This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
It states here that Sinead was excommunicated for joining the Palmarian Catholics. Palmarians do not attempt to ordain women. Also, on Sinead's own site, it states that she attempted to be ordained by the Independent Catholicsfjsdbhvyhd. So this should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.146.37.103 ( talk) 13:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that this should be category stub, just like category former roman catholics
In 1 july 1949, there was a declaration of "ipso facto" excommunication of everybody connected with communist party (Decretum, 1 July 1949, in Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1949, p. 334.)
"Everybody in South America who took up arms against the Spanish and Portuguese monarchies under Leo XIII"
I thought I heard something about North America being excommunicated in the last couple of years because we are "too gay" or something like that. Although I think I might of heard that on the Daily Show, which is not always right (even though it is almost always funny)
Highlandlord
05:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Anecdote has it that the priest who was consulted to preside over Brendan Behan's marriage ceremony expressed reservations. Behan, as a (former?) member of the IRA (Irish Republican Army)--a secret oath-bound association--had automatically excommunicated himself (see also Fenians, in the 19th century list). When told that there would be difficulties, because he was excommunicted, Behan's reply was, "Then, so is Eamon deValera!" The marriage took place.-- PeadarMaguidhir 17:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Would anyone please provide a reference for that all stem cell researchers are in fact officially excommunicated by the RCC? I believe that the Cardinal doesn't have the canonical authority to excommunicate all stem cell researchers. I recommend deleting this entry. 207.239.38.159 06:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The weblink provided as a source for the claim that stem cell researchers are excommunicated by the RCC just states that it is a cardinal's proposal. Since no source was provided corroborating that they are actually excommunicated, I removed it for the time being. Gugganij 23:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The parish council and pastor of a St. Louis area church were excommunicated for refusing to acknowledge Archbishop Burke's authority.
Ebrard is not excommunicated even though the bishops consider him to have 'excluded himself from communion', this is not the same as excommunication, a state of excommunication latae sententiae has not been suitably verified, therefore deleting the entry -- Isolani 10:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to know when and for what Hitler was excommunicated for. There is no mention in the main Hitler article or the article about his religious beliefs that he was excommunicated. 64.230.86.99 ( talk) 23:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Claymore
I have never been able to find this document,. Reference, please? 178.190.65.155 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
See Mit brennender Sorge [ [1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.80.8 ( talk) 01:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
The current list has too many questionable entries. I would like to propose that we remove all elements of the list that do not have an accompanying citation. Entries can be re-added as citations are found. I believe that it would be better to have an incomplete list than an inaccurate one. However, before doing this, I will message Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism asking that citations be added for as many as possible in the current list-- after a week or so, any still remaining without citations will be removed? Does anyone disagree with this approach? JRP ( talk) 00:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
If someone has a red link should they be included in the list? Should there be a notability hurdle? JASpencer ( talk) 08:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
On reviewing the elements of this list and some of the comments above, I would like to propose that we limit the list to excommunications by papal decree only. A number of the excommunications from modern history on this list were done "automatically", even if a bishop subsequently declared the excommunication official. I feel that limiting it to Papal Decree ( papal bull?) will have two benefits:
Unfortunately, I'm not an expert on this topic and so I'll ask for opinions from the Wikiproject (directing them to the discussion here). It could be that there simply are not that many that are this formal, but on the whole I think a more restricted list would be more valuable. I am very interested in alternate viewpoints however. JRP ( talk) 02:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
After a suitably long gap, I've followed-through and removed uncited items and followed up on all present citations to verify them. This makes for a considerably shorter list, but it means that it's a verifiable shorter list and I'm positive that, with a little work, we can get it back up to its prior length with references intact. I had hoped to have time to get this worked through with more of my own research, but I haven't had the time. Here is the old version, if anyone wants to troll through this for more items to readd: [2] JRP ( talk) 03:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
You are right in being somewhat wary of 'automatic' excommunications. And I would agree in desisting from adding anyone to the list merely because someone claims that A committed act X, and act X is punishable by automatic excommunication. Generally I would not 'count' an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication until the existence of this excommunication is declared by that person's ordinary. This is the criterion used by Ed Peters, and he is as bona fide a canon lawyer as they come. I would *not* include a latae sententiae excommunication if it comes from anyone else. An auxiliary bishop does not have jurisdiction, if an auxiliary therefore says A is excommunicated it does not have canonical effect. Neither do pronouncements by random cardinals, unless they happen to be speaking in official capacity as members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or one of the Church courts. A hard and fats rule: include it if it is on Dr. Peter's 'blotter'. Only adding those excommunicated under the provision of some papal documemt is much, much too narrow. -- Scarpe ( talk) 14:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
This is not a list of people who have "indicated effective excommunication" but who have been officially excommunicated. Biden's support of abortion has certainly got himself into serious trouble but he has not been excommunicated officially an in person. JASpencer ( talk) 16:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I was shocked to see that many are missing what happened with them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumaterana ( talk • contribs) 22:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC) See the conversations above. Unsourced items and "automatic excommunications" have been removed from this list. JRP ( talk) 23:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the citation needed tags by many of the people in this list. For one, all of the people here are well-known excommunicatees (real word?) and their excommunications are common textbook knowledge. If a citation is truly needed, I'm sure one of the citations on their own pages (of which they are of course linked to) discuss it, and if necessary the reader can look into one of those. CaptainP ( talk) 02:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering whether the relatively recent excommunications of Womenpriests Rose Hudson and Elsie McGrath ( http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/religion/story/84C2EC265110978A8625740C000C5798?OpenDocument) would fall under the section of "automatic" excommunications and be excluded from this list or not. Pokeronskis ( talk) 01:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
While doing some research on an unrelated matter I found a number of articles relating to her having been excommunicated in November of 1968. This one [3] discusses Cardinal Cushing responding to a Vatican announcement that she was a "public sinner" (for having married a divorced Orthodox Christian) and had been excommunicated. The details may be in one of these articles [4] [5] [6] [7] (especially the last, because the words "formal excommunication" are in a ten-word extract) might contain clues, but I can't afford $3.95 an article to say whether they do or not. I can say that many newspapers and television reports of the time stated categorically that she had been excommunicated. Does anyone have any actual proof that one could refer to without paying $3.95 per article, one way or the other? -- NellieBly ( talk) 18:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't have handy cites or refs, but I seem to recall a few years ago that then-Archbishop Raymond Burke declared that the above church council (parish council? I forget the exact term) had excommunicated themselves. Definitely a group to be added, will look later, or others might check the archives of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (try [www.stltoday.com STLToday.com]). umrguy 42 17:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Does this article intend to be (or purport to be) an all-inclusive list? I'd think excommunications via Papal Bull would be easily verifiable; if the list is indeed holistic, I'd recommend noting it in the lead section (if not, that should be noted too). // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Should the people mentioned in this article be included? Vatican defends Brazil excommunication -- MicahBrwn ( talk) 07:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't able to read the source given, because it was not in English and I didn't feel like reading it through a clumsy translation, but all of the sources I've seen say she was not excommunicated. They say the church spared her because of her age and instead excommunicated everyone involved in the abortion. Can anyone clarify? Here's my source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7926694.stm
An editor professed to be surprised that the rapist was not excommunicated. Assuming good faith, as we always must, the church announces the fact that (in the church's opinion) people have excommunicated themselves from God (turned from God). A rapist might have repented. It was clear that the mother had not. The perp was guilty of repeated rape, the mother guilty of assisting (abetting) a murder (in the church's view), a bit more serious. Also, there was the publicity involved. Since the abortion was public knowledge, so was the excommunication.
