Excommunications Reserved to No One

In the fourth series thirteen excommunications are numbered, of which five were imposed by the constitution Apostolicae sedis, seven by the Council of Trent, to which is added the excommunication imposed by Pius X in the Motu proprio Praestantia.

From a censure which is not reserved any confessor in the tribunal of Penance, and outside the tribunal of Penance anyone who has jurisdiction over the culprit in the external forum can give absolution (Can. 2253).

Canon 2318 I. Auctores et editores qui sine debita licentia sacrarum Scripturarum libros vel eorum adnotationes aut commentarios imprimi curant, incidunt ipso facto in excommunicationem nemini reservatam. (Authors and publishers who without the requisite permission cause books of Holy Scripture, or notes or commentaries upon them, to be printed, fall ipso facto under an excommunication reserved to no one.)

Auctores—Authors of notes and commentaries on Holy Scripture.

Licentia—Leave of the Ordinary of the author, or of the place where the notes, etc., are printed or published.

Imprimi—Having the books or notes or commentaries printed is what is forbidden under censure without leave. Canon 2339 II. Qui ausi fuerint mandare seu cogere tradi ecclesiasticae sepulturae infideles, apostatas a fide, vel haereticos, schismaticos, aliosve sive excommunicatos sive interdictos, contra praescriptum Can. (Those who shall have dared to order or to compel that infidels, apostates from the faith, or heretics, schismatics, or others either excommunicated or interdicted, be given ecclesiastical burial, against the prescription of Canon 1240,) 1240, sec. 1 contrahunt excommunicationem latae sententiae nemini reservatam. (§ 1, contract an excommunication latae sententiae reserved to no one.)

Ausi.—Crass ignorance excuses from the censure.

Mandare.—Public authority is to be understood.

Sepulturae——Which consists not only of burial in consecrated ground, but in transferring the corpse to the church and therein holding a funeral service (Can. 1204). So that mere burial would not incur the censure. Canon 2347 III. Quod si beneplacitum apostolicum in memoratis Canonibus 534, sec. I, 1532 praescriptum [ad alienanda bona ecclesiastica] fuerit scienter praetermissum omnes quovis modo reos sive dando sive recipiendo sive consensum praebendo manet excommunicatio latae sententiae nemini reservata. (But if the apostolic approval prescribed in the aforesaid Canons 534 § 1 and 1532, for alienating ecclesiastical goods, has been knowingly omitted, an excommunication latae sententiae reserved to no one awaits all who are in any way guilty, whether by giving, or by receiving, or by lending their consent.)

Scienter.—Full knowledge that there is question of ecclesiastical property, that leave of the Holy See is required for its alienation, and this under censure.

Omnes.—Not only the giver and the receiver, but all whose consent is required for the transaction, and who gave it. Canon 2352 IV. Excommunicatione nemini reservata ipso facto plectuntur omnes, qualibet etiam dignitate fulgentes, qui quoquo modo cogant sive virum ad statum clericalem amplectendum, (There are punished ipso facto with an excommunication reserved to no one all persons, even though adorned with any dignity whatsoever, who in any way compel a man to embrace the clerical state,) sive virum aut mulierem ad religionem ingrediendam vel ad emittendam religiosam professionem tam sollemnem quam simplicem, tam perpetuam quam temporariam. (or a man or a woman to enter religion or to make religious profession, whether solemn or simple, whether perpetual or temporary.)

Cogant.—By violence, threats, instilling grave fear.

Emittendam.—Compelling them after they have entered freely to make their profession against their will. Canon 2368 V. Fidelis qui scienter omiserit eum a quo sollicitatus fuerit, intra mensem denunciare contra praescriptum Can. 904 incurrit in excommunicationem latae sententiae nemini reservatam, non absolvendus nisi postquam obligationi satisfecerit, aut se satisfacturum serio promiserit. (A member of the faithful who knowingly fails to denounce within a month the person by whom he was solicited, against the prescription of Canon 904, incurs an excommunication latae sententiae reserved to no one, and is not to be absolved until he has satisfied the obligation, or has seriously promised that he will satisfy it.)

Fidelis—He who has been solicited and who refuses to denounce the culprit is subject to this censure, not someone else who knows of the crime. See above on Penance, Chapter XI.

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.

977. • Concerning these the same Constitution Apostolicae Sedis declares thus:

We declare to be subject to latae sententiae excommunication reserved to no one:

I. Those commanding or compelling notorious heretics, or persons excommunicated or interdicted by name, to be given ecclesiastical burial ¹.

¹ The censure which under the ancient law, from Clementine 1, On Burial, struck those burying in a sacred place persons publicly excommunicated, manifest usurers, etc., has been restricted in two ways by force of this Article. For: 1. it affects not those burying, but only those commanding or compelling burial, etc.; 2. it applies only when there is question of burying notorious heretics, under which class notorious apostates from the Christian faith must also come, and persons excommunicated by name or interdicted by name.

Avanzini writes in this place (no. 42): To this or another article in which there is question of persons declared excommunicated by name can in some manner be referred those things which are read in the Instruction of the Office of the Sacred Inquisition concerning the duty of the Ordinary to admonish or judicially declare by name those who incur censures reserved to the Roman Pontiff.

But Cretoni writes somewhat differently (Note to this article): Since, where there is question of persons declared excommunicated by name, a judicial sentence is presupposed by which the guilty person is declared to have incurred excommunication, it was asked generally whether those who incurred censures are to be admonished by the Ordinary. I said that the question is proposed here somewhat differently. For Cretoni takes it, according to the words in which it is thus presented in the Instruction, You asked whether those who incurred the aforesaid censures are to be admonished, as though it were merely asked whether an admonition must be premised if those who incur censures are to be denounced or declared by name, through a judicial sentence, to be excommunicated or interdicted.

But the Sacred Inquisition does not appear to have understood the question thus. For, setting aside for the present those things which it answers either concerning admonition by a confessor in the forum of conscience or concerning pastoral admonition by the Ordinary, with regard to a judicial sentence it merely has this: Whether it is expedient that this declaratory sentence be delivered cannot be determined generally, but must be discerned after the circumstances of the deed and persons have been carefully weighed. But these things answer nothing to the question which Cretoni judged to have been proposed.

