Explain How Automatic Excommunication Works

[jinc1019]

Can someone explain how this works? In numerous councils and papal decrees, it is written that if a person disagrees with a particular teaching, “let him be an anathema.” From what I have been told in this past, this term (anathema) is analogous to “excommunication.” If this is true, then does the Catholic Church automatically excommunicate people who should be treated as “anathema” according to councils, cannon law, etc.? Doesn’t this means millions of Catholics are essentially right now excommunicated and don’t even know it?

Thanks as always.

Justin

Also, how can one tell if an excommunication is automatic or must be pronounced by a bishop or another authority?

 

[L_Marshall]

Excommunication latae sententiae is often referred to as “automatic excommunication”. This is reserved for certain events which would put the individual in particularly grave sin, and the excommunication is applied as a temporary penalty to encourage the person to make reparations with the Church.

It does not need to be pronounced by a bishop, but only a bishop (or a priest whose bishop delegates this authority to him) can lift it. A bishop, however, may clarify that the excommunication latae sententiae already took place, and inform the person who was excommunicated that they may not take the Sacraments, and encourage reparation.

Some examples of events which would result in excommunication latae sententiae:

• Apostasy
• Schism
• Desecration of the Blessed Sacrament
• Physical violence against the Pope
• When a priest uses the Sacrament of Reconciliation to solicit sexual practices
• Illicit ordination of a bishop
• When a priest violates the Seal of the Confessional
• When someone receives an abortion
• When someone assists any of these actions.

As you can see, they’re all very serious offenses, and the purpose of latae sententiae is to make these situations clearly abhorred, instead of needing to call someone in and question them in an ecclesiastical court (which is how regular excommunication comes about).

 

[jinc1019]

Excommunication latae sententiae is often referred to as “automatic excommunication”. This is reserved for certain events which would put the individual in particularly grave sin, and the excommunication is applied as a temporary penalty to encourage the person to make reparations with the Church.

It does not need to be pronounced by a bishop, but only a bishop (or a priest whose bishop delegates this authority to him) can lift it. A bishop, however, may clarify that the excommunication latae sententiae already took place, and inform the person who was excommunicated that they may not take the Sacraments, and encourage reparation.

Some examples of events which would result in excommunication latae sententiae:

• Apostasy
• Schism
• Desecration of the Blessed Sacrament
• Physical violence against the Pope
• When a priest uses the Sacrament of Reconciliation to solicit sexual practices
• Illicit ordination of a bishop
• When a priest violates the Seal of the Confessional
• When someone receives an abortion
• When someone assists any of these actions.

As you can see, they’re all very serious offenses, and the purpose of latae sententiae is to make these situations clearly abhorred, instead of needing to call someone in and question them in an ecclesiastical court (which is how regular excommunication comes about).

Thanks for posting this…

A couple of questions though:

1.) Apostasy and Schism are pretty broad categories. Any Catholic who attends an Evangelical church could be considered a person who is aiding “schism” and couldn’t anyone who believes something the Church rejects be considered an “apostate” if they share that belief? This seems pretty broad…which leads to the second and more important question:

2.) When something is said to lead to excommunication at a council or in an official decree or canon law, how is anyone supposed to know if the excommunication is automatic or not? It rarely says in the decree from what I can tell? For instance, at the Council of Trent, those who deny the Real Presence were anathematized…does this mean that anyone who rejects the Real Presence, even if they do it temporarily, is automatically excommunicated and must have a bishop or the like reinstate him or her?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Doesn’t this means millions of Catholics are essentially right now excommunicated and don’t even know it?

A lot of Catholics are poorly catechized or behave as if Catholic teaching is a buffet, so it’s hard to say which ones are truly ignorant and which are just defiant.

Here are 2 pertinent paragraphs from canon law.

Can. 1364 An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.“Latae sententiae” literally means “automatic.” An apostate, heretic, or schismatic is automatically excommunicated from the Church without the need for some formal declaration. So what is an apostate, heretic, or schismatic?*Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith. Apostasy is the total repudiation of the christian faith. Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
*Such an excommunication is “automatic” in the same sense committing a sin is automatic. No one has to formally affirm that someone sinned. But anyway, yes, there are probably a lot of people who have excommunicated themselves. Without getting into the names of individuals, many culprits may be those involved in formal dissent Catholic groups who are aware of Catholic teaching yet defy.

