 |
|
| A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z |
This subject will be treated under the following heads:
I. General Notions and Historical Summary;
II. Kinds of Excommunication;
III. Who Can Excommunicate?
IV. Who Can Be Excommunicated?
V. Effects of Excommunication;
VI. Absolution from Excommunication;
VII. ExcommunicationsLatæ Sententiæ Now in Force.
Excommunication (Latinex, out of, andcommunio orcommunicatio, communion — exclusion from the communion), the principal and severest censure, is a medicinal, spiritual penalty that deprives the guiltyChristian of all participation in the commonblessings ofecclesiasticalsociety. Being a penalty, it supposes guilt; and being the most serious penalty that theChurch can inflict, it naturally supposes a very grave offence. It is also a medicinal rather than a vindictive penalty, being intended, not so much to punish the culprit, as to correct him and bring him back to the path of righteousness. It necessarily, therefore, contemplates the future, either to prevent the recurrence of certain culpable acts that have grievous external consequences, or, more especially, to induce the delinquent to satisfy theobligations incurred by his offence. Its object and its effect are loss of communion, i.e. of the spiritual benefits shared by all the members ofChristiansociety; hence, it can affect only those who bybaptism have been admitted to thatsociety. Undoubtedly there can and do exist other penal measures which entail the loss of certain fixedrights; among them are other censures, e.g. suspension forclerics,interdict forclerics andlaymen, irregularityex delicto, etc. Excommunication, however, is clearly distinguished from these penalties in that it is the privation of allrights resulting from the social status of theChristian as such. The excommunicatedperson, it istrue, does not cease to be aChristian, since hisbaptism can never be effaced; he can, however, be considered as an exile fromChristiansociety and as non-existent, for a time at least, in the sight ofecclesiastical authority. But such exile can have an end (and theChurch desires it), as soon as the offender has given suitable satisfaction. Meanwhile, his status before theChurch is that of a stranger. He may not participate in public worship nor receive the Body of Christ or any of thesacraments. Moreover, if he be acleric, he is forbidden to administer a sacred rite or to exercise an act of spiritual authority.
The right to excommunicate is an immediate andnecessary consequence of the fact that theChurch is asociety. Everysociety has theright to exclude and deprive of theirrights and social advantages its unworthy or grievously culpable members, either temporarily or permanently. This right isnecessary to everysociety in order that it may be well administered and survive. The fundamentalproof, therefore, of theChurch's right to excommunicate is based on her status as a spiritualsociety, whose members, governed by legitimate authority, seek one and the same end through suitable means. Members who, by their obstinate disobedience, reject the means of attaining this common end deserve to be removed from such asociety. This rational argument is confirmed by texts of theNew Testament, the example of the Apostles, and the practice of theChurch from the first ages down to the present. Among theJews, exclusion from thesynagogue was a real excommunication (Ezra 10:8). This was the exclusion feared by theparents of the man born blind (John 9:21 sq.; cf.12:42;16:2); the same likewise that Christ foretold to His disciples (Luke 6:22). It is also the exclusion which in due time theChristian Church should exercise: "And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as theheathen andpublican" (Matthew 18:17). In the celebrated text: "Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also inheaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also inheaven" (Matthew 18:18; cf.16:19), it is not only the remission ofsins that is referred to, but likewise allspiritual jurisdiction, including judicial and penal sanctions. Such, moreover, was thejurisdiction conferred on St. Peter by the words: "Feed my lambs"; "feed my sheep" (John 21:15, 16, 17).St. Paul excommunicated regularly the incest Corinthians (1 Corinthians 5:5) and the incorrigible blasphemers whom he delivered over toSatan (1 Timothy 1:20). Faithful to the Apostolic teaching and example, theChurch, from the very earliest ages, was wont to excommunicateheretics and contumaciouspersons; since the fourth century numerous conciliary canons pronounce excommunication against those who are guilty of certain offences. Of the facts there can be nodoubt (Seitz, Die Heilsnotwendigkeit der Kirche, Freiburg, 1903).
In the firstChristian centuries it is not always easy to distinguish between excommunication and penitential exclusion; to differentiate them satisfactorily we must await the decline of the institution of public penance and the well-defined separation between those things appertaining to theforum internum, or tribunal ofconscience and theforum externum, or publicecclesiastical tribunal; nevertheless, the admission of a sinner to the performance of public penance was consequent on a previous genuine excommunication. On the other hand, formal exclusion from reception of the Eucharist and the othersacraments was only mitigated excommunication and identical with minor excommunication (see below). At any rate, in the first centuries excommunication is not regarded as a simple external measure; it reaches thesoul and theconscience. It is not merely the severing of the outward bond which holds the individual to his place in theChurch; it severs also the internal bond, and the sentence pronounced on earth is ratified inheaven. It is the spiritual sword, the heaviest penalty that theChurch can inflict (see the patristic texts quoted in theDecree of Gratian, cc. xxxi, xxxii, xxxiii, C. xi, q. iii). Hence in theBull "Exsurge Domine" (16 May, 1520)Leo X justly condemnedLuther's twenty-third proposition according to which "excommunications are merely external punishments, nor do they deprive a man of the common spiritualprayers of theChurch".Pius VI also condemned (Auctorem Fidei, 28 Aug., 1794) the forty-sixth proposition of the Pseudo-Synod of Pistoia, which maintained that the effect of excommunication is only exterior because of its own nature it excludes only from exterior communion with theChurch, as if, said thepope, excommunication were not a spiritual penalty binding inheaven and affectingsouls. The aforesaid proposition was therefore condemned asfalse, pernicious, already reprobated in the twenty-third proposition ofLuther, and, to say the least,erroneous. Undoubtedly theChurch cannot (nor does it wish to) oppose any obstacle to the internal relations of thesoul withGod; she even imploresGod to give the grace of repentance to the excommunicated. The rites of theChurch, nevertheless, are always the providential and regular channel through whichDivine grace is conveyed toChristians; exclusion from such rites, especially from thesacraments, entails therefore regularly the privation of this grace, to whose sources the excommunicatedperson has no longer access.
While excommunication ranks first amongecclesiastical censures, it existed long before any such classification arose. From the earliest days of theChristiansociety it was the chief (if not the only)ecclesiastical penalty forlaymen; for guiltyclerics the first punishment was deposition from their office, i.e. reduction to the ranks of thelaity. Subsequently, whenecclesiastical discipline allowedclerics more easily to resume their ministry, the ancient deposition became suspension; thenceforth evenclerics were subject to excommunication, by which they lost at once theirrights asChristians and asclerics. Bothlaymen andclerics were henceforth threatened or punished with excommunication for offences that became daily more definite and numerous, particularly for refusing obedience either to specialecclesiasticalprecepts or the generallaws of theChurch. Once theforum externum, or publicecclesiastical tribunal, was distinctly separated from theforum sacramentale, or tribunal of sacramental penance, say from the ninth century on, excommunication became gradually an ever more powerful means of spiritual government, a sort of coercive measure ensuring the exact accomplishment of thelaws of theChurch and theprecepts of herprelates. Excommunication was either threatened or inflicted in order to secure the observance offasts and feasts, the payment oftithes, the obedience of inferiors, the denunciation of the guilty, also to compel thefaithful to make known toecclesiastical authority matrimonial impediments and other information.
This extension of the use of excommunication led to abuses. The infliction of so grave a penalty for offences of a less grievous kind and most frequently impossible to verify before the publicecclesiastical authority, begot eventually a contempt for excommunication. Consequently theCouncil of Trent was forced to recommend to allbishops andprelates more moderation in the use of censures (Sess. XXV, c. iii, De ref.). The passage is too significant to be here omitted: "Although the sword of excommunication is the very sinews ofecclesiastical discipline, and very salutary for keeping the people to the observance of theirduty, yet it is to be used with sobriety and great circumspection; seeing that experience teaches that if it be wielded rashly or for slight causes, it is more despised than feared, and works moreevil than good. Wherefore, such excommunications which are wont to be issued for the purpose of provoking a revelation, or on account of things lost orstolen, shall be issued by no one whomsoever but thebishop; and not then, except on account of some uncommon circumstance which moves thebishop thereunto, and after the matter has been by him diligently and very maturely weighed." Then follow equally explicit measures for the use of censures in judicial matters. This recommendation of theCouncil of Trent has been duly heeded, and the use of censures as a means of coercion has grown constantly rarer, the more so as it is hardly ever, possible for theChurch to obtain from thecivil power the execution of such penalties.
In the course oftime, also, the number of canonical excommunications was excessively multiplied, which fact, coupled with their frequent desuetude, made it difficult toknow whether many among them were always in force. The difficulty was greater as a large number of these excommunications were reserved, for which reasontheologians with much ingenuity construed favourably said reservation and permitted the majority of thefaithful to obtainabsolution without presenting themselves inRome, or indeed even writing thither. In recent times the number of excommunications in force has been greatly diminished, and a new method of absolving from them has been inaugurated; it will doubtless find a place in the new codification of the canon law that is being prepared. Thus, without change of nature, excommunicationin foro externo has become an exceptional penalty, reserved for very grievous offences detrimental toChristiansociety;in foro interno it has been diminished and mitigated, at least in regard to the conditions forabsolution from it. However, as can readily be seen from a perusal of the excommunications actually in force, it still remainstrue that what theChurch aims at is not so much the crime as the satisfaction to be obtained from the culprit in consequence of his offence.
Finally, real excommunication must not be confounded with a measure formerly quite frequent, and sometimes even known as excommunication, but which was rather a refusal of episcopal communion. It was the refusal by abishop to communicatein sacris with anotherbishop and his church, in consideration of an act deemed reprehensible and worthy of chastisement. It was undoubtedly with this withdrawal of communion thatPope Victor threatened (or actually punished) thebishops ofAsia in the paschal controversy (Eusebius,Church History V.24); it was certainly the measure to whichSt. Martin of Tours had recourse when he refused to communicate with theSpanishbishops who causedEmperor Maximinus to condemn to death theheretic Priscillian with some of his adherents (Sulpicius Severus, Dial., iii, 15). Moreover, a similar privation of communion was in earlyChristian times imposed by councils as a regular penalty forbishops found guilty of certain minor faults; the most frequent example is that ofbishops who, without good reason, neglected to attend the provincial council (so the Councils of Carthage, 401, can. xi;Agde, 506, can. xxxv; Tarragona, 516, can. vi; II Mâcon, 585, can. xx; etc.). Thesebishops were evidently not excommunicated, properly speaking; they continued to govern theirdioceses and publicly to holdecclesiastical services; they were simply deprived, as the aforesaid texts say, of the consolation of communion with their episcopal brethren.
