Forging papal letters and rescripts (Can. 2360)

Therefore the Pian constitution declares subject to excommunication of a sentence already passed, reserved in a special mode to the Roman pontiff:

First excommunication. All apostates from the Christian faith and all and singular heretics, by whatever name they are reckoned and of whatever sect they exist, and those believing them, and their receivers, favorers, and generally any defenders of them.

50. A twofold genus of persons is struck by this censure: a. those who defect from the faith previously received: apostates, heretics, those believing heretics; b. those who in some way become participants in this crime, yet do not properly commit it: receivers, favorers, defenders.

Those defecting from the faith. 1. Apostates are called those who defect totally from the Christian faith received through baptism, so that they no longer wish to be numbered among Catholics.¹ For incurring excommunication it is required that the internal defection from the faith manifest itself externally; but it makes no difference whether the apostate passes over to another religious sect, to Judaism, paganism, Mohammedanism, or indeed professes no religious worship, as atheists, deists, indifferentists, materialists, naturalists, pantheists, freethinkers.

Those who deny either the existence or the possibility of Christian revelation are apostates from the Christian faith and incur this excommunication. Those are not apostates who, following practical indifferentism, utterly neglect the duties of the Christian religion, because externally they do not defect from the Christian religion, but still wish to be counted among Catholics.

2. Heretics are called Christian men who voluntarily and pertinaciously deny (or call into doubt) a truth of faith proposed by the Church. For incurring excommunication it is required that the heresy conceived internally be manifested externally by some sign, whether by word or by deed or by writing, even with no one present or hearing. But it is not required that the heretic join himself to some sect of heretics, such as Protestants, schismatics erring in faith, Jansenists, anti-infallibilists or Old Catholics.

a. He also incurs this excommunication who exercises heretical superstition, as one who attempts to divine, through turning tables, spiritism, and magical arts of this kind, secrets of hearts or future free actions of men known to God alone, provided he adverts to the heresy implicit in this deed.²

b. Not all concede that he incurs excommunication who positively doubts concerning the truth of faith, "because," as Struggl says, "such a one does not have heresy plainly consummated and perfect."³

c. Because only those incur this censure who have committed formal heresy, it is clear that it can happen that several who have been educated in heresy are, because of their good faith, immune from excommunication. But if they return to the Catholic faith, in the external forum they are absolved from excommunication because they are subject to a censure notorious by law; but in the internal forum those do not need absolution who are established to have been in good faith.

3. Those believing apostates or heretics are understood to be those who implicitly assent to their errors by some external sign, even if they neither join themselves to their sect nor have their doctrine viewed in particular; as if someone says of another, whom he knows to be a heretic, that he believes whatever that person believes, although he does not know his errors; or if someone, with the intention of assenting to his errors, hears the reading or sermon of some heretic.⁴

Not all interpret this clause so that even those are subject to censure who profess heresy only implicitly; but some understand by this term Catholics who commit the crime of heresy, yet do not adhere to a non-Catholic sect. Practically it makes no difference which sense is admitted, because each group incurs excommunication either under the name of heretics or under the name of believers.

¹ Cf. De praeceptis^3 n. 28.

² D'Annibale, Commentar. in const. Ap. sedis n. 31.

³ Theol. mor., tr. 4, q. 2, n. 12.

⁴ Cf. Acta sanctae sedis XI, p. 168 ff.

51. Those cooperating with them. In order that those who cooperate with heretics or apostates incur excommunication, there is required participation or formal cooperation which tends to this, that it assist heretics in their crime; material cooperation, which only gives help to the heretical person, does not suffice.

1. Receivers of heretics are called those who receive them into their house so that they may escape the penalty of heresy. Therefore they do not incur excommunication who receive them not for the sake of heresy, but as friends, blood-relatives, or suchlike.

2. Favorers of heretics are called those who furnish them help, whether negatively or positively, so that they may more easily spread their errors.

a. They favor heretics negatively who omit those things which must be done not from mere charity but from office for impeding their progress; they favor them positively who help them in spreading errors by words (praising, commending them as heretics) or by deeds (furnishing money). Here also belong Catholics who permit offspring to be educated in a non-Catholic religion.

b. The Holy Office has several times declared that those incur excommunication who enter marriage before a non-Catholic minister.¹ They dispute what the cause of this censure is; some say that they are excommunicated as favorers of heretics, but others more rightly say that in the external forum they are excommunicated as those believing heretics: for those who receive sacraments among heretics according to their rite are judged implicitly to believe heretics.

Note 1. From the declaration of the same holy see it is further established that those who contract marriage before a non-Catholic minister incur excommunication, even if they were ignorant of the censure. Therefore those who know the censure incur it for each forum, but those who are ignorant of it incur the censure for the external forum alone. For celebration of marriage is by its nature a public act, which pertains to the external forum, and therefore its forbidden celebration is punished directly by censure for the external forum. Therefore in order that one who contracted before a non-Catholic minister can be admitted to the sacraments, he must be absolved from the censure at least for the external forum.

Note 2. Reconciliation, supposing the validity of the marriage, is done in this way:

a. The one to be reconciled is admonished: a. concerning the gravity of the sins which he committed by contracting before a heretical minister, and concerning the obligation of being sorry for them and accusing himself of them in confession; b. concerning the obligation of educating children Catholicly, or, if it is a woman, of seeing to it that the husband permit the Catholic education of the children; but if he should not permit it, of seeing to it that the children, as much as depends upon her, be educated Catholicly.

b. A suppliant petition is sent to the bishop, in which, with the name of the one to be reconciled expressed, the fact about which it concerns is set forth with all its circumstances (especially that the one to be reconciled wishes to satisfy his obligations), and the faculty of absolving from excommunication for the external forum is sought. Once this has been obtained, the one to be reconciled is absolved from excommunication according to the Roman Ritual (tit. 3, c. 3). Once absolution has been granted, the acts are drawn up according to the disposition of the ordinary; once reconciliation has been made, the penitent can be absolved by any confessor from the sin of heresy.

c. If the delict is not known in the place where the one to be reconciled is staying, it is not required that the cause be conducted in the external forum. Therefore it suffices that the confessor seek the faculty of absolving the one to be reconciled from heresy in the act of sacramental confession, which absolution avails also for the external forum.

3. Defenders of heretics are those who defend their persons or doctrines insofar as they are heretical.

Therefore they do not incur excommunication who praise the learning and eloquence of a heretic, or the style and elegance of a heretical book, unless the praise redounds to approval of the heretical doctrine.

Second excommunication. All and singular persons knowingly reading, without the authority of the apostolic see, books of the same apostates and heretics defending heresy, and also books of any author by apostolic letters prohibited by name; and those retaining, printing, and in any way defending books of the same.

¹ Holy Office, August 28, 1888; May 11, 1892.

52. This censure passed verbally into the constitution Officiorum ac munerum (n. 47), and from it draws its force. From this we learn: a. books today prohibited under excommunication; b. actions prohibited under excommunication.

Books prohibited under censure are of a twofold kind:

1. Books of heretics and apostates defending heresy. Therefore a threefold condition by reason of the object is required for incurring the censure: a. that it be a book, not only a manuscript or a booklet of smaller volume; b. that it be written by a heretical or apostate author; c. that it defend heresy.

a. Therefore they do not incur excommunication: a. who read newspapers or booklets defending heresy; b. who read a book defending heresy written by a Catholic, heathen, Jew, or by another who properly is neither a heretic nor an apostate; c. who read a book containing heresy or defending it only incidentally and in a few words.

b. From the declaration of the Holy Office, those incur excommunication "who knowingly read periodical publications bound into fascicles, having a heretical author and defending heresy."¹

c. For incurring this censure it is required that it be certain to the reader (not only probable: for it says knowingly reading) that the author of the book is a heretic and that he defends heresy. That the author is a heretic can be established either from the name of the author, if he is a known heretic, or from the character of the book: for if manifest heresy is pertinaciously defended in the book, it is sufficiently established that the author is a heretic or apostate; therefore either from the sect to which he adheres, or from the manifest doctrine which he defends.

d. It is not required that the book treat expressly of religion; therefore one who reads a profane book, e.g. historical, physical, philosophical, in which a heretical author defends heresy, incurs excommunication.

