Mafiosi are 'excommunicated', pope says

[Elizium23]

You’re still missing the point. I never said the Pope can’t do this. I said he didn’t. He chose not to.

In your examples, a priest consecrates or absolves through his words alone. There is no due process needed. However, the priest still needs intent. Saying the words without intent makes the action null. If you will kindly re-read the statement from the Vatican Press Office again, you will clearly see that the Pope lacked intent to excommunicate anyone.

 

[Timothysis]

You’re still missing the point. I never said the Pope can’t do this. I said he didn’t. He chose not to.

Respectfully, I think that you are missing the point. You said that Pope Francis “chose not to.” How do you know this? You say he “lacked intent.” Again, how do you know this? In this regard, how do you ever know if a priest has the intent to confect the Eucharist? Must he have a legal form, complete with insignia and signatures to make it valid?

In your examples, a priest consecrates or absolves through his words alone. There is no due process needed. However, the priest still needs intent. Saying the words without intent makes the action null.

Actually, a priest consecrates or absolves through his spiritual authority not just his words alone. You say that no due process is needed, then say he still needs intent. So, which is it? Isn’t his intent, along with his authority granted during ordination, part of the due process? What does it take for the Eucharist to be consecrated? Three things; proper from, matter and intent. So, there is a due process.

If you will kindly re-read the statement from the Vatican Press Office again, you will clearly see that the Pope lacked intent to excommunicate anyone.

What do you think Pope Francis’ “intent” was when he said of that particular organized crime syndicate that “they are excommunicated?” It doesn’t matter if he issued a bull of excommunication or went through the legal process to have them formally excommunicated. By the act of his saying “they are excommunicated,” no matter if he did it or they did it themselves, they are excommunicated. Period. This is part of the authority of the pope to loose and bind. Are you willing to say that individuals of this syndicate, after being told by Pope Francis that they are excommunicated, are really not and that Francis overstepped his role as pontiff and Supreme Executive of the Church?

 

[ProVobis]

Hello,

That’s ok. For my part, I will continue to concur with the perspective of (for one) Archbishop Kenrick, in a book which was lauded by Blessed Pius IX–which is itself amusing in that the Pope, in his praise, admitted that he didn’t understand English.

Dan

According to some thinking here, the Pope can excommunicate all English-speaking Catholics from the pulpit, so I’d be careful.

 

[Elizium23]

Actually, if I may speculate and read between the lines, I think the Pope might be intending here to call for Canon 915. Putting myself into the shoes of a local bishop or priest, I would certainly feel encouraged to enforce this canon if I valued my job and assignment, after such a forceful and public statement by the Pontiff. I don’t know what will happen. Does every little incident of denied Holy Communion make the news in Italy like it does here in the US? Every time it is attempted here, heads roll and scandal is given. Perhaps the Pope needs to come to the US and repeat the performance.

 

[WilT]

I don’t know the Canon law behind this excommunication but my best guess is that yes the that particular Mafia group has been excommunicated and perhaps it’s up to the individual parishes to follow up with this excommunication individually. At a late time the excommunication order may be prepared and delivered. :juggle:

 

[Elizium23]

Vatican spokesman Father Ciro Benedettini said the pope’s stern words did not constitute a formal over-arching decree of canon (Church) law, regarding excommunication, which is a formal legal process.

Rather, he said it was more of a direct message to members of organised crime that they had effectively excommunicated themselves, reminding them that they could not participate in Church sacraments or other activities because they had distanced themselves from God through their criminal actions.

 

[Timothysis]

Elizium23:
Elizium, let me ask you; are the people that Pope Francis spoke about excommunicated from the Church?

 

[Timothysis]

According to some thinking here, the Pope can excommunicate all English-speaking Catholics from the pulpit, so I’d be careful.

Only if he signs a slip of paper, with insignia, and enters it into the Acts of the Holy See.

 

[dans0622]

…Are we not discussing the “dispensing power” of the pope? Isn’ the bulk of the argument in this thread one *against *the dispensing power of the pope? If anything, this quote affirms the fact that the Supreme Executive “must” posses a power that allows him to dispense with the “canons or laws of general Councils and preceding Pontiffs,” which is what I have been arguing all along! Elizium is the one arguing that a pope must act according to the canons.

