Dist. 18, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 6
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 18
Quaestio VI. Utrum aliquis possit absolvi invitus ab excommunicatione.
Sexto quaeritur de absolutione, et quaeritur, utrum aliquis possit absolvi invitus. Et quod sic, videtur:
1. Quia pater carnalis multa bona praestat filio invito: ergo pari ratione, immo multo fortiori, cum magis pius debeat pater spiritualis esse, videtur, quod possit solvere subditum, ipso invito.
2. Item, pronior debet1 esse ad miserendum quam ad condemnandum; sed aliquis de iure potest excommunicare invitum: ergo multo magis absolvere.
3. Item, excommunicatio est poena inflicta exterius propter emendationem: ergo si peccator non emendatur, sed deterior efficitur; «cum cessante causa, cesset effectus2», videtur, quod possit et debeat talis etiam nolens absolvi.
Sed contra: 1. Nullus potest nec debet absolvere invitum in foro poenitentiali: ergo pari ratione nec in foro iudiciali.
2. Item, dictum est Petro3: Quodcumque ligaveris super terram etc.: ergo conformari debet ligatio, quae fit in terris, ei ligationi, quae fit in caelis, et e converso, alioquin non fit, ut debet; sed in caelis nullus absolvitur invitus: ergo nec in terris debet.
3. Item, manente causa, manere debet et effectus; sed causa, propter quam infligitur excommunicatio, est rebellio et contumacia; sed quamdiu non vult absolvi, est rebellis et contumax: ergo invitus non debet absolvi.
Iuxta hoc quaeritur, quis sit modus, secundum quem debet absolvi. — Quaeritur etiam, a quo possit absolvi.
Conclusio. Iuste excommunicatus non potest de iure absolvi invitus, qui tamen de facto potest absolvi secundum voluntatem praelati, praecipue autem iniuste excommunicatus.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod est loqui de potentia absolvendi et excommunicandi, prout potest in hos actus vel de iure, vel de facto. Differt enim facere et iuste facere. — Si loquamur de facto, si episcopus excommunicet non contumacem, praetermisso iuris ordine, in facie Ecclesiae excommunicatus est, quamvis iniuste lata sit sententia; et tenetur eam sustinere, alioquin ex hoc ipso contemptu efficitur dignus excommunicari et ligatur apud Deum4. — De iure autem est excommunicatus, quando secundum iuris ordinem ab eo qui habet iurisdictionem canonicam, fertur sententia in contumacem; et haec ligat apud Deum. — Similiter intelligendum in absolutione, quod potest aliquis absolvi de iure, vel de facto. De iure nullus excommunicatus absolvi potest, nisi cesset a contumacia; de facto absolvi potest secundum voluntatem praelati, in cuius potestate fuit sententiam ferre et revocare. Unde si talis absolvatur, non peccat nec est excommunicatus qui ei communicat; et hoc dico, sive qui absolvitur sit ligatus iusta sententia, sive iniusta; et hoc maxime verum est de domino Papa.
Verumtamen, sicut rationes probant, talis absolvi non debet, si iuste excommunicatus est, nec de iure absolvi potest. Si autem excommunicatus fuisset in- p. 494 iuste, posset eum praelatus absolvere etiam invitum, non propter suum meritum, sed ad revocandum errorem proprium5.
