After major appeals and
demands from the Chinese Catholic Church, the Pontifical Council for
Legislative Texts has published a statement to clarify crimes, penalties
and remedies for an episcopal ordination without Papal mandate
(illegal).
This request for clarification has come from official and
underground Catholics after the illicit ordination of the bishop of
Chengde, 20 November.
It is even more urgent because the government threatens more
future ordinations without the mandate of the pope. The text of the
Declaration, which we publish in full below, appeared in the Osservatore
Romano on 11 June.
The issue was also addressed days ago Mgr. Savio
Hon, Secretary of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples
(see Rev. Savio Hon 03/06/2011: Chinese bishops should have no fear and say no to Beijing’s demands, says Mgr Savio Hon).
First we present the main elements.
In the first paragraph, the meaning of the text is
explained, which seeks to clarify code No. 1382 for an adequate
knowledge of penal morms related to illegal ordinations and how to adopt
them properly.
The second deals with the "crime" as an
external act, which is a violation of Church law.
According to Catholic
doctrine, this act is considered a "crime against the Catholic doctrine"
(and it cites the Second Vatican Council and other documents, noting
that this principle is accepted by the Eastern Churches).
The "crime" to
which it refers is illicit ordination, when it is conducted without
papal mandate.
The third section explains who the people involved in crime
are: the consecrating bishop, the consecrated and participating bishops.
The fourth paragraph explains that faced with this crime,
the Church has two ways to impose a penalty: ferendae sententiae and
latae sententiae: the first comes at the conclusion of a real trial, in
which the penalty is imposed by a court with a sentence.
In the second
case (latae sententiae), there is no need for explicit ruling of the
court.
The act already done automatically implies excommunication.
The Code also indicates a number of circumstances for which
the latae sententiae penalty is mitigated (eg fear of serious physical
violence, external conditions, ignorance, ....).
According to Code 1324,
par. 3 if there were mitigating circumstances, the latae sententiae
penalty is not incurred .
In this way - even if the sentences are a
little confused - it gives space to each bishop, who has been implicated
in acts against the Catholic doctrine, to personally verify his
position.
In the fifth paragraph, it is stated that since there have
been actions that have caused scandal to the faithful, the bishops
involved must find a way to remedy by making due penance.
Those who admit to have fallen into this crime and this
excommunication, shall refrain from three things: 1) taking part in the
celebration of the Eucharist as a minister or any other ceremonies of
public worship, 2) celebrating the sacraments and sacramentals and
receiving any sacrament, and 3) exercising ministerial functions and
carrying out acts of ecclesiastical government. "
If they do so, even knowing this, they are making gestures against God's law and thus committing sacrilege.
The sixth paragraph says that the Holy See may have to
directly censor bishops who have this canonical responsibility. This
will depend largely on their refusal to explain themselves, or their
decision to continue to perform acts contrary to communion.
The Holy See
can declare that they have already fallen into excommunication, or
launch other penalties against them.
The text concludes by recalling that these measures are
primarily a "medicine", which tend to heal and reintegrate into the
communion of the Church. Here is the full text of the Declaration:
1. The Pontifical Council for
Legislative Texts has been requested to clarify some details regarding
the correct application of canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law (C.I.C.),
especially in relation to the canonical responsibilities of the
subjects involved in an episcopal consecration without the necessary
apostolic mandate.
The question, as such, does not give rise to doubts about the
law as such, but only requires some elucidations which serve to ensure
adequate knowledge of the most important points of the penal norm and
the manner in which it should be held to be applicable in concrete
cases, taking into account the personal circumstances of the subjects
who take part in committing the offence.
2. As is known, Canon 1321 defines an
offence as an external violation of a law or precept, gravely imputable
by reason of malice or culpability. The canon adds that where there has
been an external violation, imputability is presumed, unless it appears
otherwise (Canon 1321 § 3). For the offence to exist, it suffices that
the offender know that he is violating a canonical law; it is not
necessary that he know that a penalty is attached to the canonical law.
Canon 1382 C.I.C. punishes with a latae sententiae
excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See the Bishop who without
the apostolic mandate consecrates someone as Bishop and also whoever
receives episcopal ordination in this way.
This offence violates
Catholic teaching confirmed, among other things, by the Dogmatic
Constitution Lumen Gentium, Nos. 22 and 24, and by the Decree Christus Dominus, No. 20, and included in Canon 377 § 1 C.I.C.: “The Supreme Pontiff freely appoints Bishops or confirms those lawfully elected” and in Canon 1013 C.I.C.:
“No Bishop is permitted to consecrate anyone as Bishop, unless it is
first established that a pontifical mandate has been issued”.
Canon 1382 C.I.C. is, first of all, a disciplinary norm of the Church which, as Canon 11 C.I.C.
indicates, holds only for the baptised members of the Catholic Church
or for those already received into it.
Furthermore, it corresponds to
the offence described in Canon 1459 § 2 of the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, even if there are no latae sententiae penalties in the penal tradition of those Churches, which is why the same penalty is inflicted ferendae sententiae.
3. The offence punished by Canon 1382 C.I.C.
is one committed both by the Bishop who consecrates and by the cleric
who is consecrated.
