§ 1. From the Constitution *Apostolicae sedis*

First ordinary-mode excommunication. Those teaching or defending, either publicly or privately, propositions condemned by the apostolic see under the penalty of excommunication of a sentence already passed; likewise those teaching or defending as licit the practice of asking from a penitent the name of an accomplice, as it was condemned by Benedict XIV in the constitutions Suprema, July 7, 1745; Ubi primum, June 2, 1746; Ad eradicandum, September 29, 1746.

67. a. In order that someone incur the censure of the first part, three things are required: a. that he teach or defend, either orally or in writing; b. a proposition condemned by the apostolic see, i.e. either by the supreme pontiff himself or by a congregation at the command of the supreme pontiff; c. condemned under excommunication of a sentence already passed. Therefore they do not incur this censure: a. those who hold such a condemned proposition as true, but do not teach or defend it; b. those who teach or defend a proposition condemned by an ecumenical council, by a Roman congregation, or even by the supreme pontiff, but not under the penalty of excommunication: for propositions condemned by a council are not customarily said to be condemned by the apostolic see.

b. In order that someone incur the censure of the second part, it is required: a. that he teach or defend as licit; b. the practice of asking the name of an accomplice, as it was condemned by Benedict XIV. But the condemned practice contains two things at once: to ask the name of the accomplice and to demand its revelation under penalty of denying absolution. Therefore they do not incur this censure who hold this practice licit, indeed not even those who exercise it.

Note. The propositions condemned by the apostolic see under penalty of excommunication are:

1. The 41 errors of Luther condemned by Leo X, by the constitution Exsurge Domine, May 16, 1520.

2. The 79 propositions of Michael Baius condemned by Pius V, by the constitution Ex omnibus, October 1, 1567.

3. One proposition concerning sacramental confession and absolution to be obtained by letters, condemned by Clement VIII through a decree of the Holy Office, July 20, 1602.

4. The 45 propositions condemned by Alexander VII through a decree of the Holy Office, September 24, 1665 and March 18, 1666.

5. The 65 propositions condemned by Innocent XI through a decree of the Holy Office, March 2, 1679.

6. The 68 propositions of Michael Molinos condemned by Innocent XI by the constitution Coelestis pastor, November 20, 1687.

7. Two propositions condemned by Alexander VIII, August 24, 1690.

8. The 31 propositions condemned by Alexander VIII through a decree of the Holy Office, December 7, 1690.

9. The 5 propositions concerning dueling condemned by Benedict XIV by the constitution Detestabilem, November 20, 1752.

10. The 65 propositions condemned by Pius X on July 3, 1907 through the decree Lamentabili, and also the propositions, opinions, and doctrines condemned by Pius X through the constitution Pascendi, September 8, 1907.

Second ordinary-mode excommunication. Those, at the devil's urging, laying violent hands upon clerics or monastics of either sex, except, as to reservation, the cases and persons concerning whom by law or privilege it is permitted that another bishop absolve.

68. This excommunication contains the privilege established by canon 15 of the Second Lateran Council (1139), on account of which it has customarily been called the privilege of the canon.¹

This censure differs from others in two ways: a. because it makes the striker one to be avoided, if it is certainly established that the striker has fallen into excommunication, even if he has not been denounced by name; b. because it is not of strict but of broad interpretation, both because it contains a favor granted to the clerical order, and because it is to be interpreted in that manner in which the ancient doctors were accustomed to interpret the canon of the Lateran Council; but they always interpreted it most broadly.

Four things are to be explained in order concerning this matter: a. what persons enjoy this privilege; b. what actions are punished by the censure; c. what the clause "at the devil's urging" signifies; d. who can absolve from this censure.

¹ C. Si quis suadente 29. c. 17. q. 4.

69. Persons: clerics or monastics of either sex.

1. Clerics, i.e. all who by first tonsure have been enrolled among the clergy and have not lost the privilege of the canon, therefore also excommunicated, suspended, and interdicted clerics.

There are those who affirm (St. Alphonsus n. 271) that seminarians also and boys in minor seminaries enjoy this privilege, even if they have not yet received first tonsure; nevertheless this cannot be demonstrated.

