Article I. On Excommunication

We must treat: 1. of its nature and division; 2. of its effects; 3. of excommunications in particular.

956. • Definition. Excommunication is a censure through which someone is deprived of the communion of the Church; or, a censure by which a Christian is deprived, either entirely or in part, of the common spiritual goods of the Church, the distribution of which belongs to her ¹.

¹ Since the goods in which the faithful communicate among themselves are of a threefold kind, namely: 1. internal; 2. merely external; 3. mixed; the Church by excommunicating deprives one only of communion in goods of the second and third kinds.

Under the old law it was distinguished into: 1. major excommunication, which deprives one of all the common goods of the Church ²; 2. minor excommunication, which deprived one only of certain goods. But this latter must be said to have been abolished through the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis. For in it it is said: By this Constitution, to remain in force perpetually, We decree that, of whatever censures, whether of excommunication, suspension, or interdict, which up to this time have been imposed after the manner of a latae sententiae penalty and to be incurred by the fact itself, only those which We insert in this very Constitution, and in the manner in which We insert them, shall henceforth possess force. But that which is called minor excommunication, concerning which see the following number, question 2, is in no manner inserted in the aforesaid Constitution. Therefore. Nevertheless, the cessation of this penalty does not effect the cessation also of the fault which one incurs by communicating with an excommunicated person to be avoided.

² By the name of excommunication in law, Major Excommunication is almost always understood, as St. Alphonsus also notes from the common opinion (book 7, no. 133); nevertheless, before Gregory IX, Minor Excommunication was also at times included. See Schmalzgrueber (book 5, title 39, no. 119).

But the word anathema is used in the Sacred Canons sometimes to distinguish it from minor excommunication, as in chapter Engellrudam 12, cause 8, question 4; sometimes to signify excommunication inflicted on account of heresy or suspicion of it; finally, to signify certain solemnities, as, for example, when an excommunication is denounced with candles lit and afterward extinguished, and with other ceremonies instituted by the Church (Schmalzgrueber, loc. cit., no. 117).

Of those excommunicated by major excommunication, some are called tolerated, whom the faithful are not bound to avoid; others are called not tolerated, or persons to be avoided, whom the faithful ought to avoid ³.

³ Under the ancient law, whoever had incurred major excommunication imposed either a iure or ab homine was to be avoided, with this difference alone: that those whose excommunication was public and notorious were to be avoided publicly; but those whose excommunication was not publicly known were to be avoided only privately by those who were aware of it. A trace of this discipline also exists in chapter Cum non ab homine 14, On the Sentence of Excommunication. But under the new law, in order to prevent various sins and scandals which it was observed could befall timorous consciences, it was granted to the faithful of Christ that no one should be bound to abstain from communion with anyone bound by any censure, whether a iure or ab homine, unless a sentence against a certain person had been specifically and expressly published by a judge, or unless it was so notoriously established that he had incurred excommunication imposed by the canon through a sacrilegious laying of hands upon a cleric that the fact could not be concealed by any evasion or excused by any defense.

In the Constitution of the Council of Constance approved by Martin V, through which this new law was introduced, these words also are added (as it is recited in the Council of Basel and the Bull of Leo X in the Lateran Council): Nevertheless, through this We do not intend in any respect to relieve excommunicated, suspended, interdicted, or prohibited persons of this kind, nor in any manner to aid them. From these words there exists the common doctrine of all that no advantage which censured persons can claim by law comes to them from the aforesaid Constitution.

957. • Questions. - QUESTION 1. In order that an excommunicated person to be avoided ought to be avoided, is it necessary that he be publicly known as such?

Reply. Affirmatively. For it does not suffice that you know he is to be avoided, but it is required in addition that the fact of that excommunication be truly notorious, namely, that he has been excommunicated by name and publicly by a competent judge, or denounced as already bound by excommunication. - St. Alphonsus, no. 137. But he is excommunicated by name who is designated by his expressed name in words or signs so indubitable that he is altogether distinguished from others. - St. Alphonsus, no. 136.

But it must be noted that, although you are not bound to avoid an excommunicated person who has not been denounced, nevertheless, you can avoid him, even publicly, if he is publicly known as excommunicated ⁴. - St. Alphonsus, no. 157.

⁴ The reason was given above, namely, that the faculty granted to the faithful of not avoiding an excommunicated person of this kind is only in their favor, not for any advantage of his.

But one who has laid sacrilegious hands upon a Cleric is excepted, in such a way that his offense can neither be concealed by any evasion nor excused by any means. Hence he immediately, and before the sentence itself of the judge, incurs excommunication and ought to be avoided. Thus expressly Martin V in the Bull Ad evitanda scandala ⁵.

⁵ This Constitution, as it is inserted in the Acts of the Council of Basel and in the Bull of Leo X in the Lateran Council, and as Navarre also read it (Manual, chapter 27, no. 35), in its latter part commands that not merely notorious strikers of Clerics, but absolutely all persons notoriously excommunicated, although not denounced by name, are to be avoided. Hence Fagnanus (on chapter Quod a Praedecessore, On Schismatics, no. 55) contends that whoever is certainly recognized by the notoriety of the fact to have fallen into excommunication is to be avoided. But Navarre himself (loc. cit.) testifies that this was received by custom only with respect to notorious strikers of Clerics (as the Constitution appears to have been issued in the Council of Constance). But Fagnanus's opinion is commonly rejected, as Benedict XIV says (On the Diocesan Synod, book 12, chapter 5, no. 4), who then confirms this by the vote of many Doctors.

