Some Questions on Excommunication

[MysticMissMisty]

I’m not certain you are. You cited an article in the (old) Catholic Encyclopedia. Are you sure you read it correctly? There, they mentioned that even in 1914, exclusion from interaction was no longer a part of excommunication. They note that it was part of medieval practice – but that even in those days, there were exceptions to the rule.

So, then, in the Middle Ages, even individuals acting solely on their own were prohibited from interacting with certain excommunicated persons (vitandi)? Even if they were not officially acting in the name of the Church, they were still prohibited from any interaction with the exceptions you mentioned? When this practice was in force, would I have not, say, been permitted to associate at all with a friend or peer who was an adulterer if he were a vitandus? I would not be permitted to show him any type of kindness, for instance, whether a “major” or “minor” (daily kind of) one? Would such a classification for such a person have even been a possibility?

I think you’re reading into it too much: ‘exclusion from any kind of social communion’ is not part of the canonical sanction of excommunication, although it was so under the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which was abrogated by the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Period.

Again, the question arises as to why these practices were done away with.

 

[e_c]

Again, the question arises as to why these practices were done away with.

The law - any human law - is supposed to be a pedagogue. Laws are there (or are supposed to be there) to help us become virtuous. As people and circumstances change, so too does the best way to teach them. Witness the treatment of the Mosaic laws by Christ and Paul.

Also, FWIW, “automatic” excommunications are very difficult to incur. I recently read something by Dr. Ed Peters (who has a book on excommunication you might be interested in) claiming that there has not been a single woman who was seeking an abortion since the 1983 code that has incurred that penalty.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

The law - any human law - is supposed to be a pedagogue. Laws are there (or are supposed to be there) to help us become virtuous. As people and circumstances change, so too does the best way to teach them. Witness the treatment of the Mosaic laws by Christ and Paul.

Also, FWIW, “automatic” excommunications are very difficult to incur. I recently read something by Dr. Ed Peters (who has a book on excommunication you might be interested in) claiming that there has not been a single woman who was seeking an abortion since the 1983 code that has incurred that penalty.

But, why? Again, what made earlier times so different from our own where, even on an individual, voluntary basis, individuals (not acting in the name of the Church) were prohibited utterly from having any social interaction with grave sinners? Would not having contact and a Christian brother or sister still showing love to one of these not actually possibly do more to bring them back to the fold? Just as the behavior of a believing wife was apparently seen to do even more than just her mere words of correction toward an unbelieving husband? The husband, seeing her virtuous behavior and her love for him daily was apparently seen to be enough possibly to bring him back to the fold.

You’ve got to make a good argument for shunning as a practice being of greater benefit than not shunning in earlier times. (and, again, I’m talking about on the individual level) You’ve also got to make a compelling argument that the discouragement of such a practice today has more benefit to the excommunicated person than shunning would today. Up to this point, I have seen no compelling argument presented on either front, at least specifically addressing the matter of individual communication vs. collective Church shunning. Love has always been love. Goodness to others has always been seen as love and appreciated and even had the power to deeply move in certain circumstances. Times change, human nature really doesn’t much. This is the greatest lesson I have take from studying history, and, in particular, ancient history. Human beings have always loved and laughed and cried and raged in pretty much the same way we still to today.

I’ve also got to be convinced that individuals associating in their own name with excommunicated sinners had any significantly negative effects on him or on the one associating with him or on the Church as a whole. I do not see any compelling argument for this, especially if the two people know each other and each knows that no harm, physical, spiritual or otherwise will come to himself by associating with the other. Also, why circumstances would have been different prior to relatively recent ages as compared to now. I mean, if it is now seen that no spiritual harm would come to an excommunicated person by a brother or sister associating with them, why would it have been seen to cause spiritual harm back then when shunning was in force?

 

[dans0622]

But, why? Again, what made earlier times so different from our own where, even on an individual, voluntary basis, individuals (not acting in the name of the Church) were prohibited utterly from having any social interaction with grave sinners? …

I think you are greatly overstating the scope of the meaning of “vitandus.” St. Thomas, for example, states:

… major excommunication … deprives a man of the sacraments of the Church and of the communion of the faithful. Wherefore it is not lawful to communicate with one who lies under such an excommunication. But, since the Church resorts to excommunication to repair and not to destroy, exception is made from this general law, in certain matters wherein communication is lawful, viz. in those which concern salvation, for one is allowed to speak of such matters with an excommunicated person; and one may even speak of other matters so as to put him at his ease and to make the words of salvation more acceptable. Moreover exception is made in favor of certain people whose business it is to be in attendance on the excommunicated person, viz. his wife, child, slave, vassal or subordinate. This, however, is to be understood of children who have not attained their majority, else they are forbidden to communicate with their father: and as to the others, the exception applies to them if they have entered his service before his excommunication, but not if they did so afterwards.

