Article I. On the Nature, Division, and Conditions of Censures

Censure is commonly defined: A spiritual and medicinal penalty, by which a baptized man, delinquent and contumacious, is deprived by ecclesiastical power of the use of certain spiritual goods. It is called 1°. a penalty, because it supposes fault; 2°. spiritual, both because it is brought by spiritual power for the spiritual utility of Christians, and because it takes away spiritual goods primarily and immediately, temporal goods only secondarily and mediately; 3°. medicinal, because regularly it is brought and ought to be brought for this end, that the soul may bring itself back to better fruit; nevertheless accidentally, when this is expedient, it is brought even against him of whose conversion there is despair; for although it is a medicine, it is also a penalty, and therefore, when the primary end of correction ceases, secondary ends are still obtained, namely that the guilty person be chastised and fear be instilled into others; 4°. a baptized man, because those who have not been baptized are not subject to the power of the Church; but power is exercised over subjects; 5°. delinquent and contumacious, because a penalty is inflicted only on a delinquent, but medicine ought not to be offered except to those whose contumacy needs such a remedy; 6°. he is deprived of the use of certain spiritual goods, namely of goods which fall under the power of the Church, such as public prayers, sacraments, etc. - Hence censure differs 1°. from deposition and degradation, which are not medicinal nor for a time, but only penal and perpetual; 2°. from irregularity, which can be contracted also on account of a mere defect of mind or body without any fault, and therefore of itself is not a penalty, but only a canonical impediment.

The Code gives nearly the same definition.

§ 1. Censure is a penalty by which a baptized man, delinquent and contumacious, is deprived of certain spiritual goods, or goods annexed to spiritual goods, until, withdrawing from contumacy, he is absolved.

§ 2. Let censures, especially latae sententiae, above all excommunication, not be inflicted except soberly and with great circumspection (Can. 2241).

Censures are distinguished in many ways, namely:

1°. Excommunication, suspension, interdict, concerning which we shall treat specifically. - Nevertheless it must be noted that excommunication is always a censure; but suspension and interdict take on the nature sometimes of a censure, sometimes of a vindicative penalty. But you will recognize that they are vindicative penalties both if they are brought on account of a merely past delict, and if they are inflicted perpetually, or even for a determinate time, for example for two or three months; for these things are a certain indication that not the amendment of the guilty person, but his punishment, is intended.

2°. § 1. Some censures are reserved, others non-reserved.

§ 2. A censure ab homine is reserved to him who inflicted the censure or pronounced the sentence, and to his competent Superior, or successor, or delegate; but of censures reserved a iure some are reserved to the Ordinary, others to the Apostolic See.

§ 3. Of those reserved to the Apostolic See, some are reserved simply, others in a special mode, others in a most special mode.

§ 4. A censure latae sententiae is not reserved unless this is expressly said in the law or precept; and in doubt whether of law or of fact, the reservation does not press (Can. 2245).

3°. Notorious or occult censures, according as it is publicly established that someone has incurred them on account of a fact which is so known that now it cannot any longer be concealed; or otherwise.

4°. Just or unjust censures; valid or invalid; according as the superior has consulted justice, truth, and law, or not, in imposing the censure.

The conditions required for the validity of censures are that the sin, on account of which it is inflicted, be mortal, external, consummated, not merely past, and that it be conjoined with contumacy.

§ 1. By censure only an external, grave, consummated delict, conjoined with contumacy, is punished; but censure can also be brought against unknown delinquents.

§ 2. If there is question of censures ferendae sententiae, he is contumacious who, notwithstanding the admonitions of which in can. 2233, § 2, does not desist from the delict or refuses to do penance for the perpetrated delict with due reparation of damages and scandal; but for incurring a censure latae sententiae the transgression of the law or precept to which a penalty latae sententiae is attached suffices, unless the guilty person is excused from this by a legitimate cause.

§ 3. Contumacy must be said to have ceased when the guilty person has truly repented of the committed delict and at the same time has given congruous satisfaction for damages and scandal, or at least has seriously promised it; but to judge whether the penance is true, whether the satisfaction is congruous or the promise of the same serious, or not, belongs to him from whom absolution from the censure is sought (Can. 2242).

Question 1. In what way is a censure latae sententiae discerned from a censure ferendae sententiae?

Resp. Generally a censure will be latae sententiae: 1°. if the words by which it is expressed exclude the action or ministry of any other, for example, if it is brought by these words: by the fact itself - by the law itself - by that very thing - without any other sentence; 2°. if the words are of the present or past time, for example, we excommunicate - we have excommunicated, etc.; 3°. if the words are of the imperative mode, for example, let him fall into excommunication - let him remain suspended - interdicted, etc.

