Excommunication

This subject will be treated under the following heads:

I. General Notions and Historical Summary;

II. Kinds of Excommunication;
III. Who Can Excommunicate?
IV. Who Can Be Excommunicated?
V. Effects of Excommunication;
VI. Absolution from Excommunication;
VII. Excommunications Latæ Sententiæ Now in Force.

I. GENERAL NOTIONS AND HISTORICAL SUMMARY

Excommunication (Latin ex, out of, and communio or communicatio, communion -- exclusion from the
communion), the principal and severest censure, is a medicinal, spiritual penalty that deprives the guilty
Christian of all participation in the common blessings of ecclesiastical society. Being a penalty, it supposes
guilt; and being the most serious penalty that the Church can inflict, it naturally supposes a very grave
offence. It is also a medicinal rather than a vindictive penalty, being intended, not so much to punish the
culprit, as to correct him and bring him back to the path of righteousness. It necessarily, therefore,
contemplates the future, either to prevent the recurrence of certain culpable acts that have grievous external
consequences, or, more especially, to induce the delinquent to satisfy the obligations incurred by his offence.
Its object and its effect are loss of communion, i.e. of the spiritual benefits shared by all the members of
Christian society; hence, it can affect only those who by baptism have been admitted to that society.
Undoubtedly there can and do exist other penal measures which entail the loss of certain fixed rights; among
them are other censures, e.g. suspension for clerics, interdict for clerics and laymen, irregularity ex delicto,
etc. Excommunication, however, is clearly distinguished from these penalties in that it is the privation of all
rights resulting from the social status of the Christian as such. The excommunicated person, it is true, does
not cease to be a Christian, since his baptism can never be effaced; he can, however, be considered as an exile
from Christian society and as non-existent, for a time at least, in the sight of ecclesiastical authority. But such
exile can have an end (and the Church desires it), as soon as the offender has given suitable satisfaction.
Meanwhile, his status before the Church is that of a stranger. He may not participate in public worship nor
receive the Body of Christ or any of the sacraments. Moreover, if he be a cleric, he is forbidden to administer
a sacred rite or to exercise an act of spiritual authority.

Right of the Church to Excommunicate

The right to excommunicate is an immediate and necessary consequence of the fact that the Church is a
society. Every society has the right to exclude and deprive of their rights and social advantages its unworthy
or grievously culpable members, either temporarily or permanently. This right is necessary to every society in
order that it may be well administered and survive. The fundamental proof, therefore, of the Church's right to
excommunicate is based on her status as a spiritual society, whose members, governed by legitimate
authority, seek one and the same end through suitable means. Members who, by their obstinate disobedience,
reject the means of attaining this common end deserve to be removed from such a society. This rational
argument is confirmed by texts of the New Testament, the example of the Apostles, and the practice of the
Church from the first ages down to the present. Among the Jews, exclusion from the synagogue was a real
excommunication (Ezra 10:8). This was the exclusion feared by the parents of the man born blind (John 9:21
sq.; cf. 12:42; 16:2); the same likewise that Christ foretold to His disciples (Luke 6:22). It is also the
exclusion which in due time the Christian Church should exercise: "And if he will not hear the church, let
him be to thee as the heathen and publican" (Matthew 18:17). In the celebrated text: "Whatsoever you shall
him be to thee as the heathen and publican" (Matthew 18:17). In the celebrated text: "Whatsoever you shall
bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed
also in heaven" (Matthew 18:18; cf. 16:19), it is not only the remission of sins that is referred to, but likewise
all spiritual jurisdiction, including judicial and penal sanctions. Such, moreover, was the jurisdiction
conferred on St. Peter by the words: "Feed my lambs"; "feed my sheep" (John 21:15, 16, 17). St. Paul
excommunicated regularly the incest Corinthians (1 Corinthians 5:5) and the incorrigible blasphemers whom
he delivered over to Satan (1 Timothy 1:20). Faithful to the Apostolic teaching and example, the Church,
from the very earliest ages, was wont to excommunicate heretics and contumacious persons; since the fourth
century numerous conciliary canons pronounce excommunication against those who are guilty of certain
offences. Of the facts there can be no doubt (Seitz, Die Heilsnotwendigkeit der Kirche, Freiburg, 1903).

Excommunication not only External

In the first Christian centuries it is not always easy to distinguish between excommunication and penitential
exclusion; to differentiate them satisfactorily we must await the decline of the institution of public penance
and the well-defined separation between those things appertaining to the forum internum, or tribunal of
conscience and the forum externum, or public ecclesiastical tribunal; nevertheless, the admission of a sinner
to the performance of public penance was consequent on a previous genuine excommunication. On the other
hand, formal exclusion from reception of the Eucharist and the other sacraments was only mitigated
excommunication and identical with minor excommunication (see below). At any rate, in the first centuries
excommunication is not regarded as a simple external measure; it reaches the soul and the conscience. It is
not merely the severing of the outward bond which holds the individual to his place in the Church; it severs
also the internal bond, and the sentence pronounced on earth is ratified in heaven. It is the spiritual sword, the
heaviest penalty that the Church can inflict (see the patristic texts quoted in the Decree of Gratian, cc. xxxi,
xxxii, xxxiii, C. xi, q. iii). Hence in the Bull "Exsurge Domine" (16 May, 1520) Leo X justly condemned
Luther's twenty-third proposition according to which "excommunications are merely external punishments,
nor do they deprive a man of the common spiritual prayers of the Church". Pius VI also condemned
(Auctorem Fidei, 28 Aug., 1794) the forty-sixth proposition of the Pseudo-Synod of Pistoia, which
maintained that the effect of excommunication is only exterior because of its own nature it excludes only
from exterior communion with the Church, as if, said the pope, excommunication were not a spiritual penalty
binding in heaven and affecting souls. The aforesaid proposition was therefore condemned as false,
pernicious, already reprobated in the twenty-third proposition of Luther, and, to say the least, erroneous.
Undoubtedly the Church cannot (nor does it wish to) oppose any obstacle to the internal relations of the soul
with God; she even implores God to give the grace of repentance to the excommunicated. The rites of the
Church, nevertheless, are always the providential and regular channel through which Divine grace is
conveyed to Christians; exclusion from such rites, especially from the sacraments, entails therefore regularly
the privation of this grace, to whose sources the excommunicated person has no longer access.

History of Excommunication

While excommunication ranks first among ecclesiastical censures, it existed long before any such
classification arose. From the earliest days of the Christian society it was the chief (if not the only)
ecclesiastical penalty for laymen; for guilty clerics the first punishment was deposition from their office, i.e.
reduction to the ranks of the laity. Subsequently, when ecclesiastical discipline allowed clerics more easily to
resume their ministry, the ancient deposition became suspension; thenceforth even clerics were subject to
excommunication, by which they lost at once their rights as Christians and as clerics. Both laymen and clerics
were henceforth threatened or punished with excommunication for offences that became daily more definite
and numerous, particularly for refusing obedience either to special ecclesiastical precepts or the general laws
of the Church. Once the forum externum, or public ecclesiastical tribunal, was distinctly separated from the
forum sacramentale, or tribunal of sacramental penance, say from the ninth century on, excommunication
became gradually an ever more powerful means of spiritual government, a sort of coercive measure ensuring
became gradually an ever more powerful means of spiritual government, a sort of coercive measure ensuring
the exact accomplishment of the laws of the Church and the precepts of her prelates. Excommunication was
either threatened or inflicted in order to secure the observance of fasts and feasts, the payment of tithes, the
obedience of inferiors, the denunciation of the guilty, also to compel the faithful to make known to
ecclesiastical authority matrimonial impediments and other information.

Abuse

This extension of the use of excommunication led to abuses. The infliction of so grave a penalty for offences
of a less grievous kind and most frequently impossible to verify before the public ecclesiastical authority,
begot eventually a contempt for excommunication. Consequently the Council of Trent was forced to
recommend to all bishops and prelates more moderation in the use of censures (Sess. XXV, c. iii, De ref.).
The passage is too significant to be here omitted: "Although the sword of excommunication is the very
sinews of ecclesiastical discipline, and very salutary for keeping the people to the observance of their duty,
yet it is to be used with sobriety and great circumspection; seeing that experience teaches that if it be wielded
rashly or for slight causes, it is more despised than feared, and works more evil than good. Wherefore, such
excommunications which are wont to be issued for the purpose of provoking a revelation, or on account of
things lost or stolen, shall be issued by no one whomsoever but the bishop; and not then, except on account of
some uncommon circumstance which moves the bishop thereunto, and after the matter has been by him
diligently and very maturely weighed." Then follow equally explicit measures for the use of censures in
judicial matters. This recommendation of the Council of Trent has been duly heeded, and the use of censures
as a means of coercion has grown constantly rarer, the more so as it is hardly ever, possible for the Church to
obtain from the civil power the execution of such penalties.

Excessive Number of Excommunications

In the course of time, also, the number of canonical excommunications was excessively multiplied, which
fact, coupled with their frequent desuetude, made it difficult to know whether many among them were always
in force. The difficulty was greater as a large number of these excommunications were reserved, for which
reason theologians with much ingenuity construed favourably said reservation and permitted the majority of
the faithful to obtain absolution without presenting themselves in Rome, or indeed even writing thither. In
recent times the number of excommunications in force has been greatly diminished, and a new method of
absolving from them has been inaugurated; it will doubtless find a place in the new codificacation of the
canon law that is being prepared. Thus, without change of nature, excommunication in foro externo has
become an exceptional penalty, reserved for very grievous offences detrimental to Christian society; in foro
interno it has been diminished and mitigated, at least in regard to the conditions for absolution from it.
However, as can readily be seen from a perusal of the excommunications actually in force, it still remains true
that what the Church aims at is not so much the crime as the satisfaction to be obtained from the culprit in
consequence of his offence.

