"
Now those who are excommunicated are already outside the Church.
Now those who are excommunicated are already outside the Church.
Summa Theologica
Secondly, through the intention of
the one who prays, which intention is directed to the person he prays
for, and this union is interrupted by excommunication, because by
passing sentence of excommunication, the Church severs a man from the
whole body of the faithful, for whom she prays. Hence those prayers of
the Church which are offered up for the whole Church, do not profit
those who are excommunicated. Nor can prayers be said for them among
the members of the Church as speaking in the Church's name, although a
private individual may say a prayer with the intention of offering it
for their conversion.
Reply to Objection 3: The spiritual fruit of the Church is derived not
only from her prayers, but also from the sacraments received and from
the faithful dwelling together.
Reply to Objection 4: The minor excommunication does not fulfill all
the conditions of excommunication but only a part of them, hence the
definition of excommunication need not apply to it in every respect,
but only in some.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the Church should excommunicate anyone?
Objection 1: It would seem that the Church ought not to excommunicate
anyone, because excommunication is a kind of curse, and we are
forbidden to curse (Rom. 12:14). Therefore the Church should not
excommunicate.
Objection 2: Further, the Church Militant should imitate the Church
Triumphant. Now we read in the epistle of Jude (verse 9) that "when
Michael the Archangel disputing with the devil contended about the body
of Moses, he durst not bring against him the judgment of railing
speech, but said: The Lord command thee. " Therefore the Church Militant
ought not to judge any man by cursing or excommunicating him.
Objection 3: Further, no man should be given into the hands of his
enemies, unless there be no hope for him. Now by excommunication a man
is given into the hands of Satan, as is clear from 1 Cor. 5:5. Since
then we should never give up hope about anyone in this life, the Church
should not excommunicate anyone.
On the contrary, The Apostle (1 Cor. 5:5) ordered a man to be
excommunicated.
Further, it is written (Mat. 18:17) about the man who refuses to hear
the Church: "Let him be to thee as the heathen or publican. " But
heathens are outside the Church. Therefore they also who refuse to hear
the Church, should be banished from the Church by excommunication.
I answer that, The judgment of the Church should be conformed to the
judgment of God. Now God punishes the sinner in many ways, in order to
draw him to good, either by chastising him with stripes, or by leaving
him to himself so that being deprived of those helps whereby he was
kept out of evil, he may acknowledge his weakness, and humbly return to
God Whom he had abandoned in his pride. In both these respects the
Church by passing sentence of excommunication imitates the judgment of
God. For by severing a man from the communion of the faithful that he
may blush with shame, she imitates the judgment whereby God chastises
man with stripes; and by depriving him of prayers and other spiritual
things, she imitates the judgment of God in leaving man to himself, in
order that by humility he may learn to know himself and return to God.
Reply to Objection 1: A curse may be pronounced in two ways: first, so
that the intention of the one who curses is fixed on the evil which he
invokes or pronounces, and cursing in this sense is altogether
forbidden. Secondly, so that the evil which a man invokes in cursing is
intended for the good of the one who is cursed, and thus cursing is
sometimes lawful and salutary: thus a physician makes a sick man
undergo pain, by cutting him, for instance, in order to deliver him
from his sickness.
Reply to Objection 2: The devil cannot be brought to repentance,
wherefore the pain of excommunication cannot do him any good.
Reply to Objection 3: From the very fact that a man is deprived of the
prayers of the Church, he incurs a triple loss, corresponding to the
three things which a man acquires through the Church's prayers. For
they bring an increase of grace to those who have it, or merit grace
for those who have it not; and in this respect the Master of the
Sentences says (Sent. iv, D, 18): "The grace of God is taken away by
excommunication. " They also prove a safeguard of virtue; and in this
respect he says that "protection is taken away," not that the
excommunicated person is withdrawn altogether from God's providence,
but that he is excluded from that protection with which He watches over
the children of the Church in a more special way. Moreover, they are
useful as a defense against the enemy, and in this respect he says that
"the devil receives greater power of assaulting the excommunicated
person, both spiritually and corporally. " Hence in the early Church,
when men had to be enticed to the faith by means of outward signs (thus
the gift of the Holy Ghost was shown openly by a visible sign), so too
excommunication was evidenced by a person being troubled in his body by
the devil. Nor is it unreasonable that one, for whom there is still
hope, be given over to the enemy, for he is surrendered, not unto
damnation, but unto correction, since the Church has the power to
rescue him from the hands of the enemy, whenever he is willing.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether anyone should be excommunicated for inflicting temporal harm?
Objection 1: It would seem that no man should be excommunicated for
inflicting a temporal harm. For the punishment should not exceed the
fault. But the punishment of excommunication is the privation of a
spiritual good, which surpasses all temporal goods. Therefore no man
should be excommunicated for temporal injuries.
Objection 2: Further, we should render to no man evil for evil,
according to the precept of the Apostle (Rom. 12:17). But this would be
rendering evil for evil, if a man were to be excommunicated for doing
such an injury. Therefore this ought by no means to be done.
On the contrary, Peter sentenced Ananias and Saphira to death for
keeping back the price of their piece of land (Acts 5:1-10). Therefore
it is lawful for the Church to excommunicate for temporal injuries.
I answer that, By excommunication the ecclesiastical judge excludes a
man, in a sense, from the kingdom. Wherefore, since he ought not to
exclude from the kingdom others than the unworthy, as was made clear
from the definition of the keys ([4882]Q[17], A[2]), and since no one
becomes unworthy, unless, through committing a mortal sin, he lose
charity which is the way leading to the kingdom, it follows that no man
should be excommunicated except for a mortal sin. And since by injuring
a man in his body or in his temporalities, one may sin mortally and act
against charity, the Church can excommunicate a man for having
inflicted temporal injury on anyone. Yet, as excommunication is the
most severe punishment, and since punishments are intended as remedies,
according to the Philosopher (Ethic. ii), and again since a prudent
physician begins with lighter and less risky remedies, therefore
excommunication should not be inflicted, even for a mortal sin, unless
the sinner be obstinate, either by not coming up for judgment, or by
going away before judgment is pronounced, or by failing to obey the
decision of the court. For then, if, after due warning, he refuse to
obey, he is reckoned to be obstinate, and the judge, not being able to
proceed otherwise against him, must excommunicate him.
Reply to Objection 1: A fault is not measured by the extent of the
damage a man does, but by the will with which he does it, acting
against charity. Wherefore, though the punishment of excommunication
exceeds the harm done, it does not exceed the measure of the sin.
Reply to Objection 2: When a man is corrected by being punished, evil
is not rendered to him, but good: since punishments are remedies, as
stated above.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether an excommunication unjustly pronounced has any effect?
Objection 1: It would seem that an excommunication which is pronounced
unjustly has no effect at all. Because excommunication deprives a man
of the protection and grace of God, which cannot be forfeited unjustly.
Therefore excommunication has no effect if it be unjustly pronounced.
Objection 2: Further, Jerome says (on Mat. 16:19: "I will give to thee
the keys"): "It is a pharisaical severity to reckon as really bound or
loosed, that which is bound or loosed unjustly. " But that severity was
proud and erroneous. Therefore an unjust excommunication has no effect.
On the contrary, According to Gregory (Hom. xxvi in Evang. ), "the
sentence of the pastor is to be feared whether it be just or unjust. "
Now there would be no reason to fear an unjust excommunication if it
did not hurt. Therefore, etc.
I answer that, An excommunication may be unjust for two reasons. First,
on the part of its author, as when anyone excommunicates through hatred
or anger, and then, nevertheless, the excommunication takes effect,
though its author sins, because the one who is excommunicated suffers
justly, even if the author act wrongly in excommunicating him.
Secondly, on the part of the excommunication, through there being no
proper cause, or through the sentence being passed without the forms of
law being observed. In this case, if the error, on the part of the
sentence, be such as to render the sentence void, this has no effect,
for there is no excommunication; but if the error does not annul the
sentence, this takes effect, and the person excommunicated should
humbly submit (which will be credited to him as a merit), and either
seek absolution from the person who has excommunicated him, or appeal
to a higher judge. If, however, he were to contemn the sentence, he
would "ipso facto" sin mortally.
But sometimes it happens that there is sufficient cause on the part of
the excommunicator, but not on the part of the excommunicated, as when
a man is excommunicated for a crime which he has not committed, but
which has been proved against him: in this case, if he submit humbly,
the merit of his humility will compensate him for the harm of
excommunication.
Reply to Objection 1: Although a man cannot lose God's grace unjustly,
yet he can unjustly lose those things which on our part dispose us to
receive grace. for instance, a man may be deprived of the instruction
which he ought to have. It is in this sense that excommunication is
said to deprive a man of God's grace, as was explained above (A[2], ad
3).
Reply to Objection 2: Jerome is speaking of sin not of its punishments,
which can be inflicted unjustly by ecclesiastical superiors.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THOSE WHO CAN EXCOMMUNICATE OR BE EXCOMMUNICATED (SIX ARTICLES)
We must now consider those who can excommunicate or be excommunicated.
Under this head there are six points of inquiry:
(1) Whether every priest can excommunicate?
(2) Whether one who is not a priest can excommunicate?
(3) Whether one who is excommunicated or suspended, can excommunicate?
(4) Whether anyone can excommunicate himself, or an equal, or a
superior?
(5) Whether a multitude can be excommunicated?
(6) Whether one who is already excommunicated can be excommunicated
again?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether every priest can excommunicate?
Objection 1: It would seem that every priest can excommunicate. For
excommunication is an act of the keys. But every priest has the keys.
Therefore every priest can excommunicate.
