Conscience

[Janet_S]

The Church and its Doctors and teachers have spoken in many places on conscience, but one need not look farther than the catechism to find the teachings I base my understanding of conscience on. I am not sure what you mean by your question, do you find my understanding of conscience at odds with yours? I think it is precisely in line with the Church’s teachings, and would be interested in hearing where you think it strays.

I think your understanding of conscience is different from mine, though you do seem to be a sincere person in search of the truth. You wouldn’t be here discussing this with other Catholics if you weren’t in search of truth. But I think your understanding of conscience does stray from the Church’s understanding mostly because you don’t trust that the Church is a reliable teacher of what is true. This is obvious from what you wrote yesterday (the Church is purposefully vague in letting us know what is infallible; we can’t be sure which teachings are infallible, etc). If you trusted the Church more, you might be persuaded more by her arguments. The Church does claim in the Documents of V2 to teach faith and morals with divine authority. *Lumen Gentium *8 tells us that Christ communicates truth and grace to all through the Church. If you really believe that, you can’t ignore the Church when forming your conscience any more than you can ignore direct revelation from God.

Also, your understanding of conscience strays because you question the very nature of moral law itself. Authentic conscience relies on objective moral law. In your case, you question the moral law itself when you fail to see homosexuality and ABC as objectively immoral. Both reason and divine revelation tell us they are.

I’ll discuss the Catechism in the next post.

 

[Janet_S]

The relevant sections about conscience in the Catechism are #1776 through #1802.

#1782 says the following:

Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matter.”

I’m quite sure this is a frequent quote used by “primacy of conscience” promoters. But is this statement really talking about each Catholic’s right to dissent from Church teaching? No, actually this statement has nothing to do with dissenting Catholics or the relationship between an individual Catholic and the Church. This statement actually applies to all people of all religions in relation to civil authority. It is a quote from the V2 document Dignitatis Humanae, the Declaration on Religious Freedom: on the right of the persons and of communities to social and civil freedom in matters religious.

This document states at the outset that it is discussing religious freedom in civil society. It explicitly states it “leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.”

Therefore, anyone who uses this section of the Catechism (#1782) , to support his or her right to dissent from a Church teaching based on his or her conscience, misunderstands the teachings in the Declaration on Religious Freedom and probably misunderstands the other documents of Vatican 2 as well. Vatican 2 did not teach “primacy of conscience,” actually it taught the opposite (LG 25).

Also, this is the footnote from DH 1, from the 1966 edition of the Documents of V2, by John Courtney Murray, SJ:

The issue of religious freedom arises in the political and social order–in the order of the relationship between the people and government and between man and man. This is the order of human rights, and in it the principle of freedom is paramount. However, man’s life is also lived in another order of reality–in the spiritual order of man’s relationship to what is objectively true and morally good. This is the order of duty and obligation. In it a man acts freely indeed, but under moral imperatives, which bind in conscience. No man may plead “rights” in the face of the truth or claim “freedom” from the moral law. The distinction between these two orders of reality would be admitted by all men of good sense. The underlying intention of these two paragraphs of the Declaration is to make this distinction clear, lest religious freedom be made a pretext for moral anarchy.

However, the distinction is stated in Catholic terms. For the Catholic, the “truth” is not a vague abstraction; it subsists in the Church, is taught by the Church, is believed by the Church. Moreover, this truth about God and about His will for men is not the private possession of a party or sect; it is to be taught to all men, and all nations are to be its disciples. It is not to be thrust by force upon any man; in the order of man’s relationship to truth, coercion has no place whatsoever. Consequently, as the Declaration will later make clear, religious freedom is an exigence of religious truth as conceived by the Church.

On the other hand, no man may say of the religious truth which subsists in the Church:" “It is no concern of mine.” Once given by Christ to His true Church, the true religion remains the one way in which all men are bound to serve God and save themselves. Consequently, religious freedom is not a title to exemption from the obligation to “observe all things whatsoever I have enjoined upon you.” In fine, a harmony exists between man’s duty of free obedience to the truth and his right to the free exercise of religion in society. The duty does not diminish the right, nor does the right diminish the duty.

This frank profession of Catholic faith, at the outset of the Declaration on Religious Freedom, is in no sense at variance with the ecumenical spirit, any more than it is at variance with full loyalty to the principle of religious freedom. Neither the spirit of ecumenism nor the principle of religious freedom requires that the Church refrain from stating publicly what she belives herself to be. The demands of truth are no more opposed to the demands of freedom than they are opposed to the demands of love.

