Milingo Update: Excommunication

UPDATE: The Vatican has apparently confirmed Milingo’s automatic excommunication.

GET THE STORY.
Further updates to come.

SECOND UPDATE: Here is the text of the Communique issued by the Holy See’s press office (NOTE: Since the press office does not have the authority to declare excommunications, I suspect there will be further documentation following from a competent dicastery):

   "With great concern, the Holy See has followed the recent activities of
Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo, emeritus of Lusaka, Zambia, with his new
association of married priests, spreading division and confusion among the
faithful.

  "Church representatives of various levels have tried in vain to contact
Archbishop Milingo in order to dissuade him from persisting in actions that
provoke scandal, especially among the faithful who followed his pastoral
ministry in favor of the poor and the sick.

  "Bearing in mind the understanding shown, also recently, by Peter’s
Successor towards this aged pastor of the Church, the Holy See has awaited
with vigilant patience the evolution of events which, unfortunately, have led
Archbishop Milingo to a position of irregularity and of progressively open
rupture of communion with the Church, first with his attempted marriage and
then with the ordination of four bishops on Sunday, September 24, in
Washington D.C., U.S.A.

  "For this public act both Archbishop Milingo and the four ordinands have
incurred excommunication ‘latae sententiae,’ as laid down in Canon 1382 of the
Code of Canon Law. Moreover, the Church does not recognize, nor does she
intend to recognize in the future, these ordinations and all ordinations
deriving from them; and she considers the canonical status of the four
supposed-bishops as being that they held prior to this ordination.

  The Apostolic See, attentive to the unity and peace of the flock of Christ,
had hoped that the fraternal influence of people close to Archbishop Milingo
would cause him to rethink and return to full communion with the Pope.
Unfortunately the latest developments have made these hopes more unlikely.

  "At times of ecclesial suffering such as these, may prayers intensify among
all the community of the faithful."

Is The Schism Beginning?

Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo apparently consecrated four men as bishops on Sunday.

In so doing, as Ed Peters points out,

HE INCURRED THE PENALTY OF AUTOMATIC EXCOMMUNICATION RESERED TO THE HOLY SEE.

So did any of the men he ordained if they were still in communion with the Church.

MORE FROM CATHOLIC WORLD NEWS.

As tragic as that situation is, I fear that an even greater tragedy may be about to unfold.

Since the debacle following Vatican II, the Holy See has been terrified of a major schism occurring that would involve modernist dissidents. For that to take place, a number of conditions would need to exist:

1) There would need to be a large number of laity willing to go along with the schism.
2) There would need to be a large number of priests available.
3) There would need to be bishops available.
4) There would need to be infrastructure available (churches, financing, etc.)

Thus far the right combination of factors has not combined to create a major modernist schism (in the proper sense of the term). There are always lots of tiny little schisms occurring–even personal ones (i.e., individual people going into schism)–but the largest we have had since the Council was that of the traditionalist dissidents in the Lefebvrist movement. The number of traditionalist dissidents, however, pales in comparison to the number of modernist dissidents. There are far more laity, priests, and even bishops with modernist than with traditionalist tendencies.

As painful as the Lefebvrist schism has been, the potential for a major schism on the part of modernists is thus far more frightening to Rome.

Thus far it hasn’t happened, and my guess is that one of the major reasons is the non-fulfillment of condition 4 above. I think a lot of individuals don’t want to face the financial and logistical hardship of trying to set up a major modernist dissident church. They’re too comfortable where they are and are content to serve out their time spreading dissent in their already secure positions of influence. Why should a modernist priest leave the financially secure and respectable position and brave the rigors of an insecure startup venture?

If you want to know part of the reason that the Holy See has been so soft on individuals with this tendency, the desire to avoid a schism is a big part of it. If the people in question are made too uncomfortable then they might decide that pulling up stakes would be worth it, so Rome has cut them substantial slack (far more than in the old days) in hope that the problem can be solved on a generational basis by cooking the frog of dissent slowly, gently reigning them in in a step-wise manner and waiting for the current group to pass from the scene.

Thus we’ve had incremental improvements, like the release of the Catechism of the Catholic Church to promote authentic Catholic teaching (instead of doing something like the anti-modernist measures popes took in the early 20th century) or revising the GIRM and insisting on new, better translations of the liturgy (instead of just jumping back to the old order of Mass).

But the situation may not last, and what Milingo just did may have made it much, much worse.

