 | This article has multiple issues. Please helpimprove it or discuss these issues on thetalk page.(Learn how and when to remove these messages) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
|
In thecanon law of the Catholic Church,excommunication (Lat.ex, "out of", andcommunio orcommunicatio, "communion"; literally meaning "exclusion fromcommunion") is a form ofcensure. In the formal sense of the term, excommunication includes being barred not only from thesacraments but also from the fellowship of Christianbaptism.[1] The principal and severest censure, excommunication presupposes guilt; and being the most serious penalty that the Catholic Church can inflict, it supposes a grave offense. The excommunicatedperson is considered byCatholic ecclesiastical authority as an exile from the Church, for a time at least.
Excommunication is intended to invite the person to change behaviour or attitude, repent, and return tofull communion.[1] It is not an "expiatory penalty" designed to make satisfaction for the wrong done, much less a "vindictive penalty" designed solely to punish. Excommunication, which is the gravest penalty of all, is always "medicinal".[2]
Its object and its effect are loss of communion, i.e. of the spiritual benefits shared by all the members of Catholic society; hence, it can affect only those who by baptism have been admitted to that society. There can and do exist other penal measures which entail the loss of certain fixed rights; among them are other censures, e.g. suspension for clerics, and interdict. Excommunication, however, is distinguished from these penalties in that it is the privation of all rights resulting from the social status of the Catholic as such. A person who has been excommunicated—unless excommunicated forapostasy,heresy orschism—is still considered a Catholic and still has all the duties of that relationship, including attending Mass. Even if considered Catholic, these excommunicated people are to refrain from receiving theEucharist.[3]
InLatin Catholiccanon law, excommunication is a rarely applied[4]censure; it is a "medicinal penalty" intended to invite the person to change behaviour or attitude,repent, and return tofull communion.[5] It is not an "expiatory penalty" designed to make satisfaction for the wrong done, nor is it "vindictive".[6]
The Catholic Church cannot, nor does it wish to, pose any obstacle to the internal relations of the soul with God; it even implores God to give the grace of repentance to the excommunicated. The rites of the church, nevertheless, are the providential and regular channel through which divine grace is conveyed to Christians; exclusion from such rites, especially from the sacraments, entails the privation of this grace, to whose sources the excommunicated person no longer has access.[7]
Pope Leo X's papal bullExsurge Domine (May 16, 1520) condemned in its twenty-third proposition the view that "excommunications are merely external punishments, nor do they deprive a man of the common spiritual prayers of the Church".Pope Pius VI inAuctorem Fidei (August 28, 1794) condemned the notion which maintained that the effect of excommunication is only exterior because of its own nature it excludes only from exterior communion with the Church, as if, said the pope, excommunication were not a spiritual penalty binding inheaven and affectingsouls.[7]
Theterminology used to qualify the modalities of excommunication may vary depending on the author.[8]
The 1913Catholic Encyclopedia distinguishes excommunication from the refusal ofecclesiastical communion, in which one bishop refuses to worship in common with another.[7]
Anathema is a sort of aggravated excommunication, from which, however, it does not differ essentially, but simply in the matter of special solemnities and outward display.[7]
Excommunication is eithera jure (by law) orab homine (by judicial act of man, i.e. by a judge). The first is provided by the law itself, which declares that whosoever shall have been guilty of a definite crime will incur the penalty of excommunication. The second is inflicted by an ecclesiastical prelate, either when he issues a serious order under pain of excommunication or imposes this penalty by judicial sentence and after a criminal trial.[7]
Excommunication is eitherlatæ sententiæ orferendæ sententiæ.[7]
Latae sententiae excommunication is incurred as soon as the offence is committed and by reason of the offence itself (eo ipso) without intervention of any ecclesiastical judge; it is recognized in the terms used by the legislator, for instance: "the culprit will be excommunicated at once, by the fact itself [statim, ipso facto]".[7]
Ferendae sententiae excommunication is considered by the law as a penalty and is inflicted on the culprit only by a judicial sentence; in other words, the delinquent is rather threatened than visited with the penalty, and incurs it only when the judge has summoned him before his tribunal, declared him guilty, and punished him according to the terms of the law. It is recognized when the law contains these or similar words: "under pain of excommunication"; "the culprit will be excommunicated".[7]
Excommunicationferendæ sententiæ can be public only, as it must be the object of a declaratory sentence pronounced by a judge; but excommunicationlatæ sententiæ may be either public oroccult.[7]
The practical difference of validities in the forums is very important:[7]
In a case of occult excommunication the culprit has the right to judge himself and to be judged by hisconfessor according to the exact truth, whereas, in the forum externum thejudge decides according to presumptions and proofs. Consequently, in the tribunal of conscience he who is reasonably persuaded of his innocence cannot be compelled to treat himself as excommunicated and to seek absolution; this conviction, however, must be prudently established.[9]
Salaverri and Nicolau note:[10]
Anexcommunication [...] can betotal orpartial according as the excommunicated person is excluded from communion with the faithful in all or only in some of the good which fall under the jurisdiction of the Church.