 

[Rete]

Thanks for posting this…

A couple of questions though:

1.) Apostasy and Schism are pretty broad categories. Any Catholic who attends an Evangelical church could be considered a person who is aiding “schism” and couldn’t anyone who believes something the Church rejects be considered an “apostate” if they share that belief? This seems pretty broad…which leads to the second and more important question:

2.) When something is said to lead to excommunication at a council or in an official decree or canon law, how is anyone supposed to know if the excommunication is automatic or not? It rarely says in the decree from what I can tell? For instance, at the Council of Trent, those who deny the Real Presence were anathematized…does this mean that anyone who rejects the Real Presence, even if they do it temporarily, is automatically excommunicated and must have a bishop or the like reinstate him or her?

For that matter,

1. Would a legislator who votes yes on a bill which legalizes or appropriates funds to abortion services be considered excommunicated?

I keep hearing conflicting opinions about that, and that’s the one that bothers me most. If somebody inserts even a tiny rider into an omnibus bill which expands the legal rights to abortions, wouldn’t that render the bill unsupportable to a devout Catholic legislator (who honestly is concerned about being excommunicated)?

 

[DavidFilmer]

My brother, Father Eric Filmer (an accredited CA apologist) has told me that he (and any priest of the Diocese of Savannah) is delegated by his Bishop to pronounce absolution (at his discretion) for any petinentient for any offense that is normally reserved to the local Ordinary (ie, Bishop).

It is my own inference (and not my brother’s) that this sort of delegation is customary.

 

[Rete]

I wonder if that is especially for bringing people back to the Church who have procured an abortion. It would seem counterproductive to me to require people involved with an abortion to go to the bishop for absolution. I don’t know much about what is involved with something like that, but I suspect it would be more effective to absolve the person at the parish level and then get them into a counseling program and support group of some kind. I think most of us would have little objection to donating additional funds to such programs. It might really only work in an archdiocese associated with a city, though.

When I think of something which warrants that kind of excommunication, I think more of something like outright apostasy or heresy, such as a willful desecration of the Eucharist or a bishop ordaining bishops outside of Papal authority.

 

[ConstantineTG]

1.) Apostasy and Schism are pretty broad categories. Any Catholic who attends an Evangelical church could be considered a person who is aiding “schism” and couldn’t anyone who believes something the Church rejects be considered an “apostate” if they share that belief? This seems pretty broad…which leads to the second and more important question:

Can individuals schism? Schism happens when two churches break off communion. But only bishops can do that.

Apostasy, I heard from a bishop, still needs to be proven in ecclesiastical court before automatic excommunication will apply. The court isn’t for the excommunication, it is to prove your apostasy.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Can someone explain how this works? In numerous councils and papal decrees, it is written that if a person disagrees with a particular teaching, “let him be an anathema.” From what I have been told in this past, this term (anathema) is analogous to “excommunication.” If this is true, then does the Catholic Church automatically excommunicate people who should be treated as “anathema” according to councils, cannon law, etc.? Doesn’t this means millions of Catholics are essentially right now excommunicated and don’t even know it?

Thanks as always.

Justin

Also, how can one tell if an excommunication is automatic or must be pronounced by a bishop or another authority?

Anathema and excommunication are two different things. One who is excommunicated is just barred from receiving Communion, and thus can still attend Liturgy or be a a functioning member of the Church in other ways. One who is anathematized is “thrown out”, so to speak. Another way to look at what an anathema is, that someone is relegated to the authority of Satan, basically any grace and privilege that the Church can place upon the person is withdrawn. People who are anathematized normally has a tougher time to get back into the Church, if they get back in at all.

In the Byzantine Rite of Ordination for the Episcopate (both Catholic and Orthodox), the newly ordained bishop would still anathematize Arius. Also there is a Rite of Anathema during the Sunday of Orthodoxy (First Sunday of Lent celebrating the various triumphs of Orthodoxy over the heretics) where the heretics of old are anathematized by the bishop. I’ve heard some more contemporary heretics are anathematized by some as well.

 

[browebmaster]

You may find an explanation on what anathema is and is not here: jimmyakin.com/2011/06/are-you-anathema-how-about-your-protestant-friend.html.

There are certain conditions where a person does not incur the penalty of excommunication though he may have committed a violation, you can find them here: vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4W.HTM.

