Post by andyf on Jun 6, 2011 23:14:38 GMT
First on Excommunication. This instrument of justice has
a history that pre-dates Christianity and was well known by the Jews. The first official Christian excommunication as far as I am able to tell dates to Acts 8:20 by Peter and applied to Simon Magus. Peter told him, "May your money perish with you".
NewAdvent: Excommunication "......principle and severest censure"
CC 1463 Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted,
CC 2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. .....
CC 2322 .....The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life.
Just previous to this in relative time Peter was confronted by Aninias whom we at least can say was not launching a consumated heritical scheme, but we can say he was drawn to Christianity to a degree that probably today's non believers would. Not too queued into the importance of obligation either, he was probably at this early stage in the infant Church drawn to it in primarily out of curiosity with a Faith maturity at a seedling stage.
Simon was clearly a scoundrel in every sense, trying to buy favors,etc and given warnings of the path he was taking.
The results we well know. Aninias is summararily dispatched to his end, and Simon gets to live another day AND return to the flock. Both cases deal with money, Aninias to offer at least SOME
funds of what he has, and Simon openly wishing to keep it all, and flaunting a very serious practice of imitating God through sorcery to boot, a serious slight to the Holy Spirit if there ever was one.
So the jurisprudence applied to Aninias is a curious thing and I wonder why he was not allowed the opportunity for excommunication since this was the most serious censure available. We are assured that what is "bound on earth is bound in heaven", and we see this rule being relaxed to permit this exceptional handling.
Some points to remember:
1/Primary defense: Aninias and his wife had a right to excommunication, not death, since this event is post Pentecost.
2/Aninias's not devulging his bank account is at least minor to the abortion cases here in reference, and the iconoclast Simon's state. The defense is fortunate that the Church reveals the degree of severity.
3/Lieing to God is accomplished in many ways. Generally all sin, or breaking of our baptismal promise is a lie to God.
4/ Saphira held a lessor role in the Jewish/Christian household. Since she held no controlling factor in the finance, then
she is at least due, "consideration to the least advantaged" (Rawls, A Theory of Justice) If the verdict for Aninias is death, then she if guilty would warrant a degree less than what he receives.
5/Aninias was a family man, so he was responsible for an Instutution has well. Some consideration could have been in respect for the holy consecration that there marriage bestowed. We do this regularly, we consider a person's state of office in judicial cases.
So I feel there is something not quite right with their case and I feel they should have received excommunication in the least. At worst Saphira should have rec'd a lessor sentence.
Thoughts?
Andy
a history that pre-dates Christianity and was well known by the Jews. The first official Christian excommunication as far as I am able to tell dates to Acts 8:20 by Peter and applied to Simon Magus. Peter told him, "May your money perish with you".
NewAdvent: Excommunication "......principle and severest censure"
CC 1463 Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted,
CC 2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. .....
CC 2322 .....The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life.
Just previous to this in relative time Peter was confronted by Aninias whom we at least can say was not launching a consumated heritical scheme, but we can say he was drawn to Christianity to a degree that probably today's non believers would. Not too queued into the importance of obligation either, he was probably at this early stage in the infant Church drawn to it in primarily out of curiosity with a Faith maturity at a seedling stage.
Simon was clearly a scoundrel in every sense, trying to buy favors,etc and given warnings of the path he was taking.
The results we well know. Aninias is summararily dispatched to his end, and Simon gets to live another day AND return to the flock. Both cases deal with money, Aninias to offer at least SOME
funds of what he has, and Simon openly wishing to keep it all, and flaunting a very serious practice of imitating God through sorcery to boot, a serious slight to the Holy Spirit if there ever was one.
So the jurisprudence applied to Aninias is a curious thing and I wonder why he was not allowed the opportunity for excommunication since this was the most serious censure available. We are assured that what is "bound on earth is bound in heaven", and we see this rule being relaxed to permit this exceptional handling.
Some points to remember:
1/Primary defense: Aninias and his wife had a right to excommunication, not death, since this event is post Pentecost.
2/Aninias's not devulging his bank account is at least minor to the abortion cases here in reference, and the iconoclast Simon's state. The defense is fortunate that the Church reveals the degree of severity.
3/Lieing to God is accomplished in many ways. Generally all sin, or breaking of our baptismal promise is a lie to God.
4/ Saphira held a lessor role in the Jewish/Christian household. Since she held no controlling factor in the finance, then
she is at least due, "consideration to the least advantaged" (Rawls, A Theory of Justice) If the verdict for Aninias is death, then she if guilty would warrant a degree less than what he receives.
5/Aninias was a family man, so he was responsible for an Instutution has well. Some consideration could have been in respect for the holy consecration that there marriage bestowed. We do this regularly, we consider a person's state of office in judicial cases.
So I feel there is something not quite right with their case and I feel they should have received excommunication in the least. At worst Saphira should have rec'd a lessor sentence.
Thoughts?
Andy