Objection 2: Further, it is a greater thing to loose and bind in the
tribunal of penance than in the tribunal of judgment. But every priest
can loose and bind his subjects in the tribunal of Penance. Therefore
every priest can excommunicate his subjects.
On the contrary, Matters fraught with danger should be left to the
decision of superiors. Now the punishment of excommunication is fraught
with many dangers, unless it be inflicted with moderation. Therefore it
should not be entrusted to every priest.
I answer that, In the tribunal of conscience the plea is between man
and God, whereas in the outward tribunal it is between man and man.
Wherefore the loosing or binding of one man in relation to God alone,
belongs to the tribunal of Penance, whereas the binding or loosing of a
man in relation to other men, belongs to the public tribunal of
external judgment. And since excommunication severs a man from the
communion of the faithful, it belongs to the external tribunal.
Consequently those alone can excommunicate who have jurisdiction in the
judicial tribunal. Hence, of their own authority, only bishops and
higher prelates, according to the more common opinion can
excommunicate, whereas parish priests can do so only by commission or
in certain cases, as those of theft, rapine and the like, in which the
law allows them to excommunicate. Others, however, have maintained that
even parish priests can excommunicate: but the former opinion is more
reasonable.
Reply to Objection 1: Excommunication is an act of the keys not
directly, but with respect to the external judgment. The sentence of
excommunication, however, though it is promulgated by an external
verdict, still, as it belongs somewhat to the entrance to the kingdom,
in so far as the Church Militant is the way to the Church Triumphant,
this jurisdiction whereby a man is competent to excommunicate, can be
called a key. It is in this sense that some distinguish between the key
of orders, which all priests have, and the key of jurisdiction in the
tribunal of judgment, which none have but the judges of the external
tribunal. Nevertheless God bestowed both on Peter (Mat. 16:19), from
whom they are derived by others, whichever of them they have.
Reply to Objection 2: Parish priests have jurisdiction indeed over
their subjects, in the tribunal of conscience, but not in the judicial
tribunal, for they cannot summons them in contentious cases. Hence they
cannot excommunicate, but they can absolve them in the tribunal of
Penance. And though the tribunal of Penance is higher, yet more
solemnity is requisite in the judicial tribunal, because therein it is
necessary to make satisfaction not only to God but also to man.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether those who are not priests can excommunicate?
Objection 1: It would seem that those who are not priests cannot
excommunicate. Because excommunication is an act of the keys, as stated
in Sent. iv, D, 18. But those who are not priests have not the keys.
Therefore they cannot excommunicate.
Objection 2: Further, more is required for excommunication than for
absolution in the tribunal of Penance. But one who is not a priest
cannot absolve in the tribunal of Penance. Neither therefore can he
excommunicate.
On the contrary, Archdeacons, legates and bishops-elect excommunicate,
and yet sometimes they are not priests. Therefore not only priests can
excommunicate.
I answer that, Priests alone are competent to dispense the sacraments
wherein grace is given: wherefore they alone can loose and bind in the
tribunal of Penance. On the other hand excommunication regards grace,
not directly but consequently, in so far as it deprives a man of the
Church's prayers, by which he is disposed for grace or preserved
therein. Consequently even those who are not priests, provided they
have jurisdiction in a contentious court, can excommunicate.
Reply to Objection 1: Though they have not the key of orders, they have
the key of jurisdiction.
Reply to Objection 2: These two are related to one another as something
exceeding and something exceeded [*Cf. A[1], a[2];[4883] Q[24], A[1],
ad 1], and consequently one of them may be within the competency of
someone while the other is not.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether a man who is excommunicated or suspended can excommunicate another?
Objection 1: It would seem that one who is excommunicated or suspended
can excommunicate another. For such a one has lost neither orders nor
jurisdiction, since neither is he ordained anew when he is absolved,
nor is his jurisdiction renewed. But excommunication requires nothing
more than orders or jurisdiction. Therefore even one who is
excommunicated or suspended can excommunicate.
Objection 2: Further. it is a greater thing to consecrate the body of
Christ than to excommunicate. But such persons can consecrate.
Therefore they can excommunicate.
On the contrary, one whose body is bound cannot bind another. But
spiritual gyves are stronger than bodily fetters. Therefore one who is
excommunicated cannot excommunicate another, since excommunication is a
spiritual chain.
I answer that, Jurisdiction can only be used in relation to another
man. Consequently, since every excommunicated person is severed from
the communion of the faithful, he is deprived of the use of
jurisdiction. And as excommunication requires jurisdiction, an
excommunicated person cannot excommunicate, and the same reason applies
to one who is suspended from jurisdiction. For if he be suspended from
orders only, then he cannot exercise his order, but he can use his
jurisdiction, while, on the other hand, if he be suspended from
jurisdiction and not from orders. he cannot use his jurisdiction,
though he can exercise his order: and if he be suspended from both, he
can exercise neither.
Reply to Objection 1: Although an excommunicated or suspended person
does not lose his jurisdiction, yet he does lose its use.
Reply to Objection 2: The power of consecration results from the power
of the character which is indelible, wherefore, from the very fact that
a man has the character of order, he can always consecrate, though not
always lawfully. It is different with the power of excommunication
which results from jurisdiction, for this can be taken away and bound.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether a man can excommunicate himself, his equal, or his superior?
Objection 1: It would seem that a man can excommunicate himself, his
equal, or his superior. For an angel of God was greater than Paul,
according to Mat. 11:11: "He that is lesser in the kingdom of heaven is
greater then he, a greater" than whom "hath not risen among men that
are born of women. " Now Paul excommunicated an angel from heaven (Gal.
1:8). Therefore a man can excommunicate his superior.
Objection 2: Further, sometimes a priest pronounces a general
excommunication for theft or the like. But it might happen that he, or
his equal, or a superior has done such things. Therefore a man can
excommunicate himself, his equal, or a superior.
Objection 3: Further, a man can absolve his superior or his equal in
the tribunal of Penance, as when a bishop confesses to his subject, or
one priest confesses venial sins to another. Therefore it seems that a
man may also excommunicate his superior, or his equal.
On the contrary, Excommunication is an act of jurisdiction. But no man
has jurisdiction over himself (since one cannot be both judge and
defendant in the same trial), or over his superior, or over an equal.
Therefore a man cannot excommunicate his superior, or his equal, or
himself.
I answer that, Since, by jurisdiction, a man is placed above those over
whom he has jurisdiction, through being their judge, it follows that no
man has jurisdiction over himself, his superior, or his equal, and
that, consequently, no one can excommunicate either himself, or his
superior, or his equal.
Reply to Objection 1: The Apostle is speaking hypothetically, i. e.
supposing an angel were to sin, for in that case he would not be higher
than the Apostle, but lower. Nor is it absurd that, if the antecedent
of a conditional sentence be impossible, the consequence be impossible
also.
Reply to Objection 2: In that case no one would be excommunicated,
since no man has power over his peer.
Reply to Objection 3: Loosing and binding in the tribunal of confession
affects our relation to God only, in Whose sight a man from being above
another sinks below him through sin; while on the other hand
excommunication is the affair of an external tribunal in which a man
does not forfeit his superiority on account of sin. Hence there is no
comparison between the two tribunals. Nevertheless, even in the
tribunal of confession, a man cannot absolve himself, or his superior,
or his equal, unless the power to do so be committed to him. This does
not apply to venial sins, because they can be remitted through any
sacraments which confer grace, hence remission of venial sins follows
the power of orders.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether a sentence of excommunication can be passed on a body of men?
Objection 1: It would seem that sentence of excommunication can be
passed on a body of men. Because it is possible for a number of people
to be united together in wickedness. Now when a man is obstinate in his
wickedness he should be excommunicated. Therefore a body of men can be
excommunicated.
Objection 2: Further, the most grievous effect of an excommunication is
privation of the sacraments of the Church. But sometimes a whole
country is laid under an interdict. Therefore a body of people can be
excommunicated.
On the contrary, A gloss of Augustine [*Cf. Ep. ccl] on Mat. 12 asserts
that the sovereign and a body of people cannot be excommunicated.
I answer that, No man should be excommunicated except for a mortal sin.
Now sin consists in an act: and acts do not belong to communities, but,
generally speaking, to individuals. Wherefore individual members of a
community can be excommunicated, but not the community itself. And
although sometimes an act belongs to a whole multitude, as when many
draw a boat, which none of them could draw by himself, yet it is not
probable that a community would so wholly consent to evil that there
would be no dissentients. Now God, Who judges all the earth, does not
condemn the just with the wicked (Gn. 18:25). Therefore the Church, who
should imitate the judgments of God, prudently decided that a community
should not be excommunicated, lest the wheat be uprooted together with
the tares and cockle.
The Reply to the First Objection is evident from what has been said.
Reply to Objection 2: Suspension is not so great a punishment as
excommunication, since those who are suspended are not deprived of the
prayers of the Church, as the excommunicated are. Wherefore a man can
be suspended without having committed a sin himself, just as a whole
kingdom is laid under an interdict on account of the king's crime.
Hence there is no comparison between excommunication and suspension.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether a man can be excommunicated who is already under sentence of
excommunication?
Objection 1: It would seem that a man who is already under sentence of
excommunication cannot be excommunicated any further. For the Apostle
says (1 Cor. 5:12): "What have I to do to judge them that are without?
"
Now those who are excommunicated are already outside the Church.
Therefore the Church cannot exercise any further judgment on them, so
as to excommunicate them again.
Objection 2: Further, excommunication is privation of divine things and
of the communion of the faithful. But when a man has been deprived of a
thing, he cannot be deprived of it again. Therefore one who is
excommunicated cannot be excommunicated again
On the contrary, Excommunication is a punishment and a healing
medicine. Now punishments and medicines are repeated when necessary.
