On the 16th of May 1520, Pope Leo X issued a papal bull that condemned Martin Luther's twenty-third proposition, declaring that excommunications were merely external punishments and did not deprive a man of the common spiritual prayers of the Church. This document, known as Exsurge Domine, marked a pivotal moment in religious history, as it was the formal declaration that would lead to Luther's excommunication the following year. The act of excommunication was not merely a bureaucratic procedure but a spiritual weapon, designed to cut off the offender from the communion of the Church and to protect the faithful from what was perceived as heretical teachings. In the traditional excommunication procedure, the pope and his priests would hurl burning candles on the ground and stamp them out, symbolizing the extinguishing of the light of faith within the excommunicated individual. This dramatic ritual, depicted in a 16th-century fresco by Giorgio Vasari in the Sala Regia, shows Pope Gregory IX personally stepping on the emperor Frederick II, a visual representation of the power dynamics at play. The fresco, though based on few details provided to the artist, captures the gravity of the moment, where the spiritual authority of the Church was asserted over temporal power. The burning candles, once extinguished, signified the complete severance of the individual from the spiritual community, a fate that was both terrifying and transformative for those who faced it. The Church taught that excommunicated persons were not members of the Church, having been cut off by her sentence from the number of her children, and belonged not to her communion until they repented. This spiritual penalty was binding in heaven and affected souls, as Pope Pius VI later emphasized in 1794, condemning the notion that excommunication was only an exterior punishment. The excommunicated person, though excluded from the society of the Church, still bore the indelible mark of Baptism and remained subject to the jurisdiction of the Church, creating a paradoxical state of being both inside and outside the faith. The activities prohibited to the excommunicated were listed in Canon 1331 §1, which barred them from any ministerial participation in celebrating the sacrifice of the Eucharist or any other ceremonies of worship, from celebrating or receiving the sacraments, and from exercising any ecclesiastical offices, ministries, or functions. Despite these restrictions, excommunicates remained bound by ecclesiastical obligations such as attending Mass, even though they were barred from receiving the Eucharist and from taking an active part in the liturgy. The absolution could be in the internal forum only, or also in the external forum, depending on whether scandal would be given if a person were privately absolved and yet publicly considered unrepentant. The resolution of excommunication normally required a declaration of repentance, profession of the Creed if the offense involved heresy, and an Act of Faith or renewal of obedience if that was a relevant part of the offending act, followed by the lifting of the censure by a priest or bishop empowered to do this. The process was designed to restore the individual to full communion, but the path back was often fraught with difficulty, requiring not just words but actions that demonstrated genuine remorse and a commitment to change.
In the Bahá'í Faith, excommunication is rare and generally not used for transgressions of community standards, intellectual dissent, or conversion to other religions. Instead, it is the most severe punishment, reserved for suppressing organized dissent that threatens the unity of believers. The term Covenant-breaker is used by Bahá'ís to refer to a person who has been excommunicated from the Bahá'í community for breaking the Covenant, which involves actively promoting schism in the religion or otherwise opposing the legitimacy of the chain of succession of leadership. Currently, the Universal House of Justice has the sole authority to declare a person a Covenant-breaker, and once identified, all Bahá'ís are expected to shun them, even if they are family members. According to 'Abdu'l Baha, Covenant-breaking is a contagious disease, and the Bahá'í writings forbid association with Covenant-breakers and Bahá'ís are urged to avoid their literature, thus providing an exception to the Bahá'í principle of independent investigation of truth. Most Bahá'ís are unaware of the small Bahá'í divisions that exist, as the practice of shunning is kept within the community and not widely publicized. The case of Mírzá Muhammad ́Alí, son of Bahá'u'lláh, who was excommunicated by 'Abdu'l-Bahá, illustrates the severity of this punishment. The excommunication of a family member, especially a son of the founder of the faith, underscores the gravity of the offense and the lengths to which the community will go to preserve its unity. The practice of shunning in the Bahá'í Faith is not merely a social sanction but a spiritual one, designed to protect the community from the perceived contagion of dissent. The Covenant-breaker is effectively removed from the community, with all Bahá'ís expected to avoid them, creating a state of isolation that can be as damaging as any physical punishment. The Universal House of Justice's authority to declare a person a Covenant-breaker is absolute, and the decision is final, with no appeal process available to the accused. The practice of shunning in the Bahá'í Faith is a reflection of the community's commitment to unity and the preservation of the chain of succession of leadership, which is seen as essential to the faith's survival. The excommunication of a Covenant-breaker is a last resort, used only when all other attempts to resolve the issue have failed, and it is a testament to the community's willingness to sacrifice individual relationships for the sake of the whole. The practice of shunning in the Bahá'í Faith is a complex and controversial issue, with some arguing that it is necessary to protect the community from the spread of dissent, while others argue that it is a form of control that stifles free thought and expression. The case of Mírzá Muhammad ́Alí remains a powerful example of the consequences of breaking the Covenant, and it serves as a warning to all Bahá'ís of the dangers of dissent and the importance of unity.
