Religious shunning

[Xeno.of.athens]

Religion can produce some odd behaviours, one of which is shunning.

Seventeen years ago, in early September some time after I became a Catholic, having been a Presbyterian previously, my 'best friends' - a couple from a local Pentecostal church (Assembly of God) - started to shun me. It started over a dinner to which they had invited me. After the meal and during normal conversation the husband started a monologue about why he could no longer have contact with me. HIs wife wept during his monologue. I sat and listened, then left after a polite good bye. I wrote a letter a few days later expressing my thoughts on his decision, which were polite and mild without condemnation. I never heard from them again. The husband died in 2022, October, and no one told me he was ill and that he died, I found out in funeral notices.

At one time I thought that it was only a few unusual groups, such as Jehovah's witnesses, some Mennonites, and some other small sects that practised shunning of this kind. But I was mistaken. Some, at least, among Pentecostals do too, though I think that it would be a minority who do. But I can testify that shunning is hurtful. It seems that it was emotionally upsetting for his wife, it was upsetting for me, but I cannot say what the emotions of the husband were. He died from Alzheimer's disease, a very tragic way to die but one that is increasingly common now that people typically live into their 80s and 90s. He died at age 80.

A sad aftermath is that after I left a funeral message on the web site recording his funeral details and including a funeral video, his wife wrote a short note saying "out of love and loyalty to [name of husband here], I wish for things to remain as they are" meaning that she would continue the shunning. I wrote back saying that I understood her decision.

My thoughts on the matter are these:

• shunning for religious reasons, such as a change of religious affiliation, is a kind of religious bigotry.
• shunning is also a kind of emotional cruelty.
• shunning leaves scares on the shunner and the shunned.

What is one to think about religious faith that incorporates shunning.

 

[bling]

You were not going to their Pentecostal Church before you became a catholic so how can they be disfellowshipping you?
I find disfellowshipping a member of the group for sins, but nothing about "shunning someone?

 

[Fireinfolding]

What is one to think about religious faith that incorporates shunning.

Jesus seems to show a kind of shunning here

Mat 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

Mat 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

Mat 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican


And Paul also here


1 Cr 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

1 Cr 5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

1 Cr 5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

 

[Philip_B]

What is one to think about religious faith that incorporates shunning.

Thank you for sharing a sad story, for one of the things we are given for the journey is the help (and the ability to help) friends, family and those around us. Shunning seems to refuse that gift.

At some stage, the early Church understood and embraced the term catholic, and ultimately at the first Council of Constantinople the term became the third note of the Church (One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic).

The word catholic is formed as a composite Greek word formed from the words 'kata' and 'holos', whose meanings are 'according to' and 'the whole'. As such, when we describe the Church as catholic, we are meaning that we are for all people, in all places, at all times, and all conditions of folk. This is reflected in various prayers of our respective traditions, and more widely, like this prayer from BCP 1661/2

O GOD, the Creator and Preserver of all mankind, we humbly beseech thee for all sorts and conditions of men; that thou wouldest be pleased to make thy ways known unto them, thy saving health unto all nations. More especially we pray for the good estate of the Catholick Church; that it may be so guided and governed by thy good Spirit, that all who profess and call themselves Christians may be led into the way of truth, and hold the faith in unity of spirit, in the bond of peace, and in righteousness of life. Finally we commend to thy fatherly goodness all those, who are any ways afflicted or distressed in mind, body, or estate; that it may please thee to comfort and relieve them, according to their several necessities, giving them patience under their sufferings, and a happy issue out of all their afflictions. And this we beg for Jesus Christ his sake. Amen.​

As such, I regard shunning as a lamentable practice, that says more about the shunner than the shunned. There are examples from scripture to be invoked by those who embrace shunning, however, these are more related to unrepentant wickedness.

 

[PeterDona]

It could become difficult for the wife to reinvigorate the relation, if there should come a thought of "your husband was wrong"

However maybe within some years, she may calibrate, and maybe also you calibrate, and the relation can be reinvigorated

 

[bbbbbbb]

Shunning is a deeply engrained tradition within Christianity. Some denominations give it the fancy name of "excommunication". Anyway you want to slice it or dice it, it has the same results - separation between people. Lest you think it to be an evil practice condemned by God, Paul gave explicit instructions to the churches in Corinth as well as Thessalonica in how to go about the practice.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Some denominations give it the fancy name of "excommunication".

