Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 5.djvu/766

 EXCOMMUNICATION

EXCOMMUNICATION

this sin once pardoned, he incurs no penalty by again hearing the confession of his accompKce. This being the case, excommunication is incurred by the confes- sor if he pronounce the formula of absolution after his accomplice has accused himself or herself of this sin, even though he had not the intention of absolving, or even if he only feign to absolve (Holy Office, 5 Dec, 1SS3), thereby allo^-ing the penitent to suppose that he has absolved him or her; or again if he be the cause of the penitent's refraining from accusing himself or herself of this sin (S. Peniten., 19 Feb., 1S96). Neither gross (crassa, supina) nor affected ignorance excuses from the censure (Holy Office, 13 Jan., 1892). There are but two cases in which excommunication is not in- curretl: first, under absolutely exceptional circum- stances where the penitent could not approach another confessor, as the human law does not bind at the cost of such serious disadvantage; again, at the moment of death. But even then Benedict XIV does not restore the power of absolving nor exempt from excommuni- cation, unless it be morally impossible for the dying person, without grave danger of slander or scandal, to call in another confessor; this condition, however, should be interpreted broadly.

(11) '' Those who usurp or sequesterthe jurisdiction, property, or revenues belonging to ecclesiastical per- sons by reason of their churches or benefices." To usurp is to take as if it legitimately belonged to oneself that which belongs to another; hence it is that this article does not apply to thieves of ecclesiastical prop- erty (Holy Office, 9 March, 1870). To sequester is formally and authoritatively to place in the custody of a third party property withdrawTi from the possession of a pre\dous owner. The rights and property pro- tected by this article do not mclude all church prop- erty but only the rights and property of beneficed clergy as such; they are, as a matter of fact, the princi- pal possessions of the Church. Other property, e. g. that belonging to pious establishments (opera pia) or confraternities and that intended for the maintenance or reparation of churches, is protected, indeed, by distinct censures, but its usurpation or sequestration does not incur the excommunication contemplated by this article, which was declared applicaljle to intruded parish priests in Switzerland (Pius IX, Encyclical of 21 Nov., 1873; S. Cong, of the Council, 23 May, 1874) and in Prussia (25 Feb., 1875). It applies quite cer- tainly to governments that despoil the Church of her property.

(12) "Those who themselves or through others, in- vade, destroy, or detain cities, lands, places, or rights of the Roman Church, those who hold possession of, disturb, or detain its sovereign jurisdiction, and all who give aid, counsel, or covmtenance to these offences." This penalty applies to the authors and accomplices of the invasion and detention of the temporal domains of the Holy See.

(b) Excommunications Simply Reserved to the Pope. — Before enumerating those it intends to retain, the Con.stitution "Apostohca? Sedis" pronounces a first excommunication of this kind against " those who presume to absolve, without the requisite faculties and under any pretext whatsoever, from excommuni- cations that are specially reserved". This article is directed against those who dare to absolve in bad faith or rashly; a well-founded doubt, however, and even gross ignorance may be pleaded as excuses. Then fol- low seventeen excommunications simply reserved, declared against the fcillowiiig persons: —

(1) "Tho.se who (itlicr publicly or privately teach or defend propositions condcmneii by (he Holy See under pain of excommunication lat;p seiitenti;e; likewi.se those who teach or maintain as lawful the practice of asking the penitent the name of his or her accomplice, a practice condemned by Benedict XIV' in his Consti- tutions 'Suprema' (7 July, 174.3), 'Ubi primum' (2 July, 1740), and 'Ad eradicandam' (28 Sept., 1746)."

This article contains two distinct parts. In the first it is not question of all propositions condemned by popes or councils in terms less condemnatory (e. g. rash, offensive, etc.) than the specific stigiaa lierctical (to de- fend heretical propositions being heresy itself and already declared a chief cause of excommunication, see above), but only those which the popes have spe- cifically forbidden to be maintained under pain of ex- communication latse sentential. These propositions are: (a) the forty-one errors of Luther condemned by Leo X, 16 May, 1520; (b) the seventy-nine theses of Michael Baius condemned 1 Oct., 1.567, 29 Jan., 1579, and 16 March, 1641; (c) the thesis on confession and absolution by letter or messenger, condemned by Clement VIII, 20 June, 1602; (d) the twenty-eight propositions condemned by Alexander VH, 24 Sept., 1665; (e) the seventeen propositions condemned by the same pope, IS March, 1660; (f) the sixty-five propositions condemned by Innocent XI, 4 ftlarch, 1679; (g) the sixty-eight propositions of Miguel de Molinos condemned by the same pope, 20 November, 1687; (h) the second of two propositions condemned by Alexander VIII, 24 August, 1690; (i) the thirty- one propositions condemned by the same pope, 7 De- cember, 1690; (k) the five propositions on duelling condemned by Benedict XIV, 10 November, 1752; (1) and finally the sixty-five Modernistic propositions condemned by decree of the Holy Office, 3 July, 1907, according to the Motu Proprio of Pius X, 19 Novem- ber, 1907. The text of all these propositions will be found in Denzinger's " Enchiridion Symbolorum, defi- nitionum et declarationum", etc. (10th ed., Freiburg, 1908), also, the last series excepted, in Pennachi's "Comment, in Const. Apost. Sedis", I, 108. The second part of the article aims at the abusive practice of requiring the penitent, under pain of being refused absolution, to divulge the name of his or her accom- plice in any crime, a dangerous practice and opposed to the conditions of secrecy under which sacramental confession is made. Benedict XIV denounced it, notably in Portugal, by the aforementioned Constitu- tions. It is to be noted, however, that this excom- munication is not incurred by the confessor who asks a penitent the name of his or her accomplice, but only by him who teaches or maintains that this practice is permitted. Moreover, the expression "to teach or maintain" implies more than merely to affirm or share the condemned opinions.

(2) "Those who, at the instigation of the devil, violently lay hands on ecclesiastics or religious of either sex, exception being made, as regards reserva- tion, in behalf of cases and of persons that the law or privileges allow the bishop or others to absolve." This is the celebrated privilege or immunity "of the canon" {privilegium canonis), so called from the canon "Si quis, suadente diabolo" (Decretum of Gratian, C. xvii, q. iv, c. xxix), enacted by the Council of Lateran in 1139 and intended to protect the honour of the clergj' from material violence and injury. The per- sons protected are all who belong to the clergy in the broad sense of the word, i. e. both minor and major clerics, tonsured persons, monks, nuns, novices, and even tertiaries living in community. This privilege is to be interpreted broadly. The acts punished are all injurious corporal violence, such as blows and wounds, a fortiori mutilation; also pursuit, imprisonment, and arrest, likewise insulting acts, such as a slap in the face, etc. The penalty is not imposed for acts that are not grievous, for verl^al injuries, for excusable violence, e. g. in the case of legitimate defence, or finally when one is miaware that he is dealing with a cleric. Nowa- days only (he real perpetrators of these deeds are e.x- commvniica(ed, not accomplices nor those who are morally responsible. Once the fact is publicly known (he culprits are vitandi even without being denounced by name. Absolution from this excommunication is regularly reserved to the pope, but the text of the