If a person does a violation whose penalty is a latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication and is not subject to conditions which prevent him from incurring the penalty then said person is excommunicated even without the formal declaration of a bishop. For example, if one obstinately holds that Jesus Christ is not divine (a heresy) then from the very moment that he begins to obstinately remain in heresy, he has incurred excommunication.

 

[pocohombre]

Excommunication latae sententiae is often referred to as “automatic excommunication”. This is reserved for certain events which would put the individual in particularly grave sin, and the excommunication is applied as a temporary penalty to encourage the person to make reparations with the Church.

It does not need to be pronounced by a bishop, but only a bishop (or a priest whose bishop delegates this authority to him) can lift it. A bishop, however, may clarify that the excommunication latae sententiae already took place, and inform the person who was excommunicated that they may not take the Sacraments, and encourage reparation.

Some examples of events which would result in excommunication latae sententiae:

• Apostasy
• Schism
• Desecration of the Blessed Sacrament
• Physical violence against the Pope
• When a priest uses the Sacrament of Reconciliation to solicit sexual practices
• Illicit ordination of a bishop
• When a priest violates the Seal of the Confessional
• When someone receives an abortion
• When someone assists any of these actions.

As you can see, they’re all very serious offenses, and the purpose of latae sententiae is to make these situations clearly abhorred, instead of needing to call someone in and question them in an ecclesiastical court (which is how regular excommunication comes about).

Then why do I not hear of Catholic legislators/governors who support abortion being excommunicated,even having good standing?

 

[L_Marshall]

Then why do I not hear of Catholic legislators/governors who support abortion being excommunicated,even having good standing?

Firstly, it is important to review that excommunication latae sententiae indicates that the excommunication has already occurred. Because of this, it is not necessary for a bishop to issue a formal decree of excommunication.

Secondly, I will not comment on any interpretation of “assisting” any action which would incur excommunication latae sententiae. I am not a canonist, or any sort of expert in canon law.

Thirdly, I think it is important to recognize that many bishops have issued statements saying pro-abortion politicians “are in a state of grave sins and should not receive Holy Communion.” Unfortunately, this has not been publicized well because the media is never interested when the Church is doing something right. I would advise you look at the number of times Raymond Cardinal Burke has stated that pro-abortion politicians are in a state of grave sin.

 

[rucrocl]

trang*phim sex vip hay

phim sex 3gp

 

[jinc1019]

A lot of Catholics are poorly catechized or behave as if Catholic teaching is a buffet, so it’s hard to say which ones are truly ignorant and which are just defiant.

Here are 2 pertinent paragraphs from canon law.

Can. 1364 An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.“Latae sententiae” literally means “automatic.” An apostate, heretic, or schismatic is automatically excommunicated from the Church without the need for some formal declaration. So what is an apostate, heretic, or schismatic?*Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith. Apostasy is the total repudiation of the christian faith. Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
*Such an excommunication is “automatic” in the same sense committing a sin is automatic. No one has to formally affirm that someone sinned. But anyway, yes, there are probably a lot of people who have excommunicated themselves. Without getting into the names of individuals, many culprits may be those involved in formal dissent Catholic groups who are aware of Catholic teaching yet defy.

First of all, thank you very much for this explanation as I think it clears things up very well using an official Catholic source.

Second, just to be clear, can “latae sententiae” excommunications end (or in other words, can a person come back to the Church) without a bishop or similar authority formally admitting them back? I believe I read somewhere that attaining penance was enough, but I am still not sure based on what I have read. Does it change based on the reason for excommunication?

 

[jinc1019]

My brother, Father Eric Filmer (an accredited CA apologist) has told me that he (and any priest of the Diocese of Savannah) is delegated by his Bishop to pronounce absolution (at his discretion) for any petinentient for any offense that is normally reserved to the local Ordinary (ie, Bishop).

It is my own inference (and not my brother’s) that this sort of delegation is customary.

Does this include brining a person back into the Church after an excommunication?

 

[jinc1019]

Anathema and excommunication are two different things. One who is excommunicated is just barred from receiving Communion, and thus can still attend Liturgy or be a a functioning member of the Church in other ways. One who is anathematized is “thrown out”, so to speak. Another way to look at what an anathema is, that someone is relegated to the authority of Satan, basically any grace and privilege that the Church can place upon the person is withdrawn. People who are anathematized normally has a tougher time to get back into the Church, if they get back in at all.

