Talk:List of people excommunicated by the Catholic Church

message: It states here that Sinead was excommunicated for joining the Palmarian Catholics. Palmarians do not attempt to ordain women. Also, on Sinead's own site, it states that she attempted to be ordained by the Independent Catholicsfjsdbhvyhd. So this should be changed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.146.37.103 (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error about Sinead 

message: Anecdote has it that the priest who was consulted to preside over Brendan Behan's marriage ceremony expressed reservations. Behan, as a (former?) member of the IRA (Irish Republican Army)--a secret oath-bound association--had automatically excommunicated himself (see also Fenians, in the 19th century list). When told that there would be difficulties, because he was excommunicted, Behan's reply was, "Then, so is Eamon deValera!" The marriage took place.--PeadarMaguidhir 17:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brendan Behan 

message: Would anyone please provide a reference for that all stem cell researchers are in fact officially excommunicated by the RCC?  I believe that the Cardinal doesn't have the canonical authority to excommunicate all stem cell researchers.  I recommend deleting this entry.
207.239.38.159 06:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stem cell researchers 

message: The parish council and pastor of a St. Louis area church were excommunicated for refusing to acknowledge Archbishop Burke's authority.
:If he is notable enough and/or has an article, add him in then.  Wikipedia can be edited, by the way! -- the GREAT Gavini 17:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  St. Stanislaus Kostka 

message: Ebrard is not excommunicated even though the bishops consider him to have 'excluded himself from communion', this is not the same as excommunication, a state of excommunication latae sententiae has not been suitably verified, therefore deleting the entry --Isolani 10:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ebrard 

message: The current list has too many questionable entries. I would like to propose that we remove all elements of the list that do not have an accompanying citation. Entries can be re-added as citations are found. I believe that it would be better to have an incomplete list than an inaccurate one. However, before doing this, I will message Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism asking that citations be added for as many as possible in the current list-- after a week or so, any still remaining without citations will be removed? Does anyone disagree with this approach? JRP (talk) 00:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No one should be on any list ("notables", for example), without having a citation as to why they belong in that particular list (may have bio article, but no indication of belonging to some other article such as this one). This is doubly true for living persons. Thanks for pointing that out! Student7 (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Uncited material shouldn't be on any lists. What might work here is to make a separate list of the uncited names, and then, a bit later, remove all those that aren't cited, thus allowing individuals to try to find citations over maybe a longer period of time. Maybe the list of uncited names could be placed here for temporary storage. Would that be acceptable to the rest of you? John Carter (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll move them all to the Talk page. I'm also going to try and verify as many of the references as convenient (web sources, mostly) as a double-check. Still, I want to wait a few days before pulling the trigger on this. JRP (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My thought would be simply to delete, or if you are feeling generous, comment out, all redlinked items without footnotes. Couldn't you just <fact> the rest? Delete them next month or something? Just a thought. Student7 (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to remove uncited items 

message: If someone has a red link should they be included in the list? Should there be a notability hurdle? JASpencer (talk) 08:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Wikipedia is about notables. This is a high level article (I make exceptions for real low level ones). People from the past must have an article. Otherwise why are they there and  how can we verify? Recent people might not have an article for a short time. Maybe we could make exceptions with good references for awhile? (as discussed earlier, should have a footnote anyway to verify that they were excommunicated). Student7 (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, I hope that this isn't as much of a problem as it sounds. (But I could be mistaken.) It seems to me that for any individual important enough for the church to formally do a writ of excommunication (or whatever the appropriate term is), they must be in some way notable either as an individual or as a group. (So, individual members of the "Danube Seven"-- one early group of female priests-- might not be notable, but their leader probably is and they may be notable as a group as well.) Maybe this doesn't hold and the church excommunicates people every week, but I suspect that we will find that many of them will be notable enough to have an article eventually. JRP (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redlinks 

