§ 2. EXCOMMUNICATIONS SIMPLY RESERVED TO THE ROMAN PONTIFF

There are EIGHTEEN; to which are added one from TRENT and another from a declaration of the HOLY OFFICE, as will be seen below.

Pius IX declares subject to excommunication of this kind:

1328. I. "Those teaching or defending, whether 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 inquiring from a penitent the name of an accomplice, as it was condemned by Benedict XIV in the Constitutions Suprema, 7 July 1745, Ubi primum, 2 June 1746, Ad eradicandum, 28 Sept. 1746."

1. That someone incur the censure expressed in the first part, it is necessary: a) That he teach, that is, hand down to those not knowing, whether publicly or privately, by words or writings, or defend, that is, strive to maintain as true or licit and not to be condemned, the condemned propositions. But he does not incur the censure if by good and not futile arguments he contends to demonstrate that some proposition contains a sense not condemned; for among condemned propositions, "some were condemned because they spoke too generally, and therefore they are not to be extended to all particular cases which are distinguished because of some grave circumstance" (I, 104; III, 760). - b) That these propositions have been condemned by the Apostolic See, that is, by the Roman Pontiff, whether by himself or through the Holy Office, but not by ecumenical Councils; under penalty of excommunication latae sententiae, which affects the propositions themselves, and not only the book in which they are contained.

Thus were condemned, among others (cf. Konings, I, series of condemned propositions): 5 propositions by Benedict XIV concerning duel, 65 propositions contained in the Decree Lamentabili of 4 Jul. 1907; and generally propositions which are contrary to the doctrine of the Encyclical Pascendi. Cf. Motu proprio of Pius X, 18 Nov. 1907 (A. S. S., 40, p. 723; likewise ib., p. 470 and 593).

But here do not come propositions condemned under penalties established by Law, that is, under penalties pronounced against heretics or those suspected of heresy; nor propositions condemned by Martin V against J. Wicleff and against J. Hus; or by Pius VI against the Synod of Pistoia; nor the errors reviewed in the Syllabus, since they carry no censure with themselves (Patavin., 230-238).

2. As regards specifically the practice of inquiring the name of an accomplice, three things are required for the censure: a) that someone teach this practice to be licit; b) that he teach each thing simultaneously to be licit, both to ask the name of the accomplice in any matter, and to deny absolution to one remaining silent; c) that he rashly teach or defend these things (VI, 491). - See the treatise on Penance, n. 1701.

1 Those who have a part in the Conclave incur this by the very fact that they assume from civil power the duty of proposing the Veto, even under the form of a simple desire. Similarly, if they make known this Veto itself, known to them by any reason, either to the College of Cardinals gathered together, or to individual purple Fathers, whether by writing or orally, whether directly and proximately or obliquely and through others. Cf. Acta Pii X, vol. 3, Appendix; Nouv. Rev. Theol., vol. 42, p. 65.

1329. • II. "Those laying violent hands, at the persuasion of the devil, upon clerics, or monks of either sex; excepted, as regards reservation, the cases and persons concerning whom, by law or privilege, it is permitted that the Bishop or another absolve." Can. Si quis deinceps, 22, and Can. Si quis suadente diabolo, 29, XVII, q. 4 (c. 15 of Lateran Council II under Innocent II).

We note beforehand that the interpretation of this article must be made broadly, both in the first part, where there is question of the privilege of the canon, and in the second, where there is question of the faculty of absolving; for in both places the rule holds: "favors are to be amplified." See what was said n. 1319.

As regards the FIRST, by the words: 1. Laying on are designated: a) the strikers themselves, or those maltreating a cleric, even prepubescents and of whatever age, sex, condition, or state they may be, provided they are capable of reason and capable of deceit; b) those commanding, counseling, consenting, provided they gravely and efficaciously influence the striking; c) those ratifying, in the way we explained above (n. 1319); d) those not impeding, if by justice or by office they are bound to impede. Thus commonly from the authentic interpretation of the celebrated Canon Si quis suadente diabolo. Cf. St. Alph., VII, 264-280; ed. G., IV, p. 408.1

2. By violent hands is understood any contumelious action, externally grave, by which the body, liberty, or dignity of a cleric is injured. Hence he incurs the censure: a) who lightly, indeed very lightly, strikes a cleric, if the striking, by reason of the reverence owed to him or by reason of the circumstances, is judged gravely injurious; b) who spits upon a cleric, soils him with mud, sprinkles him with water, detains him in prison, pursues him fleeing, so that he falls into a river or ditch, tears out his hair, tears his garment, takes something by force and injury from his body, for example a cap, cloak, etc., in such a way that the action is gravely injurious; c) who does these things, thinking him to be another cleric whom he intends to injure, or with the cleric consenting; because injury is inflicted upon the clerical order itself.

