Dist. 18, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 6
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-q6
----------------------------------------
### Question VI. *Whether anyone can be absolved from excommunication against his will.*

Sixthly there is inquiry concerning absolution, and it is asked whether anyone can be absolved against his will. And that he can, it seems:

1. Because a carnal father bestows many goods upon an unwilling son: therefore by parity of reasoning, indeed much more strongly — since a spiritual father ought to be more loving — it seems that he can absolve a subject, even against his will.

2. Likewise, one ought to be more inclined to having mercy than to condemning; but someone can lawfully excommunicate an unwilling man: therefore much more can he absolve him.

3. Likewise, excommunication is a penalty inflicted outwardly for the sake of amendment: therefore if the sinner is not amended, but is made worse; «since, the cause ceasing, the effect ceases», it seems that such a one can and ought to be absolved even when unwilling.

**On the contrary:**
1. No one can or ought to absolve an unwilling man in the penitential forum: therefore by parity of reasoning neither in the judicial forum.

2. Likewise, it was said to Peter: *Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth* etc.: therefore the binding which takes place on earth ought to be conformed to that binding which takes place in heaven, and conversely, otherwise it does not take place as it ought; but in heaven no one is absolved against his will: therefore neither ought it to be done on earth.

3. Likewise, the cause remaining, the effect too ought to remain; but the cause for which excommunication is inflicted is rebellion and contumacy; but so long as he does not wish to be absolved, he is rebellious and contumacious: therefore the unwilling man ought not to be absolved.

In connection with this it is asked what is the manner according to which one ought to be absolved. — It is also asked by whom one may be absolved.

> **Conclusion.** One justly excommunicated cannot lawfully be absolved against his will, who nevertheless can in fact be absolved according to the will of the prelate; but most of all one unjustly excommunicated.

**I respond:** It must be said that we may speak of the power of absolving and of excommunicating, insofar as one can [proceed] to these acts either lawfully or in fact. For to do and to do justly differ. — If we speak of fact: if a bishop should excommunicate one who is not contumacious, the order of law being passed over, he is excommunicated in the face of the Church, although the sentence has been unjustly passed; and he is bound to bear it, otherwise by this very contempt he is made worthy to be excommunicated and is bound before God. — But he is lawfully excommunicated when, according to the order of law, a sentence is passed against a contumacious man by one who has canonical jurisdiction; and this binds before God. — Likewise it is to be understood concerning absolution, that someone can be absolved either lawfully or in fact. Lawfully no excommunicate can be absolved unless he cease from contumacy; in fact he can be absolved according to the will of the prelate, in whose power it lay to pass and to revoke the sentence. Hence if such a one is absolved, neither does he sin nor is he excommunicated who communicates with him; and this I say, whether the one who is absolved be bound by a just sentence or by an unjust one; and this is most true concerning the lord Pope.

Nevertheless, as the arguments prove, such a one ought not to be absolved, if he is justly excommunicated, nor can he lawfully be absolved. But if he had been unjustly excommunicated, the prelate could absolve him even against his will, not on account of his [the subject's] merit, but in order to revoke his own error.

**To the arguments:**

1. To that, then, which is objected in the first place, that the bodily father bestows benefits on an unwilling son; it must be said that it is not similar: because those are temporal benefits which are bestowed against one's will, and in which equity is not considered on the part of the recipient; but it is not so here; and besides such benefits profit the unwilling, but the benefit of absolution profits no unwilling man, nay rather harms him. Hence, just as bodily food is not to be forced upon the squeamish, because it harms them, and they throw it away, or, if they take it, are more burdened; so it is to be understood in the matter proposed.

2. To that which is objected, that one can excommunicate an unwilling man; it must be said that excommunication is like a correction concerning contumacy, and therefore it is useful to such a contumacious and unwilling man; on the contrary, absolution is useful to one returning, not to one persisting in contumacy; and therefore to absolve such an excommunicate is rather to bestow wrath than mercy, just as he does who lets an injury go unavenged. Hence, just as it is better that the body be handed over to Satan than the spirit; so it is better for this man that he remain in the bond, than that the benefit be given with contempt.

3. To that which is objected, that it is inflicted for the sake of amendment; it must be said that [it is] not only for amendment, but also for the instruction of others, that others may learn not to gainsay and rebel, as Dathan and Abiron; and therefore, lest others take a bad example, in such cases the excommunication ought to be continued, that it may profit others toward avoiding the fall. Nevertheless, because it is not known whether God will give him a good spirit, so long as he lives; therefore his conversion is always to be awaited, and therefore he is not to be absolved beforehand, however incorrigible he may seem. For no one is altogether incorrigible by privation, so long as he is a wayfarer; and therefore excommunication is a medicine.

To that which is asked, in what manner it ought to be done; it must be said that excommunication can be inflicted from a threefold cause, namely some for contumacy purely, some for a manifest offense, some for a hidden offense, as when someone falls under the canon by some sin which is not public. — The first must be absolved, having received from him a guarantee that he will stand by the commands of the Church, and it must be enjoined upon him that he obey the law, and [discharge] whatever else is contained in the sentence of an excommunication justly passed, as when he is condemned to costs. — But if he is excommunicated for a manifest offense by sentence, or by the evidence of the deed; then before absolution he must make satisfaction. — But if for a hidden one; then it suffices for relaxing the sentence, if sufficient surety be furnished that he will obey the command.

To that which is asked: by whom can one be absolved? it must be said that of the lesser excommunication one can be absolved by anyone having the power of absolving from sin; hence two persons excommunicated with the lesser excommunication can absolve one another. — But as a rule it is to be held that, of every excommunication imposed *by law*, whether the greater or the lesser, one can be absolved by his own bishop, or by a priest, with six cases excepted, in which the founder of the law reserved the power to himself.

The first, if one strikes a cleric; in which case he cannot be absolved except by the lord Pope, or his legate, with eight cases excepted. — The second case is concerning him who burns a church and has been denounced by the bishop; such a one cannot be absolved. — The third case is concerning him who breaks into a church and has been denounced. — The fourth case is concerning him who knowingly and willingly participates with persons excommunicated by the Pope and receives them into offices, especially when they are named expressly. — The fifth, concerning him who falsifies the letters of the Apostolic See. — The sixth, concerning him who communicates with one excommunicated for a crime; for then he must be absolved by him who excommunicated [the other], even if he is not his subject. But if it is difficult for him to approach him, an oath-bound surety being furnished that he will obey his command, he can be absolved by his bishop, or by his own priest.

From the first case eight cases are excepted: the first is, if he be in the article of death. The second is, if he was the doorkeeper of a powerful man and struck not out of hatred or design. The third, if the one striking the cleric be a woman. The fourth, if a religious [strikes] a religious. The fifth, if he be a slave and did not gravely injure, and his master would be harmed by his absence, and the master himself is without fault. The sixth, if he be poor. The seventh, if he be under age, or aged, or sickly. The eighth, if he has capital enmities.

But of an excommunication imposed by a judge no one can be absolved except by him, or by his superior, with the article of death alone excepted.