Some Questions on Excommunication

[MysticMissMisty]

Salvete, omnes!

First of all, as you can see from my profile header, I am currently a Protestant considering Catholicism, so please approach your responses to this post in that light.

All I presently really know about the practice of excommunication comes from Christ’s mention of it in the GOspels and from Paul’s (apparent?) reference to it in 1 Corinthians 5.

So, my questions involve how those excommunicated should be treated by Catholics when they are outside a Church setting.

I have heard that Catholics are permitted to associate with excommunicated brothers as long as it is outside a collective Church setting. First of all, is this accurate and are there any restrictions at all to this association? Are Catholics even still permitted to have a meal with an excommunicated brother, as long as it is outside the Church setting/the Eucharist (Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians that we should not even eat with an excommunicated brother)? Are we still permitted to be friends with a person and do good to him even if he has been excommunicated, as long as it does not involve the communal activities of the Church? (After all, are we not told to “do good” to “all” men and that God does good to both the righteous and the unrighteous? So, I would think that doing good even to the excommunicated, as long as it does not directly contribute to his sin, would be permissible?)

Is indeed the primary purpose of the practice of excommunication to “shame” the person into repenting of their sin as they see others, at least in a Church setting, refusing to interact with them? What, if any, are the otehr purposes of it?

Is excommunication really a disciplinary matter with very limited functions and not necessarily an entire shunning, even outside the Church, of the one excommunicated?

I would very much appreciate some clarity on this mattter.

Gratias maximas vobis!

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Catholics do not “shun” people.
Excommunication is not “kicking someone out of the Church”.
It is a “medicinal remedy” to help a person see the error of his/her ways and come back into union with the Church and her teachings.

Here you will find a pretty good overview of what you are looking for.

Google can be your friend.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

(…)
I have heard that Catholics are permitted to associate with excommunicated brothers as long as it is outside a collective Church setting. First of all, is this accurate and are there any restrictions at all to this association? Are Catholics even still permitted to have a meal with an excommunicated brother, as long as it is outside the Church setting/the Eucharist (Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians that we should not even eat with an excommunicated brother)? Are we still permitted to be friends with a person and do good to him even if he has been excommunicated, as long as it does not involve the communal activities of the Church? (After all, are we not told to “do good” to “all” men and that God does good to both the righteous and the unrighteous? So, I would think that doing good even to the excommunicated, as long as it does not directly contribute to his sin, would be permissible?)

There isn’t any prohibition to socializing with someone who may be excommunicated. I’m not sure, but I don’t think someone who is excommunicated needs to avoid Mass or church functions.

Is indeed the primary purpose of the practice of excommunication to “shame” the person into repenting of their sin as they see others, at least in a Church setting, refusing to interact with them? What, if any, are the otehr purposes of it?

No, not to shame. It excludes them from the sacrements and graces from those sacraments, Catholic burial, etc., things that a serious Catholic would not want to be without. There is some shame I guess but the urgency should come from within the person, from the souls relationship with God and not from without, i.e. what others might think of them.

Is excommunication really a disciplinary matter with very limited functions and not necessarily an entire shunning, even outside the Church, of the one excommunicated?

I would very much appreciate some clarity on this mattter.

Gratias maximas vobis!

If not clear, there is no shunning. I have read about excommunication in other churches (little “c” so I’m talking parish level) and shunning was a big part in every account I have read plus it’s difficult if not impossible to be reconciled. The Catholic Church wants souls to be reconciled so it’s fairly easy but there are formalities and the individual must repent.

 

[1ke]

I don’t think someone who is excommunicated needs to avoid Mass or church functions.

No, in fact their obligation to attend Mass remains.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

OK, I have now read through the Catholic Encyclopedia (New Advent)'s article on excommunication, and, as I understand it, the excommunicated person is, in fact, at least in some situations(?), deprived of social contact and benefits (kindnesses/goodnesses) from other Church members.

Is this true? Is it still true (e.g., since Vatican II and presently)?