3. Upon clerics, that is, those marked at least with first tonsure; even excommunicated, suspended, interdicted, verbally degraded only, provided they have not lost the privilege by public degradation by law (cf. n. 1382);2 and monks of either sex, that is, any religious men or women, in the broader sense; therefore also women living together in a religious manner in a congregation erected by the Bishop, although no profession is made in it, or the institute has not yet been approved by the Holy See; likewise novices or tertiaries, if they wear the habit and live in community (Konings, 1719, 3).

4. At the persuasion of the devil, that is, with grave sin. But otherwise: a) if someone acts from sudden anger; b) if he strikes playfully, or by chance, although the striking is materially grave, or blood is poured out copiously from the nostrils, and although it is joined even with some venially culpable anger; c) if he strikes for defense of himself or his relatives, indeed of his own goods; d) if he has authority over the cleric, as prelate, teacher, father, etc., and strikes moderately and for correction.

As regards the SECOND, that is, as regards ABSOLUTION, a threefold striking must be distinguished: 1. enormous, in which a great wounding or great injury intervenes; 2. grave or middling, when a contusion of the flesh occurs, or when indeed an abundance of blood is poured out, but without great lesion or injury, for example if a tooth is knocked out, or a quantity of hair torn out; 3. light, not indeed in itself, but relative to the aforesaid, when a simple striking occurs, for example by hand, foot, stick, and the like, without notable damage, and without wound, notable contusion, or trace of the striking remaining.3

Now, concerning these, what can the Bishop or his Vicar do by common Law?

Resp. 1. If the striking, although public, was light, he can absolve the striker, whoever he may be; 2. if middling, only those who live collegially, women, and prepubescents; 3. if enormous, only prepubescent females, whether they seek to be absolved before or after puberty, with things to be excepted excepted, in an occult case from c. Liceat. - In doubt whether the striking was light, grave, or enormous, you must follow that which is greater, or that which favors the privileged more, from the aforementioned rule of interpretation (VII, 279, 280).

But notorious strikers of clerics are excommunicated persons to be avoided (see n. 1295).

1330. III. "Those perpetrating a duel, or simply challenging to it, or accepting it, and any accomplices whatever, or those furnishing any work or favor whatever, as well as those watching deliberately, and those permitting it, or not prohibiting it insofar as is in them, of whatever dignity they may be, even royal or imperial." Trent, Sess. 25, c. 19, de Ref.; Gregory XIII, Ad tollendam; Clement VIII, Illius vices; Benedict XIV, Detestabilem.

The following are excommunicated: 1. Those perpetrating a duel, namely all those who by private authority, from agreement, enter a single combat with danger of killing or grave wound. But it makes no difference whether seconds are present or not; whether they fight with lethal weapons, or not; provided there is danger of grave wound, and this is foreseen, as frequently happens in certain Universities.1 Likewise, those challenging to a duel with a serious intention of fighting, although the one challenged does not accept. Likewise those accepting, although the duel does not follow.

2. Accomplices, those furnishing any work or favor whatever, as seconds, witnesses; those who give counsel, who dictate, write, carry letters of challenge; or otherwise involve themselves in these, for example a physician or confessor who from agreement would be nearby to bring help to the wounded (Holy Office, 31 May 1884; A. S. S., 17, p. 604). - Yet those seem immune from censure who only teach the art of fencing to those about to duel.

3. Those watching deliberately, that is, those who by their presence incite to the fight; but not those who, passing by chance, look, or in secret, or from afar; nor those who go to the place of the contest in order to impede the duel.

4. Those permitting it, or not prohibiting it, when they are able and ought to prohibit, as leaders of an army, lords of a land, prefects, etc. (cf. n. 747, 1387). St. Alph., VII, 220.

Note. All who are indicated under 2-4 do not seem certainly to incur the censure if the duel does not in fact follow (Genicot, II, n. 595; Lehmkuhl, II, 1222).