Excommunication is either reserved or non-reserved. This division affects theabsolution fromcensure. In theforum internum any confessor can absolve from non-reserved excommunications; but excommunications that are reserved can only be remitted, except throughindult or delegation, by those to whom the law reserves the absolution.[7]
There is a distinction between excommunications reserved to thepope (these being divided into two classes, according to which they are either specially or simply reserved to him), and those reserved tobishops orordinaries. As to excommunicationsab homine, absolution from them is reserved by law to the judge who has inflicted them. In a certain sense, excommunications may also be reserved in view of the persons who incur them; thus, absolution from excommunicationsin foro externo incurred by bishops is reserved to the pope; again,custom reserves to him the excommunication ofsovereigns.[7]
There is a difference betweenformal andmaterial excommunication:[10]
Anexcommunication is acensure or penalty whereby a delinquent or obstinate person is excluded from thecommunion of the faithful, until after abandoning his contumacy he is absolved. That can be calledformal which affects a man who is really delinquent and obstinate. But that can be said to be merelymaterial, which concerns a subject who throughinvincible error is thought to be delinquent and obstinate when in reality he is not such.
An excommunication perfect or a perfect excommunication, is defined as follows:[11]
We call thatexcommunication perfect whereby theApostolic See properly intends to separate a delinquent and obstinate person from the body of the Church. Therefore, besides the privation of spiritual goods which fall under the jurisdiction of the Church, aperfect excommunication implies, as its own special nature, thismanifest intention of separating someone from the body of the Church. But because the dominant intention of the Church is "to impose an excommunication for healing and not for ruin," therefore, if by hiscontrition the excommunicated person recoversgrace andcharity, by that fact his excommunication ceases to be perfect, even though juridically he really remainsan excommunicated person to be avoided, and he cannotlicitly participate in the communion of the faithful until he is absolved.
Salaverri and Nicolau give the following summary of theological opinions on excommunication and membership:[12]
That those who have been excommunicated from the Church by aperfect excommunication are not members of the body of the Church is an opinioncommon among Catholics.
a) That the Church wishes indeed to punish by excommunication delinquent members, but de facto does not intend to separate the excommunicated from the body of the Church, although she says that they are to be avoided, is held byD'Herbigny,Dieckmann,Spacil,Sauras, withBáñez,Valentia,Suarez andGuamieri [sic, Guarnieri].
b) That those excommunicatedwith a partial excommunication are members of the Church is a common opinion among Theologians
Salaverri and Nicolau's opinion is that only those which have been excommunicated by a "total, formal and perfect excommunication" can be said to be outside of the Catholic Church.[13]
Catholic priest Joseph Krupp states that the person excommunicated is still considered Catholic and still has all the duties of that relationship, including going toMass and the like. These persons are, however, to refrain fromreceiving Communion.[3]
Edward N. Peters states:[14]
Because excommunication can be imposed only on a Catholic (that is, one who is infull communion with the Church according tocanon 205 [of the1983Code of Canon Law]), excommunication deprives one of the fullness of thecommunion that he or she previously enjoyed. [...] Excommunication does not mean that one is no longer a Christian (because Christian baptism imprintsan indelible character on the soul) or no longer a Catholic (for although thereare ways to renounce one's Catholic identity, excommunication is not one of them). It does mean, though, that one is deprived of the benefits of full communion with the Catholic Church.