The rapist might have excommunicated himself. The church took no stand because it wasn't public knowledge what his stand was.
There are plenty of rapists of nine-year olds in the US, maybe 20 a year (I'm guessing here). Most are handled "by the authorities" without publicity, the victims and families being essentially "unchurched." Probably a couple of these, migrants, illegals, come to term as well. No publicity. tv never gets out that far. Brazil is a tempest in a teapot considering our own backyard. So much for "News at 11." Student7 ( talk) 11:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Why is the article structured in reverse chronology which differs from all other articles. This seems WP:POV or WP:SOAP-ish by overemphasizing current events over previous ones. tv-ish. Student7 ( talk) 13:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
It would be a good idea to try to better distinguish schism and excommunication, a distinction that came after the Second Vatican Council. For instance, in Unitatis Redintegratio, the Council says that some schisms are incomplete, while other schisms are complete. The Arian schism was a complete schism, while the Eastern schism is still an imcomplete schism since the excommunication has been lifted. ADM ( talk) 00:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
He was excommunicated by papal legate(s) after the Pope had died & before the next was elected. Legal validity questionable. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
A qualifier was removed by a respected editor. The qualifier read "Prior to the sixteenth century, there was a single church in Western Europe which called itself 'Christian' not 'Roman Catholic.'" The editor commented that this was not true, that the Orthodox had split off earlier. This is true, but they were the Eastern Church, not Western. The Western church has essentially been one monolith from the 1st century through the 15th. All church history in the West derives from this single, earlier history. It was not "The Roman Catholic Church" up to that point. It was "the" church. Student7 ( talk) 11:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I think there is a case to be made that Ranke-Heinemann was really excommunicated. One of the reasons that leads me to think this is that the article about her names two specific canons that were used at the time, namely canon 1364 and canon 751, with one anonymous user adding them to the entry at one point. [8] It is unclear who exactly excommunicated her, as the name of the bishop is not provded, but it would be a good idea to retrace the identity of this ordinary. Also, the virgin birth is a fairly important dogma in Christianity and denying it could well be a cause for such an excommunication, since it is very similar to denying the divinity of Christ. Finally, Ranke-Heinemann did also lose her right to teach, or missio canonica, but this is not the same as an excommunication and it is likely that both sanctions were applied in a relatively short period. ADM ( talk) 12:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism#Excommunication_.22too_good_to_be_true.22. This document surfaced on Vatican.org and is a primary document. We need someone to analyze it. We can quote the analysis of it, if useful. However, editors have already done that and it does not appear to be of much use. Interesting. That is about it. 1931 was way too early for anyone to "excommunicate" anyone. Everybody except Jews, including most Americans and maybe English were still enthusiastic about "Mr. Hitler" at that time. Eight years later, not quite so enthusiastic anymore! But it took time. Student7 ( talk) 20:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Why did you delete the discussion I started? And this discussion you reference is simply a bunch of editors saying that they don't understand German. Tellingly, one does say he sees a reference to the Nazis being separated/forbidden from the sacraments. What precisely do you believe excommunication is? I understand the document. It separates active members and leaders of the Nazi party from the sacraments. As for individuals who voted or supported the Nazis, their future participation in the sacraments should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, largely dependent on their motivations in supporting the Nazis. I have restored the link because what I have recited above is an accurate description of the document.
(My Italian is far from good; but I know some French, a little Spanish and (very) little Latin, and this helps me some in reading Italian. My German is better. The following short summary is based on that understanding.)
The Italian text is a summary of the enclosed German one, a pastoral letter. The text is authorised by "the archbishops and bishops of Bavaria". There is no indication of either an approval or a disapproval from the Vatican authorities of their decisions. The text considers the National Socialism party ideology as consisting of two parts, a political on the one hand, and a cultural and religious on the other. The bishops declare that they in no way want to infringe on the right of the Nazis to have their political opinion; but that as regards religion the views and the "cultural struggle" (Kulturkampf) is unacceptible, and not compatible with Christ's Christianity (i.e., with Christianity in a true sence). Therefore, the full party programme is condemned [in the same manner and with similar consequenses] as was the old liberalism and is socialism. The clergy are completely forbidden to participate in the party activities, as they have enough understanding to know that the religeous standpoints are unacceptable. As for common people, if they support the Nazism just because of its political side, but remain true to the church, it is OK; if they also understand and support the party programme points about religion, it is unacceptible. Party members who have been barred from pertaking in sacraments and die in an unshrifted condition, still may get a Christian burial, if they during their lives in their acts otherwise stayed loyal to and peaceful towards the Church. If in the future the party should turn to methods such as the Communists use, which is hoped not to be the case, then the barring of remaining followers from the church and its sacraments will be absolute.
I think this could be considered as a condemnation of the NSDAP as a whole; however, not for the reasons we with hindsight might wish. The political views are considered as permissible, and no (unacceptable) bad concrete practices (like violent anti-Jewish campaigns) are recognised to exist. More important: The document in no way clarifies whether or not the church as a whole (i.e., the Holy See) participated in or at least upheld the local decision in Bavaria. However, if the decision was endorsed by the Vatican, it certainly involved excommunication of, or at least an interdict against, those Nazis who actively upheld the whole party programme. JoergenB (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I have a few comments. In brief, first of all, we should all of us try to be careful with our choices of words. Second, I disagree with Student7 on a few points, but agree with the essential conclusion.
With all this said, I still do not think that this dossier in itself merits the inclusion into a list of excommunications. The first reason is that to my limited understanding, this text is not about excommunication in the technical sense. As far as I understand, the RCC makes a distinction between several forms of punishment, and they rerserve "excommunication" for a more severe and absolute one (which includes the denial of the last rites and a Catholic burial). An excommunication either is automatic, or communicated privately to the 'excommunicee', or is declared openly (obliging all Catholics to abstain from most forms of contact with him/her). This is an encyclopedia, and as I wrote before, we should be careful with our choices of words. The German text does not suit the latter two cases; it might possibly be interpreted partly as a warning about automatic excommunication. (It does explicitly state that ordinary people should not be condemned for having contact with the Nazis or sympathising with them - as long as they do not share those parts of the party view which are not truly Christian. Thus, they may share the antisemitic and nationalistic ideas without any problem; these are not criticised. If the officials were officially excommunicated, on the other hand, good Catholics should not have more than rather limited contact with them. The Nazis only are criticised for the same reasons that earlier Liberals and Socialists were criticised, having to do with their standpoints as regards religious matters.
(Perhaps, actually, our article about "excommunication" is a bit misleading; it might need better clarification about differences between milder and more severe forms of separation of a Christian from the RCC. However, I'd prefer to leave this to people with greater insights than I have.)
