Excommunication

Please help improve this article by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page. (August 2008)

Excommunication is a religious censure used to deprive or suspend membership in a religious community. The word means putting [someone] out of communion. In some religions, excommunication includes spiritual condemnation of the member or group. Censures and sanctions sometimes follow excommunication; these include banishment, shunning, and shaming, depending on the religion, the offense that caused excommunication, or the rules or norms of the religious community.

Contents 1 Christianity 1.1 The Catholic Church 1.2 Eastern Orthodox churches 1.3 Lutheranism 1.4 Anglican Communion 1.4.1 Church of England 1.4.2 Episcopal Church of the USA 1.5 Reformed view 1.6 Anabaptist tradition 1.6.1 Amish 1.6.2 Mennonites 1.6.3 Hutterites 1.7 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 1.8 Jehovah's Witnesses 1.9 Christadelphians 2 Buddhism 3 Hinduism 4 Islam 5 Judaism 6 See also 7 Notes 8 References 9 External links

[edit] Christianity

The Biblical basis of excommunication is anathema. The references are found in Galatians 1:8 — "But even if we, or an angel from Heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be anathema!" Then also, 1 Corinthians 16:22 — "If anyone does not love the Lord, he is to be anathema." The word can be translated several ways; the King James Version translates it as accursed. The New Testament contains limited examples of excommunication. Jesus, in Matthew 18:17, teaches that those who repeatedly offend others should be treated as "Gentiles or tax collectors." In the Epistle to the Romans 16:17, Paul writes to "mark those who cause divisions contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned and avoid them", and in 1 Corinthians 5, he instructs the Corinthians to expel an immoral member of their community. Also, in 2nd John vv. 10 & 11, the writer advises believers that "whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house [οικιαν, residence or abode, or "inmates of the house" (family)], neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds".

Anathema was used in the early Church as a form of extreme religious sanction beyond excommunication.^{[citation needed]} The earliest recorded example was in AD 306. The Catholic Church still makes use of the sanction, though it is rarely used against an individual, except perhaps for automatic excommunication. Some modern Protestant churches refer to any form of exclusion as anathema.

[edit] The Catholic Church

According to the Catholic Church, excommunication, in the sense of a formal proceeding, is not a penalty, but rather a formal proclamation of a pre-existing condition in a more or less prominent member of the Catholic Church. When such a person commits acts that in themselves separate him from the communion of the faithful, particularly when by word, deed, or example he or she "spreads division and confusion among the Faithful",^{[citation needed]} it is necessary for the Church to clarify the situation by means of a formal announcement, which informs the laity that this is not a person to follow, and notifies the clergy that the person, by their own willful acts, has separated from the Church and is no longer to receive the sacraments, with the exception of Reconciliation if they turn from their ways. The decree may also indicate the mode of Reconciliation required for reconciliation with the Church, specifying whether the local bishop may administer the process or it is reserved to the Pope. Excommunication is never a merely "vindictive penalty" (designed solely to punish), but is always used as a "medicinal penalty" intended to pressure the person into changing their behaviour or statements, repent and return to full communion.

Excommunicated persons are barred from participating in the liturgy in a ministerial capacity (for instance, as a reader if a lay person, or as a deacon or priest if a clergyman) and from receiving the Eucharist or the other Sacraments, but are normally not barred from attending these (for instance, an excommunicated person may not receive Communion, but would not be barred from attending Mass). Certain other rights and privileges are revoked, such as holding ecclesiastical office.

Excommunication can be either ferendae sententiae (declared as the sentence of an ecclesiastical court) or, far more commonly, latae sententiae (automatic, incurred at the moment the offensive act takes place). The excommunicant is still considered Christian and a Catholic as the character imparted by baptism is indelible. Their communion with the Church, however, is considered gravely impaired.^[1]

In the Catholic Church, formal excommunication is normally resolved by a statement of repentance, profession of the Creed (if the offense involved heresy), or a renewal of obedience (if that was a relevant part of the offending act) by the excommunicant; the declaration of the reconciliation itself, by a priest or bishop empowered to do this; and then the reception of the sacrament of Reconciliation. In many cases, this whole process takes place within the privacy of the confessional and during the same act of confession.