Benedict XIV adds (ibid.) that it is remarkable that the Acts of the Council of Constance in no Collection whatever of Councils make even the slightest mention of this Constitution, whose entire authority would therefore be derived from the testimony of St. Antoninus. But what he himself found neither in Labbe nor in Vonderhardt nor in the Supplements of Mansi did in fact exist in Hardouin (Councils, volume 8, column 892), from whom it was afterward also received into the very ample new Collection of Councils (volume 27, column 1189).

Moreover, the common opinion, which excepts only notorious strikers of clerics, is established from these words of the Constitution itself: Except if it is established that someone, for sacrilege and the laying of hands upon the clergy, has fallen under a sentence imposed by the canon so notoriously that the fact cannot be concealed by any evasion nor excused by any defense of law. For We will that communion with him, although he has not been denounced, be abstained from, according to the canonical sanctions.

QUESTION 2. What must be held concerning MINOR EXCOMMUNICATION, now abrogated?

Reply. Hold these few things:

1. It was not incurred except on account of communication with a person to be avoided. Hence, in the present discipline of the Church it is exceedingly rare, since excommunicated persons to be avoided appear very rarely^†.

2. It deprived one only of the reception of the Sacraments ⁶, and of passive election to benefices and dignities of the Church. Hence it did not deprive one of the faculty of administering the Sacraments. And therefore one who, entangled in such an excommunication, administered the Sacraments sinned neither gravely nor, more probably, venially.

⁶ By violating this precept one sinned gravely, from chapter Si celebrat, final, On an Excommunicated Cleric, which reads thus: If one bound by minor excommunication celebrates, although he sins gravely, he incurs no mark of irregularity; nor is he prohibited from electing or from exercising those things which belong to him by reason of jurisdiction. See Schmalzgrueber (book 5, title 39, no. 198).

3. Any Priest approved by the Bishop could absolve from it. For usage had thus prevailed. - Thus all.

958. • QUESTION 3. Was grave fault required for incurring minor excommunication?

Reply. Negatively; but a fully deliberate venial fault sufficed ⁷. The reason adduced was that it does not deprive one of so notable a good, and absolution from it can most easily be obtained from any Priest. Nevertheless, the fault on account of which minor excommunication had been inflicted could not be omitted in confession, although it was venial, because it impeded reception of the Sacrament. - St. Alphonsus, nos. 153, 154.

⁷ I think that this must be understood of a venial sin by reason of slightness of matter, as because the communication is slight, in some salutation, conversation, or common table; but if the sin is venial by reason of imperfect deliberation and advertence, it seems to me more probable that the censure is not incurred. Suarez (On Censures, disputation 24, section 3, no. 3).

959. • Eight effects of excommunication are numbered ⁸, namely: 1. deprivation of the Sacraments; 2. deprivation of divine Offices; 3. deprivation

⁸ These effects of excommunication are called immediate, which the Doctors distinguish from others which they call mediate. But these are:

1. Irregularity, which anyone bound by major excommunication incurs when he exercises an act of some Order, for example, by conferring sacraments, etc. Concerning this below, where Irregularity is treated.

2. Suspicion of heresy, which he incurs who contumaciously persists, or grows sordid, in excommunication for an entire year; the reason is that he is presumed to think wrongly concerning the power of the Church, while he cares nothing either for the censures imposed by her or for the sacraments which are omitted by him contrary to the precept of the Church. See Bonacina (On Censures, disputation 2, question 2, final part, no. 2) and Suarez (On Censures, disputation 17, section 1, no. 6). And to this pertains that statement of the Council of Trent (session 25, On Reformation, chapter 3): If, hardened in mind and bound by censures, he has grown sordid in them for a year, it may be possible to proceed even against him as one suspected of heresy. Nevertheless, La Croix (book 7, no. 287), whom St. Alphonsus followed (book 7, no. 157), without reason transfers this to all censures; for the context of the Council expressly regards excommunicated persons. But two things are to be noted. The first is that this must be understood of excommunicated persons denounced by name. Thus Covarruvias (on chapter Alma, part 1, section 7, no. 10), Sayrus (On Censures, book 2, chapter 10, no. 10), Marius Alterius (On Censures, book 2, disputation 8, chapter 3), Ugolinus (On Censures, table 1, chapter 14, section 3, no. 34), etc. The other is that this is a light suspicion, even though it suffices for enjoining purgation upon the accused. See Schmalzgrueber (book 5, title 39, no. 195).

3. Proof of the offense or cause on account of which excommunication was imposed. For one who has been excommunicated by a judge on account of a civil or criminal cause and perseveres in that excommunication for a year, without showing any impediment or sign of satisfaction, ought to be held as convicted and confessed from chapter Rursus 36 and following chapter 37, cause 11, question 3; because that contumacy is regarded as confession by a fiction of law. Nevertheless, he is permitted to allege and prove his innocence. Schmalzgrueber (book 5, title 39, no. 196).