message: On reviewing the elements of this list and some of the comments above, I would like to propose that we limit the list to excommunications by papal decree only. A number of the excommunications from modern history on this list were done "automatically", even if a bishop subsequently declared the excommunication official. I feel that limiting it to Papal Decree (papal bull?) will have two benefits:
# Everyone on the list will be notable and red links can be made into articles. Any person that has garnered enough attention from the Holy See that they get excommunicated in this way is notable. 
# The list will be finite. It is impossible for this list to ever be complete if we include automatic excommunications of any type, even if it is subsequently confirmed in the media or by a bishop, etc.
Unfortunately, I'm not an expert on this topic and so I'll ask for opinions from the Wikiproject (directing them to the discussion here). It could be that there simply are not that many that are this formal, but on the whole I think a more restricted list would be more valuable. I am very interested in alternate viewpoints however. JRP (talk) 02:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes a lot of sense.  Historians and long-term Wikipedians should appreciate it. Scandal/tabloid people won't like it of course. This probably chops out most if not all the people in the 20th century.Student7 (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Papal Decree 

message: After a suitably long gap, I've followed-through and removed uncited items and followed up on all present citations to verify them. This makes for a considerably shorter list, but it means that it's a verifiable shorter list and I'm positive that, with a little work, we can get it back up to its prior length with references intact. I had hoped to have time to get this worked through with more of my own research, but I haven't had the time. Here is the old version, if anyone wants to troll through this for more items to readd:  JRP (talk) 03:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW: Even this is imperfect. It's hard to tell, short of a link to vatican.va, is news reports really understand the types of excommunication and whether we can read from them enough to consider whether their stories are excommunications for this list. I've made my best effort, but someone with more time may want to dig further. JRP (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  As far as I know it is the ordinary that declares a person excommunicate, the person excommunicated may then appeal to Rome - which suspends the declaration until ratified by Rome - that being said. Limiting the excommunications to those declared by papal bull would be unduly limiting. Some, excommunicated by their ordinaries have not appealed to Rome, canonically, theyr are excommunicate but yet would not be added to this list. I would suggest all be included that are canonically excommunicated. You'll find their number to be relatively small - which will meet your concerns over spurious additions to the list.--Scarpe (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That sounds reasonable, but I'm afraid that I don't know the definition. Can you help me to know what that means from a research standpoint and adjust the summary at the top of the list accordingly? I was hoping to limit the number to verifiable excommunications and the Vatican has always been good about keeping a paper trail for such things, even to antiquity. But if this still gets rid of the "automatic" excommunications which are difficult to prove and not verifiable. (In cases where a class of individuals are excommunicated, if we include them, we should denote the class and not try and fill in individuals which may apply.) JRP (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Check Ed Peters' excellent weblog and excommunication blotter. ( http://www.canonlaw.info/canonlaw_excomm.htm ) 
You are right in being somewhat wary of 'automatic' excommunications. And I would agree in desisting from adding anyone to the list merely because someone claims that A committed act X, and act X is punishable by automatic excommunication. 
Generally I would not 'count' an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication until the existence of this excommunication is declared by that person's ordinary. This is the criterion used by Ed Peters, and he is as bona fide a canon lawyer as they come.
I would *not* include a latae sententiae excommunication if it comes from anyone else. An auxiliary bishop does not have jurisdiction, if an auxiliary therefore says A is excommunicated it does not have canonical effect. Neither do pronouncements by random cardinals, unless they happen to be speaking in official capacity as members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or one of the Church courts. 
A hard and fats rule: include it if it is on Dr. Peter's 'blotter'. Only adding those excommunicated under the provision of some papal documemt is much, much too narrow. --Scarpe (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Papal Decree - followup

message: This is not a list of people who have "indicated effective excommunication" but who have been officially excommunicated.  Biden's support of abortion has certainly got himself into serious trouble but he has not been excommunicated officially an in person. JASpencer (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joe Biden 

message: I was shocked to see that many are missing what happened with them?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumaterana (talk • contribs) 22:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why have so many people dissapeared from this list??? 

