Introduction

In my previous post on the interdict, I described what an interdict entails under the current Code of Canon Law (CIC/1983). However, when discussing Malta and the events of the 1960s, it is crucial to remember that the Church’s laws were different at the time.

The current Code was only promulgated in 1983. During Malta’s Church–MLP (Malta Labour Party) conflict, the Church was still under the 1917 Code of Canon Law (CIC/1917). Unlike the streamlined law we have today, the old Code featured a complex system of interdicts.

Before inquiring about the restrictions that applied to someone who was interdicted, such as attending Mass, receiving Communion, marrying in church, or receiving a Christian burial, we must first understand the types of interdicts that could be imposed at the time.

The Interdict According to the 1917 Code

The 1917 Code dedicated ten canons specifically to the interdict: canons 2268–2277.

Canon 2268 described the interdict as a Church censure that barred members of the faithful from specific sacred actions, while importantly clarifying that they still remained in communion with the Church. In essence, an interdicted Catholic did not cease to be Catholic. The penalty limited certain actions or receptions within the Church’s life.

This is helpful when considering the Maltese interdett. As I mentioned in my earlier post, an interdict was not merely another term for excommunication. However, the 1917 Code introduced an important distinction, recognising that there was not just a single type of interdict.

Personal or Local: Who or What was Being Interdicted?

The primary difference was between two types of interdict: personal and local (canon 2268 §2). A personal interdict applied to an individual or specific persons. In straightforward terms, the penalty was attached to the person.

Canon 2269 §2 clearly states that an individual personally interdicted remained under the interdict regardless of their location. Moving to a different parish or area did not lift the penalty. Conversely, a local interdict was applied to a specific place. This could refer to a territory, parish, church, chapel, altar, or cemetery, depending on the context in which the penalty’s imposed. The restriction mainly concerned what was allowed in that location, rather than targeting any specific individual. The old Code even included detailed regulations regarding what occurs when a church, chapel, or cemetery is placed under interdict (canons 2270–2273).

Although that difference seems straightforward, it becomes crucial once we examine what truly occurred in Malta.

General or Particular: How Wide was the Interdict?

The 1917 Code distinguished between two subtypes of interdicts: general and particular. A general interdict applied to a broader territory or group, while a particular interdict was more restricted, affecting specific individuals or locations.

Canon 2269 is particularly noteworthy because it clarifies who had the authority to impose these penalties. A general interdict covering an entire diocese, state, or the population of such a territory was reserved for the Apostolic See or required its approval. However, the same canon explicitly permits a bishop to impose a general interdict on a parish or its congregation, as well as a local or personal interdict (canon 2269 §1).

This point is crucial for understanding Malta. Occasionally, the events of the 1960s are portrayed as if Archbishop Michael Gonzi had merely devised a religious punishment to target his political adversaries.

Although our final opinion on his decision to use the interdict may vary, the penalty itself was not introduced by Archbishop Gonzi. It was part of the universal Catholic Church law, with the 1917 Code explicitly giving bishops the authority to impose certain forms. Nonetheless, this does not automatically mean that applying the penalty in this particular case was justified, proportionate, or pastorally suitable. These are distinct issues.

If the question is whether a bishop could legally impose a personal interdict under the laws at that time, the answer is yes. Canon 2269 explicitly allowed for this.

An Interdict Could Also Affect a Community

The previous Code was more comprehensive. Canon 2274 addressed cases involving a community or college. If such an entity committed an offence, an interdict could be imposed on the responsible individuals, the community as a whole, or both (canon 2274).

Once again, I won’t delve into detailed legal technicalities. The key point to remember is that the meaning of “interdict” has not always been consistent. It could target an individual, several people, a community, or a specific location.

The 1917 Code also recognised a specific penalty known as the interdict, which prevented entry into a church (canon 2277).

This brings us to Malta’s 1960s…

These differences are not just theoretical; they began to emerge in Malta even before the well-known interdict of 1961.

In 1960, Lorry Sant, then a young editor of The Struggle, the Labour League of Youth’s newspaper, was personally interdicted after the paper criticised the Maltese bishops’ Lenten pastoral letter. Local historian Dr Sergio Grech, in his article “Contextualising the 1961 Interdict in Malta,” notes that Sant was only 21 and highlights the personal interdict imposed on him. On 8th April 1961, the Maltese ecclesiastical authorities informed the MLP that a personal interdict was being imposed upon members of its National Executive who had taken part in drawing up, or had voted to approve, the party’s statement of 15 March 1961.

Note what this implies. Malta itself was not subjected to a local interdict. Strictly speaking, the 1961 measure did not mean that all individuals claiming to be Labour supporters were personally interdicted. The penalty mentioned in the document targeted specific individuals. Therefore, understanding the various types of interdicts is important before we analyse their implications. In terms of canon law, we can say that the Church in Malta imposed a particular personal interdict because it was imposed on a specific group of people (the executive of the MLP) and thus by the local Church authorities.

The Rationale Behind Canon Law and its Justified Enforcement

This distinction is crucial for how I plan to approach this topic in my research. Stating that the bishop had the canonical authority to impose a particular personal interdict does not imply that doing so was automatically the best decision. These are two separate issues.

The initial concern is a legal question: Was it permitted under canon law for a bishop to impose such a penalty? According to the 1917 Code, the answer is yes, provided it adhered to the law’s boundaries (c. 2269). The more important consideration is whether the use of that penalty was judicious, proportionate, and pastorally appropriate, given Malta’s political and social situation in the 1960s.

I am intentionally delaying my answer to that question. I plan to explore it more thoroughly as my doctoral research advances, especially once I examine the canonical aspects, historical documents, and the interdict’s actual impacts collectively. For now, I believe it is crucial to distinguish between what the law allowed and whether exercising that legal authority was the right choice.

Conclusion

The 1917 Code presents a much more complex view of the interdict compared to today. An interdict could target an individual, a group or community, or a specific location. Its scope could vary from broad to narrow, and bishops had the authority to impose some forms of it.

In Malta, personal interdicts were indeed used, including on Lorry Sant in 1960 and, more notably, against members of the Malta Labour Party National Executive in 1961. However, understanding what type of interdict was applied is just the first step. The more important question is likely the one that matters most to those who recall the interdett.

Were they still able to attend Mass, receive Holy Communion, marry in church, and what occurred after their death? That is our next destination.