O
otjm
Guest
Issues of conscience are a bit more complex than simple black and white answers. If I were to direct you to anything, it would be to to The Catholic Catechism by John A. Hardon, S.J, pg.s 290 - 295.
- Status
P
ProVobis
Guest
Nisi fallor, this is what’s being discussed at the synod. Or, rather, was discussed.
True, but driving drunk is still not a desired activity. In fact, it’s grave matter, as is divorce, though there may be mitigating circumstances such as you’ve presented.
O
otjm
Guest
My understanding was not about divorce, but divorce, remarriage, and (for whatever reason) no ability to obtain a decree of nullity in order to rectify the “second” marriage. I don’t think anyone was or is proposing a return to excommunication for obtaining a divorce. Nor was or is anyone proposing that divorce is not a serious matter.
P
phil19034
Guest
I think you are forgetting what kind of infractions one must do to get excommunicated. Besides divorse and abortion back then (which were scandalous to say the least), the excommunicated would have committed serious crimes against the Church: physically attacking a bishop, death threats against a bishop, publicly teaching heresy, etc.
Furthermore, most people who are publicly excommunicated are priests, bishops and religious. It’s important to keep the laity away from renegade clergy & religious.
Today, more lay people are receiving automatic excommunications for abortion & divorse when it used to be an automatic excommunication. So yes, with more lay people being excommunicated, a “shunning law” as you may call it is not a good idea. But when they are mostly clergy & religious; yes - keep the laity away from them.
God Bless
M
MysticMissMisty
Guest
Oh, wow, yes, that is an interesting way to look at it. I’d never really thought of it that way.
M
MysticMissMisty
Guest
Thanks, everyone, for your replies thus far.
I was just thinking about the first form of excommunication as laid out by Paul when he said not to associate with a so-called brother who was engaged in sin. He even said not to eat with him. To me, thus very much sounds like a full-on “shunning”. Or, was the “eating” in this case more a reference to the communal meal shared by members of the Church collectively? I’m wondering whether the original excommunication was indeed a complete shunning as later law seemed to advocate or whether it was, again, something akin to a collective shunning of the Church in the sense that the excommunicated was barred from collective, Church-centered activities.
Also, as I understand it, reasons for excommunication have become far graver today than they used to be and the practice is used far less frequently. So, then, again, I ask, why has such practice changed so much in recent years? Surely the weight of the sins that are now not considered for excommunication hasn’t changed? It just seems to me, as an admittedly outside observer (though possibly not for long), that certain laws/procedures may be liable to change on account of their, in later times, being considered ultimately too severe.
But, again, what of Paul’s words written as inspired text? Surely, because his words were inspired, even his rulings on disciplinary matters were inspired as well? yet, again, we have seemingly a notion of complete shunning, unless someone can show/argue otherwise…
Thanks again fro your patience in all this. I’m just trying to make sense of the rather substantial/weighty topics of both theology, morality, law, etc.
I was just thinking about the first form of excommunication as laid out by Paul when he said not to associate with a so-called brother who was engaged in sin. He even said not to eat with him. To me, thus very much sounds like a full-on “shunning”. Or, was the “eating” in this case more a reference to the communal meal shared by members of the Church collectively? I’m wondering whether the original excommunication was indeed a complete shunning as later law seemed to advocate or whether it was, again, something akin to a collective shunning of the Church in the sense that the excommunicated was barred from collective, Church-centered activities.
Also, as I understand it, reasons for excommunication have become far graver today than they used to be and the practice is used far less frequently. So, then, again, I ask, why has such practice changed so much in recent years? Surely the weight of the sins that are now not considered for excommunication hasn’t changed? It just seems to me, as an admittedly outside observer (though possibly not for long), that certain laws/procedures may be liable to change on account of their, in later times, being considered ultimately too severe.
But, again, what of Paul’s words written as inspired text? Surely, because his words were inspired, even his rulings on disciplinary matters were inspired as well? yet, again, we have seemingly a notion of complete shunning, unless someone can show/argue otherwise…
Thanks again fro your patience in all this. I’m just trying to make sense of the rather substantial/weighty topics of both theology, morality, law, etc.
