Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive 15

message: I am required by user McClenon  in the second Synagogue section  above to explain the law pertaining to sanctified burial rights  of the figures who (history  notes)  desired the empowerment of Adolf Hitler in 1932 and 1933 . I have dealt with this under talk section "canonical Law" for Hitler's Pope , however let me try and clarify  more simply . I refer here to the guide published at  [] . Readers should pay particular attention to sections (2), (3) and  (4) under  "Kinds of excommunication".
To try  and be short (2) :Excommunication is either a jure (by law) or ab homine (by judicial act of man, i.e. by a judge). The first is provided by the law itself, which declares that whosoever shall have been guilty of a definite crime will incur the penalty of excommunication. .  The crime was to have contumately  broken the injunction of Romans, 3,8 ...which forbids any truck with evil to promote a good . This being  a part of the magisterium .
(3)Excommunication, especially a jure, is either latæ or ferendæ sententiæ. The first is incurred as soon as the offence is committed and by reason of the offence itself (eo ipso) without intervention of any ecclesiastical judge ; it is recognized in the terms used by the legislator, for instance: "the culprit will be excommunicated at once, by the fact itself [statim, ipso facto]" .
(4)Excommunication ferendæ sententiæ can be public only, as it must be the object of a declaratory sentence pronounced by a judge; but excommunication latæ sententiæ may be either public or occult. It is public through the publicity of the law when it is imposed and published by ecclesiastical authority; it is public through notoriety of fact when the offence that has incurred it is known to the majority in the locality, as in the case of those who have publicly done violence to clerics, or of the purchasers of church property. On the contrary, excommunication is occult when the offence entailing it is known to no one or almost no one. The first is valid in the forum externum and consequently in the forum internum; the second is valid in the forum internum only. The practical difference is very important. He who has incurred occult excommunication should treat himself as excommunicated and be absolved as soon as possible, submitting to whatever conditions will be imposed upon him, but this only in the tribunal of conscience; he is not obliged to denounce himself to a judge nor to abstain from external acts connected with the exercise of jurisdiction, and he may ask absolution without making himself known either in confession or to the Sacred Penitentiaria. According to the teaching of Benedict XIV (De synodo, X, i, 5), "a sentence declaratory of the offence is always necessary in the forum externum, since in this tribunal no one is presumed to be excommunicated unless convicted of a crime that entails such a penalty". Public excommunication, on the other hand, is removed only by a public absolution; when it is question of simple publicity of fact (see above), the absolution, while not judicial, is nevertheless public, inasmuch as it is given to a known person and appears as an act of the forum externum. 
In determination of the sanctified burial section (5) relates : Public excommunication in foro externo has two degrees according as it has or has not been formally published, or, in other words, according as excommunicated persons are to be shunned (vitandi) or tolerated  (tolerati). However this case is as in section (2) a jure , by the law and (3) latae sententiae , by reason of the offence against the law , and resting in the forum internum .
Apropos burial and  absolution  part (IV) "Who can be excommunicated" states  As the baptized cease, at death, to belong to the Church Militant, the dead cannot be excommunicated. Of course, strictly speaking, after the demise of a Christian person, it may be officially declared that such person incurred excommunication during his lifetime. Quite in the same sense he may be absolved after his death; indeed, the Roman Ritual contains the rite for absolving an excommunicated person already dead (Tit. III, cap. iv: Ritus absolvendi excommunicatum jam mortuum). This gives some hope  against the necessity of  re-burial but it is necessary to state with precision the conditions under which this penalty is incurred. Just as exile presupposes a crime, excommunication presupposes a grievous external fault. Not only would it be wrong for a Christian to be punished without having committed a punishable act, but justice demands a proportion between the offence and the penalty; hence the most serious of spiritual chastisements, i.e. forfeiture of all the privileges common to Christians, is inconceivable unless for a grave fault .
Yet  Note, however, that by external fault is not necessarily meant a public one; an occult external fault calls forth occult excommunication, but in foro interno, as already seen.
Lastly   Considered from a moral and juridical standpoint, the guilt requisite for the incurring of excommunication implies, first, the full use of reason; second sufficient moral liberty; finally, a knowledge of the law and even of the penalty. Where such knowledge is lacking, there is no contumacy, i.e. no contempt of ecclesiastical law, the essence of which consists in performing an action known to be forbidden, and forbidden under a certain penalty. The prohibition and the penalty are known either through the text of the law itself, which is equivalent to a juridical warning, or through admonitions or proclamations issued expressly by the ecclesiastical judge, which relates clearly  to the text romans 3,8 .
I was earlier asked by user McClenon to determine whether this was a grave  fault (sin ?) , or what . One can understand why  he asked . My assumption- my first - is that the contumate overturning of the biblical injunction could not be more grave , as it strikes  at the heart of the christian magisterium . I enumerated the definitions of guilt concerning circumstances and contumacy  previously . There does not appear to be any extenuation  whatever .