For your convenience, I quote a rather legthy section from CE below:

"Civilia jura, i.e. the ordinary relations between members of the same society, outside of sacred and judicial matters. This privation, affecting particularly the person excommunicated, is no longer imposed on the faithful except in regard to the vitandi. The medieval canonists enumerated the prohibited civil relations in the following verse:

Os, orare, vale, communio, mensa negatur,

namely:
(a) conversations, exchange of letters, tokens of benevolence (osculum);
(b) prayer in common with the excommunicated;
(c) marks of honour and respect;
(d) business and social relations;
(e) meals with the excommunicated.

But at the same time they specified the reasons that rendered these relations licit:

Utile, lex humilis, res ignorata, necesse,

that is to say:
(a) both the spiritual and the temporal benefit of the excommunicated and of the faithful;
(b) conjugal law;
(c) the submission owed by children, servants, vassals, and subordinates in general;
(d) ignorance of excommunication or of the prohibition of a particular kind of intercourse;
(e) finally, any kind of necessity, as human law, is not binding to this degree."

Also, is there a particular and comprehensive list of sins for which a person can be excommunicated?

Furthermore, are Christians obligated, if they obviously see and for pretty certain know, that a non-Christian/non-Catholic person has committed a sin equivalent to that under which, if he were Catholic, he would be excommunicated, not at all to associate with/do good to him?

 

[1ke]

OK, I have now read through the Catholic Encyclopedia (New Advent)'s article on excommunication

Those articles were written under the old code of canon law. The 1983 code of canon law abrogated all of that.

Also, is there a particular and comprehensive list of sins for which a person can be excommunicated?

There are two ways one may incur excommunication. One of them is through a juridic process. One is by the act itself.

Canon law covers all of this. It is not “sins” specifically, it is “acts” that incur excommunication. The acts may also be sinful. They are certainly serious.

Furthermore, are Christians obligated, if they obviously see and for pretty certain know, that a non-Christian/non-Catholic person has committed a sin equivalent to that under which, if he were Catholic, he would be excommunicated, not at all to associate with/do good to him?

No.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Those articles were written under the old code of canon law. The 1983 code of canon law abrogated all of that.

There are two ways one may incur excommunication. One of them is through a juridic process. One is by the act itself.

Canon law covers all of this. It is not “sins” specifically, it is “acts” that incur excommunication. The acts may also be sinful. They are certainly serious.

No.

Thanks for the info.

So, what is different about modern canon law? Specifically, has anything changed under the heading of so-called “civilia iura”? Is the Catholic permitted now to do good things/interact socially with the excommunicated person? Have the previous prohibitions at all been removed, or entirely so?

Secondly, as for those outside of the Church? Why would Christians not be required not to associate in terms of civilia iura with those outside the Church (if requirements under civilia iura are still in effect)? Would not the benefits to the “outside” person be similar enough to warrant it? Why would Christias be permitted to do good to the outsider/associate with him, even if he gravely sins, while, at the same time, the Christian would not be permitted to do this for those within the Christian community? One might argue, because of the possibility of conversion in the case of the one outside, but, then, it would make our acts of goodness strictly for conversion and not necessarily for the person’s benefit itself, thus, I would think, an act of insincerity.

 

[Gorgias]

OK, I have now read through the Catholic Encyclopedia (New Advent)'s article on excommunication, and, as I understand it, the excommunicated person is, in fact, at least in some situations(?), deprived of social contact and benefits (kindnesses/goodnesses) from other Church members.

Is this true? Is it still true (e.g., since Vatican II and presently)?

This is why it’s not a great idea to rely on the old Catholic Encyclopedia as a source of information about the Church. In the 1917 Code of Canon Law, there are certain prohibitions against association with those excommunicated (as well as exceptions to these). With the promulgation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, these 1917 canons are abrogated.

Catholics are not required (nor are they advised) to avoid contact with those who have been excommunicated (whether formally or without public declaration).

Also, is there a particular and comprehensive list of sins for which a person can be excommunicated?

