Excommunications Simply Reserved to the Holy See

To the second series belong nineteen excommunications, of which eighteen were imposed by the constitution Apostolicae sedis, but one by the Council of Trent.

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

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

Nomen dantes—Becoming a member of the society.

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

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

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

Specialissimo vel speciali—Not simply reserved cases.

Sec. ii. Impendentes quodvis auxilium vel favorem excommunicato vitando in delicto propter quod excommunicatus fuit; itemque clerici scienter et sponte in divinis cum eodem communicantes et ipsum in divinis officiis recipientes, ipso facto incurrunt in excommunicationem Sedi Apostolicae simpliciter reservatam. (Those who give any help or favour whatsoever to an excommunicated person who is to be shunned, in the very offence for which he was excommunicated; and likewise clerics who knowingly and willingly communicate with him in sacred things and receive him into the divine offices, incur ipso facto an excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See.) Impendentes——Giving any sort of material assistance, help, support, or moral encouragement and support.

Vitando.—To an excommunicate who is to be avoided.

Delicto——Precisely in the crime on account of which he is excommunicated.

Clerici recipientes—-The rector of a church allowing him to say Mass, etc., not others who assist at it.

Scienter et sponte-——Crass ignorance and fear excuse from the censure.

In divinis —In divine worship, not in secular matters. Canon 2341 IV. Si quis contra praescriptum [privilegii fori] ausus fuerit ad judicem laicum trahere . (If anyone, against the prescription of the privilege of the forum, shall have dared to drag before a lay judge) . . alium Episcopum etiam mere titularem, aut Abbatem vel Praelatum nullius, vel aliquem ex supremis religionum juris pontificii Superioribus excommunicationem latae sententiae Sedi Apostolicae simpliciter reservatam incurrit. (another Bishop even merely titular, or an Abbot or Prelate nullius, or one of the supreme Superiors of religious orders of pontifical right, incurs an excommunication latae sententiae simply reserved to the Apostolic See.) See above, p. 272 f. Canon 2342 Y. Plectuntur ipso facto excommunicatione Sedi Apostolicae simpliciter reservata: (There are punished ipso facto with an excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See:)

(z) Clausuram monialium violantes, cujuscumque generis aut conditionis vel sexus sint, in earum monasteria sine legitima licentia ingrediendo, pariterque eos introducentes vel admit ((1) Those who violate the enclosure of nuns, of whatever kind or condition or sex they may be, by entering their monasteries without lawful permission, and likewise those who bring them in or admit them;) tentes; quod si clerici sint, praeterea suspendantur per tempus pro gravitate culpae ab Ordinario definiendum. (and if they be clerics, let them besides be suspended for a time to be determined by the Ordinary according to the gravity of the fault.)

(3) Moniales e clausura illegitime exeuntes contra praescriptum Can, 601.

Clausuram monialium—The papal enclosure of nuns with solemn vows. The enclosure comprises the whole convent except the church and adjoining sacristy and the parlour near the door, Violantes—By going into the enclosure without leave of the Holy See. Canon 600 gives the exceptions, which are: The local Ordinary and regular superior with companions on visitation, the confessor, civil rulers with their wives and attendants, Cardinals; with the permission of the abbess and the approbation of the local Ordinary, the doctor, surgeon, workmen for necessary repairs.

Cujuscumque.—Clerics, laymen, women, children under the age of puberty.

Introducentes—Those who conduct them inside, open the door for them.

Admittentes—Superioresses, porteresses, whose duty it is to keep them out.

The law of enclosure for nuns not only forbids externs to enter the convent enclosure without leave, but it also prohibits the nuns from leaving it without special leave of the Holy See except in imminent danger of death or other very serious evil (Can. 601).

(2) Mulieres violantes regularium virorum clausuram et Superiores aliique, quicumque ii sint, eas cujuscumque aetatis introducentes vel admittentes; et praeterea religiosi introducentes vel admittentes priventur officio, si quod habeant, et voce activa ac passiva. ((2) Women who violate the enclosure of male religious, and the Superiors and others, whoever they may be, who bring them in or admit them, of whatever age; and besides, religious who bring them in or admit them are to be deprived of their office, if they hold any, and of active and passive voice.)

Mulieres —Not, therefore, men, who may enter the enclosure of regular orders of men. Regularium—Who take solemn vows.

Superiores—Higher and lower, porters and others.

The rest is clear from what has been said above. Canon 2346 VI. Si quis bona ecclesiastica cujuslibet generis sive mobilia sive immobilia, sive corporalia sive incorporalia, per se vel per alios in prosprio usus convertere et usurpare praesumpserit aut impedire ne eorumdem fructus seu reditus ab iis ad quos jure pertinent percipiantur, excommunicationi tamdiu sub- (If anyone shall presume, by himself or through others, to convert to his own use and to usurp ecclesiastical goods of any kind whatsoever, whether movable or immovable, corporeal or incorporeal, or to prevent their fruits or revenues from being received by those to whom they belong by right, let him lie under excommunication for so long) jaceat quamdiu bona ipsa integre restituerit, praedictum impedimentum removerit, ac deinde a Sede Apostolica absolutionem impetraverit. (let him lie under it until he has fully restored those goods, removed the aforesaid impediment, and thereafter obtained absolution from the Apostolic See.)

One who, with full knowledge of the crime and its penalty, converts ecclesiastical property of any sort to his own use, or prevents its revenues going to the persons to whom they belong, cannot obtain absolution, which must be asked of the Holy See, until he has made full restitution and removed the obstacle in the way of the revenues going to those who have a right to them. Canon 2351 VII. [Mortui ex duello aut ex vulnere inde relato privantur ecclesiastica sepultura nisi ante mortem aliqua dederint poenitentiae signa, ac praeterea] duellum perpetrantes aut simpliciter ad illud provocantes vel ipsum acceptantes vel quamlibet operam aut favorem praebentes, nec non de industria spectantes illudque permittentes vel quantum in ipsis est non prohibentes, cujuscumque dignitatis sint, subsunt ipso facto excommunicationi Sedi Apostolicae simpliciter reservatae. (Those who die from a duel, or from a wound received in it, are deprived of ecclesiastical burial unless before death they have given some signs of repentance; and besides, those who fight a duel, or simply challenge to one or accept one, or lend any help or favour whatsoever, as also those who deliberately look on and permit it, or, so far as in them lies, do not forbid it, of whatever dignity they may be, are ipso facto subject to excommunication.)

Duellum.—A single combat with deadly weapons undertaken. by agreement. Those who actually fight or challenge, or accept a duel, or afford any assistance or favour to those who do, incur this censure. Spectators of set purpose, those who permit it or do not stop it as far as they can, though they be kings or generals of armies, also incur it. Canon 2388 VIII. Clerici in sacris constituti vel regulares aut moniales post votum sollemne castitatis, itemque omnes cum aliqua ex praedictis personis matrimonium etiam civiliter tantum contrahere praesumentes, incurrunt in excommunicationem latae sententiae Sedi Apostolicae simpliciter reservatam. (Clerics constituted in sacred orders, or regulars or nuns after a solemn vow of chastity, and likewise all who presume to contract marriage, even merely civilly, with any of the aforesaid persons, incur an excommunication latae sententiae simply reserved to the Apostolic See.)

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

Delictum simoniae—Not merely internal but external simony. Canon 728 provides that '"' when there is question of simony buying and selling, exchange, etc., are to be taken in a wide sense for any convention or agreement although not put into effect, even tacit, in which a simoniacal intention is not manifested expressly but may be gathered from the circumstances." Simony, then, whether of divine or ecclesiastical law, which is committed externally in election, presentation, or collation of ecclesiastical offices, benefices, or dignities, is punished by this censure and by other penalties here and in Canon 729. Canon 2405 X. Vicarius Capitularis aliive omnes tam de Capitulo quam extranei, qui documentum quodlibet ad Curiam episcopalem pertinens sive per se sive per alium subtraxerint vel destruxerint vel celaverint vel substantialiter immutaverint, incurrunt ipso facto in excommunicationem Sedi Apostolicae simpliciter reservatam. (The Vicar Capitular, or any others whether of the Chapter or outsiders, who by themselves or through another remove, destroy, conceal or substantially alter any document whatsoever belonging to the episcopal Curia, incur ipso facto an excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See.)

The terms of the censure are wide and clear. The document, whether public or private, must be of some importance, and must belong to the episcopal Curia as such.

This excommunication is contracted by:

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

Bishops also can contract this censure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

² Cf. Holy Office, January 12, 1870.

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

⁴ Constitution of Pius IX, Qui pluribus, 1846.

⁵ Syllabus, § 178.

⁶ Holy Office, August 20, 1894.

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

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

VI. Those violating cloister, as follows; namely, the following are excommunicated:

1. Those violating the cloister of nuns, of whatever kind or condition or sex they may be, by entering their monasteries without legitimate permission, and likewise those introducing or admitting them (canon 2342, 1°). It concerns papal cloister. The following are excommunicated: 1° those entering without legitimate permission, that is, with the whole body, not with one foot only or one step; 2° those introducing those who violate cloister by entering without legitimate permission. Those also are included who introduce impuberes, since they too can violate cloister, although they do not contract the censure. There is doubt about those introducing persons lacking the use of reason, since these, strictly speaking, do not violate cloister. Given the doubt, we follow the milder opinion; 3° those admitting. They are understood to be those who, performing the office of guarding cloister, such as the prioress and the portress, receive those who violate cloister by entering without permission; for the rest, what has just been said about those introducing applies.

Note. If clerics violate the cloister of nuns, they are moreover to be suspended for a time to be defined by the Ordinary according to the gravity of the fault (canon 2342, 1°).

2. Women violating the cloister of male regulars; likewise Superiors and others, whoever they may be, introducing or admitting them of whatever age (canon 2342, 2°). It concerns the cloister of men who have pronounced solemn vows (cf. canon 488, 2° and 7°). The following are excommunicated: 1° women violating the cloister of male regulars; 2° those introducing, or 3° admitting, those who violate cloister by entering; also those introducing or admitting impuberes. There is doubt about those introducing or admitting persons lacking the use of reason, since these, strictly speaking, do not violate cloister; but it seems that it must be affirmed, since the canon says: of whatever age.

Note. Religious who introduce or admit are to be deprived of office, if they have one, and of active and passive voice (canon 2342, 2°).

3. Nuns illegitimately leaving the cloister against the prescriptions of canon 601 (canon 2342, 3°). The discussion is of papal cloister; it is required, however, that the nun leave with the whole body, not with one foot only or one step (St. Alphonsus, VII, 229).

VII. If anyone has presumed, by himself or through others, to convert and usurp for his own uses ecclesiastical goods of any kind, whether movable or immovable, corporeal or incorporeal, or to impede the fruits or revenues of the same from being received by those to whom they belong by law (canon 2346).

1. The disposition regards ecclesiastical goods belonging either to the universal Church or the Apostolic See, or to an ecclesiastical moral person.¹

2. It is required either that someone, by himself or through another, usurp the said goods and convert them to his own uses, or that he impede their fruits from being received by those to whom they belong by law.

An usurper is one who occupies another's thing as due to himself.² Some now doubt concerning those who buy or lease goods already usurped. But "a change of the prior law is seriously doubtful, both because of the practice of the Holy See, which seems to be confirmed in the Constitution Si unquam of Pius XI, July 15, 1924, ad V,³ and because of the nearly unanimous opinion of writers."⁴ Hence one should not depart from the old law.

3. The excommunication persists as long as the one who has incurred the censure has not fully restored the goods themselves, removed the aforesaid impediment, and then obtained absolution from the Apostolic See (canon 2346).

Note. But if the delinquent was the patron of the same church or goods, he also exists ipso iure deprived of the right of patronage; but a cleric committing this delict or consenting to it is moreover deprived of any benefices whatever, is rendered incapable of any others whatever, and is suspended from the execution of his orders, even after full satisfaction and absolution, at the discretion of his Ordinary (cited canon).

VIII. Those perpetrating a duel, or simply provoking to it or accepting it, or furnishing any cooperation or favor whatever; and likewise those deliberately watching it and permitting it, or, as far as lies in them, not prohibiting it, of whatever dignity they may be (canon 2351, § 1). What a duel canonically accepted is, see volume I, n. 747. The following are excommunicated:

1. Those dueling; likewise those provoking and accepting, even if the duel did not follow.

2. Those furnishing cooperation or favor, provided the duel followed. It is required, however, that the favor or cooperation be sufficiently proximate and efficacious; hence, for example, those commanding and counseling are excommunicated; those who deliver or post the challenge; those who accompany the duelists and thus add courage to them; physicians and confessors assisting, even with the intention of giving help to the duelists if there is need; likewise if by agreement they remain with the same intention in a nearby place or house;⁵ masters of arms who instruct those about to fight in order for the duel about which agreement has been made. But not sellers of weapons, nor public drivers who lead the duelists to the agreed place.

3. Those watching deliberately are understood to be those who approach the place of the duel in order to watch, so that they intensify the fight or add splendor to it; but not those who, arriving by chance, stop, or look from afar or from a hidden place.

4. Those permitting, or not prohibiting as far as lies in them, are understood to be those who enjoy authority, whether civil or military, but not private persons.

Note. The duelists themselves and those called their seconds are moreover ipso facto infamous (canon 2351, § 2). Those who die in a duel or from a wound received from it are deprived of ecclesiastical burial, unless before death they gave some signs of repentance (canon 1240, § 1, 4°).

IX. Clerics constituted in sacred orders or regulars or nuns after a solemn vow of chastity, and likewise all who presume to contract marriage, even only civilly, with any one of the aforesaid persons (canon 2388, § 1).

1. Concerning the word "presuming," compare what was said in n. 858. Knowledge in the act of contracting marriage is required; hence those who contracted ignorantly remain immune from the excommunication, even if afterward the ignorance ceases and they persist in the attempted marriage.

2. The excommunication is incurred even if the marriage is invalid also because of another impediment, say consanguinity;⁶ likewise through civil marriage, even though invalid because of defect of form.⁷

Note. Delinquent clerics, moreover, if warned and if they do not come to their senses within a time predetermined by the Ordinary according to the diversity of circumstances, are to be degraded (canon 2388, § 1). In addition, because of tacit renunciation admitted by the law itself, any offices whatever of the cleric are vacant ipso facto and without any declaration (cited canon, canon 188, 5°).

X. Those perpetrating the delict of simony in any ecclesiastical offices, benefices, or dignities whatever (canon 2392, 1°). What simony is and how many kinds there are, see volume I, n. 620 sq.

1. Since the law does not distinguish, the excommunication affects simony of both divine and ecclesiastical law, both conventional and real and confidential (cf. canon 728), but not mental or merely internal simony.

2. It is disputed whether the law includes only offices strictly so called or also those broadly so called. For the rest, Bishops also, but not Cardinals, are liable to the penalty (canon 2227, § 2).

Note 1. Delinquents remain ipso facto deprived forever of the right of electing, presenting, and nominating, if they have any. If they are clerics, they are moreover suspended (canon 2393, 2° and 3°).

Note 2. The simoniacal contract itself and, if simony is committed concerning benefices, offices, or dignities, the subsequent provision lack all force, although the simony was committed by a third person, even without the knowledge of the one provided, provided this is not done in fraud of the same provided person or with him contradicting it. Therefore: 1° before any sentence of a judge, a thing simoniacally given and accepted, if it is capable of restitution and reverence due to the spiritual thing does not stand in the way, must be restored, and the benefice, office, or dignity must be resigned; 2° one simoniacally provided does not make the fruits his own; but if he has received them in good faith, it is permitted to the prudence of the judge or Ordinary to condone the fruits received to him wholly or in part (canon 729, 1° and 2°).

XI. A Vicar Capitular and all others, both of the Chapter and outsiders, who by themselves or through another have removed, destroyed, concealed, or substantially altered any document pertaining to the episcopal Curia (canon 2405). Under the name of document do not come books, precious things, and writings of lesser importance. For the rest, it is all the same whether the document was composed by the episcopal Curia or directed to it. But for the excommunication to be contracted, it is required that some damage follow from the removal, etc., of the document, or that prejudice be brought to the diocese or episcopal rights (cf. canon 435, § 3).

Note. Delinquents can also be punished by the Ordinary with privation of office or benefice (canon 2405).

¹ Those, however, who usurp or detain ecclesiastical goods pertaining to the Roman Church incur an excommunication reserved to the Roman Pontiff in a special manner (p. 767).

² Holy Office, March 9, 1870.

³ A.A.S. 1924, p. 311.

⁴ Creusen, Epitome, n. 546.

⁵ Holy Office, May 28, 1884.

⁶ Holy Office, January 13, 1892.

⁷ Holy Office, December 22, 1880.

972. • Concerning these, the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis reads thus:

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

I. All apostates from the Christian faith ¹, and each and every heretic, by whatever name they may be designated and of whatever sect they may be ², and those believing them ³, and their receivers, supporters, and generally any defenders of them.

¹ ** Understand apostasy here as a withdrawal from the Christian faith, and an apostate as one who has departed from the Christian faith. And since the crime of apostasy consists in a withdrawal of this kind, it therefore makes no difference whether the apostate has gone over to Judaism or to Paganism, or whether he has fallen into Deism, Atheism, or Indifferentism. And to this last is commonly referred the sect of those who call themselves in Italian liberi pensatori, and in French libres penseurs, whom otherwise you would better call monsters of nature, more foolish than stupid beasts. For beasts follow the guidance of nature. But these two-footed monsters trample upon nature. Namely, just as the bodily eye is ignorant of liberty, so reason and intellect are ignorant of liberty. And just as it is indeed free for you to close your eyes or not to look at the objects placed around you, but it will not likewise be free for you not to see those objects if you look at them with open eyes, so must you also speak concerning truth placed before the eye of the mind which beholds it. Therefore, even the name of the sect itself displays foolishness more stupid than asinine stupidity, so that in this apostasy from the Christian faith that saying of the ancients shines forth most manifestly: the corruption of the best is the worst. But what civil society can also hope for in practice or fear from those men, if they are worthy of this designation, who according to their arbitrary manner of thinking and judging fashion right and wrong for themselves at pleasure, anyone easily sees.

² ** Concerning the crime of heresy, see where faith was treated (volume I, no. 208). Note this, with the distinguished Author of the Rieti Commentary: it makes no difference whether someone has outwardly disclosed heresy by words or only by a deed, for example, if he has attempted to know the secrets of hearts or to divine the future free actions of men, which are open to God alone, through self-moving tables or the so-called Cristacos (magnetized persons). See the Encyclical Letter of the Sacred Inquisition, 30 July 1856 (above, volume I, no. 281), where it is declared that heretical deception is found in these things.

³ ** By those believing them, understand those who believe heretics either explicitly or implicitly.

These are distinguished in the text from heretics: 1. because someone can adhere to errors condemned by heretics, although he does not formally belong to the sects of heretics; 2. because a believer of this kind is understood both if in the forum of conscience he is a heretic properly so called and if he is not altogether a heretic, namely, when internal pertinacity of mind against the faith is not joined with the external act of believing. For under either hypothesis he shows himself a follower of the errors of heretics, and therefore, as one implicated in the cause of heresy, he is punished in the external forum with the penalty of heretics and is subjected to this censure in such a way that he cannot be absolved without a special faculty.

By receivers understand not those who for any other cause receive or conceal them in their houses or lands, but those who directly intend through this to foster or defend the heretic, for example, so that he may thus escape the penalties of heresy.

II. Each and every person knowingly ⁴ reading, without the authority of the Apostolic See ⁵, books ⁶ of the same apostates and heretics ⁷ which defend heresy ⁸, and also books of any author prohibited by name through Apostolic Letters ⁹, and those retaining, printing, and in any manner defending those same books ¹⁰.

⁴ ** Knowingly, that is, with knowledge: 1. that the book is by an apostate or a heretic according to the sense of the preceding article; 2. that the book defends heresy; and 3. that the reading is punished by the penalty of this censure. But understand this also of those retaining, printing, etc.

⁵ ** That is, without a faculty granted either by the Supreme Pontiff or by those to whom the Supreme Pontiff has committed the faculty of dispensing.

⁶ ** Whether journals or newspapers are comprehended by these laws, see below where the reading of bad books is treated.

⁷ ** Avanzini raises a doubt (Commentary, no. 7) whether the books of those who are added in the preceding article, namely, believers, supporters, etc., are also comprehended if they defend heresy; and he replies: They do not appear to be comprehended. But immediately he so tempers the assertion that he all but destroys it: provided (he says) that these two things are not verified, namely: 1. that in the book is contained an indubitable defense of heresy or of apostasy from the faith; 2. and that the defense of heresy is made so pertinaciously that it cannot be doubted that the author of the book is certainly a heretic.

⁸ ** To these matters the excellent Rieti Commentary says well: To defend is, if I judge anything rightly, to undertake the patronage of heresy deliberately and as though with all one's strength; wherefore the excommunication does not bind one who reads a book of an apostate or a heretic if it does not defend heresy, even though it contains it, and indeed even defends it, but incidentally, in a few words, and as though while doing something else.

⁹ ** By books prohibited by name are not understood just any books condemned through Apostolic Letters, unless the proper title of the book has been expressed in those Letters. But understand by Apostolic Letters those which proceed immediately in the name of the Roman Pontiff, whether in the form of a Brief, a Bull, an Encyclical, or in any other form, provided that in them is read By Apostolic Authority, or something equivalent. Furthermore, if before this other books not prohibited by name were condemned through Apostolic Letters without any excommunication, or with an excommunication not reserved, one reading them today incurs no excommunication; because our Constitution in the former case does not introduce an excommunication, and in the latter, since it does not enumerate it among the non-reserved censures, has abolished it; and if they were prohibited under some other censure, for example, suspension, this also ceases (Rieti Commentary).

