Chapter XVII: Reserved Cases

IN the Sacrament of Penance a priest forgives sin committed after Baptism by a judicial sentence; “I absolve thee from thy sins,’” he says to the penitent. In other words, the priest is a judge in the internal tribunal of the Sacrament of Penance. But a judge must have jurisdiction or authority not only over the delinquent, but over the particular case which is in question if his sentence is to be effective. The jurisdiction of inferior judges is limited to ordinary and common cases. Magistrates can deal with cases of assault and battery, but if a case of murder is brought before them, they commit it to the assizes. For good reasons the Church has imitated this method of procedure of the civil courts. The jurisdiction of the inferior clergy in the tribunal of penance is limited to ordinary and common cases. More difficult cases which require special knowledge or special treatment are reserved to the higher ecclesiastical tribunals, where, it is presumed, they will be treated with the skill and tact which they require. Such cases are known in moral theology and canon law as Reserved Cases, and the new Code of Canon Law has much to say about them.

Confessors, of course, should be familiar with the Catholic doctrine concerning reserved cases, but it is the wish of the Church that the laity should also be acquainted with it. One of the objects aimed at by the reservation of cases is to deter Catholics from committing them, and this object cannot be attained in any full measure unless they know what they are. I propose, then, to give briefly and clearly the common doctrine about reserved cases in the Catholic Church. In this chapter I propose to treat of the matter in general; in the sections which follow I will treat of particular cases.

The Holy See uses its authority to reserve about thirty cases to itself. Of these some are most specially reserved, others are specially reserved, and others again simply reserved. About ten more cases are reserved to Bishops either by the Holy See or by Provincial law. Besides these, Bishops commonly reserve two or three other cases to themselves by their own authority.

All cases reserved by the Holy See and some cases reserved by Bishops have a censure of excommunication, suspension, or interdict annexed to them. It is the absolution of the censure which is reserved primarily, and when on account of ignorance or for any other reason the censure has not been incurred, or when absolution from it has been obtained, the reservation of the sin ceases, and any confessor may absolve it. An exception to this rule is the sin of false accusation of solicitation brought against a confessor, which remains reserved to the Holy See, although the censure annexed to it may not have been incurred in some particular case, or may have been absolved.

The Church intends her discipline to help towards the sanctification and salvation of souls. On this account she tempers her reservation of cases by a wise leniency when it would be an obstacle rather than a help towards the end which she has in view. Accordingly there is no reservation of sins or censures when the penitent is in danger of death. In such a case any priest has the fullest faculties to grant absolution for all sins and censures, but if the sick person recovers and was absolved by an ordinary priest from a censure inflicted on him personally, or from one most specially reserved to the Holy See, he is bound afterwards to submit his case to him who inflicted the censure, or to the Holy See, or to some confessor who has special faculties for it, and obey the commands imposed on him. If he does not do this he falls again under the same censure.

Moreover, when it is necessary for a penitent to receive absolution in order to avoid scandal, or loss of reputation, or because he has to make his Easter duties, or for similar reasons, or because he finds it hard to remain any longer in a state of sin, he may be absolved at once by any confessor from any reserved case, but subsequently he must submit his case within a month to the proper authorities, or to a confessor who has special faculties for it.

All reservation of sins ceases in several cases mentioned by the new Code. It ceases when the sick who cannot leave the house make their confession, and when confession is made by those who are about to marry with a view to marriage. If special faculties cannot be asked for from the superior without serious inconvenience to the penitent or without danger of violating the seal of confession, a reserved sin may be absolved by an ordinary confessor. If a penitent has incurred a Bishop’s reserved case in one diocese, but knows that in a neighbouring diocese the case is not reserved, nothing prevents him from making his confession to a priest in the latter diocese and obtaining absolution from his reserved sin. Every Catholic has the fullest liberty to go to confession to any priest who has faculties in the place, and such a priest can absolve from all sins to which his jurisdiction extends. Not only the Bishop, but the Vicar-General and the Canon Penitentiary can absolve from all Bishop’s cases. Deans can also do the same, and they should be empowered to grant faculties to other priests for a reserved case on request.

Parish priests can absolve from Bishop's cases during the time allowed for making the Easter duties, and missionaries can do the same whilst a mission is being given by them to the people.

When a penitent confesses a reserved sin the confessor will put certain questions to assure himself whether the reservation was incurred or not. If it was incurred and if it does not come under one of the preceding heads, he will tell the penitent to go to someone who has special faculties for the case, or if the penitent desires it and can wait for absolution, the confessor will tell him to come again, and in the meantime he will obtain special faculties to deal with the case.

One who comes to the knowledge of anything concerning another which is not public and which cannot be made known without doing him an injury or causing him reasonable displeasure is bound to keep the matter secret. If he does not keep it secret he commits a sin by violating justice and charity. For justice and charity bind us to do nothing to the hurt or reasonable displeasure of our neighbour. After becoming aware of the secret a person may promise him whose secret it is not to reveal it. He will then be bound to keep the matter secret by the additional obligation of a promise. Sometimes people consult others about their secret affairs in order to obtain their advice and help. In such cases, whether an express stipulation to observe secrecy is made or not, the person consulted is bound by the strictest natural secret not to betray the trust placed in him.

When a penitent goes to confession and makes known his sins to the priest he is driven thereto by divine command and by his desire to receive absolution. He makes known his sins as an act of religion, and his self-manifestation is protected by the virtue of religion. The improper use of knowledge of matter connected with confession is the violation of a secret of a special character; it is a sin of sacrilege. Priests, then, and all others who in any way come to the knowledge of what has been confessed in the Sacrament of Penance, are by the very nature of things bound by a religious obligation to keep the matter secret. This is the strictest of all secrets, and it is called the seal of confession.

