On the Constitution *Apostolicae Sedis*

What censures are in force at present? These things are in the constitution Apostolicae Sedis of Pius IX on Censures: By Our own motion, certain knowledge, mature deliberation, and from the fullness of Our Apostolic power, by this Constitution to remain in force perpetually, We decree that from any censures whatsoever, whether of excommunication, suspension, or interdict, which by way of latae sententiae and to be incurred by the very fact have hitherto been imposed, only those which We insert in this very Constitution, and in the way in which We insert them, shall henceforth have force; at the same time declaring that these same censures must receive their force entirely not only from the authority of the old canons, insofar as they agree with this Our Constitution, but also from this very Constitution of Ours, no differently than if they had first been issued by it. By force of the present Constitution, only those latae sententiae censures now have force by common law which either are expressly contained in it, or have already accrued to it after its promulgation, or will afterwards accrue. But all those censures which are clearly and certainly contained in the same Constitution, even if they could previously have been said to be obsolete, or to have gone into desuetude, or to be universally ignored, now admit no such exception, and obtain full force of obliging. Holy Office, June 15, 1870. In the following numbers we will explain them step by step, declaring the text itself of the praised Constitution. E.M.

We declare subject to excommunication latae sententiae reserved in a special manner to the Roman Pontiff:

In a special manner. The following excommunications are said to be reserved in a special manner for four reasons. The first is because for them "a general concession of absolving from cases and censures, or excommunications, reserved to the Roman Pontiff in no way suffices." Paragraph A quibus. But here it must be noted that even if someone has a special faculty of absolving from these cases reserved in a special manner to the Apostolic See, for this reason the faculty is not also judged conceded for the case of absolution of an accomplice, which needs most special mention. Holy Office, June 17, 1866; April 4, 1871. But in that special faculty is contained absolving heresy, since it has not now been excepted most specially as before. Giraldi, Exp. Iur. Pont., tome 2, part 1, title 7, sec. 809. The second is because they are also excluded from the faculty of absolving granted to Bishops by the Council of Trent, sess. 24, chap. 6, de Ref., although the same faculty, namely of absolving from all occult censures, even those reserved to the Pope, remains firm in any other censures reserved to the Apostolic See by this same Constitution. Paragraph Firmam tamen. The third is because "those presuming to absolve without due faculty, even under any pretext whatsoever, are bound by the bond of excommunication reserved to the Roman Pontiff, provided there is not question of the article of death." Paragraph A quibus. The fourth is because those absolved in the article of death by one not having power, if they recover, are held by the special obligation of standing by the mandates of the Church. Cf. 799.

I. All apostates from the Christian faith, and all and each heretics, by whatever name they are reckoned, and of whatever sect they exist, and those believing them; and their receivers, favorers, and generally any defenders of them.

Apostates are those who, utterly defecting from the Christian religion, pass over to the Mohammedan sect or another, or even to none. But understand an apostate not only by exterior work or sign, but also in soul. For he is called an apostate from the Christian faith. But one who is only externally an apostate is an apostate not from faith, but from confession of faith. Moreover the discussion is of apostasy from the Christian faith, not only inwardly conceived, but also outwardly solemnly professed in baptism.

Heretics. In order that this excommunication, imposed precisely because of heresy, be incurred, it is required, 1. that the heresy be formal, i.e., with error of the intellect and pertinacity of will. But he is called pertinacious who adheres to his opinion notwithstanding that he knows it to be opposed to the doctrine of the Roman Church sufficiently proposed to him; or who is so disposed in soul that, even if that doctrine should be sufficiently proposed to him, nevertheless he would not wish to be moved from his opinion. The reason for this last member of the disjunction is that any ignorance, even crass and affected, according to the truer and more common opinion excuses from heresy and the penalties of heretics. For someone can very well have the will of believing all things which are sufficiently proposed to him as revealed by God and as dogmas of the Church, although he does not have the will of applying diligence so that he may know what things have been revealed by God and what defined by the Church. Hence although he sins gravely against faith, nevertheless he is not formally an infidel and heretic, but a faithful and Catholic person believing all things which have been revealed by God and defined by the Church, and which are sufficiently proposed to him. De Lugo, De Fide, disp. 20, sec. 6; L. 301. It is required, 2. that the heresy of the mind be betrayed exteriorly by an external sign manifestative of internal error, from itself or from the circumstances, with a gravely culpable manifestation, although the matter becomes known to no one. L. 303-305. Hence these do not incur excommunication: 1. a merely mental heretic, or one who abstains from hearing Mass; 2. one who manifests his heresy in order to seek counsel. But a positive doubt outwardly betrayed by no means excuses, because one doubting thus judges that the truth proposed by the Church can be false. L. 302. Cf. Struggl, tract 4, q. 2, n. 12; Lugo, De Fide, disp. 20, n. 17. It is required, 3. that the heresy has not been brought to the judicial forum of the Bishop. For Bishops by themselves or by a delegate can absolve in each forum from any heresy, if it has once been brought to their judicial forum. L., appendix de Priv., n. 39; Benedict XIV, De Synodo, book 9, chap. 4. But the Constitution of Pius IX does not seem to derogate from this faculty of Bishops. Therefore Bishops have no faculty of absolving only from heresy, whether occult or notorious, which has not yet been brought to their forum. Hence all Protestants who wished to abjure their heresy, and consequently to bring it to the external forum, need not have recourse to Rome, but can be absolved by the Bishop, both for the external and for the internal forum, either by himself or by a delegate.

By whatever name they are reckoned, namely by some peculiar name of heretics. Of whatever sect they exist, "even if they do not adhere to heresy in soul, they enroll themselves even only by name in a sect, whatever name it may have, heretical or schismatical, from whatever cause this is done," according to the Declaration of the Holy Office. Diocesan Synod of Albano, year 1886, part 1, art. 6, n. 2.

Those believing, namely those truly believing heretics, whether explicitly or implicitly; those believing either in particular some false dogma of heretics, although they do not adhere to them in all things, nor are called by a particular name, e.g., Calvinists, Lutherans, etc., nor are judged enrolled in some particular sect, e.g., the Reformed Church, etc.; or those believing only generally that heretics have the true faith and religion, although they believe nothing distinctly and in particular against faith; those believing them when they say that the Catholic religion is false.

Receivers: to receive is to furnish refuge for the sake of hiding in one's own or another's place. Therefore receivers are those who receive by hospitality or conceal, even once, a heretic so that he may escape the penalties of his heresy. Favorers: to favor generally is to furnish any work to someone for his advantage and usefulness, whether by doing something, e.g., by recommending, by giving money, or by omitting what someone by office ought to have done. Therefore favorers are those who in the cause of faith favor heretics, either negatively, namely by omitting, when they can and are bound by office, to capture, guard, or punish a heretic; or positively, by helping him, as such, with praises, recommendations, money, etc., e.g., so that he may flee, etc. Hence the Holy Office, May 11, 1892, declared that excommunication is contracted by those who enter marriage before a heretical or schismatic minister assigned to sacred things. Defenders: to defend is to protect someone, so that he can do something safely and freely, or to protect something against contrary attacks. Therefore defenders of errors or of the person are those who defend their errors by words, writings, etc., although inwardly they think otherwise, or who prevent them from being captured or punished because of heresy.

Therefore these words, receivers, favorers, defenders of heretics, must be understood formally of those who favor heretics insofar as they are heretics, namely either because they profess such doctrine, or also in order to teach, defend, or do something of this kind concerning that heresy. The reason is that penalty must be understood strictly, according to the subject matter. Besides, receivers, favorers, defenders: understand reception, favor, defense as completed. And so, if you have received, defended, and favored a heretic lest he be captured, yet he was captured, you have not incurred the excommunication imposed on receivers, favorers, and defenders of heretics. Bull In Coena Domini, sec. 1; C. Sicut ait 8; C. Excommunicamus 13, 15, de Haereticis; Suarez, disp. 21, sec. 2, first excommunication; Bonacina, De Censur. in partic., disp. 1, q. 2, parts 1, 2, 3; L. 300 ff.; Ferraris, v. Haeresis, Haereticus; Schmalzgrueber, book 5, title 7; St. Thomas, II-II, qq. 10-12; Quodlibet 10, aa. 15, 16; E.M.

Public abjuration of heretics who desire to return to the faith is not necessary, but their abjuration can be made before someone delegated by the Bishop as notary, and some persons as witnesses. But they must abstain altogether from communication in spiritual things with heretics, and from every thing protestative of heresy. Holy Office, March 28, 1900; Monitor Ecclesiasticus, vol. 12, pp. 49-50.

II. All and each persons knowingly reading without authority of the Apostolic See books of the same apostates and heretics defending heresy, and also books of any author prohibited by name through Apostolic letters; and those retaining, printing, and in any way defending the same books.

Knowingly: this clause placed at the beginning affects, in the obvious and natural sense, not only those reading, but also those retaining, printing, and defending. Therefore ignorance, whether of fact or of law, even crass, and not improbably also affected, excuses from this censure. L. 296. Reading: by the name of reading here is understood reading in the proper sense, and in a human way, so that one understands the things which he reads. Moreover, reading strictly such is understood; whence it is indeed prohibited to read, but it is not prohibited to hear one reading, who perhaps has faculty; nor to recite part of the book from memory, because these things are not comprehended strictly under the name of reading. Ithur., case 39; L. 292. Reading, in a notable quantity and sufficient for grave sin. Thus commonly the doctors, who nevertheless disagree in determining the quantity of this kind. But it seems more rightly to be distinguished, because if by reading a prohibited book you immediately fall into heresy, you can incur excommunication by reading even a few lines, because there is great danger of perversion, which the prohibition of the Church intends to remove. But if you fall into matter altogether indifferent and infected by no error, even by reading a whole page, you are excused from mortal sin and therefore from excommunication. Ithur., l.c., nn. 30, 31; L. 284, 294. Say the same concerning those retaining; for one who retains a book for a moderate time, e.g., one or another day, even if he has the intention of always retaining it, does not incur excommunication. For the reason is the same for time as for matter. Nor are theologians lacking who excuse one who retains a book for a longer time while awaiting a suitable time to hand it over to a superior, or to another having license. Without authority of the Apostolic See. Therefore the Pope alone, or those to whom he has committed or delegated this faculty, can dispense concerning the reading of books prohibited by the present censure.

Books: letters, sermons, public newspapers, Holy Office, April 27, 1880, pamphlets, are not books. Nor are manuscripts books. Sheets separated from a prohibited book, fragments of a book, are not a book. Cf. St. Alphonsus, 293; Suarez, De Cens., disp. 23, sec. 7, n. 3. For a book properly is a volume of several sheets collected together, not of an altogether slight bulk, treating of one and the same argument, or even of various arguments. Whence those knowingly reading periodic publications bound into fascicles, defending heresy and having a heretical author, incur excommunication. Holy Office, January 13, 1892. Of apostates and heretics: the same is added; therefore there is question of those of whom the discussion is in the preceding excommunication, namely by whatever name they are reckoned and of whatever sect they exist; but those believing them are omitted, wherefore it seems to be required for incurring this excommunication that the heretical author be known from elsewhere, and it does not suffice that he be first manifested as such through the book itself. For such a person would rather be a Catholic believing the errors of heretics than a heretic, as is distinguished in the preceding excommunication. Yet if the author evidently and certainly defends heresy, and evidently with a pertinacious mind against the authority of the Church, by that very fact he will be judged a heretic by right and deservedly. Hence if the book is anonymous, from the book itself it can be known whether its author is a heretic, L. 283, and then the censure is incurred. This is confirmed from the constitution Officiorum of Leo XIII, de Prohib. et cens. libr., sec. 47. Defending heresy: "even if only one error is contained in the whole book, the whole is prohibited; nor, even with that error deleted, will it be lawful to retain the book, because it is absolutely prohibited by force of this clause." Suarez, l.c. La Croix, n. 330, and others deny this last point, and indeed probably, because then the book no longer contains heresy, nor does it induce any danger. L. 283. But it must be carefully noted that to defend heresy is not simply to contain heresy, but to undertake patronage of heresy intentionally and, as it were, with one's powers. Therefore books of heretics which only incidentally contain heresy are not comprehended under this excommunication, since they do not treat professedly of faith. L. 287. Nor do the books of the primitive heretics seem to be comprehended, since their heresy no longer harms, and knowledge of them is very useful for ecclesiastical history. La Croix, book 7, n. 333.

Through Apostolic letters. Apostolic letters are those which proceed immediately in the name of the Roman Pontiff, whether in the form of a Brief, or in the form of a Bull, or in any other form, provided that in them is read, by Apostolic Authority, or something equivalent. Prohibited by name, i.e., with the title of the book expressed in particular. Therefore all books which are condemned only in a general way through Apostolic letters are not comprehended by this censure. Prohibited by name: the words indeed are general; nevertheless the doctors commonly understand them of prohibition under penalty of excommunication reserved to the Roman Pontiff. Otherwise the Supreme Pontiff seems to relax to others what he does not reserve to himself, and therefore then there will not be an excommunication reserved to himself in a special manner. But by this same argument it is shown that that excommunication, although reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, is nevertheless not reserved to him in a special manner. For if the Supreme Pontiff reserves it to himself only simply, he seems by that very fact to remove the special reservation. Therefore it would rather have to be said that there is question of prohibition under penalty of specially reserved excommunication. But then this second article of the Constitution would be entirely useless. Therefore it seems that it must be said that there is question of prohibition simply made under penalty of excommunication, although no reservation is added to it. It is said under penalty of excommunication, because if the prohibition is made either with no penalty added, or with another penalty, it surely does not pertain here. For here there is question of censures. Cf. 1178.

Retaining. "He is said to retain who has a book with himself, whether he has it borrowed, deposited, belonging to another, for binding, for selling, for adorning a library, whether in his own or another's house; so that in whatever way, and wherever he has the book, he incurs the censure imposed against those retaining. And so it is not lawful for you to sell or give them.... Yet I myself would think this must be limited, unless you sell or give to one having faculty to read them; for then I believe that the tacit or interpretative faculty of superiors is present, who are not reasonably judged unwilling.... You would not sin if, accommodating another who has faculty, you yourself were to carry with you some prohibited book bought at Rome, e.g., to Fano; just as the bookseller would not sin who kept the book longer in his shop for binding, because all these things are accessory to the faculty itself conceded and are understood as conceded through it." Ithur., case 39, n. 40. Printing: in the obvious sense, those printing are generally all who cooperate proximately in printing, such as those who compose the type, ink it, moisten the sheets, turn the press, etc. Those who arrange sheets and books already printed are not properly printers; those selling and carrying elsewhere are rather retainers. The owner of the typography and the publisher, in the obvious sense, are not printers, but those commanding printing. Regularly they are both readers and also retainers. Defending in any way, namely defending either by words or by deeds; either the depraved doctrine which they contain, or the material book itself, namely if they prevent the book from being burned or handed over to the Bishop or Inquisitor. L. 285. But one who approves and praises good and true doctrine contained in the book is not comprehended by this censure, provided nevertheless that he is not judged absolutely to approve the book itself; nor even one who praises the style, eloquence, phrase, or genius, provided that this does not argue praise and approval of the book. Bull In Coena Domini, sec. 1; Lugo, De Fide, disp. 25, n. 94; L. 281-299; Bouix, De Cur. Rom., part 3, sec. 3, chap. 11; Suarez, disp. 21, sec. 2, first excommunication; Bonacina, disp. 1, q. 2, part 4; E.M.

III. Schismatics, and those who pertinaciously withdraw themselves from or recede from the obedience of the Roman Pontiff existing for the time.

Schismatics properly are those who, either only from malice of will, or also from error in the doctrine of faith, deny subjection to the Roman Pontiff, by separating themselves from the body of the Church and by constituting a new and separate Church, or by adhering to one already constituted. Those who pertinaciously withdraw themselves from the obedience of the Roman Pontiff existing for the time, i.e., totally separate themselves from his ecclesiastical authority, although they adhere to no other Head or supreme ecclesiastical authority. Nor indeed is it necessary, for incurring this censure by force of this clause, that they be rebels against the authority of the Roman See considered generally; but it suffices that they be rebels against the authority of the Person who actually occupies the Roman See. And recede, namely partially: in some one thing only they are boldly rebellious against the spiritual authority of the Roman Pontiff existing for the time, by resisting the same authority in a particular matter, namely those who in a particular matter reject the spiritual command and authority of the Roman Pontiff, such as, e.g., certain liberal Catholics. Therefore one does not incur this excommunication who would not wish to obey the Roman Pontiff in some particular matter because of the difficulty of the matter, or even because of hatred toward the Person, while nevertheless recognizing his spiritual authority; for by his disobedience he would not truly recede pertinaciously from the Roman Pontiff existing for the time, but would only transgress his laws or precepts. Pertinaciously, i.e., knowingly and willingly; therefore one does not incur excommunication if he denies his authority and does not submit himself to him because he does not think him legitimate, since his election is doubtfully valid. C. 5, Dist. 19; Bull In Coena Domini, sec. 1; St. Thomas, II-II, q. 39; Suarez, disp. 21, sec. 2, first excommunication; disp. 23, sec. 2, second excommunication; sec. 3, par. Melius; Bonacina, disp. 1, q. 2, part 5; E.M.

