Talk:Latae sententiae and ferendae sententiae

Meaning of excommunicable offenses

Hi, this page could do with more discussion and explanation. Please could someone contribute and add explanation as to the precise meaning (for lay persons unfamiliar with the faith) of the instances when a person may incur excommunication latae sententiae (or links to futher the meaning) particularly:

"a confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal of confession";

explanation & examples for:

"accomplices who are not named in a law prescribing latae sententiae excommunication but without whose assistance the violation of the law would not have been committed";

"attempting to preside at Eucharist, or giving sacramental absolution, when not a priest";

and

"falsely denouncing a confessor for soliciting a penitent to sin against the sixth commandment".

Thanks

Applet (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

A confessor ...: A priest is absolutely forbidden to reveal anything he hears in confession; he is excommunicated if he does so. Note that the word "confessor" refers to the priest, not the one making the confession.

Accomplices ...: An example would be a man who has impregnated his girlfriend pressuring her into an abortion, or paying for an abortion.

Attempting ...: Only a priest can preside—be the official in charge—at the Eucharist (the main act of Catholic public worship, the "Lord's Supper"); likewise only a priest may hear a confession and forgive the penitent (the one making the confession).

Falsely ...: An example would be a lady who falsely claims that a priest made a sexual proposition to her while she was making a confession. Remember that "confessor" means the priest, not the lady.

Disclosure: I have no formal qualification or education to answer your questions; but I think my answers are accurate enough. I hope this helps. Jm546 (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Vandalism?"

I think this page was the victim of some anti-Catholic vandalism, as it was put into Category:Sexism and Category:Discrimination. It fits neither definition, as the first is "the belief or attitude that one gender or sex is inferior to or less valuable than the other," and the second "the prejudicial treatment of them based on certain characteristics." For those unfamiliar with the faith, I'll explain why it isn't either of those.

Lack of women's ordination does not lessen their role within the Church—it merely separates it from that of men. There are roles women have in the Church that men cannot. It's a mutually exclusive thing for the most part, and therefore is no more sexism than saying men can't use the Ladies' Room is.

Excommunication is not discrimination any more than trying someone for a crime is. It is not prejudiced, but rather the result of a direct action by the excommunicant, just like the modern judicial system.

Catholiccomposer (talk) 03:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It is discrimination, and the Church has proven, beyond a doubt, just how much it hates women. Perhaps the Arbitration Committee should forbid religionists of all stripes from contributing any articles to Wikipedia. Oh, wait, Wikipedia's an American government lie and propaganda website, so thst will never happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.22.147.213 (talk) 06:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

It is curious how much people who complain about discrimination in the Church want to discriminate themselves, only against Catholics. But of course, whether it is discrimination depends on the definition of "discrimination", and if that be "treat differently" , then yes it is. If it be "treat differently for an unjust reason", then it is not, though the reason for that is of course the reason the Church does so in the first place, and we'd have to expect disagreement from the non-Catholics (though we'd prefer if this disagreement were civil and friendly^^). Anyway, even from that perspective the idea that "the Church hates women" is manifestly absurd, and there remains no more to be said.--2001:A60:159C:401:D439:E5E4:FCC7:9AE3 (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Membership in secret societies

Is it not an excommunicable offence to belong to certain lodges and secret societies? Should this be added to the list?

Ciao! 63.167.255.151 (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I think they are included under apostasy, heresy and schism. Secret societies have often accused of promoting anti-dogmatic freethinking and religious indifferentism, which de facto places them under some of those excommunicable categories. The current rule in place is canon 1374, which bans member of secret societies from receiving holy communion. There is also an older canon called canon 2335 which is more explicit in establishing sanctions against members of such societies. ADM (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not an excommunicable offence (at least not one latae sententiae) any-more to belong to a secret society, taken generally, if it ever was, because there is at least a doubt that it is, and that means there is at least no latae sententiae punishment (see canons 1323, 1324). However, if the secret society in question downrightly demands assent to an apostatic, or heretical, or schismatic tenet (the latter would be to oppose the Divine right to command by lawful Church authority, merely being disobedient is not schismatic). (The definition of apostasy, heresy and schism in can. 751 does not seem to include publicity.) In case of the Freemasons, I believe they say they don't, but the Church has said they are incompatible with the Faith (i. e. fall under apostasy, heresy or schism) and the person knows the association is masonic. So, that could possibly result in an excommunication.

However, I am no canonist, and especially the "doubt" in the sense of can. 1323f. and so on might be grounds for disagreement... The thing the Church has, to my knowledge, made clear is that Masons cannot receive Holy Communion; but that might be due to can. 915, 916 only.

