Excommunication is the most severe penalty the Catholic Church can impose upon its members, but it is sometimes necessary as a matter of simple justice.
Writing in the National Catholic Register, Father Brian Mullady makes the point well. Acknowledging that many regard excommunication as a “strange holdover from the medieval Church,” he explains why it remains as valid as ever, and can actually serve as an act of mercy: “Its intent is always to restore the offenders to truth and communion.” Dr. Edward Peters, canon lawyer and author of Excommunication and the Catholic Church, concurs, while correcting common misunderstandings people have about the measure. For example, many believe excommunication expels a Catholic from the Church and condemns that person to hell—it does neither (only God can determine a person’s ultimate fate)—but it does deprive Catholics of certain rights, and urgently calls them to reform their lives.
Of course, excommunication can be misused, and has been. Joan of Arc was famously excommunicated in the fifteenth century for political reasons, but the Church later repudiated that condemnation, and declared her a saint. More recently, Mary MacKillop (1842-1909), an extraordinary Australian nun who dedicated her life to the poor, was excommunicated by her bishop (for alleged insubordination), but was soon reinstated, and completely exonerated. In 2010, Pope Benedict canonized her.
Precisely because the penalty of excommunication is so weighty, it needs to be applied with great prudence and care—“only after all other efforts to correct a person have failed,” as Father Mullady writes–and even then, its results can be unpredictable.
Surveying the history of excommunication, one finds both successes and failures. In the early Church, St. Ambrose used the threat of excommunication to successfully compel Emperor Theodosius I to repent for his crimes against the people of Thessalonica. Similarly, in the eleventh century, Pope Gregory VII excommunicated King Henry IV for his anti-papal activities, eventually leading to the King’s famous act of penance and reception of absolution at Canossa. In more recent times, Popes and bishops have publicly excommunicated (or confirmed the automatic excommunication of) modernist theologians, those who engage in schismatic acts, racial segregationists, and Catholics involved with abortions. Some of these Catholics eventually reconciled with the Church, thankfully, proving the value of excommunication.
“On the other hand,” writes Father Mullady, “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.” Similar risks remain today.
Still, because certain prominent and influential Catholics continue to “obstinately persist in manifest grave sin” (Canon 915), many Catholics believe the penalty should be invoked more frequently. They have a case. Even if excommunication does not lead to the immediate reform of the individual involved, it can serve as a teaching moment for others. As Father Mullady notes: “Excommunication can serve as a clear statement to the faithful of the serious nature of our moral doctrine . . . 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 chose.”
Catholic prelates also have an obligation to do what is right for their own spiritual welfare. Just as the Lord appointed Ezekiel a “watchman for the House of Israel,” and held him accountable, so too are bishops guardians of the faithful, and accountable to God. St. Ambrose put it this way: “When a priest does not talk to a sinner, then the sinner will die in his sin, and the priest will be guilty because he failed to correct him.”
Catholic prelates who have the courage to protect the faith should be prepared for the consequences, however. Strong disciplinary measures are often met with equally fierce resistance. After the aforementioned Pope Gregory VII thought he had reconciled King Henry IV, Henry soon went back to his old ways, and incurred a second excommunication. The king then sent his armies into Rome, forcing the pontiff to flee. Gregory VII, widely regarded as among the best popes ever, was later declared a saint. He died in Salerno, with the memorable words: “I have loved justice, and hated iniquity, therefore I die in exile.”
June 26th, 2012 | 12:37 pm
It is a matter of doing what is right, regardless of whether the results are, according to human understanding, successes or failures. Being thrown to the lions as a result of doing the right thing — refusing to burn incense to Caesar — was perceived by many to be a spectacular failure. It wasn’t. Then there was the case of the those employed in the court of Constantius, the Father of Constantine, who were known by him to be Christians. As a test, he assembled them and announced to them that they must renounce their Christianity or face the consequences. He then rewarded those who would not renounce Christ and punished those who did, explaining that those who were not loyal to their god would not be loyal to him, either. Doing the right thing in that case was perceived to be a success, yet that isn’t the point. We are supposed to do the right thing regardless of how that works out for us.
So, is it right to give the Eucharist to those who “obstinately persist in manifest grave sin”? Vatican official Cardinal Raymond Burke, Prefect, Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, doesn’t think so. His thoughts on the matter, in the form of a scholarly history of the canonical discipline of denying Holy Communion to those who obstinately persist in public grave sin, can be read here:
http://www.mariancatechist.com/burke/canon_915.html
Here are some excerpts from the conclusions he draws from his review of that history:
June 26th, 2012 | 1:37 pm
harry,
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t asking someone (like, say, Kathleen Sebelius) not to receive the Eucharist, or even refusing her the Eucharist, although it has something in common with excommunication, in fact not excommunication? Being excommunicated bars one from receiving communion, but being barred from receiving communion is not necessarily excommunication.
