Thursday, January 31, 2019

Excommunication is a No-No


The very brave Bishop Tobin—in a shrug heard round the world—has suggested that there's no point in trying to use canonical discipline against what he admits as "pseudo-Catholic" politicians like Governor Cuomo. Why? "The Church lost her ability/will to discipline them a long time ago." Several clergymen like Tobin are speaking out on the subject as well, attempting to justify the appalling and mystifying refusal of the Catholic hierarchy to impose any sort of sanction whatsoever against Cuomo in light of New York's barbaric new abortion law. Tobin argues that a gesture such as excommunication would be pointless since such canonical penalties are no longer effective.

A few thoughts on this matter:

It is good to revisit the passage in the Scriptures where St. Paul speaks of the concept of excommunication, though that word is not used specifically. I am referring to 1 Corinthians 5. In this passage, St. Paul addresses a situation of extreme immorality unfolding within the Corinthian church:

It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father’s wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? (1 Cor. 5:1-2)

The only comment I will offer here is to note that St. Paul is not only appalled at the sin itself, but on the attitude of the Corinthians towards it. I'm not sure what he means exactly that they were "arrogant", but his words call to mind the celebratory attitude of Governor Cuomo and the Assembly of New York upon the passage of the abortion bill.

St. Paul goes on to call for excommunication against the man:

Let him who has done this be removed from among you. For though absent in body I am present in spirit, and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. (1 Cor. 5:2-5)

The phrase "deliver this man to Satan" is another way to say "remove this person from the communion of the Church." The desired outcome is that, by being cut off from the access to the community and the grace of the sacraments (i.e., being delivered to the kingdom of Satan), that this person's fleshly attitude may be prodded to repentance by the shock of being deprived of the sacraments.

However, excommunication is not solely remedial. St. Paul hopes the man will come to repentance, but that is not it's only purpose. In the following verses he explains the value of excommunication to the Christian community:

Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us, therefore, celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. (1 Cor. 5:6-8)

Let us really contemplate this passage—the purpose of excommunication is not merely for the good of the sinner's soul; it is also for the edification and protection of the community. "Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump." St. Paul teaches that excommunication helps purge the body of "leaven", and that without this purging such leaven will cause a rot throughout the body. When the offender is singled out and has judgment pronounced upon him, the faithful at least see that such behavior is proscripted. St. Paul is not only worried about the sinner, but about the boasting of the congregation, that is, their attitude about the sinner. By excommunicating him, St. Paul judges not only the sinner, but the broader attitude that allows sin to flourish unchecked.

To bring this back to Governor Cuomo: from the biblical perspective, whether Cuomo will repent or not, whether he respects the authority of the Church or not, whether the Church can claim any socio-political leverage in these matters, is not ultimately the main concern. The fact is, the good of the Catholic Church in America demands that this man be thrown out. At least make an attempt to purify the lump of its leaven. If we don't, we are celebrating with the old leaven. It's about the integrity of the community as much as it is about the sinner.

* * * * * *

There have often been times in Church history where discipline has been lost or seriously eroded. We can think of various monastic reforms throughout the centuries. Or the era of the Counter Reform and the Council of Trent when the Church had to fight an uphill battle to transform the episcopacy from a class of political courtiers into something more in line with what Christ intended. Countless regional synods from the first millennium and the era of the barbarian invasions attest to the Church's commitment to maintaining or restoring discipline in an age of chaos when order seemed to be falling apart everywhere.

Yes, there will be times when the Church loses her will and ability to discipline. But the lesson we see from these varied examples is that the will to discipline is restored by...disciplining. It is common sense. If the will to discipline has been lost and you will it to be restored, then you discipline. Imagine we swap out the issue of discipline for something else...say, painting your house:

You: "Hey man, the paint on your house is peeling off everywhere. It looks really awful. It's kind of an eye-sore. You really ought to paint it."
Me: "That's not a realistic option."
You: "Why not? There's nothing stopping you from doing it."
Me: "I lost the will to paint it a long time ago. It's hard to recapture that will now."