¹⁰ ** Concerning those printing, the Rieti Commentary has these things: To this belong all who cooperate proximately in the printing; and therefore: 1. those who furnish any work whatever for this matter, such as those who set the type, coat it with ink,

moisten the paper, etc.; 2. those who hire their labors, that is, the printer, and all the more the publisher, who is understood to hire the labors of both; and the author of the book, if the book is published through his care. Cretoni adds (Note on this place): With respect to manual workers or subordinate cooperators, in order to incur this censure, besides the required knowledge it must also be judged from the circumstances whether in the case they are to be regarded as formal or material cooperators and, under this latter hypothesis, whether they are excused from the fault of cooperation (add, or at least from the penalty) by a just and proportionate cause or not.

Those defending the book in any manner are considered (Lugo, On Faith, disputation 21, no. 94) those who conceal the book lest it be denounced or burned, or who prevent this by force or fraud; one who tries to persuade others that the book is good and therefore not worthy of prohibition; one who tries to uphold the depraved doctrine contained in it and to defend it from every stain. For all these defend books by deed or word. See Sanchez and Palao, who note that this censure does not comprehend one who approves and praises the good and true doctrine contained in a book, provided that he is not considered to approve the book itself absolutely; nor one who praises the style, eloquence, diction, or talent, provided that he does not assert praise and approval of the book.

III. Schismatics and those who pertinaciously withdraw themselves or depart from the obedience of the Roman Pontiff for the time being ¹¹.

IV. Each and every person, of whatever state, rank, or condition they may be, appealing from ordinances or mandates of the Roman Pontiffs for the time being to a future general Council, and also those by whose aid, counsel, or favor the appeal was made ¹².

¹¹ ** By schismatics properly so called are understood those who not only pertinaciously depart from the subjection owed to the Roman Pontiff, but, erecting themselves into an authority, establish new assemblies separated from the center of unity, such as the promoters of national churches, or follow those same assemblies. And these indeed pertain to perfect schism, even if you understand schism, as they call it, pure, namely, with which no heresy is mingled, which scarcely occurs. For if a schismatic holds something contrary to the faith, for example, that the Roman Pontiff is not the head of the Church, or indeed is, but only the primacy of honor belongs to him, as the Jansenist hypocrites hold, he would in addition be a heretic and therefore entangled in a twofold excommunication.

But by those who pertinaciously withdraw themselves or depart from the obedience of the Roman Pontiff for the time being are signified those who pertain to imperfect schism. And in this sense Avanzini (Commentary, no. 10) thinks that those who call themselves liberal Catholics are comprehended, namely, those who, setting aside the laws and mandates of the Roman Pontiff, publicly conduct themselves as though released from his obedience, since these also in the true sense are rebels against the obedience of the Roman Pontiff for the time being.

¹² ** Lest those who pertinaciously withdraw themselves or depart from the obedience of the Roman Pontiff for the time being, concerning whom the preceding article treats, should pretend to do this with impunity under the pretext of an appeal to a future Council, contrary to the defined rights of the Primacy, this special crime of rebellion was punished with a special censure.

But to incur this censure of excommunication it is necessary to appeal to a future Council. Therefore, if an appeal has been made to a future Roman Pontiff or to a present Council, there is no place for the censure. But if not some individual person, but some community or moral person, has interposed an appeal of this kind, it incurs the Interdict reserved in a special manner, as will be said below.

V. All who kill, mutilate, strike, seize, imprison, detain, or pursue in a hostile manner Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, and Legates or Nuncios of the Apostolic See, or cast them out of their Dioceses, Territories, Lands, or Dominions; and also those commanding these things, or ratifying them, or furnishing aid, counsel, or favor in them ¹³.

VI. Those directly or indirectly impeding the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, whether of the internal or external forum, and those having recourse for this purpose to the secular forum and procuring or issuing its mandates, or furnishing aid or favor ¹⁴.

¹³ ** The excellent Rieti Commentary thus treats these: By this censure are punished injuries against the body, liberty, and dignity of the Princes of the Church. Against the body, namely, by killing, mutilating, or striking. To kill is to put to death in any manner, for example, by poison, hunger, etc.; to mutilate is to cut off a member; by striking we understand every injury which is done by the hand.

Against liberty, namely, by seizing, imprisoning, or detaining. To seize is to apprehend. To imprison is to cast or confine one in any place, even a private one. To detain is to keep one enclosed in any place lest he be able to depart.

Against dignity, namely, by pursuing in a hostile manner or casting out. To pursue in a hostile manner is to pursue with the intention of harming; therefore those who pursue them for the sake of frightening or despoiling them do not incur this excommunication. To cast out is to expel one previously received, and therefore those who do not receive them are not bound by it. From their Lands or dominions: interpreters understand by Lands also those where they maintain a domicile or were born. Nor is it distinguished by what authority they cast them out, public or private, or in what manner, whether by force employed, by threats, or by a bare precept.

Moreover, in this place not only those who strike, mutilate, etc., and those who furnish them aid or favor are excommunicated, but also those who ratify it. But in order that these incur excommunication, it is necessary: 1. that the striking, mutilation, etc., was done in their name, because someone cannot ratify what was not done in his name (chapter 23, On the Sentence of Excommunication, in the Sext); 2. that at the time when these things were perpetrated, they could have authorized and therefore commanded them, for ratification is retroactive and is equated with a mandate.

¹⁴ ** The action which is restrained by this excommunication is to impede the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, both ordinary and delegated, whether of the external or internal forum; of this kind especially is that which the Sacred Penitentiary uses.

Moreover, to the power of jurisdiction belongs the issuing of laws and mandates, binding and loosing, conferring Benefices, deputing to ecclesiastical duties, sending preachers, visiting a Diocese, and committing to others for performance those things which belong to Order. And these things must be distinguished both from those which pertain to the power of Order, such as performing sacred rites, ministering the Sacraments, blessing and consecrating persons and things, etc.; and from those which are more matters of office or right, such as teaching, preaching, acquiring or alienating goods, and, in a word, entering into contracts.

Therefore, in order that someone be said to impede the exercise of jurisdiction, it is necessary that he oppose the one in whom jurisdiction resides, for example, an Ordinary, Pastor, or judge, and indeed oppose him so that he neither begin nor continue to use the jurisdiction. To this also pertains if someone impedes the execution of any sentence or decree of this kind, especially if he does this by appealing or otherwise having recourse in any manner to the lay power, as it is said, on account of abuse.

Or: 2. by issuing mandates, which is understood of one who establishes or decrees a mandate.

Or: 3. by having recourse to the secular forum and procuring its mandates, namely, in order to elude the judgment of the ecclesiastical forum.

Or finally: 4. all those who furnish aid, counsel, or favor in all these things, for example, those who procure mandates for persons wishing to impede.

Thus far from the excellent Rieti Commentary, where it is added that, when the effect has not yet followed, neither those impeding, nor those issuing mandates, nor those having recourse, and consequently neither those furnishing aid, etc., contract the excommunication. The contrary opinion, at least with respect to those having recourse, pleased Avanzini (Commentary, no. 11). But (the Rieti Commentary subjoins at article 8), I think that one ought not easily to depart from the general rules of law.

But this excommunication is incurred by those impeding the exercise of this jurisdiction, namely: 1. by some deed, for example, by force, threats, or command, either directly, for example, if someone threatens a Bishop with death, etc., or indirectly, as if by a deed

VII. Those directly or indirectly compelling lay judges to draw ecclesiastical persons before their tribunal contrary to the canonical provisions ¹⁵; likewise those issuing laws or decrees against the liberty or rights of the Church ¹⁶.

VIII. Those having recourse to the lay power ¹⁷ in order to impede he prohibits those attached to the Ecclesiastical Court from performing their duty in that matter, etc. > any letters or acts ¹⁸ proceeding from the Apostolic See or from any of its Legates or Delegates ¹⁹, and those directly or indirectly prohibiting their promulgation or execution ²⁰, or on account of them injuring or gravely frightening either the parties themselves or others ²¹.

IX. All forgers of Apostolic Letters, even in the form of a Brief, and of petitions concerning grace or justice, signed by the Roman Pontiff, or by the Vice-Chancellors of the Holy Roman Church or those acting in their place, or at the mandate of the same Roman Pontiff; and also those falsely publishing Apostolic Letters, even in the form of a Brief, and also those falsely signing petitions of this kind under the name of the Roman Pontiff or the Vice-Chancellor or of one acting in the place of the aforesaid persons ²².

X. Those absolving an accomplice in a shameful sin even at the point of death > if another priest, although not approved for confessions, can hear the confession of the dying person without grave infamy and scandal being likely to arise ²³.

XI. Those usurping or sequestering ²⁴ jurisdiction, goods, or revenues belonging to ecclesiastical persons by reason of their Churches or Benefices ²⁵.

XII. Those invading, destroying, or detaining, by themselves or through others, Cities, Lands, places, or rights belonging to the Roman Church; or those usurping, disturbing, or retaining the supreme jurisdiction in them; and also those furnishing aid, counsel, or favor toward any of the aforesaid acts ²⁶.

¹⁵ ** Formerly (Bull Coenae, section 15), judges who drew Ecclesiastics before their tribunal were subject to excommunication; today those who compel the lay judges themselves to this are subject, that is, those who exercise judgment by lay power. Thus the Declaration of the Sacred Inquisition, 1 February 1871: The word compelling certainly indicates that the excommunication does not reach those who are subordinate, even if they were judges, but was imposed only upon those who, compelled by no one, either perform such acts or compel others to perform them. Therefore, he contracts the excommunication who, either directly, for example, by threats, or indirectly, for example, through another, compels ecclesiastics to be drawn into court as though accused, whether on account of a penal cause for even a most grave crime, or on account of a civil cause of even a single farthing.

The Constitution limits it: Contrary to the canonical sanctions, namely, unless at some time through them an ecclesiastic is permitted to be drawn before a lay tribunal, with the conditions under which this is permitted otherwise observed.

¹⁶ ** With respect to the other part of this article, attention is directed to those issuing, that is, establishing laws or decrees against the liberty and rights of the Church, namely, of the universal Church.

Laws are those which are established in perpetuity by the supreme power; Decrees are those which are issued generally by any power, for example, by the Prefect of a city, Municipalities, etc., but not those which are issued against individual persons or in individual cases, which you would rather call mandates, and therefore not the sentences of judges.

But the words Against the liberty or rights, etc., extend most widely and strike altogether every kind of law or decree by which not only the exercise of ecclesiastical power, whether of Jurisdiction or Order, but any other right is intercepted, restricted, or disturbed, such as the right of teaching; promoting to Orders; conducting public supplications outside churches or at night; erecting Churches, Benefices, and Pious Associations; and conferring Benefices without any intervention of the lay power; indeed, also the rights which belong to the Church as a Society, such as the right of acquiring by acts of last will or among the living; alienating; or leasing her goods beyond nine years, etc.

But this excommunication is incurred by those issuing laws or decrees of this kind by lay authority; and if these were proposed by the vote, for example, of the people, senate, etc., all who voted for them are bound by this censure as soon as they have been promulgated.

¹⁷ ** Namely, to persons who exercise some jurisdiction over citizens, of which kind, for example, are judges, presidents, prefects of cities, etc. Nor does it matter in what manner someone had recourse, whether by appealing, by calling upon them, or by presenting a petition.

¹⁸ ** Acts of the Apostolic See are called those which are transacted at Rome by the Roman Pontiff or at his mandate, whether they contain a spiritual or temporal matter.

¹⁹ ** By Delegates understand those to whom the transaction of some matter is committed.

²⁰ ** Promulgation, rather than being taken for dissemination, which consists in fact, appears to be taken for publication in the customary form and manner, which consists rather in law. It is disputed whether, in order to incur this censure, it is necessary that the publication or execution be prohibited by public authority. The Rieti Commentary follows those affirming, for the Pontiff appears to speak of that prohibition which flows from recourse to the lay power.

²¹ ** To injure appears to be taken in the strict signification, by which, namely, the body is said to be injured. But to frighten indicates the instilling of fear which is certainly grave. By the parties themselves understand those to whom the Apostolic Letters or Acts pertain, but by others those to whom the publication or execution of the Apostolic Letters pertains.

²² ** Not all forgers incur this excommunication, but only forgers of Apostolic Letters, whether they contain grace or justice. Those are said to contain grace which contain some favor or liberality of the Roman Pontiff; but letters of justice are those which pertain to lawsuits and therefore to the cognizance or determination of some cause. Indeed, Apostolic Letters or rescripts do not pertain here if they have not yet been signed or furnished with a seal or leaden bulla, because, since they are not yet authentic, they do not yet avail.

Since the crime of forgery concerning letters of this kind can be committed in several ways, it is punished with excommunication if it is done: 1. by corrupting; or 2. by fabricating Apostolic Letters; or 3. by signing petitions, etc. By corrupting, whenever something is varied, deleted, or added, which must be estimated not materially but formally, that is, from the sense principally intended by the Roman Pontiff. By fabricating, whenever a false writing is substituted. Finally, by signing petitions, etc., whenever Fiat is falsely subscribed in them.

But in order that the censure be incurred, it is necessary: 1. that these things were committed with evil intent; 2. that, if they concern another, this gravely harms or can harm the other; I said, if another, for if they concern only you, it suffices to have falsified them in any manner; 3. finally, that you have perfected and completed the falsity. But when the falsity has been perfected, the excommunication is immediately incurred even if you do not use the falsified Letters or Rescripts. Except that which is committed by fabricating Apostolic Letters, before whose publication this censure is not incurred. But one who uses these Letters incurs another excommunication reserved to the Bishop, as will be said below.

²³ Concerning this article there is nothing to be added to those things which were said above (at no. 584).

²⁴ Someone is said to usurp when, as though using a power of ruling and by his own right, he takes prior possession of something (Suarez, On Censures, disputation 21, section 2, no. 96). Therefore thieves, robbers, etc., are not comprehended here, as the Sacred Inquisition also declared, 9 March 1870. But to sequester in the present case is to impede something from being received by those to whom it belongs.

²⁵ By jurisdiction understand either spiritual or temporal jurisdiction (Suarez, loc. cit., no. 95); but by goods understand immovable or movable goods, or even rights; and by revenues, whatever a thing bears or is received in consideration of the thing. Moreover, those jurisdictions, goods, and revenues are understood which belong to ecclesiastical persons by reason of their churches or benefices. Avanzini (Commentary, no. 18) thinks that the goods of monasteries also pertain here, as belonging to ecclesiastical persons by reason of their churches. Indeed, in the Bull Coenae (section 17), from which this article is taken, it is said: Belonging to any ecclesiastical persons by reason of Churches, monasteries, and other Ecclesiastical benefices. But the word other there suggests that Monasteries are comprehended under the name of benefices rather than churches; otherwise, as is acutely noted in the Rieti Commentary, goods of this kind, etc., belong either to the monasteries themselves, to their Sacristies, or to the Roman Church.

Since by this article only those usurping and sequestering, etc., appear expressly to be subjected to this excommunication, it was doubted whether someone who purchases the aforesaid things from a usurper incurs the same excommunication. But that it is indeed incurred is settled law from the Allocution of Pius IX, 25 July 1873. Add the reply of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, 8 July 1874: It must by no means be doubted that those purchasing ecclesiastical goods usurped by usurpers fall into the excommunication reserved to the Roman Pontiff. For, setting aside the question whether the aforesaid purchase is in some manner touched by article XI of the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, it can be doubtful to no one that it is comprehended by the most clear disposition of chapter XI, On Reformation, session 22 of the Council of Trent.

The replies of the Sacred Penitentiary concerning those who in any manner retain ecclesiastical goods of this kind, see below from no. 1092 in the Appendix.

²⁶ This excommunication pertains to the defense and protection of the temporal Dominion belonging to the Apostolic See. Therefore, rights and jurisdiction here are taken as temporal, and jurisdiction is understood as supreme, that is, that which belongs to the Prince alone, such as the right of life and death, the right of imposing taxes, creating Magistrates, etc.

But this excommunication is incurred: 1. by those who destroy cities, lands, places, etc., and those who invade them by employing force; 2. by those who disturb the supreme jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff in them, for example, those who impede Him from promulgating laws in these cities, imposing taxes, etc.; 3. by those who retain this jurisdiction or the cities, etc., even if they received them from others, such as heirs and heirs of heirs. 4. Finally, by those who furnish aid, counsel, or favor toward any of the aforesaid acts.

And as regards these last, it is a difficult matter, as the Rieti Commentary well says, to define when they incur excommunication by reason of aid, favor, etc., in detaining. A twofold kind of these (it says) must be distinguished. The one is of those who hold some public office; the other, of those who exercise none. And as regards the former, public offices pertain either to the necessities or utilities of the citizens, or to preserving the government, or to both. It can indeed be harmless to undertake the former, because society cannot kill itself.

But two things above the rest must be observed: 1. that they do not take an oath by which active obedience, as they say, is promised to the usurper, which would be as the price of the office. And if it is altogether necessary to swear, let them promise only passive obedience, and obedience to laws both divine and ecclesiastical, as was enjoined through the Letter of Pius VII to the Bishops of the Marches, 30 August 1808, and by the Sacred Penitentiary, 10 December 1860, replies 10 and 14.

2. That while they swear, they openly profess that they will do nothing contrary to divine and ecclesiastical laws. Wherefore, if something contrary to these laws should have to be done, it is necessary either to abstain from it or to renounce the office.

But with respect to public duties which do not pertain merely to the utilities and necessities of citizens but to preserving the government, the Sacred Penitentiary had already replied on 10 October 1860 (reply 11) that they can be tolerated, provided that there is no question of offices which directly and proximately contribute to the spoliation or to the maintenance of that same spoliation, and which cannot be exercised without danger of violating divine and ecclesiastical laws. But those who hold the first or supreme magistracy in any province, city, land, or town are understood to contribute by office to the maintenance of the spoliation. Thus the Instruction of Pius VII, 22 May 1809, declares: It is not lawful to accept employments and charges which have a more or less direct tendency to recognize, assist, and consolidate the new government in the exercise of the usurped power. But what duties are of this kind is declared more expressly thus in the Instruction of 10 June 1809: It is declared that by such employments are understood especially the offices of Governors, Prefects, or Mayors, who under this or another designation represent the first magistrate in each province, city, land, castle, or country whatever.

But departure from this policy began after it left no hope of impeding the consolidation of the usurpation, and otherwise the office of governing, committed and permitted only to rebels and wicked men, finally produced this sole fruit: that a policy of this kind turned to the destruction of Religion and to ever worse harms of subjects. And indeed, where an unjust usurper permits the oppressed subjects of another to provide in some manner for themselves and the common good, no reason at all appears why either the legitimate prince ought to be considered unwilling, for he would not reasonably be unwilling, or why oppressed subjects ought to be considered free of fault if they refuse offices through negligence. For they will not act thus as though they recognize some right in the most unjust usurper, but as persons who use the law of nature to provide for themselves and society. See the things said in volume I, no. 394, in the Note.

These things concern those holding public duties. But with respect to those who perform no office of this kind, those are understood to favor those detaining who furnish proximate assistance so that the usurpers remain in possession, for example, through money, denunciations, counsels, writings, etc.

Avanzini writes (Commentary, no. 19) that, if this article of the Constitution is compared with article XII of the Bull Coenae, it appears that adherents, supporters, and their defenders have been removed; concerning which matter he nevertheless subjoins that the Apostolic Letters of the year 1860 still remain in force. But unless by adherents you understand, as some are accustomed, those who merely stand for the usurpers, and by defenders those who contribute nothing to the maintenance of the spoliation, you certainly have these also sufficiently comprehended among those who furnish aid or favor.

973. • XIII. From the Bull Romanus Pontifex of Pius IX, 28 August 1873, there is added an excommunication likewise reserved in a special manner to the Roman Pontiff against dignitaries and canons (add: and those who, when chapters are lacking, have power to appoint the administrator or Vicar of a vacant Church, or who legitimately administer vacant Churches), > who, before the exhibition of the Apostolic Letters, have dared, under any title, name, or specious pretext, to grant and transfer the care, governance, and administration of a vacant Church either to one elected, even legitimately, by Chapters as Bishop, or to one nominated or presented, even legitimately, by the lay power to the said vacant Church; then also those who, having been nominated and presented to vacant churches, dare to undertake their care, governance, and administration from the concession and transfer made to them by dignitaries, Canons, and others of whom above; and also those who have obeyed the aforesaid persons or furnished aid, counsel, or favor, of whatever state, condition, preeminence, and dignity they may be ²⁷.

²⁷ ** All who are subjected to the aforesaid excommunication are punished also with another penalty in the same Bull thus: And We bind them also with the penalties, likewise to be incurred by that very fact, of deprivation of the ecclesiastical fruits of any Benefices whatever and of other ecclesiastical revenues respectively obtained by them, and decree and declare that they shall be bound; and We reserve the relaxation of those penalties... ONLY IN A SPECIAL MANNER to Ourselves and to the Roman Pontiff for the time being.

Furthermore, with respect to those elected or presented in this manner, it is added: Moreover, We decree that those nominated and presented are by that very fact deprived of the right which perhaps was acquired for them through nomination and presentation. And below: Furthermore, We declare and decree by the tenor of the present Letters that whatever things are done, commanded, decreed, and ordained by those thus nominated and presented, intruded into the administration of vacant Churches, together with each and every thing in any manner following therefrom and in any manner to follow, are and shall perpetually be null, invalid, empty, void, damnably attempted and presumed in fact by those not having power, and of no value, moment, or efficacy; and We condemn and reprobate them.