Moreover, St. Alphonsus (book 7, no. 137) had resolved the question thus understood by Cretoni from the common doctrine: one excommunicated by law, unless the crime is notorious, must first be cited by his own Superior so that he may defend himself. But the Holy Doctor understands notoriety not only of fact but also of law; for, as he says (loc. cit., no. 144), until the guilty person has confessed or been condemned in judgment, he can always be excused by some defense.

II. Those harming or terrifying Inquisitors, denouncers, witnesses, or other ministers of the Holy Office; those carrying off or burning the writings of its sacred Tribunal; or those furnishing assistance, counsel, or favor to any of the aforesaid persons.

III. Those alienating, and those presuming to receive, ecclesiastical goods without the Apostolic Good Pleasure, according to the form of the Extravagant Ambitiosae, On Ecclesiastical Things Not to Be Alienated ².

² We shall take the explanation of this Article from the Rieti Commentary, than which nothing fuller and clearer can be desired. By this Article, therefore, alienations of ecclesiastical goods without the Apostolic Good Pleasure, according to the form of the Extravagant Ambitiosae, are punished with excommunication.

Ecclesiastical goods are said to be: 1. those which are in the patrimony of some Church or Monastery; 2. ecclesiastical Benefices and Chaplaincies, even merely lay ones; 3. finally, the goods of any Pious Places, provided these have been erected by ecclesiastical authority. But ownership of goods of this kind is in the Churches themselves and the Pious Places; administration is in their Rectors or Stewards; care and, as it were, guardianship is in the Ordinaries of Places or of Regulars. Wherefore administrators or stewards cannot alienate them, and if they have alienated them, they effect nothing; but Ordinaries regularly cannot alienate immovable or precious movable goods without the good pleasure of the Apostolic See.

It was said regularly; for otherwise they can alienate: 1. estates of small value, under which class there does not come a part of an estate, however small its value, or those which bring more inconvenience than advantage. But estates which formerly were estimated at no more than twenty-five Camera gold pieces, namely, about 212 lire, are held to be of small value; formerly, I say, because account of the value of money, altered from the beginning of the seventeenth century down to us, does not appear to be neglected even in these matters. 2. They can alienate anything else if either necessity which does not admit of delay presses, or an opportunity is present which would otherwise pass away; likewise things donated to the Church under the condition that they can be alienated, or purchased with an agreement of resale. Moreover, since according to law 28, ff., On the Signification of Words, He who does not use an opportunity of acquiring is not understood to alienate, as one who omits an inheritance or does not embrace an option given within a definite time, they can repudiate things offered to the Church by right, or left to it, but not yet accepted, for example, a donation, inheritance, or legacy; and thus they can fail to satisfy a condition under which something was left or promised to the Church or Monastery; and much more can they fail to employ an exception by which some right would be acquired or restored to the Church. Hence they can also make a settlement, not indeed by diminishing, but by not acquiring. Nor is it alienation to receive money on loan, or to invest money existing in the treasury of the Church, provided that, if by necessity of law it must be invested in a fruitful immovable thing, then, if such is lacking, it be invested in real annuities.

But the word alienation is here taken most broadly for any contract by which either: 1. ownership is transferred, as by giving a thing in payment, exchanging a thing, or granting it in emphyteusis; or 2. some real right departs from the Church, understand also a Monastery, etc., or a real burden is imposed upon things, for example, an annuity, mortgage, or servitude, or a servitude owed to it is remitted; or leases are made beyond a useful or fruitful three-year period.

Moreover, since the excommunication is not contracted unless the alienation is made without the good pleasure of the Apostolic See, and since in alienations which are made from Church to Church there is not sufficient agreement as to whether good pleasure of this kind is necessary, it is not established that there is place for the excommunication in these. Likewise, if an alienation has been made from a just cause and without detriment to the Church, the excommunication appears to cease; for the received opinion is that an alienation of this kind is valid in the forum of conscience, although it is not valid in the external forum.

In addition, since the excommunication is not incurred unless the alienation has been completed on both sides, it therefore will not be incurred when the thing has not yet been delivered, and indeed even if it has been delivered but sold under a suspensive condition. Leases beyond three years will also lack both fault and censure if either they were made under the condition that, after each three-year period has ended, the lessor may withdraw from the lease; or they were made by usufructuaries, for example, Beneficiaries or Chaplains, since they fall when their right is dissolved.

Finally, since this sanction strikes only those alienating and those presuming to receive, it therefore does not comprehend those consenting, counseling, favoring, etc.; and much less those who destroy ecclesiastical things or steal or plunder them. Indeed, it does not comprehend all who alienate, but only those to whom their administration is entrusted. And even from these Bishops and Abbots must be excepted, who are punished not with excommunication but with interdict from entrance into the Church. Add that, since that which once departed from me cannot depart from me any further, if someone afterward alienates a thing acquired by him contrary to the form of the Extravagant Ambitiosae, neither he nor the one who receives it incurs excommunication. See the praised Rieti Commentary, where all these things are seen to rest upon solid foundations.

IV. Those neglecting or culpably omitting to denounce within a month Confessors or Priests by whom they were solicited to shameful acts in any of the cases expressed by Our Predecessors Gregory XV in the Constitution Universi, 20 August 1622, and Benedict XIV in the Constitution Sacramentum poenitentiae ³.

³ Since time does not run against one who is ignorant, the month must be computed from the time when someone knows: 1. the obligation of denunciation; 2. the excommunication annexed to this obligation; and 3. the time prefixed to the obligation. Therefore, so long as someone is ignorant of the obligation, he lacks both fault and penalty. But so long as, although he knows the obligation, he is nevertheless ignorant of the penalty of censure added to it, he likewise does not incur it, because contumacy against the sanctioning law is lacking. In the third case, however, if he falsely judged that the denunciation had to be made immediately, and thus he is not bound by excommunication until the month has elapsed, since a false judgment concerning a censure does not suffice for inducing it. But if he believed that the denunciation could be made whenever he pleased, he does not incur it even after a month, so long as in good faith he judges that it can still be deferred.

Moreover, if someone has promised that he will denounce and confidence can be placed in him, he can be absolved not only from sins before the month has elapsed, which is expressly provided in the Constitution of Benedict XIV (above, page 546, note b), but also from the excommunication which he incurred after the month elapsed.

