Censures Now in Force

32. Censures now in force. 1. At every time the Church has used the power of inflicting censures because of certain graver crimes, but especially because of the crime of heresy.¹ The mode by which she imposed censures was diverse in diverse times; nevertheless she more frequently used excommunications, of which the first, by common law and reserved to the Roman pontiff, was established by the Second Lateran Council (1139), to which in the course of time several others were added. All these, collected in the form of a bull by the will of the Roman pontiffs, were promulgated every year at Rome in the churches on certain days, especially on Maundy Thursday. Their collection is therefore called the Bull In Coena Domini, which in the passage of time, by the care of the Roman pontiffs, was increased up to twenty censures. Besides the censures which were contained in the Bull In Coena, several others were in force, both those carried by pontifical constitutions and those carried by the Council of Trent. Since the number of censures was growing too much, and some of them, with morals and times changed, seemed less useful, by Pius IX, through the constitution Apostolicae sedis of October 12, 1869, very many censures of a sentence already passed having been abrogated, the most recent law was established with respect to ecclesiastical censures. Wherefore today by common law only those censures of a sentence already passed are in force which are directly or indirectly contained in this constitution, and those which were added to them after its promulgation. But all censures which are contained clearly and certainly in this constitution receive full force of obliging through it, even if before its promulgation they perhaps had fallen into desuetude.

The Pian constitution, which treats only censures, and those of a sentence already passed, changed nothing with respect to censures of a sentence to be passed, nor with respect to censures carried by private law, such as censures carried by bishops or by prelates of regulars against their own subjects, nor with respect to irregularities or other ecclesiastical penalties, nor with respect to ecclesiastical laws. Therefore if by this constitution the censure has been removed from some law, the law itself retains the force of obliging.

2. The censures now in force are:

a. Censures inflicted in express words in the bull itself.

b. Censures inflicted by the Council of Trent and confirmed by this constitution.

It is the common opinion of interpreters that from this constitution only those Tridentine censures have force which the Council of Trent then first inflicted, but not those which Trent only renewed and confirmed from the old law. For the words which the supreme pontiff uses in this constitution designate those censures alone.

c. Censures previously in force and not changed by this constitution from the constitutions: a. for the election of the Roman pontiff; b. for the internal governance of any orders and regular institutes.

d. Censures which were carried after the constitution Apostolicae sedis.

¹ Cf. 1 Cor. 5, 1-5. Kober, Der Kirchenbann, p. 15 ff. Hausmann, Geschichte der papstlichen Reservatfalle (Regensburg: Pustet, 1868), p. 21 ff.

"The doubt having been proposed whether Orientals are subject to the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, published by Pius IX, of happy memory, under date of 12 October 1869, the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office, with the subsequent approval of the Holiness of Our Lord, declared as follows on Wednesday, 15 July of the current year:

"I. Through the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, nothing was changed concerning censures and their reservations for the faithful of the Oriental rites.

"II. The same faithful are subject to all censures enacted by the Apostolic See in matters of dogma and in Constitutions in which provision is implicitly made concerning them, namely, where the matter itself shows that they are included, insofar as there is question not of a merely ecclesiastical law, but the natural and divine law is declared.

"The aforesaid Supreme Congregation furthermore wills that, through the Most Reverend Apostolic Delegates, these provisions be notified to all patriarchs, archbishops, and bishops of the Oriental rite included in their respective delegation, and that they be reminded: 'that those faithful are subject by name not only to the censures, but also to the Apostolic reservations enacted in the Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae of Benedict XIV and in the Constitutions against those enrolled in the Masonic sect and other similar sects.'" Encyclical Letter to the Apostolic Delegates among the Orientals, Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 6 August 1885.

"It was declared in the Holy Office, 22 March 1879, that excommunication is contracted by those who enter marriage before a heretical or schismatic minister in sacred orders." M. E., vol. 7, part 2, p. 222.

According to the declaration of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, 12 July 1878, all those incur an excommunication latae sententiae reserved in a special manner to the Supreme Pontiff who, even if they do not adhere to heresy in mind, enroll themselves, even in name only, in a heretical or schismatic sect, whatever its name may be, for whatever cause this may be done. Cf. On the Theological Virtues, no. 367.

"In the faculty of the Sacred Penitentiary, no. 3, the faculty of absolving from censures incurred because of heresy is granted, and an exception is made there in these words: excepting public heretics, or those publicly dogmatizing: 1. Are public heretics who are not dogmatizers included in the aforesaid exception? 2. Likewise, are those included who dogmatize not publicly but privately, namely, now with one listening, now with another, now with a few others, and so on; yet in such a way that, when the reckoning has been made, the number of dogmatizers is found to be very excessive?—To 1. Negative.—To 2. Affirmative, if it is notorious that the heretic spreads false dogmas in the aforesaid manner." Sacred Penitentiary, 3 March 1880.

"In the faculty granted by the Sacred Penitentiary, under no. 3, it is read: of absolving ... excepting public heretics, OR those publicly dogmatizing, from any, etc. It is asked: does the word or explain who the heretics are who are excepted? Or are public heretics excepted, and those who publicly dogmatize?—Response. Through the faculty of the quinquennial form of the Sacred Penitentiary, the power can be granted of absolving heretics, even public ones, provided that they are not dogmatizers." Sacred Penitentiary, 26 March 1894.

"It is not necessary that those who have defected from the Catholic faith, and afterwards desire to return to it, first make a public abjuration; but it is sufficient that they abjure privately before a few, provided, however, that they keep their promises and in fact abstain from communicating with heretics in spiritual matters or from doing anything which is a profession of heresy. The same is to be held concerning those who privately abjure the heresy in which they were educated from the beginning." Holy Office, 28 March 1890; A. S. S., vol. 32, p. 696.

"Whether those knowingly reading periodical publications bound into volumes, having a heretical author and defending heresy, incur the excommunication mentioned in the Bull Apostolicae Sedis of 12 October 1869, among the excommunications reserved in a special manner to the Roman Pontiff, article 2.—Response. Affirmative." Holy Office, 13 January 1892.

"1. Whether those knowingly reading newspapers defending heresy incur the excommunication of the second article of the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, reserved in a special manner to the Supreme Pontiff?—2. Whether those reading either books properly so called, by any author, or newspapers containing heresy, fall under the censure of the Index renewed and confirmed as above by Pope Pius IX, of holy memory?—Response. To 1. Negative.—To 2. Negative." Sacred Congregation of the Index, 27 April 1881; Holy Office, 21 April 1880.

"Whosoever, having been elected by the vote of the people to the office of parish priest or vicar, dare either to seize the pretended possession of the Church or of its rights and goods, and to discharge the duties of the ecclesiastical ministry, shall by that very fact incur major excommunication peculiarly reserved to the Holy See and the other canonical penalties; and all such persons are to be avoided by the faithful according to the divine admonition, as strangers or thieves, who come only to steal, kill, and destroy." Sacred Congregation of the Council, 23 May 1874.

"Concerning the so-called Italian Catholic Society for the vindication of the rights belonging to the Christian people, and especially to the Roman people, in which the theory that the Roman Pontiff can be elected by the people is professed and propagated: 1. Whether each and every person enrolling in the aforesaid Society, or promoting it, or in any manner favoring or adhering to it, incurs by that very fact the penalty of major excommunication?—2. And, in the affirmative, whether an excommunication of this kind is reserved to the Roman Pontiff?—Response. Having considered all that was set forth, and having examined the nature and purpose of a society of this kind, and having obtained the decision of the Holy Father: To the first: Affirmative. To the second: They incur an excommunication latae sententiae reserved in a special manner to the Roman Pontiff." Sacred Penitentiary, 4 August 1876.

"The chapter Cogentes affects only legislators and other authorities who coerce lay judges, either directly or indirectly, to bring ecclesiastical persons before their tribunal contrary to canonical provisions.—Nevertheless, in those places in which the privilege of the forum has not been derogated by the Supreme Pontiffs, if there is no way there to pursue one's rights except before lay judges, each one is bound first to seek permission from his own Ordinary, so that he may summon clerics in the manner of laymen; and the Ordinaries shall never deny it, especially when they themselves have vainly devoted their effort to reconciling the controversies between the parties. It is not lawful, however, to summon bishops before that forum without the permission of the Apostolic See. And if anyone has dared to bring before a lay judge or judges either a cleric without the permission of the Ordinary, or a bishop without the permission of the Holy See, it shall be within the power of those Ordinaries to punish him, especially if he is a cleric, with penalties and censures ferendae sententiae, as a violator of the privilege of the forum, if they judge this expedient in the Lord." Holy Office, 23 January 1886.

"Whether by acts proceeding from the Apostolic See are designated only acts which proceed immediately from the Holy Father, or also acts which proceed mediately from the Holy Father, or also those which proceed from the Sacred Roman Congregations?—Response. Negative to the first part; affirmative to the second." Holy Office, 13 January 1892.

The absolution of an accomplice is reserved in a most special manner to the Holy See, so that it is excepted even in a general and most ample grant of absolving from all cases, even those under a censure reserved in a special manner to the Supreme Pontiff. Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, 4 April 1871.

The absolution of an accomplice which is treated here concerns the first absolution of the accomplice, namely, one who has not yet been absolved by another confessor from the sin of complicity. By a decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, 29 May 1867, it was declared that a confessor is free to absolve an accomplice who has already been absolved by another confessor from the dishonorable sin of complicity; counsel, however, must always be given to the confessor in question that, unless necessity compels him, he abstain from hearing the sacred confessions of the accomplice, even though already absolved from the sin of complicity.

Under the prohibition of absolving an accomplice in a base matter are included not only touches, but all grave and externally committed sins against chastity, even those which consist in mere conversations and looks that involve complicity. Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, 28 May 1873.

"Whether a confessor who pretends to absolve his male or female accomplice in a base sin, according to the mind of the Bull Apostolicae Sedis, no. 10, for example, by reciting some prayer, or by pronouncing other words, or even by remaining silent, in such a way that by signs or gestures of the hands he seems truly to release the penitent from sins, incurs the excommunication reserved in a special manner to the Supreme Pontiff which is treated in the aforesaid Bull.—Response. Confessors pretending to absolve an accomplice in a base sin do not escape the reserved excommunication in the Bull Sacramentum Poenitentiae of Benedict XIV." Sacred Penitentiary, 1 March 1878.—Consequently, neither do those escape excommunication who pretend to absolve and do not absolve. Holy Office, 5 December 1883.

"Whether he incurs the censures enacted against those absolving an accomplice in a base sin, who indeed absolves an accomplice, but an accomplice who did not declare the sin of complicity in confession.—Response. The deprivation of jurisdiction for absolving an accomplice in a base sin, and the excommunication annexed to it, insofar as the confessor has absolved him, are ordered to the base sin itself in which that same confessor was an accomplice." Sacred Penitentiary, 16 May 1877.

"Confessors do not escape the excommunication reserved in the Bull Sacramentum Poenitentiae who absolve, or pretend to absolve, an accomplice who indeed does not confess the sin of complicity from which he has not yet been absolved, but conducts himself thus because the confessor, either directly or indirectly, induced the penitent to do so." Sacred Penitentiary, 19 February 1896.

"Whether those who absolve an accomplice in a base matter with crass and supine ignorance incur this excommunication or not?—Response. In the case proposed, they incur it." Holy Office, 13 January 1892.

Thieves who steal the fruits of benefices are not included under the censure of article 11, reserved in a special manner to the Supreme Pontiff. Holy Office, 9 March 1870.

On the contrary, the followers of the clerical-liberal society, or society for the emancipation of the clergy, incur it; they devote their effort to the popular election of sacred ministers; and although they are rightly numbered among schismatics, the Sacred Congregation of the Council taught in the Instruction to all the Ordinaries of Italy, 24 January 1878, that they are to be condemned under this article 11 also, as under article 6. Cf. no. 1166.

Cf. nos. 799, 800.

"1. Can a physician asked by duelists attend the duel with the intention of bringing the combat to a swift end, or merely of binding and treating wounds, without incurring the excommunication simply reserved to the Supreme Pontiff?—2. Can he at least, without being present at the duel, remain in a nearby house or place, close at hand and ready to furnish his services if the duelists need them?—3. What of a confessor under the same conditions?—Response. To 1. He cannot, and the excommunication is incurred.—To 2 and 3. Insofar as this is done by agreement, likewise he cannot, and the excommunication is incurred." Holy Office, 28 May 1884.

"The American or Irish Society called the Fenians is included among the societies forbidden and condemned in the Constitutions of the Supreme Pontiffs, and especially in the most recent one of His Holiness, published on 12 October 1869, beginning Apostolicae Sedis." Holy Office, 12 January 1870.

"1. Whether the society called the Independent Order of Good Templars is subject to the excommunication enacted against secret societies in the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis?—And, in the negative: 2. Whether it is forbidden under grave sin to enroll in that society?—Response. To 1. Deferred.—To 2. Affirmative, or the faithful are to be deterred from enrolling in this society." Holy Office, 9 August 1893; Apostolic Prefect of Norway.

"It cannot be doubted that Catholics who attend dances and other entertainments customarily held by members of the Masonic society, and by them as such, are made guilty of grave sin. The Pontifical Constitution forbids, under the penalty of excommunication incurred by the fact itself and reserved to the Holy See, that any favor whatsoever be furnished to the Masonic sect or to another society of the same kind; and therefore this is to be held as a certain rule for judging whether and when Catholics have in fact fallen under the aforesaid excommunication: namely, that one must carefully weigh the benefit and advantage which the condemned society and its adherents, as such, derive or can derive from intervention and attendance of this kind on the part of those Catholics. Hence it is to be held that Catholics are bound by the censure in the case in which their presence and participation in gatherings of this kind in fact brings some benefit to the same sect or to its followers." Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 15 July 1876.

"1. Are occult chiefs and leaders of the Masonic sect to be denounced according to the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, when they are publicly known as Freemasons, but are not publicly known as chiefs or leaders of this Masonic sect? 2. Does the obligation of denunciation cease in those regions in which the Freemasons, and therefore their chiefs, are tolerated by the civil government and cannot be punished by ecclesiastical authority or restrained in any way?—Response. To 1. Affirmative.—To 2. Negative." Holy Office, 19 April 1893.

"Denunciations are to be made to him who by reason of his pastoral office must watch and guard lest the sheep entrusted to him encounter wolves or be infected by pestilence; such is anyone who holds an episcopal or quasi-episcopal office in the missions, namely, a vicar or Apostolic Prefect, or one deputed by them for this purpose." Instruction of the Holy Office, 1 February 1871.

It was declared, with the approval of Our Most Holy Lord, that Orientals are included in the Pontifical Constitutions enacted against clandestine sects, also with respect to the penalties inflicted in those Constitutions. Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 1867.

The following proposition was proscribed by Pius IX: "The Apostolic Constitutions by which clandestine societies are condemned, whether or not an oath to preserve secrecy is required in them, and their followers and supporters are punished with anathema, have no force in those regions of the world where associations of this kind are tolerated by the civil Government." Encyclical Quanta cura, 8 December 1864.

"Ecclesiastical penalties have been enacted by very many Roman Pontiffs against those who should enroll in the society which they call the Freemasons and should take an oath in their conventicles to preserve secrecy.

"A doubt arises whether those who, although they repent of the oath taken, nevertheless, by communicating with the others adhering to the same sect, or by attending their conventicles, or in any other way, persevere in openly exhibiting themselves as true devotees of the same Society, can lawfully be admitted by a confessor to participation in the Sacrament of Penance or of the Most Holy Eucharist.—Response. According to what was set forth, it is not lawful." Holy Office, 5 July 1837.

"Let the bishop employ the faculties which are customarily granted to Ordinaries by the Sacred Penitentiary, by force of which both he and other confessors delegated by him can absolve those who enrolled in forbidden sects, whether they are notorious or not; provided that they separate themselves entirely from the respective sect, and at least before the confessor abjure or detest it, scandal having been repaired in the best manner possible and the other things to be imposed by law having been imposed, according to the aforesaid letters of the Sacred Penitentiary." Holy Office, 5 August 1898.

"In this diocese, as also in very many others, departure is granted to them from wholly immemorial custom for grave causes recognized and approved by the bishop, according to the Council of Trent, without any account being taken of the Constitution of Pius V. Whether that particular and immemorial custom is to be regarded as abrogated by the aforesaid new Constitution, or whether it can be continued.—Response. Affirmative to the first part; negative to the second: namely, with respect to the departure of nuns from enclosure, the Constitution Decori of Saint Pius V is to be observed, notwithstanding a contrary custom." Holy Office, 22 December 1880.

"1. Can a bishop, by his own authority, permit women who desire to enter as pensioners to be received into monasteries subject to enclosure?—2. Likewise, can the Ordinary, by his own authority, transfer some nun temporarily or perpetually from one monastery to another, even of the same order, when a just cause intervenes?—3. Finally, can the Ordinary, by his own authority, transfer some nun when she has been elected superior of another monastery, or when he judges such a transfer with this office to be useful and expedient?—Response. Negative in all cases." Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 16 July 1884; M. E., vol. 3, part 3, p. 181; Bizzarri, pp. 208, 423, ed. 1885.

"Whether those collecting alms of a greater amount for Masses, if they have those Masses celebrated in the same place where they collected them for a smaller amount, incur this censure or not?—Response. Affirmative to the first part.—Negative to the second." Holy Office, 13 January 1892.

1. "How is one to answer a person asking whether an offered office of deputy in the national assembly, which the Italians call the Parliament, can be accepted?—Response. Affirmative, under the following conditions: 1. That, in taking the oath of fidelity and obedience prescribed by law, the deputies-elect add the limitation: saving the divine and ecclesiastical laws. 2. That a limitation of this kind be made expressly in the recitation of the formula of the oath itself, with at least two witnesses hearing it. 3. That the deputies-elect be disposed in mind, and declare, that they will never lend favor and vote to wicked and unjust laws; indeed, that if laws of this kind are proposed, they will openly condemn them."

978. • Above we said (above, no. 970) that certain censures are implicitly comprehended in the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, and that to this place pertain also these words of the same Constitution:

But whatever censures, whether of excommunication, suspension, or interdict, besides those which We have enumerated, have been imposed by Our Constitutions or those of Our Predecessors, or by the sacred Canons ¹, and have hitherto remained in force, whether for the election of the Roman Pontiff or for the internal governance ² of any Orders and Regular Institutes whatever, and likewise of any Colleges, Congregations, Associations, and Pious Places, of whatever name or kind they may be, all these We will and declare to be firm and to remain in their force.

¹ Therefore, censures imposed by the Superiors of Regulars or by provincial or general Chapters for the proper subjects of the Order do not pertain here.

² There is question, namely, of censures sanctioning obligations which pertain to the governance of Regulars as such, whether at length they regard the general state of Regulars or some particular Institute. Therefore, for example, there does not pertain here the excommunication imposed under Clement VIII against Regulars who presumed to absolve from cases which the Ordinaries of places had reserved to themselves; for this does not concern internal governance, and therefore has ceased. The Rieti Commentary judges that the same must be said of the excommunication imposed against Regulars who usurp the tithes of Churches (Clementine 1, On Tithes); or who persuade others to choose burial in their Churches by interposing a vow or oath, or not to alter one chosen (Clementine 3, final section, On Penalties).

It is certainly not the purpose of our Institute to investigate what censures have hitherto been imposed for the internal governance of all those Associations which we see enumerated here, and much less which of those censures have still remained in force. It will be useful to touch only upon a few things concerning the Association of Regulars, as being the most extensive of all.

979. • Therefore Regulars who rashly lay aside the habit of their religion are punished with a latae sententiae excommunication. From chapter Ut periculosa 2, title That Clerics or Monks, in the Sext ³.

³ There are some who infer from this text of law that apostates from Religion are excommunicated by that very fact. But Sanchez writes well concerning these (On the Decalogue, book 6, chapter 8, no. 45) that apostasy from Religion has altogether no bearing upon contracting this excommunication; for the text in that second chapter excommunicates only religious who rashly lay aside the habit of religion. But this laying aside can occur without apostasy, and conversely there can be apostasy without this laying aside. Wherefore a religious rashly laying aside the habit without apostasy with the intention of apostatizing incurs it; and conversely, however much he may be an apostate, if he does not lay aside the habit, he does not incur this censure.

Furthermore, since the Canon strikes one who rashly lays aside the habit of his religion, and does so in order that dangerous occasion for wandering about may be removed from Religious, it is manifest that this excommunication is not contracted by those who, for a reasonable cause, go about after laying aside or changing the habit of their religion.

Likewise, monks or Regular Canons, if, in order to inflict some harm upon their Prelates or Monasteries, they have presumed to have recourse to the courts of Princes. From Clementine 1, On the Status of Monks, section 5.

Likewise, monks keeping weapons within the enclosures of monasteries without the permission of the Abbots. From the same Clementine, loc. cit.

But Superiors of Regulars incur an excommunication reserved to the Supreme Pontiff if they do not denounce any Religious, even those not their subjects, whom they know to be infected with the stain of heresy or even to be suspected of it. Paul V, Constitution Romanus Pontifex, and Alexander VIII, Constitution Licet alias.

Likewise, if in cases pertaining to the Holy Office the same Superiors dare to intermeddle in any manner. From the aforesaid Constitutions.

Likewise, if the same Superiors in any manner turn aside, withdraw, or dissuade their subjects who wish to have recourse to the Holy Office. From the same Constitutions.

