NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
The last act in the Milingo story?
In what may be the final act of the long-running Catholic drama centering on Zambian Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo, the Vatican announced today that Milingo has been formally removed from the clerical state – in layman’s terms, defrocked.
As today’s Vatican statement noted, such a step is highly unusual for a bishop. The Vatican said it was compelled to act because of Milingo’s “persistent contumacy,” especially his decision to ordain several bishops without papal permission for his “Married Priests Now!” movement, which seeks to promote optional celibacy in the Catholic church.
The last case of a bishop being removed from the clerical state came in 2008, with Fernando Lugo, the president of Paraguay and former Bishop of San Pedro who resigned in 2005 in order to pursue a political career. Lugo had requested laicization in 2006 but the Vatican had consistently refused, relenting only after he won the presidency in April 2008.
Milingo had been considered excommunicated since 2006 on account of his defiance of church authority.
In Catholic theology, ordinations by a bishop without papal authorization are considered valid but illicit – meaning that the men ordained by Milingo are really bishops, but they have no authority to exercise any ministry. Today’s Vatican statement indicated that the Catholic church does “not recognize these ordinations, nor does she intend to recognize them, or any subsequent ordinations based on them,” and that “the canonical status of the supposed bishops remains as it was.”
A Vatican spokesperson said this morning that since Milingo has been removed from the clerical state, any future ordinations he performs will be not only illict, but invalid.
Milingo, who was made a bishop by Pope Paul VI in 1969 at the age of 39, had long been a thorn in the side of church authorities because of his controversial practice of mass exorcism ceremonies. During much of the 1980s and 1990s, he was one of the highest-profile Catholic prelates in the world because of his best-selling musical CDs and his international reputation as an exorcist and faith healer.
In 2001, Milingo broke away from the Catholic church and wed a follower of Moon, a then-43 Korean acupuncturist named Maria Sung. After a tempestuous few weeks, including a surprise meeting with Pope John Paul II at his summer residence of Castel Gandolfo, Milingo returned to obedience.
He was allowed to resume a limited form of his healing ministry outside Rome.
In 2006, however, Milingo disappeared from Italy and reappeared in the United States at the side of Archbishop George Stallings, leader of his own breakaway group, the African American Catholic Congregation, based in Washington, D.C., as well as followers of Rev. Sun Myung Moon.
Shortly thereafter, Milingo launched his “Married Priests Now!” movement, while insisting that he had no intention of launching a “new sect.”
The following is the full text of today’s Vatican announcement.
Communication of the Press Office of the Holy See: Removal from the Clerical State of Emmanuel Milingo
For a number of years the Church has followed with great concern the difficulties caused by the regrettable conduct of Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo. Many attempts have been made to bring Archbishop Milingo back into communion with the Catholic Church, including the consideration of suitable ways to enable him to exercise the episcopal ministry. Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI were directly involved in those efforts and both Popes personally followed the case of Archbishop Milingo in a spirit of paternal solicitude.
In the course of this unhappy series of events, Archbishop Milingo became irregular in 2001 as a result of his attempt to marry Mrs. Maria Sung, and incurred the medicinal penalty of suspension (cf. Canons 1044 § 1, n. 3; 1394 § 1 of the Code of Canon Law). Thereafter, he headed certain groups calling for the abolition of clerical celibacy and gave numerous interviews to the media in open disobedience to the repeated interventions of the Holy See, creating serious upset and scandal among the faithful. Then, on 24 September 2006 in Washington, Archbishop Milingo ordained four Bishops without pontifical mandate.
By so doing, he incurred the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae (Canon 1382) which was declared by the Holy See on 26 September 2006 and is still in force today. Sadly, Archbishop Milingo has shown no sign of the desired repentance with a view to returning to full communion with the Supreme Pontiff and the other members of the College of Bishops. Rather, he has persisted in the unlawful exercise of acts belonging to the episcopal office, committing new crimes against the unity of Holy Church. Specifically, in recent months Archbishop Milingo has proceeded to several other episcopal ordinations.