Refusal of Ecclesiastical Communion

Finally, real excommunication must not be confounded with a measure formerly quite frequent, and
sometimes even known as excommunication, but which was rather a refusal of episcopal communion. It was
the refusal by a bishop to communicate in sacris with another bishop and his church, in consideration of an
act deemed reprehensible and worthy of chastisement. It was undoubtedly with this withdrawal of
communion that Pope Victor threatened (or actually punished) the bishops of Asia in the paschal controversy
(Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., V, xxiv); it was certainly the measure to which St. Martin of Tours had recourse when
he refused to communicate with the Spanish bishops who caused Emperor Maximinus to condemn to death
the heretic Priscillian with some of his adherents (Sulpicius Severus, Dial., iii, 15). Moreover, a similar
privation of communion was in early Christian times imposed by councils as a regular penalty for bishops
found guilty of certain minor faults; the most frequent example is that of bishops who, without good reason,
found guilty of certain minor faults; the most frequent example is that of bishops who, without good reason,
neglected to attend the provincial council (so the Councils of Carthage, 401, can. xi; Agde, 506, can. xxxv;
Tarragona, 516, can. vi; II Mâcon, 585, can. xx; etc.). These bishops were evidently not excommunicated,
properly speaking; they continued to govern 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 OF 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 Gregory IX (cap. lix, De sent. exc., lib.
V, tit. xxxix) as prohibition from receiving the sacraments, what theologians call the passive use of the
sacraments. In order to receive 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. ministrante, 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 understood when we remember that the
cleric thus excommunicated 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 sacraments. Minor excommunication
was really identical 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 evitanda scandala" (1418), restricted the aforesaid unlawful
intercourse to that held with those who were formally named as persons to be shunned and who were
therefore known as vitandi (Latin vitare, to avoid), also with those who were notoriously guilty of striking a
cleric. But as this twofold category 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 "Apostolicæ
Sedis". The latter declared that all excommunications latæ sententiæ; that it did not mention were abolished,
and as it was silent concerning minor excommunication (by its nature an excommunication latæ sententiæ; of
a special kind), canonists concluded that minor excommunication no longer existed. This conclusion was
formally ratified by the Holy Office (6 Jan., 1884, ad 4).
(b) Major excommunication, which remains now the only kind in force, is therefore the kind of which we
treat below, and to which our definition fully applies. Anathema is a sort of aggravated excommunication,
from which, however, it does not differ essentially, 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 ecclesiastical prelate, either when he issues a
serious order under pain of excommunication or imposes this penalty by judicial sentence and after a criminal
trial.

(3) Latæ and Ferendæ Sententiæ

Excommunication, especially a jure, is either latæ or ferendæ sententiæ. The first is incurred as soon as the
offence is committed 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 instance: "the culprit will be excommunicated at
once, by the fact itself [statim, ipso facto]". The second is indeed foreseen by the law as a penalty, but is
inflicted 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 excommunication"; "the culprit will be excommunicated".

(4) Public and Occult

Excommunication ferendæ sententiæ; can be public only, as it must be the object of a declaratory sentence
pronounced by a judge; but excommunication latæ sententiæ; may be either public or occult. It is public
through the publicity of the law when it is imposed and published by ecclesiastical authority; it is public
through notoriety of fact when the offence that has incurred it is known to the majority 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, excommunication is occult when the offence entailing it is known to no one or almost no one. The
first is valid in the forum externum and consequently in the forum internum; 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 obliged 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 teaching of Benedict XIV (De synodo, X, i, 5), "a sentence declaratory of the offence is
always necessary in the forum externum, since in this tribunal no one is presumed to be excommunicated
unless convicted of a crime that entails such a penalty". Public excommunication, 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, indicating by name the person thus punished.
No 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) profane matters, as we shall see farther on.
All other excommunicated persons, even though known, are tolerati, i.e. the law no longer obliges the
faithful to abstain from intercourse with them, even in religious matters. This distinction dates from the
aforesaid Constitution "Ad evitanda scandala", published by Martin V at the Council of Constance in 1418;
until then one had to avoid communion with all the excommunicated, once they were known as such. "To
avoid scandal and numerous dangers", says Martin V, "and to relieve timorous consciences, we hereby
mercifully grant to all the faithful that henceforth no one need refrain from communicating with another in
the reception or administration of the sacraments, or in other matters Divine or profane, under pretext of any
ecclesiastical sentence or censure, whether promulgated in general form by law or by a judge, nor avoid
anyone whomsoever, nor observe an ecclesiastical interdict, except when this sentence or censure shall have
been published or made known by the judge in special and express form, against some certain, specified
person, college, university, church, community, or place." But while notoriously excommunicated persons are
person, college, university, church, community, or place." But while notoriously excommunicated persons are
no longer vitandi, the pope makes an exception of those who have "incurred the penalty of excommunication
by reason of sacrilegious violence against a cleric, and so notoriously that the fact can in no way be
dissimulated or excused". He declares, moreover, that he has not made this concession in favour of the
excommunicated, whose condition remains unchanged, but solely for the benefit of the faithful. Hence, in
virtue of ecclesiastical law, the latter need no longer deprive themselves of intercourse with those of the
excommunicated who are "tolerated". As to the vitandi, now reduced to the two aforementioned categories,
they must be shunned by the faithful as formerly. It is to be noted now that the minor excommunication
incurred formerly by these forbidden relations has been suppressed; also, that of the major excommunications
inflicted on certain definite acts of communion with the vitandi, only two are retained in the Constitution
"Apostolicæ Sedis" (II, 16, 17): that inflicted on any of the faithful for participation in a crime that has
merited nominative excommunication by the pope, and that pronounced against clerics alone for spontaneous
and conscious communion in sacris with persons whom the pope has excommunicated by name. Moreover,
those whom bishops excommunicate by name are as much vitandi as are those similarly excommunicated by
the pope.

(6) Reserved and Non-Reserved

Finally, excommunication is either reserved or non-reserved. This division affects the absolution from
censure. In the forum internum any confessor can absolve from non reserved excommunications; but those
that are reserved can only be remitted, except through indult or delegation, by those to whom the law reserves
the absolution. There is a distinction between excommunications reserved to the pope (these being divided
into two classes, according to which they are either specially or simply reserved to him) and those reserved to
bishops or ordinaries. As to excommunications ab homine, absolution from them is reserved by law to the
judge who has inflicted them. In a certain sense excommunications may also be reserved in view of the
persons who incur them; thus absolution from excommunications in foro externo incurred by bishops is
reserved to the pope; again, custom reserves to him the excommunication of sovereigns.

III. WHO CAN EXCOMMUNICATE?

Excommunication is an act of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the rules of which it follows. Hence the general
principle: whoever has jurisdiction in the forum externum, properly so called, can excommunicate, but only
his own subjects. Therefore, whether excommunications be a jure (by the law) or ab homine (under form of
sentence or precept), they may come from the pope alone or a general council for the entire Church; from the
provincial council for an ecclesiastical province; from the bishop for his diocese; from the prelate nullius for
quasi-diocesan territories; and from regular prelates for religious orders. Moreover, anyone can
excommunicate who, by virtue of his office, even when delegated, has contentious jurisdiction in the forum
externum; for instance, papal legates, vicars capitular, and vicars-general. But a parish priest cannot inflict
this penalty nor even declare that it is incurred, i.e. he cannot do so in an official and judicial manner. The
subjects of these various authorities are those who come under their jurisdiction chiefly on account of
domicile or quasi-domicile in their territory; then by reason of the offence committed while on such territory;
and finally by reason of personal right, as in the case of regulars.

IV. WHO CAN BE EXCOMMUNICATED?

Since excommunication is the forfeiture of the spiritual privileges of ecclesiastical society, all those, but
those only, can be excommunicated who, by any right whatsoever, belong to this society. Consequently
excommunication can be inflicted only on baptized and living persons. Although the Church recites against
the devil exorcisms in which the word anathema occurs, he cannot be excommunicated, for he in no way
belongs to the Church. Among living persons, those who have not been baptized have never been members of
the Christian society and therefore cannot be deprived of spiritual benefits to which they have never had a
the Christian society and therefore cannot be deprived of spiritual benefits to which they have never had a
right; in this way, infidels, pagans, Mohammedans, and Jews, though outside of the Church, are not
excommunicated. As the baptized cease, at death, to belong to the Church Militant, the dead cannot be
excommunicated. Of course, strictly speaking, after the demise of a Christian person, it may be officially
declared that such person incurred excommunication during his lifetime. Quite in the same sense he may be
absolved after his death; indeed, the Roman Ritual contains the rite for absolving an excommunicated person
already dead (Tit. III, cap. iv: Ritus absolvendi excommunicatum jam mortuum). However, these sentences or
absolutions concern only the effects of excommunication, notably ecclesiastical burial. With the foregoing
exceptions, all who have been baptized are liable to excommunication, even those who have never belonged
to the true Church, since by their baptism they are really her subjects, though of course rebellious ones.
Moreover, the Church excommunicates not only those who abandon the true faith to embrace schism or
heresy, but likewise the members of heretical and schismatic communities who have been born therein. As to
the latter, however, it is not question of personal excommunication; the censure overtakes them in their
corporate capacity, as members of a community in revolt against the true Church of Jesus Christ.

Catholics, on the contrary, cannot be excommunicated unless for some personal, grievously offensive act.
Here, therefore, it is necessary to state with precision the conditions under which this penalty is incurred. Just
as exile presupposes a crime, excommunication presupposes a grievous external fault. Not only would it be
wrong for a Christian to be punished without having committed a punishable act, but justice demands a
proportion between the offence and the penalty; hence the most serious of spiritual chastisements, i.e.
forfeiture of all the privileges common to Christians, is inconceivable unless for a grave fault. Moreover, in
order to fall within the jurisdiction of the forum externum, which alone can inflict excommunication, this
fault must be external. Internal failings, e.g. doubts entertained against the Catholic Faith, cannot incur
excommunication. Note, however, that by external fault is not necessarily meant a public one; an occult
external fault calls forth occult excommunication, but in foro interno, as already seen. Most authors add that
the offence must be consummated, i.e. complete and perfected in its kind (in genere suo), unless the legislator
have ordained otherwise. This, however, is a rule of interpretation rather than a real condition for the
incurring of censure, and is tantamount to saying that attempt at a crime does not entail the penalty meted out
to the crime itself, 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 excommunication
implies, first, the full use of reason; second sufficient moral liberty; 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 performing an action known to be forbidden, and forbidden under a
certain penalty. The prohibition and the penalty are known either through the text of the law itself, which is
equivalent to a juridical warning, or through admonitions or proclamations issued expressly by the
ecclesiastical judge. Hence arise various extenuating reasons (causæ excusantes), based on lack of guilt,
which prevent the incurring of excommunication:

(1) Lack of the full use of reason. This excuses children, also those who have not attained the age of puberty,
and, a fortiori, the demented. Inadvertence, 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
contumacy or rebellion against the laws of the Church cannot be presumed. Evidently, a proper estimation of
this extenuating reason depends on the circumstances of each particular case and will be more readily
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
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 excusatory.

