EXCOMMUNICATION
680
EXCOMMUNICATION
vation of communion was in early Christian times im-
posed by councils as a regular penalty for bishops
foiuiil guilty of certain minor faults; the most frequent
example is that of bishops who, without good reason,
neglected to attend the provuicial council (so the
Coimcils of Carthage, 401, can. xi; Agde, 506, can.
xxxv; Tarragona, 516, can. vi; II Macon, 5S5, can.
x.x; etc.). These bishops were evidently not excom-
mimicated, properly speaking; they continued to gov-
ern their dioceses and publicly to hold ecclesiastical
.services; they were simply deprived, as the aforesaid
texts say, of the consolation of communion with their
episcopal brethren.
II. Kinds op Excommunication. — (1) Major and Minor. — Until recently excommunication was of two kinds, major and minor, (a) Minor excommunication is uniformly defined by canonists and by Gregorj- IX (cap. ILx, De sent, exc, lib. V, tit. xxxix) as prohibi- tion from receivmg the sacraments, what theologians call the passive use of the sacraments. In order to re- ceive the Eucharist and the other sacraments, those who had incurred this penalty had to be absolved therefrom ; as it was not reserved, this could be done by any confessor. Indirectly, however, it entailed other consequences. The canon law (cap. x, De cler. excomm. rainistrante, lib. V, tit. xxvii) taught that the priest who celebrates Mass while under the ban of minor excommunication sins grievously; also that he sins similarly in administering the sacraments; and finally, that while he can vote for others, he himself is ineligible to a canonical office. This is readily under- stood when we remember that the cleric thus excom- municated was presumed to be in the state of grievous sin, and that such a state is an obstacle to the lawful celebration of Mass and the administration of the sac- raments. Minor excommunication was really identi- cal with the state of the penitent of olden times who, prior to his reconciliation, was admitted to public penance. Minor excommunication was incurred by unlawful intercourse with the excommunicated, and in the beginning no exception was made of any class of excommunicated persons. Owing, however, to many inconveniences arising from this condition of things, especially after excommunications had become so numerous, Martin V, by the Constitution "Ad evi- tanda scandala" (1418), restricted the aforesaid un- lawful intercourse to that held with those who were formally named as persons to be shunned and who were therefore known as I'itandi (Lat. vitare, to avoid), also with those who were notoriously guilty of striking a cleric. But as this twofold categorj' was in modern times greatly reduced, but little attention was paid to minor excommunication, and eventually it ceased to exist after the publication of the Constitution "Apos- tolicEe Sedis". The latter declared that all excom- munications lata senteniia: that it did not mention were abolished, and as it was silent concerning minor excommunication (by its nature an excommunication lata sententice of a special kind), canonists concluded that minor excommunication no longer existed. This conclusion was formally ratified by the Holv Office (0 Jan., 1884, ad 4). "
(b) Major excommunication, which remains now the only kind in force, is therefore the kuid of which we treat below, and to which our definition fully ap- plies. Anathema Ls a sort of aggravated excommuni- cation, from which, however, it iloes not differ es.sen- tially, but simply in the matter of special solemnities and outward display.
(2) A jure and ab homine. — Excommunication is either a jure (by law) or ab homine (by judicial act of man, i. e. by a judge). The first is provided by the law itself, which declares that whosoever shall have been guilty of a definite crime will incur the penalty of excommunication. The .second is inflicted by an ec- clesiastical prelate, either when he issues a serious order under pain of excommunication or impo.ses
this penalty by judicial sentence and after a criminal
trial.
(3) Latw and Ferendw Sententice. — Excommunica- tion, especially a jure, is either lata: or jerendw sententice. The first is mcurred as soon as the offence is com- mitted and by reason of the offence itself (eo ipso) without intervention of any ecclesiastical judge; it is recognized in the terms used by the legislator, for in- stance: "the culprit will be excommunicated at once, by the fact itself [stalim, ipso jacto] ". The second is indeed foreseen by the law as a penalt}^ but is in- flicted on the culprit only by a judicial sentence; in other words, the delinquent is rather threatened than visited with the penalty, and incurs it only when the judge has summoned him before his tribunal, declared him guilty, and punished him according to the terms of the law. It is recognized when the law contains these or similar words: " under pain of excommunica- tion"; "the culprit will be excommunicated".
(4) Public and Occult. — Excommunication jerendm sententite can be public only, as it must be the object of a declaratory sentence pronounced by a judge; but excommunication latce sententia- may be either public or occult. It is public tlirough the publicity of the law when it is imposed and published by ecclesiastical au- thority; it is public through notoriety of fact when the offence that has incurred it is known to the ma- jority in the locality, as in the case of those who have publicly done violence to clerics, or of the purchasers of church property. On the contrary, excommunica- tion is occult when the offence entailing it is known to no one or almost no one. The fijst is valid in the forum externum and consequently in the forum inter- num; the second is valid in the forum internum only. The practical difference is very important. He who has incurred occult excommunication should treat himself as excommunicated and be absolved as soon as possible, submitting to whatever conditions will be imposed upon him, but this only in the tribunal of conscience; he is not obhged to denounce himself to a judge nor to abstain from external acts connected with the exercise of jurisdiction, and he may ask absolution without making himself known either in confession or to the Sacred Penitentiaria. According to the teach- ing of Benedict XIV (De sjmodo, X, i, 5), "a sentence declaratory of the offence is always necessary in the forum externum, since in this tribunal no one is pre- sumed to be excommunicated unless convicted of a crime that entails such a penalty ". Public excommuni- cation, on the other hand, is removed only by a public absolution; when it is question of simple publicity of fact (see above), the absolution, while not judicial, is nevertheless public, inasmuch as it is given to a known person and appears as an act of the forum externum.
(5) Vitandi and Tolerati. — Public excommunication in foro externo has two degrees according as it has or has not been formally published, or, in other words, according as excommunicated persons are to be shunned (vitandi) or tolerated (tolerati). A formally published or nominative excommunication occurs when the sentence has been brought to the knowledge of the public by a notification from the judge, indicat- ing by name the person thus punished. Xo special method is required for this publication; according to the Council of Constance (1414-18), it suffices that " the sentence have been published or made known by the judge in a special and express manner". Persons thus excommunicated are to be shunned (vitandi), i. e. the faithful must have no intercourse with them either in regard to sacred things or (to a certain extent) pro- fane matters, as we shall see farther on. .\\\ other ex- communicated persons, even though known, are tole- rati, i. e. the law no longer obliges the faithful to ab- stain from intercourse with them, even in religious matters. This distinction dates from the aforesaid Constitution "Ad evitanda scandala", published by Alartin V at the Council of Constance in 1418; until
