Reading this together with the next paragraph
causes me to wonder if this is specific to clerics or if it applies to all.
Can. 11 Merely ecclesiastical laws
bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.
To understand this, you need to understand a couple of things:
- Excommunication is considered a “medicinal” type of penalty. Medicinal, as in its goal is to heal the illness (correct the dilect). “Other penalties, to include dismissal” are “expiatory” – sort of like amputation. Remove the defective part so it doesn’t spread its disease.
- There used to be two forms of excommunication practiced in the Church (see this Catholic Encyclopedia article on the subject):
Vitandi: basically the same as “shunning” the person.
Toleranti: where the person is not allowed to receive (or minister) the sacraments, but where he would not be shunned (e.g., he could still “attend” Mass, but could not receive Holy Communion).
In these days, Vitandi excommunication is not prescribed by the 1983 CIC.
You’ve also got “occult” versus “public” penalties. Canon 1339 states that you don’t prescribe “public” penalties for “occult” transgressions.
So you can see that a occult excommunication (even a self-recognized latae sententiae one) has less gravity than a public excommunication (to include a public declaration of a latae sententiae) excommunication. They are both considered “medicinal” in nature – i.e., they are designed to bring the person back into the sheepfold. A dismissal from the clerical state is, by its very nature, a very public act. And it is considered expiatory in nature, not medicinal. The way I read it, it’s actually a more serious penalty.
Why do I bring this up?
A lay person who has internal doubts and disbelief would likely never practically deal with an ecclesiastical tribunal or any type of ecclesiastical discipline (to include a letter from his bishop). Chances are, he would simply, in the case of heresy, schism, or apostasy, just excommunicate himself and go his merry way – to another religious institution or no religion at all. If the belief was corrected, he would merely have to make a good confession and the excommunication would be lifted just as easily.
That is known as the “internal forum.” Where it becomes a problem is when this problem moves from the “internal forum” to the “external forum.” – in this case, when his disbelief is made public and he tries to draw others away.
A lay person can only be penalized so much. The hierarchy can publicly declare that he is in a state of heresy, schism, or apostasy and has incurred a latae sententiae excommunication. But what else can they do? They can’t remove his baptismal grace. There is no other ecclesiastical penalty that they can provide. He can’t be suspended from being a lay person nor can he be dismissed from the lay state.
A cleric, on the other hand, could be latae sententiae excommunicated…but could be forced to go on a long period of “prayer and reflection” while in that state…he could be suspended…or he could be dismissed from the clerical state…the latter being an expiatory penalty that can’t be undone. The goal of the former would be to restore him. The goal of the latter would be to make sure that he couldn’t do more damage.
The point is that the two sections are consistent. But there is a difference between how ecclesiastical law can apply with the laity and the clergy.
