The Nature of an Ecclesiastical Censure

The subject capable of censure is only a baptized man, a wayfarer, capable of reason and subject to him who imposes the censure.

13. A baptized man, both because the Church has no jurisdiction over those who are not baptized, and because only the baptized enjoy the spiritual goods of which they are deprived by censures.

Therefore the Church can impose censures neither upon infidels and Jews nor upon catechumens, but indeed upon heretics and schismatics, who by reason of baptism are subject to her jurisdiction.

14. A wayfarer: for the Church does not have jurisdiction over the dead.

But if sometimes the dead are excommunicated, they are not properly condemned by judicial sentence; rather, for striking terror into the faithful, the Church only declares that in life they incurred censure because of their delicts and must be treated as censured, i.e. that they must be deprived of the suffrages of the Church and of ecclesiastical burial, and, if already buried in a blessed place, must be exhumed. In like manner, if the dead are absolved from censure, the Church only removes the prohibition by which they could not participate in the common suffrages of the faithful nor be given ecclesiastical burial.¹

¹ The rite of absolving an excommunicated dead person is had in the Roman Ritual, tit. III, c. 4.

15. Capable of reason: for since censure supposes sin, indeed also contumacy, it cannot be imposed upon those who cannot yet sin.

The question is whether those who indeed have the use of reason, but are still impubescent, can be bound by censure. Although the impubescent are of themselves capable of censure, nevertheless from the common opinion of doctors these things must be held:

a. The impubescent, by the will of the Church, do not incur censures of a sentence already passed unless this is expressed in law.¹ Wherefore the impubescent incur only one censure also, because this is expressly established in law, namely because of entrance into a monastery of nuns.²

b. With respect to censures of a sentence to be passed, by positive law indeed it is not prohibited that the impubescent be bound by them; nevertheless the age of the impubescent does not seem sufficient for them suitably to be censured: for the impubescent, as the Salmanticenses well observe (n. 168), are more suitably corrected with rods than with censures.

¹ C. Pueris 1 and C. Referente 2. De delictis puerorum (V. 23).

² Council of Trent, sess. 25, c. 5, De reg. In the old law there is another excommunication which even the impubescent incurred, namely that carried against those violently laying hands upon clerics (C. Super 1. C. Mulieres 6. C. Pueris 60. De sententia excommunicationis [V. 39]). But several doubt whether in the recent law this same thing avails (cf. n. 70).

16. A subject: for there is no jurisdiction over one who is not a subject. Therefore:

a. The supreme pontiff alone cannot be bound by censure, because he has no superior on earth, and he cannot bind himself. But all the faithful can be bound by censures by the supreme pontiff, and all diocesans by the bishop.

a. Although all the faithful can incur pontifical censures, nevertheless bishops and cardinals from a privilege of law do not incur suspension and interdict to be incurred by the very fact, unless special mention is made of them;¹ but bishops and cardinals are also subject to papal excommunication, unless they are specially excepted.

b. Although all subject to the bishop incur episcopal censures, nevertheless kings and queens by a privilege introduced through custom cannot be struck by censures by bishops, even if in other respects they are subject to the bishop's power, both legislative and judicial.

b. Strangers, or subjects of another, do not incur episcopal censures to be incurred by the very fact, unless the matter concerns censures attached to those laws which even strangers are bound to observe;² nevertheless strangers, or subjects of another, can be punished by a bishop with censures carried by a particular precept if they have committed a delict in his territory: for by reason of the delict they become his subjects.

a. Therefore a stranger who commits a delict to which an episcopal censure is attached does not incur the censure, because a bishop cannot bind another's subject, even one delinquent in his diocese, by censures carried by way of general sentence and therefore before the delict, and to be incurred by the very fact. The same must be said of one who commits in a place exempt from the diocese, e.g. in a monastery, a delict to which an episcopal censure is attached. Nevertheless, one who has once been bound by censure remains bound by it, even if he goes into other regions: for censure follows him as the shadow the body and leprosy the leper.

b. Since a stranger by the statute of law obtains the forum of the delict, both because there where the delict was perpetrated the author and quantity of the crime are more easily known, and because restoration of the injured order is better obtained there where the violation was made, by reason of the delict a stranger becomes the subject of the bishop of the place in which he committed the delict.

c. Exempt regulars do not incur episcopal censures, nor can they be bound by censure by bishops except in those matters in which jurisdiction over regulars has been conceded to bishops by law. In this case bishops act as delegates of the apostolic see.

d. One delinquent outside the diocese does not incur a censure carried by general statute, because this statute affects only the territory; but he incurs a censure carried by special precept for guarding against some crime, as if a bishop, under penalty of suspension of a sentence already passed, prohibits a cleric from entrance into a tavern, but the cleric enters a tavern outside the diocese.

Several authors indeed deny that a cleric in this case incurs censure, whose opinion St. Alphonsus (n. 23) calls probable; but, as Ballerini after Laymann notes, a particular precept, as clinging to the bones, obliges even outside the diocese; wherefore the opinion denying it seems to lack true probability.³

e. One delinquent within, but existing outside, the diocese can be bound by censure by the bishop; thus a bishop can suspend a parish priest who flees after a delict has been committed.

Citation indeed, since it imports judicial noise, cannot be made in another diocese; nevertheless one absent can be cited by letters and, having been cited, must appear; but if he does not appear, he can be excommunicated.

¹ C. Quia periculosum 4. De sentent. excommun. (V. 11) in 6°.

² Cf. De principiis n. 149.

³ Ballerini-Palmieri VII, n. 71.

17. Whether the subject of censure can be an entire community, e.g. a university, monastery, chapter, city.

a. Interdict can be imposed upon a whole community, although there are several innocent persons in it; for by interdict the innocent are not properly punished, but the Church for just causes withdraws her benefits from both the guilty and the innocent.

b. Suspension can be imposed upon a whole community, although there are several innocent persons in it, because suspension does not affect the innocent except with respect to acts which belong to the whole community as such, such as the election of superiors.

c. Excommunication cannot be imposed upon a whole community, but only upon those who are found culpable: for since in a community several persons are accustomed to be either altogether innocent or less guilty than others, it would be too harsh if all were affected by the same penalty.¹

¹ C. Romana ecclesia 5. De sententia excommun. (V. 11) in 6°.

18. Nothing prevents someone from being bound at the same time by several censures of the same species, and likewise from being loosed from one while he remains bound by another.

a. No one doubts that someone can be bound by several censures of diverse species, e.g. excommunication and suspension; but they have doubted whether someone can be bound by several censures of the same species. For since censure consists in the privation of spiritual goods, if someone by force of one censure has already been deprived of goods, he cannot by another censure again or more greatly be deprived of the same goods. But formally censure is not so much privation as the cause inducing privation; but nothing prevents the same privation from existing from several titles and causes, just as several mortal sins deprive of the same sanctifying grace.¹

b. There is an axiom in law: as many transgressions, so many penalties.² Therefore one who commits two crimes distinct in species, to each of which a distinct excommunication is attached, as, for example, one who commits heresy and reads a book prohibited under censure, incurs a twofold excommunication. One who commits two crimes distinct in number, e.g. commits a duel twice, incurs the same censure twice. One who commits a crime by which two penal laws diverse in species are violated at the same time incurs a twofold censure; for example, one who kills a priest in a church incurs the censure laid upon personal sacrilege and upon local sacrilege. One who commits several and diverse crimes prohibited by the same penal law incurs the censure several times; thus one who reads, retains, prints, and defends a book prohibited under excommunication is excommunicated from a fourfold head, because all four actions are prohibited by the same penal law.

¹ Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri VII, n. 78.

² C. Ea, quae 1. De poenis (V. 37).

WE here understand by a censure a spiritual and remedial penalty by which a baptized and contumacious delinquent is deprived by ecclesiastical authority of the use of certain spiritual advantages. It differs from other penalties, such as degradation, which are also spiritual and inflicted by the Church, in that a censure has in view the correction and amendment of the delinquent, while other penalties have chiefly in view the common good to be procured by the punishment and repression of crime. The Church has jurisdiction only over those who are baptized, and she punishes by censures only those of her children who have done wrong with their eyes open, with knowledge of the wrongfulness of their action and of the spiritual censure by which the Church punishes it.

A censure does not and cannot deprive a man of all the spiritual advantages which he may possess. There are some spiritual gifts in man’s possession which depend only on his personal relations with God, such as sanctifying grace, and the supernatural virtues and gifts which accompany it. These may adorn the soul of one who is not baptized, and they are not possessed by all members of the Church. There are, however, other spiritual privileges which a Christian enjoys through membership with the Church of God. Among these theologians distinguish those that are internal, external, and mixed. Internal comprise the special providence and helps which God grants to the members of his Church because they belong to his Spouse who is continually interceding for them. External are the society and special charity which binds the members of the Church to each other. Mixed are the participation in the same sacraments and sacrifice, the common suffrages, satisfactions, indulgences, children of the Church in communion with her enjoy. According to the common opinion, excommunication deprives the delinquent of all these privileges, it puts him outside the communion of the faithful, and consequently leaves him without the benefits of union.. The other two censures, suspension and interdict, deprive him at least of some of those benefits, as of their nature they are limited in their effect. There are, however, some theologians who with Suarez deny that a censure deprives a man of the merely internal advantages which membership with the Church confers.

With reference to the effects produced by them, censures are of three kinds: excommunication, suspension, and interdict. With reference to the manner in which they are inflicted, they are said to be a jure, or ab homine. The former are imposed by a stable and permanent law, the latter by way of particular precept or sentence. Sometimes a censure is incurred by the very fact of committing a crime, without any declaratory sentence of a judge; it is then said to be latae sententiae. Sometimes it needs the intervention of a judge, and is said to be ferendae sententiae.

Certain conditions must be fulfilled in order that a censure may be incurred:

(a) As it is a serious penalty, and a serious penalty can only be inflicted for a grave fault, a censure can only be incurred by one who has committed a mortal sin.

(b) ‘The Church does not judge of what is merely internal, and so the fault which is punished by censure must be grave externally as well as internally. A slight blow given to a cleric, which does not constitute a serious injury, does not involve excommunication incurred by those who violate the privilege of the canon, even though the act were accompanied with mortal hatred.

(c) Penalties must be interpreted strictly, and therefore the crime which is punished by censures must be completed, not merely attempted.

(d) Inasmuch as a censure is remedial and inflicted on the delinquent for his correction and amendment, it cannot be incurred for a crime which is altogether past, and which has left no traces behind it. Sometimes suspension or interdict may be inflicted in punishment of such crimes, but then they are inflicted for a definite period, or for ever, and become pure penalties, not censures, (e) ‘There must be contumacy in order that a censure may be incurred, or, in other words, the delinquent must be conscious at the time that he is committing a crime which is punished by the Church by censure. It follows from this: that a censure cannot be inflicted ab homine by a particular sentence without previous admonition, and this should ordinarily be in writing so as to be capable of proof. In censures inflicted a jure or ab homine by a general precept which is of the nature of a law, no special admonition is required, as the law itself is a sufficient admonition. Nor is an admonition necessary when suspension or interdict are inflicted by way of mere penalty (Can. 2242).

It is of faith that the Church has the power of inflicting censures. It is contained in the general power of binding and loosing granted to the Church by her divine Founder. This power is exercised by all ecclesiastical prelates who have jurisdiction in the external forum, unless their authority has been restricted. The Pope and a general council have jurisdiction over the whole Church, and they can bind all the faithful by their laws and censures. A bishop can inflict censures on his subjects, as can regular prelates on theirs.

A parish priest has no jurisdiction in the external forum, and cannot as such impose censures, nor can laymen, nor women.

A bishop cannot lawfully exercise contentious jurisdiction outside his diocese, and consequently he cannot inflict censures outside his diocese when the case requires a judicial process. If the case does not require any judicial process, he may impose a censure on a guilty subject even when he is outside his diocese.

A bishop within his diocese may punish with censure a subject who is now outside the diocese on account of a crime which was committed within the diocese, and even on account of a crime which has been committed outside if it had reference to the diocese. And so a parish priest who is absent from the diocese and refuses to come to synod, or who is taking too long a holiday, may be punished by censure. The more probable opinion holds that a subject who violates a precept imposed under censure while he is outside the diocese incurs the censure, though St Alphonsus admits that the opposite is probable. The jurisdiction of superiors over regulars is personal, and these certainly incur censures imposed on them wherever they may be at the time when it is imposed. Regulars belonging to mendicant orders and members of the Society of Jesus have a special privilege granted by the Holy See, by which they cannot be put under censure by any bishop, even when they do wrong in matters in which their general exemption is of no avail, and in which they are subject to the bishop. In three cases, however, these religious may be punished by episcopal censure, notwithstanding their special privilege. Gregory XV permitted this in case they preach in churches not their own without the bishop’s licence, or in their own without asking for his blessing, or against his command; Innocent X added to this the case of disobedience with reference to hearing confessions; and Urban VIII added the case of hanging sacred pictures painted in an unusual or scandalous manner.

In order to incur a censure, the delinquent must be subject to the authority which imposes it. Strangers, therefore, do not incur the particular censures which bind in the place where they are staying for a short time. If strangers, however, violate some provision of the common law which for such violation imposes a censure ferendae sententiae, the bishop of the place may inflict this on them, Even when they offend in other matters, the local ordinary may punish them by other penalties, and if they prove contumacious, they may be put under censure by him.

A censure latae sententiae is multiplied: (1) If different crimes of which each is punished by censure are committed by the same or distinct actions.

(2) If the same crime punished by censure is often repeated so that there are several distinct crimes.

(3) If a crime punished by different censures by distinct superiors is committed once or several times (Can. 2244).

Grave fear and ignorance prevent contumacy, and therefore hinder one who commits a crime under their influence from incurring any censure by which such crime is punished. Grave fear, however, does not excuse from censures inflicted for crimes which produce contempt for the faith, or for ecclesiastical authority, or public harm to souls (Can. 2229, sec. 3, iii). If, however, the ignorance be crass or supine, it will not excuse from grave sin or contumacy, and so the censure will be incurred. But if the censure is inflicted on those who knowingly, rashly, with rash daring, or presumption, commit a crime, full knowledge is required in order to incur the censure, but merely affected ignorance will not prevent its being incurred (Can. 2229).

I. Notion. Censure is a penalty by which a baptized man, delinquent and contumacious, is deprived of certain spiritual goods or goods annexed to spiritual things, until, withdrawing from contumacy, he is absolved (canon 2241, § 1). It is said:

1. Baptized, because the Church lacks jurisdiction over the non-baptized; against heretics and schismatics she can issue censures.

2. Delinquent and contumacious; these things will be explained more fully under II.

3. Until, withdrawing from contumacy, he is absolved. Namely, censure is a medicinal penalty, and therefore primarily intends the amendment of the guilty person; hence as soon as the delinquent withdraws from contumacy, he must be absolved (St. Alphonsus VII, 1).

Note. Censures, especially those latae sententiae, and most of all excommunication, are not to be inflicted except soberly and with great circumspection (canon 2241, § 2), "since, as the Council of Trent says,¹ experience teaches that if it is struck rashly or for light matters, it is rather despised than feared, and produces ruin rather than salvation."

II. A fuller exposition of the notion will show what things are required on the part both of the delict and of the delinquent, so that the penalty of censure may be decreed; and what things are required so that the delinquent may be absolved.

1. Requisites on the part of the delict. By censure there is punished only an external delict (n. 846), grave (n. 858), consummated (n. 858; St. Alphonsus VII, 31-34, 36; canon 2242, § 1). Note that a grave delict is required not only as to the external act, but also as to the internal act, so that whatever excuses from mortal sin also excuses from censure (n. 858), at least in the internal forum, because in the external forum malice is presumed.

2. The requisite on the part of the delinquent is contumacy (cited canon). Moreover:

a) If there is question of censures ferendae sententiae, one is contumacious who, notwithstanding the warnings mentioned in canon 2233, § 2 (n. 859), does not desist from the delict or refuses to do penance for the perpetrated delict with due reparation of damages and scandal (canon 2242, § 2).²

b) But to incur a censure latae sententiae, transgression of the law or precept to which the penalty latae sententiae is annexed suffices, unless the guilty person is excused from it by a legitimate cause (cited canon). It is disputed whether, in a case in which there is question of a censure which is not incurred unless the effect has followed, a transgression morally persisting until the effect has followed is required, so that the censure is not contracted by him who repents of the transgression before the effect. St. Alphonsus (VII, 40) and others affirm this, because a censure does not seem to be contracted by one who, at the moment at which according to the law it is contracted, is already no longer contumacious.

Note. Censure can also be issued against unknown delinquents (canon 2242, § 1), provided, however, that they are somehow determined; as happens, for example, in establishing censures latae sententiae. But a censure issued against an uncertain or indeterminate person would be invalid, for example: "I excommunicate one of the three authors of this crime."

3. The requisite for a delinquent to be absolved is that contumacy has ceased. Moreover, contumacy must be said to have ceased when the guilty person has truly repented of the committed delict and at the same time has given congruous satisfaction for damages and scandal, or at least has seriously promised it; but to judge whether the repentance is true, the satisfaction congruous, or the promise of the same serious or not, belongs to him from whom absolution from the censure is sought (canon 2242, § 3). Therefore the one absolving can sometimes require cautions, so that he may be certain of the serious conversion of the penitent.

Question. When does censure produce its effect, and to what extent is appeal or recourse admitted concerning a censure inflicted or threatened?

Response 1. Censures inflicted by judicial sentence carry execution with them as soon as they have been issued, and from them there is no appeal except in devolutive effect; likewise from censures inflicted in the manner of a precept there is recourse, but in devolutive effect only³ (canon 2243, § 1).

Response 2. But appeal or recourse from a judicial sentence or precept threatening censures, even censures latae sententiae not yet contracted, suspends neither the sentence or precept nor the censures, if there is question of a matter in which law does not admit appeal or recourse even with suspensive effect; otherwise it suspends the censures, the obligation of observing what is commanded by the sentence or precept nevertheless remaining firm, unless the guilty person has lodged appeal or recourse not only from the penalty, but also from the sentence or precept itself (canon 2243, § 2).

III. Multiplication of censure. Since by several titles someone can be deprived of the same good, "not only diverse censures, but even a censure of the same species, can be multiplied in the same subject" (canon 2244, § 1). Moreover, according to the adage, as many penalties as delicts, the Code establishes:

1. A censure latae sententiae is multiplied: 1° if diverse delicts, each of which carries a censure with it, are committed by the same or by distinct action (p. 716, IV, 1, 1°); 2° if the same delict, punished with a censure, is repeated several times, so that there are several distinct delicts (p. 716, IV, 1, 2°); 3° if a delict, punished with diverse censures by distinct Superiors, is committed once or several times (canon 2244, § 2, 1°, 2°, 3°).

2. A censure ab homine (inflicted) is multiplied if several precepts, or several sentences, or several distinct parts of the same precept or sentence, each inflicts its own censure (canon 2244, § 3).

IV. Division. Censure, as was said of penalty in general (n. 853), is determinate or indeterminate, latae or ferendae sententiae, a iure or ab homine. Besides, censures are divided:

1. By reason of the deprivation of goods, into excommunication, suspension, and interdict; concerning these separately below.

2. By reason of the power of remitting, some are reserved, others non-reserved (canon 2245, § 1). We shall speak specifically of reservation.

¹ Session 25, chapter 3.

² An unknown delinquent must be warned by edict before a censure is inflicted, according to the norm of canon 1724, compared with canon 1720, 1 and 2 (cf. also canon 1717, 3).

³ Recourse extends more broadly than appeal, since the former can be extrajudicial, but the latter cannot in present Law.

I. Notion of reservation. Reservation of censure is its evocation to the judgment of the Superior; therefore it limits the inferior's power of absolving (canon 893, §§ 1 and 2).

II. Power of reserving. Those same persons can reserve censures who can issue them (cited canon). Nevertheless, "if a censure is reserved to the Apostolic See, the Ordinary cannot issue another censure reserved to himself for the same delict" (canon 2247, § 1). In addition, canon 2246, § 1, admonishes: "Let no censure be reserved unless with attention to the peculiar gravity of the delicts and to the necessity of providing more suitably for ecclesiastical discipline and of healing the consciences of the faithful."

III. Reserved censures. 1. A censure ab homine (inflicted)¹ is reserved, and indeed to him who inflicted the censure or issued the sentence, or to his competent superior, or successor, or delegate (canon 2245, § 2).

2. Censures latae sententiae, established by law or by precept, are reserved if this is expressly said in the law or precept (canon 2245, § 4). Moreover, among censures reserved by law, some are reserved to the Ordinary, others to the Apostolic See (canon 2245, § 2). Among those reserved to the Apostolic See, some are reserved simply, others in a special manner, others in a most special manner (canon 2245, § 3).

IV. Interpretation of reservation. Reservation receives strict interpretation (canon 2246, § 2). Therefore reservation is not had in doubt whether the requisites are present so that it must be applied.

V. Effect of reservation of censure with respect to sin. Reservation of a censure impeding reception of the sacraments (n. 864) imports the reservation of the sin to which the censure is annexed (canon 2246, § 3). But a sin of this kind is said to be reserved by reason of the censure, not by reason of itself; hence, "if someone is excused from the censure or has been absolved from it, the reservation of the sin ceases entirely" (cited canon).

VI. Limits of reservation. Reservation of a censure in a particular territory does not exert its force outside the boundaries of that territory, even if the censured person goes out of the territory to obtain absolution; but a censure ab homine is reserved everywhere, so that the censured person can nowhere be absolved without the due faculties (canon 2247, § 2).

¹ Inflicted; for a censure latae sententiae added to a particular precept is indeed ab homine, but is not always reserved, as is said under III, 2.

What is censure? It is a medicinal spiritual penalty by which a baptized man, delinquent and contumacious, is deprived by ecclesiastical power of the use of certain spiritual goods. Penalty: i.e., chiefly of the external forum. Therefore only those can impose censure who have jurisdiction in the external forum. Spiritual: because it consists in a certain removal of spiritual goods; it is from spiritual or ecclesiastical power; for a spiritual good; and obliging in conscience. Medicinal: for it is properly imposed for this end, as a medicine for preventing sins not yet admitted and curing those admitted, namely so that one may not sin, and if he has sinned may return to better fruit. C. Cum medicinalis 1, de Sent. exc., in VI.

