← Back to Distinction 18

Dist. 18, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 2

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 18

Textus Latinus
p. 486

Quaestio II. Pro quo quis debeat excommunicari.

Secundo quaeritur, pro quo quis debeat excommunicari, et quaeritur, utrum pro damno vel pro iniuria illata Ecclesiae. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Si quis enim frangit vel incendit ecclesiam, excommunicatus est ipso iure1, non autem, si aliam domum frangeret: ergo etc.

2. Item, si quis percutit clericum, excommunicatus est ipso iure et incidit in canonem latae sententiae2; sed non incidit, si percutit laicum saecularem: ergo si ius recte dictat, videtur, quod pro iniuria etiam sibi illata possit Ecclesia excommunicare.

3. Item, ratione videtur: quia gladius unicuique datur ad defensionem; sed potestas excommunicandi est gladius spiritualis3: ergo, potestate excommunicandi potest Ecclesia se defendere et contra damnum et contra iniuriam.

p. 487

4. Item, iustum est, unumquemque puniri in eo, in quo peccat4: ergo si peccat in matrem Ecclesiam inferendo damnum et iniuriam, iustum est, ut perdat eius beneficia et suffragia; sed hoc est excommunicari: ergo etc.

Contra: 1. Excommunicatio sive anathematizatio est maledictio; sed dicitur ad Romanos duodecimo5: Benedicite maledicentibus vos; benedicite et nolite maledicere: ergo maledicentibus vel male facientibus non debet Ecclesia maledicere: ergo nec eos excommunicare.

2. Item, excommunicatio est beneficiorum subtractio; sed Deus non subtrahit misericordiam et beneficia ab iis qui offendunt ipsum: ergo si praeceptum est ecclesiasticis viris, ut sint misericordes et perfecti, sicut Pater caelestis, qui facit solem oriri super bonos et malos, sicut dicitur Matthaei quinto6: ergo non debet Ecclesia haec subtrahere propter damnum vel iniuriam aliquam sibi factam.

3. Item, in excommunicationibus damnificatur homo in spiritualibus; sed improportionaliter maius est damnum in spiritualibus quam in temporalibus; sed si quis incendit vel fregit ecclesiam, vel percussit clericum, vel aliquod tale, non damnificavit nisi in temporalibus: ergo cum non debeat infligi maior poena, quam sit damnum; videtur, quod propter hoc non deberet excommunicari.

4. Item, Ecclesia militans debet imitari triumphantem; sed dicitur in canonica Iudae7 quod cum Michael altercaretur de corpore Moysi, non est ausus iudicium inferre blasphemiae, sed dixit: Imperet tibi Dominus: ergo videtur pari ratione, quod Ecclesia nullum altercantem cum ipsa debeat excommunicare sive anathematizare.

Conclusio. Pro damno vel iniuria potest quidem excommunicationis sententia dictari et etiam emenda a iudice, sed non principaliter propter hoc.

Respondeo: Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod duplex est excommunicatio sive excommunicandi modus. Quaedam enim excommunicatio est a iure, quaedam a iudice. Prima excommunicatio est praeservativa, secunda est curativa. Prima excommunicatio, etsi fieri videatur ad conservandam libertatem ecclesiasticam, sicut secunda fieri videtur propter emendam; tamen prima principaliori modo fertur ad cavendam culpam; quia magna culpa est et multum gravis, quando quis peccat in Ecclesiam. — Similiter secunda principaliori modo fit ad frangendam contumaciam; et ideo talis secundum formam iuris nulli debet infligi nisi contumaci, et ideo debet monitio praemitti, ut sic de contumacia convincatur. Contumax autem dicitur qui semel et bis monitus, tertio peremptorie citatus, non comparet; aut si comparet, non vult stare iuri; vel quando offensa est manifesta, vel iussus a iudice, non vult emendare8. Tali autem competit haec medicina, sicut in primo problemate visum est. — Ex his patent rationes ad utramque partem.

Concedo enim, quod pro damno vel iniuria potest excommunicationis sententia dictari a iure, sed non principaliter propter hoc9; et similiter pro emenda potest ferri a iudice, sed non principaliter propter hoc10, sed propter contumaciam.

Ad fundamenta: — Rationes ad primam partem ostendunt, quod excommunicatio fertur pro damno.

Ad 1, 2. Rationes vero ad oppositum ostendunt, quod non principaliter pro damno sed pro peccato; unde Ecclesia maledicit et subtrahit beneficia ob meritum illius, non propter damnum suum, ob illius culpam, non propter vindictam. Si enim ille velit redire et non possit emendare, statim Ecclesia parcet.

Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Ecclesia damnificat illum in spiritualibus; dicendum, quod Ecclesia non damnificat, sed ille qui peccat et est contumax, se ipsum damnificat; sed Ecclesia ostendit ipsum damnificatum, ut sic saltem malum suum erubescat et deserat; et si quodam modo magis damnificet11, haec aggravatio damni ad utilitatem ipsius finaliter secundum intentionem Ecclesiae ordinatur.

