Talk:Excommunication in the Catholic Church

Copyediting and rewriting needed
This article is a major stylistic mess. It needs considerable copyediting and rewriting to be acceptable to Wikipedia's Manual of Style (WP:MOS). Afterwriting (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Besides, being (as it seems) an excerpt of the Catholic Encyclopedia, it has little to do with either the Code of 1917, nor the Code currently in force which is heavily based on the latter. For the time being, the chapters in the general article on excommunication provides far better information.--2001:A61:20F4:DA01:F56F:C6AF:49C5:EB02 (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is very difficult to understand. It seems to be an explanation of philosophical principles mixed with professional jargon that the majority of readers will likely not be able to understand. 136.168.55.215 (talk) 02:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Canon law (Catholic Church) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Trimmed
This article is a verbatim copy of the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia article. It is both over 100 years old and worse, reads something like a legal brief. I can't imagine anyone wanting to wade through it, except for historical research, which is readily available by clicking on the CE link. A number of pages link to this as if it were current information, only to find the outdated tag at the header, (which is entirely accurate). Am making an attempt to excise some of the more obscure and archaic information. Anyone objecting is free to put it back. Mannanan51 (talk) 02:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * what do you think of the current state of this article? Veverve (talk) 11:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I see you have edited this article since. What about the way the article is now that I have drastically expanded it? Veverve (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * a) It appears some of the 1913 CE has been reintroduced, and that's a bit problematical for any reader other than a historian. For anyone looking into the History of the practice, it should be all in one place; for anyone wondering if they may be excommunicate, they shouldn't have to slog through all that to find out.
 * b) "In Latin Catholic canon law, excommunication is a rarely applied censure"; cf. ... "excommunication, which is the gravest penalty of all and the most frequent..." This seems contradictory. Did Rahner actually say that? Even if he did, it's about 50 yrs. old. All the commentary I've seen suggests a judicious discretion, even to reducing the instances of Latae sententiae.
 * c) The section captioned "Major and Minor" would appear to be both misleading and misplaced, as it explains that it is no longer a General Concept.
 * d)"Until the second half of the 19th century, excommunication was of two kinds, major and minor." -If that's the case, then it belongs under History, (note the entire paragraph is in the past tense) and can be trimmed.
 * e) "Major excommunication, which remains now the only kind in force." -That being said, the following paragraph concerning minor excommunications, which "ceased to exist", again belongs under History. It would also be clearer for the reader if the legalisms were reduced and there was an example of the "many inconveniences arising from this condition of things", which caused Martin to make the change. What, after all, constitutes "unlawful intercourse"?
 * f) separating Latæ from sententiæ is not a good idea. Manannan67 (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manannan67 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback!
 * It appears some of the 1913 CE has been reintroduced, and that's a bit problematical for any reader other than a historian: yes, I think it is very important to keep those details about the forms of excommunications.
 * Did Rahner actually say that?: yes, I just checked. I have attributed this quote to him and dated it.
 * c), d), e): I have moved the part describing how minor excommunications ceased to exist into the 'History' section. I have kept the 'Manor and minor' section for historical purpose, as it seems important enough for the Catholic Encyclopedia to have kept it.
 * separating Latæ from sententiæ is not a good idea: you are right, it is confusing for those unfamiliar with those terms; I fixed it.
 * Veverve (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Part deux
g) So how do you deal with the inconsistency of a censure that is both "rarely applied" "and also "the most frequent"? Are there any current numbers? Is he talking about the "undeclared"? The quote appears somewhat vague w/o clarification. h) If you're going to tag the quote as coming from 1975 (which pre-dates the new code) perhaps that also should go to History. Or, in the alternative, remove the quote marks and the phrase "and also the most frequent", preserving the mention of "always medicinal", which is the crux of his statement anyway. i) If you insist on keeping obsolete minutiae, it, at least belongs in the appropriate section. It is entirely misleading to suggest to the reader that is the current status 110 yrs after the fact. j) If you have "kept the 'Manor and minor' section for historical purpose, why then isn't it under History? k) The lede is fine; A jure and ab homine is ok. l) See Latae sententiae and ferendae sententiae (I no longer see a link to the Main) for a pretty good definition of the Latin, i.e. it's already happened vs. it's going to. Manannan67 (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manannan67 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * g), h) I put the quote in the 'History' section.
 * i), j) Now that I look at it in hindsight, I see you are right.
 * l) Thanks, I am the one who wrote most of those parts of the article :). I have put a link to it to the section, as a 'Further'; I did not hink it was needed since the article is linked in the first line of the section, but it is better to be safe than sorry, to make sure the reader can easily find those information if they want. Veverve (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * l) Thanks, I am the one who wrote most of those parts of the article :). I have put a link to it to the section, as a 'Further'; I did not hink it was needed since the article is linked in the first line of the section, but it is better to be safe than sorry, to make sure the reader can easily find those information if they want. Veverve (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on Excommunication (Catholic Church). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120525122341/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4U.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4U.HTM
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080327064146/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG1104/__P54.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P54.HTM
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080329021837/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG1104/__P4X.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4X.HTM
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110829060341/http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19901018_codex-can-eccl-orient-3_lt.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19901018_codex-can-eccl-orient-3_lt.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110829060341/http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19901018_codex-can-eccl-orient-3_lt.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19901018_codex-can-eccl-orient-3_lt.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

