Section I. Excommunications Reserved to the Roman Pontiff in the Most Special Manner

The following contract this excommunication:

I. One who has thrown away the consecrated species, or has taken them away or retained them for an evil end (canon 2320). It is said:

1. Consecrated species, whether of bread or wine, whether several or one, or consecrated particles.

2. Has thrown away, suppose by throwing the species onto the ground; but one who places the consecrated species upon the pall in order to remove the pyx does not incur the excommunication.

3. Has taken away or retained for an evil end, suppose to profane them. It also suffices that someone retain species taken away by another for an evil end. But one is not excommunicated who takes away or retains the species, for example, in order to adore them at home.

Note. The delinquent is suspected of heresy, infamous by the fact itself, and if a cleric, besides, is to be deposed (canon 2320).

II. One who has laid violent hands on the person of the Roman Pontiff (canon 2343). This canon must be interpreted broadly, since it regards the privilege of the canon, as it is called, insofar as it belongs to the Roman Pontiff; see the interpretation on p. 766.

Note. The delinquent is infamous by the fact itself, and if a cleric, besides, must be degraded (canon 2343).

III. One absolving, or pretending to absolve, an accomplice in a base sin incurs by the fact itself an excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See in the most special manner; and this even at the article of death, if another priest, although not approved for confessions, can receive the confession of the dying person without some grave infamy and scandal going to arise, except in the case in which the dying person refuses to confess to another. One absolving or pretending to absolve an accomplice who indeed does not confess the sin of complicity, from which he has not yet been absolved, does not escape the same excommunication if he behaves in this way because he was induced to do so by the accomplice-confessor, whether directly or indirectly (canon 2367); see the interpretation of this canon in n. 412 sq.

IV. A confessor who has presumed to violate the sacramental seal directly (canon 2369, § 1). A few judge that this censure is ferendae sententiae, because the word has presumed seems to remain ambiguous; moreover, in penalties the more benign interpretation must be made (canon 2219, § 1; p. 712). But the contrary seems altogether to have to be admitted, both because censures reserved to the Supreme Pontiff were always latae sententiae, and because, if the contrary opinion were admitted, the Bishop could issue the censure of which we speak, but could not absolve from it, as reserved to the Supreme Pontiff; which cannot be admitted according to the things said on p. 727, 1, c.

What a direct violation of the sacramental seal is, see n. 428.

Note 1. A confessor who has presumed to violate the sacramental seal only indirectly (n. 418) is to be suspended from the celebration of Mass and from hearing sacramental confessions, or even, according to the gravity of the delict, is to be declared incapable of receiving them, and in graver cases is also to be subjected to degradation (canon 2369, § 1).

Note 2. Whoever has rashly violated the prescription of canon 889, § 2,¹ is to be punished according to the gravity of the guilt with a salutary penalty, which can even be excommunication (canon 2369, § 2).

V. To this place can be referred:

1. Excommunications established for delicts which can be committed in electing the Supreme Pontiff, and which are contained in the Constitution of Pius X Vacante Sede Apostolica, December 25, 1904. Namely, those perpetrating delicts of this kind "can be absolved by no one, not even by the Major Penitentiary by force of any faculty, except by the Roman Pontiff, unless at the article of death" (cited Constitution, § 51).

2. The excommunication annexed to the revelation of the secret of the Holy Office (canon 239, § 1, 1°, compared with canon 243). Moreover, from the decree of the Sacred Consistorial Congregation, April 25, 1917, it follows that the same secret must be observed by those from whom information is requested concerning those to be promoted to the Episcopate.²

¹ That is, the interpreter and all others to whom knowledge of a confession has come in any way whatever, who by word or sign or in any other way and for any cause betray the sinner in any manner.

² A.A.S. 1917, p. 232; Aertnys-Damen, op. cit., II, n. 1044, note 2.