(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 crassa or supina, i.e. gross, improbable
ignorance, and supposing a grievously guilty neglect in regard to knowledge of the law ; the other is
affected ignorance, really a deliberate ignorance of the law through 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. Sometimes the offence only is mentioned, e.g. "all apostates,
heretics's, etc., or "those who absolve their accomplices in a sin against chastity" (Const. "Apost.
Sedis", I, 1, 10). Sometimes causes are inserted that exact, as a necessary condition, the knowledge or
effrontery of the culprit, e.g., "those who knowingly read books" condemned under pain of
excommunication, "regulars who have the audacity to administer the Viaticum without permission of
the parish priest" (Const. "Apost. Sedis", I, 2; II, 14). Gross ignorance excuses in the second case but
not in the first.
(e) For many authors, affected ignorance is equivalent to a knowledge of the law, since by it some
avoid enlightening themselves concerning a dreaded penalty; these authors conclude that such
ignorance never excuses. Other canonists consider that this penal law is to be strictly interpreted; when,
therefore, it positively exacts knowledge on the part of the culprit, he is excused 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 excommunication the culprit has the right to judge himself and to be
judged by his confessor according to the exact truth, whereas, in the forum externum the judge decides
according to presumptions and proofs. Consequently, in the tribunal of conscience he who is
reasonably persuaded of his innocence cannot be compelled to treat himself as excommunicated and to
seek absolution; this conviction, however, must be prudently established.

V. EFFECTS OF EXCOMMUNICATION
If we consider only its nature, excommunication has no degrees: it simply deprives clerics and laymen of all
their rights in Christian society, which total effect takes on a visible shape in details proportionate in number
to the rights or advantages of which the excommunicated cleric or layman has been deprived. The effects of
excommunication 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 excommunicated persons. These differences
were not introduced out of regard for the excommunicated, 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 interpreting the
effects of excommunication: severity as regards the excommunicated, but mildness for the faithful. We may
now proceed to enumerate the immediate effects of excommunication. They are summed up in the two well
known verses:

Res sacræ;, ritus, communio, crypta, potestas,

prædia sacra, forum, civilia jura vetantur,

i.e. loss of the sacraments, public services and prayers of the Church, ecclesiastical burial, jurisdiction,
benefices, canonical rights, and social intercourse.

(1) Res Sacr

These are the sacraments; the excommunicated are forbidden either to receive or administer them. The
sacraments are of course validly administered by excommunicated persons, except those (penance and
matrimony) for whose administration jurisdiction is necessary; but the reception of the sacraments by
excommunicated persons is always illicit. The licit administration of the sacraments by excommunicated
ecclesiastics hinges upon the benefit to be derived by the faithful. Ecclesiastics excommunicated by name are
forbidden to administer the sacraments except in cases of extreme necessity; apart from this necessity
penance and matrimony administered by such ecclesiastics are null (Decret. "Ne temere", art. iv).
Excommunicated ecclesiastics tolerati, however, may licitly administer 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 frequently also because of common error (error communis), 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 administer 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 excommunicated 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 continued. If he be a vitandus he must be warned to retire, and in case of refusal he
must be forcibly compelled to withdraw; but if he still persists in remaining, the service must be
discontinued, even the Mass, unless the Canon has been commenced. (Benedict XIV, De 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 water, and
use privately other sacramentals. The excommunicated cleric is not released from any of his obligations in
regard to the Divine Office and, if bound to it, must recite it, but privately and not in the choir. A toleratus
may be admitted to the choir, but a vitandus must be expelled therefrom. All excommunicated clerics are
prohibited from celebrating Mass and performing other strictly liturgical functions, under penalty of the
irregularity ex delicto for violation of the censure; participation in the liturgical acts performed by an
excommunicated cleric is a forbidden communicatio in sacris; however, no censure would result from it
except in the case of clerics voluntarily communicating in sacris with those whom the pope had
excommunicated by name (Const. "Apost. Sedis", II, 17). In each case the fault should be estimated
according to circumstances.

(3) Communio

These are, properly speaking, the public suffrages of the Church, official prayers, Indulgences, etc., in which
the excommunicated have no share. But they are not excluded from the private suffrages (i.e. intercessory
petitions) of the faithful, who can pray for them.

(4) Crypta

This word signifies ecclesiastical burial, of which the excommunicated are deprived. In chapter xii, de
sepulturis (lib. III, tit. xxviii), Innocent III says: "The canons have established that we should not hold
communion after their death with those with whom we did not communicate during their lifetime, and that all
those should be deprived of ecclesiastical burial who were separated from the unity of the Church, and at the
moment of death were not reconciled thereunto." The Ritual (tit. VI, cap. ii, n. 2) renews this prohibition for
those publicly excommunicated, and most writers interpret this as meaning those whose excommunication
has been publicly proclaimed (Many, De locis sacris, p. 354), so that, under this head, the ancient discipline is
no longer applicable, except to the vitandi. However this does not mean that the tolerati can always receive
ecclesiastical burial; they may be deprived of it for other reasons, e.g. as heretics or public sinners. Apropos
ecclesiastical burial; they may be deprived of it for other reasons, e.g. as heretics or public sinners. Apropos
of this leniency, it must be remembered that it is not the excommunicated the Church wishes to favour, but
rather the faithful for whose sake communion with the tolerati is allowed in the matter of burial as well as in
other matters. The interment of a toleratus in a consecrated cemetery carries with it no longer the desecration
of said cemetery; this would follow, however, in the case of the vitandi. (See BURIAL.)

(5) Potestas

Potestas signifies ecclesiastical jurisdiction, of which both the passive and the active use, to speak
canonically, are forbidden the excommunicated. Jurisdiction is used passively when a person is the object of
one of its acts, of a concession. Now, ecclesiastical authority has no official relations with the exile unless, at
his request, it negotiates the conditions for his return to society. Connected with this discipline is the rule
forbidding the excommunicated to receive from the pope any kind of rescript (of grace or justice), except in
regard to their excommunication, under pain of nullity of such rescript (c. xxvi, de rescriptis, lib. I, tit. iii, and
c. i, eod., in VI). Hence the custom of inserting in papal rescripts the so-called ad effectum absolution from
censures, intended solely to ensure the value of the rescript, but affecting in no wise the excommunication, if
already existent. Jurisdiction is used actively when exercised by its depositaries. It is easy to understand that
the Church cannot leave her jurisdiction in the hands of those whom she excludes from her society. In
principle, therefore, excommunication entails the loss of jurisdiction both in foro externo and in foro interno
and renders null all acts accomplished without the necessary jurisdiction. However, for the general good of
society, the Church maintains jurisdiction, despite occult excommunication, and supplies it for acts
performed by the tolerati. But as the vitandi are known to be such, this merciful remedy cannot be applied to
them except in certain cases of extreme necessity, when jurisdiction is said to be "supplied" by the Church.

(6) Pr dia sacra

Pr dia sacra are ecclesiastical benefices. The excommunicated ecclesiastic is incapable of acquiring a
benefice, and his presentation to it would be legally null. A benefice already held is not forfeited at once,
even when to the censure the law adds privation of benefice; this is carried into effect only through a sentence
which must be at least declaratory and issue from a competent (i.e. the proper) judge. Nevertheless, from the
very first the excommunicated beneficiary loses those fruits of his benefice belonging to choir service,
provided he is bound thereunto. Moreover, should he live a year in the state of excommunication, he can be
deprived of his benefice through judicial sentence. The aforesaid effects do not result from occult
excommunication.

(7) Forum

The excommunicated person is an exile from ecclesiastical society, consequently from its tribunals; only
inasmuch, however, as they would be to his advantage. On the other hand, if he be summoned before them to
satisfy a third party he is obliged to appear. Hence he cannot appear as plaintiff, procurator, or advocate; he
may be the defendant, or the party accused. At this point the difference between the vitandi and the tolerati
consists in this, that the former must be prevented from introducing any legal action before an ecclesiastical
tribunal, whereas the latter can be debarred from so doing only when the prosecutor alleges and proves
excommunication as already incurred. It is a question here only of public excommunication and before
ecclesiastical tribunals.

(8) Civilia jura

Civilia jura, i.e. the ordinary relations between members of the same society, outside of sacred and judicial
matters. This privation, affecting particularly the person excommunicated, is no longer imposed on the
faithful except in regard to the vitandi. The medieval canonists enumerated the prohibited civil relations in
the following verse:
the following verse:

Os, orare, vale, communio, mensa negatur,

namely:
(a) conversations, exchange of letters, tokens of benevolence (osculum);
(b) prayer in common with the excommunicated;
(c) marks of honour and respect;
(d) business and social relations;
(e) meals with the excommunicated.

But at the same time they specified the reasons that rendered these relations licit:

Utile, lex humilis, res ignorata, necesse,

that is to say:
(a) both the spiritual and the temporal benefit of the excommunicated and of the faithful;
(b) conjugal law;
(c) the submission owed by children, servants, vassals, and subordinates in general;
(d) ignorance of excommunication or of the prohibition of a particular kind of intercourse;
(e) finally, any kind of necessity, as human law, is not binding to this degree.

Remote Effects

All the effects that we have just enumerated are the immediate results of excommunication, but it also causes
remote effects, which are not a necessary consequence and are only produced when the person censured
occasions them. They are three in number:
(1) The cleric who violates excommunication by exercising one of the liturgical functions of his order, incurs
an irregularity ex delicto.
(2) The excommunicated person who remains a year without making any effort to obtain absolution
(insordescentia) becomes suspected of heresy and can be followed up and condemned as guilty of such
(Council of Trent, Sess. XXV, cap. iii, De ref.; cf. Ferraris, s. v. "Insordescens").
(3) This neglect makes it the judge's duty to deprive the excommunicated cleric of all benefices, though some
judges postpone for three years the fulfilment of this obligation (see Hollweck, Die kirchlichen Strafgesetze,
art. 1, note 3).

