Professor M. Cathleen Kaveny said, “Every man with a copy of the catechism, an internet connection and an attitude thinks he is a theologian.” Her insight goes a long way toward explaining the bizarre case of Fr. Jeremy Leatherby of Sacramento, California.
The excommunication latae sententiae – that is, self-imposed and automatic, though pronounced by ecclesiastical authority – made by Leatherby is, I believe, the first time a Catholic priest has been so severely disciplined because of his opposition to Pope Francis. I had added the qualifying phrase ‘in part’, but then removed, to that sense, but in fact the abuse of Leatherby is all piece, and that piece is all related to the anti-Francis madness that among some in seized the Catholic law.
The letter from Sacramento Bishop Jaime Soto to the believers outlined the reasons for Leatherby’s excommunication: He continued to follow public ministry despite his prior suspension, his refusal to pray for Francis in the Eucharistic prayer, and instead of the name of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, instead of his refusal to pray for Soto in the same prayer, and his refusal to meet with Soto or respond to the bishop’s efforts to discuss the situation.
Soto also suggested that the excommunication was not predicted in the current investigation into allegations that Leatherby violated his promise of celibacy:
Prior to these affirmative events, there has been an ongoing canonical process regarding other proven behavior by Fr. Jeremy Leatherby in conflict with priestly promises. That process has been quite long, still continues, and is in the hands of other ecclesiastical authorities. The events in which he excommunicated himself are not related to these previous allegations and the subsequent investigation. These are two separate issues.
In Leatherby’s own letter, he begins with the sexual accusations. It is interesting that he is so quick to forgive himself for all the abuse he has committed with a woman. I wonder if he was so quick to forgive others who commit sexual sins?
But, no matter, the really important thing is that he followed up with his suspension from the public ministry until this year. He writes:
However, when I would call it quits, covid was hit, and the sacraments were banned almost all over the world. The believers were denied that which is most essential – even more essential than food or drink. They were denied the Eucharist, the bread that without it has no life in it. I knew canonically that what was done was breaking the law of the Church. The believers, who apply and are in a good state, have the right to receive the sacraments at all times. I could not keep up and see as what I believe to be the greatest denial of Christ, since his very own crucifixion took place.
The months with only online mass were difficult, but not as difficult as being in the ICU with a ventilator, certainly not as difficult as living with the awareness of guilt for participating in an event where others have this terrible virus caught and seriously ill calmed down as dead. The failure of the need for mutual sacrifice to prevent serious harm to other people was a blindness publicly articulated by – who else? – Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò in his infamous letter to President Donald Trump.
Viganò, recall, said the public health emergency was “managed” by unnecessary forces linked to the “deep state.”
“We will probably find that in this colossal operation of social technology there are people who have decided the fate of mankind, and are arrogating themselves the right to act against the will of the citizens and their representatives in the governments of nations, “wrote Viganò. It turns out that Leatherby drank that Kool-Aid.
So, it’s not really surprising that Leatherby, feels justified in ignoring public health officials, and the bishops of California who, despite their wide ideological diversity, do not meet the public health requirements attached to them and their flock challenged, must also feel justified in fashionable Catholic ecclesiology in order to conform to its aims, and refused to pray in the Eucharistic prayer for his bishop as the bishop of Rome.
Bishop Soto’s sense of excommunication again[sic] I am consistent with my relationship with Jorge Bergoglio (Pope Francis), with whom I can not agree in moral, spiritual or intellectual, in good conscience. Bergoglio’s act of idolatry in St. Peter’s Basilica in October of 2019, his consistent promotion of religious syncretism, and his violation of the Church’s constant sacramental tradition regarding the reception of Holy Communion by the divorced and remarried, among other things, has not allowed me to consider myself in ecclesiastical communion with him. Further, and more importantly, I find it irresponsible to hold that Pope Benedict’s statement of 2013 meets the requirements for a valid act of dismissal from the papacy, according to canon law; therefore, I regard Benedict as the custodian of Peter’s Bureau, as mysterious as that may be. Therefore, I do not consider Bergoglio to be the Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church. Terribly I believe he may be the head of the “church church”, about whom reverent Fulton Sheen prophesies, or “the antichrist” spoken by Charles Wojtyla (the future pope John Paul II), or the ” parallel church ”written recently by Archbishop Vigano.
Of course, Benedict is alive, so if he had second thoughts about the validity of his dismissal – and it would be his thoughts that matter, no? – he could hear her voice. He did not do that. I want to ask Leatherby if he had a private disclosure about the case?
Leatherby informs us that he is seeking to be dispensed from the ecclesiastical state in “the church where Bergoglio reigns” and that he is trying to “live out my priestly promises independently.” He has become a Protestant.
Two other sentences caught my eye: “Yes, I deserve excommunication as Bergoglio is indeed the valid successor of Peter, and I am guilty of causing great division in the Mystical Body of Christ,” Leatherby writes. “However, I could not do otherwise in good conscience.”
This caused me a touch of sympathy for the wealthy clergy. At least he recognizes that the church has the right to excommunicate and that his conscience may have been deformed. How many liberal priests who have been excommunicated have done the same? And how many conservatives who were only too quick to applaud the excommunication of liberal clergy will now stand up and support this excommunication?
The political-theological complex has found a new hero in Leatherby. Two years ago, the Church called Militant Leatherby in Soto’s assertion for “persecution of Orthodox priests.” On Twitter you can follow the show of support for the excommunication.
I do not know if Soto made the right decision here. Francis has been very patient in dealing with those who oppose him, and there is much to be said for his approach. What is clear is that the episode provides more evidence that the political-theological complex exists, that people tend to believe that Francis is not the real pope, tend to combat the need for public health measures to fight the coronavirus, that those those who love Viganò are likely to applaud Bill Barr, and that Trump’s Catholic supporters must have sworn so much of their moral distinction, they are no doubt more inclined to believe the nonsense found among the anti-Francis brigades. That there are exceptions, no one can doubt, but they only prove the rule.
[Michael Sean Winters covers the nexus of religion and politics for NCR.]Editor’s note: Do not miss the latest from Michael Sean Winters. sign up and we’ll let you know when he re-publishes Different Catholic pillars.
