The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionDoes excommunication do any good?
Jul. 12, 2010
[Pat Marrin]
ESSAY
A neatly framed announcement hanging above a bookcase in my study warns that anyone who takes or damages one of my books is subject to excommunication reserved to the Holy See. I purchased it in a gift store in Salamanca, Spain, where the original notice had been hung in the university library sometime around 1440.
I had long found it curious that someone borrowing a book without permission could be subject to the church’s severest penalty. One could get excommunicated in those days for all manner of offenses. That’s no longer the case, but it doesn’t mean that excommunications are no longer commonplace.
There seems to be a rash of bishops announcing excommunications these days. Though supposed to be medicinal, church leaders have reason to wonder if they haven’t become counterproductive: for most U.S. Catholics an embarrassment, for non-Catholics, a scandal.
Mercy Sr. Margaret McBride’s case is only the most recent to make the op-ed columns. As a member of the ethics committee of St. Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix, she joined in a decision late last year that an abortion was the lesser of two evils in the face of the almost certain death of a woman suffering from pulmonary hypertension, a mother of four. Without the abortion, neither mother nor fetus would survive and four children would be orphaned. Nonetheless, when he later learned of the decision, Phoenix Bishop Thomas Olmsted declared in a statement that McBride had been excommunicated.
The outrage in the media was immediate. Pundits accused the bishop of arrogance and misogyny. They pointed to the priests found guilty of raping and molesting minors and the bishops who covered up for them. Why was the nun excommunicated, and not the priests and bishops?
The excommunication in Phoenix recalls the case last year in Recife, Brazil. There, a 9-year-old girl was discovered to be pregnant with twins, after having been repeatedly raped by her stepfather. In her fourth month, and weighing only 66 pounds, it was doubtful that she or the twins would survive. The girl’s mother arranged for an abortion. Archbishop José Cardoso Sobrinho of Olinda and Recife publicly declared that the girl’s mother was excommunicated as were all who worked on the abortion. The one person not excommunicated in this case was the stepfather rapist.
The church’s canon law excommunicates anyone involved in obtaining or procuring an abortion. It also automatically excommunicates heretics, schismatics, priests who break the seal of confession, and bishops who ordain other bishops without Vatican permission. Canon law does not excommunicate rapists, child molesters, or, for that matter, murderers. Contrary to common misperception, the bishop of Phoenix and archbishop of Recife did not excommunicate the women and doctors themselves; the prelates declared that the excommunications had taken place automatically (latae sententiae), by the very act of abortion itself.
Preview NCR's Family Life Issue
Watch this video from NCR Editor Dennis Coday for highlights from our annual Family Life special section.
You won't find these articles on our website. Subscribe now to receive all the content from each biweekly issue.
In Germany excommunication is tied up with money. Civil law requires every church member to pay a church tax (Kirchensteuer). The only way German Catholics can get out of paying the extra tax is to inform the government formally that they have left the church. The Council of German Bishops has decided that such a declaration is a schismatic act punished by automatic excommunication. From 1998 to 2007, the penalty was meted out to some 1.1 million German Catholics.
But then last year a former canon law professor at the University of Freiburg, Hartmut Zapp, decided to challenge the church tax. He declared that he was leaving the Catholic church as a legal institution but remaining in it as a community of faith. Fearing a precedent and the potential loss of millions of euros, the Freiburg archdiocese rejected the distinction: One either left the church or did not, all or nothing at all. In May this year, a German court agreed that it was up to church authorities to decide. Zapp is now declared by church and state as having left the Catholic church. That makes him a schismatic and an excommunicate.
I first began thinking about excommunication when friends of mine attended the ordination of two women in the Roman Catholic Womenpriests movement in February in Sarasota, Fla. I pointed out to them, after the fact, that the Florida papers quoted the local bishop as saying that Catholics who participated in the event were excommunicated. The response of my friends, both of whom are weekly communicants, was a dismissive wave of the hand. Oh, just like that abortion case in Brazil, where everyone was excommunicated except the rapist.
Before the separation of church and state, the threat of excommunication brought emperors to their knees. Theologians with unorthodox opinions could face burning at the stake. Now ordinary Catholics treat it with a flip wave of a hand. My friends are not singular, not in light of the 1.1 million German Catholics who have left and the millions of U.S. young people cited by the Pew Research Center as having left. Then there are the millions more “cafeteria Catholics” who remain in the church, go to Communion weekly, but disagree with the bishop of Phoenix and believe that McBride and the ethics board did the right thing. Are Catholics ever allowed to see abortion as the lesser of two evils? In the face of such moral dilemmas, the automatic excommunication is intended to leave no doubt as to where the church’s leadership stands. Whether that lessens the number of abortions is at least doubtful.
If a girl becomes the victim of a date rape and takes the morning-after pill, is she excommunicated? And if so, why is she excommunicated and not the rapist? Or is she excommunicated? Is Zapp now excommunicated for leaving the church as an institution but not as a community of faith? Does opting out of paying his church taxes endanger his immortal soul? Was McBride excommunicated, if she made her difficult gut-wrenching decision with prayer and a good conscience? According to Catholic tradition, the answer is no.
When bishops declare Catholics excommunicated, they make the presumption that the alleged offenders were deliberately violating their consciences, acting in bad faith and therefore committing a grievous sin. But no one, no bishop, can presume to judge another person’s conscience. The Second Vatican Council described conscience as the “sanctuary” where the individual “is alone with God” (Gaudium et spes). In the opinion of Thomas Aquinas, we are bound to follow our consciences, even when in error, even if it means excommunication.
