Some Questions on Excommunication

[1ke]

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?

No, again stop looking through a lens that has no meaning here.

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

It’s always authoritative. “Correct” does not enter the equation anywhere.

 

[phil19034]

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?

it would depend on what was the intent of the law. You also cannot read Canon Law the same way you read American Law. Canon Law (esp back then) was written the same way other laws in Europe were written - with the assumption that the reader understands the context and indent.

American Laws on the other hand are written in a way to “avoid gray areas.” American Laws are written so that what the Law says is what the Law is. The American Legal system is really the first protestant legal system. So it’s very similar to sola scriptura. While the European Legal Systems (even in the protestant countries) take tradition into consideration (scripture & tradition), which makes sense since all of Europe was Catholic until the 1500s & because the Ancient Rome & the Jewish People did the same thing.

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?

Yes, I think you can make that argument. But keep in mind that not all Canon Law deals with discipline. Some Canons are simply administrative laws/rules for the running of the Church (similar to bi-laws in some organization). There are several different categories of Canon Law and different applications & target audiences – some of which isn’t self evident if you do not understand the context, intent and the culture of the time.

For a moment, let me provide you with a Canon which was changed for good intent, but now I personally believe should be changed back. The current Canon calls for the faithful to fast for 1 hour before receiving communion. The intent was to encourage Catholics to receive the communion more regularly. In those times, you had Catholics who were in a state of Grace & came to Mass every week; yet only received Communion once a year at Easter. So the communion Fast was changed to encourage the faithful to receive.

However, today, we many people who receive unworthily. I believe this happens because it is very hard to break the 1 hour communion fast, unless you practically live next door to the Church. So in the minds of many, the only people who remain in their seats during communion are non-Catholics, divorced & remarried without annulment, excommunicated, & mortal sinners. Therefore, people who are not in a state of grace may feel compelled to receive because they feel everyone’s eyes staring at them if they remain seated (even though most don’t notices them).

If the Church changed the discipline back to a 3 hour fast, then more people would stay in their seats during communion because if you are remain in your pew, the first thing someone will assume is that you didn’t fast, not that you committed a mortal sin. Basically, the sinners and divorced can hide in the pews without feeling like everyone is watching them.

Example: let’s say a teenager commits a mortal sin. If he/she doesn’t stand up to receive, mom & dad may ask, “why didn’t you receive? We had breakfast 2 hours ago.” So the teen might feel compelled to receive to hid his/her sins from mom & dad. But if the fast was 3 hours, the teen could always grab a piece of bread before leaving home and tell his/her parents they didn’t receive communion because they ate a piece of bread. A three hour fast would allow the teen to “hide” his/her sin from the public by simply having a piece of bread. So in my opinion, a change back to 3 hours would be good and would be addressing a different societal/cultural change that wasn’t relevant when when the fast used to be 3 hours.

I pray that I am making sense?

 

[MysticMissMisty]

No, again stop looking through a lens that has no meaning here.

It’s always authoritative. “Correct” does not enter the equation anywhere.

With all due respect, I am really confused.

Either something is correct or it isn’t, legally, morally, etc., right…?

So, authoritative does not necessarily = correct in all cases? Again… …

Sorry, I’m apparently really slow tonight… headshake

 

[phil19034]

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?

This is my own explanation / “theory” based on my understanding of sociology, history, and the Church – my explanation has no official status.

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?

I don’t think the word “socialize” has the same meaning today as it did back then.

The Canon would have prevented a mother from speaking with her excommunicated son. Furthermore, it would not have forced a wife to leave her excommunicated husband, nor a son to disrespect his excommunicated father. That would not have been the intent.

The Canon would have also not prevented a faithful Catholic from helping an excommunicated person either.

Think of it like this… if you punish a child, do you stop loving them? Do you stop feeding them? Do you ignore them? No. But you’re not going to take them to the movie theater or let them play video games.