Offenses that incur excommunication must be absolved by a priest or bishop empowered to lift the penalty. This is usually the local ordinary (bishop or vicar general) or priests whom the local ordinary designates (in many dioceses, most priests are empowered to lift most excommunications otherwise reserved to the bishop, notably that involved with abortion).

The Catholic Church, especially during the Middle Ages, was obliged to issue formal pronouncements of excommunication in regard to officials and monarchs who had personally excommunicated themselves from the Catholic Church. After the Protestant Reformation, in which many people left the Church and formed new denominations, many princes announced the separation themselves and the practice was discontinued.

An analogous penalty, interdict, arose as a form of excommunication of a whole area, barring celebration of the sacraments in a town or region.

Before the 1983 Code of Canon Law, there were two degrees of excommunication: vitandus (shunned, literally "to be avoided", where the person had to be avoided by other Catholics), and toleratus (tolerated, which permitted Catholics to continue to have business and social relationships with the excommunicant). This distinction no longer applies today, and excommunicated Catholics are still under obligation to attend Mass, even though they are barred from receiving the Eucharist and from taking active part in the liturgy (reading, bringing the offerings, etc.).^[2] Indeed, the excommunicant is encouraged to retain some relationship with the Church, as the goal is to encourage them to repent and return to active participation in its life.

In the Middle Ages, formal acts of public excommunication were 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." Such ceremonies are rarely, if ever, held today, but exactly the same principles apply. Only in cases where a person's excommunicable offense is very public and likely to confuse people is a person's excommunicated status even announced, and that usually by a simple statement from a Church official.

[edit] Eastern Orthodox churches

In the Eastern Orthodox churches, excommunication is the exclusion of a member from the Eucharist. It is not expulsion from the churches. This can happen for such reasons as not having confessed within that year; excommunication can also be imposed as part of a penitential period. It is generally done with the goal of restoring the member to full communion. The Orthodox churches do have a means of expulsion, by pronouncing anathema, but this is reserved only for acts of serious and unrepentant heresy. The Moscow Patriarchate declared Sergius Bulgakov a heretic in this fashion because of his pronouncements on Sancta Sofia being something like a fourth dimension to the Trinity.

[edit] Lutheranism

Although Lutheranism technically has an excommunication process, some denominations and congregations do not use it. The Lutheran definition, in its earliest and most technical form, would be found in Martin Luther's Small Catechism, defined beginning at Questions No. 277-283, in "The Office of Keys." Luther endeavored to follow the process that Jesus laid out in the 18th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew. According to Luther, excommunication requires:

1. The confrontation between the subject and the individual against whom he has sinned.

2. If this fails, the confrontation between the subject, the harmed individual, and two or three witnesses to such acts of sin.

3. The informing of the pastor of the subject's congregation.

4. A confrontation between the pastor and the subject.

Beyond this, there is little agreement. Many Lutheran denominations operate under the premise that the entire congregation (as opposed to the pastor alone) must take appropriate steps for excommunication, and there are not always precise rules, to the point where individual congregations often set out rules for excommunicating laymen (as opposed to clergy). For example, churches may sometimes require that a vote must be taken at Sunday services; some congregations require that this vote be unanimous.^[3]

The Lutheran process, though rarely used, has created unusual situations in recent years due to its somewhat democratic excommunication process. One example was an effort to get serial killer Dennis Rader excommunicated from his denomination (the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) by individuals who tried to "lobby" Rader's fellow church members into voting for his excommunication.^[4]

