Pope Benedict
XIV
Encyclical promulgated October 16, 1756
On the Apostolic Constitution Unigenitus
Ex Omnibus
.Source: www.papalencyclicals.net/Ben14/b14exomn.htm
To Our Venerable Brothers, Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, and Archbishops
and Bishops of France.
Greetings and Apostolic Blessing.
From all the regions of the Christian world to which our pastoral care
extends, many things have made us concerned for the state of each and every
church. But We have been especially troubled by the controversies and
dissensions afflicting the flourishing Catholic nation of France some years ago.
We did not cease, during the whole time of your disturbance, to ask the God of
peace to restore a true and solid tranquility to your disturbed church. Often
too by Apostolic letters We sought the help of Louis, the Christian King of
France, for the protection and defense of ecclesiastical peace. We have declared
Ourselves ready to sacrifice the remainder of Our life for the peace of the
French church, which We embrace with a sincere and constant love. We have also
supported proposals for redress that were apt and suitable to cure the malady,
if they were likely to succeed and if they seemed to approach the intended end.
Support from France
2. The letters which the French Assembly sent Us on October 31 of last year
relieved some of Our concern. Indeed, reading them, We learned of your unanimous
constancy in preserving true and salutary doctrine, and in retaining your
age-old veneration of the Apostolic See of Blessed Peter, the center of Catholic
unity. Nor did we find any dissension among you regarding canonical rules and
principles; the only differences concern the choice of means for applying the
common principles in practice. Although this is a most undesirable state of
affairs, it should not be a cause of wonder for those who know that dissension
in serious matters has arisen among other bishops renowned for their learning
and holiness. We have been further consoled by the exceptional piety of the
king, a piety joined with his hereditary submission to this Apostolic See. This
is clear not only from his recent letter dated December 19 of last year (which
included the aforementioned letter of the clergy), but also in all his other
writings. We have always understood the French king, whose thinking greatly
becomes an orthodox Prince endowed with true reverence for God and the Roman
See. We firmly approve his desire to restore and preserve peace in his kingdom.
Denial of Viaticum
3. The authority of the apostolic constitution which begins with the word Unigenitus
is certainly so great and lays claim everywhere to such sincere veneration and
obedience that no one can withdraw the submission due it or oppose it without
risking the loss of eternal salvation. Now, a controversy has risen concerning
whether viaticum must be denied to those who oppose the constitution. The answer
must be given without any hesitation that as long as they are opposed publicly
and notoriously, viaticum must be denied them; this follows for the universal
law which prohibits a known public sinner to be admitted to Eucharistic
communion, whether he asks for it in public or in private.
4. Now public and notorious objectors in the matter under discussion are
those who have been so declared by the sentence of a competent judge (because
they have contumaciously refused the reverence and obedience due the
constitution Unigenitus) and who have admitted their guilt in court.
There are others, also objectors, who, although they have not been condemned by
a judge and have not admitted the crime in court, nevertheless, at the time when
they are about to receive the sacred viaticum, voluntarily confess their
stubborn resistance to the constitution. Still others are known to have done
something manifestly opposed to the veneration and obedience due to this
constitution, and to have continued in that state; this is so commonly known
that the public scandal arising from it has not yet subsided. In these latter
cases, We are as confident of Our judgment as when a sentence has been passed in
court.
Two Kinds of Notoriety
5. In this matter, however, a difference must be maintained between the
notoriety in which a certain fact is apprehended and guilt consists in the
external action itself, such as the notoriety of the usurer or of the person
living in concubinage, and another kind of notoriety in which the external fact
is noted but the guilt depends very much on the disposition of the mind. It is
this latter kind of notoriety which We shall discuss. The former must certainly
be established with grave proofs; the latter must be proven with more certain
and more serious evidence.
6. The required certainty is not present when the crime is supported by mere
conjecture, presumption, and rumor, which generally originate in hostility,
prejudice, or partisan interest. When we lend credence to these things,
experience shows how many ways men can err and be led into hostility.
7. But some pastors and ministers, renowned for piety and zeal, are
influenced by such conjectures and presumptions; they are perplexed when called
to administer viaticum to certain men and fear that it may not be possible for
them to ad minister the sacrament without danger to their own conscience. We
append a certain rule of action which they may follow.
Rule of Action on Viaticum
8. They ought first to consider whether the person who is asking for viaticum
has been to holy communion previously, especially during the Easter season, and
has received holy communion from the pastor of the place where he was living; if
indeed it was not denied him in life, this will be an argument that the man is
free of all blame, or at least that he was not considered a truly public sinner.
From this it will follow that it is not possible to deny him when he publicly
asks for viaticum at the end of his life, unless perhaps in the meantime he has
done something to incur the stigma of a public and notorious sinner with
reference to the aforesaid issue.
9. Sometimes, however, no certain conclusions can be reached, but from other
sources valid presumptions and grave indications against the sick man are
present, so that these zealous pastors cannot rid themselves of the scruple that
has arisen. In these circumstances they should, delaying any decisions, address
the sick person with all gentleness and mildness, not like one who disputes and
is anxious to convince. They should show him the reasons why the conduct of his
life is suspect and implore him to come to his senses. Then they should convince
him that although they are prepared to administer the Body of Christ, and
actually may even administer it, this will not itself make him safe before the
tribunal of Christ. If indeed he had not repented, it will make him guilty of a
new and horrible crime, eating and drinking judgment on himself. In addition
they will administer the sacrament of the Body of Christ to him for no other
reason than to obey the Church, which strives to avoid public scandal, and to
prevent infamy for the sick person himself. Although she considers him to be a
sinner in the sight of God, she does not recognize him as a public and notorious
sinner in her tribunal.
10. You must now propose this norm of judging and acting which We approve to
all who legitimately administer the sacraments. Indeed, this decision is
supported by ecclesiastical regulations, by the decrees of councils held in
France, and by the opinions of serious theologians in your own country.
Following the example of your predecessors, you sent Us your controversies and
the doubts that they occasioned and asked Us for guidance in reestablishing and
preserving peace for your churches. Now it is your duty to enforce this rule
wherever it pertains. We expect that you will do so, since We feel that We have
omitted no diligence or study either in weighing and discussing the articles
which the bishops proposed in assembly (though not unanimously); or in taking
into account their differences of opinion to better understand the whole matter
and to reach a right judgment; or in reading and weighing the written opinions
of the Cardinals, whose advice We had requested on this matter; or in carrying
out all other things to merit the aid of the divine illumination for which We
have prayed
11. Nor do We doubt that your illustrious king, who approved your council and
wrote to Us concerning the matter, will in his piety for God and the Church,
offer his strong aid to your Fraternity. Accordingly both you and the lower
ministers of the Church may be free to regulate the administration of the sacred
mysteries according to the norm described above. Because of this confidence, We
did not consider it necessary to address your other articles concerning
episcopal regulation over participation in the same sacraments and the various
controversies that have arisen concerning these matters. Rather We decided to
communicate with the king so that he may protect the sacred rights of the
episcopate by his own magnanimity and virtue. And We are confident that he will
do this according to his own custom and that of his ancestors, so that the noble
churches of France may rejoice to have retained their former glory and may soon
regain the tranquility which was disturbed for a time. As an auspice of this
desired event, We lovingly give to your Fraternity and the people entrusted to
your care the Apostolic Benediction.
Given in Rome at St. Mary Major, October 16, 1756, in the seventeenth year of
Our Pontificate.
