Article II: On Suspension

1686. Definition. - Suspension is a censure by which a Cleric is deprived for a time, in part or wholly, of the use of the power which he has by reason of Order, office, or benefice.

Suspension is a censure, because per se it is brought medicinally by way of admonition, so that the delinquent may desist from contumacy. Thus 1° it differs from deposition and degradation, which are mere penalties and perpetual, for the vindication of a crime; 2° it differs from irregularity, which is not per se a penalty, but a mere impediment, or inability, impeding not only from exercising ecclesiastical power, but also from receiving it.

Nevertheless suspension is not necessarily and essentially a censure; for sometimes it is brought either without previous admonition, or for a certain time, or at pleasure, or in perpetuity for punishing a merely past fault, or one not having successive extension (n. 1662. 5°), and therefore then it is not medicinal. This is established from the practice of the Church and from Canon Law.¹ - Say the same if it is made not in writing, but orally; because, since a censure cannot licitly be brought without writing, it is not presumed that the Bishop wished to commit a fault by bringing a censure orally.²

There are also singular species of suspension:

1° Suspension from informed conscience, or the faculty given to Bishops and prelates enjoying jurisdiction quasi-episcopal, of forbidding their clerics ascent to Sacred Orders, or of suspending the same from their Orders or grades, or ecclesiastical dignities (which nevertheless most probably cannot be extended to a benefice), for any cause whatever (a grave cause, however, as the nature of the thing and the context of the Tridentine words demand), the estimation of which is left to the conscience of the Bishop,³ even because of an occult crime in whatever way, even extra-judicially.⁴

Concerning the origin and character of this suspension see Acta S. Sedis.¹ It itself, as is gathered from what has been said, requires no solemnities; nevertheless it must be expressed that the Bishop acts by force of the Council of Trent,² lest he be judged to proceed by the ordinary way, in which case solemnities would be necessary.³

But from the decisions of the S. C. C. it seems that it cannot be inflicted because of public crimes (from actual jurisprudence), although one censured because of a public crime ought to revere the judgment of his Superior;⁴ besides, according to more recent resolutions, it hardly seems possible to establish it as a perpetual penalty,⁵ indeed ordinarily it is not prolonged beyond six months.⁶ Thus one suspended, who solemnly exercises a Sacred Order, incurs irregularity. - Nor is appeal granted against this penalty, but only recourse to the Holy See, to which the Bishop, having been required, is held to disclose the causes of the suspension.⁷

This suspension also ceases by the death of the Bishop who brought it.

2° Suspension for caution or inhibition, namely a precept of the Bishop restraining a cleric from the exercise of ministry, not precisely because he is guilty of a crime, but either because public fame reports evil concerning him, or because an accusation or judicial inquiry concerning a public crime has already been instituted, or for another just cause. Per se it does not have the nature of a penalty, and much less of a censure.⁸

1687. Division. - Suspension is distinguished as twofold:

1° Total, by which a Cleric is kept away from every ecclesiastical function or right.

2° Partial, by which he is deprived only of some function or right.

But partial suspension is threefold: 1° from Order, which deprives one of the exercise of the functions of Order, e.g., from the altar or celebration of Mass, from the solemn chant of the Gospel, Epistle, etc.; 2° from office (or from divine things), which deprives one of the use both of Order and of jurisdiction, whether in the external forum or even in the internal forum; 3° from benefice, which deprives one of the revenues and administration of the benefice. But these individual suspensions again can be subdivided into total or partial suspension, whether of Order, or of office, or of benefice.¹

By suspension from divine things, without anything else added, according to the more common opinion, suspension from office is understood, unless perhaps usage explains those words otherwise. For these two formulae are used promiscuously in Canon Law. - Scavini.²

1688. General Rules. - First Rule. A suspended Cleric sins gravely if he exercises a forbidden act of Sacred Order, unless he is excused by invincible ignorance, or grave fear, or another legitimate cause, e.g., of necessity; or unless the suspended person, who has not been denounced by name by a judge, is requested by the faithful and something else does not obstruct, as authors commonly add. Likewise St. Alphonsus,³ because of smallness of matter, excuses at least from grave sin him who, for example, exercises a light act of jurisdiction. Yet he can do all those things which are customarily done by laymen, e.g., sing in choir in the manner of laymen, etc. But one suspended from Order, if he solemnly exercises it, not only sins gravely, but also incurs irregularity, as we say in n. 1771.

Second Rule. Suspension absolutely and simply, without any determination to this or that, - e.g., whoever has done such things, let him incur suspension! - is always judged total, unless usage or circumstances clearly suggest otherwise,⁴ and therefore deprives one of every use of Order, jurisdiction, and benefice. But partial suspension deprives one only of that part of this power which is expressed in the law, or statute, or mandate or sentence.

Third Rule. Suspension from Order, absolutely and simply, deprives one of the exercise and use of any Order whatever, whether Major or Minor. Suspension from jurisdiction imports privation of all jurisdiction.

