Article III. On Interdict

1002. Definition. - An interdict is a censure by which, as punishment for some crime, the use of divine Offices, of certain Sacraments, and of ecclesiastical burial is prohibited to certain persons or in certain places.

Hence an interdict differs: 1. from excommunication, which deprives one of greater goods than an interdict and affects not places but persons alone;

2. from suspension, which affects Clerics alone and deprives them of sacred things only insofar as these are the use of some ecclesiastical ministry, but not insofar as they are goods of the faithful; moreover, an interdict affects places and deprives one of ecclesiastical burial, but suspension does not; 3. from irregularity and from cessation from divine Offices, which properly and of themselves do not have the character of a penalty and therefore not of a censure. See St. Alphonsus, no. 328 and following.

Division. An interdict is manifold, namely: 1. personal, local, or mixed, insofar as it immediately affects a person, a place, or both together.

2. General or particular, insofar as it extends to an entire region, city, and community, or is restricted to an Oratory, a particular Church, or determinate persons.

1003. Rules. - I. A general interdict falls only upon the persons or places designated. Hence: 1. if the Clergy of some place is interdicted, the people are not thereby interdicted, nor are Regulars interdicted; and conversely. 2. If a city is interdicted, innocent inhabitants are not interdicted and can go elsewhere to assist at divine Offices. If the citizens of a city are interdicted, the Churches are not subject to the interdict; travelers can assist at Offices there. Bishops are always exempt unless they have been specially designated.

II. An interdict imposed without limitation upon some whole affects all its parts. Hence: 1. the interdict of a city includes all the Churches of that city, even those exempt from the jurisdiction of the one imposing the interdict, because then they are interdicted by law. 2. The interdict of a family or community embraces each of its members, even all those who began to be members of that community after the interdict was imposed. 3. The interdict of a Church extends to each chapel contained within it, but the converse cannot be said.

III. An interdict imposed upon certain places, for example, a fortress or city, also affects the suburbs and contiguous buildings. Hence, if a Church is interdicted, chapels which immediately touch it and contiguous cemeteries are interdicted; but not conversely, because the accessory follows the principal, and not the principal the accessory.

1004. Questions. - QUESTION 1. What are the effects of an interdict?

Reply. There are three, as is clear from the definition given above, namely:

1. Prohibition from divine Offices, namely, from Mass, public and solemn prayer, public recitation of the Hours in choir, public blessing of water, oil, a church, candles, etc. Clerics who do not fall under the interdict can celebrate, but with the doors closed and without the sound of bells. St. Alphonsus, no. 333.

2. Prohibition from administering and receiving certain Sacraments, namely, the Eucharist, Order, and Extreme Unction. Viaticum can be administered to the dying, and according to some, Extreme Unction also. Baptism, even solemn, Confirmation, and Penance are permitted to all except those who gave cause for the interdict, even by aid or favor. Matrimony also is more probably permitted, but without the blessing. See St. Alphonsus, no. 334.

3. Prohibition from ecclesiastical burial. In a local interdict it extends even to infants and the insane. Nevertheless, Clerics not interdicted by name can be buried in a Church, with Mass; indeed, even if the Church were specially interdicted, but without Mass. St. Alphonsus, no. 335.

1005. • QUESTION 2. How do those who violate an interdict sin, and what penalties do they incur?

Reply 1. As to Clerics. 1. They sin gravely by violating a personal interdict, because the matter is grave, unless slightness of matter excuses, for example, if they exercise functions which can be performed by laymen, or if they leave the door of a church open for a short time, etc. 2. They also sin gravely by violating a local interdict, if the place is specially or generally interdicted and they act publicly, with the doors open, against the prohibition; otherwise they sin only venially. But if, notwithstanding the interdict, they exercise sacred functions, they incur irregularity. Finally, by the fact itself they incur interdict from entrance into a Church if they celebrate or cause divine Offices to be celebrated in an interdicted place, or admit to divine Offices, the Sacraments, or ecclesiastical burial those excommunicated by name ¹, as is said below. St. Alphonsus, no. 336.

¹ Understand this if they are excommunicated by name by persons other than the Roman Pontiff. For if Clerics knowingly and of their own accord conduct themselves thus with persons excommunicated by name by the Roman Pontiff, they incur an excommunication reserved to the same Pontiff. See above, no. 975, XVII.

Reply 2. As to laymen. 1. Those who violate a personal interdict sin gravely, since it affects them directly. 2. Those who violate a local interdict likewise sin gravely if they compel Clerics to celebrate divine Offices contrary to the interdict. Likewise, if they were to receive the Sacraments in an interdicted place, because they would cooperate in that which is prohibited to Clerics under grave sin. 3. But they sin only venially if, while the place is interdicted but they are not personally interdicted, they merely assist at divine Offices. St. Alphonsus, ibid.

QUESTION 3. For what cause can an interdict be imposed?

