Chapter 4 (Part one)

The wound in the right foot of holy Church:
the nomination of bishops left in the hands of civil government.

74. Every free society has an inherent right to choose its own officers. This right is as essential and inalienable to it as its right to existence. A society which has ceded to others the choice of its own ministers has ipso facto alienated itself; its existence is no longer its own. Those on whom the choice of ministers depends can destroy it at will. In this case, its existence does not depend on its own decision, but on concession from others. Its apparently stable existence is very misleading.

75. One society which for all catholics certainly has a right to exist, and therefore a right to freedom, is the Church of Jesus Christ, who conferred this right when he said: "I am with you always, to the close of the age" (1). Christ, her Founder, has guaranteed the Church's existence by his unfailing word which will not pass away though heaven and earth come to an end. The Church of Jesus Christ, therefore, cannot cede her government to others; she cannot sell or otherwise alienate her choice of rulers because she cannot destroy herself. Any absolute concession of this kind is invalid, a contract without foundation, a pact without substance, amd like every other agreement to evil, null and void.

76. Christ chose his apostles at the beginning of the Church, the apostles chose their successors (2), and these successors have always retained (3) without fail the choice of those to whom they consign the deposit of faith which will be handed on unaltered until the end of the world. They alone will be held to account for what the Master has entrusted to them. The blame for the choice of bad bishops in the Church will fall upon their predecessors who first renounced their choice of successors or did not at least use all the means in their power to ensure successors worthy of receiving the sacred deposit of word and work left by Jesus Christ.

77. The government set up by Jesus Christ in his Church is very different from worldly dominion. As a service to mankind and a ministry of salvation for souls (4) it is not dependent upon the arbitrary will of unbending authority, nor does it imagine that it rules by naked right.
Founded on humility and reason it is malleable, and has as its norm the subjects for whom it was established, so that it is constitutionally disposed to direct all things to good, not evil. The only advantage it has, and the only right it can boast of, is its right to be of assistance to mankind.

This was quite clear in the first centuries of the Church, and accounts for the admirable principle applied in all church government, but especially in the choice of the leading pastors: THE CLERGY JUDGE, THE PEOPLE ADVISE. If there were question of a strict, rigid right, christian people could have had no part in the choice of bishops. Wisdom and love, however, quided and gently tempered the right received by the leaders of the Church of Christ. They did nothing arbitrarily, secretly or fancifully. Taught by Christ himself they wished to call upon the witness and advice of others, in the knowledge that counsel coming from the entire body of the faithful would be best, because least subject to error. In this way the Church of the faithful acted as a single person whose head sees itself different from the other members, but without refusing to serve them nor wanting to isolate itself from them.

Popular choice, therefore, designated bishops and priests (5). It was only right that those who had to abandon their own souls (and when I say "souls" I refer to what is most prized by people of living faith) into the hands of another person should know what kind of person he was, and have confidence in his holiness and prudence (6).

It is different if bishops and priests are pastors in name only, and no longer the trusted friends and fathers of believers who yield to their care all that they are and all they have. The people no longer care what pastor is given to them if the clergy's duty is reduced to formalities, or to carrying out worship ceremoniously, on a par, I almost said, with the pagan priests of old (7). When christian religion, which teaches its people to adore in spirit and in truth, has descended as low as this, can the people care - if the right to choose a pastor has passed from one owner to another as if it were a piece of property - about a man they do not know or, if they know him, neither trust nor esteem him and perhaps have come to despise him?

Public indifference about religion comes in for a great deal of intemperate criticism, but what else can be expected from people educated to accept as their bishop any unknown stranger for whom they lack common affection and ties of gratitude? What else can be expected if they have never experienced his holiness in practice (please God he is holy!), nor even heard of him, or having seen and heard him are not impressed? If the people are expected and encouraged to be indifferent to their pastors, are they not also required to be indifferent to what the pastors teach in doctrine and morals, and presumed to have lost confidence in ministers of religion? In a word, the people's interior needs and anguish can be set aside and religion can be considered superfluous to their requirements - or, at most, sufficient in its outward, material aspect.

Indifference to their pastors also obliges the people to blind, I should say, unreasonable obedience, a perfect synonym for religious indifference (8). To have succeeded in obtaining this amongst christian people is equivalent to subverting them and destroying christianity from within, although outwardly christians may cling to its form. All that remains is an unhappy people unconsciously lost to religion through hidden, slow, steady corruption. Its religious interests have been extinguished, and it has become practically independent of its bishops (9). As far as the people are concerned, any ordained person can preside in the sanctuary and carry out its unintelligible ceremonies. It is not surprising that the words of a 3rd century father of the Church can still be applied rightly to the people today: "God provides pastors for the churches according to the people's deserts" (10).

78. If we want to discover the origin of this disaster, we have to go back to the glorious, but fatal epoch which heralded for the Church what we have called "the period of society's conversion." This epoch explains all church history after the first six centuries because it contains the germ of all succeeding prosperity and disaster. It is the epoch in which the clergy weighed heavily in the balance of power and, because of their power, grew rich proportionately (11).
It is clear that a rich, property-owning clergy will inevitably attract the interest of government policy, which will want to subject such clergy to itself and hence influence the choice of its leaders. The first sees to fall to lay power in this way were Antioch and Constantinople, the imperial residence, where the patriarchs enjoyed considerable power (12).

79. The battle with secular power over the choice of bishops lasted many centuries. The Church defended herself with decrees and canons, but these were respected according to the piety of rulers and the religious feeling of the people. Diminishing freedom in the choice of clergy is a sure sign of the lowering of faith, morals and piety in governments and nations. Let us outline its history.
Already in the 6th century, the ruler's placet began to weigh more heavily in the balance of those choosing a bishop than the merits of candidates. Canons of various councils ruler against the danger and defended freedom of choice.

Pope Symmachus, in a council held in 500 at Rome in the presence of 218 bishops, published a decree confirming the canonical election of bishops against the continual wilful interference of lay power. The decree begins: "We cannot permit any power of decision in the church to those whose duty it is to follow rather than to command," and then goes on to confirm the ancient manner of choosing bishops with the consent of the clergy and people (13).

In 535, the council of Clermont (14) decreed that a biship be ordained at the choice of clergy and citizens and with the consent of the metropolitan, without pressure from the nobility, without intrigues, and without enforced signing of the decree of election by means of fear or bribes. The penalty for taking part in these misdemeanours was excommunication from the church which the candidate wished to rule (15).
The same care in safeguarding elections from influence by civil government is seen in the 2nd and 3rd councils of Orleans, 537 (16) and 538 (17), in the council of Auvergne, 535, and others. The decrees of these councils show how the Church felt the necessity of defending herself in some way from secular power which unfortunately never ceased to hack away at her and appropriate her rights.

Shortly afterwards government in France succeeded in enacting in church law the principle of royal assent which had already become practically necessary in episcopal appointments. The famous canon of the 5th council of Orleans, 549, which embodied this principle, did however safeguard the rights of clergy and people (18). Of course, it is not unreasonable to require the assent of government. On the contrary, it is certainly in conformity with union and peace in a Church which wishes her ministers to be acceptable to all, and hence a fortiori to those who rule the people. Nevertheless, this assent involves great danger in so far as it easily becomes an obligation (19) or a bestowal of government favour. In this case, the Church which is by favour free is also by justice (20) enslaved. Favour is per se arbitrary; and in our case it means that the choice of the most worthy candidates as pastors of the Church depends upon the will and even caprice of the ruling lay power, and the men and women who gain most influence over it.

This is, in fact, what happened. Assent was a favour; obligation was a favour; and finally favours were put up for sale at a stiff price, and bought with coin minted from the Church's goods (21), with personal debasement, and the sale of one's own soul (22).
Such a danger caused the 3rd council of Paris, 553, held four years after the council of Orleans, to reassert the ancient freedom of choice in a canon which omitted mention of royal assent.