2. Books of any author prohibited by name through apostolic letters. Three conditions also are required in this kind on the part of the book: a. that it be prohibited through apostolic letters, of whatever form they are: bull, brief, encyclical; b. that it be prohibited by name, i.e. by its proper title expressly given; c. that it be prohibited under excommunication reserved to the Roman pontiff, which is gathered from the mind of the constitution itself, namely of moderating censures. But it makes no difference whose author it is and what it contains.

Therefore here do not belong: a. books prohibited through decrees of the Index or of another congregation, because decrees of this kind are not issued by apostolic authority; b. books of some author condemned in a body, because they are not prohibited by name; c. books indeed condemned through apostolic letters, but not under reserved excommunication.

Note. Since it is impossible for the confessor to know all works defending heresy, when a case occurs let him ask the penitent about the argument of the depraved book which he read, and from this judge whether the book defends heresy and therefore is prohibited under excommunication or not.

¹ Holy Office, April 21, 1880.

53. The prohibited actions are these four: to read, to retain, to print, to defend; all these indeed must be exercised knowingly in order that censure be incurred through them: for since this term is placed in the head of the article, it must be understood of all. Wherefore even affected ignorance excuses from incurring censure.

What is prohibited by the terms to read and to retain is said elsewhere;¹ it remains that the terms those printing and those defending be explained.

a. Those printing, taken more broadly, are understood to be all who concur proximately in printing the book: a. the printer, publisher, and author; b. those who furnish work for the printing itself, such as those setting the types and turning the press. In this place more strictly only the printer and publisher seem to be understood.²

b. Those defending are called those who physically or morally impede that the book be destroyed or denounced; those who try to persuade others that the book is good; those who so praise the doctrine contained in it, or its learning and knowledge, that approval of the depraved doctrine appears.

a. For incurring the censure there is required a threefold knowledge: a. that the book is of a heretic or apostate, or that it is prohibited through apostolic letters; b. that its reading, retention, printing, or defense is prohibited under excommunication; c. if it has not been prohibited through apostolic letters, that it defends heresy. But it suffices that these things be known either by public report or from a man worthy of faith.

b. Since grave sin is required for incurring censure, they do not incur it except those who cooperate formally, or indeed materially but without a just cause, and notably.

c. If literary societies (Leihbibliotheken) keep books prohibited under censure, besides the president and librarian all who have joint ownership of the books incur excommunication. But this censure does not seem to affect public libraries.

Third excommunication. Schismatics and those who pertinaciously withdraw or recede from obedience to the Roman pontiff existing for the time.

¹ Cf. De praeceptis^3 n. 702.

² Cf. Vermeersch n. 125. Hollweck p. 48.

54. They incur this censure: a. schismatics, who, whether from malice or from error, deny subjection to the Roman pontiff and, separating themselves from the unity of the Church, establish a new church or adhere to one already established.

b. Those who deny obedience to the Roman pontiff in spiritual matters, rejecting his spiritual authority, although they adhere to no other head or church.

Note. From the declaration of the holy see, this excommunication is also incurred by "whoever according to decrees of civil laws, or with the people voting and the civil power confirming, having been elected to the office of parish priest or vicar, dare to undertake the duties of ecclesiastical ministry," because by this very fact they deny obedience to the Roman pontiff.¹

Fourth excommunication. All and singular persons, of whatever state, grade, or condition they may be, appealing from ordinances or mandates of the Roman pontiffs existing for the time to a future universal council, and also those by whose help, counsel, and favor the appeal has been made.

¹ S. C. C., May 23, 1874.

55. a. This censure is a particular case of the preceding one: for those appealing by the fact withdraw themselves from subjection to the Roman pontiff. But lest they think that under the pretext of appeal they can escape excommunication, this special censure has been added.

b. Any physical persons: for concerning communities appealing there is an interdict; appealing from ordinances of the reigning pontiff to a future universal council. Therefore appeal to a future pontiff or to a present council does not suffice, nor to a provincial council.

Fifth excommunication. All killing, mutilating, striking, capturing, imprisoning, detaining, or hostilely pursuing cardinals of the holy Roman Church, patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, and legates or nuncios of the apostolic see, or expelling them from their dioceses, territories, lands, or dominions, and also those mandating these things or ratifying them or furnishing help, counsel, or favor in them.

56. By this censure are punished real injuries inflicted upon the princes of the Church (Kirchenfursten), of whom the first is the supreme pontiff himself, bishop of the Roman Church, although he is not explicitly named. Therefore they incur it:

a. Those who unjustly injure their life: those killing, mutilating, striking; their liberty: those capturing, imprisoning, detaining; their dignity: those hostilely (with the intention of harming body or dignity) pursuing, expelling them from places subject to their jurisdiction.

b. Those who cooperate in these injuries by mandate, ratification, help, etc., provided the cooperation was efficacious and gravely influenced.

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

57. a. This censure has been established for protecting the liberty of ecclesiastical jurisdiction; they contract it who impede the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, but not those impeding the exercise of jurisdiction of regular superiors. Therefore they do not incur excommunication who impede the exercise of the power of order, such as to offer sacrifice, administer sacraments, bless, etc., nor those impeding the exercise of an ecclesiastical office, such as to preach, to teach; but they incur it who impede him who commits those things which are of order to be performed, or him who deputes someone to ecclesiastical offices.

b. Therefore they contract this censure: a. those who by some fact impede the exercise of jurisdiction directly or indirectly (e.g. the publication, execution of a pontifical constitution); b. those who for this end recur to the secular forum, to civil judges and magistrates; c. those who for this end procure or issue mandates of the secular forum; d. those who cooperate with these by help, counsel, favor.

Seventh excommunication. Those compelling lay judges either directly or indirectly to draw ecclesiastical persons to their tribunal beyond canonical dispositions; likewise those issuing laws or decrees against the liberty or rights of the Church.

58. Persons of a twofold kind are struck by this excommunication: a. those compelling lay judges to draw ecclesiastical persons to their tribunal against the privilege of the forum; b. those issuing laws or decrees against the liberty and rights of the Church.

Those compelling lay judges either directly or indirectly to draw ecclesiastical persons to their tribunal beyond canonical dispositions.¹

1. Those compelling are understood to be those who compel judges, although they themselves are compelled neither by any man nor by law; therefore legislators carrying a law by which judges are compelled to draw ecclesiastical persons to their tribunal, magistrates who, compelled by no law, of their own accord compel judges to draw ecclesiastics to their tribunal, whether it concerns a criminal cause or a civil cause.

2. They compel directly who compel the judges themselves by threats, force, or fear unjustly struck into them; indirectly, those who employ force or threats against other persons joined with the judges, so that they compel the judges to draw clerics as guilty persons to their tribunal.

3. Ecclesiastical persons are understood to be all who enjoy the privilege of the forum; therefore all clerics, even those marked by first tonsure alone, all religious, even nuns living under a rule, whether in some order or in a simple congregation.