Therefore excommunication can be repeated.
I answer that, A man who is under sentence of one excommunication, can
be excommunicated again, either by a repetition of the same
excommunication, for his greater confusion, so that he may renounce
sin, or for some other cause. And then there are as many principal
excommunications, as there are causes for his being excommunicated.
Reply to Objection 1: The Apostle is speaking of heathens and of other
unbelievers who have no (sacramental) character, whereby they are
numbered among the people of God. But since the baptismal character
whereby a man is numbered among God's people, is indelible, one who is
baptized always belongs to the Church in some way, so that the Church
is always competent to sit in judgment on him.
Reply to Objection 2: Although privation does not receive more or less
in itself, yet it can, as regards its cause. In this way an
excommunication can be repeated, and a man who has been excommunicated
several times is further from the Church's prayers than one who has
been excommunicated only once.
__________________________________________________________________
OF COMMUNICATION WITH EXCOMMUNICATED PERSONS (THREE ARTICLES)
We must now consider communication with those who are excommunicated.
Under this head there are three points of inquiry:
(1) Whether it is lawful to communicate in matters purely corporal with
one who is excommunicated?
(2) Whether one who communicates with an excommunicated person is
excommunicated?
(3) Whether it is always a mortal sin to communicate with an
excommunicated person in matters not permitted by law?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is lawful, in matters purely corporal, to communicate with an
excommunicated person?
Objection 1: It would seem that it is lawful, in matters purely
corporal, to communicate with an excommunicated person. For
excommunication is an act of the keys. But the power of the keys
extends only to spiritual matters. Therefore excommunication does not
prevent one from communicating with another in matters corporal.
Objection 2: Further, "What is instituted for the sake of charity, does
not militate against charity" (Cf. [4884] Q[11], A[1], OBJ[1]). But we
are bound by the precept of charity to succor our enemies, which is
impossible without some sort of communication. Therefore it is lawful
to communicate with an excommunicated person in corporal matters.
On the contrary, It is written (1 Cor. 5:11): "With such an one not so
much as to eat. "
I answer that, Excommunication is twofold: there is minor
excommunication, which deprives a man merely of a share in the
sacraments, but not of the communion of the faithful. Wherefore it is
lawful to communicate with a person lying under an excommunication of
this kind, but not to give him the sacraments. The other is major
excommunication which deprives a man of the sacraments of the Church
and of the communion of the faithful. Wherefore it is not lawful to
communicate with one who lies under such an excommunication. But, since
the Church resorts to excommunication to repair and not to destroy,
exception is made from this general law, in certain matters wherein
communication is lawful, viz. in those which concern salvation, for one
is allowed to speak of such matters with an excommunicated person; and
one may even speak of other matters so as to put him at his ease and to
make the words of salvation more acceptable. Moreover exception is made
in favor of certain people whose business it is to be in attendance on
the excommunicated person, viz. his wife, child, slave, vassal or
subordinate. This, however, is to be understood of children who have
not attained their majority, else they are forbidden to communicate
with their father: and as to the others, the exception applies to them
if they have entered his service before his excommunication, but not if
they did so afterwards.
Some understand this exception to apply in the opposite way, viz. that
the master can communicate with his subjects: while others hold the
contrary. At any rate it is lawful for them to communicate with others
in matters wherein they are under an obligation to them, for just as
subjects are bound to serve their master, so is the master bound to
look after his subjects. Again certain cases are excepted; as when the
fact of the excommunication is unknown, or in the case of strangers or
travelers in the country of those who are excommunicated, for they are
allowed to buy from them, or to receive alms from them. Likewise if
anyone were to see an excommunicated person in distress: for then he
would be bound by the precept of charity to assist him. These are all
contained in the following line: "Utility, law, lowliness, ignorance of
fact, necessity," where "utility" refers to salutary words, "law" to
marriage, "lowliness" to subjection. The others need no explanation.
Reply to Objection 1: Corporal matters are subordinate to spiritual
matters. Wherefore the power which extends to spiritual things, can
also extend to matters touching the body: even as the art which
considers the end commands in matters ordained to the end.
Reply to Objection 2: In a case where one is bound by the precept of
charity to hold communication, the prohibition ceases, as is clear from
what has been said.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether a person incurs excommunication for communicating with one who is
excommunicated?
Objection 1: It would seem that a person does not incur excommunication
for communicating with one who is excommunicated. For a heathen or a
Jew is more separated from the Church than a person who is
excommunicated. But one does not incur excommunication for
communicating with a heathen or a Jew. Neither, therefore, does one for
communicating with an excommunicated Christian.
Objection 2: Further, if a man incurs excommunication for communicating
with an excommunicated person, for the same reason a third would incur
excommunication for communicating with him, and thus one might go on
indefinitely, which would seem absurd. Therefore one does not incur
excommunication for communicating with one who is excommunicated.
On the contrary, An excommunicated person is banished from communion.
Therefore whoever communicates with him leaves the communion of the
Church: and hence he seems to be excommunicated.
I answer that, A person may incur excommunication in two ways. First,
so that the excommunication includes both himself and whosoever
communicates with him: and then, without any doubt, whoever
communicates with him, incurs a major excommunication. Secondly, so
that the excommunication is simply pronounced on him; and then a man
may communicate with him either in his crime, by counsel, help or
favor, in which case again he incurs the major excommunication, or he
may communicate with him in other things by speaking to him, greeting
him, or eating with him, in which case he incurs the minor
excommunication.
Reply to Objection 1: The Church has no intention of correcting
unbelievers as well as the faithful who are under her care: hence she
does not sever those, whom she excommunicates, from the fellowship of
unbelievers, as she does from the communion of the faithful over whom
she exercises a certain power.
Reply to Objection 2: It is lawful to hold communion with one who has
incurred a minor excommunication, so that excommunication does not pass
on to a third person.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is always a mortal sin to communicate with an excommunicated
person in other cases than those in which it is allowed?
Objection 1: It would seem that it is always a mortal sin to hold
communion with an excommunicated person in other cases than those in
which it is allowed. Because a certain decretal (Cap. Sacris: De his
quae vi, metuve, etc. ) declares that "not even through fear of death
should anyone hold communion with an excommunicated person, since one
ought to die rather than commit a mortal sin. " But this would be no
reason unless it were always a mortal sin to hold communion with an
excommunicated person. Therefore, etc.
Objection 2: Further, it is a mortal sin to act against a commandment
of the Church. But the Church forbids anyone to hold communion with an
excommunicated person. Therefore it is a mortal sin to hold communion
with one who is excommunicated.
Objection 3: Further, no man is debarred from receiving the Eucharist
on account of a venial sin. But a man who holds communion with an
excommunicated person, outside those cases in which it is allowed, is
debarred from receiving the Eucharist, since he incurs a minor
excommunication. Therefore it is a mortal sin to hold communion with an
excommunicated person, save in those cases in which it is allowed.
Objection 4: Further, no one should incur a major excommunication save
for a mortal sin. Now according to the law (Can. Praecipue, seqq. ,
caus. xi) a man may incur a major excommunication for holding communion
with an excommunicated person. Therefore it is a mortal sin to hold
communion with one who is excommunicated.
On the contrary, None can absolve a man from mortal sin unless he have
jurisdiction over him. But any priest can absolve a man for holding
communion with those who are excommunicated. Therefore it is not a
mortal sin.
Further, the measure of the penalty should be according to the measure
of the sin, as stated in Dt. 25:3. Now the punishment appointed by
common custom for holding communion with an excommunicated person is
not that which is inflicted for mortal sin, but rather that which is
due for venial sin. Therefore it is not a mortal sin.
I answer that, Some hold that it is always a mortal sin to hold
communion with an excommunicated person, by word or in any of the
forbidden ways mentioned above [4885](A[2]), except in those cases
allowed by law (Cap. Quoniam). But since it seems very hard that a man
should be guilty of a mortal sin by uttering just a slight word to an
excommunicated person, and that by excommunicating a person one would
endanger the salvation of many, and lay a snare which might turn to
one's own hurt, it seems to others more probable that he is not always
guilty of a mortal sin, but only when he holds communion with him in a
criminal deed, or in an act of Divine worship, or through contempt of
the Church.
Reply to Objection 1: This decretal is speaking of holding communion in
Divine worship. It may also be replied that the same reason applies
both to mortal and venial sin, since just as one cannot do well by
committing a mortal sin, so neither can one by committing a venial sin:
so that just as it is a man's duty to suffer death rather than commit a
mortal sin, so is it his duty to do so sooner than commit a venial sin,
inasmuch as it is his duty to avoid venial sin.
Reply to Objection 2: The commandment of the Church regards spiritual
matters directly, and legitimate actions as a consequence: hence by
holding communion in Divine worship one acts against the commandment,
and commits a mortal sin; but by holding communion in other matters,
one acts beside the commandment, and sins venially.
Reply to Objection 3: Sometimes a man is debarred from the Eucharist
even without his own fault, as in the case of those who are suspended
or under an interdict, because these penalties are sometimes inflicted
on one person for the sin of another who is thus punished.
Reply to Objection 4: Although it is a venial sin to hold communion
with one who is excommunicated, yet to do so obstinately is a mortal
sin: and for this reason one may be excommunicated according to the
law.
__________________________________________________________________
OF ABSOLUTION FROM EXCOMMUNICATION (THREE ARTICLES)
We must now consider absolution from excommunication: under which head
there are three points of inquiry:
(1) Whether any priest can absolve his subject from excommunication?
(2) Whether a man can be absolved from excommunication against his
will?
(3) Whether a man can be absolved from one excommunication without
being absolved from another?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether any priest can absolve his subject from excommunication?