None of this is new. It goes back before Martin Luther who famously appealed at the Diet of Worms that “it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience.”
Catholics for centuries presumed that Luther was acting in bad faith. Ecumenical dialogue in recent decades has weakened that assumption. What’s new is that the appeal to conscience is being made not by fire-breathing reformist monks but by septuagenarians like Zapp and soft-spoken women like McBride.
What’s new are the growing numbers of women in Europe and the United States who claim ordination to the priesthood. They acknowledge that the original ordinations of women bishops were not permitted by the Vatican and would therefore be illicit. But they insist that the original ordinations were conferred by male bishops in apostolic succession and are therefore valid. And when local bishops serve these women with papers declaring them excommunicated, they appeal to their clear consciences, to their love for the church, and to the example of Jesus.
The Catholic church is not singular in practicing excommunication. Any number of faith traditions exercise the penalty, and there are biblical warrants for it in the New Testament. The issue is whether the church should practice so-called automatic excommunications. And whether excommunication can claim any warrant whatsoever from the Jesus we now know better from modern biblical studies, the Jesus who ate with publicans and sinners, who was provocative precisely for not banning anyone from his open table.
If excommunication is meant to be medicinal, it certainly does not seem to be working. It does not seem to be stopping either Catholic women or their Catholic doctors from choosing what they see as the lesser of two evils when a pregnancy means the loss of two lives and not just one. It does not seem to deter women from entering into the ranks of the Roman Catholic Womenpriests movement. The church’s severest ban against it notwithstanding, the women’s ordination movement shows no sign of going away. The women ordained in it appear satisfied that the Holy Spirit is on their side. It took some centuries for the Catholic church to change its thinking on Luther; they fully expect their time to come too.
In the meantime, the bishops are put in the unenviable position of appearing to be at war with women. Some speak of a virtual schism already in the church. But, women ask in reply, who is in schism? They or the bishops? At one time, simply asking questions like that got one excommunicated. For that matter, writing a reflection like this did too.
[Ronald Modras is a professor of theological studies at St. Louis University. He is the author of Ignatian Humanism (Loyola Press).]
You forgot to mention the
You forgot to mention the Cafeteria Catholics among the Retro-Catholics who regularly disobey and disregard the Ordinary Magisterium about social justice, preventive war, climate consciousness, health care, etc. The NR Online corps led by George Weigel and the infamous, Mater, Si; Magistra, No crowd are all Cafeteria Catholics: there is no monopoly on dissent from fecless episcopal leadership.
Amen. Excommunication, like
Amen.
Excommunication, like the "cafeteria Catholics" who support wars, abuse and injustice, has become a political tool. Anyone who encounters Jesus in the New Testament will find ironic the efforts to pretend He would support efforts to drive people AWAY from the faith.
Most of the excommunications
Most of the excommunications you talk about in this article are not actually imposed by the Church but rather are brought about by the act itself. What the Church does is simply recognize the fact that certain acts are so inconsistent with Catholic teaching, as it is rooted in Scripture and Tradition, that the one committing the act has ceased to be Catholic in any meaningful way. It's sad when this happens but the Church has a duty to the Truth to set certain boundaries.
In theory, I wouldn't
In theory, I wouldn't disagree that the act brings on the excommunication, but then why is the list of such acts so narrowly drawn? Rape warrants a quick trip to the confessional but a morning after pill excommunicates one? Fire into an Iraqi villiage and kill dozens and just mention it at the chapel's confessional on your rotation home but help procure an abortion under any circumstances and the bishop will personally write you up.
Excommunication is an act of administrative power.
When asked why a divorced and remarried Catholic (who also happened to be a prominent politician) was not banned from the sacraments, we were told that no one could be sure that the married couple wasn't living as brother and sister.
Only certain bishops are able to see into our hearts and see our sins.
Why is the list so narrowly
Why is the list so narrowly drawn? Perhaps because most grievous offenses, like rape, murder, and the like, already have severe civil penalties. To be sure, the church doesn't teach that only excommunicable offenses are the bad ones, or even the worst. Any mortal sin, from murder to envy, just as surely cuts off the soul from the grace of God as any other. Excommunication is not a commentary on the person's inner state of their soul, but on the inherent evil of the act itself, and no one claims that it is a complete list.
So, here's a question. The
So, here's a question. The church is bound by the the traditions of scripture to do what ever it believes it needs to do in the name of God. So lets apply this to some questions. This is not an attack, I'm just asking a question, as I'm curious of your answer. If we take that lady that got and abortion... because she had pulminary problems, and both mother and child would have died.... what would be the best approach?
Do you honestly believe that God would have prefered the nine year old to die of carrying twins... something she had not control over (raped victims lack control in the act, which is y its rape and not consensual), do you honestly beleive God would have preferred she and the babies die, as the most righteous in His name? Now this sounds terrible to the casual listener, but sometimes God calls for terrible things, like martism. What do you think?
Would you say the same thing
Would you say the same thing if the twins were already born? Consider, with the twin pregnancy, you have a situation where through no fault of her own (and the grievous fault of another), an innocent girl is put in a situation where due to limited resources (her limited bodily resources) there are three people dependent on the same resources and not all of them will survive. It seems that your argument is that since this situation is not due to any choice of the girl, then it's okay to get an abortion to save the girl's life.
