Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 12.djvu/383

 PRiEPOSITUS

333

PRAGMATISM

Praepositus. See Provost.

Praetextatus, Catacomb of. See Cemetery, sub- title, Early Roman Christian Cemeteries.

Pragmatic Sanction {pragmalica sanctio, lex, ju^- sio, also pragmalica or pragmaticum) meant in the latter period of the Roman Empire an edict formally issued by the emperor. They were called pragmatic, from irpayna, the affair or matter of sanction. In later times the best known are: —

I. The Sanclio Pragmalica said to have been issued by Si. Louis IX of France in 1269. — Its purpose was to oppose the extension of papal power, the demands of tribute made by Rome, and the increase of papal reservations in regard to the filling of offices. The rights of prelates, patrons, and the regular collators of benefices were protected against papal collation of benefices. Free elections, promotions, and collations were guaranteed to the cathedrals and other churches. This was directed against the papal right of reserva- tion and presentation, not against the filling of offices by the king. It was further laid down that all promo- tions, collations, and bestowals of Church offices must be in accordance with the common law, the early coun- cils and the ancient regulations of the Fathers. Simony wasforbidden. Papal taxes andimposts were permitted only in case of necessity, and with the permission of the king and the French Church. The hberties and privi- leges granted to churches, monasteries, and priests by the kings were guaranteed. The investigations of Thomassy (1844), Gerin (1869), Viollet (1870), and Scheffer-Boichorst (1887), have proved that it is a forgery which appeared between 1438 and 1452.

II. The Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges. — The Coun- cil of Basle (1431-7) had issued many useful decrees concerning reform, but finally came into conflict with Eugenius IV and was suspended by him. Both par- ties, pope and council, now sought the support of the secular powers. It was to the interest of these to pre- vent a new schism and not to permit the complete failure of the reforms of Basle. The position of France in regard to these questions was to be discussed at a national council that King Charles VII commanded to meet at Bourges in May, 1438. This council declared itself neutral in the dispute between the pope and the synod, but accepted the greater part of the Basle de- crees on reform, modifying some on account of the special conditions in France ; these changes were made with the expectation that the council would ratify the modifications. On 7 July, 1438, the king issued a decree, the Pragmatic Sanction, in which he accepted the decisions and ordered the observance of them. Essentially it contains the tenets of the supremacy of an oecumenical council over the pope, of the regular holding of general councils, and of the limitation of papal reservations and demands of tribute. The sup- pression of annates by the Council of Basle was added, but with the modification that a fifth of the former tax was conceded to the papal see.

By this edict the French king issued a law of the secular legislative authority in purely ecclesiastical affairs. The recognition of the authority of the Coun- cil of Basle was only formal, for the validity of its deci- sions in France rested solely upon the edict of the king. As the law was recorded in the Parliaments these, especially the Parliament of Paris, received the right of interfering in the internal affairs of the Church. In addition, no attention had been paid to the pope, conse- quently every effort was made at Rome to have the law set aside. Pius II (1458-64) declared it an infringe- ment of the rights of the papal see, and called upon the French bishops to aid in its suppression. Charles VII appealed against this to a general council. His suc- cessor Louis XI promised the pope to repeal the sanc- tion, but the Parliament of Paris and the university resisted, and the king let the matter drop. In 1499 Louis XII by explicit declaration renewed the en-

forcement of the sanction. Leo X effected its an- nulment by means of a Concordat made with Francis I in 1516.

III. The German Pragmatic Sanction of 14S9. — At the Diet of Frankfort held in March, 1438, the Ger- man ruUng princes also declared their neutrality in the struggle between Eugenius IV and the Council of Basle. A new diet was held for further discussion of the matter in March, 1439, at Mainz, and this diet also accepted a series of the Basle decrees of reform with modifications in individual cases. The diet re- served to itself the right to make other changes, and at a convenient time the council was to pass decisions on such points. This is the substance of the " Instru- mentum acceptationis " of 26 March, 1439. The designation pragmatic sanction is, however, mislead- ing, for it was not confirmed by the emperor.

IV. The Pragmatic Sanction of the Emperor Charles VI. — This edict, issued by the last German male member of the House of Hapsburg regulating the succession to his hereditary lands, was read 19 April, 1713, before the ministers and councillors, but was temporarily kept secret. The law ordained that all the Austrian hereditary lands should always remain united, and that on the failure of male descendants they should pass to the daughters that might be born to the emperor; and not until their descendants died out should the right of succession revert to the daugh- ters of his brother, the Emperor Joseph I (1705-11), and to their male and female descendants. This prag- matic sanction was accepted by the estates of the Austrian lands in 1720-4; then in the course of time it was also recognized and guaranteed by the Powers of Europe, so that after the death of Charles VI his daughter Maria Theresa could succeed.

V. The Pragmatic Sanction of Charles III of Spain. — Charles III was King of Naples and Sicily until he succeeded his brother Ferdinand upon the throne of Spain in 1759. The pragmatic sanction that he issued 6 Oct., 1759, before he left Naples, is also an edict of succession. As earlier treaties forbade the union of Spain and Naples, he transferred Naples and Sicily to his third son IVrdinand. Up to Ferdinand's sixteenth year Naples was to be administered by a regency. The eldest son, Phihp, was weak-minded; the second son Charles was to receive Spain. Charles III also pro- vided that in case Ferdinand's line should become extinct his brothers Philip and Louis were to have the succession. The union of Naples and the Two Sicilies was expressly forbidden in the edict.

Hergenrother, Handbuch der allge-meinen Kirchengesch., ed. KiRscH. II (4th ed., Freiburg. 1904), 600-01. 931; Hefele, Komiliengeschichte. VII (Freiburg, 1869), 762-70; Koch. Sanctio pragmalica Germanorum iltuslrata (Strasburg, 1789); St. Louis and the Pragmatic Sanction in The Month (London, Oct., 1869), 366.

Klemens Loffler.

Pragmatism, as a tendency in philosophy, signifies the insistence on usefulness or practical consequences as a test of truth. In its negative phase, it opposes what it styles the formalism or rationalism of Intellec- tualistic philosophy. That is, it objects to the view that concepts, judgments, and reasoning processes are representative of reality and the processes of reality. It considers them to be merely symbols, hypotheses and schemata devised by man to facilitate or render possible the use, or experience, of reality. This use, or experience, is the true test of real existence. In its positive phase, therefore, Pragmatism sets up as the standard of truth some non-rational test, such as ac- tion, satisfaction of needs, realization in conduct, the possibility of being lived, and judges reality by this norm to the exclusion of all others.

I. The Origins of Pragmatism. — Although the Pragmatists themselves proclaim that Pragmatism is but a new name for old ways of thinking, they are not agreed as to the immediate sources of the Pragmatic