§ II. On Excommunications Latae Sententiae Reserved Simply to the Roman Pontiff

1718. - I. "Those teaching or defending, either publicly or privately, propositions condemned by the Apostolic See under the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae; likewise those teaching or defending as licit the practice of asking from a penitent the name of an accomplice, as it has been condemned by Benedict XIV in the Constitutions Suprema, July 7, 1745; Ubi primum, July 2, 1746; Ad eradicandum, September 28, 1746."

1° "Those teaching," i.e., handing them down to those not knowing.

2° "Or defending," i.e., undertaking patronage of them, as if they had been unworthy of condemnation.

3° "Condemned under the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae," namely against those who teach or defend them. Of this kind, for example, are those condemned by Leo X in the Constitution Exsurge Domine, issued June 15, 1520 against the errors of Luther; by St. Pius V in the Constitution Ex omnibus, October 1, 1567, issued against the errors of Michael Baius, and which Gregory XIII confirmed by the Constitution Provisionis nostrae, January 29, 1579, and Urban VIII by the Constitution In eminenti, March 6, 1641; by Alexander VII in the years 1665, 1666 (pp. XII-XIV); by Innocent XI in the year 1679 (pp. XV-XVII); by Alexander VIII in the year 1690 (pp. XXII-XXIII); by Benedict XIV in the year 1752 (p. XXVI). But such propositions are not those condemned in the Syllabus.

Note. - 1) Propositions condemned as heretical do not fall under this censure, but under that of which there was treatment in n. 1701. But those condemned in a mass, respectively as heretical, erroneous, etc., do fall under it, unless perhaps someone teaches or defends one of these which is heretical in itself and known by him as such. - 2) Concerning the excommunication laid down by Trent (not however reserved) against those who teach certain false propositions, see n. 1741.

4° "Condemned by the Apostolic See," i.e., by the Roman Pontiff either by himself, or through the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, but not through Ecumenical Councils.

5° "Likewise those teaching or defending as licit ... as it has been condemned by Benedict XIV," etc. But Benedict XIV says: "He who shall have dared to teach that the practice of asking the name of the accomplice is licit, under denunciation, unless they revealed it, of denial of sacramental absolution; or shall have presumed to write or speak in defense of the same condemned practice." Therefore three things are required that this excommunication be incurred: a) that he teach that this practice is licit; b) that he teach that both together are licit, i.e., both to ask the name of the accomplice, and to deny absolution to one keeping silence; c) that he rashly teach these things (n. 1664, q. 3°).

As to a confessor who exercises this doctrine in practice, see n. 1369, q. 3°, q. 4°.

1719. - II. "Those laying violent hands, at the persuasion of the devil, upon Clerics, or Monks of either sex, except, as to the reservation, the cases and persons concerning whom by law or privilege it is permitted that a Bishop or another absolve." C. 4. Caus. 17. 12.

In this article is contained that celebrated privilege of Clerics which from the Canon of the Lateran Council under Innocent II, Si quis suadente diabolo, is called the privilege of the Canon, and which is to be interpreted very broadly, since it has been conceded not to persons, but to the state of Clerics. See n. 193.

1° "Laying violent hands," i.e., committing a real injury (not by words alone), by which either the body, or liberty, or dignity is injured. - The body, as if you have killed a cleric with poison (in which case excommunication, according to the more common opinion, which seems more probable to St. Alphonsus, is incurred as soon as the poison has begun to injure¹), or have pursued him so that he should fall headlong or fall from a horse, and he falls headlong or falls.² - Liberty, when he is thrust into prison or another place, even private. - Dignity, whenever force is applied, as if you stop the carriage in which he is conveyed, or the horse on which he sits;³ if you have violently snatched something from him, as a purse, hat, staff; or have admitted some other insulting thing against him, as for instance if you have fouled him with spittle, dust, mud; if you have torn the garments with which he was clothed, etc.⁴ - All are subject to this excommunication, even those under puberty. Whether, as in the old law, cooperators also? Avanzini affirms with others, moved especially by this reason, that the ancient law is here simply renewed, and the same reason of the law altogether holds for cooperators, i.e., those commanding, counseling, consenting (provided they influence the striking gravely and efficaciously), those ratifying (in the manner in which we explained in n. 1710, 5°);⁵ the Commentators deny it.⁶ We adhere to Avanzini.