M
MysticMissMisty
Guest
Bit of a side note/observation here, but, “nisi fallor”! May I just say that your insertion of Latin into your posts in this way is really geeking me out right now as a Latinist and, indeed, an advocate of “living Latin”, certainly as a form of pedagogy?
Anyway, back to the topic at hand…
M
MysticMissMisty
Guest
Also, some folks here have brought up the issue that, while divorce once brought with it automatic excommunication, it no longer does. Some here have also argued that this change resulted because it was more merciful the way it is now.
I would argu, again, as an outsider, that this signals a change in canon law brought about as a corrective to the former way because the former way was not really as merciful as the present way now is (or, at least, it would seem that this is what those who made the changes might argue). So, here, maybe even for its own time, this automatic excommunication might have been considered too harsh and not as merciful as it could have been.
So, in the same way, then, could one not argue that the current allowance of people to associate with excommunicated persons resulted from the same kind of “corrective” action since, as I alluded to earlier, a complete cutting off of an excommunicated person may have more detrimental effects than positive for the person excommunicated? So, then, one might argue, the earlier procedure was, by later canonists, considered not actually to be the best, and maybe not even the most merciful, way, even for its time, so, then, this was corrected later.
If canon law/disciplinary matters do not fall under the heading of infallibility, I would argue that it is indeed possible for a law to be made that could actually be more merciful if changed to be so later. If canon law is not subject to infallibility, I would argue, it can be subbject to error and, what I mean by error is, it could have the potential to be improved as far as, say, its mercifulness, effectiveness and so on. If something is not subject to infallibility, at least, as I understand it, then it is not automatically unliable to error and error, at least as I have conceived it, could potentially arise. Or, again, am I missing something?
I think the problem arises, however, when such disciplinary matters are included in inspired texts such as the Acts of the Apostles and Paul’s various epistles. There is also an interesting saying in the Acts that problematizes this whole issue. At the First Jerusalem Council, those in attendance say that “it seemed good” both to them and “to the Holy Spirit” to implement disciplinary procedures of commanding their flocks to, for example, avoid eating the blood of animals. This would seem to suggest that the Holy Spirit was guiding these men even in matters of discipline. Furthermore, when Paul discusses the early form of excommunication, one might then argue that, in this as in the Jerusalem Council, he was guided by the Holy Spirit. If, in each case, these men were guided by the Holy Spirit, should these declarations not have been infallible? Should, then, by implication, future declarations in disciplinary matters also be infallible?
Yet, again, we seem (arguably) to have at least some instances of “corrective” applied to canon law so as, for instance, to work toward greater mercy in its application.
Obviously, in the case of meat and blood, the cultural context is playing a role so one could argue that the Spirit is guiding the Council insofar as the circumstances in which they found themselves and a change was later applied because of a difference in circumstance.
If the earliest excommunication was a complete shunning (and was it, or simply a separation from the collective society of the Church, but not necessary disallowing individuals in their own names to associate with the excommunicated?) and if ti was inspired by the Holy Spirit (infallible?), again, what would have made complete shunning of all excommunicated persons in the Church of Paul’s time appropriate while it is not considered to be so today? After all, if such shunning was at the time considered to have positive effects for the excommunicated (“medicinal”, as some have put it), then why would we want to go and change that today, especially if Paul was, as those in the Jerusalem Council, being guided by the very Holy Spirit?
I would argu, again, as an outsider, that this signals a change in canon law brought about as a corrective to the former way because the former way was not really as merciful as the present way now is (or, at least, it would seem that this is what those who made the changes might argue). So, here, maybe even for its own time, this automatic excommunication might have been considered too harsh and not as merciful as it could have been.
So, in the same way, then, could one not argue that the current allowance of people to associate with excommunicated persons resulted from the same kind of “corrective” action since, as I alluded to earlier, a complete cutting off of an excommunicated person may have more detrimental effects than positive for the person excommunicated? So, then, one might argue, the earlier procedure was, by later canonists, considered not actually to be the best, and maybe not even the most merciful, way, even for its time, so, then, this was corrected later.