Until recently excommunication was of two kinds, major and minor.
(a) Minor excommunication is uniformly defined by canonists and byGregory IX (cap. lix, De sent. exc., lib. V, tit. xxxix) as prohibition from receiving thesacraments, whattheologians call the passive use of thesacraments. In order to receive the Eucharist and the othersacraments, those who had incurred this penalty had to be absolved therefrom; as it was not reserved, this could be done by any confessor. Indirectly, however, it entailed other consequences. The canon law (cap. x, De cler. excomm. ministrante, lib. V, tit. xxvii) taught that thepriest who celebrates Mass while under the ban of minor excommunicationsins grievously; also that hesins similarly in administering thesacraments; and finally, that while he can vote for others, he himself is ineligible to a canonical office. This is readily understood when we remember that the cleric thus excommunicated was presumed to be in the state of grievoussin, and that such a state is an obstacle to the lawful celebration of Mass and the administration of thesacraments. Minor excommunication was really identical with the state of the penitent of olden times who, prior to his reconciliation, was admitted to public penance. Minor excommunication was incurred by unlawful intercourse with the excommunicated, and in the beginning no exception was made of any class of excommunicatedpersons. Owing, however, to many inconveniences arising from this condition of things, especially after excommunications had become so numerous,Martin V, by the Constitution "Ad evitanda scandala" (1418), restricted the aforesaid unlawful intercourse to that held with those who were formally named aspersons to be shunned and who were therefore known asvitandi (Latinvitare, to avoid), also with those who werenotoriously guilty of striking acleric. But as this twofold category was in modern times greatly reduced, but little attention was paid to minor excommunication, and eventually it ceased to exist after the publication of the Constitution"Apostolicæ Sedis". The latter declared that all excommunicationslatæ sententiæ that it did not mention were abolished, and as it was silent concerning minor excommunication (by its nature an excommunicationlatæ sententiæ of a special kind), canonists concluded that minor excommunication no longer existed. This conclusion was formally ratified by the Holy Office (6 Jan., 1884, ad 4).
(b) Major excommunication, which remains now the only kind in force, is therefore the kind of which we treat below, and to which our definition fully applies.Anathema is a sort of aggravated excommunication, from which, however, it does not differ essentially, but simply in the matter of special solemnities and outward display.
Excommunication is eithera jure (by law) orab homine (by judicial act of man, i.e. by a judge). The first is provided by thelaw itself, which declares that whosoever shall have been guilty of a definite crime will incur the penalty of excommunication. The second is inflicted by anecclesiasticalprelate, either when he issues a serious order under pain of excommunication or imposes this penalty by judicial sentence and after a criminal trial.
Excommunication, especiallya jure, is eitherlatæ orferendæ sententiæ. The first is incurred as soon as the offence is committed and by reason of the offence itself (eo ipso) without intervention of anyecclesiastical judge; it is recognized in the terms used by the legislator, for instance: "the culprit will be excommunicated at once, by the fact itself [statim, ipso facto]". The second is indeed foreseen by thelaw as a penalty, but is inflicted on the culprit only by a judicial sentence; in other words, the delinquent is rather threatened than visited with the penalty, and incurs it only when the judge has summoned him before his tribunal, declared him guilty, and punished him according to the terms of thelaw. It is recognized when thelaw contains these or similar words: "under pain of excommunication"; "the culprit will be excommunicated".
Excommunicationferendæ sententiæ can be public only, as it must be the object of a declaratory sentence pronounced by a judge; but excommunicationlatæ sententiæ may be either public or occult. It is public through the publicity of thelaw when it is imposed and published byecclesiastical authority; it is public throughnotoriety of fact when the offence that has incurred it is known to the majority in the locality, as in the case of those who have publicly doneviolence toclerics, or of the purchasers ofchurch property. On the contrary, excommunication is occult when the offence entailing it is known to no one or almost no one. The first is valid in the forum externum and consequently in the forum internum; the second is valid in the forum internum only. The practical difference is very important. He who has incurred occult excommunication should treat himself as excommunicated and be absolved as soon as possible, submitting to whatever conditions will be imposed upon him, but this only in the tribunal ofconscience; he is notobliged to denounce himself to a judge nor to abstain from external acts connected with the exercise ofjurisdiction, and he may askabsolution without making himself known either in confession or to the Sacred Penitentiaria. According to the teaching ofBenedict XIV (De synodo, X, i, 5), "a sentence declaratory of the offence is alwaysnecessary in the forum externum, since in this tribunal no one is presumed to be excommunicated unless convicted of a crime that entails such a penalty". Public excommunication, on the other hand, is removed only by a publicabsolution; when it is question of simple publicity of fact (see above), theabsolution, while not judicial, is nevertheless public, inasmuch as it is given to a knownperson and appears as an act of the forum externum.
Public excommunication in foro externo has two degrees according as it has or has not been formally published, or, in other words, according as excommunicatedpersons are to be shunned (vitandi) or tolerated (tolerati). A formally published or nominative excommunication occurs when the sentence has been brought to theknowledge of the public by a notification from the judge, indicating by name theperson thus punished. No special method is required for this publication; according to theCouncil of Constance (1414-18), it suffices that "the sentence have been published or made known by the judge in a special and express manner". Persons thus excommunicated are to be shunned (vitandi), i.e. the faithful must have no intercourse with them either in regard to sacred things or (to a certain extent) profane matters, as we shall see farther on. All other excommunicatedpersons, even though known, aretolerati, i.e. thelaw no longer obliges thefaithful to abstain from intercourse with them, even in religious matters. This distinction dates from the aforesaid Constitution "Ad evitanda scandala", published byMartin V at theCouncil of Constance in 1418; until then one had to avoid communion with all the excommunicated, once they were known as such. "To avoid scandal and numerous dangers", saysMartin V, "and to relieve timorous consciences, we hereby mercifully grant to all the faithful that henceforth no one need refrain from communicating with another in the reception or administration of thesacraments, or in other matters Divine or profane, under pretext of anyecclesiastical sentence or censure, whetherpromulgated in general form by law or by a judge, nor avoid anyone whomsoever, nor observe anecclesiastical interdict, except when this sentence or censure shall have been published or made known by the judge in special and express form, against some certain, specifiedperson, college,university, church, community, or place." But whilenotoriously excommunicatedpersons are no longer vitandi, thepope makes an exception of those who have "incurred the penalty of excommunication by reason of sacrilegiousviolence against acleric, and sonotoriously that the fact can in no way be dissimulated or excused". He declares, moreover, that he has not made this concession in favour of the excommunicated, whose condition remains unchanged, but solely for the benefit of thefaithful. Hence, in virtue of ecclesiastical law, the latter need no longer deprive themselves of intercourse with those of the excommunicated who are "tolerated". As to the vitandi, now reduced to the two aforementioned categories, they must be shunned by the faithful as formerly. It is to be noted now that the minor excommunication incurred formerly by these forbidden relations has been suppressed; also, that of the major excommunications inflicted on certain definite acts of communion with the vitandi, only two are retained in the Constitution"Apostolicæ Sedis" (II, 16, 17): that inflicted on any of the faithful for participation in a crime that has merited nominative excommunication by thepope, and that pronounced againstclerics alone for spontaneous and conscious communionin sacris withpersons whom thepope has excommunicated by name. Moreover, those whombishops excommunicate by name are as much vitandi as are those similarly excommunicated by thepope.
Finally, excommunication is either reserved or non-reserved. This division affects theabsolution from censure. In the forum internum any confessor can absolve from non reserved excommunications; but those that are reserved can only be remitted, except throughindult or delegation, by those to whom thelaw reserves theabsolution. There is a distinction between excommunications reserved to thepope (these being divided into two classes, according to which they are either specially or simply reserved to him) and those reserved tobishops or ordinaries. As to excommunications ab homine,absolution from them is reserved by law to the judge who has inflicted them. In a certain sense excommunications may also be reserved in view of thepersons who incur them; thusabsolution from excommunications in foro externo incurred bybishops is reserved to thepope; again, custom reserves to him the excommunication of sovereigns.
Excommunication is an act ofecclesiastical jurisdiction, the rules of which it follows. Hence the general principle: whoever hasjurisdiction in the forum externum, properly so called, can excommunicate, but only his own subjects. Therefore, whether excommunications be a jure (by thelaw) or ab homine (under form of sentence or precept), they may come from thepope alone or ageneral council for the entire Church; from the provincial council for anecclesiastical province; from thebishop for hisdiocese; from theprelatenullius for quasi-diocesan territories; and from regularprelates forreligious orders. Moreover, anyone can excommunicate who, by virtue of his office, even when delegated, has contentiousjurisdiction in the forum externum; for instance,papal legates, vicars capitular, and vicars-general. But aparishpriest cannot inflict this penalty nor even declare that it is incurred, i.e. he cannot do so in an official and judicial manner. The subjects of these various authorities are those who come under theirjurisdiction chiefly on account of domicile or quasi-domicile in their territory; then by reason of the offence committed while on such territory; and finally by reason of personal right, as in the case of regulars.
Since excommunication is the forfeiture of the spiritual privileges ofecclesiasticalsociety, all those, but those only, can be excommunicated who, by any right whatsoever, belong to thissociety. Consequently excommunication can be inflicted only onbaptized and livingpersons. Although theChurch recites against thedevilexorcisms in which the wordanathema occurs, he cannot be excommunicated, for he in no way belongs to theChurch. Among livingpersons, those who have not beenbaptized have never been members of theChristiansociety and therefore cannot be deprived of spiritual benefits to which they have never had a right; in this way, infidels,pagans,Mohammedans, andJews, though outside of theChurch, are not excommunicated. As thebaptized cease, at death, to belong to theChurch Militant, the dead cannot be excommunicated. Of course, strictly speaking, after the demise of aChristianperson, it may be officially declared that suchperson incurred excommunication during his lifetime. Quite in the same sense he may be absolved after his death; indeed, theRoman Ritual contains the rite for absolving an excommunicatedperson already dead (Tit. III, cap. iv: Ritus absolvendi excommunicatum jam mortuum). However, these sentences or absolutions concern only the effects of excommunication, notablyecclesiastical burial. With the foregoing exceptions, all who have beenbaptized are liable to excommunication, even those who have never belonged to thetrue Church, since by theirbaptism they are really her subjects, though of course rebellious ones. Moreover, theChurch excommunicates not only those who abandon thetruefaith to embraceschism orheresy, but likewise the members ofheretical andschismatic communities who have been born therein. As to the latter, however, it is not question of personal excommunication; the censure overtakes them in their corporate capacity, as members of a community in revolt against thetrueChurch of Jesus Christ.