Finally, take care to observe that, although besides penitents who were solicited, anyone else who learned of a solicitation of this kind from persons worthy of trust is also bound to denounce soliciting confessors (above, no. 390, II), these latter nevertheless, if they do not fulfill the obligation of denunciation, do not today undergo excommunication.

V. To this place appears to pertain the excommunication against Missionaries engaging in commerce in the East Indies, and against their immediate Superiors who have not punished delinquents, according to the Constitution Ex debito of Urban VIII, 21 February 1633, and Sollicitudo of Clement IX, 17 July 1669; which excommunication is known still to be in force by declaration of the Supreme Pontiff from the encyclical letters issued by the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda on 29 March 1873 ⁴.

⁴ The Constitution of Clement IX thus decrees (section 3): Under the penalties, to be incurred by that very fact, of a latae sententiae excommunication and deprivation of active and passive voice... and also loss of all merchandise and profits,... by the tenor of the present letters We strictly prohibit... them from involving or mixing themselves, in any manner and howeversoever, in commerce and secular business, under any pretext, title, color, cause, occasion, and form, even once, by themselves or through agents.... And from now... after the case has occurred, We apply by the course of these letters any merchandise and profits which have proceeded from commerce and business of this kind... to the uses and benefit of the poor, hospitals, seminaries, etc.; and delinquents are bound to consign merchandise and profits of this kind to the Ordinaries of Places.... (Section 4.) Furthermore, with the same censures and penalties We bind and declare that there shall be bound the immediate Superiors, and the Provincials and Generals of the aforesaid Orders or Congregations, who have not punished their respective subjects delinquent in the aforesaid matters... in any manner even for a single occasion, at least by removing them from the places where the offense was committed by them.

But none of the aforesaid delinquents can be absolved from the sentence of an excommunication of this kind by Superiors or by any other person or persons, even supported by any authority, except one constituted at the point of death, unless profits of this kind have first been restored.

Avanzini (Commentary, page LVIII) thought that this censure should fittingly be enumerated in the catalogue of excommunications simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff. He derives the reason (Acts, volume 7, page 324) from parity with the excommunication inflicted upon those sectaries who do not denounce the secret chiefs and leaders of the sects until they have denounced them. For a similar clause (he says) is appended to the excommunication of which we are treating by the words: unless profits of this kind have first been restored.

But the argument sought from clauses of this kind appears too weak. These merely prescribe what must by law be required from one who asks to be absolved; nor in any other sense can a case be considered reserved to the Roman Pontiff by force of such a clause, except insofar as He, as legislator, reserves to Himself the relaxation of these obligations, namely, both of denouncing in the one case and of renouncing the profits in the other. Yet the same thing can be said of the obligation of denouncing solicitors, concerning which in the preceding article; for the faculty of absolving one who is not prepared to satisfy this obligation is given to no one besides the Roman Pontiff, and nevertheless that excommunication is not found among those reserved to the Roman Pontiff. Therefore, in order to determine in which catalogue an excommunication furnished with clauses of this kind must be numbered, it appears that one should rather inspect whether the case still remains reserved to the Roman Pontiff when the penitent satisfies his duty. But this happens only when there is question of sectaries; for even after the denunciation of the chiefs has been made, by law the one who failed to denounce can be absolved only by the Roman Pontiff; but in the other cases the penitent can be absolved by any Confessor. For otherwise there would have been no reason why the excommunication against those not denouncing the chiefs of sectaries should be placed among those reserved to the Pontiff, while on the contrary that imposed against those not denouncing a soliciting priest should be placed among those reserved to no one. Since, therefore, no special faculty is necessary to absolve one who has satisfied his obligation, it must be concluded that excommunications of this kind are to be added to the catalogue of those reserved to no one.

Moreover, with regard to those clauses until they have denounced and unless profits of this kind have first been restored, one must recall those things which the Doctors hand down concerning the clause the party having been satisfied and others of this kind. On this matter see above, no. 955, question V, with the Note.

VI. Magistrates are excommunicated if, at the request of the Bishop, they do not furnish assistance against those opposing the enclosure of nuns ⁵. Council of Trent, session 25, chapter 5, On Regulars.

⁵ Nevertheless, this censure (says Avanzini, no. 63) appears in the present condition of society already to have passed into desuetude through nonuse. It is, namely, a consequence of the apostasy by which governments have defected from the Christian religion to paganism, or rather to atheism.

VII. Likewise, abductors of women, and those furnishing counsel, assistance, and favor to abductors of this kind. Council of Trent, session 24, On the Reformation of Matrimony.

VIII. Likewise, those who violate the liberty of contracting matrimony. Council of Trent, session 24, chapter 9, On the Reformation of Matrimony.

IX. Those compelling a woman to enter a monastery, or impeding her from entrance. Council of Trent, session 25, chapter 18, On the Reformation of Regulars ⁶.

⁶ The Tridentine Decree adds: Except in the cases expressed in law. But in law it is excepted that a Bishop can compel a wife to enter a monastery if, after her husband with her consent has entered Religion and already emitted solemn vows, she is suspected of incontinence, from chapter Significavit 18, On the Conversion of Spouses (see above, no. 761, page 741, in the Note). Likewise, that a Bishop can compel into a monastery a wife whom a husband, after she has fallen and repented, does not wish to receive (chapter Gaudemus 19, same title).

Moreover, since all are struck with this anathema if in any manner they have compelled any virgin or widow, or any other unwilling woman whatever... to enter a monastery, or to receive the habit of any Religion whatever, or to emit profession...; and those who, knowing that she does not voluntarily enter a monastery, or receive the habit, or emit profession, have in any manner interposed either presence, consent, or authority in that act, Sanchez rightly says (Decalogue, book 4, chapter 4, no. 12), with respect to entrance, that the limitation which Emmanuel Rodriguez thus appends is pleasing to him (Summary, tome 2, chapter 8, no. 10): Nor does a father incur it (the excommunication) who, with the permission of the Ordinary, provides that his daughter, orphaned of her mother, be placed in some monastery until she becomes fit to contract matrimony. Therefore someone will incur the censure (as Sanchez says) when that compulsion is ordered toward afterward receiving the habit, whether by the persuasions of the nuns or for another reason, but not when this is in no manner intended. See Bonacina (disputation 2, question 2, part 2, no. 6) and Ferraris (Nun, article 1, nos. 53 and 55).

