Actually, Rich, an excommunication can be administered in two ways:
– as a penalty after a judicial trial (ferendae sententiae)
– declared if incurred automatically by the individual’s action (latae sententiae) if he or she violates a law that carries with it the penalty of excommunication.
Schism is one such action. Schism is failure to subject oneself to the Roman Pontiff, or to act in communion with those in communion with the Roman Pontiff. In this case, the bishop is stating that the mystic refuses to subject herself to him – he being the lawful bishop in communion with the Roman Pontiff. This carries an automatic excommunication for schism when the refusal is obstinate and on-going.
For more explanation on this topic, see my article published last summer in This Rock Magazine, “Strong Medicine: Canon Law and Excommunication”. Or better yet (shameless plug alert) check out a copy of my new book with Michael Trueman, just recently released, Surprised by Canon Law, Volume 2.
2 comments
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
In this case, the bishop is stating that the mystic refuses to subject herself to him – he being the lawful bishop in communion with the Roman Pontiff.
That much seems sound to me, when he’s making that judgment about the mystic. On the other hand, when he prescribes the same penalty for people who merely attend services at Mrs. Youn’s “Marian shrine”, is he on solid ground? Under what circumstances does attending illicit services qualify as schism?
I used to think that these things were easy to analyze, but then came the Honolulu case, where some lay people operated their own private chapel and obtained the service of an SSPX priest to offer Mass. The ordinary punished them for an offense of schism, but Rome overturned the charge of schism on appeal.
The circumstances in the Korea case don’t seem to make the offense more severe than in the Honolulu case. But I know: there is no principle of “stare decisis” in canon law, so the case could go either way, right?
Would the fact that the party initiating the schism operates the ‘shrine’ make a difference? As I understood previously the Honolulu case was of a priest in schism being invited in to a private chapel to offer mass.