4. Beyond canonical dispositions, i.e. unless somewhere it is permitted by the holy see (through concordats) that ecclesiastics be drawn to a lay tribunal.

a. "Nevertheless in those places in which there has not been derogation from the privilege of the forum by the supreme pontiffs, if in them it is not granted to pursue one's rights except before lay judges, individuals are bound first to seek permission from their own ordinary, that they may be able to sue clerics in the form of lay persons. But it is not licit to sue bishops in that forum without permission of the apostolic see."²

b. Therefore they do not incur excommunication: a. the judges themselves who draw ecclesiastics to their tribunal, but those who compel the judges to this; b. plaintiffs who accuse a cleric before a lay judge; c. those compelling a cleric to be drawn not as a guilty person, but as a tutor, witness, or under another title.

¹ Concerning this decree an instruction of the Holy Office was issued on June 15, 1870, and February 1, 1871, and a declaration of the same Holy Office on January 23, 1886, all of which must be attended to in the interpretation of this decree. Cf. Acta sanctae sedis VI, n. 433; XVIII, p. 416; XXV, p. 456.

² Holy Office, l. c.

59. Those issuing laws or decrees against the liberty or rights of the Church.

1. Those issuing are the authors of laws and decrees who possess authority of establishing laws and decrees, and who must concur in establishing them.

Therefore the prince who approves and promulgates laws, ministers, rulers of provinces and cities, deputies both to the assemblies of the empire and to the assemblies of the province, and local councilors who concur by their vote; the people, wherever laws are established by vote of the people.

2. Laws are universal and perpetual ordinances which emanate from supreme power; decrees likewise are general ordinances which emanate from competent power, e.g. from municipalities. But here do not belong mandates which are carried for particular persons or cases, nor sentences passed by judges.

3. Against the liberty or rights of the Church: these words are to be taken in the widest sense, so that they are subject to excommunication who establish laws or decrees by which any right whatever of the Church is taken away, restricted, or disturbed, such as the right of teaching, promoting to benefices, instituting public supplications outside the church building, erecting churches, benefices, pious sodalities; rights which belong to the Church as a society, such as the right of acquiring, alienating, leasing, and the immunity of the clergy from military service.

Eighth excommunication. Those recurring to the lay power for impeding letters or any acts whatever proceeding from the apostolic see or from any of its legates or delegates, and directly or indirectly prohibiting their promulgation or execution, or on account of them injuring or terrifying either the parties themselves or others.

60. a. Acts of the apostolic see are understood to be both those which immediately proceed from it itself and those which mediately come from the Roman congregations.¹

b. They incur excommunication: a. those recurring to the lay power, i.e. to those who exercise jurisdiction over citizens, such as judges and magistrates; b. those prohibiting promulgation or execution, meaning persons furnished with authority; c. those injuring, i.e. affecting with grave harm, according to some in body, according to others also in honor and goods of fortune; d. those terrifying, i.e. affecting with very grave fear the parties themselves to whom the acts of the holy see are directed, or others to whom namely the promulgation or execution of the acts has been committed.

Ninth excommunication. All falsifiers of apostolic letters, even in the form of a brief, and of supplications concerning grace or justice signed by the Roman pontiff, the vice-chancellors of the holy Roman Church, or those acting in their place, or by mandate of the same Roman pontiff; and also those falsely publishing apostolic letters, even in the form of a brief, and also those falsely signing supplications of this kind under the name of the Roman pontiff or of the vice-chancellor or of one acting in place of the aforesaid.

¹ Holy Office, January 13, 1892.

61. a. The crime of forgery committed through writings, which in past centuries with reference to pontifical letters (bulls, encyclicals, briefs) was very frequently in use, is punished by this censure.

b. They contract it: a. falsifiers, who in apostolic letters, after they have been signed, add, remove, or change something, so that the sense is changed; b. those falsely publishing either true but corrupted letters, or letters fabricated entirely; c. those falsely signing supplications, who therefore subscribe rescripts of grace or justice both with the concession (Fiat, Concessum, Placet) and with the name, as if these were from the supreme pontiff himself or from one acting in his place.

Tenth excommunication. Those absolving an accomplice in a shameful sin, even in the article of death, if another priest, although not approved for confessions, without grave infamy or scandal about to arise, can hear the confession of the dying person.¹

a. The removal of jurisdiction over one's own accomplice and the penalty of excommunication carried against one absolving his own accomplice must carefully be distinguished; for it can happen that the absolution is invalid without excommunication being incurred, and that excommunication is incurred where the absolution is valid.²

b. This censure is called reserved in a most special manner, because in the faculty of absolving from all cases and censures reserved in a special mode to the Roman pontiff, the faculty of absolving from this censure is not contained.³

c. To explain this censure, three things must be set forth: a. the notion of an accomplice; b. the notion of a shameful sin from which an accomplice priest cannot absolve with impunity; c. the action of absolving because of which excommunication is incurred.

¹ Benedict XIV, const. Sacramentum poenitentiae.

² Cf. De sacramentis^3 n. 384 ff.

³ Holy Office, June 27, 1866; therefore even to bishops the faculty of absolving "an accomplice priest" is usually conceded for only a few cases.

62. Accomplice in a shameful sin. 1. An accomplice is called one who commits the same (shameful) sin with another, whoever that person may be.

a. Hence complicity is not properly had if a priest sins with one sleeping, drunk, insane, unwilling: for the law speaks of formal complicity, for which the consent of each party into the same sin is required.

b. For incurring the case of complicity there is required complicity immediately in the shameful action itself; cooperation, however proximate, to the shameful sin of another does not suffice.

c. Therefore under the name accomplice is understood not only a woman, but also a man or boy, even if not yet pubescent, indeed also a person with whom the priest sinned before receiving priesthood;¹ for the bull says: whatever person may be the accomplice.

2. Shameful sin is understood to be any sin against the sixth precept, although it is not consummated by intercourse, provided that on the part of each it is certain, grave, and external.

a. Therefore even a shameful touch alone, or look, or dishonorable conversation constitutes a sin of complicity, provided that on the part of each it is mortal sin.²

b. It is not required that each act, as in mutual touches and conversations, but it suffices that one alone act, e.g. that one shamefully touch another and the latter consent and manifest consent externally. But he who does not resist externally is already judged to manifest consent externally.

c. Therefore a sin of complicity is not had in the following cases:

a. If only venial sins were committed, whether from smallness of matter or from imperfection of the act. But let the confessor never absolve his own accomplice even from venial sins committed in shameful matter, although he does not lack jurisdiction for this.

b. If the sins committed with respect to the external act are only venial, e.g. handling of the hand, even if in internal affection they are grave.

c. If the sins are merely internal, not manifested externally.

d. If the sins are doubtful, whether by doubt of fact or doubt of law, as if he doubts whether he sinned gravely, or whether shameful speech is comprehended by the pontifical constitution.

e. If it is not established whether the penitent himself also sinned gravely.

¹ Sacred Penitentiary, January 22, 1879.

² Holy Office, May 28, 1873.

63. Those absolving an accomplice incur excommunication:

1. If they absolve or at least simulate or feign absolving.

a. After so many declarations of the holy see it is certain that even those incur excommunication who only feign that they absolve.¹ Wherefore the contrary opinion of St. Alphonsus (n. 556) can no longer be safely taught. Since for simulation, or rather dissimulation, it is required that the penitent who judges himself to be absolved be led into error, a priest does not incur excommunication who dismisses with only a blessing a penitent who has been admonished about this matter.

b. Therefore one who only hears an accomplice in confession, but does not absolve nor feign absolving, indeed commits grave sin, because even the very hearing of confession is prohibited to an accomplice priest, but he does not incur the censure.

