Understanding the Ecclesiastical Interdict

Introduction

In Malta, the word ‘interdett’ (interdict) rarely feels like a neutral, official term. For many Maltese, it evokes memories of the political and religious conflicts of the 1960s. It might remind people of remaining seated during Holy Communion, having religious marriages being considered clandestine, or experiencing struggles when a loved one passes away, to name a few. Even among those of us born well after these events, the word still bears a particular significance. But despite how familiar the word interdict may be, not many of us could explain what an interdict actually is. In this blog post, I will answer the following 5 questions:

1. What is an interdict?
2. What does an interdict do?
3. Does an interdicted person stop being a Catholic?
4. Is the interdict the same as excommunication?
5. Why is an interdict considered a medicinal penalty?

1. What is an interdict?

The interdict is a penalty within the legal system of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church functions as both a community of believers and a visible, organised society. As such, it possesses its own distinct legal system called canon law. Although not always formalised in the modern sense, canon law has been in practice for centuries and has been influenced significantly by Roman law.

Canon law regulates various aspects of the Church’s life, such as the sacraments, the rights and obligations of the faithful, temporal goods, Church donations, and religious institutes. Canon law also contains penalties for a number of canon law offences. The present Code of Canon Law (CIC/1983) describes three main forms of penal sanction: censures, expiatory penalties and penal remedies or penances (c. 1312).

The interdict belongs to the first group because it is a censure. There are 2 other censures, apart from the interdict: suspension and excommunication. The current law concerning it is found principally in c. 1332. A censure is a ‘medicinal penalty’ or a ‘corrective penalty’ because its aim is to ‘heal’.

2. What does an interdict do?

The simplest way to explain an interdict is to say that it restricts a Catholic’s participation in the sacramental and liturgical life of the Church. The CIC/1983 does not provide an explicit definition of what an interdict is in c. 1332. However, it refers to the first 4 prohibitions associated with excommunication as outlined in c. 1331. Under the present canon law, a person under interdict may be prohibited from:

• celebrating the Eucharist or the other sacraments;
• receiving the sacraments;
• administering sacramentals or celebrating certain other acts of liturgical worship;
• taking an active part in those celebrations.

Some of these prohibitions apply mainly to priests and other ministers. An ordinary lay Catholic does not celebrate Mass or administer most of the sacraments. For a layperson, the most visible consequence would normally be the prohibition against receiving the sacraments, particularly Holy Communion. (Note: The ministers of the sacrament of matrimony are the spouses themselves; thus, for this sacrament in particular, c. 1331 also applies to lay people as ministers.)

It is worth noting that an interdict does not always have to include every possible prohibition. The law or decree establishing the penalty may limit it to only some actions or restrict certain particular rights (c. 1332 §2). We should therefore never assume that every interdict has precisely the same scope or consequences.

3. Does an interdicted person stop being a Catholic?

The (Catholic) sacrament of baptism is what makes a person Catholic. Being a sacrament, baptism has an indelible character (i.e. cannot be erased). The imposition of an interdict does not cancel baptism. Through baptism, a person is incorporated into the Church and becomes the bearer of the rights and duties proper to Christians. Canon law recognises that the exercise of some of those rights may be limited by a lawfully imposed ecclesiastical penalty (c. 96).

The distinction is crucial: an interdict may restrict actions of a Catholic but never erases the person’s entire relationship with the Church. The person remains subject to the law of the Church and remains capable of reconciliation and of having the imposition of the penalty uplifted. With that said, the canonical dimension of the penalty does not always necessarily mirror how it was experienced socially, spiritually and psychologically.

4. Is an interdict the same as excommunication?

Although both are penalties and are closely related, they are not identical. Before Innocent III distinguished them by their specific names, they were once regarded as a minor excommunication, now called an interdict, and a major excommunication, now simply known as excommunication (skomunika). Both are censures; thus, both have a ‘medicinal’ intent. Both may prevent a person from receiving the sacraments.

Excommunication, however, has wider legal effects. Under the present Code, an excommunicated person is prohibited not only from celebrating or receiving the sacraments and participating actively in liturgical worship. The person is also prohibited from exercising ecclesiastical offices, duties, ministries or functions and from carrying out acts of ecclesiastical governance (c. 1331 §1). An interdicted person, in contrast, is typically only subject to the first four prohibitions outlined in c. 1331 §1.

The terms ‘interdict’ and ‘excommunication’ should not be treated as interchangeable penalties. Before labelling someone as interdicted or as excommunicated, it is essential to determine the specific penalty involved and its legal implications. Typically, a penalty results from a formal decision by a church authority (a bishop, for instance). An automatic penalty occurs only when explicitly stated by law or a penal precept (c. 1314). A penalty can affect a person’s reception of the sacraments, participation in the life of the Church, and reputation within the community. The law must therefore clearly identify why the person is being penalised and on what authority.

5. Why is the interdict called a medicinal penalty?

The interdict is traditionally described as a medicinal penalty, or censure. Being prevented from receiving the sacraments can be an extremely serious consequence, particularly in a strongly Catholic society. It may affect not only the person’s spiritual life but also relationships within the family, parish and wider community. A censure is intended to encourage a person to abandon the conduct that caused the rupture and to make reconciliation possible. The present Code states that a bishop or other competent authority should begin a penal procedure only after pastoral care, fraternal correction, warnings or other means have proved insufficient to restore justice, reform the offender and repair scandal (c. 1341).

Its legal purpose is corrective. It is intended to respond to a serious offence, encourage a change of conduct, and eventually allow the person to return to the full exercise of their rights within the Church. Whether an interdict has consistently fulfilled that purpose in practice is a complex and challenging issue. A penalty’s aftermath is also food for thought. Legally, a penalty might be characterised as corrective, but for those who endure it, it may feel humiliating, frightening, or isolating. This disconnect between the law’s intention and the lived experience of the penalty ought to be acknowledged for what it is.

Conclusion

Given that it is a penalty, the interdict usually comes with a negative connotation, especially when considering the challenging experience many individuals face when interdicted. I wish to reiterate that Malta’s 1960s interdict was not imposed under the current canon law (CIC/1983) but under the code of canon law which was in force at the time (CIC/1917). Although the interdict still exists in the current canon law, even after Pope Francis revised the penal system in 2021, the Church’s ecclesiology has shifted since Vatican Council II, and this is evident in the way both the CIC/1917 and CIC/1983 are structured and written: while the first one was more legalistic, the second one is rather more pastoral in its approach. Consequently, the language, atmosphere and mentality behind an imposed interdict today may look and feel very different, even though it might have the same legal consequences as it previously did.