Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 5.djvu/762

 EXCOMMUNICATION

684

EXCOMMUNICATION

the person inflicting it has no jurisdiction, when the motive of the excommunication is manifestly incorrect and inconsistent, or when the excommunication is es- sentially defective in form. Excommunication is said to be unjust when, though valid, it is wrongfully ap- plied to a person really innocent but believed to be guilty. Here, of course, it is not a question of excom- munication latae sententis and in f oro interno, but only of one imposed or declared by judicial sentence. It is admitted by all that a null excommunication produces no effect whatever, and may be ignored without sin (cap. ii, de const., in VI). But a case of unjust excom- munication brings out in a much more general way the possibility of conflict between the forum internum and the forum externum, between legal justice and the real facts. In chapter xxviii, de sent, excomm. (Lib. V, tit. xxxix), Innocent III formally admits the possi- liility of this conflict. Some persons, he says, may be free in the eyes of God but bound in the eyes of the Church; vice versa, some may be free in the eyes of the Church but bound in the eyes of God: for God's judgment is based on the very truth itself, whereas that of the Church is based on arguments and pre- sumptions which are sometimes erroneous. He con- cludes that the chain by which the sinner is bound in the sight of God is loosed by remission of the fault committed, whereas that which binds him in the sight of the Church is severed only by removal of the sen- tence. Consequently, a person unjustly excommuni- cated is in the same state as the justly excommuni- cated sinner who has repented and recovered the grace of God; he has not forfeited internal communion with the Church, and God can bestow upon him all neces- sary spiritual help. However, while seeking to prove his innocence, the censured person is meanwhile bound to obey legitimate authority and to behave as one under the ban of excommunication, until he is rehabili- tated or absolved. Such a case seems practically impossible nowadays.

VI. Ab-solution fuom Excom.munication. — Apart from the rare eases in which excommunication is im- posed for a fixed period and then ceases of itself, it is always removed by absolution. It is to be noted at once that, though the same word is used to designate the sacramental sentence by which sins are remitted and that by which excommunication is removed, there is a vast difference between the two acts. The abso- lution which revokes excommunication is purely juris- dictional and has nothing sacramental about it. It reinstates the repentant sinner in the Church ; restores the rights of which he had been deprived, beginning with participation in the sacraments; and for this very reason, it should precede sacramental absolution, which it thenceforth renders possible and efficacious. After absolution from excommunication has been given in foro externo, the judge sends the person ab- solved to a confessor, that his sin may be remitted; when absolution from censure is given in the confes- sional, it should always precede sacramental absolu- tion, conformably to the instruction in the Ritual and the very tenor of the formvila for sacramental absolu- tion. It may be noted at once that the principal effect of absolution from excommimication may be acquired without the excommunicated person's being wholly reinstated in his former position. Thus, an ecclesiastic might not necessarily recover the benefice which he had lost; indeed he might be admitted to lay communion only. Ecclesiastical authority has the right to posit certain conditions for the return of the culprit, and every absolution from excommunication calls for the fulfilment of certain conditions which vary in .severity, according to the case.

lixconniiunic.it inn, it must be remembered, is a medicinal pnialty intended, above all, for the correc- tion of the culprit; therefore his first duty is to solicit pardon by showing an inclination to ol>ey the orders given him, just as it is the duty of ecclesiastical au-

thority to receive back the sinner as soon as he repents and declares himself disposed to give the required satis- faction. This satisfaction is often indicated in the law itself; for instance, usurpers of ecclesiastical prop- erty are excommunicated until such time as they make restitution (Council of Trent, Sess. XXII, c. xi) ; and again, it is determined by the judge who grants abso- lution or the indult for absolving. Besides expiatory practices habitually known as "penance", such satis- faction exacts opportune measures for the reparation of the past, as well as guarantees for the future. It is not always necessary that these measures be executed prior to absolution, which is frequently granted on the solemn promise of the excommunicated party either to accomplish a specified act, such as coming to an agreement with the Church for the property usurped, or simply to abide by the orders of ecclesiastical au- thority {standi mandatis ecdesiw) . In such cases abso- lution is not unusually given under pain of "reinci- dence" (ad reincidentiam), i. e., if within a definite period the person censured has not accomplished a cer- tain specified act, he reincurs the same excommunica- tion; his status is just as if he had never been absolved. However, this clause of reincidence is not to be pre- sumed; when occasion requires, it is inserted in the sentence of absolution or in the indult granted for that purpose.

The formula of absolution from excommunication is not strictly determined, and, since it is an act of juris- diction, it suffices if the formula employed express clearly the effect which it is desired to attain. The formula for remitting the excommunication in foro externo should be such as to absolve validly from public excommunication. Similarly, an excommuni- cation imposed by judicial sentence is to be revoked by an absolution in the same form ; occult excommunica- tion may be revoked in the confessional by the sacra- mental formula. The Roman Ritual (tit. Ill, c. ii) gives the formula of absolution used in foro externo and states that in foro interno absolution is given in the usual sacramental form.

Who Can Absolve from Excommunication? — The an- swer is given in the customary rules of jurisdiction. The ri^t to absolve evidently belongs to him who can excommunicate and who has imposed the law, more- over to any person delegated by him to this effect, since this power, being jurisdictional, can be dele- gated. First, we must distinguish between excom- munication ab homine, which is judicial, and excom- munication a jure, i. e. latae sentential. For the former, absolution is given by the judge who inflicted the penalty (or by his successor), in other words by the pope, or the bishop (ordinary), also by the su- perior of said j udge when acting as j udge of appeal. As to excommunication latoe sententi^, the power to ab- solve is either ordinary or delegated. Ordinary power is determined by the law itself, which indicates to what authority the censure is reserved in each case. Delegated power is of two kinds: that granted in per- manency and set down in the law and that granted or communicated by personal act, e. g. by authority (faculties) of the Roman Penitentiaria, by episcopal delegation for special eases, or bestowed upon certain priests. Of this second kind of delegation there is no need to speak, as it belongs to each one to verify the power (faculties) that he possesses. Delegation of the first kind carries with it the power to absolve from excommunication without special reqviest or particu- lar faculties. Such power is in this case conferred by the law it.self. Nevertheless this power is subject to the general law that governs delegation and is valid only for the cases and under the conditions mentioned in the concession. Thus faculties granted for the fonmi interniun cannot be extended to the forum externum, nor can those granted for simply reserved excoihmvmicatii)ns l)e use(l for specially rrservcd cases, and so on. However, tlie faculties proceeding from