Excommunication

33. Notion. Excommunication is a censure by which a Christian man is deprived of communion with the faithful.

a. There is a threefold communication of the faithful: a. merely internal, consisting in faith and charity, by which the faithful are mystically united among themselves and with Christ; b. merely external (in civil matters), which consists in external profane actions, namely in the common life, conversation, commerce, etc., of the faithful; c. mixed (in divine matters), consisting in external religious actions which by their institution produce internal spiritual fruit, such as the administration and reception of the sacraments, the suffrages of the Church, which in the sacrifice of the Mass and in other public offices are founded for all the faithful, indulgences. Now the Church deprives no one of the communion of merely internal goods, nor can she deprive anyone of it; but she can deprive a disobedient and contumacious man of external and mixed communion, and in fact deprives him of it through excommunication.

b. Excommunication is the gravest of all ecclesiastical penalties, than which there is none greater in the Church: for since it deprives one of all the goods of the Church, it virtually contains in itself the other censures, which deprive one of the same goods only partially. Therefore the Council of Trent admonishes ecclesiastical judges not to use this penalty unless when no other remedy remains.¹

c. By the name anathema there is designated either excommunication itself, or excommunication inflicted because of heresy or suspicion of it, or excommunication which is denounced against the excommunicated person with a certain extraordinary solemnity.²

¹ Sess. 25, c. 3, De reform.

² Cf. C. Debent 106, c. 11, q. 3, where the mode and form of solemn excommunication is described.

34. Division of excommunication. Excommunication was previously divided, from its effect, into greater and lesser; the former deprived one of all common goods, the latter only of part, namely reception of the sacraments and passive election to dignities and benefices. But now, lesser excommunication having been removed by the constitution Apostolicae sedis, only greater excommunication is in force.¹

Lesser excommunication was formerly incurred by those who, against the prohibition of the Church, communicated with an excommunicated person to be avoided. Those communicating with an excommunicated person to be avoided today fall into greater excommunication, but only in those cases which are expressly indicated in the constitution Apostolicae sedis.

¹ Holy Office, December 5, 1883. Cf. Acta sanctae sedis XVII, p. 555.

35. Distinction among excommunicated persons. Some excommunicated persons are to be avoided, whom the faithful are bound to avoid; others are tolerated, whom the faithful are not bound to avoid. This distinction, taken from the chief effect of greater excommunication, must still be attended to today.

a. In antiquity all persons excommunicated by greater excommunication were to be avoided. In the Council of Constance the constitution Ad evitanda was issued, confirmed by Martin V and afterward by Leo X, which a. removes the prohibition of communicating with excommunicated persons, with three cases excepted, yet b. does not intend to relieve the excommunicated persons themselves in anything or in any way to favor them, but to avoid scandals and many dangers and to aid the consciences of the faithful.

b. Therefore not only is it prohibited to excommunicated persons to be avoided to communicate with the rest of the faithful, but there also lies upon the faithful an obligation in conscience of omitting commerce with excommunicated persons to be avoided. But with respect to tolerated persons, they indeed are bound to abstain from commerce with the rest of the faithful in divine matters; however, the faithful can licitly communicate with them both in divine and in human matters. But if the excommunicated persons have been anticipated by the faithful, they too can licitly communicate even in divine matters.

c. Therefore by reason of excommunication, sacraments can licitly be asked from an excommunicated person (tolerated) even without necessity; but from another reason it can happen that sacraments cannot be asked from him without necessity, namely if he is in sin.

36. Who are to be avoided. Therefore, from the new law introduced through the Council of Constance, excommunicated persons to be avoided are:

1. Those excommunicated by name and publicly, whether by the Roman pontiff or by a bishop.

2. Those who by name and publicly have been denounced as excommunicated by the pope or by a bishop, namely where it concerns a censure of a sentence already passed.

a. By name, i.e. by an expressed name or by another title which certainly designates the person and therefore is equivalent to a name, e.g. we excommunicate the dean of this place.

b. Publicly, i.e. in the mode by which promulgation of law is made, either by affixing the name in a public place or by reading it in church at the time of Mass or sermon, etc.

c. Therefore we licitly communicate with heretics and schismatics who, because of their heresy, have been excommunicated and denounced publicly as such, because they have not been excommunicated and denounced by name.

3. Notorious strikers of clerics, even if they have not been denounced as excommunicated.

But in order that a striking inducing censure be notorious, notoriety of fact does not suffice; rather, notoriety of law is also required, i.e. that the crime be known by sentence of a judge or by confession of the guilty person in judgment (n. 10).¹

¹ Holy Office, January 9, 1884. Cf. St. Alphonsus n. 144.

I. They incur an excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See in a most special manner:

1. Those who have thrown away the consecrated species, or have carried them off or retained them for an evil end (can. 2320).

2. Those who have laid violent hands upon the person of the Roman Pontiff (can. 2343).

3. One absolving or pretending to absolve an accomplice in a base sin; and this even in the article of death, if another priest, though not approved for confession, can hear the confession of the dying person without some grave infamy and scandal arising, except in the case in which the dying person refuses to confess to another.

The same excommunication is not escaped by one absolving or pretending to absolve an accomplice who indeed does not confess the sin of complicity, from which he has not yet been absolved, but therefore acts in this way because he has been induced to this by the accomplice-confessor either directly or indirectly (cn. 2367).

4. A confessor who has presumed directly to violate the sacramental seal (cn. 2369).

II. They incur an excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See in a special manner:

1. All apostates from the Christian faith, and all and individual heretics or schismatics (cn. 2314).

2. One suspected of heresy, who, having been admonished, does not remove the cause of suspicion and suffers in vain the penalties therefore to be inflicted, if within six completed months from the contracted penalty he has not yet corrected himself, is to be held as a heretic, subject to the penalties of heretics (cn. 2315).

According to the new law, the following become suspected of heresy:

a. Those who in any way spontaneously and knowingly aid the propagation of heresy.

b. Those who communicate in divine things with heretics (having an active part in their sacred rites).

c. Those who enter matrimony with an implicit or explicit pact that some offspring be educated outside the Catholic Church.

d. Those who knowingly presume to offer their children to non-Catholic ministers to be baptized.

e. Parents or those holding their place, who knowingly hand over children to be educated or instructed in a non-Catholic religion.

f. One who has thrown away the consecrated species, or has carried them off or retained them for an evil end.

g. Those appealing from the laws or mandates and decrees of the Roman Pontiff to a universal Council.

h. One who with an obstinate mind has remained for a year in excommunication.

i. All, even those of episcopal dignity, who through simony knowingly have promoted to orders or have been promoted, or have administered or received other sacraments.

3. Publishers of books of apostates, heretics, and schismatics which defend apostasy, heresy, schism, after the work has been made of public right; likewise those defending the same books or others forbidden by name through apostolic letters, or knowingly reading or retaining them without due license (cn. 2318).

4. All and individual persons, of whatever state, grade, or condition, even royal, episcopal, or cardinalitial, who appeal from the laws, decrees, and mandates of the Roman Pontiff existing for the time to a universal council (cn. 2332).

5. Those having recourse to the lay power in order to impede letters or any acts whatever proceeding from the Apostolic See or from its legates, or those directly or indirectly prohibiting their promulgation or execution, or on their account harming or terrifying either those to whom the letters or acts pertain, or others (cn. 2333).

Thus you have three classes of those who are subject to this censure:

a. those having recourse to the lay power;

b. those prohibiting promulgation or execution;

c. those harming or terrifying anyone at all on account of those acts.

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, whether of the internal or external forum, having recourse for this to any lay power (cn. 2334).

7. If anyone has dared to draw before a lay judge any of the cardinals or legates of the Apostolic See, or the major officials of the Roman Curia on account of business pertaining to their office, or his own ordinary, without the permission of the Apostolic See (cn. 2341, 120).

8. Those who have laid violent hands upon a cardinal or legate of the Roman Pontiff, upon a Patriarch, Archbishop, Bishop, even titular only (cn. 2343).

9. One not promoted to the priestly order, who has simulated the celebration of Mass or heard sacramental confession (cn. 2322).

10. Those usurping or detaining, by themselves or through others, goods or rights pertaining to the Roman Church (cn. 2345).

11. All fabricators or falsifiers of letters, decrees, or rescripts of the Apostolic See, or those knowingly using the same letters, decrees, or rescripts (cn. 2369).

12. If anyone by himself or through others has falsely denounced a confessor before superiors for the crime of solicitation . . . nor can he be absolved in any case unless he has formally retracted the false denunciation and, according to his powers, repaired the harms, if any have followed from it, with a grave and long penance imposed besides (cn. 2363).

III. They incur an excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See:

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

Clerics and religious giving their name to a sect or association of this kind must furthermore be denounced to the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (cn. 2336).

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

3. Those furnishing any aid 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 the same person in divine things and receiving him in divine offices (cn. 2338, 2).

4. If anyone has dared to draw before a lay judge another's bishop (not his own), even merely titular, or an abbot or prelate nullius, or any of the major superiors of religions of pontifical right, on account of business pertaining to their office, without permission of the Apostolic See (cn. 120).

5. Violators of the cloister of nuns, of whatever kind, condition, or sex they are, by entering their monasteries without legitimate license; and likewise those introducing or admitting them.

Women violating the cloister of male regulars, and superiors and others, whoever they may be, introducing or admitting them of whatever age (cn. 2342).

Nuns illegitimately leaving the cloister even for a brief time, on whatever pretext, without special indult of the Holy See, except in the case of imminent danger of death or of another most grave evil. This danger, if time permits, must be recognized in writing by the local ordinary (cn. 2342, 3, 601).

6. If anyone has presumed, by 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 from the same from being received by those to whom they belong by right, he is subject to excommunication until he has fully restored the goods, has removed the aforesaid impediment, and has then obtained absolution from the Apostolic See (cn. 2346).

7. Those perpetrating a duel, or simply provoking another to it or accepting it, or furnishing any assistance or favor, as well as those deliberately watching it and those permitting it or, as far as lies in them, not prohibiting it, of whatever dignity they may be (cn. 2351).

8. Clerics constituted in sacred orders, or regulars or nuns after the solemn vow of chastity, and likewise all presuming to contract matrimony, even civilly only, with any of the aforesaid persons (cn. 2358).

9. Those making profit from indulgences (cn. 2327).

10. Those perpetrating the delict of simony in any ecclesiastical offices, benefices, or dignities (cn. 2392).

11. A vicar capitular or any others, both from the chapter and outsiders, who by themselves or through another have removed or hidden or substantially changed any document pertaining to the episcopal curia (cn. 2405).

IV. They incur an excommunication reserved to the Ordinary:

1. Catholics who enter matrimony before a non-Catholic minister.

2. Those who are united in matrimony with an explicit or implicit pact that all or some offspring be educated outside the Catholic Church.

3. Those who knowingly presume to offer their children to non-Catholic ministers to be baptized.

4. Parents or those holding the place of parents, who knowingly hand over children to be educated or instructed in a non-Catholic religion (cn. 2319).

5. One who makes false relics, or knowingly sells, distributes, or exposes them to the public veneration of the faithful (cn. 2326).

6. One who has laid violent hands upon the person of other clerics (other than the Roman Pontiff, a cardinal or legate of the Roman Pontiff, a patriarch, archbishop, bishop, or even titular bishop), or of religious of either sex (cn. 2343).

7. Those procuring abortion, the effect having followed, the mother not excepted (cn. 2350).

8. Professed of perpetual simple vows, both in orders and in religious congregations, and likewise all presuming to contract matrimony with such persons, even civilly only (cn. 2388, 2).

9. Apostates from a lay or non-exempt religion (cn. 2385).

An apostate from another religion is subject to an excommunication reserved to the major superior of his own religion.

V. They incur an excommunication reserved to no one:

1. Authors and publishers who, without due license, take care that books of sacred Scripture or their annotations or commentaries be printed, after the work has been made of public right (cn. 2318, 2).

2. Those who have dared to command or compel to be handed over to ecclesiastical burial infidels, apostates from the faith, heretics, schismatics, or others either excommunicated by sentence or interdicted (cn. 2339).

3. Those presuming to alienate (and those cooperating or consenting) ecclesiastical goods without apostolic approval, when this is prescribed (cn. 2347).

4. All, shining even with whatever dignity, who in any way compel either a man to embrace the clerical state, or a man or woman to enter religion or to emit profession, whether solemn or simple, whether perpetual or temporary (cn. 2352).

5. A faithful person who knowingly has omitted, within a month, to denounce him by whom he was solicited, is not to be absolved unless after he has satisfied the obligation or has seriously promised that he will satisfy it (cn. 2368, 2).

OF all the penalties which the Church can inflict, excommunication is the most severe, and it virtually contains the others. It deprives the delinquent of all the advantages which he possessed as a member of the Church, and puts him outside the communion of the faithful. According to the ancient discipline of the Church, no excommunicated person could hold any intercourse with the faithful, nor could the faithful hold intercourse with him, but at the close of the Middle Ages, when heresy became more common, it grew to be impossible to maintain the ancient rigour, and Martin V introduced an important mitigation in the law. By the decree Ad evitanda, he distinguished between those under censure who were still to be avoided and those who were to be tolerated. All who were excommunicated by name, and at the same time specially denounced by name, together with all who notoriously violated the privilege of the canon by striking clerics, were still to be avoided; all others were to be tolerated. By this concession Catholics might without scruple, as far as concerned the censure, henceforth have intercourse with persons under censure who were tolerated. The concession was not, indeed, made directly in favour of those under censure, but these could not fail to benefit indirectly by the relaxation in the law that had been granted to the faithful. The tolerated as well as those to be avoided were still theoretically subject to the former disabilities, but custom made a distinction between them in several important respects.

The Code retains the distinction between excommunicates who are to be avoided and those who are tolerated; no one is to be avoided as excommunicated unless he has been excommunicated by name by the Holy See, publicly denounced as such, and in the sentence it is expressly said that he is to be avoided (Can. 2258).

By the ancient discipline one of the faithful who held unlawful intercourse with one who was under excommunication himself incurred the minor excommunication, but this penalty has ceased to exist since the promulgation of the constitution of Pius IX, Apostolicae Sedis, where no mention is made of it.

The effects of excommunication, according to the Code, may be enumerated as follows:

(a) An excommunicated person has no right to assist at divine offices—that is, functions of the power of order which are ordained to the worship of God by the institution of Christ or of the Church, and which can be exercised by clerics alone.

(b) An excommunicated person cannot receive the sacraments, and after a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, not even the sacramentals.

(c) As a general rule the lawful administration of the sacraments and sacramentals is forbidden to excommunicated persons. However, especially if other ministers are not to be had, the faithful may ask for the sacraments and sacramentals from an excommunicated priest, and then the latter can administer the same without asking the reason for the request.

But from one who is to be avoided and from others after a condemnatory or declaratory sentence, only in danger of - death can the faithful ask for sacramental absolution, and then also the other sacraments and sacramentals if other ministers are not to be had.

(d) An excommunicated person does not share in the indulgences, suffrages, and public prayers of the Church.

The faithful, however, are not forbidden to pray for him privately. Priests are not forbidden privately and with the avoidance of scandal to offer Mass for him, but only for his conversion, if he is to be avoided.

(e) An excommunicated person is removed from the exercise of ecclesiastical offices in law within the limits laid down under the proper heads.

(f) An act of jurisdiction, both of the external and internal forum, when exercised by an excommunicated person is unlawful, and also invalid after a condemnatory or declaratory sentence, with the exceptions mentioned above.

(g) An excommunicated person is debarred from the right of electing, presenting, nominating, he cannot acquire dignities, offices, benefices, ecclesiastical pensions, or other posts in the Church; nor can he be promoted to orders.

(h) After a condemnatory or declaratory sentence of excommunication he is deprived of the emoluments of office if he had one in the Church, and if he is to be avoided, of the office itself.

(k) The faithful ought to avoid communicating in secular matters with one who is to be avoided, unless there is question of a spouse, of parents, children, servants, subjects, and generally unless a reasonable cause excuses it (Can. 2259-2267).

Beside the foregoing effects immediately produced by excommunication, there are others more remote. If the person under excommunication violates the censure by unlawfully and solemnly exercising sacred Orders, he incurs irregularity, and if after due admonitions he takes no steps to be released from the censure but remains in it for a whole year, he becomes suspect of heresy (Can. 985, vii; 2340).

Canon 2320 I. Qui species consecratas abjecerit vel ad malum finem abduxerit aut retinuerit, est suspectus de haeresi, incurrit in excommunicationem latae sententiae specialissimo modo Sedi Apostolicae reservatam, est ipso facto infamis, et clericus praeterea est deponendus. (Whoever throws away the consecrated species, or carries them off or keeps them for an evil purpose, is suspect of heresy, incurs an excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See in a most special manner, is ipso facto infamous, and a cleric is besides to be deposed.) Abjecerit—Spit them out, throw them away.

Abduxerit—Take them away for superstitious purposes, to treat them irreverently.

Retinuerit—Keep them for show, out of curiosity to see what would happen to them. Canon 2343 II. Qui violentas manus in personam Romani Pontificis injecerit excommunicationem contrahit latae sententiae Sedi Apostolicae specialissimo modo reservatam, et est ipso facto vitandus; est ipso jure infamis; (Whoever lays violent hands on the person of the Roman Pontiff contracts an excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See in a most special manner, and is ipso facto to be shunned; he is infamous by the law itself.) clericus est degradandus, It is a censure which safeguards the personal immunity of the Roman Pontiff by a special form of the privilege of the canon. Canon 2367 III. Absolvens sive fingens absolvere complicem in peccato turpi incurrit ipso facto in excommunicationem specialissimo modo Sedi Apostolicae reservatam; idque etiam in mortis articulo si alius sacerdos, licet non approbatus ad confessiones, sine gravi aliqua exoritura infamia et scandalo, possit excipere morientis confessionem, excepto casu quo moribundus recuset alii confiteri.

Eamdem excommunicationem non effugit absolvens vel fingens absolvere complicem qui peccatum quidem complicitatis a quo nondum est absolutus non confitetur, sed ideo ita se gerit, quia ad id a complice confessario sive directe sive indirecte inductus est. (One who absolves, or pretends to absolve, an accomplice in a sin of impurity incurs ipso facto an excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See in a most special manner; and this even at the point of death, if another priest, even though not approved for hearing confessions, is available.)

See the comments on this censure above, Penance, Chapter XI.

Canon 2369 IV. Confessarium qui sigillum sacramentale directe violare praesumpserit, manet excommunicatio specialissimo modo Sedi Apostolicae reservata; qui vero indirecte tantum, obnoxius est poenis [suspensionis a celebratione Missae, et ab audiendis sacramentalibus confessionibus vel etiam pro delicti gravitate inhabilis ad ipsas excipiendas declaretur, privetur omnibus beneficiis, dignitatibus, voce activa et passiva, et inhabilis ad ea omnia declaretur, et in casibus gravioribus degradationi quoque subjiciatur. (A confessor who presumes to violate the sacramental seal directly lies under an excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See in a most special manner; but one who violates it only indirectly is liable to the penalties of suspension from celebrating Mass and from hearing sacramental confessions, or may even, according to the gravity of the offence, be declared unfit to hear them; he is to be deprived of all benefices, dignities, and of active and passive voice, and declared unfit for them all, and in graver cases he is to be subjected to degradation as well.)] Only a confessor who with full knowledge of the crime which he is committing, and of its penalty, directly violates the seal of confession and incurs ipso facto excommunication very specially reserved to the Holy See. The penalties assigned by the Code in punishment of others besides confessors, and of confessors who presume to violate the seal indirectly, are ferendae sententiae.

Canon 2314 I, Omnes a Christiana fide apostatae et omnes et singuli haeretici aut schismatici incurrunt ipso facto excommunicationem; nisi moniti resipuerint priventur beneficio, etc. (All apostates from the Christian faith, and each and every heretic or schismatic, incur excommunication ipso facto; if, after being warned, they do not repent, they are to be deprived of any benefice, and so forth.)

The absolution from the above excommunication to be given in the forum of conscience is specially reserved to the Holy See. If, however, the crime of apostasy, heresy, or schism has been brought before the external tribunal of the local Ordinary in any way, even by voluntary confession, the same Ordinary, but not the Vicar-General without a special mandate, can absolve the penitent by his ordinary authority in the external forum, when abjuration has previously been made, according to law and other conditions to be complied with have been fulfilled; but one so absolved can afterwards be absolved from his sin in the forum of conscience by any confessor. But the abjuration is held to have been lawfully made when it is made before the local Ordinary or his delegate and two witnesses at least (Can. 2314, sec. 2).

Canon 1325, sec, 2, defines the terms used in this censure, "If anyone, after having received baptism, while retaining the name of Christian pertinaciously denies of any the doctrines which are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith or doubts about it, he is a heretic; if he wholly abandons the Christian faith, he is an apostate; finally, if he refuses to be subject to the Roman Pontiff or to communicate with the members of the Church subject to him, he is a schismatic." Canon 2318 II. In excommunicationem Sedi Apostolicae speciali modo reservatam ipso facto incurrunt, opere publici juris facto, editores librorum apostatarum, haereticorum et schismaticorum, qui apostasiam, haeresim, schisma propugnant, itemque eosdem libros aliosve per apostolicas litteras nominatim prohibitos defendentes aut scienter sine debita licentia legentes vel retinentes, Editores. (There incur ipso facto an excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See in a special manner, once the work has been made public, the publishers of books by apostates, heretics and schismatics which defend apostasy, heresy or schism; and likewise those who defend such books, or others prohibited by name in apostolic letters, or who knowingly read or keep them without the required permission.)—The publishers of books defending apostasy, heresy, and schism, written by apostates, heretics, and schismatics, incur this censure when the book is published.

Defendentes——Also those who defend those same books or others prohibited by name by apostolic letters, such as Fénelon’s Explication des Maximes des Saints.

Legentes.—Those who read them without leave knowing that they are forbidden under censure.

Retinentes.—Retaining for any purpose whatever without leave. Canon 2322 III. Ad ordinem sacerdotalem non promotus si Missae celebrationem simulaverit aut sacramentalem confessionem exceperit, excommunicationem ipso facto contrahit, speciali modo Sedi Apostolicae reservatam; et insuper laicus quidem privetur pensione aut munere, si quod habeat in Ecclesia, aliisque poenis pro gravitate culpae puniatur; clericus vero deponatur. (One not promoted to the priestly order who simulates the celebration of Mass or hears a sacramental confession contracts ipso facto an excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See in a special manner; and further, if a layman, let him be deprived of any pension or office he may hold in the Church, and punished with other penalties according to the gravity of his fault; but a cleric is to be deposed.)

Simulaverit—So that onlookers think he is saying Mass.

Confessionem—So that the penitent makes his confession with a view to absolution. Canon 2332 IV. Omnes et singuli cujuscumque status, gradus seu conditionis etiam regalis, episcopalis vel cardinalitiae fuerint, a legibus, decretis, mandatis Romani Pontificis pro tempore existentis ad Universale Concilium appellantes, sunt suspecti de haeresi et ipso facto contrahunt excommunicationem Sedi Apostolicae speciali modo reservatam.

Appellantes—Physical persons who appeal from the Pope to an Oecumenical Council, not to a future Pope or to the reigning Pope better informed. Canon 2333 V. Recurrentes ad laicam potestatem ad impediendas litteras vel acta quaelibet a Sede Apostolica vel ab ejusdem Legatis profecta, eorumve promulgationem vel executionem directe vel indirecte prohibentes, aut eorum causa sive eos ad quos pertinent litterae vel acta sive alios laedentes vel perterrefacientes, ipso facto subjaceant excommunicationi Sedi Apostolicae speciali modo reservatae. (Those who have recourse to the lay power in order to impede any letters or acts whatsoever issuing from the Apostolic See or from its Legates, or who directly or indirectly forbid their promulgation or execution, or who on that account injure or terrify either those to whom the letters or acts pertain or any others, are ipso facto subject to an excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See in a special manner.)

Recurrentes——Those incur this censure who with effect have recourse to the civil authority to impede any letters or acts of any kind issued by the Holy See, the Roman Congregations, Offices, Legates, Nuncios, Apostolic Delegates.

Prohibentes—Preventing in any way their promulgation and execution.

Laedentes—Injuring and frightening with effect those to whom the letters belong or others concerned in their promulgation and execution. Canon 2334.

VI. Excommunicatione latae sententiae speciali modo Sedi Apostolicae reservata plectuntur: (1) Qui leges, mandata, vel decreta contra libertatem aut jura Ecclesiae edunt.

(2) Qui impediunt directe vel indirecte exercitium jurisdictionis ecclesiasticae sive interni sive externi fori, ad hoc recurrentes ad quamlibet laicalem potestatem. (There are punished with an excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See in a special manner: (1) those who issue laws, mandates or decrees against the liberty or the rights of the Church; (2) those who directly or indirectly impede the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, whether of the internal or of the external forum, having recourse for this purpose to any lay power whatsoever.)

Edunt.—Public authorities who make laws, issue mandates and decrees against the liberty and rights of the Church, incur this censure.

Impediunt.—As also do those who hinder with effect in any way the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction by having recourse to any sort of lay authority. Canon 2341 VII. Si quis contra praescriptum [privilegii fori] ausus fuerit ad judicem laicum trahere aliquem ex S. *(If anyone, against the prescription of the privilege of the forum, shall have dared to drag before a lay judge any one of the Most Holy)*R.E. Cardinalibus, vel Legatis Sedis Apostolicae, vel officialibus majoribus Romanae Curiae, ob negotia ad eorum munus pertinentia, (Cardinals, or Legates of the Apostolic See, or the major officials of the Roman Curia, on account of business pertaining to their office,) vel Ordinarium proprium, contrahit ipso facto excommunicationem Sedi Apostolicae speciali modo reservatam. (or his own Ordinary, contracts ipso facto an excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See in a special manner.)

Trahere—Those who without leave of the Holy See summon as defendants, not as witnesses, Cardinals, Nuncios, Delegates Apostolic, or their own Ordinary before a lay judge in a civil or criminal action incur this censure.

Ausus.—Full knowledge and deliberation are required to incur the censure. Canon 2343 VIII. Qui violentas manus injecerit in personam S. *(Whoever lays violent hands on the person of a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church,)*R.E. Cardinalis vel Legati Romani Pontificis . . . Patriarchae, Archiepiscopi, Episcopi etiam titularis tantum, incurrit in excommunicationem latae sententiae Sedi Apostolicae speciali modo reservatam. (of a Patriarch, Archbishop, or Bishop even merely titular, incurs an excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See in a special manner.)

Violentas—One who inflicts an injury which amounts to a grievous sin on the body, liberty, or dignity of any of the Prelates mentioned incurs this censure. The injury must be personal and by deed, not by word. Canon 2345 IX. Usurpantes vel detinentes per se vel per alios bona aut jura ad Ecclesiam Romanam pertinentia, subjaceant excommunicationi latae sententiae speciali modo Sedi Apostolicae reservatae. (Those who usurp or withhold, by themselves or through others, goods or rights belonging to the Roman Church, are subject to an excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See in a special manner.)

Usurpantes.—Seizing and holding as one’s own what belongs to another.

Detinentes Keeping what belongs to the Roman Church though it might have been bought from another who seized it.

Jura.—Rights of all sorts, but here the rights of the Temporal Power of the Pope are specially intended. Canon 2360 X. Omnes fabricatores vel falsarii litterarum decretorum vel rescriptorum Sedis Apostolicae vel iisdem litteris, decretis vel rescriptis scienter utentes incurrunt ipso facto in excommunicationem speciali modo Sedi Apostolicae reservatam. (All forgers or falsifiers of letters, decrees or rescripts of the Apostolic See, and those who knowingly make use of such letters, decrees or rescripts, incur ipso facto an excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See in a special manner.)

Fabricatores—Forgers and falsifiers of letters, decrees, and rescripts of the Holy See are all subject to this censure.

Utentes—-Those who make use of letters, decrees, and rescripts forged or falsified by others. They must know that the documents which they use are forged or falsified.

Canon 2363 XI. Si quis per seipsum vel per alios confessarium de sollicitationis crimine apud Superiores falso denunciaverit, ipso facto incurrit in excommunicationem speciali modo Sedi Apostolicae reservatam, a qua nequit ullo in casu absolvi, nisi falsam denuntiationem formaliter retractaverit, et damna, si qua inde secuta sint, pro viribus reparaverit, imposita insuper gravi ac diuturna poenitentia, firmo praescripto Can. (If anyone, by himself or through others, falsely denounces a confessor to Superiors for the crime of solicitation, he incurs ipso facto an excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See in a special manner, from which he cannot in any case be absolved unless he has formally retracted the false denunciation and, as far as he is able, repaired any damage that has followed from it, a grave and long penance being imposed besides.) 894. By Canon 894 the sin, apart from the censure, is reserved to the Holy See.

On this matter, see above, Penance, Chapter XI.

Canon 2237, sec. 2, provides that in occult cases the Ordinary can remit, himself or through another, penalties latae sententiae imposed by common law, except censures very specially or only specially reserved to the Apostolic See. Canon 2327 I. Quaestum facientes ex indulgentiis plectuntur ipso facto excommunicatione Sedi Apostolicae simpliciter reservata. (Those who make gain out of indulgences are punished ipso facto with an excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See.)

Quaestum.—Granting or publishing indulgences for money. Canon 2335 II. Nomen dantes sectae massonicae aliisve ejusdem generis associationibus quae contra Ecclesiam vel legitimas civiles potestates machinantur, contrahunt ipso facto excommunicationem Sedi Apostolicae simpliciter reservatam. (Those who give their names to the masonic sect, or to other associations of the same kind which plot against the Church or against the lawful civil powers, contract ipso facto an excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See.)

Nomen dantes—Becoming a member of the society.

Sectae massonicae.—The society of Freemasons, Aliisve.—Other societies which are like the Freemasons in that they plot against the Catholic Church or against lawful civil authority, or against both. It is immaterial whether they plot openly or secretly, whether they take a secret oath or an oath of secrecy or not. The only conditions which this canon requires are that the members should form an organized society, a body corporate, and that the society should plot, work by action, speech, writing, against the Church or against lawful civil authority.

Canon 2338 III. Sec. i. Absolvere praesumentes sine debita facultate ab excommunicatione latae sententiae specialissimo vel speciali modo Sedi Apostolicae reservata, incurrunt ipso facto in excommunicationem Sedi Apostolicae simpliciter reservatam. (Those who presume to absolve, without the requisite faculty, from an excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See in a most special or in a special manner, incur ipso facto an excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See.)

Praesumentes.—With knowledge of the fact and of the circumstances.

I. Notion. Excommunication is a censure by which someone is excluded from the communion of the faithful, with the effects which are enumerated in the canons which follow and which cannot be separated (canon 2257, § 1). That exclusion from ecclesiastical communion, that is, from participation in the goods whose dispensation has been committed to the Church, is among the greatest penalties, and is to be inflicted only with great circumspection (canon 2241, § 2); when it is inflicted or declared in judgment, it is reserved to a collegiate tribunal of three judges (canon 1576, § 1, 1°). It is also called anathema, especially if it is inflicted with the solemnities which are described in the Roman Pontifical¹ (canon 2257, § 2).

¹ Roman Pontifical, title The Order of Excommunicating and Absolving.

II. Division. Although on the one hand the effects of excommunication are inseparable from one another, and therefore cannot be separated at the judgment of the one inflicting the penalty, nevertheless by the law itself the effects of excommunication are increased after a condemnatory or declaratory sentence. Furthermore, for the benefit of the faithful the distinction between tolerated and to-be-avoided excommunicates has been introduced (cf. canon 2258, § 1).

1. Tolerated persons are those with whom it is permitted to the faithful to communicate fully in profane matters,¹ and in some sacred matters according to the rules to be handed down. This toleration is for the benefit of the faithful, because exclusion from the communion of the faithful of itself also includes civil communication with them.

2. To-be-avoided persons are those whom the baptized are bound to avoid both in profane and in sacred matters within the limits established by law. But no one is to be avoided unless: a) he has laid violent hands on the person of the Roman Pontiff, and he is to be avoided by the fact itself (canon 2343, § 1, 1°); b) he has been excommunicated by name by the Apostolic See, the excommunication has been publicly denounced, and in the decree or sentence it is expressly said that he must be avoided (canon 2258, § 2).

¹ Saving the natural law, which commands that the danger of perversion be avoided.

III. Nine effects are enumerated; moreover, the following are prohibited according to the norm of law:

1. Assistance at divine offices. Assistance is twofold, active and passive. One actively assists who in some way participates in the celebration of divine offices; hence even an inferior minister or one reciting in public psalmody. But singers and organists are not judged to concelebrate. One passively assists who is present but does not participate in the celebration. Therefore:

a) Any excommunicated person lacks the right of assisting, whether actively or passively, at divine offices, but not at the preaching of the word of God (canon 2259, § 1). Nevertheless he himself cannot preach. Moreover, an occult tolerated person by any assistance of itself sins only venially, or even, according to many, not at all, if there is question of passive assistance. A tolerated person after sentence, or one otherwise notorious, sins lightly by passive assistance; gravely by active assistance, if the matter is grave. A to-be-avoided person sins gravely by any assistance, if the matter is grave (St. Alphonsus VII, 173, 175, 177).

b) Regarding the expulsion of an excommunicated person, note:

alpha) Not only a to-be-avoided person, but also anyone after declaratory or condemnatory sentence, or otherwise notoriously excommunicated, is to be repelled from active assistance (canon 2259, § 2).

beta) A tolerated person can be repelled from passive assistance, since he lacks the right of assisting, but he need not be repelled. A to-be-avoided person must be expelled, or, if he cannot be expelled, the office must cease, provided this can be done without grave inconvenience (cited canon). Hence St. Alphonsus (VII, 177), concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass, says: "If he (the to-be-avoided person) cannot be expelled, the office must be omitted, even on a feast day; and the celebrant, if the Canon has not yet begun, must break off the Mass; if he has begun the Canon, he can, the others departing, either proceed with the sacred action or break it off, on account of the probability of each opinion;¹ if he has consecrated, the minister alone remaining, he must proceed up to Communion inclusive and complete the rest in the sacristy or another decent place," connected with the church.

Corollary I. Ignorance which is not gravely culpable, grave fear, and in general a grave extrinsic inconvenience excuses from observing the things set forth.

Corollary II. Prohibited passive assistance contains for the excommunicated person a dispensation from the precepts of hearing Mass, going to choir, and paschal confession. The last of these, however, presses the obligation of seeking absolution from the censure. Nevertheless he is bound privately, and if he is to be avoided, alone, to recite the canonical hours, if he is a cleric or a regular according to canon 610, § 3.

Corollary III. An excommunicated person is not prohibited from entering the Church at a time when the divine offices are not being celebrated, in order to pray privately (St. Alphonsus VII, 174).

2. Reception of sacraments and sacramentals.

a) Any excommunicated person cannot licitly receive the sacraments (canon 2260, § 1); but generally he receives them validly. I have said generally, for regarding the sacrament of Penance the things said in n. 864 are valid.

b) An excommunicated person after declaratory or condemnatory sentence² cannot licitly receive sacramentals. An occult tolerated person and one notorious by fact are not prohibited; but sacramentals do not profit these persons either, at least from the impetration of the Church, in whose prayer they do not participate. But exorcism can be performed licitly and validly by legitimate ministers upon any excommunicates (canon 1152). Likewise they seem always validly to receive constitutive sacramentals; for minor orders this follows from canon 968, § 1.

3. Ecclesiastical burial. This consists in the transfer of the body to the church, obsequies celebrated over it in the same church, and its deposition in a place legitimately deputed for burying the faithful departed (canon 1204). Now this ecclesiastical burial must be denied only to an excommunicated person after condemnatory or declaratory sentence, unless before death he has given some signs of penitence (canon 1240, § 1, 2°). Furthermore, to one excluded from ecclesiastical burial there must be denied both any funeral Mass, even an anniversary one, and other public funeral offices (canon 1241); concerning a private Mass to be celebrated for him, cf. n. 208. If the body of an excommunicated person after sentence, or of a to-be-avoided person, contrary to the statutes of the canons, has obtained burial in a church or cemetery, it must be exhumed by permission of the Ordinary, if this can be done without grave inconvenience and the body can certainly be distinguished from other bodies (canons 1172, § 1, 4°; 1175; 1207; 1242).

But if prohibited ecclesiastical burial is stubbornly demanded by others, even with grave threats, nevertheless "care must be taken that all things be done according to the norm of the sacred canons; but insofar as this cannot be obtained without danger of disturbances and scandal, the pastor, neither by himself nor through other priests, is to concur in any way in the funeral rites and burial."³

4. Confection and administration of sacraments and sacramentals. An excommunicated person is prohibited from licitly confecting and administering the Sacraments and Sacramentals, saving the exceptions which follow (canon 2261, § 1):

a) The faithful can, for any just cause, seek Sacraments and Sacramentals from an excommunicated person, especially if other ministers are lacking; and then the excommunicated person who is requested can minister them and is held by no obligation of inquiring into the cause from the one requesting (canon 2261, § 2).

b) But from excommunicated persons to be avoided, and also from other excommunicated persons after a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has intervened, the faithful can seek, in danger of death alone, both sacramental absolution according to the norm of canon 882 (n. 370) and 2252 (p. 729), and also, if other ministers are lacking, the other Sacraments and Sacramentals (canon 2261, § 3).

As regards validity: Sacraments are always validly ministered by any persons possessing the required power of order, unless special jurisdiction is required for this; likewise Sacramentals, unless a special faculty is required for them. But an excommunicated person cannot enjoy this faculty, as will be said below at canon 2263, although he validly uses it.

5. Participation in indulgences, etc. An excommunicated person does not become a participant in indulgences, suffrages, and public prayers of the Church (canon 2262, § 1). It is said:

a) Indulgences, whether those which are applied to the living by an act of jurisdiction, or those which are granted to the dead by way of suffrage.

b) Suffrages; by this name here there seem to be understood prayers and liturgical rites which are performed by sacred ministers, either alone or together with the faithful, for a deceased person or for all the departed.

c) Public prayers of the Church, that is, those which are poured forth by sacred ministers, either alone or together with the faithful, in the name of the Church, such as canonical recitations of the divine office, Litanies, etc.

Nevertheless, the following are not prohibited: 1° the faithful praying privately for an excommunicated person; 2° priests applying Mass privately and with scandal removed for him; but, if he is to be avoided, only for his conversion (canon 2262, § 2). Besides, by way of exception, the Church prays for these persons on Feria VI in Parasceve, in the prayer for heretics and schismatics.

6. The exercise of some acts, functions, and privileges, namely by force of canon 2263:

a) An excommunicated person is removed from legitimate ecclesiastical acts within the limits defined by law in their proper places (cf. canon 2256, n. 2; n. 869, prelim. III, 2°).

b) He cannot act in ecclesiastical causes except according to the norm of canon 1654.

c) He is prohibited from discharging ecclesiastical offices or functions, strictly so called, canon 145, and from enjoying privileges previously granted by the Church. Therefore he does not lose functions, unless he is to be avoided, cf. below canon 2266, and privileges. Privileges are understood as personal privileges, strictly or broadly so called, granted to a physical person, or to a religious institute or generally to a moral person for the benefit of physical persons; not, however, privileges of the clerical state (canon 123) or others granted principally for the benefit of the religious institute itself or of the moral person, for example the privilege of exemption; and indeed granted by any ecclesiastical law or Superior. Moreover, besides rights, habitual faculties are numbered with privileges, which are granted either in perpetuity or for a predefined time or a certain number of cases (canon 66, § 1); for example, the faculty of dispensing in matrimonial impediments, or the special faculty of attaching indulgences to sacred things by a blessing. An excommunicated person would indeed use these faculties validly, but illicitly.

7. Exercise of jurisdiction of the internal and external forum. An excommunicated person before sentence exercises jurisdiction validly but illicitly, unless he is requested by the faithful for a just cause. After sentence he exercises it invalidly and illicitly, unless he is requested according to the norm of canon 2261, § 3 (p. 734); then he acts validly and licitly. Therefore excommunicated persons who have not been requested illicitly or invalidly issue laws, delegate others, etc. (St. Alphonsus VII, 185). Nevertheless note that sometimes the invalidity of the act of jurisdiction does not prevent the validity of the external act placed, for example in the distribution of Sacraments.

8. Exercise and acquisition of some special rights. By force of canons 2265 and 2266:

a) An excommunicated person before sentence:

alpha) Validly, but illicitly, exercises the right of electing, presenting, and nominating.

beta) Validly, but illicitly, acquires dignities, offices, strictly so called, benefices, ecclesiastical pensions, or another function, broadly so called, in the Church.

gamma) Validly, but illicitly, is promoted to Orders, even minor ones, and first tonsure (canons 950; 968, § 1).

b) An excommunicated person after sentence:

alpha) Illicitly and invalidly exercises the right of electing, presenting, and nominating.

beta) Illicitly and invalidly acquires dignities, offices, strictly so called, benefices, ecclesiastical pensions, or another function, broadly so called, in the Church.

gamma) Validly, but illicitly, is promoted to Orders, even minor ones, and first tonsure.

delta) He cannot validly obtain any pontifical grace,⁴ unless mention of the excommunication is made in the pontifical rescript.

epsilon) He remains deprived of the fruits of the dignity, office, benefice, pension, or function, if he has any in the Church.

c) A to-be-avoided person suffers the same effects as an excommunicated person after sentence; but in addition he remains deprived of the dignity itself, office, benefice, pension, or function.

9. Communion in profane matters. The faithful must avoid communion in profane matters with an excommunicated person to be avoided, unless there is question of a spouse, parents, children, servants, subjects, and generally unless a reasonable cause excuses (canon 2267). From the latter words it follows that the prohibition presses only under light sin. Nevertheless note canon 2338, § 2: those rendering any assistance or favor to an excommunicated person to be avoided in the delict on account of which he was excommunicated incur by the fact itself an excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See.⁵

¹ See, nevertheless, how the parallel case is resolved in canon 1173, § 2.

² The things which are valid concerning an excommunicated person after sentence must also be understood concerning a to-be-avoided person, although condemned by decree of the Apostolic See, but not concerning one notorious by fact.

³ Sacred Penitentiary, December 10, 1860 (A.S.S. I, p. 563, question 21).

⁴ There are also dispensations and privileges, according to canon 36, § 2; cf. the Order to be observed in the Sacred Congregations, September 20, 1908, Part II, chapter III, n. 6. If mention of the penalty is made, absolution for the effect is added.

⁵ One gives favor who, although he becomes in no way a participant in the continued delict, nevertheless procures for the delinquent some material or moral advantage on account of it (Chelodi, op. cit., p. 80, 2).

IV. Violation of excommunication is a grave or light sin according as the excommunicated person places an act excluded by excommunication of grave or light importance. In addition, a cleric excommunicated in sacred orders, who places an act of order reserved to clerics constituted in sacred order, is irregular (canon 985, 7°). Finally, if someone, with hardened spirit, has wallowed for a year in the censure of excommunication, he is suspected of heresy (canon 2340, § 1).

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

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

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

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

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

V. To this place can be referred:

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

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

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

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

This excommunication is contracted by:

I. All apostates from the Christian faith, and all and each heretics or schismatics (canon 2314, § 1, 1°, and § 2). This excommunication is reserved to the Apostolic See in a special manner only insofar as absolution is to be imparted in the forum of conscience (cited canon, § 3; cf. 3, b). Who come under the name of apostates, heretics, and schismatics, see canon 1325, § 2 and volume I, n. 492. Note, however, that it is required that apostasy, heresy, or schism be externally manifested. For the rest, observe:

1. As to apostates. Here belong both those who reject every religion, such as atheists, pantheists, naturalists, and so-called free-thinkers; and those who pass over, for example, to Judaism, Mohammedanism, or paganism; but not those who are only practically indifferent.

2. As to heretics. It is not required that someone be enrolled in some heretical sect. Those enrolled in a sect, however, are deemed, for the external forum, to have contracted the censure, although perhaps internally they are not formal heretics and therefore have not in fact contracted the censure (n. 862).

3. Schismatics. It is not required that someone be enrolled in a schismatic body; but neither is it enough that someone, even habitually, transgress special commands of the Supreme Pontiff. For the rest, note:

a) Unless they, namely apostates, heretics, or schismatics, having been warned, come to their senses, they are to be deprived of benefice, dignity, pension, office, or other function, if they have any in the Church; they are to be declared infamous; and clerics, after a repeated warning, are to be deposed (canon 2314, § 1, 2°). If they have given their name to a non-Catholic sect or publicly adhered to it, they are ipso facto infamous, and clerics ipso facto and without any declaration lose any offices whatever, and, after a warning has been given in vain, are to be degraded (canon 2314, § 1, 3°).

b) As to absolution from the excommunication set forth, observe:

alpha) Absolution to be imparted in the forum of conscience is reserved to the Apostolic See in a special manner (canon 2314, § 2). The faculty of absolving any penitents whatever, except heretics who purposely disseminate heresy among the faithful, from any censures and ecclesiastical penalties incurred on account of heresies externalized either with no one hearing or noticing, or before others, is customarily granted through the Sheet of the Sacred Penitentiary. Nevertheless it cannot be exercised except in the act of sacramental confession and for the forum of conscience only, after a secret abjuration has first been made before the confessor. Moreover, a salutary penance is to be imposed, together with frequency of the sacraments and the obligation of repairing the scandals caused. For the forum of conscience no form of abjuration seems prescribed; hence, for example, these words of the Profession of Faith at the end suffice: "I likewise condemn and reject any heresies whatever condemned by the Church."

beta) If the delict of apostasy, heresy, or schism has in any way been brought to the external forum of the local Ordinary, even by voluntary confession, that same Ordinary, but not the Vicar General without a special mandate, can by his ordinary authority absolve in the external forum the one who has come to his senses, after an abjuration juridically performed and with the other things to be observed by law observed; and one thus absolved can then be absolved from sin by any confessor in the forum of conscience. Abjuration is held to have been juridically performed when it is made before the local Ordinary himself or his delegate and at least two witnesses (canon 2314, § 2). As to the form of abjuration, in practice the Profession of Faith which is placed at the beginning of the Code suffices.

Question: whether those doubtfully baptized or doubtfully validly baptized, who are guilty of apostasy, heresy, or schism, are subject to excommunication.

Response: They are or are not subject to the excommunication according as in fact they were validly or not validly baptized. Since this here and now is doubtful, absolution is to be granted as a precaution if they are converted to the Church. If you object that those doubtfully baptized or doubtfully validly baptized are not subject to the laws of the Church, I answer: if it concerns laws which deprive someone of some good, they are subject or not subject to them according as valid baptism did or did not take place; if the discussion is of laws which regard an act, see volume I, n. 130.

II. One suspected of heresy who, having been warned and punished according to the norm of canon 2315, has not completely amended himself within six months from the penalty contracted (canon 2315). Moreover, the following are suspected of heresy:

1. Whoever in any way willingly and knowingly helps the propagation of heresy (canon 2316).

2. Whoever communicates in divine things with heretics by actively assisting at their rites (canon 2316; p. 732).

3. Those who enter marriage with an explicit or implicit agreement that all or some of the offspring be educated outside the Catholic Church (canon 2319, § 1, n. 2, § 2).

4. Those who knowingly presume to offer their children to non-Catholic ministers for baptism (ibid., n. 3).

5. Parents, or those holding their place, who knowingly hand over their children to be educated or instructed in a non-Catholic religion (ibid., n. 4).

6. Whoever has thrown away consecrated species or has taken them away or retained them for an evil purpose (canon 2320).

7. Those appealing from the laws or mandates and decrees of the Roman Pontiff to a Universal Council (canon 2332).

8. Whoever, with hardened spirit, has wallowed for a year in excommunication (canon 2340, § 1).

9. All, even those of episcopal dignity, who knowingly through simony have promoted someone to Orders or have been promoted, or have administered or received other Sacraments (canon 2371).

This excommunication is contracted by:

I. Those making gain from indulgences (canon 2327). By force of this canon, those are excommunicated who, after receiving a price, gain profit either by granting, publishing, or causing indulgences to be published. It is required that the price have been accepted, but not that a simoniacal intention was present; it does not matter whether the price is expended on pious works. By force of this canon those are also excommunicated who, because of indulgences, sell for more objects enriched with indulgences.

Bishops also can contract this censure.

II. Those giving their name to a Masonic sect or to other associations of the same kind which machinate against the Church or legitimate civil powers (canon 2335). For the penalty to regard a certain association, it is required that it machinate against the Church or legitimate civil powers. It is disputed whether there are also required, as obtains in the Masonic sect, a strict bond by which members are united and a hidden organization. Some deny this, because they take the words "which machinate..." as merely explanatory of "of the same kind." Others affirm it, because they judge the words "of the same kind" to be taken in a broader sense, so that they also include the hidden organization which obtains in the Masonic sect. Given the doubt, we follow the milder opinion, the more so because if it were enough that an association machinated against the Church or legitimate civil powers, the legislator would certainly have omitted from the new Code the words "of the same kind," which gave occasion to the dispute. Hence canon 2335 certainly regards, besides the sect of Masons, the societies of the Carbonari,¹ Fenians,² Anarchists, Nihilists, and Internationalists; but not, although they are prohibited, socialist,³ biblical,⁴ clerico-liberal societies; nor the workers' societies called Odd Fellows,⁵ Sons of Temperance, Knights of Pythias, Independent Order of Good Templars (Guttempler-Orden)⁶ and societies which promote the cremation of human corpses.⁷ Moreover:

1. Clerics who have committed the delict discussed under II are punished with the penalty of suspension or privation of the benefice, office, dignity, pension, or function itself, if perhaps they have any in the Church; religious, however, with privation of office and of active and passive voice and with other penalties according to the norm of the constitutions. In addition, clerics and religious giving their name to a Masonic sect and other similar associations must be denounced to the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (canon 2336).