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.

1203. I. "Those who shall have dared to command or compel infidels, apostates from the faith, or heretics, schismatics, or others either excommunicated or interdicted against the prescription of can. 1240, § 1," that is, those excommunicated or interdicted after a condemnatory or declaratory sentence, "to be handed over to ecclesiastical burial."¹⁰

¹⁰ Code, c. 2339.

This censure does not punish those burying, nor those admitting to burial, but only those commanding (authoritatively) and compelling (physically or morally) one of the aforesaid to be buried in a sacred place (deputed for burial by the authority of the bishop, and duly blessed), or with a Catholic rite.

1204. II. "If the apostolic good pleasure (required from can. 534 and 1532 for alienating ecclesiastical goods whose value exceeds thirty thousand francs) has knowingly been omitted, there remains for all guilty in any way, whether by giving, or by receiving, or by furnishing consent, excommunication latae sententiae reserved to no one."¹¹

¹¹ Code, c. 2347, 3.

This excommunication is incurred also when, without apostolic good pleasure, debts and obligations are contracted beyond the aforesaid sum, as is established from can. 534. Besides, such contracts are invalid by ecclesiastical law.

1205. III. "A faithful person who has knowingly omitted to denounce within a month him by whom he had been solicited, against the prescription of can. 904."¹²

¹² Code, c. 2368.

This will be explained in the Treatise on Penance.

1206. IV. "All, shining with any dignity whatever, who in any way compel 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."¹³

¹³ Code, c. 2352.

1207. V. "Authors and publishers who, without due license, take care that books of Sacred Scripture, or annotations or commentaries on them, be printed."¹⁴

¹⁴ Code, c. 2318, § 2.

1208. To these excommunications can be added those by which, in the Constitution of Pope Pius X, Vacante Sede Apostolica, these are struck: those guilty of the crime of simony in the election of the Roman Pontiff; those who, while the Roman Pontiff is living and without consulting him, presume, even if they shine with the honor of the Cardinalate, to treat of the election of his successor, or to promise some vote, or, with private little meetings made for this cause, to deliberate and decide something; Cardinals or any others having a part in the Conclave who receive from any civil power the charge of proposing a veto or Exclusive.¹⁵

¹⁵ Constitution of Pope Pius X, Vacante Sede Apostolica, December 25, 1904, nn. 79-81, at the end of the Code.

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.

Ten are numbered: namely FOUR from the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis. SIX others inflicted by the Council of Trent.

1351. I. "Those commanding or compelling that notorious heretics, or those excommunicated or interdicted by name, be handed over to ecclesiastical burial."

Only those commanding by their own authority, for example syndics, or compelling, through force or grave fear, that a notorious heretic, although he may have been in good faith, or apostate, although not to be avoided, or any other person excommunicated by name, whether by the Pope or by the Bishop, or interdicted by name, be buried in a blessed cemetery or in another sacred place, although polluted or interdicted, incur this censure. More probably they do not incur this censure who bury, as a priest merely obeying, cf. however n. 1344, or furnish work to those burying. Nor those who command an unworthy person to be buried in a profane or separate place, although with ecclesiastical rite and blessing of the grave. On the contrary, those incur it who command such a one to be buried in a sacred place, although no sacred rite is used (cf. n. 1377, end); except if by force of civil law, as in Germany, they are bound to command this. See Piat, on this excommunication.

1352. II. "Those injuring or terrifying inquisitors, denouncers, witnesses, or other ministers of the Holy Office, or tearing away or burning the writings of its sacred tribunal; or furnishing help, counsel, or favor to any of the aforesaid."

Injuring, etc. (cf. 1322); tearing away, that is, as if plundering, destroying, lacerating, burning, but not secretly taking away by force one or another writing of the Holy Office, not only at Rome, but wherever it exists (D'Annibale, n. 174); writings, that is, instruments whether public or private, whether handwritten or printed in type, which pertain to this Sacred Tribunal. Those are not subject to this excommunication who admit the same things against denouncers before Bishops, or witnesses, or ministers of Bishops, or writings pertaining before them to the matter of the Holy Inquisition. Holy Office, 28 Jan. 1892 (Nouv. Rev. Theol., 26, p. 317).

1353. III. "Those alienating and presuming to receive ecclesiastical goods, without apostolic beneplacit, according to the form of the Extravagant Ambitiosae, concerning things of the Church not to be alienated."

THE FOLLOWING ARE EXCOMMUNICATED: 1. Those alienating, namely those in whose possession is the administration of goods, and by whose mandate and in whose name the alienation is made; but not Bishops or abbots, who, in the cited Extravagant, are coerced only by interdict from entrance of the Church.1 2. Those presuming to receive, namely those who, no ignorance, etc., excusing, according to what was said n. 1269, 3, acquire, hire, etc., the aforesaid goods, or by whose mandate and in whose name the goods are received, of whatever dignity they may be. - Those consenting, counseling, favoring, mandataries, those destroying ecclesiastical things, stealing, etc., are not comprehended.2

Let it be noted: 1. Under the name of ALIENATION comes every perfect act by which direct or useful ownership, in whole or in part, is transferred to another, or is in any way changed, obligated, or made worse. Of this kind is donation, exchange, sale, emphyteusis, infeudation, census, hypothec, imposition of servitude, transaction, cession of a right already acquired, etc., likewise lease beyond a useful or fruitful three years (Ferraris, v. Alienatio, art. I).

Alienation is also had if the title of money is exchanged into another, as is clear from the Decree of S. C. C., 17 Febr. 1906 (cf. A. S. S., 39, p. 156; Wernz, Jus Decr., III, n. 160).

The contraction of debts performed by Religious, if it exceeds 10000 lire, is an alienation which requires apostolic beneplacit (A. A. S., I, p. 698).