2. Monastics of either sex, under which name are comprehended:

a. Religious men, whether of solemn or simple vows, whether clerics or laymen or novices;

b. Nuns, both professed and also novices;

c. Brothers and sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis and St. Dominic, and those who are called oblates, provided they wear the religious habit and live with cloistered persons;

d. Persons living in a religious congregation approved by a bishop.

70. Actions are comprehended by this clause: violent laying-on of hands, which signifies any external and gravely sinful injury which is inflicted upon the person of a cleric not by words alone but by deeds. An injury of this kind can be inflicted in a threefold way:

1. By injury to the body: by killing, wounding, striking, throwing down, pursuing so that he falls on that account, etc.;

2. By injury to liberty: by imprisoning, by detaining in custody, even in a private place;

3. By injury to dignity: by bringing force in any way whatever, by tearing clothing, by defiling with spittle or filth, by violently stopping a carriage in which an ecclesiastical person is being carried, by taking away a hat, purse, staff, etc.

a. To incur this censure it is not required that the actions themselves be gravely sinful in themselves, but it suffices that they gravely injure clerical honor, which can happen even through actions light in themselves, by which in the moral estimation of men clerical dignity is gravely injured.

b. Whether those cooperating, namely those mandating or counseling, and those ratifying the striking of a cleric, are also punished by this censure, or only those striking in fact, is disputed.

Those who affirm use this argument: before the constitution Apostolicae sedis, this censure, not indeed by the words of the canon, but by a comprehensive interpretation of them occurring in the law itself, was extended also to cooperators and ratifiers; but the new law, which corresponds to the ancient canon, is to be extended in the same way, and this all the more because that law, as favorable to the clerical state, is of the broadest interpretation. Those who deny say thus: if the legislator had wished to comprehend cooperators also by this censure, he would have named them expressly, just as above (I. 5) he names them; therefore, because he does not mention cooperators, it is a sign that he did not wish to comprehend cooperators.

c. By a similar reason they dispute whether those not yet pubescent incur this censure. And indeed before the constitution Apostolicae sedis by statute of law they incurred it, with all consenting; now, however, several authors except them, because the legislator does not mention those not yet pubescent here; but if he had wished to comprehend them, he would have named them expressly, as a little below (II. 6) he names them. From these things it is gathered that the negative opinion is safe in practice, although theoretically the affirmative seems to be preferred.¹

¹ Cf. Lehmkuhl, Casus I. n. 999 s. n. 1042 s.

71. "At the devil's urging" signifies that, in order to incur the censure, the injurious actions must be sacrilegious and gravely sinful also interiorly, not only exteriorly, if not by injury to the body, at least by injury to honor.

Wherefore this excommunication is not incurred:

a. If the striking is done from a just cause, as if someone strikes a cleric for the sake of just defense and with due moderation; or if it is done for the sake of correction, as if a father or teacher, either by himself or through another, moderately strikes a cleric constituted in minor orders; or if someone affects a cleric, even a priest, with a just penalty for his delicts, e.g. of prison.

b. If it is done without sacrilege, as if someone is ignorant that the one whom he strikes is a cleric.

c. If it is done without grave fault, as if someone strikes a cleric without full advertence from sudden anger, or if he does it in jest.

Note. Someone is of the opinion that a cleric who has struck himself, not led by the spirit of penance but with a depraved mind, incurs excommunication; but rightly St. Alphonsus judges it probable that the canon speaks only of another striking a cleric.¹

¹ Cf. St. Alphonsus l. 7. n. 274.

72. On absolution from this censure. Although this excommunication is reserved simply to the Roman pontiff, nevertheless our constitution willed that there should remain in its vigor the faculty of absolving which belonged to bishops and regular prelates before this constitution was issued.

1. To explain this faculty, the distinction of striking into slight, grave, and enormous must be premised; this distinction is not to be understood of culpable injury, which must always be grave, even exteriorly, but of material violence or bodily injury, which can be of diverse gravity.

Slight striking is that which does not leave a trace of itself, which therefore is done with fist, palm, foot, or staff, but brings no mark and leaves no bruise of flesh and is done without the shedding of abundant blood.

Grave striking is that which indeed leaves a trace of itself, but without mutilation or grave harm, as if a tooth is knocked out, or a quantity of hair is torn out, or a quantity of blood is shed without grave injury.

