The Weaponization Of Excommunication - Who Should Be Excommunicated?

Restore DC Catholicism ^ | May 10, 2026 | Restore DC Catholicism

[ebb tide]

The Weaponization Of Excommunication - Who Should Be Excommunicated?

In the Diocese of Chur (?) in Switzerland, the local bishop will not discipline three parishioners (who) gave Consecrated Hosts, that is, Our Lord Himself, to their dogs.  The bishop's name is Joseph Vonamane, and has instructed his priests not to condemn LGBTQ behavior.  The 1983 code of canon law attaches automatic excommunication to certain offenses, among them being desecration of the Holy Eucharist.

In the LifeSite News clip, Westin quotes the bishop as excusing those parishioners for they "did not act with sacrilegious intent".  So everything is just hunky-dorry over in Switzerland, right?  Well, hold that thought as we consider another situation where the excommunication sword is most definitely being rattled in its scabbard.

As most of us know by now, the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) will consecrate new bishops to relieve their aging bishops.  They do not have an official papal mandate to do so, despite their attempts to obtain one.  The Vatican has thus far remained obdurate.  Many are puzzled by this strong-arming from the Vatican.  I am not.  Ladies and gentlemen, the SSPX, owing to their fidelity to traditional liturgy and Sacred Tradition, remind the current pope and his aficionados of the sinfulness of their own disregard for the Deposit of Faith.  The SSPX, by their very existence, rightly rebukes the progressives who are attempting to destroy the Church from within.  They want the destruction of the SSPX.  That is why they won't approves of the ordination of SSPX bishops.  

Faithful Catholics have been pointing out the utter folly of denying permission to the SSPX for the ordination of those bishops.  I will not rehash what they say here, but recommend them to your reading.  My blogging colleague at Les Femmes makes the point that supplied jurisdiction can and often does override strict adherence to official jurisdiction.  She cited examples such as English priests ministering to the faithful under the reign of Elizabeth I.  Maike Hickson points out that it is the Vatican's tinkering with Tradition that is the true cause of disunity, not the SSPX's attempts to preserve Tradition.

Rorate Caeli published a piece authored by the Canon of Shaftesbury that explained why the proposed excommunication of the SSPX simply doesn't pass canonical muster.  I will quote one key passage: "Furthermore, for a canonical act to constitute schism, there must be a positive will to separate from the Roman Pontiff or to refuse submission to his authority (cf. Canon 751). This is an essential element of the offense, not merely an aggravating circumstance. Bishop Athanasius Schneider and other reputable canonists have argued persuasively that the SSPX lacks this intent entirely. The Society professes full submission to the Roman Pontiff, accepts his doctrinal primacy, and explicitly does not seek to establish a parallel hierarchical jurisdiction."

Pope Leo!  Listen up!

The SSPX has repeatedly stated that they have no positive will to separate from Rome.  Even Rome itself does not dispute that.  Now let's go back to the situation broached in my first two paragraphs, where parishioners literally tossed Our Lord to their dogs.  The Code of 1983 (linked in my first paragraph) lists as one of the acts that can incur automatic excommunication the desecration of the Eucharist.  That did happen, yet the local bishop refuses to act because they "lacked sacrilegious intent".  So if the errant parishioners are being cut some slack because of their lack of malicious intent, why is such courtesy being denied to the SSPX?  Boys and girls, can we say "hypocrisy" and "double standards"?

Let's look at Pope Leo himself and his visit to the Mosque of Algiers last month.  Upon entering, he removed his shoes and expressed "gratitude for being in a place that represents the space proper to God".  It should be noted that others inside that room kept their shoes on.  Recall also that last October, the pope gave a "prayer room" to Muslins inside the Vatican.  He facilitated prayer to an idol at best, and perhaps a demon itself.

Now go back to that list of excommunicable offenses.  I see "apostates, heretics and schismatics" listed therein.  Is the pope himself excommunicated?

---

TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Current Events
KEYWORDS: excommunications; synodalchurch; tyrants; weapons

[ebb tide]

Ping

[NorthMountain]

I see "apostates, heretics and schismatics" listed therein. Is the pope himself excommunicated?

The same question arose with respect to the late unlamented Francis.

[rktman]

Uh, pope frank 2.0?

[Steve_Seattle1]

As I recall, Pope Francis flirted with heresy and was on friendly terms with priests and bishops who openly flouted church teaching. The only ones he disciplined seemed to be those who criticized HIM for his scandalous behavior.

[Steve_Seattle1]

"The same question arose with respect to the late unlamented Francis."

His passing was lamented by the enemies of the Church, but Leo seems well on his way to being Francis 2.0.

[Big Red Badger]

Please....
The Protestants!
.
I Want Nothing to Do with
The Holy Roman Catholic Church!
.
The Mere Thought of being slightly
Associated with Such a Lawless Religion
Turns my Stomach.
Please Understand the Souls defending That Organization have many reasons to defend It but very Little to Justify it for Their Personal Salvation.
.
God Save Us.

[nonliberal]

Besides the two most recent popes?

[Sirius Lee]

Besides the two most recent popes?

Those two clownunists should be excommunicated via catapult.

[Pontiac]

three parishioners (who) gave Consecrated Hosts, that is, Our Lord Himself, to their dogs.

Were the dogs baptized Catholics? Have they been to confession recently?

The Church needs to immediately revert to Communion on the tongue.

These sacrileges need to stop.

[higgmeister]

I am not a Roman Catholic but this is so wrong.

In the Diocese of Chur (?) in Switzerland, the local bishop will not discipline three parishioners (who) gave Consecrated Hosts, that is, Our Lord Himself, to their dogs.