At least two of the conditions needed for a major modernist schism are now concretely fulfilled. There are thousands of former priests who have left the priesthood to get "married" (in fact, they are not married due to the impediment of holy orders, but they have discounted this fact), and by apparently elevating some of these men to the episcopate, there are now bishops who are not just sympathetic to this movement but who are part of it and who are not tied to the existing episcopal structure in the Catholic Church. (I.e., they are not occupying positions that Rome appointed them to and which they have reasons to want to retain.)

These men could turn around and start ordaining their own priests–and I assume that this was the purpose of elevating them to the episcopate since they could already perform all the other sacraments–and they could draw upon the pool of modernist ex-priests and, one way or the other, have a large number of clergy for their movement in fairly short order.

The question would then turn to consideration of condition 1: How many laity would be willing to go along with them?

There certainly are a large number of laity who have modernist inclinations, though a lot of these are non-churchgoers. (When you hear reports that frighteningly high numbers of Catholics hold heterodox views, those numbers generally do not distinguish between cultural Catholics and those who actively practice their faith. Regular churchgoers, while they have suffered under decades of heterodox preaching and religious education, are still far more orthodox than the non-churchgoers are.) Non-churchgoers aren’t likely to start going to the local breakaway church just because it has a married priest saying Mass. A few will, but most are too comfortable where they are in bed or watching their TV sets (or both) on Sunday morning.

The number who would go, however, is not inconsiderable. It would still be a smallish minority of Catholics, but enough to produce a larger schism than the SSPX and similar groups have.

If the schismatic bishops can get the infrastructure they need.

Right now the only people who would go to their services are the hardcore dissidents, and while there are plenty of them, in order to have a major schism you really need parishes all over the place. "Location! Location! Location!" as they say. The schism would be able to attract far more of the faithful to it if there were dissident parishes all over the place that looked at least somewhat like Catholic churches and held themselves out as such.

It thus seems to me that the major barrier is thus still the financial/logistical one, but the potential for a larger-than-Lefebvre schism of a modernist dissident type exists, and what Archbishop Milingo has just done has made the situation an order of magnitude worse.

As you might guess, I think that this is a situation that clearly calls for prayer.

I also think that Rome should give serious consideration to establishing the consecration of a bishop without papal mandate as of itself a schismatic act. Thus far it has not done so. (The reason Lefebvre went into schism was that he consecrated bishops not just without a papal mandate but against papal mandate.) The way the law is written right now, one could be consecrated a bishop without papal mandate and still remain a Catholic, though one would be subject to the censure of excommunication. But having rogue bishops who are still in some sense Catholic will gravely harm the pastoral good of the faithful, and it strikes me that Rome may need to make it clear that no such bishops are in any sense Catholic so that the faithful will not be confused. To do that, Rome should consider revising or authentically interpreting the law in such a way that any unmandated episcopal consecration is itself schismatic.

Celebrating Vs. Assisting

A reader writes:

The other day I was reading through some back blogs and I came across an
answer you gave to someone asking about forgotten mortal sins. This person
quoted canon 916 which said:

A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive
the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is
a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the
person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition
which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.

I don’t think I am understanding this correctly. If you are conscious of
grave sin you should not celebrate Mass? It has always been encouraged that
someone who is unable to receive communion should at least attend Mass but
not go to receive. As someone who suffers from scruples I always feel I am
in grave sin for some reason or another but I still attend Mass even though
I don’t receve. Can you explain this for me please.

I’m very sorry to hear about your problem with scruples, and I hope that you will be able to overcome it and begin receiving the Eucharist on a regular basis. I encourage you to investigate groups like Scrupulous Anonymous and ask my readers to pray for you and others who have this condition.

The above canon does not mean that you cannot attend Mass without making an act of perfect contrition. When it refers to "celebrating" Mass, it is referring specifically to what priests do when they celebrate or concelebrate the Mass.

The reason that this clause is included in the canon is because priests are required to take Communion if they celebrate Mass, and the Code doesn’t want them thinking, "Well, maybe I can celebrate Mass and just not take Communion."

By putting the celebration clause into the canon dealing with acts of perfect contrition, it prevents priest from saying to themselves "Maybe the requirement that I receive Communion doesn’t apply if I’m in mortal sin when I celebrate Mass." The inclusion of the celebration clause tells them, in effect, "No, it does apply. You as a priest have to receive Communion every time you celebrate (or concelebrate) Mass, so if you’re going to celebrate, make sure that you are in a state of grace first, either by going to confession or, if you can’t do that, by making na act of perfect contrition."

