Fr. Jeremy Leatherby has placed himself and others in a state of schism with the Roman Catholic Church. By his words and actions, Fr. Leatherby has incurred a latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication. This means that by his own volition he has separated himself from communion with the Roman Pontiff, Pope Francis, and other members of the Catholic Church.
Fr. Leatherby has violated my instructions by offering Mass and teaching publicly to a number of the faithful. He has instructed them against the legitimacy of His Holiness, Pope Francis. He has substituted the Holy Father’s name with the name of his predecessor, and omitted my name during the recitation of the Eucharistic Prayer while offering Mass. After obstinately not responding to a number of my inquiries by telephone and correspondence, he has now confirmed his schismatic stance. Because of the grave scandal of these actions I have no recourse but to announce publicly the consequence of his decisions: He has brought upon himself an automatic latae sententiae excommunication.
Prior to these lamentable events, there has been an on-going canonical process concerning other alleged behaviors by Fr. Jeremy Leatherby in violation of priestly promises. This process admittedly has been long, is still continuing, and is in the hands of other ecclesiastical authorities. The events by which he has excommunicated himself are unrelated to these previous allegations and the ensuing investigation. These are two separate issues.
Both clergy and faithful are instructed to refrain from any further attempt by Fr. Leatherby to offer the Mass or other sacraments. Join me in praying for his reconciliation and return to full communion with the Roman Catholic Church.
The above comes from an Aug. 7 letter from Bishop Soto of the Sacramento diocese.
I don’t think the bishop understands what qualifies for latae sententiae excommunication. Nothing in this report qualifies. The bishop can excommunicate someone by a judicial sentence as a punishment for serious matters not specified as latae sententiae in canon law.
I agree that the letter, itself, doesn’t seem to give enough reason to declare that a latae sententiae excommunication occurred. However, there appears to be other communications or statements of Fr. Leatherby which do provide this clarity.
Canon law 1364
No, it’s not clear that the delict of schism in Canon 1364 has been committed; unlike, for example, participating in an attempt to ordain women, which is clear. Bishop Soto wants to say the priest is excommunicated without having to take responsibility himself for making a judicial judgment and issuing a sentence of excommunication, but it’s not clear that a latae sententiae canonical crime has been committed. It’s not that easy, and it’s not as simple as the bishop would like it to be. There’s also bad blood between those two men, stemming from the priest’s father receiving a report that one of Bishop Soto’s close priest friends was caught in bed with another priest. Homosexual coverup.
If Fr. Leatherby celebrated Mass without praying for the current Pope and bishop, that is on him. We don’t get to make up our own Mass as we go. We pray it as in the Roman Missal. I’ve had respect for what I’d heard Fr. Leatherby had previously done. But, even “bad blood” is no excuse for not praying the Mass, the public prayer of the Church, properly.
If what you said about gay priests is true, that should be exposed. Do you know if that report is true? If so, are you willing to name the priests and report that? But, regardless, that’s another issue.
If priests go rogue, whether Fr. Leatherby or Fr. Pavone, they really are no longer orthodox Catholics. (That’s not to say they are heretics, but, they’ve put themselves in schism.)
Father Pavone? Please explain.
Sure. As I’ve previously asked, can anyone provide me with a reference or link to a letter of good standing for Fr. Frank Pavone?
(And, not simply a letter from a canon lawyer.)
Does anyone know the diocese of which he is a priest?
I know the diocese where Priests for LIfe is located states he is not a priest of their diocese and has not been granted faculties to administer the sacraments.
He has been in two dioceses and a religious order, but none of them acknowledge any current association.
While I often agree with what Priests for Life and its associated ministries have done, it appears at least that Fr. Pavone is a rogue priest acting on his own.
Please prove me wrong.
This is so very sad. The second anonymous (1:50 p.m. post) appears correct. Let us pray fervently for Fr. Leatherby’s reconciliation with the Church.
The former Father Leatherby now Mr. Leatherby has excommunicated himself from the Church. Quite frankly I am one practicing Roman Catholic who appreciates Bishop Soto’s handling of this matter. Mr. Leatherby recently shared in a letter to the priests of the diocese that he had indeed violated boundaries (whatever that means) with a woman. Mr. Leatherby seems to have wanted Bishop Soto to fast track his case so he could return to ministry and the Bishop wasn’t having it. It is obvious Mr. Leatherby doesn’t like to follow the rules and the Catholic Church has quite a few rules. Let us wish Mr. Leatherby well as a member of the laity; perhaps, he will marry someday and enjoy that vocation.
He has been excommunicated, not defrocked. He is still an ordained minister, even if not in good standing and unable to perform public ministry.
I have zero idea about the facts about his case, but excommunication does not cancel the Sacrament of Orders. Maybe it should, maybe it shouldn’t, who am I to say?
Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders are the three unrepeatable sacraments. They mark a person for eternity and are carried beyond death into eternity (unlike the other four sacraments). Sacraments can’t be “canceled.”