Canon 8 of this synod affirms: "No bishop may be ordained against the will of the people, but only the one freely requested by the unimpeded will of clergy and people. No one will be imposed by royal command or under any other condition against the will of the metropolitan and the bishops of the province. If anyone dares to set himself up as bishop at the command of the king, he shall be held unworthy to be received by the other bishops of the province who will look upon him as unlawfully ordained."

Gregory the Great, convinced of the importance of freedom for the Church, realised that bishops dependent for their advancement upon secular power were its slaves. At the death of Natalis, bishop of Salona, metropolitan of Dalmatia, the pope wrote in 593 to the subdeacon, Antoninus, governor of the provincial patrimony: "Inform clergy and people of the city immediately to agree about a choice of bishop, and send the decree of election so that he may be ordained with our consent, according to ancient practice. Above all, be careful not to allow royal power, or patronage from highly placed persons, to have any influence in the election. A bishop ordained in this way is constrained to obey his protectors; church goods and discipline suffer accordingly" (23).

In 615, the 5th council of Paris also insisted upon freedom in the choice of bishops, but Clotharius II, although he emphasised his desire to see the council's decrees upheld in the matter, modified the council's decisions by insisting that only the bishops he wanted, or those sent from amongst suitable priests at court, should be ordained. This edict was also put into force under Dagobert, his successor (24).
However, the council of Chalons-sur-Saone under Clovis II in 650 declared once more that all elections without exception were null and void if not carried out according to the norms laid down by the fathers (25).

At this time in France there was a continual, secret struggle, carried on with threats and flattery, between the king and the clergy; the former wished to have the choice of bishops in his own hands, the latter wanted it to remain free (26). The outcome of the struggle varied from time to time, but the general effect was constant, intolerable pressure upon the Church which, without suffering outward oppression, often felt the weight of force.

The popes were certainly not idle in face of the ever-increasing danger of royal interference in the choice of bishops. They knew that such interference by rulers would place the Church in royal hands. Gregory II, for instance, went so far as to write to the emperor of the East, warning him not to interfere with the Church's sacred right to nominate her own leaders (27). But appeals were useless. While royal pressure was increased constantly, the Church's only answer was restricted to promulgation of new laws and new canons.

The 7th ecumenical council, held at Nicea in 787, also added its weight in defence of the Church with a canon against secular pressure and its tendency to justify its own interests. "Every choice of bishops, priests or deacons made by the nobility is void according to the norm which states: 'anyone obtaining a see by means of pressure from rulers will be deposed, and those communicating with him will be expelled.' It is necessary for candidates to the episcopate to be chosen by the bishops, as the holy fathers decreed at the council of Nicea" (28).

The synod held at Thionville (29) in 844 solemnly warned the royal brothers Lotharius, Ludovic and Charles that churches were not to be left without pastors. Because the choice of bishops depended upon these rulers, and conflict between them took away the time and effort that should have been applied to the Church's interests, the Church inevitably shared the vicissitudes of lay rule. The fathers declared with great dignity and freedom: "We warn you that sees without pastors, vacant as a result of your disagreements, must without delay or taint of heretical simony receive bishops given by God in accordance with the authority of the canons, designated by yourselves in conformity with normal procedure, and consecrated by the grace of the Spirit."

About this time pope Nicholas I, a strenuous supporter of everything related to the canons, was not afraid to speak with great dignity on several occasions against the abuse of interference in the choice of bishops by the lay powers. One example may be seen in his letter to the bishops in the territory of Lotharius. He commanded them under pain of excommunication to warn the king to depose Ilduin from the see of Cambrai which Lotharius had given him despite his unworthiness and canonical irregularity, and to allow "the clergy and people of that church to choose a bishop for themselves according to canonical prescriptions" (30).

The 8th ecumenical council was held at Constantinople in 869 under Nicholas the Great's successor, Hadrian II. By this time the freedom of the Church had suffered considerably (31), and the fathers felt it necessary to protest with all their power in defence of freedom by insisting upon the application of the ancient rules governing the choice of bishops who, under pain of deposition (32), were not to be ordained by authority and command of the nobles. Powerful lay figures were forbidden to interfere in the choice of bishops except at the invitation of the Church (33).

It was useless! Reason and justice make little impression upon people in the grip of passion, especially when the use of force is open to them. Christian princes paid no attention to the exhortations, commands or threats of their mother, the Church, but made further inroads on her freedom by means of legal subtleties and violence.

I am speaking in general terms, of course; there were docile, respectful monarchs who obeyed. Moreover, I must add that all rulers were influenced to some extent by the continual decisions and church laws which popes and synods published endlessly about church discipline, at the centre of which decrees about the choice of bishops held pride of place. Rulers were cautious about extending their power of patronage over episcopal elections, and used only the most refined devices in their attempts to elude canon law; their usurpations were clothed with declarations of respect that rendered them open contradictions and condemnations (34). Nevertheless, the Church had to stay on the alert and reinforce her efforts through the valour of those in Israel who fought the Lord's battles - men calumniated by the world which attributed their courage to ambition and pride, although justice demanded they should defend the deposit of faith entrusted to them and so avoid condemnation by Christ, the judge, who would one day ask for a rigorous account of their trust.

80. One of these valiant leaders was Hincmar, the great archbishop of Rheims in France who, towards the end of the 9th century, defended freedom of choice in episcopal elections with the nobility and uprightness of a true bishop. It will be sufficient to relate what happened between him and King Louis III.

Hincmar presided at the council of Fismes in 881. Odo, bishop of Beauvais, had died and a cleric named Odoacer, presented himself before the council with a decree of election from the clergy and people of Beauvais obtained with the favour of the court. The council had the right to examine the candidate before confirming him in office, and did so, finding him unworthy. A letter to the king was drawn up in which the fathers set out their reasons for being canonically unable to consecrate Odoacer. A group of bishops was deputed to take it to the king at court where it caused a great outcry: "When the king permitted the choice of bishops, the bishop he wanted should be elected (35). Church property is in his power and he can give it to whomsoever he wishes" (36). The king wrote the usual hesitant, self-contradictory letter to Hincmar in which he affirmed his desire "to follow his advice both in affairs of state and in church affairs," begging Hincmar to be as solicitous for him as he had been for the kings who preceded him, and then adding, as a proof of his willingness to follow his advice, "I would like with your consent and through your ministry to give the see of Beauvais to Odoacer, your dear son and my trusted servant. If you do me this favour, I shall honour all those you hold dear" (37).

Can a pastor be given to Christ's flock in order to do someone a favour? Can souls redeemed by the blood of God-Incarnate be entrusted not to a holy, prudent man, but to a court favourite supported by the king for the sake of profit from the wealth of the diocese? Could there possibly be a greater reversal of values?

Hincmar was equal to his duty. He replied that "the council's letter contained nothing disrespectful to the king or opposed to the good of the state. Its aim was to maintain the right of the metropolitan and the provincial bishops to examine and confirm the choice according to the canons." He added: "Saying that you are master of church elections and property is to speak the language of the devil. Remember the promise you made and signed at your consecration, and placed upon the altar of God in the presence of the bishops. Have it read with your Council present. Do not imagine that you can introduce into the Church what the great emperors, your predecessors, never dared to lay claim to. I hope that I shall always retain the loyalty and devotion I owe you - and I was very solicitous about your election. Do not, therefore, return evil for good by trying to dissuade me in my old age from following the holy rules that I have put into practice, thanks be to God, for the thirty-seven years of my episcopate. I do not want your promises, and ask for nothing except what you give to the poor for the sake of your salvation. Remember, ordinations contrary to the canons are simoniacal, and all those taking part in them share in their guilt. I am not speaking out of my own head, nor is this just my opinion. I am telling you what Jesus Christ, and his apostles and saints reigning with him, have always affirmed. Be careful to listen to them. The bishops are meeting in council to undertake a regular election, with the clergy and people of Beauvais, and with your consent."

Bishops speaking the truth to kings in this way, without meaning disrespect, believed they were giving rulers the greatest proof of their faithful, undying devotion. How little that is recognised! But what hope would rulers have of hearing the truth and word of God if bishops concealed it from them? If they would only learn to detect the true tone of apostolic freedom, which contains no disrespect or disloyalty!