The laity, however, do not celebrate Mass (at least not the way this canon is using the term). The correct term for what the laity do at Mass is "assist."

Some priest or DREs or what have you might sometimes use loose language about the people "celebrating" Mass, but this is not using the term in its proper liturgical or canonical sense. Priests celebrate Mass; laity assist at Mass.

We laity are, in fact, required to attend Mass whether we are in a state of grace or not. So are priests for that matter. If a priest were not in a state of grace, he would still have to fulfill his Sunday obligation just like the rest of us–he just wouldn’t be able to celebrate whatever Mass he attended.

You therefore need not worry that you are doing something wrong if you attend Mass and have not made an act of perfect contrition. You are not violating the law, and the Church not only encourages but requires Mass attendance in such a case.

It is, of course, a good thing to make an act of perfect contrition prior to going to confession. Pefect contrition is a good thing. But the law does not require that one be made–either before confession or before Mass if all you are doing is assisting at it.

Since you’ve mentioned that you have difficulty with scrupulosity, I’ll also mention two points that may be pastorally useful:

1) There is absolutely ZERO DOUBT among canonists about what I said regarding what "celebrating Mass" means in this context.

2) In the case of a person with a scrupulous conscience, the person should not refuse to receive Communion if he merely thinks he may have an unconfessed mortal sin. He should only refrain on grounds of sin if he is CERTAIN that he has an unconfessed mortal sin. If there are doubts, he should go ahead and receive. This can be difficult at first, but it is considered an important step in helping to get over the barrier that scrupulosity creates in leading a normal sacramental life.

Schism And Mortal Sin

A reader writes:

Are Sedevacantists excommunicated, outside the grace of the Church?  What I’m asking, I guess, are followers of the schismatic doctrine of Sedevacantism (and to a lesser extent, I suppose, that of SSPX) in mortal sin?

Excommunication is an ecclesiastical censure that has specific effects that are defined by canon law. These effects are found in Canon 1331, which can be read HERE. The effects listed do not include being "outside the grace of the Church." The latter could be interpreted in several ways, and I’m not entirely sure what is intended, but I can say that excommunication neither places a person outside the Church nor does it deprive him of grace.

It does, however, presuppose that the individual has committed a grave sin. That is why, as an excommunicate, he is not allowed to receive the sacraments until he repents, for it would be sacrilege for him to do so in what must be presumed to be a state of mortal sin.

The grave sin that sedevacanists (and those who have formally adhered to the schism of the SSPX) have committed is the sin of schism. Schism is both a sin and a canonical crime, and its definition as a canonical crime is as follows:

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

If a person commits the canonical crime of schism, as defined above, then he is liable for the penalty of excommunication:

Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.

The fact that it is latae sententiae means that the excommunication doesn’t have to be declared by an ecclesiastical authority. It occurs automatically when the person commits the crime of schism.

But the way canon law is written, it is not enough to note that a person has outwardly committed a schismatic act and then conclude that he is necessarily excommunicated. Canon law contains a number of provisions that could keep the excommunication from taking its effect, or at least from taking effect automatically. Many of these are listed in canons 1323 and 1324.

You’ll note that one of these provisions is that a person is not subject to the penalty if they committed their offense through innocent ignorance, inadvertence, or error (1323 no. 2). This means that if a person (sedevacantist or otherwise) committed a schismatic act in one of these conditions then he would not be automatically excommunicated.

It is thus possible for one to commit an objectively schismatic act without incurring excommunication.

But assume that a sedevacantist can’t get out based on one of these exceptions in the law (either the three I named or the others), would he then incur excommunication?

Yes.

If a person maintains that the current Roman Pontiff (Benedict XVI) is not a valid pope then he thereby refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff. It is not enough to say, "I’m loyal to the office, I just don’t think that guy occupies it." You have to be in submission to the actual pontiff. You can’t be in submission to an office. If there is presently a Roman Pontiff (and there always is except in interregnums) and you ain’t in submission to him then you’re a schismatic.

You can also fail to be in submission to the Roman Pontiff in other ways, as the leaders of the SSPX were when they participated in episcopal ordinations contrary to a specific papal order–see John Paul II’s motu proprio, Ecclesia Dei. As the pontiff warned in this same document, those who formally adhere to this schism also incurred excommunication.

