Images de page
PDF
ePub

the sin to which it leads, belong to the same category of malice.

Under the heading Quando, Lugo discusses the famous question whether a new specific malice is added to a sin, owing to the fact that it is committed on a Sunday or on a feast of Our Blessed Lady or of one of the saints. Many authors of note hold that such an aggravation of the sin amounts to an additional specific malice; and consequently, that if the sin in itself be mortal, there is a grave obligation to disclose the fact that it was committed on a day specially consecrated to the service of God. Alexander of Hales, St. Antoninus, Sotus, and many of the older theologians hold this view. St. Augustine even is quoted in favour of it; but the passage from him that is generally relied on is certainly not conclusive. It is to the effect that those who are doing useful, though unnecessary, work on the Sabbath are less blameworthy than those who engage in dangerous amusements on that day.

[ocr errors]

2

[ocr errors]

non

But St. Thomas undoubtedly inclines towards it where he says that: Magis homo impeditur a rebus divinis per opus peccati, quam per opus licitum, quamvis sit corporale; ideo magis contra hoc praeceptum agit qui peccat in die festo, quam qui aliud corporale opus licitum facit autem qui peccat venialiter in Sabbato, contra hoc praeceptum facit. And the Council of Constance seems to teach this doctrine clearly where it says that 'bis peccat, qui diem Dominicum scortis, rixis, et pugnis, et aliis obscoenis agit.'

But, on the other hand, in modern times, scarcely any one holds the severe opinion in this matter, unless the sin be committed in circumstances specially indicative, not merely of forgetfulness of what is due to the worship of God, but of downright and deliberate disrespect towards it.

Thus very many, as Suarez, St. Alphonsus, and Medina, deny, without any qualification, that an additional, or serious additional, malice attaches to a sinful act from the fact that it takes place on a Sunday or holiday. While others are prepared to admit, if a heinous sin, especially if it is a sin against holy purity, be committed on Good Friday or on the day one has gone to Holy Communion, that it would be endued with a twofold malice. Others again hold that it is sins that are directly opposed to the proper worship

1n. 515.

2 Apud Lugo, loc. cit.

3 Summa Theologica, 2a 2ae q. cxxii. art. iv. in corp.

of God, such as denying the faith or attending false worship, that contract a new mortal malice from being committed on Sunday.

As for Lugo himself, he says that the solution of the question does not depend on whether or not one is bound to declare notably aggravating circumstances in confession. Because, if it be admitted that the circumstance of time in the case is a notably aggravating one, this special heinousness is of a different species from the main sin on which it is consequent; and so constitutes a new and quite distinct mortal sin. If, for instance, injustice committed on Sunday is notably worse than if it were committed on any other day, this serious aggravation is not in the category of sins against justice, but must be classed with those against religion.

Coming to close quarters with the case, Lugo holds1 that it is undeniable that unless ignorance or inadvertence intervene, the guilt of a special venial sin of sacrilege is incurred by one who commits a mortal sin on Sunday, just as if he committed it in a sacred place. But, on the other hand, he does not believe that as a rule this sin of sacrilege is a mortal one, and so necessary matter for confession. And his first reason is that penitents never think of disclosing such a circumstance, nor do confessors ever ask them about it. Moreover, he says, that if the rigorous opinion were well-founded, an increase in the number of holidays would, in practice and taking people as we find them, mean that the number of mortal sins would be increased. And, thirdly, he holds that analogy with the teaching concerning irreverence towards a sacred place favours the mild view. Because it is only a certain class of sins that contract a new and serious specific malice by being committed in a sacred place. And in the same way the commission of an ordinary sin on a day specially devoted to the service of God does not seem to entail any notable irreverence towards the day, unless it be the outcome of contempt or of a deliberate desire of profaning such a day. And, of course, even actions that are of themselves indifferent become mortally sinful if they are the conse quence of a grossly sacrilegious intention of the kind. Such would be the holding of sports, plays, or ludicra spectacula on Good Friday.2

[blocks in formation]

DAVID BARRY.

NOTES AND QUERIES

THEOLOGY

MODIFICATIONS OF THE NEW CANON LAW CODE

FAST AND ABSTINENCE

By a Motu proprio dated the 15th of September last, and published on the 1st of October in the official bulletin,1 His Holiness emphasized the necessity of preventing the stability of so great a work [the new Code] being endangered by the uncertain opinions and conjectures of private individuals regarding the genuine meaning of the canons, or by the varied character of the new laws themselves.' To meet the danger he adopted the following precautions :—

2

1o. In accordance with the precedent set by his predecessors in establishing the Congregation of the Council for interpreting the laws of Trent, he established a new Commission, whose exclusive right it will be-after consulting, in matters of graver moment, the various Congregations primarily concerned-to give an authentic interpretation of the new canons. The Commission is to consist of Cardinals selected by the Pope (one of them to act as President), of a Secretary, and of Consultors. The latter, also, are to be appointed by the Pope, from the ranks of Canon Law clerical experts, Secular and Religious; but the Commission may call for advice from any of the special Consultors attached to the separate Congregations. In the subsequent issue of the bulletin, the appointments are announced. Most of the names are familiar to our readers. Cardinal Gasparri is President. He is supported by Cardinals De Lai, Pompili, Van Rossum, Bisleti, Guistini, and Lega. They were all members of the Committee that compiled the new Code. So, by the way, were Cardinals Vannutelli and Martinelli-as well as Cardinals Ferrata, Gennari, Cavicchioni, Vives y Tuto and Cavagnis, who have died since. the work was begun. The Secretary is Monsignor Sincero. And in the list of Consultors we notice such well-known names as Sebastianelli, Many, Lucidi, Boudinhon, Ojetti, and—the most interesting for us, and most welcome-that of one of the ex-members of the Maynooth College staff, Monsignor Salvatore Luzio.

