Penalties Established for Individual Delicts

I note beforehand canon 6, n. 5: As regards penalties of which no mention is made in the Code, whether they are spiritual or temporal, medicinal or, as they say, vindicative, latae or ferendae sententiae, they are to be held as abrogated.

With these things noted, we shall speak chiefly of medicinal penalties, or censures, and of those latae sententiae; the others come less into use for confessors. Therefore one must treat first of excommunications, then of interdicts, finally of suspensions.

Penalties for Immorality Decreed in Canons 2357-2359.—(a) Laymen who are guilty of certain offenses against the sixth commandment become infamous on conviction and are excluded from legitimate ecclesiastical acts. In case of adultery, the injured spouse may obtain a separation, temporary or perpetual, from the offending spouse (Canon 1129). (b) Clerics in minor orders are subject to special punishments, and may even be dismissed from the clerical state. (c) Clerics in major orders are subject to penalties named in law (e.g., suspension, infamy, deposition) for graver crimes such as concubinage, adultery, and to penalties decreed by the lawful superior for other delinquencies.

§ 1. All apostates from the Christian faith, and all and each heretic or schismatic:

1°. Incur by the fact itself excommunication;

2°. Unless, having been admonished, they return to their right mind, let them be deprived of benefice, dignity, pension, office, or other function, if they have any in the Church; let them be declared infamous; and clerics, the admonition having been repeated, are to be deposed;

3°. If they have given their name to a non-Catholic sect or publicly adhered to it, by the fact itself they are infamous, and, with the prescription of can. 188, n. 4 remaining firm, clerics, admonition having been fruitlessly sent beforehand, are to be degraded.

§ 2. Absolution from the excommunication of which in § 1, to be imparted in the forum of conscience, is reserved to the Apostolic See in a special mode. But if the delict of apostasy, heresy, or schism has been brought in any way to the external forum of the local Ordinary, even through voluntary confession, the same Ordinary, but not the Vicar General without a special mandate, after juridically performed abjuration has preceded and the other things to be observed by law have been observed, can by his ordinary authority in the external forum absolve the one returning to his right mind; but one thus absolved can then be absolved from the sin by any confessor in the forum of conscience. But abjuration is held to have been juridically performed when it is made before the local Ordinary himself or his delegate and at least two witnesses (Can. 2314).

Explanation. - The subject of this censure is threefold, namely, apostates, heretics, schismatics.

§ 2. After baptism has been received, if someone, retaining the Christian name, pertinaciously denies some truth from among those to be believed by divine and Catholic faith, or doubts concerning it, he is a heretic; if he totally withdraws from the Christian faith, an apostate; if finally he refuses to be subject to the Supreme Pontiff or refuses to communicate with the members of the Church subject to him, he is a schismatic (Can. 1325).

Therefore, whether these apostates embrace a false religion, such as Judaism, Mohammedanism, etc., or not, as free-thinkers, here they come under the name of apostates. In a similar way also one must speak of heretics. It is not required that they form some new sect.

In the second paragraph the species, as it were, of this censure is declared. Absolution of excommunication incurred for these delicts in the forum of conscience is reserved in a special mode to the Supreme Pontiff. But the Ordinary, if the delict has been brought to his forum, can by his ordinary power in the external forum absolve the one returning to his right mind; one so absolved can now be absolved from the sin by any confessor, for the censure has already been removed by the Bishop. But prior to absolution there must be juridically performed abjuration, as, for example, when it is made before the Ordinary himself or his delegate and at least two witnesses.

Schismatics are those who pertinaciously withdraw themselves from the center of the unity of the Church and therefore withdraw from communion of the faithful and from due subjection toward the Roman Pontiff.

Question. Is it licit to dedicate oneself to some association whose end is to propagate heresy everywhere?

Resp. It is not licit, by whatever title finally that sect may be called, whether Christian or by another name, evangelical religion or interconfessional religion. For the end intended by him who becomes a member does not change the nature of the act by which he associates himself. He who gives his name to this society dedicates himself by that very fact to the end of the society, whether he wishes it or not. For a society is an assembly of members conspiring toward one end, and he himself is a member. The end is intrinsically evil, and the end determines the morality of the use of indifferent things. Therefore it is not licit to dedicate oneself on account of a bodily good obtained by indifferent means. For the motive of your action does not take away the intrinsic malice conjoined with the propagation of heresy promoted by these means. Besides, what greater favor can be furnished to such an assembly than by this very association of yourself, to say nothing of the monies contributed each year by whatever members, which the ringleaders use for propagating their interconfessional religion, which, as Pius X says, "is spread with empty commendation of Christian fellowship, while nevertheless manifestly nothing is more contrary to the preaching of Jesus Christ." Const. Singulari quadam. And this must be held before the eyes, whether the question is of adolescents or of children about to dedicate themselves to an association of this kind.

One suspected of heresy who, having been admonished, does not remove the cause of suspicion, is to be prohibited from legitimate acts, and a cleric besides, the admonition having been repeated uselessly, is to be suspended from divine things; but if within six full months from the contracted penalty the one suspected of heresy has not amended himself, let him be held as a heretic, liable to the penalties of heretics (Can. 2315).

§ 1. Into an excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See in a special mode, by the fact itself, once the work has been made of public right, fall the publishers of books of apostates, heretics, and schismatics which defend apostasy, heresy, or schism; likewise those defending those same books or others prohibited by name through apostolic letters, or knowingly reading or retaining them without due license.

§ 2. Authors and publishers who, without due license, take care that books of Sacred Scriptures or their annotations or commentaries be printed, fall by the fact itself into an excommunication reserved to no one (Can. 2318).

Explanation. - In the first paragraph there are excommunicated (1) publishers, who cause certain books to be printed, namely, books of apostates, heretics, and schismatics, which defend apostasy, heresy, or schism; (2) those defending these books or others prohibited by name through apostolic letters, or (3) those knowingly reading them without due license, or (4) those retaining them. Publishers at last are excommunicated when the work has been made of public right; but if this has not occurred, the extremes required by the law for incurring the penalty are not present.