Fast forward several months. Suppose you have a 9 year old girl and two newborn babies, in a state of limited resources (suppose her family lives in a remote area and simply does not have enough food for all three of the children.) There are now three people dependent on the same resources and not all of them will survive.
Would you then say that it is okay for the family to kill the newborn babies in order to have enough food for their 9 year old to survive? We would certainly understand the horrible dilemma the family faced, but I don't think anyone would condone killing the babies. Yet this is what happened, only before they were born.
But who gets to decide what
But who gets to decide what is and what is not an act that deserves excommunication? Would Jesus make a sweeping gesture and condemn everyone with one stroke? No, he forgave, he looked beyond the surface, he listened to their hearts. I am sorry, but no one has the right to declare anyone else a sinner or to excommunicate - if that person willfilly commits and act so vile he himself has shown that he no longer wishes to be in that community of believers and leaves. We can not read another's heart and to do so is the height of arrogance and pride. Placing the ordination of women on the same level of sin as the molestation of children by priests is itself sinful. Read the history of excommunication and you will find a humorous list of church errors and pomposity that goes way back to the early days of the official church - look at Galileo for God's sake. Perhaps someday they will unexcommunicate these noble and courageous women too but I doubt that they will care very much.
The church did a lot of
The church did a lot of threatening of Joan of Arc too.
No, "the Church" didn't. They
No, "the Church" didn't.
They actually cleared her when they reviewed what the English and Burgundians had done.
Pete the greek on Jul. 12,
Pete the greek on Jul. 12, 2010.
You stated:
"No, "the Church" didn't.
They actually cleared her when they reviewed what the English and Burgundians had done."
------------------------------
1) Joan was tried in an officially called "Court of Inquisition." This wasn't a military court. She was placed on trial because she claimed to be guided by the "voices" of saints. And Inquisition was presided over by Dominicans and a few Franciscans who first received their appointment to this task by Innocent VIII (1484-92) who was the first to set up the Inquisition. Although the French have down through the centuries that Joan was not only the heroine of the 100 Years War---they believed her to be a saint. It wasn't until mid 20th century tht she was canonized during the Pontificate of Pius XII.
2) Although Joan was eventually cleared---it wasn't until AFTER she was burnt at the stake. She died excommunicated. And Joan wasn't the only saint to be excommunicated. In October of this year, Australia will celebrate the canonization of its first native saint---Mary McKillop---who was also excommunicated.
Sorry to quibble, but Joan
Sorry to quibble, but Joan was canonized in 1920 under Benedict XV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonization_of_Joan_of_Arc
True, Joan was tried at an
True, Joan was tried at an official court of Inquisition, but her trial itself was illegal according to church law. She had the right to appeal to the Pope, which she did, and her appeal was ignored as the court went forward with their verdict.
This article is riddled with
This article is riddled with flaws. The virtue of excommunication does not have anything to do with its practical effects. In other words, excommunications are not levied to bring about some practical end. An excommunication simply signals that a rupture has occurred in the Body of Christ, either through a member's grave sin or through a violation of the Church's disciplinary norms. As numerous theologians have pointed out, then, it's not really precise to talk about a Bishop excommunicating someone, as if the Bishop had arbitrarily made the decision on his own. More precisely, members of the Church automatically excommunicate themselves through actions that violate existing norms. Building on this point, the validity of said norms does not depend on whether or not a certain number of Catholics honor them. In all ages of the Church, there have been and will be a large number of the baptized who live in unrepentant sin or who willfully live in discord with Church teaching. The Church's task is to faithfully transmit and teach the totality of revelation. She cannot guarantee that a certain percentage of her children will follow this teaching, any more than a parent can guarantee that her children will never rebel after they reach an age of maturity.
Of course, the Gospel will always be a stumbling block to the world, such that the Church will face resistance in every age ("If they hated me, they will hate you as well..."). But, at the end of the day, would you really want a Church that determined right and wrong on the basis of popular opinion? If Christ had followed that course, he never would have asked his followers to turn the other cheek. Nor would have have called them to take up their cross daily. And, he certainly would have kept under wraps all that craziness about having to eat his flesh and drink his blood. As the Gospels record, such teachings proved all too difficult for most of the people who came to hear Christ preach. If our Lord meant his proclamation to be medicinal, it didn't seem to work. It didn't stop zealots from seeking to overthrow the Roman Empire, it didn't stop the disciples from seeking a kingdom apart from the cross, and it hasn't stopped Protestants from doubting the truth of the real presence in the Eucharist.
Thankfully, Jesus did not craft his teaching to fit the whimsy of public opinion. And, neither do the successors of the Apostles, who have been chosen by the Holy Spirit to guard the deposit of faith. In every generation, any number of Christians will fail to live up to the demands of the Gospel. I, for one, am glad that the truthfulness of revelation is intrinsic to revelation, and has nothing to do with the number of Catholics who accept or reject it.
I would imagine that anyone
I would imagine that anyone reading the NCR and agreeing with its editorials excommunicates themselves automatically. RJM watch out!
you would imagine, and
you would imagine, and imagine wrong
it would not be a matter of your conscience but of your personal fantasy
the trouble with you disciples of george weigel is that you imagine you have the power of discernment of heretics and the power of excommunication for your smaller purer race
yet you imagine wrong
"But, at the end of the day,
"But, at the end of the day, would you really want a Church that determined right and wrong on the basis of popular opinion?"
Yes, if "popular opinion" reflects the influence of the Holy Spirit, the source of life in the church.
