Excommunication In The Catholic Church

In the canon law of the Catholic Church, excommunication (Lat. ''ex'', "out of", and ''communio'' or ''communicatio'', "communion"; literally meaning "exclusion from communion") is a form of censure. In the formal sense of the term, excommunication includes being barred not only from the sacraments but also from the fellowship of Christian baptism. The principal and severest censure, excommunication presupposes guilt; and being the most serious penalty that the Catholic Church can inflict, it supposes a grave offense. The excommunicated person is considered by Catholic ecclesiastical authority as an exile from the Church, for a time at least.

Excommunication is intended to invite the person to change behaviour or attitude, repent, and return to full communion. It is not an "expiatory penalty" designed to make satisfaction for the wrong done, much less a "vindictive penalty" designed solely to punish. Excommunication, which is the gravest penalty of all, is always "medicinal".

Its object and its effect are loss of communion, i.e. of the spiritual benefits shared by all the members of Catholic society; hence, it can affect only those who by baptism have been admitted to that society. There can and do exist other penal measures which entail the loss of certain fixed rights; among them are other censures, e.g. suspension for clerics, and interdict. Excommunication, however, is distinguished from these penalties in that it is the privation of all rights resulting from the social status of the Catholic as such. A person who has been excommunicated — unless excommunicated for apostasy, heresy or schism — is still considered a Catholic and still has all the duties of that relationship, including attending Mass. They are, however, to refrain from receiving the Eucharist.

General concepts

In Latin Catholic canon law, excommunication is a rarely applied censure; it is a "medicinal penalty" intended to invite the person to change behaviour or attitude, repent, and return to full communion. It is not an "expiatory penalty" designed to make satisfaction for the wrong done, nor is it "vindictive".

The Catholic Church cannot, nor does it wish to, pose any obstacle to the internal relations of the soul with God; it even implores God to give the grace of repentance to the excommunicated. The rites of the church, nevertheless, are the providential and regular channel through which divine grace is conveyed to Christians; exclusion from such rites, especially from the sacraments, entails the privation of this grace, to whose sources the excommunicated person no longer has access.

Pope Leo X's papal bull ''Exsurge Domine'' (May 16, 1520) condemned as twenty-third proposition that "excommunications are merely external punishments, nor do they deprive a man of the common spiritual prayers of the Church". Pope Pius VI in '' Auctorem Fidei'' (August 28, 1794) condemned the notion which maintained that the effect of excommunication is only exterior because of its own nature it excludes only from exterior communion with the Church, as if, said the pope, excommunication were not a spiritual penalty binding in heaven and affecting souls.

Genuine excommunication must not be confused with a refusal of ecclesiastical communion which was rather a refusal of episcopal communion. It was the refusal by a bishop to communicate ''in sacris'' (i.e., worship in common) with another bishop and his church, in consideration of an act deemed reprehensible and worthy of chastisement. It was undoubtedly the measure to which St. Martin of Tours had recourse when he refused to communicate with the Spanish bishops who caused Emperor Maximus to condemn to death the heretic Priscillian with some of his adherents.

Anathema is a sort of aggravated excommunication, from which, however, it does not differ essentially, but simply in the matter of special solemnities and outward display.

The terminology used to qualify the modalities of excommunication may vary depending on the author.

''A jure'' and ''ab homine''

Excommunication is either ''a jure'' (by law) or ''ab homine'' (by judicial act of man, i.e. by a judge). The first is provided by the law itself, which declares that whosoever shall have been guilty of a definite crime will incur the penalty of excommunication. The second is inflicted by an ecclesiastical prelate, either when he issues a serious order under pain of excommunication or imposes this penalty by judicial sentence and after a criminal trial.

''Latæ'' ''sententiæ'' and ''ferendæ sententiæ''

Excommunication is either ''latæ sententiæ'' or ''ferendæ sententiæ''.

''Latae sententiae'' excommunication is incurred as soon as the offence is committed and by reason of the offence itself (''eo ipso'') without intervention of any ecclesiastical judge; it is recognized in the terms used by the legislator, for instance: "the culprit will be excommunicated at once, by the fact itself 'statim, ipso facto''.