A Google search turns up a Wiki page on latae sententiae excommunications. Other excommunications may be the result of a formal process (e.g., tribunal, penal process, etc).

Furthermore, are Christians obligated, if they obviously see and for pretty certain know, that a non-Christian/non-Catholic person has committed a sin equivalent to that under which, if he were Catholic, he would be excommunicated, not at all to associate with/do good to him?

I’m repeating myself, but… just for the sake of making sure there’s no misunderstanding: no – there’s no requirement or recommendation for Catholics to disassociate themselves with those who have been excommunicated.

 

[1ke]

Thanks for the info.

So, what is different about modern canon law? Specifically, has anything changed under the heading of so-called “civilia iura”? Is the Catholic permitted now to do good things/interact socially with the excommunicated person? Have the previous prohibitions at all been removed, or entirely so?

A lot has changed. The new code is in force. The old code is abrogated, so if it’s not in the new code then it’s not in force. Because the new code specifically says that:

Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:

1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;

2/ other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescripts of this Code unless other provision is expressly made for particular laws;

3/ any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See unless they are contained in this Code;

4/ other universal disciplinary laws regarding matter which this Code completely reorders.

§2. Insofar as they repeat former law, the canons of this Code must be assessed also in accord with canonical tradition.

You can read the code of canon law here.

Secondly, as for those outside of the Church? Why would Christians not be required not to associate in terms of civilia iura with those outside the Church (if requirements under civilia iura are still in effect)?

Because they aren’t, there is nothing in the law that requires that.

Would not the benefits to the “outside” person be similar enough to warrant it? Why would Christias be permitted to do good to the outsider/associate with him, even if he gravely sins, while, at the same time, the Christian would not be permitted to do this for those within the Christian community? One might argue, because of the possibility of conversion in the case of the one outside, but, then, it would make our acts of goodness strictly for conversion and not necessarily for the person’s benefit itself, thus, I would think, an act of insincerity.

You are tilting at windmills. We are not required to shun Catholic or non-Catholics. Your argument seems to be predicated on shunning Catholics. Since we aren’t required to do that, you don’t have an argument for non-Catholics.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Thanks again, folks, for helping me understand all this and I appreciate your patience in the matter!

So, when some part of old canon law is “abrogated”, can that mean that some parts of the old canon law were, in fact, in some way in error before? For instance, the rule of lack of association with those who were excommunicated – under the latest canon law, since that part of the old law is no longer in force, does that mean that that part of the old law may not have been the best policy in the world, as it were?

As I understand it, only matters of faith and morals, and not of canon law, are subject to infallibility. So, does that mean that, sometimes, older canon law can be fallible in certain instances such as, in fact, this case?

Or, rather, does it mean that, only because of certain changes in time/culture/etc., the current law now applies, but that the previous law was, in fact, appropriate for its particular time and place and was, thus, perfect and appropriate for its time? Or, is this question a matter of debate within the Church?

Also, let us say that, under previous canon law, an individual Catholic had some objection of conscience about this issue of not associating with those excommunicated. Would he be permitted, at least as far as God was concerned, to disobey it? For instance, if he had objections under conscience (if canon law is not infallible and if it is not culturally appropriate), would he be sinning in God’s eyes if he disobeyed? (Now, I am not speaking of disobedience in a deliberately rebellious spirit. I ma speaking of disobedience with a legitimate objection of conscience with a sincere conviction that a disciplinary matter such as this is incorrectly applied.) Again, is this question settled Church teaching (infallibly and/or under the notion of official magisterial Church teaching) or is this also a matter of debate among canon lawyers/theologians/etc.? Speaking from my own personal opinion, I would think that conscientious objection and even disobedience in matters like this of discipline would be permissible, if not by the Church who would presumably defend its laws, at least in God’s sight who is infallible and knows perfectly. (Again, just my opinion, and not sure how well-supported it is.) After all, would the Church require someone to go against their conscience if they had legitimate objections to a disciplinary matter simply in order to confirm to Church judicial/legal authority? Let us take the example, say, in earlier times, of someone socializing with someone excommunicated because his conscience objected to the rule that stated otherwise.

