Last week’s post argued that an ecclesiastical funeral should be granted to a deceased who was in an irregular marriage situation as long as the person showed signs of repentance before death. Two weeks ago, the post argued that non-clearance-based denial of ecclesiastical funeral infringes on the deceased’s ecclesial right as a baptised. Nevertheless, it concluded that before proceeding with such funerals, the parish priest should consider and adopt a pastoral approach that balances the implications of the funeral on the unity of the Christian community and his own welfare. Following this, today’s post considers whether denying ecclesiastical funerals could be a canonical penalty for non-clearance of debts.
Denying an ecclesiastical funeral was previously a penal sanction for a person’s conduct. However, as canonical penal law evolved, it is no longer a penalty. Apostasy, heresy and schism are offences punished with excommunication (Can. 1364 §1). Canon 1184 §1 provides that notorious apostates, heretics, and schismatics are to be denied ecclesiastical funeral. Denying them a funeral is because, by their offence, they withdrew from full communion with the Church (cf. Can. 205). Considering that an ecclesiastical funeral is a liturgical celebration of the Church through which the Church aims to express efficacious communion with the deceased, participation in that communion of the community gathered, and proclamation of eternal life to the community (CCC, 1684), it is opportune to exclude them from an ecclesiastical funeral.
Today’s analysis is based on two foundations: penal law in general and the canonical penal process.
First, a penalty is a punishment for an offence, also called a delict (delictum). Unlike the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the 1983 Code does not define a delict. The 1917 code states: “Nomine delicti, iure ecclesiastico, intelligitur externa et moraliter imputabilis legis violatio cui addita sit sanctio canonica saltem indeterminate” (Can. 2195 §1 CIC 17), which means that the term delict in ecclesiastical law is understood as an external and morally imputable violation of a law to which a canonical sanction, at least an indeterminate one, is attached. This definition is proper to canon law and, thus, will not fit in properly with other legal systems.
Canon 1311 of the 1983 Code affirms that the purpose of penal law and imposing penalties is to restore justice, reform the offender, and repair scandal. Canon 1321 §2 states, “No one can be punished unless the commission by him or her of an external violation of a law or precept is gravely imputable by reason of malice or of culpability.”
The various principles of penal law are instructive in evaluating non-payment of debts as a delict. The “offence principle” states that nullum crimen sine iniuria. This entails that the act must be wrong and lead to harm. One can argue that the non-payment of dues and levies is wrong and causes injury since it affects the Church’s finances. The “principle of materiality” states that nullum crimen sine actione, that is, the delict must be an observable action or inaction. Non-payment of dues is an observable inaction.
The “principle of legality” states that nullum crimen et nulla poena sine lege praevia. In other words, for an act to be a canonical delict and for one to be punished for it, there must have been a law or precept established by a competent ecclesiastical authority designating that action or inaction as an offence.
Canon 222 §1 states that the “Christian faithful are obliged to assist with the needs of the Church so that the Church has what is necessary for divine worship, for the works of the apostolate and of charity, and for the decent support of ministers.” Canon 1262 provides that “the faithful are to give support to the Church by responding to appeals and according to the norms issued by the conference of bishops.”
However, while canon law regulates how the Church acquires goods, there are no laws providing that the inability to pay dues and levies is to be punished with deprivation of sacraments or sacramentals. This is unsurprising because Christ willed that the Church fundamentally depends on the free support of the faithful. Such penalties would also contradict the purpose of imposing canonical penalties and undermine the salvation of souls. Moreover, certain variables affect people’s ability to meet their financial obligations. Therefore, legislating on this would create more problems than it would solve.
The “principle of subjectivity” affirms that nullum crimen sine culpa, that is, the grave imputability for violating a law or precept by reason of malice or negligence (cf. Can 1321 §2). Certain variables affect people’s ability to meet their financial obligations. Hence, not all cases of inability to pay happen out of malice or negligence. More importantly, the common issue regarding clearance does not mean the deceased did not pay. Instead, it means the deceased did not pay levies in the village parish. The deceased’s contribution to other projects in the village parish is sometimes not considered, and contributions made to the parish of domicile are considered irrelevant.
The second aspect is the analysis based on the canonical penal procedure. Canon 1321 states: §1 “Any person is considered innocent until the contrary is proved.” §4 “Where there has been an external violation, imputability is presumed, unless it appears otherwise.” Hence, the presumption of innocence (Paragraph one) is the primary principle guiding penal law, while the presumption of imputability (paragraph four) is the subordinate principle.
Consequently, the technical nomenclature of the active subject (the one subjected to a penal process) changes at various stages of the canonical process. The active subject is called a “suspect” before the preliminary investigation begins. At this moment, the subject does not know that he or she will be investigated. When the preliminary investigation begins and the subject is alerted that he or she is under investigation, the subject becomes the “investigated” (investigatus), better translated into English as the “suspect”. If the subject is still under consideration at the end of the preliminary investigation, a formal act of denunciation is made (cf. Can. 1718 §1). From this moment, the subject is called the “accused” (accusatus). Finally, at the end of the procedural journey, the subject is called the “offender” (reus) if there is a definitive condemnatory sentence.
Therefore, an accused has an indispensable right to defence in every penal trial because the subject is not an offender (reus) until declared as such. Canon 1725 affirms that the accused “always has the right to write or speak last.” The Eastern Code states that “every penal action is extinguished by the death of the accused” (Can. 1152 §1 CCEO). This means that the death of the accused terminates the entire process because when the active subject is dead, the subject’s right to defence is not realisable. Penalties imposed on an offender also cease at the offender’s death.
Therefore, current canonical penal law does not include the denial of ecclesiastical funerals among any penal sanctions category. Censures such as excommunication and interdict only deprive one of receiving the sacraments, but never the sacramentals such as ecclesiastical funerals (cf. Can. 1331 §1, n. 2).
While talking about those to be denied ecclesiastical funerals, canon 1184 §1 begins: “Unless they gave some signs of repentance before death, the following must be deprived of ecclesiastical funerals.” Moreover, in no case does non-payment constitute an offence to be punished with deprivation of sacraments or sacramentals. Priests or those administering Church funds who refuse to remit funds to the diocese or religious community are deprived of their office, prohibited from residence or exercise of the power of order or governance, and are bound to repair the harm caused by non-payment (cf. canon 1376 §2, n.2).
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️