1331. IV. "Those giving their name to the masonic or carbonarian sect, or to other sects of the same kind, which plot against the Church or legitimate powers, whether openly or secretly; as well as those furnishing any favor whatever to the same sects; and those not denouncing their hidden chiefs and leaders until they have denounced them." Clement XII, In eminenti; Benedict XIV, Providas; Pius VII, Ecclesiam; Leo XII, Quo graviora; Pius IX, Qui pluribus; Leo XIII, Humanum genus, on 20 Apr. 1884.

The following incur this censure: 1. Those giving their name to sects prohibited under censure. One must carefully distinguish between societies prohibited indeed under grave obligation, but without censure, and societies forbidden under censure.

For a society to be prohibited under censure, two things are required: that it truly constitute a sect united by a close bond, and that it plot something against the Church or legitimate Government. For censure IV is directed first against the masonic sect, and then against those societies which are constituted according to its pattern.1

Now: a) Prohibited, but without censure, are, for example, the three American societies called Odd Fellows, Sons of Temperance, Knights of Pythias (Holy Office, 20 Aug. 1894),2 and in general all those which demand from their followers a secret to be disclosed to no one, and obedience in every way to be furnished to hidden leaders (Holy Office, 10 May 1884).3 Similarly the society of Sillonists (A. A. S., II, p. 608 sqq.), biblical societies, or those which are constituted for burning corpses (Holy Office, 19 May 1886), are altogether forbidden.

b) Prohibited under censure are: the masonic and carbonarian society, from the Constitution itself, and the Fenians (Holy Office, 12 Jan. 1870);4 societies of Solidarists, Internationalists, Mazzinians, Communists, Nihilists, Anarchists, as well as similar societies, whether or not they demand from their followers an oath of keeping secrecy (Holy Office, 1846 and 1884; Coll. Prop. Fid., n. 1861).

As regards socialists, the doubt among authors whether they are punished by this censure arises from this, that socialists do not have, like masons, hidden leaders and hidden ordinances (Lehmkuhl, II, 1225; Noldin, I, 74; Vermeersch, de Prohib. libr., n. 83; Genicot, II, 596). But against this is that the Holy Office, in the Decree of 10 May 1884, declares that the mark of a society prohibited under censure consists especially in plotting against the Church or Government. Cf. D'Annibale, Ballerini-Palmieri.

2. Favorers, who furnish any favor whatever to those sects, that is, who provide counsel, help, openly or in secret, by themselves or through others, who receive them in their buildings, conceal them, or make a convenience for them so that they may be summoned to another place; who exhort others or persuade them to enroll themselves in societies of this kind, or to be present at their meetings; finally all who in any way help and favor them, and constitute themselves guilty of gravely illicit cooperation. Nevertheless, the censure no longer touches those who fictitiously are present at their meetings.

3. Those not denouncing, within a month, to the Ordinary the hidden chiefs and leaders, and these alone. a) The obligation of denouncing is the same as for a heretic and must be interpreted by the same reason (cf. n. 442); but it suffices if you manifest the guilty through an interposed person, for example through a confessor or parish priest. Holy Office, 15 June 1870. b) This obligation urges even when the leaders to be denounced are publicly known as Freemasons, but not as chiefs or leaders of the masonic sect. It urges also in those regions in which they cannot be punished by ecclesiastical power, nor in any way restrained (Holy Office, 19 Apr. 1893).5 c) The obligation of denouncing ceases if the leaders as such are certainly known; but it does not cease on that account because their names are read everywhere in books and newspapers (Holy Office, 1 Feb. 1871).6 It also ceases as long as someone cannot denounce without betraying himself. d) Denunciation having been made within 30 days after the obligation has been known, or after the impediment which perhaps stood in the way has been removed, the censure is not incurred. Denunciation having been made later, the incurred censure is not removed by the very fact, as some wish, but it is no longer reserved, and can be removed by any confessor, as is clear from the Response of the Sacred Penitentiary in the year 1832, given for a similar case.1 See nevertheless what Lehmkuhl adds (II, n. 1227) at the end of the article.