 

[Janet_S]

Newman did believe that Catholics should believe all the Church taught, but he recognized that this does not always happen. I am sure you are familiar with his famous toast to “conscience first”. Newman took disagreement with the Church as a very serious matter, but recognized that it is possible and must be taken seriously when it happens.

This is Newman’s quote:

I add one remark. Certainly, if I am obliged to bring religion into after-dinner toasts, (which indeed does not seem quite the thing) I shall drink—to the Pope, if you please,—still, to Conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards.

Newman’s point is this: before the Pope got a hold of me, I was instructed by my conscience (the law God put in my heart.) Therefore, I’ll drink to my conscience first.

I think you have to understand what Newman wrote in reference to the law written on the heart (the natural law). That is another aspect of conscience we have not discussed on this thread, but the Catechism talks about it in #1776–“For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God.” The “law written on our hearts” (or the natural law) is the foundation of our consciences; it’s a basic idea of right and wrong we all have. We can come to the knowledge of this law by reason. Later in our lives, we build on that foundation with God’s revelation (through the Church’s teachings).

Newman really struggled with his conscience as he followed it, reluctantly, into the Catholic Church. I’m not aware of any teachings of the Church he dissented from, are you? He definitely wasn’t a cafeteria Catholic, and he would never appeal to “primacy of conscience” to transgress the moral law the way many Catholics do today. He also recognized how the concept of “conscience” could be abused by people who are driven by self will. This is from the same essay as his toast to conscience:
newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section5.html

So much for philosophers; now let us see what is the notion of conscience in this day in the popular mind. {250} There, no more than in the intellectual world, does “conscience” retain the old, true, Catholic meaning of the word. There too the idea, the presence of a Moral Governor is far away from the use of it,
frequent and emphatic as that use of it is. When men advocate the rights of conscience, they in no sense mean the rights of the Creator, nor the duty to Him, in thought and deed, of the creature; but the right of thinking, speaking, writing, and acting, according to their judgment or their humour, without any thought of God at all. They do not even pretend to go by any moral rule, but they demand, what they think is an Englishman’s prerogative, for each to be his own master in all things, and to profess what he pleases, asking no one’s leave, and accounting priest or preacher, speaker or writer, unutterably impertinent, who dares to say a word against his going to perdition, if he like it, in his own way. Conscience has rights because it has duties; but in this age, with a large portion of the public, it is the very right and freedom of conscience to dispense with conscience, to ignore a Lawgiver and Judge, to be independent of unseen obligations. It becomes a licence to take up any or no religion, to take up this or that and let it go again, to go to church, to go to chapel, to boast of being above all religions and to be an impartial critic of each of them. Conscience is a stern monitor, but in this century it has been superseded by a counterfeit, which the eighteen centuries prior to it never heard of, and could not have mistaken for it, if they had. It is the right of self-will.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

When one chooses to conform one’s beliefs… willing one’s self …

…If one follows your logic one would conclude…

… We need not ever understand every fine point of Church teaching before we accept it and support it…

…What do you think of…

I think… you do seem to… I think… we can’t be sure… If you really believe… your understanding of …Both reason and divine revelation tell us…

I’ll discuss…

…I’m quite sure… No, actually this…This statement actually applies… anyone who uses this section of the Catechism (#1782) , to support his or her right…

…I think…
I’m not aware…

This thread has become funny and sad, people using their conscience to argue against the use of conscience. Next they have to claim authority to redefine words. From where does the authority derive: conscience. To substitute individual conscience one has to turn all decision making to the magistrium, but that requires not just the magistrium dedicate them self to guiding a single life, but also the elimination of free will for that individual, a process which would seem out of God’s plan (This is though a statement from conscience)

 

[fix]

This thread has become funny and sad, people using their conscience to argue against the use of conscience. Next they have to claim authority to redefine words. From where does the authority derive: conscience.

Authority is from Christ.

To substitute individual conscience one has to turn all decision making to the magistrium, but that requires not just the magistrium dedicate them self to guiding a single life, but also the elimination of free will for that individual, a process which would seem out of God’s plan (This is though a statement from conscience)

This makes little sense. Each conscience makes decisions which ought to be made based on a well informed conscience. Such a conscience would not contradict Christ. Christ and His Church cannot be separated.

 

[fix]

The Nuremburg trials established the point that one cannot follow blindly the dictates of their government and be safe from being charged with war crimes. One is required to exercise one’s own conscience and refuse to obey immoral laws. That is the point.

That presupposes one accepts an objective and universal moral law.

A doctrine claimed by some here amounts to the same thing. They are claiming that one need only “follow the dictates of the Church” .

Magisterium teaches as Christ. He who hears you hears Me.