Enormous striking is present if mutilation intervenes, or great wounding, or another grave injury.¹

Nevertheless it can happen that a striking which is slight by reason of the physical injury becomes grave or enormous by reason of the person who is struck, e.g. a bishop, or by reason of the circumstances, as if a priest clothed in sacred vestments is struck.²

2. Bishops by common law can absolve: a. if the striking was slight, even if public; b. if it was occult, even if enormous; c. if there is question of clerics or religious living in community, provided the striking was not enormous. But by special privileges (triennial faculties) bishops have still broader faculties.

3. Regular prelates by common law indeed have a limited faculty of absolving from this censure,³ but from privileges which have not been abrogated by the Pian constitution, they can absolve their subjects, even novices, from any striking of a cleric, even enormous and public, and even if the one struck belongs to another order or to the secular clergy.⁴

Third ordinary-mode excommunication. Those perpetrating a duel, or simply challenging to it, or accepting it, and any accomplices, or those furnishing any assistance or favor whatever, and also those deliberately watching it and those permitting it or, as far as lies in them, not prohibiting it, of whatever dignity they may be, even royal or imperial.

¹ St. Alphonsus l. 7. n. 277.

² All these things are drawn from the constitution Perlectis of John XXII.

³ C. Monachi 2. C. Quum illorum 32. C. Canonica 50. De sententia excom. (V. 39).

⁴ Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri VII. n. 300.

73. Persons who incur the censure. Since it is already established in what the nature of the crime of private duel consists, which is struck by this excommunication,¹ it remains only that the persons who incur it be indicated.

1. Those perpetrating it, namely those who commit a duel, whether seconds are employed or not employed, provided it is truly and properly a duel.

2. Those challenging; and these indeed incur excommunication whether the other accepts or does not accept, whether the challenger himself determines the place, time, and weapons or leaves these to be determined by the other, whether the duel in fact follows or does not follow.

3. Those accepting; these likewise incur excommunication, even if the duel in fact does not follow: for since the censure simply affects those challenging and accepting, the challenge itself and the acceptance seriously made are struck by the censure.

a. It makes no difference from what intention or from what motive those challenging and accepting act, provided they wish to enter upon a duel; but if the challenge or acceptance is not made with the intention of entering upon a duel, but fictitiously, e.g. in order to avoid the mark of cowardice here and now, excommunication is not incurred.

b. Grave fear does not excuse those accepting a duel from incurring the censure: for when the common good demands that a penal law bind, even though grave harm must be undergone on account of its observance, fear does not excuse from the law and therefore neither from the penalty; but the common good demands that a law prohibiting duel, even insofar as it is human, not cease on account of fear of grave evil.

4. Accomplices are understood to be: a. seconds or witnesses; b. those counseling; c. those mandating, provided the counsel or mandate had a true influence upon the duel, or upon the challenge, or upon the acceptance, and the duel in fact followed.

They do not incur excommunication who accept the office of witness or second in order to induce reconciliation; who accompany the duelers to the place of combat with the sole end of preventing the duel; or, where they know that the duelers have resolved to fight even to death, in order to put an end to the combat as soon as either one has received a wound.

5. Those furnishing assistance or favor are understood to be those who in any way cooperate more proximately in the duel, provided the duel in fact follows. Wherefore they incur excommunication: those who provide a place for the duel; those who remove public guards lest they impede the duel; those who accompany the duelers and thus add courage to them; those who write or carry letters of challenge; physicians who by agreement with the duelers assist at the duel or remain in a nearby place, even with the intention of more quickly ending the fight or binding wounds;² confessors who by agreement with the duelers stand in a nearby place in order to provide their ministry to the duelers, if there should be need.³

a. Although prior constitutions extend excommunication to accomplices and cooperators even when the effect has not followed, this constitution does not seem to extend the censure to the same persons when the effect has not followed: for since it is established that the supreme pontiff wished to restrict the censures, cooperators are not to be comprehended under the censure unless they are expressly named.⁴

b. They do not incur excommunication who cooperate only remotely in the duel, as fencing masters who teach the art of swordsmanship to those about to duel, or who sell or rent weapons to them, provided they do this indiscriminately toward all by reason of their art and office; drivers who convey duelers to the place of the duel.

