Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 5.djvu/785

 EXEQUATUR

707

EXEQUATUR

having "active" exemption may exercise a more ex- tensive jurisdiction. They are (1) those who have certain episcopal rights over a clearly defined territory otherwise belonging to the diocese, and are known, canonically, as prwlati nullius (i. e. diceceseos) cum ter- ritorio conjuncto; (2) those who have episcopal juris- diction over a definite territory entirely distinct from the diocese, and known as praslati nullius cum territorio separata. The latter are prwlati nullius in the proper sense; such, e. g. are the abbots of Monte Cassino, in Italy, and of St. Moritz, and Einsiedeln, in Switzer- land. Prelates actively exempted have almost the same rights and privileges as a bishop. They may sit and vote in a general council, make laws within their proper territory, exercise canonical jurisdiction in matrimonial, disciplinary, and criminal matters They may also grant faculties to hear confessions, reserve to themselves the right of absolving from certain sins, in- flict ecclesiastical punishments and censures, grant faculties for preaching, make visitations within their jurisdiction, found an ecclesiastical seminary for priests, and appoint a vicar-general. Correspond- ingly, such a prelate must reside in his district, offer the Holy Sacrifice for the people, every Sunday and feast day, go at stated tinaes to visit the Apostolic See {msitatio liminum Apostolorum), and attend the synod of the province, for which option has been declared. He is not, however, obliged to attend the diocesan synod. As a rule, such prelates are not consecrated bishops. They must consequently apply to some bishop of their own choice for the confirmation of their subjects, and for the consecration of the holy oils; for the ordination of their subjects, however, they must apply to the nearest bishop. When such prcelati nul- lius are also regular abbots they may confer on their subjects the ecclesiastical tonsure, and ordain to the lower orders, or to this effect grant dImi.ssorial letters to the diocesan bishop. Without papal privilege, however, they cannot make use of the pontifical insig- nia (pontificalia), nor perform acts of consecration reserved to bishops. Nor can they, without papal privilege, convene a diocesan synod, appoint synodal examiners, or hold examinations for appointment to parishes.

Although regulars are, in all matters of substantial importance, exempted from jurisdiction, there remain a number of matters in which they are subject to epis- copal control. Regulars living outside of their mona.s- tery are subject to the bishop as papal delegate (Cone. Trid. Se.ss. VI, De ref.ch. iii; Sess. XXV, De regul., ch. xiv). Besides the papal confirmation, the consent of the bishop is also necessary for the foimding of a mon- a.stery (Cone. Trid. Sess. XXV, De regul. ch. iii). The bishop has the right to bless an abbot confirmed by the pope (Cone. Trid Sess. XXV, De regul. ch. vi). Mon- asteries of men are subject to episcopal visitation only in respect of parochial work (cura animarum) carried on by them outside of the monasteries (Cone. Trid. Sess. XXV, De regul., ch. xi). The bishop has the right to confer major orders on regulars, and to use the pontificalia in their churches. When the regulars have no special privilege the diocesan bishop consecrates their churches; and they must obtain epi-scopal per- mission for processions outside the immediate vicinity of such churches. They must also ask the epi-scopal blessing before they can preach (coram episcopo) in churches of the order, while, in order to preach in any other than their own churches, canonical authorization (missio canonica) must be obtained from the bishop (Cone. Trill. Sess. V, De ref. ch. ii). To hear the con- fessions of the laity, and to grant absolution in cases reserved to the bishop, regulars require episcopal ap- probation (Cone. Trid. Sess. XXIII, De ref. ch. xv). The writings and books of regulars must be submitted, before publication, to the diocesan censor for the place of issue (Leo XIII, "Officiorum ac munerum", 25 Janu- ary, 1897, no 36). It is also obligatory, on members

of orders, to observe the ordinances of the bishop re- specting the Church feast days, church services, and processions (Cone. Trid. Sess. XXV, De regul., ch. xii, anil ch. xiii).

The rights of the bishop in respect to exempt orders of women are still more extensive. The bishop, or his representative (commissarius), presides at the election of abbesses, prioresses, or superiors (Cone. Trid. Sess. XXV, De regul. ch. vii). The right to visit canonically religious houses of women belongs to the bishop; he is charged in particular, with the entire superintendence of the observance of the clausura or cloister (Cone. Trid. Sess. XXV, De regul. ch. v). The bishop ap- points the confessors, ordinary and extraordinary, for religious houses of women; in cases where such ap- pointment belongs to some one else the bishop must, at least, give his approbation (Cone. Trid. Sess. XXV, De regul. ch. x). It is the bishop who examines into, either personally, or by representative, the voluntary character of the entrance of candidates into orders for women, both when they put on the habit of the order, and when they make their profession (Cone. Trid. Sess. XXV, De regul. ch. xvii). It is the bishop, finally, who audits the management of the property of female orders and religious houses. For exemption of eccle- siastics from secular jurisdiction see Immunity.

De Buck, De exemplitme re^ularinm conservanda (Brussels, 1869): ScHAFLER, Der Bischof und die Regularen seiner Diuzese (Augsburg, 1871): Blumenstok, Der pdpstliche Schutz im Mit- telaller (Innsbruck, 1890): Weiss, Die kirchlichen Exemlionen der Klosler vim ihrer Entstehung bis zur gregorianisch-kluniacen- siscken Zeit (Basle, 1893); Hufner, Das Reckisinstilui der kl'jslerlichen Exetntion in der abendlandischen Kirche (Mainz, 190.3): Laurentius, Inatituliones Juris ecclesiastici (Freiburg im Br., 1908), 2nd ed., 180 sqq., 619 sqq.

Johannes Baptist S.Kgmijllek.

Exequatur (synonymous with Regium Placet), as the Jansenist Van Espen defines it, is a faculty which civil rulers impart to a Bull, papal Brief, or other ecclesiastical enactment in order to give it binding force in their respective territories. This faculty is conceded after ecclesiastical laws have been examined and found not derogatory to any right of the civil power and, therefore, suitable for promul- gation. Modern statesmen draw a distinction between the Exequatur and the Regium Placet. The latter, according to them, is given to episcopal acts or acts of any other ecclesiastical superior belonging to the nation for which they are approved ; while the former is conceded to enactments of a foreign power, that is, to papal Constitutions; the pope, as head of the whole Church, being formally considered as an authority not belonging to any particular country. In both cases, however, state authorities have the power of exam- ining church laws and giving permission for their pro- mulgation, by which permission ecclesiastical decrees acquire legal value and binding force.

As to tlie origin of this supposed right of the State over the Church, it is now beyond doubt, contrary to the assertions of Gallicans and Jansenists, that no trace of it can be found in the early centuries of the Church, or even as late as the fourteenth century. It is true that during all that period of time General Councils, like those of Nica?a and Ephesus, requisi- tioned the sanction of State authorities for ecclesias- tical laws; it was not, however, juridical, but only physical, force that was then invoked for ecclesiastical decrees, in order to enforce their execution by the secular arm. Moreover, had such a power in the State been at that time known, rulers of nations who were sometimes anxious to prevent the promulgation and execution of papal Constitutions in their domains would have readily appealed to it, instead of resorting to more difficult and troublesome means, in order to impede in every possible way papal letters from ever being introduced into their dominions, e. g. in the conflicts of Philip the Fair of France with Boniface VIII, and of Henry II of England with Alexander