Many are aware of the recent attempt by a group of women in the United States to be ordained to the priesthood and the diaconate in a ceremony in Pennsylvania.
This is very unfortunate, and we may hope and pray that those involved will repent. In the meantime, there is the question of what is to be done and how the individuals in question are to be treated and regarded under canon law.
Unfortunately, there has been a lot of what seems to be misinformation floating around in the popular and Catholic press regarding this. Numerous individuals have been asserting that the women have automatically excommunicated themselves and/or removed themselves from the Church.
Neither of these claims appears to be true, canonically speaking.
While the actions of those involved in the ceremony are certainly very grave and a canonical response is called for, there does not appear to be a basis in canon law for the two claims.
Canon law does provide an automatic excommunication for the (valid) consecration of a bishop apart from a papal mandate:
Can. 1382 A
bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the
person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae
(automatic) excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.
This applies to episcopal consecration, but canon law does not provide an automatic excommunication for valid but illicit ordinations to the priesthood or the diaconate or for invalid (simulated) ones.
What happened in the Pennsylvania ceremony was a simulation of the sacrament of ordination, for which the relevant canon appears to be this one:
Can. 1379 In addition to the cases mentioned in can. 1378, a person who simulates the administration of a sacrament is to be punished with a just penalty.
To my mind, a just penalty in this case would be excommunication. What the participants in the ceremony did is clearly grave enough to warrant excommunication. Canonically, however, the law does not provide for this penalty to take effect on them latae sententiae (automatically). That automatic triggering of the punishment does not take place for simulation of holy orders. It would have to be imposed by ecclesiastical authority, and canon 1379 provides the legal basis for its imposition.
There are, however, canonical effects that likely have taken place automatically regarding at least some of the women involved in the ceremony. Those who attempted ordination to the priesthood have presumably or are known to have subsequently attempted to celebrate Mass, and there is an automatic penalty for those who simulate the celebration of the Eucharist:
Can. 1378
§2. The following incur a latae sententiae penalty of interdict or, if a cleric, a latae sententiae penalty of suspension:
1/ a person who attempts the liturgical action of the Eucharistic sacrifice though not promoted to the sacerdotal order;
2/ apart from the case mentioned in §1, a person who, though unable to give sacramental absolution validly, attempts to impart it or who hears sacramental confession.
§3. In the cases mentioned in §2, other penalties, not excluding excommunication, can be added according to the gravity of the delict.
By attempting to celebrate Mass subsequent to their attempted ordinations, the women in question would have interdicted themselves (unless this was prevented by one of the provisions of canons 1323 or 1324). Interdiction has many of the same effects as excommunication but not all of them (see canon 1332 in comparison to 1331). Their action also (per section 3) would provide a basis for the imposition of additional penalties, including excommunication, though this would have to be imposed by ecclesiastical authority instead of taking effect automatically.
The canonical basis also is not clear for the claim that the women have removed themselves from the Church.
The individuals in question had committed an offence against the unity of the Church that disrupts their full communion with the Church, but it is not clear that this breach of unity is sufficient to sever their union with the Church and constitute a formal act of schism.
Canonically, schism is defined as follows:
Can. 751 . . . schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
Since there is a canonical penalty of excommunication for schism (can. 1364), whether or not an act of schism has occurred must be judged strictly since "Laws which
establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an
exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation" (can. 18).
This means that a narrow construction is to be given to what constitutes "refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff" and "refusal . . . of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."
It does not appear that the individuals involved in the Pennsylvania ceremony are attempting to sever communion with other members of the Catholic Church (they still profess to be Catholics), and not every act of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff constitutes a refusal of submission to him (otherwise every knowing violation of canon law would be an act of schism). If the individuals involved in the ceremony said "We don’t believe that the pope has any authority over us" then they would have refused submission to him or–if the pope determined that a specific act constituted a refusal of submission (as John Paul II did in the case of the Lefebvrite episcopal consecrations)–then they could be judged to have committed schism.
Given the frequency with which such "women’s ordination" ceremonies are now occurring, the Church may in the future judge that they constitute schismatic acts or otherwise provide a latae sententiae excommunication for those participating in them, but it has not done so to date.
What is clear is that the individuals involved in this ceremony have committed a grave ecclesiastical offense with the exacerbating circumstances of scandal and sacrilege and they most assuredly deserve censure, including excommunication, even if it must be imposed rather than taking effect automatically.
ED PETERS HAS MORE ON THE SIMULATION OF MASS.
does this mean kids pretending to say Mass at home are excommunicated (if they are aware of the canon)?
Yes it does, hmmmm, and if they die, they straight to Hell forever and ever and ever.
Thanks, Jimmy. As one of those who actually thought that these women had excommunicated themselves, I appreciate the clarification, though the ladies seem to be confused, themselves.
One of them remarked that she didn’t think she could be excommunicated until SHE said so.
Ed, thanks for your candid response. That’s what it sounded like to me, but I wanted to make sure.
I certainly hope that was a joke.
Simulation is different from pretend games. The kids know it’s not Mass, you know it’s not Mass, and nobody is claiming transubstantiation occurs. What I’ve always heard is that simulation means you’re trying to make other people believe it’s really the Mass that’s going on, and maybe you believe it yourself.
If “simulation” included kids playing, it would also include actors in plays. And Tosca almost always includes scenes of Mass, but nobody’s ever said anything about excommunicating all those Catholic Italian opera singers that I’ve ever heard. So some canon lawyers better get on the stick.
I like the solution posited by Curt Jester:
Tell them you felt a calling of the Spirit to become their bishop, ordain yourself bishop over them, and excommunicate them yourself.
Harking back to your post on titles, are the “priestesses” called Father?
Oops! Sorry about the multilple posts…too much help from tiny hands.
No, hmmm, because the children do not have the actual intention of performing Mass. They are just pretending.
And they probably arent over the age of reason.
-El S.
El S: why get into the problematic area of “actual intention”, or raise the irrelevant point on “age of reason”, when 1983 CIC 1323-1324 are on the books all along?
Ed,
Are you really saying that Joe and Jane Catholic have to bring little Johnny before the local Bishop before he can receive first Holy Communion?
Relax. For reference, here’s the CIC 1323-1324 to which Ed is referring: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4W.HTM.
I am relaxed, as I wasn’t the one in danger of being excommunicated. 😉
Thx mentalguy. this whole line of posts is surreal.
Excommunication isn’t even neccesary. They are heretics. And apart from that their actions bring in a couple moral sins against God. And since they where public acts, we are certain they are still in sin, because they have not publicly repented. But maybe, just maybe, they are off the hook because they are absoulutly mentally incapicitated.
Mostly justly admonished, Ed. Though it was because I take your opinion seriously that I wasn’t completely sure you were joking in your second post, and not because I’m some kind of..idiot.
BTW, I would not have ask you if you were serious if I owned the 1800+ page Code of Canon Law.
Ed,
I busted out laughing when I saw your post. And I thought canon lawyers had no sense of humor.
Ed,
I think you were under the impression that I was being snide in my first remark. I’m a young Catholic who is always learning things about his faith. Thus, after a Canon Lawyer mentions some obscure Canon, I wondered if you weren’t joking about the possibility of a child being excommunicated (although it was obviously silly upon further thought). I don’t see what’s “surreal” about that.