You need to think of it within this context. Society used to have a larger role in upbringing of people. Today, it doesn’t.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

This is my own explanation / “theory” based on my understanding of sociology, history, and the Church – my explanation has no official status.

I don’t think the word “socialize” has the same meaning today as it did back then.

The Canon would have prevented a mother from speaking with her excommunicated son. Furthermore, it would not have forced a wife to leave her excommunicated husband, nor a son to disrespect his excommunicated father. That would not have been the intent.

The Canon would have also not prevented a faithful Catholic from helping an excommunicated person either.

Think of it like this… if you punish a child, do you stop loving them? Do you stop feeding them? Do you ignore them? No. But you’re not going to take them to the movie theater or let them play video games.

You need to think of it within this context. Society used to have a larger role in upbringing of people. Today, it doesn’t.

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut.

But, then again, I ask, concerning those outside the Faith and how we interact with them, particularly those who have committed a grave sin and realize it. If your analogy holds up, then, even to them, we should not associate with/do good to them (even if that good is not directly contributing to their behavior) because if would be like taking the kid to the movie theatre.

Actually, I don’t know if that analogy would technically hold up. Not taking a kid to the movie theatre is conceived of as a part of the punishment for wrongdoing. Or, at least, in the immediate aftermath of a sin, it could be construed as a reward for bad behavior. However, I think we must also keep in mind that God blesses both the righteous and unrighteous, so, I could argue that continuing to associate/do good to a man, even after you have expressed your disapproval of his sin, could still be justified. For instance, if you know the man, you may still help him out with lawn work, help him out when he’s ill, and do other goods not directly contributing to the sin…arguably(?).

Again, this is why I am wondering whether the old law conceived of this “disassociation” as more a collective Church action rather than necessitated/required on the part of the individual not acting in the name of the Church.

Indeed, wondering if there is any commentary addressing the collective vs. individual force of the original laws on disassociation…

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Back ont he subject of “whatever you bind on earth…” etc.

So, does this mean that, whatever law is made under canon law, in whatever era, is always going to be perfectly correct at least insofar as the era in which it was made/established? Is there this divine protection upon it? If so, it would seem that what the Church is saying is that even Canon Law is infallible, as it is not liable at any time to error.

 

[phil19034]

Either something is correct or it isn’t, legally, morally, etc., right…?

No this isn’t correct. Some immoral actions are inherently evil and while others are not. An inherently evil action is always evil, regardless of time, culture, society, etc. example: murder. Murder is always evil. But killing isn’t always evil because sometimes it can be just and sometimes it can be evil depending on the REASON or INTENT of the action.

Sometimes this is based on the intent of the individual and sometimes it’s based on the intent of society.

Let’s look at head coverings again. Is it inherently wrong for a woman not to cover her head? No, it isn’t. So why would it have been sinful back in they day? Because society said it was (not the natural law nor the Divine Law). Female head covering has a long and interesting story… But it started out because young girls grew their hair long. It was a beautiful sign of a sweet little girl growing into a beautiful lady. Beauty is from God, so why cut off beautif long hair? Beauty also represents chasity because beauty is more than ski deep. So a beautiful young woman would be chaste and have beautiful long hair. Then, over time, long hair became an actual societal sign of chasty (which is why the police used to cut the hair off prostitutes even into the 19th century). Head coverings grew out of that… The head covering was a way to cover shorter hair (if a wig was not affordable) and make the hair seem longer (or at least hide short hair). Then, the head covering became a sign of chasity and eventually obedience to the law.

But today, short hair no longer means chasity and short hair no longer means unchasity. The societal reason for the covering no longer existed. So it slowly became a law of obedience only. Once a law (or discipline) loses its positive impact on society, then it needs to be revisited. Not because the law is now bad. The law is morally neutral, but it’s effect no longer matches its intended purpose.

Am I making sense?

 

[phil19034]

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut.

