[1] Initially, excommunication was the general term for all disciplinary measures used against delinquent Church members, with various forms corresponding to different levels of communion within Christian society.
Some Church goods, such as prayer, sacraments, attendance at the Holy Sacrifice, and Christian burial, were common to all members, while others were specific to various clerical grades.
The Church adopted this terminology in its early years to describe various forms of punishment, including public penances, excommunications, and, for clerics, suspension or degradation.
By the beginning of the thirteenth century, although not explicitly stated in the Decretals, the term 'censure' had come to refer to a specific category of ecclesiastical penalties: interdict, suspension, and excommunication.
Pope Innocent III, who in 1200 had used the term 'censure' for punishment in general,[Note 2] later, in 1214, clarified its meaning in a response concerning ecclesiastical censure in pontifical documents.
Vindictive punishments (poenæ vindicativæ), while not excluding the possibility of reforming the delinquent, were primarily intended to restore justice or societal order by imposing positive suffering.
Importantly, the irregularity arising from a crime is neither a censure nor a vindictive punishment; it is a canonical impediment that prevents individuals from fulfilling the sacred ministry, thus prohibiting the reception or exercise of holy orders.
The Roman Inquisition clarified in 1884 that this formality was not required in the case of notorious excommunicates vitandi due to sacrilegious violence against clerics.
Martin V's declaration was intended to benefit the broader community of the faithful, allowing them to interact with tolerated excommunicates (tolerati) as if they were not censured, due to the changing social conditions.
In 1869, Pope Pius X made substantial modifications to ecclesiastical discipline concerning censures through his constitution Apostolicae Sedis moderationi.
From its inception, the Church has exercised this authority to enforce its laws, as demonstrated by St. Paul’s actions against the incestuous Corinthian[Note 4] and against Hymeneus and Alexander.
Therefore, in dealing with delinquent members, the Church primarily seeks their correction and reformation, aiming for the sinner’s return to God and the salvation of their soul.
While this is the primary objective of Church penalties, other outcomes often follow, such as setting an example for the rest of the faithful and preserving Christian society.
Consequently, the Church prefers censures, which are medicinal or remedial in nature, over vindictive punishments, which are reserved for cases where little or no hope remains for the sinner’s reformation.
[1] The primary and immediate goal of censures is to overcome contumacy or wilful stubbornness, guiding the offender to a better understanding of their spiritual condition.
However, censures do not deprive individuals of grace or of the private prayers and good works of the faithful, as the eternal communion of saints remains intact due to the indelible character of baptism.
Interdict prevents clerics or laypersons from passively accessing certain ecclesiastical goods related to sacred matters (res sacræ) or communal participation, such as receiving certain sacraments or Christian burial.
Here, it is important to distinguish between a law, which is an enactment with permanent and perpetual binding force, and a mere command or precept, which is usually temporary in obligation and lapses with the death of the superior who issued it.
On the other hand, censures ab homine (by man) are those imposed by the sentence, command, or specific precept of a judge, such as a bishop, in contrast to the law mentioned above.
In other words, the delinquent automatically incurs the penalty upon breaking the law, and the censure binds the conscience immediately, without the need for a trial or judicial sentence.
Since they have been found guilty in foro externo, the censure has valid effects in that forum and must be observed externally to avoid scandal and maintain good discipline.
As mentioned earlier, St. Alphonsus and subsequent authors argue that censures may, secondarily, have a punitive and deterrent purpose, and from this perspective, they may be imposed for a specific period.
Vicars-general and delegated judges, lacking legislative power, can only impose censures ab homine, not a jure, in order to uphold and protect their authority, such as enforcing the execution of a judicial decree.
In such cases, this would not be a censure in the proper sense but rather a penal deprivation; once a person ceases to be a member of the community, they would no longer be subject to the penalty.
(2) In the forum externum, absolution can only be granted by those with the required judicial power, such as the person who imposed the censure, their successor, delegate, or superior (e.g., the pope).
It is also given ad cautelam (for safety) in all rescripts, Bulls, and Apostolic privileges to ensure that the effects of the concession are not impeded by some hidden censure.
Additionally, there is absolution ad reincidentiam, which takes immediate effect but results in the person incurring, ipso facto, the same kind of censure from which they were just absolved if they fail to do something prescribed within a certain time.
established that a bishop, or someone delegated by him, may absolve in foro conscientiæ and in his diocese his subjects from these censures when the crime is hidden and not notorious or when it has not been brought before a judicial tribunal.
By bishops, this also refers to abbots with ecclesiastical territory, vicars capitular, and others with episcopal jurisdiction, but not to vicars-general based on their general commission or regular prelates.
At the point of death (in articulo mortis), any priest, even one who is not approved, can absolve from all censures, and all absolutions from them are governed by the provisions of the papal Constitution Apostolicæ Sedis Moderationi (Pius IX, 1869).