• Embed Doc
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Excommunication
This subject will be treated under the following heads:I. General Notions and Historical Summary;II. Kinds of Excommunication;III. Who Can Excommunicate?IV. Who Can Be Excommunicated?V. Effects of Excommunication;VI. Absolution from Excommunication;VII. Excommunications
 Latæ Sententiæ
Now in Force.
I. GENERAL NOTIONS AND HISTORICAL SUMMARY
Excommunication (Latin
ex
, out of, and
communio
or 
communicatio
, communion -- exclusion from thecommunion), the principal and severest censure, is a medicinal, spiritual penalty that deprives the guiltyChristian of all participation in the common blessings of ecclesiastical society. Being a penalty, it supposesguilt; and being the most serious penalty that the Church can inflict, it naturally supposes a very graveoffence. It is also a medicinal rather than a vindictive penalty, being intended, not so much to punish theculprit, as to correct him and bring him back to the path of righteousness. It necessarily, therefore,contemplates the future, either to prevent the recurrence of certain culpable acts that have grievous externalconsequences, or, more especially, to induce the delinquent to satisfy the obligations incurred by his offence.Its object and its effect are loss of communion, i.e. of the spiritual benefits shared by all the members of Christian society; hence, it can affect only those who by baptism have been admitted to that society.Undoubtedly there can and do exist other penal measures which entail the loss of certain fixed rights; amongthem are other censures, e.g. suspension for clerics, interdict for clerics and laymen, irregularity
ex delicto
,etc. Excommunication, however, is clearly distinguished from these penalties in that it is the privation of allrights resulting from the social status of the Christian as such. The excommunicated person, it is true, doesnot cease to be a Christian, since his baptism can never be effaced; he can, however, be considered as an exilefrom Christian society and as non-existent, for a time at least, in the sight of ecclesiastical authority. But suchexile can have an end (and the Church desires it), as soon as the offender has given suitable satisfaction.Meanwhile, his status before the Church is that of a stranger. He may not participate in public worship nor receive the Body of Christ or any of the sacraments. Moreover, if he be a cleric, he is forbidden to administer a sacred rite or to exercise an act of spiritual authority.
Right of the Church to Excommunicate
The right to excommunicate is an immediate and necessary consequence of the fact that the Church is asociety. Every society has the right to exclude and deprive of their rights and social advantages its unworthyor grievously culpable members, either temporarily or permanently. This right is necessary to every society inorder that it may be well administered and survive. The fundamental proof, therefore, of the Church's right toexcommunicate is based on her status as a spiritual society, whose members, governed by legitimateauthority, seek one and the same end through suitable means. Members who, by their obstinate disobedience,reject the means of attaining this common end deserve to be removed from such a society. This rationalargument is confirmed by texts of the New Testament, the example of the Apostles, and the practice of theChurch from the first ages down to the present. Among the Jews, exclusion from the synagogue was a realexcommunication (Ezra 10:8). This was the exclusion feared by the parents of the man born blind (John 9:21sq.; cf. 12:42; 16:2); the same likewise that Christ foretold to His disciples (Luke 6:22). It is also theexclusion which in due time the Christian Church should exercise: "And if he will not hear the church, let 
 
m e o ee as e eaen an pucan aew :. n e ceerae ex: asoever you sa bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosedalso in heaven" (Matthew 18:18; cf. 16:19), it is not only the remission of sins that is referred to, but likewiseall spiritual jurisdiction, including udicial and penal sanctions. Such, moreover, was the urisdictionconferred on St. Peter by the words: "Feed my lambs"; "feed my sheep" (John 21:15, 16, 17). St. Paulexcommunicated regularly the incest Corinthians (1 Corinthians 5:5) and the incorrigible blasphemers whomhe delivered over to Satan (1 Timothy 1:20). Faithful to the Apostolic teaching and example, the Church,from the very earliest ages, was wont to excommunicate heretics and contumacious persons; since the fourthcentury numerous conciliary canons pronounce excommunication against those who are guilty of certainoffences. Of the facts there can be no doubt (Seitz, Die Heilsnotwendigkeit der Kirche, Freiburg, 1903).
Excommunication not only External 
In the first Christian centuries it is not always easy to distinguish between excommunication and penitentialexclusion; to differentiate them satisfactorily we must await the decline of the institution of public penanceand the well-defined separation between those things appertaining to the
orum internum
, or tribunal of conscience and the
orum externum
, or public ecclesiastical tribunal; nevertheless, the admission of a sinner to the performance of public penance was consequent on a previous genuine excommunication. On the other hand, formal exclusion from reception of the Eucharist and the other sacraments was only mitigatedexcommunication and identical with minor excommunication (see below). At any rate, in the first centuriesexcommunication is not regarded as a simple external measure; it reaches the soul and the conscience. It isnot merely the severing of the outward bond which holds the individual to his place in the Church; it seversalso the internal bond, and the sentence pronounced on earth is ratified in heaven. It is the spiritual sword, theheaviest penalty that the Church can inflict (see the patristic texts quoted in the Decree of Gratian, cc. xxxi,xxxii, xxxiii, C. xi, q. iii). Hence in the Bull "Exsurge Domine" (16 May, 1520) Leo X ustly condemnedLuther's twenty-third proposition according to which "excommunications are merely external punishments,nor do they deprive a man of the common spiritual prayers of the Church". Pius VI also condemned(Auctorem Fidei, 28 Aug., 1794) the forty-sixth proposition of the Pseudo-Synod of Pistoia, whichmaintained that the effect of excommunication is only exterior because of its own nature it excludes onlyfrom exterior communion with the Church, as if, said the pope, excommunication were not a spiritual penalty binding in heaven and affecting souls. The aforesaid proposition was therefore condemned as false, pernicious, already reprobated in the twenty-third proposition of Luther, and, to say the least, erroneous.Undoubtedly the Church cannot (nor does it wish to) oppose any obstacle to the internal relations of the soulwith God; she even implores God to give the grace of repentance to the excommunicated. The rites of theChurch, nevertheless, are always the providential and regular channel through which Divine grace isconveyed to Christians; exclusion from such rites, especially from the sacraments, entails therefore regularlythe privation of this grace, to whose sources the excommunicated person has no longer access.