Catholics, on the contrary, cannot be excommunicated unless for some personal, grievously offensive act. Here, therefore, it isnecessary to state with precision the conditions under which this penalty is incurred. Just as exile presupposes a crime, excommunication presupposes a grievous external fault. Not only would it be wrong for aChristian to be punished without having committed a punishable act, butjustice demands a proportion between the offence and the penalty; hence the most serious of spiritual chastisements, i.e. forfeiture of all the privileges common toChristians, is inconceivable unless for a grave fault. Moreover, in order to fall within thejurisdiction of the forum externum, which alone can inflict excommunication, this fault must be external. Internal failings, e.g.doubts entertained against theCatholicFaith, cannot incur excommunication. Note, however, that by external fault is not necessarily meant a public one; an occult external fault calls forth occult excommunication, but in foro interno, as already seen. Most authors add that the offence must be consummated, i.e. complete and perfected in its kind (in genere suo), unless the legislator haveordained otherwise. This, however, is a rule of interpretation rather than a real condition for the incurring of censure, and is tantamount to saying that attempt at a crime does not entail the penalty meted out to the crime itself, but that if the legislator declares that he wishes to punish even the attempt, excommunication is incurred (cf. Const. "Apost. Sedis", III, 1, for attempt at marriage on part ofclerics in major orders).
Considered from a moral and juridical standpoint, the guilt requisite for the incurring of excommunication implies, first, the full use of reason; second sufficient moral liberty; finally, aknowledge of thelaw and even of the penalty. Where suchknowledge is lacking, there is nocontumacy, i.e. no contempt of ecclesiastical law, the essence of which consists in performing an action known to be forbidden, and forbidden under a certain penalty. The prohibition and the penalty are known either through the text of thelaw itself, which is equivalent to a juridical warning, or through admonitions or proclamations issued expressly by theecclesiastical judge. Hence arise various extenuating reasons (causæ excusantes), based on lack of guilt, which prevent the incurring of excommunication:
(1) Lack of the full use of reason. This excuses children, also those who have not attained the age of puberty, and, a fortiori, the demented. Inadvertence, however, is not presumed; while it may affect moral responsibility and excommunication in foro externo, it is no obstacle to juridical guilt.
(2) Lack of liberty resulting from grave fear. Such fear impairs the freedom of the will, and while it existscontumacy or rebellion against thelaws of theChurch cannot be presumed. Evidently, a proper estimation of this extenuating reason depends on the circumstances of each particular case and will be more readily accepted as an excuse for violating a positive law than in palliation of an offence against the natural orDivine law.
(3) Ignorance. The general principle is, that whosoever isignorant of thelaw is not responsible for transgressing it; and whosoever isignorant of the penalty does not incur it. But the application of this principle is often complicated and delicate. The following considerations, generally admitted, may serve as a guide:
If we consider only its nature, excommunication has no degrees: it simply deprivesclerics andlaymen of all theirrights inChristiansociety, which total effect takes on a visible shape in details proportionate in number to therights or advantages of which the excommunicated cleric orlayman has been deprived. The effects of excommunication must, however, be considered in relation also to the rest of thefaithful. From this point of view arise certain differences according to the various classes of excommunicatedpersons. These differences were not introduced out of regard for the excommunicated, rather for the sake of thefaithful. The latter would suffer serious inconveniences if the nullity of all acts performed by excommunicatedclerics were rigidly maintained. They would also be exposed to grievous perplexities ofconscience if they were strictlyobliged to avoid all intercourse, even profane, with the excommunicated. Hence the practical rule for interpreting the effects of excommunication: severity as regards the excommunicated, but mildness for thefaithful. We may now proceed to enumerate the immediate effects of excommunication. They are summed up in the two well known verses:
Res sacræ, ritus, communio, crypta, potestas,
prædia sacra, forum, civilia jura vetantur,
i.e. loss of thesacraments, public services andprayers of theChurch,ecclesiastical burial,jurisdiction,benefices, canonicalrights, and social intercourse.
These are thesacraments; the excommunicated are forbidden either to receive or administer them. Thesacraments are of course validly administered by excommunicatedpersons, except those (penance and matrimony) for whose administrationjurisdiction isnecessary; but the reception of thesacraments by excommunicatedpersons is always illicit. The licit administration of thesacraments by excommunicatedecclesiastics hinges upon the benefit to be derived by thefaithful. Ecclesiastics excommunicated by name are forbidden to administer thesacraments except in cases of extreme necessity; apart from this necessity penance and matrimony administered by suchecclesiastics are null (Decret. "Ne temere", art. iv). Excommunicatedecclesiastics tolerati, however, may licitly administer thesacraments to the faithful who request them at their hands, and the acts ofjurisdiction thus posited are maintained by reason of the benefit accruing to thefaithful, most frequently also because of commonerror (error communis), i.e. a generalbelief in the good standing of suchecclesiastics. The faithful, on their side, may, withoutsin, ask tolerated excommunicatedecclesiastics to administersacraments to them; they would, however,sin grievously in making this request of the vitandi, except in case of urgent necessity.
Hereby are meant the Mass, theDivine Office, and other sacred ceremonies. An excommunicatedperson may not and should not assist at these ceremonies. If he be a toleratus, his presence need not be taken into account, and the service can be continued. If he be a vitandus he must be warned to retire, and in case of refusal he must be forcibly compelled to withdraw; but if he still persists in remaining, the service must be discontinued, even the Mass, unless the Canon has been commenced. (Benedict XIV, De sacr. Miss., sect. ii, n. 117.) Nevertheless, since the condition of an excommunicatedperson, even a vitandus, is no worse than that of an infidel, he may assist at sermons, instructions, etc., venerate images andrelics, takeholy water, and use privately othersacramentals. The excommunicated cleric is not released from any of hisobligations in regard to theDivine Office and, if bound to it, must recite it, but privately and not in the choir. A toleratus may be admitted to the choir, but a vitandus must be expelled therefrom. All excommunicatedclerics are prohibited from celebratingMass and performing other strictlyliturgical functions, under penalty of the irregularityex delicto for violation of the censure; participation in theliturgical acts performed by an excommunicated cleric is a forbiddencommunicatio in sacris; however, no censure would result from it except in the case ofclericsvoluntarily communicatingin sacris with those whom thepope had excommunicated by name (Const. "Apost. Sedis", II, 17). In each case the fault should be estimated according to circumstances.
These are, properly speaking, the public suffrages of theChurch, officialprayers,Indulgences, etc., in which the excommunicated have no share. But they are not excluded from the private suffrages (i.e. intercessory petitions) of thefaithful, who canpray for them.
This word signifiesecclesiastical burial, of which the excommunicated are deprived. In chapter xii, de sepulturis (lib. III, tit. xxviii),Innocent III says: "The canons have established that we should not hold communion after their death with those with whom we did not communicate during their lifetime, and that all those should be deprived ofecclesiastical burial who were separated from theunity of the Church, and at the moment of death were not reconciled thereunto." The Ritual (tit. VI, cap. ii, n. 2) renews this prohibition for those publicly excommunicated, and most writers interpret this as meaning those whose excommunication has been publicly proclaimed (Many, De locis sacris, p. 354), so that, under this head, the ancient discipline is no longer applicable, except to the vitandi. However this does not mean that the tolerati can always receiveecclesiastical burial; they may be deprived of it for other reasons, e.g. asheretics orpublic sinners. Apropos of this leniency, it must be remembered that it is not the excommunicated theChurch wishes to favour, but rather the faithful for whose sake communion with the tolerati is allowed in the matter of burial as well as in other matters. The interment of a toleratus in aconsecrated cemetery carries with it no longer thedesecration of said cemetery; this would follow, however, in the case of the vitandi. (SeeBURIAL.)
Potestas signifiesecclesiastical jurisdiction, of which both the passive and the active use, to speak canonically, are forbidden the excommunicated. Jurisdiction is used passively when aperson is the object of one of its acts, of a concession. Now,ecclesiastical authority has no official relations with the exile unless, at his request, it negotiates the conditions for his return tosociety. Connected with this discipline is the rule forbidding the excommunicated to receive from thepope any kind ofrescript (of grace orjustice), except in regard to their excommunication, under pain of nullity of suchrescript (c. xxvi, de rescriptis, lib. I, tit. iii, and c. i, eod., in VI). Hence the custom of inserting inpapal rescripts the so-calledad effectumabsolution from censures, intended solely to ensure the value of therescript, but affecting in no wise the excommunication, if already existent. Jurisdiction is used actively when exercised by its depositaries. It is easy to understand that theChurch cannot leave herjurisdiction in the hands of those whom she excludes from hersociety. In principle, therefore, excommunication entails the loss ofjurisdiction both in foro externo and in foro interno and renders null all acts accomplished without thenecessaryjurisdiction. However, for the general good ofsociety, theChurch maintainsjurisdiction, despite occult excommunication, and supplies it for acts performed by the tolerati. But as the vitandi are known to be such, this merciful remedy cannot be applied to them except in certain cases of extreme necessity, whenjurisdiction is said to be "supplied" by theChurch.
Pr dia sacra areecclesiastical benefices. The excommunicated ecclesiastic is incapable of acquiring abenefice, and his presentation to it would be legally null. Abenefice already held is not forfeited at once, even when to the censure thelaw adds privation ofbenefice; this is carried into effect only through a sentence which must be at least declaratory and issue from a competent (i.e. the proper) judge. Nevertheless, from the very first the excommunicated beneficiary loses those fruits of hisbenefice belonging to choir service, provided he is bound thereunto. Moreover, should he live a year in the state of excommunication, he can be deprived of hisbenefice through judicial sentence. The aforesaid effects do not result from occult excommunication.
The excommunicatedperson is an exile fromecclesiasticalsociety, consequently from its tribunals; only inasmuch, however, as they would be to his advantage. On the other hand, if he be summoned before them to satisfy a third party he isobliged to appear. Hence he cannot appear as plaintiff,procurator, or advocate; he may be the defendant, or the party accused. At this point the difference between the vitandi and the tolerati consists in this, that the former must be prevented from introducing any legal action before anecclesiastical tribunal, whereas the latter can be debarred from so doing only when the prosecutor alleges and proves excommunication as already incurred. It is a question here only of public excommunication and beforeecclesiastical tribunals.
