Bishop Vasa on Excommunication

Bishop Robert Vasa’s latest column, which deals with the proper understanding of excommunication and the role it should play in political matters, was published in yesterday’s Catholic Sentinel (the official newspaper of the Archdiocese of Portland and the Diocese of Baker). Many gallons of ink (both actual and digital) have been spilt on this matter, and I don’t think the good bishop is saying anything (or intending to say anything) that has not been said before. But I have always found his “down-to-earth, common-sensical” style particularly helpful, and I was particularly pleased to see him articulating his thoughts on the matter.

The fact that his consideration is not directly confronting any actual political event or politician and is removed by several months from any actual controversy might make it more effective and less inflammatory than the writings of any number of his fellow bishops. One can only hope.

This portion of his column seems particularly important to me, only because it seems to be so widely misunderstood by the media who flock to these controversies:

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. 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. 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. 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.

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, a declaration of the fact that the person is de facto out of communion may be the only responsible and charitable thing to do.

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.

As anyone who reads Ed Peters with any regularity knows, excommunication is a complicated business. But no matter the details of a particular case, Bishop Vasa’s reminder that allowing someone to persist in a grievous and spiritually dangerous error through some misguided notion of charity or compassion is anything but that. As Someone once said, “the Truth will set you free.”