But, then again, I ask, concerning those outside the Faith and how we interact with them, particularly those who have committed a grave sin and realize it. If your analogy holds up, then, even to them, we should not associate with/do good to them (even if that good is not directly contributing to their behavior) because if would be like taking the kid to the movie theatre.

Actually, I don’t know if that analogy would technically hold up. Not taking a kid to the movie theatre is conceived of as a part of the punishment for wrongdoing. Or, at least, in the immediate aftermath of a sin, it could be construed as a reward for bad behavior. However, I think we must also keep in mind that God blesses both the righteous and unrighteous, so, I could argue that continuing to associate/do good to a man, even after you have expressed your disapproval of his sin, could still be justified. For instance, if you know the man, you may still help him out with lawn work, help him out when he’s ill, and do other goods not directly contributing to the sin…arguably(?).

Again, this is why I am wondering whether the old law conceived of this “disassociation” as more a collective Church action rather than necessitated/required on the part of the individual not acting in the name of the Church.

Indeed, wondering if there is any commentary addressing the collective vs. individual force of the original laws on disassociation…

Today, would you punish another person’s child?

Is it common for people to even punish their nephews and nieces? No, it’s not. Today, some grandparents don’t even punish their grandchildren. People use positive reinforcement to help teach/correct kids who are not theirs, leaving punishment almost exclusively to parents.

But 100+ years ago Aunts and Uncles would punish their siblings kids. Neighbors and parents of friends may have punished children too.

Therefore, society would have played a more active role in attempting to correct individuals to follow the moral path. However, today society pushes individualism and “mind your own business” (even inside families) to the point where people do not get involved.

Honestly, I think you are over thinking it a bit. The Church simply makes discipline that it believes will help people live holier lives at that time. In today’s society some things we do now would it have worked in the past, just like some things they did in the past would not work now.

Let me paint a hypothetical. There are many Catholics who are starting to cancel cable tv. Let’s assume that TV continues to get worse until the point the Church puts out a teaching that faithful Catholics should refrain from purchasing Cable TV. Would that mean that it was once wrong to have cable? No. And what if cable then cleaned itself up due to millions of Catholics refraining from buying it. Would that mean that the Church made a mistake? No. It would mean that the discipline had the desired effect.

Now, what if instead Catholics stopped buying cable like the Church says, but instead they simply start streaming all the filth online instead? Later, the Church removes the discipline against buying tv. Why would they do that? Because, since everyone is streaming the filth online, the intended effect of the discipline (help people to avoid the filth from hollywood) isn’t working. Instead, it’s just making sinners out of people who are disobeying by buying cable. Does it mean that banning cable was wrong? No. It simply means that it didn’t have the intended results (or stopped having the intended results)

Culture and society change so disciplines change in an attempt to best address the needs of the society at that time (as long as they do not break the natural and divine laws).

 

[phil19034]

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut.

But, then again, I ask, concerning those outside the Faith and how we interact with them, particularly those who have committed a grave sin and realize it. If your analogy holds up, then, even to them, we should not associate with/do good to them (even if that good is not directly contributing to their behavior) because if would be like taking the kid to the movie theatre.

Actually, I don’t know if that analogy would technically hold up. Not taking a kid to the movie theatre is conceived of as a part of the punishment for wrongdoing. Or, at least, in the immediate aftermath of a sin, it could be construed as a reward for bad behavior. However, I think we must also keep in mind that God blesses both the righteous and unrighteous, so, I could argue that continuing to associate/do good to a man, even after you have expressed your disapproval of his sin, could still be justified. For instance, if you know the man, you may still help him out with lawn work, help him out when he’s ill, and do other goods not directly contributing to the sin…arguably(?).

Again, this is why I am wondering whether the old law conceived of this “disassociation” as more a collective Church action rather than necessitated/required on the part of the individual not acting in the name of the Church.

Indeed, wondering if there is any commentary addressing the collective vs. individual force of the original laws on disassociation…

People out side the faith are not subject to Canon Law. But they are subject to Divine Law and natural law.