Furthermore, since episcopal consecration is a rite
in which it is usual that more ministers participate, those who assume
the responsibility of co-consecrators, that is, who lay hands and recite
the consecratory prayer in the ordination (cf. Caeremoniale Episcoporum,
Nos. 582 and 584), are co-agents of the offence and therefore equally
subject to the penal punishment. This interpretation has also been
confirmed by the tradition and recent practice of the Church.
4. However, with regard to the punishment of the offence, the penalty of excommunication stipulated by Canon 1382 C.I.C. is subject to the general conditions required by canon law for the effective and completely certain incurring of a latae sententiae punishment.
As is well known, apart from the general penal punishments inflicted ferendae sententiae
by the legitimate authority by means of a sentence or decree on the
conclusion of the corresponding penal procedures, the canonical system
also contains so-called “latae sententiae” penalties, which do
not depend on an external judge who inflicts them but only on the
committing of the offence, without prejudice to what is prescribed in
Canon 1324 § 3.
This Canon exempts from the specific latae sententiae
penalty if it is found that there are circumstances which, in
accordance with § 1 of the same Canon, though not excluding the penalty
as such, mitigate it. Canon 1324 § 3, in fact, specifies that the
offender does not incur the latae sententiae penalty if one of the circumstances listed in Canon 1324 § 1 is found to exist.
Hence, in the case of an episcopal consecration without the
apostolic mandate, each subject is to be considered singly and according
to his own personal circumstances as far as incurring the penalty of latae sententiae
excommunication reserved to the Holy See is concerned.
These personal
circumstances may be very different and, in some cases, may constitute
attenuating circumstances stipulated by the law.
In this regard, Canon
1324 § 1 C.I.C. points out that the heat of
passion, being a minor, grave fear, even if only relative, necessity,
unjust provocation, or ignorance of the canonical penalty, for example,
are attenuating circumstances which exclude the latae sententiae penalty in the forms indicated by the law.
Few of these circumstances may be found to exist in the offence
of consecration without a mandate.
There is, however, a set of
attenuating circumstances described in Canon 1324 § 1, 5° C.I.C.
which history has shown to be compatible with offences of this nature:
when the person, who committed the offence as the one ordaining or the
one ordained, was “compelled by grave fear, even if only relative, or by
reason of necessity or grave inconvenience”.
In the concrete case of an
episcopal consecration without the mandate, the attenuating
circumstance of grave fear or grave inconvenience (or the exempting one
of physical violence) must therefore be verified in relation to each of
the subjects who intervene in the rite: the consecrating ministers and
the consecrated clerics.
Each of these knows in his own heart the degree
of his personal involvement and right conscience will indicate to each
one whether he has incurred a latae sententiae penalty.
5. With regard to the canonical
responsibilities of the subjects involved in an episcopal consecration
without the necessary apostolic mandate the following, however, must be
added.
The external committing of an act punished by Canon 1382 C.I.C.
spontaneously provokes reactions among the faithful, including scandal
and confusion, which may in no way be underestimated and which call for
the Bishops involved to recover their authority through signs of
communion and penance, which can be appreciated by everyone and without
which “only with difficulty could a Bishop’s governance be accepted by
the People of God as a manifestation of the active presence of Christ in
his Church” (Pastores Gregis, No. 43).
Bishops, in fact, as the
Second Vatican Council teaches, govern the particular Churches entrusted
to them “by their counsel, exhortation and example” (Dogmatic
Constitution Lumen Gentium, No. 27; cf. Canon 387 C.I.C.).
Furthermore, we recall that Canon 1331 § 1 C.I.C. points
out that the excommunicated person is prohibited from 1) taking part as
a minister in the celebration of the Eucharist or any other ceremony of
public worship; 2) celebrating sacraments and sacramentals, and
receiving any sacrament; 3) exercising ecclesiastical ministerial
functions or acts of government.
These prohibitions enter into effect ipso iure at the very moment in which a latae sententiae
penalty is incurred.
Hence, there is no necessity for any authority to
intervene to impose these prohibitions on the subject: awareness of
having committed an offence suffices for the person who has incurred the
punishment to be held before God to abstain from such acts, on pain of
committing a morally illicit and therefore sacrilegious act.
However,
even acts derived from the power of order and carried out in these
circumstances of sacrilege would be valid.
6. Obviously, all that precedes does
not exclude the possibility, in cases of episcopal ordination without
the papal mandate, of the Holy See’s finding itself in the position of
having directly to inflict censures on the subject, for example, were an
attitude incompatible with the requirements of communion to be shown by
his successive behaviour or reluctance to provide the necessary
explanations about the degree of his involvement in the offence.
Furthermore, on obtaining new and certain information, the Holy See
could even find itself having to declare the latae sententiae
excommunication or impose other punishments or penances, were this
necessary in order to repair the scandal, dissipate the confusion of the
faithful and, more generally, safeguard ecclesiastical discipline (cf.
Canon 1341).
The penalty of latae sententiae excommunication stipulated by Canon 1382 C.I.C. is
a censure reserved to the Holy See. As a censure, it is a so-called
“medicinal” penalty, because its aim is to move the offender to repent:
once he has demonstrated that he has sincerely repented, he acquires the
right to be absolved from the excommunication.
Furthermore, since it is
reserved to the Holy See, the repentant offender can approach only to
the Holy See to obtain absolution from the excommunication and be
reconciled with the Church.
From the Vatican, 6 June 2011
+ Francesco Coccopalmerio, President
+ Juan Ignacio Arrieta, Secretary