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... 249

petrator- means during the act his will unintentionally fulfilling penalized act - it is extenuating circumstance (i.e. C. 15 q. 1 c. 1 ).44 There is another significant thought by St. Ambrose (f397) in C. 22 q. 4 c. 23, wherein the great patristic author explains: if the intellect believes in every assertion, the perpetrator cannot get knowledge about the real contents of these assertions. On other hand, from a deliberated man we have to expect the sufficient diligence. Based on these, a man with a true and pure faith cannot be fully responsible for his act, if he kept the sufficient diligence with pure faithful heart and the conclusion is a penalized act.45

Based on the contents of the Decretum Gratiani, the view on "culpa” (fault or defect which springs from malpractice, not from deliberateness) and the “ignorantia” are very close to — sometimes overlapping - each other. It is particularly clear in that canon wherein the term of “ignorantia” and “culpa” can be found together (e.g., C. 1 q. 4 c. 12).46 Nevertheless, the majority of canons about fault or defect is located in the first part of Gratianus’ work.47 48 These texts describe concrete cases which concluded into murder (homicidium). D. 50 c. 42 - citing the Council of Neocaesarea - uses the expression “unintentional” on the act of murder as extenuating circumstance. This definition is basically the key phrasing of every other canon regarding fault or defect (culpa iuridica). The perpetrator therefore “not deliberately” (non voluntate), “accidentally” (casus fortuitus)**, “without blemish” (inculpabilis), or “harmless” (innoxius) caused murder.49 These expressions reveal well the similarity and the difference between the meaning of “culpa” (malpractice) and “ignorantia” as extenuating circumstances. It is important to indicate here D. 50 c. 37 which is a brief quotation from Pope Urban II.5" This is the only one - regarding “culpa” - which refers that subjective circumstance when the peipetrator expresses his/her repentance and will of mending, considered by the judge as extenuating circumstance.51 52 We can see the advancement of this interpretation within the later legislations which had taken place in the Liber Extra.*2

44 Friedberg I. 744-745.

45 Friedberg I. 881-882.

46 Friedberg I. 422^123.

47 D. 50 cc. 37,42,43,46,49, 50: Friedberg I. 194-197.

48 D. 50 c. 46: Friedberg I. 196.

49 D. 50 c. 49: Hii, qui arborem incidere uidenlur, si contigerit, ut cadens arbor occiderit hominem, inculpabiles, sunt atque innoxii, quia nec uoluntate eorum, nec desiderio homicidiun perpetra- tum est. Si uero aliqua eorum culpa uel neglectu morientis hominis interims cognoscitur adue- nisse, abiciendi sunt agradu, et in sacro ordine nullatenus suscipiendi. Friedberg I. 197.

50 Regesta Pontificum Romanorum ab condita ecclesia ad annum post Christum natum MCXCVIII, ed. Jaffé, P. - Wattenbach, G. (curaverunt Loewenfeld, S. [JL] -Kaltenbrunner. F. [,IK| - Ewald, P. [JEfi, Lipsiae 1885.2 (Graz 1956) JL 5474 (4090).

51 D. 50 c. 37: Friedberg I. 194.

52 X. 5. 20 (De crimine falsi)-. Friedberg 11.816-822; X 5. 38 (De poenitentiis et remissionibus): Friedberg IL 884-889.