Doctrine, i.e., potentially fallible teaching, evolves. It is not static.
And communities, not community leaders, imposed excommunication in the primitive Christian churches, a practice much needed to counter the dysfunctional influence of orthotoxic hierarchs like Olmsted and likeminded brethren.
The Church of Rome needs to get rid of its overgrowth and return to its primitive Christian roots. We need vigorous community involvement, not pontificating from on high.
Actually the very meaning of
Actually the very meaning of "excommunication" is that it is done to a member by an ecclesial authority. It is "self-excommunication" that violates the meaning of the word, and is simply used to get people to leave the Church, to punish them in a public way.
RJM, your Jesus is getting on
RJM, your Jesus is getting on the real Jesus' nerves. Such a lack of understanding, such rigidity, such a firm hold on what was never Jesus' ministry. He invited all and turned no one away. Why can't you and all the enforcers do the same? That's the Church I belong to and I would simply ignore any "excommunication," and continue in my relationship with God in a different parish. Those people cannot condemn my soul or defeat the Holy Spirit within me. "Excommunication," away from communication. With whom? Certainly not God.
He didn't turn people away,
He didn't turn people away, true. But he expected them to follow Him unconditionally. The Rich Young Ruler from Luke 18: "So when Jesus heard these things, He said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” But when he heard this, he became very sorrowful, for he was very rich." From Matthew 8: "Then another of His disciples said to Him, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.” But Jesus said to him, “Follow Me, and let the dead bury their own dead.”" Matthew 16: "Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.""
It's not "live as you please while you follow Me." Christ gave us the Church to teach us the fullness of the Truth including how we should live, and we ignore that at great peril to our souls.
"...at great peril to our
"...at great peril to our souls."
Garbage!
Read Luke 15 about God's taking the initiative to find the lost sheep, lost coin, and lost son.
Recall, too, Jesus' instruction to his disciples to forgive indefinitely.
There's no so-called "great peril to our souls".
This understanding suggestive of a judgmental, condemning, scowling God is pure, unadulterated orthotoxicity, i.e., religious junk that misportrays God's unconditional love, i.e., the kind of divine love with no strings attached.
"And Jesus wept."
JJ you seem to have learned
JJ you seem to have learned the part of Jesus's love very well and are to commended for it, but please do not ignore the other halfof the equasion His Justice. If the story were only about feeling warm and fuzzy about life then why love your enemy? Jesus proscibed a way to the Father, that by its very nature has certain rules to be followed if we want to enter eternal paridise. Conversely if we dont what to follow Him that is our choice, we may do what we want to as long as we live on this earth. Unfortunately this path very definitely puts the soul in peril.
If an excommunication signals
If an excommunication signals that a rupture has occurred in the Body of Christ, either through a member's grave sin or through a violation of the Church's disciplinary norms, THEN the priests who have engaged in abuse of minors and the bishops who enabled them should be excommunicated. Certainly there was a rupture in the Body of Christ in those situations and the sins are grave sins in everyone's eyes, except some of the abusers.
But nothing has changed - the bishops are still in place with control over the church and that is the reason that excommunication is meaningless today.
It should be pointed out
It should be pointed out that all those Catholics who are excommunicated,
including the million plus in Germany are destined to hell if they don't
seek forgiveness from their bishop. We can take comfort that those unrependent sinners will be punished for all eternity for their damnable actions. Great article.
The Catholic Church’s
The Catholic Church’s teaching authority comes from its bishops having a direct link to the apostles, but it is not the only church whose bishops have this direct link the Orthodox Churches like the Orthodox Church in America have the same link to apostles. If someone is excommunicated their soul is at risk as are all sinners If they join a another valid Christian Church or still follow Christ, they may still be saved. Only Christ gets the final say on who goes to hell.
So our bishops have a
So our bishops have a so-called "direct link to the apostles"?
Prove it.
Souls "at risk"?
Read Luke 15 as well as Jesus' instruction to his disciples to forgive indefinitely.
"...valid Christian Church"?
What do you mean by use of the word 'valid'?
"Only Christ gets the final say on who goes to hell."
You've spouted orthotoxicity, the misportrayal of God's unconditional love (no strings attached) for each of us.
Your god is not my God.
THERE IS NO DIRECT LINK! This
THERE IS NO DIRECT LINK! This "direct link" nonsense is made up. If you read history, at various points in time there was more than one pope. At one time there was one in Rome, one in France and a third one who was elected at some point to take the place of the other two. However, one of the first two failed to step down. Bishops were also appointed by governments, instead of the pope at various points in time. That's why the talk of direct links all falls apart.
If you read history, you would also know that popes and bishops in medieval times were responsible for wars (e.g., the Crusades) and often bought their positions. For example, the father of Pope Innocent III was a Count and a member of a famous house, Conti, which produced nine Popes. It was all a family business back then. This is not any kind of "link" of which to be proud, or that represents the apostles.
I believe that you are right that only God gets the final say on who goes to hell. I think that a pope and the bishops who hated the People of God so much that they allowed pedophiles to prey on the children for decades are perhaps good candidates to be first in line.
I wonder what kind of God you
I wonder what kind of God you believe... Because my God never rejects people and if you were wrong in your life (people make mistakes), even a small moment of repentance while dying, can save one's soul. Jesus didn't condemn sinners, who told them about forgiveness and asked them not to sin again, once when they were aware of the sin. But not before. If one's conscience can't recognise something as wrong, it could be mistaken, but still, without awareness there's no grave sin. And only a grave sin separates us from God, not so called excommunication that could be simply unjust (bishops also make mistakes).