Note as regards absolution. It is not enough, as the Holy Office declared, 5 Jul. 1837, that the sectarian be sorry for the oath emitted so that he can be absolved, if externally he still communicates with the same associates. He must abjure the sect, at least before the confessor (Holy Office, 5 Aug. 1898),2 and bid it farewell; likewise he must hand over the books and all signs, so that they may be transmitted to the Bishop or inquisitor, or at least burned, if just and grave causes demand this.3 Yet several authors4 think that that Response of 5 Jul. 1837, given according to the things set forth, must be accepted with a grain of salt, and that the penitent can licitly be absolved if he cannot at once break off every relation with his sect without danger of death or of another most grave evil equivalent to death, which nevertheless today does not happen so easily. Yet under this condition, that participation is not made in intrinsically evil acts, nor arises any emolument for the sect, nor any spiritual detriment of the penitent, or scandal of neighbor. Thus it seems to be merely material cooperation, which becomes licit because of most grave causes (cf. Resp. Holy Office, 18 Jan. 1896).

1 Certain more recent authors (Noldin, de Poenis, n. 70) deny that the censure is incurred by prepubescents, although they are in possession of themselves; others (D'Annibale, 111; Pennacchi, I, p. 481; Formisano, p. 71; Del Vecchio, I, n. 598) do not extend it to cooperators. These opinions do not appear sufficiently probable to us: for the censure itself and its authentic interpretation constantly require this broadest signification. Besides, if prepubescents are not comprehended, the power, to be cited below, granted to Bishops as regards absolution of prepubescents becomes useless. Cf. Patavin., n. 263; Avanzini, p. 86; Lehmkuhl, II, 1217; Nouv. Rev. Theol., vol. 6, p. 119. See also above n. 1311, 3.

2 Those who do not wear clerical habit do not lose the privilege because they are impeded, as in England; but the striker, to incur the censure, ought to know that they are clerics (Scavini).

3 Zitelli, App. Jur. can., l. II, c. VI, art. 2, 1. Cf. Const. of John XXII: Perlectis.

1 As regards student duels, see the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, 9 Aug. 1890 (A. S. S., 33, p. 242). We reported it above n. 747.

1 Cf. Acts of the Plenary Council of Latin America (1899), tit. 2, c. VII; Noldin, de Poenis ecclesiasticis, n. 74.

2 A. S. S., 28, p. 438.

3 Nouv. Rev. Theol., 16, p. 407.

4 Avanzini, p. 245; Collect. S. S., n. 515.

5 Anal. eccl., t. I, p. 204.

6 A. S. S., vol. 6, p. 435.

1 Cf. Nouv. Rev. Theol., t. 8, p. 612; Patavin., n. 302; Formisano, in h. loc.; St. Alph., VII, 123.

2 Nouv. Rev. Theol., 31, p. 96.

3 Cf. Konings, n. 1721 where there are many things; Avanzini, note 26, as regards the practice of the Sacred Penitentiary.

4 D'Annibale, I, n. 391, p. 406; Del Vecchio, I, n. 604; Noldin, de Poenis, n. 76; Genicot, II, n. 597.

1332. V. "Those commanding to violate, or violating with rash daring, the immunity of ecclesiastical asylum." L. III Decretal., tit. 49; Gregory XIV, Cum alios; Clement VIII, Decret. Sacra Congregatio.

Preliminary notes. The IMMUNITY of asylum consists in this, that delinquents, except heretics, murderers, public robbers, and others to be excepted by law, who have fled into a sacred or religious place, erected by the authority of the Supreme Pontiff or Bishop, cannot be extracted thence, but are preserved there safe and whole (St. Alph., de Privil., 25-28). - To this right, in several regions, because of the vicissitudes of times, an easing has already been given by the Holy See. Nevertheless the Holy Office, 22 Dec. 1880, established that the right of asylum must be observed at least as to substance, and therefore has not been totally abrogated by contrary custom. Cf. also A. S. S., II, p. 45 and 484. The right of asylum was similarly restricted in the Austrian Concordat; for it was established that the immunity of sacred temples was to be observed "insofar as public security and those things which justice demands permit this to be done."5

But by force of the present article, THE FOLLOWING ARE EXCOMMUNICATED: 1. those who command this immunity to be violated; 2. those who in reality, with force applied, violate it; provided that all these do this with rash daring, in contempt of religion or of the canon. Hence judges, soldiers, and all who, compelled by civil law or otherwise, violate the right of asylum are exempt from the censure. Holy Office, 1 Feb. 1871 (ap. Nouv. Rev. Theol., 15, p. 243).

