Excommunicated Saints

[Dan_Daly]

I recently learned that St. Athanasius was at one time excommunicated, which I found very interesting (especially considering that he is known as the Father of Orthodoxy). (The Pope who excommunicated and lifted the excommunication, is a Saint as well).

St. Mary of the Cross was excommunicated, the excommunication was eventually lifted as well. Fascinating woman:

AudioSancto.org/auweb/20101017-Australian-Mary-MacKillop-Saint-Mary-of-the-Cross.mp3

St. Joan of Arc was excommunicated, executed, and the excommunication was only lifted after her death.

So anyone know of any other Saints who were excommunicated?

Pax and God Bless.

 

[TheDoctor]

St. Joan of Arc was the only one I knew of.

Just to be picky, I think you are asking about people who were excommunicated and later canonized, as opposed to the other way around.

 

[fred_conty]

If one doesn’t have an etch, they shouldn’t scratch it or they’ll get a sore.

 

[Timothysis]

St. Joan of Arc was never excommunicated. The Holy See, after her death, ruled that the excommunication was not valid due to the corrupt motives of the bishop involved.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Note that Saint Hippolytus was an anti-pope at one point and a follower of the Novatian schism. He shares his feast day [August 13] with Saint Pontian, the true pope, as they were martyred together in exile.

 

[JReducation]

I recently learned that St. Athanasius was at one time excommunicated, which I found very interesting (especially considering that he is known as the Father of Orthodoxy). (The Pope who excommunicated and lifted the excommunication, is a Saint as well).

St. Mary of the Cross was excommunicated, the excommunication was eventually lifted as well. Fascinating woman:

AudioSancto.org/auweb/20101017-Australian-Mary-MacKillop-Saint-Mary-of-the-Cross.mp3

St. Joan of Arc was excommunicated, executed, and the excommunication was only lifted after her death.

So anyone know of any other Saints who were excommunicated?

Pax and God Bless.

Actually, St. Joan of Arc was never excommunicated. This is one of those very weird situations. Let’s take it small pieces.

The local bishop excommunicated her. Back then and today, a decree of excommunication by a bishop must be upheld by the reigning pope. Popes don’t have to issue the decree, but the bishop issuing it must be authorized to do so. This can go two ways, the bishop issues the decree and sends it to the pope to ratify or the pope simply nods in approval and lets the bishop excommunicate. In Joan’s case, the local bishop excommunicated and sent the decree to Rome.

However, Joan was also a Franciscan. The friars knew that the excommunication was political. She had not committed heresy, nor had she broken with the primacy or commmitted a canonical crime. They went to Rome to plead her case. Unfortunately, she was dead when the verdict was handed down. The pope did not lift the excommunication. He refused to ratify it. There is a difference. The former is called remission of an excommunication, when the excommunication is valid and it is lifted by the pope. The latter is called dismissal, when the pope refuses to ratify it; therefore, the charges are dismissed.

The other saints were excommunicated in life and their excommunications were lifted or dismissed in life. In Joan’s case, many people believe that the excommunication was lifted after her death. That was not the case. You can’t lift an excommunication after a person is dead. An excommunication is a form of medicine which intends to bring the person back into the fold. How can you bring someone back who is no longer with us? Either the person was excommunicated when they died or they were not. Only a pope can decide this.

After death, a pope can decide that the excommunication was not valid, because it was illegal, except when the excommunication has been approved by a previous pope. Then it stands, unless you can prove that the pope was fed misinformation. Obviously, the excommunication is not valid, because had the pope known the truth of the matter, he would not have excommunicated or approved an excommunication. Which was the case with Joan. The information in the bishop’s decree was misinformation. The friars had the truth and the witnesses to prove that the pope was being sold a bill of goods concerning Joan.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Dan_Daly]

Thank you for the information Father. Are you aware of any other Saints who have been excommunicated?

I’m also slightly confused by the wording you used. You said a Pope must approve the excommunication performed by a Bishop. In St. Joan of Arc’s case, the Pope didnt do what he “must” do. Do you mean the bishop’s excommunication REQUIRES the Pope’s discretionary approval?

Finally, what about excommunications that someone incurs on their own by their actions, as opposed to one decreed by a Bishop? I know in the past having an abortion or becoming a Mason carried an automatic excommunication.

How would judge the validity of such an excommunication?

Pax

 

[santodomingo]

How about Archbishop Lefebvre? I know he´s not a saint (yet), but time will tell. I pray that he will one day be proclaimed a saint, and venerated as a great defender of Catholic Tradition. A 20th century St. Athanasius.

