EXCOMMUNICATION. – In current canon law, CENSURA (v.) by which a baptized person is excluded from the communion of the faithful.
I. HISTORICAL NOTES
1. The censure itself
It has not been demonstrated that it derives its origin from the excommunication imposed by the synagogue (John 9:22); nor does it seem accurate to affirm that the passage of St. Matthew (18:17) substantially sanctions an excommunication, because there it is not a question of a Christian punished with exclusion from the community of the faithful, but of one who, through persistent disobedience, has placed himself outside the Church of Christ. Instead, the measure taken by St. Paul (1 Cor. 5:3-5) against the incestuous man is a true salutary penalty, whose specific nature, however, cannot be grasped due to the obscurity of the phrase "hand him over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh." Nor is the other Pauline expression "let him be anathema" (1 Cor. 16:22) more intelligible to us, although many consider it the formula by which excommunication was imposed from apostolic times. This does not mean, however, that we deny that "anathema sit" indicated excommunication from the earliest centuries. It must be recognized that it was a very appropriate expression, at least in its etymological sense, whereas the word "excommunicatio" remained ambiguous, because in the early centuries coadjutor bishops often deprived a fellow bishop of communion (fraterna) without inflicting any penalty upon him, which they could not have done if he were not their subject. The Roman pontiffs more than once refused to communicate with some bishop or his delegates, 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. 325, can. 5; Hefele-Leclercq, I, 550), Chalcedon (a. 451, can. 21; ibid., II, p. 808), Angers (a. 453, can. 10; ibid., II, 885), Agde (a. 506, can. 34; ibid., II, 994; cf. also Codex canonum ecclesiae Africanae, a. 419, can. 132-33; ibid., II, 208), Orléans (a. 549, can. 2; ibid., III, 159). The difference is more marked in the Second Council of Nicaea (a. 787, can. 6, 13 etc.; ibid., III, 781, 785 sq.) and clear in some famous synods between the end of the 8th and the beginning of the 9th century. The difference was reaffirmed by John VIII (a. 878), who declares that excommunication separates from the fraternal society, while anathema [separates] from the very Body of Christ (c. 12, C. III, q. 4). This difference between anathema and excommunication led the Fathers of some provincial councils to determine the crimes that could be punished by one or the other. The Council of Meaux (a. 845, can. 56; Hefele-Leclercq, IV, p. 124) then forbade the pronouncement of an anathema not expressly sanctioned in the canons, unless with the consent of the metropolitan and the fellow provincial bishops, after the admonition of the one to be censured.
Later, anathema indicated excommunication inflicted or denounced with particular solemnity. It was believed that "anathema perpetuum" excluded the guilty party from the Kingdom of Heaven and condemned him to eternal perdition along with the traitor Judas. But already St. Gelasius I (in De anathematis vinculo, ca. 495) had declared that anathema was perpetual due to the lack of repentance, not because the penalty was irremissible (PL 59, 103 and 106). Likewise, the "anathema maranatha" (until the Lord comes) indicated a perpetual penalty, not by its nature, but because of the subjects it struck: it was inflicted upon those so hardened in evil that their eternal perdition could be foreseen.
The Decretals consecrated the distinction between greater and lesser excommunication, which entailed only the prohibition of receiving the sacraments and the incapacity to hold an ecclesiastical office (c. 2, X, II, 25; c. 10, X, V, 27). It has been affirmed that from that time the term "anathema" specifically designated greater excommunication. It is true that lesser excommunication was never called "anathema"; however, this term ordinarily did not designate simple greater excommunication (c. 59, X, V, 39), but that inflicted with particular solemnity. Only excommunication against one who denies a truth of faith was consistently imposed by the Supreme Pontiff or by ecumenical councils with the expression "anathema sit." Innocent III defined the juridical concept of excommunication, distinguishing it from suspension and interdict (c. 20, X, V, 40), and Innocent IV, in 1245, recognized its distinctly spiritual purpose (c. 1, V, 11, in VI). This character is confirmed in the Council of Trent (sess. XXII, c. 11, de reform.): no one can be absolved unless there is evidence of repentance. Since bishops frequently imposed and inflicted excommunication, often against violators of temporal rights and goods, the same council admonished them not to use such a formidable weapon except with moderation and circumspection (sess. XXIII, c. 3, de reform.).