''Ferendae sententiae'' excommunication is considered by the law as a penalty and is inflicted on the culprit only by a judicial sentence; in other words, the delinquent is rather threatened than visited with the penalty, and incurs it only when the judge has summoned him before his tribunal, declared him guilty, and punished him according to the terms of the law. It is recognized when the law contains these or similar words: "under pain of excommunication"; "the culprit will be excommunicated".

Public and occult

Excommunication ''ferendæ sententiæ'' can be public only, as it must be the object of a declaratory sentence pronounced by a judge; but excommunication ''latæ sententiæ'' may be either public or occult.

* An excommunication is public through the publicity of the law when it is imposed and published by ecclesiastical authority; it is public through notoriety of fact when the offence that has incurred it is known to the majority in the locality, as in the case of those who have publicly done violence to clerics, or of the purchasers of church property. This excommunication is valid in the '' forum externum'' and consequently in the '' forum internum''.
* Excommunication is occult when the offence entailing it is known to no one or almost no one. This excommunication is valid in the ''forum internum'' only.

The practical difference of validities in the forums is very important:

* He who has incurred occult excommunication should treat himself as excommunicated and be absolved as soon as possible, submitting to whatever conditions will be imposed upon him, but this only in the tribunal of conscience; he is not obliged to denounce himself to a judge nor to abstain from external acts connected with the exercise of jurisdiction, and he may ask absolution without making himself known either in confession or to the Sacred Penitentiaria. According to the teaching of Benedict XIV, "a sentence declaratory of the offence is always necessary in the forum externum, since in this tribunal no one is presumed to be excommunicated unless convicted of a crime that entails such a penalty".
* Public excommunication, on the other hand, is removed only by a public absolution; when it is question of simple publicity of fact (see above), the absolution, while not judicial, is nevertheless public, inasmuch as it is given to a known person and appears as an act of the ''forum externum''.

Total or partial

Salaverri and Nicolau note:

Reserved and non-reserved

Excommunication is either reserved or non-reserved. This division affects the absolution from censure. In the ''forum internum'' any confessor can absolve from non-reserved excommunications; but excommunications that are reserved can only be remitted, except through indult or delegation, by those to whom the law reserves the absolution.

There is a distinction between excommunications reserved to the pope (these being divided into two classes, according to which they are either specially or simply reserved to him), and those reserved to bishops or ordinaries. As to excommunications ''ab homine'', absolution from them is reserved by law to the judge who has inflicted them. In a certain sense, excommunications may also be reserved in view of the persons who incur them; thus, absolution from excommunications '' in foro externo'' incurred by bishops is reserved to the pope; again, custom reserves to him the excommunication of sovereigns.

Formal and material

There is a difference between ''formal'' and ''material'' excommunication:

Perfect excommunication

An excommunication perfect or a perfect excommunication, is defined as follow:

Membership of the Church

Salaverri and Nicolau give the following summary of theological opinions on excommunication and membership:

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.

Catholic priest Joseph Krupp states that the person excommunicated is still considered Catholic and still has all the duties of that relationship, including going to Mass and the like. These persons are, however, to refrain from receiving Communion.

Edward N. Peters states:

Bishop Thomas Paprocki holds a similar view as that of Krupp and Peters.

History

The Catholic Church claims that the penalty of excommunication is biblical and that both Paul of Tarsus and John the Apostle make reference to the practice of cutting people off from the community, in order to hasten their repentance. The ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' states that from the earliest days of Christianity, excommunication was the chief (if not the only) ecclesiastical penalty for laymen; for guilty clerics the first punishment was deposition from their office, i.e. reduction to the ranks of the laity. The ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' adds that during the first centuries of Christianity, excommunication was not regarded as a simple external measure, but also as one which touched the soul and the conscience. It was not merely the severing of the outward bond which holds individual to their place in the Church; it severed also the internal bond, and the sentence pronounced on earth was understood to be ratified in heaven.

During the Middle Ages, excommunication was analogous to the secular imperial ban or "outlawry" under common law. The individual was separated to some degree from the communion of the faithful. Formal acts of public excommunication were sometimes accompanied by a ceremony wherein a bell was tolled (as for the dead), the Book of the Gospels was closed, and a candle snuffed out—hence the idiom "to condemn with bell, book, and candle."