6. Those deliberately watching, i.e. those who purposely and openly, with the duelers aware of it, are present at the duel.

Therefore they do not incur excommunication who, passing by by chance, stop and look on from curiosity, or who watch from afar or from a hidden place, or who intervene in order to prevent the duel, nor soldiers who from mere curiosity watch comrades dueling in barracks,⁵ because all these by their presence do not increase courage for the fight.

7. Those permitting or not prohibiting are understood to be not private men, but men endowed with public authority, whether civil or military, who either positively permit the duel or, when they could, do not impede it, as princes in their territories or commanders among their soldiers.

Fourth ordinary-mode excommunication. Those giving their name to the Masonic or Carbonari sect, or to other sects of the same kind, which plot against the Church or legitimate powers, whether openly or clandestinely, and also those furnishing any favor whatever to the same sects, and those not denouncing their hidden coryphaei and leaders, until they have denounced them.

To explain this excommunication two things must be set forth: a. what sects are prohibited under censure; b. what persons are punished by censure on account of these sects.

¹ Cf. De praeceptis^8 n. 347.

² Holy Office, May 28, 1884.

³ Holy Office, l. c.

⁴ Lehmkuhl II. n. 949.

⁵ Genicot II. n. 595.

74. Sects prohibited under censure. 1. Societies prohibited indeed under grave sin but without censure, and societies prohibited under censure, must be distinguished.¹ To prohibited societies belong:

a. Bible societies, condemned several times by the supreme pontiffs;

b. Three American societies of workers, whose names are: a. Odd Fellows (Socii singulares); b. Sons of Temperance (Filii temperantiae); c. Knights of Pythias (Equites Pythiae);²

c. The society called "Independent Order of Good Templars" (Guttempler-Orden);³

This society, founded in America in 1851, was soon propagated in the larger states of Europe, especially Norway and Switzerland. It aims especially at fighting drunkenness, but since it is wholly imbued with the spirit of Protestantism, it is prohibited to Catholics.⁴

d. Societies whose purpose is to promote the use of burning human corpses.⁵

To prohibited societies certainly belong all those which exact from their followers an oath of preserving secrecy and of rendering obedience in every way to hidden leaders. For an oath of this kind is sinful, because secrecy is promised to be preserved even when it ought to be manifested to legitimate superiors, and because obedience is implicitly promised even for illicit things. But where such an oath is not exacted, a society is not to be declared prohibited by private authority alone without consulting the holy see.

2. In order that a society be prohibited under censure, it is required that it bear a likeness to the Masonic and Carbonari sect by reason of hidden organization and by reason of its end, or that it be of the same kind, i.e.: a. that the members, united by a social bond, have hidden statutes and be governed by hidden leaders; b. that they intend to assail and overthrow the Church or the republic. Societies of this kind are:

a. The Masonic society;

Freemasons have been excommunicated several times by the Roman pontiffs. Clement XII was the first to impose a censure upon them by the constitution In eminenti, April 28, 1738; then Benedict XIV by the constitution Providas, May 18, 1751; Leo XII by the constitution Quo graviora, March 13, 1825; Pius VIII by the encyclical letters Traditi, May 24, 1829; Pius IX by the constitution Apostolicae sedis established the penalty now in force; finally Leo XIII by the encyclical letters Humanum genus, April 20, 1884, renewed the penalties of his predecessors.

To those comparing the penal law now in force with the ancient law it will immediately be clear that a twofold change was introduced by this our constitution: a. In order that societies be prohibited under censure, it is not required that they pursue their end secretly; but all are censured which plot against the Church or legitimate powers, whether openly or clandestinely. Therefore it also makes no difference whether they exact from their followers an oath of preserving secrecy or not.⁶ b. The obligation of denouncing all Freemasons and their supporters is no longer imposed under excommunication, but only of denouncing hidden coryphaei and leaders.

b. The Carbonari society;

Pius VII excommunicated the Carbonari by the constitution Ecclesiam, September 15, 1821, and Leo XII by the constitution Quo graviora, March 13, 1825.

c. The society of the Fenians;

The Holy Office declared on January 12, 1870, that this American and Irish sect was prohibited under excommunication.

d. Nihilistic and anarchistic societies.

That these sects, propagated especially in Russia, are prohibited under censure is clear from the end which they pursue.