1333. • VI. "Those violating the enclosure of nuns, of whatever kind or condition, sex or age they may have been, by entering their monasteries without legitimate license; and likewise those introducing or admitting them; and likewise nuns going out from it outside the cases and form prescribed by St. Pius V in the Constitution Decori."

THE FOLLOWING ARE EXCOMMUNICATED: 1. Those violating the enclosure, that is, for nuns, the whole house, and all enclosures annexed to it and surrounded by a wall; of nuns, namely those who emit solemn vows and have papal enclosure; of whatever kind, etc., therefore the Ordinaries of places themselves, women, and prepubescents capable of deceit: yet excepted, from ancient Law, are kings, queens, and their retinue; by entering without legitimate license, although it is not for an evil or lustful end, or under pretext of faculties or privileges (cf. n. 2163, as regards LICENSE).1

2. Those introducing or admitting. Only outsiders can introduce; only nuns are said to admit. All nuns can admit positively, but negatively only the Superior, the keeper of the door, or the more dignified from the monastery, conscious that permission was not imparted. To accompany those already entered, to converse with them, is not to admit, except insofar as, through conversation within the enclosures of the monastery, those who would already wish to go out are retained (Aertnys, l. VII, n. 94; Lehmkuhl, II, 1231).

But whether introduction or admission of prepubescents before the seventh year certainly causes the censure to be incurred is disputed among the learned (cf. Aertnys, Lehmkuhl, l. c.).

3. Nuns going out outside the cases determined by St. Pius V, that is, without cause of great fire, contagious disease, or a similar event, for example flood, imminent ruin, invasion of soldiers; outside the form..., that is, unless the cause has been cognized by the Ordinary and approved in writing, when time permits.2 But from the Decree of the Holy Office, 22 Dec. 1860, the custom, even immemorial, of conceding departure for other causes, although grave and recognized by Bishops, must be judged abrogated, nor can it be continued. See n. 2162.

Note. Nuns who have legitimately gone out, but return more slowly, are not indeed excommunicated, but they sin. Gennari, Quest. de mor., I, n. 52.

1334. VII. "Women violating the enclosure of regular men, Superiors or others admitting them." St. Pius V, Const. Regularium and Const. Decet.

The enclosure of REGULARS, that is, of those emitting solemn vows, is all that space which is contained by the enclosures of the monastery; and so, cloister, house, interior workshops, for example library; but not the church, sacristy ordinarily, nor the garden, if it can be approached without passage through the monastery and is separated from the enclosure by a key and suitable wall.

The following are excommunicated: 1. any women whatever, provided they are postpubescent, except queens and similar privileged women; 2. those admitting them, namely all who directly or indirectly are in cause why women enter, for example Superiors or the doorkeeper, if they do not impede entrance, when the obligation of prohibiting and impeding it is incumbent.

1335. VIII. "Those guilty of real simony in any benefices whatever, and their accomplices." Paul II, Cum detestabile; Trent, Sess. 24, c. 18, de Ref.

The excommunication STRIKES: 1. Those guilty of real simony, which is had, namely, when someone buys or sells: a) the benefice itself; or b) its conferral or provision; or c) election or presentation for obtaining it; provided that execution of the agreement has at least been begun on each side... in any benefices whatever, provided they are benefices properly so called, whether secular, as an episcopate, canonry, deanery, parish; or regular, as abbeys, and certain priories, which are benefices of the true name. Nevertheless, more probably under the censure are not comprehended generally prelacies of regulars, as generalate, provincialate, etc.; nor ecclesiastical offices which lack a benefice; nor subsidiary parishes removable at will, although in favorables they can come under the name of benefices.1

2. And their accomplices, that is, "those who have procured or existed as mediators, so that simony be done," as is read in the Constitution of Paul II2 (cf. n. 591).

1336. IX. "Those guilty of confidential simony in any benefices whatever, of whatever dignity they may be." Pius IV, Const. Romanum; St. Pius V, Intolerabilis; Trent, Sess. 25, c. 7, de Ref.

This censure touches each guilty party, provided the simony is consummated at least on one side. It is incurred, therefore, when someone procures a benefice, properly so called, for another, by election, presentation, conferral, resignation, etc., with certain confidence, that is, with an express or tacit pact, that the one for whom he procures it will at a certain time resign it to the procurer himself or another, or pay a pension because of the fruits received from it.

