Question X: What excommunication is inflicted upon heretics

We must now treat of the punishments of heretics, and first of the spiritual ones.

The first and most ancient spiritual punishment of heretics is excommunication, as is clear from the chapter Achaina, 24. q. 1, the chapter Ad abolendum, the chapter Excommunicamus, 1. and 2. de haeret., the chapter Quicunque, eodem titulo in 6., the chapter Noverit.

Moreover, in the Bulla Coenae an excommunication is imposed, and renewed yearly, reserved to the Supreme Pontiff. Now this is the most ancient of all excommunications, as Azorius notes, Tomo I, lib. VIII, cap. 10, quaestio 1.

It is incurred for external heresy, not for mental heresy, as the Doctors of Law teach commonly, whom Sanchez reports, Lib. II, cap. 8, num. 2. The Church does not judge of merely occult things, that is, of merely internal ones; but the external heretic, though occult, incurs it, as is taught commonly, as reported by Hurt., sect. 4, n. 36.

Yet Arez, disp. 21, sect. 2, reports that some held that in general censures are not incurred for an occult crime, which Croufers teaches concerning heresy in reg. S. Francisci, cap. 7, sect. 4, fol. 518, as reported by Diana, 6. parte, Tract. 6, miscel. resol. 51. But a great question concerns absolution from heresy, which question depends on knowing the quality of this censure.

I shall therefore set out the Anathema hurled by the Bulla Coenae against heretics, according to the modern exemplars of Urban VIII, and also according to the Bulls of Paul V and Gregory XV. Moreover, from the aforesaid sentences, no one can be absolved by anyone other than the Roman Pontiff, unless he be in articulo mortis; nor even then, unless he gives caution of standing by the mandates of the Church and of making satisfaction, even under pretext of any faculties and indults whatsoever granted by us and the said See, and by the decrees of any Council, to any Ecclesiastical secular persons, and of any Orders, even Mendicant, even military Regulars, even those endowed with Episcopal or any other greater dignity, etc. See disp. 17, quaest. 10, sect. 3, tom. 4, de actibus humanis.

A grave question however arises, because in the Council of Trent, sess. 24, cap. 6, Bishops are granted the faculty of absolving from occult heresy and other occult cases reserved to the Apostolic See.

Two celebrated opinions exist: The first is that the faculty granted to Bishops by the Tridentine Council still exists, and was not removed by the Bulla Coenae: Sanchez reports the Doctors, Lib. I, Decal., cap. 21, who admits that opinion to be probable. Others are reported by Diana, p. p., Tract. de Absol. ab haeresi, resol. 2, to whom he adds others in 4. p., tract. 4, miscel. resol. 239, and 5. p., tract. 13, miscel. resol. 43. Suarez called it probable, Tract. de censuris, disp. 21, sect. 3, though afterwards he attacks it. Hurtado defends it most strongly, disp. 84, sect. 2, §. 11, and Fagundez, lib. I, cap. 15, reporting twenty Doctors on the second precept of the Church, lib. VIII, cap. 8; Bass., V. Haeresis, num. 18, reporting many.

The second opinion asserts that the faculty was taken from the Bishops by the Bulla Coenae.

Navarr. holds this, summa Latina nova, cap. 27, num. 275, adding that Pius V and Gregory XIII so declared; Peña, in directorio Inquisit., 3. p., quaest. 92, com. 141, saying it was so often declared in the supreme Roman General Inquisition; and Azorius says Clement VIII so declared; Suarez says the Congregation of the Most Eminent Cardinals so declared. Many others agree, as reported by Diana, and Castrum Palaeum, Tract. 4, disp. 4, p. 3, § 1.

Cardinal Lugo, disp. 23, sect. 3, §. 1, thus reconciles the opinions: if a Bishop does not believe that the Pontiff wished to revoke the faculty, he may probably embrace the first opinion, which has so many, and therefore weighty, authors; but if he believes it, he must stand by the second opinion. He himself, however, testifies that he cannot agree with the first, because morally he is certain that the will of the Apostolic See is contrary. But Fagundez says Gregory XIII declared the opposite, and that this is not established by the S. Congr. Bass. adds that in the S. Congr. in the year 1639 it was permitted.

For my part it does not appear whence derogation was so immediately made from so great a Council; for what is said, Etiam si concessum virtute alicuius Concilii Generalis, does not sufficiently distinguish what was withdrawn from the Tridentine faculty; a later law speaking indistinctly and generally must be limited by the earlier one specially contrary to it, as Fagundez says, also praec. 2. eccl., lib. VIII, cap. 8.

He adds that nothing certain is established concerning the Oracles of Pius V, Gregory XIII, or Clement VIII, or of the former Congr., which would exclude even the Most Reverend who hold this faculty from the Council, which Lugo, n. 87. The distinction of Fagundez, that it was derogated in law but not in fact, is empty, because the law is uncertain.

Included in this faculty are Prelates having quasi-episcopal power: thus Rodr., tomo 2, c. 10, and tom. p. 99, reg. quaest. 24, art. 16, and quaest. 61, art. 9; Henriq., lib. 4, de irreg., cap. 18; Sanchez, lib. 2, decis., cap. 11; Sayrus, lib. 11; Auil., de cens., p. 7, disp. 10; Flor. de mena, lib. 3, var. quaest. 23. For the Bulla Coenae does not take from them that faculty which they had before, as Fagundez says, num. 21.

These PRELATES, I say Ecclesiastical ones having a diocese, not regulars, as the authors cited note.

That regular Prelates do not have this by law Suarez proclaims, lib. 4, de Poenit., disp. 30, sect. 2; Garc., de benef., p. 7, cap. 11; Armenda, addit. ad recopil. Nauar., tit. 18; lib. 7, de irreg.; Fagundez, num. 21. For before the Council they did not have that right, nor is it given them by the Council.