For centuries no positive law of the Church was required to oblige the faithful either to go to Holy Communion or to go to confession when it was necessary. Custom and the desire to receive the Sacraments was sufficient in general to keep them to their duty. The Fourth Council of the Lateran, held in 1215, made a law which obliged all who had come to years of discretion to go to confession and to receive Holy Communion at least once a year, and that at Easter or thereabouts. To this law the Council added these words: “Moreover, let the confessor take care in no wise to betray the sinner, either by word, or sign, or in any other way, but if he needs more prudent advice let him ask it with caution, without any manifestation of the person concerned, since we decree that one who presumes to reveal a sin made known to him in the tribunal of penance, is not only to be deposed from the priestly office, but is also to be placed in a strict monastery, there to do perpetual penance.” The law was not new, but the penalty for violating the law was a new one. It was intended to reassure the penitent and to help him to make a full confession to his priest without any fear of an improper use being made of his confession.

The new Code of Canon Law has made the law more explicit and has changed somewhat the penalty for its violation. According to Canon 889: “The sacramental seal is inviolable, wherefore let the confessor take diligent care lest by word, or sign, or in any other way, he betray the sinner in any wise for any reason whatever. An interpreter also and all others to whom knowledge derived from confession may come in any way are bound by the obligation of keeping the sacramental seal.” The new penalties for violating the seal of confession are enacted in Canon 2369:

“Excommunication most specially reserved to the Holy See awaits the confessor who presumes to violate directly the sacramental seal. One who does this only indirectly is liable to suspension from saying Mass, hearing confessions,” and other penalties.

We have seen before what is implied by excommunication most specially reserved to the Holy See. In order to incur this excommunication by the very fact a confessor must act presumptuously, that is, with full consciousness of what he is doing and with full knowledge of the censure incurred. This censure is inflicted for direct violation of the seal. Direct is distinguished from indirect violation. A confessor violates the seal directly if he makes known the penitent who has told him something connected with confession which he also makes known. If he makes known something which is protected by the seal of confession and indicates something which may lead to the betrayal of the penitent, he is guilty of indirect violation of the seal. One who is only guilty of indirect violation of the seal does not incur excommunication or any penalty by the very fact. But one who has been convicted of the crime should be suspended from saying Mass and from hearing confessions, or also, according to the gravity of the offence, be declared incapable of hearing them; he should be deprived of all benefices, dignities, of active and passive voice, and he should be declared incapable of such privileges, and in more serious cases he should be degraded.

Only confessors incur these severe penalties for the crime of direct or indirect violation of the seal of confession. But interpreters may have been made use of in order to make a full confession. Theologians may be consulted about some difficult case. Superiors are asked for special faculties in order that absolution may be given for some reserved case. Sometimes a person who was near the confessional when a penitent was confessing his sins may have overheard something that was said. All these are also bound to secrecy by the sacramental seal, and anybody else who in any way becomes possessed of knowledge protected by the seal of confession. If any such person violates the obligation under which he lies, he is not subject to the severe penalties inflicted on confessors who may have been guilty of the same crime. But Canon 2369 prescribes that he should be punished by the infliction of salutary penalties, which may be excommunication, according to the gravity of the offence.

While the Protestant Reformation was being hatched in Germany grave religious and moral disorders were not unknown even in Italy. At the beginning of the sixteenth century an official of the Holy Office in Lombardy reported to the Holy See that many men and women in that province openly abandoned the Christian religion and adopted Satan for their lord and patron. They used spells and practised magical arts for the destruction of cattle and the fruits of the earth. They abused the Christian Sacraments, and especially the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar. The official complained that not only laymen, but ecclesiastics also, denied that he had authority to deal with such cases. He therefore requested the Pope to declare and confirm his authority to punish such crimes and excesses. This was done by the issue of a Brief by Pope Julius II. The authority conferred by this Brief was extended to the officials of the Holy Office in other provinces of Italy by Pope Adrian VI in 1522. In 1677 complaints were made that consecrated Hosts were stolen and then kept or given to others for an evil purpose. The spiritual penalties inflicted for such offences by the officials of the Holy Office were found to be insufficient to prevent them, and Innocent XI ordered such as had been proved guilty of such crimes by the Holy Office to be handed over to the secular arm to be dealt with by the more rigorous methods of secular justice. Alexander VIII, Benedict XIV, and Clement XIII found it necessary to repeat the injunctions of their predecessors in this matter, and to make them more clear and precise.

Abuse of the Blessed Sacrament is not unknown even in our days, but the Church cannot avail herself of the secular arm for the punishment and suppression of such spiritual offences. And yet it was well that she should show her horror of such crimes in the new Code of Canon Law. This she has done in Canon 2320, which may be translated as follows:

“Anyone who throws away the consecrated elements, or takes them away or retains them for an evil purpose, is suspected of heresy, incurs at once excommunication most specially reserved to the Holy See, is ipso facto infamous, and if a cleric he must be deposed.”