To read is to scan writing with the eyes and perceive the sense. To retain is to have books with oneself, whether one's own or another's, loaned or deposited, in one's own house or in another's. To print is proximately to cooperate in the printing of a book. To defend in any way is, whether by voice or by writing, to defend the false doctrine of the book, or to impede the book from being handed over to a superior or destroyed. Apostates or heretics or schismatics, by whatever name they are called or of whatever sect they exist. If an anonymous author defends heresy with evident pertinacity, he is held as a heretic. To defend heresy is to defend it by reasons brought forward. For this, that the whole book be prohibited, it suffices if one heresy is defended in it. Apostolic Letters are those in which the Supreme Pontiff speaks immediately, whether in the form of a Brief, or in the form of a Bull, or in any other form. By name, and indeed, according to the common opinion, under the penalty of excommunication reserved to the Pope. Knowingly: this word, placed at the beginning, affects those reading and those retaining. Therefore it must be known that the book was written by a heretic, and that heresy is defended in it; or that it has been condemned by the Apostolic See; and that reading, etc., is prohibited under penalty of excommunication reserved to the Pope. Therefore whoever, knowing these things, reads or retains the book, incurs this censure. And the same must be said of him who reads periodical publications bound in fascicles and defending heresy, as is clear from the response of the Holy Office, 13 Jan. 1892. But he does not incur the censure who scans a book with the eyes without understanding the language, or who hears another reading, or who does not read a notable part; for smallness of matter is admitted in this matter; light matter is held to be a rather long but harmless part, say three pages, but grave matter is a brief part defending heresy. Likewise free from censure are those reading newspapers defending heresy (S. Off., 2 April 1880).

In the second paragraph there are struck with an excommunication reserved to no one authors, then publishers, who take care that books of Sacred Scriptures or their annotations or commentaries be printed without due license. Author and publisher are now affected by the penalty; formerly those who print or cause to be printed were affected. Officiorum ac Munerum, n. 47.

§ 1. Catholics are subject to excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Ordinary:

1°. Who enter marriage before a non-Catholic minister against the prescription of can. 1063, § 1;

2°. Who are united in marriage with an explicit or implicit pact that all or some offspring be educated outside the Catholic Church;

3°. Who knowingly presume to offer their children to non-Catholic ministers to be baptized;

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

§ 2. Those of whom in § 1, nn. 2-4, are besides suspected of heresy (Can. 2319).

Explanation. - (1) Those are struck who act against the prescription of canon 1063, § 1, by which spouses are prohibited, even if a dispensation upon the impediment of mixed religion has been obtained from the Church, from going, either before or after marriage entered before the Church, whether by themselves or through a proxy, to a non-Catholic minister as one devoted to sacred things, for matrimonial consent to be given or renewed.

In the second paragraph there is question of those who enter marriage with an explicit or implicit pact of educating the offspring, whether all or some, outside the Church; and therefore those are struck who agree about permitting boys to be educated in the religion of the father and girls in the religion of the mother. In the third there is question of children to be handed over to some non-Catholic minister to be baptized, with knowledge and presumption.

In the fourth there is question of the penalty affixed to the delict of handing over offspring to be educated in a non-Catholic religion; and it touches parents and those who hold the place of parents.

Four delicts are struck: of giving or renewing matrimonial consent before a non-Catholic minister, whether before or after marriage entered in the face of the Church; of making a pact concerning the education of offspring outside the Catholic religion; of handing over children to a non-Catholic minister to be baptized; of handing them over so that they may be educated in a non-Catholic religion. Those committing these crimes and punished by this penalty are Catholics.

He who has cast away the consecrated species, or has carried them away or retained them for an evil end, is suspected of heresy; he incurs an excommunication latae sententiae reserved in a most special mode to the Apostolic See; he is by the fact itself infamous, and a cleric besides is to be deposed (Can. 2320).

Explanation. - This excommunication is the first from those reserved in a most special mode. The delict is a nefarious crime against the Most August Sacrament of the Eucharist: the casting away of the consecrated species, as if someone were to cast away a consecrated host in a public road or in an occult place, because he does not wish to retain it with himself, or were to throw it into a thorn-bush or into a marsh; the carrying away of the same for an evil end, or retaining them for the same evil end. - Cf. Bened. XIV, Const. Ab Augustissimo.

One not promoted to the priestly order:

1°. If he has simulated the celebration of Mass or has heard sacramental confession, he contracts by the fact itself an excommunication reserved in a special mode to the Apostolic See; and besides, if indeed a layman, let him be deprived of a pension or function, if he has any in the Church, and let him be punished by other penalties according to the gravity of the fault; but if a cleric, let him be deposed;

2°. If he has usurped other priestly functions, let him be punished by the Ordinary according to the gravity of the fault (Can. 2322).

Explanation. - How immense the sacrilege is is clear from this, that those acting thus thrust themselves into the ministry of the New Law, which is altogether prohibited to them by divine law, since they are not ministers of these mysteries; but especially from this, that by celebrating nullly and invalidly they publicly expose to the people the pure substance of bread and wine to be adored, and, although the people are ignorant, induce them, as much as lies in them, into the crime of Idolatry; and sitting in the Tribunal of Penance they miserably deceive the people, who, regarding them as judges of souls, confess their sins to men trampling upon the Sacrament of reconciliation and endowed with no authority. - Cf. C. 16, X, v, 28; Bened. XIV, Const. Sacerdos in aeternum.

He who makes false relics, or knowingly sells, distributes, or exposes them to public veneration of the faithful, contracts by the fact itself an excommunication reserved to the Ordinary (Can. 2326).

Explanation. - Therefore all who by their own action falsify relics, or prepare things which in no way are relics so that they may be held true; or knowing them to be false nevertheless sell, distribute, or publicly expose them to veneration, incur an excommunication reserved to the Ordinary. Knowingly: this word affects those selling, distributing, exposing.

Those making gain from indulgences are struck by the fact itself with an excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See (Can. 2327).

