Bishop of Sacramento Excommunicates Priest Who Does Not Accept Pope Francis

In a letter of August 7, 2020, Bishop Jaime Soto of the Diocese of Sacramento has announced that “Fr. Jeremy Leatherby has placed himself and others in a state of schism with the Roman Catholic Church [and] incurred a latae sententiae excommunication” for having “instructed [the faithful] against the legitimacy of His Holiness, Pope Francis.” Furthermore, Bishop Soto condemns Leatherby for having “substituted the Holy Father’s name with the name of his predecessor, and omitted my name” in the Eucharistic Prayer of the Mass.

Beginning in March 2020, during the coronavirus ban on the Mass that was imposed by Bishop Soto and every bishop of the United States, Leatherby had been offering Masses each week for over 300 people in private homes. In a public statement “To the Priests and Faithful of the Diocese of Sacramento and beyond” issued on August 6, 2020, Leatherby explained his reasons for bringing the Sacraments to the faithful over the course of Lent and Easter 2020:

“In a state of emergency, even laicized or “former” priests can, and perhaps even are morally obliged to, offer the sacraments for the faithful. During this pandemic, I couldn’t permit them to go without the foundational source of all healing, grace and salvation, [the Holy Eucharist]. … At first, I brought the Sacred Hosts that I consecrated in private Masses to one home after another. Soon, it was all day, every Sunday, driving all over town to bring people the Bread of Life. Finally, in order to provide for everyone, I had to celebrate public/private Masses in homes. Ultimately, 350 people a weekend were attending. However, I have celebrated [these Masses] in union with Pope Benedict, not with Pope Francis. Many who have joined me hold, like I do, that Benedict remains the one true Pope.”

Bishop Soto contacted Leatherby by phone and letter earlier this summer, but Leatherby did not reply. In a private letter sent to Leatherby on August 3, 2020, Soto warned the priest: “Your actions have placed you and others in grave moral danger. Listen to the voice of the Good Shepherd, in whose name I speak with fraternal solicitude.” In addition to calling Leatherby to repent and cease any sacramental ministry, Soto’s August 3 letter also ordered him: “You must assume a life of prayer and penance under my direction.”

In his statement, Leatherby acknowledges that the sentence of excommunication “is consistent with my relationship with Jorge Bergoglio (Pope Francis), with whom I cannot morally, spiritually or intellectually, in good conscience, align myself.” Leatherby names Bergoglio’s idolatry, syncretism, and violation of the Church’s constant tradition about sacramental reception as reasons he is “unable to consider myself in ecclesial communion with him.” Leatherby also succinctly explains the reason he still considers Benedict XVI to be the one true pope:

“Further, and more importantly, I find it indefensible to hold that Pope Benedict’s declaratio of 2013 fulfills the requirements for a valid act of resignation from the papacy, according to canon law; thus, I continue to regard Benedict as retaining the Office of Peter, as mysterious as that might be.”

Do I get excommunicated if I don’t accept pope Francis?

If so, you would be part of a large sect here. So many of your brethren have relegated pope Francis to be excommunicated (which officially would seem to require his sanction) that at one time the RM said being as "many other Catholic posters have proclaimed that the Pope is not Catholic, we will remove the Catholic Caucus label because this thread is about a non-Catholic."

However, as for your status, that depends upon who is imposing this sentence and your degree of culpability:

“Who can excommunicate? “ Excommunication is an act of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the rules of which it follows. Hence the general principle: whoever has jurisdiction in the forum externum, properly so called, can excommunicate, but only his own subjects. Therefore, whether excommunications be a jure (by the law) or ab homine (under form of sentence or precept), they may come from the pope alone or a general council for the entire Church; from the provincial council for an ecclesiastical province; from the bishop for his diocese; from the prelate nullius for quasi-diocesan territories; and from regular prelates for religious orders. Moreover, anyone can excommunicate who, by virtue of his office, even when delegated, has contentious jurisdiction in the forum externum; for instance, papal legates, vicars capitular, and vicars-general. But a parish priest cannot inflict this penalty nor even declare that it is incurred, i.e. he cannot do so in an official and judicial manner....

Hence arise various extenuating reasons (causæ excusantes), based on lack of guilt, which prevent the incurring of excommunication:....(There is a running joke among canonists that, since the requirements for imposition of a canonical penalty are so complex, and require so much knowledge on the part of the perpetrator, that the end result is that the only people who can be excommunicated are…canon lawyers.) - Am I Excommunicated? Sanctions, Part I http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2008/01/25/am-i-excommunicated/

The person committing an offense must be at least sixteen years old; must have full use of reason; must have full knowledge that there is a sanction attached to commission of that offense; must be acting with full freedom, i.e., without any outside force or compulsion of grave fear; and must not be acting in self-defense. If even one of these conditions is not met, a person does not incur the censure that is attached by law to a particular crime! - Is She Excommunicated? Sanctions, Part II http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2008/03/07/is-she-excommunicated-sanctions-part-ii/

However, the same canon law lawyer also statwes, Canon 751 tells us that schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him. And this is where sedevacantism fits into the equation.