Religious subjects incur the same reserved excommunication if they do not denounce confreres or even Superiors of the same Order whom they know to be in any manner, even lightly, suspected concerning the faith. From the cited Constitutions.

All these same persons incur it if, under the pretext of fraternal correction or another pretext, they deter or delay persons seeking counsel from them from making a denunciation. From the cited Constitutions.

St. Alphonsus, VII, n. 281; ed. G., vol. 4, p. 419, with the necessary changes having been made; Aertnys, VII, n. 75; D'Annibale (Reatinus) on the Constitution Apost. Sed. (ed. 4); Summula (ed. 5); Patavinus (Bertapelle), ed. 2; Piatus, Avanzini, Pennacchi, Del Vecchio, Bucceroni, on this Constitution; Lehmkuhl, II, n. 1179; Noldin, I, de Poenis, etc., etc.

1311. Preliminary notes. 1. Scope of the Constitution. The scope of this Constitution was, as the Supreme Pontiff himself declares, to diminish the number of censures, for avoiding many inconveniences, and to make a full and clear review of those which henceforth are to be observed and retained.

Whence it follows that the same Constitution is as it were the penal code of the Church, in which are contained, directly or indirectly expressed, all latae sententiae censures in force today; with the addition, however, of those which afterward, for example in the Constitution Romanus Pontifex, were inflicted.

2. The Constitution does not change all things. Nothing was changed: a) as regards censures ferendae sententiae, nor as regards censures issued by prelates or Chapters against their own subjects; b) as regards other canonical penalties, for example irregularities, incapacities, etc.; c) as regards cases reserved without censure; d) as regards privileges which do not regard censures; e) as regards ecclesiastical laws from which censures have been taken away. Therefore, in all these things, one must stand by the ancient Law.

Nevertheless, if the ancient Law punished certain delicts, which are now coerced by excommunication, with other penalties, these penalties seem now abrogated; because it would be too hard and alien to Law, because of the same crime, to be subject to several laws and to be affected by several penalties (D'Annibale, I, n. 389).

3. The Constitution has its own force. The Supreme Pontiff declares that all the censures which he decrees "ought to receive their force altogether not only from the authority of the ancient canons, insofar as they agree with this our Constitution, but also from this Constitution of ours itself, no otherwise than if they had first been issued by it."

From which clause it follows: a) that the censures reviewed here are to be understood first indeed according to the sense which is clearly inferred from the words of the Pontiff, but then according to the tradition of the ancient canons and the received interpretation; b) that desuetude of the ancient canons, even immemorial, can no longer be invoked as regards censures clearly and expressly renewed or confirmed: as is clear from several Decrees of the Holy Office (cf. below n. 1353).1

1312. What LATAE SENTENTIAE censures therefore remain in force today?

Resp. 1. Censures which are either contained in the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, or have been issued afterward, as we shall see in its own place.

2. Censures which were directly inflicted by the COUNCIL OF TRENT and confirmed by Pius IX. We say directly inflicted: for from the scope of the Constitution, and from the common opinion, the other censures which Trent only indirectly inflicted or renewed, or imposed in general words, do not seem confirmed; because penalties only remembered by Trent, or even renewed, can in no way be called Tridentine penalties (Patavin., 100).

3. Censures issued "for the election of the Roman Pontiff, insofar as hitherto they have persisted in their force." Moreover, those things persist in force which the Roman Pontiffs sanctioned, for example against those violating the law of secrecy, or against all, even Cardinals, who, while the Roman Pontiff is living, or while the See is vacant, shall have made agreements concerning the election of a successor; nevertheless discussions which, when the See is vacant, are had for the election are not forbidden. Thus especially from the new Constitution of Pius X, Vacante Sede Apostolica, 25 Dec. 1904 (Acta Pii X, vol. 3, Appendix), by which the earlier Constitutions either are abrogated, or confirmed, or completed.

4. All censures which have been issued "for the internal governance" of any Orders and regular Institutes whatever, as well as of any colleges, congregations, assemblies, and pious places whatever, of whatever name or kind they may be... insofar as by desuetude, or by another cause, they have not ceased in some place or Institute. It is said for internal governance: to this is referred excommunication against those regulars who rashly lay aside the habit of Religion (c. Ut periculosa, ne clerici vel monachi, in 6); or who keep arms within the enclosures of a monastery without permission of Superiors (Clem. 1, de Statu monachorum); or who do not denounce their confreres or Superiors suspected in any way whatever of heresy (Paul V, Const. Romanus Pontifex); or who, in order to cause damage to their prelates or monasteries, presume to go to the courts of princes (ib.); and other censures similar to these.

1 A review of censures formerly in force, see in Edm. Voit, Theol. mor., t. 2, at the end, Alphabetical Index; a fuller interpretation, see in Suarez, Bonacina, the Salmanticenses, etc.

1313. Excommunications are given which are either 1. reserved to the Roman Pontiff in a special way; or 2. reserved to the same simply; or 3. reserved to Ordinaries; or 4. reserved to no one.

Those which are reviewed in the first part are with very good right disposed thus: The first five fortify the FOUNDATION of the Church, namely faith and the divine Constitution of the Church reposed in the Supreme Pontiff and Bishops; the four following, together with the thirteenth concerning intruded persons, defend the POWER and LIBERTY of the Church; and the last three protect the GOODS of the Church, whether spiritual, excomm. 10, or temporal. In the second series almost the same order recurs.

Twelve of this kind are reviewed in the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, all indeed, except the tenth, already contained in the Bull Coenae: to which is added the thirteenth, from the Constitution Romanus Pontifex, issued 28 Aug. 1873.1 In very recent times another excommunication acceded for repressing the EXCLUSIVE (Veto) of civil power (cf. n. 1327).

Therefore Pius IX declares subject to such a censure:

1314. I. "All apostates from the Christian faith, and all and individual heretics, by whatever name they may be reckoned, and of whatever sect they may exist; and those believing them; and their receivers, favorers, and generally any defenders of them."

1. By APOSTATES and HERETICS understand those who have sinned gravely against faith by an internal and external act, according to what was said n. 438 sqq.; 573, 2; 596, 3.

2. BELIEVERS, of apostates or heretics, are those who implicitly sustain their errors, declaring in general that these or those heretics think rightly; for example if someone says: "I believe what Calvin believes," etc. Likewise, if someone attends the sermons of heretics, not indeed drawn by curiosity of hearing, or by greed for money, but led by the intention of assenting to false doctrine, to which in a confused way he already offers faith.

3. RECEIVERS: those who receive or conceal a heretic as such, not as a friend or blood-relative, in their home, so that he may escape the penalties of heresy. FAVORERS: those who furnish favor to heretics, whether notorious or occult; either positively by praising them, commending them, for example before the government, promoting the exercise of heretical worship, opening schools for them for the sake of fostering heresy, etc.; or negatively, by omitting, without just cause, denunciation of them; or correction, when they are bound by office to make it.1 All those incur the same excommunication who enroll themselves even merely by name in a heretical or schismatic sect, for whatever cause this may be done. Likewise those who contract marriage before a heretical or schismatic minister attached to sacred things (Holy Office, 22 Mar. 1879, and 18 May 1892; Nouv. Rev. Theol., vol. 15, p. 284). DEFENDERS: those who, in whatever way, defend either the errors of heretics; or protect their persons, for example by impeding them from being brought before judges or punished by them. Nevertheless those are not to be numbered among defenders who praise the style, elegance, or knowledge of the author of a heretical book, unless perhaps the praise redounds to approval of the doctrine itself (VII, 300-308). As regards absolution of heretics, see n. 443.2

Note. If the Bishop has reserved absolution of this sin, the confessor would need a twofold faculty. See nevertheless what we shall say n. 1348, note.

1315. • II. "All and individual persons knowingly reading without authority of the Apostolic See the books of the same apostates and heretics, defending heresy, as well as books of any author prohibited by name through Apostolic Letters; those retaining, printing, and in any way defending the same books." This censure is in force today from the Constitution Officiorum, n. 47, and draws its force from it.

By the name of book is understood a writing which consists of some bulk and unity of object. Wherefore under the name of book do not come newspapers or daily papers, letters, sermons, smaller booklets, just as neither do certain pages separated from a prohibited book (Holy Office, 21 Apr. 1886); nor even probably manuscripts, for "today we take books to be those which are published in type," as D'Annibale says (Summula, III, 141); now this censure must be interpreted according to the sense received today. On the contrary, under the name of books come periodical writings (livraisons, revues) or individual fascicles destined to compose a volume (Holy Office, 13 Jan. 1892; Monit. eccl., VII, P. I, p. 266); likewise translations of a work into another language (St. Alph., VII, 281).

1. Therefore books prohibited by this censure are of a twofold kind: a) Books of apostates or heretics, provided that concerning these two things at the same time it is established: that the author is publicly held as an apostate or heretic, whether from the sect to which he belongs, or from the pertinacity with which he hands down and defends heretical doctrine; that heresy is not only contained in the book, but is also defended. b) Books of any author, prohibited by name or by the express title of the work, and that under penalty of excommunication reserved to the Roman Pontiff, through Apostolic Letters in any form, containing these or similar expressions: "from the plenitude of our Apostolic authority," or "by Apostolic authority" (Pennacchi, I, p. 117).

Therefore the censure does not extend to books prohibited through general Decrees, or condemned by some Sacred Congregation, or entered by name or in the mass into the Index; nor to books of infidels or Jews, unless perhaps the conditions which we have enumerated are verified in them. Cf. Ami du Cl., 1911, p. 734; Hilgers, Der Index, p. 90 sqq.

1316. 2. The EXCOMMUNICATED PERSONS, the things to be posited having been posited, are the following:

a) Readers. To read, strictly speaking, is to look with the eyes and perceive with the mind the things which are written. Wherefore he does not read who only materially runs through with the eyes a book composed in a language unknown to him, nor he who hears another reading, even by his command, as Navarrus and others probably teach, against many (VII, n. 292). Therefore readers in a relatively notable quantity are bound by the censure.

But when will the quantity be notable? The older theologians, Lugo, disp. 21, n. 85; St. Alph., VII, 284, 292, say that the object of reading is notable: either one or another page, or a proemium in the case in which less dangerous matter is set forth there; or a few lines, if precisely there heretical doctrine is defended. - Recent authors teach that the matter is notable: either 3-4 pages, if they contain truly dangerous things, or 30 pages, if the danger contained in them is less. Thus Noldin, II, 700. But we ask whether the circumstances of the times and the end of the Constitution Officiorum ac munerum, of which account must certainly be had, demand this, that one depart by such large steps from the opinion of the older authors? Cf. Ami du Cl., 1912, p. 952. More rightly, in our judgment, Lehmkuhl (I, 1335) thinks: He sins gravely, he says, who without faculty reads a place which treats specially of prohibited matter, or, if the matter is not dangerous, a notable part, for example one or another page of larger format. Cf. the things which Vermeersch wisely notes, de Prohib. libr. (ed. 4), p. 43 sqq.

b) Retainers, for a notable time, for example for three days, whether with themselves, or with a friend, although endowed with faculty of retaining, but from whom they can demand the book back at their own pleasure; otherwise if with a pact not to demand it back except after purgation of the book or license obtained; although they do not retain it for reading, as, for example, a depositary, borrower, bookseller, or associate having co-ownership in a literary society (Kon., n. 1704, q. 8). This nevertheless does not seem to extend to public libraries (Noldin, n. 53). He does not seem to retain who is merely custodian of a library, for in reality he neither detains nor possesses. But it is disputed whether under the name of retainers come binders of books (les relieurs). Strictly speaking it must be affirmed, yet from epikeia this retention seems permitted if they bind them for one having faculty. In other cases the reason of damage will very often excuse (Vermeersch, p. 39). But he is excused who retains for a longer time while waiting until he hands it over at a suitable time to the Superior, or to another having license. Nor is the censure incurred if that part of the book which gave occasion to the prohibition is destroyed in such a way that it can no longer be read.

c) Printers, under which name, besides the editor and owner of the printing-house, come all those who knowingly and proximately concur toward the edition of the book. Cf. the cited Instruction of the Eminent Cardinal Vicar. - See what was said n. 524.

d) Defenders; whether by deeds, by propagating books, exposing them for sale, hiding them lest they be handed over to the judge or burned; or by words, by praising them, excusing them, etc. Nevertheless he who praises not the depraved doctrine of the book, but the style or knowledge of the author, is excused from the censure (VII, l. c.).

1317. • III. "Schismatics, and those who from the obedience of the Roman Pontiff existing for the time being pertinaciously withdraw themselves or depart."

The censure touches: 1. SCHISMATICS properly so called, namely those who boldly establish or follow new Churches. Such are, for example, the Old Catholics. 2. Imperfect schismatics, namely those who, led by true malice, do not wish to obey the Roman Pontiff existing for the time being, holding themselves as freed from his power. From these are certain writers, called liberals, who under a futile pretext pertinaciously reject the decisions and commands of the Roman Pontiff (Pennacchi, I, p. 10, annot. 1). 3. Those giving their name to a society for vindicating the rights of the people in the election of the Supreme Pontiff, or promoting it or in any way favoring or adhering to it (Sacred Penitentiary, 4 Aug. 1876). Cf. A. S. S., vol. 9, p. 352.

But the censure does not touch: a) those who detract from the temporal dominion of the Roman Pontiff; b) those who simply refuse to obey his commands, because they are grave and burdensome, or from hatred toward his private person; c) him who should refuse to be subject to the Pontiff insofar as he is suspect to him, or doubtfully legitimate, that is, not yet received by the universal Church because of an election doubtfully valid; d) him who departs from obedience due to his own Bishop, even pertinaciously. Except if he refuses to be subject to the Bishop because he does not wish to have him as legitimate pastor; for this is the same as not wishing to be subject to the Roman Pontiff who sent him (Konings, 1708).

1318. IV. "All and individual persons, of whatever state, grade, or condition they may have been, appealing from the ordinances or commands of the Roman Pontiffs existing for the time being to a future universal Council; as well as those by whose help, counsel, or favor the appeal shall have been made."

The following are excommunicated: 1. Appellants; and the reason is that they not only do injury to the supreme head of the Church, but also present an appearance of schism. Indeed, if someone should appeal because he thought the Pope did not have supreme and infallible authority in the Church, he would furthermore be a heretic and would be punished by a double excommunication. - But by ordinances and commands, from which it is unlawful to appeal, are to be understood all those things by which the Roman Pontiff, even through a particular and disciplinary Decree, commands something which regards the good of souls; but not those things which refer to civil rule. He who should appeal from a dogmatic Decree would also be excommunicated as a heretic. See as regards colleges, etc., n. 1376.

2. Cooperators, "by whose help, counsel, or favor the appeal shall have been made." - The censure does not touch him who should appeal to the present Council or to a future Pontiff, nor him who should approve an appeal already made by others.

1 For the sake of helping memory, use these little verses, if you please:

Heretic, reader, tearing, crying out, or striking,
Impeding, compelling, prohibiting, falsifying, dishonest,
Usurping, retaining, intruded by whatever name;
All these guilty ones must present themselves at Rome.

1 Instruction of the Eminent Cardinal Vicar to the parish priests of the nourishing City, 12 Jul. 1878 (A. S. S., vol. 11, p. 168). There he further declares that parents who send children to a heretical school do not incur the censure. For they are not truly favorers of heretics.

2 To this excommunication there have been added, in favor of faith in the City, the four following, specially reserved to the Supreme Pontiff. The following are excommunicated: a) All those who, even without the will of adhering to heresy, and only for the sake of human respect, give their names to the enclosures of heretics, of any denomination whatever. b) Those who are present at non-Catholic functions, or services, as it is usually said, or hear one preaching, with the intention that they may give themselves to the same, insofar as, as they impiously say, they can be persuaded by him. c) Those who, having become favorers of the spiritual ruin of another, induce in any way and see to it that others go or come to the halls or temples of heretics to hear conferences. d) Those who publish in type invitations to the aforesaid conferences and the themes of the same; because of the favor which, by such action, they furnish to the propagation or confirmation of heresy. Same Instruction, A. S. S., 11, p. 172.

1319. • V. "All killing, mutilating, striking, capturing, imprisoning, detaining, or hostilely pursuing Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, and legates or nuncios of the Apostolic See, or casting them out from their dioceses, territories, lands, or dominions; as well as those commanding these things, or holding them ratified, or furnishing help, counsel, or favor in them."

By this censure are punished: 1. Those exercising cruelty against the LEADERS OF THE CHURCH, whether against their bodies, or against their liberty, or against their dignity, with the intention of harming them; or casting them, once received, out from places subject to their jurisdiction. But those are not bound by the censure who simply do not receive them, or expel them only from a city.

2. Cooperators, that is, those commanding, furnishing help or favor. Indeed, those holding the aforesaid crimes ratified incur the present excommunication. But for this it is required: a) that the crime was done in their name; b) that at the time of the delict perpetrated they could have commanded it; c) that they approve it by some grave external action, for example by writing, congratulation, applause, praise, etc. (VII, 267).

N. B. This censure must not be confused with that which begins Violentas manus, etc. (n. 1329), for protecting any ecclesiastical person whatever.

1320. VI. "Those directly or indirectly impeding the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, whether of the internal or external forum, and, that is, also, recurring for this to the secular forum and procuring or issuing its commands, or furnishing help, counsel, or favor."

The following are excommunicated: 1. Those impeding by force, threats, or command any exercise whatever of ecclesiastical jurisdiction,1 whether this be ordinary or delegated; whether of the internal forum, which the Sacred Penitentiary governs, or of the external, in which both the Roman Congregations and the Ordinaries of places pronounce law (cf. n. 138). But they impede directly or indirectly: directly, if they themselves obstruct the person endowed with jurisdiction, for example if someone threatens death to a Bishop lest he issue a censure, confer a benefice, visit a diocese, send preachers, acquire or alienate goods, change a parish priest, etc.; indirectly, if they obstruct efficaciously in another thing, or in another person, for example by sequestering the Bishop's goods, vexing his officials or familiars, etc.

2. Those recurring to the secular forum, or to secular magistrates, and procuring its commands, so that they may obstruct a sentence, namely, or an act of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Of this kind are those who, elected by the suffrage of the people, and furnished with the mandate of the civil power, dare, by obstructing the Church, to intrude themselves into parochial or episcopal governance (A. S. S., vol. 7, p. 702). Cf. Excomm. XI, n. 1325. See Monit. eccl., 1910, ap. Nouv. Rev. Theol., 1911, p. 246.

3. Those issuing commands, or the civil judges or magistrates themselves, who frame and issue commands in their own right, for impeding some act of jurisdiction. But actuaries, heralds, and couriers are not excommunicated. The reason is both because all these obey necessity, although perhaps they furnish their work with a willing mind, and because the law, when it wished them to be held by censure, declared this formally.

4. Cooperators, or secondary impeders, namely those who, by some reason sufficiently efficacious and gravely culpable, either furnished help to the persons reviewed above, by physically cooperating with them; or furnished counsel or favor, by morally cooperating in such a way. - Of this kind are, for example, those who elect, help, and favor INTRUDED pastors.

Note. Certain governments have established a tribunal for judging concerning abuse of ecclesiastical power. He who recurs to such a tribunal against Decrees of a Bishop incurs this grave censure. "Some authors wish (D'Annibale, l. c., n. 61; Gabriel a Varceno, n. 9) that those recurring do not incur excommunication unless the effect has followed; others however (Del Vecchio, I, 574; Grandclaude, in h. exc., n. 2; Avanzini, ed. 2, note 7) say that unjust recourse to a civil tribunal, for impeding Decrees of an ecclesiastical judge, suffices; and this opinion seems more probable to us." Cf. Haringer, App. ad l. VII S. Alph., n. 26.

1321. VII. "Those compelling, whether directly or indirectly, lay judges to draw ecclesiastical persons before their tribunal, contrary to canonical dispositions; likewise those issuing laws or decrees against the liberty or rights of the Church."

By this censure are struck: 1. Those who violate the privilege of FORUM, or the immunity of ecclesiastical persons, whether in a criminal cause or in a civil one.

By COMPELLING are understood any private persons whatever, even priests, who, with no permission of ecclesiastical power, call any ecclesiastical persons whatever, whether in a criminal or penal cause, to the tribunal of laymen, and compel them to be present there. Pius X, in the Motu proprio Quantavis diligentia, 9 Oct. 1911 (A. A. S., III, p. 556). - From these things it follows that under the name compelling are understood those who, in a public penal cause, constitute themselves a civil party, or who cause an ecclesiastical person, as witness, to appear in any cause whatever. Thus from the authentic declaration of the Supreme Pontiff to the Bishop of Larino, 11 Jan. 1912 (ap. Monit. eccl., 1912, p. 4). - Cf. A. A. S., VI, p. 277.

It must be noted, however, that mere denunciation before civil officials is not touched by the censure (Ami du Cl., 1912, p. 1035).

By the words contrary to canonical dispositions, allusion is made to multiple cases in which a lay judge can proceed licitly against clerics, whether in civil matters, or even in criminal ones, for example if a cleric has been degraded, etc. But where, with the Holy See permitting or silent, the privilege of FORUM no longer is in force, nor can the civil Right of private persons be obtained from an ecclesiastical judge, the censure seems to cease by the very fact1 (cf. n. 201 and 2234).

They are struck: 2. Those who issue laws or decrees against the LIBERTY or RIGHTS of the Church. These words are very widely open: for by them are expressed all the rights and liberties which belong to the Church, even the right of acquiring by acts either of last will or among the living; the right of alienating, leasing her goods, etc. (cf. n. 874).

