Is the spanish king excommunicated?
#1
Recently Spain made it very easy to get an abortion, now they have one of the most liberal abortion laws all around the world.

The senate voted for the law in February if I recall correctly, the spanish bishops said that all the senators and deputies who voted for that can consider themselves authomatically excommunicated.

The issue is that in Spain, a parliamentary democracy, the king has to sign, giving its aproval, to all laws voted by the congress.

The spanish bishops said that the king would NOT be excommunicated. That he is not guilty for that and that acording to law he has to sign everything no matter whether he likes the law or not.

Is that right?

I would rather resign as a king than vote a law that makes abortion easier to get?

And, does the power of the keys priests have is able to not excommunicate someone who otherwise would be excommunicated?
Reply
#2
justlurking Wrote:The spanish bishops said that the king would NOT be excommunicated. That he is not guilty for that and that acording to law he has to sign everything no matter whether he likes the law or not.

Is that right?

Yes. The King of Spain is a figurehead.


Quote:I would rather resign as a king than vote a law that makes abortion easier to get?

I don't know why you're asking that as a question. Only you would know what you'd do. For myself, I'd refuse to sign the law and let the government's soldiers pry me from my throne by force, on national television. See what the public thinks of that. (Of course, that would only work if you were already very popular with the people thanks to a good reign and a healthy dose of Napoleon-style propaganda. But if I were king, that would be taken for granted.)
Reply
#3
Quote:And, does the power of the keys priests have is able to not excommunicate someone who otherwise would be excommunicated?

Only bishops can pronounce a ferendae sententiae excommunication; I assume you mean that in the medieval sense, with the stomping out of candles and all. Automatic excommunication is pretty much a way for bishops to weakly assert some kind of authority without having to actually get their hands dirty.
Reply
#4
In some older writings I've heard of a priest simply "excommunicating" someone on a personal level, as a way of saying that priest personally won't distribute the Blessed Sacrament to that individual - I believe this was in spiritual writings about how a spiritual father should act toward a spiritual charge of his...could be Byzantine in origin, and probably is - but definitely pre-schism and all.
Reply
#5
(05-12-2010, 11:35 AM)3Sanctus Wrote: In some older writings I've heard of a priest simply "excommunicating" someone on a personal level, as a way of saying that priest personally won't distribute the Blessed Sacrament to that individual - I believe this was in spiritual writings about how a spiritual father should act toward a spiritual charge of his...could be Byzantine in origin, and probably is - but definitely pre-schism and all.

A priest can deny Communion to someone if there's a good reason, but that's not the same as someone's Ordinary formally declaring him severed from all of Christian society until he makes a public repentance.

:edited to add: For one thing, a priest can only oblige himself to deny Communion to that person, and his Ordinary can override him if he hears about it and disagrees. But (if I'm not mistaken) an Ordinary who excommunicates someone makes all bishops, priests and deacons around the world obliged to consider him excommunicated.
Reply
#6
(05-12-2010, 11:39 AM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote:
(05-12-2010, 11:35 AM)3Sanctus Wrote: In some older writings I've heard of a priest simply "excommunicating" someone on a personal level, as a way of saying that priest personally won't distribute the Blessed Sacrament to that individual - I believe this was in spiritual writings about how a spiritual father should act toward a spiritual charge of his...could be Byzantine in origin, and probably is - but definitely pre-schism and all.

A priest can deny Communion to someone if there's a good reason, but that's not the same as someone's Ordinary formally declaring him severed from all of Christian society until he makes a public repentance.

:edited to add: For one thing, a priest can only oblige himself to deny Communion to that person, and his Ordinary can override him if he hears about it and disagrees. But (if I'm not mistaken) an Ordinary who excommunicates someone makes all bishops, priests and deacons around the world obliged to consider him excommunicated.

I was just trying to point out how excommunicating someone and a priest could be related, I didn't mean to imply priests have episcopal power as regards excommunications.
Reply
#7
(05-12-2010, 11:39 AM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote:
(05-12-2010, 11:35 AM)3Sanctus Wrote: In some older writings I've heard of a priest simply "excommunicating" someone on a personal level, as a way of saying that priest personally won't distribute the Blessed Sacrament to that individual - I believe this was in spiritual writings about how a spiritual father should act toward a spiritual charge of his...could be Byzantine in origin, and probably is - but definitely pre-schism and all.

A priest can deny Communion to someone if there's a good reason, but that's not the same as someone's Ordinary formally declaring him severed from all of Christian society until he makes a public repentance.

:edited to add: For one thing, a priest can only oblige himself to deny Communion to that person, and his Ordinary can override him if he hears about it and disagrees. But (if I'm not mistaken) an Ordinary who excommunicates someone makes all bishops, priests and deacons around the world obliged to consider him excommunicated.

A priest cannot deny Communion to any baptized Catholic unless he is causing grave public scandal or is a notorious sinner. Canon Law is crystal clear on this (Canon 912).

Only when someone has committed a grave sin with such malice or intention as to make the culpability publicly known can any penalty be imposed without juridical act (Canon 1321.1). Since denying Communion is equivalent to an personal Interdict (Canon 1332), such a penalty can only be imposed when there is a clearly grave violation of the law which is publicly manifest.

Thus, a priest may not deny Communion to any Catholic who present themselves for Communion, even if the priest is aware (privately) that the person is not in the State of Grace. To deny Communion in this case would be a sin against the 7th commandment since it would be a form of detraction.

It would seem that, if properly warned, however, it might be possible for a pastor to deny communion to those who are habitually unprepared to receive (e.g. those who constantly dress immodestly). The habitual lack of correction demonstrates the bad intention or malice necessary to apply the law. Clearly this could only be done for grave reasons. To deny communion to a lady who habitually goes without a veil would not be permissible, since there is no sin in omitting the veil.

A pastor could deny Communion to a public figure who has publicly denied a doctrine or dogma of the Church. For instance, in with Fr. Thomas Eutenauer, Sean Hannity asked if his public support for contraception would mean Fr. Eutenauer would deny him Communion. The priest responded, "Yes". The priest would be justified in denying Communion to someone who public supported contraception until the person publicly renounced this error.

But in the case of the King, since the signature of the King would seem to have no meaning (i.e. the signature is a mere formality and does not express any acceptance of the law), culpability could not be imputed. The culpability of those who voted for the law, however, could be imputed.

I agree that a better course of action would have been to refuse to sign the law. When Belgium wished to legalize abortion in 1990 and the King refused to sign the law, the legislature removed the King for a day, passed the law in his absence, and then reinstated the king.
Reply
#8
(05-14-2010, 12:57 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: I agree that a better course of action would have been to refuse to sign the law. When Belgium wished to legalize abortion in 1990 and the King refused to sign the law, the legislature removed the King for a day, passed the law in his absence, and then reinstated the king.

I agree with this, too. Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg (nephew of Baudouin, the Belgian king you mentioned) refused to sign a bill allowing euthanasia in 2008. His prime minister responded by proposing a constitutional amendment that would strip the grand duke of his powers. The Vatican responded by giving him the Van Thuan prize for defending human rights.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)