2° "At the persuasion of the devil," i.e., from an intention of inflicting injury gravely culpable.⁷ Therefore the censure does not hold one who strikes either in jest,⁸ or for correction (moderately however),⁹ or for defense (with the moderation of blameless defense),¹⁰ or for some other just cause (as if a woman strikes a cleric by whom she is solicited, and whom she cannot turn away by words);¹¹ or from sudden anger, which causes that what is done is not fully adverted to.¹²

3° "Upon clerics," or all who have received Tonsure, "or monks of either sex," even Novices, Tertiaries wearing the habit and living in community, and Hermits by vow or pact attached to some sacred place, with subjection to the Bishop, but not those vagabonds who wear a special habit, although they serve some Church, even by commission of the Bishop.¹ (O) p. 411.

Whether women living together after the manner of religious enjoy the same privilege? Fagnanus affirms it, whom St. Alphonsus does not contradict.² But the Holy Doctor manifestly seems³ to admit that religious women living in a simple Congregation with at least tacit authority of the Pontiff enjoy the privilege, such as those living in a Congregation erected by the Bishop seem to me to be.

Yet it is necessary that the Cleric has not fallen away from this privilege. But those fall away who can still renounce the clerical state (as those who are constituted only in Minor orders), and have really renounced it; likewise those degraded, namely really (n. 1691); but not those excommunicated, suspended, interdicted, deposed, namely verbally (n. 1691).

4° "Except, as to the reservation," etc. See n. 1753, q. 2°, R. 2°.

1720. - III. "Those perpetrating a duel, or simply provoking to it, or accepting it, and any accomplices, or those furnishing any work or favor whatever, and also those watching it intentionally, and those permitting it, or, insofar as is in them, not prohibiting it, of whatever dignity they are, even royal or imperial." Trent, Sess. 25. c. 19. Ref. Gregory XIII, c. Ad tollendum. Clement VIII, c. Illius vices. Benedict XIV, c. Detestabilem.

1° A duel. What it is, see 476, Chapter III. Even a simple duel (ibid.) falls under the censure.

2° Those watching intentionally, namely those who by their presence inflame the fight: and therefore not those who, passing by by chance, look on, or who look on in secret or from afar; nor those who go to the place of combat in order to impede it.⁴

3° Although duels in fact not fatal also fall under the censure, nevertheless it is necessary to fight with lethal weapons, or at least such must be proposed (respectively accepted), namely such from which there exists danger of killing or of a lethal wound. Therefore to fight with fists, sticks, or iron with a blunted edge is not sufficient.¹

1721. - IV. "Those giving their name to the Masonic sect, or the Carbonari sect, or to other sects of the same kind which plot against the Church or legitimate powers, whether openly or secretly, and also those furnishing favor of any kind to the same sects; and those not denouncing their hidden ringleaders and leaders, until they shall have denounced them." Clement XII, In eminenti, April 28, 1738. Benedict XIV, c. Providas, May 18, 1751. Pius VII, September 13, 1821. Pius IX, Allocution Qui pluribus, November 9, 1846.

1° "The Masonic sect or Carbonari sect, or other sects of the same kind, which plot against the Church or legitimate powers, whether openly or secretly," whether they require or do not require from their followers an oath concerning keeping a secret.² Therefore among us there are held by the censure:

a) Freemasons.³

b) Odd Fellows and Sons of Temperance, as is clear from the Response of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, Feria IV, August 21, 1850.⁴

c) Fenians, as is clear from the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, January 12, 1870.

d) "Those societies, of whatever nature they are, in which the members from the very entrance bind themselves by oath to obey those things which shall have been commanded by the Superiors of the assembly, or also enter into a pact of secrecy, which cannot be violated with impunity even when legitimate power interrogates."⁵ (48) p. 428.

e) "Those assemblies ... in which the members are joined together by so close a bond for mutual defense, that from it there arises danger of disturbances or murders."⁶

From these things it is clear that condemned societies can only improperly be called hidden or secret; for both those which plot openly and those which plot secretly are condemned.

