Bishops authority

[robertmidwest]

My understanding is that a few Catholic politicians have been contacted, and have - sadly - chosen not to give up abortion advocacy, but at least are now refraining from Holy Communion. These situations are mostly confidential.

The original discussion I had with my non-Catholic friend involved politicians who support abortion. She sited a news websites that is reporting that this politician has been banned from receiving communion. They don’t use the word excommunication, but it is clear that is what is meant. This caught my attention because I do not believe this to be true and I think it is disturbing to see non-Catholic websites putting out misinformation.

Recently a well know bishop has given his professional opinion in the media that this case would qualify for excommunication because of the politcians refusal to waiver from supporting abortion. His quotes though are being either purposely or out ignorance being equated with “the Catholic church” banning this politician from communion.

I told my friend that it is not true that this politician has been excommunicated and that this bishop does not have the authority to excommunicate her. I also told her only the Pope could excommunicate someone. I will have to retract the last part of answer. I did not realize that bishops have that authority.

 

[1ke]

It’s actually an interesting question, because there has been controversy over a bishop’s sovereign perogative to excommunicate those under his jurisdiction.

In 2009, a nine-year-old Brazilian girl underwent an abortion. Archbishop José Sobrinho acknowledged that a latae sententiae excommunication applied to the girl’s mother and the doctors who performed the murder. This led to outcry, and Archbishop Sobrinho was essentially reversed by the Brazilian episcopal conference. This case is altogether peculiar to me, because I had labored under the impression that the episcopal conference has no such authority or power anywhere.

A bishop’s conference does not have any such authority. They did not “reverse” anything, these other bishops simply publicly disagreed with him. Bishops wading in and giving their opinions really have no bearing on the original bishop or his decision.

 

[billcu1]

A bishop’s conference does not have any such authority. They did not “reverse” anything, these other bishops simply publicly disagreed with him. Bishops wading in and giving their opinions really have no bearing on the original bishop or his decision.

Ok now wait a minute. Oh I’m confused. I know the USCCB has some kind of authority. A year or two back they changed the missals. I was used to saying after the priests opening. “And with you.” Now it’s and has been for a while “And with your spirit.” That’s a USCCB change.

PS I know this isn’t directly related to the direct question concerning the OP. My point is a Bishop’s conference has some kind of impact.

Bill

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Ok now wait a minute. Oh I’m confused. I know the USCCB has some kind of authority. A year or two back they changed the missals. I was used to saying after the priests opening. “And with you.” Now it’s and has been for a while “And with your spirit.” That’s a USCCB change.

PS I know this isn’t directly related to the direct question concerning the OP. My point is a Bishop’s conference has some kind of impact.

Bill

No, the USSCB did not change the missal. It was changed by the Church, through the ICEL, to conform to the standards set forth for a more literal translation from the Latin.

If anything, I would say many of the Bishops in the USCCB would NOT have been in favor of the new translation, but that is another thread.

 

[Seraphim73]

An episcopal conference is NOT a synod. Not even close.

Ok then what is it? I don’t know any other term for a council of bishops. This doesn’t make any sense. Why do they exist if they have no authority? It was even my understanding that I believe the Archbishop of Boston (or maybe Baltimore) was the primate of the American Church.

 

[1ke]

Ok now wait a minute. Oh I’m confused. I know the USCCB has some kind of authority.

Not that kind of authority.

The authority of a bishop’s conference is limited to those items outlined in Canons 447 - 459 of the Code of Canon Law.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P1L.HTM

A year or two back they changed the missals. I was used to saying after the priests opening. “And with you.” Now it’s and has been for a while “And with your spirit.” That’s a USCCB change.

No, that was not a USCCB change.

My point is a Bishop’s conference has some kind of impact.

Not regarding a bishop’s exercise of legitimate authority in his own diocese.

 

[1ke]

Ok then what is it? I don’t know any other term for a council of bishops.

Conference of Bishops:

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P1L.HTM

Synod of bishops:

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P18.HTM

Neither has authority over the bishop of a diocese nor his exercise of legitimate authority.

This doesn’t make any sense. Why do they exist if they have no authority?

