“But if the wicked turn away from all their sins that they have committed and keep all my statutes and do what is lawful and right, they shall surely live; they shall not die” (Ezekiel 18:21)
The last weeks have focused on the first principle that influenced the 1983 Code of Canon Law in line with the spirituality of canon law. Today’s post begins the discussions on the second principle, which reads: “There is to be a coordination between the external forum and the internal forum, which is proper to the Church and has been operative for centuries, so as to preclude any conflict between the two.”
Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is divided into two: internal and external forums. The internal forum focuses on “questions concerning the welfare of individual Christians and with their relationship with God” Since it concerns the private sphere of a person’s interior life and relationship with God, it is also called the forum of conscience (forum conscientiae) or the forum of heaven (forum poli).
The internal forum is further divided into two. The first is the sacramental or penitential forum, wherein one receives absolution in the sacrament of penance. The second is the extra-penitential forum, which concerns all other private needs of the faithful that are resolved privately outside of sacramental confession. In this second dimension, censures are remitted, occult impediments to marriage, sacred order, and vows are dispensed. The external forum considers matters that concern the public and social good of the Church, stemming from an individual’s outward, observable actions and behaviours.
To understand the need for coordination between the two forums, one must know the distinction between sin (moral) and a delict (juridical)— the two dimensions of an offence. Sin is a moral transgression against God, “an offence against reason, truth, and right conscience” (CCC, 1849) and can be in thoughts, words, deeds, or omissions as seen in the Confiteor at Mass. On the other hand, a delict is a violation of an ecclesiastical law, and it must be externally observable (realistic element), morally imputable by negligence or malice (subjective element), and must have been previously established in law (objective element) (cf. Can. 2195 §1 CIC 17).
The realistic element of a delict corresponding to the principle of materiality is the main distinguishing factor between a delict and a sin. The “principle of materiality” states that nullum crimen sine actione (no offence without an action), that is, the delict must be an observable action or inaction. Hence, while we sin against God through thoughts, words, deeds, or omissions, a delict excludes evil thoughts because they are not observable external violations. When an evil thought is executed, it becomes a sinful deed, and as long as the competent authority has previously established it (objective element), it becomes a delict, too.
Therefore, an offence can both be a sin and a delict. However, while an offence can be a sin and not a delict, it is rare for a delict not to be a sin.
An example of an offence that is only sinful is an evil thought. However, while wilful homicide, such as abortion, is a sin (fifth commandment) and a delict (cf. Can. 1397 §2), manslaughter (a criminal offence in civil law), without previous negligence or malice, is only a delict but not a sin. This is because the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that three conditions must be met together for a sin to be mortal: grave matter, full knowledge, and complete consent (cf. CCC, 1857-1859). There is no full knowledge and complete consent in cases of manslaughter. Profanation of the Eucharist is another instance where the offence is both a sin (CCC, 2120) and a delict (Can. 1382). Sexual acts outside of marriage are sinful. However, they only become delictual when done with a minor, vulnerable adult or those to whom the law recognises equal protection (Can. 1398). These explain the words of the prophet Ezekiel cited above about an offence being “lawful and right.” Lawfulness concerns the delictual dimension, while rightness concerns the sinful dimension of an offence.
Remission of sins is done through sacramental confessions when the penitent receives the penance and is absolved. Delicts are punished with penalties, which are remitted at the expiry of the period of punishment or when the Ordinary who imposed them or another competent authority suspends them. Remission can be done in the internal or external forum. Therefore, to promote the holistic salvation of souls, the current law coordinates the external and internal forums to preclude any conflict between the two.
There are various instances of this coordination. The first is the establishment of the office of the canon penitentiary, wherein the priest has the ordinary faculties, which he cannot delegate to others, to absolve in the sacramental forum latae sententiae censures, which have not been declared and are not reserved to the Holy See. Within his diocese, the canon penitentiary can absolve his diocesans and outsiders. He can also absolve his diocesans outside of the territory of the diocese (cf. Can. 508 §1). ‘Latae sententiae’ simply means ‘already given’. Censures—excommunication, interdict and suspension—are called medicinal penalties; like medicine, they are meant to cure the sick. Therefore, when some grave delicts are committed, the medicinal penalty is given automatically (imposed) without needing a trial, even if no one knows about it. The reason is that certain offences that require punishment can be committed secretly, even though no one knows about them. However, although a penalty has been imposed automatically, it is also necessary to declare it. The declaration of the penalty comes with the execution of the sentence. The declaration of the penalty is why a penal trial is necessary.
Delicts punishable with latae sententiae censures (excommunication) but reserved to the Apostolic See are profanation of the consecrated species (Can. 1367), using of physical force against the pope (Can. 1370 §1), a priest who, when not in the danger of death, absolves a partner in a sin against the sixth commandment (Can. 1384), the direct violation of the sacramental seal (Can. 1386 §1), consecrating a bishop without a pontifical mandate (Can. 1387).
Therefore, since censures are penalties for a delict, and the realistic element of a delict is that it must be an external and observable action or inaction, the diocesan canon penitentiary can absolve undeclared and unreserved delicts during confession. This is a clear example of the coordination between the internal and external forums, which enables the remission of sin and delict and helps the offender reconcile with God. Other instances include retroactive validation of marriages (sanatio in radice) and sanation of juridical acts.
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️