Note. - From the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore:

1) To the Fathers "there appears no reason why the prohibition of the Church against the Masonic and other hidden sects should be extended to those sodalities of workers which are not known to propose to themselves anything other than the mutual protection and help of the members in exercising their own art." But these words, as is clear from the context of the article, must be understood concerning those sodalities in which the members guard against those things which, lest they become subject to the censure, we handed down above under d) and e) as to be avoided.¹ - But Kenrick writes:² "An assembly of workers coming together for their own utilities, who establish rules by which those who have not rightly learned the art are excluded from work, or the price of labor is established, is lawful of itself, even if signs are used and a secret is held. But if something less equitable is decreed or done, those will be able to be excused who have resisted in vain the greater number of members, and who cannot leave the sodality without grave detriment or danger, provided they give no work to inflicting injury." This opinion of a most learned man does not seem able to be reconciled with the Rescript of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, Feria IV, August 21, 1850,³ given at the petition of Kenrick himself, unless you understand the word secret with this supplied beneath it: which nevertheless can be violated with impunity when legitimate power interrogates. But practice in most dioceses, as I hear, is that the Sacraments are not denied to workers of this kind by the precise reason of secrecy, if this can be revealed with impunity to the Bishop, Pastor (or Confessor as spiritual counselor).

2) The Council⁴ commands that no one "in these Provinces, constituted in any ecclesiastical dignity, should condemn by name some hidden society, unless it is certainly and beyond all doubt established that it is of those which are condemned by Pontifical Constitutions," etc. But this can be established either by a declaration of the Holy See, or "of Prelates, ... or by common fame, or by the experience of the members themselves."⁵

3) "Let the faithful ... entirely flee all dark assemblies, even those which do not seem to be comprehended by the most strict censures of the Church. For there is no doubt that these too are full of danger for souls."¹

That these things may be more rightly understood for practice, it will help to elucidate them by the following.

From the words of the Council, and from the nature of the thing itself, it is evident that some society can be illicit by the law of nature alone. That this may be discerned, before all else it is necessary to see what is the end of such a society, what are its means, namely rules, etc.; and, positing that the end and means are good or at least licit, it must be inquired further, especially here and today, whether in a society of this kind there is a proximate occasion of one's own ruin or of scandal.

a) The end can be supernaturally good, naturally honorable, indifferent (e.g., a literary academy, a mercantile society), or evil, sometimes directly against the theological virtues (e.g., for the perversion of the Catholic Faith, propagation of heresy, etc.), or against the moral virtues (e.g., against strict justice, or against temperance, or against legal justice).

b) Likewise the means are to be compared with the rules of morals, namely with laws; for however praiseworthy the end may be, evil things are not to be done that good things may come. To societies, as to individual human acts, the principle must be applied: Good is from an entire cause, evil from any defect whatever. Thus sometimes legitimate aspirations of patriotism are miserably perverted. Example: to promise obedience without restriction to all precepts which will emanate from the Supreme Council is gravely illicit, and societies in which promises of this kind are made are likewise held by the censure.

c) Although the end and means, considered in themselves, seem according to the letter good or at least licit, sometimes it happens that something gravely illicit has been introduced into the society by practice or interpretation: in which case it is clear that the same must be said as if it were expressly formulated. Thus, for example, certain associations for mutual help degenerate into strictly unjust conspiracies.

d) Sometimes it happens that the end and the means are illicit neither according to the letter nor according to the spirit, and nevertheless there is present either probable danger that the aforesaid society will shortly degenerate in the aforesaid way, or a true danger of spiritual ruin on account of conversation with members corrupted by impiety or immorality, or danger of scandal.

These things being posited, natural law dictates two following rules: I. He is in a state of mortal sin, and is not worthy of absolution, who is not sincerely and efficaciously disposed to avoid or leave societies of the first, second, and third category. - II. As to the fourth category, the theological rules concerning occasion, whether absolutely or relatively proximate, are to be applied; and also concerning avoiding scandal, unless there is a reason excusing.

2° "And also those furnishing favor" (see n. 1700, q. 4°) "of any kind to the same sects." Therefore they are held by this excommunication who furnish them counsel, aid, openly or in secret; directly or indirectly, by themselves or through others; who receive them in their buildings, hide them, or provide convenience that they may be assembled somewhere; who exhort or persuade others that they be enrolled in societies of this kind, numbered among them, or present at them, or in whatever way help and favor them.

It is asked whether under the words: "those furnishing favor of any kind to the same sects," there come also those who hire their buildings, e.g., to have lectures in them or to institute fairs in them?