Those under excommunication were to be shunned. Pope Gregory VII was the first to mitigate the proscription against communicating with an excommunicated person. At a council in Rome in 1079, he made exceptions for members of the immediate family, servants, and occasions of necessity or utility. In the mid-12th century, Pope Eugene III held a synod in order to deal with the large number of heretical groups. Mass excommunication was used as a convenient tool to squelch heretics who belonged to groups which professed beliefs radically different than those taught by the Catholic Church.

William the Conqueror separated ecclesiastical cases from the Hundred courts, but allowed the bishops to seek assistance from the secular authorities. Excommunications were intended to be remedial and compel the offender to return to the fold. The practice in Normandy provided that if an obdurate excommunicate remained so for a year and a day, his goods were subject to confiscation at the duke's pleasure. Later, bishops were authorized to submit a writ to have the individual imprisoned. On the other hand, the bishops held temporalities which the king could seize if the bishop refused to absolve an imprisoned excommunicate. The authority of a bishop to excommunicate someone was restricted to those persons who resided in his see. This often gave rise to jurisdictional disputes on the part of abbeys which claimed to be exempt.

In 1215, the Fourth Council of the Lateran decreed that excommunication may be imposed only after warning in the presence of suitable witnesses and for manifest and reasonable cause; and that they are to be neither imposed nor lifted for payment. In practice, excommunications with subsequent writs appear to have been used to enforce clerical discipline and functioned something like a citation for "contempt of court". By the fourteenth century, bishops were resorting to excommunication against those who defaulted in making payment of the clerical subsidy demanded by the king of England for his wars against France.

The Council of Trent held that "excommunicated persons are not members of the Church, because they have been cut off by her sentence from the number of her children and belong not to her communion until they repent".

''In Coena Domini''

''In Coena Domini'' was a recurrent papal bull between 1363 and 1770, formerly issued annually in Rome on Holy Thursday (in Holy Week), or later on Easter Monday. It included proscriptions against apostasy, heresy and schism, the falsification of apostolic briefs and papal bulls, violence done to cardinals, papal legates, nuncios; against piracy, against appropriating shipwrecked goods, and against supplying Saracens and Turks with war material. The custom of periodical publication of censures was an old one. The tenth canon of the Council of York (1195) ordered all priests to publish censures of excommunication against perjurers with bell and lighted candle thrice in the year. The Council of London in 1200 commanded the yearly publication of excommunication against sorcerers, perjurers, incendiaries, thieves and those guilty of rape.

From the middle of the fifteenth century, dueling over questions of honor increased so greatly, that in 1551 the Council of Trent was obliged to enact the severest penalties against it. The malice of the duel lies in the fact that it makes right depend upon the fate of arms. Dueling was forbidden; and the prohibition extended to not only the principals, but their seconds, physicians expressly brought to attend upon the scene, and all spectators not accidentally present. The excommunication was incurred, not only when the parties actually fought, but as soon as they proposed or accepted a challenge. According to the council, those who took part in a duel were ''ipso facto'' excommunicated, and if they were killed in the duel they were to be deprived of Christian burial. These ecclesiastical penalties were at a later date repeatedly renewed and even in parts made more severe. Benedict XIV decreed that duelists should be denied burial by the Church even if they did not die on the dueling ground and had received absolution before death. It pronounced the severest ecclesiastical penalties against those princes who should permit dueling between Christians in their territories.

Political aspects

When King John of England refused to accept Stephen Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury, he seized the lands of the archbishopric and other papal possessions. Pope Innocent III first sent a commission to negotiate with the king, and when that failed, place the kingdom under interdict. This prohibited the clergy from conducting religious services, with the exception of baptisms for the young, and last rites for the dying. King John responded by taking more church lands and their revenues. Innocent threatened the king with excommunication and in 1209 proceeded to excommunicate the King.

Abuses

The extension of the use of excommunication led to abuses. The penalty is designed to bring the sinner back to repentance. However, it could be abused, used as a political tool and even employed for the purposes of revenge—abuses of canon law. In 1304, John Dalderby, Bishop of Lincoln, excommunicated all those persons of Newport Pagnell who knew the whereabouts of Sir Gerald Salvayn's wayward falcon and failed to return it.

