Indeed
without this instrument of coercion the ecclesiastical judges would
have been impotent.
Excommunication was of two kinds, the lesser and the greater. The
former was in constant use (to employ the words of a contemporary
document) "for manifest and wilful contumacy or disobedience in not
appearing when ... summoned for a cause ecclesiastical, or when any
sentence or decree of the bishop or his officer, being deliberately
made, was wilfully disobeyed...."[163] Even under the lesser
excommunication a man could not attend service, and he was deprived of
the use of the sacraments.[164] If an excommunicate sought to enter
church with the congregation, either he had to be forcibly expelled or
the service could not proceed.[165] If he continued in his contempt of
court he made himself liable to the greater excommunication,[166] and
then he was virtually an outcast from the society of his fellow
parishioners.[167] That excommunication was feared by the great
majority of parish folk there is no reason to doubt. Certainly the
greater excommunication might seriously injure a man in his business
as well as his social interests, not to mention the trouble and
expense of getting an absolution.[168] That excommunication reduced
most offenders to order the church court proceedings demonstrate.
Pages:
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51