BishopThomas Paprocki holds a similar view as that of Krupp and Peters.[15]
The Catholic Church claims that the penalty of excommunication isbiblical and that bothPaul of Tarsus andJohn the Apostle make reference to the practice of cutting people off from the community, in order to hasten their repentance. TheCatholic Encyclopedia states that from theearliest days of Christianity, excommunication was the chief (if not the only) ecclesiastical penalty for laymen; for guilty clerics the first punishment was deposition from their office, i.e.reduction to the ranks of the laity. TheCatholic Encyclopedia adds that during the first centuries of Christianity, excommunication was not regarded as a simple external measure, but also as one which touched the soul and the conscience. It was not merely the severing of the outward bond which holds individual to their place in the Church; it severed also the internal bond, and the sentence pronounced on earth was understood to be ratified inheaven.[7]
During theMiddle Ages, excommunication was analogous to the secularimperial ban or "outlawry" undercommon law. The individual was separated to some degree from the communion of the faithful.[16] Formal acts of public excommunication were sometimes accompanied by a ceremony wherein a bell was tolled (as for the dead), the Book of the Gospels was closed, and a candle snuffed out—hence the idiom "to condemn withbell, book, and candle."
Those under excommunication were to be shunned.Pope Gregory VII was the first to mitigate the proscription against communicating with an excommunicated person. At acouncil in Rome in 1079, he made exceptions for members of the immediate family, servants, and occasions of necessity or utility.[17] In the mid-12th century,Pope Eugene III held asynod in order to deal with the large number of heretical groups. Mass excommunication was used as a convenient tool to squelch heretics who belonged to groups which professed beliefs radically different than those taught by the Catholic Church.[18]
William the Conqueror separated ecclesiastical cases from theHundred courts, but allowed the bishops to seek assistance from the secular authorities. Excommunications were intended to be remedial and compel the offender to return to the fold. The practice inNormandy provided that if anobdurate excommunicate remained so for a year and a day, his goods were subject to confiscation at the duke's pleasure. Later,bishops were authorized to submit a writ to have the individual imprisoned. On the other hand, the bishops heldtemporalities which the king could seize if the bishop refused to absolve an imprisoned excommunicate. The authority of a bishop to excommunicate someone was restricted to those persons who resided in his see. This often gave rise to jurisdictional disputes on the part of abbeys which claimed to be exempt.[16][19]
In 1215, theFourth Council of the Lateran decreed that excommunication may be imposed only after warning in the presence of suitable witnesses and for manifest and reasonable cause; and that they are to be neither imposed nor lifted for payment.[20] In practice, excommunications with subsequent writs appear to have been used to enforce clerical discipline and functioned something like a citation for "contempt of court". By the fourteenth century, bishops were resorting to excommunication against those who defaulted in making payment of the clerical subsidy demanded by theking of England for hiswars against France.[16]
TheCouncil of Trent held that "excommunicated persons are not members of the Church, because they have been cut off by her sentence from the number of her children and belong not to her communion until theyrepent".[7]
In Coena Domini was a recurrent papal bull between 1363 and 1770, formerly issued annually inRome onHoly Thursday (inHoly Week), or later onEaster Monday. It included proscriptions againstapostasy,heresy andschism, the falsification ofapostolic briefs andpapal bulls, violence done tocardinals,papal legates,nuncios; againstpiracy, against appropriating shipwrecked goods, and against supplyingSaracens and Turks with war material. The custom of periodical publication ofcensures was an old one. The tenthcanon of theCouncil of York (1195) ordered all priests to publish censures of excommunication against perjurers with bell and lighted candle thrice in the year. TheCouncil of London in 1200 commanded the yearly publication of excommunication against sorcerers, perjurers, incendiaries, thieves and those guilty of rape.[21]
From the middle of the fifteenth century,dueling over questions of honor increased so greatly, that in 1551 theCouncil of Trent was obliged to enact the severest penalties against it. The malice of the duel lies in the fact that it makes right depend upon the fate of arms. Dueling was forbidden; and the prohibition extended to not only the principals, but their seconds, physicians expressly brought to attend upon the scene, and all spectators not accidentally present. The excommunication was incurred, not only when the parties actually fought, but as soon as they proposed or accepted a challenge. According to the council, those who took part in a duel wereipso facto excommunicated, and if they were killed in the duel they were to be deprived of Christian burial. These ecclesiastical penalties were at a later date repeatedly renewed and even in parts made more severe.Benedict XIV decreed that duelists should be denied burial by the Church even if they did not die on the dueling ground and had received absolution before death. It pronounced the severest ecclesiastical penalties against those princes who should permit dueling between Christians in their territories.[22]