In the Byzantine Rite of Ordination for the Episcopate (both Catholic and Orthodox), the newly ordained bishop would still anathematize Arius. Also there is a Rite of Anathema during the Sunday of Orthodoxy (First Sunday of Lent celebrating the various triumphs of Orthodoxy over the heretics) where the heretics of old are anathematized by the bishop. I’ve heard some more contemporary heretics are anathematized by some as well.

Hi Constantine,

Two things:

1. I apologize about my examples of “schism” and “apostasy,” I didn’t know what the official definitions of those terms were according to canon law until it was posted after I asked that question. But my larger question (and concern) was answered when it was stated that even consistent doubt or rejection of Catholic teachings leads to an automatic excommunication so long as ignorance (or another similar excuse) does not apply.
2. I don’t think you are right about anathema and excommunication (at least in the Catholic Church). According to the Catholic Encyclopedia I read, the term “anathema” mean exactly the same thing NOW as excommunication…there is no difference. However, this I think was different in the not-so-distant past and I am not sure how it works in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

 

[jinc1019]

You may find an explanation on what anathema is and is not here: jimmyakin.com/2011/06/are-you-anathema-how-about-your-protestant-friend.html.

There are certain conditions where a person does not incur the penalty of excommunication though he may have committed a violation, you can find them here: vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4W.HTM.

If a person does a violation whose penalty is a latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication and is not subject to conditions which prevent him from incurring the penalty then said person is excommunicated even without the formal declaration of a bishop. For example, if one obstinately holds that Jesus Christ is not divine (a heresy) then from the very moment that he begins to obstinately remain in heresy, he has incurred excommunication.

Unfortunately,
These sources really don’t clear anything up (at least for me) because they still don’t explain when a person IS actually automatically excommunicated; it merely talks about when a person isn’t. It’s still very valuable information though so thank you for that!

 

[ConstantineTG]

Hi Constantine,

Two things:

1. I apologize about my examples of “schism” and “apostasy,” I didn’t know what the official definitions of those terms were according to canon law until it was posted after I asked that question. But my larger question (and concern) was answered when it was stated that even consistent doubt or rejection of Catholic teachings leads to an automatic excommunication so long as ignorance (or another similar excuse) does not apply.

I think those are two good examples. My past UGCC bishop told me in a casual conversation that even though the excommunication for apostasy is automatic, one still has to be proven by ecclesiastical court to be an apostate before that will apply. So it is not as automatic as we thought it would be. I just thought I’d share that piece of information to everyone that came from a Catholic bishop. Also, we weren’t talking about me converting to Orthodoxy at that time so I wasn’t the subject of the apostasy discussion

1. I don’t think you are right about anathema and excommunication (at least in the Catholic Church). According to the Catholic Encyclopedia I read, the term “anathema” mean exactly the same thing NOW as excommunication…there is no difference. However, this I think was different in the not-so-distant past and I am not sure how it works in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Today it is made to be the same thing, but that is not what the Fathers of the Church has in mind. When they anathematized, it means something more serious than excommunication. I don’t know why the RCC did change it’s meaning, because it is something very, very serious.

 

[jinc1019]

I think those are two good examples. My past UGCC bishop told me in a casual conversation that even though the excommunication for apostasy is automatic, one still has to be proven by ecclesiastical court to be an apostate before that will apply. So it is not as automatic as we thought it would be. I just thought I’d share that piece of information to everyone that came from a Catholic bishop. Also, we weren’t talking about me converting to Orthodoxy at that time so I wasn’t the subject of the apostasy discussion

Today it is made to be the same thing, but that is not what the Fathers of the Church has in mind. When they anathematized, it means something more serious than excommunication. I don’t know why the RCC did change it’s meaning, because it is something very, very serious.

Thanks for clearing this up!

 

[MarcoPolo]

First of all, thank you very much for this explanation as I think it clears things up very well using an official Catholic source.

Second, just to be clear, can “latae sententiae” excommunications end (or in other words, can a person come back to the Church) without a bishop or similar authority formally admitting them back? I believe I read somewhere that attaining penance was enough, but I am still not sure based on what I have read. Does it change based on the reason for excommunication?

I believe confession would reconcile most all such sins. Abortion is a little more serious, as explained here at EWTN. I am not sure if there are other sins in a similar category.