Resp. The censure seems to comprehend all and only those furnishing favor who in furnishing it constitute themselves guilty of gravely illicit cooperation; but this does not seem to be present if there is a grave cause for hiring those buildings, for instance because another suitable place in the city is lacking for some work morally necessary for the good of the Church. Thus one would not be judged to favor heresy who in the same circumstances and for the same ends would hire a church of heretics. The matter, moreover, is not without difficulty. Wherefore among those things which I have said, I wish you to judge that I have said them saving a better judgment; nor can I fail to observe in this place that by the use of buildings of this kind, especially if it is approved by the Clergy, the horror is lessened by which Catholics ought to be shaken even when looking upon their walls themselves.

3° "And those not denouncing their hidden ringleaders and leaders" (those whose names are read everywhere through books and newspapers are often, as the Holy Office observes, February 1, 1871, such in appearance only and by name) "until they shall have denounced them."

a) Denunciation here is understood not as fraternal, which looks to the amendment of the person, but judicial, which pertains to his coercion. - b) The obligation of the same holds all the faithful of Christ who have attained puberty. - c) Among us it would have to be made to the Ordinary, and in Missions to the Vicar or Prefect Apostolic (Sacred Penitentiary, February 10, 1871). - d) The obligation of the same universally ceases: 1) as long as someone cannot make it by himself, or 2) without betraying himself, or 3) if no hope of punishment appears,¹ which hope in these Provinces, on account of the condition of our affairs, must be called vain. - And these things indeed certainly hold for regions and places where the ecclesiastical law of denouncing is in force. But this law of denouncing was introduced both by reason of the public good and by reason of the private good of the person to be denounced. If this second reason of this kind should cease, the first remains; for it will always be useful to the Bishop and to ecclesiastical authority for feeding the faithful committed to his care to know hidden heretics or sectarians, and others to be denounced. And because of these reasons, even if the ecclesiastical law of denouncing had ceased, there would remain an obligation deriving from natural law, which natural law, when grave circumstances concur, as when there is question of avoiding grave harm, can oblige gravely.

Concerning the obligation of denouncing it can be noted besides, that it "is to be interpreted by the same reason by which ecclesiastical laws by which the denunciation of heretics is enjoined are interpreted." Thus the Sacred Penitentiary, November 8, 1821, apud Scavini.² But in our circumstances, because of liberty of worship asserted for all, the errors of heretics roam about with impunity, and therefore the denunciation of them, imposed by the law of the Church, does not oblige, as Ferraris himself³ teaches with Navarro, Bonacina, and others, to whom among more recent authors Scavini subscribes.⁴ Therefore by the same reason among us there is not present an obligation, by force of ecclesiastical law, of denouncing those enrolled in condemned Sects.⁵

Pastoral rules. - I. The Supreme Pontiff is the supreme judge concerning the liceity of any societies. Sometimes concerning this liceity, as supreme director of consciences, he issues declarations; but sometimes, as legislator, he prohibits societies illicit of themselves by canonical law, or renders dangerous societies absolutely illicit, and is able to sanction his laws with excommunication, etc. But these laws oblige, and do not cease to oblige, although in particular cases it were established that the evil for averting which they were laid down would not happen; for this is proper to all laws which are founded in the presumption of a common danger. Cf. nn. 129, 165. - Therefore let the priest be ashamed to betray his ignorance in theological matters (not to say stupid irreverence toward the Holy See) by saying repeatedly that condemned societies in these our Provinces, as being less dangerous (perhaps you would more rightly say: less suspected of danger), or even harmless!!, are not subject to censures.

II. The Bishop: 1) is held to urge strongly and prudently in his diocese the declarations and laws of the Supreme Pontiff; 2) with due proportion observed, he himself too can for his diocese, just as the Pontiff for the whole Church, condemn societies illicit of themselves, prohibit dangerous ones, and, if he has judged it expedient in the Lord, restrain violations of his statutes or precepts by absolution from them reserved to himself or by censures. - Yet two things are to be observed here: a) He cannot decide by himself a doubt whether some society falls under a Pontifical censure of itself, as was said above, 1°, 2). b) If there is question of a society already spread through several dioceses or probably soon to be spread, before he decrees anything, let him enter into counsel with his colleagues, that uniformity may be obtained, and lest one destroy what another has built.

III. Missionaries ought to watch that the declarations and laws both of the Supreme Pontiff and of their own Bishop be observed by the flock entrusted to them; in more difficult cases let them consult the rules of prudence and the Bishop; without consulting the Bishop let them not expressly approve some new society, especially if it is more or less suspect; and, if there is question of a society which is prudently judged to be either absolutely or relatively dangerous [see above, 1°, 3)], let the pastor or confessor judge concerning individual cases privately according to the rules concerning scandal or proximate occasion.