But the phrase "of whatever dignity they may be" was added because Cardinals, Bishops, and major prelates were punished by Pius IV with interdict alone (cf. n. 591).

1337. X. "Those guilty of real simony because of entrance into Religion." Urban IV, Extrav., Sane, de Simonia.

The censure is incurred by him who, because of the very entrance into Religion, gives or accepts something temporal; when the simony has been real, that is, after it has been completed on each side, and therefore, according to a very probable opinion, only after solemn profession has been emitted (III, 108). It is not incurred if something is accepted for the support of the religious, although illicitly.3 Indeed, if it is a question of nuns, a dowry for support must always be assigned, as is clear from decisions of the Sacred Congregations (cf. n. 591).

1338. • XI. "All who, making gain from indulgences and other spiritual graces, are punished by the censure of excommunication in the Constitution of St. Pius V, Quam plenum, 2 January 1569."

By this Constitution are punished "all lower than Bishops" who, money having been accepted, have in fact conceded or published either indulgences or other graces designated in that Constitution of St. Pius V itself. But these are: 1. faculty of choosing for oneself a priest for absolution from cases reserved to the Bishop; 2. celebration of Mass and burial in time of interdict; 3. use of prohibited foods; 4. assumption of several co-parents at baptism, contrary to the Decree of Trent; 5. absolution from real simony reserved to the Pope (Avanzini, in h. exc., p. 30).

1339. XII. "Those collecting alms of greater price for Masses, and taking profit from them by causing them to be celebrated in places where Mass stipends are usually of lesser price." Benedict XIV, Const. Quanta cura and Our Most Holy Lord Pius X, Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council De observandis (Ut debita).

Both clerics and laymen incur this excommunication whenever, for Masses celebrated or to be celebrated, after the stipend has been handed over, they retain part of it as profit, and indeed so much as suffices for grave theft. But it is necessary that they be at the same time:

1. Collectors, as if by industry, of many manual alms, or alms taxed from foundation for Masses. Whence, although he sins, nevertheless he does not incur this censure who seeks profit from stipends which are given to him so that he himself may pay them; nor he to whom they are spontaneously brought so that he himself may take care that Masses be celebrated by others, unless they are brought to him as to a collector; nor he who once or again should collect some small number of Masses; for such a one is not a collector of the true name.1

2. Taking profit. - Whence he who, like a thief, claims for himself part of the stipend (Bucceroni, Comm. III, n. 62), or spends the excess for pious uses, is not subject to this censure, although he is not immune from fault, as is clear from the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, 9 Sept. 1874 (Del Vecchio, I, n. 608; II, 1067); nor is he held by fault who retains something for himself as the just price of his labor; for, as St. Alphonsus says (VI, 322), "if he has been designated for this duty, and his labor truly deserves a wage, then a wage of this kind is owed to him from natural equity, and from the will of those offering the alms." See Resp. S. C. C., 18 Mar. 1905 (A. S. S., 38, p. 80).

3. That they cause Masses to be celebrated in places where Mass stipends are usually of lesser price. Moreover, the Holy Office declared, on 13 Jan. 1892, that this censure is incurred also by those who cause Masses to be celebrated for a lesser stipend in the same place where they collected the alms (Nouv. Rev. Theol., 24, p. 170). Understand, if in that place the customary stipends are usually of lesser price (Lehmkuhl, II, 1237).

Note. Absolution concerning these things is not to be given except to those willing to restore, or prepared to stand by the commands of the Holy See, in the case in which recourse is made to it for condonation (cf. n. 1613).

1340. • XIII. "All who are punished by excommunication in the Constitutions of St. Pius V, Admonet nos, 29 March 1567; Innocent IX, Quae ab hac Sede, 4 Nov. 1591; Clement VIII, Ad Romani Pontificis curam, 26 June 1592, and Alexander VII, Inter ceteras, 24 Oct. 1660, regarding alienation and infeudation of cities and places of the Holy Roman Church."

By this censure are punished all, whether laymen or clerics, of whatever dignity, who, without consulting the Most Holy One, strive, by themselves or through others, either to act, or to suggest or persuade the Roman Pontiff to any alienation whatever of cities or places pertaining to the Holy See; from any pretext whatever, even of necessity or evident utility, and although they lose their work and oil. - Therefore those who subscribed to letters once sent to the Roman Pontiff, for example by C. Passaglia, that he should renounce his temporal dominion, are, according to some, with others contradicting, bound by this excommunication.2

1341. • XIV. "Religious presuming, outside the case of necessity, to minister to clerics or laymen the sacrament of Extreme Unction, or the Eucharist by way of Viaticum, without permission of the parish priest." Clement V, in Clem. 1, de Privil.