General Concepts
"'Apostolicae Sedis' section relies on the reader knowing this distinction,..." Hogwash! (1) Apostolicae Sedis is in the History section; if it's so important for an understanding of same, than that's where it belongs. (2)Abbe Boudinhon was writing for his seminarians and would-be canon lawyers. You do the "reader" no service by burying them in stuff forty years outdated. You apparently think your list of "General Concepts" is somehow important. The Pontificia Commissio Codici iuris canonici recognoscendo seems not to agree as they included none of them in the current code. (Please note that the only place where Vitandi are likely to run into problems is in trying to book a second wedding reception at the KofC -and even that isn't official.) Please demonstrate which, if any of the concepts listed is currently held to be in force. Manannan67 (talk) 08:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Abbe Boudinhon was writing for his seminarians and would-be canon lawyers: the CE is not for those people only.
 * demonstrate which, if any of the concepts listed is currently held to be in force: the burden of proof is on you. Still, I have found some justifications:
 * A jure and ab homine: "The primary focus of this canon is on the creation of juridic persons. Paragraph one provides for two alternative modes of creation: by operation of law (a iure) and by decree of competent authority (ab homine)." (New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, 2000, p. 156)
 * Latæ sententiæ and ferendæ sententiæ: see Latae sententiae and ferendae sententiae
 * Public and occult : "apart from the evident cases of public excommunication or interdict"; "See, for example, c. 1 33 1, § 1-§2 on the different effects of a non-declared and declared excommunication" (New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, p. 1111, 1536); "Excommunications that occur at the diocesan level can be reported in diocesan newspapers or on websites, but strictly speaking, there is no requirement that bishops or tribunals make these decisions public. Neither, however, is there a prohibition against their doing so, and some of the important purposes served by excommunication (such as public reaffirmation of how wrong certain kinds of behavior are) are lost if notice of the excommunication is withheld from the public" (Excommunication and the Catholic Church: Straight Answers to Tough Questions, 2010, question 29)
 * Reserved and non-reserved: there is a whole 'Absolution reserved to the Apostolic See today' section on the excommunications reserved to the pope in the 1983 code.
 * Formal and material : "The Church's moral theology has always distinguished between              objective or material sin and formal sin."
 * The only concept which has been dropped is:
 * Vitandi and tolerati : according to the 1917 code, "Private Masses could be applied for tolerated excommunicates (excommunicati tolerati), which included baptized non-Catholics, but for the excommunicates who must be avoided (excommunicati vitandi), a private Mass could be applied only for their conversion (CIC 2262, §2, 2°)" (New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, p. 1098); in 1988: "In the Roman Catholic Church excommunicants are either 'vitandi' (to be avoided), or 'tolerati' (tolerated)." . "In fact, for a while, excommunicants were divided into two groups—tolerandi [sic] and vitandi—that is, ones that could be tolerated and others that had to be avoided. This distinction was still found in canon law as late as the early 20th century, but it has been dropped from current law as being unworkable given the way modern societies are set up" (Excommunication and the Catholic Church: Straight Answers to Tough Questions, question 28).
 * Canonical concepts do not have to be laid out as principles in a code to exist, just like legal concepts and methodologies exist outside of written law. Apostolicae Sedis mentions some excommunications being reserved and some not, therefore it should be explained before this section what those are. Veverve (talk) 10:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)