[edit] Anglican Communion

[edit] Church of England

The Church of England does not have any specific canons regarding how or why a member can be excommunicated, although there are canons regarding how those who have been excommunicated are to be treated by the church. Excommunication is seen as an extreme measure and very rarely used. For example, a clergyman was excommunicated in 1909 for having murdered four parishioners.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Episcopal Church of the USA

The ECUSA is in the Anglican Communion, and shares many canons with the Church of England which would determine its policy on excommunication. No central records are kept regarding excommunications, since they happen so rarely^{[citation needed]}. In May 2000 a man who had been publishing highly critical remarks about the church and some of its members in a small local paper, many of them about the pro-gay stance the church had taken was excommunicated for "continued efforts to attack this parish and its members".^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Reformed view

In the Reformed churches, excommunication has generally been seen as the culmination of church discipline, which is one of the three marks of the Church. The Westminster Confession of Faith sees it as the third step after "admonition" and "suspension from the sacrament of the Lord's Supper for a season."^[5] Yet, John Calvin argues in his Institutes of the Christian Religion that church censures do not "consign those who are excommunicated to perpetual ruin and damnation," but are designed to induce repentance, reconciliation and restoration to communion. Calvin notes, "though ecclesiastical discipline does not allow us to be on familiar and intimate terms with excommunicated persons, still we ought to strive by all possible means to bring them to a better mind, and recover them to the fellowship and unity of the Church."^[6]

Yet, other Reformed theologians argue that excommunication is not the final step in the disciplinary process. Jay E. Adams argues that in excommunication, the offender is still seen as a brother, but in the final step they become "as the heathen and tax collector" (Matthew 18:17). Adams writes, "Nowhere in the Bible is excommunication (removal from the fellowship of the Lord's Table) equated with what happens in step 5; rather, step 5 is called "removing from the midst, handing over to Satan," and the like."^[7]

[edit] Anabaptist tradition

When believers were baptized and taken into membership of the church by Anabaptists, it was not only done as symbol of cleansing of sin but was also done as a public commitment to identify with Jesus Christ and to conform one's life to the teaching and example of Jesus as understood by the church. Practically, that meant membership in the church entailed a commitment to try to live according to norms of Christian behavior widely held by the Anabaptist tradition.

In the ideal, discipline in the Anabaptist tradition requires the church to confront a notoriously erring and unrepentant church member, first directly in a very small circle and, if no resolution is forthcoming, expanding the circle in steps eventually to include the entire church congregation. If the errant member persists without repentance and rejects even the admonition of the congregation, that person is excommunicated or excluded from church membership. Exclusion from the church is recognition by the congregation that this person has separated himself or herself from the church by way of his or her visible and unrepentant sin. This is done ostensibly as a final resort to protect the integrity of the church. When this occurs, the church is expected to continue to pray for the excluded member and to seek to restore him or her to its fellowship. There was originally no inherent expectation to shun (completely sever all ties with) an excluded member, however differences regarding this very issue led to early schisms between different Anabaptist leaders and those who followed them.

[edit] Amish

Jakob Ammann, founder of the Amish sect, believed that the shunning of those under the ban should be systematically practiced among the Swiss Anabaptists as it was in the north and as was outlined in the Dordrecht Confession. Ammann's uncompromising zeal regarding this practice was one of the main disputes that led to the schism between the Anabaptist groups that became the Amish and those that eventually would be called Mennonite. Recently more moderate Amish groups have become less strict in their application of excommunication as a discipline. This has led to splits in several communities, an example of which is the Swartzetruber Amish who split from the main body of Old Order Amish because of the latter's practice of lifting the ban from members who later join other churches. In general, the Amish will excommunicate baptized members for failure to abide by their Ordnung (church rules) as it is interpreted by the local Bishop if certain repeat violations of the Ordnung occur.