Here understand religious in the strict sense: for thus the common interpretation bears in odious matters. But by the name of parish priest comes he who has actual care of souls, or who acts in his place. It is said presuming: therefore the censure is not incurred if in good faith it is judged either that necessity urges, or that the permission of the parish priest can be presumed, or if the sacraments are ministered to those who are not subject to parochial jurisdiction, for example to other regulars, travelers, wanderers, etc. - Nor is it prohibited to repeat Viaticum from devotion (cf. n. 1537 and 2187, 4). Cf. D'Annibale, n. 145.

1342. XV. "Those extracting, without legitimate permission, relics from the sacred cemeteries or catacombs of the city of Rome and its territory, and those furnishing help or favor to them." Paul V, Decr. 24 Aug. 1613; Clement X, Const. Ex commissae.

In the Clementine Constitution two things are required:

1. Legitimate permission, conceded in writing by the Eminent Cardinal Vicar, with the subscription and seal of the Vicar of the City.

2. Presence of a priest delegated by the Vicar, while the extraction of the relics is made.

But it makes no difference whether someone extracts in great or small quantity, if it is established that they are from the relics of martyrs, for example when glass or earthen phials stained with blood, or at least bloody crusts enclosing them, are found at the burial niches, inside or outside them (S. R. C., 27 Nov. 1863). But otherwise concerning other ashes or bones of the faithful, although the prohibition of taking away anything from them must be observed at least under venial sin.

1343. XVI. "Those communicating with one excommunicated by name by the Pope in a criminal crime, namely by expending help or favor to him." Innocent III, c. Nuper, 29, de Sent. excomm.

By the words one excommunicated by name by the Pope are not comprehended those excommunicated by the Roman Congregations, even when approval of the Supreme Pontiff accedes to their Decrees (Holy Office, 18 Jun. 1897). Cf. Anal. eccl., V, 380.

To communicate in a criminal crime is the same as to cooperate in a crime already perpetrated, or in the contumacy because of which another is excommunicated: suppose if someone furnishes help or favor to another excommunicated because of retention of a thing, lest he make restitution. It is controverted as regards those giving counsel (cf. VII, 197).

1344. XVII. "Clerics knowingly and spontaneously communicating in divine things with persons excommunicated by name by the Roman Pontiff, and receiving them in the offices." Clement III, c. 18, de Sent. excomm.

It is said 1. clerics, therefore laymen and Bishops are exempt from the censure; 2. knowingly and spontaneously: whence ignorance excuses (cf. n. 1269, 3), and even light fear; 3. communicating in divine things, for example in administering sacraments, and receiving them in the offices, liturgical ones; namely both are required, according to the ancient tradition of the identical censure;

5 Muller, Theol. mor., l. III, App.; Sagmuller, Kirchenr., 167, V.

1 Formerly the license had to be conceded in writing. Today license given orally seems to suffice. General license is conceded only to the physician, confessor, and workmen. St. Alph., VII, 221 sqq., with changes to be changed from the new law.

2 St. Alph., III, 106-112; cf. D'Annibale, n. 118.

3 Cf. Gabr. a Varceno, t. II, p. 470, n. 5.

4 Thus D'Annibale, n. 116; which nevertheless is not pleasing to all (see Lehmkuhl, II, 1234).

1 St. Alph., III, 92; Patavin., 329-338.

1 Deliberately we said: this censure; because both priests, clerics, and laymen can fall into others. Cf. what we shall say when there is speech concerning Mass stipends (n. 1615-1619). See also n. 1350 bis.

2 Cf. Pennacchi, App. 26; Signoriello, Novello missionario, p. 64, where there is a formula of retraction; Piatus, on this excommunication.

4. by the Roman Pontiff by name excommunicated: whence excommunication is not incurred if communication is admitted with those who are censured by name by the Sacred Congregations, even with the Roman Pontiff approving. Cf. n. 1290 and 1295. See nevertheless n. 1377.

