Catholics who leave the Church

[dtofdh]

A person who considers himself a Protestant was baptized Catholic as a child, but as an adult has left the Church, and calls himself a Protestant. He has a lot of strong opinions against the Church. He asked me if the Catholic Church still considers him to be Catholic. Can anyone give me an answer on this one. What is the official opinion of the Church and how can I document it? I didn't find the answer in the Catechism.

Thank you

[philothea]

Was this person confirmed as a Catholic, do you know?

[dtofdh]

I don't know, what difference would that make?

[philothea]

Well, when someone is confirmed, they're old enough to make the commitment to God and the Church on their own. Without doing any research, it seems to me that being confirmed makes someone officially Catholic in the way being baptized as an infant doesn't.

I think, technically, the Catholic Church considers all baptized christians to be Catholic... some of them just don't realize it...

Edited June 22, 2005 by philothea

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

From the Catechism:
[quote][b]Who belongs to the Catholic Church?[/b]

[u]836[/u] "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation."320

[u]837[/u] "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but 'in body' not 'in heart.'"321

[u]838[/u] "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324

320 LG 13.
321 LG 14.
322 LG 15.
323 UR 3.
324 Paul VI, Discourse, December 14, 1975; cf. UR 13-18.[/quote]

[Aloysius]

joining another religion is a latae sentantae excommunicable offence, meaning by the very nature of the act this person has been excommunicated (he excommunicated himself, however)

Can. 1364 §1 An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, without prejudice to the provision of Can. 194 §1, n. 2; a cleric, moreover, may be punished with the penalties mentioned in Can. 1336 §1, nn. 1, 2 and 3.

so no, he is not Catholic. he is excommunicated, i.e. out of the communion.

thedude, though those CCC are correct I believe it would be incorrect to interpret from those that we are to call non-Catholics "Catholics". They are considered seperated christians (Leo XIII was the first to call them that if I'm not mistaken)

Though I wouldn't mind considering them ""Catholic"" under the terms G.K. Chesterton gives

Protestants are Catholics gone wrong; that is what is really meant by saying they are Christians. Sometimes they have gone very wrong; but not often have they gone right ahead with their own particular wrong. Thus a Calvinist is a Catholic obsessed with the Catholic idea of the sovereignty of God. But when he makes it mean that God wishes particular people to be damned, we may say with all restraint that he has become a rather morbid Catholic. In point of
fact he is a diseased Catholic; and the disease left to itself would be death or madness. But, as a matter of fact, the disease did not last long, and is itself now practically dead. But every step he takes back towards humanity is a step back towards Catholicism. Thus a Quaker is a, Catholic obsessed with the Catholic idea of gentle simplicity and truth. But when he made it mean that it is a lie to say "you" and an act of idolatry to take off your hat to a lady, it is not too much to say that whether or not he had a hat off, he certainly had a tile loose. But as a matter of fact he himself found it necessary to dispense with the eccentricity (and the hat) and to leave the straight road that would have led him to a lunatic asylum. Only every step he takes back towards common sense is a step back towards Catholicism. In so far as he was right he was a Catholic; and in so far as he was wrong he has not himself been able to remain a Protestant."

however, again, he is explaining why we call the "christians" because we do not call them "catholics"

[phatcatholic]

what if this same "catholic" is invincibly ignorant? can he be excommunicated then?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Yes, in short, they aren't Catholics.
[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jun 22 2005, 12:35 AM']what if this same "catholic" is invincibly ignorant? can he be excommunicated then?
[right][snapback]618779[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I would say that in [i]most[/i] circumstances, if an adult Catholic converts to another religion, they are [i]not[/i] invincibly ignorant. If you are converting to another religion, I would think you'd have a duty to yourself to research that religion and compare it with the one you are leaving (making you ignorant no longer). Anything less would be sort of stupid.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jun 22 2005, 10:40 AM']Yes, in short, they aren't Catholics.