Secondly, the decision is taken rater locally, and information is sent to the Curia; but the dossier does not contain anything about the response. Thus, we do not know whether or not the pastoral letter was approved or disapproved, or just passed over (which I think would count as more of an approval than the converse). We do not know if it was put into force - if e.g. actually ant party officials as a consequence were hindered from any participation in Church activities. What seems most clear is that the clergy is forbidden to partake in Nazi activities; and since the letter was made to the clergy, not to the Nazi officials, there is a much higher probability that this lead to some practical effects. For knowing more about the effects, we indeed need secondary sources.
In other words: If this source had shown that some Nazi officials were excommunicated, in an explicit and indisputable manner, I think that we could have used this as a source, although it is primary. However, IMHO, this is not the case. JoergenB ( talk) 23:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
~~~~
~~~~
I'm glad that you're looking for better sources. Note that we're looking for something reliable—a top-quality source, that anybody would agree is a good source—that directly makes an absolutely unambiguous statement. For example, if Süddeutsche Zeitung says "In 193x, the Catholic Church excommunicated all members of the Nazi party", that would be good enough. Better yet, if a noted church historian or Nazi scholar says the same thing in a book, that would be great. Statements like the one we've been looking at are open to interpretation (it could be excommunication, it could be interdiction, it could be nothing: it doesn't say exactly how to classify it).
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
22:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I am a bit baffled by this entire conversation.
First of all, a primary source that demonstrates that the Catholic bishops ruled Nazis to be excommunicated or contrary to the Catholic faith and limiting its members from joining the Nazis or, if members, from participating in sacraments is proof enough - you do not need some scholar to write about it. However, many have, and long before Wikipedia came along. There was an entire dissertation written in 1985 on the topic, which details the various German bishops' responses to Nazism and the Reichskonkordat, just as one of many examples of secondary sources. [1] Even 20 years before that, you had an entire scholarly text dealing with the question of the Catholic Church and the Nazis that addressed the excommunication of the Nazis. [2]
The excommunication was then appealed to Rome, under Pius XI, and he refused to even let them meet with Pacelli, and left it up to the German bishops - this is part of why the pope never excommunicated the Nazis: he did not have to, as it had already been done by the German bishops. That's how the Church works on these issues. Nazism was as incompatable to the Catholic Church as was Freemasonry or Communism, "as long and insofar as it adheres to a religious and cultural program which is irreconcilable with Catholic teaching" [3] because "the principles contained in their program are irreconcilable with Catholic teaching." That seems pretty clear. How can anyone be claiming that no scholars have dealt with these excommunication? Perhaps only by not looking beyond Wikipedia? 2001:B07:6463:1D3A:599C:38C0:84FF:7763 ( talk) 15:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Most of the excommunications mentioned here were/are automatic and all those Bishops did was announce that those persons had indeed incurred those automatic excommunications. Just because the newspapers got it wrong, doesn't mean we should perpetuate their mistake. 99.28.85.48 ( talk) 05:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
(UTC)
A line keeps getting changed: "excommunicated for allowing an abortion that was deemed medically necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman suffering from pulmonary hypertension" in one manifestation.
n the past, when abortion was illegal, every time there was a hole or apparent hole in the law, everyone was presumed to suffer from it. So if there was an exception for "Mental health", everyone who wanted an abortion was certified to have a "mental health problem." For rape, everyone who wanted an abortion had been "raped," never mind they never reported it to the authorities. These are weasel expressions and are not presumed to be factual. So saying she was hypertense and an abortion was vital is not really factual. We can say that the hospital personnel claimed that, but it's not something that the readers should be led to believe. Student7 ( talk) 13:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
There was a group of us that were excommed’ in Sacramento after some of us engaged in certain questionable activities (the rest of us just knew about it and let it happen). As far as I know there is no official records of this event; ¿Is inclusion appropriate? (I would think not, so I’m keeping an eye on the page…)A REDDSON
Let's not forget that Halley's Comet was excommunicated by Pope Callixtus III in 1456. Can we have a sub-section on "Things excommunicated.."? 86.42.198.146 ( talk) 20:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
The citation given for the 18th-century excommunication of members of Freemasonry is not about the 18th-century world. It is a BusinessWorld article about a 21st-century statement by the bishops of the Philippines. Therefore it does not apply to the stated fact. I also reverted an assertion that the excommunication did not apply in certain countries, because that was also not supported by the source given. We need a better source. I don't doubt that one is available. Elizium23 ( talk) 05:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
If I go to the Wikipedia article of Bernard Fellay, one of those excommunicated bishops, I find the following ALONG WITH A CITATION:
"By a decree of 21 January 2009 (Protocol Number 126/2009), which was issued in response to a renewed request that Bishop Fellay made on behalf of all four bishops whom Lefebvre had consecrated on 30 June 1988, the Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, by the power expressly granted to him by Pope Benedict XVI, remitted the automatic excommunication that they had thereby incurred, and expressed the wish that this would be followed speedily by full communion of the whole of the Society of Saint Pius X with the Church, thus bearing witness, by the proof of visible unity, to true loyalty and true recognition of the Pope's Magisterium and authority."
I don't know how to edit in citations, but you have that one available for THIS article on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 ( talk) 19:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
This source quotes the Diocese of Bauru as saying that they excommunicated Rev. Daniel for disobedience and "behavior contrary to the rules of priesthood" and denies that the penalty was imposed for defending homosexuals, because there is no legal penalty for that. Elizium23 ( talk) 05:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
The article starts off well with famous notable people who were excommunicated. Then gets side-tracked in the 20th & 21st centuries with non-notable people created by the media, apparently to "make a point" about the Catholic Church. These people, individual priests mostly, should probably be rm, to retain the quality of entries in the first 19 centuries or so.
Or maybe change the lead to read "most famous people in the first 19 centuries, followed by just about anybody in the 20th and 21st, as the media dictates." Student7 ( talk) 22:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Juan Peron, the argentitian president in 1955, was NEVER excommunicated: http://www.lanacion.com.ar/210497-una-excomunion-que-no-se-cumplio
Carlos Eijo, representing the Vatican, talked with Peron and he gave him an exculpatory document and certified that Peron was not excommunicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.231.191.187 ( talk • contribs)
Haven't we been through this sort of thing with the Brazil case? Canon Law 1398 applies automatically to anyone carrying out an abortion. It doesn't require announcement. The bishops may have become carried away, misquoted, or misunderstood. Lawmakers, it appears were never actually excommunicated, nor were those who "promoted" the law. Student7 ( talk) 00:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
This is a difficult one for me to argue, because there is a preponderance of WP:RS reporting that the Pope excommunicated the Mafiosi. But that is simply not what happened. The Pope said "they are excommunicated!" in a homily. Context is everything. If I am sitting next to a federal judge at a dinner party, and he says "I find you guilty of stealing my drink!" am I going to prison? No, because he did not don his robes, sit at the bench, rap his gavel, and ensure that the verdict was entered in the court records. The same goes for the Pope, who as a bishop must issue legislation and decrees in a particular manner in order for them to have legal force. Once it comes out in Acta Apostolicae Sedis then we can know it is for sure, but until then I will oppose its addition to this article. Elizium23 ( talk) 20:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
There is no decree by the Pope, there is only an off-the-cuff comment by him. The preponderance of reliable secondary sources indicate only that he said this thing, and none indicate that he issued any notice or took any action for it. Elizium23 ( talk) 04:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
"Excommunications ... that automatically affect classes of people (members of certain association or ...) are not listed unless confirmed by a bishop or ecclesiastical tribunal with respect to certain individuals." Even if we take Pope Francis's statement to be the equivalent of a decree (which is by no means clear, although "off-the-cuff comment" may be too dismissive), no bishop or ecclesiastical tribunal has confirmed that Giovanni Rossi (the Italian equivalent to English "John Smith" or American "John Doe") was thereby excommunicated. So those involved belong in this article no more than do the members of a whole list of associations excommunicated by an American bishop, the members of numerous other societies excommunicated by popes, the many excommunicated down the centuries as classes (not as named individuals) for heresy or schism, the many classes of persons of whom church councils, both ecumenical and non-ecumenical, decreed "anathema sit" ... Esoglou ( talk) 06:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
In spite of clear consensus against broadening the scope of this article, it has been broadened, and therefore I have modified the lede paragraph to reflect this new scope. Elizium23 ( talk) 05:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose to limit the scope of this article to only those people who have been actually and formally excommunicated by the Catholic Church, that is to say, have been subject to the ecclesiastical penalty of excommunication as defined in Canon Law, rather than anyone who is effectively excommunicated, for example by mention in an off-the-cuff remark by a Pope.