2. The confessor to whom the faculty is granted of absolving from the censure set forth should require from the delinquent those things which the Holy See is accustomed to require: that they separate themselves entirely from the prohibited society and abjure it. But in a case in which great damage would flow from this for them, they can materially sustain the enrollment, but they are bound formally to renounce the society; and therefore: 1° let them promise that never again will it be the case that they involve themselves in any act of those societies, whether secret or public, and especially that they will never again pay the required contribution; 2° let scandal be removed in the best way that can be done; 3° let them be disposed in mind to withdraw their name if and when they can do this without grave damage.⁸

In the faculties of the Sacred Penitentiary it is established: 1° let them separate themselves entirely from the prohibited society and abjure it; 2° let them denounce ecclesiastical and religious persons, if they know any enrolled in it; 3° books, manuscripts, and signs pertaining to the same, if they retain any, let them hand over into your hands, to be cautiously transmitted to the Holy Office as soon as possible, or at least, if just and grave causes demand it, to be destroyed; 4° with a grave salutary penance joined according to the measure of the faults, together with frequency of sacramental confession and the obligation of repairing the scandals caused.

III. Those presuming, without due faculty, to absolve from an excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See in a most special or special manner (canon 2338, § 1). As to the word "presuming," see what was said in n. 858. For the rest, it is required that they actually absolve from the censure; it is not enough that they merely hear the delinquent or pretend to absolve him.

IV. Those furnishing any help or favor whatever to an excommunicated person to be avoided in the delict for which he was excommunicated; likewise clerics knowingly and spontaneously communicating with the same in divine things and receiving him in divine offices (canon 2338, § 2).

1. As to the former, it should be noted that it concerns a delict already committed, and therefore help or favor furnished by which someone can persist in the delict for which he was excommunicated.

2. As to the latter, observe: 1° since the law is to be interpreted strictly, religious do not come under the name of clerics unless they have received first tonsure (canon 108); 2° those communicating in divine offices are those who perform divine things with one to be avoided; 3° those receiving in divine offices are understood to be those who, enjoying the right or office of admitting to divine offices, admit an excommunicated person to be avoided to them.

V. If anyone against the prescription of canon 120 has dared to drag before a lay judge another, that is, not his own, Bishop, even merely titular, or an Abbot or Prelate nullius, or one of the supreme Superiors of religions of pontifical right (canon 2341). The prescription of canon 120, insofar as it must here be attended to, establishes that Bishops, even titular ones, Abbots or Prelates nullius, and supreme Superiors of religions of pontifical right cannot be summoned before a lay judge without the permission of the Apostolic See, unless in some place by special concession there has been derogation at least in part from the privilege of forum.

On the phrase "has dared," see n. 858; on the phrase "those dragging," p. 766.

Note. A cleric who, without having obtained permission from the local Ordinary, has dared to drag before a lay judge another person enjoying the privilege of forum, apart from those enumerated here and on p. 766 under IX, incurs ipso facto suspension from office reserved to the Ordinary; but a layman is to be punished by his own Ordinary with suitable penalties according to the gravity of the fault (canon 2341).

¹ Cf. Constitution of Pius VII, Ecclesiam, September 25, 1821, and Leo XII, Graviora, March 13, 1825.

² Cf. Holy Office, January 12, 1870.

³ Encyclical of Leo XII, Quod Apostolici, December 28, 1878.

⁴ Constitution of Pius IX, Qui pluribus, 1846.

⁵ Syllabus, § 178.

⁶ Holy Office, August 20, 1894.

⁷ Holy Office, August 9, 1893; Holy Office, May 19, 1886.

⁸ Holy Office, March 7, 1883 (Collectanea, n. 1593).

Moreover, the following contract an excommunication reserved to the Ordinary:

I. Catholics: 1° who enter marriage before a non-Catholic minister against the prescription of canon 1063, § 1; 2° who are united in marriage with an explicit or implicit agreement that all or some of the offspring be educated outside the Catholic Church; 3° who knowingly presume to offer their children to non-Catholic ministers for baptism; 4° parents or those holding the place of parents who knowingly hand over children to be educated or instructed in a non-Catholic religion (canon 2319, § 1).

1. The prescription of canon 1063, § 1 is this: "Even if a dispensation has been obtained from the Church over the impediment of mixed religion, the spouses cannot, either before or after the marriage entered before the Church, also approach, whether by themselves or by proxy, a non-Catholic minister as one dedicated to sacred rites, in order to give or renew matrimonial consent." Hence it is not prohibited, indeed as § 2 has it, "it is not disapproved that, when civil law commands it, the spouses present themselves, even before a non-Catholic minister, performing only the function of a civil official, and that only for accomplishing the civil act, for the sake of civil effects." The censure is contracted, however, whether matrimonial consent is entered or renewed before a non-Catholic minister as one dedicated to sacred rites.

2. An implicit agreement is had, for example, when the Catholic party obliges himself to fulfill all the wishes of the non-Catholic party concerning religious education. The excommunication is incurred at the moment at which the marriage is contracted with the agreement, whether previously entered and not retracted or now entered.

3. On the word "knowingly" see what was said in n. 858. Since it is said "their children," for example, a midwife who offered another's offspring to a non-Catholic minister for baptism would be immune from the excommunication. For the rest, the excommunication is incurred also in a case in which baptism would probably be conferred invalidly.

4. Those holding the place of parents can be tutors or even others who are endowed with the right and office of looking after education or instruction.

Note. Those mentioned under 2, 3, and 4 are moreover suspected of heresy (canon 2319, § 2).

II. Whoever makes false relics, or knowingly sells, distributes, or exposes them to the public veneration of the faithful (canon 2326). The word "knowingly" refers to the acts of selling, distributing, and exposing to public veneration. Since it concerns false relics, one does not incur the excommunication who distributes or exposes for veneration relics whose document of authenticity has perished, or concerning whose genuineness he doubts (cf. canon 1285).

III. Whoever has laid violent hands on the person of other clerics, that is, clerics inferior to Bishops, or of religious of either sex (canon 2343, § 4). What violent laying on of hands imports, see p. 766 under X. For the excommunication to be incurred, it is required that the delinquent lay hands on the person of another, not on his own person, and that he know that person to be a cleric, religious, etc. The persons whose violent handling is punished with excommunication are:

1. Clerics, that is, those who by at least first tonsure have been assigned to divine ministries (canon 108, § 1), and have not been deprived of the privileges of clerics; hence even excommunicated, suspended, interdicted, and deposed clerics (cf. canon 2303, § 1), but not those perpetually deprived of the right of wearing ecclesiastical habit (canon 2304, § 2), the degraded (canon 2305, § 1), and all who have legitimately been reduced or have returned from the clerical state to the lay state (canon 213, § 1).

2. Religious of either sex, that is, those who have pronounced vows, whether solemn or simple, perpetual or temporary, in some religion (canon 488, 7°).

3. Male and female novices (cf. canon 614), but not postulants.

4. Members of either sex without public vows, living in common under the governance of Superiors according to approved constitutions (canon 680).

Note. The Ordinary should moreover punish the delinquent with other penalties, if the matter requires it, according to his prudent judgment (canon 2343, § 4).

IV. Those procuring abortion, the mother not excepted, the effect having followed (canon 2350, § 1).

1. Abortion is to be taken in the strict sense, that is, for the ejection of a fetus not yet viable (volume I, n. 733). Therefore the so-called acceleration of birth, the ejection of a dead fetus or a mere mole, and the expulsion of received semen, likewise embryotomy and similar illicit operations, are excluded. But no distinction is to be made between an animated and an unanimated fetus.

2. Those procuring abortion are understood to be the mother and others, whether female or male, who intend abortion and either physically cause it, or by command or by fear induced cause another to cause it. It is said, who intend abortion; hence one is immune from excommunication who, not intending abortion, for example, strikes his wife from anger, even if he foresees abortion. It is said, either by command or etc.; but if you were to deny that those commanding and those inducing fear come under the name of procurers, nevertheless one commanding, as the principal author of the delict, and one inducing fear, as inducing to the delict, are subject to the excommunication. Counselors and others concurring proximately are not counted among procurers, although as cooperators they contract the excommunication if the delict would not have been committed without their work (canon 2209, § 3). Those selling means do not ordinarily incur excommunication, both because ordinarily even without their work, namely with another selling the means, the delict would have been perpetrated, and because the concurrence is remote.

3. The effect having followed, that is, certainly followed; hence in doubt whether a fetus or a mere mole, whether a living or dead fetus, was ejected, the excommunication does not hold.

Whether one whom it repents of the committed crime before the effect follows incurs the excommunication, see p. 723.

Note 1. If the delinquent is a cleric, he is moreover to be deposed (canon 2350, § 1).

Note 2. Those who have procured the abortion of a human fetus, the effect having followed, and all cooperators, are irregular from delict (canon 985, 4°).

V. A religious, 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 is staying (canon 2385).

1. One is called an apostate from religion who is professed from perpetual vows, whether solemn or simple, and who illegitimately leaves the religious house with the intention of not returning, or who, though having left legitimately, does not return with the intention of withdrawing himself from religious obedience (canon 644, § 1). The malicious intention mentioned in § 1 is presumed by law if the religious within a month has neither returned nor manifested to the Superior his intention of returning (canon 644, § 2).

2. The excommunication is reserved to his own major Superior if the religion is clerical exempt; if the religion is lay or non-exempt, it is reserved to the Ordinary of the place in which the delinquent is staying (canon 2385), that is, actually staying, even if he has domicile or quasi-domicile elsewhere.

Note. A religious apostate from religion is excluded from legitimate ecclesiastical acts and deprived of all privileges of his religion; and if he returns, he perpetually lacks active and passive voice, and moreover must be punished by the Superiors with other penalties according to the gravity of the fault, according to the norm of the constitutions (canon 2385).

VI. Professed members of perpetual simple vows, both in Orders and in religious Congregations, who presume to contract marriage even only civilly, both they themselves and all who contract with them (canon 2388, § 2). Note that the excommunication does not affect professed members of temporary vows. For the rest, see p. 772 under IX.

The following incur an excommunication not reserved:

I. Authors and publishers who, without due permission, arrange for the books of Sacred Scripture, or notes or commentaries on them, to be printed (canon 2318, § 2).

1. The excommunication regards both the books of Sacred Scripture themselves and notes or commentaries on them. The printing of one book suffices, but not of only a part; likewise the printing of notes or of a commentary on one book, even if they present entirely correct doctrine.

2. The excommunication affects both authors and publishers who, without due permission, arrange for either books or notes or commentaries to be printed; but not the owner of the workshop, typesetters, and those who distribute what has been printed.

II. Those who have dared to command or compel that infidels, apostates from the faith, or heretics, schismatics, or others, whether excommunicated or interdicted, be handed over to ecclesiastical burial against the prescription of canon 1240, § 1, 2° (canon 2339). Excommunicated and interdicted persons are understood after a declaratory or condemnatory sentence (canon 1240, § 1, 2°). Canon 1240, § 1, however, establishes that the persons enumerated in the cited canon are to be deprived of ecclesiastical burial, unless before death they gave some signs of repentance. For the rest, note:

1. On the phrase "have dared," see what was said in n. 858.

2. The excommunication regards the handing over of the enumerated persons to ecclesiastical burial. Ecclesiastical burial consists in the transfer of the corpse to the church, the funeral rites celebrated over it in the same place, and its deposition in a place legitimately deputed for burying the faithful departed (canon 1204). A place legitimately deputed for this is understood not only as a cemetery (canon 1205, § 1), but also a blessed tomb in an unblessed cemetery (canon 1206, § 3). Moreover, for incurring the censure, deposition, even if performed with a sacred rite, in a profane place does not suffice. It is disputed: 1° whether it is enough that the deceased be placed in a sacred place without a sacred rite; 2° whether it is enough that he be placed in a sacred place and with a sacred rite, or whether it is required that all the elements contained in canon 1204 be present. Those who deny that all these are required rely on the explanations of old authors, by which they think one must stand. But the obvious sense of the law so favors the more benign opinion that in practice we admit the opinion which requires all the elements contained in canon 1204 for excommunication.

3. The excommunication affects those commanding and compelling the enumerated persons to be handed over to ecclesiastical burial. Those commanding are those who order it by authority, whether public or private. Thus those burying or assisting at burial are not excommunicated.

Note. Those who spontaneously give burial to the persons enumerated above contract an interdict from entrance into a church reserved to the Ordinary (canon 2339).

III. All those in any way guilty, whether by giving, receiving, or furnishing consent, when the apostolic beneplacitum required in alienating ecclesiastical goods has knowingly been omitted (canon 2347, 3°).

1. The word "knowingly" refers both to those giving and to those receiving and furnishing consent.

2. The excommunication regards the perfected alienation of ecclesiastical goods for which the apostolic beneplacitum is required. Moreover:

a) Alienation now, as before, seems to be taken not only for alienation properly so called, by which bare or useful ownership of a thing is transferred to another, but also for alienation in a broader sense, by which ownership of a thing, whether bare or useful, is burdened (cf. canon 6). Alienations are: donation, sale, exchange, pledge, mortgage, imposition of a passive servitude, remission of an active servitude, compromise, settlement, lease. Perfect alienation, however, is required; hence, if in some place ownership of a sold thing is not transferred except by delivery, this must have been done for the excommunication to be incurred.

b) Ecclesiastical goods are temporal goods, whether corporeal, both immovable and movable, or incorporeal, which belong either to the universal Church and to the Apostolic See or to another moral person in the Church (canon 1497, § 1); the Sacred Congregation of the Council declared that public securities are not excluded.¹

c) The apostolic beneplacitum is required: 1° Generally for alienating ecclesiastical goods which are either precious or exceed the value of thirty thousand lire or francs² (canon 1532, § 1, 1° and 2°), according to what was said and explained in volume I, n. 974. Nevertheless, bearer bonds, as they are called, can be exchanged for other bonds more safe, or at least equally safe and fruitful, with any kind of trade or negotiation excluded, and with the consent of the Ordinary, the diocesan Council of administration, and others whose interest it is (canon 1539, § 2). 2° The apostolic beneplacitum is required for leasing, if the value of the lease, considering, as it seems, the whole time for which the lease is established, exceeds thirty thousand lire or francs, and the lease is beyond nine years (canon 1541, § 2, 1°). A lease made under the condition, "If the apostolic beneplacitum is obtained," is in no way affected by the excommunication, because such a lease is not perfected before the condition is fulfilled, that is, before the beneplacitum is obtained.

3. The excommunication affects those giving, those receiving, and those furnishing consent. Those giving are understood to be those who by themselves or through others alienate goods, but not agents of those alienating, nor those who destroy or steal goods.³ Those receiving are those for whose benefit the contract is entered. Those furnishing consent are excommunicated if their consent must be sought, which also applies to lay persons.

IV. All, shining with any dignity whatever, who in any way coerce either a man to embrace the clerical state, or a man or woman to enter religion or to emit religious profession, whether solemn or simple, whether perpetual or temporary (canon 2352).

1. The excommunication regards coercion:

a) Either to embracing the clerical state. The clerical state is embraced through reception of first tonsure (canon 108, § 1). Likewise he seems liable to the censure who would coerce someone to receive major orders (cf. canon 971).

b) Or to entering religion. Religion is a society approved by legitimate ecclesiastical authority, in which members, according to the proper laws of that same society, pronounce public vows, perpetual or temporary, though to be renewed after the time has elapsed, and thus tend to evangelical perfection (canon 488, 1°). It is all the same whether it concerns an Order or a Congregation, a clerical or lay religion, a religion of pontifical right or diocesan right. Entrance into religion is now made, as it seems to many, by admission to postulancy, and, where there is no postulancy, by admission to the novitiate. That admission to postulancy suffices seems to be drawn from the fact that the ancient law distinguished entrance into a monastery and reception of the habit, or entrance into the novitiate, and that it also punished with excommunication one who coerced someone to enter a monastery or to begin postulancy.

c) Or to emitting religious profession. One who would coerce someone both to enter religion and to emit profession would incur a twofold excommunication.

2. The excommunication affects all, even Bishops but not Cardinals (canon 2227, § 2), all, I say, coercing in any way, whether directly or indirectly, say by acting upon parents, whether by grave fear, importunate entreaties, or other means without which the effect would not have followed.

3. The excommunication is not incurred unless the effect has followed.

V. A faithful person who knowingly has omitted to denounce within a month the one by whom he was solicited, against the prescription of canon 904 (canon 2368, § 2). Canon 904 sets forth the obligation of denouncing in these words: According to the norm of the apostolic constitutions and especially of the Constitution of Benedict XIV Sacramentum poenitentiae, June 1, 1741, the penitent must denounce, within a month, to the local Ordinary or to the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, the priest guilty of the delict of solicitation in confession; and the confessor must, with his conscience gravely burdened, warn the penitent of this burden. Moreover:

1. The excommunication regards omission of the denunciation to be made by the solicited person; concerning this denunciation, see n. 416 sq.

2. The excommunication affects only the solicited persons themselves, but not those who know that another has been solicited. Moreover, it is required that the solicited person knowingly omitted the denunciation; from this it follows that there can be a cause excusing from excommunication which does not excuse from the obligation of denouncing; namely, any cause diminishing imputability excuses from this excommunication (n. 858). An impubes is indeed bound by the obligation of denouncing, but not by the excommunication, unless after attaining puberty he omits the obligation.

3. The delinquent is not to be absolved unless after he has satisfied, or has seriously promised that he will satisfy (canon 2368, § 2). One absolved who seriously promised that he would satisfy the obligation, but afterward, with his will changed, does not satisfy, does not fall back into the excommunication, although the obligation of denouncing persists.

¹ January 17, 1906.

² Lest the value fluctuate too much, the value of gold money is safely attended to.

³ Holy Office, March 2, 1870.

The law of the church on the powers of schismatics is as follows:

(a) All schismatics incur ipso facto excommunication, as well as various inhabilities and penalties (Canon 2314). It is fitting that those who separate themselves should be declared outside the communion of the faithful, and this is what Moses commanded to be done at the time of the schism of Core: “Depart from the tent of these wicked men and touch nothing of theirs, lest you be involved in their sin” (Num., xvi. 26).

(b) The excommunicated are forbidden the celebration of Mass and the active use and administration of the Sacraments and sacramentals, except when the faithful apply to them or when there is danger of death, as declared in Canon 2261.

(c) The excommunicated are denied the power of jurisdiction except in certain cases where the Church grants it for the sake of the common good. Thus, they may give absolution in danger of death (Canon 882), or in common error (Canon 209), or at request, if they are not vitandi or sentenced (Canon 2261). It is the teaching of learned authorities that the Roman Church for the good of souls has allowed ecclesiastical jurisdiction to remain in the schismatic Oriental Churches for the conferring of the Sacraments.

Whether occult compensation can licitly be made when only probability of right stands? Ithur. Cas. 3, n. 11, has this: "Whenever the opinion has been equally probable for each party, or, as frequently happens, one's own is more probable to each, compensation is made justly not in the whole, but certainly in half of the debt." The 1st reason is because in such a case "a judge can adjudicate the whole to neither, but ought to divide the thing between the litigants....

But it is licit for no one through occult compensation to acquire more than what could be adjudicated to him by a judge after allegations and proofs." The 2nd reason is because "whenever the right to the same thing is equal, the advantage of each party ought to be equal, justice so requiring, whose office it is to consult equality." But Cardinal Lugo, after reporting the common opinion which requires a certain right for compensation, then adds these things: "This doctrine, if it is understood as it sounds, is difficult, nor does it seem to be constantly retained by its own authors....

I will add some examples: first, concerning him who has been defamed by Peter, it is asked whether for the reputation which Peter does not wish or is not able to repair for him, it is licit for the defamed person to make compensation by denying monies which he owed to the same Peter. Lessius responds that he can, because the opinion is probable which teaches that infamy must be compensated by money when it cannot be restored in its own genus... although the truer opinion denies this.... Secondly, when two have mutually defamed each other, they can, when the damage is equal, compensate for themselves, so that neither is held to restore as long as the other does not wish to restore.... Which compensation in that case is founded only on a probable opinion, since the contrary is also very probable. Thirdly, he who ought to have a legacy from a less solemn testament, since it is a probable opinion that those legacies are owed in the forum of conscience, although the contrary opinion is sufficiently common and probable, can nevertheless retain the legacy, or accept it anew, or secretly compensate himself." Hence Lugo generally concludes: "it seems probable that a creditor, before the matter is brought to judgment... can secretly compensate his debt to himself.... Reason also seems to prove this, because, notwithstanding the possession of the debtor, the judge would pronounce sentence, or certainly could pronounce it for the creditor, by embracing the probable or more probable opinion which favors him.... Why therefore will the creditor himself, when he cannot recur to a judge without grave inconvenience, not be able to embrace the same opinion which the judge ought or could have embraced, and compensate the debt to himself?"

But the same Lugo notes that although a judge in judging is held to follow the more probable opinion, nevertheless the creditor in occult compensation does not seem to be obliged to this, because the reason on account of which especially a judge cannot do this is that "from office and from an implicit pact toward the Republic he seems to be held to inquiring into the truth as much as he can, which reason does not militate in the creditor, who is held by no such pact toward the Republic. Yet concerning this I wish to assert nothing; indeed I willingly abstain from final judgment concerning this whole point about compensation to be licitly made with an opinion only probable." d. 16, n. 94 seqq.; L. 521, 544, 700, 817, 928.; l. 1, n. 30. But the reason of the common opinion is: 1.

The danger in this matter of easy deception; hence, practically speaking, there is present a grave danger of injuring another's rights. 2. Because if the other truly possesses the thing in good faith and by a title at least reasonably presumed, he now has a certain right at least of detention of the thing, and consequently he cannot be despoiled of the thing until there is certainty concerning another's right and dominion of the thing. - Hence, as is clear, when there stands only probability of fact from which a right arises, it is in no way licit to despoil the peaceful possessor of his thing.

What is excommunication, and how many kinds are there? Excommunication is a censure through which someone is deprived of communion with the Church. "It is a penalty, the gravest which the Church can inflict, and in itself it contains by force the other censures of suspension and interdict, as those which deprive one not so fully, but only partially, of the goods of the Church, or of their use." Pichler, book 4, title 39, n. 23. An excommunicated person who, after legitimate warnings, has not repented, and has grown filthy in excommunication for a year, or has persevered obstinately, incurs suspicion of heresy, because he seems to despise the authority of the Church. Council of Trent, sess. 25, chap. 3, de Ref. It is twofold: one is minor, the other major. This major excommunication is evident in two ways. For one is that by which someone is an excommunicated tolerated person, whom the faithful are not bound to avoid; the other is that by which someone is an excommunicated person not tolerated, whom they are bound to avoid.

What is to be said about an excommunicated tolerated person? As regards an excommunicated tolerated person, by canon law it is forbidden to anyone, even one secretly excommunicated, to communicate with others both in divine and in human things. But the faithful can communicate with him both in human and in divine things, even without necessity, although they are not bound to. Hence spiritual things, such as sacraments, can licitly be given to an excommunicated person; likewise sacraments can licitly be sought from an excommunicated person, even without necessity, precisely by force of excommunication; for if he is in mortal sin, a just cause is required. Therefore indirectly it has also been granted to an excommunicated person that he may be able to communicate without sin with those by whom he is asked. The same is to be said of one suspended and one interdicted, as regards those matters in which it is forbidden to communicate with them. Constitution of Martin V in the Council of Constance, Ad evitanda; Schmalzgrueber, nn. 121-125; L. 135, 138-140, 160.

What is to be said about an excommunicated person to be avoided? Only two excommunicated persons to be avoided are reckoned. The first is anyone excommunicated by name who at the same time has been specially and publicly denounced. By name, i.e., with the name expressed by words or indubitable signs, so that he cannot be confused with another. Hence we are not bound to avoid heretics, e.g., even if it is publicly known that they are excommunicated by law. Specially denounced, i.e., not denounced generally, but also denounced by name. Hence if it is said: We excommunicate Peter the arsonist and his accomplices, only Peter is to be avoided, but not the others, although they are publicly known; for the sentence as regards them is only general, and not special against a certain person. Publicly denounced, i.e., the denunciation must be made in a public place, according to the usage of the region. But here it must be noted that although it suffices that one excommunicated by law be denounced only as such, so that he is now to be avoided, nevertheless it does not suffice if the guilty person is declared by sentence only to have committed the crime to which excommunication is attached; rather, the excommunication itself must be denounced by the judge. The second is a notorious striker of a cleric. Notorious, i.e., according to St. Alphonsus, not only by notoriety of law, but also by notoriety of fact, at least commonly or ordinarily speaking. By notoriety of law: namely, that it is known either by sentence of the judge, or by confession of the guilty person in judgment, or by sufficient judicial deposition. By notoriety of fact: namely, that it is really known to many, so that the fact can no longer be hidden by any evasion. Otherwise the fact could always be excused by some favorable consideration. Hence probably the striker of a cleric, notorious in one place, is not to be avoided in another where he is not notorious. And the same is to be said of the former case, i.e., of one excommunicated by name and already publicly denounced in some place, who is entirely unknown in another place. And "unless at least it is publicly established by the fact itself that the striker advertently willed (knew and contemned) to incur the censure, he is probably never to be avoided" before the very sentence of the judge specially denouncing him. L. 144. This is established from the constitution of the Council of Constance, Ad evitanda; Holy Office, January 9, 1884.

L. 134, 146; Diana, tome 5, tract 1, de Excommunic., resolution 50, nn. 4, 5; Lugo, Resp. Mor., book 2, disp. 5; Laymann, chap. 4; Ferraris, Bibliotheca, v. Excomm., art. 9, nn. 5, 7; E.M.

What is to be said about minor excommunication? Minor excommunication deprives one per se only of the passive use, or reception, of the sacraments, and consequently of passive election to benefices and dignities of the Church. C. Si quem 59, de Sent. exc.; C. A nobis 2, de Except.; C. Si celebrat 10, de Cler. exc. min. It was incurred for only one cause, namely if someone communicated with an excommunicated person to be avoided, and it could be absolved by any confessor. C. Nuper 29, de Sent. exc. Cf. St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 23, aa. 1, 2; L. 147, 156; Suarez, disp. 24; Laymann, chap. 3, n. 6; Schmalzgrueber, nn. 198-211. Minor excommunication today has been removed by the constitution Apostolicae Sedis.

Thus the Holy Office, December 5, 1883, Leo XIII approving and fully confirming. Yet this does not prevent "a Bishop (even at present) from being able, in penalty of some crime, to forbid someone by name the passive use of the sacraments, or at least of Communion." L. 148. But because of communication with an excommunicated person, in certain peculiar cases major excommunication, suspension, and interdict are now incurred. Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, art. 16 and 17 of Excommunications reserved simply to the Roman Pontiff, art. 1 of Excommunications reserved to no one, art. 6 of Suspensions, and art. 2 of Interdicts. Holy Office, January 9, 1884. Synod of the Diocese of Albano, year 1880, appendix n. 10, sec. XI, n. 3; Pichler, nn. 34, 35; E.M.

What is to be said about major excommunication? Major excommunication has the following effects. It deprives one of receiving and of the passive use of the sacraments. C. A nobis 28, de Sent. exc.; C. Cum illorum 32, ibid.; C. Sacris 38, ibid.; C. Si quem 59, ibid.; C. final, de Cler. excomm. ministr. Hence "no excommunicated person, whether tolerated or not, can licitly receive them (but he validly receives them, except penance, unless he approaches in good faith) under mortal sin, unless invincible ignorance, fear of death, infamy, loss of goods, etc., excuses, because censure does not oblige with so great rigor." L. 158. Schmalzgrueber, nn. 146-153; Pichler, n. 29; Coninck, dub. 5.

It deprives, at least the non-tolerated, of the common suffrages and prayers of the Church, namely those which are made in the name of the Church by her ministers; likewise it deprives one of the fruit of indulgences. Common suffrages and prayers of the Church: therefore it does not deprive one of private suffrages and prayers, namely those which are made in one's own name. "Hence not only any private person, but even a priest can pray as a private person for the excommunicated, even in public prayers and the sacred rite; indeed, he can offer the action of sacrificing insofar as it depends on the private merit of the one operating, or remember him in particular in the Memento. This is certain with St. Thomas." L. 162. At least the non-tolerated, because, as the same Holy Doctor teaches, probably sacrifices, etc., can be offered for an excommunicated tolerated person even in the name of the Church. "The reason is that favorable laws are to be understood with every amplitude; therefore, while it was granted to the faithful to communicate with tolerated persons, it was also granted to offer public prayers for them; for to communicate also imports this, etc." L. 164. CC. cited; Schmalzgrueber, nn. 126, 134-139; Pichler, nn. 29, 33; Coninck, dub. 6; Engel, n. 38; Laymann, chap. 1, n. 4; Salmanticenses, tract 10, chap. 3, n. 56; Suarez, disp. 9, secs. 4, 5; St. Thomas, III, q. 82, a. 7, ad 3; Suppl., q. 21, a. 1, ad 2; a. 3. Cf. 610.

It deprives one of the active use, or administration, of the sacraments. C. Latores 4, de Cler. excomm. ministr.; C. final, ibid. Administration: for a non-tolerated person this is altogether illicit, except in the case of extreme necessity or grave inconvenience; nevertheless he validly confers the sacraments, except penance, which requires jurisdiction, and of this he lacks, unless there is common error of fact, or there is question of the article of death. But for an excommunicated tolerated person, it is sometimes licit, namely if he does not thrust himself in, but the faithful demand and ask; and thus he can celebrate if he is a pastor whose subjects are bound to hear Mass and there is no other who celebrates, for they are tolerated for the favor of the faithful, not in their own favor. Hence he also validly administers penance, since he is not deprived of jurisdiction; for this is expedient for the usefulness of the faithful. L. 165-170; St. Thomas, III, q. 64, a. 9; Schmalzgrueber, nn. 144-146; Laymann, chap. 2, n. 5; Ithur., case 42.

It deprives one of the use of divine offices, so that an excommunicated person, whether to be avoided or tolerated, not only lacks their fruit, but also under mortal sin cannot celebrate them or assist at them in a notable part, so that morally he is judged to communicate with others, unless ignorance or necessity of avoiding scandal excuses. Although the same law applies to those to be avoided and to those tolerated, nevertheless as regards the latter, since today there is scarcely a confessor who keeps an excommunicated person away from the divine offices and there is no excommunicated person who thinks that he must abstain from the divine offices, the rigor of the law in this matter seems to some to have been tempered. Similarly others sin who participate with an excommunicated person to be avoided by assisting at divine things with him, e.g., at the same Mass; and although this sin from its genus is mortal, nevertheless from smallness of matter it is venial, as if only a small part of the Mass, e.g., only up to the Gospel, is heard with him.

Moreover, by divine offices are understood the sacrifice of the Mass, public prayer, procession, chanting of the hours, blessing of oil, water, candles, palms, ashes, and the other things annexed to the clerical order by the institution of Christ or of the Church, which are done publicly and solemnly with proper ornaments, excepting a sermon. L. n. 177. Hence an excommunicated person, whether tolerated or to be avoided, can also, during the time when divine things are not celebrated, enter the church to pray privately, and separately from others in a distinct chapel, and even in the same chapel where others pray, pray privately, because by praying privately he by no means communicates with others. Indeed, although from C. Excommunicatos 17, q. 3, c. 11, it is forbidden for an excommunicated person to communicate with others even in private prayer, nevertheless, scandal and contempt set aside, it does not seem to be grave matter to use him as a companion for privately reciting the office, just as for saying the Rosary. One obliged to the canonical hours is not free from reciting them. But in reciting them he must not say Dominus vobiscum, but Domine, exaudi orationem meam, because that formula imports a certain salutation to the people; whence otherwise he would sin venially. L. 173-178; Schmalzgrueber, nn. 131-133, 178; Pichler, l.c.

Now if an excommunicated person assists at divine offices and is to be avoided, and when warned does not wish to withdraw from the Church, clerics are bound to expel him if they can; or, if they cannot, or if a graver inconvenience is feared, to cease from the office; otherwise they sin gravely. If the sacrifice of the Mass is being celebrated, the celebrant, if the Canon has not yet been begun, must break off the Mass; if he has begun, he can, with the others departing, continue the sacred rite or break it off, because of the probability of each opinion; if he has consecrated, he must, with only the minister remaining, proceed up to and including Communion, and complete the remaining things in the sacristy or another decent place. But the excommunicated person must be expelled by the work of lay persons if they are present; but if they are lacking, clerics also must expel him. As regards those assisting, some more probably say that they also sin gravely unless some necessity or smallness of matter excuses; others not improbably say that this communication of those standing by does not exceed venial fault, because such communication seems too remote and accidental, unless they themselves are also the cause that the excommunicated person is present. But the common doctrine is that if those standing by hear another Mass different from that which the excommunicated person hears, neither they nor the celebrant are bound to withdraw, because then there is no formal communication. C. Veniens 16; C. Significavit 18; C. Nuper 29; C. Responso 43, de Sent. exc.; Clementine Gravis 2, e.t.; Laymann, chap. 2, n. 6; Engel, nn. 57, 59; Pichler, n. 33.

It deprives one of the conferral of a benefice, or ecclesiastical dignity having jurisdiction; and this conferral made to an excommunicated person, such as presentation, election, institution, confirmation, is null, and this even if the excommunication is unknown; for although ignorance can excuse from fault, it nevertheless does not supply the defect of a condition required for the validity of the act. For a benefice is given because of the office. But an excommunicated person, whether to be avoided or tolerated, is incapable of exercising office; for he cannot communicate in office. C. Postulatis 7; C. final, de Cler. exc. Hence he cannot make the fruits his own. But he is not deprived of another benefice already obtained, nor before the sentence of a judge is he bound to restore the fruits, if by himself or by another he fulfilled its burdens. For penalties requiring action on the part of the delinquent always need the sentence of a judge, at least declaratory. L. 179-183; book 1, nn. 148-149; Schmalzgrueber, nn. 147-162; Engel, nn. 60, 61. It also deprives one of Apostolic Rescripts. An excommunicated person is incapable by the law itself of obtaining these rescripts both of grace and of justice, which consequently will be null. C. Dilectus 26, de Rescriptis; C. Ipso iure 1, e.t., in VI. Except unless they were granted knowingly, motu proprio, or after absolution from censures was prefaced, as is customary; which will also have to be understood concerning the conferral of a benefice, if in the concession there is a clause of absolution from censures. Pichler, n. 29; Coninck, dub. 9, 10; L. 180, 182; Laymann, chap. 2, nn. 7-12. Likewise the minor Rescripts of the Holy See are valid, although obtained by excommunicated persons, for the forum of conscience only. Sacred Penitentiary, September 9, 1898, A.S.S., vol. 35, p. 754; E.M.

Several, not improbably, deny that a tolerated person is incapable of obtaining benefices. Cf. Commentary, n. 103, 5.

From the constitution Vacante Sede Apostolica, for the effect of electing the Supreme Pontiff no Cardinal can be impeded from active or passive election by force of any excommunication, suspension, interdict, or other ecclesiastical penalty, which meanwhile all remain suspended. Sec. 29.

With those things observed which are prescribed by the constitution Sapienti consilio, "graces and dispensations granted by the Holy See, even to those entangled in censure, are ratified and legitimate, unless there is question of those who are excommunicated by name, or likewise by name struck by the Holy See with the penalty of suspension from divine things." Order to be observed in the Roman Curia, September 29, 1908, part 2, chap. 3.

It deprives one of forensic communication, or every act pertaining to judgment, both in the ecclesiastical forum and, per se, also in the civil forum. C. Decernimus 8, de Sent. exc., in VI. Per se: for today it has no place in the civil forum. Hence an excommunicated person cannot be judge, advocate, procurator, plaintiff, notary, witness, tutor, curator, executor of a will, etc. But one must distinguish between an excommunicated person tolerated and one to be avoided. An excommunicated tolerated person is deprived by the very fact of no forensic communication, whence he acts validly if he uses it, and also licitly if he is required. But he can be juridically repelled by exception, both by adversaries and by the judge. But an excommunicated person to be avoided acts illicitly; yet he can except, appeal, and defend himself. Besides, the sentence of a judge to be avoided is not only illicit but invalid, since he lacks jurisdiction. C. Ad probandum 24, de Sent. et re iud.; C. Cum inter 5, de Except.; C. Pia consideratione 1, ibid. Moreover he cannot licitly enter contracts or make a will, although he does so validly, even when he institutes an excommunicated person as heir.

It deprives one of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. C. Ad probandum 24, de Sent. et re iud.; C. Romana 1, de Suppl. negl. praelat., in VI; C. Romana 1, de Offic. vicar., in VI; C. Si is cui 10, de Off. deleg., in VI. But the reason is that the exercise of jurisdiction is the principal communication with the faithful. Hence an excommunicated person to be avoided would absolve, elect to benefices, etc., both illicitly and invalidly. But an excommunicated tolerated person, even a notorious one, also a heretic from a sect and a schismatic, validly exercises jurisdiction, but acts illicitly, unless either from a grave cause, or when asked, he exercises acts of jurisdiction; in which cases he is excused from mortal sin even while administering the sacraments. Illicitly; but his acts can be annulled through exception, by sentence of a judge. L. 185; Ithur., case 42; Laymann, chap. 2, n. 13; Schmalzgrueber, nn. 163-166; Pichler, l.c.; Coninck, dub. 10; Lugo, De Iustitia et Iure, disp. 37, n. 6 ff.

The crime of simony in the election of the Supreme Pontiff is subject to a most special excommunication; nevertheless the aforesaid simoniacal election is not invalid. Pius X.

Constitution Vacante Sede, December 25, 1904, secs. 51-79.

It deprives one of ecclesiastical burial, namely that which is done in a sacred place destined for the burial of the faithful. Hence an excommunicated person to be avoided and one tolerated cannot be buried in a sacred place, and if they have been buried in a sacred place, they must be extracted from it. But this difference intervenes between one to be avoided and one tolerated: 1. if each, when dying, has given signs of repentance, the tolerated person can be buried in a sacred place, although it is fitting that he first be absolved from excommunication. Indeed a tolerated person, if he is occult, can certainly be buried in a sacred place; if known, he can still probably be buried in a sacred place, because if it is licit to communicate with them while living, it is also licit to communicate with them when dead, and because in practice, especially at present, several scandals are thus avoided. 2. If an excommunicated person to be avoided has been buried in a sacred place, that place is judged polluted by such contact and must be expiated; but if an excommunicated tolerated person has been buried in a sacred place, the sacred place is not judged polluted, and therefore does not need expiation. C. Sacris 12, de Sepult.; Pichler, n. 29; Coninck, dub. 8; L. 186, 187.

It deprives one of civil society, which involves five things: mouth, prayer, greeting, communion, table. Therefore excommunicated persons cannot live together with other faithful, cohabit, converse, transact business, etc. This deprivation of civil association is to be understood only for those to be avoided; for tolerated persons, by today's custom, no longer sin by communicating with the faithful in civil matters, even if they have not been asked by them. Sacred Penitentiary, July 5, 1867. In civil matters: for in divine matters they can communicate only when asked. Pichler, l.c.

Moreover, there are grave causes in which it is sometimes lawful to communicate even with one not tolerated. C. Si vere 34, de Sent. exc. These causes are: 1. Useful, i.e., usefulness whether spiritual or temporal, both of the excommunicated person himself and of another. 2. Law, i.e., the matrimonial bond, unless the spouses are separated by divorce; or this excommunication is because of doubt about the validity of the marriage; or also the other spouse is excommunicated because of heresy. But whether someone can communicate even in divine things with an excommunicated spouse, there is a twofold opinion. The first affirms; the second, truer, denies. 3. Humble, i.e., the state of subjection. Hence children, even emancipated and adoptive, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and relatives by affinity in the same kind, can communicate with a parent. Likewise male and female servants can communicate with a master, if they were in service before the excommunication; religious with a prelate; soldiers with an excommunicated commander. And conversely parents, husbands, masters can communicate with excommunicated children, wives, and household servants. But this communication does not extend also to divine things, unless that communication is necessary for furnishing due service. Hence servants licitly accompany their master to Mass, and licitly, if commanded, minister to an excommunicated person celebrating, or recite the office with him, if by force of service they are bound to this. 4. Unknown matter, i.e., ignorance whether of law or of fact, both invincible and also quite probably vincible and crass. 5. Necessity, i.e., grave necessity whether of soul, of body, or of temporal goods; whether of the one communicating, or of the excommunicated person, or of others. For the laws of the Church of themselves do not oblige with grave inconvenience. C. Responsio 43, de Sent. exc.; C. Inter alia 31, ibid.; C. Si vere 35, ibid.; C. Cum voluntate 54, ibid.; C. Quoniam multos 103, c. 11, q. 3; Schmalzgrueber, nn. 183-194; Pichler, n. 32; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 23, a. 1; Engel, nn. 47-52; L. 200-206.

Now Os, "mouth," means conversations, letters, and generally signs of benevolence, such as sending or accepting gifts, etc. But whether it is lawful to show signs of civility to an excommunicated person: the first opinion denies it, and it is probable; the second opinion, also probable, affirms it, provided that those signs, such as rising, uncovering the head, yielding place, are done so that a mark of discourtesy or the indignation of the excommunicated person may be avoided, and are not shown as signs of friendship or communication. Orare, "to pray," is any communication in divine things, e.g., to assist at Mass or at public offices of the church, concerning which above, or communication in private prayer. Vale, "greeting," comprehends all salutations shown by word or another sign for the sake of honor, unless these are done for avoiding harm and the indignation of the excommunicated person himself. Hence it is probably lawful to return the greeting of an excommunicated person; for returning a greeting is not an exhibition of honor, but rather the payment of a debt and merely an act of civility. But it seems more probable that it is not lawful to write back to an excommunicated person, according to St.

Alphonsus, who cannot acquiesce in the opposite opinion, "because writing back seems to be true communication." Communio, "communion," comprehends every contract, which nevertheless is valid if it is made, and every society, and therefore cohabitation and cooperation. Mensa, "table," comprehends banquets, yet by way of society and commerce, such as is certainly not had if by chance you fall into the same journey, lodging, table, indeed bed. L. 188-195; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 21, a. 1; Laymann, chap. 2, nn. 16, 17; Schmalzgrueber, n. 177; Pichler, l.c., n. 31; Coninck, dub. 12.

Is it grave to violate excommunication? Communication in divine things is judged mortal, unless smallness of matter, grave harm, custom, or the fact that they communicate only privately excuses. Cf. 1114, 1120. But although they sin, nevertheless neither the excommunicated person communicating with others nor others communicating with him incur any penalty, except in the cases already indicated. Cf. 1109. Communication in civil matters, contempt set aside but without just cause, is only venial. But this is understood, speaking per se and abstracting from contrary custom, which excuses tolerated persons from every sin; and therefore it still applies as regards those to be avoided. Holy Office, August 2, 1893. But whether frequently and continuously communicating in civil matters is again, speaking per se, mortal: there is a twofold probable opinion, one affirming, the other denying.

Finally communication in a criminal crime, i.e., in the same crime or contumacy because of which excommunication was imposed, is a mortal sin. It would be so, e.g., if, after excommunication imposed because of theft, someone still communicated with the excommunicated person in order to furnish counsel or help to him so that he would not restore those things. But the penalty of excommunication is incurred because of this communication in the case indicated in the constitution Apostolicae Sedis, Excommunications reserved simply to the Roman Pontiff, art. 17. C. Significavit 18, de Sent. exc.; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 23, aa. 2, 3; Quodlibet 11, a. 9; L. 196-199, 207; Laymann, chap. 3, nn. 1-3; Schmalzgrueber, nn. 178-182, 195-197; Pichler, n. 31; Coninck, dub. 14.

What is to be said about notorious excommunicated persons and about those whose bodies are subjected to cremation? If a notorious excommunicated person dies before he is reconciled to the Church, but before his death has given signs of repentance, "when the signs of repentance have been made known, ecclesiastical burial can be given, with ecclesiastical pomps and solemnities of exequies nevertheless forbidden. But if in some case extraordinary circumstances concur, the parish priest should consult the Ordinary and stand by his mandates." Holy Office, July 6, 1898.

Ecclesiastical burial must be denied to those who by their own will chose cremation, and who certainly and notoriously persevered in this will up to death. It is otherwise if cremation occurs by the will of others. Holy Office, December 15, 1886; E.M.

Cremation of bodies is illicit. Therefore it is illicit to command it, to cooperate formally in it, and to give one's name to societies which promote it. To those who commanded it, it is lawful neither to administer the sacraments nor to give ecclesiastical burial. But if their bodies are cremated by another's will, the rites of the Church can be used both at home and in church, but not as far as the place of cremation, scandal being removed.

What censures are in force at present? These things are in the constitution Apostolicae Sedis of Pius IX on Censures: 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 any censures whatsoever, whether of excommunication, 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 very Constitution, and in the way in which We insert them, shall henceforth have force; at the same time declaring that these same censures must receive their force entirely not only from the authority of the old canons, insofar as they agree with this Our Constitution, but also from this very Constitution of Ours, no differently than if they had first been issued by it. By force of the present Constitution, only those latae sententiae censures now have force by common law which either are expressly contained in it, or have already accrued to it after its promulgation, or will afterwards accrue. But all those censures which are clearly and certainly contained in the same Constitution, even if they could previously have been said to be obsolete, or to have gone into desuetude, or to be universally ignored, now admit no such exception, and obtain full force of obliging. Holy Office, June 15, 1870. In the following numbers we will explain them step by step, declaring the text itself of the praised Constitution. E.M.

We declare subject to excommunication latae sententiae reserved in a special manner to the Roman Pontiff:

In a special manner. The following excommunications are said to be reserved in a special manner for four reasons. The first is because for them "a general concession of absolving from cases and censures, or excommunications, reserved to the Roman Pontiff in no way suffices." Paragraph A quibus. But here it must be noted that even if someone has a special faculty of absolving from these cases reserved in a special manner to the Apostolic See, for this reason the faculty is not also judged conceded for the case of absolution of an accomplice, which needs most special mention. Holy Office, June 17, 1866; April 4, 1871. But in that special faculty is contained absolving heresy, since it has not now been excepted most specially as before. Giraldi, Exp. Iur. Pont., tome 2, part 1, title 7, sec. 809. The second is because they are also excluded from the faculty of absolving granted to Bishops by the Council of Trent, sess. 24, chap. 6, de Ref., although the same faculty, namely of absolving from all occult censures, even those reserved to the Pope, remains firm in any other censures reserved to the Apostolic See by this same Constitution. Paragraph Firmam tamen. The third is because "those presuming to absolve without due faculty, even under any pretext whatsoever, are bound by the bond of excommunication reserved to the Roman Pontiff, provided there is not question of the article of death." Paragraph A quibus. The fourth is because those absolved in the article of death by one not having power, if they recover, are held by the special obligation of standing by the mandates of the Church. Cf. 799.

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 of them.

Apostates are those who, utterly defecting from the Christian religion, pass over to the Mohammedan sect or another, or even to none. But understand an apostate not only by exterior work or sign, but also in soul. For he is called an apostate from the Christian faith. But one who is only externally an apostate is an apostate not from faith, but from confession of faith. Moreover the discussion is of apostasy from the Christian faith, not only inwardly conceived, but also outwardly solemnly professed in baptism.

Heretics. In order that this excommunication, imposed precisely because of heresy, be incurred, it is required, 1. that the heresy be formal, i.e., with error of the intellect and pertinacity of will. But he is called pertinacious who adheres to his opinion notwithstanding that he knows it to be opposed to the doctrine of the Roman Church sufficiently proposed to him; or who is so disposed in soul that, even if that doctrine should be sufficiently proposed to him, nevertheless he would not wish to be moved from his opinion. The reason for this last member of the disjunction is that any ignorance, even crass and affected, according to the truer and more common opinion excuses from heresy and the penalties of heretics. For someone can very well have the will of believing all things which are sufficiently proposed to him as revealed by God and as dogmas of the Church, although he does not have the will of applying diligence so that he may know what things have been revealed by God and what defined by the Church. Hence although he sins gravely against faith, nevertheless he is not formally an infidel and heretic, but a faithful and Catholic person believing all things which have been revealed by God and defined by the Church, and which are sufficiently proposed to him. De Lugo, De Fide, disp. 20, sec. 6; L. 301. It is required, 2. that the heresy of the mind be betrayed exteriorly by an external sign manifestative of internal error, from itself or from the circumstances, with a gravely culpable manifestation, although the matter becomes known to no one. L. 303-305. Hence these do not incur excommunication: 1. a merely mental heretic, or one who abstains from hearing Mass; 2. one who manifests his heresy in order to seek counsel. But a positive doubt outwardly betrayed by no means excuses, because one doubting thus judges that the truth proposed by the Church can be false. L. 302. Cf. Struggl, tract 4, q. 2, n. 12; Lugo, De Fide, disp. 20, n. 17. It is required, 3. that the heresy has not been brought to the judicial forum of the Bishop. For Bishops by themselves or by a delegate can absolve in each forum from any heresy, if it has once been brought to their judicial forum. L., appendix de Priv., n. 39; Benedict XIV, De Synodo, book 9, chap. 4. But the Constitution of Pius IX does not seem to derogate from this faculty of Bishops. Therefore Bishops have no faculty of absolving only from heresy, whether occult or notorious, which has not yet been brought to their forum. Hence all Protestants who wished to abjure their heresy, and consequently to bring it to the external forum, need not have recourse to Rome, but can be absolved by the Bishop, both for the external and for the internal forum, either by himself or by a delegate.