Fourth Rule. Suspension from office, simply and without limitation, deprives one of the use both of jurisdiction and of Order, or of any ecclesiastical ministry whatever. Hence a Pastor suspended from office can neither celebrate Mass, nor preach, nor preside over offices, nor minister the Sacraments.

1689. Resolves. - 1° One suspended simply from Order is not understood to be suspended from jurisdiction, and vice versa. One suspended from a higher Order is not therefore suspended from a lower one. Yet one suspended from a lower Order is judged suspended also from a higher one,¹ unless circumstances suggest otherwise. But he who is suspended from some special office does not by that fact incur suspension from the other offices.² Likewise one suspended from a benefice is not judged suspended from office, nor vice versa.³

2° Irregularity is not incurred by violation of a suspension brought because of a merely past delict, or in perpetuity.⁴ The reason is that then there is no violation of a censure. A fortiori, if suspension was made because of an inculpable defect of mind or body. Nor is it incurred through the exercise of any act from which someone was suspended, except the solemn exercise of Sacred Order. - Thus commonly.

3° A Bishop suspended from Pontificals, if he celebrated Mass, even with Pontificals, would not incur irregularity; because he would not exercise a substantial act of the Episcopal Order.

4° Acts of Order of a suspended Cleric, not depending on jurisdiction, are valid; because the Church cannot take away the power of Order, but only can prohibit its exercise. But acts of jurisdiction are invalid if the suspended person has been denounced by name and publicly, because he is deprived of actual jurisdiction; but they are valid, unless he has been so denounced, because the Church, by the very fact that she tolerates a suspended person, for the good of the faithful does not take jurisdiction away from him.⁵

1690. Questions. - Query 1° Whether a suspended priest can be absolved from sins by a simple confessor, before he is loosed by the Superior from the reserved censure?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is that the effect of suspension is not to deprive one of the reception of the Sacraments (cf. n. 1343. q. 7°). Therefore it suffices that he be disposed for the Sacrament of Penance, namely that he be at least attrite concerning sins, and promise that, as soon as possible, insofar as it is in him, he will procure absolution from the censure, and meanwhile that he will not use the prohibited power or rights. Hence, thus absolved from sins, with scandal and the danger of it removed, he will also be able to be admitted to Communion.¹

Query 2° Whether partial suspension can be brought for only a venial fault?

Resp. See n. 1662. 2°.

Query 3° How is suspension taken away?

Resp. 1° If the suspension has the nature of a censure, it is taken away as excommunication is, namely through absolution alone, and indeed that of the Superior, if it is reserved; nevertheless, if it was brought for a certain determined time, or under a condition, it ceases by itself when the time has passed or the established condition has been fulfilled.

Resp. 2° But if it has been imposed in perpetuity because of a fault altogether past, it is taken away, as a mere penalty, by the dispensation alone of the Prelate, or of his delegate, because then it is not a censure. - Thus commonly.

Query 4° What form is to be used for taking away suspension?

Resp. 1° If the suspension is occult, it is taken away through absolution under the general form: I absolve you from every bond, etc.

Resp. 2° If it is public, in the internal forum it is taken away by the same form: but in the external forum the solemn form determined in the Ritual is to be used. But solemnly no one can absolve from suspension except the Superior himself, or another specially delegated to this.

Query 5° Whether a simply approved priest can absolve a suspended person from censure in the article of death, if the Superior or delegate is lacking?

Resp. Not a few deny, to whom we adhere, led by this reason, that no cause appears why the Church should confer such power on him; for suspension does not deprive one of the faculty of receiving the Sacraments, if you except promotion to a higher Order. Therefore it suffices for eternal salvation that the suspended person constituted in such danger be absolved from sins.

Query 6° Whether, and what sort of, communication is prohibited with a suspended person to be avoided?

Resp. 1° Communication, without grave cause, in the acts from which he has been suspended, e.g., to serve his Mass, if he was suspended from the altar.

Resp. 2° It is lawful to communicate in other matters; for this is not prohibited, nor does suspension per se draw one away from communication as excommunication does. Hence, with scandal set aside, it is lawful to hear the Mass of one suspended, even one to be avoided, as the Salmanticenses more truly and more commonly teach. Nor must there be cessation from divine things, although a suspended person to be avoided is present at them.¹

1691. - Deposition and degradation are most grave penalties, very close to suspension.