Most moderate and all liberal
Most moderate and all liberal theologians today do not beleive unrependent
sinners and those who reject God will be tortured for all eternity in hell.
And that goes for the excommunicated. As St. Therese of Lisieux said hell will
be empty.
"As St. Therese of Lisieux
"As St. Therese of Lisieux said hell will be empty." Cite your source exactly or I demand you retract this claim. This is a heavy accusation against a Doctor of the Church and you must be prepared to support your claim or you must stop spreading it.
I take no comfort in this,
I take no comfort in this, and anyone who does will suffer this fate in the ultimate compassionate spiritual state
I do not wish to see you suffer this fate, as
God is love
and so I assume you jest
"We can take comfort that
"We can take comfort that those unrependent sinners will be punished for all eternity for their damnable actions."
1. You are giving authority to your judgment that belongs to God alone.
2. The Church does not teach what you have said here.
3. If that is what you take 'comfort in,' you may be the one most surprised.
Annie O, once again thanks
Annie O, once again thanks for you comment. Also, the line one gave me a nice laugh.
Tom, Do you recognize how
Tom,
Do you recognize how ugly your words are? You take comfort that you perceive "unrependent(sic) sinners" (as you define them, of course) will be punished for all eternity?
Please explain how your words differ from those of the right-wing mullahs who take joy in half-burying a woman and then stoning her. They apparently take great comfort in their religious righteousness as well.
See my post that starts "most
See my post that starts "most moderate and all liberal theologians."
Interesting argument RJM. So
Interesting argument RJM. So what would Christ have said in the case of Sr. McBride and the 9 year old girl raped by her stepfather? We know Christ's punishment for child molesters but the Catholic Church hierarchy conveniently seems to ignore bringing this into Canon Law.
We cannot avoid putting ourselves in the position of being guided by what Christ would have done because we are urged to live our lives in the imitation of Christ. Coupled with this is the fact that man made laws must be flawed, even if they are derived from divine inspiration. The Old Testament is full of this. Our Church laws must be as well.
Moses was instructed by God no less, to stone the poor wretch who had gone out to collect wood on the Sabbath. God instructed Aaron to kill the Israelite soldier who had infringed on the command not to loot the ruins of Jericho along with his family and servants and their animals.
Mosaic law (as interpreted) forbade a Jew to rescue his cow if it fell into a well on a Sunday, leaving it to die and foul the well.
Jesus pointed out the folly of this and would have been excommunicated if he had physically done so.
So there you are, Jesus would have been excommunicated from the religious body to which he belonged because he warned that the Law may be an ass in certain cicumstances.
An informed and educated conscience is our guard and shield when we are confronted with the situation where the Law is an ass.This raises the question as to whether individuals are sufficiently well educated to use this shield. If they are not, a significant part of the responsibility must fall on the Church whose mission is to educate its flock so that they may live in the imitation of Christ to the best of their abilities.
It is therefore necesary to not only pay credence to the Law, for this is our guide, but also to be armed with an educated and informed conscience that allows us to put aside the Law when there is a clear need.
The writer of the article has clearly pointed out that critical need for an educated and informed conscience when dealing with the trials of life. You by falling back on the Law as inviolable and sacrosanct, have missed the point.
No wonder excommunication is
No wonder excommunication is met with a mild wave of the hand...the institution & its "rules" which do not take into account that a person can have a fully informed conscience that does not match Church teaching are becoming irrelevant...and quickly.
It's no wonder ex-Catholics are the U.S. 2nd largest "denomination"...or that Mass attendance is down...it comes about when the institution and those who govern it treat those outside institutional government as lost sheep, pathetic know-nothings, unwashed uneducated...
We Catholics are now quite highly educated...and not only in secular studies, but we have masters degrees in theology or divinity, PhDs and DMin's...our education is equal to any cleric...and higher than many. We are a threat because we can think and read and debate and argue and form our own consciences. We have a deep & daily spiritual life that informs our lives, at work, at home, at church.
It's no surprise that so many are "spiritual" but not "religious", if by "religious" we mean toadying to every jot & tittle of whatever the clerics wish to support their power base with at the present moment...we know better...
If RCWP of No America, Inc.
If RCWP of No America, Inc. is considered by anyone to be a part of the RCC we have a case of complete disregard for Canon Law. That's just one case. The problem is, the people who disregard canon law know that they are flaunting the regs of the church and are doing so after full examination of conscience. Now, I'm not for or against the act itself. What I'm against is playing both sides and misrepresenting one's self to the world.
If, for instance, the RCWP folks actually think they are RCC members, then they should accept the regulation of that faith group, not pick what they wish to follow while leading others to do likewise. What sort of "priest" leads others into schism? Instead, they choose a Rosa Parks-type of protest action and sink to political levels rather than taking the high moral ground. And what about going into a church anonymously and 'taking communion' as if one is still in communion after deliberately getting oneself excommunicated? Isn't that a bad moral example to others? If the Eucharist is supposed to be restricted to those who meet all the regulation, why don't we simply change Paul's words on the Eucharist from "Take and eat this, all of you..." to "Receive this, those of you who are in agreement with Canon Law"?
The church ought to get back to leading and teaching people a lived-faith instead of playing the big institution role with its governmental aspects more visible than its shared faith experience. Just look at what is being discussed on this site and you can see how the practice of faith has deteriorated into politics and catch-phrase issues!
