Shunning, has it ever been a practice?

[littlechicken]

Has it ever been used formally in the Catholic Church?
I know there were times when a sinner had to go through a public display of penance, which I am sure was quite humiliating, and I know of at least one woman who became a Saint after she suffered “shame” and humiliation from the Church after her conversion and repentance.
Can’t seem to find info on her. Apparently she had been in an adulterous relationship with a man, and when he died suddenly and tragically, she began to question her own morals.

So, though it perhaps wasn’t formal, she was shamed and shunned by rumors and gossip about her past. Is this an acceptable practice?

Just wondering.
If anyone knows the name of the Saint so I may look her up, that would be helpful as well.
Thanks anyone and everyone who can help with this matter.

Peace be with you all on this New Year’s Eve, and in the coming New Year.

 

[littlechicken]

LOL, the irony.

 

[Holly3278]

As far as I am aware it has never been used in the Catholic Church. However, the Catholic Church does practice excommunication.

 

[littlechicken]

As far as I am aware it has never been used in the Catholic Church. However, the Catholic Church does practice excommunication.

Thank you Holly, I found it amusing that my question, being one about shunning, had no answers for quite some time.
I know that in modern times, shunning is not practiced formally, and thus wondered if it was ever practiced in a formal manner before, especially since so many Saints seems to have had experienced it in some way or another. While St. Joan of Arch was not shunned in the official sense of the word, I am pretty sure that everyone turned their back on her during her final days.
Also, there is that Saint I mentioned above. She was scorned and ridiculed all of her life, even to her death, which is partly why she became a Saint, she dealt with it all with love and humility.
So that would lead me to another question, I wonder if those who did scorn her were held accountable for their actions?

I appreciate your answer. I know there are causes for excommunication, but shunning seems to have been applied sometimes even when a person is in Communion with the Church.

Peace be with you.

 

[Holly3278]

Thank you Holly, I found it amusing that my question, being one about shunning, had no answers for quite some time.
I know that in modern times, shunning is not practiced formally, and thus wondered if it was ever practiced in a formal manner before, especially since so many Saints seems to have had experienced it in some way or another. While St. Joan of Arch was not shunned in the official sense of the word, I am pretty sure that everyone turned their back on her during her final days.
Also, there is that Saint I mentioned above. She was scorned and ridiculed all of her life, even to her death, which is partly why she became a Saint, she dealt with it all with love and humility.
So that would lead me to another question, I wonder if those who did scorn her were held accountable for their actions?

I appreciate your answer. I know there are causes for excommunication, but shunning seems to have been applied sometimes even when a person is in Communion with the Church.

Peace be with you.

If a saint was scorned and rejected while on earth then perhaps the people who did the scorning and the rejecting would be held accountable to God during the particular judgment or the final judgment but I really don’t know for sure.

 

[Glacies]

Has it ever been used formally in the Catholic Church?
I know there were times when a sinner had to go through a public display of penance, which I am sure was quite humiliating, and I know of at least one woman who became a Saint after she suffered “shame” and humiliation from the Church after her conversion and repentance.
Can’t seem to find info on her. Apparently she had been in an adulterous relationship with a man, and when he died suddenly and tragically, she began to question her own morals.

So, though it perhaps wasn’t formal, she was shamed and shunned by rumors and gossip about her past. Is this an acceptable practice?

Just wondering.
If anyone knows the name of the Saint so I may look her up, that would be helpful as well.
Thanks anyone and everyone who can help with this matter.

Peace be with you all on this New Year’s Eve, and in the coming New Year.

Happy New Year and God Bless!

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia Pope Martin V introduced in 1418 the distinction of an excommunicated person to a toleratus or a vitandus (Latin: tolerated or avoided) where intercourse with a vitandus was restricted. [1] This distinction is found in the 1917 Code of Canon Law while in the revised 1983 Code of Canon Law it is not. [2] Persons without reasonable cause were excluded from secular intercourse with a vitandus and he could not assist at Mass. Holy Masses could be applied to a vitandus only privately for his conversion and without scandal. Here are some passages about the old Code:

*The excommunicated persons may be either excommunicati vitandi, or tolerati. No one is considered a vitandus unless he has been excommunicated by name by the Holy See, has been publicly denounced as such, and explicitly declared a vitandus in the degree or canonical sentence. He who lays violent hands on the Roman Pontiff becomes by this very deed an excommunicatus vitandus, according to Canon 2343, § 1, n. 1. (Canon 2258.)

