Anticipating Attempts To Excommunicate Faithful Catholics - And Combating Them

As said in the previous post, Cardinal Burke gave an address at a conference in Rome last week.  The conference was called, "Catholic Church: Where Are You Going?"  He broached the consequences of any needed disobedience to Pope Francis.  He is speaking primarily of the direction that Amoralis Lamentia explicitly states in its infamous chapter 8 footnote regarding the administration of Holy Communion to adulterers.

The question of excommunication was raised.  The Cardinal said we must be ready to suffer such consequences with Christian patience.

My question is, if such an attempt at excommunication was made, would that excommunication be valid?  Perhaps that "consequence" would not even exist in fact.  Excommunication just can't be done willy-nilly, at the drop of a hat.  Specific conditions must be met for a valid excommunication, along with specific protocol to be followed.

The Catholic New Advent Encyclopedia has a treatise on excommunication.  One sections says, and I quote, "Catholics on the contrary, cannot be excommunicated unless for some personal, grievously offensive act. Here, therefore, it is necessary to state with precision the conditions under which this penalty is incurred."  Right there we see that excommunication can only occur as a consequence of a "grievously offensive act".  What would be these acts that would cause excommunication?  They'd have to be objectively sinful, correct?  Ruffling the feathers of a church leader and/or pricking his conscience would not constitute an "offensive act"!

Moving on down that article, we read, "An excommunication is said to be null when it is invalid because of some intrinsic or essential defect, e.g. when the  inflicting it has no jurisdiction, when the motive of the excommunication is manifestly incorrect and inconsistent, or when the excommunication is essentially defective in form."  Therefore, I ask that if an attempt at excommunication is made in the absence of a mortal sin, does that "excommunication" have any consequence?

I for one think not.  In the face of these considerations, I cannot see how one so "excommunicated" could, in good conscience, submit to that.  In so doing, he/she would be cooperating with the sin of an abuse of ecclesial authority.  He/she would actually be validating an act of abuse and dishonesty.

The cardinal is right to broach these matters.  Given the trajectory of this papacy, especially the manners in which traditional orders and faithful prelates have been thrown under the bus (including Cardinal Burke himself), draconian attempts at excommunication are clearly within the realm of real possibilities.  I can see where some might think the proper response to that kind of abuse might be to acquiesce to it and comply with the "excommunication".  I do not believe it is inherently virtuous to roll over and play dead like that.  Evil must be resisted.  If no excommunication really exists in fact, we cannot pretend that it does.  Such lies must be disobeyed, just like the lie of admissibility of adulterers to Holy Communion.

Progressive Prelates Use Their Sacerdotal Authority As Weapons Against The Faithful

It seemed to me that Cardinal Muller still retained some concept of "sensus fidelium", but this account from GloriaTV disavows me of such notions.  Apparently he claims that a Catholic can conclude that his/her marriage before the Church is invalid with no canonical proof whatsoever.  In other words, he/she is his/her own judge in that matter, and the Church affirms this subjective evaluation.

We also received word from Church Militant TV that a faithful Catholic in Canada is finally being allowed onto her parish's property after being banned for over a year.  Her request that the parish announce the right to kneel for communion was met with slander from both the pastor and the parish secretary, with the apparent complicity of the local archdiocese.  Only after light was shone on the situation was the woman allowed onto her church property and to receive the sacraments.

These two stories seem unrelated, don't they?  Oh, they are very much related!  These are accounts of prelates who have no regard for the sacraments and the proper administration of the same.  On the one hand, you have a cardinal voicing approval for adulterous Catholics to pretend that they can receive Holy Communion.  On the other hand, a pastor vindictively - and in violation of canon law - denies the sacraments to a Catholic in good standing who simply asked to kneel at communion.

So here are two points we can glean from all this:

• Dissent from the Teachings of Jesus Christ - progressive prelates are just hunky-dorry with it and the subsequent sacrilege against the Sacraments.  
• Upholding the Teachings of Jesus Christ, especially in the face of the negligence and derision of prelates.  The bishops and clergy will meet such fidelity with resentment and even hatred, going so far as to punish the faithful by withholding sacraments which is itself a direct violation of Canon Law, specifically Canon 843

Progressive prelates, being compromised in their faith, administer the sacraments on basis of their own whims, caprices and even malice.  In doing so, they only add to the pile of sins that they already carry.  Unless they repent - and for many the clock is ticking loudly - their eternal salvation is in grave doubt.

When Orthodox Teachers Are Attacked

Michael Voris is commenting on the latest episodes of orthodox religious being attacked for proclaiming the faith; Sister Jane Dominic Laurel is one of them, the other Father Francis "Rocky" Hoffman.  Take note when he (at 5:33) rebukes bishops for not having the "spine, guts or taste to do what needs to be done."  That means you, Bishop Peter Jugis!

Bishop Jugis Replies! Well, Kinda!!!

Last week I wrote my Open Letter to Bishop Peter Jugis in regards to his milquetoast pig-slop of a statement.   Well, lo and behold, - he replied!  At least David Hains did.  Are you just waiting with bated breath to read their words of wisdom?  Well feast your eyes for here it is!  Drum roll and trumpets, please!

(BEGIN REPLY)

Ms. Baker,

Your email below has been forwarded by the Chancery to me for a response.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this subject.  We have received a great deal of input on this subject.

-d

David Hains

Director of Communication, Diocese of Charlotte

704.370.3336

Webmaster, www.CatholicVoiceNC.org

    

chancery@charlottediocese.org 

(END REPLY)

Well, doesn't that just clear everything right up?  More mealy-mouthed mush from on high!  Truth be told, I believe him when he says they received "a great deal of input on this subject".  The real questions are:

• Do they give a rat's rump about all this "input"?  I fear this question is merely rhetorical.
• Will they still compel the Dominicans to keep Sister Jane Dominic Laurel in perpetual limbo?  And no, I don't buy the crap that Sister started her sabbatical "on her own"!