2. If they directly absolve, and further if the confessors themselves, either directly or indirectly, induced the penitent not to declare the sin of complicity and thus indirectly absolved.²

a. Therefore one who absolves an accomplice who does not declare the sin of complicity, even if the penitent culpably conceals it and the confessor knows this, does not incur the censure,³ provided he did not induce the accomplice to do this.

b. A confessor directly induces the penitent when he positively and explicitly warns him not to disclose the sin of complicity; he indirectly induces him when he tries to persuade the penitent that the action committed with him is not a sin or is not a grave sin, so that the penitent persuades himself that the sin is not to be declared and in fact does not declare it.⁴

c. Therefore he probably does not incur excommunication who, when the precept of confession is pressing, absolves only indirectly from the sin of complicity an accomplice unwilling to confess to another without danger of grave infamy or scandal, and at the same time admonishes him concerning the obligation of afterward confessing it to another confessor.⁵

3. If by absolving they sin gravely.

a. Since grave sin must be certain, a priest who in some perplexity of mind, likewise a priest who without advertence to the complicity absolves an accomplice, cannot be declared entangled by censure.

b. Although ignorance of censure simply vincible excuses from incurring censure, nevertheless crass ignorance does not excuse from censure. The older authors indeed excuse from censure even him who absolves an accomplice with crass ignorance, because the Benedictine constitution carries the censure against him who shall have dared to absolve; nevertheless, since the Pian constitution Apostolicae sedis strikes simply with excommunication him who absolves, the more recent authors rightly do not excuse one absolving with crass ignorance.⁶

c. One who absolves a penitent concerning whom he doubts whether he is his own accomplice does not incur censure, because he is not bound to inquire into the matter with danger to his own reputation and that of the whole priestly state.

d. Likewise one does not incur censure who absolves an accomplice by whom neither in the act of sin nor afterward he had been known as a priest, because he is not bound to manifest his own delict with defamation of himself and of the priestly state. Nevertheless, if after the sin has been perpetrated he is known as an accomplice and a priest, he contracts censure by absolving the accomplice.

e. Likewise one incurs censure by absolving an accomplice who here and now, when he absolves, does not know the priest absolving as an accomplice.

4. If they absolve outside the article of death and outside a case of most urgent necessity. Concerning the article of death it will be said below; with respect to the most urgent case, the opinion of those who teach that a priest does not incur censure who, having used epikeia in a truly most urgent case, absolves an accomplice, does not seem improbable: for it can reasonably be presumed that the legislator did not wish to comprehend even these cases in his law.

Cases of this kind are:

a. If the accomplice person cannot omit annual confession and communion, or cannot abstain long from the sacraments, without danger of grave infamy and scandal, and at the same time no other priest is present to whom he can confess.

b. If the accomplice person is in a place where the accomplice confessor is alone, but the person cannot turn aside elsewhere to seek a confessor, nor is there hope that another priest will come there, so that even in Easter time he would have to abstain from the sacraments.

5. One absolving an accomplice in the article (danger) of death incurs excommunication if another priest, although not approved, can hear the confession without some grave infamy and scandal about to arise.

Although an accomplice confessor of himself cannot absolve his own accomplice with impunity even in the article of death, nevertheless he licitly absolves him:

a. If no other priest is present or can be called, not even a simple priest.⁷

b. If another priest cannot be called without grave scandal or infamy of the accomplice priest. Nevertheless in this case the accomplice priest is bound to forestall the danger of scandal or infamy if he can, e.g. by withdrawing under some pretext. But if he omits to do this when he can, or if he invents danger where there is none, he incurs the censure by absolving.

c. If the dying person refuses to confess to another, so that sacrilegious confession is to be feared.

d. If another is unwilling to hear the confession of the dying person.

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

¹ Sacred Penitentiary, March 1, 1878. Holy Office, December 10, 1883.

² Sacred Penitentiary, February 19, 1896.

³ Sacred Penitentiary, May 16, 1877.

⁴ Sacred Penitentiary, February 19, 1896.

⁵ Marc n. 1782 thinks the absolution in this case is more probably invalid; cf. however De sacramentis^3 n. 386.

⁶ Holy Office, January 13, 1892.

⁷ There are some who say that even a suspended or excommunicated priest is to be preferred to an accomplice priest, because in the bull it is said: "when then any other priest, who can perform the office of confessor, is lacking." Others, however, more rightly gather from the same bull that only one not approved must be preferred to the accomplice in absolving the dying person, since it says: when any priest, who can perform the office of confessor, is lacking.

64. There are four excommunications carried against those who dispose of ecclesiastical goods unjustly or illicitly: a. against those usurping or sequestrating goods of ecclesiastical persons (I. 11); b. against those invading, etc., the temporal dominion of the Roman Church (I. 12); c. against those usurping goods of any benefice or pious place (II. 19); d. against those alienating ecclesiastical goods without license of the apostolic see (IV. 3).

a. Jurisdiction is understood to be both spiritual and temporal; goods are both movable and immovable, such as beneficial lands; revenues are natural and civil fruits which come from ecclesiastical goods. These constitute the matter of this excommunication insofar as they pertain to ecclesiastical persons, and indeed either by reason of the church over which they preside, or by reason of the benefice which they possess. Therefore here do not belong: a. goods of pious places, because they do not pertain to ecclesiastical persons; b. goods of monasteries, because they do not pertain to regulars by reason of a church; c. goods which by another title, e.g. of stipend, pension, pertain to ecclesiastical persons.

b. Usurpers are called those who occupy by authority, as if by right owed to themselves, a thing still existing in the power of its owner. Therefore they do not incur this censure: a. thieves and robbers;¹ b. those who buy a thing from a usurper or receive it by another title.² Sequestrators are both judges and magistrates who command sequestration, and their ministers who execute the mandate.

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

¹ Holy Office, March 9, 1870.

² Holy Office, July 8, 1874.

65. a. This censure intends to protect the temporal dominion of the apostolic see; wherefore temporal jurisdiction, and indeed supreme temporal jurisdiction, is to be understood.

b. They incur the censure: a. those who occupy or retain some temporal right of the holy see or some place of the temporal dominion; b. those who exercise supreme jurisdiction in occupied lands, of which kind are the kings of Italy, ministers of the kingdom, prefects of provinces, etc.; c. cooperators, who spontaneously, not by compulsion, concur in the aforesaid things.

Thirteenth excommunication. By excommunication of a sentence already passed, specially reserved to the Roman pontiff, are punished:

a. Dignitaries and canons of cathedral churches who shall have dared to concede and transfer the administration of the church or diocese to a bishop nominated and presented, before the exhibition of apostolic letters.

b. The bishop nominated and presented who dares to take up administration of the church without waiting for confirmation of the apostolic see.

c. All those who shall have obeyed the aforesaid persons (canons or bishop), or furnished counsel, help, favor.

66. a. When the cultural struggle had begun in Germany and the illegitimate institution of bishops was to be feared, Pius IX issued the constitution Romanus pontifex on August 28, 1873, by which he intended to protect the right of capitular vicars against intruders who had been nominated or presented by lay power to episcopal sees, lest they be established for the government of an episcopal church before they had been confirmed by the apostolic see.

b. Those marked by episcopal character (therefore also one nominated and presented to a vacant church, if he is a bishop) incur not excommunication, but suspension.

First ordinary-mode excommunication. Those teaching or defending, either publicly or privately, propositions condemned by the apostolic see under the penalty of excommunication of a sentence already passed; likewise those teaching or defending as licit the practice of asking from a penitent the name of an accomplice, as it was condemned by Benedict XIV in the constitutions Suprema, July 7, 1745; Ubi primum, June 2, 1746; Ad eradicandum, September 29, 1746.

