Morals of the Church
Library › Wouters, Manual of Moral Theology › Volume II › Book IV. On the Sanction of Christian Life, or on Ecclesiastical Penalties › Treatise I. On Delicts › Dissertation I. On Delict Considered in Itself

Part — Wouters, Manual of Moral Theology

Part I. Summary Exposition

846.

I. Nature. By the name of delict in ecclesiastical law is understood an external and morally imputable violation of law to which there has been added at least an indeterminate canonical sanction (canon 2195, § 1). By these words are indicated the three constitutive parts of a delict, namely: 1° violation of a canonically sanctioned law (the legal part); 2° external violation (the objective or social part); 3° morally imputable violation (the formal or subjective part).

  1. Violation of law, that is, of a natural law or divine-positive law or ecclesiastical law. To the external and morally imputable violation of a canonically sanctioned precept the same things are applied which are said of delicts, unless something else appears from the circumstances (ibid., § 2). Moreover, violation of a canonically sanctioned law is required, because otherwise the Law does not speak of delict, but of mere transgression (cf. canon 2222, § 1).

  2. External; for only an external sin violates, by reason of damage, as it is said, that is, either scandal or material damage, the social order of the Church, which alone merely ecclesiastical legislation regards. That an external but occult act, such as the secret utterance of heresy, is not perceived in the social order and therefore perhaps inflicts no damage on society, is incidental.

  3. Morally imputable. What moral imputability is, see volume I, n. 58. By this property canonical delict differs from civil delict, which admits merely juridic fault. When and to what extent a delict is imputable will be said in Part II.

II. Quality and quantity. The quality of a delict is to be taken from the object of the law (canon 2196). Laws differ specifically according to the diverse formal motives from which they were issued; wherefore delicts differ specifically according to the diverse formal motive of the penal laws violated (cf. Theologia Fundamentalis, p. 299). The quantity of a delict must be measured not only from the diverse gravity of the law injured, but also from the greater or lesser imputability or damage inflicted (canon 2196), that is, from the three constitutive parts of the delict (cf. p. 703).

III. Division. From canon 2197 a delict is:

  1. Public, if it has already been divulged, or happened or exists in such circumstances that it can and must prudently be judged that it will easily be divulged; that is, if it is such that it is about to become known, at least as an external fact, even if not as imputable, with the character and purpose of the persons who know the delict considered.

  2. Notorious by notoriety of law, after the sentence of a competent judge which has passed into a judged matter,1 or after the confession of the delinquent made in court according to the norm of canon 1750.2

  3. Notorious by notoriety of fact, if it is publicly known and committed in such circumstances that it can be concealed by no tergiversation and excused by no suffrage of law.

  4. Occult, which is not public; materially occult, if the delict itself is hidden; formally occult, if its imputability is hidden.

Note. A delict which injures only the law of the Church, by its nature only ecclesiastical authority prosecutes, with the help of the secular arm sometimes being required where the same authority has judged this necessary or opportune; a delict which injures only the law of civil society, by proper right and with the prescription of canon 120 preserved, civil authority punishes, although the Church is also competent over it by reason of sin; a delict which injures the law of both societies can be punished by each power (canon 2198). But in delicts of mixed forum Ordinaries should regularly not proceed when the guilty person is a layman and the civil magistrate, taking action against the guilty person, provides sufficiently for the public good (canon 1933, § 3).

1 From canon 1902, a matter is considered judged: 1° by a double conforming sentence; 2° by a sentence not appealed within the useful time, or which, although appealed before the judge a quo, was deserted before the judge ad quem; 3° by a single definitive sentence from which no appeal is given according to the norm of canon 1880.

2 Canon 1750 declares: The assertion concerning some fact, in writing or orally, made by one party against himself and for the adversary before a judge, either spontaneously or when the judge interrogates, is called a judicial confession.

Delicts