Excommunication Public or Private

[bitznbitez]

Often there is an insistence that this or that person, usually a politician, opposing catholic teaching by their votes and/or public comments should be excommunicated. By which the commenter usually means barred from communion until they repent.

My question is how does this work in reality. Isn’t the notice to stay away from the table until you have repented normally given in private not via some public pronouncement ? With the exception of notorious and public historical figures.

Its not like there is a public list of folks that have been given the heave ho or anything …

Hopefully my question makes sense.

 

[CB_Catholic]

If I were excommunicated, I certainly would not want it to be made a public affair. However, it seems some think it is their right to demand and then have it be made public that certain public figures be excommunicated.

This does not seem reasonable to me. I think we need to trust our Bishops in a matter that most of us don’t fully understand, anyway, judging by the number of posts on this forum from people who have erroneous ideas about the process and what it entails. But in this day and age, it seems too many people feel they know better than the Bishops and don’t trust their judgement.

 

[Pat_Payne]

If I were excommunicated, I certainly would not want it to be made a public affair. However, it seems some think it is their right to demand and then have it be made public that certain public figures be excommunicated.

This does not seem reasonable to me. I think we need to trust our Bishops in a matter that most of us don’t fully understand, anyway, judging by the number of posts on this forum from people who have erroneous ideas about the process and what it entails. But in this day and age, it seems too many people feel they know better than the Bishops and don’t trust their judgement.

In general, I agree with you on this. But there are cases where a public excommunication may prevent a wider scandal – I’m speaking here of politicians or other public figures who claim to be practicing Catholic and yet support abortion and contraception, thereby leading others into thinking that this is an acceptable position within the Church. Here in the US, it’s endemic, with at least four nationally-known political figures who identify as Catholic not only endorsing abortion and contraception but doing all in their considerable power to promote it in sometimes explicit defiance of church teaching, and teaching through the media that their “Catholic consciences” brought them to this position. If that is not grounds for excommunication, what is?

Now, that being said, I can understand why the bishops would be reluctant to do so, and with good reason – since all four are of the same political party, any formal excommunication action would be willfully misconstrued, and painted by the media, as not a disciplinary measure against individual errant Catholics who need to be brought back into the fold, but as a calculated partisan attack against said political party as a whole. The Bishops, I admit, are in an unenviable position, thanks to our completely honked-up, narcissistic and idolatrous political climate.

 

[dans0622]

Often there is an insistence that this or that person, usually a politician, opposing catholic teaching by their votes and/or public comments should be excommunicated. By which the commenter usually means barred from communion until they repent.

My question is how does this work in reality. Isn’t the notice to stay away from the table until you have repented normally given in private not via some public pronouncement ? With the exception of notorious and public historical figures.

Its not like there is a public list of folks that have been given the heave ho or anything …

Hopefully my question makes sense.

Hello,

First, denying Holy Communion, and what may justify such an action, is not excommunication. So, while some “commenters” might equate the two, they are very different. A person can be denied Holy Communion if he/she obstinately persists in manifest grave sin. Excommunication only results after the commission of a particular, criminal action (“criminal” as determined by the Church, not the state).

So, yes, it is possible that a politician could be denied Holy Communion due to public, legislative support of grave evil (e.g., abortion on demand). But, that person would not be subject to excommunication based on that fact alone.

As for how a denial of Communion would work–most of the time, it seems as though it was a private conversation which resulted in the offending party not attending Mass or at least not attempting to receive Communion. It could well become a public matter, however, if the person was privately told that he/she would not be given Communion but still attempted to do so. In that case, the Church authorities would have to make a public statement to the effect that so-and-so should not be given Communion.

Since the denial of Communion is based on public (“manifest”) actions, the offender would have to make a public recantation or somehow make it public that they are no longer persisting in that manifest sin.

Dan

 

[phil19034]

In general, I agree with you on this. But there are cases where a public excommunication may prevent a wider scandal – I’m speaking here of politicians or other public figures who claim to be practicing Catholic and yet support abortion and contraception, thereby leading others into thinking that this is an acceptable position within the Church. Here in the US, it’s endemic, with at least four nationally-known political figures who identify as Catholic not only endorsing abortion and contraception but doing all in their considerable power to promote it in sometimes explicit defiance of church teaching, and teaching through the media that their “Catholic consciences” brought them to this position. If that is not grounds for excommunication, what is?