All of this deals with the canonical censure of excommunication, but we still have to look at the moral (as opposed to canonical) question: Are sedevacantists and other schismatics in mortal sin?

It depends. Any time anyone commits an objectively grave sin (and schism is one such sin) then they are potentially in mortal sin. Whether they are actually in mortal sin depends on whether they committed their offense with sufficient knowledge of its moral character and whether they gave it deliberate consent.

If a schismatic lacked sufficient knowledge of the moral character of what they were doing (e.g., they didn’t realize that being a Catholic was important or they didn’t realize that what they were doing was actually schimatic) or if they didn’t give deliberate consent to the act (e.g., because they were suffering from a severe psychological illness that prevented them from deliberately consenting to any of their actions) then they would not be in mortal sin. They would still have sinned gravely, but the sin would not be mortal.

On the other hand, if they had sufficient knowledge of the character of their act (and they have sufficient knowledge as long as they had enough knowledge that they should have known what they were doing was gravely sinful, so their ignorance wasn’t innocent) and they just up and did it anyway then their actions were mortally sinful and they will not go to heaven unless they repent.

As always, we can’t judge whether any particular person is in mortal sin, but those are the underlying principles.

The Species Of Angels

Note that the title of this blog post is ambiguous since the word "species" in English can be either singular or plural.

There’s a good reason for using such an ambiguous title.

A reader writes:

I had a Priest tell me that every angel is it’s own species rather than angels as a whole being a single species.  Where would he have got that?

Probably from Thomas Aquinas, for it’s a notable theme in the history of Catholic theology.

YOU CAN READ ONE OF AQUINAS’S DEFENSES OF IT HERE.

The reasoning Aquinas uses is based on his Aristotelian understanding of metaphysics, according to which (among other things) matter is regarded as "the principle of individuation"–the thing that allows two things to belong to the same species and yet be different from each other. Since angels don’t have matter, they thus can’t be the same species, for there would be nothing (no matter) to differentiate angels within a particular species.

(WARNING: Aquinas’ understanding of matter is obviously somewhat different than the modern one. Don’t assume that he’s using the word in the same way we would. His use of the word "form" is also different.)

Aquinas also has an argument that even if angels had matter they would still have to be of different species, which he explains in the above link.

Unfortunately, his reasoning on some points connected with this view is not entirely clear, and commentators have struggled to figure out some of what he means.

THIS ARTICLE TAKES NOTE OF SOME OF THE ISSUES.

I should point out that the reasoning Aquinas uses is tied to a particular theory of metaphysics in such a way that the Church does not require one to agree with his conclusion. The Church does not endorse any particular system of metaphysics, and some individuals (whether they are differentiated by matter or not) have liberty of opinion here. (His Most Awesomeness B16, for example, is known to generally favor approaching things from an Augustinian rather than a Thomistic perspective.)

Personally, I am open to Aquinas’s view on this but am not presently convinced by the reasoning he uses on this point. I tend to think that we just don’t know enough about how the supernatural world works to be able to say with confidence that, for example, there is no second principle of individuation that would allow there to be multiple angels within a given species.

Scripturre makes it clear that angels are all part of some common kind of being (otherwise they wouldn’t be referred to by the common name of "angel") and that there are multiple individuals within this kind. My own inclination is to note these facts and then not worry about whether this kind is a species or a genus or what have you. There may be multiple angelic species or only one. I’m not persuaded that we know enough about the supernatural world to settle this question, and so I’d prefer to stick with the data of revelation on this point and not try to get too definitive about what metaphysical theory best explains the data.

But that’s just me. You’re free to take whatever view you feel is best supported by the evidence.

Which on this point is how the Church would have it.

Hello Cthulhu

Michelle recently posted the "Hello Vader" photo caption, and what it immediately brought to mind for me was another Hello Kitty parody, the webcomic Hello Cthulhu. Unfortunately I didn’t have a link to it, but a kindly reader thought of the same thing and e-mailed it.

CHECK IT OUT.

Incidentally, here’s the most recent installment of Hello Cthulhu, in celebration of Talk Like A Pirate Day!

Hello_cthulhu

Two Quick Purgatory Questions

A reader writes:

1.) Will souls in purgatory be purged at the end of the world? If so,
what will happen to the souls on earth that would need to go to
purgatory to be cleansed?

