"Those are not to be accounted homicides who, fired with zeal for Mother Church, may have killed excommunicated persons." Decreti, pars ii. causa xxiii. quaest v. can. xlvii.
This means that anyone excommunicated from the Roman church whome a catholic in good standing chooses to murder is fair game and the charge of murder will not fall upon them. It doesn't even bother to reach the extent of pronouncing them a heretic which is only done under Lateran IV after a year of thoughtful time to recant. Even a mere excommunicant is at risk of their life. There's more. Innocent III & IV, Honorius III, Gregory IX from whome the Decreti above derives all had some to say on this.
Innocent IV is the one who gave the world Ad Exterpanda - the defining of the authority to torture someone to the point just short of killing them. I think most are aware of the devices used by the inquisition that are recorded today and still available for viewing to this day. It is rightly recorded that not killing one with torture didn't mean that the person might not have been better off dead by the time the inquisitors were finished. For those who don't know what I'm speaking of, try here
Killing these folks was exactly what was sought. When the Constitution of lombardy came up, it became law of Rome - not just Germany, the Pope made it law in Rome. There is no doubt - none - exactly what Rome meant by "extirmination"
Innocent also gave us Cum adversus haereticam I believe, and down the road, Boniface VIII gave us the Liber Sextus. Every pope practically had something to offer in tweeking the extent to which torture might be applied. Extirmination did not mean chasing people out of Roman or Catholic lands, Again, I remind everyone of Groups like the Waldenses who were chased to the ends of the earth practically and slaughtered wherever they might be found. If extirminate merely meant to remove from Catholic lands, the example of the Church should demonstrate that - it does not. Quite the contrary it demonstrates just what the text says Exterminate - murder - in the territories nobles occupy anyone found to be a heretic.
>> This means that anyone excommunicated from the Roman church whome a catholic in good standing chooses to murder is fair game and the charge of murder will not fall upon them.<<
Funny... That's not all how that reads to me. It says they must be doing so in defense of the Church.
>> It doesn't even bother to reach the extent of pronouncing them a heretic which is only done under Lateran IV after a year of thoughtful time to recant. <<
No actually, being excommunicated is far worse and far rarer than being termed a heretic... You're really talking out your butt, aren't you. The U.S. is 99% heretical, and there have only been a few excommunications in U.S. history. Methinks maybe you are confusing being denied communion with being excommunicated?
>>For those who don't know what I'm speaking of, try here<<
Oh, yeah... James Wylie... Now THERE'S an impartial, level-headed sort *eyeroll*
I don't find this rebuttal to SD anywhere... I se quabbling over whether to assign blame for Tinsdale on The Heretic King or not (as if Henry VIII is a model Catholic), but nothing to change the substance of his comments.
But as for later reference to killing seditionists and treasonists, please do relate what you find so unreasonable.