If canon law/disciplinary matters do not fall under the heading of infallibility, I would argue that it is indeed possible for a law to be made that could actually be more merciful if changed to be so later. If canon law is not subject to infallibility, I would argue, it can be subbject to error and, what I mean by error is, it could have the potential to be improved as far as, say, its mercifulness, effectiveness and so on. If something is not subject to infallibility, at least, as I understand it, then it is not automatically unliable to error and error, at least as I have conceived it, could potentially arise. Or, again, am I missing something?
I think the problem arises, however, when such disciplinary matters are included in inspired texts such as the Acts of the Apostles and Paul’s various epistles. There is also an interesting saying in the Acts that problematizes this whole issue. At the First Jerusalem Council, those in attendance say that “it seemed good” both to them and “to the Holy Spirit” to implement disciplinary procedures of commanding their flocks to, for example, avoid eating the blood of animals. This would seem to suggest that the Holy Spirit was guiding these men even in matters of discipline. Furthermore, when Paul discusses the early form of excommunication, one might then argue that, in this as in the Jerusalem Council, he was guided by the Holy Spirit. If, in each case, these men were guided by the Holy Spirit, should these declarations not have been infallible? Should, then, by implication, future declarations in disciplinary matters also be infallible?
Yet, again, we seem (arguably) to have at least some instances of “corrective” applied to canon law so as, for instance, to work toward greater mercy in its application.
Obviously, in the case of meat and blood, the cultural context is playing a role so one could argue that the Spirit is guiding the Council insofar as the circumstances in which they found themselves and a change was later applied because of a difference in circumstance.
If the earliest excommunication was a complete shunning (and was it, or simply a separation from the collective society of the Church, but not necessary disallowing individuals in their own names to associate with the excommunicated?) and if ti was inspired by the Holy Spirit (infallible?), again, what would have made complete shunning of all excommunicated persons in the Church of Paul’s time appropriate while it is not considered to be so today? After all, if such shunning was at the time considered to have positive effects for the excommunicated (“medicinal”, as some have put it), then why would we want to go and change that today, especially if Paul was, as those in the Jerusalem Council, being guided by the very Holy Spirit?
D
dans0622
Guest
Hello,
As far as I know, there was never an “automatic excommunication” for divorce.
To your broader questions, I’d only say that the ultimate purpose of the Church’s law is the salvation of souls. People and cultures change over time so that one approach to trying to further the salvation of souls might work best during one era but not in another. Regarding the category of “avoided excommunicates”, it was abandoned because it was thought that it didn’t further the salvation of souls as it once did. In today’s world, avoidance tends to breed resentment, not repentance. That is the thinking and I would have to agree with it, in general.
Just because a certain “law” was proposed or enacted by an Apostle does not make it divine, immutable law.
Dan
M
MysticMissMisty
Guest
I would argue that avoidance not only breeds resentment and bred it both then and now, but it also may not lend itself so well to possible reconciliation. After all, maybe a friend, showing kindness to an excommunicated person, might eventually, by his actions, win this person back from his sin.
I would also argue that it denies the opportunity for positive acts of love that even God is said to provide even tot he worst of sinners. Even Christ indeed associated (even ate with!) the worst of sinners, and I would argue that this was not simply (though it was very much) to win them over to His Message but also to show them God’s true desire to love them, to commune with them, even if He strongly disapproves of their sin. He ate with such men, and the Pharisees indeed chastised Him for it. Maybe they, too, thought that it was unnatural and maybe even unbecoming to eat with people who were (likely) even very deliberately sinning. Yes, Christ likely used these opportunities to preach to these sinful people (though this is never, as I recall anyway, directly stated), but he (arguably?) also took pleasure in (the positive aspects of) their company and suffered to dine with them to commune with them for their own sakes, for their good. After all, if His only goal was to preach to them, He could have very well done that from afar off in a boat or on a hill as He also often did with great effectiveness.
Furthermore, God sends sun and rain (I take this in a positive light) both on the just and on the unjust. He does not deny goodness or even “association” in some sense to them because of even grievous sins. He continues both to do good for them both for its own sake and for the purposes of reaching out to them, I would argue. And I need not point out that He did this things quite contemporaneously to the time in which Paul and the Church under him thrived.