Moreover, by the censure are struck the authors of laws and decrees of this kind, that is, deputies and senators who are efficacious causes; the prince who subscribes his name to them or promulgates them; likewise ministers, governors, prefects, municipal officers, etc., who issue decrees attacking some right of the Church, as, for example, decrees by which monasteries or pious places are suppressed.1

But they do not incur the censure: heralds or officials who promulgate such decrees or see that they are observed; notaries who draw up acts according to their norm; litigants who use those decrees; nor judges who accommodate their sentences to them. But consider whether they do not fall into another censure, for example from the fact that they injure ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

1322. VIII. "Those recurring to lay power for impeding letters or any acts whatever proceeding from the Apostolic See, or from its legates or delegates whatever, and those directly or indirectly prohibiting their promulgation or execution; or, by reason of them, injuring or terrifying either the parties themselves or others."

The present censure protects the Letters and Acts of the Holy See, that is, documents proceeding either immediately from the Roman Pontiff and from the Holy See, for example from the Sacred Penitentiary, or from the other Sacred Congregations (Holy Office, 13 Jan. 1892);2 or mediately through legates, nuncios, etc.

The following are excommunicated: 1. Those recurring, for impeding them, whether by appealing or provoking, to lay power, of whatever grade that power may be; and this, in the more probable opinion, although the recourse has suffered rejection.3 2. Those prohibiting promulgation, namely that which induces the obligation of law; or execution, for example by impeding the letters from obtaining their effect, as if someone intercepts them, or prohibits a notary from drawing up instruments concerning them, or from handing over instruments already drawn up. 3. Those injuring, as to the body, or terrifying, by very grave fear, either the parties themselves, that is, the persons who are helped by those letters; or others, for example advocates of the parties, executors, and finally all to whom the acts obtained are referred in some way (De Angelis, l. I, tit. 29, n. 6).

1323. IX. "All falsifiers of Apostolic Letters, even in the form of a Brief, and of supplications concerning grace or justice, signed by the Roman Pontiff, or by the vice-chancellors of the Holy Roman Church, or those taking their place, or by command of the same Roman Pontiff; as well as those falsely publishing Apostolic Letters, even in the form of a Brief; and also those falsely signing supplications of this kind under the name of the Roman Pontiff, or of the vice-chancellor or one taking the place of the aforesaid."

By Apostolic Letters here are not understood letters or Rescripts of the Sacred Congregations or of Nuncios.

Therefore the following are excommunicated: 1. Those who falsify Apostolic Letters, etc., namely by changing, adding, or taking away something by which the sense is corrupted, suppose if the Pontiff has conceded something for three years, and the petitioner changes it into five years.4 - 2. Those who falsely publish either true letters, but secretly and against the will of the Pontiff; or letters altogether false or corrupted, just as if they were authentic. Otherwise, if you publish doubtful letters as doubtful, or if you relate them historically, as published by another. 3. Those who falsely subscribe with the name of the Pontiff, for a grace made. As regards those who use false letters, cf. n. 1350.

1324. X. "Those absolving an accomplice in a shameful sin, even in the article of death, if another priest, although not approved for confessions, without some grave infamy and scandal about to arise, can receive the confession of the dying person."

It is said: 1. Those absolving, even with crass and supine ignorance (Holy Office, 13 Jan. 1892); nor do those simulating absolution escape excommunication (Resp. S. Poenit., 1 Mar. 1878; Holy Office, 10 Dec. 1883; A. S. S., 27, p. 555). - But the censure does not strike him who only hears the accomplice in confession; nor probably him who indeed absolves, but without advertence.

2. An accomplice in a shameful sin; by which name comes every external, grave, certain, and formal sin from each side, against chastity, which must be subjected and actually is subjected to absolution as necessary matter.

3. Even in the article of death, if, etc.; whence the accomplice does not avoid the censure, although he validly absolves, if he does not take care that another confessor or priest be present to the dying accomplice. See more at n. 1780.

Note. This censure is called most specially reserved; because in the faculty of absolving from cases reserved to the Holy See even in a special way, which is conceded to Ordinaries or missionaries, this case is expressly excepted, as is clear from several Decrees of the Holy Office. It is similarly excepted in the Bull of the Crusade (Monit. eccl., I, p. 173, 269).

1 Note that here it is a question only of the jurisdiction of the Catholic Church, but not of the jurisdiction of religious Orders, as regards the use of privileges; nor of the exercise of sacred Orders, as regards conferring them, reading Mass, etc.; nor finally of acts of mere administration (D'Annibale, n. 57).

1 D'Annibale, n. 65. - The privilege of forum for the above-said causes is no longer in force in Austria, Germany, Luxembourg, Belgium, Holland.

1 D'Annibale, n. 68; cf. Syllab. Pius IX, n. 32, 33, 45, 47.

2 Collect. S. C. de P. F., 2172.

3 D'Annibale, Bucceroni defend the contrary opinion (apud Lehmkuhl, II, 1199).

4 Lehmkuhl (II, 1200) judges that those who fabricate Apostolic Letters are not subject to the censure, if they do not publish them.

1325. XI. "Those usurping or sequestering jurisdiction, goods, revenues pertaining to ecclesiastical persons by reason of their churches or benefices."

Preliminary note. Four excommunications are issued against those who dispose illicitly of the GOODS OF THE CHURCH: the first in the present article, if they usurp goods which pertain to ecclesiastical persons by title of church or benefice; the second in the following article, if they invade the goods of the Roman Church; the third, simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff from Trent (n. 1347), if they usurp the goods of any benefice or pious place whatever; and finally the fourth, reserved to no one (n. 1353), if in an illicit way they alienate ecclesiastical goods of whatever kind.

1. Therefore the GOODS which this article protects are: a) jurisdiction, even temporal or delegated; b) temporal goods, indeed even rights to the same; c) revenues pertaining to ecclesiastical persons, not by any reason whatever, but by reason of their churches, or secular or regular benefices. But the goods of vacant benefices are not comprehended, nor those which pertain to Monts of Piety, hospitals, cemeteries, lay chaplaincies, sodalities of laymen, or the fabric of a Church (cf. n. 2235). Nor do the goods of monasteries, which were reviewed in the Bull Coenae, seem to be comprehended here (Avanzini, note 34; D'Annibale, n. 90).

2. THE FOLLOWING ARE EXCOMMUNICATED: a) Usurpers, that is, those occupying another's thing, designated above, as owed to themselves and pertaining to them by right. - Whence thieves, robbers, plunderers, etc., do not incur this censure (Holy Office, 9 Mar. 1870); nor probably those who acquire for themselves, by acts either of last will or among the living, a thing usurped by others; because they do not properly usurp, although they sin and incur other penalties (cf. n. 1347). b) Sequestrators, that is, those pronouncing sequestration by judicial office, or even executing it, and thus impeding goods from being received by the designated persons. Cf. however what was said n. 526, II, 5.

Likewise, from the Encyclical Letters of Pius IX, 21 Nov. 1873, for Switzerland, and from the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, 23 May 1874, for the Venetian and Milanese provinces, those are declared bound by a censure peculiarly reserved to the Holy See and by other penalties "whoever in the aforementioned dioceses, with the people voting, elected to the office of parish priest or vicar, dare to seize the pretended possession either of the Church, or of rights and goods, and to discharge the duties of ecclesiastical ministry."

This excommunication is also incurred by the followers of the clerical-liberal society, or emancipatory society of the clergy, who devote their work to the popular election of sacred ministers (S. C. Conc., 27 Jan. 1878).

N. B. The Instructions of the Sacred Penitentiary concerning those who buy or retain usurped goods, see n. 1031; concerning intruded persons, n. 1327, Question.

1326. XII. "Those invading, destroying, detaining, by themselves or through others, cities, lands, places, or rights pertaining to the Roman Church; or usurping, disturbing, retaining supreme jurisdiction in them; as well as those furnishing help, counsel, or favor to each of the aforesaid."

This censure protects the TEMPORAL DOMINION of the Holy See. - The following are excommunicated: 1. Those who by themselves, or through others, invade, etc., cities, lands, places, or rights, namely temporal and principal rights. 2. Those who usurp, or disturb, or retain the supreme and temporal jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff in these, for example those who impede the Roman Pontiff from publishing laws in these places, exacting taxes, etc. (cf. n. 1325 B, v. Usurpers). - 3. Cooperators, who furnish help, counsel, or favor to each of the aforesaid: namely through a formal, efficacious action, free from grave fear and coercion, for example the first magistrates of each province, city, land, or town.

The following are not excommunicated: a) 1. soldiers who invaded Rome, unless they were volunteers; b) those who fulfill municipal or other duties for protecting public tranquility: unless they furnish an oath by which they promise active obedience to the usurper, or unless they execute such things as are opposed to divine and ecclesiastical laws; c) those who, before the intruded government, discharge the office of consul and legate; d) a fortiori those who furnish only remote work, for example by providing victuals to usurpers, leasing buildings, serving, etc., as is clear from various Responses of the Sacred Penitentiary (A. S. S., I, p. 557-566; II, p. 675).

Note. As regards adherents, although they are not reviewed here, nevertheless they certainly incur the aforesaid excommunication, as is clear from the Encyclical Letter of Pius IX issued on 1 Nov. 1870. But for this, according to the more common opinion, it is required that adhesion or approval of the delict, for example in public papers, furnish help or favor, that is, that it truly concur toward the spoliation, or maintenance of the spoil (Patavin., 200, 202).

1327. XIII. To the specially reserved excommunications another must be added, which the Constitution Romanus Pontifex, 5 Sept. 1873, issued for protecting the Right of capitular vicars against INTRUDED PERSONS (A. S. S., 7, 401 and 702).1

By this censure are punished: 1. Canons and dignities of vacant cathedral churches who shall have dared to concede and transfer the care, governance, and administration of the vacant church... into one nominated and presented by lay power from concession of the Holy See, or elected by right by the capitulars themselves, before the exhibition of Apostolic Letters. 2. The one himself nominated and presented, or elected as above, to the vacant church, who dares to take up its care, governance, and administration, under the name of provider, vicar general, or another name. 3. All who have obeyed the foregoing, or furnished help, counsel, or favor, of whatever state, condition, preeminence, and dignity they may have been. Cf. n. 1361, 1375, 1380, where other penalties are noted.

Furthermore: 1. The aforesaid Canons and dignities are punished with the penalty of privation of ecclesiastical fruits and revenues, to be incurred by the very fact and to be relaxed by the Roman Pontiff. 2. The nominated one exists deprived of that right which perhaps had been acquired for him by the nomination.

IT IS ASKED. What things must Catholics observe as regards INTRUDED PERSONS?

Resp. Behold the principal prescriptions which Pius VI gave to be observed with respect to intruded persons in FRANCE, and by which now one must stand everywhere: 1. The intruded parish priest cannot be approached for the administration of Baptism, except in the case in which there is no other person willing to baptize; nor is it licit to discharge the office of sponsor, if perhaps the intruded person baptizes. - 2. It is not licit, even on feast days, to hear Mass celebrated by an intruded person, although another cannot be heard; nor is it licit to be present at the sermon and other functions of the intruded person, or to ask other ministries of office from him, or to commit to him the celebration of Mass. 3. It is not licit to receive communion from an intruded person, not even for satisfying the Easter precept. 4. Although one must genuflect before hosts consecrated by an intruded person, nevertheless care must be taken, lest in offering this worship Catholics seem to communicate with schismatics, that the meeting of the intruded person be avoided while he carries the Eucharist. 5. It is not licit to approach an intruded parish priest for contracting marriage: whence, if no other means is available, nor can the Superior provide another parish priest or presbyter, the faithful ought to contract without the presence of a pastor. - 6. It is not licit for women, after childbirth has been completed, to receive from intruded persons the blessing which is usually given to a woman after birth. 7. Funeral rites of the dead must be celebrated by the legitimate pastor, even in private houses, if they cannot be done otherwise. But if the intruded person carries the corpse to the church, Catholics should neither accompany the funeral, nor recite sacred prayers, nor perform other rites of the Church associated with him (Ninzatti, n. 1728; cf. Acta Pii VII, II, p. 84). See other things n. 1439.

There are EIGHTEEN; to which are added one from TRENT and another from a declaration of the HOLY OFFICE, as will be seen below.

Pius IX declares subject to excommunication of this kind:

1328. I. "Those teaching or defending, whether publicly or privately, propositions condemned by the Apostolic See under the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae; likewise those teaching or defending as licit the practice of inquiring from a penitent the name of an accomplice, as it was condemned by Benedict XIV in the Constitutions Suprema, 7 July 1745, Ubi primum, 2 June 1746, Ad eradicandum, 28 Sept. 1746."

1. That someone incur the censure expressed in the first part, it is necessary: a) That he teach, that is, hand down to those not knowing, whether publicly or privately, by words or writings, or defend, that is, strive to maintain as true or licit and not to be condemned, the condemned propositions. But he does not incur the censure if by good and not futile arguments he contends to demonstrate that some proposition contains a sense not condemned; for among condemned propositions, "some were condemned because they spoke too generally, and therefore they are not to be extended to all particular cases which are distinguished because of some grave circumstance" (I, 104; III, 760). - b) That these propositions have been condemned by the Apostolic See, that is, by the Roman Pontiff, whether by himself or through the Holy Office, but not by ecumenical Councils; under penalty of excommunication latae sententiae, which affects the propositions themselves, and not only the book in which they are contained.

Thus were condemned, among others (cf. Konings, I, series of condemned propositions): 5 propositions by Benedict XIV concerning duel, 65 propositions contained in the Decree Lamentabili of 4 Jul. 1907; and generally propositions which are contrary to the doctrine of the Encyclical Pascendi. Cf. Motu proprio of Pius X, 18 Nov. 1907 (A. S. S., 40, p. 723; likewise ib., p. 470 and 593).

But here do not come propositions condemned under penalties established by Law, that is, under penalties pronounced against heretics or those suspected of heresy; nor propositions condemned by Martin V against J. Wicleff and against J. Hus; or by Pius VI against the Synod of Pistoia; nor the errors reviewed in the Syllabus, since they carry no censure with themselves (Patavin., 230-238).

2. As regards specifically the practice of inquiring the name of an accomplice, three things are required for the censure: a) that someone teach this practice to be licit; b) that he teach each thing simultaneously to be licit, both to ask the name of the accomplice in any matter, and to deny absolution to one remaining silent; c) that he rashly teach or defend these things (VI, 491). - See the treatise on Penance, n. 1701.

1 Those who have a part in the Conclave incur this by the very fact that they assume from civil power the duty of proposing the Veto, even under the form of a simple desire. Similarly, if they make known this Veto itself, known to them by any reason, either to the College of Cardinals gathered together, or to individual purple Fathers, whether by writing or orally, whether directly and proximately or obliquely and through others. Cf. Acta Pii X, vol. 3, Appendix; Nouv. Rev. Theol., vol. 42, p. 65.

1329. • II. "Those laying violent hands, at the persuasion of the devil, upon clerics, or monks of either sex; excepted, as regards reservation, the cases and persons concerning whom, by law or privilege, it is permitted that the Bishop or another absolve." Can. Si quis deinceps, 22, and Can. Si quis suadente diabolo, 29, XVII, q. 4 (c. 15 of Lateran Council II under Innocent II).

We note beforehand that the interpretation of this article must be made broadly, both in the first part, where there is question of the privilege of the canon, and in the second, where there is question of the faculty of absolving; for in both places the rule holds: "favors are to be amplified." See what was said n. 1319.

As regards the FIRST, by the words: 1. Laying on are designated: a) the strikers themselves, or those maltreating a cleric, even prepubescents and of whatever age, sex, condition, or state they may be, provided they are capable of reason and capable of deceit; b) those commanding, counseling, consenting, provided they gravely and efficaciously influence the striking; c) those ratifying, in the way we explained above (n. 1319); d) those not impeding, if by justice or by office they are bound to impede. Thus commonly from the authentic interpretation of the celebrated Canon Si quis suadente diabolo. Cf. St. Alph., VII, 264-280; ed. G., IV, p. 408.1

2. By violent hands is understood any contumelious action, externally grave, by which the body, liberty, or dignity of a cleric is injured. Hence he incurs the censure: a) who lightly, indeed very lightly, strikes a cleric, if the striking, by reason of the reverence owed to him or by reason of the circumstances, is judged gravely injurious; b) who spits upon a cleric, soils him with mud, sprinkles him with water, detains him in prison, pursues him fleeing, so that he falls into a river or ditch, tears out his hair, tears his garment, takes something by force and injury from his body, for example a cap, cloak, etc., in such a way that the action is gravely injurious; c) who does these things, thinking him to be another cleric whom he intends to injure, or with the cleric consenting; because injury is inflicted upon the clerical order itself.

3. Upon clerics, that is, those marked at least with first tonsure; even excommunicated, suspended, interdicted, verbally degraded only, provided they have not lost the privilege by public degradation by law (cf. n. 1382);2 and monks of either sex, that is, any religious men or women, in the broader sense; therefore also women living together in a religious manner in a congregation erected by the Bishop, although no profession is made in it, or the institute has not yet been approved by the Holy See; likewise novices or tertiaries, if they wear the habit and live in community (Konings, 1719, 3).

4. At the persuasion of the devil, that is, with grave sin. But otherwise: a) if someone acts from sudden anger; b) if he strikes playfully, or by chance, although the striking is materially grave, or blood is poured out copiously from the nostrils, and although it is joined even with some venially culpable anger; c) if he strikes for defense of himself or his relatives, indeed of his own goods; d) if he has authority over the cleric, as prelate, teacher, father, etc., and strikes moderately and for correction.

As regards the SECOND, that is, as regards ABSOLUTION, a threefold striking must be distinguished: 1. enormous, in which a great wounding or great injury intervenes; 2. grave or middling, when a contusion of the flesh occurs, or when indeed an abundance of blood is poured out, but without great lesion or injury, for example if a tooth is knocked out, or a quantity of hair torn out; 3. light, not indeed in itself, but relative to the aforesaid, when a simple striking occurs, for example by hand, foot, stick, and the like, without notable damage, and without wound, notable contusion, or trace of the striking remaining.3

Now, concerning these, what can the Bishop or his Vicar do by common Law?

Resp. 1. If the striking, although public, was light, he can absolve the striker, whoever he may be; 2. if middling, only those who live collegially, women, and prepubescents; 3. if enormous, only prepubescent females, whether they seek to be absolved before or after puberty, with things to be excepted excepted, in an occult case from c. Liceat. - In doubt whether the striking was light, grave, or enormous, you must follow that which is greater, or that which favors the privileged more, from the aforementioned rule of interpretation (VII, 279, 280).

But notorious strikers of clerics are excommunicated persons to be avoided (see n. 1295).

1330. III. "Those perpetrating a duel, or simply challenging to it, or accepting it, and any accomplices whatever, or those furnishing any work or favor whatever, as well as those watching deliberately, and those permitting it, or not prohibiting it insofar as is in them, of whatever dignity they may be, even royal or imperial." Trent, Sess. 25, c. 19, de Ref.; Gregory XIII, Ad tollendam; Clement VIII, Illius vices; Benedict XIV, Detestabilem.

The following are excommunicated: 1. Those perpetrating a duel, namely all those who by private authority, from agreement, enter a single combat with danger of killing or grave wound. But it makes no difference whether seconds are present or not; whether they fight with lethal weapons, or not; provided there is danger of grave wound, and this is foreseen, as frequently happens in certain Universities.1 Likewise, those challenging to a duel with a serious intention of fighting, although the one challenged does not accept. Likewise those accepting, although the duel does not follow.

2. Accomplices, those furnishing any work or favor whatever, as seconds, witnesses; those who give counsel, who dictate, write, carry letters of challenge; or otherwise involve themselves in these, for example a physician or confessor who from agreement would be nearby to bring help to the wounded (Holy Office, 31 May 1884; A. S. S., 17, p. 604). - Yet those seem immune from censure who only teach the art of fencing to those about to duel.

3. Those watching deliberately, that is, those who by their presence incite to the fight; but not those who, passing by chance, look, or in secret, or from afar; nor those who go to the place of the contest in order to impede the duel.

4. Those permitting it, or not prohibiting it, when they are able and ought to prohibit, as leaders of an army, lords of a land, prefects, etc. (cf. n. 747, 1387). St. Alph., VII, 220.

Note. All who are indicated under 2-4 do not seem certainly to incur the censure if the duel does not in fact follow (Genicot, II, n. 595; Lehmkuhl, II, 1222).

1331. IV. "Those giving their name to the masonic or carbonarian sect, or to other sects of the same kind, which plot against the Church or legitimate powers, whether openly or secretly; as well as those furnishing any favor whatever to the same sects; and those not denouncing their hidden chiefs and leaders until they have denounced them." Clement XII, In eminenti; Benedict XIV, Providas; Pius VII, Ecclesiam; Leo XII, Quo graviora; Pius IX, Qui pluribus; Leo XIII, Humanum genus, on 20 Apr. 1884.

The following incur this censure: 1. Those giving their name to sects prohibited under censure. One must carefully distinguish between societies prohibited indeed under grave obligation, but without censure, and societies forbidden under censure.

