EXCOMMUNICATION
682
EXCOMMUNICATION
but that if the legislator declares that he wishes to
punish even the attempt, excommunication is incurred
(cf. Const. "Apost. Sedis", III, 1, for attempt at
marriage on part of clerics in major orders).
Considered from a moral and juridical standpoint, the guilt requisite for the incurring of excommimica- tion implies, first, the full use of reason; second, suffi- cient moral lilierty; finally, a knowledge of the law and even of the penalty. Where such knowledge is lacking, there is no contumacy, i. e. no contempt of ecclesiastical law, the essence of which consists in per- forming an action known to be forbidden, and for- bidden under a certain penalty. The prohibition and the penalty are known either through the text of the law itself, which Ls equivalent to a juridical warning, or through admonitions or proclamations issued ex- pressly by the ecclesiastical judge. Hence arise vari- ous extenuating reasons {causa; excusantes), based on lack of guilt, which prevent the incurring of excom- raimication: (1) Lack of the full use of reason. This e.xcuses children, also those who have not attained the age of puberty, and, a fortiori, the demented. Inad- vertence, however, is not presumed; while it may affect moral responsibility and excommunication in foro externo, it is no obstacle to juridical guilt. (2) Lack of liberty resulting from grave fear. Such fear impairs the freedom of the will, and while it exists con- timiacy or rebellion against the laws of the Church cannot be presiuned. Evidently, a proper estimation of this extenuating reason depends on the circum- stances of each particular case and will be more read- ily accepted as an excuse for violating a positive law than in palliation of an offence against the natural or Divine law. (3) Ignorance. The general principle is, that whosoever is ignorant of the law is not responsible for transgressing it ; and whosoever is ignorant of the penalty does not incur it. But the application of this principle is often complicated and delicate. The following considerations, generally admitted, may serve as a guide: (a) All ignorance, both of law and of fact, is exctisatory. (b) The ignorance known as "invincible" always excuses; it may also be called inculpable or probable ignorance, (c) There are two kinds of culpable ignorance, one known as crnssa or supina, i. e. gross, improbable ignorance, and suppos- ing a grievously guilty neglect in regard to knowledge of the law; the other is affected ignorance, really a de- liberate ignorance of the law throi:gh fear of incurring its penalty, (d) Ordinarily, gross ignorance does not excuse from punishment. But it does so only when the law formally exacts a positive knowledge of the prohibition. The laws that inflict excommunication contain as a rule two kinds of expressions. Some- times the offence only is mentioned, e. g. "all apos- tates, heretics", etc., or "those who absolve their ac- complices in a sin against chastity" (Const. "Apost. Sedis", I, 1, 10). Sometimes clauses are inserted that exact, as a necessary condition, the knowledge or ef- frontery of the culprit, e. g., "those who knowingly read books" condemned imder pain of excommvmica- tion, "regulars who have the audacity to administer the Viatictmi without permission of the parish priest" (Const, ".\post. Sedis", I, 2; II, 14). Gross igno- rance excu.ses in the second case but not in the first, (e) For many authors, affected ignorance is equiva- lent to a knowledge of the law, since by it .some avoid enlightening themselves concerning a dreaded penalty; these authors conclude that such ignorance never ex- cuses. Other canonists consider that every penal law is to be strictly interpreteil ; when, therefore, it positively exacts knowledge on the part of the culprit , he is ex- cused even by affected ignorance. As, in practice, it is not always easy to establish the .shades of difference, it will suffice to remark that in a case of occult excom- munication the culprit has the right to judge him.self and to be judged by his confessor according to the ex- act truth, whereas, in the forum externum the judge
decides according to presumptions and proofs. Con-
sequently, in the tribimal of conscience he who is rea-
sonably persuaded of his innocence cannot be com-
pelled to treat himself as excommunicated and to seek
absolution; this conviction, however, must be pru-
dently established.
V. Effect.s of Excommunication. — If we consider only its nature, excommimication has no degrees: it simply ileprives clerics and laymen of all their rights in Christian society, which total effect takes on a visible shape in details proportionate hi nmnber to the rights or advantages of which the excomnnmicated cleric or layman has been deprived. The effects of excommu- nication must, however, be considered in relation also to the rest of the faithful. From this point of view arise certain differences according to the various classes of excommimicated persons. These differ- ences were not introduced out of regard for the excom- municated, rather for the sake of the faithful. The latter would suffer serious inconveniences if the nullity of all acts performed by excommunicated clerics were rigidly maintained. They would also be exposed to grievous perplexities of conscience if they were strictly obliged to avoid all intercourse, even profane, with the excommunicated. Hence the practical rule for inter- preting the effects of excommunication: severity as regards the excommimicated, but mildness for the faithful. We may now proceed to enmnerate the im- mediate effects of excommimication. They are summed up in the two well-known verses: —
Res sacrce, ritus, communio, crypta, potestas, priedia sacra, forum, civilia jura vetantur, i. e. loss of the sacraments, public services and prayers of the Church, ecclesiastical burial, jurisdiction, bene- fices, canonical rights, and social intercourse.
(1) Res Sacrw. — These are the sacraments; the ex- communicated are forbidden either to receive or ad- minister them. The sacraments are of course validly administered by excommunicated persons, except those (penance and matrimony) for whose administra- tion jurisdiction is necessary; but the reception of the sacraments by excommunicated persons is always il- licit. The licit administration of the sacraments by excommunicated ecclesiastics hinges upon the benefit to be derived by the faithful. Ecclesiastics excom- municated by name are forbidden to administer the s.acraments except in cases of extreme necessity; apart from this necessity penance and matrimony ad- ministered by such ecclesiastics are null (Decret. "Ne temere", art. iv). Excommunicated ecclesiastics tol- erati, however, may licitly ailniini.ster the sacraments to the faithful who request them at their hands, and the acts of jurisdiction thus posited are maintained by reason of the benefit accruing to the faithful, most fre- quently also because of common error [error commu- nis), i. e. a general belief in the good standing of such ecclesiastics. The faithful, on their side, may, without sin, ask tolerated excommunicated ecclesiastics to ad- minister sacraments to them; they would, however, sin grievously in making this request of the vitandi, except in case of urgent necessity.
(2) Ritus. — Hereby are meant the Mass, the Divine Office, and other sacred ceremonies. An excommuni- cated person may not and should not assist at these ceremonies. If he be a toleratus, his presence need not be taken into account, and the service can be con- tinued. If he be a vitandus he must be warned to retire, and in case of refusal he must be forcibly com- pelled to withdraw; but if he still persists in remain- ing, the .service must be discontinued, even the Mass, unless the Canon has been commence<l. (Benedict XIV, l)e sacr. Miss., sect, ii, n. 117.) Nevertheless, since the condition of an excommunicated person, even a vitandus, is no worse than that of an infidel, he may assist at sermons, instructions, etc., venerate images and relics, take holy %vater, and use privately other sacramentals. The excommunicated cleric is
