« How many gnostics can dance on the head of a pin? | Main | Why no pre-screenings? »
May 04, 2006
Turning, turning...
The Vatican on Thursday excommunicated two bishops ordained by China's state-controlled church without the pope's consent, escalating tensions as the two sides explored preliminary moves toward improving ties.
The Vatican also excommunicated the two bishops who ordained them, citing church law.
Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls cited Article 1382 of the Roman Catholic Church's canon law. That article states that "both the bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a 'latae sententiae excommunication,'" which means they are automatically excommunicated.
So...I'm confused. Does this imply then that all of the previous bishops consecrated in the CPA have indeed had the tacit approval of the Vatican?
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
I'm confused too, but on a more fundamental matter. It was my understanding that the Church doesn't actually "excommunicate" anyone. I thought it was individuals that excommunicate themselves, and all the Church does is formally recognize the excommunication.
Posted by: Law Student at May 4, 2006 12:52:55 PM
LS:
The language in the article is imprecise. In fact, what you describe is what happened. The Vatican informed the participants that they have violated this canon and have thus brought upon themselves the attached penalty of excommunication.
Matthew
Posted by: Matthew at May 4, 2006 1:02:26 PM
Dear Law Student,
Well, the Church can excommunicate people, but the latter is much more common and is what happened in this case.
Explaining the distinction between the two, though, doesn't make for good soundbites, so in the press, it's usually said, "The Vatican excommunicated so-and-so."
Posted by: Bill H at May 4, 2006 1:06:46 PM
I am glad that Rome has responded appropriately to this latest Chinese provocation. Pius XII excommunicated the bishops of the CPA as schismatics and their status has not changed. There is an underground Catholic Church in China and supposedly many members of the CPA (both clergy and laity) have been reconciled with it, although they continue to participate in CPA activities. A couple of years ago, Rome named a bishop of Shanghai (Cardinal Kung's former see) and the CPA ratified the choice, so he was recognized as bishop by both sides. I don't know if there are other examples of this practice.
Posted by: BG Gruff at May 4, 2006 1:09:27 PM
The reports on this are erroneous in stating that the Vatican excommunicated or announced the excommunication of the bishops involved. The automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication spoken of by canon 1382 is indeed called into play here, but Navarro-Vals subsequent statements about the possibility of force and pressure impeding the bishops’ ability to act freely brings into play canon 1323, points 3,4 & 7 or canon 1324,1 point 8 and 1324,3. The penalties in the Code, including latae sententiae excommunication, are only to be rendered as a last resort – the penal law of the Church is subject to a strict interpretation (canon 18), and if the bishops ordaining (or the bishops ordained) were not capable of freely positing a human act because of fear or undue pressure (or even the presumption of undue pressure), then the penalties attached would either not apply or would need to be lessened.
Certainly, these episcopal ordinations are serious breaches of the Church’s law. However, it’s not the place of a Vatican spokesman to announce excommunications (and Mr. Navarro-Vals did not actually do so, he merely indicated, properly, that these actions fit the material described in canon 1382). I hope a further clarification on the issue comes from the Vatican in short order.
Posted by: Tim Ferguson at May 4, 2006 1:13:56 PM
A latae sententiae excommunication is the one a person automatically incurs, and I guess that on this basis you could argue that the earlier bishops were excommunicate latae sententiae.
But if someone's excommunicated after a formal investigation and trial, that's excommunication ferendae sententiae.
"latae sententiae" in literal Latin: the sentence [of excommunication] having been applied/incurred
"latae sententiae" in literal Latin: the sentence needing to be applied
Posted by: Nick at May 4, 2006 1:23:09 PM
Matthew --
Thanks for the reply. Indeed, the news article was imprecise. But if excommunication is done by the individual, and all the Church does is officially recognize it, then why is there such a thing as "latae sententiae (i.e., automatic) excommunication"? If the individual excommunicates himself, wouldn't describing it as "latae sententiae" be redundant? Presumably all excommunications would be automatic -- the only distinction would be that some excommunications are recognized by the Church while others are not.
Posted by: Law Student at May 4, 2006 1:30:00 PM
LS - there are some excommunications which are not "latae sententiae" - in fact, for the Eastern Churches, there are no latae sententiae excommunications, instead, all excommunications are rendered after a canonical trial. In the West, we haven't had many ecclesiastical trials resulting in the decision to render an excommunication, but it is indeed a possibility.
Posted by: Tim Ferguson at May 4, 2006 1:38:55 PM
In fact they were not excommunicated by the pope. The Holy See declaration referred to a canon law that excommunicated them automatically, without the Holy Father doing anything. Then it dwelt on the mitigating circumstances--strong pressures (on very old men), threats, etc. and even mentioned the "interior suffering" of those who were put under these pressures. Cdl. Zen of Hong Kong said it yesterday: "They will be given a chance to explain themselves."
Posted by: MM at May 4, 2006 1:41:30 PM
Ms. Welborn:
From wikipedia (not my favorite source, but a quick reference not having been able to find the article I read on this matter.
"In mainland China there are about 4 million members of the CPA, and 12 million members of the underground Catholic Church, defined as being in communion with the Holy See. Many CPCA members have accepted the Government-imposed formalities without intending to break in any way their relationship of full dependence on the Pope, and the Holy See has, from the 1980s on, granted the request for recognition that many of the present CPCA bishops have presented, generally in secret, because acceptance of a connection with Rome is illegal. The CPA and the underground church has considerable overlap, it is rumored that presently as many as 70% of the CPCA clergy have thus been reconciled with the Vatican and are secretly part of the unofficial church. It is also said that of seventy CPCA bishops, all but nine have secretly declared their allegiance to Rome.
