Heresy and Excommunication ipso facto

[ethelzguy]

---

Yes murder is self-explanatory – the act of murder makes a person a murderer—whether the murderer is brought to justice and convicted —or not. Even if the murderer is not convicted because of some deficiency in the prosecution — the person is still a murderer.

Correct, but the murderer can not be punished for said murder without a conviction and sentencing by the authorities.

I will be watching and waiting for the laity who feels they can legitimately declare someone a heretic and excommunicated… make it stick and enforce it.

 

[maurin]

Correct, but the murderer can not be punished for said murder without a conviction and sentencing by the authorities.

I will be watching and waiting for the laity who feels they can legitimately declare someone a heretic and excommunicated… make it stick and enforce it.

ethelzguy,

excuse me, but I’m not quite sure that I’ve been understanding your logic in your posts above.

if I misunderstand you, please correct me.

It seems to me that you are saying that a murderer, or a heretic, is only a murderer, or a heretic, only when the legitimate authority declares one a murderer, or a heretic.

Does that mean that if I am alone in my room, all the windows and curtains are closed, the lights are off, it is pitch black in my room, noone can see me, and I “abuse” myself-- does that mean that I am not guilty of the sin of Onan precisely because noone has seen me or brought me to justice?

 

[SFD]

So, you assert that you are both qualified and authorized to declare someone to be in heresy and thus excommunicated.

That being said, just how do you (as laity) propose to enforce said excommunication(s)?



Good Luck

We don’t need to enforce anything. A heretic is self-judged as indicated in the CE excerpt I’ve quoted here several times now (and you’ve ignored several times now).

Excommunication
Latæ and Ferendæ Sententiæ

Excommunication, especially a jure, is either latæ or ferendæ sententiæ. The first is incurred as soon as the offence is committed and by reason of the offence itself (eo ipso) without intervention of any ecclesiastical judge; it is recognized in the terms used by the legislator, for instance: “the culprit will be excommunicated at once, by the fact itself [statim, ipso facto]”.

The second is indeed foreseen by the law as a penalty, but is inflicted on the culprit only by a judicial sentence; in other words, the delinquent is rather threatened than visited with the penalty, and incurs it only when the judge has summoned him before his tribunal, declared him guilty, and punished him according to the terms of the law. It is recognized when the law contains these or similar words: “under pain of excommunication”; “the culprit will be excommunicated”.

A heretic is ipso facto excommunicated. That means excommunication is, “incurred as soon as the offence is committed and by reason of the offence itself (eo ipso) without intervention of any ecclesiastical judge”.

No ecclesiastical judge is required because the culprit is self-judged by commission of the crime. Heresy is a sin and is a crime when it becomes manifest.

SFD

Another source that says the same thing as the CE:
De Romano Pontifice:

…those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms.

 

[Pam_Folbrecht]

I will be watching and waiting for the laity who feels they can legitimately declare someone a heretic and excommunicated… make it stick and enforce it.

Who said anything about a lay person trying to “enforce” an excommunication? Only clergy can do that.

That doesn’t mean, however, that lay people cannot do something about someone preaching heresy in their midst:

(1) We can pray for the person.

(2) We can reason w/ the person and try to get him/her to change his/her ways.

(3) We can warn others by informing them of the heresy in question.

(4) If the “heretic” is a priest, we can write our bishop/archbishop to express our concerns. If the person is a bishop, we can write the Vatican. It might not result in any change, but at least we have tried to do some good.

We most certainly do share some responsibility, and we are not powerless.

 

[pnewton]

I have no idea what any of this has to do with traditional catholicism, but the point is still worth remembering. We can still separate oneself from the grace of good through obstinance and pride. When we elevate our own opinion to such a level above our Church, and in our pride value our own opinion as greater than that of the Church, we can endanger our soul. No, we may not know who these ipso facto heretics are, but in the final judgement, they will still have to answer for their pride.