Major and minor excommunication

Until the second half of the 19th century, excommunication was of two kinds, major and minor:

* Minor excommunication does not exist anymore. A minor excommunication is uniformly defined by canonists and by Gregory IX as prohibition from receiving the sacraments, what theologians call the passive use of the sacraments. In order to receive the Eucharist and the other sacraments, those who had incurred this penalty had to be absolved therefrom; as it was not reserved, this could be done by any confessor. Indirectly, however, it entailed other consequences. The canon law taught that the priest who celebrates Mass while under the ban of minor excommunication sins grievously; also that he sins similarly in administering the sacraments; and finally, that while he can vote for others, he himself is ineligible to a canonical office. This is readily understood when we remember that the cleric thus excommunicated was presumed to be in the state of grievous sin, and that such a state is an obstacle to the lawful celebration of Mass and the administration of the sacraments.

* Major excommunication, which remains now the only kind in force.
Minor excommunication was really identical with the state of the penitent of olden times who, prior to his reconciliation, was admitted to public penance. Minor excommunication was incurred by unlawful intercourse with the excommunicated, and in the beginning no exception was made of any class of excommunicated persons. Owing, however, to many inconveniences arising from this condition of things, especially after excommunications had become so numerous, Martin V, by the constitution ''Ad evitanda'' (1418), restricted the aforesaid unlawful intercourse to that held with those who were formally named as persons to be shunned and who were therefore known as '' vitandi'' (Latin ''vitare'', to avoid), also with those who were notoriously guilty of striking a cleric.

But as the twofold category of minor and major excommunication was in modern times greatly reduced, little attention was paid to minor excommunication, and eventually it ceased to exist after the publication of the constitution ''Apostolicæ Sedis''. The latter was silent concerning minor excommunication (by its nature an excommunication ''latæ sententiæ'' of a special kind); therefore, canonists concluded that minor excommunication no longer existed. This conclusion was formally ratified by the Holy Office (6 Jan., 1884, ad 4).

Number of ''latae sententiae'' excommunications

Over time, the number of hypothetical situations envisioned by the moralists and canonists as ''ipso facto'' bringing about excommunication ''latae sententiae'', had increased by a lot; Lucius Ferraris (18th century) numbers almost 200 of those possible situations. The principal ones were destined to protect the Catholic faith, the ecclesiastical hierarchy and its jurisdiction, and figured in the bull ''In Coena Domini'' read publicly each year in Rome, on Holy Thursday.

''Apostolicae Sedis''

In the preamble of the 1869 apostolic constitution '' Apostolicae Sedis'', Pius IX stated that during the course of centuries, the number of censures ''latae sententiae'' had increased inordinately, that some of them were no longer expedient, that many were doubtful, that they occasioned frequent difficulties of conscience, and finally, that a reform was necessary. ''Apostolicae Sedis'' was a issued by Pope Pius IX on 12 October 1869. It revised the list of censures that in canon law were imposed automatically (''latae sententiae'') on offenders. It also reduced their number and clarified those preserved: all excommunications ''latæ sententiæ'' that ''Apostolicae Sedis'' did not mention were abolished. The document also detailed which excommunications where reserved and to whom.

In the 19th century, there are four more excommunications ''latæ sententiæ'' which were declared after the publication of ''Apostolicae Sedis moderationi'':

# In 1872, a ''latae sententiae'' excommunication, non-reserved, was declared against missionaries, both regulars and seculars, of the East Indies (Farther Orient) or the West Indies (America) who devote themselves to commerce or who participate in it, and their immediate superiors, provincial or general, who fail to punish the culprits, at least by removal, and even after a single offense. This excommunication comes down from the Constitutions of Urban VIII, "Ex delicto" (February 22, 1633), and Clement IX, "Sollicitudo" (July 17, 1669), but was suppressed by reason of non-mention in the apostolic constitution ''Apostolicae Sedis''; it was reestablished, however, at the request of the S. Cong. of the Inquisition, on December 4, 1872. This excommunication is non-reserved, but the culprit cannot be absolved prior to making restitution, unless he be at the point of death.
# The Constitution "Romanus Pontifex" (August 28, 1873), besides other penalties, declares excommunication ''latae senentiae'' reserved to the pope: 1) first, against the dignitaries and canons of cathedral churches (or those having the administration of vacant cathedrals) who would dare to concede and transfer the administration of their church with the title of vicar to the person elected by the chapter, or named or presented to said church by lay power; 2) second, against those so elected or presented; 3) and third, against all who aid, advise, or countenance the aforesaid offenders.
# Excommunication ''latae sententiae'' reserved to the pope against the members of the "Catholic Italian Society for the restoration of the rights of the Christian and especially of the Roman people", and against its promoters, supporters, and adherents ( S. Peniten., August 4, 1876; Acta S. Sed., IX, 352). Amongst other rights this society proposed to restore popular participation in the election of the sovereign pontiff.
# In 1893, a ''latae sententiae'' excommunication reserved to the ordinary was pronounced: it was against laymen (for ecclesiastics the penalty is suspension) who traffic in Mass-stipends and trade them with priests for books and other merchandise ( S. Cong. of the Council, decree "Vigilanti studio", May 25, 1893).