In such a dialogue, you would rightfully infer that it's not really a matter of me having "lost the will" to paint the house, but more that I simply do not care if the house is painted or not. I have kind of washed my hands over the state of the house. It is no longer of pressing concern to me whether it is an eye sore or not. If I truly cared about how it looked, I would find the will and ability, whether painting it myself or devoting resources to hiring someone else. When people care about something, they make effort. If I refuse to make effort, you rightfully deduce that I don't care.

And that's the sad truth here. Cardinal Tobin, Dolan and the like don't care what the optics are here. They don't care whether the House of the Lord is an eye sore, an abomination to the people. "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you" (Rom. 2:24); but they don't care. If discipline has been lost, then the common sense approach is to restore it. You restore it by making examples of people and actually asserting your will to enforce discipline. If you can't do that or refuse to, it simply means you don't even want discipline restored. You're happy with the status quo. This is the inescapable conclusion: Cuomo will not face excommunication because the princes of the Church are content with the current situation.

* * * * * *

Why are they content? Why do they prefer this current state of things to something else? The fact is, if Dolan, Tobin, etc. were to excommunicate these pro-abort politicians, they would raise the ire of liberal Catholics who would probably cut off what paltry financial support they already give. Someone like Dolan looks at his archdiocese and says, "Hmm...okay, I have so-and-so many million Catholics here, donating about such-and-such million dollars annually. I know demographically (in New York) that somewhere between 60-70% of them identify as liberal and favor liberal causes." He does a quick mental calculus and figures out that angering this constituency can cost him a net loss of X million dollars every year. With declining Mass attendance, the collapsing parochial school system, and the shadow of impending gargantuan abuse scandal settlement payouts, he dare not endanger his financial outlook any more. He simply cannot afford to agitate the liberal Catholic demographic.

And truth be told, he doesn't really want to even if he could. A prelate who attains Dolan-level prominence is not an ideologue. He is a bureaucrat and a pragmatist. He wants to walk the path of least resistance; if the diocese is heavily liberalized liturgically and ideologically, he is content to just go with the flow, keeping his head down as much as possible—not drawing the attention of the Vatican but neither doing anything to inspire their flock. To expect the bishops to take a man like Cuomo to task is like a man sitting in the warm comfort of his home being asked to go outside and pick a fight with a bear that's knocking over his trash with nothing to be gained from such effort save guaranteed pain and massive hospital bills. It's easier to just sit in the fluffy arm-chair sipping wine with the Wall Street Journal on your lap, watch the bear thrash your garbage bins through the window, shrug and say, "What can I do?"

None of us would risk our lives just to run a bear away from our trash; it just doesn't make sense. They view this political problem the same way; it doesn't make sense to them. Of course, they are seeing it errantly, and our own  resolve would change if that were our children and not the garbage the bear was destroying. And of course, it is our children who are at stake here. That they even see the question in any other terms betrays an appalling, scandalous lack of testicular fortitude.

* * * * * *

Like the contemporary discussion about capital punishment, these prelates' attitudes focus way too exclusively on the remedial-corrective aspect of the subject while ignoring the retributive-justice side of the question (see "Death Penalty and Retributive Justice", USC). There is too much hand-wringing about "Oh well Cuomo won't care about an excommunication; excommunications don't carry that sort of weight anymore...this will accomplish nothing." Regardless of whether it "accomplished" anything in the temporal order, justice and the integrity of the Faith demands it. The heinous nature of the New York law cries out for it on principle.

Consider the famous scene from the film Becket, depicted here. Doesn't that give you chills? If only we had that kind of leadership today. But let's delve into the historical background of this scene a bit. This scene is meant to encapsulate the historic excommunications of several agents of King Henry II of England by Becket throughout the 1160's over the issue of the royal power infringing on the rights of the Church. Did Becket think his excommunications were going to change King Henry's policies? Perhaps, perhaps not. Becket had worked with King Henry for years as his royal chancellor and must have known how iron-willed the king was. But ultimately the temporal success of his efforts, while important, was secondary.

Did Pius VII think excommunication was going to change Napoleon? Did St. Pius V think Queen Elizabeth was going to repent when he excommunicated her? I'd have to assume not. But they acted because they knew the rights of the Church were at stake and that they must be defended. They were able and willing to act on principle. That is what is lacking in men like Tobin and Dolan.