Every excommunicated person is deprived of the right to assist at Divine offices, but he may be present at sermons. If an excommunicatus toleratus passively assists at Divine services, he need not be expelled, but a vitandus must be removed if this cannot be done the Divine services must be stopped if it can be done without great inconvenience. From active participation in divine services must even be excluded the excommunicatus toleratus whose excommunication is publicly known or who has been excommunicated in an ecclesiastical court by a declaratory or condemnatory sentence. (Canon 2259.)

An excommunicated person is deprived of the indulgences, suffrages and public prayers of the Church. But it is not forbidden (1) that the faithful pray for him privately; (2) that the priests privately apply Holy Mass for him, provided scandal is avoided; for an excommunicatus vitandus Holy Mass is applied for his conversion only. (Canon 2262.)

The faithful are obliged to avoid intercource in secular affairs with an excommunicatus vitandus, except husband or wife, parents, childredn, servants, subjects, and in general all who have a reasonable cause for dealing with such excommunicated persons. (Canon 2267.)*

 

[IrishRush]

I can’t speak to the question of whether or not the Catholic Church practices shunning but I can tell you some of my sisters do…
Happy new year all!

 

[littlechicken]

Happy New Year and God Bless!

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia Pope Martin V introduced in 1418 the distinction of an excommunicated person to a toleratus or a vitandus (Latin: tolerated or avoided) where intercourse with a vitandus was restricted. [1] This distinction is found in the 1917 Code of Canon Law while in the revised 1983 Code of Canon Law it is not. [2] Persons without reasonable cause were excluded from secular intercourse with a vitandus and he could not assist at Mass. Holy Masses could be applied to a vitandus only privately for his conversion and without scandal. Here are some passages about the old Code:

*The excommunicated persons may be either excommunicati vitandi, or tolerati. No one is considered a vitandus unless he has been excommunicated by name by the Holy See, has been publicly denounced as such, and explicitly declared a vitandus in the degree or canonical sentence. He who lays violent hands on the Roman Pontiff becomes by this very deed an excommunicatus vitandus, according to Canon 2343, § 1, n. 1. (Canon 2258.)

Every excommunicated person is deprived of the right to assist at Divine offices, but he may be present at sermons. If an excommunicatus toleratus passively assists at Divine services, he need not be expelled, but a vitandus must be removed if this cannot be done the Divine services must be stopped if it can be done without great inconvenience. From active participation in divine services must even be excluded the excommunicatus toleratus whose excommunication is publicly known or who has been excommunicated in an ecclesiastical court by a declaratory or condemnatory sentence. (Canon 2259.)

An excommunicated person is deprived of the indulgences, suffrages and public prayers of the Church. But it is not forbidden (1) that the faithful pray for him privately; (2) that the priests privately apply Holy Mass for him, provided scandal is avoided; for an excommunicatus vitandus Holy Mass is applied for his conversion only. (Canon 2262.)

The faithful are obliged to avoid intercource in secular affairs with an excommunicatus vitandus, except husband or wife, parents, childredn, servants, subjects, and in general all who have a reasonable cause for dealing with such excommunicated persons. (Canon 2267.)*

That is very helpful information…I do believe I am going to have to look up a few of those Latin sounding words though.

Thank you,
Peace be with you.

 

[littlechicken]

I can’t speak to the question of whether or not the Catholic Church practices shunning but I can tell you some of my sisters do…
Happy new year all!

What purpose does it serve? I can understand in cases where a person is obstinate in sin, I can understand when a person is maybe something like a pedophile, as I would find it difficult to warmly welcome such a person, but in instance where a person lead a sinful life before their conversion, and that is constantly used to scorn and shame them, not by society in general, but by members of their own parish community, I do not understand.
Seems to me, instead of beating someone up, and possibly driving them away from the Church, that people would be more welcoming, because in the very least, if they are welcomed, they are not going back out there and doing the same thing they’ve always done. Which is what the Church community at large is aiming for, that the sinner stop sinning.
Of course, if the person reacts in such a way to the shunning, then they are personally accountable. So too it would seem are the people doing the shunning. Not for the reaction of the shunned individual, but for their own actions.
Didn’t Jesus say by every word and action we would be judged? That to me says that a person does have influence over anothers actions, at least to some degree.
Also, it amazes me, that person’s who’ve had abortions, are much more welcomed than those who’ve not. (people who’ve had children out of wedlock seem much more ostracized than those who’ve had abortions)
I know of one family, the mom and dad lived liberal lives before their conversion, and they are practically shunned by the entire community, thankfully though, their child is treated with some modicum of decency. Yet, the child consistently witnesses the treatment of their parent, and in turn finds it difficult to want to be a part of the faith community. (I don’t know all of the details, as I can’t observe much, but do know the parents aren’t murderers )
So what purpose can it possibly serve other than the ‘shunners’ getting a holier-than-thou rush out of their shunning excercises?

