# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_Juni 1861_S185
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

185

Excerpts as Contributions to Pastoral Casuistry.
On Public Apology, or Church Penance.

I. "Is the deprecation once performed to be repeated when the fallen
person moves elsewhere?"

To this the electoral councillor Benedict Carpzov answers as follows in his
Jurisprudentia ecclesiastica:

"It may also happen that the guilty party, after a public apology has been made
for a crime committed, moves elsewhere and resides there, whereupon the doubt
arises whether the church penance must not be repeated in the new place of
residence. For hardly anyone will deny that an offense arises also from a crime
committed elsewhere, when it becomes known. But public apology must not be
extended too far, much less repeated and doubled once it has already been
rendered, as Nicolaus Rebhan rightly concludes in his „„Report on Public Church
Penance,““ chap. 10, p. 138, in these words: „„If someone in another place
commits a gross public outrage and misdeed, and turns away from thence to
another place where nothing is known of his crime, and brings the ministerium a
testimony that he has been reconciled with the church in which he gave the
offense, then he may well be admitted in the other place, and his case need not
be mentioned publicly. But if it should ever become noised abroad and offense
and evil talk were likely to grow out of it, it could simply be announced
publicly that this person has already been reconciled with the church which he
had offended, and that therefore no one should take offense at him.““ That is
entirely correct: 1. because the guilty party, once the apology has been made,
is already reconciled with the whole church of Christ; why then is it necessary
that he be exposed anew to the abhorrence of the people, and that the apology be
required separately in every place? — seeing that purposeless acts are to be
avoided. 2. Nor can the objection be made that it is necessary for the sake of
the offense, since when the removal of the offense has taken place in one place,
this extends to other places as well. For as soon as the public penance
performed becomes known, the matter is settled, and no one may suspect the
guilty party of persisting in such a crime. 3. Also because public apology is
held to be a punishment, a doubling of it may never be allowed, since it would
be unjust to impose a double punishment on anyone for one and the same crime.
The upper consistory therefore issued a rescript to the superintendent at
Annaberg on November 6, 1616, thus: „„We have learned from your report that H.
H. of E. means to have Maria, wife of Hans R. at Fenichsberg, held to a public
deprecation at O. as well, notwithstanding that she has already deprecated
publicly at D. Since, then, it is not customary that public apology be imposed
on one person in two different places, we therefore desire,