They have authority as given in Canon Law. It simply has nothing to do with being “over” other bishops. No one is “over” a bishop in his diocese, nor the exercise of his authority in it, including the Pope.

It was even my understanding that I believe the Archbishop of Boston (or maybe Baltimore) was the primate of the American Church.

Can. 438 The titles of patriarch and primate entail no power of governance in the Latin Church apart from a prerogative of honor unless in some matters the contrary is clear from apostolic privilege or approved custom.

 

[billcu1]

No, the USSCB did not change the missal. It was changed by the Church, through the ICEL, to conform to the standards set forth for a more literal translation from the Latin.

If anything, I would say many of the Bishops in the USCCB would NOT have been in favor of the new translation, but that is another thread.

What is ICEL? Was this just in the US?

Bill

 

[1ke]

What is ICEL? Was this just in the US?

Bill

International Commission on English in the Liturgy

This is a commission that includes members from eleven bishops’ conferences in English speaking countries. Their purpose is to provide English translations from the Latin. They do this for many liturgical and other Church documents.

In 2002 JPII issued a new Roman Missal. The 3rd typical edition.

The ICEL began the translation process and the translation, and after completion, was submitted for approval to the Vatican. That is the “new” missal we began using in the US in 2011.

 

[Corki]

Yes, a bishop has this authority in his diocese and for those under his jurisdiction.

No, the Pope neither reviews nor approves an censure issued by a fellow bishop.

Excommunications can, however, be appealed to Rome via the appropriate Congregation. For example, Bishop Bruskewitz issued excommunications for those who were memeber of Call to Action in his diocese (Lincoln) and CTA appealed to the Congregation for Bishops. The Congregation upheld the excommunications and they are in effect, I believe, to this day.

 

[dans0622]

The original discussion I had with my non-Catholic friend involved politicians who support abortion. She sited a news websites that is reporting that this politician has been banned from receiving communion. They don’t use the word excommunication, but it is clear that is what is meant. This caught my attention because I do not believe this to be true and I think it is disturbing to see non-Catholic websites putting out misinformation.

Recently a well know bishop has given his professional opinion in the media that this case would qualify for excommunication because of the politcians refusal to waiver from supporting abortion. …

Hello,

Well, the refusal of Holy Communion does not actually mean excommunication. I highly doubt that the well-known bishop, whoever he is, actually said that such a person “qualifies” for excommunication; at the same time, he may well have said that he/she should not be given Holy Communion.

As to the original question, yes, a bishop can both declare and impose excommunication as long as it happens in accord with the universal law as found in the Code of Canon Law.

Dan

 

[HelenRose]

I know you must sin of your own will, but how is a woman coerced into an abortion? You mean if she is “young an impressionable”? That makes sense. Now if someone is holding a gun to your head and says “Kill this person or I’ll kill you!”, Humm that’s one that’s not too clear to me.

Bill

Fortunately God in His Mercy knows the answer to this and all other hypothetical questions. We can never know what is in the heart of another person. I am very grateful that it is not my job to know.

 

[robertmidwest]

Hello,

Well, the refusal of Holy Communion does not actually mean excommunication. I highly doubt that the well-known bishop, whoever he is, actually said that such a person “qualifies” for excommunication; at the same time, he may well have said that he/she should not be given Holy Communion.

As to the original question, yes, a bishop can both declare and impose excommunication as long as it happens in accord with the universal law as found in the Code of Canon Law.

Dan

This is another point I will have to clarify with my friend. Thank you. I incorrectly equated denial of Holy Communion with excommunication.

Do the same laws apply for denial of Communion? Has to be the bishop of the persons diocese? Or could a well know bishop who is currently assigned to a job in the Vatican deny communion to, say for example, a U.S. politician? This is what the website in question is reporting has happened as a fact. I don’t think this is correct. I believe the Bishop has given his opinion and does not have the authority since his post in the vatican and the politician is in another country.

 

[Seraphim73]

Hello,

Well, the refusal of Holy Communion does not actually mean excommunication. I highly doubt that the well-known bishop, whoever he is, actually said that such a person “qualifies” for excommunication; at the same time, he may well have said that he/she should not be given Holy Communion.