By receiving individuals into full communion, the Holy See hopes to prepare for future reunification of CPCA with the many Chinese Catholics (often referred to as an "underground Roman Catholic Church" or "persecuted Catholics" who came into existence in 1957) who, in spite of being subject to official harassment, and the repeated jailing of their leaders on political grounds, refused to join CPCA and generally do not attend its services, preferring to remain clearly faithful to the Papal See in Rome. Estimates of their number differ widely: some put it at less than that of CPCA, others put it at three times the CPCA number.
The ordinations of Peter Feng Xinmao in 2004 as coadjutor of Hengsui, Joseph Xing Wenzhi as auxiliary of Shanghai on 28 June 2005[3] and Anthony Dang Ming Yan as coadjutor of Xian on 26 July of the same year were all papal appointments, which were followed by the Government-imposed procedures of the appointee's election by representatives of the diocese and consequent approval by the Government itself. The Holy See has refrained from making any statement, and no papal document of appointment has been read at the ordination rites. However, it was noted that at least Bishop Xing swore to be "faithful to the one, holy, catholic, apostolic Church, with Peter as its head."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Patriotic_Catholic_Association
The article I read had higher numbers of reconciled clergy and bishops.
Posted by: Daniel H. Conway at May 4, 2006 2:02:29 PM
Thanks, Tim, that's very interesting. You're sure that the purpose of the canonical trials is to determine whether to excommunicate an individual as opposed to canonical trials to determine whether that individual has excommunicated himself??
Posted by: Law Student at May 4, 2006 2:23:40 PM
Thanks Daniel. Now I understand the bigger picture.
Posted by: trisha at May 4, 2006 3:16:06 PM
LS, it depends on the particular delict. Some trials are to determine whether or not there has been a latae sententiae excommunication, other trials do end in the pronouncement of a penalty, such as excommunication. The penal section of the Code of Canon Law (Book Six, canons 1311-1399) is a fairly convoluted book of the code, but it is clear that, in certain situations, the Church has the authority to render excommunication.
Remember, of course, that excommunication is not an end in itself - it's a penal remedy, in fact, a medicinal penalty. The purpose of excommunication isn't to point out that someone is bad and make an example of them, it's to encourage the excommunicate to reform. It's a way the Church has of saying to someone, "Hey! doing what you're doing puts your very soul in danger. Repent!" Excommunication is never used as an expiatory penalty, that is to say, it's never used to compensate for harm done.
Posted by: Tim Ferguson at May 4, 2006 4:05:59 PM
Tim -- very interesting. Are you a canon lawyer, or what?? This reminds me of that old joke about the only thing you need to know about canon law... (the telephone number of a good canon lawyer). Thanks.
Posted by: Law Student at May 4, 2006 4:36:23 PM
I'd like to nominate two Southern California Bishops for excommunication...please...
Posted by: Ryan at May 4, 2006 4:51:16 PM
The Vatican statement does NOT say that the bishops involved have incurred excommunication. FWIW, I'm glad that the Vatican did not decide to take the bait - at least not right off the bat.
Posted by: Patrick Rothwell at May 4, 2006 6:12:25 PM
Re the question on registered bishops being approved by the Holy See, the closest thing we have ever gotten to an official pronouncement from the Holy See itself came in an article in Civilta Cattolica in early '04. Civilta Cattolica, whose every line is approved by the Secretary of State prior to publication, said that the great majority of registered bishops had received the mandatum (a "sanation"). It gave a number: something like 50 out of 70. Then came another wave of sanations. A less formal source declared late last year (perhaps it was Cdl Zen) that all but 7 or 8 registered bishops were now recognized by the Holy Father.
Posted by: MM at May 4, 2006 6:26:34 PM
LS - yes, I am in fact a canonist (a fairly newly minted one at that - only got my degree last Fall, so I've just embarked on a lifetime of learning the law).
The other thing about canonists is to remember that what is often said of Jews also applies to canon lawyers - if you get three of them alone in a room, you're bound to get at least five different opinions.
Posted by: Tim Ferguson at May 4, 2006 7:09:52 PM
"what is often said of Jews also applies to canon lawyers"
While I *might* appreciate your comment, Tim, as a *joke* about canon lawyers, I find it disrespectful of our elder brethren especially in a public forum.
Posted by: Brigid at May 5, 2006 9:02:45 AM
Brigid,
Our elder brethren make this joke themselves, so I don't think it will offend them. And I heard it as "Where there are two Jews, you'll get three opinions."
Cathy (married to a nice Conservative Jewish fella who came into the Church 7 years ago)
Posted by: Cathy Koenig at May 5, 2006 9:21:00 AM
Forgot to add: There's a book by that name, written by two Jewish authors here on Amazon.com
Cathy
Posted by: Cathy Koenig at May 5, 2006 9:25:31 AM
See analysis on a canon lawyer's blog.
http://www.canonlaw.info/blog.html
Posted by: ToddV at May 5, 2006 9:26:09 AM
Sorry that I am perhaps a bit oversensitive but I'm just not a fan of ethnic jokes in a public forum.
Especially from a canon lawer.
Even if he is just "a newly minted one."
Again, a sensitive issue for me, these elder brethren...
Posted by: Brigid at May 5, 2006 2:14:46 PM