Hello,

I don’t see “dispensation” entering the conversation. The Pope delivered a homily and made the statement within that homily. Beyond that, I don’t know of any action he has taken on this issue (regarding mafia, excommunication, canon law, dispensation).

What’s the point of law in general and the Code of Canon law? To provide a clear and certain framework so that people in the society can interact with each other in an orderly fashion (just made that up…so it’s subject to revision). Certainly, the Pope can change any ecclesiastical law. He can dispense from any ecclesiastical law. But while the law exists, it is reasonable for everyone to expect that he will urge everyone to follow it and will follow it himself. He will follow it, too, in how he goes about dispensing from it or changing it. That’s Abp. Kenrick’s point: Papal authority should be exercised in conformity with the law, even when changing/dispensing it. If he is always free to act however he wants, whenever he wants, with no regard for the legitimate expectations of the people or the law as it stands, we are setting ourselves up for chaos and uncertainty. That’s apparent in this event. We’re not only wondering if the Pope actually, in law, excommunicated a group of people without naming names, but whether he somehow, implicitly/automatically dispensed himself from the law. Law doesn’t, and can’t, operate like that.

Anyway, I find it reasonable, based on the context of the remarks themselves (“they are on a road of evil…they are separated from God…”) and the commentary from the Vatican spokesman, to conclude that the Pope was addressing the spiritual reality–not the legal status–of those who are in an objective and persistent state of mortal sin. This state is “effectively” like a canonical excommunication (at least in some ways) but the juridical/legal question is a different one.

As it stands, the Pope’s comment doesn’t really fit in the legal sphere and I see no reason to try to cram it in there.

Dan

 

[Timothysis]

Anyway, I find it reasonable… to conclude that the Pope was addressing the spiritual reality–not the legal status–of those who are in an objective and persistent state of mortal sin. This state is “effectively” like a canonical excommunication (at least in some ways) but the juridical/legal question is a different one.

Thank you!!! This what I have been saying all along! Under the spiritual authority of the office of Pontiff and as the Supreme Executive of the Church, if the pope declares one to be excommunicated, then one is excommunicated regardless to the legal question. The question of dispensing the law is kinda a side show, though it does bare a certain relevance. The problem to me, at least, is that people are trying to apply Canon law as if it were civil law and, like I said before, they are two different beasts.

As it stands, the Pope’s comment doesn’t really fit in the legal sphere and I see no reason to try to cram it in there.

I’ve also been saying this all along. Elizium keeps insisting that since it doesn’t fall under the “due process” of the Church’s bureaucracy, then it doesn’t “work” (her word). My argument all along is that the legal side is for the sake of keeping things orderly, as you suggested. The spiritual reality (as you excellently call it) is that things are as the pope has said, “they are excommunicated.” Now, if the Don wishes to pay a visit to the Vatican to get it all sorted out I’m sure that there are people there who can do that ("I’ll make him an offer he can’t refuse"); till then, the spiritual reality is that they are out of communion with the Church and as a result are in danger in the case of death. How they arrived at this state is really irrelevant; the fact of the matter is that they are excommunicated.

 

[Elizium23]

Elizium, let me ask you; are the people that Pope Francis spoke about excommunicated from the Church?

Effectively, in practice, yes. In in legal terms, canonically, no.

 

[Timothysis]

Effectively, in practice, yes. In in legal terms, canonically, no.

Then that leaves a big problem, doesn’t it?

Which, to you, is the more important; being effectively excommunicated or canonically? In the end, does it really matter? Archbishop Lefebvre died excommunicated while a bevy of canonists argued that he wasn’t really excommunicated by the law, even though Pope John Paul declared it authoritatively. Does the hope of being canonically in the right trump the spiritual authority of the Church’s leaders?

 

[ProVobis]

Archbishop Lefebvre died excommunicated while a bevy of canonists argued that he wasn’t really excommunicated by the law, even though Pope John Paul declared it authoritatively.