Indeed, would there be set punishment for the person violating the older laws on this matter?

Also, under previous canon law that required disassociation with excommunicated persons, I ask the same question about Christians’ association with unbelievers. Whether everyone was required to obey the canon law or not, would Christians have been required befroe the new law took effect, also not to associate with unbelievers obviously and knowingly guilty of sin worthy of excommunication?

Yes, I get that much of this is hypothetical, but it is of interest to me, admittedly, as a person with historical interest.

 

[1ke]

Thanks again, folks, for helping me understand all this and I appreciate your patience in the matter!

So, when some part of old canon law is “abrogated”, can that mean that some parts of the old canon law were, in fact, in some way in error before?

No. That is not the correct context to think of canon law in. It is law, discipline.

For example, the speed limit in the US used to be 70, then 55, then 60, then 75, etc. The drinking age used to be 18, then 19, then 21. These aren’t in a context of “right” or “wrong” or “error”.

Similarly, the laws of the Church reflect the mind of the Church at that time. Things change. Laws change.

does that mean that that part of the old law may not have been the best policy in the world, as it were?

No.

So, does that mean that, sometimes, older canon law can be fallible in certain instances such as, in fact, this case?

Again, “fallible” versus “infallible” is not the right context.

Or, rather, does it mean that, only because of certain changes in time/culture/etc., the current law now applies, but that the previous law was, in fact, appropriate for its particular time and place and was, thus, perfect and appropriate for its time?

It’s not a matter of “perfect” but certainly it is a matter of time, place, and context.

Or, is this question a matter of debate within the Church?

no.

Also, let us say that, under previous canon law, an individual Catholic had some objection of conscience about this issue of not associating with those excommunicated. Would he be permitted, at least as far as God was concerned, to disobey it?

No.

For instance, if he had objections under conscience (if canon law is not infallible and if it is not culturally appropriate), would he be sinning in God’s eyes if he disobeyed?

yes.

I would think that conscientious objection and even disobedience in matters like this of discipline would be permissible

they are not.

in order to confirm to Church judicial/legal authority?

the Church IS the authority over us. We are not at liberty to disregard or disobey what she has set forth.

Indeed, would there be set punishment for the person violating the older laws on this matter?

Depends on what was in the law.

Also, under previous canon law that required disassociation with excommunicated persons, I ask the same question about Christians’ association with unbelievers. Whether everyone was required to obey the canon law or not, would Christians have been required befroe the new law took effect, also not to associate with unbelievers obviously and knowingly guilty of sin worthy of excommunication?

Depends on what the law stated about that. The laws are interpreted strictly. You cannot extrapolate and say “because this law say X about Catholics it must mean X about non-Catholics too”. It doesn’t work that way.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

No. That is not the correct context to think of canon law in. It is law, discipline.

For example, the speed limit in the US used to be 70, then 55, then 60, then 75, etc. The drinking age used to be 18, then 19, then 21. These aren’t in a context of “right” or “wrong” or “error”.

Similarly, the laws of the Church reflect the mind of the Church at that time. Things change. Laws change.

No.

Again, “fallible” versus “infallible” is not the right context.

It’s not a matter of “perfect” but certainly it is a matter of time, place, and context.

no.

No.

yes.

they are not.

the Church IS the authority over us. We are not at liberty to disregard or disobey what she has set forth.

Depends on what was in the law.

Depends on what the law stated about that. The laws are interpreted strictly. You cannot extrapolate and say “because this law say X about Catholics it must mean X about non-Catholics too”. It doesn’t work that way.

OK, I’ve got to admit that this reply left me more confused than before.

So, essentially, because the Church commands something under disciplinary law, even if an individual has legitimate objections of conscience, he is still required to obey it simply because the Church has instituted it?