Elizium23 (
talk)
01:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
This proposal is essentially the corollary to the one above. I am proposing it against my desire to see it enacted, in order to perfectly clarify what we intend to do with the scope of this article. I hereby propose to broaden the scope of this article to include notable incidents of effective or de facto excommunication. This is stated to include times when Catholics were denied Holy Communion or another sacrament on the basis of their state of sin, or their disbelief in the tenets of the Catholic Church. Examples include Lesbian denied Communion Missouri priest under fire and Sebelius prohibited from Communion. Elizium23 ( talk) 01:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
We have consensus forming to oppose both the limitation and the broadening of this article's scope. It is a particularly peculiar situation that the scope is already limited per the first proposal, according to the comments in the lede section. So to those of you who oppose limiting the scope, I pose the following question: Do you oppose the current scope of the article as it stands now? And if so, please propose criteria for the scope you envision this article to encompass, because if so many people also oppose broadening it, then what in the world should it be? Elizium23 ( talk) 07:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
His 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article says that he was excommunicated in 1860 when he accepted the annexation of Romagna. Alekksandr ( talk) 22:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Should this list include people who were only threatened with excommunication, not actually excommunicated? Two such people has very recently been added. The fact that the list includes at least one case in which a bishop stated that people had been automatically excommunicated who turned out not to have in fact been excommunicated does not allow me to answer with a simple No. Esoglou ( talk) 20:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
List of people excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
@ BoBoMisiu: that's not how this works, though - you can't identify into being an excommunicated Catholic, so the fact that Madonna states she's been excommunicated three times is immaterial. I don't think you even can be excommunicated three times. There needs to be a source. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 04:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Personally I don't think the current source proves that she was excommunicated. The line within the source says "she joked". If there is a place where she confirms this in a "normal" interview, then it can be added, but otherwise it should be out. Technically she could be excommunicated three times, but not by formal excommunication. Unless she means three different people notified her of it or something like that. I haven't researched whether this page includes people that weren't formally excommunicated but excommunicated via their actions (i.e. perform an abortion, impersonate a priest, etc.) In cases like that they can be excommunicated multiple times, and just go to confession with the proper authority, either a Bishop or priest depending on their cause and then commit the offense again. But that isn't formal excommunication decreed by a Bishop. I just read the first line of the article, my discussion about excommunication by actions does not apply here, unless we get her saying she was formally excommunicated by a Bishop, this shouldn't be here. Marauder40 ( talk) 12:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
"my BS radar tells be otherwise"is my reply. Your premises are little more than WP:GREENCHEESE. You have not familiarized yourself with the current, since 1983, Catholic practice. A decree is issued in writing and m"must be made known"( cc. 51–54) and "is considered to have been made known if the one for whom it is destined has been properly summoned to receive or hear the decree but, without a just cause, did not appear or refused to sign" ( c. 56). A decree is the formal act ( cc. 48–58). She is stating she was excommunicated. Writing:
"Technically she could be excommunicated three times, but not by formal excommunication"is an argument from incredulity, just like you point out:
"Personally I don't think the current source proves that she was excommunicated". I have included Madonna's quote in two other sources above. Have you read those? – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 13:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Is this source sufficient for the claim that Madonna was excommunicated? BoBoMisiu ( talk · contribs) believes that a WP:SELFSOURCE is adequate and points out that the source supports Madonna saying she was excommunicated three times, while I believe that you cannot identify into excommunication, a quasi-legal action taken by someone else, the way you might be able to identify with a religious faith or lack thereof. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 12:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
"offhand comment". – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 13:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of people excommunicated by the 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) 17:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
It says he was excommunicated but the source cited is "A history of warfare between science and theology" which is well known to be mostly propoganda and not true history since it exaggerates and misinterprets many things. Ilikerabbits! ( talk) 14:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of people excommunicated by the 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) 17:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
The following was removed as not a neutral point of view:
That the members of the group excommunicated object to being excommunicated and claim it was invalid is interesting, but unsurprising. The Catholic Church did not rule the excommunication was invalid, the SSPX did. And they were the ones excommunicated. The case in Hawaii does not affect the case in Nebraska - different jurisdictions, different reasons for excommunication. Unless someone can provide a document from the CDF or the diocese that lifts or invalidates the action, the Church certainly sees it as valid and binding. Not that they needed to be excommunicated, as they are already in schism by their own action. Protoclete ( talk) 19:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
Elizium23, Many statements mentioned in the article appear to be contradictory to the reality. Does Catholic Church endorse or validates posthumous excommunications? If so please provide sources before reverting edits. Br Ibrahim john ( talk) 14:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
The page mentions below the listing for Arius an excommunicated individual named Celestius, who is claimed to be a fellow leader of Arianism. However the page it links to is about a Caelestius, who was a student of Pelagius and linked to Pelagianism. I know enough to recognize the distinct nature of these two topics, so it looks like an error in some form or another (either as a mistaken link or a case of mistaken identity by the author). As I’m no editor (or have any experience how to otherwise mark issues), I thought I’d draw attention to it for someone else to reconcile. 50.109.115.221 ( talk) 04:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
There is no evidence Fidel Castro was ever excommunicated, it is an internet myth, whose only semi-serious proponent is a single article by the far-right Spanish paper (of very dubious reliability) ABC. Here are two Catholic sources discussing this 1, 2
The idea that he could have been excommunicated with the only trace of this being in an article from a far-right paper from Spain 50 years later is absurd. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. Boynamedsue ( talk) 06:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
good sources, as you say. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 20:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
I think an automatic excommunication should be included if it is explicitly stated to exist by a bishop. In effect, I think the scope of the article is to show people who have been explicitly named excommunicated by the church, and if a church authority explicitly names someone as having incurred automatic excommunication, then it still belongs here. There is already a precedent on this page with some others who fall under that category (eg. Marcel Lefebvre and the bishops he consecrated incurred automatic excommunications). If there is a dispute about whether or not church authorities did explicitly name him, I think it still belongs on the page with both sides of the dispute being mentioned. Reesorville ( talk) 22:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
It states here that Sinead was excommunicated for joining the Palmarian Catholics. Palmarians do not attempt to ordain women. Also, on Sinead's own site, it states that she attempted to be ordained by the Independent Catholicsfjsdbhvyhd. So this should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.146.37.103 ( talk) 13:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that this should be category stub, just like category former roman catholics
In 1 july 1949, there was a declaration of "ipso facto" excommunication of everybody connected with communist party (Decretum, 1 July 1949, in Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1949, p. 334.)