WhenKing John of England refused to acceptStephen Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury, he seized the lands of the archbishopric and other papal possessions.Pope Innocent III first sent a commission to negotiate with the king, and when that failed, place the kingdom underinterdict. This prohibited the clergy from conducting religious services, with the exception of baptisms for the young, and last rites for the dying. King John responded by taking more church lands and their revenues. Innocent threatened the king with excommunication and in 1209 proceeded to excommunicate the King.[23]
The extension of the use of excommunication led to abuses. The penalty is designed to bring the sinner back to repentance. However, it could be abused, used as a political tool and even employed for the purposes of revenge—abuses of canon law. In 1304,John Dalderby, Bishop of Lincoln, excommunicated all those persons ofNewport Pagnell who knew the whereabouts of Sir Gerald Salvayn's wayward falcon and failed to return it.[24]
Until the second half of the 19th century, excommunication was of two kinds, major and minor:[7]
Minor excommunication was really identical with the state of thepenitent of olden times who, prior to his reconciliation, was admitted to public penance. Minor excommunication was incurred by unlawful intercourse with the excommunicated, and in the beginning no exception was made of any class of excommunicated persons. Owing, however, to many inconveniences arising from this condition of things, especially after excommunications had become so numerous,Martin V, by the constitutionAd evitanda (1418), restricted the aforesaid unlawful intercourse to that held with those who were formally named as persons to be shunned and who were therefore known asvitandi (Latinvitare, to avoid), also with those who were notoriously guilty of striking a cleric.[7]
But as the twofold category of minor and major excommunication was in modern times greatly reduced, little attention was paid to minor excommunication, and eventually it ceased to exist after the publication of the constitutionApostolicæ Sedis. The latter was silent concerning minor excommunication (by its nature an excommunicationlatæ sententiæ of a special kind); therefore,canonists concluded that minor excommunication no longer existed. This conclusion was formally ratified by theHoly Office (6 Jan., 1884, ad 4).[7]
Over time, the number of hypothetical situations envisioned by the moralists andcanonists asipso facto bringing about excommunicationlatae sententiae, had increased by a lot;Lucius Ferraris (18th century) numbers almost 200 of those possible situations. The principal ones were destined to protect the Catholic faith, theecclesiastical hierarchy and itsjurisdiction, and figured in the bullIn Coena Domini read publicly each year inRome, onHoly Thursday.[7]
In the preamble of the 1869apostolic constitutionApostolicae Sedis,Pius IX stated that during the course of centuries, the number ofcensureslatae sententiae had increased inordinately, that some of them were no longer expedient, that many were doubtful, that they occasioned frequent difficulties of conscience, and finally, that a reform was necessary.Apostolicae Sedis was a issued by Pope Pius IX on 12 October 1869. It revised the list of censures that in canon law were imposed automatically (latae sententiae) on offenders. It also reduced their number and clarified those preserved: all excommunicationslatæ sententiæ thatApostolicae Sedis did not mention were abolished.[7] The document also detailed which excommunications where reserved and to whom.[25]
In the 19th century, there are four more excommunicationslatæ sententiæ which were declared after the publication ofApostolicae Sedis moderationi:[7]
![[icon]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=http%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3aWiki_letter_w_cropped.svg) | This sectionneeds expansion with: Details on the 1917, 1983 and 1991 codes should be added. You can help byadding to it.(January 2023) |
The early 20th centuryCatholic Encyclopedia notes that "[i]n recent times" the number of excommunications in force was greatly diminished, that a new method of absolving from them has been inaugurated, and that that thus, without change of nature, excommunication has become an exceptional penalty, reserved for very grievous offenses detrimental to Christian society.[7]
The1917 Code of Canon Lawentered into force in 1918.
In 1975 ,Louis de Naurois referred to that excommunication as "the gravest penalty of all and the most frequent", and added that excommunication "is always medicinal".[2]
Since 1418, the Catholic Church formally differentiated between excommunicated personstolerati ("tolerated") and thosevitandi ("to be avoided"), whenPope Martin V clearly drew this distinction in hisapostolic constitutionAd evitanda scandala.[7][17]
This distinction "was still found incanon law as late as the early 20th century, but it has been dropped from current law as being unworkable given the waymodern societies are set up".[26]
The1983Code of Canon Law entered into force in 1983. TheCode of Canons of the Eastern Churches entered into force in 1991.