67. a. In order that someone incur the censure of the first part, three things are required: a. that he teach or defend, either orally or in writing; b. a proposition condemned by the apostolic see, i.e. either by the supreme pontiff himself or by a congregation at the command of the supreme pontiff; c. condemned under excommunication of a sentence already passed. Therefore they do not incur this censure: a. those who hold such a condemned proposition as true, but do not teach or defend it; b. those who teach or defend a proposition condemned by an ecumenical council, by a Roman congregation, or even by the supreme pontiff, but not under the penalty of excommunication: for propositions condemned by a council are not customarily said to be condemned by the apostolic see.

b. In order that someone incur the censure of the second part, it is required: a. that he teach or defend as licit; b. the practice of asking the name of an accomplice, as it was condemned by Benedict XIV. But the condemned practice contains two things at once: to ask the name of the accomplice and to demand its revelation under penalty of denying absolution. Therefore they do not incur this censure who hold this practice licit, indeed not even those who exercise it.

Note. The propositions condemned by the apostolic see under penalty of excommunication are:

1. The 41 errors of Luther condemned by Leo X, by the constitution Exsurge Domine, May 16, 1520.

2. The 79 propositions of Michael Baius condemned by Pius V, by the constitution Ex omnibus, October 1, 1567.

3. One proposition concerning sacramental confession and absolution to be obtained by letters, condemned by Clement VIII through a decree of the Holy Office, July 20, 1602.

4. The 45 propositions condemned by Alexander VII through a decree of the Holy Office, September 24, 1665 and March 18, 1666.

5. The 65 propositions condemned by Innocent XI through a decree of the Holy Office, March 2, 1679.

6. The 68 propositions of Michael Molinos condemned by Innocent XI by the constitution Coelestis pastor, November 20, 1687.

7. Two propositions condemned by Alexander VIII, August 24, 1690.

8. The 31 propositions condemned by Alexander VIII through a decree of the Holy Office, December 7, 1690.

9. The 5 propositions concerning dueling condemned by Benedict XIV by the constitution Detestabilem, November 20, 1752.

10. The 65 propositions condemned by Pius X on July 3, 1907 through the decree Lamentabili, and also the propositions, opinions, and doctrines condemned by Pius X through the constitution Pascendi, September 8, 1907.

Second ordinary-mode excommunication. Those, at the devil's urging, laying violent hands upon clerics or monastics of either sex, except, as to reservation, the cases and persons concerning whom by law or privilege it is permitted that another bishop absolve.

68. This excommunication contains the privilege established by canon 15 of the Second Lateran Council (1139), on account of which it has customarily been called the privilege of the canon.¹

This censure differs from others in two ways: a. because it makes the striker one to be avoided, if it is certainly established that the striker has fallen into excommunication, even if he has not been denounced by name; b. because it is not of strict but of broad interpretation, both because it contains a favor granted to the clerical order, and because it is to be interpreted in that manner in which the ancient doctors were accustomed to interpret the canon of the Lateran Council; but they always interpreted it most broadly.

Four things are to be explained in order concerning this matter: a. what persons enjoy this privilege; b. what actions are punished by the censure; c. what the clause "at the devil's urging" signifies; d. who can absolve from this censure.

¹ C. Si quis suadente 29. c. 17. q. 4.

69. Persons: clerics or monastics of either sex.

1. Clerics, i.e. all who by first tonsure have been enrolled among the clergy and have not lost the privilege of the canon, therefore also excommunicated, suspended, and interdicted clerics.

There are those who affirm (St. Alphonsus n. 271) that seminarians also and boys in minor seminaries enjoy this privilege, even if they have not yet received first tonsure; nevertheless this cannot be demonstrated.

2. Monastics of either sex, under which name are comprehended:

a. Religious men, whether of solemn or simple vows, whether clerics or laymen or novices;

b. Nuns, both professed and also novices;

c. Brothers and sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis and St. Dominic, and those who are called oblates, provided they wear the religious habit and live with cloistered persons;

d. Persons living in a religious congregation approved by a bishop.

70. Actions are comprehended by this clause: violent laying-on of hands, which signifies any external and gravely sinful injury which is inflicted upon the person of a cleric not by words alone but by deeds. An injury of this kind can be inflicted in a threefold way:

1. By injury to the body: by killing, wounding, striking, throwing down, pursuing so that he falls on that account, etc.;

2. By injury to liberty: by imprisoning, by detaining in custody, even in a private place;

3. By injury to dignity: by bringing force in any way whatever, by tearing clothing, by defiling with spittle or filth, by violently stopping a carriage in which an ecclesiastical person is being carried, by taking away a hat, purse, staff, etc.

a. To incur this censure it is not required that the actions themselves be gravely sinful in themselves, but it suffices that they gravely injure clerical honor, which can happen even through actions light in themselves, by which in the moral estimation of men clerical dignity is gravely injured.

b. Whether those cooperating, namely those mandating or counseling, and those ratifying the striking of a cleric, are also punished by this censure, or only those striking in fact, is disputed.

Those who affirm use this argument: before the constitution Apostolicae sedis, this censure, not indeed by the words of the canon, but by a comprehensive interpretation of them occurring in the law itself, was extended also to cooperators and ratifiers; but the new law, which corresponds to the ancient canon, is to be extended in the same way, and this all the more because that law, as favorable to the clerical state, is of the broadest interpretation. Those who deny say thus: if the legislator had wished to comprehend cooperators also by this censure, he would have named them expressly, just as above (I. 5) he names them; therefore, because he does not mention cooperators, it is a sign that he did not wish to comprehend cooperators.

c. By a similar reason they dispute whether those not yet pubescent incur this censure. And indeed before the constitution Apostolicae sedis by statute of law they incurred it, with all consenting; now, however, several authors except them, because the legislator does not mention those not yet pubescent here; but if he had wished to comprehend them, he would have named them expressly, as a little below (II. 6) he names them. From these things it is gathered that the negative opinion is safe in practice, although theoretically the affirmative seems to be preferred.¹

¹ Cf. Lehmkuhl, Casus I. n. 999 s. n. 1042 s.

71. "At the devil's urging" signifies that, in order to incur the censure, the injurious actions must be sacrilegious and gravely sinful also interiorly, not only exteriorly, if not by injury to the body, at least by injury to honor.

Wherefore this excommunication is not incurred:

a. If the striking is done from a just cause, as if someone strikes a cleric for the sake of just defense and with due moderation; or if it is done for the sake of correction, as if a father or teacher, either by himself or through another, moderately strikes a cleric constituted in minor orders; or if someone affects a cleric, even a priest, with a just penalty for his delicts, e.g. of prison.

b. If it is done without sacrilege, as if someone is ignorant that the one whom he strikes is a cleric.

c. If it is done without grave fault, as if someone strikes a cleric without full advertence from sudden anger, or if he does it in jest.

Note. Someone is of the opinion that a cleric who has struck himself, not led by the spirit of penance but with a depraved mind, incurs excommunication; but rightly St. Alphonsus judges it probable that the canon speaks only of another striking a cleric.¹

¹ Cf. St. Alphonsus l. 7. n. 274.

72. On absolution from this censure. Although this excommunication is reserved simply to the Roman pontiff, nevertheless our constitution willed that there should remain in its vigor the faculty of absolving which belonged to bishops and regular prelates before this constitution was issued.

1. To explain this faculty, the distinction of striking into slight, grave, and enormous must be premised; this distinction is not to be understood of culpable injury, which must always be grave, even exteriorly, but of material violence or bodily injury, which can be of diverse gravity.

Slight striking is that which does not leave a trace of itself, which therefore is done with fist, palm, foot, or staff, but brings no mark and leaves no bruise of flesh and is done without the shedding of abundant blood.

Grave striking is that which indeed leaves a trace of itself, but without mutilation or grave harm, as if a tooth is knocked out, or a quantity of hair is torn out, or a quantity of blood is shed without grave injury.

Enormous striking is present if mutilation intervenes, or great wounding, or another grave injury.¹

Nevertheless it can happen that a striking which is slight by reason of the physical injury becomes grave or enormous by reason of the person who is struck, e.g. a bishop, or by reason of the circumstances, as if a priest clothed in sacred vestments is struck.²

2. Bishops by common law can absolve: a. if the striking was slight, even if public; b. if it was occult, even if enormous; c. if there is question of clerics or religious living in community, provided the striking was not enormous. But by special privileges (triennial faculties) bishops have still broader faculties.