The interdict which is added against those nominated, etc., if they are marked with the episcopal character, will be set forth below in its place.

XIV. Likewise: Whoever in the aforementioned dioceses (namely, those subject to the Patriarchate of Venice and the Metropolitan See of Milan), having been elected by the vote of the people to the office of Pastor or Vicar, dare to seize the pretended possession either of the Church or of its rights and goods, and to perform the duties of the ecclesiastical ministry, by that very fact incur major excommunication peculiarly reserved to the Holy See, and other canonical penalties. See the Encyclical Letter of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, 21 November 1873 ²⁸.

²⁸ ** In the same place these things follow: And let all those same persons (namely, the intruded) be avoided by the faithful according to the divine warning, as strangers or thieves, who come only to steal, slaughter, and destroy.

But what these things mean can be learned from those which, under Pius VI, had to be observed by prescription with respect to intruded persons in France. They are as follows:

1. It is not licit to approach an intruded pastor for the administration of baptism except in a case of extreme necessity, namely, if there is no other person capable of baptizing; nor is it licit to perform the office of sponsor if perhaps the intruded person baptizes.

2. It is not licit, even on feast days, to be present at the Mass of an intruded priest, even if another Mass is lacking; nor is it licit to be present at a sermon or other functions of the intruded person, or to ask other ministries from him, or to entrust a Mass to him to celebrate.

3. It is not licit to receive Communion from an intruded person, even when the Paschal season is pressing.

4. Although one must genuflect before Hosts consecrated by an intruded person, care must nevertheless be taken, lest in this worship Catholics appear to communicate with schismatics, that an encounter with the intruded person be avoided while he carries the Holy Eucharist. And it is licit for a Catholic priest, even if not fasting, to consume hosts consecrated by a Catholic, if they cannot be reverently preserved, lest they come into the hands of the intruded person.

5. It is not licit to approach an intruded Pastor for contracting matrimony; wherefore, if no other means is available and the superior cannot provide another Pastor or priest, the faithful ought to contract without the presence of a pastor.

6. It is not licit for women, after completing childbirth, to receive from an intruded person the blessing which is customarily given after childbirth.

7. The obsequies of the dead are to be celebrated by the legitimate pastor even in private houses, if they cannot be performed otherwise; but if the intruded person carries the body to the Church, let Catholics neither accompany the funeral nor recite sacred prayers nor perform other rites of the Church in association with him.

8. But whether in danger of death the faithful can licitly receive absolution from an intruded Pastor, it was replied: The course which certain Prelates of France entered upon is not to be disapproved, who, in that moment, permitted the sacrament of penance... when any other Catholic priest was lacking and scandal had been removed, to be received from intruded pastors in that necessity.

But it must be noted here that the Censure and Decree of which there is now question indeed pertain to the ecclesiastical provinces of Venice and Milan; but it must not be thought that persons intruded into parishes in this manner elsewhere are by no means subject to these penalties. For neither will these escape the excommunication set forth above in article XI. For either a legitimate pastor is supposed already to have been given to the parish, and thus we have on the part of the intruded person a usurpation of jurisdiction belonging to another by reason of a benefice; or we suppose that a legitimate pastor has not yet been given, and thus we have the jurisdiction of the Ordinary over the same parish violated. Therefore, the special Decree for the said Provinces can be regarded as a mere consequence or application of article XI.

974. • In the same Constitution these things are subjoined: We declare that absolution from all the excommunications enumerated up to this point is and remains reserved in a special manner to the Roman Pontiff for the time being, and that for it a general concession of absolving from cases and censures or excommunications reserved to the Roman Pontiff in no manner suffices; any indults whatever granted in any form and to any persons, even Regulars of any Order, Congregation, Society, and Institute, even those worthy of special mention and constituted in any dignity, being revoked in addition with respect to those same excommunications ²⁹. But those presuming to absolve > without due faculty, even under any pretext, are to know themselves bound by a bond of excommunication > reserved to the Roman Pontiff ³⁰, provided that there is no question of the point of death, in which nevertheless the obligation, with respect to those absolved, of standing by the mandates of the Church if they recover remains firm ³¹.

²⁹ ** On account of those derogatory clauses a doubt had arisen whether all faculties, whether ordinary, namely, those customarily granted, or extraordinary, granted by the Apostolic See before the promulgation of the same Constitution, had been diminished or taken away by this Constitution, for example, the faculty of absolving from the crime of heresy which was contained in the Pagella of the Sacred Penitentiary. But by mandate of the Supreme Pontiff it was declared through the Office of the Sacred Inquisition as follows: Through the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis the Most Holy Father in no way intends to inflict even the least detriment upon faculties of whatever kind which were granted by the Holy See before the promulgation of the same Constitution, whether they are quinquennial or extraordinary or regard the present Jubilee; and he wills that they remain in their full force while the time defined in the said concessions or indults endures.

See above, no. 175, and the things noted there; concerning which the Reply of the Sacred Penitentiary, 5 December 1873, must not be omitted. Namely, to the doubt, Whether Regular Prelates, after the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, enjoy the same privileges which they did before, that is, whether or not they can absolve their subjects from papal cases simply reserved in the said Bull, this reply was made: The Sacred Penitentiary replies to the proposed doubt: Negatively, saving other faculties which proceed from particular Rescripts granted for a time.

But from this a question could be raised whether through these things something must be said to have been detracted from the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, confirmed by Pontifical authority, which elsewhere (above, page 114, in the Note) we reported in these words: The Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, after the matter had been spoken of with the Most Holy Clement VIII, ABSOLUTELY DECREED that all Bulls and Decrees derogating from the Privileges of Regulars with respect to the faculty of absolving from cases reserved to the Pope are to be understood only in relation to secular persons, but not in relation to their Regular subjects.

And, saving indeed a better judgment, it seems that it must be answered that these things can be reconciled together very well. For, besides the fact that what belongs to Bishops from chapter Liceat also belongs to Regular Prelates, see above, no. 175, the doubt proposed to the Sacred Penitentiary treats of Privileges properly so called. But what is established in the aforesaid Decree ought to be called not so much a Privilege as a certain provident disposition which, by a certain general norm, applies the principles of the common law to the condition and state of Regulars. For it is very well known both from the nature of the matter and from the consensus of all the Doctors that Regulars are numbered among those who are considered to have a perpetual impediment preventing them from being free and unimpeded to approach the Apostolic See personally for absolution from censures. But in these circumstances it is settled law that the faculty of absolving devolves upon the Ordinary, so that he can both absolve by himself and also through another, because this faculty belongs to him by ordinary law, and therefore he can delegate it to another. Thus in chapter Nuper 29, On the Sentence of Excommunication: We grant... that he may be absolved by his Bishop or his own Priest. But no one is ignorant that the Ordinaries of exempt Regulars are none other than their Prelates. Therefore the faculty is given to the Prelates of Regulars to absolve their subjects in the case, not by force of some special privilege, but by a norm taken from the common law. Nevertheless, this norm has a certain appearance of a privilege, insofar as, to remove all doubts for the future, the Apostolic See through the organ of the Sacred Congregation established this canon generally for Regulars. And indeed, what is worthy of note is that a Declaration or Decree of this kind appeared at the time when the same Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, by the Mandate and Authority of the same Clement VIII, under penalty of excommunication, deprivation of offices, and incapacity for hearing confessions, etc., had forbidden all Regulars to presume to absolve from cases reserved or to be reserved in any manner to the Apostolic See. For His Holiness (it is added in that decree) insofar as there is need, has willed and wills that the faculties and concessions themselves in this part are henceforth to be held as utterly null and void. Therefore, by this very fact the Sacred Congregation most manifestly declared that that disposition concerning Regulars pertained in no way to that privilege properly so called of absolving from Papal cases which Clement VIII, by that Decree of 9 January 1601, no less than Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius IX by the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, willed to be annulled, rendered void, and taken away. Therefore, the reply of the Sacred Penitentiary, which regards the privileges of which there is discussion in the proposed doubt, contradicts or detracts nothing from the Decree which, at the command of Clement VIII, established that special canon for the singular condition of Regulars.

³⁰ ** You have, therefore, another excommunication simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff, and accordingly to be added to the following catalogue.

³¹ ** These persons, therefore, will have to present themselves in order to receive mandates, unless nevertheless these are already known and enjoined, for example, those which were prescribed by the Sacred Penitentiary to those who purchased ecclesiastical goods from a usurper, concerning whom in article XI.

975. • I. Those teaching or defending, whether publicly or privately, propositions condemned by the Apostolic See under penalty of a latae sententiae excommunication ³²; likewise those teaching or defending as licit the practice of inquiring from a penitent the name of an accomplice, as it was condemned by Benedict XIV in the Constitutions Suprema, > 7 July 1745; Ubi primum, 2 July 1746; Ad eradicandum, 28 September 1746 ³³.

II. Those who, at the instigation of the devil, lay violent hands upon Clerics or monks of either sex ³⁴, excepting, with respect to the reservation, the cases and persons concerning whom it is permitted by law or privilege that the Bishop or another absolve ³⁵.

III. Those perpetrating a duel, or simply challenging another to it, or accepting it, and any accomplices, or those furnishing any assistance or favor, and also those deliberately watching it, and those permitting it or, so far as it is in their power, not prohibiting it, of whatever dignity they may be, even royal or imperial ³⁶.

³² ** The propositions which it is forbidden by the Apostolic See to teach or defend under penalty of a latae sententiae excommunication are commonly enumerated as follows:

1. The 45 Articles of John Wycliffe and the 30 Articles of John Hus. From the Constitution In eminentis Apostolicae, etc., of Martin V, dated at Rome, 13 February 1450. (See volume I, page XXXV.)

2. The 41 Errors of Martin Luther, condemned by Leo X in the Bull Exsurge Domine, etc., 16 May 1520. (Above, volume I, page XL.)

3. The 79 Propositions of Michael Baius, condemned by St. Pius V in the Bull Ex omnibus, 1 October 1567, etc. (Above, volume I, page XLIII.)

4. The Proposition concerning sacramental confession and absolution to be obtained by letters. Clement VIII, through the Decree of the Sacred Inquisition, 20 July 1602. (Above, volume I, page XLVIII.)

5. The 45 Propositions condemned by Alexander VII through Decrees of the Sacred Inquisition, 24 September 1665 and 18 March 1666. (Above, volume I, page L.)

6. The 65 Propositions condemned by Innocent XI through the Decree of the Sacred Inquisition, 2 March 1679. (Above, volume I, page LIII.)

7. The 68 Propositions of Michael de Molinos, condemned by Innocent XI in the Constitution Caelestis Pastor, 20 November 1687. (Above, volume I, page LVIII.)

8. The 2 Propositions condemned by Alexander VIII, 24 August 1690. (Above, volume I, page LXIV.)

9. The 31 Propositions condemned by Alexander VIII through the Decree of the Sacred Inquisition, 7 December 1690. (Above, volume I, page LXIV.)

10. The 101 Propositions of Pasquier Quesnel, condemned by Clement XI in the Constitution Unigenitus, 8 September 1713. (Above, volume I, page LXVI.)

11. The 5 Propositions On the Duel, condemned by Benedict XIV in the Constitution Detestabilem, 10 November 1752. (Above, volume I, page LXIX.)

12. The 85 Propositions of the diocesan Synod of Pistoia, condemned by Pius VI in the Constitution Auctorem fidei, 28 August 1794. (Above, volume I, page LXXV.)

³³ ** See the things given above concerning this argument, no. 501.

³⁴ ** Since this privilege, which is customarily called the privilege of the canon, is in favor not of persons but of the Order, it is taken most widely. Therefore, under the name of Clerics are included whoever have received tonsure; but under the designation of Monks, all Regulars of either sex, and their Novices and Tertiaries, indeed also Hermits who by mandate of the Bishop are assigned to the custody and service of some Church or chapel.

A violent laying on of hands is understood whenever injury is done by deeds to a person, namely, by harming either his body, liberty, or dignity; the body indeed by striking, wounding, or even harming by poison, or by in any way causing him to fall, tumble headlong, etc.; liberty, as if you thrust him into a prison or another place, even a private one; dignity, if force is in any manner employed against him, as, for example, by stopping the carriage or horse on which he is being conveyed, by violently taking something from him, such as a hat, purse, or staff; or by committing some other insulting act against him, for example, if you soil him with spittle, mud, or dust, or tear the clothes which he is wearing, etc.

All, even those who have not reached puberty, are subject to this excommunication. Nevertheless, a cleric who lays hands upon himself does not incur it (St. Alphonsus, book 7, no. 274); nor, on account of a defect of full advertence, does one who strikes from sudden anger or in jest, or for the sake of correction or defense, or for some other just cause, as if he finds him acting shamefully with his daughter, sister, etc. Indeed, as can deservedly be held, neither do those commanding or ratifying it incur the censure, since the law, which expressed others (see article V among the excommunications reserved in a special manner), passes over these here.

³⁵ ** Namely, if the striking was light, the Bishop can absolve the striker, whoever he may be. But a striking is called light which indeed inflicts grave injury but without grave harm, for example, one done with a fist, foot, stone, or club. But if the striking was grave, the Bishop can absolve only those who live collegiately, from chapter 50, On the Sentence of Excommunication; but it is held as grave, besides the fact that it must also be estimated from the place, the person, and other circumstances, from the Extravagant Perlectis of John XXII, if, for example, a tooth is knocked out or an abundance of blood is shed. Finally, if the striking was enormous, such as mutilation, the gouging out of an eye, the severing of a member, etc., the Bishop can absolve only those who have not reached puberty, whether they seek absolution before or after puberty, from chapter 60, On the Sentence of Excommunication. But in doubt whether the striking was light, grave, or enormous, according to the cited Extravagant the graver classification must be maintained.

But as to what Regular Prelates can do by common law concerning their subjects, compare the things brought forward above from St. Alphonsus in the Note to no. 175.

³⁶ ** With the Rieti Commentary, note that for the character of a duel of this kind it is required that the combat be fought with lethal weapons; and therefore it does not pertain here if there is fighting with fists, sticks, or even iron with a blunted edge, although death follows accidentally. Nor is this contrary to the Constitution Illius vices of Clement VIII. at no. 405, page 388, volume I; because, namely, in this place also St. Alphonsus (book 7, no. 220) refers to those things which he had written (book 3, no. 400), namely, that after those five Propositions on the Duel were condemned by Benedict XIV, that opinion which asserts that a Duel can licitly be accepted for the necessary defense of goods of great importance cannot be held as probable. St. Alphonsus indeed attributes this opinion to Lessius, Sanchez, Palao, Coninck, Valentia, Holzmann, Pichler, Reiffenstuel, Sporer, Albel, and others, and adds that it is called probable by Croix and Roncaglia. Indeed, it would certainly be licit for these Authors to add even the vote of St. Alphonsus himself; for he held the same doctrine altogether approved when he wrote these things (Note 1 of the Author on article 3, doubt 4, chapter 2, book 7, edition of the year 1748): It must be noted that a duel can sometimes be justified by just causes, for example, to avoid a loss of goods which the other challenger threatens; nevertheless the loss ought to be certain, and it ought to be impossible to meet it by another way unless the duel is accepted. And indeed, since St. Alphonsus afterward departed from this doctrine for no other cause than because he thought that it had been condemned by Benedict XIV, as he himself thus testifies concerning himself (Catalogue of Reformed Propositions, no. 97), therefore, when it can prudently be considered that this condemnation is not sufficiently established, nothing now prevents us from numbering the Holy Doctor among the patrons of that opinion.

But this is the argument of that Note to no. 405, volume I; there, namely, it is demonstrated that the falsity of the aforesaid opinion can by no means be logically deduced from the aforesaid condemned Propositions. For otherwise that opinion is by no means defended in the same Note by any positive reason; but, from a weighing of the Propositions proscribed by Benedict XIV, this alone was inferred: It must therefore be concluded that it is indeed lawful for anyone to seek reasons by which he may attack that opinion and whatever probability it has; but reasons of this kind must plainly be sought elsewhere than from those proscribed propositions.

And this plainly is what greatly displeases the VV. Wherefore, through fourteen columns (pages 879-885) they labor to establish that that doctrine was truly condemned in the aforesaid propositions. Nor indeed do they hesitate to write thus concerning those things which we said in the Note to no. 405: Father Ballerini appears to deceive himself. For even by observing the rules which he himself hands down for rightly converting condemned propositions, it is clearly gathered from the same propositions that the acceptance of a duel for preserving one's fortunes with honor is condemned.

Again, therefore, a few things concerning this argument. Concerning this matter I would note that it by no means appears why the VV. write, even by observing the rules which he himself (Father Ballerini) hands down, etc., as though Father Ballerini had brought forth here some singular and less well-established rules. For does any rule concerning condemned Propositions exist or can one be devised other than that which all have always admitted, namely, that nothing can certainly be forced from them except that the contradictory of that proposition which was condemned as false must be held as true? The contradictory, I say, but not the contrary, since two contrary propositions indeed cannot both be true, but certainly can both be false. Or can other rules for finding the contradictory of some proposition be produced than those which are everywhere extant in the first elements of dialectic?

Let us therefore come to the matter. The VV., after St. Alphonsus, object with the first and fourth of those five propositions. But the first reads thus: A military man who, unless he offers OR accepts (both in St. Alphonsus and in Gury and the VV. it is read incorrectly, AND accepts) a Duel, would be regarded as fearful, timid, abject, and unfit for military duties, and would therefore be deprived of the office by which he supports himself and his family, or would have to lack perpetually the hope of a promotion otherwise

due and merited by him, would be free from fault and penalty, whether he offers or accepts the duel.

But concerning this the VV. write thus (page 881): The contradictory of the first condemned Proposition can be no other than the following: "A military man who, unless he offers and accepts a duel... would be deprived of the office by which he supports himself and his family,... would not be free from fault and penalty, whether he offers or accepts the duel"; and they add: Surely nothing clearer could be desired.

Yet this is by no means the contradictory of the preceding proposition, but its contrary. For, as the dialecticians teach, the distinction is this: in contradictories, one affirms or denies only as much as suffices for the other to be false; and therefore both can never be true, nor can both be false at the same time. But in contraries, one denies or affirms more than is necessary for the other to be false; whence it happens that both indeed cannot be true at the same time, but both can be false. Yet in this case we have the latter, not the former.

For let the Proposition be reduced to this simpler form: A military man... is free from fault and penalty, whether he offers or accepts a duel. Here take care to observe that the words whether he offers or accepts a duel are expressed not disjunctively but copulatively, just as if one were to say: he is free from fault both if he offers and if he accepts a duel. Hence it follows that, if with the VV. you say, he is not free from fault both if he offers and if he accepts a duel, you now deny more than is necessary for the other proposition to be false; and therefore both can be false, namely, when he would be free from fault if he accepts, but not if he offers, or vice versa. You will have the contradictory only if you say: Either he is not free from fault if he offers, or he is not free from fault if he accepts. Which part of this disjunction is then true must be determined from elsewhere, and not by force of the proposition itself. It is therefore evident that, by force of the condemned Proposition, it cannot be concluded that both cases are subject to fault and penalty.

Say the same of the other Proposition which the VV., following St. Alphonsus, press: It is licit in the natural state of man to accept and offer a duel in order to preserve one's fortunes with honor, when their loss cannot be warded off by another remedy.

Concerning this the VV. write thus (page 882): The other proposition sounds contradictorily thus: "It is not licit... to accept and offer a duel in order to preserve one's fortunes with honor." Yet this is opposed to the condemned proposition not contradictorily but contrarily, and can be false just as much as the opposite proposition, because it denies more than is fitting. If you wish the contradictory, say: Either to offer a duel in order to preserve one's fortunes with honor, or to accept it, is not licit.

Here the VV. add (loc. cit.): If the one accepting is not condemned because the proposition is copulative, for the same reason neither can the one offering be condemned; therefore, in the condemned proposition neither is certainly condemned: which is absurd.

But to these things it must be answered: I concede the whole, except that this must be called absurd. And indeed, if someone should say: Peter and Paul were crucified at Rome, its contradictory will not be, Neither Peter nor Paul was crucified at Rome, but the disjunctive: Either Peter or Paul was not crucified at Rome. But is that said absurdly because, by force of the proposition, it remains uncertain which of them was, or was not, crucified? This must be gathered from elsewhere, as we have said, and not by force of the contradictory proposition. And this indeed is also recommended by those things which the VV. themselves bring forward thus from Reuter: Since a condemned proposition can bear either a universal or a particular sense, while a composite proposition can bear either a copulative or a divided sense, in order that it may be understood in what sense it was condemned and which contradictory opposed to it is true, one must consider both the matter which is proscribed and the weight of the reasons on account of which it deserved to be proscribed, as well as the mind of those who taught that proposition, and finally the common sense of the Doctors.

Take careful note of those words: which contradictory opposed to it IS

TRUE; for several contradictories are disjunctively opposed to a complex proposition, as is evident from the one aforesaid: either he is not free from fault and penalty while he offers, or he is not free from fault and penalty while he accepts. Which of these is true, Reuter rightly says must be argued from the matter, from the weight of the reasons, from the sense of the Doctors, etc.

And that recourse must finally be had to this is manifestly evident from innumerable other examples concerning condemned theses. Let there be, for example, proposition 36 among those proscribed by Innocent XI: It is permitted to steal not only in extreme necessity but also in grave necessity; which, as regards its form, is certainly equivalent to this other: It is licit not only to accept but also to offer a duel. All agree that something false and condemnable lies within it. But without an inspection of the matter or of the sense of the Doctors, what at length will you extract? This one thing, namely, which the contradictory presents: that it is not permitted to steal either in extreme necessity, or in grave necessity, or in both cases. But behold Doctors disagreeing as to whether that thesis is to be understood of formal theft, or merely of the material taking of another's thing, so that to steal there is the same as to carry off another's property. I ask, therefore: can this controversy be determined from the mere inspection of the thesis in itself? Or shall we on that account cry out with the VV. that it is absurd that nothing certain is gathered from the condemned Proposition?

