|
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 Mt. 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 (Article 2, ad 3).
Reply to Objection 2: Jerome is speaking of sin not of its
punishments, which can be inflicted unjustly by ecclesiastical
superiors.
|
|