Excommunication

EXCOMMUNICATION. — In current CENSURA (v.), by which a baptized person is excluded from the communion of the faithful.

1. HISTORICAL NOTES

2. Censure in itself

It has not been demonstrated that it derives its origin from the excommunication inflicted by the synagogue (Jo. 9:22); nor does it seem correct to assert that the passage of St. Matthew (18:17) substantially sanctions an excommunication, since it does not speak there of a Christian punished by exclusion from the community of the faithful, but of one who, through his obstinate disobedience, has placed himself outside the Church of Christ. By contrast, the measure taken by St. Paul (I Cor. 5:3–5) against the incestuous man is a true salutary penalty, though it is impossible to discern its specific nature, given the obscurity of the phrase tradere satanae in interitum carnis. Nor is the other Pauline expression sit anathema. Maran atha (I Cor. 16:22) any more intelligible to us, although for many it is the formula by which excommunication was imposed from apostolic times. This does not, however, mean denying that anathema sit indicated excommunication from the earliest centuries. It must be acknowledged that the expression was very appropriate, at least in its etymological meaning, whereas the word excommunicatio remained ambiguous, because in the early centuries neighboring bishops often deprived a fellow bishop of (fraternal) communion without inflicting any penalty upon him—something they could not have done in the case of a person who was not their subject. The Roman pontiffs, too, more than once refused to communicate with a bishop or with his delegates in order to demonstrate their indignation, without inflicting a penalty.

Excommunication as a true and proper penalty, less grave than anathema and presupposed by it, is mentioned in the Councils of Nicaea (A.D. 325, can. 5: Hefele-Leclercq, I, 550), Chalcedon (A.D. 451, can. 21: ibid., II, p. 808), Angers (A.D. 453, can. 10: ibid., II, 885), Agde (A.D. 506, can. 34: ibid., II, 994; cf. also Codex canonum ecclesiae Africanae, A.D. 419, cann. 132–33: ibid., II, 208), and Orléans (A.D. 549, can. 2: ibid., III, 159). The distinction is more clearly marked in the Second Council of Nicaea (A.D. 787, can. 6, 13, etc.; ibid., III, 781, 785 ff.) and is unmistakable in certain synods held between the end of the eighth and the beginning of the ninth century. The distinction was reaffirmed by John VIII (A.D. 878), who declared that excommunication separates a fraterna societate, whereas anathema separates ab ipso Corpore Christi (c. 12, C. III, q. 4). This difference between anathema and excommunication led the Fathers of certain provincial councils to determine the offenses that could be punished by one or the other. The Council of Meaux (A.D. 845, can. 56; Hefele-Leclercq, IV, p. 124) subsequently prohibited the pronouncement of an anathema not expressly sanctioned in the canons except with the consent of the metropolitan and the comprovincial bishops, following prior admonition of the person subject to censure.

Subsequently anathema came to indicate excommunication inflicted or proclaimed with particular solemnity. It was held that anathema perpetuum excluded the guilty person from the Kingdom of heaven and condemned him to eternal perdition together with the traitor Judas. But St. Gelasius I had already declared (in De anathematis vinculo, ca. 495) that anathema was perpetual because of a lack of repentance, not because the penalty was irremissible (Pl. 59, 103 and 106). Likewise, anathema maran atha (until the Lord comes) indicated a perpetual penalty, not by its nature, but because of the persons whom it affected: it was inflicted upon those who were so hardened in evil that their eternal perdition could be foreseen.

The Decretals established the distinction between major and minor excommunication, which involved only the prohibition against receiving the Sacraments and the incapacity to assume an ecclesiastical office (c. 2, X, II, 25; c. 10, X, V, 27). It has been asserted that from that period the term anathema specifically designated major excommunication. It is true that minor excommunication was never called anathema; this term, however, ordinarily did not designate simple major excommunication (c. 59, X, V, 39), but rather excommunication inflicted with particular solemnity. Only excommunication against one who denies a truth of faith was constantly imposed by the Supreme Pontiff or by ecumenical Councils with the expression anathema sit. Innocent III determined the juridical concept of excommunication, distinguishing it from suspension and interdict (c. 20, X, V, 40), and Innocent IV, in 1245, recognized in it a distinctly spiritual purpose (c. 1, V, 11, in VI). This character is confirmed by the Council of Trent (sess. XXII, c. 11, de reform.): no one may be absolved unless his repentance is established. Since bishops frequently threatened and inflicted excommunication, often against violators of rights and property of a temporal nature, the same council admonished them not to employ so formidable a weapon except with moderation and circumspection (sess. XXIII, c. 3, de reform.).