2. ECCLESIASTICAL GOODS are here understood as all goods whose administration is subject to ecclesiastical authority, such as: a) goods, whether immovable or precious movable, which pertain to churches or monasteries, even of congregations (S. C. de P. F., 15 Jan. 1903); b) ecclesiastical benefices, even rights of patronage and ecclesiastical chaplaincies, but not lay ones, as is more probably taught (cf. Lucidi, de Vis. SS. Lim., III, n. XLIV, 16); c) goods of any pious place whatever, for example confraternity, academy, seminary, hospital, etc., erected by ecclesiastical authority, although in the civil forum the goods are inscribed as property of a private man (Resp. S. Congr. Episc. et Reg., on 17 Feb. 1886). Immovable goods are buildings, estates, fields, forests,1 etc.; likewise rights and actions in immovables. Precious movable goods are judged to be all things which are of the treasury of the Church, or of the pious place, as gold and silver vessels, gems, abundant libraries, and similar things. In these is not comprehended MONEY which is destined for daily uses, or which comes from fruits of estates; even if it has been placed in public census, in banks, etc. But that money is comprehended which comes from the alienation of immovables, or has been given with the perpetual burden of Masses, or with the express obligation of buying an immovable or precious movable, as Bouix asserts and proves at length (de Reg., P. V, s. IV, c. III). The dowry of sisters is also comprehended in religious Institutes (A. A. S., l. c.).

3. WITHOUT APOSTOLIC BENEPLACIT, yet with the consent of the Bishop, or of the regular Superior if it is a question of exempt persons, alienation is made LICITLY and VALIDLY: a) if the thing, even immovable, for example a little plot of land, a sterile estate, is of slight value, that is, below 25 gold scudi of the camera (221 fr. 30; Roman scudi 41.25);2 or such that its revenues do not suffice for preserving it; or it is leased for three years, even with a promise added of leasing for another three years; or such that it is likely not to last for three years without notable deterioration, for example a garment, beast of burden, etc.; or b) if necessity urges, or an occasion of great utility is present which otherwise would pass; or c) if the thing was given to the Church with this condition, that it can be alienated; or d) if the thing has been left to one incapable of possessing, as the Friars Minor Observants and Capuchins are, who for this reason can sell the thing and apply it to the utility of the Church or monastery; or e) if a special and personal privilege is had, as is drawn from the Decree of the Holy Office, 22 Dec. 1880.3

4. Understand the words ACCORDING TO THE FORM OF THE EXTRAVAGANT concerning the just causes and solemnities which are required for obtaining apostolic beneplacit. These and other things, see in St. Alphonsus, IV, 187; cf. De Angelis, l. III, tit. 13.

Note. On 8 Feb. 1911, the Sacred Penitentiary established these things: Lessees of ecclesiastical goods do not incur the Tridentine censure unless the damage thence coming to the Church, in the space of one or more years, according to the estimation of a prudent confessor, reaches a notable quantity, greater indeed than what regularly suffices for the gravity of unjust damaging (Nouv. Rev. Theol., 1911, p. 294).

1354. IV. "Those neglecting, or culpably omitting, to denounce within a month confessors or priests by whom they have been solicited to shameful things, in any cases whatever expressed by our predecessors, Gregory XV, Const. Universi, 20 August 1622, and Benedict XIV, Const. Sacramentum Poenitentiae, 1 June 1741."

The crime of solicitation is provocation to shameful things, made by a priest as confessor. See more n. 1794 sqq.; cf. St. Alph., VI, 675 sqq.

That the censure be incurred, it is necessary that someone culpably omit the denunciation for an entire month. But, "because time does not run for one ignorant," the month must be computed from when he knew: the obligation of denouncing, the censure annexed to the obligation, and the time fixed for himself. If something grave stands in the way of denunciation, the obligation is suspended. - The denunciation having been made after the conceded time, the excommunicated penitent can be absolved by any confessor.

1 Cf. Noldin, de Poenis, n. 101. D'Annibale, n. 175, Lehmkuhl, and others judge that alienation which would be made between pious places, convents, or churches, is not comprehended in this censure. But the Decree of S. C. C., 24 Jan. 1632, seems to stand in the way. - Note, the condition of alienators and recipients is diverse. Crass ignorance does not profit alienators, but excuses recipients.

1 Fruit-bearing trees do not pertain to immovables, if you take ecclesiastical goods strictly, insofar as, under censure, apostolic beneplacit is required for alienating them. - For their destruction only the consent of the Ordinary is required. Bizzarri, Collectanea, p. 331.

2 Yet Wernz and Vermeersch judge that today, because of the changed condition of money, a value which does not exceed 750-1000 francs can be held slight.

3 A. S. S., 15, p. 539; cf. Del Vecchio, I, n. 628, where there are many things.

From TRENT are excommunicated:

1355. V. Those who print, or cause to be printed, books treating of sacred things, without the approval of the Ordinary (Trent, Sess. 4, c. 1).

The Holy Office, on 22 Dec. 1880, decreed that this censure must be restricted to books of the sacred Scriptures, and also to any annotations whatever on the same which treat of sacred things in general, that is, things pertaining to religion. But Leo XIII renewed this excommunication, within the limits of this Decree of the Holy Office, in the Constitution Officiorum ac munerum, n. 48.

Only the printers are excommunicated, that is, the owners of the press, or the principal managers, who take upon themselves the care of printing; or those causing printing, that is, the author of the book, the publisher, or another who commands or cares for it by himself, that the book be committed to type. Cf. Vermeersch, de Prohib. et Cens. libr., n. 125, p. 155.

1356. VI. Those who teach certain errors concerning holy communion, or concerning marriage.

The following are excommunicated: 1. Those who shall have presumed to teach, pertinaciously assert, publicly defend: that confession of mortal sin is not to be placed before communion (Trent, Sess. 13, de Euchar., can. 11).

2. Those who deny that clandestine marriages are true marriages, so long as the Church has not made them invalid; and who falsely affirm that marriages contracted by children of families without the consent of parents are invalid, and that parents can make them ratified or invalid (ibid., Sess. 26, c. 1, de Ref.).

1357. VII. Ravishers of women, and those furnishing counsel, help, or favor to them (Sess. 24, c. 6, de Ref. Matrim.).

He does not incur this censure who keeps in his own house a woman already ravished by others; because the ravishing has already been consummated. But the following incur it: the ravisher, namely such a one as contracts the diriment impediment of marriage; the executor, if he is distinguished from the ravisher; finally all cooperators (see n. 2005). Cf. St. Alph., VI, 1106 sqq.

1358. VIII. Those violating the liberty of contracting marriage (Sess. 24, c. 9, de Ref. Matrim.).

This censure does not strike private persons, or those who exercise supreme power, but only temporal lords or magistrates, who exercise jurisdiction (for example in some province, in some tribunal), when namely, directly or indirectly, they compel their subjects or any others whatever, so that they do not freely contract marriages.1 But if marriage does not follow, the censure is not incurred (see n. 2003, at the end).

