Dist. 18, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 2
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/4/d/18/q/bon-sent-IV-d18-p2-a1-q2
----------------------------------------
### Question II. *For what [cause] anyone ought to be excommunicated.*

Secondly it is asked, for what [cause] anyone ought to be excommunicated, and it is asked whether for damage or for injury inflicted on the Church. And that it is so, seems [to be the case].

1. For if anyone breaks into or sets fire to a church, he is excommunicated by the law itself, but not if he were to break into another house: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, if anyone strikes a cleric, he is excommunicated by the law itself and incurs the canon of the sentence already passed; but he does not incur it if he strikes a secular layman: therefore if the law dictates rightly, it seems that the Church can excommunicate also for an injury inflicted on itself.

3. Likewise, it seems [so] *by reason*: because a sword is given to each one for defense; but the power of excommunicating is a spiritual sword: therefore, by the power of excommunicating the Church can defend itself both against damage and against injury.

4. Likewise, it is just that everyone be punished in that in which he sins: therefore if he sins against his mother the Church by inflicting *damage* and *injury*, it is just that he lose her benefits and suffrages; but this is to be excommunicated: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. Excommunication or anathematization is a malediction; but it is said to the Romans, chapter twelve: *Bless those who curse you; bless and do not curse:* therefore the Church ought not to curse those who curse or do evil: therefore neither [ought it] to excommunicate them.

2. Likewise, excommunication is the subtraction of benefits; but God does not subtract mercy and benefits from those who offend Him: therefore if it is commanded to ecclesiastical men that they be merciful and *perfect, like the heavenly Father, who makes the sun rise upon the good and the evil,* as is said in Matthew the fifth: therefore the Church ought not to subtract these things on account of any *damage* or *injury* done to it.

3. Likewise, in excommunications a man is damaged in spiritual things; but the damage in spiritual things is disproportionately greater than in temporal things; but if anyone sets fire to or breaks into a church, or strikes a cleric, or [does] some such thing, he has done damage only in temporal things: therefore since a greater penalty ought not to be inflicted than the damage is; it seems that he ought not to be excommunicated on account of this.

4. Likewise, the Church militant ought to imitate the [Church] triumphant; but it is said in the canonical [epistle] of Jude that *when Michael was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not dare to bring a judgment of blasphemy, but said: May the Lord command you:* therefore it seems by like reason that the Church ought not to excommunicate or anathematize anyone disputing with it.

> **Conclusion.** For damage or injury the sentence of excommunication can indeed be pronounced, and also a penalty [imposed], by a judge, but not principally on account of this.

**I respond:** For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that excommunication, or the manner of excommunicating, is twofold. For one excommunication is *from the law*, another *from the judge*. The first excommunication is *preservative*, the second is *curative*. The first excommunication, although it seems to be done to preserve ecclesiastical liberty, just as the second seems to be done on account of a penalty; nevertheless the first in a more principal manner is directed to guarding against fault; because it is a great fault and very grave when anyone sins against the Church. — Likewise the second in a more principal manner is done to *break contumacy*; and therefore such [excommunication] according to the form of law ought to be inflicted on none but the contumacious, and therefore an admonition ought to be sent beforehand, so that in this way he may be convicted of contumacy. Now he is called *contumacious* who, admonished once and twice, summoned a third time peremptorily, does not appear; or if he appears, is unwilling to abide by the law; or when the offense is manifest, or when, ordered by the judge, he is unwilling to make amends. To such a one this medicine is fitting, as was seen in the first problem. — From these things the reasons for both sides are evident.

For I concede that for *damage or injury* the sentence of excommunication can be pronounced *from the law*, but not principally on account of this; and likewise for a penalty it can be brought *by a judge*, but not principally on account of this, but on account of *contumacy*.

**To the fundamental [arguments]:** — The reasons for the first part show that excommunication is brought for damage.

*To 1, 2.* But the reasons for the opposite show that [it is] not *principally* for damage but for sin; whence the Church curses and subtracts benefits on account of his desert, not on account of its own damage, on account of his fault, not on account of vengeance. For if he should wish to return and cannot make amends, the Church will at once spare [him].

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that the Church damages him in spiritual things; it must be said that the Church does not *damage*, but he who sins and is contumacious damages himself; but the Church *shows* him to be damaged, so that in this way at least he may blush at his evil and forsake it; and if in some manner it does damage [him] more, this aggravation of the damage is ordered finally to his own profit according to the intention of the Church.

*To 4.* To that, then, which is objected, that Michael did not curse; it must be said that the devil is obstinate in evil and incorrigible, and the malediction inflicted upon him cannot order him either *of itself* or *by accident* to benediction; and therefore there was no usefulness in cursing the devil. But when the Church curses a subject, it brings confusion upon him on account of his sin; and because by such confusion he can repent of his sin: therefore it curses so that afterward it may bless, therefore it binds so that it may absolve; and there is no likeness between this malediction and that.

---