Such a thought is anathama to most democracy loving peoples and is I submit an abnegation of our responsibilities as Spirited Creatures owing our total allegience to God alone. The rest has been stated ad nauseum about what is entailed in forming one’s conscience properly.; Some here will only hear “pick what you like” while that has never been the message. Such a system would be ludicrous.

Basically, your position is relativism?

 

[fix]

This is what I mean by well-formed conscience, BTW. I don’t mean “correct” necessarily. None of us know if our consciences are “correct” and I submit that none are perfect.

Is this not a strange statement? Does this mean there is no objective and universal moral law? No man may know if abortion is good or evil? Genocide?

Now, concrete judgments may be wrong, but that does not mean we each cannot grasp the moral truth.

 

[fix]

The Church demands that you accept her authority to inform your conscience. However, the Church acknowledges that due to human limitations (in both capacities to learn and instruct), the true message of Christ is often hard to discern, even amongst the faithful…

This thread was started because of a controversey surrounding my invocation of the Rule of Conscience with regard to my attitudes towards homosexuality. To clarify: if the Church allows me the final choice to act according to my conscience and to still enjoy communion with her (despite my faults and failings), then I feel obligated to extend that same benefit of the doubt to those with whom I perhaps disagree…

Finally, argumentation appealing to the obligation to follow one’s own conscience cannot legitimate dissent. This is true, first of all, because conscience illumines the practical judgment about a decision to make, while here we are concerned with the truth of a doctrinal pronouncement. This is furthermore the case because while the theologian, like every believer, must follow his conscience, he is also obliged to form it. Conscience is not an independent and infallible faculty. It is an act of moral judgement regarding a responsible choice. A right conscience is one duly illumined by faith and by the objective moral law and it presupposes, as well, the uprightness of the will in the pursuit of the true good.

The right conscience of the Catholic theologian presumes not only faith in the Word of God whose riches he must explore, but also love for the Church from whom he receives his mission, and respect for her divinely assisted Magisterium. Setting up a supreme magisterium of conscience in opposition to the magisterium of the Church means adopting a principle of free examination incompatible with the economy of Revelation and its transmission in the Church and thus also with a correct understanding of theology and the role of the theologian. The propositions of faith are not the product of mere individual research and free criticism of the Word of God but constitute an ecclesial heritage. If there occur a separation from the Bishops who watch over and keep the apostolic tradition alive, it is the bond with Christ which is irreparably compromised(38). …

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

 

[TMC]

I think your understanding of conscience is different from mine, though you do seem to be a sincere person in search of the truth. …

Also, your understanding of conscience strays because you question the very nature of moral law itself. Authentic conscience relies on objective moral law. In your case, you question the moral law itself when you fail to see homosexuality and ABC as objectively immoral. Both reason and divine revelation tell us they are.

I appreciate your acknowledging my sincerity, but I think we have a very different view of conscience and I think we read both Newman and the catechism differently. The crux, I suppose is summed up in the second paragraph of yours I quote above. I do not suggest in any way that there is no objective morality or objective moral truth. I agree that we are charged with forming an authentic conscience that is based on that truth. I just do not accept that the search for it begins and ends with listening to the Church. This is especially true in areas where the Church is inconsistent with itself, and/or relies on patently false assumptions.

 

[TMC]

Is this not a strange statement? Does this mean there is no objective and universal moral law? No man may know if abortion is good or evil? Genocide?

Now, concrete judgments may be wrong, but that does not mean we each cannot grasp the moral truth.

No, and this is not what I said or even close. There is truth. No human can grasp the fullness of truth. Nonetheless, we must all try to do so. Do you believe that your conscience is perfect? Is any man’s conscience perfect? To assume that any man but Christ is perfect is a dangerous errror. There is truth and we must seek it, but how can we begin to look if we don’t first admit that we are imperfect?

 

[fix]

No, and this is not what I said or even close. There is truth. No human can grasp the fullness of truth. Nonetheless, we must all try to do so. Do you believe that your conscience is perfect? Is any man’s conscience perfect? To assume that any man but Christ is perfect is a dangerous errror. There is truth and we must seek it, but how can we begin to look if we don’t first admit that we are imperfect?

It is not about having an infallible conscience. It is not simply about searching for truth. Truth exists and can be known.

