Forgery, Forger

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

If we accept the definition usually given by canonists, forgery (Latinfalsum) differs very slightly fromfraud. "Forgery", saysFerraris, who claims that his definition is the usually accepted one, "is afraudulent interference with, or alteration of,truth, to the prejudice of a thirdperson". It consists in the deliberate untruthfulness of an assertion, or in the deceitful presentation of an object, and is based on an intention to deceive and to injure while using the externals of honesty. Forgery is truly a falsehood and afraud, but it is something more. It includesfraudulent misdemeanours in matters regulated by thelaw, and endangering the public peace. These misdemeanours are divided by canon law writers into three classes — according as the crime is committed by word, by writing, or by deed. The principal crime in each of these classes beingfalse witness, falsification of public documents, and counterfeiting money. A fourth category consists in making use of such forgery, and is equivalent to forgery proper. This classification, while slightly superficial, is exact, and presupposes the fundamental malice of the crime in question, viz., that it is prejudicial to public security and injurious to the interests ofsociety at large, rather than to those of the individual.

Social order is seriously affected byfalse witness, which cripples the operation ofjustice; by the change or alteration of public documents, which hinders a right and proper administration of public affairs, and lastly, by the coining of base money, which hampers trade and commerce. If forgery is committed by public officials in violation of their professionalduties, the crime becomes more serious, and more prejudicial to public order. The interests of privateindividuals, therefore, while not excluded, are secondary when this offence is in question, and it is for this reason that the penalties incurred by forgery, or complicity therein, are independent of the amount of damage it inflicts onindividuals. Oral forgeries, e.g.falseoaths,false witness (canonists add the crime of the judge who knowingly pronounces anunjust sentence), are treated under OATH;WITNESS; JUDGE. On the other handfalsecoinage does not immediately concern ecclesiastical law, though some attention is paid it in the "Corpus Juris Canonici" and in various canon law treatises.John XXII punishedfalsecoinage byexcommunication (Extrav. "Gradiens", Joan. XXII, de crimine falsi) and compared forgers toalchemists (Extrav. "Spondent", inter comm.). In manydioceses this crime was long a reservedsin (e.g. inNaples; "Prompta Bibliotheca", s.v.; seeNeapolitan edition ofFerraris, s.v.Falsum, n. 35). By such penal measures theecclesiastical authority merely assisted in suppressing a crime gravely prejudicial to civil welfare; it did not come before it as a crime against ecclesiastical law.

We are here concerned only with forgery properly so-called, i.e. the falsification of public documents and writings, especiallyApostolic letters. What is here said of latter, is also applicable, in due measure, to all public documents emanating from theRoman Curia or episcopal courts. The canonical legislation on this matter is better understood when we recall that the more usual form of this crime, and the source of judicial inquiries and consequent penalties, was the production of absolutelyfalse documents and the alteration of authentic decisions, for the sake of certain advantages, e.g. abenefice, or a favourable verdict.

The forging of documents for purely historical purposes, with no intention of influencing administrative or legislative authority, does not fall within our scope. (For an account of several such forgeries see A. Giry, "Manuel de diplomatique", Paris, 1894, II, 861-87, and Wattenbach, "Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen", 9th ed. appendix.) We are concerned only with the falsification of Apostolic Letters, the only form of forgery that incursexcommunicationipso facto specially reserved to thepope. The most serious form of forgery is that committed by a public functionary charged to draw up or authenticate official documents, who violates his professionalduties, by the fabrication offalse documents, by forging a signature, byfraudulent use of an official seal, a stamp, or the like. There is no precise text in canon law punishing these crimes, and canonists always refer toRoman law, especially to the Lex Cornelia "de crimine falsi" (ff. XLVIII). Nevertheless in ecclesiastical law they are serious crimes; and instances might be given of officials of theRoman Curia who suffered death for such forgeries. Domenico ofViterbo and Francesco Maldente were tried and executed for this crime in 1489. They had forged, among other documents, aBull authorizing thepriests ofNorway to celebrateMass without wine (Benedict XIV, "De Beatif.", II, c. XXXII, n. 2; Pastor, "History of the Popes", tr. V, 351). Again the subdatarius, Francesco Canonici, called Mascabruno, was condemned todeath on 5 April, 1652, for many forgeries discovered only on the eve of his elevation to thecardinalate.

Canon law deals mainly with the attempt to put forgeries to a specific use. It connects forgery and the use of forged documents, on the presumption that he who would make use of such documents must be either the author or instigator of the forgery. In canon law, forgery consists not only in the fabrication or substitution of an entirelyfalse document, "as when afalse bulla, or seal, is affixed to afalse letter" (Licet v, "De crimine falsi"), but even by partial substitution, or by any alteration affecting the sense and bearing of an authentic document or any substantial point, such as names, dates, signature, seal, favour granted, by erasure, by scratching out or by writing one word over another, and the like. The classical and oft-commented text on this matter is the chapter Licet v, "De crimine falsi" in whichInnocent III (1198) points out to thebishop and chapter ofMilan nine species of forgery which had come under his notice. This famous instruction was given in order to enable his correspondents to guard against futurefraud. Following his teaching the gloss on this chapter enumerates among the six points a judge should examine into in order to discover a forgery:

Forma, stylus, filum, membrana, litura, sigillum.
Haec sex falsata dant scripturam valere pusillum.