Ad argumenta:
1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur, quod pater corporalis beneficia praestat invito filio; dicendum, quod non est simile: quia illa sunt beneficia temporalia, quae praestantur contra voluntatem, et in quibus non consideratur aequitas ex parte suscipientis; non sic autem est hic; et praeterea6 talia beneficia prosunt invitis, sed beneficium absolutionis nulli invito prodest, immo obest. Unde sicut fastidiosis non est ingerendus cibus corporalis, propter hoc quod obest, et illum proiiciunt, vel si suscipiunt, magis gravantur; sic in proposito est intelligendum.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod potest excommunicare invitum; dicendum, quod excommunicatio est sicut correctio de contumacia, et ideo utilis est tali contumaci et nolenti7; econtra absolutio est utilis redeunti, non in contumacia existenti; et ideo talem excommunicatum absolvere potius est praestare iram quam misericordiam, sicut facit ille qui dimittit iniuriam inultam. Unde sicut melius est quod satanae tradatur corpus quam spiritus8; sic melius est isti, quod permaneat in vinculo, quam quod detur beneficium cum contemptu.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est inflicta ad emendationem; dicendum, quod non tantum ad emendationem, immo etiam ad instructionem aliorum, ut alii discant non contradicere et rebellare, sicut Datan et Abiron9; et ideo, ne alii sumant exemplum malum, debet in talibus excommunicatio continuari, ut aliis prosit ad vitandum casum. Verumtamen quia nescitur, utrum Deus det ei spiritum bonum, quamdiu vivit; ideo semper exspectanda est conversio eius, et ideo non est ante absolvendus, quantumcumque incorrigibilis videatur. Nemo enim est omnino incorrigibilis per privationem, quamdiu viator est; et ideo excommunicatio medicina est.
Ad illud quod quaeritur, qualiter debeat fieri10; dicendum, quod excommunicatio ex triplici causa potest esse inflicta, scilicet quaedam propter contumaciam pure, quaedam propter offensam manifestam, quaedam propter offensam occultam, ut quando aliquis incidit in canonem ex peccato aliquo, quod non est publicum. — Primus debet absolvi, recepto ab eo sacramento11, quod stabit mandatis Ecclesiae, et illi debet mandari, quod pareat iuri, et si quid aliud in sententia excommunicationis iuste lata continetur, utpote quando condemnatur in expensis. — Si autem est excommunicatus propter offensam manifestam per sententiam, vel facti evidentiam; tunc ante absolutionem debet praestare emendam. — Si autem propter occultam; tunc sufficit ad relaxandam sententiam, si sufficiens cautio praebeatur parendi mandato.
Ad illud quod quaeritur: a quo quis potest absolvi? dicendum, quod de minori excommunicatione absolvi potest a quolibet habente potestatem absolvendi a peccato; unde duo excommunicati minori excommunicatione invicem se absolvere possunt. — Pro regula autem habendum est, quod de omni excommunicatione lata a iure, sive maiore sive minore, potest quis absolvi a proprio episcopo, sive a sacerdote, exceptis sex casibus, in quibus sibi reservavit iuris conditor potestatem.
Primus, si verberat clericum; in quo casu non potest absolvi nisi a domino Papa, vel eius legato, octo casibus exceptis. — Secundus casus est de illo qui incendit ecclesiam et denuntiatus est ab episcopo; talis non potest absolvi. — Tertius casus est de illo qui frangit ecclesiam et denuntiatus est. — Quartus casus est de eo qui scienter et sponte participat cum excommunicatis a Papa et recipit eos in officiis, maxime quando nominatim exprimuntur. — Quintus de illo qui falsat litteras apostolicae Sedis. — Sextus de illo qui communicat excommunicato in crimine; tunc enim debet absolvi ab eo qui excommunicavit, etiam si non sit eius subditus. Quod si difficile est ei accedere ad ipsum, praestita iuratoria cautione, quod parebit eius mandato, potest absolvi ab episcopo, vel a sacerdote proprio.
A primo autem casu excipiuntur octo casus: primus est, si sit in articulo mortis. Secundus est, si fuit ostiarius potentis et percussit non ex odio vel proposito. Tertius, si percutiens clericum sit mulier. Quartus, si regularis regularem. Quintus, si sit servus et non graviter laesit et dominus eius damnificaretur de eius absentia, et ipse dominus est sine culpa. Sextus, si sit pauper. Septimus, si sit impubes, vel senex, vel valitudinarius. Octavus, si habet inimicitias capitales.
De excommunicatione vero illata a iudice nullus potest absolvi nisi ab ipso, vel eius superiori, excepto solo articulo mortis.
Scholion ad hanc quaestionem nullum est: scholion articuli unici (§§ I–VII) cum quaestione prima editur. — There is no scholion to this question: the scholion of the single article (§§ I–VII) is printed with the first question (bon-sent-IV-d18-p2-a1-q1).
---
Question VI. Whether anyone can be absolved from excommunication against his will.