John Paul II took the opportunity of the 25th anniversary of “Humanæ vitæ” to publish his groundbreaking encyclical “Veritatis splendor.” Here he reasserted the teaching of Vatican II that Christ and the Church can, have and do teach definitively in moral matters, and that a well-formed Christian conscience will be informed by such authoritative teaching. Here one ought to proceed with obedience of faith, submitting one’s experience, insights and wishes to the judgment of the Gospel, prepared to reform oneself according to the mind of Christ authentically transmitted by the Church. Conscience is indeed the proximate norm of personal morality, but its dignity and authority “derive from the truth about moral good and evil, which it is called to listen to and to express.” Sincerity cannot establish the truth of a judgment of conscience and freedom is never freedom from the truth but always and only freedom in the truth. The magisterium does not bring to the conscience truths which are extraneous to it, but serves the Christian conscience by highlighting and clarifying those truths which a well-formed conscience ought already to possess… on Conscience and Authority

So, it is not about having a perfect conscience or one that knows everything. It is about accepting truth exists and is safeguarded by His Church. To reject that Christ is the authority behind His Church is to make each of us the vicar of Christ. It would mean we each are a magisterium. That is of course a recipe for moral relativism.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

That presupposes one accepts an objective and universal moral law.

**Do you deny that there is an objective moral truth? Or do you believe that all war crimes prosecution a the Hague is wrong? You make no argument at all here. **

Magisterium teaches as Christ. He who hears you hears Me.

**You may frame it however you wish, the fact remains that you are claiming that one need no conscience at all, one merely needs to adher to what the Church teaches, although oddly there is sure a lot of discussion around here as to just what that teaching is on many issues. I do not find that supported in any document, and plenty of evidence to the contrary. **

Basically, your position is relativism?

Of course it does not. Your attempt to define things in a pejorative way do nothing to advance your argument.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The relevant sections about conscience in the Catechism are #1776 through #1802.

#1782 says the following:

I’m quite sure this is a frequent quote used by “primacy of conscience” promoters. But is this statement really talking about each Catholic’s right to dissent from Church teaching? No, actually this statement has nothing to do with dissenting Catholics or the relationship between an individual Catholic and the Church. This statement actually applies to all people of all religions in relation to civil authority. It is a quote from the V2 document Dignitatis Humanae, the Declaration on Religious Freedom: on the right of the persons and of communities to social and civil freedom in matters religious.

This document states at the outset that it is discussing religious freedom in civil society. It explicitly states it “leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.”

Therefore, anyone who uses this section of the Catechism (#1782) , to support his or her right to dissent from a Church teaching based on his or her conscience, misunderstands the teachings in the Declaration on Religious Freedom and probably misunderstands the other documents of Vatican 2 as well. Vatican 2 did not teach “primacy of conscience,” actually it taught the opposite (LG 25).

Also, this is the footnote from DH 1, from the 1966 edition of the Documents of V2, by John Courtney Murray, SJ:

I disagree. You have placed this interpretation on the section because of one footnote. All the CCC is footnoted most extensively. More importantly, look at the contents. The section on morality and moral conscience is placed under section one "MAN"S Vocation. the article in question is a subset of that section. Man and his relationship in community is governed by Chapt. 2 entitled The Human Community.

Furthermore you have missed 1790, subset to moral conscience.

 

[fix]

Of course it does not. Your attempt to define things in a pejorative way do nothing to advance your argument.

The argument has been made by citing relevant Church documents. What is amazing is that many still claim their subjective conscience trumps objective truth as transmitted by His Church.

 

[fhansen]

This is a very interesting discussion. I think there still may be pieces missing. Ultimately WE are the ones who decide whether or not we’ll follow Jesus or satan or ourselves or someone else. What our faith maintains is that, if we are sincere in wanting to know the truth, we will hear the voice of the shepherd coming from his mouthpiece, the Church, recognize that voice as the voice of truth, and follow it with increasing trust and dedication. It’s not saying to turn off our brains but rather to use our faculties to push thru the maze of other voices out there, with their various opinions, and zero in on that one authentic voice. And the Church simply insists that such a voice, more knowledgeable than our own, exists- and that the Church is that voice and that the world will be much better off if it listens and that those of us who have trusted enough to become members should get to the point where we give the benefit of the doubt to the teachings of that Church in various matters. But that response, that recognition, still has to come from US, and at the same time it can’t happen without Gods’ grace. But there, of course, we might get into a whole new thread revisiting the debate over where our freedom ends and Gods’ grace begins.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Many Catholics believe there is nothing wrong with dissenting from a Church teaching (regarding faith and/or morals) as long as their conscience tells them it’s okay. Not only do they believe it is not wrong to dissent, they believe dissent from Church teaching is a fundamental right of each Catholic.

These people are saying that they don’t believe that the Magesterium is capable of infallible teaching. They deny (at least) one of the dogmas of our faith. If they accepted that the Magesterium was infallible, their conscience would recognize that they must accept its teaching. So who are these people, and why do they call themselves Catholic? I have no idea.