Whether socialistic societies are prohibited under censure or simply prohibited is disputed. Some (D'Annibale, Ballerini-Palmieri) think that all societies which by their end assail the Church or the republic are subject to this censure; but others (Vermeersch, Lehmkuhl, Koch) not improbably are of the opinion that the two marks recounted above are required in order that a society be prohibited under censure, and therefore they except Bible societies, clerico-liberal societies, the neo-Protestant society of the Old Catholics, likewise communistic and socialistic societies, which others declare subject to censure. Socialists, however, who constitute rather a political faction than a seditious sect, as socialists in Belgium, do not contract excommunication. Yet those who adhere to these societies, knowing their principles and end, incur excommunication reserved to the Roman pontiff in a special mode on account of heresy.⁷

¹ Holy Office, May 10, 1884.

² Holy Office, August 20, 1894.

³ Holy Office, August 9, 1893.

⁴ Holy Office, August 17, 1899.

⁵ Holy Office, May 19, 1886.

⁶ Holy Office, May 10, 1884.

⁷ Lehmkuhl, Casus consc. I. n. 1058 s.

75. Persons who are censured on account of these sects. It is clear that one does not incur the censure unless he knows that the society is prohibited under censure, i.e. unless he knows that the society plots against the Church or the government and that societies of this kind are subject to censure.

1. Those giving their name, i.e. those who enter a sect prohibited under censure, because they constitute themselves members of it.

If someone in good faith has given his name to a sect prohibited under censure and, once the matter is discovered, does not leave it, he does not incur excommunication if meanwhile unwillingly, in order to avoid very grave evils, he remains in it until he can leave it without grave inconvenience.

2. Those furnishing favor. Favor can be furnished to these sects by many and diverse actions; nevertheless, in order that excommunication be incurred, it is required both that the favor be true or efficacious, and that the action constitute grave sin.

a. They incur excommunication who take care to propagate sects of this kind; who without grave cause make power available to them to hold meetings in their buildings; who exhort others to be aggregated to societies of this kind or to be present at their meetings; who are present at their meetings; who help the societies themselves or their members in any way whatever, e.g. by propagating papers and pamphlets written in their favor, by contributing money to them, by acting as servant in their meetings, etc.

b. They do not incur excommunication who once or again are present at their meetings for the sake of curiosity, unless from peculiar circumstances the attendance yields to the commendation of the sect; nor those who from a grave cause sell or rent a house to a condemned sect, that it may have its meetings there.¹

3. Those not denouncing hidden coryphaei and leaders.

a. This obligation of denouncing exists for all who know those leaders in any way whatever, even only from the trustworthy report of others, unless they have learned this from those who themselves have either already denounced or certainly are going to denounce.

b. By the name of coryphaeus and leader is signified not only the supreme head of the society, but anyone who exercises some power in those sects.

c. Hidden coryphaei and leaders are to be denounced; therefore the obligation of denouncing ceases where the true coryphaei and leaders are publicly known. But it does not cease if indeed the members of the sects are publicly known, but their leaders are not known; nor does it cease in those regions in which sects of this kind are tolerated by the government and their leaders cannot be punished by the ecclesiastical power.²

d. The denunciation is to be made to the ordinary of the place, and indeed, unless grave inconvenience permits delay, within a month after the obligation of denouncing has been known.

e. As to the mode of denouncing, it suffices that the names of those persons be manifested to the ordinary either by letter or through the confessor; and once the denunciation has been made, not only the reservation ceases, but also the excommunication itself.³

¹ Cf. Genicot II. n. 596.

² Holy Office, April 11, 1893.

³ Holy Office, February 1, 1871.

76. On the absolution of a Freemason. In order that one who is enrolled in the Masonic sect or another sect of the same kind may be absolved, the holy see is accustomed to require these conditions when it grants the faculty of absolving a penitent of this kind from censures:

a. That he bid farewell to the prohibited sect and break off every communication with sectaries. But if without grave inconvenience this cannot be done at once, material communication, with scandal and his own spiritual detriment excluded, is meanwhile to be permitted to him; namely, he can defer formal renunciation, persevere in paying the tax, and from a most grave cause even frequent the meetings of sectaries, until the danger of grave harm has ceased.¹

b. That he hand over to the confessor the books, manuscripts, and signs of the sect, if he retains any; the confessor will take care that these are transmitted to the ordinary as soon as possible, or, if this cannot be done, burned.

c. That he denounce the hidden leaders of the sect to the ordinary, if it can be done without grave inconvenience.