Some understand this exception to apply in the opposite way, viz. that the master can communicate with his subjects: while others hold the contrary. At any rate it is lawful for them to communicate with others in matters wherein they are under an obligation to them, for just as subjects are bound to serve their master, so is the master bound to look after his subjects. Again certain cases are excepted; as when the fact of the excommunication is unknown, or in the case of strangers or travelers in the country of those who are excommunicated, for they are allowed to buy from them, or to receive alms from them. Likewise if anyone were to see an excommunicated person in distress: for then he would be bound by the precept of charity to assist him.

You might also benefit from this old thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=477968

Dan

 

[MysticMissMisty]

I think you are greatly overstating the scope of the meaning of “vitandus.” St. Thomas, for example, states:

You might also benefit from this old thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=477968

Dan

From what we read here, it seems that neither friends nor associates are included under the exceptions, but only close relations such as familial or even “business” as we might say today?

Indeed, it even seems that Aquinas himself had some doubt about the understanding of this canon as he offers up more than one definite understanding. So, it seems that, even then, the precise application was somewhat of a question.

I am wondering, for what sins was the practice of making someone a vitandus common? Were these more the kind that, if contact was maintained, danger (often physical) could result from that contact, possibly initiated by either party? (I think at least one person implied that in a post above.)

Indeed, though, in Paul’s day, it would seem tha many many sins could cause someone to fall under this class when we see the type of people whom Paul stated his church should not even eat with. (Or, again, is Paul speaking here of collective association of the Church with the person rather than individual association?) When, then, do we, today, not forbid association, either collectively or individually, for those who might commit similar grave sins? What was the difference back then?

Also, Jesus Himself speaks of treating someone who “sins against you”, after it is brought to the Church and the Church cannot change him, as a “tax collector” or a “Gentile”. Christ, here, does not seem to limit this to any particular type of sin, severe or otherwise. Or, here, is Christ speaking of, again, a shunning from the ecclesial community as a whole rather than the particular shunning of individuals? Again, after all, Christ Himself did individually eat with very serious sinners and He didn’t seem to think that doing so would have harmufl effects either to Himself (though this first point, as I have stated above, is arguable) or to them. …though I suppose you could argue that, since He was omniscient, He would know that the particular people with whom He associated would individually have no adverse spiritual effects from His doing so…

 

[phil19034]

So, then, in the Middle Ages, even individuals acting solely on their own were prohibited from interacting with certain excommunicated persons (vitandi)? Even if they were not officially acting in the name of the Church, they were still prohibited from any interaction with the exceptions you mentioned? When this practice was in force, would I have not, say, been permitted to associate at all with a friend or peer who was an adulterer if he were a vitandus? I would not be permitted to show him any type of kindness, for instance, whether a “major” or “minor” (daily kind of) one? Would such a classification for such a person have even been a possibility?

Again, the question arises as to why these practices were done away with.

Misty - this is a good example of what I mean by not placing your modern worldview on past civilizations. You are saying that you would want to show the person kindness, etc. However, if you lived back then, you most likely would NOT feel the same way you do today.

In those days an adulterer would be considered a criminal in society. You would have grown up in a culture that has a much different world view that we do today.

Many people today “shun” people they know to be unconvicted criminals. This was the culture for many of these sins back then when they used to be criminal, not just sinful.

Yes, while there were people who would have felt called to reach out to these people, back in those times the majority of them would have been priests, brothers or nuns.

So if you lived in those times and you shared the same view you do now, you would have most likely been a nun. Or became a canonized Saint Misty.

Am I making any sense?

God Bless you and God Bless you for your honest questions.

 

[Gorgias]

Again, the question arises as to why these practices were done away with.

I’ll defer to phil’s post, which asks insightful questions of you.

But, in the interest of addressing your concerns here, I think I’d reply that “these practices were done away with” because, at one time, they were perceived as being appropriate, and at a later time, they were perceived as being not the most appropriate and pastoral measures. That’s not a reasonable enough answer?

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Misty - this is a good example of what I mean by not placing your modern worldview on past civilizations. You are saying that you would want to show the person kindness, etc. However, if you lived back then, you most likely would NOT feel the same way you do today.