 

[SFD]

I have no idea what any of this has to do with traditional catholicism, but the point is still worth remembering.

What point?

pnewton:

We can still separate oneself from the grace of good through obstinance and pride.

We are not speaking of separation from grace…but separation from the body of the Church.
Pope Pius XII:

For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own natureto sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.

pnewton:

When we elevate our own opinion to such a level above our Church, and in our pride value our own opinion as greater than that of the Church, we can endanger our soul.

Yes. Let’s stick to the Church’s teaching on heresy.

pnewton:

No, we may not know who these ipso facto heretics are

Heretics are excommunicated ipso facto. They are outside the Church because they are heretics. We can know who they are with moral certainty…this becomes absolute certainty when the Church judges them by name. Either way, they are simply not Catholics and should be avoided. It is also clear that they can have no jurisdiction in the Church because they are not members.

but in the final judgement, they will still have to answer for their pride.

As we all will answer. I’ll stick to the dogmas, doctrines, and infallibly safe opinions taught by Holy Mother Church.

SFD

 

[pnewton]

Heretics are excommunicated ipso facto. They are outside the Church because they are heretics. We can know who they are with moral certainty…this becomes absolute certainty when the Church judges them by name. Either way, they are simply not Catholics and should be avoided. It is also clear that they can have no jurisdiction in the Church because they are not members.

I see a conflict here. On one hand we can not know until the Church issues a judgement. Yet, you say “it is clear that they can have no jurisdiction.” We must be careful not to judge as only God can judge when we are only individuals with no authority in the Church. If we do, we become an authority to ourselves, usurping that of the Church. If carried too far, we usurp that authority of judgement reserved to God alone.

On the topic of conflicts, I also see a discrepany between applying an excommunication that happens “all at once” to an offnse which does not happen all at once. The very nature of heresy makes it something other than a single event.

 

[SFD]

I see a conflict here. On one hand we can not know until the Church issues a judgement. Yet, you say “it is clear that they can have no jurisdiction.” We must be careful not to judge as only God can judge when we are only individuals with no authority in the Church. If we do, we become an authority to ourselves, usurping that of the Church. If carried too far, we usurp that authority of judgement reserved to God alone.

On the topic of conflicts, I also see a discrepany between applying an excommunication that happens “all at once” to an offnse which does not happen all at once. The very nature of heresy makes it something other than a single event.

I said we can be morally certain. Do you not understand that?

“a baptised person who, while continuing to call himself a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts a truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.” - Canon 1325

St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: “a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas”. "The right Christian faith consists in giving one’s voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are, therefore, two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jews; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ’s doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics.

SFD

 

[thistle]

Not quite. If a Catholic publicly declares that there isn’t anything wrong or immoral with having an abortion, then you would know they are a heretic.
However, if a Catholic publicly declares that they don’t think that abortion should be criminalized, then they are dissenting from Church teaching, but they are not committing heresy.

This is what my comment means and I would venture to say what most people mean by “pro-choice”.

 

[tdgesq]

Can. 1323 No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept:
. . .
2° was, without fault, ignorant of violating the law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance;

Can. 1324 §1 The perpretrator of a violation is not exempted from penalty, but the penalty prescribed in the law or precept must be diminished, or a penance substituted in its place, if the offence was committed by:
. . .
9° one who through no personal fault was unaware that a penalty was attached to the law or precept;
. . .
§2 A judge can do the same if there is any other circumstance present which would reduce the gravity of the offence.

§3 In the circumstances mentioned in §1, the offender is not bound by a latae sententiae penalty.

intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P4U.HTM

Can. 1401 The Church has its own and exclusive right to judge:

1° cases which refer to matters which are spiritual or linked with the spiritual;

2° the violation of ecclesiastical laws and whatever contains an element of sin, to determine guilt and impose ecclesiastical penalties.

intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P57.HTM

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:

• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
• of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279
• of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.280

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a8.htm

 

[SFD]

Can. 1323 No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept:
. . .
2° was, without fault, ignorant of violating the law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance;

Can. 1324 §1 The perpretrator of a violation is not exempted from penalty, but the penalty prescribed in the law or precept must be diminished, or a penance substituted in its place, if the offence was committed by:
. . .
9° one who through no personal fault was unaware that a penalty was attached to the law or precept;
. . .
§2 A judge can do the same if there is any other circumstance present which would reduce the gravity of the offence.