Civilia jura, i.e. the ordinary relations between members of the samesociety, outside of sacred and judicial matters. This privation, affecting particularly theperson excommunicated, is no longer imposed on the faithful except in regard to the vitandi. Themedieval canonists enumerated the prohibited civil relations in the following verse:
namely:
(a) conversations, exchange of letters, tokens of benevolence (osculum);
(b)prayer in common with the excommunicated;
(c) marks ofhonour and respect;
(d) business and social relations;
(e) meals with the excommunicated.
But at the same time they specified the reasons that rendered these relations licit:
that is to say:
(a) both the spiritual and the temporal benefit of the excommunicated and of the faithful;
(b) conjugal law;
(c) the submission owed by children, servants, vassals, and subordinates in general;
(d)ignorance of excommunication or of the prohibition of a particular kind of intercourse;
(e) finally, any kind of necessity, as human law, is not binding to this degree.
All the effects that we have just enumerated are the immediate results of excommunication, but it also causes remote effects, which are not anecessary consequence and are only produced when theperson censured occasions them. They are three in number:
(1) The cleric who violates excommunication by exercising one of theliturgical functions of his order, incurs an irregularityex delicto.
(2) The excommunicatedperson who remains a year without making any effort to obtainabsolution (insordescentia) becomes suspected ofheresy and can be followed up and condemned as guilty of such (Council of Trent, Sess. XXV, cap. iii, De ref.; cf.Ferraris, s.v. "Insordescens").
(3) This neglect makes it the judge'sduty to deprive the excommunicated cleric of allbenefices, though some judges postpone for three years the fulfilment of thisobligation (see Hollweck, Die kirchlichen Strafgesetze, art. 1, note 3).
An excommunication is said to be null when it is invalid because of some intrinsic or essential defect, e.g. when theperson inflicting it has nojurisdiction, when the motive of the excommunication is manifestly incorrect and inconsistent, or when the excommunication is essentially defective in form. Excommunication is said to beunjust when, though valid, it is wrongfully applied to aperson really innocent but believed to be guilty. Here, of course, it is not a question of excommunication latæ sententiæ and in foro interno, but only of one imposed or declared by judicial sentence. It is admitted by all that a null excommunication produces no effect whatever, and may be ignored withoutsin (cap. ii, de const., in VI). But a case ofunjust excommunication brings out in a much more general way the possibility of conflict between the forum internum and the forum externum, between legaljustice and the real facts. In chapter xxviii, de sent. excomm. (Lib. V, tit. xxxix),Innocent III formally admits the possibility of this conflict. Somepersons, he says, may be free in the eyes ofGod but bound in the eyes of theChurch; vice versa, some may be free in the eyes of theChurch but bound in the eyes ofGod: forGod's judgment is based on the verytruth itself, whereas that of theChurch is based on arguments and presumptions which are sometimeserroneous. He concludes that the chain by which the sinner is bound in the sight ofGod is loosed by remission of the fault committed, whereas that which binds him in the sight of theChurch is severed only by removal of the sentence. Consequently, apersonunjustly excommunicated is in the same state as the justly excommunicated sinner who has repented and recovered the grace ofGod; he has not forfeited internal communion with theChurch, andGod can bestow upon him allnecessary spiritual help. However, while seeking to prove his innocence, the censuredperson is meanwhile bound to obey legitimate authority and to behave as one under the ban of excommunication, until he is rehabilitated or absolved. Such a case seems practically impossible nowadays.
Apart from the rare cases in which excommunication is imposed for a fixed period and then ceases of itself, it is always removed byabsolution. It is to be noted at once that, though the same word is used to designate the sacramental sentence by whichsins are remitted and that by which excommunication is removed, there is a vast difference between the two acts. Theabsolution which revokes excommunication is purely jurisdictional and has nothing sacramental about it. It reinstates the repentant sinner in theChurch; restores therights of which he had been deprived, beginning with participation in thesacraments; and for this very reason, it should precede sacramentalabsolution, which it thenceforth renders possible and efficacious. Afterabsolution from excommunication has been given in foro externo, the judge sends theperson absolved to a confessor, that hissin may be remitted; whenabsolution from censure is given in the confessional, it should always precede sacramentalabsolution, conformably to the instruction in the Ritual and the very tenor of the formula for sacramentalabsolution, It may be noted at once that the principal effect ofabsolution from excommunication may be acquired without the excommunicatedperson's being wholly reinstated in his former position. Thus, an ecclesiastic might not necessarily recover thebenefice which he had lost; indeed he might be admitted to lay communion only. Ecclesiastical authority has theright to posit certain conditions for the return of the culprit, and everyabsolution from excommunication calls for the fulfilment of certain conditions which vary in severity, according to the case.
Excommunication, it must be remembered, is a medicinal penalty intended, above all, for the correction of the culprit; therefore his firstduty is to solicit pardon by showing an inclination to obey the orders given him, just as it is theduty ofecclesiastical authority to receive back the sinner as soon as he repents and declares himself disposed to give the required satisfaction. This satisfaction is often indicated in thelaw itself; for instance, usurpers ofecclesiastical property are excommunicated until such time as they make restitution (Council of Trent, Sess. XXII, c. xi); and again, it is determined by the judge who grantsabsolution or theindult for absolving. Besides expiatory practices habitually known as "penance", such satisfaction exacts opportune measures for the reparation of the past, as well as guarantees for the future. It is not alwaysnecessary that these measures be executed prior toabsolution, which is frequently granted on the solemn promise of the excommunicated party either to accomplish a specified act, such as coming to an agreement with theChurch for theproperty usurped, or simply to abide by the orders ofecclesiastical authority (standi mandatis ecclesi ). In such casesabsolution is not unusually given under pain of "reincidence" (ad reincidentiam), i.e., if within a definite period theperson censured has not accomplished a certain specified act, he reincurs the same excommunication; his status is just as if he had never been absolved. However, this clause of reincidence is not to be presumed; when occasion requires, it is inserted in the sentence ofabsolution or in theindult granted for that purpose.
The formula ofabsolution from excommunication is not strictly determined, and, since it is an act ofjurisdiction, it suffices if the formula employed express clearly the effect which it is desired to attain. The formula for remitting the excommunication in foro externo should be such as to absolve validly from public excommunication. Similarly, an excommunication imposed by judicial sentence is to be revoked by anabsolution in the same form; occult excommunication may be revoked in the confessional by the sacramental formula. TheRoman Ritual (tit. LII, c. ii) gives the formula ofabsolution used in foro externo and states that in foro internoabsolution is given in the usual sacramental form.
The answer is given in the customary rules ofjurisdiction. Theright to absolve evidently belongs to him who can excommunicate and who has imposed thelaw, moreover to anyperson delegated by him to this effect, since this power, being jurisdictional, can be delegated. First, we must distinguish between excommunication ab homine, which is judicial, and excommunication a jure, i.e. latæ sententiæ. For the former,absolution is given by the judge who inflicted the penalty (or by his successor), in other words by thepope, or thebishop (ordinary), also by the superior of said judge when acting as judge of appeal. As to excommunication latæ sententiæ, the power to absolve is either ordinary or delegated. Ordinary power is determined by thelaw itself, which indicates to what authority the censure is reserved in each case. Delegated power is of two kinds: that granted in permanency and set down in thelaw and that granted or communicated by personal act, e.g. by authority (faculties) of the Roman Penitentiaria, by episcopal delegation for special cases, or bestowed upon certainpriests. Of this second kind of delegation there is no need to speak, as it belongs to each one to verify the power (faculties) that he possesses. Delegation of the first kind carries with it the power to absolve from excommunication without special request or particular faculties. Such power is in this case conferred by thelaw itself. Nevertheless this power is subject to the general law that governs delegation and is valid only for the cases and under the conditions mentioned in the concession. Thus faculties granted for the forum internum cannot be extended to the forum externum, nor can those granted for specially reserved excommunications be used for simply reserved cases, and so on. However, the faculties proceeding from both kinds of delegation may be "cumulated", i.e. may be held and exercised by the sameperson.
These principles admitted, we must remember that with reference to reservation or theright to absolve, excommunications are divided into four classes: excommunications specially reserved to thepope; excommunications simply reserved to thepope; excommunications reserved to thebishop (ordinary); and, finally, excommunications that are not reserved (nemini reservat ). According to this classification, as a general rule, only thepope can absolve from the first two kinds of excommunication, although his power extends to the others;bishops (ordinaries), but not otherpriests, can remove excommunications of the third class; finally, those of the fourth class, and those only, can be revoked by any approvedpriest, without further special delegation. At this point, however, must be considered certain concessions of thelaw that may be grouped in three categories: the permanent faculties ofbishops; concessions for urgent cases; and concessions for the point of death.
TheCouncil of Trent (Sess. XXIV, c. vi, De ref.) authorizesbishops to absolve their own subjects in their owndioceses from all excommunications, consequently from those reserved to theHoly See, when occult or, rather, not pertaining to the forum externum. They can exercise this power either in person or through a special delegate of their choice, but in the tribunal ofconscience only. However, the Constitution"Apostolicæ Sedis" restricted this provision of the council to excommunications simply reserved to thepope, so that, without specialindult,bishops can no longer absolve from specially reserved cases, even in foro interno. On the other hand, theindults they receive are more or less liberal and widely communicable.