But that’s exactly what excommunication is no? Denial of Holy Communion.

 

[billcu1]

But that’s exactly what excommunication is no? Denial of Holy Communion.

What Catholic in their right mind would want to miss or deny themselves of Mass, or should I say the body and blood, any more than they absolutely had to for extenuating circumstances?

Bill

 

[dans0622]

…
Do the same laws apply for denial of Communion? Has to be the bishop of the persons diocese? Or could a well know bishop who is currently assigned to a job in the Vatican deny communion to, say for example, a U.S. politician? This is what the website in question is reporting has happened as a fact. I don’t think this is correct. I believe the Bishop has given his opinion and does not have the authority since his post in the vatican and the politician is in another country.

Hello,

While the duty to safeguard Holy Communion belongs to the minister, in the usual course of events the bishop of a place would make it known that a certain person is not to be given Communion in his diocese. This removes pressure from parish priests. If it is a matter of someone who is so well-known in his/her obstinate defiance of fundamental, Catholic principles, the head of a Vatican tribunal could not command anyone to deny Communion. He doesn’t have that authority. At the same time, if the wayward Catholic showed up at this bishop’s Mass, he is well within his rights to deny Communion. I hope that makes sense.

Dan

 

[dans0622]

But that’s exactly what excommunication is no? Denial of Holy Communion.

Hello,

The penalty of excommunication includes the prohibition on reception of all Sacraments (and other consequences, too). The denial of Holy Communion is not a penalty and does not necessitate the denial of other Sacraments (although it may well be justified).

It may be likened to a person who is convicted for drunk driving and put in jail. He can’t drive his car–and can’t exercise a lot of other rights–because of the penalty. On the other hand, there is a man who also has problems with drinking but it is his wife who doesn’t give him the keys when he’s had too much to drink.

Dan

 

[robertmidwest]

Hello,
If it is a matter of someone who is so well-known in his/her obstinate defiance of fundamental, Catholic principles, the head of a Vatican tribunal could not command anyone to deny Communion. He doesn’t have that authority. At the same time, if the wayward Catholic showed up at this bishop’s Mass, he is well within his rights to deny Communion. I hope that makes sense.

Dan

Yes this makes sense. The website she linked had a headline indicating that there was some “universal” ban by the “the church”. This is what I was trying to correct.

I don’t like this politcian anymore than she did. I am not debating what the Bishop said either. It just bothered me to see his quotes exploited. The owners of website could be ignorant of Catholic tradition/law but also believe that they were using the situation for their own gain.

 

[teeboy]

Yes this makes sense. The website she linked had a headline indicating that there was some “universal” ban by the “the church”. This is what I was trying to correct.

I don’t like this politcian anymore than she did. I am not debating what the Bishop said either. It just bothered me to see his quotes exploited. The owners of website could be ignorant of Catholic tradition/law but also believe that they were using the situation for their own gain.

The politician may have been poorly catechized. Whose fault is that? Who owes who when the parents of the politician paid much money for their child’s catechesis, and the religion teacher, who the school employed, decided not to discuss Purgatory for some reason? The child and his parents were deceived by the Teacher/School/Church, and the parents paid for the deception.

Maybe the politician attended one of those Catholic Schools that hires Protestant teachers. Where is the justice in that? Let me answer, there is no justice in that.

A bishop would be a fool to excommunicate a particular individual. The bishop can never know enough about an individual to exommunicate him. However, that individual may excommunicate himself.

 

[billcu1]

The politician may have been poorly catechized. Whose fault is that? Who owes who when the parents of the politician paid much money for their child’s catechesis, and the religion teacher, who the school employed, decided not to discuss Purgatory for some reason? The child and his parents were deceived by the Teacher/School/Church, and the parents paid for the deception.

Maybe the politician attended one of those Catholic Schools that hires Protestant teachers. Where is the justice in that? Let me answer, there is no justice in that.

A bishop would be a fool to excommunicate a particular individual. The bishop can never know enough about an individual to exommunicate him. However, that individual may excommunicate himself.

You know we have had if I’m correct Bishops in the past in the middle ages especially excommunicate people and they need indulgences sometimes sold.