If black Americans followed
If black Americans followed your kind of reasoning, we'd still have poll taxes, voter reading tests, "colored" water fountains, ad nauseum.
Civil disobedience helped bring about the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts to ensure equal rights under law.
There is nothing wrong with ecclesial disobedience, especially in a church that proclaims itself to be "Catholic", when its ordained ministries do not officially reflect the catholicity of its membership.
Civil rights protesters knew full well they were (in your words) "flaunting the regs" in order to attain a higher good.
Roman Catholic Womenpriests is pursuing this same strategy to attain a higher good within the Church of Rome.
As usual, Ron Modras is
As usual, Ron Modras is wonderfully lucid about the bishops' increasingly ridiculous use of excommunication as a punitive measure. How about spending some time on listening to the Spirit and reviewing moral theology on the primacy of (informed) conscience!
Excellent article. Thanks
Excellent article. Thanks
Thank you for this very clear
Thank you for this very clear and helpful commentary.
I wait on God to see how this will ultimately be resolved.
I have the courage to speak and I applaud those who challenge
the bishops to conversion and reconciliation.
Well done: well thought out
Well done: well thought out and well expressed.
This is a good,
This is a good, thought-provoking essay on the issue from various contexts.
With regard to women's ordination I'd like to remind the author and his readers that the "automatic excommunication" hammer was supposed to fall not only on those ordained, but those who partake in any way in the ritual. We've heard of some women participants incurring episcopal excommunication in addition to ordinandi. We've also heard of Fr. Roy Bourgeois, MM who not only was present as participant but who gave a homily. As far as I or anyone else in my conversational/cyber sphere knows, this priest is still a MM in good standing and without having had to acknowledge the "automatic excommunication". Is this just another instance of dominate the female/coddle the male (cf above references to the abortion anecdotes and its handling in the case of male/female), especially a cleric. Logically pray tell, why should ANYONE who advocates for women's ordination or who celebrates with those who answer God's call in this manner, have to take their medicine? The application is patently nonsensical and random. Is it any wonder this method, like the moral authority of European & USA bishops doesn't phase most people ny more?
I remember Elizabeth
I remember Elizabeth Schüssler-Fiorenza saying that when people ask her why she does not leave the Catholic Church if she is so unhappy with the pope (then, JP2), she answers, that it is the Pope who should leave the Church.
Our hierarchy is straying more and more away from the Gospel...
As to the 'cafeteria Catholics', maybe they feel like St Teresa of Avila who called herself a 'faithful dissident' ... maybe faithful to the Gospel and dissenting with the hierarchy?
Thank you for a good article. I had no idea about the German Church...
In this day & age
In this day & age excommunication is "truth in advertising." People can & do call themselves anything they want, but claiming a title doesn't make it so; I could go buy a uniform, wear a badge and carry a sidearm, but that doesn't make me a police officer, does it?
Women (and men) ordained in and by the RCWP (Roman Catholic Womenpriests) movement claim to be Roman Catholic deasons, priests & bishops, ordained by Roman Catholic bishops standing in apostolic succession. They claim to be ordained in the ceremony, prayers & rubrics listed in the Roman Ritual.
When the local Ordinary of the Roman Catholic Church excommunicates those people who assert valid ordination & subsequently claim & exercise sacerdotal ministry, its simply the Roman Catholic Church saying "No, you aren't what you claim to be, Catholics be warned." Of course members of the RCWP movement know this.
I don't see what the big deal here is. Any Catholic who is "ordained" in a Christian community without what it regards as apostolic succession and valid sacraments is also, by virtue of their "ordination," automatically excommunicated.
By way of illustration, how could I simultaneously be a Lutheran pastor and a Catholic layman in good standing? The Catholics wouldn't have me and the Lutherans wouldn't either. RCWP? Same deal.
There is a huge error in the
There is a huge error in the statement above. There are a myriad of people being ordained under valid Apostolic Succession, but not within the contemporary, official Roman lines of succession, that is, not with the RCC institution's approval. All priests who are ordained to any valid lines of succession are valid priests. That includes any lines from any apostle; and today, most of those lines overlap one another so as to be indistinguishable. If you are attempting to say that the only valid lines of succession are those under the current RCC powers that be, you are very much misinformed.
Evidently, your concern is whether or not one is "Roman Catholic" as opposed to Catholic or validly ordained.
I'm confident, Anonymous,
I'm confident, Anonymous, that I've forgotten more about this issue than most people think they know about it. You can find what the RCC views as a valid apostolic succession, priesthood and sacraments in the RCC, the national Churches of Eastern Orthodoxy, the national Churches of Oriental Orthodoxy, the Polish National Catholic Church in the United States, and among the male clerics of the Union of Utrecht to name just a few places.
Things get dicey when you look at the many, many, many, many offshoots of so-called "Old Catholicism" in the U.S. and elsewhere. Few of them are in communion with each other, much less the Union of Utrecht. Any one ordained in such a body who wants to become a Roman Catholic would first have to put their ministry away. After becoming Roman Catholic, they would have to be vetted on an individual basis before being allowed to be a catechist or lector, much less exercise any sacerdotal ministry. Absolute ordination is the rule, and conditional ordination would be the rare exception indeed.
Having a real call to minister in the Church's name, and having the inestimable privilege of being set apart for that ministry by the "laying on of hands" is for the Church to judge through its duly appointed leaders.