message: I've removed the citation needed tags by many of the people in this list. For one, all of the people here are well-known excommunicatees (real word?) and their excommunications are common textbook knowledge. If a citation is truly needed, I'm sure one of the citations on their own pages (of which they are of course linked to) discuss it, and if necessary the reader can look into one of those.  CaptainP (talk) 02:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed tags 

message: I was wondering whether the relatively recent excommunications of Womenpriests Rose Hudson and Elsie McGrath (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/religion/story/84C2EC265110978A8625740C000C5798?OpenDocument) would fall under the section of "automatic" excommunications and be excluded from this list or not. Pokeronskis (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent St. Louis excommunications

message: While doing some research on an unrelated matter I found a number of articles relating to her having been excommunicated in November of 1968. This one  discusses Cardinal Cushing responding to a Vatican announcement that she was a "public sinner" (for having married a divorced Orthodox Christian) and had been excommunicated. The details may be in one of these articles     (especially the last, because the words "formal excommunication" are in a ten-word extract) might contain clues, but I can't afford $3.95 an article to say whether they do or not. I can say that many newspapers and television reports of the time stated categorically that she had been excommunicated. Does anyone have any actual proof that one could refer to without paying $3.95 per article, one way or the other? --NellieBly (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Public sinner" would be insufficient IMO to excommunicate someone unless they had some position of authority or were publicly arguing with the church (okay, the Brazil abortion case wasn't in either category, but nevertheless...). People excommunicate themselves in any event. In rare cases, it is announced by the Vatican and shows up here. Most often it is simply unofficial. People who married a divorced person should not receive the sacraments. Kennedy knew this. Did she even attend church? Big deal when Jack was President and they were trying to impress the electorate with religious observance. Probably moot after she was widowed.Student7 (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was actually looking for actual evidence that she'd been excommunicated. Do you have any? --NellieBly (talk) 06:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Jacqueline Kennedy, of all people

message: I don't have handy cites or refs, but I seem to recall a few years ago that then-Archbishop Raymond Burke declared that the above church council (parish council? I forget the exact term) had excommunicated themselves. Definitely a group to be added, will look later, or others might check the archives of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (try [www.stltoday.com STLToday.com]). umrguy42 17:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  St. Stanislaus church council et al. (St. Louis) 

message: Does this article intend to be (or purport to be) an all-inclusive list?  I'd think excommunications via Papal Bull would be easily verifiable; if the list is indeed holistic, I'd recommend noting it in the lead section (if not, that should be noted too).  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comprehensive list 

message: Should the people mentioned in this article be included? Vatican defends Brazil excommunication  --MicahBrwn (talk) 07:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Folks in Brazil 

message: An editor professed to be surprised that the rapist was not excommunicated. Assuming good faith, as we always must, the church announces the fact that (in the church's opinion) people have excommunicated themselves from God (turned from God). A rapist might have repented. It was clear that the mother had not. The perp was guilty of repeated rape, the mother guilty of assisting (abetting) a murder (in the church's view), a bit more serious. Also, there was the publicity involved. Since the abortion was public knowledge, so was the excommunication.
The rapist might have excommunicated himself. The church took no stand because it wasn't public knowledge what his stand was.
There are plenty of rapists of nine-year olds in the US, maybe 20 a year (I'm guessing here). Most are handled "by the authorities" without publicity, the victims and families being essentially "unchurched." Probably a couple of these, migrants, illegals, come to term as well. No publicity. tv never gets out that far. Brazil is a tempest in a teapot considering our own backyard. So much for "News at 11." Student7 (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Who is eligible

message: Why is the article structured in reverse chronology which differs from all other articles. This seems WP:POV or WP:SOAP-ish by overemphasizing current events over previous ones. tv-ish. Student7 (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverse chronology

message: It would be a good idea to try to better distinguish schism and excommunication, a distinction that came after the Second Vatican Council. For instance, in Unitatis Redintegratio, the Council says that some schisms are incomplete, while other schisms are complete. The Arian schism was a complete schism, while the Eastern schism is still an imcomplete schism since the excommunication has been lifted. ADM (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "a distinction that came after the Second Vatican Council" - nonsense. This distinction is nothing new and nothing hard to grasp. Excommunication is a punishment (no matter whether latae setentiae or imposed) for certain acts, among which are apostasy, heresy, schism etc. Str1977 (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I was thinking of the concept of ecclesiology of communion, a conciliar notion that has had a significant impact on Catholic-Orthodox relations and Catholic-Protestant relations, since it defines the Church in terms of interpersonal communication of the bishops and the faithful. It would be intesting if we had an entry on that, it could help with our series of articles on ecumenism. ADM (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In what sense was there ever a complete schism between West & East? Until the 1720s there were often people simultaneously in communion with both sides. Peter jackson (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Schism vs. Excommunication

