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)
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)
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 A number of pages link to this as if it were current information, only to find the outdated tag at the header, (which is entirely accurate).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)
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.
separating Latæ from sententiæ is not a good idea: you are right, it is confusing for those unfamiliar with those terms; I fixed it.
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
"'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:
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}}</ref> 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)
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?
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.
"In 1908
Alfred Loisy,
Ernesto Buonaiuti (1925),
Joseph Turmel (1930), and other
Modernists were declared vitandi.
[1] In contrast,
Leonard Feeney's 1953 excommunication included only two out of the three conditions, and therefore, he was not vitandi.
[2]
@
Veverve: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)
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.
"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)
References
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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.
separating Latæ from sententiæ is not a good idea: you are right, it is confusing for those unfamiliar with those terms; I fixed it.
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
"'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:
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}}</ref> 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)
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?
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.
"In 1908
Alfred Loisy,
Ernesto Buonaiuti (1925),
Joseph Turmel (1930), and other
Modernists were declared vitandi.
[1] In contrast,
Leonard Feeney's 1953 excommunication included only two out of the three conditions, and therefore, he was not vitandi.
[2]
@
Veverve: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)
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.
"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)
References