4. Deprivation of benefices obtained, if there is question of an ecclesiastical person and the crime for which he was cited beforehand is worthy of such deprivation. Concerning this matter Schmalzgrueber (book 5, title 39, no. 197) thus briefly presents the common doctrine: An excommunicated person persevering for three years in excommunication with a hardened mind ought to be deprived by the judge of all benefices; because he is unworthy to enjoy the fruits of the Church who exists in such rebellion against her, and thus the Pontiff acted in chapter Cum bonae 8, On Age and Quality.... On account of perseverance for a year, although judges can inflict this penalty of deprivation of benefices, nevertheless they are not bound to do so, because this obligation is nowhere provided in law.

** Against that which is said in this Note, no. 2, namely, that Croix without reason transfers to all censures that which the laws and the Doctors say concerning excommunication, namely, that he becomes suspected of heresy who grows sordid in it for a year, the VV. object first of all (page 877) that Croix proves this from the cited text of Trent not directly but indirectly, saying: It applies also to other censures.

Reply. The VV. plainly strive by these things to defend the Holy Doctor Alphonsus, who says that this is proved by Croix from Trent. For thus the Holy Doctor writes (book 7, no. 157): To grow sordid is to persevere for a year with a pertinacious mind and with contempt of the power of the Church in the same excommunication, or in another censure, as Croix says, book 7, no. 287, and proves from Trent, session 25, chapter 3.

But Croix does indeed prove from Trent what it is to grow sordid, but nothing else. For thus he says (book 7, no. 287): Insordescence is said principally by reason of excommunication; nevertheless it also applies to other censures. But according to the Council of Trent cited in no. 18, he is said to be growing sordid in a censure who with a pertinacious mind and with contempt of ecclesiastical power perseveres in the censure for a year. But if from Trent he had wished also to prove what he adds concerning other censures, he would have joined the citation of Trent to those preceding words, nevertheless it also applies to other censures, which he added of his own accord and contrary to the opinion of all the Doctors, and would not have appended it to the following period. But Croix can be excused only insofar as he wished to indicate that contumacy, which we shall call insordescence, can occur also in those who have been bound by another censure; which indeed all knew, even if he had remained silent about it.

Moreover, to what purpose would Croix have invoked Trent for that empty and groundless addition, when Trent treats merely of one excommunicated? For thus reads the Decree of the Council (loc. cit.): But any excommunicated person, if after legitimate warnings he has not come to his senses, is not only not to be received to the Sacraments and the communion and familiar association of the faithful; but if, hardened in mind and bound by censures, he has grown sordid in them for a year, it may be possible to proceed even against him as one suspected of heresy. Indeed, these words of Trent are so far from being capable of application to those bound by another censure as it is abhorrent to the law and custom of the Church that one merely suspended or interdicted cannot be received into the communion and familiar association of the faithful.

But what is the chief point, Croix in his definition of insordescence omitted that which was to be noted before all else, namely, that in the Decree of Trent there is question of one against whom, after a judicial cause had been instituted, the penalty of excommunication had been imposed by name and ab homine on account of contumacy. Although these things afterward can in some manner be inferred from those which the same Croix (loc. cit., nos. 288-291) subjoins concerning diverse causes, nevertheless, since this is entirely omitted in St. Alphonsus, his opinion, thus expressed in general words, can easily lead to absurd conclusions, namely, even to any censures imposed a iure.

To defend that anomalous extension by Croix of the Decree of Trent to any censure, the VV. (page 878) thus argue: Before the Council of Trent the Canonists commonly held that any excommunicated person persevering in excommunication for a year becomes suspected of heresy, although this was not expressed in law. But if it was lawful for them, on account of identity of reason, to extend a particular case circumscribed by certain conditions to all cases of excommunication, by the same right it is certainly lawful to extend the disposition of the Council of Trent to the other censures on account of the same identity.

Reply. With the historical part omitted: 1. I deny the antecedent; 2. I deny the consequence. I said, with the historical part omitted, because the VV. will never prove that it had not been received by usage that, even before Trent, proceedings were taken as against persons suspected of heresy against those contumacious for a year after, on account of another preceding contumacy, they had already been excommunicated by name and publicly. Wherefore, even if not by written law, it can nevertheless deservedly be supposed that this had already been introduced by custom.

