Alrightie then. Just what I wanted to do with my Sunday - dig through the documents at the Vatican website regarding the penalties for all the crimes these crazy women are guilty of and their accomplices and aides. Gee whiz. Fun, fun, fun.
So far, I’ve found these excerpts and I’m still looking.
The delicta graviora** reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith** were as follows:
Delicts against the sanctity of the Most Holy Sacrament and Sacrifice of the Eucharist:…2. Attempting the liturgical action of the Eucharistic sacrifice or the simulation thereof (CIC can. 1378 § 2 n. 1, can. 1379; CCEO can. 1443).
vatican.va/resources/resources_introd-storica_en.html
The above means those participating in a falsified Eucharistic celebration are at least sent to the CDF for the remedy of their delicta gravora (grave delict)
And this applies as well: Can. 1378 §1. A priest who acts against the prescript of ⇒ can. 977 incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.
§2. The following incur a latae sententiae penalty of interdict or, if a cleric, a latae sententiae penalty of suspension:
1/ a person who attempts the liturgical action of the Eucharistic sacrifice though not promoted to the sacerdotal order;
2/ apart from the case mentioned in §1, a person who, though unable to give sacramental absolution validly, attempts to impart it or who hears sacramental confession.
§3. In the cases mentioned in §2, other penalties, not excluding excommunication, can be added according to the gravity of the delict.
Can. 1379 In addition to the cases mentioned in ⇒ can. 1378, a person who simulates the administration of a sacrament is to be punished with a just penalty.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P54.HTM
This is what hit them first, although it doesn’t apply to the OP unless she was part of the actual attempted Ordinations : 1. It is necessary above all to state precisely that the case under consideration does not involve a latae sententiae penalty, which is incurred ipso facto when a delict expressly established by the law is committed. It concerns instead ferendae sententiae penalty, imposed after the guilty party has been duly warned (cf. Canons 1314; 1347 § 1). As provided by Canon 1319 § 1, this Congregation has the power to threaten determinate penalties by precept.
- The particular gravity of the offenses committed is evident, which can be seen from various aspects.
a) There is first of all the issue of schism: The above-mentioned women were “ordained” by a schismatic bishop and – even though not formally adhering to his schism – thereby made themselves accomplices in schism.
b) In addition there is the doctrinal aspect, namely, that they formally and obstinately reject a doctrine which the church has always taught and lived, and which was definitively proposed by Pope John Paul II, namely, “that the church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, 4). The denial of this doctrine is rightly considered the denial of a truth that pertains to the Catholic faith and therefore deserves a just penalty (cf. Canons 750 §2; 1372, n. 1; John Paul II, Ad Tuendam Fidem, 4A).
Moreover, by denying this doctrine, the persons in question maintain that the magisterium of the Roman Pontiff would be binding only if it were based on a decision of the college of bishops, supported by the sensus fidelium and received by the major theologians. In such a way they are at odds with the doctrine on the magisterium of the successor of Peter, put forward by both the First and Second Vatican Councils, and they thereby fail to recognize that the teachings of the supreme pontiff on doctrines to be held definitively by all the faithful are irreformable.
- The refusal to comply with the penal precept established by this Congregation is further aggravated by the fact that some of the above-mentioned women have been gathering round them members of the faithful, in open and divisive disobedience to the Roman Pontiff and diocesan Bishops. In view of the gravity of this contumacy (cf. Canon 1347), the penalty imposed is not only just, but also necessary in order to protect true doctrine, to safeguard the communion and unity of the church and to guide the consciences of the faithful.
- The above-mentioned members of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith therefore confirm the Decree of excommunication issued on Aug. 5, 2002, specifying once again that the attempted priestly ordination of the aforementioned women is null and invalid (cf. Canon 1024) and therefore all those actions proper to the order of priesthood performed by them are also null and invalid (cf. Canons 124; 841). In consequence of the excommunication, they are forbidden to celebrate sacraments or sacramentals, to receive the sacraments and to exercise any function in an ecclesiastical office, ministry or assignment (cf. Canon 1331 §1).
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021221_scomunica-donne_en.html
I do remember a specific document that was issued when the women who attempted Ordination in Haverford happened (which is a short drive from where I live actually I’m ashamed to say) and it specifically stated that those who were there in the crowd just watching also incurred an excommunication just for being there. And it was reserved to the Holy See. I need to find it someplace so I’ll keep digging.
Glenda