1359. IX. Those violating, in a woman, liberty of entering Religion (Sess. 25, c. 18, de Reg.).

1. "The holy Synod subjects to anathema all and singular persons... if in any way they shall have compelled another's virgin, or widow, or any other woman unwilling, except in the cases expressed by law, to enter a monastery, or to receive the habit of any Religion whatever, or to emit profession; and those who have given counsel, help, or favor; and those who, knowing that she does not enter a monastery, or receive the habit, or emit profession of her own accord, in any way interpose either presence, consent, or authority to the same act."

Moreover the cases which the Law excepts are the following: a) if a woman, after she has consented to the religious profession of her husband, and she herself has vowed continence, casts suspicion of violating the vow; b) if an adulterous woman, after her conversion, is no longer received by her husband; c) if a girl, for the sake of education or custody, for some time, namely until she is fit for marriage, is placed unwilling in a monastery. From the Decree of Gregory IX, c. 18 and 19, de Conv. conjugatorum. Cf. St. Alph., VII, 212, and l. El. qq. ref., n. 98; De Angelis, l. 3, tit. 31, n. 9.

2. "Likewise the holy Synod subjects to a similar anathema those who, in any way, without just cause, shall have impeded the will of holy virgins or other women of receiving the veil or emitting a vow" (l. c.).

1360. X. A magistrate who, at the instance of the Bishop, does not furnish help against contradictors and violators of the enclosure of nuns (Sess. 25, c. 5, de Reg.).

Under the name of magistrate comes a praetor, judge, rector of a city, prefect of a province; not however a prince. Enclosure is understood to be papal.

1º Authors and publishers who, without due license, cause the books of Sacred Scriptures or annotations or commentaries on them to be printed,

from can. 2318 § 2. This censure was in force from Trent, restricted by the Holy Office; cf. in the author n. 1355. Formerly printers also were excommunicated; but now only authors and publishers.

2º Those who shall have dared to mandate or compel that infidels, apostates from the faith, or heretics, schismatics, or others, whether excommunicated or interdicted, be given ecclesiastical burial against the prescription of can. 1240 § 1,

from can. 2339. This censure was formerly had in the Const. Ap. Sedis § 4, I. Now infidels, apostates, and schismatics are added; cf. in the author n. 1351.

3º Those who shall have presumed to alienate ecclesiastical goods or to give consent in alienating them against the prescriptions of can. 534 § 1 and can. 1532, if the apostolic good-pleasure prescribed in the mentioned canons has knowingly been omitted, all who are guilty in any way, whether by giving or by receiving or by giving consent,

from can. 2347 n. 3. This censure was formerly had in the Const. of Pope Pius IX § 4, n. III, cf. in the author n. 1353. It is now required that the Apostolic good-pleasure has knowingly been omitted.

4º All, shining even with any dignity whatever, who in any way compel 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,

from can. 2352. This censure formerly was in force from the Council of Trent; cf. in the author n. 1359, 1º. But it has been more extended, namely to those who compel to the clerical state,

and, as regards religion, also to those who compel men; and as regards the persons who can incur it, no one, except the Roman Pontiff, is excepted.

5º A faithful person who shall knowingly have omitted to denounce within a month him by whom he was solicited, against the prescription of can. 904,

from can. 2368 § 2. And from the same canon such a one is not to be absolved unless after he has satisfied the obligation or has seriously promised that he will satisfy it. It was formerly had in the Const. Ap. Sedis § 4 n. IV; cf. in the author n. 1354.

1736. - I. "Those commanding, or compelling, notorious heretics, or those excommunicated by name, or interdicted by name, to be handed over to ecclesiastical burial." From L. V. T. II. c. 2 in 6°, and Clem. L. III. T. VII. c. 1.

1° "Those commanding, or compelling to be handed over," but not others, who accompany, carry the Cross and lights; nor those who put them into burial: for odious things are to be restricted.

2° "To ecclesiastical burial," i.e., burial in any place whatever which, for the burial of the faithful or at least for divine offices to be performed, has been assigned either by the Bishop's blessing or by his designation, or by common use and custom.¹

3° In this article burial is forbidden under pain of excommunication for notorious or public heretics; likewise for those excommunicated by name; likewise for those interdicted by name. - Under the name of heretic there also come notorious apostates from the Faith.²

1737. - II. "Those injuring or terrifying Inquisitors, denouncers, witnesses, or other ministers of the Holy Office; or tearing away or burning writings of its Sacred Tribunal; or furnishing aid, counsel, or favor to any of the aforesaid." St. Pius V. C. Si protegendis.

Understand this as being for the cause of impeding, lest they bring causes to the Sacred Tribunal, or of impeding the sentence, or in hatred of the Sacred Tribunal itself; because if they do not know them as such, they may perhaps incur another censure, but not the censure of this article.

1738. - III. "Those alienating, and those presuming to receive, ecclesiastical goods without Apostolic beneplacitum, according to the form of the Extravagant Ambitiosae, de reb. Eccl. non alienandis." C. unic. under the said title (L. III. T. LV. in Extravag. Comm.).

1° "Those alienating," provided the administration of those goods has been entrusted to them, and there is not question of Bishops, although they are administrators, since these in the cited Extravagant are restrained by the Church only with an interdict.¹

But to the word alienate, as is clear from the Extravagant itself, here a very broad notion is subjected; for it contains all contracts by which: either 1) ownership is transferred, as to give in payment, to exchange, etc.; or 2) some real right withdraws from the Church, or a real burden is imposed on the things of the Church, e.g., a census, hypothec, servitude, or a servitude owed to it is remitted; and 3) leases beyond a useful or fruitful three-year term.²

2° "Presuming to receive," but not those consenting, counseling, favoring, destroying ecclesiastical things, stealing, etc. Nevertheless by those alienating and receiving, understand those by whose mandate and in whose name alienation is made, but not the mandataries.³