Hence, in order that a censure truly be imposed by way of censure, and not generally by way of penalty, it is necessary that it not be imposed in perpetuity, nor at the discretion of the one imposing it, but it must be imposed simply, so that as soon as the guilty person has amended himself he can be absolved; for when the disease ceases, the medicine ceases. Baptized man: for one who has not been baptized is not subject to the power of the Church. But he must be capable of reason and a subject: for one who is incapable of fault is not liable to penalty; and the power of jurisdiction, of which censure is an act, is exercised only upon subjects.

He must also be some determinate person, and not a moral person, which can indeed be deprived of the rights by which it enjoys, but cannot be struck with penalties and censures so that it may repent, since it has only a moral existence. Yet the individual persons of a moral body can be punished with censures. Cf. Schmalzgrueber, n. 44-46. But Cardinals and Bishops are not liable to censures issued by the law itself unless they are expressly included, except for excommunication; likewise those not yet pubescent, except in the case of violation of the enclosure of nuns. C. Apostolicae Sedis. But by a special privilege legitimately introduced in the course of time, kings and queens cannot be bound by censure except by the Pope. By ecclesiastical power: for a penalty cannot be imposed except by one having power, and spiritual penalty pertains to spiritual power.

Of the use of certain spiritual goods: therefore censures do not take away the goods themselves, nor power or rights to them, but only the use of them from the guilty person, until he has returned to better fruit. C. Ex litteris 11, de Const. But it deprives him of the use of those goods which are in the power of the Church, such as public prayers, administration of the sacraments, offering of sacrifice, ecclesiastical burial, etc. Therefore it does not deprive him of merely internal goods, e.g., the sacramental character, the power of order, nor of proper and private goods, e.g., faith, hope, charity, etc. And if sometimes it deprives him of human intercourse, this is done only secondarily. E.M.

What is the division of censures? According to the various goods of whose use censure deprives one, it is threefold, namely excommunication, suspension, and interdict. Excommunication and interdict touch all; suspension touches only clerics. Excommunication has the force only of censure, or medicinal penalty. Therefore it cannot be imposed upon a moral person. C. Romana 5, de Sent. exc., in VI; Suarez, disp. 18, sec. 2, n. 3. But suspension and interdict can be imposed also by way of mere penalty, or in vindication of fault, and by way of mere privation, which holds even without fault, and therefore both the guilty and the innocent. Hence suspension and interdict can be imposed for a merely past delict which has no successive continuance, without any preceding threat or warning, without any expressed cause, in perpetuity, or for a determinate time, or at the good pleasure of the one who imposed it. Likewise they can be imposed upon moral persons, e.g., a chapter, a city, etc., and with respect to the innocent they have the nature of mere privation. Violation of a censure imposed by way of censure brings irregularity if a cleric violates it by exercising an order; not likewise one imposed by way of penalty, unless something else has been specially provided by law.

Some censures are issued by law; others by man. The former are imposed by way of law, the latter by way of mandate or sentence. An example of the former kind is the censures contained in the constitution Apostolicae Sedis, and the censures contained in episcopal statutes. An example of the latter is if a Bishop, without judicial process, issues a mandate, or if a judge, after judicial process has been instituted, issues a sentence against an abductor, that he restore the abducted person to liberty within three days, otherwise he incurs excommunication. Suarez, disp. 3, sec. 1, n. 2. A censure issued by law still perseveres after the death of the author; not likewise one issued by man. Yet one who incurs the latter is held by it everywhere until he is absolved from it. Episcopal censures issued in synod are held as censures by way of law and, when the Bishop has died, they endure; but those issued outside synod are held as censures by way of simple statute, and when the Bishop has died, they cease. L. 6.

Likewise some censures are latae sententiae; others are ferendae sententiae. They are latae sententiae if they are established as to be incurred by the very fact by which someone acts against the law. They are ferendae sententiae if they are to be inflicted by the sentence of a judge. Therefore censures are ferendae sententiae if the words of the law require the ministry of a judge, or the action of another, for incurring the censure, e.g., if it is said: it is prescribed under penalty of excommunication; he will be excommunicated, etc. But they are latae sententiae if the words of the law do not include a condemnatory sentence, or at least a declaratory sentence of the crime, e.g., one doing such things is by that very fact, by the law itself, excommunicated.

What is required on the part of sin for incurring censures? It is required that it be mortal, for censure is a very grave penalty which consequently presupposes mortal fault. Hence they must be imposed soberly and with great circumspection. Council of Trent, sess. 25, chap. 3, de Ref.; Benedict XIV, De Synodo, book 10, chap. 2. Therefore, unless there is question of some light censure, or at least one for a brief time, which is imposed because of light fault, censures of excommunication, suspension, and interdict, as they are ordinarily imposed, can in no way be imposed for light faults. L. 30; Schmalzgrueber, book 5, title 39, n. 59; Suarez, disp. 4, sec. 6, n. 12; Lugo, De Iustitia et Iure, disp. 16, n. 61; Lessius, book 2, chap. 12, n. 54; Sanchez, in Decal., book 7, chap. 21, nn. 28, 29.

The sin must be external; for the Church judges in the external forum, to which censures pertain, not in the internal forum. Not only must the sin be exterior, but also grave in the nature of the external act. Therefore one who is excused from grave fault either as regards the internal act or at least as regards the external act is also excused from censure. It must be a sin consummated by deed, because penal laws are of strict interpretation. Namely, the sin must be complete in its own genus according to the proper meaning of the words which are contained in the precept or law. Schmalzgrueber, l.c., n. 64. It is required that the sin not be merely past, because censure is a medicinal penalty, which therefore cannot be imposed on those who have already returned to better fruit. Merely past; for if a past delict, such as theft, detraction, etc., has a successive continuance, censure can be imposed because of it, once it has first been denounced to the guilty person, unless he obeys the mandate to restore what was taken away, to repair reputation, etc., within a definite time. Merely past: namely, if the censure is truly imposed by way of censure, or medicinal penalty, and not by way of mere vindictive penalty. Therefore a superior who wishes to punish some sin with censure must first threaten this censure. L. 54. Finally contumacy is required. For by censures contumacy against the law of the Church is punished, and indeed against the Church threatening censure to the contumacious. C. Pia 1, de Except., in VI; C. Statuimus 3, de Sent. exc., in VI. Contumacy is from despising; hence it is contempt of censure. Therefore for incurring censure it is necessary that the censure first have already been imposed, either by way of general law, or by particular precept at least denounced as to be incurred unless the precept is obeyed. Hence if someone withdraws from contumacy before he actually incurs the censure to be incurred once the effect has followed, he by no means incurs it afterwards when the effect follows. Withdraws from contumacy, namely by confession, or sorrow, or retraction of the will, and in the way in which he can he tries to impede the effect, although the revocation cannot become known to him to whom perhaps he gave the command or counsel. L. 31, 39, 40; book 7, nn. 368, 373; book 6, n. 600.

Is warning required beforehand for incurring censure? R. Affirmatively. The reason is that censure is imposed because of actual contumacy and disobedience. But one who has not been warned by the one imposing the censure is not rebellious and disobedient to him. Therefore. Hence among the doctors it is commonly received that a censure with no warning at all first given is regularly null. Now as regards a censure issued by law by way of law, or issued by man by way of mandate, the law itself and the mandate itself warn. Yet if the delict is occult, for declaring a censure incurred, citation of the guilty person is certainly needed; otherwise the sentence will be null and void. But if the censure is not contained in a law or mandate, then it is necessary to threaten it, or it is necessary to warn the guilty person, and indeed a threefold warning is needed, although this does not pertain to validity; or one for three, with the space of at least two days observed between them, or between this and the sentence the space of at least six days. But warning must be made to the guilty person before witnesses, and it is customarily and must be done in writing, but it is valid by living voice. Although a censure imposed without writing is valid, nevertheless, because this is grave, if it has been imposed orally, it is presumed to be penalty rather than censure.

If the censure has already been threatened by law, if indeed there is question of a censure ferendae sententiae, whether a new warning is needed is disputed: some affirm it, and it is more equitable, because censures of this kind are for the most part unknown; others deny it, and it is more probable, because the law itself warns sufficiently. C. Reprehensibilis 26, de Appellationib., etc.; C. Cum medicinalis 1, de Sent. excomm., in VI; L. 22, 51, 65, 317; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 21, a. 3.

Who can impose censures? By ordinary law, every and only ecclesiastical superior having ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the external or contentious forum can impose censure, whether ordinary or delegated, namely the Pope and a General Council with respect to all the faithful; Cardinals in the churches of their titles; Primates and Archbishops, both in their own dioceses and in the dioceses of suffragans during the time of visitation, and also when there is question of a case brought to their tribunal, because then they have jurisdiction over the suffragans; Bishops in their dioceses, provided they have been elected and confirmed, although not consecrated; Legates of the Apostolic See in the provinces of their legation; Vicars General of Bishops, for they constitute one tribunal with the Bishops themselves; the Chapter, when the see is vacant and before the election of the Capitular Vicar, who afterwards enjoys such power exclusively; abbots, generals, provincials, rectors, conventual priors, guardians, etc., of religious orders with respect to religious subject to themselves; and all those to whom that power is specially committed by delegation from the aforesaid persons.

Therefore by common law both lay persons and all women, even abbesses, are excluded from this power, both ordinary and delegated. Likewise parish priests, since they do not have ordinary jurisdiction in the external forum, but only administration for the right ordering of the parish, do not have this faculty. As regards delegated power, this ceases with the death of the one delegating, when there is question of a case of justice, unless the case has already been begun by the delegate at least through citation. But one delegated to impose censures cannot subdelegate another, unless he has had express permission from the one delegating, or unless he is delegated at least for any causes whatsoever, or by the Roman Pontiff. CC. Perniciosa 1, Cum ab Ecclesiarum 3, Pastoralis 11, sec. Praeterea, Conquerente 16, Grave gerimus 19, de Off. iud. ord.; C. Cum Episcopus 7, e.t., in VI; C. Transmissam 15, de Elect.; C. Si pro debilitate, de Off. Deleg.; CC. Cum in Ecclesiis 10, His quae 11, de Maior. et obed.; C. Ea quae final, de Statu Monach.; C. Quaerenti 20, de Verbor. signific.; C. Cum medicinalis 1, de Sent. exc., in VI; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 22, aa. 1, 2; Schmalzgrueber, nn. 3, 12-21, 40; Engel, nn. 12-15; Pichler, Ius Canonicum, book 5, title 39, nn. 4, 5; Lugo, Resp. Mor., book 6, disp. 6; E.M.

What is required so that an ecclesiastical superior can impose censures? It is required: 1. That he be possessed of reason; indeed that he have the intention of binding him against whom he imposes the censure. The reason is that to impose censure is an act of jurisdiction, which has its whole force from the interior will. 2. That he have jurisdiction free as regards its use. Hence an excommunicated, suspended, heretical, or schismatic Bishop cannot impose censures; the same is to be said of his vicar. Yet an occult heretic or excommunicated person validly imposes censures, although illicitly, because for the public good, unless he is to be avoided, the Church preserves jurisdiction for him. Indeed there are not lacking those, and it seems today the common opinion, who hold that even one publicly excommunicated validly imposes censures if he has not been denounced by name, or if he is not a public striker of a cleric from the Extravagant of Martin V, Ad evitanda, where it is sanctioned that a tolerated excommunicated person is not to be avoided in those things which pertain to public office, nor even by those who know this. L. 12; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 22, a. 3. 3. That the one imposing censure act freely, not under compulsion. But whether a censure imposed from grave fear is valid, some deny, others more truly affirm: because an act done from grave fear is of itself valid unless it is invalidated by special positive law. But a censure imposed from fear is not invalidated by positive law. Therefore. Schmalzgrueber, n. 23; L. 12; E.M.

Can a Bishop impose censures if he is outside the diocese? R. Negatively. For no one can exercise contentious jurisdiction in another's territory. Yet the following cases are excepted: 1. If the censure is imposed not by way of sentence, but by way of precept or statute, for preventing future crimes. 2. If the censure is imposed by way of sentence which nevertheless does not need cognizance of the case and judicial commotion, either because the contumacy is manifest, or because the case has already been known in his own territory. If it needs judicial commotion, it is necessary that permission be given by the Ordinary of the place and that the parties consent; for no one unwilling can be drawn outside his own territory. 3. If the Bishop has been unjustly expelled from his own territory, for then permission sought from the Ordinary of the place suffices, although not obtained. C. Novit 7, de Off. leg.; Clementine, single chapter, de For. comp.

Can a Bishop existing in his own diocese impose censure on a subject existing outside the diocese? A Bishop, existing in his own diocese, can bind by censures through sentence a subject existing in another diocese, both for a crime committed in his own diocese and also if the subject commits a delict outside the diocese, but there is question of a matter which is in it, as if clerics who do not come to the synod are excommunicated. Nor indeed does it stand in the way that citation cannot be made outside the territory; for then it suffices that the guilty person be cited in his own house or in a public place. Likewise if a Bishop by special precept prohibited some delict to someone under censure, the absent person incurs this censure. For the precept is personal. Therefore, since a subject outside the territory is bound by the precept, he is also bound by the censure. Thus St. Alphonsus, n. 23, who calls the denying opinion probable when someone commits a delict outside the territory of the one administering law, and adds: But it is certain from C. Ut animarum 2, de Const., in VI, that if the Bishop has previously given no precept to the subject under penalty of censure, he cannot punish him with censure if he commits a delict in another diocese. And the same must be said if he commits a delict in an exempt place, because in that place he remains as if he were in a place outside the diocese, from C. Cum Episcopus 7, de Off. ord., in VI; C. Volentes 1, de Priv., ibid.; Clementine Archiepiscopo 2, e.t.

Through sentence or special precept: for if the prohibition has been made by territorial statute, a censure imposed on delinquents does not affect one existing outside the territory of the one establishing the censure, as is expressly decided in C. Ut animarum 2, de Const., in VI. But regular prelates can bind their subjects with censures in whatever place they exist, because their jurisdiction is more personal than territorial. L. 20; Engel, n. 31; La Croix, book 7, n. 28; Pichler, Ius Canonicum, book 7, title 39, n. 6.

Can a Bishop bind by censure another's subject committing a delict in his diocese? Pilgrims probably, according to Lugo and others, do not incur censures issued by the special law of some place; for they are exempt from the very obligation of observing the laws of that place. But if there is question of censures issued by man through sentence, they can indeed be bound by censures by the Bishop of the place after they have committed a delict in that place by violating common law, and not only the law of his diocese, and after the Bishop has cited them, yet only if that common law prescribes or prohibits something under excommunication and other penalties to be inflicted by an ecclesiastical judge; for then by reason of the delict the pilgrim obtains the forum of the Bishop of that place in which he committed the delict. But if the Bishop himself by his own authority threatens excommunication against one violating the common law, e.g., stealing, not restoring, etc., the excommunication is null. For the immediate delict because of which excommunication is imposed is the contumacy and disobedience of a subject disobeying the Bishop who prohibits theft or prescribes restitution under censure. But the Bishop can neither command a pilgrim who is not a subject, nor consequently impose a special sentence on him as one not subject. Yet others, with Engel and La Croix, contradict this opinion, because just as laws can be imposed by which pilgrims are bound, e.g., concerning not carrying arms, so censure can be added to those laws, and such a pilgrim by reason of the delict becomes subject to such a Bishop. Hence at least he can, as an inhabitant and stranger, be restrained by censures by the office of the judge, C. final, de For. comp. La Croix, book 7, n. 32; Engel, nn. 35, 112; Schmalzgrueber, nn. 47-48; L. 19, 26, 27; book 6, n. 591; Lugo, Resp. Mor., book 6, disp. 22; Laymann, chap. 4, nn. 5, 6.

Can Bishops impose censures on regulars? R. Affirmatively, if they are not exempt; for then they are subject to episcopal laws and censures in plainly the same way as other clerics. Moreover, if they have the Bishop as their proper prelate, they can be bound by censures by him just as other regulars by their proper superiors. Sanchez, in Decal., book 6, chap. 1, n. 11; Schmalzgrueber, book 3, title 35, nn. 61, 62.

Affirmatively, if they are exempt and commit a delict concerning those things in which, by force of canons and Constitutions, they are subject to the jurisdiction of Bishops. And in such a case Bishops proceed not by ordinary but by delegated power. S.C.C., February 17, 1632; Benedict XIV, De Synodo, book 9, chap. 16, n. 5; book 7, chap. 41, n. 5; Barbosa, De Off. et Potest. Episc., part 3, alleg. 105, n. 14 ff. Negatively, if the discussion concerns those regulars who in this matter enjoy special exemption. For a twofold exemption of regulars, or immunity from the censures of Bishops, must be distinguished. The first proceeds from this, that regulars in certain things are exempt from the jurisdiction of Ordinaries, and therefore as regards these things they cannot be punished either by censures or by other penalties. Yet since in other things they are subject to Bishops, when they commit delicts in these matters they can be punished by them, even by censures. But the other proceeds from this, that certain regulars enjoy a special privilege, namely Mendicants and Religious of the Society of Jesus, so that they cannot be punished by Bishops with censures, although they can be punished with other penalties if they commit delicts in those very things in which they are subject to the Ordinaries of places. The case from the constitution Inscrutabili of Gregory XV is excepted, namely "if in churches of others, which are not of their orders, without the license of the Bishop; and in their own churches or those of their orders, without having sought his blessing, or while he contradicts, they presume to preach." Innocent X, Brief Cum sicut accepimus, May 14, 1653, declaring another case in the cited constitution Inscrutabili of Gregory XV, added a case, namely that of hearing confessions. A third case must also be added concerning the form and habit of sacred images from the constitution Sacramenta of Urban VIII, March 15, 1642.

Does ignorance excuse from incurring censure? Invincible ignorance, whether of fact, of law, or of penalty, i.e., of the censure attached, excuses from incurring it. For contumacy is lacking. Here forgetfulness and inadvertence operate the same as ignorance. Ignorance that is vincible and lightly culpable, or even gravely culpable if it is not crass or supine, also excuses from incurring censure; otherwise if it is crass and supine, from C. final, de Const., in VI, where it is said, "we do not wish the ignorant to be bound, when nevertheless their ignorance has not been crass or supine." But whether there is truly given gravely culpable ignorance which nevertheless is not crass or supine is disputed. Commonly they deny it; yet many affirm it, because for crass ignorance a certain highest negligence is required, and negligence can be gravely culpable although it is not the highest.

A fortiori affected ignorance, whether of fact, of law, or of penalty, does not excuse from incurring censure. Vincible ignorance that is gravely culpable, whether it is crass or supine, or, probably, even affected, excuses from incurring censure if in the Decree there is a clause: whoever does this knowingly, deliberately, rashly; whoever has presumed to do this, etc. For one who acts with ignorance of whatever kind surely does not act knowingly. And indeed, from the Holy Office, January 12, 1870, by these words, by rash daring, or from presumption, etc., it is signified that someone committed a delict not while compelled or ignorant, but prudently and knowingly; and moreover it ought not to be wondered that one devoid of every excuse is subject to censure. L. 43-45, 48.

Does grave fear excuse from censure? R. Affirmatively, unless nevertheless observance of the law is necessary for preserving the public good, or violation of it yields to contempt of faith, or of law, or of ecclesiastical power. The reason for the response is that one who commits a delict from fear sins rather from weakness of nature than from contumacy. The reason for the exception is that in the aforesaid cases the obligation even of human law does not cease.

Does an appeal legitimately interposed excuse from censure? R. Affirmatively, namely if it was interposed before the sentence, or after it indeed had been issued, but while the day from which, or the condition under which, it was issued, is pending. Likewise it ceases if, while the day or condition is pending, one ceases to be superior and the other ceases to be subject. But if the censure has already been issued absolutely, appeal does not suspend it, whence canonists say that the appeal is devolutive, not suspensive. Yet recourse to the Holy See is always given against its injustice. L. 63-65; Suarez, disp. 3, sec. 4, n. 10 ff.; sec. 5, n. 2; sec. 15, n. 18 ff.; Lugo, Resp. Mor., book 2, disp. 6.

Is one to be judged to have incurred censure who doubts whether he has incurred it? In a doubt of fact and in a doubt about the existence of the law, one is excused from incurring censure; not likewise in a doubt about the justice of the law, namely whether the censure is just. The first reason is that in doubt the condition of the possessor is better. But one who doubts whether by his act he has incurred censure possesses the right of using spiritual goods. Therefore he is not to be deprived of his right. Therefore. The second reason is that favors are to be enlarged and odious things restricted. Therefore a law inducing a doubtful penalty is to be taken in the more benign part; for penalty is odious. Therefore. The third reason is that in a doubt of justice, presumption favors the superior. When someone doubts whether he has been absolved from a censure which he incurred, in the external forum judgment must be made in favor of the censure, or bond, from C. Sicut 39, de Sent. exc., and therefore absolution must be sought. Likewise in the internal forum absolution must be sought, lest perhaps one become deprived of the goods of the Church. Lugo, De Poenit., disp. 20, n. 18; Sanchez, in Decal., book 1, chap. 10, nn. 55, 56; St. Thomas, Quodlibet 4, a. 14; L. 32, 39, 67, 68.

Is one bound by censure who knows it to be manifestly unjust? One is not bound by censure who knows it to be certainly unjust, whether because of a false presumption of fact, or because legal forms were omitted, or because the limits of jurisdiction were exceeded. Therefore he is not bound to observe it publicly, except by reason of scandal, if this is present. L. 68; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 21, a. 4; Laymann, chap. 6, nn. 2-4; Schmalzgrueber, nn. 89-94; Engel, nn. 103-113; Lugo, De Iustitia et Iure, disp. 37, n. 188.