Ad 4. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod Michael non maledixit; dicendum, quod diabolus est obstinatus in malo et incorrigibilis, et maledictio illata sibi non potest eum nec per se nec per accidens ordinare ad benedictionem; et ideo nulla fuit12 utilitas in maledicendo diabolum. Sed dum Ecclesia maledicit subditum, facit ei confusionem pro peccato; et quia tali confusione potest a peccato resipiscere: ideo maledicit, ut post benedicat, ideo ligat, ut absolvat; et non est simile de hac maledictione et de illa13.

---

English Translation

Question II. For what [cause] anyone ought to be excommunicated.

Secondly it is asked, for what [cause] anyone ought to be excommunicated, and it is asked whether for damage or for injury inflicted on the Church. And that it is so, seems [to be the case].

1. For if anyone breaks into or sets fire to a church, he is excommunicated by the law itself1, but not if he were to break into another house: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, if anyone strikes a cleric, he is excommunicated by the law itself and incurs the canon of the sentence already passed2; but he does not incur it if he strikes a secular layman: therefore if the law dictates rightly, it seems that the Church can excommunicate also for an injury inflicted on itself.

3. Likewise, it seems [so] by reason: because a sword is given to each one for defense; but the power of excommunicating is a spiritual sword3: therefore, by the power of excommunicating the Church can defend itself both against damage and against injury.

4. Likewise, it is just that everyone be punished in that in which he sins4: therefore if he sins against his mother the Church by inflicting damage and injury, it is just that he lose her benefits and suffrages; but this is to be excommunicated: therefore etc.

On the contrary: 1. Excommunication or anathematization is a malediction; but it is said to the Romans, chapter twelve5: Bless those who curse you; bless and do not curse: therefore the Church ought not to curse those who curse or do evil: therefore neither [ought it] to excommunicate them.

2. Likewise, excommunication is the subtraction of benefits; but God does not subtract mercy and benefits from those who offend Him: therefore if it is commanded to ecclesiastical men that they be merciful and perfect, like the heavenly Father, who makes the sun rise upon the good and the evil, as is said in Matthew the fifth6: therefore the Church ought not to subtract these things on account of any damage or injury done to it.

3. Likewise, in excommunications a man is damaged in spiritual things; but the damage in spiritual things is disproportionately greater than in temporal things; but if anyone sets fire to or breaks into a church, or strikes a cleric, or [does] some such thing, he has done damage only in temporal things: therefore since a greater penalty ought not to be inflicted than the damage is; it seems that he ought not to be excommunicated on account of this.

4. Likewise, the Church militant ought to imitate the [Church] triumphant; but it is said in the canonical [epistle] of Jude7 that when Michael was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not dare to bring a judgment of blasphemy, but said: May the Lord command you: therefore it seems by like reason that the Church ought not to excommunicate or anathematize anyone disputing with it.

Conclusion. For damage or injury the sentence of excommunication can indeed be pronounced, and also a penalty [imposed], by a judge, but not principally on account of this.

I respond: For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that excommunication, or the manner of excommunicating, is twofold. For one excommunication is from the law, another from the judge. The first excommunication is preservative, the second is curative. The first excommunication, although it seems to be done to preserve ecclesiastical liberty, just as the second seems to be done on account of a penalty; nevertheless the first in a more principal manner is directed to guarding against fault; because it is a great fault and very grave when anyone sins against the Church. — Likewise the second in a more principal manner is done to break contumacy; and therefore such [excommunication] according to the form of law ought to be inflicted on none but the contumacious, and therefore an admonition ought to be sent beforehand, so that in this way he may be convicted of contumacy. Now he is called contumacious who, admonished once and twice, summoned a third time peremptorily, does not appear; or if he appears, is unwilling to abide by the law; or when the offense is manifest, or when, ordered by the judge, he is unwilling to make amends8. To such a one this medicine is fitting, as was seen in the first problem. — From these things the reasons for both sides are evident.

For I concede that for damage or injury the sentence of excommunication can be pronounced from the law, but not principally on account of this9; and likewise for a penalty it can be brought by a judge, but not principally on account of this10, but on account of contumacy.

To the fundamental [arguments]: — The reasons for the first part show that excommunication is brought for damage.

To 1, 2. But the reasons for the opposite show that [it is] not principally for damage but for sin; whence the Church curses and subtracts benefits on account of his desert, not on account of its own damage, on account of his fault, not on account of vengeance. For if he should wish to return and cannot make amends, the Church will at once spare [him].

To 3. To that which is objected, that the Church damages him in spiritual things; it must be said that the Church does not damage, but he who sins and is contumacious damages himself; but the Church shows him to be damaged, so that in this way at least he may blush at his evil and forsake it; and if in some manner it does damage [him] more11, this aggravation of the damage is ordered finally to his own profit according to the intention of the Church.