Excommunication among the Old Order Amish results in shunning or the Meidung, the severity of which depends on many factors, such as the family, the local community as well as the type of Amish. Some Amish communities cease shunning after one year if the person joins another church later on, especially if it is another Mennonite church. At the most severe, other members of the congregation are prohibited almost all contact with an excommunicated member including social and business ties between the excommunicant and the congregation, sometimes even marital contact between the excommunicant and spouse remaining in the congregation or family contact between adult children and parents.

[edit] Mennonites

In the Mennonite Church excommunication is rare and is carried out only after many attempts at reconciliation and on someone who is flagrantly and repeatedly violating standards of behavior that the church expects. Occasionally excommunication is also carried against those who repeatedly question the church's behavior and/or who genuinely differ with the church's theology as well, although in almost all cases the dissenter will leave the church before any discipline need be invoked. In either case, the church will attempt reconciliation with the member in private, first one on one and then with a few church leaders. Only if the church's reconciliation attempts are unsuccessful, the congregation formally revokes church membership. Members of the church generally pray for the excluded member.

Some regional conferences (the Mennonite counterpart to dioceses of other denominations) of the Mennonite Church have acted to expel member congregations that have openly welcomed non-celibate homosexuals as members. This internal conflict regarding homosexuality has also been an issue for other moderate denominations, such as the American Baptists and Methodists.

The practice among Old Order Mennonite congregations is more along the lines of Amish, but perhaps less severe typically. An Old Order member who disobeys the Ordnung (church regulations) must meet with the leaders of the church. If a church regulation is broken a second time there is a confession in the church. Those who refuse to confess are excommunicated. However upon later confession, the church member will be reinstated. An excommunicated member is placed under the ban. This person is not banned from eating with their own family. Excommunicated persons can still have business dealings with church members and can maintain marital relations with a marriage partner, who remains a church member.

[edit] Hutterites

The separatist, communal, and self-contained Hutterites also use excommunication and shunning as form of church discipline. Since Hutterites have communal ownership of goods, the effects of excommunication could impose a hardship upon the excluded member and family leaving them without employment income and material assets such as a home. However, often arrangements are made to provide material benefits to the family leaving the colony such as an automobile and some transition funds for rent, etc. One Hutterite colony in Manitoba (Canada) had a protracted dispute when leaders attempted to force the departure of a group that had been excommunicated but would not leave. About a dozen lawsuits in both Canada and the United States were filed between the various Hutterite factions and colonies concerning excommunication, shunning, the legitimacy of leadership, communal property rights, and fair division of communal property when factions have separated.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ("LDS Church"; see also Mormon) practices excommunication (as well as the lesser sanctions of private counsel and caution, informal probation, formal probation, and disfellowshipment) as penalties for those who commit serious sins or for those that significantly impair the name or moral influence of the church.

According to the Church Handbook of Instructions, the purposes of church discipline are (1) to save the souls of transgressors, (2) to protect the innocent, and (3) to safeguard the purity, integrity, and good name of the church. Excommunication is generally reserved for what are seen as the most serious sins, including committing serious crimes; committing adultery, polygamy, or homosexual conduct; apostasy, teaching false doctrines, or openly criticizing LDS leaders. A 2006 revision to the Church Handbook of Instructions states that joining another church is also an excommunicable offense, however merely attending another church does not constitute apostasy.

As a lesser penalty, Latter-day Saints may be disfellowshipped, which does not include a loss of church membership. Once disfellowshipped, persons may not take the sacrament or enter LDS temples, nor may they give prayers or sermons in church meetings, though disfellowshipped persons may attend most LDS functions and are permitted to wear temple garments, pay tithes and offerings, and participate in church classes if their conduct is orderly. For lesser sins, or in cases where the sinner appears truly repentant, individuals may be put on probation for a time, during which further sin will result in disfellowshipment or excommunication.