The Shunning of the Family
Jehovah's Witnesses practice a form of excommunication, using the term disfellowshipping, in cases where a member is believed to have unrepentantly committed one or more of several documented serious sins. When a member confesses to, or is accused of, a serious sin, a judicial committee of at least three elders is formed to investigate the case and determine the magnitude of the sin committed. If the person is deemed guilty of a disfellowshipping offense, the committee then decides, on the basis of the person's attitude and works befitting repentance, whether to proceed with the punishment. Disfellowshipping is a severing of friendly relationships between all Jehovah's Witnesses and the disfellowshipped person, and interaction with extended family is typically restricted to a minimum, such as presence at the reading of wills and providing essential care for the elderly. Within a household, typical family contact may continue, but without spiritual fellowship such as family Bible study and religious discussions. Parents of disfellowshipped minors living in the family home may continue to attempt to convince the child about the group's teachings. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that this form of discipline encourages the disfellowshipped individual to conform to biblical standards and prevents the person from influencing other members of the congregation. Along with breaches of the Witnesses' moral code, openly disagreeing with the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses is considered grounds for shunning, and these persons are labeled as apostates and are described in Watch Tower Society literature as mentally diseased. Descriptions of apostates appearing in the Witnesses literature have been the subject of investigation in the UK to determine if they violate religious hatred laws. Sociologist Andrew Holden claims many Witnesses who would otherwise defect because of disillusionment with the organization and its teachings, remain affiliated out of fear of being shunned and losing contact with friends and family members. Shunning employs what is known as relational aggression in psychological literature, and when used by church members and member-spouse parents against excommunicant parents, it contains elements of what psychologists call parental alienation. Extreme shunning may cause trauma to the shunned and to their dependents, similar to what is studied in the psychology of torture. Disassociation is a form of shunning where a member expresses verbally or in writing that they do not wish to be associated with Jehovah's Witnesses, rather than for having committed any specific sin. Elders may also decide that an individual has disassociated, without any formal statement by the individual, by actions such as accepting a blood transfusion, or for joining another religious or military organization. Individuals who are deemed by the elders to have disassociated are given no right of appeal. Each year, congregation elders are instructed to consider meeting with disfellowshipped individuals to determine changed circumstances and encourage them to pursue reinstatement. Reinstatement is not automatic after a certain time period, nor is there a minimum duration; disfellowshipped persons may talk to elders at any time but must apply in writing to be considered for reinstatement into the congregation. 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. 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. A Witness who has been formally reproved or reinstated cannot be appointed to any special privilege of service for at least one year, and 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. The practice of shunning in the Jehovah's Witnesses is a complex and controversial issue, with some arguing that it is necessary to protect the community from the spread of sin and to encourage repentance, while others argue that it is a form of control that stifles free thought and expression and causes psychological harm to those who are shunned. The case of the Jehovah's Witnesses shunning of family members is a powerful example of the consequences of breaking the rules of the community, and it serves as a warning to all Jehovah's Witnesses of the dangers of dissent and the importance of conformity.