Also, are you saying that, by necessity, the creation of a law is never fallible and always appropriate for its time? So, then, the law against associating with excommunicated persons was appropriate for the time during which it was in force, by default, since the Church is the one that made it and that laws only change because times change and that there is no question as to the morality of a law ever? If this is so, what, then, has cahnged culturally or whatever to require now the abrogation of the laws prohibiting association with excommunicated persons from when it was in effect until now? For, to me, both then and now, it seems that morality is, to some extent, tied up in all this. For instance, as I mentioned above, we should apparently do good to all men and God does good to both “good” and “bad” men, so, one could argue that the stringent requirements of Christians not to associate with excommunicated persons was too stringent and even went against God’s way of dealing with them so that, in recent law, these requirements were done away with on such principles as I just stated. It seems that, by abrogating previous requirements such as these, the Church is saying that there is actually a better way than was in force previously and, arguably, in doing this, stating that the previous way had some deficiency in it. Or, am I missing something here?

Thanks again, seriously!

 

[Gorgias]

So, when some part of old canon law is “abrogated”, can that mean that some parts of the old canon law were, in fact, in some way in error before?

Actually, the entire 1917 Code was abrogated. It’s not like parts were abandoned and other parts were retained. It was done that way in order to make it crystal clear that the 1917 Code was no longer in effect and the 1983 Code was the law that was in effect.

As I understand it, only matters of faith and morals, and not of canon law, are subject to infallibility. So, does that mean that, sometimes, older canon law can be fallible in certain instances such as, in fact, this case?

No. Infallibility is the wrong lens, here. Rather, the lens through which to analyze this is authority; the Church has the authority to set ‘disciplines’ for its members. That means that Catholics have the duty to follow these laws.

Or, rather, does it mean that, only because of certain changes in time/culture/etc., the current law now applies, but that the previous law was, in fact, appropriate for its particular time and place and was, thus, perfect and appropriate for its time?

Right. And, in fact, that’s pretty much the definition of a ‘discipline’ in the Church: doctrine and dogma never change, but disciplines can (and are) changed to meet the needs of time and place.

Also, let us say that, under previous canon law, an individual Catholic had some objection of conscience about this issue of not associating with those excommunicated. Would he be permitted, at least as far as God was concerned, to disobey it? For instance, if he had objections under conscience (if canon law is not infallible and if it is not culturally appropriate), would he be sinning in God’s eyes if he disobeyed? (Now, I am not speaking of disobedience in a deliberately rebellious spirit. I ma speaking of disobedience with a legitimate objection of conscience with a sincere conviction that a disciplinary matter such as this is incorrectly applied.)

Strictly speaking, no – ‘civil disobedience’ doesn’t apply here. (Yet, you raise the issue of ‘conscience’, which is a discussion unto itself.)

From a philosophical perspective, civil disobedience proceeds from the conviction that a law is unjust, and therefore, does not bind a person. If you were to disobey a Church law, you would have to be making the case that the Church is treating its members unjustly. That’s a difficult case to make, don’t you think?

But, you also raised the issue of conscience. We are always called to obey our conscience. However, when our conscience tells us something that conflicts with Church teaching, we are called to work at forming our consciences properly, so that our conscience comes into line with Church teaching. So, even in this case, we would be obliged to learn why the Church has established the law in question, and correct our misunderstanding that it’s something ‘unjust’.

So, in both cases, it appears that the answer is that we are called to obey Church law.

Also, under previous canon law that required disassociation with excommunicated persons, I ask the same question about Christians’ association with unbelievers. Whether everyone was required to obey the canon law or not, would Christians have been required befroe the new law took effect, also not to associate with unbelievers obviously and knowingly guilty of sin worthy of excommunication?

No. Non-Christians aren’t bound under canon law. By definition, then, they cannot be excommunicated from a communion to which they don’t belong! (Nor do laws which apply to Catholics apply to non-Christians by virtue of analogy.)

 

[Gorgias]

It seems that, by abrogating previous requirements such as these, the Church is saying that there is actually a better way than was in force previously and, arguably, in doing this, stating that the previous way had some deficiency in it. Or, am I missing something here?

Yep, you are.

