Excommunication (fiction writing)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Crown_of_Stars
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Crown_of_Stars

Guest
Every now and then, I’ve had to ask questions on this forum whenever I find I need help with my creative writing. (Just a reminder that my writing is just something I do for enjoyment, and I’m not looking into having anything published.) I’m writing a story in which one of the characters has been excommunicated from the church. I won’t get into the plot, but the character who has been excommunicated is a man in his fifties, and he’s married, but his wife has not been excommunicated. I have a few questions on this.

What is the process of excommunication from the Catholic Church? Is it a process that takes a long time, or can be done just like that?

Does excommunication mean from just a certain parish, or any Catholic Church and her sacraments anywhere in the world?

You might later ask me what the plotline is, in case answers to these questions would depend. The man in my story was caught in the act of trying to force himself on a young woman parishioner. He didn’t succeed, but was close to it. The incident occurred right in the little chapel within this certain church, and the young woman screamed for help and the priest and a nun were able to help her in time. This man probably had to be imprisoned for his attempted crime in and of itself (but I won’t get into that, since that isn’t really the point of my thread), but how soon after this would this man have been excommunicated, and how? Does anyone know?

Now it’s five years later. His wife still attends the parish, her husband is no longer in prison or jail for his attempted crime, yet he would still be excommunicated, right? Not welcome to return to the parish? He is not penitent, and is very arrogant. Also, his excommunication would have taken place in 1986, when he was caught in the act, and now it’s 1991, if it makes any difference, if church rules may have been a little different then. :confused:

What happens when someone (like this man) has had to be excommunicated? I realize I’ve asked so much on this, but I know hardly anything about it, and thought some of you on here might be able to offer help.

Thank you. Hope you all have a nice Easter!🙂

Kathryn/ Crown of Stars
 
You might find this Dummies summary easier to follow than going through a heap of canon law (which I wouldn’t know anyway). I think you’ll have to draw your own conclusions, but I’ve made a few points below based on extracts from this text -

dummies.com/how-to/content/catholicism-excommunication-and-other-penalties.html

1
It doesn’t mean that you’re banned from church and stripped of your Catholicism. Rather, excommunication is a strong, remedial penalty meted out with the hope that it’ll wake you up and move you to true repentance — and back into full communion with the faithful. In short, it’s reversible.
Click to expand...
So your man can repent and be accepted back into full communion with the church.
Basically, the grounds for excommunication is this: You have committed a grave offense that caused you to be spiritually separated from the Church and the community of the faithful. You have left the Church on your own accord by committing the offense. (But remember, excommunication offers a way to go back!)
Click to expand...
I’m assuming your man got caught, as you seem to imply, and has been formally excommunicated. He can still attend mass, can still go to reconciliation, but he cannot accept communion.

If he were sufficiently contrite, then I assume the excommunication could be lifted, probably by the parish priest, or otherwise the bishop.

However your story line seems to state he’s still arrogant, unrepentant, and therefore he’s most likely still in a state of excommunication.

Just how excommunication is formally pronounced I have no idea, not being a priest and having no familiarity with the topic first hand (not yet anyway). You’ll note there are some actions that incur automatic excommunication, even if people are not aware of them. Having or procuring an abortion is one of them for example, but it can also be lifted by the local priest.
 
Bob_Crowley said:
You’ll note there are some actions that incur automatic excommunication, even if people are not aware of them. Having or procuring an abortion is one of them for example, but it can also be lifted by the local priest.
Click to expand...
Edward Peters – who actually is a canon lawyer, says this is a misconception.

Basically, the third misconception is this: many people think that, because a given Catholic committed an action for which automatic excommunication is the penalty (for example, heresy, schism, abortion), the penalty was actually incurred in that case. That’s not necessarily true, but the reasons behind my claim require us getting into Canons 18, 1323, and 1324, among others, canons that contain a startling list of factors that mitigate or even remove liability for canonical crimes. Now taken individually, these exceptions to penal liability make sense, but when read as a whole, as we have to do, they make it much more difficult to determine whether an automatic excommunication was actually incurred in a specific case. source]
 
SuscipeMeDomine said:
Not a canon lawyer…

What has the man done to merit excommunication? Rape or attempted rape are criminal rather than ecclesial matters.

This article called Getting Excommunicated is Much Harder Than You Think may be of interest: catholicherald.co.uk/features/2013/07/12/getting-excommunicated-is-much-harder-than-you-think/
Click to expand...
Correct.
Bob_Crowley said:
You might find this Dummies summary easier to follow than going through a heap of canon law (which I wouldn’t know anyway). I think you’ll have to draw your own conclusions, but I’ve made a few points below based on extracts from this text -

dummies.com/how-to/content/catholicism-excommunication-and-other-penalties.html

1

So your man can repent and be accepted back into full communion with the church.
Click to expand...
Yes.
I’m assuming your man got caught, as you seem to imply, and has been formally excommunicated. He can still attend mass, can still go to reconciliation, but he cannot accept communion.
Except that rape or sexual assault are not grounds for excommunication.
Click to expand...
]If he were sufficiently contrite, then I assume the excommunication could be lifted, probably by the parish priest, or otherwise the bishop.
Click to expand...
However your story line seems to state he’s still arrogant, unrepentant, and therefore he’s most likely still in a state of excommunication.
Click to expand...
Rape is not grounds for excommunication.

See the list in the link above.
Just how excommunication is formally pronounced I have no idea, not being a priest and having no familiarity with the topic first hand (not yet anyway). You’ll note there are some actions that incur automatic excommunication, even if people are not aware of them. Having or procuring an abortion is one of them for example, but it can also be lifted by the local priest.
Click to expand...
Using abortion as an example, there isn’t a process for excommunication; it’s automatic (latae sententiae) and in many places bishops give the authority to priests to lift the excommunication.
This is to make it easier for people to go to confession and reconcile themselves with God and the Church, especially after a very emotional, personal, and serious matter, such as abortion.
Click to expand...
So for the OP’s story, the character would need to commit heresy or attack the Pope in order to make the excommunication and resolution more interesting or dramatic.
 