Again, if you understand formal theft there as an unjust taking, unless you recur to a consideration of the matter, will you be able, from the contradictory thesis inspected in itself, to determine whether all the members of the disjunction, or only one of them, and which one, is to be judged true?

And again, if with Viva and St. Alphonsus you take that to steal not for formal theft but for a material taking, do you find it thus determined in that condemnation which member of the contradictory thesis is certainly to be held true and which false? Finally, do we not determine solely from an inspection of the matter, from the force of the reasons, and from the sense of the Doctors, what is true and what is false? And, what is chief, is not the rule which St. Alphonsus provides shown, from the interpretation of this thesis, to be deficient and fallacious, the rule by which the VV. contended that the propositions concerning the duel, as we saw above, ought to be converted? Indeed, according to the rule by force of which they convert the first proposition thus: he is not free from fault and penalty, whether he offers or accepts a duel; and the fourth thus: it is not licit to accept and offer a duel, etc.; according to this rule, I say, the aforesaid proposition 36 would also have to be converted thus: it is not permitted to carry off another's thing either in extreme necessity or in grave necessity. Yet St. Alphonsus (book 3, no. 520) indeed says that by this proposition it is condemned that it is licit to carry off another's things in grave necessity alone; but he acknowledges, with the consensus of all, that it is licit to carry off another's property in extreme necessity. Therefore the rule proposed by the VV. is fallacious; therefore by a fallacious conversion of the propositions premised concerning the duel, the VV. contend that both members of those complex theses must be held as condemned.

Since, therefore, it is not determined by force of conversion upon which member of a proscribed complex proposition the condemnation certainly falls, but in order to argue this it is finally necessary to appeal to the nature of the matter, to the force of the reasons, and to the sense of the Doctors, certainly, if someone should consider that St. Alphonsus too, with many grave Authors, could have agreed with that doctrine that a duel can sometimes be justified by just causes, etc., as we described above, he will plainly be able to deduce a consequence wholly opposite to the consequences which the VV. contend must be elicited from these propositions. Let us, however, be content with that conclusion which in the Note to no. 405 we deduced thus: It must be concluded that it is indeed lawful for anyone to seek reasons by which he may attack that opinion and whatever probability it has; but reasons of this kind must plainly be sought elsewhere than from those proscribed propositions.

To that which the VV. add (pages 882-885), that there have been several after Concina and Patuzzi who understand those condemned propositions in the same sense as St. Alphonsus, let this be the very brief reply: Let the VV. themselves assume the care of investigating whence this has happened; whether, namely, because the cited Authors did not inspect the matter attentively enough, or because, without weighing the matter for themselves, they adopted the opinion of others. For it is certainly not right to have thought them so unskilled in dialectic that they were ignorant either of the mode of arguing from condemned theses or of the mode of finding the contradictory of some Proposition. And these things suffice concerning this question.

The VV. have two other things in the Notes to this question (pages 880, 881), which nevertheless pertain to other arguments. First, therefore (page 880, note 1), they bring forth these words of St. Thomas (2.2, q. 64, art. 5, ad 4): It must be said that, as Augustine says, Samson is not otherwise excused for having overwhelmed himself together with his enemies by the ruin of the house, except that the Holy Spirit, who performed miracles through him, had secretly commanded this. And he assigns the same reason concerning certain holy women who killed themselves in time of persecution, whose memory is celebrated in the Church. From these words the VV. conclude that St. Alphonsus (book 5, no. 367, q. 2) rightly said that St. Thomas disagrees with the Doctors who more commonly hold that it is licit to set fire to a ship or tower so that the enemies may suffer grave harm, but with the certain loss of one's own life. To these things it must be answered that this was rightly observed when it is established that St. Thomas and St. Augustine had turned their eyes to a question of this kind.

The other observation of the VV. concerns these words of St. Alphonsus (book 3, no. 366): It is licit in a shipwreck to yield the plank... even if the plank has already been seized, as Sylvius apud Tournely and the Salamancans teach against Soto, Rodriguez, etc.... But Sylvius rightly observes that he cannot, in order to yield the plank, cast himself into the sea, because no one can positively kill himself. The VV. therefore censure (page 881) that in the Note to no. 391, volume I, page 372, we said that Sylvius's scruple was empty. I reply: In this third edition (loc. cit.) we added the reason why it must be called a scruple and why this limitation of Sylvius cannot be reconciled with the preceding words of St. Alphonsus. We shall add two things here. The first is that St. Alphonsus says that it is licit to yield the plank even if it has been seized, as Sylvius teaches against Soto. But these are the words of Soto (On Justice and Right, book 5, q. 1, art. 6, final proposition): He who relinquished the plank would be in the same position as if he cast himself into the sea, which is directly to kill himself. How then does St. Alphonsus cite Sylvius for himself against Soto, when, as is evident, the doctrine of Soto and Sylvius is the same? Again, St. Alphonsus cites the Salamancans (On Restitution, chapter 2, no. 34) together with Sylvius for his opinion. Yet the Salamancans, when they say that it is licit to give the plank to another, bring forward a reason which overturns the opinion of Sylvius and, in a certain way, even that of St. Alphonsus, namely (they say): This is not to concur directly in death.... It is not to kill oneself, but to commit oneself to a certain danger of death, which one is not bound to avert by so difficult a means as leaving one's neighbor in danger and not helping him. Besides, for an honorable and praiseworthy cause he exposes himself to such danger, which is always licit. When all these things have been weighed, this one consequence results: that paragraph of the Holy Doctor would have been most fortunate if he had left to Tournely, that is, to Collet, that citation of Sylvius which thoroughly disturbs everything there.

In this place the VV. cast their complaints against those things which the reader will find noted concerning the duel

IV. Those giving their names to the Masonic or Carbonari sect, or > other sects of the same kind which plot against the Church or legitimate > powers, either openly or secretly; and likewise those furnishing to those same > sects any favor whatever; and those not denouncing their secret chiefs and leaders until they have denounced them ³⁷.

³⁷ According to the Constitution of Pius VII (Ecclesiam a Iesu Christo, section 10) and that of Leo XII (Constitution Quo graviora, section 13), under penalty of excommunication reserved to the Roman Pontiff, all those had to be denounced whom one knew to have given their names to these societies, or to have furnished them assistance, favor, etc., in any manner. But here a limitation is made, so that only those incur this penalty who do not denounce their secret chiefs and leaders.

Moreover, a Confessor must keep two things before his eyes before he indicates to a penitent the obligation of denunciation. The first is that which the Doctors commonly admonish and which Thomas Del Bene expresses in these words (On the Office of the Holy Inquisition, part I, doubt 19, no. 9): You are not bound to denounce on account of fear falling upon a constant man, just as a woman is not bound on account of fear falling upon a constant woman, as if you fear that for this reason you may be killed or maltreated. And again (ibid., doubt 21, no. 1): One is not bound to denounce with probable danger of death, infamy, or grave harm to oneself, or to one's father or mother, or wife, brothers, or others most closely joined by blood.

The other is that which others admonish apud Bonacina (On the Obligation of Denunciation, part I, section 4, no. 3): there is no obligation of denunciation when it is certainly known, or probably believed, that no remedy will be applied by the Prelate after denunciation has been made; for no one is bound to a useless work; or, as Scavini says (treatise 8, disputation 1, chapter 4, article 2, section 1): when there is altogether no hope of punishment; for no one is bound to a useless work; or, as the Decree of the Sacred Inquisition has it (see above in the Note to no. 593, question 5), when it is believed that those denounced can easily escape punishment.

Here it must be observed that, since under the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis (above, no. 972, no. II) those reading books of any author prohibited by name through Apostolic letters, and those retaining, printing, or defending those same books in any manner, incur an excommunication reserved in a special manner, a question can be raised whether books of sectaries of this kind are comprehended in this class, concerning which Pius VII thus decreed (Constitution Ecclesiam a Iesu Christo, section 11, 13 September 1821): Finally, that every danger of error may be warded off more efficaciously, We condemn and proscribe all catechisms, as they call them, of the Carbonari, and books in which there are described by the Carbonari the things which are customarily done in their assemblies; also their statutes, codes, and all books written in their defense, whether printed or manuscript; and under the same penalty of major excommunication reserved in the same manner, We prohibit any of the faithful from reading or retaining the aforesaid books or any one of them. And it seems that it must be answered that those whose title is designated can sufficiently be considered prohibited by name. But here we have Statutes, Codes, Catechisms, and a Description of acts in the Assemblies, etc. Therefore.

Gury has two questions concerning these sectaries. The first is:

Can those who have given their names to the aforesaid sect be absolved if, although they repent of the oath they took, they nevertheless communicate externally with the same associates?

Reply. Negatively, because it is not enough that someone internally renounce his errors if he appears externally to profess those same errors. This is evident from the reply of the Congregation of the Holy Office. For when this doubt had been proposed: Ecclesiastical penalties have been established by several Roman Pontiffs against those who have given their names to the society which they call that of the Freemasons and have taken an oath to preserve the secret in their little assemblies. The doubt arises whether those who, although they repent of the oath they took, nevertheless persevere in openly exhibiting themselves as true adherents of the same society by communicating with others adhering to the same sect, or by attending their little assemblies, or in any other manner, can lawfully be admitted by a Confessor to participation in the Sacrament of Penance or of the Most Holy Eucharist. Certain Priests are found who in fact admit men of this kind. It is asked: how ought the Confessor to conduct himself?

To this petition the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office replied on 5 July 1837: According to the things set forth, it is not licit.

The other is:

Are those associations to be held as prohibited which profess that they plot nothing against Religion or the civil Commonwealth and nevertheless secretly enter into a compact confirmed by oath?

Reply. Affirmatively. This is established from the Declaration of the Sacred Penitentiary, 21 August 1850. For it replied: Those associations are comprehended in the Pontifical Bulls.

Notwithstanding the aforesaid Declaration, Kenrick contends that associations of workers joining together for their own advantages are licit in themselves, even if signs are employed in them and a secret is maintained. According to this opinion, the workers commonly called Compagnons du Devoir would not incur excommunication, at least certainly, since they chiefly enter into a compact to assist one another. But on account of the secrecy the matter is full of danger.

Meanwhile it is known from the Declaration of the Office of the Sacred Inquisition, 12 January 1870, that the society of the Fenians is comprehended among the condemned sects.

V. Those ordering the immunity of ecclesiastical asylum to be violated with rash audacity, or violating it ³⁸.

³⁸ See below, Appendix On the Enclosure of Monasteries.

VI. Those violating the enclosure of Nuns, of whatever class or condition, sex, or age they may be, by entering their monasteries without legitimate permission; likewise those introducing or admitting them, and also Nuns departing from it outside the cases and form prescribed by St. Pius V in the Constitution Decori ³⁹.

VII. Women violating the enclosure of male Regulars, and superiors or others admitting them ⁴⁰.

VIII. Those guilty of real simony in any benefices whatsoever, and their accomplices ⁴¹.

IX. Those guilty of confidential simony in Benefices of any kind, of whatever dignity they may be.

X. Those guilty of real simony on account of entrance into Religion.

XI. All who, making profit from indulgences and other spiritual graces, are struck with the censure of excommunication by the Constitution Quam plenum of St. Pius V, 2 January 1569 ⁴².

³⁹ Which places enjoy the immunity of ecclesiastical asylum has been said elsewhere (volume I, in the Note to no. 285).

But this immunity is violated: 1. if one who has fled to those places is drawn out thence by force; but otherwise if he has been led out by deceit and fraud, or has departed deceived by false promises; for by the right of asylum provision is made for the sanctity and reverence of the place, not for the persons taking refuge; 2. if others are prohibited from carrying there those things which are necessary for life; 3. finally, if by any device the sacred place is besieged so that one who protects himself there is compelled to surrender himself (Benedict XIV, Constitution Officii nostri, section 14).

Moreover, for excommunication to be incurred there must be rash audacity, namely, when someone, in no way compelled by others, deliberately and knowingly either orders the right of asylum to be violated or violates it by executing the order, as one devoid of every excuse (Sacred Inquisition, 1 February 1871).

⁴⁰ See the same Appendix.

⁴¹ With regard to this and the following two articles, compare the things said concerning Simony in volume I.

⁴² According to this Constitution of St. Pius V, for excommunication to be incurred it is required that someone have made profit by granting or publishing indulgences or other spiritual graces (cited Constitution, sections 1 and 4). But one who orders a list of indulgences to be posted in sacred buildings is also considered to publish (ibid., section 2).

The spiritual graces enumerated by this Constitution are: 1. the faculty of choosing for oneself a priest who may absolve one from reserved cases (ibid., section 1); 2. the sacrifice of the Mass and burial during an interdict (ibid., section 3); 3. the use of prohibited foods (ibid.); 4. the taking of two or more sponsors at sacred baptism contrary to the Decree of the Council of Trent (ibid.); 5. absolution from the guilt of simony reserved to the Apostolic See (ibid.). Moreover, only those inferior to Bishops incur the excommunication (ibid., section 6).

XII. Those collecting alms of greater value for Masses and taking profit from them by causing those Masses to be celebrated in places where Mass stipends are customarily of lesser value ⁴³.

⁴³ Although sin can be committed in many ways by reason of shameful profit sought from Mass stipends (see above from no. 367), nevertheless, for this excommunication to be incurred, it is necessary: 1. that in a certain proper sense someone be said to collect Masses, or to devote effort to collecting Masses. But one is not of this kind to whom Masses are entrusted to be celebrated by himself; nor one to whom, apart from the character of a collector, they are spontaneously committed to be celebrated even by others; nor, finally, one who seeks them from only one or another person. Avanzini well says (Commentary, no. 34): It is sufficiently indicated that there is no question of one or a few stipends in number, but of a certain abundant collection to be made in the manner of commerce. 2. That the collection be made of Masses which are customarily called manual; for the word collecting seems to import this, and it is sufficiently gathered from the Constitution Quanta cura of Benedict XIV. 3. That this be done for the sake of gain or profit; wherefore one who deducts a part from the stipends so that it may be expended upon certain pious uses does not incur excommunication, although the Sacred Congregation of the Council disapproved this on 9 September 1874 (above, in the Note to no. 375); nor one who retains some part for himself as compensation for his labor or effort.

Moreover, all indeed agree that the sanction of Benedict XIV, by which only laics were punished with the penalty of excommunication, was extended by this article, because it also comprehends clerics. But a doubt arises whether it was also limited in some respect. Avanzini (loc. cit.) judged it to have been limited because the article does not say in the same place (that is, in the place where the stipends were collected), but in places where Mass stipends are customarily of lesser value. Wherefore Del Vecchio (Compendium of Scavini, treatise 4, no. 611) thinks it more probable that, for the censure to be incurred, the Masses must be celebrated elsewhere, where stipends are customarily of lesser value. Avanzini, however, adds that the opinion of those asserting that the censure is incurred even if the Masses are celebrated where the stipends were collected is not to be disapproved, attention being given, namely, to the identity, if not of the wording, certainly of the rationale, between the Benedictine Constitution and the present article. Cretoni presses this rationale more tenaciously (Note to this article), adding that it is also gathered from those words of the Benedictine Constitution (section 5): Whether in the same place or elsewhere... he caused them to be celebrated.

But whatever this disagreement may be, it makes plain that the matter is somewhat more obscure. Indeed, if the Constitution of Benedict XIV is inspected, the greater stipends are understood (section 5) which customs or synodal statutes require in some place; but the lesser ones (section 1) are those where the alms or stipends, either by custom or by synodal law... are of lesser value, lesser, namely, than custom or a synodal statute requires elsewhere. With these things posited, it is asked: what do those words of the same Constitution (section 5) mean: "Whether in the same place" (where, namely, the greater stipends are given by custom or statute), "or elsewhere, where lesser stipends are given for Masses to be celebrated, he caused them to be celebrated"? Certainly, if the Masses are celebrated in the same place, retention of part of the stipend cannot occur unless either a stipend below the synodal rate is given to another or another is defrauded of the excess from a stipend exceeding the synodal rate. But neither case is easily reconciled with the words of this article XII. Not the former, because the Masses are not celebrated in places where Mass stipends are customarily of lesser value. Not the latter, because a certain abundant collection of stipends exceeding the synodal rate, which is signified in the Article, scarcely can have place. Therefore it is not without cause that it is written in the Rieti Commentary: Nor, finally, does he incur the censure who causes Masses to be celebrated either in the same place in which he collected them or in another where they are celebrated for the same stipend; although one who retains for himself a part of the stipend, unless it is freely given by the recipient, is guilty of theft, whether grave or light according to the quantity of the matter; and a grave quantity is otherwise required for incurring the censure. And this censure indeed is incurred, not when someone collects stipends with this depraved intention, but when, in handing over a stipend for Masses either celebrated or to be celebrated, he retains a part of it for himself.

XIII. All who are punished with excommunication in the Constitutions Admonet nos of St. Pius V, on the fourth day before the Kalends of April 1567; Quae ab hac Sede of Innocent IX, on the day before the Nones of November 1591; Ad Romani Pontificis curam of Clement VIII, 26 June 1592; and Inter caeteras of Alexander VII, on the ninth day before the Kalends of November 1660, which concern the alienation and enfeoffment of Cities and Places of the Holy Roman Church ⁴⁴.

XIV. Religious presuming to administer the sacrament of Extreme Unction or the Eucharist as Viaticum to clerics or laics outside a case of necessity without permission of the pastor ⁴⁵.

⁴⁴ Concerning this article the Rieti Commentary, deducing everything briefly and properly from the cited Constitutions, writes thus: The action which is restrained by this excommunication is to act before the Roman Pontiff concerning the alienation of Cities, Towns, or places belonging either immediately or mediately to the right and ownership of the Holy See, except places confiscated and assigned to the treasury. Nor is one excused under whatever title this may be sought, for example, that of government, Vicariate, fief, census, exchange, etc.; or from whatever cause, even merits toward the Holy See, necessity, or evident utility; or for whatever time, even a long time only, or for life, or only at pleasure.

But the following become subject to this excommunication: 1. those treating, consulting, or otherwise speaking about this matter, and consequently about choosing Orators to the Holy See for this purpose; 2. Orators receiving an office of this kind; 3. finally, any others who by themselves or through another suggest or recommend alienations of this kind to the Roman Pontiff; nor does it matter whether they have acted by voice or in writing. The first indeed incur excommunication as soon as they have proposed Orators, provided these have been elected; the Orators themselves when they have accepted the mandate; and the last when they have spoken with the Roman Pontiff concerning this matter or have offered a writing, even if they have lost their labor and oil.

⁴⁵ Four things are required for contracting this censure. 1. That the sacraments of which the Article speaks be administered without the permission of the pastor. But by pastor here is understood one who has the care of souls there, by whatever name he may be called, or one who acts in his place in this matter. Permission is also understood as merely presumed, that is, if the pastor certainly would have given it, or at least is probably believed to be going to ratify it, or if the pastor gave it to the sick person, although perhaps he would not have given it to the one who in fact administers these sacraments.

2. That those sacraments be administered outside a case of necessity. But a case of necessity must be estimated not only from the danger under which the sick person labors, but also from whether the Pastor can easily be summoned. Therefore the excommunication will not be incurred if either of these is not lacking, even though perhaps you falsely judged both to be lacking, since our judgment does not change the truth of the matter; or even if, conversely, you thought that either one was not lacking, that is, either that necessity was urgent or that the pastor would not be unwilling, although in fact both are lacking. The reason is that one administering thus is not said to presume.

3. That the one administering be a Religious properly so called. Therefore the excommunication ceases if either a secular priest or even one who professes an Institute in which only simple vows are emitted administers the sacraments in this manner. For in penal matters Institutes of this kind are called neither Religious nor Regular.

4. Finally, that the Religious administer those sacraments to Clerics or Laics. Therefore the excommunication ceases if a Regular has administered them to Regulars, even of another Order and outside a Monastery; or even to those who are reckoned as Regulars by law, that is, Novices and servants who actually serve them and live within the enclosure under their obedience; and probably also to their resident pupils (see above, no. 564, and Extracted Acts, etc., volume 3, page 61). Add to these the poor dwelling in the hospitals of Regulars and male Tertiaries who live collegiately or dwell with cloistered Religious.

XV. Those removing relics without legitimate permission from the Sacred Cemeteries or Catacombs of the City of Rome and its territory, and those furnishing them assistance or favor ⁴⁶.

XVI. Those communicating with one excommunicated by name by the Pope in the crimen criminosum, namely, by furnishing him assistance or favor.

XVII. Clerics knowingly and voluntarily communicating in divine things with persons excommunicated by name by the Roman Pontiff and receiving them in the offices ⁴⁷.

⁴⁶ From the Edict of 24 August 1613, by command of Paul V, and the Constitution Ex commissae of Clement X, 13 January 1672. Since in those same crypts (says Avanzini, no. 37), or catacombs, bones and ashes are everywhere found in open niches, concerning which it is now established that they are not the bones and ashes of martyrs but of the faithful who were laid there, one who, while visiting the crypts, takes for himself something from these bones or ashes as a remembrance or for the sake of devotion does not appear to incur the censure. It is otherwise if there is question of relics concerning which it is not yet established whether they are of Martyrs or merely of the faithful.