Catholic governments should learn to esteem language like this, and recognise that the presence of men who speak according to conscience is a great gift from God, rendered still more precious when they are prepared to stand up to royal anger and the even worse persecution of flatterers and servile ministers for the sake of what is right. This is true, unshakeable loyalty that does not take refuge in unctuous lies appearing to augment the power of rulers in this world, but which in fact undermine its foundations and lead to its ruin.

The Church, "column and foundation of truth" has always held that rulers should not be misled, even when they want to be deceived and punish those who refuse to deceive them. Such loyalty on the part of the Church is given in friendship as a support, in justice and truth, for the throne. How grossly its fidelity has been interpreted and misunderstood! Mortal enemies of rulers calumniate it, and their supporters conceal it because they know perfectly well that Church and state would prosper in mutual harmony if the ruler paid attention to the stern words of the Church. Hence their all-consuming desire to persuade him that the Church wants invariably to detract from his rights, and that the apostolic freedom of popes and bishops is nothing more than ambition and audacious violation of royal dignity.

This was how Louis III's ministers presented Hincmar's loyal, dignified reply to the king. The letter, which should have enhanced the young man's respect for the venerable bishop, embittered him instead. The king's reply was intended to humiliate the old man: "If you do not consent to the election of Odoacer, I shall take it for granted that you do not want to render me due respect (38), nor support my rights, but intend to oppose me in everything. If I were speaking to an equal, I would use all the power I have to safeguard my dignity (39), but I have the greatest contempt for any subject who wishes to reprove me. Do nothing further in this matter until I have informed my brother, the king, and my royal cousins. Then we shall call a council of all the bishops of our kingdoms (40) who will act as our dignity requires. Finally, if necessity urges, reason will guide our next move."

If Hincmar had acted from ambition or self-interest, a reply of this nature, which threatened his good standing with the king, would undoubtedly have changed his attitude. But a person acting according to conscience cannot give way. A ruler cannot force such an individual to betray him because his loyalty towards the king depends upon his loyalty to God. He is loyal for the sake of duty, not self-interest.

Hincmar, in fact, replied without hesitation, first giving the lie about his lack of respect and obedience to the secretary who had written on the king's behalf. He then added: "With regard to what you have said about reason guiding your next move if necessity required it, I realise you were trying to intimidate me. You have no power, however, except that which comes from above. And may it indeed please God to free me from this prison, either through you or through anyone else he pleases - free me, I mean, from this old, sick body of mine so that I may appeal before him whom I long to behold not because I have merited anything but evil, but because of his freely bestowed grace. If I sinned in consenting to your election, against the will of others and despite many threats, I ask God to punish me in this life, not in the next. However, since you are so anxious about Odoacer's election, let me know when the bishops of the province of Rheims and those deputed by you for the council of France can meet. I shall get there, if I am still alive. With Odoacer send those who have chosen him, whether they are from the court or from the church of Beauvais. Come yourself if you like or send representatives. Then we shall see whether Odoacer has entered the fold through the gate. But tell him that if he does not come, we shall search for him throughout the province of Rheims and condemn him as the usurper of a church. Never again will he hold any church office anywhere in this province. Those sharing his guilt will all be excommunicated until they have given satisfaction to the Church."

Bishops in the first centuries of the Church could not have spoken better, but these splendid words had no effect. Louis III's courtiers, in their eagerness to show their devotion to the king, induced him to use force and impose Odoacer at Beauvais with violence. The church tolerated him, without however inscribing him in her list of pastors. A year later he was excommunicated for this and other crimes, and deposed. In the meantime Louis III had died and given an account of his conduct to the final judge (41).

81. Attempts by lay powers to gain control of episcopal elections had been greatly facilitated by the division between people and clergy resulting from the causes already examined. As the split grew, and the people became more corrupt, the choice of worthy pastors was not a major pre-occupation. On the other hand while greed was an increasingly important motive in driving candidates to compete for the wealth, fulsome pomp and dignity now attached to a bishopric, banditry was essential in obtaining it. In these circumstances it is not difficult to understand how a degraded poeple could be bribed, split up into factions, incited to riot and finally induced to support flatterers reflecting their own vices, rather than the virtue proper to bishops.

Popular disorder then became a good reason for excluding the people altogether from the choice of bishop, first in the east where lay power had already taken control of elections, and later in the west. The canons, which principally depended for their sanctions on the people, lost their force. The clergy, without realising that they were instinctively if not consciously playing the political games of the rulers, reserved all choice of bishops to themselves alone without any consultation or evaluation of the will of the great mass of the faithful. Amongst the clergy a few, the cathedral canons, soon took precedence over the rest (42), and obtained for their own group the privilege of choosing the bishop. They also succeeded in confirming in church law the status they had abrogated for themselves. With the people and a great part of the clergy excluded from the choice of bishops, the electing body was seriously weakened and rendered incapable of maintaining its right of choice against those who wanted to control it.

82. In these circumstances, while French popes were resident at Avignon (43), papal reservations, accompanied by appropriation of income from vacant sees together with annates as an inevitable consequence, reached their peak. At first, rulers welcomed and even requested them because they tended to weaken still further sanctions connected with the Church's right to choose her pastors (44). Sanctions which protect rights must be as strong as the law is extensive, and it is impossible for a single person, whatever his level of authority, to exert pressure proportionate to the right of choice of new bishops throughout the world. But universal reservations and world-wide extension of the right to choose bishops imply acceptance of responsibility out-running any corresponding force of sanction. Such a right, without equivalent sanctions, has no lasting power. Nations begin to complain, and the humiliation of concordats is then imposed on the mother of the faithful by the discontented children she is forced to bargain with (45).

The final result is the horrible wound afflicting the body of the Church when the choice of bishops has been taken from the people and clergy, chapters have been deprived of their rights and popes of reservations, the nomination of bishops in catholic nations has fallen into lay hands, and the confirmation of nominations, which remains dependent upon the head of the Church, means little or nothing. At this point, violence under the cloak of benevolence has done its worst, and brought about "the Church's enslavement, while preserving every formal liberty" (46). However, before describing the tremendous agony of such a horrible wound, and speaking of the Church's imaginary freedom and actual enslavement, I have to point to other reasons which brought the choice of bishops to this deplorable level, and to continue the history of the struggles and sufferings of popes and bishops in their effort to prevent the agony and to keep the Church truly free, as it was constituted for all time by its divine Founder.

83. After the barbarians, under the guidance of the northern chieftains, had conquered southern Europe, they took their titles from the lands they had subdued. They became kings of France, Italy, England, not kings of the French, Italians, English, that is, of persons. But it was impossible for individuals, however strong, to retain possession of these vast areas. As we have said, the power of sanctions is governed by a law which affirms that "the sanction suitable for defining a right must correspond with the extension of the right itself." The new rulers invented or adopted the holding of land in feud as a means for retaining their ownership of landed estates although granting their usufruct to others who thus became faithful guardians of the lands in question. Otherwise, kings would have faced rebellion especially from comrades-in-arms unwilling to lose their share of the conquests.

The king's beneficiaries, united with him by common interests, were his feals who gave their name to the feudal system. They swore fealty and vassalage on stipulated terms which included especially the provision of fighting men, and of their own services under arms, when the king went to war. It was an excellent system for the times: the conquerors safeguarded the ownership of their lands while retaining the services of others by ceding to them attractive usufructs which reverted to the king at the death of feudatories whose successors were then invested at the royal pleasure (47).

The new masters of Europe soon realised that their policy was better served by entrusting their lands to bishops and churches than to warriors-at-arms. Church feuds and lordships existed from the time of Clovis. However, Charlemagne in particular appreciated the importance of this discovery. "Charlemagne", says William of Malmesbury, "gave nearly all the lands to the Church in order to weaken the ferocity of the Germanic nations. He saw instinctively and wisely that men in sacred orders would not abandon their sworn service as easily as lay people. Moreover, if the churchmen's own laypeople rebelled, they could be restrained by power of excommunication and other very severe penalties" (48).