The severity of the penalties inflicted by this Canon shows how grievously in the eyes of the Church are all serious sins committed against the Blessed Sacrament. Still, the only crimes which are expressly punished by the Canon are the throwing away of the consecrated species, or the taking of them away or the retaining of them for a bad purpose. One has heard of the Blessed Sacrament being found on the floor of the church; someone must have thrown it there. Again, one has heard of the Blessed Sacrament being taken home in the handkerchief, and kept there. It could not have been taken or kept for a good purpose. Such abuses of the Blessed Sacrament as those actions contain are expressly penalized by the Canon. Persons who have committed any of these actions are declared in the first place to be suspected of heresy. The term, like those which follow, is technical, and is explained in Canon 2315. There it is laid down that one who is suspected of heresy, and who does not remove the cause of suspicion after being admonished, is excluded from acting in the ecclesiastical courts, from the administration of Church property, from the office of sponsor in baptism or confirmation, from voting in ecclesiastical elections, and exercising the rights of patronage. Moreover, if he is a cleric, after admonition has been repeated without fruit, he is to be suspended from divine offices, so that he can neither administer the sacraments nor preach. Finally, if, after being suspected of heresy for six months, he has not amended, he becomes obnoxious to the penalties of heresy and is to be treated as a heretic.

One who has been guilty of any of the crimes mentioned above incurs by the very fact excommunication most specially reserved to the Holy See. This implies that he cannot be absolved by anyone else without very special faculties. In danger of death, indeed, he may be absolved by any priest, but if he recovers he is bound to have recourse to the Sacred Penitentiary under pain of falling again under the same censure.

The Canon declares anyone who has been guilty of any of the above crimes to be infamous with the infamy of law. It declares him to have lost all reputation which he enjoyed before, and by ecclesiastical law he becomes subject to many disabilities. He is irregular, disqualified for ecclesiastical benefices, pensions, offices, dignities; after sentence of the court he cannot vote in canonical elections, nor act as sponsor in baptism or confirmation. He cannot exercise the right of patronage, he is not admitted to appear as a witness in an ecclesiastical trial, nor as an expert or arbiter; if the infamy is publicly known he ought to be refused Holy Communion.

Finally, if the delinquent is a cleric, he must be deposed. By deposition a cleric is permanently deprived of all offices, benefices, dignities, pensions, and functions in the Church and becomes incapable of acquiring them in future. But he is not deprived of the clerical privileges nor reduced to the state of a layman, and he remains subject to the obligations of celibacy and the recitation of the divine Office.

What has been dedicated in a special manner to the service of God belongs to him in a special manner, and should be treated with reverence and respect. The reverence and respect which is due in the first place to God is transferred in some measure to what has been dedicated to him. It is right and proper to treat churches with reverence for the sake of him to whom they are dedicated. Persons and places which have been dedicated to the service of God by lawful authority are called sacred. The Catholic Church uses special rites when she dedicates persons and places to the service of God. These are either consecrations, in which holy oil is used, or constitutive blessings, in which holy oil is not used. Clerics are dedicated to the service of God by the tonsure, and thereby they become sacred persons, to be treated with reverence by the faithful, as Canon 119 declares. The same Canon declares that those who inflict a real injury on clerics are guilty of sacrilege. Religious are dedicated to the service of God by the profession of the evangelical counsels; they thereby become sacred persons, and personal sacrilege is committed by inflicting any real injury on them.

This was understood by the faithful in the earliest ages of the Church. Crimes of violence committed against the clergy and religious had a special heinousness attached to them. In the Penitential Book attributed to St Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury, towards the close of the seventh century, we read: “If a layman kills another layman out of hatred and does not wish to lay aside his arms, let him do penance for seven years, three without flesh-meat and wine.” If anyone killed a cleric or monk the laying aside of his arms was no longer optional. The next decree of the same penitential prescribed that he should do that, and, moreover, enter a monastery or do penance for seven years.

In the twelfth century would-be reformers, like Arnold of Brescia, excited great hostility against clerics and monks by denying their right to own property. Crimes of violence against them increased, and Innocent II, in the Second Council of the Lateran, not only condemned Arnold of Brescia, but made a celebrated law for the protection of clerics and religious which came to be known as the privilege of the Canon. As far as concerns our present purpose, this law enacted that if anyone at the instigation of the devil incurred the guilt of sacrilege by laying violent hands on a cleric or monk, he was by the very fact excommunicated. This law was maintained in its rigour until the issue of the new Code. Notorious breakers of it derived no advantage from the mitigation of the effects of excommunication introduced by Pope Martin V. The absolution of the old censure was simply reserved to the Pope. The new Code increases its rigour as far as the higher clergy are concerned; as far as regards the lower clergy and religious, its rigour is somewhat mitigated. It will be well to give a translation of the new law as it stands in Canon 2343:

Section 1.—Anyone who lays violent hands on the person of the Roman Pontiff:

(1) Incurs excommunication by the very fact reserved in a most special manner to the Holy See, and by the very fact he is to be avoided as excommunicate.

(2) He is infamous by law.

(3) If he is a cleric he is to be degraded.

Section 2.—Anyone who lays violent hands on the person of a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church or a Legate of the Roman Pontiff:

(1) Incurs by the very fact excommunication in a special manner reserved to the Holy See.

(2) He is infamous by law.

(3) Let him be deprived of benefices, offices, dignities, pensions, and any post which he may have held in the Church.

Section 3.—Anyone who lays violent hands on the person of a Patriarch, Archbishop, Bishop, even though only titular, incurs excommunication by the very fact specially reserved to the Holy See.

Section 4.—Anyone who lays violent hands on the person of other clerics or of religious of either sex incurs by the very fact excommunication reserved to his own Ordinary, who besides according to his prudence should punish him with other penalties if the case require it.

By way of explanation it will be sufficient to say a word or two on some of the technical terms employed in this Canon.