⁴⁷ By the ancient law, all who had incurred major excommunication, whether imposed ab homine or by law, were to be avoided, with this distinction alone: those whose excommunication was public and notorious were to be avoided publicly; but those whose excommunication was not publicly known were to be avoided only privately by those who were aware of it. See chapter Cum non ab homine 14, On the Sentence of Excommunication.

Then by the new law introduced by Martin V, it was granted that no one was bound to abstain from communion with anyone, whatever censure, whether by law or ab homine, bound him, unless a sentence against a definite person had been specially and expressly published by the judge; or unless it was so notoriously established that someone had incurred the excommunication imposed by the Canon through a sacrilegious laying of hands upon a cleric that the deed could not be concealed by any evasion or excused by any defense.

But on account of communication with one to be avoided, minor excommunication was incurred by the law itself, both if one communicated with him in divine and spiritual things and if in other merely civil matters. Nevertheless, in two cases, not minor but major excommunication was incurred by the law itself for this cause: 1. if a cleric had communicated in divine things with one excommunicated by the Supreme Pontiff, not in any manner whatever, but by admitting him voluntarily, freely, and willingly, while knowing that he was excommunicated by the Pope by name and, in addition, denounced (from chapter Significavit 18, this title; see Schmalzgrueber, book 5, title 39, no. 179); 2. if someone had communicated with one to be avoided in the crimen criminosum, or in the crime on account of which someone was struck with excommunication by name and denounced as such, by furnishing him assistance, counsel, or favor, lest he repent of that crime.

But by the most recent law of the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, first, minor excommunication was entirely abolished. Major excommunication nevertheless remains; but it is not incurred except by those who communicate with one excommunicated by name by the Supreme Pontiff, and this only in the two aforesaid cases, namely: 1. according to article XVI, if they communicate in the crimen criminosum with one excommunicated by name by the Supreme Pontiff; and 2. according to article XVII, if Clerics knowingly and voluntarily receive one excommunicated in this manner in divine offices, that is, admit him to the exercise of those offices. To the former, as is evident, both clerics and laics are subject; but to the latter, clerics only. Moreover, by one excommunicated by name by the Pontiff is not understood one who, after he has incurred a papal excommunication, is then denounced by name as excommunicated by any other Ordinary; but one who has been excommunicated by name by the same Pontiff, or one excommunicated by Him who is denounced by name.

XVIII. Those presuming outside the point of death to absolve from excommunications reserved in a special manner to the Apostolic See, without the due faculty, even under any pretext whatever (Constitution Apostolicae Sedis) ⁴⁸.

XIX. Clerics or laics, in whatever dignity they may shine forth, even imperial or royal, who presume, by themselves or through others, by force or fear inflicted, or even through substituted persons, Clerics or laics, or by any art or under any specious pretext whatever, to convert to their own uses and usurp the jurisdictions, goods, revenues, and rights, even feudal and emphyteutic, the fruits, emoluments, or any proceeds whatever of any Church, or of any secular or regular Benefice, of charitable loan institutions, and of other pious places, which ought to be converted to the necessities of ministers and the poor; or to impede them from being received by those to whom they belong by law. Council of Trent, session 22, chapter 11, On Reformation ⁴⁹.

⁴⁸ In this case are not comprehended those who, according to the Canons, absolve persons legitimately impeded from approaching the Apostolic See even from cases specially reserved to the Supreme Pontiff.

⁴⁹ That those withholding tithes or impeding them are not comprehended by this Tridentine sanction is sufficiently gathered from the fact that in session 25, chapter 12, On Reformation, these are said to be excommunicated thus: The Holy Synod commands all, of whatever rank and condition they may be, to whom the payment of tithes pertains, that henceforth they pay in full those which they are bound by law to pay.... But let those who withhold or impede them be excommunicated; nor are they to be absolved from this crime unless full restitution has followed.

Moreover, it is manifest that the purchasers of the ecclesiastical goods of which there is question also fall under this censure: both because (as Avanzini rightly says, no. 62) purchasers convert goods of this kind to their own uses by usurping them under the guise of a contract, although they know that the usurper is neither their owner nor legitimate administrator, and finally that the goods are stolen and cry out for their owner; and because this point of law was defined by the Allocution of 25 July 1873, in which this Decree of Trent is also brought forward.

Avanzini judged (Commentary, page LVIII) that the excommunication imposed upon Missionaries engaging in commerce, etc., should be referred to this place. But this will be treated more conveniently below, where there is discussion of excommunications reserved to no one.

As regards enclosure. "Bishops are delegates of the Apostolic See for protecting the enclosure of monasteries of nuns, even exempt ones, and of those which are subject to regulars." L. 66, 67. And as regards Institutes of simple vows, it also belongs to the Bishop to care that enclosure be rightly observed, and to restrain whatever fault creeps into it. Leo XIII, C. Conditae a Christo, VI Id. Dec. 1900.

What about enclosure? - For the greater custody of chastity enclosure was introduced, by force of which nuns cannot go out from the monastery except by license of the Pontiff or Bishop, which can also be given only in extraordinary cases. But religious men cannot be absent from the house without the license of the prelate. Nor indeed can women enter the enclosure of regular men, nor persons of whatever sex or age enter the enclosure of nuns. Likewise frequent access to nuns is prohibited, and to regulars, as is fitting, more severely than to others, both secular clerics and laymen. - C. 20, caus. 18, q. 2; Trent s. 25, c. 4, 5 de Reg.; Benedict XIV, Decretal Letter Gravissimo, October 31, 1749; C. Quamvis iusto, April 20, 1749; Clement VIII, C. Nullus; Ferraris v. Moniales a. 3; E. M.

Enclosure is also to be observed in hospices, stations, and houses of regulars in places of missions; and its norm and limits are constituted by the Decree of the S. C. de Propaganda Fide, August 26, 1780, Collect. n. 410.

As regards modern Religious Institutes of simple vows, they have enclosure, indeed not strict, but partial, determined in the Constitutions themselves, which requires at least that in all houses some part be reserved for the Sisters themselves, into which no other is admitted. Norms of the S. C. Bishops and Regulars for more recent Institutes, n. 170. It will belong to the Bishop to take care that this partial enclosure be rightly observed, and to restrain whatever defect creeps into it. Norms n. 172.

Sisters seeking alms must have the license of the Ordinary, and are held to observe the prescriptions established by the Decree Singulari quidem of the S. C. Bishops and Regulars, March 27, 1896, and also the norms which were promulgated by the S. C. of Religious, Decree De eleemosynis, November 21, 1908, both for mendicant Orders and for non-mendicant religious Orders or Institutes. A. A. S. v. 1, p. 153. From this Decree the Friars Minor are exempted as regards collections customarily made in favor of the Holy Land. S. C. of Religious, October 1, 1909.

As regards Sisters who provide assistance to the sick either in public Hospitals or in private houses, works of charity are by no means approved which seem unbecoming to virgins dedicated to God and clothed in ecclesiastical habit. Norms art. 15, 291.

Confraternities are prohibited in Convents of Religious women, whether of solemn or simple vows; but by no means pious Associations of women only, the things to be observed having been observed. But if it is a question of erecting pious Associations of either sex, the matter is remitted to the Ordinaries. S. C. Bishops and Regulars in Tirasonensi, November 9, 1595; January 18, 1907. - Lugo, Resp. Mor. l. 4, d. 40.

Without a special faculty, male and female Religious cannot receive outside persons as guests in their own house, except by reason of charity when some case occurs. - Outside youths cannot live in Convents of men by any title or pretext unless they have completed the twenty-first year of age. - S. C. Bishops and Regulars, May 16, 1675.

The use of the telephone is now permitted by common custom to all religious, men and women. Yet due cautions, as is clear, must be used.

What sort of sin is it to go out from the monastery without license? - For nuns living within enclosure it will always be grave, since the Church prohibits it under a most grave penalty, namely excommunication. - For religious men it will be grave if it is done rather often with scandal, or furtively at night; but only venial if someone goes out once or twice, or only sometimes during the day. - Clement VIII, on the Reform of Regulars, art. 19, prohibited a general license from being given, or one without a companion; but it is not certain whether the ordinances of Clement VIII are all preceptive, or at least some directive. Cf. Salm. tr. 15, c. 5, n. 163. Yet one can stand by legitimate custom, and by the Constitutions of each order approved by the Holy See. - The prescription of a companion is still in force from the practice of the S. C. Bishops and Regulars and now of the S. C. of Religious in the approval of more recent Institutes, especially as regards nuns. Norms a. 174. - L. 37; Suarez, de Relig. tr. 8, l. 1, c. 6, n. 8.

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

Those violating the enclosure of nuns are, as is established from what follows, those who enter into their monasteries without legitimate license. Enclosure is called that whole space which is contained by the enclosures of the monastery. Of nuns, i.e., those who profess religion strictly by true and proper profession. For the discussion here is of that enclosure of which the Council of Trent speaks, sess. 25, de Reg., chap. 5, and Pius V in the constitution Decori. Hence more recent nuns are not bound to canonical and pontifical enclosure, nor are they liable to this censure. S.C. Bishops and Regulars, August 1, 1839. Of whatever kind or condition. Persons of the royal family do not seem also to be comprehended, who by reason of their supreme dignity are worthy of more special mention; nor do prelates, whether secular or regular, seem to be comprehended if entering without necessity, for it cannot be said of them that they enter without faculty. Sex or age. Hence not only men, but also women; not only adults, but also seven-year-old children capable of malice. Monasteries: by the name of monastery is understood a house in which religious women gathered together regularly live. L. 231.

Without legitimate license. Therefore it does not seem that, by reason of incurring this excommunication, it is necessarily required that this license be obtained in writing, as is held in Trent, l.c.; and it seems that even a general license suffices. And indeed he who enters with license received from the superior, although neither had in writing nor special but general, does not indeed enter without legitimate license. This license can be granted: 1. Bishops by their own authority, or delegated authority, according as the monasteries are subject to the Bishop or immediately subject to the Supreme Pontiff. 2. Vicars General, only as regards monasteries subject to the Bishop. 3. Capitular Vicars, the see being vacant, both as regards monasteries subject to the Bishop and also as regards those which are subject to the Apostolic See. 4. The Bishop, and besides him the regular prelate, i.e., General, Provincial, or immediate Superior of the monastery, as regards monasteries subject to regulars, unless a contrary custom is in force, that it be given by the Bishop alone. Benedict XIV, De Synodo, book 13, chap. 12, n. 23. 5. The Abbess, confessor, or another prudent man by delegation or commission of the Bishop. S.C.C., November 26, 1722; L. 223, 224, 228.

But this license cannot be given except in necessary cases, and therefore for a grave cause; and a lesser cause is required for the entrance of a woman than of a man, for daytime entrance than nighttime, of a female blood relative than of a stranger, and for entrance into the outer enclosures than into the inner. But in urgent necessities which do not suffer delay, as in the case of death, fire, violence, etc., no license is required for entering. L. 225. The ordinary physician cannot enter except with license renewed every three months; nor ought he to be accompanied by two senior nuns and enter alone. An extraordinary physician cannot enter at the pleasure of the nuns, but only in defect of the ordinary physician, or when a consultation must be had with the ordinary. Moreover craftsmen and other necessary persons can enter with license, who must exercise their craft within the enclosure. L. 226. A confessor can enter to administer to the sick the sacraments of penance and Eucharist, not only in danger of death, but as often as Communion is distributed by prescription of the rule, and as often as that nun is accustomed to communicate; likewise to administer extreme unction, and to commend the souls of the dying, vested in stole and surplice, S.C. Bishops and Regulars, January 1714, but not to perform the exequies of a deceased nun. A secular confessor must enter without a companion, but a regular must have a companion of approved life and mature age. But while he hears Confession, female attendants must stand by at the door, so that they see him. L. 227. Finally Bishops can enter the monasteries of nuns in case of necessity or visitation, but accompanied by a few persons, and those senior and religious; likewise regular prelates for the sake of visitation, once in the year, and if he is General, he can himself have with him two companions of his order, who are exemplary and of mature age; but if another, only one; and moreover four nuns from the senior ones must assist, who are not separated from the Visitor. L. 221; Bizzarri, Collectan., p. 262, ed. 1885. Although one who entered the monastery with license and, after the business is finished, does not immediately go out, does not incur the censure, nevertheless he sins mortally if the delay is notable.

By entering: to enter is to go inside, to stay inside, and not only to put a foot inside. Introducing are those who cooperate positively toward entrance by sending inside, or by opening the door to one wishing to enter. Admitting are those receiving, who do not prohibit entrance when they can and ought by office, namely the Prefects and Portresses. Likewise those introducing or admitting them: them, namely those violating. Outside the cases, etc. From the cited constitution of St. Pius V, "going out is excused if there is a just cause, namely (as is said there) of great fire, or illness, leprosy, or epidemic." Hence similar causes suffice for going out, such as imminent war, attack by robbers, flooding of a river, or ruin of a building. And form, etc. For when access is available, and time, namely if the danger suffers delay, from the aforesaid Bull of St. Pius V license had in writing from the Bishop is altogether required for going out, and also from the regular prelate if the monastery is exempt. But even in the aforesaid cases it is not lawful to remain outside the monasteries except for the necessary time. Going out, i.e., going out beyond the enclosure with the whole body. St. Alphonsus with others does not admit smallness of matter. Therefore, if a nun goes out from the enclosure, or someone enters the enclosure, even by one step, he incurs this excommunication. Yet others cited by the same Holy Doctor deny this, n. 229. Gregory XIII, constitution Dubiis, December 23, 1581; Alexander VII, constitution Felici, November 10, 1664; Giraldi, Exp. Iur. Pont., part 2, sec. 140; Lugo, Resp. Mor., book 3, disp. 18; E.M.

Note: For the greater custody of chastity, frequent access to speak with nuns at the grates without special faculty and without reasonable and manifest cause, and where there is no legitimate custom to the contrary, is prohibited under grave obligation both to clerics and to lay persons. But this frequency consists in this, that someone goes to the monastery on three continuous days, or four times in a week, or once in each month for about a year. But for regulars, this conversation with nuns is specially prohibited, even if it is done once and for a quarter of an hour and a half, indeed "for any small space of time whatsoever, they sin mortally." Thus the Sacred Congregation, May 1, 1669. "Regulars approaching to speak with nuns without license sin mortally; even from a reasonable cause, when license is not present," etc. Sacred Congregation, November 26, 1672. But from the Decree of the Sacred Congregation issued by order of Sixtus V in 1590, on regulars speaking with any nuns whatsoever, whether of their own or of another order, or with any woman living in a monastery, there is imposed the penalty of deprivation of office, of active and passive voice, to be incurred by the very fact. More probably an abbess outside Rome is excepted. But those joined in the first and second degree of consanguinity are exempt from this prohibition, after permission has first been obtained from the Ordinary, who can give it in the prescribed form and for four times at most in any year. S.C. Bishops and Regulars, 13 Kalends of December, 1623. C. Monasteria, de Vit. et honest. cleric.; C. Periculum, de Stat. regul., in VI; L., book 6, nn. 332-243; Bonacina, tome 1, de Claus., q. 3; Lezana, Summa Quaest. Regular., vol. 2, v. Moniales, n. 17 ff.

From Trent, sess. 25, chap. de Reg., a secular magistrate is excommunicated, with excommunication reserved to no one, if, at the request of the Bishop, he does not furnish help against the disobedient and those contradicting the enclosure of nuns. Bonacina, disp. 2, q. 10, part 7, de Clausura, q. 4; Ferraris, v. Moniales, arts. 3, 4; Lucidi, de Visit., etc., vol. 2, chap. 5, sec. 2; vol. 3, Document LV ff., 4th ed.; Bizzarri, Collect., pp. 301, 311, 319, 329, 347, 410, 438, 454 ff., 546 ff., 596 ff., 723 ff., ed. 1885; Benedict XIV, De Synodo, book 9, chap. 15; Schmalzgrueber, book 3, title 35; Reiffenstuel, ibid.

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

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

1. Euphemius owes 10,000 lire to the fabric of the parish church from a certain contract of sale legitimately made to him by the parish priest. The parish priest having died immediately, he did not pay the debt. But now, after ten years, he determines to pay the aforesaid debt, considering himself excommunicated.

It is asked: Whether Euphemius incurred excommunication?

R. Negatively. For Euphemius is not a usurper of ecclesiastical goods. Whence the S. C. C., Feb. 27, 1569, decreed: "Nor do those incur the excommunication of the Council (of Trent) who do not pay debts, although they can." Nor indeed can there be any difficulty in the Case from the fact that Euphemius thought that he had incurred excommunication. For our false opinion does not change the truth of the thing. Here there is no question of guilt, which depends on one's own conscience, but of penalty, which depends on the will of the legislator. Commentar. in C. Apostolicae Sedis n. 73, 74; I. M. 1202.

2. Robertinus bought from the usurping government a Convent of Religious. Then he sells it.

It is asked: Whether Robertinus incurred two excommunications?

R. Robertinus incurs only the Tridentine excommunication on account of the purchase from the state domain of the aforesaid Convent; but no excommunication on account of its alienation. For those incur the Tridentine excommunication to whom ecclesiastical goods come by purchase from usurpers. But only those incur excommunication on account of alienation who are legitimate administrators of ecclesiastical goods. Cf. Comment. in C. Apostolicae Sedis n. 73, 86; I. M. 1202, 1209.

3. Fructuosus bought from the government, which had usurped it, a rural fund of the church. He cultivates the fund and sells the fruits.

It is asked: 1.º Whether tenants cultivating the fund incur excommunication? - 2.º Whether the buyers of the aforesaid fruits incur excommunication?

R. To the 1st. Negatively. For the tenants are not usurpers of the fund, nor are they cooperators as regards the usurpation, nor do they in any way become participants in the usurped thing. Indeed, the tenants cultivating the fund seem to be excused even from the sin of cooperation, for their cooperation is not formal and proximate.

To the 2nd. Buyers of the aforesaid fruits incur the Tridentine excommunication if they buy them in their own species or nature, and if they buy them in a notable quantity, and not only that quantity which constitutes grave matter in theft. For it is a question of the censure of excommunication, which is borne only on account of graver and atrocious crimes. Trid., s. 25, C. 3, de R. But if the fruits of the fund are converted into a new species, e.g., from wheat bread is made, which is sold, from the wool of a flock cloth is made, which likewise is sold, etc., since through specification the buyer of the fund in the Case, according to more recent laws, does not acquire ownership of the new species, but the new species yields to the alien matter, the same thing would have to be said as in the preceding hypothesis. But since there is question of goods of the Church, which is still ruled by Common Law, by which through specification the ownership of the specified thing is acquired, if the new species cannot be reduced to the former and rude matter, Instit., l. 2, tit. 1, de Rerum divisione, § 25, Fructuosus then, usurping and destroying the fruits of the fund, sins and incurs excommunication by this new sin; but since he sells his own thing, the buyers neither sin nor incur excommunication. Cf. Comment. in C. Apostolicae Sedis n. 73; I. M. v. 1, 906; v. 2, n. 1202.

These things indeed seem to have to be said in the rigor of law and right. For from the Council of Trent, s. 22, C. 11, de R., anyone to whomsoever the goods of the Church and their fruits shall have come in any way is subjected to anathema. Nevertheless D'Annibale raises a doubt, Comment. in Const. Apost. Sed., ed. 4, n. 97, note 65, and, inclining to the more benign opinion, says: "Therefore do those also who buy the saleable fruits of estates from a usurper, and consequently those who buy from the buyers, and so thereafter, incur this excommunication? I would not dare to affirm it; but I prefer rather to say what Modestinus said about a certain Edict of D. Marcus: Although especially the words of the law have this meaning, nevertheless the mind of the legislator wills something else, L. 15, § Aliud de Accusat. tutor.; than, contrary to the mind of the legislator, Trid., s. 23, C. 3, de R., to fill all things with excommunications."

5. When certain ecclesiastical goods were being sold publicly under the hammer, three brothers, Lucius, Lucillus, and Lucinus, a priest, who had undivided patrimony, entered into counsel among themselves concerning buying goods of this sort. Lucius, the firstborn, gave a mandate to Lucillus that he buy those goods. But Lucinus, having a scruple in this matter, indeed consented to the purchase, but declared that he in no way wished to have a part in the ownership of these goods. Hence Lucillus, counsel having first been sought from Luciano, an advocate, bought the aforesaid goods with money of the common patrimony. Only Lucius and Lucillus retain the property of these goods undivided, with the obligation of paying Lucinus the interest of the third part of the whole sum of money which was necessary for buying those goods and which had been taken from the common patrimony. But Lucretius, the steward of the three aforesaid brothers, after the purchase was completed, assumes the administration of these goods.

It is asked: What to the Case?

R. Lucius and Lucillus incur the Tridentine excommunication as acquiring usurped goods of the Church. But Lucretius incurs excommunication since a right in usurped goods of the Church truly came to him, namely the right of administration from the cession and procuration made to him by the aforesaid brothers. For the Council of Trent, s. 22, C. 11, de R., bears excommunication against those presuming, by themselves or through others, to convert to their own uses and usurp ecclesiastical goods, and therefore against usurpers and those mandating usurpation; likewise against those to whom the aforesaid goods shall have come in any way, and therefore against those acquiring and retaining those goods in whatever way and from whomever they have acquired them; and not only against those to whom the goods themselves shall have come, but also against those to whom some right in the goods of the Church shall have come, as is the right of administration of those same goods. Finally, against clerics who shall have been the contrivers or consenters of a wicked fraud and usurpation of this sort. Hence it is also clear that Lucinus the priest did not incur excommunication, since he did not acquire the goods; nor indeed was he a contriver or consenter in the wicked fraud of usurpation, in the Case. For there is no question of usurpers and of usurpation, but of acquirers and of mere acquisition; and as regards mere acquisition, only acquirers incur excommunication, from the obvious text of the Council of Trent. The advocate, giving mere counsel, also by no means incurs excommunication, since no mention is made of one giving counsel, but only of one mandating usurpation and of a cleric who is a contriver of a fraud of this sort, or consenter, by positive and efficacious consent, in the same fraud or usurpation. I. M. 1202.

