161. On the Immunity of Ecclesiastical Persons

Lambertus, a priest, owed Iovinus, a priest, 1000 lire, and always deferred their payment. Iovinus cited Lambertus before the bishop, but profited nothing. For Lambertus confessed the debt, promised payment, but did not stand by his promises. Hence Iovinus cites Lambertus before the lay judge. Two priests, associates, are called as witnesses. And thus Iovinus finally obtained payment of the debt. But Lambertus was saying everywhere that Iovinus and the other two priests were excommunicated.

It is asked: What to the Case?

R. A priest can be cited, whether as defendant or as witness, both in a civil cause and in a criminal cause, before a lay judge, yet with permission first obtained from the bishop, who must permit that he be examined in the secular forum, on account of the good of public and private justice. S. C. EE. et RR., Apr. 14, 1616; July 19, 1619. Wherefore Iovinus, since he already cited Lambertus in vain before the ecclesiastical judge, is not to be disturbed if he now cites him before the lay judge, permission first having been obtained from the bishop. Likewise those two priests, witnesses in the lay judgment, are not to be disturbed if they have first obtained the bishop's permission. Moreover, although Iovinus omitted to seek permission from the bishop, he would not therefore have incurred excommunication; and the same is to be said concerning the two priests who were witnesses. Nor indeed does that excommunication fall upon the judge himself, who pronounced sentence against Lambertus. That indeed is clear from the tenor of art. VII of the first series of excommunications in C. Apostolicae Sedis, and from various Declarations of the Holy Office. Cf. Commentar. in cit. Const., ed. 5, n. 20 seq.; I. M. 1170.