June 26th, 2012 | 2:26 pm
David Nickol
You are right. Canon 915 on the withholding of the Eucharist is part of the Church’s sacramental discipline and no formal process is required
Excommunication is a penalty and can only take place after a formal process (Canons 1314 & 1342) and, as you say, has other, more far-reaching consequences.
Some canons declare excommunication to be automatically incurred in some cases, but there are so many exceptions that a declaratory sentence is usually necessary before anyone can decide if the penalty has been incurred.
June 26th, 2012 | 9:34 pm
Your explanation deforms what Mr. Peters really said:
The second misconception is that people who die excommunicated go to hell. Maybe they do, and maybe they don’t, but we don’t know with certainty either way. In any case, the Church does not claim to exercise jurisdiction over the dead, and one’s final fate is determined by God based on the life one leads. Of course, appearing before God for judgment in the state of excommunication from His Church on earth is not a good thing.
—
His judgment is as a Canonist not as a dogmatic theologian, so if it’s a little tone-deaf, it’s forgivable.
Also, you had to dig this up for 2006 – nothing of value more recent?
The key point, of course, is it ignores “Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” This is supported in magisterial teaching throughout the history of the Church.
Your expression, however common to those who hold a soteriological position tantamount to ἀποκατάστασις rather than the theologically more probable opinion of ‘fewness’, seems to ignore irreformable dogma: _Inter cunctas_ and _In eminentis_, Florence Session 11, Satis Cognitum, and makes Acerbo Nimis para 2 not make sense.
June 27th, 2012 | 1:02 am
[...] Does the Church Need More Excommunications? – William Doino, First Things [...]
June 27th, 2012 | 3:42 am
St Augustine, as always, had something to say on the subject – Invoking Revelation 2 he says “The first love here alluded to is that which was proved in their tolerating for Christ’s name’s sake the false apostles. To this He commands them to return, and to do their first works. Now we are reproached with the crimes of bad men, not done by us, but by others; and some of them, moreover, not known to us. Nevertheless, even if they were actually committed, and that under our own eyes, and we bore with them for the sake of unity, letting the tares alone on account of the wheat, whosoever with open heart receives the Holy Scriptures would pronounce us not only free from blame, but worthy of no small praise.” [Ep 43:22]
June 27th, 2012 | 12:06 pm
Would the Church be prepared for the possible endgame that excommunicated people wouldn’t play by the rules and continue to receive the Eucharist? In the days of Jeanne d’Arc, the bishops could send an ecclesiastical criminal to the secular authorities for punishment. Today, there is no guarantee bishops themselves won’t escape the justice system.
June 27th, 2012 | 12:24 pm
From my perspective a better question to ask is, “Should the Church Publicly Admonish High Profile Dissident Catholics?” Right now these ‘celebrities’ have a greater chance of being struck by lightning than being excommunicated. In addition a bishop’s pastoral action applies only within the boundaries of their diocese. For example, a bishop in Kansas can invoke Canon 915 to deny the Eucharist to Kathleen Sebelius but the bishop in Washington, D.C. is under no obligation to uphold it and doesn’t. The lack of bishop unity makes them look absolutely feckless and allows confusion and scandal to take root.
In my opinion the key is ‘public action’. Whether the action is ferendae or latae sententiae excommunication, invocation of one or another provision of Canon Law or simply using the Church’s bully pulpit to publicly admonish and correct……whatever……take ‘public action’. The keys are that pastoral action be taken publicly and all….all….all the bishops unify to make sure it happens.
It’s time for the bishops to call people like Nancy Pelsoi, John Kerry, Kathleen Sebelius, the Kennedy’s et al and lay down Catholic teaching for all to see.
It’s time for the bishops to teach the faith and lead by example.
June 27th, 2012 | 1:31 pm
Mike Malone
If no disciplinary action is to be taken, why need personalities be brought into the matter at all?
A vigorous statement of the Church’s teaching would seem to be all that is required.
June 27th, 2012 | 4:34 pm
The dogmatic realities have not changed at all, but the modern world has greatly changed. The comments excel at pointing these out. In today’s jargon, we might consider speaking truth to power, the clear statement of a less powerful person to a power center. Is there such a thing as a chancery whistle blower? The other modern aspect is global communication. Twitter and Facebook quickly brought down Arab strongmen. They also reported a priest disciplined by his bishop for withholding communion from a recipient who had just told the priest that she was living in grave sin. Ignoring slanted journalism, what is the message to the laity, parish priests, and the world?
Since before King Henry VIII, political powers have flagrantly rebuked church teaching. Today they are never called out, whereas they were in prior times. Is the law different? Are our leaders doing their job? Their silence is defining American political-judicial struggles. How can a diocese sue HHS on religious freedom, but not sanction the Catholic decision maker of HHS?