I would say that in [i]most[/i] circumstances, if an adult Catholic converts to another religion, they are [i]not[/i] invincibly ignorant.  If you are converting to another religion, I would think you'd have a duty to yourself to research that religion and compare it with the one you are leaving (making you ignorant no longer).  Anything less would be sort of stupid.
[right][snapback]618993[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I agree entirely

[Technicoid]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jun 22 2005, 10:40 AM']Yes, in short, they aren't Catholics.

I would say that in [i]most[/i] circumstances, if an adult Catholic converts to another religion, they are [i]not[/i] invincibly ignorant.  If you are converting to another religion, I would think you'd have a duty to yourself to research that religion and compare it with the one you are leaving (making you ignorant no longer).  Anything less would be sort of stupid.[/quote]

I think that's hard to say. It's easy for us to look at them as being foolish, but we don't know how they were catechized or what sort of tribulations they might've encountered.

Most Catholics I know who have left the Church have not formally renounced membership but have simply gone off to a nondenominational group somewhere. Many of them don't recognize that there's a significant doctrinal difference between one church and another. They've been infected by indifferentism, and frankly, sometimes members of the Church are responsible for that infection. So to assume that these people made informed decisions when leaving is a stretch.

Also, I try to be really careful about how I use the term "heretic" and "schismatic." People who unknowingly hold heretical opinions are not formally guilty of heresy, nor are people who unknowingly belong to schismatic groups formally guilty of schism. Formal heretics and schismatics are those who willfully make such decisions knowing that it has an adverse effect on their relationship with the Church. Now if this person recognizes the truth of the Catholic Church and rejects it, then he doesn't havea leg to stand on. However, if he's been inundated with anti-Catholic propaganda and has limited capacity to find the truth without some guidance, he might not be fully culpable.

What's more, invincible ignorance can be due to the environment in which someone lives (CCC 818) or to some condition that clouds the judgement (CCC 1860). Also, see CCC paragraphs 836 through 848.
What it comes down to is that we don't know anyone's state of grace. Invincible ignorance is God's domain, and we should leave it to Him.

Definitely pray for this fellow, and do whatever evangelization you can do to reveal the error he's been taught.

[Aloysius]

to join another religion (and yes non-denominalationalism is a religion) incurs latae sentantae excommunication under canon law. latae sentantae means they are excommunicated simply for doing it, regardless of their culpability or invincible ignorance. you join another religion, you're not Catholic anymore. whether or not you are culpable for the sin of rejecting the Church affects your possibility of obtaining everlasting salvation, but NOT your status as Catholic or non-Catholic.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='Technicoid' date='Jun 22 2005, 05:24 PM']I think that's hard to say. It's easy for us to look at them as being foolish, but we don't know how they were catechized or what sort of tribulations they might've encountered.
[right][snapback]619636[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Good point, that's why I said [i]most[/i] circumstances. I totally agree that there are circumstances where a person could convert to another religion in a state of invincible ignorance, but their ignorance does not make them still Catholic.

Edited June 22, 2005 by thedude

[son_of_angels]

It should also be mentioned though that Catholic teaching says that "invincible ignorance" is not a sure road to salvation.

[Technicoid]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jun 22 2005, 04:28 PM']to join another religion (and yes non-denominalationalism is a religion) incurs latae sentantae excommunication under canon law.  latae sentantae means they are excommunicated simply for doing it, regardless of their culpability or invincible ignorance.  you join another religion, you're not Catholic anymore.  whether or not you are culpable for the sin of rejecting the Church affects your possibility of obtaining everlasting salvation, but NOT your status as Catholic or non-Catholic.
[/quote]

Here are two of the canons pertaining to incurring penalties [i]latae sententiae[/i]:

"Can. 1314 Generally, a penalty is ferendae sententiae, so that it does not bind the guilty party until after it has been imposed; if the law or precept expressly establishes it, however, a penalty is latae sententiae, so that it is incurred ipso facto when the delict is committed."