It will rarely happen that someone in good faith has given his name to the sect of Freemasons and, on account of ignorance, has not contracted the censure. Nevertheless, if a penitent occurs who, ignorant of the depraved end of the sect, in good faith gave his name to it, he must by all means be admonished concerning the law of the Church prohibiting it and concerning the obligation of bidding farewell to the sect and breaking off every communication with it, on account of the continual danger of sinning which threatens him from this communication, and on account of the scandal of others. But if in a very rare case, on account of the peculiar circumstances of the person, each inconvenience truly ceased, the admonition, which would be foreseen as harmful, could be omitted.

Fifth ordinary-mode excommunication. Those commanding the immunity of ecclesiastical asylum to be violated with rash daring, or those violating it.

¹ Holy Office, January 18, 1896.

77. a. All those commanding that an offender be extracted from ecclesiastical asylum command the immunity of asylum to be violated, once the effect of violation has followed; those violate it who in fact violently extract the guilty person from asylum. Because rash daring is required, magistrates who, being compelled, conform themselves to the prescription of law do not contract the censure, nor soldiers and other servants who only fulfill commands.

b. Although the right of asylum today is scarcely any longer recognized, nevertheless the holy see has declared that the law of asylum "as to substance" is not abrogated by contrary custom.¹ Hence this censure is scarcely ever incurred, whether on account of abrogation or on account of ignorance of the law.

Sixth ordinary-mode excommunication. Those violating the enclosure of nuns, of whatever kind or condition, sex or age they may be, by entering their monasteries without legitimate license; and likewise those introducing or admitting them; and likewise nuns departing from it outside the cases and form prescribed by St. Pius V in the constitution Decori.

¹ Holy Office, December 22, 1880.

78. a. The censure refers to papal enclosure, such as nuns with solemn vows have, and, from special privilege, some monasteries of simple vows. To contract the censure it is required that the enclosure be violated through entrance into the monastery without legitimate license. But those thus violating enclosure contract the censure, whoever they may be, even women and those not yet pubescent, except kings and their wives and children, and probably also infants not yet having the use of reason. License from the prescription of the Council of Trent had to be granted in writing; but since this constitution says nothing about license to be obtained in writing, it seems to some authors that license can be given even orally. Nevertheless it must be obtained on each occasion: for general license cannot be granted except to a confessor, physician, and workmen. They are said to introduce who open the door to one wishing to enter. Those receiving are said to admit who, when they could and ought, do not impede entrance, namely superioresses and doorkeepers, but not private nuns. The same must be said of those who detain or do not expel those who have entered.

b. They interpret this censure more rigorously than is proper who, admitting no smallness of matter, teach with St. Alphonsus (n. 229) that a nun who departs from enclosure, or one who enters enclosure by one step only, incurs excommunication. Pius V permits departure: a. from the cause of a great fire; b. of the infirmity of leprosy; c. of epidemic; and since these seem to be stated by way of example, in general departure will be licit in a great common danger which threatens either the life or the virtue of nuns.

Seventh ordinary-mode excommunication. Women violating the enclosure of regular men, and superiors or others admitting them.

79. With respect to nuns, the entrance of any outsiders whatever and the departure of nuns is prohibited under censure; with respect to religious men, only the entrance of others is prohibited under censure, and indeed only of women. Regulars are understood to be those who emit solemn vows, because these alone in the strict sense are called regulars and are subject to the law of enclosure. All women, even those lacking reason, after the years of puberty are understood, because it is not added, as in the preceding article, "of whatever age"; queens, however, etc., are excepted. Those admitting are not only superiors, but also subjects, such as doorkeepers, who, when they can and by office ought, do not impede women entering, or who detain those who have entered, lest they depart quickly.

Eighth ordinary-mode excommunication. Those guilty of real simony in any benefices whatever, and their accomplices.