6. Seius hires for five years a mill which Gneus built on a certain field of the Capuchin Fathers, bought by him, but which had been usurped and sold by the Government. Likewise he hires for five years the field, which was entirely dry when it was possessed by the Capuchin Fathers and not planted with any trees. Gneus greatly increased the value of this field by inserting into it vines taken from his own vineyard. Does Seius incur excommunication?

R. Since there is question of ecclesiastical goods, judgment concerning them must be made from Canon Law and from Roman Law. Now Instit., l. 2, t. 1, de Rerum divisione, § 28 seqq., has these things: "Everything that is built on land yields to the land... If someone on another's land has built a house with his own material, the house becomes his whose the land is... If Titius has placed his own plant in the land of Maevius, the plant will be Maevius's, if only it has taken root." Therefore the mill and the vineyard are of the Church. But by hiring the mill and vineyard of the Church, without the Church's permission, goods of the Church come to him who hires them, against the prohibition of the Council of Trent, which condemns with anathema both the usurpers of goods of this sort and all those to whom these goods shall have come in any way. Hence, unless he is excused by invincible ignorance of law or fact, Seius incurs excommunication simply reserved to the Supreme Pontiff. M. E. v. 9, p. 2, p. 275; I. M. 1202.

7. Adauctus, without order of the Holy See, receives ecclesiastical estates in emphyteusis from the usurping Government. Besides, he emancipates estates in emphyteusis previously received from the Church. Moreover he redeems other estates assigned to various chaplaincies and benefices. Finally he redeems various censuses. Does Adauctus incur excommunication?

R. In the first case he incurs excommunication, because from the usurper there came to him the very right of useful ownership of things of the Church. He incurs excommunication in the second case, because from the same usurper there came to him the very right of full ownership, direct and useful, of ecclesiastical goods. He incurs excommunication in the third case; for he truly buys that part which the fisc attributes to itself, and he usurps that part which the fisc restores to him. Therefore things of the Church come to him and he retains them; and at the same time he retains the fruits which ought to be converted to the necessities of ministers. Nor will it profit that he pays annual or monthly money to the chaplains and beneficiaries, because one thing cannot be paid for another against the will of the creditor; and because this does not prevent him from retaining the goods, rights, and fruits of the Church. In the last case, whether he incurs excommunication can be deliberated, says D'Annib., Comment. in Const. Apost. Sed., ed. 4, n. 97, note 66. "For since all censuses are redeemable, he seems to use his own right. Let us see whether he redeems them 1.º from the churches themselves, or 2.º from the usurper, or from those who have succeeded into his place. If the first, it must be said that he does not even sin, provided that, if in redeeming them he has paid less than the received lot, he restores that to the churches. S. Poenit., June 1, 1869, ad 10. But if the second, if indeed he has redeemed under compulsion, the same, if I think anything, is the law; but if spontaneously, although he sins as regards intention, since he does not restore to the owner, nevertheless I do not think that he incurs excommunication, both because he rather pays what is not due, and because the money with which he redeems is his own, nor meanwhile does he affect the church with loss, to which it is prohibited to pay the canons." But Gennari, Consult., p. 1, Cons. 44, simply affirms it, if namely the matter is grave, that is, of the capital, not of the canon. His reason is that, by restoring the capital to the Government, someone cooperates in its usurpation and vindicates for himself a thing pertaining to the church; and because among the extraordinary faculties communicated by the Penitentiary to bishops on June 1, 1869, there was also this, of absolving from excommunication those "who redeemed censuses and ecclesiastical rights redeemable by their nature, provided that first they deliver to the Ordinary whatever they paid less of the capital sum."

But from the Letter of the S. Penitentiary directed to the bishops on Jan. 24, 1890, only those are admitted to composition who from the redemption of rights redeemable by their nature profited WITH DAMAGE TO THE CHURCH. And if the matter is not grave, namely if the value does not exceed 25 gold scudi, 225 lire, then there is no need of Pontifical permission, but the bishop himself can give it, for redeeming the canon, since they are not immovable goods or precious movable goods prohibited from being alienated by Canon Law without Apostolic Beneplacitum. I. M. 1202, 1209.

8. "Whether those are to be held to have incurred the censure inflicted by Chapter 11, session 22, de R., of the Council of Trent, who illicitly acquired ecclesiastical goods, movable or immovable, usurped by the Government, when the value of the same does not exceed the value of ecclesiastical goods which can be alienated without the Apostolic Beneplacitum; or at least to what amount approximately the value of ecclesiastical goods usurped by the Government and illicitly acquired must rise, so that those who acquired them are to be held bound by the Tridentine censure."

R. "Very Illustrious and Reverend Lord, as Brother. The Pro-Vicar General of Your Amplitude has asked from this Sacred Congregation of the Council how great the value of ecclesiastical goods must be so that one who acquires the same without any permission is bound by censures. Since nothing has been determined concerning this, approved authors are to be consulted, who, as is very well known, teach that censure is not incurred unless there is grave sin. I pray God that He grant Your Amplitude all prosperous things, I profess myself. - Rome, Aug. 13, 1898. -

As brother of Your same Amplitude,

A. Card. Di Pietro, Prefect. -

B. Archbishop of Nazianzus, Pro-Secretary. -

To the Most Reverend Archbishop of Udine."

9. Aurelius, without Apostolic Beneplacitum, sold goods which pertained to a lay chaplaincy. From the sale made he established from public securities a sum sufficient for the daily celebration of Mass, which was the only burden of that chaplaincy, no alms having been fixed by the testator. Aurelius remitted the sum to the Ordinary of the place, so that he and his heirs might be freed from that burden of conscience.

It is asked: 1.º Whether Aurelius incurred the Tridentine excommunication, or the excommunication of the Extravagant Ambitiosae? - 2.º Insofar as negatively, whether he acted rightly?

R. Since there is question of a lay chaplaincy, its goods are not ecclesiastical goods. Wherefore no excommunication is present in their alienation. Moreover, since Aurelius, in the Case, diligently provides for the certain fulfillment of that burden of celebrating Mass, there does not seem to be reason why he should be blamed. It is confirmed from the Response of the S. Penitentiary, Dec. 14, 1898: "Buyers of goods pertaining to merely lay pious causes, speaking generally, do not need composition, unless by reason of burdens imposed upon those same goods some right belongs to the Church." M. E. v. 10, p. 2, p. 267; D'Annib., ed. 3, p. 3, n. 71, 84.

10. "Whether Catholic workers of the goods of a church usurped by the Turks can enjoy the portion which falls to them from having worked such goods; and whether they can hide fruits, grains, etc., which fall to the usurping Turks, in order to hand them over to the parish priest who in reality is the owner, and to have as many Masses celebrated for the benefactor.

R. Affirmatively as regards the first part, and negatively as regards the second." S. C. de P. F., Apr. 18, 1757, Collect. n. 1615.

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

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

1182. I. "Those perpetrating a duel, or simply provoking another to it, or accepting it, or furnishing any assistance or favor whatever, as also those deliberately watching it and those permitting it, or, as far as lies in them, not prohibiting it, of whatever dignity they may be."⁷

⁷ Code, c. 2351.

1. By what excommunication are they punished:

A) The duelers themselves, that is, those who perpetrate a duel; indeed also he who provokes another to a duel, or who accepts, even if in reality the duel does not follow;

B) Those furnishing any assistance or favor whatever, that is: (a) all and individual persons cooperating in any way in a duel;

Thus: seconds, unless they accept this office with the intention and hope of wholly impeding the duel; those ordering that the duel take place; those persuading, or advising, if the counsel or reason was of itself efficacious and the duel follows; the physician who, asked by the duelers, assists at the duel; the physician and confessor who, by agreement with the duelers, station themselves in a neighboring house or in a nearby place.

(b) Those deliberately watching, even from mere curiosity, but not those who see it by chance as passers-by, or in secret, nor those who go to the place of combat in order wholly to impede the duel;

(c) Those positively permitting the duel, and indeed those who, possessing authority, do not prohibit it, as far as lies in them, when they ought and are able to prohibit it.

1183. 2. By delegated law, bishops formerly absolved "from censures established against duelers, in cases only not brought to the forum of the Ordinary: with a grave salutary penance imposed, and with other things imposed which by law were to be imposed."⁸ Today the Holy See is to be approached.

⁸ Indult of the Sacred Penitentiary, n. 2.

1184. II. "Those giving their name to a Masonic sect or to other associations of the same kind which plot against the Church or legitimate civil powers."⁹

⁹ Code, c. 2335.

1. There is question of societies whose members, under the same leaders, tend to the same end, namely the end recounted in the canon, whether secrecy is required or not.

With prohibited associations are assimilated societies of nihilists and others similar to them, as also cremation societies if they are affiliated with Masonic sects.

In the Code, indeed, the obligation of denouncing the leaders and chief men of Masonic sects is passed over in silence; but, from can. 2336, § 2, "clerics and religious giving their name to a Masonic sect and other similar associations must be denounced to the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office."

2. Formerly, by force of an Indult,¹⁰ Bishops could absolve from this excommunication those who had given their name to forbidden sects under certain conditions; but since today this Indult has ceased, recourse must be had to the Holy See.

¹⁰ Indult of the Sacred Penitentiary, n. 7.

1185. III. "1. Those violating the enclosure of nuns, of whatever kind or condition or sex they may be, by entering their monasteries without legitimate permission, and likewise those introducing or admitting them;¹¹ 2. women violating the enclosure of male regulars, and superiors and others, whoever they may be, introducing or admitting them, of whatever age they may be...; 3. nuns illegitimately departing from the enclosure against the prescription of can. 601."

¹¹ "If they are clerics, besides let them be suspended for a time to be defined by the Ordinary according to the gravity of the fault" (Code, c. 2341, 1).

1. Therefore by force of this canon these are excommunicated: (a) those violating the enclosure of nuns,¹² even women, unless they have permission to enter the monastery legitimately given by the competent superior in a case of necessity; besides, those introducing or admitting those who violate the enclosure; (b) women violating the enclosure of male regulars, but not men; and besides, whoever they may be (superiors or others) who are of the house and belong to the house (but not externs), who receive women into the enclosure or retain them in it, or do not prohibit their admission, when they can and by office ought to prohibit it.

¹² Here there is question of nuns as they are described in the Code itself, c. 488: "By the name of nuns come religious women of solemn vows, or, unless from the nature of the matter or from the context of the speech another thing is established, religious women whose vows from the institute are solemn, but for some places by prescription of the Apostolic See are simple."

(c) Nuns illegitimately going out against can. 601, which reads thus: "It is lawful for no nun after profession to go out of the monastery, even for a short time, under any pretext, without a special indult of the Holy See, except in the case of imminent danger of death or of another most grave evil. This danger, if time allows, must be recognized in writing by the Ordinary."

1186. 2. By delegated law, today suppressed, bishops could absolve "from censures on account of violation of the enclosure of Regulars of either sex, provided that it had not been committed with intention toward an evil end,¹³ even if the effect did not follow, nor the cases had been brought to the forum of the Ordinary, with a fitting salutary penance; and, besides, absolve women only from censures and ecclesiastical penalties incurred on account of violation, for an evil end, of the enclosure of male religious, provided, however, that the cases remain occult: with a grave salutary penance imposed, with the prohibition of approaching the church, or convent, or monastery of the said religious, while the occasion of sinning lasts."¹⁴ Today the Holy See is to be approached.

¹³ By an evil end is understood the intention of sinning against chastity.

¹⁴ Indult of the Sacred Penitentiary, n. 4.

1187. IV. "Those perpetrating the delict of simony in any ecclesiastical offices, benefices, or dignities whatever."¹⁵

¹⁵ Code, c. 2392.

What the delict of simony is we have already explained, n. 935.

1188. V. "Those making gain from indulgences."¹⁶

¹⁶ Code, c. 2327.

That is, those receiving money or something estimable by price for the concession or publication of indulgences.

1189. VI. "Those presuming to absolve, without due faculty, from an excommunication latae sententiae reserved in a most special or special manner to the Apostolic See."¹⁷

¹⁷ Code, c. 2338, § 1.

This indeed must be understood of cases in which there is not danger of death or urgent necessity.

1190. VII. "Those furnishing any help or favor whatever to an excommunicated person to be avoided in the delict on account of which he was excommunicated; likewise clerics knowingly and spontaneously communicating with the same in divine things and receiving him in divine offices."¹⁸

¹⁸ Code, c. 2338, § 2.

The second part touches only clerics who, with full advertence and liberty, communicate in divine things with an excommunicated person to be avoided, that is, either in liturgical offices they authoritatively admit him, so that he may perform sacred functions, or they receive him in divine offices so that he may assist at them or receive sacred things.

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

¹⁹ Code, c. 2346.

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

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

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

²¹ Ibid., to the 3rd.

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

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

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

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

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

1193. IX. "If anyone, against the prescription of can. 120, has dared to drag before a lay judge... another Bishop (namely not his own Ordinary), even merely titular, or an Abbot or Prelate nullius, or one from among the major Superiors of religions of pontifical right, he contracts excommunication latae sententiae, simply reserved to the Apostolic See."¹

¹ Code, Can., 2341. - This censure is new, contained only implicitly in n. VII of the Bull Apostolicae Sedis.

1194. X. "Clerics constituted in sacred orders, or regulars or nuns after a solemn vow of chastity, and likewise all those presuming to contract marriage, even only civilly, with any one of the aforesaid persons, incur excommunication latae sententiae simply reserved to the Apostolic See..."²

² Code, c. 2388.

1195. XI. "A capitular vicar or any others, both of the Chapter and externs, who by themselves or through another have removed, destroyed, concealed, or substantially changed any document whatever pertaining to the episcopal Curia, incur by the fact itself excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See."³

³ Code, c. 2405.

Here it must also be noted that the censures which are incurred by revelation of the secret of the Holy Office are reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, can. 239, § 1.

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

Pius IX declares subject to excommunication of this kind:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the Clementine Constitution two things are required:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1346. • XIX. Missionaries and ecclesiastics are excommunicated who, by themselves or through others, by any title or form, apply themselves to trade in the East Indies, China, Japan, or in America, whether southern or northern; likewise Superiors, even mediate, who do not punish delinquent religious immediately subject to themselves.

Thus from the Constitution Ex debito of Urban VIII, and the Constitution Sollicitudo of Clement IX, which Pius IX, through an authentic declaration of the Holy Office, pronounced still to be in force (4 Dec. 1872).3

The said prohibition and penalty, according to the mind of the same Clement IX: 1. affects not only European missionaries, but also any ecclesiastical men whatever, except indigenous priests, who under the name of missionaries, or by any other title, shall have been sent for a time, or will be staying in those parts in any way whatever (Holy Office, 17 Jan. 1883). 2. It regards trade properly so called, showing itself by continuous acts (cf. Ami du Cl., 1907, p. 947; 1908, p. 1196).

Moreover this censure is commonly placed among the reserved, because, Clement IX so establishing, "none of the aforesaid delinquents can be absolved, except constituted in the article of death, unless profits of this kind have first been restored."4 But if restitution has not merely been promised, but actually made, namely to pious causes, but not to the institute of the delinquents, the excommunication will no longer have to be held as reserved, as is evident (A. S. S., 7, p. 317; Monit. eccl., VIII, P. II, p. 245).

1347. • XX. From TRENT: "One presuming to usurp or impede the goods, jurisdictions, rights, etc., of any benefices and pious places whatever, shall be subject to anathema so long as he has not restored these things integrally, and then obtained absolution from the Roman Pontiff" (Sess. 22, c. 11, de Ref.).

This excommunication, which is much broader than the others (n. 1325, 1326), comprehends: 1. As regards OBJECTS, the jurisdictions, goods, censuses, rights, for example right of administering, of churches, benefices, and any pious places whatever, or any obventions whatever which must be converted to the necessities of ministers and the poor. 2. As regards persons, all those who, by themselves or through others, and therefore it comprehends also the one commanding, by force or fear instilled, or by any art, fraud, or by any sought color, title or pretext, PRESUME to convert and usurp the said goods for their own uses, or only to impede them from being received by those to whom they pertain by right: therefore it comprehends those occupying, or placing impediment, as if by right to those things.

But he is not subject to the censure who used no force, fear, fraud, or pretext, as if someone omits to restore a thing loaned to him or deposited with him. But those buying ecclesiastical goods, movable or immovable, usurped by usurpers, fall at least into this Tridentine excommunication. This is clear from the Response of the Holy Office, 8 July 1874; and the reason is that they truly detain sacred goods and transfer them to their own uses. And furthermore, the Sacred Penitentiary, 21 May 1897 (Nouv. Rev. Theol., 30, p. 85), declared that those buying goods of religious, which the fisc sells because the same religious refuse to pay a tax imposed by civil law, commonly called loi d'abonnement, fall into this Tridentine excommunication. Say the same of those who have accepted, in lease or emphyteusis, ecclesiastical goods occupied or alienated by the fisc. Likewise the same concerning those who redeemed censuses, canons, and other ecclesiastical rights, whether redeemable or not redeemable, without an indult of the Holy See. All these things are gathered from various Responses of the Sacred Penitentiary, for the jubilees of the years 1866 and 1875 (Del Vecchio, I, n. 629-632; Piat in h. exc., where there are many things). Recall what was said n. 1325.

The Council adds: but the cleric who was the contriver or consenting party of such nefarious fraud and usurpation shall be subject to the same penalties; and shall also be deprived of any benefices whatever, and made incapable of any other benefices whatever; and, even after integral satisfaction and absolution, shall be suspended from the execution of his orders at the judgment of his Ordinary (Patavin., n. 190, 370). See what was said n. 1254, 3.

Eleven are numbered:

1º Those making gain from indulgences,

from can. 2327. It was formerly had in the Const. of Pope Pius IX under n. XI § 2. Cf. in the author n. 1338.

2º Those giving their name to the masonic sect or to other associations of the same kind which plot against the Church or legitimate civil powers,

from can. 2335. Although the obligation remains of denouncing the hidden leaders of those sects, those who do not satisfy this obligation are no longer, as formerly, punished by this censure, which was had in the Const. of Pope Pius IX under n. IV § 2. Cf. in the author n. 1331. Concerning the obligation of denouncing, see canon 1935 § 2.

3º Those presuming to absolve, without due faculty, from an excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See in a most special or special way,

from can. 2338 § 1. It was formerly had in § 1 of the Const. of Pius IX after number XII; cf. in the author n. 1345.

4º Those expending any aid or favor whatever upon an excommunicate to be avoided in the delict because of which he was excommunicated; and likewise clerics

knowingly and spontaneously communicating with the same in divine things and receiving him in divine offices,

from can. 2338 § 2. This censure formerly was had in the Const. of Pius IX under nn. XVI and XVII § 2. Cf. in the author nn. 1343 and 1344. For further explanation, see can. 2258 § 2 where it is said who are to be avoided, can. 2259 § 2 where it is said when he is to be expelled, and can. 2260 and 2262 where discourse is made concerning communication in divine things with him on the part of clerics.

5º If someone against the prescription of can. 120 shall have dared to draw to a lay judge ... another Bishop, even merely titular, or an Abbot or Prelate nullius, or one from the major superiors of religions of pontifical law,

from can. 2341. Who are major superiors of religions is said in can. 488 n. 8º; what are religions of pontifical law in the same canon n. 3º; who are abbots or Prelates nullius, can. 319 § 1. The rest is clear. Formerly the same censure was for all cases; cf. in the author n. 1321 and above under II n. 8º.

6º Those violating the cloister of nuns, of whatever kind or condition or sex they may be, by entering their monasteries without legitimate license, and likewise those introducing or admitting them,

from can. 2342 n. 1,

and nuns illegitimately going out from cloister against the prescription of can. 601,

from the same canon n. 3. Formerly this censure was in force from the Const. of Pius IX n. VI. See in the author n. 1333. "Of whatever age" is omitted, because from can. 2230 the impubescent are excused from penalties l. s.

7º Women violating the cloister of regular men, and Superiors and others, whoever they may be, introducing or admitting them, of whatever age,

from can. 2342 n. 2. Formerly from n. VII of the Const. of Pius IX; cf. in the author n. 1334. Regular men are those who have pronounced vows in an Order, i.e., in a religion in which solemn vows are pronounced, from can. 488 nn. 7 and 2. How far the cloister extends, see can. 597 § 2.

8º Those perpetrating a duel or simply provoking to it or accepting it, or providing any work or favor whatever, and also deliberately watching it and permitting it or not prohibiting it as much as is in them, of whatever dignity they may be,

from can. 2351 § 1. Formerly it was had to the letter in n. III of the Const. of Pope Pius IX with the determination of dignity (royal or imperial); cf. in the author n. 1330.

9º Clerics constituted in sacred orders or regulars or nuns after a solemn vow of chastity, and likewise all presuming to contract marriage, even only civilly, with any of the aforesaid persons,

from can. 2388 § 1. This censure formerly was reserved to the Ordinary from the Const. Ap. Sedis § 3, I. Cf. the author n. 1348. It has been expressly extended to marriage which they call civil.

10º Those who perpetrate the delict of simony in any ecclesiastical offices, benefices, or dignities,

from can. 2392 n. 1. Formerly under n. VIII and IX; cf. in the author n. 1335 and 1336. When the delict of simony is had is deduced from can. 727 and 728.