Look at the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration didn’t promote anarchy. It respected the rule of law. But acknowledged that some laws & rights come from God; while others do not and are there for the betterment of society, unless they break God’s laws

 

[1ke]

So, does this mean that, whatever law is made under canon law, in whatever era, is always going to be perfectly correct

The only person saying that is you. At least 4 times on this thread someone has told you that “correct” isn’t the right way to frame it. Are you willing to be corrected yourself or are you just going to keep posting the same thing over and over despite the fact that it is erroneous?

It is not a matter of being “perfectly correct”.

Is there this divine protection upon it?

No.

 

[1ke]

Again, this is why I am wondering whether the old law conceived of this “disassociation” as more a collective Church action rather than necessitated/required on the part of the individual not acting in the name of the Church.

Indeed, wondering if there is any commentary addressing the collective vs. individual force of the original laws on disassociation…

So I just read the article in question and it doesn’t even say what you said it said.

It says these restrictions are no longer in place (I.e. In 1910 when it was written), but that they were in medieval times. (When there literally was a Christian civil society as well as ecclesial society).

The article clearly lists the types of interactions AND all the exceptions to the general norm of the time.

I’m out of this thread now.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

People out side the faith are not subject to Canon Law. But they are subject to Divine Law and natural law.

Look at the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration didn’t promote anarchy. It respected the rule of law. But acknowledged that some laws & rights come from God; while others do not and are there for the betterment of society, unless they break God’s laws

So, then, perhaps the betterment of society, i.e., the Society of the Church, is perhaps a big part of the key here? So, again, I am wondering whether, while the whole church’s involvement with a person is excluded under excommunication, at least under the old law, perhaps idnvidiauls acting alone, not in the name of the Church, might still be permitted to have communication with a person if it is for his good?

 

[MysticMissMisty]

The only person saying that is you. At least 4 times on this thread someone has told you that “correct” isn’t the right way to frame it. Are you willing to be corrected yourself or are you just going to keep posting the same thing over and over despite the fact that it is erroneous?

It is not a matter of being “perfectly correct”.

No.

I just don’t understand this notion, pure and simple! That is all. Nothing more, nothing less. Something is either correct, if even for its own time, or it is not.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

So I just read the article in question and it doesn’t even say what you said it said.

It says these restrictions are no longer in place (I.e. In 1910 when it was written), but that they were in medieval times. (When there literally was a Christian civil society as well as ecclesial society).

The article clearly lists the types of interactions AND all the exceptions to the general norm of the time.

I’m out of this thread now.

And, once again, you demonstrate a lack of patience with someone who is just trying to understand and just may be a little slower than you. That is all I have to say on that issue.

 

[phil19034]

So, then, perhaps the betterment of society, i.e., the Society of the Church, is perhaps a big part of the key here? So, again, I am wondering whether, while the whole church’s involvement with a person is excluded under excommunication, at least under the old law, perhaps idnvidiauls acting alone, not in the name of the Church, might still be permitted to have communication with a person if it is for his good?

That would have been between that person and his/her priest. But most likely the person doing any outreach would have been a priest or a member of a religious order.

Remember, back in those days everything was culturally different. Some things that are done now were not done back then. Just like some things that were done back then are not done now.

The role of the laity was very different than today.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I just don’t understand this notion, pure and simple! That is all. Nothing more, nothing less. Something is either correct, if even for its own time, or it is not.

This is a faulty assumption. It is not a matter of “correct” or “incorrect”. Let’s use slavery as an example.

At one time, slavery was thought to be acceptable, but there were many people who felt it was “incorrect” as it dehumanized the individual. But it was “legal” in many places, so one could say that in that context it was “correct”.

We now, at least in the West, have come to the realization that slavery is not only wrong, but an affront to human dignity, but we cannot hold the people of the past accountable as being incorrect, because in their time, they were not.