The generosity of rulers towards bishops was in one respect the outcome of piety, but also the kind of gift made to judges by parties to a suit. Moreover, the very nature of these royal benefits almost necessitated the enslavement of the Church. Bishops became vassals, obliged to take their oath and pledge fealty at the hands of the king (49). Like the king, they had at heart the greatness of their own land, and followed him as comrades and fellow-soldiers in the expeditions and wars he cared to undertake.

It was impossible for them to pay much attention to the words of St. Paul: "No man, being a soldier of God, entangles himself with secular business" (50), and equally impossible not to look upon the king only as their temporal lord with themselves as his servants sharing, through his benevolence, in his riches and power. They forgot that their sovereign was also a simple layman, a son of the Church, a sheep of their flock, and that they themselves had been set over the Church of God by the Holy Spirit to rule it. In a word, they could not be simultaneously the king's men (51) and men of God. "No man can serve two masters" (52).

84. The use of temporalities for a temporal purpose blinds men to reality, especially in the case of the Church whose entire power and freedom belong to the spiritual, invisible order of things. Granted a connection, therefore, between great external power and the spiritual power of episcopal responsibility, it is not surprising to behold bishops, themselves human beings, as blind rulers. The temporal power received from the ruler was mingled and confused with the spiritual power received from Christ; inevitably, the invisible power disappeared, as it were, and was lost to the bishop's sight. The word "episcopacy" was then attributed to the benefice attached to the bishopric, and it became impossible to conceive how episcopal responsibility could be separated from the benefice, or how the former could subsist without the latter. Common phrases in use at the time indicate how true this is. All the elements are mixed together within them, and instead of stating that the king bestows the temporalities accompanying the bishopric, they affirm that: "He grants or confers the episcopacy"; "He confers the episcopal dignity"; "He commands or orders so-and-so to be bishop"; "By order of the king, so-and-so shall be ordained" (53).

I must insist that these ways of speaking did not bear, at the time they came into vogue, the full meaning expressed by their words, but they were open to the force which would one day be attached to them. The process always follows these steps; first phrases are coined, and for some time have no real significance; they are feeble accommodations of truth to passion, in a word, lies. At the same time, however, the phrases conceal hidden tendencies, dependent upon a law impelling a human being to speak the truth and hence to actualise words which would otherwise be unreal. To a person capable of penetrating the depths of mankind, current ways of speaking and expressions foreshadow the path a nation is about to take, and can be used as signs by which to prophesy what is to befall a society.

Language which identifies temporalities with episcopal office, and considers the distribution of bishoprics to be equivalent to the bestowal of grants dependent for their nature on the will of the donor, clearly indicates the subservience and corruption practised by clergy already enslaved to secular rulers by their preference for worldly wealth over the freedom brought by Christ. Such language also indicates the continual tendency of rulers to dominate all things, and conquer the Church as they had conquered their territories. The personal piety of individual rulers and the distaste of public opinion in so far as it continued to uphold religious principles temporarily restrained the natural development of this tendency which, however, had eventually to land whither gravity was taking it and bring forth the fruit it contained in germ.

In fact, with the exception of purely arbitrary acts of interference in elections, rulers began by recognising the Church's right to choose her own pastors. Later, when they started to confer bishoprics of their own volition, they normally tempered the novelty of their injustice with pious language destined to mollify bishops and people still too rigid and tenacious in their adherence to church law and the truth (54).
Charlemagne's piety, uprightness and policy went further, and restored to the Church the portion of freedom that the Merovingian kings had usurped. Louis the Pious followed the example of his great-hearted father (55). But successive kings acted very differently.

85. The nature itself of fiefs demanded that they be repossessed by the king at the death of each bishop, and that their revenues, called regalia, should be at the royal disposition. However, matters went further than that. Greed for these revenues caused rulers to leave churches bereft of pastors for long periods (56); elections were delayed on the pretext of the need for royal permission (57); the gospel and the salvation of souls thus became dependent upon the king's will and pleasure, and above all on his acquisitiveness. Because ordinary priests also shared church revenues, it was decreed that the Church of God should no longer have the right to ordain even a humble priest without the king's grace and favour (58).

86. Matters went further. Lawyers, the equivalent in royal households of demagogues in corrupt society, thought up an extraordinary argument. "The most important element in a situation attracts that which is less important; but fiefs are the most important amongst church properties; therefore all other church properties must be considered as fiefs and be subject to the same legislation" (59). The final conclusion drawn from this piece of sophistry permits all church goods, as properties of first rank, to be considered "ennobled holdings". They soon became "royal holdings" (60), from many points of view. The king was no longer content with his feudal rights, but claimed the same rights over all church property without distinction. He wanted the regalia, that is, the revenues of vacant benefices (61) which reverted to the ruler on the death of the beneficiary, from all church goods. Needless to say, he often disposed of them arbitrarily as though they were his own property (62). Sometimes unfettered church possessions were made to look like fiefs. In this way, tithes and other unencumbered benefits were enfeoffed (63) and little by little devoted to the welfare of lay people, as often happened with true fiefs at the death of bishops and abbots (64). Spiritualities, which were considered indivisible from temporalities, also fell into the hands of lay people, especially soldiers, who ruled in abbeys as abbots over monks, and in dioceses as bishops over the clergy (65).

87. The indivisible connection between spiritual and temporal caused spiritualities to be usurped along with temporalities. As a result, investiture was carried out by the ruler with ring and pastoral staff, symbols of spiritual power; bishoprics were left entirely vacant if the ruler reserved their revenues for himself (66); rulers influenced every election (67); episcopal sees were on offer to the highest bidder; dioceses of the Church were governed by base retainers whose only merit was the baseness that made them loyal to rulers in imitating their vices; degradation and corruption overflowed in clergy and people. The evils which oppressed the Church in this pitiful state of affairs later had an equally deleterious effect (unrecognised by the rulers) on the state itself. Violence, disturbances and divisions springing from these evils brought the progress of civilisation to a standstill. Rational human nature and christian religion, which could together have brought nations peacefully to higher levels of development, without injustice to civil power, were powerless to act.

Notes

(1) Matt 28. 20

(2) Paul and Barnabas "appointed elders in every church," that is, appointed bishops and priests (Acts 14. 22) [Acts 14. 23].

(3) St. Paul had consecrated Titus as bishop of Crete. Writing to him later, he ordered him to do the same in other cities: "This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what is defective, and appoint elders" that is, bishops, "in every town as I directed you" (Titus 1. 5).

(4) "A man is called to the episcopate not to command, but to serve the Church with such courtesy and humility that both he and the Church may benefit" (Origen, Hom. in Matt. 20, 25) [cf. PG 13, 1392-3]. Underlying this statement is the principle directing all christian rule, not only that of the Church. "Christian government must be altogether different from pagan government which is hard, proud and vain." This kind of teaching is constant in the fathers.

(5) The Roman Pontifical still contains a ceremony according to which the bishop asks whether the ordinands have a good reputation amongst the people. That I have to call it a "ceremony" indicates its true value today.

(6) "God's choice and the presence of the people are imperative when a bishop is ordained. The people are present so that everone may be sure the bishop chosen is the best, most learned, holy and virtuous person available. In this way, no one will regret the choice, nor have any reason for wanting to change it" (Origen, Hom. 22 in Numbers, and 6 on Leviticus) [cf. PG 12, 744; 469].

(7) This is the kind of concept unfortunately predominant in the world. People believe, or pretend to believe, that the work of the christian priest should be confined within the material walls of the church. Not long ago, the elder Dupin said in the French Chamber of Deputies (23rd February, 1833): "J'ai le plus profond respect pour la libertá due prætre, tant qu'il se renferme dans ses fonctions: si cette libertá átait attaquáe, je serais le premier ê la dáfendre; mais que le prætre se contente du maniement des choses saintes, ET QU'IL NE SORTE PAS DU SEUIL DE SON ÁGLISE, hors de lê, il rentre pour moi dans la foule des citoyens; il n'a plus de droits que ceux du droit commun. " Did Jesus Christ enclose the priesthood within the walls of churches when he said: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations," and "You are the salt of the earth?" When did the Church's divine Founder, who taught that "true worshippers worship the Father in spirit and truth," speak about churches built with bricks and mortar? Is the power of binding and loosing to be exercised only in church? When the Lord ordered the truth to be declared from the housetops, when he sent out his priests with the words: "as the Father has sent me, so I send you," when he commanded the gospel to be taken before kings and governors, did he intend to put bounds to the exercise of the priesthood as Dupin does? However, Dupin's ignorance or prejudice is excusable in the sense that it is the effect of the whole sad system governing public affairs, and of the harassment imposed upon religion by politics.