IV. All and each persons, of whatever state, grade, or condition they may be, appealing from the ordinances or mandates of the Roman Pontiffs existing for the time to a future universal Council; and also those by whose help, counsel, or favor the appeal was made.

As regards persons, this censure is most general: for it is imposed on all of whatever state, grade, and condition. But because excommunication is not imposed on a community, but on individual persons, therefore if a community commits such a delict, the censure of interdict is imposed on it. Cf. 1334. From ordinances or mandates, namely concerning spiritual things. Existing for the time, namely still living, since these "words ought to effect something" from C. Si Papa 10, de Priv., in VI. Future Council, not a future Roman Pontiff, nor a present Council. But as is clear from the very form of the excommunication, those who furnish help, counsel, or favor do not incur excommunication unless the effect follows, namely unless the appeal was actually made. Hence help, counsel, or favor must precede or accompany the appeal; for if it only follows, and is given for resisting pontifical decrees under the appearance of such an appeal, then this censure will not be incurred by force of this clause, because favor was not truly given for appealing, but for the actions afterwards following, which are far different. Nor by any means must appeal from a just or unjust mandate be distinguished, because the Constitution speaks absolutely and indistinctly, and it is not founded on the fact that the thing is just or unjust, but on the fact that one appealing thus does injury to the authority of the Roman Pontiff; for by the very fact he professes that a General Council is superior to it. For to appeal is a provocation from an inferior judge to a superior.

Counsel, favor: although counsel seems to be some favor or moral help, for he who furnishes right counsel helps not a little toward acting well; nevertheless they are distinct, for they are distinct influences ordered to distinct ends. For counsel is for the instruction of the mind and the motion and impulse of the will; but help and favor are for execution. He gives counsel who persuades, and by persuading impels another to do something. For there is question of practical counsel, not of merely doctrinal counsel. To furnish help is to bring aid, assistance, support to the very act or external work. But favor, from "I favor," which is "I am zealous for, I love, I embrace," extends help also to moral assistance, e.g., by helping with praises and recommendations. Hence, when in laws an extension is made to those counseling and favoring, express mention of them is made. Pius II, constitution Exsecrabilis; Bull In Coena Domini, sec. 2; C. Significasti 4, de Electione et Electi Potest.; Suarez, disp. 21, sec. 2, second clause; Bonacina, disp. 1, q. 3, parts 1, 2.

V. All killing, mutilating, striking, seizing, imprisoning, detaining, or hostilely pursuing Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops; and Legates or Nuncios of the Apostolic See; or expelling them from their dioceses, territories, lands, or dominions; and also those commanding these things, or ratifying them, or furnishing help, counsel, or favor in them.

All: understand of whatever sex or state. Killing, in whatever way, by poison, sword, etc. Mutilating, i.e., cutting off a member. Striking: striking is ordinarily done by hand, either immediately or by means of an instrument, namely a staff. Seizing, i.e., apprehending, by impeding freedom of going away. Imprisoning, i.e., thrusting into prison. Detaining, i.e., guarding someone violently shut up in prison, or in another place, from which he cannot freely go out. Hostilely pursuing are those who pursue one fleeing and taking care for himself with a hostile mind, in order to inflict evil on him, namely by killing, mutilating, etc. For this pursuit is punished, even if no other effect follows, insofar as it is the attempt of another crime prohibited by this law. Nor is it likely that the law prohibits the attempt of some delict which it itself does not prohibit or punish. Therefore those are not hostilely pursuing who pursue only for the sake of dishonoring or plundering.

Bishops, namely consecrated; for penalties are of strict interpretation. Legates. They are those who are deputed by Supreme Princes for conducting graver business or for the generality of business. Delegates are those who are deputed by Supreme Princes for certain particular business, yet not graver business, or not for all business. Nuncios, Apostolic, are Legates of the Supreme Pontiff residing among various nations. Expelling, namely expelling one previously received. Expelling generally speaking, whether by public or private authority, with force applied. From their dioceses, territories, lands, or dominions: namely from places where they have right of jurisdiction, domicile, property, dominion, by reason of their office and dignity. Therefore by this censure are punished injuries against the body: killing, mutilating, striking; against liberty: seizing, imprisoning, detaining, hostilely pursuing; against dignity: expelling from their own places, etc.

Commanding. One commanding is he who orders or asks that something be done in his name. Ratifying: these conditions are required for ratification: that the striking was done in your name or in your favor; this then happens when those things preceded which could give others cause for thinking that another would freely consent that the delict be done in his name; that you externally signify the ratification; that when the striking happened you were capable of mandate or counsel concerning the striking at least habitually; for if you were insane, you do not incur; otherwise if drunk or sleeping: thus commonly. L. 267; Suarez, disp. 21, sec. 2, n. 71; Schmalzgrueber, n. 244.

Those commanding these things, etc.; those furnishing help, etc., in them. Therefore commanding, helping, counseling, favoring are all indeed to be understood of mandate, help, and favor that is effective, and that has gravely influenced, and indeed in those things which have been mentioned, not in another action different from them. Help: one who only promises help does not seem able to be said to furnish help. Counsel: e.g., by showing usefulness, by suggesting suitable means. Favor: either positively by exhorting, inciting, or negatively by not impeding when he can and ought. Ought, i.e., when he is held by office or justice, as kings, judges, etc. But if he is held only by charity, the censure more truly is not incurred. C. Felicis 5, de Poenis, in VI; Clementine 1, de Poenis; Extravagant single chapter, de Consuetud.; Bull In Coena Domini, sec. 11; Suarez, disp. 21, sec. 2, eleventh censure; disp. 22, sec. 3, third excommunication; Bonacina, disp. 1, q. 12; disp. 2, q. 3, part 7; disp. 4, qq. 3, 4; L. 268, 269; Ithur., case 41, n. 16; case 43, nn. 1-3.

VI. Those directly or indirectly impeding the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, whether of the internal or external forum, and those having recourse for this to the secular forum, and procuring, issuing, or furnishing help, counsel, or favor for its mandates.

Impeding in reality; otherwise they will not truly be impeding, but trying to impede. Impeding, even if for this they do not have recourse to the secular forum. Directly, e.g., by force or fear inflicted on ecclesiastical judges themselves wishing to exercise jurisdiction. Indirectly, if someone obstructs them in another matter, or in another person, e.g., if force or fear is brought upon their blood relatives, officials, etc. For to impede is to do something by which someone unwilling is kept from acting or ceases from acting. Therefore if someone uses counsels, prayers, or deceits, he is rather understood to persuade, obtain, or deceive. The exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Therefore for someone to incur this censure, it is necessary that he resist one who is marked with jurisdiction, e.g., a Bishop, parish priest, etc.; otherwise he will not be impeding the exercise of jurisdiction, but something else, e.g., if someone impedes a plaintiff from approaching a judge, he impedes not the exercise of jurisdiction but the petition of the plaintiff. Exercise of jurisdiction, namely from law, lest someone begin it or continue in it. There is question of the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, which flows from Christ the Lord or from his Vicar, insofar as he is Roman Pontiff, and belongs to clerics insofar as they are clerics. There is question of the exercise of jurisdiction to which it belongs, e.g., to commit things to be performed, those things which are of order, and to depute to ecclesiastical offices; by no means of the exercise of order itself, e.g., to perform the sacred rite, or of the exercise itself of ecclesiastical office, e.g., to preach, teach, etc. Of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, whether ordinary or delegated. But jurisdiction is the power of ruling and governing others. Of the internal forum, as is that which the Sacred Penitentiary uses, and that which pertains to the forum of conscience. Of the external forum, which regards Christian society, whether it is contentious, which is exercised between parties contending in judgment, or voluntary, which is exercised without any judicial process and sentence, as, e.g., to visit a diocese, send preachers, impose censures, etc.

And is to be understood disjunctively from the obvious sense and the whole context, so that another class of persons who incur this censure is denoted. For this, i.e., for impeding the aforesaid exercise, not for something else, e.g., for not delaying the exercise of that jurisdiction and the rendering of justice, for decreeing justly, etc. For this: therefore those having recourse and all others of whom there is question in what follows do not incur this censure unless the effect follows. Having recourse to the secular forum: to have recourse is to implore the aid of another against someone or something, as if someone suffers injury from him. Forum in the proper meaning is the place of exercising judgments. Therefore the patronage of those must be implored who exercise jurisdiction in the forum, such as the Prefect of a city is not, e.g. Yet it seems that secular forum can also be taken more broadly for any civil magistrate by opposition with the internal and external forum of the first part, which from common acceptance is very broadly evident. Procuring mandates are those who cooperate proximately toward this. Issuing, namely establishing, are civil magistrates, or those who by judicial or even other civil power issue the mandates themselves by decreeing such things. Help, etc. Cf. what has been said in the preceding censures. And its, namely of the secular forum. Or: therefore this last clause, or help, etc., in the obvious sense seems to refer only to the last class of persons, i.e., to those procuring and issuing mandates. But others refer it also to the first, second, and third class of persons whom the present censure touches, namely to those impeding, having recourse, procuring mandates, and issuing them. C. Clericis 3, de Immun. eccles., in VI; Bull In Coena Domini, sec. 16; Suarez, disp. 21, sec. 2, sixteenth censure; Bonacina, disp. 1, q. 17.

VII. Those compelling, whether directly or indirectly, lay judges to draw ecclesiastical persons to their tribunal, apart from canonical dispositions; likewise those issuing laws or decrees against the liberty or rights of the Church.

Compelling. To compel here is through force or grave fear unjustly to induce someone to do something. Hence those are not compelling who denounce a criminal cleric to a judge, or who sue a debtor cleric before a lay judge. Compelling... judges: note that here the one compelling is distinguished from the judge compelled; therefore the judges themselves who only issue sentence against ecclesiastical persons brought to their tribunal by others do not incur this excommunication. In the Instruction of the Sacred Universal Inquisition, June 15, 1870, it is said: "Compelling... indicates that excommunication does not touch those who are subordinate, even if they were judges, but has been imposed only on those who, compelled by no one, either do such things or compel others to do them." And in the Circular Letter of the same Sacred Universal Inquisition, January 23, 1886, these things are had: "This Supreme Congregation of the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition has more than once declared that the heading Compelling does not affect any except legislators and other authorities.... Moreover, in those places in which the privilege of the forum was not derogated by the Supreme Pontiffs, if in those places it is not possible to pursue one's rights except before lay judges, individuals are bound first to seek permission from their proper Ordinary, so that they can sue clerics in the form of lay persons; and the Ordinaries will never deny this, especially when they themselves have given work in vain to reconciling controversies between the parties. But it is not lawful to sue Bishops in that forum without permission of the Apostolic See. And if anyone should have dared to draw either a cleric without permission of the Ordinary, or a Bishop without permission of the Holy See, to a lay judge or judges, it will be in the power of the same Ordinaries to proceed against him, especially if he was a cleric, with penalties and censures ferendae sententiae, as a violator of the privilege of the forum, if they shall have judged this expedient in the Lord."

But the present excommunication was afterward enlarged thus: "We... by Our own Motion establish and declare: whoever among private persons, of lay or sacred order, men or women, summons any ecclesiastical persons whatsoever, whether in a criminal cause or in a civil one, without any permission of ecclesiastical power, to the tribunal of lay persons, and publicly compels them to be present there, all these also incur excommunication latae sententiae reserved in a special manner to the Roman Pontiff." Pius X, Motu Proprio Quantavis diligentia, October 11, 1911. "It is not lawful, without the permission of the ecclesiastical Power, without incurring the censure threatened in the Motu Proprio Quantavis Diligentia, to constitute oneself a civil party in a penal cause of public action against an ecclesiastical person. It is not lawful, as above, to cite ecclesiastics before the lay forum so that they may give testimony, whether in civil causes or in penal causes." Holy Office, March 11, 1912; Monitor Ecclesiasticus, vol. 37, p. 4.

But those compelling, whether directly or indirectly, are those who, by force or fear inflicted on the judges themselves or on other persons who have connection with them, compel them to draw ecclesiastical persons to their tribunal in a cause whether criminal or civil. Lay judges, namely those who by office administer law for a lay tribunal, not other magistrates. To draw, as if the accused, not as a witness, expert, etc. But cf. the aforesaid Motu Proprio of Pius X. To their tribunal, namely so that he may draw him into court, not that he may prescribe something to him, admonish him, correct him. But cf. the cited Motu Proprio. Ecclesiastical persons, namely those who enjoy the privilege of the forum. Apart from canonical dispositions. For there are several cases in which a lay judge, both in civil and in criminal matters, licitly proceeds against ecclesiastical persons. Cf. on this matter Schmalzgrueber, book 2, title 2, par. 6, de Foro comp. rat. pers. eccl., n. 80 ff.; Bizzarri, Collect., p. 178 ff., ed. 1885. Apart from canonical dispositions: understand also Concordats of the Kingdom with the Apostolic See. Issuing: authors of laws and decrees, not the others. Laws: general and in perpetuity, e.g., concerning the royal placet, the royal exequatur, etc., which proceed from supreme authority; or decrees, which are from any power, even inferior, but are put forth generally, not for a particular case, for then they would rather be mandates or sentences of judges. Liberty or rights: said most generally, and therefore it comprehends all things, e.g., by expelling religious families, inhibiting sacred ministries, keeping clerics from the instruction of the people, etc. Of the Church, namely universal. C. Clericis 3, de Immun. eccles., in VI; Bull In Coena Domini, sec. 15; L., de Priv., nn. 18-24; Suarez, disp. 21, sec. 2, fifteenth censure; Bonacina, disp. 1, q. 16; disp. 2, q. 6, part 1; Benedict XIV, Instruction 40; E.M.

VIII. Those having recourse to lay power for impeding letters or any acts whatsoever proceeding from the Apostolic See, or from any Legates or Delegates of the same; and those directly or indirectly prohibiting their promulgation or execution; or, because of them, injuring or terrifying either the parties themselves or others.

Having recourse: whoever, in whatever way. Therefore those having recourse will be those giving a petitionary libel, citing or provoking, appealing, etc. To lay power, whatever it may be, prefects of cities, presidents of tribunals, judges, and all others exercising jurisdiction over citizens. For impeding: in reality; for although the excommunication is directly imposed not on those impeding, but on those having recourse, nevertheless since recourse of this kind is for impeding, and an external action must be perfect and consummated in order that someone incur excommunication, this recourse must be understood with the effect following. The same must be said for the same reason about prohibition, injury, and terrifying. Yet others think otherwise, since the recourse itself, the injury itself, and the terrifying itself are directly condemned.

Letters, given in any form, provided nevertheless that they proceed from Apostolic Authority, whence it is soon said: proceeding from the Apostolic See. Any acts whatsoever, namely whether they are of grace or of justice; whether they regard spiritual or temporal business, yet of ecclesiastical or spiritual law. Acts of the Apostolic See are called those which are done by authority of the Roman Pontiff, whether immediately or mediately. Whence it is said: any acts whatsoever proceeding from the Apostolic See, or from any Legates or Delegates of the same. "Even those things which mediately proceed from the sacred Roman Congregations" are comprehended. Holy Office, January 13, 1892. Acts of the Holy See are warnings, citations, processes, sentences, etc., made by mandate of the Holy See. Legates "are said to be those who are deputed for conducting some business by supreme Princes (and in our case by the Supreme Pontiff); they commonly differ from Delegates, to whom one peculiar business, and not a very complex one, or even peculiar businesses, are committed, while a Legate has entrusted either the generality of business or at least a very complex office handed over." De Angelis, Praelect. Iur. Can., book 1, title 30, n. 1. Proceeding, not, lest they proceed. Therefore those who impede Letters or Acts of this kind from being obtained are not subject to this excommunication.