For a society to be prohibited under censure, two things are required: that it truly constitute a sect united by a close bond, and that it plot something against the Church or legitimate Government. For censure IV is directed first against the masonic sect, and then against those societies which are constituted according to its pattern.1

Now: a) Prohibited, but without censure, are, for example, the three American societies called Odd Fellows, Sons of Temperance, Knights of Pythias (Holy Office, 20 Aug. 1894),2 and in general all those which demand from their followers a secret to be disclosed to no one, and obedience in every way to be furnished to hidden leaders (Holy Office, 10 May 1884).3 Similarly the society of Sillonists (A. A. S., II, p. 608 sqq.), biblical societies, or those which are constituted for burning corpses (Holy Office, 19 May 1886), are altogether forbidden.

b) Prohibited under censure are: the masonic and carbonarian society, from the Constitution itself, and the Fenians (Holy Office, 12 Jan. 1870);4 societies of Solidarists, Internationalists, Mazzinians, Communists, Nihilists, Anarchists, as well as similar societies, whether or not they demand from their followers an oath of keeping secrecy (Holy Office, 1846 and 1884; Coll. Prop. Fid., n. 1861).

As regards socialists, the doubt among authors whether they are punished by this censure arises from this, that socialists do not have, like masons, hidden leaders and hidden ordinances (Lehmkuhl, II, 1225; Noldin, I, 74; Vermeersch, de Prohib. libr., n. 83; Genicot, II, 596). But against this is that the Holy Office, in the Decree of 10 May 1884, declares that the mark of a society prohibited under censure consists especially in plotting against the Church or Government. Cf. D'Annibale, Ballerini-Palmieri.

2. Favorers, who furnish any favor whatever to those sects, that is, who provide counsel, help, openly or in secret, by themselves or through others, who receive them in their buildings, conceal them, or make a convenience for them so that they may be summoned to another place; who exhort others or persuade them to enroll themselves in societies of this kind, or to be present at their meetings; finally all who in any way help and favor them, and constitute themselves guilty of gravely illicit cooperation. Nevertheless, the censure no longer touches those who fictitiously are present at their meetings.

3. Those not denouncing, within a month, to the Ordinary the hidden chiefs and leaders, and these alone. a) The obligation of denouncing is the same as for a heretic and must be interpreted by the same reason (cf. n. 442); but it suffices if you manifest the guilty through an interposed person, for example through a confessor or parish priest. Holy Office, 15 June 1870. b) This obligation urges even when the leaders to be denounced are publicly known as Freemasons, but not as chiefs or leaders of the masonic sect. It urges also in those regions in which they cannot be punished by ecclesiastical power, nor in any way restrained (Holy Office, 19 Apr. 1893).5 c) The obligation of denouncing ceases if the leaders as such are certainly known; but it does not cease on that account because their names are read everywhere in books and newspapers (Holy Office, 1 Feb. 1871).6 It also ceases as long as someone cannot denounce without betraying himself. d) Denunciation having been made within 30 days after the obligation has been known, or after the impediment which perhaps stood in the way has been removed, the censure is not incurred. Denunciation having been made later, the incurred censure is not removed by the very fact, as some wish, but it is no longer reserved, and can be removed by any confessor, as is clear from the Response of the Sacred Penitentiary in the year 1832, given for a similar case.1 See nevertheless what Lehmkuhl adds (II, n. 1227) at the end of the article.

Note as regards absolution. It is not enough, as the Holy Office declared, 5 Jul. 1837, that the sectarian be sorry for the oath emitted so that he can be absolved, if externally he still communicates with the same associates. He must abjure the sect, at least before the confessor (Holy Office, 5 Aug. 1898),2 and bid it farewell; likewise he must hand over the books and all signs, so that they may be transmitted to the Bishop or inquisitor, or at least burned, if just and grave causes demand this.3 Yet several authors4 think that that Response of 5 Jul. 1837, given according to the things set forth, must be accepted with a grain of salt, and that the penitent can licitly be absolved if he cannot at once break off every relation with his sect without danger of death or of another most grave evil equivalent to death, which nevertheless today does not happen so easily. Yet under this condition, that participation is not made in intrinsically evil acts, nor arises any emolument for the sect, nor any spiritual detriment of the penitent, or scandal of neighbor. Thus it seems to be merely material cooperation, which becomes licit because of most grave causes (cf. Resp. Holy Office, 18 Jan. 1896).

1 Certain more recent authors (Noldin, de Poenis, n. 70) deny that the censure is incurred by prepubescents, although they are in possession of themselves; others (D'Annibale, 111; Pennacchi, I, p. 481; Formisano, p. 71; Del Vecchio, I, n. 598) do not extend it to cooperators. These opinions do not appear sufficiently probable to us: for the censure itself and its authentic interpretation constantly require this broadest signification. Besides, if prepubescents are not comprehended, the power, to be cited below, granted to Bishops as regards absolution of prepubescents becomes useless. Cf. Patavin., n. 263; Avanzini, p. 86; Lehmkuhl, II, 1217; Nouv. Rev. Theol., vol. 6, p. 119. See also above n. 1311, 3.

2 Those who do not wear clerical habit do not lose the privilege because they are impeded, as in England; but the striker, to incur the censure, ought to know that they are clerics (Scavini).

3 Zitelli, App. Jur. can., l. II, c. VI, art. 2, 1. Cf. Const. of John XXII: Perlectis.

1 As regards student duels, see the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, 9 Aug. 1890 (A. S. S., 33, p. 242). We reported it above n. 747.

1 Cf. Acts of the Plenary Council of Latin America (1899), tit. 2, c. VII; Noldin, de Poenis ecclesiasticis, n. 74.

2 A. S. S., 28, p. 438.

3 Nouv. Rev. Theol., 16, p. 407.

4 Avanzini, p. 245; Collect. S. S., n. 515.

5 Anal. eccl., t. I, p. 204.

6 A. S. S., vol. 6, p. 435.

1 Cf. Nouv. Rev. Theol., t. 8, p. 612; Patavin., n. 302; Formisano, in h. loc.; St. Alph., VII, 123.

2 Nouv. Rev. Theol., 31, p. 96.

3 Cf. Konings, n. 1721 where there are many things; Avanzini, note 26, as regards the practice of the Sacred Penitentiary.

4 D'Annibale, I, n. 391, p. 406; Del Vecchio, I, n. 604; Noldin, de Poenis, n. 76; Genicot, II, n. 597.

1332. V. "Those commanding to violate, or violating with rash daring, the immunity of ecclesiastical asylum." L. III Decretal., tit. 49; Gregory XIV, Cum alios; Clement VIII, Decret. Sacra Congregatio.

Preliminary notes. The IMMUNITY of asylum consists in this, that delinquents, except heretics, murderers, public robbers, and others to be excepted by law, who have fled into a sacred or religious place, erected by the authority of the Supreme Pontiff or Bishop, cannot be extracted thence, but are preserved there safe and whole (St. Alph., de Privil., 25-28). - To this right, in several regions, because of the vicissitudes of times, an easing has already been given by the Holy See. Nevertheless the Holy Office, 22 Dec. 1880, established that the right of asylum must be observed at least as to substance, and therefore has not been totally abrogated by contrary custom. Cf. also A. S. S., II, p. 45 and 484. The right of asylum was similarly restricted in the Austrian Concordat; for it was established that the immunity of sacred temples was to be observed "insofar as public security and those things which justice demands permit this to be done."5

But by force of the present article, THE FOLLOWING ARE EXCOMMUNICATED: 1. those who command this immunity to be violated; 2. those who in reality, with force applied, violate it; provided that all these do this with rash daring, in contempt of religion or of the canon. Hence judges, soldiers, and all who, compelled by civil law or otherwise, violate the right of asylum are exempt from the censure. Holy Office, 1 Feb. 1871 (ap. Nouv. Rev. Theol., 15, p. 243).

1333. • VI. "Those violating the enclosure of nuns, of whatever kind or condition, sex or age they may have been, by entering their monasteries without legitimate license; and likewise those introducing or admitting them; and likewise nuns going out from it outside the cases and form prescribed by St. Pius V in the Constitution Decori."

THE FOLLOWING ARE EXCOMMUNICATED: 1. Those violating the enclosure, that is, for nuns, the whole house, and all enclosures annexed to it and surrounded by a wall; of nuns, namely those who emit solemn vows and have papal enclosure; of whatever kind, etc., therefore the Ordinaries of places themselves, women, and prepubescents capable of deceit: yet excepted, from ancient Law, are kings, queens, and their retinue; by entering without legitimate license, although it is not for an evil or lustful end, or under pretext of faculties or privileges (cf. n. 2163, as regards LICENSE).1

2. Those introducing or admitting. Only outsiders can introduce; only nuns are said to admit. All nuns can admit positively, but negatively only the Superior, the keeper of the door, or the more dignified from the monastery, conscious that permission was not imparted. To accompany those already entered, to converse with them, is not to admit, except insofar as, through conversation within the enclosures of the monastery, those who would already wish to go out are retained (Aertnys, l. VII, n. 94; Lehmkuhl, II, 1231).

But whether introduction or admission of prepubescents before the seventh year certainly causes the censure to be incurred is disputed among the learned (cf. Aertnys, Lehmkuhl, l. c.).

3. Nuns going out outside the cases determined by St. Pius V, that is, without cause of great fire, contagious disease, or a similar event, for example flood, imminent ruin, invasion of soldiers; outside the form..., that is, unless the cause has been cognized by the Ordinary and approved in writing, when time permits.2 But from the Decree of the Holy Office, 22 Dec. 1860, the custom, even immemorial, of conceding departure for other causes, although grave and recognized by Bishops, must be judged abrogated, nor can it be continued. See n. 2162.

Note. Nuns who have legitimately gone out, but return more slowly, are not indeed excommunicated, but they sin. Gennari, Quest. de mor., I, n. 52.

1334. VII. "Women violating the enclosure of regular men, Superiors or others admitting them." St. Pius V, Const. Regularium and Const. Decet.

The enclosure of REGULARS, that is, of those emitting solemn vows, is all that space which is contained by the enclosures of the monastery; and so, cloister, house, interior workshops, for example library; but not the church, sacristy ordinarily, nor the garden, if it can be approached without passage through the monastery and is separated from the enclosure by a key and suitable wall.

The following are excommunicated: 1. any women whatever, provided they are postpubescent, except queens and similar privileged women; 2. those admitting them, namely all who directly or indirectly are in cause why women enter, for example Superiors or the doorkeeper, if they do not impede entrance, when the obligation of prohibiting and impeding it is incumbent.

1335. VIII. "Those guilty of real simony in any benefices whatever, and their accomplices." Paul II, Cum detestabile; Trent, Sess. 24, c. 18, de Ref.

The excommunication STRIKES: 1. Those guilty of real simony, which is had, namely, when someone buys or sells: a) the benefice itself; or b) its conferral or provision; or c) election or presentation for obtaining it; provided that execution of the agreement has at least been begun on each side... in any benefices whatever, provided they are benefices properly so called, whether secular, as an episcopate, canonry, deanery, parish; or regular, as abbeys, and certain priories, which are benefices of the true name. Nevertheless, more probably under the censure are not comprehended generally prelacies of regulars, as generalate, provincialate, etc.; nor ecclesiastical offices which lack a benefice; nor subsidiary parishes removable at will, although in favorables they can come under the name of benefices.1

2. And their accomplices, that is, "those who have procured or existed as mediators, so that simony be done," as is read in the Constitution of Paul II2 (cf. n. 591).

1336. IX. "Those guilty of confidential simony in any benefices whatever, of whatever dignity they may be." Pius IV, Const. Romanum; St. Pius V, Intolerabilis; Trent, Sess. 25, c. 7, de Ref.

This censure touches each guilty party, provided the simony is consummated at least on one side. It is incurred, therefore, when someone procures a benefice, properly so called, for another, by election, presentation, conferral, resignation, etc., with certain confidence, that is, with an express or tacit pact, that the one for whom he procures it will at a certain time resign it to the procurer himself or another, or pay a pension because of the fruits received from it.

But the phrase "of whatever dignity they may be" was added because Cardinals, Bishops, and major prelates were punished by Pius IV with interdict alone (cf. n. 591).

1337. X. "Those guilty of real simony because of entrance into Religion." Urban IV, Extrav., Sane, de Simonia.

The censure is incurred by him who, because of the very entrance into Religion, gives or accepts something temporal; when the simony has been real, that is, after it has been completed on each side, and therefore, according to a very probable opinion, only after solemn profession has been emitted (III, 108). It is not incurred if something is accepted for the support of the religious, although illicitly.3 Indeed, if it is a question of nuns, a dowry for support must always be assigned, as is clear from decisions of the Sacred Congregations (cf. n. 591).

1338. • XI. "All who, making gain from indulgences and other spiritual graces, are punished by the censure of excommunication in the Constitution of St. Pius V, Quam plenum, 2 January 1569."

By this Constitution are punished "all lower than Bishops" who, money having been accepted, have in fact conceded or published either indulgences or other graces designated in that Constitution of St. Pius V itself. But these are: 1. faculty of choosing for oneself a priest for absolution from cases reserved to the Bishop; 2. celebration of Mass and burial in time of interdict; 3. use of prohibited foods; 4. assumption of several co-parents at baptism, contrary to the Decree of Trent; 5. absolution from real simony reserved to the Pope (Avanzini, in h. exc., p. 30).

1339. XII. "Those collecting alms of greater price for Masses, and taking profit from them by causing them to be celebrated in places where Mass stipends are usually of lesser price." Benedict XIV, Const. Quanta cura and Our Most Holy Lord Pius X, Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council De observandis (Ut debita).

Both clerics and laymen incur this excommunication whenever, for Masses celebrated or to be celebrated, after the stipend has been handed over, they retain part of it as profit, and indeed so much as suffices for grave theft. But it is necessary that they be at the same time:

1. Collectors, as if by industry, of many manual alms, or alms taxed from foundation for Masses. Whence, although he sins, nevertheless he does not incur this censure who seeks profit from stipends which are given to him so that he himself may pay them; nor he to whom they are spontaneously brought so that he himself may take care that Masses be celebrated by others, unless they are brought to him as to a collector; nor he who once or again should collect some small number of Masses; for such a one is not a collector of the true name.1

2. Taking profit. - Whence he who, like a thief, claims for himself part of the stipend (Bucceroni, Comm. III, n. 62), or spends the excess for pious uses, is not subject to this censure, although he is not immune from fault, as is clear from the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, 9 Sept. 1874 (Del Vecchio, I, n. 608; II, 1067); nor is he held by fault who retains something for himself as the just price of his labor; for, as St. Alphonsus says (VI, 322), "if he has been designated for this duty, and his labor truly deserves a wage, then a wage of this kind is owed to him from natural equity, and from the will of those offering the alms." See Resp. S. C. C., 18 Mar. 1905 (A. S. S., 38, p. 80).

3. That they cause Masses to be celebrated in places where Mass stipends are usually of lesser price. Moreover, the Holy Office declared, on 13 Jan. 1892, that this censure is incurred also by those who cause Masses to be celebrated for a lesser stipend in the same place where they collected the alms (Nouv. Rev. Theol., 24, p. 170). Understand, if in that place the customary stipends are usually of lesser price (Lehmkuhl, II, 1237).

Note. Absolution concerning these things is not to be given except to those willing to restore, or prepared to stand by the commands of the Holy See, in the case in which recourse is made to it for condonation (cf. n. 1613).

1340. • XIII. "All who are punished by excommunication in the Constitutions of St. Pius V, Admonet nos, 29 March 1567; Innocent IX, Quae ab hac Sede, 4 Nov. 1591; Clement VIII, Ad Romani Pontificis curam, 26 June 1592, and Alexander VII, Inter ceteras, 24 Oct. 1660, regarding alienation and infeudation of cities and places of the Holy Roman Church."

By this censure are punished all, whether laymen or clerics, of whatever dignity, who, without consulting the Most Holy One, strive, by themselves or through others, either to act, or to suggest or persuade the Roman Pontiff to any alienation whatever of cities or places pertaining to the Holy See; from any pretext whatever, even of necessity or evident utility, and although they lose their work and oil. - Therefore those who subscribed to letters once sent to the Roman Pontiff, for example by C. Passaglia, that he should renounce his temporal dominion, are, according to some, with others contradicting, bound by this excommunication.2

1341. • XIV. "Religious presuming, outside the case of necessity, to minister to clerics or laymen the sacrament of Extreme Unction, or the Eucharist by way of Viaticum, without permission of the parish priest." Clement V, in Clem. 1, de Privil.

Here understand religious in the strict sense: for thus the common interpretation bears in odious matters. But by the name of parish priest comes he who has actual care of souls, or who acts in his place. It is said presuming: therefore the censure is not incurred if in good faith it is judged either that necessity urges, or that the permission of the parish priest can be presumed, or if the sacraments are ministered to those who are not subject to parochial jurisdiction, for example to other regulars, travelers, wanderers, etc. - Nor is it prohibited to repeat Viaticum from devotion (cf. n. 1537 and 2187, 4). Cf. D'Annibale, n. 145.

1342. XV. "Those extracting, without legitimate permission, relics from the sacred cemeteries or catacombs of the city of Rome and its territory, and those furnishing help or favor to them." Paul V, Decr. 24 Aug. 1613; Clement X, Const. Ex commissae.

In the Clementine Constitution two things are required:

1. Legitimate permission, conceded in writing by the Eminent Cardinal Vicar, with the subscription and seal of the Vicar of the City.

2. Presence of a priest delegated by the Vicar, while the extraction of the relics is made.

But it makes no difference whether someone extracts in great or small quantity, if it is established that they are from the relics of martyrs, for example when glass or earthen phials stained with blood, or at least bloody crusts enclosing them, are found at the burial niches, inside or outside them (S. R. C., 27 Nov. 1863). But otherwise concerning other ashes or bones of the faithful, although the prohibition of taking away anything from them must be observed at least under venial sin.

1343. XVI. "Those communicating with one excommunicated by name by the Pope in a criminal crime, namely by expending help or favor to him." Innocent III, c. Nuper, 29, de Sent. excomm.

By the words one excommunicated by name by the Pope are not comprehended those excommunicated by the Roman Congregations, even when approval of the Supreme Pontiff accedes to their Decrees (Holy Office, 18 Jun. 1897). Cf. Anal. eccl., V, 380.

To communicate in a criminal crime is the same as to cooperate in a crime already perpetrated, or in the contumacy because of which another is excommunicated: suppose if someone furnishes help or favor to another excommunicated because of retention of a thing, lest he make restitution. It is controverted as regards those giving counsel (cf. VII, 197).

1344. XVII. "Clerics knowingly and spontaneously communicating in divine things with persons excommunicated by name by the Roman Pontiff, and receiving them in the offices." Clement III, c. 18, de Sent. excomm.

It is said 1. clerics, therefore laymen and Bishops are exempt from the censure; 2. knowingly and spontaneously: whence ignorance excuses (cf. n. 1269, 3), and even light fear; 3. communicating in divine things, for example in administering sacraments, and receiving them in the offices, liturgical ones; namely both are required, according to the ancient tradition of the identical censure;

5 Muller, Theol. mor., l. III, App.; Sagmuller, Kirchenr., 167, V.

1 Formerly the license had to be conceded in writing. Today license given orally seems to suffice. General license is conceded only to the physician, confessor, and workmen. St. Alph., VII, 221 sqq., with changes to be changed from the new law.

2 St. Alph., III, 106-112; cf. D'Annibale, n. 118.

3 Cf. Gabr. a Varceno, t. II, p. 470, n. 5.

4 Thus D'Annibale, n. 116; which nevertheless is not pleasing to all (see Lehmkuhl, II, 1234).

1 St. Alph., III, 92; Patavin., 329-338.

1 Deliberately we said: this censure; because both priests, clerics, and laymen can fall into others. Cf. what we shall say when there is speech concerning Mass stipends (n. 1615-1619). See also n. 1350 bis.

2 Cf. Pennacchi, App. 26; Signoriello, Novello missionario, p. 64, where there is a formula of retraction; Piatus, on this excommunication.

4. by the Roman Pontiff by name excommunicated: whence excommunication is not incurred if communication is admitted with those who are censured by name by the Sacred Congregations, even with the Roman Pontiff approving. Cf. n. 1290 and 1295. See nevertheless n. 1377.

1345. • XVIII. "But let those presuming to absolve, namely from excommunications reserved in a special way, without due faculty, even under any pretext whatever, know that they are bound by the bond of excommunication reserved to the Roman Pontiff; provided that it is not a question of the article of death." From the first part of the Constitution after excomm. XII.

It is said: 1. presuming: therefore he is immune from censure who absolves from ignorance, even crass (cf. n. 1269), from grave fear, from probability by which, being led, he judges either that the penitent is not entangled in excommunication, or that he himself has power to absolve him; 2. provided that etc.; because there is no reservation in the article of death (cf. 1282 sqq.).

Preliminary Note. We treat this matter very briefly, both because it principally pertains to ecclesiastical law, and because there has already been discussion in their proper places of the more frequent censures, for example, against those procuring abortion, perpetrating a duel, heretics, and so forth, and because there still exist several censures which occur very rarely in the practice of the confessor. - Since there are three species of censures, we divide this chapter into three articles: 1. on excommunication; 2. on interdict; 3. on suspension.

Here we append very briefly a list of the excommunications of the common law which are in force today and which are distinguished into five categories, according as absolution from them is reserved: 1. to the Holy See in the most special manner; 2. to the Holy See in a special manner; 3. to the Holy See simply; 4. to the Ordinary; 5. to no one.