By whatever name they are reckoned, namely by some peculiar name of heretics. Of whatever sect they exist, "even if they do not adhere to heresy in soul, they enroll themselves even only by name in a sect, whatever name it may have, heretical or schismatical, from whatever cause this is done," according to the Declaration of the Holy Office. Diocesan Synod of Albano, year 1886, part 1, art. 6, n. 2.

Those believing, namely those truly believing heretics, whether explicitly or implicitly; those believing either in particular some false dogma of heretics, although they do not adhere to them in all things, nor are called by a particular name, e.g., Calvinists, Lutherans, etc., nor are judged enrolled in some particular sect, e.g., the Reformed Church, etc.; or those believing only generally that heretics have the true faith and religion, although they believe nothing distinctly and in particular against faith; those believing them when they say that the Catholic religion is false.

Receivers: to receive is to furnish refuge for the sake of hiding in one's own or another's place. Therefore receivers are those who receive by hospitality or conceal, even once, a heretic so that he may escape the penalties of his heresy. Favorers: to favor generally is to furnish any work to someone for his advantage and usefulness, whether by doing something, e.g., by recommending, by giving money, or by omitting what someone by office ought to have done. Therefore favorers are those who in the cause of faith favor heretics, either negatively, namely by omitting, when they can and are bound by office, to capture, guard, or punish a heretic; or positively, by helping him, as such, with praises, recommendations, money, etc., e.g., so that he may flee, etc. Hence the Holy Office, May 11, 1892, declared that excommunication is contracted by those who enter marriage before a heretical or schismatic minister assigned to sacred things. Defenders: to defend is to protect someone, so that he can do something safely and freely, or to protect something against contrary attacks. Therefore defenders of errors or of the person are those who defend their errors by words, writings, etc., although inwardly they think otherwise, or who prevent them from being captured or punished because of heresy.

Therefore these words, receivers, favorers, defenders of heretics, must be understood formally of those who favor heretics insofar as they are heretics, namely either because they profess such doctrine, or also in order to teach, defend, or do something of this kind concerning that heresy. The reason is that penalty must be understood strictly, according to the subject matter. Besides, receivers, favorers, defenders: understand reception, favor, defense as completed. And so, if you have received, defended, and favored a heretic lest he be captured, yet he was captured, you have not incurred the excommunication imposed on receivers, favorers, and defenders of heretics. Bull In Coena Domini, sec. 1; C. Sicut ait 8; C. Excommunicamus 13, 15, de Haereticis; Suarez, disp. 21, sec. 2, first excommunication; Bonacina, De Censur. in partic., disp. 1, q. 2, parts 1, 2, 3; L. 300 ff.; Ferraris, v. Haeresis, Haereticus; Schmalzgrueber, book 5, title 7; St. Thomas, II-II, qq. 10-12; Quodlibet 10, aa. 15, 16; E.M.

Public abjuration of heretics who desire to return to the faith is not necessary, but their abjuration can be made before someone delegated by the Bishop as notary, and some persons as witnesses. But they must abstain altogether from communication in spiritual things with heretics, and from every thing protestative of heresy. Holy Office, March 28, 1900; Monitor Ecclesiasticus, vol. 12, pp. 49-50.

II. All and each persons knowingly reading without authority of the Apostolic See books of the same apostates and heretics defending heresy, and also books of any author prohibited by name through Apostolic letters; and those retaining, printing, and in any way defending the same books.

Knowingly: this clause placed at the beginning affects, in the obvious and natural sense, not only those reading, but also those retaining, printing, and defending. Therefore ignorance, whether of fact or of law, even crass, and not improbably also affected, excuses from this censure. L. 296. Reading: by the name of reading here is understood reading in the proper sense, and in a human way, so that one understands the things which he reads. Moreover, reading strictly such is understood; whence it is indeed prohibited to read, but it is not prohibited to hear one reading, who perhaps has faculty; nor to recite part of the book from memory, because these things are not comprehended strictly under the name of reading. Ithur., case 39; L. 292. Reading, in a notable quantity and sufficient for grave sin. Thus commonly the doctors, who nevertheless disagree in determining the quantity of this kind. But it seems more rightly to be distinguished, because if by reading a prohibited book you immediately fall into heresy, you can incur excommunication by reading even a few lines, because there is great danger of perversion, which the prohibition of the Church intends to remove. But if you fall into matter altogether indifferent and infected by no error, even by reading a whole page, you are excused from mortal sin and therefore from excommunication. Ithur., l.c., nn. 30, 31; L. 284, 294. Say the same concerning those retaining; for one who retains a book for a moderate time, e.g., one or another day, even if he has the intention of always retaining it, does not incur excommunication. For the reason is the same for time as for matter. Nor are theologians lacking who excuse one who retains a book for a longer time while awaiting a suitable time to hand it over to a superior, or to another having license. Without authority of the Apostolic See. Therefore the Pope alone, or those to whom he has committed or delegated this faculty, can dispense concerning the reading of books prohibited by the present censure.

Books: letters, sermons, public newspapers, Holy Office, April 27, 1880, pamphlets, are not books. Nor are manuscripts books. Sheets separated from a prohibited book, fragments of a book, are not a book. Cf. St. Alphonsus, 293; Suarez, De Cens., disp. 23, sec. 7, n. 3. For a book properly is a volume of several sheets collected together, not of an altogether slight bulk, treating of one and the same argument, or even of various arguments. Whence those knowingly reading periodic publications bound into fascicles, defending heresy and having a heretical author, incur excommunication. Holy Office, January 13, 1892. Of apostates and heretics: the same is added; therefore there is question of those of whom the discussion is in the preceding excommunication, namely by whatever name they are reckoned and of whatever sect they exist; but those believing them are omitted, wherefore it seems to be required for incurring this excommunication that the heretical author be known from elsewhere, and it does not suffice that he be first manifested as such through the book itself. For such a person would rather be a Catholic believing the errors of heretics than a heretic, as is distinguished in the preceding excommunication. Yet if the author evidently and certainly defends heresy, and evidently with a pertinacious mind against the authority of the Church, by that very fact he will be judged a heretic by right and deservedly. Hence if the book is anonymous, from the book itself it can be known whether its author is a heretic, L. 283, and then the censure is incurred. This is confirmed from the constitution Officiorum of Leo XIII, de Prohib. et cens. libr., sec. 47. Defending heresy: "even if only one error is contained in the whole book, the whole is prohibited; nor, even with that error deleted, will it be lawful to retain the book, because it is absolutely prohibited by force of this clause." Suarez, l.c. La Croix, n. 330, and others deny this last point, and indeed probably, because then the book no longer contains heresy, nor does it induce any danger. L. 283. But it must be carefully noted that to defend heresy is not simply to contain heresy, but to undertake patronage of heresy intentionally and, as it were, with one's powers. Therefore books of heretics which only incidentally contain heresy are not comprehended under this excommunication, since they do not treat professedly of faith. L. 287. Nor do the books of the primitive heretics seem to be comprehended, since their heresy no longer harms, and knowledge of them is very useful for ecclesiastical history. La Croix, book 7, n. 333.

Through Apostolic letters. Apostolic letters are those which proceed immediately in the name of the Roman Pontiff, whether in the form of a Brief, or in the form of a Bull, or in any other form, provided that in them is read, by Apostolic Authority, or something equivalent. Prohibited by name, i.e., with the title of the book expressed in particular. Therefore all books which are condemned only in a general way through Apostolic letters are not comprehended by this censure. Prohibited by name: the words indeed are general; nevertheless the doctors commonly understand them of prohibition under penalty of excommunication reserved to the Roman Pontiff. Otherwise the Supreme Pontiff seems to relax to others what he does not reserve to himself, and therefore then there will not be an excommunication reserved to himself in a special manner. But by this same argument it is shown that that excommunication, although reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, is nevertheless not reserved to him in a special manner. For if the Supreme Pontiff reserves it to himself only simply, he seems by that very fact to remove the special reservation. Therefore it would rather have to be said that there is question of prohibition under penalty of specially reserved excommunication. But then this second article of the Constitution would be entirely useless. Therefore it seems that it must be said that there is question of prohibition simply made under penalty of excommunication, although no reservation is added to it. It is said under penalty of excommunication, because if the prohibition is made either with no penalty added, or with another penalty, it surely does not pertain here. For here there is question of censures. Cf. 1178.

Retaining. "He is said to retain who has a book with himself, whether he has it borrowed, deposited, belonging to another, for binding, for selling, for adorning a library, whether in his own or another's house; so that in whatever way, and wherever he has the book, he incurs the censure imposed against those retaining. And so it is not lawful for you to sell or give them.... Yet I myself would think this must be limited, unless you sell or give to one having faculty to read them; for then I believe that the tacit or interpretative faculty of superiors is present, who are not reasonably judged unwilling.... You would not sin if, accommodating another who has faculty, you yourself were to carry with you some prohibited book bought at Rome, e.g., to Fano; just as the bookseller would not sin who kept the book longer in his shop for binding, because all these things are accessory to the faculty itself conceded and are understood as conceded through it." Ithur., case 39, n. 40. Printing: in the obvious sense, those printing are generally all who cooperate proximately in printing, such as those who compose the type, ink it, moisten the sheets, turn the press, etc. Those who arrange sheets and books already printed are not properly printers; those selling and carrying elsewhere are rather retainers. The owner of the typography and the publisher, in the obvious sense, are not printers, but those commanding printing. Regularly they are both readers and also retainers. Defending in any way, namely defending either by words or by deeds; either the depraved doctrine which they contain, or the material book itself, namely if they prevent the book from being burned or handed over to the Bishop or Inquisitor. L. 285. But one who approves and praises good and true doctrine contained in the book is not comprehended by this censure, provided nevertheless that he is not judged absolutely to approve the book itself; nor even one who praises the style, eloquence, phrase, or genius, provided that this does not argue praise and approval of the book. Bull In Coena Domini, sec. 1; Lugo, De Fide, disp. 25, n. 94; L. 281-299; Bouix, De Cur. Rom., part 3, sec. 3, chap. 11; Suarez, disp. 21, sec. 2, first excommunication; Bonacina, disp. 1, q. 2, part 4; E.M.

III. Schismatics, and those who pertinaciously withdraw themselves from or recede from the obedience of the Roman Pontiff existing for the time.

Schismatics properly are those who, either only from malice of will, or also from error in the doctrine of faith, deny subjection to the Roman Pontiff, by separating themselves from the body of the Church and by constituting a new and separate Church, or by adhering to one already constituted. Those who pertinaciously withdraw themselves from the obedience of the Roman Pontiff existing for the time, i.e., totally separate themselves from his ecclesiastical authority, although they adhere to no other Head or supreme ecclesiastical authority. Nor indeed is it necessary, for incurring this censure by force of this clause, that they be rebels against the authority of the Roman See considered generally; but it suffices that they be rebels against the authority of the Person who actually occupies the Roman See. And recede, namely partially: in some one thing only they are boldly rebellious against the spiritual authority of the Roman Pontiff existing for the time, by resisting the same authority in a particular matter, namely those who in a particular matter reject the spiritual command and authority of the Roman Pontiff, such as, e.g., certain liberal Catholics. Therefore one does not incur this excommunication who would not wish to obey the Roman Pontiff in some particular matter because of the difficulty of the matter, or even because of hatred toward the Person, while nevertheless recognizing his spiritual authority; for by his disobedience he would not truly recede pertinaciously from the Roman Pontiff existing for the time, but would only transgress his laws or precepts. Pertinaciously, i.e., knowingly and willingly; therefore one does not incur excommunication if he denies his authority and does not submit himself to him because he does not think him legitimate, since his election is doubtfully valid. C. 5, Dist. 19; Bull In Coena Domini, sec. 1; St. Thomas, II-II, q. 39; Suarez, disp. 21, sec. 2, first excommunication; disp. 23, sec. 2, second excommunication; sec. 3, par. Melius; Bonacina, disp. 1, q. 2, part 5; E.M.

IV. All and each persons, of whatever state, grade, or condition they may 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 help, counsel, or favor the appeal was made.

As regards persons, this censure is most general: for it is imposed on all of whatever state, grade, and condition. But because excommunication is not imposed on a community, but on individual persons, therefore if a community commits such a delict, the censure of interdict is imposed on it. Cf. 1334. From ordinances or mandates, namely concerning spiritual things. Existing for the time, namely still living, since these "words ought to effect something" from C. Si Papa 10, de Priv., in VI. Future Council, not a future Roman Pontiff, nor a present Council. But as is clear from the very form of the excommunication, those who furnish help, counsel, or favor do not incur excommunication unless the effect follows, namely unless the appeal was actually made. Hence help, counsel, or favor must precede or accompany the appeal; for if it only follows, and is given for resisting pontifical decrees under the appearance of such an appeal, then this censure will not be incurred by force of this clause, because favor was not truly given for appealing, but for the actions afterwards following, which are far different. Nor by any means must appeal from a just or unjust mandate be distinguished, because the Constitution speaks absolutely and indistinctly, and it is not founded on the fact that the thing is just or unjust, but on the fact that one appealing thus does injury to the authority of the Roman Pontiff; for by the very fact he professes that a General Council is superior to it. For to appeal is a provocation from an inferior judge to a superior.

Counsel, favor: although counsel seems to be some favor or moral help, for he who furnishes right counsel helps not a little toward acting well; nevertheless they are distinct, for they are distinct influences ordered to distinct ends. For counsel is for the instruction of the mind and the motion and impulse of the will; but help and favor are for execution. He gives counsel who persuades, and by persuading impels another to do something. For there is question of practical counsel, not of merely doctrinal counsel. To furnish help is to bring aid, assistance, support to the very act or external work. But favor, from "I favor," which is "I am zealous for, I love, I embrace," extends help also to moral assistance, e.g., by helping with praises and recommendations. Hence, when in laws an extension is made to those counseling and favoring, express mention of them is made. Pius II, constitution Exsecrabilis; Bull In Coena Domini, sec. 2; C. Significasti 4, de Electione et Electi Potest.; Suarez, disp. 21, sec. 2, second clause; Bonacina, disp. 1, q. 3, parts 1, 2.

V. All killing, mutilating, striking, seizing, imprisoning, detaining, or hostilely pursuing Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops; and Legates or Nuncios of the Apostolic See; or expelling them from their dioceses, territories, lands, or dominions; and also those commanding these things, or ratifying them, or furnishing help, counsel, or favor in them.

All: understand of whatever sex or state. Killing, in whatever way, by poison, sword, etc. Mutilating, i.e., cutting off a member. Striking: striking is ordinarily done by hand, either immediately or by means of an instrument, namely a staff. Seizing, i.e., apprehending, by impeding freedom of going away. Imprisoning, i.e., thrusting into prison. Detaining, i.e., guarding someone violently shut up in prison, or in another place, from which he cannot freely go out. Hostilely pursuing are those who pursue one fleeing and taking care for himself with a hostile mind, in order to inflict evil on him, namely by killing, mutilating, etc. For this pursuit is punished, even if no other effect follows, insofar as it is the attempt of another crime prohibited by this law. Nor is it likely that the law prohibits the attempt of some delict which it itself does not prohibit or punish. Therefore those are not hostilely pursuing who pursue only for the sake of dishonoring or plundering.

Bishops, namely consecrated; for penalties are of strict interpretation. Legates. They are those who are deputed by Supreme Princes for conducting graver business or for the generality of business. Delegates are those who are deputed by Supreme Princes for certain particular business, yet not graver business, or not for all business. Nuncios, Apostolic, are Legates of the Supreme Pontiff residing among various nations. Expelling, namely expelling one previously received. Expelling generally speaking, whether by public or private authority, with force applied. From their dioceses, territories, lands, or dominions: namely from places where they have right of jurisdiction, domicile, property, dominion, by reason of their office and dignity. Therefore by this censure are punished injuries against the body: killing, mutilating, striking; against liberty: seizing, imprisoning, detaining, hostilely pursuing; against dignity: expelling from their own places, etc.

Commanding. One commanding is he who orders or asks that something be done in his name. Ratifying: these conditions are required for ratification: that the striking was done in your name or in your favor; this then happens when those things preceded which could give others cause for thinking that another would freely consent that the delict be done in his name; that you externally signify the ratification; that when the striking happened you were capable of mandate or counsel concerning the striking at least habitually; for if you were insane, you do not incur; otherwise if drunk or sleeping: thus commonly. L. 267; Suarez, disp. 21, sec. 2, n. 71; Schmalzgrueber, n. 244.

Those commanding these things, etc.; those furnishing help, etc., in them. Therefore commanding, helping, counseling, favoring are all indeed to be understood of mandate, help, and favor that is effective, and that has gravely influenced, and indeed in those things which have been mentioned, not in another action different from them. Help: one who only promises help does not seem able to be said to furnish help. Counsel: e.g., by showing usefulness, by suggesting suitable means. Favor: either positively by exhorting, inciting, or negatively by not impeding when he can and ought. Ought, i.e., when he is held by office or justice, as kings, judges, etc. But if he is held only by charity, the censure more truly is not incurred. C. Felicis 5, de Poenis, in VI; Clementine 1, de Poenis; Extravagant single chapter, de Consuetud.; Bull In Coena Domini, sec. 11; Suarez, disp. 21, sec. 2, eleventh censure; disp. 22, sec. 3, third excommunication; Bonacina, disp. 1, q. 12; disp. 2, q. 3, part 7; disp. 4, qq. 3, 4; L. 268, 269; Ithur., case 41, n. 16; case 43, nn. 1-3.

VI. Those directly or indirectly impeding the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, whether of the internal or external forum, and those having recourse for this to the secular forum, and procuring, issuing, or furnishing help, counsel, or favor for its mandates.

Impeding in reality; otherwise they will not truly be impeding, but trying to impede. Impeding, even if for this they do not have recourse to the secular forum. Directly, e.g., by force or fear inflicted on ecclesiastical judges themselves wishing to exercise jurisdiction. Indirectly, if someone obstructs them in another matter, or in another person, e.g., if force or fear is brought upon their blood relatives, officials, etc. For to impede is to do something by which someone unwilling is kept from acting or ceases from acting. Therefore if someone uses counsels, prayers, or deceits, he is rather understood to persuade, obtain, or deceive. The exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Therefore for someone to incur this censure, it is necessary that he resist one who is marked with jurisdiction, e.g., a Bishop, parish priest, etc.; otherwise he will not be impeding the exercise of jurisdiction, but something else, e.g., if someone impedes a plaintiff from approaching a judge, he impedes not the exercise of jurisdiction but the petition of the plaintiff. Exercise of jurisdiction, namely from law, lest someone begin it or continue in it. There is question of the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, which flows from Christ the Lord or from his Vicar, insofar as he is Roman Pontiff, and belongs to clerics insofar as they are clerics. There is question of the exercise of jurisdiction to which it belongs, e.g., to commit things to be performed, those things which are of order, and to depute to ecclesiastical offices; by no means of the exercise of order itself, e.g., to perform the sacred rite, or of the exercise itself of ecclesiastical office, e.g., to preach, teach, etc. Of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, whether ordinary or delegated. But jurisdiction is the power of ruling and governing others. Of the internal forum, as is that which the Sacred Penitentiary uses, and that which pertains to the forum of conscience. Of the external forum, which regards Christian society, whether it is contentious, which is exercised between parties contending in judgment, or voluntary, which is exercised without any judicial process and sentence, as, e.g., to visit a diocese, send preachers, impose censures, etc.

And is to be understood disjunctively from the obvious sense and the whole context, so that another class of persons who incur this censure is denoted. For this, i.e., for impeding the aforesaid exercise, not for something else, e.g., for not delaying the exercise of that jurisdiction and the rendering of justice, for decreeing justly, etc. For this: therefore those having recourse and all others of whom there is question in what follows do not incur this censure unless the effect follows. Having recourse to the secular forum: to have recourse is to implore the aid of another against someone or something, as if someone suffers injury from him. Forum in the proper meaning is the place of exercising judgments. Therefore the patronage of those must be implored who exercise jurisdiction in the forum, such as the Prefect of a city is not, e.g. Yet it seems that secular forum can also be taken more broadly for any civil magistrate by opposition with the internal and external forum of the first part, which from common acceptance is very broadly evident. Procuring mandates are those who cooperate proximately toward this. Issuing, namely establishing, are civil magistrates, or those who by judicial or even other civil power issue the mandates themselves by decreeing such things. Help, etc. Cf. what has been said in the preceding censures. And its, namely of the secular forum. Or: therefore this last clause, or help, etc., in the obvious sense seems to refer only to the last class of persons, i.e., to those procuring and issuing mandates. But others refer it also to the first, second, and third class of persons whom the present censure touches, namely to those impeding, having recourse, procuring mandates, and issuing them. C. Clericis 3, de Immun. eccles., in VI; Bull In Coena Domini, sec. 16; Suarez, disp. 21, sec. 2, sixteenth censure; Bonacina, disp. 1, q. 17.

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

Compelling. To compel here is through force or grave fear unjustly to induce someone to do something. Hence those are not compelling who denounce a criminal cleric to a judge, or who sue a debtor cleric before a lay judge. Compelling... judges: note that here the one compelling is distinguished from the judge compelled; therefore the judges themselves who only issue sentence against ecclesiastical persons brought to their tribunal by others do not incur this excommunication. In the Instruction of the Sacred Universal Inquisition, June 15, 1870, it is said: "Compelling... indicates that excommunication does not touch those who are subordinate, even if they were judges, but has been imposed only on those who, compelled by no one, either do such things or compel others to do them." And in the Circular Letter of the same Sacred Universal Inquisition, January 23, 1886, these things are had: "This Supreme Congregation of the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition has more than once declared that the heading Compelling does not affect any except legislators and other authorities.... Moreover, in those places in which the privilege of the forum was not derogated by the Supreme Pontiffs, if in those places it is not possible to pursue one's rights except before lay judges, individuals are bound first to seek permission from their proper Ordinary, so that they can sue clerics in the form of lay persons; and the Ordinaries will never deny this, especially when they themselves have given work in vain to reconciling controversies between the parties. But it is not lawful to sue Bishops in that forum without permission of the Apostolic See. And if anyone should have dared to draw either a cleric without permission of the Ordinary, or a Bishop without permission of the Holy See, to a lay judge or judges, it will be in the power of the same Ordinaries to proceed against him, especially if he was a cleric, with penalties and censures ferendae sententiae, as a violator of the privilege of the forum, if they shall have judged this expedient in the Lord."

But the present excommunication was afterward enlarged thus: "We... by Our own Motion establish and declare: whoever among private persons, of lay or sacred order, men or women, summons any ecclesiastical persons whatsoever, whether in a criminal cause or in a civil one, without any permission of ecclesiastical power, to the tribunal of lay persons, and publicly compels them to be present there, all these also incur excommunication latae sententiae reserved in a special manner to the Roman Pontiff." Pius X, Motu Proprio Quantavis diligentia, October 11, 1911. "It is not lawful, without the permission of the ecclesiastical Power, without incurring the censure threatened in the Motu Proprio Quantavis Diligentia, to constitute oneself a civil party in a penal cause of public action against an ecclesiastical person. It is not lawful, as above, to cite ecclesiastics before the lay forum so that they may give testimony, whether in civil causes or in penal causes." Holy Office, March 11, 1912; Monitor Ecclesiasticus, vol. 37, p. 4.

But those compelling, whether directly or indirectly, are those who, by force or fear inflicted on the judges themselves or on other persons who have connection with them, compel them to draw ecclesiastical persons to their tribunal in a cause whether criminal or civil. Lay judges, namely those who by office administer law for a lay tribunal, not other magistrates. To draw, as if the accused, not as a witness, expert, etc. But cf. the aforesaid Motu Proprio of Pius X. To their tribunal, namely so that he may draw him into court, not that he may prescribe something to him, admonish him, correct him. But cf. the cited Motu Proprio. Ecclesiastical persons, namely those who enjoy the privilege of the forum. Apart from canonical dispositions. For there are several cases in which a lay judge, both in civil and in criminal matters, licitly proceeds against ecclesiastical persons. Cf. on this matter Schmalzgrueber, book 2, title 2, par. 6, de Foro comp. rat. pers. eccl., n. 80 ff.; Bizzarri, Collect., p. 178 ff., ed. 1885. Apart from canonical dispositions: understand also Concordats of the Kingdom with the Apostolic See. Issuing: authors of laws and decrees, not the others. Laws: general and in perpetuity, e.g., concerning the royal placet, the royal exequatur, etc., which proceed from supreme authority; or decrees, which are from any power, even inferior, but are put forth generally, not for a particular case, for then they would rather be mandates or sentences of judges. Liberty or rights: said most generally, and therefore it comprehends all things, e.g., by expelling religious families, inhibiting sacred ministries, keeping clerics from the instruction of the people, etc. Of the Church, namely universal. C. Clericis 3, de Immun. eccles., in VI; Bull In Coena Domini, sec. 15; L., de Priv., nn. 18-24; Suarez, disp. 21, sec. 2, fifteenth censure; Bonacina, disp. 1, q. 16; disp. 2, q. 6, part 1; Benedict XIV, Instruction 40; E.M.

VIII. Those having recourse to lay power for impeding letters or any acts whatsoever proceeding from the Apostolic See, or from any Legates or Delegates of the same; and those directly or indirectly prohibiting their promulgation or execution; or, because of them, injuring or terrifying either the parties themselves or others.

Having recourse: whoever, in whatever way. Therefore those having recourse will be those giving a petitionary libel, citing or provoking, appealing, etc. To lay power, whatever it may be, prefects of cities, presidents of tribunals, judges, and all others exercising jurisdiction over citizens. For impeding: in reality; for although the excommunication is directly imposed not on those impeding, but on those having recourse, nevertheless since recourse of this kind is for impeding, and an external action must be perfect and consummated in order that someone incur excommunication, this recourse must be understood with the effect following. The same must be said for the same reason about prohibition, injury, and terrifying. Yet others think otherwise, since the recourse itself, the injury itself, and the terrifying itself are directly condemned.

Letters, given in any form, provided nevertheless that they proceed from Apostolic Authority, whence it is soon said: proceeding from the Apostolic See. Any acts whatsoever, namely whether they are of grace or of justice; whether they regard spiritual or temporal business, yet of ecclesiastical or spiritual law. Acts of the Apostolic See are called those which are done by authority of the Roman Pontiff, whether immediately or mediately. Whence it is said: any acts whatsoever proceeding from the Apostolic See, or from any Legates or Delegates of the same. "Even those things which mediately proceed from the sacred Roman Congregations" are comprehended. Holy Office, January 13, 1892. Acts of the Holy See are warnings, citations, processes, sentences, etc., made by mandate of the Holy See. Legates "are said to be those who are deputed for conducting some business by supreme Princes (and in our case by the Supreme Pontiff); they commonly differ from Delegates, to whom one peculiar business, and not a very complex one, or even peculiar businesses, are committed, while a Legate has entrusted either the generality of business or at least a very complex office handed over." De Angelis, Praelect. Iur. Can., book 1, title 30, n. 1. Proceeding, not, lest they proceed. Therefore those who impede Letters or Acts of this kind from being obtained are not subject to this excommunication.

Promulgation, namely publication in the customary form and manner. Execution, i.e., whatever things are necessary so that Apostolic Letters and Acts may have effect, e.g., if someone prohibits notaries from drawing up instruments concerning them, or from handing over to the parties those drawn up, or prohibits the parties from using those handed over. Prohibiting, namely by public authority. For just as the Pontiff speaks in the first part concerning recourse to lay power, so in this second part he consequently speaks of prohibition flowing from that recourse to lay power. Yet the contrary opinion is also well sustained, because the law does not distinguish. Parties are those whose interest it is that the Letters or Acts of the Apostolic See be promulgated or committed to execution. Others, for instance the patrons of the same parties, because of the acts obtained, or executors, or other persons to whom the acts obtained are in some way referred and pertain; for it is said, because of them, either the parties themselves or others, etc. Injuring properly and strictly are those who inflict some grave harm on someone in the goods of the body. Terrifying are those who threaten to inflict very grave harm. For to terrify is to make one very afraid, to make very grave fear.

C. Clericis 3, de Immun. eccles., in VI; Bull In Coena Domini, sec. 13; Suarez, disp. 21, sec. 2, twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth censure; Bonacina, disp. 1, q. 14; E.M.

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 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.

Falsifiers: falsifiers of Apostolic letters are those who with evil deceit, even once, adulterate true Apostolic Letters by adding, subtracting, or changing something, in such a way that they can deceive another; but this must be estimated not materially but formally, namely according to the sense principally intended by the Roman Pontiff. With evil deceit: therefore if you corrupted true letters, about to tear them up immediately, harming no one and affecting the authority of the Roman Pontiff with no injury, it is truer that the excommunication ceases. Castropalao, tract 29, de Cens., disp. 2, p., n. 4. But by no means are they falsifiers who fabricate entire false letters. For these are not falsifiers, since they do not change the truth in the thing itself, but are fabricators of false letters, as was held in the Bull In Coena Domini, where falsifiers and false fabricators were distinguished. Suarez, De Cens., disp. 21, sec. 1, sixth Censure. Falsifiers: therefore the present excommunication is incurred, by force of this clause, as soon as the falsity has been completed, although someone afterwards by no means uses the falsified letters. But one who uses them incurs another excommunication reserved to the Bishop, concerning which below.

Of Apostolic Letters. Therefore the letters of any others whatsoever do not pertain here, such as those of an Apostolic Nuncio, Legate a latere, Major Penitentiary, Sacred Congregations, etc. Indeed neither Apostolic Letters nor Rescripts not yet signed, or furnished with seal or lead, because since they are not yet authentic, they do not yet have force; nor those which have ceased to have force and can no longer have force, for instance a dispensation from service of choir for a time, this time having elapsed; a matrimonial dispensation, the dispensed person having died, etc.

Even, and therefore even in another more solemn form, such as Bulls. In the form of a Brief. Briefs are Letters of the Roman Pontiff for business of lesser moment, written on thin and white parchment or ordinary paper, and in Latin character. They are inscribed with the name of the Supreme Pontiff: Pius P. X, and they report the date according to the common Calendar. They are expedited by the Secretariat of State, or also by the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments as regards matrimonial dispensations. They have a seal of red wax in which is impressed the image of blessed Peter fishing. Therefore they are said to be expedited under the ring of the Fisherman. Bulls are Letters of the Supreme Pontiff for graver business, which are now written on parchment paper and in Latin character. They bear a leaden seal, whence they are called Bulls, and the date according to the Roman Calendar, the beginning of the year now being taken from January 1. The hanging seal is now retained in Bulls of greater moment. In others there is an impression of a red seal bearing the images of St. Peter and Paul. They are inscribed with the name of the Supreme Pontiff: Pius, Servant of the Servants of God. New formulae of Bulls were made and approved by the Motu Proprio of Pius X, December 8, 1910. They are expedited through the way of the Chancery, and Apostolic Protonotaries sign Bulls, from the constitution Sapienti consilio. And by special mandate of Pius X, April 15, 1910, for validity the Cardinal Chancellor of the Holy Roman Church must sign, and the Cardinal who presides over the office to which the matter treated in the Constitutions belongs. But Bulls of non-consistorial benefices are expedited through the Datary. Of Supplications: supplications properly are petitions directed to the Pontiff for obtaining grace or right. But according to the style of the Curia they signify rather the response of the Pontiff, whether it is made by simple application of the seal to the petition, or by subscription of the name, or by Rescript in which the petition is mentioned. They are taken here in this second sense, for the discussion is of supplications signed by the Roman Pontiff, etc. Concerning grace or justice: those are said to contain grace which contain some benefit or liberality of the Roman Pontiff; justice, however, those which pertain to lawsuits, and therefore to the cognizance or definition of some case. Signed by the Roman Pontiff, or by the Vice-Chancellor of the Holy Roman Church, or those acting in their place, or by mandate of the same Roman Pontiff: namely Apostolic Letters signed by the proper hand or proper seal of the Pontiff, or indeed by another hand, but in his name or by his mandate. For there is question of Apostolic Letters. The Vice-Chancellor of the Holy Roman Church today, after the constitution Sapienti Consilio, is called Chancellor, and is one of the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, who in Consistories by office discharges the function of notary. To the office of Chancery this one thing pertains: to expedite letters under lead concerning the greater business of the Church.

Falsely publishing are: 1. those who in any manner spread among the people true but adulterated Apostolic Letters; 2. those who spread simply false or entire falsely fabricated letters. Therefore if someone should show only to a few Apostolic Letters simply invented, so that they cannot yet be called published, he would not incur this excommunication. Some require the customary mode for authoritative promulgation; but publication is not the same as promulgation; and in this Constitution one is very clearly distinguished from the other. Apostolic Letters even in the form of a Brief; it is not added, and supplications, as in the first part. Falsely signing supplications are those who apply a false subscription or false seal to them, so that they may be held authentic. Supplications: therefore this part is restricted only to supplications. C. Ad falsariorum 7, de Crim. falsi; Bull In Coena Domini, sec. 6; Bonacina, disp. 1, q. 7.

X. Those absolving an accomplice in a shameful sin, even in the article of death, if another priest, although not approved for Confessions, can hear the Confession of the dying person without any grave infamy and scandal about to arise.

Those absolving: here the excommunication already imposed by Benedict XIV is changed and enlarged; he imposed it against those daring, presuming to absolve, absolving by rash daring. Cf. 1280 ff.; E.M.

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

Those usurping ecclesiastical goods here are those who authoritatively occupy them from the owner as their own, i.e., as if they had right in them. Hence thieves are not comprehended, who, although they themselves invade another's thing, nevertheless invade it as another's, claiming no right in it by which they might retain it as occupied and belonging to themselves. Holy Office, March 9, 1870; Roncaglia, de Cens., tract 4, chap. 4, q. 2, resp. 1. Nor indeed are those comprehended who acquire ecclesiastical goods usurped by others by purchase, donation, or any other contract, although they sin gravely both against justice and against religion; yet they incur the censure imposed by Trent, Holy Office, July 8, 1874, which moreover declared: "usurpers of ecclesiastical goods of this kind are bound only by the excommunication specially reserved to the Roman Pontiff," by force of the present Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, and not also by the excommunication simply reserved by force of the Council of Trent. Sequestrating here are called those who by judicial office and jurisdiction unjustly commit a thing to some third person to be guarded, or guard it themselves, and thus impede it from remaining under the power of him to whom it pertains, and from being freely used by him. Sequestrating: therefore judges are excommunicated. For sequestration has all its force from the mandate of a judge. Sequestrating here are also those who detain a thing by force of sequestration. The plaintiff also seems to be comprehended, for according to common usage he is well said to sequester.

Jurisdiction, even temporal, as is clear from the whole context and because it is said absolutely. Goods, whether immovable or movable. Revenues, whatever the thing bears, or whatever is received with regard to the thing; but by no means proceeds and income from elsewhere, such as daily distributions. Pertaining to ecclesiastical persons: hence those usurping or sequestrating the goods of pious places, namely hospitals, lay confraternities, etc., do not incur this censure, although they are subject to the Tridentine censure. The same must be said of goods which pertain to churches, but not to ecclesiastical persons, e.g., goods destined for repairing a church, performing divine things, relieving the poor, dowering girls, etc.

By reason of their churches or benefices, whether secular or regular; therefore the present excommunication is not incurred if there is question of goods pertaining to ecclesiastical persons, but for another reason. Nor is it incurred if someone usurps or sequestrates these same things while the benefice is vacant; for the present excommunication seems to provide first of all for the ecclesiastical persons themselves: pertaining to ecclesiastical persons.

Of churches: hence those usurping or sequestrating the goods of monasteries do not incur the present censure by force of this clause. Universally and speaking per se, the goods of monasteries do not pertain to ecclesiastical persons, namely to religious, by reason of their churches or benefices, for instance the goods of a College of religious in which boys are educated, etc. The goods of monasteries pertain to no ecclesiastical persons, but pertain either to the Monasteries themselves or to the Roman Church. Of benefices: hence again those usurping or sequestrating the goods or revenues of lay chaplaincies do not incur this censure. For they are not benefices in the true sense, and are resolved into pious foundations or pious legacies. But those usurping or sequestrating the goods or revenues of benefices which are of lay patronage do incur it. For they are benefices accepted in the strict sense, although they are liable to the servitude of patrons, who have the right of presenting the beneficed person when they have become vacant, the right to certain prerogatives of honor, and some right to support if they should tend toward want. C. Generali Constitutione 13, de Electione et elect. potest., in VI; Bull In Coena Domini, sec. 17; Bonacina, disp. 1, q. 18; Suarez, disp. 21, sec. 2, seventeenth censure; Ferraris, v. Bona, art. 1, n. 13 ff.; E.M.

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

Invading, namely by force applied; for to invade is to enter by force or by an attack, although it is not intended to withdraw that city from the dominion of the Pope, nor to injure the right of the Church in anything. Destroying, in whole or in part. Detaining, whether they themselves invaded, or retain what has been received from others, as e.g., heirs, if nevertheless without greater public harm and without greater harm of the temporal Principate itself of the Roman Pontiff they can at once abandon it; and unless at least tacit consent of the Roman Pontiff himself is added, as seems to have been added for several places enumerated in the Bull In Coena Domini. In this matter the one legitimate judge is the Roman Pontiff himself. Either by themselves or through others refers to the three preceding things. From this head, only male Princes incur this excommunication; not likewise Senators and Deputies, since they retain not as individuals, but as Orders. Rights, i.e., temporal and supreme, principal rights, such as the right of imposing taxes, creating magistrates, etc. Pertaining to the Roman Church, not to private persons, even of the Supreme Pontiff.

Usurping, i.e., ascribing to themselves as their own supreme jurisdiction. Disturbing, e.g., those who directly impede laws from being made, promulgated, and committed to execution in these places; those who promote rebellion, etc., striving to change the established government or to weaken and diminish supreme jurisdiction; not others. Retaining, i.e., exercising supreme jurisdiction de facto in place of the legitimate Prince, thus impeding his jurisdiction. Supreme temporal jurisdiction, namely that which belongs only to the Prince, or supreme governor, that which belongs to the Supreme Pontiff as he is Prince, concerning matters of greater moment, such as cases of State, blood, confiscation of goods, etc. In them, i.e., in the aforesaid cities, lands, and places.

For each of the aforesaid things, namely for invading, destroying cities, etc., usurping, disturbing, retaining supreme jurisdiction, etc. Furnishing help, namely by proximate cooperation, and with all grave fear, coercion, and proportionate grave inconvenience excusing set aside, whether one's own or public. Those furnishing help or favor in retaining are by no means those who stand for the usurpers only in opinion, without doing anything by actual and formal cooperation or adhesion. Encyclical of Pius IX, November 1, 1870; March 26, 1860; Sacred Penitentiary, December 10, 1860. But those furnishing help or favor in retaining are those who furnish some work which proximately confirms the usurpers in detention, e.g., by giving money, by denouncing persons influential among the people, by spreading writings among the people for changing popular opinion, etc.

But here the question is whether those who hold public offices furnish help and favor in retaining. Now these are of two kinds: for some are merely civil, namely those which pertain to the necessities and usefulness of citizens; others are political, which look to protecting the government itself of the whole nation. It is lawful to take up offices of the first kind, since they directly and per se do not tend to approving or confirming the usurper, but only to preserving public order, which the usurper himself ought to preserve from the very nature of society, which cannot ruin itself. But as regards offices of the other kind, the Sacred Penitentiary, October 10, 1860, to the thirteenth general question, "Whether offices can be retained and taken up under an intruded Government," responded that "it can be tolerated, provided there is not question of offices which directly and proximately influence the spoliation, or the maintenance of the same spoliation, and provided they can be exercised without danger of injury to divine and ecclesiastical laws." And thus those directly and proximately influence the maintenance of the spoliation by office who hold the first or supreme magistracy in any province, etc. Instruction of Pius VII, May 22, 1809; June 10, 1809. The cited Encyclical of Pius IX, Respicientes, November 1, 1870, which was issued after the constitution Apostolicae Sedis, explicitly extends excommunication also to other cooperators: to those commanding, favorers, helpers, counselors, adherents, procurers, executors. Bull In Coena Domini, sec. 20; Bonacina, disp. 1, q. 21.

From all these excommunications listed up to this point, We declare that absolution is reserved, and is to be reserved, to the Roman Pontiff existing for the time in a special manner; and that for it a general concession of absolving from cases and censures, or excommunications, reserved to the Roman Pontiff, in no way suffices; moreover, with any indults whatsoever revoked with respect to them, granted under any form and to any persons, even Regulars of whatever Order, Congregation, Society, and Institute, even worthy of special mention and established in any dignity. But those presuming to absolve without due faculty, even under any pretext whatsoever, should know themselves bound by the bond of excommunication reserved to the Roman Pontiff, provided there is not question of the article of death, in which nevertheless the obligation remains firm, as regards those absolved, of standing by the mandates of the Church if they recover. Cf. 799; E.M.

Excommunications latae sententiae reserved in a special manner to the Roman Pontiff, which accrued to the constitution Apostolicae Sedis.

XIII. From the constitution of Pius IX, Romanus Pontifex, August 28, 1873, paragraph Confidimus and following, A.S.S., vol. 7, p. 104, excommunication latae sententiae, specially reserved to the Roman Pontiff, is imposed: 1. on the Dignities and Canons of vacant Cathedral Churches, and on those who, Chapters being lacking, depute Vicars of the vacant Church, or legitimately administer vacant Churches, who, the Capitular Vicar having been removed, before exhibition of the Apostolic Letters, have dared to concede and transfer to one nominated and presented by the lay power to the same Church its care, governance, and administration under any title, name, or sought color. 2. On those nominated and presented to vacant churches, who dare to assume their governance and administration from the aforesaid concession and transfer performed to them by Dignities and Canons and others of whom above. 3. And also on those who have obeyed the foregoing, or have furnished help, counsel, or favor, of whatever state, condition, preeminence, and dignity they may be.

Bishops are excluded from this excommunication. Cf. n. 1237, 1246; A.S.S., vol. 7, p. 401.

Those violating the Pontifical secret, or the so-called secret of the Holy Office, are bound by excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, with even the Major Penitentiary excluded, except in the article of death. Among others, examiners of the writings and books of Servants of God are bound to observe this secret, and those who discharge some office in the Consistorial Congregation. Order to be observed in the Roman Curia, particular norms, art. 2, n. 4; E.M., On the Second Precept of the Decalogue, 555.

The same penalty of excommunication, reserved exclusively to the Supreme Pontiff, is incurred by those violating secrecy in all those things which pertain to the election of the Roman Pontiff, and in those things which are done in the Conclave or place of election. And the same excommunication is also incurred by all those who incur some excommunication imposed and inflicted by the constitution of Pius X, Vacante Sede, concerning the vacant Apostolic See and the election of the Roman Pontiff, December 25, 1904, such as, e.g., those who, in the aforesaid election, would receive the office of proposing a Veto or Exclusive of some civil power, and would reveal it in any way, nn. 51, 81.

We declare subject to excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Roman Pontiff:

I. Those teaching or defending, whether publicly or privately, propositions condemned by the Apostolic See under 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, July 7, 1745; Ubi primum, June 2, 1746; Ad eradicandum, September 28, 1746.

Teaching: to teach, as to believe, is not the same as to put into practice; these two can very well be distinguished in reality or in fact. To teach properly is simply to hand down and persuade some doctrine, whether by private or public teaching. Therefore, if someone only says that he holds that this or that proposition ought not to have been condemned, he does not incur this excommunication. Defending: to defend is to undertake patronage of them, by vindicating them from attacks and contrary reasons, as if they were unworthy of condemnation. Publicly, by public school, university, conference, disputation, etc. This twofold addition, whether publicly or privately, placed at the end, affects each thing which precedes, teaching or defending, as is established from the obvious sense. By the Apostolic See, namely by the Supreme Pontiff, not by the Index, not by the Sacred Congregation of the Index, not by an Ecumenical Council. Under penalty of excommunication latae sententiae. Therefore there is question here of the Roman Pontiff condemning ex cathedra under penalty of excommunication latae sententiae, although reservation is not added; for first, this is not held in the Constitution; then, this part of the article would become useless.

Likewise those teaching, etc. Benedict XIV in the constitution Suprema thoroughly reproves the practice of seeking the name of an accomplice, with denial of sacramental absolution also denounced unless it is revealed; there is question of an accomplice not only in a shameful matter, but in any sin. For the law speaks absolutely. In the constitution Ubi primum, the penalty of excommunication by the very fact and reserved to the Roman Pontiff is imposed on anyone who "has dared to teach that a practice of this kind is licit." In the constitution Ad eradicandum, the Pontiff decrees and declares "that the mentioned practice in itself, and everywhere in places and times, has been reproved and condemned by Apostolic Authority and must be judged such." Therefore two things, as is clear, are required so that someone incur excommunication of this kind: 1. that he teach or defend that this practice is licit; 2. that he teach or defend that each together is licit, i.e., both to inquire into the name of the accomplice and to deny absolution to one keeping silent. But it is not necessary that he teach or defend these things with daring and presumption. For it is said, as it was condemned by Benedict XIV, etc., namely the practice; not, to teach or defend.

If confessors by threats of absolution to be denied have compelled penitents to reveal the accomplice, Benedict XIV ordered that they be denounced to the Sacred Inquisition as suspected in faith, yet not by the penitents themselves, but by others who knew it from elsewhere than from their own Confession.

But to this matter pertain the things which are had in the Motu Proprio of Pius X: "Besides these things, in order to repress the daily more daring spirits of many modernists, who by sophisms and artifices of every kind strive to take away all force and efficacy not only from the Decree Lamentabili sane exitu, which the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition, by Our command, issued on July 3 of the current year, but also from Our Encyclical Letters Pascendi Dominici gregis, given on the eighth day of September of this same year, by Our Apostolic Authority We repeat and confirm both that Decree of the Sacred Supreme Congregation and those Our Encyclical Letters, with the penalty of excommunication added against contradictors; and We declare and decree this: if anyone, may God avert it, should advance to such boldness as to defend any one of the propositions, opinions, and doctrines reproved in either document of which We spoke above, he is struck by that very fact with the censure imposed in the heading Teaching of the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, which is the first among excommunications latae sententiae simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff. But this excommunication is to be understood with the penalties preserved into which those who commit anything against the mentioned documents can incur as propagators and defenders of heresies, if sometimes their propositions, opinions, or doctrines are heretical; this has indeed happened more than once concerning the adversaries of either of those documents, and especially when they defend the errors of the modernists, that is, the collection of all heresies." Pius X, Motu Proprio Praestanti Scripturae, November 18, 1907.

Is it so forbidden by the aforesaid letters of Benedict XIV to ask the name of an accomplice that this is lawful in no case? R. Negatively, 1. because Benedict XIV himself supposes cases in which this is lawful according to true and sound doctrines; 2. because sometimes the confessor ought to ask about circumstances from which, although per accidens, he comes into knowledge of the accomplice; and sometimes the penitent himself is bound to manifest the accomplice to the Superior, or to another, and yet he cannot furnish this except through the confessor. L., book 6, nn. 491, 499; Ithur., case 31; Lugo, De Poenit., disp. 16, nn. 432, 433.

Is this lawful also for correction or for the public good? R. To the first, negatively. This is established 1. from the constitutions of Benedict XIV in the places cited; 2. because even correction of this kind would render the sacrament of penance odious to the faithful, is harmful to the reputation of neighbors, and contains danger of violation of the sacramental seal. To the second, one must distinguish: if there is question of impeding public harm, affirmatively, namely if this is the one necessary means; but if there is question of merely promoting the public good, negatively, for the same reasons.

Does a confessor sin gravely if he asks the name of an accomplice, but not under penalty of absolution to be denied? An imprudent question of this kind from curiosity, levity, or another similar cause would be excused from mortal sin, grave defamation of the neighbor and grave scandal of the penitent nevertheless set aside. The reason is that those grave reasons would then be lacking which have just been explained, cf. 1180, and which Benedict XIV enumerates in his constitution Suprema.

We must treat: 1. of its nature and division; 2. of its effects; 3. of excommunications in particular.

956. • Definition. Excommunication is a censure through which someone is deprived of the communion of the Church; or, a censure by which a Christian is deprived, either entirely or in part, of the common spiritual goods of the Church, the distribution of which belongs to her ¹.

¹ Since the goods in which the faithful communicate among themselves are of a threefold kind, namely: 1. internal; 2. merely external; 3. mixed; the Church by excommunicating deprives one only of communion in goods of the second and third kinds.