The decision to excommunicate a Melchizedek Priesthood holder is generally the province of the leadership of a stake, which consists of several local wards. Excommunications occur only after a formal "church disciplinary council."^[8] Formerly called a "church court," the councils were renamed to avoid talking about guilt and instead to focus on repentance. In the disciplinary council, the stake presidency and Stake High Council preside. Up to six of the twelve members of the high council are assigned to split in half between representing the member in question and the Church as a whole to "prevent insult or injustice." The member is invited to attend, but the council can go forward without him. Again, the members of the high council consult with the stake president, but the decision about which discipline is necessary is the stake president's alone. It is possible to appeal this decision to the Church's world leaders.

For females, and for male members not initiated into the Melchizedek Priesthood (typically adolescents), the bishop (leader of the ward) determines whether excommunication or a lesser sanction is warranted. He does this in consultation with his two counselors, the bishop makes the determination in a spirit of prayer and his counselors ratify the decision. The bishop's decision can be appealed to stake leadership.

The following list of variables serves as a general set of guidelines for when excommunication or lesser action may be warranted, beginning with those more likely to result in severe sanction.

1. Violation of Covenants: Covenants are made in conjunction with specific ordinances in the LDS Church. Covenants that might be broken, are usually those surrounding marriage covenants, temple covenants, priesthood covenants, etc.

2. Position of Trust or Authority: Area of responsibility factor into discipline. Leaders in the church have important responsibilities, and the same action committed by a member of the congregation may not result in as severe a discipline as a leader might receive.

3. Repetition: Repetition of a sin is more severe than a single instance.

4. Magnitude: How often, how many individuals were impacted, and who knows all play a part.

5. Age, Maturity, and Experience: Those who are young in age, or immature in their understanding are afforded leniency.

6. Interests of the Innocent: How the discipline will impact family members may be considered.

7. Time between Transgression and Confession: If the sin was committed in distant past, and there has not been repetition, leniency may considered.

8. Voluntary Confession: Did the person voluntarily come forward, or were they caught in the act?

9. Evidence of Repentance: Sorrow for sin, and demonstrated commitment to repentance, as well as faith in Christ all play a role in determining the severity of discipline.

Those who are excommunicated lose their church membership and the right to partake of the sacrament. Notices of excommunication may be made public—especially in cases of apostasy, where members could be misled—but the specific reasons for individual excommunications are typically kept confidential and are seldom made public.

Persons who have been excommunicated are usually allowed to attend church meetings but participation is limited. They cannot offer prayers for the congregation, give talks, etc., cannot enter LDS temples, or wear temple garments, or pay tithes. Excommunicated members may be re-baptized after a waiting period and sincere repentance, as judged by a series of interviews with church leaders.^[9]

Some^[who?] critics have charged that LDS leaders have used the threat of excommunication to silence or punish LDS members and researchers who disagree with established policy and doctrine, or who study or discuss controversial subjects, or who may be involved in disputes with local, stake leaders or general authorities. A notable case regarding researchers is the so-called September Six.

However, LDS policy dictates that local leaders are responsible for excommunication, without influence from General Church leadership, arguing this policy is evidence against systematic persecution of scholars.

[edit] Jehovah's Witnesses

Jehovah's Witnesses practice something similar to excommunication, using the term "disfellowshipping", in cases where, it is believed, a member has unrepentantly committed one or more of several documented "serious sins".^[10]

When a member confesses or is accused of a 'serious sin', a judicial committee of at least three elders is formed. This committee investigates the case and determines the magnitude of the sin committed. If the person is deemed guilty of a disfellowshipping offence, the committee will determine if the person is considered repentant. Determination of repentance is at the discretion of the judicial committee, based upon evidence including the attitude of being sorry and ‘works befitting repentance’, as referred to in Acts 26:20 and 2 Corinthians 7:11, such as trying to correct the wrong, making apologies to any offended individuals, and compliance with earlier counsel, principles, and laws based on the Bible. If the person is deemed guilty but repentant, they are not disfellowshipped but are formally reproved and have restrictions imposed on them, which preclude them from various activities such as presenting talks, offering public prayers or making comments at meetings.