506. I. Excommunications reserved in the most special manner to the Apostolic See.

There are four excommunications latae sententiae of this kind (besides those which either are contained in the Constitution of Pius X, December 25, 1904, Vacante Sede Apostolica, or have been imposed against those violating the secret of the Holy Office). Namely, the following are excommunicated:

1. One who has cast away the consecrated species either of the body or of the blood of Christ, or has taken them away or retained them for an evil end; for example, a sacrilegious breaker of the tabernacle, but not one who from a devotion indeed unhealthy, yet good considered subjectively, takes a consecrated host from his mouth and reverently places it away in a fitting place. The guilty person of this most wicked crime is furthermore: a) suspected of heresy; b) infamous ipso facto; c) to be deposed, if he is a cleric.¹⁴²

2. One who has laid violent hands upon the person of the Roman Pontiff. The guilty person of this crime is furthermore: a) infamous ipso iure; b) to be degraded, if he is a cleric.¹⁴³

3. One who has absolved or feigned to absolve an accomplice in a shameful sin, and this even at the point of death, if another priest, although not approved for confessions, could have heard the confession of the dying person without some grave infamy and scandal likely to arise, except in the case in which the dying person refused to confess to another. - Nor does one escape the same excommunication who has absolved or feigned to absolve an accomplice who indeed did not confess the sin of complicity, from which he has not yet been directly absolved, but kept silent about it because he was induced to do so either directly or indirectly by the accomplice confessor.¹⁴⁴

4. A confessor who has presumed directly to violate the sacramental seal.¹⁴⁵ What a direct violation of the sacramental seal is, see above, n. 447.

¹⁴² Code of Canon Law, c. 2320.

¹⁴³ Ibid., c. 2343.

¹⁴⁴ Code of Canon Law, c. 2367.

¹⁴⁵ Ibid., c. 2369.

507. II. Excommunications reserved in a special manner to the Apostolic See.

Eleven are ordinarily enumerated.

1. "All apostates from the Christian faith and all and each of the heretics or schismatics" (can. 2314, § 1).

What heretics and apostates are was said above in I, n. 512 ff. Schismatics are not only non-uniate Greeks and Old Catholics, but also those baptized persons who pertinaciously refuse obedience to the Roman Pontiff insofar as he is head of the Church, such as the Mariavites and perhaps also the so-called associations of worship. One suspected of heresy who has not amended himself within six months from the penalty contracted is regarded as a heretic, subject to the penalties of heretics (can. 2315). Those are suspected of heresy ipso iure, for example, who presume to offer their children to non-Catholic ministers to be baptized (can. 2319).

If the delict of heresy, apostasy, or schism has been brought in any manner (even through voluntary confession) to the external forum of the local Ordinary, that same local Ordinary (but not the vicar general without a special mandate) can by his ordinary authority absolve the repentant person in the external forum, after an abjuration has first been performed juridically and the other things to be observed by law have been observed; but one thus absolved can afterward be absolved from the sin by any confessor in the forum of conscience. An abjuration is regarded as juridically performed when it is made before the local Ordinary himself or his delegate and at least two witnesses (can. 2314, § 2). - This statute has very practical value in the reception of new converts into the bosom of the Church.

508. 2. "Publishers of the books of apostates, heretics, and schismatics which defend apostasy, heresy, or schism, and likewise those who defend those same books or others prohibited by name through Apostolic Letters, or knowingly read or retain them without due permission" (can. 2318, § 1).

This censure was already contained in the Bull Apostolicae Sedis, but has been changed slightly. To explain it, we indicate briefly: a) what books they are; b) what actions are prohibited under penalty of excommunication. We note beforehand, however, that there are many other books which indeed are prohibited under grave sin by the Code of Canon Law, c. 1399, although not under excommunication. Cf. our Man. iur. can., q. 419.

a) What books are prohibited under excommunication?

a) All books of heretics, apostates, or schismatics which defend heresy, apostasy, or schism, that is, which defend them with deliberate purpose, and not merely contain heresy. - Under the name of a book there does not come a manuscript, nor a pamphlet of small size, nor a newspaper. Nevertheless, from the declaration of the Holy Office of January 13, 1892,¹⁴⁶ those "knowingly reading periodical publications bound into volumes, having a heretical author and defending heresy" incur excommunication.

b) Books of any author prohibited by name through Apostolic Letters. Hence it is required that such a book be prohibited through Apostolic Letters, such as bulls, briefs, and so forth, but not decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office or of another Congregation. There are not many books of this kind, which in the new Index of prohibited books are marked with a dagger. - Then it is required that such a book be prohibited by name, that is, with an indication of its proper title. Therefore a prohibition in globo or in general does not suffice, as when all the works of some author are proscribed. - Finally it is required (at least probably) that such a book be prohibited under excommunication reserved to the Roman Pontiff.

Note. Some authors judge that two categories of books (although they defend heresy) are not prohibited under this censure:

1. Books of heretics from the first centuries of the Christian era, such as certain writings of Tertullian, Origen, Pelagius, and so forth. Thus Lehmkuhl,¹⁴⁷ citing Lacroix, Pennacchi, D'Annibale, and Lugo for this opinion.

2. Books defending heresy which were written not by heretics but by pagans, Jews, and so forth. Thus Noldin,¹⁴⁸ Cappello,¹⁴⁹ and others.

b) What actions are prohibited under excommunication? There are four: a) publication; b) defense; c) reading; d) retention. For the last two actions perfect knowledge of the censure is required, and consequently crass and supine ignorance excuses; not so for the first two actions.

a) Publication. Under this title the following incur excommunication: 1. the author of the book; 2. the printer; 3. the publisher.¹⁵⁰ Whether all those also who proximately cooperate in printing, such as typesetters, proofreaders, and so forth, are punished with this censure is not so certain. It appears, however, that this is to be denied, since they cannot properly be called publishers of the book; and therefore the old controversy concerning printers has been removed today.

b) Defense. For incurring excommunication it is required that an evil book be defended not on account of elegance of style and other good qualities, but notwithstanding the errors manifestly contained in it.

c) Reading. Someone is said formally to read a book if he surveys with his own eyes and understands in some manner the things which are contained in the book. Hence one who hears another reading does not incur the censure, provided he did not command it to be read;¹⁵¹ nor does one who does not at all understand the things which he reads. Likewise the censure is not present if the things which have been read constitute only light matter. But authors do not agree about what light matter is. Let this be the general rule: that is grave matter which of itself and ordinarily induces a grave danger of perversion in the reader. Thus sometimes a few pages are grave matter, while at other times not even thirty pages which are not so dangerous constitute grave matter.

d) Retention. For excommunication to be incurred from this, it is required: 1. that gravity be present on the part of time; one day is certainly a short time, but to retain such a book beyond a month is grave matter; 2. that the one retaining it act in his own name and not as the mandatary of another. Hence those who are custodians in the libraries of others, those who bind books,¹⁵² and so forth, are not excommunicated. Booksellers, however, who have books of this kind for sale appear to need a special permission.

Note. 1. Since only those "knowingly" reading and retaining incur this censure, any diminution of imputability, whether on the part of the intellect or on the part of the will, excuses from it (c. 2229, § 2). Hence not only prepubescent persons but, more probably, also minors do not incur this censure (c. 2204).

2. Besides the excommunication just explained, there exists another (reserved, however, to no one) against those who without due permission print or cause to be printed books of Sacred Scripture or annotations or commentaries upon them.¹⁵³

3. "One not promoted to the priestly order, if he has simulated the celebration of Mass or heard a sacramental confession" (can. 2322).

This excommunication has been newly introduced. A layman perpetrating such a crime is furthermore to be deprived of a pension or office, if he has any in the Church, and is to be punished with other penalties according to the gravity of the fault; but a cleric is to be deposed. If any non-priest has usurped other priestly functions, he is to be punished by the Ordinary according to the gravity of the fault.

¹⁴⁶ Collect. de Prop. Fide, n. 1777.

¹⁴⁷ Theol. mor. II, n. 1183.

¹⁴⁸ De poenis eccl.¹², n. 61.

¹⁴⁹ De censuris, n. 226.

¹⁵⁰ Noldin, loc. cit., n. 62, teaches that neither the author nor the printer incurs this censure.

¹⁵¹ St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 7, n. 292.

¹⁵² Commonly: bookbinder (French relieur, German Buchbinder).

¹⁵³ Code of Canon Law, c. 2318, § 2; cf. below, n. 526.

509. 4. "All and each persons of whatever status, rank, or condition, even if they are of royal, episcopal, or cardinalitial dignity, who appeal from the laws, decrees, or mandates of the Roman Pontiff for the time being to a universal Council" (can. 2332).

This excommunication, which sometimes occurred in the Middle Ages, will be very rare today; but it strikes all physical persons whatsoever who appeal to a universal Council. If juridical persons, such as universities, colleges, or chapters, make such an appeal, they incur an interdict reserved in a special manner to the Roman Pontiff.¹⁵⁴

¹⁵⁴ Ibid.; cf. below, n. 530.

510. 5. "Those having recourse to the lay power to impede letters or any acts proceeding from the Apostolic See or from its Legates, and those directly or indirectly prohibiting their promulgation or execution, or on account of them injuring or terrifying either those to whom the letters pertain or others" (can. 2333).

This censure formerly had place frequently, especially in those places where the "royal placet" was in force; today, however, acts of the Apostolic See are more rarely impeded (at least efficaciously) by private men.

511. 6. "Those who publish laws, mandates, or decrees against the liberty or rights of the Church; those who directly or indirectly impede the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in either the internal or external forum by having recourse for this purpose to any lay power" (can. 2334).

This censure, which was already contained in nearly the same manner in nn. 6 and 7 of the Bull Apostolicae Sedis, would be most frequent in our days if ignorance or grave fear did not excuse. Thus, for example, this censure is objectively incurred by those who impede a pastor from visiting schools; who prevent a bishop from freely administering his diocese; who impede the execution of the decrees of the Supreme Pontiff, and so forth.

Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is here taken in the strict sense, as it is distinguished: a) from the power of order; b) from an ecclesiastical office; c) from the jurisdiction of regular superiors. Ecclesiastical jurisdiction taken in this sense is the power of governing the faithful in order to eternal life. To it belongs, for example, to issue laws and mandates, to punish, absolve, dispense, instruct, and so forth.

Those impeding jurisdiction of this kind are all those who unjustly, for example, by threats, command, coercion, and so forth, cause an efficacious obstacle so that jurisdiction is not exercised. Hence one who without effect has recourse to the lay power for the purpose of impeding the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction does not incur this censure.¹⁵⁵

The penalties established by can. 2237 against a pastor or another priest impeding the jurisdiction of the Ordinary are also to be observed.

7. "One who (without permission of the Holy See) has dared to draw before a lay judge any of the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, Legates of the Apostolic See, or major Officials of the Roman Curia on account of matters pertaining to their office, or his own Ordinary" (can. 2341).

The violators of the privilege of the forum which belongs to these preeminent persons are punished with this excommunication. Violation of the same privilege which belongs to other ecclesiastical persons is also punished with other penalties, namely: a) excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See, if anyone without permission of the Holy See has dared to draw before a lay judge another bishop, or an abbot or prelate nullius, or any of the supreme superiors of religions of pontifical right; b) suspension from office reserved to the Ordinary, if a cleric, without obtaining the permission of the local Ordinary, has dared to draw before a lay judge another person enjoying the privilege of the forum. A layman, however, is to be punished with suitable penalties according to the gravity of the fault by his own Ordinary.¹⁵⁶ In some regions the privilege of the forum no longer exists on account of concordats or other legitimate causes.

8. "One who has laid violent hands upon the person of a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, a Legate of the Roman Pontiff, a Patriarch, an Archbishop, or a Bishop, even a titular one" (can. 2343, §§ 2 and 3).

Those who commit a personal sacrilege against the princes of the Church are punished with this excommunication. What that personal sacrilege from violation of the privilege of the canon is, see above, II, n. 541. One who commits violence of this kind against Cardinals or Legates of the Roman Pontiff furthermore becomes infamous ipso iure and is to be deprived of benefices, offices, dignities, pensions, and any duty which he may have in the Church.

¹⁵⁵ Pontifical Commission, July 26, 1926 (Acta Ap. Sed. XVIII, 394).

¹⁵⁶ Cf. what was said above in II, n. 542, concerning the privilege of the forum.

512. 9. "Those usurping or detaining, personally or through others, goods or rights pertaining to the Roman Church" (can. 2345).

There were five excommunications imposed against those who violated ecclesiastical goods, namely, two reserved in a special manner to the Holy See, two reserved simply to the Holy See, and one reserved to no one. Now, however, there exist only two excommunications latae sententiae, namely, this one and another simply reserved, concerning which below in n. 518. This excommunication, imposed for protecting the goods and rights of the Roman Church, strikes those usurping and detaining them. Those are called usurpers who take them away by authority, namely, rulers who have secularized the goods and rights of the Roman Church; therefore ordinary thieves and robbers are not punished by this censure. Those are detainers who purchased or leased such goods for themselves; but not officials of the state who administer those goods or acquired and detain them not for themselves but for the common use of the republic.

10. "All fabricators or falsifiers of letters, decrees, or rescripts of the Apostolic See, or those knowingly using the same letters, decrees, or rescripts" (can. 2360, § 1).

This crime is committed very rarely today, especially by laymen. Clerics committing it, however, are moreover to be coerced by other penalties, which can extend even to privation of benefice, office, dignity, and ecclesiastical pension; religious, however, are to be deprived of all offices which they have in the religion and of active and passive voice, besides other penalties established in the proper constitutions of each.¹⁵⁷

¹⁵⁷ Code of Canon Law, c. 2360, § 2.

513. 11. "If anyone personally or through others has falsely denounced a confessor to Superiors for the crime of solicitation, by the fact itself he incurs an excommunication reserved in a special manner to the Apostolic See, from which he cannot in any case be absolved unless he has formally retracted the false denunciation and has repaired according to his ability the damages, if any followed from it, with a grave and lasting penance furthermore imposed" (can. 2363).

This excommunication has been newly introduced. A calumnious denunciation of a confessor (which is made juridically before the local Ordinary or before the Holy Office) induces not only a reserved censure, but also a sin reserved by reason of itself.¹⁵⁸ Therefore, although the censure may not be incurred, for example, on account of ignorance, nevertheless the reserved sin remains.

Absolution from this censure cannot be granted except under a twofold condition: 1. the penitent must first formally retract the false denunciation before the superior or his delegate; an implicit retraction therefore does not suffice; 2. the penitent must repair according to his ability the damages, if any followed from his calumny. When these conditions have been fulfilled and the faculty of absolving has first been obtained, the confessor can absolve the penitent, but must impose upon him a grave and lasting penance, for example, five decades of the Rosary to be said daily for six months.

III. Excommunications reserved simply to the Apostolic See.

According to the discipline now in force, there are eleven excommunications of this kind. The following are excommunicated:

¹⁵⁸ Ibid., c. 894.

514. 1. "Those making profit from indulgences" (can. 2327).

This excommunication was already imposed in the Constitution of St. Pius V Quam plenum, January 2, 1569, which nevertheless is now restricted to indulgences alone and not to other spiritual graces. All those make profit from indulgences who gain a temporal price from them; nor is it required that they acquire that price for themselves. Therefore even those who obtain temporal gain from indulgences for pious causes are punished with this censure, for example, those who sell blessed rosaries at a higher price for a poor religious house.

2. "Those perpetrating the delict of simony in any ecclesiastical offices, benefices, or dignities" (can. 2392).

Simoniacs are furthermore punished with various other penalties.¹⁵⁹ This excommunication, however, appears to be the only one¹⁶⁰ imposed for the crime of simony; and therefore simony on account of entrance into religion, or on account of profit sought from collected Mass stipends, is no longer punished with excommunication, since the Code of Canon Law is silent concerning these penalties, and all penalties of which no mention is made in the Code are regarded as abrogated.

¹⁵⁹ Code of Canon Law, c. 2392 and c. 729; cf. above, II, n. 565.

¹⁶⁰ Cf., however, below, n. 534 (2).

515. 3. "Clerics constituted in sacred orders, or male religious or nuns after a solemn vow of chastity, and likewise all those presuming to contract marriage, even merely civilly, with any of the aforesaid persons" (can. 2388, § 1).

In the Bull Apostolicae Sedis this excommunication was reserved to the Ordinary. If the clerics and other persons indicated intend nothing but concubinage, they do not incur excommunication. Clerics attempting marriage, if, after being warned by the Ordinary, they have not repented within the time prescribed according to the diversity of circumstances, are to be degraded;¹⁶¹ and as soon as they have contracted marriage, by that very fact they lose all ecclesiastical offices.¹⁶²

4. "Those perpetrating a duel, or simply challenging another to it, or accepting it, or furnishing any assistance or favor, and likewise those deliberately watching it, and those permitting it, or not prohibiting it insofar as lies within their power, of whatever dignity they may be" (can. 2351, § 1).

Enough was already said above in II, n. 126 concerning this censure.

¹⁶¹ Code of Canon Law, c. 2388, § 1.

¹⁶² Ibid., c. 188, n. 5.

516. 5. "Those giving their names to the Masonic sect or to other associations of the same kind which plot against the Church or legitimate civil powers" (can. 2335).

For explaining this excommunication it is useful to set forth: a) what sects are prohibited under censure; b) what persons are excommunicated.

a) As regards the prohibited sects. On May 10, 1884, the Holy Office distinguished between societies prohibited simply and those prohibited under censure.

All societies which pursue an evil end, or employ evil means, or "which exact from their adherents by oath a secret to be disclosed to no one and complete obedience to be rendered to hidden leaders," are simply prohibited. For such secrecy and such obedience, which extend to all matters, even illicit ones, constitute a grave sin. Societies simply prohibited of this kind are, for example, several American societies (Odd Fellows, Sons of Temperance, Knights of Pythias,¹⁶³ Independent Order of Good Templars¹⁶⁴); then, societies for promoting the cremation of corpses.¹⁶⁵

The following are prohibited under censure:

a) the Masonic society;¹⁶⁶

b) all societies which plot against the Church or legitimate civil powers. Such societies are those of the Carbonari,¹⁶⁷ the former Fenians,¹⁶⁸ and all anarchistic and nihilistic societies. Whether modern socialist societies incur this censure is disputed among authors, and therefore is doubtful. In practice socialists of diverse regions cannot be judged in the same manner. For in some regions they seek scarcely anything except the betterment of the condition of the common people; but in other regions they openly plot against the Church and legitimate power. In that case they appear subject to the censure; indeed, sometimes they also incur a censure on account of heresy admitted.

b) The persons who are excommunicated on account of these sects are only those

giving their names, namely, those who become members of such a sect. Formerly those furnishing favor and those not denouncing hidden leaders were also included under this censure, but the new Code of Canon Law is silent concerning them; therefore they are no longer excommunicated, although they sin gravely if they truly foster these most wicked societies.

Clerics and religious giving their names to the Masonic sect and other similar associations must be denounced to the Holy Office and are furthermore to be punished by privation of benefice, office, dignity, pension, function, and active and passive voice.¹⁶⁹

The manner of acting in confession with members of a forbidden sect. a) It rarely happens that a member of this kind is in good faith, because these sects are so often and so openly proclaimed illicit by the Church. Nevertheless, if such a member is in good faith and neither causes scandal nor incurs a proximate danger of perversion, he ought not to be compelled to leave the sect with the gravest inconvenience. For then perhaps he would not obey, and his material sin would be changed into a formal one.

b) A member of such a forbidden sect (who is not in good faith) cannot be absolved unless he breaks off communication with the sect and abjures it at least before the confessor.¹⁷⁰ But if external communication with the sect cannot be broken off without a very grave inconvenience, then, scandal and the proximate danger of perversion being excluded, the penitent can for some time persevere in paying dues and attending the meetings of the sectarians, until the danger of grave harm has ceased.¹⁷¹

c) The penitent must deliver the sect's books, manuscripts, insignia, and so forth (if he has any) to the confessor, who is to transmit them to the bishop as soon as possible or, if this is impossible, burn them.

¹⁶³ Holy Office, August 20, 1894.

¹⁶⁴ Holy Office, August 9, 1893.

¹⁶⁵ Holy Office, May 19, 1886.

¹⁶⁶ Clement XII, Constitution In eminenti, April 28, 1738; Benedict XIV, Constitution Providas, May 18, 1751, and several other Supreme Pontiffs, among whom was Leo XIII, Encyclical Humanum genus, April 20, 1884.

¹⁶⁷ Pius VII, Constitution Ecclesiam, September 13, 1821; Leo XII, Constitution Quo graviora, March 13, 1825. The members of this society called themselves carbonari, Köhler, fendeurs, buoni cugini. Cf. Wetzer and Welte, Kirchenlex., s.v. "Carbonari."

¹⁶⁸ Holy Office, January 12, 1870.

¹⁶⁹ Code of Canon Law, c. 2336.

¹⁷⁰ Holy Office, August 5, 1898 (Anal. eccl. VI [1898] 387).

¹⁷¹ Thus Noldin, De poenis eccl.¹², n. 76, citing for this opinion a decision of the Holy Office of January 18, 1896.

517. 6. a) "Those violating the enclosure of nuns, of whatever class or condition or sex they may be, by entering their monasteries without legitimate permission, and likewise those introducing or admitting them."

b) "Women violating the enclosure of male religious, and superiors and any others whatsoever introducing or admitting them, of whatever age they may be."

c) "Nuns illegitimately leaving the enclosure" (can. 2342).