Sixthly there is inquiry concerning absolution, and it is asked whether anyone can be absolved against his will. And that he can, it seems:
1. Because a carnal father bestows many goods upon an unwilling son: therefore by parity of reasoning, indeed much more strongly — since a spiritual father ought to be more loving — it seems that he can absolve a subject, even against his will.
2. Likewise, one ought to be more inclined1 to having mercy than to condemning; but someone can lawfully excommunicate an unwilling man: therefore much more can he absolve him.
3. Likewise, excommunication is a penalty inflicted outwardly for the sake of amendment: therefore if the sinner is not amended, but is made worse; «since, the cause ceasing, the effect ceases2», it seems that such a one can and ought to be absolved even when unwilling.
On the contrary: 1. No one can or ought to absolve an unwilling man in the penitential forum: therefore by parity of reasoning neither in the judicial forum.
2. Likewise, it was said to Peter3: Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth etc.: therefore the binding which takes place on earth ought to be conformed to that binding which takes place in heaven, and conversely, otherwise it does not take place as it ought; but in heaven no one is absolved against his will: therefore neither ought it to be done on earth.
3. Likewise, the cause remaining, the effect too ought to remain; but the cause for which excommunication is inflicted is rebellion and contumacy; but so long as he does not wish to be absolved, he is rebellious and contumacious: therefore the unwilling man ought not to be absolved.
In connection with this it is asked what is the manner according to which one ought to be absolved. — It is also asked by whom one may be absolved.
Conclusion. One justly excommunicated cannot lawfully be absolved against his will, who nevertheless can in fact be absolved according to the will of the prelate; but most of all one unjustly excommunicated.
I respond: It must be said that we may speak of the power of absolving and of excommunicating, insofar as one can [proceed] to these acts either lawfully or in fact. For to do and to do justly differ. — If we speak of fact: if a bishop should excommunicate one who is not contumacious, the order of law being passed over, he is excommunicated in the face of the Church, although the sentence has been unjustly passed; and he is bound to bear it, otherwise by this very contempt he is made worthy to be excommunicated and is bound before God4. — But he is lawfully excommunicated when, according to the order of law, a sentence is passed against a contumacious man by one who has canonical jurisdiction; and this binds before God. — Likewise it is to be understood concerning absolution, that someone can be absolved either lawfully or in fact. Lawfully no excommunicate can be absolved unless he cease from contumacy; in fact he can be absolved according to the will of the prelate, in whose power it lay to pass and to revoke the sentence. Hence if such a one is absolved, neither does he sin nor is he excommunicated who communicates with him; and this I say, whether the one who is absolved be bound by a just sentence or by an unjust one; and this is most true concerning the lord Pope.
Nevertheless, as the arguments prove, such a one ought not to be absolved, if he is justly excommunicated, nor can he lawfully be absolved. But if he had been unjustly excommunicated, the prelate could absolve him even against his will, not on account of his [the subject's] merit, but in order to revoke his own error5.
To the arguments:
1. To that, then, which is objected in the first place, that the bodily father bestows benefits on an unwilling son; it must be said that it is not similar: because those are temporal benefits which are bestowed against one's will, and in which equity is not considered on the part of the recipient; but it is not so here; and besides6 such benefits profit the unwilling, but the benefit of absolution profits no unwilling man, nay rather harms him. Hence, just as bodily food is not to be forced upon the squeamish, because it harms them, and they throw it away, or, if they take it, are more burdened; so it is to be understood in the matter proposed.
2. To that which is objected, that one can excommunicate an unwilling man; it must be said that excommunication is like a correction concerning contumacy, and therefore it is useful to such a contumacious and unwilling man7; on the contrary, absolution is useful to one returning, not to one persisting in contumacy; and therefore to absolve such an excommunicate is rather to bestow wrath than mercy, just as he does who lets an injury go unavenged. Hence, just as it is better that the body be handed over to Satan than the spirit8; so it is better for this man that he remain in the bond, than that the benefit be given with contempt.