Professor Modras is likely
Professor Modras is likely going to get excommunicated for writing this. Making one's dissent public in this institution is contrary to Christ, who broke with conventional institutions all the time during his ministry on Earth.
It looks like those of us who really care about the role of the laity are being shunted aside, It's too bad, a lot of worthy contributors, from financial donors in Germany to young people in America, are being told they're not welcome.
Perhaps, the lesson of the man who ate with sinners (Christ) needs some reinforcement amongst these latter-day Pharisees who run the institution today.
I'd like to buy one of those
I'd like to buy one of those excommunication signs for my library. Maybe NCR should start a gift shop and offer such things for sale. I had a friend once who carried one of those old time "I am a Catholic" cards. His read: "I am a very important Catholic. In case of accident, call the Pope."
AMAZING! Right on
AMAZING! Right on Target.
Excommunication now means that a hierarchy of homophobic, sexist, single men, who wear expensive fine ceremonial robes and who live in large fine homes or castles with servants and assistants to do their bidding, no longer believe that the excommunicant to be in solidarity with them. WELL... very few of us are, whether we formally recognize that fact or not.
For the most part, excommunication no longer has much to do with faith or conscience of the one being charged. It has everything to do with control, ego, self-preservation, selfishness, and self-grandisement of a prideful hierarchy, who have been chosen over the years via a closed, secretive, somewhat incestuous process, with no input from the People of God. That is the root of the institutional church's evil and the reason for all of the problems in which it finds itself today.
Last time I checked the bible, Jesus told Peter that Peter was the 'rock' upon which he would build the church. He did not tell Peter that he would run it, or control it, for all time. I believe in women's ordination. My conscience tells me it is right and holy. If that means that I am excommunicated in the eyes of the prideful hierarchy that allowed pedophiles to prey on children for decades, then so be it. These men who claim to lead the church are wrong. (Some of them should probably be arrested for conspiracy against the children.) We should pray for them. They should be forgiven, but we need not follow them or enable them with our support.
Just an observation regarding
Just an observation regarding excommunicating the party who stole or defaced books circa 1440. That was before the invention of the printing press and books were manually copied, passed on from generation to generation. Even using the library would have been a privilege, for these were precious manuscripts and stealing and defacing them would have been considered a major crime for the simple reason they couldn't be replaced. Theft or defacement was comparable to what intellectual theft or plagiarizing another's artistic and intellectual efforts today. Excommunication may have been a bit harsh but what seems to us today to be a fanatical protectionism of these documents was not.
This particular nun was excommunicated not for what she did but who she did it in the name of --abortion is the direct killing of the infant and she was representing a Catholic hospital. She was not just acting as an individual. At the individual level she could well be innocent -- but she was acting in the name of the church when, as an officer at a Catholic hospital, ok'd something that directly opposed Church doctrine. Ordinarily the public announcement of excommunication follows a public act.
As for other dissidents -- including Martin Luther -- their consciences may have indeed been clear and as they stand before God but one can have a clear conscience and still be wrong.
Many of the laity (and clergy) thumb their nose at the idea of excommunication these days -- and probably it does need to be rethought. But these same laity and clergy also need to rethink their attitudes toward authority in the Church.
TRacy writes: "This
TRacy writes:
"This particular nun was excommunicated not for what she did but who she did it in the name of --abortion is the direct killing of the infant and she was representing a Catholic hospital. She was not just acting as an individual. At the individual level she could well be innocent -- but she was acting in the name of the church when, as an officer at a Catholic hospital, ok'd something that directly opposed Church doctrine."
What she did was not directly opposed to Church teaching, but following the fine points of moral theology tempered by mercy for the life of the mother.
She acted as a wiser moral theologian than the bishop. Doubtless she had read the Reverend Father Charles Curran, and considered the lives of all that suffering mother's children.
All suffered and the mother would have died.
No easy way out. No good solution, but the best possible was made, by good Roman CAtholic moral theology.
I'll worry about
I'll worry about excommunication when God excommunicates me! In the meantime, ignore the heinous hierarchy.
A Cafeteria Catholic
I thought that
I thought that excommunication also meant that we as Church can no longer share communion with you (the excommunicated) because you do not believe what we do. So, you are out of our communion with Christ by YOUR OWN CHOICE. Also, you have the right and obligation to follow your own RIGHTLY FORMED (INFORMED) conscience which means that you must learn and obey the teachings of the Church before you can claim that you have the right to do as you please. If you do not accept Church teachings, then you have excommunicated (excluded) yourself from the Church. The result is that, if you choose to reject membership in the Church, you risk the eternal salvation of your immortal soul. The Church only declares (recognizes) what is the result of your choice and action.
RJM says "Of course, the
RJM says "Of course, the Gospel will always be a stumbling block to the world, such that the Church will face resistance in every age"... what a load of horse-s*h * it. The fact, as the article points out, that one can be excommunicated for abortion but not for children being raped shows how morally bankrupt the institutional Church is. Don't drag the Gospel into your moral sewer where up is down and down is up.
I simply don't believe in
I simply don't believe in excommunication. God's grace is in us and all around us. It does not depend on the Institutional Church. It is not parceled out by the Roman Curia to those who keep their rules.