In the Catholic Church the excommunicated are denied the sacrament of holy communion and they are not shunned.

 

[bbbbbbb]

In the Catholic Church the excommunicated are denied the sacrament of holy communion and they are not shunned.

The Council of Trent issued a set of severe anathemas against non-Catholics, specifically Protestants. The result has been a complete shunning of Protestants by Catholics. It is a sin for a Catholic to even enter a Protestant Church building for any reason.

I had a very curious experience once. I was in Washington, D. C. and happened to meet a couple from Cascade, Iowa, which is a 100% Catholic town near my hometown of Dubuque. When they told me they were from Cascade I realized they were Catholic, which was of no particular concern to me. They were in Washington to attend an Opus Dei training seminar. As we conversed they realized that I was not Catholic and was, in fact, Protestant. A look of sheer horror came across their faces and they immediately cut off the conversation and skedaddled. I suppose they went to confession at the earliest possible time.

The simple fact is that, growing up in a heavily Catholic city, I am quite aware of the Catholic practice of shunning non-Catholics, especially those Catholics who have left the Church openly.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The Council of Trent issued a set of severe anathemas against non-Catholics, specifically Protestants. The result has been a complete shunning of Protestants by Catholics.

This is not true; I am a Catholic and I reply to Protestants who post on CF.

It is a sin for a Catholic to even enter a Protestant Church building for any reason.

This is not true. I have attended Protestant church services. It is no sin.

I had a very curious experience once. I was in Washington, D. C. and happened to meet a couple from Cascade, Iowa, which is a 100% Catholic town near my hometown of Dubuque. When they told me they were from Cascade I realized they were Catholic, which was of no particular concern to me. They were in Washington to attend an Opus Dei training seminar. As we conversed they realized that I was not Catholic and was, in fact, Protestant. A look of sheer horror came across their faces and they immediately cut off the conversation and skedaddled. I suppose they went to confession at the earliest possible time.

An interesting anecdote; perhaps they were Opus Dei members? In any case one couple does not the Catholic Church make.

The simple fact is that, growing up in a heavily Catholic city, I am quite aware of the Catholic practice of shunning non-Catholics, especially those Catholics who have left the Church openly.

A person who leaves the Church is, technically, an apostate. I chat with apostates on CF without wincing.

 

[bbbbbbb]

This is not true; I am a Catholic and I reply to Protestants who post on CF.

This is not true. I have attended Protestant church services. It is no sin.

An interesting anecdote; perhaps they were Opus Dei members? In any case one couple does not the Catholic Church make.

A person who leaves the Church is, technically, an apostate. I chat with apostates on CF without wincing.

What you do personally is not at all necessarily a representation of actions of others of your faith any more than my interactions with Catholics certainly does not reflect the actions of conservative elements of Protestantism relative to Catholics or those of other faith traditions. The fact is that shunning, or excommunication, has been and is a religious activity taught and endorsed from the very beginning of Christianity as evidenced by Paul's instructions.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

What you do personally is not at all necessarily a representation of actions of others of your faith any more than my interactions with Catholics certainly does not reflect the actions of conservative elements of Protestantism relative to Catholics or those of other faith traditions. The fact is that shunning, or excommunication, has been and is a religious activity taught and endorsed from the very beginning of Christianity as evidenced by Paul's instructions.

Your posts are presenting undocumented anecdotal claims as if they were Catholic teaching; they are not Catholic teaching.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Your posts are presenting undocumented anecdotal claims as if they were Catholic teaching; they are not Catholic teaching.

Are you telling me that the anathemas produced by the Council of Trent are no longer Catholic teaching?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Are you telling me that the anathemas produced by the Council of Trent are no longer Catholic teaching?

I am reminding you that it is 500 years since those events, Catholic practise is not to shun the excommunicated.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I am reminding you that it is 500 years since those events, Catholic practise is not to shun the excommunicated.