Now, that being said, I can understand why the bishops would be reluctant to do so, and with good reason – since all four are of the same political party, any formal excommunication action would be willfully misconstrued, and painted by the media, as not a disciplinary measure against individual errant Catholics who need to be brought back into the fold, but as a calculated partisan attack against said political party as a whole. The Bishops, I admit, are in an unenviable position, thanks to our completely honked-up, narcissistic and idolatrous political climate.

This

 

[bitznbitez]

Hello,

First, denying Holy Communion, and what may justify such an action, is not excommunication. So, while some “commenters” might equate the two, they are very different. A person can be denied Holy Communion if he/she obstinately persists in manifest grave sin. Excommunication only results after the commission of a particular, criminal action (“criminal” as determined by the Church, not the state). …

Perhaps someone can define the two terms for me then showing their distinction ?

Personally I did equate them and am curious about this.

 

[dans0622]

Perhaps someone can define the two terms for me then showing their distinction ? …

Hello,

I gave a basic distinction but will try to flesh it out a little. First, know that these are matters addressed by canon law. A denial of Communion can be carried out according to canon #915 of the Code of Canon Law. Excommunication is defined in canon #1331.

As I said, excommunication is a penalty resulting from a criminal action. It can only apply to Catholics. Excommunication can result from such crimes as directly violating the seal of Confession, committing heresy, physically attacking the Pope, actually procuring an abortion, etc. There are many conditions which must be met before such a penalty could be incurred and/or imposed. (This is getting too technical and doesn’t really matter here). The result of an excommunication is that the (lay) person is prohibited from receiving any Sacraments and having any ministerial participation in any public worship. Necessarily, such a person is not to receive Communion while in a state of excommunication. The problem is that the offense might not be public. For example, lets say a Catholic, fully aware of what he is doing and of the consequences of his action, makes it known to his spouse that he is a heretic. He tells no one else and neither does she. The next day, he goes to Communion. The priest has no reason to deny him the Sacrament and, based on what he knows, he cannot deny it. Yet, that man is excommunicated automatically due to heresy. He is committing a further sin by receiving Communion in that state but the priest has no way of knowing that.

On the other hand, a person can be denied Holy Communion due to publicly known, persistent, grave sin. Let’s say a man is a well-known mafia boss (the sort of person the Pope recently warned to reform his ways or he will end up in hell). He’s in prison for murder, etc., and has shown no sign of repentance. If the priest goes to the prison to say Mass and that man attempts to receive Communion, the priest should deny him. This is not because of excommunication (there is no excommunication for murder) but because of his manifest, obstinate persistence in grave sin. Strictly speaking, he is not being subjected to a penalty. It could happen, also, that a non-Catholic could be denied Communion. Someone who is not baptized, for instance, cannot receive any Sacraments except baptism. Since non-Catholics can never be given a penalty such as excommunication, this denial is not a penalty. It is discipline, based on theology.

Sometimes, a person who has been excommunicated will also be obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin–maybe the heretic goes public on a series of talk shows, broadcasting his heresy. Maybe that mob boss is actually an apostate. So, there could be some overlap in individual cases.

This link, in number 6, makes the distinction between a denial of Communion and a penalty: ewtn.com/library/CURIA/cdfworthycom.htm

In general, this is the most authoritative statement on how canon 915 (denial of Communion even if not excommunicated) should be applied, especially in #2-4: vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20000706_declaration_en.html

Dan

 

[CB_Catholic]

In general, I agree with you on this. But there are cases where a public excommunication may prevent a wider scandal – I’m speaking here of politicians or other public figures who claim to be practicing Catholic and yet support abortion and contraception, thereby leading others into thinking that this is an acceptable position within the Church. Here in the US, it’s endemic, with at least four nationally-known political figures who identify as Catholic not only endorsing abortion and contraception but doing all in their considerable power to promote it in sometimes explicit defiance of church teaching, and teaching through the media that their “Catholic consciences” brought them to this position. If that is not grounds for excommunication, what is?