§3 In the circumstances mentioned in §1, the offender is not bound by a latae sententiae penalty.

Because the culprit was not pertinacious.

intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P4U.HTM

Can. 1401 The Church has its own and exclusive right to judge:

1° cases which refer to matters which are spiritual or linked with the spiritual;

2° the violation of ecclesiastical laws and whatever contains an element of sin, to determine guilt and impose ecclesiastical penalties.

Reread the definition of latae sententiae penalties. This refers to Ferendæ Sententiæ excommunication.

The second is indeed foreseen by the law as a penalty, but is inflicted on the culprit only by a judicial sentence; in other words, the delinquent is rather threatened than visited with the penalty, and incurs it only when the judge has summoned him before his tribunal, declared him guilty, and punished him according to the terms of the law. It is recognized when the law contains these or similar words: “under pain of excommunication”; “the culprit will be excommunicated”.

ipso facto

imposed if the culprit is pertinacious. The penalty is part of the law…it is imposed when the law is broken.

intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P57.HTM

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:

• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

• of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279

• of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.280

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a8.htm

Agreed.

SFD

 

[ethelzguy]

ethelzguy,

excuse me, but I’m not quite sure that I’ve been understanding your logic in your posts above.

if I misunderstand you, please correct me.

It seems to me that you are saying that a murderer, or a heretic, is only a murderer, or a heretic, only when the legitimate authority declares one a murderer, or a heretic.

Does that mean that if I am alone in my room, all the windows and curtains are closed, the lights are off, it is pitch black in my room, noone can see me, and I “abuse” myself-- does that mean that I am not guilty of the sin of Onan precisely because noone has seen me or brought me to justice?

We are all guilty of our sins before God.

I can walk around all day saying “Jim is a thief”, because I saw him take something. But until my assertion is ratified by a conviction, my assertion may well get me accused of slander.

You (and others) can walk around all day, claiming that a certain bishop or priest is a heretic, and thus excommunicated. So what?

The penalty for heresy is excommunication. What is excommunication? Denial of sacrements for the most part.

So, until you are successful at getting someone you deem a heretic denied the Sacrements, all of this is pretty much TV raster.

I can only hope to be so holy in God’s eyes someday, that I would be justified in judging others in such a manner. On the other hand, if I WERE that holy and justified, I probably wouldn’t be expending my holiness passing heresy judgements on others.

 

[ethelzguy]

(3) We can warn others by informing them of the heresy in question.

So, now we get to the heart of the matter…

 

[maurin]

We are all guilty of our sins before God.

I can walk around all day saying “Jim is a thief”, because I saw him take something. But until my assertion is ratified by a conviction, my assertion may well get me accused of slander.

You (and others) can walk around all day, claiming that a certain bishop or priest is a heretic, and thus excommunicated. So what?

The penalty for heresy is excommunication. What is excommunication? Denial of sacrements for the most part.

So, until you are successful at getting someone you deem a heretic denied the Sacrements, all of this is pretty much TV raster.

I can only hope to be so holy in God’s eyes someday, that I would be justified in judging others in such a manner. On the other hand, if I WERE that holy and justified, I probably wouldn’t be expending my holiness passing heresy judgements on others.

First of all ethelzguy, thank you for answering my post. Secondly, you have addressed your response and all of your “for instances” using the pronoun ‘you.’ I would like to make it clear that I have not done any of those things which you are saying above: I have not accused anyone of heresy.