3. Regular prelates by common law indeed have a limited faculty of absolving from this censure,³ but from privileges which have not been abrogated by the Pian constitution, they can absolve their subjects, even novices, from any striking of a cleric, even enormous and public, and even if the one struck belongs to another order or to the secular clergy.⁴

Third ordinary-mode excommunication. Those perpetrating a duel, or simply challenging to it, or accepting it, and any accomplices, or those furnishing any assistance or favor whatever, and 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, even royal or imperial.

¹ St. Alphonsus l. 7. n. 277.

² All these things are drawn from the constitution Perlectis of John XXII.

³ C. Monachi 2. C. Quum illorum 32. C. Canonica 50. De sententia excom. (V. 39).

⁴ Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri VII. n. 300.

73. Persons who incur the censure. Since it is already established in what the nature of the crime of private duel consists, which is struck by this excommunication,¹ it remains only that the persons who incur it be indicated.

1. Those perpetrating it, namely those who commit a duel, whether seconds are employed or not employed, provided it is truly and properly a duel.

2. Those challenging; and these indeed incur excommunication whether the other accepts or does not accept, whether the challenger himself determines the place, time, and weapons or leaves these to be determined by the other, whether the duel in fact follows or does not follow.

3. Those accepting; these likewise incur excommunication, even if the duel in fact does not follow: for since the censure simply affects those challenging and accepting, the challenge itself and the acceptance seriously made are struck by the censure.

a. It makes no difference from what intention or from what motive those challenging and accepting act, provided they wish to enter upon a duel; but if the challenge or acceptance is not made with the intention of entering upon a duel, but fictitiously, e.g. in order to avoid the mark of cowardice here and now, excommunication is not incurred.

b. Grave fear does not excuse those accepting a duel from incurring the censure: for when the common good demands that a penal law bind, even though grave harm must be undergone on account of its observance, fear does not excuse from the law and therefore neither from the penalty; but the common good demands that a law prohibiting duel, even insofar as it is human, not cease on account of fear of grave evil.

4. Accomplices are understood to be: a. seconds or witnesses; b. those counseling; c. those mandating, provided the counsel or mandate had a true influence upon the duel, or upon the challenge, or upon the acceptance, and the duel in fact followed.

They do not incur excommunication who accept the office of witness or second in order to induce reconciliation; who accompany the duelers to the place of combat with the sole end of preventing the duel; or, where they know that the duelers have resolved to fight even to death, in order to put an end to the combat as soon as either one has received a wound.

5. Those furnishing assistance or favor are understood to be those who in any way cooperate more proximately in the duel, provided the duel in fact follows. Wherefore they incur excommunication: those who provide a place for the duel; those who remove public guards lest they impede the duel; those who accompany the duelers and thus add courage to them; those who write or carry letters of challenge; physicians who by agreement with the duelers assist at the duel or remain in a nearby place, even with the intention of more quickly ending the fight or binding wounds;² confessors who by agreement with the duelers stand in a nearby place in order to provide their ministry to the duelers, if there should be need.³

a. Although prior constitutions extend excommunication to accomplices and cooperators even when the effect has not followed, this constitution does not seem to extend the censure to the same persons when the effect has not followed: for since it is established that the supreme pontiff wished to restrict the censures, cooperators are not to be comprehended under the censure unless they are expressly named.⁴

b. They do not incur excommunication who cooperate only remotely in the duel, as fencing masters who teach the art of swordsmanship to those about to duel, or who sell or rent weapons to them, provided they do this indiscriminately toward all by reason of their art and office; drivers who convey duelers to the place of the duel.

6. Those deliberately watching, i.e. those who purposely and openly, with the duelers aware of it, are present at the duel.

Therefore they do not incur excommunication who, passing by by chance, stop and look on from curiosity, or who watch from afar or from a hidden place, or who intervene in order to prevent the duel, nor soldiers who from mere curiosity watch comrades dueling in barracks,⁵ because all these by their presence do not increase courage for the fight.

7. Those permitting or not prohibiting are understood to be not private men, but men endowed with public authority, whether civil or military, who either positively permit the duel or, when they could, do not impede it, as princes in their territories or commanders among their soldiers.

Fourth ordinary-mode excommunication. Those giving their name 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 clandestinely, and also those furnishing any favor whatever to the same sects, and those not denouncing their hidden coryphaei and leaders, until they have denounced them.

To explain this excommunication two things must be set forth: a. what sects are prohibited under censure; b. what persons are punished by censure on account of these sects.

¹ Cf. De praeceptis^8 n. 347.

² Holy Office, May 28, 1884.

³ Holy Office, l. c.

⁴ Lehmkuhl II. n. 949.

⁵ Genicot II. n. 595.

74. Sects prohibited under censure. 1. Societies prohibited indeed under grave sin but without censure, and societies prohibited under censure, must be distinguished.¹ To prohibited societies belong:

a. Bible societies, condemned several times by the supreme pontiffs;

b. Three American societies of workers, whose names are: a. Odd Fellows (Socii singulares); b. Sons of Temperance (Filii temperantiae); c. Knights of Pythias (Equites Pythiae);²

c. The society called "Independent Order of Good Templars" (Guttempler-Orden);³

This society, founded in America in 1851, was soon propagated in the larger states of Europe, especially Norway and Switzerland. It aims especially at fighting drunkenness, but since it is wholly imbued with the spirit of Protestantism, it is prohibited to Catholics.⁴

d. Societies whose purpose is to promote the use of burning human corpses.⁵

To prohibited societies certainly belong all those which exact from their followers an oath of preserving secrecy and of rendering obedience in every way to hidden leaders. For an oath of this kind is sinful, because secrecy is promised to be preserved even when it ought to be manifested to legitimate superiors, and because obedience is implicitly promised even for illicit things. But where such an oath is not exacted, a society is not to be declared prohibited by private authority alone without consulting the holy see.

2. In order that a society be prohibited under censure, it is required that it bear a likeness to the Masonic and Carbonari sect by reason of hidden organization and by reason of its end, or that it be of the same kind, i.e.: a. that the members, united by a social bond, have hidden statutes and be governed by hidden leaders; b. that they intend to assail and overthrow the Church or the republic. Societies of this kind are:

a. The Masonic society;

Freemasons have been excommunicated several times by the Roman pontiffs. Clement XII was the first to impose a censure upon them by the constitution In eminenti, April 28, 1738; then Benedict XIV by the constitution Providas, May 18, 1751; Leo XII by the constitution Quo graviora, March 13, 1825; Pius VIII by the encyclical letters Traditi, May 24, 1829; Pius IX by the constitution Apostolicae sedis established the penalty now in force; finally Leo XIII by the encyclical letters Humanum genus, April 20, 1884, renewed the penalties of his predecessors.

To those comparing the penal law now in force with the ancient law it will immediately be clear that a twofold change was introduced by this our constitution: a. In order that societies be prohibited under censure, it is not required that they pursue their end secretly; but all are censured which plot against the Church or legitimate powers, whether openly or clandestinely. Therefore it also makes no difference whether they exact from their followers an oath of preserving secrecy or not.⁶ b. The obligation of denouncing all Freemasons and their supporters is no longer imposed under excommunication, but only of denouncing hidden coryphaei and leaders.

b. The Carbonari society;

Pius VII excommunicated the Carbonari by the constitution Ecclesiam, September 15, 1821, and Leo XII by the constitution Quo graviora, March 13, 1825.

c. The society of the Fenians;

The Holy Office declared on January 12, 1870, that this American and Irish sect was prohibited under excommunication.

d. Nihilistic and anarchistic societies.

