The Dispatch: More from CWR...

Disobeying Rome: What are the consequences?

Subliminal or overt calls to disobey the recent CDF prohibition raise questions about whether such conduct against Church unity will eventually have consequences.

Bishop Georg Bätzing, president of the German bishop's conference in St. Peter's Square, June 27, 2020. (Credit: Deutsche Bischofskonferenz/Matthias Kopp) interview with canon lawyer Fr. Gero Weishaupt. By Michael Koder [Translated for CWR by Michael J. Miller and published by CWR with kind permission of]

Cologne (, May 3, 2021) The rebellious reactions of bishops and other Church officials in German-speaking regions to the responsum (decision) by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith against blessing homosexual partnerships raise many questions: What can happen to a bishop who publicly calls for disobedience to Rome or tolerates it? Can a Catholic who feels that he is no longer represented by his own bishop in this matter have recourse directly to Rome? Fr. Gero Weishaupt, a canon lawyer and a tribunal judge of the Diocese of Cologne, answered these and other questions in an interview with Fr. Weishaupt, what can happen canonically to a bishop who, contrary to the Responsum, personally performs blessings of same-sex couples, calls for them or explicitly encourages them in his diocese, or knowingly tolerates such blessings?

Fr. Gero Weishaupt: If despite the responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith—which was published by order of Pope Francis, who thus made it clear that he claims it as his own—a bishop causes such blessings to be performed in his diocese, encourages them, or even merely tolerates such blessings, then that is plainly an act of the bishop’s disobedience to the Pope, whose Curial officials acted in his name in matters of faith and morals. The disobedience therefore concerns the Pope directly, and the CDF indirectly.

With this disobedience the bishop breaks the oath of fidelity that he swore when he took office. Besides this promise of fidelity to the Pope, the bishop promises thereby to protect the unity of the Universal Church and hence to make every effort “to preserve pure and unchanged the faith that has been handed down by the Apostles”. Therefore he is “obliged to promote the common order of the whole Church and therefore to insist that all ecclesiastical laws be obeyed.”

The disobedience manifested by the refusal to carry out the papal responsum therefore disrupts unity with the Pope. It is a schismatic act, of course with an underlying heresy, inasmuch as the blessing of homosexual relationships expresses at the very least the view that besides marriage between a man and a woman there can be other relationships ordered to sexual union. This blatantly contradicts the revealed truth about marriage (Gen 1:27: “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them”) and the essential nature of human beings, from which the natural moral law is derived by human reason.

Moreover the blessing of homosexual couples is an abuse of a blessing, which is a sacramental. Such a blessing is a violation of the liturgical order. Since according to the ecclesiastical order currently in force only the Apostolic See can institute new sacramentals, and abolish or modify existing ones, a ceremony blessing same-sex partnerships would be, strictly speaking, the simulation of a (nonexistent) sacramental, in other words a simulated blessing.

And now as for the canonical consequences: A bishop who ignores the papal prohibition of blessings for same-sex couples and acts contrary to it incurs excommunication automatically, as a latae sententiae penalty, i.e. it occurs as soon as a bishop publicly supports the blessing of homosexual unions, by that very fact. Such a latae sententiae penalty would have to be declared by the Pope through a decree, after an admonition, so that it could take effect canonically in the external forum.

If the wrongdoer shows remorse and desists from the offense and attempts to make reparation, he has a right to have the excommunication lifted. However, if he does not correct his conduct, the Apostolic See can punish the bishop in additional ways, too; deposition (removal from office) is among the possibilities. What is the difference between the excommunication itself and the external declaration of it, for example by a papal decree?

Weishaupt: As long as an automatic excommunication is not declared by a decree or imposed by a punitive judgment, it remains in the so-called inner forum and obliges only the party immediately concerned, the excommunicated person, but it cannot be put into effect. An excommunicated person is forbidden to carry out a ministry in a liturgical celebration, to administer sacraments or sacramentals and to receive sacraments (he may receive sacramentals), to exercise ecclesiastical offices, ministries, or duties, or to perform administrative acts. Those acts are invalid, for example the appointment of pastors and the erection of parishes by a bishop, but not until the external declaration of the excommunication. Only then would a lay person, too, for example, have to be kept away from all liturgical ministries, and he could not assume any additional offices, for example in the parish council or as a baptismal sponsor. What can happen to a priest or other pastoral worker (“pastoral assistant”) who performs such blessings?

