Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 8.djvu/104

 INTERDICT

74

INTERDICT

prohibition to enter a church, suppose a personal fault. In all other cases, on the contrary, although a fault has been committed, and it is intended to punish the guilty persons or make them amend, the interdict may affect and does affect some who are innocent, because it is not aimed directly at the in- dividual but at a moral body, e. g. a chapter, a monas- tery, or all the inhabitants of a district or a town. If a chapter incur an interdict (Const. "Apost. Sedis", interd., n. 1) for appealing to a future general council, the canons who did not vote for the forbidden resolu- tion are, notwithstanding, obliged to observe the interdict. And the general local interdict suppressing all the Divine offices in a town will evidently fall on the innocent as well as the guilty. Such interdicts are therefore inflicted for the faults of moral bodies, of puljlic authorities as such, of a whole population, and not for the faults of private individuals.

Who have the power of imposing an interdict, and how does it cease? In general, the reader may be referred to Censures, Ecclesiastical; and Excom- munication. We shall add a few brief remarks. Any prelate having jurisdiction inforo externo can impose an interdict on liis sul)jects or his territory. It may be provided for in the law and then, like other censures (q. v.), can heferendcB or lata scntentioe. A particular personal interdict is removed by absolution; other interdicts are said to be "raised", but this does not imply any act relative to the individuals under inter- dict; when imposed as a punishment these interdicts may cease on the expiration of a definite time.

(1) A general local interdict is, therefore, for a whole population, town, province, or region, the almost com- plete suspension of the liturgical and sacramental Christian life. Examples of it exist as early as the ninth centurj', under the name of excommunication (see in particular the Council of Limoges of 1031). Innocent III gave this measure the name of interdict and made vigorous use of it. It will suffice to recall the interdict imposed in 1200 on the Kingdom of France, when Philip II Augustus repudiated Inge- burga to marry Agnes of lleran; and that on the Kingdom of England in 1208, to support the election of Stephen Langton to the See of Canterbury against John Lackland, which lasted till the submission of that king in 121.3. It was a dangerous weapon, but its severity was mitigated little by little, and at the same time it was less frequently employed. The last exam- ple of a general interdict launched by the pope against a whole region seems to have been that imposed by Paul V in 1606 on the territory of Venice; it was raised in the following year. A quite recent example of a general, local, and personal interdict, but of a purely penal nature, is the interdict placed by Pius X on the town and suburbs of Adria in Xorthern Italy, by decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Consistory, on 30 September, 1909, to punish the population of Adria for a sacrilegious attack made on the bishop, Mgr. Boggiani, in order to prevent him from trans- ferring his residence to Rovigo. The interdict was to last for fifteen days, and contained the following provisions: "Prohibited are: (a) the celebration of the Mass and all other liturgical ceremonies; (b) the ringing of bells; (c) the public administration of the sacraments; (d) solemn burial. The following alone are permitted: (a) the baptism of children, the ad- ministration of the other sacraments and of the Viati- cum to the sick; (b) the private celebration of mar- riages; (c) one Mass each week for the renewal of the Holy Eucharist." It was recalled that the viola- tion of this interdict constitutes a mortal sin forall and imposed an irregularity on clerics (Acta Ap. Sedis, 1.5 Oct., 1909, p. 765).

To return to the subject of a general local interdict, but non-personal in kind, the law authorizes the pri- vate celebration (if Mass and the choir oflice, the doors of the eluircli lieing clo.sed (c. Ivii, "De .sent, exc",

and c. xxiv,eod.in VI°), and also the administration of confirmation; on the other hand canonical authors did not allow e.xtreme unction for the sick, but Pius X permits it . To these relaxations must be added the exceptions made in time of interdict for the celebra- tion of the great feasts of Christmas, Easter, Pente- cost, the Assumption, Corpus Christi, and its octave.

(2) The particular local interdict has the same effects, but they are limited to the interdicted place or church. The above-mentioned mitigations, however, are not allowed. Whoever knowingly celebrates or causes to be celebrated the Divine offices in an inter- dicted place incurs ipso facto the prohibition against entering the church until he has made amends (Const. Ap. Sedis, interd., n. 2); and any cleric who know- ingly celebrates any Divine office in a place interdicted by name becomes irregular (C. xviii, "De sent, ex- comm." in VI°), but not if he administers a sacrament to an interdicted individual, as the law has not legis- lated for such a ca.se.

(3) The general personal interdict, which, we have seen, may be combined with the local interdict, has the same effects for all the persons who form or will form part of the group, community, or moral person under interdict: all the canons of a chapter, all the religious of a convent, all the inhabitants of a town, all those domiciled in the place, etc. They, however, escape from the interdict who are not members or who cease to be members of the body affected, e. g. a canon appointed to another benefice, a stranger who leaves the town, etc. But the mere change of locality has no liberating effect, and the interdict follows the indi- vidual members of the body wherever they may go.

(4) The particular personal interdict, which is a real censure, affects individuals much in the same way as excommunication. They may not assist at the Di- vine offices or at Mass, and if they are interdicted by name they should be put out; however, if they refuse to withdraw it is not necessary to suspend the service, since, after all, the interdict does not deprive them of the communion of the faithful. They may not de- mand to receive the sacraments, except Penance and the Viaticum, and it is not lawful to administer them. They are to be deprived of ecclesiastical burial, but Mass and the ordinary prayers may be said for them. A cleric violating the interdict becomes irregular.

(.5) The interdict against entering the church is a real censure, intended to bring about the amendment of the erring one; it prohibits him from taking part in Divine service in the church and from being accorded a burial service in it. But outside the church he is as if he had not incurred any censure; he can attend Di- vine service and receive the sacraments in a private oratory and pray in the church when service is not being held in it. The individual is absolved after due .satisfaction for his fault.

(6) The cessation from Divine service, cessatio a divinis, follows the rules of the local interdict, from which it differs, not in its effects, but only because the fault for which it is imposed is not the fault of the clerics who are prohibiteti from celebrating the Divine seri'ice. It forbids the holding of Divine service and the administration of the sacraments in a given sacred place. It is a manifestation of sorrow and a kind of reparation for a grievous wrong done to a holy place. This cessatio a divinis is not imposed ipso/acto by the law; it is imposed by the ordinary when and under the conditions that he judges suitable.

II. There are at present five interdicts latae sententioe, two of whichare mentioned in thcConstitution " Apos- tolicie Sedis", two decreed by tli(^ Council of Trent, and one added by the Constitution "Romanus Ponti- fex" of 23 August, 1873:—

(1) "Universities, colleges, and chapters, whatso- ever be their name, that :L|ipeal from the ordinances or mandates of the n'igiiing Honiaii pontiff to a future general council, incur an interdict specially reserved to