The first general excommunication for the whole Church was enacted at the Third Lateran Council (A.D. 1179, can. 6: Hefele-Leclercq, V, 1092–93); others were soon added. They were gathered and coordinated into a kind of single text, which was solemnly published each year with the reading of the In coena Domini, often modified and last revised by Urban VIII (A.D. 1627). In Clement XI’s Pastoralis Romani Pontificis, twenty excommunications were threatened, all reserved specialissimo modo: the excommunicated person could be absolved only by the Roman Pontiff, unless he was in imminent danger of death (L. Ferraris, Prompta biblistica, III, Bologna–Venice 1766, pp. 280–84). The same author recalls numerous other excommunications then in force: ninety reserved to the pope, of which 11 affected prelates of the Church, 10 secular and regular clerics, 11 regulars, 7 temporal princes, and 51 all the faithful; sixty-nine not reserved, of which 4 affected bishops, 9 clerics, 10 regulars, 6 temporal princes, 8 magistrates and judges, and 32 all the faithful (loc. cit., pp. 285 ff.). Pius IX published a new single text of the censurae latae sententiae with the constitution Apostolicae Sedis (12 October 1869; P. Gasparri, Fontes iuris can., III, Rome 1925, p. 28 ff.), which threatened excommunication in 38 cases: in 12 reserved speciali modo, in 18 simpliciter to the Holy See, in 3 to the Ordinaries, and in 5 not reserved. With the aforementioned constitution, minor excommunication ceased to exist (cf. I. D’Annibale, In constitutionem Apostolicae Sedis commentarii, 3rd ed., Rieti 1880).

2. Relations with the excommunicated. — From the fifth century onward, any relationship with an excommunicated person was strictly prohibited, and already in the ninth century violation of the prohibition was punished by major excommunication and, if committed by an ecclesiastic, by deposition. From the eleventh century, however, first local legislation and then the popes mitigated the prohibition: Gregory VII declared a long series of persons exempt, and Urban II substituted a very mild penance for excommunication (cc. 103 and 110, C. XI, q. 3). These norms became positive law by virtue of a constitution of Innocent III, which was received into the Decretals of Gregory IX (c. 31, X, V, 39).

A radical innovation in this matter is due to Martin V, who was moved by the desire to remove the faithful from the difficult situation in which one was placed when compelled to have relations with an excommunicated person; he did not, however, intend to alleviate the latter’s juridical condition. In the constitution Ad evitanda (A.D. 1418), according to a reading perhaps not authentic but which ultimately prevailed in practice (cf. L. Ferraris, op. cit., III, p. 299), he declared that civil relations were prohibited only with persons excommunicated by a public sentence, or by a special and express declaration of the judge, and with notorious perpetrators of actual injury to the person of a cleric. The CIC was inspired by the aforementioned constitution (cann. 2258 § 2 and 2343 § 1, 1º, second paragraph), although it reduced the prohibition to very few cases.

II. CURRENT LAW

The CIC still defines s. (can. 2257, § 1) as the censure that excludes the punished person from the communion of the faithful and produces the effects listed in the following canons (cann. 2258–67). But the separation of the excommunicated person from the communion of the faithful is more a memory of the past than an effective reality: the excommunicated bishop, for example, continues to be the head of his own diocese with all the rights pertaining thereto.

