CENSURES
532
CENSURES
1907, pp. 321-24, and Gury-Ferreres, Th. Mor., II,
nn. 575-76; also articles Excommunication; Sus-
pension.
Conditions for Absolution. — These conditions affect both the priest who absolves and the person absolved. The absolution of a priest is invalid if obtained by force or if extorted by grave, unjust fear. Furthermore the absolution would be invalid if the principal moving cause be false, e. g. if the judge absolves precisely because the penitent alleges that he has already made satisfaction, when in reality he has not done so. The conditions to be fulfilled by the penitent to be absolved are generally expressed in the above-mentioned formula, injunctis de more injungendis, i. e. enjoining those things which the law requires. These are: (1) satisfaction to the offended party; (2) that the delinquent repair the scandal ac- cording to the prudent judgment of the bishop or confessor and remove the occasion of sin, if there be any; (3) that, in the ease of one absolved from cen- sures specially reserved, he promise (in joro externo, on oath), to abide by the further directions of the Church in the matter (stare mandalis ecclesia;) ; (4) sometimes also, in graver crimes, an oath is required not to perpetrate them again; (5) that, apart from the penance imposed in confession, the absolved per- son receive and perform some other salutary penance as a satisfaction for his fault.
BuccEROOT, DeCerasuris, 4th ed. (Rome. 1896); Hollweck. Dip kirchlichen Slrufqesetzc (Mainz. 1899). p. Sfi sqq. ; Lehm- ki 111 , Theol. Mor., lOthed. (Freiburg. 1902). II. nn. SOO-lO.'iO; Laurentius, Inslitutinnex Juris Ecct. (Freiburg, 1903), nn. 300-327; Lega. Dp Judiciis Eccles., L. II. vol. Ill (Rome. 1899), nn. SO-197; Hilarius a Sexten., Tractatux de Censurix Eccles. (Mainz, ISIISi: Taunton, The Law of the Church (Lon- don, 1906), s. v. Censure.
Leo Gans.
Censures, Theological, doctrinal judgments by which the Church stigmatizes certain teachings detri- mental to faith or morals. They should not be con- founded with canonical censures, such as excommuni- cation, suspension, and interdict, which are spiritual punishments inflicted on delinquents.
The right of censuring adverse doctrines has ever been asserted by the Church, from St. Paul, who de- clares anathema upon them who should pervert the Gospel of Christ unto another Gospel (Gal., i, S), and warns his disciple to avoid the profane novelties of words and the oppositions of knowledge falsely so called (I Tim., vi, 20), down to Pius X, who con- demned the errors of "Modernism". It is an essen- tial part of her magisterium, which, says Newman, "acts in two channels, in direct statement of truth and in condemnation of error". See the letter "Gravissimas inter" of Pius IX and the constitution " De fide" (ch. iv) of the Vatican Council (Denzinger, mis. 1524 and 1645). That right belongs to the Church herself, but she may exercise it through popes, coun- cils, Roman congregations, universities, or special commissions. Bishops, by virtue of their office, hold the power of censuring doctrines, but their judgment is not final, and their prohibition binds only within the limits of their respective dioceses. Private theologians, either individually or collectively, have no authority officially to censure propositions; how- ever, they may, unless expressly enjoined from so doing in special eases, judge and qualify them accord- ing to existing doctrinal standards, and their initiative often goes far towards preparing the official action of the Church. History shows considerable variation in the exercise of I lie censuring power. In early days, when the cardinal truths of Christianity were at stake, an author, book, or tract was purely and simply pronounced heretical and anathematized. In the Middle Ages, which were the ages of theological speculation and also of subtilty, a more minute nota- tion had tn be resorted to, and even special organs
were created for thai purpose (see Index of Pro-
hibited Books). In recent times specific notes are
often discarded in favour of a more comprehensive
mode of censuring: damnandas et proscribendas esse.
The various documents embodied in nearly all mod-
ern textbooks of moral theology and in Denzinger's
"Enchiridion" (to which we must now add the Holy
Office Decree, 3 July, "Lamentabili sane exitu
and the papal Encyclical, 8 Sept., 1907, "Pascendi
dominici gregis") show a large number of theological
censures or notes. Those most in use will be found
in the Bulls "Unigenitus" and "Auctorem fidei"
(Denzinger, CI and CXIV). We may divide them
into three groups according as they bear principally
upon (1) the import, or (2) the expression, or (,3) the
consequences, of condemned propositions.
(1) Hceretica (heretical), erronea (erroneous), hceresi proximo (next to heresy), errori proximo (next to error), temeraria (rash), etc. — A proposition is branded heretical when it goes directly and immedi- ately against a revealed and defined dogma, or dogma de fide; erroneous when it contradicts only a certain (certa) theological conclusion or truth clearly deduced from two premises, one an article of faith, the other naturally certain. Even though a statement be not obviously a heresy or an error it may yet come near to either. It is styled next, or proximate, to heresy when its opposition to a revealed and defined dogma is not certain, or chiefly when the truth it contradicts, though commonly accepted as revealed, has yet never been the object of a definition (proximo fidei). The censure next, or proximate, to error, whose mean- ing may be determined by its analogy to the fore- going, is of less frequent use than that of rashness or temerity, which means opposition to sound common opinion (communis), and this either for paltry reasons or no reasons at all. A still finer shade of meaning attaches to such censures as sapiens harresim, errorem (smacking of heresy or error), suspecta de hceresi, errore (suspected of heresy or error). Propositions thus noted may be correct in themselves, but, owing to various circumstances of time, place, and persons, are prudently taken to present a signification which is either heretical or erroneous. To this group be- long also some special stigmata with reference to determined topics, v. g. the preambles of faith (infi- delis, aversiva a fide), ethical principles (improbabUis, non tuta), history (anliquata, nova), and Holy Scrip- ture (verbo Dei contraria), etc.
(2) Ambigua (ambiguous), captiosa (captious), male sonans (evil-sounding), piarum aurium offensiva (offensive to pious ears), etc. — A proposition is am- biguous when it is worded so as to present two or more senses, one of which is objectionable; captious when acceptable words are made to express objec- tionable thoughts; evil-sounding when improper words are used to render otherwise acceptable truths; offensive when the verbal expression is such as rightly to shock the Catholic sense and delicacy of faith.
(3) Subsannaiiva religionis (derisive of religion), decolorativa candoris ecclesia; (defacing the beauty of the Church), inducens in schisma (leading to schism), subversive hierarchic (subversive of the hierarchy), eversiva regnorum (destructive of governments), seandalosa, perniciosa, periculosa in moribus (scandal- ous, pernicious, dangerous to morals), blasphema, idololatra, superstitiosa, magica (blasphemous, lead- ing to idolatry, superstition, sorcery), afro acerba (arrogant, harsh), etc. — This enumeration, though incomplete, sufficiently shows the aim of the third group of censures; they are directed against such propositions as would imperil religion in general, the Church's sanctity, unity of government and hier- archy, civil society, morals in general, or the virtues of religion, Christian meekness, and humility in par- ticular.
The authority of theological censures depends upon the source from which they come and the intention