The enclosure with which we are concerned here is only the papal enclosure, which by common law is found only in religious Orders with solemn vows. Those violating another enclosure, therefore, are not touched by this censure. The enclosure of nuns is stricter than that of men. Under certain conditions the following can enter the enclosure of nuns: a) the canonical Visitor; b) the confessor; c) Cardinals, supreme rulers of peoples, and their wives with an entourage; d) a physician and workmen, if necessity demands it.¹⁷² Nuns, that is, solemnly professed women, can leave the enclosure: 1. with special permission of the Holy See; 2. if there is imminent danger either of death or of another most grave evil. Women also are prohibited under penalty of excommunication from entering the enclosure of nuns; likewise infants and prepubescent persons, but these no longer incur excommunication by entering. For in the text cited above one no longer reads, as formerly, "of whatever class or condition, sex, or age they may be," but "age" is omitted. Now prepubescent persons generally incur no censures,¹⁷³ as was said above in n. 481. On the contrary, the superioress and any adult illegitimately introducing or admitting prepubescent persons into the enclosure of nuns do not appear to escape excommunication. It is certain that excommunication is incurred by one who admits or introduces little girls, even those not yet seven years old, into the enclosure of male religious. The same holds for prepubescent girls entering the enclosure of male religious and for adults who introduce or admit them. The wives of those who actually hold the supreme rule of peoples can enter the enclosure of male religious with an entourage.¹⁷⁴ We treated the enclosure more broadly in Man. iur. can., q. 227.

¹⁷² Code of Canon Law, c. 600.

¹⁷³ Ibid., c. 2230.

¹⁷⁴ Ibid., c. 598, § 2.

518. 7. "If anyone has presumed, through himself or through others, to convert and usurp for his own uses ecclesiastical goods of any kind, whether movable or immovable, whether corporeal or incorporeal, or to impede the fruits or revenues of the same from being received by those to whom they pertain by law, let him remain subject to excommunication until he has restored the goods themselves integrally, removed the aforesaid impediment, and thereafter obtained absolution from the Apostolic See" (can. 2346).

This excommunication was already imposed by the Council of Trent, sess. 22, c. 11, de reform. (although in slightly different words). Ecclesiastical goods are taken here in the broadest sense; namely, they are temporal goods which belong to some moral person in the Church,¹⁷⁵ for example, to a parish, to a monastery, and so forth, but not those which belong to physical ecclesiastical persons. Three actions are punished: converting to one's own uses, usurping, and impeding. Each of these actions appears to induce the censure, and usurpation includes not only authoritative but also private usurpation.¹⁷⁶ Thieves and robbers of ecclesiastical goods, however, do not incur this censure.¹⁷⁷ Thus the probable opinion even in the new law. Likewise it is not incurred by city councillors and a mayor,¹⁷⁸ who acquired ecclesiastical goods not for their own but for the common uses of the city;¹⁷⁹ nor by those who freely undertook the function of administering ecclesiastical goods thus taken away.¹⁸⁰ But those who purchased or leased these confiscated goods for themselves incur excommunication.¹⁸¹ Likewise intruded pastors and other benefice-holders. Absolution from this censure cannot be given except after restitution of the goods. In France and Italy, however, bishops possess a special faculty for giving or facilitating this absolution.¹⁸²

¹⁷⁵ Ibid., c. 1497, § 1.

¹⁷⁶ Cf. Hollweck, Die kirchl. Strafgesetze, § 156, n. 18.

¹⁷⁷ Holy Office, March 9, 1870.

¹⁷⁸ Commonly, French maire, German Bürgermeister.

¹⁷⁹ Sacred Penitentiary, January 3 and March 8, 1906 (Anal. eccl. XV [1907] 128 ff.).

¹⁸⁰ Sacred Penitentiary, September 17, 1906.

¹⁸¹ Holy Office, July 8, 1874 (Collect. de Prop. Fide II, 1420); Sacred Penitentiary, August 5, 1907 (Anal. eccl. XVI [1908] 445).

¹⁸² Cf. Letter of the Secretariat of State, September 24, 1907 (Anal. eccl. XVI [1908] 488 ff.); Sacred Congregation of the Council, March 12, 1913.

519. 8. "Those furnishing any assistance or favor to an excommunicated person to be avoided in the delict on account of which he was excommunicated; likewise clerics knowingly and spontaneously communicating with him in divine services and receiving him into divine offices" (can. 2338, § 2).

Two delicts are punished by this censure, which in the Bull Apostolicae Sedis were punished with two distinct excommunications. The first delict consists in assistance or favor furnished to an excommunicated person to be avoided, and that not in any manner whatever, but in the delict on account of which he was excommunicated, or in the criminal delict, as it used to be called. Hence, for example, if someone has been declared an excommunicated person to be avoided on account of rebellion, all who furnish him assistance or favor in this very rebellion incur an excommunication reserved simply to the Holy See. Who is an excommunicated person to be avoided was said above in n. 499.

The other delict consists not in any communication whatever with an excommunicated person to be avoided, but in communication in divine services. Clerics incur this excommunication, under which name probably neither bishops nor lay religious are included. It is required that such clerics:

a) act knowingly and spontaneously; therefore fear and every kind of ignorance excuse, provided it is not affected ignorance;

b) communicate in divine services, that is, authoritatively receive into properly liturgical offices (for example, Mass, ecclesiastical burial, and so forth) one excommunicated by name by the Roman Pontiff.

520. 9. "Those presuming, without due faculty, to absolve from a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See in the most special or special manner" (can. 2338, § 1).

Confessors incur this excommunication who knowingly or with affected ignorance presume (without faculty) to absolve a penitent from an excommunication reserved to the Pope in the most special or special manner. But if a confessor, ignorant of or not advertent to the reservation, absolves a penitent from the censure and sin, he neither sins nor incurs any penalty; indeed, the absolution from the censure is valid, provided it is not: a) a censure ab homine, or b) a censure reserved to the Apostolic See in the most special manner.¹⁸³ It was said above in n. 494 how a simple confessor can absolve from cases of this kind in danger of death and in more urgent cases.

10. "If anyone has dared (without previous legitimate permission) to draw before a lay judge a bishop, even merely titular (not his own Ordinary), or an abbot or prelate nullius, or any one of the supreme superiors of religions of pontifical right" (can. 2341).

Those who have dared to violate the privilege of the forum with respect to certain prelates are punished with this excommunication, provided they did so altogether voluntarily and freely. For any diminution of imputability excuses from this censure. See above, n. 511, for the other penalties inflicted on account of violation of the same privilege with respect to the highest prelates, and below, n. 535, with respect to other ecclesiastical persons.

11. "The capitular vicar and all others, whether of the Chapter or outsiders, who through themselves or through another have taken away, destroyed, concealed, or substantially altered any document whatsoever pertaining to the episcopal curia" (can. 2405).

This excommunication has been newly introduced, but appears to have force only while the episcopal see is vacant. By the name of document there appears to be signified not a private letter, but any writing pertaining to the governance of the diocese, for example, accounts of receipts and expenses, reports concerning a canonical visitation, and so forth.

IV. Excommunications reserved to Ordinaries.

¹⁸³ Code of Canon Law, c. 2247, § 3.

521. Preliminary note. a) By the name of Ordinary are understood not only residential bishops but also all who possess quasi-episcopal jurisdiction. For regulars and religious in exempt clerical religions, the Ordinary is their own major superior, unless the local Ordinary is expressly named.

b) Censures reserved to the Ordinary can by law be absolved by a simple confessor: 1. in danger of death, without an obligation of recourse after recovery that may have occurred;¹⁸⁴ 2. in more urgent cases, with an obligation of recourse;¹⁸⁵ 3. in certain other cases, as was said above in n. 427; 4. by confessors possessing the privileges of the Mendicants, as the more common opinion, safe in practice, teaches.

The excommunications whose absolution is reserved to Ordinaries are six or nine; namely, the following are excommunicated:

¹⁸⁴ Cf. above, n. 494.

¹⁸⁵ Cf. ibid.

522. 1. a) "Catholics who contract marriage before a non-Catholic minister contrary to the prescription of can. 1063, § 1."

b) "Those who are joined in marriage with an explicit or implicit agreement that all or some of the offspring be educated outside the Catholic Church."

c) "Those who knowingly presume to offer their children to non-Catholic ministers to be baptized."

d) "Parents or those taking the place of parents, who knowingly hand over their children to be educated or instructed in a non-Catholic religion" (can. 2319, § 1).

All these delicts constitute favor toward heresy and before the new Code of Canon Law were punished with an excommunication reserved to the Holy See in a special manner. But since these delicts are customarily public and brought to the external forum of the Ordinary, the same Ordinary can absolve from them; indeed, the censure now imposed by the common law is reserved to the local Ordinary. In some regions the non-Catholic minister is constituted an official of the civil government, before whom all marriages are commanded to be celebrated. Then, certainly, those contracting marriage before such a minister as a civil official do not incur the censure.^185a

In the first case there is question only of mixed marriage, concerning which c. 1063 establishes the law. Therefore, if two Catholics contracted marriage before a non-Catholic minister, they indeed sinned gravely, but they are not excommunicated. It is otherwise in the second, third, and fourth cases. Since in the celebration of marriage before a non-Catholic minister and in the agreement to educate offspring outside the Catholic Church there is manifestly contempt for ecclesiastical authority, grave fear does not appear to excuse from the censure. Hence, for example, if a Catholic girl who has already become pregnant consents to such a celebration and agreement because otherwise she gravely fears that she will be abandoned by her betrothed, she nevertheless appears to incur these censures.¹⁸⁶

Those who are joined in marriage with an agreement (whether explicit or implicit) that the offspring be educated outside the Catholic Church and afterward presume actually to execute this agreement by handing over the offspring to be educated in a non-Catholic religion contract a twofold excommunication; indeed, they are furthermore suspected of heresy and therefore, if within six complete months from the penalty contracted they have not amended themselves, they contract an excommunication reserved to the Holy See in a special manner.¹⁸⁷ Catholics who have dared to enter a mixed marriage without a dispensation of the Church, even if valid, remain by that very fact excluded from legitimate ecclesiastical and sacramental acts until they have obtained a dispensation from the Ordinary.¹⁸⁸

See below, n. 783, for how one is to proceed in the absolution of these four censures. Besides, particular norms are customarily observed in individual dioceses.

2. "One who fabricates false relics or knowingly sells, distributes, or exposes them for the public veneration of the faithful" (can. 2326).

This newly introduced excommunication does not need explanation, since it is clear in itself.

^185a Code of Canon Law, c. 1063, § 3.

¹⁸⁶ Cappello, De cens., n. 371, teaches the contrary.

¹⁸⁷ Code of Canon Law, c. 2319, § 2, and c. 2315.

¹⁸⁸ Ibid., c. 2375.

523. 3. "One who has laid violent hands upon the person of other clerics (not adorned with cardinalitial or episcopal dignity) or of religious of either sex."¹⁸⁹

This excommunication protects the privilege of the canon both in clerics constituted below bishops and in religious. We treated the violation of the privilege of the canon more broadly above in II, n. 541. Clerics who have laid hands upon themselves do not incur any latae sententiae censure, but are to be punished with ferendae sententiae penalties according to can. 2350, § 2.

4. "Those procuring an abortion, with the effect ensuing, the mother not excepted."¹⁹⁰

The controversy concerning the exemption of the mother from the censure, therefore, is now ended. Clerics procuring an abortion are furthermore to be deposed. The procuring of abortion was treated more broadly above in II, n. 137 ff.

5. "A religious who is an apostate from religion incurs by the law itself an excommunication reserved to his own major superior or, if the religion is lay or non-exempt, to the Ordinary of the place in which he resides" (can. 2385).

Apostasy from religion occurs when a religious illegitimately leaves the religion in which he emitted perpetual vows, with the intention of not returning.¹⁹¹ In exempt clerical religions this apostasy induces an excommunication reserved to the major superior of the religious himself;¹⁹² but in other religions the excommunication is reserved to the Ordinary of the place where the apostate resides, not where his monastery or convent is situated. Such apostates are furthermore excluded from legitimate ecclesiastical acts, are deprived of all privileges of their religion, and, if they return, perpetually lack active and passive voice; they must moreover be punished with other penalties by their superiors according to the norm of the constitutions. See below, n. 536, concerning penalties against fugitive religious.

6. "Those professed with simple perpetual vows both in Orders and in religious Congregations, and likewise all those presuming to contract marriage, even merely civilly, with any of the aforesaid persons" (can. 2388, § 2).

If these professed persons are clerics constituted in sacred orders, they contract an excommunication reserved simply to the Holy See, as was already said above in n. 515.

V. Excommunications reserved to no one.

¹⁸⁹ Ibid., c. 2343, § 4.

¹⁹⁰ Ibid., c. 2350.

¹⁹¹ Code of Canon Law, c. 644, § 1.

¹⁹² Major superiors are the Abbot Primate, the Abbot superior of a monastic Congregation, the Abbot of a monastery sui iuris, the supreme moderator of a religion, the provincial superior, their vicars, and others having power after the manner of provincials (Code of Canon Law, c. 488, n. 8).

524. In this series five excommunications are enumerated:

1. "Authors and editors who without due permission cause the books of Sacred Scripture, or annotations or commentaries upon them, to be printed" (can. 2318, § 2).

This excommunication is already found in the Constitution Officiorum et munerum, January 25, 1897 (n. 48). Three local Ordinaries can grant the due permission for printing books of this kind: a) the proper local Ordinary of the author; b) the Ordinary of the place in which they are printed;¹⁹³ c) the Ordinary of the place in which they are published.¹⁹⁴ If one of these three Ordinaries has denied permission, the author cannot seek it from another Ordinary unless he has informed that Ordinary of the permission denied by the other. Religious must furthermore obtain the permission of their major superior.¹⁹⁵

¹⁹³ Place of printing.

¹⁹⁴ Place of publication.

¹⁹⁵ Code of Canon Law, c. 1385, §§ 2 and 3.

525. 2. "Those who have dared to command or compel unbelievers, apostates from the faith, heretics, schismatics, or others, whether excommunicated or interdicted, to be given ecclesiastical burial contrary to the prescription of can. 1240, § 1" (can. 2339).

Those endowed with public authority who freely compel notorious heretics, unbelievers, excommunicated persons, or interdicted persons to be buried in a sacred place are punished with this excommunication. In most regions, for example, in Germany, Austria, and so forth, civil law commands and regulates the burial of inhabitants. Therefore, if, for example, the prefect of some place is bound by force of civil law to command that some notorious heretic be buried in a blessed or consecrated Catholic cemetery, he does not appear to incur this censure. For it is not the prefect, but the unjust civil law, that commands this burial.¹⁹⁶ Neither do those themselves who bury or assist at the burial incur this censure, for they do not command or compel. Clerics, however, who perform the burial of one excommunicated by name incur both an excommunication reserved simply to the Roman Pontiff¹⁹⁷ and an interdict.¹⁹⁸

3. "For all guilty in any manner (in the illegitimate alienation of precious ecclesiastical goods or of those exceeding the value of 30,000 francs; namely, if apostolic approval has knowingly been omitted), whether by giving, by receiving, or by furnishing consent, there remains (besides other penalties) a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to no one" (can. 2347, n. 3).

As regards its substance, this excommunication has already existed for centuries, but it has now been changed considerably as regards its circumstances. For first, it is not so clear whether this censure is latae or ferendae sententiae; for it is not incurred by that very fact, but "remains for the guilty." Commonly, however, it is regarded as a latae sententiae censure. Then, apostolic approval is required only if there is question of alienating precious ecclesiastical things whose value is notable by reason of art, history, or material. The value is notable by reason of material if it exceeds 30,000 francs;¹⁹⁹ but by reason of art or history, a lesser value appears already to be notable, for example, a value of 1,000 francs in gold currency. For alienating other ecclesiastical things, other permissions are required and suffice. Those alienating illegitimately are also punished with various other penalties.²⁰⁰

¹⁹⁶ Thus also Noldin, De poenis eccl., n. 97; Cappello, De cens., n. 401.

¹⁹⁷ Cf. above, n. 519.

¹⁹⁸ Cf. below, n. 536.

¹⁹⁹ Code of Canon Law, c. 1532, § 1; c. 1497, § 2.

²⁰⁰ Ibid., c. 2347, nn. 1 and 2.

526. 4. "All, even those adorned with any dignity whatsoever, who in any manner compel either a man to embrace the clerical state, or a man or woman to enter religion or emit a religious profession, whether solemn or simple, whether perpetual or temporary" (can. 2325).

By this excommunication liberty in choosing the clerical or religious state is protected. The religious state includes not only Orders but also approved religious Congregations. Unjustly to impede someone from the clerical or religious state is indeed a grave sin, but does not induce any censure.

5. "A member of the faithful who knowingly has omitted, contrary to the prescription of can. 904, to denounce within a month the one (the confessor) by whom he was solicited incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to no one, and is not to be absolved unless he has satisfied the obligation or has seriously promised that he will satisfy it" (can. 2368, § 2).

Cf. what was said above in n. 460 ff. concerning the matter of this censure. Note furthermore: not only the solicited person himself but also all witnesses, whether immediate or mediate, who know with certainty that the crime of solicitation was committed, are bound under grave sin to denounce; on the contrary, only the solicited person himself, who culpably neglects the required denunciation for a month, incurs the present excommunication. If the solicited person has seriously promised that he will denounce within a month, he can be absolved, even if he has already incurred the censure on account of the neglected denunciation. But if, his will having changed, he afterward does not denounce, the censure appears to arise anew, because otherwise the law would be evaded. Thus the most common opinion.²⁰¹

²⁰¹ Cf. De Smet, Tract. de cas. reserv., n. 167. Noldin (De poenis eccl., n. 103) teaches the contrary, saying: "But if afterward, his will having changed, he does not denounce, the censure does not revive, because there is nothing concerning reincidence." This opinion is scarcely probable.

It befits the moderation of the Apostolic See to retain in such a way those things which have been salutarily established by the authority of the ancient Canons, that, if the change of times and things should suggest that something must be tempered by prudent dispensation, the same Apostolic See may bestow a fitting remedy and providence of its supreme power. Wherefore, since in Our mind We had long been revolving that the ecclesiastical censures which, by way of latae sententiae and to be incurred by the very fact, have been holily appointed and promulgated through individual ages for guarding the safety and discipline of the Church herself, and for restraining and correcting the unbridled license of the wicked, had gradually grown to a great number; and that some also, with times and customs changed, had fallen away from the end and causes because of which they had been imposed, or from their former utility and opportuneness; and that on this account doubts, anxieties, and anguish of conscience not infrequently arise, whether in those to whom the care of souls has been committed or in the faithful themselves; We, wishing to meet inconveniences of this kind, ordered that a full review of the same be made and proposed to Us, so that, diligent consideration having been applied, We might establish which of them it would be fitting to preserve and retain, and which truly to moderate or abrogate. Therefore, that review having been completed, and Our Venerable Brothers, the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church deputed as General Inquisitors in matters of Faith throughout the whole Christian Republic, having been called into counsel, and the matter having been long and maturely weighed, by Our own motion, certain knowledge, mature deliberation, and from the fullness of Our Apostolic power, by this Constitution to remain in force perpetually, We decree that from whatever censures, whether of excommunication, or suspension, or interdict, which by way of latae sententiae and to be incurred by the very fact have hitherto been imposed, only those which We insert in this Constitution itself, and in the manner in which We insert them, shall have force henceforth; at the same time declaring that the same must receive their force altogether, not only from the authority of the ancient Canons, insofar as they agree with this Our Constitution, but also from this very Constitution of Ours, no otherwise than if they had first been issued by it.

1700. Questions. - Query 1° What has the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis established as regards censures and ecclesiastical penalties?

Resp. Besides those things which I noted concerning minor excommunication and those to be avoided in nn. 1673. 1674:

1° Through this Constitution nothing has been innovated, nothing changed as regards censures ferendae sententiae; and therefore as regards these one must proceed according to the ancient Canons.

2° Censures which in this Constitution are not first brought are to be understood according to the old tradition of the same censures, yet so that they remain tempered, according as they have been tempered by this Constitution. But if the sense of the ancient Canons does not seem to agree with the sense of this Constitution, the sense of the Constitution is to be preferred, no otherwise than if those Canons had first been issued by it. But if it does not sufficiently appear whether they disagree or not, one ought to remember that later laws regularly pertain to earlier ones.

3° Nothing has been changed as regards other canonical penalties; and therefore they have remained in their force, just as they were before this Constitution. - Nevertheless, if those things which by the old law are punished with other penalties are now coerced by excommunication, the other penalties seem to cease, because it is very harsh and alien to law for someone to be made guilty under several laws and penalties because of the same crime.

Query 2° What censures latae sententiae remained after the Constitution?

Resp. Besides those expressly noted in the Constitution, there remained: 1) those directly inflicted by Trent; 2) those brought for the election of the Roman Pontiff, insofar as hitherto they have persisted in their force; 3) all other particular censures which each particular Religious Order, or Institute, or Society, or Pious Place, or College, and a particular place of whatever kind, previously had for internal rule, and insofar as likewise hitherto they have persisted in their force.