And, yet, Jesus did say that, if someone continues deliberately to sin, he should be treated as a tax collector or sinner, seeming to imply some manner of disassociation. But, still, Christ Himself, as I noted just now, did continue to associate with such even at table on a personal level.
Again, this is why I’m wondering whether Paul’s notion of excommunication simply applied to the excommunicated person’s interaction with the Church Society as a whole or collective unit but would allow individuals under their own name still to associate with excommunicated individuals.
What are folks’ thoughts on this angle of the question?
P
ProVobis
Guest
I used the phrase because I felt I was overusing “AFAIK” though it means (as you probably know) “Unless I am mistaken.” I’ll credit Fr Z for it.Bit of a side note/observation here, but, “nisi fallor”! May I just say that your insertion of Latin into your posts in this way is really geeking me out right now as a Latinist and, indeed, an advocate of “living Latin”, certainly as a form of pedagogy?
Anyway, back to the topic at hand…
M
MysticMissMisty
Guest
Another question I’m still seeking answers to is how does (or, more properly, how did) the original shunning of the excommunicated relate to our interactions with non-Christians, particularly those who were, indeed, knowingly sinning (at least according to their own standards and what they knew of the Divine and natural laws)?
After all, if shunning of someone within the Church was supposed to produce “medicinal” effects in such a way that it would hopefully bring the excommunicated out of sin, should such not have the same effect even with non-believers in sin of their own? If so, then, why would people have not been advised, when the shunning was still in place, also to avoid non-believers in the same way if they knew they were sinning? Why would Christians not also have been advised to shun non-believers whether friends of associates, if possible, so that that might bring them back away from their sin? Why, again, would we have been prevented trom associating with someone in the Church who was excommunicated for sin but still have been allowed to associate with men outside who may have committed the same sin with the same gravity knowingly? Some here, it would seem, have argued for that distinction. How, indeed, though, could this distinction be argued? How could it stand, especially in the light of what I have just said?
Interestingly, even in Paul’s time, at one point in one of his letters he specifically says that he does not mean that we are not to associate with unbelievers since “we would have to go out of the world”, so, then, he allowd for association with unbelievers, so it would seem. However, his qualification, “otherwise we would have to go out of the world” almost seems concessive in tone. In other words, he seems to be saying, “It is really a necessity that we have to associate with unbelievers in our daily lives because they are everywhere around us, but, if we didn’t have this problem, it would be better not to. Since this is the situation, however, it is fine to associate with unbelievers, because it cannot be avoided.”
Interestingly, though, in another place, Paul basically asks the rhetorical question, “What have I to do with judging unbelivers?”, saying that God will ultimately judge them.
So, how do folks think that this would have had to do with the apparent shunning that was originally in place for believers of Paul’s time? Would believers of his time have been permitted to associate with unbelieving friends, say, and do good to them even if they were guilty of sins similar in gravity to thsoe for which men were being excommunicated within the Church? Why or why not?
Let us take an example. Say a Christian knew, in Paul’s time, an unbeliever who was an adulterer, even though that unbeliever knew it was wrong. Let us say that the believing friend has done all he can to bring the unbelieving friend around, but the unbelieving friend won’t budge. Would the believer still be permitted to associate with the adulterer in other ways, so long as it wasn’t directly contributing to his sin? Would the believer still be permitted to dine with the unbeliever, for example or to do various good to him, basically, to show love to him in various ways, despite his sin? (Let us argue, for the moment, that adultery was something for which excommunication was at this time in force.) So, even though a Christian was prohibited from associating with a so-called brother who was doing this, would he still be permitted to associate with and, indeed, do good to his unbelieving friend who was committing the same grave sin? (Let us also say that the believer is strong enough to avoid falling into the same sin under the unbeliever’s influence.)
What do folks think on all this?
Also, what if the unbeliever above in question is not necessarily a close friend but simply an associate or a less close “friend”. How would all this apply in that situation?
I am indeed also wondering about all this in the context of how Jesus associated with sinners as mentioned in my previous post.
(I know all this sounds very hypothetical, since, apparently, the shunning provision is no longer in effect, but, it can surely have implications for other modern topics as well and, for me personally, it is of historical interest.)