Effects of Invalid or Unjust Excommunication

An excommunication is said to be null when it is invalid because of some intrinsic or essential defect, e.g.
when the person inflicting it has no jurisdiction, when the motive of the excommunication is manifestly
incorrect and inconsistent, or when the excommunication is essentially defective in form. Excommunication
is said to be unjust when, though valid, it is wrongfully applied to a person really innocent but believed to be
guilty. Here, of course, it is not a question of excommunication latæ; sententiæ; and in foro interno, but only
of one imposed or declared by judicial sentence. It is admitted by all that a null excommunication produces
no effect whatever, and may be ignored without sin (cap. ii, de const., in VI). But a case of unjust
excommunication brings out in a much more general way the possibility of conflict between the forum
internum and the forum externum, between legal justice and the real facts. In chapter xxviii, de sent.
excomm. (Lib. V, tit. xxxix), Innocent III formally admits the possibility of this conflict. Some persons, he
says, may be free in the eyes of God but bound in the eyes of the Church; vice versa, some may be free in the
eyes of the Church but bound in the eyes of God: for God's judgment is based on the very truth itself, whereas
that of the Church is based on arguments and presumptions which are sometimes erroneous. He concludes
that the chain by which the sinner is bound in the sight of God is loosed by remission of the fault committed,
that the chain by which the sinner is bound in the sight of God is loosed by remission of the fault committed,
whereas that which binds him in the sight of the Church is severed only by removal of the sentence.
Consequently, a person unjustly excommunicated is in the same state as the justly excommunicated sinner
who has repented and recovered the grace of God; he has not forfeited internal communion with the Church,
and God can bestow upon him all necessary spiritual help. However, while seeking to prove his innocence,
the censured person is meanwhile bound to obey legitimate authority and to behave as one under the ban of
excommunication, until he is rehabilitated or absolved. Such a case seems practically impossible nowadays.

VI. ABSOLUTION FROM EXCOMMUNICATION

Apart from the rare cases in which excommunication is imposed for a fixed period and then ceases of itself, it
is always removed by absolution. It is to be noted at once that, though the same word is used to designate the
sacramental sentence by which sins are remitted and that by which excommunication is removed, there is a
vast difference between the two acts. The absolution which revokes excommunication is purely jurisdictional
and has nothing sacramental about it. It reinstates the repentant sinner in the Church; restores the rights of
which he had been deprived, beginning with participation in the sacraments; and for this very reason, it
should precede sacramental absolution, which it thenceforth renders possible and efficacious. After
absolution from excommunication has been given in foro externo, the judge sends the person absolved to a
confessor, that his sin may be remitted; when absolution from censure is given in the confessional, it should
always precede sacramental absolution, conformably to the instruction in the Ritual and the very tenor o the
formula for sacramental absolution, It may be noted at once that the principal effect of absolution from
excommunication may be acquired without the excommunicated person's being wholly reinstated in his
former position. Thus, an ecclesiastic might not necessarily recover the benefice which he had lost; indeed he
might be admitted to lay communion only. Ecclesiastical authority has the right to posit certain conditions for
the return of the culprit, and every absolution from excommunication calls for the fulfilment of certain
conditions which vary in severity, according to the case.

Excommunication, it must be remembered, is a medicinal penalty intended, above all, for the correction of
the culprit; therefore his first duty is to solicit pardon by showing an inclination to obey the orders given him,
just as it is the duty of ecclesiastical authority to receive back the sinner as soon as he repents and declares
himself disposed to give the required satisfaction. This satisfaction is often indicated in the law itself; for
instance, usurpers of ecclesiastical property are excommunicated until such time as they make restitution
(Council of Trent, Sess. XXII, c. xi); and again, it is determined by the judge who grants absolution or the
indult for absolving. Besides expiatory practices habitually known as "penance", such satisfaction exacts
opportune measures for the reparation of the past, as well as guarantees for the future. It is not always
necessary that these measures be executed prior to absolution, which is frequently granted on the solemn
promise of the excommunicated party either to accomplish a specified act, such as coming to an agreement
with the Church for the property usurped, or simply to abide by the orders of ecclesiastical authority (standi
mandatis ecclesi ). In such cases absolution is not unusually given under pain of "reincidence" (ad
reincidentiam), i.e., if within a definite period the person censured has not accomplished a certain specified
act, he reincurs the same excommunication; his status is just as if he had never been absolved. However, this
clause of reincidence is not to be presumed; when occasion requires, it is inserted in the sentence of
absolution or in the indult granted for that purpose.

The formula of absolution from excommunication is not strictly determined, and, since it is an act of
jurisdiction, it suffices if the formula employed express clearly the effect which it is desired to attain. The
formula for remitting the excommunication in foro externo should be such as to absolve validly from public
excommunication. Similarly, an excommunication imposed by judicial sentence is to be revoked by an
absolution in the same form; occult excommunication may be revoked in the confessional by the sacramental
formula. The Roman Ritual (tit. LII, c. ii) gives the formula of absolution used in foro externo and states that
in foro interno absolution is given in the usual sacramental form.
Who Can Absolve from Excommunication?

The answer is given in the customary rules of jurisdiction. The right to absolve evidently belongs to him who
can excommunicate and who has imposed the law, moreover to any person delegated by him to this effect,
since this power, being jurisdictional, can be delegated. First, we must distinguish between excommunication
ab homine, which is judicial, and excommunication a jure, i.e. latæ; sententiæ;. For the former, absolution is
given by the judge who inflicted the penalty (or by his successor), in other words by the pope, or the bishop
(ordinary), also by the superior of said judge when acting as judge of appeal. As to excommunication latæ;
sententiæ;, the power to absolve is either ordinary or delegated. Ordinary power is determined by the law
itself, which indicates to what authority the censure is reserved in each case. Delegated power is of two kinds:
that granted in permanency and set down in the law and that granted or communicated by personal act, e.g. by
authority (faculties) of the Roman Penitentiaria, by episcopal delegation for special cases, or bestowed upon
certain priests. Of this second kind of delegation there is no need to speak, as it belongs to each one to verify
the power (faculties) that he possesses. Delegation of the first kind carries with it the power to absolve from
excommunication without special request or particular faculties. Such power is in this case conferred by the
law itself. Nevertheless this power is subject to the general law that governs delegation and is valid only for
the cases and under the conditions mentioned in the concession. Thus faculties granted for the forum
internum cannot be extended to the forum externum, nor can those granted for specially reserved
excommunications be used for simply reserved cases, and so on. However, the faculties proceeding from both
kinds of delegation may be "cumulated", i.e. may be held and exercised by the same person.

These principles admitted, we must remember that with reference to reservation or the right to absolve,
excommunications are divided into four classes: excommunications specially reserved to the pope;
excommunications simply reserved to the pope; excommunications reserved to the bishop (ordinary); and,
finally, excommunications that are not reserved (nemini reservat ). According to this classification, as a
general rule, only the pope can absolve from the first two kinds of excommunication, although his power
extends to the others; bishops (ordinaries), but not other priests, can remove excommunications of the third
class; finally, those of the fourth class, and those only, can be revoked by any approved priest, without further
special delegation. At this point, however, must be considered certain concessions of the law that may be
grouped in three categories: the permanent faculties of bishops; concessions for urgent cases; and concessions
for the point of death.

(1) The Faculties of Bishops

The Council of Trent (Sess. XXIV, c. vi, De ref.) authorizes bishops to absolve their own subjects in their
own dioceses from all excommunications, consequently from those reserved to the Holy See, when occult or,
rather, not pertaining to the forum externum. They can exercise this power either in person or through a
special delegate of their choice, but in the tribunal of conscience only. However, the Constitution
"Apostolicæ Sedis" restricted this provision of the council to excommunications simply reserved to the pope,
so that, without special indult, bishops can no longer absolve from specially reserved cases, even in foro
interno. On the other hand, the indults they receive are more or less liberal and widely communicable.

(2) Urgent Cases

In the chapter "Nuper" (xxix, de sent. excomm., lib. V, tit. xxxix), Innocent III sets forth the principle that
governs such cases: "When it is difficult for the excommunicated person to go to him who excommunicated
him, he may be absolved by his bishop or even by his own priest, on promising to obey the orders of him by
whom excommunication was pronounced." This is the principle that moralists and canonists formulated as an
axiom: Impedito casus papalis fit episcopalis: in case of one who is prevented from presenting himself to the
pope, the excommunication reserved to the pope may be removed by the bishop. But most authors carried the
pope, the excommunication reserved to the pope may be removed by the bishop. But most authors carried the
analogy still further: for him who is prevented from presenting himself to the bishop, the excommunication
may be removed by any confessor. In regard to the obligation of submitting to the orders of the pope or the
bishop, the moralists and canonists generally taught as follows: First, no one was obliged to apply in writing
(correct as to the removal of excommunication, though Innocent III says nothing of this kind concerning a
request for information). Then they distinguished between obstacles that were more or less prolonged:
perpetual obstacles were such as exceed five years; obstacles of long duration were those lasting over six
months; and obstacles of short duration, those continuing for less than six months. When the obstacle was
perpetual the bishop or, if he could not be reached, any priest might absolve without appealing to the
superior; this could also be done, but not without obligation of recourse to the superior on the cessation of the
obstacle, when the latter was of long duration, provided there were urgency. Finally, the authors drew up a
long list of those who were supposed to be unable to present themselves in person to the pope; and this list
included almost every one (Gury, Theol. Moralis, II, nn. 952 and 375). This practice, far more lenient than
was intended by Innocent III, has been recently profoundly modified by a decree of the Congregation of the
Inquisition (Holy Office) dated 23 June, 1886. Henceforth "in urgent cases when absolution cannot be
deferred without danger of grave scandal or infamy, which is left to the conscientious appreciation of the
confessor, the latter, after having imposed the necessary satisfaction, can absolve, without other faculties,
from all censure; even those specially reserved to the Holy See, but under pain or reincidence under the same
censure if, within a month, the penitent thus absolved does not recur to the Holy See by letters and through
the medium of the confessor." This new method has been more precisely explained and even rendered easier
by subsequent papal decisions. The absolution thus given is direct (Holy Office, 19 Aug., 1891), and although
recourse to the Penitentiaria is obligatory, its object is not to ask a new absolution, but only to solicit the
order of the Church, the penitent, as stated above, having had to make a serious promise to conform to them
(standi mandatis Ecclesi ). The power thus granted in urgent cases is valid for all cases, without exception,
reserved by law to the pope or the ordinary, even for the absolution of an accomplice (Holy Office, 7 June,
1899).