Anyway, as far as I see, can. 1374 enacts only penalties ferendae sententiae. Hence, for those where no sentence has been passed, it plays no role in not admitting them to Communion (but can. 915, 916 does make sure they aren't.) --2001:A60:159C:401:D439:E5E4:FCC7:9AE3 (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention needed on a question

Now the article says that one of the offenses that is subject to excommunication latae sententiae is the absolution of an accomplice in a sin of the sixth commandment, except in danger of death.

The question is: Which sixth Commandment? I've heard two different versions of the Ten Commandments, and the two different versions differ on the numbering of the commandments. In one version, the sixth commandment is the ban on adultery; in the other version, the sixth commandment is the ban on murder.

So which is prohibited: absolution of adultery, or absolution of murder? Which sin is the Code of Canon Law referring to? To my logical mind, murder is MUCH more serious than adultery, and I would feel that the prohibition on the absolution of murder, except in danger of death, would make more sense than a prohibition on the absolution of adultery. But I'm just a layperson. Which one is it? This is why I'm asking for an expert, preferably a Priest, Bishop, or even Pope Benedict XVI himself. --Sleckronmich (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

See Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism#Sixth commandment, which clearly explains that it is talking about adultery. It should be noted however that helping someone obtain an abortion is assimilated to murder, and therefore worthy of an excommunication under canon 1398. Apart from the sin of abortion though, most murders don't appear to be included in the list of excommunicable offenses. ADM (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason why murder and such aren't included are that such things are assumed to be handled by secular authorities (i.e. the government). Canon law covers 'internal Church matters' basically - the specific prohibition about absolving an accomplice of 'sins against the Sixth Commandment' (in Catholic teaching, this includes other sexual sins and not just adultery -- an important distinction, since a priest won't be married) was put in because priests who were friends would go off for a night on the town and visit prostitutes etc., and then absolve each other. It seems strange now, but there were times when bishops and other Church officials were rich people and lots of corruption occurred (the worst times were the 900s and the late 1400s-early 1500s) - that's why these rules were put into place. The Catholic Church is old, and sometimes one has to look pretty far back in history to find the explanation of a rule. Disclaimer: I'm not a priest either, just a lay Catholic interested in the Church's history. (And I seriously doubt the Pope edits Wikipedia, though it would be awesome if he did! Vultur (talk) 09:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact Dr Peters [1] mentioned somewhere that in the 1960s, it was discussed that the excommunication on abortion be waived, too, as there "is nothing specifically ecclesial about it", and it was chiefly the failure or (then) suspicion of failure of the states to appropriately combat the thing that the canon was left in its place. We might also say that murderers mostly know they must not murder. But abortioners, at least on they outside, seem to generally maintain that they are very much allowed to do what they do, which is - at least for all practical matters - a heresy; so there may indeed be something more ecclesial about abortion than is about murder. Murder is generally punished with punitive measures according to can. 1397, though I guess that when they go to prison, and when they get out of prison after a very long time under surveillance, the Church understandably does not much to yet add punishments of their own.

The harsh punishment of solicitation is for protection of the safety of profession. (There were times in Church history where a man and a woman not related and not married with each other being in a room together at close distance was a thing otherwise unheard of.) The impossibility, and harsh punishment of attempt, of absolving one's partner in sexual sin is a protection against the priest making a charade out of the Sacrament, and perhaps also to give women some strength of resistance against a seducer who says "what's the problem? when we're done, I'll absolve you".--2001:A60:159C:401:D439:E5E4:FCC7:9AE3 (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Murder is a more serious sin than the sexual sin, but the sexual sins have a deep interpersonal affect. Priest are prohibited from absolving their paramours because the inward focus of an affair is something that easily creates a deep and lasting double life. Miked84 (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Crimen sollicitationis

The Crimen sollicitationis appears to me to state that excommunication is latae sententiae for those who violate the secrecy of a church trial relating to solicitation. Should this be in the list too, or am I misreading it? (Suricou, who still edits so rarely she never set up an account). 82.34.94.95 (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a 1962 document, so by can. 6 no 3, can. 18 of the 1983 CIC, it does no longer hold after the 1983 CIC entered into force, unless the penalty clause was repeated in a later document (which I do not know at the moment). However, in case of Church officials (not, usually, witnesses), breach of the secrecy would normally fall under can. 1389, which envisages "a just punishment" (anything but no excommunication, and not latae sententiae).--131.159.76.167 (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)