After all, if shunning of someone within the Church was supposed to produce “medicinal” effects in such a way that it would hopefully bring the excommunicated out of sin, should such not have the same effect even with non-believers in sin of their own? If so, then, why would people have not been advised, when the shunning was still in place, also to avoid non-believers in the same way if they knew they were sinning? Why would Christians not also have been advised to shun non-believers whether friends of associates, if possible, so that that might bring them back away from their sin? Why, again, would we have been prevented trom associating with someone in the Church who was excommunicated for sin but still have been allowed to associate with men outside who may have committed the same sin with the same gravity knowingly? Some here, it would seem, have argued for that distinction. How, indeed, though, could this distinction be argued? How could it stand, especially in the light of what I have just said?
Interestingly, even in Paul’s time, at one point in one of his letters he specifically says that he does not mean that we are not to associate with unbelievers since “we would have to go out of the world”, so, then, he allowd for association with unbelievers, so it would seem. However, his qualification, “otherwise we would have to go out of the world” almost seems concessive in tone. In other words, he seems to be saying, “It is really a necessity that we have to associate with unbelievers in our daily lives because they are everywhere around us, but, if we didn’t have this problem, it would be better not to. Since this is the situation, however, it is fine to associate with unbelievers, because it cannot be avoided.”
Interestingly, though, in another place, Paul basically asks the rhetorical question, “What have I to do with judging unbelivers?”, saying that God will ultimately judge them.
So, how do folks think that this would have had to do with the apparent shunning that was originally in place for believers of Paul’s time? Would believers of his time have been permitted to associate with unbelieving friends, say, and do good to them even if they were guilty of sins similar in gravity to thsoe for which men were being excommunicated within the Church? Why or why not?
Let us take an example. Say a Christian knew, in Paul’s time, an unbeliever who was an adulterer, even though that unbeliever knew it was wrong. Let us say that the believing friend has done all he can to bring the unbelieving friend around, but the unbelieving friend won’t budge. Would the believer still be permitted to associate with the adulterer in other ways, so long as it wasn’t directly contributing to his sin? Would the believer still be permitted to dine with the unbeliever, for example or to do various good to him, basically, to show love to him in various ways, despite his sin? (Let us argue, for the moment, that adultery was something for which excommunication was at this time in force.) So, even though a Christian was prohibited from associating with a so-called brother who was doing this, would he still be permitted to associate with and, indeed, do good to his unbelieving friend who was committing the same grave sin? (Let us also say that the believer is strong enough to avoid falling into the same sin under the unbeliever’s influence.)
What do folks think on all this?
Also, what if the unbeliever above in question is not necessarily a close friend but simply an associate or a less close “friend”. How would all this apply in that situation?
I am indeed also wondering about all this in the context of how Jesus associated with sinners as mentioned in my previous post.
(I know all this sounds very hypothetical, since, apparently, the shunning provision is no longer in effect, but, it can surely have implications for other modern topics as well and, for me personally, it is of historical interest.)
P
phil19034
Guest
I’m sorry, but I really think you are being too legalistic and reading stuff too literal.
Also, you need to stop looking at the history using a modern worldview. You have to think like they thought.
People didn’t consider what they were doing shunning. They considered it avoiding near occasion of sin.
Canon Law is not going to dictate that someone avoid their family members or close relatives.
Additionally, you have to look at the way evangelization was done back then. Missionaries were sent to speak to large groups. It was rarely done one on one by laity to strangers.
A nominal Christian in those days would avoid contact with mortal sinners our of a prudence o avoiding near occasion of sin. Not our of hypocrisy, etc… but as a way to avoid being tempted themselves to participate in the sin.
This is no different than telling your young children to avoid the bad kids in the neighborhood.
This is really the jest of the whole thing.
I pray this is helpful.
God Bless!
M
MysticMissMisty
Guest
A “near occasion of sin” can be different from person to person. Note that I said that, in my example, the person would be strong enough to avoid falling himself into adultery.
And, I am not speaking merely of evangelization when I speak of association. I am speaking of still having friendly relations with an unbeliever committing adultery, if possible, even though the believer would have tried to convert him from his error. You mention family and close realtions. What of friends and even associates? How would those have been dealt with?
Also, could you please explain precisely how I am being legalistic?