As to what constitutes a state of urgency, the reply of 16 June, 1897, is very reassuring, since it permits
absolution from censures "as soon as it becomes too distressing to the penitent to remain in the state of sin
during the time necessary for soliciting and receiving from Rome the power to absolve". Now, according to
the moralists it is too much to remain even a day or two in the state of sin, especially for priests. The appeal,
though usually made through the medium of the confessor, can be made by the penitent himself if he be
capable; indeed he should write himself if he cannot easily return to the same confessor (Cong. of the
Penitentiaria, 7 Nov., 1888). Finally, if both confessor and penitent find it impossible to appeal by letters,
these may be dispensed with (Holy Office, 18 Aug., 1898). The letters should be addressed to the
Congregation of the Penitentiaria and should contain information concerning all necessary circumstances, but
under a false name (Sacr. Pen., 7 Nov., 1888). If the interested party, though able to appeal to the Holy See,
fails to do so within a month from the time of receiving absolution, he or she incurs the former censures,
which remain effective until there is a new absolution followed by recourse to Rome. There would, however,
be no reincidence if the interval of a month were to expire through the confessor's fault. It is to be noted that
this sanction of reincidence applies to all censures reserved to the pope, but not to those reserved by law to
the ordinaries. Finally, this method is not obligatory for censures reserved to ordinaries by diocesan law.
Bishops, however, could profitably apply it to such censures, and some have already done so.

(3) In Danger of Death

It is a principle repeatedly set forth in canon law that at the point of death all reservations cease and all
necessary jurisdiction is supplied by the Church. "At the point of death", says the Council of Trent (Sess.
XIV, c. vii), "in danger of death", says the Ritual (tit. III, cap. i, n. 23), any priest can absolve from all sins
and censures, even if he be without the ordinary faculties of confessors, or if he himself be excommunicated;
he may do so even in presence of another priest properly authorized (Holy Office, 29 July, 1891). The
Constitution "Apostolicæ Sedis" expressly maintains this merciful concession, merely adding, for the case in
Constitution "Apostolicæ Sedis" expressly maintains this merciful concession, merely adding, for the case in
which the moribund is restored to health, the obligation of having recourse to the Holy See, if he has been
absolved from excommunication specially reserved to the pope, unless he prefers to ask absolution of a
confessor provided with special faculties. This recourse, although identical with that of which we have just
spoken for urgent cases, nevertheless differs from it on two points: it is not imposed for the absolution from
excommunications simply reserved, and the short delay of a month is not counted from the time of receiving
absolution, but from the time of recovery.

VII. EXCOMMUNICATIONS LATÆ SENTENTIÆ NOW IN

FORCE
In the preamble of the Constitution "Apostolicæ Sedis", Pius IX stated that during the course of centuries, the
number of censures latæ; sententiæ; had increased inordinately, that some of them were no longer expedient,
that many were doubtful, that they occasioned frequent difficulties of conscience, and finally, that a reform
was necessary. On this head Pius IX had anticipated the almost unanimous request of the Catholic episcopate
presented at the Vatican Council (Colleetio Lacensis, VII, col. 840, 874, etc.). The number of
excommunications latæ; sententiæ; enumerated by the moralists and canonists is really formidable: Ferraris
(Prompta Biblioth., s. v. Excommunicatio, art. ii-iv) gives almost 200. The principal ones were destined to
protect the Catholic Faith, the ecclesiastical hierarchy and its jurisdiction, and figured in the Bull known as
"In C na Domini" read publicly each year in Rome, on Holy Thursday. In time, this document had received
various additions (Ferraris, loc. cit., art. ii, the text of Clement XI), and from it the Constitution "Apostolicæ
Sedis" derives excommunications specially reserved, with exception of the tenth. The Constitution of Pius IX
deals with no penalties other than censures; it leaves intact all censures ferendæ; sententiæ; but suppresses all
censures latæ; sententiæ; that it does not retain. Now, besides those which it enumerates it retains:

(1) the censures decreed (and not simply mentioned) by the Council of Trent;
(2) the censures of special law, i.e. those in vigour for papal elections, those enforced in religious orders and
institutes, in colleges, communities, etc. As to the censures enumerated, they should be interpreted as if
pronounced for the first time, and ancient texts should be consulted for them only in so far as such texts have
not been modified by the new law.

Thus the excommunications latæ sententiæ enforced today by common law in the Catholic Church proceed
from three sources:

(A) those enumerated in the Constitution "Apostolicæ Sedis";

(B) those pronounced by the Council of Trent; and
(C) those introduced subsequently to the Constitution "Apostolicæ Sedis", i.e. later than 12 October, 1869.

We enumerate them here with a brief commentary.

A. Excommunications of the Constitution "Apostolicæ Sedis"

These are divided into four categories:

(a) those specially reserved to the pope;

(b) those simply reserved to the pope;
(c) those reserved to the bishop (ordinary);
(d) those not reserved to anyone.

(a) Excommunications Specially Reserved to the Pope

These are twelve in number and are imposed upon the following persons:
These are twelve in number and are imposed upon the following persons:

(1) "All apostates from the Christian Faith, heretics of every name and sect, and those who give them
credence, who receive or countenance them, and generally all those who take up their defence." Strictly
speaking, an apostate is one who goes over to a non Christian religion, e.g. Islam; to such apostates are
assimilated those who publicly renounce all religion; this apostasy is not to be presumed; it is evident that
both kinds of apostates exclude themselves from the Church. A heretic is one who rejects a Catholic dogma.
The first to be considered is the heretic who becomes such of his own volition; who, being in the Catholic
Church, obstinately repudiates a truth of faith. Excommunication is incurred by him, if, with full knowledge,
he exteriorly formulates an heretical proposition; and if he seeks to propagate his error he is dogmatizans and
should be denounced. Next comes the heretic who belongs to an heretical association; for such a person his
heretical membership alone is sufficient to bring him under sentence of excommunication. In his case the
penalty is incurred by adhesion to the heresy, notably by wilful and active participation in sacris (i.e. in
public worship) with heretics; hence the excommunication of those who contract a mixed marriage before an
heretical minister as such (Holy Office, 28 Aug., 1888). Finally, the penalty extends to those who believe in
heretics (credentes) and join their ranks; to those who receive them, i.e. who give them shelter in their homes,
so as to protect them from the pursuit of authority; and to those who countenance or defend them as heretics
and in view of the heresy, provided it be a positive and efficacious assistance.

(2) "All those who knowingly read, without permission of the Apostolic See, books by these same apostates
and heretics and upholding heresy, as also the books of any authors whomsoever specifically prohibited by
Letters Apostolic, and all who keep, print, or in any way defend these same books." After heretical persons
come heretical books. The act that incurs excommunication is, first, reading done to a considerable extent and
culpably, i.e. by one who knows the nature of the books and of the excommunication, and who, moreover,
has not the necessary permission. The secondary acts punishable with the same penalty are the keeping in
one's possession, the printing (rather the publishing), and, finally, the defence, by word or by writing, of the
books in question. These books are of two kinds: first, those written by apostates, or heretics, and which
uphold and commend heresy, two conditions that must exist simultaneously; second, books specifically
condemned, i.e., by mention of their titles, not by decree of the Index, but by Letters from the pope himself,
Bulls or Briefs, and under pain of excommunication (for a list of these books see Hilgers, "Der Index der
verbotenen Bücher", Freiburg, 1904, p. 96; and "Die Bücherverbote in Papstbriefen", Freiburg, 1907).

(3) "Schismatics and those who elude or obstinately withdraw from the authority of the reigning Roman
pontiff." The schismatics here referred to are of two kinds: those who are such because they belong to
separated Churches which reject the authority of the pope, and those who, being Catholics, become
schismatics by reason of obstinate disobedience to the authority of the pope as such.

(4) "All those, of no matter what state, rank, or condition, who appeal from the ordinances or mandates of the
reigning Roman pontiff to a future ecumenical council, and all who have given aid, counsel, or countenance
to this appeal." The appeal from the commands of the pope to a future ecumenical council, not only implies
the superiority of the council over the pontiff, but is pre-eminently an act of injurious disobedience to the
Head of the Church. Were this appeal efficacious it would render all church government impossible, unless it
be accepted that the normal state of the Church is a general council in perpetual session, or at least meeting at
short intervals. This extreme Gallicanism is justly punishable with excommunication. The penalty is visited
upon all those who have influenced such act of appeal, either by aid, counsel, or support. This
excommunication, however, is to be strictly interpreted; it would not be incurred in consequence of an appeal
made to a future pope, the Holy See being vacant, or to a general council actually assembled.

(5) "All who kill, mutilate, strike, seize, incarcerate, detain or pursue with hostile intent, cardinals, patriarchs,
archbishops, bishops, legates or nuncios of the Holy See, or drive them from their dioceses, jurisdictions,
estates, or domains, as also those who ratify these measures or further them by aid or countenance." The
object of this penalty is not so much to protect the members of the clergy, like the celebrated
object of this penalty is not so much to protect the members of the clergy, like the celebrated
excommunication of the canon "Si quis suadente diabolo", of which we shall speak below, but rather to
safeguard the prelates or superiors in whom the Church has lodged her jurisdiction. The text clearly indicates
the acts punished by excommunication, i.e. all violent attacks on the person of a prelate as such; it likewise
specifies the culprits, i.e. those who perpetrate such assaults and those who are responsible for them, as also
their active accomplices.

(6) "Those who directly or indirectly prevent the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, either in foro interno
or in foro externo, and who, for this purpose, have recourse to the secular tribunal; also those who provoke or
deliver the orders of this tribunal or lend it their aid, counsel, or support." The preceding article protects those
who are the depositaries of jurisdiction; the present article protects the exercise of said jurisdiction. It
punishes any obstacle raised against the delivery or execution of a sentence or decision of the ecclesiastical
authority. It is not question here of the power of order (potestas ordinis) or of facts that do not really imply
jurisdiction, e.g. a simple contract. Nor is it question of measures taken with prelates so as to influence them
into exercising their jurisdiction in a given direction, e.g. to confer a benefice on Caius or withhold one from
Titius; this censure is meant to punish any obstacle that really prevents action on the part of a prelate who
wishes to perform an act of jurisdiction or to carry it into effect. He is directly prevented when violence is
used against him; indirectly, when his subordinates are prevented from acting. The chief opposition here
considered is recourse to secular and especially judicial authority. Excommunication is therefore incurred
under this head by all who provoke the intervention of secular tribunals, provided such intervention actually
follow; by all who deliver orders or directions intended to prevent the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction;
finally, by all who co-operate in these acts with aid, counsel, or support, unless under compulsion. Moralists
and canonists exempt from this penalty the clerks and servants of the secular courts.