Under the old law it was distinguished into: 1. major excommunication, which deprives one of all the common goods of the Church ²; 2. minor excommunication, which deprived one only of certain goods. But this latter must be said to have been abolished through the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis. For in it it is said: By this Constitution, to remain in force perpetually, We decree that, of whatever censures, whether of excommunication, suspension, or interdict, which up to this time have been imposed after the manner of a latae sententiae penalty and to be incurred by the fact itself, only those which We insert in this very Constitution, and in the manner in which We insert them, shall henceforth possess force. But that which is called minor excommunication, concerning which see the following number, question 2, is in no manner inserted in the aforesaid Constitution. Therefore. Nevertheless, the cessation of this penalty does not effect the cessation also of the fault which one incurs by communicating with an excommunicated person to be avoided.

² By the name of excommunication in law, Major Excommunication is almost always understood, as St. Alphonsus also notes from the common opinion (book 7, no. 133); nevertheless, before Gregory IX, Minor Excommunication was also at times included. See Schmalzgrueber (book 5, title 39, no. 119).

But the word anathema is used in the Sacred Canons sometimes to distinguish it from minor excommunication, as in chapter Engellrudam 12, cause 8, question 4; sometimes to signify excommunication inflicted on account of heresy or suspicion of it; finally, to signify certain solemnities, as, for example, when an excommunication is denounced with candles lit and afterward extinguished, and with other ceremonies instituted by the Church (Schmalzgrueber, loc. cit., no. 117).

Of those excommunicated by major excommunication, some are called tolerated, whom the faithful are not bound to avoid; others are called not tolerated, or persons to be avoided, whom the faithful ought to avoid ³.

³ Under the ancient law, whoever had incurred major excommunication imposed either a iure or ab homine was to be avoided, with this difference alone: that those whose excommunication was public and notorious were to be avoided publicly; but those whose excommunication was not publicly known were to be avoided only privately by those who were aware of it. A trace of this discipline also exists in chapter Cum non ab homine 14, On the Sentence of Excommunication. But under the new law, in order to prevent various sins and scandals which it was observed could befall timorous consciences, it was granted to the faithful of Christ that no one should be bound to abstain from communion with anyone bound by any censure, whether a iure or ab homine, unless a sentence against a certain person had been specifically and expressly published by a judge, or unless it was so notoriously established that he had incurred excommunication imposed by the canon through a sacrilegious laying of hands upon a cleric that the fact could not be concealed by any evasion or excused by any defense.

In the Constitution of the Council of Constance approved by Martin V, through which this new law was introduced, these words also are added (as it is recited in the Council of Basel and the Bull of Leo X in the Lateran Council): Nevertheless, through this We do not intend in any respect to relieve excommunicated, suspended, interdicted, or prohibited persons of this kind, nor in any manner to aid them. From these words there exists the common doctrine of all that no advantage which censured persons can claim by law comes to them from the aforesaid Constitution.

957. • Questions. - QUESTION 1. In order that an excommunicated person to be avoided ought to be avoided, is it necessary that he be publicly known as such?

Reply. Affirmatively. For it does not suffice that you know he is to be avoided, but it is required in addition that the fact of that excommunication be truly notorious, namely, that he has been excommunicated by name and publicly by a competent judge, or denounced as already bound by excommunication. - St. Alphonsus, no. 137. But he is excommunicated by name who is designated by his expressed name in words or signs so indubitable that he is altogether distinguished from others. - St. Alphonsus, no. 136.

But it must be noted that, although you are not bound to avoid an excommunicated person who has not been denounced, nevertheless, you can avoid him, even publicly, if he is publicly known as excommunicated ⁴. - St. Alphonsus, no. 157.

⁴ The reason was given above, namely, that the faculty granted to the faithful of not avoiding an excommunicated person of this kind is only in their favor, not for any advantage of his.

But one who has laid sacrilegious hands upon a Cleric is excepted, in such a way that his offense can neither be concealed by any evasion nor excused by any means. Hence he immediately, and before the sentence itself of the judge, incurs excommunication and ought to be avoided. Thus expressly Martin V in the Bull Ad evitanda scandala ⁵.

⁵ This Constitution, as it is inserted in the Acts of the Council of Basel and in the Bull of Leo X in the Lateran Council, and as Navarre also read it (Manual, chapter 27, no. 35), in its latter part commands that not merely notorious strikers of Clerics, but absolutely all persons notoriously excommunicated, although not denounced by name, are to be avoided. Hence Fagnanus (on chapter Quod a Praedecessore, On Schismatics, no. 55) contends that whoever is certainly recognized by the notoriety of the fact to have fallen into excommunication is to be avoided. But Navarre himself (loc. cit.) testifies that this was received by custom only with respect to notorious strikers of Clerics (as the Constitution appears to have been issued in the Council of Constance). But Fagnanus's opinion is commonly rejected, as Benedict XIV says (On the Diocesan Synod, book 12, chapter 5, no. 4), who then confirms this by the vote of many Doctors.

Benedict XIV adds (ibid.) that it is remarkable that the Acts of the Council of Constance in no Collection whatever of Councils make even the slightest mention of this Constitution, whose entire authority would therefore be derived from the testimony of St. Antoninus. But what he himself found neither in Labbe nor in Vonderhardt nor in the Supplements of Mansi did in fact exist in Hardouin (Councils, volume 8, column 892), from whom it was afterward also received into the very ample new Collection of Councils (volume 27, column 1189).

Moreover, the common opinion, which excepts only notorious strikers of clerics, is established from these words of the Constitution itself: Except if it is established that someone, for sacrilege and the laying of hands upon the clergy, has fallen under a sentence imposed by the canon so notoriously that the fact cannot be concealed by any evasion nor excused by any defense of law. For We will that communion with him, although he has not been denounced, be abstained from, according to the canonical sanctions.

QUESTION 2. What must be held concerning MINOR EXCOMMUNICATION, now abrogated?

Reply. Hold these few things:

1. It was not incurred except on account of communication with a person to be avoided. Hence, in the present discipline of the Church it is exceedingly rare, since excommunicated persons to be avoided appear very rarely^†.

2. It deprived one only of the reception of the Sacraments ⁶, and of passive election to benefices and dignities of the Church. Hence it did not deprive one of the faculty of administering the Sacraments. And therefore one who, entangled in such an excommunication, administered the Sacraments sinned neither gravely nor, more probably, venially.

⁶ By violating this precept one sinned gravely, from chapter Si celebrat, final, On an Excommunicated Cleric, which reads thus: If one bound by minor excommunication celebrates, although he sins gravely, he incurs no mark of irregularity; nor is he prohibited from electing or from exercising those things which belong to him by reason of jurisdiction. See Schmalzgrueber (book 5, title 39, no. 198).

3. Any Priest approved by the Bishop could absolve from it. For usage had thus prevailed. - Thus all.

958. • QUESTION 3. Was grave fault required for incurring minor excommunication?

Reply. Negatively; but a fully deliberate venial fault sufficed ⁷. The reason adduced was that it does not deprive one of so notable a good, and absolution from it can most easily be obtained from any Priest. Nevertheless, the fault on account of which minor excommunication had been inflicted could not be omitted in confession, although it was venial, because it impeded reception of the Sacrament. - St. Alphonsus, nos. 153, 154.

⁷ I think that this must be understood of a venial sin by reason of slightness of matter, as because the communication is slight, in some salutation, conversation, or common table; but if the sin is venial by reason of imperfect deliberation and advertence, it seems to me more probable that the censure is not incurred. Suarez (On Censures, disputation 24, section 3, no. 3).

959. • Eight effects of excommunication are numbered ⁸, namely: 1. deprivation of the Sacraments; 2. deprivation of divine Offices; 3. deprivation

⁸ These effects of excommunication are called immediate, which the Doctors distinguish from others which they call mediate. But these are:

1. Irregularity, which anyone bound by major excommunication incurs when he exercises an act of some Order, for example, by conferring sacraments, etc. Concerning this below, where Irregularity is treated.

2. Suspicion of heresy, which he incurs who contumaciously persists, or grows sordid, in excommunication for an entire year; the reason is that he is presumed to think wrongly concerning the power of the Church, while he cares nothing either for the censures imposed by her or for the sacraments which are omitted by him contrary to the precept of the Church. See Bonacina (On Censures, disputation 2, question 2, final part, no. 2) and Suarez (On Censures, disputation 17, section 1, no. 6). And to this pertains that statement of the Council of Trent (session 25, On Reformation, chapter 3): If, hardened in mind and bound by censures, he has grown sordid in them for a year, it may be possible to proceed even against him as one suspected of heresy. Nevertheless, La Croix (book 7, no. 287), whom St. Alphonsus followed (book 7, no. 157), without reason transfers this to all censures; for the context of the Council expressly regards excommunicated persons. But two things are to be noted. The first is that this must be understood of excommunicated persons denounced by name. Thus Covarruvias (on chapter Alma, part 1, section 7, no. 10), Sayrus (On Censures, book 2, chapter 10, no. 10), Marius Alterius (On Censures, book 2, disputation 8, chapter 3), Ugolinus (On Censures, table 1, chapter 14, section 3, no. 34), etc. The other is that this is a light suspicion, even though it suffices for enjoining purgation upon the accused. See Schmalzgrueber (book 5, title 39, no. 195).

3. Proof of the offense or cause on account of which excommunication was imposed. For one who has been excommunicated by a judge on account of a civil or criminal cause and perseveres in that excommunication for a year, without showing any impediment or sign of satisfaction, ought to be held as convicted and confessed from chapter Rursus 36 and following chapter 37, cause 11, question 3; because that contumacy is regarded as confession by a fiction of law. Nevertheless, he is permitted to allege and prove his innocence. Schmalzgrueber (book 5, title 39, no. 196).

4. Deprivation of benefices obtained, if there is question of an ecclesiastical person and the crime for which he was cited beforehand is worthy of such deprivation. Concerning this matter Schmalzgrueber (book 5, title 39, no. 197) thus briefly presents the common doctrine: An excommunicated person persevering for three years in excommunication with a hardened mind ought to be deprived by the judge of all benefices; because he is unworthy to enjoy the fruits of the Church who exists in such rebellion against her, and thus the Pontiff acted in chapter Cum bonae 8, On Age and Quality.... On account of perseverance for a year, although judges can inflict this penalty of deprivation of benefices, nevertheless they are not bound to do so, because this obligation is nowhere provided in law.

** Against that which is said in this Note, no. 2, namely, that Croix without reason transfers to all censures that which the laws and the Doctors say concerning excommunication, namely, that he becomes suspected of heresy who grows sordid in it for a year, the VV. object first of all (page 877) that Croix proves this from the cited text of Trent not directly but indirectly, saying: It applies also to other censures.

Reply. The VV. plainly strive by these things to defend the Holy Doctor Alphonsus, who says that this is proved by Croix from Trent. For thus the Holy Doctor writes (book 7, no. 157): To grow sordid is to persevere for a year with a pertinacious mind and with contempt of the power of the Church in the same excommunication, or in another censure, as Croix says, book 7, no. 287, and proves from Trent, session 25, chapter 3.

But Croix does indeed prove from Trent what it is to grow sordid, but nothing else. For thus he says (book 7, no. 287): Insordescence is said principally by reason of excommunication; nevertheless it also applies to other censures. But according to the Council of Trent cited in no. 18, he is said to be growing sordid in a censure who with a pertinacious mind and with contempt of ecclesiastical power perseveres in the censure for a year. But if from Trent he had wished also to prove what he adds concerning other censures, he would have joined the citation of Trent to those preceding words, nevertheless it also applies to other censures, which he added of his own accord and contrary to the opinion of all the Doctors, and would not have appended it to the following period. But Croix can be excused only insofar as he wished to indicate that contumacy, which we shall call insordescence, can occur also in those who have been bound by another censure; which indeed all knew, even if he had remained silent about it.

Moreover, to what purpose would Croix have invoked Trent for that empty and groundless addition, when Trent treats merely of one excommunicated? For thus reads the Decree of the Council (loc. cit.): But any excommunicated person, if after legitimate warnings he has not come to his senses, is not only not to be received to the Sacraments and the communion and familiar association of the faithful; but if, hardened in mind and bound by censures, he has grown sordid in them for a year, it may be possible to proceed even against him as one suspected of heresy. Indeed, these words of Trent are so far from being capable of application to those bound by another censure as it is abhorrent to the law and custom of the Church that one merely suspended or interdicted cannot be received into the communion and familiar association of the faithful.

But what is the chief point, Croix in his definition of insordescence omitted that which was to be noted before all else, namely, that in the Decree of Trent there is question of one against whom, after a judicial cause had been instituted, the penalty of excommunication had been imposed by name and ab homine on account of contumacy. Although these things afterward can in some manner be inferred from those which the same Croix (loc. cit., nos. 288-291) subjoins concerning diverse causes, nevertheless, since this is entirely omitted in St. Alphonsus, his opinion, thus expressed in general words, can easily lead to absurd conclusions, namely, even to any censures imposed a iure.

To defend that anomalous extension by Croix of the Decree of Trent to any censure, the VV. (page 878) thus argue: Before the Council of Trent the Canonists commonly held that any excommunicated person persevering in excommunication for a year becomes suspected of heresy, although this was not expressed in law. But if it was lawful for them, on account of identity of reason, to extend a particular case circumscribed by certain conditions to all cases of excommunication, by the same right it is certainly lawful to extend the disposition of the Council of Trent to the other censures on account of the same identity.

Reply. With the historical part omitted: 1. I deny the antecedent; 2. I deny the consequence. I said, with the historical part omitted, because the VV. will never prove that it had not been received by usage that, even before Trent, proceedings were taken as against persons suspected of heresy against those contumacious for a year after, on account of another preceding contumacy, they had already been excommunicated by name and publicly. Wherefore, even if not by written law, it can nevertheless deservedly be supposed that this had already been introduced by custom.

But I said, I deny the Antecedent, that is, that the Canonists extended a particular case to all cases of excommunication. For in order that there be an extension properly so called, it is required that the same disposition of law and, in the present case, the same penalty be extended to another cause or other subjects. But in the present matter we have in no way either a common penalty or a common cause between the two cases. And this becomes plain in a few words. For the disposition of law which the VV. say was extended by the Canonists to other cases is of this kind (chapter Cum Contumacia 7, On Heretics, in the Sext): Since contumacy (especially in a cause of faith) adds a vehement presumption to suspicion, if one suspected of heresy, summoned by you so that he may answer concerning the faith, has been bound by you with the bond of excommunication (because he evades obedience or contumaciously absents himself), which he endures with a pertinacious mind for a year, let him then be condemned as a heretic. Therefore: 1. the penalty threatened here is the condemnation of the guilty party as a heretic; 2. the crime or cause for which someone had been cited is suspicion of heresy. But in the other case: 1. the crime or cause for which the contumacious person after citation was excommunicated is not suspicion of heresy; 2. the penalty which is threatened against the contumacious person even after excommunication is not the penalty proper to a heretic, but only that the guilty party can thereafter be cited as one suspected of heresy. Therefore nothing is common between case and case, and accordingly no extension properly so called is present here. But much less will even a certain shadow of this extension be found if, with the VV. after Croix and St. Alphonsus, you transfer that aforesaid disposition of law TO ALL CASES OF EXCOMMUNICATION, when the Decree of Trent, as we have already said, regards solely one contumacious for a year in that special excommunication which a judge had inflicted on account of the preceding contumacy of the guilty party, namely, because the guilty party did not obey a citation on account of another cause, whether civil or criminal.

I said in addition, I deny the Consequence, namely, that it is lawful to extend the disposition of Trent concerning a contumacious person excommunicated by name to those bound by lesser censures. For that proceedings can be taken against someone as one suspected of heresy is a most grave penalty. But according to the rules of Law, odious things are to be restricted. And indeed, according to Rule 49 in the Sext, a more benign interpretation is to be made in penalties; and according to Rule 155, section final, Digest, On Law, in penal causes a more benign interpretation is to be made; and law 42, Digest, On Penalties, says that by the interpretation of laws penalties are to be mitigated rather than made harsher; much more, therefore, a penal law ought not to be extended to those cases which the law does not touch in even the slightest degree and which are established to be of much less gravity. And again, even if that were true which, speaking precisely, ought to be called false, namely, that before the Council of Trent the Canonists extended to certain other excommunications (but not all, as the VV. say without reason) that which had been established in chapter Cum Contumacia, nevertheless no canon permits us to attribute to the authority of Claude La Croix, introducing this new doctrine without any foundation of reasons or authorities, that weight which we know ought to be attributed to the common doctrine of the Canonists, which the Council of Trent also confirmed.

3. deprivation of the suffrages of the Church; 4. deprivation of ecclesiastical burial; 5. deprivation of ecclesiastical jurisdiction; 6. deprivation of benefices; 7. deprivation of forensic communication; 8. deprivation of civil society.

The goods of which excommunication deprives one are comprised in these little verses:

Sacred things, rites, communion, burial place, power, Sacred estates, court, civil rights are forbidden.

960. • Excommunication deprives one both of the right to receive the Sacraments and of the right to administer them ⁹. Hence you will resolve:

⁹ The Author, in order to consult brevity, wished to treat jointly of this twofold effect of excommunication, namely, the removal of both the passive and active use of the sacraments; and since each case involves a twofold cause, namely, both that of the excommunicated person and that of the other who either confers the sacraments upon the excommunicated person or asks for the sacraments from him, and in addition since in many matters the case of an excommunicated person to be avoided is one thing, but that of a tolerated person another, it is no wonder that the Author's treatment, very brief in itself, became obscure and exceedingly meager.

Therefore, with respect to the removed passive use of the sacraments, let these things be noted more distinctly.

1. An excommunicated person, even a tolerated one, is barred from receiving the sacraments and sins gravely by violating this prohibition of the Church. Nevertheless, from this illicit reception he incurs no penalty except suspension from the Order which he receives in that state. Schmalzgrueber (book 5, title 39, no. 128) and St. Alphonsus (book 7, no. 160). From the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, this penalty has ceased.

2. Not only inculpable ignorance, but also fear of death, mutilation, infamy, grave loss of goods, etc., excuses the excommunicated person from that fault; and also the necessity of fulfilling the annual precepts of Confession and Communion, if there is no one who can absolve him from the reserved censure. The reason is that an ecclesiastical law does not bind so rigorously and with such grave inconvenience. St. Alphonsus (no. 158) with the common opinion of the Doctors.

3. Although illicitly, indeed sacrilegiously, nevertheless an excommunicated person validly receives the sacraments, Penance excepted. Although even this sacrament will be valid if the penitent, otherwise disposed, approaches in good faith; which can happen either because he himself, through inculpable ignorance or forgetfulness, does not disclose the censure; or because the priest is ignorant of or does not advert to the censure annexed to the sin; or even, while adverting to it and indeed to one reserved, nevertheless without the faculty, thinks that the penitent is to be absolved from the non-reserved sins on account of the aforesaid necessity; or even through malice absolves a penitent who thinks that the priest does not lack the faculty of absolving.

4. Since the excommunicated person sins by receiving the sacraments before he is absolved, by that very fact the minister who knowingly confers the sacraments upon him sins.

5. If the excommunicated person to whom the sacraments are given is tolerated, the minister (as the Author well notes) indeed sins against divine law, but not against the law of the Church. But if he is a person to be avoided, not only does the minister violate the law of the Church, but under the ancient law he also incurred excommunication and also interdict from entering a church, from chapter Episcoporum 8, On Privileges, in the Sext; and suspension from office was added besides if these excommunicated persons had been excommunicated on account of heresy or as supporters of heretics; nor was such a minister to be restored to office without the Pope's dispensation, from chapter Excommunicamus 13, section Credentes, On Heretics. See Schmalzgrueber (book 5, title 39, no. 128). But now he will incur merely an excommunication reserved to the Pontiff if he ministers the sacraments to one excommunicated by name by the Supreme Pontiff himself. From the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, chapter Significavit 18, On the Sentence of Excommunication, and Clementine 3 under the same title.

6. Moreover, someone licitly administers the sacraments to an excommunicated person whenever, according to the things said (no. 2), the latter licitly approaches to receive them before he is absolved.

But with respect to the active use of the sacraments, these things must be held:

1. In a case of necessity an excommunicated person, whether tolerated or to be avoided, administers the sacraments both validly and licitly, for example, by absolving at the point of death.

2. Outside a case of necessity, in order that a tolerated person administer licitly, the request alone of the faithful suffices, provided that he is otherwise in the state of grace and cannot first obtain absolution from the censure. But in order that the faithful licitly request this, although some require a cause at least of great utility, others nevertheless do not think even this necessary; and St. Alphonsus (book 7, no. 165) also admits their opinion as probable.

3. But if necessity and the request of the faithful (at least tacit, according to St. Alphonsus, no. 169) are lacking, even a tolerated person sins gravely and, on account of the exercise of Holy Orders, also incurs irregularity, according to the things to be said below (St. Alphonsus, no. 171).

4. But a person to be avoided incurs irregularity even if, without necessity, he ministers the sacraments when requested by the faithful. In this case the faithful sin gravely by receiving the sacraments from him, and under the ancient law incurred minor excommunication (St. Alphonsus, no. 172).

5. Nevertheless, the person to be avoided is excused when, if he does not confer the sacrament, he incurs danger of death, mutilation, infamy, or grave loss of goods; for then, unless that threat is made in contempt of the censure, he can licitly minister the sacraments which he can validly minister, because the Church, a pious mother, is not presumed to wish to bind by her laws with such great loss. Schmalzgrueber (book 5, title 39, no. 144), St. Alphonsus (book 7, no. 170).

6. In addition, by reason of necessity, the Doctors think that an excommunicated person to be avoided can not only confer baptism upon one in danger, but also the Eucharist or Extreme Unction when the dying person cannot receive the sacrament of Penance; because, since any sacrament can make one contrite from being attrite, it will sometimes happen that, on account of the reception of the Eucharist or Extreme Unction, salvation is obtained which would not be obtained if these sacraments were not received. Schmalzgrueber (loc. cit., no. 145), St. Alphonsus (loc. cit., no. 170). Indeed, grave Doctors add that the Eucharist or Extreme Unction can licitly be given by a person to be avoided to a sick person even if the latter has received the sacrament of Penance; the reason is that it is most necessary that the sick person be helped and receive strength from it to overcome the suggestions of the devil in that moment. Schmalzgrueber (loc. cit., no. 146).

7. Finally, a parish priest to be avoided would assist at a marriage validly but illicitly, although he does not incur irregularity through this; but he would deputize another to assist not only validly but also licitly. St. Alphonsus (book 7, no. 166).

1. An excommunicated person, whether to be avoided or even tolerated, who receives or confers the Sacraments sins gravely per se; except: 1. if he confers the Sacraments in a case of necessity; 2. if, being tolerated, he confers them when asked by the faithful themselves.

2. Ministers of the Church who confer the Sacraments upon excommunicated persons, whether persons to be avoided or merely tolerated persons, sin gravely, at least per se, since they are unworthy. Nevertheless, one who confers the Sacraments only upon tolerated persons sins not against the prohibition of the Church but only against divine law. The reason is that the Church no longer prohibits communication, even in divine things, with tolerated persons. But they sin against divine law, because it is never licit to give holy things to dogs. - See St. Alphonsus, nos. 158, 165 and following.

961. • By divine Offices are understood Mass, public Processions, Vespers solemnly chanted, solemn Benediction, the consecration of Chrism, and other ceremonies of this kind which are performed by the institution of Christ or of the Church, or which are proper to the clerical Order, such as the chanting of the Epistle or Gospel with the proper vestments, and ecclesiastical burial.

962. • Hence you will resolve. - 1. Every excommunicated person is prohibited under grave obligation from hearing Mass ¹⁰ and all other divine Offices properly public, even on days of precept. This is apparent from chapter Alma 24, On the Sentence of Excommunication, in the Sext. - St. Alphonsus, no. 175.

¹⁰ At the time when Mass and the divine offices are celebrated, an excommunicated person is prohibited from entering the church. And if he is a person to be avoided, while the Sacrifice of the Mass is being offered he is to be warned to depart; but if he is unwilling, he is to be expelled even by force, if necessary. But if he cannot be expelled, the Mass, if the Canon has not yet begun, is to be broken off; and if the consecration has been performed, the consumption is to follow, and then one is to withdraw to the sacristy; if the Canon has been begun, the priest can either break off the Mass or continue it up to Communion, with the others nevertheless departing; for if they do not depart, they sin at least venially. St. Alphonsus (book 7, nos. 176-177). Under the ancient law, if the person to be avoided refused to depart, he incurred a new excommunication reserved to the Pope.

2. Nevertheless, an excommunicated person, even one to be avoided, can pray in the same place in which others pray, but separately and apart from the assembly of the faithful; he can also be present at a sermon, a reading of Sacred Scripture, and a lecture on Theology ¹¹, because these are not included under the name of divine Offices, and the Church willingly permits them to him so that he may be led to conversion. - St. Alphonsus, nos. 174, 177.

¹¹ Otherwise, the person to be avoided himself is deprived of the faculty of preaching, lecturing in theology, and publicly interpreting canon law. Schmalzgrueber (book 5, title 39, no. 132).

3. He can also use images, relics, holy water, and other sacred things, so that he may obtain the graces which he needs. Nevertheless, he does not gain the Indulgences annexed to sacred things, nor does he receive from holy water and other sacramentals the fruit which proceeds from the blessing of the Church. - St. Alphonsus, no. 174.

4. An excommunicated person bound to the canonical Hours is not dispensed from them, but ought to recite them privately; nor can he employ a companion unless he is tolerated ¹². Nor can he say, The Lord be with you; but in its place he ought to say, O Lord, hear my prayer. Nevertheless, by saying The Lord be with you, he would sin only venially. - St. Alphonsus, no. 178.

¹² Even if he is not tolerated, he can call a companion for some necessity or utility, especially if the latter is subject to him, as a chaplain to a Bishop, a servant to a master, etc.; for a servant is not deprived of communication with his master in those things in which he was bound to serve him. Schmalzgrueber (book 5, title 39, no. 181).

963. • The suffrages of the Church are either common or private. The common suffrages are those which come to the faithful from good works done in the name of the Church by her Ministers, such as Masses, the canonical Hours, and other prayers and works which are done by the Ministers of the Church insofar as they are such and are performed in the name of the Church herself. To these must also be referred the satisfactions of Christ, the Blessed Virgin, and the Saints, which constitute the treasury of the Church and are applied by the Prelates of the Church through indulgences.

The private suffrages are those which come from the good works which the faithful perform in their own name. Of this kind are fasts, prayers, and other good works which are done by private faithful or by Ministers of the Church as private persons.

964. • Hence you will resolve. - 1. Excommunicated persons to be avoided are deprived of all the common suffrages of the Church. This is apparent, because the Church by her own right prohibits prayer from being made for them ¹³, or any portion of her goods from coming to them. And this holds even if they were contrite and converted to a better life, because the excommunication still endures. - St. Alphonsus, no. 163.

¹³ The reason why prayer in the Mass for an infidel is not forbidden, while nevertheless it is forbidden for an excommunicated Christian to be avoided, must be derived solely from the precept of the Church. See above, note to no. 349.

2. Neither tolerated persons nor even persons to be avoided are deprived of private suffrages. The reason is that the faithful are not prohibited from praying privately for excommunicated persons, even in a church and in a public place; therefore they can apply to them the fruit of good works. - St. Alphonsus, no. 162.

3. Tolerated excommunicated persons are not deprived of common suffrages. The reason is that the Church no longer prohibits the faithful from communicating with tolerated persons, as is deduced from the things said above. - St. Alphonsus, no. 164.

965. • Ecclesiastical burial is that which takes place in a sacred place, or one blessed for the burial of the faithful. Hence:

1. An excommunicated person to be avoided cannot be buried in a sacred place; but if he has been buried in such a place, his body ought to be dug up, if it can still be done, and the sacred place polluted by such contact is to be expiated. - St. Alphonsus, no. 186.

2. A tolerated excommunicated person is likewise deprived of ecclesiastical burial; and if he has been buried in a sacred place, he is to be removed from it ¹⁴. Nevertheless, the place is not considered polluted and therefore does not need expiation.

¹⁴ If he gave signs of repentance, he can be buried in a sacred place, although it is fitting that he first be absolved from excommunication. But a person to be avoided who gave those signs cannot be buried in a sacred place unless he is first absolved. Schmalzgrueber (book 5, title 39, no. 127).

3. Clerics who carry forth and bury a person to be avoided incurred major excommunication under the ancient law. - Thus from the Clementine On Burial. - From the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, only those commanding and compelling it are excommunicated, as will be seen below.

966. • 1. An excommunicated person to be avoided is deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction, or rather of its exercise and use. Hence he cannot absolve in the penitential forum, nor impose laws, censures, or sentences, nor elect to benefices or confer them, etc. But if he performed such acts, they would be altogether null and invalid. - St. Alphonsus, no. 185.

2. A tolerated excommunicated person, even if notorious, validly exercises jurisdiction, because otherwise great confusion would arise in the Church. Nevertheless, his acts can be invalidated and repelled through an exception or objection of excommunication, and he himself acts illicitly outside a case of necessity or unless he has been asked; and indeed in a grave matter he cannot be excused from mortal sin. But if he has been asked, he does not sin, even if he ministers the Sacraments without cause. For since communication with tolerated persons has been conceded to the faithful, indirectly it has also been granted to these persons to communicate with the faithful who request it. Nevertheless, this holds insofar as the sacraments are requested from an excommunicated person; for insofar as they are requested from a Minister existing in mortal sin, a just cause is required in order to request them licitly. - Thus St. Alphonsus, no. 139, and book 6, no. 88.

967. • 1. Every excommunicated person, whether tolerated or to be avoided, becomes altogether incapable of obtaining ecclesiastical benefices. The reason is that a benefice is given on account of an office, but an excommunicated person is altogether incapable of an office; therefore also of a benefice. Except if the benefice were conferred by the Pope himself. - St. Alphonsus, no. 180.

2. Nevertheless, excommunication does not deprive one of a benefice already obtained, nor of its fruits before the sentence of a judge. The reason is that neither is clearly expressed in law. If, however, he neglects to obtain absolution for a year, he can be deprived of the benefice by a judge. - St. Alphonsus, ibid.

1. A certain monastery resolved to sell a certain house, which it possessed, to another monastery, which offered the price of 20,000 libellae. The negotiations of the contract had already been completed, and the Apostolic Beneplacitum was being awaited, so that the contract might be consigned to a lawful instrument and perfected. And therefore neither had the money been handed over, nor had possession of the house been handed over. Meanwhile the chapter of the cathedral church offered to the owner monastery the price of 25,000 libellae, and, the Apostolic permission having immediately been sought and obtained, it handed over the price and took possession of the house, the other monastery protesting.

Question. What is to be said in the case?

R. The later contract of the monastery with the chapter was valid and licit. It was valid, because the prior contract with the other monastery had not yet truly been a perfected and consummated contract, but only the negotiation of a contract. Negotiations concerning some contract are not the contract itself. Moreover, the purchase and sale in the case had certainly not been perfected, since, in order that it might be perfected, the Apostolic Beneplacitum to be obtained was being awaited, and the instrument had to be drawn up, not so that the contract might be perfected merely accidentally as to its form, but so that it might be perfected as to its substance. For, as is clear from the Extravagant Ambitiosae, de reb. Eccl. non alienand., renewed by the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, no private contract of parties has firm value in this matter before the Apostolic Beneplacitum accedes to it.

It was licit, however, insofar as, namely, 1. no damage thereby came to the other monastery, concerning which there is nothing in the case; and insofar as 2. the other monastery, when the matter had become known, was unwilling to offer an equal price by first increasing its own. For by natural equity, while negotiations concerning a contract are still being had, and the contract is not yet absolute and perfected, the buyer cannot demand that the seller neglect his own notable advantage by putting after it a better opportunity of selling the thing at a much dearer price. Cf. S. C. EE. et RR., 30 April 1869, A. S. S., vol. 5, p. 362 ff.

1. Frigerius, for the sake of curiosity, frequents the temples of heretics and assists at their assemblies and offices, together with other Protestants. He himself, however, is internally altogether Catholic.

It is asked: Whether Frigerius incurs excommunication?

R. First, Frigerius does not act rightly and sins. For although to go to the temples of Protestants, for the mere sake of curiosity, without any communication in sacred things, is an act indifferent in itself, and Frigerius does not internally adhere to heresy, nevertheless frequently to go to the temples of Protestants is not without scandal, nor is it without some favor toward heresy and heretics. Besides, since, by frequently going even to the temples of heretics, he is present at their assemblies and offices, there can practically be no doubt that communication in sacred things is had, nor without scandal, since Frigerius is a Catholic and is certainly regarded as such, and wishes to be regarded as such, by the very fact that internally he does not adhere to the errors of heresy. Hence certainly he cannot be excused from excommunication because of favor. This is openly confirmed from the Instruction of the Eminent Cardinal Vicar for parish priests and confessors of Rome. Cf. Enchir. Moral. 365, 367, and Commentar. in Const. Apostolicae Sedis, ed. 5, n. 9 seqq.

2. Petrus possesses an old and spacious house in Rome in the square called Navona. The Methodist Protestants would like to buy it, so that there they may open a public school and boarding house for boys and girls. Moreover that sale would be altogether useful to Petrus; nevertheless he does not wish at all to complete it before he is certain of its liceity.

It is asked: 1.º What is cooperation in sin, and is it licit? - 2.º Whether Petrus licitly sells the house in the Case? - 3.º Insofar as the response to the second is negative, whether he also incurs excommunication?

R. To the 1st. Cooperation in sin is to concur by some work in the sin of another. As it is illicit to sin, so also it is illicit to cooperate by direct will in sin; and then the cooperation is called formal. But if the cooperation is not toward the sin, but toward some other work which is ordered by the sinner to the sin, the cooperation is material, and consequently in itself is not illicit. But from the circumstances its liceity or illiceity in the concrete is to be defined.

To the 2nd. Negatively. For there is a sufficiently proximate cooperation, the circumstances considered, toward public harm, through the instruction of boys and girls in Protestantism, especially since the place is very favorable for a school and boarding house of this sort for attracting several families and for gathering boys and girls in no small number. Besides, public scandal is present, namely if it becomes known that a Roman and a Catholic sold a house in Rome to Protestants in the most principal square of the City, so that there a school and boarding house of Protestants might be established.

To the 3rd. Affirmatively. For there seems no doubt that such a deed, by itself, would greatly favor heresy and its propagation in the City.

3. Cornelius, a Catholic, receives several heretical newspapers to which he is subscribed, and reads them only occasionally.

It is asked: Whether Cornelius incurs excommunication?

R. There is no doubt, speaking in itself, that it is a grave sin to read newspapers of this sort by natural law itself, on account of the grave danger of falling away from the faith. Moreover, the reading of them is positively prohibited by the General Decree of the Constitution Officiorum of Leo XIII, VIII Kal. Febr. 1896, Cap. VIII, n. 21. But as regards excommunication, the following Decision is had of the Holy Office, Apr. 21, 1880: "Whether those knowingly reading newspapers which champion heresy incur the excommunication of the second article of the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, reserved in a special mode to the Supreme Pontiff? R. Negatively." But although Cornelius, because of the reading and because of the retention of these newspapers, does not incur the aforesaid excommunication, he does indeed incur it because of favor, by reason of the subscription.

Lambertus, a priest, owed Iovinus, a priest, 1000 lire, and always deferred their payment. Iovinus cited Lambertus before the bishop, but profited nothing. For Lambertus confessed the debt, promised payment, but did not stand by his promises. Hence Iovinus cites Lambertus before the lay judge. Two priests, associates, are called as witnesses. And thus Iovinus finally obtained payment of the debt. But Lambertus was saying everywhere that Iovinus and the other two priests were excommunicated.

It is asked: What to the Case?

R. A priest can be cited, whether as defendant or as witness, both in a civil cause and in a criminal cause, before a lay judge, yet with permission first obtained from the bishop, who must permit that he be examined in the secular forum, on account of the good of public and private justice. S. C. EE. et RR., Apr. 14, 1616; July 19, 1619. Wherefore Iovinus, since he already cited Lambertus in vain before the ecclesiastical judge, is not to be disturbed if he now cites him before the lay judge, permission first having been obtained from the bishop. Likewise those two priests, witnesses in the lay judgment, are not to be disturbed if they have first obtained the bishop's permission. Moreover, although Iovinus omitted to seek permission from the bishop, he would not therefore have incurred excommunication; and the same is to be said concerning the two priests who were witnesses. Nor indeed does that excommunication fall upon the judge himself, who pronounced sentence against Lambertus. That indeed is clear from the tenor of art. VII of the first series of excommunications in C. Apostolicae Sedis, and from various Declarations of the Holy Office. Cf. Commentar. in cit. Const., ed. 5, n. 20 seq.; I. M. 1170.

1. Fabia approaches Caius, with whom she recently sinned, for the sake of making sacramental confession before him. Caius does not dare to repel her from the Sacred Tribunal, nor does he dare to absolve. "I cannot," he says, "absolve you from this sin; I do not have jurisdiction; it is necessary that you go to another." Nevertheless, greatly disturbed, he absolves her from the other sins. Caius, sincerely penitent, manifests this to his confessor, who, anxious, doubts whether Caius has incurred excommunication; and suspending resolution, before he absolves Caius or does anything else, he determines to seek counsel concerning this matter from a pious and learned friend.

It is asked: What to the Case?

R. Here first one must note what Cardinal De Lugo has, de Poenit., d. 20, n. 77. Concerning sacramental absolution it must be said that "it cannot be divided or halved, just as neither can confession itself without necessity and urgent cause, since the integrity of confession is of divine law. Whence Suarez adds that even if the superior wished, after the whole confession had been heard, to absolve directly from only the reserved sins, he could not validly do this; but either he must absolve from all sins heard, or from none, because Christ did not give such a power. Yet this does not lack difficulty, nor will it easily be proved that a priest cannot validly, although not licitly, will to absolve from these and not apply the absolution directly to the others, but to hold himself as if he had not heard them." But whatever may be of this, there is no doubt that in the Case Caius could not absolve from the sins of complicity, since in that whole matter he lacked jurisdiction. As regards the other sins, Caius did not lack jurisdiction, but it does not seem that, in the Case, Fabia was truly absolved from the other sins. For since Caius told her that he did not have jurisdiction for absolving her, Fabia in fact received absolution in bad faith, and therefore sacrilegiously. But as regards excommunication, there is no doubt that Caius incurred it in the Case. For first, although he was greatly disturbed, nevertheless since he absolved, and absolved from other sins, therefore he well adverted to what he was doing, and so well that by acting thus he surely wished to avoid excommunication. But he did not avoid excommunication, for he truly absolved an accomplice. And if that man incurs excommunication who even feigns and simulates absolving, how much more he who simply absolves an accomplice.

2. "Titianus, a priest, a slippery occasion having been given, by an unhappy fall lapsed with Anna into grave sin against the sixth precept of the Decalogue. Soon each accomplice repented of this shameful fault. Since no other priest was present there, Titianus immediately went to another place for the sake of confessing. But Anna, detained by some infirmity, could not go to another confessor. Therefore, sad and sorrowful, she earnestly begs Titianus that he hear her confession. He, doubtful and uncertain, first hesitates; on the one side he is restrained by the law of the Church prohibiting the absolving of an accomplice; but on the other side he would like to help the miserable woman, who otherwise will be without a confessor for a long time. Finally, moved by mercy, he hears Anna in confession and absolves her, thinking that the prohibition of the Church does not press in this difficult Case.

It is asked: What to the Case?

R. Titianus absolved Anna, his accomplice, altogether invalidly, since he wholly lacked jurisdiction over her. Nor did the law cease in that Case, because an invalidating law does not cease on account of any particular inconvenience whatever. From the law itself only the case of extreme necessity is excepted. Therefore Titianus incurs excommunication, unless he was excused from it by good faith. But he must warn Anna that the absolution imparted by him is null and void, so that she may repeat the confession before another." Thus P. Gury 614.

That the absolution of Titianus was altogether void is denied not without merit. For although in the Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae it is said to be altogether void, nevertheless in the same Constitution jurisdiction is taken away from the confessor as regards a sin of this sort. Wherefore, if the penitent is in good faith, as she seems to be in the Case, it is indeed altogether void as regards the sins of complicity, but by no means as regards the others. S. Poenit., May 16, 1877; I. M. 1291, 1293; Comment. in Const. Sacram. Poenit. n. 71, ed. 5.

But it is most true that an invalidating law, as is the law of Benedict XIV in the Case, does not cease on account of any particular inconvenience whatever. For "it is, as it were, contrary to the nature of an absolute incapacity introduced without restriction, and contrary to the custom of laws simply inducing incapacity, which do not receive interpretation from equity and goodness; because a law invalidating acts does not attend to particular cases and reasons, but precisely to the common reason and uniformity, to the common and necessary good and utility." Suarez, de Leg., l. 5, c. 23, n. 3.

But what is said in the resolution of the Case, namely that Titianus incurred excommunication unless he was excused from it by good faith, is precisely that which must be resolved from the proposed Case, as a matter often occurring in practice. Nor indeed would the Case be conveniently resolved practically if, to the penitent asking in the case set forth whether he incurred excommunication, the confessor were to respond thus conditionally: affirmatively, unless you acted in good faith. Now there seems no doubt that Titianus cannot be excused by good faith. For he seems to labor in this matter under an altogether crass and supine error, which does not excuse from incurring this censure. S. O., Jan. 13, 1892.

3. Fulberius and Arcontius, priests, converse among themselves about shameful matters with mutual and scandalous complacency. Wherefore both sin by deed, but without any complicity. After these committed sins, they institute confession to each other and absolve each other. Then they have a doubt whether they have incurred excommunication. For they thought that shameful speech was not certainly comprehended under the prohibition of absolving an accomplice in a sin committed against the sixth precept of the Decalogue. They did indeed doubt, but if they had known certainly that shameful speech also was comprehended, they would have abstained from that mutual confession and absolution. Moreover, they were ignorant of the Decree of the Holy Office of May 28, 1873; when afterward they came to know it by consulting Moral Institutions, they began to be troubled by still graver anxiety.

It is asked: What to the Case?

R. It seems one must say that Fulberius and Arcontius incurred excommunication. For they were not ignorant of the ecclesiastical law and the censure. They also had a doubt in the particular Case, and they acted in bad faith, and indeed in altogether vincible and crass ignorance, by absolving each other. For with such a doubt standing, they ought at least to have asked others beforehand. Nor indeed was there need to have knowledge of that Decree. For it is a question not of a new law, but of a simple Declaration of a pre-existing law, already known to them. Moreover, ignorance in the Case, if there is any, is certainly not ignorance of fact, but of law. But ignorance of law is scarcely admitted in the external forum, and censures are above all penalties of the external forum. Wherefore there is no doubt that, the matter in the Case being brought before a judge, Fulberius and Arcontius would be declared excommunicated. Cf. Commentar. in C. Sacramentum Poenitentiae n. 69, ed. 5; I. M. 1289.

4. Titius, hearing the confession of Berta, with whom, amid consolations, he had exercised touches, although not gravely shameful, recognizes that she had sinned lethally because of the interior pleasure of soul in receiving them, and nevertheless absolves her. Similarly he conducts himself with a friend, with whom he had had dishonest conversations, and together with whom, mutual solicitation having been given, he had gone to visit a bad woman. Finally he absolves Caia, his accomplice in a shameful matter, who was laboring under a long-lasting, although not dangerous, sickness; nor, with Easter time approaching and her relatives exhorting her to be refreshed by the sacred banquet, could she omit communion. No other priest was at hand, nor was there hope that another would come shortly. To this was added that therefore Titius also could not abstain from hearing her confession, lest perhaps Caia's husband be confirmed in suspicion concerning his wife's adultery with Titius himself. Indeed another time Titius, earnestly asked, absolved the same Caia, because she seemed seized by an unexpected sickness, although in the middle of confession it was learned that it was a fainting fit, and meanwhile before she was absolved another priest happened to arrive.

It is asked: 1.º What is a shameful sin, and in what sense is complicity in this sin to be understood according to the Constitution of Benedict XIV Sacramentum poenitentiae? - 2.º Whether absolution given to an accomplice is illicit only, or also invalid; and what penalties the confessor absolving an accomplice incurs? - 3.º Whether and what exception concerning absolution to be furnished to an accomplice is assigned in the same Constitution? - 4.º What is to be judged concerning the manner of acting of Titius as regards each thing, as in the Case?

R. To the 1st. A shameful sin, as regards the absolution of an accomplice, is a sin certainly grave, consummated exteriorly, against the sixth precept of the Decalogue, even if it is only touch, sight, or conversation. This is clear from the Constitution of Benedict XIV Sacramentum Poenitentiae, and from the Holy Office, May 28, 1873. But complicity is to be taken in the Case thus: that one is to the other a companion of the crime, as is had in the other Constitution of Benedict XIV Apostolici muneris. A companion, and therefore one knowing and willing with another knowing and willing. Of the crime, that is, a companion in the same exterior work gravely dishonest.

To the 2nd. Absolution given to an accomplice is illicit and at the same time invalid, as is established in each Constitution of Benedict XIV just praised. But the confessor absolving an accomplice incurs excommunication reserved in the most special mode to the Supreme Pontiff, as is had in the same Constitutions of Benedict XIV, and in the Constitution of Pius IX Apostolicae Sedis concerning censures, and also from the Declaration of the Holy Office, Apr. 4, 1871.

To the 3rd. An exception is indeed had, and it is altogether the only one, and in the cited Constitution of Benedict XIV Sacramentum Poenitentiae it is expressed thus: namely, that the accomplice not absolve the accomplice "outside the case of extreme necessity, namely at the very article of death, and then with any other priest who can perform the office of confessor being lacking." But from the other Constitution of Benedict XIV Apostolici muneris, any other priest who can perform the office of confessor is judged lacking if "another priest cannot be called or cannot approach without some grave infamy or scandal that would arise." But by this same Constitution it is declared that, if the priest who is an accomplice nevertheless absolves the accomplice at the article of death without the aforesaid necessity, the absolution is valid, although illicit, and the same priest incurs reserved excommunication.

To the 4th. Titius, absolving Berta, does not incur the aforesaid excommunication. For the sin was not grave in the notion of an external act, as is openly said in the Case. He incurs it by absolving the friend; for with him, as is drawn from the whole tenor of the Case, he had gravely dishonest conversations, whence then together, mutual solicitation having been given, they had gone to visit a bad woman. He also incurs the same excommunication by absolving Caia the first time. For although Caia labored under a long-lasting sickness, nevertheless it was not dangerous. Wherefore Caia was neither at the article nor in the danger of death. Nor indeed did Easter time constitute Caia in the aforesaid article or danger of death. Wherefore the necessity of Easter communion did not excuse Titius. From whatever source the obligation of Easter communion is had, from ecclesiastical Law only or also from divine Law, it is certain that Benedict XIV, who knew this obligation, positively excluded this case, since he excepted only the case of extreme necessity, and that at the article of death. Nor is it valid to insist that, on the one hand, Caia's relatives were exhorting her to communion, whence if she had abstained there would have been infamy for her; and that Titius, on the other hand, was pressed to hear the confession by fear of a suspicion of adultery that would arise in Caia's husband. For this twofold inconvenience of infamy does not constitute Titius and Caia in the aforesaid case of extreme necessity and at the article of death. Concerning the article of death the matter is clear. But infamy can easily be avoided. For Titius, from the Constitution of Benedict XIV Sacramentum Poenitentiae, has himself as any other priest deprived of jurisdiction. Now any other simple priest, not yet approved, lacking jurisdiction, certainly would not acquire it in the aforesaid case. Therefore neither does Titius. Besides, if another priest lacking jurisdiction were present, then Caia, with a true danger of infamy standing, could, after eliciting an act of contrition, receive Communion. Therefore she can do the same with only Titius present. Moreover, in order that the suspicion of adultery may be avoided, it is not necessary that Titius truly hear Caia's confession and absolve her; but, having been called to hear Caia's confession, if another confessor truly cannot either meanwhile or afterward be called without scandal or infamy, he himself can then, instead of hearing Caia's confession and absolving her, exhort and excite her to elicit an act of perfect contrition, and declare to her that in straits of this sort she can well receive Communion without Confession and Absolution, by the act of perfect contrition alone, lest perhaps she sin from an erroneous conscience. But Titius, absolving Caia a second time, incurs no excommunication. For her confession truly was in danger of death, although only an apparent one. Real and apparent danger of death are the same here, provided nevertheless, as in the Case, that danger was prudently judged; for otherwise there would be danger to the salvation of souls. Besides, no other confessor was present at that moment. Wherefore Titius could then well hear the confession. The confession having been begun, although afterward both that danger vanishes and another confessor is present, he can by right complete it and absolve Caia. The reason is that the jurisdiction which is had at the beginning of the act perseveres until the same act is completed. "Where judgment has once been accepted, there also it ought to receive its end." L. Ubi 30, de Iudiciis, Dig., lib. 5, tit. 1.

Lupus threw a stone at the face of Trepidantius, a priest, who, terrified by the imminent blow, fell, and from the fall poured out no small quantity of blood from his nostrils, although the stone did not touch him. Did Lupus incur the excommunication of the Canon?