If we consider only its nature, excommunication has no degrees: it simply deprives clerics and laymen of all their rights in Christian society, which total effect takes on a visible shape in details proportionate in number to the rights or advantages of which the excommunicated cleric or layman has been deprived. The effects of excommunication must, however, be considered in relation also to the rest of the faithful. From this point of view arise certain differences according to the various classes of excommunicated persons. These differences were not introduced out of regard for the excommunicated, rather for the sake of the faithful. The latter would suffer serious inconveniences if the nullity of all acts performed by excommunicated clerics were rigidly maintained. They would also be exposed to grievous perplexities of conscience if they were strictly obliged to avoid all intercourse, even profane, with the excommunicated. Hence the practical rule for interpreting the effects of excommunication: severity as regards the excommunicated, but mildness for the faithful. We may now proceed to enumerate the immediate effects of excommunication. They are summed up in the two well known verses: 
::Res sacræ, ritus, communio, crypta, potestas, 
prædia sacra, forum, civilia jura vetantur,''
i.e. loss of the sacraments, public services and prayers of the Church, ecclesiastical burial, jurisdiction, benefices, canonical rights, and social intercourse. 
(4) Crypta 
This word signifies ecclesiastical burial, of which the excommunicated are deprived. In chapter xii, de sepulturis (lib. III, tit. xxviii), Innocent III says: "The canons have established that we should not hold communion after their death with those with whom we did not communicate during their lifetime, and that all those should be deprived of ecclesiastical burial who were separated from the unity of the Church, and at the moment of death were not reconciled thereunto." The Ritual (tit. VI, cap. ii, n. 2) renews this prohibition for those publicly excommunicated, and most writers interpret this as meaning those whose excommunication has been publicly proclaimed (Many, De locis sacris, p. 354), so that, under this head, the ancient discipline is no longer applicable, except to the vitandi. However this does not mean that the tolerati can always receive ecclesiastical burial; they may be deprived of it for other reasons, e.g. as heretics or public sinners. Apropos of this leniency, it must be remembered that it is not the excommunicated the Church wishes to favour, but rather the faithful for whose sake communion with the tolerati is allowed in the matter of burial as well as in other matters. The interment of a toleratus in a consecrated cemetery carries with it no longer the desecration of said cemetery; this would follow, however, in the case of the vitandi. (See BURIAL.) 
We see a return here to the definition of vitandi and that Excommunication  is not only External .
In the first Christian centuries it is not always easy to distinguish between excommunication and penitential exclusion; to differentiate them satisfactorily we must await the decline of the institution of public penance and the well-defined separation between those things appertaining to the forum internum, or tribunal of conscience and the forum externum, or public ecclesiastical tribunal; nevertheless, the admission of a sinner to the performance of public penance was consequent on a previous genuine excommunication. On the other hand, formal exclusion from reception of the Eucharist and the other sacraments was only mitigated excommunication and identical with minor excommunication (see below). At any rate, in the first centuries excommunication is not regarded as a simple external measure; it reaches the soul and the conscience. It is not merely the severing of the outward bond which holds the individual to his place in the Church; it severs also the internal bond, and the sentence pronounced on earth is ratified in heaven. It is the spiritual sword, the heaviest penalty that the Church can inflict (see the patristic texts quoted in the Decree of Gratian, cc. xxxi, xxxii, xxxiii, C. xi, q. iii). Hence in the Bull "Exsurge Domine" (16 May, 1520) Leo X justly condemned Luther's twenty-third proposition according to which "excommunications are merely external punishments, nor do they deprive a man of the common spiritual prayers of the Church". Pius VI also condemned (Auctorem Fidei, 28 Aug., 1794) the forty-sixth proposition of the Pseudo-Synod of Pistoia, which maintained that the effect of excommunication is only exterior because of its own nature it excludes only from exterior communion with the Church, as if, said the pope, excommunication were not a spiritual penalty binding in heaven and affecting souls. The aforesaid proposition was therefore condemned as false, pernicious, already reprobated in the twenty-third proposition of Luther, and, to say the least, erroneous. Undoubtedly the Church cannot (nor does it wish to) oppose any obstacle to the internal relations of the soul with God; she even implores God to give the grace of repentance to the excommunicated. The rites of the Church, nevertheless, are always the providential and regular channel through which Divine grace is conveyed to Christians; exclusion from such rites, especially from the sacraments, entails therefore regularly the privation of this grace, to whose sources the excommunicated person has no longer access.
I do not see that abbreviation of law adds to it's understanding . I hope this clarifies the law , and claim this transcription necessary for educational fair use purposes ( the good of the  Catholic Church and of its faithful ) and fully acknowledge the authorship of the  italicised excerpts  from A.BOUDINHON (transcribed by Douglas J. Potter) who dedicated this  to the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ , from , again , []
Famekeeper 11:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This user is being disingenuous . You know Str that is not what the text relates , you knew before , you know anyway  because you were clearly aware of all the relevant law even before I came along to reveal it. No one was excommunicated , no one can be excommunicated after death . The law clearly states that ipso eo, they excommunicated themselves at breaking  romans 3,8. As Ludwig Kaas did when he chose to lose the Centre Party's and  his soul (by his own words that you published) and as Pius XI did  by approving Hitler to von Papen etc  . Please do not be disingenuous in this serious matter . The bottom line is a jure, latae sententiae excommunication .Famekeeper 08:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Excommunication , Loss of burial right etc