In those days an adulterer would be considered a criminal in society. You would have grown up in a culture that has a much different world view that we do today.

Many people today “shun” people they know to be unconvicted criminals. This was the culture for many of these sins back then when they used to be criminal, not just sinful.

Yes, while there were people who would have felt called to reach out to these people, back in those times the majority of them would have been priests, brothers or nuns.

So if you lived in those times and you shared the same view you do now, you would have most likely been a nun. Or became a canonized Saint Misty.

Am I making any sense?

God Bless you and God Bless you for your honest questions.

Yes, that was the way the “culture” may have thought, but was that the way God thought/thinks?

The only real issue I might be able to see here would be scandal, though that didn’t seem to matter to Christ much when He ate with sinners.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

I’ll defer to phil’s post, which asks insightful questions of you.

But, in the interest of addressing your concerns here, I think I’d reply that “these practices were done away with” because, at one time, they were perceived as being appropriate, and at a later time, they were perceived as being not the most appropriate and pastoral measures. That’s not a reasonable enough answer?

OK, I have heard many times that the old measures were appropriate for their time, but, as I said, the real question, then, is why? What has changed so much that kindness must now be greater than it was at a former time? What was so different back then that it was better to shun a person than to reach out to them and love them as fully as possible (as God does)? Has human nature really changed that much? I would argue, at least in this latter case, no.

 

[phil19034]

Yes, that was the way the “culture” may have thought, but was that the way God thought/thinks?

The only real issue I might be able to see here would be scandal, though that didn’t seem to matter to Christ much when He ate with sinners.

God is Divine Mercy. Jesus obviously ate with sinners, but here’s a big question: did Jesus eat with sinners who wanted nothing to do with him, or with sinners who were asking for Mercy?

True Mercy requires a desire for atonement upon the sinner. Also, how long did it take for the Apostles to start going out to the people? They had to learn first.

Society and culture is similar. Sometimes it takes several generations or even centuries for a culture to evolve.

God meets us where we are. One on one and as a society. Today, we have had almost 2000 years of Divine Revelation, Church Councils, Private Revelations, great insight from great Saints and Doctors of the Church – yet we still screw up.

I would argue that our understand of Divine Mercy today is much better than it once was, thanks to great Saints like St. Louis de Montfort, St. Thérèse of Lisieux, St. Faustina Kowalska, and St. Pope John Paul II. Plus we have Marian apparitions like Our Lady of Lourdes and Our Lady of Fatima.

The Church safeguards Sacred Tradition, yet the Church continues to grow and learn. The Holy Spirit doesn’t stop teaching us and the Saints and our Blessed Mother never abandon us.

We we learn and we grow, not just as individuals but as a society & as a Church.

In times like today, where there is unprecedented evil in the world, God will not be out done by the devil and He extends unprecedented Graces upon the world. In times like today, God sends us messages and we learn to be more merciful or more devout, etc. We learn what adjustments we need to make for Christendom to get back on the right track.

I pray my posts are helping.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

God is Divine Mercy. Jesus obviously ate with sinners, but here’s a big question: did Jesus eat with sinners who wanted nothing to do with him, or with sinners who were asking for Mercy?

True Mercy requires a desire for atonement upon the sinner. Also, how long did it take for the Apostles to start going out to the people? They had to learn first.

Society and culture is similar. Sometimes it takes several generations or even centuries for a culture to evolve.

God meets us where we are. One on one and as a society. Today, we have had almost 2000 years of Divine Revelation, Church Councils, Private Revelations, great insight from great Saints and Doctors of the Church – yet we still screw up.

I would argue that our understand of Divine Mercy today is much better than it once was, thanks to great Saints like St. Louis de Montfort, St. Thérèse of Lisieux, St. Faustina Kowalska, and St. Pope John Paul II. Plus we have Marian apparitions like Our Lady of Lourdes and Our Lady of Fatima.

The Church safeguards Sacred Tradition, yet the Church continues to grow and learn. The Holy Spirit doesn’t stop teaching us and the Saints and our Blessed Mother never abandon us.

We we learn and we grow, not just as individuals but as a society & as a Church.

In times like today, where there is unprecedented evil in the world, God will not be out done by the devil and He extends unprecedented Graces upon the world. In times like today, God sends us messages and we learn to be more merciful or more devout, etc. We learn what adjustments we need to make for Christendom to get back on the right track.

I pray my posts are helping.