Christ Himself ate withsinners. I suppose one could argue that He was without sin so didn’t have to worry about it “rubbing off” on Him as a weak sinful person. However, is He not to be our example in all things? Could we not argue that He was presenting Himself as an example in the situation of dining with sinners as well?
I don’t know about you, but, as far as us being poor little weaklings unable to avoid falling into sin so much so that we cannot associate with sinners without us falling into it, I highly doubt that most of us are that weak. Yes, some of us may be. Or, maybe I’m just a stronger person than most?
M
MysticMissMisty
Guest
You see, I am a very loving person. (You may be surprised at this given my very cool, logical demeanor here, but it is true.) I am an INFJ personality type, so this might have something to do with this. I love as far and as much as I can. I continue to try and support a person for as long as I can. I do so so long as my support is not contributing to his sin. I love him as fully and as totally as I can, no matter what he has done (or at least I try). I love people deeply and richly. It is a part of my drive in life, and a part of the drive of many INFJs, as I understand it, even though many of us, on the surface, may seem cold at times. We seek relationships and deep ones and often try to look past differences to the common humanity of all. We work from that common humanity to form and strengthen relationships. I am very moved by the emotions of others, almost empathically.
I hate having to let people go. I don’t give up on them easily. I don’t leave them easily. I try to love to the utmost limit. I hate having to abandon people. I want them to know that they are loved no matter what they do. I want them to feel cared-for. I am passionate about this. It is my lifes’ drive, as I say. It is central to how I live and, indeed, who I am.
I tend to stick by people if few or anyone else will. I love to love. I love people, people of all types. I love them despite their flaws/sins.
I want to reach out to those shunned and not participate in it. I want to draw them close to me and let them feel my and, in turn, God’s caring compassionate love for them.
Therefore, issues in Scripture and Christian Tradition involving shunning or avoidance always hit me pretty hard. I always struggle with them mightily.
So, in this and like questions here on these fora, this is where I am coming from.
Hope that helps folks here to more fully understand my perspective and where I am coming from.
Anyway, this may have been a bit tangential to the main topic at hand, but, as I say, I just wanted to give you all some perspective as to why I struggle so much with issues like this.
Thanks for hearing.
I hate having to let people go. I don’t give up on them easily. I don’t leave them easily. I try to love to the utmost limit. I hate having to abandon people. I want them to know that they are loved no matter what they do. I want them to feel cared-for. I am passionate about this. It is my lifes’ drive, as I say. It is central to how I live and, indeed, who I am.
I tend to stick by people if few or anyone else will. I love to love. I love people, people of all types. I love them despite their flaws/sins.
I want to reach out to those shunned and not participate in it. I want to draw them close to me and let them feel my and, in turn, God’s caring compassionate love for them.
Therefore, issues in Scripture and Christian Tradition involving shunning or avoidance always hit me pretty hard. I always struggle with them mightily.
So, in this and like questions here on these fora, this is where I am coming from.
Hope that helps folks here to more fully understand my perspective and where I am coming from.
Anyway, this may have been a bit tangential to the main topic at hand, but, as I say, I just wanted to give you all some perspective as to why I struggle so much with issues like this.
Thanks for hearing.
G
Gorgias
Guest
It’s important to be precise here. This is not “a change in canon law”, because canon law never called for that penalty. Rather, in the United States, inasmuch as it was perceived that the rise of divorce among non-Catholic Christians may have led Catholics to believe that divorce was permissible, it has been asserted that – in a particular time and place – divorce carried an ecclesiastical penalty. If that were the case, then the change wasn’t a matter of “a corrective change in canon law” for the universal Church, but rather, a temporary establishment of a particular discipline for a particular situation, which – when the particular situation (i.e., the sudden rise of (ecclesially sanctioned) divorce among Christians) – disappeared, the need for the discipline likewise disappeared.
Not really sure what you think you’re ‘arguing’ here. Yes, canon law may change over time. Yes, what is merciful in one period of time might be modified to be perceived as ‘more merciful’ in another.
Not sure how this is a problem. In other inspired texts, people are told that a bill of divorce is permissible… but later, Jesus Himself mentions that this was a disciplinary measure that was applicable only to a particular situation (but not all times and places).
