Article III: On the Subject of Censures

1668. Principles. - I. The subject of censure can be nothing except a baptized man, capable of reason, and a subject: 1° he must be baptized, because according to the Apostle the Church does not judge concerning those who are outside; 2° capable of reason, because censure is ordered toward the correction of the delinquent; but this has no place in him who lacks the use of reason. Yet he who has lucid intervals is bound by censures, provided that at the time when he was possessed of reason he gave the cause; 3° a subject, because censure is an act of jurisdiction, which can be exercised only over subjects. Cf. however n. 1667. q. 4°.

II. Those not yet of puberty, although they can be bound by censures absolutely, nevertheless, because of the lightness of age, from the indulgence and benignity of the Church they do not incur them, unless it has been specially expressed in the law, or unless the censure is brought by way of particular precept, and in each case, as is clear of itself, there is question of those not yet of puberty who are capable of fraud.²

But a twofold case only is found expressed in law, namely: 1° if they have entered monasteries of Nuns. Trid.³ - 2° if they have struck Clerics.⁴

1669. Questions. - Query 1° Whether Kings and Queens can be bound by censures by Bishops?

Resp. Negatively. For although in spiritual matters they are subject to Bishops, nevertheless by privilege they cannot be punished with censure by them. But this privilege was legitimately introduced by the course of time, and is commonly attributed to them by the Doctors.⁵ Yet they are subject to Pontifical censures, even those brought by law, e.g. against those invading cities, lands, places, or rights pertaining to the Roman Church.

Query 2° Whether Bishops and Cardinals are subject to censures?

Resp. 1° Certainly they cannot be subject to censures brought by themselves, because no one is subject of himself.

Resp. 2° But they are subject to papal censures, because the Pope is the Superior of all, even of Bishops. Nevertheless, by privilege of law they are bound neither by interdict nor by suspension, unless mention of them is made in decreeing those censures,¹ at least indirectly, e.g. through the clause: even those worthy of special or individual note.²

Query 3° Whether religious can be bound by episcopal censures by the Bishop of the place?

Resp. Distinguish. Either they are exempt, or they are not. - If they are not exempt, affirmatively, as is clear of itself. - If they are exempt, subdistinguish. - Affirmatively, if they enjoy only a general privilege of exemption, but then only in those things in which they are subject to the Bishop, whether as Ordinary or as Apostolic delegate. What these are, see nn. 1197-1202. - But negatively, if from a special privilege they cannot be struck with censures even in those things in which otherwise they are subject to the jurisdiction of Ordinaries, although by the same they can be coerced and punished by other penalties. The Mendicants and Jesuits enjoy such a privilege.³

Query 4° Whether someone can be bound by several censures at the same time?

Resp. Affirmatively. For nothing prevents someone from being constrained by several bonds at once. For just as someone can perpetrate several sins diverse in species and number, so also he can be bound at the same time by censures diverse in species and number, e.g. by excommunication, suspension (if he is a Cleric), and interdict, and also by several excommunications, etc. Indeed, because of one delict someone can be bound at the same time by law and by man, by the Pope and by the Bishop, so that he must be absolved by each, provided that the one Superior intended to impose a new penalty; otherwise, regularly, the later censure is held as an innovation or publication of the prior one. - Thus commonly and absolutely more probably according to St. Alphonsus.⁴

Hence: 1° If someone by one act commits two sins diverse in species, to each of which censure is annexed, he incurs two censures, e.g. he who kills a Cleric in a place where homicide is prohibited under penalty of censure. But it is otherwise if that one sin does not have malices diverse in species.¹

2° If someone repeats the same crime to which a censure is annexed, by an act morally distinct from the first, he again incurs the same censure; but it is otherwise if the repeated acts are not morally distinct from each other. Thus one striking a Cleric three or four times, with a notable interval posited between the individual blows, incurs three or four censures, while he incurs one if he strikes him several times continuously.

3° Likewise, an excommunicated priest will incur several irregularities who absolves several penitents successively, because so often he confers a new Sacrament.²

Query 5° Whether an appeal excuses from incurring censure?

Resp. 1° A legitimate appeal excuses from a conditional censure, i.e. from a censure of a sentence to be passed or to be incurred in the future, provided it is made before the lapse of the time granted for fulfilling the condition.

Resp. 2° A legitimate appeal from a censure already brought, i.e. which someone has already incurred, generally does not suspend it. Whence the common saying of the Canonists is that the appeal then is devolutive, but not suspensive. - Thus Benedict XIV, Constitution Ad militantis, March 30, 1742, § 38.

Query 6° Whether the subject of censure can be an entire community?

Resp. 1° Negatively with regard to excommunication, and this probably not even validly. Hence a Bishop who wishes to excommunicate a body of church trustees (trustees) trampling on the rights of the Church must name the individual members of the body.³ Yet the Pope can excommunicate all from a community whom he has found guilty, without designating the individuals by name.

Resp. 2° Affirmatively with regard to suspension, yet so that it strikes the individual members of the community only as regards the functions and rights belonging to the community itself as such; but not as regards the functions and rights which belong to them singly.

But if suspension is inflicted on the community and on the individual persons of it, then it does not affect the innocent, but only the delinquents.

Resp. 3° Affirmatively also with regard to interdict; this censure has this singular thing, that, if it is general, it binds an entire community, and in this even the innocent.¹ Yet he who brings the censure cannot for that reason be charged with injustice; since by such an interdict, properly speaking, the innocent are not punished, but the Church for just causes withdraws its benefits and offices from the guilty as well as the innocent. Common.²