SuscipeMeDomine said:
Edward Peters – who actually is a canon lawyer, says this is a misconception.

Basically, the third misconception is this: many people think that, because a given Catholic committed an action for which automatic excommunication is the penalty (for example, heresy, schism, abortion), the penalty was actually incurred in that case. That’s not necessarily true, but the reasons behind my claim require us getting into Canons 18, 1323, and 1324, among others, canons that contain a startling list of factors that mitigate or even remove liability for canonical crimes. Now taken individually, these exceptions to penal liability make sense, but when read as a whole, as we have to do, they make it much more difficult to determine whether an automatic excommunication was actually incurred in a specific case. source]
Click to expand...
That’s a good observation.

I believe BrJR presented some good discussions on this, among them, that the Pope is the final interpreter of Canon Law in this regard, if he chooses to be so. But I suppose one can argue that if he has to rule that a person is excommunicated, it is not really automatic after all.
 
Bob_Crowley said:
I’m assuming your man got caught, as you seem to imply, and has been formally excommunicated. He can still attend mass, can still go to reconciliation, but he cannot accept communion.

If he were sufficiently contrite, then I assume the excommunication could be lifted, probably by the parish priest, or otherwise the bishop.
Click to expand...
He can’t simply go to reconciliation, with the excommunication remaining in effect, can he? It would have to be confession to someone with the power to lift the excommunication, wouldn’t it? Otherwise there could be no absolution.
 
What the OP wanted was an explanation of how to incorporate excommunication into his **fictional **story. I get the feeling that all we’re doing is making it more complicated than he needs for a work of fiction.

He’s hardly likely to put in a foot note referring to canon law.
 
Phemie said:
He can’t simply go to reconciliation, with the excommunication remaining in effect, can he? It would have to be confession to someone with the power to lift the excommunication, wouldn’t it? Otherwise there could be no absolution.
Click to expand...
Yes, a person need only repent and go to confession to be fully accepted back into the church.
 
seagal said:
Yes, a person need only repent and go to confession to be fully accepted back into the church.
Click to expand...
So long as, as Phemie pointed out, the priest in question has the authority to do so. In some cases this authority is granted by being a priest in good standing; in some it can be delegated to a priest by his ordinary; in some cases it is reserved to the ordinary alone; and in others it is reserved to the Holy See.

The relevant canons can be read at:

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P51.HTM

And as another poster has commented, this is getting a little too technical, perhaps. With that said, it kind of validates the old adage that an author should write about things that they know and understand. 😃

In Christ,
Withburga
 
Withburga said:
So long as, as Phemie pointed out, the priest in question has the authority to do so. In some cases this authority is granted by being a priest in good standing; in some it can be delegated to a priest by his ordinary; in some cases it is reserved to the ordinary alone; and in others it is reserved to the Holy See.

The relevant canons can be read at:

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P51.HTM

And as another poster has commented, this is getting a little too technical, perhaps. With that said, it kind of validates the old adage that an author should write about things that they know and understand. 😃

In Christ,
Withburga
Click to expand...
That’s true, if the Holy See had issued the writ of excommunication then it would have to revoke it, but that is unlikely in anything other than a major or far-reaching heresy.
 
Bob_Crowley said:
What the OP wanted was an explanation of how to incorporate excommunication into his **fictional **story. I get the feeling that all we’re doing is making it more complicated than he needs for a work of fiction.

He’s hardly likely to put in a foot note referring to canon law.
Click to expand...
First of all, I’m not a he;) I’m a she, and my name is Kathryn:)
Thank you for your post. Yes, you’re right, it actually has made it more confusing to me, although I have appreciated the answers you’ve all been able to give… But I’ve just scrapped the idea, so now I don’t have to think about it anymore. I am shocked, though, that rape is not grounds for excommunication. Especially one that threatened to take place right inside of the church.😦
 
Crown_of_Stars said:
First of all, I’m not a he;) I’m a she, and my name is Kathryn:)
Thank you for your post. Yes, you’re right, it actually has made it more confusing to me, although I have appreciated the answers you’ve all been able to give… But I’ve just scrapped the idea, so now I don’t have to think about it anymore. I am shocked, though, that rape is not grounds for excommunication. Especially one that threatened to take place right inside of the church.😦
Click to expand...
Well, if the priest knew about it, I doubt if he’d be able to take communion again (in the priest’s presence anyway) until he’d …
  1. Confessed his sin, and been absolved of that sin, which in turn would be …
  2. Subject to handing himself in to the authorities ie. the police.
That’s how I see it, but then I’m no canon lawyer.
 
Bob_Crowley said:
Well, if the priest knew about it, I doubt if he’d be able to take communion again (in the priest’s presence anyway) until he’d …
  1. Confessed his sin, and been absolved of that sin, which in turn would be …
  2. Subject to handing himself in to the authorities ie. the police.
That’s how I see it, but then I’m no canon lawyer.
Click to expand...
Absolution is not conditional on surrendering to the authorities.

The priest may strongly advise that it would be the right thing to do but can’t force the penitent to identify himself to the police that way.
 
Bob_Crowley said:
Well, if the priest knew about it, I doubt if he’d be able to take communion again (in the priest’s presence anyway) until he’d …
  1. Confessed his sin, and been absolved of that sin, which in turn would be …
  2. Subject to handing himself in to the authorities ie. the police.
That’s how I see it, but then I’m no canon lawyer.
Click to expand...
But that’s not the same as being excommunicated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top