Appeal as from an abuse

Last updated

"Appeal as from an abuse" (French: appel comme d'abus) is a legal term applied in the canon law of the Catholic Church, meaning originally a legal appeal as recourse to the civil forum (court) against the usurpation by the ecclesiastical forum of the rights of civil jurisdiction. It could also mean (vice versa) a recourse to the ecclesiastical forum against the usurpation by the civil forum of the rights of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. [1]

Thus defined, the "appeal as from an abuse" had as its object was to safeguard equally the rights both of the State and of the Catholic Church. An abuse would be an act on either hand, without due authority, beyond the limits of their respective ordinary and natural jurisdictions. In practice the use of such appeals was important, historically, as a way to undermine the power of church courts. [1]

Canon law

The canons did not exclude a recourse to the civil authority when the acts of an ecclesiastical judge invaded the domain of the civil authority, especially as reciprocity gave the ecclesiastical authority the right to repel with the same weapons any usurpation by the lay judge to the damage of the rights of the Church. Thus also a recourse to the supreme civil ruler was not deemed amiss when an ecclesiastical court undertook a cause belonging to the competency of a higher ecclesiastical court, and the ruler was asked merely to forward it to the proper tribunal without, however, claiming to delegate to it any jurisdiction. Perhaps the first formal manifestation of this appeal in the legitimate sense occurred in the fourteenth century. [1]

History

Ecclesiastical judges acquired a reputation for learning and equity, and by the good will of the State, not merely ecclesiastical, but many civil cases of the laity were adjudicated by them. in 1329 complaint was brought to King Philip de Valois by the advocate general, Peter de Cugnières, that the civil tribunals were fast lapsing into contempt, and were being abandoned. The purport of the complaint was to restrict the competency of the ecclesiastical tribunals to their own legitimate fields. Bickerings between the two forums were henceforth frequent. Even the Catholic states, after the beginning of the sixteenth century, advanced far in the way of frequent ruptures with the Church. [1]

When the Protestant states had acquired control and supervision over the newly reformed bodies even in their spiritual relations, the Catholic states, particularly France, strove to limit the jurisdiction of the Catholiv Church as far as they could without casting aside the profession of the Catholic Faith. The Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges was a serious aggression by France upon the acknowledged rights of the Church and of the Holy See. It is in France that we find the most flagrant series of encroachments upon Church jurisdiction, through pretence of appeals as from an abuse, gradually tending to the elimination of the ecclesiastical forum. [1]

During the seventeenth century the French Catholic clergy presented frequent memorials against the encroachments made by their kings and parliaments through constant recourse to these "appeals as from an abuse", which resulted in submitting to civil tribunals questions of definitions of faith, the proper administration of the sacraments, and the like. This brought confusion into the regulation of spiritual matters by encouraging ecclesiastics to rebel against their lawful ecclesiastical superiors. The lay tribunals undertook to adjudicate whether the ministers of the sacraments had a right to refuse them to those deemed unworthy, or the right to Christian burial of Catholics dying impenitent or under Church censures; whether interdicts or suspensions were valid; whether monastic professions should be annulled; whether the bishop's permission was necessary for preaching; whether a specified marriage was contrary or not to the Gospel; and also to decide the justice of canonical privations of benefices. Many other subjects intimately connected with the teaching of the Church were brought before lay tribunals, and unappealable decisions rendered in open contradiction to the canons, as can easily be surmised both from the absence of theological knowledge, and from the visible animus shown in decisions that undertook to subject the spiritual power of the Church to the dictates of transient politics. [1]

Interference was mostly owing to courtier-canonists who flattered the secular rulers by dwelling upon the right of protection over the Church conceded in early days to the Christian Roman Emperors. The Church was recognized as autonomous in all things of the divine law and in matters of ecclesiastical discipline. When rulers like Charlemagne seemed to take upon themselves undue authority, insisting upon certain canons, the bishops claimed their sole right to govern the Church. Even in mixed assemblies of bishops and nobles and princes, the bishops insisted that the civil power should not encroach upon the rights of the Church, e. g. in the Council of Narbonne (788). [1]

Zaccaria recognized, however, that in his day (the eighteenth century), as well as in former ages, the Catholic rulers of Catholic States, in their quality of protectors of the Church, might receive a recourse from ecclesiastics in ecclesiastical matters, in order that justice might be done them by their ordinary ecclesiastical judges, not as deputies of the civil rulers, but as ordinary judges in their own forum. In her concordats with Catholic states the Catholic Church granted to several that the civil cases of clerics, and such as concern the property and temporal rights of churches, as well as benefices and other ecclesiastical foundations, may be brought before the civil courts. [1]