To lay violent hands upon a cleric means any external and grievously sinful action which in any way injures the person, the liberty or the dignity of the cleric. The person is thus injured by killing, wounding, beating, or knocking down. The cleric’s liberty is injured by unlawful imprisonment or detention against his will, even in a private place. His dignity is thus injured by knocking off his hat, by spitting on him, by tearing his clothes. The phrase signifies an injurious action, not mere words or threats. However, as the examples given sufficiently indicate, it is not necessary that a physically serious - injury should be inflicted on a cleric in order that the censure may be incurred. It will be sufficient if it is an action which is seriously contrary to the reverence and respect due to the cleric or religious and unjustly inflicted on him.

It will be noticed that the censure which protects the personal inviolability of the Roman Pontiff is most specially reserved to the Holy See, while that which protects Cardinals, Archbishops, and Bishops is specially reserved to the Holy See, and that which protects the inferior clergy and religious, even novices, lay brothers, and lay sisters, is reserved to their own Ordinary. In the case of religious men this will be their own higher Superior.

On a former occasion we have seen what is implied by infamy of law.

In general, in order that an excommunicated person must be avoided by the faithful, he must be excommunicated by name and by the Holy See, the excommunication must be made public, and in the decree it must be said expressly that he is to be avoided. These conditions are not required in the case of one who has laid violent hands on the Roman Pontiff. He is to be avoided by all who are aware of his crime.

There are several cases of censures most specially reserved to the Holy See incurred by those who violate certain regulations made by the Church for the holding of papal elections. My readers are not likely to be called upon to take part in papal elections, and so they are not likely to incur any of these cases. Still, whatever concerns the Head of the Church has an interest for Catholics, and so I have no hesitation in saying something about this subject here.

The Church jealously guards her liberty in the appointment of a new Pontiff to fill the chair of St Peter. At the beginning of the seventeenth century the Catholic governments of Spain, Austria, and France began to claim the right of Veto or Exclusion. By this they claimed the right to exclude any particular Cardinal who might be obnoxious to them from election to the Papacy. There are several instances on record in which Spain, Austria, or France exercised this so-called right during the seventeenth and subsequent centuries. The Church never admitted the right, though she may have deferred to it at times from motives of prudence. Gregory XV, by a Bull issued in 1621, bade the Cardinals perform their duty in the election of a new Pope irrespective of what civil authorities might say or do. Subsequent Pontiffs repeated the injunctions, but what happened in the Conclave of 1903 when Pius X was elected seemed to call for more drastic measures than had been adopted hitherto. It appeared likely that Cardinal Rampolla would be elected to succeed Leo XIII, but at a critical moment an Austrian Cardinal arose in the Conclave and announced to the Cardinals that such an election would be displeasing to the Austrian Emperor. It was suspected that a non-Catholic sovereign was pulling the wires behind the scenes, and this made the incident all the more intolerable.

Before the end of the first year of his Pontificate Pius X issued the Constitution which will make any attempt of any civil power to interfere in papal elections by means of the Veto highly improbable. The two countries concerned in this last attempt to exercise the Veto are now Republics, and are not likely to put forward any claim to exercise it in future. However, the Constitution of Pius X has been inserted in the new Code of Canon Law, and thus is part of the law of the Catholic Church. The operative clause may be translated as follows:

“In virtue of holy obedience, under threat of the divine judgement and under pain of excommunication to be incurred forthwith and most specially reserved to the future Pontiff, we prohibit each and all of the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, both present and future, the Secretary of the Sacred College, and all others who take part in the Conclave, to receive the Veto or Exclusion under any pretext from any civil power whatever, even if it is to be proposed under the form of a simple desire, or to manifest this Veto in whatever way it is known to them, either to the whole College of Cardinals, gathered together, or to the Cardinals singly, either in writing or by word of mouth, directly in person or indirectly through others. And this prohibition we extend to all the abovementioned interventions, intercessions, and all other ways in which lay powers of whatever degree or order may desire to meddle in papal elections.”

To make the exercise of the Veto still more difficult all Cardinals now promise on oath to comply with the requirements of the Constitution of Pius X. It is not likely, then, that any future Conclave will be disturbed by the exercise of the Veto of any civil power.

About a year after the issue of the Constitution of Pius X which we have been discussing, the same Pontiff published another Constitution, which modernized and codified the Church’s legislation about papal elections. It contains eight other censures of excommunication most specially reserved to the Holy See inflicted on those who may be guilty of violating its provisions. During the Conclave a bell is rung twice a day, morning and evening, to call the Cardinals to the place of voting. If any Cardinal, not prevented by sickness, fail to go to the appointed place at the sound of the bell, he incurs excommunication.

No letters or printed or written documents may be sent either to those who are in the Conclave or from them to people outside, without first being examined by Prelates designated for the purpose. Anyone who violates this law incurs excommunication. An oath of secrecy is taken by all who are in the Conclave, and anyone who violates it is ipso facto excommunicated. The same penalty is inflicted on Cardinals who tell their servants or anybody else secrets concerning the voting or what has been done in their general meetings. The crime of simony in the election is punished by the same penalty. During the lifetime of a Pope it is forbidden without consulting him to treat of the election of a successor, and anyone who does this, even though he be a Cardinal, is ipso facto excommunicated. According to the law of the Church, all pacts, conventions, and agreements by which any Cardinals strive to bind each other to give or not to give their vote to particular persons or groups are null and void, and such attempts are punished by excommunication. As soon as a Cardinal accepts the supreme Pontificate after a valid election he becomes Pope with full jurisdiction by right divine. Anyone who impugns the authority of letters which may be issued by him before he is crowned is punished by excommunication.