3. To that which is objected, that it is inflicted for the sake of amendment; it must be said that [it is] not only for amendment, but also for the instruction of others, that others may learn not to gainsay and rebel, as Dathan and Abiron9; and therefore, lest others take a bad example, in such cases the excommunication ought to be continued, that it may profit others toward avoiding the fall. Nevertheless, because it is not known whether God will give him a good spirit, so long as he lives; therefore his conversion is always to be awaited, and therefore he is not to be absolved beforehand, however incorrigible he may seem. For no one is altogether incorrigible by privation, so long as he is a wayfarer; and therefore excommunication is a medicine.
To that which is asked, in what manner it ought to be done10; it must be said that excommunication can be inflicted from a threefold cause, namely some for contumacy purely, some for a manifest offense, some for a hidden offense, as when someone falls under the canon by some sin which is not public. — The first must be absolved, having received from him a guarantee11 that he will stand by the commands of the Church, and it must be enjoined upon him that he obey the law, and [discharge] whatever else is contained in the sentence of an excommunication justly passed, as when he is condemned to costs. — But if he is excommunicated for a manifest offense by sentence, or by the evidence of the deed; then before absolution he must make satisfaction. — But if for a hidden one; then it suffices for relaxing the sentence, if sufficient surety be furnished that he will obey the command.
To that which is asked: by whom can one be absolved? it must be said that of the lesser excommunication one can be absolved by anyone having the power of absolving from sin; hence two persons excommunicated with the lesser excommunication can absolve one another. — But as a rule it is to be held that, of every excommunication imposed by law, whether the greater or the lesser, one can be absolved by his own bishop, or by a priest, with six cases excepted, in which the founder of the law reserved the power to himself.
The first, if one strikes a cleric; in which case he cannot be absolved except by the lord Pope, or his legate, with eight cases excepted. — The second case is concerning him who burns a church and has been denounced by the bishop; such a one cannot be absolved. — The third case is concerning him who breaks into a church and has been denounced. — The fourth case is concerning him who knowingly and willingly participates with persons excommunicated by the Pope and receives them into offices, especially when they are named expressly. — The fifth, concerning him who falsifies the letters of the Apostolic See. — The sixth, concerning him who communicates with one excommunicated for a crime; for then he must be absolved by him who excommunicated [the other], even if he is not his subject. But if it is difficult for him to approach him, an oath-bound surety being furnished that he will obey his command, he can be absolved by his bishop, or by his own priest.
From the first case eight cases are excepted: the first is, if he be in the article of death. The second is, if he was the doorkeeper of a powerful man and struck not out of hatred or design. The third, if the one striking the cleric be a woman. The fourth, if a religious [strikes] a religious. The fifth, if he be a slave and did not gravely injure, and his master would be harmed by his absence, and the master himself is without fault. The sixth, if he be poor. The seventh, if he be under age, or aged, or sickly. The eighth, if he has capital enmities.
But of an excommunication imposed by a judge no one can be absolved except by him, or by his superior, with the article of death alone excepted.
There is no scholion to this question: the scholion of the single article (§§ I–VII) is printed with the first question (bon-sent-IV-d18-p2-a1-q1).
---
- 1Cfr. C. Quoniam multos (103.) et C. Quod praedecessor (105.), C. 11. q. 3. et C. Si celebrat (10.), X. de Clerico excommun. etc. (lib. V. tit. 27.).Cf. C. Quoniam multos (103.) and C. Quod praedecessor (105.), C. 11. q. 3. and C. Si celebrat (10.), X. on the Excommunicated Cleric etc. (bk. V. tit. 27.).
- 2Respicitur Tob. 2, 21: Non licet nobis aut edere ex furto aliquid aut contingere. — Pro cum ante edd. cum potius.Reference is made to Tobit 2:21: It is not lawful for us either to eat anything of theft or to touch it. The earlier editions read cum potius for cum.
- 3Epist. 157. (alias 89.) c. 5. n. 40; Serm. 180. (alias 28. de Verbis Apostoli) c. 4. n. 4. Cfr. III. Sent. d. 39. a. 2. q. 1.[Augustine,] Letter 157 (alias 89) c. 5 n. 40; Sermon 180 (alias 28, On the Words of the Apostle) c. 4 n. 4. Cf. III Sent. d. 39 a. 2 q. 1.