"Everybody in South America who took up arms against the Spanish and Portuguese monarchies under Leo XIII"
I thought I heard something about North America being excommunicated in the last couple of years because we are "too gay" or something like that. Although I think I might of heard that on the Daily Show, which is not always right (even though it is almost always funny)
Highlandlord
05:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Anecdote has it that the priest who was consulted to preside over Brendan Behan's marriage ceremony expressed reservations. Behan, as a (former?) member of the IRA (Irish Republican Army)--a secret oath-bound association--had automatically excommunicated himself (see also Fenians, in the 19th century list). When told that there would be difficulties, because he was excommunicted, Behan's reply was, "Then, so is Eamon deValera!" The marriage took place.-- PeadarMaguidhir 17:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Would anyone please provide a reference for that all stem cell researchers are in fact officially excommunicated by the RCC? I believe that the Cardinal doesn't have the canonical authority to excommunicate all stem cell researchers. I recommend deleting this entry. 207.239.38.159 06:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The weblink provided as a source for the claim that stem cell researchers are excommunicated by the RCC just states that it is a cardinal's proposal. Since no source was provided corroborating that they are actually excommunicated, I removed it for the time being. Gugganij 23:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The parish council and pastor of a St. Louis area church were excommunicated for refusing to acknowledge Archbishop Burke's authority.
Ebrard is not excommunicated even though the bishops consider him to have 'excluded himself from communion', this is not the same as excommunication, a state of excommunication latae sententiae has not been suitably verified, therefore deleting the entry -- Isolani 10:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to know when and for what Hitler was excommunicated for. There is no mention in the main Hitler article or the article about his religious beliefs that he was excommunicated. 64.230.86.99 ( talk) 23:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Claymore
I have never been able to find this document,. Reference, please? 178.190.65.155 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
See Mit brennender Sorge [ [1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.80.8 ( talk) 01:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
The current list has too many questionable entries. I would like to propose that we remove all elements of the list that do not have an accompanying citation. Entries can be re-added as citations are found. I believe that it would be better to have an incomplete list than an inaccurate one. However, before doing this, I will message Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism asking that citations be added for as many as possible in the current list-- after a week or so, any still remaining without citations will be removed? Does anyone disagree with this approach? JRP ( talk) 00:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
If someone has a red link should they be included in the list? Should there be a notability hurdle? JASpencer ( talk) 08:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
On reviewing the elements of this list and some of the comments above, I would like to propose that we limit the list to excommunications by papal decree only. A number of the excommunications from modern history on this list were done "automatically", even if a bishop subsequently declared the excommunication official. I feel that limiting it to Papal Decree ( papal bull?) will have two benefits:
Unfortunately, I'm not an expert on this topic and so I'll ask for opinions from the Wikiproject (directing them to the discussion here). It could be that there simply are not that many that are this formal, but on the whole I think a more restricted list would be more valuable. I am very interested in alternate viewpoints however. JRP ( talk) 02:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
After a suitably long gap, I've followed-through and removed uncited items and followed up on all present citations to verify them. This makes for a considerably shorter list, but it means that it's a verifiable shorter list and I'm positive that, with a little work, we can get it back up to its prior length with references intact. I had hoped to have time to get this worked through with more of my own research, but I haven't had the time. Here is the old version, if anyone wants to troll through this for more items to readd: [2] JRP ( talk) 03:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
You are right in being somewhat wary of 'automatic' excommunications. And I would agree in desisting from adding anyone to the list merely because someone claims that A committed act X, and act X is punishable by automatic excommunication. Generally I would not 'count' an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication until the existence of this excommunication is declared by that person's ordinary. This is the criterion used by Ed Peters, and he is as bona fide a canon lawyer as they come. I would *not* include a latae sententiae excommunication if it comes from anyone else. An auxiliary bishop does not have jurisdiction, if an auxiliary therefore says A is excommunicated it does not have canonical effect. Neither do pronouncements by random cardinals, unless they happen to be speaking in official capacity as members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or one of the Church courts. A hard and fats rule: include it if it is on Dr. Peter's 'blotter'. Only adding those excommunicated under the provision of some papal documemt is much, much too narrow. -- Scarpe ( talk) 14:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
This is not a list of people who have "indicated effective excommunication" but who have been officially excommunicated. Biden's support of abortion has certainly got himself into serious trouble but he has not been excommunicated officially an in person. JASpencer ( talk) 16:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I was shocked to see that many are missing what happened with them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumaterana ( talk • contribs) 22:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC) See the conversations above. Unsourced items and "automatic excommunications" have been removed from this list. JRP ( talk) 23:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the citation needed tags by many of the people in this list. For one, all of the people here are well-known excommunicatees (real word?) and their excommunications are common textbook knowledge. If a citation is truly needed, I'm sure one of the citations on their own pages (of which they are of course linked to) discuss it, and if necessary the reader can look into one of those. CaptainP ( talk) 02:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering whether the relatively recent excommunications of Womenpriests Rose Hudson and Elsie McGrath ( http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/religion/story/84C2EC265110978A8625740C000C5798?OpenDocument) would fall under the section of "automatic" excommunications and be excluded from this list or not. Pokeronskis ( talk) 01:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
While doing some research on an unrelated matter I found a number of articles relating to her having been excommunicated in November of 1968. This one [3] discusses Cardinal Cushing responding to a Vatican announcement that she was a "public sinner" (for having married a divorced Orthodox Christian) and had been excommunicated. The details may be in one of these articles [4] [5] [6] [7] (especially the last, because the words "formal excommunication" are in a ten-word extract) might contain clues, but I can't afford $3.95 an article to say whether they do or not. I can say that many newspapers and television reports of the time stated categorically that she had been excommunicated. Does anyone have any actual proof that one could refer to without paying $3.95 per article, one way or the other? -- NellieBly ( talk) 18:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't have handy cites or refs, but I seem to recall a few years ago that then-Archbishop Raymond Burke declared that the above church council (parish council? I forget the exact term) had excommunicated themselves. Definitely a group to be added, will look later, or others might check the archives of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (try [www.stltoday.com STLToday.com]). umrguy 42 17:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Does this article intend to be (or purport to be) an all-inclusive list? I'd think excommunications via Papal Bull would be easily verifiable; if the list is indeed holistic, I'd recommend noting it in the lead section (if not, that should be noted too). // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Should the people mentioned in this article be included? Vatican defends Brazil excommunication -- MicahBrwn ( talk) 07:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't able to read the source given, because it was not in English and I didn't feel like reading it through a clumsy translation, but all of the sources I've seen say she was not excommunicated. They say the church spared her because of her age and instead excommunicated everyone involved in the abortion. Can anyone clarify? Here's my source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7926694.stm
An editor professed to be surprised that the rapist was not excommunicated. Assuming good faith, as we always must, the church announces the fact that (in the church's opinion) people have excommunicated themselves from God (turned from God). A rapist might have repented. It was clear that the mother had not. The perp was guilty of repeated rape, the mother guilty of assisting (abetting) a murder (in the church's view), a bit more serious. Also, there was the publicity involved. Since the abortion was public knowledge, so was the excommunication.