The Catholic Church is the union, the society of all the faithful, of all those who believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ and recognize him and his Vicar as their head. Faith, then, is an essential condition of membership of the society founded by Jesus Christ. “He that believeth not shall be condemned.’ “Without faith it is impossible to please God.” But this divine society, like every other corporation or union, has a head, who is none other than its Founder, Jesus Christ. Moreover, as the Church militant on earth is a visible society, Christ gave it a visible head to rule it in his name and by his authority. This Vicar of Christ is the Pope; there is no other claimant for the office. A member of the Church, then, must be subject to the Pope. If anyone refuses to be subject to the head of the society to which he belongs, he becomes a rebel, and is cut off from membership by his own act. “If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican,” said our Lord. On these principles, heretics, apostates, and schismatics have always been considered as branches cut off from the mystical vine, from the Church, and from Christ by their own act. St Paul wrote to Titus: “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid. Knowing that he that is such an one is subverted and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgement.’ The same Apostle wrote to Timothy that he had delivered certain heretics up to Satan, that they might learn not to blaspheme. He told the Corinthians that those who made schisms in the Church acted as if they would divide Christ. They strove to divide his mystical body, the Church.

The Church has always considered heretics, apostates, and schismatics as excommunicated persons, but her discipline with regard to them has varied somewhat in minor details from age to age. Here I consider them as persons who have incurred a censure which is specially reserved to the Holy See by the new Code. According to Canon 1325:

“A heretic is one who, after receiving baptism and still retaining the name of a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any article which has to be believed by divine and Catholic faith.”

“One who altogether abandons the Catholic faith is an apostate.’

“A schismatic is one who refuses to be subject to the Supreme Pontiff or refuses to communicate with the members of the Church subject to him.”

In order, then, to incur the guilt of heresy, a baptized person must deny or positively doubt some doctrine which has been revealed by God and which is proposed by the Catholic Church as an article of divine faith. He must do this pertinaciously; that is, he must know that the doctrine in question is proposed by the Church as an article of divine faith and yet obstinately cling to his own opinion. One who through ignorance denies or doubts an article of the faith is not a heretic in the strict sense; he is a material, not a formal, heretic.

An apostate has altogether discarded the teaching of the Catholic Church, whether he has joined any other religious body or not.

A schismatic is one who refuses to be subject to the head of the Church or who refuses to communicate with those who are subject to him. He is not merely disobedient to an authority which he recognizes; he refuses to recognize the authority. To incur the penalties, formal schism is required; merely material schism is not sufficient.

The penalties incurred by apostates, heretics, and schismatics according to the new Code are laid down in Canon 2314. Besides other penalties, on which we need not dwell here, they incur by the very fact excommunication; and the absolution of this censure is in general specially reserved to the Holy See. Then follows a paragraph in the Code which throws light on the procedure followed in the reception of a convert into the Church from heresy or schism. In her external government, when non-Catholics ask to be received into the Church, she presumes that they have fallen under this excommunication. She knows nothing of their good faith in her external tribunal. But, in spite of the censure being specially reserved to the Holy See, if a case is brought in any way, even by voluntary confession, as in the case of a convert, before the local Ordinary, either he or his delegate is empowered to deal with it. He should receive the abjuration of heresy to be made by the convert according to law before the local Ordinary or his delegate and two witnesses, and observe whatever else is prescribed for the case. He or his delegate may then grant absolution in the external tribunal from the censure of excommunication; and after such absolution any confessor, even without special faculties, is empowered to give absolution for the sin of heresy or schism or apostasy, if any such sin has been committed by the convert.

This will explain why the leave of the Bishop should be required for the reception of a convert into the Church. An additional reason for such leave being required is because converts are usually adults, and Canon 744 prescribes that the baptism of adults is to be notified to the Bishop, so that if he chooses, in person or by his delegate, the baptism may be performed with greater solemnity. Most converts in this country at least are baptized conditionally when they are received into the Church on account of prudent doubt concerning their previous baptism.

Common sense, as well as the teaching of the Church, tells us that it is wrong without good reason to put ourselves in the proximate occasion of committing sin. We very soon learn that the reading of bad books is a proximate occasion of sin. If we want a healthy body we must give it healthy food; and if we want a healthy mind, healthy food must be given to it, too. Impure literature is bad for the soul, and so is infidel and heretical literature. Balmes, the well-known Spanish writer of the last century, was obliged to read many infidel and heretical books in order to defend Catholic doctrine from their attacks. He found that such reading had a bad effect on him; it left a bad taste in the mouth, which he used to counteract by reading a chapter of the Imitation of Christ.

It is the duty of the Catholic Church to guide and instruct her children in all that concerns faith and morals. She is the Shepherd of our souls, and it is her right and duty to provide us with healthy food for our souls and to warn us to avoid unhealthy pastures. One of the ways in which she has done this from very early times is by prohibiting bad books against faith or morals. In the new Code of Canon Law the regulations on the subject which have been made from time to time are codified. A dozen canons, some of them containing many subsections, are devoted to the subject. We are told that not only the Pope can prohibit books for the whole Church, but that particular synods, local Ordinaries, and Religious Prelates with the Chapters may do the same for their own subjects.

When a book has been condemned by the Holy See, all translations of it into other languages are also forbidden. A number of general rules are laid down forbidding certain kinds of books in general, but particular books are often condemned by name. This usually happens because someone has denounced such books to ecclesiastical authority as being dangerous to faith or morals. When a book has been prohibited, it is thereby forbidden to publish, read, keep, sell, translate, or in any way to give it to others without leave. Leave for reading and keeping forbidden books may be obtained from the Holy See by those who need it. Local Ordinaries can give particular leave to read and keep a book for good reason to their subjects, and sometimes they receive more ample faculties from the Holy See.