Weishaupt: This question is answered along with the first. He too is automatically excommunicated. In this case, of course, the local bishop would then be the one responsible for declaring the excommunication of the priest in question or of another pastoral worker. If the bishop himself ignores the responsum, he will probably not sanction a priest or pastoral worker in those circumstances. In this case, though, the lay faithful can turn to the Apostolic Nuncio or directly to the Pope or a Roman dicastery (CDF, Congregation for Bishops, Congregation for the Clergy and, because the blessing is a liturgical abuse, even to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments). Canonically, the lay faithful have “the right and sometimes even the duty to make their opinion known to the spiritual shepherds in matters concerning the welfare of the Church.” For example, I know that the Apostolic Nuntio [in Germany] forwards complaints from the faithful to Rome and that Rome reacts, too. Does it make sense for a Catholic to turn directly to the Pope or to a Roman dicastery?

Weishaupt: By all means. Every Catholic can have recourse directly to Rome in German [or in English]. Moreover there is the possibility of a legal procedure: Every Catholic can bring to the bishop’s attention a punishable offense or another violation of Church discipline. If there is suspicion of a punishable offense, the bishop has to initiate a preliminary investigation, at the end of which there may be an administrative or a punitive procedure against the pastoral worker in question. Proceedings can be instituted against a bishop, too. Then, however, the competent authority is not his own ecclesiastical tribunal, but the Pope himself. Does a disobedient priest or bishop in this situation still administer the sacraments validly?

Weishaupt: Here, as was already explained, we must distinguish between on the one hand the latae sententiae excommunication, which happens automatically when the punishable act is performed, and on the other hand the official occurrence of the excommunication, which is declared by a decree. As long as the latter has not taken place, the sacraments are still administered validly. Of course when a decree from an ecclesiastical authority declaring excommunication is present, then the sacraments of Reconciliation—except in danger of death—Confirmation and Marriage are no longer administered validly. All other sacraments (Baptism, Eucharist, Holy Orders, Anointing of the Sick) continue to be administered validly, but still illicitly, if the excommunication has been declared. Is the display of rainbow banners in parish buildings or depictions of them on the websites of parishes or Catholic associations—as we have seen in abundance in recent weeks—already an act of disobedience to the responsum that a Catholic can report to Rome?

Weishaupt: Whether a schismatic act is present depends on the intention of the person who caused the display. Depending on the circumstances, he is excommunicated de jure [i.e. by law]. That would have external canonical consequences only if the latae sententiae penalty had been declared by a decree, as stated above.

Fr. Gero P. Weishaupt is a priest and canonist. From 2008-2013 he was Judicial Vicar/Official of the Diocese of ’s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands), since 2012 Judge of the Interdiocesan Tribunal of the Netherlands Ecclesiastical Province, since 2013 chief diocesan judge at the Archdiocesan Chancery of the Archdiocese of Cologne, since 2015 instructor for canon law and Church documents at the Theological Institute of the Diocese of Roermond, with other guest teaching positions, e.g. at the Pope Benedict XVI Philosophical-Theological University in Heiligenkreuz near Vienna. He has published several books and scholarly articles on canon law and has his own German-language website.

Editor’s note: A Catholic from the Diocese of Münster lodged a complaint directly with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith about his parish and his local bishop, requesting canonical consequences. The diocesan spokesperson had declared that there would be “no consequences or sanctions” if priests bless same-sex unions. [ reported on the story and posted the entire letter.]

If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.


