Is excommunication excommunicated?

There are several teachings in the New Testament which are absolutely puzzling unless you have a view of the Church as simultaneously being the Mystical Body of Christ, and a polity, based upon that fact, with the authority to pass judgment and make laws. Not only can the Church pass laws, but also, especially in the Apostolic Age, violating those laws could bring divine penalties. For instance, there is the oft-forgotten story of Ananias and Sapphira, who sold a piece of property and offered the proceeds of the sale to the Church. Ananias, while pretending to give all the profits to the Church, privately kept some of it to himself. St. Peter condemned him for a “lie to the Holy Spirit” for his deceit, and as a result, Ananias fell down and died instantly (Acts 5:1-11). His wife met the same fate when she lied to St. Peter about the donation. The congregation dragged them both out of the congregation and buried them together. Scary stuff!

Then we have the words of St. Paul regarding Christians who were bringing lawsuits against one another. St. Paul asserts that Christians, who belong to the Kingdom of God, ought not to settle disputes before unbelievers, but ‘in house’ when possible (this is the origin of the Church’s Ecclesiastical Courts and Tribunals). He says this because he says that Christians will “judge angels” (1 Corinthians 6:3); since Christians are mystically united with Christ, when Christ returns in glory, we too in some way will participate in the Final Judgment, co-reigning with and in Christ. In the words of Psalm 149, “the saints shall rejoice in glory: they shall be joyful in their beds. The high praise of God shall be in their mouth: and two-edged swords in their hands: to execute vengeance upon the nations, chastisements among the people: to bind their kings with fetters, and their nobles with manacles of iron. To execute upon them the judgment that is written: this glory is to all his saints. Alleluia.” (Psalm 149:5-9)

St. Paul, as a saint and an apostle, had no trouble “executing judgment” upon the Church. In the case of of the same First Epistle to the Corinthians, he mentions a case of incest, in which a man was sleeping with his father’s wife. St. Paul tells them they should have “put him out of your fellowship” (1 Cor 5:2) and commanded the Corinthians to “hand him over to Satan…so that his spirit may be saved” (1 Cor 5:5). St. Paul goes even so far as to say that “you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother, but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people…Are you not to judge those inside [the Church]? Expel the wicked person from among you.” (1 Cor 5:11,12-13)

These practices were followed, from what we can gather, through virtually all of Christian history until recently. Although the Church in her wisdom decided it was in the interest of the repentance and conversion of the sinner that we no longer impose overly onerous penances, and confession is to be done in private, this does not mean that the Church at any time accepted, whether by explicit consent or by silence, the evil done by people who claim the name of Christian. Even the usually placid Saint John mentions that one may not even greet or extend hospitality to someone who purposefully corrupts sound doctrine, lest they participate in their works (2 John 9-10)!

These examples, of which there are far more in the New Testament, do not even take into account the copious use of excommunication within the Old Testament, where the morally and ritually impure were not permitted to take part in the coming together of the worship of the people of Israel. In order to be fit for divine worship, the clear Biblical and Apostolic teaching is that one must, and we mean must, have some sort of moral preparation. Hence the sacraments of Baptism and of Penance. The first washes away all original and actual sin. The second reconciles us to God when we have fallen into serious sin. Both are necessary. As even the famous Didache teaches regarding the Eucharist, “Give not that which is holy to the dogs” (Didache 9), the word “dog” referring to an unregenerate or unrepentant sinner in the Biblical tradition.

With such a preponderance of proofs in the Scriptures and among the Fathers, not to mention the practice of the Church throughout history, and how we affirm our solemn duty to impose correction, why is it somehow forbidden now to not excommunicate or similarly sanction those who corrupt Catholic faith or morals? It is one thing in our moral theology to sin privately, to repent privately, to be converted privately. But especially when sins are public, constant and unrepentant, they do truly cause scandal to the Christian faithful. Our failure to execute judgment, as the Apostle says, leads to a corruption of our common life. If our leadership does not believe that our sacred truths and rites are necessary to defend, why should average Catholics believe the same?

As I said in my brief essay on Eucharistic coherence, the current debate on the subject is not a result of the election of Biden, but the inaction of our leaders since at least the election of John F. Kennedy as president of the United States. In many other places, the disorder has been around for far longer. If Joe Biden had been corrected forty years ago for his stance by his local bishop, before he was elevated to the highest office of the land, would this even be an issue today? I strongly believe it would not. As the Spanish proverb goes, de aquellos polvos, estos lodos. From small beginnings come great endings (Lit., from those grains of dust, this mud). If someone had corrected Mr. Biden when he was a younger man, he would not have been under the illusion as an older man that his position was acceptable in the eyes of the Church. But in the meantime, by our silence, we have allowed a whole generation of nominally Catholic men and women to rise to leadership in both civil and ecclesiastical spheres, who do not hold sacred the teachings of the Catholic faith, and are also rabidly anti-institutional, writing laws and dictating policy which are directly inimical to both our moral convictions as well as our physical presence in the public sphere. As always, a delay to fix a problem in its beginnings leads to a greater disorder in the end, which requires even more painful effort to fix.

Excommunication and its associated penalties, since the Second Vatican Council, appear largely to have disappeared from our discourse as a Church. Strangely, Pope Francis only a month ago released the revised Penal Code of Canon Law, all the while insisting that justice is as necessary as mercy when governing the Church as the societas perfecta. Yet at the same time, Bishops are encouraged not to discharge their particular competency in governing the Church. We are dealing with a true case of corruptio optimi pessima in regard to governance: on the one hand, Bishops delegate so much of their power of discernment and judgment to risk insurance companies and legal teams. On the other hand, they pay more attention to the media and to public relations than to the provisions of the Sacred Scriptures and the Church’s Law. I’m not saying these things may not be helpful on the whole. But they cannot replace a deficit of true, apostolic leadership. The fact is, the Church will always be hated by the world because of her relationship to Christ. Period. We can’t control the hatred of the world. What we can control is whether our actions are pleasing to God. If we have more concern with pleasing men, than pleasing God, we have set ourselves up for ruin. In refusing to exercise judgment here on earth, we are liable to God’s judgment hereafter. May God grant our leaders the wisdom to chose this day whom they will serve.