In the chapter "Nuper" (xxix, de sent. excomm., lib. V, tit. xxxix),Innocent III sets forth the principle that governs such cases: "When it is difficult for the excommunicatedperson to go to him who excommunicated him, he may be absolved by hisbishop or even by his ownpriest, on promising to obey the orders of him by whom excommunication was pronounced." This is the principle thatmoralists and canonists formulated as an axiom:Impedito casus papalis fit episcopalis: in case of one who is prevented from presenting himself to thepope, the excommunication reserved to thepope may be removed by thebishop. But most authors carried the analogy still further: for him who is prevented from presenting himself to thebishop, the excommunication may be removed by any confessor. In regard to theobligation of submitting to the orders of thepope or thebishop, themoralists and canonists generally taught as follows: First, no one wasobliged to apply in writing (correct as to the removal of excommunication, thoughInnocent III says nothing of this kind concerning a request for information). Then they distinguished between obstacles that were more or less prolonged: perpetual obstacles were such as exceed five years; obstacles of long duration were those lasting over six months; and obstacles of short duration, those continuing for less than six months. When the obstacle was perpetual thebishop or, if he could not be reached, anypriest might absolve without appealing to the superior; this could also be done, but not withoutobligation of recourse to the superior on the cessation of the obstacle, when the latter was of long duration, provided there were urgency. Finally, the authors drew up a long list of those who were supposed to be unable to present themselves in person to thepope; and this list included almost every one (Gury, Theol. Moralis, II, nn. 952 and 375). This practice, far more lenient than was intended byInnocent III, has been recently profoundly modified by adecree of the Congregation of theInquisition (Holy Office)dated 23 June, 1886. Henceforth "in urgent cases whenabsolution cannot be deferred without danger of gravescandal orinfamy, which is left to the conscientious appreciation of the confessor, the latter, after having imposed thenecessary satisfaction, can absolve, without other faculties, from all censure; even those specially reserved to theHoly See, but under pain or reincidence under the same censure if, within a month, the penitent thus absolved does not recur to theHoly See by letters and through the medium of the confessor." This new method has been more precisely explained and even rendered easier by subsequentpapal decisions. Theabsolution thus given is direct (Holy Office, 19 Aug., 1891), and although recourse to the Penitentiaria isobligatory, its object is not to ask a newabsolution, but only to solicit the order of theChurch, the penitent, as stated above, having had to make a serious promise to conform to them (standi mandatis Ecclesi ). The power thus granted in urgent cases is valid for all cases, without exception, reserved by law to thepope or the ordinary, even for theabsolution of an accomplice (Holy Office, 7 June, 1899).
As to what constitutes a state of urgency, the reply of 16 June, 1897, is very reassuring, since it permitsabsolution from censures "as soon as it becomes too distressing to the penitent to remain in the state ofsin during the timenecessary for soliciting and receiving fromRome the power to absolve". Now, according to themoralists it is too much to remain even a day or two in the state ofsin, especially forpriests. The appeal, though usually made through the medium of the confessor, can be made by the penitent himself if he be capable; indeed he should write himself if he cannot easily return to the same confessor (Cong. of the Penitentiaria, 7 Nov., 1888). Finally, if both confessor and penitent find it impossible to appeal by letters, these may be dispensed with (Holy Office, 18 Aug., 1898). The letters should be addressed to the Congregation of the Penitentiaria and should contain information concerning allnecessary circumstances, but under afalse name (Sacr. Pen., 7 Nov., 1888). If the interested party, though able to appeal to theHoly See, fails to do so within a month from the time of receivingabsolution, he or she incurs the former censures, which remain effective until there is a newabsolution followed by recourse toRome. There would, however, be no reincidence if the interval of a month were to expire through the confessor's fault. It is to be noted that this sanction of reincidence applies to all censures reserved to thepope, but not to those reserved by law to the ordinaries. Finally, this method is notobligatory for censures reserved to ordinaries bydiocesan law. Bishops, however, could profitably apply it to such censures, and some have already done so.
It is a principle repeatedly set forth in canon law that at the point of death all reservations cease and allnecessaryjurisdiction is supplied by theChurch. "At the point of death", says theCouncil of Trent (Sess. XIV, c. vii), "in danger of death", says the Ritual (tit. III, cap. i, n. 23), anypriest can absolve from allsins and censures, even if he be without the ordinary faculties of confessors, or if he himself be excommunicated; he may do so even in presence of anotherpriest properly authorized (Holy Office, 29 July, 1891). The Constitution"Apostolicæ Sedis" expressly maintains this merciful concession, merely adding, for the case in which the moribund is restored to health, theobligation of having recourse to theHoly See, if he has been absolved from excommunication specially reserved to thepope, unless he prefers to askabsolution of a confessor provided with special faculties. This recourse, although identical with that of which we have just spoken for urgent cases, nevertheless differs from it on two points: it is not imposed for theabsolution from excommunications simply reserved, and the short delay of a month is not counted from the time of receivingabsolution, but from the time of recovery.
In the preamble of the Constitution"Apostolicæ Sedis",Pius IX stated that during the course of centuries, the number of censures latæ sententiæ had increased inordinately, that some of them were no longer expedient, that many weredoubtful, that they occasioned frequent difficulties ofconscience, and finally, that a reform wasnecessary. On this headPius IX had anticipated the almost unanimous request of theCatholic episcopate presented at theVatican Council (Colleetio Lacensis, VII, col. 840, 874, etc.). The number of excommunications latæ sententiæ enumerated by themoralists and canonists is really formidable:Ferraris (Prompta Biblioth., s.v. Excommunicatio, art. ii-iv) gives almost 200. The principal ones were destined to protect theCatholicFaith, theecclesiastical hierarchy and itsjurisdiction, and figured in theBull known as"In Coena Domini" read publicly each year inRome, onHoly Thursday. In time, this document had received various additions (Ferraris, loc. cit., art. ii, the text ofClement XI), and from it the Constitution"Apostolicæ Sedis" derives excommunications specially reserved, with exception of the tenth. The Constitution ofPius IX deals with no penalties other than censures; it leaves intact all censures ferendæ sententiæ but suppresses all censures latæ sententiæ that it does not retain. Now, besides those which it enumerates it retains:
(1) the censures decreed (and not simply mentioned) by theCouncil of Trent;
(2) the censures of speciallaw, i.e. those in vigour for papal elections, those enforced inreligious orders and institutes, in colleges, communities, etc. As to the censures enumerated, they should be interpreted as if pronounced for the first time, and ancient texts should be consulted for them only in so far as such texts have not been modified by the new law.
Thus the excommunications latæ sententiæ enforced today by common law in theCatholicChurch proceed from three sources:
(A) those enumerated in the Constitution"Apostolicæ Sedis";
(B) those pronounced by theCouncil of Trent; and
(C) those introduced subsequently to the Constitution"Apostolicæ Sedis", i.e. later than 12 October, 1869.
We enumerate them here with a brief commentary.
These are divided into four categories:
(a) those speciallyreserved to thepope;
(b) those simplyreserved to thepope;
(c) thosereserved to thebishop (ordinary);
(d) those notreserved to anyone.
These are twelve in number and are imposed upon the followingpersons:
(1) "Allapostates from theChristian Faith,heretics of every name andsect, and those who give them credence, who receive or countenance them, and generally all those who take up their defence." Strictly speaking, anapostate is one who goes over to a nonChristian religion, e.g.Islam; to suchapostates are assimilated those who publicly renounce all religion; thisapostasy is not to be presumed; it is evident that both kinds ofapostates exclude themselves from theChurch. Aheretic is one who rejects aCatholicdogma. The first to be considered is theheretic who becomes such of his own volition; who, being in theCatholicChurch, obstinately repudiates atruth offaith. Excommunication is incurred by him, if, with fullknowledge, he exteriorly formulates anheretical proposition; and if he seeks to propagate hiserror he isdogmatizans and should be denounced. Next comes theheretic who belongs to anheretical association; for such aperson hisheretical membership alone is sufficient to bring him under sentence of excommunication. In his case the penalty is incurred by adhesion to theheresy, notably by wilful and active participationin sacris (i.e. in public worship) withheretics; hence the excommunication of those who contract amixed marriage before anheretical minister as such (Holy Office, 28 Aug., 1888). Finally, the penalty extends to those whobelieve inheretics (credentes) and join their ranks; to those who receive them, i.e. who give them shelter in their homes, so as to protect them from the pursuit of authority; and to those who countenance or defend them asheretics and in view of theheresy, provided it be a positive and efficacious assistance.
(2) "All those who knowingly read, without permission of theApostolic See, books by these sameapostates andheretics and upholdingheresy, as also the books of any authors whomsoever specifically prohibited by Letters Apostolic, and all who keep, print, or in any way defend these same books." Afterhereticalpersons comeheretical books. The act that incurs excommunication is, first, reading done to a considerable extent and culpably, i.e. by one who knows the nature of the books and of the excommunication, and who, moreover, has not thenecessary permission. The secondary acts punishable with the same penalty are the keeping in one's possession, the printing (rather the publishing), and, finally, the defence, by word or by writing, of the books in question. These books are of two kinds: first, those written byapostates, orheretics, and which uphold and commendheresy, two conditions that must exist simultaneously; second, books specifically condemned, i.e., by mention of their titles, not bydecree of the Index, but by Letters from thepope himself,Bulls or Briefs, and under pain of excommunication (for a list of these books see Hilgers, "Der Index der verbotenen Bücher", Freiburg, 1904, p. 96; and "Die Bücherverbote in Papstbriefen", Freiburg, 1907).
(3) "Schismatics and those who elude or obstinately withdraw from the authority of the reigningRoman pontiff." The schismatics here referred to are of two kinds: those who are such because they belong to separated Churches which reject the authority of thepope, and those who, beingCatholics, become schismatics by reason of obstinate disobedience to the authority of thepope as such.
(4) "All those, of no matter what state, rank, or condition, who appeal from the ordinances or mandates of the reigningRoman pontiff to a futureecumenical council, and all who have given aid, counsel, or countenance to this appeal." The appeal from the commands of thepope to a futureecumenical council, not only implies the superiority of the council over the pontiff, but is pre-eminently an act of injurious disobedience to the Head of theChurch. Were this appeal efficacious it would render all church government impossible, unless it be accepted that the normal state of theChurch is ageneral council in perpetual session, or at least meeting at short intervals. This extreme Gallicanism is justly punishable with excommunication. The penalty is visited upon all those who have influenced such act of appeal, either by aid, counsel, or support. This excommunication, however, is to be strictly interpreted; it would not be incurred in consequence of an appeal made to a futurepope, theHoly See being vacant, or to ageneral council actually assembled.
(5) "All who kill, mutilate, strike, seize, incarcerate, detain or pursue with hostile intent,cardinals,patriarchs,archbishops,bishops,legates ornuncios of theHoly See, or drive them from theirdioceses, jurisdictions, estates, or domains, as also those who ratify these measures or further them by aid or countenance." The object of this penalty is not so much to protect the members of theclergy, like the celebrated excommunication of the canon "Si quis suadente diabolo", of which we shall speak below, but rather to safeguard theprelates or superiors in whom theChurch has lodged herjurisdiction. The text clearly indicates the acts punished by excommunication, i.e. all violent attacks on theperson of aprelate as such; it likewise specifies the culprits, i.e. those who perpetrate such assaults and those who are responsible for them, as also their active accomplices.