 

[fix]

I disagree. You have placed this interpretation on the section because of one footnote. All the CCC is footnoted most extensively. More importantly, look at the contents. The section on morality and moral conscience is placed under section one "MAN"S Vocation. the article in question is a subset of that section. Man and his relationship in community is governed by Chapt. 2 entitled The Human Community.

Furthermore you have missed 1790, subset to moral conscience.

Are you claiming one’s conscience is a magisterium equal to the magisterium set by Christ? If that is your argument then Christ must contradict Himself fairly often.

There is just no support for your argument. It would make subjective conscience a justification to reject the moral law. It would make conscience supreme. It would make conscience a type of god.

 

[Janet_S]

I disagree. You have placed this interpretation on the section because of one footnote. All the CCC is footnoted most extensively. More importantly, look at the contents. The section on morality and moral conscience is placed under section one "MAN"S Vocation. the article in question is a subset of that section. Man and his relationship in community is governed by Chapt. 2 entitled The Human Community.

Furthermore you have missed 1790, subset to moral conscience.

I intended to discuss only #1782 from the Catechism.

Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matter.”

This is from *Dignitatis Humanae *3. This Declaration has nothing to do with an individual Catholic and his or her relationship to the Church. It has nothing to do with individual Catholics dissenting from Church teaching. It is concerned with religious freedom and civil authorities or governments. The very title of the Declaration makes this clear from the outset:

DECLARATION ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
DIGNITATIS HUMANAE
ON THE RIGHT OF THE PERSON AND OF COMMUNITIES
TO SOCIAL AND CIVIL FREEDOM IN MATTERS RELIGIOUS
PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON DECEMBER 7, 1965

The text of the document makes it clear as well. The declaration is concerned with the individual in civil society; not with the individual within the Church:

Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ. DH 1

and here it exhorts Christians to form their consciences by Church teachings:

In the formation of their consciences, the Christian faithful ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church.(35) For the Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of the truth. It is her duty to give utterance to, and authoritatively to teach, that truth which is Christ Himself, and also to declare and confirm by her authority those principles of the moral order which have their origins in human nature itself. Furthermore, let Christians walk in wisdom in the face of those outside, “in the Holy Spirit, in unaffected love, in the word of truth” (2 Cor. 6:6-7), and let them be about their task of spreading the light of life with all confidence(36) and apostolic courage, even to the shedding of their blood.

I used the footnote (from Fr John Courtney Murray) from the 1966 edition of the Vatican 2 Documents only to shed light on the Declaration on Religious Freedom. He was present at the Council and was one of the people who translated the document from the original Latin. I suppose he knows a thing or two about the spirit of Vatican II. You can ignore the footnote if you want. The Declaration by its title and text are enough to prove what we are dealing with–religious freedom in society at large.

On the other hand, if you want to understand what the Council taught about the individual Catholic and his relationship to the Church, read *Lumen Gentium. *

 

[rlg94086]

I disagree. You have placed this interpretation on the section because of one footnote. All the CCC is footnoted most extensively. More importantly, look at the contents. The section on morality and moral conscience is placed under section one "MAN"S Vocation. the article in question is a subset of that section. Man and his relationship in community is governed by Chapt. 2 entitled The Human Community.

Furthermore you have missed 1790, subset to moral conscience.

You are funny. Janet S said “The relevant sections about conscience in the Catechism are #1776 through #1802.” How did she miss “1790?” You do know that 1790 is between 1776 and 1802?

IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT
1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet **it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments **about acts to be performed or already committed.
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.
1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.
1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60
The more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by objective standards of moral conduct.61

1790 doesn’t stand alone, it is followed by an explanation that following your conscience can still result in sin for which you would be culpable. One of the reasons is “bad example by others” (most probably another Catholic who is teaching “primacy of conscience” ) and another is “rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching.”

IOW…we are to follow our conscience. However, if your conscience is contrary to the Church, you need to act according to Church teaching, otherwise, you may be committing a mortal sin.

There are situations in life where we have to make decisions, and the right decision according to Church teaching is not black/white. This is where our well-formed consciences come into play. We must follow our consciences in those cases, and pray that we are doing the right thing. If we don’t do the right thing, despite following our well-formed conscience, we are not culpable. However, we then need to “work to correct the errors of moral conscience.”

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Individual Catholics have the right to dissent from Church teaching:

Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matter.”

However, when their conscience tells them to disregard the authority of the church, those people become heretics. Canon 1364 automatically excommunicates such people, and they are no longer catholic, in my understanding.

1: “An apostate from the Faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”