R. Negatively. For first, Lupus indeed wished to lay violent hands, but in fact did not lay them; for the stone did not touch Trepidantius. But that Trepidantius fell and poured out blood was beyond the intention of Lupus. Besides, there are two opinions on this matter, and consequently the matter is uncertain, and the excommunication is doubtful; and therefore it cannot be affirmed. St. Alph., l. 7, n. 274; D'Annib., Comment. in Const. Apost. Sed., ed. 4, n. 109, note 12.

1. Since a certain nun violated enclosure for an evil end, and the case is occult, the bishop of the place asks whether he can absolve the aforesaid nun by virtue of the Tridentine faculty, Cap. Liceat.

R. The difficulty in the Case is from a certain Declaration of Gregory XIII, by which he decreed that the bishop cannot absolve a nun breaking enclosure from an occult excommunication reserved to the Pontiff on account of the Bull of St. Pius V. St. Alph., l. 6, n. 594. The difficulty likewise is from the Responses of the Holy Office, July 18, 1860, where it is also affirmed that the reserved case of the enclosure of nuns is not comprehended in the aforesaid Tridentine faculty. G. 645, 646. But, notwithstanding these things, it seems that at present the bishop can absolve even from that occult case by virtue of the Tridentine faculty. For this faculty, by virtue of the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, persists unmoved as regards all cases simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff in the same Constitution, excepting only those which in the aforesaid Constitution are reserved in a special mode to the Supreme Pontiff. But the violation of the enclosure of nuns is reserved in that Constitution only simply. Therefore it must be said that the bishop, in the Case, can absolve the nun. Cf. Bertagna, de Casuum reservatione, pag. 100 seqq. and the authors cited there; Thesaurus, de Poenis, p. 1, c. 23, Dico VI; Commentar. de Censur. n. 6; Commentar. de C. Apostolicae Sedis n. 51 seqq.; I. M. 801, 1101, 1188.

Cf. nos. 799, 800.

1164. Among excommunications, some are reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, others to Bishops, and others finally to no one. Again, from the new law, some are reserved to the Supreme Pontiff in a most special manner, others in a special manner, and others simply.

Now for absolving from a censure reserved to the Apostolic See, delegated power is required by anyone besides the Roman Pontiff, whether general, if the censure is simply reserved, or special, if reserved in a special manner, or most special, if reserved in a most special manner,¹ with the exception, however, of more urgent cases, concerning which the treatment is given in the Treatise on Penance.

¹ Code, c. 2253. - We treat absolution from censures in the Treatise on Penance; meanwhile let canons of the Code 2247-2254 be read.

84. Books are condemned which defend errors proscribed by the Apostolic See.

What errors are

1. Errors: propositions condemned at least as erroneous.

Apostolic See

2. By the Apostolic See: by the Supreme Pontiff either immediately, or by means of a Roman Congregation, namely the Holy Office.¹

Among these must be numbered books which defend or champion errors condemned by the Syllabus. Sacred Congregation of the Index, May 19-23, 1898, to 2.

To defend?

3. They defend: they do not merely assert, but are eager to vindicate; with sufficient abundance of words, so that the inscription of chapter 5 obtains.

N.B. When excommunication is committed

N.B. Those who teach or defend propositions condemned by the Apostolic See under penalty of excommunication latae sententiae, or that the practice of inquiring into the name of an accomplice is lawful, as it had been condemned by Benedict XIV, incur excommunication latae sententiae simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff (Const. Apostolicae Sedis, first excommunication of the second series).

¹ With us is Pennacchi, A. S. S., cited work, n. 52. Besides, on January 13, 1892 (N. R. Th., t. 24, p. 170), to the second, the Holy Office responded that by acts proceeding from the Apostolic See are designated acts "which mediately" proceed from it, that is, through the Sacred Congregation. But that, as the distinguished Planchard asserts, Rev. Th. Fr., cited place, n. 53, a proposition condemned by an ecumenical Council is not comprehended, this we by no means see. And decrees of a Council of this sort have customarily been promulgated through a pontifical Constitution.

Former law

125. By this article, in the same words, the Excommunication borne in the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, n. 2, of the first series, is repeated. Therefore in itself it will receive a similar interpretation. Hence:

What "knowingly" means

1. Knowingly. By this word the case of any ignorance is excepted, even, probably, affected ignorance. Moreover the word is referred also to those retaining, etc.¹

Reading books. Whether periodic fascicles are books of heretics

2. Reading books, in a notable quantity. Cf. here above n. 57. But who are readers was said in n. 57, 50. Also before, n. 33 and following, we weighed what comes under the name of book, and in what manner periodic publications are to be regarded as books. From this, in order that they be judged to protect heresy as a book, it is required that the periodic publications themselves rather generally stain themselves with this vice.

What apostates are

3. Of apostates. We defined these above as those who entirely cast off the Christian faith externally and internally, whether they pass over to the errors of Mahomet, etc., or simply profess themselves to be perfect "free thinkers." Cf. Avanz., p. 8.

Heretics and a heretical book

4. And of heretics. It is necessary that the heresy be plainly established, either from the heretical sect to which the writer belongs, or, when the book is anonymous, or by an author hitherto Catholic, from manifest doctrine,² and proposed pertinaciously.

Therefore books of this kind are not those which principally belong to a Catholic author, although a heretic has appended scholia, unless these are the greater part of the book; nor those which report some text of heretics "even if you read with the mind of learning heresy." Laym.³ Cf. Piat,⁴ against Arndt.⁵

Nor books of infidels, Jews, schismatics, at least as such.

Nor are books of heretics which pertain to the first centuries of the Church, as now altogether harmless, comprehended here. Lehmkuhl, II, 923. Cf. above n. 66, where we transferred the same rule also to medieval heretics.

To defend heresy

5. Defending heresy. Not merely containing, or briefly defending as if while doing something else, but of set purpose, by bringing forward reasons. But it is not necessary that the subject matter of the book be religious. It is enough that the book defend one heresy in this way.

6. As well as books of any Author prohibited by name through Apostolic Letters. This clause requires:

Through Apostolic Letters

a) Apostolic Letters, or letters proceeding immediately from the Supreme Pontiff: a Brief, Bull, Encyclical, etc. Piat, on V. der Velden, p. 623.

Made by name

b) A prohibition made by name, that is, one by which a book is designated by its proper title. Yet a singular designation, for example of the author, is not demanded. Indeed, a generic indication of title seems to suffice. Hence B. P.⁶ judges that the clause is verified in the Constitution Ecclesiam, by which, in 1821, there were prohibited by Pius VII, under excommunication reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, "the catechisms of the Carbonari, the books by which they describe the things which are customarily carried on in their meetings, statutes, codes." But a disposition is not enough by which, for example, Innocent XI condemned all books and writings of Michael Molinos.⁷ Cf. Avanz.-Penn., Appendix III.

It is required that it be made under excommunication reserved to the Holy See

c) A prohibition under excommunication reserved to the Holy See. Thus the common opinion: Avanzini, Lehmkuhl, Bucceroni,⁸ etc. The reason is drawn from the end of the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, by which this censure was borne. For Pius IX wished to narrow censures. Therefore it would in no way be likely that under the gravest censure (specially reserved) he prohibited books which his predecessors had condemned without reserved excommunication.⁹ Cf. Avanzini, cited place. Wherefore if, for example, you read without faculty the work of Lamennais, Les paroles d'un croyant, you will have committed no pontifical censure, since the apostolic letters by which it is reprobated contain none. The same is the case with the works of Jacob Frohschammer.

Those which were proscribed under another penalty latae sententiae have now been simply condemned, unless they are heretical and at the same time have defended heresy. Except those which, for the causes indicated elsewhere, have fallen from the Index.

d) Yet it is not necessary that those letters bear the penalty of excommunication specially reserved; otherwise the present clause would effect nothing special. Thus the authors.

e) Finally, the disposition affects future proscriptions equally with past ones.

Therefore in a few words: from article 47, those books which the Supreme Pontiffs formerly proscribed by name through apostolic letters under excommunication latae sententiae reserved to themselves are now prohibited under excommunication specially reserved.

What concerning future proscriptions?

Must it be said in the same way if certain books are hereafter condemned by the Supreme Pontiffs through apostolic letters by name? We think it must be said in the same way.

And Hollweck¹⁰ and Wernz¹¹ judge that in this article no times are distinguished. Nevertheless, since the legislator merely uses the past tense, while he could so easily have said prohibited or to be prohibited, the matter seems uncertain to us.

But if future proscriptions are touched, there is no cause why in these you should require mention of reserved excommunication, unless there is a cause on account of which the Pontiff must be judged to have been unwilling to refer himself to the present article, but to pronounce absolutely concerning the sanction.

What books are touched by this clause?

N.B. Because other apostolic letters by which works are condemned either do not bear the penalty of reserved excommunication, or indeed bear it but one afterwards removed, or do not indicate books by name, in reality this clause today has force only concerning 82 books which in the eighteenth century were proscribed by apostolic letters,¹² concerning the work of Fr. Vigil,¹³ and concerning two books of J. Nuyts,¹⁴ which Pius IX condemned by Briefs of June 10 and August 22, 1857. Wherefore in sentences of this kind inquiry must be made only from the beginning of the eighteenth century.¹⁵

Yet it easily happens that, on account of another cause, because they have been written by a heretic and defend heresy, they are prohibited by law under the penalty of excommunication specially reserved.

When those retaining are punished

7. And retaining the same books: knowingly and in that manner in which it is prohibited under grave obligation. Cf. above n. 51 and 58.

Who those printing are

8. Printing, in the commentaries on the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, were understood as all who cooperate proximately, by mortal cooperation, toward "printing." Cf. Lehmk., II, 924.

But, from the general canon which we proposed at the beginning, we are not forbidden, the former law having been put aside, to explain this censure according to the benignity of the present Constitution. Now it seems sufficiently discordant that the same word "Printing" be taken in a different sense in two articles, of which one excepts the other. But in article 48, unless we wish, without a compelling reason, to interpret the words more strictly than formerly, the printer is he who undertakes the work to be printed: namely the impresser, whom in French we properly call l'Imprimeur. From another side it agrees very much with our benign law not to strike with censure those workers who cannot pass judgment on the books toward whose printing they cooperate, will for the most part be ignorant of the penalty borne, and not rarely are excused from contumacy by moral necessity. Wherefore the sentence of Hollweck¹⁶ is not displeasing to us, according to which those printing are only the editor and the "impresser." The corrector, however, will be punished as reading. With us concerning workers is Boudinhon.¹⁷

Those defending. Inefficacious defense suffices

9. And defending in any way. Cf. n. 48 and 55.

Observe, since the censure strikes readers, retainers, printers, and defenders in the same manner, namely directly and principally, defense is considered as a delict consisting in itself. Wherefore it is not necessary that the effect of the defense have been obtained, or that in reality, for example, you snatch the book from the flames. The act is judged consummated by the defense itself. Cf., for example, Lehmk., cited place.

What force special reservation has

10. By the fact itself an excommunication specially reserved to the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover this special reservation operates:

a) So that neither Bishops can for this case, even an occult one, use the faculty which they hold from chapter Liceat of the Council of Trent; nor is the case judged contained in the faculty simply given of absolving from reserved cases.

b) So that he who without faculty shall have presumed to absolve someone from that excommunication commits an excommunication simply reserved to the Holy See from the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis (after the first series).

c) So that one absolved, even in danger of death, by an inferior (that is, by one who did not have at least delegated faculty), must, under the penalty of falling again into censures, after he has recovered, within a month either seek a new absolution from one having faculty, or, either himself by himself or through the mediation of a Confessor, have recourse by letter to the Holy See and obey its commands.

¹ Cf. Hollweck, Die kirchl. Strafgesetze, sec. 107.

² Lehmk., II, n. 923; Bucc., II, p. 339; B. P., t. 7, n. 424.

³ L. 2, tr. 1, chapter 15, n. 1.

⁴ On V. der Velden, p. 621.

⁵ P. 124, 3, n. 103.

⁶ De Cens., t. 7, 456. Yet against this, Piat, cited work, p. 625, because works published after this Bull cannot be said to be prohibited by name through it.

⁷ Yet this cause has that peculiar thing, that there is only one work of Molinos, Guida spirituale, besides two little works which afterwards were published together with the former work. Nevertheless we judge that the nominal indication is lacking which is required for incurring excommunication. The propositions of the work were proscribed as heretical; but since the writer retracted the errors, the work does not seem to be that of a heretical author.

⁸ Appendix III, pp. 126, 129; II, n. 923; p. 340.

⁹ Nothing prevents our present Constitution, although in itself it softens the former laws, from increasing their sanction accidentally. From September 5, 1757 to November 11, 1784, by seven letters in the form of a Brief, works were proscribed under the penalty of reserved excommunication latae sententiae for laymen, and of suspension latae sententiae for clerics. In the same way, on August 2, 1851, two works of J. Nuyts were proscribed. That suspension is suppressed by our law; but, as it seems to us, now for all, even clerics, who unduly read those works, there remains, from our article 47, the penalty of excommunication which is specially reserved to the Supreme Pontiff.

¹⁰ Das kirchl. Bucherverbot, in this place.

¹¹ Ius Decretal., t. 3, n. 121, note 117.

¹² Cf. Hilgers, Der Index, p. 90 and following. He diligently explored this matter and afterwards accurately exhibits it in his valuable chronological Index of proscribed works (same place, pp. 418, 475). The same warns that those books can be found with difficulty, so that they can now do little harm.

¹³ Defensa de la autoridad de los gobernios y de los obispos contra las pretensiones de la curia romana (6 vols.).

¹⁴ Institutiones ecclesiasticae; Tractationes in ius ecclesiasticum universum.

¹⁵ Thus Avanzini, cited work, pp. 130, 131.

¹⁶ Cited work, pp. 48, 49, notes 1 and 2.

¹⁷ Cited work, p. 304. Wernz, n. 121, note 118, seems to favor us sufficiently.

Difference from the Tridentine censure

126. 1. Thus, by expressing it more clearly, the Tridentine excommunication is renewed,¹ which nevertheless struck only anonymous books, while, according to interpreters of the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis (which confirmed the same censure), books which bear before themselves the name of the author are now also comprehended.

It is necessary only that the approval of the Ordinary was given

2. Without the approval of the Ordinary. It is enough, for escaping the censure, that it has been given, although perhaps not in writing nor appended in the book. And although regulars besides need the license of their Prelate, they do not commit the excommunication if the book is approved solely by the Ordinary of the place.

Who are printing?

3. Printing, in the present case, seem to be only those who either are owners of the typography or sustain their person, so that they conduct the matter in their name. For the Tridentine text in the cited place contains commands and penalties which cannot be accommodated to workers, etc. Cf. Pennacchi, Ballerini, Arndt,² Hollweck,³ against Piat (on Van der Velden), p. 861.

Causing to be printed

4. Causing to be printed: as the editor of the book, he by whose care the book is printed; not necessarily the author, for example, if he merely gave or sold the manuscript, caring nothing for the printing.

Who absolves from this excommunication?

5. Excommunication reserved to no one. Therefore every Confessor can absolve from it, provided that contumacy has ceased.

¹ Session 4 (Decree concerning the edition and use of sacred books). As Hollweck, Die Strafgesetze, etc., sec. 108, 1, wishes, also for this reason it is established a little more severely than in the Council of Trent, because the Tridentine decree did not clearly comprehend Sacred Scripture itself.

² Avanz.-Penn., t. 2, appendix 38, p. 232; note 62 on Gury, II, 789; cited work, pp. 246, 247, n. 180.

³ Cited place. This sentence, which earlier, by I know not what law, R. D. Van Coillie, Collat. Brugg., p. 551, had accused of too much benignity, he sincerely confessed in the Commentary in this place to be sufficiently pleasing to himself.

1. GENERAL REMARKS.—The belief that we owe reverence and respect to the bodies of our departed fellowmen is deeply ingrained in human nature.

a) All nations agree that it is the duty of a dead man’s relatives to provide for the decent burial of his body and that his friends and those indebted to him for favors should join in paying him the “last honors,” i. e., accompany his corpse to its final resting-place.¹ From this conviction arose certain burial forms or rites, which differed according to the stage of culture. Equally general is the belief that the denial of the customary burial rites is an act of dishonor towards the dead, his relatives and friends. An honest burial may be denied only to those who at the time of their death had notoriously forfeited every claim to honor and consideration.

¹ Cfr. Gen. XLVII, 29; L, 1–13; 1 Kings XXXI, 11–13; 2 Kings II, 5.—Cfr. P. Lex, Das kirchliche Begräbnisrecht, pp. 3 sqq.

b) The Catholic Church has approved and sanc- tified these general notions and customs regarding burial. In the light of Christian belief the mortal remains of the dead are invested with a higher significance. We owe them honor and reverence because they were organs of the spirit, and likewise on account of their participation in the supernatural life of grace and virtue led by the Christian believer, and because they are destined to rise again and become reunited with their souls.² The Church, therefore, did not abolish the civil funeral ceremonies, but transformed them into a religious and liturgical rite, the essential elements of which are the solemn blessing of the corpse, usually in church, and burial in consecrated soil and the offering up of prayers and sacrifices for the repose of the soul.

² St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, l. I, c. 13: “Nevertheless the bodies of the dead, and especially of the just and faithful, are not therefore to be despised and cast away; the Holy Spirit used them as organs and vessels for all good works.” (Migne, P. L., XLI, 27). Cfr. also the same author’s treatise, De Cura pro Mortuis Gerenda, c. 7, n. 9 (Ibid., XL, 598).

The Church denies the “last honors” of Christian burial only to those who, by some definite sinful act, have deprived themselves of honor among their fellowmen. She permits the erection of beautiful monuments to the dead for the reason that exhibition of honors does not cease with death,³ and honors shown to a dead person reflect glory upon his family. But she condemns mere pomp or hypocritical ostentation as unbecoming.

³ Apoc. XIV, 13.

2. BURIAL OR CREMATION?—The interment of the dead, commonly known as burial (inhumatio), dates back to the beginnings of the human race. The divine sentence: “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return,”⁴ was verified among all the nations of antiquity, and even to-day burial is looked upon by all highly civilized peoples as the most becoming method of disposing of the mortal remains of man.

⁴ Gen. III, 19; cfr. Ecclus. XL, 1.

The custom of burying corpses in the earth, or in sealed coffins in mausoleums above the earth, has entered into the practice and ritual of the Catholic Church. She devotes a special religious cult to the bodies of the dead and surrounds the ceremony of burial (ordo exequiarum), the place of burial, and the monument erected upon the grave with a profound and beautiful religious symbolism.⁵

⁵ Rit. Rom., tit. VI, c. 1 and 3; cfr. F. Probst, Die Exequien, Tübingen 1856; C. Krieg, Die Wissenschaft der Seelenleitung, Vol. I, pp. 232 sqq.

a) The custom of burning the bodies of the dead (crematio) is of pagan origin and anciently was practiced mostly in connection with fire worship. The Jews never burned, but always buried, their dead.⁶ Only in exceptional cases, to aggravate capital punishment, in times of war or epidemics, or to prevent dishonoring by pagan enemies,⁷ were corpses consigned to the flames. Cremation in the Old Testament was regarded either as a disgrace inflicted on the body, or as a sign of extreme necessity. Certain passages which have been quoted to prove that cremation was customary among the Chosen People, refer to the burning of aromatic spices at burials.⁸

⁶ Cfr. Gen. XXIII, 19; XXV, 9 sq.; XLVII, 29; XLIX, 30 sq.; L, 2, 25.

⁷ Gen. XXXVIII, 24; Lev. XXI, 9; Am. VI, 10; 1 Kings XXXI, 12.

⁸ Jer. XXXIV, 5; 2 Chr. XVI, 14; cfr. J. Benzinger, Hebräische Archäologie, 2nd ed., Tübingen 1907, pp. 127 sqq.

Christianity followed the Jewish practice of burying the dead, and ever since the earliest days of the Church, inhumation was looked upon as a specifically Christian and cremation as a specifically pagan custom,⁹ though the New Testament contains no express prohibition of the latter.¹⁰

⁹ Minucius Felix, Octavius, c. 11: “[Christians] both execrate pyres and condemn burials by fire.” (Migne, P. L., III, 267).

¹⁰ John XII, 7; cfr. D. A. Petrakakos, Die Toten im Recht, Leipsic 1905.

It is recorded that, in times of persecution, the early Christians risked their lives to recover the bodies of their martyrs, that they might be buried with the sacred rites of the Church. The pagans, to destroy faith in the resurrection of the body, often cast the corpses of martyred Christians into the flames. Minucius Felix thus adverts to their belief that cremation makes resurrection impossible: “Nor do we fear, as you suppose, any harm from [this mode of disposing of the body], but we adhere to the old and better custom of inhumation.”¹¹

¹¹ Octavius, c. 34: “Nor, as you believe, do we fear any harm from burial, but we follow the ancient and better custom of interment.” (Migne, P. L., III, 347).—A council held at Paderborn (Germany), in 785, decreed (can. 7): “Whoever cremates a corpse according to pagan custom, shall be punished with death.” And again (can. 22): “The dead bodies of the Christian Saxons should be brought into the cemeteries of the Church and not buried in the mounds of the heathen.” (Hefele, Konziliengeschichte, Vol. III, 2nd ed., pp. 636 sq.). The Order of the “Teutonic Knights” forbade the Prussians in the peace treaty of 1249 to burn the corpses of their dead. (Voigt, Geschichte Preussens, Vol. II, p. 626).

It is only of late years that in some countries cremation has been substituted for burial, and crematories with rooms for the storage of urns containing the ashes of the dead have begun to take the place of Christian cemeteries.

b) The reasons given for cremation are partly esthetic, partly psychological, partly economic, and partly hygienic.

α) From the standpoint of esthetics,¹² the cremationists contend, it is more becoming to the beauty of the human body to be dissolved by fire, which is a pure and cleansing element, than to rot in the earth, which is unclean and soiled. Cremation furthermore makes it possible to realize the poetic idea of preserving a genuine memorial of the departed in the form of their own ashes, kept in an urn, which serves as a decorative object.

¹² Cfr. J. Grimm, “Ueber das Verbrennen,” in Kleinere Schriften, Vol. II, Berlin 1865, pp. 211–313; K. Th. Schulz, Eine neue Bestattungsart, Berlin 1897, pp. 61 sqq.

In answer to this argument we may say that the process of cremation, while it is more rapid than that of natural decomposition, is by no means more attractive or more esthetic. The poetic idea referred to is merely a sentimental apotheosis of human nature, and its object can be more effectively realized by honoring the grave in which the mortal remains of the departed rest.

β) From the point of view of psychology this argument is advanced: It is repugnant to natural sentiment, and therefore inhuman, to commit the body of a departed relative or friend to a process of decay which cannot be visualized without a shudder. Cremation excludes the horrors of inhumation and is therefore to be preferred.

We answer: Aside from the fact that in a properly constructed grave the corpse does not become the prey of worms, human sentiment is repelled even more by the brutal destruction of the bodily remains of a relative or friend by fire, whereas, on the other hand, it is consoling to be able to visit the grave where a departed relative or friend has found his last resting-place after the labors and trials of life.

γ) In the interest of agriculture it is asserted that inhumation injures the public good by withdrawing a vast amount of soil from cultivation and confining a number of chemical elements indispensable to vegetation in a place where they cannot be utilized, thus gradually bringing about a lack of food, whereas cremation prevents this danger.

This argument is as unconvincing as the other two. The ground devoted to the burial of the dead in any given country is extremely small in proportion to the total area of arable land. Moreover, the chemical elements into which the body is dissolved in the grave are not lost, but for the most part absorbed by the ground water, which redistributes them in every direction.

δ) The principal argument adduced in favor of cremation is that derived from hygiene. It is claimed that cemeteries are a constant menace to the public health because of the poisonous gases they exhale into the atmosphere and the decayed substances with which they infect the ground water, which feeds the wells and springs of the vicinity.

This specious argument is refuted by the testimony of competent experts, who declare that there is no danger whatever to the public health from properly kept cemeteries. No poisonous gases arise, and if any should arise, they would be instantly dissipated by the fresh air. Poisonous infiltration of the ground water is improbable, and we know of no case where it was ever proved that a well was poisoned by infiltration from a burial ground. Neither has it ever been demonstrated that an epidemic started from a cemetery, or that cemeteries, of which there are so many in or near our cities and towns, are a menace to health.¹³ If such a danger were ever shown to exist, it could easily be obviated by the proper construction of coffins and tombs and the rational treatment of corpses. The danger of burying apparently dead persons can be avoided by legally enforced autopsy.

¹³ J. Rochard, “La Crémation,” in the Revue des Deux Mondes, Vol. XCVIII (1890), pp. 916–944; G. Cornet, Die Tuberkulose, Vienna, 1899, pp. 29 sq., 40.

So much for the negative side of the question. Positively, it can be shown that inhumation is the best and simplest means of disposing of the mortal remains of the dead. It has been practiced from most ancient times and appeals to human sentiment as eminently decent and proper. Cremation, on the contrary, runs counter to that sentiment, and is, moreover, impractical. In the first place, crematories and columbaria would withdraw nearly as much soil from agriculture as burial grounds. Second, they are costly to erect and to operate. Third, cremation makes the post-mortem examination of corpses for medical and judicial purposes impossible, or at least extremely difficult, as some crimes cannot be detected by an analysis of the ashes after the corpse is burnt.¹⁴ Inhumation has this further advantage over cremation that it makes possible the disinterment of a corpse long after death in case a suspicion of foul play arises where no one thought of it at the time.

¹⁴ Cfr. F. Goppelsröder, Ueber Feuerbestattung, Mühlhausen 1890.

It is asserted that cremation can at least be justified in exceptional cases, for instance, during dangerous epidemics or on the battlefield in time of war. But even this is doubtful. When an epidemic rages, the corpses of the victims can be more rapidly buried than burned, and to compel an army to drag along crematories would be an undue burden.

3. The Catholic Church forbids her children to enrol in societies established for the purpose of promoting cremation, or to direct that their own bodies or those of fellow-Catholics be burned after death. She has issued this prohibition for the reason that she looks upon cremation as a detestable abuse.¹⁵ This opinion is based, not upon any dogmatic teaching concerning the human body and its resurrection,—for God can collect and revitalize ashes as easily as dust,—¹⁶ nor on the impossibility of performing the burial rite over the remains of a burnt corpse, which is quite often done for victims of conflagrations, but mainly on the anti-Christian, anti-ecclesiastical, materialistic, and pagan tendency of the cremation movement, and on the human, and particularly the Christian sentiment towards the mortal remains of man. It is repugnant to human nature to interfere arbitrarily and violently with the natural process of decay which the body undergoes after death, and in the second place the faithful Catholic, who regards Christ’s death and grave as the pattern of his own demise and burial, can ask nothing better than that his mortal remains be buried as the sacred body of the Redeemer was buried, like “a seed sowed in God’s acre, to mature in glory on the day of the resurrection.”¹⁷

¹⁵ “Detestabilis abusus;” S. C. Offic., d. d. 19 May, 1886; d. d. 15 Dec., 1886; d. d. 27 July, 1892 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1863 sq.).

¹⁶ Matth. XXII, 29.—Minucius Felix says (Octavius, c. 34): “Every body, whether it dries into dust, or is dissolved into moisture, or is compressed into ashes, or is attenuated into vapor, is withdrawn from us, but is reserved for God in the custody of the elements.” (Migne, P. L., III, 347). And again

¹⁷ “Saat gesäet von Gott, am Tage der Garben zu reifen,” as the poet Klopstock puts it beautifully.—Cfr. Matth. XXVII, 58 sqq.; John V, 28 sq.; XI, 23; XIX, 38 sqq.; 1 Cor. XV, 24 sqq.; 2 Cor. V, 10; Phil. III, 21.—St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, l. I, c. 13: “These authorities (Matth. XXVI, 10–13; John XIX, 38–42) do not teach that any sensation inheres in corpses, but signify that the bodies of the dead also pertain to God’s providence, to which even such offices of piety are pleasing, in order to build up faith in the resurrection.” (Migne, P. L., XLI, 27).—St. Gregory the Great says (Moral., l. IV, c. 27, n. 52): “For what else is it to bury than to conceal?” (P. L., LXXV, 633).

“What principally determined the Church to forbid cremation,” says Msgr. Meyenberg, “was the observation that the advocates of this practice everywhere employed it as a means to undermine belief in the resurrection of the dead and to de-Christianize public life.”¹⁸

¹⁶ (op. cit., c. 11): “As though every body, even if it is withheld from the flames, is not nevertheless resolved into earth by years and ages, and as though it mattered whether wild beasts tear it apart, seas consume it, earth covers it, or flame carries it off, since for corpses every burial is good if they feel, and if they do not feel, it is a remedy by the very speed of destruction.” (P. L., III, 267 sq.).

¹⁸ Schweizerische Kirchenzeitung, Lucerne, 1909, p. 53.

The question of cremation does not involve an ecclesiastical dogma, nor is it a purely denominational question, but one in which all Christian churches should be equally interested for the sake of the preservation of an ancient Christian custom which cannot be abolished without grave scandal to the faithful.

It will not do to say that cremation is purely voluntary and must be conceded as a part of that religious freedom of which our age is so proud, for the advocates of cremation aim at making it compulsory, and they are not a religious sect. nor is cremation a religious rite. What they demand is not tolerance, but the enforcement of their impious and un-christian ideas.

The Holy Office has decided¹⁹ that if a corpse has been cremated, not by order of the deceased, but at the command of others,²⁰ it may be buried with religious honors, provided the exsequies do not take place at the crematory and no scandal is given. Scandal need not be feared if it is publicly known that the deceased did not wish his body to be cremated. The new Code re-inforces the law that if a Catholic, while living, com- mands his body to be cremated, he is to be denied ecclesiastical burial.²¹ If any one compelled a priest to give such a person ecclesiastical burial, he would be ipso facto excommunicated.²² Formal co-operation in the act of cremation, be it by command or counsel, is unconditionally forbidden, though material co-operation may be tolerated under certain conditions.²³

¹⁹ Dec. 15, 1886.

²⁰ “Alienâ voluntate.”

²¹ C. I. C., can. 1240, 1, 5.

²² Ibid., can. 2339.

²³ Decree of the Holy Office, July 27, 1892.

Lehmkuhl lays down the following rules for the guidance of Catholics:

a) It is not permitted actively to promote cremation, or to render it lawful, even for non-Catholics, by a positive concession, because it is objectively bad, saltem ex adiunctis. It is a rite pertaining to religion and consequently subject to the judgment of the Church, who has declared it illicit.

b) It is, however, permissible, for an adequate cause (ex causa proportionate gravi) to permit cremation negatively, i. e., not to prevent others from performing it.²⁴

²⁴ Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor., Vol. II, 11th ed., p. 676, 6.

4. The section of corpses for juridical or scientific purposes is permissible because of its importance for the study of medicine and for the benefit of suffering humanity.²⁵ It goes with- out saying, however, that corpses used for this purpose must be properly interred and must not be abused. To treat human remains (whole corpses or portions thereof, bones, skeletons, etc.) irreverently is a sin, nay, under certain conditions, it may even be a sacrilege. The violation and desecration of graves and the scattering of human remains has always been regarded as a crime and severely punished.

²⁵ Cfr. K. Gegenbaur, Lehrbuch der Anatomie, 6th ed., Leipsic 1895; F. X. Linsenmann, Lehrbuch der Moraltheol., pp. 490 sqq.; J. Donat, S. J., Die Freiheit der Wissenschaft, Innsbruck 1910, pp. 214 sq. (English edition, The Freedom of Science, New York 1913).

Pope Boniface VIII, in his oft-quoted decretal,²⁶ did not forbid the anatomic section of corpses, but only the abuse, which had originated during the crusades, of separating the flesh from the bones in order to make possible the transfer of the latter to the home of the deceased.²⁷

²⁶ Extrav. Com., Cap. I l. 3, tit. 6: “Those who disembowel the bodies of the dead and inhumanly boil them so that, the bones having been separated from the flesh, they may carry them to be buried in their own land, are excommunicated by the fact itself.”

²⁷ Cfr. E. Michael, S. J., Geschichte des deutschen Volkes, Vol. III, p. 433 sq.; Lex, Das kirchliche Begräbnisrecht, pp. 229 sqq.

It has been decided that the hearts of dead persons may be preserved in jars or urns.²⁸ For the honor of humanity let us assume that the horrible crime of the sexual violation of corpses is committed only by insane persons.²⁹

²⁸ S. R. C., d. d. 11 Feb., 1898: “The preservation is carried out in this way: the heart is enclosed in a glass vessel, ordinarily placed in a visible place and among flowers. May this practice be continued? Resp.: Affirmatively, provided that the preservation described does not take place in a sacred place.”

²⁹ Maschka, Handbuch der gerichtlichen Medizin, Vol. III, 192.

READINGS.—J. P. Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., Vol. II, n. 790–796.—F. X. Linsenmann, Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, pp. 487 sqq.—L. Ruland, Die Geschichte der kirchlichen Leichenfeier, Ratisbon 1901, pp. 2 sqq.—L. Henry, L’Inhumation et la Créma- tion, Louvain 1876.—A. Besi and E. Holzinger von Weidich, Die Beerdigung und Verbrennung der Leichen, Ratisbon 1889.—G. Hassl, Gottesacker oder Leichenofen? Augsburg 1898.—P. Winkler, Verbrennen oder Begraben? Innsbruck 1902.—F. Probst, Die Exequien, Tübingen 1856.—E. Berardi, De Crematione Cadaverum, Bruges 1904.—Wm. Devlin, S.J., art. “Cremation” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IV, pp. 481–483.—H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, pp. 742 sqq.—A. Lehmkuhl, S.J., Theol. Mor., Vol. II, pp. 673 sqq.—B. L. Conway, C.S.P., The Ethics and History of Cremation, N. Y. 1923.

In the Code there first occurs a very logically ordered distribution of penalties according to the varied nature and reason of delicts. For our use, we shall enumerate censures in order according to their severity. Those which pertain to moral theology have almost all been explained in their own places.

— I. Excommunications most specially reserved have been brought:

1. against him who has thrown away the consecrated species or has carried them off or retained them for an evil end (c. 2320).

Therefore there are punished the thief who throws away the species in order to steal the pyx, and the impious man who carries off or retains the consecrated species for sacrilegious abuses;

2. against him who has laid violent hands upon the person of the Roman Pontiff (c. 2343);

3. against one guilty of the absolution of an accomplice (c. 2367). Cf. what has been said at n. 502;

4. against a confessor who has presumed directly to violate the sacramental seal (c. 2368. Cf. what has been said at n. 524);

5. against those violating the secret of the Holy Office concerning the information required about candidates for the episcopate (cf. resp. S. C. Cons., 24 Apr. 1917, A.A.S. IX, 232);

6. against those who, having a part in the conclave, shall have directly or indirectly violated the secret in those things which regard the election of the Roman Pontiff and which are transacted in the conclave or in the place of election (Vacante Sede, Pius X, 25 Dec. 1904, nn. 51, 52).

You should observe that both of the latter are governed by a more severe law, since outside danger of death they cannot be absolved even by the Major Cardinal Penitentiary himself. But in practice the same Cardinal will be the smoother and safer way by which absolution can be obtained from the Supreme Pontiff.

— They incur an excommunication specially reserved to the Roman Pontiff:

1. apostates, heretics, schismatics (c. 2314);

2. those suspected of heresy, if, having been warned, after six months they do not amend themselves (c. 2315).

The following are suspected of heresy: those favoring the propagation of heresy or communicating in divine things with heretics (c. 2361); those who enter into a pact concerning the non-Catholic education of offspring or who procure its baptism or education outside the Catholic Church (c. 2319); those who sacrilegiously treat the consecrated species according to the norm of c. 2320; those appealing from the decrees of the Roman Pontiff to a Universal Council (c. 2332); those who, with hardened mind, for a year have remained sordid in excommunication (c. 2340); those who are ordained simoniacally, ordain, or administer other sacraments (c. 2371);

3. those publishing books of apostates, heretics, or schismatics which defend apostasy, heresy, or schism; those defending or knowingly reading the same books or books prohibited by name through apostolic letters (c. 2318; cf. n. 901 [apparent intended cross-reference: n. 904]);

4. one not promoted to the priesthood who simulates the celebration of Mass or hears a confession (c. 2322);

5. those appealing to a universal Council (c. 2332);

6. those impeding the letters or acts of the Holy See or of its legates (c. 2333);

7. those issuing laws, mandates, or decrees against the liberty or rights of the Church; those recurring to any lay power whatsoever to impede the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction (c. 2334).

"Those issuing," by force of the word, are only those promulgating, and Cerato, De censuris, n. 96, comprehends only them. Yet the more common opinion, relying on the interpretation of the old law, also embraces those who establish the same things either by individual will or by common and efficacious suffrage. Cf. Epitome Iuris, III, 684.

In the other part of the censure, recourse is understood as efficacious, and as made to some lay power;

8. those dragging before a lay judge a Cardinal, a Legate of the Holy See, a higher official of the Roman Curia, or their own Ordinary (c. 2341. Cf. n. 12 on the privilege of forum);

9. those laying violent hands upon a Cardinal, a Legate of the Holy See, a patriarch, archbishop, or bishop (c. 2343; cf. n. 10);

10. those usurping or detaining, by themselves or through others, the goods or rights of the Roman Church (c. 2345);

11. forgers of letters of the Holy See and those using forged ones (c. 2360);

12. one falsely denouncing a confessor for solicitation before Superiors (c. 2363; cf. n. 569).

— III. They incur an excommunication simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff:

1. those making gain from indulgences (c. 2327).

They make gain from indulgences who strive to obtain monies either for the obtaining, or for the concession, or for the publication of indulgences, even in favor of a pious cause. From the moment the money has been accepted, the excommunication is contracted. All, and no longer only those inferior to bishops, as in the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, are punished by this penalty.

— 2. Those giving their name to a Masonic sect (c. 2355).

Sects here are distinguished by two notes: 1. by secrecy, by which, whether members or leaders, they are bound as to the constitution, ends, and means of the sect; 2. by machination, secret or open, against the Church or legitimate civil powers.

Religious or clerics giving their name to a sect of this kind must be denounced to the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office.

You ask what things must be required for absolving him who has given his name to a Masonic sect?

1. If the faculty has been sought from the Sacred Penitentiary, its prescriptions must be observed, and recourse must be made to it if any difficulty seems to obstruct the execution.

But the Holy See is accustomed to require, besides separation from the sect and repair of scandal, abjuration of the sect [printed/OCR: "stopping up of the sect"] (excepting children and the dying), the handing over of books, manuscripts, and signs pertaining to the sect into the hands of confessors, so that they may be transmitted as soon as possible to the Ordinary, or at least, if just and grave causes demand it, burned; and the injunction of a grave penance with frequency of the sacraments.

2. Therefore we shall prudently try to obtain these things, even when recourse to the Holy See was not necessary. If too great a difficulty has obstructed this, at least those things must be required which the natural law demands: the suppression of cooperation, the repair of scandal, the revelation of a harmful secret. But let us explain the obligations in such a way that we seem to require nothing which is opposed to "honor."

Nor are those immediately to be dismissed unabsolved who, in order to avoid penalties, do not break off all communication with the sect, if the communication is neither scandalous, nor useful to the sect, nor spiritually dangerous to themselves (cf. d'Annibale, I, 391, note 4).

Those will be able to be absolved more easily who no longer attend meetings, but, for grave reasons, abstain from formal repudiation.

A dying man, near to death and who seems to be constituted in good faith, will be able to be absolved if in general he subjects himself to the authority and mandates of the Holy See. But the scandal is to be repaired in the best way in which it can be, even after death;

— 3. those absolving without faculty from an excommunication most specially or specially reserved to the Holy See (c. 2338);

4. those communicating in a delict or in divine things with an excommunicate to be avoided (c. 2338);

5. those dragging before a lay judge a Bishop, a Prelate nullius, or a supreme religious Superior (c. 2341);

6. those violating the cloister of nuns, and nuns illegitimately going out from the cloister (c. 2342; cf. n. 145);

7. those violating the cloister of Regulars (c. 2342; cf. n. 145);

8. those usurping ecclesiastical goods (c. 2346);

9. duelists and their accomplices (c. 2351; cf. tome II);

10. clerics in sacred orders and those bound by a solemn vow of chastity, attempting matrimony, and their partners (c. 2388; cf. n. 128);

11. simoniacs in offices, benefices, and dignities (c. 2392; cf. tome II);

12. those removing or changing a document from the episcopal Curia (c. 2405).

— IV. They incur an excommunication reserved to the Ordinary:

1. those entering into matrimony before a non-Catholic minister (c. 2319);

2. those contracting matrimony with a pact that offspring be educated outside the Church (c. 2319);

3. those knowingly offering children to be baptized by a non-Catholic minister (c. 2319);

4. those knowingly handing over children to be educated in a non-Catholic religion (c. 2319);

5. those making, distributing, or exposing false relics (c. 2326);

6. those laying violent hands upon simple clerics or religious (c. 2343; cf. n. 12);

7. those procuring abortion, the effect following (c. 2350; cf. tome II);

8. a religious apostate from religion (c. 2385; cf. n. 155);

9. professed of perpetual simple vows contracting matrimony, and their partners (c. 2388; cf. n. 137).

— V. They incur an excommunication reserved to no one:

1. those publishing without license books on Sacred Scripture (c. 2318; cf. n. 900):

— 2. those daring to order or compel that unbelievers, apostates, non-Catholics, censured persons excluded by c. 1240 be given ecclesiastical burial (c. 2339).

Unless before death they have given some signs of repentance, the following are deprived of ecclesiastical burial: 1. "notorious apostates from the Christian faith, or those notoriously attached to a heretical or schismatic sect, or to a Masonic sect or other societies of the same kind; 2° excommunicates or interdicted persons after a condemnatory or declaratory sentence; 3° those who killed themselves by deliberate counsel; 4° those who died in a duel or from a wound received from it; 5° those who have ordered their body to be given to cremation; 6° other public and manifest sinners" (c. 1240, §1).

To remove scandal in certain cases, as c. 1240, §2 insinuates, every funeral pomp will sometimes have to be denied; in doubt about this matter, the Ordinary will have to be consulted.

Ecclesiastical burial embraces three things: the transfer of the corpse to the church; the obsequies celebrated over it; its deposition in a place legitimately deputed for burying the faithful. Wherefore several authors, Cerato, n. 64; Eichmann, Strafrecht der Kirche, §41; Cappello, De Censuris, n. 173, think that the censure is not contracted by those who merely order inhumation, but not the sacred rite; nevertheless most judge that these are affected by the censure, e.g., Creusen, III, 538: that severity is required by the interpretation of the old law, by the end of the law, and by the manner in which the rights of the Church are violated today. Yet we would not wish to call the more benign opinion improbable, especially if we consider the number of those who are ordered to be deprived of burial.

Although even private persons can compel, nevertheless those ordering or compelling can be understood only of public powers. But those who are compelled by law are immune from censure, since a daring act is required.

Finally, on 30 March 1859, the Holy Office declared that it can be tolerated that non-Catholic blood-relatives be brought into the family tomb of Catholic families, to avoid greater evils.

Concerning cremation, let these things be noted. A twofold cremation must be distinguished: one which is sometimes commanded for reasons of public health or of promoting anatomical science; this the Church tacitly tolerates; another which attacks the very inhumation of bodies in a general way. This the decrees of the Holy Office severely forbid, as one which is opposed to the reverence of the Christian body, which is alien from the usages of the Church, and which is propagated with a mind hostile to religion. As is clear, those alone who by their own will have chosen cremation for themselves are to be deprived of ecclesiastical burial. Besides, giving one's name to sects which promote cremation is forbidden; and never (therefore not even if an inheritance can be entered upon for this reason alone) is it licit to cooperate formally with cremation by command or counsel (S. Off., 27 July 1892). Material cooperation, with due cautions, for a proportionate cause, will sometimes be able to be tolerated: for example, that of workers who are hired in cemeteries. He also will sometimes be able to be excused who accompanies the corpse of a blood-relative or connected person as far as the place of combustion, scandal having been removed (Genicot-Salsmans, II, n. 628);

— 3. those omitting the apostolic beneplacitum for alienating ecclesiastical goods (c. 2347). Ecclesiastical goods are goods which belong to an ecclesiastical moral person.

Alienation designates every act by which ownership is either transferred or, a right in the thing having been conceded, diminished, e.g., sale, exchange, the constitution of a passive mortgage or servitude, the renunciation of an active servitude; and also a lease beyond nine years.

Besides the other conditions of every ecclesiastical alienation, the apostolic beneplacitum must be sought when there is question of precious things, or of things which, according to the estimation of experts, exceed the value of 30,000 lire or francs; or when the value of the lease (for individual terms) exceeds 30,000 lire or francs (cc. 1532, 1541).

But things are precious to which there belongs a notable value because of art or history or material (c. 1497, §2). But a notable value can be estimated at about 1000 lire or francs.

Those lire seem able to be taken as gold money, lest the value itself be too uncertain.

N.B. Nor can notable relics or relics of great devotion be alienated or transferred without the permission of the Holy See (c. 1281, §1);

4. those compelling someone to embrace the clerical or religious state (c. 2352);

5. one knowingly omitting to denounce a confessor by whom he has been solicited (c. 2368; cf. n. 611).

Although this censure is reserved to no one, nevertheless he cannot be absolved from it unless he has satisfied the obligation or has seriously promised that he will fulfill it.

— I. They incur a suspension reserved to the Holy See:

1. from divine things: those presuming to receive orders from an apostate, heretic, schismatic, or censured person (c. 2372; cf. n. 737);

2. a general one: a bishop consecrating a bishop without the mandate of the Holy See, and his assistants (c. 2370; cf. n. 683); those knowingly, through simony, ordaining or being ordained, administering or receiving sacraments (c. 2371; cf. n. 673).

II. They incur a suspension reserved to the Ordinary:

from office: those dragging before a lay judge a simple cleric or religious (c. 2341; cf. n. 12).

III. They incur a general suspension reserved to the major Superior: fugitive religious (c. 2386; cf. n. 144).

IV. They incur a suspension reserved to no one:

1. from hearing confessions: one absolving from reserved cases without faculty (c. 2366);

2. from divine things: one presuming to hear confessions without jurisdiction (c. 2366); one presuming to resign an office, benefice, or dignity into the hands of laymen (c. 2400); a capitular Vicar unduly granting dimissorial letters for ordination (c. 2409; cf. c. 958);

3. from the order received: one ordained without dimissorial letters, before the age, or by leap (c. 2374; cf. n. 737);

4. from jurisdiction: a Prelate nullius not seeking the blessing within the due time (c. 2402, §2; cf. 322, §2).

— I. They incur an interdict specially reserved to the Holy See:

moral persons appealing to a universal Council (c. 2332).

II. They incur a personal interdict reserved to no one:

those who have given cause to a local interdict or to an interdict upon a community (c. 2338, §4).

III. They incur an interdict from entrance into a church reserved to the Ordinary:

those spontaneously giving ecclesiastical burial to those whom the law prohibits (c. 2339).

— I. On penalties in general. 1. Penalties are established in law as latae sententiae, which are incurred at the very moment of the delict, without a sentence, and as ferendae sententiae, which require condemnation. Penalties are of ferendae sententiae unless they are expressly or equivalently said to be contracted by the fact itself or by the law itself.

2. Before a sentence, at least a declaratory one, he who cannot observe it without infamy is excused from observing the penalty.

3. If the amendment of the delinquent is principally intended, the penalty is medicinal; otherwise it is vindicative. A medicinal penalty is a censure, which always supposes a grave delict, external, consummated according to the description of the law, and joined with contumacy, i.e., with some evil will from which there must be withdrawal. If there is withdrawal from this, the penalty does not cease by the fact itself, but the guilty party has the right of obtaining absolution.

A penalty established by law is also incurred by one who has concurred in the delict by physical or moral, necessary or principal causality.

The impubes escape penalties latae sententiae, and so do Cardinals, unless they are expressly named.

Affected ignorance excuses from no penalties latae sententiae; nor does crass or supine ignorance, unless the law has used the words: has presumed, knowingly, studiously. Simple ignorance excuses from medicinal penalties, but not from vindicative penalties which are established without the words "has presumed" or similar words.

Grave fear of itself excuses, unless the delict tends to contempt of faith or of ecclesiastical authority, or to the public harm of souls.

II. On censures. 1. They can annex censures to a law or precept who can make laws or command by force of jurisdiction.

Concerning the reservation of censures and absolution, cf. what has been said in the treatise on Penance. There are three censures: excommunication, suspension, interdict.

II. Excommunication directly excludes from the communion of the faithful; and consequently: a) it deprives one of the right of assisting at divine offices, preaching excepted, of the licit reception of the sacraments, and, after sentence, also of sacramentals, of the licit confection and administration of the sacraments, saving the temperaments indicated where the sacraments were treated; of indulgences, suffrages, public prayers; b) it prohibits the attainment and execution of offices, acts of jurisdiction, election, presentation, nomination: for validity, an excommunicate to be avoided and one declared excommunicated must be distinguished from another excommunicate.

An excommunicate is not to be avoided unless, in the decree or sentence, the Apostolic See has expressly said that he must be avoided, or unless he has been a notorious striker of the Supreme Pontiff.