3° "Ecclesiastical goods" here are understood in the strict sense, namely: 1) those which are in the patrimony of some Church or Monastery; 2) ecclesiastical benefices (nn. 628-630); 3) goods of any Pious Place, for example an academy, seminary, college, school, hospital, orphanage, provided they have been erected by ecclesiastical authority.⁴ But goods are taken as either immovable or precious movable goods. Which things are to be regarded as precious is to be determined especially by the judgment of a judge.⁵ Under immovable and precious movable goods, however, are not comprehended money, nor counted coins, nor money placed in administrations of governments, or of railroads and the like, except if the monies proceed from alienations of immovable things, or were given or left with a perpetual burden of Masses or with an express obligation of buying an immovable thing, as Bouix asserts and proves more fully.¹

4° "Without Apostolic beneplacitum," which nevertheless is not required if: either 1) the thing is of slight value; or 2) is such that its revenues do not suffice for conserving it; or 3) is of such a kind that it will probably not endure for a three-year term without notable deterioration, for example a garment; or 4) necessity urges, which does not allow delay, or there is an occasion which otherwise would pass. [In these two cases, however, of necessity and utility, the consent of the Bishop is required, unless there is question of exempt Regulars]; or 5) the thing was left or donated to the Church under that law, that it may be alienated, which sometimes, but prudently, Bishops or pastors will be able to procure.² Privileges contrary to this law, if they are general, and likewise particular customs, even immemorial ones, have been abrogated by force of the derogatory clause at the end of the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis (p. 360, col. 2): but not special and personal privileges. S. Inq., December 22, 1880.³ Moreover, among us at least ordinarily, there will be one of the other causes on account of which alienation without Apostolic beneplacitum can lawfully be made, for example 4°.

5° "According to the form of the Extravagant," etc., i.e., with a legitimate cause and with the solemnities prescribed by law for alienation having been observed. - But a legitimate cause is either necessity, or utility, or piety (for example grave necessity of the poor), or inconvenience (as if the thing to be alienated is very distant, etc.). - The solemnities, if you please, see in St. Alph.⁴

1739. - IV. "Those neglecting, or culpably omitting, to denounce within a month confessors, or priests, by whom they have been solicited to shameful things in any of the cases expressed by our Predecessors Gregory XV, Constitution Universi, August 20, 1622, and Benedict XIV, Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae, June 1, 1741." Cf. above, nn. 1407-1412.

1° "Those neglecting, or culpably omitting," etc. Therefore the month useful for denouncing, lest the censure be incurred, begins from the day on which there has certainly become known both the obligation of denouncing, and the time within which it is to be satisfied, and the censure; for there is question of an omitted denunciation on account of culpable negligence, which supposes knowledge of the whole of the same obligation.

2° What was already sufficiently probable to St. Alphonsus,¹ today is certain, namely, that once denunciation has been made, even after the time prescribed by ecclesiastical law, the reservation ceases. Thus S. Poenit. p. LXI. II. ad 3, and it is clear from the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis itself, in which this excommunication is enumerated among those which are reserved to no one.²

3° When the penitent can be absolved, either absolutely or prudently, although he has not yet denounced, see n. 1412. e).

The Constitution Apostolicae Sedis continues:

"Besides these thus far enumerated, those also whom the Most Sacred Council of Trent excommunicated, whether with absolution reserved to the Supreme Pontiff or to Ordinaries, or without any reservation, We likewise declare to be thus excommunicated; with exception of the penalty of anathema established in the Decree of Session IV, On the Edition and Use of Sacred Books, to which We will that only those be subject who print books treating of sacred things without the approval of the Ordinary, or cause them to be printed." - Hence let there be:

D. Solicited penitents neglecting to denounce contract excommunication by that very fact. To incur this there is required 1) a certain obligation of denouncing; 2) culpable omission, which supposes knowledge of the obligation, and also of the censure, so that ignorance of this excuses, unless it is affected; 3) the time of one month having elapsed, which runs from the moment at which the solicited person knew the obligation and the time of fulfilling it and the attached censure.

Such a penitent cannot be absolved unless he has made the denunciation, or at least seriously promised to make it; which having been done, he can be absolved by a simple confessor, because the censure is reserved to no one. "But if afterwards, his will changed, he does not denounce, the censure does not revive," says Noldin, Th. M., III, n. 379, "because nothing is had concerning reincidence."

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.

§ 1. The bodies of the faithful departed are to be buried, their cremation being reproved.

§ 2. If someone has in any way commanded that his body be cremated, it is illicit to execute this will; and if it has been attached to a contract, testament, or any other act, it is to be regarded as if not attached (Can. 1203).

Ecclesiastical burial consists in the transfer of the corpse to the church, the funeral rites celebrated over it in the same, and its deposition in a place legitimately deputed for the faithful departed to be laid away (Can. 1204).

§ 1. The corpses of the faithful are to be buried in a cemetery which, according to the rites handed down in approved liturgical books, has been blessed, whether by a solemn or simple blessing given by those of whom in can. 1155, 1156.

§ 2. Corpses are not to be buried in churches, unless there is question of the corpses of residential Bishops, Abbots or Prelates nullius to be buried in their own church, or of the Roman Pontiff, royal persons, or Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church (Can. 1205).

§ 1. Those who have died without baptism are not to be admitted to ecclesiastical burial.

§ 2. Catechumens who die without baptism by no fault of their own are to be counted among the baptized.

§ 3. All baptized persons are to be given ecclesiastical burial, unless they are expressly deprived of the same by law (Can. 1239).

Question 1. Who, in particular, are to be deprived of ecclesiastical burial?

Resp. § 1. The following are deprived of ecclesiastical burial, unless before death they have given some signs of repentance:

1°. Notorious apostates from the Christian faith, or those notoriously addicted to a heretical or schismatical sect, or to a masonic sect or other societies of the same kind;

2°. Excommunicated or interdicted persons after a condemnatory or declaratory sentence;

3°. Those who have killed themselves by deliberate design;

4°. Those dead in a duel or from a wound received from it;

5°. Those who have commanded that their body be handed over to cremation;

6°. Other public and manifest sinners.

§ 2. When some doubt occurs in the aforesaid cases, let the Ordinary be consulted, if time permits; if the doubt remains, let the corpse be handed over to ecclesiastical burial, yet so that scandal be removed (Can. 1240). - Cf. can. 2260, § 2; 2275, n. 4; 2350, § 2.