The rapist might have excommunicated himself. The church took no stand because it wasn't public knowledge what his stand was.
There are plenty of rapists of nine-year olds in the US, maybe 20 a year (I'm guessing here). Most are handled "by the authorities" without publicity, the victims and families being essentially "unchurched." Probably a couple of these, migrants, illegals, come to term as well. No publicity. tv never gets out that far. Brazil is a tempest in a teapot considering our own backyard. So much for "News at 11." Student7 ( talk) 11:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Why is the article structured in reverse chronology which differs from all other articles. This seems WP:POV or WP:SOAP-ish by overemphasizing current events over previous ones. tv-ish. Student7 ( talk) 13:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
It would be a good idea to try to better distinguish schism and excommunication, a distinction that came after the Second Vatican Council. For instance, in Unitatis Redintegratio, the Council says that some schisms are incomplete, while other schisms are complete. The Arian schism was a complete schism, while the Eastern schism is still an imcomplete schism since the excommunication has been lifted. ADM ( talk) 00:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
He was excommunicated by papal legate(s) after the Pope had died & before the next was elected. Legal validity questionable. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
A qualifier was removed by a respected editor. The qualifier read "Prior to the sixteenth century, there was a single church in Western Europe which called itself 'Christian' not 'Roman Catholic.'" The editor commented that this was not true, that the Orthodox had split off earlier. This is true, but they were the Eastern Church, not Western. The Western church has essentially been one monolith from the 1st century through the 15th. All church history in the West derives from this single, earlier history. It was not "The Roman Catholic Church" up to that point. It was "the" church. Student7 ( talk) 11:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I think there is a case to be made that Ranke-Heinemann was really excommunicated. One of the reasons that leads me to think this is that the article about her names two specific canons that were used at the time, namely canon 1364 and canon 751, with one anonymous user adding them to the entry at one point. [8] It is unclear who exactly excommunicated her, as the name of the bishop is not provded, but it would be a good idea to retrace the identity of this ordinary. Also, the virgin birth is a fairly important dogma in Christianity and denying it could well be a cause for such an excommunication, since it is very similar to denying the divinity of Christ. Finally, Ranke-Heinemann did also lose her right to teach, or missio canonica, but this is not the same as an excommunication and it is likely that both sanctions were applied in a relatively short period. ADM ( talk) 12:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism#Excommunication_.22too_good_to_be_true.22. This document surfaced on Vatican.org and is a primary document. We need someone to analyze it. We can quote the analysis of it, if useful. However, editors have already done that and it does not appear to be of much use. Interesting. That is about it. 1931 was way too early for anyone to "excommunicate" anyone. Everybody except Jews, including most Americans and maybe English were still enthusiastic about "Mr. Hitler" at that time. Eight years later, not quite so enthusiastic anymore! But it took time. Student7 ( talk) 20:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Why did you delete the discussion I started? And this discussion you reference is simply a bunch of editors saying that they don't understand German. Tellingly, one does say he sees a reference to the Nazis being separated/forbidden from the sacraments. What precisely do you believe excommunication is? I understand the document. It separates active members and leaders of the Nazi party from the sacraments. As for individuals who voted or supported the Nazis, their future participation in the sacraments should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, largely dependent on their motivations in supporting the Nazis. I have restored the link because what I have recited above is an accurate description of the document.
(My Italian is far from good; but I know some French, a little Spanish and (very) little Latin, and this helps me some in reading Italian. My German is better. The following short summary is based on that understanding.)
The Italian text is a summary of the enclosed German one, a pastoral letter. The text is authorised by "the archbishops and bishops of Bavaria". There is no indication of either an approval or a disapproval from the Vatican authorities of their decisions. The text considers the National Socialism party ideology as consisting of two parts, a political on the one hand, and a cultural and religious on the other. The bishops declare that they in no way want to infringe on the right of the Nazis to have their political opinion; but that as regards religion the views and the "cultural struggle" (Kulturkampf) is unacceptible, and not compatible with Christ's Christianity (i.e., with Christianity in a true sence). Therefore, the full party programme is condemned [in the same manner and with similar consequenses] as was the old liberalism and is socialism. The clergy are completely forbidden to participate in the party activities, as they have enough understanding to know that the religeous standpoints are unacceptable. As for common people, if they support the Nazism just because of its political side, but remain true to the church, it is OK; if they also understand and support the party programme points about religion, it is unacceptible. Party members who have been barred from pertaking in sacraments and die in an unshrifted condition, still may get a Christian burial, if they during their lives in their acts otherwise stayed loyal to and peaceful towards the Church. If in the future the party should turn to methods such as the Communists use, which is hoped not to be the case, then the barring of remaining followers from the church and its sacraments will be absolute.
I think this could be considered as a condemnation of the NSDAP as a whole; however, not for the reasons we with hindsight might wish. The political views are considered as permissible, and no (unacceptable) bad concrete practices (like violent anti-Jewish campaigns) are recognised to exist. More important: The document in no way clarifies whether or not the church as a whole (i.e., the Holy See) participated in or at least upheld the local decision in Bavaria. However, if the decision was endorsed by the Vatican, it certainly involved excommunication of, or at least an interdict against, those Nazis who actively upheld the whole party programme. JoergenB (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I have a few comments. In brief, first of all, we should all of us try to be careful with our choices of words. Second, I disagree with Student7 on a few points, but agree with the essential conclusion.
With all this said, I still do not think that this dossier in itself merits the inclusion into a list of excommunications. The first reason is that to my limited understanding, this text is not about excommunication in the technical sense. As far as I understand, the RCC makes a distinction between several forms of punishment, and they rerserve "excommunication" for a more severe and absolute one (which includes the denial of the last rites and a Catholic burial). An excommunication either is automatic, or communicated privately to the 'excommunicee', or is declared openly (obliging all Catholics to abstain from most forms of contact with him/her). This is an encyclopedia, and as I wrote before, we should be careful with our choices of words. The German text does not suit the latter two cases; it might possibly be interpreted partly as a warning about automatic excommunication. (It does explicitly state that ordinary people should not be condemned for having contact with the Nazis or sympathising with them - as long as they do not share those parts of the party view which are not truly Christian. Thus, they may share the antisemitic and nationalistic ideas without any problem; these are not criticised. If the officials were officially excommunicated, on the other hand, good Catholics should not have more than rather limited contact with them. The Nazis only are criticised for the same reasons that earlier Liberals and Socialists were criticised, having to do with their standpoints as regards religious matters.
(Perhaps, actually, our article about "excommunication" is a bit misleading; it might need better clarification about differences between milder and more severe forms of separation of a Christian from the RCC. However, I'd prefer to leave this to people with greater insights than I have.)
