Papal excommunication

[Fauken]

The matter itself is not simple. The Pope is the supreme legislator of canon law. From a canon law standpoint, you’re trying to remove a judge from his own courtroom by a motion from a member of the audience.

 

[setarcos]

By definition, he cannot. Excommunication is a penalty issued by the pope, severing communion with him until some sinful situation is resolved.

Even if he committed a similar sinful situation?

To elaborate on the text linked above, the Pope is not subject to Canon Law. The pope cannot be penalized by the law, because he is the source of the law.

The Pope is the source of the law? This seems wrong to me, almost blasphemous. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding whats being said.

Like any man, however, he is subject to moral law.

Seems to me if the Pope were like every other man under judgment by God he should also be subject to excommunication for committing similar offences under which the Pope presumably divvies out excommunication.

The office of the papacy has the chrism of infallibility. The pope cannot formally teach sin and heresy, but as a man, he can commit the grave sin of scandal by living a hypocritical, immoral life.

Seems to me that being in the position of Pope if he commits scandal against the Church then he commits the sin of living heretically and if heresy is excommunicable…

 

[Genesis315]

I’m not sure if it’s the cause of your confusion, but in my post there is a typo where I wrote “cannot” but it should be “can”.

My point was there are certain sins (the “sins of separation”) that by their very nature make one no longer a member of the Church. These are heresy, schism, and apostasy. Since schism is strictly a sin against the unity of government, I don’t think a Pope can commit schism. But he can certainly defect from the Church through heresy or apostasy. As an obvious example, imagine if the Pope formally converted to, say, Islam. The Church would recognize he was no longer a member of the Catholic Church and the Cardinals would proceed to elect a new Pope like usual.

 

[setarcos]

Lol, put that way it does sound somewhat complicated. So who elects the Judge? Other Judges? Perhaps they can excommunicate the current Judge?
And what is wrong with a motion from the member of the audience? Has the audience no eyes to see grievances committed against cannon law? And even so has the audience no right to speak up against it with a motion?

 

[setarcos]

I’m not sure if it’s the cause of your confusion, but in my post there is a typo where I wrote “cannot” but it should be “can”.

If you change the word to can you should change the entire sentence since the context wouldn’t make sense. How can the Pope sever communion with himself?

 

[setarcos]

My point was there are certain sins (the “sins of separation”) that by their very nature make one no longer a member of the Church. These are heresy, schism, and apostasy. Since schism is strictly a sin against the unity of government, I don’t think a Pope can commit schism. But he can certainly defect from the Church through heresy or apostasy. As an obvious example, imagine if the Pope formally converted to, say, Islam. The Church would recognize he was no longer a member of the Catholic Church and the Cardinals would proceed to elect a new Pope like usual.

This seems to be a reasonable conclusion to me. More reasonable than simply, “The Pope cannot be excommunicated”

 

[Fauken]

So who elects the Judge? Other Judges? Perhaps they can excommunicate the current Judge?

No, they can’t. I’m not sure what a good analogy (mine is not a perfect analogy) would be in this case for how he gets his position, but there is only one judge in a courtroom. And he has ultimate authority in it to make everything run as it should. If he decides that you are causing a ruckus and keeping the court from doing its business, he can slap you with contempt of court and a jail sentence, and no one in the room can do anything about it.

And what is wrong with a motion from the member of the audience? Has the audience no eyes to see grievances committed against cannon law? And even so has the audience no right to speak up against it with a motion?

They have zero power to contest his decisions, that’s the thing. Can a member of the audience make the judge reduce his sentence simply because they don’t like it? By what authority could they do that by? None. They can’t, because they’re audience members and have neither the responsibility nor the job of the judge.

 

[setarcos]

No, they can’t. I’m not sure what a good analogy (mine is not a perfect analogy) would be in this case for how he gets his position, but there is only one judge in a courtroom. And he has ultimate authority in it to make everything run as it should. If he decides that you are causing a ruckus and keeping the court from doing its business, he can slap you with contempt of court and a jail sentence, and no one in the room can do anything about it.

