In the combox down yonder, a reader writes:
Jimmy, I’ve got a question for you. What does it really mean, on a day-to-day basis, if someone is excommunicated?
Here’s where I’m coming from: If someone commits a mortal sin, he can’t (or shouldn’t) go to communion until he repents and makes a good confession. If someone is under interdict, he can’t (or shouldn’t) receive communion until the interdict is lifted. If someone is excommunicated, he can’t (or shouldn’t) go to communion until the excommunication is lifted.
Okay, but if you have one of those automatic excommunications that aren’t reserved to the bishop or something, then you can have the excommunication lifted by repenting and making a good confession.
So, what’s the difference? Surely, we keep hearing that excommunication is not the same thing as being excluded from receiving communion. Okay, but if it’s not the same thing, what’s different about it?
It’s understandable why there is confusion on this point. For an ordinary lay person (the kind you’d find in the wild, not one who is a nun or a monk or a diocesan officer of some kind) the day-to-day effects of excommunication (and interdict) boils down to basically lack of ability to participate in the sacraments (including performing ministries at Mass).
There are, however, other effects, which strike clerics and lay people of certain kinds. The Code of Canon Law provides:
Can. 1331 §1. An excommunicated person is forbidden:
1/ to have any ministerial participation in celebrating the sacrifice of the Eucharist or any other ceremonies of worship whatsoever;
2/ to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals and to receive the sacraments;
3/ to exercise any ecclesiastical offices, ministries, or functions whatsoever or to place acts of governance.
§2. If the excommunication has been imposed or declared, the offender:
1/ who wishes to act against the prescript of §1, n. 1 must be prevented from doing so, or the liturgical action must be stopped unless a grave cause precludes this;
2/ invalidly places acts of governance which are illicit according to the norm of §1, n. 3;
3/ is forbidden to benefit from privileges previously granted;
4/ cannot acquire validly a dignity, office, or other function in the Church;
5/ does not appropriate the benefits of a dignity, office, any function, or pension, which the offender has in the Church.
Can. 1332 The prohibitions mentioned in ⇒ can. 1331, §1, nn. 1 and 2 bind an interdicted person. If the interdict has been imposed or declared, however, the prescript of ⇒ can. 1331, §2, n. 1 must be observed.
You can see how some of these additional effects would strike clerics and certain types of lay folk–e.g., a nun who is a mother superior would not be able to exercise her office, etc.
Thanks, Jimmy. What does this part mean:
2/ to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals and to receive the sacraments;
I assume that “receive the sacraments” doesn’t exclude one from going to confession, is that correct? So, it would exclude one from receiving the annointing of the sick, yes?
Also, what does “celebrate the sacramentals” mean? Does that mean that someone under interdict, for example, is not allowed to receive palms on palm sunday, bless himself with holy water, wear the brown scapular, or recite the rosary or the liturgy of the hours? Also, does this mean that receiving partial or plenary indulgences is excluded to one under interdict?
Finally, if I understood you correctly, if someone is excluded from communion due to mortal sin, that person can still be a lector or acolyte, correct?
Thanks.
Has this changed over history? I seem to remember that in the past if a King or (Holy Roman) Emperor was excommunicated, then it effected their office as well.
If fact, I was under the impression that the faithful were to more or less shun or ignore them.
John F. Kennedy,
I’m not sure of any particular instance that you’re thinking of, but excommunication could dramatically affect a king/prince/emperor under the feudal system of the Middle Ages.
The feudal system depended on oaths of fealty (or loyalty). A lord (like a king/emperor) would grant a fief (or land) and protection to a vassal (like a knight) in exchange for that person’s fealty (or loyalty), military service, and tithes. This fealty oath was often (usually) undertaken in a religious ceremony.
The fealty oath was taken seriously. A vassal who swore an oath had to keep his oath. To break an oath was not just a breach of societal etiquette; it was also a breach with God.
If the lord was excommunicated, then his vassals were no longer under the obligation of their oaths of fealty — they no longer owed him any loyalty. He was no longer their lord!
