INTERDICT
73
INTERDICT
leave room for clemency and to prevent the punishing
of the innocent [see Bossuet, "Gallia Orthodoxa",
pars I, lib. II, cap. v, in "CEuvres Completes", XII
(Bar-le-Duc, 1S70), 98]. To enable them to exercise
their right of intercession, the bishops had free access
to the prisons (Codex Theodosii, app., cap. xiii).
They were even exhorted to visit the prisoners every
Wednesday and Saturday in order to investigate the
cause of their imprisonment, and to admonish the
supervisors of the prisons to treat those committed to
their charge with Christian charity. In case the
prison-keepers were found to be inhuman or remiss in
their duty towards their prisoners, the bishops were
to report these abuses to the emperor. The rights of
the bishops, which were almost unlimited in this re-
spect, were somewhat regulated for the bishops of the
Eastern Empire in "Codex Justiniani", lib. I, tit. 4:
"De episcopali audientia"; for the bishops of the
Western Empire in the "Edicta Theoderici", cap. xiv
(Mon. Germ. Leg., V). Closely allied with the right of
episcopal intercession was the right of asylum or
sanctuary (see Right of Asylum), and the right and
duty of the bishops to protect orphans, willows, and
other unfortunates. Thus Theodoret, Bishop of Cy-
rus, interceded with Empress Pulcheria in behalf of
the poor of his diocese, who were overladen with taxes;
the Third Council of Carthage, held in 399, requested
the emperor to accede to the wishes of the bishops by
appointing advocates to plead the causes of the poor
before the courts, while the Council of Macon, held in
585, forbade all civil authorities to begin judicial pro-
ceedings against widows and orphans without pre-
viously notifying the bishop of the diocese to which
the accused belonged.
Krads, Realenrykiopddie der christlichen AUertiimer, I (Frei- burg im i3r., 1882). 166-7; Ratzinger. Gesch. der kirchlu:hen Armmpflege (Freiburg im Br., 1884), 133-9; Bales in Diction- ary of Christian Antiquities (London, 1876-80), s. v.; Lale- MAND, Histoire de la Charili; I (Paris, 1907 — ).
M1CH.4EL OtT.
Interdict (Lat. interdidum, from inter and dicere), originally in Roman law, an interlocutorj' edict of the praetor, especially in matter affecting the right of possession; it still preserves this meaning in both Roman and canon law. In present ecclesiastical use the word denotes, in general, a prohibition. In addi- tion to the definite meaning it has when referring to the object of this article, the term is often loosely employed in a wider and rather untechnical sense. We speak of a priest, a church, or a practice of devo- tion being interdicted, to denote a suspended priest, one who either liy canon law or by the stricture of his ordinary is forbidden to exercise his sacerdotal fimc- tions; a church building that has been secularized, or one in which Divine service is temporarily suspended, because the edifice has incurred "pollution" or lost its consecration; finally, extraordinary practices of de- votion are said to be interdicted. But, strictly speak- ing, interdict is applied only to persons and churches affected by the penal measure or censure called "inter- dict", and it is exclusively in this sense of the word that the subject is treated here. After explaining its nature and effects we shall mention the interdicts in force by common canonical law.
I. An interdict is a censure, or prohibition, exclud- ing the faithful from participation in certain holy things (D'.\nnibale, "Summula", I, n. .369). The.se holy things are all those pertaining to Christian wor- ship, and are divided into three classes: (1) the Divine offices, in other words the Liturgy, and in general all acts performed by clerics as such, and having refer- ence to worship; (2) the sacraments, excepting private administrations of those that are of necessity; (3) ecclesiastical burial, including all funeral services. This prohibition varies in degree, according to the different kinds of interdicts to be enumerated : —
First, interdicts are either local or personal; the
former affect territories or sacred buildings directly,
and persons indirectly; the latter directly affect per-
sons. Canonical authors add a third kind, the mixed
interdict, which affects directly and immediately both
persons and places; if, for instance, the interdict is
issued against a town and its inhabitants, the latter
are subject to it, even when they are outside of the
town (arg. cap. xvi, "De sent, excomm." in VI°).
Local interdicts, like personal interdicts, may be
general or particular. A general local interdict is one
affecting a whole territory, district, town, etc., and
this was the ordinary interdict of the Middle Ages;
a particular local interdict is one affecting, for exam-
ple, a particular church. A general personal interdict
is one falling on a gi^'en body or group of people as a
class, e. g. on a cliapter, the clergy or people of a town,
of a community; a particular personal interdict is one
affecting certain individuals as such, for instance, a
given bishop, a given cleric. Finally, the interdict is
total if the prohibition extends to all the sacred things
mentioned above; otherwise it is called partial. A
special kind of partial interdict is that which forbids
one to enter a church, interdictum ab ingressu ecclesice,
mentioned by certain texts. Omitting the mixed
interdict, which does not form a distinct class, we have
therefore: (1) the general local interdicts; (2) partic-
ular local interdicts; (3) general personal interdicts;
(4) particular personal interdicts; (5) prohibitions
against entering a church. We may add (6) the
prohibition obliging the clergy to abstain from cele-
brating the Divine offices, cessatio a divinis, a measure
somewhat akin to a particular local interdict, only
that it is not imposed on account of any crime on the
part of those whom it affects. This short account
shows us that under the same name are grouped penal
measures rather different in nature, but having in
common a prohibition of certain sacred things.
Interdict differs from excommiuiication, in that it does not cut one off from the communion of the faith- ful or from Christian society, though the acts of re- ligion forbidden in both cases are almost identical. It differs from suspension also in this respect: the latter affects the powers of clerics, inasmuch as they are clerics, while the interdict affects the rights of the faithful as such, and does not directly affect clerics aa such but only as members of the Church. Of course, it follows that the clergy cannot exercise their func- tions towards those under interdict, or in interdicted places or buildings, but their powers are not directly affected, as happens in case of suspension; their juris- diction remains unimpaired, which allows of a guilty individual being punished, without imperilling the validity of his acts of jurisdiction. This shows that an interdict is more akin to excommunication than to suspension.
Whereas excommunication is exclusively a censure, intended to lead a guilty person back to repentance, an interdict, like suspension, may be imposed either as a censure or as a vindictive punishment. In both cases there must have been a grave crime; if the penalty has been inflicted for an indefinite period and with a view to making the guilty one amend his evil ways, it is imposed as a censure ; if, however, it is im- posed for a definite time, and no reparation is de- manded of the individuals at fault, it is inflicted as a punishment. Consequently the interdicts still in vogue in virtue of the Con.stitution ".\postolic« Sedis" and the Council of Trent are censures; whilst the interdict recently (1909) placed by Pius X on the town of Adria for fifteen days was a puni.shment. Strictly .speaking, only the particular personal inter- dict is in all ca.ses a perfect censure, because it alone affects definite persons, while the other interdicts do not affect the individuals except indirectly and inas- much as they form part of a body or belong to the interdicted territory or place. That is also the reason why only particular personal interdicts, including the