III. Suspension prohibits by office or benefice, or by both; it is total, or partial in various ways.

Suspension from informed conscience is had when the Ordinary, to avoid grave inconveniences, declares by simple decree that he imposes suspension from causes known to himself. The Ordinary must be certain concerning the grave delict, which is not notorious.

IV. Interdict directly prohibits from sacred things. It is distinguished into personal and local, which can be general or particular.

Interdict from entrance into a church prohibits participation in divine offices in church, and ecclesiastical burial.

V. On certain absolutions or censures. 1. He who absolves an adherent of a Masonic sect by force of a faculty given by the Sacred Penitentiary must observe its prescriptions, and must recur to it if a difficulty arises. He who absolves without recourse, for example by force of a privilege, must always prudently require what the natural law requires: suppression of cooperation, repair of scandal, revelation of a harmful secret. And unless too great a difficulty obstructs, he will prudently ask the other things which the Holy See is accustomed to require.

2. On the apostolic beneplacitum in alienation. Alienation designates every act by which ownership is either transferred or, a right in the thing having been conceded, diminished, and also a lease beyond nine years. The apostolic beneplacitum must be sought when there is question of precious things, or of things which, according to the estimation of experts, exceed the value of 30,000 lire or francs, or when the value of a lease made beyond nine years, for individual terms, exceeds the same sum.

But precious things are things in which there is a notable value of art or history or material. Notable value can be estimated at about 1000 lire or francs. And the lire seem able to be taken as gold money.

Nor without the permission of the Holy See can notable relics or relics of great devotion be alienated or transferred elsewhere.

3. On those compelling that ecclesiastical burial be given. Those ordering or compelling are understood as those who, endowed with public authority, command, or those who compel others by force or fear. If they themselves are compelled by law, they do not act with rash daring, which here is required for the censure. And since ecclesiastical burial embraces the obsequies and deposition in a sacred place, this censure seems to certain commentators not now to punish merely inhumation alone in a sacred place.

Cremation which is commanded by no different reason of public utility is so prohibited from being chosen by Christians in place of inhumation that formal cooperation is never excused.

St. Alphonsus, VII, 133, sqq.; ed. G., p. 333; H. Ap., XIX, n. 15; Lega, o. c., tit. IV; Giraldi, Exp. Jur. pont., t. 39, s. 919; Pignatelli, Consult. can., consult. 112, 121, 122, etc.; Schmalzgrueber, Jus eccl., tit. 39, vol. XI; Pallottini, Collect. conclus. Conc. Trid., vol. X, v. Excommunicatio, vol. XVI, v. Suspensio; D'Annibale, Summula, ed. 5, I, n. 359; Lehmkuhl, Noldin, and others.

There are three SPECIES of censures: excommunication, suspension, interdict.

1290. • DEFINITION. Excommunication is a censure through which someone is deprived of communion of the Church (cf. n. 1252).

DIVISION. 1. Excommunication, by reason of effects, is twofold: a) MAJOR, which deprives one of all ecclesiastical communion, that is, of all the common spiritual goods of the Church whose distribution pertains to her.

This is almost always understood when mention is made simply of excommunication.

b) MINOR, by which someone, under grave sin, is deprived of passive communion or reception of the sacraments, and passive election or eligibility to ecclesiastical benefices (VII, 148-150; H. Ap., XIX, 15).

MINOR EXCOMMUNICATION formerly was incurred because of illicit conversation with an excommunicated person to be avoided; but, in present times, this censure has now been abrogated through the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, as is clear from the Response of the Holy Office, issued 10 Dec. 1883, "the word having been had with the Most Holy One" (A. S. S., vol. 17, p. 555). - Nevertheless, communication with those to be avoided is still prohibited (Holy Office, 2 Aug. 1893; cf. A. S. S., vol. 31, p. 41). Likewise, the Bishop can, not indeed by statute, but by name, interdict to someone passive use, or reception of the sacraments, or at least of communion (VII, 148).

2. Of the excommunicated, by major excommunication, some are called tolerated, whom the faithful are not bound to avoid; others non-tolerated, or to be avoided, whom the faithful are bound to avoid, especially in divine things (VII, 150).

Anciently, all the excommunicated, as soon as the incurred censure was established, had to be avoided; today, with attention to the Constitution of Martin V Ad vitanda scandala, by which it was permitted to the faithful to communicate, even in divine things, as is more commonly taught, with the guilty bound by any censure whatever, only those excommunicated, suspended, interdicted by name, or notorious strikers of clerics, are to be avoided (VII, 135-144). - Now:

Those excommunicated by name are: a) those against whom sentence has been issued by the office of a competent judge, and indeed with express name, surname, or such a designation as can function in place of the name; b) those whose censure furthermore has been specially denounced in a public place, namely by command of him who issued it (cf. n. 1268). It is not required that they have been excommunicated by the Pope through apostolic letters. Cf. A. S. S., 40, p. 69; 41, p. 141.

A notorious striker of a cleric, that he must be avoided, must commit a crime which cannot be hidden by any evasion, nor excused by any defense. Thus in the Constitution Ad evitanda. Therefore there is required: a) notoriety of fact, namely in such a way that the matter is known to the greater part of a college, neighborhood, or a great number of persons; b) a certain notoriety of law; for, until the guilty person is confessed or condemned in judgment, he can always be excused by some defense, by saying, for example, that he struck the other for his own defense, that he was drunk, etc. (VII, 141, 145). Cf. what has already been said n. 1190.

These things having been premised, inquiry must be made concerning the effects of excommunication, both with respect to the excommunicated person and with respect to the faithful.

The effects of excommunication in the excommunicated person are remote or proximate.

1291. I. The REMOTE or mediate effects, which it is helpful to premise, are two: 1. Irregularity, which the excommunicated person incurs if he knowingly and solemnly exercises an act of sacred Order, as will be explained in its own place (n. 1942) (VII, 171). 2. Suspicion of heresy, which he incurs who contumaciously, according to St. Alphonsus in any censure whatever, but especially in excommunication, persists for a year, or, as the laws speak, grows filthy in it. Whence, because he is presumed to think badly concerning the power of the Church, proceedings can be made against him as against one suspected of heresy (VII, 157). Thus from Trent, Sess. 25, c. 3. Cf. Vind. Alph., P. VIII, q. 8.

1292. II. The PROXIMATE or immediate effects are nine, namely: passive and active privation of the sacraments, of divine offices, of the suffrages of the Church, of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, of benefices, of forensic communication, of civil communication, and finally of ecclesiastical burial. - Therefore the excommunicated person is stripped of almost every right which belonged to him as a member of the Church.

1. He is deprived of the PASSIVE USE of the sacraments; that is, he cannot licitly receive the sacraments, and sins gravely by receiving them, unless he is excused by ignorance, or by necessity of avoiding scandal or some other grave evil (cf. n. 1284). This is confirmed from the Response of the Sacred Penitentiary, 10 Dec. 1860 (A. S. S., I, p. 563).

It is said licitly: because he receives them validly, at least as regards substance. Except the sacrament of Penance, insofar as, from defect of disposition, not indeed by reason of the censure, the penitent cannot receive the grace of the sacrament. If nevertheless he confesses in good faith, he is validly absolved from sins, the censure remaining, if it is reserved (VII, 158, 159).

2. He is deprived of the ACTIVE USE of the sacraments; that is, although tolerated, he cannot licitly confer them, just as he cannot celebrate Mass, unless a case of necessity excuses, or fear of great inconvenience, for example of infamy or loss of goods; or unless he is requested by the faithful, who nevertheless do not need a special reason in order licitly to seek sacraments from one tolerated.

But an excommunicated person to be avoided cannot confer them, even if requested; indeed, the conferral of the sacrament of Penance would be invalid, outside the case of common error, or the article of death; because, outside these cases, he lacks necessary jurisdiction. But for the article of death, he can minister Penance, in the case in which another priest is lacking, just as also Viaticum, or Extreme Unction, if the sick person cannot duly confess (VII, 165-172). From this conclude that schismatic priests, since they are not in the strict sense excommunicated persons to be avoided, absolve validly (cf. Verricelli, de Mission. Apostol., p. 464). Nevertheless Catholics cannot seek absolution from them, as we shall say n. 1439, 1.

Note. But "the use of sacramentals is permitted to an excommunicated person; not indeed so that he may participate in the fruit which they produce from the blessing of the Church, but only so that he may venerate them" (VII, 174).

3. He is deprived of DIVINE OFFICES, that is, he cannot, without grave sin, even on days of precept, be present at the sacred rite, a public procession, the Hours solemnly chanted, other public functions, and generally communicate with the faithful in divine things (Sacred Penitentiary, 5 Jul. 1856), for example to be a sponsor in solemn Baptism; excepted are the sermon, theological lecture, or catechesis.1 But he himself cannot preach or, unless he is tolerated and is requested by others, lecture in Theology or in Canon Law.

If one to be avoided does not wish, after warning, to go out of the church, clerics are bound, and indeed under grave obligation, to expel him. But if he cannot be expelled, the celebrant must interrupt Mass, unless he has already begun the Canon: in which case, the others departing, let him continue the sacred rite with one minister, and, after the consumption has been made, let him depart, to complete the rest in the sacristy, or in another decent place (VII, 173-178).

Note. Nevertheless an excommunicated person, even one to be avoided, can, at a time when divine offices are not celebrated, enter the church and pray in it, but separated from the assembly of the faithful. If he is obliged to the Hours, he is in no way dispensed from them, although he ought not say: Dominus vobiscum, but Domine, exaudi orationem meam: otherwise he would sin venially, unless he recites alone, as many except. If nevertheless he is tolerated, he in no way sins if he recites with another, when requested by him (VII, 178).

4. He is deprived of the COMMON SUFFRAGES OF THE CHURCH, that is, of the fruits of sacrifice, indulgences, and public prayers, which cannot be applied in the name of the Church to the excommunicated, even if they were in the state of grace. It is probable, however, that this prohibition is restricted to those to be avoided (VII, 164).

1 There are not lacking authors who think that, in present times, as regards tolerated excommunicated persons, for example Freemasons, these prohibitions do not press so strictly (Noldin, de Poenit., 40). The Church tolerates schismatic girls singing, together with Catholics, in public offices (A. S. S., 40, p. 269).

But private suffrages, for example fasts, prayers, alms, and all works of charity which are privately performed by the faithful or by ministers of God, indeed even the sacrifice itself, insofar as it is offered in the priest's own name, or as it depends on the merit and prayer of the one operating, can be applied to excommunicated persons, even those to be avoided, so that in this way they may obtain the grace of conversion (VII, 162, 163).

5. He is deprived of the USE OF ECCLESIASTICAL JURISDICTION; of licit and valid use indeed, if he is to be avoided; but only of licit use, if he is tolerated.

Hence, with exceptions to be excepted, as above n. 2, one to be avoided can neither licitly nor validly issue a law, pronounce sentence, give absolution, present or elect to a benefice. Indeed one excommunicated by name cannot validly assist at marriage, as also neither can one who by public Decree was suspended from office; furthermore, they cannot validly delegate another (Wouters, In Decr. Ne temere, p. 50). - One tolerated indeed can exercise acts of jurisdiction validly, because of the common good; but he exercises illicitly, unless he has been requested, or compelled by necessity (Can. Cont., 26, p. 609).

6. He is deprived of the RIGHT TO BENEFICES, ecclesiastical offices, and Rescripts; that is, any excommunicated person, whether to be avoided or tolerated, is incapable of the aforesaid; in such a way that presentation, election, nomination or provision, dispensation, in his favor, is by the law itself null and gravely illicit, both on the part of the one conferring and on the part of the one accepting. This incapacity is had even because of an occult or unknown censure, as is more commonly and more truly taught; and hence it is why a Superior, in conferring dignities, offices, benefices, or pensions, and likewise the Pope in issuing Rescripts, is accustomed to absolve for caution.

• Nevertheless Rescripts of the Sacred Congregations, in which faculties are conceded, for example of reading prohibited books, blessing rosaries, etc., are valid, at least for the forum of conscience, notwithstanding occult excommunication (Sacred Penitentiary, 9 Sept. 1898). Likewise, an excommunicated person is not deprived of a benefice which was conferred before the excommunication was incurred; nor of the fruits of the same, if by himself or through another he has fulfilled the burdens. But he can be deprived of both, through sentence, if for a year he grows filthy in the censure (VII, 180-185, where there are many things).

7. He is deprived of FORENSIC COMMUNICATION, that is, of the right of acting in ecclesiastical judgment, formerly also in civil judgment, from Roman Law.

Hence an excommunicated person to be avoided cannot be judge, advocate, plaintiff, witness, procurator, etc.; nor can he discharge the offices of curator, tutor, executor of a testament, etc. One tolerated indeed acts validly in all these things, but he can juridically be repelled by exception, both by the adversary and by the judge; for each can pursue appeal (VII, 184).

8. He is deprived of CIVIL COMMUNION with the faithful. This imports that neither the excommunicated person himself can communicate with others, nor others with him, in a civil and political matter, by way either of society or conversation, unless a grave cause excuses.

But these things are to be understood only of those to be avoided; for although the privilege of Martin V, concerning which above n. 1290, 2, does not directly favor tolerated persons, since it was given in favor of the faithful, nevertheless from present-day custom, or, as others prefer, because of good faith, these no longer sin by communicating in civil matters with the faithful, even if they have not been requested by them (VII, 138).

Note. According to many authors (cf. Lehmkuhl, II, 1129; Ami du Cl., 1900, p. 129; 1904, p. 701), even as regards those to be avoided, these things have fallen into desuetude in our times.

9. Finally he is deprived of ECCLESIASTICAL BURIAL, namely in a place blessed for the burial of the faithful.

Moreover: a) If an excommunicated person to be avoided, impenitent, has been buried in a sacred place, his corpse must be extracted, if this can still be done, and the sacred place must be reconciled. But if he died with signs of penitence, his body ought before burial to be absolved from censure, or afterward, if he has already been buried (VII, 186). b) A tolerated excommunicated person, if he was notorious and impenitent, is likewise deprived of ecclesiastical burial; and his corpse, from a sacred place, must similarly be extracted. Nevertheless the place is not judged polluted, and therefore does not need expiation (VII, 187; Ferraris, v. Sepultura, n. 202). c) As regards those commanding or compelling notorious heretics, or those excommunicated or interdicted by name, to be handed over to ecclesiastical burial (cf. n. 1351 and 1385).

1293. It was asked: If someone notoriously bound by ecclesiastical censure should die, and according to the sacred canons and the norms handed down by Doctors concerning this matter, he must altogether lack ecclesiastical burial, and if, with grave threats, funeral rites and ecclesiastical burial itself are obstinately demanded, how ought the parish priest conduct himself in a case of this kind?

The Sacred Penitentiary, 10 Dec. 1860, responded: "Care must be taken that all things be done according to the norm of the sacred canons; but insofar as this cannot be obtained without danger of disturbances and scandal, the parish priest should in no way concur, either by himself or through other priests, in the funeral rites and burial" (A. S. S., I, p. 563, n. 21).

Excommunication directly binds only delinquents, but indirectly it also binds the faithful, especially clerics.

1294. PRINCIPLES. I. We can avoid tolerated excommunicated persons, but we are not bound. We can avoid them, if they are notorious, because they do not have a right to communion with the faithful; but we are not bound, because, although they sin (cf. n. 1292, 3 and 8), we can use the privilege of Martin V even in sacred matters, for example admit them as sponsors in Baptism or Confirmation. Sacred Penitentiary, 5 Jul. 1856.

These things indeed by force of ecclesiastical law; but divine law prohibits that the sacraments be conferred on an excommunicated person even tolerated, unless a just cause excuses (cf. n. 1423, 1425). The law of avoiding scandal or danger of seduction, the law of fraternal correction, the law of faith, which forbids communion with heretics, at least in divine things, etc., can prohibit the very same (cf. n. 447).

1295. II. We are bound to avoid excommunicated persons not tolerated; namely in acts which are prohibited to them by censure or sentence.

Thus commonly from the Council of Constance, and from the Bull of Martin V; the Response of the Holy Office, 9 Jan. 1884, accedes (Anal. eccl., VII, p. 5).

But the acts in which it is not licit commonly to have fellowship with an excommunicated person TO BE AVOIDED are five, expressed in these little verses:

If for delicts someone is made anathema,
Mouth, to pray, farewell, communion, table are denied.

It is said: 1. MOUTH, that is, the kiss of peace, conversations, letters, more probably also a written reply, gifts, and any sign of benevolence. 2. TO PRAY, that is, communication in divine things; whether public, which is forbidden of itself under grave obligation, as is clear from n. 1294, and sometimes under penalty of excommunication reserved to the Pope (n. 1344), or interdict (n. 1377); or even private, which, commonly, is prohibited only under light obligation. 3. FAREWELL, that is, salutation or signification of honor, made from the mind; but not, probably, that which is made to avoid the note of incivility, contumely, or contempt. 4. COMMUNION, that is, any society of business, habitation, contract, cooperation, etc. But one communicating with an excommunicated person named by the Pope, in a criminal crime, namely in that for which he was excommunicated, incurs excommunication reserved to the Roman Pontiff, as is to be seen n. 1343. 5. TABLE, that is, common life and banquets by way of society and commerce; such as it is not if by chance you fall into the same inn, journey, table, indeed bed (VII, 188-195).

1296. Just causes can excuse reciprocal communication between one to be avoided and the faithful, outside divine things. Whence by law these excuse: utility, particular law, state of subjection, ignorance, and necessity.1

We have said: 1. Utility, whether spiritual or bodily, both one's own and that of the excommunicated person. Hence it is licit to seek from him a debt, counsel, help, if another suitable person is lacking; to continue a society entered into with him, but not to institute new contracts. 2. Particular law, namely matrimonial law, by which spouses are bound to live together and to furnish mutual offices to one another. Except if divorce has been made, and if excommunication has been issued because of heresy or because of doubt concerning the validity of the marriage. And more truly, communication in divine things is never conceded, because it is not a due service. 3. State of subjection, in which namely a son, grandson, great-grandson, daughter-in-law, owes reverence to parents, a servant to a master, a soldier to a leader, and generally a subject to a Superior. - 4. Ignorance, whether of law or of fact, even crass, as is more commonly and probably taught. 5. Grave necessity, whether spiritual or temporal, both of the one communicating, and of the excommunicated person, or of others. Thus grave fear unjustly instilled likewise excuses; because human law does not oblige with grave inconvenience (VII, 200-206; H. Ap., XIX, 23).

1297. • IT IS ASKED. What kind of sin is it to communicate without just cause with one to be avoided?

Resp. 1. It is a grave sin if you communicate in divine things, unless smallness of matter excuses; or in contempt of the prohibition of the Church; or in a criminal crime (cf. n. 1343). And the same must more probably be said if communication in civil matters is frequent with the intention of often repeating it; but this is also probably denied. 2. In other acts, of its kind, it is venial (VII, 196-198).

1 Whence it is said:

Useful, law, humble, thing unknown, necessity:
These five release anathema, lest it be able to harm.

1298. Note. In doubt whether someone is to be avoided, attention should be given to this twofold rule: 1. The obligation begins of avoiding him, of refusing him sacraments, etc., even in another diocese, when the sentence of excommunication and denunciation is established by public fame, or by two trustworthy witnesses, or at least by one of grave authority. 2. The obligation ceases when it is established concerning the absolution of the same, even through one trustworthy witness; indeed through the excommunicated person himself, if he is worthy of trust, and asserts that he was absolved. When doubt remains, either concerning denunciation or concerning absolution, it is not licit, if he is a priest, to confess before him, because of danger of frustration of the sacrament (VII, 145, 146, 207; H. Ap., XIX, 26).

1299. DEFINITION. Suspension is a censure by which a cleric is prohibited from exercising certain ecclesiastical functions.

It differs: 1. From excommunication, both because it is issued against clerics alone, and because it deprives one only of the active use of certain sacred things, but not of passive use or reception. 2. From interdict; because this is issued also against laymen, and deprives one of the reception of some sacraments, divine offices, and ecclesiastical burial.

DIVISION. Suspension by reason of effects is either total or partial. The former excludes a cleric from every function or from every ecclesiastical right; the latter excludes only from some function, or from some right, as they are distinctly expressed in the sentence, or are included in it.

Partial, or special, suspension is threefold: 1. from Order, which deprives one of the exercise of the functions of Order, for example from pontificals, from the altar, that is, from celebration of Mass, etc.; 2. from jurisdiction, which deprives one of the use of jurisdiction, whether in the external forum, or also in the internal forum;1 3. from benefice, which deprives one of the fruits and administration of the benefice. Sometimes not all the functions of Order or office are interdicted, but only one or another: of which kind is the prohibition of celebrating Mass, of hearing confessions (VII, 315, 316; cf. Wouters, in Decr. Ne temere, p. 34).

1300. • PRINCIPLES. I. Suspension is not necessarily and essentially a censure. Such indeed is a suspension which is imposed for breaking the contumacy of a cleric, either by Law, or by man by way of precept, because of a future crime to be avoided, or also because of a past crime having a successive tract (n. 1264).

But furthermore there is given:

1. Suspension inflicted by way of vindicative penalty because of a past delict. Such is presumed to be a suspension which is inflicted either by Law in perpetuity,

1 If suspensions from Order and from jurisdiction are inflicted at the same time, suspension from office is had. Others say that suspension from office is the same as suspension from divine things; others assimilate suspension from divine things to suspension from Order (D'Annibale, n. 380; Hilarius a Sexten, Noldin, etc.).

or irremissibly; or by man orally; or for a merely past sin; or at pleasure, or for as long as it shall seem to the one imposing; or conditionally, for example until you restore (VII, 317, 322). Thus, for example, prefects of monasteries of solemn vows, if they do not inform the Bishop concerning the profession of their novices before a month, incur suspension from office for as long as it shall seem to the Bishop (Trent, Sess. 25, c. 17, de Reg.).

2. Suspension inflicted by way of mere prohibition, or for caution, for example because of the fame of a delict not yet confessed or proved in judgment. This of itself does not have the character of penalty, and much less the character of censure (A. S. S., vol. 2, p. 284).

1301. II. Suspension can sometimes be inflicted in a special way. This happens when it is inflicted EX INFORMATA CONSCIENTIA. - Now, suspension is said to be issued ex informata conscientia when a Bishop or prelate, expressly declaring that he acts by force of the Council of Trent, without the solemnities required, imposes this penalty by way of simple punishment, or also inhibition, from grave causes weighed in his conscience, even because of an occult crime, and extrajudicially; and thus prohibits the delinquent cleric either from ascent to sacred Orders, or from the exercise of them, or from office, not however from benefice, as is most probably taught.

Suspension ex informata conscientia is an extraordinary remedy. Therefore it is necessary that several conditions be present for it to be inflicted licitly (cf. A. S. S., vol. 17, p. 373; Aichner, p. 784). The new Decree Maxima cura has not restricted the right of Bishops to inflict suspensions ex informata conscientia (Ami du Cl., 1913, p. 670).

A sentence of this kind cannot, probably, be issued in perpetuity, nor is it ordinarily prolonged beyond six months. Against it no appeal is conceded, but only recourse to the Holy See, without suspensive effect. - But it ceases, even when issued for an indeterminate time, with the jurisdiction of the Bishop who issued it (cf. n. 1304, II). See more among the canonists (cf. Benedict XIV, de Synod., l. 12, c. 8; Monit. eccl., II, P. III, p. 3; Nouv. Rev. Theol., 18, p. 469).

The extension and force of suspension ought to be gathered from the words by which it is issued. Wherefore the following rules hold.

1302. • RULE 1. Suspension which is issued absolutely is judged total. - For indefinite speech is equivalent to universal. Hence a priest thus suspended is deprived of every use of Order, jurisdiction, and benefice; unless usage or circumstances clearly signify otherwise.

RULE 2. Suspension determined to something is judged partial. Therefore it deprives one only of other functions of office which are distinctly expressed in the sentence, or which are included in them.

1303. • Hence you will deduce: 1. One suspended FROM ORDER simply is deprived of the exercise and use of any Order whatever, whether major or minor; but he is not deprived of the use of jurisdiction, except indirectly, namely with regard to those acts of jurisdiction which require the actual use of Order.

Thus a Bishop suspended from Order can delegate to another the power of absolving from sins, although he himself cannot absolve; likewise, he can confer first tonsure or benefices, and absolve from censures in the external forum.

2. One suspended FROM A HIGHER ORDER is not on that account suspended from an inferior one.

Thus, for example, a Bishop suspended from pontificals can celebrate Mass; indeed if he celebrates it solemnly with pontificals, he indeed sins, but does not incur irregularity; because he does not exercise a substantial act of episcopal Order. - Otherwise if he confirms the faithful, consecrates a chalice, etc.; because then he exercises pontificals properly.

3. One suspended simply FROM OFFICE is deprived, unless something else is established from elsewhere, of the use of Order and jurisdiction, consequently of all functions of ecclesiastical ministry which are exercised by a cleric as such (n. 1299, note).

But he is not on that account judged suspended from benefice, unless the delict was enormous, or unless for a year he has grown filthy in suspension. Whence one suspended only from office can receive the fruits of the benefice, provided he fulfills the parts of the duty through others.

4. One suspended FROM BENEFICE is understood as suspended from the fruits and administration of the benefice, but not from office. Wherefore he is bound to the canonical Hours and to other burdens, although he is deprived of the fruits.

But he is never deprived of the title itself of the benefice, unless this penalty is specially decreed against him; indeed, if during the time of suspension he acquires another benefice, the conferral of this is more probably not null by the very fact, but only to be nullified through the judge. If someone, occultly suspended, faithfully fulfills his obligations, he can retain the part of the fruits congruent to his labor, or the part which he would have to give to a substitute. But he is bound to restore the rest.

5. When a community is suspended, for example a chapter, convent, etc., the individual persons are understood as suspended as regards offices and rights which they can exercise collegially; but not as regards functions and rights which belong to them personally, for example as regards the right of celebrating Mass.

But if the suspension has been imposed both on the community and on its individual members, the innocent do not incur it, but only the delinquents (VII, 316, 323; H. Ap., XIX, 64 sqq.). Cf. the canonists, for example Craisson, Bargilliat, Aichner, Heiner, etc.

Violation of suspension produces multiple effects.

1304. PRINCIPLES. I. He who violates suspension by exercising an act forbidden to him sins, of itself, mortally. The reason is that in a grave matter he resists the Church.

Nevertheless he can licitly do all those things which are customarily done by laymen, for example sing in choir in the manner of laymen, serve Mass, bless the table, etc. Nor does he sin mortally if he exercises an Order not sacred; or a sacred one, but not solemnly (VII, 313; H. Ap., XIX, 64).

II. He who knowingly and solemnly exercises an act of sacred Order from which he is truly and properly suspended becomes irregular. But this penalty is not incurred from violation of suspension from jurisdiction or benefice. Thus commonly (n. 1942).

It is disputed among the authors whether irregularity is incurred because of violation of a suspension inflicted by way of vindicative penalty. More commonly it is denied, unless something else is expressly provided in the law. Nevertheless, the Sacred Congregation of the Council, in Sagonen., 21 June 1625, declared a certain parish priest bound by irregularity who, suspended by his Bishop ex informata conscientia, had persevered in exercising functions of the sacred ministry after an appeal had been interposed. And a similar decision was given on 22 May 1848, in Lucionen. These must now be followed in practice (Benedict XIV, de Synod., l. 12, c. 8).

III. One suspended from jurisdiction exercises it invalidly, if he has been publicly denounced. The reason is that, except in the case in which another is lacking for absolving one dying, a denounced suspended person is deprived of all actual jurisdiction. - Otherwise, if he is tolerated, because such a one exercises jurisdiction validly; although illicitly when he has not been requested by the faithful (VII, 314, 4).

Note. Communication with a DENOUNCED suspended person is of itself illicit if it is done by way of cooperation in the act from which he is suspended. In other things it is licit, unless scandal or danger of perversion is present. Whence to hear his Mass will not be a sin, at least not mortal, if you do not serve (VII, 140, 313).

1305. Besides those things which we have already said concerning the absolution of censures, the following are to be noted:

1. If suspension has the character of censure, it is removed as excommunication is, namely by absolution alone, and indeed of the Superior, if it is, as it almost always is, reserved (cf. n. 1275).

2. If it has been imposed by way of perpetual penalty because of a fault altogether past, it is removed by dispensation alone of the Superior, or of his delegate.

3. If it has been issued, by way either of penalty or prohibition, for a determinate time, for example for a year, for three years, or under condition, for example until you have restored, it ceases of itself, the time having passed, or the condition having been fulfilled. This indeed is from the will itself of the Superior, as is evident (VII, 322; cf. Salmanticenses, c. 5, n. 32).

1306. • DEFINITION. Interdict is a censure by which the use of divine offices, of some sacraments, and of ecclesiastical burial is prohibited to certain persons, or in certain places.

Therefore interdict deprives one of the use of sacred things insofar as they are certain sacred things, and thus it differs: 1. from excommunication, which deprives one of the use of sacred things insofar as that use is communication with the faithful; 2. from suspension, which deprives one of that use insofar as it is the exercise of sacred power (Suarez, de Cens., disp. 32).

DIVISION. Interdict is multiple, namely:

1. PERSONAL, LOCAL, or MIXED, as it immediately affects persons, or place, or both together.

2. GENERAL or PARTICULAR, as it is extended to a whole region, city, community; or is restricted to an oratory, particular church, or determinate persons.

3. TOTAL or PARTIAL, as it comprehends all the effects of interdict, or only some.

To partial interdict is numbered interdict from entrance of the church, by which someone is prohibited, in church, from exercising sacred order, being present at divine things, and being buried in a sacred place. But such a one is not prohibited, more probably, from praying privately in the church, or celebrating in a private oratory. Cf. VII, 329; Salmant., tr. 10, c. 6, n. 83.

1307. • To know the extension of interdict, the following RULES hold:

I. In a general LOCAL interdict, when a city is interdicted, the suburbs and churches of regulars, although exempt, are also interdicted. All are bound to observe an interdict of this kind, even the Bishop himself who imposed it. Yet citizens who did not give cause for the interdict can go elsewhere, so that they may attend divine offices.

When a parish church is interdicted, chapels and contiguous cemeteries are also interdicted; because the accessory follows the principal, but not vice versa.

II. In a PERSONAL interdict, when a people is interdicted, clerics, students, and travelers are not judged interdicted; because they are not part of the people.

When the clergy is interdicted, laymen and religious are not interdicted, unless they have an office or benefice among that people; nor other clerics lacking office, because they do not constitute one body with the clergy. Nor likewise are churches, when citizens of the city are interdicted, subject to the interdict.

III. In a general PERSONAL interdict, Bishops are exempt, who are also exempt from general suspension; the innocent, as soon as they transfer domicile elsewhere; outsiders, although they are detained among those citizens for much time; infants and the insane, who nevertheless are deprived of ecclesiastical burial (VII, 330-332). Cf. above n. 1263, 1.

1308. There are three effects of TOTAL INTERDICT, namely:

1. Prohibition of divine offices, that is, of Mass and of all those things which can be done by clerics alone; but not of the offices of the B. V. M., of the dead, etc., if they are said privately and in a place not deputed for them. Whence, even those interdicted because of another's fault cannot be present at the sacred rite.

Nevertheless clerics and religious, when they themselves are not interdicted, can and ought, as before, to celebrate Mass and divine offices; but with doors closed, bells not rung, unless for a sermon, the Angelic salutation, or the death of someone, in a subdued voice, and with the interdicted excluded, namely those who gave cause for the interdict, or are personally interdicted, provided they have been denounced. Also excepted, in a general local interdict, are some solemnities, for example of the Nativity of the Lord, Easter, Pentecost, the Assumption of the B. V. M., and the Octave of Corpus Christi, and, for Spain, the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the B. V. M., from the indult of Leo X: on which all the interdicted can be admitted to divine offices, and, insofar as these solemnities are of precept, they ought to be present at the sacred rite (VII, 333; cf. IV, 61, where concerning religious).

2. Prohibition of the administration of some sacraments.

a) Baptism, even solemn, confirmation, and penance are excepted; these are permitted to all, except those who gave cause for the interdict, or are interdicted by name: unless they have first satisfied, or have given sworn caution concerning satisfying. b) The Eucharist is conceded only to the dying; to whom Extreme Unction also is permitted, in the case in which they cannot duly receive another sacrament. But religious can, in time of interdict, receive communion and Extreme Unction. c) Ordination is altogether prohibited, except in the case of gravest necessity. d) Marriage can, from present use, be contracted; for it is administered by the contracting parties themselves. But the nuptial blessing must be omitted (VII, 334).

3. Prohibition of ecclesiastical burial.

Nevertheless this difference is present, that laymen, even infants, are to be buried in a non-sacred place; but clerics not interdicted by name can be buried in a church, and it is permitted to celebrate Mass for them, but without pomp. Yet this is not permitted if the church is specially interdicted (cf. n. 1292, 9).

Note. The effects of a partial interdict are defined by the very words of the sentence.

1309. 1. CLERICS and RELIGIOUS sin gravely by violating an interdict, whether personal or local; unless they are excused by smallness of matter, say, if they leave the door of the church open for a brief time.

Furthermore, they incur: a) irregularity, if they violate the censure by exercising an act of their proper Order; b) suspension reserved to the Pope, if they receive Order from an interdicted Bishop who has been denounced by name (cf. n. 1366); c) interdict from entrance of the church, if they knowingly celebrate divine things in interdicted places (n. 1377).

2. LAYMEN sin gravely if they violate a personal interdict, for example by receiving the Eucharist; likewise, if they compel clerics to celebrate sacred things against a local interdict; in which case they incur, just as clerics do, a personal interdict from entrance of the church.

They sin only lightly, more probably, if they themselves, not personally interdicted, merely assist at divine offices in an interdicted place (VII, 336).

1310. 1. Local interdicts and general personal interdicts which have been imposed by common Law, and not reserved, can be removed by the Bishop, or another having jurisdiction in the interdicted community... 2. General interdicts issued by man cannot be removed except by him who issued them, or by the Pope. - 3. From a particular personal interdict of Law, if it is not reserved, any approved person can absolve.

For the rest, through the privilege of absolving from all censures the power of removing interdicts is not understood; because place and community are not subject to the forum of penance (VII, 338, 339).

We shall treat: 1. the notion and division of excommunication; 2. the effects of excommunication; 3. the excommunications in force today.

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.

I. The obligation of the confessor as regards excommunications. - Not rarely penitents occur who have contracted the penalty of excommunication. Hence it seems opportune summarily to set forth those things which concerning this matter are more necessary in practice and therefore specially to be attended to.¹ And indeed the confessor has the obligation both of knowing sufficiently those things which regard excommunications, and of admonishing penitents concerning these things.

¹ Authors who have written after the promulgated Code can be inspected, such as Prummer and Vermeersch. Cf. Revue Eccl. de Liege, Nov. 1928.

A. There is the obligation of knowing with habitual knowledge:

1. At least the better known or more frequently occurring censures.

Therefore let him know that the following are excommunicated by the very fact from law: apostates, heretics, schismatics; those publishing, defending, reading, or retaining books of these persons defending apostasy, heresy, schism, or other books prohibited by name through apostolic letters; authors or publishers of books of Sacred Scripture or commentaries printed without license; those issuing laws, commands, decrees against the liberty or rights of the Church, or impeding the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction by recurring to lay power; those giving their name to a Masonic sect or similar association plotting against the Church or legitimate civil power; those laying violent hands on clerics or religious persons, especially on bishops and cardinals, most of all on the Supreme Pontiff; whoever communicate in the offense, and clerics in divine things, with an excommunicated person to be avoided; those sacrilegiously casting away the consecrated species or carrying them away or retaining them for an evil end; those procuring abortion when the effect has followed; those dueling and their accomplices; those absolving accomplices in a base sin; those falsely denouncing a confessor concerning solicitation; those solicited by a confessor and not denouncing him; apostates from religion; those presuming to enter marriage while the impediment of a vow of chastity stands, whether solemn, or simple and perpetual emitted in religious profession; those violating religious enclosure; those entering marriage before a non-Catholic minister or with a pact of educating offspring in a non-Catholic religion; likewise those handing over children to be baptized by a non-Catholic minister or to be instituted in a non-Catholic religion; those commanding or compelling non-Catholics or others interdicted to be handed over to ecclesiastical burial; those usurping ecclesiastical goods, and those alienating precious things or things exceeding the value of 30,000 fr.,² etc.

² Several understand this of value in gold.

2. Also to know which of these are reserved.

For there are altogether few which are reserved to no one and can be absolved by any confessor, namely those which affect persons publishing books concerning Sacred Scripture without license, those handing over the unworthy to ecclesiastical burial, those illegitimately alienating ecclesiastical goods of great value, those compelling one to embrace the clerical or religious state, and those not denouncing the confessor by whom they were solicited. All the others are reserved either to the Ordinary, or to the Supreme Pontiff: either simply, or specially, or even most specially, such as sacrilegious casting away or carrying off or retaining of the consecrated species, laying a violent hand on the Supreme Pontiff himself, and absolution of an accomplice. It should be noted:

a) those absolving from an excommunication latae sententiae reserved in a most special or special manner without due faculty incur by the very fact an excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See, can. 2338, § 1; nevertheless in doubt either of law or of fact, reservation does not urge, can. 2245, § 4;

b) besides, all censures ab homine by that very fact are reserved to him who inflicted the censure or pronounced the sentence, can. 2245, § 2.

3. To know also the conditions required for incurring them.

They are: a) on the part of the subject, that he be baptized; in possession of reason and capable of malice; pubescent, according to the discipline now in force; and subject to the jurisdiction of the one excommunicating;

b) on the part of the object, that the sin be external, grave, consummated, and not only attempted, in the species which is reserved, in this sense that it fulfill all the conditions placed in the pronouncement of the censure, and joined with present contumacy, can. 2242, § 1. Hence in the sinner there is required knowledge both of the law prohibiting and of the special penalty to be inflicted on transgressors;³ and therefore ignorance, even culpable, excuses, not however affected ignorance, which is equated with knowledge, nor always gross ignorance, unless the censure is brought against those who presumed, dared, knowingly, studiously, deliberately, rashly acted, can. 2229.

³ Prummer, Th. M., III, n. 485, observes: "In the external forum presumed contumacy sometimes suffices. For when some ecclesiastical law has been sufficiently promulgated, knowledge of it is presumed in all subjects, who, if they transgress this law, must pay the penalties and censures sanctioned. Hence, for example, a Catholic who contracts marriage before a non-Catholic minister incurs the excommunication brought, although he is ignorant of the existence of this censure, Holy Office, 11 May 1892. Therefore such a Catholic truly ignorant of the excommunication can be absolved in the internal forum by any confessor, but still needs absolution in the external forum."

B. Generally there is the obligation of admonishing delinquents who are ignorant of excommunication, so that, namely, they may know the obligation of ecclesiastical law and conceive greater horror of sin, and thus the law attain its end.

Nor in the case can the principle rather often praised be applied: admonition is not to be made if it is not hoped that it will profit. For this principle can be invoked only when it is a question of ignorance of law and sin, for the good of the penitent and unless graver inconveniences are feared, namely for avoiding formal sin. For if he in good faith is ignorant of law and sin, and it is not foreseen that he will be amended, it is better to abstain from admonition and to permit inculpable transgression and material sin than by admonishing to provoke culpable transgression and formal sin. But that does not hold in the case when it is a question of mere ignorance of the penalty; for formal sin is already present. Hence then there is no reason for omitting admonition, but it must be made with every solicitude so that sin may be avoided in the future. - But if some do not care concerning this, or even deliberately omit it, they act thus so that they may avoid for themselves the inconveniences of future recourse to the Ordinary or to the Sacred Penitentiary. This is to seek one's own convenience, not the good of the penitent or of the Church, concerning which alone the faithful minister must be solicitous.

II. When the confessor can absolve from reserved censures. - One who is excommunicated is not freed from a censure except by legitimate absolution, can. 2248, § 1; but a simple confessor of himself cannot absolve from a reserved censure, but only he who has due jurisdiction for this, ordinary or delegated. Yet when the cause is more urgent, delegated jurisdiction for absolving from reserved censures is granted by the law itself, namely:

1. In danger of death, any priest, even if an approved priest is present, can licitly and validly absolve in the sacramental forum any penitents whatever from all censures without exception, can. 882. Nevertheless the dying person, after he has recovered, is held to have recourse within a month, by himself or through the confessor, to the legitimate superior or to another furnished with faculty, under penalty of falling again into the censure, and to stand by their commands, but only in two cases: if the censure was brought ab homine through a particular sentence, or if it is reserved to the Supreme Pontiff in a most special manner, can. 2252.

2. In more urgent cases, any confessor can directly absolve in the sacramental forum from all reserved censures latae sententiae, but by explicitly imposing the burden of having recourse, under penalty of falling again, within a month, at least by letter and through the confessor, if this can be done without grave inconvenience, the name being kept back, to a superior furnished with faculty and of standing by his commands; or of approaching another confessor furnished with faculty, so that from him, confession being repeated at least of the offense with the censure, he may obtain absolution and receive commands from him.

The more urgent cases are determined by law: if namely censures latae sententiae cannot be observed

a) without danger of grave scandal, e.g., if because of the excommunication of a parish priest or magistrate grave anger or disturbance would arise in the people; or

b) without danger of infamy, e.g., if all things are now prepared for nuptials, or a parish priest or vicar cannot omit celebration, or a layman Easter communion, without infamy; or

c) if it would be hard for the penitent to remain in the state of grave sin for the time necessary for the competent superior to provide, Holy Office, 16 June 1897, and can. 2254, § 1 and 2; yet this is not hard for all.

3. Indeed in an extraordinary case, when this recourse is foreseen as morally impossible, any confessor, except in the case of absolution of an accomplice, can grant absolution without the burden of recourse, or of confession to be made before a privileged confessor, but with a twofold condition: a) the things to be enjoined by law having been enjoined, namely removal of scandal or proximate occasion, and reparation of damage, and b) a fitting penance and satisfaction for the censure having been imposed, besides the sacramental penance. This indeed in such a way that the penitent, unless within a fitting time to be determined beforehand by the confessor he has done penance and given satisfaction, falls again into the censure, can. 2254, § 3.

Recourse can be made orally, or by letter, or through another, e.g., the confessor. In this last case it is morally impossible if neither the confessor, because, for example, he must depart before the response and while absent cannot safely communicate the response without others suspecting, nor the penitent, perhaps inexperienced, can send a letter, and at the same time it is hard for the penitent to approach another confessor, Holy Office, 9 Nov. 1898; 5 Sept. 1900. But if the penitent is a priest, he is never excused from recourse, because he himself can easily write to Rome and seek a response under a fictitious name, Holy Office, 3 June 1899.

III. Absolution of excommunication in the external forum and in the internal forum. - Excommunication latae sententiae of itself holds the delinquent who is conscious of the offense in each forum; yet in such a way that before declaratory sentence he is excused from observing the penalty as often as he cannot observe it without infamy, and in the external forum no one can exact the observance of the penalty from him unless the offense is notorious, can. 2232, § 1. Hence absolution can be given in each forum: by the confessor in the sacramental forum; outside the sacramental forum by him who has ordinary or delegated jurisdiction in the external forum over the guilty person.

Absolution given in the external forum holds also in the internal forum; hence if someone was absolved from a reserved censure, the sin is no longer reserved. Absolution in the internal forum of itself does not hold in the external forum unless it is proved or legitimately presumed, and otherwise the superior can urge observance until absolution in the external forum has been had, can. 2251. Therefore, scandal having been removed, e.g., if the excommunication was not public in the place or if it is sufficiently established concerning absolution received, one absolved in the internal forum can conduct himself as such in acts of the external forum.

Ordinarily, however, for public offenses, absolution is not to be given in the internal forum before absolution in the external forum has been obtained; hence what was said above concerning more urgent cases, namely danger of grave scandal or infamy, holds only if reputation is still intact and the offense is not notorious; and therefore it does not hold concerning penalties ferendae sententiae, which are considered as ab homine, can. 2217, § 3. But if then for someone it would be especially hard to remain in the state of grave sin, he could be absolved, but only from a censure latae sententiae, in the internal forum provisionally under the burden of recurring within a month; but in the external forum he would have to conduct himself as excommunicated and abstain from public reception of the sacraments until, scandal having been sufficiently repaired, he has also been absolved in the external forum.

In the sacramental forum the customary form of absolution is to be employed, in which absolution from censures is contained; in the external forum, unless the superior granting the faculty has prescribed a more solemn form, it can be given in any manner; nevertheless it is fitting to observe the form handed down in the rituals, can. 2250, § 3.

IV. Manner of proceeding in practice. - Therefore the confessor receiving accusation of a sin which incurs excommunication should proceed thus:

1. First let him carefully examine whether all conditions, on the part of the subject and object, necessary for incurring the censure are present.

2. Likewise whether the further conditions of the censure as it is reserved are present; but if some founded doubt remains, the case is not reserved, can. 2245, § 4.

3. But if all required conditions are present, then it must be investigated whether it is a more urgent case or not; but if it is not, the penitent cannot be absolved, but is to be sent to another privileged confessor, or first the faculty of absolving is to be sought.

4. If it is a more urgent case, the penitent is to be admonished concerning the reserved censure and concerning the obligation of recurring within a month; and if he seriously promises, he can be absolved. And meanwhile the due faculties should be sought from the superior.

5. If he does not promise to recur, and does this because he foresees that recourse is morally impossible, then both reparation of scandal and damage and a special and fitting penance to be fulfilled within a fixed time are to be imposed on him; and if he promises to fulfill them, he will be able to be absolved.

6. If without sufficient reason he refuses to promise, he cannot be absolved, but can be sent to the superior or to another confessor having special faculties, from whom he may seek absolution.

7. If the penitent, notwithstanding the first promise, does not return to hear the commands of the superior, and thus acts from culpable negligence, he falls again into excommunication, because he makes little of the gravely prescribed recourse, which is not completed until the penitent has accepted the commands. But if he could not return without great inconvenience, he does not fall again into excommunication, but the obligation of recurring remains afterward as soon as he can;⁴ but if recourse becomes morally impossible, what was said above under 5 must be done, and due reparation and a fitting penance imposed.

⁴ From the nature of the thing it is established that a determined time was fixed for urging the obligation.

V. Observations. - 1. The reservation of the sin ceases when the reservation of the censure ceases.

2. When there exists a censure which impedes reception of the sacraments, as excommunication does, the censured person cannot be absolved from sins unless he first has been absolved from the censure, can. 2250, § 2. Nevertheless if absolution were granted by one having power, it would be valid, while the penitent was in good faith.

3. Ignorance of the censure generally excuses from its reservation, but ignorance of the reservation of the censure, once the censure is known, does not excuse.

4. "If the confessor, ignorant of the reservation, absolves the penitent from censure and sin, the absolution of the censure holds, provided it is not a censure ab homine or a censure reserved in a most special manner to the Apostolic See," can. 2247, § 3. Indeed also absolution from the sin holds; for if someone has been absolved from a censure, the reservation of the sin altogether ceases.

5. Not only diverse censures, but even a censure of the same species, can be multiplied in the same subject, can. 2244, § 1. Hence "if he is held by several censures, he can be absolved from one, with the others by no means absolved. One seeking absolution must indicate all the cases; otherwise the absolution holds only for the case expressed. But if the absolution, although a particular petition was made, was general, as it is customarily given in sacramental confession, it holds, provided the one absolving has the competent faculty, also for those kept silent in good faith, excepting a censure reserved in a most special manner to the Apostolic See, but not for those kept silent in bad faith," can. 2249.

6. The absolution which a competent confessor has given from a reserved censure holds even if the confession was null or sacrilegious, provided the penitent accused the reserved things. If this accusation was omitted in good faith, several judge that even then the censure has been taken away, since the confessor is judged to wish to use his power efficaciously as far as he can.

It must be treated 1° concerning its nature and division; 2° concerning its effects.

1673. Definition. - Excommunication is a censure by which someone is deprived of communion with the Church; or a censure by which a Christian is deprived, either wholly or in part, of the common spiritual goods of the Church, the distribution of which belongs to the Church herself (n. 1660. 6°).

It is distinguished: 1° Major, which deprives one of all common goods of the Church; 2° Minor, which deprives one only of some goods. - But by the name of excommunication there is almost always understood in law the Major, as St. Alphonsus notes from the common opinion;³ nevertheless before Gregory IX the Minor also sometimes came under it. - But the word anathema is used in the Sacred Canons sometimes for the distinction of minor excommunication, as in c. 12. Caus. 3. q. 4; sometimes to signify excommunication inflicted because of heresy, or suspicion of it; finally to signify certain solemnities, when, for example, excommunication is denounced with candles lighted and afterward extinguished, and with other ceremonies instituted by the Church.

Of those excommunicated by major excommunication, some are called tolerated, whom the faithful are not held to avoid; others are not tolerated or to be avoided, whom the faithful must avoid.