The Ban of the Amish
Amish communities practice variations of excommunication known as shunning, which may include isolation from community events or the cessation of all communication. This practice is a form of social sanction that is used to enforce conformity to the community's rules and beliefs, and it is a powerful tool for maintaining the Amish way of life. The shunning of an Amish member is a severe punishment, as it cuts off the individual from all social and economic interactions with the community, leaving them isolated and vulnerable. The practice of shunning in the Amish community is a reflection of the community's commitment to separation from the world and to the preservation of their unique way of life. The shunning of an Amish member is a last resort, used only when all other attempts to correct the individual's behavior have failed, and it is a testament to the community's willingness to sacrifice individual relationships for the sake of the whole. The practice of shunning in the Amish community is a complex and controversial issue, with some arguing that it is necessary to protect the community from the spread of sin and to encourage repentance, while others argue that it is a form of control that stifles free thought and expression and causes psychological harm to those who are shunned. The case of the Amish shunning of family members is a powerful example of the consequences of breaking the rules of the community, and it serves as a warning to all Amish of the dangers of dissent and the importance of conformity. The shunning of an Amish member is a form of social death, as it cuts off the individual from all social and economic interactions with the community, leaving them isolated and vulnerable. The practice of shunning in the Amish community is a reflection of the community's commitment to separation from the world and to the preservation of their unique way of life, and it is a powerful tool for maintaining the Amish way of life. The shunning of an Amish member is a last resort, used only when all other attempts to correct the individual's behavior have failed, and it is a testament to the community's willingness to sacrifice individual relationships for the sake of the whole. The practice of shunning in the Amish community is a complex and controversial issue, with some arguing that it is necessary to protect the community from the spread of sin and to encourage repentance, while others argue that it is a form of control that stifles free thought and expression and causes psychological harm to those who are shunned. The case of the Amish shunning of family members is a powerful example of the consequences of breaking the rules of the community, and it serves as a warning to all Amish of the dangers of dissent and the importance of conformity.
The Mormon Membership Withdrawal
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints practices excommunication as a penalty for those who commit serious sins, i.e., actions that significantly impair the name or moral influence of the church or pose a threat to other people. In 2020, the church ceased using the term excommunication and instead refers to withdrawal of membership. According to the church leadership General Handbook, the purposes of withdrawing membership or imposing membership restrictions are to help protect others, to help a person access the redeeming power of Jesus Christ through repentance, and to protect the integrity of the Church. The origins of LDS disciplinary procedures and excommunications are traced to a revelation Joseph Smith dictated on the 9th of February 1831, later canonized as Doctrine and Covenants, section 42 and codified in the General Handbook. The LDS Church also practices the lesser sanctions of private counsel and caution and informal and formal membership restrictions. Informal membership restrictions was formerly known as probation, and formal membership restrictions was formerly known as disfellowshipment. Formal membership restrictions are used for serious sins that do not rise to the level of membership withdrawal, and they deny some privileges but do not include a loss of church membership. Once formal membership restrictions are in place, persons may not take the sacrament or enter church temples, nor may they offer public prayers or sermons. Such persons may continue to attend most church functions and are allowed to wear temple garments, pay tithes and offerings, and participate in church classes if their conduct is orderly. Formal membership restrictions typically last for one year, after which one may be reinstated as a