Deposition (verbal) is an ecclesiastical penalty by which a Cleric is not only repelled from every function of Order and benefice, but is also altogether deprived of office and benefice, the title having been taken away, so that he cannot return to it without a new collation. Therefore the deposited differ from the suspended in this, that the latter do not lose dignity and benefice, but are deprived only of the fruits of the benefice and other things depending thereon, and are prohibited from exercising the functions of their Order and dignity. - Deposition can be imposed by the Bishop or his Vicar deputed for this, but only in cases expressed in the Law and for more atrocious delicts. - Although, however, of itself the penalty is irremissible, nevertheless it can be taken away through dispensation by the Bishop, as often as the crime was less than adultery.²

Degradation (or real deposition) is the solemn privation of all titles, honors, privileges, and ecclesiastical goods, in such a way that the degraded person, only the indelible character of Order remaining, is reduced to the lay condition. Hence it differs from deposition: 1° because degradation is a solemn privation of ecclesiastical goods, but deposition is not so; 2° because degradation deprives one of both clerical privileges, namely of Canon and of Forum, but deposition does not deprive one of these privileges. Hence one striking a deposited person would incur excommunication; but not if he laid violent hands on a degraded person, for he does not differ from a layman.¹

Degradation cannot be inflicted except by a Bishop and for enormous crimes, of which kind are the manifest crime of heresy, falsification of apostolic letters, repeated sodomy, a most grave calumny laid upon one's own Bishop, etc. - The Pope alone dispenses in this most grave penalty.¹

Query. Whether a degraded person is held to the canonical Hours, and to the vow of chastity?

Resp. Affirmatively as to both; because he ought not to be loosed from this burden and to perceive advantage from his own malice. Hence he would contract Matrimony invalidly.²

1692. - From deposition and degradation there differs both privation of a parish and economic removal from a parish. - Privation of a parish is established only for altogether grave causes, and with judicial order very carefully observed; but economic removal has place both because of the ignorance and unsuitability of the pastor for ruling the parish as is fitting,³ and because of grave hatred and aversion of the people, these existing in such a way that the pastor cannot consult for his parish. If it was temporary, in the place of the pastor meanwhile a suitable vicar is to be instituted, an equitable portion of the revenues being assigned to him; but if there is question of perpetual removal, the pastor must be aided by the assignment of another benefice.⁴

1693. Questions. - Query 1° In what manner among us is privation of a parish to be brought into practice?

Resp. To privation of a parish among us is assimilated the revocation of faculties, or definitive removal from office of some Missionary Rector. If this seems to be inflicted as a penalty of delict, the Instruction of the S. C. de Prop. Fide, July 20, 1878, must be observed, of which this is the summary. Bishops in diocesan Synod, after the manner of deputation or canonical election of Synodal Judges, i.e., the Synod having been heard (see Benedict XIV, de Syn. L. V. C. V.), or, if the Synod cannot be convened because of a grave cause, outside it, shall choose five priests, or, if so many cannot be had, three, from the most approved and, as far as can be done, skilled in Canon Law, whose function will be, under the president constituted by the Bishop, to bring criminal and disciplinary causes of Clerics to examination according to the norm proposed in the Instruction itself. Those so elected will remain in office until the next celebration of the Diocesan Synod, others being substituted outside the Synod, if meanwhile by death, resignation, or another cause the prescribed number happens to be diminished. But in the case of substitution of this kind it is fitting that the Bishop hear the vote of the remaining Counselors. - Recourse to the Council is not made if the Missionary Rector, the cause having been set forth to him by the Bishop, spontaneously resigns from the office. But if he has not resigned, he cannot be removed from office unless at least three from these have been employed for knowing the cause, and with their counsel, after the examination has been performed according to the prescribed norm of investigation; yet when he has been heard, which counsel, however, the Bishop is not held to follow. But the acts of the inquiry, and the opinion made known by the Counselors, must always be inserted into the process. It is also free to each Rector whose cause is being treated to have with him before the Council another priest, to be approved by the Bishop, either for simple assistance, or for presenting his observations or defense. - If it happens that appeal is made to the Archbishop from the sentence of the Bishop by which the removal of the Rector is decreed, he is held to proceed in the knowledge and decision of the cause by the same method which is prescribed in the Instruction. - See Instr. (X) p. 409 and (Y) p. 413, where the S. C. responds to certain doubts proposed concerning the Instruction.

Query 2° In what manner among us is economic removal from a parish to be brought into practice?

Resp. To economic removal from a parish among us is assimilated the transfer of pastors to another Congregation of the same diocese, concerning which the Fathers of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore have these things:¹ "We admonish all priests dwelling in these dioceses, whether they were ordained in them, or coopted into the same, that, mindful of the promise emitted in ordination, they not refuse to devote themselves to any mission designated by the Bishop, if the Bishop judges that a subsidy sufficient for the decent sustenance of life can be had there, and that this function accords with the strength and health of the priests themselves." They add:² "By using the names of parochial right, parish, and pastor, we by no means intend ... to take away that power ... which, from the discipline received in these provinces, the Bishop has of transferring any priest ... elsewhere." "But let Bishops take care that they do not transfer unwilling Priests from one Mission to another without grave and reasonable cause" (Y) p. 413. "But if a priest is assumed to the care of a parochial church who has not yet spent five years in sacred missions in the diocese, he is to be held only as administrator of the parish; nor, unless the five-year period has been completed, and an examination has been made" before the Bishop and two priests to be designated by him, "does he obtain the name and rights of pastor." Except Regulars, who have lived five years in these Provinces.