  1. Fr. Gero Weishaupt’s clear explanation makes it imperative that the CDF respond to the Catholic of the Diocese of Münster’s complaint. That then must be sanctioned by the Pontiff. If Pope Francis might have considered delaying or withholding a decree of excommunication for Bishop Georg Bätzing, for pastoral concerns the complaint by this parishioner to the CDF changes that response. It would appear it’s an either or scenario the Pontiff upholding the faith or continued delay as with the Dubia, in which he had I believe canonical obligation to respond. If so it raises another canonical issue, whether a sitting pontiff can be challenged. This is where canon law may be wanting. In either case if Pope Francis refuses to respond as required with a declaration of excommunication he tells the Church that he does not defend Catholic teaching. The previous disregard of his obligation to respond to the Dubia, the failure for the cardinals who submitted it to follow up with a formal correction and the virtual disappearance of the matter within the Church leads this writer to expect similar. If so the Church at large must conscientiously respond in its duty to Christ in the stead of the bishop of Rome.

    • “This is where canon law may be wanting.” a classic understatement that is addressed quite adequately by Revealed Law, the penalties for scattering their flock to the wilderness, to the wolves. The quarries must be working overtime to meet the demand for millstones.

  2. Who are we kidding? Only traditionalists ever get disciplined or excommunicated. Expect what’s going on in Germany to go completely unchecked and undisciplined as it has with all of their ideological cohorts since Piux XII died. People don’t respond to discipline anymore and only respond to tenderness and mercy according to the sentimentalists that have been running the Church the last 60 years.

  3. There’s the unfortunate precedent of Pope Honorius I who was weak in opposing Monothelitism. Following his death, in A.D. 680 he was anathematized by the Third Council of Constantinople, but Pope Leo II found, instead, that Honorius had not actually taught heresy, but was guilty only of an “imprudent economy of silence.” Silence does not rise to the level of affirmative heresy (and papal infallibility, as later and precisely defined by the First Vatican Council, remains intact).

    Leo’s letter states that Honorius was anathematized because he “did not purify this apostolic Church by the doctrine of the apostolic tradition, but rather he allowed the immaculate [Church] to be stained by profane treason” (citation in Wikipedia). So, the useful wiggle room today consists in never actually denying Christian truths, and in weak governance.

    We can also be reminded how in 1968 Cardinal O’Boyle disciplined nineteen of his priests for dissenting publicly from Humanae Vitae, only to find that the Vatican reversed his decisions—thus giving the green light to dissent in matters of human morality (etc.!) about which the Church is the defender but not the Author. The so-called “Truce of 1968”:

    So, today, not only degeneration into an abysmal contraceptive culture—-now including the redefinition of “marriage” itself–but also threatened direct participation by zeitgeist bishops and underling priests in the blessing of homosexual couplings.

    Of a hypothetical Vatican “imprudent economy of silence” over this German taunt, what becomes of the legal maxim for which the layman Thomas More lost his head: “Qui tacet consentit,” that is, “silence gives consent”?

  4. Fr Weishaupt explains [2nd response to] that until a formal declaration is issued the party excommunicated latae sententiae is forbidden to perform ministry, although his ministry presumed unlawful is not invalid prior to the declaration. During that interim the Church has traditionally attempted reconciliation, as it did with Luther, who posted the 95 theses Wittenberg 1517 in dialogue with Cardinal Cajetan 1518 Theologian Johann Eck 1519. July 1520 Pope Leo X issued a papal bull that concluded that Luther’s propositions were heretical and gave Luther 120 days to recant in Rome. Luther refused to recant, and on January 3, 1521 Pope Leo excommunicated Martin Luther from the Catholic Church. Luther then was formally excommunicated 1521. Although a process may occur in this instance the blessing of homosexual union is already declared unlawful and invalid by the Church. The validity of such a blessing cannot be theologically examined as it was with Luther’s objections to indulgences. This current event appears as momentous for the unity of Catholicism in Germany, and if unresolved for the entire Church as was Luther’s defection because the issue is a non negotiable doctrine that also has wide commiseration outside of Germany. Directly involving at least two Bishops Felix Genn of Münster and Georg Bätzing German Bishops Conference president it must be unequivocally resolved by Pope Francis in defense of the faith.