The Archbishop incurred automatic excommunication by the fact that he “…ordained someone a bishop without a papal mandate…,” but challenged this automatic excommunication with the “necessity” clause of Canon Law. The Pope denied the appeal, which, according to Br Jr, he has the authority to do. I believe this was written into Ecclesia Dei Afflicta.

 

[Elizium23]

Where the rubber hits the road, we will see what effects this pronouncement has. One of the effects of canonical excommunication is that a person cannot serve in liturgical ministry, such as lector, EMHC. Will Mafiosi be denied these positions? Will they be denied Holy Communion? Who has the power to lift these “effective” excommunications? If they are in truth only effective, then any priest-confessor may absolve them in the confessional, as long as proper contrition and resolution to avoid sin in the future are manifested. If the Pope’s pronouncement is a canonical excommunication then its lifting may be reserved to him alone.

 

[Timothysis]

The Archbishop incurred automatic excommunication by the fact that he “…ordained someone a bishop without a papal mandate…,” but challenged this automatic excommunication with the “necessity” clause of Canon Law. The Pope denied the appeal, which, according to Br Jr, he has the authority to do. I believe this was written into Ecclesia Dei Afflicta.

You and I both know that arguments flew left and right for 20 years saying that the Archbishop wasn’t really excommunicated because…fill in the blank. One only needs go to the SSPX website to see their labored reasons why the excommunication wasn’t valid.

The serves a lesson here; if this particular crime syndicate is effectively excommunicated but not canonically, what then? I can almost see a mafioso with his $3,000 suit and sunglasses looking perplexed at the mention of excommunication and saying, "what…I don’t know nuthin 'bout no excommunication." Someone in the Holy Office should really get around to printing the form.

 

[dans0622]

Where the rubber hits the road, we will see what effects this pronouncement has. One of the effects of canonical excommunication is that a person cannot serve in liturgical ministry, such as lector, EMHC. Will Mafiosi be denied these positions? Will they be denied Holy Communion? Who has the power to lift these “effective” excommunications? If they are in truth only effective, then any priest-confessor may absolve them in the confessional, as long as proper contrition and resolution to avoid sin in the future are manifested. If the Pope’s pronouncement is a canonical excommunication then its lifting may be reserved to him alone.

Hello,

Since I think the statement has nothing to do with canonical excommunication, it should have no effects that are based on canon 1331 (on excommunication) and nobody has to “lift” anything.

That being said, people can be, and are, excluded from such functions and from receiving Holy Communion, even if they are not excommunicated.

Dan

 

[Timothysis]

Since I think the statement has nothing to do with canonical excommunication, it should have no effects that are based on canon 1331 (on excommunication) and nobody has to “lift” anything.

That is a very good point. Elizium has stated that this particular syndicate is not canonically excommunicated, so as you say, there are no penalties or censures that need addressing. In effect, she is saying that they are not excommunicated even though Pope Francis has said “they are excommunicated.”

That being said, people can be, and are, excluded from such functions and from receiving Holy Communion, even if they are not excommunicated.

That is for sure but they are also not said to be excommunicated.

 

[Elizium23]

The Holy Father used hyperbole to hammer home his point. A Pontiff more interested in precise language would say “They obstinately persist in manifest grave sin!” but that wouldn’t exactly grab headlines around the world, like “Who am I to judge?” would it?

 

[Timothysis]

The Holy Father used hyperbole to hammer home his point. A Pontiff more interested in precise language would say “They obstinately persist in manifest grave sin!” but that wouldn’t exactly grab headlines around the world, like “Who am I to judge?” would it?

I obstinately persist in manifest grave sin but the Holy Father didn’t tell me I was excommunicated. If you do not believe that these particular individuals “are excommunicated,” then please just come out and say so. There really is little pretense to continue playing word games to avoid saying that you think that Pope Francis is in the wrong.

 

[ProVobis]

I obstinately persist in manifest grave sin but the Holy Father didn’t tell me I was excommunicated. If you do not believe that these particular individuals “are excommunicated,” then please just come out and say so. There really is little pretense to continue playing word games to avoid saying that you think that Pope Francis is in the wrong.

Weren’t his words in the translation “they have excommunicated themselves”? So perhaps he will tell us by virtue of our grave sins we’re excommunicated next? I don’t know but either way we still have to go to confession.