Granted, however what if we suddenly have a judge who is unjust, arbitrarily judging according to his personal immoral desires?

They have zero power to contest his decisions, that’s the thing. Can a member of the audience make the judge reduce his sentence simply because they don’t like it? By what authority could they do that by? None. They can’t, because they’re audience members and have neither the responsibility nor the job of the judge.

It seems to me, that its this kind of set up which has caused many of the Roman Churches so called scandals and whatnot throughout history. When the judge is himself unjust how is his judgment justified?

 

[Fauken]

Granted, however what if we suddenly have a judge who is unjust, arbitrarily judging according to his personal immoral desires?

Then he’s a corrupt judge, but a judge nonetheless.

It seems to me, that its this kind of set up which has caused many of the Roman Churches so called scandals and whatnot throughout history. When the judge is himself unjust how is his judgment justified?

It’s not. First of all, it is important to not mistake canon law with moral law nor theology. They are not the same things. Another poor example: theology is jurisprudence, and canon law is the legal system. One is more “pure” and influences how the other should act (jurisprudence/theology), the other is how it is in practice (legal system/canon law). Now, where this example diverges from civil law is that a Pope can lose his office and stop being Pope should he be a public heretic or something like that. We don’t cause this loss, God does. God removes the Papal office from the heretic in the Seat, and then the now ex-Pope may be subject to the full penalties of canon law. But so long as he is Pope, he is not subject to it.

 

[dochawk]

:slightly_smiling_face:Well that sounds…equivocating.

It is, indeed, a subtle difference.

 

[runningdude]

The Pope is the source of the law? This seems wrong to me, almost blasphemous. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding whats being said.

Canon law is a temporal, earthly law. It was originally written by individual bishops to governor the particulars of their local diocese, and gradually it was standardized by Rome to apply universally.

Canon law is very different than moral law. Moral law is unchanging, coming directly from God. When even the pope knowingly violates moral law, he commits mortal sin and is unworthy to receive communion. This applies to any mortal sin.

Even if he committed a similar sinful situation?

Excommunication is a rare, special penalty created by canon law, Edit: for church crimes such as unlawful ordination of a clergy. Excommunication bars the church from providing the sacraments to an individual to avoid appearing to endorse the action. It is meant to warn the individual that their soul is imperil, and prevent harm by sacrilegious reception of the sacraments.

Excommunication does not attach to all mortal sins, only a narrow few explicitly defined by canon law. All mortal sins, however, do make one unworthy to receive communion.

Seems to me if the Pope were like every other man under judgment by God he should also be subject to excommunication for committing similar offences…

Excommunication is a penalty issued on behalf of the pope, and may only be lifted with his permission. Sometimes, this permission is delegated to any priest receiving a penitent’s confession. Other more serious penalties require the priest to anonymously petition the local bishop on behalf of the penitent for permission to lift the penalty and give absolution. Some graves sins are reserved to the Pope himself, and the local bishop must petition the Holy See to lift the excommunication.

As the pope is the ultimate judge as to whether an excommunication is to be lifted, it follows that he even if excommunication applied to him, he would be able to lift it. One is usually not allowed to judge himself, so he is simply exempt from excommunication.

However, if he commits a mortal sin, he must still confess it to a priest and intend to amend his ways. He is exempt from the church law penalty of excommunication, not the moral law penalty.

Seems to me that being in the position of Pope if he commits scandal against the Church then he commits the sin of living heretically and if heresy is excommunicable…

Infallibility prevents the pope from formally teaching sin. It does not prevent the pope from scandalizing the faithful by living a hypocritical lifestyle. For instance, infallibility would prevent the pope from teaching that birth control is acceptable (which would be heresy); it would not, however, prevent him having a mistress and using birth control with her.

The Pope is entrusted with a great deal of authority, meant to protect the church. We pray that authority will not be abused.

 

[runningdude]

You are correct. I made an edit reflecting this.