1722. - V. "Those ordering the immunity of ecclesiastical asylum to be violated, with rash daring, or those violating it." L. III. Decr. T. XLIX throughout. Benedict XIII, c. Ex quo divina. Clement XII, c. In suprema. Benedict XIV, c. Officii nostri.

1° By "immunity" is understood local ecclesiastical immunity, insofar as it is referred to the asylum of guilty persons fleeing to it.

2° That this excommunication be incurred, two things together are required, namely violation of the immunity of asylum, and rash daring; and therefore if either term is lacking, the censure is not incurred.

3° In this article are comprehended in the same way both those ordering violation and those violating. But the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, February 1, 1871, declared that "only he incurs the excommunication who, by no means compelled by others, prudent and knowing, either orders the immunity of ecclesiastical asylum to be violated, or violates it by executing." Wherefore magistrates and servants of government, who would not wish to violate the immunity of asylum, and nevertheless are compelled to violate it against or beyond their will, do not incur this censure: for the words "with rash daring" comprise both members, i.e., both "those ordering to violate" and "those violating." The observation is practical, because today in secular kingdoms scarcely a trace of the right of asylum remains.

1723. - VI. "Those violating the enclosure of Nuns, of whatever kind or condition, sex or age they shall be, by entering into their monasteries without legitimate license: and likewise those introducing or admitting them, and also Nuns going out from it outside the cases and form prescribed by St. Pius V in the Constitution Decori." Trent, Sess. 25. c. 4, 5 de Regul.

1° "Enclosure," i.e., for Nuns the whole house, and all enclosures attached to it and surrounded by a wall.

2° "Of Nuns." See n. 1185, 5°. Hence under this article there is not comprehended that enclosure to which women living in community are sometimes bound, who emit simple vows; which enclosure is imposed either by the Bishop, or by force of their constitutions, or even by force of a special vow. Thus the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, August 1, 1839.

3° "Those violating, ... of whatever kind or condition, sex or age they shall be." Therefore the Ordinaries of places themselves also incur the censure, women, and those under puberty.

4° "By entering into their monasteries without legitimate license." - But the license will be legitimate if it was given both from a cause of necessity, and, unless there is danger in delay, by him to whom it belongs to give it. a) From a cause of necessity, which is reckoned threefold, namely care of the sick, administration of the Sacraments, and common service. From the first, physicians and surgeons may enter to heal the sick. From the second, a confessor may enter to administer Penance, the Eucharist (as often as it was given to the healthy¹), Extreme Unction, and to commend the souls of the dying. From the third, workmen, artisans, and others who cannot exercise their art outside the enclosure. b) By him to whom it belongs to give it, namely the Bishop, and, if the monastery is subject to Regulars and usage is not contrary (Benedict XIV, Syn. L. XIII. c. 12. n. 23), the Superior of that Order. Nevertheless the Bishop can commit to another, e.g., to the Superior or confessor, the faculty of granting license of entering.² But license is to be given as often as there is need, except for physicians, surgeons, and confessors, to whom it is to be given generally. After the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis it is no longer necessary that it be given in writing.³

5° "And likewise those introducing or admitting them," although those who are introduced or admitted are under seven years of age. - Thus far concerning those entering; the things that follow pertain to those going out.

6° "And also Nuns going out from it," i.e., the enclosure, "outside the cases and form prescribed by St. Pius V in the Constitution Decori."

a) "Outside the cases ... by St. Pius V," etc. The cases are: 1) a great fire, to which are assimilated impending war, inundation of a river, ruin of a building, etc.; 2) contagious disease, which is accustomed to infect others.⁴

b) "And the form by St. Pius," etc. But the form is, unless there is danger in delay, that the license also of the Ordinary be given, and that in writing.

Note. - As to the Nuns of the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, see what was said in n. 1205, V, 2°.

1724. - VII. "Women violating the enclosure of Regular men, and Superiors or others admitting them." C. Decet and C. Regularium of St. Pius V. C. Ubi gratia of Gregory XIII.

1° "Women," except queens and similar privileged persons.¹

2° "Of Regulars," i.e., of those emitting solemn vows.