Formerly all who were bound by excommunication were to be avoided (i.e., communication with them was forbidden to the faithful in those acts which are prohibited to excommunicates by the censure), and indeed to be avoided publicly, if the censure was notoriously established; but otherwise privately by those who knew that someone was bound by censure.¹

But "for avoiding scandals and many dangers which can befall fearful consciences," the Constitution Ad vitanda of Martin V in the Council of Constance granted to the faithful of Christ communion, even in divine things, with those (the living, namely) who are bound by any ecclesiastical censure, unless either they have been excommunicated by name, or (according to the Theol. Patav. n. 299. 302, even after the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis) they are notorious strikers of clerics.²

Nevertheless it must be noted:

1° The aforesaid Decree does not grant communion to those who are subject to censure, as is gathered from the words of the Constitution itself, "to the faithful of Christ ... we mercifully grant," and interpreters, by common opinion, defend as truer. - Cf. n. 1243. q. 5°.

2° Although now by no ecclesiastical law is it forbidden to the faithful to associate with tolerated persons, even in sacred things, and to request them for such acts, nevertheless at times divine law, whether natural or positive, will obstruct such communication because of injury to prudence and charity, e.g., through scandal which is given; through spiritual harm which threatens the faithful person; through delay of the amendment of the excommunicated person, etc. - Cf. n. 1317. q. 2. R. 8°.

3° Authors commonly assert that it is lawful for tolerated excommunicates to communicate with the faithful, if they have been expressly or tacitly requested by these.³

1674. Questions. - Query 1° Whether, in order that an excommunicated person who is to be avoided must be avoided, it is necessary that he be publicly known as such?

Resp. Affirmatively, i.e., it is required (ordinarily, even if there is question of one who struck a cleric) that the fact of that excommunication be truly notorious, namely, that it be morally certain to you, e.g., through public fame or through two trustworthy witnesses, that he was excommunicated by name and publicly, or denounced as already bound by excommunication.¹ But he is excommunicated by name who is designated by express name or office, by words or signs so indubitable that he is altogether separated from others. But he is said to be publicly excommunicated who is denounced as such in a public place, e.g., in church, at the time of Mass or of sermon, by living voice, or through a notice in a public place according to the custom of the region. - I said: that it be morally certain to you. Yet in doubt whether someone is to be avoided, it will not be lawful for you to confess to him, lest perhaps you be absolved invalidly.²

Query 2° What must be held concerning MINOR excommunication?

Resp. Before the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, illicit communication in divine things or in civil things with one to be avoided was punished by the very fact with at least minor excommunication. But under grave obligation it deprived one of the reception of Sacraments, likewise of passive election to benefices and dignities of the Church.³ - For the external forum the ordinary ecclesiastical judge absolved from it; for the internal forum, the confessor.

After the said Constitution this excommunication seems to have been removed.⁴ Some, however, deny this. Yet sometimes communication with one to be avoided is punished with major excommunication simply reserved to the Pontiff, or with other censures. - See n. 1731. 1736. 1747. 1751. - Besides this, the Bishop can, not indeed by statute, but by name, forbid to someone the passive use or reception of the Sacraments, or at least of Communion.

1675. - The effect of excommunication, whether in a tolerated person or in one to be avoided, generally is the privation of whatever right belongs to a baptized person as a member of the Church. - In species eight are numbered, namely: 1° privation of the Sacraments; 2° privation of divine Offices; 3° privation of the suffrages of the Church; 4° privation of ecclesiastical burial; 5° privation of ecclesiastical jurisdiction; 6° privation of benefices; 7° privation of forensic communication; 8° privation of civil society.

The goods of which excommunication deprives one are comprehended in these little verses:

Res sacrae, ritus, communio, crypta, potestas,
Praedia sacra, forum, civilia jura vetantur.

Sacred things, rites, communion, the tomb, power, sacred estates, the forum, civil rights are forbidden.

And these indeed are the immediate effects of excommunication; but the mediate effects are two: 1) Irregularity, which can be incurred because of violation of the censure (n. 1771). 2) Suspicion of heresy, which he incurs who for a whole year contumaciously (according to St. Alphonsus in any censure, but especially) persists in excommunication, or, as the laws speak, grows filthy in it. - But that suspicion effects this, that he who thus grows filthy is held to purge himself canonically (see p. LXI. note 2), because from growing filthy there exists a sufficient presumption that he thinks badly concerning the power of the Church and concerning the Sacraments. But if he does not purge himself, he is held as convicted.¹

1676. - Excommunication deprives one of the right both of receiving and of administering the Sacraments. Hence resolve:

1° Per se an excommunicated person sins gravely, whether one to be avoided, or even tolerated, who receives or confers the Sacraments.

Except: a) when there is question of the recipient, if, otherwise disposed, he is in invincible ignorance, or a grave evil (such as scandal, killing, mutilation, infamy, grave loss of goods, etc.) would otherwise threaten, provided that fear of evil of this kind has not been instilled in contempt of the censure. - I said: he sins gravely; for if you except the Sacrament of Penance (which, as one disobedient to the Church, he would receive without contrition), he receives the others validly.²

Except: b) when there is question of the one conferring: 1) If he confers the Sacraments in a case of necessity (e.g., if otherwise true and grave inconvenience for him would be feared), or with ignorance of the prohibition.¹ Yet in the former case account must also be taken of scandal. - Otherwise, even outside a case of necessity, he validly confers the Sacraments, if you except the Sacrament of Penance conferred by one to be avoided outside the case of common error or of danger of death.² - 2) If a tolerated person confers them, having been asked by the faithful themselves. Cf. n. 1673. 3°. - 3) If one to be avoided confers them in cases of extreme or gravest necessity of the faithful, which cases see n. 1243. q. 5°.

2° Ministers of the Church sin gravely who confer the Sacraments on excommunicates, whether on those to be avoided, or on those simply tolerated, at least per se, since they are unworthy. - Nevertheless he who confers the Sacraments on tolerated persons alone does not sin against a prohibition of the Church, but only against divine law. The reason is that the Church no longer prohibits communion, even in divine things, with tolerated persons. But they sin against divine law, because it is never lawful to give holy things to dogs.³

I said: at least PER SE; unless, namely, either the excommunicated person perhaps lawfully seeks the Sacraments, or the one administering is excused by circumstances (see n. 1231. q. 4°). - In doubt whether someone has or has not been absolved from censure, the Sacrament cannot be denied to one asking, especially if he affirms that he has been absolved; because in doubt no one is presumed a liar.⁴

Note. - For what reason the use of Sacramentals is permitted to an excommunicated person, see n. 1678. 3°.

1677. - Divine Offices are understood to be Mass, public Processions, Hours solemnly sung, solemn Benediction, consecration of Chrism, and other ceremonies of this kind, which are done by institution of Christ or of the Church, or which are proper to the Clerical Order, as the singing of the Epistle or Gospel with proper ornaments, ecclesiastical burial.

1678. Hence resolve. - 1° Any excommunicated person is prohibited under grave obligation from hearing Mass, and from all other divine Offices properly public, even on days of precept.¹

Concerning a Mass to be broken off when one to be avoided remains in church,² note the faculty which is granted to our Bishops, and is usually communicated to priests, namely, "of celebrating ... when heretics, schismatics, infidels and excommunicates are present, if it cannot otherwise be celebrated." See p. LXXI. n. 23.

2° Nevertheless an excommunicated person, even one to be avoided, can, at a time when divine things are not being celebrated, pray in the same place in which others pray, but apart and separated from the assembly of the faithful; he can also attend a sermon, the reading of Sacred Scripture and of Theology; because these do not come under the name of divine Offices, and the Church gladly permits these things to him, that he may be led to conversion. - But he is deprived of the faculty of preaching and of lecturing in Theology or in Canon Law, unless he is tolerated and requested by others.³

3° He can also use images, relics, blessed water, and other sacred things, that he may venerate them, and thus obtain the graces of which he has need. Nevertheless he does not gain Indulgences attached to sacred things, nor does he perceive from blessed water and other Sacramentals the fruit which comes from the blessing of the Church.⁴

4° An excommunicated person, bound to the canonical Hours, is not dispensed from them; but he must recite them privately, nor can he employ a companion, unless he is tolerated and requested. Nor can he say: Dominus vobiscum; but in its place he ought to say: Domine, exaudi orationem meam. Nevertheless by saying: Dominus vobiscum, he would sin only venially, and, according to some, whose opinion St. Alphonsus seems implicitly to admit, not even venially, when he recites alone.⁵

1679. - The suffrages of the Church are either common or private. Common suffrages are those which come to the faithful from good works done in the name of the Church by her Ministers; such are Masses, canonical Hours, and other prayers and works which are done by Ministers of the Church insofar as they are such, and are performed in the name of the Church herself. To these also must be reduced the satisfactions of Christ, of the Blessed Virgin, and of the Saints, which constitute the Treasury of the Church, and are applied by the Prelates of the Church through Indulgences.

Private suffrages are those which come from good works which the faithful perform in their own name. Such are fasts, prayers, and other good works, which are done by private faithful, or by Ministers of the Church as private persons.

1680. Hence resolve. - 1° Excommunicates who are to be avoided are deprived of all common suffrages of the Church. It is clear, because the Church by her own right prohibits that prayer be made for them, or that any part of her goods come to them. And this holds, even if they were contrite and converted to a better life, because the excommunication still endures.¹

2° Neither tolerated persons, nor even those to be avoided, are deprived of private suffrages. The reason is that the faithful are not prohibited from praying privately for excommunicates, even in the Church and in a public place; therefore they can apply the fruit of good works to them.²

3° Tolerated excommunicates probably are not deprived of common suffrages. The reason is that the Church no longer prohibits the faithful to communicate with tolerated persons, as is deduced from what was said above (n. 1673). - Concerning offering Mass for an excommunicated person or not, see n. 1317. q. 2°. R. 8°. 4°.³

1681. - Ecclesiastical burial is that which is done in a sacred place, or in a place blessed for the burial of the faithful. Hence:

1° An excommunicated person who is to be avoided cannot be buried in a sacred place; but if he has been buried in such a place, his corpse must be dug up, if it can still be done, and the sacred place polluted by such contact must be expiated.⁴

2° A tolerated excommunicated person, provided he is notoriously excommunicated,⁵ likewise is deprived of ecclesiastical burial; and, if he has been buried in a sacred place, he must be extracted from there. Yet the place is not judged polluted, and therefore does not need expiation. - If he gave signs of penitence, he can be buried in a sacred place, although it is fitting¹ that he first be absolved from excommunication.

3° Even one to be avoided, who gave signs of penitence before death, can be buried in a sacred place; but absolution must first be imparted to him. Nevertheless he must not be moved from a sacred place, if he was buried without absolution.²

4° To this bear, from the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, excommunication 1 among the non-reserved (n. 1736), and interdict 2 (n. 1751).

1682. - 1° An excommunicated person who is to be avoided is deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Hence he cannot absolve in the forum of Penance, nor make laws, or censures, or sentences, nor elect to benefices or confer them, etc. But if he were to do such things, they would be altogether null and void.³

2° A tolerated excommunicated person, even if notorious, validly exercises jurisdiction, because otherwise great confusion would arise in the Church. Yet his acts can be weakened and repelled through an exception or opposition of excommunication, and he acts illicitly outside a case of necessity, or unless he has been asked; and indeed in a grave matter he cannot be excused from mortal sin. But if he has been asked, he does not sin, even if he ministers the Sacraments without cause. For since communication with tolerated persons has been granted to the faithful, it has also indirectly been granted to these to communicate with the faithful who ask. Yet this holds insofar as the Sacraments are sought from an excommunicated person; for insofar as they are sought from a Minister existing in mortal sin, a just cause is required for seeking licitly.⁴ Cf. n. 1243. q. 5°.

1683. - 1° Any excommunicated person, whether tolerated or one to be avoided, becomes altogether incapable of obtaining benefices or ecclesiastical offices. The reason is that a benefice is given on account of an office: an excommunicated person is altogether incapable of an office; therefore also of a benefice. Except if the benefice were conferred by the Pope himself, aware of the excommunication, or absolving from it. - The same holds concerning dignities to which jurisdiction is annexed (except, however, the papal dignity), and concerning obtaining Apostolic Rescripts, unless these are obtained in the very cause of excommunication or of appeal for the defense of the excommunicated person.¹

2° Nevertheless excommunication does not deprive one of a benefice already obtained, nor, if the beneficiary has discharged his office by himself or through another, of its fruits before the sentence of the judge. The reason is that neither is clearly expressed in law.² Yet if for a year he neglects to obtain absolution, he can be deprived of the benefice by the judge. But a heretic is by the very fact deprived of benefices and offices previously rightly obtained, but in such a way that before a declaratory sentence of the crime he is not held to resign benefices, and to restore fruits perceived after privation established by the law itself.³

3° An excommunicated person accepting a benefice, and he from whom he accepted it, sin gravely, since they act against a grave prohibition of the Church.⁴

1684. - Forensic communication is understood to be communication in all those things which pertain to judgment, whether civil or ecclesiastical.

1° An excommunicated person who is to be avoided is deprived of every act pertaining to judgment in the civil forum. Therefore he cannot be judge, advocate, plaintiff, witness, notary, procurator, etc. Likewise he cannot be tutor, curator, or executor of a testament. - Thus from Roman law.⁵ - But those dispositions of law today do not obtain use in most places (even among us).

2° A fortiori one to be avoided is deprived of all communication in the ecclesiastical forum. Yet he can appeal and pursue the appeal. - Thus from Canon Law.⁶

3° A tolerated excommunicated person is deprived of no forensic communication by the very fact; hence he acts validly, if he uses it; but he can be juridically repelled through exception, both by adversaries and by the judge.¹

1685. - The civil actions in which commonly it is not lawful to have fellowship with one to be avoided are contained in these little verses:

Si pro delictis anathema quis afficiatur,
Os, orare, vale, communio, mensa negatur.

If someone is struck with anathema for crimes, mouth, praying, farewell, communion, table are denied.

1° Os, i.e., conversations, letters, signs of benevolence.

2° Orare, any communication even private² in divine things. See also in the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, the 16th and 17th excommunications, which are simply reserved to the Pope, n. 1731. Likewise interdict 2, n. 1751.

3° Vale, altogether particular salutations.

4° Communio, any society of business, habitation, contract, cooperation, etc.

5° Mensa, reciprocal invitation to table.³

Furthermore: 1) It is a grave fault to communicate in divine things, or in contempt of the Church, or in criminal crime, in that namely because of which someone has been excommunicated, or even, more probably, in the other things, if the communication is frequent with the purpose of repeating it often.

2) It is venial, regularly speaking, in other cases.

3) But grave causes can excuse reciprocal communication between an excommunicated person who is to be avoided and the faithful, namely necessity, the spiritual good of the excommunicated person himself, matrimonial conjunction, the state of subjection (e.g., of a son of the family who is a minor), ignorance either of law or of fact.⁴ Those causes this little verse displays:

Utile, lex, humile, res ignorata, necesse.

The useful, law, the humble, an unknown thing, necessity.

But all these things are said concerning those to be avoided alone; and, although the privilege of Martin V by no means favors tolerated persons, nevertheless from the custom of today, or, as others prefer, because of good faith, these no longer sin in civil matters by communicating with the faithful, even if they have not been requested by them.

1686. Definition. - Suspension is a censure by which a Cleric is deprived for a time, in part or wholly, of the use of the power which he has by reason of Order, office, or benefice.

Suspension is a censure, because per se it is brought medicinally by way of admonition, so that the delinquent may desist from contumacy. Thus 1° it differs from deposition and degradation, which are mere penalties and perpetual, for the vindication of a crime; 2° it differs from irregularity, which is not per se a penalty, but a mere impediment, or inability, impeding not only from exercising ecclesiastical power, but also from receiving it.

Nevertheless suspension is not necessarily and essentially a censure; for sometimes it is brought either without previous admonition, or for a certain time, or at pleasure, or in perpetuity for punishing a merely past fault, or one not having successive extension (n. 1662. 5°), and therefore then it is not medicinal. This is established from the practice of the Church and from Canon Law.¹ - Say the same if it is made not in writing, but orally; because, since a censure cannot licitly be brought without writing, it is not presumed that the Bishop wished to commit a fault by bringing a censure orally.²

There are also singular species of suspension:

1° Suspension from informed conscience, or the faculty given to Bishops and prelates enjoying jurisdiction quasi-episcopal, of forbidding their clerics ascent to Sacred Orders, or of suspending the same from their Orders or grades, or ecclesiastical dignities (which nevertheless most probably cannot be extended to a benefice), for any cause whatever (a grave cause, however, as the nature of the thing and the context of the Tridentine words demand), the estimation of which is left to the conscience of the Bishop,³ even because of an occult crime in whatever way, even extra-judicially.⁴

Concerning the origin and character of this suspension see Acta S. Sedis.¹ It itself, as is gathered from what has been said, requires no solemnities; nevertheless it must be expressed that the Bishop acts by force of the Council of Trent,² lest he be judged to proceed by the ordinary way, in which case solemnities would be necessary.³

But from the decisions of the S. C. C. it seems that it cannot be inflicted because of public crimes (from actual jurisprudence), although one censured because of a public crime ought to revere the judgment of his Superior;⁴ besides, according to more recent resolutions, it hardly seems possible to establish it as a perpetual penalty,⁵ indeed ordinarily it is not prolonged beyond six months.⁶ Thus one suspended, who solemnly exercises a Sacred Order, incurs irregularity. - Nor is appeal granted against this penalty, but only recourse to the Holy See, to which the Bishop, having been required, is held to disclose the causes of the suspension.⁷

This suspension also ceases by the death of the Bishop who brought it.

2° Suspension for caution or inhibition, namely a precept of the Bishop restraining a cleric from the exercise of ministry, not precisely because he is guilty of a crime, but either because public fame reports evil concerning him, or because an accusation or judicial inquiry concerning a public crime has already been instituted, or for another just cause. Per se it does not have the nature of a penalty, and much less of a censure.⁸

1687. Division. - Suspension is distinguished as twofold:

1° Total, by which a Cleric is kept away from every ecclesiastical function or right.

2° Partial, by which he is deprived only of some function or right.

But partial suspension is threefold: 1° from Order, which deprives one of the exercise of the functions of Order, e.g., from the altar or celebration of Mass, from the solemn chant of the Gospel, Epistle, etc.; 2° from office (or from divine things), which deprives one of the use both of Order and of jurisdiction, whether in the external forum or even in the internal forum; 3° from benefice, which deprives one of the revenues and administration of the benefice. But these individual suspensions again can be subdivided into total or partial suspension, whether of Order, or of office, or of benefice.¹

By suspension from divine things, without anything else added, according to the more common opinion, suspension from office is understood, unless perhaps usage explains those words otherwise. For these two formulae are used promiscuously in Canon Law. - Scavini.²

1688. General Rules. - First Rule. A suspended Cleric sins gravely if he exercises a forbidden act of Sacred Order, unless he is excused by invincible ignorance, or grave fear, or another legitimate cause, e.g., of necessity; or unless the suspended person, who has not been denounced by name by a judge, is requested by the faithful and something else does not obstruct, as authors commonly add. Likewise St. Alphonsus,³ because of smallness of matter, excuses at least from grave sin him who, for example, exercises a light act of jurisdiction. Yet he can do all those things which are customarily done by laymen, e.g., sing in choir in the manner of laymen, etc. But one suspended from Order, if he solemnly exercises it, not only sins gravely, but also incurs irregularity, as we say in n. 1771.

Second Rule. Suspension absolutely and simply, without any determination to this or that, - e.g., whoever has done such things, let him incur suspension! - is always judged total, unless usage or circumstances clearly suggest otherwise,⁴ and therefore deprives one of every use of Order, jurisdiction, and benefice. But partial suspension deprives one only of that part of this power which is expressed in the law, or statute, or mandate or sentence.

Third Rule. Suspension from Order, absolutely and simply, deprives one of the exercise and use of any Order whatever, whether Major or Minor. Suspension from jurisdiction imports privation of all jurisdiction.

Fourth Rule. Suspension from office, simply and without limitation, deprives one of the use both of jurisdiction and of Order, or of any ecclesiastical ministry whatever. Hence a Pastor suspended from office can neither celebrate Mass, nor preach, nor preside over offices, nor minister the Sacraments.

1689. Resolves. - 1° One suspended simply from Order is not understood to be suspended from jurisdiction, and vice versa. One suspended from a higher Order is not therefore suspended from a lower one. Yet one suspended from a lower Order is judged suspended also from a higher one,¹ unless circumstances suggest otherwise. But he who is suspended from some special office does not by that fact incur suspension from the other offices.² Likewise one suspended from a benefice is not judged suspended from office, nor vice versa.³

2° Irregularity is not incurred by violation of a suspension brought because of a merely past delict, or in perpetuity.⁴ The reason is that then there is no violation of a censure. A fortiori, if suspension was made because of an inculpable defect of mind or body. Nor is it incurred through the exercise of any act from which someone was suspended, except the solemn exercise of Sacred Order. - Thus commonly.

3° A Bishop suspended from Pontificals, if he celebrated Mass, even with Pontificals, would not incur irregularity; because he would not exercise a substantial act of the Episcopal Order.

4° Acts of Order of a suspended Cleric, not depending on jurisdiction, are valid; because the Church cannot take away the power of Order, but only can prohibit its exercise. But acts of jurisdiction are invalid if the suspended person has been denounced by name and publicly, because he is deprived of actual jurisdiction; but they are valid, unless he has been so denounced, because the Church, by the very fact that she tolerates a suspended person, for the good of the faithful does not take jurisdiction away from him.⁵

1690. Questions. - Query 1° Whether a suspended priest can be absolved from sins by a simple confessor, before he is loosed by the Superior from the reserved censure?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is that the effect of suspension is not to deprive one of the reception of the Sacraments (cf. n. 1343. q. 7°). Therefore it suffices that he be disposed for the Sacrament of Penance, namely that he be at least attrite concerning sins, and promise that, as soon as possible, insofar as it is in him, he will procure absolution from the censure, and meanwhile that he will not use the prohibited power or rights. Hence, thus absolved from sins, with scandal and the danger of it removed, he will also be able to be admitted to Communion.¹

Query 2° Whether partial suspension can be brought for only a venial fault?

Resp. See n. 1662. 2°.

Query 3° How is suspension taken away?

Resp. 1° If the suspension has the nature of a censure, it is taken away as excommunication is, namely through absolution alone, and indeed that of the Superior, if it is reserved; nevertheless, if it was brought for a certain determined time, or under a condition, it ceases by itself when the time has passed or the established condition has been fulfilled.

Resp. 2° But if it has been imposed in perpetuity because of a fault altogether past, it is taken away, as a mere penalty, by the dispensation alone of the Prelate, or of his delegate, because then it is not a censure. - Thus commonly.

Query 4° What form is to be used for taking away suspension?

Resp. 1° If the suspension is occult, it is taken away through absolution under the general form: I absolve you from every bond, etc.

Resp. 2° If it is public, in the internal forum it is taken away by the same form: but in the external forum the solemn form determined in the Ritual is to be used. But solemnly no one can absolve from suspension except the Superior himself, or another specially delegated to this.

Query 5° Whether a simply approved priest can absolve a suspended person from censure in the article of death, if the Superior or delegate is lacking?

Resp. Not a few deny, to whom we adhere, led by this reason, that no cause appears why the Church should confer such power on him; for suspension does not deprive one of the faculty of receiving the Sacraments, if you except promotion to a higher Order. Therefore it suffices for eternal salvation that the suspended person constituted in such danger be absolved from sins.

Query 6° Whether, and what sort of, communication is prohibited with a suspended person to be avoided?

Resp. 1° Communication, without grave cause, in the acts from which he has been suspended, e.g., to serve his Mass, if he was suspended from the altar.

Resp. 2° It is lawful to communicate in other matters; for this is not prohibited, nor does suspension per se draw one away from communication as excommunication does. Hence, with scandal set aside, it is lawful to hear the Mass of one suspended, even one to be avoided, as the Salmanticenses more truly and more commonly teach. Nor must there be cessation from divine things, although a suspended person to be avoided is present at them.¹

1691. - Deposition and degradation are most grave penalties, very close to suspension.

Deposition (verbal) is an ecclesiastical penalty by which a Cleric is not only repelled from every function of Order and benefice, but is also altogether deprived of office and benefice, the title having been taken away, so that he cannot return to it without a new collation. Therefore the deposited differ from the suspended in this, that the latter do not lose dignity and benefice, but are deprived only of the fruits of the benefice and other things depending thereon, and are prohibited from exercising the functions of their Order and dignity. - Deposition can be imposed by the Bishop or his Vicar deputed for this, but only in cases expressed in the Law and for more atrocious delicts. - Although, however, of itself the penalty is irremissible, nevertheless it can be taken away through dispensation by the Bishop, as often as the crime was less than adultery.²

Degradation (or real deposition) is the solemn privation of all titles, honors, privileges, and ecclesiastical goods, in such a way that the degraded person, only the indelible character of Order remaining, is reduced to the lay condition. Hence it differs from deposition: 1° because degradation is a solemn privation of ecclesiastical goods, but deposition is not so; 2° because degradation deprives one of both clerical privileges, namely of Canon and of Forum, but deposition does not deprive one of these privileges. Hence one striking a deposited person would incur excommunication; but not if he laid violent hands on a degraded person, for he does not differ from a layman.¹

Degradation cannot be inflicted except by a Bishop and for enormous crimes, of which kind are the manifest crime of heresy, falsification of apostolic letters, repeated sodomy, a most grave calumny laid upon one's own Bishop, etc. - The Pope alone dispenses in this most grave penalty.¹

Query. Whether a degraded person is held to the canonical Hours, and to the vow of chastity?

Resp. Affirmatively as to both; because he ought not to be loosed from this burden and to perceive advantage from his own malice. Hence he would contract Matrimony invalidly.²

1692. - From deposition and degradation there differs both privation of a parish and economic removal from a parish. - Privation of a parish is established only for altogether grave causes, and with judicial order very carefully observed; but economic removal has place both because of the ignorance and unsuitability of the pastor for ruling the parish as is fitting,³ and because of grave hatred and aversion of the people, these existing in such a way that the pastor cannot consult for his parish. If it was temporary, in the place of the pastor meanwhile a suitable vicar is to be instituted, an equitable portion of the revenues being assigned to him; but if there is question of perpetual removal, the pastor must be aided by the assignment of another benefice.⁴

1693. Questions. - Query 1° In what manner among us is privation of a parish to be brought into practice?

Resp. To privation of a parish among us is assimilated the revocation of faculties, or definitive removal from office of some Missionary Rector. If this seems to be inflicted as a penalty of delict, the Instruction of the S. C. de Prop. Fide, July 20, 1878, must be observed, of which this is the summary. Bishops in diocesan Synod, after the manner of deputation or canonical election of Synodal Judges, i.e., the Synod having been heard (see Benedict XIV, de Syn. L. V. C. V.), or, if the Synod cannot be convened because of a grave cause, outside it, shall choose five priests, or, if so many cannot be had, three, from the most approved and, as far as can be done, skilled in Canon Law, whose function will be, under the president constituted by the Bishop, to bring criminal and disciplinary causes of Clerics to examination according to the norm proposed in the Instruction itself. Those so elected will remain in office until the next celebration of the Diocesan Synod, others being substituted outside the Synod, if meanwhile by death, resignation, or another cause the prescribed number happens to be diminished. But in the case of substitution of this kind it is fitting that the Bishop hear the vote of the remaining Counselors. - Recourse to the Council is not made if the Missionary Rector, the cause having been set forth to him by the Bishop, spontaneously resigns from the office. But if he has not resigned, he cannot be removed from office unless at least three from these have been employed for knowing the cause, and with their counsel, after the examination has been performed according to the prescribed norm of investigation; yet when he has been heard, which counsel, however, the Bishop is not held to follow. But the acts of the inquiry, and the opinion made known by the Counselors, must always be inserted into the process. It is also free to each Rector whose cause is being treated to have with him before the Council another priest, to be approved by the Bishop, either for simple assistance, or for presenting his observations or defense. - If it happens that appeal is made to the Archbishop from the sentence of the Bishop by which the removal of the Rector is decreed, he is held to proceed in the knowledge and decision of the cause by the same method which is prescribed in the Instruction. - See Instr. (X) p. 409 and (Y) p. 413, where the S. C. responds to certain doubts proposed concerning the Instruction.

Query 2° In what manner among us is economic removal from a parish to be brought into practice?

Resp. To economic removal from a parish among us is assimilated the transfer of pastors to another Congregation of the same diocese, concerning which the Fathers of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore have these things:¹ "We admonish all priests dwelling in these dioceses, whether they were ordained in them, or coopted into the same, that, mindful of the promise emitted in ordination, they not refuse to devote themselves to any mission designated by the Bishop, if the Bishop judges that a subsidy sufficient for the decent sustenance of life can be had there, and that this function accords with the strength and health of the priests themselves." They add:² "By using the names of parochial right, parish, and pastor, we by no means intend ... to take away that power ... which, from the discipline received in these provinces, the Bishop has of transferring any priest ... elsewhere." "But let Bishops take care that they do not transfer unwilling Priests from one Mission to another without grave and reasonable cause" (Y) p. 413. "But if a priest is assumed to the care of a parochial church who has not yet spent five years in sacred missions in the diocese, he is to be held only as administrator of the parish; nor, unless the five-year period has been completed, and an examination has been made" before the Bishop and two priests to be designated by him, "does he obtain the name and rights of pastor." Except Regulars, who have lived five years in these Provinces.

1694. - Definition. Interdict is a censure by which, in penalty for some crime, the use of divine Offices, of some Sacraments, and of ecclesiastical burial is prohibited to certain persons or in certain places.

Hence interdict differs: 1° from excommunication, which deprives one of greater goods than interdict, and affects not places, but persons alone; 2° from suspension, which affects Clerics alone, and deprives them of sacred things only insofar as they are uses of some ecclesiastical ministry, but not insofar as they are goods of the faithful; besides this, interdict also affects places, and deprives of ecclesiastical burial, but suspension does not; 3° from irregularity and from cessation from divine things, which properly and per se do not have the nature of a penalty, and therefore not of a censure.¹

Division. Interdict is manifold, namely:

1° Personal, local, or mixed, according as it immediately affects a person, or a place, or both at once.

2° General or particular, according as it is extended to a whole region, city, and community, or is restricted to an Oratory, a particular Church, or determinate persons.

3° Total, which is brought simply as regards all effects of interdict, and partial, which is brought only as regards one or another effect.²

To the partial is to be counted interdict from entrance into a church, which constitutes a species of personal interdict, and prohibits those bound by it from celebrating, receiving, or assisting at divine things in a church (but not outside it, e.g., in a cemetery); those assisting, if it can be done, must be removed. But it is disputed whether they are permitted to enter a church in order to pray there privately. - Besides this, they are kept from burial in a church or in an ecclesiastical cemetery, unless, penitence having been done, they have been absolved from the interdict.¹

1695. Rule. - I. A general interdict does not fall except upon designated persons or places. Hence: 1° When the Clergy of some place is interdicted, the people are not therefore interdicted, nor are Regulars interdicted, unless they have a benefice or office in that people, nor other clerics who have no office there; for with the clergy they do not constitute one body; and vice versa.² 2° When a city is interdicted, innocent inhabitants are not interdicted, and they can go elsewhere, that they may be present at divine Offices. 3° When the citizens of a city are interdicted, the Churches are not subject to interdict; and there pilgrims can be present at Offices (Bishops are always exempt from a general personal interdict, unless they have been specially designated). Children also in this case are innocent, if they transfer domicile elsewhere. Likewise infants and the insane, who nevertheless are deprived of ecclesiastical burial.³

II. An interdict without limitation upon some whole affects all its parts. Hence: 1° An interdict of a city involves all the Churches of that city, even those exempt from the jurisdiction of the one interdicting; for otherwise the interdict would be illusory, and thus it is decreed in Law. And this interdict even the Bishop who brought it is held to observe.⁴ Concerning Regulars, however, see St. Alphonsus.⁵ 2° An interdict of a family or community embraces its individual members. 3° An interdict of a Church extends to the individual chapels contained in it; but the converse cannot be said.

III. An interdict brought upon certain places, e.g., a castle or a city, also affects the suburbs and contiguous buildings. Hence when a parish Church is interdicted, the chapels are interdicted, and also contiguous cemeteries; but not vice versa: because the accessory follows the principal, and not the principal the accessory.

1696. Questions. - Query 1° What are the effects of interdict?

Resp. They are three, as is clear from the definition given above, namely:

1° Prohibition from divine Offices, from those things namely which are solemnly exercised by Clerics in a place deputed for these things, namely from Mass, public and solemn prayer, public recitation of the Hours in choir, public blessing of water, oil, a temple, candles, etc. Clerics who do not fall under a general interdict can and ought to celebrate, but with doors closed and (unless for a sermon, the Angelic Salutation, or the death of someone) without the sound of bells, in a subdued voice, and those interdicted by name being excluded. - Also excepted, in a general local interdict, are certain Solemn Feasts, on which all interdicted persons can be admitted to divine Offices, and, if these Feasts are to be observed by precept, they ought to be present at the Sacred rite.¹ A sermon is also always excepted, as in the excommunicated person. L. VII. 177.

2° Prohibition from administering and receiving some Sacraments, namely the Eucharist, Order (outside the gravest necessity), and Extreme Unction. Viaticum can be ministered to the dying, and according to some also Extreme Unction. Baptism (even solemn), Confirmation, and Penance are permitted to all, except those who gave cause for the interdict, even by help or favor, and those who are interdicted by name, unless either they first have satisfied, or, if now they cannot satisfy, have given sworn caution concerning satisfying. Matrimony also, more probably,² but without solemn blessing.

3° Prohibition from ecclesiastical burial. It extends also to infants and the insane in a local and general personal interdict. Clerics not personally interdicted, and not violators of the interdict, can be buried without pomp in the Church; indeed (but without Mass) even if the Church were specially interdicted.³

Query 2° In what way do those violating an interdict sin, and what penalties do they incur?

Resp. 1° As to Clerics and Religious: They sin gravely by violating an interdict, whether personal or local, unless smallness of matter excuses, as if, for example, they were to leave the door of the Church open only for a brief time. Besides this they incur: a) Irregularity, if they exercise an act of their own Order; b) Suspension reserved to the Pope, if they receive Order from one interdicted and denounced by name (see n. 1747); c) Interdict from entrance into a church (n. 1694), if they knowingly celebrate, etc. in interdicted places (see n. 1751).

Resp. 2° Laypersons sin gravely if they violate a personal interdict, for example by receiving the Eucharist; likewise if they compel Clerics to celebrate Sacred things against the interdict, in which case they incur (as also do Clerics) personal interdict from entrance into a church (see n. 1751). More probably they sin only lightly if, the place being interdicted, they themselves, not personally interdicted, merely assist at divine offices.¹

Query 3° For what cause can an interdict be brought?

Resp. It cannot be brought, speaking per se, except because of a grave fault opposed to the public good. Thus for a personal interdict the fault of him who is interdicted is required; for a penalty is on account of a fault. But for a general and local interdict the fault of him who is head of the community, or of its principal members, suffices.²

Query 4° Who can absolve from interdict?

Resp. 1° From a particular personal interdict brought by Law, and not reserved, any confessor can absolve.

Resp. 2° From a local interdict not reserved, or from a general personal interdict not reserved, the Bishop absolves, or he to whom he communicates episcopal jurisdiction.

Resp. 3° If the interdict was brought by man, apply what was said in n. 1670. II.³

1697. - Cessation from divine things is a prohibition made to Clerics, that in some determined place they abstain from divine Offices, from administration of the Sacraments, and from ecclesiastical burial.

This cessation is distinguished from interdict: 1° Because interdict can be personal, but cessation from divine things cannot. 2° Because interdict is a censure, whence he who violates it becomes irregular; but the transgressor of cessation from divine things, although he sins gravely, nevertheless incurs no censure, nor becomes irregular. For this cessation is not employed for correcting delinquents. 3° Because, while a general interdict lasts, it is lawful to celebrate divine Offices with doors closed and in a subdued voice, and even solemnly on certain Feasts; but in cessation from divine things even these are prohibited.

Cessation from divine things is distinguished as twofold:

1° One by law, which exists by the very fact, when a Church is polluted or execrated.

2° Another by man, which, after preceding admonition, is imposed by a Superior having jurisdiction in the external forum (who can also remove it, or suspend it for a time), as a sign of mourning, or for reparation of a grave injury brought upon God; and then it affects all who are present in that place.

But the causes of cessation from divine things by law are referred to in the Treatise on the Eucharist, n. 1329. q. 4°. q. 5°. - The Sacraments which can be ministered during the time of interdict are granted also during the time of cessation.¹ Hence generally a private Mass once per week is permitted for renewing the Sacred Species for Viaticum. - But Clerics do not enjoy the privilege conceded to them during the time of interdict.

682. Excommunication (Kerkban) is a censure by which someone is excluded from the ecclesiastical communion of the faithful with the effects which are enumerated in law and which cannot be separated from it (can. 2257, § 1); when solemnly inflicted it is called by the special name anathema (banvloek). Formerly, says Prummer, Th. M. III, n. 499, a distinction was made between major or perfect excommunication, and minor excommunication, which deprived only of the reception of the sacraments and of passive election to benefices; but the latter no longer exists, at least as a censure inflicted by the law itself. Major excommunication either leaves the delinquent tolerated, or renders him to be avoided; but the tolerated person either is simply such, or has been condemned by a declaratory or condemnatory sentence. According to the discipline now in force, no one is to be avoided, unless a) he has been excommunicated by name by the Apostolic See, the excommunication has been publicly denounced, and in the decree or sentence it is said that he must be avoided (can. 2258); or b) unless he has laid violent hands upon the person of the Supreme Pontiff, in which case he is by the fact itself to be avoided (can. 2343, § 1, n. 1).

A. The effect of excommunication is to deprive:

1. of the right of assisting at divine offices, with preaching excepted, and indeed in such a way that one to be avoided must be expelled, or, if he cannot be expelled, the office must cease, provided this can be done without grave inconvenience; but from active assistance, which carries with it some participation in the celebration of divine offices, not only one to be avoided, but also anyone after a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, or one otherwise notoriously excommunicated, is to be repelled (can. 2259);

2. of the licit reception of the sacraments, and, after a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, also of sacramentals (can. 2260, § 1);

3. of the licit confecting and administration of the sacraments and sacramentals, unless one simply tolerated has been asked by the faithful; but from excommunicates to be avoided, and also from others after a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has intervened, the faithful can ask, in danger of death alone, both sacramental absolution and also, if other ministers are lacking, the other sacraments and sacramentals (can. 2261);

4. of common suffrages, indulgences, and the public prayers of the Church; - yet not of the private prayers of the faithful, whence priests can privately and with scandal removed apply Mass for an excommunicated person, but, if he is to be avoided, only for his conversion (can. 2262);

5. of ecclesiastical burial after a condemnatory or declaratory sentence (can. 1240, § 1);

6. of exercising legitimate ecclesiastical acts, for example, the office of sponsor, and of discharging ecclesiastical offices and enjoying privileges previously granted (can. 2263);

7. of exercising acts of jurisdiction both of the external and of the internal forum, and indeed in such a way that, if a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has been given, they are also invalid, excepting the case of danger of death mentioned under 3; otherwise they are valid, indeed licit if they are sought by the faithful (can. 2264);

8. of promotion to orders; - indeed of the right of electing, presenting, nominating, and obtaining a dignity, office, benefice, ecclesiastical pension, or any other function in the Church, in such a way that the act placed is null if it is placed by an excommunicate to be avoided, or by another after a declaratory or condemnatory sentence. In this case he also will not ordinarily be able validly to obtain any pontifical grace, and he remains deprived of the fruits of the dignity, office, benefice, pension, or function which he has in the Church; but one to be avoided is deprived of the dignity, office, benefice, pension, or function itself (can. 2265-66).

It should be noted: a) The faithful must avoid communion in profane matters with an excommunicate to be avoided, unless there is question of spouse, parents, children, servants, subjects, and generally unless a reasonable cause is present (can. 2267).

b) An excommunicated person is irregular from delict if he culpably places an act of order reserved to clerics constituted in sacred order (can. 985, 7).

c) If with hardened mind he has remained for a year in excommunication, he is suspected of heresy (can. 2340, § 1).

B. The following incur excommunication latae sententiae by the common law:

a) Most specially reserved to the Holy See:

1. Those who throw away the consecrated species or carry them away or retain them for an evil purpose (can. 2320).

To throw away means to cast away or destroy as a contemptible thing or as of no value; not, however, to place them carefully upon the table lest they be lost, or to put them away in the tabernacle, nor merely to profane them once they have already been carried away or retained. One guilty of this crime, moreover, is a) suspected of heresy, b) infamous by the law itself, c) to be deposed, if he is a cleric.

2. Those who lay violent hands upon the person of the Supreme Pontiff (can. 2343, § 1).

That violence is to be understood as a grave real injury (not verbal) by which the body or liberty or dignity of the person is harmed. One guilty of this crime, moreover, is a) by the fact itself to be avoided, b) infamous by the law itself, c) to be degraded, if he is a cleric.

3. One guilty of absolution of an accomplice in a base sin (can. 2367), in the manner stated above, n. 636.

4. A confessor who has presumed directly to violate the sacramental seal (can. 2369), concerning which it was stated in n. 626 and 630, n. 1.

The aforesaid four canons also have force for the Oriental Church.

5. Those who violate the secret of the Holy Office concerning information required about candidates for the episcopate (S. C. C., Apr. 24, 1917; cf. can. 239, § 1, 1).

6. Those having part in a conclave who directly or indirectly violate the secret in those things which regard the election of the Supreme Pontiff and which are done in the conclave or in the place of election (can. 2330, and Pius X, const. Vacante, Dec. 25, 1904).

Most special reservation to be absolved exclusively by the Sacred Penitentiary has very recently been incurred by: priests attempting merely civil marriage and living chastely with a woman, in order to receive the sacraments after the manner of laymen (S. Poen., Apr. 18-28, 1936).

b) Specially reserved to the Holy See:

1. Apostates, heretics, schismatics (can. 2314), outwardly manifesting their mind.

Concerning this matter we spoke in I, n. 747, 750, and 956.

2. Those suspected of heresy if, after being warned, they do not amend themselves after six months; namely, they are to be held as heretics, liable to the penalties of heretics (can. 2315).

Concerning this see I, n. 747, note 1.

3. Those who, by a work made public, publish books of apostates, heretics, or schismatics which defend apostasy, heresy, or schism; or who defend those same books or books prohibited by name by apostolic letters, or knowingly read or retain them without due license (can. 2318, § 1).

Concerning this matter we spoke in I, n. 776.

4. One not promoted to the priesthood who simulates the celebration of Mass or hears sacramental confession (can. 2322). Cf. n. 90, 1.

5. All who appeal from the laws, decrees, or mandates of the Roman Pontiff existing at the time to a universal Council (can. 2332).

6. Those who impede letters or acts of the Holy See or of its legates, directly or indirectly prohibit their promulgation or execution, or on account of them harm or terrify either those to whom the letters or acts pertain or others (can. 2333).

7. Those who publish laws, mandates, or decrees against the liberty or rights of the Church; or those who, by recourse to the lay power, impede the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction (can. 2334).

Those who publish are all who must concur so that the law or decree may be issued; not however notaries who transcribe mandates, nor heralds who promulgate them, nor those who see that statutes of this sort are observed, or apply them, or use them.

8. Those who dare to bring before a lay judge a Cardinal, a Legate of the Holy See, a major official of the Roman Curia, or one's own Ordinary (can. 2341).

9. Those who lay violent hands upon a cardinal, a legate of the Supreme Pontiff, or any bishop (can. 2343, § 2 and 3).

10. Those who usurp or detain by themselves or through others goods or rights of the Roman Church (can. 2345).

Excommunication. § 1. Excommunication is a censure by which someone is excluded from the communion of the faithful with the effects which are enumerated in the canons which follow, and which cannot be separated.

§ 2. It is also called anathema, especially if it is inflicted with the solemnities which are described in the Roman Pontifical (Can. 2257).

From the first paragraph minor excommunication is excluded. One and the same signification of excommunication and anathema is clear from the Tridentine, sess. 24, de refor., c. 3; namely, they sound a total exclusion from the Church. If excommunication is made solemnly, then the word anathema is employed; but there is no substantial distinction. Excommunication simply excludes the delinquent from the communion of the faithful with the effects to be enumerated, which cannot be separated.

§ 1. Of the excommunicated, some are vitandi, others tolerated.

§ 2. No one is vitandus unless he has been excommunicated by name by the Apostolic See, the excommunication has been publicly denounced, and in the decree or sentence it is expressly said that he must be avoided, with the prescription of can. 2343, § 1, n. 1 remaining safe (Can. 2258).

In this division of excommunicated persons this chiefly must be noted: no one is to be avoided unless these adjuncts accompany it: that, first, he has been excommunicated by name; second, by the Apostolic See; third, the excommunication has been publicly denounced; fourth, it is expressly said in the decree that he must be avoided. This one alone henceforth is vitandus.

I. QUESTION I. What is excommunication, and of how many kinds is it? ANSWER. It is a censure by which a man is separated from the ecclesiastical communion of the faithful. It is distributed into greater and lesser. The greater is a censure by which a man is not only deprived of the participation of the sacraments, but is also segregated from the communion of the faithful. The lesser is called a censure by which a man is deprived of the participation of the sacraments and of the administration of the same, and of passive election to dignities and benefices of the Church. The greater deprives a man of all things which lie subject to the jurisdiction of the Church, but by no means of all spiritual goods which are above the jurisdiction of the Church. Wherefore if an excommunicate recover the state of grace, he communicates with the other members of the same mystical body. The ecclesiastical goods of which an excommunicate is deprived are of two kinds. Some are civil, which regard human society, as cohabitation, salutation, conversations, and so forth. Others are spiritual and sacred, which similarly are distributed into two kinds. Some are exterior, as ecclesiastical burial, and attendance at the celebration of the divine offices. Others are called mixed, as participation of the sacraments, the use of the sacrifice, communication in prayers, and so forth.

II. Ten effects of the greater excommunication are wont to be recounted: 1. Privation of the suffrages of the Church; 2. Privation, both active and passive, of the sacraments; 3. Privation of sacred things; 4. Unfitness for receiving Orders and for their use; 5. Privation of ecclesiastical jurisdiction; 6. Unfitness for exercising legitimate acts in judgment; 7. Unfitness for conferring ecclesiastical benefices; 8. Incapacity for obtaining the same and their fruits; 9. Unfitness for obtaining a privilege; 10. Privation of civil and forensic communion with the rest of the faithful.

III. All these effects excommunication does not beget if it be unjust and invalid. And if it were publicly established to be null, then the excommunicate could bear himself as if he were not such, both in the external and in the internal forum. If it be doubtful whether it be valid or not, the excommunication is to be obeyed.

IV. QUESTION II. Who are called excommunicates tolerated, and who to be shunned? ANSWER. Those only are called to be shunned, by the constitution of Constance, who are excommunicated by name and denounced, or are notorious strikers of clerics. All the rest are tolerated. But that a man may be called excommunicated by name so that he must be shunned, two things are required: 1. That in the excommunication the name of the excommunicated person be expressed; 2. That it be publicly declared that such a one is excommunicated: which declaration ought to be made in a public place, either amid the solemnities of the Masses, or by affixing a paper in a public place. Before an excommunicate be denounced as such, he is to be cited that he may defend himself, unless the delict be public and notorious. He who has been declared to have incurred excommunication, if within a congruous term he lawfully appeal, can bear himself as tolerated.

V. Public and notorious strikers of clerics are called those who are known with a notoriety of right and of fact. Those excommunicated in one place are to be shunned also in another place where the excommunication is secret, as the more probable opinion holds. Excommunicates who are tolerated cannot communicate in divine or human things with others; but the rest of the faithful can communicate with them in human things. Wherefore the constitution of Constance is for the benefit of the faithful, not of the excommunicated. An excommunicate sins mortally if he administer, if he celebrate, and so forth. The sacraments nevertheless are valid, the sacrament of Penance excepted, which administered by an excommunicate to be shunned is null. Wherefore the faithful who should confess to an excommunicate to be shunned would have to repeat their confessions. Whether in the article of death absolution is to be sought from the same has been said above.

VI. Very many teach that in danger of death a priest excommunicated and to be shunned can assist at a marriage for the consulting of the honour of a woman known by a man, and for constituting the sons legitimate, if there were no other priest. The Salmanticenses, no. 37, with others teach that a tolerated excommunicate can validly and lawfully administer the sacraments except Penance. Nay they add that he can validly administer the sacrament of Penance itself, and, if he be asked, even lawfully: because when he is tolerated, he does not lose the power of administering the sacraments for the utility of the faithful, as is drawn from the Council of Constance. Which opinion does not approve itself to me, nor should I judge that believer well disposed who, having the store of a confessor, should wish to confess to a tolerated excommunicate.

VII. QUESTION III. What penalty does an excommunicate incur who unlawfully administers the sacraments? ANSWER. An excommunicate, whether to be shunned or tolerated, incurs irregularity when he unlawfully administers the sacraments, as the common opinion teaches. An excommunicate also, whether to be shunned or tolerated, sins mortally if he receive the sacraments. Ignorance nevertheless, invincible inadvertence of the excommunication, necessity, scandal, and infamy can excuse. In these cases the common opinion teaches that either the one to be shunned or the tolerated can receive the sacraments. They dispute only concerning the sacrament of Penance, whether it be validly received by an excommunicate ignorant of his own excommunication, or that he may avoid a grave inconvenience. The more common opinion affirms it, whether he be one to be shunned or tolerated, provided the ignorance of right and of fact be invincible, and he approach with the due dispositions.