Mgr. Lefebvre was declared to be excommunicated after the episcopal consacrations of 1988. This excommunication was declared to be “of no juridical effect” by Benedict XVI, and I believe that it was invalid in any case.

 

[Timothysis]

How about Archbishop Lefebvre? I know he´s not a saint (yet), but time will tell. I pray that he will one day be proclaimed a saint, and venerated as a great defender of Catholic Tradition. A 20th century St. Athanasius.

I don’t understand how this can happen. For one, the Archbishop died excommunicated and as Brother JR said, you can’t lift an excommunication after the death of the individual. Second, the Archbishop was excommunicated by the reigning pontiff for the act of disobedience which is an objective fact that can be supported by the evidence. I don’t see how he could ever be proclaimed a saint when the facts are obvious and objective in regards to his disobedience.

Mgr. Lefebvre was declared to be excommunicated after the episcopal consacrations of 1988. This excommunication was declared to be “of no juridical effect” by Benedict XVI, and I believe that it was invalid in any case.

It most certainly wasn’t “invalid in any case.” The fact that Pope John Paul II declared the excommunications, Pope Benedict removed the excommunications and the fact that the bishops involved asked to have the excommunications removed is evidence that it was all certainly valid from the beginning.

 

[JReducation]

Thank you for the information Father. Are you aware of any other Saints who have been excommunicated?

I’m also slightly confused by the wording you used. You said a Pope must approve the excommunication performed by a Bishop. In St. Joan of Arc’s case, the Pope didnt do what he “must” do. Do you mean the bishop’s excommunication REQUIRES the Pope’s discretionary approval?

Finally, what about excommunications that someone incurs on their own by their actions, as opposed to one decreed by a Bishop? I know in the past having an abortion or becoming a Mason carried an automatic excommunication.

How would judge the validity of such an excommunication?

Pax

A bishop can excommunicate, but the decree has to be ratified by the pope. In Joan’s case, the pope did not ratify the decree, because the Franciscans proved that there were no legal, moral or canonical cause for the excommunication.

It was not a failure of the pope. It was that the bishop did not have a case that he could make stick.

When a person is excommunicated by their own actions, such as knowingly participating in an abortion, that’s a latae sententiae excommunication. This is an excommunication that has been approved by the pope prior to the crime. The pope does not need to do anything. He has already approved it. For the excommunication to take effect you must meet two conditions. You must be Catholic and you must know that there is a penalty of excommunication. You can’t separate someone who is already separated from the Church. You can’t separate someone who does not know the law. Canon Law is not like civil law. In Canon Law, ignorance of the law mitigates the punishment.

That’s why the Archbishop excommunicated himself. The law was in place. He knew the law and he knew the consequences of breaking the law. In addition, he was sent a letter from the Holy See that this would happen. The letter was not necessary, but they sent it anyway. My guess is that they hoped that this would rattle him enough that he would back down on the idea of the ordinations. Obviously, that went over well.

He cannot be canonized, because you cannot canonize someone who dies excommunicated. This is very interesting. This does not mean that the person is not in heaven. The Church cannot say who is not in heaven. The Church can only way who is in heaven.

This simply means that the person appeared to die outside of the Church. Again, it’s an objective judgment. No one knows what he said to his confessor and no one will ever know. Nor does anyone know what happened between the soul and God at the moment of death.

The Church can only work with what she knows. What does she know? She knows that the Archbishop was excommunicated and that he died before the excommunication was lifted.

There are people who believe that the excommunication was invalid. At the end of the day, what people believe does not matter to God or to the Church. What matters to God and to the Church is what the Church binds and unbinds. That’s my reason for never speculating on whether an excommunication is or is not valid. The pope cares about my opinion as much as he cares for Adolf Hitler. He gets paid to care for my soul, not my opinion. We need to remember this.

In addition, there are no rules that govern popes. As I have said, popes can and have excommunicated people for things that seem silly to us. These have stuck. No pope ever retracts them once the person is dead. If the pope had excommunicated the Archbishop for ordaining four bishops and the archbishop had in fact not ordained anyone then the excommunication would not apply. The terms for the excommunication were very clear. A bishop cannot ordain other bishops without a papal mandate.

The issue of “Canon Law says this . . .” can be waved away by a pope. He is the Living Law as the Fathers of the Church said. He is not bound by Canon Law.

Since the purpose of an excommunication is medicinal, it makes not sense to apply medicine or claim to retract medicine when the patient is dead. The most we can say is that the medicine did not work and we commend the soul of the diseased to the mercy of God.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jmj1984]

By my count that still leaves one excommunicated saint

 

[PazzoGrande]

Saint Mary Mackillop was excommunicated but it was lifted, apparently due to a misunderstanding.