Still… this is not a problem, is it? If the Spirit guides the leaders of the Church to say, “here and now, this is prohibited and that is not”… what’s the problem?
No, not necessarily.
Like many Catholics (and observers of Catholics), you seem to suffer from 'infallibility-itis".
When the leaders of the Church offer direction, they speak authoritatively, but that doesn’t imply that each of these authoritative directives are infallible. Likewise, Scripture is inerrant, but it doesn’t mean that everything you find in Scripture holds for all times and all places. (If it did, then it would imply that the Mosaic Covenant was binding for all Christians… which we know that it isn’t, right?
)So, you need to ask yourself what you understand to be the difference between ‘inerrant’ and ‘infallible’ and ‘authoritative’ speech – and why you seem to be asserting that the latter two must be the former one.
M
MysticMissMisty
Guest
As far as the notion that something may be more merciful at one time and less at another, yes, maybe, in some cases, but that, in most, I would argue, seems like a load of moral relativism.It’s important to be precise here. This is not “a change in canon law”, because canon law never called for that penalty. Rather, in the United States, inasmuch as it was perceived that the rise of divorce among non-Catholic Christians may have led Catholics to believe that divorce was permissible, it has been asserted that – in a particular time and place – divorce carried an ecclesiastical penalty. If that were the case, then the change wasn’t a matter of “a corrective change in canon law” for the universal Church, but rather, a temporary establishment of a particular discipline for a particular situation, which – when the particular situation (i.e., the sudden rise of (ecclesially sanctioned) divorce among Christians) – disappeared, the need for the discipline likewise disappeared.
Not really sure what you think you’re ‘arguing’ here. Yes, canon law may change over time. Yes, what is merciful in one period of time might be modified to be perceived as ‘more merciful’ in another.
Not sure how this is a problem. In other inspired texts, people are told that a bill of divorce is permissible… but later, Jesus Himself mentions that this was a disciplinary measure that was applicable only to a particular situation (but not all times and places).
Still… this is not a problem, is it? If the Spirit guides the leaders of the Church to say, “here and now, this is prohibited and that is not”… what’s the problem?
No, not necessarily.
Like many Catholics (and observers of Catholics), you seem to suffer from 'infallibility-itis".
When the leaders of the Church offer direction, they speak authoritatively, but that doesn’t imply that each of these authoritative directives are infallible. Likewise, Scripture is inerrant, but it doesn’t mean that everything you find in Scripture holds for all times and all places. (If it did, then it would imply that the Mosaic Covenant was binding for all Christians… which we know that it isn’t, right?
So, you need to ask yourself what you understand to be the difference between ‘inerrant’ and ‘infallible’ and ‘authoritative’ speech – and why you seem to be asserting that the latter two must be the former one.
To me, shunning someone because of most sins, even some grave ones, seems rather extreme. As I say, I just don’t think that we’re as vulnerable as some would have us be to being influenced by the sins of another. And, yes, maybe some are, but we must know ourselves and act accordingly, I think. I mean, I might see the point of shunning when it comes to heresy because of the influence that a heretic around can have on others, but, as far as other sins, as long as the sinner is not trying to impose his sin on you, then, I see no need for shunning them, save in terms of the Sacraments and perhaps other aspects of official Church life. (Forgive me if I presume too much as an outsider…)
Still, to me, this kind of shunning could be merely that of the Church collectively, as I posited in my very first post. As a collective body, perhaps those in Paul’s day, say, would exclude excommunicated persons from, of course, the Sacraments, but also from association generally with members of the collective Body, but I don’t see why one individual associating with an excommunicated person at a personal level should necessarily harm the entire Body, as long as that individual was not coming to/associating with him officially in some way as if in the name of the Church as a whole.
I’m wondering if Paul originally had this in mind when he spoke of the “primitive” form of excommunication? Or, do you think that he was, in fact, barring even individuals from at all associating with excommunicated persons, be it in the name of the Church or even completely personally? Was, for instance, teh admonition not even to eat with one excommunicated meant in such a way that I, say, couldn’t go to the table of someone within the Church committing adultery to share a meal with him, or was Paul there speaking of the communal meals of the Church as a whole? Again, on a related note, what were members of the early Church to have done concerning unbelievers known to be in such sins? Would believers have been permitted socially to associate on a personal level with them? Why or why not?
