Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 8.djvu/645

 JUSSIEU

569

JUSSIEU

(Cod. Just., lib. I, tit. v, De hferet. et raanich.; tit. vii, De Apost. ; tit. ix, De juci.etcoelic). Conversely, the Church in the Middle Ages increased its penal jurisdiction in the civil domain by infliction of varied penalties, some of them purely secular in character. Above all, by means of the privilegium fori it withdrew the so-called "criminous clerks" from the jurisdiction of the civil courts. Then it obtained for the court held by the bishop during his diocesan visitation (the send) not only the punislimcnt of those civil misde- meanours wliioli involved tlic element of sin and con- sequently affected lioth Church and State, but it also punished, and as such, pvirely civil offences. The penal jurisdiction of the medieval Church included, there- fore, first the merely ecclesiastical offences, e. g. heresy, schism, apostasy, etc.; then the merely civil offences; finally the mixed offences, e. g. sins of the flesh, sacri- lege, blasphemy, magic, perjury, usury, etc. In pun- isliing offences of a purely ecclesiastical character the Church disposed unreservedly of the aid of the State for the execution of the penalty. When in the afore- said send, or court held by the bishop during his visitation, it inflicted punishment on the civil offences of the laity, the penalty, as a rule, was enforced by the count igraf) who accompanied the bishop and repre- sented the civil power. The principle prevailed later that an offence already punished by a secular judge was no longer punishable liy the ecclesiastical judge (c.ii,in VI°, De except., II, xii). When the .senrf began to disappear, lioth ecclesiastical and secular judges were in general held equally competent for mixed offences. Prevention (previous adjudication of the case by one judge or the other) was decisive (c. viii, X, De foro compet., II, ii). If the matter were brought before the ecclesiastical judge he inflicted at the same time the ciWl penalty, not, however, corporal punishment or death. If the accusation was brought before the secular judge, the civil penalty was inflicted by him and the action of the Church was limited to the imposition of a penance. The Church, however, event- ually lost by far the greater part of its criminal juris- diction for the same reasons which, since the end of the Middle Ages, led to the loss of most of its contentious jurisdiction, and in the same manner. Moreover, from the fifteenth century on, the recursus ab abusu which first arose in France {appel comme d'abus), that is the appeal from an abuse of power by an ecclesiastical authority, did much to weaken and discredit ecclesias- tical jurisdiction.

III. Present Scope of Jurisdiction in a Strict Sense. — To-day the only objects of contentious ecclesiastical jurisdiction (in which jurisdiction, how- ever, the State often takes part or interferes) are: questions of faith, the administration of the sacra- ments, particularly the contracting and maintenance of marriage, the holding of church services, the crea- tion and modification of benefices, the appointment to and the vacation of ecclesiastical offices, the rights of beneficed ecclesiastics as such, the ecclesiastical rights and duties of patrons, the ecclesiastical rights and duties of religious, the administration of church prop- erty. As to the criminal jurisdiction of the Church it now inflicts on the laity only ecclesiastical penalties, and solely for ecclesiastical offences. If ever civil con- sequences ensue, only the civil authority can take cognizance of them. As regards ecclesiastics, the power of the Church to punish their disciplinary offences and maladministration of tiieir offices, is everywhere acknowledged by the State. Where ( 'hurch and State are not separated, the State aids in investi- gating these offences, as well as in executing the canonically rendered decisions of the Church. As to the civil offences of ecclesiastics, ecclesiastical jurisdic- tion carries with it no secular consequences, though the Church is free to punish such offences by ecclesias- tical penalties. According to the Bull " Apost olics gedis moderationi " (12 October, 1869), those perspng