But I said, I deny the Antecedent, that is, that the Canonists extended a particular case to all cases of excommunication. For in order that there be an extension properly so called, it is required that the same disposition of law and, in the present case, the same penalty be extended to another cause or other subjects. But in the present matter we have in no way either a common penalty or a common cause between the two cases. And this becomes plain in a few words. For the disposition of law which the VV. say was extended by the Canonists to other cases is of this kind (chapter Cum Contumacia 7, On Heretics, in the Sext): Since contumacy (especially in a cause of faith) adds a vehement presumption to suspicion, if one suspected of heresy, summoned by you so that he may answer concerning the faith, has been bound by you with the bond of excommunication (because he evades obedience or contumaciously absents himself), which he endures with a pertinacious mind for a year, let him then be condemned as a heretic. Therefore: 1. the penalty threatened here is the condemnation of the guilty party as a heretic; 2. the crime or cause for which someone had been cited is suspicion of heresy. But in the other case: 1. the crime or cause for which the contumacious person after citation was excommunicated is not suspicion of heresy; 2. the penalty which is threatened against the contumacious person even after excommunication is not the penalty proper to a heretic, but only that the guilty party can thereafter be cited as one suspected of heresy. Therefore nothing is common between case and case, and accordingly no extension properly so called is present here. But much less will even a certain shadow of this extension be found if, with the VV. after Croix and St. Alphonsus, you transfer that aforesaid disposition of law TO ALL CASES OF EXCOMMUNICATION, when the Decree of Trent, as we have already said, regards solely one contumacious for a year in that special excommunication which a judge had inflicted on account of the preceding contumacy of the guilty party, namely, because the guilty party did not obey a citation on account of another cause, whether civil or criminal.

I said in addition, I deny the Consequence, namely, that it is lawful to extend the disposition of Trent concerning a contumacious person excommunicated by name to those bound by lesser censures. For that proceedings can be taken against someone as one suspected of heresy is a most grave penalty. But according to the rules of Law, odious things are to be restricted. And indeed, according to Rule 49 in the Sext, a more benign interpretation is to be made in penalties; and according to Rule 155, section final, Digest, On Law, in penal causes a more benign interpretation is to be made; and law 42, Digest, On Penalties, says that by the interpretation of laws penalties are to be mitigated rather than made harsher; much more, therefore, a penal law ought not to be extended to those cases which the law does not touch in even the slightest degree and which are established to be of much less gravity. And again, even if that were true which, speaking precisely, ought to be called false, namely, that before the Council of Trent the Canonists extended to certain other excommunications (but not all, as the VV. say without reason) that which had been established in chapter Cum Contumacia, nevertheless no canon permits us to attribute to the authority of Claude La Croix, introducing this new doctrine without any foundation of reasons or authorities, that weight which we know ought to be attributed to the common doctrine of the Canonists, which the Council of Trent also confirmed.

3. deprivation of the suffrages of the Church; 4. deprivation of ecclesiastical burial; 5. deprivation of ecclesiastical jurisdiction; 6. deprivation of benefices; 7. deprivation of forensic communication; 8. deprivation of civil society.

The goods of which excommunication deprives one are comprised in these little verses:

Sacred things, rites, communion, burial place, power, Sacred estates, court, civil rights are forbidden.

960. • Excommunication deprives one both of the right to receive the Sacraments and of the right to administer them ⁹. Hence you will resolve:

⁹ The Author, in order to consult brevity, wished to treat jointly of this twofold effect of excommunication, namely, the removal of both the passive and active use of the sacraments; and since each case involves a twofold cause, namely, both that of the excommunicated person and that of the other who either confers the sacraments upon the excommunicated person or asks for the sacraments from him, and in addition since in many matters the case of an excommunicated person to be avoided is one thing, but that of a tolerated person another, it is no wonder that the Author's treatment, very brief in itself, became obscure and exceedingly meager.

Therefore, with respect to the removed passive use of the sacraments, let these things be noted more distinctly.

1. An excommunicated person, even a tolerated one, is barred from receiving the sacraments and sins gravely by violating this prohibition of the Church. Nevertheless, from this illicit reception he incurs no penalty except suspension from the Order which he receives in that state. Schmalzgrueber (book 5, title 39, no. 128) and St. Alphonsus (book 7, no. 160). From the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, this penalty has ceased.

2. Not only inculpable ignorance, but also fear of death, mutilation, infamy, grave loss of goods, etc., excuses the excommunicated person from that fault; and also the necessity of fulfilling the annual precepts of Confession and Communion, if there is no one who can absolve him from the reserved censure. The reason is that an ecclesiastical law does not bind so rigorously and with such grave inconvenience. St. Alphonsus (no. 158) with the common opinion of the Doctors.

3. Although illicitly, indeed sacrilegiously, nevertheless an excommunicated person validly receives the sacraments, Penance excepted. Although even this sacrament will be valid if the penitent, otherwise disposed, approaches in good faith; which can happen either because he himself, through inculpable ignorance or forgetfulness, does not disclose the censure; or because the priest is ignorant of or does not advert to the censure annexed to the sin; or even, while adverting to it and indeed to one reserved, nevertheless without the faculty, thinks that the penitent is to be absolved from the non-reserved sins on account of the aforesaid necessity; or even through malice absolves a penitent who thinks that the priest does not lack the faculty of absolving.

4. Since the excommunicated person sins by receiving the sacraments before he is absolved, by that very fact the minister who knowingly confers the sacraments upon him sins.

5. If the excommunicated person to whom the sacraments are given is tolerated, the minister (as the Author well notes) indeed sins against divine law, but not against the law of the Church. But if he is a person to be avoided, not only does the minister violate the law of the Church, but under the ancient law he also incurred excommunication and also interdict from entering a church, from chapter Episcoporum 8, On Privileges, in the Sext; and suspension from office was added besides if these excommunicated persons had been excommunicated on account of heresy or as supporters of heretics; nor was such a minister to be restored to office without the Pope's dispensation, from chapter Excommunicamus 13, section Credentes, On Heretics. See Schmalzgrueber (book 5, title 39, no. 128). But now he will incur merely an excommunication reserved to the Pontiff if he ministers the sacraments to one excommunicated by name by the Supreme Pontiff himself. From the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, chapter Significavit 18, On the Sentence of Excommunication, and Clementine 3 under the same title.