That these sects, propagated especially in Russia, are prohibited under censure is clear from the end which they pursue.

Whether socialistic societies are prohibited under censure or simply prohibited is disputed. Some (D'Annibale, Ballerini-Palmieri) think that all societies which by their end assail the Church or the republic are subject to this censure; but others (Vermeersch, Lehmkuhl, Koch) not improbably are of the opinion that the two marks recounted above are required in order that a society be prohibited under censure, and therefore they except Bible societies, clerico-liberal societies, the neo-Protestant society of the Old Catholics, likewise communistic and socialistic societies, which others declare subject to censure. Socialists, however, who constitute rather a political faction than a seditious sect, as socialists in Belgium, do not contract excommunication. Yet those who adhere to these societies, knowing their principles and end, incur excommunication reserved to the Roman pontiff in a special mode on account of heresy.⁷

¹ Holy Office, May 10, 1884.

² Holy Office, August 20, 1894.

³ Holy Office, August 9, 1893.

⁴ Holy Office, August 17, 1899.

⁵ Holy Office, May 19, 1886.

⁶ Holy Office, May 10, 1884.

⁷ Lehmkuhl, Casus consc. I. n. 1058 s.

75. Persons who are censured on account of these sects. It is clear that one does not incur the censure unless he knows that the society is prohibited under censure, i.e. unless he knows that the society plots against the Church or the government and that societies of this kind are subject to censure.

1. Those giving their name, i.e. those who enter a sect prohibited under censure, because they constitute themselves members of it.

If someone in good faith has given his name to a sect prohibited under censure and, once the matter is discovered, does not leave it, he does not incur excommunication if meanwhile unwillingly, in order to avoid very grave evils, he remains in it until he can leave it without grave inconvenience.

2. Those furnishing favor. Favor can be furnished to these sects by many and diverse actions; nevertheless, in order that excommunication be incurred, it is required both that the favor be true or efficacious, and that the action constitute grave sin.

a. They incur excommunication who take care to propagate sects of this kind; who without grave cause make power available to them to hold meetings in their buildings; who exhort others to be aggregated to societies of this kind or to be present at their meetings; who are present at their meetings; who help the societies themselves or their members in any way whatever, e.g. by propagating papers and pamphlets written in their favor, by contributing money to them, by acting as servant in their meetings, etc.

b. They do not incur excommunication who once or again are present at their meetings for the sake of curiosity, unless from peculiar circumstances the attendance yields to the commendation of the sect; nor those who from a grave cause sell or rent a house to a condemned sect, that it may have its meetings there.¹

3. Those not denouncing hidden coryphaei and leaders.

a. This obligation of denouncing exists for all who know those leaders in any way whatever, even only from the trustworthy report of others, unless they have learned this from those who themselves have either already denounced or certainly are going to denounce.

b. By the name of coryphaeus and leader is signified not only the supreme head of the society, but anyone who exercises some power in those sects.

c. Hidden coryphaei and leaders are to be denounced; therefore the obligation of denouncing ceases where the true coryphaei and leaders are publicly known. But it does not cease if indeed the members of the sects are publicly known, but their leaders are not known; nor does it cease in those regions in which sects of this kind are tolerated by the government and their leaders cannot be punished by the ecclesiastical power.²

d. The denunciation is to be made to the ordinary of the place, and indeed, unless grave inconvenience permits delay, within a month after the obligation of denouncing has been known.

e. As to the mode of denouncing, it suffices that the names of those persons be manifested to the ordinary either by letter or through the confessor; and once the denunciation has been made, not only the reservation ceases, but also the excommunication itself.³

¹ Cf. Genicot II. n. 596.

² Holy Office, April 11, 1893.

³ Holy Office, February 1, 1871.

76. On the absolution of a Freemason. In order that one who is enrolled in the Masonic sect or another sect of the same kind may be absolved, the holy see is accustomed to require these conditions when it grants the faculty of absolving a penitent of this kind from censures:

a. That he bid farewell to the prohibited sect and break off every communication with sectaries. But if without grave inconvenience this cannot be done at once, material communication, with scandal and his own spiritual detriment excluded, is meanwhile to be permitted to him; namely, he can defer formal renunciation, persevere in paying the tax, and from a most grave cause even frequent the meetings of sectaries, until the danger of grave harm has ceased.¹

b. That he hand over to the confessor the books, manuscripts, and signs of the sect, if he retains any; the confessor will take care that these are transmitted to the ordinary as soon as possible, or, if this cannot be done, burned.

c. That he denounce the hidden leaders of the sect to the ordinary, if it can be done without grave inconvenience.

It will rarely happen that someone in good faith has given his name to the sect of Freemasons and, on account of ignorance, has not contracted the censure. Nevertheless, if a penitent occurs who, ignorant of the depraved end of the sect, in good faith gave his name to it, he must by all means be admonished concerning the law of the Church prohibiting it and concerning the obligation of bidding farewell to the sect and breaking off every communication with it, on account of the continual danger of sinning which threatens him from this communication, and on account of the scandal of others. But if in a very rare case, on account of the peculiar circumstances of the person, each inconvenience truly ceased, the admonition, which would be foreseen as harmful, could be omitted.

Fifth ordinary-mode excommunication. Those commanding the immunity of ecclesiastical asylum to be violated with rash daring, or those violating it.

¹ Holy Office, January 18, 1896.

77. a. All those commanding that an offender be extracted from ecclesiastical asylum command the immunity of asylum to be violated, once the effect of violation has followed; those violate it who in fact violently extract the guilty person from asylum. Because rash daring is required, magistrates who, being compelled, conform themselves to the prescription of law do not contract the censure, nor soldiers and other servants who only fulfill commands.

b. Although the right of asylum today is scarcely any longer recognized, nevertheless the holy see has declared that the law of asylum "as to substance" is not abrogated by contrary custom.¹ Hence this censure is scarcely ever incurred, whether on account of abrogation or on account of ignorance of the law.

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

¹ Holy Office, December 22, 1880.

78. a. The censure refers to papal enclosure, such as nuns with solemn vows have, and, from special privilege, some monasteries of simple vows. To contract the censure it is required that the enclosure be violated through entrance into the monastery without legitimate license. But those thus violating enclosure contract the censure, whoever they may be, even women and those not yet pubescent, except kings and their wives and children, and probably also infants not yet having the use of reason. License from the prescription of the Council of Trent had to be granted in writing; but since this constitution says nothing about license to be obtained in writing, it seems to some authors that license can be given even orally. Nevertheless it must be obtained on each occasion: for general license cannot be granted except to a confessor, physician, and workmen. They are said to introduce who open the door to one wishing to enter. Those receiving are said to admit who, when they could and ought, do not impede entrance, namely superioresses and doorkeepers, but not private nuns. The same must be said of those who detain or do not expel those who have entered.

b. They interpret this censure more rigorously than is proper who, admitting no smallness of matter, teach with St. Alphonsus (n. 229) that a nun who departs from enclosure, or one who enters enclosure by one step only, incurs excommunication. Pius V permits departure: a. from the cause of a great fire; b. of the infirmity of leprosy; c. of epidemic; and since these seem to be stated by way of example, in general departure will be licit in a great common danger which threatens either the life or the virtue of nuns.

Seventh ordinary-mode excommunication. Women violating the enclosure of regular men, and superiors or others admitting them.

79. With respect to nuns, the entrance of any outsiders whatever and the departure of nuns is prohibited under censure; with respect to religious men, only the entrance of others is prohibited under censure, and indeed only of women. Regulars are understood to be those who emit solemn vows, because these alone in the strict sense are called regulars and are subject to the law of enclosure. All women, even those lacking reason, after the years of puberty are understood, because it is not added, as in the preceding article, "of whatever age"; queens, however, etc., are excepted. Those admitting are not only superiors, but also subjects, such as doorkeepers, who, when they can and by office ought, do not impede women entering, or who detain those who have entered, lest they depart quickly.