Now, that being said, I can understand why the bishops would be reluctant to do so, and with good reason – since all four are of the same political party, any formal excommunication action would be willfully misconstrued, and painted by the media, as not a disciplinary measure against individual errant Catholics who need to be brought back into the fold, but as a calculated partisan attack against said political party as a whole. The Bishops, I admit, are in an unenviable position, thanks to our completely honked-up, narcissistic and idolatrous political climate.

Yes, I understand your point. Mine, however, is that as laity, we are not in the position to demand that the Bishops deny the Sacraments or excommunicate people. Christ gave the power of binding and loosing to the Apostles and subsequently to the Bishops through succession, not to us. We have the responsibility to learn right from wrong and to learn what the Church teaches. We do not have the right to, for example, come on a public message board and declare that the Bishop or Bishops are derelict in their duty in not excommunicating certain people or denying them Communion. And that is exactly what happens on these forums and others. I have seen such disrespect for certain Bishops (and priests) and name-calling that the Mods had to close the thread.

Let the Bishops do their jobs the way they feel the Lord is leading them and take care of imposing any discipline that they determine necessary–they have that power from God. We laity need to examine ourselves first before pointing any fingers, pray for those who are in error, and pray for our bishops and clergy.

When I was growing up we had a little more respect for our Shepherds. Now it seems as if they are fair game for anyone who thinks they know better.

 

[bitznbitez]

Dans062 thanks for your comments.

I’m pretty sure I understand the distinction you are making between something you do automatically barring yourself and when the priest/bishop does. I also understand your distinction between being barred and excommunication.

I’m mainly interested in when a priest/bishop decides to prevent someone via barring them from communion or excommunicating them. In those cases isn’t the notice usually given privately to the person and not proclaimed publicly ?

IE. Isn’t it very possible that some of these public figures have been told to stay away and we’d never know ? Isn’t the common expectation among many that there would be some public announcement or action misguided ?

Just as its possible they voted, then sincerely or insincerely as the case may be confessed their sin and thus are restored.

Thanks.

 

[bben15]

In general, I agree with you on this. But there are cases where a public excommunication may prevent a wider scandal – I’m speaking here of politicians or other public figures who claim to be practicing Catholic and yet support abortion and contraception, thereby leading others into thinking that this is an acceptable position within the Church. Here in the US, it’s endemic, with at least four nationally-known political figures who identify as Catholic not only endorsing abortion and contraception but doing all in their considerable power to promote it in sometimes explicit defiance of church teaching, and teaching through the media that their “Catholic consciences” brought them to this position. If that is not grounds for excommunication, what is?

Now, that being said, I can understand why the bishops would be reluctant to do so, and with good reason – since all four are of the same political party, any formal excommunication action would be willfully misconstrued, and painted by the media, as not a disciplinary measure against individual errant Catholics who need to be brought back into the fold, but as a calculated partisan attack against said political party as a whole. The Bishops, I admit, are in an unenviable position, thanks to our completely honked-up, narcissistic and idolatrous political climate.

There was once a time when the Church had more influence than anyone else. Those days are long gone. Nowadays, our Holy Church is at the mercy of the liberal media and Cafeteria Catholic politicians.

Their “Catholic consciences” led them to their position? That is pure heresy, and is absolutely grounds for excommunication.

 

[bardegaulois]

Here’s how I understand it. There are two forms of excommunication: latae sententiae (by the act itself) and ferendae sententiae (by judicial act). The latter is by its very nature public, but the former may not be. It is public when the act causing the excommunication is a public act–for instance, an assault against a cleric–or when published by ecclesiastical authority, thus making it valid in both the external and internal forums. However, if the offense causing the excommunication is known to but few, it is an occult (term used instead of private) excommunication valid only in the internal forum.

Anyone in a state of occult excommunication should see his confessor as soon as possible and do the penance imposed. His excommunication can be dealt with only in the internal forum. However, if it be a matter of a public excommunication valid in the external forum, this is removed only by a public absolution after the conviction of a crime for which such a penalty follows.