6. Moreover, someone licitly administers the sacraments to an excommunicated person whenever, according to the things said (no. 2), the latter licitly approaches to receive them before he is absolved.

But with respect to the active use of the sacraments, these things must be held:

1. In a case of necessity an excommunicated person, whether tolerated or to be avoided, administers the sacraments both validly and licitly, for example, by absolving at the point of death.

2. Outside a case of necessity, in order that a tolerated person administer licitly, the request alone of the faithful suffices, provided that he is otherwise in the state of grace and cannot first obtain absolution from the censure. But in order that the faithful licitly request this, although some require a cause at least of great utility, others nevertheless do not think even this necessary; and St. Alphonsus (book 7, no. 165) also admits their opinion as probable.

3. But if necessity and the request of the faithful (at least tacit, according to St. Alphonsus, no. 169) are lacking, even a tolerated person sins gravely and, on account of the exercise of Holy Orders, also incurs irregularity, according to the things to be said below (St. Alphonsus, no. 171).

4. But a person to be avoided incurs irregularity even if, without necessity, he ministers the sacraments when requested by the faithful. In this case the faithful sin gravely by receiving the sacraments from him, and under the ancient law incurred minor excommunication (St. Alphonsus, no. 172).

5. Nevertheless, the person to be avoided is excused when, if he does not confer the sacrament, he incurs danger of death, mutilation, infamy, or grave loss of goods; for then, unless that threat is made in contempt of the censure, he can licitly minister the sacraments which he can validly minister, because the Church, a pious mother, is not presumed to wish to bind by her laws with such great loss. Schmalzgrueber (book 5, title 39, no. 144), St. Alphonsus (book 7, no. 170).

6. In addition, by reason of necessity, the Doctors think that an excommunicated person to be avoided can not only confer baptism upon one in danger, but also the Eucharist or Extreme Unction when the dying person cannot receive the sacrament of Penance; because, since any sacrament can make one contrite from being attrite, it will sometimes happen that, on account of the reception of the Eucharist or Extreme Unction, salvation is obtained which would not be obtained if these sacraments were not received. Schmalzgrueber (loc. cit., no. 145), St. Alphonsus (loc. cit., no. 170). Indeed, grave Doctors add that the Eucharist or Extreme Unction can licitly be given by a person to be avoided to a sick person even if the latter has received the sacrament of Penance; the reason is that it is most necessary that the sick person be helped and receive strength from it to overcome the suggestions of the devil in that moment. Schmalzgrueber (loc. cit., no. 146).

7. Finally, a parish priest to be avoided would assist at a marriage validly but illicitly, although he does not incur irregularity through this; but he would deputize another to assist not only validly but also licitly. St. Alphonsus (book 7, no. 166).

1. An excommunicated person, whether to be avoided or even tolerated, who receives or confers the Sacraments sins gravely per se; except: 1. if he confers the Sacraments in a case of necessity; 2. if, being tolerated, he confers them when asked by the faithful themselves.

2. Ministers of the Church who confer the Sacraments upon excommunicated persons, whether persons to be avoided or merely tolerated persons, sin gravely, at least per se, since they are unworthy. Nevertheless, one who confers the Sacraments only upon tolerated persons sins not against the prohibition of the Church but only against divine law. The reason is that the Church no longer prohibits communication, even in divine things, with tolerated persons. But they sin against divine law, because it is never licit to give holy things to dogs. - See St. Alphonsus, nos. 158, 165 and following.

961. • By divine Offices are understood Mass, public Processions, Vespers solemnly chanted, solemn Benediction, the consecration of Chrism, and other ceremonies of this kind which are performed by the institution of Christ or of the Church, or which are proper to the clerical Order, such as the chanting of the Epistle or Gospel with the proper vestments, and ecclesiastical burial.

962. • Hence you will resolve. - 1. Every excommunicated person is prohibited under grave obligation from hearing Mass ¹⁰ and all other divine Offices properly public, even on days of precept. This is apparent from chapter Alma 24, On the Sentence of Excommunication, in the Sext. - St. Alphonsus, no. 175.

¹⁰ At the time when Mass and the divine offices are celebrated, an excommunicated person is prohibited from entering the church. And if he is a person to be avoided, while the Sacrifice of the Mass is being offered he is to be warned to depart; but if he is unwilling, he is to be expelled even by force, if necessary. But if he cannot be expelled, the Mass, if the Canon has not yet begun, is to be broken off; and if the consecration has been performed, the consumption is to follow, and then one is to withdraw to the sacristy; if the Canon has been begun, the priest can either break off the Mass or continue it up to Communion, with the others nevertheless departing; for if they do not depart, they sin at least venially. St. Alphonsus (book 7, nos. 176-177). Under the ancient law, if the person to be avoided refused to depart, he incurred a new excommunication reserved to the Pope.