1. Effects. — Nor is it accurate to say that s. produces inseparable effects and that these are listed in cann. 2258–67. The effects of s. are multiple and are established in numerous canons that do not form part of penal law. They are also more or less serious according as the s. has been incurred simply, has become notorious, or has been imposed or declared by sentence or penal decree; they are most serious if the excommunicated person is declared «vitandus». Every excommunicated person is forbidden to: a) receive the Sacraments; b) celebrate and administer the Sacraments and sacramentals; c) attend divine offices; d) perform the ecclesiastical legal acts referred to in can. 2256, n. 2º; e) exercise the functions pertaining to an ecclesiastical office or charge; f) enjoy an ecclesiastical privilege; g) elect, present, or appoint; h) obtain dignities, offices, benefices, pensions, and charges in the Church; i) perform acts of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. He does not participate in the indulgences, suffrages, and public prayers of the Church. If he violates the censure by performing an act of orders reserved to clerics in sacris, he becomes irregular (can. 985, n. 7º). If he then persists in contumacy for an entire year, he is suspected of heresy (can. 2340 § 1), for all legal purposes. If the faithful person has notoriously incurred s., he cannot lawfully serve as godfather at Baptism (can. 766, n. 2º) or Confirmation (can. 796, n. 3º combined with can. 766, n. 2º); nor can he be excused from observing the censure in order to avoid infamy (can. 2232 § 1, final paragraph), or be absolved by an ordinary confessor, in urgent cases, from the censure, if reserved, in accordance with can. 2254 § 1, first paragraph; finally, he must be prevented from actively attending divine offices (can. 2259 § 2, final paragraph). If he has been excommunicated or declared such by sentence or penal precept, he cannot lawfully receive even sacramentals (can. 2260 § 1, second paragraph); validly serve as godfather at Baptism or Confirmation; be appointed arbitrator (can. 1931, first paragraph); exercise the right of active voting, presentation, or designation; perform acts of jurisdiction (can. 2264, second paragraph); obtain a pontifical favor if the rescript does not mention the s.; he loses the capacity to obtain dignities, offices, benefices, and charges in the Churches, and to receive ecclesiastical pensions (can. 2265 § 1, 2º combined with § 2), and to acquire the right of patronage (can. 1453 § 1, final paragraph). Moreover, he remains deprived of the revenues of any dignity, office, benefice, pension, or charge that he may previously have obtained (can. 2266). Personally, he may appear in court only to challenge the justice or legality of the s. imposed; through a procurator, to avert a danger threatening the good of his soul; in all other respects he lacks procedural capacity (can. 1654, § 1). If he dies without having shown signs of repentance, ecclesiastical burial must be denied him (can. 1240 § 1, 2º), with all the legal consequences (can. 1241). And if, notwithstanding this prohibition, he is buried in a sacred place, that place remains profaned (can. 1172 § 1, 4º and 1207).

Finally, the «vitandus» excommunicated person, that is, one who has been declared such in a condemnatory sentence or decree issued by the Holy See and published in the forms established by law, and the person guilty of real injury against the person of the Supreme Pontiff (can. 2258 § 2), must be prevented from attending sacred functions; and if it proves impossible to remove him, these ordinarily may neither take place nor be continued (can. 2259, § 2, first paragraph). He remains deprived not only of the revenues but of the dignities, benefices, offices, or ecclesiastical charges themselves (can. 2266, final paragraph). He may be dealt with in temporal matters only by his parents, spouse, children, dependents, and those who have a just reason for doing so (can. 2267). Severe penalties are imposed on his co-defendants and accomplices, and on clerics who admit him to sacred functions (can. 2338 § 2).

2. Comparisons with the other censures. — The profound differences between s. and the other censures are easy to perceive: interdict (v.) suspension (v.). The former excludes the punished person from the communion of the faithful, albeit within the limits indicated above; the latter, on the other hand, prohibits only certain acts of communion, which vary according to the type of interdict; suspension, whose effects are separable and almost always separated, prohibits only the exercise of ecclesiastical power pertaining to an office or benefice. Moreover, s. is always a censure, whereas interdict and suspension may also be vindictive penalties (v.). Finally, s. can affect only physical persons; therefore, if it is imposed on a moral body, only the individual guilty parties are bound to submit to II. Suspension, by contrast, may affect either a physical person or a collegial moral person, and interdict may also affect a place (can. 2255 § 2).

