Can I be excommunicated for criticizing a Bishop?

[benedictgal]

If you have a problem with the Bishop. “Right a letter to Rome!”. Don’t take the affair into your own hands.

That’s exactly what my dad had to do. In fact, he’s already received a response from Rome, and, they are looking into the matter. So, Rome can’t excommunicate you especially if Redemptionis Sacramentum pretty much tells you to address abuses and other matters first to the priest in question and then to the Bishop. If the bishop refuses to act, you do have the right to take your concern to the Holy See.

I might add that in your case, your letter should be directed to His Eminence, Givonni Battista Cardinal Re. He is the Prefect for the Congregation of Bishops.

 

[Michael_Neal]

Now listen to what you are saying-- if this hypothetical censure was upheld by Rome you would “not obey”.

So now you know better than the entire church…

No I am not saying I know better than the entire Church, I am 100% obedient to the Church’s in its teachings and practices. But if they do something that is unjust, contrary to the principles it holds, I would not feel obligated to follow.

If I were excommunicated for complaining about the Bishop acting improperly and contrary to the morals and teachings of the Church, I would not consider it valid and would ignore it. As described in the Catechism I can use a well formed conscience to dissent, that is so long as my conscience is guided by the faith and morals of the Church.

I do not buy the argument that one should avoid criticism since some people may lose their faith over the public scandal. This is the very reason the sex abuse scandal got to be the mammoth problem it is today, nobody said or did anything. And it created a larger scandal in end.

 

[1ke]

No I am not saying I know better than the entire Church, I am 100% obedient to the Church’s in its teachings and practices. But if they do something that is unjust, contrary to the principles it holds, I would not feel obligated to follow.

If I were excommunicated for complaining about the Bishop acting improperly and contrary to the morals and teachings of the Church, I would not consider it valid and would ignore it. As described in the Catechism I can use a well formed conscience to dissent, that is so long as my conscience is guided by the faith and morals of the Church.

I do not buy the argument that one should avoid criticism since some people may lose their faith over the public scandal. This is the very reason the sex abuse scandal got to be the mammoth problem it is today, nobody said or did anything. And it created a larger scandal in end.

This is the **exact **same (flawed) logic that dissenters such as Curran, Grammick, Chittister, et al, use to continue to promote their agendas in spite of Vatican censure. You can read Sr. Grammick’s statement rebutting her censure as “unjust”.

You are either obedient to the lawful authority or you aren’t.

A well-formed conscience would not lead you to continue to engage in an activity that the Church had determined you should cease. A *malformed *conscience, thinking you know better than the lawful authority, leads you down the path you propose.

 

[Michael_Neal]

No its not the same at all. I am not straying from the teachings of the church.

Your line of thinking is what kept the Church abuse scandal underground for so long and ended up being 100 times worse than if people spoke up about it from the beginning.

We are morally obliged to correct a wrong when we see it, even if it is from a Bishop.

Others like you mentioned try to use the conscience argument to try and warp the meaning of or change the principles of the church. I am in no way advocating that because that would be acting with a malformed conscience.

A well-formed conscience would not lead you to continue to engage in an activity that the Church had determined you should cease. A malformed conscience, thinking you know better than the lawful authority, leads you down the path you propose.

I completely disagree, the Church is not infallible except in cases of faith and morals. If they are acting in any way that is contrary to the principles of Catholicism, by covering up abuse scandals or protecting Bishops that cover up, they are in the wrong. And if they excommunicated me for speaking up against wrongs then they would be in error and I would consider any sanction against me null and void.