Like other laws of the Church, the laws about forbidden books bind under pain of mortal sin in grave matter, but no special penalty is incurred by transgressors except in the cases mentioned in Canon 2318. That Canon may be translated thus:

“The publishers of the books of apostates, heretics, and schismatics which propound apostasy, heresy, and schism ipso facto incur excommunication specially reserved to the Holy See, as also do those who defend or knowingly without proper leave read or retain the same books, or others prohibited by name by apostolic letters.

“Authors and publishers who procure the printing of books of Holy Scripture or of notes and commentaries on them without proper leave by the very fact incur excommunication reserved to no one.”

It is obvious that no very large class of books is prohibited under pain of incurring this censure. Only those books come under it which propound apostasy, heresy, or schism, and which are written by apostates, heretics, or schismatics. A book which does not propound apostasy, heresy, or schism, though written by an apostate, heretic, or schismatic, is not included under the censure, nor is a book which propounds apostasy, heresy, or schism, but which was written by an infidel. To propound apostasy, heresy, or schism is to maintain and defend it by advancing reasons in its behalf. A merely incidental heresy occurring in a book written by an apostate, heretic, or schismatic would not bring the book under the censure.

Not only the publishers of such books, but also those who defend them or who, knowing that they are forbidden under pain of censure, read or keep them without the required permission, incur excommunication.

Books are condemned by this Canon, not newspapers or articles in magazines, even though they defend heresy or schism and are written by heretics. A few books have been condemned by name, and the faithful have been forbidden to read them under pain of incurring excommunication, by Letters or Briefs or Bulls of the Pope himself. As examples may be mentioned Fénélon’s Explanation of the Maxims of the Saints, and the Spiritual Guide, by Molinos. These books are included under Canon 2318. A Catholic who desires to publish any portion of Holy Scripture or notes or commentaries on Holy Scripture must obtain permission to do so from the Bishop. Authors and publishers who neglect to do this and who have such productions printed incur excommunication, but any approved confessor can absolve them from the censure on repentance.

The Church forbids Catholics to join secret societies. “Let the faithful avoid,” says Canon 684, “secret, condemned, seditious, suspect societies, and those which strive to withdraw themselves from the lawful vigilance of the Church.” If an organized body strive to conceal by the cloak of secrecy its members, its aims and object, and the means which it employs, the presumption is that it is organized against the public good. “Every one that hath evil hateth the light and cometh not to the light that his works may not be reproved.” The heads of secret societies are generally unknown to the outside world, and often even to the members themselves. Yet the members are bound to obey them, often under oath. There is no guarantee that all the orders issued by the secret heads will be in accordance with right and justice, and it is wrong to promise obedience under such circumstances. To make such a promise is to abdicate personal responsibility. Freemasonry is not only a secret society, it is a secret society of a special kind, and the Catholic Church forbids Catholics to join it under pain of incurring excommunication, the absolution of which is reserved to the Holy See. This is laid down in Canon 2335: “Those who join the Freemasons or other societies of the same kind which plot against the Church or lawful civil authority incur by the very fact excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See.” A Catholic, then, who becomes a Freemason ceases to be a Catholic; he is cut off from membership with the Catholic Church.

Modern Freemasonry is a secret society of English origin and dates from the early part of the eighteenth century. It spread quickly, and it is said that it now numbers more than two million members and that it has lodges all over the world. Its activities soon attracted the attention of civil and ecclesiastical authority. Many governments, both civil and ecclesiastical, prohibited it. It was condemned under pain of excommunication by Pope Clement XII in the year 1738, and since then the condemnation has frequently been repeated by his successors.

The Popes have been perfectly frank and open in acknowledging the sources from which they derived their information concerning the society. In his well-known Encyclical, Humanum Genus, issued in 1884, Leo XIII said that the Holy See derived its information from the observations of the fruits of Masonic activity in various parts of the world, from the publication of the statutes, rites, and commentaries of the order, from the investigation of particular cases, from the personal testimony of men who had been in the secret, and from the delation of civil governments. Clement XII had pointed out the radical flaw in the organization from the beginning. It drew men from any religion and sect, and, without requiring them to renounce or to profess any form of religion, it united them in the strictest bonds of unity. The practical consequence, as Leo XIII pointed out, was to bring about a complete indifference towards all forms of religion. But human nature does not stop there, it cannot rest satisfied with a mere negation. “He that is not with me is against me, and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.” A creature cannot be indifferent to the claims of God and of Jesus Christ. If he is not on their side he soon becomes hostile to them. With inexorable logic, Leo XIII showed how indifference towards religion and the claims of God has led Masonry to modern Naturalism. Masons might believe what they pleased about the supernatural, they were united on the question of the natural, and they gave their exclusive attention to it. The attitude involves a practical rejection of Christianity and the adoption of neo-paganism. This accounts for many an error in religion and philosophy, in social and political affairs, in family life, and in the education of the young which form settled dogmas of modern thought. If what is called modern thought is not the creation of Masonry, at least Masonry has had great influence in making it so widely accepted.

Canon 2335 inflicts the penalty of excommunication, not only on Freemasons, but on members of other societies of the same kind. There is some difference of opinion among the commentators as to the meaning of the phrase “societies of the same kind.” Some of the latest and best authorities say that its meaning is defined by the clause which follows—" which plot, machinate, or work openly or in secret against the Church or lawful civil authority,” so that Communists and other organizations of the same sort would come under the condemnation. Others hold that as Freemasonry is a secret society, the phrase “other societies of the same kind” can only comprehend secret societies which work against the Church or lawful civil authority. Of course, there is no doubt but that Communism is forbidden on other grounds, and by Canon 634.