3. Reservation and absolution from s. — The CIC imposes 37 instances of s.; of these, 4 are reserved to the Holy See specialissimo modo, 11 speciali modo, 11 simpliciter, 6 to the Ordinary, and 5 are not reserved (v. RISERVA).

The first affect the following most serious offenses: 1) profanation of the Sacred Species (can. 2320); 2) real injury against the person of the Supreme Pontiff (can. 2343 § 1, 1°); 3) absolution of an accomplice in the sin of simple or qualified unchastity (can. 2367); 4) direct violation of the sacramental seal (can. 2369 § 1, paragraph 1). The second are ordinarily imposed on those guilty of offenses against the faith or which in any event presume a lack of faith in the guilty party, and especially of the following: 1) apostasy, heresy, and schism (can. 2314); 2) publication, defense, possession, and reading of books that advocate apostasy or schism (can. 2318 § 1); 3) simulation of the celebration of Holy Mass and administration of the sacrament of Penance by one who is not a priest (can. 2322, n. 1°); 4) appeal to the ecumenical council against laws, decrees, and orders of the living Supreme Pontiff (can. 2332); 5) recourse to the secular power to prevent the issuance, promulgation, or execution of acts of the Holy See or its legates (can. 2333); 6) issuance of laws, orders, or decrees injurious to the liberty or rights of the Church; preventing, by recourse to the secular power, the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction (can. 2334); 7) bringing before a lay judge a cardinal, a legate of the Holy See, a senior official of the Roman Curia (assessors, secretaries, undersecretaries, or substitutes of the Sacred Congregations and other prelates equivalent to them) for acts of their office, or one’s own Ordinary (can. 2341, first paragraph); 8) real injury against the person of a cardinal or a legate of the Supreme Pontiff (can. 2343 § 2, 1°); 9) usurpation or detention of property or rights of the Roman Church (can. 2345); 10) counterfeiting or alteration of letters, decrees, or rescripts of the Holy See, and fraudulent use thereof (can. 2360 § 1); 11) calumnious denunciation to superiors of a confessor for solicitation (can. 2363).

The simpliciter reserved excommunications concern the following offenses: 1) sacrilegious trafficking in indulgences (can. 2327); 2) enrollment in Freemasonry or affiliated associations (can. 2335); 3) the fraudulent granting, without the necessary faculty, of absolution from a reserved excommunication specialissimo or speciali modo to the Holy See (can. 2338 § 1); 4) co-perpetration or complicity in an offense for which someone is declared excommunicated « vitandus », the admission of such a person to participation in divine offices, or conscious and spontaneous communication in divinis with him on the part of a cleric (can. 2338 § 2); 5) bringing before a lay judge a bishop who is not one’s own Ordinary, an abbot or prelate nullius, or the superior general of a religious institute of pontifical right (can. 2341, paragraph 11); 6) violation of the enclosure of nuns or religious, and the unlawful departure of the former from the monastery (can. 2342, nos. 1°, 2°, 3°); 7) usurpation or diversion of ecclesiastical property (can. 2346); 8) dueling (can. 2351 § 1); 9) attempted marriage by clerics in sacris (bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons), and by religious or nuns who have made solemn profession (can. 2388 § 1); 10) simony concerning ecclesiastical offices, benefices, and dignities (can. 2392, no. 1°); 11) removal, destruction, concealment, or alteration of a document belonging to the episcopal curia (can. 2405).

The excommunications imposed for the following offenses are reserved to the Ordinary: 1) celebration of a mixed marriage before a non-Catholic minister, an agreement made at the time of entering into marriage to educate the offspring outside the Church, to have the children baptized by non-Catholic ministers, and to raise them in the non-Catholic religion (can. 2319, nos. 1°-4°); 2) manufacture, sale, distribution, and public display for veneration of false relics (can. 2326); 3) actual injury to the person of a cleric or religious who does not hold one of the dignities referred to in §§ 1-3

(can. 2343 § 4); 4) deliberate abortion (can. 2350, § 1); 5) apostasy from a religious institute (can. 2385); 6) celebration of marriage by a religious bound by simple vows (can. 2388 § 2).