Promulgation, namely publication in the customary form and manner. Execution, i.e., whatever things are necessary so that Apostolic Letters and Acts may have effect, e.g., if someone prohibits notaries from drawing up instruments concerning them, or from handing over to the parties those drawn up, or prohibits the parties from using those handed over. Prohibiting, namely by public authority. For just as the Pontiff speaks in the first part concerning recourse to lay power, so in this second part he consequently speaks of prohibition flowing from that recourse to lay power. Yet the contrary opinion is also well sustained, because the law does not distinguish. Parties are those whose interest it is that the Letters or Acts of the Apostolic See be promulgated or committed to execution. Others, for instance the patrons of the same parties, because of the acts obtained, or executors, or other persons to whom the acts obtained are in some way referred and pertain; for it is said, because of them, either the parties themselves or others, etc. Injuring properly and strictly are those who inflict some grave harm on someone in the goods of the body. Terrifying are those who threaten to inflict very grave harm. For to terrify is to make one very afraid, to make very grave fear.

C. Clericis 3, de Immun. eccles., in VI; Bull In Coena Domini, sec. 13; Suarez, disp. 21, sec. 2, twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth censure; Bonacina, disp. 1, q. 14; E.M.

IX. All falsifiers of Apostolic Letters, even in the form of a Brief, and of Supplications concerning grace or justice signed by the Roman Pontiff, or by the Vice-Chancellors of the Holy Roman Church or those acting in their place, or by mandate of the same Roman Pontiff. And also those falsely publishing Apostolic Letters, even in the form of a Brief, and also falsely signing Supplications of this kind under the name of the Roman Pontiff, or of the Vice-Chancellor or of those acting in the place of the aforesaid.

Falsifiers: falsifiers of Apostolic letters are those who with evil deceit, even once, adulterate true Apostolic Letters by adding, subtracting, or changing something, in such a way that they can deceive another; but this must be estimated not materially but formally, namely according to the sense principally intended by the Roman Pontiff. With evil deceit: therefore if you corrupted true letters, about to tear them up immediately, harming no one and affecting the authority of the Roman Pontiff with no injury, it is truer that the excommunication ceases. Castropalao, tract 29, de Cens., disp. 2, p., n. 4. But by no means are they falsifiers who fabricate entire false letters. For these are not falsifiers, since they do not change the truth in the thing itself, but are fabricators of false letters, as was held in the Bull In Coena Domini, where falsifiers and false fabricators were distinguished. Suarez, De Cens., disp. 21, sec. 1, sixth Censure. Falsifiers: therefore the present excommunication is incurred, by force of this clause, as soon as the falsity has been completed, although someone afterwards by no means uses the falsified letters. But one who uses them incurs another excommunication reserved to the Bishop, concerning which below.

Of Apostolic Letters. Therefore the letters of any others whatsoever do not pertain here, such as those of an Apostolic Nuncio, Legate a latere, Major Penitentiary, Sacred Congregations, etc. Indeed neither Apostolic Letters nor Rescripts not yet signed, or furnished with seal or lead, because since they are not yet authentic, they do not yet have force; nor those which have ceased to have force and can no longer have force, for instance a dispensation from service of choir for a time, this time having elapsed; a matrimonial dispensation, the dispensed person having died, etc.

Even, and therefore even in another more solemn form, such as Bulls. In the form of a Brief. Briefs are Letters of the Roman Pontiff for business of lesser moment, written on thin and white parchment or ordinary paper, and in Latin character. They are inscribed with the name of the Supreme Pontiff: Pius P. X, and they report the date according to the common Calendar. They are expedited by the Secretariat of State, or also by the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments as regards matrimonial dispensations. They have a seal of red wax in which is impressed the image of blessed Peter fishing. Therefore they are said to be expedited under the ring of the Fisherman. Bulls are Letters of the Supreme Pontiff for graver business, which are now written on parchment paper and in Latin character. They bear a leaden seal, whence they are called Bulls, and the date according to the Roman Calendar, the beginning of the year now being taken from January 1. The hanging seal is now retained in Bulls of greater moment. In others there is an impression of a red seal bearing the images of St. Peter and Paul. They are inscribed with the name of the Supreme Pontiff: Pius, Servant of the Servants of God. New formulae of Bulls were made and approved by the Motu Proprio of Pius X, December 8, 1910. They are expedited through the way of the Chancery, and Apostolic Protonotaries sign Bulls, from the constitution Sapienti consilio. And by special mandate of Pius X, April 15, 1910, for validity the Cardinal Chancellor of the Holy Roman Church must sign, and the Cardinal who presides over the office to which the matter treated in the Constitutions belongs. But Bulls of non-consistorial benefices are expedited through the Datary. Of Supplications: supplications properly are petitions directed to the Pontiff for obtaining grace or right. But according to the style of the Curia they signify rather the response of the Pontiff, whether it is made by simple application of the seal to the petition, or by subscription of the name, or by Rescript in which the petition is mentioned. They are taken here in this second sense, for the discussion is of supplications signed by the Roman Pontiff, etc. Concerning grace or justice: those are said to contain grace which contain some benefit or liberality of the Roman Pontiff; justice, however, those which pertain to lawsuits, and therefore to the cognizance or definition of some case. Signed by the Roman Pontiff, or by the Vice-Chancellor of the Holy Roman Church, or those acting in their place, or by mandate of the same Roman Pontiff: namely Apostolic Letters signed by the proper hand or proper seal of the Pontiff, or indeed by another hand, but in his name or by his mandate. For there is question of Apostolic Letters. The Vice-Chancellor of the Holy Roman Church today, after the constitution Sapienti Consilio, is called Chancellor, and is one of the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, who in Consistories by office discharges the function of notary. To the office of Chancery this one thing pertains: to expedite letters under lead concerning the greater business of the Church.

Falsely publishing are: 1. those who in any manner spread among the people true but adulterated Apostolic Letters; 2. those who spread simply false or entire falsely fabricated letters. Therefore if someone should show only to a few Apostolic Letters simply invented, so that they cannot yet be called published, he would not incur this excommunication. Some require the customary mode for authoritative promulgation; but publication is not the same as promulgation; and in this Constitution one is very clearly distinguished from the other. Apostolic Letters even in the form of a Brief; it is not added, and supplications, as in the first part. Falsely signing supplications are those who apply a false subscription or false seal to them, so that they may be held authentic. Supplications: therefore this part is restricted only to supplications. C. Ad falsariorum 7, de Crim. falsi; Bull In Coena Domini, sec. 6; Bonacina, disp. 1, q. 7.

X. Those absolving an accomplice in a shameful sin, even in the article of death, if another priest, although not approved for Confessions, can hear the Confession of the dying person without any grave infamy and scandal about to arise.

Those absolving: here the excommunication already imposed by Benedict XIV is changed and enlarged; he imposed it against those daring, presuming to absolve, absolving by rash daring. Cf. 1280 ff.; E.M.

XI. Those usurping or sequestrating jurisdiction, goods, revenues pertaining to ecclesiastical persons by reason of their churches or benefices.

Those usurping ecclesiastical goods here are those who authoritatively occupy them from the owner as their own, i.e., as if they had right in them. Hence thieves are not comprehended, who, although they themselves invade another's thing, nevertheless invade it as another's, claiming no right in it by which they might retain it as occupied and belonging to themselves. Holy Office, March 9, 1870; Roncaglia, de Cens., tract 4, chap. 4, q. 2, resp. 1. Nor indeed are those comprehended who acquire ecclesiastical goods usurped by others by purchase, donation, or any other contract, although they sin gravely both against justice and against religion; yet they incur the censure imposed by Trent, Holy Office, July 8, 1874, which moreover declared: "usurpers of ecclesiastical goods of this kind are bound only by the excommunication specially reserved to the Roman Pontiff," by force of the present Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, and not also by the excommunication simply reserved by force of the Council of Trent. Sequestrating here are called those who by judicial office and jurisdiction unjustly commit a thing to some third person to be guarded, or guard it themselves, and thus impede it from remaining under the power of him to whom it pertains, and from being freely used by him. Sequestrating: therefore judges are excommunicated. For sequestration has all its force from the mandate of a judge. Sequestrating here are also those who detain a thing by force of sequestration. The plaintiff also seems to be comprehended, for according to common usage he is well said to sequester.

Jurisdiction, even temporal, as is clear from the whole context and because it is said absolutely. Goods, whether immovable or movable. Revenues, whatever the thing bears, or whatever is received with regard to the thing; but by no means proceeds and income from elsewhere, such as daily distributions. Pertaining to ecclesiastical persons: hence those usurping or sequestrating the goods of pious places, namely hospitals, lay confraternities, etc., do not incur this censure, although they are subject to the Tridentine censure. The same must be said of goods which pertain to churches, but not to ecclesiastical persons, e.g., goods destined for repairing a church, performing divine things, relieving the poor, dowering girls, etc.

By reason of their churches or benefices, whether secular or regular; therefore the present excommunication is not incurred if there is question of goods pertaining to ecclesiastical persons, but for another reason. Nor is it incurred if someone usurps or sequestrates these same things while the benefice is vacant; for the present excommunication seems to provide first of all for the ecclesiastical persons themselves: pertaining to ecclesiastical persons.

Of churches: hence those usurping or sequestrating the goods of monasteries do not incur the present censure by force of this clause. Universally and speaking per se, the goods of monasteries do not pertain to ecclesiastical persons, namely to religious, by reason of their churches or benefices, for instance the goods of a College of religious in which boys are educated, etc. The goods of monasteries pertain to no ecclesiastical persons, but pertain either to the Monasteries themselves or to the Roman Church. Of benefices: hence again those usurping or sequestrating the goods or revenues of lay chaplaincies do not incur this censure. For they are not benefices in the true sense, and are resolved into pious foundations or pious legacies. But those usurping or sequestrating the goods or revenues of benefices which are of lay patronage do incur it. For they are benefices accepted in the strict sense, although they are liable to the servitude of patrons, who have the right of presenting the beneficed person when they have become vacant, the right to certain prerogatives of honor, and some right to support if they should tend toward want. C. Generali Constitutione 13, de Electione et elect. potest., in VI; Bull In Coena Domini, sec. 17; Bonacina, disp. 1, q. 18; Suarez, disp. 21, sec. 2, seventeenth censure; Ferraris, v. Bona, art. 1, n. 13 ff.; E.M.

XII. Those invading, destroying, detaining by themselves or through others, cities, lands, places, or rights pertaining to the Roman Church; or those usurping, disturbing, or retaining supreme jurisdiction in them; and also those furnishing help, counsel, or favor for each of the aforesaid things.

Invading, namely by force applied; for to invade is to enter by force or by an attack, although it is not intended to withdraw that city from the dominion of the Pope, nor to injure the right of the Church in anything. Destroying, in whole or in part. Detaining, whether they themselves invaded, or retain what has been received from others, as e.g., heirs, if nevertheless without greater public harm and without greater harm of the temporal Principate itself of the Roman Pontiff they can at once abandon it; and unless at least tacit consent of the Roman Pontiff himself is added, as seems to have been added for several places enumerated in the Bull In Coena Domini. In this matter the one legitimate judge is the Roman Pontiff himself. Either by themselves or through others refers to the three preceding things. From this head, only male Princes incur this excommunication; not likewise Senators and Deputies, since they retain not as individuals, but as Orders. Rights, i.e., temporal and supreme, principal rights, such as the right of imposing taxes, creating magistrates, etc. Pertaining to the Roman Church, not to private persons, even of the Supreme Pontiff.

Usurping, i.e., ascribing to themselves as their own supreme jurisdiction. Disturbing, e.g., those who directly impede laws from being made, promulgated, and committed to execution in these places; those who promote rebellion, etc., striving to change the established government or to weaken and diminish supreme jurisdiction; not others. Retaining, i.e., exercising supreme jurisdiction de facto in place of the legitimate Prince, thus impeding his jurisdiction. Supreme temporal jurisdiction, namely that which belongs only to the Prince, or supreme governor, that which belongs to the Supreme Pontiff as he is Prince, concerning matters of greater moment, such as cases of State, blood, confiscation of goods, etc. In them, i.e., in the aforesaid cities, lands, and places.

For each of the aforesaid things, namely for invading, destroying cities, etc., usurping, disturbing, retaining supreme jurisdiction, etc. Furnishing help, namely by proximate cooperation, and with all grave fear, coercion, and proportionate grave inconvenience excusing set aside, whether one's own or public. Those furnishing help or favor in retaining are by no means those who stand for the usurpers only in opinion, without doing anything by actual and formal cooperation or adhesion. Encyclical of Pius IX, November 1, 1870; March 26, 1860; Sacred Penitentiary, December 10, 1860. But those furnishing help or favor in retaining are those who furnish some work which proximately confirms the usurpers in detention, e.g., by giving money, by denouncing persons influential among the people, by spreading writings among the people for changing popular opinion, etc.

But here the question is whether those who hold public offices furnish help and favor in retaining. Now these are of two kinds: for some are merely civil, namely those which pertain to the necessities and usefulness of citizens; others are political, which look to protecting the government itself of the whole nation. It is lawful to take up offices of the first kind, since they directly and per se do not tend to approving or confirming the usurper, but only to preserving public order, which the usurper himself ought to preserve from the very nature of society, which cannot ruin itself. But as regards offices of the other kind, the Sacred Penitentiary, October 10, 1860, to the thirteenth general question, "Whether offices can be retained and taken up under an intruded Government," responded that "it can be tolerated, provided there is not question of offices which directly and proximately influence the spoliation, or the maintenance of the same spoliation, and provided they can be exercised without danger of injury to divine and ecclesiastical laws." And thus those directly and proximately influence the maintenance of the spoliation by office who hold the first or supreme magistracy in any province, etc. Instruction of Pius VII, May 22, 1809; June 10, 1809. The cited Encyclical of Pius IX, Respicientes, November 1, 1870, which was issued after the constitution Apostolicae Sedis, explicitly extends excommunication also to other cooperators: to those commanding, favorers, helpers, counselors, adherents, procurers, executors. Bull In Coena Domini, sec. 20; Bonacina, disp. 1, q. 21.

From all these excommunications listed up to this point, We declare that absolution is reserved, and is to be reserved, to the Roman Pontiff existing for the time in a special manner; and that for it a general concession of absolving from cases and censures, or excommunications, reserved to the Roman Pontiff, in no way suffices; moreover, with any indults whatsoever revoked with respect to them, granted under any form and to any persons, even Regulars of whatever Order, Congregation, Society, and Institute, even worthy of special mention and established in any dignity. But those presuming to absolve without due faculty, even under any pretext whatsoever, should know themselves bound by the bond of excommunication reserved to the Roman Pontiff, provided there is not question of the article of death, in which nevertheless the obligation remains firm, as regards those absolved, of standing by the mandates of the Church if they recover. Cf. 799; E.M.

Excommunications latae sententiae reserved in a special manner to the Roman Pontiff, which accrued to the constitution Apostolicae Sedis.

XIII. From the constitution of Pius IX, Romanus Pontifex, August 28, 1873, paragraph Confidimus and following, A.S.S., vol. 7, p. 104, excommunication latae sententiae, specially reserved to the Roman Pontiff, is imposed: 1. on the Dignities and Canons of vacant Cathedral Churches, and on those who, Chapters being lacking, depute Vicars of the vacant Church, or legitimately administer vacant Churches, who, the Capitular Vicar having been removed, before exhibition of the Apostolic Letters, have dared to concede and transfer to one nominated and presented by the lay power to the same Church its care, governance, and administration under any title, name, or sought color. 2. On those nominated and presented to vacant churches, who dare to assume their governance and administration from the aforesaid concession and transfer performed to them by Dignities and Canons and others of whom above. 3. And also on those who have obeyed the foregoing, or have furnished help, counsel, or favor, of whatever state, condition, preeminence, and dignity they may be.

Bishops are excluded from this excommunication. Cf. n. 1237, 1246; A.S.S., vol. 7, p. 401.

Those violating the Pontifical secret, or the so-called secret of the Holy Office, are bound by excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, with even the Major Penitentiary excluded, except in the article of death. Among others, examiners of the writings and books of Servants of God are bound to observe this secret, and those who discharge some office in the Consistorial Congregation. Order to be observed in the Roman Curia, particular norms, art. 2, n. 4; E.M., On the Second Precept of the Decalogue, 555.

The same penalty of excommunication, reserved exclusively to the Supreme Pontiff, is incurred by those violating secrecy in all those things which pertain to the election of the Roman Pontiff, and in those things which are done in the Conclave or place of election. And the same excommunication is also incurred by all those who incur some excommunication imposed and inflicted by the constitution of Pius X, Vacante Sede, concerning the vacant Apostolic See and the election of the Roman Pontiff, December 25, 1904, such as, e.g., those who, in the aforesaid election, would receive the office of proposing a Veto or Exclusive of some civil power, and would reveal it in any way, nn. 51, 81.