* * * * * *

Finally, let's remember that we can't limit God's grace. Maybe, just maybe an excommunication would have some desirable temporal affect. Maybe Cuomo would be shocked into repenting. Maybe this could be the occasion of an infusion of grace that could change his heart. Maybe it would rally the faithful Catholics of New York and lead to some sort of pro-life renaissance in the state. Maybe, amidst the hostility, expressions of solidarity would pour in from faithful Catholics around the country, who would renew their prayers for New York and the governor and the Church. Maybe miracles of grace would happen that we can't conceive of. Stranger things have happened in the history of the Church. It's not impossible.

That is, not impossible if the bishops man up and do their job. But since Vatican II, positive excommunication by decree (as opposed to latae sententiae) has really only been used against clerics, like Marcel Lefbvre, Simon Lokodo, and Ezinwanne Igbo. Excommunicating laity by positive decree is an unspoken no-no.

Ultimately, as the adage goes, you miss 100% of the shots you never take.

13 comments:

M. Prodigal said...

The cowardly bishops, derelict in their duties, can pander to the pro-death politicians all day but those ones will never really be on their side. Cuomo is extending the statute of limitations on child abuse (never mind that the greatest is abortion murder) so as to attack the Church even more. When you "dance with the devil" there is "hell to pay".

c matt said...

Brave Bishop Tobin - reminds me of that Monty Python Holy Grail scene with Bishop Tobin playing the part of Brave Sir Robin as he bravely ran away.

Kathleen1031 said...

I appreciate the point about the necessity of defending the faith because it needs defending AND, the laity deserve to see justice done. I can't add much to the analysis of the clergy except to say they are just a profound disappointment, but they have been a disappointment ever since we all started to realize our pope was a disaster. These men are so profoundly lacking in Catholic faith, it's hard to imagine they see it as anything more than an exercise in acting. Now and then they hold the hands just so and say the thing. What kind of men allow babies to be butchered and still can't find enough faith or sheer masculinity to properly address it. It is a completely scandal that these men have no stomach for defending the teaching they took vows to defend. They have failed to tend the sheep the Lord wanted them to tend. We are without leaders. I hope and pray it is not for too much longer.

Konstantin said...

It seems to me that by focussing on the remedial-corrective effect, people try to portray punitive measures such as excommunication as something "charitable". Of course this is an aspect of excommunication, but not the only one. And even then it appears to me that the duty of charity towards the flock to purge it of the leaven is much greater than towards the transgressor if we are talking solely about charity and remedial effects.

Boniface said...

Good point Konstantin. The duty of charity is primarily towards the flock, not the transgressor. The remedial/charitable aspect is secondary. People feel like they have to persuade themselves that punishment is charitable.

Molly Klein said...

Just to make a clarification: from all that I have been able to find on the internet... there was NO excommunication of Hans Kung. He was "reprimanded" and then given a different job at his University and allowed to continue teaching/disseminating his heretical ideas. Archbishop Lefebvre - not so much. Is there a reason why you are putting them together …. esp. when it isn't true? The one a Modernist "theologian" (Kung) who dissented from Chruch teaching … and the other a Catholic Bishop who tried to maintain the Faith that was passed down from the apostles? Anyway...The rest of the post is spot on. Thanks.

Boniface said...

Molly,

Interesting. You appear to be right. I will have to amend the article.

Yes, there is a reason I put them together, which I stated in the article - they are both clerics, not laymen. I can swap him out with other clerics who have been excommunicated.

Unknown said...

Excellent piece.

I am a convert from a long line of Protestant ministers. My wife is also a convert. I myself was a Protestant theological seminary-trained missionary along with my wife. All my children have also converted {all adults}. Their spouses are Catholic or they converted to the One, True Faith, the selfsame faith our leaders refuse to defend.

I came to the Church at age 48 because of a life spent reading the Scriptures, then studying the Fathers and history of the faith. I see little of that in the practices of leadership and sadly, many Catholics also, Catholics who form the backbone of social and political support for the advance of abortion, homosexuality, divorce and cohabitation.

All that to say the obvious. I have been shocked every day since my conversion almost 6 years ago at the absolutely unconscionable dereliction of duty I see in our leaders.