member in good standing. In the more grievous or recalcitrant cases, withdrawal of membership becomes a disciplinary option, and such an action is generally reserved for what are seen as the most serious sins, including committing serious crimes such as murder, child abuse, and incest; committing adultery; involvement in or teaching of polygamy; involvement in homosexual conduct; apostasy; participation in an abortion; teaching false doctrine; or openly criticizing church leaders. The General Handbook states that formally joining another church constitutes apostasy and is worthy of membership withdrawal, however, merely attending another church does not constitute apostasy. A withdrawal of membership can occur only after a formal church membership council, and the procedure followed by a church membership council is described in church handbooks and the Doctrine and Covenants. Formerly called a disciplinary council or a church court, the councils were renamed to avoid focusing on guilt and instead to emphasize the availability of repentance. The decision to withdraw the membership of a Melchizedek priesthood holder is generally the province of the leadership of a stake, and in such a disciplinary council, the stake presidency and, sometimes in more difficult cases, the stake high council attend. It is possible to appeal a decision of a stake membership council to the church's First Presidency. For females and for male members not initiated into the Melchizedek priesthood, a ward membership council is held, and in such cases, a bishop determines whether withdrawal of membership or a lesser sanction is warranted. He does this in consultation with his two counselors, with the bishop making the final determination after prayer. The decision of a ward membership council can be appealed to the stake president. The following list of variables serves as a general set of guidelines for when membership withdrawal or lesser action may be warranted, beginning with those more likely to result in severe sanction: violation of covenants, position of trust or authority, repetition, magnitude, age, maturity, and experience, interests of the innocent, time between transgression and confession, voluntary confession, and evidence of repentance. Notices of withdrawal of membership may be made public, especially in cases of apostasy, where members could be misled, however, the specific reasons for individual withdrawal of membership are typically kept confidential and are seldom made public by church leadership. Those who have their membership withdrawn lose the right to partake of the sacrament, and such persons are permitted to attend church meetings but participation is limited: they cannot offer public prayers, preach sermons, and cannot enter temples. Such individuals are also prohibited from wearing or purchasing temple garments and from paying tithes. A person whose membership has been withdrawn may be re-baptized after a waiting period of at least one year and sincere repentance, as judged by a series of interviews with church leaders. Some critics have charged that LDS Church leaders have used the threat of membership withdrawal to silence or punish church members and researchers who disagree with established policy and doctrine, who study or discuss controversial subjects, or who may be involved in disputes with local, stake leaders or general authorities. Brian Evenson, a former BYU professor and writer, faced criticism from BYU officials and LDS Leadership for his fiction, and he wrote that he had a strong defense for his position, but as he met with administrators, including BYU President Rex Lee and Provost Bruce Hafen, it became clear that they were not interested in hearing why he was writing; they were interested in getting him to stop writing. Another notable case of excommunication from the LDS Church was the September Six, a group of intellectuals and professors, five of whom were excommunicated and the sixth disfellowshipped. However, church policy dictates that local leaders are responsible for membership withdrawal, without influence from church headquarters, and the church thus argues that this policy is evidence against any systematic persecution of scholars or dissenters. Data shows per-capita excommunication rates among the LDS Church have varied dramatically over the years, from a low of about 1 in 6,400 members in the early 1900s to one in 640 by the 1970s, an increase which has been speculatively attributed to informal guidance from above in enforcing the growing list of possible transgressions added to General Handbook editions over time.