It is not the question of current Catholic thoughts. When did the Catholic Church actually reject the anathemas pronounced by the Council of Trent? While we are on the subject, do you have any idea when the Catholic Church admitted its guilt concerning its alteration of the Filoque which led to the Great Schism?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

It is not the question of current Catholic thoughts. When did the Catholic Church actually reject the anathemas pronounced by the Council of Trent? While we are on the subject, do you have any idea when the Catholic Church admitted its guilt concerning its alteration of the Filoque which led to the Great Schism?

There is no "guilt" concerning the Filioque. Your post reflects an ahistorical view of the canons of the council of Trent. If your posts cannot reflect on the hundreds of years that have passed since the closure of the council of Trent what hope is there of meaningful discussion of the matter of shunning?

 

[bbbbbbb]

There is no "guilt" concerning the Filioque. Your post reflects an ahistorical view of the canons of the council of Trent. If your posts cannot reflect on the hundreds of years that have passed since the closure of the council of Trent what hope is there of meaningful discussion of the matter of shunning?

Of course, the Catholic alteration of the Filoque must be correct. Although centuries have passed since the Great Schism, the Filoque still remains the primary barrier to unity in the Church between its east and west branches. The problem with your denomination (and it is common to many branches of Christianity) is its inability to admit error. Thus, when errors are subsequently pointed out the general response has been excommunication of those who point out the errors and an intransigence behind the walls of the infallible, inerrant, unchanging Church.

When the anathemas of the Council of Trent are formally rejected by the Catholic Church and a sincere apology is made to Christians who have been anathematized, then serious reconciliation might occur.

One alternative which seems to work quite well for the Catholic Church is precisely the one you are using. Prior to 1871 various Popes had issued numerous Papal Bulls which were believed to the infallibly true and correct revelations from God through His Vicar. After 1871 and the proclamation of the dogma of Papal infallibility, these Bulls (some of which were really quite embarrassing) were consigned to the dustbins of the Vatican and have been ignored ever since. Thus, the only dogmas which are the result of the actions of 1871 are the four Marian dogmas proclaimed in 1950. Curiously, that has opened an wide doorway for the Magisterium to determine what they would like to have in contemporary Catholic Tradition. For example, Limbo is now out, but a very revised form of Purgatory is still in.

 

[Dan Perez]

Religion can produce some odd behaviours, one of which is shunning.

Seventeen years ago, in early September some time after I became a Catholic, having been a Presbyterian previously, my 'best friends' - a couple from a local Pentecostal church (Assembly of God) - started to shun me. It started over a dinner to which they had invited me. After the meal and during normal conversation the husband started a monologue about why he could no longer have contact with me. HIs wife wept during his monologue. I sat and listened, then left after a polite good bye. I wrote a letter a few days later expressing my thoughts on his decision, which were polite and mild without condemnation. I never heard from them again. The husband died in 2022, October, and no one told me he was ill and that he died, I found out in funeral notices.

At one time I thought that it was only a few unusual groups, such as Jehovah's witnesses, some Mennonites, and some other small sects that practised shunning of this kind. But I was mistaken. Some, at least, among Pentecostals do too, though I think that it would be a minority who do. But I can testify that shunning is hurtful. It seems that it was emotionally upsetting for his wife, it was upsetting for me, but I cannot say what the emotions of the husband were. He died from Alzheimer's disease, a very tragic way to die but one that is increasingly common now that people typically live into their 80s and 90s. He died at age 80.

A sad aftermath is that after I left a funeral message on the web site recording his funeral details and including a funeral video, his wife wrote a short note saying "out of love and loyalty to [name of husband here], I wish for things to remain as they are" meaning that she would continue the shunning. I wrote back saying that I understood her decision.

My thoughts on the matter are these:

• shunning for religious reasons, such as a change of religious affiliation, is a kind of religious bigotry.
• shunning is also a kind of emotional cruelty.
• shunning leaves scares on the shunner and the shunned.

What is one to think about religious faith that incorporates shunning.

All should read Rom 16:17 and the HOLY SPIRIT did write this verse , using the Apostles Paul the APOSTLE to the GENTILES .

But I encourage you n brethren , to look m intently at the Ones causing DIVISIONS and the stumbling blocks contrary to the teaching which you have learned , and turn away from them and also read verses 18 and 19 .

I do believe that all have the right to believe , what they believe is true .

In Rom 16:25 talks about believing what Paul calls the revelation of the MYSTERY , having been kept silent in times pertaining to the ages .