If the person is judged guilty and is deemed unrepentant, he or she will be disfellowshipped. This is done as a firm form of discipline to motivate an erring individual to renounce and change their current course of action. If within seven days no appeal is made, the disfellowshipping is made formal by an announcement at the congregation's next Service Meeting. Appeals are granted to determine if procedural errors are felt to have occurred that may have affected the outcome.

Disfellowshipping is a severing of friendly relationships between all members of the Jehovah's Witnesses and the one disfellowshipped. Interaction with extended family is typically restricted to a minimum, such as presence at the reading of wills and providing essential elder care; however, within a household family fellowship and marital intimacies continue, with the removal of fellowship defined as the removal of spiritual fellowship such as family Bible study and religious discussions. The exception is if the disfellowshipped one is a minor and living at home. In such cases the parents may continue to attempt to convince the child of the value of the religion's ways and share in family activities. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that this form of discipline encourages the disfellowshipped individual to conform to Biblical standards and keeps the person from influencing other members of the congregation.

Disassociation is a form of disfellowshipping where a member expresses verbally or in writing that they do not wish to be associated with Jehovah's Witnesses, or that they are considered to have done so by their actions.^[11] An example of this would be joining another religious^[12] or military organization.^[13] Disassociated members are viewed the same as disfellowshipped members.^[14][15]

Each year, congregation elders are instructed to consider meeting with disfellowshipped individuals to determine changed circumstances and encourage them to pursue reinstatement.^[16]

Reinstatement is not automatic after a certain time period, nor is there some minimum duration; disfellowshipped persons may talk to elders at any time but must apply in writing to be considered for reinstatement into the congregation.^[17][18] Elders consider each case individually, and are instructed to ensure "that sufficient time has passed for the disfellowshipped person to prove that his profession of repentance is genuine." Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock. Watchtower Society. p. 129.  A judicial committee meets with the individual to determine their repentance, and if this is established, the person is reinstated into the congregation and may participate with the congregation in their formal ministry (such as house to house preaching),^[19], but is prohibited from commenting at meetings or holding any privileges for a period set by the judicial committee. If possible, the same judicial committee members who disfellowshipped the individual are selected for the reinstatement hearing. If the applicant is in a different area, the person will meet with a local judicial committee that will communicate with either the original judicial committee if available or a new one in the original congregation.

A Witness who has been formally reproved or reinstated cannot be appointed to any special privilege of service for at least one year. Serious sins involving child sex abuse permanently disqualify the sinner from appointment to any congregational privilege of service, regardless of whether the sinner was convicted of any secular crime.^[20]

[edit] Christadelphians

Similarly to many groups having their origins in the 1830s Restoration Movement, Christadelphians call their form of excommunication "disfellowshipping", though they do not practice "shunning". Disfellowshipping can occur for moral reasons, changing beliefs, or (in some ecclesias) for not attending communion (referred to as "the emblems" or "the breaking of bread").^[21]

In such cases, the person involved is usually required to discuss the issues.^[22] If they do not conform, the church ('meeting' or 'ecclesia') is recommended by the management committee ("Arranging Brethren") to vote on disfellowshipping the person. These procedures were formulated 1863 onwards by early Christadelphians^{[citation needed]}, and then in 1883 codified by Robert Roberts in A Guide to the Formation and Conduct of Christadelphian Ecclesias (colloquially "The Ecclesial Guide").^[23] However Christadelphians justify and apply their practice not only from this document but also from passages such as the exclusion in 1Co.5 and recovery in 2Co.2.^[24]

Christadelphians typically avoid the term "excommunication" which many associate with the Catholic Church; and may feel the word carries implications they do not agree with, such as undue condemnation and punishment, as well as failing to recognise the remedial intention of the measure.^[25]

