Excommunication, shunning, and charity

[Ginkgo100]

It seems self-evident to me that shunning a person who is a heretic or apostate, that is refusing to have social contact with such a person, is cruel.

Now I understand there are apostates, and there are apostates. Some leave the church through defiance and openly attempt to undermine the faith of others; I can understand avoiding contact with such persons at least for as long as they choose to be insufferable. But others leave through lukewarm ignorance, and some as a tragic and misguided response to some pain or trauma.

So in the context of our duty to practice charity, I am trying to understand current and especially past Church teaching on shunning the excommunicated. In particular, I am having trouble understanding excommunication vitandi (which I understand is no longer practiced, but for centuries this penalty did exist) and also certain verses of Scripture. How are we to interpret 1 Cor 5:2 and Titus 3:10-11? I understand these to apply to the defiant, insufferable type of sinner, yet they are used both in non-Catholic religions and (it seems) in Catholic documents of the past to justify shunning any serious sinner. This seems contrary to the actions of Christ himself, who socialized with sinners in order to bring them to him.

 

[Ginkgo100]

Yay for St. Thomas Aquinas, who provides at least a partial answer in the Summa Theologica: newadvent.org/summa/5023.htm —

But, since the Church resorts to excommunication to repair and not to destroy, exception is made from this general law, in certain matters wherein communication is lawful, viz. in those which concern salvation, for one is allowed to speak of such matters with an excommunicated person; and one may even speak of other matters so as to put him at his ease and to make the words of salvation more acceptable.

But the approach is still troubling, as it seems to be opposite what it should be. St. Thomas discusses the exceptions that may be made to the rule that a person be shunned. Yet it seems like it would be better to describe only the circumstances in which “communion” is prohibited, which would be the sacramental life, and any approval of the sin. You shouldn’t tell a person that moral offenses are acceptable, or that heretical beliefs are true, nor should anyone participate in the sacraments with an excommunicated person (not much of a concern when only lay people are involved, except in the case of marriage), but shouldn’t you be able to socialize with such people on a natural level? How else can we “preach the gospel always, and when necessary, use words”?

Should I make a bigger distinction between publicly excommunicated people (a very small population) and non-excommunicated people in the state of mortal sin (a very large population)? If a person has not either been formally declared excommunicated ferendae sententiae, nor publicly declared latae sententiae, does any of this apply at all?

 

[dnu]

sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__canonical.htm#contact_apostates

 

[rpp]

sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__canonical.htm#contact_apostates

This is not a reliable and the article contains some rather questionable teachings. In fact, the very first paragraph actually contains a false statement.

 

[dnu]

This is not a reliable and the article contains some rather questionable teachings. In fact, the very first paragraph actually contains a false statement.

Out of curiousity, what is the false statement in the first paragraph? I’m a newbie (RCIA this past Easter). When folks start quoting canon law this, Church code that, we may as well be conversing in Arabic.

 

[dans0622]

Out of curiousity, what is the false statement in the first paragraph? I’m a newbie (RCIA this past Easter). When folks start quoting canon law this, Church code that, we may as well be conversing in Arabic.

Hi dnu,

I will presume to speak for “rpp” and say the mistake is that the 1983 Code does not “encourage” communcation in sacred things. It allows it to take place in certain extraordinary circumstances.

Gingko100: certainly the idea of avoiding certain people who are seen as a danger to the faith has a long history. You are correct that there is no longer the canonical distinction between the excommunicates who are to be avoided and those who can be tolerated. But, the modern distinction between imposed and declared excommunication seems to have some of the same effects.

I would point out to you what c. 2267 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law said: “The faithful must avoid association in profane things with a banned excommunicate, unless it concerns a spouse, parents, children, householders, subjects, and so on, unless reasonable cause excuses.” So, there were many exceptions to the rule. A priest could offer Mass for the conversion of such people, also.

Yes, Jesus associated with all sorts of people. It helped that He was incorruptable, in a moral sense. Sadly, we are not so. I imagine the underlying purpose of avoiding certain “sinners” was to make sure that the faithful protected their own souls from temptation and sin. Even though nobody is a “banned excommunicate” I know for a fact that there are some people I should not associate with because they, combined with my personal weaknesses, would certainly lead to my downfall. I can still pray for them, anyway.

Dan

 

[Ginkgo100]

sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__canonical.htm#contact_apostates

Thanks for your response, but there is no way I am going to look for teaching on difficult questions from the SSPX website.