Explanation. - To understand who they are who are struck by this censure, it is necessary to know what is the gain condemned by St. Pius V in the Const. Quam plenum. Moreover, that gain is the one which is obtained by conceding, even under pretext of repairs of churches or of other pious causes, to those paying a certain sum of money, various spiritual graces, namely: Indulgences. Therefore those who concede such graces on this condition, that a certain money be paid as due for the concession, even with a view to promoting some pious work, incur the excommunication of this canon. The reason of the prohibition and censure is that such acts either contain a disguised simony or open the way to simony, or at least smell of simony and generate scandal among the faithful. - Cf. Varceno, vol. 2, p. 494. - Baller., note (d), p. 998.

As regards penalties established against delicts which can be committed in electing the Supreme Pontiff, one must stand only by the constitution of Pius X, Vacante Sede Apostolica, 25 Dec. 1904 (Can. 2330).

Explanation. - In that constitution, ch. VI, n. 79, we read: "The crime of simony, detestable by divine as well as human law, in the election of the Roman Pontiff, is established as having been altogether reproved, and we reprove and condemn it, and bind the guilty of this crime with the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae."

"Under penalty of excommunication we prohibit anyone, even if he should shine with the honor of the Cardinalate, while the Roman Pontiff is living and without his having been consulted, to presume to treat of the election of his successor, or to promise some vote, or for this cause, private little meetings having been made, to deliberate and decree anything." Ibid., n. 80. The excommunication latae sententiae from the Constitution Commissum Nobis, concerning the Veto or Exclusive, is renewed. Ibid., n. 81. "Furthermore, let Cardinals abstain from all pacts, conventions, promises, and any other obligations whatever by which they could be bound to give or not give a vote to someone or to some persons ... and those acting against this we from now bind with the penalty of excommunication." Ibid., n. 82.

All and each, of whatever status, grade, or condition, even if royal, episcopal, or cardinalitial, who appeal from the laws, decrees, mandates of the Roman Pontiff existing at the time to a Universal Council, are suspected of heresy and by the fact itself contract an excommunication reserved in a special mode to the Apostolic See; but Universities, Colleges, Chapters, or other moral persons, by whatever name they are called, likewise incur an interdict reserved in a special mode to the Apostolic See (Can. 2332).

Explanation. - In this canon there is contained the excommunication of the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, § 1, n. 4, and the interdict of the same Constitution, § 6, n. 1: the first against physical persons, the other against moral persons; each penalty is reserved in a special mode to the Supreme Pontiff. Physical persons are also suspected of heresy. All who appeal from laws, decrees, mandates of the living Supreme Pontiff to a Universal Council, of whatever status, even Kings, princes, Cardinals, Bishops, are struck with the penalty.

The delict arises from a spirit of rebellion against the Vicar of Jesus Christ and Head of the Church, injurious to the Roman Pontiff himself. The appeal must be made while the Pontiff is living; and whether it is made to a present Council or to a future one is the same, for now in the canon the word future has been omitted, which was contained in the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis. Concerning cooperators, let canons 2231 and 2209 be recalled. Excommunication is incurred by the fact itself and is reserved in a special mode to the Supreme Pontiff. And just as the aforesaid persons are punished by this excommunication, likewise Universities and other moral persons are struck with an interdict reserved in a special mode. Cf. Pius II, Const. Exsecrabilis.

Those recurring to lay power for impeding letters or any acts whatever proceeding from the Apostolic See or from its Legates, or directly or indirectly prohibiting their promulgation or execution, or on account of them injuring or terrifying either those to whom the letters or acts pertain or others, are by the fact itself subject to excommunication reserved in a special mode to the Apostolic See (Can. 2333).

Explanation. - It is clear to all that the end of this penalty is to preserve the authority and honor of the Holy See, and to apply remedies of opportune foresight, by which each one may obtain his right and the evil arts of those striving to trample justice may be met. Namely, because Letters and Acts proceeding from the Apostolic See or from its legates provide for public and private goods, hence it is that malicious men take care to impede those, lest they be promulgated or handed over to execution; wherefore they recur to lay power, directly or indirectly prohibit the promulgation and execution of letters or acts in this way, or on account of them injure and terrify those to whom they pertain or others. Cf. Innoc. VIII, Const. Officii Nostri; Pius IX, Const. Apostolicae Sedis, § 1, n. 8.

There are struck with excommunication latae sententiae reserved in a special mode to the Apostolic See:

1°. Those who issue laws, mandates, or decrees against the liberty or rights of the Church;

2°. Those who directly or indirectly impede the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, whether of the internal or external forum, by recurring for this to any lay power (Can. 2334).¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1143, n. 114.

Explanation. - In the first paragraph those issuing laws, decrees, mandates against the liberty and rights of the Church are excommunicated; the canon strikes all issuing them; against the liberty and rights of the Church, that is, against every right which belongs to the Church; hence against the liberty and right of duly celebrating Mass, of administering the Sacraments, against the liberty of Bishops in ruling a diocese, against clerics by compelling them to military service, against monasteries of religious; in a word, whatever intercepts the liberty or any right of the Church herself. Those issuing such laws, decrees, mandates are struck with excommunication; hence if a mandate were issued against the liberty and right of the Church, by which the Bishop of a diocese would be impeded in the exercise of his power, the publishers of that mandate would be excommunicated. Cf. Pius IX, Allocut. Acerbissimum; Const. Apostolicae Sedis, § 1, n. 7.

In the second paragraph there is contained the excommunication of the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, § 1, n. 6.

This censure has been established for protecting the liberty of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, whether of the internal or external forum; wherefore the following are struck with excommunication: 1°. those directly or indirectly impeding its exercise by themselves; 2°. those recurring, so that it may be impeded, to the secular forum; 3°. those procuring and issuing mandates of the secular forum to the same end.

Wherefore that particle and those recurring for this must be understood disjunctively, not copulatively, as is clear both from the text of the Bull Coenae, and from the scope of this censure, which is that all the principal actions by which the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction can be impeded should be subjected to excommunication, and from the common opinion of those who have written on this Constitution. - Cf. Baller., note (b), p. 983; Bucceroni, n. 33.