Had to think on what you said about the sinners with whom Jesus at being repentant, as you do make a good point. After all, why else would they have been there with Him?

Still, there is no indication in the text that says that their repentance had taken place before they dined with Him. In fact, Christ’s very words might indicate that He was, somehow, still in the process of “healing” them as the Great Physician. Had they been repentant before they dined with Him, He might have said something like “they are repentant” or something along those lines. He said no such thing.

Who knows? He may have called them to dine with Him and then worked on them in terms of witness. While His primary purpose surely would have been to convert them, as that was His special mission on Earth, that may not have been a precondition for Hims dining with them. They may not have come to Him, but He may have in fact invited them. (Not sure if there is any Scriptural evidence fro either view, though.) Indeed, there was no indication in the text that they had repented befroe Christ dined with them. Indeed, as I recall, they were still called tax collectors and sinners in the text, not “repentant” tax collectors and sinners. There is no prior indication that they had repented before they came to dine with Christ and, I would submit, there is more evidence that they had not yet, or, at least, not fully.

Thoughts?

Just throwing some ideas out there.

 

[e_c]

But, why? Again, what made earlier times so different from our own where, even on an individual, voluntary basis, individuals (not acting in the name of the Church) were prohibited utterly from having any social interaction with grave sinners? Would not having contact and a Christian brother or sister still showing love to one of these not actually possibly do more to bring them back to the fold? Just as the behavior of a believing wife was apparently seen to do even more than just her mere words of correction toward an unbelieving husband? The husband, seeing her virtuous behavior and her love for him daily was apparently seen to be enough possibly to bring him back to the fold.

You’ve got to make a good argument for shunning as a practice being of greater benefit than not shunning in earlier times. (and, again, I’m talking about on the individual level) You’ve also got to make a compelling argument that the discouragement of such a practice today has more benefit to the excommunicated person than shunning would today. Up to this point, I have seen no compelling argument presented on either front, at least specifically addressing the matter of individual communication vs. collective Church shunning. Love has always been love. Goodness to others has always been seen as love and appreciated and even had the power to deeply move in certain circumstances. Times change, human nature really doesn’t much. This is the greatest lesson I have take from studying history, and, in particular, ancient history. Human beings have always loved and laughed and cried and raged in pretty much the same way we still to today.

I’ve also got to be convinced that individuals associating in their own name with excommunicated sinners had any significantly negative effects on him or on the one associating with him or on the Church as a whole. I do not see any compelling argument for this, especially if the two people know each other and each knows that no harm, physical, spiritual or otherwise will come to himself by associating with the other. Also, why circumstances would have been different prior to relatively recent ages as compared to now. I mean, if it is now seen that no spiritual harm would come to an excommunicated person by a brother or sister associating with them, why would it have been seen to cause spiritual harm back then when shunning was in force?

One thought, off the top of my head, is that people used to have a thicker skin than the average person today, in Western society at least. Nowadays everything is “offensive.” That would go hand in hand with a general psychological inability on the part of most people to “shun” in the classical sense.

Another is that communities used to be structured differently, much more tightly. If you lived 5 miles away, you are not getting a visit from me every day. Now, I could fly from New York to California in a matter of hours, then text someone back in New York that I got there okay within a second. Globalization…

Many of these communities would also have had a true Christendom… which no longer exists except in just a few places. That also changes the dynamic.

It’s a prudential call to shape certain facets of canon law as they are, such as this one. We are lucky we are not in charge of the decision making and should pray for those who are.

 

[phil19034]

Had to think on what you said about the sinners with whom Jesus at being repentant, as you do make a good point. After all, why else would they have been there with Him?

Still, there is no indication in the text that says that their repentance had taken place before they dined with Him. In fact, Christ’s very words might indicate that He was, somehow, still in the process of “healing” them as the Great Physician. Had they been repentant before they dined with Him, He might have said something like “they are repentant” or something along those lines. He said no such thing.

Who knows? He may have called them to dine with Him and then worked on them in terms of witness. While His primary purpose surely would have been to convert them, as that was His special mission on Earth, that may not have been a precondition for Hims dining with them. They may not have come to Him, but He may have in fact invited them. (Not sure if there is any Scriptural evidence fro either view, though.) Indeed, there was no indication in the text that they had repented befroe Christ dined with them. Indeed, as I recall, they were still called tax collectors and sinners in the text, not “repentant” tax collectors and sinners. There is no prior indication that they had repented before they came to dine with Christ and, I would submit, there is more evidence that they had not yet, or, at least, not fully.