The first general excommunication for the entire Church was enacted at the Third Lateran Council (a. 1179, can. 6: Hefele-Leclercq, V, 1092-93); soon others were added. These were gathered and coordinated into a kind of single text, which was solemnly published every year with the reading of the bull *In coena Domini*, often modified and lastly by Urban VIII (a. 1627). In the bull *Pastoralis Romani Pontificis* of Clement XI, twenty excommunications were decreed, all reserved in a most special way: the excommunicated person could be absolved only by the Roman Pontiff, unless he was in imminent danger of death (L. Ferraris, *Promptuarium bibliothecae canonicae*, III, Bologna-Venezia 1766, pp. 280-84). The same author recalls numerous other excommunications then in force: ninety reserved to the pope: of these, 10 affected prelates of the Church, 10 secular and regular clergy, 11 regulars, 7 temporal princes, and 5 all the faithful; sixty-six not reserved, of which 4 affected bishops, 9 clergy, 10 regulars, 6 temporal princes, 8 magistrates and judges, and 2 all the faithful (loc. cit., p. 285 sgg.). Pius IX published a new single text of *latae sententiae* censures with the constitution *Apostolicae Sedis* (12 Oct. 1869; P. Gasparri, *Fontes iuris canonici*, III, Roma 1925, p. 28 sgg.), which decreed excommunication in 38 cases: in 12 reserved in a most special way, in 18 simply to the Holy See, in 3 to Ordinaries, and in 5 not reserved. With the aforementioned constitution, lesser excommunication ceased (cf. I. D’Annibale, *In constitutionem Apostolicae Sedis commentarii*, 3rd ed., Rieti 1880).
2. Relations with the excommunicated
From the 5th century, any relation with the excommunicated was severely forbidden, and by the 9th century the transgression of this prohibition was punished with greater excommunication, and, if committed by a cleric, with deposition. But from the 11th century, first local legislation and then the popes mitigated the prohibition: Gregory VII declared a long series of persons immune [from the prohibition], and Urban II substituted a very mild penance for excommunication (cc. 103 and 110, C. XI, q. 3). These norms became current law by virtue of a constitution of Innocent III, which was received in 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 difficult situation in which a faithful person found himself when forced to have relations with the excommunicated; but he did not intend to alleviate the juridical condition of the latter. In the constitution *Ad evitanda* (a. 1418), according to a reading perhaps not authentic but which ended up prevailing in practice (cf. L. Ferraris, op. cit., III, p. 299), he declared that civil relations were forbidden only with those excommunicated by public sentence, or by a special and express declaration of the judge, and with those notoriously guilty of real injury against a cleric. The Code of Canon Law (can. 2258 § 2, and 2343 § 1, 1st, second paragraph) was inspired by the cited constitution, although it reduced the prohibition to very few cases.
BIBL.:
Hefele-Leclercq, *Histoire des conciles*, passim;
Ferraris, *Promptuarium bibliothecae canonicae*, III, Bologna-Venezia 1766;
Gasparri, *Fontes iuris canonici*, III, Roma 1925;
D’Annibale, *In constitutionem Apostolicae Sedis commentarii*, 3rd ed., Rieti 1880.