message: ::No, Str1977 is not being disingenuous.  He is simply stating that Famekeeper has not proved any of the allegations that he is making about excommunication.  Merely being able to shout louder than one's critics does not prove a case.  Famekeeper has not proved any of the assertions that he has made, whether it is that any of the priests in question violated Romans 3:8 or that they violated any particular canon.  Everything that Famekeeper has to do with intent, and with what they expected would be the results of their actions.  Famekeeper has done a good job of providing historical timelines of facts that no one disputes, but the sequence of events does not prove causation, let alone intent.  Robert McClenon 11:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Political Reasons for Excommunication

message: FK's behaviour here and elsewhere is along the lines of "I'm going to force my views on everyone and you can't stop me." Maybe it is time this farce was stopped. These antics, here and elsewhere, are turning talk pages (and articles when he gets the chance) into his personal pulpit to push his opinions, no matter how irrelevant to the subject matter. Any suggestions of dealing with him? FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to remove Flamekeeper's irrelevant POVing on this page

message: The BBC reported on the  UN AIDS programme disquiet  at the rise in percentage population  of infected persons in Uganda today . A link is clearly made between this rise and the new ,right wing , fundamentalist American Church policy . This policy , fostered by cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope  Benedict , is  to fught the spread of AIDS by abstinence , and todeny  that condoms are a help towards reduction of  infection. The report stated that due to pressure upon the  American government  from this  christian right , the cost to users of condoms in Uganda had risen three-fold, the supplies had been drastically reduced and the level of infection had quickly rebounded upwards from the earlier achieved 5% of population . 
I have in my own smalll way referred to the canonical situation of the church's teaching and AIDS , and I suggest people of good will, as opposed to dogma should join  where possibly some good could be done to help save lives and prevent suffering. One is tempted to believe that the church rightists would prefer people to die , than to live . This is a grave error , entirely like   all the scandal of Vatican involvement  in the rise of Nazism  . I see that this is on topic...Famekeeper 08:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New Chrstian Right , Condoms and Africa

message: Jtdirl asks how to deal with Famekeeper.  There are two ways that he can be blocked.  First, if he engages in any obvious violation of Wikipedia official policy, he can be given a short-term block by an admin.  That would include personal attacks.  However, any such block should be short-term, and if it is for anything other than 3RR (which he does not do), it may be controversial.  The alternative is to present a case to the ArbCom to block him.  Anyone who wants to do that may visit the user conduct RfC against him and either sign it, or add their own signed opinions to it, or add their own diffs to show improper conduct.  
Famekeeper has been demanding arbitration by Jimbo Wales for months because he thinks that the truth is being suppressed.  He has not filed a Request for Mediation or a Request for Arbitration.  Unfortunately, if his flooding of talk pages continues, the arbitration will be whether to ban him.  Robert McClenon 18:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soapboxing and Filibustering