message: He was excommunicated by papal legate(s) after the Pope had died & before the next was elected. Legal validity questionable. Peter jackson (talk) 10:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I addressed that but want to clarify that the "before the next was elected" doesn't really make any difference. The legates were legates of Leo IX and the bull was written by Leo IX and hence the bull became void with Leo's death. The election of a new Pope did not change that. In order to be valid the new Pope would have to issue a new bull. Str1977 (talk) 12:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite so. I mentioned that simply to answer a hypothetical objection that the hypothetical new Pope might have done so. Peter jackson (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cerularius 

message: Let's not forget that Halley's Comet was excommunicated by Pope Callixtus III in 1456. Can we have a sub-section on "Things excommunicated.."?86.42.198.146 (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an amusing story, but apparently not true. If it were true, however, I would probably just list it with everything else rather than creating a subsection. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: While the comet doubtless alarmed everybody (including Church officials), they were not so ignorant to think you could excommunicate an "apparition". The papal bull, a copy of which exists, does not mention the comet, but does ask for prayers against the attacks of the Mongols against Western Europe. They may well have figured the two were somehow connnected, having no scientific knowledge of comets at the time. See Catholic Encyclopedia which has a credible explanation, or the Wikipedia articles, or anything else that is credible. After the Reformation, everything got exaggerated. Student7 (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Our Halley's Comet article points out that the bit about excommunicating the comet was made up by a French guy in the eighteenth century. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Halley's Comet

message: The citation given for the 18th-century excommunication of members of Freemasonry is not about the 18th-century world. It is a BusinessWorld article about a 21st-century statement by the bishops of the Philippines. Therefore it does not apply to the stated fact. I also reverted an assertion that the excommunication did not apply in certain countries, because that was also not supported by the source given. We need a better source. I don't doubt that one is available. Elizium23 (talk) 05:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed verification on Freemasonry 

message: If I go to the Wikipedia article of Bernard Fellay, one of those excommunicated bishops, I find the following ALONG WITH A CITATION:
"By a decree of 21 January 2009 (Protocol Number 126/2009), which was issued in response to a renewed request that Bishop Fellay made on behalf of all four bishops whom Lefebvre had consecrated on 30 June 1988, the Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, by the power expressly granted to him by Pope Benedict XVI, remitted the automatic excommunication that they had thereby incurred, and expressed the wish that this would be followed speedily by full communion of the whole of the Society of Saint Pius X with the Church, thus bearing witness, by the proof of visible unity, to true loyalty and true recognition of the Pope's Magisterium and authority."
I don't know how to edit in citations, but you have that one available for THIS article on Wikipedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  citation is available elswhere on Wikipedia  -- lifting (2009) of 1988 excommunication of 4 bishops 

message: The article starts off well with famous notable people who were excommunicated. Then gets side-tracked in the 20th & 21st centuries with non-notable people created by the media, apparently to "make a point" about the Catholic Church. These people, individual priests mostly, should probably be rm, to retain the quality of entries in the first 19 centuries or so. 
Or maybe change the lead to read "most famous people in the first 19 centuries, followed by just about anybody in the 20th and 21st, as the media dictates." Student7 (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true that the way Wikipedia editors go about doing their thing, we have a lot more articles on borderline notable 21st- and 20th-century figures than we do on truly important ones from longer ago (or even important but less media-loved ones from these days, such as literature scholars). Can you elaborate on what guideline you propose we use for inclusion? "Existence of an article" is pretty objective and easy to maintain - are you suggesting we be more restrictive than that, or would that work? (It would remove only a few entries from the present list.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable? or not?

