Attempted marriage by those in solemn vows or sacred orders (Can. 2388)

All who have taken a solemn vow of chastity and who presume to attempt marriage, as well as all who knowingly contract marriage with any of them, incur this censure. Canon 2392 IX. Delictum perpetrantes simoniae in quibuslibet officiis, beneficiis aut dignitatibus ecclesiasticis incurrunt in excommunicationem latae sententiae Sedi Apostolicae simpliciter reservatam.

Seius, a subdeacon, gave a mandate to Salustius, likewise a subdeacon, that he contract marriage in his name. Which of them incurs excommunication?

R. According to C. 72, de Reg. Iur., "He who does something through another is seen to do it through himself." Therefore there can be no doubt that Seius the subdeacon, truly presuming to contract marriage, incurs excommunication; but by no means Salustius, who in no way attempts marriage. - I. M. 1203.

1191. VIII. "If anyone has presumed, by himself or through others, to convert and usurp ecclesiastical goods of any kind, whether movable or immovable, whether corporeal or incorporeal, to his own uses, or to impede the fruits or revenues of the same from being perceived by those to whom they belong by law, let him be subject to excommunication until he has restored the goods themselves integrally, removed the aforesaid impediment, and thereafter obtained absolution from the Apostolic See."¹⁹

¹⁹ Code, c. 2346.

1. The goods of which there is question are not only those which pertain to the Church collectively, but also those which pertain to private ecclesiastical persons by reason of their churches or benefices: of this kind are the goods of seminaries, monasteries, dioceses, hospitals, montes pietatis, and other pious places erected by ecclesiastical authority and administered by the Church.

2. All are touched who knowingly convert to their own uses goods of this kind which have been usurped, or authoritatively impede them from being perceived by those to whom they belong by law. Hence not only the first usurpers are excommunicated, but all successive possessors, indeed also those receiving the same goods in lease.²⁰ But those who buy the natural fruits of these goods, although of themselves they do not escape excommunication, can be absolved, with alms imposed in favor of the legitimate owner, if they bought below the just price.²¹

²⁰ Sacred Penitentiary, August 5, 1907, Canoniste, 1908, p. 684.

²¹ Ibid., to the 3rd.

3. City councilors, and their Mayor (le Maire), do not incur the excommunication when they acquire an ecclesiastical good not for their own uses but for the common uses of the city;²² nor one who even freely accepted the office of administering goods taken from churches or monasteries (liquidateur, sequestre); nor, a fortiori, those who cooperate less principally, e.g., notaries and clerks.²³ For the excommunication touches the usurpers and possessors themselves, not their accomplices, unless you except a cleric who has consented in this delict.

²² Sacred Penitentiary, January 3, 1906, A. S. S., vol. XL, p. 249.

²³ Sacred Penitentiary, September 17, 1906, Canoniste, 1907, p. 194.

1192. 4. Absolution from this censure must not be given except after restitution of goods unjustly detained. In France, however, bishops have been endowed with special faculties, so that they may be able to admit possessors of ecclesiastical goods of this kind to composition and to impart absolution to them; in many cases they can also give permission to buy or lease.²⁴ Similar faculties had previously been granted to the bishops of Italy.

²⁴ Secretariat of State, September 24, 1907, A. S. S., vol. XLI, pp. 202-209. Cf. above, n. 492, with note.