Robyn

 

[Ginkgo100]

Hi dnu,

I will presume to speak for “rpp” and say the mistake is that the 1983 Code does not “encourage” communcation in sacred things. It allows it to take place in certain extraordinary circumstances.

Gingko100: certainly the idea of avoiding certain people who are seen as a danger to the faith has a long history. You are correct that there is no longer the canonical distinction between the excommunicates who are to be avoided and those who can be tolerated. But, the modern distinction between imposed and declared excommunication seems to have some of the same effects.

I would point out to you what c. 2267 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law said: “The faithful must avoid association in profane things with a banned excommunicate, unless it concerns a spouse, parents, children, householders, subjects, and so on, unless reasonable cause excuses.” So, there were many exceptions to the rule. A priest could offer Mass for the conversion of such people, also.

Yes, Jesus associated with all sorts of people. It helped that He was incorruptable, in a moral sense. Sadly, we are not so. I imagine the underlying purpose of avoiding certain “sinners” was to make sure that the faithful protected their own souls from temptation and sin. Even though nobody is a “banned excommunicate” I know for a fact that there are some people I should not associate with because they, combined with my personal weaknesses, would certainly lead to my downfall. I can still pray for them, anyway.

Dan

Thanks, Dan. I completely agree that any Christian should above all avoid occasions of sin, including bad companions. For some, “bad companions” would include those who might lure one away from the faith.

What I am trying to understand is questions about imposing a requirement to socially isolate such persons if they are not actively proselytizing something heretical. I think there’s an enormous difference between discouraging the faithful from associating with people who have been excommunicated, and forbidding such association.

When excommunication vitandi was in practice, how often and in what circumstances was it to be used? (I understand there were abuses, particularly prior to the Counter-Reformation; I am more concerned about the instructions for “proper” use.)

Also, I don’t have a Catholic study Bible. How does the Church interpret the NT passages I cited? Are they just advice from an apostle to his congregation (1 Cor) or another bishop (Titus), or a requirement that applies to all Christians? Do they apply to all heretics, apostates, and unrepentant sinners, or only those who have been excommunicated?

 

[Ginkgo100]

Out of curiousity, what is the false statement in the first paragraph? I’m a newbie (RCIA this past Easter). When folks start quoting canon law this, Church code that, we may as well be conversing in Arabic.

Welcome to the Church! I would be happy to help you (as far as I am able) with any questions you have. (You can even PM me or email me if you like.)

Canon Law is basically the Catholic rulebook, sort of analogous to a state’s code of statutes. The Church has the authority to impose a code of laws on her members because such authority was given by Jesus in Matt:16-18 and following. It is considered to be “discipline,” not doctrine, and therefore it can change. It covers everything from how a diocese is set up and administered, to how we should act in a church. The current version was promulgated in 1983 (“promulgated” in Church lingo more-or-less means “made official”).

The Society of Saint Pius X is a group of priests who separated from the Church in Rome in 1988. Their most significant beliefs are a rejection of Vatican Council II and its documents, and a rejection of any Mass liturgy published after 1962. They call the older liturgy (which has some significant but purely external differences with the current liturgy) “the one true Mass” and “the Mass of all time,” which is at best inaccurate and may even be heretical. They also believe they hold to “the one true Church” (implying that other Catholics do not) and that they are more Catholic than the Pope (I’m not making that up), but they do at least believe that Benedict XVI is the real Pope. (Some “traditionalist” groups are even more radical and don’t believe there is currently any valid pope and that Benedict XVI is an “anti-pope”; they are called sedevacantists.)

The SSPX also rejects the 1983 Code of Canon Law and still follows the obsolete 1917 version. It would be like a U.S. state declaring they don’t agree with the current U.S. Constitution and instead are going to follow the original, unamended Constitution.

Though they claim to hold to the “true,” traditional, unsullied Catholic faith, some of their priests and bishops have made some novel and heretical theological speculations, such as women being unable to be complete beings without men.

I would strongly recommend you not use any SSPX resource for information about the Catholic faith.

 

[dans0622]

What I am trying to understand is questions about imposing a requirement to socially isolate such persons if they are not actively proselytizing something heretical. I think there’s an enormous difference between discouraging the faithful from associating with people who have been excommunicated, and forbidding such association.

When excommunication vitandi was in practice, how often and in what circumstances was it to be used? (I understand there were abuses, particularly prior to the Counter-Reformation; I am more concerned about the instructions for “proper” use.)

Also, I don’t have a Catholic study Bible. How does the Church interpret the NT passages I cited? Are they just advice from an apostle to his congregation (1 Cor) or another bishop (Titus), or a requirement that applies to all Christians? Do they apply to all heretics, apostates, and unrepentant sinners, or only those who have been excommunicated?