We declare subject to excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Roman Pontiff:

I. Those teaching or defending, whether publicly or privately, propositions condemned by the Apostolic See under penalty of excommunication latae sententiae; likewise those teaching or defending as licit the practice of inquiring from a penitent the name of an accomplice, as it was condemned by Benedict XIV in the constitutions Suprema, July 7, 1745; Ubi primum, June 2, 1746; Ad eradicandum, September 28, 1746.

Teaching: to teach, as to believe, is not the same as to put into practice; these two can very well be distinguished in reality or in fact. To teach properly is simply to hand down and persuade some doctrine, whether by private or public teaching. Therefore, if someone only says that he holds that this or that proposition ought not to have been condemned, he does not incur this excommunication. Defending: to defend is to undertake patronage of them, by vindicating them from attacks and contrary reasons, as if they were unworthy of condemnation. Publicly, by public school, university, conference, disputation, etc. This twofold addition, whether publicly or privately, placed at the end, affects each thing which precedes, teaching or defending, as is established from the obvious sense. By the Apostolic See, namely by the Supreme Pontiff, not by the Index, not by the Sacred Congregation of the Index, not by an Ecumenical Council. Under penalty of excommunication latae sententiae. Therefore there is question here of the Roman Pontiff condemning ex cathedra under penalty of excommunication latae sententiae, although reservation is not added; for first, this is not held in the Constitution; then, this part of the article would become useless.

Likewise those teaching, etc. Benedict XIV in the constitution Suprema thoroughly reproves the practice of seeking the name of an accomplice, with denial of sacramental absolution also denounced unless it is revealed; there is question of an accomplice not only in a shameful matter, but in any sin. For the law speaks absolutely. In the constitution Ubi primum, the penalty of excommunication by the very fact and reserved to the Roman Pontiff is imposed on anyone who "has dared to teach that a practice of this kind is licit." In the constitution Ad eradicandum, the Pontiff decrees and declares "that the mentioned practice in itself, and everywhere in places and times, has been reproved and condemned by Apostolic Authority and must be judged such." Therefore two things, as is clear, are required so that someone incur excommunication of this kind: 1. that he teach or defend that this practice is licit; 2. that he teach or defend that each together is licit, i.e., both to inquire into the name of the accomplice and to deny absolution to one keeping silent. But it is not necessary that he teach or defend these things with daring and presumption. For it is said, as it was condemned by Benedict XIV, etc., namely the practice; not, to teach or defend.

If confessors by threats of absolution to be denied have compelled penitents to reveal the accomplice, Benedict XIV ordered that they be denounced to the Sacred Inquisition as suspected in faith, yet not by the penitents themselves, but by others who knew it from elsewhere than from their own Confession.

But to this matter pertain the things which are had in the Motu Proprio of Pius X: "Besides these things, in order to repress the daily more daring spirits of many modernists, who by sophisms and artifices of every kind strive to take away all force and efficacy not only from the Decree Lamentabili sane exitu, which the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition, by Our command, issued on July 3 of the current year, but also from Our Encyclical Letters Pascendi Dominici gregis, given on the eighth day of September of this same year, by Our Apostolic Authority We repeat and confirm both that Decree of the Sacred Supreme Congregation and those Our Encyclical Letters, with the penalty of excommunication added against contradictors; and We declare and decree this: if anyone, may God avert it, should advance to such boldness as to defend any one of the propositions, opinions, and doctrines reproved in either document of which We spoke above, he is struck by that very fact with the censure imposed in the heading Teaching of the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, which is the first among excommunications latae sententiae simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff. But this excommunication is to be understood with the penalties preserved into which those who commit anything against the mentioned documents can incur as propagators and defenders of heresies, if sometimes their propositions, opinions, or doctrines are heretical; this has indeed happened more than once concerning the adversaries of either of those documents, and especially when they defend the errors of the modernists, that is, the collection of all heresies." Pius X, Motu Proprio Praestanti Scripturae, November 18, 1907.

Is it so forbidden by the aforesaid letters of Benedict XIV to ask the name of an accomplice that this is lawful in no case? R. Negatively, 1. because Benedict XIV himself supposes cases in which this is lawful according to true and sound doctrines; 2. because sometimes the confessor ought to ask about circumstances from which, although per accidens, he comes into knowledge of the accomplice; and sometimes the penitent himself is bound to manifest the accomplice to the Superior, or to another, and yet he cannot furnish this except through the confessor. L., book 6, nn. 491, 499; Ithur., case 31; Lugo, De Poenit., disp. 16, nn. 432, 433.

Is this lawful also for correction or for the public good? R. To the first, negatively. This is established 1. from the constitutions of Benedict XIV in the places cited; 2. because even correction of this kind would render the sacrament of penance odious to the faithful, is harmful to the reputation of neighbors, and contains danger of violation of the sacramental seal. To the second, one must distinguish: if there is question of impeding public harm, affirmatively, namely if this is the one necessary means; but if there is question of merely promoting the public good, negatively, for the same reasons.

Does a confessor sin gravely if he asks the name of an accomplice, but not under penalty of absolution to be denied? An imprudent question of this kind from curiosity, levity, or another similar cause would be excused from mortal sin, grave defamation of the neighbor and grave scandal of the penitent nevertheless set aside. The reason is that those grave reasons would then be lacking which have just been explained, cf. 1180, and which Benedict XIV enumerates in his constitution Suprema.

II. Those, with the devil urging, laying violent hands upon clerics or monks of either sex, with exception, as regards reservation, of cases and persons concerning whom by law or privilege it is permitted that a Bishop or another absolve.

Violent hands: by this is understood any injurious exterior action by deeds, not words, mortal against the person of a cleric; whether by it someone injures his body by striking him, wounding him, giving him poison, when an action of this kind has begun to harm; or injures his liberty by thrusting him into prison, C. Nuper 29, de Sent. exc., etc.; or injures his dignity by bringing force against him in any way, e.g., if he stops the carriage in which he is carried, violently takes away his hat, fouls him, etc. L. 272-275, 280. But an injurious striking would be had even if the cleric consented to it, since this law is in favor of the state. C. Contingit 36, de Sent. excomm. On the contrary, they do not incur excommunication if some strike a cleric for the sake of defense, or in jest; or if parents, teachers, superiors strike a cleric for the sake of correction. C. Cum voluntate 54, sec. 2, ibid.; C. Ex tenore 10, ibid.; C. Si vero 3, ibid.; C. Super eo 1, ibid.

With the devil urging: this "only imports a striking with grave sin." L. 275, 48; Suarez, De Cens., disp. 22, sec. 1, n. 2; Schmalzgrueber, n. 228; Elbel, n. 132. Laying: not those commanding, counseling, consenting, ratifying, or not impeding the laying on. Clerics: by this name is understood everyone initiated at least by first tonsure, even if married, provided he is married to one virgin only and wears the clerical habit and tonsure, C. single chapter, de Cler. coni., in VI; likewise, even one excommunicated, suspended, interdicted, only verbally deposed, or irregular. Monks: "understand any religious, even a lay converse, novice, of either sex. Likewise Tertiaries of St. Dominic and St. Francis if they wear the habit and live in community. Likewise hermits subject to some rule or superior.... Fagnanus says the same of women living together in conservatories, although the religion has not yet been approved.... And Renzius says the same of seminarians, etc." L. 271; Schmalzgrueber, n. 219.

Excepted, etc. Therefore the cases and persons are excepted concerning which by law or privilege it is permitted that a Bishop or another absolve. Cases: a threefold striking must be distinguished: enormous, moderate or grave, light. Striking is enormous if by it someone has mutilated a cleric or monk, put out his eye, broken a limb, inflicted a huge wound, caused a great quantity of blood to be poured out from somewhere other than the nose. It is moderate if the striking brings contusion or deformity, for instance if a tooth is extracted, if an amount of hair is plucked out, if bruising of the flesh is made, if a quantity of blood is poured out, yet without a graver injury of the body. Finally, striking is called light here, not because it imports venial sin, but because, although it is mortal, by the judgment of the prudent it is considered light compared with enormous striking, e.g., if it is done with the palm, fist, staff, stone, without leaving a trace. But it must be observed that light striking can become grave or enormous by reason of circumstances, namely by reason of the person injured, the person injuring, the person before whom the striking is done, and by reason of scandal, place, time, and injury. L. 276-278; Extravagant Perlectis apud the Holy Doctor, n. 277. From light striking, even public, Bishops can absolve from C. Pervenit 17, C. Si vero 3, de Sent. exc. And likewise their Vicars General can do this, because Bishops have this by ordinary law. The same can be done by others having quasi-episcopal jurisdiction. L. 79, 279. From enormous or moderate striking, if it is public, only the Pope or a Legate a latere, who enjoys pontifical authority, can absolve, from C. Ad Eminentiam 20, de Sent. exc. The same can be done by Legates sent to some province from C. Excommunicatis, penultimate, de Off. Legati, but only in their province, and not as regards outsiders. But if the striking was occult, Bishops also can absolve from it by Trent, C. Liceat 6, sess. 24. L. 88, 279.

Persons: Bishops can absolve nuns and all other women from striking, even public, from CC. Mulieres 6, Ea noscitur 13, De monialibus 32, de Sent. exc.; Ithur., case 43, n. 29. "And this even if the striking was enormous.... Likewise those who live collegially, if the striking was grave, but not if enormous.... Likewise all impeded from going to Rome." L. 279; C. Canonica 50, de Sent. excomm.; C. Quoniam 9, de Vit. et hon. cl. Add also regulars, "if the striking was light or enormous but occult..., with the license of their prelates." L. 107; appendix de Privil., n. 97. Cf. Suarez, De Relig., tome 4, book 2, chap. 3.

Or another: therefore regular prelates can absolve their subjects, even novices: 1. if they have struck a fellow member of the same order, unless the striking is enormous or hands have been laid upon a Bishop or Abbot. 2. If they have struck a religious of another order, provided the judgment of the prelate to whom the one struck is subject is also applied. But they cannot absolve them if they have struck a secular cleric, but they must be absolved by the Apostolic See, except in the case of light striking, in which they can be absolved by the Bishop. CC. Monachi 2, Cum illorum 32, Canonica 50, de Sent. exc.; Religioso 21, e.t., in VI; St. Alphonsus, n. 107, where he adds: "It must be noted... that the aforesaid things proceed according to common law; for when privileges are considered, religious can well be absolved by their prelates even if the striking was enormous, from several privileges..., even if a religious struck another of another order, or a secular cleric..., even if the striking was public." Cf. Lucidi, de Visitat., etc., chap. 4, de Clero regul., sec. 4, nn. 96-98; Scavini, book 1, n. 954. Or another: "when the penitent is impeded from approaching the superior, or in danger of death, he can be absolved by any confessor." D'Annibale, Summ., part 1, n. 368, 3rd ed. C. 29, cause 17, q. 4; Suarez, disp. 22, sec. 1; Schmalzgrueber, nn. 97, 243-262; Elbel, nn. 125-149; Bonacina, disp. 2, q. 3, part 6.

Does one incur excommunication who, wishing to kill Peter the cleric, by invincible error kills Anthony the cleric? Several grave doctors deny it, because that real striking with respect to Anthony the cleric was not voluntary, but merely accidental. Others, more probably and commonly, as St. Alphonsus says, book 3, n. 628, affirm it, because although there is error in the person, nevertheless he truly wills to injure a cleric, and in fact injures one. Therefore he truly injures the clerical state. Therefore. Suarez, l.c., n. 54; Molina, De Iustitia et Iure, tract 3, disp. 3, n. 2; Sanchez, De Matr., book 9, disp. 32, n. 27; Schmalzgrueber, nn. 229, 234.

Does he incur excommunication who strikes someone, being ignorant that he is a cleric, but with such a mind that if he knew, he would still strike him? "Sanchez, Suarez, etc., more commonly and more probably deny it, because with concomitant ignorance there is present only an interpretative will, which is not a true will." L. 275; Schmalzgrueber, n. 233; C. Si vero 4, de Sent. exc.

III. Those perpetrating a duel, or simply provoking to it, or accepting it, and any accomplices furnishing any work or favor whatsoever; and also those deliberately watching it, and those permitting it, or, insofar as it is in them, not prohibiting it, of whatever dignity they may be, even royal or imperial.

A duel, insofar as it is punished by this penalty of excommunication, is an illicit war or fight of two persons, by agreement, at an appointed time, in an agreed place, and with lethal and equal arms, even if "it has been agreed that not individuals with individuals, but two, three, or more on each side, should fight," Clement VIII, constitution Illius vices, secs. 3, 5, namely one against one, even if several have successively engaged with the same person. Those perpetrating a duel, i.e., those committing a duel, whether privately or publicly, namely with seconds employed, placards affixed and signed, or a libel of provocation, etc. Also comprehended here are those among whom agreements have been entered about ending the contest as soon as either one has been wounded, or has shed blood, or a certain number of blows has been inflicted by each side. For these truly perpetrate a duel, provided nevertheless that the duel is of itself lethal. Simply provoking to it, whether they provoke by writing or another exterior sign. The present excommunication is incurred even if the duel does not in fact follow, nor the approach, nor any other act proximate to the fight. For since it is said, simply provoking, the censure is imposed precisely because of the provocation, and not also because of the duel. Accepting it: the same observation must be made as for those provoking.

Any accomplices, or those furnishing any work or favor whatsoever. Therefore those commanding, giving counsel, accompanying, messengers, those dictating provocative libels, or writing or affixing them; seconds, witnesses, masters of arms, etc., are excommunicated. But whether accomplices and cooperators incur excommunication if the fight is not brought to effect? Some affirm; others deny; for then it is not verified that they were accomplices and cooperators of a duel. Deliberately watching, i.e., those who intentionally go to the place of the duel and assist at the duel. Hence one who, passing by the place of the duel by the way and by chance, looks, led by curiosity, does not incur excommunication. Likewise those who watch from afar, or in secret, or in another way inducing nothing toward sharpening the fight, do not seem to incur this excommunication. Finally, one who goes to the place of the duel in order to impede it does not incur this excommunication, for they furnish a very good thing. Those permitting it, or, insofar as it is in them, not impeding it: therefore those civil or military authorities who, when they can, by no means impede a duel are subject to this excommunication. Temporal lords, not prohibiting them in their lands, etc. Gregory XII, constitution Ad tollendum; Clement VIII, constitution Illius vices; Benedict XIV, constitution Detestabilem; L. 220; Reiffenstuel, book 5, title 14; Schmalzgrueber, book 5, title 14; Lugo, Resp. Mor., book 2, disp. 1, 2; Bonacina, disp. 2, q. 3, part 48; E.M.

IV. Those giving their name to the Masonic sect, or Carbonari sect, or to other sects of the same kind which plot against the Church or legitimate powers, whether openly or secretly; and also those furnishing any favor whatsoever to the same sects; or those not denouncing their occult ringleaders and leaders, until they have denounced them.

Those giving their name are whoever knowingly and willingly are admitted into it, by whatever rite, or are initiated even without a rite. Masonic sects are assemblies or societies of men which propose to themselves to contrive something against the Church or against legitimate Government, "whether they have done this secretly or openly, whether they have exacted or not from their followers an oath of preserving secrecy." Holy Office, January 12, 1870; May 10, 1884; August 15, 1846. Or to other sects of the same kind: sects plainly religious, heretical, and schismatic do not pertain here. Legitimate powers, whether civil or religious. But here it must be noted that those who have given their name to the aforesaid sects cannot be absolved if, although they repent of the oath emitted, they nevertheless externally communicate with the same associates, by reason of the scandal which is present. Holy Office, July 5, 1837; June 27, 1838; Sacred Penitentiary, November 8, 1821. Any favor whatsoever: whatsoever is very broad; whether negatively, when someone ought and can act; or positively, whether someone acts physically or morally; whether by himself or through others; whether directly or indirectly, whether openly or occultly. Occult ringleaders and leaders: not all whatsoever who have given their name to condemned sects. Occult: therefore if they are publicly known, denunciation can be omitted, as is drawn from the cited Instruction of the Holy Office, February 1, 1871.

Ringleaders and leaders. By the present Constitution there is indeed no censure as regards those omitting denunciation of other sectarians. But there always remains the obligation of denouncing them either from ecclesiastical law, if this is in force, or from natural law, which obliges gravely when there is question of avoiding grave harm.