Objection 1: It would seem that any priest can absolve his subject from
excommunication. For the chains of sin are stronger than those of
excommunication. But any priest can absolve his subject from sin.
Therefore much more can he absolve him from excommunication.
Objection 2: Further, if the cause is removed the effect is removed.
But the cause of excommunication is a mortal sin. Therefore since any
priest can absolve (his subject) from that mortal sin, he is able
likewise to absolve him from the excommunication.
On the contrary, It belongs to the same power to excommunicate as to
absolve from excommunication. But priests of inferior degree cannot
excommunicate their subjects. Neither, therefore, can they absolve
them.
I answer that, Anyone can absolve from minor excommunication who can
absolve from the sin of participation in the sin of another. But in the
case of a major excommunication, this is pronounced either by a judge,
and then he who pronounced sentence or his superior can absolve---or it
is pronounced by law, and then the bishop or even a priest can absolve
except in the six cases which the Pope, who is the maker of laws,
reserves to himself: the first is the case of a man who lays hands on a
cleric or a religious; the second is of one who breaks into a church
and is denounced for so doing; the third is of the man who sets fire to
a church and is denounced for the deed; the fourth is of one who
knowingly communicates in the Divine worship with those whom the Pope
has excommunicated by name; the fifth is the case of one who tampers
with the letters of the Holy See; the sixth is the case of one who
communicates in a crime of one who is excommunicated. For he should not
be absolved except by the person who excommunicated him, even though he
be not subject to him, unless, by reason of the difficulty of appearing
before him, he be absolved by the bishop or by his own priest, after
binding himself by oath to submit to the command of the judge who
pronounced the excommunication on him.
There are however eight exceptions to the first case: (1) In the hour
of death, when a person can be absolved by any priest from any
excommunication; (2) if the striker be the doorkeeper of a man in
authority, and the blow be given neither through hatred nor of set
purpose; (3) if the striker be a woman; (4) if the striker be a
servant, whose master is not at fault and would suffer from his
absence; (5) if a religious strike a religious, unless he strike him
very grievously; (6) if the striker be a poor man; (7) if he be a
minor, an old man, or an invalid; (8) if there be a deadly feud between
them.
There are, besides, seven cases in which the person who strikes a
cleric does not incur excommunication: (1) if he do it for the sake of
discipline, as a teacher or a superior; (2) if it be done for fun; (3)
if the striker find the cleric behaving with impropriety towards his
wife his mother, his sister or his daughter; (4) if he return blow for
blow at once; (5) if the striker be not aware that he is striking a
cleric; (6) if the latter be guilty of apostasy after the triple
admonition; (7) if the cleric exercise an act which is altogether
contrary to the clerical life, e. g. if he become a soldier, or if he be
guilty of bigamy [*Namely, that which is known by canonists as "similar
bigamy"].
Reply to Objection 1: Although the chains of sin are in themselves
greater than those of excommunication, yet in a certain respect the
chains of excommunication are greater, inasmuch as they bind a man not
only in the sight of God, but also in the eye of the Church. Hence
absolution from excommunication requires jurisdiction in the external
forum, whereas absolution from sin does not. Nor is there need of
giving one's word by oath, as in the case of absolution from
excommunication, because, as the Apostle declares (Heb. 6:16),
controversies between men are decided by oath.
Reply to Objection 2: As an excommunicated person has no share in the
sacraments of the Church, a priest cannot absolve him from his guilt,
unless he be first absolved from excommunication.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether anyone can be absolved against his will?
Objection 1: It would seem that no man can be absolved against his
will. For spiritual things are not conferred on anyone against his
will. Now absolution from excommunication is a spiritual favor.
Therefore it cannot be granted to a man against his will.
Objection 2: Further, the cause of excommunication is contumacy. But
when, through contempt of the excommunication, a man is unwilling to be
absolved, he shows a high degree of contumacy. Therefore he cannot be
absolved.
On the contrary, Excommunication can be pronounced on a man against his
will. Now things that happen to a man against his will, can be removed
from him against his will, as in the case of the goods of fortune.
Therefore excommunication can be removed from a man against his will.
I answer that, Evil of fault and evil of punishment differ in this,
that the origin of fault is within us, since all sin is voluntary,
whereas the origin of punishment is sometimes without, since punishment
does not need to be voluntary, in fact the nature of punishment is
rather to be against the will. Wherefore, just as a man commits no sin
except willingly, so no sin is forgiven him against his will. On the
other hand just as a person can be excommunicated against his will, so
can he be absolved therefrom.
Reply to Objection 1: The assertion is true of those spiritual goods
which depend on our will, such as the virtues, which we cannot lose
unwillingly; for knowledge, although a spiritual good, can be lost by a
man against his will through sickness. Hence the argument is not to the
point.
Reply to Objection 2: It is possible for excommunication to be removed
from a man even though he be contumacious, if it seem to be for the
good of the man for whom the excommunication was intended as a
medicine.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether a man can be absolved from one excommunication without being
absolved from all?
Objection 1: It would seem that a man cannot be absolved from one
excommunication without being absolved from all. For an effect should
be proportionate to its cause. Now the cause of excommunication is a
sin. Since then a man cannot be absolved from one sin without being
absolved from all, neither can this happen as regards excommunication.
Objection 2: Further, absolution from excommunication is pronounced in
the Church. But a man who is under the ban of one excommunication is
outside the Church. Therefore so long as one remains, a man cannot be
loosed from another.
On the contrary, Excommunication is a punishment. Now a man can be
loosed from one punishment, while another remains. Therefore a man can
be loosed from one excommunication and yet remain under another.
I answer that, Excommunications are not connected together in any way,
and so it is possible for a man to be absolved from one, and yet remain
under another.
It must be observed however that sometimes a man lies under several
excommunications pronounced by one judge; and then, when he is absolved
from one, he is understood to be absolved from all, unless the contrary
be expressed, or unless he ask to be absolved from excommunication on
one count only, whereas he was excommunicated under several. On the
other hand sometimes a man lies under several sentences of
excommunication pronounced by several judges; and then, when absolved
from one excommunication, he is not therefore absolved from the others,
unless at his prayer they all confirm his absolution, or unless they
all depute one to absolve him.
Reply to Objection 1: All sins are connected together in aversion from
God, which is incompatible with the forgiveness of sin: wherefore one
sin cannot be forgiven without another. But excommunications have no
such connection. Nor again is absolution from excommunication hindered
by contrariety of the will, as stated above [4886](A[2]). Hence the
argument does not prove.
Reply to Objection 2: Just as such a man was for several reasons
outside the Church so is it possible for his separation to be removed
on one count and to remain on another.
__________________________________________________________________
OF INDULGENCES (THREE ARTICLES)
We must now consider indulgence: (1) in itself; (2) those who grant
indulgence; (3) those who receive it.
Under the first head there are three points of inquiry:
(1) Whether an indulgence remits any part of the punishment due for the
satisfaction of sins?
(2) Whether indulgences are as effective as they claim to be?
(3) Whether an indulgence should be granted for temporal assistance?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether an indulgence can remit any part of the punishment due for the
satisfaction of sins?
Objection 1: It would seem that an indulgence cannot remit any part of
the punishment due for the satisfaction of sins. Because a gloss on 2
Tim. 2:13, "He cannot deny Himself," says: "He would do this if He did
not keep His word. " Now He said (Dt. 25:2): "According to the measure
of the sin shall the measure also of the stripes be. " Therefore nothing
can be remitted from the satisfactory punishment which is appointed
according to the measure of sin.
Objection 2: Further, an inferior cannot absolve from an obligation
imposed by his superior. But when God absolves us from sin He binds us
to temporal punishment, as Hugh of St. Victor declares (Tract. vi Sum.
Sent. [*Of doubtful authenticity]). Therefore no man can absolve from
that punishment, by remitting any part of it.
Objection 3: Further, the granting of the sacramental effect without
the sacraments belongs to the power of excellence. Now none but Christ
has the power of excellence in the sacraments. Since then satisfaction
is a part of the sacrament of Penance, conducing to the remission of
the punishment due, it seems that no mere man can remit the debt of
punishment without satisfaction.
Objection 4: Further, the power of the ministers of the Church was
given them, not "unto destruction," but "unto edification" (2 Cor.
10:8). But it would be conducive to destruction, if satisfaction, which
was intended for our good, inasmuch as it serves for a remedy, were
done away with. Therefore the power of the ministers of the Church does
not extend to this.
On the contrary, It is written (2 Cor. 2:10): "For, what I have
pardoned, if I have pardoned anything, for your sakes have I done it in
the person of Christ," and a gloss adds: i. e. "as though Christ Himself
had pardoned. " But Christ could remit the punishment of a sin without
any satisfaction, as evidenced in the case of the adulterous woman (Jn.
8). Therefore Paul could do so likewise. Therefore the Pope can too,
since his power in the Church is not less than Paul's.
Further, the universal Church cannot err; since He Who "was heard for
His reverence" (Heb. 5:7) said to Peter, on whose profession of faith
the Church was founded (Lk. 22:32): "I have prayed for thee that thy
faith fail not. " Now the universal Church approves and grants
indulgences. Therefore indulgences have some value.
I answer that, All admit that indulgences have some value, for it would
be blasphemy to say that the Church does anything in vain. But some say
that they do not avail to free a man from the debt of punishment which
he has deserved in Purgatory according to God's judgment, and that they
merely serve to free him from the obligation imposed on him by the
priest as a punishment for his sins, or from the canonical penalties he
has incurred. But this opinion does not seem to be true. First, because
it is expressly opposed to the privilege granted to Peter, to whom it
was said (Mat. 16:19) that whatsoever he should loose on earth should
be loosed also in heaven. Wherefore whatever remission is granted in
the court of the Church holds good in the court of God.
the one who prays, which intention is directed to the person he prays
for, and this union is interrupted by excommunication, because by
passing sentence of excommunication, the Church severs a man from the
whole body of the faithful, for whom she prays. Hence those prayers of
the Church which are offered up for the whole Church, do not profit
those who are excommunicated. Nor can prayers be said for them among
the members of the Church as speaking in the Church's name, although a
private individual may say a prayer with the intention of offering it
for their conversion.