2. Nevertheless, an excommunicated person, even one to be avoided, can pray in the same place in which others pray, but separately and apart from the assembly of the faithful; he can also be present at a sermon, a reading of Sacred Scripture, and a lecture on Theology ¹¹, because these are not included under the name of divine Offices, and the Church willingly permits them to him so that he may be led to conversion. - St. Alphonsus, nos. 174, 177.

¹¹ Otherwise, the person to be avoided himself is deprived of the faculty of preaching, lecturing in theology, and publicly interpreting canon law. Schmalzgrueber (book 5, title 39, no. 132).

3. He can also use images, relics, holy water, and other sacred things, so that he may obtain the graces which he needs. Nevertheless, he does not gain the Indulgences annexed to sacred things, nor does he receive from holy water and other sacramentals the fruit which proceeds from the blessing of the Church. - St. Alphonsus, no. 174.

4. An excommunicated person bound to the canonical Hours is not dispensed from them, but ought to recite them privately; nor can he employ a companion unless he is tolerated ¹². Nor can he say, The Lord be with you; but in its place he ought to say, O Lord, hear my prayer. Nevertheless, by saying The Lord be with you, he would sin only venially. - St. Alphonsus, no. 178.

¹² Even if he is not tolerated, he can call a companion for some necessity or utility, especially if the latter is subject to him, as a chaplain to a Bishop, a servant to a master, etc.; for a servant is not deprived of communication with his master in those things in which he was bound to serve him. Schmalzgrueber (book 5, title 39, no. 181).

963. • The suffrages of the Church are either common or private. The common suffrages are those which come to the faithful from good works done in the name of the Church by her Ministers, such as Masses, the canonical Hours, and other prayers and works which are done by the Ministers of the Church insofar as they are such and are performed in the name of the Church herself. To these must also be referred the satisfactions of Christ, the Blessed Virgin, and the Saints, which constitute the treasury of the Church and are applied by the Prelates of the Church through indulgences.

The private suffrages are those which come from the good works which the faithful perform in their own name. Of this kind are fasts, prayers, and other good works which are done by private faithful or by Ministers of the Church as private persons.

964. • Hence you will resolve. - 1. Excommunicated persons to be avoided are deprived of all the common suffrages of the Church. This is apparent, because the Church by her own right prohibits prayer from being made for them ¹³, or any portion of her goods from coming to them. And this holds even if they were contrite and converted to a better life, because the excommunication still endures. - St. Alphonsus, no. 163.

¹³ The reason why prayer in the Mass for an infidel is not forbidden, while nevertheless it is forbidden for an excommunicated Christian to be avoided, must be derived solely from the precept of the Church. See above, note to no. 349.

2. Neither tolerated persons nor even persons to be avoided are deprived of private suffrages. The reason is that the faithful are not prohibited from praying privately for excommunicated persons, even in a church and in a public place; therefore they can apply to them the fruit of good works. - St. Alphonsus, no. 162.

3. Tolerated excommunicated persons are not deprived of common suffrages. The reason is that the Church no longer prohibits the faithful from communicating with tolerated persons, as is deduced from the things said above. - St. Alphonsus, no. 164.

965. • Ecclesiastical burial is that which takes place in a sacred place, or one blessed for the burial of the faithful. Hence:

1. An excommunicated person to be avoided cannot be buried in a sacred place; but if he has been buried in such a place, his body ought to be dug up, if it can still be done, and the sacred place polluted by such contact is to be expiated. - St. Alphonsus, no. 186.

2. A tolerated excommunicated person is likewise deprived of ecclesiastical burial; and if he has been buried in a sacred place, he is to be removed from it ¹⁴. Nevertheless, the place is not considered polluted and therefore does not need expiation.

¹⁴ If he gave signs of repentance, he can be buried in a sacred place, although it is fitting that he first be absolved from excommunication. But a person to be avoided who gave those signs cannot be buried in a sacred place unless he is first absolved. Schmalzgrueber (book 5, title 39, no. 127).

3. Clerics who carry forth and bury a person to be avoided incurred major excommunication under the ancient law. - Thus from the Clementine On Burial. - From the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, only those commanding and compelling it are excommunicated, as will be seen below.

966. • 1. An excommunicated person to be avoided is deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction, or rather of its exercise and use. Hence he cannot absolve in the penitential forum, nor impose laws, censures, or sentences, nor elect to benefices or confer them, etc. But if he performed such acts, they would be altogether null and invalid. - St. Alphonsus, no. 185.

2. A tolerated excommunicated person, even if notorious, validly exercises jurisdiction, because otherwise great confusion would arise in the Church. Nevertheless, his acts can be invalidated and repelled through an exception or objection of excommunication, and he himself acts illicitly outside a case of necessity or unless he has been asked; and indeed in a grave matter he cannot be excused from mortal sin. But if he has been asked, he does not sin, even if he ministers the Sacraments without cause. For since communication with tolerated persons has been conceded to the faithful, indirectly it has also been granted to these persons to communicate with the faithful who request it. Nevertheless, this holds insofar as the sacraments are requested from an excommunicated person; for insofar as they are requested from a Minister existing in mortal sin, a just cause is required in order to request them licitly. - Thus St. Alphonsus, no. 139, and book 6, no. 88.