And verse 26 finishes , having been made known to all the GENTILES , FOR THE OBEDIENCE OF FAITH .


Paul is the APOSTLE to the Gentiles and we should follow and IMITATE Paul as I also am of Christ .


dan p

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

When the anathemas of the Council of Trent are formally rejected by the Catholic Church and a sincere apology is made to Christians who have been anathematized, then serious reconciliation might occur.

This is an absurd demand.

The founders of the oldest protestant denominations were in error with respect to Catholic Church teaching, became apostates and schismatics, promoted heresy, and hence, were condemned along with their supporters. Later generations of protestants were, by and large, born into the new religions that arose from the protestant revolt, these new generations were not condemned for the errors that they were taught because they knew no better and they are not schismatics because they never separated from the Catholic Church having always been separated because of the actions of their forefathers. The later generations still promote heresy but that is so because they were indoctrinated into heresy and know no better.

But all this is quite outside the intention of the original post. Why you want to drag such matters into a discussion about shunning I do not know; much less do I grasp how a personal anecdote about close friends who broke friendship because I became a Catholic is used by your posts as an occasion for calumny against the Catholic Church. It seems to me to be discourteous to bend the topic of the original post into an occasion for such polemics as your posts contain.

 

[Philip_B]

All should read Rom 16:17 and the HOLY SPIRIT did write this verse , using the Apostles Paul the APOSTLE to the GENTILES .

But I encourage you n brethren , to look m intently at the Ones causing DIVISIONS and the stumbling blocks contrary to the teaching which you have learned , and turn away from them and also read verses 18 and 19 .

I do believe that all have the right to believe , what they believe is true .

In Rom 16:25 talks about believing what Paul calls the revelation of the MYSTERY , having been kept silent in times pertaining to the ages .

And verse 26 finishes , having been made known to all the GENTILES , FOR THE OBEDIENCE OF FAITH .


Paul is the APOSTLE to the Gentiles and we should follow and IMITATE Paul as I also am of Christ .


dan p

And we should be careful about the stone we throw, for we might be living in a glass house.

There is much about Trent I do not accept, and that is OK. It needs to be understood in its context - and the same might be said of the 39 Articles. We are known as Christians by who we are for, not who we are against.

Paul, among the many things he was, was philosophically a pragmatist. This is clearly born out in 1 Corinthians 13.

For now, we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known. And now faith, hope, and love abide these three; and the greatest of these is love.​

 

[bbbbbbb]

This is an absurd demand.

The founders of the oldest protestant denominations were in error with respect to Catholic Church teaching, became apostates and schismatics, promoted heresy, and hence, were condemned along with their supporters. Later generations of protestants were, by and large, born into the new religions that arose from the protestant revolt, these new generations were not condemned for the errors that they were taught because they knew no better and they are not schismatics because they never separated from the Catholic Church having always been separated because of the actions of their forefathers. The later generations still promote heresy but that is so because they were indoctrinated into heresy and know no better.

But all this is quite outside the intention of the original post. Why you want to drag such matters into a discussion about shunning I do not know; much less do I grasp how a personal anecdote about close friends who broke friendship because I became a Catholic is used by your posts as an occasion for calumny against the Catholic Church. It seems to me to be discourteous to bend the topic of the original post into an occasion for such polemics as your posts contain.

Simply to remind you that shunning has been, and is, practiced by your own denomination. Although you, yourself, may not actively engage in the practice and you may wish to believe that all Catholics are just like yourself, such is not the case. You have already agreed that excommunication is a practice of the Catholic church. Slice it or dice it however you may, excommunication is a form of shunning. Excommunicated members are shunned from partaking of the Eucharist.

This form of shunning is being actively pursued by the Catholic church against certain political individuals, including the President of the United States, whose pro-abortion policies are not only repugnant to the Catholic church, but constitute mortal sins. Thus, excommunication of certain Catholics is being threatened against these individuals.

Technically, all Catholics who engage in unrepentant mortal sin ought to be excommunicated. Most, including the vast majority of the citizens of Catholic countries such as France, Spain, and Italy, just go about their lives, ignoring the Catholic church except for baptisms, marriages, funerals, and perhaps first communions.