One specific instance that can illustrate this is the case of Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV. The Holy Roman Emperor was elected by the various princes and lords of the empire, who vowed fealty to him. No emperor was safe, however. There were always powerful princes in opposition who would have liked to become emperor, too.
Henry had some powerful enemies who sought to undermine him. But, the fealty oath remained strong enough to stifle most opposition. However, when Henry clashed with Pope Gregory VII over investiture (the right to appoint bishops), Gregory excommunicated Henry.
When Henry was excommunicated, the fealty oaths were nullified. This created a dire situation for Henry, who saw support drain away. The events led Henry to make a trip to meet with Gregory, who was on his way to Augsburg. Gregory holed up at the castle of Canossa.
Henry waited outside the castle in the snow for three days before being allowed to meet Gregory. Henry repented of his sins, and the excommunication was lifted. Henry IV stayed in power.
Nicholas;
Thanks. I was thinking of Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV (also King of Germany).
So is breaking an Oath still worthy of excommunication?
I’m thinking of California Gov. Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown, both Catholics, both of whom failed to uphold and defend the California Constitution of which they swore an oath. They have now, ” filed legal motions Friday telling a federal judge that allowing same-sex marriages to resume immediately in the state was the right thing to do.” http://www.insidebayarea.com/twitter/ci_15697360
This is contrary the teaching of the Church and contrary to upholding the California Constitution.
Why aren’t they excommunicated if breaking an oath is as you put it, “a breach with God” Doesn’t the Church and specifically the Cardinal, Archbishops and Bishops in California have an obligation, a DUTY to to God to declare them excommunicated? A formal notice that they are outside of the Church? I would think that for the sake of the sinners’ soul this needs to be declared!
What are OUR obligations? If they are declared anathema, what should we do? Anything? I suggest the “vitandus” form of excommunication treatment.
Wikipedia says the following, “Before the 1983 Code of Canon Law, there were two degrees of excommunication: vitandus (shunned, literally “to be avoided”, where the person had to be avoided by other Catholics), and toleratus (tolerated, which permitted Catholics to continue to have business and social relationships with the excommunicant). This distinction no longer applies today, and excommunicated Catholics are still under obligation to attend Mass, even though they are barred from receiving the Eucharist and from taking active part in the liturgy (reading, bringing the offerings, etc.).[2] Indeed, the excommunicant is encouraged to retain some relationship with the Church, as the goal is to encourage them to repent and return to active participation in its life.”
Things are getting real bad. The Church need to do it’s duty to defend the Truth.
I’m especially concerned about Judge Walker’s “findings of fact.” Page 103 “77. Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.” You can find the PDF here, http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010/08/04/Perry%20Trial%20Decision.pdf
Based on his “findings of fact,” it appears to me and many others that we are being set up for limitless lawsuits if we stand by our faith.
If these two political leaders had followed the Church AND upheld and defended the California Constitution it might have had a different conclusion and we might not have bankruptcy and prison in our futures.
Del Rayva,
I don’t know what the code means by saying the excommunicate may not “celebrate the sacramentals”, because the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the subject (emphasis added) says: “Hereby are meant the Mass, the Divine Office, and other sacred ceremonies. An excommunicated person may not and should not assist at these ceremonies . . . Nevertheless, since the condition of an excommunicated person, even a vitandus, is no worse than that of an infidel, he may assist at sermons, instructions, etc., venerate images and relics, take holy water, and use privately other sacramentals. The excommunicated cleric is not released from any of his obligations in regard to the Divine Office and, if bound to it, must recite it, but privately and not in the choir.”
True, this article dates from before the revision of the Code of Canon Law, but it seems unlikely that the new Code’s position on excommunication would be stricter than that of the old one.
so many laws, who can keep them, whatever happened to love?
Love? Because we love them, we don’t want them to spend eternity in Hell. We want them to turn from sin and back to God. Excommunication is one of the methods used to get get their attention.