Until they have denounced. The denunciation must be made to the Inquisitor or Bishop of the place, or to one exercising a quasi-episcopal office there, or to another delegated by them for this effect, as is drawn from the cited Instruction. But grave harm to oneself or one's own can excuse from it, unless there is danger of common harm, which always prevails over private harm, or unless the denunciation is useless because the prelate will apply no remedy. But a notable lapse of time is required for excommunication because of omitted denunciation. Such is an entire month, from the time when someone knew the obligation and was able to fulfill it, according to the common rule. But once denunciation has been made, at least the reservation of the censure ceases, since it is imposed conditionally, until they have denounced. Indeed "the censure itself ceases through denunciation. Holy Office, February 1, 1871." But if for a just cause someone is absolved, before he makes denunciation, by one having power for this, and afterwards he does not keep the promise made of denunciation to be made, he falls back into the same excommunication by force of this clause: until they have denounced. Clement XII, constitution In eminenti; Benedict XIV, constitution Providas; Pius VII, constitution Ecclesiam; Leo XII, constitution Quo graviora; Gregory XVI, constitution Inter; Pius IX, Allocution Qui pluribus, November 9, 1846; Encyclical Letter of Leo XIII, Humanum genus, April 20, 1884; Instruction of the Holy Office, May 10, 1884; Ferraris, v. Denuntiatio; E.M.

V. Those commanding the violation of the immunity of ecclesiastical asylum by rash daring, or those violating it.

The immunity of ecclesiastical asylum is the right which belongs to sacred or religious places, so that those who flee to them are not extracted from them by force. C. Inter 6, de Immun. eccles. Yet from the constitution Cum alias of Gregory XIV and from the Bull Ex quo divina of Benedict XIII, public robbers, highwaymen, ravagers of fields, murderers, heretics, rebels guilty of injured majesty against the person of the Prince, and others whom Benedict XIII excepts in the cited constitution, are excepted, with the formalities nevertheless observed which are prescribed by these two Constitutions. Cf. A.S.S., vol. 2, p. 49 ff., 120, 486. This right belongs to churches, even not yet consecrated, polluted, interdicted, and their sacristies, bell towers, roofs, atria, cemeteries, even separated from the Church; to oratories erected by the Bishop; to hospitals in which there exists some public chapel; to a house of religious; to seminaries; to palaces of Bishops or of Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church. CC. 9, 21, 35, 36, final, de Imm. Eccl.; C. 4, de Relig. dom.; L., de Priv., nn. 25-27. With account indeed taken of places and times, several acts to the contrary are excused from sin per accidens, because they cannot morally be avoided, and positive law does not oblige with so great an inconvenience. Yet per se this right still obtains, notwithstanding contrary custom introduced, namely so that reverence for sacred things may be consulted. Holy Office, December 22, 1880.

By rash daring comprehends each member. From this it is understood that only he incurs excommunication who, by no means compelled by others, prudently and knowingly, either commands the violation of the immunity of ecclesiastical asylum or violates it by executing. Holy Office, February 1, 1871, A.S.S., vol. 15, p. 539. Those commanding violation: hence all those commanding that a delinquent be extracted from ecclesiastical asylum incur excommunication, the effect of violation having followed. Violating are those who in fact extract the guilty person from asylum by force, not those who only attempt it. C. 6, cause 17, q. 4; title 49, de Immun. eccles., book 5 of the Decretals; Gregory XIV, constitution Cum alias; Benedict XIII, constitution Ex quo divina; Clement XII, constitution In Suprema; Benedict XIV, constitutions Alias felicis, Officii nostri, Elapso proxime; Ferraris, Bibliotheca, v. Immunitas eccles.; Reiffenstuel, book 3, title 49; Bonacina, disp. 2, q. 3, part 16.

VI. Those violating the enclosure of nuns, of whatever kind or condition, sex or age they may be, by entering into their monasteries without legitimate license; and likewise those introducing or admitting them; likewise nuns going out from it outside the cases and form prescribed by St. Pius V in the constitution Decori.

Those violating the enclosure of nuns are, as is established from what follows, those who enter into their monasteries without legitimate license. Enclosure is called that whole space which is contained by the enclosures of the monastery. Of nuns, i.e., those who profess religion strictly by true and proper profession. For the discussion here is of that enclosure of which the Council of Trent speaks, sess. 25, de Reg., chap. 5, and Pius V in the constitution Decori. Hence more recent nuns are not bound to canonical and pontifical enclosure, nor are they liable to this censure. S.C. Bishops and Regulars, August 1, 1839. Of whatever kind or condition. Persons of the royal family do not seem also to be comprehended, who by reason of their supreme dignity are worthy of more special mention; nor do prelates, whether secular or regular, seem to be comprehended if entering without necessity, for it cannot be said of them that they enter without faculty. Sex or age. Hence not only men, but also women; not only adults, but also seven-year-old children capable of malice. Monasteries: by the name of monastery is understood a house in which religious women gathered together regularly live. L. 231.

Without legitimate license. Therefore it does not seem that, by reason of incurring this excommunication, it is necessarily required that this license be obtained in writing, as is held in Trent, l.c.; and it seems that even a general license suffices. And indeed he who enters with license received from the superior, although neither had in writing nor special but general, does not indeed enter without legitimate license. This license can be granted: 1. Bishops by their own authority, or delegated authority, according as the monasteries are subject to the Bishop or immediately subject to the Supreme Pontiff. 2. Vicars General, only as regards monasteries subject to the Bishop. 3. Capitular Vicars, the see being vacant, both as regards monasteries subject to the Bishop and also as regards those which are subject to the Apostolic See. 4. The Bishop, and besides him the regular prelate, i.e., General, Provincial, or immediate Superior of the monastery, as regards monasteries subject to regulars, unless a contrary custom is in force, that it be given by the Bishop alone. Benedict XIV, De Synodo, book 13, chap. 12, n. 23. 5. The Abbess, confessor, or another prudent man by delegation or commission of the Bishop. S.C.C., November 26, 1722; L. 223, 224, 228.

But this license cannot be given except in necessary cases, and therefore for a grave cause; and a lesser cause is required for the entrance of a woman than of a man, for daytime entrance than nighttime, of a female blood relative than of a stranger, and for entrance into the outer enclosures than into the inner. But in urgent necessities which do not suffer delay, as in the case of death, fire, violence, etc., no license is required for entering. L. 225. The ordinary physician cannot enter except with license renewed every three months; nor ought he to be accompanied by two senior nuns and enter alone. An extraordinary physician cannot enter at the pleasure of the nuns, but only in defect of the ordinary physician, or when a consultation must be had with the ordinary. Moreover craftsmen and other necessary persons can enter with license, who must exercise their craft within the enclosure. L. 226. A confessor can enter to administer to the sick the sacraments of penance and Eucharist, not only in danger of death, but as often as Communion is distributed by prescription of the rule, and as often as that nun is accustomed to communicate; likewise to administer extreme unction, and to commend the souls of the dying, vested in stole and surplice, S.C. Bishops and Regulars, January 1714, but not to perform the exequies of a deceased nun. A secular confessor must enter without a companion, but a regular must have a companion of approved life and mature age. But while he hears Confession, female attendants must stand by at the door, so that they see him. L. 227. Finally Bishops can enter the monasteries of nuns in case of necessity or visitation, but accompanied by a few persons, and those senior and religious; likewise regular prelates for the sake of visitation, once in the year, and if he is General, he can himself have with him two companions of his order, who are exemplary and of mature age; but if another, only one; and moreover four nuns from the senior ones must assist, who are not separated from the Visitor. L. 221; Bizzarri, Collectan., p. 262, ed. 1885. Although one who entered the monastery with license and, after the business is finished, does not immediately go out, does not incur the censure, nevertheless he sins mortally if the delay is notable.

By entering: to enter is to go inside, to stay inside, and not only to put a foot inside. Introducing are those who cooperate positively toward entrance by sending inside, or by opening the door to one wishing to enter. Admitting are those receiving, who do not prohibit entrance when they can and ought by office, namely the Prefects and Portresses. Likewise those introducing or admitting them: them, namely those violating. Outside the cases, etc. From the cited constitution of St. Pius V, "going out is excused if there is a just cause, namely (as is said there) of great fire, or illness, leprosy, or epidemic." Hence similar causes suffice for going out, such as imminent war, attack by robbers, flooding of a river, or ruin of a building. And form, etc. For when access is available, and time, namely if the danger suffers delay, from the aforesaid Bull of St. Pius V license had in writing from the Bishop is altogether required for going out, and also from the regular prelate if the monastery is exempt. But even in the aforesaid cases it is not lawful to remain outside the monasteries except for the necessary time. Going out, i.e., going out beyond the enclosure with the whole body. St. Alphonsus with others does not admit smallness of matter. Therefore, if a nun goes out from the enclosure, or someone enters the enclosure, even by one step, he incurs this excommunication. Yet others cited by the same Holy Doctor deny this, n. 229. Gregory XIII, constitution Dubiis, December 23, 1581; Alexander VII, constitution Felici, November 10, 1664; Giraldi, Exp. Iur. Pont., part 2, sec. 140; Lugo, Resp. Mor., book 3, disp. 18; E.M.

Note: For the greater custody of chastity, frequent access to speak with nuns at the grates without special faculty and without reasonable and manifest cause, and where there is no legitimate custom to the contrary, is prohibited under grave obligation both to clerics and to lay persons. But this frequency consists in this, that someone goes to the monastery on three continuous days, or four times in a week, or once in each month for about a year. But for regulars, this conversation with nuns is specially prohibited, even if it is done once and for a quarter of an hour and a half, indeed "for any small space of time whatsoever, they sin mortally." Thus the Sacred Congregation, May 1, 1669. "Regulars approaching to speak with nuns without license sin mortally; even from a reasonable cause, when license is not present," etc. Sacred Congregation, November 26, 1672. But from the Decree of the Sacred Congregation issued by order of Sixtus V in 1590, on regulars speaking with any nuns whatsoever, whether of their own or of another order, or with any woman living in a monastery, there is imposed the penalty of deprivation of office, of active and passive voice, to be incurred by the very fact. More probably an abbess outside Rome is excepted. But those joined in the first and second degree of consanguinity are exempt from this prohibition, after permission has first been obtained from the Ordinary, who can give it in the prescribed form and for four times at most in any year. S.C. Bishops and Regulars, 13 Kalends of December, 1623. C. Monasteria, de Vit. et honest. cleric.; C. Periculum, de Stat. regul., in VI; L., book 6, nn. 332-243; Bonacina, tome 1, de Claus., q. 3; Lezana, Summa Quaest. Regular., vol. 2, v. Moniales, n. 17 ff.

From Trent, sess. 25, chap. de Reg., a secular magistrate is excommunicated, with excommunication reserved to no one, if, at the request of the Bishop, he does not furnish help against the disobedient and those contradicting the enclosure of nuns. Bonacina, disp. 2, q. 10, part 7, de Clausura, q. 4; Ferraris, v. Moniales, arts. 3, 4; Lucidi, de Visit., etc., vol. 2, chap. 5, sec. 2; vol. 3, Document LV ff., 4th ed.; Bizzarri, Collect., pp. 301, 311, 319, 329, 347, 410, 438, 454 ff., 546 ff., 596 ff., 723 ff., ed. 1885; Benedict XIV, De Synodo, book 9, chap. 15; Schmalzgrueber, book 3, title 35; Reiffenstuel, ibid.

VII. Women violating the enclosure of male regulars, and superiors or others admitting them.

Women. Since this same excommunication was previously in force and nothing new is now added, it seems the same exception must be made as before. Therefore "queens, electresses, and similar women, and their daughters" are excepted. L. 231, 225. Women, namely having the use of reason and pubescent. Violating, namely by entering, even if at that time no religious is inside; for this is per accidens. Of regulars, i.e., religious who emit solemn vows; for those who emit only simple vows, at least from the sacred canons, are not subject to enclosure.

Enclosure is that whole space which is contained by the enclosures of the monastery, and therefore workshops, dining rooms or refectories, infirmaries, dormitories, kitchen, etc., cloisters, gardens, meadows, orchards, unless they are separated by key and a suitable wall; but not the sacristy, if access to it is open from the church; indeed not even the first cloisters, to which women go to draw water, provided the monastery has other cloisters inaccessible to women. S.C. Bishops and Regulars, April 21 and May 16, 1582; Ferraris, v. Conventus, art. 3, n. 9 ff. In some orders of regulars which have within the monastery a room of the Holy Founder or of another Saint, there is a legitimate custom of admitting there the faithful of either sex on the feast day of the same. "Elbel says, n. 671, that as regards the manner of observing enclosure, legitimate and reasonable customs approved by the authority of Superiors are to be attended to; but not those which should rather be called abuses and corruptions." L. 231. But under the name of monastery or convent do not come private houses or residences where one or another religious is accustomed to dwell; nor a house which is being built, unless there are already sufficient dwellings, so that the community can now live regularly. L. 231.

Or others: therefore even inferiors and subjects admitting them incur this excommunication. Religious violating their enclosure by the introduction of women for an evil end incur by that very fact the penalty of deprivation of offices, and besides, for the future, incapacity for obtaining dignities and offices of their order. Warnings concerning the use of the faculties of the Jubilee, Kalends of November, 1899, sec. VII. Them, namely women violating. Admitting, i.e., receiving, approving admission, or not impeding it when they can and ought by office. Benedict XIV, constitution Regularis disciplinae, constitution Decet Rom. Pont.; Suarez, disp. 22, sec. 6, sixth excommunication; Bonacina, disp. 2, q. 3, part 38, de Clausura, q. 5; Pellizzarius, Man. Reg., tract 5, 6, nn. 36, 37.

VIII. Those guilty of real simony in any benefices whatsoever, and their accomplices.

Those guilty, namely those conferring and receiving a benefice simoniacally. Those guilty: here there is not held, of whatever dignity they may be. Hence some exclude Cardinals, but others also wish them comprehended. For this clause is not held in the following article so that they may be understood as excluded here, but so that in that article even Cardinals and prelates may be understood as included, who previously, according to the opinion of many, were punished only by interdict from entrance into the Church. Pius IV, constitution Romanum Pontificem, sec. 4. Simony, i.e., such properly and strictly, or of divine law. Real simony, by each side giving and receiving the thing and the price. But although it is required that the simony be real, fulfillment from each side, nevertheless, if only part of the promised thing is paid, real simony is now understood to be perfected from each side and sufficient for incurring this excommunication.

In benefices, i.e., in benefices properly so called, of which kind pensions, or temporary vicarships, etc., offices, dignities, etc., in religious orders are not. Therefore one who sells a spiritual pension, although he commits simony, does not incur the present excommunication. For a benefice is: a perpetual right, constituted by ecclesiastical authority, of receiving revenues from the goods of the Church because of a sacred office. Perpetual, i.e., both objectively, insofar as the benefice itself of itself is so perpetual that it remains with the beneficed person until it is taken away from him for a legitimate cause, and so that by the death of the beneficed person, or by his removal from the benefice, the benefice itself is not extinguished, but is vacant of possessor, so that it is to be conferred on another, and therefore endures perpetually in itself; and subjectively, insofar as the beneficed person ought to have it perpetually, as long as he lives, irrevocably. Hence under the name of benefices, properly and strictly, do not come parishes which are conferred in a revocable manner. But others, for incurring this censure, do not require subjective perpetuity also. In benefices, i.e., in buying or selling the benefices themselves; in conferral, election, presentation, and other acts which pertain to provision of benefices. Whatsoever: namely whether they are double benefices or simple; whether of right of patronage or of free collation, etc. Accomplices: therefore this penalty is incurred, e.g., not only by one conferring and receiving a benefice, but also by those by whose cooperation, mediation, or favor the simoniacal contract is perfected. Extravagant 2, h.t.; Lugo, Resp. Mor., book 2, disp. 3, nn. 2, 3; disp. 7, n. 8; Suarez, disp. 22, sec. 5, fourth excommunication; Bonacina, disp. 2, q. 3, part 24; Thesaurus, De Poen., part 2, Simony.

IX. Those guilty of confidential simony in any benefices whatever, of whatever dignity they may be.

Those guilty, namely those giving and receiving benefices and their fruits; and likewise those resigning. For those guilty of confidential simony are those who enter into a confidential pact among themselves. Those guilty: not also accomplices, as in the preceding article. Confidential, which has place only in ecclesiastical benefices; hence is added, in any benefices whatever, etc. But this excommunication is incurred both because of real confidential simony and because of mixed confidential simony, namely completed from one side only; for it is true confidential simony. Nor indeed is it required that the promised thing be fulfilled from each side. Of whatever dignity they may be: and therefore the present excommunication holds also Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church and other prelates. Pius IV, constitution Romanum; St. Pius V, constitution Intolerabilis; Council of Trent, sess. 25, chap. 7; Suarez, disp. 22, sec. 6, seventh excommunication; Bonacina, disp. 2, q. 3, part 25.