20th century

The early 20th century ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' notes that " recent times" the number of excommunications in force was greatly diminished, that a new method of absolving from them has been inaugurated, and that that thus, without change of nature, excommunication has become an exceptional penalty, reserved for very grievous offenses detrimental to Christian society.

The ''1917 Code of Canon Law'' entered into force in 1918.

In 1975 , Louis de Naurois referred to that excommunication as "the gravest penalty of all and the most frequent", and added that excommunication "is always medicinal".

''Vitandi'' and ''tolerati''

Since 1418, the Catholic Church formally differentiated between excommunicated persons ''tolerati'' ("tolerated") and those '' vitandi'' ("to be avoided"), when Pope Martin V clearly drew this distinction in his apostolic constitution ''Ad evitanda scandala''.

This distinction "was still found in canon law as late as the early 20th century, but it has been dropped from current law as being unworkable given the way modern societies are set up".

Reforms of John Paul II

The 1983 ''Code of Canon Law'' entered into force in 1983. The ''Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches'' entered into force in 1991.

Excommunicable offenses

In the Latin Church, canon law describes two forms of excommunication. The first is '' ferendae sententiae''. This is where the person excommunicated is subject to a canonical process or trial, and if found guilty of misdemeanours meriting excommunication is duly sentenced. Once the sentence is published, that person is barred from active participation as a member of the Catholic Church. But this is a rare event.

The more common excommunication is that termed ''latae sententiae'', or what sometimes called often "automatic excommunication", where someone, in committing a certain act, incurs the penalty without any canonical process having to take place. If the law or precept expressly establishes it, however, a penalty is ''latae sententiae'', so that it is incurred ''ipso facto'' when the delict is committed ( can. 1314).

''Ferendae sententiae''

A person may be '' ferendae sententiae'' (i.e., upon judicial review) excommunicated if the person
# tries to celebrate the Mass without being a priest (incurs, for Latin Catholics, also a ''latae sententiae'' interdict for laymen and suspension for clerics, can. 1378 § 2 no. 1, ; can. 1443 CCEO);
# hears a Confession or tries to absolve without being able to absolve (for Latin Catholics; this does not, of course, include hindrances on the penitent's side for the mere hearing of the Confessions, and hidden hindrances on the penitent's side for absolutions; can. 1378 § 2 no. 1, 1983 CIC; incurs also a ''latae sententiae'' interdict for laymen and suspension for clerics);
# breaks the Seal of the Confessional indirectly or as someone not the Confessor, e.g. an interpreter or one who overheard something that was said (for Latin Catholics, can. 1388 § 2 1983 CIC);
# who breaks a penal law allowing excommunication that was enacted on local level, which the local authority, however, may only do with great caution and for grave offences (for Latin Catholics, can. 1318, 1983 CIC);
# omits stubbornly, as an Eastern Catholic priest, the commemoration of the hierarch in the Divine Liturgy and Divine Praises (not mandatorily, can. 1438 CCEO);
# commits physical violence against a patriarch or a metropolitan, as an Eastern Catholic (can. 1445 § 1 CCEO);
# incites sedition against any hierarch, especially a patriarch or the Pope, as an Eastern Catholic (can. 1447 § 1, 1983 CIC, not mandatorily);
# commits murder, as an Eastern Catholic (can. 1450 § 1 CCEO);
# kidnaps, wounds seriously, mutilates or tortures (physically or mentally) a person, as an Eastern Catholic (can. 1451 CCEO, not mandatorily);
# falsely accuses someone of a anonicaloffense, as an Eastern Catholic (can. 1454 CCEO, not mandatorily);
# tries to use the influence of secular authority to gain admission to Holy Orders or any function in the Church, as an Eastern Catholic (can. 1460 CCEO, not mandatorily);
# administers or receives a Sacrament, excluding Holy Orders, or any function in the Church through simony, as an Eastern Catholic (can. 1461 CCEO, not mandatorily).

