Nama : Christian Yosefansia Tambunan
NIM : 200510022
Semester/ Kelas : VI (Enam)/ A
Mata kuliah : Kitab Hukum Kanonik (KHK)
Dosen : Dr. Asrot Purba
KANON 1370: TINDAK-PIDANA MELAWAN OTORITAS GEREJAWI DAN
KEBEBASAN GEREJA
Kan. 1398 – Yang melakukan pengguguran kandungan dan berhasil, terkena ekskomunikasi
latae sententiae.
Canon 751, not the present canon, defines heresy, apostasy, and schism, three
different yet at times interrelated delicts. Heresy is an obstinate post-baptismal denial of or
doubt concerning some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith. Apostasy
means a total repudiation of the Catholic faith. Schism is the refusal of submission to the
Supreme Pontiff or of communion with those subject to him (c. 209).
These very serious violations of ecclesial faith and communion warrant a latae
sententiae excommunication. The present formulation of the canon surfaced late in the
revision process, during most of which a ferendae sententiae excommunication had been
envisioned. Although a latae sententiae excommunication is presumably incurred for such
delicts, church authorities must be sensitive to the complex theological-pastoral issues raised
by these delicts.
At times it is difficult to determine precisely when an individual or group is
canonically guilty of apostasy, heresy, or schism. This is especially true given increased
theological pluralism, expanded contacts with other Christians and members of other
religious traditions, and confessional boundaries not as sharply defined as formerly.
Furthermore, penal measures may be inappropriate in dealing responsibly with persons so
distancing themselves from the Church. It might be better simply to declare formally an
incompatibility between their faith and that of the Church.
In any event, juridical certainty about such delicts presupposes a careful inquiry into
the pertinent facts, especially the obstinate, external (c. 1330) rejection of a doctrine of faith
(c. 750, §1) or ecclesial communion (c. 209). This is certainly warranted before any formal
declaration of the penalty, only after which are all the effects of the excommunication
verified (c. 1331, §2).
On balance, the penalty should have remained ferendae sententiae in character as
initially proposed, for the determination of doctrinal orthodoxy is a delicate enterprise, which
has been publicized occasionally during the past decade due to formal investigations of
various theologians, e.g., Boff, Curran, Drewermann. Yet, interestingly enough, such
theologians were not declared heretics although administrative measures were taken against
them, e.g., withdrawal of mandate/ canonical mission to teach theology.
The most notable recent declaration of heresy involved the Sri Lankan theologian
Tissa Balasuriya. This controversial CDF action in January 1997 raised various questions
about the appropriate procedure in such doctrinal matters, the significance of the profession
of faith, and the ecumenical appropriateness of such penal measures. The relevant doctrinal
issues can be dealt with constructively and various ecclesial values preserved only through
workable procedures for regular informal, and perhaps formal, dialogue between the
magisterium and various scholars.
Occasionally special penalties bind clerics committing particularly serious delicts.
Here additional expiatory prohibitions or privations (c. 1336, §1, 1°—3°) may be imposed on
them besides the aforementioned excommunication (§1). Despite the basic equality of
believers (c. 208), clerics have special institutional responsibilities; hence, their legal
violations are especially serious delicts.
Furthermore, long-standing contumacy, or contempt for the law, or serious scandal
undercutting the faith of believers may justify additional penalties for clerics including the
last resort measure of dismissal from the clerical state (c. 1364, §2). The seriousness of the
penalty is proportionate to the obstinacy of the offender and the seriousness of the ecclesial
damage. The dismissal reflects the radical incompatibility between one’s public ministerial
commitment (c. 1008) and the notable and obstinate distancing of self from the Catholic
communion.
Excommunication in principle does not entail the loss of ecclesiastical office but
rather a prohibition of its exercise, sometimes with invalidating effects (c. 1331). However,
any ecclesiastical office is lost as an administrative consequence of abandoning the Catholic
communion (c. 194, §1, 2°). Understandably the exercise of such an office presupposes a
continuing commitment to the Catholic communion.