Finally, these are the five offenses punished with non-reserved excommunication: 1) publication of Sacred Scripture and of commentaries or annotations on it without the prescribed authorization (can. 2318 § 2); 2) commanding, ordering, or compelling ecclesiastical burial to be given to infidels, apostates, heretics, schismatics, excommunicates, or persons under interdict, contrary to the provision of can. 1240 § 1 (can. 2339, paragraph 1); 3) unlawful alienation of ecclesiastical property when apostolic approval is required (can. 2347, no. 3°); 4) compelling a man to embrace the clerical state, or a man or woman to embrace the religious state (can. 2352); 5) failure to report a solliciting confessor (can. 2368 § 2).

Canon 2330 also incorporates the penalties imposed in the apostolic constitution Vacante Sede Apostolica, promulgated by Pius X on 25 December 1904, now replaced by Pius XII’s Vacantis Sedis Apostolicae (8 December 1945) (document I in the appendix to the CIC). They are reserved specialissimo modo to the Roman Pontiff, not to the Holy See, and therefore cannot be remitted by the Sacred Penitentiary (can. 7).

Excommunications are also imposed by the penal decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Council dated 22 March 1950 (AAS, 42 [1950], p. 330) and of the Holy Office dated 9 April 1951 (ASS, 43 [1951], p. 217). The first punishes with an excommunication reserved speciali modo to the Holy See the offense provided for by can. 2380 (the exercise of commerce by either a secular or regular cleric). The second divides in two the offense provided for and punished in can. 2370. It imposes on anyone who confers or receives episcopal consecration without a prior express provision (appointment or confirmation) by the Holy See an excommunication reserved specialissimo modo.

The degree of excommunication affects its absolution; the Ordinary may absolve from any excommunication, except those reserved to the Holy See in public cases (can. 2237 § 1, 2°), and those reserved specialissimo or speciali modo in occult cases (can. 2237 § 2). Absolution is valid when given, through error or ignorance, by a confessor lacking a special faculty, from an excommunication latae sententiae, even if reserved, provided it is not reserved specialissimo modo to the Holy See (can. 2247 § 3). Likewise, general absolution also removes an excommunication latae sententiae concealed in good faith by the penitent, provided it is not reserved specialissimo modo to the Holy See (can. 2249 § 2, paragraph 11). Moreover, a person who has been absolved in danger of death by a confessor lacking a special faculty is required to have recourse after recovery or escape from danger only if the remitted excommunication was reserved specialissimo modo (can. 2252). Finally, anyone who dares to absolve, without the requisite faculty, from an excommunication reserved specialissimo or speciali modo to the Holy See incurs an excommunication simpliciter reserved (can. 2338 § 1).

BIBLI: F. Suárez, Disputat. de censuris in communi, excommunicatione, suspensione et interdicto, itemque de irregularitate, Coimbra 1603; M. Altieri, De censuris eccles., Roma 1616; L. Dupin, Traité historique des excommunications, Parigi 1715; F. Q. Kober (von), Der Kirchenbau nach den Grundrätzen des canon. Rechts, Tübing 1857; B. Schilling, Der Kirchenbau nach canon. Rechts, Lipsia 1859; P. Hinschus, System des kathol. Kirchenrechts, V. Berlino 1895; E. Eichmann, Acht und Bann im Reichsrecht des Mittelalters, Paderborn 1900; Vernay E., Le Liber de excommunicatione de Béranger de Frédol, Parigi 1912; M. Fellner, Die Exkommunikation, Würzburg 1925; F. E. Hyland, Excommunication its nature, historical development and effects, Washington 1928; V. Heylen, De divisioibus censurarum, in Coll. Mischius, 30 (1944), pp. 548-50; cf. Oesterle, De excommunicat. ante ordines conferendos comminata, in Perfice munus, 17 (1942), pp. 528-555; R. Favre, La condamnation avec anathème, in Bull. de littér. eccl., 48 (1947), pp. 31-48; R. Adam, Le pouvoir coercitif de l'évêque, Quehée 1946. Arturo De Iorio