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 and is a mission preacher
and adjunct professor at Holy Apostles Seminary in Cromwell, Connecticut.
Jimmy Akin: Are the German Bishops Just Greedy?
Comments
Post a Comment
“The history of excommunication leads to mixed results”
If some didn’t repent, it doesn’t mean excomm. isn’t useful for other reasons, including communicating what Catholics believe. There is a lot of damage done when the Catholic Church refuses to teach. As was said elsewhere, people excommunicate THEMSELVES. It’s best that it is made official.
“The maxim of the law is: Silence gives consent.”
YES!
I want everyone who reads this to pray for the conversion and enlightenment of Melinda Gates.
.
Ms. Gates is Catholic, but she is launching an initiative to spread the culture of death throughout the world. I honestly believe she wants to serve God, but she is gravely in error and her initiative as planned will do much harm. Therefore, I ask all of you to pray for her.
.
There is a perfect, morally acceptable solution to her problem. The Billings Ovulation Method was discovered by two married Catholic doctors and designed to be a method of family planning that is both morally acceptable and can be used by every woman in the world, regardless of education, income, or reproductive status. After initial education, it is completely free. After the initial instruction, further education can be done woman to woman, with mothers teaching their daughters, generation after generation. Pray that Ms. Gates she will learn about it and embrace it.
.
Saul the Pharisee was a strict and zealous pharisee and this mistaken zeal for God made him persecute the Church. But while he was on his way to Damascus to further persecute the Church, Jesus spoke to him. He became St. Paul the Apostle, Christianity’s greatest missionary and theologian.
.
Pray that Melinda Gates stop “holding the cloaks” of the culture of death and use her good intentions to spread God’s truth instead. We are called to love our enemies, and I ask all of you to love Ms. Gates through prayer.
Politicians who act against Church teaching in the public forum may be leading others to follow their example. If the politician has been warned and counseled by the Church then what can be done if they persist? If nothing is done then are the bishops guilty of not protecting their flock by allowing what may be seen by others as allowable for them also.
Excommunication as a Restorative Measure
I appreciate the article written by Father Brian Mullady discussing excommunication and toleration of heretics within the Church. Large scale heretics such as Martin Luther, Henry the VIII and Elizabeth I, are much different from our current Church situation. They were strong leaders with political power and aspirations. There were also issues about indulgences, alleged extravagance of Church leaders, religious persecution- all of which caused momentum for the masses to ignore threats of excommunication by the Church.
We have a problem now where the Church has been overly tolerant with people who generated ideas about free conscience during the past fifty years. This toleration has resulted in a large number of fallen away Catholics who are committing the scandal of sacrilegious reception of Holy Communion by persisting in heretic behavior. Bishops now need to seriously consider utilizing excommunication to fight this abuse.
The Holy See in its wisdom issued Canons 915 and 1339. Many of the US Bishops did not sign on to these canons for various reasons despite the fact that they provide the Church approved mechanism to help Bishops improve discipline. Persons who are heretics are to be counseled, helped to correct their error and to return to the Church after rehabilitation. They also should be publicly identified if they persist in their error. Regarding the Bishops’ reluctance to use these tools if I must make a choice my allegiance remains with Rome.
I don ‘t think this treatment encourages people to abandon the Church permanently. Most often the obstacle to their repatriation is that they develop long term habits with serous faults that they choose not to correct. Permanent career or marriage changes can also make returning to the Church impossible.
I believe that when the government states it is at war with the Catholic Church the negotiating position of the Church must harden. One way to do this is to threaten excommunication to Catholic legislators who do not to support the Church on public policy. A Catholic legislator can not be allowed to have two opinions on legislation- one for his Catholic conscience and a second for his supporters. If this were allowed there would be no reason for the Church and Catholics to try to elect Catholic legislators.
As an example Cardinal Dolan has followed a gentle approach to prevent the Governor of New York from instituting same sex marriage. The Governor defied the Cardinal and initiated the Same Sex marriage law. To my knowledge there was no excommunication or public chastisement for the governor’s behavior. My opinion is the gentle approach does not work.
When you wrote “The cause for excommunication is explicitly ‘obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin’ (c. 915)” are you saying that a reason for excommunication is given in Canon 915? Canon 915 specifies that the minister shall deny Holy Communion to those who have been excommunicated. Cardinal Raymond Burke had written about canon 915, and he says that denying Communion, as in canon 915, is not a penalty. It is a protection for the Eucharist and a prevention of scandal. He writes about the serious confusion regarding canon 915. See Note below.
I look forward to the day when our Catholic leaders in the U.S. do anything to confront any grave manifest sin in a public way. As a post-Vatincan-II Catholic, nearly all of my peers are morally ignorant, teaching another generation to follow in the same path.
Burke, Ramond L, Archbishop. Canon 915: The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin. Periodica De Re Canonica. vol. 96 (2007) pag. 3-58 <http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/denial.htm>
You think the way the humans so….
We are asked to be faithful, not successful.
Excommunication has no punitive measure. It iis protecting His precious blood from throwing Him into darkness of the sinner. It requires great faith from the Eucharistic minister, which he/she usually has not. Why would they have if even our priests, Bishops, and even Cardinals are afraid of proclaiming the Truth, and defending Christ regardless of consequences. Their desire to be seen as nice and gentle misses the point for they are asked to be good. Being good will hurt.
Taking sandals off and shaking the dust is not punishment as well. It has the same character as planting the Seed. We plant, Christ grows. If you are afraid of planting the seed (excommunicate) then Christ will have nothing to water. You are simple even more unprofitable servant. Now it is not an intellectual act. It is based on our heart and as much we love Christ. If we do not love Him then there met be a sin in our hearts, that darkens our spiritual eye and keeps us from the Light and the Truth. There is only one remedy. And it works. Confess, repent, be holy as Your Heavenly Father is Holy.
I am a strong believer in this discipline. If you intend to call yourself Catholic, then, live the faith and accept the tenets. If one cannot do this in conscience, then, one should find another faith that meets their needs. There is no force to Catholicism; one is always free to choose other faiths. Mediocrity is a terrible thing; and unfortunately it has moved into our faith in terrible ways. We as priests have done a terrible job in the education of the faithful; and our spiritual instructions in seeking God through the Church are at least minimal.
When 57 per cent of Catholics do not think their religious freedom would be violated by the mandate, then, you have 57 percent who are not totally aware of the teachings of the Church.
If you have 46 percent who do not believe in the Real Presence; then, you must decide for a revolution in the educating of the faith through the Catechism of the Faith; or let those who do not believe and speak against the teachings of the Church know that they are automatically cut off from the reception of the Sacraments.
I believe in tolerance, but, I also believe strong in discipline. Some think excommunication is a rough road to pass on , but there have been many strong Bishops in the past who had not problem in doing this. .ie, Bishop Cody of New Orleans pertaining to the segregation problem in New Orleans. It takes courage and a teacher to correct the problem at hand.
We seemingly don’t want to do this because somehow in our thinking we have become afraid to “offend” when truth is at hand.
Infunde amorem cordibus!
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.