(8) St. Leo the Great was well aware that imposing a bishop on an unwilling people was equivalent to depriving them of their bishop. This was one reason why the saintly pope stood firm in maintaining the ancient discipline of the Church which provided for the choice of bishops by clergy, people and provincial bishops. I quote one of the many passages of St. Leo which proves my point. In 445, he wrote as follows to Athanasius, bishop of Thessalonica (chap. 5): "When a bishop is being selected, give first preference to the person desired by united consent of clergy and people. If several people receive votes the metropolitan should choose the most loved and meritorious candidate. It is essential to exclude all those unwanted and unasked for, if the people are not to be crossed and end by despising or hating their bishop. IF THEY CANNOT HAVE THE CANDIDATE THEY DESIRE, THE PEOPLE MAY FALL AWAY FROM RELIGION UNDULY"; ne plebs invita episcopum non licuerit habere quem voluerit [PL 54, 673]. That is the opinion of a man like Leo! See also his letters to the bishops of the province of Vienne, chap. 3, and Rusticus of Narbonne, chap. 7. [PL 54, 633-634; 1203].

(9) In passing from one province to another the faithful, as well as the priests, had to obtain letters from their bishops to show they were in communion with their own church. This gives some idea of the close union and dependence in olden days between people and bishops. The council of Arles, 314, ordered that "governors of provinces who become christians when in office must, like other members of the faithful, carry letters of communion from their own bishops. The bishop of the place where they work must keep an eye on them and excommunicate them if they offend against church discipline."

(10) Origen, In Iudic. Hom. 4 [PG 12, 968-9].

(11) Even before this epoch emperors, as soon as they became christian, emdeavoured on occasion to play a role in the choice of bishops. This was not wholly their fault. Base, deceitful bishops were ready to prompt them to subversive action against church constitution. A secular ruler is very easily misled, especially in church affairs, by hypocrisy and boldness or even ignorance on the part of bad priests. In this respect Athanasius, the great defender of the divinity of the Word, had more than sufficient grounds for complaint against the emperor Constance. He wrote: "This man thought hard about how to transform the law and eliminate the constitution established by the Lord and handed down to us by the apostles. He decided to change church custom and set up a new way of appointing bishops. He sends bishops, escorted by soldiers, from as far as fifty days' journey away. The people do not want these foreigners who, instead of being welcomed by them, have to go to the local magistrates with letters and threats" (Epis. ad solitariam vitam agentes). It is clear from this passage that the choice of bishops by clergy and people was considered an important element in church constitution, and held to be of divine institution and part of the apostolic tradition. St. Cyprian also declares this method of choosing bishops to be of divine right: de traditione DIVINA et apostolica observatione descendit [PL 3, 1027]. St. Athanasius' complaint against Constance for sending bishops ex illis locis et quinquaginta mansionum intervallo disjunctis merits further careful reflection!

(12) Nevertheless, the emperor's decision had to be accompanied by the canonical choice of clergy and people. For example, Epiphanius, patriarch of Constantinople about the beginning of the 6th. century, reported his election to pope Hormisdas. After saying that he had been chosen by the emperor Justinus and all the nobility, he added: "and with the consent of the priests, monks and people." Simul et sacerdotum et monacorum et fidelissimae plebis consensus accessit. [SC 5, 666]

In the same century, the letter of pope Agapit was read at a synod of Constantinople under the patriarch Mennas. Speaking of Mennas' election, Agapit says that imperial consent to the choice was only incidental,and insists on canonical election, that is, election by clergy and people. The pope's words were: Cui, licet, praeter caeteros, serenissimorum imperatorum electio arriserit, similiter tamen et totius cleri ac populi consensus accessit, ut et a singulis eligi crederetur. [PL 66, 50]. They express the true spirit of liberty in the Church [PL 66, 50].
Why did the patriarchate of Constantinople act at times with such blatant venality? Why was the papacy sold on occasion? Because the wealth of these sees was no longer used in works of charity, but for self-aggrandisement. Worldly people spend nothing on dignities bringing them no benefit.

(13) From the first centuries until modern times the Church always laid great importance in maintaining intact the method of choosing bishops by common consent and according to the decision of the clergy. Because I am convinced that this point is connected with the divine constitution of the Church, I would like to offer some quotations from works prior to the 6th century which show the Church's constant care in safeguarding elections from all influence by lay authority. The council of Nicea already felt the need of emphasising apostolic and divine custom in elections (canon 6) [cf SC 4, 35]. This proves that the freedom of the Church was in danger of being threatened as soon as emperors became christian. Subsequent councils published similar decrees for the same reason in order to support the ancient, lawful form of choosing bishops with the concurrence of clergy and people. See, for example, the council of Antioch (canons 19 and 23) [SC 2, 594-595].
The Apostolic Canons, n.29 [SC 1, 30] state: "If a bishop uses the influence and favour of secular rulers to obtain his see, he shall be deposed and excommunicated. The same penalty is applicable to those in communion with him."
Celestine I, about the beginning of the 5th century, issued a similar decree: Nullus invitis detur episcopus; cleri, plebis et ordinis consensus et desiderium requiratur [PL 50, 434].

St. Leo the Great, pope from 440 to 461, whom we have already quoted several times, was always intent on guaranteeing free, canonical form in episcopal elections. It is sufficient to note the decree sent to Anastasius, bishop of Thessalonica: Nulla ratio sinit, ut inter episcopos habeantur, qui nec a clericis sunt electi, nec a plebe expetiti, nec a provincialibus cum metropolitani judicio consecrati [PL 54, 673].

(14) Can. 2 [Council of Claremont CCSL, CXLVIII A 106].

(15) Can. 4 [Can.4-5, ibid].

(16) Can. 7 [CCSL, CXLVIII A, 100].

(17) Can. 3 [CCSL, CXLVIII A, 115]. Fleury, in summing up the work of this council, says: "the ancient form of election for provincial bishops with the consent of clergy and people was recommended probably because of the difficulties introduced concomitantly with temporal possessions" (Fleury, Discourses etc. XXXII, LIX etc.) [op. cit., V, 168)

(18) Can. 10 [CCSL, CXLVIII A, 151-2] Nulli episcopatum praemiis aut comparatione liceat adipsci, sed cum voluntate regis JUXTA ELECTIONEM CLERI AC PLEBIS.

(19) Unfortunately this happened. The formulas in use in France under the Merovingians, and recorded by Marculfus (lib. 1. 5, v. also P. Sirmondus, Concilia Antiqua Galliae, tom. II, appendix, Paris, 1629), speak about the king's power to command the election of bishops, not of his consent to it. "With the counsel and consent of our bishops and nobles, according to the desire of the clergy and people of the same city, called N. above, we commission you as bishop in the name of God. Hence by this present COMMAND, we decide and order the above-mentioned city, and the possessions of its church, and the clergy, to come under your authority and government." Writers of this period frequently mention that so-and-so has been made bishop BY THE KING'S COMMAND. Formulas of petition are still extant in which the people ask the king to issue his edict. Petitions were needed to obtain orders. And what orders they were!