fall under the excommunication reserved to the pope speciali modo, who directly or indirectly hinder the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the external forum or in the internal forum, as well as those who appeal from ecclesiastical to civil jurisdiction; finally every legislator or person in authority who directly or indirectly compels a judge to cite ecclesiastical persons before a civil tribunal (I, vi, vii, viii). It may be added that in various concordats with the civil power the Church has more or less abandoned the prinilegium fori of ecclesiastics: Concordat with Bavaria, 1817, art. XII, lit. c. (concerning civil litigation); with Costa Rica, 1853, art. XIV, XV; with (uiatcmala, l.S.3;3, art. XV, XVI; with Austria, Is.-,:,, art. XIII, XIV; with Wurtemberg and Baden, ls,',7 and 1S.')9, art. V. Kellner, Das Btiss- vml SlnijWr/.ihr, n unirn Klrnkcr in dm seeks ersten rhn'.ttlichcn Jahrlnntilcrlcn (Trier, 1S63): Boui.x, Trartatus de judiriis ecelesiastiris (Paris. 1855) ; Hinschius, Das Kirchenreeht der Katholiken und Proteslanten, III-VI (Berlin. 1S69-1.S97). i; Miinchen, Das kanonische Gerichlsverfahren und Strafrecht (2nd ed., Cologne, 1S74) ; Fournier, Les officwlites au moyen-dge: Etude sur Vorganisation, la competence et la procedure des tribunaux ecclcsiastiques ordinaires en France de 1180 d 1SS8 (Paris, 1880) ; Droste, Kirchliches DiszipUnar- und Kriminal- verfahren gegen Geistliche (Paderbom, 1882); Pierantonelli, Praxis fori ecclesiaslici (Rome, 1883); Lega, Prcelectiones de judiciis ecclesiasticis (2nd ed., Rome, 1905); Sebastianelli, De judiciis (Rome, 1906); Hergenrother-Hollweck, Lehrbuch des katholischen Kirchenrechts (Freiburg im Br., 1905), 51 sqq., 490 sqq.. 536 sqq.; Laurentius, Institutiones juris ecclesiastici (2nd ed., Freiburg im Br., 1908), 32 sqq., 267 sqq.; Sagmuller, Lehrbwh des katholischen Kirchenrechts (2Qd ed., Freiburg im Br., 1909), 25 sqq., 218 sqq., 248 sqq., 742 sqq.

Johannes Baptist SagmiJllek.

Jussieu, DE, name of five French botanists.

(1) Antoine de Jussieu, phvsician and botanist, b. at Lyons, France, 6 July, 1686; d. at Paris, 22 April, 1758. He studied medicine at Montpellier, but as early as 1708 he was appointed, upon the recommenda- tion of Fagon, to succeed the celebrated Tournefort as professor and demonstrator at the Jardin du Roi. By 1711 he was a member of the Academy of Sciences. .After making botanical journeys over a large part of France, he explored in 1716 the flora of the Pyrenean peninsula. In addition to his activity as botanist he had a large medical practice, giving much attention to the poor. From 1718 he also made use in his practice of quassia bark {Cortex Simaruba;), the first of which had been sent in 1713 to the Jesuit Father Soleil at Paris from Cayenne. Antoine de Jussieu wrote an ac- count of the bark in the " M(5moires" of the Academy for 1729, and Linnaeus named after him the plant Sim- aruba Jussiai. The " Memoires" of the Academy also contain papers by Jussieu on human anatomy, zool- ogy, palaeontology, and mineralogy. Haller ["Bib- liotheca botanica", II (1772)] enumerates twenty botanical papers, of which the " Descriptio et icon Cof- fea; (coffee) " of 1713 has historical value. In 1719 he published a new and revised edition, with an appendix, of Tournefort's "Institutiones rei herbaria;". He edited, further, the chief botanical work of the Do- minican Jacques Barrelicr (1606-73). a large and not unimportant treatise. Barrelicr had left numerous drawings of plants and the text for a large work; the text was destroyed in a fire after Barrelier's death, but the drawings were saved. The work edited by de Jus- sieu contains 334 botanical plates, in folio, with 1392 figures, and is entitled " Plantae per Galliam, Hispa- niam et aliam observata; " (Paris, 1714). Healsolefta work, "Traite des vertusdes plantes" (Nancy, 1771).

(2) Bernard de Jussieu, brother of the above, b. at Lyons, 17 August, 1699; d. at Paris, 6 November, 1777; the date of death is sometimes given as 1776. He was educated at the large Jesuit college at Lyons until he had finished the study of rhetoric. In 1716 he accompanied his brother Antoine on the lattcr's jour- nies to Spain, and developed into an enthusiastic bota- nist. He studied medicine at Montpellier, obtaining his degree in 1720, but practised medicine only for a short time. He was called to Paris by his brother An-