- 4Vat. cum uno alteroque cod. in periculum contemptus incideret. Vide tamen Forcellini Lexicon sub verbo incido, quod incido etiam cum solo accusativo construitur. Hinc formam passivi, quam habent fere omnes codd., retinendam esse censuimus; praecedens particula et idem est ac etiam. — Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.The Vatican edition with one or another codex reads in periculum contemptus incideret ("he would fall into the danger of contempt"). See, however, Forcellini's Lexicon under the word incido, [showing] that incido is constructed also with the accusative alone. Hence we have judged that the passive form, which nearly all the codices have, is to be retained; the preceding particle et is the same as etiam. — See the scholion to question 1 of this article.
- 5In cod. V secunda manus addidit quilibet. Cfr. supra pag. 333, nota 3.In codex V a second hand added quilibet. Cf. above, p. 333, note 3.
- 6Ut dicitur C. Cum cessante (60.), X. de Appellat. (lib. II. tit. 28.). Vide supra pag. 73, nota 2.As is said in C. Cum cessante (60.), X. on Appeals (bk. II. tit. 28.). See above, p. 73, note 2.
- 7Matth. 16, 19.Matthew 16:19.
- 8Vide infra dub. 2. — Aliquanto inferius pro ferre plurimi codd. inferre.See below, doubt 2. — A little further on, for ferre very many codices read inferre.
- 9Cod. II primum. / Vat. propterea. / Cod. V de contumacia [secunda manus substituit resipiscere pro et] nolenti. Pro talis Vat. cum uno alteroque cod. tali. / Respicitur I. Cor. 3, 5.Codex II reads primum. / The Vatican edition reads propterea. / Codex V reads de contumacia [a second hand substituted resipiscere for et] nolenti. For talis the Vatican edition with one or another codex reads tali. / Reference is made to 1 Cor. 3:5.
- 10De quibus Num. 16, 1. seqq. — Inferius respicitur Luc. 11, 13. / Cod. F supplet absolutio. / Intellige cum cod. F iuramento. Cfr. C. Ex tenore (10.) et Nuper a nobis (29.), X. de Sententia excommun. (lib. V. tit. 39.). / Ita C. Duobus collata (56.), X. de Sententia excommun. (lib. V. tit. 39.).Concerning whom [see] Num. 16:1 ff. — Below, reference is made to Luke 11:13. / Codex F supplies absolutio. / Understand with codex F iuramento ("by an oath"). Cf. C. Ex tenore (10.) and Nuper a nobis (29.), X. on the Sentence of Excommunication (bk. V. tit. 39.). / So C. Duobus collata (56.), X. on the Sentence of Excommunication (bk. V. tit. 39.).
- 11In cod. G secunda manus addidit C. Si quis suadente (29.), C. 17. q. 4; inferius pro tertio casu C. Conquesti (22.), X. de Sententia excommun. (lib. V. tit. 39.); pro quarto C. Significavit (18.), loc. cit.; pro quinto C. Ad Falsariorum (7.), de Crimine falsi (ibid. tit. 20.). / Ex C. Nuper a nobis (29.), X. de Sent. excommun. (lib. V. tit. 39.). Ibid. sub diversis capitulis (1. 2. 3. 5. 6. 13. 26. 37. 58. et 60.) seqq. exceptiones statuuntur. — Inferius pro potentis codd. 1 X potestatis (loc. cit. C. Si vero alicuius potestatis ostiarius). / Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.In codex G a second hand added C. Si quis suadente (29.), C. 17. q. 4; further down, for the third case, C. Conquesti (22.), X. on the Sentence of Excommunication (bk. V. tit. 39.); for the fourth, C. Significavit (18.), at the same place; for the fifth, C. Ad Falsariorum (7.), on the Crime of Forgery (ibid. tit. 20.). / From C. Nuper a nobis (29.), X. on the Sentence of Excommunication (bk. V. tit. 39.). At the same place, under various chapters (1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 13, 26, 37, 58, and 60) the exceptions are established. — Below, for potentis the codices 1 X read potestatis (at the cited place, C. Si vero alicuius potestatis ostiarius). / See the scholion to question 1 of this article.