In the Latin Church, canon law describes two forms of excommunication. The first isferendae sententiae. This is where the person excommunicated is subject to a canonical process or trial, and if found guilty of misdemeanours meriting excommunication is duly sentenced. Once the sentence is published, that person is barred from active participation as a member of the Catholic Church. But this is a rare event.
The more common excommunication is that termedlatae sententiae, or what sometimes called often "automatic excommunication", where someone, in committing a certain act, incurs the penalty without any canonical process having to take place.[4] If the law or precept expressly establishes it, however, a penalty islatae sententiae, so that it is incurredipso facto when the delict is committed (can. 1314).
A person may beferendae sententiae (i.e., upon judicial review) excommunicated if the person
The1983Code of Canon Law attaches the penalty oflatae sententiae (automatic) excommunication to the following actions:
Excommunication is eithera jure (by law) orab homine (by judicial act of man, i.e. by a judge). The first is provided by the law itself, which declares that whosoever shall have been guilty of a definite crime will incur the penalty of excommunication. The second is inflicted by an ecclesiastical prelate, either when he issues a serious order under pain of excommunication or imposes this penalty by judicial sentence and after a trial.[7]
Excommunication is an act of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the rules of which it follows. Hence the general principle: whoever has proper jurisdiction can excommunicate, but only his own subjects. Therefore, whether excommunications bea jure (by the law) orab homine (under form of sentence or precept), they may come from the pope, from the bishop for his diocese; and from regular prelates for religious orders. But a parish priest cannot inflict this penalty. The subjects of these various authorities are those who come under their jurisdiction chiefly on account of domicile or quasi-domicile in their territory; then by reason of the offense committed while on such territory; and finally by reason of personal right, as in the case of regulars. As to excommunicationsab homine, absolution from them is reserved by law to the ordinary who has imposed them.[7]
No one can be subject to ecclesiastical censure unless they bebaptized, delinquent, andcontumacious. Baptism confers initialjurisdiction, delinquency refers to having committed a wrong, and contumacious indicates the person's willfull persistence in such conduct.[29] Since excommunication is the forfeiture of the spiritual privileges of ecclesiastical society, all those, but those only, can be excommunicated who, by any right whatsoever, belong to this society. Consequently, excommunication can be inflicted only on baptized and living Catholics. It does not pertain topagans,Muslims,Jews, and other non-Catholics.[7]
No one is automatically excommunicated for any offense if, without any fault of his own, he was unaware that he was violating a law (1983 CIC 1323 n. 2) or that a penalty was attached to the law (1983 CIC1324 §1 n. 9). The same applies if one was a minor, had the imperfect use of reason, was forced through grave or relatively grave fear, was forced through serious inconvenience, or in certain other circumstances (1983 CIC 1324).[4]
Apart from the rare cases in which excommunication is imposed for a fixed period and then ceases of itself, it is always removed by absolution. Though the same word is used to designatethe sacramental sentence by which sins are remitted and that by which excommunication is removed; there is a vast difference between the two acts. The absolution which revokes excommunication is purely jurisdictional and has nothing sacramental about it. It reinstates the repentant sinner in the Church; restores the rights of which he had been deprived, beginning with participation in the sacraments; and for this very reason, it should precede sacramental absolution, which it thenceforth renders possible and efficacious. After absolution from excommunication has been given, the judge sends the person absolved to a confessor, that his sin may be remitted; when absolution from censure is given in the confessional, it should always precede sacramental absolution, conformably to the instruction in the Ritual and the very tenor of the formula for sacramental absolution.[7]
It may be noted at once that the principal effect of absolution from excommunication may be acquired without the excommunicated person's being wholly reinstated in his former position. Thus, anecclesiastic might not necessarily recover the benefice which he had lost; indeed he might be admitted tolay communion only. Ecclesiastical authority has the right to posit certain conditions for the return of the culprit, and every absolution from excommunication calls for the fulfillment of certain conditions which vary in severity, according to the case.[7]
The formula of absolution from excommunication is not strictly determined, and, since it is an act of jurisdiction, it suffices if the formula employed express clearly the effect which it is desired to attain.[7] The sacramental form of absolution from sins is not to be changed, when a priest, in keeping with the provision of law, absolves a properly disposed penitent from a censure latae sententiae in the sacrament of confession. It is enough that he intend also to absolve from censures. Before absolving from sins, however, the confessor may absolve from the censure, using the formula for absolution from censure outside the sacrament of penance.[30]