June 27th, 2012 | 8:11 pm
“For example, a bishop in Kansas can invoke Canon 915 to deny the Eucharist to Kathleen Sebelius but the bishop in Washington, D.C. is under no obligation to uphold it and doesn’t. ” Forgive me for asking, but can that be true? In the Orthodox Church, if a priest or bishop puts someone under penance so that they cannot receive the Eucharist, every other priest and bishop must honor that decision until the penance is lifted by the priest or bishop who originally imposed it. Otherwise people church shop looking for a priest who will let the do what they want. I cannot believe that the Catholic Church does not have the same practice.
Fr. John W. Morris
June 27th, 2012 | 11:06 pm
Michael PS,
I’m not sure what you mean. I’m not bringing personalities into the discussion, I am pointing out high profile people who consistently ,frequently and egregiously misrepresent Church teachings. Nancy Pelosi is a perfect example. Her public support of abortion and contraception in the face of well known Church doctrine requires a bit more than a ‘vigorous’ statement of Church teaching I think. I think it would be acceptable if a bishop would step up to the microphone and clearly point out the how and why Ms. Pelosi’s views do not comport with the teachings of the Church and call upon her to see her confessor for a better understanding.
I’m betting such a public rebuke would be the equivalent of putting the cork back into the bottle.
June 27th, 2012 | 11:18 pm
Father Morris,
Perhaps I don’t clearly understand. In 1996 the Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz excommunicated Call to Action, members of Catholics for a Free Choice, Planned Parenthood, the Hemlock Society, the Freemasons, and the Society of St. Pius X.
The Vatican denied CTA’s appeal but my understanding is that a bishop does not have authority beyond his own diocese to take pastoral actions.
I took the following from CatholicCulture.org;
“The excommunication order applies only within the Lincoln, Nebraska diocese. But the Vatican’s judgment against Call to Action raises clear questions about the status of the group’s members in other dioceses.” (cf. http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=48072).
I do think that Catholics ‘church shop’ to their eternal shame.
Where am I wrong?
June 28th, 2012 | 5:54 am
I appreciate the view expressed that perhaps Excommunication should be used more frequently. I think the catholic Church should be excommunicating gross sinners and not those who write something the church hierarchy doesn’t like. it seems to be that this was the original purpose of Excommunication. The sinner would be excluded from Church membership until he or she had repented and then would be readmitted. this would only be done as a last resort and only in cases of gross or extreme sin or crime. A Priest or Bishop who commited adultery (there were married priests up until the mid 12th century) might be excommunicated for example until he repented fully. I think the penalty of excommunication has been misused for mostly political reasons over the years.
June 28th, 2012 | 4:50 pm
How about having Biden, all the so-called Catholic politicians in Congress and the Administration meet at, say, the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle (you’ll need a lot of room and a cathedral might be enough – or perhaps Georgetown will do) at 9:15 on a Sunday (because we know that all good politicians go to church, right?)?
Then have Cardinal Wuerl give the ushers boxes of pre-printed excommunication papers (we’ll call them 915’s) to distribute – either let them fill in their own names (we know who you are) or have Pelosi pass out the papers for House members and Kerry for the Senate. Biden and Sebelius can receive theirs directly from the cardinal.
Wait a minute. Since the cardinal doesn’t believe in Canon 915 (or informing Georgetown that they are no longer a Catholic university), perhaps the individual bishops could do something similar in their own dioceses.
Wait a minute, what if no bishop does it (after all, no one has done anything yet, have they)? How about the laity gathering signatures (say 915) for each pseudo-Catholic politician and deliver them to the Apostolic Delegate to the United States?
Hold on. With Cardinal Wuerl’s recent appointment to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, perhaps he’ll succeed in repealing Article 48 of the Apostolic Constitution on the Roman Curia which states, “The proper duty of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is to promote and safeguard the doctrine on faith and morals in the whole Catholic world; so it has competence in things that touch this matter in any way.” Since the cardinal doesn’t believe in Canon 915, perhaps things will stay the same as they are now (or get worse)! It’s for sure that the pseudo-Catholic politicians aren’t worried that the Church will do anything. Talk about scandal!
June 28th, 2012 | 5:51 pm
I think it would be acceptable if a bishop would step up to the microphone and clearly point out the how and why Ms. Pelosi’s views do not comport with the teachings of the Church and call upon her to see her confessor for a better understanding.
The Church needs to understand how allowing high-profile Catholics to openly undermine its teachings causes harm.
When it realizes just how destructive this is, it will realize how urgent it is to stop permitting this.
June 30th, 2012 | 11:19 am
Blake,
Amen.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact