§ 2. On The Conditions Required In Imposing Censures

480. For the imposing of censures, it is required on the part of the one imposing them:

1. That he be baptized; because one who is not himself a member of the Church is not capable of ecclesiastical jurisdiction.⁵⁷

2. That he be possessed of reason and have the will of imposing a true censure. This is evident of itself.

3. That he act freely and not under compulsion. It is not certain whether a censure imposed from grave fear is invalid,⁵⁸ since the Code, c. 103, § 2, establishes by a general rule: "Acts placed from grave fear unjustly inflicted are valid, unless something else is provided by law."

4. That he have jurisdiction unimpeded as regards its use.⁵⁹

5. That a warning precede.

For a censure is a medicinal penalty which is not imposed except upon the contumacious. But no one is considered contumacious unless he has first been warned of the penalty to be incurred in the event of transgression of a law or precept. Concerning this warning, the following matters are to be noted briefly: A twofold warning is distinguished, one legal or solemn, the other canonical. A legal warning is made by the law itself and has place in all censures imposed by law. For a known law which threatens transgressors with a censure is considered continually to warn subjects and to deter them from transgression. But if a subject nevertheless transgresses such a law, he is deservedly considered contumacious. - A canonical warning is made ab homine and has place in censures or penalties to be imposed ab homine; for example, such a warning is necessary before a bishop can suspend a disobedient and delinquent cleric. It is strongly counseled that an ecclesiastical superior, before proceeding to a canonical warning (which is already the beginning of a judicial process), endeavor to amend the subject through the so-called paternal warning. For it is fitting that a superior, imitating the example of the meek Christ, correct the delicts of his subjects first and preferably by paternal love rather than by strict justice. But because all untimely warnings do more harm than good, the superior should not make even a paternal warning unless he has first known with moral certainty the existence of the delict. But if the paternal warning has remained fruitless, one must proceed to the canonical warning, which ought to have the following qualities:

1. it ought to be made personally to the delinquent, or at least by letter;

2. it ought ordinarily to be threefold, with an interval of three days or at least two days, or one peremptory warning;

3. it ought to be registered in the chancery of the bishop or superior.⁶⁰

Note. The Holy Office observes:⁶¹ "Let the Ordinaries be altogether cautious and as sparing as possible with regard to penal sanctions, especially excommunications; for, as the Sacred Council of Trent wisely admonishes (sess. 25, de ref., c. 3): 'Although the sword of excommunication is the sinew of ecclesiastical discipline and is very salutary for containing the people in their duty, nevertheless it is to be employed soberly and with great circumspection, since experience teaches that, if it is inflicted rashly or for light matters, it is more despised than feared and produces ruin rather than salvation.'"

⁵⁷ Cf. St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.

⁵⁸ Cf. ibid., n. 12.

⁵⁹ Cf. what was said above in n. 473 concerning the author of ecclesiastical penalties.

⁶⁰ Cf. concerning all these matters the Code of Canon Law, cc. 2143; 2233, § 2; 2309; and the Pontifical Commission, July 14, 1922.

⁶¹ Instruction of July 13, 1916 (Act. Ap. Sed. VIII, 314).