The Caste of the Outcast
In Hinduism, excommunication from one's caste used to be practiced in medieval and early-modern times, and sometimes even now, by the caste-councils, and it 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. In the 19th century, a Hindu faced excommunication for going abroad, since it was presumed he or she would be forced to break caste restrictions and, as a result, become polluted. After excommunication, it would depend upon the caste-council whether they would accept any form of repentance, ritual or otherwise, or not. Such current examples of excommunication in Hinduism are often more political or social rather than religious, for example the excommunication of lower castes for refusing to work as scavengers in Tamil Nadu. Another example of caste-related violence and discrimination occurred in the case of the Gupti Ismailis from the Hindu Kachhiya caste. Interestingly, Hindu members of this caste began prayers with the inclusion of the mantra OM, by the command, in the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful, but never found it objectionable or Islamic. However, in the early 1930s, after some conflict with caste members due to their profession of allegiance to the Ismaili Imam, this group, known as the Guptis, were excommunicated from the caste completely as they appeared to be breaking caste solidarity. This was also significant for the Gupti community, as, for the first time, they could be identified as a distinct group based on their religious persuasion. Some of the more daring Guptis also abandoned their former practice of pious circumspection, taqiyya, as Hindus, claiming that since they had been excommunicated, the caste no longer had any jurisdiction over their actions. An earlier example of excommunication in Hinduism is that of Shastri Yagnapurushdas, who voluntarily left and was later expelled from the Vadtal Gadi of the Swaminarayan Sampraday by the then Vadtal acharya in 1906. He went on to form his own institution, Bochasanwasi Swaminarayan Sanstha or BSS, now BAPS, claiming Gunatitanand Swami was the rightful spiritual successor to Swaminarayan. The practice of excommunication in Hinduism is a complex and controversial issue, with some arguing that it is necessary to protect the community from the spread of sin and to encourage repentance, while others argue that it is a form of control that stifles free thought and expression and causes psychological harm to those who are shunned. The case of the Gupti Ismailis is a powerful example of the consequences of breaking the rules of the community, and it serves as a warning to all Hindus of the dangers of dissent and the importance of conformity. The excommunication of a Hindu from his or her caste is a severe punishment, as it cuts off the individual from all social and economic interactions with the community, leaving them isolated and vulnerable. The practice of excommunication in Hinduism is a reflection of the community's commitment to separation from the world and to the preservation of their unique way of life, and it is a powerful tool for maintaining the Hindu way of life. The excommunication of a Hindu from his or her caste is a last resort, used only when all other attempts to correct the individual's behavior have failed, and it is a testament to the community's willingness to sacrifice individual relationships for the sake of the whole. The practice of excommunication in Hinduism is a complex and controversial issue, with some arguing that it is necessary to protect the community from the spread of sin and to encourage repentance, while others argue that it is a form of control that stifles free thought and expression and causes psychological harm to those who are shunned. The case of the Gupti Ismailis is a powerful example of the consequences of breaking the rules of the community, and it serves as a warning to all Hindus of the dangers of dissent and the importance of conformity.
The Herem of the Jews
Herem is the highest ecclesiastical censure in Judaism, and 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. A siruv order, equivalent to a contempt of court, issued by a Rabbinical court may also limit religious participation. Rabbinical conferences of movements do expel members from time to time, but sometimes choose the lesser penalty of censuring the offending rabbi. Between 2010 and 2015, the Reform Jewish Central Conference of American Rabbis expelled six rabbis, the Orthodox Jewish Rabbinical Council of America expelled three, and the Conservative Jewish Rabbinical Assembly expelled one, suspended three, and caused one to resign without eligibility for reinstatement. While the CCAR and RCA were relatively shy about their reasons for expelling rabbis, the RA was more open about its reasons for kicking rabbis out. Reasons for expulsion from the three conferences include sexual misconduct, failure to comply with ethics investigations, setting up conversion groups without the conference's approval, stealing money from congregations, other financial misconduct, and getting arrested. Judaism, like Unitarian Universalism, tends towards congregationalism, and so decisions to exclude from a community of worship often depend on the congregation. Congregational bylaws sometimes enable the board of a synagogue to ask individuals to leave or not to enter. The practice of herem in Judaism is a complex and controversial issue, with some arguing that it is necessary to protect the community from the spread of sin and to encourage repentance, while others argue that it is a form of control that stifles free thought and expression and causes psychological harm to those who are shunned. The case of the expulsion of rabbis from the Rabbinical conferences is a powerful example of the consequences of breaking the rules of the community, and it serves as a warning to all Jews of the dangers of dissent and the importance of conformity. The herem of a Jew from his or her community is a severe punishment, as it cuts off the individual from all social and religious interactions with the community, leaving them isolated and vulnerable. The practice of herem in Judaism is a reflection of the community's commitment to separation from the world and to the preservation of their unique way of life, and it is a powerful tool for maintaining the Jewish way of life. The herem of a Jew from his or her community is a last resort, used only when all other attempts to correct the individual's behavior have failed, and it is a testament to the community's willingness to sacrifice individual relationships for the sake of the whole. The practice of herem in Judaism is a complex and controversial issue, with some arguing that it is necessary to protect the community from the spread of sin and to encourage repentance, while others argue that it is a form of control that stifles free thought and expression and causes psychological harm to those who are shunned. The case of the expulsion of rabbis from the Rabbinical conferences is a powerful example of the consequences of breaking the rules of the community, and it serves as a warning to all Jews of the dangers of dissent and the importance of conformity.
