Explain Excommunication?

[Rawb]

This was being discussed on another thread and so I’d like to get a better grasp on it. Someone accused the Catholic Church of ‘condeming people to Hell’ through excommunication once and the only defense I had was that I knew that couldn’t be right because the Church teaches we cannot know the ultimate fate of any soul (Good answer at that time for him because he was impressed that that was an actual teaching).

Here’s what I found in the online catechism:

1463 Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them. In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication.

So my questions are what “certain ecclesiastical acts” is this talking about? If absolution and “reception of the sacraments” are impeded or forbidden then can’t that send someone to Hell in a round-about way?

How do Catholics who haven’t been excommunicated respond to someone who has? (I mean both how we are supposed to act and if that differs from how people actually act).

And how is one actually informed that they’re excommunicated?

Thanks!

 

[cameron_lansing]

Rawb,

That’s a big topic. I’ll say a prayer for you as you journey in the RCIA. At the risk of giving too much, I’ll try to respond.

You are correct in that excommunication is an exclusion of a Catholic from certain spiritual, and sometimes temporal, benefits of the Church, but it is not a condemnation of a person’s soul. It impairs a person’s communion with the Church, but does not expel the person from the Church nor call for “shunning.” You are also correct in that only God can judge the ultimate fate of anyone. Excommunication is a last resort of tough love when a law or precept has been issued to protect a grave and sacred principle or value, and then that law or precept gives this as a penalty for its violation.

The Catechism summarizes from other sources. In the case of the paragraph 1463 you cited, the Catechism draws from the canon law of the Church. Canon 1331 is most relevant so I’ll quote it. But the entire fifth book of the code of canon law, Sanctions in the Church (cc. 1311-1399) would have to be taken into account. It is a very complex subject, so I’ll make some brief comments that I hope will assist you with basics.

Canon 1331 “§1. An excommunicated person is forbidden: 1º to have any ministerial participation in celebrating the sacrifice of the Eucharist or any other ceremonies of worship whatsoever; 2º to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals and to receive the sacraments; 3º to exercise any ecclesiastical offices, ministries, or functions whatsoever or to place acts of governance. §2. If the excommunication has been imposed or declared, the offender: 1º who wishes to act against the prescript of §1, 1º must be prevented from doing so, or the liturgical action must be stopped unless a grave cause precludes this; 2º invalidly places acts of governance which are illicit according to the norm of §1, 3º; 3º is forbidden to benefit from privileges previously granted; 4º cannot acquire validly a dignity, office or other function in the Church; 5º does not appropriate the benefits of a dignity, office any function, or pension, which the offender has in the Church.”

The Church has the right to penalize its members (cc. 11, 1311) when they violate externally a law or a precept to which a penalty is attached. In general, a censure is an ecclesiastical penalty that deprives a Catholic of certain spiritual goods of the Church (c. 1312). Excommunication is a censure or a “medicinal penalty” designed to shock an offender into realizing the seriousness of the offense, reforming, and being returned to full communion with the Church (c. 1331). It is a response of the Church to certain violations of Church law or precept that are external and gravely imputably by reason of malice or culpable negligence (c. 1321).

There is some similarity between the notion of this grave imputability and the type of freedom, knowledge, and intention required in the case of mortal sin. Still, there is a general separation to be made between the external forum, what is publicly viewable and judgeable, and the internal forum (conscience), which is not subject to public inspection. Canon law generally pertains to the external forum. It does not judge conscience nor is it privy to conscience, only observable actions.

Sometimes excommunication can only be imposed as a result of some juridial or administrative
process in the Church by a competent authority (a so called ferendae sententiae penalty). But in other certain egregious situations, it is automatically incurred by the very commission of a certain action for which canon law specifies that as a penalty (a so called latae sententiae penalty). The distinction between these would be found in canon 1314.

If excommunication is imposed by a process (ferendae sententiae), the person is informed through a decree. If it is automatically incurred (latae sententiae ), a competent Church authority may also issue a decree stating that fact. So a person should know.

Now to understand the “certain ecclesiastical acts” mentioned in the Catechism, it would be easiest to reference the automatic excommunications to be found in certain canons.

Canon 1364 §1 apostasy, heresy, schism
Canon 1367 sacrilegious mistreatment of the Eucharistic species
Canon 1370 §1 physical force against the Roman pontiff
Canon 1378 §1 absolving an accomplice in violation of the Sixth commandment outside of danger of death (see c. 977)
Canon 1382 a bishop consecrating someone a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration
Canon 1388 §1 a confessor directly violating the sacramental seal of confession
Canon 1398 procuring a completed abortion

But it can also be inflicted through a process, so we couldn’t list all possibilties. In the case of the parish in Saint Louis, Archbishop Burke declared a case of schism that is easily found on the ‘net.

