Folia Theologica et Canonica 6. 28/20 (2017)

IUS CANONICUM - Szabolcs Anzelm Szuromi, O.Praem., Historical development of the aggravating and extenuating circumstances in the canonical penal law

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE AGGRAVATING AND EXTENUATING... 247

IV. Categories of the extenuating and aggravating circumstances

1. Extenuating circumstances (De eausis quae minuunt delictum)

The Corpus iuris canonici knows seven categories of the extenuating circumstances, which are: inebriation (ebrietas), ignorance or lack of knowledge (ig- norantia), fault or defect (culpa), minor age (minor aetas), grave or serious fear (metus gravis), the case which was legitimated by guardian (causa legitimate tutelae), and antecedent passion (passió antecedens). This list supplied in the late 19'h century with the congenital reduced mental capacity (débilitas mentis) which detailed explanation can be found in CIC (1917) Can. 2201 § 435 36, which was already described well in volume 6"' of Franz Xavier Wernz famous extensive handbook, i.e. lus Decretalium ad usum praelectionum in scholis textus canonici sive iuris decretalium^. If you consider every single indicated circumstance, as compared with the releasing circumstances (eximitur a poena), it very clearly supports what we have said above about deriving them from the releasing circumstances. Those were (De eausis quae delictum tollunt): perpetual insane (perpetuo ameutes), habitual insane (habiliter ameutes), habitual inebriation (perfectae ebrii), children - means under seven years old - (infans), involuntary ignorance (ignorantia involuta aria), physical force or physical violence (vis physic a), absolute grave fear which determines the will (metus absolute gravis), grave harm (grave incommodum), the case which was legitimated by guardian defending unjust aggression (causa legitimate tutela ad casual quo alius contra iniustam aggressionem defenditur), the passion which suspends the function of mental deliberation and volition (passió si omnem mentis deliberationem et voluntatis consensual praecedat et iaipediat).

Turning our attention to the concrete extenuating circumstances - primary based on the Corpus iuris canonici - we can see that the most numerous canons speaks about the “ignorantia”. Based on the earlier mentioned canonical auxiliary literature - in particular on the Summa literature - the canon law science has made a really precise distinction within the meaning of different form of ignorance or lack of knowledge. The “ignorantia” therefore - in proper sense - when the perpetrator is lack of the necessary knowledge for his decision, which knowledge basically should be known. Do not confuse it with “affecta” (intentional or malicious ignorance), also with “crassa” (gross ignorance) or “supina” (unmindfully ignorance). There is another distinction between the ignorance (ignorantia) and inadvertence (inadvertentici), moreover between ignorance and error, which could intent to the law (ius) or facts (facti). Finally, it is impor35 Vermeersch, A. - Creusen, J, Epitome iuris canonici, III. 191.

36 Wernz, F. X., lus Decretalium ad usum praelectionum in sclwlis textus canonici sive iuris decretalium, I-VI. Romae 1905-1913.