According to the Sacramento Bee Saturday:
“Many who have joined me hold, like I do, that Benedict remains the one true Pope,” Leatherby wrote in a letter following his excommunication.
“No longer being in union with the church over which Bergoglio (Pope Francis) reigns,” referring to Francis by his birth name in a letter obtained by The Sacramento Bee. “I am seeking a dispensation from the clerical state in that church. I no longer want to be affiliated with it through canonical ties,” Leatherby wrote.
Whether one likes or agrees with any given Pope, he is, still, the Pope. Not all Popes are Saints.
So is Ann Barnhardt excommunicated latae sententiae for schism too? She’s practically the number one proponent in the US of the false claim that Benedict is still pope. She openly and unabashedly declares that Pope Francis is an antipope and that Benedict XVI is still the pope. When will Ann’s bishop declare that she’s excommunicated?
People not infrequently excommunicate themselves via a latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication. In more public cases, that is announced by a bishop. I’m not familiar with Ms. Barnhardt, but a cleric publicly teaching and praying/saying things at Mass seems more likely to incur a public announcement than a member of the laity expressing an erroneous position. Who is her bishop?
As you may know, those who procure an abortion are also excommunicated (Canon 1398), yet I don’t know of such an excommunication ever being announced.
Yet, if procuring includes legalizing and funding, then, it seems some Catholics, like Mr. Biden, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Newsom have excommunicated themselves as well. Since their actions are so public, it seems that should be announced as well.
It is direct procurement of an abortion that incurs the latae sententiae excommunication. Pro-choice politicians are not excommunicated but they have all been told by the bishops that they are not to present themselves for communion.
Canon law does not have the word “direct” in front of procure. See Canon 1398. I don’t know the basis for limiting procurement to the woman (or girl) and the abortionist. It does, admittedly, depend upon the definition of procurement, which, in most cases, seems broader.
Why do you state that all pro-abortion politicians have been told not to present themselves for Holy Communion?
How would you know that?
Many persist in the promotion, legalization and funding of abortion and continue to receive Holy Communion (though, as you noted, they should not).
(I specifically didn’t use “pro-choice” to describe such politicians, since the issue is abortion and they are anti-choice on many issues.)
You are correct about the word direct not being in there. According to the Catholic Education Resource Center: Any Catholic accomplice in the act of procuring an abortion, even though not specifically mentioned in Canon #1398, receives the same penalty of automatic excommunication. Here an accomplice is one who assists in such a way that the heinous act would not have been committed without his assistance. Therefore, the doctor who performs the abortion, the nurse who assists in the procedure, the boyfriend who encourages the abortion, and the parent who pays for the abortion — all are accomplices, guilty of the act, and thereby receive the just penalty. (See Code of Canon Law, #1329.2.)
Back when John Kerry was running for President, there were a lot of things in the news, both from the Vatican and US bishops that said that Catholic politicians who support abortion rights were not to present themselves to receive Holy Communion. I might be remembering statements of individual bishops, but I remember back when Cardinal Burke was saying that he would deny Communion to John Kerry the final statement was that they would not deny communion to these politicians but that they should not present themselves for Communion. The bishop of each diocese is supposed to counsel them personally and privately, although often the bishops make public statements concerning it. I have looked for documentation but the main document I was looking for is not online anymore. Sometimes, news articles get it wrong but I think if you research it you could document it.
You are correct, each bishop should confront such politicians.
But, what’s the difference between a (grand)parent paying for an abortion and a politician who funds abortions?
I think the bishops have said that our simply paying taxes does not make us complicit, even though some of our tax money is used for evil (abortion and/or other evils).
Let’s see if that applies to president buden
From the comments so far, two key points seem to emerge: 1) Bishop Soto doesn’t know beans about canon law and 2) Francis is not a real Pope. With the exception of the person who asked for prayers, did I miss anything? Here is what I know: Bishop Soto is a highly educated person with two master’s degrees who has been well trained for his position. He has a phalanx of lawyers canon and otherwise to advise him and he has a reputation for not shooting from the hip. Pope Benedict XVI was the second pope to resign the post. After his resignation, a conclave of Cardinals, a majority appointed by him or Saint John Paul II, who after sincere deliberation and calling on the Holy Spirit, elected the Cardinal Archbishop of BA, Argentina to be the new Pope. He took the name Francis. My summation would be that the Bishop knows more than most of us who think we know canon law, and Francis is a real Pope.
I agree Francis is the real pope, though I would wish it otherwise, That is to say, IMHO, and I may be wrong here, I think Francis is a very bad pope. But that is all the more reason for Father Leatherby to include Pope Francis in the Eucharistic Prayers so that prayers are sent to heaven that he might be a better pope.
I am in agreement with Father Leatherby.
Ann Barnhardt does not say nor do such thing. At all. Calling a Pope an AntiPope is not the same thing as declaring oneself a true sedevacantist nor the same as declaring The Pope not The Pope. Ann has declared in writing she is not a sedevacantist. I have seen (read) it.