AS FOR privileges, our P. Bonagratia, published in the year 1667 at Cologne, reports: the privilege of Pius V given to the Preachers, that they may do what the Bishops also can, in this matter. And from Suarez, Tom. 4, de Relig., tract. 8, lib. 2, c. 20, and from Urban ab Ascens., tract. 2, cap. 3: regular Prelates can absolve their subjects from all censures from law or from man, even public ones, Clement IV and Sixtus IV excepted, namely the 4 cases of the Bulla Coenae: relapse into heresy, schism, falsification of Apostolic letters, carrying prohibited things to infidels. But the other cases, even simony, are included. See Com. Priv. mend., tit. Absol., where this is granted to Ministers, VICs, and Custodes. Sigism. de elect., num. 2, disp. 66, extends this to the contentious forum, an author of the Rota, per Pluteum, decis. 90 — except the cases of the S. Officii.

MOREOVER Gregory XIII grants the 4 cases adduced together with the others to the Society of Jesus, as Suarez reports, loc. cit. But the ample privilege granted by Pius V to the Cassinese Prelates is reported by Tamburin., de cas. reserv., t. 1, §. 1; which privilege is extended to those sharing with them; that they may absolve all their own, even persevering novices, from all cases, censures, punishments incurred through them before, as well as after entry, and even those of the Bulla Coenae to be incurred. Hence, he says, this is extended to the notorious in the forum of conscience.

BUT IF it were probable that the privileges of the Mendicants were not derogated by the year of the publication of the Bulla Coenae, as Rodriq. teaches, tomo 1, qq. quaest. 10, art. 9; Suarez, de relig., tom. 4, tract. 10, lib. 9, cap. 20, num. 18; Diana, p. 1, tract. 5, resol. 6; Sousa, in Bulla coenae, cap. 23, disp. 100; Bonagratia, V. Absolutio; Eligius Bassaeus, V. haeresis, num. 18, and others as reported by these, then approved Mendicant religious, according to the form of law, could absolve seculars from the cases of the Bulla Coenae, and even from heresy, provided it be occult; and this latter part is proved by them first from the concession of Urban IV, as reported by Rodriq., tom. 1, qq. quaest. 61, art. 3, Compend. Privileg. mendic.

V. Absolutio, as to seculars, num. 19, in which he grants to the Carmelite Brothers that, by the license of the Ecclesiastical Prelates — that is, as Sixtus IV declared, provided confessors presented according to the form of law — they may hear the confessions of all Christ's faithful, on account of the devotion of those recurring to them, unless they have committed such things for which the Apostolic See would deservedly need to be consulted. But for a mere relapse, after heresy abjured before a Judge, the Apostolic See must be consulted, because Sixtus IV, as is had in the Monum. ordinum, concession 348, declares that only relapsed ones are to be sent to the Apostolic See, together with Schismatics, falsifiers of Apostolic letters, and those carrying forbidden things to infidels: Therefore, from occult heresy, that probability being posited, it would be lawful for the aforesaid to absolve.

IT IS PROVED secondly from the concession of Sixtus IV made to the Order of Minors, as is had in the aforesaid Comp., num. 20 of the same title, in which he grants to those mentioned the faculty of hearing confessions, and of absolving from all cases of excommunication, suspension, interdict, and any irregularity whatsoever reserved to the Ordinary both by law and by man, as often as necessary, of dispensing, of commutting and relaxing any vows whatsoever, and of enjoining a salutary penance, just as the Diocesan can. But heresy, at least occult, or not yet brought to judgment, is reserved to the Ordinary both by the old law and by the new of Trent: Therefore. The minor is proved from the Tridentine, sess. 24, cap. 6, as Sanchez notes, lib. 4, moral., cap. 54, num. 27; Diana, part. 1, tract. 11, resol. 28, and p. 3, tract. 3, resol. 13. Further, he says, p. 4, tract. 4, resol. 239: it can rightly be said that the Bulla Coenae only prohibits the absolution of heresy and other crimes when they are public, and therefore does not derogate from the Tridentine faculty, which speaks of occult crimes.

Bassaeus ADDS at the place cited that the aforesaid opinion was seen and tolerated on 18 July 1629 in the Consistory of the S. Congregation of the Most Eminent Cardinals, and admitted even by many Doctors of S. Theology of the royal Academy of Douai.

But he says, V. Irregularitas, 11, num. 5, that that crime is occult which is not notorious by the sentence of a Judge, or by a confession of the crime made in judgment, or by fame among the people, in a College, or in the neighborhood; or if it has not yet been brought to the contentious forum; and Bassaeus says, from the sense of others, that this last seems to be the sense of the Council of Trent, loc. cit.

BUT indeed a Decree has now been published by Alex. VII, in the year 1665, 24 Sept., in which among other propositions he condemns this one: The opinion asserting that the Bulla Coenae only prohibits the absolution of heresy and other crimes when they are public, and that this does not derogate from the Tridentine faculty, which speaks of occult crimes, was seen and tolerated on 18 July 1629 in the Consistory of the S. Congr. of the Most Eminent Cardinals.

YET P. Bonagratia says, V. Absolutio, as to seculars, num. 44, at the end, that the Pontiff makes no mention of revoking the privileges of the regulars, and that those privileges still remain in force; see what was said in session 11, quaest. 10, disp. 17, de conscientia, tom. 4, de actibus humanis.

FOR MY PART, with the things reported from the mind of others, I judge that nothing is safe in these absolutions, and accordingly I do not embrace the first opinion. For since the value of absolution hangs on the will of the Pontiff, and that appears to me to refuse it, I exhort no one to use it in the meantime.