message: Haven't we been through this sort of thing with the Brazil case? Canon Law 1398 applies automatically to anyone carrying out an abortion. It doesn't require announcement. The bishops may have become carried away, misquoted, or misunderstood. Lawmakers, it appears were never actually excommunicated, nor were those who "promoted" the law. Student7 (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a rephrasing that you think would be useful? "Bishops said that..."? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Uruguay

message: There is no decree by the Pope, there is only an off-the-cuff comment by him. The preponderance of reliable secondary sources indicate only that he said this thing, and none indicate that he issued any notice or took any action for it. Elizium23 (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: There is no decree or confirmation with respect to certain individuals

message: In spite of clear consensus against broadening the scope of this article, it has been broadened, and therefore I have modified the lede paragraph to reflect this new scope. Elizium23 (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no consensus for broadening.  So both the broadening and the alteration of the lead must be undone.  We cannot stuff the article with excommunications of classes of people rather than of individuals.  Doing so would mean listing, with dates, the excommunications of publishers of heretical and schismatic books, those marrying before a non-Catholic minister, those marrying with an even implicit agreement that some or all of the children will be brought up outside the Catholic Church, those who knowingly have their children baptized by a non-Catholic minister, parents or guardians who knowingly have children educated in a non-Catholic religion, fabricators, vendors, distributors and presenters of false relics, those making money from indulgences, those who make laws or decrees against the freedom and rights of the Church, freemasons and members of similar associations conspiring against legitimate civil authorities, those who order ecclesiastical burial to be given to apostates, heretics, schismatics and the like, those who carry out an abortion ... to cite only a few of those mentioned in the 1917 Code of Canon Law alone.  Esoglou (talk) 11:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broadening 

message: This proposal is essentially the corollary to the one above. I am proposing it against my desire to see it enacted, in order to perfectly clarify what we intend to do with the scope of this article. I hereby propose to broaden the scope of this article to include notable incidents of effective or de facto excommunication. This is stated to include times when Catholics were denied Holy Communion or another sacrament on the basis of their state of sin, or their disbelief in the tenets of the Catholic Church. Examples include Lesbian denied Communion Missouri priest under fire and Sebelius prohibited from Communion. Elizium23 (talk) 01:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this would be a problem as long as we adhere to list rules that are not atypical, that is, requiring bluelinks and/or sourcing to demonstrate notability. (I don't know how you feel about some of the non-bluelinks here. Are they things that theoretically could support an article if anyone went and made one?) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal: broaden scope of article

message: We have consensus forming to oppose both the limitation and the broadening of this article's scope. It is a  particularly peculiar situation that the scope is already limited per the first proposal, according to the comments in the lede section. So to those of you who oppose limiting the scope, I pose the following question: Do you oppose the current scope of the article as it stands now? And if so, please propose criteria for the scope you envision this article to encompass, because if so many people also oppose broadening it, then what in the world should it be? Elizium23 (talk) 07:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It is doubtful if anyone opposes the current scope.  Let well enough alone.  Esoglou (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

text: It seems pretty decent right now with its scope. It seems like you're pretty passionate about this Elizium. I wonder whats the deal? Is there anything in particular that makes this article need help? Do you think that something about this article is misleading or has important consequences for not having a broader or more narrow scope?Prasangika37 (talk) 11:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Three people above in the RFC have weighed in as opposing the current scope. Elizium23 (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Current scope is easily understood, making article easy to maintain. Student7 (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Current scope is fine. Broadening it may "cast to wide net", opening for inclusion due to misunderstandings or subjective appearances. Mannanan51 (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: So what IS the scope of this article?