X. Those guilty of real simony because of entrance into religion.

Those guilty: therefore in the case of simoniacal entrance into religion, both those giving and those receiving incur the present excommunication. Because of entrance. "It is very probable that excommunication is not incurred in simple entrance, but in profession." L. 108. Because of entrance: this simony is of divine law; but because of support of novices there is no simony; of professed persons, there is either none or only simony of human law, and therefore, where it is still in force, by no means subject to this excommunication.

In religion, strictly and properly so called. Extravagant 1, h.t.; Suarez, disp. 22, sec. 5, second excommunication; Bonacina, disp. 2, q. 3, q. 29.

XI. All who, making gain from Indulgences and other spiritual graces, are struck with the censure of excommunication by the constitution of St. Pius V Quam plenum, January 2, 1569.

All who, etc. By the aforesaid constitution of St. Pius V, it is decreed only that inferiors to Bishops incur the sentence of excommunication, sec. 6. Making gain: therefore it is necessary that at least part of the price be received. Making gain, etc., namely 1. by dispensing indulgences and other spiritual graces, not to be conferred with any temporal thing, to those paying a certain sum of money, so that this payment of money is a condition owed for that concession, as if its price, although this is done under pretext of promoting a pious work; 2. by presuming to publish letters which contain graces of this kind, or by commanding an index of cases and indulgences to be hung in sacred buildings, by which they seem to hunt buyers, since it is openly signified that the aforesaid things are conceded to those paying, although again this is done under pretext of a pious work. Cited Constitution, secs. 1, 2, 3, 4.

And other spiritual graces: these are enumerated in the aforesaid Constitution: 1. the faculty of choosing any priest whatsoever by whom someone may be absolved not only from non-reserved cases, but also from reserved cases, sec. 1; 2. "remissions of enjoined penances," sec. 2; the sacrifice of Mass, burial in the time of interdict; the use of prohibited foods; the assumption of two or more godparents at sacred baptism, contrary to the Tridentine Decree, besides those who are chosen, as they say, by synodal Constitutions; absolution from the guilt of simony reserved to the Apostolic See, sec. 3.

Of excommunication, etc. Therefore the suspension imposed in the same Constitution of St. Pius V against Bishops and Cardinals, sec. 6, has by no means been renewed by the constitution Apostolicae Sedis. Bonacina, disp. 2, q. 3, part 20.

XII. Those collecting alms of a greater price for Masses, and from these seeking profit, by making them be celebrated in places where Mass stipends are accustomed to be of lesser price.

Collecting: collection indicates an abundant quantity of those alms and a deliberate search after the manner of trade. Therefore one would not incur this censure who collected only one or another stipend; or to whom Masses to be celebrated by himself are spontaneously committed. Collecting is said generally, whether they are lay persons or clerics. Collecting alms, etc... where Mass stipends, etc. Therefore the present censure is to be understood only of manual Masses, by no means of those which are owed because of foundation or benefice, or in perpetuity. L., book 6, n. 321, third excommunication. Cf. A.S.S., vol. 4, p. 39; vol. 8, n. 84. Of a greater price, of a lesser price: therefore one does not incur this censure who has Masses celebrated in a place where they are celebrated for the same stipend, although he retains part of the stipend.

From these seeking profit: hence they do not incur the censure who by office collect alms for Masses to be celebrated, if from these they retain for themselves an equitable remuneration of labor, L., l.c., n. 332, dub. 3; or retain them for themselves as alms, if they are truly poor; or simply retain them for themselves as another's thing, for then they must not be regarded as merchants, but as true thieves. Nor indeed do those incur the censure to whom the excess is remitted liberally and altogether spontaneously. Liberally and altogether spontaneously: for they incur it if they ask the priest to remit it, or ask him whether he consents that they retain part; for Benedict XIV, l.c., reckons this among execrable abuses. Finally, those also do not incur the censure who subtract part from the stipend so that it may be spent on certain pious uses, although the S.C.C., September 9, 1874, disapproved this. And from these seeking profit: therefore excommunication is not incurred when someone collects alms, but when, with a lesser stipend handed over to another, he retains a part of it for himself, in grave matter, namely by reason of profit.

In places where, etc.: the word is general; therefore subject to this excommunication is not only one who in another place, but also one who in the same place in which he collects alms commits Masses to be celebrated for a lesser alms, Holy Office, January 13, 1892, namely if he collected the stipends themselves exceeding the tax, and handed over to others only the established stipend, retaining the excess for himself. Exceeding the tax: otherwise it would not be verified that he collected alms of greater price and made Masses be celebrated in a place where Mass stipends are accustomed to be of lesser price, i.e., commonly speaking, whether from the diocesan tax or merely from custom and common practice. E.M.

XIII. All who are struck with excommunication in the Constitutions of St. Pius V Admonet nos, March 29, 1567; of Innocent IX Quae ab hac sede, November 4, 1591; of Clement VIII Ad Romani Pontificis curam, June 26, 1582; and of Alexander VIII Inter ceteras, October 24, 1660, concerning alienation and infeudation of cities and places of the Holy Roman Church.

All absolutely altogether, with no exception made, constitution Admonet nos, sec. 3. Those who are struck with excommunication, etc. Moreover, in the cited constitution of St. Pius V Admonet nos, l.c., first those treating, consulting, or otherwise making words about infeudations or alienations of cities and places immediately pertaining to the Holy See are struck with excommunication. Likewise the aforesaid are struck with excommunication who treat, consult, or otherwise make words about petitioning from the Holy See any persons as Dukes, Vicars, Governors, or under any other title, for life, or in perpetuity, or for a long time, or even at the good pleasure of the Apostolic See, of the aforesaid cities and places. Treating, whether publicly or privately. Concerning infeudations or alienations, to be made in any way whatsoever, e.g., under annual census or rent; in perpetuity, for life, for a long time, at the good pleasure of the Holy See; under any title, e.g., of government, vicariate; from any cause, even of necessity or evident usefulness. Hence it is clear that there is not question here of alienation properly so called, which consists in the perpetual transfer of direct and useful dominion to another, as in donation, sale, etc.; but of alienation improperly such, by which direct dominion or some right in the alienated place is always retained by the Holy See. Sec. 1.

Immediately pertaining: immediately subject places are those in which the Supreme Pontiff exercises temporal jurisdiction either by himself or through his delegated ministers, governors, judges. Now all the aforesaid are struck with excommunication who propose choosing envoys to be sent to the Holy See concerning the foregoing or on occasion of them, both they themselves and envoys receiving an office of this kind, or any others whatsoever insinuating or persuading alienations of this kind to the Roman Pontiff existing for the time, by themselves or by another or others. To insinuate is the same as to declare that one's mind is that the Supreme Pontiff alienate and infeudate the aforesaid places. To persuade is to move by reason or motive to making alienations of this kind. By oneself or another or others: therefore not by letter.

Innocent IX approves this Constitution and extends it in the cited constitution to places not only devolved, but also to be devolved, subject to the Holy See both immediately and mediately. Mediately subject places are those in which the Supreme Pontiff does not exercise temporal jurisdiction, and has transferred it to another, reserving direct dominion to himself. Such are states conceded in fief.

Clement VIII in the cited Constitution approves, confirms, renews, and declares the Bull of St. Pius V as extended by Innocent IX, revoking the Constitution of Gregory XIV, September 13, 1591, by which he had declared that the Constitution of St. Pius V was not to be understood of a fief not yet devolved, when evident usefulness or necessity of the Church demanded that it again be handed over in fief.

Finally, Alexander VII in the cited Constitution not only approved, confirmed, and renewed the three explained Constitutions, but also added by declaring that under the same Constitution of St. Pius V are comprehended principalities, duchies, cities, etc., acquired and to be acquired in whatever way by the Holy Roman Church and the Apostolic See and Camera, after it up to that time and in future successive times in perpetuity, whether by title of devolution or by any other title whatsoever. Likewise he asserted how the Constitutions of Gregory XIII, July 11, 1580, and Sixtus V, July 1, 1585, issued for confiscated goods, and also other Letters of Clement VIII given on May 26, 1596, were to be understood. Avanzini, annotations (35); Bonacina, disp. 22, q. 3, part 41; E.M.

XIV. Religious presuming, outside the case of necessity, to minister to clerics or lay persons the sacrament of extreme unction or the Eucharist as Viaticum without the license of the parish priest.

Religious: novices of any order or congregation are not judged such here. Nor are religious of those congregations comprehended in which only simple vows are emitted. The reason is that in penal matters the law is to be interpreted strictly. For the same reason neither are religious of those orders comprehended in which solemn vows are indeed emitted, yet they themselves have emitted only simple vows. But under this name are comprehended all solemnly professed religious, although they themselves are parish priests. For these are held strictly by common law as true religious, but by no means others, although they emitted simple vows in a Religion in which solemn vows are emitted. This was positively declared by special privilege concerning Scholastics of the Society of Jesus. Bizzarri, Collectanea, p. 745, ed. 1885; Suarez, disp. 22, sec. 2, second excommunication; Lugo, Resp. Mor., book 4, disp. 44, nn. 2, 3.

Presuming: therefore excommunication ceases if you falsely thought that a case of necessity was present, or that the license of the parish priest was not lacking; for if you thought thus, you did not presume. To clerics and lay persons. Yet Religious can from Trent, sess. 24, chap. 11, de Ref., minister the last sacraments to clerics and lay persons who "actually serve and reside within their enclosures and houses, and live under their obedience." Nor indeed is excommunication incurred if they ministered to regulars. Outside the case of necessity, namely as often as danger of death is present and the parish priest cannot or will not minister the sacraments to the sick person. Or the Eucharist as Viaticum: therefore there is no censure if not as Viaticum, but to one who has already received Viaticum, they have ministered it again from devotion; this also is not prohibited, unless one must go along public ways.

Without the license of the parish priest, at least presumed. Of the parish priest, namely one who has care of souls, or who takes his place, by whatever name he is called, and of whom the sick person is a subject by domicile or quasi-domicile. Therefore pilgrims and vagi are excluded. Clementine 1, de Privil.; Bonacina, disp. 2, q. 9, part 5.

XV. Those extracting relics from the sacred Cemeteries or Catacombs of Rome and its territory without legitimate permission, and those furnishing help or favor to them.

Of relics which are found in the Crypts and Cemeteries of the City, it is established that some are of the Holy Martyrs, e.g., "when glass or earthenware phials stained with blood are found at the tombs of the buried in the sacred cemeteries, either inside or outside them"; Sacred Congregation of Relics and Indulgences, December 10, 1863. But it is established that some are not of martyrs, such as those which are found in open loculi. Finally, concerning some it is doubtful whether they are of Martyrs or not. The present excommunication is incurred by one who extracts those former relics of Holy Martyrs, but by no means by one who extracts the rest, whether it is certainly established that they are not of Saints, or whether it is doubted. Relics, namely bones and ashes. Paul V, decree of August 23, 1613, and May 16, 1614, prohibited under grave obligation to take away without permission even the smallest particle of these, and at the same time declared that theft of this kind is never excused because of smallness of matter. Legitimate permission must be given by the Eminent Cardinal Vicar, with the form preserved which was established by Paul V in the places cited and by Clement X in the Brief Ex commissae nobis, January 13, 1672. Namely written permission is required, subscribed by the Eminent Cardinal Vicar of the City, furnished with his seal, and extraction from the catacombs must be done in the presence of a delegated priest. And to them, those extracting. Bonacina, disp. 2, q. 3, part 13, sec. Incidens.

XVI. Those communicating with an excommunicated person named by the Pope in a criminal crime, namely by furnishing help or favor to him.

Those communicating, both clerics and lay persons. With an excommunicated person named by the Pope, namely one whom the Supreme Pontiff excommunicates by name by particular excommunication, or denounces by name as excommunicated by a general excommunication latae sententiae. Therefore one who is excommunicated by anyone else is by no means comprehended here, nor one who, after he has incurred papal excommunication, is afterwards denounced by name as excommunicated by some other Ordinary. In a criminal crime, "That is, in the same crime or contumacy because of which excommunication was imposed, after the excommunication imposed and known to him; e.g., if someone again knows his excommunicated concubine after excommunication, as is held from C. Si Concubinae 55, de Sent. exc., or if someone, after excommunication imposed on someone because of theft, concubinage, etc., furnishes help or counsel to him, lest he restore, lest he dismiss the concubine, or lest he go out from excommunication." L. 197. Namely by furnishing help or favor to him: therefore not any communication whatsoever is comprehended here, but communication 1. with an excommunicated person named by the Pope; 2. in a criminal crime; 3. by furnishing to him help or favor in that crime; counsel is not added. Therefore the crime here, as is clear, is a crime already committed, for one who furnished help or favor in committing a crime would be communicating with one not yet excommunicated. C. Nuper 29, de Sent. excomm.; Bonacina, disp. 2, q. 3, part 21; E.M.

XVII. Clerics knowingly and willingly communicating in divine things with persons excommunicated by name by the Roman Pontiff, and receiving them in offices.

Clerics: therefore lay persons and Bishops do not incur this censure; it is disputed concerning regulars. Knowingly and willingly: therefore any ignorance, even affected, and any fear or compulsion excuse. Note this clause, which is lacking in the preceding article. Communicating in divine things: therefore it is not incurred because of communication in civil matters. But this communication in divine things must be grave, so that smallness of matter does not excuse. By the Roman Pontiff excommunicated by name: the same must be said as in the preceding article. And receiving them in offices: this part is understood by authors as explanatory and determinative of the former, so that the communication in divine things which is interdicted to clerics under penalty of reserved excommunication is only that by which they admit those excommunicated by name by the Pope to performing divine offices. For this is to receive someone in divine offices. But divine offices or divine things are the same here, namely the sacraments, the sacrifice of Mass, public prayers, etc. For divine offices are those which clerics perform as ministers of the Church, or which are accustomed to be done by clerics alone. C. Significavit 18, de Sent. excomm.; L. 33; Suarez, disp. 10, sec. 2; Bonacina, tome 3, disp. 2, q. 5, part 3, n. 3.

XVIII. "Those presuming to absolve without due faculty, even under any pretext whatsoever (from excommunications reserved in a special manner to the Roman Pontiff)... provided there is not question of the article of death." Paragraph A quibus. Cf. 1177.

Those presuming to absolve, not simply those absolving. To absolve, not to feign absolution. From excommunications reserved in a special manner to the Roman Pontiff, not from others. Provided there is not question of the article of death, or of a more urgent case, or it is very hard for the penitent to remain longer in the state of mortal sin. Cf. 800; Suarez, disp. 22, sec. 5, fifth excommunication.

XIX. From the Council of Trent, sess. 22, chap. 11, de Ref., those occupying the goods of any Church or pious place incur excommunication simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff, confirmed by the present Constitution, paragraph Praeter hos: "If greed, the root of all evils, has so occupied any of the clerics or lay persons, with whatever dignity he shines, even imperial or royal, that he should presume, by himself or through others, by force or fear inflicted, or even through supposed persons of clerics, or by any art, or under any sought color, to convert to his own private uses, and to usurp, the jurisdictions, goods, revenues, and rights, even feudal and emphyteutic, fruits, emoluments, or any income whatsoever of some Church, or of any secular or regular benefice, montes pietatis, and other pious places, which must be converted to the necessities of ministers and of the poor; or to impede them from being received by those to whom they pertain by law, let him lie under anathema as long as he has not integrally restored to the Church and to its administrator or beneficed person the jurisdictions, goods, things, rights, fruits, and revenues which he occupied, or which have come to him in any way whatsoever, even by donation of a supposed person, and then obtained absolution from the Roman Pontiff. But if he was patron of the same Church, beyond the aforesaid penalties let him also exist deprived by that very fact of the right of patronage. But the cleric who was fabricator or consenting party of this kind of wicked fraud and usurpation is subject to the same penalties, and also...."

This Tridentine censure must be compared with articles 11 and 12 of the excommunications of this Constitution reserved in a special manner to the Roman Pontiff. In those there is question of goods and rights pertaining to ecclesiastical persons by reason of their Churches or benefices, and of places and rights pertaining to the Roman Church. And occupiers of ecclesiastical goods of this kind "are bound only by excommunication specially reserved to the Roman Pontiff," Holy Office, July 8, 1874, and not also by the Tridentine censure. This latter comprehends all other goods or rights which can in any way be called ecclesiastical. But since this censure is very broad, hence of itself it extends to occupiers of all ecclesiastical goods.

