The excommunication imperative

World Mag ^ | September 19, 2008 | Tony Woodlief

[NYer]

Like many, I have been waiting for the Catholic Church to fully enforce repeated threats to excommunicate Catholic politicians who do not desist from aiding abortion. Pope Benedict XVI has most recently denounced such behavior, but as in the past the matter of restricting offenders from Communion has been left to individual priests. Prompted by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s recent prevarication on the topic (she suggested that abortion is an undecided issue in the Church, and called herself an “ardent, practicing Catholic”), Fr. John De Celles, a Washington, D.C.–area priest, offered this comparison:

“Imagine if someone came in here and said ‘I’m a mafia hit man and I’m proud of it.’ Or ‘I deal drugs to little children.’ Or ‘I think black people are animals and it’s okay to make them slaves, or at least keep them out of my children’s school.’ Are these ‘ardent practicing Catholics’? No, they are not. And neither is a person who ardently supports and votes to fund killing 1 to 1.5 million unborn babies every single year. … Like the proud and unrepentant murderer or drug dealer, they are not ardent Catholics. They are, in very plain terms, very bad Catholics.”

I wish I could speak of Protestants excommunicating those in our ranks who sanction abortion, but an unfortunate byproduct of sola scriptura has been the ceaseless fracturing of the Church. Anyone who believes his version of Biblical interpretation is better than the others can follow the thousands who have gone before him and set up his own church. Members are likewise free to sort amongst the shards as we see fit. Excommunication is for us, therefore, merely asking the offender to get his piece of host somewhere else.

For Catholics (and Orthodox), however, excommunication still has teeth. In response to this censer-rattling, liberal Catholic politicians have made noises about their rights (as if God can be sued by the ACLU), and advanced the specious claim that their faith is their private business, not to be mixed with their actions as office-holders.

Privatized religion is a popular notion with Americans, combining two things we like: faith and privacy. But private faith is unbiblical. To begin, faith is nothing if it is not lived out (“faith, if it has no works, is dead”). And the Church was, at least in the beginning, not just about “me and Jesus.” It was instead a corporate community of believers confessing, communing, and acting in one accord as directed by Scripture, tradition, teaching, and the Holy Spirit. Faith is meant to be lived out, in other words, in all of one’s actions, within a community of fellow believers.

Fr. De Celles explains that there was another time in our history when American Catholics (Protestants were equally guilty) disobeyed their Church on what they told themselves was a matter of private conscience: slavery. Decades later, in 1956, the Archbishop of New Orleans defied powerful Catholics in his city by desegregating Catholic schools under his domain. And guess what he did to the Catholics who continued to call for racist segregation? That’s right: excommunication.

Here’s hoping—for the sake of the Church’s integrity as well as for unborn children—that his modern-day counterparts follow suit.

[Jibaholic]

I wish I could speak of Protestants excommunicating those in our ranks who sanction abortion, but an unfortunate byproduct of sola scriptura has been the ceaseless fracturing of the Church. Anyone who believes his version of Biblical interpretation is better than the others can follow the thousands who have gone before him and set up his own church.

God wants people hot or cold, not lukewarm. The legalistic elitism of the Catholic Church creates lukewarm nominal believers on a massive scale. By contrast, the pews of evangelical churches are filled with people who actually believe in the bible.

[NYer]

The original article generated many comments from readers. Your thoughts?

[Salvation]

No elitism here from these Catholic bishops. And there are more speaking out against abortion. This was against Pelosi. Apllies to all Catholics. Check the links!!!!

Updated: American Bishops who have spoken against Pelosi

Here is the complete list of American bishops who have responded to Nancy Pelosi's comments so far:

1. Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver was the first American bishop to respond
2. ... Bishop James Conley, his auxiliary, joined him
3. Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington DC responded twice, first in a press release and second in a statement to The Hill. He has also appeared on Fox News, I am told.
4. Cardinal Justin Regali of Philadelphia, chairman of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities, issued this statement through the USCCB website...
5. ... Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, chairman of the Committee on Doctrine, joined him
6. Cardinal Edward Egan of New York publised a strongly worded statement of his own
7. Bishop Samuel Aquila of Fargo issued a letter correcting Pelosi's claims
8. Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh and...
9. ... Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs have chimed-in
10. Archbishop Jose Gomez of San Antonio, CNA reports has added his voice ...
11. ... Bishop Oscar Cantu, his auxiliary bishop, has joined him
12. Bishop William Murphy of Rockville has published an extensive letter
13. Bishop Edward Slattery of Tulsa has a detailed response
14. Bishop Kevin Farrell of Dallas has joined the USCCB's efforts
15. Bishop Gregory Aymond of Austin is on-board
16. Cardinal Sean O'Malley of Boston mentions the USCCB on his blog
17. Bishop Thomas Wenski of Orlando has written at length
18. Archbishop John Nienstedt of Saint Paul/Minneapolis challenges Pelosi's statement
19. Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, President of the US Bishops, has weighed-in
20. Bishop Robert Vasa of Baker, OR publishes in the Catholic Sentinel
21. Bishop Jerome Listecki of La Crosse, WI responds in a word document
22. Bishop Richard Lennon of Cleveland, OH will comment in his September 5th column (PDF)
23. Bishop Ralph Nickless of Sioux City, IA has one of the very best responses I've read
24. Archbishop George Niederauer of San Francisco has invited Pelosi to a "conversation"
25. Bishop Glen Provost, LA: "Catholic Church clear on when human life begins"
26. Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn: "Judging the Candidates"