(20) Flattery and vanity coin meaningless expressions of this kind which quickly gain a life of their own. It is strange that people fail to notice how language like this sooner or later appears satirical, and fails to win for rulers the genuine respect which is their due. We have an example in a passage from an otherwise learned writer of the last century. He was taken to task for having said that in the period we are speaking of "the clergy enjoyed freedom of election by royal concession, while the king was the ruler and judge over the election" (as though these two things were mutually compatible). He defended himself by saying that by royal concession he meant that kings were no longer guilty of usurpation! But this is like saying that thieves who spare your person grant you your life! And this writer was a sincere supporter of lay power. He writes: Jus eligendi penes clerum erat. Sed quia saepe reges electionum usum interturbaverant, assensum in merum imperium vertere soliti, Ecclesia Gallicana his qui veterem electionum usum restituerant, ut Ludovico Pio, plurimum, se debere profitebatur. Eorum certe beneficiorum erat asserta et vindicata sacrarum electionum libertas, etc. (N. Alex., Ad calcem..., Dissert. XI in saec. XV et XVI). [N. Alexandre, Historia Ecclesiastica, Paris 1770-1774]

(21) St. Gregory of Tours wrote in 572: Jam tunc germen illud iniquum coeperat fructificare, ut sacerdotium aut venderetur a regibus aut compararetur a clericis [PL 71, 1032]. The saint wrote this after relating facts about clerics who had bought sees from kings, rather than obtaining them by merit of their pastoral zeal.

(22) The gothic kings usurped nomination of the papacy itself by interfering in canonical election. When they were driven out of Italy, Justinian retained the right to confirm the popes in office. His successors demanded a large sum of money for the confirmation. New popes paid this until the accession as emperor of Constantine Pogonatus in 668.

(23) II Ind. c.III, ep. 22. St. Gregory was very attentive to the freedom of episcopal elections. It is a frequent subject in his letters. v. amongst others, lib. III, ep. 7 [L.V, ep. 27 PL, 754; L. VII, ep. 19, PL 873].

(24) The self-contradictory edict states: ideoque definitionis noströ est, ut Canonum statuta IN OMNIBUS conserventur... Ita ut, episcopo decedente, in loco ipsius, qui a metropolitano ordinari debet cum provincialibus a clero et populo eligatur. These beautiful words are followed immediately by: Et si persona condigna fuerit, PER ORDINATIONEM PRINCIPIS ordinetur: vel certe, si DE PALATIO eligitur, per meritum personö et doctrinö ordinetur. This was the way in which lay government intended to uphold canonical decrees IN OMNIBUS!!!

(25) Can. 10

(26) As we can see from the facts, Gregory of Tours (lib. 4, chaps 5 and 6) [PL 7l, 273] relates that the bishops begged Cato, canonically elected bishop of the church of Claremont, to allow himself to be consecrated without awaiting nomination by king Teobald, 554. He also reports (L 6, chap. 7) [PL 71, 739] that Albinus succeeded Ferreolus at Uzes extra regis consilium. When Albinus died, a certain Jovinus was ordered by royal COMMAND to accept the bishopric. The bishops of the province, however, opted for a canonical election, and appointed the deacon Marcellus before Jovinus could be installed (lib. 7, chap. 3l) [PL 71, 379]. When the people of Tours asked the king to grant them Euphronius, whom they had canonically chosen as bishop, he answered: PRAECEPERAM ut Cato Presbyter illic ordinaretur, et cur est spreta IUSSIO NOSTRA (lib. 4, 2, 15) [lib. 4, chap. 25, PL 71, 280]. After king Clothaire had appointed Emeritus bishop of Saintes, the church there had to tolerate him, but at Clothaire's death he was deprived of his office by Leontius and the provincial bishops because he lacked canonical election (562) (lib. 4, chap. 26) [PL 71,280]. Likewise the bishops of Aquitaine took prompt measures to bestow the church of Aqui on the priest Faustinianus, despite Chilperic's attempt to give the see to count Nicetius. Constantine Rancaglia was correct when he wrote: "It is clear that as a result of the bishops' opposition to royal authority when the king tried to confer dioceses, rulers were never in tranquil possession of the arbitrary power they claimed in episocpal elections." He adds: "The Church has never freely consented to this claim, although like a compassionate mother she has often had to tolerate it to prevent further damage" (cf. Alexandre, op. cit., saec 1, Diss. VIII, prop. III, scholion - animadversiones, pars I)

(27) Amongst other things, he wrote these remarkable words to Leo the Isaurian: Quemadmodum Pontifex introspiciendi in palatium potestatem non habet ac dignitates regias deferendi: sic neque imperator in Ecclesiam introspiciendi et electiones in clero peragendi" (epist. II ad Leon Isaurum) [PL 89, 522].

(28) can. 3

(29) Can. 2

(30) Epis. 58 [Epis. XLI, PL 119, 841-2].

(31) At this time the French bishops could not leave the kingdom without express permission from the king; nor could a metropolitan send a bishop as his legate outside the state. Hincmar of Rheims makes this clear in his letter to pope Hadrian in 869.

(32) Can. 12. Apostolicis et synodicis canonibus promotiones et consecrationes episcoporum et potentia et praeceptione principum, factas interdicentibus, concordantes, definimus, et sententiam nos quoque proferimus, ut si quis episcopus, per versutiam vel tyrannidem principum, hujusmodi dignitatis consecrationem susceperit, deponatur omnimodis, utpote qui non ex voluntate Dei, et ritu ac decreto ecclesiastico, sed ex voluntate carnalis sensus, ex hominibus, et per homines, Dei donum possidere voluit vel consensit.

Can. 22. Promotiones atque consecrationes episcoporum, concordans prioribus conciliis, electione ac decreto episcoporum collegii fieri, sancta haec et univeralis synodus definit et statuit atque jure promulgat, neminem laicorum principum vel potentum semet inserere electioni patriarchae, vel metropolitae, aut cujuslibet episcopi; ne videlicet inordinata hinc et incongrua fiat confusio vel contentio; praesertim cum nullam in talibus potestatem quemquam potestativorum vel caeterorum laicorum habere conveniat, sed potius silere ac attendere sibi, usquequo regulariter a collegio ecclesiastico suscipiat finem electio futuri Pontificis. Si vero quis laicorum ad concertandum et cooperandum ab Ecclesia invitatur, licet hujusmodi cum reverentia, si forte voluerit, obtemperare se asciscentibus; taliter enim sibi dignum pastorem regulariter ad Ecclesiae suae salutem promoveat. Quisquis autem saecularium principum et potentum, vel alterius dignitatis laicus adversus communem et consonantem, atque canonicam electionem ecclesiastici ordinis agere tentaverit, anathema sit, donec obediat ac consentiat quod Ecclesia de electione ac ordinatione proprii praesulis se velis monstraverit.

(33) These canons were remarkable "in so far as they were published in the presence of the emperor and the senate" (Fleury) [op. cit., VII, 370]. The council issued other canons in defence of the Church's freedom. Chief amongst them are: Canon 21. "Powerful figures will respect the five patriarchs and leave them in peaceful possession of their sees, without detracting from the honour due to them." Here we can see that the patriarchates were under greater pressure than other sees because of the wealth and power connected with them. Canon 14. "Bishops must not leave their churches in order to meet rulers or governors. They are not to dismount or prostrate in their presence. They must retain their authority to admonish them when necessary." Canon 17. "Patriarchs have the right to convoke metropolitans to their council when they think fit. The latter cannot excuse themselves on the grounds of their being detained by the ruler." And they added: "We reject with horror ignorant assertions maintaining that councils cannot be held except in the presence of the ruler."

(34) An example of the way in which command and petition, submission and authority, piety and force were intermingled can be found in Louis II's letter to Adon, archbishop of Vienne. He wrote to impel the archbishop to make a certain Bernarius bishop of Grenoble on the grounds that he was a cleric of the emperor Lotharius, who wanted to raise him to the episcopacy. "Our brother Lotharius has begged our kindness (mansuetudinem nostram) to grant the see of Grenoble to a cleric of his named Bernarius. We were very glad to do this (quod nos benignissime fecimus)." It is not difficult to understand that here "our kindness" shields a degree of force. First he does what he wants; then he humbly asks the Church for it. "Hence we warn your Holiness to obey (obedias) our brother without delay (mox) if he sends you the above-mentioned cleric for ordination. We assure you that we have granted our concession for his consecration to this church of Grenoble." Charles the Bald and Louis III wrote similar recommendations which often contain more contradictions than words. Sometimes they add to their requests the clause: "... provided he is not found unworthy," which did at least leave the scrutiny to the metropolitan. What these clauses really meant, however, can be seen by what we shall shortly have to say about the council of Fismes and Louis III. [Here and elsewhere, Rosmini depends for his sources on Fleury, op. cit.]