Let’s look at a particular example: in the 1917 Code, there was a canon that mandated that men not wear hats in church and women always wear a head covering.

That made some sense in a society in which men generally always wore hats in public, and removed them indoors. However, the cultural custom of hat-wearing went out of fashion. Therefore, the Church changed its discipline regarding head coverings in the 1970s. This doesn’t mean that the previous law was ‘deficient’; it just meant that, in an earlier time, it was appropriate, and in a later time, it was not.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Actually, the entire 1917 Code was abrogated. It’s not like parts were abandoned and other parts were retained. It was done that way in order to make it crystal clear that the 1917 Code was no longer in effect and the 1983 Code was the law that was in effect.

No. Infallibility is the wrong lens, here. Rather, the lens through which to analyze this is authority; the Church has the authority to set ‘disciplines’ for its members. That means that Catholics have the duty to follow these laws.

Right. And, in fact, that’s pretty much the definition of a ‘discipline’ in the Church: doctrine and dogma never change, but disciplines can (and are) changed to meet the needs of time and place.

Strictly speaking, no – ‘civil disobedience’ doesn’t apply here. (Yet, you raise the issue of ‘conscience’, which is a discussion unto itself.)

From a philosophical perspective, civil disobedience proceeds from the conviction that a law is unjust, and therefore, does not bind a person. If you were to disobey a Church law, you would have to be making the case that the Church is treating its members unjustly. That’s a difficult case to make, don’t you think?

But, you also raised the issue of conscience. We are always called to obey our conscience. However, when our conscience tells us something that conflicts with Church teaching, we are called to work at forming our consciences properly, so that our conscience comes into line with Church teaching. So, even in this case, we would be obliged to learn why the Church has established the law in question, and correct our misunderstanding that it’s something ‘unjust’.

So, in both cases, it appears that the answer is that we are called to obey Church law.

No. Non-Christians aren’t bound under canon law. By definition, then, they cannot be excommunicated from a communion to which they don’t belong! (Nor do laws which apply to Catholics apply to non-Christians by virtue of analogy.)

Thanks again!

But, OK, some more questions…

So, if some part of the old law no longer appears in the new law, then, does that mean that that part of the old law was considered somehow deficient? If not, again, I ask, particularly in this case, what cultural situation changed so that the requirement to disassociate oneself from excommunicated persons, changed?

Also, so, when the Church rules authoritatively on something, even in canon law, it is, by default, always correct?

Also, are you saying that, by default, and because of its authority, the Church can never make an ujust law? So, then, in some sense, even disciplinary/juridical matters could be considered protected from error and, thus, infallible.

Penultimately, regarding non-Christians and disassociation, essentially waht you are saying is that, if a Christian sins grievously, under the old law, we would have been required to disassociate ourselves and to do no (direct/worldly) good for him, but, under that old law, we would still be permitted to do good/associate with a non-Christian who committed the same sin, with knowledge that it was wrong? On its surface, that just doesn’t seem right to me, though I cannot quite pin down why…

Finally, is what you say here regarding conscience/civil disobedience established Church teaching or, again, as I suspected above, a matter still of some debate?

Indeed, in my humble opinion, just as with secular civil law, I would think that, regarding matters of conscience, one would be permitted, at least in more minor matters such as this(?) to engage in so-called “civil disobedience” so as not to violate his conscience.

Again, a lot of the basis for this is obviously highly hypothetical, but it has obvious consequences in other areas even in current times, I would think.

My apologies for not quoting and responding to each individual section. I’m still not quite sure how to do multiple quotes on this forum. (Liberal Arts major for a reason… )

Thanks again, guys, for your patience. It is refreshing.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Yep, you are.

Let’s look at a particular example: in the 1917 Code, there was a canon that mandated that men not wear hats in church and women always wear a head covering.

That made some sense in a society in which men generally always wore hats in public, and removed them indoors. However, the cultural custom of hat-wearing went out of fashion. Therefore, the Church changed its discipline regarding head coverings in the 1970s. This doesn’t mean that the previous law was ‘deficient’; it just meant that, in an earlier time, it was appropriate, and in a later time, it was not.