Thoughts?

Just throwing some ideas out there.

The sinners may not have been repentant when they first sat with him, but His message was most likely stirring their hearts. They were most likely OPEN to hearing the Gospel message.

The movie Mary of Nazareth does a great job of showing this in regards to their interpretation of Mary Magdalene and the process she goes through before totally repenting and becoming a disciple.

God Bless

 

[phil19034]

Another is that communities used to be structured differently, much more tightly. If you lived 5 miles away, you are not getting a visit from me every day. Now, I could fly from New York to California in a matter of hours, then text someone back in New York that I got there okay within a second. Globalization…

The more “tightly” is very true. An entire village worth of people would have lived in an area the size of my parents yard. When you live that close to other people, you become family. You become very close. “Shuning” someone you see all day long, every day would have a powerful effect on them.

In the movie Mary of Nazareth, the village is shunning the Blessed Mother because they think she has dishonored St. Joseph. But when they see how happy both Mary and Joseph are at their wedding, their hearts warm. They basically decide if Mary’s parents and Joseph can forgive her, they can too (even though there really isn’t anything for Mary to be forgiven for because she was chosen to give birth to our Savior).

God Bless

 

[MysticMissMisty]

The sinners may not have been repentant when they first sat with him, but His message was most likely stirring their hearts. They were most likely OPEN to hearing the Gospel message.

The movie Mary of Nazareth does a great job of showing this in regards to their interpretation of Mary Magdalene and the process she goes through before totally repenting and becoming a disciple.

God Bless

I’m not so sure about the openness to repenting. To me, once you are open to repenting, you do. If you know something is wrong and you accept that and you own that you are therefore doing wrong, then, chances are, you feel sorry for it and repent pretty quickly thereafter.

 

[phil19034]

I’m not so sure about the openness to repenting. To me, once you are open to repenting, you do. If you know something is wrong and you accept that and you own that you are therefore doing wrong, then, chances are, you feel sorry for it and repent pretty quickly thereafter.

I didn’t say openness to repenting. I said openness to the Gospel.

You are not going to repent if you don’t think you sinned or if you are not willing to learn why God considers a sin to be a sin.

You have to be open to God to accept that sin exists.

 

[Gorgias]

OK, I have heard many times that the old measures were appropriate for their time, but, as I said, the real question, then, is why?

Because cultures were different. Because societal expectations were different. Because people’s lives were different.

It’s not that “human nature” has changed. In the great “nature vs nurture” debate, the issue being raised here is whether the ‘nurture’ has changed. And yes, it has changed – greatly!

There used to be a far greater notion of ‘duty’ and ‘honor’ in generations gone by. A public penalty (such as lack of social contact) would be quite effective in getting people to re-think the wisdom of their obstinacy. Today? Not so much. Remember: excommunication isn’t punishment, it’s medicinal. It’s meant to catalyze people into returning to the Church.

What has changed so much that kindness must now be greater than it was at a former time?

I would say that it’s less about ‘kindness’ than it is about reactions to authority.

What was so different back then that it was better to shun a person than to reach out to them and love them as fully as possible (as God does)?

Back then, that wasn’t the means by which discipline was effected. So, it would have been confusing, I think, in general, that the discipline of the Church might be so very different than the kinds of discipline encountered in the world. So, yeah… times were different, and therefore, so were the Church’s methods of applying penalties.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

So, in apparent blblical references to early practices of excommunication, it seems that Paul was advising people to avoid completely those who committed all kinds of sins, not just to avoid sinners that may have had a negative physical or spiritual influence on other church members.

Or, again, was the “do not even eat withthem” an admonition against sharing even the communal meal with them? Or, rather, did it mean that you could not even share a social meal with them? Or even dine with them privately?

Again, I just don’t know if I buy the argument that some Factor X has changed now so that socialization with excommunicated persons is now suddenly OK whereas it wasn’t during Pauls day and during the Middle Ages. I still don’t think we’ve quite pinned down exactly what Factor X even is. All the statements I’ve seen so far on Factor X have been pretty much vague.

Also, what of Christ’s saying that, after 3 times of warning, we are to treat sinners as tax collectors and Gentiles? Is this similar to excommunication or the same or mirroring what Paul was doing?

Also, do you think Paul would have allowed Christians, so long as they did not get negatively influenced by them, associate with non-Christians committing or having committed the same crimes, even if they were ultimately unrepentant, so long as they weren’t directly supporting the sin? Why or why not?