Article III. On The Subject Of Censure

481. Notion. The (passive) subject of censure is called that person who can be punished with ecclesiastical censures. Such a subject, however, is only a man who is 1. baptized; 2. a wayfarer; 3. possessed of reason and capable of malice; 4. subject to the one who imposes the censure. - The individual points are to be explained briefly:

1. A baptized man.

The reason is twofold: a) because the Church does not have jurisdiction except over the baptized; b) because the non-baptized do not enjoy ecclesiastical spiritual goods of which they can be deprived through censures. - Hence the following cannot be punished with a censure: 1. irrational creatures; but if the Church has at times pronounced an anathema upon irrational creatures (for example, upon locusts), this was not a proper censure, but a manifestation of execration and detestation; 2. pagans, Jews, and catechumens. Heretics, schismatics, and apostates, however, are by no means exempt from censures, provided that they have been validly baptized.

2. A wayfarer.

But if in ancient times the dead were punished with censures or absolved from censures,⁶² this was done to instill a salutary horror in the faithful, or to deprive the dead of ecclesiastical burial and suffrages, or to bestow them again. It is manifest, however, that the dead cannot be punished with a proper censure, because their corpse cannot be bound, while the separated soul is no longer subject to ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

3. Possessed of reason and capable of malice.

The reason is that censure, as a grave medicinal penalty, presupposes grave fault joined with contumacy. But before the perfect use of reason no one can commit a grave fault. Hence infants, the insane, and others wholly lacking the use of reason are not punished with censure. Although prepubescent persons, since they are capable of the use of reason and of grave delict, can be punished with censures, nevertheless according to the discipline in force they do not incur them, as was already said above in n. 474. Prepubescent persons can of themselves be punished with censures ferendae sententiae, but commonly this is not fitting; and therefore the Salmanticenses say wittily:⁶³ "Prepubescent persons ought to be corrected by rods rather than by censures"; and the Code of Canon Law, c. 2230, establishes: "Prepubescent persons ... should be corrected by educative punishments rather than by censures or other graver vindicative penalties."

4. A subject.

To impose censures is an act of jurisdiction, as was said above. But no one can validly and licitly exercise jurisdiction except over his own subjects. Since these things are so, the following corollaries are inferred:

⁶² Cf. c. 6, C. 24, q. 2; c. 5, X 5, 7; Rit. Rom. tit. 3, c. 4.

⁶³ Tract. 10, de cens., c. 1, n. 168.

482. Corollaries. 1. No ecclesiastical superior incurs a censure imposed by himself. For no one can exercise jurisdiction over himself. Therefore the Supreme Pontiff, since he has no ecclesiastical superior, is bound by no censure. Similarly, by privilege (unless they are expressly named), Cardinals are comprehended under no penal law, nor are bishops under penalties latae sententiae of suspension and interdict.⁶⁴ Moreover, supreme rulers of peoples and their sons and daughters, and likewise those who have the right of immediate succession to the principality, can be judged or punished by no one except the Supreme Pontiff.⁶⁵ Therefore these are not subject to penalties or censures imposed by a bishop, but they are subject to censures established in the common law.

2. Travelers and subjects of another do not incur territorial censures to be incurred ipso facto. The reason is the same. But if travelers have committed a delict in another's territory, they can be punished with censures by the superior of that territory through a particular sentence. According to the discipline in force, however, such a delinquent traveler is customarily denounced to his own superior, so that he may be punished by him. It is evident of itself that a traveler who has obtained a quasi-domicile in some place is subject to the censures in force in that place. - Vagrants incur territorial censures, because they are bound by all the laws of the place where they are staying.⁶⁶

3. Those committing a delict outside the diocese do not incur censures imposed in their own diocese by a general and local statute. The reason is that territorial law does not bind outside the territory. But if a censure has been imposed by a special personal precept, it is then incurred even by one committing a delict outside the territory. Hence, for example, if a bishop by a general law prohibits all his clerics under penalty of suspension from frequenting a tavern or theater, clerics who engage in such frequenting outside the diocese do not incur that penalty; but if he has prohibited some determinate cleric by a particular precept from frequenting a tavern under penalty of suspension, such a cleric incurs this penalty even if he frequents taverns outside his own diocese. Thus the more probable opinion.⁶⁷

4. Exempt religious, since they are subject to the personal jurisdiction of their prelates, are subject to censures legitimately imposed by their own superiors wherever they may be.

5. Exempt religious are not subject to episcopal censures except in cases expressly determined by law, for example, in c. 616.⁶⁸

⁶⁴ Code of Canon Law, c. 2227.

⁶⁵ Ibid., c. 1557, § 1; c. 2227, § 1.

⁶⁶ Ibid., c. 14, § 2.

⁶⁷ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 7, n. 23.

⁶⁸ Cf. our Man. iur. can., q. 240 ff.

483. Scholion. On censures imposed upon moral persons or communities. According to the discipline in force, the following hold:

1. Interdict and suspension can be imposed upon an entire community, although there may be several innocent persons in it. The reason is that these penalties are customarily inflicted so that the entire community may be brought to better fruit. Moreover, these penalties are not so hard upon the innocent, nor is it certainly established whether in that case they are censures or vindicative penalties.

2. Excommunication cannot be imposed upon an entire community in which innocent persons are actually found.⁶⁹ The reason is that the goods of which excommunication deprives one are chiefly personal, and it is unjust to punish an innocent person personally.

⁶⁹ Cf. c. 5, V 11 in VI^o; Code of Canon Law, c. 2255.