To 4. To that, then, which is objected, that Michael did not curse; it must be said that the devil is obstinate in evil and incorrigible, and the malediction inflicted upon him cannot order him either of itself or by accident to benediction; and therefore there was no12 usefulness in cursing the devil. But when the Church curses a subject, it brings confusion upon him on account of his sin; and because by such confusion he can repent of his sin: therefore it curses so that afterward it may bless, therefore it binds so that it may absolve; and there is no likeness between this malediction and that13.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. 1
    Est participium passivum futurum. — Multi codd. peram torquentis. — Alex. Hal., loc. cit., legit: aut protectionem subtrahendo et tortori exponendo, aut iubendo. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 6. in fine. Verba tradere tortori respiciunt Matth. 18, 34: Tradidit eum tortoribus.
    It is a future passive participle. — Many codices [read] perversely of the torturer. — Alexander of Hales, in the cited place, reads: either by withdrawing protection and exposing [him] to the torturer, or by commanding [it]. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 6, at the end. The words to hand over to the torturer refer to Matthew 18:34: He handed him over to the torturers.
  2. 2
    Vers. 5. — De Glossa, quae est ordinaria apud Strabum et Lyranum, cfr. Haymo.
    Verse 5. — Concerning the Gloss, which is the ordinary [one] in Strabo and Lyra, cf. Haymo.
  3. 3
    Cfr. C. Conquesti sunt nobis (22.), X. de Sententia excommun. (lib. V. tit. 39.) et C. Si quis ecclesiam igne (14.), C. 17. q. 4.
    Cf. the canon Conquesti sunt nobis (22), in the Decretals, On the Sentence of Excommunication (bk. V, tit. 39), and the canon Si quis ecclesiam igne (14), C. 17, q. 4.
  4. 4
    Respicitur Sap. 11, 17. Vide supra pag. 397, nota 6.
    Wisdom 11:17 is referred to (by what things a man sins, by these is he tormented). See above, p. 397, note 6.
  5. 5
    Cfr. C. Visis litteris (1.), § 1. C. 16. q. 2, ubi excommunicatio vocatur mucro episcopi. Vide etiam C. Inter haec (6.), C. 33. q. 2. et C. Dilecto (6.), de Sententia excommun. (lib. V. tit. 11.) in VI.
    Cf. the canon Visis litteris (1), § 1, C. 16, q. 2, where excommunication is called the bishop's sword. See also the canon Inter haec (6), C. 33, q. 2, and the canon Dilecto (6), On the Sentence of Excommunication (bk. V, tit. 11), in the Sext.
  6. 6
    Vers. 48. et 45. — Superius pro ecclesiasticis edd. cum pluribus codd. necessitatis, pro viris codd. I K et iuris.
    Verses 48 and 45. — Above, for ecclesiastical the editions with several codices [read] of necessity, for men codices I, K [read] and of the law.
  7. 7
    Vers. 9: Cum Michael Archangelus cum diabolo disputans altercaretur etc.
    Verse 9: When Michael the Archangel, disputing with the devil, was contending etc.
  8. 8
    Cfr. C. Nemo episcoporum (41.) seqq., C. 11. q. 3; C. De excommunicationis articulo (15.), et C. Ecce autem (18.), C. 24. q. 3; C. Sacro approbante (48.), X. de Sententia excommun. (lib. V. tit. 39.), et C. Constitutionem (9.), de Sententia excommun. (lib. V. tit. 11.) in VI.
    Cf. the canon Nemo episcoporum (41) ff., C. 11, q. 3; the canon De excommunicationis articulo (15), and the canon Ecce autem (18), C. 24, q. 3; the canon Sacro approbante (48), in the Decretals, On the Sentence of Excommunication (bk. V, tit. 39), and the canon Constitutionem (9), On the Sentence of Excommunication (bk. V, tit. 11), in the Sext.
  9. 9
    Ex C. Si quis suadente diabolo (29.), C. 17. q. 4. et C. Non dubium est (5.) seqq., X. de Sententia excommun.
    From the canon Si quis suadente diabolo (29), C. 17, q. 4, and the canon Non dubium est (5) ff., in the Decretals, On the Sentence of Excommunication.
  10. 10
    In cod. X secunda manus addidit: sed ad cavendam culpam. Idem cod. X inferius post contumaciam subiungit frangendam. Pro ferri plures codd. fieri.
    In codex X a second hand added: but to guard against fault. The same codex X below, after contumacy, adds to be broken. For to be brought several codices [read] to be done.
  11. 11
    Cod. X addit aggravando. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 6. in fine.
    Codex X adds by aggravating. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 6, at the end.
  12. 12
    Cod. K (I a secunda manu) fuisset.
    Codex K (I by a second hand) [reads] fuisset ("had been").
  13. 13
    Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.
    See the scholion to the preceding question. ---
Cited by

2 further references address the article or printed page this question belongs to, rather than the question itself.

← Dist. 18, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 1Dist. 18, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 3→