Dorothy Day is a candidate for sainthood; she incurred an automatic excommunication by having an abortion (or at least you would incur that today; I don’t know if it was the rule in her time). She repented, but of course you still have idiots out there who say Catholics would revere a woman who had an abortion.

 

[PazzoGrande]

Saint Mary Mackillop was excommunicated but it was lifted, apparently due to a misunderstanding.

Dorothy Day is a candidate for sainthood; she incurred an automatic excommunication by having an abortion (or at least you would incur that today; I don’t know if it was the rule in her time). She repented, but of course you still have idiots out there who say Catholics would revere a woman who had an abortion.

Whoops, sorry, the original poster already covered Saint Mary. I didn’t know her religious name was Saint Mary of the Cross.

… and there I was feeling smart.

 

[Vianney33]

(The Pope who excommunicated and lifted the excommunication, is a Saint as well).

The pope who excommunicated St. Athanasius was Pope Liberius. He was the first Catholic pope to not be canonized.

As for ABL, his excommunication was remitted and declared void of any juridical effects, thus his excommunication was lifted as was the other saints mentioned.

Nevertheless, those who argue ABL was legally excommunicated continually refuse to address the clear instructions in Canon Law that state if one is acting under what one believes to be a case of necessity, automatic penalties do not apply.

 

[Vianney33]

From the approved apparition of Our Lady of Good Success revealed the following to Mother Mariana de Jesus in the 17th century in Quito, Ecuador regarding the the Church crisis that would occur in the 20th century. Many believe this refers to Archbishop Lefebvre as his entire mission was to preserve the Catholic priesthood.

"How the Church will suffer during this dark night! Lacking a prelate and father to guide them with paternal love, gentleness, strength, wisdom and prudence, many priests will lose their spirit, placing their souls in great danger.

"Therefore, clamor insistently without tiring and weep with bitter tears in the privacy of your heart. Implore our Celestial Father, for love of the Eucharist Heart of my Most Holy Son and His Precious Blood shed with such generosity,… that He might take pity on His ministers and bring to an end those ominous times, and send to the Church the prelate who will restore the spirit of its priests.
“My Most Holy Son and I will love this most favored son with a love of predilection, and we will gift him with a rare capacity, humility of heart, docility with divine inspiration, the strength to defend the rights of the Church, and a tender and compassionate heart, so that, like another Christ, he will assist the great and small, without despising the less fortunate who ask him for light and counsel in their doubts and hardships…Into his hand the scale of the Sanctuary will be placed so that all might be carried out with due measure and for the glory of God.”

 

[Vianney33]

That’s why the Archbishop excommunicated himself. The law was in place. He knew the law and he knew the consequences of breaking the law.

The law specifically gives an exception to automatic penalties when the actor sincerely believes there is a necessity for his actions even if he is mistaken. How do you address this fact, seeing as how ABL constantly spoke out that he though there was a clear case of necessity?

He cannot be canonized, because you cannot canonize someone who dies excommunicated.

The excommunication can later be remitted, as was done in the Archbishop’s case, therefore he could most certainly be canonized in the future.

There are people who believe that the excommunication was invalid. At the end of the day, what people believe does not matter to God or to the Church. What matters to God and to the Church is what the Church binds and unbinds.

And the Church has said the excommunication was remitted. Rome has spoken, the matter is settled.

In addition, there are no rules that govern popes.

Pope’s must follow their own Canon Law at the time the act occurs. If they clearly do not, the act is not valid. The Pope can change Canon Law, but not retroactively. The Pope is not a dictator who rules by fiat. He follows his own Code of Canon Law which he himself approved.

The issue of “Canon Law says this . . .” can be waved away by a pope. He is the Living Law as the Fathers of the Church said. He is not bound by Canon Law.

This would make the Pope into an absolute dictator and vitiate the very need for Canon Law. The entire purpose of Canon Law is to provide a source of order and procedure regarding discipline. If these laws can be disregarded at will by the pope they are not worth the paper they are printed on. The Pope is bound out of natural justice to apply his own duly promulgated laws at the time the act occurs.

Since the purpose of an excommunication is medicinal, it makes not sense to apply medicine or claim to retract medicine when the patient is dead. The most we can say is that the medicine did not work and we commend the soul of the diseased to the mercy of God.

Do you have any Church authority you can cite that says it is impossible for a future Pope to lift or remit the excommunication of one who has died? It is possible that later the Pope finds out that the previous excommunication was in error, and thus never existed to begin with.

Besides, this theory is soundly refuted by the obvious fact that BXVI remitted the excommunication on ABL.