As we saw in “What is the ‘Old Catholic Church’?” canon 205 tells us that a baptized Catholic is in full communion with the Catholic Church if he accepts the Catholic faith, Catholic sacraments, and Catholic governance—and it’s the issue of rejecting church governance that is the key problem with sedevacantism. If you don’t believe that this or that papal document was issued by a man who is/was really the Pope, then you naturally don’t intend to abide by whatever it says. A Catholic who thinks that all the Popes since St. John XXIII were invalidly elected is obviously not going to obey anything that these Popes have said. In other words, by refusing to accept the authority of the current Pope or his recent predecessors, a Catholic who’s a sedevacantist willfully puts himself into a state of schism.

Some of the specific positions advocated by various groups of sedevacantists might strike ordinary Catholics as funny, but schism is no laughing matter. Under canon law it is considered a crime against religion and the unity of the Church, and thus a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication (c. 1364.1). ..

But since sedevacantists tend to cite (incorrectly) a lot of canon law in support of their positions, it seems reasonable to assume that they are aware of both the Church’s position on the crime of schism, and the penalties that may accompany it.

There is nothing illogical about drawing this conclusion about sedevacantists. Think about it: how can you be in full communion with the Catholic Church, if you refuse to acknowledge the authority of the leaders of the Catholic Church? - http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2017/04/20/can-you-be-both-a-catholic-and-a-sedevacantist/

Canon 915 states:

Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or the declaration of a penalty as well as others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to communion.

But as with so much else in Catholicism, there is the issue of interpretation:

Albany Bishop Howard Hubbard says it is "unfair and imprudent" to conclude that Gov. Andrew Cuomo and his girlfriend, Sandra Lee, shouldn't receive Communion simply because they're living together. -- from the thread Bishop: None of your business (Hubbard rejects Catholic expert's criticism of Gov. Cuomo)

[Archbishop Timothy Dolan] also does not outright deny the sacrament to dissenting Catholic lawmakers, but he is seen as an outspoken defender of church orthodoxy in a style favored by many theological conservatives. -- from the thread US bishops elect NYC archbishop as head in upset (Catholic bloggers blamed)

"...there's a question about whether this canon'' – the relevant church law – "was ever intended to be used'' to bring politicians to heel. He thinks not. "I stand with the great majority of American bishops and bishops around the world in saying this canon [Canon 915] was never intended to be used this way.'' -- from the thread [Archbishop] Wuerl: Why I Won't Deny Pelosi Communion http://www.canonlaw.info/2009/03/abps-wuerl-c-916-burke-cc-915-916-on.html

And in the medieval Catholic church to which so many TradCaths look to, the law required:

Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath. But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler’s vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action. - Canons of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council (canon 3), 1215: (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp)

However, past canon law also stated

Can. 831 §1 Unless there is a just and reasonable cause, no member of Christ's faithful may write in newspapers, pamphlets or periodicals which clearly are accustomed to attack the catholic religion or good morals. Clerics and members of religious institutes may write in them only with the permission of the local Ordinary. - http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P2P.HTM

And excommunicating each other happened during the schism of the 14th and 15th centuries, as Cardinal Ratzinger testified,

"For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution.“ "It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196). http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/06/13/whos-in-charge-here-the-illusions-of-church-infallibility/)

Rampolla Bishop in Sacramento, CA excommunicates Benedict XVI Priest

CANONICAL COMMENTARY

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The Most Rev. Jaime Soto became Bishop of Sacramento, California by accepting the nomination as such by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI on Nov. 29, 2008. He became a Bishop in 2000 by being nominated Auxiliary Bishop in Orange, California, by His Holiness Pope John Paul II It was on that occasion he took the Rampolla Bishop, Todd David Brown as his principal consecrator, and thus pledged himself eternally to the faction of Rampolla del Tindaro, the rival of Pope Pius X, and leader of the Masonic Political faction in the Church.

The facts of this case, which I know personally, are that a relative of Father Leatherby, more than 2 years, discovered and denounced a priest of the same diocese for sexual perversion and violation of his promise of celibacy. But this priest was a close friend of the Bishop, so in retaliation he suspended both Deacon and priest. Father Leatherby was subsequently accused of vague things, and when his canon lawyer attempted to have more information was refused all correspondence. The charges made by his bishop were left in the air, and the Bishop suspended him by an administrative procedure without a day in court. This is allowed in the new Code of Canon Law of 1983, but cannot be done without real reason.