Reply. Properly speaking, it cannot be imposed except for grave fault opposed to the common good. Thus, for a personal interdict, the fault of the one interdicted is required, for punishment is imposed because of fault. But for a general and local interdict, the fault of the one who is head of the community, or of its principal members, suffices. This is gathered from Canon Law. St. Alphonsus, no. 337.

1006. • I. Those who, already distinguished by the episcopal character ², and nominated, presented, or elected to vacant Churches, dare to undertake their care, government, and administration before the presentation of the Apostolic Letters, incur the penalty of interdict from entrance into a Church reserved in a special manner to the Roman Pontiff (from the Constitution of Pius IX, Romanus Pontifex, 28 August 1873).

² See above, no. 973, XIII, and no. 998, I.

II. Universities, Colleges, and Chapters, by whatever name they are called, which appeal from ordinances or mandates of the reigning Roman Pontiff to a future general Council, incur by the law itself an interdict reserved in a special manner to the Roman Pontiff (from the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis) ³.

³ This interdict differs from the excommunication likewise imposed against those appealing to a future Council, concerning which above, no. 972, IV; for there individual persons are punished, whereas here moral persons are punished. Nevertheless, the interdict binds the individual members of these bodies; otherwise it would be useless (chapter 16, On the Sentence of Excommunication, in the Sixth).

Furthermore, since an interdict of this kind does not have the force of a censure, Clerics who did not give cause for it do not contract irregularity if they violate it by exercising an Order.

The question is asked whether those incurring this interdict also contract the excommunication concerning which no. 972, IV? I do not think so, says the Rieti Commentary, chiefly because there the matter concerns individuals, but here moral persons. From this it can furthermore be understood that those who furnish aid, counsel, or favor to these moral persons do not incur this interdict, because our Constitution passes them over; but neither do they incur that excommunication, because they furnish these things not to the individuals mentioned there, but to a moral person. See the cited Rieti Commentary, no. 158.

1007. • Those who knowingly celebrate or cause divine Offices to be celebrated in places interdicted by the Ordinary, by a delegated Judge, or by law; or who admit persons excommunicated by name to divine Offices, ecclesiastical Sacraments, or ecclesiastical burial, incur by the law itself an interdict from entrance into a Church until they have duly made satisfaction at the discretion of him whose sentence they have contemned (from the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis) ⁴.

⁴ This penalty, says the Rieti Commentary, as formerly, so also today, binds Clerics alone; for the Pontiff says, those causing celebration... those admitting; but these are acts of those who have authority in sacred places.

This article has two parts. The first pertains to those who celebrate or cause divine Offices to be celebrated in interdicted places. But by divine Offices, as elsewhere, see above, no. 975, XVII, in the Note, we understand those things which it is lawful for ministers of the Church alone to perform. That it is unlawful to celebrate, etc., must be understood as in the old law, excepting those days and places, and with the conditions observed, in which it was then lawful. Now, under the old law, in a specially interdicted Church it is lawful to offer the sacred rite once a week for renewing the Eucharist, lest it be lacking to the dying; and in Conventual Churches it is lawful to recite the canonical Hours in groups of two or three. But if the interdict is general, it is lawful daily to offer the sacred rite and perform other divine Offices, but without the bells being rung, with the doors closed, those under interdict excluded, and in such a way that by those who are outside nothing can be heard and nothing seen. See the Rieti Commentary, no. 160.

The other part of the article pertains to those who admit persons excommunicated by name to divine Offices or to the Sacraments, namely, excepting Penance and Viaticum at the point of death. The word admitting indicates those to whose care it pertains to prohibit or admit someone to an act of this kind, that is, it pertains to those who have governance of the Church or cemetery. Therefore these alone are bound by the interdict, and not other Clerics who assist at divine Offices in the manner of laymen or accompany a funeral; nor those who furnish counsel or favor to the persons admitting.

Moreover, not every fear or compulsion excuses those admitting, but only grave fear; for of their own accord is not added here as elsewhere, see above, no. 975, XVII, nor is it to be believed that this was omitted without deliberation. Furthermore, besides the interdict, the other canonical penalties concerning which chapter 8, On Privileges, in the Sixth, do not bind them.

1008. • I. Chapters of Churches, while the See is vacant, are not permitted within a year from the day of the vacancy to grant permission for ordination or dimissorial letters to anyone who has not been constrained by reason of an ecclesiastical Benefice received or to be received. If otherwise is done, the Chapter acting contrary is subject to an ecclesiastical interdict (from session 7, chapter 10, On Reformation).

II. As the contumacy increases, namely, of a Bishop absent beyond the second six-month period, the Metropolitan is bound within three months to denounce the absent Bishops to the Roman Pontiff by letter or messenger, and the oldest resident suffragan Bishop to denounce the absent Metropolitan, under penalty of interdict from entrance into a Church incurred by the fact itself (from session 6, chapter 1, On Reformation).