Reply to Objection 3: The spiritual fruit of the Church is derived not
only from her prayers, but also from the sacraments received and from
the faithful dwelling together.
Reply to Objection 4: The minor excommunication does not fulfill all
the conditions of excommunication but only a part of them, hence the
definition of excommunication need not apply to it in every respect,
but only in some.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the Church should excommunicate anyone?
Objection 1: It would seem that the Church ought not to excommunicate
anyone, because excommunication is a kind of curse, and we are
forbidden to curse (Rom. 12:14). Therefore the Church should not
excommunicate.
Objection 2: Further, the Church Militant should imitate the Church
Triumphant. Now we read in the epistle of Jude (verse 9) that "when
Michael the Archangel disputing with the devil contended about the body
of Moses, he durst not bring against him the judgment of railing
speech, but said: The Lord command thee. " Therefore the Church Militant
ought not to judge any man by cursing or excommunicating him.
Objection 3: Further, no man should be given into the hands of his
enemies, unless there be no hope for him. Now by excommunication a man
is given into the hands of Satan, as is clear from 1 Cor. 5:5. Since
then we should never give up hope about anyone in this life, the Church
should not excommunicate anyone.
On the contrary, The Apostle (1 Cor. 5:5) ordered a man to be
excommunicated.
Further, it is written (Mat. 18:17) about the man who refuses to hear
the Church: "Let him be to thee as the heathen or publican. " But
heathens are outside the Church. Therefore they also who refuse to hear
the Church, should be banished from the Church by excommunication.
I answer that, The judgment of the Church should be conformed to the
judgment of God. Now God punishes the sinner in many ways, in order to
draw him to good, either by chastising him with stripes, or by leaving
him to himself so that being deprived of those helps whereby he was
kept out of evil, he may acknowledge his weakness, and humbly return to
God Whom he had abandoned in his pride. In both these respects the
Church by passing sentence of excommunication imitates the judgment of
God. For by severing a man from the communion of the faithful that he
may blush with shame, she imitates the judgment whereby God chastises
man with stripes; and by depriving him of prayers and other spiritual
things, she imitates the judgment of God in leaving man to himself, in
order that by humility he may learn to know himself and return to God.
Reply to Objection 1: A curse may be pronounced in two ways: first, so
that the intention of the one who curses is fixed on the evil which he
invokes or pronounces, and cursing in this sense is altogether
forbidden. Secondly, so that the evil which a man invokes in cursing is
intended for the good of the one who is cursed, and thus cursing is
sometimes lawful and salutary: thus a physician makes a sick man
undergo pain, by cutting him, for instance, in order to deliver him
from his sickness.
Reply to Objection 2: The devil cannot be brought to repentance,
wherefore the pain of excommunication cannot do him any good.
Reply to Objection 3: From the very fact that a man is deprived of the
prayers of the Church, he incurs a triple loss, corresponding to the
three things which a man acquires through the Church's prayers. For
they bring an increase of grace to those who have it, or merit grace
for those who have it not; and in this respect the Master of the
Sentences says (Sent. iv, D, 18): "The grace of God is taken away by
excommunication. " They also prove a safeguard of virtue; and in this
respect he says that "protection is taken away," not that the
excommunicated person is withdrawn altogether from God's providence,
but that he is excluded from that protection with which He watches over
the children of the Church in a more special way. Moreover, they are
useful as a defense against the enemy, and in this respect he says that
"the devil receives greater power of assaulting the excommunicated
person, both spiritually and corporally. " Hence in the early Church,
when men had to be enticed to the faith by means of outward signs (thus
the gift of the Holy Ghost was shown openly by a visible sign), so too
excommunication was evidenced by a person being troubled in his body by
the devil. Nor is it unreasonable that one, for whom there is still
hope, be given over to the enemy, for he is surrendered, not unto
damnation, but unto correction, since the Church has the power to
rescue him from the hands of the enemy, whenever he is willing.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether anyone should be excommunicated for inflicting temporal harm?
Objection 1: It would seem that no man should be excommunicated for
inflicting a temporal harm. For the punishment should not exceed the
fault. But the punishment of excommunication is the privation of a
spiritual good, which surpasses all temporal goods. Therefore no man
should be excommunicated for temporal injuries.
Objection 2: Further, we should render to no man evil for evil,
according to the precept of the Apostle (Rom. 12:17). But this would be
rendering evil for evil, if a man were to be excommunicated for doing
such an injury. Therefore this ought by no means to be done.
On the contrary, Peter sentenced Ananias and Saphira to death for
keeping back the price of their piece of land (Acts 5:1-10). Therefore
it is lawful for the Church to excommunicate for temporal injuries.
I answer that, By excommunication the ecclesiastical judge excludes a
man, in a sense, from the kingdom. Wherefore, since he ought not to
exclude from the kingdom others than the unworthy, as was made clear
from the definition of the keys ([4882]Q[17], A[2]), and since no one
becomes unworthy, unless, through committing a mortal sin, he lose
charity which is the way leading to the kingdom, it follows that no man
should be excommunicated except for a mortal sin. And since by injuring
a man in his body or in his temporalities, one may sin mortally and act
against charity, the Church can excommunicate a man for having
inflicted temporal injury on anyone. Yet, as excommunication is the
most severe punishment, and since punishments are intended as remedies,
according to the Philosopher (Ethic. ii), and again since a prudent
physician begins with lighter and less risky remedies, therefore
excommunication should not be inflicted, even for a mortal sin, unless
the sinner be obstinate, either by not coming up for judgment, or by
going away before judgment is pronounced, or by failing to obey the
decision of the court. For then, if, after due warning, he refuse to
obey, he is reckoned to be obstinate, and the judge, not being able to
proceed otherwise against him, must excommunicate him.
Reply to Objection 1: A fault is not measured by the extent of the
damage a man does, but by the will with which he does it, acting
against charity. Wherefore, though the punishment of excommunication
exceeds the harm done, it does not exceed the measure of the sin.
Reply to Objection 2: When a man is corrected by being punished, evil
is not rendered to him, but good: since punishments are remedies, as
stated above.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether an excommunication unjustly pronounced has any effect?
Objection 1: It would seem that an excommunication which is pronounced
unjustly has no effect at all. Because excommunication deprives a man
of the protection and grace of God, which cannot be forfeited unjustly.
Therefore excommunication has no effect if it be unjustly pronounced.
Objection 2: Further, Jerome says (on Mat. 16:19: "I will give to thee
the keys"): "It is a pharisaical severity to reckon as really bound or
loosed, that which is bound or loosed unjustly. " But that severity was
proud and erroneous. Therefore an unjust excommunication has no effect.
On the contrary, According to Gregory (Hom. xxvi in Evang. ), "the
sentence of the pastor is to be feared whether it be just or unjust. "
Now there would be no reason to fear an unjust excommunication if it
did not hurt. Therefore, etc.
I answer that, An excommunication may be unjust for two reasons. First,
on the part of its author, as when anyone excommunicates through hatred
or anger, and then, nevertheless, the excommunication takes effect,
though its author sins, because the one who is excommunicated suffers
justly, even if the author act wrongly in excommunicating him.
Secondly, on the part of the excommunication, through there being no
proper cause, or through the sentence being passed without the forms of
law being observed. In this case, if the error, on the part of the
sentence, be such as to render the sentence void, this has no effect,
for there is no excommunication; but if the error does not annul the
sentence, this takes effect, and the person excommunicated should
humbly submit (which will be credited to him as a merit), and either
seek absolution from the person who has excommunicated him, or appeal
to a higher judge. If, however, he were to contemn the sentence, he
would "ipso facto" sin mortally.
But sometimes it happens that there is sufficient cause on the part of
the excommunicator, but not on the part of the excommunicated, as when
a man is excommunicated for a crime which he has not committed, but
which has been proved against him: in this case, if he submit humbly,
the merit of his humility will compensate him for the harm of
excommunication.
Reply to Objection 1: Although a man cannot lose God's grace unjustly,
yet he can unjustly lose those things which on our part dispose us to
receive grace. for instance, a man may be deprived of the instruction
which he ought to have. It is in this sense that excommunication is
said to deprive a man of God's grace, as was explained above (A[2], ad
3).
Reply to Objection 2: Jerome is speaking of sin not of its punishments,
which can be inflicted unjustly by ecclesiastical superiors.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THOSE WHO CAN EXCOMMUNICATE OR BE EXCOMMUNICATED (SIX ARTICLES)
We must now consider those who can excommunicate or be excommunicated.
Under this head there are six points of inquiry:
(1) Whether every priest can excommunicate?
(2) Whether one who is not a priest can excommunicate?
(3) Whether one who is excommunicated or suspended, can excommunicate?
(4) Whether anyone can excommunicate himself, or an equal, or a
superior?
(5) Whether a multitude can be excommunicated?
(6) Whether one who is already excommunicated can be excommunicated
again?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether every priest can excommunicate?
Objection 1: It would seem that every priest can excommunicate. For
excommunication is an act of the keys. But every priest has the keys.
Therefore every priest can excommunicate.
Objection 2: Further, it is a greater thing to loose and bind in the
tribunal of penance than in the tribunal of judgment. But every priest
can loose and bind his subjects in the tribunal of Penance. Therefore
every priest can excommunicate his subjects.