I’ll post the rest of the important considerations next.

 

[cameron_lansing]

Sometimes though, an automatic excommunication is not so automatic as it seems.

Sounds strange, but it’s true.

Certain factors render a person incapable of a delict * (c. 1322) or not subject to penalty (c. 1323) or even require a tempering of the penalty or a penance in substitution (c. 1324). These would be evaluated in a particular case by a competent Church authority. (*roughly, an ecclesiastical offense).

While the law is presumed to be known (c. 15), it is possible that a person does not know it, or that by doing something, a latae sententiae penalty is incurred. In this case, we look to canon 1324.

According to canon 1324 §4, an offender is not bound by a latae sententiae penalty in the circumstances mentioned in canon 1324 §1. That first paragraph includes offenses: “1º by a person who had only the imperfect use of reason; 2º by a person who lacked the use of reason because of drunkenness or another similar culpable disturbance of mind; 3º from grave heat of passion which did not precede and hinder all deliberation of mind and consent of will and provided that the passion itself had not been stimulated or fostered voluntarily; 4º by a minor who has completed the age of sixteen years; 5º by a person who was coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience if the delict is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls; 6º by a person who acted without due moderation against an unjust aggressor for the sake of legitimate self-defense or defense of another; 7º against someone who gravely and unjustly provokes the person; 8º by aperson who thought in culpable error that one if the circumstances mentioned in canon 1323, nn. 4 or 5 was present; 9º by a person who without negligence did not know that a penalty was attached to a law or precept; 10º by a person who acted without full imputability provided that the imputability was grave.”

So a Catholic who honestly doesn’t know, doesn’t incur the automatic excommunication.

The conditions of canon 1323 also have to be noted: “The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept: 1º a person who has not yet completed the sixteenth year of age; 2º a person who without negligence was ignorant that he or she violated a law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance; 3º a person who acted due to physical force or a chance occurrence which the person could not foresee or, if foreseen, avoid; 4º a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to harm souls; 5º a person who acted with due moderation against an unjust aggressor for the sake of legitimate self-defense or defense of another; 6º a person who lacked the use of reason, without prejudice to the prescripts of canons 1324, §1, 2º and 1325; 7º a person who without negligence thought that one of the circumstances mentioned in nn. 4 or 5 was present.”

Is excommunication a round about way of sending someone to eternal loss? Only a failure to repent of a willful act which induces excommunication would be relevant, and after all, only God judges a person at the moment of death. Until that time, the Church intends a wide mercy and offers a number of ways in which excommunication is lifted, as it must be, when the offender repents. You have cited the danger of death situation as the Catechism mentions. If even such a priest mentioned there is not available, the person has recourse to perfect contrition.

Hope that helps, and others will probably add other responses.

 

[I_A]

"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and** if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.**

 

[Rawb]

Perfect! Thanks cameron_lansing. I understand it much better now. It was a lot of what I was generally thinking, but knowing the specifics is good.

Thanks too I_A_, I knew there was a scriptural reference, and that the church had the right to do this, just wasn’t sure of the specifics.

 

[cameron_lansing]

Perfect! Thanks cameron_lansing. I understand it much better now. It was a lot of what I was generally thinking, but knowing the specifics is good.

Great!
Good reference too from I_A_ ! I would add Saint Paul about this at 1 Corinthians 5.

It’s good to recall that Jesus cured the daughter of the pagan Syro Phoenician woman and invited himself to dinner with the tax collector Zaccheus. As always the infliction of some penalty is aimed at correction and repentence. In that regard, the door stays open since God desires the salvation of sinners and not their destruction.

 

[AndyF]

This was being discussed on another thread and so I’d like to get a better grasp on it. Someone accused the Catholic Church of ‘condeming people to Hell’ through excommunication once and the only defense I had was that I knew that couldn’t be right because the Church teaches we cannot know the ultimate fate of any soul (Good answer at that time for him because he was impressed that that was an actual teaching).

Here’s what I found in the online catechism:

1463 Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them. In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication.

So my questions are what “certain ecclesiastical acts” is this talking about? If absolution and “reception of the sacraments” are impeded or forbidden then can’t that send someone to Hell in a round-about way?

How do Catholics who haven’t been excommunicated respond to someone who has? (I mean both how we are supposed to act and if that differs from how people actually act).

And how is one actually informed that they’re excommunicated?

Thanks!

A state of exile imposed on an offender by a Christian community for a duration which is totally dependant on the offender’s remorse and sincere desire to make amends.

AndyF