This one we have a pretty clear answer on. Speaking of the end of the world, St. Paul says:

Lo! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep [i.e., we won’t all die before the end of the world], but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality [1 Cor. 15:51-53].

So anybody who is still alive at the end, or who is still in purgatory when the resurrection happens, will have whatever purification they need taken care of in an instant, "in the twinkling of an eye."

What we don’t know is whether purgatory takes place that fast now. It may or it may not. We don’t know a lot about how time works in the afterlife. (Though since God is outside of time, he can apply your prayers to whenever a person was in purgatory, even if he is "already" out.)

What amazes me is when anti-Catholics throw out the question of what will happen to people in need of purification at the end of the world who don’t have "time" for purgatory as if it were some kind of objection to the doctrine. I always want to respond, "What? God doesn’t have enough omnipotence to clean someone up fast?"

2.) Is it possible that those in purgatory are angels on earth helping us out, or are angels beings of their own?

It’s not impossible that God may have folks in purgatory do things to help us here on earth. If doing so would further their purification, he might well assign them posthumous chores to do. But they would not be angels. Angels are a different order of being than humans. Thus the Compendium states:

60. Who are the angels?

The angels are purely spiritual creatures, incorporeal, invisible, immortal, and personal beings endowed with intelligence and will. They ceaselessly contemplate God face-to-face and they glorify him. They serve him and are his messengers in the accomplishment of his saving mission to all.

Angels are thus different than humans, who are not purely spiritual beings, but embodied spiritual beings (i.e., whose natural condition is to be in a body, which is why we get resurrected at the end of time).

Not Leaving The Blessed Sacrament Alone During Exposition

A reader writes:

I was wondering about the origin on the custom of not leaving the
Exposed Eucharist alone during Adoration? Is it canonical law or what?

First, kudos for recognizing the distinction between adoration and exposition. One can adore the Eucharist whether exposition is taking place or not. Many folks get these two mixed up.

In inquiring about the origin of the rule, I take it that you are asking what is the basis for this in current ecclesiastical law, rather than its historical origin. If you are looking for information on that, you might try here.

The Code of Canon Law only deals briefly with the subject of Eucharistic exposition. Those canons are part of the general section on the reservation of the Eucharist, which are online here.

The actual basis for the requirement is found in the Church’s liturgical documents. Specifically, it is found in a document known as Holy Communion and the Worship of the Eucharist Outside of Mass, which is published in The Rites, volume 1.

The section on the exposition of the Blessed Sacrament explains:

85. If exposition of the blessed sacrament goes on for a day or
for several successive days, it should be interrupted during the celebration of Mass, unless it is
celebrated in a chapel separate from the area of exposition and at least some of the faithful remain
in adoration.

86. In churches and oratories where the eucharist is
reserved, it is recommended that solemn exposition of the blessed sacrament for an extended period
of time should take place once a year, even though this period is not strictly continuous. In this
way the local community may meditate on this mystery more deeply and adore.

This kind of exposition, however, may take place only if
there is assurance of the participation of a reasonable number of the faithful.

88. Where there cannot be uninterrupted exposition because
there is not a sufficient number of worshipers
, it is permissible to replace the blessed
sacrament in the tabernacle at fixed hours that are announced ahead of time. But this may not be done more
than twice a day, for example, at

midday

and at
night.

From what I can tell, there is not an explicit statement to the effect that "There must always be at least one of the faithful present in adoration during the exposition of the Eucharist" in either of the main legal documents that are relevant (i.e., the Code and the one I just quoted), but it seems implicit in Holy Communion and the Worship of the Eucharist Outside of Mass that there are to be people present in adoration during exposition. Otherwise there would be no point to talking about needing a sufficient number of people to allow for a lengthy exposition.

Still, one could read this and say, "Okay, so you need people there generally, but not necessarily every single moment. If someone needs to step out of the room for a few minutes for some important reason, that would be okay."

Given the way HCWEOM is written, you could take that interpretation if you were of a mind to.

Which is why God created instructions issued by Vatican dicasteries.

According to the instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments,

[138.] Still, the Most Holy Sacrament, when exposed, must never be left unattended even for the briefest space of time. It should therefore be arranged that at least some of the faithful always be present at fixed times, even if they take alternating turns.

The instruction thus clarifies the ambiguity that one could see in the primary legal document.

So there you have it.