Michael Fighting
"Michael…who standeth for…thy people," — Dan. 12:1-12
No declaration necessary for ipso facto excommunications
Whether intentionally or not, all those age 14 or older who attended Novus Ordo services and/or ever adhered to a Traditionalist sect is guilty of at least material heresy, apostasy and/or schism because these crimes were committed in a public manner. As such they must at least be abjured in the external forum before positing any truly Catholic act. In Cum ex, Pope Paul IV excuses the clergy and laity from any censures or penalties connected to following an antipope with every appearance of a true Pope. This provided that they immediately separate themselves from him on discovering his true status as an antipope and adhere to a true Pope canonically elected. He would not, however, be as indulgent where non-Catholic Traditionalist sects are concerned, especially those holding the See vacant for over two decades yet failing to make any attempt to elect a true Pope. Those raised in such sects are considered as baptized non-Catholics in Canon Law. The attitude of the Church on this matter is presented below.
As Rev. Benedict Pfaller observed, Can. 646 demands that in order for a religious to be admitted to an institute, he/she must certainly be a Catholic. This is considered a conditio sine qua non. Likewise, no man not a Catholic can be elected to the papacy or can act as an elector. Proof of Catholicity must be established. That Pope Michael and those electing him did establish such proof insofar as circumstances would allow can be found in the 1990 election history, also the book Will the Catholic Church Survive…?. Since a law that is impossible of fulfillment ceases to bind (Can. 15), and the papacy is absolutely necessary to the survival of the Church, absolution until after the election was impossible, therefore not required pre-election. The electors, however were absolved post-election by Pope Michael. Pope Michael left the Novus Ordo Church at age 13. He left the Traditional sect at age 22. Long before his departure, he publicly protested the many abuses found in the Society of St. Pius X sect.
Rev. Pfaller further observes that "A religious who ceases to be a Catholic, who bids farewell to the Catholic Church, is rightly considered as legitimately dismissed from the religious institute…A public apostate from the Catholic faith is one who publicly renounces the Catholic Church. Thus the religious would renounce the Catholic faith in passing over to a non-Chrisitan group such as Buddhism, Mohammedanism, some well-defined cult of paganism, Judaism, etc.; or in joining a Protestant, heretical, non-Catholic Christian sect or a schismatic church; or in joining any professedly and manifestly anti-Catholic group, such as a league of Freethinkers, or, finally, in openly denying even one article of the Catholic faith…On July 30, 1934, a response of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of the Code…state(d) that the declaration of fact is not necessary in order that a religious be considered as ipso facto legitimately dismissed…The religious must be considered dismissed even before the declaration of the fact takes place." (Ipso Facto Dismissal of Religious, Catholic University of America Canon Law dissertation, 1948) Commenting on Canons 672 and 2295, Rev Stanislaus Woywod stated that these canons establish a precedent for cases of heresy, apostasy and schism where infamy is concerned. He comments: "If he has for three years given signs of complete amendment, the religious organization is bound to receive him." Lest it be objected that all this depends on finding a validly ordained priest who can absolve from censure, we quote St. Thomas Aquinas: "Just as Baptism is a necessary Sacrament, so is Penance…The minister of Penance to whom, in virtue of his office confession should be made is a priest; but in a case of necessity, even a laymen may take the place of a priest and hear a person's confession." (Supplement Q-8, Article 2)
And so apostasy is more easily incurred than formerly believed, especially by the clergy (analogous to religious). It must be remembered, however, that such a layman hearing confessions (i.e., an ipso facto deposed Traditionalist "priest") cannot himself be suffering from these censures, nor operating under the auspices of a non-Catholic sect. In the case of those electing Pope Michael, all the electors departed from Traditionalist sects in 1984-85, so were free from these sects for five or six years before electing. As can be seen below, even the laity who have unknowingly have participated in these non-Catholic sects are held to the necessity of abjuration and absolution from excommunication before re-admittance as members of the Church. And there are many Traditionalists who were fully aware of the jurisdictional and other problems with Traditional priests who refused to depart from these sects.
The consequences of heresy are far greater than that for many other crimes, and this is confirmed in Homiletic and Pastoral Review in an answer given to an enquirer. (Volume 34, Number 7, page 743-4, April 1934) The question was asked about receiving a baptized non-Catholic into the Church. The usual procedure was followed with absolution from the excommunication for heresy. However, in the accompanying confession the woman confesses to having had an abortion, which is also an excommunicable offense. Let us read part of the answer: Practically there is no difficulty about censure for the sin of abortion or any other offense which the Code of Canon Law punishes with a censure, because ignorance excuses from censures (See Canon 2229, paragraph 1), and it is reasonable to assume that ordinarily the convert was ignorant of the regulations of the Church. One may object and ask why then must we insist on absolving from censure because of heresy when the convert knows nothing more about that censure than he knows of other censures. There is a difference between a public profession of faith contrary to the teaching of the Church and sins committed in one’s private life. The one is a public affair; the other is a matter of conscience only. In public violations of the rules of the Church the public authority cannot but judge that the violation was done with full knowledge, and the burden of proof that it was done in good faith rests with the one who appears to be guilty. In many instances he may not be able to prove good faith, and he will be considered guilty.