967. • 1. Every excommunicated person, whether tolerated or to be avoided, becomes altogether incapable of obtaining ecclesiastical benefices. The reason is that a benefice is given on account of an office, but an excommunicated person is altogether incapable of an office; therefore also of a benefice. Except if the benefice were conferred by the Pope himself. - St. Alphonsus, no. 180.

2. Nevertheless, excommunication does not deprive one of a benefice already obtained, nor of its fruits before the sentence of a judge. The reason is that neither is clearly expressed in law. If, however, he neglects to obtain absolution for a year, he can be deprived of the benefice by a judge. - St. Alphonsus, ibid.

3. An excommunicated person accepting a benefice ¹⁵, and the one from whom he receives it, sin gravely, since they act against a grave prohibition of the Church. But one conferring it formerly incurred minor excommunication and suspension ipso facto from the conferral of that benefice if the excommunicated person was one to be avoided. - After the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, these censures ceased.

¹⁵ According to the more common and more probable opinion, the acceptance of a benefice which had been conferred before someone incurred excommunication is valid, although he accepts it when already bound by excommunication (Reiffenstuel, book 5, title 39, no. 65); just as, if an excommunicated person takes possession of a benefice duly conferred upon him or sends another into possession, the possession and the placing into possession are valid, because both possession and the placing into possession are matters of fact, not of law. See Schmalzgrueber (book 5, title 39, no. 150), who adds (ibid., no. 154) that the conferral of a pension which is given to an excommunicated cleric for support while he resigns or exchanges a benefice or yields in litigation is probably valid.

968. • Forensic communication is understood as communication in those things which pertain to a judgment, whether civil or ecclesiastical.

1. An excommunicated person to be avoided is deprived of every act pertaining to a judgment in the civil forum. Therefore he cannot be a judge, advocate, plaintiff, witness, notary, procurator, etc. Likewise he cannot be a guardian, curator, or executor of a testament. - Thus from the common law, or the ancient Roman law. - St. Alphonsus, no. 184. But those dispositions of law today do not obtain usage in most places.

2. All the more is a person to be avoided deprived of all communication in Ecclesiastical Law. Nevertheless, he can appeal and prosecute an appeal. - Thus from canon law, title On Exceptions, chapter 5.

3. A tolerated excommunicated person is deprived ipso facto of no forensic communication; hence he acts validly if he uses it, but he can be juridically repelled through an exception both by adversaries and by the judge. - St. Alphonsus, ibid.

969. • The civil actions in which it is commonly not licit to have association with a person to be avoided are contained in this little verse:

Mouth, to pray, farewell, communion, table are denied.

1. Mouth, that is, conversations, letters, signs of benevolence.

2. To pray, any communication in divine things, for example, assisting at Mass or at the public Offices of the Church.

3. Farewell, altogether particular salutations.

4. Communion, any partnership of business, habitation, contract, cooperation, etc.

5. Table, a reciprocal invitation to table. - St. Alphonsus, no. 188.

But grave causes can excuse reciprocal communication between an excommunicated person to be avoided and the faithful, namely: necessity; the spiritual good of the excommunicated person himself; the matrimonial bond; a state of subjection, for example, minor children of a family; ignorance either of law or of fact. - St. Alphonsus, ibid.

But all these things are said only of persons to be avoided; although the privilege of Martin V by no means favors tolerated persons, nevertheless, from present-day custom, these persons no longer sin by communicating with the faithful in civil matters, even if they were not requested by them. Nevertheless, these persons cannot licitly communicate with the faithful in divine things, because the privilege favors the faithful alone, and not them. This is apparent from the Declaration of the Sacred Penitentiary, 5 July 1867.

970. • Formerly, for the convenience of students, Writers were accustomed to set before their eyes in this place only the principal excommunications or other censures, and to illustrate them with some annotation. But after the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis of Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius IX, 12 October 1869, by which the latae sententiae censures of the common law are limited ¹⁶, all of them, and any other that has subsequently been added up to the present, can now be enumerated without difficulty even in a brief compendium of moral theology; and therefore we do not hesitate to do this ¹⁷.

¹⁶ ** That the Supreme Pontiff set this end before himself is gathered from the following words of the Constitution: Since We had long revolved in Our mind that ecclesiastical censures which, after the manner of a latae sententiae penalty and to be incurred by the fact itself, have been enjoined and promulgated through the several ages... had gradually increased to a great number; that some also, with times and customs changed, had fallen away from the end and causes for which they had been imposed, or from their former utility and suitability; and that for this reason doubts, anxieties, and anguishes of conscience not infrequently arise both in those to whom the care of souls is committed and in the faithful themselves; We, wishing to meet inconveniences of this kind... after the matter had been weighed long and maturely, of Our own motion, with certain knowledge, Our mature deliberation, and from the plenitude of Our Apostolic power, decree by this Constitution, to remain in force perpetually, that, of whatever censures, whether of excommunication, suspension, or interdict, which up to this time have been imposed after the manner of a latae sententiae penalty and to be incurred by the fact itself, only those which We insert in this very Constitution, and in the manner in which We insert them, shall henceforth possess force.