''Latae sententiae''

The 1983 ''Code of Canon Law'' attaches the penalty of ''latae sententiae'' (automatic) excommunication to the following actions:
# Apostates, heretics, and schismatics ( can. 1364)
# Desecration of the Eucharist (can. 1367)
# A person who physically attacks the pope (can. 1370)
# A priest who in confession absolves a partner with whom they have violated the sixth commandment nowiki/>offenses against chastity(can. 977, can. 1378)
# A person who attempts to confer a holy order on a woman, and the woman who attempts to receive it (can. 1379)
# A bishop who consecrates another bishop without papal mandate (can. 1382)
# A priest who violates the seal of the confessional (can. 1388)
# A person who procures an abortion ( can. 1398)
# Accomplices who were needed to commit an action that has an automatic excommunication penalty (can. 1329)

Those who can excommunicate

Excommunication is either ''a jure'' (by law) or ''ab homine'' (by judicial act of man, i.e. by a judge). The first is provided by the law itself, which declares that whosoever shall have been guilty of a definite crime will incur the penalty of excommunication. The second is inflicted by an ecclesiastical prelate, either when he issues a serious order under pain of excommunication or imposes this penalty by judicial sentence and after a trial.

Excommunication is an act of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the rules of which it follows. Hence the general principle: whoever has proper jurisdiction can excommunicate, but only his own subjects. Therefore, whether excommunications be ''a jure'' (by the law) or ''ab homine'' (under form of sentence or precept), they may come from the pope, from the bishop for his diocese; and from regular prelates for religious orders. But a parish priest cannot inflict this penalty. The subjects of these various authorities are those who come under their jurisdiction chiefly on account of domicile or quasi-domicile in their territory; then by reason of the offense committed while on such territory; and finally by reason of personal right, as in the case of regulars. As to excommunications ''ab homine'', absolution from them is reserved by law to the ordinary who has imposed them.

Those who can be excommunicated

No one can be subject to ecclesiastical censure unless they be baptized, delinquent, and contumacious. Baptism confers initial jurisdiction, delinquency refers to having committed a wrong, and contumacious indicates the person's willfull persistence in such conduct. Since excommunication is the forfeiture of the spiritual privileges of ecclesiastical society, all those, but those only, can be excommunicated who, by any right whatsoever, belong to this society. Consequently, excommunication can be inflicted only on baptized and living Catholics. It does not pertain to pagans, Muslims, Jews, and other non-Catholics.

No one is automatically excommunicated for any offense if, without any fault of his own, he was unaware that he was violating a law ( 1323 n. 2) or that a penalty was attached to the law (1983 CIC 1324 §1 n. 9). The same applies if one was a minor, had the imperfect use of reason, was forced through grave or relatively grave fear, was forced through serious inconvenience, or in certain other circumstances (1983 CIC 1324).

Absolution from excommunication

Apart from the rare cases in which excommunication is imposed for a fixed period and then ceases of itself, it is always removed by absolution. It is to be noted at once that, though the same word is used to designate the sacramental sentence by which sins are remitted and that by which excommunication is removed; there is a vast difference between the two acts. The absolution which revokes excommunication is purely jurisdictional and has nothing sacramental about it. It reinstates the repentant sinner in the Church; restores the rights of which he had been deprived, beginning with participation in the sacraments; and for this very reason, it should precede sacramental absolution, which it thenceforth renders possible and efficacious. After absolution from excommunication has been given, the judge sends the person absolved to a confessor, that his sin may be remitted; when absolution from censure is given in the confessional, it should always precede sacramental absolution, conformably to the instruction in the Ritual and the very tenor of the formula for sacramental absolution.

It may be noted at once that the principal effect of absolution from excommunication may be acquired without the excommunicated person's being wholly reinstated in his former position. Thus, an ecclesiastic