II. Current law
The CIC still defines (can. 2257, § 1) excommunication: the censure that excludes the offender from communion with the faithful and produces the effects listed in the following canons (can. 2258-67). But the separation of the excommunicated from communion with the faithful is more a memory of the past than an actual reality: the excommunicated bishop, for example, continues to be the head of his diocese with all the rights pertaining to II.3. Effects
Nor is it accurate to say that excommunication produces inseparable effects and that these are listed in can. 2258-67. The effects of excommunication are manifold and are established in numerous canons that do not form part of penal law. They are more or less grave according to whether the excommunication has been simply incurred, has become notorious, has been imposed or declared by a penal sentence or decree; they are most grave if the excommunicated person is declared “vitandus.” To any excommunicated person it is forbidden to: a) receive the sacraments; b) confer or administer the sacraments and sacramentals; c) attend divine offices; d) place legitimate ecclesiastical acts, as referred to in can. 2256, n. 2; e) exercise the functions pertaining to an ecclesiastical office or charge; f) avail oneself of an ecclesiastical privilege; g) elect, present, or appoint; h) obtain dignities, offices, benefices, pensions, or charges in the Church; i) place acts of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. He does not participate in the indulgences, suffrages, or public prayers of the Church. If he violates the censure by performing an act of order reserved to clerics in sacred orders, he becomes irregular (can. 985, n. 7). If he persists in contumacy for an entire year, he is suspected of heresy (can. 2340 § 1) to all legal effects. If the faithful person has notoriously incurred excommunication, he cannot lawfully act as sponsor in Baptism (can. 766, n. 2) or in Confirmation (can. 796, n. 3 combined with can. 766, n. 2); moreover, he cannot be excused from observing the censure to avoid infamy (can. 2232 § 1, last paragraph), nor can he be absolved from the censure, if reserved, by the simple confessor in urgent cases, in accordance with can. 2254 § 1, first paragraph; finally, he must be prevented from actively assisting at divine offices (can. 2259 § 2, last paragraph). If he has been excommunicated or declared such by a penal sentence or precept, he cannot lawfully receive even the sacramentals (can. 2260 § 1, second paragraph); validly act as sponsor in Baptism or Confirmation, be appointed arbitrator (can. 1931, first paragraph), exercise the right of active suffrage, presentation, or designation, place acts of jurisdiction (can. 2264, second paragraph), obtain a papal grace if the rescript does not mention the excommunication; he loses the capacity to obtain dignities, offices, benefices, and charges in churches, to receive ecclesiastical pensions (can. 2265 § 1, 2° combined with § 2), and to acquire the right of patronage (can. 1453 § 1, last paragraph). Moreover, he is deprived of the fruits of any dignity, office, benefice, pension, or charge he may previously have obtained (can. 2266). Personally, he may stand in judgment only to challenge the justice or legitimacy of the excommunication imposed on him; through a procurator to avert a danger threatening the good of his soul; in other respects he is deprived of procedural capacity (can. 1654, § 1). If he dies without having given signs of repentance, ecclesiastical burial must be denied him (can. 1240 § 1, 2°) with all the legal consequences (can. 1243). If, despite this prohibition, he is buried in a sacred place, that place is profaned (can. 1172 § 1, 4° and 1207).Finally, to the excommunicated person “vitandus,” that is, one who has been so declared in a sentence or decree of condemnation pronounced by the Holy See and published in the manner prescribed by law, and to one guilty of real injury to the person of the Supreme Pontiff (can. 2258 § 2), it must be forbidden to attend sacred functions, and if it is impossible to remove him, these functions ordinarily cannot take place or be continued (can. 2259, § 2, 1st paragraph). He is deprived not only of the fruits but of the very dignities, benefices, offices, or ecclesiastical charges (can. 2266, last paragraph). It is permitted to have dealings with him in temporal matters only with parents, spouse, children, dependents, and those who have a just cause to do so (can. 2267). Grave penalties are imposed on his accomplices, accomplices in the crime, and on clerics who admit him to sacred functions (can. 2338 § 2).
4. Comparison with other censures
The profound differences between excommunication and the other censures—interdict (v.) and suspension (v.)—are easily grasped. The first excludes the offender from communion with the faithful, albeit within the limits indicated above; the second, however, forbids only certain acts of communion, which vary according to the kind of interdict; suspension, moreover, whose effects are separable and almost always separated, forbids only the exercise of ecclesiastical power pertaining to an office or benefice. Furthermore, excommunication is always a censure, whereas interdict and suspension can also be vindictive penalties (v.). Finally, excommunication can affect only physical persons, so that if it is imposed on a moral body only the individual guilty parties are bound to submit to II. Suspension, however, can affect both a physical and a collegial moral person, and interdict can also affect a place (can. 2255 § 2).5. Reservation and absolution from excommunication
In the CIC, 37 excommunications are prescribed; of these, 4 are reserved to the Holy See in a most special manner, 11 in a special manner, 11 simply, 6 to ordinaries, and 5 are not reserved (v. RISERVA).The first category applies to the following most grave crimes: 1) profanation of the sacred species (can. 2320); 2) real injury to the person of the Supreme Pontiff (can. 2343 § 1); 3) absolution of an accomplice in the sin of simple or qualified solicitation (can. 2367); 4) violation of the secrecy of the sacramental seal (can. 2369 § 1, first paragraph). The second category ordinarily applies to crimes against the faith or crimes that otherwise give rise to a presumption of lack of faith in the guilty party, and specifically to the following: 1) apostasy, heresy, and schism (can. 2314); 2) editing, defending, retaining, or reading books that advocate apostasy or schism (can. 2318 § 1); 3) simulation of the celebration of the Holy Mass or the administration of the sacrament of Penance by one who is not a priest (can. 2322, n. 1); 4) appealing to a general council against laws, decrees, or orders of the reigning Supreme Pontiff (can. 2332); 5) appealing to secular power to prevent the enactment, promulgation, or execution of acts of the Holy See or of its legates (can. 2333); 6) enacting laws, orders, or decrees that infringe upon the liberty or rights of the Church; preventing, by appealing to secular power, the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction (can. 2334); 7) bringing before a lay judge a cardinal, a legate of the Holy See, a major official of the Roman Curia (assessors, secretaries, undersecretaries or substitutes of the Sacred Congregations and other prelates of equivalent rank), or one’s own ordinary, for acts pertaining to their office (can. 2341, 1st paragraph); 8) real injury to the person of a cardinal or a legate of the Supreme Pontiff (can. 2343 § 2, 1st); 9) usurpation or retention of goods or rights of the Roman Church (can. 2345); 10) forgery or alteration of letters, decrees, or rescripts of the Holy See and their fraudulent use (can. 2360 § 1); 11) calumnious denunciation to superiors of a confessor for solicitation (can. 2363).