Recent events in Italy seem to show that while it works in secrecy its influence is great, but that when it comes to power and is compelled to show itself, the fierce light which beats upon a throne tends to destroy the influence of Freemasonry.

Dr. Augustus Jessopp used to call the Protestant Reformation in England the Great Pillage. The name was a good one, and it indicated a very important aspect of that complex movement. It has been calculated that about one-third of the wealth of England at the time of the Reformation belonged to the Catholic Church, and this huge sum was taken from the Catholic Church, and what did not find its way into the royal coffers went to found new families henceforth keenly interested in maintaining the new order, or served for the maintenance of the new national Church, or of the remnant of educational establishments that were left by the Reformers.

Dr. Jessopp’s attitude was a little illogical. As a loyal clergyman of the Church of England as by law established, he held that the State or the nation could alienate Church property for a good purpose. That is not Catholic teaching. The Catholic Church in England before the Reformation was not the Church of England. It was a province, a portion of the Church Catholic or Universal; its dioceses, parishes, colleges, schools, and monasteries were subordinate societies or corporations of the one supreme and universal Society called the Catholic Church. The property of all these subordinate societies was the property of the Catholic Church. The Pope was recognized as the supreme head of the Catholic Church and the supreme administrator of all its property. When Cardinal Wolsey desired to appropriate the property of St Frideswide’s and of other monasteries to the foundation of Christ Church at Oxford, he had to obtain a Bull for the purpose from Pope Clement VII. He only succeeded at the cost of considerable delay, subterfuge, and misrepresentation. He had very great powers at the time as papal legate, but they did not enable him to alienate the property of the Catholic Church. When Henry VIII had made himself supreme head of the Church in England, it became an easy matter for him and his successors to rob the Church of its property.

Other northern countries of Europe witnessed similar proceedings. The example was infectious. Albert of Brandenburg, Grand Master of the Teutonic Knights, abandoned the Catholic Church and converted the possessions of the Order into the hereditary duchy of Prussia, a bad beginning for a fateful country.

Such glaring examples had many imitators on a smaller scale. The Council of Trent did its best to put a stop to the wholesale robberies of Church property. It enacted that if avarice, the root of all evil, so gains possession of any cleric or layman, of whatever dignity he may be, even though it be imperial or regal, that he has the presumption in any way to convert to his own use, usurp, or hinder from being received by those to whom of right they belong, the jurisdiction, property, income, and rights, fruits, emoluments, and produce of any church, secular or religious benefice, lending banks for the poor, or other pious institutions, which should relieve the necessities of their ministers and of the poor, such a one lies under excommunication until he has made full restitution of his ill-gotten gains, and has obtained absolution from the Pope.

This enactment of the Council of Trent has been in substance reproduced in Canon 2346 of the new Code of Canon Law, and it is now one of the cases simply reserved to the Holy See. It is intended to safeguard the property of the Church as far as spiritual penalties can effect that object. Still, it is a penal law, and it must not be extended beyond due limits. A few cases will help to illustrate its application.

The Roman Congregations whose office it is to interpret and explain the law of the Church, have declared more than once that this censure is not incurred by common thieves and robbers who, for example, break into a church and steal a chalice or rob the poor-box. The censure is aimed at higher culprits who unjustly claim to make ecclesiastical property their own. Thieves and robbers merely seize the property and use it; they make no claim to be its owners. They are guilty of sacrilegious theft, and may be punished as such by spiritual penalties, but they do not incur this censure.

An executor or legatee who refused to pay to the priest a sum of money left by will for Masses would not seem to incur the censure. Of course he sins, and is bound to make restitution, but as the sum of money was not paid over to the Church, it never became ecclesiastical property.

On the other hand, a cleric who converted to his own use as if it were his personal property what had been contributed by the faithful for the general maintenance of religion would incur the censure. The same must be said of collectors who appropriate to their personal use what they have received for the Church.

The outbreak of the Protestant Reformation in Germany is dated by common consent from the Eve of All Saints, 1517. On that Eve Luther nailed his ninety-five propositions to the door of the Castle Church at Wittenberg and preached against the Catholic doctrine on Indulgences. Up to that time he had followed the ordinary Catholic doctrine on the subject and had taught that an indulgence is a remission valid before God of the temporal punishment due to sin, but in the ninety-five propositions he denied that an indulgence is valid before God, and asserted that it only remits canonical penance imposed by the Church. This heretical doctrine was accompanied by insulting and abusive language levelled against the Pope.

The granting of a Jubilee by Pope Leo X furnished the occasion for Luther’s outbreak. The Pope wished to raise money for the building of St Peter’s at Rome, and he granted a Jubilee to those who should contribute to this pious object and fulfil the other ordinary conditions for gaining an indulgence. Albert of Brandenburg, a Hohenzollern, Archbishop of Mainz and Magdeburg, entrusted the preaching of the indulgence within his archbishopric to Tetzel, a Dominican friar. Tetzel was a popular preacher, and used popular methods in the task committed to him. When a fair was held in any town he would go there and proclaim his Jubilee. With his exposition of Catholic doctrine he would mix doubtful opinions of theologians and exaggerations of his own. He irritated Luther, who is said to have declared that please God he would knock a hole in Tetzel’s drum. The remark may not be historical, but it expresses accurately enough the relations between the two friars. Luther’s propositions were printed and circulated far and wide. In many quarters they met with a sympathetic reception; it was as if a lighted match had been thrown away among combustible material, and a great conflagration was the result.