 

[Genesis315]

Since the Roman primacy is a constituent element of the Church and the Church has defined that there is to be a perpetual succession of bishops in the Roman primacy, the Church must retain the primacy either in act (with a living Pope) or in potency (if there is no Pope, the Church retains the power recognize there is no Pope and to appoint a new one). The Church cannot choose to go without a Pope (this was an error of Hus condemned at the Council of Constance).

From this, it also follows that there must be divine assistance involved in this recognition, since if the Church could fail to recognize her headlessness, she could proceed as headless in perpetuity (and even possibly submit to the teaching and governance of someone other than her head), which is impossible given the above and the other divine promises made to the Church regarding her indefectibility and infallibility.

I don’t doubt that it would get messy and there would likely be a real schism, but God would ensure the perpetual succession.

Current sedevacantist communities on the other hand are clearly wrong because, among a various reasons, they have lost the primacy not just in act, but also in potency, making them unable to perpetuate the succession of Roman bishops.

 

[Genesis315]

Who recognizes other times the See is vacant? It seems obvious, but when a Pope dies, it has to be recognized that the See is now vacant. When Pope Benedict resigned, it had to be recognized that the See was now vacant. Why would it be any different if the See became vacant through a tacit resignation (which would be the case in a defection from the Church)?

A factual determination is made in both of those more obvious cases (some claim the validity of Benedict’s resignation wasn’t so obvious)–the same would be the case in the one at issue. Someone’s always gotta say “ok, the See is vacant, let’s proceed to elect a new Roman Pontiff.”

 

[Genesis315]

No they haven’t–they do the first part, but not the second. That’s what makes them sedevacantists. And that goes to my very point.

There already exists in the Church an authority to determine when the see is vacant and a power to fill it. For example, some claim Pope Benedict didn’t validly resign. However, how did the Church determine he did validly resign and that it was appropriate to proceed to the election of a new Pope? The same determination by the same power would be needed for a tacit resignation–I don’t see how it would be any different.

 

[setarcos]

It seems ridiculous to me to consider the Pope to be above and not subject to canon law. Didn’t Jesus tell us that we should not think this way, “that one individual is greater than another”?

 

[runningdude]

Canon Law is the Pope’s law. It is analogous to sovereign immunity in civil law.

Edit: It might help to know that most sins that incur excommunication are liturgical crimes that involve direct disobedience of the Pope, such as ordination of a bishop without the pope’s permission, or a defrocked priest celebrating the sacraments (despite the Pope forbidding him from doing so).

The nature of most excommunicable offenses are such they are simply not applicable to the Pope, because the Pope cannot disobey himself.

 

[Fauken]

It seems ridiculous to me to consider the Pope to be above and not subject to canon law. Didn’t Jesus tell us that we should not think this way, “that one individual is greater than another”?

The Pope being immune to excommunication makes him no greater than my ability to give birth gives me over him. How would you propose the Pope be subject to canon law when he is its only legislator and its supreme judge?

 

[setarcos]

This seems like justice conceived of man not God. Are you telling me because someone offends the Pope they may be denied salvation though if the Pope offends the law there is no recourse to the same in recompense? Canon law should be just and written for justice in judgment is this not the case? Even the judge to be just himself should justly be subject to the same just measures he meets out to others. King David taught this. Seems to me that Jesus taught this as well when he ranted against and warned the Pharisees in Mathew 23:13. Seems to me that is why he described and inaugurated in a different system of divine justice through his sacrifice. Seems to me that is why he said we must not think like this. Seems to me this system is fundamentally flawed and causes more trouble than not…seems to me.

 

[setarcos]

IF what you describe is true, I see this as a fundamental flaw in the institution of the Catholic Church. We all know history has recorded instances of Papal misbehavior. We should all be equal under the spirit of the law. Jesus also warned us against thinking in these terms. That the slave is a lesser son of God than his master, subject to different measures of divine judgment. While your analogy of physical attributes may be apt for describing differences in physical ability or talent or position, it is not apt for describing differences in spirituality. We are all equal in the spirit and the spirit of God is the source of our justice.