The Silence of the Quakers
Among many of the Society of Friends, or Quakers, one is read out of meeting for behavior inconsistent with the sense of the meeting. In Britain, a meeting may record a minute of disunity, however, it is the responsibility of each meeting, quarterly meeting, and yearly meeting to act with respect to their own members. For example, during the Vietnam War, many Friends were concerned about Friend Richard Nixon's position on war, which seemed at odds with their beliefs, however, it was the responsibility of Nixon's own meeting, the East Whittier Meeting of Whittier, California, to act if indeed that meeting felt the leading. They did not. In 17th- and 18th-Century North America, before the founding of abolitionist societies, Friends who too forcefully tried to convince their coreligionists of the evils of slavery were read out of meeting. Benjamin Lay was read out of the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting for this. During the American Revolution, over 400 Friends were read out of meeting for their military participation or support. The practice of reading out of meeting in the Quaker community is a form of social sanction that is used to enforce conformity to the community's rules and beliefs, and it is a powerful tool for maintaining the Quaker way of life. The reading out of meeting of a Quaker is a severe punishment, as it cuts off the individual from all social and religious interactions with the community, leaving them isolated and vulnerable. The practice of reading out of meeting in the Quaker community is a reflection of the community's commitment to separation from the world and to the preservation of their unique way of life, and it is a powerful tool for maintaining the Quaker way of life. The reading out of meeting of a Quaker is a last resort, used only when all other attempts to correct the individual's behavior have failed, and it is a testament to the community's willingness to sacrifice individual relationships for the sake of the whole. The practice of reading out of meeting in the Quaker community is a complex and controversial issue, with some arguing that it is necessary to protect the community from the spread of sin and to encourage repentance, while others argue that it is a form of control that stifles free thought and expression and causes psychological harm to those who are shunned. The case of Benjamin Lay, who was read out of the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting for his efforts to convince his coreligionists of the evils of slavery, is a powerful example of the consequences of breaking the rules of the community, and it serves as a warning to all Quakers of the dangers of dissent and the importance of conformity. The reading out of meeting of a Quaker is a form of social death, as it cuts off the individual from all social and religious interactions with the community, leaving them isolated and vulnerable. The practice of reading out of meeting in the Quaker community is a reflection of the community's commitment to separation from the world and to the preservation of their unique way of life, and it is a powerful tool for maintaining the Quaker way of life. The reading out of meeting of a Quaker is a last resort, used only when all other attempts to correct the individual's behavior have failed, and it is a testament to the community's willingness to sacrifice individual relationships for the sake of the whole. The practice of reading out of meeting in the Quaker community is a complex and controversial issue, with some arguing that it is necessary to protect the community from the spread of sin and to encourage repentance, while others argue that it is a form of control that stifles free thought and expression and causes psychological harm to those who are shunned. The case of Benjamin Lay, who was read out of the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting for his efforts to convince his coreligionists of the evils of slavery, is a powerful example of the consequences of breaking the rules of the community, and it serves as a warning to all Quakers of the dangers of dissent and the importance of conformity.