(6) "Those who directly or indirectly prevent the exercise ofecclesiastical jurisdiction, either in foro interno or in foro externo, and who, for this purpose, have recourse to the secular tribunal; also those who provoke or deliver the orders of this tribunal or lend it their aid, counsel, or support." The preceding article protects those who are the depositaries ofjurisdiction; the present article protects the exercise of saidjurisdiction. It punishes any obstacle raised against the delivery or execution of a sentence or decision of theecclesiastical authority. It is not question here of the power of order (potestas ordinis) or of facts that do not really implyjurisdiction, e.g. a simple contract. Nor is it question of measures taken withprelates so as to influence them into exercising theirjurisdiction in a given direction, e.g. to confer abenefice on Caius or withhold one from Titius; this censure is meant to punish any obstacle that really prevents action on the part of aprelate who wishes to perform an act ofjurisdiction or to carry it into effect. He is directly prevented whenviolence is used against him; indirectly, when his subordinates are prevented from acting. The chief opposition here considered is recourse to secular and especially judicial authority. Excommunication is therefore incurred under this head by all who provoke the intervention of secular tribunals, provided such intervention actually follow; by all who deliver orders or directions intended to prevent the exercise ofecclesiastical jurisdiction; finally, by all who co-operate in these acts with aid, counsel, or support, unless under compulsion.Moralists and canonists exempt from this penalty the clerks and servants of the secular courts.
(7) "Those who directly or indirectlyoblige lay judges to citeecclesiastical persons before their tribunal, except in cases provided for by canonical agreements, also those who enactlaws or decrees against the liberty orrights of theChurch." The first part of this article has for its object the protection of the privileges of the ecclesiastical forum, i.e. of thoseecclesiastics whose right it is to be judged byecclesiastical tribunals; consequently, those are excommunicated whooblige lay judges to summonclergymen before their tribunal in cases where thisecclesiastical privilege (privilegium fori) should be respected. But the judges themselves, who act by virtue of their office, are not excommunicated (Holy Office, 1 Feb., 1870). Those who thus force lay judges to violate the privilegium fori are of two kinds: namely, those who actually citeecclesiastics before secular judges, and the legislators or makers oflaws detrimental to therights of theChurch. The first are not excommunicated provided they have no other means of obtainingjustice, i.e. when thelaws of the country in question do not recognize the aforesaidecclesiastical privilegium fori (Holy Office, 23 Jan., 1886). There remains, therefore, of this censure little more than the second part of the article, which now affects chiefly the legislators responsible forlaws and decrees against the liberty andrights of theChurch. The regulations governing excommunications have been renewed and somewhat extended by the Motu Proprio "Quantavis diligentia" of 9 October, 1911.
(8) "Those who have recourse to lay power for the prevention of Apostolic Letters or Acts of any kind emanating from theApostolic See or from itslegates or delegates; those who directly or indirectly prohibit thepromulgation of these acts or letters, or who, on the occasion of suchpromulgation, strike or terrify either the parties interested or third parties." This article should be compared with number 6 (above), from which it differs in that it protects, not all exercise ofecclesiastical jurisdiction, but that which theHoly See exercises in its official letters, it being eminently important to ensure the free communication of the faithful withRome. The letters in question are: first, Apostolic Letters, in which thepope himself speaks,Bulls, Briefs, Encyclicals, etc.; second, the Acts of theHoly See emanating fromRoman Congregations or other organs of theCuria, which constitute but one authority with thepope (Holy Office, 13 Jan., 1892); finally, the acts of the official representatives of thepope, e.g.papal legates and delegates. The excommunication considers not only Letters that concern all thefaithful, but also those regardingindividuals, e.g. grants ofbenefices,dispensations, etc. This admitted, the penalty applies to three classes ofpersons, namely: those who resort tosecular power, not only judicial but administrative, to prevent these Letters from being published or from producing their effect; those who, by means of authority, prevent such publication or execution; and finally, those who, on the occasion of these Letters, strike or terrify either the beneficiaries or even third parties who take part in their publication or execution. According to the more probable opinion, excommunication is incurred even if these measures of opposition do not produce the intended results.
(9) "All falsifiers of Apostolic Letters, even in the form of aBrief, and of petitions concerning matters of grace orjustice signed by theRoman pontiff, or by cardinal vice-chancellors or those who replace them, or simply by command of thepope; also those who falsely publish Apostolic Letters, even in the form of aBrief; and finally, those who falsely sign petitions of this kind with the name of theRoman pontiff, of the vice-chancellor, or of those who replace them." This excommunication punishes what is generally known asforgery, not in all its forms, but in so far as it affects such pontifical letters or grants as are issued through the tribunals known as the "Segnatura Gratiæ" and the "Segnatura Justitiæ", i.e. whence issuepapal favours purely benevolent or connected with litigation. It does not therefore attain forgeries affecting the letters of grants of theRoman Congregations or ofprelates. It may be somewhat of a surprise toknow that this excommunication does not include those who fabricate an entire Apostolic Letter, the definition of falsification (falsum) meaning only a notable alteration of authentic Letters either by suppression, erasures, writing over, or substitution. Petitions addressed to thepope, when granted, are first signed by him, or by the vice-chancellor, or other officers. The grant does not thereby become official, but the petition thus signed serves as a basis for the wording of Apostolic Letters (Bulls or Briefs) that actually grant the favour requested. In this process three acts are punishable with excommunication: thefalse signing of a petition; the falsification of Apostolic Letters, and the publication of Letters thus falsified, in order to use them.
(10) "Those who absolve an accomplice in asin against chastity, and that even at the moment of death, provided anotherpriest, although he be not approved for confession, can hear the confession of the dyingperson without serious danger ofinfamy orscandal." This excommunication is not derived from theBull"In Coena Domini", but from the celebrated Constitution ofBenedict XIV, "Sacramentum Pœnitentiæ" (1 June, 1741), completed by his Constitution "Apostolici muneris" (8 Feb., 1745). By theseBulls thepope, with a view to protecting theSacrament of Penance from sacrilegious abuse, withdraws alljurisdiction from a confessor for absolving fromsins against chastity which he may have committed with anotherperson, whether man orwoman; theabsolution he might impart for suchsin would be null, and the mere attempt to absolve would incur excommunication. Thesin thus withdrawn from thejurisdiction of the confessor is any grievous exteriorsin against the Sixth Commandment, but it must be such on both sides. The confessor accessary to it cannot pardon it, but, thissin once pardoned, he incurs no penalty by again hearing the confession of his accomplice. This being the case, excommunication is incurred by the confessor if he pronounce the formula ofabsolution after his accomplice has accused himself or herself of thissin, even though he had not the intention of absolving, or even if he only feign to absolve (Holy Office, 5 Dec., 1883), thereby allowing the penitent to suppose that he has absolved him or her; or again if he be the cause of the penitent's refraining from accusing himself or herself of thissin (S. Peniten., 19 Feb., 1896). Neither gross (crassa, supina) nor affectedignorance excuses from the censure (Holy Office, 13 Jan., 1892). There are but two cases in which excommunication is not incurred: first, under absolutely exceptional circumstances where the penitent could not approach another confessor, as the human law does not bind at the cost of such serious disadvantage; again, at the moment of death. But even thenBenedict XIV does not restore the power of absolving nor exempt from excommunication, unless it be morally impossible for the dyingperson, without grave danger ofslander orscandal, to call in another confessor; this condition, however, should be interpreted broadly.
(11) "Those who usurp or sequester thejurisdiction,property, or revenues belonging toecclesiastical persons by reason of their churches orbenefices." To usurp is to take as if it legitimately belonged to oneself that which belongs to another; hence it is that this article does not apply to thieves ofecclesiastical property (Holy Office, 9 March, 1870). To sequester is formally and authoritatively to place in the custody of a third partyproperty withdrawn from the possession of a previous owner. Therights andproperty protected by this article do not include allchurch property but only therights andproperty ofbeneficedclergy as such; they are, as a matter of fact, the principal possessions of theChurch. Otherproperty, e.g. that belonging topious establishments (opera pia) or confraternities and that intended for the maintenance or reparation of churches, is protected, indeed, by distinct censures, but its usurpation or sequestration does not incur the excommunication contemplated by this article, which was declared applicable to intrudedparishpriests inSwitzerland (Pius IX,Encyclical of 21 Nov., 1873; S. Cong. of the Council, 23 May, 1874) and inPrussia (25 Feb., 1875). It applies quite certainly to governments that despoil theChurch of herproperty.
(12) "Those who themselves or through others, invade, destroy, or detain cities, lands, places, orrights of theRoman Church, those who hold possession of, disturb, or detain its sovereignjurisdiction, and all who give aid, counsel, or countenance to these offences." This penalty applies to the authors and accomplices of the invasion and detention of the temporal domains of theHoly See.
Before enumerating those it intends to retain, the Constitution"Apostolicæ Sedis" pronounces a first excommunication of this kind against "those who presume to absolve, without the requisite faculties and under any pretext whatsoever, from excommunications that are specially reserved". This article is directed against those who dare to absolve in badfaith or rashly; a well-foundeddoubt, however, and even grossignorance may be pleaded as excuses. Then follow seventeen excommunications simply reserved, declared against the followingpersons:
(1) "Those who either publicly or privately teach or defend propositions condemned by theHoly See under pain of excommunication latæ sententiæ likewise those who teach or maintain as lawful the practice of asking the penitent the name of his or her accomplice, a practice condemned byBenedict XIV in his Constitutions 'Suprema' (7 July, 1745), 'Ubi primum' (2 July, 1746), and 'Ad eradicandam' (28 Sept., 1746)." This article contains two distinct parts. In the first it is not question of all propositions condemned bypopes or councils in terms less condemnatory (e.g. rash, offensive, etc.) than the specific stigmaheretical (to defendheretical propositions beingheresy itself and already declared a chief cause of excommunication, see above), but only those which thepopes have specifically forbidden to be maintained under pain of excommunication latæ sententiæ. These propositions are:
(a) the forty-oneerrors ofLuther condemned byLeo X, 16 May, 1520;
(b) the seventy-nine theses ofMichael Baius condemned 1 Oct., 1567, 29 Jan., 1579, and 16 March, 1641;
(c) the thesis on confession andabsolution by letter or messenger, condemned byClement VIII, 20 June, 1602;
(d) the twenty-eight propositions condemned byAlexander VII, 24 Sept., 1665;
(e) the seventeen propositions condemned by thesame pope, 18 March, 1666;
(f) the sixty-five propositions condemned byInnocent XI, 4 March, 679;
(g) the sixty-eight propositions of Miguel de Molinos condemned by the samepope, 20 November, 1687;
(h) the second of two propositions condemned byAlexander VIII, 24 August, 1690;
(i) the thirty-one propositions condemned by the samepope, 7 December, 1690;
(k) the five propositions onduelling condemned byBenedict XIV, 10 November, 1752;
(1) and finally the sixty-fiveModernistic propositions condemned bydecree of the Holy Office, 3 July, 1907, according to the Motu Proprio ofPius X, 19 November, 1907.
