Dist. 18, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 4
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 18
Quaestio IV. Utrum aliquis possit pluries excommunicari.
Quarto quaeritur de excommunicationis iteratione, et quaeritur, utrum aliquis possit pluries excommunicari. Et quod sic, videtur.
1. Primum, quia hoc habet usus Ecclesiae universalis1, quam errare est impossibile, ut videtur.
2. Item, videmus in aliis poenis impositis, quod simul et semel plura possunt imponi ieiunia, similiter et vigiliae et orationes: ergo pari ratione possunt infligi plures excommunicationes.
3. Item, ita videmus in remediis, quod si iteratur morbus, et remedium; ita etiam et in poenis, quod multiplicantur poenae secundum merita: ergo cum excommunicatio et remedium sit et poena, videtur igitur, quod sicut causa potest iterari et multiplicari, quod et excommunicationes. Sed causae possunt iterari, illud est apertum — potest enim aliquis esse incendiarius, fractor ecclesiarum, percussor clericorum, et sic de aliis — ergo etc.
4. Item, si non possent excommunicari, ex quo sunt excommunicati, et illi qui sunt absque excommunicatione, possunt excommunicari: ergo excommunicati sunt melioris conditionis quam non excommunicati.
Contra: 1. Excommunicatus interfectus est gladio spirituali; sed interfectus non potest magis nec minus interfici2: ergo nec excommunicatus iterum excommunicari.
2. Item, excommunicatus extra communionem Ecclesiae est eiectus; sed, ut dicit Apostolus primae ad Corinthios quinto3: Quid mihi de his qui foris sunt, iudicare? sed posse excommunicare est posse iudicare: ergo si non pertinet de talibus iudicare, videtur similiter, quod nec excommunicare.
3. Item, excommunicatus est beneficiis ecclesiasticis privatus, et excommunicatio est privatio; sed privationes non recipiunt maius et minus4 — non enim dicitur unus caecus altero magis caecus et minus — ergo etc.
4. Item, alter altero non est absolutus magis nec minus, nec idem magis se ipso: ergo pari ratione nec excommunicatus magis et minus, immo multo fortius.
### Conclusio. Excommunicatus iterum potest excommunicari.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod excommunicatus bene potest iterum excommunicari vel eiusdem excommunicationis iteratione ad suam maiorem confusionem, vel etiam alia propter novae culpae commissionem; et tunc tot erunt excommunicationes, quot causae principales, pro quibus excommunicatur. Sicut enim iteratur culpa, ita rationabiliter iterari potest et debet ipsa poena. — Et concedendae sunt rationes ad hanc partem.
Ad argumenta pro parte opposita: Ad 1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur de interfectione, dicendum, quod quemadmodum qui peccat mortaliter mortuus est et interficit se ipsum per expulsionem gratiae et adhuc magis potest peccare, quia, quamvis non vivat ad bene agendum, adhuc tamen vivit in eo voluntas ad male operandum; et quamvis gratia sit expulsa, potest tamen magis a gratia elongari: sic intelligendum est in proposito, quia, quamvis secundum statum illum nihil prosint ecclesiastica Sacramenta et suffragia; potest tamen adhuc magis et magis elongari. Nec est simile de interfectione corporali, in qua prima interfectio reddit impossibilem ad vitam; non sic est in proposito, quia adhuc manet aptitudo ad redeundum.
Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod extra est; dicendum, quod quia characterem baptismalem habet indelebilem, quantumcumque sit malus, ideo non exit omnino Ecclesiae potestatem; et ideo ipsum punit et corrigit magis quam paganos et infideles, qui numquam fuerunt sub potestate Ecclesiae. Et de talibus, scilicet paganis, loquitur Apostolus, non de malis subditis et excommunicatis; nam ipse de eis iudicabat5.
Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod absolutio non recipit iterationem nec intensionem; dicendum, quod hoc falsum est; et hoc patet in eo qui pluribus excommunicationibus diversis de causis est excommunicatus ab eodem, vel qui est excommunicatus a diversis episcopis; qui potest absolvi ab una excommunicatione, ita quod non ab alia, quia non sic est connexio in absolutione, sicut in gratiae infusione.
Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod privationes non recipiunt magis et minus; potest responderi dupliciter: primo, quia illud est verum in puris privationibus, non in aliis. Nam claudus dicitur magis et minus, quia non totaliter privat virtutem gradiendi; similiter et iniustus magis et minus. — Vel posset dici, quod si non ratione actus vel habitus magis et minus recipiant, tamen6 ratione causarum; unde magis est elongatus a visu, qui laesus est in nervo et in pupilla et in humore crystallino, quam qui in altero horum tantum. Similiter intellige in proposito.
(Scholion: the scholion for this Articulus Unicus, §§ I–VII, is rendered with Quaestio I — see `bon-sent-IV-d18-p2-a1-q1`.)
---
Question IV. Whether someone can be excommunicated many times.
Fourthly the question is asked concerning the repetition of excommunication, and it is asked whether someone can be excommunicated many times. And that he can, it seems.
1. First, because the practice of the universal Church holds this1, which it is impossible to err, as it seems.
2. Likewise, we see in other imposed penalties that at one and the same time several fasts can be imposed, and likewise vigils and prayers: therefore by parity of reasoning several excommunications can be inflicted.