The condition of contributing alms for some pious object along with other conditions required for gaining an indulgence is perfectly legitimate and not unusual. Before the time of the Council of Trent the promulgation of indulgences was frequently confided to pardoners, as they were called in England. The character and methods of these pardoners sometimes left much to be desired. So much we can gather from Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales. Their methods were reprobated by the Fourth Council of the Lateran, by the Council of Lyons, and by that of Vienne. As abuses still continued in spite of the repeated condemnation of the Church, the Council of Trent determined to abolish the name and office altogether. This it did by the ninth decree of the twenty-first Session. It says that the remedies applied to the grave abuses of the pardoners by the Councils of the Lateran, Lyons, and Vienne having become useless, and since those abuses have rather grown to the scandal of the faithful to such an extent as to banish all hope of amendment, the Council abolishes the office altogether, and decrees that in future indulgences should be published by the local Ordinaries. To the local Ordinaries also was entrusted the duty of collecting the alms of the faithful, and without making any profit of transmitting them faithfully, so that all may understand that these heavenly treasures are disbursed not for gain but for spiritual good.

In spite of this decree of the Council of Trent certain objectionable practices continued to exist under plea of exemption and special privileges. St Pius V issued two Constitutions on the subject and imposed on the refractory the penalty of excommunication reserved to the Pope. It is this censure which in substance has been reproduced in Canon 2327 of the new Code of Canon Law. According to this Canon those who make gain out of indulgences are by the very fact punished with excommunication simply reserved to the Holy See.

The Church does her best to maintain, strengthen, and sanctify Catholic family life. She well knows how much depends on it for time and for eternity. She knows, too, that it can only be preserved and sanctified by the spirit of religion. Religion must be at the base of it, and religion must provide its guiding principles and aims. Unless the Lord build the house, they labour in vain who build it. A Catholic marriage is the foundation of the Catholic family, and the Catholic education of children is its end and object. There are many disruptive influences which threaten the Catholic family with ruin in modern society, and the Church has deemed it well to provide some additional sanctions for its preservation in the new Code of Canon Law. Some of these are set down in Canon 2319, which may be translated as follows:

“Those Catholics by the very fact incur excommunication reserved to the Ordinary:

“1. Who contract marriage before a non-Catholic minister against what is prescribed in Canon 1063.

“2. Who contract marriage with an explicit or implicit agreement that all or any of the children are to be brought up outside the Catholic Church.

“3. Who knowingly presume to offer their children to non-Catholic ministers to be baptized.

“4. Parents or those who hold the place of parents who knowingly hand over their children to be educated or brought up in a non-Catholic religion.”

According to the teaching of the Catholic Church marriage between baptized Christians is a sacrament, and she alone has the duty and right to see that the Sacraments are properly administered and received. The parties to the contract are themselves the ministers to each other of the sacrament of marriage, but the Church requires for its validity that it be contracted before the parish priest or his delegate. Moreover, divine and ecclesiastical law forbid all communication in sacred rites between Catholics and non-Catholics. Accordingly Canon 1063, referred to above, prescribes that, although a dispensation for a mixed marriage may have been obtained from the Church, the spouses must not either before or after a marriage has been contracted before the Church appear also either in person or by proxy before a non-Catholic minister acting as such, in order to give or renew their matrimonial consent. Any Catholic who violates this law incurs the penalty of excommunication by the very fact, and the power of absolving him is reserved by the Holy See to the Bishop by Canon 2319, section 1.

By the law of England it used to be necessary for Catholics to contract marriage before the Anglican minister in order that their marriages might be recognized by the State. If similar circumstances exist anywhere at present Canon 1063 expressly provides that Catholics may comply with the law to secure the civil effects of marriage.

When a mixed marriage was contracted it used to be no very uncommon thing for the parties to come to an understanding that the children should follow the religion of the parents according to sex. The boys were brought up in the religion of the father and the girls in that of the mother. The Church never approved of such understandings. They infringed the law of God and of the Church, which require a Catholic parent to bring up all his children in the religion which he believes and knows to be the only religion that is pleasing to God. To prevent such arrangements the Church requires both parties when a dispensation for a mixed marriage has been obtained from the Church to sign a written promise that all the children will be brought up Catholics. To ensure the faithful observance of this promise Canon 2319, as we have seen, inflicts the sentence of excommunication on all Catholics who contract marriage with an explicit or implicit agreement that all or any of the children are to be brought up as non-Catholics. The absolution of this censure is reserved to the Ordinary by the Holy See.

An unpleasant feature of the Protestant propaganda in some Catholic countries is the giving of clothes or money to such parents as are willing to bring their children to the Protestant ministers for baptism. Large sums of money are collected in England and America and spent on such unworthy ways of corrupting poor Catholics. Catholics who knowingly presume to offer their children to non-Catholic ministers for baptism incur thereby excommunication, and the absolution of this censure is reserved to the Bishop. It is possible that by the very ignorant poor such a thing might be done in good faith. In that case the censure would not be incurred.

Similarly parents and those who are in the place of parents incur excommunication, reserved to the Bishop, if they knowingly hand over their own children or those committed to them to be educated or brought up in a non-Catholic religion. Sending children or permitting them to be sent to a non-Catholic school would not of itself be sufficient to draw down upon parents or guardians this excommunication. The essential condition for incurring the censure is handing the children over to be indoctrinated, trained, and brought up in a non-Catholic religion.