The commission of these grave crimes, which has recently been established, is to be considered as proof of the persistent contumacy of Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo. The Holy See has therefore been obliged to impose upon him the further penalty of dismissal from the clerical state.
According to Canon 292 of the Code of Canon Law, the penalty of dismissal from the clerical state, now added to the grave penalty of excommunication, has the following effects: loss of the rights and duties attached to the clerical state, except for the obligation of celibacy; prohibition of the exercise of any ministry, except as provided for by Canon 976 of the Code of Canon Law in those cases involving danger of death; loss of all offices and functions and of all delegated power, as well as prohibition of the use of clerical attire. Consequently, the participation of the faithful in any future celebrations organized by Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo is to be considered unlawful.
It must be pointed out that the dismissal of a Bishop from the clerical state is most extraordinary. The Holy See has felt obliged to act in this way due to the serious consequences for ecclesial communion resulting from repeated episcopal consecrations carried out without pontifical mandate; nevertheless, the Church hopes that Archbishop Milingo will see the error of his ways.
As for those recently ordained by Archbishop Milingo, the Church’s discipline in imposing the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae upon those who receive episcopal consecration without pontifical mandate is well-known. While expressing hope for their conversion, the Church reaffirms what was declared on 26 September 2006, namely that she does not recognize these ordinations, nor does she intend to recognize them, or any subsequent ordinations based on them, in the future. Hence the canonical status of the supposed bishops remains as it was prior to the ordination conferred by Archbishop Milingo.
At this moment, as the Church experiences profound sorrow for the grave acts perpetrated by Archbishop Milingo, she entrusts to the power of prayer the repentance of the guilty party and of all those who - be they priests or lay faithful - have in any way cooperated with him by acting against the unity of Christ’s Church.





For the sake of having less
For the sake of having less crazy to have to deal with, I hope this saga is over now. For the sake of Milingo's soul, I hope it is not over and he eventually repents and returns to the Church.
"A Vatican spokesperson said
"A Vatican spokesperson said this morning that since Milingo has been removed from the clerical state, any future ordinations he performs will be not only illicit, but invalid." Hmmm. Can anyone suggest a single precendent for such a stance? I'm stumped.
Yeah, that is not right...
Yeah, that is not right... The spokesperson must have erred, unless Milingo is now ordaining in ways that would not work anyway.
I'm sure Milingo isn't
I'm sure Milingo isn't exactly wrapping himself in sackcloth and ashes and threatening suicide over this.
Are we now to assume and
Are we now to assume and accept that ordination,and a bishop's consecration,are no longer permanent? How human!
No. he will never cease to be
No. he will never cease to be a bishop, ever, but he may now no longer function as one within the Church. That is why clergy gone bad are so dangerous, they retain their ontology and power and we can't do a thing about it. Sure we can bar them from ministering in the name of the Church, and it would be a sin for them to continue to exercise their power after being removed, but Milingo's sacraments are valid so far as I know.
The Vatican Statement, in
The Vatican Statement, in part, reads: "... the grave penalty of excommunication, has the following effects: loss of the rights and duties attached to the clerical state, except for the obligation of celibacy... " Clearly celibacy is more indelible than ordination.
John, the phrase "rights and
John, the phrase "rights and duties" is not synonymous with "sacramental powers."
A correspondent is suggesting
A correspondent is suggesting that similar language was used in the mid-1970s re the "Palmarian Catholic Church", citing to Documentation Catholique 73 (1976) at 858. Can't wait to check it out. Thanks!
Maybe this will put to rest
Maybe this will put to rest the accusation that Pope John Paul II was a "saint making machine."
If you look at the records on the Vatican's website you can easily see that 80% or more of the saints that he canonized were also martyrs done in large groups (none nearly as large as these Spanish Civil War Martyrs.
At least 399 of JPII's 462 saints were martyrs!
