Excommunication
and other Church censures

One of the statements put forward at the start of the Synod of Bishops on the Eucharist which took place in Rome last October was given a very wide interpretation by the Canadian media. According to many news reports, the Catholic Prime Minister of Canada, because he publicly took positions on abortion and same-sex "marriage" contrary to Church teachings, was in danger of being barred from receiving Holy Communion by the Catholic Church.

The actual wording of the statement was as follows:

"Some receive Communion while denying the teachings of the Church or publicly supporting immoral choices in life, such as abortion, without thinking that they are committing an act of grave personal dishonesty and causing scandal. Some Catholics do not understand why it might be a sin to support a political candidate who is openly in favor of abortion or other serious acts against life, justice and peace. Such attitudes lead to, among other things, a crisis in the meaning of belonging to the Church and in a clouding of the distinction between venial and mortal sin." (Instrumentum Laboris)

First and foremost the Synod statement was an item for reflection and discussion taken from a working document.  Even as such, the statement was not, as the media portrayed it, a call for the punishment of any individual or group of individuals. If anything, it was designed as a reminder to Catholics worldwide, including politicians, to reflect seriously on their duties as members of the Church. In the coming months, following careful consideration of all propositions discussed at the Synod, Pope Benedict, after prayer and consultation, will issue an Apostolic Exhortation, a papal document promoting Church teachings.

The media spin on the Synod document, however, served to raise certain important topics, such as the denial of Holy Communion to those who have publicly rejected Church teachings. The authority for this comes from Canon Law, the body of laws by which the Church is governed, specifically Canon 915:

“Those who have been excommunicated…and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”

Excommunication is the most serious of a number of prescribed penalties, known as censures, which the Church can impose on adult Catholics for grave and obstinate disobedience. The excommunicated person is temporarily prohibited from receiving the sacraments, exercising ministry, or holding office until he (or she) formally repents and stops committing the particular offence, but he is still obligated to perform certain duties, such as attend Sunday Mass. Another type of censure is known as suspension, where a member of the clergy is prohibited from exercising some or all of the powers of Holy Orders.

Some confuse excommunication with "denial of Holy Communion." Excommunication bars the member from all sacramental participation, not Holy Communion alone. Canon 915 extends the refusal of Holy Communion to others who, although not excommunicated, are "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin."

Many people, both inside and outside the Church, tend to see all penalties imposed by the Church as little more than punishment, as a lowering of the boom, so to speak, on anyone who chooses to dissent. Excommunication, however, to take one example, is used only rarely. In addition, the Canon Law governing excommunication insists it must be employed "with the greatest moderation" (Canon 1318) and only after "rebuke and other ways of pastoral care have been tried...and the accused cannot be reformed by fraternal correction." (Canon 1341)

The following example from the past illustrates how the Church has used excommunication, not just to help the offenders realize the seriousness of their misdeeds, but also to correct offences and injustices in society.

For a period of about fifteen years, beginning in the late 1940's, an American archbishop worked diligently for the racial integration of the parochial schools in his archdiocese, often encountering fierce opposition from local press and politicians, including many prominent Catholics. For most of those fifteen years, the archbishop tried to enlighten his flock through Catholic moral teaching, issuing a series of pastoral letters denouncing racism as a great sin against humanity, and speaking in opposition to it at every opportunity. In 1962, however, when he finally announced his intention to integrate the parochial schools, and was met with organized disobedience from prominent Catholics, he issued a warning that he would excommunicate those Catholic leaders who continued to oppose him.

Three Catholic leaders remained undeterred, and when Catholics were encouraged to pressure the archbishop by withdrawing their financial support from both the schools and the parishes, the archbishop imposed an excommunication on all three for "provoking the devoted people of this venerable diocese to disobedience or rebellion in the matter of opening our schools to all Catholic children."  Shortly after, the schools of the archdiocese were successfully integrated, and the area became one of the few places in the country where racial integration was achieved without protests, violence, or destruction. Two of those excommunicated eventually made public retractions and were reinstated into the Church.

As you can see, when dealing with the possibility of excommunication, Church authorities, in this case the archbishop, made considerable efforts over many years to educate the transgressors and bring about understanding and reconciliation without resorting to disciplinary action. This was done because the main purpose of excommunication is not to punish the offender, but to correct him. Censures, then, should not be considered permanent penalties, but temporary measures used to bring the transgressor back to the fullness of the Church, and to righteousness.

A second purpose of excommunication, in fact of all censures, is to limit the damage which the offender might be doing to himself, or to others, by his actions. It is true that Christ forgives all of our sins, but he first requires that we recognize our sinfulness, repent, and firmly promise to amend our ways. The excommunicated person is one who refuses to acknowledge his sin, feels no need for repentance, and plans to continue behaving exactly as before. In the case cited above, the transgressors were undeterred, and planned to continue to discriminate against African American children in the diocese, despite all the efforts the archbishop had made over many years to persuade them otherwise. When he finally made his decision to excommunicate, the archbishop clearly felt that those segregated children in his diocese had waited long enough for justice.

As has been mentioned, excommunication is a temporary measure. Generally speaking, every bishop has the authority to remit the penalty of excommunication. Sometimes a bishop will delegate this faculty to a priest, and the penalty can be lifted through the Sacrament of Reconciliation. In a few instances, where there may be considerable scandal involved, and where the offences are particularly destructive, the Holy See reserves the right of removal unto itself.

The action of denying Communion, under Canon 915, to those "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin", whether to politicians or any other members the Church, is somewhat more complicated. In the first place, any member of the faithful conscious of grave sin, and therefore not in a state of grace, should voluntarily refrain from receiving Holy Communion, and avail himself (or herself) of the Sacrament of Reconciliation as soon as possible. This is the ideal, not just in spiritual terms, but also in terms of personal privacy, so that penitent and priest can share a bond of secrecy under the seal of the confessional.

The difficulty with refusing Holy Communion 'at the altar rail', so to speak, is that such a public action may damage the reputation of the person being denied. Church law expresses this concern as follows: "No one is permitted to harm illegitimately the good reputation which a person possesses nor to injure the right of any person to protect his or her own privacy." (Canon 220) In addition, a public refusal might be perceived by other members of the faithful who are present, or by the transgressor, not as "fraternal correction", but as an effort to embarrass or humiliate.

Others argue, though, that some Catholic politicians have themselves damaged their reputations by repudiating Church teachings in various public forums. And in most cases, they add, the member of the clergy responsible for the refusal will have spoken privately to the offender and asked him (or her) not to present himself (or herself) during the distribution of Holy Communion.