 * You miss the whole point entirely. You are aware are you not, that this is not 1913? Manannan67 (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Both sources I gave are recent (2000, 2010) and discuss current canon law. Veverve (talk) 06:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Membership
As for "the current state of this article": frankly, it is very, very, poorly organized; and also redundant.

Membership of the Church
totally useless Salaverri and Nicolau give the following summary of theological opinions on excommunication and membership: "That those who have been excommunicated from the Church by a perfect excommunication are not members of the body of the Church is an opinion common among Catholics. "'common' among Catholics": so what? is this supposed to be statistical analysis of what Catholics allegedly think regardless of whether they are right or not?

a) That the Church wishes indeed to punish by excommunication delinquent members, but de facto does not intend to separate the excommunicated from the body of the Church, although she says that they are to be avoided, is held by D'Herbigny, Dieckmann, Spacil, Sauras, with Báñez, Valentia, Suarez and Guamieri [sic, Guarnieri]. all these dudes are dead a long time, what is its bearing on the Church's approach today?

b) That those excommunicated with a partial excommunication are members of the Church is a common opinion among Theologians" so do the theologians disagree with the man-on-the-street Catholics?, if so, what has that got to do with anything?

Salaverri and Nicolau state that "the internal supernatural goods, such as sanctifying grace and the infused virtues, are not taken away by the censure [excommunication] itself. An excommunicated person is one who must be avoided (vitandus) who by name has been excluded from the communion of the faithful by the Apostolic See, and either by the law itself or by a public decree or sentence by name has been denounced as someone who must be avoided".this belongs under effects.

Salaverri and Nicolau's opinion is that only those which have been excommunicated by a "total, formal and perfect excommunication" can be said to be outside of the Catholic Church.(In the second part we hold: those persons excommunicated with a total, formal and perfect excommunication, that is, for this purpose legitimately imposed, are also separated from the body of the Church. Therefore [...] we are not denying that those persons are members of the Church who have been punished only with an excommunication that is material or partial or imperfect. |orig-date=195X}} and this is where the definition of "total, formal and perfect excommunication" goes, because they're the only ones who bring it up.

Ludwig Ott considers that those who have been excommunicated as vitandi are not part of the Catholic Church (contrarily to what some like Dieckmann and Suarez state). Ott adds that those excommunicated tolerati "according to the opinion almost generally held today" are still members of the Catholic Church "even after the promulgation of the juridical judgment and even if they are deprived of many spiritual benefits". again no relation to current practice Manannan67 (talk) 09:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)


