III. On Suspension

What is suspension? Suspension is a censure by which a cleric is deprived of the use of ecclesiastical power which he has by reason of order, office, or benefice. Therefore by it a cleric is not deprived of passive reception of the sacraments, nor of common suffrages, etc. Since suspension is a very grave penalty, it cannot licitly be inflicted without warning, whether by writing, and the other formalities of law. Therefore, if a prelate, either without warning first given, or with the cause not expressed, or orally, says: I suspend you, unless it has been issued by way of precept, namely by prescribing something, for instance to dismiss a maidservant within a certain time under penalty of suspension to be incurred by that very fact, it will rather be either a mere penalty or a simple prohibition of celebrating, and not a censure; for it is not presumed that the prelate wished to commit a delict by imposing a censure without previous warning, or without the cause declared, or orally. Cf. 1103. Whence one violating it would be guilty of grave disobedience, yet would not therefore become irregular. L. 317, 318. But imposed upon a community as such, it indeed holds all as regards common offices or benefices; but by no means as regards particular benefices or duties, nor as a censure, but as a privation, and as a certain canonical penalty, and as a particular incapacity of persons for those things. L. 317; Lugo, Resp. Mor., book 1, disp. 18; Schmalzgrueber, n. 45.

Likewise it is not properly a censure if a Bishop, as a precaution, keeps a cleric from the exercise of the sacred ministry, not because he is guilty of crime, or already convicted of or confessed to a crime, but because it is not fitting that holy things be handled by one whom public report reports badly. Cardinal De Luca, Opera, tome 14, annotations to the Sacred Council of Trent, discourse 43, nn. 3, 4; Bonacina, tome 3, de Cens., in part., disp. 3, q. 5, part 1; Pichler, nn. 39, 41, 42.

What is suspension from informed conscience? Suspension can be imposed by the Ordinary from informed conscience, namely from causes known to him, and therefore extrajudicially, with no warning first given and with every appeal removed; nevertheless recourse to the Apostolic See will always remain free. The constant practice now is that only temporary suspension of this kind is permitted, by no means perpetual. S.C.C., April 8, 1848. But whether suspension of this kind can be imposed not only because of an occult crime, but also because of a public delict, is controverted. The affirmative opinion rests chiefly on the Council of Trent, sess. 14, chap. 1, de Ref., whence it is established that the Bishop can "from any cause whatsoever, even because of an occult crime, in whatever way, even extrajudicially, forbid ascent to sacred orders to a cleric, or suspend him from his orders or grades or ecclesiastical dignities." But the denying opinion is established from the Instruction of the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, October 20, 1884, n. 7; S.C.C., April 26, 1853. This suspension is sustained, even if given orally; nevertheless it is better that it be done in writing. S.C.C., April 8, 1843; September 14, 1782. It can also be imposed by a Capitular Vicar, and in inflicting it this must be expressed, that it is done according to the faculty handed down by Trent. Since suspension of this kind is because of an occult delict, or one somehow past, or, if because of a delict which depends on the future, warning and contumacy are lacking, it does not have the nature of censure. Therefore according to some, one violating this suspension does not incur irregularity. But according to others, and more of them, he incurs it. The S.C.C. embraces this opinion, April 8, 1848; Instruction of the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide cited, October 20, 1884, n. 11. Likewise if suspension is imposed for a definite time, whether one violating it incurs irregularity: some deny, others affirm.

More truly it must be affirmed from C. Cum aeterni 1, de Sent. et re iud., in VI, if nevertheless this is because of a delict not merely past, but at least in some way future; namely if the suspension was imposed by way of precept, statute, or law because of a future crime, or also a past crime having successive continuance. For then it is now for preventing delicts, and not only for punishing past things. Therefore it then truly has the nature also of censure. L. 314; Salmanticenses, tome 10, chap. 5, n. 13; Benedict XIV, De Synodo, book 12, chap. 8, nn. 3-5; Bouix, De Iudiciis, vol. 2, Paris, 1885, p. 310 ff.; A.S.S., vol. 7; vol. 14, p. 299 ff.; E.M.

