EX OMNIBUS (On the Apostolic
Constitution Unigenitus)
Pope
Benedict XIV
Encyclical of
Pope Benedict XIV promulgated on 16 October 1756.
To Our Venerable Brothers, Cardinal of the Holy
Roman Church, and Archbishops and Bishops of
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
Support from
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
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
Given in