The past weeks have examined general canonical penal norms, particularly regarding ecclesiastical funerals, the right to self-defence, and the loss of ecclesiastical office. The coming weeks will focus on some particular delicts. A fundamental question is: Is everyone who comes to the Church or who is baptised bound by canonical penal norms? This is the focus of today’s post.
The first is the first canon of the 1983 Code, which states that the canons of the code “concern only the Latin Church” (Can. 1). The next is canon 11, which provides that “merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who were baptised in the catholic Church or received into it, and who have a sufficient use of reason and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, who have completed their seventh year of age”. The adjective ‘merely’ means that the laws in question do not concern divine natural or divine positive laws that are declarations or interpretations of divine law and bind even the unbaptised.
Instead, merely ecclesiastical laws are those whose sole source is the legislative authority of the Catholic Church. They only bind those baptised in the Catholic Church or received into it. These laws still bind non-practising Catholics or those who defect to another Church because of the indelible mark of baptism, which means that ‘once a Catholic, always a Catholic’ (semel catholicus, semper catholicus).
Another category is those who have completed their seventh year of age, except the law provides otherwise. Penal canonical laws are examples where the law provides otherwise. Canon 1322 affirms that “those who habitually lack the use of reason, even though they appeared sane when they violated a law or precept, are deemed incapable of committing an offence.” This law speaks of the incapacity to commit an offence because these people habitually lack the use of reason irrespective of their chronological age. Examples include those with Down Syndrome.
Furthermore, while canon 1322 identifies those deemed incapable of committing an offence, canon 1323 identifies categories of persons capable of committing an offence but exempted from penalties. Canon 1323 states:
“No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept: 1° has not completed the sixteenth year of age; 2° was, without fault, ignorant of violating the law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance; 3° acted under physical force, or under the impetus of a chance occurrence which the person could not foresee or if foreseen could not avoid; 4° acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls; 5° acted, within the limits of due moderation, in lawful self-defence or defence of another against an unjust aggressor; 6° lacked the use of reason, without prejudice to the provisions of cann. 1324 §1, n. 2 and 1326 §1, n. 4; 7° thought, through no personal fault, that some one of the circumstances existed which are mentioned in nn. 4 or 5.”
Canon 1324 §1 identifies those who can commit an offence and are not exempt from penalty. However, the penalty must be diminished or substituted with a penance. They include those who had only an imperfect use of reason, one who was lacking the use of reason because of culpable drunkenness or other mental disturbance of a similar kind, one who acted in the heat of passion provided that the passion itself had not been deliberately stimulated or nourished, a minor who has completed the sixteenth year of age, one who was compelled by grave fear, one who acted in lawful self-defence or defence of another against an unjust aggressor, one who acted against another person who was gravely and unjustly provocative.
On the other hand, certain circumstances require inflicting a more serious punishment than that prescribed in the law. They include obstinacy of the offender in continuing in the offence even after being condemned or punished, “a person who is established in some position of dignity, or who, in order to commit a crime, has abused a position of authority or an office,” one who foresaw a situation but did not take precaution to avoid it, one who deliberately got drunk or intoxicated in order to commit an offence (cf. Can. 1326).
Finally, the maxim goes that ignorance of the law excuses no one (ignorantia legis neminem excusat).
However, in line with the purpose of penal law of restoring justice, reforming the offender and repairing scandal(Can. 1311 §2), canon law is among the few legal systems where ignorance can affect the judgment for a violation of a law. First, ignorance can exempt one from a penalty.
Canon 1323 1° provides that one is exempt from penalty for an offence committed if the person “was, without fault, ignorant of violating the law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance.” Inadvertence means “an unintentional omission resulting from failure to notice something.” Second, ignorance could diminish the penalty to be imposed on an offender. Canon 1324 §1, 9° states that the penalty is diminished for “one who through no personal fault was unaware that a penalty was attached to the law or precept.”
Nevertheless, when the ignorance is crass, supine, or affected, ignorance would be irrelevant and disregarded (cf. Can. 1325). Crass ignorance means “gross ignorance about what a reasonable person should know”. Supine ignorance is “a careless indifference to knowing what other persons regard as necessary knowledge”. Affected ignorance is one “deliberately cultivated to excuse a legal violation.”
Next week’s post focuses on prescription in canon law, and the subsequent week begins discussions on particular delicts, especially as they play out within the Nigerian context. Please contact me if there are particular delicts that you would like me to discuss in my posts.
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️