The *simpliciter* reserved cases include the following offenses:
1) sacrilegious trafficking in indulgences (can. 2327);
2) enrollment in freemasonry or similar associations (can. 2335);
3) absolution, given with deceit and without the necessary faculty, of a sin reserved *specialissimo* or *speciali modo* to the Holy See (can. 2338 § 1);
4) correction or complicity in an offense for which one is declared excommunicated and vitandus, by knowingly and freely admitting a cleric to participation in divine offices or communion with him (can. 2338 § 2);
5) summoning before a lay judge a Cardinal, a legate of the Holy See, or their delegates (can. 2333);
6) enactment of laws, orders, or decrees harmful to the liberty or rights of the Church; hindering, by recourse to secular power, the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction (can. 2334);
7) summoning before a lay judge a Cardinal, a legate of the Holy See, or a major official of the Roman Curia (assessors, secretaries, undersecretaries, or substitutes of the Sacred Congregations and other prelates of equivalent rank) for acts of their office, or one’s own Ordinary (can. 2341, 1st paragraph);
8) real injury to the person of a Cardinal or a legate of the Supreme Pontiff (can. 2343 § 2, 1°);
9) usurpation or retention of goods or rights belonging to the Roman Church (can. 2345);
10) forgery or alteration of letters, decrees, or rescripts of the Holy See, and their deceitful use (can. 2360 § 1);
11) calumnious denunciation to superiors of a confessor for solicitation (can. 2363).
---
**EXORCISM** — **SCOPISM**
To seek knowledge or obtain something from him, because no friendship can be established with him, nor any submission owed to him (cf. 1 Cor 10:20); it is, however, lawful to command him imperatively, in the name of God, not to inflict any spiritual or temporal harm (cf. Mk 16:17; Lk 9:1; 10:19; Acts 19:13). This is properly called exorcism (v.).
Exorcism can only be directed toward intelligent beings, capable of moral influence through invocation; thus, directly commanding irrational creatures (the sun, clouds, hail, storms, water, etc.) is nonsensical, unless the command is directed indirectly to the higher powers (God, angels, saints, the devil) upon whom their beneficial or harmful action depends.
Exorcism is either private or solemn, depending on whether it is performed by an individual in a private capacity or by a minister of the Church invested with special authority.
In the strict sense, exorcism is an act of religion, as it expresses both the supremacy of God and our submission to Him. It is lawful, as evidenced by Scripture, liturgical practice, and its very nature. However, it must be used with honesty (*austitia*) and discretion (*iudicium*). Justice requires that not only the thing sought through command or prayer be honest, but also the command and prayer themselves. Discretion demands a sufficient motive, though its absence is only a slight fault. In addition to these conditions, solemn exorcism requires a legitimate mandate or license (can. 1151). A third condition, truth (*veritas*), is commonly listed for the liceity of exorcism: that the exorcist invoke the true God, that the thing sought be genuinely intended, and that the motivating cause be true and not deceitful (cf., however, B. H. Merkelbach, *Summa theologiae moralis*, II, Paris 1931, n. 762). For exorcism as an act to drive out witchcraft, see MALOCCHIO E VANA OSSERVANZA.