3° "Enclosure," under which, for men, come: the cloister, the house, the interior workrooms (e.g., the library); but not the church, chapels joined to the church, the sacristy (ordinarily), nor the garden, if it can be approached without passage through the monastery and is separated from the enclosure by a suitable key and wall.

1725. - VIII. "Those guilty of real simony" (n. 351, 3°) "in benefices" (and not only in offices) "of whatever kind" (therefore also in the Episcopate), "and their accomplices."

IX. "Those guilty of confidential simony" (n. 351, 3°) "in any benefices, of whatever dignity they may be."

X. Those guilty of real simony for entrance into Religion (n. 354, q. 5°).

Since our Missionaries are not beneficed, they can indeed contract the crime of simony, but not the censure.²

These three censures are taken from Trent, Sess. XXIV. c. 18 Ref. - Extr. L. V. T. I. - St. Pius V, c. Inscrutabilis, June 1, 1569.

1726. - XI. "All who, making gain from indulgences and other spiritual graces, are struck by the censure of excommunication in the Constitution of St. Pius V Quam plenum, January 2, 1569."

1° "Indulgences." What they are is hidden from no one.

2° "Spiritual graces." A case will very rarely occur among us, since by these are understood here only those spiritual graces which are enumerated in the cited Constitution of St. Pius V. These, if you please, see in that Constitution itself, or in the Commentators.¹

3° "Making gain." Therefore it is not sufficient that only the intention of making gain was present. It is necessary that money has been accepted.²

4° By this article only the excommunication laid upon all inferior to Bishops is confirmed.³

1727. - XII. "Those collecting alms of a greater price for Masses, and from these seeking profit, by causing them to be celebrated in places where Mass stipends are accustomed to be of a lesser price." C. Quanta cura of Benedict XIV.

1° "Those collecting," or, as to this penalty, there is not question of one or a few stipends, but of a copious number, so that the one acquiring them deserves the name of collector, and the collected number suffices for true profit by use of commerce.⁴ Nor does the censure seem to be extended to him who seeks profit from stipends which are given to him that he himself may satisfy them, or which are spontaneously brought to him, not however as to a collector, that he may take care that Masses be celebrated by others.⁵

2° "Masses," namely manual Masses and founded Masses not having the character of a benefice.⁶

3° "From these seeking profit." Wherefore he is not subject to this penalty who intends in this way to acquire part of the stipends for a pious cause.⁷

4° "By causing them to be celebrated in places where Mass stipends are accustomed to be of a lesser price." Therefore he will not incur the censure who causes them to be celebrated there where he collected the alms, or indeed in another place, but where a stipend of the same value is accustomed to be given.⁸

Note. - Excommunication is incurred not when someone collects alms, but when he retains for himself part of them, and indeed as much as suffices for grave theft, positing that the condition under 1° concerning profit, perceived from the copious collected number of Masses, is verified.⁹

1728. - XIII. "All who are punished with excommunication in the Constitutions of St. Pius V, Admonet nos, on the fourth day before the kalends of April, 1567; of Innocent IX, Quae ab hac Sede, on the day before the nones of November, 1591; of Clement VIII, Ad Romani Pontificis curam, June 26, 1592; and of Alexander VII, Inter caeteras, on the ninth day before the kalends of November, 1660, concerning the alienation and infeudation of cities and places belonging to the Holy Roman Church."

The Constitution of St. Pius V, Admonet nos, comprehends laymen and Clerics, Bishops and Archbishops, Primates, Patriarchs, Cardinals, and all others, who by themselves or through others strive to act, or to insinuate or persuade the Roman Pontiff to alienation or infeudation of cities or places belonging to the Holy See, from any pretext whatever, even of necessity or evident utility, and although they waste their work and oil. Wherefore all these are punished with this excommunication.

Innocent IX, Clement VIII, and Alexander VII by their own Constitutions confirmed, renewed, and explained the said Constitution of St. Pius V.

Other things pertaining here, see, if you please, in the Commentaries.¹

1729. - XIV. "Religious presuming to administer to Clerics or laymen outside a case of necessity the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, or of the Eucharist by way of Viaticum, without the license of the Pastor." Clem. L. V. T. VII. c. 1.

1° "Religious," namely of solemn vows, and (in the Society of Jesus) also of simple vows.

2° "To Clerics or laymen." Therefore a Regular does not incur the censure when administering these things to Regulars, or to those who in favorable matters come under the name of Regulars (n. 1194. II. § But of subjects), even of another Order, and outside the Monastery.

