Last week’s post explored charity and humaneness, elements of the third principle that influenced the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Today’s post focuses on other elements of the third principle: temperance and moderation.
Temperance is the “moral virtue that moderates the attraction of pleasures and provides balance in the use of created goods. It ensures the will’s mastery over instincts and keeps desires within the limits of what is honourable” (CCC, 1809). Hence, one with temperance possesses self-control and a calm, well-balanced mind.
Moderation generally refers to the practice of doing something within reasonable limits by avoiding extremes and maintaining balance. It is often understood as the quality of exercising restraint and self-control in various aspects of life so that actions, choices, or expressions remain within reasonable limits.
As a recap, the third principle reads: “To foster the pastoral care of souls as much as possible, the new law, besides the virtue of justice, is to take cognisance of charity, temperance, humaneness and moderation, whereby equity is to be pursued not only in the application of the laws by pastors of souls but also in the legislation itself. Hence, unduly rigid norms are to be set aside and rather recourse is to be taken to exhortations and persuasions where there is no need of a strict observance of the law on account of the public good and general ecclesiastical discipline.”
The concentration of ecclesiastical power in the hands of superiors makes it easy for them to be very vindictive, which undermines the holiness journey of the superiors themselves (letting anger lead them to sin) and the subordinates (ruining their lives). Therefore, the virtues of temperance and moderation are essential to the spirituality of canon law because they help superiors develop self-control and self-restraint, which keep their vindictive desires within limits, thereby avoiding extremes that undermine their own holiness and that of the subordinates (an individual or a community).
Following the practice stipulated in the 1614 Roman Ritual, the deprivation of ecclesiastical funeral (privatio sepulturae ecclesiasticae) as a penalty for a delict became codified in the 1917 Code, classified among the vindictive penalties (Canon 2291, 5° CIC 17). This penalty followed the norms of canon 1240 §1, which forbade giving Church burial to those excommunicated or under interdict (Canon 2260 §2 CIC 17) unless they showed a sign of repentance before death. This meant that the penalty was not intended to reform the delinquent but to repair the social order the offence caused (Canon 2286 CIC 17) and influence the living towards good behaviour and reconciliation with the Church to avoid the same fate.
However, in the wake of the Second Vatican Council, the purpose of ecclesiastical funerals broadened. Hence, the then Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship in 1969 emphasised that through funeral rites, the Church recommends the deceased to God, reinvigorates the hope of the faithful, and testifies to the faith that the baptised will be resurrected with Christ to new life (Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, 1969, Prot. N. 720/69).
Since the first principle that led to the 1983 Code emphasised the need to safeguard the obligation and rights of Christ’s faithful, and given that ecclesiastical funeral is an ecclesial right for all Christ’s faithful rooted in baptism (cf. Canon 1239 §3 CIC 17; Canon 1176 §1 CIC 83), the 1983 Code removed it from the list of canonical penalties.
However, more importantly for the third principle and the virtues discussed, there was a need to remove the deprivation of ecclesiastical funerals from the list of canonical penalties. This is because having such shows intemperance and absence of moderation in seeking to continue punishing an offender after death.
In the 1983 Code, apostasy, heresy, and schism are offences punished with excommunication (Canon 1364 §1). Additionally, Canon 1184 §1 provides that notorious apostates, heretics, and schismatics are to be denied an ecclesiastical funeral. However, unlike in the 1917 Code, where denial was a penalty on its own, the 1983 Code omits the explicit reference to those excommunicated and interdicted, who could have been punished for other offences. Denying ecclesiastical funerals to apostates, schismatics, and heretics is because, by their offence, they withdrew from full communion with the Church (Canon 205), and the Church respects individual freedom (Dignitatis Humanae, 1966, n. 2).
There are other instances of temperance and moderation in the 1983 Code. Canon 1342 §1 permits the imposition or declaration of a penalty by means of an extrajudicial decree, provided that the process adheres to the procedure for an extrajudicial trial that guarantees the safeguard of the right of defence of the accused and moral certainty in decision making (cf. Canon 1720; 1608). However, canon 1342 §2 prohibits imposing or declaring perpetual penalties by means of a decree, as well as other penalties that the law forbids being applied with a decree. Perpetual penalties refer to permanent punishments such as excommunication and dismissal from the clerical state (laicisation). The purpose of this prohibition is to guarantee full protection of the rights of the accused and avoid intemperance or lack of moderation.
Similarly, canon 1343 provides that in applying penalties, the judge should “determine the matter according to his own conscience and prudence”. Hence, as long as there is no urgency to restore justice or repair scandal, canon 1344 provides that even though the law uses obligatory words, the judge can defer the penalty to a more opportune time if hasty punishment could lead to greater evils. The judge can abstain from imposing a penalty or substitute a milder penalty if the offender has repented or will be sufficiently punished by the civil authority. The judge can also suspend the obligation to observe an expiatory penalty if the person is a first-time offender after a hitherto blameless life.
Moreover, the virtues are also present in the provisions of canon 1346, which recommends that the competent authority, when the sum of the penalties to be imposed is excessive, prudently decide to “moderate the penalties in an equitable fashion, and to place the offender under vigilance.” In the same vein, canon 1349 provides that if the law provides for an indeterminate penalty, the judge is to choose penalties that are “proportionate to the scandal caused and the gravity of the harm”. He is not to impose perpetual penalties.
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️