Ecclesiastical burial is not to be denied if the Parish Priest alone is witness of the repulse and impenitence of the dying person. Indeed rather let him himself take care to remain with the dying person without witnesses when he doubts concerning his conversion, and let him try to bring him to confession, and, if he cannot dispose him, let him conceal this. - Cf. Alberti, De Sepultura Ecclesiastica.

And since ecclesiastical burial is part of the communion of saints, the reason is clear why all these are to be deprived of it; nor are those dying without baptism to be admitted to it, except catechumens, of whom above.

Question 2. What does this denial of ecclesiastical burial import?

Resp. To one excluded from ecclesiastical burial there are also to be denied both any funeral Mass, even anniversary, and other public funeral offices (Can. 1241).

Question 3. Can the corpse of some non-Catholic ever be buried in a Catholic cemetery?

Resp. Concerning this matter it is thus held in the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, n. 389: "According to the mind of the Apostolic See, it is tolerated that in family tombs, namely those which are built as private and peculiar for Catholic families of laymen, the bodies also of non-Catholic blood relatives and relatives by marriage be entombed." But what comes here under family tombs is not easy to define; but both from the word are built, and from common interpretation, a family tomb seems to be a certain crypt (vault) decently adorned, and not some simple part of the earth (a lot) surrounded by marble stones and planted with flowers or shrubs. But that must carefully be attended to, as is clear from a recent declaration of the Congregation of the Holy Office, namely, that this tolerance of the Apostolic See is not positive and absolute, but merely passive for avoiding greater evils. - Cf. Amer. Eccl. Rev., Vol. 1, pp. 113, 266 and following.

Question 4. Can the corpse of some Catholic departed ever be buried in a non-Catholic cemetery?

Resp. By strict law this was prohibited by the Fathers of the First Plenary Council in these words: "We do not will ecclesiastical rites to be employed in the burial of the faithful whenever their bodies are buried in cemeteries of sects; or even in profane cemeteries, when Catholic cemeteries are present." Nevertheless, lest the minds of non-Catholics be alienated from the Church, the rigor of that law was tempered both by the Second Plenary Council and especially by the Third Plenary Council, where n. 318 it is established thus:

"Therefore for guarding against these evils, and for removing all ambiguity from the words of the Fathers: when there is question of the burial of those who were converted to the faith, and whose surviving non-Catholics have a domestic plot in another cemetery; or also of those Catholics who likewise before the law was brought had their own plot, or certainly without any fraud acquired one after the law, we declare that in these cases it is licit for ecclesiastical rites to be employed, whether at home or in church, as often as this has not been interdicted by the Bishop for grave reasons; and we declare besides that the correction of the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide concerning the niche to be blessed, and attached to the aforesaid decree, is to be observed also in these cases. These cases excepted, it will never be licit for a rector of souls to employ the said rites in the burial of the faithful in another cemetery, unless by the express permission of the Ordinary."

Question 5. Is it licit to give ecclesiastical burial to the burned ashes of some Catholic departed?

Resp. Negatively, as is openly gathered from the recent Decree concerning cremations of corpses, which was given on the day 19 May 1886 by the Sacred Congregation of the Supreme Roman and Universal Inquisition, and then was approved and confirmed by the Supreme Pontiff Leo XIII, who besides willed that the Ordinaries of places "take care that Christ's faithful be opportunely instructed concerning the detestable abuse of burning human bodies, and that with all their strength they deter from it the flock entrusted to them." And the same seems to have to be said of the more recent form of destroying corpses which is called desiccation. But from another Decree given on the day 15 Dec. 1886, as often as there is question of those whose bodies are subjected to cremation not by their own will but by another's, the rites and suffrages of the Church can be employed both at home and in Church, but not all the way to the place of cremation, with scandal removed. But scandal can also be removed if it becomes known that cremation was not chosen by the proper will of the deceased.

Cf. Acta S. Sedis, vol. 19, p. 46 and vol. 25, p. 63. - Amer. Eccl. Review, vol. 4, pp. 15 and following, and vol. 12, p. 499. The same Sacred Congregation declared on 27 July 1892: "it is never licit to cooperate in cremation by mandate or counsel. But material cooperation can sometimes be tolerated provided that: 1°. Cremation is not held as a protest-sign of the masonic sect; 2°. Nothing is contained in it which of itself directly and uniquely expresses reprobation of Catholic doctrine and approbation of the sect; 3°. Nor is it established that officials and workers are bound or called to the work in contempt of the Catholic religion. Besides, although in these cases they are to be left in good faith, they are nevertheless always to be admonished not to intend to cooperate in cremation."

Where the civil government authoritatively hands over the corpses of the dead to cremation, without the deceased, while they lived, having given consent to this, and without their relatives having in any way sought cremation, the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide permitted that in the cited cases funeral ceremonies could be performed with the customary ceremonies in the cemetery. 26 Jan. 1911. - Cf. Nouv. Rev. Théol., v. 43, p. 296. - Analecta Ecclesias., an. 1911, p. 58.¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1153, n. 129.

Question 6. Are amputated members of Catholics to be buried in a sacred place?

Resp. Affirmatively, according to the response of the Holy Office, 3 Aug. 1897: "Hence, if it can be done, let some small space of earth be deputed in the proper garden attached to the house of the hospitals for these members to be buried, after it has been blessed."

Question 7. "In what way ought the parish priest or priest conduct himself who, called by a man (or Catholic woman) placed in the article of death and already joined with an infidel by a civil bond, finds him almost destitute of senses? When the parish priest has excited him to contrition and has absolved him under condition, can he also admit him to Ecclesiastical burial?"

Resp. In these or similar cases, signs of returning to one's right mind having been made known, ecclesiastical burial can be given, yet with ecclesiastical pomps and solemnities of funerals forbidden. "If in some case extraordinary circumstances concur, let the parish priest consult the Ordinary, and stand by his mandates." S. Off., 6 July 1898.

Question 8. What ought Ordinaries, parish priests, and Superiors to beware of?

Resp. Let the Ordinaries of places, parish priests, and Superiors, to whom it pertains, beware lest in cemeteries epitaphs, funeral praises, and ornaments of monuments bear before themselves anything discordant with Catholic religion and piety (Can. 1211).

This prescription of the greatest moment must be carefully guarded, lest empty ceremonies and worldly praises gradually mingle themselves with the holy rites of the Church.

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,