If any of the clerics or lay persons: therefore regulars are not comprehended. If any, etc., with whatever dignity, even royal or imperial... to usurp or impede. Therefore this decree pertains not to any occupations whatsoever, but to authoritative and powerful occupations. Therefore not everyone who converts any thing in any way to his own uses, e.g., a tenant who does not pay rent, a borrower or depositary who does not restore the thing, a debtor not paying debts, S.C.C., February 27, 1569, incurs excommunication, Council of Trent, sess. 23, chap. 3; nor those who subtract or impede tithes, Council of Trent, sess. 25, de Ref., chap. 12, which is plainly decretorial. Nor indeed are those alienating comprehended, concerning whom a special censure is held here. To convert to one's own uses, not to another's, for instance if the rector of a pious place were to cut trees pertaining to the same place and convert them not to his own advantage, but to another's. To convert to one's own uses and to presume to usurp them: each must be taken copulatively, not disjunctively. For "thieves stealing the goods of a church or of pious places do not incur the excommunication of the Council." S.C.C., February 27, 1596. Or to impede them from being received by those to whom they pertain by law. Therefore there is question of outsiders, and not of the possessors themselves. Therefore "this Decree has no place when the Lord of a benefice cuts fruitful trees and converts them to his own advantage." S.C.C. apud Pignatelli, tome 7, cons. 11.

Goods, as elsewhere in Canon Law, are immovable or precious movable goods. C. 13, de Elect., in VI; Extravagant Ambitiosae, de reb. Eccl. non alien. But understand goods of which dominion and possession are already had, and right in the thing, not also those not yet possessed, such as pious legacies, etc., or those of which there is only a right to the thing. Emoluments signify any utilities whatsoever proceeding from some thing in whatever way. Of pious places, namely those which have been erected by ecclesiastical authority, destined to a pious work, and which are ruled and administered dependently on the Church; whence it is said: let that usurper lie under anathema as long as... he has integrally restored... to the church and its administrator or beneficed person.

By himself or through others. Therefore those commanding are also comprehended, even clerical cooperators and those consenting, for it is said at the end: The cleric who was fabricator or consenting party of this kind of wicked fraud and usurpation, etc., and therefore with the effect following, which also applies to others. Sacred Penitentiary, April 15, 1873. By force or fear, etc. Therefore the action which is restrained by this Decree is to convert goods, revenues, etc., to one's own uses, to usurp them or impede them from being received by those to whom they pertain, and this not in any way whatsoever, but by force or fear inflicted, or by any art, namely fraud, or under any sought color, i.e., title or pretext, and not only by occupying them as one's own and due. But it does not matter whether someone usurped or impeded by himself or through others, or even through supposed persons. Nor indeed are only those excommunicated who convert these goods to their own uses, usurp, and impede them from being received by those to whom they pertain, or command these things, by occupying through others, etc., whether clerics, lay persons, beneficed persons, or patrons do these things; or even counsel or merely consent, if clerics, by positive consent; but also those to whom those goods have come from these in any way whatsoever, by inheritance, legacy, donation, leasing, purchase, etc., yet in a quantity not simply grave, which would be foreign to the same Council of Trent, sess. 23, chap. 3, de Ref., but notable. Allocution of Pius IX Quod praenuntiavimus, July 25, 1875; Holy Office, July 8, 1874, ad 2. But presumption is required. For it is said, should have presumed to usurp. Therefore fear and ignorance excuse.

Let him lie under anathema as long as, etc. Therefore a special faculty is needed for absolving these penitents. It must be sought either from the Sacred Penitentiary or from the Ordinaries, to whom extraordinary faculties for this effect are conceded. The Holy See granted to Ordinaries in Italy, for one year, the faculty of making equitable composition for those who unjustly acquired ecclesiastical goods, or alienated those acquired. Sacred Penitentiary, April 15, 1892. Faculty was also granted to the Ordinaries of France of admitting the faithful to composition because of goods unduly acquired after the law of separation. Secretariat of State, September 21, 1907. Cf. the second Supplement to the Enchiridion Morale. Suarez, disp. 22, sec. 6, ninth excommunication; disp. 23, sec. 4, fourth excommunication; Bonacina, disp. 1, q. 18, part 4; Cardinal De Luca, appendix, tome 14, annotations to S.C.C., discourse 23; E.M.

If a patron has committed such a crime, he also incurs deprivation of the right of patronage; if a cleric, he incurs incapacity for obtaining benefices, deprivation of a benefice obtained, and suspension from order, at the discretion of the Ordinary.

The indult for admitting to composition, which previously was given by the Sacred Penitentiary for one year, is now given by the Sacred Congregation of the Council for five years. Monitor Ecclesiasticus, vol. 25, p. 66 ff.

We declare subject to excommunication latae sententiae reserved to Bishops or Ordinaries:

Excommunication, etc. The excommunications are papal, from which the faculty of absolving by ordinary law is conceded to Bishops, who therefore absolve by delegated power by the law itself. Confessors in Rome do not need special faculty of the Eminent Cardinal Vicar as regards the following cases to be absolved, from ancient custom. Holy Office, December 1, 1875.

I. Clerics established in Sacred Orders, or Regulars or Nuns after a solemn vow of chastity, presuming to contract marriage; and also all presuming to contract marriage with one of the aforesaid persons.

Clerics: not all, but those established in sacred orders. Regulars, nuns: not all, but after the solemn vow of chastity; nor indeed all these, but those presuming, and therefore ignorance excuses, even if afterwards, the matter having become known, they persevere in cohabitation, because then they do not contract, but have already contracted before. But there is question of marriage to be contracted, and therefore the present censure is not incurred for betrothals. The Holy Office declared on December 22, 1880: "Clerics established in sacred orders, or regulars or nuns after a solemn vow of chastity has been emitted, presuming to contract so-called civil marriage in places where the Tridentine law concerning clandestinity is in force, incur excommunication latae sententiae reserved to Bishops or Ordinaries." Similarly, the Holy Office, January 13, 1892, declared that they also incur this excommunication if besides the impediment of the solemn vow of chastity they have other impediments, e.g., of affinity or consanguinity. But it is by no means required that this attempted marriage also be consummated; for it is imposed against those presumptuously contracting marriage. And also all, etc.: therefore this excommunication is incurred not only by clerics established in sacred orders, regulars, or nuns, but also by those who contract with them. Clementine single chapter, de Consang. et affin.; Suarez, disp. 11, sec. 3, n. 15; disp. 4, sec. 3, n. 3; disp. 23, sec. 5, seventh excommunication; Sanchez, De Matr., book 7, disp. 48; E.M.

II. Those procuring abortion, the effect having followed.

Those procuring are properly said to be those who directly intend abortion and by an exterior work of itself efficacious deliberately strive so that it really follows. Procuring by immediate and proximate action. Procuring: nothing is distinguished; therefore all, and accordingly pregnant women themselves if they procure abortion in themselves. Lugo, Resp. Mor., book 2, dub. 4; L., book 3, n. 395. Procuring either by themselves or through others; therefore also those commanding, but not also those counseling, helping, etc. Abortion is the ejection of an immature fetus. Therefore surgeons exercising craniotomy, although they sin gravely, do not incur this censure. Abortion: said absolutely; therefore at whatever time it is done after conception, whether the fetus is animated or inanimate, namely in the first days of conception. L., book 3, n. 396. The effect having followed. Therefore the present censure is not incurred if, although someone procured abortion, he nevertheless did not procure it efficaciously. L. 40, 368; Lugo, De Poenit., disp. 16, n. 444; Paludanus, disp. 4, part 7, n. 15; Bonacina, disp. 2, q. 2, part 10; Ithur., case 21, n. 30 ff.

III. Those knowingly using false Apostolic Letters; or those cooperating in the crime in this matter.

Apostolic Letters, in whatever form. False, whether partly true and changed, or wholly substituted. Knowingly: therefore ignorance excuses. Using: namely those who exhibit them so that they can have effect, although in fact they do not have it, for instance because the falsity is discovered; whether lay persons or clerics. Those cooperating in the crime in this matter, namely those who supply proximate work in their use to the one using them, not those who supply counsel or exhortation, nor those who falsify them. For to cooperate is to furnish help to another. C. Ad Falsariorum 7, de Crim. falsi.

IV. To the preceding excommunications reserved to Bishops must be added excommunication against lay persons committing delicts against the Decrees of S.C.C., September 9, 1874, and May 11, 1904. Cf. 1238.

We declare subject to excommunication latae sententiae reserved to no one:

I. Those commanding or compelling notorious heretics, or persons excommunicated by name, or interdicted by name, to be handed over to ecclesiastical burial.

Commanding or compelling: therefore not those burying, nor those simply admitting to ecclesiastical burial. Therefore a parish priest obeying the commands of civil authority and admitting one excommunicated by name to ecclesiastical burial does not incur this censure. Yet he falls into an interdict latae sententiae. Commanding, namely those who order or ask that the thing be done in their name. Compelling, those who compel by applying force. For coercion is not properly present unless force intervenes, and injury if it is unjust. Commanding or compelling, from the subject matter, seem to be restricted to those commanding or compelling by public power or force. For there is question of public and common burial.

To be handed over to ecclesiastical burial, i.e., to be placed in a tomb, to be conceded. Therefore those who command and compel do not incur excommunication unless after burial has been handed over. But ecclesiastical burial is a sacred place assigned for burying the Christian faithful, or at least for performing divine offices, by the designation of the Bishop, or also by common use and custom. Whether episcopal blessing is necessarily required, some affirm, others deny. Therefore one does not incur this excommunication who would command or compel someone to be buried with Catholic rite, but in a profane place; conversely, one incurs it who would command or compel someone to be buried in a sacred place, even with no rite applied.

Notorious heretics, and not only those to be avoided. As is clear, notorious schismatic heretics and apostates from the Catholic faith who are true heretics are also comprehended. By name, etc., with the name expressed by words or indubitable signs. Excommunicated or interdicted, publicly denounced as such. For no one is bound to avoid one censured if the censure has not been publicly denounced, C. Ad Evitanda. C. Quicumque 2, de Haeret., in VI; Clementine 1, de Sepult.; Ferraris, v. Sepultura; Suarez, disp. 12, sec. 4, n. 6; Bonacina, De Cens., disp. 2, q. 2, part 3, sec. 3, n. 3; Reiffenstuel, book 3, title 28, n. 2.

II. Those injuring or terrifying Inquisitors, denouncers, witnesses, or other ministers of the Holy Office; those plundering or burning the writings of its Sacred Tribunal; or those furnishing help, counsel, or favor to any of the aforesaid.

Injuring are those inflicting harm on a person. Terrifying are those causing more than simply grave fear, but very grave fear. Ministers, who are deputed by office for the service or business of the Holy Office, e.g., Consultors, Advocates, Notaries, Executors, etc. Of the Holy Office, wherever it is, whether at Rome or elsewhere; the law does not distinguish. Of the Holy Office, not of Bishops, although these are born Inquisitors. Writings, not Scripture. Writings, i.e., instruments whether public or private, whether printed by type or manuscripts, pertaining to the acts of the Holy Office. For it is said: the writings of its sacred Tribunal. To plunder properly is to snatch into different parts, and as it were to pillage; but to snatch is to take away by force. Therefore they do not incur this excommunication who secretly steal the writings of the Holy Office, or who take away by force only one or another. Plundering, burning, not otherwise destroying. St. Pius V, constitution Si de protegendis; Bonacina, disp. 2, q. 2, part 13; E.M.

III. Those alienating and those presuming to receive ecclesiastical goods without Apostolic Beneplacitum, according to the form of the Extravagant Ambitiosae, de Reb. Eccl. non alienandis.

Those alienating: all, no one excepted; this law does not distinguish. Nor in the obvious sense are Bishops and Abbots excepted in the Extravagant Ambitiosae because from the cited Extravagant Ambitiosae they are punished not with excommunication, but with the penalty of interdict from entrance into the church. For for them another penalty is rather added, because of the greater gravity of the delict, with attention to the quality of those persons, an interdict from entrance into the church, which has been abrogated by the present Constitution. If Bishops and Abbots were excepted from excommunication by that Extravagant, all other inferior prelates also, and other administrators of ecclesiastical goods, would have to be excepted, since these also are punished with another penalty, deprivation of benefices. And thus no one alienating would any longer be excommunicated from that Extravagant. But under the regime of the present Constitution this most grave inconvenience would follow, that Bishops and Abbots, who sin more gravely, would be punished by no penalty, and only those who sin less would be punished. Alienating, not destroying, stealing, plundering. Nor indeed are all alienating comprehended, but only those to whom administration of ecclesiastical goods is entrusted, such as parish priests, rectors, etc., in whose name and by whose mandate the alienation is made, not their mandataries. For in the obvious sense they are here illegitimately alienating who, with the form of the Extravagant Ambitiosae preserved, would legitimately alienate. Presuming to receive: therefore ignorance excuses.

Alienation here, however, is taken broadly, as is established from the Extravagant Ambitiosae itself, which is found in book 3, title 4 of the Common Extravagants, single chapter, de Reb. Eccl. non alienandis. For the Supreme Pontiff says: "We prohibit by this Constitution, to remain in force perpetually, alienation of all things and ecclesiastical goods, and every pact through which their dominion is transferred, concession, mortgage, leasing and renting beyond three years, and also infeudation or emphyteutic contract, except in cases expressed by law, and concerning things and goods which from ancient times were accustomed to be conceded in emphyteusis, and with evident usefulness of the Churches, and concerning fruits and goods which cannot be preserved by being preserved because of the demand of the present time." Then it is added: "If anyone, against the series of this prohibition of ours, has presumed to alienate anything concerning the same goods and things, alienation, mortgage, concession, leasing, renting, and infeudation of this kind shall be of no force or moment at all." Except concerning things and goods accustomed from ancient times to be conceded in emphyteusis: this exception, from present practice, is no longer admitted. Of no force or moment in the external and internal forum, according to the obvious sense, although several deny it for the internal forum if a just cause underlies. Finally, the penalty of excommunication is imposed on those alienating and receiving, and it is prescribed that alienation of these goods never be done without the Roman Pontiff being consulted. Those alienating and receiving: therefore the alienation must be perfected from each side, the thing handed over and accepted; nor does it suffice if it has been sold, e.g., under a suspensive condition.

Ecclesiastical goods, etc., namely those which have already been duly and rightly acquired, according to the form of the same Extravagant Ambitiosae. For to alienate is to cast away from oneself things already acquired, by no means to renounce things to be acquired. Whence, per se, to receive or give borrowed money is not alienation. Cf. Decree of S.C.C., March 21, 1626; L., book 4, n. 187. But ecclesiastical goods are the goods of monasteries, churches, and any pious places whatsoever, although administered by lay persons, provided nevertheless they have been erected by ecclesiastical authority; likewise ecclesiastical benefices, but by no means merely lay chaplaincies. Ecclesiastical goods, i.e., immovable and precious movable goods, as is held in the cited Extravagant. But under the name of precious things come gold or silver vessels, gems, abundant libraries. Likewise flocks and herds totally considered. Likewise cutting of trees and forests, if it is done with deterioration. A great sum of money donated and destined for buying immovable or precious movable goods also comes under this; for then it is judged something immovable or precious movable. Not likewise money generally; and much less precious relics, which is foreign to the mind of Paul II and to the property of the words, for no one would say that they are in our patrimony. Cf. vol. 1, n. 1173. Nor indeed is any sale or leasing beyond three years of an immovable thing or precious movable thing forbidden by this Extravagant. Ordinaries still alienate, by their own right as before, estates of slight value, C. Terrulas 53, cause 13, q. 2; indeed also those not slight, if necessity urges which does not suffer delay. Leases also lack both fault and censure if they were made under this law, that, at the end of each three years, it is lawful for the lessor to withdraw from the lease. Likewise the promise of renewing a lease is not a lease. Nor is it illicit to sell the revenues of one's benefice for a yearly wage or pension beyond three years, because it is prohibited by no law, provided they are not sold or leased for represented, that is, anticipated, payment. Council of Trent, sess. 25, chap. 11, de Ref. Moreover, the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, May 1, 1840, determined for estates of slight value the sum of 25 gold scudi of the Camera, namely about 225 Italian lire, which, because of the changed value of money, can at present be doubled by proportionate reason. A gold scudo differs little from the value of 9 Italian lire. Likewise things can be alienated without permission of the Pontiff which probably do not last for three years without notable deterioration, or which are consumed by use, such as fruits, garments, individual beasts of burden, etc.; things worn out by age, useless, harmful; any thing acquired by the Church under this pact, that it must be alienated.