Those giving their name to the masonic sect or other associations of the same kind which machinate against the Church or legitimate civil powers contract by the fact itself an excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See (Can. 2335).

Explanation. - Here one must carefully distinguish between societies damned under censure and societies simply dishonest or evil. The former are only those which set before themselves the purpose of plotting something against the Church or legitimate civil authority, "whether they do this secretly or openly, whether they exact or do not exact from their followers an oath of preserving secrecy." - But other societies, which are called simply evil, are such either because they labor under intrinsic depravity, or by reason of dangers and other circumstances, but especially by reason of inviolable secrecy and blind obedience to be furnished to an unknown authority. Concerning each kind, something will be said here briefly.¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1124, n. 80.

Question 1. How manyfold is the subject of this censure?

Resp. The subject of this censure, as is clear to the reader, comprehends all who give their name to condemned sects.

Question 2. For some society to fall under this censure, is it required that it be condemned by name?

Resp. Negatively, for in the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, n. 246, it is read thus: "Nor are the declarations of the Holy See to be restricted only to those societies which, like the Masonic or Carbonarian sect, are found to have been condemned by name; but they must be understood to extend also to those which, although the name is omitted, nevertheless in reality are of the same kind as the Masonic or Carbonarian. 'There are various sects of men, which, although differing in name, rite, form, and origin, nevertheless, since they are contained among themselves by a certain communion of purpose and by similarity of their chief opinions, agree in reality with the sect of the Masons, which is like a certain center, whence all go out and to which all return.'" (Cited Encycl. Humanum Genus.)

Question 3. Is it licit for some priest or Bishop to condemn some society by name, or solemnly declare that it is one of the condemned societies?

Resp. Negatively, for the Fathers of the last Plenary Council, n. 255, have these things: "Furthermore, for guarding against confusion of discipline, when, with great scandal of the faithful and detriment to ecclesiastical authority, the same society is condemned in one diocese and tolerated in another, we do not will any society, as falling under one of the indicated classes, to be condemned by name before the Ordinary has referred the matter to the Commission which we now constitute for judging causes of this kind, and which will consist of all the Archbishops of these provinces. But if the society has not seemed to all to be condemned, recourse must be made to the Holy See, that a certain judgment may be received and discipline be preserved uniform in our provinces."

Question 4. Can at least a confessor refuse sacramental absolution to someone who belongs to one of the forbidden societies, relying only on his private judgment?

Resp. Affirmatively; indeed he not only can, but even must, with the principles of probabilism and the rules of prudence nevertheless being observed in the right administration of the sacraments. For the Baltimore Fathers in the Third Plenary Council speak thus under n. 247: "But if doubt should arise whether some society exists as condemned by the Holy See, abstraction having now been made from the censures of which below, by the application of either of these principles it must be resolved whether at least it is forbidden.

Namely, if a society of this kind either so enjoins secrecy to be preserved that it does not permit that secrecy to be manifested even to the authority of the Church; or if it exacts an oath or promise of blind and absolute obedience, that society, even apart from censures, will have to be counted among the forbidden societies, and those enrolled are to be deprived of sacramental absolution until by the effect itself they entirely withdraw from it, or at least seriously promise that they will withdraw at once."

Question 5. What must be said of those societies of workers which seek mutual protection in the exercise of their own art or labor?

Resp. Concerning this matter the Baltimore Fathers in the Third Plenary Council under n. 253 have these things: "Finally, here we judge it opportune to recall to the mind of the faithful the salutary admonitions which the Fathers of the preceding Plenary Council gave, under the title On Secret Societies, n. 519, concerning certain societies about whose liceity a question was sometimes raised. Having carefully weighed these, to us indeed no reason appears on account of which the prohibition of the Church against the Masonic and other occult sects should be extended to those guilds of workers which are not established to set anything before themselves other than the mutual protection and assistance of members in exercising their own art. Yet one must beware lest, under this pretext, anything be admitted which favors condemned sects; or lest workers who give their name to these societies be induced by the depraved and crafty arts of evil men to withdraw from the labor owed by them against the laws of justice, or in any other way injure the rights of those to whom they are subject. ... Those assemblies also are altogether illicit in which members are joined together in so tight a bond for mutual defense that from this there arises danger of disturbances or slaughter."

Question 6. What must be said concerning the three societies which recently were condemned among us?

Resp. Having inspected the two decrees given 20 June 1895 and 18 Jan. 1896, the following seem able to be held certainly: 1°. the three Societies called Knights of Pythias, Odd Fellows, and Sons of Temperance are not condemned under censure, but only because they are evil; 2°. this evil is intrinsic, because it arises from the rituals which are employed, from the secrecy which is required, from the dangers which are created, and from other circumstances; 3°. with four conditions enumerated in the decree given 18 Jan. 1896 intervening, namely that good faith was present, that scandal is removed, that grave temporal harm would follow from renunciation, and that there is no danger of perversion, with special consideration of the case of death, this evil seems to cease, and therefore then it can be tolerated that notice not be sent; 4°. judgment concerning the verification of the aforesaid conditions in individual cases must be made not by the confessor, but by the Apostolic Delegate; otherwise the desired uniformity would not be obtained. Cf. Amer. Eccl. Review, vol. 13, p. 67 and vol. 14, p. 361. The Supreme Pontiff conceded that, the faculties of the Apostolic Delegate remaining firm, the faculty of conceding to the faithful who are enrolled in the aforesaid societies permission to remain passively in them be extended to the individual Archbishops, to each for his respective province, with absolutely all the conditions of the decree of the 18th day of January 1896 being observed, their conscience being burdened. S. Offic., 27 June 1913.

Consult altogether those things which are held concerning dishonest societies in the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, nn. 244 and following. - Consult also the Instruction of the Sacred Roman and Universal Inquisition on the sect of Masons, in the Acts and Decrees of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, Appendix, pp. 282 and following. - Cf. Amer. Eccl. Rev., vol. 1, pp. 125 and following and pp. 179 and following.

Question 7. What must be said concerning the absolution of those who are enrolled in the masonic sect?