(7) "Those who directly or indirectly oblige lay judges to cite ecclesiastical persons before their tribunal,
except in cases provided for by canonical agreements, also those who enact laws or decrees against the liberty
or rights of the Church." The first part of this article has for its object the protection of the privileges of the
ecclesiastical forum, i.e. of those ecclesiastics whose right it is to be judged by ecclesiastical tribunals;
consequently, those are excommunicated who oblige lay judges to summon clergymen before their tribunal in
cases where this ecclesiastical privilege (privilegium fori) should be respected. But the judges themselves,
who act by virtue of their office, are not excommunicated (Holy Office, 1 Feb., 1870). Those who thus force
lay judges to violate the privilegium fori are of two kinds: namely, those who actually cite ecclesiastics before
secular judges, and the legislators or makers of laws detrimental to the rights of the Church. The first are not
excommunicated provided they have no other means of obtaining justice, i.e. when the laws of the country in
question do not recognize the aforesaid ecclesiastical privilegium fori (Holy Office, 23 Jan., 1886). There
remains, therefore, of this censure little more than the second part of the article, which now affects chiefly the
legislators responsible for laws and decrees against the liberty and rights of the Church. The regulations
governing excommunications have been renewed and somewhat extended by the Motu Proprio "Quantavis
diligentia" of 9 October, 1911.

(8) "Those who have recourse to lay power for the prevention of Apostolic Letters or Acts of any kind
emanating from the Apostolic See or from its legates or delegates; those who directly or indirectly prohibit
the promulgation of these acts or letters, or who, on the occasion of such promulgation, strike or terrify either
the parties interested or third parties." This article should be compared with number 6 (above), from which it
differs in that it protects, not all exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, but that which the Holy See exercises
in its official letters, it being eminently important to ensure the free communication of the faithful with
Rome. The letters in question are: first, Apostolic Letters, in which the pope himself speaks, Bulls, Briefs,
Encyclicals, etc.; second, the Acts of the Holy See emanating from Roman Congregations or other organs of
the Curia, which constitute but one authority with the pope (Holy Office, 13 Jan., 1892); finally, the acts of
the official representatives of the pope, e.g. papal legates and delegates. The excommunication considers not
only Letters that concern all the faithful, but also those regarding individuals, e.g. grants of benefices,
dispensations, etc. This admitted, the penalty applies to three classes of persons, namely: those who resort to
dispensations, etc. This admitted, the penalty applies to three classes of persons, namely: those who resort to
secular power, not only judicial but administrative, to prevent these Letters from being published or from
producing their effect; those who, by means of authority, prevent such publication or execution; and finally,
those who, on the occasion of these Letters, strike or terrify either the beneficiaries or even third parties who
take part in their publication or execution. According to the more probable opinion, excommunication is
incurred even if these measures of opposition do not produce the intended results.

(9) "All falsifiers of Apostolic Letters, even in the form of a Brief, and of petitions concerning matters of
grace or justice signed by the Roman pontiff, or by cardinal vice-chancellors or those who replace them, or
simply by command of the pope; also those who falsely publish Apostolic Letters, even in the form of a
Brief; and finally, those who falsely sign petitions of this kind with the name of the Roman pontiff, of the
vice-chancellor, or of those who replace them." This excommunication punishes what is generally known as
forgery, not in all its forms, but in so far as it affects such pontifical letters or grants as are issued through the
tribunals known as the "Segnatura Gratiæ;" and the "Segnatura Justitiæ", i.e. whence issue papal favours
purely benevolent or connected with litigation. It does not therefore attain forgeries affecting the letters of
grants of the Roman Congregations or of prelates. It may be somewhat of a surprise to know that this
excommunication does not include those who fabricate an entire Apostolic Letter, the definition of
falsification (falsum) meaning only a notable alteration of authentic Letters either by suppression, erasures,
writing over, or substitution. Petitions addressed to the pope, when granted, are first signed by him, or by the
vice-chancellor, or other officers. The grant does not thereby become official, but the petition thus signed
serves as a basis for the wording of Apostolic Letters (Bulls or Briefs) that actually grant the favour
requested. In this process three acts are punishable with excommunication: the false signing of a petition; the
falsification of Apostolic Letters, and the publication of Letters thus falsified, in order to use them.

(10) "Those who absolve an accomplice in a sin against chastity, and that even at the moment of death,
provided another priest, although he be not approved for confession, can hear the confession of the dying
person without serious danger of infamy or scandal." This excommunication is not derived from the Bull "In
C na Domini", but from the celebrated Constitution of Benedict XIV, "Sacramentum Pœnitentiæ;" (1 June,
1741), completed by his Constitution "Apostolici muneris" (8 Feb., 1745). By these Bulls the pope, with a
view to protecting the Sacrament of Penance from sacrilegious abuse, withdraws all jurisdiction from a
confessor for absolving from sins against chastity which he may have committed with another person,
whether man or woman; the absolution he might impart for such sin would be null, and the mere attempt to
absolve would incur excommunication. The sin thus withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the confessor is any
grievous exterior sin against the Sixth Commandment, but it must be such on both sides. The confessor
accessary to it cannot pardon it, but, this sin once pardoned, he incurs no penalty by again hearing the
confession of his accomplice. This being the case, excommunication is incurred by the confessor if he
pronounce the formula of absolution after his accomplice has accused himself or herself of this sin, even
though he had not the intention of absolving, or even if he only feign to absolve (Holy Office, 5 Dec., 1883),
thereby allowing the penitent to suppose that he has absolved him or her; or again if he be the cause of the
penitent's refraining from accusing himself or herself of this sin (S. Peniten., 19 Feb., 1896). Neither gross
(crassa, supina) nor affected ignorance excuses from the censure (Holy Office, 13 Jan., 1892). There are but
two cases in which excommunication is not incurred: first, under absolutely exceptional circumstances where
the penitent could not approach another confessor, as the human law does not bind at the cost of such serious
disadvantage; again, at the moment of death. But even then Benedict XIV does not restore the power of
absolving nor exempt from excommunication, unless it be morally impossible for the dying person, without
grave danger of slander or scandal, to call in another confessor; this condition, however, should be interpreted
broadly.

(11) "Those who usurp or sequester the jurisdiction, property, or revenues belonging to ecclesiastical persons
by reason of their churches or benefices." To usurp is to take as if it legitimately belonged to oneself that
which belongs to another; hence it is that this article does not apply to thieves of ecclesiastical property (Holy
Office, 9 March, 1870). To sequester is formally and authoritatively to place in the custody of a third party
Office, 9 March, 1870). To sequester is formally and authoritatively to place in the custody of a third party
property withdrawn from the possession of a previous owner. The rights and property protected by this article
do not include all church property but only the rights and property of beneficed clergy as such; they are, as a
matter of fact, the principal possessions of the Church. Other property, e.g. that belonging to pious
establishments (opera pia) or confraternities and that intended for the maintenance or reparation of churches,
is protected, indeed, by distinct censures, but its usurpation or sequestration does not incur the
excommunication contemplated by this article, which was declared applicable to intruded parish priests in
Switzerland (Pius IX, Encyclical of 21 Nov., 1873; S. Cong. of the Council, 23 May, 1874) and in Prussia (25
Feb., 1875). It applies quite certainly to governments that despoil the Church of her property.

(12) "Those who themselves or through others, invade, destroy, or detain cities, lands, places, or rights of the
Roman Church, those who hold possession of, disturb, or detain its sovereign jurisdiction, and all who give
aid, counsel, or countenance to these offences." This penalty applies to the authors and accomplices of the
invasion and detention of the temporal domains of the Holy See.

(b) Excommunications Simply Reserved to the Pope

Before enumerating those it intends to retain, the Constitution "Apostolicæ Sedis" pronounces a first
excommunication of this kind against "those who presume to absolve, without the requisite faculties and
under any pretext whatsoever, from excommunications that are specially reserved". This article is directed
against those who dare to absolve in bad faith or rashly; a well-founded doubt, however, and even gross
ignorance may be pleaded as excuses. Then follow seventeen excommunications simply reserved, declared
against the following persons:

(1) "Those who either publicly or privately teach or defend propositions condemned by the Holy See under
pain of excommunication latæ; sententiæ; likewise those who teach or maintain as lawful the practice of
asking the penitent the name of his or her accomplice, a practice condemned by Benedict XIV in his
Constitutions 'Suprema' (7 July, 1745), 'Ubi primum' (2 July, 1746), and 'Ad eradicandam' (28 Sept., 1746)."
This article contains two distinct parts. In the first it is not question of all propositions condemned by popes
or councils in terms less condemnatory (e.g. rash, offensive, etc.) than the specific stigma heretical (to defend
heretical propositions being heresy itself and already declared a chief cause of excommunication, see above),
but only those which the popes have specifically forbidden to be maintained under pain of excommunication
latæ; sententiæ;. These propositions are:

(a) the forty-one errors of Luther condemned by Leo X, 16 May, 1520;

(b) the seventy-nine theses of Michael Baius condemned 1 Oct., 1567, 29 Jan., 1579, and 16 March, 1641;
(c) the thesis on confession and absolution by letter or messenger, condemned by Clement VIII, 20 June,
1602;
(d) the twenty-eight propositions condemned by Alexander VII, 24 Sept., 1665;
(e) the seventeen propositions condemned by the same pope, 18 March, 1666;
(f) the sixty-five propositions condemned by Innocent XI, 4 March, 679;
(g) the sixty-eight propositions of Miguel de Molinos condemned by the same pope, 20 November, 1687;
(h) the second of two propositions condemned by Alexander VIII, 24 August, 1690;
(i) the thirty-one propositions condemned by the same pope, 7 December, 1690;
(k) the five propositions on duelling condemned by Benedict XIV, 10 November, 1752;
(1) and finally the sixty-five Modernistic propositions condemned by decree of the Holy Office, 3 July, 1907,
according to the Motu Proprio of Pius X, 19 November, 1907.

The text of all these propositions will be found in Denzinger's "Enchiridion Symbolorum, definitionum et
declarationum", etc. (10th ed., Freiburg, 1908), also, the last series excepted, in Pennachi's "Comment. in
Const. Apost. Sedis", I, 168. The second part of the article aims at the abusive practice of requiring the
penitent, under pain of being refused absolution, to divulge the name of his or her accomplice in any crime, a
dangerous practice and opposed to the conditions of secrecy under which sacramental confession is made.
dangerous practice and opposed to the conditions of secrecy under which sacramental confession is made.
Benedict XIV denounced it, notably in Portugal, by the aforementioned Constitutions. It is to be noted,
however, that this excommunication is not incurred by the confessor who asks a penitent the name of his or
her accomplice, but only by him who teaches or maintains that this practice is permitted. Moreover, the
expression "to teach or maintain" implies more than merely to affirm or share the condemned opinions.