Secondly, the decision is taken rater locally, and information is sent to the Curia; but the dossier does not contain anything about the response. Thus, we do not know whether or not the pastoral letter was approved or disapproved, or just passed over (which I think would count as more of an approval than the converse). We do not know if it was put into force - if e.g. actually ant party officials as a consequence were hindered from any participation in Church activities. What seems most clear is that the clergy is forbidden to partake in Nazi activities; and since the letter was made to the clergy, not to the Nazi officials, there is a much higher probability that this lead to some practical effects. For knowing more about the effects, we indeed need secondary sources.
In other words: If this source had shown that some Nazi officials were excommunicated, in an explicit and indisputable manner, I think that we could have used this as a source, although it is primary. However, IMHO, this is not the case. JoergenB ( talk) 23:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
~~~~
~~~~
I'm glad that you're looking for better sources. Note that we're looking for something reliable—a top-quality source, that anybody would agree is a good source—that directly makes an absolutely unambiguous statement. For example, if Süddeutsche Zeitung says "In 193x, the Catholic Church excommunicated all members of the Nazi party", that would be good enough. Better yet, if a noted church historian or Nazi scholar says the same thing in a book, that would be great. Statements like the one we've been looking at are open to interpretation (it could be excommunication, it could be interdiction, it could be nothing: it doesn't say exactly how to classify it).
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
22:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I am a bit baffled by this entire conversation.
First of all, a primary source that demonstrates that the Catholic bishops ruled Nazis to be excommunicated or contrary to the Catholic faith and limiting its members from joining the Nazis or, if members, from participating in sacraments is proof enough - you do not need some scholar to write about it. However, many have, and long before Wikipedia came along. There was an entire dissertation written in 1985 on the topic, which details the various German bishops' responses to Nazism and the Reichskonkordat, just as one of many examples of secondary sources. [1] Even 20 years before that, you had an entire scholarly text dealing with the question of the Catholic Church and the Nazis that addressed the excommunication of the Nazis. [2]
The excommunication was then appealed to Rome, under Pius XI, and he refused to even let them meet with Pacelli, and left it up to the German bishops - this is part of why the pope never excommunicated the Nazis: he did not have to, as it had already been done by the German bishops. That's how the Church works on these issues. Nazism was as incompatable to the Catholic Church as was Freemasonry or Communism, "as long and insofar as it adheres to a religious and cultural program which is irreconcilable with Catholic teaching" [3] because "the principles contained in their program are irreconcilable with Catholic teaching." That seems pretty clear. How can anyone be claiming that no scholars have dealt with these excommunication? Perhaps only by not looking beyond Wikipedia? 2001:B07:6463:1D3A:599C:38C0:84FF:7763 ( talk) 15:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Most of the excommunications mentioned here were/are automatic and all those Bishops did was announce that those persons had indeed incurred those automatic excommunications. Just because the newspapers got it wrong, doesn't mean we should perpetuate their mistake. 99.28.85.48 ( talk) 05:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
(UTC)
A line keeps getting changed: "excommunicated for allowing an abortion that was deemed medically necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman suffering from pulmonary hypertension" in one manifestation.
n the past, when abortion was illegal, every time there was a hole or apparent hole in the law, everyone was presumed to suffer from it. So if there was an exception for "Mental health", everyone who wanted an abortion was certified to have a "mental health problem." For rape, everyone who wanted an abortion had been "raped," never mind they never reported it to the authorities. These are weasel expressions and are not presumed to be factual. So saying she was hypertense and an abortion was vital is not really factual. We can say that the hospital personnel claimed that, but it's not something that the readers should be led to believe. Student7 ( talk) 13:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
There was a group of us that were excommed’ in Sacramento after some of us engaged in certain questionable activities (the rest of us just knew about it and let it happen). As far as I know there is no official records of this event; ¿Is inclusion appropriate? (I would think not, so I’m keeping an eye on the page…)A REDDSON
Let's not forget that Halley's Comet was excommunicated by Pope Callixtus III in 1456. Can we have a sub-section on "Things excommunicated.."? 86.42.198.146 ( talk) 20:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
The citation given for the 18th-century excommunication of members of Freemasonry is not about the 18th-century world. It is a BusinessWorld article about a 21st-century statement by the bishops of the Philippines. Therefore it does not apply to the stated fact. I also reverted an assertion that the excommunication did not apply in certain countries, because that was also not supported by the source given. We need a better source. I don't doubt that one is available. Elizium23 ( talk) 05:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
If I go to the Wikipedia article of Bernard Fellay, one of those excommunicated bishops, I find the following ALONG WITH A CITATION:
"By a decree of 21 January 2009 (Protocol Number 126/2009), which was issued in response to a renewed request that Bishop Fellay made on behalf of all four bishops whom Lefebvre had consecrated on 30 June 1988, the Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, by the power expressly granted to him by Pope Benedict XVI, remitted the automatic excommunication that they had thereby incurred, and expressed the wish that this would be followed speedily by full communion of the whole of the Society of Saint Pius X with the Church, thus bearing witness, by the proof of visible unity, to true loyalty and true recognition of the Pope's Magisterium and authority."
I don't know how to edit in citations, but you have that one available for THIS article on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 ( talk) 19:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
This source quotes the Diocese of Bauru as saying that they excommunicated Rev. Daniel for disobedience and "behavior contrary to the rules of priesthood" and denies that the penalty was imposed for defending homosexuals, because there is no legal penalty for that. Elizium23 ( talk) 05:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
The article starts off well with famous notable people who were excommunicated. Then gets side-tracked in the 20th & 21st centuries with non-notable people created by the media, apparently to "make a point" about the Catholic Church. These people, individual priests mostly, should probably be rm, to retain the quality of entries in the first 19 centuries or so.
Or maybe change the lead to read "most famous people in the first 19 centuries, followed by just about anybody in the 20th and 21st, as the media dictates." Student7 ( talk) 22:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Juan Peron, the argentitian president in 1955, was NEVER excommunicated: http://www.lanacion.com.ar/210497-una-excomunion-que-no-se-cumplio
Carlos Eijo, representing the Vatican, talked with Peron and he gave him an exculpatory document and certified that Peron was not excommunicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.231.191.187 ( talk • contribs)
Haven't we been through this sort of thing with the Brazil case? Canon Law 1398 applies automatically to anyone carrying out an abortion. It doesn't require announcement. The bishops may have become carried away, misquoted, or misunderstood. Lawmakers, it appears were never actually excommunicated, nor were those who "promoted" the law. Student7 ( talk) 00:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
This is a difficult one for me to argue, because there is a preponderance of WP:RS reporting that the Pope excommunicated the Mafiosi. But that is simply not what happened. The Pope said "they are excommunicated!" in a homily. Context is everything. If I am sitting next to a federal judge at a dinner party, and he says "I find you guilty of stealing my drink!" am I going to prison? No, because he did not don his robes, sit at the bench, rap his gavel, and ensure that the verdict was entered in the court records. The same goes for the Pope, who as a bishop must issue legislation and decrees in a particular manner in order for them to have legal force. Once it comes out in Acta Apostolicae Sedis then we can know it is for sure, but until then I will oppose its addition to this article. Elizium23 ( talk) 20:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
There is no decree by the Pope, there is only an off-the-cuff comment by him. The preponderance of reliable secondary sources indicate only that he said this thing, and none indicate that he issued any notice or took any action for it. Elizium23 ( talk) 04:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
"Excommunications ... that automatically affect classes of people (members of certain association or ...) are not listed unless confirmed by a bishop or ecclesiastical tribunal with respect to certain individuals." Even if we take Pope Francis's statement to be the equivalent of a decree (which is by no means clear, although "off-the-cuff comment" may be too dismissive), no bishop or ecclesiastical tribunal has confirmed that Giovanni Rossi (the Italian equivalent to English "John Smith" or American "John Doe") was thereby excommunicated. So those involved belong in this article no more than do the members of a whole list of associations excommunicated by an American bishop, the members of numerous other societies excommunicated by popes, the many excommunicated down the centuries as classes (not as named individuals) for heresy or schism, the many classes of persons of whom church councils, both ecumenical and non-ecumenical, decreed "anathema sit" ... Esoglou ( talk) 06:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
In spite of clear consensus against broadening the scope of this article, it has been broadened, and therefore I have modified the lede paragraph to reflect this new scope. Elizium23 ( talk) 05:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose to limit the scope of this article to only those people who have been actually and formally excommunicated by the Catholic Church, that is to say, have been subject to the ecclesiastical penalty of excommunication as defined in Canon Law, rather than anyone who is effectively excommunicated, for example by mention in an off-the-cuff remark by a Pope.