I said: a) directly inflicted by Trent; for censures only renewed by the Council, and not directly inflicted, are altogether abrogated. This is gathered from the scope of the Constitution, which is that a certain and determinate number of censures might be had for avoiding many inconveniences: and from its words: "Besides those hitherto reviewed, those also whom the Sacred Council of Trent ... excommunicated, We likewise declare to be thus excommunicated" ... and it does not say "renewed." Thus Avanzini against others.¹ - But neither do all censures which the Council of Trent brought have force today, or everywhere; for those must be excepted which, with times changed, have become obsolete, examples of which you have Sess. 25 de Ref. Reg. c. 5, and Sess. 24, de Ref. Matr. c. 9; and those places are to be excepted where Trent was not received.²

I said: b) all other particular; for universal ones seem to have been abrogated by this very fact, that the Constitution expressly confirms universal ones which pertain to internal rule, as, for example, censures concerning enclosure, which would be useless if sanctions of this kind were already ratified from the general rule.³ The Commentaries contradict.⁴

Query 3° How can it be known which censures were only indirectly inflicted by the Council of Trent, i.e., renewed?

Resp. Censures which the Council of Trent indirectly inflicted are those which are indicated either by general words, as, for example, "And those who do otherwise ... incur by the very fact the penalties inflicted by law," or by these words: "renewing upon these things the penalties of the ancient Canons," or by special allegations, as, for example, "according to the Constitution of Clement V issued in the Council of Vienne," etc.; or "According to the Constitution of the General Council of Lyons," etc.

Query 4° What is the sense of certain terms occurring here and there in the Constitution?

Resp. a) Those commanding, i.e., those who ask in their own name, or order that something be done.

b) Those counseling, who persuade and impel another to do something. They persuade: therefore they are not held by a censure brought against counselors who offer doctrinal counsel; they impel: therefore neither are those held who urge another to do that which was already certain for him to admit.¹

c) Defenders are those who protect someone, so that he can do something safely and freely. A mode of defense is to receive someone: whence

d) Receivers or harborers, namely those who furnish refuge for the sake of hiding someone in their own or another's place; nor does it matter who receives, whether some private person, or a magistrate, or a prince.

e) To furnish aid is to bring help for perpetrating a delict.

f) To favor is to furnish any assistance whatever to someone, whether by doing (as, for instance, by commendations, money, counsel), or by omitting what was to be done from office.²

g) He is said to adhere who, no pact having been entered into with someone, follows his party.

Note. - 1° Those enumerated under a) and b) act upon the mind or internal act; the rest upon the work or external act.

2° Those recounted under c), d), e), f) do not differ in species, but as more and less; for all furnish one thing, namely, help. - They are not held by censure unless they bring help in the aforesaid modes in such a way: 1) that another can perpetrate the delict, not that he can evade the penalty of a delict already perpetrated [unless the delict has successive extension (n. 1662. 5°)], and 2) formally, namely, it is necessary that he who, for example, favors a heretic, favor him because he is a heretic.³

3° Whether he to whom counsel, aid, etc., is furnished is in good faith or in bad faith does not matter. - Thus concerning this whole question, the Commentaries.¹

Query 5° Whether the Constitution took away from the ecclesiastical law itself, from which it removed a censure, its old force of obliging, or gave new force to that to which it affixed a censure or left one affixed?

Resp. Negatively as to the first. The reason is that the Constitution derogates from the old law only as regards censures. - Affirmatively as to the second, because the Constitution derogates from any legitimate customs whatever which formerly exempted from the law, not only as regards censures, but also as regards the laws themselves which are sanctioned by censures, as seems to follow from the Response of the S. R. U. Inq., Feria IV, December 22, 1880 (Past. Bl. fuer N. Amer. 1881. p. 105 sq.).

Note. - To the words by which individual censures are enunciated by the Supreme Pontiff, we always immediately subjoin the places of the old law where the same or a similar censure is found, so that he who desires more may be able to recur there according to the rule handed down above, q. 1°. R. 2°.

Of these some are reserved to the Roman Pontiff in a special manner, others simply, others to Bishops, others to no one.

1701. - Query. How many and which are the excommunications latae sententiae reserved to the Roman Pontiff in a special manner?

Resp. They are the following thirteen.

I. "All apostates from the Christian Faith," and all and each heretics, by whatever name they are reckoned, and of whatever sect they exist, and those believing them, and their receivers, favorers, and generally any defenders whatever of them." Bull Coenae, § 1.

1° By "apostates from the Christian Faith" are understood those whom we defined in n. 266 at the end. But whether the crime of apostasy consists in withdrawal alone, so that profession of some false religion is not required, is disputed. I think withdrawal suffices.¹

For practice it matters little whether withdrawal alone suffices for apostasy, since this most certainly suffices for heresy, and to that extent is subject to the censure. Besides, apostates do not differ essentially from heretics, but only according to more and less, which, according to the axiom of Law, do not diversify the species. Wherefore apostates are named in the Constitution only for greater clarity, because they are not accustomed to be called heretics.²

But withdrawal certainly is required, that someone be called an apostate. But since the condition of withdrawal certainly is present in Pantheists, Naturalists, Rationalists, and many others of this kind, who commonly are called Unbelievers, Freethinkers, or Liberals, it can be asked whether, in the opinion which holds withdrawal to suffice, such as, alas! among Catholics themselves in this our age some (and would that there were not many) are found, who are more or less imbued with the aforesaid errors, or even, the duties of a Christian man neglected, live indifferently as if having no religion, yet without having denied the Christian Faith, or at least having deserted it in such a way that they do not wish any longer to be numbered among the faithful of Christ, are subject to the censure as apostates? I respond that these cannot be considered as true apostates, but it can happen that they are to be held as heretics.

2° By "all and each heretics, by whatever name they are reckoned, and of whatever sect they exist," understand those guilty of heresy: a) properly taken (n. 265); b) so formal (n. 266. 1°; 268. q. 1° and 2°), that no ignorance, not even affected, is present (n. 268. q. 1°. R. 2°); c) manifested by word or deed; d) at least occult (n. 266. 3°).

Note. - 1) From heresy that is notorious and brought to the judicial forum in whatever way (i.e., even if the heretic has spontaneously brought his delict to that forum), the Bishop absolves for both forums, either by himself or through a delegate.³ - 2) The Pope alone can absolve from heresy, whether notorious or occult, which has not yet been treated in the judicial forum.¹ See nevertheless the faculty of our Bishops, p. LXXI. 15. - 3) The Bishop (and among us any priest laboring in the Sacred Ministry) can receive in both forums the abjuration of new converts. Cf. n. 1264.

3° "And those believing them." - Believers in apostates or heretics are those who indeed have not given their name to an unbelieving or heretical sect, nor subjected themselves to such a sect, but externally show themselves to adhere to or believe the errors of apostates or heretics, for instance if someone were to say: "Doellinger rightly thinks concerning the Primacy,"² or, with the intention of assenting to the errors of a heretic (or not only from curiosity or another motive), were to hear his preaching or read his writings.

4° "And their receivers, favorers, and generally any defenders whatever of them" (i.e., of apostates or heretics). See n. 1700. q. 4°. Resp. c). d). f), and cf. Nouv. Revue Theol.³ Hence, as a defender, he is held by the censure who either praises the doctrine of a heretic (certainly in particular that doctrine which is contrary to the Faith), or disputes for the heretic, or responds to an objection against him; but not he who praises the learning, eloquence, or talent of a heretic.

Note. - In order that the censure be incurred, it suffices that the apostate or heretic to whom one believes, whom one favors, etc., be known as such to the one believing, favoring, etc.; nor is it necessary that he be denounced or even notorious.⁴

1702. - II. "All and each persons knowingly reading without the authority of the Apostolic See the books of the same apostates and heretics defending heresy, and also the books of any author prohibited by name through Apostolic Letters, and those retaining, printing, and in any way defending the same books." Bull Coenae, § 1, and Rule X of the Index.

The reading of books can be prohibited by natural law, or by positive law, or by laws of both kinds.

Namely, the reading of those books is prohibited by the law of nature itself whose use brings danger of sin, and indeed insofar as the same law commands that this danger be avoided. - See n. 1448. 1449.

But by positive law books are proscribed either immediately by the Supreme Pontiff, or by Councils, even general ones, or by the Index of prohibited books, or by another competent authority, e.g., by Ordinaries of places, and indeed either by name, i.e., with the title of the book expressed, or in general, indicating namely not individual works, but certain classes of works, the use of which is forbidden to the faithful. But the prohibition embraces the reading, retention, defense, and printing of such works.¹

There are added ecclesiastical laws by which especially the edition or printing of books without approval, e.g., of the S. C. of Indulgences or of the Ordinary, is prohibited.²

1703. - In this article a twofold species of prohibited books is contained: the former embraces the books of apostates and heretics; the latter, books prohibited by name through Apostolic Letters.

Books of the former species, that they may fall under excommunication, must bear before themselves two conditions, namely: 1° That they be of apostates or heretics; 2° That they defend heresy.

Books prohibited through Apostolic Letters, that they may fall under excommunication, must 1° be prohibited either in the form of a Brief, as most often happens, or in the form of a Bull, or through encyclical letters, or through any other extrinsic form, when in the letters themselves is read: from the fullness of Our Apostolic authority, or by Apostolic authority; for all these are called by the generic name Apostolic Letters. Therefore the censure does not comprehend books prohibited through decrees of the Index; but it is extended to books prohibited through Apostolic Letters before the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, provided they were prohibited, or, if there is question of prohibiting them, are prohibited under excommunication reserved to the Roman Pontiff. Thus Avanzini. Godschalk otherwise.³ But in the Index it is enunciated in what manner individual books are proscribed. 2° They must be prohibited by name, or by their proper titles.⁴

1704. Questions. - Query 1° Whether the books of those who believe apostates and heretics, of whom there is discussion in n. 1701. 3°, or of favorers and defenders (ib. 4°), if they defend heresy, are comprehended under this censure?

Resp. Negatively, because the books defending heresy are prohibited of those who pertain to the first class, i.e., of those who are leaders of apostates and heretics, or who formally pertain to their sects, or to true and certain heretics. Thus Avanzini.¹

Nevertheless it is not required that the author have been juridically condemned as a heretic or apostate, or have been born in a heretical sect; nor that the book have been written by heretics or apostates alone, with Catholics not cooperating; nor that the author's name be expressed; namely it suffices that: 1) in the book there be contained an indubitable defense of heresy or of apostasy from the Faith, and 2) that the defense have been made so pertinaciously that it cannot be doubted that the author of the book is certainly a heretic or apostate; and thus books of believers, favorers, etc., can be comprehended under the censure. - But books of infidels or of Jews are not comprehended under the censure, since they are neither apostates nor heretics.

Query 2° Whether books of apostates and heretics in which heresy is simply handed down, without being defended, are comprehended under this censure?

Resp. Negatively, since in the Constitution, which in this respect differs from the Bull Coenae, defense of heresy is required. Yet it suffices that the author has applied his talent for this end, that heresy be defended, whatever otherwise may be the matter of the book. Nouv. Rev. Th. T. II. p. 623.

Query 3° Whether periodicals, or newspapers, of the same persons, defending heresy, are prohibited under this censure?

Resp. They do not seem to be; because newspapers, insofar as the sheets remain complete by themselves, do not come under the name of books.² Nevertheless periodical writings, or fascicles destined for composing a volume, are comprehended by the censure.³

Query 4° Whether under the name of a book there also come little books of too slight a bulk, for instance a letter, a sermon, and whether manuscripts come under it?

Resp. to the 1st. Negatively. The reason is, because a penal law is to be interpreted strictly. Say the same concerning sheets separated from the book itself.¹

Resp. to the 2nd. Affirmatively, according to the more common opinion, to which St. Alphonsus adheres more, and which he says is altogether to be counseled.²

Note. - Under the name of a book there comes also the translation of the same, made in whatever language.³

Likewise, according to the opinion to which St. Alphonsus adheres more, there come books of Catholics to which a heretic has added notes so copious that they must be said to consist from these rather than from the writings of Catholics.⁴

Query 5° Whether under the censure there come books of very ancient heretics, or books containing errors wholly obsolete, which, every danger having been removed, are held as merely historical documents?

Resp. Negatively, because as to these the end of the law has entirely ceased.⁵

Query 6° Who in the Constitution come under the name of a) those reading, b) those retaining, c) those printing, d) those defending in any way?

Resp. to a). He who reads by himself, but not, at least probably, he who hears one reading, although the reader reads either by the counsel or by the command of the hearer. The reason is, because he does not read. - Nor does he incur the censure who reads himself, if he is ignorant of the language in which the book is written. - But when a book is prohibited, not only that part which gave cause for the prohibition, but the whole book is prohibited from being read, and besides this whatever part of the book is understood to be prohibited, as the dedicatory epistle, the prologue, the index. - But if the work has been distributed into several volumes, the Doctors dispute whether the prohibition is extended to those in which heresy is not defended, or which did not give cause for the prohibition. The opinion of Lugo pleases us more, who denies this if the subject matter of the work admits division, as history; but otherwise affirms it. - The prohibition ceases if you have withdrawn, or erased, or blackened that part which gave cause for the prohibition, so that it can no longer be read, provided the book was not proscribed because it treats of Religion expressly, or in hatred of the author.¹

Resp. to b). 1° The owner of the book, although it is deposited with another; 2° the depositary; 3° the borrower; 4° one retaining it in pledge. Nor is it enough to hand the book to another torn into sheets for wrapping medicines, salted goods, etc., or to hand it to one having license to retain it, unless you hand it over on this condition, that you do not reclaim it until you have obtained license of reading.²

Resp. to c). Immediate cooperators in the printing (n. 315), whether material cooperators, or (according to the truer opinion) those hiring their labor as conducive to this, as the owner of the printing-house, the editor, etc.³

Resp. to d). See n. 1700, q. 4°, R. c), d). But under the name of those defending there probably do not come those who would praise only the style or talent of the author, but not his doctrine.⁴

Resp. It is required:

1° That they act knowingly, as is said in the Constitution. Hence ignorance, at least gross ignorance, and probably even affected ignorance, excuses. Yet it suffices to know by report, or by a witness worthy of faith. (Cf. n. 1664, q. 3°, R. 2°.)⁵

2° That grave matter be present.⁶ - But smallness of matter: a) On the part of those reading or printing is to be considered formally, and thus sometimes a few lines suffice, if they defend heresy.⁷ - b) On the part of those retaining it is present, if someone retains a book for a short time, e.g., one or another day, or retains it while awaiting the opportune time to hand it over to the Ordinary, or to one having license, or to a confessor. Otherwise, if he were to retain it for a long time, even though he abstained entirely from reading it.¹ - c) On the part of those defending, smallness of matter does not seem admissible.²

3° That these things be done "without the authority of the Apostolic See," as the Constitution speaks, except however the case of a pious and learned man, who from necessity reads in order to convict a heretic, recourse to the Superior not being open.³ By what reason our Bishops can communicate the faculty of reading prohibited books, see p. LXXI. 21, and p. LXXII. 2.

But the clause: for the purpose of attacking them, does not cause that you sin gravely or incur the censure, although you do not read for that end, but e.g., from curiosity.⁴

Query 8° Who among those who belong to literary societies, among which books prohibited by this article are kept, incur the censure?

Resp. 1° Certainly the society as such does not incur it, since a community cannot be struck with excommunication. See n. 1669, q. 6°.

Resp. 2° As to individuals, distinguish. For they belong to the society either a) in such a way that they have co-ownership of the books, or b) in such a way that they belong to the assembly of those who preside over the society and direct its affairs by counsel, vote, etc., or c) in such a way that they are mere ministers of the society, as e.g., a librarian, or d) in such a way that by a contribution of money they procure for themselves the right to the use of the books.

If a), they incur the censure as owners of the books [this number, q. 6°, R. to b)].

If b), subdistinguish. The president will incur it, as is plain of itself; but not the remaining members who in no way favor the purchase of prohibited books. Thus in the hypothesis that those members lack co-ownership of the books.

If c), the librarian is held by the censure, because he comes under the name of those retaining [this number, q. 6°, R. to b)]. As to the others, see whether perhaps from the circumstances they are to be numbered among those defending [this number, q. 6°, R. to d)].

If d), they do not incur it, if they do not use their right for the use of prohibited books. Except if in a particular case they defend prohibited books or by circumstances are judged to defend them.

Thus, saving a better judgment; for I have sought this question in vain among the Doctors, even among those who have written expressly on the prohibition of books.

1705. - The Index was composed and published by order of Paul IV in the year 1558. - Pius IV perfected it with the Council of Trent, and published it in the year 1564. - Clement VIII enlarged it in the year 1595. - The Congregation of the Index was instituted by St. Pius V.¹

But the Index prohibits books partly by certain classes, as in the ten Rules of the Index, and in the Decrees concerning prohibited books not expressed by name in the Index;² partly by indicating, in alphabetical order, either the titles of books or the names of authors.

1706. - I. There are prohibited absolutely: 1° all books of heresiarchs (both of those who after the year 1515 invented or stirred up heresies, and of those who are or have been Heads or Leaders of heretics, such as Luther, etc.), even if not erroneous, or not treating expressly of Religion.

2° Books of heretics which treat expressly of Religion.

3° Books treating expressly of obscene things, with the exception of ancient books written by pagans, which, on account of elegance and propriety of speech, and insofar as there is question of ecclesiastical law alone, are permitted; nevertheless they are by no reason to be read before boys.

4° All books treating of astrology, divination, and sorceries.

5° All books entered into the Index without any addition.

II. There are prohibited under clauses:

1° All books which, before the year 1515, either the Supreme Pontiffs or Ecumenical Councils condemned, in the same way as they had formerly been condemned. By this rule however there are not prohibited the old books of pagans, nor even, according to Theologians (see n. 1704, q. 5°), the books of heretics of earlier centuries, as of Tertullian, Eusebius, etc.

2° Books written either a) by heretics, although not treating of Religion; or b) by those who afterward fell into heresy, or after a fall returned to the bosom of the Church, although written in a Catholic manner, unless they have been approved.

3° Bibles in the vernacular language, unless they have been approved by the Holy See, or published with notes drawn from the Holy Fathers, or from learned and Catholic men. Thus, not without foundation, Craisson interprets the Decrees and Responses of the Holy See.¹ I add: provided that a special prohibition has not been made by the Bishop concerning those versions which have been published without the approval of the Holy See or of the Ordinary. But Bishops cannot approve versions without the aforesaid notes, as is plain from the concession made to them in the year 1757.²

4° Books entered into the Index with the clause: until they are corrected, i.e., until they have appeared in a new corrected edition, which has been approved by the Sacred Congregation of the Index.

III. It is established that no book and no writing be printed without the license of the Ordinary.

1707. Questions. - Query 1° Whether the law of the Index, prohibiting the reading of certain books, obliges by natural law, or only by positive law?

Resp. It presses by both laws, at least of itself; because it prohibits books only because they are pernicious, and bring in a proximate danger of perversion or of sin; but by natural law each one is held to flee danger of this kind. Hence even if the obligation of the Index were not acknowledged somewhere, nevertheless the reading of books entered into the Index would be prohibited under grave sin, at least in general. On this matter St. Alphonsus observes:³ "All Theologians ... add, that not even with the license of the Pontiff can the reading of that book be permitted, which could be an occasion of subversion to someone."¹

Two things besides are to be noted.

1° Private persons ought to obey the commands of the confessor in these things which regard the reading of books. Thus the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition responded in the year 1832 to the Bishops of Switzerland asking: "Whether the faithful, with a safe conscience, can read Periodicals or books which have not undergone the censure of the Ordinary?" Resp. "Let them have recourse to the confessor."

2° The confessor himself ought carefully to seek the direction of the Bishop, and diligently to keep before his eyes the very grave warning which St. Alphonsus¹ handed down, namely: "In this matter it is expedient ordinarily to follow the stricter opinions."

Query 2° Whether among us the rules of the Index are to be observed and urged?

Resp. Affirmatively, if, when they are neglected, Faith or morals are exposed to proximate danger; indeed, even apart from this danger, those rules which have not been abrogated and morally speaking can be observed, are to be observed and, if it can be done prudently, urged.²

Especially: a) "Obscene books ... expressly so called cannot be read by anyone without grave sin, because of the proximate danger of exciting lust."³

b) "Those who read books treating of history, geography, and other matters of this kind, in which many things opposed to the Faith are found here and there, seem to be excused, because of the very great difficulty which exists in discerning and comparing books; for since most books written in the English language have non-Catholic authors, it can scarcely happen that Catholics, without very grave detriment to knowledge and other inconveniences, abstain from them. Therefore the kindness of the Church seems to indulge this, lest otherwise pious souls be ensnared. Moreover, care must diligently be taken that an occasion of perversion not arise; and therefore one must labor with every zeal, that expurgated books be had."⁴

c) Those things are to be observed which were said in n. 1706, II. 3°, concerning Bibles in the vernacular language. - Kenrick however observes:⁵ "If there are any recently converted to the Faith, who retain Bibles handed down by the hands of their ancestors, in which also the names of parents and children are inscribed, as is the custom, they do not seem to be compelled against their sentiments and affections, to cast them away, the Apostle admonishing: Receive him who is weak in faith."¹

d) As to the printing of books, the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore² recalls the law of the Church forbidding that "books concerning Religion and the worship of God" be committed to the press without the approval of the Ordinary.

Note. - Let these things said be understood insofar as there is question of the Index alone, apart from those things which we have explained in nn. 1702-1704 according to the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, and which we shall say in n. 1741, 1°, according to the same Constitution.

1708. - III. "Schismatics, and those who pertinaciously withdraw themselves from, or recede from, the obedience of the Roman Pontiff existing for the time." C. 5. Dist. 19. caus. 43. q. III. can. 26. Bull Coenae, § I.

1° By "schismatics" are understood those who pertain to perfect schism, namely those who arrogate to themselves an authority independent of the Roman Pontiff, and, thus setting themselves up as an authority, constitute new churches, make assemblies, dispose concerning the affairs of the Church after the likeness of a supreme independent authority.