It is important to note that an excommunicated person is prohibited from receiving the sacraments, but if he receives them in violation of the law, the sacraments are valid.[31] If for any reason the absolution from the censure is invalid, or is not given at all, nevertheless, provided the penitent is rightly disposed, his sins will always be forgiven in the sacrament of confession.[32]
The answer is given in the customary rules of jurisdiction. The right to absolve belongs to him who can excommunicate and who has imposed the law, moreover to any person delegated by him to this effect, since this power, being jurisdictional, can be delegated. First, we must distinguish between excommunicationab homine, which is judicial, and excommunicationa jure, i.e.latae sententiae. For the former, absolution is given by the judge who inflicted the penalty (or by his successor), in other words by thepope, or the bishop (ordinary), also by the superior of said judge when acting as judge of appeal.[7]
As to excommunicationlatae sententiae, the power to absolve is either ordinary or delegated. Ordinary power is determined by the law itself, which indicates to what authority thecensure is reserved in each case. Delegated power is of two kinds: that granted in permanency and set down in the law and that granted or communicated by personal act, e.g. by authority (faculties) of theRoman Penitentiaria, by episcopal delegation for special cases, or bestowed upon certain priests.[7]
Unless the canon reserves removal of the penalty to theHoly See, the local ordinary can remit the excommunication, or he can delegate that authority to the priests of hisdiocese (which most bishops do in the case of abortion).[33]
The1983Code of Canon Law, as amended in 2021 byPascite gregem Dei, states:
During theExtraordinary Jubilee of Mercy,Pope Francis gave to special qualified and experienced priests, called "Missionaries of Mercy", the faculty to forgive even special-casesins normally reserved to theHoly See'sApostolic Penitentiary.[34] Originally, their mandate was to expire at the close of the Holy Year, but the Pope extended it, permitting them to continue hearing confessions freely in every diocese throughout the world and lifting censures that normally require the permission of the pope.[35]
Excommunication in the Latin Church is governed by the1983Code of Canon Law (1983 CIC). The 1983 code specifies various sins which carry the penalty of automatic excommunication:apostasy,heresy,schism (1983 CIC 1364:1), violating thesacred species (can. 1367), physically attacking thePope (can. 1370:1), sacramentallyabsolving an accomplice in a sexual sin (CIC 1378:1), consecrating a bishop without authorization (can. 1382), directly violating theseal of confession (can. 1388:1), andsomeone who actually procures an abortion.[4]
Excommunication can be eitherlatae sententiae (automatic, incurred at the moment of committing the offense for whichcanon law imposes that penalty) orferendae sententiae (incurred only when imposed by a legitimate superior or declared as the sentence of an ecclesiastical court).[36]
A priest who grants absolution of an accomplice in asin against thesixth commandment of the Decalogue incurs alatae sententiae excommunication reserved to theApostolic See.[37]
The severance from the Church as an effect of excommunication is a matter of controversy in modern times, though this was not always so; excommunicationvitandi was clearly supposed to have the effect of removal of the Christian from the body of the Church. Moreover, the very word "excommunication" by its etymological meaning seems to indicate that it does indeed remove the Christian from the Church. But, others, such asBishop Thomas J. Paprocki, suppose it does not: "excommunication does not expel the person from the Catholic Church, but simply forbids the excommunicated person from engaging in certain activities".[6] These activities are listed incanon 1331 §1, and prohibit the individual from any ministerial participation in celebrating the sacrifice of theEucharist or any other ceremonies of worship; celebrating or receiving the sacraments; or exercising any ecclesiastical offices, ministries, or functions.[38][39] At any rate, it is clear that the excommunicated remains a Christian in the sense that he retains his baptism, but at the same time is estranged from the Church, and in this sense "is cast outside of it". If the excommunication is, in the formal legal sense, publicly known—that is, in case of both a "declared"latae sententia excommunication (judged upon by the responsible Church court) and in any ferendae sententia excommunication (always imposed by the Church court), any acts of ecclesiasticalgovernance by the excommunicated person are not onlyillicit but also invalid.[40]
Under current Catholic canon law, excommunicates remain bound by ecclesiastical obligations such as attending Mass, even though they are barred from receiving theEucharist and from taking an active part in the liturgy (reading, bringing the offerings, etc.). "Excommunicates lose rights, such as the right to the sacraments, but they are still bound to the obligations of the law; their rights are restored when they are reconciled through the remission of the penalty."[41]
These are the only effects for those who have incurred alatae sententiae excommunication. For instance, a priest may not refuse Holy Communion publicly to those who are under an automatic excommunication, as long as it has not been officially declared to have been incurred by them, even if the priest knows that they have incurred it.[42] On the other hand, if the priest knows that excommunication has been imposed on someone or that an automatic excommunication has been declared (and is no longer merely an undeclared automatic excommunication), he is forbidden to administer Holy Communion to that person[43] (seecanon 915).
