Why excommunicate people? Is this not a strange holdover from the medieval Church? Excommunication is a punitive device on the part of the Church and is more than merely denying holy Communion. It also publicly rebukes and shames the person.
The cause for excommunication is explicitly “obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin” (Canon 915). However, a case could certainly be made that the punishment of excommunication could also be attached to “rebuke a person from whose behavior there arises scandal or serious disturbance of order in a manner accommodated to the special conditions of the person and the deed” (Canon 1339, Paragraph 2).
The Church takes this extreme measure only after all other efforts to correct a person have failed. It should not be treated lightly. Some have viewed it as a way to bring errant Catholics (including Catholic politicians) into line. Though its intent is always to restore the offenders to truth and communion, its extreme nature often makes it unlikely that such a thing may occur. Failing reconciliation, excommunication can serve as a clear statement to the faithful of the serious nature of our moral doctrine.
There have been a number of difficulties that have arisen in the Church in the United States recently that have prompted both bishops and laity to investigate the possibility of the use of excommunication to seek to restore Church discipline. These have ranged from in-house Church matters like rebellion of parishioners against pastors to revisiting what possible reaction the Church can employ towards politicians who publicly and without compunction dissent from Church teaching on matters like same-sex “marriage” or abortion.
The history of excommunication leads to mixed results. In the early Church, St. Ambrose, the bishop of Milan, used the threat of excommunication against Emperor Theodosius I for his massacre of 7,000 people in Thessalonica. He told the emperor to imitate David in his repentance and readmitted him to Communion after several months of penance.
In the Middle Ages, Pope Gregory VII excommunicated Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV over many disputed issues, not least of which was Henry’s attempt to depose Gregory from the papacy. In his excommunication, Gregory also absolved Henry’s subjects from obedience. Henry’s excommunication produced a deep effect on both Germany and Italy.
In response, Henry was forced to come to Canossa and wait in the snow for three days; he did penance and was ultimately absolved from the excommunication. In medieval Europe, where almost everyone was Catholic, the emperor needed the Church, and so excommunication was effective.
A contemporary example of a positive result of excommunication occurred in 2010, when Mercy Sister Margaret McBride incurred automatic excommunication for her role in an abortion that was performed at a Catholic hospital in Phoenix. As of September 2011, a statement from the Sisters of Mercy reported that Sister Margaret has “met the requirements for reinstatement with the Church and she is no longer excommunicated.”
On the other hand, the excommunication of Martin Luther, Henry VIII and Elizabeth I had little effect personally or on their followers. The use of this as a weapon created sympathy for the offender and often led to a more solid backing of dissent. The Renaissance was a very different time in the life of the Church, and people did not take excommunication as seriously. Like every punishment, if used too much, too often or for reasons which are trivial or self-serving, as was certainly the case for many of the excommunications imposed by the Church in her history, people simply ignore it.
Today, many politicians could well look on excommunication as an asset to re-election, especially if the press looked upon such an “attack” as un-American. Also, a patchwork of action by a few bishops across the country would have little effect. The hierarchy would have to address errant politicians in a coordinated effort and be prepared to ultimately invoke more serious sanctions, with full realization that the Church could be perceived as un-American.
Obviously then, excommunication must be used with great prudence. The purpose of all punishment is the amendment of the offender and the consolation and peace of the faithful. Public dissent from Church teaching and scandalous libel of the clergy can lead to conditions in which the faithful may perceive a given doctrinal aberration to be true or experience great distress. The maxim of the law is: Silence gives consent. If a group of the faithful is causing scandal by supporting teachings or laws contrary to the natural law or by seriously disturbing the peace of the parish or the diocese, it could appear that the Church agrees with their position. Of course, one should attempt many actions to bring about reconciliation short of excommunication. Pastors are not tyrants, but shepherds, and all reasonable attempts must be made to enlist parishioners as partners.
As an example of action short of excommunication, in a very prudent and thoughtful letter to parishioners who were inciting others to hatred of the clergy and their bishop, while not directly mentioning the sanction of excommunication, Bishop Robert Morlino of the Diocese of Madison, Wis., appended texts from Church documents that suggest the possibility of ecclesiastical censure. One such: “Canon 1373: A person who publicly incites among subjects animosities or hatred against the Apostolic See or an ordinary because of some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry or provokes subjects to disobey them is to be punished by an interdict or other just penalties.” Though the Church is respectful of disagreement, there are times when disagreement becomes calumny or can lead to the impression of moral relativism, a situation that the peace and public order of the Church cannot tolerate.