 * your message is difficult to understand due to its layout. Could you edit your message so that it I am sure I do not miss your remarks by clearly separating them from the direct quotes from the article? Veverve (talk) 10:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for formatting.
 * Where I disagree:
 * totally useless: how, why? Whether a person excommunicated is considered a member of the Church seems a crucial point to me.
 * is this supposed to be statistical analysis of what Catholics allegedly think regardless of whether they are right or not?: yes, having an overview is important. And as far as I know, there is no magisterial sentence so no one is right or wrong on this topic. all these dudes are dead a long time: they were also dead a long time in the 1950s, yet it did not prevent the author from mentioning their opinion. This means that those opinions are important.
 * so do the theologians disagree with the man-on-the-street Catholics?, if so, what has that got to do with anything?: theologians' opinions are important.
 * and this is where the definition of "total, formal and perfect excommunication" goes, because they're the only ones who bring it up: what is the substance of this remark? What do you suggest?
 * Where I agree:
 * this belongs under effects: you are right, I moved it to there.
 * again no relation to current practice: you are right, I moved it to Vitandus and toleratus.
 * Veverve (talk) 07:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Sourced content inexplicably removed
"In 1908 Alfred Loisy, Ernesto Buonaiuti (1925), Joseph Turmel (1930), and other Modernists were declared vitandi. In contrast, Leonard Feeney's 1953 excommunication included only two out of the three conditions, and therefore, he was not vitandi. I do not see this moved to " Vitandus and toleratus#Consequences" as you claim. In fact, I do not find any subtitle "Consequences". The information (sourced) you willfully deleted gave specific concrete examples of the application of vitandi. ???????????????? Manannan67 (talk) 07:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


 * All I have moved and that you have been arguing about is Ott's opinion (see, ). I think you are confusing with what you have added for the article Vitandus and toleratus which I have not removed from there. Veverve (talk) 07:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I find no mention at all of Loisy, Buonaiuti or Turmel; nor does Lannoy appear in the list of citations. Clearly, the information was removed, and not by me, despite your statements to the contrary. Manannan67 (talk) 07:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not at all confused. the information was in my last edit at 3:26 before you commenced your inane reverts at 6:38. Any attempts at gaslighting will be unavailing. Manannan67 (talk) 07:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Any attempts at gaslighting will be unavailing: hey, you are the one who undid my removal of Ott's opinion – that I had indeed moved – twice by stating I was removing sourced content; if you got confused in your undoings, do not blame me. This could have been clarified sooner had you provided the edit diffs you were talking about.
 * The addition here? Yes I have removed it by reverting to a previous version among with many of your undiscussed changes. I did not have a look at all the changes you had made. This information about Loisy etc., is also present at Vitandus and toleratus, which is the main article, therefore I feel it should not be put in this ('Excommunication in the Catholic Church') more general article. Veverve (talk) 08:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This doesn't have a bloody thing to do with Ott! I'm not the one confused. "I did not have a look at all the changes you had made." Of sourse not, you just do blanket reversions. "I feel it should not be put in this" -and I don't "feel" all the old, outdated, obsolete, legalistic jargon belongs here; nor does it serve the reader. Manannan67 (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It is redundant to add this exemple, because: 1) it is not a distinction used anymore, 2) we have a separate main article on the topic, 3) those are specific historical examples.
 * I had to do a blanket reversion because I could not undo some of your edits individually.
 * The jargon thing is being discussed in the thread just above, so I will not comment on your last remark. Veverve (talk) 08:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

"Redundant -unnecessary repetition in expressing ideas". It's not redundant because it isn't even in the article. Why should a user have to go to a separate article to find examples of its use? I believe it was you who added Peters' quote 'This distinction "was still found in canon law as late as the early 20th century..." The examples given are what he was talking about. The reference to Modernism explains why, and anyone seeking further details can go directly to any of the linked pages. You persist in throwing in a lot of garbage and excising anything that might elucidate. "I had to do a blanket reversion because I could not undo some of your edits individually." Why, what's the matter with you? There is no current discussion in the thread above which is why I opened a new one. You bollocks things up and then go search for a rationale. Manannan67 (talk) 09:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Please stop personnal attacks and start AGF. I suggest you tell me when you are WP:COOL to discuss those things again. Nevertheless, this is not at all a carte blanche do what you want in the article. Veverve (talk) 09:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)