2° By "those who pertinaciously withdraw themselves from, or recede from, the obedience of the Roman Pontiff existing for the time," are understood those who pertain to imperfect schism, namely who with full malice and obstinacy refuse to obey the person of the Roman Pontiff, holding themselves released from his supreme divine authority. I said: 1) holding themselves released from his supreme authority. Hence this censure does not hold those who refuse to obey on account of the thing commanded, e.g., in fasts, etc.; but only those who cast off the authority of the Roman Pontiff. I said: 2) from his supreme divine authority. Hence they do not contract this censure who decline his temporal dominion.

Note. - a) He who refuses to be subject to his own Bishop, because he does not wish to have him as his proper and legitimate Pastor, is the same as not wishing to be subject to the Roman Pontiff who sent him. If however someone perseveres in subjection to the Roman Pontiff and in communion with the other Churches, separation from communion with his own Bishop alone does not subject him to the censure.

b) It is not necessary that they be rebels against the authority of the Holy See taken universally; but it suffices that they are rebels against the obedience of that person who actually and legitimately occupies the See of Blessed Peter.

3° "Pertinaciously withdraw themselves," i.e., in the same way as heretics from the Faith, or knowingly and willingly. Wherefore the censure would not hold him who refused to be subject to a Pontiff insofar as he was suspect to him, or hateful, or doubtfully legitimate, i.e., not yet received by the universal Church because of an election doubtfully valid.

1709. - IV. "All and each, of whatever state, grade, or condition they shall be, appealing from the ordinances or mandates of the Roman Pontiffs existing for the time to a future universal Council, and also those by whose aid, counsel, or favor the appeal has been made." Bull Coenae, § II.

1° "To a future Council." Therefore if appeal has been made to a future Roman Pontiff, or to a present Council, there is no place for the censure.

2° By "ordinances, or mandates" here are not understood ordinances or mandates as to matters which pertain to temporal life and civil government; but only ordinances which regard the government of the universal or particular Church, and which pertain to its spiritual authority, even if exercised upon private persons.

1710. - V. "All killing, mutilating, striking, capturing, imprisoning, detaining, or hostilely pursuing Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, and Legates or Nuncios of the Apostolic See, or casting them out from their dioceses, territories, lands, or dominions, and also those commanding these things, or holding them ratified, or furnishing aid, counsel, or favor in them." St. Pius V, c. Infelicis. Bull Coenae, § XI.

1° "Hostilely pursuing," i.e., with the intention of harming, not merely of frightening.

2° "From their dioceses," etc., i.e., from places subject to their jurisdiction.

3° "Casting out," i.e., expelling one previously received, and indeed from the whole tract of jurisdiction. Therefore they are not bound by this censure who simply do not receive, or who expel from some city of the diocese.

4° "Those commanding" ... "furnishing counsel" in these things. See n. 1700, q. 4°.

5° "Holding ratified." Ratification here requires: a) that the striking, etc., was done in the name of the one ratifying; because "no one can hold ratified what has not been done in his name"; b) that at the time when these things had been perpetrated, they themselves could have admitted them, and therefore could have commanded them; for thus ratification is drawn back and is equated to mandate;¹ c) that not only by intention, but by some grave external action, e.g., writing, congratulation, applause, praise, etc., they approve the indicated delicts.²

1711. - VI. "Those impeding directly or indirectly the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, whether of the internal or external forum, and those recurring for this purpose to the secular forum, and those procuring or issuing its mandates, or furnishing aid, counsel, or favor." L. III. T. XXIII. c. 3 in 6°. Bull Coenae, § XVI.

1° They are struck by this excommunication who impede the exercise of ordinary or delegated jurisdiction, whether of the internal or external forum. - I say: of jurisdiction, namely insofar as it is distinguished from the exercise of Order, which two however are not always easily discerned from one another. Generally the power of Order pertains chiefly to the sanctification of souls; the power of Jurisdiction chiefly to the governing of the society of the faithful; therefore it belongs to the former to bless and consecrate; to the latter to rule and govern. Wherefore to the power of Order it pertains to perform Sacred things, to administer the Sacraments, to bless and consecrate persons and things, etc. To the power of jurisdiction it pertains to issue laws, mandates; to bind, loose; to confer benefices, ecclesiastical offices; to determine or take away ecclesiastical things, to send preachers, to visit a diocese, and to commit to others those things which belong to Order.

2° In this article those who impede the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and those who elude the effect of the same jurisdiction by recourse to a lay tribunal are entirely distinct. Therefore the particle: and those recurring for this purpose, has a disjunctive force, so that it signifies the other class of those who likewise are comprehended under the same censure. Hence both those impeding and those merely recurring are struck with this excommunication.

3° "Those impeding," namely by some deed, for instance by force, threats, command; for he is said to impede who causes another unwillingly to cease from an action. Therefore if someone uses counsels, entreaty, fraud, he is rather said to persuade, obtain, deceive. - "Those impeding directly," namely if someone obstructs the very person wishing to exercise jurisdiction, and in that thing which he intends to do, e.g., while he threatens the Bishop with recourse to the lay forum, if he is transferred by him to another parish. - Indirectly, namely if he obstructs him in another matter or in another person, as if he threatens him with some grave evil under pretext of an injury brought upon himself, but in truth that the Bishop may desist from transferring him to another parish; if by threats he prohibits judges given to him by the Bishop from undertaking those things which belong to their office.

4° "Those recurring." In order to incur the censure on this account, according to some it is required that a mandate or prohibition be obtained against ecclesiastical judges; according to others this is not required, but it suffices that one merely have recourse. - By forum some¹ understand civil power, whether legislative, executive, or judicial; others² only judicial power.

5° By "those issuing" are understood judges, and all others of the secular forum, who issue mandates which impede the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, but not actuaries writing them out, etc.³

6° "Those furnishing aid, counsel, or favor." See n. 1700, q. 4°. But these incur the censure only after by this reason the exercise of jurisdiction has been impeded, or recourse (in the opinion of those who think this suffices) has taken place.

1712. - VII. "Those compelling, either directly or indirectly, lay judges to draw ecclesiastical persons to their tribunal contrary to canonical dispositions: likewise those issuing laws or decrees against the liberty or rights of the Church." Martin V, c. Ad reprimendas. Bull Coenae, § XV.

Query. Whether lay judges, who by an office imposed by the laws either of a kingdom or of an empire, which are contrary to ecclesiastical sanctions, draw ecclesiastical persons to their tribunal, that they may discharge their said office, incur a censure of this kind?

Resp. Negatively, according to the authentic response which was given in the Instruction of the S. C. U. Inq., February 1, 1871, by which it was declared: "The excommunication does not touch those who are subordinate, even if they have been judges, but has been laid only upon those who, compelled by no one, either do such things, or compel others to do them."

1° "Those compelling directly or indirectly." Indirectly, e.g., by fear impressed upon the relatives of a judge, or through another upon the judge himself.

2° "Contrary to canonical dispositions," there is allusion to Concordats of a kingdom or of an empire with the Apostolic See, which remain in force. - There is allusion also to the case in which some ecclesiastical person has been duly degraded, and delivered to a lay judge to be punished. - Likewise to other cases: when, e.g., an ecclesiastical person draws lay persons into judgment; for an ecclesiastical person can present himself in a lay court in a non-ecclesiastical cause as plaintiff; but he himself cannot be drawn as defendant. - The Commentators add:¹ "This censure ceases in those places where the privilege of forum, the Holy See permitting or being silent, has been abrogated; for it is utterly incredible that the most wise Pontiff wished suddenly, and with scarcely one word, to stir up a very wide and very tangled crop of controversies and annoyances. Cf. nn. 112-114."

3° "Those issuing laws or decrees against the liberty and rights of the Church." Only those issuing them, or the authors of laws or decrees, are excommunicated, as for instance among us the members of legislative or municipal assemblies, and likewise the President, Governor, or Prefect of a City who do not veto laws or decrees of this kind. - Laws are those things which are constituted perpetually by the Supreme Power. - Decrees are those things which are issued generally by any power whatever, as for instance by a Prefect of a City, by Municipalities, etc. - Against the liberty or rights of the Church. These words are very widely open, and strike every kind whatever of laws or decrees by which not only the exercise of ecclesiastical power, whether of jurisdiction or of Order, but any other right is intercepted, restricted, disturbed. See examples in the Syllabus, pp. 19-21, 24-33, 41-54, p. XLII-XLIV.

1713. - VIII. "Those recurring to lay power for impeding letters, or any acts whatever proceeding from the Apostolic See, or from its Legates or Delegates of whatever kind, and those prohibiting their promulgation or execution directly or indirectly, or on account of them injuring or greatly frightening either the parties themselves or others." L. III. T. XXIII. c. 4 in 6°. Bull Coenae, § XIII.

1° By the words: "letters," namely Apostolic, what is understood, see n. 1703. - "Acts" are called those things which are done at Rome by the Roman Pontiff, whether they contain a spiritual or temporal matter; or by his command, as citations, processes, etc.

2° This article comprises a threefold kind of persons: 1) "Those recurring" to lay power for impeding letters, or any acts whatever proceeding from the Apostolic See, or from the Legates or Delegates of the same Apostolic See, of whatever kind.

2) "Those prohibiting" directly or indirectly the promulgation or execution of the same acts.

3° "Those injuring" (the body, goods), or "greatly frightening" (with exceedingly grave fear) the parties themselves, i.e., the persons who have obtained some Rescript either of grace or of justice from the Holy See or its Legates, or some sentence favorable to themselves, etc., or those injuring or greatly frightening others, for instance the patrons of the same parties by reason of the acts obtained, or executors, or persons to whom the acts obtained are referred by some reason.

1714. - IX. "All forgers of Apostolic Letters, even in the form of a Brief, and of supplications concerning grace or justice, signed by the Roman Pontiff, or by the Vice-Chancellors of the Holy Roman Church or by those acting in their place, or by mandate of the same Roman Pontiff; and also those falsely publishing Apostolic Letters, even in the form of a Brief, and also falsely signing supplications of this kind under the name of the Roman Pontiff, or of the Vice-Chancellor, or of those acting in the place of the aforesaid." L. V. Decr. T. XX. c. 7. Bull Coenae, § VI.

Note. - It is required that these things have been committed with evil intent, and, if the interest of another is involved, that they gravely harm or can harm this other. For the crime of forgery is "an alteration or suppression of the truth made to the fraud of another."¹

As to those using false Apostolic letters, see n. 1735.

1715. - X. "Those absolving an accomplice in a base sin, even in the article of death, if another priest, although not approved for Confessions, can receive the Confession of the dying person without any grave infamy and scandal about to arise." Benedict XIV, c. Sacramentum Poenitentiae, § IV. Cf. c. Apostolici muneris, §§ III, IV.

1° "Those absolving": but not merely those hearing the Confession of an accomplice,² nor those absolving with ignorance, even gross ignorance, of the censure; for the Constitution of Benedict XIV, from which the censure is taken, requires daring (cf. n. 1406, 2°, Note, and n. 1664, q. 3°). Those feignedly absolving are held by the censure. (47) p. 428.

2° "An accomplice" (see n. 1404, I, 1405, q. 2°), "in a base sin" (see n. 1405, q. 1°).

3° "Even in the article of death, if," etc. (see n. 1405, q. 3°, q. 4°, q. 5°).

Note. - Concerning absolution from this censure, see p. LXXI, n. 16, note 2, b).

1716. - XI. "Those usurping, or sequestrating, jurisdiction, goods, revenues, belonging to ecclesiastical persons by reason of their churches or benefices." Bull Coenae, § XVII. L. I. T. VI. c. 13 in 6°.

1° "Those usurping," i.e., occupying a thing from another as if by right to it, or as if it pertained to themselves. Therefore thieves, robbers, plunderers, etc. do not incur this censure (S. C. O., March 9, 1870), nor those who acquire a thing usurped by others by acts either of last will or among the living.¹

2° "Or sequestrating," i.e., jurisdictionally impeding lest goods, etc., be received by the said ecclesiastical persons.

3° "Jurisdiction," whether spiritual or temporal, e.g., of the Roman Pontiff in his dominion.

4° "Goods," whether immovable or movable, or rights. Cf. n. 593.

5° "Revenues," i.e., whatever the thing bears, or is received by reason of the thing, not stole fees.

6° "Belonging to ecclesiastical persons by reason of their churches or benefices." Therefore not those things which belong to hospitals, lay sodalities, Monasteries (others however affirm²), cemeteries; nor goods assigned to preserving or repairing sacred buildings, or to performing sacred things.³

Moreover current law establishes four excommunications incurred by the very fact against those who dispose illicitly of ecclesiastical goods, etc.: the first, of which in this number; the second, third, and fourth, of which in nn. 1717, 1738, 1740. The first and second are reserved specially to the Supreme Pontiff; the fourth simply to him; the third is reserved to no one.

1717. - XII. "Those invading, destroying, detaining, by themselves or through others, cities, lands, places, or rights pertaining to the Roman Church; or usurping, disturbing, retaining supreme jurisdiction in them, and also those furnishing aid, counsel, or favor to each one of the aforesaid." Bull Coenae, § XX.

1° This excommunication looks to the defense of temporal dominion belonging to the Holy See. Hence rights and jurisdiction are here understood as temporal; nor are any rights whatever meant, but principal rights, or those which are proper to a Prince as such; and supreme jurisdiction, i.e., that which belongs to the Prince alone, as for instance the right of life and death, the right of imposing taxes, of creating Magistrates, etc.

2° They are excommunicated: a) who destroy or invade cities, etc., force being used; b) who usurp or disturb the supreme jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff in these things, e.g., who impede the Roman Pontiff himself from publishing laws in these cities, imposing taxes, etc.; c) who retain this jurisdiction, or cities, lands, etc.; d) who furnish aid, counsel, favor to each one of the aforesaid. - Concerning those who furnish these things, i.e., aid to those invading, destroying, disturbing, usurping, there is no difficulty.

What concerning those who furnish these things to those detaining them? The Commentators respond:¹ "There is a twofold kind of these, ... one of those who exercise some public office. But public offices pertain either to the necessities or utilities of citizens, or to maintaining the government, or to both. The former" (under which I think comes the office of consuls, who live in foreign ports or cities, and also of legates before the pretended king of Italy) "it is harmless, other things being equal, to undertake, because a society cannot kill itself; not likewise the latter; but as to censures one must advert whether someone can abstain from these without grave inconvenience." (Cf. n. 1664, q. 5°.)

"The other kind is of those who undertake no public office. These are understood to favor, if they furnish proximate work to those retaining them, so that they remain in possession: as for instance by money, ... by writings, etc.; if remote work, not likewise; as if they rent houses to them, serve them, etc."

Note. - At the beginning of this paragraph I said that there are thirteen excommunications reserved specially to the Supreme Pontiff. Namely, to the twelve which in the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis are reserved specially to the Pope, on the fifth day before the kalends of September, 1873, there acceded:

XIII. By which, in the Constitution Romanus Pontifex, there are struck:

1° The Canons and Dignitaries of vacant Cathedral Churches, who have dared to grant and transfer the care, governance, and administration of the vacant Church under whatever title, name, or color sought ... to one nominated and presented by lay power by concession or privilege of the Holy See, or, where custom is in force, elected by the Chapter members themselves to the same vacant Church.

2° Those nominated and presented, or as above elected, to vacant Churches, who dare to take up the care, governance, and administration of them, etc....

3° All those who have obeyed the aforesaid things, or have furnished aid, counsel, or favor, of whatever state, condition, preeminence, and dignity they shall be.

Moreover there is added: "But if any of the aforesaid are marked with the episcopal character, they incur by the very fact, without any declaration, the penalty of suspension from the exercise of Pontificals and of interdict from entrance into the Church, likewise reserved to the Holy See."

Besides: 1° the aforesaid Canons are deprived of fruits; - 2° those nominated are deprived of the right acquired by them.¹ (E) p. 399.

1718. - I. "Those teaching or defending, either publicly or privately, propositions condemned by the Apostolic See under the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae; likewise those teaching or defending as licit the practice of asking from a penitent the name of an accomplice, as it has been condemned by Benedict XIV in the Constitutions Suprema, July 7, 1745; Ubi primum, July 2, 1746; Ad eradicandum, September 28, 1746."

1° "Those teaching," i.e., handing them down to those not knowing.

2° "Or defending," i.e., undertaking patronage of them, as if they had been unworthy of condemnation.

3° "Condemned under the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae," namely against those who teach or defend them. Of this kind, for example, are those condemned by Leo X in the Constitution Exsurge Domine, issued June 15, 1520 against the errors of Luther; by St. Pius V in the Constitution Ex omnibus, October 1, 1567, issued against the errors of Michael Baius, and which Gregory XIII confirmed by the Constitution Provisionis nostrae, January 29, 1579, and Urban VIII by the Constitution In eminenti, March 6, 1641; by Alexander VII in the years 1665, 1666 (pp. XII-XIV); by Innocent XI in the year 1679 (pp. XV-XVII); by Alexander VIII in the year 1690 (pp. XXII-XXIII); by Benedict XIV in the year 1752 (p. XXVI). But such propositions are not those condemned in the Syllabus.

Note. - 1) Propositions condemned as heretical do not fall under this censure, but under that of which there was treatment in n. 1701. But those condemned in a mass, respectively as heretical, erroneous, etc., do fall under it, unless perhaps someone teaches or defends one of these which is heretical in itself and known by him as such. - 2) Concerning the excommunication laid down by Trent (not however reserved) against those who teach certain false propositions, see n. 1741.

4° "Condemned by the Apostolic See," i.e., by the Roman Pontiff either by himself, or through the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, but not through Ecumenical Councils.

5° "Likewise those teaching or defending as licit ... as it has been condemned by Benedict XIV," etc. But Benedict XIV says: "He who shall have dared to teach that the practice of asking the name of the accomplice is licit, under denunciation, unless they revealed it, of denial of sacramental absolution; or shall have presumed to write or speak in defense of the same condemned practice." Therefore three things are required that this excommunication be incurred: a) that he teach that this practice is licit; b) that he teach that both together are licit, i.e., both to ask the name of the accomplice, and to deny absolution to one keeping silence; c) that he rashly teach these things (n. 1664, q. 3°).

As to a confessor who exercises this doctrine in practice, see n. 1369, q. 3°, q. 4°.

1719. - II. "Those laying violent hands, at the persuasion of the devil, upon Clerics, or Monks of either sex, except, as to the reservation, the cases and persons concerning whom by law or privilege it is permitted that a Bishop or another absolve." C. 4. Caus. 17. 12.

In this article is contained that celebrated privilege of Clerics which from the Canon of the Lateran Council under Innocent II, Si quis suadente diabolo, is called the privilege of the Canon, and which is to be interpreted very broadly, since it has been conceded not to persons, but to the state of Clerics. See n. 193.

1° "Laying violent hands," i.e., committing a real injury (not by words alone), by which either the body, or liberty, or dignity is injured. - The body, as if you have killed a cleric with poison (in which case excommunication, according to the more common opinion, which seems more probable to St. Alphonsus, is incurred as soon as the poison has begun to injure¹), or have pursued him so that he should fall headlong or fall from a horse, and he falls headlong or falls.² - Liberty, when he is thrust into prison or another place, even private. - Dignity, whenever force is applied, as if you stop the carriage in which he is conveyed, or the horse on which he sits;³ if you have violently snatched something from him, as a purse, hat, staff; or have admitted some other insulting thing against him, as for instance if you have fouled him with spittle, dust, mud; if you have torn the garments with which he was clothed, etc.⁴ - All are subject to this excommunication, even those under puberty. Whether, as in the old law, cooperators also? Avanzini affirms with others, moved especially by this reason, that the ancient law is here simply renewed, and the same reason of the law altogether holds for cooperators, i.e., those commanding, counseling, consenting (provided they influence the striking gravely and efficaciously), those ratifying (in the manner in which we explained in n. 1710, 5°);⁵ the Commentators deny it.⁶ We adhere to Avanzini.

2° "At the persuasion of the devil," i.e., from an intention of inflicting injury gravely culpable.⁷ Therefore the censure does not hold one who strikes either in jest,⁸ or for correction (moderately however),⁹ or for defense (with the moderation of blameless defense),¹⁰ or for some other just cause (as if a woman strikes a cleric by whom she is solicited, and whom she cannot turn away by words);¹¹ or from sudden anger, which causes that what is done is not fully adverted to.¹²

3° "Upon clerics," or all who have received Tonsure, "or monks of either sex," even Novices, Tertiaries wearing the habit and living in community, and Hermits by vow or pact attached to some sacred place, with subjection to the Bishop, but not those vagabonds who wear a special habit, although they serve some Church, even by commission of the Bishop.¹ (O) p. 411.

Whether women living together after the manner of religious enjoy the same privilege? Fagnanus affirms it, whom St. Alphonsus does not contradict.² But the Holy Doctor manifestly seems³ to admit that religious women living in a simple Congregation with at least tacit authority of the Pontiff enjoy the privilege, such as those living in a Congregation erected by the Bishop seem to me to be.

Yet it is necessary that the Cleric has not fallen away from this privilege. But those fall away who can still renounce the clerical state (as those who are constituted only in Minor orders), and have really renounced it; likewise those degraded, namely really (n. 1691); but not those excommunicated, suspended, interdicted, deposed, namely verbally (n. 1691).

4° "Except, as to the reservation," etc. See n. 1753, q. 2°, R. 2°.