This new teaching contradicts
This new teaching contradicts the church's own assumption that ordination leaves an indelible mark on the soul. Moreover, Milingo is a bishop, having the fullness of the priesthood. If he was excommunicated in 2006 he has since ceased being under the authority of the Vatican. How can one already expelled from a school be told that they are just revoking their class president's status? It is appalling and contradictory. Pope Benedict is an hypocrite. On the one hand he is attempting to received back members of the Pius X society, because the founder is European, while on the other hand he is exercising his racist ideology because Milingo is a black man. Milingo knows how this functions long time ago, and that was the reason he abdicated from Rome almost immediately the highhanded, presumably racist Cardinal Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI. He knows that hardly does the leopard change its spots. He also knows that at the root of his problem when he was removed in 1983 were Polish Jesuit Priests, who used their homeland connection with the late Pope, John Paul II, to get rid of him from his native homeland of Zambia. At 79, what does Milingo stand to loss, he has made a fervent statement, and the church just has to deal with the ramifications of his ordinations, just as she is now doing with the Lefevbre Pius X group.
Anonymous, the letter quoted
Anonymous, the letter quoted by Mr. Allen contains no "new teaching." It is not intended to be an instrument of catechesis, but to explain the reasons underlying the excommunication and dismissal of Bishop Milingo. In fact, the letter repeatedly refers to canons which were already in place. Moreover, in no place whatever does the document contradict the Church's teaching regarding the indelible mark left by Holy Orders. Your claim reflects a careless reading of the document and a willingness to jump to conclusions.
I address the above paragraph not only to Anonymous but to the other commenters who also came somehow to the conclusion that the Church's pronouncement on the Bishop reflects a change in its teachings on Holy Orders. One commenter cited a news article that clearly contained an error; but a reporter cannot rightly be said to speak with the authority of the Church.
What evidence do you have to support your claim that Pope Benedict XVI restored members of the SPX Society to communion with the Church *because* their founder is European? I'd be interested to see this.
You said, "Milingo knows how this functions long time ago, and that was the reason he abdicated from Rome almost immediately the highhanded, presumably racist Cardinal Ratzinger became Pope..." Whoa, whoa, whoa... where are you getting all this? Where on earth did you find any evidence to suggest Milingo departed from the Church because BXVI is a racist? My goodness! I don't think the hierarchs care whether their guys are black or white. I think they're concerned with whether their guys are following their lead. And "presumably racist"? What a phrase! On what a basis do you "presume" our Holy Father hates blacks? You do think you should have a basis, don't you, before you level accusations of that kind?
So again, what evidence do you have to support your claim that Pope Benedict XVI is a racist? Perhaps you'd care to cite one of his encyclicals -- for example, "God is Love." I'd really be interested in hearing your response.
Is Millingo still powerful?
Is Millingo still powerful? Let's refer Catechism of the Catholic Church and Code of Canon Law hereunder
Catechism 1576:
Since the sacrament of Holy Orders is the sacrament of the apostolic ministry, it is for the bishops as the successors of the apostles to hand on the "gift of the Spirit, "the "apostolic line." Validly ordained bishops, i.e., those who are in the line of apostolic succession, validly confer the three degrees of the sacrament of Holy Orders.
Can. 1012 states this:
The minister of sacred ordination is a consecrated Bishop.
Catechism 1463 states this:
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, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them. In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication.
Catechism 1583 states this:
It is true that someone validly ordained can, for grave reasons, be discharged from the obligations and functions linked to ordination, or can be forbidden to exercise them; but he cannot become a layman again in the strict sense, because the character imprinted by ordination is forever. The vocation and mission received on the day of his ordination mark him permanently.
What about this so called
What about this so called canon law expect "Mr" Edward Peters. Yes, plain irrevent "Mr" Peters ! He is always semingly blabbling on about poor old Archbishop Milingo. Would Mr Peters have babbled on about Archbishop Lefevre in the same way? Lefebrve was accused of schism ! Archbisho Milingo was never accused of either schism or heresy. The main difference between Archbishop Lefebrve and Archbishop Milingo is that Archbishop Mlingo is Black ! Mr Peters says that Archbishop Milingo's ordinations are invalid (of course the Church has said otherwise - the Church has admitted them to be valid albeit illicit). But could it be for Mr Edwards that the only 'invalidating' factor is that he (Milingo) is Black ? No so supprising as I am sure he still whistles 'dixie' being from the deep South!!!
Post new comment