9. {41} On excommunication 1
Since the aim of excommunication is healing and not death, correction and not
destruction, as long
as the one against whom it is pronounced does not treat it with contempt, let
an
ecclesiastical judge
proceed with caution, so that in pronouncing It he may be seen as one who acts
with a
correcting
and healing hand. Whoever pronounces an excommunication, therefore, should do
this in
writing
and should write down expressly the reason why the excommunication was
pronounced. He is
bound to hand over a copy of this written document to the one excommunicated
within a
month
after the date of sentence, if requested to do so. As to this request, we wish
a
public
document to be
drawn up or testimonial letters to be furnished, sealed with an official seal.
If any
judge rashly
violates this constitution, let him know that he is suspended for one month
from
entering
a church
or attending divine services. The superior to whom the one excommunicated has
recourse,
should
readily remove the excommunication and condemn the judge who pronounced it to
repay the
expenses and all losses, or punish him in other ways with a fitting penalty, so
that
judges may learn
by the lesson of punishment how serious it is to hurl the bolt of
excommunication without
due
consideration. We wish the same to be observed in sentences of suspension and
interdict.
Let
prelates of churches and all judges take care that they do not incur the
foresaid penalty
of
suspension. But if it happens that they take part m divine offices as before,
they will
not escape
irregularity according to the canonical sanctions, in a matter where
dispensation cannot
be granted
except by the sovereign pontiff.
20. {42} On excommunication 2
The question is sometimes asked whether, when a person who asks to be absolved
by a
superior by
way of precaution, asserting that the sentence of excommunication pronounced
against him
is void,
the act of absolution should be performed for him without objection; and
whether
one who
declares
before such absolution that he will prove in a court of law that he was
excommunicated
after a
legitimate appeal, or that an intolerable mistake was clearly expressed in the
sentence,
should be
avoided in all things except in what concerns the proof. To the first question
we decree
that the
following is to be observed: absolution is not to be refused to the petitioner,
even
though the
pronouncer of the sentence or the adversary opposes it, unless he says that the
petitioner was
excommunicated for a manifest offence, in which case a limit of eight days is
to
be
granted to the
one saying this. If he proves his objection, the sentence is not to be set
aside
unless
there is
sufficient guarantee of amendment or an adequate assurance that the petitioner
will
appear in court
if the offence with which he is charged is still doubtful. To the second
question, we
decree that he
who is allowed to submit a proof, as long as the matter of proof is in dispute,
is to be
avoided in all
matters in the court in which he is engaged as an agent, but outside the court
he may
take part in
offices, postulations, elections and other lawful acts.
21. {43} On excommunication 3
We decree {44} that no judge should presume to pronounce, before a canonical
warning, a
sentence
of major excommunication upon persons who associate, in speech or other ways by
which an
associate incurs a minor excommunication, with persons already excommunicated
by
the
judge;
saving those decrees which have legitimately been promulgated against those who
presume
to
associate with one condemned for grievous crime. But it the excommunicated
person becomes
hardened in speech or other ways by which an associate incurs a minor
excommunication,
the judge
can, after canonical warning, condemn such associates with a similar censure.
Otherwise
excommunication pronounced against these associates is not to have any binding
power, and
those
who pronounce it may fear the penalty of the law.
22. {45} On excommunication 4
Since there is danger that bishops and their superiors in the execution of
their
pontifical office,
which is often their duty, may incur in some case an automatic sentence of
interdict or
suspension,
we have thought it right, after careful consideration, to decree that bishops
and other
higher prelates
in no way incur, because of any decree, sentence or order, the aforesaid
sentence by
reason of the
law itself, unless there is express mention in them of bishops and superiors.
In
the
constitution Solet
a nonnullis, previously promulgated by us, it is laid down that when someone
offers in
court to
prove that a sentence of excommunication was passed against him after a
legitimate
appeal, he is
not to be avoided during the period of proof in matters which lie outside the
court, such
as elections,
postulations and offices. To this we add that this constitution should not be
extended to
the
sentences of bishops and archbishops, but what was previously observed in such
actions
should be
observed in the future for these too.
II
No comments:
Post a Comment