It is true that there are many Catholics in the United States who dissent from Church teaching on a number of matters, especially moral ones. For dissenters deeply involved in the public forum, failure on the part of Church authorities to provide some needed corrective is tantamount to carte blanche to the faithful to believe whatever they want. The impression is given that the truths of our religion are a smorgasbord from which one can pick and choose.
To be sure, if excommunication were used there would be many who would ignore it. On the other hand, to remain silent would suggest that even Church authorities do not take their own teaching seriously. Those who obstinately support causes like same-sex “marriage,” birth control and abortion should be ecclesiastically censured. This would include Catholic college professors who advocate such causes. Otherwise the Church runs the risk of being neither hot nor cold, but seeming to adapt doctrine to political or social expediency.
Though it is true that the Church does not have a political mission, prudence is not the same as avoiding trouble. In fact, where defense of truth is concerned, it is just the opposite. The Church does have the obligation to form the public conscience on correct teaching in both doctrine and morals for the sake of clarity and to avoid scandal, but a coordinated effort by the hierarchy would be essential.
Dominican Father Brian Mullady has a doctorate in sacred theology. He is a mission preacher and adjunct professor at Holy Apostles Seminary in Cromwell, Connecticut.
View Comments
Comments
Join the Discussion
As a divorced and remarried Catholic it pains me to see some of the very brief, cut and dry, responses here. I was called back to practice my faith and attend Mass almost daily. I go to Confession regularly. I am a changed person. I know the real presence of Christ in Holy Eucharist and participate in regular devotions. I have petitioned for annulment of my first marriage but it is unlikely my current situation will improve as I married a non-Catholic who was previously divorced and unwilling to enter this process regarding his own status. While religious and lay pastoral counselors have stated receiving Communion is a matter of conscience, I have read the post synodal exhortation on the Eucharist and am aware of the Holy Father’s concern for incorrect teaching in this regard. My answer to those I confide in is that I do not want to harm anyone in their position of trust within the Church. God bless you all for your time and concern. I will continue to pray that my Church will find compassion for those like me who have been rescued and trust in His divine mercy, and are heeding the call as Catholics to come home.
Michael, your post seems reasonable, but I would add the caveat; why excommunicate anyone. The church has the right and duty to expostulate its position on all moral matters. We have a similar duty to our conscience,whether the church agrees or not. Politicians are in an immensely difficult sell between their religious beliefs and corresponding duties to the citizenry. It is not a simple matter of whether the church hierarchy is pleased. To reinstate, a primitive historical matter is sadly unfortunate, to rationalize it as sane is even worse. It is high time, and for the sake of the church, that its will does not prevail over all…particularly with a culturally diverse nation.
We may differ, but we may not disrespect contrary opinions, stating the church is absolute in its voice on morality. The legacy of the church is proof otherwise. To those who wish to affirm excommunication, the word on them is to ‘grow up’.
I think this is an excellent article. One of the difficulties with the use of excommunication, as the writer alludes to, is the abritary nature of its use. However, as he mentions, the Church cannot remain silent on moral issues. I believe that a “coordinated effort by the hierarchy would be essential ” is a logical approach. The problem with a coordinated approach by the hierarchy is that it is unlikely that the hierarchy could agree on what should be censured. He suggests that those that publicly support homosexual marriage, contraception and abortion should be censured. But what about those who publicly support or engage in war ? To give an example, in World War 2 the millions of Catholic soldiers in the German and Italian armies were never excommunicated. They were never even prohibited from receiving communion. Yet they participated ( along with their fellow Protestant soldiers ) in mass murder, rape and the destruction of most of Europe. Our own recent wars are certainly morally questionable. Half the Christian population of Iraq is either dead or living as refugees. It is difficult to argue that someone should be excommunicated for suppporting contraception but not excommunicated for supporting the killing of another human. This is the difficulty the hierarchy faces. They could excommunicate those who support homosexual marriage, contraception and abortion. In the case of abortion, they would be well jusitified since abortion involves the destrucion of human life. However, then they would be in the tenous moral position of ignoring the next war, when the United States government decides to invade another country ( probably Iran, but possible even Pakistan ). People who oppose war in our country are usually viewed as disloyal or even traitors and it is unlikely that the hierarchy would be willing to be seen as Un
American.