Resp. A priest having the faculty of absolving from this case, according to the clauses customarily placed by the Holy See, must exact these things from the penitent: 1°. that he separate himself entirely from the sect; 2°. that he abjure it at least before the confessor himself, scandal having been repaired, in that better mode in which it can be done; 3°. that he hand over to the confessor books, manuscripts, and signs relating to the sect, if he retains any, to be cautiously transmitted to the Ordinary as soon as possible, or, if grave causes prohibit this, to be burned. Besides, the Confessor must enjoin a salutary penance, with frequency of sacramental confession.

§ 2. The obligation of denunciation presses as often as someone is driven to this either by law or by a peculiar legitimate precept, or from the natural law itself on account of danger of faith or religion or some other imminent public evil (Can. 1935). Nevertheless, those not denouncing are immune from excommunication.

§ 1. Clerics who have committed a delict of which in can. 2334, 2335, besides the penalties established in the cited canons, are to be struck with the penalty of suspension or privation of the benefice itself, office, dignity, pension, or function, if perhaps they have any in the Church; but religious are to be struck with privation of office and of active and passive voice and with other penalties according to the norm of the constitutions.

§ 2. Besides, clerics and religious giving their name to the masonic sect and to other similar associations must be denounced to the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (Can. 2336).¹

§ 1. Those presuming to absolve without due faculty from an excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See in a most special or special mode incur by the fact itself an excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See.

§ 2. Those furnishing any help or favor to an excommunicated person who is vitandus in the delict on account of which he was excommunicated; likewise clerics knowingly and spontaneously communicating in divine things with the same and receiving him in divine offices, incur by the fact itself an excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See.

§ 3. Those knowingly celebrating divine things, or causing divine things to be celebrated, in interdicted places, or admitting to the celebration of divine offices forbidden by censure excommunicated, interdicted, or suspended clerics after a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, contract by the law itself an interdict from entering the church, until, at the judgment of him whose sentence they have contemned, they have congruously satisfied.

§ 4. Those who have given cause for a local interdict or for an interdict against a community or college are by the fact itself personally interdicted (Can. 2338).

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1092, n. 24.

Explanation. - In the first paragraph of Can. 2338 those are struck with an excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See who presume to absolve without faculty from an excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See either in a most special mode or in a special mode. Cf. Pius IX, Const. Apostolicae Sedis.

In the second paragraph there is question of participating in a criminal crime. He who does such things is struck with excommunication simply reserved to the Supreme Pontiff. - Cf. can. 2258, § 2; 2343. In this place the question is of an excommunicated person who is vitandus. Cf. can. 2250, § 2 and 2260, 2261. - Cf. Pius IX, Const. Apostolicae Sedis, § 2, 16, 17.

To communicate in a criminal crime is the same as to cooperate in the crime or contumacy on account of which another has been excommunicated, for instance if someone furnishes aid or favor to an excommunicated person so that he does not desist from the crime and contumacy on account of which he was excommunicated. You have an example: Titius, who gives help to someone excommunicated on account of retaining a concubine or another's thing, lest he dismiss the concubine or make restitution, is affected by this censure, because he participates in a criminal crime; otherwise if he merely greets him, speaks to him, or prays with him, because so to act is not to participate in that crime on account of which the excommunication was brought. Besides, it is required that he with whom one communicates be vitandus.

In the second part of the second paragraph two things come to be noted, namely:

1°. Each part of it is commonly understood by Authors conjunctively, or is held as necessarily connected to the other, so that the communication in divine things which is interdicted to clerics under penalty of reserved excommunication is only that by which they admit vitandi to the performance of divine offices.

2°. The censure is inflicted only on a cleric knowingly and spontaneously communicating in divine things with an excommunicated person; whence it happens that any ignorance or any grave fear excuses from incurring it, whether it was struck by threats, by force, or in another way.

In the third paragraph there is contained the interdict from entering the Church. - Cf. Pius IX, Const. Apostolicae Sedis. - Cf. Can. 2209, §§ 1-3 and 2231.

In the fourth paragraph, those are personally interdicted who have given cause for a local interdict or for an interdict against a community or college.

Those who have dared to command or compel infidels, apostates from the faith, or heretics, schismatics, or others, whether excommunicated or interdicted, to be handed over to ecclesiastical burial against the prescription of Can. 1240, § 1, contract an excommunication latae sententiae reserved to no one; but those spontaneously giving burial to the same contract an interdict from entering the church reserved to the Ordinary (Can. 2339).

Explanation. - Those commanding, who give the command by their own authority, those compelling by force or fear that infidels, apostates from the faith, heretics, schismatics, or others, whether excommunicated or interdicted, unless before death they gave signs of repentance, be handed over to ecclesiastical burial, are subject to an excommunication reserved to no one. The Parish Priest who, unwilling and compelled, hands these over to burial does not incur it; but if he does it spontaneously, he incurs an interdict from entering the Church reserved to the Ordinary, just as all those acting spontaneously incur it.

If someone, against the prescription of can. 120, has dared to drag before a lay judge some one of the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or Legates of the Apostolic See, or major Officials of the Roman Curia on account of affairs pertaining to their function, or his own Ordinary, he contracts by the fact itself an excommunication reserved in a special mode to the Apostolic See; if another Bishop, even merely titular, or an Abbot or Prelate nullius, or one from the major Superiors of religions of pontifical right, an excommunication latae sententiae simply reserved to the Apostolic See; finally, if, without having obtained permission from the Ordinary of the place, another person enjoying the privilege of forum, then a cleric indeed incurs by the fact itself suspension from office reserved to the Ordinary, but a layman is to be punished by his own Ordinary with congruous penalties according to the gravity of the fault (Can. 2341).