1345. • XVIII. "But let those presuming to absolve, namely from excommunications reserved in a special way, without due faculty, even under any pretext whatever, know that they are bound by the bond of excommunication reserved to the Roman Pontiff; provided that it is not a question of the article of death." From the first part of the Constitution after excomm. XII.

It is said: 1. presuming: therefore he is immune from censure who absolves from ignorance, even crass (cf. n. 1269), from grave fear, from probability by which, being led, he judges either that the penitent is not entangled in excommunication, or that he himself has power to absolve him; 2. provided that etc.; because there is no reservation in the article of death (cf. 1282 sqq.).

1346. • XIX. Missionaries and ecclesiastics are excommunicated who, by themselves or through others, by any title or form, apply themselves to trade in the East Indies, China, Japan, or in America, whether southern or northern; likewise Superiors, even mediate, who do not punish delinquent religious immediately subject to themselves.

Thus from the Constitution Ex debito of Urban VIII, and the Constitution Sollicitudo of Clement IX, which Pius IX, through an authentic declaration of the Holy Office, pronounced still to be in force (4 Dec. 1872).3

The said prohibition and penalty, according to the mind of the same Clement IX: 1. affects not only European missionaries, but also any ecclesiastical men whatever, except indigenous priests, who under the name of missionaries, or by any other title, shall have been sent for a time, or will be staying in those parts in any way whatever (Holy Office, 17 Jan. 1883). 2. It regards trade properly so called, showing itself by continuous acts (cf. Ami du Cl., 1907, p. 947; 1908, p. 1196).

Moreover this censure is commonly placed among the reserved, because, Clement IX so establishing, "none of the aforesaid delinquents can be absolved, except constituted in the article of death, unless profits of this kind have first been restored."4 But if restitution has not merely been promised, but actually made, namely to pious causes, but not to the institute of the delinquents, the excommunication will no longer have to be held as reserved, as is evident (A. S. S., 7, p. 317; Monit. eccl., VIII, P. II, p. 245).

1347. • XX. From TRENT: "One presuming to usurp or impede the goods, jurisdictions, rights, etc., of any benefices and pious places whatever, shall be subject to anathema so long as he has not restored these things integrally, and then obtained absolution from the Roman Pontiff" (Sess. 22, c. 11, de Ref.).

This excommunication, which is much broader than the others (n. 1325, 1326), comprehends: 1. As regards OBJECTS, the jurisdictions, goods, censuses, rights, for example right of administering, of churches, benefices, and any pious places whatever, or any obventions whatever which must be converted to the necessities of ministers and the poor. 2. As regards persons, all those who, by themselves or through others, and therefore it comprehends also the one commanding, by force or fear instilled, or by any art, fraud, or by any sought color, title or pretext, PRESUME to convert and usurp the said goods for their own uses, or only to impede them from being received by those to whom they pertain by right: therefore it comprehends those occupying, or placing impediment, as if by right to those things.

But he is not subject to the censure who used no force, fear, fraud, or pretext, as if someone omits to restore a thing loaned to him or deposited with him. But those buying ecclesiastical goods, movable or immovable, usurped by usurpers, fall at least into this Tridentine excommunication. This is clear from the Response of the Holy Office, 8 July 1874; and the reason is that they truly detain sacred goods and transfer them to their own uses. And furthermore, the Sacred Penitentiary, 21 May 1897 (Nouv. Rev. Theol., 30, p. 85), declared that those buying goods of religious, which the fisc sells because the same religious refuse to pay a tax imposed by civil law, commonly called loi d'abonnement, fall into this Tridentine excommunication. Say the same of those who have accepted, in lease or emphyteusis, ecclesiastical goods occupied or alienated by the fisc. Likewise the same concerning those who redeemed censuses, canons, and other ecclesiastical rights, whether redeemable or not redeemable, without an indult of the Holy See. All these things are gathered from various Responses of the Sacred Penitentiary, for the jubilees of the years 1866 and 1875 (Del Vecchio, I, n. 629-632; Piat in h. exc., where there are many things). Recall what was said n. 1325.

The Council adds: but the cleric who was the contriver or consenting party of such nefarious fraud and usurpation shall be subject to the same penalties; and shall also be deprived of any benefices whatever, and made incapable of any other benefices whatever; and, even after integral satisfaction and absolution, shall be suspended from the execution of his orders at the judgment of his Ordinary (Patavin., n. 190, 370). See what was said n. 1254, 3.