• Behavioural cases. Many cases regarding moral issues tend to involve relational matters such as marriage outside the faith, divorce and remarriage (which is considered adultery in some circumstances by some ecclesias), or homosexuality.^[26] Reinstatement for moral issues is determined by the ecclesia's assessment of whether the individual has "turned away" from (ceased) the course of action considered immoral by the church. This can be complex when dealing with cases of divorce and subsequent remarriage, with different positions adopted by different ecclesias, but generally within the main "Central" grouping, such cases can be accommodated.^[27] Some minority "fellowships" do not accommodate this under any circumstances.^{[citation needed]}

• Doctrinal cases. Changes of belief on what Christadelphians call "first principle" doctrines are difficult to accommodate unless the individual agrees to not teach or spread them, since the body has a documented Statement of Faith which informally serves as a basis of ecclesial membership and interecclesial fellowship. Those who are disfellowshipped for reasons of differing belief rarely return, because they are expected to conform to an understanding with which they do not agree. Holding differing beliefs on fundamental matters is considered as error and apostasy, which can limit a person's salvation. However in practice disfellowship for doctrinal reasons is now unusual^[28]

In the case of adultery and divorce, the passage of time usually means a member can be restored if he or she wants to be. In the case of ongoing behaviour, cohabitation, homosexual activity, then the terms of the suspension have not been met. In the case of doctrinal issues, refellowship is typically not sought because showing the necessary conformity of thought that would be required isn't conscientiously possible. In some cases if the person will agree to refrain from expressing any thoughts on these issues they can remain and some liberal meetings will show tolerance. However in some cases of tolerance, block (or whole ecclesia) disfellowshipping has happened.

The mechanics of "refellowship" follow the reverse of the original process; the individual makes an application to the "ecclesia", and the "Arranging Brethren" give a recommendation to the members who vote.^[29] If the "Arranging Brethren" judge that a vote may divide the ecclesia, or personally upset some members, they may seek to find a third party ecclesia which is willing to "refellowship" the member instead. According to the Ecclesial Guide a third party ecclesia may also take the initiative to "refellowship" another meeting's member. However this cannot be done unilaterally, as this would constitute heteronomy over the autonomy of the original ecclesia's members.^[30]

[edit] Buddhism

There is no direct equivalent to excommunication in Buddhism. However, in the Theravadan monastic community monks can be expelled from monasteries for heresy and/or other acts. In addition, the monks have four vows, called the four defeats, which are abstaining from sexual intercourse, stealing, murder, and refraining from lying about spiritual gains. If even one is broken, the monk is automatically a layman again and can never become a monk in his or her current life.

The lay Japanese Buddhist organization Sōka Gakkai was excommunicated from the Nichiren Shoshu sect in 1991.

[edit] Hinduism

Hinduism has been too diverse to be seen as a monolithic religion, and with a conspicuous absence of any listed dogma or ecclesia (organised church), has no concept of excommunication and hence no Hindu may be ousted from the Hindu religion, although a person may easily lose caste status for a very wide variety of infringements of caste prohibitions. This may or may not be recoverable. However, some of the modern organized sects within Hinduism may practice something equivalent to excommunication today, by ousting a person from their own sect.

In medieval and early-modern times (and sometimes even now) in South Asia, excommunication from one's caste (jati or varna) used to be practiced (by the caste-councils) and was often with serious consequences, such as abasement of the person's caste status and even throwing him into the sphere of the untouchables or bhangi. After excommunication, it would depend upon the caste-council whether they would accept any form of repentance (ritual or otherwise) or not.

[edit] Islam

Excommunication as it exists in Christian faiths does not exist in Islam. The nearest approximation is takfir, a declaration that an individual or group is kafir (or kuffar in plural), a non-believer. This does not prevent an individual from taking part in any Islamic rite or ritual, and since the matter of whether a person is kafir is a rather subjective matter, a declaration of takfir is generally considered null and void if the target refutes it or if the Islamic community in which he or she lives refuses to accept it.