OK, so, yes, I can understand what you are saying with regard to the case you mentioned, and am thus led to understand that, in some cases, it is not a matter of deficiency but of cultural change that causes a law or part of it to be abrogated.

However, what about in our current case? What has changed now so that it is now permissible to associate with excommunicated persons that wasn’t the case when the previous canons were in place?

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Hmm, was just thinking in addition to all this:

Did the earlier canon law refer to actions conducted by individuals or merely to actions conducted by individuals or groups in the name of the Church?

In other words, if an individual acted in his own name, say, to associate with an excommunicated person or to do him some kindness or to send letters to him, would this have been permissible, but, if he acted in some way in the name of the Church, such would have been impermissible? Did “civilia iura” (“iura” meaning “rights” often in a very technical juridical sense) apply more to the Church in its official capacity rather than necessarily to individuals?

Also, is the authority of the Church in enacting canon law throughout time seen as always precisely correct for each period of time (if that is how it is to be seen) based on Christ’s statement that “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven”, etc.? So, then, does this mean that whatever laws the Church enacts are always perfect no matter what they are and when they are enacted even ifthey are changed or abrogated later?

 

[phil19034]

OK, so, yes, I can understand what you are saying with regard to the case you mentioned, and am thus led to understand that, in some cases, it is not a matter of deficiency but of cultural change that causes a law or part of it to be abrogated.

However, what about in our current case? What has changed now so that it is now permissible to associate with excommunicated persons that wasn’t the case when the previous canons were in place?

It’s the same kind of cultural change. Back in those times, telling Catholics to refrain from social contact from excommunicated Catholics was as much for the protection of the excommunicated person as it was to protect the non-excommunicated.

Think about how society was back then. Individuals were not as educated as they are today. Most did not have college educations, let alone have high school educations. People lived in homogenous communities. Catholics lived in Catholic communities, and people of all religions typically socialized with mainly people of their same religious, social, ethnic, & economic backgrounds. People may have worked with people of other backgrounds, but they usually didn’t socialize with them. Pluralism wasn’t like it is today. If a devout Catholic was socially talking with an excommunicated person, that Catholic would most likely be doing everything possible to bring the person back to the faith. However, if they got into heated discussions with the excommunicated, it could lead to sinful words, arguments, etc. Those discussions could further push the excommunicated person way from the Church.

So the Church wasn’t just protecting the practicing Catholic from the influence of the excommunicated, but they were also protecting the excommunicated from well meaning people who did not have the education to be effective apologists nor potentially know how to properly evangelize.

However, today, people are a lot more custom to interacting and socializing with people of different religious, social, ethnic, & economic backgrounds. People are going to be more delicate or non-confrontational with people of different beliefs (even with heretical Catholics) – NOTE: Obviously, people can still be very confrontational with their loved ones, but even there the idea of “never discuss religion or politics” is becoming the law in many families.

So it some it up, this discipline changed because society and culture changed. The excommunicated no longer needed protection from society. It wasn’t that long ago that heretics / sinners faced danger from angry mobs, the Spanish Inquisition is a prime example. The Spanish Inquisition was actually set up to PROTECT the accused heretics from mob violence and persecution, during a time when it was against secular law to be a heretic. An average person who was excommunicated would not have had a fun time walking around town in those days. So that’s why those laws existed. They were designed to protect everyone - the orthodox, heretic & excommunicated - both spiritually & physically.

I pray this helps.

God Bless

 

[MysticMissMisty]

It’s the same kind of cultural change. Back in those times, telling Catholics to refrain from social contact from excommunicated Catholics was as much for the protection of the excommunicated person as it was to protect the non-excommunicated.