Saint Augustine says: Baptism is the privilege of the true Church, and so the benefits which flow from Baptism are necessarily fruits which belong only to the true Church. Children baptized in other communions cease to be members of the Church only when, after reaching the age of reason, they make formal profession of heresy, as, for example, by receiving communion in a non-Catholic church. The Church, however requires the age of 14 be obtained to incur a censure for a crime, although one below that age certainly can commit sin. Since all of the effects of heresy flow from the crime, then a person under 14 incurs none of them, by law. Elsewhere Rev. Ignatius Szal applies this teaching to the reception of baptized non-Catholics 14 years and above (and this would apply to those baptized in all manner of Traditionalist sects!) who must be absolved of heresy before they can attend Mass and receive the Sacraments.
The very commission of any act which signifies heresy; e.g., the statement of some doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma, gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity. There may be excusing circumstances which excuse from grave responsibility in the external forum, and the burden of proof is on the person whose action has given rise to the imputation of heresy. In the absence of proof, ALL such excuses are presumed not to exist. (The Delict of Heresy p. 35.)
From The Jurist, volume 132, page 405: "Irrregularity Arising from Sect Affiliation"
Question: A young man in my parish joined the Methodist Church at the age of 15. He was baptized in it in infancy. At 16, through association with Catholic young men in high school, he became a convert to the Church. Does he labor under any irregularity from which a dispensation should be obtained? (signed , Pedagogous)
Answer: Since the young man joined the Methodist Church after he had attained the age of puberty, he does not escape the penalties which the Code visits upon his act. Clearly it may be assumed that he has been absolved from the excommunication in accordance with the provisions of canon 2314§2, since it is apparent from the statement of the case that he is a good Catholic and proposes to study for the priesthood. It is very likely, however, that he has not been dispensed from the vindictive penalty of infamy of law (infamia juris) . 1 Only the Holy See can dispense from this penalty. 2 One who labors under it is irregular ex defectu, not ex delicto. Of course, even considered as an irregularity ex defectu, its presence is prevented, in the internal forum, by the good faith of the party affected: that is, good faith prevents the incurring of the vindicative penalty of infamy of law, and in the absence of the latter, there is an irregularity ex defectu. In the external forum, however, the dispensation should be duly sought from the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments.
The young man also is subject to the impediment arising ex delicto from this heresy in accordance with canon 985, 1°. In the internal forum, good faith would excuse him; in the external forum, however, a dispensation should be sought from this irregularity also from the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments. (I Cf. can. 2314, § 1, 3°. Si sectae acatholicae nomen dederint vel publice adhaeserint, ipso facto infames sunt et, firma praescripto can. 188, n. 4, clerici, monitione incassum praemissa, degradentur. Can. 2295. Infamia iuris desinit sola dispensatione a Sede Apostolica concessa)."
All the above heresies are so-called silent heresies. No declaration of their individual existence is ever made by an ecclesiastical authority — except in the general way that all heresies have been condemned by the continual magisterium at some time, in one place or the other — and there is a record of this. To insist that one 14 and older cannot be held guilty of censures is to deny the Church's right to establish and enforce censures. This teaching of the Jansenist heretics is condemned by Pope Pius VI:
"Likewise, the proposition which teaches that is is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for suspension, that sentences called ipso facto have no other force than that of a serous threat without any actual effect, — false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous
"Likewise, the proposition which says “useless and vain is the formula introduced some centuries ago of general absolution from excommunications into which the faithful might have fallen, — false, rash, injurious to the practice of the Church." (Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794)
Pope Leo XIII states: Heresies and schisms have no other origin than that obedience is refused to the priest of God, and that men lose sight of the fact that there is one judge in the place of Christ in this world" (Epist. xii. ad Cornelium, n. 5). No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church. Wherefore Optatus of Milevis blamed the Donatists for this reason: "Against which ages (of hell) we read that Peter received the saving keys, that is to say, our prince, to whom it was said by Christ: 'To thee will I give the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the gates of hell shall not conquer them.' Whence is it therefore that you strive to obtain for yourselves the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven—you who fight against the chair of Peter(Satis Cognitum, June 20, 1896)?"
Clearly there is no need for any declaration of ipso facto excommunication for heresy, apostasy or schism, as the Church clearly teaches above.
