Article — Noldin, Summa of Moral Theology
Article Four. On the Conditions Required for Incurring Censure.
The cause of censure is crime: for censure is brought upon the delinquent; but the crime because of which censure is inflicted must be grave, external, consummated, and committed with contumacy, in order that censure be incurred.
19. Grave with respect to the internal and external act. a. For penalty supposes fault, and grave penalty supposes grave fault; but censures (at least excommunication, suspension from order, and general interdict) are grave penalties. Nevertheless light censures, such as suspension and interdict which are inflicted for a short time and prohibit only one or another act, can be inflicted even because of light fault.
a. Therefore a censure would be invalid by which restitution of a slight thing was commanded under excommunication. Nevertheless if a thing light in itself becomes grave by reason of scandal, danger, or end, it can be commanded or prohibited under grave obligation and under censure. Thus one incurs excommunication who violates enclosure only for a very little while.
b. Therefore whatever excuses a delinquent from grave sin, such as smallness of matter, imperfection of the act, material cooperation offered from a grave cause, also excuses him from incurring censure, at least before God and in conscience.
b. For censures are immediately inflicted because of an external sin; wherefore excommunication is not incurred because of a light striking of a cleric, even if he is struck with the intention of gravely injuring him.
One who commits an action prohibited under excommunication in such a way that it is a grave sin only because of a gravely evil intention or from an erroneous conscience does not incur censure, as one who reads a book which he falsely thinks is prohibited under excommunication.
20. External. For a merely internal sin cannot be punished by a censure of a sentence to be passed, because it cannot be proved in judgment; it could indeed be punished by a censure to be incurred by the very fact, but the usage is not in force in the Church of punishing internal sins with censures of a sentence already passed: no one suffers penalty for thought.1
An internal sin is one thing, an occult sin, of which only the delinquent has knowledge, is another. The Church can punish occult sins and in fact does punish them, as when, for example, she strikes occult heresy with excommunication; but one who commits merely internal heresy does not fall into excommunication.
21. Consummated, i.e. an attempted act (der Versuch) does not suffice, but the act prohibited under penalty must be truly posited and completed in its own genus by the effect following: for penal laws are of strict interpretation; wherefore they are restricted to consummated acts, unless the law itself decrees otherwise.
a. Hence where the violent laying on of hands upon a cleric is prohibited under excommunication, he does not incur the censure who shoots at a cleric without hitting him, because the action prohibited under censure is not posited. Where incest is prohibited under censure, the penalty is not incurred except because of perfect intercourse with a blood-relative or relative by affinity, because by the name incest is signified carnal intercourse with a blood-relative or relative by affinity. Where homicide is prohibited under penalty, he does not incur the censure who inflicts a lethal wound unless death follows, whatever be the cause which prevents death, whether a natural remedy or a miracle, because properly only he commits homicide who brings about death itself.
b. Thus the law itself prohibits under censure not only a duel, but also acts preparatory for a duel, namely provocation and acceptance. These acts, however, must be completed in their own genus in order to induce censure; therefore censure is not incurred if, for example, the provocation from any cause whatever does not reach the offender.
c. One who, after a culpable action has been posited, repents of it before the effect follows, incurs censure and irregularity, because repentance does not prevent the effect which afterward follows from being voluntary. Nor should it be said with St. Alphonsus (n. 40) that he is not punished unless contumacious, and that one is not contumacious who has retracted his evil will through repentance: for the delict which is punished by the Church was truly committed with contumacy, even if it was afterward retracted. Indeed, he is called contumacious who, knowing the penal law of the Church, voluntarily transgresses it; nevertheless he does not incur the censure in fact before the effect has followed. Therefore it can happen that someone through contrition or confession is already immune from the sin because of which he is punished by the Church, when he in fact incurs the penalty itself or censure.1
d. Whether the effect which is intended to be prohibited under censure must be completed, if the censure is carried against those mandating or counseling, e.g. homicide or abortion, must be gathered from the very words of the law: for if the words of the law chiefly prohibit the effect (homicide, abortion) and only accessorily the mandate or counsel, those mandating or counseling do not incur censure when the effect has not followed; but if the words of the law chiefly prohibit also the mandate itself and counsel, they incur censure even when the effect has not followed, because by the very mandate or counsel the action prohibited under penalty is already posited.
Note. One who doubts whether he has contracted censure can regard himself as immune from it, and the confessor can absolve him. If, for example, someone has given an efficacious remedy for procuring abortion and afterward does not know whether the effect followed or not, he is burdened by censure or immune from it according as the effect in fact followed or did not. Nevertheless the confessor can absolve a penitent of this kind from the sin and from the censure, if it were present in fact, without enjoining the obligation of declaring this sin again if he learns that the effect followed, because in doubt, even of fact, concerning the existence of censure, the Church supplies power.
1 Cf. Lugo, who with Suarez defends this opinion (De poenit., disp. 16, n. 445); likewise Ballerini-Palmieri III, n. 350; VII, n. 95.
22. Committed with contumacy: for censures have been instituted for breaking contumacy against the power of the Church threatening the penalty. But he is judged to be contumacious who knows that something is prohibited by the Church under penalty and nevertheless dares to act against the prohibition.
A twofold contumacy against the Church, or contempt of the Church, is distinguished: special, which is committed by a proper and formal act of contempt against the power of the Church and constitutes a special sin; and general, which is implicitly contained in the transgression of ecclesiastical law committed by one who knew that the matter was commanded or prohibited by the Church under penalty. General contumacy suffices for incurring censure, nor is it required that the delinquent in the act of sin, e.g. while he commits a duel, think about the censure, provided he knows it habitually.
Note. These conditions are required in order that censure be present in the internal forum; in order that it also be incurred in the external forum, it is further required that the delict be notorious, and that not only with respect to the fact in itself, but also with respect to the conditions which are necessary for incurring censure. But since the conditions which by their nature are internal, such as knowledge and consent required for grave sin, are rarely notorious by fact, in the external forum someone would rarely have to be considered as bound by censure without a declaratory sentence of the judge, unless the conditions were presumed. But where the delict itself prohibited under censure is notorious, the required conditions, especially knowledge and contumacy, are presumed in the external forum until it is juridically established that the delinquent did not incur the censure, unless only those acting knowingly and rashly are bound by censure by the law: for in this case knowledge of the law and contumacy must be proved even for the external forum.
Hence it can happen that a censure is incurred in the external forum, but is not present in the internal forum. Thus Catholics who, ignorant of the censure, entered marriage before a heretical minister need absolution for the external forum,1 because knowledge of the censure is presumed in this forum until ignorance is proved before the judge; but in the internal forum they are immune from the censure because of ignorance of it.
1 Holy Office, May 18, 1892.