Laws, values and social mores change and evolve as society does. The Church knows that, and it is part of the reason that they re-wrote the Code of Cannon Law. I suggest that you read the preface to the new code, and stop looking to the old one for an understanding of things, we don’t use it anymore, and it seems to me that is the source of your confusion.

 

[1ke]

This is a faulty assumption. It is not a matter of “correct” or “incorrect”. Let’s use slavery as an example.

At one time, slavery was thought to be acceptable, but there were many people who felt it was “incorrect” as it dehumanized the individual. But it was “legal” in many places, so one could say that in that context it was “correct”.

We now, at least in the West, have come to the realization that slavery is not only wrong, but an affront to human dignity, but we cannot hold the people of the past accountable as being incorrect, because in their time, they were not.

Laws, values and social mores change and evolve as society does. The Church knows that, and it is part of the reason that they re-wrote the Code of Cannon Law. I suggest that you read the preface to the new code, and stop looking to the old one for an understanding of things, we don’t use it anymore, and it seems to me that is the source of your confusion.

Ok, so I came back.

Actually, I don’t think the slavery example is a good one, because it does have a moral dimension and can in fact be “right” or “wrong”.

But canon law is procedural, not moral law. It’s defining things like procedures for setting up a new religious order, how pastors govern parishes, what is required for the administration of sacraments, the administration of church goods, clerical offices, the juridic processes of the church court system, the disciplines of fasting, holy days of obligation, etc.

Processes and procedures don’t have a moral dimension. They change to suit the needs of the people conducting the processes. And that changes over time.

So, again, not a matter of “right” or “wrong” or “correct” or 'incorrect" or “perfectly correct”. It has no moral dimension.

 

[ProVobis]

Laws, values and social mores change and evolve as society does. The Church knows that, and it is part of the reason that they re-wrote the Code of Cannon Law. I suggest that you read the preface to the new code, and stop looking to the old one for an understanding of things, we don’t use it anymore, and it seems to me that is the source of your confusion.

This ignores the underlying issues involved. For example, it was at one time an automatic excommunication if one obtains a divorce. Then the excommunication was lifted but the Church doesn’t say that divorce is now the desired outcome either. But that won’t stop some people from saying the Church “allows it now and it didn’t before” and that’s problematic.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

This ignores the underlying issues involved. For example, it was at one time an automatic excommunication if one obtains a divorce. Then the excommunication was lifted but the Church doesn’t say that divorce is now the desired outcome either. But that won’t stop some people from saying the Church “allows it now and it didn’t before” and that’s problematic.

So because “some people” are going to use your justification, should we bring back the penalty for all who divorce, even the woman who has been abused? Where is/was the “mercy” in that?

Some people are going to drink & drive, even though they know it’s illegal and imprudent, not to mention extremely selfish. Does that mean we are going to make alcohol or cars illegal?
We tried that with alcohol in this country, it didn’t work out so well.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

That would have been between that person and his/her priest. But most likely the person doing any outreach would have been a priest or a member of a religious order.

Remember, back in those days everything was culturally different. Some things that are done now were not done back then. Just like some things that were done back then are not done now.

The role of the laity was very different than today.

So, then, ifsomeone got the permission of a local priest, for instance, interaction with an excommunicated eprson might be permitted, again, if it were an individual, not a C/church-sanctioned interaction?

I don’t know. With all respect, It just seems that refusing contact with a person could negate some opportunities for him to be reconciled to the Church and for members to show him love, though he had sinned, even grievously…but, again, maybe that’s just me.

That is initially why I thought the canon might have changed – because the Church saw what detriment such complete shunning/cutting off could have on the one excommunicated.

That’s why I kept thinking that maybe this abrogation was one of a kind of"correction" to a former disciplinary procedure. So, I did see a moral element in this issue, although not so directly intertwined with the discipline as (arguably) to suggest that the very morals of the Church changed.

I still don’t get how today’s culture has changed so much that it is now permissible to have contact (and even encouraged to do so!) with someone excommunicated whereas it seemed originally utterly to be taboo.