I take every chance I can to witness to the truth of the Catholic faith that exists on-paper but simply does not exist in the administration of the Church today. Indeed, what I thought was the Catholic Church before I converted...a big bureaucratic, secular, socialist- and communist- and perversion-sympathizing organization is more and more in the leadership being proven true.

Thankfully that is not wholly the case among some in the lower clergy and among the remnant that exists in the laity.

Discipline must be restored to the faith or the faith functionally will continue to demonstrate deadness and irrelevance to those outside the faith. Discipline isn't an option. It is integral to the faith.

The great experiment and rupture of practice inaugurated and admitted by Pope St John XXII in the 16th paragraph of Gaudet Mater Ecclesiae has run its course. Let us for charity's sake say it was an attempt to reach non-Catholics with the Gospel. But whatever its purpose was...unless God forbid that purpose was to destroy the Church...it has failed and we now see the clear proof of that failure in "men" in leadership who are utterly devoid of anything approaching Christian courage or even common decency and who shirk their duty daily in the most public of forums.

The Pope himself praises abortionists!

God help us.

God Save the Catholic Church...from her bishops, cardinals and popes.



Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

Dear Brother Boniface. EXCELLENT work here. Kudos!!

One reason there will be no excommunications is the hermeneutics of revolution. The revolution began much earlier than most Catholics imagine but the revolution appeared in public for the first time during Pope John 23rd's opening speech at Vatican Two when he said the Church would no longer apply discipline but fix everything with love (Cue The Beatles)

Later, this hermeneutic of revolution (an overturn of the then existing order)was secured by Pope Paul VI who told the priest of Rome that while he could still apply discipline he much preferred not to so he would b beloved.

It was then that the ugly face of the Revolution settled into the rictus of absurdity (see Dolan"s face) as it became apparent that the Church was not a res publica (A public thug) so much as it was a LaCosa Nostra (our thing) which meant that he powerful in the Church ran it for their own benefit and to help with the powerless

Fr. VF said...

Dolan, Tobin, O'Malley, Cupich, Gomez, McCarrick-Wuerl, etc., don't care that the Church is a stinking corpse that people are abandoning by the millions. Meanwhile, Bergoglio has said in one of his airplane interviews that millions of people have left the Catholic church because of Catholic businessman, who don't pay enough, and take expensive vacations. Yeah! That's it!

Pulex said...

Just a small rectification. The decree from Congregation of Bishops said that Lefebvre incurred latae sententiae excommunication. There was no canonical trial after the episcopal consecrations of 1988. The censure came about by mere fact, but it become legally relevant to the 3rd parties only after the Holy See had declared that such censure indeed was incurred.

Peter Youngblood said...

I can here to say what Pulex has already said. It is an important distinction that the decree concerning Lefebvre. Here is the actual text of the 1988 decree:

"Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning of 17 June last and the repeated appeals to desist from his intention, has performed a schismatic act by the episcopal consecration of four priests, without pontifical mandate and contrary to the will of the Supreme Pontiff, and has therefore incurred the penalty envisaged by Canon 1364, paragraph 1, and canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law. . . . Having taken account of all the juridical effects, I declare that the above-mentioned Archbishop Lefebvre, and Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred ipso facto excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See."

Tancred said...

Had Cuomo been more like Mel Gibson, you’d bet there’d be denunciations from bishops and priests alike.

I still recall the day when all the Quislings in my diocese joined the heretical Harry Flynn from Louisiana and a host of progressive agitators to attack Father Paul Marx, the founder of HLI. The condemnation was for Marx who had cited a rabbi friend of his who said that Jews were foremost in promotion of the abortion industry, but not for the loathsome sodomites who were entertaining themselves with lewd sexual gestures to antagonize the stony-faces Hibernian Brotherhood who has linked arms to keep them from entering the Cathedral where Father Marx had said Mass.

It was one of Marx’s high points, and it wasn’t long after that that he was resigned from HLI for having poor mental faculties. I met the man on two occasions before he died. This was nothing more than a pretext. He was sharp and witty as you might expect a man who’d done the things he’d done over many years.

Too bad he didn’t hold much truck for the Mass of All Ages... he was a son of the Litirgical Movement and Virgil Michel, unfortunately.