Section — Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis
§ 1. On Causes Excusing From The Incurrence Of Censure
Five excusing causes are customarily enumerated:
486. 1. Nullity of the censure, which, however, cannot be an excusing cause except in censures imposed ab homine.
Thus, at least, according to modern discipline. For censures imposed by a pontifical law are always valid; other censures imposed by law are customarily just and valid. - A censure imposed ab homine is null: a) from a defect of jurisdiction in the one imposing the censure, for example, if a bishop were illegitimately to impose a censure upon an exempt regular; b) from a defect of the substantial order of judgment; thus, for example, a superior would invalidly impose a censure if the canonical warning had not preceded;80 c) from a defect of a just cause. But a just cause is lacking not only when it does not actually exist, but also when it has not been legitimately proved. Thus, for example, an excommunication imposed on account of a false or even a light crime is invalid.
- A defect on the part of the sin.
Therefore, if the sin is not internally and externally grave, consummated, and joined with contumacy, the censure is not incurred, as was already said in the preceding article.
- Physical or moral inability.
For censures are imposed by ecclesiastical law. But an ecclesiastical law ceases when inability arises. Hence, for example, one who in good faith usurped ecclesiastical goods and afterward lost them is not bound under censure to restore these goods if this is morally impossible. Thus, at least, in the internal forum.
80 Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 7, n. 53; Code of Canon Law, c. 2233, § 2.
487. 4. Grave fear excuses from censure whenever it excuses from observing an ecclesiastical law.
The reason is that one who transgresses a law from grave fear does not act from contempt or contumacy, as is evident. But without contumacy there is no censure properly so called. If, however, the delict tends to contempt of the faith or of ecclesiastical authority, or to public harm of souls, grave fear in no way exempts from censures (and other penalties latae sententiae).81 It is disputed whether one who from grave fear perpetrates an act gravely evil by the natural law itself incurs a censure; for example, whether a girl who procures an abortion for herself from grave fear of her father is excommunicated. The negative opinion, although it is not certain, as Cappello, De cens., n. 61, for example, maintains, nevertheless appears probable. - Even light fear excuses from a censure which is imposed against those who do something "rashly, with rash audacity, voluntarily," and so forth. For in these cases it is required that the prohibited action be done entirely motu proprio, so that any diminution of imputability excuses.
81 Code of Canon Law, c. 2229, § 3, n. 3.
488. 5. Ignorance. a) From censures (or other ecclesiastical penalties latae sententiae) which are imposed upon those doing something "knowingly, deliberately, with deliberation, rashly, with rash audacity, with presumption," crass or supine ignorance excuses (but not affected ignorance);82 b) from other censures, crass or supine ignorance does not excuse.83
It was said above in the preceding article that a censure is not incurred unless contumacy or contempt is present in the sinner. But contempt of a law is impossible in one who is ignorant of the law. Therefore, for incurring a censure, it is required that the sinner know not only the general prohibition but also the special ecclesiastical law prohibiting the act (at least substantially). It is not necessary, however, that the sinner know all the accidental determinations of the prohibiting law, for example, the reservation of the censure. Thus the far more common and truer opinion.84
That crass or supine ignorance excuses in the cases enumerated under letter a) is evident from the fact that in that case, strictly speaking, there is neither rash audacity nor gravely culpable presumption.
That ignorance which is not crass, as being inculpable or lightly culpable, excuses from other censures manifestly follows from what was said about the contumacy or contempt necessary for incurring censures.
82 Code of Canon Law, c. 2229, §§ 1 and 2.
83 From vindicative penalties latae sententiae, only inculpable ignorance excuses (Code of Canon Law, cc. 2202 and 2229, § 3, n. 1). Drunkenness, omission of due diligence, weakness of mind, and the impulse of passion, if, notwithstanding the diminution of imputability, the action is still gravely culpable, do not excuse from penalties latae sententiae (Code of Canon Law, ibid.).
84 Cf. Cappello, De censuris2, n. 72.