"Can. 1318 A legislator is not to threaten latae sententiae penalties except possibly for certain singularly malicious delicts which either can result in graver scandal or cannot be punished effectively by ferendae sententiae penalties; he is not, however, to establish censures, especially excommunication, except with the greatest moderation and only for graver delicts."

These seem to imply that there can be mitigating factors for [i]latae sententiae[/i] penalties (of which excommunication is one possible penalty).

If I'm reading canons 1321 through 1325 correctly, someone who is not aware that a penalty is attached to a law or precept or acts without full imputability is not necessarily punished. (See §2 below. I've snipped for brevity, but you can go [url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4W.HTM"]here[/url] for the complete text.)

[quote]Can. 1321 §1. No one is punished unless the external violation of a law or precept, committed by the person, is gravely imputable by reason of malice or negligence.

§2. A penalty established by a law or precept binds the person who has deliberately violated the law or precept; however, a person who violated a law or precept by omitting necessary diligence is not punished unless the law or precept provides otherwise.

§3. When an external violation has occurred, imputability is presumed unless it is otherwise apparent.

Can. 1322 Those who habitually lack the use of reason are considered to be incapable of a delict, even if they violated a law or precept while seemingly sane.

Can. 1323 The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept:

<snip/>
Can. 1324 §1. The perpetrator of a violation is not exempt from a penalty, but the penalty established by law or precept must be tempered or a penance employed in its place if the delict was committed:

<snip/>

Can. 1325 Crass, supine, or affected ignorance can never be considered in applying the prescripts of cann. ⇒ 1323 and ⇒ 1324; likewise drunkenness or other disturbances of mind cannot be considered if they are sought deliberately in order to commit or excuse a delict, nor can passion which is voluntarily stimulated or fostered.[/quote]

So someone who is ignorant through no fault of his or her own may not necessarily be penalized [i]latae senteniae[/i]. A person who is an adult and does this may be more or less negligent and can incur those penalities, but those penalities can be lessened if one of the conditions in 1324 exist. In the case of people who wilfully remain ignorant as a way of avoiding penalities, prescripts of canons 1323 and 1324 don't apply.

That said, I agree that someone who willfully rejects the Church and joins another incurs the penalty of excommunication. Many folks today, though, don't actually reject the doctrine of the Church. They simply wander from one place to the next, the way their protestant friends seem to do, not realizing their obligations. I don't know if these people can automatically be considered formal schismatics (hence, excommunicated). I think the canons above support that.

[Technicoid]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Jun 22 2005, 05:03 PM']It should also be mentioned though that Catholic teaching says that "invincible ignorance" is not a sure road to salvation.
[/quote]

No doubt.

It can only lessen one's culpability for a sin. I'd rather take more positive action on that road.

[Aloysius]

[quote]a cleric, moreover, may be punished with the penalties mentioned in Can. 1336 §1, nn. 1, 2 and 3.[/quote]
those canons pertain to what punishments would be given to a cleric who has committed an act incurring latae sentantae excommunication by an ecclesiastical court.

latae sentantae excommunication MEANS specifically, if you do this you are no longer Catholic. nothing else. that's why it's called latae sentantae. anyone who joins another religion is automatically not Catholic anymore. clerics who commit heresy or schism may be tried in ecclesiastical court and 1321 applies to the punishments given to a cleric.

besides, by 1321§3 the crime is imputed to the person unless some reason (i.e. insanity) is apparent that it should not be.

Perhaps we should get a canon lawyer, but the law is quite clear in its intent and application, and it is to be strictly understood as such.

by the way, let's make sure we know what we're talking about:
[quote]ferendae  sententiae — used in reference to a form of penalty that is imposed by the judgement of a court or by the decree of a Superior, when a person has been found guilty of an offence.

latae sententiae — used in reference to a form of penalty that is automatically incurred on committing an offence, without the intervention of a judge or Superior.[/quote]

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Technicoid' date='Jun 22 2005, 08:22 PM']No doubt. 