This does not surprise me, because the Bishop is already notorious for covering up gay sexual abuse of minors, as Church Militant has reported. (Featured image is from that report). I quote from that report the parts which regard our story, here:

The renewed calls for Bp. Soto’s resignation stem from his suspension of Fr. Jeremy Leatherby, a well-loved priest in Bp. Soto’s diocese of Sacramento. Father Leatherby has been waiting over two years for either a hearing or the results of the investigation into claims he had an inappropriate relationship with an adult woman. Bishop Soto has refused to allow this hearing or even tell Fr. Leatherby who his accuser is.
Multiple sources told Church Militant this allegation was made shortly after his father, Deacon David Leatherby, approached a parish administrator to help a housekeeper who caught a parish priest in bed with another priest. This woman was so frightened after being confronted by the priest that she moved out of Sacramento and asked Deacon Leatherby for help.

As regards the excommunication which Bishop Soto has attempted, it is clearly without foundation in the Code of Canon Law. Yes, canon 1364 imposes excommunciation latae sententiae for the delict of schism. But the crime of schism is defined as separation from other members of the Church. To separate yourself from someone who is a heretic or schismatic, cannot therefore be cause for excommunication. Furthermore, to name Pope Benedict XVI in the canon, without naming Bergoglio, can scarcely be claimed to be a schismatic act, because Pope Benedict XVI is the pope, since he never renounced in accord with Canon 332 §2, and is still called Pope by the whole Catholic world. Even Bergoglio calls him “the Pope”, as he did in Spanish during the World Youth Day in Panama. And even Bergoglio names Benedict XVI in the Canon of the Mass, daily. Also, one cannot be considered a schismatic unless a mens rea is proven. A mens rea is a mind intent upon the crime. If someone names a Pope in the Canon, who was canonically elected, he certainly has no such intention. It is obvious that he simply wishes to profess his communion with the Church differently. But in the case of a dispute over who is the true Pope, and there is a controversy over fact or law, then neither side in the controversy, has a desire to commit the sin of schism, nay, they rather dispute the facts and laws, not the principle of communion with the Church or Apostolic See.

Obviously, if you bishop has suspended you for no reason on trumped up charges and refuses correspondence with your canon lawyer, he can scarcely claim you are schismatic for refusing to communicate with him. He is acting like an abusive father, and everyone has the right to refuse communion with such a man.

Furthermore, a priest cannot be suspended a divinis permanently for relations with a woman, unless he sires a child by her or formally participates in obtaining an abortion of his own child, or contracts a civil marriage with her. In all other cases, even of consummated acts against the 6th commandment, a punishment is due and a way to rehabilitation is required. To refuse any action canonically for 2 years establishes that the Bishop had no canonical grounds for the suspension. The priest should have made an appeal to the Vatican in the first 90 says, but appears to have been badly advised. For procedural issues alone, it seems that his suspension would have been vacated and should be annulled by the Vatican.

In conclusion…

Therefore, in my opinion, by these letters it is established with canonical certitude that the Bishop must be held to be suspect of the crime of refusing communion with Father Leatherby and of having incurred excommunication latae sententiae for the sin of schism, since he has clearly and intentionally and with malice of aforethought chosen to refuse communion with Father Leatherby and publicly calumniate and libel his reputation, all of which are also grave sins and crimes in Canon Law.

Finally, the Bishop errs in saying that a Mass offered in a private chapel is a public act. Only masses offered in public oratories are public in the canonical sense. The Bishop is confusing the canonical term with the civil term. Also, the location of a tabernacle in a private chapel is not a canonical crime, it is merely the requirement of liturgical practice. It is only the establishment of a Tabernacle as a permanent fixture, where the Sacrament is conserved, and in which the Sacrament is conserved, which requires permission from the local pastor. And if the Bishop does not know the location of the chapel, or has not verified the parish in which it is housed, he can scarcely say that seeing it in a YouTube video constitutes any sort of canonical deviation at all.

I conclude by asking all to pray for the Bishop. He is clearly simply trying to defend his own sin, and ignoring any habit of self reflection. On the other hand, Father Leatherby is acting against the COVID-19 heresy, which has been embraced by the Bishop wholeheartedly, and is providing the sacraments to the Faithful, who have the divine right to receive them from any priest, when their legitimate pastors apostatize from their ministry. And for that, a priest cannot be punished, since the salvation of souls is the highest law, as the last canon in the code of Canon Law reminds us and the Bishop.

+ + +

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.