On the contrary, Matters fraught with danger should be left to the
decision of superiors. Now the punishment of excommunication is fraught
with many dangers, unless it be inflicted with moderation. Therefore it
should not be entrusted to every priest.
I answer that, In the tribunal of conscience the plea is between man
and God, whereas in the outward tribunal it is between man and man.
Wherefore the loosing or binding of one man in relation to God alone,
belongs to the tribunal of Penance, whereas the binding or loosing of a
man in relation to other men, belongs to the public tribunal of
external judgment. And since excommunication severs a man from the
communion of the faithful, it belongs to the external tribunal.
Consequently those alone can excommunicate who have jurisdiction in the
judicial tribunal. Hence, of their own authority, only bishops and
higher prelates, according to the more common opinion can
excommunicate, whereas parish priests can do so only by commission or
in certain cases, as those of theft, rapine and the like, in which the
law allows them to excommunicate. Others, however, have maintained that
even parish priests can excommunicate: but the former opinion is more
reasonable.
Reply to Objection 1: Excommunication is an act of the keys not
directly, but with respect to the external judgment. The sentence of
excommunication, however, though it is promulgated by an external
verdict, still, as it belongs somewhat to the entrance to the kingdom,
in so far as the Church Militant is the way to the Church Triumphant,
this jurisdiction whereby a man is competent to excommunicate, can be
called a key. It is in this sense that some distinguish between the key
of orders, which all priests have, and the key of jurisdiction in the
tribunal of judgment, which none have but the judges of the external
tribunal. Nevertheless God bestowed both on Peter (Mat. 16:19), from
whom they are derived by others, whichever of them they have.
Reply to Objection 2: Parish priests have jurisdiction indeed over
their subjects, in the tribunal of conscience, but not in the judicial
tribunal, for they cannot summons them in contentious cases. Hence they
cannot excommunicate, but they can absolve them in the tribunal of
Penance. And though the tribunal of Penance is higher, yet more
solemnity is requisite in the judicial tribunal, because therein it is
necessary to make satisfaction not only to God but also to man.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether those who are not priests can excommunicate?
Objection 1: It would seem that those who are not priests cannot
excommunicate. Because excommunication is an act of the keys, as stated
in Sent. iv, D, 18. But those who are not priests have not the keys.
Therefore they cannot excommunicate.
Objection 2: Further, more is required for excommunication than for
absolution in the tribunal of Penance. But one who is not a priest
cannot absolve in the tribunal of Penance. Neither therefore can he
excommunicate.
On the contrary, Archdeacons, legates and bishops-elect excommunicate,
and yet sometimes they are not priests. Therefore not only priests can
excommunicate.
I answer that, Priests alone are competent to dispense the sacraments
wherein grace is given: wherefore they alone can loose and bind in the
tribunal of Penance. On the other hand excommunication regards grace,
not directly but consequently, in so far as it deprives a man of the
Church's prayers, by which he is disposed for grace or preserved
therein. Consequently even those who are not priests, provided they
have jurisdiction in a contentious court, can excommunicate.
Reply to Objection 1: Though they have not the key of orders, they have
the key of jurisdiction.
Reply to Objection 2: These two are related to one another as something
exceeding and something exceeded [*Cf. A[1], a[2];[4883] Q[24], A[1],
ad 1], and consequently one of them may be within the competency of
someone while the other is not.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether a man who is excommunicated or suspended can excommunicate another?
Objection 1: It would seem that one who is excommunicated or suspended
can excommunicate another. For such a one has lost neither orders nor
jurisdiction, since neither is he ordained anew when he is absolved,
nor is his jurisdiction renewed. But excommunication requires nothing
more than orders or jurisdiction. Therefore even one who is
excommunicated or suspended can excommunicate.
Objection 2: Further. it is a greater thing to consecrate the body of
Christ than to excommunicate. But such persons can consecrate.
Therefore they can excommunicate.
On the contrary, one whose body is bound cannot bind another. But
spiritual gyves are stronger than bodily fetters. Therefore one who is
excommunicated cannot excommunicate another, since excommunication is a
spiritual chain.
I answer that, Jurisdiction can only be used in relation to another
man. Consequently, since every excommunicated person is severed from
the communion of the faithful, he is deprived of the use of
jurisdiction. And as excommunication requires jurisdiction, an
excommunicated person cannot excommunicate, and the same reason applies
to one who is suspended from jurisdiction. For if he be suspended from
orders only, then he cannot exercise his order, but he can use his
jurisdiction, while, on the other hand, if he be suspended from
jurisdiction and not from orders. he cannot use his jurisdiction,
though he can exercise his order: and if he be suspended from both, he
can exercise neither.
Reply to Objection 1: Although an excommunicated or suspended person
does not lose his jurisdiction, yet he does lose its use.
Reply to Objection 2: The power of consecration results from the power
of the character which is indelible, wherefore, from the very fact that
a man has the character of order, he can always consecrate, though not
always lawfully. It is different with the power of excommunication
which results from jurisdiction, for this can be taken away and bound.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether a man can excommunicate himself, his equal, or his superior?
Objection 1: It would seem that a man can excommunicate himself, his
equal, or his superior. For an angel of God was greater than Paul,
according to Mat. 11:11: "He that is lesser in the kingdom of heaven is
greater then he, a greater" than whom "hath not risen among men that
are born of women. " Now Paul excommunicated an angel from heaven (Gal.
1:8). Therefore a man can excommunicate his superior.
Objection 2: Further, sometimes a priest pronounces a general
excommunication for theft or the like. But it might happen that he, or
his equal, or a superior has done such things. Therefore a man can
excommunicate himself, his equal, or a superior.
Objection 3: Further, a man can absolve his superior or his equal in
the tribunal of Penance, as when a bishop confesses to his subject, or
one priest confesses venial sins to another. Therefore it seems that a
man may also excommunicate his superior, or his equal.
On the contrary, Excommunication is an act of jurisdiction. But no man
has jurisdiction over himself (since one cannot be both judge and
defendant in the same trial), or over his superior, or over an equal.
Therefore a man cannot excommunicate his superior, or his equal, or
himself.
I answer that, Since, by jurisdiction, a man is placed above those over
whom he has jurisdiction, through being their judge, it follows that no
man has jurisdiction over himself, his superior, or his equal, and
that, consequently, no one can excommunicate either himself, or his
superior, or his equal.
Reply to Objection 1: The Apostle is speaking hypothetically, i. e.
supposing an angel were to sin, for in that case he would not be higher
than the Apostle, but lower. Nor is it absurd that, if the antecedent
of a conditional sentence be impossible, the consequence be impossible
also.
Reply to Objection 2: In that case no one would be excommunicated,
since no man has power over his peer.
Reply to Objection 3: Loosing and binding in the tribunal of confession
affects our relation to God only, in Whose sight a man from being above
another sinks below him through sin; while on the other hand
excommunication is the affair of an external tribunal in which a man
does not forfeit his superiority on account of sin. Hence there is no
comparison between the two tribunals. Nevertheless, even in the
tribunal of confession, a man cannot absolve himself, or his superior,
or his equal, unless the power to do so be committed to him. This does
not apply to venial sins, because they can be remitted through any
sacraments which confer grace, hence remission of venial sins follows
the power of orders.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether a sentence of excommunication can be passed on a body of men?
Objection 1: It would seem that sentence of excommunication can be
passed on a body of men. Because it is possible for a number of people
to be united together in wickedness. Now when a man is obstinate in his
wickedness he should be excommunicated. Therefore a body of men can be
excommunicated.
Objection 2: Further, the most grievous effect of an excommunication is
privation of the sacraments of the Church. But sometimes a whole
country is laid under an interdict. Therefore a body of people can be
excommunicated.
On the contrary, A gloss of Augustine [*Cf. Ep. ccl] on Mat. 12 asserts
that the sovereign and a body of people cannot be excommunicated.
I answer that, No man should be excommunicated except for a mortal sin.
Now sin consists in an act: and acts do not belong to communities, but,
generally speaking, to individuals. Wherefore individual members of a
community can be excommunicated, but not the community itself. And
although sometimes an act belongs to a whole multitude, as when many
draw a boat, which none of them could draw by himself, yet it is not
probable that a community would so wholly consent to evil that there
would be no dissentients. Now God, Who judges all the earth, does not
condemn the just with the wicked (Gn. 18:25). Therefore the Church, who
should imitate the judgments of God, prudently decided that a community
should not be excommunicated, lest the wheat be uprooted together with
the tares and cockle.
The Reply to the First Objection is evident from what has been said.
Reply to Objection 2: Suspension is not so great a punishment as
excommunication, since those who are suspended are not deprived of the
prayers of the Church, as the excommunicated are. Wherefore a man can
be suspended without having committed a sin himself, just as a whole
kingdom is laid under an interdict on account of the king's crime.
Hence there is no comparison between excommunication and suspension.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether a man can be excommunicated who is already under sentence of
excommunication?
Objection 1: It would seem that a man who is already under sentence of
excommunication cannot be excommunicated any further. For the Apostle
says (1 Cor. 5:12): "What have I to do to judge them that are without?
"
Now those who are excommunicated are already outside the Church.
Therefore the Church cannot exercise any further judgment on them, so
as to excommunicate them again.
Objection 2: Further, excommunication is privation of divine things and
of the communion of the faithful. But when a man has been deprived of a
thing, he cannot be deprived of it again. Therefore one who is
excommunicated cannot be excommunicated again
On the contrary, Excommunication is a punishment and a healing
medicine. Now punishments and medicines are repeated when necessary.
Therefore excommunication can be repeated.
