INFAMIA. – It may indicate: ill repute, disgrace, a reputation for shame, wickedness. (v. FAMA). Here, however, we shall discuss a particular legal institution that belonged to Roman law and which, in modified form, is found in canon law.
In Roman law it indicates a diminution of honor, which causes those affected by it to suffer certain incapacities. These were initially established in the praetorian edict (the prohibition against representing others in court, postulare pro aliis, and against having oneself represented, dare cognitorem), but underwent extensive development during the imperial period, until their definitive systematization under Justinian.
The earliest precedents had been found in the censorial nota and the consular nota (the latter arising when the consuls rejected a citizen’s candidacy for a magistracy).
Under imperial legislation, i. could cease through the indulgence of the Senate or the emperor, and through revocation of the conviction from which it had arisen.
Infamia must be distinguished from simple turpittudo (or i. facti of the interpreters), which may result from an inquiry conducted on a case-by-case basis into a person’s good repute.
Canon law likewise distinguishes an i. iuris and an i. facti. According to the CIC, i. iuris is a vindictive penalty (can. 2216), common (can. 2291, 4°), which exists only as a consequence of acts expressly specified in the law (can. 2299 § 2) and may be a latae sententiae penalty (cann. 2320; 2328; 2343 § 1, 2°, § 2, 2°; 2351 § 2; 2356 § 1) or a ferendae sententiae penalty (cann. 2314 § 1, 2°; 2359 § 2). The penal consequences are very serious: irregularity ex defectu (can. 984, 5°); incapacity to receive benefices, pensions, offices, and dignities; incapacity for juridical acts; incapacity to exercise a right or an ecclesiastical office; exclusion from every sacred ministry (can. 2294 § 1). There are particular consequences in procedural law. I. iuris is by its nature perpetual and can cease only through dispensation by the Apostolic See. I. facti is incurred by the member of the faithful who, through his bad conduct («ob patratum delictum vel ob pravos mores»), has lost his reputation among the community of good believers; the concrete assessment of this situation is left to the discretionary authority of the Ordinary (can. 2293 § 2). The juridical consequences are likewise very serious: impediment to receiving orders (can. 987, 7°); exclusion from benefices, offices, dignities, sacred ministries, and juridical acts.
Since i. facti is more a concrete situation than a penalty, it ceases when the situation that gave rise to it is resolved, especially as a consequence of the amendment of the person concerned, the discretionary judgment regarding which is left to the Ordinary (can. 2295).