In theCatholic Church, excommunication is normally resolved by a declaration ofrepentance, profession of theCreed (if the offense involved heresy) and anAct of Faith, or renewal of obedience (if that was a relevant part of the offending act, i.e., an act ofschism) by the excommunicated person and the lifting of the censure (absolution) by a priest or bishop empowered to do this. "The absolution can be in theinternal (private) forum only, or also in theexternal (public) forum, depending on whetherscandal would be given if a person were privately absolved and yet publicly considered unrepentant."[44]
An excommunicated person is forbidden to engage in certain activities enumerated incanon 1331 §1 of the1983Code of Canon Law. These precluded activities include any ministerial participation in celebrating the sacrifice of theEucharist or any other ceremonies of worship whatsoever; the celebration and reception of thesacraments; and the exercise of any ecclesiastical offices, ministries, or functions. The individual, furthermore, cannotvalidly acquire a dignity, office, or other function in the Church; may not appropriate the benefits of a dignity, office, any function, or pension, which the offender has in the Church; and is forbidden to benefit from privileges previously granted.[45]
Salaverri and Nicolau state that "theinternalsupernatural goods, such assanctifying grace and the infused virtues, are not taken away by thecensure [excommunication] itself".[10]
Luther was critical because he thought the existing practice commingled secular and ecclesiastical punishments. To him, civil penalties wereoutside the domain of the church and were instead the responsibility of civil authorities. Non-spiritualexpiatory penalties may be applied in some other cases, especially for clergy. These have been criticized for being overly punitive and inadequately pastoral.[46] For example, a member of the clergy might be ordered to live in a particular monastery for a period of time, or even the rest of his life, a punishment comparable tohouse arrest.[47] Access to electronic devices may also be restricted for persons sentenced to alife of prayer and penance.[48]
One reform in the1983 code was that non-Catholic Christians are not assumed to be culpable for not being Roman Catholic, and are not discussed or treated as excommunicated Catholics guilty of heresy or schism.[49] Another reform in 1983 was a list of extenuating circumstances incanon 1324 which could prevent excommunication or lessen other punishments.
Those on whom minor excommunication has been imposed are excluded from receiving theEucharist and can also be excluded from participating in theDivine Liturgy. They can even be excluded from entering a church when divine worship is being celebrated there. Thedecree of excommunication must indicate the precise effect of the excommunication and, if required, its duration.[50]
Those under major excommunication are in addition forbidden to receive not only the Eucharist but also the other sacraments, to administer sacraments or sacramentals, to exercise any ecclesiastical offices, ministries, or functions whatsoever, and any such exercise by them is null and void. They are to be removed from participation in the Divine Liturgy and any public celebrations of divine worship. They are forbidden to make use of any privileges granted to them and cannot be given any dignity, office, ministry, or function in the Church, they cannot receive any pension or emoluments associated with these dignities etc., and they are deprived of the right to vote or to be elected.[51]
One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in thepublic domain: A. Boudinhon (1909). "Excommunication". In Herbermann, Charles (ed.).Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 5. New York: Robert Appleton Company.The generic terms of the proposition [Members of the Church are all and only those who have received the sacrament of baptism, and are not separated from the unity af the profession of the faith, or from hierarchical unity.] (particularly the second part of it) cover a variety of categories of people: 'formal' and 'material' heretics; 'public' and 'occult'—heretics; 'formal' and 'material' schismatics; 'total' and 'partial' excommunicates; etc. Since the theologians are not all of one mind in discussing some of these categories, they differ in some of the theological labels they append to each category considered singly.
In the second part we hold: those persons excommunicatedwith a total, formal and perfect excommunication, that is, for this purpose legitimately imposed, are also separated from the body of the Church.
Therefore [...] we are not denying that those persons are members of the Church who have been punished only with an excommunication that is material or partial or imperfect.
This article incorporates text from this source, which is in thepublic domain.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: publisher location (link)