Modern relationship

All ecclesiastical causes, and those that concern the Faith, sacraments, morals, sacred functions, and rights connected with the sacred ministry, belong to the ecclesiastical forum, both in regard of persons and of matter (cf. Concordat with Ecuador in 1881). In the United States, as decreed by the Third Provincial Council of Baltimore (1837), the church law is that if any ecclesiastical person or member of a religious body, male or female, should cite an ecclesiastic or a religious before a civil court on a question of a purely ecclesiastical nature, he should know that he falls under the censures decreed by canon law. [1]

The Congregation of Propaganda in its comment explained that, in mixed cases, where the persons may be ecclesiastical, but the things about which there is question may be temporal or of one's household, this rule cannot be enforced, especially in countries in which the civil government is not in the hands of Catholics, and where, unless recourse is had to the civil courts, there is not the means or the power of enforcing an ecclesiastical decision for the protection or recovery of one's own. A special proviso was made by Propaganda for the United States (17 August 1886), that if a priest should bring a cleric before a civil tribunal on an ecclesiastical or other question without permission from the bishop he could be forced to withdraw the case by the infliction of penalties and censures, yet the bishop must not refuse the permission if the parties have ineffectually attempted a settlement before him. If the bishop is to be cited, the permission of the Holy See is required. [1]

By a special declaration of Propaganda (6 September 1886), a cleric's transfer of a claim to a layman for the purpose of evading the censures is checked by the requirement of the consent of the bishop to such transfer, if made for the purpose of the suit. Justice Redfield[ who? ] says in reference to the United States generally: "The decision of ecclesiastical courts or officers having, by the rules or laws of the bodies to which they belong, jurisdiction of such questions, or the right to decide them, will be held conclusive in all courts of the civil administration, and no question involved in such decisions will be revised or reviewed in the civil courts, except those pertaining to the jurisdiction of such courts or officers to determine such questions according to the laws or the usage of the bodies they represent." Justice Strong, of the Supreme Court of the United States, speaks of the Church as "an interior organization within a religious society", and adds: "I think it may be safely asserted as a general principle that whenever questions of discipline, of faith, of Church rule, of membership, or of office, have been decided by the Church, in its own modes of decision, civil law tribunals accept these decisions as final and apply them as made." [1]

Related Research Articles

An ecclesiastical court, also called court Christian or court spiritual, is any of certain courts having jurisdiction mainly in spiritual or religious matters. In the Middle Ages, these courts had much wider powers in many areas of Europe than before the development of nation states. They were experts in interpreting canon law, a basis of which was the Corpus Juris Civilis of Justinian, which is considered the source of the civil law legal tradition.

<i>Crimen sollicitationis</i> 1962 document by the Holy Office

Crimen sollicitationis is the title of a 1962 document ("instruction") of the Holy Office codifying procedures to be followed in cases of priests or bishops of the Catholic Church accused of having used the sacrament of Penance to make sexual advances to penitents. It repeated, with additions, the contents of an identically named instruction issued in 1922 by the same office.

Defrocking, unfrocking, degradation, or laicization of clergy is the removal of their rights to exercise the functions of the ordained ministry. It may be grounded on criminal convictions, disciplinary problems, or disagreements over doctrine or dogma, but may also be done at their request for personal reasons, such as running for civil office, taking over a family business, declining health or old age, desire to marry against the rules for clergy in a particular church, or an unresolved dispute. The form of the procedure varies according to the Christian denomination concerned.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tribunal</span> Person or institution with the authority to judge, adjudicate or determine claims or disputes

A tribunal, generally, is any person or institution with authority to judge, adjudicate on, or determine claims or disputes—whether or not it is called a tribunal in its title. For example, an advocate who appears before a court with a single judge could describe that judge as "their tribunal." Many governmental bodies are titled "tribunals" to emphasize that they are not courts of normal jurisdiction. For example, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda was a body specially constituted under international law; in Great Britain, employment tribunals are bodies set up to hear specific employment disputes. In many cases, the word tribunal implies a judicial body with a lesser degree of formality than a court, in which the normal rules of evidence and procedure may not apply, and whose presiding officers are frequently neither judges nor magistrates. Private judicial bodies are also often styled "tribunals." The word tribunal, however, is not conclusive of a body's function—for example, in Great Britain, the Employment Appeal Tribunal is a superior court of record.