So to put it in the context of Catholic public servants working actively contrary to the Church and her doctrine, I will treat their occult excommunications first. These persons are to consider themselves excommunicated, and are to seek absolution as soon as possible, doing whatever is necessary in order to return to the state of grace. It is first a matter of the internal forum. However, a case can be made that, their acts being public and notorious, their excommunication is public and thus a matter for the external forum as well. Thus, their responsibility is to denounce themselves to the tribunal to which their excommunication is reserved to as to seek absolution. In this case, I believe it is the Holy See, so the reserved tribunal is the Apostolic Penitentiary. A confessor, knowing the cause of their excommunication to be a higher tribunal, will refer the penitent to that tribunal.

So, let it suffice to say at last that an occult excommunication likely holds here. If the persons in question have approached the sacrament of confession, then it is clear that they have not lived by the imposed conditions, whether they be simple abjuration of their actions contrary to the Church and her doctrine or appeal to higher authority. Their refusal to do so and the publicity of their actions gives enough evidence to presume that the persons in question are excommunicated and that they shall be until absolution is granted by the appropriate tribunal.

I think this is how it might work from my reading in canon law. The last paragraph comes not from law itself, but from reasonable conclusions based on the canons of the CIC. Any precedent stating anything to the contrary is unknown to me.

God bless.

 

[dans0622]

…I’m mainly interested in when a priest/bishop decides to prevent someone via barring them from communion or excommunicating them. In those cases isn’t the notice usually given privately to the person and not proclaimed publicly ?

IE. Isn’t it very possible that some of these public figures have been told to stay away and we’d never know ? Isn’t the common expectation among many that there would be some public announcement or action misguided ?

Just as its possible they voted, then sincerely or insincerely as the case may be confessed their sin and thus are restored. …

Hello,

If it is a matter of an imposed or declared excommunication, that is necessarily public…not that it would be announced from the pulpit at every church in the diocese but the decree would be made public. One example of a local bishop doing this is when Cardinal Burke was the bishop of St. Louis, he declared the excommunication of several women involved in “women’s ordination.” If you do an internet search for that topic, you probably can find the actual decree, which is a textbook example of how such a thing is done. The Holy See has also declared the excommunication of several people over the years. I recall one such case being the so-called “Army of Mary.”

For a denial of Holy Communion, it could be either private or public. It would depend on whether or not, as a result of the private conversation between the bishop and offending party, the person involved has said “Ok, I won’t approach Communion.” If that is the case, it doesn’t have to go public. But, if the person says “I will just find another parish.” then the bishop would have to make a public statement. But, initially, this would all start off as private conversations.

So, my answer to your questions would be: 1. Yes. 2. Yes. 3. Yes, if the person thinks a public statement is required. For example, from what I have heard, the governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, has not presented himself for Communion but I know of no public pronouncement demanding this action on his part.

Regarding voting: if we’re talking about a clear vote that was in favor of abortion, for example, and not merely a vote for a bill that allowed abortion but was designed to limit access to it, then that person would have to make some public statement to the effect that he does not support abortion, in addition to confessing that sin. Why? Because he has to remove the possibility of scandal. If he appears to be an unrepentant/unreformed abortion supporter who receives Communion, other Catholics could be led to believe that it is possible to be Catholic and support grave, intrinsic evil.
Dan

 

[Pat_Payne]

Yes, I understand your point. Mine, however, is that as laity, we are not in the position to demand that the Bishops deny the Sacraments or excommunicate people. Christ gave the power of binding and loosing to the Apostles and subsequently to the Bishops through succession, not to us. We have the responsibility to learn right from wrong and to learn what the Church teaches. We do not have the right to, for example, come on a public message board and declare that the Bishop or Bishops are derelict in their duty in not excommunicating certain people or denying them Communion. And that is exactly what happens on these forums and others. I have seen such disrespect for certain Bishops (and priests) and name-calling that the Mods had to close the thread.

Don’t misunderstand me – I’m in complete agreement with what you’re saying. I do feel, however there is a difference between saying “If I were Bishop, I’d excommunicate X, Y, and Z” (which I think is the same kind of legitimate daydreaming as saying “If I were President…”) or “I wish Bishop Smith would lower the boom on X, Y, and Z”, and saying “Bishop Smith hasn’t done anything about X, Y and Z – therefore, he’s either incompetent or actually supportive of them,” or “Bishop Smith, I demand and order that you immediately do something about X, Y and Z.”

 

[bitznbitez]

Thanks Dans for your explanation.