(35) This is how usurpations evolve. 1st, the lay power prevents the Church from making her choice without prior permission from the ruler; 2nd, this permission is then granted simply as a royal favour which can be bestowed or denied at will; 3rd, this favour has to be paid for; 4th, the favour which permits the election is sold on condition that the king's candidate is chosen.

(36) Note the usual confusion of ideas in the minds of these court lackeys: church property, which is only incidental, now becomes substantially important, and indeed comprises the whole of the episcopacy. Does church property belong to the Church or not? Is civil government entitled to dispose of the property of others?

(37) Hincmar, Ep. 12, t. II, P. 188 [cf. Fleury, op. cit., VIII, 77]

(38) "Respect for the king" consists in betraying the Church of Christ, and the souls bought with his blood, in order to gratify the king.

(39) Rather excessive dignity!

(40) It was a "point of honour" on the part of a simple member of the faithful to impose a council on all the bishops of the kingdom in order to force them to make "a law not for the sake of justice but to satisfy his own will," which he styles his dignity! Hope of corrupting a national council for the sake of revenging oneself on an upright provincial council is difficult to understand, but we have seen similar hopes produce the same results today. Who thought up the national council of Paris?

(41) Those who believe that nothing takes place in human affairs outside the wise rule of Providence must be struck by the timely coincidence between the death of young Louis III and the warning he received from Hincmar about the bishopric of Beauvais. When the metropolitan replied to the king's decision to insist upon the election of Odoacer in defiance of the canons, he said amongst other things: "If you do not remedy the evil you have done, the Lord will put it right in his own good time. The emperor Louis did not live as long as his father, Charles; your grandfather Charles did not last as long as his father, Charles, nor your father as long as his father. When you are at Compiëgne in their place, glance down at the graves of your father and grandfather, and do not set yourself up against the one who died for you, and rose from the dead to die no more. You will soon leave this world, but the Church, with her pastors, under Jesus Christ, their head, will last forever according to his promise." Fleury, who cannot be accused of credulity, quotes these words of the archbishop, commenting: "Hincmar's threat can be considered a prophecy in the light of Louis' premature death in the following year" (Fleury, op. cit., LIII, 31).

(42) This took place in the 12th and 13th centuries. At Hincmar's time (9th century), as we see from a letter of his, the rural as well as the urban clergy took part in the election of the bishop. Hincmar, writing to Edenulfus, bishop of Laudun, ordering him to preside over the election of a new bishop for Cambrai, says: quae electio non tantum a civitatis clericis erit agenda, verum et de omnibus monasteriis ipsius parochiae, et de rusticanarum parochiarum presbyteris occurrant vicarii commorantium secum concordia vota ferentes. Sed et laici nobiles ac cives adesse debebunt: QUONIAM AB OMNIBUS DEBET ELIGI, CUI DEBET AB OMNIBUS OBEDIRI [he must be chosen by all who have to obey him]" [PL 126, 268-269]

On the other hand, Hincmar's insistence shows that even then this custom tended to be neglected. Innocent III, at the end of the 12th century, attributes the right of election in one of his decretals ad cathedralium ecclesiarum clericos (de caus. posses. et propriet. c. 3) [PL 214, 852]. Finally the 4th Lateran council, 1215, restricted the right to cathedral canons (can. 24-26). This was certainly based on good reasons, granted the conditions of the time; but the reasons and circumstances forcing the Church to do this were themselves disastrous.

(43) Pope Clement V in 1306 extended pontifical reservations to bishoprics. Benedict XII, elected in 1334, made them practically speaking universal. At the end of the century, Boniface IX extended annates to bishoprics, making them perpetual.

(44) This observation explains an otherwise inexplicable fact. The Council of Basle, supported by lay power, annulled papal reservations. What was the fundamental policy of rulers who sided with the council? They did not intend to destroy, but to weaken reservations in order to take control of them. The conduct of the French kings is proof of this. Charles VII receives the decrees of Basle with a great show of enthusiasm and declares them law in the assembly of Brouges where he publishes the pragmatic sanction. Why? A little later Charles, and his successors Louis IX and Charles VIII, ask the pope to reserve the appointment to certain bishoprics and confer them according to royal wishes. They wanted reservations, but weak reservations so that the pope would do as they desired. The true spirit of their policy was to abrogate reservations for the sole purpose of first weakening them and then using them to evade church law.

(45) Amidst the disasters of fifteen centuries, the Church has never perhaps been brought so low as when she was compelled to make such treaties with the faithful! This humiliation is due to the sins of the clergy. "... if the salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trodden under foot by men" (Matt 5, 13). I say this because it is impossible to hide the fact that concordats are treaties and are called such by the popes themselves: Nos attendentes concordata dicta vim PACTI inter partes habere etc. (Constit., 14 Sept. 1544, apud Raynald) [Annales Ecclesiastici, XXI, an. 1554].

However, no treaty binds when it becomes immoral, and treaties with the Church are not to be understood in the sense that they can infringe upon the fullness of power possessed by the Church for the good of christians. This power is free, and can never be bound. I am not hereby condemning all concordats, but deploring their necessity. The truth is that neither concordats nor any other human convention can serve to derogate from the Church's divine, unchangeable rights. The legislative power she has received from Jesus Christ cannot be restricted in any way, nor can her fullness of authority in carrying out all that tends towards what is good be lessened. She can command and intimate her faithful without limit whatever she finds necessary and useful for their eternal salvation and for the growth on earth of the kingdom of Christ.

(46) Hadrian I, the great pope who wrote to Charlemagne (784) informing him that lay authority had no place in the choice of bishops and that he should leave elections free, used as his final and most persuasive argument that he himself, although pope, did not interfere with the choice, in order to leave it free. He declared: "Numquam nos in qualibet electione invenimus nec invenire habemus. Sed neque Vestram Excellentiam optamus in talem rem incumbere. Sed qualis a clero et plebe... electus canonice fuerit, et nihil sit quod sacro obsit ordini, solita traditione illum ordinamus" (Tom. II Conc. Gall., pp. 95 e 120) [Sirmond, op. cit., II, pp. 95, 119, 120].. The initial force of this extremely powerful argument was lost to the popes at the time of reservations.

(47) Lay fiefs in France became hereditary only towards the end of the second line of kings, as Antonio Dominici proves in his De Praerogative Allodorum, chap. 15 [Paris, 1645]. As far as heirless churchmen were concerned, fiefs necessarily remained personal.

(48) De gestis regum Anglorum, Lib. V. Carolus Magnus pro contundenda gentium illarum (germanicarum) ferocia, omnes pene terras Ecclesiis contulerat, consiliosissime perpendens, nolle sacri ordinis homines tam facile quam laicos fidelitatem domino rejicere. Praeterea, si laici rebellarent, illos posse excommunicationis auctoritate et potentiae severitate compescere.