Hello again,

I hesitate to answer since I am far from an expert in pre-1983 canon law, even less when it comes to pre-1917 canon law. But, I’ll say something anyway.

I wouldn’t make “vitandi” more stringent than it was, at least in the 1917 Code. As the canon I quoted earlier said, any reasonable cause would allow interaction with a banned excommunicate. In practice, this “reasonable cause” exception would make this notion of being “banned” into more of a suggestion (“discouragement” as you said) than a requirement or prohibition.

As far as when it was applied, that was left entirely up to the Apostolic See: “No one is banned unless so named as an excommunicate by the Apostolic See, the excommunication is publicly announced, and it is expressly stated in the decree or sentence that he must be avoided with due regard for the prescription of c. 2343.1.1” (which regards physical assault of the Pope and the “banned excommunicate” status which results automatically).

I do not know of general norms regarding when and how the Apostolic See would implement this. I can give you one example of it: “Whereas the priest Francis Griese, after falling miserably into heresy and contracting a so-called civil marriage, has gone so far as to publish pamphlets and books in which, as the ardent champion of doctrines even recently condemned by the Church, he attempts to draw the faithful away from the Christian faith and to incite them to rebellion against the Supreme Authority of the Church; and whereas, upon being summoned at the direction of this Holy Office by the Ordinary of Buenos Aires, he has refused to appear before him and has remained in contumacy, the Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals in charge of the guardianship of faith an morals…declared that the said priest Francis Griese has incurred excommunication…and in view of his obstinacy and unparalleled impiety, they decreed that he is to be considered as by name and expressly excommunicatus vitandus…and the faithful are reminded of the prohibition against having communication with him, as provided in canon 2267. …”

Regarding Scriptural interpretation, I am even less educated. So, perhaps someone else can offer something more substantial than my own opinion.

Thanks for your time.
Dan

 

[Ginkgo100]

I do not know of general norms regarding when and how the Apostolic See would implement this. I can give you one example of it: “Whereas the priest Francis Griese, after falling miserably into heresy and contracting a so-called civil marriage, has gone so far as to publish pamphlets and books in which, as the ardent champion of doctrines even recently condemned by the Church, he attempts to draw the faithful away from the Christian faith and to incite them to rebellion against the Supreme Authority of the Church; and whereas, upon being summoned at the direction of this Holy Office by the Ordinary of Buenos Aires, he has refused to appear before him and has remained in contumacy, the Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals in charge of the guardianship of faith an morals…declared that the said priest Francis Griese has incurred excommunication…and in view of his obstinacy and unparalleled impiety, they decreed that he is to be considered as by name and expressly excommunicatus vitandus…and the faithful are reminded of the prohibition against having communication with him, as provided in canon 2267. …”

Thanks, Dan, this is very helpful. Fr. Griese clearly falls into the “insufferable” category. It looks like there’s no evidence so far that uncharitable social shunning was ever part of the general norms of the Church, which is actually a huge relief to me.

Robyn

 

[rpp]

Out of curiousity, what is the false statement in the first paragraph? I’m a newbie (RCIA this past Easter). When folks start quoting canon law this, Church code that, we may as well be conversing in Arabic.

Here you go:

The question here concerns what is called by the theologians communication with heretics. Here it concerns profane or civil communication, namely that concerning commerce, business and friendly conversation, as distinct from communication in sacred things pertaining to the worship of God, and prayer. Active participation of this latter kind is forbidden by the traditional law and practice of the Church (canon 1258, §1 of the 1917 Code**), but encouraged by the post-Conciliar Church in the name of ecumenism (canon 844 of the 1983* Code*).

Both of these assertions about Canon law are incorrect.

Canon Law is not part of the Deposit of Faith or the unchanging and unchangeable doctrines of the Church. Rather they help to describe the governance, order and procedures which describe how the Church acts and interacts within itself.

For example, the unchangeable teachings of the Catholic Church tell us that certain sexual sins are very grave and have the possibility of leading us to damnation. But Church doctrines do not tell us what to do with priests who commit grave sexual sins with young or vulnerable people, except that justice is called for. Canon Law describes the procedures and responsibilities for various people (bishops, other priests, diocesan tribunals, etc.), the possible penalties and how those penalties can be imposed, how to conduct a trial, how and when to inform civil authorities, etc. This particular example is also a good in that we have all seen in recent years what happens when those responsible do not follow canon law.