology (if that’s what it is).
There’s some good and important stuff in here–most of which won’t register in the headlines. I’d be curious to know if “dignity” is even a moral concept with much resonance for most of us today, and how the articulation of it in this statement strikes readers, especially as it might entail a check on our freedoms, some of them taken deeply for granted at this point.
I believe that this is, at least in part, addressed here:
- The Church proclaims the equal dignity of all people, regardless of their living conditions or qualities. This proclamation rests on a threefold conviction, which—in the light of Christian faith—gives human dignity an immeasurable value and reinforces its intrinsic demands.
…On the contrary, the Church insists that the dignity of every human person, precisely because it is intrinsic, remains “in all circumstances.” The recognition of this dignity cannot be contingent upon a judgment about the person’s ability to understand and act freely; otherwise, it would not be inherent in the person, independent of the individual’s situation, and thus deserving unconditional respect. Only by recognizing an intrinsic and inalienable dignity in every human being can we guarantee a secure and inviolable foundation for that quality. Without any ontological grounding, the recognition of human dignity would vacillate at the mercy of varying and arbitrary judgments. The only prerequisite for speaking about the dignity inherent in the person is their membership in the human species…
To me, while there are other elements in this declaration that suggest that you ought not do certain things, like change your body, that guidance does not change the fact that even if someone were to do such things, they would not somehow be less deserving of human dignity. That is, there’s nothing that anyone can do, ever, which precludes them being equally deserving of dignity than any other person.
As is generally the case with most enlightened takes on Christianity, while God may have rules that he sets out for us, we are all flawed in some way, and failing to meet those ideals does not make us less worthy of God’s love.
Yes, the headlines misleadingly suggest that this declaration is about gender, whereas that’s really just one isolated point among many. And while some of the specifics about that point, and the Church’s views, may rub some progressives the wrong way, I would suspect that they would embrace many, if not most, of the things presented in this declaration.
The headlines are about gender, because that’s the only part that has any practical effect. Nobody is going out of their way to excommunicate surrogate mothers or try to pass laws outlawing divorce. But policies that are discriminatory and hateful towards trans individuals are and will be advocated for by American Catholics.
As always, the Catholic church has lots of pretty words to dress up ugly actions.
Full disclosure: I have not read the declaration! But I think yes, “dignity” absolutely resonates today, though perhaps many folks wouldn’t use the term directly. For me, human dignity absolutely includes respecting and even helping all human beings to live their gender identity as they see it, and respecting those choices. I guess the Church disagrees with me.