80. The censure punishes simony of divine law, which alone in the strict sense is simony. In all benefices indeed, whether double or simple, whether greater or lesser, whether of right of patronage or of free collation, but only in benefices properly so called; offices and dignities in religious orders are not of this kind. Accomplices are those by whose cooperation the simoniacal contract is perfected.

Ninth ordinary-mode excommunication. Those guilty of confidential simony in any benefices, of whatever dignity they may be.

81. The guilty can be those giving and receiving benefices, and likewise those resigning; not indeed accomplices as in the preceding article, but nevertheless cardinals and bishops.

Tenth ordinary-mode excommunication. Those guilty of real simony on account of entrance into religion.

82. Those guilty of simony which is punished by this censure are those receiving and those giving. Entrance is properly made in profession, not in admission to the novitiate. Although even in entrance into the novitiate simony of divine law can be committed, nevertheless this is not subject to the censure. Religion is understood as such strictly, but equally a religion of men and of women.

Eleventh ordinary-mode excommunication. 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, January 2, 1569.

83. a. From the cited constitution this censure is incurred by those who are inferior to bishops; bishops were punished by suspension, which, however, is not renewed in the constitution Apostolicae sedis. He is said to make gain who, after a price has been received, makes some profit, and indeed by conceding indulgences and other spiritual graces to those paying money, likewise by publishing or commanding to be published that graces of this kind are conceded to those paying money, even if these things are done under the pretext of a good work.

b. The spiritual graces of which the cited constitution speaks are these:

a. Of choosing for oneself a confessor by whom one can be absolved even from cases reserved to the pope or bishop;

b. Celebration of Mass and ecclesiastical burial in time of interdict;

c. Use of prohibited foods;

d. Assumption of several sponsors in baptism;

e. Absolution from simony reserved to the pope.

Twelfth ordinary-mode excommunication. Those collecting alms of greater price for Masses and seeking profit from them, by causing them to be celebrated in places where Mass stipends are customarily of lesser price.

84. Explanation. a. This censure is drawn from the constitution Quanta cura of Benedict XIV (July 30, 1741), who took care to eliminate the abuse of a certain commerce concerning Mass stipends, and therefore struck clerics, and them alone, exercising such commerce, with the penalty of suspension. The censure of the Pian constitution affects both clerics and lay persons and punishes both with excommunication.

b. Several actions which contain some traffic concerning Mass stipends are prohibited by the Church, yet not all under censure; the actions prohibited under censure are: to collect and to seek profit, by causing them to be celebrated for a lesser stipend.

1. Those collecting and seeking profit.

a. Those are said to collect who deliberately try to gather Mass stipends, whether they receive many or few.

Intention properly makes the collector, not the abundance of stipends which he receives by collecting: for he who receives few collects few; he who receives many collects many. By the intention itself, therefore, he is distinguished from one who receives stipends spontaneously offered to him; nor is the latter for that reason called a collector because many are offered to him.

b. Those seeking profit are said to be those who without license retain for themselves, as their own, a part of the stipend.

a. To incur the censure it is required that the quantity which is retained suffice to constitute the grave sin of theft, and bring notable profit to him by whom it is retained; this can also coalesce from small profits.

b. Therefore they do not incur excommunication who retain for themselves part of the stipend in those cases where this can licitly be done. Likewise they do not incur excommunication, although they act illicitly, who retain part of the stipend in order to expend it for pious uses, because they do not properly take profit.

c. To incur the censure both things are required, namely, that stipends be collected and that they be given to others with profit: for the delict must be complete.

a. Therefore they indeed sin, but do not incur the censure, who receive Mass stipends from those spontaneously offering, even in greater number, and hand them over to others with profit, because they did not collect the stipends. But those incur excommunication who, while collecting, receive only a few, but hand them over to others with great profit.

b. Therefore he does not incur excommunication who indeed collects stipends with the depraved intention of making profit, but afterward, with his will changed, hands over the whole stipend to others.

2. For Masses, namely manual Masses: for the stipends of these are properly said to be collected; yet here it must be noted that founded Masses also, or Masses left by legacy, which do not adhere to some benefice, pertain to manual Masses.¹

3. By causing them to be celebrated for a lesser stipend. Formerly several interpreters were of this opinion, that to incur the censure it was required that the Masses be celebrated in another place, where stipends are customarily of lesser price; but now it is established that those also incur excommunication who cause Masses to be celebrated for a lesser price in the same place where they had collected the stipends.²

Thirteenth ordinary-mode excommunication. All who are punished with excommunication in the constitutions of St. Pius V Admonet nos, of Innocent IX Quae ab hac sede, of Clement VIII Ad romani pontificis curam, and of Alexander VII Inter ceteras, concerning the alienation and infeudation of cities and places of the holy Roman Church.