Can someone be bound by several censures at the same time? Because of one and the same delict only one censure is incurred out of several perhaps imposed by one and the same legislator, namely that by which the others are eminently comprehended. Thus, e.g., those usurping goods pertaining to ecclesiastical persons by reason of their churches are bound only by the excommunication reserved to the Roman Pontiff, and not also by the Tridentine excommunication. Because of one and the same delict someone can indeed incur several censures imposed by different legislators, by the Bishop of the benefice and by the Bishop of domicile, by the Roman Pontiff and by the Ordinary of the place; e.g., if clerics violating the enclosure of nuns are punished by suspension in an episcopal Statute, they would also be liable to the excommunication simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff through the constitution Apostolicae Sedis. Because of the same delict repeated, and because of diverse delicts, someone can incur several censures, namely the same one several times, and several diverse ones, of the same or of a different nature. And here it must be noted that if the censure is reserved to the Pontiff, through this reservation the faculty of reserving the same censure to themselves then seems to have been taken away from inferior Prelates.

What is to be said generally about absolution from censures? "Absolution signifies an act of justice in which some case, or judgment, is terminated in favor of the guilty person.... But dispensation is an act of grace or mercy... by which something is relaxed from the common law in favor of someone." Thesaurus, De Poenis, part 1, chap. 20. For releasing a censure, absolution imparted by a legitimate judge or superior is necessary; and if the guilty person has ceased from his contumacy, justice itself requires that he be absolved from the censure.

And a censure cannot be released in another way, although satisfaction has already been made, if it was owed, and amendment has followed, except for censures imposed for a definite time: for when that has ended, they cease; and those which were imposed at the good pleasure of the one imposing them also cease when he has died, or when his right has been dissolved. This is established from C. Qua fronte 25, de Appell.; C. Ex litteris 11, de Const.; C. Cum desideres 15, de Sent. exc.; C. Relatum 37, ibid.; proposition 44 condemned by Alexander VII; L. 122. Absolution of this kind can be given by an ecclesiastical superior, or by his delegate, even if he is not a priest. And although the penalties of censure are especially of the external forum, absolution from them can nevertheless be given in the internal forum of conscience, as long as they have not been brought to the external forum; this is established by common doctrine and practice.

Absolution from censures, as removing an impediment, must be given first under grave obligation before absolution from sins; yet if it is given afterwards, it is valid; and if the penitent receiving this has not sinned gravely, the absolution from sins also is valid. But since it is not established that the penitent is bound by censure, it is prefaced only as a precaution. And from these things it is clear that absolution from censures is entirely distinct from absolution from sins, and one can stand without the other. St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 24, a. 2, ad 2; Laymann, chap. 7, n. 1; Schmalzgrueber, nn. 107, 111; E.M. 952.

Who can absolve from the various censures? From a censure, whether issued by man by way of precept or by particular sentence, or reserved by law, only these can absolve: 1. the one who imposed the censure; 2. his superior; 3. his successor; 4. another delegated by one of these. The reason is that it belongs to the one to absolve to whom it belongs to bind. L. 63; Laymann, chap. 7; Schmalzgrueber, nn. 85-93, 97; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 24, a. 1. A censure issued by man by way of precept or by particular sentence: for censures issued by man, but by way of statute or general sentence, according to the more probable opinion are equated with those issued by law which are not reserved. L. 73; Schmalzgrueber, 94; Engel, n. 124. From censures which are such less properly, namely those imposed until a certain day, in perpetuity, or at the good pleasure of the superior, only he or another having special faculty can absolve: since, although they are not expressly reserved, they are nevertheless implicitly reserved from their very nature. Cf. Suarez, disp. 29, sec. 1, n. 16.

Any confessor can absolve from censures issued by law and by no means reserved to the Pope or Bishop, both for the internal forum and for the external forum, C. Nuper 29, de Sent. exc.; formula of absolution in the Roman Ritual; Struggl, 29; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 24, a. 1; L. 69-71, 126, 322, 339; book 1, n. 191; Schmalzgrueber, nn. 95, 96. "Yet in order that someone can use the absolution publicly, it is necessary that it be publicly established.... But in order that it be judged publicly established, it is enough that it be publicly established that he was confessed... to one having power... provided that the satisfaction which was necessary has also been publicly exhibited." Suarez, disp. 7, sec. 5, n. 29.

For this is required, although the censure has not been juridically denounced, for preventing scandal, and so that it be established that he has withdrawn from his contumacy and has returned to obedience to the Church. Cf. Leo XIII, Monita pro Iubilaeo for the year 1900, Singulares, Kalends of November, 1899, sec. 8 ff.

From Trent, sess. 24, C. Liceat 6, and from the constitution Apostolicae Sedis, paragraph Firmam, Bishops can, in the forum of conscience, absolve from occult cases and censures reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, except those which are reserved in a special manner. The Capitular Vicar also enjoys this power, S.C.C., December 3, 1632. Bishops can also delegate this Tridentine faculty generally to some priest, provided that they expressly specify it; for special deputation is required from Trent. And they can absolve even pilgrims, since they become subjects by submitting themselves in the forum of conscience. But by this faculty Bishops cannot absolve from occult cases reserved by other Bishops. S.C.C., January 24, 1711; November 20, 1712; Benedict XIV, constitution Pias Christi, August 21, 1752.

But those cases are reputed occult which have not been proved in judgment and can still be concealed in the neighborhood in some way, as if it is known only to a few discreet persons, e.g., five or six, or if the fact appears doubtful. Probably a crime public in one place can be absolved by a Bishop in another place where it is occult, provided there is no fear that it will easily be made public where it is occult. Likewise an occult crime can be absolved by a Bishop, whether it is materially occult, because the committed delict is publicly unknown, or formally occult, namely because although the crime is known, nevertheless it is unknown that a censure is attached to it. L. 76, 78; book 1, appendix II, de Privil., n. 29 ff.; book 6, nn. 294, 593, 594.

That regular prelates by force of their privileges, as regards their subjects, 1. cannot absolve from censures imposed by the constitution Apostolicae Sedis, whether reserved in a special manner or simply to the Roman Pontiff; but 2. can absolve from censures reserved to Bishops, even if occult; and 3. as regards the faculty of the same prelates for absolving their subjects from censures reserved to the Roman Pontiff which are not contained in the aforesaid Constitution and which pertain to internal government, nothing has been innovated by the same Constitution; 4. regulars impeded from going to Rome cannot be absolved by their regular superiors from censures contained in that Constitution and reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, but must have recourse to the Holy See for the necessary faculties, was declared in the Holy Office, March 22, 1881. Synod of the Diocese of Ostia and Velletri, Rome, 1892, p. 122.

Those confessors who have the Pagella of the Sacred Penitentiary can also absolve from several censures, even reserved ones. Cf. the aforesaid Pagella.

Finally, as to who can absolve from papal cases and censures in the article of death and in the case of impediment from going to Rome, and how, cf. 773, 797, 799, 800.

What special circumstances of absolution from censures are to be noted? Various circumstances of absolution from censures to be noted are declared in the following propositions. An absent and unwilling person can be absolved from censures. For absolution from censures is not sacramental, but a mere relaxation of a bond imposed by the Church, which can also be pronounced upon the absent and unwilling. But this is not licit without grave cause. L. 117, 130; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 24, a. 2. One who is bound by several censures can be absolved from one, the others being left, because there is no necessary connection among them. C. Cum pro causa 27, de Sent. exc.; L. 118, 131; St. Thomas, q. 24, a. 3. Absolution extorted by force or grave fear unjustly inflicted is not valid, from C. single chapter, de His quae vi, etc., in VI; L. 119. The same is to be said if it is given by error concerning the motive cause. C. Offic. 42, de Sent. exc.; Schmalzgrueber, nn. 99, 100, 102; Thesaurus, De Poenis, part 1, chaps. 22-24.

Absolution cannot be given unless first, where there was need, the one to be absolved has repaired scandal, satisfied the injured party, or, if he cannot, has furnished suitable security, or unless he has sworn or promised that he will make satisfaction as soon as he can; and, if the crime is among the more atrocious, or there is question of striking clerics, that he will never relapse into it. But oath and pledge-security pertain to the external forum. As regards the internal forum, a simple and sincere promise suffices concerning making satisfaction, standing by the mandates of the Church, etc. C. Porro 7, de Sent. exc.; C. Per tuas 40, 10, 11, ibid.; C. Qua fronte 25, de Appell.; C. Odoardus 3, de Solut.; C. Ex parte 23, de Verb. sign.; Sacred Penitentiary, July 5, 1857. But when the Pontiff gives faculty of absolving "the party having been satisfied," whether this clause is always added as a condition sine qua non, some probably affirm, others probably deny. L. 121, 129; Schmalzgrueber, nn. 100, 101; Roman Ritual, de Absol. ab excomm.; the warnings cited at n. 1101.

Absolution can be given both absolutely and conditionally. Likewise absolution can be given with reincidentia, i.e., so that the absolved person, unless he performs something, for instance unless he has restored after such a time, falls back into the same censure by that very fact. Reincidentia is either by law or by man. It is by man only when it is added by the express will of the superior; but by law when it is contained in clear law. For we are in odious matters. Moreover the censure into which the absolved person is going to fall back is a new censure in number, although of the same species. Therefore reincidentia cannot be added to absolution except by one who has power of imposing censure, and it is not incurred without new fault and contumacy. L. 86, 87, 123-125; Laymann, chap. 7, n. 8; Lugo, De Poenit., disp. 20, nn. 213-214.

For validly absolving from censures, no determinate formula is prescribed in law. Therefore the will of the superior manifested by a sensible sign suffices, so that it becomes known to the other. Schmalzgrueber, n. 98. And although it can be given by the fact itself, speaking per se, nevertheless from the law it does not seem to be presumed that it was given thus. Cf. Clementine Si summus 4, de Sent. exc.; C. Si aliquando 41, e.t.; C. In praesentia 46, ibid.; Schmalzgrueber, nn. 77, 389; St. Raymond de Penyafort, Summa, book 3, de Sententiis Praecepti, etc., sec. 36. For licitly absolving in the sacramental forum, the formula must be used which is contained in the formula itself of sacramental absolution, and the same is used in the internal forum of conscience outside the sacrament. But in the external forum the formula prescribed in the Roman Ritual and Pontifical, and in C. A nobis 28, de Sent. exc., must be used. For solemn and public absolution, as described in the Ritual, the mandate of the Bishop is needed, who is accustomed to prescribe this only when there was scandal of the whole community; and the other solemnities of law must be observed.

And thus, if there is question of an enormous crime, before absolution the delinquent must swear, unless perhaps he is not yet pubescent, that he will not relapse further into such a crime. C. Ex tenore 10; C. De cetero 11, de Sent. exc.; Roman Ritual, de Absol. ab excomm. One who has power of absolving in the forum of conscience from a censure can do this also outside Confession, except in a jubilee, in which it must be given in the sacramental forum. Benedict XIV, constitution Inter praeteritos, sec. 63.

Absolution given in the external forum also benefits in the internal forum; given in the internal forum it benefits the tolerated even in the external forum, but it does not prevent action from being taken against them according to the norm of law; not likewise those to be avoided, when this is licit, as in a Jubilee and in the article of death. Benedict XIV, constitution Inter praeteritos, sec. 61. L. 70, 116, 126-129; book 6, n. 536; Laymann, part 2, chap. 6; Pichler, book 5, title 39, n. 13; Roman Ritual, de Absol. ab excomm.

"23. Excommunications are only external penalties and do not deprive a man of the common spiritual prayers of the Church. - 24. Christians are to be taught to love excommunication more than to fear it." Propositions of Martin Luther condemned by Leo X.

"44. With respect to the forum of conscience, when the guilty party has been corrected and his contumacy has ceased, censures cease." Proposition condemned by Alexander VII.

"90. The Church has the authority of excommunicating in order that she may exercise it through the chief pastors, with at least the presumed consent of the whole body. - 91. Fear of an unjust excommunication must never prevent us from fulfilling our duty: we never depart from the Church, even when through the wickedness of men we seem to be expelled from her, when we are attached through charity to God, to Jesus Christ, and to the Church herself. - 92. To suffer in peace an unjust excommunication and anathema rather than betray the truth is to imitate Saint Paul: so far is this from being to raise oneself against authority or to rend unity." Propositions of Pasquier Quesnel condemned by Clement XI.

"19. Through the ecclesiastical censures of excommunication, suspension, and interdict, the clergy subjects the lay people to itself for its own exaltation, multiplies avarice, protects malice, and prepares the way for Antichrist. An evident sign, moreover, is that such censures, which they call fulminations in their processes, proceed from Antichrist, and by them the clergy proceeds principally against those who lay bare the wickedness of Antichrist, who will especially usurp the clergy for himself." Article of John Hus condemned by the Council of Constance.

"11. No prelate ought to excommunicate anyone unless he first knows him to have been excommunicated by God; and he who excommunicates in this way becomes by this fact a heretic or excommunicated. - 12. A prelate excommunicating a cleric who has appealed to the king or to the Council of the kingdom is by that very fact a traitor to the king and the kingdom. - 13. Those who cease to preach or to hear the word of God on account of the excommunication of men are excommunicated and will be regarded as traitors in the judgment of God. - 30. The excommunication of the Pope or of any prelate is not to be feared, because it is the censure of Antichrist." Propositions of John Wycliffe condemned by the Council of Constance.

"31. Likewise, whether he believes that the Pope or other prelates, the proper names of the Pope then reigning being expressed, or their vicars, can excommunicate their ecclesiastical or secular subject because of disobedience or contumacy, so that such a person is to be regarded as excommunicated. - 32. Likewise, whether he believes that, when the disobedience or contumacy of the excommunicated increases, prelates or their vicars in spiritual matters have the power of aggravating and reaggravating, of imposing an interdict, and of invoking the secular arm; and that inferiors must obey those censures. - 33. Likewise, whether he believes that the Pope or other prelates and their vicars in spiritual matters have the power of excommunicating disobedient and contumacious priests and laymen, and of suspending them from office, benefice, entrance into the church, and administration of the ecclesiastical Sacraments." Articles concerning which those suspected of the errors of Wycliffe and Hus are to be questioned by mandate of Martin V in the Bull Inter cunctas.

933. • Various censures are distinguished, namely:

1. Excommunication, suspension, and interdict, concerning which we shall speak specifically.

2. Censures latae sententiae or ferendae sententiae, according as the Superior establishes that they are to be incurred by the very fact by which someone violates the law, or are to be inflicted only after the sentence of an ecclesiastical judge.

3. Censures imposed a iure or ab homine, according as they are imposed after the manner of a judicial mandate or precept, whether upon one or upon several. If a censure affects determinate persons, it is particular; but if it is imposed generally and without determination of persons, it is general ³.

³ These things are somewhat obscure. Suarez speaks more clearly (On Censures, disputation 3, section 1, no. 2): A man can impose a censure in two ways. In one way, by making a stable and permanent law which obliges under this penalty, which its transgressors incur by the very fact. In another way, a man can impose a censure by pronouncing a sentence or by commanding something in a singular action or business, in which no right or permanent statute is established, but a transitory mandate. Therefore, when a censure is imposed in the first manner, it is said to be a iure, because ... such a censure is now contained in the law itself. But when a censure is imposed in the latter manner, it retains, as it were, the common name and, almost by antonomasia or accommodation, is called a censure ab homine. And in this sense that division is common among all theologians and canonists.

But they differ from one another in two ways. For: 1. a censure imposed a iure, when the author who imposed it dies, persists after the manner of all laws. But one imposed ab homine, since it depends upon his jurisdiction and authority, ceases when these cease through his death or removal from office. Understand this to mean that it is no longer incurred; for if someone has incurred it, the bond is removed only by absolution. 2. A censure imposed a iure can never be imposed for past offenses; but a censure ab homine is imposed not only for future offenses but also for past ones, for their satisfaction and correction (Schmalzgrueber, book 5, title 39, no. 9).

Moreover, a twofold mode of censures ab homine is usually distinguished, namely: 1. by way of mandate, when a Prelate mandates or commands something; or prohibit something with the sanction of a censure annexed; and this mode regards future actions, as is apparent; 2. by way of sentence, when a judgment is instituted concerning some fact and a sentence is pronounced judicially, namely by imposing a censure, etc.; and this mode regards a past fact.

But either mode can be such that the censure is particular, namely, concerning some particular fact or certain persons, or general, which is imposed without determination of any singular fact or at least of a person.

St. Alphonsus (book 7, no. 6) thinks that the censures which a Bishop imposes in a diocesan Synod are to be held as imposed by way of statute, and therefore, as imposed a iure, persist after the death of the Bishop; but those imposed outside the Synod are imposed ab homine and therefore cease through the death of the one imposing them.

4. Reserved or non-reserved censures, according as the Superior has reserved absolution from them to himself or has permitted ordinary Ministers to absolve from them. Some are reserved to the Pope, while others are reserved to Bishops. Censures ab homine are always judged reserved unless they have been imposed by a general sentence.

5. Notorious or occult censures, according as it is publicly established that someone has incurred them on account of a fact which is so known that it can no longer be concealed, or otherwise.

6. Just or unjust, valid or invalid censures, according as the Superior has or has not consulted justice, truth, and law in imposing the censure.

Paulus, believing himself bound by excommunication on account of reading a book prohibited in the Index, done without permission, absolved a penitent who was his accomplice in a shameful sin. When afterward he had occasion of reading the book of a certain heretic championing heresy, he again absolved the accomplice. Is Paulus irregular?

R. Although Paulus believed himself excommunicated by reading a book listed in the Index, in reality he was not excommunicated; and therefore, by absolving the accomplice the first time, he did not incur irregularity, because he does not truly violate a censure. Paulus certainly incurred excommunication by reading the heretical book; wherefore then certainly, when he again absolved the accomplice, he incurred irregularity from violated censure. But Paulus had already before, on another occasion, absolved the accomplice, and because of this also was excommunicated. Wherefore when the second time he absolved the accomplice, he was bound by a double excommunication. Nevertheless he incurs only one irregularity, because all censures forbid the exercise of order with regard to one virtue of religion, on account of reverence for the sacred ministry. But since this irregularity is equivalent to several, "in the petition for dispensation he ought to express this." St. Alph., l. 7, n. 359; I. M. 1325.

1138. 1. Definition of censure. Censure is defined: a spiritual and medicinal penalty, by which a baptized man, delinquent and contumacious, is deprived of certain spiritual goods, or goods annexed to spiritual things, until, withdrawing from contumacy, he is absolved.¹

¹ Code, c. 2241.

It is said: a) penalty, or something bringing trouble; and thus it is distinguished from irregularity, which is an inability for receiving or exercising orders, and from reservation, by which the jurisdiction of the confessor is limited without a penalty properly being inflicted on the penitent. b) This penalty consists in privation of certain spiritual goods, such as the sacraments, or of goods annexed to spiritual things, such as ecclesiastical benefices. c) Hence the penalty is spiritual. d) It is moreover medicinal, or tending to the amendment of the delinquent: whence it is imposed only until the guilty person, withdrawing from contumacy, receives absolution.²

² Code, c. 2248.

1139. 2. Division of censures. a) By reason of the manner in which they are established, censures are a jure, if the determined penalty is established in the law itself; ab homine, if it is brought by way of a particular precept, or by a judicial condemnatory or declaratory sentence, even if established in law.³ b) By reason of the manner in which they are incurred, censures are latae or ferendae sententiae, according as they are incurred by the fact itself before any condemnatory sentence, or only after such a sentence. c) By reason of the manner in which they are absolved, censures are reserved, or reserved to no one, according as absolution is reserved to Ordinaries, or even to the Roman Pontiff, or can be given by all confessors. d) By reason of divulgation, censures are notorious when either by the sentence of a judge, or by the confession of the delinquent made in judgment, or by the perpetration of the delict in a public place, it is so known that someone has incurred a censure that this cannot be concealed; otherwise, they are called occult.⁴ e) By reason of the effects, that is, of the goods of which the censured person is deprived, three censures are enumerated, namely: excommunication, suspension, and interdict. We shall speak of each species in the following article.

³ Code, c. 2217.

⁴ Cod. jur. can., 2197.

3. Concerning the author of censures.

1140. A) He who enjoys the power of making law or imposing precepts⁵ can bring censures. - A vicar general without special mandate does not have this power.⁶

⁵ Ibid., 2220.

⁶ Ibid.

a) Therefore the power of bringing censures is had by: 1) the Roman Pontiff and the ecumenical Council for the universal Church; 2) apostolic legates, for the territory assigned to them; 3) the provincial Council, for its province; 4) bishops,⁷ upon their diocesans while they are staying in the diocese; also upon diocesans staying outside the diocese when they violate not the law but a precept of the bishop (more probably), or after they have committed a delict in their own diocese, indeed outside the diocese; upon pilgrims who, while they are traveling in some diocese, there commit a delict; upon exempt persons in cases determined by law; 5) superiors of religious, according to the statutes of their order, upon their subjects existing in any place whatever, since their jurisdiction is personal rather than territorial.⁸

⁷ Say the same, when the see is vacant, of the capitular vicar, or of the Chapter itself before the deputation of the capitular vicar. Abbots having quasi-episcopal jurisdiction are also assimilated to bishops in this respect.

⁸ Pastors cannot bring censures, because they never had true jurisdiction in the external forum.

b) All and only clerics to whom this has been committed by those having ordinary power have delegated power of bringing censures. But delegates cannot subdelegate unless this is expressly conceded to them, or they have been delegated by the Roman Pontiff, or for the universality of causes.

1141. B) Concerning the solemnities to be observed in bringing censures.

a) If there is question of censures ferendae sententiae and ab homine, a threefold warning, or at least one equivalent to three, which is called peremptory, must be sent beforehand;⁹ for censures can be brought only upon the contumacious (n. 1144). But the sentence must be delivered in writing, for liceity indeed, but not for validity.¹⁰

⁹ Cod. jur. can., 2233, 2242.

¹⁰ Cf. Code, c. 1877 and c. 2239, § 2.

b) But if there is question of censures latae sententiae or even of a censure ferendae sententiae but a jure, no special warning is required, since the law itself or the precept continually warns.¹¹

¹¹ Code, c. 2232, 2242, § 2.

1142. 4. Concerning the subject of censures.

From the definition itself of censure, it is required that the one to be censured be a man, baptized, delinquent, and contumacious.

A) A man,¹² wayfaring and capable of guile, that is, of sin, since censure supposes a delict.

¹² Excommunication against harmful animals, which was long in use, is not properly excommunication, but a suppliant prayer that God drive them away. Against demons, the Church uses exorcisms, not censures.

"Those who have not reached puberty are excused from penalties latae sententiae, and should be corrected by educative punishments rather than by censures or other more grave vindicative penalties; but those who have reached puberty, who have induced them to violate the law or have concurred with them in the delict, themselves indeed incur the penalty established by law."¹³

¹³ Code, 2230.

B) Baptized. For the Church does not judge those who are outside.¹⁴

¹⁴ 1 Cor. 5:12; Trent, sess. XIV, De Paenit., c. 2.

1143. C) Delinquent. Now the delict must be external, mortal, and consummated.

a) External: for the Church does not judge concerning internal things. We do not say public; for even an occult sin can be external, for example, heresy pronounced by mouth, even without any witness.

b) Mortal: otherwise there would not be proportion between the delict and the penalty, since censure is a most grave ecclesiastical penalty.

Therefore whatever excuses from mortal sin also excuses from censure.¹⁵ Hence if in fact the one against whom a censure has been brought has not committed a subjectively mortal sin, although in the external forum he must be held and conduct himself as censured in order to avoid scandal, nevertheless he is not truly censured before God, nor therefore deprived of those spiritual goods of which censure deprives.

¹⁵ "Not only the things which excuse from all imputability, but also those which excuse from grave imputability, likewise excuse from any penalty, whether latae or ferendae sententiae, even in the external forum, if the excuse is proved for the external forum." Code, 2218.

Moreover, the delict must be mortal insofar as it is external, so that, if the sin is mortal but not insofar as it is external, censure is not incurred: for example, a very slight striking of a cleric from a gravely evil intention.

c) Consummated: that is, it is required that precisely that delict which the legislator intends to prohibit under penalty be perfectly completed; for penal laws are of strict interpretation.¹⁶ Yet if the attempt of a delict is punished in law by a peculiar penalty, it constitutes a true delict and suffices for incurring censure.¹⁷

¹⁶ Cf. Cod. jur. can., 2219, 2228.

¹⁷ Code, c. 2212.

476. Division of Censures. The principal divisions appear to be the following:

1. By reason of species, censures are divided into excommunication, suspension, and interdict.³⁸

No other species of ecclesiastical penalties is contained under the genus of censure. Therefore, for example, deposition, degradation, irregularities, and so forth, are not censures.

2. By reason of the efficient cause, censures imposed a iure and ab homine are distinguished.

Censures are imposed a iure if they are inflicted against future sins through a stable law or general statute; but they are imposed ab homine by way of a sentence or particular precept, as when a bishop suspends some determinate cleric from office because of a crime committed.

3. By reason of the manner, censures latae sententiae and ferendae sententiae are distinguished.

Censures latae sententiae are incurred by the very fact of the crime committed, without a condemnatory sentence. In the external forum, a declaratory sentence concerning the crime is indeed often still customarily required, but in the internal forum not even this declaratory sentence is required in order that such a censure be truly incurred by the very fact that the crime was committed.³⁹ Censures ferendae sententiae are incurred in neither forum except after a condemnatory sentence of a judge.

4. By reason of the power of absolving, censures are distinguished as reserved and non-reserved, according as they can be removed either by the one imposing them alone (or by his superior, successor, or one specially delegated), or also by inferior ministers.

The reserved censures existing today are reserved: 1. to the Supreme Pontiff, and indeed a) in the most special manner; b) in a special manner; c) simply;⁴⁰ 2. to bishops; 3. to religious superiors for their subjects.⁴¹

³⁸ Cf. c. 20, X 40.

³⁹ Cf. Cappello, De cens., nn. 4, 6, 74.

⁴⁰ Code of Canon Law, c. 2245, § 3.

⁴¹ Cf., however, the decree of the Sacred Congregation of Religious, August 5, 1913, related above in n. 417.

481. Notion. The (passive) subject of censure is called that person who can be punished with ecclesiastical censures. Such a subject, however, is only a man who is 1. baptized; 2. a wayfarer; 3. possessed of reason and capable of malice; 4. subject to the one who imposes the censure. - The individual points are to be explained briefly:

1. A baptized man.

The reason is twofold: a) because the Church does not have jurisdiction except over the baptized; b) because the non-baptized do not enjoy ecclesiastical spiritual goods of which they can be deprived through censures. - Hence the following cannot be punished with a censure: 1. irrational creatures; but if the Church has at times pronounced an anathema upon irrational creatures (for example, upon locusts), this was not a proper censure, but a manifestation of execration and detestation; 2. pagans, Jews, and catechumens. Heretics, schismatics, and apostates, however, are by no means exempt from censures, provided that they have been validly baptized.

2. A wayfarer.

But if in ancient times the dead were punished with censures or absolved from censures,⁶² this was done to instill a salutary horror in the faithful, or to deprive the dead of ecclesiastical burial and suffrages, or to bestow them again. It is manifest, however, that the dead cannot be punished with a proper censure, because their corpse cannot be bound, while the separated soul is no longer subject to ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

3. Possessed of reason and capable of malice.

The reason is that censure, as a grave medicinal penalty, presupposes grave fault joined with contumacy. But before the perfect use of reason no one can commit a grave fault. Hence infants, the insane, and others wholly lacking the use of reason are not punished with censure. Although prepubescent persons, since they are capable of the use of reason and of grave delict, can be punished with censures, nevertheless according to the discipline in force they do not incur them, as was already said above in n. 474. Prepubescent persons can of themselves be punished with censures ferendae sententiae, but commonly this is not fitting; and therefore the Salmanticenses say wittily:⁶³ "Prepubescent persons ought to be corrected by rods rather than by censures"; and the Code of Canon Law, c. 2230, establishes: "Prepubescent persons ... should be corrected by educative punishments rather than by censures or other graver vindicative penalties."

4. A subject.

To impose censures is an act of jurisdiction, as was said above. But no one can validly and licitly exercise jurisdiction except over his own subjects. Since these things are so, the following corollaries are inferred:

⁶² Cf. c. 6, C. 24, q. 2; c. 5, X 5, 7; Rit. Rom. tit. 3, c. 4.

⁶³ Tract. 10, de cens., c. 1, n. 168.

482. Corollaries. 1. No ecclesiastical superior incurs a censure imposed by himself. For no one can exercise jurisdiction over himself. Therefore the Supreme Pontiff, since he has no ecclesiastical superior, is bound by no censure. Similarly, by privilege (unless they are expressly named), Cardinals are comprehended under no penal law, nor are bishops under penalties latae sententiae of suspension and interdict.⁶⁴ Moreover, supreme rulers of peoples and their sons and daughters, and likewise those who have the right of immediate succession to the principality, can be judged or punished by no one except the Supreme Pontiff.⁶⁵ Therefore these are not subject to penalties or censures imposed by a bishop, but they are subject to censures established in the common law.

2. Travelers and subjects of another do not incur territorial censures to be incurred ipso facto. The reason is the same. But if travelers have committed a delict in another's territory, they can be punished with censures by the superior of that territory through a particular sentence. According to the discipline in force, however, such a delinquent traveler is customarily denounced to his own superior, so that he may be punished by him. It is evident of itself that a traveler who has obtained a quasi-domicile in some place is subject to the censures in force in that place. - Vagrants incur territorial censures, because they are bound by all the laws of the place where they are staying.⁶⁶

3. Those committing a delict outside the diocese do not incur censures imposed in their own diocese by a general and local statute. The reason is that territorial law does not bind outside the territory. But if a censure has been imposed by a special personal precept, it is then incurred even by one committing a delict outside the territory. Hence, for example, if a bishop by a general law prohibits all his clerics under penalty of suspension from frequenting a tavern or theater, clerics who engage in such frequenting outside the diocese do not incur that penalty; but if he has prohibited some determinate cleric by a particular precept from frequenting a tavern under penalty of suspension, such a cleric incurs this penalty even if he frequents taverns outside his own diocese. Thus the more probable opinion.⁶⁷

4. Exempt religious, since they are subject to the personal jurisdiction of their prelates, are subject to censures legitimately imposed by their own superiors wherever they may be.

5. Exempt religious are not subject to episcopal censures except in cases expressly determined by law, for example, in c. 616.⁶⁸

⁶⁴ Code of Canon Law, c. 2227.

⁶⁵ Ibid., c. 1557, § 1; c. 2227, § 1.

⁶⁶ Ibid., c. 14, § 2.

⁶⁷ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 7, n. 23.

⁶⁸ Cf. our Man. iur. can., q. 240 ff.

483. Scholion. On censures imposed upon moral persons or communities. According to the discipline in force, the following hold:

1. Interdict and suspension can be imposed upon an entire community, although there may be several innocent persons in it. The reason is that these penalties are customarily inflicted so that the entire community may be brought to better fruit. Moreover, these penalties are not so hard upon the innocent, nor is it certainly established whether in that case they are censures or vindicative penalties.

2. Excommunication cannot be imposed upon an entire community in which innocent persons are actually found.⁶⁹ The reason is that the goods of which excommunication deprives one are chiefly personal, and it is unjust to punish an innocent person personally.

⁶⁹ Cf. c. 5, V 11 in VI^o; Code of Canon Law, c. 2255.

484. The object, which is also sometimes called the matter or cause of censure, is the crime on account of which this ecclesiastical penalty is inflicted. Such a crime, however, cannot be punished with censure unless it is: 1. grave (both subjectively and objectively); 2. external; 3. consummated in its kind; 4. joined with contumacy.⁷⁰

1. Grave.

For censure is considered a grave penalty. But a grave penalty cannot licitly be imposed except on account of grave fault. Sometimes, however, suspension and interdict are inflicted upon a guilty community in which innocent persons may be present, and then they must indeed be patiently endured by all, even by the innocent, but it is not so certain whether they are censures strictly so called. - When a crime becomes light for some reason, for example, smallness of matter, imperfection of the act, inability to fulfill the law, and so forth, a censure or another ecclesiastical penalty is no longer incurred.⁷¹

2. External.

For a merely internal crime cannot be punished with an ecclesiastical censure, because the Church does not judge merely internal acts. It must be noted that an internal crime is one thing and an occult crime, which is known to few or to the delinquent alone, is another. Nothing prevents an occult crime, for example, heresy uttered in secret, from being punished with censure.

3. The crime to be punished with censure must be consummated or complete (and not merely attempted), or, in other words: a censure is not present unless the crime has all the conditions placed in the very promulgation of the censure.

For censures are of strict interpretation. Hence, for example, one who indeed fires a gun at a cleric but does not strike him does not incur a censure imposed upon assailants of clerics; likewise, one who reads a book which he falsely thought was prohibited under excommunication does not incur excommunication. On the other hand, one who administered a drug causing abortion, but who repents before the effect has followed, appears to incur the excommunication imposed against those procuring abortion. The reason is that the effect which followed was voluntary and gravely sinful, and had all the conditions required for excommunication.⁷² St. Alphonsus,⁷³ however, calls the contrary opinion more probable in a similar case, without nevertheless rejecting the other opinion.

You will resolve the case thus: Caius administered a drug which after three days will cause an abortion in the pregnant Tullia. Immediately struck with repentance, he confesses the sin perpetrated. Even a simple confessor can grant absolution, since the abortion has not yet followed. After three days the abortion actually follows, and then the excommunication appears to be incurred, from which Caius must be absolved in his next confession by a competent confessor. Thus the more probable opinion. Nor should anyone say that no excommunication is incurred without grave sin, but that in the proposed case the sin has been blotted out through sincere repentance. The response is that certainly no excommunication is incurred without a causative sin, but it is by no means required that the causative sin persevere throughout the entire time during which the excommunication exists. For nothing prevents someone from being excommunicated and nevertheless being in the state of grace, for example, through perfect contrition. Concerning this matter, see the controversy between Ballerini and the Vindiciae Alphonsianae.⁷⁴

4. Joined with contumacy,⁷⁵ that is, with at least virtual contempt of the censure.

Express and formal contempt is indeed not required for incurring a censure; rather, virtual or even interpretative contempt suffices, consisting in this: that someone knows something to be prohibited under censure by a law or a legitimate ecclesiastical superior and nevertheless presumes to do it.⁷⁶ Therefore, for incurring a censure, there is required in the sinner knowledge both of the prohibiting law and of the special penalty to be inflicted upon transgressors; and consequently ignorance and fear sometimes excuse, concerning which discussion will return in the following article.

⁷⁰ Code of Canon Law, c. 2242.

⁷¹ Ibid., c. 2218, § 2.

⁷² Cf. Lugo, De poenit. disp. 16, sect. 9, n. 453.

⁷³ Loc. cit., n. 40; cf. also ibid., nn. 280 and 368.

⁷⁴ Ballerini-Palmieri, Opus theol. VII, n. 143, and Vindic. Alphons. nn. 841-848.

⁷⁵ In German: "with defiance and obstinacy."

⁷⁶ Cf. Reiffenstuel, Ius can. l. 5, tit. 39, n. 14.

485. Note. At least virtual contumacy is altogether required for incurring censures in the internal forum; in the external forum, however, presumed contumacy sometimes suffices. For when some ecclesiastical law has been sufficiently promulgated, knowledge of it is presumed in all subjects, who, if they transgress this law, must undergo the penalties and censures sanctioned. Hence, for example, a Catholic who contracts marriage before a non-Catholic minister incurs the imposed excommunication, although he is ignorant of the existence of this censure.⁷⁷ Therefore, such a Catholic who is actually ignorant of the excommunication can be absolved in the internal forum by any confessor, but in the external forum he still needs an absolution which is to be given according to the form prescribed in the individual dioceses. Contumacy is to be said to have ceased when the guilty person has truly repented of the delict committed and at the same time has given suitable satisfaction for the damages and scandal, or at least has seriously promised it; but it belongs to the one from whom absolution from the censure is sought to judge whether the repentance is true, the satisfaction suitable, or the promise of it serious.⁷⁸

Corollary. An act clothed with the qualities enumerated above can therefore be punished with censure. But according to the diversity and multiplication of acts, censures also are diversified and multiplied; and therefore one and the same man can be bound by many censures. Hence, for example, one who a) contracted marriage before a non-Catholic minister, b) stipulated that the offspring would be educated in heresy, c) knowingly presumed to offer the offspring to a non-Catholic minister to be baptized, and d) on seven different occasions knowingly read heretical books, incurred ten censures.⁷⁹

⁷⁷ Cf. Holy Office, May 11, 1892 (Collect. de Prop. Fide, n. 1793).

⁷⁸ Code of Canon Law, c. 2242, § 3.

⁷⁹ Code of Canon Law, cc. 2244 and 2319.

S. Th., Suppl., q. 21-24.

681. A censure is the sentence of a censor deputed for correcting morals; but in canonical speech it is not so much the sentence itself as the penalty inflicted upon sinners. By usage now received it is now said exclusively of a medicinal penalty, in no way of a vindicative one. It can be defined: an ecclesiastical medicinal penalty by which a baptized man, delinquent and contumacious, is deprived of certain spiritual goods or goods annexed to spiritual goods, until, withdrawing from contumacy, he is absolved (can. 2241, § 1). It can be from the law or from man; of a sentence to be pronounced or of an incurred sentence; reserved or not reserved.

A censure 1) is an ecclesiastical penalty, therefore it deprives of goods concerning which the Church can dispose, such as the administration and reception of the sacraments, common suffrages and indulgences, the exercise of Orders, ecclesiastical burial, offices, benefices, and their revenues; but not of goods which immediately proceed from Christ, such as the sacramental character and the power of Order, grace, virtues, nor of goods which come from individual faithful, such as good works and private prayers; - 2) it is a medicinal penalty, namely ordered primarily to the amendment of the sinner, whence it cannot be brought for a merely past delict which does not have a successive fear or which has already been amended, nor for a determined time or in perpetuity, but when the amendment of the delinquent has been obtained, absolution from the censure must be given (can. 2248, § 2); - 3) it is a penalty which supposes contumacy, whence it cannot be brought unless a warning has preceded; otherwise contumacy is judged to be absent: but one warning is legal, which is made by the law itself for censures latae sententiae, another personal or canonical, which is made by man, and can be repeated with an interval or be one peremptory warning, according to the prudent judgment of the superior, for censures ferendae sententiae (can. 2242, § 2; 2233, § 2; 2309); but if the particular precept was already fortified by a censure ferendae sententiae, immediately after the delict has been proved this censure can be inflicted (com. int., July 14, 1922).

A. The power of bringing censures is implicitly included in the universal power of binding, which pertains to the keys according to Mt. 16:19; indeed for excommunication it is suggested in Mt. 18:17; and it is clear from the constant practice of the Church, from the Council of Constance, sess. 8, n. 30, against Wicleff, and sess. 15, n. 19, against Hus. By ordinary power, all who generally have ordinary power of jurisdiction in the external forum can bring censures, because it pertains to the external governance of the Church, namely, the Supreme Pontiff by himself or through the Roman Congregations and Tribunals; an ecumenical Council; a bishop and a vicar capitular, but not a vicar general; a particular Council; a vicar and prefect apostolic; an abbot and prelate nullius; a major superior of an exempt clerical religion according to the statutes, and a general chapter (can. 2220), but not pastors; - by delegated power, however, all clerics to whom it has been committed by those who have ordinary power.

B. The subject of a censure is a baptized man, a wayfarer, and a subject of him who brings the censure (can. 2226), possessed of reason and capable of malice (can. 2200-01), indeed pubescent (having 14 years, even probably if it is a female) according to the discipline now in force for penalties latae sententiae (can. 2230).

Hence the following are incapable of censures: the non-baptized, children and those deprived of the use of reason, the dead, and the Supreme Pontiff, as having no superior on earth and subject to no one.

It should be noted that bishops, outside the diocese, can bring censures upon subjects by way of a particular precept, but not by way of a judicial sentence; in the diocese even upon pilgrims sinning there, but generally only by a particular sentence, because they are not bound by territorial censures, and the pilgrim who sins is usually denounced to his own Superior so that he may be punished by him; - but that a metropolitan in suffragan dioceses can bring censures in the time of canonical visitation according to can. 274, 5. - On the contrary, a penalty cannot be inflicted or declared except by the Supreme Pontiff upon those who hold the supreme rule of peoples and their sons and daughters, and those to whom belongs the right of next succeeding in rule; and unless they are expressly named, Cardinals are not included under a penal law, nor bishops under penalties latae sententiae of suspension and interdict (can. 2227).

Someone can incur several censures, because he can be bound by several bonds and be deprived of the same goods under several titles; censures are multiplied, namely, by reason of diversity, or multiplication of acts or of penalties. Hence can. 2244: "1. Not only diverse censures, but even a censure of the same species can be multiplied in the same subject. - 2. A censure latae sententiae is multiplied: a) if diverse delicts, each of which carries a censure with it, are committed by the same or by distinct action; b) if the same delict, punished by a censure, is repeated several times so that there are several distinct delicts; c) if a delict, punished by diverse censures by distinct superiors, is committed once or several times. - 3. A censure from man is multiplied if several precepts, or several sentences, or several distinct parts of the same precept or sentence each inflict its own censure."

C. The object or matter of a censure is an external, grave delict, consummated in its own kind and not merely attempted, joined with contumacy or with at least virtual contempt of the censure; moreover a censure can be brought even against unknown delinquents (can. 2242, § 1).

From the censure itself the following excuse: nullity of the censure, whether because of defect of jurisdiction, or because of a substantial defect of juridical order, or because of defect of a just cause, namely, not proved or not true; - defect on the part of sin; - physical and moral inability to observe the law; - grave fear, unless the delict tends to contempt of the faith or of ecclesiastical authority or to public harm of souls; - ignorance, never however affected ignorance, nor crass ignorance unless the law requires presumption, perfect knowledge, or temerity (can. 2205 and 2229).

From the effects of censure before the sentence of the judge the following excuse: grave infamy (can. 2232, § 1), grave scandal, and grave harm extrinsic to the observance of the censure and proportioned to it.

D. Absolution from censures is necessary for removing them (can. 2248, § 1); hence the dead are absolved from them if they have died with signs of penance, so that suffrages and ecclesiastical burial may be granted to them.

Now, according to can. 2253, the following can absolve:

1. From a censure not reserved, in the sacramental forum any confessor; outside the sacramental forum, whoever has jurisdiction over the accused in the external forum.

2. From a censure from man, he to whom the censure is reserved according to the norm of can. 2245, § 2, namely, he who inflicted it, or pronounced the sentence, or his competent superior or successor or delegate; he himself can grant absolution even if the accused has transferred his domicile or quasi-domicile elsewhere.

It is from man if it is brought by way of a particular precept or by a condemnatory judicial sentence, even if established in law; wherefore a penalty ferendae sententiae, added to a law, before the condemnatory sentence is only from the law, afterward from the law and from man at the same time, but is considered as from man (can. 2217, § 1, 3).

3. From a censure reserved by law, he who established the censure or to whom it is reserved, and their successors or competent superiors or delegates.

When a confessor can absolve from reserved censures was declared in n. 597, C.

The conditions for absolving are: a) on the part of the one absolving, legitimate power and a free will immune from force and grave fear unjustly extorting it (can. 2238); b) on the part of the one to be absolved: that he be a subject, that he seek absolution at least regularly, and that he firmly promise that he wishes to execute the commands of the Church concerning satisfaction and amendment; c) on the part of the delict, that satisfaction be made as far as possible to the injured person, scandal be repaired, and salutary penance be imposed besides sacramental penance.

It should be noted: a) Absolution can be given in the internal forum and in the external forum. Given in the external forum, it also has force in the internal forum; hence if someone has been absolved from a reserved censure, the sin is no longer reserved. Absolution in the internal forum of itself does not have force in the external forum; but, scandal having been removed, the one absolved can behave as such even in acts of the external forum; but, unless the granting of absolution is proved or legitimately presumed in the external forum, the censure can be urged by superiors of the external forum, whom the accused must obey, until absolution has been had in the same forum (can. 2251).

b) It is possible to be absolved from one censure and not from another (can. 2249, § 1).

c) Sometimes someone is absolved only from some effect of the censure: then the censure remains but the effect is taken away.

d) Absolution from censure can also be given to one absent, or even in writing (can. 2239).

e) Absolution in the sacramental forum is contained in the customary formula of absolution from sins; in the non-sacramental forum it can be given in any way, but for absolution from excommunication it is regularly fitting to use the form handed down in the Ritual (can. 2250, § 3).

E. There are three species of censure: excommunication, suspension, and interdict. For in a well-constituted republic there is the power of excluding from its social body certain persons harmful to it, of suspending others who administer badly from their office, and of forbidding to others certain acts and functions; therefore also in the Church, which was constituted by Christ as a perfect society.

According to can. 2255: a) "excommunication can affect only physical persons, and therefore, if at any time it is brought upon a moral body, it is understood to affect the individuals who have concurred in the delict; interdict and suspension can affect also a community, as a moral person;

b) excommunication and interdict can affect even laymen; suspension, clerics only; interdict, even a place;

c) excommunication is always a censure; interdict and suspension can be either censures or vindicative penalties, but in doubt they are presumed to be censures."

Excommunication is graver, because it deprives of greater and more numerous goods.

St. Alphonsus, VII, n. 281; ed. G., vol. 4, p. 419, with the necessary changes having been made; Aertnys, VII, n. 75; D'Annibale (Reatinus) on the Constitution Apost. Sed. (ed. 4); Summula (ed. 5); Patavinus (Bertapelle), ed. 2; Piatus, Avanzini, Pennacchi, Del Vecchio, Bucceroni, on this Constitution; Lehmkuhl, II, n. 1179; Noldin, I, de Poenis, etc., etc.

1311. Preliminary notes. 1. Scope of the Constitution. The scope of this Constitution was, as the Supreme Pontiff himself declares, to diminish the number of censures, for avoiding many inconveniences, and to make a full and clear review of those which henceforth are to be observed and retained.

Whence it follows that the same Constitution is as it were the penal code of the Church, in which are contained, directly or indirectly expressed, all latae sententiae censures in force today; with the addition, however, of those which afterward, for example in the Constitution Romanus Pontifex, were inflicted.

2. The Constitution does not change all things. Nothing was changed: a) as regards censures ferendae sententiae, nor as regards censures issued by prelates or Chapters against their own subjects; b) as regards other canonical penalties, for example irregularities, incapacities, etc.; c) as regards cases reserved without censure; d) as regards privileges which do not regard censures; e) as regards ecclesiastical laws from which censures have been taken away. Therefore, in all these things, one must stand by the ancient Law.

Nevertheless, if the ancient Law punished certain delicts, which are now coerced by excommunication, with other penalties, these penalties seem now abrogated; because it would be too hard and alien to Law, because of the same crime, to be subject to several laws and to be affected by several penalties (D'Annibale, I, n. 389).

3. The Constitution has its own force. The Supreme Pontiff declares that all the censures which he decrees "ought to receive their force altogether not only from the authority of the ancient canons, insofar as they agree with this our Constitution, but also from this Constitution of ours itself, no otherwise than if they had first been issued by it."

From which clause it follows: a) that the censures reviewed here are to be understood first indeed according to the sense which is clearly inferred from the words of the Pontiff, but then according to the tradition of the ancient canons and the received interpretation; b) that desuetude of the ancient canons, even immemorial, can no longer be invoked as regards censures clearly and expressly renewed or confirmed: as is clear from several Decrees of the Holy Office (cf. below n. 1353).1

1312. What LATAE SENTENTIAE censures therefore remain in force today?

Resp. 1. Censures which are either contained in the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, or have been issued afterward, as we shall see in its own place.

2. Censures which were directly inflicted by the COUNCIL OF TRENT and confirmed by Pius IX. We say directly inflicted: for from the scope of the Constitution, and from the common opinion, the other censures which Trent only indirectly inflicted or renewed, or imposed in general words, do not seem confirmed; because penalties only remembered by Trent, or even renewed, can in no way be called Tridentine penalties (Patavin., 100).

3. Censures issued "for the election of the Roman Pontiff, insofar as hitherto they have persisted in their force." Moreover, those things persist in force which the Roman Pontiffs sanctioned, for example against those violating the law of secrecy, or against all, even Cardinals, who, while the Roman Pontiff is living, or while the See is vacant, shall have made agreements concerning the election of a successor; nevertheless discussions which, when the See is vacant, are had for the election are not forbidden. Thus especially from the new Constitution of Pius X, Vacante Sede Apostolica, 25 Dec. 1904 (Acta Pii X, vol. 3, Appendix), by which the earlier Constitutions either are abrogated, or confirmed, or completed.

4. All censures which have been issued "for the internal governance" of any Orders and regular Institutes whatever, as well as of any colleges, congregations, assemblies, and pious places whatever, of whatever name or kind they may be... insofar as by desuetude, or by another cause, they have not ceased in some place or Institute. It is said for internal governance: to this is referred excommunication against those regulars who rashly lay aside the habit of Religion (c. Ut periculosa, ne clerici vel monachi, in 6); or who keep arms within the enclosures of a monastery without permission of Superiors (Clem. 1, de Statu monachorum); or who do not denounce their confreres or Superiors suspected in any way whatever of heresy (Paul V, Const. Romanus Pontifex); or who, in order to cause damage to their prelates or monasteries, presume to go to the courts of princes (ib.); and other censures similar to these.

1 A review of censures formerly in force, see in Edm. Voit, Theol. mor., t. 2, at the end, Alphabetical Index; a fuller interpretation, see in Suarez, Bonacina, the Salmanticenses, etc.

1313. Excommunications are given which are either 1. reserved to the Roman Pontiff in a special way; or 2. reserved to the same simply; or 3. reserved to Ordinaries; or 4. reserved to no one.

Those which are reviewed in the first part are with very good right disposed thus: The first five fortify the FOUNDATION of the Church, namely faith and the divine Constitution of the Church reposed in the Supreme Pontiff and Bishops; the four following, together with the thirteenth concerning intruded persons, defend the POWER and LIBERTY of the Church; and the last three protect the GOODS of the Church, whether spiritual, excomm. 10, or temporal. In the second series almost the same order recurs.

Twelve of this kind are reviewed in the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, all indeed, except the tenth, already contained in the Bull Coenae: to which is added the thirteenth, from the Constitution Romanus Pontifex, issued 28 Aug. 1873.1 In very recent times another excommunication acceded for repressing the EXCLUSIVE (Veto) of civil power (cf. n. 1327).

Therefore Pius IX declares subject to such a censure:

1314. I. "All apostates from the Christian faith, and all and individual heretics, by whatever name they may be reckoned, and of whatever sect they may exist; and those believing them; and their receivers, favorers, and generally any defenders of them."

1. By APOSTATES and HERETICS understand those who have sinned gravely against faith by an internal and external act, according to what was said n. 438 sqq.; 573, 2; 596, 3.

2. BELIEVERS, of apostates or heretics, are those who implicitly sustain their errors, declaring in general that these or those heretics think rightly; for example if someone says: "I believe what Calvin believes," etc. Likewise, if someone attends the sermons of heretics, not indeed drawn by curiosity of hearing, or by greed for money, but led by the intention of assenting to false doctrine, to which in a confused way he already offers faith.

3. RECEIVERS: those who receive or conceal a heretic as such, not as a friend or blood-relative, in their home, so that he may escape the penalties of heresy. FAVORERS: those who furnish favor to heretics, whether notorious or occult; either positively by praising them, commending them, for example before the government, promoting the exercise of heretical worship, opening schools for them for the sake of fostering heresy, etc.; or negatively, by omitting, without just cause, denunciation of them; or correction, when they are bound by office to make it.1 All those incur the same excommunication who enroll themselves even merely by name in a heretical or schismatic sect, for whatever cause this may be done. Likewise those who contract marriage before a heretical or schismatic minister attached to sacred things (Holy Office, 22 Mar. 1879, and 18 May 1892; Nouv. Rev. Theol., vol. 15, p. 284). DEFENDERS: those who, in whatever way, defend either the errors of heretics; or protect their persons, for example by impeding them from being brought before judges or punished by them. Nevertheless those are not to be numbered among defenders who praise the style, elegance, or knowledge of the author of a heretical book, unless perhaps the praise redounds to approval of the doctrine itself (VII, 300-308). As regards absolution of heretics, see n. 443.2

Note. If the Bishop has reserved absolution of this sin, the confessor would need a twofold faculty. See nevertheless what we shall say n. 1348, note.

1315. • II. "All and individual persons knowingly reading without authority of the Apostolic See the books of the same apostates and heretics, defending heresy, as well as books of any author prohibited by name through Apostolic Letters; those retaining, printing, and in any way defending the same books." This censure is in force today from the Constitution Officiorum, n. 47, and draws its force from it.

By the name of book is understood a writing which consists of some bulk and unity of object. Wherefore under the name of book do not come newspapers or daily papers, letters, sermons, smaller booklets, just as neither do certain pages separated from a prohibited book (Holy Office, 21 Apr. 1886); nor even probably manuscripts, for "today we take books to be those which are published in type," as D'Annibale says (Summula, III, 141); now this censure must be interpreted according to the sense received today. On the contrary, under the name of books come periodical writings (livraisons, revues) or individual fascicles destined to compose a volume (Holy Office, 13 Jan. 1892; Monit. eccl., VII, P. I, p. 266); likewise translations of a work into another language (St. Alph., VII, 281).

1. Therefore books prohibited by this censure are of a twofold kind: a) Books of apostates or heretics, provided that concerning these two things at the same time it is established: that the author is publicly held as an apostate or heretic, whether from the sect to which he belongs, or from the pertinacity with which he hands down and defends heretical doctrine; that heresy is not only contained in the book, but is also defended. b) Books of any author, prohibited by name or by the express title of the work, and that under penalty of excommunication reserved to the Roman Pontiff, through Apostolic Letters in any form, containing these or similar expressions: "from the plenitude of our Apostolic authority," or "by Apostolic authority" (Pennacchi, I, p. 117).

Therefore the censure does not extend to books prohibited through general Decrees, or condemned by some Sacred Congregation, or entered by name or in the mass into the Index; nor to books of infidels or Jews, unless perhaps the conditions which we have enumerated are verified in them. Cf. Ami du Cl., 1911, p. 734; Hilgers, Der Index, p. 90 sqq.

1316. 2. The EXCOMMUNICATED PERSONS, the things to be posited having been posited, are the following:

a) Readers. To read, strictly speaking, is to look with the eyes and perceive with the mind the things which are written. Wherefore he does not read who only materially runs through with the eyes a book composed in a language unknown to him, nor he who hears another reading, even by his command, as Navarrus and others probably teach, against many (VII, n. 292). Therefore readers in a relatively notable quantity are bound by the censure.

But when will the quantity be notable? The older theologians, Lugo, disp. 21, n. 85; St. Alph., VII, 284, 292, say that the object of reading is notable: either one or another page, or a proemium in the case in which less dangerous matter is set forth there; or a few lines, if precisely there heretical doctrine is defended. - Recent authors teach that the matter is notable: either 3-4 pages, if they contain truly dangerous things, or 30 pages, if the danger contained in them is less. Thus Noldin, II, 700. But we ask whether the circumstances of the times and the end of the Constitution Officiorum ac munerum, of which account must certainly be had, demand this, that one depart by such large steps from the opinion of the older authors? Cf. Ami du Cl., 1912, p. 952. More rightly, in our judgment, Lehmkuhl (I, 1335) thinks: He sins gravely, he says, who without faculty reads a place which treats specially of prohibited matter, or, if the matter is not dangerous, a notable part, for example one or another page of larger format. Cf. the things which Vermeersch wisely notes, de Prohib. libr. (ed. 4), p. 43 sqq.

b) Retainers, for a notable time, for example for three days, whether with themselves, or with a friend, although endowed with faculty of retaining, but from whom they can demand the book back at their own pleasure; otherwise if with a pact not to demand it back except after purgation of the book or license obtained; although they do not retain it for reading, as, for example, a depositary, borrower, bookseller, or associate having co-ownership in a literary society (Kon., n. 1704, q. 8). This nevertheless does not seem to extend to public libraries (Noldin, n. 53). He does not seem to retain who is merely custodian of a library, for in reality he neither detains nor possesses. But it is disputed whether under the name of retainers come binders of books (les relieurs). Strictly speaking it must be affirmed, yet from epikeia this retention seems permitted if they bind them for one having faculty. In other cases the reason of damage will very often excuse (Vermeersch, p. 39). But he is excused who retains for a longer time while waiting until he hands it over at a suitable time to the Superior, or to another having license. Nor is the censure incurred if that part of the book which gave occasion to the prohibition is destroyed in such a way that it can no longer be read.

c) Printers, under which name, besides the editor and owner of the printing-house, come all those who knowingly and proximately concur toward the edition of the book. Cf. the cited Instruction of the Eminent Cardinal Vicar. - See what was said n. 524.

d) Defenders; whether by deeds, by propagating books, exposing them for sale, hiding them lest they be handed over to the judge or burned; or by words, by praising them, excusing them, etc. Nevertheless he who praises not the depraved doctrine of the book, but the style or knowledge of the author, is excused from the censure (VII, l. c.).

1317. • III. "Schismatics, and those who from the obedience of the Roman Pontiff existing for the time being pertinaciously withdraw themselves or depart."

The censure touches: 1. SCHISMATICS properly so called, namely those who boldly establish or follow new Churches. Such are, for example, the Old Catholics. 2. Imperfect schismatics, namely those who, led by true malice, do not wish to obey the Roman Pontiff existing for the time being, holding themselves as freed from his power. From these are certain writers, called liberals, who under a futile pretext pertinaciously reject the decisions and commands of the Roman Pontiff (Pennacchi, I, p. 10, annot. 1). 3. Those giving their name to a society for vindicating the rights of the people in the election of the Supreme Pontiff, or promoting it or in any way favoring or adhering to it (Sacred Penitentiary, 4 Aug. 1876). Cf. A. S. S., vol. 9, p. 352.

But the censure does not touch: a) those who detract from the temporal dominion of the Roman Pontiff; b) those who simply refuse to obey his commands, because they are grave and burdensome, or from hatred toward his private person; c) him who should refuse to be subject to the Pontiff insofar as he is suspect to him, or doubtfully legitimate, that is, not yet received by the universal Church because of an election doubtfully valid; d) him who departs from obedience due to his own Bishop, even pertinaciously. Except if he refuses to be subject to the Bishop because he does not wish to have him as legitimate pastor; for this is the same as not wishing to be subject to the Roman Pontiff who sent him (Konings, 1708).

1318. IV. "All and individual persons, of whatever state, grade, or condition they may have been, appealing from the ordinances or commands of the Roman Pontiffs existing for the time being to a future universal Council; as well as those by whose help, counsel, or favor the appeal shall have been made."

The following are excommunicated: 1. Appellants; and the reason is that they not only do injury to the supreme head of the Church, but also present an appearance of schism. Indeed, if someone should appeal because he thought the Pope did not have supreme and infallible authority in the Church, he would furthermore be a heretic and would be punished by a double excommunication. - But by ordinances and commands, from which it is unlawful to appeal, are to be understood all those things by which the Roman Pontiff, even through a particular and disciplinary Decree, commands something which regards the good of souls; but not those things which refer to civil rule. He who should appeal from a dogmatic Decree would also be excommunicated as a heretic. See as regards colleges, etc., n. 1376.

2. Cooperators, "by whose help, counsel, or favor the appeal shall have been made." - The censure does not touch him who should appeal to the present Council or to a future Pontiff, nor him who should approve an appeal already made by others.

1 For the sake of helping memory, use these little verses, if you please:

Heretic, reader, tearing, crying out, or striking,
Impeding, compelling, prohibiting, falsifying, dishonest,
Usurping, retaining, intruded by whatever name;
All these guilty ones must present themselves at Rome.

1 Instruction of the Eminent Cardinal Vicar to the parish priests of the nourishing City, 12 Jul. 1878 (A. S. S., vol. 11, p. 168). There he further declares that parents who send children to a heretical school do not incur the censure. For they are not truly favorers of heretics.

2 To this excommunication there have been added, in favor of faith in the City, the four following, specially reserved to the Supreme Pontiff. The following are excommunicated: a) All those who, even without the will of adhering to heresy, and only for the sake of human respect, give their names to the enclosures of heretics, of any denomination whatever. b) Those who are present at non-Catholic functions, or services, as it is usually said, or hear one preaching, with the intention that they may give themselves to the same, insofar as, as they impiously say, they can be persuaded by him. c) Those who, having become favorers of the spiritual ruin of another, induce in any way and see to it that others go or come to the halls or temples of heretics to hear conferences. d) Those who publish in type invitations to the aforesaid conferences and the themes of the same; because of the favor which, by such action, they furnish to the propagation or confirmation of heresy. Same Instruction, A. S. S., 11, p. 172.

1319. • V. "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 casting them out from their dioceses, territories, lands, or dominions; as well as those commanding these things, or holding them ratified, or furnishing help, counsel, or favor in them."

By this censure are punished: 1. Those exercising cruelty against the LEADERS OF THE CHURCH, whether against their bodies, or against their liberty, or against their dignity, with the intention of harming them; or casting them, once received, out from places subject to their jurisdiction. But those are not bound by the censure who simply do not receive them, or expel them only from a city.

2. Cooperators, that is, those commanding, furnishing help or favor. Indeed, those holding the aforesaid crimes ratified incur the present excommunication. But for this it is required: a) that the crime was done in their name; b) that at the time of the delict perpetrated they could have commanded it; c) that they approve it by some grave external action, for example by writing, congratulation, applause, praise, etc. (VII, 267).

N. B. This censure must not be confused with that which begins Violentas manus, etc. (n. 1329), for protecting any ecclesiastical person whatever.

1320. VI. "Those directly or indirectly impeding the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, whether of the internal or external forum, and, that is, also, recurring for this to the secular forum and procuring or issuing its commands, or furnishing help, counsel, or favor."

The following are excommunicated: 1. Those impeding by force, threats, or command any exercise whatever of ecclesiastical jurisdiction,1 whether this be ordinary or delegated; whether of the internal forum, which the Sacred Penitentiary governs, or of the external, in which both the Roman Congregations and the Ordinaries of places pronounce law (cf. n. 138). But they impede directly or indirectly: directly, if they themselves obstruct the person endowed with jurisdiction, for example if someone threatens death to a Bishop lest he issue a censure, confer a benefice, visit a diocese, send preachers, acquire or alienate goods, change a parish priest, etc.; indirectly, if they obstruct efficaciously in another thing, or in another person, for example by sequestering the Bishop's goods, vexing his officials or familiars, etc.

2. Those recurring to the secular forum, or to secular magistrates, and procuring its commands, so that they may obstruct a sentence, namely, or an act of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Of this kind are those who, elected by the suffrage of the people, and furnished with the mandate of the civil power, dare, by obstructing the Church, to intrude themselves into parochial or episcopal governance (A. S. S., vol. 7, p. 702). Cf. Excomm. XI, n. 1325. See Monit. eccl., 1910, ap. Nouv. Rev. Theol., 1911, p. 246.

3. Those issuing commands, or the civil judges or magistrates themselves, who frame and issue commands in their own right, for impeding some act of jurisdiction. But actuaries, heralds, and couriers are not excommunicated. The reason is both because all these obey necessity, although perhaps they furnish their work with a willing mind, and because the law, when it wished them to be held by censure, declared this formally.

4. Cooperators, or secondary impeders, namely those who, by some reason sufficiently efficacious and gravely culpable, either furnished help to the persons reviewed above, by physically cooperating with them; or furnished counsel or favor, by morally cooperating in such a way. - Of this kind are, for example, those who elect, help, and favor INTRUDED pastors.

Note. Certain governments have established a tribunal for judging concerning abuse of ecclesiastical power. He who recurs to such a tribunal against Decrees of a Bishop incurs this grave censure. "Some authors wish (D'Annibale, l. c., n. 61; Gabriel a Varceno, n. 9) that those recurring do not incur excommunication unless the effect has followed; others however (Del Vecchio, I, 574; Grandclaude, in h. exc., n. 2; Avanzini, ed. 2, note 7) say that unjust recourse to a civil tribunal, for impeding Decrees of an ecclesiastical judge, suffices; and this opinion seems more probable to us." Cf. Haringer, App. ad l. VII S. Alph., n. 26.

1321. VII. "Those compelling, whether directly or indirectly, lay judges to draw ecclesiastical persons before their tribunal, contrary to canonical dispositions; likewise those issuing laws or decrees against the liberty or rights of the Church."

By this censure are struck: 1. Those who violate the privilege of FORUM, or the immunity of ecclesiastical persons, whether in a criminal cause or in a civil one.

By COMPELLING are understood any private persons whatever, even priests, who, with no permission of ecclesiastical power, call any ecclesiastical persons whatever, whether in a criminal or penal cause, to the tribunal of laymen, and compel them to be present there. Pius X, in the Motu proprio Quantavis diligentia, 9 Oct. 1911 (A. A. S., III, p. 556). - From these things it follows that under the name compelling are understood those who, in a public penal cause, constitute themselves a civil party, or who cause an ecclesiastical person, as witness, to appear in any cause whatever. Thus from the authentic declaration of the Supreme Pontiff to the Bishop of Larino, 11 Jan. 1912 (ap. Monit. eccl., 1912, p. 4). - Cf. A. A. S., VI, p. 277.

It must be noted, however, that mere denunciation before civil officials is not touched by the censure (Ami du Cl., 1912, p. 1035).

By the words contrary to canonical dispositions, allusion is made to multiple cases in which a lay judge can proceed licitly against clerics, whether in civil matters, or even in criminal ones, for example if a cleric has been degraded, etc. But where, with the Holy See permitting or silent, the privilege of FORUM no longer is in force, nor can the civil Right of private persons be obtained from an ecclesiastical judge, the censure seems to cease by the very fact1 (cf. n. 201 and 2234).

They are struck: 2. Those who issue laws or decrees against the LIBERTY or RIGHTS of the Church. These words are very widely open: for by them are expressed all the rights and liberties which belong to the Church, even the right of acquiring by acts either of last will or among the living; the right of alienating, leasing her goods, etc. (cf. n. 874).

Moreover, by the censure are struck the authors of laws and decrees of this kind, that is, deputies and senators who are efficacious causes; the prince who subscribes his name to them or promulgates them; likewise ministers, governors, prefects, municipal officers, etc., who issue decrees attacking some right of the Church, as, for example, decrees by which monasteries or pious places are suppressed.1

But they do not incur the censure: heralds or officials who promulgate such decrees or see that they are observed; notaries who draw up acts according to their norm; litigants who use those decrees; nor judges who accommodate their sentences to them. But consider whether they do not fall into another censure, for example from the fact that they injure ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

1322. VIII. "Those recurring to lay power for impeding letters or any acts whatever proceeding from the Apostolic See, or from its legates or delegates whatever, and those directly or indirectly prohibiting their promulgation or execution; or, by reason of them, injuring or terrifying either the parties themselves or others."

The present censure protects the Letters and Acts of the Holy See, that is, documents proceeding either immediately from the Roman Pontiff and from the Holy See, for example from the Sacred Penitentiary, or from the other Sacred Congregations (Holy Office, 13 Jan. 1892);2 or mediately through legates, nuncios, etc.

The following are excommunicated: 1. Those recurring, for impeding them, whether by appealing or provoking, to lay power, of whatever grade that power may be; and this, in the more probable opinion, although the recourse has suffered rejection.3 2. Those prohibiting promulgation, namely that which induces the obligation of law; or execution, for example by impeding the letters from obtaining their effect, as if someone intercepts them, or prohibits a notary from drawing up instruments concerning them, or from handing over instruments already drawn up. 3. Those injuring, as to the body, or terrifying, by very grave fear, either the parties themselves, that is, the persons who are helped by those letters; or others, for example advocates of the parties, executors, and finally all to whom the acts obtained are referred in some way (De Angelis, l. I, tit. 29, n. 6).

1323. IX. "All falsifiers of Apostolic Letters, even in the form of a Brief, and of supplications concerning grace or justice, signed by the Roman Pontiff, or by the vice-chancellors of the Holy Roman Church, or those taking their place, or by command of the same Roman Pontiff; as well as 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 one taking the place of the aforesaid."

By Apostolic Letters here are not understood letters or Rescripts of the Sacred Congregations or of Nuncios.

Therefore the following are excommunicated: 1. Those who falsify Apostolic Letters, etc., namely by changing, adding, or taking away something by which the sense is corrupted, suppose if the Pontiff has conceded something for three years, and the petitioner changes it into five years.4 - 2. Those who falsely publish either true letters, but secretly and against the will of the Pontiff; or letters altogether false or corrupted, just as if they were authentic. Otherwise, if you publish doubtful letters as doubtful, or if you relate them historically, as published by another. 3. Those who falsely subscribe with the name of the Pontiff, for a grace made. As regards those who use false letters, cf. n. 1350.

1324. X. "Those absolving an accomplice in a shameful sin, even in the article of death, if another priest, although not approved for confessions, without some grave infamy and scandal about to arise, can receive the confession of the dying person."

It is said: 1. Those absolving, even with crass and supine ignorance (Holy Office, 13 Jan. 1892); nor do those simulating absolution escape excommunication (Resp. S. Poenit., 1 Mar. 1878; Holy Office, 10 Dec. 1883; A. S. S., 27, p. 555). - But the censure does not strike him who only hears the accomplice in confession; nor probably him who indeed absolves, but without advertence.

2. An accomplice in a shameful sin; by which name comes every external, grave, certain, and formal sin from each side, against chastity, which must be subjected and actually is subjected to absolution as necessary matter.

3. Even in the article of death, if, etc.; whence the accomplice does not avoid the censure, although he validly absolves, if he does not take care that another confessor or priest be present to the dying accomplice. See more at n. 1780.

Note. This censure is called most specially reserved; because in the faculty of absolving from cases reserved to the Holy See even in a special way, which is conceded to Ordinaries or missionaries, this case is expressly excepted, as is clear from several Decrees of the Holy Office. It is similarly excepted in the Bull of the Crusade (Monit. eccl., I, p. 173, 269).

1 Note that here it is a question only of the jurisdiction of the Catholic Church, but not of the jurisdiction of religious Orders, as regards the use of privileges; nor of the exercise of sacred Orders, as regards conferring them, reading Mass, etc.; nor finally of acts of mere administration (D'Annibale, n. 57).

1 D'Annibale, n. 65. - The privilege of forum for the above-said causes is no longer in force in Austria, Germany, Luxembourg, Belgium, Holland.

1 D'Annibale, n. 68; cf. Syllab. Pius IX, n. 32, 33, 45, 47.

2 Collect. S. C. de P. F., 2172.

3 D'Annibale, Bucceroni defend the contrary opinion (apud Lehmkuhl, II, 1199).

4 Lehmkuhl (II, 1200) judges that those who fabricate Apostolic Letters are not subject to the censure, if they do not publish them.

1325. XI. "Those usurping or sequestering jurisdiction, goods, revenues pertaining to ecclesiastical persons by reason of their churches or benefices."

Preliminary note. Four excommunications are issued against those who dispose illicitly of the GOODS OF THE CHURCH: the first in the present article, if they usurp goods which pertain to ecclesiastical persons by title of church or benefice; the second in the following article, if they invade the goods of the Roman Church; the third, simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff from Trent (n. 1347), if they usurp the goods of any benefice or pious place whatever; and finally the fourth, reserved to no one (n. 1353), if in an illicit way they alienate ecclesiastical goods of whatever kind.

1. Therefore the GOODS which this article protects are: a) jurisdiction, even temporal or delegated; b) temporal goods, indeed even rights to the same; c) revenues pertaining to ecclesiastical persons, not by any reason whatever, but by reason of their churches, or secular or regular benefices. But the goods of vacant benefices are not comprehended, nor those which pertain to Monts of Piety, hospitals, cemeteries, lay chaplaincies, sodalities of laymen, or the fabric of a Church (cf. n. 2235). Nor do the goods of monasteries, which were reviewed in the Bull Coenae, seem to be comprehended here (Avanzini, note 34; D'Annibale, n. 90).

2. THE FOLLOWING ARE EXCOMMUNICATED: a) Usurpers, that is, those occupying another's thing, designated above, as owed to themselves and pertaining to them by right. - Whence thieves, robbers, plunderers, etc., do not incur this censure (Holy Office, 9 Mar. 1870); nor probably those who acquire for themselves, by acts either of last will or among the living, a thing usurped by others; because they do not properly usurp, although they sin and incur other penalties (cf. n. 1347). b) Sequestrators, that is, those pronouncing sequestration by judicial office, or even executing it, and thus impeding goods from being received by the designated persons. Cf. however what was said n. 526, II, 5.

Likewise, from the Encyclical Letters of Pius IX, 21 Nov. 1873, for Switzerland, and from the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, 23 May 1874, for the Venetian and Milanese provinces, those are declared bound by a censure peculiarly reserved to the Holy See and by other penalties "whoever in the aforementioned dioceses, with the people voting, elected to the office of parish priest or vicar, dare to seize the pretended possession either of the Church, or of rights and goods, and to discharge the duties of ecclesiastical ministry."

This excommunication is also incurred by the followers of the clerical-liberal society, or emancipatory society of the clergy, who devote their work to the popular election of sacred ministers (S. C. Conc., 27 Jan. 1878).

N. B. The Instructions of the Sacred Penitentiary concerning those who buy or retain usurped goods, see n. 1031; concerning intruded persons, n. 1327, Question.

1326. XII. "Those invading, destroying, detaining, by themselves or through others, cities, lands, places, or rights pertaining to the Roman Church; or usurping, disturbing, retaining supreme jurisdiction in them; as well as those furnishing help, counsel, or favor to each of the aforesaid."

This censure protects the TEMPORAL DOMINION of the Holy See. - The following are excommunicated: 1. Those who by themselves, or through others, invade, etc., cities, lands, places, or rights, namely temporal and principal rights. 2. Those who usurp, or disturb, or retain the supreme and temporal jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff in these, for example those who impede the Roman Pontiff from publishing laws in these places, exacting taxes, etc. (cf. n. 1325 B, v. Usurpers). - 3. Cooperators, who furnish help, counsel, or favor to each of the aforesaid: namely through a formal, efficacious action, free from grave fear and coercion, for example the first magistrates of each province, city, land, or town.

The following are not excommunicated: a) 1. soldiers who invaded Rome, unless they were volunteers; b) those who fulfill municipal or other duties for protecting public tranquility: unless they furnish an oath by which they promise active obedience to the usurper, or unless they execute such things as are opposed to divine and ecclesiastical laws; c) those who, before the intruded government, discharge the office of consul and legate; d) a fortiori those who furnish only remote work, for example by providing victuals to usurpers, leasing buildings, serving, etc., as is clear from various Responses of the Sacred Penitentiary (A. S. S., I, p. 557-566; II, p. 675).

Note. As regards adherents, although they are not reviewed here, nevertheless they certainly incur the aforesaid excommunication, as is clear from the Encyclical Letter of Pius IX issued on 1 Nov. 1870. But for this, according to the more common opinion, it is required that adhesion or approval of the delict, for example in public papers, furnish help or favor, that is, that it truly concur toward the spoliation, or maintenance of the spoil (Patavin., 200, 202).

1327. XIII. To the specially reserved excommunications another must be added, which the Constitution Romanus Pontifex, 5 Sept. 1873, issued for protecting the Right of capitular vicars against INTRUDED PERSONS (A. S. S., 7, 401 and 702).1

By this censure are punished: 1. Canons and dignities of vacant cathedral churches who shall have dared to concede and transfer the care, governance, and administration of the vacant church... into one nominated and presented by lay power from concession of the Holy See, or elected by right by the capitulars themselves, before the exhibition of Apostolic Letters. 2. The one himself nominated and presented, or elected as above, to the vacant church, who dares to take up its care, governance, and administration, under the name of provider, vicar general, or another name. 3. All who have obeyed the foregoing, or furnished help, counsel, or favor, of whatever state, condition, preeminence, and dignity they may have been. Cf. n. 1361, 1375, 1380, where other penalties are noted.

Furthermore: 1. The aforesaid Canons and dignities are punished with the penalty of privation of ecclesiastical fruits and revenues, to be incurred by the very fact and to be relaxed by the Roman Pontiff. 2. The nominated one exists deprived of that right which perhaps had been acquired for him by the nomination.

IT IS ASKED. What things must Catholics observe as regards INTRUDED PERSONS?

Resp. Behold the principal prescriptions which Pius VI gave to be observed with respect to intruded persons in FRANCE, and by which now one must stand everywhere: 1. The intruded parish priest cannot be approached for the administration of Baptism, except in the case in which there is no other person willing to baptize; nor is it licit to discharge the office of sponsor, if perhaps the intruded person baptizes. - 2. It is not licit, even on feast days, to hear Mass celebrated by an intruded person, although another cannot be heard; nor is it licit to be present at the sermon and other functions of the intruded person, or to ask other ministries of office from him, or to commit to him the celebration of Mass. 3. It is not licit to receive communion from an intruded person, not even for satisfying the Easter precept. 4. Although one must genuflect before hosts consecrated by an intruded person, nevertheless care must be taken, lest in offering this worship Catholics seem to communicate with schismatics, that the meeting of the intruded person be avoided while he carries the Eucharist. 5. It is not licit to approach an intruded parish priest for contracting marriage: whence, if no other means is available, nor can the Superior provide another parish priest or presbyter, the faithful ought to contract without the presence of a pastor. - 6. It is not licit for women, after childbirth has been completed, to receive from intruded persons the blessing which is usually given to a woman after birth. 7. Funeral rites of the dead must be celebrated by the legitimate pastor, even in private houses, if they cannot be done otherwise. But if the intruded person carries the corpse to the church, Catholics should neither accompany the funeral, nor recite sacred prayers, nor perform other rites of the Church associated with him (Ninzatti, n. 1728; cf. Acta Pii VII, II, p. 84). See other things n. 1439.

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

Pius IX declares subject to excommunication of this kind:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the Clementine Constitution two things are required:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It befits the moderation of the Apostolic See to retain in such a way those things which have been salutarily established by the authority of the ancient Canons, that, if the change of times and things should suggest that something must be tempered by prudent dispensation, the same Apostolic See may bestow a fitting remedy and providence of its supreme power. Wherefore, since in Our mind We had long been revolving that the ecclesiastical censures which, by way of latae sententiae and to be incurred by the very fact, have been holily appointed and promulgated through individual ages for guarding the safety and discipline of the Church herself, and for restraining and correcting the unbridled license of the wicked, had gradually grown to a great number; and that some also, with times and customs changed, had fallen away from the end and causes because of which they had been imposed, or from their former utility and opportuneness; and that on this account doubts, anxieties, and anguish of conscience not infrequently arise, whether in those to whom the care of souls has been committed or in the faithful themselves; We, wishing to meet inconveniences of this kind, ordered that a full review of the same be made and proposed to Us, so that, diligent consideration having been applied, We might establish which of them it would be fitting to preserve and retain, and which truly to moderate or abrogate. Therefore, that review having been completed, and Our Venerable Brothers, the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church deputed as General Inquisitors in matters of Faith throughout the whole Christian Republic, having been called into counsel, and the matter having been long and maturely weighed, by Our own motion, certain knowledge, mature deliberation, and from the fullness of Our Apostolic power, by this Constitution to remain in force perpetually, We decree that from whatever censures, whether of excommunication, or suspension, or interdict, which by way of latae sententiae and to be incurred by the very fact have hitherto been imposed, only those which We insert in this Constitution itself, and in the manner in which We insert them, shall have force henceforth; at the same time declaring that the same must receive their force altogether, not only from the authority of the ancient Canons, insofar as they agree with this Our Constitution, but also from this very Constitution of Ours, no otherwise than if they had first been issued by it.

1700. Questions. - Query 1° What has the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis established as regards censures and ecclesiastical penalties?

Resp. Besides those things which I noted concerning minor excommunication and those to be avoided in nn. 1673. 1674:

1° Through this Constitution nothing has been innovated, nothing changed as regards censures ferendae sententiae; and therefore as regards these one must proceed according to the ancient Canons.

2° Censures which in this Constitution are not first brought are to be understood according to the old tradition of the same censures, yet so that they remain tempered, according as they have been tempered by this Constitution. But if the sense of the ancient Canons does not seem to agree with the sense of this Constitution, the sense of the Constitution is to be preferred, no otherwise than if those Canons had first been issued by it. But if it does not sufficiently appear whether they disagree or not, one ought to remember that later laws regularly pertain to earlier ones.

3° Nothing has been changed as regards other canonical penalties; and therefore they have remained in their force, just as they were before this Constitution. - Nevertheless, if those things which by the old law are punished with other penalties are now coerced by excommunication, the other penalties seem to cease, because it is very harsh and alien to law for someone to be made guilty under several laws and penalties because of the same crime.

Query 2° What censures latae sententiae remained after the Constitution?

Resp. Besides those expressly noted in the Constitution, there remained: 1) those directly inflicted by Trent; 2) those brought for the election of the Roman Pontiff, insofar as hitherto they have persisted in their force; 3) all other particular censures which each particular Religious Order, or Institute, or Society, or Pious Place, or College, and a particular place of whatever kind, previously had for internal rule, and insofar as likewise hitherto they have persisted in their force.

I said: a) directly inflicted by Trent; for censures only renewed by the Council, and not directly inflicted, are altogether abrogated. This is gathered from the scope of the Constitution, which is that a certain and determinate number of censures might be had for avoiding many inconveniences: and from its words: "Besides those hitherto reviewed, those also whom the Sacred Council of Trent ... excommunicated, We likewise declare to be thus excommunicated" ... and it does not say "renewed." Thus Avanzini against others.¹ - But neither do all censures which the Council of Trent brought have force today, or everywhere; for those must be excepted which, with times changed, have become obsolete, examples of which you have Sess. 25 de Ref. Reg. c. 5, and Sess. 24, de Ref. Matr. c. 9; and those places are to be excepted where Trent was not received.²

I said: b) all other particular; for universal ones seem to have been abrogated by this very fact, that the Constitution expressly confirms universal ones which pertain to internal rule, as, for example, censures concerning enclosure, which would be useless if sanctions of this kind were already ratified from the general rule.³ The Commentaries contradict.⁴

Query 3° How can it be known which censures were only indirectly inflicted by the Council of Trent, i.e., renewed?

Resp. Censures which the Council of Trent indirectly inflicted are those which are indicated either by general words, as, for example, "And those who do otherwise ... incur by the very fact the penalties inflicted by law," or by these words: "renewing upon these things the penalties of the ancient Canons," or by special allegations, as, for example, "according to the Constitution of Clement V issued in the Council of Vienne," etc.; or "According to the Constitution of the General Council of Lyons," etc.

Query 4° What is the sense of certain terms occurring here and there in the Constitution?

Resp. a) Those commanding, i.e., those who ask in their own name, or order that something be done.

b) Those counseling, who persuade and impel another to do something. They persuade: therefore they are not held by a censure brought against counselors who offer doctrinal counsel; they impel: therefore neither are those held who urge another to do that which was already certain for him to admit.¹

c) Defenders are those who protect someone, so that he can do something safely and freely. A mode of defense is to receive someone: whence

d) Receivers or harborers, namely those who furnish refuge for the sake of hiding someone in their own or another's place; nor does it matter who receives, whether some private person, or a magistrate, or a prince.

e) To furnish aid is to bring help for perpetrating a delict.

f) To favor is to furnish any assistance whatever to someone, whether by doing (as, for instance, by commendations, money, counsel), or by omitting what was to be done from office.²

g) He is said to adhere who, no pact having been entered into with someone, follows his party.

Note. - 1° Those enumerated under a) and b) act upon the mind or internal act; the rest upon the work or external act.

2° Those recounted under c), d), e), f) do not differ in species, but as more and less; for all furnish one thing, namely, help. - They are not held by censure unless they bring help in the aforesaid modes in such a way: 1) that another can perpetrate the delict, not that he can evade the penalty of a delict already perpetrated [unless the delict has successive extension (n. 1662. 5°)], and 2) formally, namely, it is necessary that he who, for example, favors a heretic, favor him because he is a heretic.³

3° Whether he to whom counsel, aid, etc., is furnished is in good faith or in bad faith does not matter. - Thus concerning this whole question, the Commentaries.¹

Query 5° Whether the Constitution took away from the ecclesiastical law itself, from which it removed a censure, its old force of obliging, or gave new force to that to which it affixed a censure or left one affixed?

Resp. Negatively as to the first. The reason is that the Constitution derogates from the old law only as regards censures. - Affirmatively as to the second, because the Constitution derogates from any legitimate customs whatever which formerly exempted from the law, not only as regards censures, but also as regards the laws themselves which are sanctioned by censures, as seems to follow from the Response of the S. R. U. Inq., Feria IV, December 22, 1880 (Past. Bl. fuer N. Amer. 1881. p. 105 sq.).

Note. - To the words by which individual censures are enunciated by the Supreme Pontiff, we always immediately subjoin the places of the old law where the same or a similar censure is found, so that he who desires more may be able to recur there according to the rule handed down above, q. 1°. R. 2°.

Of these some are reserved to the Roman Pontiff in a special manner, others simply, others to Bishops, others to no one.

1701. - Query. How many and which are the excommunications latae sententiae reserved to the Roman Pontiff in a special manner?

Resp. They are the following thirteen.

I. "All apostates from the Christian Faith," and all and each heretics, by whatever name they are reckoned, and of whatever sect they exist, and those believing them, and their receivers, favorers, and generally any defenders whatever of them." Bull Coenae, § 1.

1° By "apostates from the Christian Faith" are understood those whom we defined in n. 266 at the end. But whether the crime of apostasy consists in withdrawal alone, so that profession of some false religion is not required, is disputed. I think withdrawal suffices.¹

For practice it matters little whether withdrawal alone suffices for apostasy, since this most certainly suffices for heresy, and to that extent is subject to the censure. Besides, apostates do not differ essentially from heretics, but only according to more and less, which, according to the axiom of Law, do not diversify the species. Wherefore apostates are named in the Constitution only for greater clarity, because they are not accustomed to be called heretics.²

But withdrawal certainly is required, that someone be called an apostate. But since the condition of withdrawal certainly is present in Pantheists, Naturalists, Rationalists, and many others of this kind, who commonly are called Unbelievers, Freethinkers, or Liberals, it can be asked whether, in the opinion which holds withdrawal to suffice, such as, alas! among Catholics themselves in this our age some (and would that there were not many) are found, who are more or less imbued with the aforesaid errors, or even, the duties of a Christian man neglected, live indifferently as if having no religion, yet without having denied the Christian Faith, or at least having deserted it in such a way that they do not wish any longer to be numbered among the faithful of Christ, are subject to the censure as apostates? I respond that these cannot be considered as true apostates, but it can happen that they are to be held as heretics.

2° By "all and each heretics, by whatever name they are reckoned, and of whatever sect they exist," understand those guilty of heresy: a) properly taken (n. 265); b) so formal (n. 266. 1°; 268. q. 1° and 2°), that no ignorance, not even affected, is present (n. 268. q. 1°. R. 2°); c) manifested by word or deed; d) at least occult (n. 266. 3°).

Note. - 1) From heresy that is notorious and brought to the judicial forum in whatever way (i.e., even if the heretic has spontaneously brought his delict to that forum), the Bishop absolves for both forums, either by himself or through a delegate.³ - 2) The Pope alone can absolve from heresy, whether notorious or occult, which has not yet been treated in the judicial forum.¹ See nevertheless the faculty of our Bishops, p. LXXI. 15. - 3) The Bishop (and among us any priest laboring in the Sacred Ministry) can receive in both forums the abjuration of new converts. Cf. n. 1264.

3° "And those believing them." - Believers in apostates or heretics are those who indeed have not given their name to an unbelieving or heretical sect, nor subjected themselves to such a sect, but externally show themselves to adhere to or believe the errors of apostates or heretics, for instance if someone were to say: "Doellinger rightly thinks concerning the Primacy,"² or, with the intention of assenting to the errors of a heretic (or not only from curiosity or another motive), were to hear his preaching or read his writings.

4° "And their receivers, favorers, and generally any defenders whatever of them" (i.e., of apostates or heretics). See n. 1700. q. 4°. Resp. c). d). f), and cf. Nouv. Revue Theol.³ Hence, as a defender, he is held by the censure who either praises the doctrine of a heretic (certainly in particular that doctrine which is contrary to the Faith), or disputes for the heretic, or responds to an objection against him; but not he who praises the learning, eloquence, or talent of a heretic.

Note. - In order that the censure be incurred, it suffices that the apostate or heretic to whom one believes, whom one favors, etc., be known as such to the one believing, favoring, etc.; nor is it necessary that he be denounced or even notorious.⁴

1702. - II. "All and each persons knowingly reading without the authority of the Apostolic See the books of the same apostates and heretics defending heresy, and also the books of any author prohibited by name through Apostolic Letters, and those retaining, printing, and in any way defending the same books." Bull Coenae, § 1, and Rule X of the Index.

The reading of books can be prohibited by natural law, or by positive law, or by laws of both kinds.

Namely, the reading of those books is prohibited by the law of nature itself whose use brings danger of sin, and indeed insofar as the same law commands that this danger be avoided. - See n. 1448. 1449.

But by positive law books are proscribed either immediately by the Supreme Pontiff, or by Councils, even general ones, or by the Index of prohibited books, or by another competent authority, e.g., by Ordinaries of places, and indeed either by name, i.e., with the title of the book expressed, or in general, indicating namely not individual works, but certain classes of works, the use of which is forbidden to the faithful. But the prohibition embraces the reading, retention, defense, and printing of such works.¹

There are added ecclesiastical laws by which especially the edition or printing of books without approval, e.g., of the S. C. of Indulgences or of the Ordinary, is prohibited.²

1703. - In this article a twofold species of prohibited books is contained: the former embraces the books of apostates and heretics; the latter, books prohibited by name through Apostolic Letters.

Books of the former species, that they may fall under excommunication, must bear before themselves two conditions, namely: 1° That they be of apostates or heretics; 2° That they defend heresy.

Books prohibited through Apostolic Letters, that they may fall under excommunication, must 1° be prohibited either in the form of a Brief, as most often happens, or in the form of a Bull, or through encyclical letters, or through any other extrinsic form, when in the letters themselves is read: from the fullness of Our Apostolic authority, or by Apostolic authority; for all these are called by the generic name Apostolic Letters. Therefore the censure does not comprehend books prohibited through decrees of the Index; but it is extended to books prohibited through Apostolic Letters before the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, provided they were prohibited, or, if there is question of prohibiting them, are prohibited under excommunication reserved to the Roman Pontiff. Thus Avanzini. Godschalk otherwise.³ But in the Index it is enunciated in what manner individual books are proscribed. 2° They must be prohibited by name, or by their proper titles.⁴

1704. Questions. - Query 1° Whether the books of those who believe apostates and heretics, of whom there is discussion in n. 1701. 3°, or of favorers and defenders (ib. 4°), if they defend heresy, are comprehended under this censure?

Resp. Negatively, because the books defending heresy are prohibited of those who pertain to the first class, i.e., of those who are leaders of apostates and heretics, or who formally pertain to their sects, or to true and certain heretics. Thus Avanzini.¹

Nevertheless it is not required that the author have been juridically condemned as a heretic or apostate, or have been born in a heretical sect; nor that the book have been written by heretics or apostates alone, with Catholics not cooperating; nor that the author's name be expressed; namely it suffices that: 1) in the book there be contained an indubitable defense of heresy or of apostasy from the Faith, and 2) that the defense have been made so pertinaciously that it cannot be doubted that the author of the book is certainly a heretic or apostate; and thus books of believers, favorers, etc., can be comprehended under the censure. - But books of infidels or of Jews are not comprehended under the censure, since they are neither apostates nor heretics.

Query 2° Whether books of apostates and heretics in which heresy is simply handed down, without being defended, are comprehended under this censure?

Resp. Negatively, since in the Constitution, which in this respect differs from the Bull Coenae, defense of heresy is required. Yet it suffices that the author has applied his talent for this end, that heresy be defended, whatever otherwise may be the matter of the book. Nouv. Rev. Th. T. II. p. 623.

Query 3° Whether periodicals, or newspapers, of the same persons, defending heresy, are prohibited under this censure?

Resp. They do not seem to be; because newspapers, insofar as the sheets remain complete by themselves, do not come under the name of books.² Nevertheless periodical writings, or fascicles destined for composing a volume, are comprehended by the censure.³

Query 4° Whether under the name of a book there also come little books of too slight a bulk, for instance a letter, a sermon, and whether manuscripts come under it?

Resp. to the 1st. Negatively. The reason is, because a penal law is to be interpreted strictly. Say the same concerning sheets separated from the book itself.¹

Resp. to the 2nd. Affirmatively, according to the more common opinion, to which St. Alphonsus adheres more, and which he says is altogether to be counseled.²

Note. - Under the name of a book there comes also the translation of the same, made in whatever language.³

Likewise, according to the opinion to which St. Alphonsus adheres more, there come books of Catholics to which a heretic has added notes so copious that they must be said to consist from these rather than from the writings of Catholics.⁴

Query 5° Whether under the censure there come books of very ancient heretics, or books containing errors wholly obsolete, which, every danger having been removed, are held as merely historical documents?

Resp. Negatively, because as to these the end of the law has entirely ceased.⁵

Query 6° Who in the Constitution come under the name of a) those reading, b) those retaining, c) those printing, d) those defending in any way?

Resp. to a). He who reads by himself, but not, at least probably, he who hears one reading, although the reader reads either by the counsel or by the command of the hearer. The reason is, because he does not read. - Nor does he incur the censure who reads himself, if he is ignorant of the language in which the book is written. - But when a book is prohibited, not only that part which gave cause for the prohibition, but the whole book is prohibited from being read, and besides this whatever part of the book is understood to be prohibited, as the dedicatory epistle, the prologue, the index. - But if the work has been distributed into several volumes, the Doctors dispute whether the prohibition is extended to those in which heresy is not defended, or which did not give cause for the prohibition. The opinion of Lugo pleases us more, who denies this if the subject matter of the work admits division, as history; but otherwise affirms it. - The prohibition ceases if you have withdrawn, or erased, or blackened that part which gave cause for the prohibition, so that it can no longer be read, provided the book was not proscribed because it treats of Religion expressly, or in hatred of the author.¹

Resp. to b). 1° The owner of the book, although it is deposited with another; 2° the depositary; 3° the borrower; 4° one retaining it in pledge. Nor is it enough to hand the book to another torn into sheets for wrapping medicines, salted goods, etc., or to hand it to one having license to retain it, unless you hand it over on this condition, that you do not reclaim it until you have obtained license of reading.²

Resp. to c). Immediate cooperators in the printing (n. 315), whether material cooperators, or (according to the truer opinion) those hiring their labor as conducive to this, as the owner of the printing-house, the editor, etc.³

Resp. to d). See n. 1700, q. 4°, R. c), d). But under the name of those defending there probably do not come those who would praise only the style or talent of the author, but not his doctrine.⁴

Resp. It is required:

1° That they act knowingly, as is said in the Constitution. Hence ignorance, at least gross ignorance, and probably even affected ignorance, excuses. Yet it suffices to know by report, or by a witness worthy of faith. (Cf. n. 1664, q. 3°, R. 2°.)⁵

2° That grave matter be present.⁶ - But smallness of matter: a) On the part of those reading or printing is to be considered formally, and thus sometimes a few lines suffice, if they defend heresy.⁷ - b) On the part of those retaining it is present, if someone retains a book for a short time, e.g., one or another day, or retains it while awaiting the opportune time to hand it over to the Ordinary, or to one having license, or to a confessor. Otherwise, if he were to retain it for a long time, even though he abstained entirely from reading it.¹ - c) On the part of those defending, smallness of matter does not seem admissible.²

3° That these things be done "without the authority of the Apostolic See," as the Constitution speaks, except however the case of a pious and learned man, who from necessity reads in order to convict a heretic, recourse to the Superior not being open.³ By what reason our Bishops can communicate the faculty of reading prohibited books, see p. LXXI. 21, and p. LXXII. 2.

But the clause: for the purpose of attacking them, does not cause that you sin gravely or incur the censure, although you do not read for that end, but e.g., from curiosity.⁴

Query 8° Who among those who belong to literary societies, among which books prohibited by this article are kept, incur the censure?

Resp. 1° Certainly the society as such does not incur it, since a community cannot be struck with excommunication. See n. 1669, q. 6°.

Resp. 2° As to individuals, distinguish. For they belong to the society either a) in such a way that they have co-ownership of the books, or b) in such a way that they belong to the assembly of those who preside over the society and direct its affairs by counsel, vote, etc., or c) in such a way that they are mere ministers of the society, as e.g., a librarian, or d) in such a way that by a contribution of money they procure for themselves the right to the use of the books.

If a), they incur the censure as owners of the books [this number, q. 6°, R. to b)].

If b), subdistinguish. The president will incur it, as is plain of itself; but not the remaining members who in no way favor the purchase of prohibited books. Thus in the hypothesis that those members lack co-ownership of the books.

If c), the librarian is held by the censure, because he comes under the name of those retaining [this number, q. 6°, R. to b)]. As to the others, see whether perhaps from the circumstances they are to be numbered among those defending [this number, q. 6°, R. to d)].

If d), they do not incur it, if they do not use their right for the use of prohibited books. Except if in a particular case they defend prohibited books or by circumstances are judged to defend them.

Thus, saving a better judgment; for I have sought this question in vain among the Doctors, even among those who have written expressly on the prohibition of books.

1705. - The Index was composed and published by order of Paul IV in the year 1558. - Pius IV perfected it with the Council of Trent, and published it in the year 1564. - Clement VIII enlarged it in the year 1595. - The Congregation of the Index was instituted by St. Pius V.¹

But the Index prohibits books partly by certain classes, as in the ten Rules of the Index, and in the Decrees concerning prohibited books not expressed by name in the Index;² partly by indicating, in alphabetical order, either the titles of books or the names of authors.

1706. - I. There are prohibited absolutely: 1° all books of heresiarchs (both of those who after the year 1515 invented or stirred up heresies, and of those who are or have been Heads or Leaders of heretics, such as Luther, etc.), even if not erroneous, or not treating expressly of Religion.

2° Books of heretics which treat expressly of Religion.

3° Books treating expressly of obscene things, with the exception of ancient books written by pagans, which, on account of elegance and propriety of speech, and insofar as there is question of ecclesiastical law alone, are permitted; nevertheless they are by no reason to be read before boys.

4° All books treating of astrology, divination, and sorceries.

5° All books entered into the Index without any addition.

II. There are prohibited under clauses:

1° All books which, before the year 1515, either the Supreme Pontiffs or Ecumenical Councils condemned, in the same way as they had formerly been condemned. By this rule however there are not prohibited the old books of pagans, nor even, according to Theologians (see n. 1704, q. 5°), the books of heretics of earlier centuries, as of Tertullian, Eusebius, etc.

2° Books written either a) by heretics, although not treating of Religion; or b) by those who afterward fell into heresy, or after a fall returned to the bosom of the Church, although written in a Catholic manner, unless they have been approved.

3° Bibles in the vernacular language, unless they have been approved by the Holy See, or published with notes drawn from the Holy Fathers, or from learned and Catholic men. Thus, not without foundation, Craisson interprets the Decrees and Responses of the Holy See.¹ I add: provided that a special prohibition has not been made by the Bishop concerning those versions which have been published without the approval of the Holy See or of the Ordinary. But Bishops cannot approve versions without the aforesaid notes, as is plain from the concession made to them in the year 1757.²

4° Books entered into the Index with the clause: until they are corrected, i.e., until they have appeared in a new corrected edition, which has been approved by the Sacred Congregation of the Index.

III. It is established that no book and no writing be printed without the license of the Ordinary.

1707. Questions. - Query 1° Whether the law of the Index, prohibiting the reading of certain books, obliges by natural law, or only by positive law?

Resp. It presses by both laws, at least of itself; because it prohibits books only because they are pernicious, and bring in a proximate danger of perversion or of sin; but by natural law each one is held to flee danger of this kind. Hence even if the obligation of the Index were not acknowledged somewhere, nevertheless the reading of books entered into the Index would be prohibited under grave sin, at least in general. On this matter St. Alphonsus observes:³ "All Theologians ... add, that not even with the license of the Pontiff can the reading of that book be permitted, which could be an occasion of subversion to someone."¹

Two things besides are to be noted.

1° Private persons ought to obey the commands of the confessor in these things which regard the reading of books. Thus the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition responded in the year 1832 to the Bishops of Switzerland asking: "Whether the faithful, with a safe conscience, can read Periodicals or books which have not undergone the censure of the Ordinary?" Resp. "Let them have recourse to the confessor."

2° The confessor himself ought carefully to seek the direction of the Bishop, and diligently to keep before his eyes the very grave warning which St. Alphonsus¹ handed down, namely: "In this matter it is expedient ordinarily to follow the stricter opinions."

Query 2° Whether among us the rules of the Index are to be observed and urged?

Resp. Affirmatively, if, when they are neglected, Faith or morals are exposed to proximate danger; indeed, even apart from this danger, those rules which have not been abrogated and morally speaking can be observed, are to be observed and, if it can be done prudently, urged.²

Especially: a) "Obscene books ... expressly so called cannot be read by anyone without grave sin, because of the proximate danger of exciting lust."³

b) "Those who read books treating of history, geography, and other matters of this kind, in which many things opposed to the Faith are found here and there, seem to be excused, because of the very great difficulty which exists in discerning and comparing books; for since most books written in the English language have non-Catholic authors, it can scarcely happen that Catholics, without very grave detriment to knowledge and other inconveniences, abstain from them. Therefore the kindness of the Church seems to indulge this, lest otherwise pious souls be ensnared. Moreover, care must diligently be taken that an occasion of perversion not arise; and therefore one must labor with every zeal, that expurgated books be had."⁴

c) Those things are to be observed which were said in n. 1706, II. 3°, concerning Bibles in the vernacular language. - Kenrick however observes:⁵ "If there are any recently converted to the Faith, who retain Bibles handed down by the hands of their ancestors, in which also the names of parents and children are inscribed, as is the custom, they do not seem to be compelled against their sentiments and affections, to cast them away, the Apostle admonishing: Receive him who is weak in faith."¹

d) As to the printing of books, the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore² recalls the law of the Church forbidding that "books concerning Religion and the worship of God" be committed to the press without the approval of the Ordinary.

Note. - Let these things said be understood insofar as there is question of the Index alone, apart from those things which we have explained in nn. 1702-1704 according to the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, and which we shall say in n. 1741, 1°, according to the same Constitution.

1708. - III. "Schismatics, and those who pertinaciously withdraw themselves from, or recede from, the obedience of the Roman Pontiff existing for the time." C. 5. Dist. 19. caus. 43. q. III. can. 26. Bull Coenae, § I.

1° By "schismatics" are understood those who pertain to perfect schism, namely those who arrogate to themselves an authority independent of the Roman Pontiff, and, thus setting themselves up as an authority, constitute new churches, make assemblies, dispose concerning the affairs of the Church after the likeness of a supreme independent authority.

2° By "those who pertinaciously withdraw themselves from, or recede from, the obedience of the Roman Pontiff existing for the time," are understood those who pertain to imperfect schism, namely who with full malice and obstinacy refuse to obey the person of the Roman Pontiff, holding themselves released from his supreme divine authority. I said: 1) holding themselves released from his supreme authority. Hence this censure does not hold those who refuse to obey on account of the thing commanded, e.g., in fasts, etc.; but only those who cast off the authority of the Roman Pontiff. I said: 2) from his supreme divine authority. Hence they do not contract this censure who decline his temporal dominion.

Note. - a) He who refuses to be subject to his own Bishop, because he does not wish to have him as his proper and legitimate Pastor, is the same as not wishing to be subject to the Roman Pontiff who sent him. If however someone perseveres in subjection to the Roman Pontiff and in communion with the other Churches, separation from communion with his own Bishop alone does not subject him to the censure.

b) It is not necessary that they be rebels against the authority of the Holy See taken universally; but it suffices that they are rebels against the obedience of that person who actually and legitimately occupies the See of Blessed Peter.

3° "Pertinaciously withdraw themselves," i.e., in the same way as heretics from the Faith, or knowingly and willingly. Wherefore the censure would not hold him who refused to be subject to a Pontiff insofar as he was suspect to him, or hateful, or doubtfully legitimate, i.e., not yet received by the universal Church because of an election doubtfully valid.

1709. - IV. "All and each, of whatever state, grade, or condition they shall be, appealing from the ordinances or mandates of the Roman Pontiffs existing for the time to a future universal Council, and also those by whose aid, counsel, or favor the appeal has been made." Bull Coenae, § II.

1° "To a future Council." Therefore if appeal has been made to a future Roman Pontiff, or to a present Council, there is no place for the censure.

2° By "ordinances, or mandates" here are not understood ordinances or mandates as to matters which pertain to temporal life and civil government; but only ordinances which regard the government of the universal or particular Church, and which pertain to its spiritual authority, even if exercised upon private persons.

1710. - V. "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 casting them out from their dioceses, territories, lands, or dominions, and also those commanding these things, or holding them ratified, or furnishing aid, counsel, or favor in them." St. Pius V, c. Infelicis. Bull Coenae, § XI.

1° "Hostilely pursuing," i.e., with the intention of harming, not merely of frightening.

2° "From their dioceses," etc., i.e., from places subject to their jurisdiction.

3° "Casting out," i.e., expelling one previously received, and indeed from the whole tract of jurisdiction. Therefore they are not bound by this censure who simply do not receive, or who expel from some city of the diocese.

4° "Those commanding" ... "furnishing counsel" in these things. See n. 1700, q. 4°.

5° "Holding ratified." Ratification here requires: a) that the striking, etc., was done in the name of the one ratifying; because "no one can hold ratified what has not been done in his name"; b) that at the time when these things had been perpetrated, they themselves could have admitted them, and therefore could have commanded them; for thus ratification is drawn back and is equated to mandate;¹ c) that not only by intention, but by some grave external action, e.g., writing, congratulation, applause, praise, etc., they approve the indicated delicts.²

1711. - VI. "Those impeding directly or indirectly the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, whether of the internal or external forum, and those recurring for this purpose to the secular forum, and those procuring or issuing its mandates, or furnishing aid, counsel, or favor." L. III. T. XXIII. c. 3 in 6°. Bull Coenae, § XVI.

1° They are struck by this excommunication who impede the exercise of ordinary or delegated jurisdiction, whether of the internal or external forum. - I say: of jurisdiction, namely insofar as it is distinguished from the exercise of Order, which two however are not always easily discerned from one another. Generally the power of Order pertains chiefly to the sanctification of souls; the power of Jurisdiction chiefly to the governing of the society of the faithful; therefore it belongs to the former to bless and consecrate; to the latter to rule and govern. Wherefore to the power of Order it pertains to perform Sacred things, to administer the Sacraments, to bless and consecrate persons and things, etc. To the power of jurisdiction it pertains to issue laws, mandates; to bind, loose; to confer benefices, ecclesiastical offices; to determine or take away ecclesiastical things, to send preachers, to visit a diocese, and to commit to others those things which belong to Order.

2° In this article those who impede the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and those who elude the effect of the same jurisdiction by recourse to a lay tribunal are entirely distinct. Therefore the particle: and those recurring for this purpose, has a disjunctive force, so that it signifies the other class of those who likewise are comprehended under the same censure. Hence both those impeding and those merely recurring are struck with this excommunication.

3° "Those impeding," namely by some deed, for instance by force, threats, command; for he is said to impede who causes another unwillingly to cease from an action. Therefore if someone uses counsels, entreaty, fraud, he is rather said to persuade, obtain, deceive. - "Those impeding directly," namely if someone obstructs the very person wishing to exercise jurisdiction, and in that thing which he intends to do, e.g., while he threatens the Bishop with recourse to the lay forum, if he is transferred by him to another parish. - Indirectly, namely if he obstructs him in another matter or in another person, as if he threatens him with some grave evil under pretext of an injury brought upon himself, but in truth that the Bishop may desist from transferring him to another parish; if by threats he prohibits judges given to him by the Bishop from undertaking those things which belong to their office.

4° "Those recurring." In order to incur the censure on this account, according to some it is required that a mandate or prohibition be obtained against ecclesiastical judges; according to others this is not required, but it suffices that one merely have recourse. - By forum some¹ understand civil power, whether legislative, executive, or judicial; others² only judicial power.

5° By "those issuing" are understood judges, and all others of the secular forum, who issue mandates which impede the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, but not actuaries writing them out, etc.³

6° "Those furnishing aid, counsel, or favor." See n. 1700, q. 4°. But these incur the censure only after by this reason the exercise of jurisdiction has been impeded, or recourse (in the opinion of those who think this suffices) has taken place.

1712. - VII. "Those compelling, either directly or indirectly, lay judges to draw ecclesiastical persons to their tribunal contrary to canonical dispositions: likewise those issuing laws or decrees against the liberty or rights of the Church." Martin V, c. Ad reprimendas. Bull Coenae, § XV.

Query. Whether lay judges, who by an office imposed by the laws either of a kingdom or of an empire, which are contrary to ecclesiastical sanctions, draw ecclesiastical persons to their tribunal, that they may discharge their said office, incur a censure of this kind?

Resp. Negatively, according to the authentic response which was given in the Instruction of the S. C. U. Inq., February 1, 1871, by which it was declared: "The excommunication does not touch those who are subordinate, even if they have been judges, but has been laid only upon those who, compelled by no one, either do such things, or compel others to do them."

1° "Those compelling directly or indirectly." Indirectly, e.g., by fear impressed upon the relatives of a judge, or through another upon the judge himself.

2° "Contrary to canonical dispositions," there is allusion to Concordats of a kingdom or of an empire with the Apostolic See, which remain in force. - There is allusion also to the case in which some ecclesiastical person has been duly degraded, and delivered to a lay judge to be punished. - Likewise to other cases: when, e.g., an ecclesiastical person draws lay persons into judgment; for an ecclesiastical person can present himself in a lay court in a non-ecclesiastical cause as plaintiff; but he himself cannot be drawn as defendant. - The Commentators add:¹ "This censure ceases in those places where the privilege of forum, the Holy See permitting or being silent, has been abrogated; for it is utterly incredible that the most wise Pontiff wished suddenly, and with scarcely one word, to stir up a very wide and very tangled crop of controversies and annoyances. Cf. nn. 112-114."

3° "Those issuing laws or decrees against the liberty and rights of the Church." Only those issuing them, or the authors of laws or decrees, are excommunicated, as for instance among us the members of legislative or municipal assemblies, and likewise the President, Governor, or Prefect of a City who do not veto laws or decrees of this kind. - Laws are those things which are constituted perpetually by the Supreme Power. - Decrees are those things which are issued generally by any power whatever, as for instance by a Prefect of a City, by Municipalities, etc. - Against the liberty or rights of the Church. These words are very widely open, and strike every kind whatever of laws or decrees by which not only the exercise of ecclesiastical power, whether of jurisdiction or of Order, but any other right is intercepted, restricted, disturbed. See examples in the Syllabus, pp. 19-21, 24-33, 41-54, p. XLII-XLIV.

1713. - VIII. "Those recurring to lay power for impeding letters, or any acts whatever proceeding from the Apostolic See, or from its Legates or Delegates of whatever kind, and those prohibiting their promulgation or execution directly or indirectly, or on account of them injuring or greatly frightening either the parties themselves or others." L. III. T. XXIII. c. 4 in 6°. Bull Coenae, § XIII.

1° By the words: "letters," namely Apostolic, what is understood, see n. 1703. - "Acts" are called those things which are done at Rome by the Roman Pontiff, whether they contain a spiritual or temporal matter; or by his command, as citations, processes, etc.

2° This article comprises a threefold kind of persons: 1) "Those recurring" to lay power for impeding letters, or any acts whatever proceeding from the Apostolic See, or from the Legates or Delegates of the same Apostolic See, of whatever kind.

2) "Those prohibiting" directly or indirectly the promulgation or execution of the same acts.

3° "Those injuring" (the body, goods), or "greatly frightening" (with exceedingly grave fear) the parties themselves, i.e., the persons who have obtained some Rescript either of grace or of justice from the Holy See or its Legates, or some sentence favorable to themselves, etc., or those injuring or greatly frightening others, for instance the patrons of the same parties by reason of the acts obtained, or executors, or persons to whom the acts obtained are referred by some reason.

1714. - IX. "All forgers of Apostolic Letters, even in the form of a Brief, and of supplications concerning grace or justice, signed by the Roman Pontiff, or by the Vice-Chancellors of the Holy Roman Church or by those acting in their place, or by mandate of the same Roman Pontiff; and also those falsely publishing Apostolic Letters, even in the form of a Brief, and also falsely signing supplications of this kind under the name of the Roman Pontiff, or of the Vice-Chancellor, or of those acting in the place of the aforesaid." L. V. Decr. T. XX. c. 7. Bull Coenae, § VI.

Note. - It is required that these things have been committed with evil intent, and, if the interest of another is involved, that they gravely harm or can harm this other. For the crime of forgery is "an alteration or suppression of the truth made to the fraud of another."¹

As to those using false Apostolic letters, see n. 1735.

1715. - X. "Those absolving an accomplice in a base sin, even in the article of death, if another priest, although not approved for Confessions, can receive the Confession of the dying person without any grave infamy and scandal about to arise." Benedict XIV, c. Sacramentum Poenitentiae, § IV. Cf. c. Apostolici muneris, §§ III, IV.

1° "Those absolving": but not merely those hearing the Confession of an accomplice,² nor those absolving with ignorance, even gross ignorance, of the censure; for the Constitution of Benedict XIV, from which the censure is taken, requires daring (cf. n. 1406, 2°, Note, and n. 1664, q. 3°). Those feignedly absolving are held by the censure. (47) p. 428.

2° "An accomplice" (see n. 1404, I, 1405, q. 2°), "in a base sin" (see n. 1405, q. 1°).

3° "Even in the article of death, if," etc. (see n. 1405, q. 3°, q. 4°, q. 5°).

Note. - Concerning absolution from this censure, see p. LXXI, n. 16, note 2, b).

1716. - XI. "Those usurping, or sequestrating, jurisdiction, goods, revenues, belonging to ecclesiastical persons by reason of their churches or benefices." Bull Coenae, § XVII. L. I. T. VI. c. 13 in 6°.

1° "Those usurping," i.e., occupying a thing from another as if by right to it, or as if it pertained to themselves. Therefore thieves, robbers, plunderers, etc. do not incur this censure (S. C. O., March 9, 1870), nor those who acquire a thing usurped by others by acts either of last will or among the living.¹

2° "Or sequestrating," i.e., jurisdictionally impeding lest goods, etc., be received by the said ecclesiastical persons.

3° "Jurisdiction," whether spiritual or temporal, e.g., of the Roman Pontiff in his dominion.

4° "Goods," whether immovable or movable, or rights. Cf. n. 593.

5° "Revenues," i.e., whatever the thing bears, or is received by reason of the thing, not stole fees.

6° "Belonging to ecclesiastical persons by reason of their churches or benefices." Therefore not those things which belong to hospitals, lay sodalities, Monasteries (others however affirm²), cemeteries; nor goods assigned to preserving or repairing sacred buildings, or to performing sacred things.³

Moreover current law establishes four excommunications incurred by the very fact against those who dispose illicitly of ecclesiastical goods, etc.: the first, of which in this number; the second, third, and fourth, of which in nn. 1717, 1738, 1740. The first and second are reserved specially to the Supreme Pontiff; the fourth simply to him; the third is reserved to no one.

1717. - XII. "Those invading, destroying, detaining, 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 aid, counsel, or favor to each one of the aforesaid." Bull Coenae, § XX.

1° This excommunication looks to the defense of temporal dominion belonging to the Holy See. Hence rights and jurisdiction are here understood as temporal; nor are any rights whatever meant, but principal rights, or those which are proper to a Prince as such; and supreme jurisdiction, i.e., that which belongs to the Prince alone, as for instance the right of life and death, the right of imposing taxes, of creating Magistrates, etc.

2° They are excommunicated: a) who destroy or invade cities, etc., force being used; b) who usurp or disturb the supreme jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff in these things, e.g., who impede the Roman Pontiff himself from publishing laws in these cities, imposing taxes, etc.; c) who retain this jurisdiction, or cities, lands, etc.; d) who furnish aid, counsel, favor to each one of the aforesaid. - Concerning those who furnish these things, i.e., aid to those invading, destroying, disturbing, usurping, there is no difficulty.

What concerning those who furnish these things to those detaining them? The Commentators respond:¹ "There is a twofold kind of these, ... one of those who exercise some public office. But public offices pertain either to the necessities or utilities of citizens, or to maintaining the government, or to both. The former" (under which I think comes the office of consuls, who live in foreign ports or cities, and also of legates before the pretended king of Italy) "it is harmless, other things being equal, to undertake, because a society cannot kill itself; not likewise the latter; but as to censures one must advert whether someone can abstain from these without grave inconvenience." (Cf. n. 1664, q. 5°.)

"The other kind is of those who undertake no public office. These are understood to favor, if they furnish proximate work to those retaining them, so that they remain in possession: as for instance by money, ... by writings, etc.; if remote work, not likewise; as if they rent houses to them, serve them, etc."

Note. - At the beginning of this paragraph I said that there are thirteen excommunications reserved specially to the Supreme Pontiff. Namely, to the twelve which in the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis are reserved specially to the Pope, on the fifth day before the kalends of September, 1873, there acceded:

XIII. By which, in the Constitution Romanus Pontifex, there are struck:

1° The Canons and Dignitaries of vacant Cathedral Churches, who have dared to grant and transfer the care, governance, and administration of the vacant Church under whatever title, name, or color sought ... to one nominated and presented by lay power by concession or privilege of the Holy See, or, where custom is in force, elected by the Chapter members themselves to the same vacant Church.

2° Those nominated and presented, or as above elected, to vacant Churches, who dare to take up the care, governance, and administration of them, etc....

3° All those who have obeyed the aforesaid things, or have furnished aid, counsel, or favor, of whatever state, condition, preeminence, and dignity they shall be.

Moreover there is added: "But if any of the aforesaid are marked with the episcopal character, they incur by the very fact, without any declaration, the penalty of suspension from the exercise of Pontificals and of interdict from entrance into the Church, likewise reserved to the Holy See."

Besides: 1° the aforesaid Canons are deprived of fruits; - 2° those nominated are deprived of the right acquired by them.¹ (E) p. 399.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Censures are distinguished in many ways, namely:

1°. Excommunication, suspension, interdict, concerning which we shall treat specifically. - Nevertheless it must be noted that excommunication is always a censure; but suspension and interdict take on the nature sometimes of a censure, sometimes of a vindicative penalty. But you will recognize that they are vindicative penalties both if they are brought on account of a merely past delict, and if they are inflicted perpetually, or even for a determinate time, for example for two or three months; for these things are a certain indication that not the amendment of the guilty person, but his punishment, is intended.

2°. § 1. Some censures are reserved, others non-reserved.

§ 2. A censure ab homine is reserved to him who inflicted the censure or pronounced the sentence, and to his competent Superior, or successor, or delegate; but of censures reserved a iure some are reserved to the Ordinary, others to the Apostolic See.

§ 3. Of those reserved to the Apostolic See, some are reserved simply, others in a special mode, others in a most special mode.

§ 4. A censure latae sententiae is not reserved unless this is expressly said in the law or precept; and in doubt whether of law or of fact, the reservation does not press (Can. 2245).

3°. Notorious or occult censures, according as it is publicly established that someone has incurred them on account of a fact which is so known that now it cannot any longer be concealed; or otherwise.

4°. Just or unjust censures; valid or invalid; according as the superior has consulted justice, truth, and law, or not, in imposing the censure.

The conditions required for the validity of censures are that the sin, on account of which it is inflicted, be mortal, external, consummated, not merely past, and that it be conjoined with contumacy.

§ 1. By censure only an external, grave, consummated delict, conjoined with contumacy, is punished; but censure can also be brought against unknown delinquents.

§ 2. If there is question of censures ferendae sententiae, he is contumacious who, notwithstanding the admonitions of which in can. 2233, § 2, does not desist from the delict or refuses to do penance for the perpetrated delict with due reparation of damages and scandal; but for incurring a censure latae sententiae the transgression of the law or precept to which a penalty latae sententiae is attached suffices, unless the guilty person is excused from this by a legitimate cause.

§ 3. Contumacy must be said to have ceased when the guilty person has truly repented of the committed delict and at the same time has given congruous satisfaction for damages and scandal, or at least has seriously promised it; but to judge whether the penance is true, whether the satisfaction is congruous or the promise of the same serious, or not, belongs to him from whom absolution from the censure is sought (Can. 2242).

I suppose 1° that invincible ignorance of law or fact, which excuses from all sin, excuses from penalty, because just penalty is decreed only on account of guilt, otherwise it would be

I said: « Which excuse from all sin; » because, if ignorance should excuse from sin against one law only, suppose a human law which is ignored, and not excuse from sin against another law, suppose divine or natural which is not ignored, I judge it more probable that the sinner be not exempted from penalty by human laws enacted, if there be no ecclesiastical censure; because the human legislator intends not only to urge by penalties observance of his own law, but also of natural or divine law, of which he ought to be guardian and protector. Whence a thief who, conscious of natural law, ignores theft to be prohibited by human law, nevertheless incurs the penalty of hanging.

I suppose 2° that vincible ignorance of law or fact which excuses from mortal also excuses from penalty at least so great, because positive laws are not reckoned to decree grave penalties for venial sins. But that vincible ignorance is reckoned as excusing from mortal which is not gross and supine; for thus it is reckoned light.

I suppose 3° that vincible ignorance, even gross and supine, of a law bearing penalty under these or similar formulas: « Whoever knowingly, rashly, with rash daring shall act against, or shall have dared to act against, or presumed, » excuses from penalty; because, as Cajetan says, 2ª 2ae, q. 53, a. 3, « the words of law are not appended in vain nor to be taken improperly; » in vain would they be appended, nor would they be taken with restrictive propriety, if delinquents through ignorance even gross incurred the penalty. Otherwise, more probably, must be said if ignorance be affected; because, according to the laws, affected ignorance is equated with knowledge, and it is not likely that legislators wish to exempt from their laws and penalties those who affect to ignore them, that they may transgress them more freely.

The question therefore remains whether ignorance of penalty excuses from it him who sins gravely against a law he knows, or ignores through gross and supine ignorance. For whose resolution

I say 1°: Ignorance even invincible of penalty does not exempt from it him who sins gravely against a law which either he knows, or ignores through gross and supine ignorance, unless it be an ecclesiastical censure.

It is proved. Laws establish penalties condign to guilts. Ergo whoever commits guilt is liable to penalty, even though invincibly ignorant of it; for it is not of the nature of penalty that it be known or willed, since it has of itself that it be violent and against the will.

I said: « Unless it be an ecclesiastical censure. » For which I say 2°: Invincible ignorance of an ecclesiastical censure exempts from it one sinning knowingly against the law by which it is decreed. This is common opinion.

It is proved. That is special and proper to ecclesiastical censure, that it be not incurred except on account of contumacy against the Church — not in whatsoever manner, but against the Church commanding or prohibiting under censure, whose sign is that no one incur censure unless there precede warning of law or judge, not any whatsoever, but with threat of censure. Yet he who invincibly ignores the censure is not contumacious against the Church in this manner. Ergo.

It is confirmed. Ecclesiastical censure is not so much vindicative punishment in vengeance for crime as medicinal punishment deterring from crime. Yet unknown punishment does not deter. Ergo.

I say 3°: It seems more probable that ignorance even vincibile, provided it be not gross and supine, exempts from an ecclesiastical censure one sinning knowingly against the law by which it was established. So Sylvester, under Excommunicatio I, q. 3, Navarrus, Covarruvias, and many others.

It is gathered from Cap. Ut animarum, de Constitutionibus in Sexto, lib. I, tit. 2, c. 2, where we have this: « Lest perils of souls be encountered, we do not will that those ignorant be bound by sentences issued through statutes of whatever Ordinaries, provided however their ignorance be not gross and supine. »

The Reason supports it. He who ignores the censure, even though vincibly, but with lightly culpable ignorance not gross and supine, is not properly called disobedient and contumacious against the Church commanding or prohibiting under censure. Yet contumacy of this kind is required for incurring censure, as was said. Ergo. Otherwise, we judge, must be said of irregularity, even from delict, which we do not reckon a censure, as we shall say elsewhere.

You will ask whether, as often as the will sins, some practical error precedes in the will.

I answer. affirmatively ¹. Because insofar the will sins, insofar it prefers useful or delightful good, as ¹ Here q. 77, a. 2, o., et alibi.

^{1 1} Here q. 77, a. 2, o., et alibi.

fitting itself, to honest good. Yet the will, since it is a blind potency, born to follow the guidance of intellect, cannot prefer delightful good, as fitting itself, to honest good, unless the intellect judge here and now delightful good to be fitting itself and preferable to honest good: wherein practically it errs. Ergo. And in this sense is verified that Prov., XIV, 22: They err that work evil. And this common saying taken from the Philosopher, I Ethic., c. 3: « Every sinner is ignorant, » namely practically and in particular, not speculatively and in common; otherwise every sinner would be heretic.

I. QUESTION I. What is a censure, and of how many kinds is it? ANSWER. It is an ecclesiastical medicinal penalty of the exterior forum, by which a baptized believer is deprived of the use of certain spiritual goods, that he may depart from contumacy. It is called a penalty, because it supposes a fault. Medicinal, because it wills amendment. Of the exterior forum, because he who inflicts it must be endowed with jurisdiction. It deprives of the use of certain spiritual goods, which are proper to Christians. The very conversation with the faithful of which excommunication deprives one is a certain spiritual good.

III. One censure is from man, another from law. All indeed are from man; but when superiors by force of a law or statute inflict a censure, it is called a censure from law. Wherefore the Pontiffs alone and oecumenical Councils can pass censures from law in the universal Church, and a bishop in his own diocese. Censures from man all superiors who have jurisdiction in the exterior forum can inflict. This censure, if it be not contracted, vanishes when the superior dies; if it be contracted, it lasts even when the superior is dead, until absolution be obtained. A censure passed from law lasts as the law lasts. Another censure is called general, passed against all who, for example, steal in such a place; another particular, passed against this or that person. Another is of sentence passed, which by the very deed binds the guilty before the judge's sentence. Another of sentence to be passed, which is incurred only after the judge's sentence. It is reputed of sentence passed when it is said by that very deed, straightway, forthwith, immediately. It is judged of sentence to be passed when the superior says We command under penalty of excommunication or interdict, or he shall be excommunicated, he shall be suspended. In doubt it is to be judged that the censure is of sentence to be passed, not of sentence passed. When it is said let him be anathema, or let him be excommunicated, the censure is of sentence passed.

VI. The mode of passing censures has no determinate formula or precise words; but it is enough to employ those which suffice for expressing the judge's will. But tribunals have their own prescribed formulas. An admonition ought to precede a censure, because a censure is not passed save against the contumacious. But he is not called contumacious who was not first admonished. And this admonition must needs be canonical, even if the delict be notorious. This admonition ought to be threefold, or one which is equivalent to three. Then a threefold admonition precedes when the guilty party is thrice admonished at a congruous time, the space of two or more days flowing between. One is equivalent to three when the judge assigns a congruous time for three, for instance of six or ten days. If there be danger in delay, within the same day, nay within a few hours, three intervals being always assigned for the threefold admonition, he can pass the censure. This admonition must needs be made in writing or before witnesses. If a censure is to be passed against several, it is enough that it be made in the church before the people. If an interdict is to be passed against a community, not individuals but only those are to be admonished whose fault is the cause of the interdict. If the delinquent study to decline the admonition, it suffices that the admonition be made either in the church or at his house. Authors assert no censure valid unless a threefold admonition, or one equivalent to three, precede.

VII. On festal days censures ought not to be passed; they are nevertheless valid, though unlawful, even when passed on these days. Those who have a limited territory cannot pass censures outside it. When nevertheless the cognizance of the cause has been made in their own territory, or when the contumacy is so notorious that it needs no discussion, and a canonical admonition has preceded, a censure can validly be passed by a bishop even dwelling in another's territory. When a bishop has been unjustly expelled from his own diocese, he can in places nearer to it exercise contentious jurisdiction over his own subjects, licence having been sought from the Ordinary, although not obtained, as is had in the Clementine Quamvis on the competent forum. A bishop can also inflict censures upon a subject delinquent in his own territory, even if he has passed to another territory: otherwise delicts would remain unpunished, and ecclesiastical discipline would be frustrated, since a subject could not be punished by another bishop. But a bishop cannot punish with censures a subject sinning in another's territory. If nevertheless he return to his own diocese, and there be convicted by the injured party of a delict committed in another's territory, he can be compelled by censures by the bishop to repair the injured party. Another's subject delinquent in his own diocese a bishop can punish, unless he depart before the cause be known.

Caia came for confession to Paul, a missionary priest in England, to whom she disclosed that in the preceding year in Italy she had stood by at a duel in order to encourage a friend fighting a duel. Caia further said that she had not been able to obtain absolution from the parish priest in Italy, since he affirmed that the case was reserved to the Pope. In answer also to Paul’s question, Caia replied that she knew the Church forbids every participation in a duel under penalties, but that she had performed a work of charity which it would have been inhuman to refuse; indeed, that she would do the same thing again in the same circumstances. Paul, however, wishes to know what he can and ought to do in the case. Hence it is asked:

1. What is a censure, and what conditions are required in order that it be incurred?

2. How does a censure cease?

3. What is persistence in a censure, and what effects does it produce?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. What is a censure and what conditions are required for incurring it?

The first part of the question was answered above, p. 349.

The conditions required that a censure may be incurred are: a sin grave internally and externally, completed, not altogether past, and committed with contumacy.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, 369.

The second question was answered above, p. 353.

3. What is insordescence in a censure and what effects does it produce?

Insordescence is the obstinate remaining of an excommunicated person in his excommunication for a whole year without absolution. The Council of Trent decreed (Sess. XXV, c. 3 de Ref.) that such a person might be proceeded against as suspect of heresy. If he does not purge his heresy he should be declared a heretic after the lapse of another year.²

4. The case. The third of the excommunications reserved to the Pope by the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis is couched in these terms:

“ Those who commit duels, or simply provoke them, or accept them, or assist any of them in any way or give them favor, and those who watch them with intent, or allow them, or to the extent that they are able do not prevent them, of whatever dignity they may be, even royal or imperial.

It is obvious, therefore, that Caia had incurred this censure by being a spectator of the duel with the intention of giving courage to her champion. She seems also to have had sufficient knowledge that she was doing something prohibited under censure by the Church. She is. not yet penitent, and Paul’s first task will be to try to make her see the gravity of her sin and express her sorrow and repentance for it. When she is disposed he will be able to absolve

< Lehmkuhl, vol. ii, n. 1148.

her by virtue of the special faculties which confessors in England receive through their bishop from the Holy See. She does not seem to have fallen into insordescence, for she tried to get absolution before, and the case does not state that she remained a whole year under excommunication.