When will “a coordinated effort by the hierarcy” happen?
You can also view this as another step toward reintituting the Inquisition when the vaunted magisterium burned people at the stake.
The culture of relativism at its best! You are probably right. Why excommunicate anyone just to save a few souls!?!
Fr. Brian, the hierarchy defintely needs to be excommunicated—the bishops who covered up for and enabled pedophiles to continuing abusing children for decades are decidely guilty of obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin.
As for politicians, any action by the RCC against Catholic politicans who do not vote the way the bishops want would be a big mistake on the part of the RCC. It would be an interference in the goverance of the United States. The RCC is too quick to use threatened excommunication and to threaten the withholding of sacraments as club, as weapon to coerce RC politicans. We ive in the US, and our elected office holders represent ALL their constitutents—Catholics, Christians, Jews, Muslim, etc. Bullying RC politicans by the RCC is interference in the rights of all Americans to be represented by those they elect to office. The RCC needs to leave RC politicans alone to do the job they were elected to do.
Greg,
There is a house of “blessed be abortion”; but it is not The Father’s House.
This is the twenty-first century, not the thirteenth. There is no such thing as excommunication. That is not a Catholic response. In my Father’s house there are many mansions. Just because we who have different opinions than the officials in charge doesn’t mean we are any “less Catholic” and that our opinions don’t count. To excommunicate means to stop the discussion. Without discussion, we close our minds. When we close our minds, we close our hearts. That’s not the message we’re suppose to be sending to the rest of the world.
To CatholicByChoice…..........I totally agree with your post!
Amen RAP! And thanks for that posting! Whenever I hear the subject of excommunication discussed, I most frequently hear the response from the church leaders to be “well these people excommunicate themselves by their actions and statements.” Problem is, these very public people do not appear to be aware that they have excommunicated themselves, and therefore someone needs to TELL them they are excommunicated. I think it would be fair and merciful for the Church to adopt a habit of excommunicating defiant, non-repentant individuals who would then be reconsidered as candidates for entry into the Church ONLY AFTER they have undergone the full RCIA requirements (no waiving the rules for the “important, powerful” people). I think this would be showing mercy in so many significant ways…not only to the wayward Catholic, but to all those who have been misinformed and misled by their very public statements of incorrect Catholic teachings. I wish the Bishops could understand that these people are intentionally damaging the church because it does not agree with their individual beliefs. These very public figures have shown the Catholic church no mercy.
I am grateful for those strong Bishops who have taken a stand and who seek to teach and guide their fellow Bishops. What the Catholic Church needs now is to adopt continuity and consistency in its teaching from the top down.
Was it “prudent” of Christ to drive out the money lenders from the Temple? Probably not because it aided in his death. But was it necessary?
The Fact of the matter is the bishops prolonged silence on this matter creates much of the chaos now and aids people into sin. Usually, they are not coming out and saying X is wrong in saying this - this is not Catholic doctrine. No is is more of I “do not know the heart of X.” with little to nothing said of the actual teachings of the Church and how it is a grave sin. As for the prudence aspect, I seriously doubt if the bishops in 1973 started lopping off those politicians who supported Roe v. Wade there would be any talk of “unamerican” because it is a very clear teaching of the Church and one that was not watered down by their chosen silence. The bishops would have just been enforcing the law. And even if there were those sects that did scream, it would have died down. I am inclined to think the same thing would happen now although it will take a lot more effort - - - and as you said probably a unified force. But it is woefully wrong to allow and beget this scandal to continue. It leads so many people astray. It leads so many people to think that Catholics condone abortion and like and then do it. This 30 + year policy is not working. It is time to be called “unamerican” and start cutting off the snake head - - - although personally I am inclined to think being called unamerican would not happen: it would be “the right wing extremists.” The Know Nothings are a dwindling group; everyone knows via the “catholic” politicians, we do not answer to the Pope or God, for that matter.
Percy, name names. Who are you talking about?
A long post and 30-some comments, and not one cite of Mt 18.
“But if your brother shall offend against you, go, and rebuke him between you and him alone. If he shall hear you, you shall gain your brother. And if he will not hear you, take with you one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to you as the heathen and publican.” (Douay)
I view this as a 3-part “sieve” for wayward Christians. One who is sifted out of levels one or two is still on a Christian course. The third step is excommunication or disfellowshipping. (The two words, from different roots, have the same meaning.) And don’t forget the Christian attitude, Gal 6:1.