It can only lessen one's culpability for a sin. I'd rather take more positive action on that road.
[right][snapback]619877[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
indeed, which is why I always refer to it in the traditional terminology that just makes more sense: "inculpable ignorance"

Superman is nearly invincible, ignorance can be inculpable. that's just the way my mind works

[Aloysius]

okay, so your 1314 is refering to ferendae sententiae so it's irrelevant
and your 1318 is refering to anything latae sentantae, but 1364 specifically says latae sentantiatae EXCOMMUNICATION, so 1315 is irrelevent as well
1321 is applicable only to clerics
1322-23 refer to insanity et cetera, not inculpable ignorance
1325 would actually argue my case by saying that ignorance would not be considered applicable for 1323 or 1324 (i.e. it doesn't exclude someone from punishment)

regardless of inculpable ignorance, to join another religion by the very external act no matter what the intention is incurs automatic excommunication. this is not to say they are culpable for any sin or anything. they are out of the Church. they must return to the Church by contacting the Bishop or a priest whom the bishop has given faculties to remove latae sentantaniae excommunication

[dspen2005]

i like what i have heard a lot of older, pious ladies say... people who leave the Church will return, because you can't stay away. They always come back home

[Technicoid]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jun 22 2005, 07:39 PM']okay, so your 1314 is refering to ferendae  sententiae so it's irrelevant
and your 1318 is refering to anything latae sentantae, but 1364 specifically says latae sentantiatae EXCOMMUNICATION, so 1315 is irrelevent as well[/quote]

No, they're not irrelevant. They suggest that application of [i]latae sentantiatae[/i] penalities (such as excommunication) can have mitigating circumstances that could lessen the penalties. For a delict to be committed, the person committing it must know that it's such and must know the penalty. That's what the later canons (1321 and 1322) indicate.

[quote]1321 is applicable only to clerics
1322-23 refer to insanity et cetera, not inculpable ignorance
1325 would actually argue my case by saying that ignorance would not be considered applicable for 1323 or 1324 (i.e. it doesn't exclude someone from punishment)[/quote]

1325 refers to crass, supine, or affected ignorance. That's not the same as someone who is ignorant but not through their own fault (which is the very definition of invulnerable ignorance). Otherwise we'd have to see 1325 and 1322 §2 to be contradictory.

Could you show me where 1321 applies solely to clerics? I'm not seeing that anywhere. If I'm in error, I'm certainly open to correction. I see canon 1311, which states:

[quote]The Church has the innate and proper right to coerce offending members of the Christian faithful with penal sanctions.[/quote]

If "offending member" can be anyone who is Catholic, then the canons apply unless specifically stated.

1321 relates:

[quote]§1. No one is punished unless the external violation of a law or precept, committed by the person, is gravely imputable by reason of malice or negligence.

§2. A penalty established by a law or precept binds the person who has deliberately violated the law or precept; however, a person who violated a law or precept by omitting necessary diligence is not punished unless the law or precept provides otherwise.

§3. When an external violation has occurred, imputability is presumed unless it is otherwise apparent.[/quote]

I don't see anywhere that indicates that 1321 refers only to clerics. I see some that refer the clerical state specifically (for example, 1317). However, I don't see anything to indicate that 1321 or all other canons in Book IV, Part 1, Title III in general relate specifically to clerics. Since this restriction is not explicitly stated in 1321, I'll have to assume that this canon does not specifically relate to clerics. If I were to do otherwise, I'd have to assume that all canons in this section relate only to clerics, which would make 1322 a little difficult ("1/ a person who has not yet completed the sixteenth year of age").

[quote]1322-23 refer to insanity et cetera, not inculpable ignorance[/quote]

1322 says:

[quote]2/ a person who without negligence was ignorant that he or she violated a law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance; [/quote]

Nothing there indicates insanity. That is one of the conditions, but there are numerous others (including someone who kills in self defense or does so believing self defense to be necessary).

So could explain? I'm not clear on how you're drawing these conclusions.

This seems to be devolving into a debate, so I'm not sure it belongs here. Frankly, though, I'd rather get a canon lawyer to tell us.

Edited June 23, 2005 by Technicoid