{Last updated on September 10th.}

Notes:

• Previous #23 has been removed. Bishop Joseph Gossman of Raleigh, NC is actually the bishop emeritus, and the new bishop, Michael Burbidge has not, to my knowledge, made a personal statement.
• Previous #16 has also been removed, it was an erroneous duplication of current #13.
• #26 was added September 10th, although he published his column September 6th

[Armando Guerra]

I am not an expert by any means, but I always understood that the term meant the individual had removed him/herself from communion with the Church. Excommunication was not the Church pushing somebody outside the Catholic faith but rather that the offender had, in fact, already left the Catholic Church of his/her own accord. These articles conjure up an image of some Catholic Court of the Inquisition with the Bishop High Inquisitor reviewing evidence and rendering an order of Excommunicated against Catholics (and non-Catholics even). This is not the case. Nobody is forcing anyone to be a member of the Catholic Church. You are either in communion with the Church or your are not by your own will. The big uproar seems to come when a Catholic politician is pointed out to not be in communion with the teachings of the Church. But this is not the Church rendering a decision, but rather the person has made their choice. If you have already decided to not be in communion with the Church, then the Church is under no obligation to have you and let you partake until you have brought yourself back into communion.

[Salvation]

The Catholic Church always welcomes these lapsed Catholics back into the fold. They need to sit down and talk with a priest or take a class for returning Catholics.

And, of course, make a good Confession: confess, repent, promise to amend one’s ways.

[Armando Guerra]

Of course, but some of these Catholics appear to be unrepentant in their positions. My post is meant in response to those who expect the Church to do something about these people. These people have already done it to themselves. They have excommunicated themselves and, as you point out, the Church will welcome them back if they repent. When the Bishops point out that a person is excommunicated it should not be taken (nor stated) as an admonishment but a recognition of an existing state and an invitation to change ways and rejoin.

[Kevmo]

So that means catholics are expected to vote against excommunicated catholics? Is it proper to identify Pelosi and Biden as excommunicated catholics? I don’t wanna step on any toes.

[Straight Vermonter]

In 1917 the Code of Canon law dropped the distinction and the term "anathema" was no longer used. In the current day the church defines 3 types of excommunication:

* a jure Ferendæ Sententiæ -- excommunication by law with a finding of guilt by an ecclesiastical court (i.e. a mandatory punishment of excommunication)
* a jure Latæ Sententiæ -- excommunication by law without intervention (the act itself excommunicates one). A declaritory sentence may be given which simply confirms to others that the person is already excommunicated.
* ab homine -- excommunication by act of man, that is excommunication by trial as punishment

http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2007/07/does-excommunication-prevent-me-from.html

[Faraday]

Could someone explain where the “repeated threats” of excommunication described by the author were issued? I am not aware of any. Some have been excommunicated recently (latae sententiae), with a declaration as such by a bishop, for participation in so-called “women ordinations.” Several bishops have discussed withholding communion, which is short of excommunication.

[A.A. Cunningham]

By contrast, the pews of evangelical churches are filled with people who actually believe in the bible.

That would be the abridged, heavily edited version of the Bible which was produced in the 17th century.

[HighlyOpinionated]

By contrast, the pews of evangelical churches are filled with people who actually believe in the bible.

That would be the abridged, heavily edited version of the Bible which was produced in the 17th century.

Thank you for notating that. We also remind our Protestant brethren that there are two phrases in both Bibles . . . the "real" and the "decimated" . . . which, for some unexplained reason, are always interpreted by the Protestants NOT to mean Exactly What They Say. The Protestants always claim sola Scriptura but they deny it for these small sections of two Bible Verses:

This is My Body. This is My Blood.

Could it have something to do with the meaning of the word . . . "is?"

No disrespect meant to those who have never questioned their religion's explanation of the word "is" in those small parts of Scripture. Or any one else, either.

My question is just a talking point, a thinking point, a praying point.

[armydoc]

This is My Body. This is My Blood.

If you are going to take this literally, are you prepared to take literally the associated passages regarding relation of this act to salvation?