Explanation. - Here Canon 120 must be held before the eyes, concerning clerics to be convened in contentious and criminal causes only before an ecclesiastical judge, except cases in which due permission is had for convening them before a lay judge. Since permission of various Superiors is owed according to the dignity of clerics, likewise varied is the penalty inflicted against the delict committed against this canon: he who without permission of the Holy See has dared to drag before a lay judge a Cardinal, a Legate of the Apostolic See, or Major Officials of the Roman Curia on account of affairs pertaining to their function, or his own Ordinary, incurs an excommunication reserved in a special mode to the Apostolic See; he who drags another Bishop, even titular, an Abbot or Prelate nullius, or one from the major Superiors of religions of pontifical right, incurs an excommunication simply reserved to the Holy See; he who without permission of the Ordinary of the place drags another person having the privilege of forum, if a cleric, incurs suspension from office reserved to the Ordinary; if a layman, let him be punished by his own Ordinary. Pius IX, Apostolicae Sedis, § 1, VII.

There are struck by the fact itself with an excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See:

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; but 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;

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; and besides, religious introducing or admitting them are to be deprived of office, if they have any, and of active and passive voice;

3°. Nuns illegitimately going out from enclosure against the prescription of can. 601 (Can. 2342).

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).

Explanation. - To lay violent hands imports striking a cleric injuriously in any way, whether with hands or feet or some instrument, or at least affecting him with an injury in such a way that his person is externally touched. - Wherefore he is not subject to this excommunication who utters insulting words or only simulates or threatens a blow by some sign; on the contrary, he is subject who spits upon a cleric, tears his garment, etc. It is required for excommunication that the blow be gravely sinful, both by reason of matter or exterior force or injury, and by reason of advertence and intention. Nevertheless it must be noted that a blow, whether by reason of exterior violence or by reason of injury but not by reason of sin, is called one thing enormous, another middling or grave only, another light, so that what is light by reason of exterior action can be enormous or grave by reason of injury. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 273 and 277.

Just as there are grades of dignities, so there are grades in the penalty by which this delict is punished. He who committed it against the august person of the Roman Pontiff is bound by the bond of an excommunication reserved in a most special mode; he who against Cardinals, Bishops, Legates, incurs an excommunication reserved to the Pope in a special mode; in other cases the excommunication is reserved to the proper Ordinary. Pius IX, Apostolicae Sedis, § 11, n. 2.

Clerics: those who have been assigned to divine ministries at least through first tonsure are called clerics. - Cf. Canon 108, § 1. Religious, even laymen and novices, and all women religious enjoy this privilege.

Those usurping or detaining, by themselves or through others, goods or rights pertaining to the Roman Church are subject to excommunication latae sententiae reserved in a special mode to the Apostolic See; and if they were clerics, besides let them be deprived of dignities, benefices, offices, pensions, and declared incapable of the same (Can. 2345).

Explanation. - To usurp imports occupying by force some thing as one's own, or as if one had a right in it; to detain, that is, to have in one's power, with oneself or with others, goods and rights of the Church. Goods and rights which pertain to the Roman Church are, among other things, those which the Roman Church needs for duly performing her functions: land, places, and principal rights; all things once possessed by her are bound to her now by no lesser right, even though usurped and detained by others. As regards cooperators, see can. 2231, 2209. Pius IX, Const. Apostolicae Sedis, § 1, n. 12.

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

... He who has presumed illegitimately to alienate ecclesiastical goods, or in alienating them to furnish consent against the prescriptions of can. 534, § 1, and can. 1532: ...

3°. But if the apostolic good pleasure prescribed in the mentioned canons has knowingly been passed over, there remains besides an excommunication latae sententiae reserved to no one for all in any way guilty, whether by giving or receiving or furnishing consent (Can. 2347).

Explanation. - § 1. With the prescription of Can. 1531 remaining firm, if there is question of alienating precious things or other goods whose value exceeds the sum of thirty thousand francs or lire, or of contracting debts and obligations beyond the indicated sum, let the contract lack force, unless apostolic good pleasure has preceded (Can. 534).

If this good pleasure has knowingly been passed over, then indeed excommunication enters against the aforesaid; alienation designates all pacts by which dominion is transferred; those giving are struck, those receiving, those furnishing consent.

The Constitution Ambitiosae of Paul II, 1467, prohibits alienation of all ecclesiastical things and goods, and every pact by which dominion over them is transferred, concession, hypothec, leasing and hiring beyond three years, as also infeudation or emphyteutic contract, except in cases expressed by law and with evident utility of the Churches, and concerning fruits which, by being preserved, cannot be preserved according to the exigency of the present time, ... to be made. Then it establishes thus: "If anyone against the series of this our prohibition should presume to alienate anything concerning the same goods and things, let alienation, hypothec, concession, leasing, hiring, and infeudation of this kind be of no force or moment whatever. And both he who alienates and he who receives the aforesaid alienated things and goods incurs the sentence of excommunication." - Finally, it prescribes that alienation of these goods never be made without the Roman Pontiff having been consulted.

§ 1. Those procuring abortion, the mother not excepted, incur, the effect having followed, an excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Ordinary; and if they are clerics, besides let them be deposed (Can. 2350).¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1139, n. 99.

Explanation. - Sixtus V, in the Bull Effraenatam, issued 29 Oct. 1588, subjected to all temporal penalties by which homicides are struck in civil and canon law, § 1, "all who, by themselves or through interposed persons, have procured abortion, or the ejection of an immature fetus, whether animated or inanimate, formed or unformed, by blows, poisons, medicines, potions, burdens and labors imposed upon a pregnant woman, and also by other unknown or especially contrived means, so that in reality abortion has followed from it." Then, beyond the aforesaid temporal penalties, he fined with excommunication to be incurred by the fact itself and reserved to the Apostolic See, § 7, "all and each ... men or women ... who, as principals or as associates, have knowingly given aid, counsel, favor, a potion, or other medicines of any kind whatever for committing such a crime, and also by writing private letters or notes or by other words or signs have helped or counseled." - But Gregory XIV, Const. Sedes Apostolica, 31 May 1591, moderated the Sixtine Constitution under a twofold head; namely, he removed excommunication for abortion of an inanimate fetus, but willed that absolution from excommunication for abortion of an animated fetus be reserved only to Bishops. - But Pius IX, by his Constitution confirming the episcopal reservation of this case, omitted in the censure the distinction of animated and inanimate fetus, and for the enumeration made by Sixtus of those who would incur excommunication, he substituted these few words: those procuring abortion, the effect having followed. - For greater clarity of the matter, however, three things must here be examined: one which regards the object, and two which touch the subject of this censure. Wherefore the following are set down.