2o. For the future, the Roman Congregations are not to issue any new general decree, unless some grave necessity affecting the whole Church suggests the contrary. Their activity will, as a rule, be confined to seeing that the Code is strictly observed, and to issuing

1 Acta Ap. Sedis, v. 9, n. 10, pp. 483-4. Owing to the delay in the publication of the November issue, we were unaware that the document had been already referred to (pp. 421-2).

2 Ibid., n. 11 (2nd November, 1917), p. 558.

'Instructions' that will throw light on its canons and make them more effective. These documents are to be drawn up in such a way that anyone can at once identify them as being what they are intended to be explanatory of, or complementary to, the law already in existence and can insert them in the proper context.

3°. If a new general decree is to be issued, under the pressure of some such necessity as above mentioned, the Congregation concerned is to draw it up, and, in case it differs from the Code, to do so in such a way that, by its very wording, the Pope is made aware of the discrepancy. When the decree has secured Pontifical approval, it is to be presented to the Commission: and the latter will modify, in accordance with its tenor, the canon or canons (of the Code) that it affects. If it is incom. patible with the prescriptions of the Code, the Commission is to indicate which canon of the Code is to give way in its favour. If it deals with some matter or other about which the Code says nothing, the duty of the Commission will be to name the canon of the Code after which the prescriptions of the new decree are to be inserted. In this case, the number of the canon is to be repeated once or twice or as many times as are necessary-the object being to preserve the numbers as we have them in the Code already, and to prevent the confusion that would result from a change. When all this has been done, the modification is to be promulgated in the official bulletin.

The opinions and conjectures of private individuals' are, therefore, to be held in check rather strictly for the future. That, we may admit, will be all for the best. They have not had much time yet to bring themselves into evidence: at least there is no indication that they have come under the notice of the Roman authorities, and we have no list of approbations or condemnations to chronicle. But there have been modifications all the same emanating, strange to say, from the Roman authorities themselves. In the course of an interview granted by His Holiness to Cardinal Gasparri on the 17th of October, orders were given for the correction of some two dozen mistakes that 'had crept into the official edition of the Code.' 1

The document is given on a subsequent page. We need not discuss the various corrections: it would involve an exposition of the canons in which they occur, and that would bring us too far afield. Anyhow, it would be so much lost time just now; very few of our readers, we understand, have got copies of the Code yet, and the text of each canon, without the context, would convey very little. Moreover-the chief pointthe modifications are nearly all of slight importance. If the reader carefully marks the list for future reference-as we would advise him to do he will find, when he gets his copy of the Code, that the changes for the most part are only those demanded by the context, common sense, or the other canons of the Code.

But there is one of which that cannot be said, and which we are not excused from mentioning on any of the grounds just stated. It refers

1 Acta Ap. Sedis, v. 9, n. 11, p. 557.

2 Vide infra, p. 515.

to the law of fast and abstinence, in connexion with which the canons were published in the I. E. RECORD of October last,1 and some remarks of our own in the subsequent issue.2

Canon 1252 of the Code prescribes, as will be remembered :

1°. Abstinence on all Fridays.

2°. Abstinence and fast on certain week-days of Lent, on Quarter Tense days, and on certain vigils.

[ocr errors]

3°. Fast alone on all the other days of Lent.'

And then it goes on to state (§ 4) that on Sundays and feasts of precept' all these laws-fast, abstinence, or both combined-cease. 'Diebus dominicis vel festis de praecepto lex abstinentiae, vel abstinentiae et jejunii, vel jejunii tantum cessat, etc.'

The Motu proprio of July 2nd, 1911, had stated the same in regard to feast-days: 'quod si in aliquod ex festis quae servata volumus, dies incidat abstinentiae vel jejunio consecratus, ab utroque dispensamus, etc.' As for Sundays, the rule had always been that, though they were days of abstinence in Lent, they were never, in Lent or at any other time, days of fast. We were, therefore, of opinion that-apart from the regulation about Holy Saturday, and the abolition of Sunday abstinence in Lent and of the anticipated fast on certain Saturdays—the fourth section of canon 1252 had introduced no new arrangement, and we gave it no special prominence. And, we must say that, had we been asked expressly for our view on the matter, we should have claimed that, according to the law now in force, all Sundays and feasts of preceptwhether they occur in Lent or at any other season-should be exempt from both laws, fast and abstinence.

[ocr errors]

Had we expressed such an opinion, we should have to withdraw it now. Among the corrections of errors that crept in,' we find mention made of a little clause that must, at some time or other, have crept out. According to the document referred to above, canon 1252, § 4, must now read, Diebus dominicis vel festis de praecepto lex abstinentiae, vel abstinentiae et jejunii, vel jejunii tantum cessat, excepto tempore Quadragesimae, etc.' The italics are ours, and they mark the new clause. In view of previous laws, it would be difficult to say when exactly it crept out: the important thing for us is that it has crept in again.

What does it mean? As it stands, it obviously qualifies 'diebus dominicis vel festis de praecepto,' and seems to imply that all Sundays and feasts of precept falling in Lent remain subject to whatever law-fast or abstinence-the two previous paragraphs prescribe. Taking first the case of the Sundays, we find that, while the second paragraph enjoins fast and abstinence on certain week-days (feriae) of Lent, the third prescribes a fast on all the other days' (dies). Are the Sundays 'days' (dies)? It would seem very strange to claim

1 Page 344.

2 November, 1917, pp. 353-66.

[ocr errors]

3 See I. E. RECORD (Sept., 1911), Fourth Series, vol. xxx. pp. 329-330. 4 I. E. RECORD, Nov., 1917, p. 359.

« PrécédentContinuer »