3. Likewise, we see this in remedies, that if the disease is repeated, so too is the remedy; thus also in penalties, that the penalties are multiplied according to merits: therefore since excommunication is both a remedy and a penalty, it seems therefore that, just as the cause can be repeated and multiplied, so too can the excommunications. But that the causes can be repeated is plain — for someone can be an arsonist, a breaker of churches, a striker of clerics, and so of the rest — therefore etc.
4. Likewise, if they could not be excommunicated, from the fact that they are excommunicated, while those also who are without excommunication can be excommunicated: therefore the excommunicated would be of a better condition than the non-excommunicated.
On the contrary: 1. The excommunicated person has been slain with the spiritual sword; but one who has been slain cannot be slain more or less2: therefore neither can the excommunicated be excommunicated again.
2. Likewise, the excommunicated person has been cast out from the communion of the Church; but, as the Apostle says in the first letter to the Corinthians, the fifth chapter3: What is it to me to judge those who are outside? but to be able to excommunicate is to be able to judge: therefore if it does not belong to one to judge such persons, it seems likewise that neither is it to excommunicate them.
3. Likewise, the excommunicated person is deprived of ecclesiastical benefits, and excommunication is a privation; but privations do not admit of more and less4 — for one blind man is not said to be more blind than another and less — therefore etc.
4. Likewise, one person is not absolved more nor less than another, nor is the same person more than himself: therefore by parity of reasoning neither is the excommunicated more and less, indeed much more so.
### Conclusion. The excommunicated person can be excommunicated again.
I respond: It must be said that the excommunicated person can well be excommunicated again, either by a repetition of the same excommunication for his greater confusion, or even by another on account of the commission of a new fault; and then there will be as many excommunications as there are principal causes for which he is excommunicated. For just as the fault is repeated, so reasonably can and ought the penalty itself to be repeated. — And the reasons for this side are to be granted.
To the arguments for the opposite side: To 1. To that, then, which is first objected concerning slaying, it must be said that, just as one who sins mortally is dead and slays himself through the expulsion of grace and can yet sin still more — because, although he does not live unto doing good, nevertheless the will to do evil still lives in him; and although grace has been expelled, he can yet be further distanced from grace — so it is to be understood in the case at hand, since, although according to that state the ecclesiastical Sacraments and suffrages avail nothing, he can nevertheless still be distanced more and more. Nor is it similar to bodily slaying, in which the first slaying renders one incapable of life; it is not so in the case at hand, because there still remains an aptitude for returning.
To 2. To that which is objected, that he is outside; it must be said that, because he has the baptismal character indelibly, however wicked he may be, he therefore does not entirely go out from the power of the Church; and therefore she punishes and corrects him more than the pagans and unbelievers, who were never under the power of the Church. And of such, namely the pagans, the Apostle speaks, not of wicked subjects and the excommunicated; for he himself was judging concerning these5.
To 4. To that which is objected, that absolution does not admit of repetition nor of intensification; it must be said that this is false; and this is clear in the case of one who has been excommunicated by several excommunications for diverse causes by the same person, or who has been excommunicated by diverse bishops; who can be absolved from one excommunication in such a way that he is not absolved from another, because there is not such a connection in absolution as there is in the infusion of grace.
To 3. To that which is objected, that privations do not admit of more and less; it can be answered in two ways: first, because that is true in pure privations, not in others. For a lame man is said to be more and less so, because [lameness] does not totally deprive [him] of the power of walking; and likewise an unjust man more and less. — Or it could be said that, even if they do not admit of more and less by reason of an act or a habit, they do nevertheless6 by reason of causes; whence one who has been injured in the nerve and in the pupil and in the crystalline humor is more distanced from sight than one who [has been injured] in only one of these. Understand likewise in the case at hand.
(Scholion: the scholion for this Articulus Unicus, §§ I–VII, is rendered with Question I — see `bon-sent-IV-d18-p2-a1-q1`.)
---
- 1Cfr. C. Cum pro causa (27.) et C. Officii (42.), X. de Sententia excommun. (lib. V. tit. 39.).Cf. the canon Cum pro causa (27) and the canon Officii (42), in the Decretals, "On the Sentence of Excommunication" (book V, title 39).
- 2Seneca, Epist. 66. (alias 67.) n. 40: Mors nulla maior, aut minor est. Cfr. tom. III. pag. 808, nota 7.Seneca, Letter 66 (otherwise 67), n. 40: "No death is greater or lesser." Cf. tome III, p. 808, note 7.
- 3Vers. 12: Quid enim mihi de iis qui etc. — Inferius post non pertinet cod. X bene supplet ad ipsum.Verse 12: "For what is it to me concerning those who" etc. — Below, after non pertinet ["it does not belong"], codex X aptly supplies ad ipsum ["to him"].
- 4Vide tom. II. pag. 111, nota 3. verba Aristot.See tome II, p. 111, note 3, the words of Aristotle.
- 5Loc. cit., cuius expositionem vide apud August., III. contra Epist. Parmeniani, c. 2. n. 12. seqq.In the place cited, whose exposition see in Augustine, Against the Letter of Parmenianus, book III, c. 2, n. 12 and following.
- 6Ut constat ex locc. hic, nota 1. allegatis. — Superius post episcopis codd. omittunt qui. — Ordo huius et seq. solutionis non respondet ordini argumentorum.As is established from the places here cited in note 1. — Above, after episcopis ["bishops"], the codices omit qui ["who"]. — The order of this and the following solution does not correspond to the order of the arguments. ---