Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 4.djvu/239

 CONCORDAT

197

CONCORDAT

the civil powers. This is evident from history. Dur- ing the first three centuries, when the civil author- ity was bent upon the total ruin and destruction of the Church, concordats were out of the question. After the era of persecution was over, and, with the excep- tion of some temporary usurpations and outrages, the Christian Emperors of Rome generally recognized and defended the rights of the Church, concordats were un- necessaiy. This state of affairs continued until the end of the eleventh century, when there arose the strife about investitures which was settled in 1122 by the Concordat of Worms, or Piiilitm Calliitinum, be- tween Callistus II (q. V.) and Henry V. This may be called the first concordat, unless the agreement of London (1107) is reckoned, as it may be, among the number of concordats. The contest between Boni- face VIII and Philip the Fair, at the end of the thir- teenth century, opened the way for still further dis- agreements between the Church, which strove to pre- serve its rights inviolate, anil those civil powers which sought to usurp them. These disagreements gave rise to various concordats. Before the eighteenth century there were six (or seven if the London agree- ment of 1107 be counted); during the eighteenth cen- tury there were fifteen, and in the nineteenth century a much larger number (see Summary of Principal Concordats, below).

It is to be noted that De Angelis, who is followed by Giobbio and in part by Cavagnis, does not consider the Pactum Callixtunim a concordat, because in it Callis- tus II made no concession of any importance to the emperor. This reason, however, as Wernz well ob- serves, is false. For, according to the best authori- ties on the Pactum Catlijiinum, the pope granted to Henry V several important concessions, permitting the emperor to assist at episcopal elections and to ex- act from bishops-elect in Germany and from conse- crated bishops in other parts of the empire (i. e. in Burgundy and Italy) not merely the oath of simple loyalty but even that of vassalage, by which the rights and liberties of the Church were considerably re- stricted. Cavagnis likewise remarks about the first concordat with Portugal, in 12S.S, that it is rather a decree of the pope in which, after hearing the bishops and the royal plenipotentiaries, he decided what should be allowed, what denied, out of the powers which the King claimed on the ground either of privi- lege or of custom. Granting all this, it does not seem to follow that such an act could not be called a con- cordat ; for it is by no means evident that mutual con- cessions are essential to the very nature of a concor- dat. An agreement may very well exist without mu- tual concessions — a principle especially in accord with the view of those authorities ( including C'avagnis) who see in cverj' concordat a strictly Ijilateral contract; for the due rights of either party can properly be recog- nized and established by any contract properly so called. Hence it is plain that concordats have in gen- eral been made in order to end a disagreement and re- store harmony. Not ahratjs, however; for concordats have at times been made when there w.is no actual dis- agreement to be settled — solely for the purpose of pre- venting disagreements in the future and of rendering more secure and permanent the welfare of the Church in some State. This was done between Pius IX and Garcia Morena, President of Ecuador in 1862.

With regard to the neces.sity of concordats two ex- treme opinions are to be avoided. Concordats are not absolutely necessary; neither arc they harmful to the Church or civil society. Assuredly it were to be de- sired that the Church should never need concordats, and should always find in civil rulers devoted children, or at least .such as would use all diligence in caring for the spiritiial welfare of their Catholic subjects, and would religiously respect their rights. But, unfor- tunately, the contrary too often occurs. Hence the Church, to avoid a greater evil, has often had to prom-

ise to forego this or that natural right of her own in order to secure from the State a promise to refrain from further encroachment upon ecclesiastical rights.

Matter or Oliject of a Concordat. — The matter, or the objects, treated of in a concordat may be spiritual, mixed, or temporal.

Spiritual matters are those that belong purely to the spiritual order, or are connected with it; for example, matters pertaining to the liturgy. Thus, in some con- cordats there has been question of inserting the name of the emperor in the Canon (q. v.) and of singing after the Divine Office the formula: "Domine, salvam fac rempublicam", or "Domine, salvos fac consules", or "Domine, salvos fac presides eius" (cf. art. 8, of the Concordat of 1801 ; arts. 23, 24 of the Concordat with Costa Rica and Guatemala, 1853; arts. 15, with Haiti, 1860; art. 21, with Ecuador, 1862; arts. 22, 23, with Nicaragua and San Salvador, 1863). In like manner there is frequent mention of nominating bishops, of the establishment and bestowal of parishes, or of pre- scribing special regulations for the pniniotion of clerics to Holy orders or to ecclesiastical dignities, so as to prevent, for example, the number of clerics from be- coming too large (cf. art. 5, Concordat with Spain, 1737; C. iv, Concordat with Sicily, 1741), and so on.

Mixed matters are those which belong, though under different aspects, both to the temporal and spir- itual orders, and are subject to both authorities, such as public education, marriage, etc.

Temporal matters are such as of their own nature do not belong to the spiritual order. In some con- cordats the Church has allowed nders to impose taxes not only on the private possessions of clerics, but also on ecclesiastical property ; so the Roman Pontiff has at times given up his claims on account of certain ecclesiastical properties damaged in the course of civil or religious turmoil. Examples of each of these occur in the Concordat with Cohunbia, in 1887. It is to be noted that, when the pope absolutely surrenders tem- poral possessions of the Church, as in art. 29 of this concordat, such possessions no longer remain under the ownership or jurisdiction of the Church or subject to it. When, however, he merely permits such prop- erty to be ta.xed (as in art. 6 of the Colombian Con- cordat, art. 18 or art. 19 of that with Costa Rica, in 1853) then the property remains in the ownership of the Church, which does not acknowletlge in the State any inherent right to impose taxes of this kind, but rather implies the contrary by the very concession.

The CnnlriicHnij Parties. — It is clear that only those persons in ( 'liurch or State are competent to enter into a concordat who in their respective spheres have the right of making treaties, and indeed of enacting laws. Hence, ab.snlutely speaking, liishcips, as true rulers of the Church vested with authority tn make laws strictly so called, can also make concordats on all matters falling within their jmisdiction. In pa.st ages they have often exercised this right ; a concordat was made between the bishops of Portugal and King Diniz in 1288, an<l confirmed by Nicholas IV in 1289: In 1273 one was maile between the bishops of Norway and Magnus VI (IV), by which the bishops renounced the right of electing the king as long as there were legiti- mate heirs of the blood, antl the king on his part bound himself to prevent the royal officials from interfering with the free exercise of ecclesiastical authority. This concordat was confirmed in the fol- lowing year by Gregory X in the Second Council of Lyons. Many other concordats made by bishops might be mentioned ; for example, between the bishops of Portugal and King Manuel, confirmed by liCo X in lolC). Candido Mendes de Almeida, in his "J\is Civile Ecclesiasticum Brasilicum Vetus et Recens", enumerates eighteen concordats made be- tween the thirti'cnth ami fourteenth centuries by the Kings of Portugal with the ilergy of the kingdom, for the settlement of serious controversies. At the pres-