Question 1. Whether a craniotomic operation can be called the matter of this censure?

Resp. Negatively, because it is not procurement of abortion; indeed it is also probable, saving a better judgment, that extraction of the fetus in a case of extrauterine pregnancy is not procurement of abortion, because this, otherwise than that, is the ejection of an immature fetus from the womb of the mother.

Question 2. Who are procurers?

Resp. Procurers are principal agents who physically, immediately, by themselves and in their own name, or morally through others, procure abortion.

"All, both men and women, who hereafter by themselves or through interposed persons have procured abortion, or the ejection of an immature fetus, whether animated or even inanimate, formed or unformed, by blows, poisons, medicines, potions, burdens and labors imposed upon a pregnant woman, and also by other unknown or especially contrived means, so that in reality abortion has followed from it." Sixtus V, Const. Effraenatam.

Question 3. Is a mother procuring abortion for herself subject to excommunication?

Resp. Affirmatively. The mother is no longer excepted.

The delict is supposed as explained by Sixtus V, and consummated by the effect having followed, and indeed in such a way that the very ejection of the fetus, or the abortion itself, is the effect of the procurement by the various means employed - which must be carefully noted. - Cf. Pius IX, Const. Apostolicae Sedis, § 3, n. 2.

Question 4. Are others also subject to excommunication?

Resp. Affirmatively, according to the canon often cited, 2231: If several have concurred in perpetrating a delict, although only one is named in the law, those also of whom in Can. 2209, §§ 1-3, are held, unless the law has expressly provided otherwise, by the same penalty; but the others not likewise.

§ 1. Those who by common design of offending physically concur together in a delict are all held guilty in the same way, unless the adjuncts increase or diminish the culpability of someone.

§ 2. In a delict which by its nature demands an accomplice, each party is culpable in the same way, unless from the adjuncts something else appears.

§ 3. Not only the one commanding, who is the principal author of the delict, but also those who induce toward the consummation of the delict or concur toward this in any way, contract no lesser imputability, other things being equal, than the executor of the delict himself, if the delict would not have been committed without their work (Can. 2209).

Wherefore all co-delinquents are struck with excommunication who, by common design, physically accomplish the thing, for example, the physician and others without whose aid and cooperation the abortion would not have followed.

§ 1. With the prescription of can. 1240, § 1, n. 4, being observed, those perpetrating a duel, or simply provoking to it or accepting it, or furnishing any work or favor, as also those who deliberately watch it and permit it or, as much as is in them, do not prohibit it, of whatever dignity they may be, are by the fact itself subject to excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See.

§ 2. But the duelers themselves and those who are called their seconds are besides by the fact itself infamous (Can. 2351).

Explanation. - All perpetrating a duel, or simply provoking to it, namely even when the effect has not followed, or accepting it, are affected by this censure primarily; but secondarily all accomplices, whoever furnish favor or work, and therefore also a physician who assists at a duel with the intention of imposing a quicker end on the fight, or simply of binding wounds, if nevertheless this last is done by agreement. - Formerly it could be doubted whether all spectators were subjected to excommunication, but by this present censure it is clearly indicated that only those are subject who deliberately watch. - Cf. Bucceroni, nn. 52 and following.

At least probably he is not affected by excommunication who, with the intention of not fighting, and when the fight has not followed, nevertheless for the sake of empty honor or by any motive whatsoever accepted a duel or provoked another, for the censure is inflicted on account of formal, but not on account of material, provocation or acceptance, that is, on account of provocation and acceptance which refer to a true, not a fictitious, duel. Yet certainly he who acts in this way sins most gravely by reason of scandal, or also by the danger to which he exposes himself. But if a true, that is, formal acceptance or provocation has preceded, excommunication is most certainly incurred, even if the fight has not been carried into effect, or the duel by agreement ought to have ceased after only the first shedding of blood. This is clear from Const. Detestabilem, § 6, Bened. XIV, and Const. Illius Vicis, Clem. VIII. - Cf. Baller., note (d), p. 992. Students of the universities of Germany who commit a duel in that manner in which in these times it is accustomed to be done among them contract this censure. - Cf. Resp. S. C. Concilii, 9 Aug. 1890.¹

All, shining even with any dignity, who in any way compel either a man to embrace the clerical state, or a man or woman to enter religion or to emit religious profession, whether solemn or simple, whether perpetual or temporary, are struck by the fact itself with excommunication reserved to no one (Can. 2352).

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1140, n. 100.

Explanation. - Coercion toward the clerical state, not toward priesthood only, is the delict which is punished here together with coercion toward the religious state, not only toward the regular state; and just as coercion toward embracing the clerical state can be done even if it is only toward minor orders, so also coercion toward any religion, or coercion toward any profession. Coercion in either case is understood with respect to persons who are fit for embracing the states: with respect to men for clerical life, with respect to men and women for religious life; as regards religion, there is considered coercion either toward entrance into the state or toward profession, and toward religion with solemn, or perpetual, or temporary vows.

Since it is a nefarious crime unjustly to take away the life of a man, at all times various punishments have been established by laws against homicides, many of which, commemorated in the Seraphic Doctor Bonaventure, I shall here set forth.

From the Council of Elvira it is found cited by Martin of Braga cap. 78.: If anyone shall have committed homicide willingly, let him ever lie at the doors of the Catholic Church, and receive communion at the end of his life; but if he shall have committed homicide not willingly, but by some accident, the first canon ordered him to do penance seven years, the second canon enjoined five: Thus relates the Holy Doctor in the Confessionale, cap. 3. part 13.

He also found part fourteen, from dist. 4.: Who, heedless out of regard for discipline, kills by striking, let him be deposed, extra de homicid. presbyterorum. And it speaks of priests.

