Excommunication

[vz71]

It came up in another forum, but I was 'discouraged' from bringing up further questions.

So...
Does the church excommunicate people for sinful behavior?

I have been told specifically "no". But that just does not wash with me. I cannot find an incidence throughout history in which excommunication was brought to bear and sinful behavior was not at the core of what was going on.

I am sure people want to nuance this to death.
But as I see it, every time I see excommunication brought about, it has to do with sinful behavior, persistently pursued, and without any sign of regret.
Given the persistent nature of the sin, the church exercises excommunication to try to get the individual to see the seriousness of their transgression and the need to return.

Thoughts?
Am I completely off base here?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Short answer, no. The Church doesn't have a threshold, such that if you're a "bad enough sinner", you are excommunicated. (There used to be an automatic excommunication in the United States for people who divorced and invalidly "remarried" outside the Church, but that was lifted some time after Vatican II. You'd have an awfully lot of people excommunicated if that were still in place.)

Excommunication is reserved for certain grave offenses. The following is a list of latae sententiae offenses (meaning that one who does these things incurs excommunication automatically, without the penalty being laid down by Church authorities) from Wikipedia:

• Apostates, heretics, and schismatics (can. 1364)
• Desecration of the Eucharist (can. 1367)
• A person who physically attacks the pope (can. 1370)
• A priest who in confession absolves a partner with whom they have violated the sixth commandment [offenses against chastity] (can. 977, can. 1384)
• A person who attempts to confer a holy order on a woman, and the woman who attempts to receive it (can. 1379)[a][27][28]
• A bishop who consecrates another bishop without papal mandate (can. 1382)
• A priest who violates the seal of the confessional (can. 1388)
• A person who procures an abortion (can. 1398)
• Accomplices who were needed to commit an action that has an automatic excommunication penalty (can. 1329)

There are also ferendae sententiae offenses, meaning that the excommunication takes place upon judicial review. These mostly concern clerical matters and some are rather obscure. Eastern Catholics also have some additional ferendae sententiae offenses in their canons, but I won't attempt to parse those, if you wish to read up on it, here is the Wikipedia link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication_in_the_Catholic_Church

Wikipedia gets a lot of hate in some circles, but I find them consistenly to be a source of unbiased, reliable information. And the beauty of it is, if you wish to supply content yourself, you can do so, anyone can edit it (that's how a wiki works), but be prepared to document your assertions, as the community will react if you don't --- they'll remove what you just wrote. It's a self-cleansing mechanism. (It's one of the few online sites to which I make a modest donation from time to time, as I believe in what they do and they're not a commercial enterprise, donations are how they keep it going.)

 

[vz71]

So one could easily just say that the church reserves excommunication for specific sins.
Not just "sinful behavior" in general.

So.
Going further into this,

Accomplices who were needed to commit an action that has an automatic excommunication penalty (can. 1329)

and

A priest who violates the seal of the confessional (can. 1388)

A recent bill in Washington state was signed into law by the Catholic governor.
I would presume a Catholic would know that breaking the seal of confession is an automatic excommunication.

So signing a bill into law that forces a priest to do so could be considered grounds for excommunication.

While the governor could not be considered 'accomplices', the state law that attempts to force a violation of this seal...?

So is my opinion here a justifiable position, or am I just trying to make hay out of nothing?
I am thinking the governor here should be excommunicated, with the local Bishop reaching out to him to rectify the situation.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

So one could easily just say that the church reserves excommunication for specific sins.
Not just "sinful behavior" in general.

So.
Going further into this,

and



A recent bill in Washington state was signed into law by the Catholic governor.
I would presume a Catholic would know that breaking the seal of confession is an automatic excommunication.

So signing a bill into law that forces a priest to do so could be considered grounds for excommunication.

While the governor could not be considered 'accomplices', the state law that attempts to force a violation of this seal...?

So is my opinion here a justifiable position, or am I just trying to make hay out of nothing?
I am thinking the governor here should be excommunicated, with the local Bishop reaching out to him to rectify the situation.

A case could be made for this. That decision would ultimately rest with the bishop or with the Holy Father.

I am not a canonist and cannot say whether this act, as things stand right now, would result in latae sententiae excommunication. Just guessing, though, I would say it falls short of that, in that excommunication has to be for specific offenses in specific instances. Thus far, to my knowledge, no situation has ever come up, subsequent to the promulgation of this law, where a priest actually broke the seal of confession pursuant to that law. If and when that ever happens, that is IMO when the question of whether the governor, signing the law, had been an "accomplice" to that specific breaking of the seal. Right now, only the potential for breaking the seal is there.

 

[po18guy]

Scandal and heresy are grounds for excommunication. Many mis-read that act itself, believing it to be permanent. Rather it is medicinal, intended to bring about reflection and repentance. Even Luther was not excommunicated until well into his rebellion.