Does the RCC ever use this in its procedures? It would have dealt with your Lefebvres and Kungs early on, if applied.
I believe that Mr. Walter Rogers could do well with a courser in scriptural theology.
Breath Percy, I don’t want you to die waiting. :)
So, I await with breathless anticipation the medicinal penalties to be meted out to Catholic politicians who have openly embraced pre-emptive war and consequentialist rationalizations for torture in the War on Terror. I mean, these are things that are actually done by, and under the direction of, our politicians (as opposed to things that are done by private individuals), so the moral nexus is much, MUCH higher for these issues.
If these issues are going to be elided, then proceeding on others is a fool’s errand.
To Irishsmile….well said! It is an act of love to admonish the sinner!
As a Catholic parent, I learned never to threaten a child over their unacceptable conduct unless I was prepared to carry the punishment through. I did however, with parental charity, enforce the rules because if I didn’t, my erring child would suffer the consequences of the wrong/bad act. I did this out of love for them and my desire to protect my children. Allowing evil actions for the sake of “dialogue” is destroying our children and grandchildren. Encouraging dissenting Theologians, professors and ‘sisters’to trash Catholic teachings on life and sex is literally destroying a large part of the next generation of Catholic youth. We are all responsible for our children both parents and clergy. Of my five adult children, only one is a hostile, fallen away Catholic…. and he was a product of Jesuit education.
KC Thomas, the church definately has a ‘set of teachings’ and rightfully so…but ‘faith’ in them. Faith is a belief for which there is no empirical evidence. ‘Trust’ would be the word of usage, but ‘trust’ must be earned. No one should renounce catholicism on your word or anyone else’s. Some correctly believe that the hierarchy has usurped the church, and demand in the name of ‘magisterium’ that all thinking be abandoned in favor of non thinking. In earnest, Christ did not find any church. He did not even know what a church was. Christ went to a temple, was born, educated and executed as a Jew.
One problem with a blog such as this is ‘preaching to the choir’ or ‘listening to the choir’. There is a lack of alternative opinion accepted…as such what prevails is ‘epistemic closure’ or taking a trip on the ‘Mobius strip’.
Excommunication is a primitive relic…postulating a position of anti-intellectualism, anti-science and its intolerance to new knowledge reveals a brain of ‘tangled messes of irrational thoughts’.
Pesqueria, it’s not the Catholic Church’s fault, or the fault of certain Catholics, that it is usually people in the Democrat party who are in favor of the legal killing of babies. If you want to call the issue of murder “political,” you will end up giving every issue over to almighty “politics.”
The Catholic Church has a set of teachings and the catholics are supposed to have faith in them. If people do not want to believe in some teachings and do not want to adhere to them,they should renounce catholicism Politicians like Biden who encourage gay marriage, homosexuality etc should look into their own heart and conscience and become ready to quit. Otherwise the Church will become a field for multi cultural, multi faith organisation. Christ did not establish such a cosmopolitan ideology church. He said ” I am the Truth the Way and the Life “
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-12/patrick-power-joins-lateline/4067182
Do you think this Australian Bishop should be excommunicated? I do. Look at the link to an interview he gave on the national broadcaster the ABC.
One can argue for or against excommunication, as there are points on both sides. How to deal with some catholics like
1 those who does not believe in Church teachings but have family and live as normal dutiful people
2 those who go on accusing the Church and clergy and do not attend Mass any time, but allowing freedom to other family members
3 those who preach anti-catholicism in theology and its administration and do not allow family to practice
Those who are for and against excommunication will please indicate the procedure to deal with them, in consonance with Church teachings
The time for pruning has come!! And more catechesis!!
It will likely come to excommunication for some.
Father Brian,
Thank you. This essay is a very good.
If I may make a suggestion: please use the word “contraception” instead of “birth control”. Birth control is a nebulous expression. Indeed it has come to mean “no control and no babies” in our culture, but the phrase is not descriptive enough. Contraception is exact in meaning: to act against the beginning, the demand for sex without a thought to children, a making of the child as enemy, the spirit of abortion…. and contradiction in the total self giving between man and wife in Holy Matrimony.
