During the Year of Mercy – which I guess already began, at least in Africa, but which is going to begin sometime tomorrow in Rome and then some days later elsewhere – certain confessors are to be granted faculties to absolve from censures reserved to the Holy See. Archbishop Rino Fisichella, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization, recently expanded on one of the sins that incurs such a censure: physical violence against the person of the Roman Pontiff (e.g., belting the Pope, assassinating the Pope, throwing something at the Pope, etc.). Fisichella’s comments have made not a few people scratch their heads.
Archbp. Fisichella said:
I would say that we need to understand well ‘physical violence,’ because sometimes words, too, are rocks and stones, and therefore I believe some of these sins, too, are far more widespread than we might think.
Ummmm…. words? No.
What is he suggesting? Speak badly of the Pope and you… what? You incur a latae sententiae excommunication? By the very fact of speaking negatively about or to the Pope (HEY! Libs! … any Pope! Right?) you can incur excommunication?
I don’t think so. It might be that Pope Francis appreciates his zeal, but, no.
Canonist extraordinaire Ed Peters leaps in at his blog. HERE My emphases and comments:
Most words are not crimes
I am not sure what Archbishop Rino Fisichella meant when he said that “we need to understand well ‘physical violence’ [against the pope] because sometimes words, too, are rocks and stones, [ehem… they might be hurtful, but they are not “physical violence”] and therefore I believe some of these sins, too, are far more widespread than we might think.” Yes, we do need to understand the terms of law well but, as the prelate was speaking in the context of faculties to absolve from automatic excommunications, and as there is an automatic excommunication against those who employ physical force against the pope (1983 CIC 1370 § 1), I am guessing that Fisichella might be thinking that ‘harsh language’ against the pope is a canonical crime that makes one liable to excommunication. If so, he is mistaken.
Besides Canon 17 that requires canons to be understood in accord with the proper meaning of their words, and Canon 18 that requires penal canons to be read strictly (i.e., as narrowly as reasonably possible), and Canon 221 § 3 that protects the faithful against canonical penalties not authorized by law, the whole of Book Six of the 1983 Code is redolent with an emphasis (some might say, to an exaggerated degree) on benignity in the application of penalties in the Church.
Now, Canon 1370 criminalizes “vim physicam” against the pope, not “verba aspera” or variants thereon, and I know of no canonical commentary that includes “words” as a species of “physical force” in this context. Indeed, the CLSA New Commentary, the Exegetical Commentary, the Ancora Commentary, and the Urbaniana Commentary—at which point I stopped looking—expressly exclude ‘verbal violence’ from the range of actions penalized under Canon 1370.
To be sure, hateful speech directed against any one is objectively sinful, and if directed against a man of God, let alone a pope, it is especially wrong. [It can be the sin of sacrilege, which is mistreatment of a sacred place, thing, or person.] Occasionally, speech might rise to level of crime (see e.g., Canon 1369 on expressing insults against the Church or Canon 1373 on inciting animosity against the Apostolic See) but the penalties in such cases are not automatic and do not extend to excommunication. Usually, verbal hate is just a sin (if I may put it that way) not a crime.
Priests may be assured, then, that if penitents confess uttering hateful words against the Holy Father, [Surely THAT doesn’t happen!] they may reconcile such sinners in the normal course of the sacrament and need invoke no special faculties or powers to absolve of sin or (non-existent) crime.
Et poenae latae sententiae delendae sunt. [This is Dr. Peters’ cause for jihad.]
GO TO CONFESSION!