But a censure must be held as ferendae sententiae: 1°. if the words by which it is brought demand the work and ministry of another, for example, let him be excommunicated by the Bishop; 2°. if they are only threatening, for example, we prescribe under threat of anathema, unless something else is gathered from the adjuncts; 3°. if they express future time, for example, he will be excommunicated - he will be excommunicated, etc. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 7 and 8.

Question 2. Must he be judged to have incurred a censure who doubts whether he has incurred it?

Resp. Negatively, whether he doubts whether he has gravely offended, or whether the case falls under the censure.

§ 1. In penalties the more benign interpretation must be made.

§ 2. But if it is doubted whether a penalty, inflicted by a competent Superior, is just or not, the penalty must be observed in both forums, except the case of an appeal in suspensive effect (Can. 2219).

Question 3. Is someone bound by a censure which he knows to be manifestly unjust?

Resp. Negatively, whether the superior, relying on a false presumption, has condemned an innocent man as guilty, or whether he has omitted legal forms, or has exceeded the limits of jurisdiction. Nevertheless the danger of hallucination in one's own cause must be carefully avoided; and if it is not publicly established that the censure is null, this must altogether be observed in order to avoid scandal. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 68.

Question 4. Does ignorance excuse from censure?

Resp. Ignorance of fact certainly excuses, namely when someone does not know that he is placing an act prohibited under censure. Thus, for example, if someone strikes a priest, thinking him to be a layman, he does not incur the censure brought against strikers of clerics, and the reason is that the censure ought to be known to the sinner, so that he may be contumacious. - Ignorance of ecclesiastical law prescribing or prohibiting something under censure also excuses. This is clear from the same reason just given; for he cannot be called contumacious against the Church who does not know her law, as is clear from canon law, in VI°, lib. 1, tit. 2, de Constit., cap. 2, where it is said: "We do not will the ignorant to be bound, provided nevertheless that the ignorance was not crass or supine." - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 43 and following; Can. 2242, § 2.

Question 5. Does vincible ignorance excuse from censure?

Resp. Affected ignorance excuses from none. If the law has the words: has presumed, has dared, any diminishment of imputability excuses. If the law does not have those words, crass or supine ignorance does not excuse; but that which is not crass or supine excuses. - Cf. Can. 2229.

Question 6. Does grave fear excuse from censure?

Resp. Affirmatively, speaking generally, and the reason is that ecclesiastical penal laws do not seem to press with such rigor; for since ecclesiastical laws themselves, if very grave fear presses, cease to oblige, the penalty itself annexed to them must necessarily fall.

§ 3. Grave fear, if the delict inclines toward contempt of the faith or of ecclesiastical authority or toward public harm of souls, in no way exempts from penalties latae sententiae (Can. 2229, n. 3). - Cf. Can. 2205.

Question 7. Is it required that admonition of the delinquent precede the censure?

Resp. No admonition is required for censures brought a iure, because the law itself, brought and known, sufficiently admonishes subjects.

§ 1. No penalty can be inflicted unless it is certainly established that the delict has been committed and has not been legitimately prescribed.

§ 2. Although this is legitimately established, if there is question of inflicting a censure, let the guilty person be reprehended and admonished to withdraw from contumacy according to the norm of can. 2242, § 3, with a congruous time for returning to his right mind being given, if in the prudent judgment of the same judge or Superior the case bears this; if contumacy persists, the censure can be inflicted (Can. 2233).¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1106, n. 48.

Question 8. Does he incur a censure if it repents him of the fact which he placed before the consummation, or before the effect follows?

Resp. He does not incur it if he was able to prevent the effect and did prevent it. But if he was not able to prevent the effect, although he tried, it is controverted: those affirming say that contumacy is in this, that someone knowingly and willingly violated the law, nor does contrition impede the effect. But others deny it, because the censure is brought against the contumacious; but this man, when the effect actually follows, is not contumacious; therefore censure cannot be brought upon him; concerning which opinion D'Annibale, n. 333, says: "Which either is the truer, for to what purpose is medicine when the disease has been healed? Or it is the more equitable." And in a note, applying this opinion, which from St. Alphonsus he made his own, he says: "As, behold, if he gave an abortive to a girl, or to someone counsel, a mandate of killing; and before she expelled, or this one killed, it repented him of the fact." - Cf. Ferreres, 8°, n. 1189, 3°.