History of Excommunication
While excommunication ranks first among ecclesiastical censures, it existed long before any suchclassification arose. From the earliest days of the Christian society it 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. Subsequently, when ecclesiastical discipline allowed clerics more easily toresume their ministry, the ancient deposition became suspension; thenceforth even clerics were subject toexcommunication, by which they lost at once their rights as Christians and as clerics. Both laymen and clericswere henceforth threatened or punished with excommunication for offences that became daily more definiteand numerous, particularly for refusing obedience either to special ecclesiastical precepts or the general lawsof the Church. Once the
orum externum
, or public ecclesiastical tribunal, was distinctly separated from the
orum sacramentale
, or tribunal of sacramental penance, say from the ninth century on, excommunication became raduall an ever more owerful means of siritual overnment a sort of coercive measure ensurin
 
 the exact accomplishment of the laws of the Church and the precepts of her prelates. Excommunication waseither threatened or inflicted in order to secure the observance of fasts and feasts, the payment of tithes, theobedience of inferiors, the denunciation of the guilty, also to compel the faithful to make known toecclesiastical authority matrimonial impediments and other information.
buse
This extension of the use of excommunication led to abuses. The infliction of so grave a penalty for offencesof a less grievous kind and most frequently impossible to verify before the public ecclesiastical authority, begot eventually a contempt for excommunication. Consequently the Council of Trent was forced torecommend to all bishops and prelates more moderation in the use of censures (Sess. XXV, c. iii, De ref.).The passage is too significant to be here omitted: "Although the sword of excommunication is the verysinews of ecclesiastical discipline, and very salutary for keeping the people to the observance of their duty,yet it is to be used with sobriety and great circumspection; seeing that experience teaches that if it be wieldedrashly or for slight causes, it is more despised than feared, and works more evil than good. Wherefore, suchexcommunications which are wont to be issued for the purpose of provoking a revelation, or on account of things lost or stolen, shall be issued by no one whomsoever but the bishop; and not then, except on account of some uncommon circumstance which moves the bishop thereunto, and after the matter has been by himdiligently and very maturely weighed." Then follow equally explicit measures for the use of censures inudicial matters. This recommendation of the Council of Trent has been duly heeded, and the use of censuresas a means of coercion has grown constantly rarer, the more so as it is hardly ever, possible for the Church toobtain from the civil power the execution of such penalties.
Excessive Number of Excommunications
In the course of time, also, the number of canonical excommunications was excessively multiplied, whichfact, coupled with their frequent desuetude, made it difficult to know whether many among them were alwaysin force. The difficulty was greater as a large number of these excommunications were reserved, for whichreason theologians with much ingenuity construed favourably said reservation and permitted the majority of the faithful to obtain absolution without presenting themselves in Rome, or indeed even writing thither. Inrecent times the number of excommunications in force has been greatly diminished, and a new method of absolving from them has been inaugurated; it will doubtless find a place in the new codificacation of thecanon law that is being prepared. Thus, without change of nature, excommunication
in oro externo
has become an exceptional penalty, reserved for very grievous offences detrimental to Christian society;
in orointerno
it has been diminished and mitigated, at least in regard to the conditions for absolution from it.However, as can readily be seen from a perusal of the excommunications actually in force, it still remains truethat what the Church aims at is not so much the crime as the satisfaction to be obtained from the culprit inconsequence of his offence.
Refusal of Ecclesiastical Communion
Finally, real excommunication must not be confounded with a measure formerly quite frequent, andsometimes even known as excommunication, but which was rather a refusal of episcopal communion. It wasthe refusal by a bishop to communicate
in sacris
with another bishop and his church, in consideration of anact deemed reprehensible and worthy of chastisement. It was undoubtedly with this withdrawal ocommunion that Pope Victor threatened (or actually punished) the bishops of Asia in the paschal controversy(Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., V, xxiv); it was certainly the measure to which St. Martin of Tours had recourse whenhe refused to communicate with the Spanish bishops who caused Emperor Maximinus to condemn to deaththe heretic Priscillian with some of his adherents (Sulpicius Severus, Dial., iii, 15). Moreover, a similar  privation of communion was in early Christian times imposed by councils as a regular penalty for bishops 
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...