[Question:]{.underline} Does the Pope’s repeating that a latae sententiae excommunication has been incurred make it ferendae sententiae?
[Answer:]{.underline} This canonical question has become of interest on account of the illegal consecrations of bishops performed by the schismatic patriotic church in China on April 30 and May 2, 2006, condemned by Pope Benedict XVI.
There is a fundamental difference between the two types of canonical censure, as described in Canon 1314 of the 1983 Code and Canon 2217 of the 1917 Code. A penalty is generally to be understood as ferendae sententiae unless it is expressly stated to be latae sententiae. Ferendae sententiae means that it must be inflicted by a judge or superior to take its effect, whereas latae sententiae means that the penalty is imposed automatically or ipso facto by the law. In the case of a latae sententiae penalty there is consequently no need of a judicial condemnation or even declaration by the legitimate superior. However, it is always possible for the legitimate superior to add his own personal sanction to the automatic one by following a process of judicial condemnation, thus making the censure ab homine and not just a iure---that is, a sanction imposed by the legitimate superior himself, and not just by the law.
The Chinese bishops who consecrated the new bishops, as well as the new bishops who were consecrated, both incurred an automatic ipso facto latae sententiae excommunication in virtue of Canon 1382 of the 1983 Code. Rome made this official statement concerning this event on May 4, 2006: “The Holy Father learned with profound distress of the news, as such an important act for the life of the Church as is an episcopal ordination, was carried out in both cases without respecting the needs of communion with the Pope. It is a serious blow to the unity of the Church, which calls for, as is known, severe canonical sanctions” (cf. Canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law*).*
However, this statement does not change the nature of the latae sententiae penalty, but is simply a reminder of the penalties foreseen by the law itself. The pope does not, alas, mention it, but these bishops and priests were already excommunicated for a much more fundamental reason. This act of schism was not something new, but simply the continuation of their adhesion to a schismatic sect, the communist-controlled Patriotic church of China. The very fact of membership in such a schismatic sect, that publicly refuses communion with the pope and the Roman Church, incurs an ipso facto latae sententiae excommunication, as is clearly stated in canon 1364 of the 1983 Code and Canon 2314 of the 1917 Code. This latest crime (the consecration of bishops) against the Church’s discipline is much less in gravity than the previous one of schism, not being necessarily and directly against the Church’s Faith and unity as is schism. Here lies the canonical difference between these consecrations and those performed by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988, done out of fidelity to the papacy, in full communion, as an operation survival in a state of necessity that exempts from all canonical penalties (cf. Canon 1323, §4 of the 1983 Code).
What is more, it was very disappointing to read of the pope’s attempting to exculpate and excuse these schismatics from the censure they have rightly incurred. This is what the Press Statement has to say: “According to the information received, Bishops and priests were subjected---by entities outside the Church---to heavy pressure and threats, so that they would take part in the episcopal ordinations which, lacking pontifical mandate, are illegitimate and, furthermore, contrary to their conscience…” I do not deny the fact, nor that according to the letter of Canon 1324, §5, nor that such bishops, if compelled by grave fear, may not indeed have incurred this excommunication at all. However, the point to be remembered is that this schismatic church has existed for 55 years, and that no amount of fear can possibly excuse a Catholic for abandoning the true Catholic Church and falling into schism by joining this church. The innumerable martyrs and faithful Catholics, members of the underground church, are the proof that such fidelity is both possible and necessary. The members of the Patriotic church are excommunicated for schism and in danger of eternal damnation if they do not convert. If Rome had said this, rather than deploring “a serious violation of religious freedom,” it might have done something to bring an end to this scandalous schism.
Answered by Father Peter Scott, SSPX.