How does suspension cease? Suspension imposed by way of censure ceases through absolution. But suspension imposed by way of mere spiritual penalty ceases through dispensation or remission of the superior, or also of itself without another declaration of the superior, namely when the appointed time has elapsed or the imposed condition has been fulfilled. If suspension has been imposed by way of censure, the guilty person amended asks by his right that he be absolved. But if it has been imposed by way of penalty, the guilty person can ask by no right that he be released from it, although he has already been corrected and amended. Suspension of this kind by way of penalty is suspension in perpetuity, or for a certain time, e.g., for three years, or until the guilty person has made satisfaction or restored, or at the good pleasure of the See or of the superior; in this last case suspension also ceases when the superior has died or been deposed, etc. "Although suspensions which are imposed as pure penalties ought rather to be removed by dispensation, nevertheless some doctors, observing no distinction, say that every suspension imposed because of a delict, whether in perpetuity or for a certain time, is removed by absolution; which word (of absolution) is also customarily used in the formula of relaxation.... And by the same reason the privilege granted by the Apostolic See to confessors of the Society of Jesus, that, after hearing the confessions of the faithful, they can absolve them in the forum of conscience from any sentences, censures, and ecclesiastical penalties resulting from sins, extends indistinctly to suspensions of law, as Avila signifies." Laymann, chap. 4, n. 4. Indeed in the constitution Apostolicae Sedis, both excommunication and suspension and interdict are comprehended under the common name of censures. L. 322.

How many kinds of suspension are there? One suspension is total, by which a cleric is kept from every ecclesiastical function, and at the same time is deprived of the fruits and administration of a benefice; another is partial, by which he is deprived only of one or the other, wholly or even in part. If this is for a brief time and imposed by man, it can be inflicted for venial fault alone. L. 78, 321. One suspended from order simply is deprived of solemn exercise, or exercise by office, namely in that way in which it cannot be exercised by lay persons, of any order whatsoever, whether major or minor. Yet today lay persons also are accustomed to discharge the functions of minor orders. Hence suspension does not seem to extend as far as minor orders. Nor indeed is one suspended from order deprived of voice in chapter, nor is he prohibited from reciting the hours in choir. Likewise he is by no means deprived of jurisdiction and benefice. Hence he can also validly absolve. Yet others deny this, because it is also an act of order. One suspended from a higher order is not therefore suspended also from a lower order. One suspended from a lower order is not also suspended from a higher, unless the exercise of the higher order is contained in the exercise of the lower order. L. 314. One suspended from jurisdiction simply is deprived of all jurisdiction, both internal and external, but by no means of the exercise of order. Suspension from order holds the suspended person everywhere. Suspension from jurisdiction more truly has no force outside the territory of the one imposing it. One suspended from office simply is understood to be suspended from any office, whether it proceeds from order or from jurisdiction. For office here is every spiritual power. Hence he is deprived of the use both of jurisdiction and of order, or of any ecclesiastical ministry; but he is by no means also held by suspension from benefice. Therefore he will still be able to receive its fruits, if nevertheless, at least through others, he fulfills the offices and burdens of the benefice. This suspension is also called suspension from divine things. C. Medicinalis 1, de Sent. exc., in VI; C. Inter sollicitudines 10, de Purg. Can.; C. Cum aeterni 1, de Sent. et re iud., in VI.

Hence a parish priest suspended from office can neither celebrate Mass, nor preach, nor preside over offices, nor administer sacraments. A canon suspended from divine things, from S.C. Bishops and Regulars, February 29, 1869, cannot receive choral distributions or the remaining emoluments. One suspended from benefice simply is deprived of the fruits and administration of the benefice, but by no means also of the functions of order or office. Yet he is still bound to furnish the burdens and offices of the benefice, and then he can retain the part of the fruits which he would have to give to a substitute, because it would be the stipend of labor. Finally, one suspended from office and benefice together, or simply suspended, unless some limitation is gathered from the adjuncts, is judged totally suspended. Laymann, part 3, chap. 1; L. 315, 316; Schmalzgrueber, nn. 266-269, 290-305; Engel, nn. 74-79.

How does one sin who violates suspension? He sins gravely who, while suspended, exercises an act forbidden to him by the suspension; for he violates the precept of the Church in a grave matter. Indeed, one suspended from sacred order also incurs irregularity (which is incurred because of violation only of suspension from order, and not also from jurisdiction and benefice) if he knowingly and solemnly exercises the office of the same order, outside nevertheless the case of necessity or grave inconvenience. C. Is cui 20, de Sent. exc., in VI; C. Cum aeterni, de Sent. et re iud., in VI. Cf. also Lugo, Resp. Mor., book 2, disp. 10, where he treats the question, "whether an occult suspended person can celebrate without danger of irregularity in order to feed himself and his needy mother." Lightness of matter can also excuse in this matter, both from grave sin and from irregularity, e.g., if he were to exercise a light act of jurisdiction; or were to bless the table; were to exercise sacred order not solemnly, or a non-sacred order, which nevertheless today, as has already been said, since it is also exercised by lay persons, no longer seems to be comprehended by suspension. Moreover, if a suspended tolerated person does not thrust himself into the functions by which he is prohibited through suspension, but is required by others, he in no way sins, nor does he incur irregularity. The matter stands otherwise with one suspended who is not tolerated, one denounced; for outside a most urgent cause, even if he is asked by the faithful, he cannot exercise those offices from which he is suspended. But others are not bound under mortal sin to avoid him, unless they are judged to cooperate in the act from which he is suspended; whence to hear his Mass will not be a sin, if you do not serve, scandal nevertheless being set aside.

