Chapter I. The Nature of an Ecclesiastical Censure

WE here understand by a censure a spiritual and remedial penalty by which a baptized and contumacious delinquent is deprived by ecclesiastical authority of the use of certain spiritual advantages. It differs from other penalties, such as degradation, which are also spiritual and inflicted by the Church, in that a censure has in view the correction and amendment of the delinquent, while other penalties have chiefly in view the common good to be procured by the punishment and repression of crime. The Church has jurisdiction only over those who are baptized, and she punishes by censures only those of her children who have done wrong with their eyes open, with knowledge of the wrongfulness of their action and of the spiritual censure by which the Church punishes it.

A censure does not and cannot deprive a man of all the spiritual advantages which he may possess. There are some spiritual gifts in man’s possession which depend only on his personal relations with God, such as sanctifying grace, and the supernatural virtues and gifts which accompany it. These may adorn the soul of one who is not baptized, and they are not possessed by all members of the Church. There are, however, other spiritual privileges which a Christian enjoys through membership with the Church of God. Among these theologians distinguish those that are internal, external, and mixed. Internal comprise the special providence and helps which God grants to the members of his Church because they belong to his Spouse who is continually interceding for them. External are the society and special charity which binds the members of the Church to each other. Mixed are the participation in the same sacraments and sacrifice, the common suffrages, satisfactions, indulgences, children of the Church in communion with her enjoy. According to the common opinion, excommunication deprives the delinquent of all these privileges, it puts him outside the communion of the faithful, and consequently leaves him without the benefits of union.. The other two censures, suspension and interdict, deprive him at least of some of those benefits, as of their nature they are limited in their effect. There are, however, some theologians who with Suarez deny that a censure deprives a man of the merely internal advantages which membership with the Church confers.

With reference to the effects produced by them, censures are of three kinds: excommunication, suspension, and interdict. With reference to the manner in which they are inflicted, they are said to be a jure, or ab homine. The former are imposed by a stable and permanent law, the latter by way of particular precept or sentence. Sometimes a censure is incurred by the very fact of committing a crime, without any declaratory sentence of a judge; it is then said to be latae sententiae. Sometimes it needs the intervention of a judge, and is said to be ferendae sententiae.

Certain conditions must be fulfilled in order that a censure may be incurred:

(a) As it is a serious penalty, and a serious penalty can only be inflicted for a grave fault, a censure can only be incurred by one who has committed a mortal sin.

(b) ‘The Church does not judge of what is merely internal, and so the fault which is punished by censure must be grave externally as well as internally. A slight blow given to a cleric, which does not constitute a serious injury, does not involve excommunication incurred by those who violate the privilege of the canon, even though the act were accompanied with mortal hatred.

(c) Penalties must be interpreted strictly, and therefore the crime which is punished by censures must be completed, not merely attempted.

(d) Inasmuch as a censure is remedial and inflicted on the delinquent for his correction and amendment, it cannot be incurred for a crime which is altogether past, and which has left no traces behind it. Sometimes suspension or interdict may be inflicted in punishment of such crimes, but then they are inflicted for a definite period, or for ever, and become pure penalties, not censures, (e) ‘There must be contumacy in order that a censure may be incurred, or, in other words, the delinquent must be conscious at the time that he is committing a crime which is punished by the Church by censure. It follows from this: that a censure cannot be inflicted ab homine by a particular sentence without previous admonition, and this should ordinarily be in writing so as to be capable of proof. In censures inflicted a jure or ab homine by a general precept which is of the nature of a law, no special admonition is required, as the law itself is a sufficient admonition. Nor is an admonition necessary when suspension or interdict are inflicted by way of mere penalty (Can. 2242).

It is of faith that the Church has the power of inflicting censures. It is contained in the general power of binding and loosing granted to the Church by her divine Founder. This power is exercised by all ecclesiastical prelates who have jurisdiction in the external forum, unless their authority has been restricted. The Pope and a general council have jurisdiction over the whole Church, and they can bind all the faithful by their laws and censures. A bishop can inflict censures on his subjects, as can regular prelates on theirs.

A parish priest has no jurisdiction in the external forum, and cannot as such impose censures, nor can laymen, nor women.

A bishop cannot lawfully exercise contentious jurisdiction outside his diocese, and consequently he cannot inflict censures outside his diocese when the case requires a judicial process. If the case does not require any judicial process, he may impose a censure on a guilty subject even when he is outside his diocese.

A bishop within his diocese may punish with censure a subject who is now outside the diocese on account of a crime which was committed within the diocese, and even on account of a crime which has been committed outside if it had reference to the diocese. And so a parish priest who is absent from the diocese and refuses to come to synod, or who is taking too long a holiday, may be punished by censure. The more probable opinion holds that a subject who violates a precept imposed under censure while he is outside the diocese incurs the censure, though St Alphonsus admits that the opposite is probable. The jurisdiction of superiors over regulars is personal, and these certainly incur censures imposed on them wherever they may be at the time when it is imposed. Regulars belonging to mendicant orders and members of the Society of Jesus have a special privilege granted by the Holy See, by which they cannot be put under censure by any bishop, even when they do wrong in matters in which their general exemption is of no avail, and in which they are subject to the bishop. In three cases, however, these religious may be punished by episcopal censure, notwithstanding their special privilege. Gregory XV permitted this in case they preach in churches not their own without the bishop’s licence, or in their own without asking for his blessing, or against his command; Innocent X added to this the case of disobedience with reference to hearing confessions; and Urban VIII added the case of hanging sacred pictures painted in an unusual or scandalous manner.

In order to incur a censure, the delinquent must be subject to the authority which imposes it. Strangers, therefore, do not incur the particular censures which bind in the place where they are staying for a short time. If strangers, however, violate some provision of the common law which for such violation imposes a censure ferendae sententiae, the bishop of the place may inflict this on them, Even when they offend in other matters, the local ordinary may punish them by other penalties, and if they prove contumacious, they may be put under censure by him.

A censure latae sententiae is multiplied: (1) If different crimes of which each is punished by censure are committed by the same or distinct actions.

(2) If the same crime punished by censure is often repeated so that there are several distinct crimes.

(3) If a crime punished by different censures by distinct superiors is committed once or several times (Can. 2244).

Grave fear and ignorance prevent contumacy, and therefore hinder one who commits a crime under their influence from incurring any censure by which such crime is punished. Grave fear, however, does not excuse from censures inflicted for crimes which produce contempt for the faith, or for ecclesiastical authority, or public harm to souls (Can. 2229, sec. 3, iii). If, however, the ignorance be crass or supine, it will not excuse from grave sin or contumacy, and so the censure will be incurred. But if the censure is inflicted on those who knowingly, rashly, with rash daring, or presumption, commit a crime, full knowledge is required in order to incur the censure, but merely affected ignorance will not prevent its being incurred (Can. 2229).