More from the ever interesting Bishop of Baker, H.E. Most Rev. Robert Vasa.
My emphases and comments:
Excommunication is a declaration of acts that severs ties
BEND — During the course of this past year there have been a number of occasions when bishops have hinted to laity that being Catholic involves a bit more than claiming the title. [In some cases more than hint. Would that we could say in many cases.] This has been done, in particular, with regard to politicians who may, in their own way, love Jesus, who may attend Sunday Mass and who do identify themselves as “faithful” Catholics. The press usually hints at the big “E” word, excommunication. The question of when a Catholic should be excommunicated has even been asked quite frequently and very seriously. [And for very good reason.] While bishops are extremely reluctant to take the seemingly dramatic step of excommunication, I think there is very good reason for us to explore more thoroughly what excommunication really means and why it might be considered in certain circumstances. [Can I believe me eyes? Is this a bishop who is suggesting that excommunication could be appropriate?]
The press would undoubtedly accuse Bishops who talk or even think about excommunication as being tyrannical power mongers [D'ya think?] but this is unfair. Excommunication is a declaration, based on solid evidence, that the actions or public teachings of a particular Catholic are categorically incompatible with the teachings of the Church. It is intended primarily as a means of getting the person who is in grave error to recognize the depth of his error and repent. [It is a remedy more than a punishment.] A second reason, while somewhat secondary but no less important, is to assure the faithful who truly are faithful that what they believe to be the teaching of the Church is true and correct. [In other words to work against the scandal caused by the errant sheep, lest other sheep be lead astray.] Allowing their faith to be shaken or allowing them to be confused when Catholics publicly affirm something contrary to faith or morals, seemingly without consequences, scandalizes and confuses the faithful. This is no small matter. The Church, and particularly bishops, have an obligation to defend the faith but they also have an obligation to protect the faithful. We do not generally see the dissidence of public figures as something that harms the faithful but it has a deleterious effect upon them. [They do not see that the dissidence of public figures harms... but it does weaken? How is that not harming?]
I find, very frequently, when I speak a bit more boldly on matters of morality or discipline, there are a significant number of the faithful who send messages of gratitude and support. [WDTPRS will join them when you do, Your Excellency.] It is their gratitude which stirs my heart for it makes me realize how much there is a need to support and affirm the clear and consistent teachings of our Catholic faith for the sake of the faithful. While the press may caricature such bishops in rather uncharitable fashion, I trust that they are men devoted to true compassion and to the truth itself. Their compassion extends to those who are misled and to those who, while not misled, are discouraged when their faith is attacked without rebuttal. This discouragement of the faithful is not insignificant. [Do I hear an "Amen!"?] When we look at the word itself we see that its root is “courage” and allowing someone’s courage to be dissipated, or “dissed” as the young might say, is harmful to the person. En-couragement, by contrast, builds up the courage of the faithful and increases their strength for doing good. It is life giving and revitalizing. Allowing error, publicly expressed, to stand without comment or contradiction is discouraging. [How is that not something that harms the faithful?]
When that moral error is espoused publicly by a Catholic who, by the likewise public and external act of receiving Holy Communion, appears to be in “good standing” then the faithful are doubly confused and doubly discouraged. In that case, the error is certainly not refuted. Furthermore, the impression is given that the error is positively condoned by the bishop and the Church. This is very dis-couraging to the faithful. In such a case, private “dialogue” is certainly appropriate but a public statement is also needed. In extreme cases, excommunication may be deemed necessary.
It seems to me that even if a decree of excommunication would be issued, the bishop would really not excommunicate anyone. He only declares that the person is excommunicated by virtue of the person’s own actions. [Bishops cannot do these things from a personal whim.] The actions and words, contrary to faith and morals, are what excommunicate (i.e. break communion with the Church). When matters are serious and public, the Bishop may deem it necessary to declare that lack of communion explicitly. [It is clear enough in most cases when something is "public". Some will want to debate "serious".] This declaration no more causes the excommunication than a doctor who diagnoses diabetes causes the diabetes he finds in his patient. The doctor recognizes the symptoms and writes the necessary prescription. [Excommunication is a remedy.] Accusing the doctor of being a tyrannical power monger would never cross anyone’s mind. Even when the doctor tells the patient that they are “excommunicated” from sugar it is clear that his desire is solely the health of his patient. In fact, a doctor who told his diabetic patient that he could keep ingesting all the sugar he wanted without fear would be found grossly negligent and guilty of malpractice. [And as St. Augustine described when describing Christ as the physician of the soul, using the medicine practice of his century, the doctor does not stop cutting just because the patient is screaming for him to stop.]
In the same way, bishops who recognize a serious spiritual malady and seek a prescription to remedy the error, after discussion and warning, may be required to simply state, “What you do and say is gravely wrong and puts you out of communion with the faith you claim to hold.” In serious cases, and the cases of misled Catholic public officials are often very serious, [Ah! Now we have the admission that what Catholic public officials can do can be "very serious".] a declaration of the fact that the person is de facto out of communion may be the only responsible and charitable thing to do.
[Here we go...] Failing to name error because of some kind of fear of offending the person in error is neither compassion nor charity. Confronting or challenging the error or evil of another is never easy yet it must be done. [Do I hear an "Amen!"?]
The adage usually attributed to Edmund Burke was correct: All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
The Lord has called bishops to be shepherds. That shepherding entails both leading and protecting. [And extracting errant sheep from bushes and pits and keeping them from getting in trouble even by the use of a fast nipping dog or a whack with a staff.] In an era when error runs rampant and false teachings abound, the voice of the Holy Father rings clear and true. The teachings of the Church are well documented and consistent. [And we have laws.] Bishops and the pastors who serve in their Dioceses have an obligation both to lead their people to the truth and protect them from error.
Big WDTPRS kudos to Bp. Vasa.
Do I hear an "Amen!"?