The text of all these propositions will be found inDenzinger's "Enchiridion Symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum", etc. (10th ed., Freiburg, 1908), also, the last series excepted, in Pennachi's "Comment. in Const. Apost. Sedis", I, 168. The second part of the article aims at the abusive practice of requiring the penitent, under pain of being refusedabsolution, to divulge the name of his or her accomplice in any crime, a dangerous practice and opposed to the conditions of secrecy under which sacramental confession is made.Benedict XIV denounced it, notably inPortugal, by the aforementioned Constitutions. It is to be noted, however, that this excommunication is not incurred by the confessor who asks a penitent the name of his or her accomplice, but only by him who teaches or maintains that this practice is permitted. Moreover, the expression "to teach or maintain" implies more than merely to affirm or share the condemned opinions.
(2) "Those who, at the instigation of thedevil,violently lay hands onecclesiastics or religious of either sex, exception being made, as regards reservation, in behalf of cases and ofpersons that thelaw or privileges allow thebishop or others to absolve." This is the celebrated privilege or immunity "of the canon" (privilegium canonis), so called from the canon "Si quis, suadente diabolo" (Decretum of Gratian, C. xvii, q. iv, c. xxix), enacted by the Council of Lateran in 1139 and intended to protect thehonour of theclergy from materialviolence and injury. Thepersons protected are all who belong to theclergy in the broad sense of the word, i.e. both minor and majorclerics,tonsuredpersons,monks,nuns,novices, and even tertiaries living in community. This privilege is to be interpreted broadly. The acts punished are all injurious corporalviolence, such as blows and wounds, a fortiori mutilation; also pursuit,imprisonment, and arrest, likewise insulting acts, such as a slap in the face, etc. The penalty is not imposed for acts that are not grievous, for verbal injuries, for excusableviolence, e.g. in the case of legitimate defence, or finally when one is unaware that he is dealing with acleric. Nowadays only the real perpetrators of these deeds are excommunicated, not accomplices nor those who are morally responsible. Once the fact is publicly known the culprits are vitandi even without being denounced by name.Absolution from this excommunication is regularly reserved to thepope, but the text of the article maintains the faculties possessed bybishops and others, such as we have heretofore indicated.
(3) "Those who fightduels, those who challenge or accept challenge thereunto, all accomplices, all who help or countenance such combats, all who designedly assist thereat, finally all who permitduelling or who do not prevent it in so far as lies in their power, no matter what their rank or dignity, be it royal or imperial." This severe discipline againstduelling dates from theCouncil of Trent (Sess. XXV, e. xix, De ref.); here, however, only the excommunication in question is considered. It aims atduelling, properly so called, by challenge and on accepted conditions, not at other single combats or altercations. Universityduels, so common inGermany, are included (S. Cong. of the Council, 29 Aug., 1890). The malice of theduel lies in the fact that it makes right depend upon the fate of arms; this penalty is extended to all who take any part whatever in these detestable combats. The excommunication is incurred, first, by theduellists themselves, not only when they actually fight, but as soon as they have proposed or accepted a challenge; next, by the official witnesses or seconds, also by physicians expressly brought upon the scene (Holy Office, 28 May, 1884), and by all spectators not accidentally present; likewise by those who permit these affairs, when such permission isnecessary, e.g. in the army, and by those who, although able to preventduelling, refrain from so doing.
(4) "Those who become members of theMasonicsect, of theCarbonari, or of other similarsects that plot either openly or secretly against theChurch or legitimate authorities; all who countenance thesesects in any way whatever, and finally, all who do not inform against the occult chiefs or leaders, i.e. until they have made such denunciations." Certain associations are prohibited because of theirevil or dangerous object; this article deals only with those to which it is forbidden to belong under pain of excommunication latæ sententiæ. These are known by their aim, which is to plot against theChurch or legitimate authorities, obviously by illicit or criminal means; this excludes at once purely political groups. It matters little whether or not thesesocieties exact secrecy from their members, though the element of secrecy constitutes an unfavourable presumption. The article names two of thesesects, theFreemasons and theCarbonari; to these we must add the Fenians (Holy Office, 12 Jan., 1870). There are four prohibited Americansocieties: the Independent Order of GoodTemplars (Holy Office, 9 Aug., 1893), the Odd Fellows, the Sons of Temperance, and the Knights of Pythias (Holy Office, 20 June, 1894), but not under pain of excommunication. In regard to thesects of which our article treats, three distinct acts incur excommunication: the inscribing of one's name as a member, the positive favouring of thesect as such, and failure to denounce the occult leaders. For this last act censure is not incurred if the leaders be not occult, or if they be not known with sufficientcertainty. The denunciation, if imperative, must be made within a month; once it is made the excommunication is no longer reserved, and one is in a condition to receiveabsolution from any confessor without further formality.
(5) "Those who command the violation of or who themselves rashly violate the immunity ofecclesiastical asylum." Immunity, or right of sanctuary, protected criminals who took refuge near the altar or within sacred edifices; it was forbidden to remove them from such places of refuge either by public or private force. This immunity, although formerly beneficial, has disappeared from modern life; the excommunication here retained has hardly more than the value of a principle; it may be noted that the article is cautiously worded. By its terms excommunication would be incurred only by those who rashly, and without being constrained thereto, violate the right of sanctuary as such (Holy Office, 1 Feb., 1871; 22 Dec., 1880).
(6) "Persons of any kind, condition, sex, or age who violate theclausura [i.e. canonical enclosure] ofnuns by penetrating into theirmonasteries, those introducing or admitting them, alsonuns who leave their clausura, except in the cases and in the manner provided for by the Constitution 'Decori' ofSt. Pius V." The reader will find in the articleCLOISTER further details; here it suffices to add that the enclosure in question is that of thepapal enclosure (clausura papalis), or that of religiouswomen with solemnvows. The Constitution "Decori" (24 Jan., 1570) limits the reasons of egress to fire,leprosy, or an epidemic; even in the two latter cases it isnecessary for suchnuns to have the written authorization of thebishop.
(7) "Women who violate the enclosure [clausura] of male religious and the superiors and others who admit them." Here also it is question of religious with solemnvows; moreover, it has not seemednecessary to provide for exceptional cases nor for permission.
(8) "Those who are guilty of realsimony [simonia realis] for the obtaining of anybenefices whatever, and their accomplices." (For this article and the two that follow seeSIMONY.)
(9) "Those who are guilty of confidentialsimony [simonia confidentialis] apropos of anybenefice or any dignity whatever."
(10) "Those who are guilty of real simony for the purpose of entering a religious order."
(11) "All who traffic inIndulgences or other spiritual favours are excommunicated by the Constitution ofSt. Pius V, 'Quam plenum' (2 Jan., 1569)." This Constitution enumerates the abuses that thepope wished to remedy. CertainSpanishbishops were accustomed to issue public grants ofIndulgences or various other spiritual favours, but in a manner for which they were unauthorized; the abuse consisted mainly in the pecuniary conditions they imposed for obtaining these favours (Indulgences, choice of a confessor for theabsolution of reserved cases, Mass and burial in time ofinterdict,dispensation from abstinence, theright to present several sponsors atbaptism, etc.). To overcome these abusesSt. Pius V inflicted two kinds of penalties:bishops were punished by being forbidden entrance into church and by suspension of the "fruits", or revenues, of theirbenefices; culprits of inferior rank were excommunicated. The penalties againstbishops have been suppressed; excommunication, however, is retained to punish those who would reap unlawful profit from the publication or granting ofIndulgences or of the other spiritual favours enumerated.
(12) "Those who collect stipends for Masses and make profits out of them by having the Masses celebrated in places where the stipends are not so high." The object of the penalty is to remedy all shameful traffic in Mass-stipends; to incur it two things arenecessary: not only must the stipends for Masses (called missæ manuales) be collected, but a portion of them must be withheld when remitting them to thepriests who are to fulfil theobligation of saying the Masses. Despite the wording of the article, it is notnecessary that both conditions, the quest of stipends and the celebration of the Masses, occur in different places (Holy Office, 19 Aug., 1891, ad 4).
(13) "All those excommunicated by the Constitutions ofSt. Pius V, 'Admonet nos' (29 March, 1567);Innocent IX, 'Quæ ab hâc Sede' (4 Nov., 1591);Clement VIII, 'Ad Romani Pontificis curam' (26 June, 1592); andAlexander VIII, 'Inter cæteras' (24 Oct., 1660), concerning the alienation and enfeoffment of cities and places belonging to theHoly Roman Church." This article deals with the temporal domains of theChurch and calls here for no special comment.
(14) "Religious who, without permission of theparishpriest, venture to administer extreme unction or the Eucharist asViaticum, toecclesiastics orlaymen, except in cases of necessity." The penalty affects religious with solemnvows and professed, but is not incurred if they have at least the presumed permission of theparishpriest, if they be inignorance, finally if it be a case of necessity. Those to whom these religious must not administer thesacraments are seculars,ecclesiastics orlaymen; they may, however, administer them topersons domiciled in theirconvents.
(15) "Those who without legitimate permission takerelics from the cemeteries orcatacombs ofRome or its territory, and those who give suchpersons aid or countenance." The permission is to be sought from the Roman Vicariate, and excommunication is incurred only by carrying away from thecatacombs genuine relies, not other objects.Relics are the remains, not of anyone happening to be buried in thecatacombs, but only ofmartyrs or of those regarded as such by reason of the "signs ofmartyrdom" that distinguish theirtombs, notably the phial of blood, according to the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 10 April, 1668, and 27 Nov., 1863.
(16) "Those who hold communion in criminal crime with aperson whom thepope has excommunicated by name, that is, those who give him assistance or countenance." The "criminal crime" (crimen criminosum) is the very one for which the culprit was excommunicated; the article, of course, does not contemplate participation in the offensive act itself, since excommunication by name is necessarily posterior to such an act. The penalty is inflicted for subsequently assisting or countenancing the excommunicatedperson. This is a survival (see above, II (5)] of the penalties incurred by intercourse with the excommunicated. It must be noted that this censure is not imposed for intercourse with all excommunicatedpersons, but only with vitandi, those whom thepope has excommunicated by name, not such as have been excommunicated by a Roman Congregation (Holy Office, 16 June, 1897) or by thebishop.