Slander is slander only if someone is unable to back up their claims without any specific proofs, is that correct? So if one has a videotape of Jim performing thievery and he accuses this one of slander, one can back up his claims with proof, correct?

And even if the police or the district attorney’s office decline to press charges, does that make Jim any less of a thief?

One of the things that has been neglected to be brought up again in the conversation from the viewpoint which I do not share is if several Bishops have denied, let us say simply ‘this man’, permission to speak or teach or preach in their Dioceses because of the things he speaks out on, teaches and preaches, what does that say about ‘this man.’ If Bishops, as was reported in the ‘other thread’ deny him teaching responsibilit/priveleges in their Dioceses what are the Bishops saying about ‘this man?’

For those who lead others astray from the Faith, did Jesus not say that it is better for a mill stone to be tied around his neck and cast into the sea?

I certainly would not publicly accuse anyone of heresy. I might list the things they have said that I heard first hand. I might write my Pastor first, and if the Pastor doesn’t act, the Bishop. And if the Bishop doesn’t act, well another authority. And if the person/s who are causing me to doubt the Faith continue to do so, and none of the proper authorities act? What am I to do? Risk losing my Faith?

Because similar things are preached in the Parishes in my Diocese as are preached by ‘this man’ about whom we are carefully not discussing from the other thread: Homosexuality and ‘marriage’ as proper, abortion in certain cases is not evil, and birth control is a choice between you and God: ‘follow your conscience’ could be considered a mantra among many of the priests in my area.

 

[cam100]

Originally Posted by cam100
How does an observer KNOW that this condition exists? In others words, how would the observer KNOW that that person in question KNOWS that he/she is holding onto an idea that is contrary to Church teaching? That could be quite difficult to establish.

Unless the person admits that they understand the Church’s teaching and the authority behind it and still refuses to believe the teaching, you going to have a hard time knowing if the person is a heretic.

 

[CradleCath]

We are all guilty of our sins before God.

I can walk around all day saying “Jim is a thief”, because I saw him take something. But until my assertion is ratified by a conviction, my assertion may well get me accused of slander.

 

[cam100]

Originally Posted by ethelzguy

SFD – your quote from Catholic Encyclopedia doesn’t address an outsider’s position with regard to an excommunicated person. It says nothing about what type of judgment we should make or what our relationship with this person should be. The fact that a person is excommunicated latæ sententiæ does not, in itself, require any action or judgment on the part of an outsider. This can be modified based on certain circumstances, but the mere fact that latæ sententiæ excommunication has taken place concerns only the sinner, his or her confessor, and God.

 

[Pam_Folbrecht]

**Pam Folbrecht **said:

#3) We can warn others by informing them of the heresy in question.

So, now we get to the heart of the matter…

For whom? For me, this thread is more comprehensive than that one point, and I intend to follow up (to the best of my ability) by doing all of the things I listed whenever it seems necessary. The information regarding our rights and responsibilities as Catholics has been made clear, and now we need to decide what we’ll do with it.

FWIW, whether CAF allows #3 or not is of little concern to me. I will follow the rules whatever they are.

 

[pnewton]

So, now we get to the heart of the matter…

I think you may be right. I tried to take the matter at face value and assume the best, at least initially. Now it seems the idea of ipso facto excommunication is being used as an occasion of witch hunts and slander, instead of recognition of the seriousness of heresy. Rightly did Christ warn against judging of others. It seems such a part of our DNA that there are those that want to openly judge and proclaim people outside of the Catholic Church without one ounce of authority.

 

[Pam_Folbrecht]

I think you may be right. I tried to take the matter at face value and assume the best, at least initially. Now it seems the idea of ipso facto excommunication is being used as an occasion of witch hunts and slander, instead of recognition of the seriousness of heresy. Rightly did Christ warn against judging of others. It seems such a part of our DNA that there are those that want to openly judge and proclaim people outside of the Catholic Church without one ounce of authority.

No one has proposed doing anything that would involve slander or a “witch hunt.” If I’ve missed something, please show me the quote.