11º The Chapter Vicar and all others, whether from the Chapter or outsiders, who by themselves or through another shall have removed, destroyed, hidden, or substantially changed any document pertaining to the episcopal Curia,

from can. 2405. This censure is new. It does not need explanation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1720. - III. "Those perpetrating a duel, or simply provoking to it, or accepting it, and any accomplices, or those furnishing any work or favor whatever, and also those watching it intentionally, and those permitting it, or, insofar as is in them, not prohibiting it, of whatever dignity they are, even royal or imperial." Trent, Sess. 25. c. 19. Ref. Gregory XIII, c. Ad tollendum. Clement VIII, c. Illius vices. Benedict XIV, c. Detestabilem.

1° A duel. What it is, see 476, Chapter III. Even a simple duel (ibid.) falls under the censure.

2° Those watching intentionally, namely those who by their presence inflame the fight: and therefore not those who, passing by by chance, look on, or who look on in secret or from afar; nor those who go to the place of combat in order to impede it.⁴

3° Although duels in fact not fatal also fall under the censure, nevertheless it is necessary to fight with lethal weapons, or at least such must be proposed (respectively accepted), namely such from which there exists danger of killing or of a lethal wound. Therefore to fight with fists, sticks, or iron with a blunted edge is not sufficient.¹

1721. - IV. "Those giving their name to the Masonic sect, or the Carbonari sect, or to other sects of the same kind which plot against the Church or legitimate powers, whether openly or secretly, and also those furnishing favor of any kind to the same sects; and those not denouncing their hidden ringleaders and leaders, until they shall have denounced them." Clement XII, In eminenti, April 28, 1738. Benedict XIV, c. Providas, May 18, 1751. Pius VII, September 13, 1821. Pius IX, Allocution Qui pluribus, November 9, 1846.

1° "The Masonic sect or Carbonari sect, or other sects of the same kind, which plot against the Church or legitimate powers, whether openly or secretly," whether they require or do not require from their followers an oath concerning keeping a secret.² Therefore among us there are held by the censure:

a) Freemasons.³

b) Odd Fellows and Sons of Temperance, as is clear from the Response of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, Feria IV, August 21, 1850.⁴

c) Fenians, as is clear from the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, January 12, 1870.

d) "Those societies, of whatever nature they are, in which the members from the very entrance bind themselves by oath to obey those things which shall have been commanded by the Superiors of the assembly, or also enter into a pact of secrecy, which cannot be violated with impunity even when legitimate power interrogates."⁵ (48) p. 428.

e) "Those assemblies ... in which the members are joined together by so close a bond for mutual defense, that from it there arises danger of disturbances or murders."⁶

From these things it is clear that condemned societies can only improperly be called hidden or secret; for both those which plot openly and those which plot secretly are condemned.

Note. - From the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore:

1) To the Fathers "there appears no reason why the prohibition of the Church against the Masonic and other hidden sects should be extended to those sodalities of workers which are not known to propose to themselves anything other than the mutual protection and help of the members in exercising their own art." But these words, as is clear from the context of the article, must be understood concerning those sodalities in which the members guard against those things which, lest they become subject to the censure, we handed down above under d) and e) as to be avoided.¹ - But Kenrick writes:² "An assembly of workers coming together for their own utilities, who establish rules by which those who have not rightly learned the art are excluded from work, or the price of labor is established, is lawful of itself, even if signs are used and a secret is held. But if something less equitable is decreed or done, those will be able to be excused who have resisted in vain the greater number of members, and who cannot leave the sodality without grave detriment or danger, provided they give no work to inflicting injury." This opinion of a most learned man does not seem able to be reconciled with the Rescript of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, Feria IV, August 21, 1850,³ given at the petition of Kenrick himself, unless you understand the word secret with this supplied beneath it: which nevertheless can be violated with impunity when legitimate power interrogates. But practice in most dioceses, as I hear, is that the Sacraments are not denied to workers of this kind by the precise reason of secrecy, if this can be revealed with impunity to the Bishop, Pastor (or Confessor as spiritual counselor).

2) The Council⁴ commands that no one "in these Provinces, constituted in any ecclesiastical dignity, should condemn by name some hidden society, unless it is certainly and beyond all doubt established that it is of those which are condemned by Pontifical Constitutions," etc. But this can be established either by a declaration of the Holy See, or "of Prelates, ... or by common fame, or by the experience of the members themselves."⁵

3) "Let the faithful ... entirely flee all dark assemblies, even those which do not seem to be comprehended by the most strict censures of the Church. For there is no doubt that these too are full of danger for souls."¹

That these things may be more rightly understood for practice, it will help to elucidate them by the following.

From the words of the Council, and from the nature of the thing itself, it is evident that some society can be illicit by the law of nature alone. That this may be discerned, before all else it is necessary to see what is the end of such a society, what are its means, namely rules, etc.; and, positing that the end and means are good or at least licit, it must be inquired further, especially here and today, whether in a society of this kind there is a proximate occasion of one's own ruin or of scandal.

a) The end can be supernaturally good, naturally honorable, indifferent (e.g., a literary academy, a mercantile society), or evil, sometimes directly against the theological virtues (e.g., for the perversion of the Catholic Faith, propagation of heresy, etc.), or against the moral virtues (e.g., against strict justice, or against temperance, or against legal justice).

b) Likewise the means are to be compared with the rules of morals, namely with laws; for however praiseworthy the end may be, evil things are not to be done that good things may come. To societies, as to individual human acts, the principle must be applied: Good is from an entire cause, evil from any defect whatever. Thus sometimes legitimate aspirations of patriotism are miserably perverted. Example: to promise obedience without restriction to all precepts which will emanate from the Supreme Council is gravely illicit, and societies in which promises of this kind are made are likewise held by the censure.

c) Although the end and means, considered in themselves, seem according to the letter good or at least licit, sometimes it happens that something gravely illicit has been introduced into the society by practice or interpretation: in which case it is clear that the same must be said as if it were expressly formulated. Thus, for example, certain associations for mutual help degenerate into strictly unjust conspiracies.

d) Sometimes it happens that the end and the means are illicit neither according to the letter nor according to the spirit, and nevertheless there is present either probable danger that the aforesaid society will shortly degenerate in the aforesaid way, or a true danger of spiritual ruin on account of conversation with members corrupted by impiety or immorality, or danger of scandal.

These things being posited, natural law dictates two following rules: I. He is in a state of mortal sin, and is not worthy of absolution, who is not sincerely and efficaciously disposed to avoid or leave societies of the first, second, and third category. - II. As to the fourth category, the theological rules concerning occasion, whether absolutely or relatively proximate, are to be applied; and also concerning avoiding scandal, unless there is a reason excusing.

2° "And also those furnishing favor" (see n. 1700, q. 4°) "of any kind to the same sects." Therefore they are held by this excommunication who furnish them counsel, aid, openly or in secret; directly or indirectly, by themselves or through others; who receive them in their buildings, hide them, or provide convenience that they may be assembled somewhere; who exhort or persuade others that they be enrolled in societies of this kind, numbered among them, or present at them, or in whatever way help and favor them.

It is asked whether under the words: "those furnishing favor of any kind to the same sects," there come also those who hire their buildings, e.g., to have lectures in them or to institute fairs in them?

Resp. The censure seems to comprehend all and only those furnishing favor who in furnishing it constitute themselves guilty of gravely illicit cooperation; but this does not seem to be present if there is a grave cause for hiring those buildings, for instance because another suitable place in the city is lacking for some work morally necessary for the good of the Church. Thus one would not be judged to favor heresy who in the same circumstances and for the same ends would hire a church of heretics. The matter, moreover, is not without difficulty. Wherefore among those things which I have said, I wish you to judge that I have said them saving a better judgment; nor can I fail to observe in this place that by the use of buildings of this kind, especially if it is approved by the Clergy, the horror is lessened by which Catholics ought to be shaken even when looking upon their walls themselves.

3° "And those not denouncing their hidden ringleaders and leaders" (those whose names are read everywhere through books and newspapers are often, as the Holy Office observes, February 1, 1871, such in appearance only and by name) "until they shall have denounced them."

a) Denunciation here is understood not as fraternal, which looks to the amendment of the person, but judicial, which pertains to his coercion. - b) The obligation of the same holds all the faithful of Christ who have attained puberty. - c) Among us it would have to be made to the Ordinary, and in Missions to the Vicar or Prefect Apostolic (Sacred Penitentiary, February 10, 1871). - d) The obligation of the same universally ceases: 1) as long as someone cannot make it by himself, or 2) without betraying himself, or 3) if no hope of punishment appears,¹ which hope in these Provinces, on account of the condition of our affairs, must be called vain. - And these things indeed certainly hold for regions and places where the ecclesiastical law of denouncing is in force. But this law of denouncing was introduced both by reason of the public good and by reason of the private good of the person to be denounced. If this second reason of this kind should cease, the first remains; for it will always be useful to the Bishop and to ecclesiastical authority for feeding the faithful committed to his care to know hidden heretics or sectarians, and others to be denounced. And because of these reasons, even if the ecclesiastical law of denouncing had ceased, there would remain an obligation deriving from natural law, which natural law, when grave circumstances concur, as when there is question of avoiding grave harm, can oblige gravely.

Concerning the obligation of denouncing it can be noted besides, that it "is to be interpreted by the same reason by which ecclesiastical laws by which the denunciation of heretics is enjoined are interpreted." Thus the Sacred Penitentiary, November 8, 1821, apud Scavini.² But in our circumstances, because of liberty of worship asserted for all, the errors of heretics roam about with impunity, and therefore the denunciation of them, imposed by the law of the Church, does not oblige, as Ferraris himself³ teaches with Navarro, Bonacina, and others, to whom among more recent authors Scavini subscribes.⁴ Therefore by the same reason among us there is not present an obligation, by force of ecclesiastical law, of denouncing those enrolled in condemned Sects.⁵

Pastoral rules. - I. The Supreme Pontiff is the supreme judge concerning the liceity of any societies. Sometimes concerning this liceity, as supreme director of consciences, he issues declarations; but sometimes, as legislator, he prohibits societies illicit of themselves by canonical law, or renders dangerous societies absolutely illicit, and is able to sanction his laws with excommunication, etc. But these laws oblige, and do not cease to oblige, although in particular cases it were established that the evil for averting which they were laid down would not happen; for this is proper to all laws which are founded in the presumption of a common danger. Cf. nn. 129, 165. - Therefore let the priest be ashamed to betray his ignorance in theological matters (not to say stupid irreverence toward the Holy See) by saying repeatedly that condemned societies in these our Provinces, as being less dangerous (perhaps you would more rightly say: less suspected of danger), or even harmless!!, are not subject to censures.

II. The Bishop: 1) is held to urge strongly and prudently in his diocese the declarations and laws of the Supreme Pontiff; 2) with due proportion observed, he himself too can for his diocese, just as the Pontiff for the whole Church, condemn societies illicit of themselves, prohibit dangerous ones, and, if he has judged it expedient in the Lord, restrain violations of his statutes or precepts by absolution from them reserved to himself or by censures. - Yet two things are to be observed here: a) He cannot decide by himself a doubt whether some society falls under a Pontifical censure of itself, as was said above, 1°, 2). b) If there is question of a society already spread through several dioceses or probably soon to be spread, before he decrees anything, let him enter into counsel with his colleagues, that uniformity may be obtained, and lest one destroy what another has built.

III. Missionaries ought to watch that the declarations and laws both of the Supreme Pontiff and of their own Bishop be observed by the flock entrusted to them; in more difficult cases let them consult the rules of prudence and the Bishop; without consulting the Bishop let them not expressly approve some new society, especially if it is more or less suspect; and, if there is question of a society which is prudently judged to be either absolutely or relatively dangerous [see above, 1°, 3)], let the pastor or confessor judge concerning individual cases privately according to the rules concerning scandal or proximate occasion.

1722. - V. "Those ordering the immunity of ecclesiastical asylum to be violated, with rash daring, or those violating it." L. III. Decr. T. XLIX throughout. Benedict XIII, c. Ex quo divina. Clement XII, c. In suprema. Benedict XIV, c. Officii nostri.

1° By "immunity" is understood local ecclesiastical immunity, insofar as it is referred to the asylum of guilty persons fleeing to it.

2° That this excommunication be incurred, two things together are required, namely violation of the immunity of asylum, and rash daring; and therefore if either term is lacking, the censure is not incurred.

3° In this article are comprehended in the same way both those ordering violation and those violating. But the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, February 1, 1871, declared that "only he incurs the excommunication who, by no means compelled by others, prudent and knowing, either orders the immunity of ecclesiastical asylum to be violated, or violates it by executing." Wherefore magistrates and servants of government, who would not wish to violate the immunity of asylum, and nevertheless are compelled to violate it against or beyond their will, do not incur this censure: for the words "with rash daring" comprise both members, i.e., both "those ordering to violate" and "those violating." The observation is practical, because today in secular kingdoms scarcely a trace of the right of asylum remains.

1723. - VI. "Those violating the enclosure of Nuns, of whatever kind or condition, sex or age they shall be, by entering into their monasteries without legitimate license: and likewise those introducing or admitting them, and also Nuns going out from it outside the cases and form prescribed by St. Pius V in the Constitution Decori." Trent, Sess. 25. c. 4, 5 de Regul.

1° "Enclosure," i.e., for Nuns the whole house, and all enclosures attached to it and surrounded by a wall.

2° "Of Nuns." See n. 1185, 5°. Hence under this article there is not comprehended that enclosure to which women living in community are sometimes bound, who emit simple vows; which enclosure is imposed either by the Bishop, or by force of their constitutions, or even by force of a special vow. Thus the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, August 1, 1839.

3° "Those violating, ... of whatever kind or condition, sex or age they shall be." Therefore the Ordinaries of places themselves also incur the censure, women, and those under puberty.

4° "By entering into their monasteries without legitimate license." - But the license will be legitimate if it was given both from a cause of necessity, and, unless there is danger in delay, by him to whom it belongs to give it. a) From a cause of necessity, which is reckoned threefold, namely care of the sick, administration of the Sacraments, and common service. From the first, physicians and surgeons may enter to heal the sick. From the second, a confessor may enter to administer Penance, the Eucharist (as often as it was given to the healthy¹), Extreme Unction, and to commend the souls of the dying. From the third, workmen, artisans, and others who cannot exercise their art outside the enclosure. b) By him to whom it belongs to give it, namely the Bishop, and, if the monastery is subject to Regulars and usage is not contrary (Benedict XIV, Syn. L. XIII. c. 12. n. 23), the Superior of that Order. Nevertheless the Bishop can commit to another, e.g., to the Superior or confessor, the faculty of granting license of entering.² But license is to be given as often as there is need, except for physicians, surgeons, and confessors, to whom it is to be given generally. After the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis it is no longer necessary that it be given in writing.³

5° "And likewise those introducing or admitting them," although those who are introduced or admitted are under seven years of age. - Thus far concerning those entering; the things that follow pertain to those going out.

6° "And also Nuns going out from it," i.e., the enclosure, "outside the cases and form prescribed by St. Pius V in the Constitution Decori."

a) "Outside the cases ... by St. Pius V," etc. The cases are: 1) a great fire, to which are assimilated impending war, inundation of a river, ruin of a building, etc.; 2) contagious disease, which is accustomed to infect others.⁴

b) "And the form by St. Pius," etc. But the form is, unless there is danger in delay, that the license also of the Ordinary be given, and that in writing.

Note. - As to the Nuns of the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, see what was said in n. 1205, V, 2°.

1724. - VII. "Women violating the enclosure of Regular men, and Superiors or others admitting them." C. Decet and C. Regularium of St. Pius V. C. Ubi gratia of Gregory XIII.

1° "Women," except queens and similar privileged persons.¹

2° "Of Regulars," i.e., of those emitting solemn vows.

3° "Enclosure," under which, for men, come: the cloister, the house, the interior workrooms (e.g., the library); but not the church, chapels joined to the church, the sacristy (ordinarily), nor the garden, if it can be approached without passage through the monastery and is separated from the enclosure by a suitable key and wall.

1725. - VIII. "Those guilty of real simony" (n. 351, 3°) "in benefices" (and not only in offices) "of whatever kind" (therefore also in the Episcopate), "and their accomplices."

IX. "Those guilty of confidential simony" (n. 351, 3°) "in any benefices, of whatever dignity they may be."

X. Those guilty of real simony for entrance into Religion (n. 354, q. 5°).

Since our Missionaries are not beneficed, they can indeed contract the crime of simony, but not the censure.²

These three censures are taken from Trent, Sess. XXIV. c. 18 Ref. - Extr. L. V. T. I. - St. Pius V, c. Inscrutabilis, June 1, 1569.

1726. - XI. "All who, making gain from indulgences and other spiritual graces, are struck by the censure of excommunication in the Constitution of St. Pius V Quam plenum, January 2, 1569."

1° "Indulgences." What they are is hidden from no one.

2° "Spiritual graces." A case will very rarely occur among us, since by these are understood here only those spiritual graces which are enumerated in the cited Constitution of St. Pius V. These, if you please, see in that Constitution itself, or in the Commentators.¹

3° "Making gain." Therefore it is not sufficient that only the intention of making gain was present. It is necessary that money has been accepted.²

4° By this article only the excommunication laid upon all inferior to Bishops is confirmed.³

1727. - XII. "Those collecting alms of a greater price for Masses, and from these seeking profit, by causing them to be celebrated in places where Mass stipends are accustomed to be of a lesser price." C. Quanta cura of Benedict XIV.

1° "Those collecting," or, as to this penalty, there is not question of one or a few stipends, but of a copious number, so that the one acquiring them deserves the name of collector, and the collected number suffices for true profit by use of commerce.⁴ Nor does the censure seem to be extended to him who seeks profit from stipends which are given to him that he himself may satisfy them, or which are spontaneously brought to him, not however as to a collector, that he may take care that Masses be celebrated by others.⁵

2° "Masses," namely manual Masses and founded Masses not having the character of a benefice.⁶

3° "From these seeking profit." Wherefore he is not subject to this penalty who intends in this way to acquire part of the stipends for a pious cause.⁷

4° "By causing them to be celebrated in places where Mass stipends are accustomed to be of a lesser price." Therefore he will not incur the censure who causes them to be celebrated there where he collected the alms, or indeed in another place, but where a stipend of the same value is accustomed to be given.⁸

Note. - Excommunication is incurred not when someone collects alms, but when he retains for himself part of them, and indeed as much as suffices for grave theft, positing that the condition under 1° concerning profit, perceived from the copious collected number of Masses, is verified.⁹

1728. - XIII. "All who are punished with excommunication in the Constitutions of St. Pius V, Admonet nos, on the fourth day before the kalends of April, 1567; of Innocent IX, Quae ab hac Sede, on the day before the nones of November, 1591; of Clement VIII, Ad Romani Pontificis curam, June 26, 1592; and of Alexander VII, Inter caeteras, on the ninth day before the kalends of November, 1660, concerning the alienation and infeudation of cities and places belonging to the Holy Roman Church."

The Constitution of St. Pius V, Admonet nos, comprehends laymen and Clerics, Bishops and Archbishops, Primates, Patriarchs, Cardinals, and all others, who by themselves or through others strive to act, or to insinuate or persuade the Roman Pontiff to alienation or infeudation of cities or places belonging to the Holy See, from any pretext whatever, even of necessity or evident utility, and although they waste their work and oil. Wherefore all these are punished with this excommunication.

Innocent IX, Clement VIII, and Alexander VII by their own Constitutions confirmed, renewed, and explained the said Constitution of St. Pius V.

Other things pertaining here, see, if you please, in the Commentaries.¹

1729. - XIV. "Religious presuming to administer to Clerics or laymen outside a case of necessity the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, or of the Eucharist by way of Viaticum, without the license of the Pastor." Clem. L. V. T. VII. c. 1.

1° "Religious," namely of solemn vows, and (in the Society of Jesus) also of simple vows.

2° "To Clerics or laymen." Therefore a Regular does not incur the censure when administering these things to Regulars, or to those who in favorable matters come under the name of Regulars (n. 1194. II. § But of subjects), even of another Order, and outside the Monastery.

3° "Outside a case of necessity," which must be estimated not only from the danger in which the sick person labors, but also if the Pastor could not easily be summoned.

4° "Without the license of the Pastor." Here we must understand as Pastor one who has the care of souls (by whatever name he is called), or acts in his place, whose office it is to administer these Sacraments to such a sick person. Whether under the name of Pastor here there come also those who are set over our districts? It must be affirmed, if they truly preside over Parishes [see nn. 1138, 1608, Note 1)]. - But the license of which there is question here is also understood as presumed.

5° "Viaticum." Therefore Communion from devotion is not comprehended under this censure.

1730. - XV. "Those extracting without legitimate permission Relics from the sacred cemeteries or catacombs of the City of Rome and its territory, and those furnishing aid or favor to them." Edict of August 24, 1613 by order of Paul V. - C. Ex commissae of Clement X, January 13, 1672.

1° "Without legitimate permission," to be granted in writing by the Eminent Vicar General of the City.

2° "Relics from the sacred cemeteries or catacombs of the City of Rome." It is established that certain of these are of Holy Martyrs, e.g., when small glass or earthen vessels stained with blood, or at least enclosing bloody crusts, are found at the places of burial within, or outside them (S. C. Indulg., February 16, 1852, and Pius Pope IX, March 15 of the same year;¹ S. R. C., November 27, 1863²); on the other hand it is established that certain are not of Martyrs, as those which are found in open burial places; finally, whether certain are of Martyrs or not is ambiguous. Moreover commonly we understand Relics of Saints; hence he who extracts the former, not he who extracts the latter, or (as the Commentators³ think against Avanzini⁴) these ambiguous ones, incurs the excommunication. It does not matter how much someone extracts, whether much or little.