Or, did Paul really have in mind the complete social isolation of the excommunicated that would cut him off entirely from any possibility of love shown/good done for him?
Finally, you say that disciplinary rulings do not fall under the heading of infallibility. This says to me that they may, potentially, be liable to under- or overreach (“error” in some sense of the word) from time to time as they are not infallible and, thus, not divinely protected from such “error”, at least as I understand infallibility or the lack thereof. You seem to imply that this lack of infallibility in disciplinary matters would have even extended to such inspired writings as Paul’s now under discussion. So, then, what of the role of the Spirit guiding? If we take your view, at least as I understand it, might we say that, while the Spirit guides in the sense of the underlying sense of morality behind the disciplinary decisions, it may not guide necessarily as to the particulars of a disciplinary measure?
G
Gorgias
Guest
Perhaps you might explain what you mean by ‘moral relativism’ in the particular context you’ve offered – that of ‘divorce’ and ‘inability to receive sacraments’ (not ‘excommunication’, but ‘inability to receive the sacraments’) in your example?
Again, you offered ‘divorce’ as an example, not a putative ‘shunning’, to which I responded. Are you conflating the two?
‘Excluding from communication’ is not the same as the ecclesiastical penalty of ‘excommunication’. You recognize the distinction between the two… right?
However, if the disciplines ‘over-reach’ or ‘under-reach’, they do so under ‘authoritative discipline’ and not ‘infallibility’, so I’m not sure what you’re claiming. ‘Error’ doesn’t make sense in this context; ‘authority’ does…
You’re still confusing ‘inerrancy’ as it applies to Scripture with ‘infallibility’ as it applies to doctrinal definitions of faith and morals. Do you see this, or do we need to talk about definitions a bit longer?
We need to talk about definitions, I’m afraid, since you seem to be making assertions that the Church doesn’t make…
M
MysticMissMisty
Guest
Apparently, I did confuse the two, as I thought that the inability to receive the sacraments was only a part of excommunication. Can it be, but can it also be a separate situation? Out of curiosity, which Scripture(s) justify one, the other and both? Just sincerely trying to find the roots of all these; not trying to criticize anything in asking this.
Is that perhaps where I’m getting the idea of exclusion from community in the Church collectively vs. exclusion from any kind of social communication, even on the individual level? If so, then, yes, perhaps, I might understand the distinction. Is my understanding and application of it, at least, so far as you’ve seen, correct?
But, then, you are still conceding the possibility of over- or under-reach in some disciplinary matters, even for their time? I mean, I’m not saying this happens often; I’m just saying that such is possible?However, if the disciplines ‘over-reach’ or ‘under-reach’, they do so under ‘authoritative discipline’ and not ‘infallibility’, so I’m not sure what you’re claiming. ‘Error’ doesn’t make sense in this context; ‘authority’ does…
Thanks again for your help in all this.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Yes. As you mention, those under the ecclesiastical penalty of excommunication are unable to receive the sacraments.
In addition (and as a separate matter) those who are not under excommunication must still be properly disposed in order to receive communion: they must be in a state of grace (i.e., not in a state of mortal sin), and have observed the Eucharistic fast.
So, someone could be in a state of mortal sin and therefore not be able to receive the Eucharist, even though he is not under the penalty of excommunication.
At the very least, I can point to Mt 16:19, in which Peter (on behalf of the Church) is given authority by Christ to ‘bind and loose’.
You’re really talking about Church discipline and self-governance. So, the decisions of the Church throughout history wouldn’t be expected to be found in the Bible. Yes, we can look at what the Church did in its earliest days (in Acts, or referred to in Paul’s letters), but these are only examples of actions, and not the complete list of potential actions the Church might take.
However, the 1914 Catholic Encyclopedia article to which you refer has a section giving its ideas on Scriptural warrant for excommunication.
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.
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.
Even if it were “over- or under-reach”, it would still be authoritative and binding. But, sure, it would be possible. Why is this a problem? You seem to be attempting to attach ‘infallibility’ to all sorts of things to which it doesn’t apply…
- Status