VIII. QUESTION IV. What harms does the third effect of excommunication bring? ANSWER. It deprives one, whether to be shunned or tolerated, of the office of celebrating the divine offices and of assisting at them. But by the name of offices are understood all the sacred functions which are performed publicly by the Church, as the celebration of Masses, the canonical hours, public prayers, processions, blessings, consecrations of chrism, and accompanying the Eucharist when it is carried to the sick. Excommunicates nevertheless can hear a sermon, and enter the church privately and pray there; nay they are bound to pour forth prayers and to recite the canonical hours if they be clerics, otherwise they would carry off a convenience from their iniquity. They cannot nevertheless in reciting the hours employ a companion without venial fault, a just cause being taken away. Neither those to be shunned nor the tolerated can hear Mass; nay, if one to be shunned were present, he would have to be admonished to withdraw; and if, being ordered, he did not withdraw, he would incur a new excommunication. And when he could not be expelled, the faithful ought to withdraw, lest they communicate with him. If the priest have not begun the canon, he ought to interrupt the Mass and go away. If he have begun the canon, he ought to pursue the Mass with one minister up to the taking of the chalice, and omit all the rest, or perform the same in the sacristy, if a fit place be there.

IX. Excommunicates sin mortally if they defer to obtain absolution, as I said above, that they may be able to hear Mass on a feast day: because by the same precept by which they are bound to hear Mass, they are obliged to remove impediments.

X. Excommunicates are deprived of ecclesiastical burial, or in a sacred place. By the name of a sacred place are understood temples, cemeteries, cloisters, and other places deputed to celebrating the divine offices and to divine worship. This nevertheless is understood of excommunicates to be shunned, who, if they have been buried in a sacred place, are to be exhumed and cast forth; and the sacred place is to be purged by aspersion. Those who bury these men in a sacred place incur the greater excommunication. But those commanding and procuring it contract the lesser excommunication. But those who bury tolerated excommunicates, even heretics, who have not been specially denounced, do not incur excommunication, as authors commonly teach. But he who should bury a heretic condemned by a judge's sentence would incur the greater excommunication.

XI. The fifth effect deprives an excommunicate, whether to be shunned or tolerated, of all use of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. A tolerated excommunicate nevertheless, if he be sought out by the parties, can lawfully and validly exercise acts of jurisdiction, as to elect, present, and confer benefices, on account of the faculty which the constitution of Martin V affords the faithful of communicating with a tolerated excommunicate. But if the faithful litigants should reject a tolerated excommunicate, then his acts would be of no value. Those giving the exception would have to manifest within eight days the species of the excommunication. Things done through ecclesiastical jurisdiction by an excommunicate to be shunned are unlawful and invalid, nor are subjects bound to obey him.

XII. QUESTION V. Whether an election is null to which an excommunicate to be shunned concurs? ANSWER. It is null if without the suffrage of the excommunicate to be shunned it could not be concluded. But if his suffrage be not necessary, and the electors either be ignorant of the excommunication or cannot repel the excommunicate, the election is not to be abrogated.

XIII. The resignation of a benefice made by a tolerated excommunicate is valid; nay even that made by one to be shunned, if it be simple and not in favour of another: because such a resignation is not an act of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, but a simple cession of a benefice. The things which are done by an excommunicate to be shunned as a private person are valid, although unlawful, if he communicate with others. A testament nevertheless made by an excommunicate on account of heresy, or of the striking of a Cardinal, would be null, from chapter Felicis on penalties in the Sixth. They assert also that instruments made by a notary excommunicated and to be shunned are invalid.

XIV. QUESTION VI. What unfitness do excommunicates incur by force of the seventh effect? ANSWER. Those bound by the greater excommunication are unfit for ecclesiastical benefices. Wherefore election, presentation, postulation, nomination, collation, and the impetration of letters in favour of an excommunicate are null; and both those electing and presenting, and those receiving a benefice whether by cause of commutation or of resignation, sin mortally; and besides the lesser excommunication which those conferring a benefice upon an excommunicate to be shunned incur, they also contract a suspension from the collation of such a benefice. And these things extend also to the suspended, the interdicted, and the irregular. A collation made by the Pontiff is excepted, because the one conferring is presumed to dispense, unless a man be excommunicated for heresy, which is not taken away by a general clause. If anyone were vincibly ignorant of his own excommunication, or of the absolution from the excommunication, the collation of the benefice would be null, as the common opinion teaches. An excommunicate receiving a benefice does not make the fruits his own, but is bound to restore them. When nevertheless he receives it in good faith, being ignorant of his own excommunication, when he recalls it he ought to dismiss the benefice, and to restore that in which he has been made richer.

XV. QUESTION VII. Whether an excommunicate loses the fruits and the benefice? ANSWER. The eighth effect deprives an excommunicate not of the benefice, but of the fruits of the benefice only, from the time at which he was excommunicated, whether to be shunned or tolerated. And by the name of fruits are understood all revenues, pensions, and distributions; but by no means the patrimony. Theologians dispute keenly whether an excommunicate ought to restore the fruits before or after the judge's sentence. To me it seems the more probable that an excommunicate ought to restore the fruits before the judge's sentence. Since the cause of the restitution is the excommunication. Therefore, the excommunication being posited, the restitution necessarily follows.

XVI. QUESTION VIII. What is forensic and civil excommunication? ANSWER. The ninth effect of excommunication is that an excommunicate cannot be a judge, plaintiff, advocate, witness, notary, or procurator in the forum. If nevertheless he be tolerated, he can defend a client, provided he be not repelled, just as he can be repelled if his excommunication be known. Wherefore judgments of a forum are valid in which the plaintiff, witness, or notary is a tolerated excommunicate; on the contrary, if he be one to be shunned, and if the judge himself have been such, all the acts of such a forum are void, as the more common opinion teaches. The testimony of an excommunicate, if it be admitted by a judge, is valid. An excommunicate nevertheless can be cited, and act as defendant in judgment. He ought nevertheless to do this through a procurator, unless he be poor.

XVII. The tenth effect of excommunication is a privation of political communication by way of commerce or society, unless necessity excuse, or unless the excommunicate be requested. He who communicates in civil things with an excommunicate to be shunned sins venially, in sacred things mortally. Communication with a tolerated one includes no fault. A continued civil communication nevertheless with one to be shunned, according to the more probable opinion, is not free from grave fault, and carries with it the lesser excommunication. Nevertheless: 1. When the excommunication has been passed by the Pope by a singular sentence, by name, he who knowingly communicates with such an excommunicate incurs the greater excommunication reserved to the Pope himself, if nevertheless he be a cleric and communicate in divine things. 2. When the excommunication has been passed against participants: for then he who communicates is bound by the same excommunication with which the excommunicate is entangled, from which he can be absolved only by him by whom the excommunicate can be absolved. He does not nevertheless incur this excommunication by communicating, unless a threefold admonition or one equivalent to three precede. 3. When someone communicates in the criminal crime — that is, in that crime for which a man has been excommunicated — affording him help, counsel, or favour. That I may comprehend all things in few words, there are five cases in which it is not lawful to communicate with an excommunicate, contained in these verses:

If for delicts anyone be struck with anathema, Mouth, prayer, greeting, communion, table are denied.

By mouth are forbidden words, signs, embraces, nods, letters, messages, and so forth. Prayer forbids communication in sacred things. Greeting forbids a salutation for the cause of honouring. Communion forbids cohabitation, cooperation, and counsel in any business whatsoever. Table forbids communication in food, drink, banquets, assisting and sitting together, and so forth.

XVIII. QUESTION IX. In what cases is it lawful to communicate with an excommunicate? ANSWER. They are contained in this single verse:

Use, law, lowliness, a thing unknown, and necessity.

Use signifies every true and not feigned utility, spiritual and temporal, whether of the excommunicate or of the one excommunicating. Law signifies matrimony, by force of which a wife can ask the debt from an excommunicated husband, and can communicate with him in the rest also, as in the government of the house and in other businesses, sacred things being excepted. And this is understood even if both were excommunicated, unless the excommunicates contracted the matrimony, or the excommunication was passed for the cause of matrimony, or lastly unless they were separated by divorce. In these cases they would not enjoy the privilege of communication. Lowliness signifies the communication which sons legitimate, adoptive, and illegitimate, grandsons, great-grandsons, and the rest in the degree of the direct line can have; and affines, as a son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepson, and stepdaughter, can mutually communicate, and wards with guardians. A thing unknown signifies ignorance or inadvertence. Necessity indicates some grave necessity, whether temporal or spiritual, whether of the excommunicate, or of the one excommunicating, or of a third person.

XIX. QUESTION X. What is the lesser excommunication, and what are its effects? ANSWER. It is an ecclesiastical censure depriving one of the passive reception of the sacraments; and this privation is the chief effect of the lesser excommunication. Wherefore he sins mortally who, entangled in this excommunication, receives any sacrament. Concerning the administration of the sacraments they differ whether such an excommunicate sin mortally or venially. Nay very many defend that he does not sin even venially. But it is difficult to exempt this man from venial fault. All nevertheless affirm that he sins mortally if he celebrate, because then he receives the sacrament. Another effect of this excommunication is a privation of passive election to ecclesiastical benefices. Any approved confessor can absolve from it.

XX. QUESTION XI. When is the excommunication of the canon incurred for the striking of a cleric? ANSWER. “If anyone, at the devil's persuading, shall have laid violent hands upon a cleric or a monk, let him lie under the bond of anathema, and let no bishop presume to absolve him, save when the peril of death urges, until he be presented to the apostolic sight and receive his mandates.” This is the canon which is had in cause 17, question 4. That at the devil's persuading signifies a striking which is a mortal sin by reason of the injury inflicted upon a clerical person. The gravity of which injury is to be taken with regard to the dignity and religious state. Although this be reserved to the Apostolic See, regular Prelates can absolve their own subjects who are strikers of Religious.

XXI. By the name of a cleric or monk come even those marked with the first tonsure, provided they wear the clerical habit; all Regulars of either sex, clerics, novices, and lay brothers enjoy this privilege of the canon. Likewise the Knights of St. James, of St. John, of Calatrava, of Alcántara, of St. Lazarus in Savoy, of St. Stephen of Florence, of the Order of Christ in Portugal, as very many authors teach. Of this privilege married clerics do not enjoy, unless they wear the tonsure; nor the tertiaries of St. Dominic and St. Francis; excluded also from this privilege are clerics who, ecclesiastical garments being cast off, mingle themselves in secular businesses and, being thrice admonished by the Superior, are not corrected.

XXII. All possessed of reason of either sex, who lay violent hands upon a cleric, incur this excommunication of the canon. Youths guilty of this striking before puberty can be absolved by a bishop. Likewise those commanding, inducing, counselling, nay consenting, affording help, and those who by guile, fraud, or malice do not hinder it, incur this excommunication. Likewise he who holds as ratified a striking made in his own name, although he neither gave a mandate nor afforded help. It is nevertheless required: 1. That the striking be made in his name, the striker judging that it will be pleasing to him; 2. That by an exterior sensible sign he betray his approbation; 3. That when the striking was committed to execution, he himself was habitually fit for affording the mandate or counsel: because if he had then been demented, he would not incur it. Sleep nevertheless and drunkenness do not hinder him from contracting it.

XXIII. QUESTION XII. What acts are called violent against a cleric, on account of whose striking excommunication is incurred? ANSWER. All lay violent hands who with some part of the body — as with mouth, foot, arm, or hand — strike a cleric or a thing adhering to him, whether immediately or by means of a staff, sword, or poison; if they violently detain a cleric; if they thrust him into prison; if they pursue him, urging him to injury or to a precipice; if they cast spittle or dust upon him; if they tear his garments; if they beat him with a reed; if they hurt the very horse on which he sits, or break the bridle and stop it: which actions all injure either the person or his honour, and dishonour him, as is clearly gathered from chapter Nuper on sentences of excommunication; and so they suffice for contracting excommunication. But by no means do they contract it who offend a cleric with words only, who brandish a stroke that they may hurt him, but in fact touch neither him nor a thing adhering to him; nor those who without violence filch or steal a cleric's clothes, a horse on a journey, or money, although it should follow thence that he could not pursue his journey. Those who give poison to a cleric are excommunicated. If a nun should drink poison to kill the foetus, she would not be obnoxious to this censure, because she would inflict injury upon the foetus, not upon herself; but he who should by force give poison to a pregnant nun would contract excommunication, because he would inflict violence both upon the nun and upon the foetus to be killed.

XXIV. QUESTION XIII. What causes excuse those laying violent hands upon a cleric from contracting excommunication? ANSWER. Ignorance of right and of fact, grave fear, just defence, and all the rest which exempt from grave fault; the title of correction, by force of which masters, prelates, and parents can strike disciples and sons, and exercise all those things which are prudently judged opportune for their amendment. Similarly immune from this censure are those who should strike a cleric basely handling their own wives, mothers, sisters, or daughters, whether that they might avenge the injury or turn him from the crime, provided they strike him in the very crime or immediately after, even if he do not fornicate with them, but only dishonour them with base kisses, touches, and embraces. A woman also solicited and provoked by a deed by a cleric, if she should repel him by a violent striking when she cannot with words alone, would be free from the censure. Clerics who, being thrice admonished, do not wear the tonsure and the clerical habit, if they act as soldiers or footpads, lose the privilege of the canon.

XXV. Of the excommunication contracted on account of a duel it has been said above, on the fifth precept of the Decalogue. It would have to be said also of the censures contained in the Bull of the Supper. But I have given that entire in Vol. I of the Apparatus, and touched upon a synopsis of the same in Vol. X, Book 1, dissertation 2, chapter 2, § 3. Wherefore if you desire more, see there.

Titius, the verger of a certain church, lets seats to the faithful for the parish priest. Caia had rented one of the principal seats, but she passed the summer season in distant regions. According to custom, other members of the faithful occupied Caia’s seat in her absence. Julia comes to Titius seeking a seat to be rented during the summer; he denied that any was vacant except Caia’s seat, which she could have, in Caia’s absence, upon payment of a fourth part of the whole annual price and without Julia’s name being put in place of Caia’s. Titius retained for himself the money paid by Julia as the fruit of his industry, as he says. But when the parish priest discovered Titius’s transaction by accident, he proposed the theological question whether he had acted justly. Hence it is asked:

1. What is a right which constitutes the object of commutative justice?

2. How are the fruits of a thing distinguished, and to whom and by what right do they belong?

3. What are ecclesiastical goods, and are the offerings of the faithful to be numbered among them?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. What is a right which constitutes the object of commutative justice ?

A right is a moral power of having, doing, or exacting something.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. i, p. 343.

2. How are the fruits of property distinguished, and to whom and by what right do they belong?

Fruits of property are natural, industrial, mixed, and civil. Natural fruits of the soil, for instance, due alone to its natural fertility, belong to the owner of the soil. Industrial fruits, due to man’s labor, belong to the laborer. Mixed, or partly natural, partly industrial, should be divided equitably between the laborer and the owner of the soil or other property which produces the fruits. Civil fruits, such as rent and interest, belong to the owner of the property rented or borrowed. These rules follow from the nature of the right of property, and so they belong to the natural law.²

2 The same work, pp. 374, 401.

3. What is ecclesiastical property, and are the offerings of the faithful ecclesiastical property?

Property which belongs to the Church, or to a religious corporation, or to a pious institute founded by ecclesiastical authority, is called ecclesiastical property. The private property of clerics is not ecclesiastical property. Whether the offerings of the faithful are ecclesiastical property or the private property of the clergy depends partly on the intention of the donors, partly on Church law, which for Britain and the United States of America is contained in the Second Council of Westminster, d. 8, according to the constitution of Leo XIII, Romanos Pontifices, May 8, 1881.³

3 The same work, p. 363.

4. The case. Titius, the verger of a certain church, let out the seats to the faithful for the parish priest. Caia hired one of the first, but as she was absent in the summer months her seat in her absence used to be given to others. Julia wanted to hire a seat for the summer months and Titius let to her Caia's on condition that Caia's name was not removed and that Julia paid what was equal to a fourth part of the annual rent of the seat. Titius kept this sum for himself as the fruit of his industry.

Titius has no right to the money, and he should hand it over to the parish priest. According to the Second Council of Westminster, bench rents form a part of the property of the Church, and so whatever Caia's seat brought in either from Caia herself, or from Julia, or from anybody else, was Church property, and could not be appropriated by Titius without sacrilege.

In a certain English town a Masonic ball was being held so that money might be collected to be given to the town’s public innkeepers. The more distinguished citizens were invited to the ball, among them Lucius, a Catholic, who went and paid a sum of money because, as he says, it would be disgraceful to have such powerful fellow citizens as enemies. Afterwards, however, he confesses the matter to his confessor, who doubts whether Lucius is therefore subject to a censure. Hence it is asked:

1. What penalty is established against secret societies?

2. What societies are considered prohibited? The Fenians? The Oddfellows?

3. Is the Masonic sect in England included under the ecclesiastical law concerning the said sect?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. Under what penalty are secret societies forbidden?

They are forbidden under pain of excommunication reserved to the Pope by the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis (n. 4): “ Those who give their names to the Masonic or Carbonari sect, or to other sects of the same kind which plot against the Church or legitimate powers, whether openly or secretly; and likewise those furnishing favor of any kind to the same sects; or those not denouncing their hidden chiefs—

—and leaders, until they shall have denounced them.”¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, 399.

2. What societies are forbidden? Are the Fenians and Oddfellows?

All societies are forbidden by the above censure which publicly or in secret plot against the Church or against lawful civil authority. In general a society which enjoins the keeping of a secret so absolutely that it may not be revealed even to ecclesiastical authority, or which exacts an oath or promise of blind obedience, must be regarded as forbidden. By a decree of the Holy Office, Jan. 12, 1870, the Fenians were declared to be comprised in the above censure. The American Oddfellows were condemned Aug. 20, 1894. Whether or not they are condemned under the above censure is disputed. English Oddfellows do not form one society with the American Oddfellows, and so it can not be said for certain that they are condemned.

3. Are Freemasons in England condemned by the above censure?

Yes, English Masons are recognized by their foreign brethren as such, and foreign Masons are received in the English lodges. Renunciation of Masonry is imposed as a condition of being received into, or reconciled to the Church.

4. The case. The question whether Lucius incurred the censure or not, will depend on whether his going to the ball and paying the money brought him under the clause — furnishing any sort of favor to the same sects. To incur censure under this head the favor must be shown to them as Masons, and with effect, so that the censure is not incurred unless the effect follows.¹

1 Ballerini-Palmieri, Opus Morale, vol. vii, 220.

There is no evidence in the case that Lucius did this. He gave money to the hospitals, and he went to the ball because he was afraid of offending the Masons. Although these actions might in certain circumstances be described as furnishing favor, favoring the Masons, there is no evidence that in effect they did so in Lucius’ case. He did wrong, and probably gave great scandal, but he did not necessarily incur excommunication.

By a decree of the Vicariate of the City dated October 29, 1907, it was declared unlawful under mortal guilt to sell, read, or retain the book whose title is The Program of the Modernists. By the same decree Pius X afflicted “the authors and writers and all others who in any way contributed labor to the preparation of this book with the penalty of excommunication reserved to himself alone.” The Supreme Pontiff adds [restoring a duplicated-syllable printing error from the official decree] that this decree is to have effect just as if it had been delivered into the hands of each one of the said authors and writers, and that if they are priests and exercise an act of Order, they will incur irregularity. Titius, therefore, a priest who furnished certain notes to the writers of that book, asks whether he is on that account excommunicated by name, and to what effects either of excommunication or of irregularity he would be subject if, while excommunicated, he presumed to perform priestly offices. It is requested that Titius be satisfied insofar as possible.

Titius furnished some notes for the composition of the book entitled Il programma dei modernisti with knowledge of the use to which they were to be put, as we presume. Pius X excommunicated the authors and all others who in any way helped to compose this book. Titius therefore fell under the excommunication. He wished to know whether he was excommunicated by name and to be avoided. The answer is No, for as Génicot says: “ Not every notorious excommunicated person, nor those who have merely been declared excommunicated together with other participants in the same crime by some general expression but have not been designated by their proper name or by a title equivalent to a name, are to be avoided. ” (II, 581).

Titius further wishes to know what would be the consequences of his performing priestly duties in spite of the excommunication. As being under excommunication he would commit grave sin if without necessity and without being asked to do so by the faithful, he were to administer the sacraments of his own accord. He would also commit grave sin if he were to say Mass. By solemnly exercising these functions of a priest Titius would also incur irregularity, and if he remained under censure for a whole year without seeking absolution, he would become suspect of heresy.

Caius, rector of the Catholic church in a certain English town, proposed certain difficulties concerning the cemetery to Titius, his confessor. For the cemetery, common to the inhabitants of the whole town, is divided into three parts, of which one is assigned to Non conformists, another to Anglicans, and the third, duly consecrated by the Bishop, to Catholics. Now it sometimes happens that a Catholic spouse desires to be buried with a non-Catholic spouse in the non-Catholic part of the cemetery, or that a non-Catholic woman desires to be buried in the Catholic part with her Catholic spouse; often also surplus earth is taken from Catholic graves and used to fill a hollow in the unconsecrated part of the cemetery, contrary, as it seems to Caius, to the reverence due to a sacred thing. Caius therefore asked his confessor whether these things are lawful. Hence it is asked:

1. What is ecclesiastical burial, and to whom must it be denied?

2. How do a simple blessing of a grave and the consecration of a cemetery differ?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. What is ecclesiastical burial and to whom must it be denied?

Ecclesiastical burial consists in being buried with the rites of the Church in consecrated ground. Catholic burial is to be denied to all who died out of communion with the faithful, and to those who on account of their crimes are forbidden it by the Church in the Ritual.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, 385.

2. What difference is there between simple blessing of the grave and the consecration of the cemetery?

The simple blessing of the grave is given by a priest when a Catholic is not buried in consecrated ground. It is invocativa, not consecrativa, and it does not make the grave a sacred place.²

2 Many, De Locis Sacris, n. 143.

The consecration of a cemetery is performed by a bishop, or by a priest specially delegated by a bishop, with the rite contained in the Pontifical or Ritual.

3. The case. When they ask it for good reason it would seem that Caius with the leave of the bishop may bury Catholics with their non-Catholic spouses in the unconsecrated portions of the cemetery, 3 although per se there is a grave precept that Catholics should be buried in consecrated ground. It would seem also that he may bless the grave for the Catholic party. Non-Catholics must not be buried in consecrated cemeteries set apart for Catholics exclusively by ecclesiastical and municipal law. A Catholic cemetery is polluted by the burial in it of an excommunicated person who was vitandus.

There is no reason why the refuse from the graves in the Catholic part of the cemetery should not be taken to level other parts. The cemetery is made a sacred place for the burial of Catholics by its consecration; such consecration does not make the separate portions of earth and stones in the cemetery sacred objects. There is then no ground for the scruple of Caius.

3 Concil. Baltim., III, n. 317 seqq.; Génicot, vol. ii, n. 627,

A convert to the Catholic faith is a knight of Pythias. He was a knight for many years before he became a Catholic. He carries a few thousand dollars life insurance in the order. As he is a poor man, it would be a great hardship for him to quit the order and forfeit this insurance. What shall he do about it?

Answer.—There are two categories of so-called secret societies, forbidden to Catholics: (a) societies, like the Masons, that are forbidden under censure, i. e., under pain of excommunication; (b) societies, like the Knights of Pythias, that are forbidden under pain of sin, but not under censure.

On October 11, 1869, Pope Pius IX issued his famous Bull, Apostolicae Sedis, in which among many other censures, reserved to the Holy See, is the censure of excommunication pronounced against “those giving their names to the Masonic or Carbonari sect, or to other sects of the same kind, which plot either openly or secretly against the Church or lawful authorities; and likewise those furnishing favor of any kind to those sects and not denouncing their hidden leaders and chiefs, until they have denounced them.”

Two qualifications are required in order that a society or organization fall under the bann of excommunication: (a) its members must constitute a sect, that is, they must be united very closely together by the profession of the same principles, that the society as a body professes and advocates; (b) it must war against the Church or against the State, even though it exist for other purposes also.

The societies generally understood to possess these two qualifications and therefore to be forbidden under pain of excommunication are:

1. The Masons. Pope Clement XII, in 1738, first excommunicated the Masons. Then Benedict XIV, in 1751, reaffirmed the censure, as did Leo XII, in 1825, Pius VIII, in 1829, Pius IX, in 1869, in the Bull Apostolicae Sedis, just mentioned, and finally Leo XIII, in 1884, in the Bull “Humanum genus.”

2. The Carbonari, a secret political society organized in Italy, in the beginning of the last century, whose purpose was the overthrow of the existing government and the establishment of a republic. They were excommunicated by Pius VIII and Leo XII.

3. The Fenians. This society was prohibited under censure of excommunication, by the Holy Office, January 12, 1870.

4. Societies of Anarchists and Nihilists, in Russia especially, but wherever they may exist, since their purpose brings them under the ban of excommunication.

No Catholic, therefore, may belong to any of the above named societies, without committing mortal sin, and at the same time incurring excommunication, which excommunication is reserved to the Holy See.

In the second category of forbidden societies, namely, of those that are forbidden under pain of mortal sin, but without the censure of excommunication, are to be placed the three societies, expressly mentioned in the official papal documents, that is to say:

1. Odd Fellows; 2. Knights of Pythias; 3. Sons of Temperance.

There are other societies also forbidden under pain of mortal sin, v. g., the Good Templars, Cremation Societies, etc., but our concern is at present with the three first mentioned. On February 13, 1896, the following letter was sent to the archbishops of the United States, from the Apostolic Delegation at Washington, D. C., for the information and guidance of the Ordinaries and clergy of the United States:

‘Apostolic Delegation, United States of America.

Washington, D. C., Feb. 13, 1896.

Your Grace:

Under date of August 13, 1895, I received from the Cardinal Prefect of Propaganda instructions regarding the application of the well-known decree of the Holy Office condemning the three societies, “Odd Fellows,” “Knights of Pythias,” and “Sons of Temperance.” According to these instructions which I communicated to your Grace at the time, the condemnation was to be considered absolute, and wherever peculiar circumstances seemed to merit special consideration in particular cases, the matter was to be referred by the Ordinary to Rome. In consequence, many Bishops have, since that time, sent cases to the Propaganda which have been referred to the Holy Office for consideration. The Supreme Congregation, after deliberation on such cases, has, by a decree dated January 18, 1896, determined on a course which is explained by the words which I quote from the decree itself:—

“It was asked whether, every other participation in those same sects having been removed, it is at least lawful to retain one’s own name in the membership rolls, and also to continue at the appointed time in the payment of the aforesaid assessment or debt.

“Since Our Most Holy Lord committed this very grave doubt to this Sacred Supreme Congregation for resolution, that same Sacred Congregation, after mature consideration of the matter, judged that the answer should be:—Generally speaking, it is not lawful; and according to the intention. The intention is that the matter can be tolerated when the following conditions and circumstances concur together in the case, namely: 1. If they originally gave their names to the sect in good faith, before it became known to them that the society had been condemned. 2. If scandal is absent, or is removed by an appropriate declaration that he does this lest he lose his right to the emoluments or the benefit of time in paying the debt; abstaining meanwhile, as stated above, from every communion with the sect and from every participation, even material. 3. If grave harm would come to himself or his family from renunciation. 4. Finally, provided that there is no danger whatever of perversion for that man or his family on the part of the sectaries, especially with regard to a case of illness or death; and likewise that there is no danger of a funeral being conducted with rites foreign to Catholic rites.

“When these matters were reported to Our Most Holy Lord Pope Leo XIII, they were approved and confirmed in their entirety. But since this is a most grave matter, full of dangers and difficulties, which concerns not only very many dioceses but also ecclesiastical provinces, that same Most Holy Lord ordered that, for the sake of observing a uniform rule, Your Eminence and your successors in the Apostolic Delegation may provide for particular cases.”

I beg your Grace to communicate the above disposition of the Holy See as soon as possible, to your Suffragans and through them to the Confessors. With sentiments of highest esteem and fraternal charity, I remain,

For His Eminence, Apostolic Pro-Delegate, Most faithfully yours in Xt,

D. SBARRETTI, Auditor.

From this decree of the Holy Office, it is evident that members of the three societies, or of any one of them, can not be absolved unless they absolutely renounce their adherence to the prohibited societies. This renunciation must be external, complete and made in good faith; because the aims and purposes of these societies are known to be dangerous to religion and to society, although the individual members of them may be quite ignorant of this fact.

Since, however, besides their leading aims, which are for the most part a matter of secrecy, these societies have for their secondary object mutual assistance in temporal things, the question arises whether a member, who having joined the association in good faith, has given his share toward the accumulation of a benefit fund, a proportionate part of which was to be returned to him or his family with just interest, either as savings or as relief money in case of sickness or death—whether such a member must so far renounce his connection with the society as to sustain a serious loss. To this, the Holy Office answers: As a rule, such financial loss is not a valid reason for continuing in the society, since it is impossible for a man to remain a nominal member of a society, without either furthering its main object, though unwillingly and unconsciously, or else giving scandal to those who do not know the true reasons for his remaining a nominal member, and who will naturally assume that such membership means practical co-operation in the aims and purposes of the society.

Nevertheless, there may be cases where there is no scandal given by the person continuing a nominal member, and where there exists no danger for his faith and where withdrawal would mean serious pecuniary loss. In such cases, provided the man joined the society in good faith, not knowing that it was forbidden, the pastor or confessor may make application in order to obtain permission to give the man absolution although he allows his name to remain on the rolls of the society in order to be entitled to the insurance for which he has been paying perhaps for many years. If such be the case, the Apostolic Delegate in Washington has been empowered by the Holy See, to allow a mere nominal membership to continue, according to his judgment of the case, for the sole purpose of securing for the applicant an external title to what really belongs to him, without identifying him with the dangerous or unlawful character of the forbidden society.

In summing up the case before us, we would say that:

1. Since the man in question became a Knight of Pythias in good faith, that is before his conversion to the Catholic Church,

2. Since he can not now withdraw from the order without serious pecuniary loss, being a poor man; then

3. If his nominal membership create no special danger for his spiritual interests, and

4. If such membership give no scandal, then application ought to be made to the Apostolic Delegate in Washington by the man’s confessor, or through him by the bishop, to obtain permission for the gentleman to continue a nominal member of the K. P.’s, in order to be able to claim legally the insurance that belongs to him and to his family. The confessor has no power or jurisdiction to judge whether the conditions that may permit nominal membership are verified or not; neither has the ordinary such power. The Apostolic Delegate alone is the competent authority to determine whether the circumstances of the case call for a special permission or authorization to continue a nominal member of the society.

Applied correction from Woywod's opening insert: CASE XXIII.—The Bull "Apostolicae Sedis" is revoked by the New Code but the censure of excommunication specially reserved to the Holy See for the crime mentioned in this case has been retained as can be seen from Canons 2333, 2334 and 2343.

Sempronius, an excommunicated (vitandus) citizen, died and was buried in consecrated ground. The bishop, hearing of this, caused the body to be exhumed and reinterred in a non-consecrated cemetery. This angered the mayor of the town, who commanded that the bishop and his vicar-general (who was a bishop in partibus) should be expelled from the town.

Titius, a friend of the mayor and at the same time hostile to the bishop, left no stone unturned to carry out the wishes of the mayor. So the bishop was compelled to fly from the episcopal city. The people, roused to anger by the action of the mayor, would not suffer him to depart from the diocese. Yet, fearful of the consequences if the order of the mayor was not obeyed, he retired by night to the residence of a neighboring bishop. The vicar-general took up his residence at the end of the diocese with a friend.

Now the question is, what crime is punished by excommunication in Part I, Article V, of the constitutions of the bull Apostolicae Sedis.

The crime which merits the aforesaid penalty is the crime of personal sacrilege committed by the contumelious treatment of the Officials of the Church. In the bull Apostolicae Sedis there are two excommunications fulminated against all who injure ecclesiastics. The first is contained in Article V, the second in Part II, Article II, Violentas manus, etc. Although the two penalties were intended to punish the selfsame crime, yet there is a wide difference between them. The first was established to safeguard the person, liberty and dignity of the hierarchy; that is of the cardinals, patriarchs, archbishops, bishops and apostolic legates. The other to protect all ecclesiastics. Again the excommunication contained in Article V is reserved to the Pope modo speciali; while that in Article II is reserved simpliciter.

Thirdly, while the first ordinance is to be interpreted strictly according to the principle “odiosa sunt restringenda” the second has a most broad application. Accordingly the first excommunication is not merited by other persons or by other crimes than those specifically designated by the article in question. Hence one who would kill a bishop-elect but not yet consecrated, or who would throw mud at a consecrated bishop, would not be affected by this canon.. The second ordinance, on the contrary, since it contains a privilege which is not personal but applies rather to the clerical order, is designed to protect all who have received tonsure, even though they be excommunicated or suspended or under interdict.

From this it is evident that it may sometimes happen that one may escape the excommunication fulminated in Article V and yet by reason of his crime be affected by the excommunication attached to the violation of Article II, as, for instance, would be the case with one, who, at the instigation of the devil, would hurl some mud at his bishop.

Again it might be asked, who are affected by this excommunication? The answer is simple—all who inflict any injury on the person, or who interfere with the liberty or dignity of the tonsured cleric, in other words all who maltreat those that are protected by the two canons in question.

(a) Those who injure the person; that is those who kill or mutilate or strike such persons as are made sacred by holy tonsure. Would they be subjected to this penalty who plucked the hairs of a bearded priest or bishop? No, for this is not mutilation in the proper sense, since the beard is not a member having a function distinct from the other parts of the body.

What has been dedicated in a special manner to the service of God belongs to him in a special manner, and should be treated with reverence and respect. The reverence and respect which is due in the first place to God is transferred in some measure to what has been dedicated to him. It is right and proper to treat churches with reverence for the sake of him to whom they are dedicated. Persons and places which have been dedicated to the service of God by lawful authority are called sacred. The Catholic Church uses special rites when she dedicates persons and places to the service of God. These are either consecrations, in which holy oil is used, or constitutive blessings, in which holy oil is not used. Clerics are dedicated to the service of God by the tonsure, and thereby they become sacred persons, to be treated with reverence by the faithful, as Canon 119 declares. The same Canon declares that those who inflict a real injury on clerics are guilty of sacrilege. Religious are dedicated to the service of God by the profession of the evangelical counsels; they thereby become sacred persons, and personal sacrilege is committed by inflicting any real injury on them.

This was understood by the faithful in the earliest ages of the Church. Crimes of violence committed against the clergy and religious had a special heinousness attached to them. In the Penitential Book attributed to St Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury, towards the close of the seventh century, we read: “If a layman kills another layman out of hatred and does not wish to lay aside his arms, let him do penance for seven years, three without flesh-meat and wine.” If anyone killed a cleric or monk the laying aside of his arms was no longer optional. The next decree of the same penitential prescribed that he should do that, and, moreover, enter a monastery or do penance for seven years.

In the twelfth century would-be reformers, like Arnold of Brescia, excited great hostility against clerics and monks by denying their right to own property. Crimes of violence against them increased, and Innocent II, in the Second Council of the Lateran, not only condemned Arnold of Brescia, but made a celebrated law for the protection of clerics and religious which came to be known as the privilege of the Canon. As far as concerns our present purpose, this law enacted that if anyone at the instigation of the devil incurred the guilt of sacrilege by laying violent hands on a cleric or monk, he was by the very fact excommunicated. This law was maintained in its rigour until the issue of the new Code. Notorious breakers of it derived no advantage from the mitigation of the effects of excommunication introduced by Pope Martin V. The absolution of the old censure was simply reserved to the Pope. The new Code increases its rigour as far as the higher clergy are concerned; as far as regards the lower clergy and religious, its rigour is somewhat mitigated. It will be well to give a translation of the new law as it stands in Canon 2343:

Section 1.—Anyone who lays violent hands on the person of the Roman Pontiff:

(1) Incurs excommunication by the very fact reserved in a most special manner to the Holy See, and by the very fact he is to be avoided as excommunicate.

(2) He is infamous by law.

(3) If he is a cleric he is to be degraded.

Section 2.—Anyone who lays violent hands on the person of a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church or a Legate of the Roman Pontiff:

(1) Incurs by the very fact excommunication in a special manner reserved to the Holy See.

(2) He is infamous by law.

(3) Let him be deprived of benefices, offices, dignities, pensions, and any post which he may have held in the Church.

Section 3.—Anyone who lays violent hands on the person of a Patriarch, Archbishop, Bishop, even though only titular, incurs excommunication by the very fact specially reserved to the Holy See.

Section 4.—Anyone who lays violent hands on the person of other clerics or of religious of either sex incurs by the very fact excommunication reserved to his own Ordinary, who besides according to his prudence should punish him with other penalties if the case require it.

By way of explanation it will be sufficient to say a word or two on some of the technical terms employed in this Canon.

To lay violent hands upon a cleric means any external and grievously sinful action which in any way injures the person, the liberty or the dignity of the cleric. The person is thus injured by killing, wounding, beating, or knocking down. The cleric’s liberty is injured by unlawful imprisonment or detention against his will, even in a private place. His dignity is thus injured by knocking off his hat, by spitting on him, by tearing his clothes. The phrase signifies an injurious action, not mere words or threats. However, as the examples given sufficiently indicate, it is not necessary that a physically serious - injury should be inflicted on a cleric in order that the censure may be incurred. It will be sufficient if it is an action which is seriously contrary to the reverence and respect due to the cleric or religious and unjustly inflicted on him.

It will be noticed that the censure which protects the personal inviolability of the Roman Pontiff is most specially reserved to the Holy See, while that which protects Cardinals, Archbishops, and Bishops is specially reserved to the Holy See, and that which protects the inferior clergy and religious, even novices, lay brothers, and lay sisters, is reserved to their own Ordinary. In the case of religious men this will be their own higher Superior.

On a former occasion we have seen what is implied by infamy of law.

In general, in order that an excommunicated person must be avoided by the faithful, he must be excommunicated by name and by the Holy See, the excommunication must be made public, and in the decree it must be said expressly that he is to be avoided. These conditions are not required in the case of one who has laid violent hands on the Roman Pontiff. He is to be avoided by all who are aware of his crime.

The Catholic Church is the union, the society of all the faithful, of all those who believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ and recognize him and his Vicar as their head. Faith, then, is an essential condition of membership of the society founded by Jesus Christ. “He that believeth not shall be condemned.’ “Without faith it is impossible to please God.” But this divine society, like every other corporation or union, has a head, who is none other than its Founder, Jesus Christ. Moreover, as the Church militant on earth is a visible society, Christ gave it a visible head to rule it in his name and by his authority. This Vicar of Christ is the Pope; there is no other claimant for the office. A member of the Church, then, must be subject to the Pope. If anyone refuses to be subject to the head of the society to which he belongs, he becomes a rebel, and is cut off from membership by his own act. “If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican,” said our Lord. On these principles, heretics, apostates, and schismatics have always been considered as branches cut off from the mystical vine, from the Church, and from Christ by their own act. St Paul wrote to Titus: “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid. Knowing that he that is such an one is subverted and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgement.’ The same Apostle wrote to Timothy that he had delivered certain heretics up to Satan, that they might learn not to blaspheme. He told the Corinthians that those who made schisms in the Church acted as if they would divide Christ. They strove to divide his mystical body, the Church.

The Church has always considered heretics, apostates, and schismatics as excommunicated persons, but her discipline with regard to them has varied somewhat in minor details from age to age. Here I consider them as persons who have incurred a censure which is specially reserved to the Holy See by the new Code. According to Canon 1325:

“A heretic is one who, after receiving baptism and still retaining the name of a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any article which has to be believed by divine and Catholic faith.”

“One who altogether abandons the Catholic faith is an apostate.’

“A schismatic is one who refuses to be subject to the Supreme Pontiff or refuses to communicate with the members of the Church subject to him.”

In order, then, to incur the guilt of heresy, a baptized person must deny or positively doubt some doctrine which has been revealed by God and which is proposed by the Catholic Church as an article of divine faith. He must do this pertinaciously; that is, he must know that the doctrine in question is proposed by the Church as an article of divine faith and yet obstinately cling to his own opinion. One who through ignorance denies or doubts an article of the faith is not a heretic in the strict sense; he is a material, not a formal, heretic.

An apostate has altogether discarded the teaching of the Catholic Church, whether he has joined any other religious body or not.

A schismatic is one who refuses to be subject to the head of the Church or who refuses to communicate with those who are subject to him. He is not merely disobedient to an authority which he recognizes; he refuses to recognize the authority. To incur the penalties, formal schism is required; merely material schism is not sufficient.

The penalties incurred by apostates, heretics, and schismatics according to the new Code are laid down in Canon 2314. Besides other penalties, on which we need not dwell here, they incur by the very fact excommunication; and the absolution of this censure is in general specially reserved to the Holy See. Then follows a paragraph in the Code which throws light on the procedure followed in the reception of a convert into the Church from heresy or schism. In her external government, when non-Catholics ask to be received into the Church, she presumes that they have fallen under this excommunication. She knows nothing of their good faith in her external tribunal. But, in spite of the censure being specially reserved to the Holy See, if a case is brought in any way, even by voluntary confession, as in the case of a convert, before the local Ordinary, either he or his delegate is empowered to deal with it. He should receive the abjuration of heresy to be made by the convert according to law before the local Ordinary or his delegate and two witnesses, and observe whatever else is prescribed for the case. He or his delegate may then grant absolution in the external tribunal from the censure of excommunication; and after such absolution any confessor, even without special faculties, is empowered to give absolution for the sin of heresy or schism or apostasy, if any such sin has been committed by the convert.

This will explain why the leave of the Bishop should be required for the reception of a convert into the Church. An additional reason for such leave being required is because converts are usually adults, and Canon 744 prescribes that the baptism of adults is to be notified to the Bishop, so that if he chooses, in person or by his delegate, the baptism may be performed with greater solemnity. Most converts in this country at least are baptized conditionally when they are received into the Church on account of prudent doubt concerning their previous baptism.

The Church forbids Catholics to join secret societies. “Let the faithful avoid,” says Canon 684, “secret, condemned, seditious, suspect societies, and those which strive to withdraw themselves from the lawful vigilance of the Church.” If an organized body strive to conceal by the cloak of secrecy its members, its aims and object, and the means which it employs, the presumption is that it is organized against the public good. “Every one that hath evil hateth the light and cometh not to the light that his works may not be reproved.” The heads of secret societies are generally unknown to the outside world, and often even to the members themselves. Yet the members are bound to obey them, often under oath. There is no guarantee that all the orders issued by the secret heads will be in accordance with right and justice, and it is wrong to promise obedience under such circumstances. To make such a promise is to abdicate personal responsibility. Freemasonry is not only a secret society, it is a secret society of a special kind, and the Catholic Church forbids Catholics to join it under pain of incurring excommunication, the absolution of which is reserved to the Holy See. This is laid down in Canon 2335: “Those who join the Freemasons or other societies of the same kind which plot against the Church or lawful civil authority incur by the very fact excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See.” A Catholic, then, who becomes a Freemason ceases to be a Catholic; he is cut off from membership with the Catholic Church.

Modern Freemasonry is a secret society of English origin and dates from the early part of the eighteenth century. It spread quickly, and it is said that it now numbers more than two million members and that it has lodges all over the world. Its activities soon attracted the attention of civil and ecclesiastical authority. Many governments, both civil and ecclesiastical, prohibited it. It was condemned under pain of excommunication by Pope Clement XII in the year 1738, and since then the condemnation has frequently been repeated by his successors.

The Popes have been perfectly frank and open in acknowledging the sources from which they derived their information concerning the society. In his well-known Encyclical, Humanum Genus, issued in 1884, Leo XIII said that the Holy See derived its information from the observations of the fruits of Masonic activity in various parts of the world, from the publication of the statutes, rites, and commentaries of the order, from the investigation of particular cases, from the personal testimony of men who had been in the secret, and from the delation of civil governments. Clement XII had pointed out the radical flaw in the organization from the beginning. It drew men from any religion and sect, and, without requiring them to renounce or to profess any form of religion, it united them in the strictest bonds of unity. The practical consequence, as Leo XIII pointed out, was to bring about a complete indifference towards all forms of religion. But human nature does not stop there, it cannot rest satisfied with a mere negation. “He that is not with me is against me, and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.” A creature cannot be indifferent to the claims of God and of Jesus Christ. If he is not on their side he soon becomes hostile to them. With inexorable logic, Leo XIII showed how indifference towards religion and the claims of God has led Masonry to modern Naturalism. Masons might believe what they pleased about the supernatural, they were united on the question of the natural, and they gave their exclusive attention to it. The attitude involves a practical rejection of Christianity and the adoption of neo-paganism. This accounts for many an error in religion and philosophy, in social and political affairs, in family life, and in the education of the young which form settled dogmas of modern thought. If what is called modern thought is not the creation of Masonry, at least Masonry has had great influence in making it so widely accepted.

Canon 2335 inflicts the penalty of excommunication, not only on Freemasons, but on members of other societies of the same kind. There is some difference of opinion among the commentators as to the meaning of the phrase “societies of the same kind.” Some of the latest and best authorities say that its meaning is defined by the clause which follows—" which plot, machinate, or work openly or in secret against the Church or lawful civil authority,” so that Communists and other organizations of the same sort would come under the condemnation. Others hold that as Freemasonry is a secret society, the phrase “other societies of the same kind” can only comprehend secret societies which work against the Church or lawful civil authority. Of course, there is no doubt but that Communism is forbidden on other grounds, and by Canon 634.

Recent events in Italy seem to show that while it works in secrecy its influence is great, but that when it comes to power and is compelled to show itself, the fierce light which beats upon a throne tends to destroy the influence of Freemasonry.

Dr. Augustus Jessopp used to call the Protestant Reformation in England the Great Pillage. The name was a good one, and it indicated a very important aspect of that complex movement. It has been calculated that about one-third of the wealth of England at the time of the Reformation belonged to the Catholic Church, and this huge sum was taken from the Catholic Church, and what did not find its way into the royal coffers went to found new families henceforth keenly interested in maintaining the new order, or served for the maintenance of the new national Church, or of the remnant of educational establishments that were left by the Reformers.

Dr. Jessopp’s attitude was a little illogical. As a loyal clergyman of the Church of England as by law established, he held that the State or the nation could alienate Church property for a good purpose. That is not Catholic teaching. The Catholic Church in England before the Reformation was not the Church of England. It was a province, a portion of the Church Catholic or Universal; its dioceses, parishes, colleges, schools, and monasteries were subordinate societies or corporations of the one supreme and universal Society called the Catholic Church. The property of all these subordinate societies was the property of the Catholic Church. The Pope was recognized as the supreme head of the Catholic Church and the supreme administrator of all its property. When Cardinal Wolsey desired to appropriate the property of St Frideswide’s and of other monasteries to the foundation of Christ Church at Oxford, he had to obtain a Bull for the purpose from Pope Clement VII. He only succeeded at the cost of considerable delay, subterfuge, and misrepresentation. He had very great powers at the time as papal legate, but they did not enable him to alienate the property of the Catholic Church. When Henry VIII had made himself supreme head of the Church in England, it became an easy matter for him and his successors to rob the Church of its property.

Other northern countries of Europe witnessed similar proceedings. The example was infectious. Albert of Brandenburg, Grand Master of the Teutonic Knights, abandoned the Catholic Church and converted the possessions of the Order into the hereditary duchy of Prussia, a bad beginning for a fateful country.

Such glaring examples had many imitators on a smaller scale. The Council of Trent did its best to put a stop to the wholesale robberies of Church property. It enacted that if avarice, the root of all evil, so gains possession of any cleric or layman, of whatever dignity he may be, even though it be imperial or regal, that he has the presumption in any way to convert to his own use, usurp, or hinder from being received by those to whom of right they belong, the jurisdiction, property, income, and rights, fruits, emoluments, and produce of any church, secular or religious benefice, lending banks for the poor, or other pious institutions, which should relieve the necessities of their ministers and of the poor, such a one lies under excommunication until he has made full restitution of his ill-gotten gains, and has obtained absolution from the Pope.

This enactment of the Council of Trent has been in substance reproduced in Canon 2346 of the new Code of Canon Law, and it is now one of the cases simply reserved to the Holy See. It is intended to safeguard the property of the Church as far as spiritual penalties can effect that object. Still, it is a penal law, and it must not be extended beyond due limits. A few cases will help to illustrate its application.

The Roman Congregations whose office it is to interpret and explain the law of the Church, have declared more than once that this censure is not incurred by common thieves and robbers who, for example, break into a church and steal a chalice or rob the poor-box. The censure is aimed at higher culprits who unjustly claim to make ecclesiastical property their own. Thieves and robbers merely seize the property and use it; they make no claim to be its owners. They are guilty of sacrilegious theft, and may be punished as such by spiritual penalties, but they do not incur this censure.

An executor or legatee who refused to pay to the priest a sum of money left by will for Masses would not seem to incur the censure. Of course he sins, and is bound to make restitution, but as the sum of money was not paid over to the Church, it never became ecclesiastical property.