Professor Modras clearly
Professor Modras clearly recognizes that LAETAE SENTENTIAE ("automatic") excommunications are what they are. Agreeing with some other Church professionals, he questions their very existence. Are they helpful or hurtful to the Church and to the Catholic faithful? This is not a "Liberal-Conservative" issue; a very scholarly and traditional lay canonist, Dr. Edward Peters of Sacred Heart Major Seminary, has opined that "...latae sententiae penalties must be eliminated from modern canon law." (cf http://canonlawblog.blogspot.com/) That's a pretty direct statement from a well-respected canonist.
Expulsion from the Christian community was spoken of by St. Paul and by Our Lord himself as a last resort to correct wrong-doers. AUTOMATIC expulsion was not. It is a fair question, and I am glad that Professor Modras has raised it. The question merits serious and thoughtful discussion.
The idea that God is bound by
The idea that God is bound by the utterings, mutterings and blusterings of a dyspeptic bishop when it comes to "excommunication" is laughable!
I for one am a firm believer
I for one am a firm believer in excommunication. As the Queen of hearts was wont to say, "Off with their heads!" It gets the point across. People can ignore it at their own peril. For example all the women who were "ordained" are rightly excommunicated. But I think the bishops who "ordained" them should be excommunicated as well.
Excommunication can also be self imposed. The Mystical Body of Christ includes sinners but not those who sin against the virtue of faith. There are three theological virues. A person can sin against hope & charity & remain within the Mystical Body but if he sins against faith by denying an article of faith such as the prohibition of priestesses, he is outside the Mystical Body from which vantage point there is no salvation.
The women who actually seek ordination are already outside the Mystery Body by their sin against the virtue of faith. The attempt at ordination which makes a mockery of the sacrament is a sacrilege which is actually the crime for which they are excommunicated. The bishop's role in this farce is actually a worse sacrilege.
Paulte do you really and
Paulte do you really and truly believe that a God who is the creative force behind this incredible multi verse, a multi verse which could contain unlimited number of conscious beings, is really small enough to cast one million German Catholics into hell because they don't want to be legally forced to financially support the Church? Or that He condemns people to an eternity of fiery hell over such a thing? Does this really describe the God that Jesus taught us was total love? Or does it really describe a god who is extremely useful to religious authority?
My own God given reason says the small god is all about supporting religious authority.
paulte, please check out Luke
paulte, please check out Luke 15, i.e., the parables of the lost sheep, lost coin, and lost son.
Jesus (speaking on behalf of his Father) excommunicating somebody? Much less damning anybody to hell?
I - don't - think - so.
Thanks, Ron, for the article
Thanks, Ron, for the article calling calling the hierarchy's bluff.
I was excommunicated 30 years ago when I joined the Episcopal Church. A couple of years ago I married my same sex partner of 20 years, which I believe also gets me excommunicated. Am I excommunicated a second time, or just really , really excommunicated for the second offense?
Somewhere in the Episcopal hymnal there's a line that says "..force is not of God." It's a truth these guys in Rome need to understand if they want to be taken seriously as disciples of Jesus.
Gosh, once again I have to
Gosh, once again I have to ask, how many people did Jesus excommunicate? Where did Jesus talk about excommunication? This whole idea of excommunication seems to be man-made. But I am not a bishop, I don't have ALL the answers.
The "truthfulness of
The "truthfulness of revelation is intrinsic to revelation" and thus follows execommunication? I don't recall anything about the Sr. McBride situation discussed in revelation.
I thought that there already
I thought that there already was a canonical penalty attached to unrepentant rapists and murder...what was it again?
oh yeah...they go to hell.
Any of us that sin seriously cut ourselves off from friendship with God and in turn cut ourselves off from our fellow man. We are cut off from the human family, which exists prior to the Church. But offenses worthy of excommunication cut ourselves from the Body of Christ, even when even a tenuous relationship to the wider human family can still exist. Considering that Catholics who support abortion are making definitive statements on the value of a human life which, though protected by law, contradicts God's revelation, it's fair and just that an ecclesiastical penalty is imposed when a civil law can't be.
In short, I don't think that a formal excommunication from other serious sins is necessary when the spiritual and existential effect is the same as excommunication.
I'm not saying Sr Margret McBride acted in violation of her conscience, but given her background I can assume proper formation. She could not have been unaware that what she was doing was a textbook moral dilemma and that Catholic moral principals led down a difficult road. Personally, I would probably be further troubled if I learned that she felt peaceful about her recommendation. But if she didn't, Ron Madras' argument on the primacy of conscience would become problematic.
Finally, and this is really really important, an excommunication is an invitation to repentance. It means that we have to look at things that seem good to us with honesty, admitting personal sin even in spite of social acceptance. Murderers and rapists are called to repent, so is Sr Margret McBride, so was Martin Luther, so are all of us, so am I.
I seem to recall that St.
I seem to recall that St. Paul said, "Nothing can separate us from the love of God." If that is true, how can there be any such thing as excommunication?
God always loves us, but we
God always loves us, but we turn away from God's love by our sin. That turning away can lead to self excommunication.
The abortion situations cited
The abortion situations cited in this article are truly challenging and heart-rending, and correctly evoke tremendous sympathy. But there is a distinction between something that is an act of God the Creator (a mother's impending death from pulmonary hypterension) and an action taken by man that would "solve" this problem by ripping apart an unborn human baby. Anybody who really thinks about what happens in an abortion cannot approve this excruciating painful killing of an innocent unborn baby, as a means to solve a problem. The moral principles involved in this decision are paramount; when we abandon principle to solve our problems, we surely lose our way.
....and you would have let
....and you would have let both the mother and her baby die?????
Post new comment