Archbishop Burke Declares the Excommunication of Fake Priestesses McGrath, Hudson, and Fresen

St. Louis Catholic Blogspot ^ | March 13, 2008

[NYer]

Archbishop Burke has declared the excommunications of would-be priestesses Rose Hudson and Elsie McGrath, and also of pretend-bishop Patricia Fresen.

This decree, linked here, declares as follows:

1) that McGrath, Hudson and Fresen have incurred the censure of excommunication latae sententiae for the crime of schism (cann. 1331, 1364 s. 1);

2) that upon McGrath, Hudson and Fresen is imposed the ferendae sententiae censure of interdict for the crime of pertinacious rejection of a truth of the faith after admonition by the Ordinary (can. 1371, para. 1); and,

3) that upon Fresen is imposed the ferendae sententiae censure of excommunication for the crime of simulation of the sacrament of Holy Orders (can. 1379).

A reminder about terms:

latae sententiae means that the censure is incurred automatically;

ferendae sententiae means that the censure is imposed;

interdict is the denial of the sacraments of the Church; and,

excommunication, as stated in the Catholic encyclopedia--

Excommunication (Latin ex, out of, and communio or communicatio, communion -- exclusion from the communion), the principal and severest censure, is a medicinal, spiritual penalty that deprives the guilty Christian of all participation in the common blessings of ecclesiastical society. Being a penalty, it supposes guilt; and being the most serious penalty that the Church can inflict, it naturally supposes a very grave offence. It is also a medicinal rather than a vindictive penalty, being intended, not so much to punish the culprit, as to correct him and bring him back to the path of righteousness. It necessarily, therefore, contemplates the future, either to prevent the recurrence of certain culpable acts that have grievous external consequences, or, more especially, to induce the delinquent to satisfy the obligations incurred by his offence. Its object and its effect are loss of communion, i.e. of the spiritual benefits shared by all the members of Christian society; hence, it can affect only those who by baptism have been admitted to that society.

_________________________

The decree warns the faithful that Catholics are forbidden to receive any putative sacraments from them. It states clearly that these women are not to be allowed communion from any ordinary or extraordinary minister of Holy Communion. They are not to receive absolution without public retraction of their crimes and repentance, and that they are not to be allowed any other sacrament, including Christian burial.

The decree and a Q&A sheet from the Archdiocese are posted below. I will have more extensive analysis by tomorrow here. In the meantime, though pressed for time, I wanted to make sure this post was available for readers.

God bless Archbishop Burke, and pray that these women repent and seek reconciliation with the Church of Christ.

_______________________

Statement from Archbishop Burke today at the Archdiocesan website:

Statement Regarding Those Involved in Attempted Ordinations of November 11, 2007

Archbishop Raymond L. Burke has issued the following statement regarding Patricia Fresen, Rose Hudson, and Elsie McGrath: As Archbishop of St. Louis, it is my responsibility to safeguard the unity of the Catholic Church and protect the souls of the faithful.

I have communicated with Ms. Fresen, Ms. Hudson, and Ms. McGrath, and informed them that if they participated in an attempted female ordination, they would be excommunicating themselves from the Catholic Church. In the apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Pope John Paul II reaffirmed that the Catholic Church has no authority to confer priestly ordination on women. This teaching is to be held definitively by all the faithful as belonging to the deposit of faith. Because they participated in the attempted ordination, Church law requires me to publicly declare the excommunication.

The situation is sad for the whole Church. It is cause of great concern for me as archbishop. Please join me in praying that both will be reconciled with the Church and that the great harm which has been caused to the Church, with the help of God's grace, will be healed.

[NYer]

Ping!

[maryz]

Church law requires me to publicly declare the excommunication

Wow! An American bishop who takes Church law seriously! Take a lesson, Mahony, et al.!

I followed the link because I didn't recall any connection they had with St. Louis -- I gather they joined the board of a schismatic parish, St. Stanislaus Kostka (sp?).

Does the excommunication have force outside Burke's archdiocese? I imagine it should, but I'm a bit rusty on excommunication procedure (since I don't recall one in recent memory!). Where are these people -- physically -- now?

[Antoninus]

Huzzah to Archbishop Burke! Well done, your excellency!

[Antoninus]

Wow, he also placed them under interdict.

Do we need more bishops like Burke, or what?

Please, God!

[trisham]

Excellent. We need to see much more of this.

[wideawake]

Good.

[Gerish]

McGrath, Hudson, Fresen...can you hear me now?

[Claud]

Wow, he also placed them under interdict.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Cheverus]

If we had a Bishop like this in Boston, we might turn it into a Catholic city again.

Instead we get guys who blow whichever way the media wants them to.

No wonder Burke has so many Seminarians.

[Ottofire]

Hallelujah!

A start! Lets see the CC PUBLICLY get all those that publicly support and legislate abortion, and I will have to actually stand up and applaud. (Might even have to buy the local Catholic priest a beer!)

Now if only the liberal episcopalians, presbyterians, and those of their ilk would do the same...

[AnAmericanMother]

Interdict!?!?!??!!!!

Holy cats, Andy, this man is serious.

It's a shame, but if more bishops had done more teaching sooner, the good Archbishop wouldn't have had to take this drastic step.

[baa39]

‘Does the excommunication have force outside Burke’s archdiocese?’

Yes, all the way to the Gates of Heaven.

[baa39]

Yes, I wish AB Burke would have received the red hat instead of Foley. Not only does he deserve the honor, it would have been a strong message to the other American bishops.

[Antoninus]

Yes, I wish AB Burke would have received the red hat instead of Foley. Not only does he deserve the honor, it would have been a strong message to the other American bishops.

Maybe Burke will get NYC or LA in due time. Wouldn't that be something....

Pray for it.

[baa39]

Good thought. LA, that would be such a drastic change, I think there would be major upheavals. He’d have to really clean house before he could even begin to get the misguided people back on track. It would be taking a risk for the Pope to move him there, instead of the more likely and expected scenario of having Brown follow Mahony. But Benedict does not like these problems and Brown would surely perpetuate them. The LA Archdiocese needs to be split into smaller ones, then they could move Burke in and he would have more chance of being effective; it would still be one of the largest AD’s in the country.

[maryz]

Let me rephrase that: Will other American bishops recognize and go along with it?

[dangus]

>> Does the excommunication have force outside Burke’s archdiocese? <<

Yes. Cdl. Burke is not punishing these women; he is filling his role as their ordinary in proclaiming to them the consequences Heaven has ordained for their actions. He’s their bishop.

The interdict isn’t about them. It’s about letting the world know that they have broken communion. If they were to receive communion in spite of the interdict, it would have a disastrous effect on their soul, for they “would drink death apon themselves.” The interdict is for his priests, in mercy, so that they know not to so poison these women’s souls, or to allow their flocks to be led into error by believing these women enjoy the fruits of these sacraments.

[joebuck]

What implications does this have for Roman Catholics who continue to attend services conducted by these two, as show of support/sympathy?

[GCC Catholic]

It would be taking a risk for the Pope to move him there, instead of the more likely and expected scenario of having Brown follow Mahony.

It is unlikely that Bishop Brown will follow Cardinal Mahoney, as there is less than a year's age difference between them. Both turn 75 in 2011.