(2) "Those who, at the instigation of the devil, violently lay hands on ecclesiastics or religious of either sex,
exception being made, as regards reservation, in behalf of cases and of persons that the law or privileges
allow the bishop or others to absolve." This is the celebrated privilege or immunity "of the canon"
(privilegium canonis), so called from the canon "Si quis, suadente diabolo" (Decretum of Gratian, C. xvii, q.
iv, c. xxix), enacted by the Council of Lateran in 1139 and intended to protect the honour of the clergy from
material violence and injury. The persons protected are all who belong to the clergy in the broad sense of the
word, i.e. both minor and major clerics, tonsured persons, monks, nuns, novices, and even tertiaries living in
community. This privilege is to be interpreted broadly. The acts punished are all injurious corporal violence,
such as blows and wounds, a fortiori mutilation; also pursuit, imprisonment, and arrest, likewise insulting
acts, such as a slap in the face, etc. The penalty is not imposed for acts that are not grievous, for verbal
injuries, for excusable violence, e.g. in the case of legitimate defence, or finally when one is unaware that he
is dealing with a cleric. Nowadays only the real perpetrators of these deeds are excommunicated, not
accomplices nor those who are morally responsible. Once the fact is publicly known the culprits are vitandi
even without being denounced by name. Absolution from this excommunication is regularly reserved to the
pope, but the text of the article maintains the faculties possessed by bishops and others, such as we have
heretofore indicated.

(3) "Those who fight duels, those who challenge or accept challenge thereunto, all accomplices, all who help
or countenance such combats, all who designedly assist thereat, finally all who permit duelling or who do not
prevent it in so far as lies in their power, no matter what their rank or dignity, be it royal or imperial." This
severe discipline against duelling dates from the Council of Trent (Sess. XXV, e. xix, De ref.); here, however,
only the excommunication in question is considered. It aims at duelling, properly so called, by challenge and
on accepted conditions, not at other single combats or altercations. University duels, so common in Germany,
are included (S. Cong. of the Council, 29 Aug., 1890). The malice of the duel lies in the fact that it makes
right depend upon the fate of arms; this penalty is extended to all who take any part whatever in these
detestable combats. The excommunication is incurred, first, by the duellists themselves, not only when they
actually fight, but as soon as they have proposed or accepted a challenge; next, by the official witnesses or
seconds, also by physicians expressly brought upon the scene (Holy Office, 28 May, 1884), and by all
spectators not accidentally present; likewise by those who permit these affairs, when such permission is
necessary, e.g. in the army, and by those who, although able to prevent duelling, refrain from so doing.

(4) "Those who become members of the Masonic sect, of the Carbonari, or of other similar sects that plot
either openly or secretly against the Church or legitimate authorities; all who countenance these sects in any
way whatever, and finally, all who do not inform against the occult chiefs or leaders, i.e. until they have made
such denunciations." Certain associations are prohibited because of their evil or dangerous object; this article
deals only with those to which it is forbidden to belong under pain of excommunication latæ; sententiæ;.
These are known by their aim, which is to plot against the Church or legitimate authorities, obviously by
illicit or criminal means; this excludes at once purely political groups. It matters little whether or not these
societies exact secrecy from their members, though the element of secrecy constitutes an unfavourable
presumption. The article names two of these sects, the Freemasons and the Carbonari; to these we must add
the Fenians (Holy Office, 12 Jan., 1870). There are four prohibited American societies: the Independent
Order of Good Templars (Holy Office, 9 Aug., 1893), the Odd Fellows, the Sons of Temperance, and the
Knights of Pythias (Holy Office, 20 June, 1894), but not under pain of excommunication. In regard to the
sects of which our article treats, three distinct acts incur excommunication: the inscribing of one's name as a
member, the positive favouring of the sect as such, and failure to denounce the occult leaders. For this last act
censure is not incurred if the leaders be not occult, or if they be not known with sufficient certainty. The
censure is not incurred if the leaders be not occult, or if they be not known with sufficient certainty. The
denunciation, if imperative, must be made within a month; once it is made the excommunication is no longer
reserved, and one is in a condition to receive absolution from any confessor without further formality.

(5) "Those who command the violation of or who themselves rashly violate the immunity of ecclesiastical
asylum." Immunity, or right of sanctuary, protected criminals who took refuge near the altar or within sacred
edifices; it was forbidden to remove them from such places of refuge either by public or private force. This
immunity, although formerly beneficial, has disappeared from modern life; the excommunication here
retained has hardly more than the value of a principle; it may be noted that the article is cautiously worded.
By its terms excommunication would be incurred only by those who rashly, and without being constrained
thereto, violate the right of sanctuary as such (Holy Office, 1 Feb., 1871; 22 Dec., 1880).

(6) "Persons of any kind, condition, sex, or age who violate the clausura [i.e. canonical enclosure] of nuns by
penetrating into their monasteries, those introducing or admitting them, also nuns who leave their clausura,
except in the cases and in the manner provided for by the Constitution 'Decori' of St. Pius V." The reader will
find in the article CLOISTER further details; here it suffices to add that the enclosure in question is that of
the papal enclosure (clausura papalis), or that of religious women with solemn vows. The Constitution
"Decori" (24 Jan., 1570) limits the reasons of egress to fire, leprosy, or an epidemic; even in the two latter
cases it is necessary for such nuns to have the written authorization of the bishop.

(7) "Women who violate the enclosure [clausura] of male religious and the superiors and others who admit
them." Here also it is question of religious with solemn vows; moreover, it has not seemed necessary to
provide for exceptional cases nor for permission.

(8) "Those who are guilty of real simony [simonia realis] for the obtaining of any benefices whatever, and
their accomplices." (For this article and the two that follow see SIMONY.)

(9) "Those who are guilty of confidential simony [simonia confidentialis] apropos of any benefice or any
dignity whatever."

(10) "Those who are guilty of real simony for the purpose of entering a religious order."

(11) "All who traffic in Indulgences or other spiritual favours are excommunicated by the Constitution of St.
Pius V, 'Quam plenum' (2 Jan., 1569)." This Constitution enumerates the abuses that the pope wished to
remedy. Certain Spanish bishops were accustomed to issue public grants of Indulgences or various other
spiritual favours, but in a manner for which they were unauthorized; the abuse consisted mainly in the
pecuniary conditions they imposed for obtaining these favours (Indulgences, choice of a confessor for the
absolution of reserved cases, Mass and burial in time of interdict, dispensation from abstinence, the right to
present several sponsors at baptism, etc.). To overcome these abuses St. Pius V inflicted two kinds of
penalties: bishops were punished by being forbidden entrance into church and by suspension of the "fruits",
or revenues, of their benefices; culprits of inferior rank were excommunicated. The penalties against bishops
have been suppressed; excommunication, however, is retained to punish those who would reap unlawful
profit from the publication or granting of Indulgences or of the other spiritual favours enumerated.

(12) "Those who collect stipends for Masses and make profits out of them by having the Masses celebrated in
places where the stipends are not so high." The object of the penalty is to remedy all shameful traffic in
Mass-stipends; to incur it two things are necessary: not only must the stipends for Masses (called missæ;
manuales) be collected, but a portion of them must be withheld when remitting them to the priests who are to
fulfil the obligation of saying the Masses. Despite the wording of the article, it is not necessary that both
conditions, the quest of stipends and the celebration of the Masses, occur in different places (Holy Office, 19
Aug., 1891, ad 4).

(13) "All those excommunicated by the Constitutions of St. Pius V, 'Admonet nos' (29 March, 1567);
(13) "All those excommunicated by the Constitutions of St. Pius V, 'Admonet nos' (29 March, 1567);
Innocent IX, 'Quæ ab hâc Sede' (4 Nov., 1591); Clement VIII, 'Ad Romani Pontificis curam' (26 June, 1592);
and Alexander VIII, 'Inter cæteras' (24 Oct., 1660), concerning the alienation and enfeoffment of cities and
places belonging to the Holy Roman Church." This article deals with the temporal domains of the Church and
calls here for no special comment.

(14) "Religious who, without permission of the parish priest, venture to administer extreme unction or the
Eucharist as Viaticum, to ecclesiastics or laymen, except in cases of necessity." The penalty affects religious
with solemn vows and professed, but is not incurred if they have at least the presumed permission of the
parish priest, if they be in ignorance, finally if it be a case of necessity. Those to whom these religious must
not administer the sacraments are seculars, ecclesiastics or laymen; they may, however, administer them to
persons domiciled in their convents.

(15) "Those who without legitimate permission take relics from the cemeteries or catacombs of Rome or its
territory, and those who give such persons aid or countenance." The permission is to be sought from the
Roman Vicariate, and excommunication is incurred only by carrying away from the catacombs genuine relies,
not other objects. Relics are the remains, not of anyone happening to be buried in the catacombs, but only of
martyrs or of those regarded as such by reason of the "signs of martyrdom" that distinguish their tombs,
notably the phial of blood, according to the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 10 April, 1668, and 27 Nov., 1863.

(16) "Those who hold communion in criminal crime with a person whom the pope has excommunicated by
name, that is, those who give him assistance or countenance." The "criminal crime" (crimen criminosum) is
the very one for which the culprit was excommunicated; the article, of course, does not contemplate
participation in the offensive act itself, since excommunication by name is necessarily posterior to such an
act. The penalty is inflicted for subsequently assisting or countenancing the excommunicated person. This is a
survival (see above, II (5)] of the penalties incurred by intercourse with the excommunicated. It must be noted
that this censure is not imposed for intercourse with all excommunicated persons, but only with vitandi, those
whom the pope has excommunicated by name, not such as have been excommunicated by a Roman
Congregation (Holy Office, 16 June, 1897) or by the bishop.

(17) "Clerics who knowingly and wilfully hold communion in divinis with persons whom the pope has
excommunicated by name and receive them at Divine service." The excommunicated in question are the
same as in the preceding article, and they cannot be admitted to Divine worship; however, the penalty
incurred concerns ecclesiastics only, when acting freely and with full knowledge [see above, II (5)].