God Bless
Jesuitical graduate: the opening line doesn’t say that. A basic question: on your never-ending quest for truth, do you think you ever find any truth? If/when you do, what do you do with it?
Without a doubt there is a growing faction within the Catholic Church that wishes to use Catholic policies for politic purposes. You can recognize them by their repeated finger pointing at political figures of a particuliar party. I question the motives of these “catholics”. It appears their motivation are as much grounded in politics as they are in christian beliefs and practices. Being equally committed to both a far right political ideology and Catholic beliefs and pratices, I question for whom they actually speak. When committed to an ideology one often will defend the mistruths of that ideology more rigorously then the truths. This places their respective opinions into a questionable judgement. To allow “catholics"such as these to hold sway or influence in such matters of excommunication would be a political action as much as anything else.
The job of all bishops and clergy is the salvation of souls. The politicians who go against church teachings should at least be told by their bishop not to receive Holy Communion. This is causing scandal.
It is so easy, when one does not have to take responsibility for the results, to declare that such and such an action needs to be done. As Father Mullady notes, there are times where an action is not only not effective, but works to produce a worse problem than the action was intended to cure.
Further aggravating the problem is the fact that almost all of the corrective measures a bishop can apply are done out of the public eye; the bishop may be doing everything in his power to correct the individual but the public sees none of it.
What is needed far more than a few excommunications is clear teaching in each an every parish those truths which the Church holds, in clear and convincing ways. Too many Catholics, even those loyal to the Magesterium could all too easily see excommunications as a political ploy.
The Church, by not excommunicating certain individuals is not in any way “giving a death sentence to the pits of hell” to any individual. That individual, if they are indeed heading to hell,is personally choosing hell. Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and Kathleen Sebelius were all raised at a time that the Church still taught right from wrong clearly.
Thank you Father. I’ve been pulling my hair out trying to get overly zealous, pro-abortion Catholics excommunicated, but to no avail. My first attempt was then Gov. Bill Ritter in Denver Colorado. In a direct communication with Archbishop Chaput, not only did he claim I was being insensitive and disrespectful, he told me I should pray on the matter and reform “my ways”. I have no other response except WTF!?! He wrote to me as if I were a child and could not understand the nature of my request. The situation clearly warranted the governors excommunication, but instead, I was clearly the problem.
Thank you for bringing this into the light. Clearly, we have Archbishops that need to be “persuaded” because they refuse to uphold the Magisterium of our beloved Church. This is the fundamental problem with our faith today. It’s not the lay Catholics, it’s the hierarchy. I hope you don’t suffer any backlash for this article, but don’t hold your breath.
To fail to excommunicate public sinners, for instance, those who actively and publically promote gay marriage and abortion, as elected Catholic politians do (I am saddled with three of them in Washington State), seems to show the faithful that the Church has no moral standards. For what could one actually get excommunicated after attempts to convert the person’s view back to Church teachings? And how long does it take to make every effort to bring a person back to the fold? Years have gone by with Maria Cantwell, Patty Murray, Christine Gregoire, and Nancy Pelosi ( a shame to women that they seems to be the worst in the name of women’s “reproductive rights.) spouting anti-Catholic views and voting in ways that do not represent the Church’s moral standard or the wishes of their constituents and yet all the while vocally proclaiming to be faithful Catholics. They are what I call cathlicino - catholic in name only. They are a scandal to the Church. Something should be done to these and others who give public scandal repeatedly. Otherwise, what are the faithful to think?
The terrifying situation is that the body of the Church no longer has ‘white blood cells’ to fight infection. It is like being ‘charitable’ to the AIDS virus. Clear and open defiance of the Magisterium of the Church along with the teaching of rank heresies make a human being into the equivalent of a ‘Typhoid Mary’ - a bearer of deadly infection that must be ‘quarantined’ from the Body of Christ. The personal salvation of the individual becomes a separate matter entirely. The confusion of the prophylactic measure of excommunication with the personal matter of charity and the individual soul is indeed a ‘devil’s stratagem’.
“...with full realization that the Church could be perceived as un-American.”
With great respect, I think this is where Catholics are becoming confused about who they are, and this is where we are going wrong.
I believe Catholics should have a clear view of themselves as being Catholic FIRST AND FOREMOST. We should not weigh whether Church actions are “American” or not. We should be Catholic BEFORE we are American, BEFORE we are Republican or Democrat. BEFORE all other considerations. Being Catholic is what informs our decisions and actions FIRST.