1731. - XVI. "Those communicating with an excommunicated person named by the Pope in a criminal crime, namely by furnishing aid or favor to him." L. V. Decr. T. XXXIX. c. 29.

XVII. "Clerics knowingly and spontaneously communicating in divine things with persons named by the Roman Pontiff as excommunicated, and receiving them in the Offices." L. V. Decr. T. XXXIX. c. 18.

Before the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, all those who communicated with one to be avoided contracted excommunication, either in a criminal crime (i.e., in the crime on account of which, or in the contumacy because of which, the excommunication had been laid down, as if a concubinary man again has intercourse with an excommunicated concubine), or in divine things; and the former indeed contracted the major, but the latter the minor. The latter (according to most) has today been removed; the former indeed remains, but it is not incurred except by those who communicate with an excommunicated person named by the Pope, not by another. Wherefore this censure does not hold him who, whether in a criminal crime or in divine things, communicates e.g., with Titius, whom the Bishop, as a heretic, has declared excommunicated by name. For this man was indeed excommunicated by force of papal law, but not by name by the Pope.

"Those communicating in divine things ... and receiving them in the" liturgical "offices." Both together are required, according to the tradition of identity of the old censure (L. V. Decr. T. 39. c. 18) (n. 1700. q. 1°, R. 2°).

These two excommunications differ in these things: to the former all are subject, whether Clerics or laymen; to the latter Clerics only. From the former ignorance does not excuse, if it was gross or supine; from the latter it does excuse. Finally, the former is incurred also by those who were compelled by fear, though not grave fear; the latter only by those who communicate spontaneously, i.e., without fear, even slight.

1732. - XVIII. "Those presuming to absolve, without due faculty, even under any pretext whatever, persons bound by the bond of excommunication specially reserved to the Roman Pontiff." Thus the final § of the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, after excommunication XII among those specially reserved to the Roman Pontiff.

Add from the decree of the C. S. O., December 4, 1872, excommunication XIX against Ecclesiastics and Missionaries engaged in commerce in the East Indies and America, etc.¹

Add besides the excommunication laid down in the Encyclical of our Most Holy Lord Pius Pope IX, November 1, 1870, against adherents to those crimes which are mentioned in the third part of the censure reported at n. 1717, which third part extends from the word "and also" to "furnishing." Namely, adherents are excommunicated, i.e., those who internally and externally approve those crimes, or are prepared to furnish aid, counsel, or favor to each one of them, even if in fact they have not furnished it. Thus Godschalk¹ against Eph. Nouv. Rev. Théol.² and Th. Pat. n. 148, who think that also by adherents an excommunication specially reserved to the Pope is incurred.

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

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

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

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

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

¹⁶⁰ Cf., however, below, n. 534 (2).

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

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

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

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

The following are prohibited under censure:

a) the Masonic society;¹⁶⁶

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹⁶³ Holy Office, August 20, 1894.

¹⁶⁴ Holy Office, August 9, 1893.

¹⁶⁵ Holy Office, May 19, 1886.

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

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

¹⁶⁸ Holy Office, January 12, 1870.

¹⁶⁹ Code of Canon Law, c. 2336.

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹⁷² Code of Canon Law, c. 600.

¹⁷³ Ibid., c. 2230.

¹⁷⁴ Ibid., c. 598, § 2.

Explanation. - By nuns here are understood those who are strictly such and emit solemn vows. Wherefore he who violates the enclosure of Nuns imposed upon them by the Bishop, or that to which one is held by force of rule or of some special vow, does not incur this censure. - Among us, therefore, a case in which the present censure is incurred can occur very rarely indeed. - Cf. Varceno, vol. 2, p. 488. Under the name of male Regulars in this censure are comprehended only those who emit solemn vows and who alone are obliged everywhere by papal enclosure, with no region excepted. - But by women are understood all females, except Queens and Empresses with their daughters and a decent retinue. Cf. Varceno, ibid., p. 490.

No exit is licit to any nun, not even for a brief time, except with permission of the Roman Pontiff, except the case of some most grave evil. This danger, if there is time, must be recognized in writing by the Ordinary of the place. - Cf. Canon 2209, §§ 1-3 and Canon 2231.

§ 1. He who has laid violent hands upon the person of the Roman Pontiff:

1°. Contracts an excommunication latae sententiae reserved in a most special mode to the Apostolic See; and is by the fact itself vitandus; ...

§ 2. He who upon the person of a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church or a Legate of the Roman Pontiff:

1°. Incurs an excommunication latae sententiae reserved in a special mode to the Apostolic See;

§ 3. He who upon the person of a Patriarch, Archbishop, Bishop even merely titular, incurs an excommunication latae sententiae reserved in a special mode to the Apostolic See.

§ 4. He who upon the person of other clerics or religious of either sex is subject by the fact itself to excommunication reserved to his proper Ordinary, who besides may punish him with other penalties, if the matter bears it, according to his prudent judgment (Can. 2343).

Titius, the verger of a certain church, lets seats to the faithful for the parish priest. Caia had rented one of the principal seats, but she passed the summer season in distant regions. According to custom, other members of the faithful occupied Caia’s seat in her absence. Julia comes to Titius seeking a seat to be rented during the summer; he denied that any was vacant except Caia’s seat, which she could have, in Caia’s absence, upon payment of a fourth part of the whole annual price and without Julia’s name being put in place of Caia’s. Titius retained for himself the money paid by Julia as the fruit of his industry, as he says. But when the parish priest discovered Titius’s transaction by accident, he proposed the theological question whether he had acted justly. Hence it is asked:

1. What is a right which constitutes the object of commutative justice?

2. How are the fruits of a thing distinguished, and to whom and by what right do they belong?

3. What are ecclesiastical goods, and are the offerings of the faithful to be numbered among them?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. What is a right which constitutes the object of commutative justice ?

A right is a moral power of having, doing, or exacting something.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. i, p. 343.

2. How are the fruits of property distinguished, and to whom and by what right do they belong?

Fruits of property are natural, industrial, mixed, and civil. Natural fruits of the soil, for instance, due alone to its natural fertility, belong to the owner of the soil. Industrial fruits, due to man’s labor, belong to the laborer. Mixed, or partly natural, partly industrial, should be divided equitably between the laborer and the owner of the soil or other property which produces the fruits. Civil fruits, such as rent and interest, belong to the owner of the property rented or borrowed. These rules follow from the nature of the right of property, and so they belong to the natural law.²

2 The same work, pp. 374, 401.

3. What is ecclesiastical property, and are the offerings of the faithful ecclesiastical property?

Property which belongs to the Church, or to a religious corporation, or to a pious institute founded by ecclesiastical authority, is called ecclesiastical property. The private property of clerics is not ecclesiastical property. Whether the offerings of the faithful are ecclesiastical property or the private property of the clergy depends partly on the intention of the donors, partly on Church law, which for Britain and the United States of America is contained in the Second Council of Westminster, d. 8, according to the constitution of Leo XIII, Romanos Pontifices, May 8, 1881.³

3 The same work, p. 363.

4. The case. Titius, the verger of a certain church, let out the seats to the faithful for the parish priest. Caia hired one of the first, but as she was absent in the summer months her seat in her absence used to be given to others. Julia wanted to hire a seat for the summer months and Titius let to her Caia's on condition that Caia's name was not removed and that Julia paid what was equal to a fourth part of the annual rent of the seat. Titius kept this sum for himself as the fruit of his industry.

Titius has no right to the money, and he should hand it over to the parish priest. According to the Second Council of Westminster, bench rents form a part of the property of the Church, and so whatever Caia's seat brought in either from Caia herself, or from Julia, or from anybody else, was Church property, and could not be appropriated by Titius without sacrilege.

In a certain English town a Masonic ball was being held so that money might be collected to be given to the town’s public innkeepers. The more distinguished citizens were invited to the ball, among them Lucius, a Catholic, who went and paid a sum of money because, as he says, it would be disgraceful to have such powerful fellow citizens as enemies. Afterwards, however, he confesses the matter to his confessor, who doubts whether Lucius is therefore subject to a censure. Hence it is asked:

1. What penalty is established against secret societies?

2. What societies are considered prohibited? The Fenians? The Oddfellows?

3. Is the Masonic sect in England included under the ecclesiastical law concerning the said sect?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. Under what penalty are secret societies forbidden?

They are forbidden under pain of excommunication reserved to the Pope by the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis (n. 4): “ Those who give their names to the Masonic or Carbonari sect, or to other sects of the same kind which plot against the Church or legitimate powers, whether openly or secretly; and likewise those furnishing favor of any kind to the same sects; or those not denouncing their hidden chiefs—

—and leaders, until they shall have denounced them.”¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, 399.

2. What societies are forbidden? Are the Fenians and Oddfellows?

All societies are forbidden by the above censure which publicly or in secret plot against the Church or against lawful civil authority. In general a society which enjoins the keeping of a secret so absolutely that it may not be revealed even to ecclesiastical authority, or which exacts an oath or promise of blind obedience, must be regarded as forbidden. By a decree of the Holy Office, Jan. 12, 1870, the Fenians were declared to be comprised in the above censure. The American Oddfellows were condemned Aug. 20, 1894. Whether or not they are condemned under the above censure is disputed. English Oddfellows do not form one society with the American Oddfellows, and so it can not be said for certain that they are condemned.

3. Are Freemasons in England condemned by the above censure?

Yes, English Masons are recognized by their foreign brethren as such, and foreign Masons are received in the English lodges. Renunciation of Masonry is imposed as a condition of being received into, or reconciled to the Church.

4. The case. The question whether Lucius incurred the censure or not, will depend on whether his going to the ball and paying the money brought him under the clause — furnishing any sort of favor to the same sects. To incur censure under this head the favor must be shown to them as Masons, and with effect, so that the censure is not incurred unless the effect follows.¹

1 Ballerini-Palmieri, Opus Morale, vol. vii, 220.

There is no evidence in the case that Lucius did this. He gave money to the hospitals, and he went to the ball because he was afraid of offending the Masons. Although these actions might in certain circumstances be described as furnishing favor, favoring the Masons, there is no evidence that in effect they did so in Lucius’ case. He did wrong, and probably gave great scandal, but he did not necessarily incur excommunication.

A convert to the Catholic faith is a knight of Pythias. He was a knight for many years before he became a Catholic. He carries a few thousand dollars life insurance in the order. As he is a poor man, it would be a great hardship for him to quit the order and forfeit this insurance. What shall he do about it?

Answer.—There are two categories of so-called secret societies, forbidden to Catholics: (a) societies, like the Masons, that are forbidden under censure, i. e., under pain of excommunication; (b) societies, like the Knights of Pythias, that are forbidden under pain of sin, but not under censure.

On October 11, 1869, Pope Pius IX issued his famous Bull, Apostolicae Sedis, in which among many other censures, reserved to the Holy See, is the censure of excommunication pronounced against “those giving their names to the Masonic or Carbonari sect, or to other sects of the same kind, which plot either openly or secretly against the Church or lawful authorities; and likewise those furnishing favor of any kind to those sects and not denouncing their hidden leaders and chiefs, until they have denounced them.”

Two qualifications are required in order that a society or organization fall under the bann of excommunication: (a) its members must constitute a sect, that is, they must be united very closely together by the profession of the same principles, that the society as a body professes and advocates; (b) it must war against the Church or against the State, even though it exist for other purposes also.

The societies generally understood to possess these two qualifications and therefore to be forbidden under pain of excommunication are:

1. The Masons. Pope Clement XII, in 1738, first excommunicated the Masons. Then Benedict XIV, in 1751, reaffirmed the censure, as did Leo XII, in 1825, Pius VIII, in 1829, Pius IX, in 1869, in the Bull Apostolicae Sedis, just mentioned, and finally Leo XIII, in 1884, in the Bull “Humanum genus.”

2. The Carbonari, a secret political society organized in Italy, in the beginning of the last century, whose purpose was the overthrow of the existing government and the establishment of a republic. They were excommunicated by Pius VIII and Leo XII.

3. The Fenians. This society was prohibited under censure of excommunication, by the Holy Office, January 12, 1870.

4. Societies of Anarchists and Nihilists, in Russia especially, but wherever they may exist, since their purpose brings them under the ban of excommunication.

No Catholic, therefore, may belong to any of the above named societies, without committing mortal sin, and at the same time incurring excommunication, which excommunication is reserved to the Holy See.

In the second category of forbidden societies, namely, of those that are forbidden under pain of mortal sin, but without the censure of excommunication, are to be placed the three societies, expressly mentioned in the official papal documents, that is to say:

1. Odd Fellows; 2. Knights of Pythias; 3. Sons of Temperance.

There are other societies also forbidden under pain of mortal sin, v. g., the Good Templars, Cremation Societies, etc., but our concern is at present with the three first mentioned. On February 13, 1896, the following letter was sent to the archbishops of the United States, from the Apostolic Delegation at Washington, D. C., for the information and guidance of the Ordinaries and clergy of the United States:

‘Apostolic Delegation, United States of America.

Washington, D. C., Feb. 13, 1896.

Your Grace:

Under date of August 13, 1895, I received from the Cardinal Prefect of Propaganda instructions regarding the application of the well-known decree of the Holy Office condemning the three societies, “Odd Fellows,” “Knights of Pythias,” and “Sons of Temperance.” According to these instructions which I communicated to your Grace at the time, the condemnation was to be considered absolute, and wherever peculiar circumstances seemed to merit special consideration in particular cases, the matter was to be referred by the Ordinary to Rome. In consequence, many Bishops have, since that time, sent cases to the Propaganda which have been referred to the Holy Office for consideration. The Supreme Congregation, after deliberation on such cases, has, by a decree dated January 18, 1896, determined on a course which is explained by the words which I quote from the decree itself:—

“It was asked whether, every other participation in those same sects having been removed, it is at least lawful to retain one’s own name in the membership rolls, and also to continue at the appointed time in the payment of the aforesaid assessment or debt.

“Since Our Most Holy Lord committed this very grave doubt to this Sacred Supreme Congregation for resolution, that same Sacred Congregation, after mature consideration of the matter, judged that the answer should be:—Generally speaking, it is not lawful; and according to the intention. The intention is that the matter can be tolerated when the following conditions and circumstances concur together in the case, namely: 1. If they originally gave their names to the sect in good faith, before it became known to them that the society had been condemned. 2. If scandal is absent, or is removed by an appropriate declaration that he does this lest he lose his right to the emoluments or the benefit of time in paying the debt; abstaining meanwhile, as stated above, from every communion with the sect and from every participation, even material. 3. If grave harm would come to himself or his family from renunciation. 4. Finally, provided that there is no danger whatever of perversion for that man or his family on the part of the sectaries, especially with regard to a case of illness or death; and likewise that there is no danger of a funeral being conducted with rites foreign to Catholic rites.

“When these matters were reported to Our Most Holy Lord Pope Leo XIII, they were approved and confirmed in their entirety. But since this is a most grave matter, full of dangers and difficulties, which concerns not only very many dioceses but also ecclesiastical provinces, that same Most Holy Lord ordered that, for the sake of observing a uniform rule, Your Eminence and your successors in the Apostolic Delegation may provide for particular cases.”

I beg your Grace to communicate the above disposition of the Holy See as soon as possible, to your Suffragans and through them to the Confessors. With sentiments of highest esteem and fraternal charity, I remain,

For His Eminence, Apostolic Pro-Delegate, Most faithfully yours in Xt,

D. SBARRETTI, Auditor.

From this decree of the Holy Office, it is evident that members of the three societies, or of any one of them, can not be absolved unless they absolutely renounce their adherence to the prohibited societies. This renunciation must be external, complete and made in good faith; because the aims and purposes of these societies are known to be dangerous to religion and to society, although the individual members of them may be quite ignorant of this fact.

Since, however, besides their leading aims, which are for the most part a matter of secrecy, these societies have for their secondary object mutual assistance in temporal things, the question arises whether a member, who having joined the association in good faith, has given his share toward the accumulation of a benefit fund, a proportionate part of which was to be returned to him or his family with just interest, either as savings or as relief money in case of sickness or death—whether such a member must so far renounce his connection with the society as to sustain a serious loss. To this, the Holy Office answers: As a rule, such financial loss is not a valid reason for continuing in the society, since it is impossible for a man to remain a nominal member of a society, without either furthering its main object, though unwillingly and unconsciously, or else giving scandal to those who do not know the true reasons for his remaining a nominal member, and who will naturally assume that such membership means practical co-operation in the aims and purposes of the society.

Nevertheless, there may be cases where there is no scandal given by the person continuing a nominal member, and where there exists no danger for his faith and where withdrawal would mean serious pecuniary loss. In such cases, provided the man joined the society in good faith, not knowing that it was forbidden, the pastor or confessor may make application in order to obtain permission to give the man absolution although he allows his name to remain on the rolls of the society in order to be entitled to the insurance for which he has been paying perhaps for many years. If such be the case, the Apostolic Delegate in Washington has been empowered by the Holy See, to allow a mere nominal membership to continue, according to his judgment of the case, for the sole purpose of securing for the applicant an external title to what really belongs to him, without identifying him with the dangerous or unlawful character of the forbidden society.

In summing up the case before us, we would say that:

1. Since the man in question became a Knight of Pythias in good faith, that is before his conversion to the Catholic Church,

2. Since he can not now withdraw from the order without serious pecuniary loss, being a poor man; then

3. If his nominal membership create no special danger for his spiritual interests, and

4. If such membership give no scandal, then application ought to be made to the Apostolic Delegate in Washington by the man’s confessor, or through him by the bishop, to obtain permission for the gentleman to continue a nominal member of the K. P.’s, in order to be able to claim legally the insurance that belongs to him and to his family. The confessor has no power or jurisdiction to judge whether the conditions that may permit nominal membership are verified or not; neither has the ordinary such power. The Apostolic Delegate alone is the competent authority to determine whether the circumstances of the case call for a special permission or authorization to continue a nominal member of the society.

The Church forbids Catholics to join secret societies. “Let the faithful avoid,” says Canon 684, “secret, condemned, seditious, suspect societies, and those which strive to withdraw themselves from the lawful vigilance of the Church.” If an organized body strive to conceal by the cloak of secrecy its members, its aims and object, and the means which it employs, the presumption is that it is organized against the public good. “Every one that hath evil hateth the light and cometh not to the light that his works may not be reproved.” The heads of secret societies are generally unknown to the outside world, and often even to the members themselves. Yet the members are bound to obey them, often under oath. There is no guarantee that all the orders issued by the secret heads will be in accordance with right and justice, and it is wrong to promise obedience under such circumstances. To make such a promise is to abdicate personal responsibility. Freemasonry is not only a secret society, it is a secret society of a special kind, and the Catholic Church forbids Catholics to join it under pain of incurring excommunication, the absolution of which is reserved to the Holy See. This is laid down in Canon 2335: “Those who join the Freemasons or other societies of the same kind which plot against the Church or lawful civil authority incur by the very fact excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See.” A Catholic, then, who becomes a Freemason ceases to be a Catholic; he is cut off from membership with the Catholic Church.

Modern Freemasonry is a secret society of English origin and dates from the early part of the eighteenth century. It spread quickly, and it is said that it now numbers more than two million members and that it has lodges all over the world. Its activities soon attracted the attention of civil and ecclesiastical authority. Many governments, both civil and ecclesiastical, prohibited it. It was condemned under pain of excommunication by Pope Clement XII in the year 1738, and since then the condemnation has frequently been repeated by his successors.

The Popes have been perfectly frank and open in acknowledging the sources from which they derived their information concerning the society. In his well-known Encyclical, Humanum Genus, issued in 1884, Leo XIII said that the Holy See derived its information from the observations of the fruits of Masonic activity in various parts of the world, from the publication of the statutes, rites, and commentaries of the order, from the investigation of particular cases, from the personal testimony of men who had been in the secret, and from the delation of civil governments. Clement XII had pointed out the radical flaw in the organization from the beginning. It drew men from any religion and sect, and, without requiring them to renounce or to profess any form of religion, it united them in the strictest bonds of unity. The practical consequence, as Leo XIII pointed out, was to bring about a complete indifference towards all forms of religion. But human nature does not stop there, it cannot rest satisfied with a mere negation. “He that is not with me is against me, and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.” A creature cannot be indifferent to the claims of God and of Jesus Christ. If he is not on their side he soon becomes hostile to them. With inexorable logic, Leo XIII showed how indifference towards religion and the claims of God has led Masonry to modern Naturalism. Masons might believe what they pleased about the supernatural, they were united on the question of the natural, and they gave their exclusive attention to it. The attitude involves a practical rejection of Christianity and the adoption of neo-paganism. This accounts for many an error in religion and philosophy, in social and political affairs, in family life, and in the education of the young which form settled dogmas of modern thought. If what is called modern thought is not the creation of Masonry, at least Masonry has had great influence in making it so widely accepted.

Canon 2335 inflicts the penalty of excommunication, not only on Freemasons, but on members of other societies of the same kind. There is some difference of opinion among the commentators as to the meaning of the phrase “societies of the same kind.” Some of the latest and best authorities say that its meaning is defined by the clause which follows—" which plot, machinate, or work openly or in secret against the Church or lawful civil authority,” so that Communists and other organizations of the same sort would come under the condemnation. Others hold that as Freemasonry is a secret society, the phrase “other societies of the same kind” can only comprehend secret societies which work against the Church or lawful civil authority. Of course, there is no doubt but that Communism is forbidden on other grounds, and by Canon 634.

Recent events in Italy seem to show that while it works in secrecy its influence is great, but that when it comes to power and is compelled to show itself, the fierce light which beats upon a throne tends to destroy the influence of Freemasonry.