Without the beneplacitum of the Apostolic See. Besides a just cause, in order that alienation of immovable and precious movable things can be done, it is also necessary that it be done with the solemnities required by law, all of which, however, the Apostolic beneplacitum supplies; without this, alienations are liable to excommunication if performed without a just urgent cause. Moreover, those inferior to Bishops and Abbots "exist deprived by that very fact only of the benefices whose things and goods they alienated, and these are judged vacant without any declaration." Extravagant Ambitiosae. L., book 4, n. 187; La Croix, book 4, n. 1363 ff.; Suarez, disp. 22, sec. 6, second excommunication; Schmalzgrueber, book 3, title 13; Reiffenstuel, ibid.; Lugo, Resp. Mor., book 3, disp. 9, 10, 12, 13; Bonacina, disp. 2, q. 5, part 11; Bizzarri, Collectan., pp. 298, 299, 527 ff., 544 ff., etc., ed. 1885; E.M.

The same excommunication is incurred by those selling and acquiring bearer securities belonging to ecclesiastical entities, vol. 1, n. 1173, and also those who violate the prescriptions of the Instruction Inter ea concerning debts and economic obligations to be assumed by Religious Families. Sacred Congregation for Religious, July 30, 1909, A.A.S., vol. 1, p. 699.

IV. Those neglecting, or culpably omitting, to denounce within a month confessors, or priests, by whom they have been solicited to shameful things, in any of the cases expressed by Our Predecessors Gregory XV in the constitution Universi, August 20, 1622, and Benedict XIV in the constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae, June 1, 1741.

Neglecting, etc. Cf. On the constitution of Benedict XIV Sacramentum Poenitentiae, 1249 ff.; E.M.

V. Besides those thus far listed, We likewise declare excommunicated those whom the Sacred Council of Trent excommunicated, whether with absolution reserved to the Supreme Pontiff or to Ordinaries, or without any reservation, excepting the penalty of anathema established in the Decree of Session IV, concerning the Edition and use of Sacred Books, to which We will that only those be subject who print, or cause to be printed, books treating of sacred things without the approval of the Ordinary.

The censures of the Council of Trent confirmed by the present Constitution are those which were imposed directly by the Council itself, which either were first imposed by the Council of Trent, or, having already been imposed before, were distinctly and expressly commemorated and were inflicted anew by its authority; of which kind, e.g., is the censure concerning which mention is made in the present paragraph. For it is expressly said to be taken "from the Canon of the most recent Lateran Council." Moreover the cited Council of Trent, sess. 4, has this: "Let it be lawful for no one to print, or cause to be printed, any books concerning sacred things without the name of the author, nor to sell them in the future, or even retain them with himself, unless they have first been examined and approved by the Ordinary, under penalty of anathema.... And if they were regulars, beyond examination and approval of this kind, they are also bound to obtain license from their Superiors, the books having been reviewed by them according to the form of their ordinances. But those who communicate them in writing or publish them, unless they have first been examined and approved, are subject to the same penalties as printers."

This Tridentine excommunication, which is reserved to no one, is now restricted and extended. It is restricted only to those "who print, or cause to be printed, books treating of sacred things without the approval of the Ordinary," by no means comprehending those retaining, selling, publishing, if they are not the publishers of the same books. But it is extended to all books, whether the book does not have the name of the author or does have it. Concerning sacred things: although these words, concerning sacred things, are very broad, nevertheless they must be contracted to those books concerning which there is question in the cited Decree, namely "to books of the sacred Scriptures, and also to annotations and commentaries on them, but by no means to be extended to any books whatsoever treating of sacred things in general, that is, of things pertaining to religion." Holy Office, December 22, 1880. Without approval of the Ordinary: only approval of the Ordinary is required under the said censure, namely so that the book may be printed; not that the approval obtained also be printed in the book itself. Constitution Officiorum of Leo XIII, de Cens. et prohib. libror., sec. 48; Suarez, disp. 23, sec. 7, first excommunication; Bonacina, disp. 2, q. 2, part 16; E.M.

VI. The remaining Tridentine excommunications, reserved to no one, which are retained by the present Constitution, are the following: 1. The abductor, and all those furnishing counsel, help, and favor to him, are excommunicated by the law itself. Sess. 24, chap. 6, de Ref. Matr.

The abductor, namely of a woman for contracting marriage with the abducted woman. For there is question of abduction as a diriment impediment of marriage. And all those furnishing counsel, help, and favor to him, namely for the abduction; not likewise if they furnish these after the admitted abduction, so that the abducted woman may more easily marry the abductor. Are excommunicated by the law itself. The diriment impediment ceases if the abducted woman is no longer detained under the power of the abductor; but the excommunication perseveres and has an end only by absolution. Suarez, disp. 31, sec. 5, final paragraph; Bonacina, disp. 2, q. 2, part 9, and de Susp., disp. 3, part 5, par. 1, n. 38; E.M.

VII. 2. The Holy Synod commands all, of whatever grade, dignity, and condition they may exist, under penalty of anathema which they incur by that very fact, that in no way, directly or indirectly, are they to compel their subjects or any others from freely contracting marriages. Sess. 24, chap. 9, de Ref. Matr.

All, of whatever grade, dignity, and condition they may exist: nevertheless not all simply incur excommunication, but only all temporal lords and magistrates of whatever grade, dignity, and condition. For concerning these there is question in the cited chapter. Under penalty of anathema, not reserved. Directly, when force is exercised on the very person whom someone wishes to compel to marriage, and is immediately brought in order to marriage. Indirectly, when force is exercised on another person who influences the person whom someone wishes to compel to marriage, or when force is exercised on this very person not immediately in order to marriage, but in order to something else which compels the one suffering to marriage. Their subjects or any others, living under their jurisdiction, as is held in the same cited chapter, or at least subject in some way and at some time to their jurisdiction. Compel: by grave and unjust coercion. From freely contracting marriages: therefore coercion must regard marriage actually contracted; nor does it suffice for incurring excommunication to compel only to betrothals, or to compel to marriage if nevertheless marriage does not follow. Suarez, disp. 23, sec. 7, fourth excommunication; Ithur., case 14, n. 14 ff.; case 24, n. 14 ff.; Cardinal De Luca, Opera, tome 14, annotations to the Sacred Council of Trent, discourse 26, n. 35 ff.; Bonacina, disp. 2, q. 2, part 6.

VIII. 3. Against all and each persons, of whatever quality or condition they may be, both clerics and lay persons, seculars or regulars, and also those discharging any dignity, if in any way they have compelled some virgin, or widow, or any other woman unwilling, except in cases expressed in law, to enter a monastery, or to receive the habit of any religion, or to emit profession; and those who have given counsel, help, or favor; and those who, knowing that she does not spontaneously enter the monastery, or receive the habit, or emit profession, in any way have interposed their presence, consent, or authority to the same act. Likewise against those who in any way without just cause impede the holy will of virgins or other women of receiving the veil or emitting a vow. Sess. 25, chap. 18, de Reg.

A virgin or widow, or any other woman: if therefore coercion is done to some man, that he enter religion, this censure is not incurred. Since the Council excepts cases expressed in law, a delinquent woman can licitly be compelled to enter a monastery, as penalty of her crime, or as caution lest she fall into some incontinence; but rarely or never to the habit or profession. L. 212; C. 18, de Convers. coniugator.; C. 19, e.t.

To enter a monastery, or to receive the habit, or to emit profession. "Three members are distinctly enumerated, namely coercion to enter a monastery, to receive the habit, and to emit profession.... The Council twice enumerates these three as altogether distinct. And therefore in that first member it does not say to enter religion, but a monastery, because namely through that it prohibits women from being compelled to live there, even with their own habit retained." Suarez, disp. 23, sec. 7, sixth excommunication. Therefore according to Suarez and others the present censure is incurred even if someone compels a woman to enter a monastery, not so that she may profess, nor so that she may take the habit, but so that she may be honorably educated there. But Bonacina, disp. 2, q. 2, part 2, n. 6, and others do indeed distinguish those three things, whence they assert that excommunication is incurred by one who compels a woman even only to entrance, although she neither receives the habit nor emits profession. But they say that entrance must be understood in order to receiving the habit or emitting profession. Therefore one would not incur this excommunication who would compel a woman to enter a monastery for another end, e.g., that she may be educated there. St. Alphonsus, n. 212, judges the first opinion more probable. To receive the veil, or to emit a vow, seems to be the same as to profess religion; nevertheless because no one can profess unless the habit has first been received, one who impeded this reception would a fortiori impede profession, and consequently would incur this censure. Suarez, l.c.; Bonacina, l.c., part 3, n. 3. But Sanchez and others deny it, "because the decree of the Council must be taken with rigor." St. Alphonsus, n. 212.

In any way without just cause: therefore, if with just cause, this excommunication is not incurred. Impede: to impede is not to compel; to impede is to oppose oneself or to place obstacles, so that someone cannot attain what he justly desires. Ithur., case 24; Sanchez, in Decal., book 4, chap. 4.

IX. 4. Lest so great a Sacrament (of the Eucharist) be received unworthily and therefore unto death and condemnation, the Holy Synod itself establishes and declares that for those whom consciousness of mortal sin burdens, however much they may judge themselves contrite, with the supply of a confessor had, sacramental confession must necessarily be premised. But if anyone shall have presumed to teach, preach, or pertinaciously assert the contrary, or even to defend it by public disputation, let him exist excommunicated by that very fact. Sess. 13, canon 11.

Must necessarily be premised: it is not added, by divine law. Therefore if someone defends that confession must be premised by merely ecclesiastical law, he in no way incurs this excommunication. But if he defends that "the command of Trent made to a priest sacrificing from necessity with mortal sin, of confessing as soon as possible, is counsel, not a precept," or that "that particle as soon as possible is understood when the priest will confess in his own time," he incurs excommunication simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff by force of article 1 of that series. For those two propositions are the thirty-eighth and thirty-ninth, which Alexander VII condemned with the others under penalty of excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See on March 18, 1666. Suarez, disp. 23, sec. 7, second excommunication; Bonacina, disp. 2, q. 12, part 14.

X. 5. Although it is not to be doubted that clandestine marriages made by the free consent of the contracting parties are ratified and true marriages as long as the Church has not made them invalid, and therefore those are rightly to be condemned, as the Holy Synod condemns them with anathema, who deny that these are true and ratified, and who falsely affirm that marriages contracted by children of families without the consent of parents are invalid, and that parents can make them ratified or invalid: nevertheless the Holy Church of God has always detested and prohibited them for most just causes. Sess. 24, chap. 1, de Ref. Matr.

Contracted without the consent of parents are invalid, and parents can make them ratified or invalid: therefore there is no question here of the power of civil authority. Concerning this there is discussion in sess. 24, chaps. 3, 4, 9, 12, and the propositions condemned of the Synod of Pistoia, 53, 59, 65. Bonacina, disp. 2, q. 2, part 8.

Other Tridentine excommunications which exist have already been enumerated in their proper place; namely 1. concerning enclosure, which is also reserved to no one, cf. 1189; 2. concerning duellists, which has been transferred in the present Constitution among the excommunications simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff, cf. 1185; 3. concerning usurpers of ecclesiastical goods, which is also reserved simply to the Roman Pontiff, cf. 1202; 4. finally, as regards Tridentine censures which are declared under anathema at the end of individual canons, all indeed are implicitly contained, by reason of heresy, in the first article of the excommunications reserved in a special manner to the Roman Pontiff. The same must be said of the anathema of sess. 25, decree on Indulgences.

An excommunication has accrued to the constitution Apostolicae Sedis, reserved to no one, against missionaries giving work to business and trade, and against their immediate superiors who have not punished delinquents, according to the constitution of Urban VIII Ex debito, February 21, 1633, and Clement IX Sollicitudo, July 17, 1669, from the Declaration of the Supreme Pontiff. Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, March 29, 1873; Holy Office, December 4, 1872.

Clement IX has these things in the place cited, sec. 3: "To all and each ecclesiastical persons, both secular and regular, of whatever state, grade, condition, and quality, and of any Order, Congregation, and Institute... and to any of them who shall have been sent for the time to the islands, provinces, kingdoms of the East Indies... and to the parts of America, both southern and northern, by the Apostolic See, or by the Congregation of Our venerable brothers, Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, placed over the business of the Propagation of the Faith, or by their Superiors under the name of missionaries, or under any other title, or who in any way shall be staying in those parts, under penalties of excommunication latae sententiae, and deprivation of active and passive voice... and also loss of all goods and profits, to be incurred by that very fact... by the tenor of the present letters We strictly prohibit... that they, under any pretext, title, color, device, cause, occasion, and form, even once, by themselves or through ministers or other subsidiary persons, directly or indirectly, both in their own name and in the name of their respective religions... or of any others whatsoever, and otherwise in any way and however, should thrust themselves into or mix themselves with such secular trades and businesses. And from now... after the case has happened, We apply, by the series of these letters, any goods and profits whatsoever which have proceeded from trades and businesses of this kind... to the use and advantage of the poor, hospitals, seminaries, etc.; delinquents are bound to consign goods and profits of this kind to the Ordinaries of the places... who ought to distribute and spend them as above, and not for other uses.... Sec. 4. Moreover by the same censures and penalties We bind, and declare to be bound, immediate Superiors, and Provincials and Generals of the aforesaid Orders or Congregations, who have not punished their respective subjects committing delicts in the foregoing... in any way even for one single time, at least by removing them from the places of the delict committed by them. But from the sentence of excommunication of this kind no one from the aforesaid delinquents can be absolved by Superiors or another or any others whatsoever, even supported by any authority, except those constituted in the article of death, unless profits of this kind have first been restored."

Kingdoms of the East Indies, parts of America: the praised Declaration of the Holy Office and Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide also comprehends Chinese missionaries. Holy Office, January 17, 1883. Or who in any way shall be staying in those parts: "the same prohibition and penalty, according to the mind of Clement IX, affects not only European missionaries, but also any ecclesiastical men whatsoever, who under the name of missionaries or under any other title shall have been sent for the time, or shall in any way be staying in those parts." Holy Office, January 17, 1883. Business is to buy something so that it may be sold dearer unchanged, e.g., oil, grain, books, etc. But trade also comprehends those things which, naturally changed, are customarily resold, e.g., must which, having become wine, calves which, having become oxen, swine which, having been fattened, are resold. Naturally: for if they are resold changed by the art and industry of men, it is craftsmanship, which does not pertain here, e.g., if from bought wool you make garments, from iron arms, from wood vessels. But if these things also are furnished in public workshops, with workers hired, they are something gainful, and differ little from business, nor consequently are they regularly exercised without lethal fault. L., book 3, n. 836. In any way and however they thrust themselves into or mix themselves with it; even once; even giving work to trade and business for others.

No one from the aforesaid delinquents, i.e., from those who give work to business or trades, or thrust and mix themselves into them. Therefore Superiors, even with profits not restored by delinquents, can be absolved, nor does the delay of delinquents harm them. Unless profits, etc. Therefore, with profits of this kind restored, someone can be absolved by another than the Supreme Pontiff. Condonation of profits is to be obtained only from the Holy See. But restitution is to be made "to the Ordinaries of places, or their Vicars in spiritual things, or Officials, or Apostolic Vicars or Pro-vicars." These must "distribute and spend the restored profits for the use and advantage of the poor, hospitals, ecclesiastical seminaries and workers (yet not of the religions... of those who have committed a delict in the foregoing or concerning them, but of other non-delinquents...), and not for other uses." Sec. 3; E.M.

"After the Bull Apostolicae Sedis, are the censures prescribed in the two Constitutions of blessed memory Benedict XIV concerning the Chinese and Malabar rites still in force? R. The Constitutions of Benedict XIV of blessed memory on the above-mentioned Chinese and Malabar rites, issued in the years 1742 and 1744, are altogether in force, except only the censures latae sententiae, of which no mention is made in the Constitution of the Most Holy Lord Pius IX, issued on October 12, which begins Apostolicae Sedis moderationi; and therefore at the end of the formula of the oath which is prescribed and confirmed by Benedict XIV in the same Constitution, between the words, 'I acknowledge and declare myself subject to the penalties imposed by the aforesaid Constitutions,' after the word imposed, this addition is to be inserted: 'and still in force.'" Holy Office, March 3, 1873.