(c) Excommunications Reserved to the Bishop (Ordinary)

These are three in number and affect the following persons:

(1) "Ecclesiastics in Holy orders and regulars or nuns who dare to contract marriage after having made a
solemn vow of chastity, also those who dare to contract marriage with one of these persons." The
ecclesiastics whose marriage is null in consequence of the impediment of Holy orders are subdeacons and
those in still higher orders; the nuns and male religious whose marriage is null through the impediment of
vow are members of the great orders. Nevertheless, the impediment does not exist from the time of their first
profession that follows the novitiate, but only from the solemn profession made three years later. The penalty
is incurred by an attempt at marriage, not by an act of betrothal; such an attempt is recognized in any contract
having the figura matrimonii, i.e. which would constitute a marriage if there were no impediment;
consequently the penalty is incurred for civil marriage (Holy Office, 22 Dec., 1880), even if there were other
impediments, e.g. consanguinity (Holy Office, 16 Jan., 1892).

(2) "Those who efficaciously procure abortion." The fruitless attempt is not punished with excommunication;
authors do not agree as to whether the woman guilty of self-abortion is excommunicated.
authors do not agree as to whether the woman guilty of self-abortion is excommunicated.

(3) "Those who knowingly make use of counterfeit Apostolic Letters or who co-operate in the crime." [See
above, (a) (9).] This article is not directed against forgers but against those who endeavour to profit by
falsified letters. Petitions signed by the pope or in his name are not mentioned. Accomplices are also
punished; but the culprits must act knowingly, and be fully aware that they are using falsified papal letters.

(d) Excommunications That Are Not Reserved (Nemini Reservat )

These are four in number and are pronounced against the following persons:

(1) "Those who command or oblige the giving of ecclesiastical burial to notorious heretics or to persons
excommunicated by name or placed under interdict." The article does not consider funeral ceremonies, but
only material interment in consecrated ground. Those who admit heretics or others to ecclesiastical burial are
not punished, but only those who, by authority or force, compel such an interment, thereby violating the
prohibition of the Church. Nor is it question here of all who, according to the Ritual, should be deprived of
ecclesiastical burial, but merely of the two categories indicated.

(2) "Those who wound or terrorize the inquisitors, informers, witnesses, or other ministers of the Holy
Office; those who lacerate or burn the writings of this tribunal and all who give to the aforesaid assistance,
counsel, or countenance." This excommunication does not apply in countries where the Holy Office has no
organized tribunal; the inquisitional functions devolve in such countries on the bishop, who is protected by
the specially reserved excommunications described above, under (a) (5), (6), (8).

(3) "Those who alienate and those who have the audacity to receive church property without Apostolic
authorization, according to the terms of the Constitution 'Ambitiosæ, de rebus eccl. non alienandis'." The
author of this Constitution (Extravagantes, lib. III, tit. iv, inter comm.) was Paul II (1 March, 1467). It forbids
under pain of reserved excommunication and of the nullity of the acts, not only alienations (properly so
called) of ecclesiastical property, sales, donations, etc., but also all contracts savouring of alienation, such as
mortgages, emphyteusis or perpetual lease, long-term leases, etc. For the manifest benefit of the Church these
contracts must be authorized by the pope; only objects of small value are excepted (see Third Plenary Council
of Baltimore, no. 20).

(4) "Those who, through their own fault, neglect or omit to denounce within a month the confessors or priests
by whom they have been solicited to immodest acts, in all the cases set forth by our predecessors. Gregory
XV in the Constitution 'Universi' (20 Aug., 1622) and Benedict XIV in the Constitution 'Sacramentum p
nitentiæ;' (1 June, 1741)." This excommunication is not intended to punish those solicited to sin (they are not
therefore guilty), but to protect the administration of the Sacrament of Penance. Persons thus solicited are
strictly obliged to make known to the inquisitor or the bishop those priests who have solicited them to the
aforesaid acts; if, through their own fault, such denunciation is not made within a month they incur
excommunication, which ceases only when they have made known in the aforesaid manner the guilty party.
The solicitation here alluded to is not any provocation to evil, but to sins against chastity on the part of
confessors or priests, and in connexion with the Sacrament of Penance, this being the abuse that the legislator
especially seeks to punish. Said connexion exists when the solicitation takes place "during the very act of
sacramental confession, immediately before or after, on the occasion or under the pretext of confession, or
finally, in the confessional".

B. Excommunications Pronounced by the Council of Trent

These are eight in number, the first being simply reserved to the pope and the other seven non-reserved:

(1) Sess. XXII, c. ii, De ref.: against usurpers, whether ecclesiastics or laymen, of any kind of church
property, until the time of restitution and absolution. This penalty protects all ecclesiastical property, properly
property, until the time of restitution and absolution. This penalty protects all ecclesiastical property, properly
so called, i.e. of which the administration belongs to ecclesiastical authority, such as real and personal
property, revenues, etc. Excommunication is incurred by usurpers, namely by those who claim for themselves
the ownership of this property, and passes on to the successive acquirers of such property until restitution or
composition (agreement) is made. This penalty was applied at the time of the recent spoliations in Italy and
France.

(2) Sess. IV, De editione et usu sacrorum librorum. -- The excommunication pronounced by the council was
restricted by the Constitution "Apostolicæ Sedis" to those who, without the approbation of the bishop, print,
or have printed, books treating of sacred things; this must here be understood solely of the text of Holy Writ
and of notes and commentaries on the same (Holy Office, 22 Dec., 1880).

(3) Sess. XXIV, c. vi, De ref. matr.: against those who are guilty of the crime of abduction, in regard to any
woman, with a view to marriage, and all who lend them advice, aid, or countenance.

(4) Sess. XXIV, c. ix, De ref. matr.: against temporal rulers and magistrates who directly or indirectly oppose
obstacles to the liberty of their subjects in the matter of contracting marriage.

(5) Sess. XXV, c. v, De regul.: against secular magistrates who at the request of the bishop, do not give the
support of the secular arm in re-establishing the clausura or enclosure of nuns. This excommunication is
abrogated in practice or at least is inapplicable.

(6) Sess. XXV, c. xviii, De regul.: against those who unjustly oblige a woman to enter a monastery
unwillingly, or to take the habit, or make a profession, and those who thereunto give their counsel, aid, or
countenance, as also against those who, without good reason, prevent a woman from taking the veil or
making her profession.

(7) Sess. XXIV, c. i, De ref. matr.: against "those who deny that clandestine marriages [before the legislation
of the council] are true and valid; as also those who falsely affirm that marriages contracted by the children of
a family without the consent of their parents are invalid and that parents can make such marriages valid or
invalid."

(8) Sess. XIII, can. xi: "This council ordains and declares that sacramental confession, when a confessor may
be had, is of necessity to be made before Communion by those whose conscience is burdened by mortal sin,
how contrite soever they may think themselves. But if anyone shall presume to teach, preach, or obstinately to
assert, or even in public disputation to defend the contrary, he shall be thereupon excommunicated."

C. Excommunications Pronounced or Renewed Since the Constitution

"Apostolicæ Sedis"

These are four in number, the first two being specially reserved to the pope, the third to the ordinary; the
fourth is not reserved.

(1) The Constitution "Romanus Pontifex" (28 Aug., 1873), besides other penalties, declares specially
reserved excommunication: first, against the dignitaries and canons of cathedral churches (or those having the
administration of vacant cathedrals) who would dare to concede and transfer the administration of their
church with the title of vicar to the person elected by the chapter, or named or presented to said church by lay
power; second, against those so elected or presented; and third, against all who aid, advise, or countenance
the aforesaid offenders.

(2) Excommunication specially reserved against the members of the "Catholic Italian Society for the
restoration of the rights of the Christian and especially of the Roman people", and against its promoters,
supporters, and adherents (S. Peniten., 4 Aug., 1876; Acta S. Sed., IX, 352). Amongst other rights this society
supporters, and adherents (S. Peniten., 4 Aug., 1876; Acta S. Sed., IX, 352). Amongst other rights this society
proposed to restore popular participation in the election of the sovereign pontiff.

(3) Excommunication reserved to the ordinary against laymen (for ecclesiastics the penalty is suspension)
who traffic in Mass-stipends and trade them with priests for books and other merchandise (S. Cong. of the
Council, decree "Vigilanti studio", 25 May, 1893).

(4) Excommunication, non-reserved, against missionaries, both regulars and seculars, of the East Indies
(Farther Orient) or the West Indies (America) who devote themselves to commerce or who participate in it,
and their immediate superiors, provincial or general, who fail to punish the culprits, at least by removal, and
even after a single offence. This excommunication comes down from the Constitutions of Urban VIII, "Ex
delicto" (22 Feb., 1633), and Clement IX, "Sollicitudo" (17 July, 1669), but was suppressed by reason of
non-mention in the Constitution "Apostolicæ Sedis"; it was re-established, however, at the request of the S.
Cong. of the Inquisition, 4 Dec., 1872. This excommunication is non-reserved, but the culprit cannot be
absolved prior to making restitution, unless he be at the point of death.

Publication information
Written by A. Boudinhon. Transcribed by Douglas J. Potter. Dedicated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume V. Published 1909. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat,
May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York

Bibliography
Canonists usually treat of excommunication in their commentaries on the Corpus Juris Canonici, at the title
De sententia excommunicationis (lib. V, tit. xxxix). Moralists deal with it apropos of the treatise on censures
(De Censuris). One of the best works is that of D'ANNIBALE Summula Theologiæ moralis (5th ed., Rome,
1908). For details consult the numerous commentaries on the Constitution Apostolicæ Sedis. Special works
by ancient writers: AVILA, De censuris (Lyons, 1608); SUAREZ, De censuris (Coimbra, 1603). ALTIERI,
De censuris ecclesiasticis (Rome, l618). -- Cf. KOBER, Der Kirchenbann (Tübingen, 1857): IDEM in
Kirchenlex., s. v. Bann; HOLLWECK, Die kirchlichen Strafgesetze (Mainz, 1899); HILARIUS A SEXTEN,
De censuris (Mainz, 1898); MÜNCHEN, Das kanonische Gerichtsverfahren und Strafrecht (Cologne, 1874);
TAUNTON, The Law of the Church (London, 1906), s. v. Excommunication; SMITH, Elements of
Ecclesiastical Law (New York, 1884); SANTI-LEITNER, Pr lect. Jur. Canonici (New York, 1905), V,
210-15; LEGA, De Judiciis Eccl. (Rome, 1900).