Elizium23 (
talk)
01:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
This proposal is essentially the corollary to the one above. I am proposing it against my desire to see it enacted, in order to perfectly clarify what we intend to do with the scope of this article. I hereby propose to broaden the scope of this article to include notable incidents of effective or de facto excommunication. This is stated to include times when Catholics were denied Holy Communion or another sacrament on the basis of their state of sin, or their disbelief in the tenets of the Catholic Church. Examples include Lesbian denied Communion Missouri priest under fire and Sebelius prohibited from Communion. Elizium23 ( talk) 01:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
We have consensus forming to oppose both the limitation and the broadening of this article's scope. It is a particularly peculiar situation that the scope is already limited per the first proposal, according to the comments in the lede section. So to those of you who oppose limiting the scope, I pose the following question: Do you oppose the current scope of the article as it stands now? And if so, please propose criteria for the scope you envision this article to encompass, because if so many people also oppose broadening it, then what in the world should it be? Elizium23 ( talk) 07:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
His 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article says that he was excommunicated in 1860 when he accepted the annexation of Romagna. Alekksandr ( talk) 22:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Should this list include people who were only threatened with excommunication, not actually excommunicated? Two such people has very recently been added. The fact that the list includes at least one case in which a bishop stated that people had been automatically excommunicated who turned out not to have in fact been excommunicated does not allow me to answer with a simple No. Esoglou ( talk) 20:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
List of people excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
@ BoBoMisiu: that's not how this works, though - you can't identify into being an excommunicated Catholic, so the fact that Madonna states she's been excommunicated three times is immaterial. I don't think you even can be excommunicated three times. There needs to be a source. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 04:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Personally I don't think the current source proves that she was excommunicated. The line within the source says "she joked". If there is a place where she confirms this in a "normal" interview, then it can be added, but otherwise it should be out. Technically she could be excommunicated three times, but not by formal excommunication. Unless she means three different people notified her of it or something like that. I haven't researched whether this page includes people that weren't formally excommunicated but excommunicated via their actions (i.e. perform an abortion, impersonate a priest, etc.) In cases like that they can be excommunicated multiple times, and just go to confession with the proper authority, either a Bishop or priest depending on their cause and then commit the offense again. But that isn't formal excommunication decreed by a Bishop. I just read the first line of the article, my discussion about excommunication by actions does not apply here, unless we get her saying she was formally excommunicated by a Bishop, this shouldn't be here. Marauder40 ( talk) 12:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
"my BS radar tells be otherwise"is my reply. Your premises are little more than WP:GREENCHEESE. You have not familiarized yourself with the current, since 1983, Catholic practice. A decree is issued in writing and m"must be made known"( cc. 51–54) and "is considered to have been made known if the one for whom it is destined has been properly summoned to receive or hear the decree but, without a just cause, did not appear or refused to sign" ( c. 56). A decree is the formal act ( cc. 48–58). She is stating she was excommunicated. Writing:
"Technically she could be excommunicated three times, but not by formal excommunication"is an argument from incredulity, just like you point out:
"Personally I don't think the current source proves that she was excommunicated". I have included Madonna's quote in two other sources above. Have you read those? – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 13:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Is this source sufficient for the claim that Madonna was excommunicated? BoBoMisiu ( talk · contribs) believes that a WP:SELFSOURCE is adequate and points out that the source supports Madonna saying she was excommunicated three times, while I believe that you cannot identify into excommunication, a quasi-legal action taken by someone else, the way you might be able to identify with a religious faith or lack thereof. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 12:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
"offhand comment". – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 13:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of people excommunicated by the 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) 17:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
It says he was excommunicated but the source cited is "A history of warfare between science and theology" which is well known to be mostly propoganda and not true history since it exaggerates and misinterprets many things. Ilikerabbits! ( talk) 14:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of people excommunicated by the 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) 17:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
The following was removed as not a neutral point of view:
That the members of the group excommunicated object to being excommunicated and claim it was invalid is interesting, but unsurprising. The Catholic Church did not rule the excommunication was invalid, the SSPX did. And they were the ones excommunicated. The case in Hawaii does not affect the case in Nebraska - different jurisdictions, different reasons for excommunication. Unless someone can provide a document from the CDF or the diocese that lifts or invalidates the action, the Church certainly sees it as valid and binding. Not that they needed to be excommunicated, as they are already in schism by their own action. Protoclete ( talk) 19:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
Elizium23, Many statements mentioned in the article appear to be contradictory to the reality. Does Catholic Church endorse or validates posthumous excommunications? If so please provide sources before reverting edits. Br Ibrahim john ( talk) 14:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
The page mentions below the listing for Arius an excommunicated individual named Celestius, who is claimed to be a fellow leader of Arianism. However the page it links to is about a Caelestius, who was a student of Pelagius and linked to Pelagianism. I know enough to recognize the distinct nature of these two topics, so it looks like an error in some form or another (either as a mistaken link or a case of mistaken identity by the author). As I’m no editor (or have any experience how to otherwise mark issues), I thought I’d draw attention to it for someone else to reconcile. 50.109.115.221 ( talk) 04:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
There is no evidence Fidel Castro was ever excommunicated, it is an internet myth, whose only semi-serious proponent is a single article by the far-right Spanish paper (of very dubious reliability) ABC. Here are two Catholic sources discussing this 1, 2
The idea that he could have been excommunicated with the only trace of this being in an article from a far-right paper from Spain 50 years later is absurd. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. Boynamedsue ( talk) 06:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
good sources, as you say. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 20:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
I think an automatic excommunication should be included if it is explicitly stated to exist by a bishop. In effect, I think the scope of the article is to show people who have been explicitly named excommunicated by the church, and if a church authority explicitly names someone as having incurred automatic excommunication, then it still belongs here. There is already a precedent on this page with some others who fall under that category (eg. Marcel Lefebvre and the bishops he consecrated incurred automatic excommunications). If there is a dispute about whether or not church authorities did explicitly name him, I think it still belongs on the page with both sides of the dispute being mentioned. Reesorville ( talk) 22:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)