 

[kevstar31]

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P53.HTM

Can. 1373 A person who publicly incites among subjects animosities or hatred against the Apostolic See or an ordinary because of some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry or provokes subjects to disobey them is to be punished by an interdict or other just penalties.

newadvent.org/cathen/08073a.htm

Interdict differs from excommunication, in that it does not cut one off from the communion of the faithful or from Christian society, though the acts of religion forbidden in both cases are almost identical. It differs from suspension also in this respect: the latter affects the powers of clerics, inasmuch as they are clerics, while the interdict affects the rights of the faithful as such, and does not directly affect clerics as such but only as members of the Church. Of course, it follows that the clergy cannot exercise their functions towards those under interdict, or in interdicted places or buildings, but their powers are not directly affected, as happens in case of suspension; their jurisdiction remains unimpaired, which allows of a guilty individual being punished, without imperilling the validity of his acts of jurisdiction. This shows that an interdict is more akin to excommunication than to suspension.

 

[1ke]

No its not the same at all. I am not straying from the teachings of the church.

Your line of thinking is what kept the Church abuse scandal underground for so long and ended up being 100 times worse than if people spoke up about it from the beginning.

We are morally obliged to correct a wrong when we see it, even if it is from a Bishop.

You wrote, “In my case it is criticizing a bishop for removing whistle blowing priests as well as removing priests who complain about liturgical abuses.”

In your opinion “removing” (which you haven’t clarified what that means) a priest with whom the bishop is displeased is an “injustice”. It may well be. HOWEVER, the priests are under his authority. And, if he puts them in the back office counting beans instead of pastoring a church that is within his authority. YOU do not get to say what assignment a priest has. As an example Fr. ______was moved to a hospital chaplancy by his bishop. There are those who thought it “unjust” but the priest was **obedient **to his bishop-- who has legitimate authority over him.

Others like you mentioned try to use the conscience argument to try and warp the meaning of or change the principles of the church. I am in no way advocating that because that would be acting with a malformed conscience.

You would be denying the authority of the bishop over his priests.

I completely disagree, the Church is not infallible except in cases of faith and morals. If they are acting in any way that is contrary to the principles of Catholicism, by covering up abuse scandals or protecting Bishops that cover up, they are in the wrong.

And, no one has advocated covering up abuse or protecting bishops who cover it up NOR did you state that was the basis of your ‘criticism’ of the bishop.

And if they excommunicated me for speaking up against wrongs then they would be in error and I would consider any sanction against me null and void.

What you *perceive *to be wrongs. The bishop acting within his authority is not “wrong”. It may be imprudent, and you certainly can speak voice your opinion-- however in the Church there is a right way and a wrong way to do it. And, if you violate Can 1373 then you are doing it the wrong way. The Church is not a democracy, and I think people often forget that.

 

[Michael_Neal]

Can. 1373 A person who publicly incites among subjects animosities or hatred against the Apostolic See or an ordinary because of some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry or provokes subjects to disobey them is to be punished by an interdict or other just penalties.

It would be quite a stretch to claim that I was inciting hatred or animosity by criticizing the Bishop’s actions. Seriously, come on now, that is a weak argument.

1ke, I am not denying the Bishops’ authority over his priests nor am I claiming the church is a democracy. I am not saying that I have a vote in the matter but I do have a voice. I have an obligation to try and right wrongs that I see even if that means criticizing a bishop.

It would be very interesting to have a bishop bring charges against a lay person for criticizing him from removing whistle blowing priests. In fact it would elevate my cause and bring more attention to it which is OK with me. I would certainly make sure I sent no less than 1000 press releases out about it and make sure as many people were informed as possible.

The hypocrisy would also be evident, protecting priests that have gravely violated Catholic morality while targeting priests and lay people who do not stray at all from the Church’s teachings.

I welcome the fight frankly.

I have a question for you, should the people of Boston just have remained silent about Cardinal Law? Should they all be sanctioned by the Church for making their voices known on the matter? Should the victims of priest abuse remain silent in order to avoid bringing scandal to the public eye?

Bringing your argument to it’s logical conclusion we should just accept the abuses by Church leaders and remain silent since we should be obedient towards them. Nonsense. If the Bishop is wrong he is wrong and I have every right to criticize him for gravely straying from the principles of the Church.

 

[Michael_Neal]

duplicate deleted