(17) "Clerics who knowingly and wilfully hold communionin divinis withpersons whom thepope has excommunicated by name and receive them at Divine service." The excommunicated in question are the same as in the preceding article, and they cannot be admitted to Divine worship; however, the penalty incurred concernsecclesiastics only, when acting freely and with fullknowledge [see above, II (5)].
These are three in number and affect the followingpersons:
(1) "Ecclesiastics inHoly orders and regulars ornuns who dare to contract marriage after having made a solemnvow of chastity, also those who dare to contract marriage with one of thesepersons." Theecclesiastics whose marriage is null in consequence of the impediment ofHoly orders aresubdeacons and those in still higher orders; thenuns and male religious whose marriage is null through the impediment ofvow are members of the great orders. Nevertheless, the impediment does not exist from the time of their first profession that follows thenovitiate, but only from the solemn profession made three years later. The penalty is incurred by an attempt at marriage, not by an act ofbetrothal; such an attempt is recognized in any contract having thefigura matrimonii, i.e. which would constitute a marriage if there were no impediment; consequently the penalty is incurred forcivil marriage (Holy Office, 22 Dec., 1880), even if there were other impediments, e.g.consanguinity (Holy Office, 16 Jan., 1892).
(2) "Those who efficaciously procure abortion." The fruitless attempt is not punished with excommunication; authors do not agree as to whether thewoman guilty of self-abortion is excommunicated.
(3) "Those who knowingly make use of counterfeit Apostolic Letters or who co-operate in the crime." [See above, (a) (9).] This article is not directed against forgers but against those who endeavour to profit by falsified letters. Petitions signed by thepope or in his name are not mentioned. Accomplices are also punished; but the culprits must act knowingly, and be fully aware that they are using falsifiedpapal letters.
These are four in number and are pronounced against the followingpersons:
(1) "Those who command oroblige the giving ofecclesiastical burial tonotoriousheretics or topersons excommunicated by name or placed underinterdict." The article does not consider funeral ceremonies, but only material interment inconsecrated ground. Those who admitheretics or others toecclesiastical burial are not punished, but only those who, by authority or force, compel such an interment, thereby violating the prohibition of theChurch. Nor is it question here of all who, according to the Ritual, should be deprived ofecclesiastical burial, but merely of the two categories indicated.
(2) "Those who wound or terrorize the inquisitors, informers, witnesses, or otherministers of the Holy Office; those who lacerate or burn the writings of this tribunal and all who give to the aforesaid assistance, counsel, or countenance." This excommunication does not apply in countries where the Holy Office has no organized tribunal; the inquisitional functions devolve in such countries on thebishop, who is protected by the specially reserved excommunications described above, under (a) (5), (6), (8).
(3) "Those who alienate and those who have the audacity to receivechurch property without Apostolic authorization, according to the terms of the Constitution 'Ambitiosæ, de rebus eccl. non alienandis'." The author of this Constitution (Extravagantes, lib. III, tit. iv, inter comm.) wasPaul II (1 March, 1467). It forbids under pain of reserved excommunication and of the nullity of the acts, not only alienations (properly so called) ofecclesiastical property, sales, donations, etc., but also all contracts savouring of alienation, such as mortgages,emphyteusis or perpetual lease, long-term leases, etc. For the manifest benefit of theChurch these contracts must be authorized by thepope; only objects of small value are excepted (see ThirdPlenary Council of Baltimore, no. 20).
(4) "Those who, through their own fault, neglect or omit to denounce within a month the confessors orpriests by whom they have been solicited to immodest acts, in all the cases set forth by our predecessors.Gregory XV in the Constitution 'Universi' (20 Aug., 1622) andBenedict XIV in the Constitution 'Sacramentum pœnitentiæ' (1 June, 1741)." This excommunication is not intended to punish those solicited tosin (they are not therefore guilty), but to protect the administration of theSacrament of Penance. Persons thus solicited are strictlyobliged to make known to the inquisitor or thebishop thosepriests who have solicited them to the aforesaid acts; if, through their own fault, such denunciation is not made within a month they incur excommunication, which ceases only when they have made known in the aforesaid manner the guilty party. The solicitation here alluded to is not any provocation toevil, but tosins against chastity on the part of confessors orpriests, and in connexion with theSacrament of Penance, this being the abuse that the legislator especially seeks to punish. Said connexion exists when the solicitation takes place "during the very act of sacramental confession, immediately before or after, on the occasion or under the pretext of confession, or finally, in the confessional".
These are eight in number, the first being simply reserved to thepope and the other seven non-reserved:
(1) Sess. XXII, c. ii, De ref.: against usurpers, whetherecclesiastics orlaymen, of any kind ofchurch property, until the time of restitution andabsolution. This penalty protects allecclesiastical property, properly so called, i.e. of which the administration belongs toecclesiastical authority, such as real and personalproperty, revenues, etc. Excommunication is incurred by usurpers, namely by those who claim for themselves the ownership of thisproperty, and passes on to the successive acquirers of suchproperty until restitution or composition (agreement) is made. This penalty was applied at the time of the recent spoliations inItaly andFrance.
(2) Sess. IV, De editione et usu sacrorum librorum. — The excommunication pronounced by the council was restricted by the Constitution"Apostolicæ Sedis" to those who, without theapprobation of thebishop, print, or have printed, books treating of sacred things; this must here be understood solely of the text ofHoly Writ and of notes and commentaries on the same (Holy Office, 22 Dec., 1880).
(3) Sess. XXIV, c. vi, De ref. matr.: against those who are guilty of the crime ofabduction, in regard to anywoman, with a view to marriage, and all who lend them advice, aid, or countenance.
(4) Sess. XXIV, c. ix, De ref. matr.: against temporal rulers and magistrates who directly or indirectly oppose obstacles to the liberty of their subjects in the matter of contracting marriage.
(5) Sess. XXV, c. v, De regul.: against secular magistrates who at the request of thebishop, do not give the support of the secular arm in re-establishing the clausura or enclosure ofnuns. This excommunication is abrogated in practice or at least is inapplicable.
(6) Sess. XXV, c. xviii, De regul.: against those whounjustlyoblige awoman to enter amonastery unwillingly, or to take the habit, or make a profession, and those who thereunto give their counsel, aid, or countenance, as also against those who, without good reason, prevent awoman from taking the veil or making her profession.
(7) Sess. XXIV, c. i, De ref. matr.: against "those who deny thatclandestine marriages [before the legislation of the council] aretrue and valid; as also those who falsely affirm that marriages contracted by the children of afamily without the consent of theirparents are invalid and thatparents can make such marriages valid or invalid."
(8) Sess. XIII, can. xi: "This council ordains and declares that sacramental confession, when a confessor may be had, is of necessity to be made before Communion by those whoseconscience is burdened by mortalsin, how contrite soever they may think themselves. But if anyone shall presume to teach, preach, or obstinately to assert, or even in public disputation to defend the contrary, he shall be thereupon excommunicated."
These are four in number, the first two being speciallyreserved to thepope, the third to theordinary; the fourth is notreserved.
(1) The Constitution "Romanus Pontifex" (28 Aug., 1873), besides other penalties, declares specially reserved excommunication: first, against the dignitaries and canons ofcathedral churches (or those having the administration of vacantcathedrals) who would dare to concede and transfer the administration of their church with the title of vicar to theperson elected by the chapter, or named or presented to said church by lay power; second, against those so elected or presented; and third, against all who aid, advise, or countenance the aforesaid offenders.
(2) Excommunication specially reserved against the members of the "Catholic Italian Society for the restoration of the rights of the Christian and especially of the Roman people", and against its promoters, supporters, and adherents (S. Peniten., 4 Aug., 1876; Acta S. Sed., IX, 352). Amongst otherrights thissociety proposed to restore popular participation in the election of thesovereign pontiff.
(3) Excommunication reserved to the ordinary againstlaymen (forecclesiastics the penalty is suspension) who traffic in Mass-stipends and trade them withpriests for books and other merchandise (S. Cong. of the Council,decree "Vigilanti studio", 25 May, 1893).
(4) Excommunication, non-reserved, against missionaries, both regulars and seculars, of the East Indies (Farther Orient) or the West Indies (America) who devote themselves to commerce or who participate in it, and their immediate superiors, provincial or general, who fail to punish the culprits, at least by removal, and even after a single offence. This excommunication comes down from the Constitutions ofUrban VIII, "Ex delicto" (22 Feb., 1633), andClement IX, "Sollicitudo" (17 July, 1669), but was suppressed by reason of non-mention in the Constitution"Apostolicæ Sedis"; it was re-established, however, at the request of the S. Cong. of theInquisition, 4 Dec., 1872. This excommunication is non-reserved, but the culprit cannot be absolved prior to making restitution, unless he be at the point of death.
Canonists usually treat of excommunication in their commentaries on theCorpus Juris Canonici, at the titleDe sententia excommunicationis (lib. V, tit. xxxix). Moralists deal with it apropos of the treatise on censures (De Censuris). One of the best works is that of D'ANNIBALESummula Theologiæ moralis (5th ed., Rome, 1908). For details consult the numerous commentaries on the ConstitutionApostolicæ Sedis. Special works by ancient writers: AVILA,De censuris (Lyons, 1608); SUAREZ,De censuris (Coimbra, 1603). ALTIERI,De censuris ecclesiasticis (Rome, 1618). — Cf. KOBER,Der Kirchenbann (Tübingen, 1857): IDEM inKirchenlex., s.v.Bann; HOLLWECK,Die kirchlichen Strafgesetze (Mainz, 1899); HILARIUS A SEXTEN,De censuris (Mainz, 1898); MÜNCHEN,Das kanonische Gerichtsverfahren und Strafrecht (Cologne, 1874); TAUNTON,The Law of the Church (London, 1906), s.v.Excommunication; SMITH,Elements of Ecclesiastical Law (New York, 1884); SANTI-LEITNER,Pr lect. Jur. Canonici (New York, 1905), V, 210-15; LEGA,De Judiciis Eccl. (Rome, 1900).
APA citation.Boudinhon, A.(1909).Excommunication. InThe Catholic Encyclopedia.New York: Robert Appleton Company.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm
MLA citation.Boudinhon, Auguste."Excommunication."The Catholic Encyclopedia.Vol. 5.New York: Robert Appleton Company,1909.<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm>.
Transcription.This article was transcribed for New Advent by Douglas J. Potter.Dedicated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ.
Ecclesiastical approbation.Nihil Obstat. May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor.Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is webmasterat newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.