Takfir has usually been practiced through the courts.^{[citation needed]} More recently^[when?], cases have taken place where individuals have been considered kafirs.^{[citation needed]} These decisions followed lawsuits against individuals, mainly in response to their writings that some have viewed as anti-Islamic. The most famous cases are of Salman Rushdie, Nasr Abu Zayd, and Nawal El-Saadawi.^{[citation needed]} The repercussions of such cases have included divorce, since under traditional interpretations of Islamic law, Muslim women are not permitted to marry non-Muslim men.

However, takfir remains a highly contentious issue in Islam, primarily because there is no universally accepted authority in Islamic law. Indeed, according to classical commentators, the reverse seems to hold true, in that Muhammad reportedly equated the act of declaring someone a kafir itself to blasphemy if the accused individual maintained that he was a Muslim.

[edit] Judaism

Cherem is the highest ecclesiastical censure in Judaism. It is the total exclusion of a person from the Jewish community. Except for cases in the Charedi community, cherem stopped existing after The Enlightenment, when local Jewish communities lost their political autonomy, and Jews were integrated into the gentile nations in which they lived.^{[citation needed]} A siruv order, equivalent to a contempt of court, issued by a Rabbinical court may also limit religious participation.

[edit] See also

• Banishment in the Bible
• Deliver unto Satan
• Disconnection
• Interdict (Roman Catholic Church)

[edit] Notes

[edit] References

• Encyclopedia of American Religions, by J. Gordon Melton ISBN 0-8103-6904-4
• Ludlow, Daniel H. ed, Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Macmillan Publishing, 1992.
• Esau, Alvin J., "The Courts and the Colonies: The Litigation of Hutterite Church Disputes", Univ of British Columbia Press, 2004.
• Gruter, Margaret, and Masters Roger, Ostracism: A Social and Biological Phenomenon, (Amish) Ostracism on Trial: The Limits of Individual Rights, Gruter Institute, 1984.
• Beck, Martha N., Leaving the Saints: How I Lost the Mormons and Found My Faith, Crown, 2005.
• Stammer, Larry B., Mormon Author Says He's Facing Excommunication", Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles, CA.: December 9, 2004. pg. A.34.
• D'anna, Lynnette, "Post-Mennonite Women Congregate to Address Abuse", Herizons, 3/1/93.
• Anonymous, "Atlanta Mennonite congregation penalized over gays", The Atlanta Journal the Atlanta Constitution, Atlanta, GA: January 2, 1999. pg. F.01.
• Garrett, Ottie, Garrett Irene, True Stories of the X-Amish: Banned, Excommunicated, Shunned, Horse Cave KY: Nue Leben, Inc., 1998.
• Garret, Ruth, Farrant Rick, Crossing Over: One Woman's Escape from Amish Life, HarperSanFrancisco, 2003.
• Hostetler, John A. (1993), Amish Society, The Johns Hopkins University Pres: Baltimore.
• MacMaster, Richard K. (1985), Land, Piety, Peoplehood: The Establishment of Mennonite Communities in America 1683-1790, Herald Press: Kitchener & Scottdale.
• Scott, Stephen (1996), An Introduction to Old Order and Conservative Mennonite Groups, Good Books: Intercourse, Pennsylvania.
• Juhnke, James, Vision, Doctrine, War: Mennonite Identity and Organization in America, 1890–1930, (The Mennonite Experience in America #3), Scottdale, PA, Herald Press, Pp 393, 1989.

[edit] External links

• Excommunication, the Ban, Church Discipline and Avoidance (from Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online)
• Ostracism on Trial: The Limits of Individual Rights (Amish)
• Catholic Encyclopaedia on excommunication
• The two sides of excommunication
• Episcopal Church of America excommunication
• Jehovah's Witnesses press release regarding expulsion of child molesters