I answer that, A man who is under sentence of one excommunication, can
be excommunicated again, either by a repetition of the same
excommunication, for his greater confusion, so that he may renounce
sin, or for some other cause. And then there are as many principal
excommunications, as there are causes for his being excommunicated.
Reply to Objection 1: The Apostle is speaking of heathens and of other
unbelievers who have no (sacramental) character, whereby they are
numbered among the people of God. But since the baptismal character
whereby a man is numbered among God's people, is indelible, one who is
baptized always belongs to the Church in some way, so that the Church
is always competent to sit in judgment on him.
Reply to Objection 2: Although privation does not receive more or less
in itself, yet it can, as regards its cause. In this way an
excommunication can be repeated, and a man who has been excommunicated
several times is further from the Church's prayers than one who has
been excommunicated only once.
__________________________________________________________________
OF COMMUNICATION WITH EXCOMMUNICATED PERSONS (THREE ARTICLES)
We must now consider communication with those who are excommunicated.
Under this head there are three points of inquiry:
(1) Whether it is lawful to communicate in matters purely corporal with
one who is excommunicated?
(2) Whether one who communicates with an excommunicated person is
excommunicated?
(3) Whether it is always a mortal sin to communicate with an
excommunicated person in matters not permitted by law?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is lawful, in matters purely corporal, to communicate with an
excommunicated person?
Objection 1: It would seem that it is lawful, in matters purely
corporal, to communicate with an excommunicated person. For
excommunication is an act of the keys. But the power of the keys
extends only to spiritual matters. Therefore excommunication does not
prevent one from communicating with another in matters corporal.
Objection 2: Further, "What is instituted for the sake of charity, does
not militate against charity" (Cf. [4884] Q[11], A[1], OBJ[1]). But we
are bound by the precept of charity to succor our enemies, which is
impossible without some sort of communication. Therefore it is lawful
to communicate with an excommunicated person in corporal matters.
On the contrary, It is written (1 Cor. 5:11): "With such an one not so
much as to eat. "
I answer that, Excommunication is twofold: there is minor
excommunication, which deprives a man merely of a share in the
sacraments, but not of the communion of the faithful. Wherefore it is
lawful to communicate with a person lying under an excommunication of
this kind, but not to give him the sacraments. The other is major
excommunication which deprives a man of the sacraments of the Church
and of the communion of the faithful. Wherefore it is not lawful to
communicate with one who lies under such an excommunication. But, since
the Church resorts to excommunication to repair and not to destroy,
exception is made from this general law, in certain matters wherein
communication is lawful, viz. in those which concern salvation, for one
is allowed to speak of such matters with an excommunicated person; and
one may even speak of other matters so as to put him at his ease and to
make the words of salvation more acceptable. Moreover exception is made
in favor of certain people whose business it is to be in attendance on
the excommunicated person, viz. his wife, child, slave, vassal or
subordinate. This, however, is to be understood of children who have
not attained their majority, else they are forbidden to communicate
with their father: and as to the others, the exception applies to them
if they have entered his service before his excommunication, but not if
they did so afterwards.
Some understand this exception to apply in the opposite way, viz. that
the master can communicate with his subjects: while others hold the
contrary. At any rate it is lawful for them to communicate with others
in matters wherein they are under an obligation to them, for just as
subjects are bound to serve their master, so is the master bound to
look after his subjects. Again certain cases are excepted; as when the
fact of the excommunication is unknown, or in the case of strangers or
travelers in the country of those who are excommunicated, for they are
allowed to buy from them, or to receive alms from them. Likewise if
anyone were to see an excommunicated person in distress: for then he
would be bound by the precept of charity to assist him. These are all
contained in the following line: "Utility, law, lowliness, ignorance of
fact, necessity," where "utility" refers to salutary words, "law" to
marriage, "lowliness" to subjection. The others need no explanation.
Reply to Objection 1: Corporal matters are subordinate to spiritual
matters. Wherefore the power which extends to spiritual things, can
also extend to matters touching the body: even as the art which
considers the end commands in matters ordained to the end.
Reply to Objection 2: In a case where one is bound by the precept of
charity to hold communication, the prohibition ceases, as is clear from
what has been said.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether a person incurs excommunication for communicating with one who is
excommunicated?
Objection 1: It would seem that a person does not incur excommunication
for communicating with one who is excommunicated. For a heathen or a
Jew is more separated from the Church than a person who is
excommunicated. But one does not incur excommunication for
communicating with a heathen or a Jew. Neither, therefore, does one for
communicating with an excommunicated Christian.
Objection 2: Further, if a man incurs excommunication for communicating
with an excommunicated person, for the same reason a third would incur
excommunication for communicating with him, and thus one might go on
indefinitely, which would seem absurd. Therefore one does not incur
excommunication for communicating with one who is excommunicated.
On the contrary, An excommunicated person is banished from communion.
Therefore whoever communicates with him leaves the communion of the
Church: and hence he seems to be excommunicated.
I answer that, A person may incur excommunication in two ways. First,
so that the excommunication includes both himself and whosoever
communicates with him: and then, without any doubt, whoever
communicates with him, incurs a major excommunication. Secondly, so
that the excommunication is simply pronounced on him; and then a man
may communicate with him either in his crime, by counsel, help or
favor, in which case again he incurs the major excommunication, or he
may communicate with him in other things by speaking to him, greeting
him, or eating with him, in which case he incurs the minor
excommunication.
Reply to Objection 1: The Church has no intention of correcting
unbelievers as well as the faithful who are under her care: hence she
does not sever those, whom she excommunicates, from the fellowship of
unbelievers, as she does from the communion of the faithful over whom
she exercises a certain power.
Reply to Objection 2: It is lawful to hold communion with one who has
incurred a minor excommunication, so that excommunication does not pass
on to a third person.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it is always a mortal sin to communicate with an excommunicated
person in other cases than those in which it is allowed?
Objection 1: It would seem that it is always a mortal sin to hold
communion with an excommunicated person in other cases than those in
which it is allowed. Because a certain decretal (Cap. Sacris: De his
quae vi, metuve, etc. ) declares that "not even through fear of death
should anyone hold communion with an excommunicated person, since one
ought to die rather than commit a mortal sin. " But this would be no
reason unless it were always a mortal sin to hold communion with an
excommunicated person. Therefore, etc.
Objection 2: Further, it is a mortal sin to act against a commandment
of the Church. But the Church forbids anyone to hold communion with an
excommunicated person. Therefore it is a mortal sin to hold communion
with one who is excommunicated.
Objection 3: Further, no man is debarred from receiving the Eucharist
on account of a venial sin. But a man who holds communion with an
excommunicated person, outside those cases in which it is allowed, is
debarred from receiving the Eucharist, since he incurs a minor
excommunication. Therefore it is a mortal sin to hold communion with an
excommunicated person, save in those cases in which it is allowed.
Objection 4: Further, no one should incur a major excommunication save
for a mortal sin. Now according to the law (Can. Praecipue, seqq. ,
caus. xi) a man may incur a major excommunication for holding communion
with an excommunicated person. Therefore it is a mortal sin to hold
communion with one who is excommunicated.
On the contrary, None can absolve a man from mortal sin unless he have
jurisdiction over him. But any priest can absolve a man for holding
communion with those who are excommunicated. Therefore it is not a
mortal sin.
Further, the measure of the penalty should be according to the measure
of the sin, as stated in Dt. 25:3. Now the punishment appointed by
common custom for holding communion with an excommunicated person is
not that which is inflicted for mortal sin, but rather that which is
due for venial sin. Therefore it is not a mortal sin.
I answer that, Some hold that it is always a mortal sin to hold
communion with an excommunicated person, by word or in any of the
forbidden ways mentioned above [4885](A[2]), except in those cases
allowed by law (Cap. Quoniam). But since it seems very hard that a man
should be guilty of a mortal sin by uttering just a slight word to an
excommunicated person, and that by excommunicating a person one would
endanger the salvation of many, and lay a snare which might turn to
one's own hurt, it seems to others more probable that he is not always
guilty of a mortal sin, but only when he holds communion with him in a
criminal deed, or in an act of Divine worship, or through contempt of
the Church.
Reply to Objection 1: This decretal is speaking of holding communion in
Divine worship. It may also be replied that the same reason applies
both to mortal and venial sin, since just as one cannot do well by
committing a mortal sin, so neither can one by committing a venial sin:
so that just as it is a man's duty to suffer death rather than commit a
mortal sin, so is it his duty to do so sooner than commit a venial sin,
inasmuch as it is his duty to avoid venial sin.
Reply to Objection 2: The commandment of the Church regards spiritual
matters directly, and legitimate actions as a consequence: hence by
holding communion in Divine worship one acts against the commandment,
and commits a mortal sin; but by holding communion in other matters,
one acts beside the commandment, and sins venially.
Reply to Objection 3: Sometimes a man is debarred from the Eucharist
even without his own fault, as in the case of those who are suspended
or under an interdict, because these penalties are sometimes inflicted
on one person for the sin of another who is thus punished.
Reply to Objection 4: Although it is a venial sin to hold communion
with one who is excommunicated, yet to do so obstinately is a mortal
sin: and for this reason one may be excommunicated according to the
law.
__________________________________________________________________
OF ABSOLUTION FROM EXCOMMUNICATION (THREE ARTICLES)
We must now consider absolution from excommunication: under which head
there are three points of inquiry:
(1) Whether any priest can absolve his subject from excommunication?
(2) Whether a man can be absolved from excommunication against his
will?
(3) Whether a man can be absolved from one excommunication without
being absolved from another?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether any priest can absolve his subject from excommunication?
Objection 1: It would seem that any priest can absolve his subject from
excommunication. For the chains of sin are stronger than those of
excommunication. But any priest can absolve his subject from sin.
