Don’t Worry; Be Holy

A reader writes:

It is my understanding that certain actions lead to immediate excommunication from the Church whether the individual is directly notified from the Vatican or his or her bishop on the matter.

True. There are a handful of offenses that have latae sententiae (automatic) excommunications attached to them. A person does not have to receive a canonical warning for these excommunications to take place, though they do have to know about the penalty that is attached to the offense (among other conditions).

Certain actions like ordaining bishops without papal approval are obviously understood to take you out of Communion with Rome;

Um, there’s a subtlety here. Ordaining bishops without papal approval does not take one out of communion with the Church, it only results in excommunication. Under current law, being excommunicated does not place you outside of communion, though it does reflect an impaired state of communion.

By contrast, ordaining bishops contrary to papal mandate (i.e., doing it when the pope has told you not to) does constitute schism, and schism does take you out of communion. (It also results in excommunication, but htat’s a separate matter.

however disagreements over theology may take some discernment by the CDF to determine excommunication.

In the case of heresy, yes, theological disputes may have to be adjudicated by the CDF to determine whether someone has committed heresy and thus triggered excommunication for that. However, the CDF is not the only organ in Rome (or locally) empowered to declare than an excommunication has taken place.

So is it true that certain actions bring about excommunication without notification from an ecclesial authority?

Yes, as noted above.

If that is the case, let’s take a look at the issue of the women “priests” who were ordained at Pittsburgh in a van down by the river a boat [strikethrough and replacement in the original e-mail–ja]. The women “bishops” who performed the ordination claim they were consecrated as bishops in a secret ceremony by Roman Catholic bishops. (I think they are lying, but for the sake of this discussion, let’s assume they are telling the truth.)

Okay, let’s, though I am not at all confident that they are lying. They might be, but they very well might not be.

Wouldn’t that immediately excommunicate those unnamed bishops?

No. Here’s why: Women cannot be validly ordained, therefore no ordination took place. Therefore, there was no consecration of a bishop without a papal mandate, and that excommunication was not triggered.

Canonically, what happened was the simulation of a sacrament, and that’s a different offense, with a different canonical effect. According to Canon 1379, "a person who simulates the administration of a sacrament is to be punished with a just penalty." In order for them to be punished with a just penalty, a competent authority has to impose that penalty. It could be excommunication or it could be something else, depending on what the authority decides. In any event, it ain’t automatic.

If that is the case [i.e., if one of these bishops were automatically excommunicated], wouldn’t that excommunication invalidate and sacraments or ordinations that the bishop presided over after his excommunication?

No. A bishop could still perform the sacraments–including ordinations–validly even in a state of excommunication.  The power to dispense the sacraments resides fully in office of bishop, and the Code does not create any impediments to an excommunicated bishop being able to do so validly.

What effect would that have on the sacraments administered by a priest who was ordained by an excommunicated bishop?

He would do so illicitly (and gravely sinfully), but they would be valid.

Therefore, one need not worry that there are some unknown, automatically excommunicated bishops out there invalidly dispensing sacraments and ordaining priests on account of their ordination of the women "bishops." The law does not provide automatic excommunication for their offense, and even if it did, it would not render their sacraments invalid.

So one doesn’t need to worry; one can still go to their sacraments to be made holy (i.e., receive sanctifying grace).

Now, what about a bishop (or priest) who DID, unbeknownst to anybody, incur automatic excommunication? What would THAT do?

Here’s what the Code says:

Can. 1331 §1. An excommunicated person is forbidden:

1/ to have any ministerial participation in celebrating the sacrifice of the Eucharist or any other ceremonies of worship whatsoever;

2/ to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals and to receive the sacraments;

3/ to exercise any ecclesiastical offices, ministries, or functions whatsoever or to place acts of governance.

All of that happens if a bishop or priest incurs an automatic excommunication: He’s not allowed to ("is forbidden") to have ministerial participation in liturgical function, he’s not allowed to celebrate or receive the sacraments, and he’s not allowed to exercise ecclesiastical offices or functions.

All of that follows directly upon the excommunication. It doesn’t matter whether anybody knows that he’s excommunicated himself or not.

But note that it just says he’s forbidden to do these things (i.e., that they are illicit for him to perform). It doesn’t mean that he can’t (i.e., that his attempts to do them will be invalid).

How do we know that?

Well, it turns out that if it comes to light that he’s excommunicated himself and a competent authority declares this fact then additional canonical effects kick in:

§2. If the excommunication has been imposed or declared, the offender:

1/ who wishes to act against the prescript of §1, n. 1 must be prevented from doing so, or the liturgical action must be stopped unless a grave cause precludes this;

2/ invalidly places acts of governance which are illicit according to the norm of §1, n. 3;

3/ is forbidden to benefit from privileges previously granted;

4/ cannot acquire validly a dignity, office, or other function in the Church;

5/ does not appropriate the benefits of a dignity, office, any function, or pension, which the offender has in the Church.

Section 2, number two makes it clear that the prohibitions mentioned in section 1 pertain to liceity rather than validity. It also provides that if an excommunication is declared on a bishop that he not only shouldn’t place acts of government but that he can’t. Any acts of government he attempts to place after the excommunication is declared are invalid and not legally binding on those to whom they are directed.

As long as his excommunication is not declared (as is necessarily the case for a bishop who excommunicated himself without anybody knowing it) he can still validly place acts of governance as a bishop, and you’ll note that section 2 does not prevent him from celebrating the sacraments validtly, even if the excommunication is declared.

So we as laity don’t have to worry that our reception of the sacraments is being invalidated due to bishops crypto-excommunicating themselves. We can just follow the maxim, "Don’t worry; be holy."

Now, should the identities of the bishops who allengedly did this come to light, and should it turn out that they actually did it, then Rome would have the very unpleasant task of imposing a just penalty on them. To my mind, the just penalty for simulating the consecration of a female bishop should be excommunication at a minimum, and likely more than that.

Fortunately, B16’s up to the task.