Are the acts of a suspended person valid? An act performed by a suspended person is null and void. "This penalty has place only in those things which depend on the Church, such as jurisdiction and benefice; therefore in these things a suspended person, if he administers a benefice and exercises jurisdiction, makes an invalid act, provided that he has been denounced as suspended; because, once denunciation has been made, he is deprived of every kind of power for exercising those acts. Before denunciation he is only impeded from their exercise when he is not required by the faithful; but when he is required by the faithful, he exercises those acts validly and licitly, and therefore it is necessary that he retain jurisdiction." Schmalzgrueber, nn. 309, 306, 308; L. 313. Moreover, "one suspended from benefice, if he thrusts himself into it and receives the fruits, does not indeed become irregular, yet according to the common opinion he loses the benefice by the law itself. C. Cupientes 16, sec. Ceterum, de Elect., in VI." Engel, n. 77. "Therefore, since a beneficed person thus suspended cannot administer the benefice by himself, an economus is customarily given to him, who collects the revenues and applies them by order of the Bishop to pious causes, with necessary support reserved to the suspended person." Schmalzgrueber, n. 308; Pichler, n. 43. Cf. here n. 1116 at the end.

What is suspension from Pontificals? "If a Bishop suspended from Pontificals celebrates Mass solemnly in pontifical attire, it is certain that he sins.... But whether he also incurs irregularity, Angelus, etc., affirm. But Laymann, etc., more probably deny it. The reason is that a Bishop, in sacrificing, does not exercise a substantial act of the episcopal order, but an act of the priestly order, from which he is not suspended; and that the celebration is done with Pontificals holds itself per accidens. But irregularity is not incurred except in the exercise of an act of the prohibited order." L. 314.

What is understood by the name of Pontificals? By the name of Pontificals is understood the authoritative use of Pontifical insignia, namely the miter, pastoral staff, and pallium. Therefore one suspended from Pontificals is consequently repelled from acts of the episcopal order which ought not to be done without the aforesaid insignia, such as conferring the sacrament of confirmation or orders, and consecrating virgins, Churches, and altars. Yet he can celebrate Mass in the manner of other priests, hear Confessions, baptize, indeed also impose censures, confer benefices, and exercise other acts of jurisdiction, since they by no means pertain to Pontificals. Laymann, chap. 1, n. 6; Giraldi, Expos. Iur. Pontif., part 2, sec. 21, note 2, p. 826.

To perform sacred things in pontifical rite belongs to Bishops. But by privilege this is also granted to Protonotaries after the manner of Participants, and to other inferior Prelates, but with more moderate ornament. Pius VII, constitution Decet Rom. Pontif., July 4, 1822.

What are deposition and degradation? Deposition and degradation are usually placed under suspension because of the similarity which they have with it, since each is removal from ecclesiastical order, jurisdiction, and benefice, notwithstanding that the cleric had been ordained under its title or substituted in place of patrimony. Yet they differ far from it, since penalties of this kind proceed still further, and deprive not only of the use of ecclesiastical power but also of the radical right itself, insofar as this can be done, and this in perpetuity; whence they are not censures, but vindictive penalties. They deprive of radical right insofar as by deposition and degradation perpetual incapacity is had for every office and benefice, namely if the deposition is perfect, and not only from office or only from benefice. But if deposition is from office, then consequently it is also from benefice; for a benefice exists because of office. Likewise simple deprivation of benefice is not a censure, but a mere penalty. Once suspension has been removed, by the law itself the suspended person is restored to his office and benefice; but the deposed person needs a new title so that he may be newly placed in it. If deposition casts a cleric down from every office and benefice and clerical dignity, degradation is had; and it is verbal if by the mere sentence of a judge he is cast down from clerical privileges, real if a solemn rite is added by which the insignia of orders are taken away from the cleric, and, when these have been taken away, he is handed over to the secular court. Since penalties of this kind are most grave, they are not incurred before the sentence of a judge. L., book 3, n. 670; book 7, nn. 323, 327; Suarez, De Cens., disp. 13, sect. 2, n. 14; disp. 27, n. 5; Bouix, De Parocho, Paris, 1855, p. 365 ff.; Laymann, part 1, chap. 1, n. 3; part 3, chap. 5; Coninck, disp. 16; Schmalzgrueber, n. 7; Benedict XIV, De Synodo, book 9, chap. 6, n. 3 ff.; constitution Quam grave, August 2, 1757; C. Degradatio 2, de Poenis, in VI; Council of Trent, sess. 13, chap. 4, de Ref.; Roman Pontifical, form of Degradation.