In other words a document is suspect,

If a judge discovers an evident forgery he ought to repudiate the document and punish the guilty party; but in case he considers it merelydoubtful he ought to make inquiries at the office of theRoman Curia which is supposed to have issued it.

Substitution offalse documents and tampering with genuine ones was quite a trade in theMiddle Ages. In the chapter Dura vi, "De crimine falsi", written in 1198, (pars decisa),Innocent III relates that he had discovered andimprisoned forgers who had prepared a number offalseBulls, bearing forged signatures either of his predecessor or of himself. To obviate abuses, he orders under pain ofexcommunication or suspension that pontificalBulls be received only from the hands of thepope or of the officials charged to deliver them. He ordersbishops to investigate suspicious letters, and to make known, to all those having forged letters, that they are bound to destroy them, or to hand them over within twenty days, under pain ofexcommunication. The samepope legislated severely against forgery and the use of forged documents. In the chapter Ad falsariorum, vii, "De crimine falsi", written in 1201, forgers of Apostolic Letters, whether the actual criminals or their aiders and abetters, are alikeexcommunicated, and ifclerics, are ordered to be degraded and given over to the secular arm.

Whoever makes use of Apostolic Letters is invited to assure himself of their authenticity, since to use forged letters is punished in the case ofclerics by privation ofbenefice and rank, and in the case oflaymen byexcommunication. Theexcommunication threatened byInnocent III, and extended to the forgery of supplicas or pontificaldispensations, was incorporated in theBull "In Cœna Domini" (no. 6), and passed thence with some modifications into the constitution"Apostolicæ Sedis", where it is number 9 among theexcommunicationslatœ sententiœ specially reserved to thepope. It affects "all falsification ofApostolic Letters, even in the form of Briefs, and supplicas concerning favours sought or dispensations asked for, which have been signed by the Sovereign Pontiff, or the vice-chancellors of the Roman Church or their deputies, or by order of the pope", also all those who falsely publish Apostolic Letters, even those in the form ofBrief; lastly, all those who falsely sign these documents with the name of the Sovereign Pontiff, the vice-chancellor or their deputies. The documents in question here are of two sorts:

It is from these supplicas thus signed that the official document conveying the concession is drawn up. Consequentlyrescripts of theRoman Congregations and of other offices, which are not signed by thepope or by his order, do not come under this heading.

The acts of falsification herein punished byexcommunication are fewer than formerly. In the first place, the principal crime is the only one dealt with; the aiders and abettors of the forgery are not mentioned. In the next place, by a strict interpretation, allowable in penal matters but; certainly opposed to the spirit of theDecretals ofInnocent III, recent canonists exempt from theipso facto censure forgers of entire Apostolic Letters, and bring under it only those who seriously alter authentic documents. It iscertain, in any case, that the wordfabricantes of theBull "In Cœna Domini" becomespublicantes in the Constitution"Apostolicæ Sedis". There are therefore three acts contemplated by the latter text; the falsification, in the strict sense of the word, of Apostolic Letters and supplicas; the publication offalse Apostolic Letters; the forging of signatures to supplicas. The "publication" which incurs this censure is not the material divulgation of a document, but presupposes that such document is offered as, and affirmed to be, authentic. Supplicas with forged signatures it would be useless to publish since they cannot take the place of the official document conveying the concession; but the officials issuing Apostolic Letters on the strength of such signed supplicas would have been misled by thefalse signature. It must be remembered that all other forms of forgery which escape theipso factoexcommunication are subject to penalties and censures "ferendœ sententiœ" according to the gravity of the case.

To have their full official weight before a tribunal, public documents must be presented either in the original, or in copies certified by some public officer. Hence the note of falsification does not attach to reproductions devoid of all guarantee of authenticity; nevertheless such reproductions are sometimes seriously criminal because of the perverse intention of their authors. Leitner ("Præl. Jur. Can." lib. V, tit. xx, in a note) gives two examples offraudulent reproductions of this nature.Frederick II ofPrussia forged aBrief ofClement XIII, and dated it 30 January, 1759, by which thepope was made to send his congratulations and a blessed sword to the Austrian Marshal Daun, after the battle of Hochkirch. ABull purporting to be byPius IX,dated 28 May, 1873, modifying thelaw in vigour for the election of a pope was forged, with the connivance at least, of thePrussian Government. Anotherfalse document, published by many newspapers in 1905, authorized the marriage ofpriests in South America, but no one placed any credence in it. (SeeBULLS AND BRIEFS.)

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT