Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 5.djvu/756

 EXCOMMUNICATION

678

EXCOMMUNICATION

1891, LXV, 303 sqq.), Pius IX forbade any interfer- ence of the secular power in papal elections. It is plain, therefore, that the popes have rejected all right of exclusion by a Catholic state in a papal election. Nor can it be admitted that this right has arisen through custom. None of the requisites essential to the growth of a customary right are present; reason- ableness and prescription are especially lacking. To debar precisely the most capable candidates is an onerous limitation of the liberty of the electors, and injurious to the Church. Moreover, the cases of ex- clusion by Catholic states are too few to permit the inference of a right acquired by customary possession. Recent legislation b_v Pope Pius X has absolutely repudiated and abolished forever this Jus Ejclusivw. In the Constitution "Commissum Nobis" (20 Jan., 1904) he declared that the Apostolic See had never approved the civil veto, though previous legislation had not succeeded in preventing it: "Wherefore in virtue of holy obedience, under threat of the Divine judgment, and pain of excommunication latw xen-

tentvT we prohibit the cardinals of the Holy

Roman Church, all and single, and likewise the Secre- tary of the Sacred College of Cardinals, and all others who take part in the Conclave, to receive even under the form of a simple desire the office of proposing the veto in whatever manner, either by writing or by

word of mouth And it is our will that this

prohibition be extended to all intercessions,

etc by which the lay powers endeavour to in-

trutie themselves in the election of a pontiff

" Let no man infringe this our inhibition under

pain of incurring the indignation of God Almighty and of his.\postles, Sts. Peter and Paul." The new- form of oath to be taken by all cardinals contains these words: "we shall never in any way accept, un- <ler any pretext, from any civil power whatever, the office of proposing a veto of exclusion even under the form of a mere desire. . . and we shall never lend favour t o any intervention, or intercession, or anv other method whatever, by which the lay powers of any grade or order may wish to interfere in the election of a pontiff".

W,\iiRMUNn. Da& Au.sschliessungsrecht ijus exchisiva:) iler kalh. Slaalen Oesterr., Frankr. und Span, bei den Papstwahlen (Vienna. ISSS); Idem, Die Bulle "/Etemi Patris FUius" und der staall. Einfluss auf die Papstwahlen in Archiv fur kath. Kirchrnrecht (1S9-4), LXXII, 201 sqq.; Sagmuller, Die Papst- wnhlen und die Slaalen von VM bis US5 (Tubingen, 1890»; Idem. Die Papstivahlbullen und das staatl. Recht der Exclusive in drr I'npslu'ahl (Tiibingen, 1892); Idem, Das Rechl der Exclusive in der Pap.^twahl in Archiv. fur kath. Kirchenrecht (1895), LXXIII, 193 sqq.; Lector, Le conclave (Paris, 1894); Giob- Blo, .4 uslria, Francia, eSpagna e VEsclusiva nel Conclave (Rome, 190.3 >; PiVANO, R diritto di Veto. "Jus Exclusivce", netV etezione del Pnntefice (Turin, 190.5); Vidal, Le veto d'exclusion en matii-re d'ihrh.m pnnfifirnle (Toulouse, 1906); Mack, Das Recht der /.': ' . '" 'It I'tipxhrahl (Leipzig, 1906); Herre, Papslum I. / ' "I Z.v.i/(rrPAi7Kp.5 //. (Leipzig, 1907); EisLER.

/' 1 h Si'intcn heider Papstwahlseit dem Endedes Hi.

J,,/, ',-■./, i' i\ieun;i. 1907); ^\RA.^a. Le droit de veto dans les conclaves (Paris, 190S); Thurston, The Intervention of the Stale in the Papal Elections in The Month (1903).

Johannes Baptist S.^gmliller.

Excommunication. — This subject will be treated under the following heads: I. General Notions and Ili.-iturical Summary; II. Kinds of Excommunication; III. Who Can Excommunicate? IV. Who Can Be I^xcommunicated? V. Effects of Excommunication; \I. .\bsolution from Excommunication; VII. Ex- commvmications Lata Sentential Now in Force.

I. (Seneral Notions and Hi.storical Summary. — Excommunication (Lat. ex, out of, and communio or coinmiinicatio, communion — exclusion from the com- numion), the principal and severest censure, is a me- cliciiKil. spiritual penalty that cleprives the guilty Chris- tian of all participation in the common blessings of (■cclcsiastic:d society. Being a penalty, it supposes guilt; ami being the most serious penalty that the ( 'hurch can inflict, it natur.ally supposes a very grave offence. It is also a medicinal rather than a vindic- tive penalty, being intended, not so much to punish

the culprit, as to correct him and bring him back to the path of righteousness. It necessarily, therefore, contemplates the future, either to prevent the recur- rence of certain culpable acts that have grievous ex- ternal consequences, or, more especially, to induce the delinquent to satisfy the obligations incurred by his offence. Its object and its effect are loss of commu- nion, i. e. of the spiritual benefits shared by all the members of Christian society; hence, it can affect only those who by baptism have been admitted to that society. Undoubtedly there can and do exist other penal measures which entail the loss of certain fixed rights; among them are other censures, e. g. suspen- sion for clerics, interdict for clerics and laymen, irregu- larity ex delicto, etc. Excommunication, however, is clearly distinguished from these penalties in that it is the privation of all rights resulting from the social status of the Christian as such. The excommunicated person, it is true, does not cease to be a Christian, since his baptism can never be effaced; he can, how- ever, be considered as an exile from Christian society and as non-existent, for a time at least, in the sight of ecclesiastical authority. But such exile can have an end (and the Church desires it), as soon as the offender has given suitable satisfaction. Meanwhile, his status before the Church is that of a stranger. He may not participate in public worship nor receive the Body of Christ or any of the sacraments. Moreover, if he be a cleric, he is forbidden to administer a sacred rite or to exercise an act of spiritual authority.

Right of Die Church to Excommunicate. — The right to excommunicate is an immediate and necessary conse- quence of the fact that the Church is a society. Every society has the right to exclude and deprive of their rights and social advantages its unworthy or griev- ously culpable members, either temporarily or per- manently. This right is necessary to every society in order that it may be well administered and survive. The fundamental proof, therefore, of the Church's right to excommunicate is based on her status as a spiritual society, whose members, governed by legiti- mate authority, seek one and the same end through suitable means. Members who, by their obstinate disobedience, reject the means of attaining this com- mon end deserve to be removed from such a society. This rational argument is confirniei-1 by texts of the New Testament, the example of the Apostles, and the practice of the Church from the first ages down to the present. Among the Jews, exclusion from the syna- gogue was a real excommunication (Esd., x, 8). This was the exclusion feared by the parents of the man born blind (John, ix, 21 sq.; cf. xii, 42; xvi, 2); the same likewise that Christ foretold to His disciples (Luke, vi, 22). It is also the exclusion which in due time the Christian Church should exercise: " And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican" (Matt., xviii, 17). In the cele- brated text: " Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven " (Matt., xviii, 18; cf. xvi, 19), it is not only the remis- sion of sins that is referred to, but likewise all spiritual jurisdiction, including judicial and penal sanctions. Such, moreover, was the jurisdiction conferred on St. Peter by the words: "Feed my lambs"; "feed my sheep" (John, xxi, 15, 16, 17). St. Paul excommuni- cated regularly the incestuous Corinthian (I Cor., v, 5) and the incorrigible blasphemers whom he deliv- ered over to Satan (I Tim., i, 20). Faithful to the .Vpostolic teaching and example, the Church, from the very earliest ages, was wont to excommunicate hero tics an<l contumacious persons; since the fourth century numerous conciliary canons pronounce ex- communication against those who are guilty of certain offences. Of the facts there can be no doubt (Seitz, Die Ilcilsnotwcndigkeit der Kirche, Freiburg, 1903).

Excommunicati<?n not only External. — In the first