Think about how society was back then. Individuals were not as educated as they are today. Most did not have college educations, let alone have high school educations. People lived in homogenous communities. Catholics lived in Catholic communities, and people of all religions typically socialized with mainly people of their same religious, social, ethnic, & economic backgrounds. People may have worked with people of other backgrounds, but they usually didn’t socialize with them. Pluralism wasn’t like it is today. If a devout Catholic was socially talking with an excommunicated person, that Catholic would most likely be doing everything possible to bring the person back to the faith. However, if they got into heated discussions with the excommunicated, it could lead to sinful words, arguments, etc. Those discussions could further push the excommunicated person way from the Church.

So the Church wasn’t just protecting the practicing Catholic from the influence of the excommunicated, but they were also protecting the excommunicated from well meaning people who did not have the education to be effective apologists nor potentially know how to properly evangelize.

However, today, people are a lot more custom to interacting and socializing with people of different religious, social, ethnic, & economic backgrounds. People are going to be more delicate or non-confrontational with people of different beliefs (even with heretical Catholics) – NOTE: Obviously, people can still be very confrontational with their loved ones, but even there the idea of “never discuss religion or politics” is becoming the law in many families.

So it some it up, this discipline changed because society and culture changed. The excommunicated no longer needed protection from society. It wasn’t that long ago that heretics / sinners faced danger from angry mobs, the Spanish Inquisition is a prime example. The Spanish Inquisition was actually set up to PROTECT the accused heretics from mob violence and persecution, during a time when it was against secular law to be a heretic. An average person who was excommunicated would not have had a fun time walking around town in those days. So that’s why those laws existed. They were designed to protect everyone - the orthodox, heretic & excommunicated - both spiritually & physically.

I pray this helps.

God Bless

A theory/opinion of your own? (I don’t ask this rhetorically/maliciously in any way. I ask sincerely.) Or, is this the official explanation for the abrogation of this part of the law? If not, is there any official explanation for its abrogation?

Also, I guess my question would arise in a situation say, where a relative or a friend was (hypothetically) excommunicated and the faithful Catholic still wished to be friends with him, still wished to write to him, to socialize with him, not only to bring him back but also simply to love him for his own good. He would still not have been permitted under the old law to do so?

And, what even of the stranger (not necessarily a close friend)? What if, say, a faithful Catholic desired to communicate with him to bring him back? Or, what if he saw him in distress in some way and wished to help him out either by personal conversation or by letter or by some other benefit? Would the faithful Catholic have been prohibited from doing so under the old law? What if two men were friends, the one faithful, the other not and, say, the unfaithful invited the faithful, as they still remained friends, to a meal. Would it have been the obligation of the faithful not to accept the invitation because it would have violated the old law?

 

[1ke]

OK, I’ve got to admit that this reply left me more confused than before.

So, essentially, because the Church commands something under disciplinary law, even if an individual has legitimate objections of conscience, he is still required to obey it simply because the Church has instituted it?

Yup.

Also, are you saying that, by necessity, the creation of a law is never fallible and always appropriate for its time?

Nope.

If this is so, what, then, has cahnged culturally or whatever to require now the abrogation of the laws prohibiting association with excommunicated persons from when it was in effect until now?

You think social or economic pressure to mend your ways carries the same weight in contemporary America as it did in 1850 America? It does not. Primarily because mobility, social circles, and economics have changed substantially in 150 and you don’t need to sell your eggs and milk to the guy down the street. And every guy on the street isn’t a fellow Cathoic anymore,

For, to me, both then and now, it seems that morality is, to some extent, tied up in all this. For instance, as I mentioned above, we should apparently do good to all men and God does good to both “good” and “bad” men, so, one could argue that the stringent requirements of Christians not to associate with excommunicated persons was too stringent and even went against God’s way of dealing with them so that, in recent law, these requirements were done away with on such principles as I just stated.

One could argue that, but one would be mistaken. And it is a definite good to help someone mend their errant ways,

It seems that, by abrogating previous requirements such as these, the Church is saying that there is actually a better way than was in force previously and, arguably, in doing this, stating that the previous way had some deficiency in it. Or, am I missing something here?

Thanks again, seriously!

The church isn’t saying that at all. In fact, what it is saying in this case (in my opinion) is that it is no longer effective since it lacks social and civil authority behind it in modern times.