3° "Outside a case of necessity," which must be estimated not only from the danger in which the sick person labors, but also if the Pastor could not easily be summoned.

4° "Without the license of the Pastor." Here we must understand as Pastor one who has the care of souls (by whatever name he is called), or acts in his place, whose office it is to administer these Sacraments to such a sick person. Whether under the name of Pastor here there come also those who are set over our districts? It must be affirmed, if they truly preside over Parishes [see nn. 1138, 1608, Note 1)]. - But the license of which there is question here is also understood as presumed.

5° "Viaticum." Therefore Communion from devotion is not comprehended under this censure.

1730. - XV. "Those extracting without legitimate permission Relics from the sacred cemeteries or catacombs of the City of Rome and its territory, and those furnishing aid or favor to them." Edict of August 24, 1613 by order of Paul V. - C. Ex commissae of Clement X, January 13, 1672.

1° "Without legitimate permission," to be granted in writing by the Eminent Vicar General of the City.

2° "Relics from the sacred cemeteries or catacombs of the City of Rome." It is established that certain of these are of Holy Martyrs, e.g., when small glass or earthen vessels stained with blood, or at least enclosing bloody crusts, are found at the places of burial within, or outside them (S. C. Indulg., February 16, 1852, and Pius Pope IX, March 15 of the same year;¹ S. R. C., November 27, 1863²); on the other hand it is established that certain are not of Martyrs, as those which are found in open burial places; finally, whether certain are of Martyrs or not is ambiguous. Moreover commonly we understand Relics of Saints; hence he who extracts the former, not he who extracts the latter, or (as the Commentators³ think against Avanzini⁴) these ambiguous ones, incurs the excommunication. It does not matter how much someone extracts, whether much or little.

1731. - XVI. "Those communicating with an excommunicated person named by the Pope in a criminal crime, namely by furnishing aid or favor to him." L. V. Decr. T. XXXIX. c. 29.

XVII. "Clerics knowingly and spontaneously communicating in divine things with persons named by the Roman Pontiff as excommunicated, and receiving them in the Offices." L. V. Decr. T. XXXIX. c. 18.

Before the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, all those who communicated with one to be avoided contracted excommunication, either in a criminal crime (i.e., in the crime on account of which, or in the contumacy because of which, the excommunication had been laid down, as if a concubinary man again has intercourse with an excommunicated concubine), or in divine things; and the former indeed contracted the major, but the latter the minor. The latter (according to most) has today been removed; the former indeed remains, but it is not incurred except by those who communicate with an excommunicated person named by the Pope, not by another. Wherefore this censure does not hold him who, whether in a criminal crime or in divine things, communicates e.g., with Titius, whom the Bishop, as a heretic, has declared excommunicated by name. For this man was indeed excommunicated by force of papal law, but not by name by the Pope.

"Those communicating in divine things ... and receiving them in the" liturgical "offices." Both together are required, according to the tradition of identity of the old censure (L. V. Decr. T. 39. c. 18) (n. 1700. q. 1°, R. 2°).

These two excommunications differ in these things: to the former all are subject, whether Clerics or laymen; to the latter Clerics only. From the former ignorance does not excuse, if it was gross or supine; from the latter it does excuse. Finally, the former is incurred also by those who were compelled by fear, though not grave fear; the latter only by those who communicate spontaneously, i.e., without fear, even slight.

1732. - XVIII. "Those presuming to absolve, without due faculty, even under any pretext whatever, persons bound by the bond of excommunication specially reserved to the Roman Pontiff." Thus the final § of the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, after excommunication XII among those specially reserved to the Roman Pontiff.

Add from the decree of the C. S. O., December 4, 1872, excommunication XIX against Ecclesiastics and Missionaries engaged in commerce in the East Indies and America, etc.¹

Add besides the excommunication laid down in the Encyclical of our Most Holy Lord Pius Pope IX, November 1, 1870, against adherents to those crimes which are mentioned in the third part of the censure reported at n. 1717, which third part extends from the word "and also" to "furnishing." Namely, adherents are excommunicated, i.e., those who internally and externally approve those crimes, or are prepared to furnish aid, counsel, or favor to each one of them, even if in fact they have not furnished it. Thus Godschalk¹ against Eph. Nouv. Rev. Théol.² and Th. Pat. n. 148, who think that also by adherents an excommunication specially reserved to the Pope is incurred.