Eighth ordinary-mode excommunication. Those guilty of real simony in any benefices whatever, and their accomplices.

80. The censure punishes simony of divine law, which alone in the strict sense is simony. In all benefices indeed, whether double or simple, whether greater or lesser, whether of right of patronage or of free collation, but only in benefices properly so called; offices and dignities in religious orders are not of this kind. Accomplices are those by whose cooperation the simoniacal contract is perfected.

Ninth ordinary-mode excommunication. Those guilty of confidential simony in any benefices, of whatever dignity they may be.

81. The guilty can be those giving and receiving benefices, and likewise those resigning; not indeed accomplices as in the preceding article, but nevertheless cardinals and bishops.

Tenth ordinary-mode excommunication. Those guilty of real simony on account of entrance into religion.

82. Those guilty of simony which is punished by this censure are those receiving and those giving. Entrance is properly made in profession, not in admission to the novitiate. Although even in entrance into the novitiate simony of divine law can be committed, nevertheless this is not subject to the censure. Religion is understood as such strictly, but equally a religion of men and of women.

Eleventh ordinary-mode excommunication. 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, January 2, 1569.

83. a. From the cited constitution this censure is incurred by those who are inferior to bishops; bishops were punished by suspension, which, however, is not renewed in the constitution Apostolicae sedis. He is said to make gain who, after a price has been received, makes some profit, and indeed by conceding indulgences and other spiritual graces to those paying money, likewise by publishing or commanding to be published that graces of this kind are conceded to those paying money, even if these things are done under the pretext of a good work.

b. The spiritual graces of which the cited constitution speaks are these:

a. Of choosing for oneself a confessor by whom one can be absolved even from cases reserved to the pope or bishop;

b. Celebration of Mass and ecclesiastical burial in time of interdict;

c. Use of prohibited foods;

d. Assumption of several sponsors in baptism;

e. Absolution from simony reserved to the pope.

Twelfth ordinary-mode excommunication. Those collecting alms of greater price for Masses and seeking profit from them, by causing them to be celebrated in places where Mass stipends are customarily of lesser price.

84. Explanation. a. This censure is drawn from the constitution Quanta cura of Benedict XIV (July 30, 1741), who took care to eliminate the abuse of a certain commerce concerning Mass stipends, and therefore struck clerics, and them alone, exercising such commerce, with the penalty of suspension. The censure of the Pian constitution affects both clerics and lay persons and punishes both with excommunication.

b. Several actions which contain some traffic concerning Mass stipends are prohibited by the Church, yet not all under censure; the actions prohibited under censure are: to collect and to seek profit, by causing them to be celebrated for a lesser stipend.

1. Those collecting and seeking profit.

a. Those are said to collect who deliberately try to gather Mass stipends, whether they receive many or few.

Intention properly makes the collector, not the abundance of stipends which he receives by collecting: for he who receives few collects few; he who receives many collects many. By the intention itself, therefore, he is distinguished from one who receives stipends spontaneously offered to him; nor is the latter for that reason called a collector because many are offered to him.

b. Those seeking profit are said to be those who without license retain for themselves, as their own, a part of the stipend.

a. To incur the censure it is required that the quantity which is retained suffice to constitute the grave sin of theft, and bring notable profit to him by whom it is retained; this can also coalesce from small profits.

b. Therefore they do not incur excommunication who retain for themselves part of the stipend in those cases where this can licitly be done. Likewise they do not incur excommunication, although they act illicitly, who retain part of the stipend in order to expend it for pious uses, because they do not properly take profit.

c. To incur the censure both things are required, namely, that stipends be collected and that they be given to others with profit: for the delict must be complete.

a. Therefore they indeed sin, but do not incur the censure, who receive Mass stipends from those spontaneously offering, even in greater number, and hand them over to others with profit, because they did not collect the stipends. But those incur excommunication who, while collecting, receive only a few, but hand them over to others with great profit.

b. Therefore he does not incur excommunication who indeed collects stipends with the depraved intention of making profit, but afterward, with his will changed, hands over the whole stipend to others.

2. For Masses, namely manual Masses: for the stipends of these are properly said to be collected; yet here it must be noted that founded Masses also, or Masses left by legacy, which do not adhere to some benefice, pertain to manual Masses.¹

3. By causing them to be celebrated for a lesser stipend. Formerly several interpreters were of this opinion, that to incur the censure it was required that the Masses be celebrated in another place, where stipends are customarily of lesser price; but now it is established that those also incur excommunication who cause Masses to be celebrated for a lesser price in the same place where they had collected the stipends.²

Thirteenth ordinary-mode excommunication. All who are punished with excommunication in the constitutions of St. Pius V Admonet nos, of Innocent IX Quae ab hac sede, of Clement VIII Ad romani pontificis curam, and of Alexander VII Inter ceteras, concerning the alienation and infeudation of cities and places of the holy Roman Church.

¹ S. C. C., August 22, 1874.

² Holy Office, January 15, 1892.

85. a. This censure tends to this, that the temporal dominion of the holy see be preserved unharmed; therefore one is punished by the censure who dares in any way to impel the supreme pontiff to alienate the temporal dominion or to hand it over in fief. Therefore the object of the constitution is infeudation (Lehensgebung) or alienation (Verausserung), by which namely indirect dominion is transferred to another; there is no question of abdication of temporal dominion, whether of the whole or of a part, of which at that time no one was thinking.

b. The actions which are punished by the censure are: a. to treat, counsel, or otherwise speak words concerning alienation, so that at the same time it is proposed to choose orators to be sent to the supreme pontiff about this matter; b. to suggest or advise an alienation of this kind to the supreme pontiff, whether this is done by oneself or through another.

c. Therefore they do not incur this censure: a. those who advise the supreme pontiff to renounce temporal dominion; nor b. those who propose to the supreme pontiff reconciliation with the Italian government.

d. All incur this censure, both ecclesiastics and seculars, of whatever dignity and order they may be, even cardinals, bishops, and legates, who do such things.

Fourteenth ordinary-mode excommunication. Religious presuming, outside the case of necessity, to minister to clerics or lay persons the sacrament of extreme unction and of the Eucharist by way of viaticum without the pastor's license.

86. Religious properly so called, who have emitted solemn vows; therefore not novices, nor those simply professed, whether in some congregation or in religion properly so called, except scholastics of the Society of Jesus. To clerics or lay persons; therefore they do not contract the censure if they administer the last sacraments to other religious, even of a different order, clerics or laymen, who are of their family, or to travelers staying as guests in houses of religious. Outside the case of necessity. Necessity is present if the sick person is in danger of death and the pastor cannot easily be called. Without license, at least presumed, which the pastor, if asked, is believed about to give.

Fifteenth ordinary-mode excommunication. Those extracting relics from the sacred cemeteries or catacombs of the city of Rome and its territory without legitimate permission, and those furnishing help or favor to them.

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

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

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

1178. VIII. "All fabricators or falsifiers of letters, decrees, or rescripts of the Apostolic See, or those knowingly using the same letters, decrees, or rescripts."²

² Code, c. 2360.

Here there is question of official letters, not private ones, not only of the Roman Pontiff, but also of the Roman Congregations. Moreover, these are excommunicated: (a) fabricators, namely those who fashion these documents wholly from the beginning; (b) falsifiers, that is, those who in the same documents change, add, or take away something, so that the sense is changed; but not those who correct errors or mistakes; (c) those using the same letters, and indeed knowingly, that is, with full advertence and liberty, for extorting certain advantages either for themselves or for others.