Are we the American Catholic Church? Or the universal Catholic Church? This state of confusion concerning Catholic identity is where the enemy is gaining great strides and influence in our church.
If a person needs an operation, a good doctor that cares for his patient, will not be concerned about saving ‘face’ nor be worried about what others will think or say, but, will tell the person, that this is a matter of life or death and this needs to be done, now!! For the Church to sit back and do nothing to a person that is NOT obedient to the Teachings of the Church, is not only giving the death sentence to the pits of hell for that person, but, is also helping to lead others into the same damnation, and as we can clearly see by the fruits of the USCCB and it’s lack of Men of God, we now have OBAMANISM as the law of the land and far too many ‘catholic’ politicians, starting with the late and not great, JFK, doing whatever feels good. We will always have confused people such as ANON, who will not check their facts, nor be able to see as God wants us to see, but, only as man sees or thinks. Surgery is needed and now!!! +JMJ+
The first paragraph of Father Mullady nails it. Indeed ‘excommunication is a primitive relic of the past. Just when I thought such actions were a buried part of the past a present day priest resurrects them. There is no issue with the church expressing its posture on any matter from the pulpit or its opinion as to how it stands. America is a nation of cultural diversity respecting ‘free thinking’ not expurgating it. There can be no growth and change without theological dissent. To continue the heritage of the Middle Ages with no tolerance, fixed and unchanging adherence to Natural Law Philosophy is a refusal to acknowledge the findings of science and other new learning. It fails to accomodate such knowledge. The legacy from Pius X is an obstinancy and recalcitrance taking ‘modernism’ back to the Middle Ages. The article only encourages further church ‘bullying’ focusing on ‘authority and power’ rather than an eternal quest for truth…unfortunately nothing more than a series of rationalizations awakening a corrupted history.
So, let’s get on with the excommunication of Sr. Farley.
Amen, Anon.
Isn’t there such a thing as self-excommunication for consistent egregious
behavioral situations? If so, what form does it take?
I think that failure to act in cases where a extremely “quotable” public figure who is almost daily eschewing Church teaching and doctrine while proclaiming “devout Catholicism” is not only sad, but a grave scandal to the faithful of the Church; not to mention the confusion it causes Protestants who scratch their heads in confusion over what the Church teachings really are in light of such blatant public disobedience. I would think that the longer it is allowed unchecked, the more culpability the presiding priest and bishop share in the scandal.
FINALLY. I’ve been wanting an article like this. It explains why bishops might be withholding this penalty and doesn’t diminish the harm being done by people like these politicians. I’d like to see more articles like this.
The Church is SO far behind on meaningfully and publicly correcting those who very publicly teach falsehoods about Catholic Church teachings, including politicians. It is true that it’s easy to see how excommunicating a Pelosi, for instance, could do some harm. But I really want to believe that it would do more GOOD.
Serious consideration should be given to excommuncating persistent advocates of abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. such as Biden, Pelosi, Sebellius, Kennedy, etc. These are persons in powerful positions with great influence. As a Catholic, I am tired of having their opinions touted as the truths of my religion. Be Confrontational! St. John the Baptist must be screaming down from Heaven for the Magisterium to defend Our Lord’s teachings.
Fr. Mullady, this does not address a latae sententiae excommunication. Could you write an article about it? Perhaps you could discuss the impact of Satis Cognitum on excommunication.
Thanks.
Well, it takes more than obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (c. 915) in order to be excommunicated which, as the author states at the outset but then seems to forget, is a different matter than the denial of Holy Communion. In order to be excommunicated or given any ecclesiastical penalty, the person has to culpably violate a law/precept which also threatens a penalty cf. c. 1321). Lots of grave sins do not have any connection to an ecclesiastical penalty (such as adultery or profaning the Name of God or…).
The problem with excommunication is the select and prejudiced way it is used. A sever sanction is used against a priest who “suggests” that we ought to study ordaining women. Compare that to the actions against the corrupt, child rapist who headed the Legionaires. What evil he perpetrated! Or again, Cardinal Law oversaw the huge abuse scandal in Boston and enabled those abusers for years, passing them on to unsuspecting parishes. He got a plush asignment in Rome and membership on several curial congregations. Last time I heard he was being driven about rome by a driver and in a limo.
Join the Discussion
We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words. By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines. Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words. Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.
Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.