¹ S. C. C., August 22, 1874.

² Holy Office, January 15, 1892.

85. a. This censure tends to this, that the temporal dominion of the holy see be preserved unharmed; therefore one is punished by the censure who dares in any way to impel the supreme pontiff to alienate the temporal dominion or to hand it over in fief. Therefore the object of the constitution is infeudation (Lehensgebung) or alienation (Verausserung), by which namely indirect dominion is transferred to another; there is no question of abdication of temporal dominion, whether of the whole or of a part, of which at that time no one was thinking.

b. The actions which are punished by the censure are: a. to treat, counsel, or otherwise speak words concerning alienation, so that at the same time it is proposed to choose orators to be sent to the supreme pontiff about this matter; b. to suggest or advise an alienation of this kind to the supreme pontiff, whether this is done by oneself or through another.

c. Therefore they do not incur this censure: a. those who advise the supreme pontiff to renounce temporal dominion; nor b. those who propose to the supreme pontiff reconciliation with the Italian government.

d. All incur this censure, both ecclesiastics and seculars, of whatever dignity and order they may be, even cardinals, bishops, and legates, who do such things.

Fourteenth ordinary-mode excommunication. Religious presuming, outside the case of necessity, to minister to clerics or lay persons the sacrament of extreme unction and of the Eucharist by way of viaticum without the pastor's license.

86. Religious properly so called, who have emitted solemn vows; therefore not novices, nor those simply professed, whether in some congregation or in religion properly so called, except scholastics of the Society of Jesus. To clerics or lay persons; therefore they do not contract the censure if they administer the last sacraments to other religious, even of a different order, clerics or laymen, who are of their family, or to travelers staying as guests in houses of religious. Outside the case of necessity. Necessity is present if the sick person is in danger of death and the pastor cannot easily be called. Without license, at least presumed, which the pastor, if asked, is believed about to give.

Fifteenth ordinary-mode excommunication. Those extracting relics from the sacred cemeteries or catacombs of the city of Rome and its territory without legitimate permission, and those furnishing help or favor to them.

87. To incur this censure it is required: a. that true relics be extracted, bodies or parts of the body, even very small parts, of holy martyrs; b. that they be extracted without legitimate permission, which permission the cardinal vicar grants.

Sixteenth ordinary-mode excommunication. Those communicating with one excommunicated by name by the pope in a criminal crime, namely by expending help or favor upon him.

88. a. Although communication with any excommunicated person to be avoided is prohibited, nevertheless only he falls into the censure who communicates with one excommunicated by name by the pope; of this kind is judged to be both one whom the pope excommunicated by a particular sentence, and one whom the pope, after he has contracted excommunication of a sentence already passed, denounces to be excommunicated.

b. Yet only that communication is punished by the censure which consists in help or favor shown to the excommunicated person, so that he may persist in his crime.

Seventeenth ordinary-mode excommunication. Clerics knowingly and spontaneously communicating in divine things with persons excommunicated by name by the Roman pontiff, and receiving them in offices.

89. This censure is incurred by clerics who, knowing that someone has been excommunicated by name by the pope, spontaneously, not driven by force or fear, communicate with him in divine things, because they receive him in divine offices, i.e. admit him to performing divine offices. Therefore a cleric does not incur excommunication who together with one excommunicated by name by the pope assists at offices or hears his Mass, because he does not receive him in offices; rather the rector of the church does, who admits him to saying Mass.

Eighteenth ordinary-mode excommunication. Those presuming, outside the article of death, to absolve from excommunications reserved in a special mode to the apostolic see without due faculty, even under any pretext whatever.

90. This censure, which is established by the constitution Apostolicae sedis itself, is incurred by confessors who knowingly and spontaneously, without faculty, absolve a penitent from excommunication reserved in a special mode to the Roman pontiff, outside danger of death and outside a truly urgent case.