From the Council of Lerida dist. 50. it is enjoined that Clerics, in a besieged city, where there was no necessity, killing an assailant, be deprived for two years both of office and of the communion of the Body of Christ, meanwhile assigned to fastings, prayers, vigils, and almsgiving, and finally be restored to communion; yet so that they be not promoted to the former offices. But if there were an unavoidable necessity of fighting, it would be imputed to them in nothing, dist. 50. Quia te, which, it says, is true as to sin, but as to caution it is a good thing to regret it, as extra de homicidio, cap. 2. in the Roman Penitential.

He who kills a brigand, where he could have seized him without killing, for forty days shall not enter the Church, and clothed in a hair garment, from the foods and drinks which are interdicted, and from bed, and sword, and riding, he shall abstain for those days aforesaid. But on the third and fifth feria, and on the Sabbath, let him use some kind of legumes, herbs, fruits, and little fish with moderate beer, temperately.

If a Priest has done the same, let him not be deposed; nevertheless, as long as he lives, let him do penance.

PART fifteen relates the penance of a matricide can. 33. quaest. 2. from Pope Nicholas. For one year, barred from entering the Church, he shall lie at its doors, praying. After a year he may enter the Church, but not communicate. Three years completed, let him be admitted to communion, but let him not offer the oblations until after the course of seven more years. In all these years let him abstain from meat, nor let him presume to drink wine, except on feast days and Sundays, and from Easter until Pentecost; and wherever he wishes to go, let him be conveyed by no vehicle. Let him fast until vespers three days in the week. If before the course of three years he draws near to death, let him be given the Viaticum. More mildly, however, it commands that things be done, if he show signs of great penitence.

PART sixteen relates the tearful letter of Pope Stephen V to Astulphus the wife-slayer, upon whom he imposes entrance into a monastery under the rigid discipline of the monks. But if he wish to do his penance in the world, it imposes most severe penances: perpetual abstinence from flesh, and wine, and cider; fasting on bread and water; and let him live in vigils and prayers: See him, and in this manner let you wither away.^{1 1} N. Editor's note: the print/OCR reads 'Eum vide, et hoc etimen exhotresces'; 'etimen' and 'exhotresces' are corrupt (perhaps 'et hoc modo exhortare' or 'exaresces' — 'by this means you will win him over / harden him not'); rendered tentatively from context of encouraging penitential perseverance.

PART seventeen sets forth the penances due to a parricide and a filicide, whom Alexander III condemns to perpetual penance, most severe, within the precincts of the Monastery.

PART forty-one relates the penance enjoined on him who killed a priest, which is of 12 years, extra de poenit. et remiss. from the C. Moguntin, and moreover, once convicted, let him lack marriage and the belt of knighthood until death.

But CAPITULUM five of the Confessionale part. 37. sets forth the irregularities and depositions due to Cleric homicides.

He who shall have committed homicide without just cause, is not dispensed with in this. If the cause be of justice, he is not dispensed with in this either, so that he might be promoted; but if he has been promoted, in those orders themselves he can be dispensed with by the Pope, dist. 51. l. 1. Aliquantos. Otherwise, if he shall have committed homicide spontaneously, let him be deposed without hope of recovery and dispensation, dist. 50. Clerici. And C. si quis viduam. If by avoidable necessity, similarly he cannot ascend to the higher orders, but in the orders received he can be dispensed with, although it is not easily dispensed, even by the Pope; if by unavoidable necessity, the counsel is given that a homicide not minister, even in the orders received, dist. 50. De his clericis; yet he is not deposed, but is tolerated in his order by law without dispensation, according to the Letter and Raymundus, extra de homic. cap. 2. and according to Bernardus in the apparatus, upon that chapter extra, Cod. sicut dignum. If he has killed by accident with fault and negligence, he shall cease in perpetuity from the order received, dist. 50. Hi qui arborem, and extra eod. Presbyterum. Yet the Bishop can dispense in the minor orders, and in the subdiaconate already received, extra eod. continebatur. If he be a Deacon or Priest, it belongs to the Pope, that in those orders he either minister or be promoted to them, as in the said C. continetur, and C. Later praesentium. According to Raymundus, however, the Bishop cannot dispense, dist. 50. Miror, which some understand indiscriminately both of the voluntary and of the casual; others, of the voluntary homicide. This is Raymundus. If without fault and negligence, he will be able to minister in the order received, and be promoted to the greater orders, extra eod. Litteris significastis, cap. Dilectus, cap. ex litteris. And some say that he need not be dispensed by them, as appears in the said chapters. But it is safer and more secure that at least the Bishop dispense him by them, dist. 50. Clerico. This the Holy Bonaventure relates.

From what has been said above, you have that it is false, in the time of D. Bonaventure and D. Thomas, that one who kills with the moderamen of blameless self-defense was irregular, as Valentia thinks, quaest. 8. punct. 4., which he thinks is gathered from D. Thomas, quaest. 64. art. 4. ad 3. Sylvester v. homicid. 1. quaest. 9. dict. 4. Matulius l. 1. de irregularitate, cap. 48. num. 9., who cite the chapter de his clericis, 1. dist. 50.*

TRULY D. Bonaventure asserts the opposite above, and so held the Gloss on cap. si quis viduam, v. Defensionis, and on C. sicut dignum, same title.

But that chapter De his clericis gives only counsel, as the Holy Bonaventure notes; the law nevertheless neither deposes nor commands, as Raymundus expounds, and it is found extra de homicid. cap. 2. and according to Bernardus on C. Extra, same place, sicut dignum, and Fagundez also notes it, l. 5. cap. 3. num. 3.*

FINALLY the Council of Elvira can. 50. decrees: If any woman, set afire by fury and zeal, shall have beaten her maidservant with whips, so that within the third day she expire with torment, since it is uncertain whether she killed her willingly or by accident: if willingly, after 7 years; if by accident, after the times of years, lawful penance having been performed, it has pleased that she be admitted to communion. But if within the appointed times she shall have fallen ill, let her receive communion. Thus relates the Holy Bonaventure in the Confessionale cap. 3. part 13.