    ‘Silence of the Sacred Host , pervade me ..’ – our times , when millions have been silenced , in spite of the wisdom and teachings against same ..
    yet , ? are they truly silent ..
    Thank God that The Church has also been well prepared , through Eucharistic Adoration in ? many more places and hearts in our times than has ever been
    and the media help , such as through above , to aid in same along with discussions such as in these articles helping to convey to more hearts the need for more charity as prayers for deliverance and protection …

    May same help to transform every particle taken up by the virus – spiritual or otherwise , to be surrendered to The Mother , to be united in the cleansing fire of The Spirit , to offer praise and glory to The Life Giver , for ever ..

    ? Would such have been the steps taken by St.Francis – to thus not bring fear and despair , which an act of excommunication could convey , to the many millions who are still far away from the Father’s home, including in those lands that for many reasons , The Light of Truth and hope has not entered enough –

    ‘Bring them to Me ..’ – to the flood gates of mercy , to empower the prayers of even few , to hep bring the Reign of The Divine Will , with its holiness and to also help spare many , of the darkness and trials of the chastisements ? that are also still unfolding , in front of the watchful and caring eyes and hearts of the Fathers – the face of the Holy Father , in St.Peter’s , at the start of the Rosary devotion as though the weight of the world is upon his shoulders , true to the calling of a heart of mercy , thus also the empowering The Spirit grieving with him ..

  6. Disobey Rome to preserve the Traditional Latin Mass, sacraments and priesthood: Excommunication.
    Disobey Rome to promote contraception, abortion, divorce and sodomy, protect sexual molesters, spread heresy, and destroy your diocese: Cardinals’ hat.

  7. Cannon Law are administration laws foe clerics and lay persons. To the general public and parishioners. We see them (CL) as a way to avoid and justify legal
    problems, confuse parishioners of non actions taken by the Vatican in resolving serious problems of abuse. Pope Francis could resolve these problems by just simply stating in public he is clearing the books and turn all offenders over to law enforcement. Also he can order all his bishops/cardinals to do the same. He has not to date. Bishops/Clergy will not follow his new cannon law as they did for years before. Example President Biden will continue to receive communion in church services.

  8. I hope a copy of this article is sent to all the Bishops in Germany who are currently playing with Synodal fire. They dont appear interested in upholding church traditions much as going to lunch with Martin Luther, to wit: ” We had a meeting and decided we are right, and the rest of you are old-fashioned and wrong.” If the Pope fails to take action soon, it may be too late. I too am tired of seeing church higher ups advocate for a pat on the head and a hug instead of discipline where it is warranted. That, at ALL levels of the church. Mercy should always be an option. However, stressing that while failing to convey an understanding of God’s justice, you are doing a disservice to your church flock.

    • Perhaps the endgame is to consolidate all contradictions within a big-tent Synod on Synodality?

      Then, such double-speak becomes, instead, an inclusive and permissive “unity” (!), where any earlier and exclusive notion of doctrinal clarity still hangs around but is subordinated to the wider “process.” The process IS the message, whether formally declared as such or not.

      The post-modern “paradigm shift” into such “doctrinal polygamy” finds a cultural precedent in pre-modern Islam, with the Qur’an’s inclusive and permissive accommodation of pagan marital polygamy, whether actually practiced or not, e.g., common in Saudi Arabia, but illegal today in Tunisia and Turkey.

      Likewise, will the blessing of homosexual couplings be routinely accommodated in “welcoming” Germany and even much of Europe, but “inadmissible” (a middling, muddling and maudling expression) in other more “rigid and bigoted” dioceses around the world?

      The “continental” Synod on Synodality = Continental Drift?

4 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. Consequences of breaking with Rome - JP2 Catholic Radio
  2. THVRSDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit
  3. Germany: On The Brink Of Schism | Catholicism Pure & Simple
  4. Kakve su posljedice neposlušnosti Rimu? – Župa sv. Ante – Komin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.