OCR Text |
Show : THE FML 3YILS : X With a Refutation of the Errors Which It Condemns . Translated from tho Italian of L'Falconl. I Thirteenth Error. "The immunity of the Church and of ecclesiastical persons per-sons derived its origin from the civil law." Refutation The clergy and the laity are alike subject to the laws and regulations regu-lations of the Church. But the clergy must also conform themselves to the holy canons bearing upon their mode of life, to ecclesiastical usage, and to the requirements of their spiritual offices. of-fices. As far as their relations to government gov-ernment and society are concerned, the clergy are not. as Bellarmine says, exempt ex-empt from the obligations imposed by any civil law. which does not conflict with the holy canons or with their clerical cler-ical functions because, by becoming be-coming ecclesiastic, they do not thereby there-by cease to be citizens, but continue to form a part of the body politic and must, therefore, be obedient to the clergy to conform to such laws could only serve to create confusion and disorder. dis-order. "Non sunt exempti clerici ab obligatione legum civiliuon, quel non repugnant sacris cononibus, vel officio clericale. Nom clerici, praeter-quam praeter-quam quod clerici sunt, sunt etiam elves, et partes quadam reipublicae pol-iticae pol-iticae igitur illas clerici ser-vare ser-vare debent, aliquo magna perturbates et confusio in republica oriretur, si clerici non servarent civiles leges in commercus civilibus et humanic. (Lib. I, Cap. xxxiii, de cler.") Bellarmine observes, however, in the same place that the clergy are held to the observance obser-vance of these laws solely b' o rti-dective, rti-dective, not by a coactive obligation: In other word?, he wishes to say that although the clergy are bound to obey these laws their non-compliance with them is punishable not by the civil magistracy, but by the ecclesiastical power. Now is this immunity from lay jurisdiction of human or divine right? It cannot be disputed that the Church has received from her Divine Founder the right to care for the sanctification of souls, and the consequent right to employ the means necessary to the attainment at-tainment of that end. One of these means is the liberty to choose and to eudcate her ministers. No one can enter the holy ministry self-chosen: he must be called y God as Aaron was; "Nemo assumpist slbi honorem sed qui vocatur a deo tanquam Aaron." It is, moreover, evident, that the means or Instruments partake of the nature of the end; If the end be human, the means must be human; if the end be divine, the means must be divine; otherwise, oth-erwise, there would be no proportion between the end to be attained and the means for its attainment; as, therefore, there-fore, the end proposed to the Church, viz., the sanctification of souls is divine, di-vine, the means emploed for its attainment at-tainment must also be divine. Now that which 13 divine, is in its very nature na-ture beyond the competency of purely human power; and accordingly, no human hu-man authority can as such legitimately exercise any jurisdiction over the persona per-sona of ecclesiastics. Hence, it is that neither the Church or her minivers recognize their immunity as proceeding from the civil power. But if thi3 immunity or exemption was derived from the civil law, will they who uphold this opinion, kindly inform us whether and ,where it was first accorded? It can be traced to no emperor or king; nor was It instituted by the Apostles, or by the Pontiffs or by the Councils. In the instructions, which he sent to Timothy for the government gov-ernment of the church at Ephesus, St. Paul does not originate this Immunity, but, on the contrary, supposes it to already al-ready exist. "Against a priest," he says, "receive not.an accusation, but under two or three Witnesses." The Apostle speaks here of a criminal action ac-tion and it is therefore evident that there were even in those days tribunal especially clothed with the duty of trying try-ing and punishing ecclesiastics. The sons of the king are not held to pay tribute, s-aid Christ to St. Petr; the same holds good of those who serv- within th-i temple. And although Chrift did actually pay the didrachm;i. for Himself and Pet?r, Pie did so only in order that those who knew Him not I night not be scandalized in Him. I:. i like manner the Church muit behoM her ministers dragged before tribunals which are not hr own, by those wh avj ignorant of her divine charact-: , land are ungrateful for the benefits th-.-y have received a: her hands. Wners iteace wa.- restored to 1 1: Church by Constantino,- her civil immunity immu-nity was recognized, not concede i. Th:. is evident from the very language m-pioyed m-pioyed by this Christian emperor in th. law which he promulgated declaring the clergy exempt from all laical burdens. bur-dens. (Cod. Theod. 1. lt t. 2. liber 'Septimus.) 'Septi-mus.) And in a letter to Anolimus, Prelect of Africa, whion letter is quoted quot-ed bj- Eusebius (1. 10. Cap. 7.). The same emperor wrote as follows: "Cler-icos "Cler-icos ab omnibus omnino publicis funo. tionibus immunes volumous. Conser-vari, Conser-vari, ne errore all'iuo, aut casu sacrilege sacri-lege a culta sunimae divinitates debito abstahantur." Constantine, therefore, regarded the violation of clerical immunities as a wrongful and sacriligiously malicious act, and as he wa? not himself competent compe-tent to impart to such violation the nature na-ture of a sacrilege, it follows that he merely recognized and did not institute those immunities. Hence it is that the Council of Lat-eran, Lat-eran, held under Leo. X could affirm (Sess. 9) that neither by divine nor by human right were laymen vested with authority over ecclestical persons, and. the Council of Trent teaches that the immunity of the Church and her clergy was in?tituted by divine ordinance and. divine sanction. This reverential regard for person consecrated to th? service cf the Divinity Di-vinity is so natural to man that ail nations have considered them sacred and beyond the reach of profane power. Domitan, himself, in condemning the Vestal Cornelia, acknowledged that ha could pronounce sentence upon her only in his capacity of supreme Pontiff. If, therefore, the immunity of ecclesiastics, eccles-iastics, springs from the right which, the Church has to conduct souU to eternal eter-nal lif-2 and the consequent right t make use of success proportionate to the end in view; if the persons employed employ-ed for that purpose are chosen by a special call of Almighty God; If St. Paul supposed the existence of an ec- clesiastical tribunal; if our opponents . are unable to indicate when, how or by whom the right inquestion was first, accorded; if Constantine himself branded brand-ed as a sacrilege the subjection of the clergy to any laical burden whatsoever it ia evident that this immunity did not derive it3 origin from the civil law, but that it is, on the contrary, something some-thing Divine, explained and sanctioned from time to time, as occasion offered, in the Holy Caucus, as we were especially espec-ially taught by the Council of Trent. Deplorable the age and mournful the conditions of that society in which the exaltedness of such a principle ia not felt, in which there is no trace of that delicate sentiment of Catholic faith and truth which surrounds- the ministers of our holy religion as with a halo of heavenly light. (To Be Continued.) |