¹⁷ ** Whatever we may subjoin concerning these matters in the Notes, let the Reader know that it has generally been taken from Commentaries, several of which have now appeared through the study of learned men. Among them the little work of the Most Reverend Joseph D'Annibale, Vicar of the Diocese of Rieti, published at Terni in 1873 under the title Commentaries on the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, easily excels in abundance and solidity of doctrine. We shall indicate this little work by the abbreviation Rieti Commentary.

With respect to this exception concerning the publication of books, it must be carefully noted how one Decree differs from the other. For while the Tridentine Decree and the recent Constitution agree in this, that they subject to anathema those who print, or cause to be printed, books treating of sacred matters without the approval of the Ordinary, they nevertheless differ: 1. because the Tridentine Decree treats merely of books published without the name of the Author, but the Constitution displays no restriction of this kind; 2. the Constitution punishes only those printing and causing to be printed, but the Tridentine Decree extends the penalty to those who communicate or publish books in writing, and also to those selling and retaining them. Therefore, the Constitution restricts the Tridentine Decree insofar as it confines the penalty to those only who print or cause to be printed; but it extends it insofar as it also comprehends books bearing the name of the Author.

But as regards the other censures imposed by the Council of Trent, the Constitution of Pope Pius IX reads thus: Whomever else the Most Holy Council of Trent decreed to be suspended or interdicted by the law itself, We in like manner will and declare the same persons to be subject to suspension or interdict.

Moreover, all agree that by force of this Constitution only those censures are confirmed which the Council of Trent itself directly inflicted, but not those which it only indirectly renewed or confirmed after they had previously been inflicted; and this either through general words, as, for example, when it thus establishes (session 21, chapter 1, On Reformation): Those who do otherwise... shall by the fact itself incur the penalties inflicted by law; or through a special citation of some statute, as, for example, when it declares (session 24, chapter 3, On Reformation): He is also to be punished with other penalties according to the Constitution of the Council of Lyons.... But this is openly gathered both from the words and from the purpose of the Constitution of Pius. See Avanzini's Commentary, appendix 3.

Therefore, of whatever censures now exist, the aforesaid Constitution embraces almost all of them, partly explicitly and partly implicitly. We call those explicitly contained which are expressly and individually enumerated in it; but implicitly, when those ¹⁸ are confirmed which are found both to have been imposed by the Council of Trent and to be contained in certain particular statutes ¹⁹.

¹⁸ ** Thus the Constitution: Besides those thus far enumerated, We likewise declare excommunicated those whom the Most Holy Council of Trent excommunicated, whether absolution was reserved to the Supreme Pontiff or to Ordinaries, or without any reservation; with the exception of the penalty of anathema established in the Decree of Session IV, On the Edition and Use of the Sacred Books, to which We will only those to be subject who print, or cause to be printed, books treating of sacred matters without the approval of the Ordinary.

¹⁹ ** To this pertain these words of the Constitution: But whatever censures, whether of excommunication, suspension, or interdict, have been imposed by Our Constitutions or those of Our Predecessors, or by the sacred Canons, besides those which We have enumerated, and have thus far persisted in their force, whether for the election of the Roman Pontiff, or for the internal governance of any Orders and Institutes of Regulars, and also of any Colleges, Congregations, Assemblies, and Pious Places, of whatever name or kind they may be, all these We will and declare to be firm and to remain in their force. Concerning these, however, some things are given below.

Meanwhile, with Avanzini note that those remaining censures imposed by the Roman Pontiffs or by the sacred Canons with respect to particular Institutes or particular places, of whatever kind they may be, are merely declared not to have been abrogated. But it is one thing to declare that they have not been abrogated and therefore remain in their force; it is another to affirm that they have been renewed. For renewal adds new force to censures which perhaps have gone into desuetude, and therefore they revive through renewal. But when through some Constitution it is merely said that they have not been abrogated, this one thing is gathered from it: that they remain in that state in which they were found, and by force of this Constitution are neither destroyed nor renewed. But this is sufficiently indicated by these words of the Constitution: And have thus far persisted in their force. Wherefore, if those particular censures in some Institute or Pious Place have perhaps gone into desuetude or have ceased for some other cause, they are by no means to be considered renewed through the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis.

971. • Even according to the most recent law introduced after the Constitution of Pius, latae sententiae censures are of four kinds. For some are reserved to the Roman Pontiff in a special manner ²⁰; others are likewise reserved simply to the Supreme Pontiff; others are reserved to Bishops or Ordinaries; and finally others are reserved to no one.

²⁰ ** This fourfold distinction of censures was also seen in the preceding law. But the censures which are now said to be reserved in a special manner correspond generally to those which were contained in the Bull Coenae. Wherefore, from those things which were then said both concerning the cases contained in the Bull Coenae and concerning the special manner of their reservation, these things are generally to be transferred to the cases now reserved in a special manner. Indeed, by the Decree of the Holy Office, 4 April 1871, it was established that, in the formulas of faculties which the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith is accustomed to grant, where mention is made of cases reserved in the Bull Coenae, the censures reserved in a special manner to the Roman Pontiff in the Bull Apostolicae Sedis are to be substituted.

According, therefore, to this fourfold partition, we shall here subjoin the general latae sententiae censures which remain in their force.