In the canon law of the Catholic Church, a distinction is made between the internal forum, where an act of governance is made without publicity, and the external forum, where the act is public and verifiable. In canon law, internal forum, the realm of conscience, is contrasted with the external or outward forum; thus, a marriage might be null and void in the internal forum, but binding outwardly, i.e., in the external forum, for want of judicial proof to the contrary.

Ecclesiastical jurisdiction signifies jurisdiction by church leaders over other church leaders and over the laity.

Latae sententiae and ferendae sententiae are ways sentences are imposed in the Catholic Church in its canon law.

The Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura is the highest judicial authority in the Catholic Church. In addition, it oversees the administration of justice in the church.

In the jurisprudence of the canon law of the Catholic Church, a dispensation is the exemption from the immediate obligation of law in certain cases. Its object is to modify the hardship often arising from the rigorous application of general laws to particular cases, and its essence is to preserve the law by suspending its operation in such cases.

A defender of the bond is a Catholic Church official whose duty is to defend the marriage bond in the procedure prescribed for the hearing of matrimonial causes which involve the validity or nullity of a marriage already contracted. In current Canon Law the role is provided for in Book VII, Title 1, which deals with marriage processes.

Incardination is the formal term in the Catholic Church for a clergyman being under a bishop or other ecclesiastical superior. It is also sometimes used to refer to laity who may transfer to another part of the church. Examples include transfers from the Western Latin Church to an Eastern Catholic Church or from a territorial diocese to one of the three personal ordinariates for former Anglicans.

In the Catholic Church, a declaration of nullity, commonly called an annulment and less commonly a decree of nullity, and in some cases, a Catholic divorce, is an ecclesiastical tribunal determination and judgment that a marriage was invalidly contracted or, less frequently, a judgment that ordination was invalidly conferred.

The right of patronage in Roman Catholic canon law is a set of rights and obligations of someone, known as the patron in connection with a gift of land (benefice). It is a grant made by the church out of gratitude towards a benefactor.

The Provincial Councils of Baltimore were councils of Roman Catholic bishops that set the pattern for Catholic organisation in the United States of America. They were seen as having a unique importance for the Church in the United States, inasmuch as the earlier ones legislated for practically the whole territory of the Republic, and furnished moreover a norm for all the later Plenary Councils of Baltimore covering the whole country. This article touches upon only those parts of the canonical legislation which may seem in any way to individualize the discipline of the Church in the United States or depict the peculiar needs and difficulties of its nascent period.

Within the Catholic Church, an ecclesiastical judge is an ecclesiastical person who possesses ecclesiastical jurisdiction either in general or in the strict sense. The judge presides over all baptized persons within their jurisdiction.

Reserved cases or reserved sins is a term of Catholic doctrine, used for sins whose absolution is not within the power of every confessor, but is reserved to himself by the superior of the confessor, or only specially granted to some other confessor by that superior.

1983 <i>Code of Canon Law</i> 1983 codification of canonical legislation for the Latin Catholic Church

The 1983 Code of Canon Law, also called the Johanno-Pauline Code, is the "fundamental body of ecclesiastical laws for the Latin Church". It is the second and current comprehensive codification of canonical legislation for the Latin Church of the Catholic Church. The 1983 Code of Canon Law was promulgated on 25 January 1983 by John Paul II and took legal effect on the First Sunday of Advent 1983. It replaced the 1917 Code of Canon Law which had been promulgated by Benedict XV on 27 May 1917.

Canon 915, one of the canons in the 1983 Code of Canon Law of the Latin Church of the Catholic Church, forbids the administration of Holy Communion to those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, or who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin:

Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

In the canon law of the Catholic Church, excommunication is a form of censure. In the formal sense of the term, excommunication includes being barred not only from the sacraments but also from the fellowship of Christian baptism. The principal and severest censure, excommunication presupposes guilt; and being the most serious penalty that the Catholic Church can inflict, it supposes a grave offense. The excommunicated person is considered by Catholic ecclesiastical authority as an exile from the Church, for a time at least.

A censure, in the canon law of the Catholic Church, is a medicinal and spiritual punishment imposed by the church on a baptized, delinquent, and contumacious person, by which he is deprived, either wholly or in part, of the use of certain spiritual goods until he recovers from his contumacy. These goods can encompass access to the sacraments, participation in certain liturgical activities, and involvement in ecclesiastical functions.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Burtsell, Richard Lalor (1907). "Appeal as from an abuse"  . Catholic Encyclopedia . Vol. 1.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.