Therefore much more can he absolve him from excommunication.
Objection 2: Further, if the cause is removed the effect is removed.
But the cause of excommunication is a mortal sin. Therefore since any
priest can absolve (his subject) from that mortal sin, he is able
likewise to absolve him from the excommunication.
On the contrary, It belongs to the same power to excommunicate as to
absolve from excommunication. But priests of inferior degree cannot
excommunicate their subjects. Neither, therefore, can they absolve
them.
I answer that, Anyone can absolve from minor excommunication who can
absolve from the sin of participation in the sin of another. But in the
case of a major excommunication, this is pronounced either by a judge,
and then he who pronounced sentence or his superior can absolve---or it
is pronounced by law, and then the bishop or even a priest can absolve
except in the six cases which the Pope, who is the maker of laws,
reserves to himself: the first is the case of a man who lays hands on a
cleric or a religious; the second is of one who breaks into a church
and is denounced for so doing; the third is of the man who sets fire to
a church and is denounced for the deed; the fourth is of one who
knowingly communicates in the Divine worship with those whom the Pope
has excommunicated by name; the fifth is the case of one who tampers
with the letters of the Holy See; the sixth is the case of one who
communicates in a crime of one who is excommunicated. For he should not
be absolved except by the person who excommunicated him, even though he
be not subject to him, unless, by reason of the difficulty of appearing
before him, he be absolved by the bishop or by his own priest, after
binding himself by oath to submit to the command of the judge who
pronounced the excommunication on him.
There are however eight exceptions to the first case: (1) In the hour
of death, when a person can be absolved by any priest from any
excommunication; (2) if the striker be the doorkeeper of a man in
authority, and the blow be given neither through hatred nor of set
purpose; (3) if the striker be a woman; (4) if the striker be a
servant, whose master is not at fault and would suffer from his
absence; (5) if a religious strike a religious, unless he strike him
very grievously; (6) if the striker be a poor man; (7) if he be a
minor, an old man, or an invalid; (8) if there be a deadly feud between
them.
There are, besides, seven cases in which the person who strikes a
cleric does not incur excommunication: (1) if he do it for the sake of
discipline, as a teacher or a superior; (2) if it be done for fun; (3)
if the striker find the cleric behaving with impropriety towards his
wife his mother, his sister or his daughter; (4) if he return blow for
blow at once; (5) if the striker be not aware that he is striking a
cleric; (6) if the latter be guilty of apostasy after the triple
admonition; (7) if the cleric exercise an act which is altogether
contrary to the clerical life, e. g. if he become a soldier, or if he be
guilty of bigamy [*Namely, that which is known by canonists as "similar
bigamy"].
Reply to Objection 1: Although the chains of sin are in themselves
greater than those of excommunication, yet in a certain respect the
chains of excommunication are greater, inasmuch as they bind a man not
only in the sight of God, but also in the eye of the Church. Hence
absolution from excommunication requires jurisdiction in the external
forum, whereas absolution from sin does not. Nor is there need of
giving one's word by oath, as in the case of absolution from
excommunication, because, as the Apostle declares (Heb. 6:16),
controversies between men are decided by oath.
Reply to Objection 2: As an excommunicated person has no share in the
sacraments of the Church, a priest cannot absolve him from his guilt,
unless he be first absolved from excommunication.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether anyone can be absolved against his will?
Objection 1: It would seem that no man can be absolved against his
will. For spiritual things are not conferred on anyone against his
will. Now absolution from excommunication is a spiritual favor.
Therefore it cannot be granted to a man against his will.
Objection 2: Further, the cause of excommunication is contumacy. But
when, through contempt of the excommunication, a man is unwilling to be
absolved, he shows a high degree of contumacy. Therefore he cannot be
absolved.
On the contrary, Excommunication can be pronounced on a man against his
will. Now things that happen to a man against his will, can be removed
from him against his will, as in the case of the goods of fortune.
Therefore excommunication can be removed from a man against his will.
I answer that, Evil of fault and evil of punishment differ in this,
that the origin of fault is within us, since all sin is voluntary,
whereas the origin of punishment is sometimes without, since punishment
does not need to be voluntary, in fact the nature of punishment is
rather to be against the will. Wherefore, just as a man commits no sin
except willingly, so no sin is forgiven him against his will. On the
other hand just as a person can be excommunicated against his will, so
can he be absolved therefrom.
Reply to Objection 1: The assertion is true of those spiritual goods
which depend on our will, such as the virtues, which we cannot lose
unwillingly; for knowledge, although a spiritual good, can be lost by a
man against his will through sickness. Hence the argument is not to the
point.
Reply to Objection 2: It is possible for excommunication to be removed
from a man even though he be contumacious, if it seem to be for the
good of the man for whom the excommunication was intended as a
medicine.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether a man can be absolved from one excommunication without being
absolved from all?
Objection 1: It would seem that a man cannot be absolved from one
excommunication without being absolved from all. For an effect should
be proportionate to its cause. Now the cause of excommunication is a
sin. Since then a man cannot be absolved from one sin without being
absolved from all, neither can this happen as regards excommunication.
Objection 2: Further, absolution from excommunication is pronounced in
the Church. But a man who is under the ban of one excommunication is
outside the Church. Therefore so long as one remains, a man cannot be
loosed from another.
On the contrary, Excommunication is a punishment. Now a man can be
loosed from one punishment, while another remains. Therefore a man can
be loosed from one excommunication and yet remain under another.
I answer that, Excommunications are not connected together in any way,
and so it is possible for a man to be absolved from one, and yet remain
under another.
It must be observed however that sometimes a man lies under several
excommunications pronounced by one judge; and then, when he is absolved
from one, he is understood to be absolved from all, unless the contrary
be expressed, or unless he ask to be absolved from excommunication on
one count only, whereas he was excommunicated under several. On the
other hand sometimes a man lies under several sentences of
excommunication pronounced by several judges; and then, when absolved
from one excommunication, he is not therefore absolved from the others,
unless at his prayer they all confirm his absolution, or unless they
all depute one to absolve him.
Reply to Objection 1: All sins are connected together in aversion from
God, which is incompatible with the forgiveness of sin: wherefore one
sin cannot be forgiven without another. But excommunications have no
such connection. Nor again is absolution from excommunication hindered
by contrariety of the will, as stated above [4886](A[2]). Hence the
argument does not prove.
Reply to Objection 2: Just as such a man was for several reasons
outside the Church so is it possible for his separation to be removed
on one count and to remain on another.
__________________________________________________________________
OF INDULGENCES (THREE ARTICLES)
We must now consider indulgence: (1) in itself; (2) those who grant
indulgence; (3) those who receive it.
Under the first head there are three points of inquiry:
(1) Whether an indulgence remits any part of the punishment due for the
satisfaction of sins?
(2) Whether indulgences are as effective as they claim to be?
(3) Whether an indulgence should be granted for temporal assistance?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether an indulgence can remit any part of the punishment due for the
satisfaction of sins?
Objection 1: It would seem that an indulgence cannot remit any part of
the punishment due for the satisfaction of sins. Because a gloss on 2
Tim. 2:13, "He cannot deny Himself," says: "He would do this if He did
not keep His word. " Now He said (Dt. 25:2): "According to the measure
of the sin shall the measure also of the stripes be. " Therefore nothing
can be remitted from the satisfactory punishment which is appointed
according to the measure of sin.
Objection 2: Further, an inferior cannot absolve from an obligation
imposed by his superior. But when God absolves us from sin He binds us
to temporal punishment, as Hugh of St. Victor declares (Tract. vi Sum.
Sent. [*Of doubtful authenticity]). Therefore no man can absolve from
that punishment, by remitting any part of it.
Objection 3: Further, the granting of the sacramental effect without
the sacraments belongs to the power of excellence. Now none but Christ
has the power of excellence in the sacraments. Since then satisfaction
is a part of the sacrament of Penance, conducing to the remission of
the punishment due, it seems that no mere man can remit the debt of
punishment without satisfaction.
Objection 4: Further, the power of the ministers of the Church was
given them, not "unto destruction," but "unto edification" (2 Cor.
10:8). But it would be conducive to destruction, if satisfaction, which
was intended for our good, inasmuch as it serves for a remedy, were
done away with. Therefore the power of the ministers of the Church does
not extend to this.
On the contrary, It is written (2 Cor. 2:10): "For, what I have
pardoned, if I have pardoned anything, for your sakes have I done it in
the person of Christ," and a gloss adds: i. e. "as though Christ Himself
had pardoned. " But Christ could remit the punishment of a sin without
any satisfaction, as evidenced in the case of the adulterous woman (Jn.
8). Therefore Paul could do so likewise. Therefore the Pope can too,
since his power in the Church is not less than Paul's.
Further, the universal Church cannot err; since He Who "was heard for
His reverence" (Heb. 5:7) said to Peter, on whose profession of faith
the Church was founded (Lk. 22:32): "I have prayed for thee that thy
faith fail not. " Now the universal Church approves and grants
indulgences. Therefore indulgences have some value.
I answer that, All admit that indulgences have some value, for it would
be blasphemy to say that the Church does anything in vain. But some say
that they do not avail to free a man from the debt of punishment which
he has deserved in Purgatory according to God's judgment, and that they
merely serve to free him from the obligation imposed on him by the
priest as a punishment for his sins, or from the canonical penalties he
has incurred. But this opinion does not seem to be true. First, because
it is expressly opposed to the privilege granted to Peter, to whom it
was said (Mat. 16:19) that whatsoever he should loose on earth should
be loosed also in heaven. Wherefore whatever remission is granted in
the court of the Church holds good in the court of God.
