Case LIV: Incurring Ecclesiastical Censure

Titus, a bishop, before placing the case of a certain holy man in the hands of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, with the hope of his beatification, issues a general decree commanding all who may have in their possession any writings of this holy man to send the same to the Chancellor within two months from the date of the decree under pain of excommunication, to be incurred ipso facto. The decree likewise threatens with the same punishment all who, having knowledge of the existence and whereabouts of any such manuscript, do not make known the same to the proper authorities. Caius, a priest, has in his possession several letters written to him personally by the dead and saintly man. He is unwilling to part with these letters because they were written for the direction of his own conscience, and if made public would lead to grave injury of his reputation. In his anxiety he seeks the advice of a neighboring priest. Here he is told that he may either remove his name from the letters in his possession, and then turn them over to the bishop, or he may burn them, as human laws, especially when penal, do not oblige under such grave inconvenience. Caius revolves the whole matter in his mind for some time and finally concludes to burn the documents. In a short time the valuable letters are destroyed.

The question is asked (1) whether fear of loss of reputation or such like inconvenience saves one from incurring censure; (2) whether the advice given to Caius by his brother priest was lawful and proper; (3) whether in the case given the censure was really incurred by the two priests, and to what are they bound.

1. Censure is a canonical punishment which has for its purpose the prevention of sin. It is inflicted, therefore, only after the infraction of some law. It follows, therefore, that any cause which excuses from the transgression of a law will likewise exempt one from the annexed censure. There are times when grave fear of evil will exempt one from the observation of some law; at other times neither the fear of a graver evil nor the fear of the gravest evil will destroy the obligation of the law.

However, it must be clearly understood that for the incurring of censure sin and contempt of the censure are required. Hence, if there is question of some precept of the natural law from the observance of which grave fear does not excuse, yet the presence of fear may preserve one from incurring a censure that is annexed to the sin. Owing to the presence of fear we may in truth say that the law is broken rather from the weakness of nature than from any malice or contempt of the church threatening the censure. And, therefore, says St. Alphonsus (I. 7, n. 46): "He who through fear commits murder, which is forbidden under pain of censure, sins truly, but does not incur censure, because he does not sin against the right of the Church, against whose authority no special contempt is shown." The censure would be incurred, however, even if the gravest fear were present, when the observation of the law is made necessary by public good, or when the fear would lead directly to contempt of religion or of the authority of the Church (St. Alph. I.,c.).

2. The counsel given to Caius, to remove his own name from the letters in question, was right and proper. Had he done so he would have taken away all cause of fear of loss of reputation, and the speculative and practical doctrine contained in the letters would have been available in the cause of the beatification of their writer. It is clear from this that the second part of the advice given to Caius, viz., to burn the letters, was improper and unjust. For, as said above, by the removal of the name contained in the letters, all danger of loss of reputation was irrevocably prevented, and with it was taken away all grave inconvenience. Caius therefore acted unlawfully in burning the letters.

3. The priest who advised Caius in his anxiety did not incur the penalty of excommunication, even though he did not make known to the proper authorities the existence of the letters held by Caius. For he knew of these letters only because his counsel was sought in reference to them. Therefore he was bound by the strictest obligation to secrecy. Now while he was thus bound the letters were destroyed, and consequently he was not then bound to broach the matter to the bishop.

Caius, on the other hand, objectively speaking, incurred the penalty of excommunication. The reason of this is plain. He had in his possession the manuscript sought after by the bishop, and could have transferred it to his ordinary without detriment to himself or others. Consideration must be given, nevertheless, to the fact that Caius acted in 'good faith, and by reason of this ignorance he was practically excused from the penalty of his fault. Strictly speaking he did not commit sin, and where there is no sin there is no excommunication. He is, moreover, not bound to anything further, since the letters are no longer in existence. Certainly he is not bound to reveal his part in the affair; for such a revelation would be productive of no good and would endanger his good name.