message: His 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article says that he was excommunicated in 1860 when he accepted the annexation of Romagna. Alekksandr (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Then add what this reliable source says.  Esoglou (talk) 09:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Now done. Alekksandr (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The citation appeared to be a poor scan of several encyclopedia pages (WP:TERTIARY. I couldn't read them. Most articles say that he was excommunicated after defeated the pope militarily and confining him to Vatican City. Student7 (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Victor Emmanuel II]] of Italy

message: Should this list include people who were only threatened with excommunication, not actually excommunicated?  Two such people has very recently been added.  The fact that the list includes at least one case in which a bishop stated that people had been automatically excommunicated who turned out not to have in fact been excommunicated does not allow me to answer with a simple No.  Esoglou (talk) 20:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Just rm one before reading your remark. This must have been an oft-threatened event back in the good old days. It wouldn't even have to be the pope or bishop who made the threat. Worse, it wouldn't even have to be anything the bishop or pope was contemplating! A threat someone invented on the spot! "Dozens" wouldn't cover the quantity, probably hundreds, at least. It hasn't always been easy justifying the actual excommunication. Finding WP:RS for threatened ones would be difficult, to say the least. I suggest sticking to the announced WP:TOPIC and it's explanation in the lead. Student7 (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Threat of excommunication 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on List of people excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071026024620/http://www.pncc.org:80/who_history.htm to http://www.pncc.org/who_history.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Toggled  –107.10.198.48 (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of people excommunicated by the Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761571996/Juan_Peron.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140223153757/http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/impresso%2Ccnbb-desautoriza-iniciativa-de-bispo%2C338133%2C0.htm to http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/impresso%2Ccnbb-desautoriza-iniciativa-de-bispo%2C338133%2C0.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120316160505/http://www.zenit.org/article-20441?l=french to http://www.zenit.org/article-20441?l=french
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It says he was excommunicated but the source cited is "A history of warfare between science and theology" which is well known to be mostly propoganda and not true history since it exaggerates and misinterprets many things.Ilikerabbits! (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  excommunication of Dr. Gregorio Chil y Naranjo 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of people excommunicated by the Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201203702/http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/cuba-fidel-castro-papa-el-papa-pope-vaticano-vatican-12303/ to http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/cuba-fidel-castro-papa-el-papa-pope-vaticano-vatican-12303/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following was removed as not a neutral point of view:
:By attempting to excommunicate the faithful who attended Masses at the Society of St. Pius X the bishop acted outside his authority and contrary to a ruling by then Cardinal Ratzinger. Ratzinger, as Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, had determined in 1993 by a decree that six lay faithful who attended Mass at a SSPX chapel in Hawaii were not committing a schismatical act and therefore a 1991 excommunication by the bishop of Honolulu was invalid.
That the members of the group excommunicated object to being excommunicated and claim it was invalid is interesting, but unsurprising. The Catholic Church did not rule the excommunication was invalid, the SSPX did. And they were the ones excommunicated. The case in Hawaii does not affect the case in Nebraska - different jurisdictions, different reasons for excommunication. Unless someone can provide a document from the CDF or the diocese that lifts or invalidates the action, the Church certainly sees it as valid and binding. Not that they needed to be excommunicated, as they are already in schism by their own action. Protoclete (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  SSPX in Lincoln 

message: , Many statements mentioned in the article appear to be contradictory to the reality. Does Catholic Church endorse or validates posthumous excommunications? If so please provide sources before reverting edits. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Church Councils of the middle ages and late roman empire did name people as excommunicated who had died before the council took place. I suggest that you could look up the original text of those councils and see for yourself if you think this is something unsourced. Not only this, but posthumous lifting of excommunications has also occurred; for example the 1054 excommunication of eastern Patriarch was lifted by the Vatican in the 20th century. I don't know what the modern 21st century Catholic church says about the topic of posthumous excommunications, but if you have sources relevant to that topic, I think you could post them here for others to look at as well as whatever suggestions you have regarding how to change the article in accordance with them. Reesorville (talk) 09:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Posthumous Excommunications 

message: The page mentions below the listing for Arius an excommunicated individual named Celestius, who is claimed to be a fellow leader of Arianism. However the page it links to is about a Caelestius, who was a student of Pelagius and linked to Pelagianism. I know enough to recognize the distinct nature of these two topics, so it looks like an error in some form or another (either as a mistaken link or a case of mistaken identity by the author). As I’m no editor (or have any experience how to otherwise mark issues), I thought I’d draw attention to it for someone else to reconcile. 50.109.115.221 (talk) 04:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celestius vs Caelistius