Thanks,
Peace be with you.

 

[littlechicken]

Hehe, if you’re able to make head or tails out of my above rant Irish, I commend you. :bowdown2:
It’s now 2013 for me, and I am really tired, so, like I do often when I am tired, I rambled on…:bounce:

I hope your 2013 is wonderful, beautiful, and blessed with Peace for you and your loved ones.:harp::bible1:

 

[IrishRush]

Thanks littlechicken - I hope your new year is blessed, happy and healthy.
But I think you misunderstood what I was trying to imply with my post. My sisters will “shun” some of us if we do something that upsets them or that they disagree with. It has no religious significance at all. In fact, I am currently being “shunned” by one of them now and have come to realize that I have much more peace in my life since I no longer have to walk on eggshells around anyone.

 

[Boy_Wonder]

To my knowledge shunning has never been an official practice. Shunning others for their actual or perceived wrongs is fundamentally unchristian and should be avoided at all costs.

Would Our Lord do this? I doubt it. Why should we act like self-righteous pharisees? What good does that do us, our souls, the community, or the person who’s being shunned? None. It’s merely an exercise of pride and self-will. Hardly the twin guideposts we as followers of Christ should be using.

Sin is wrong, but arrogating the right of judgment and punishment to ourselves is equally wrong or worse.

 

[littlechicken]

Thanks littlechicken - I hope your new year is blessed, happy and healthy.
But I think you misunderstood what I was trying to imply with my post. My sisters will “shun” some of us if we do something that upsets them or that they disagree with. It has no religious significance at all. In fact, I am currently being “shunned” by one of them now and have come to realize that I have much more peace in my life since I no longer have to walk on eggshells around anyone.

Nah, I kind of presumed you have suffered such, or knew someone who has. The problem with the internet is we can’t detect the inflections of speech that denotes our meaning. My rant was one of anguish, one of wondering why people would do such. Sorry it came across the way it did.
I did also kind of presume that you were (with the little emoti faces) saying “so what if they do?”
I must admit, if I found one of my loved ones being treated harshly, then if the person who’d done the harm came into the fold, it would be difficult for me to be warm to the person. Yet I would not expect everyone to take that stance, then if everyone did, knowing me, I would probably end up feeling sorry for the person.
I have had difficulties in this area, many, and I feel that I rightfully deserve it per my life before my conversion, and the falls since. It is so difficult though, to watch another person go through it.
I hope you have a great 2013. With less shunning, and even more peace.

Oh, and the walking on eggshells analogy is great, it really does feel like that at times…
Peace be with you.

 

[littlechicken]

To my knowledge shunning has never been an official practice. Shunning others for their actual or perceived wrongs is fundamentally unchristian and should be avoided at all costs.

Would Our Lord do this? I doubt it. Why should we act like self-righteous pharisees? What good does that do us, our souls, the community, or the person who’s being shunned? None. It’s merely an exercise of pride and self-will. Hardly the twin guideposts we as followers of Christ should be using.

Sin is wrong, but arrogating the right of judgment and punishment to ourselves is equally wrong or worse.

I wonder why it happens so much anymore? I am glad now, that such has happened to me, otherwise I would perhaps not notice it happening to others. We are all human, even those who shun, but I really get the impression that many only do it because they do not want to offend the “pillars” of the community.

Peace be with you, and thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Boy_Wonder]

I wonder why it happens so much anymore? I am glad now, that such has happened to me, otherwise I would perhaps not notice it happening to others. We are all human, even those who shun, but I really get the impression that many only do it because they do not want to offend the “pillars” of the community.

Peace be with you, and thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

It’s human nature. When my wife left me 12 years ago, I was shunned at my parish. All of our friends were now her friends and refused to speak with me. There was no scandal that led to the separation, no affair or abuse. I eventually left town. It was a terrible experience, one that kept me away from any church for 4 or 5 months.

 

[jenwha]

Not today but it was about 1500 years ago.

The powers that be decided since there was one baptism, there should only be one confession per lifetime, and the penances were extremely more severe than today…years of a diet of bread and water.

Depending on how bad the sin was the penitent was clothed literally in sackcloth and ashes, and had to stand outside the church for a number of years while Mass was conducted, over time, he was able to get closer. Then came a period of time where he could attend the Mass but not receive communion.

Pretty major shunning in terms of penance anyway.