 

[santodomingo]

Hello Vianney,

That´s powerful stuff! I remember reading this in Mgr. Lefebvre´s sermon during the famous episcopal consecrations of ´88. He himself suspected that the profecies might refer to him.

I myself have little doubt that he was a great man of God. Whether or not he will be canonized, I don´t expect I´ll be around long enough to see that. Hopefully I´ll meet him in the other world and I´ll be able to thank him for all he did in preserving the catholic priesthood.

 

[Timothysis]

As for ABL, his excommunication was remitted and declared void of any juridical effects, thus his excommunication was lifted as was the other saints mentioned.

This is patently untrue.

Nevertheless, those who argue ABL was legally excommunicated continually refuse to address the clear instructions in Canon Law that state if one is acting under what one believes to be a case of necessity, automatic penalties do not apply.

Brother JR is very learned theologian. His proficiency on the subject trumps any personal opinion of yours, mine or anyone else on this board. He has already addressed that the pope did not accept the “case of necessity” defense, which, as the lawgiver of the Church, is his right. The Archbishop was warned of the consequences if he proceeded with his actions - even warned in writing which is not necessary - and he still proceeded. The excommunication imposed by Pope John Paul II was as real and as valid as any given before. Whether you accept this or not is of no consequence but do you not find it telling that the bishops excommunicated with the Archbishop appealed to the Holy Father to have the excommunications lifted? They certainly believed the validity of Pope John Paul II’s actions. What do you know that they don’t?

 

[Timothysis]

The excommunication can later be remitted, as was done in the Archbishop’s case, therefore he could most certainly be canonized in the future.

The Archbishop died excommunicated. It was not remitted. Please provide evidence to the contrary.

And the Church has said the excommunication was remitted. Rome has spoken, the matter is settled.

Please provide a source.

Pope’s must follow their own Canon Law at the time the act occurs. If they clearly do not, the act is not valid. The Pope can change Canon Law, but not retroactively. The Pope is not a dictator who rules by fiat. He follows his own Code of Canon Law which he himself approved.

Honestly, you are just making this stuff up. As hard as it is to understand, Canon law does NOT apply to the pope. He is the lawgiver and his word on what is and isn’t is law. Someone here related that at the death of Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict was going to canonize him without resorting to the process of canonization as required by law. As pope, he can do that. I wouldn’t say he is a dictator; I think autocrat would be a better word, since all authority and law comes through him. And part of that authority is that he can dispense with Canon law whenever he pleases.

Do you have any Church authority you can cite that says it is impossible for a future Pope to lift or remit the excommunication of one who has died? It is possible that later the Pope finds out that the previous excommunication was in error, and thus never existed to begin with.

As Brother JR has pointed out, an excommunication is a censure or penalty that is meant to bring a person back inside the Church. If a person dies excommunicated, then how can he come back into the Church? This doesn’t mean that the person is automatically sent to hell, it means he died outside of the Church. How can the Church canonize anyone who was outside of the Body of Christ at the time of their death? The Church doesn’t decide who goes to heaven or who goes to hell, but she does have the authority to declare that an individual is in heaven. There is more than enough evidence to show that the Archbishop’ excommunication was due to his disobedience against the pope himself and Canon law that forbade his actions. It is objective and there is no way that a future pope can just dismiss it.

Besides, this theory is soundly refuted by the obvious fact that BXVI remitted the excommunication on ABL.

Once again, completely untrue. He remitted the excommunications of the four sspx bishops but did nothing about the Archbishop’s because he died excommunicated. It is up to you to provide the evidence that Pope Benedict “remitted the excommunication on ABL.”

 

[TheDoctor]

Honestly, you are just making this stuff up. As hard as it is to understand, Canon law does NOT apply to the pope. He is the lawgiver and his word on what is and isn’t is law. Someone here related that at the death of Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict was going to canonize him without resorting to the process of canonization as required by law. As pope, he can do that. I wouldn’t say he is a dictator; I think autocrat would be a better word, since all authority and law comes through him. And part of that authority is that he can dispense with Canon law whenever he pleases.

Vianney33 - this is actually the crux of the matter. Once you accept that what the Pope has said is what the Church says you are done.

As Timothysis correctly points out, Canon Law does not apply to the Pope. Where can you find this? In Canon Law:
Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

Maybe this will help also. In an absolute monarchy the King is above all and answerable to no law. In Jesus’ Kingdom the Pope is his Vicar, his Prime Minister and reigns with the full authority of the King until His return (hopefully soon). As such what we have is closer to an elected absolute monarchy than a democratic process where the Pope is subject to checks and balances.