(49) This was not all: there are never any limits. The oath required of bishops as feudatories was later demanded from bishops as such per extensionem, as lawyers would say using the clause to justify the usurpation. The Church protested by forbidding the oath on the part of bishops who received no temporal benefit from the ruler. Nimis de JURE DIVINO quidam laici usurpare conantur, cum viros ecclesiasticos, nihil temporale detinentes ab eis, ad praestandum sibi fidelitatis juramenta compellunt. Quia vero, secundum Apostolum, servus suo domino stat aut cadit, sacri auctoritate concilii prohibemus, ne tales clerici personis saecularibus praestare cogantur hujusmodi juramenta. (Innocent III, IV Lat. Council, c. 43) [SC 13, 975]

(50) 2 Tim 2, 4 [Douai Version]

(51) The person invested with a fief by the king was called homo regis. There is no better way of expressing the absolute ownership exercised by the king over this human "royal possession." Imagine a man like Peter, Paul, or Chrysostom, or Ambrose becoming homo regis instead of homo Dei. Note also that at the time homo had become synonymous with "soldier" (v. Du-Cange, Closs. med. et infim. latinitatis, voc. Miles) [Paris, 1678]

(52) Matt 6. 24

(53) Fulbert of Chartres (Ep. 8) [PL 141, 219] writes of Frank, chancellor of King Robert, that he became bishop eligente clero, suffragante populo, DONO REGIS. As I have said, this phrase was already in common use, although its inexactness had not yet been noticed. We have mentioned amongst the formulas given by Marculfus, the king's command to the bishop-designate. It also says: PONTIFICALEM in Dei nomine COMMISSIMUS DIGNITATEM.. Such a manner of speaking has to be interpreted even by a zealous defender of sovereign rights who explains: quod saniori sensu et magis canonico intelligi non potest quam de regiorum jurium et feudorum investitura et concessione quae Clodoveus rex ecclesiis manu liberali contulerat (Hist. Eccl. saec. XIII, XIV, Dissert. VIII, art. III) [cf. N. Alexandre, op. cit., and PL 71, 274]. Similar phrases abound in the writings of the times.

(54) The Praeceptum de Episcopatu of the Frankish kings was qualified in the following way according to Marculfus: Cognovimus antistitem illum ab hac luce migrasse, ob cuius successorem sollicitudinem congruam una cum pontificibus (vel proceribus nostris) plenium tractantes, DECREVIMUS illustri viro illi pontificalem in ipsa urbe committere dignitatem. [PL 87, 704]

(55) Pope Hadrian I had warned Charlemagne about his obligation to leave the choice of bishops free from interference. The great emperor accepted the admonition from the head of the Church with meekness that denoted true breadth of spirit in a christian ruler far more effectively than resistance and disobedience. Charlemagne expressed and sanctioned this freedom in the Capitularies of Aix-la-Chapelle by the following decree; "Cognisant of the sacred canons, we have granted our assent to church law (so that holy Church may be more securely in possession of its honour and dignity) that requires bishops to be chosen by their own diocesans, clergy and people, according to the norms of the canons, in accordance with their meritorious lives and gifts of wisdom, without regard for persons or regalia, that they may thus assist their subjects in every way by word and example." In 806, Louis the Pious confirmed Charlemagne's law in public capitulary after the synod of Aix-la-Chapelle.

(56) Usurpation reached its climax in the 11th century. Two examples in which archbishops of Canterbury play a part may be mentioned here. Lanfranc, appointed bishop by William the Conqueror, had to petition for the temporalities enjoyed by his predecessors. The king replied angrily: se velle omnes baculos pastorales Angliae in manu sua tenere. This historian who relates the episode (Gervasius Doroborensis, In Imaginationibus de discordiis inter monachos Doroborenses et Balduenium Archiespic., p. 137) says that the bishop was stunned by the king's reaction, and prudently remained silent lest the king do still greater harm to the Church. We can understand even more clearly the state of the Church at the time by examining what occurred to St.Anselm under William II. According to Eadmer (lib. 1 Hist. Novor.) [London 1623],
Willilam left churches and abbeyy without pastors in order to enjoy their revenues sedibus vacantibus. Anselm, as primate of England, thought it his duty to complain to the king pointing out the harm resulting from the absence of bishops and abbots, and begging him to abandon a practice damaging the kings's own soul. Eadmer continues: non potuit amplius spiritum suum rex cohibere, sed oppido turbatus cum iracundia dixit: Quid ad te? numquid abbatiae non sunt meae? Heu, tu quod vis agis de villis tuis, et ego non agam quod volo de abbatiis meis? The bishop had to insist respectfully that the king remember that the property of the Church was the sovereign's only in so far as he had to defend and safeguard it. In fact, it belonged to God, and was intended for the maintenance of God's ministers. The king burst out: "Pro certo noveris, mihi valde contraria esse quae dicis. Non enim antecessor tuus auderet ullatenus patri meo dicere: et nihil faciam pro te." This was the position of church property and freedom at the time, under the pressure of lay ideas and power.

(57) The Church was always averse to such dependence; the struggle between a Church which wishes to function freely and secular power wanting to dominate it is a continual feature of history. Difficulties often arose over elections carried out without prior permission from the king. Richard I complains in a letter (about 1190) to the bishop of London regarding an election concluded without his first being consulted: Quod si ita est, regiam majestatem nostram non modicum esse offensam; he declares: Non enim aliqua ratione sustineremus quod a praefatis monachis vel ab aliis quidquam cum detrimento honoris nostri in electione episcopi fierit: et si forte factum esset, quin in irritum revocaretur.

At the time of king Richard, lay power had made unbelievable progress in its invasion of church rights and in suffocating church freedom, rendering ever weaker the Church's possibility of resistance. The Church would certainly have gone under if God, who guards it, had not raised up popes of superhuman calibre to liberate it once more. What would the Church have said, in brighter moments of her history, if secular rulers had claimed authority over choice of her pastors and forced her to beg permission for evey new episcopal election? What would men like Ambrose and Chrysostom have said if they had heard that a son of the Church wished to bind his mother's hands and force her to work as a slave for a master? But even in the 10th century, the Church in the east showed that she felt the full indignity of the treatment meted out to her. Cedrenus relates that Nicephorus Phocas had forbidden bishops to be chosen without his permission. According to the historian, this was the greatest of the crimes Nicephorus had perpetrated: id omnium gravissimum quod legem tulit, cui et EPISCOPI QUIDAM LEVES ATQUE ADULATORES (this is the root of the evil) SUBSCRIPSERUNT, ne absque imperatoris sententia ac permissu episcopus vel eligeretur vel ordinaretur [cf. Thomassin, Ancienne et nouvelle discipline de l'Áglise, touchant les bánáfices, et les bánáficiers, Paris, 1678-79]. When Phocas died, Polieuctes, patriarch of Constantinople, refused John Zymisca, successor to Phocas, both entrance to the church with the faithful and coronation unless he first made satisfaction for his crimes, and in particular abrogated the law by which Nicephorus had attempted to destroy the freedom of the Church. Emperor John agreed, and publicly tore up the document.

(58) The formulas of Marculfus (n. 19) include the Praeceptum de Clericatu, that is, the patent issued by the king to those wishing to become clerics. It is called precept because every word of the king is a command, according to the usual lying flattery. If I were capable of counselling rulers, I would suggest they abolish all falsehood in court language, and base their power solidly ON TRUTH. This alone would be sufficient to strengthen and consolidate their thrones. But I would be ridiculed, I know. Anyway, bishops did sometimes ordain clerics without bothering about royal permission. An archbishop of Rheims wrote to Gerbertus [later pope Sylvester II] that he had been "accused of lese-majesty as a result of conferring ecclesiastical orders without royal authority and leave" (Gerbert, Ep. 57) [PL 239, 95].
The French kings also wanted the faithful to depend upon their placet in retiring from the world and consecrating themselves to God in religious life. Hincmar, however, in a letter to Charles the Bald, says expressly that such a law was never accepted by the Church (v. P. Cellotti, The Council of Douzi) [Louis Cellot, Paris 1658].

(59) v. N. Alexandre, In saec. XIII et XIV, Dissert. VIII, art. I. [Alexandre, op. cit., t. XVI, p. 211]

(60) The excuse was that "royal holdings" were granted greater protection and safeguards, but does not civil power exist to defend all ownership on equal terms?

(61) "Benefices", a word still used universally by the Church, has its origin in "military benefices" later extended to "ecclesiastical benefices", assigned by monarchs of the new nations in the middle ages. The word reminds us that the clergy had unwittingly sold their freedom to the ruler for the sake of riches.

(62) The Church protested, and tried to defend herself against this kind of usurpation, but what could she do against force? Her only support was the authority of the canons, of which I give a few examples. Redditus vero viduatae Ecclesiae integros reservari apud oeconomum ejusdem Ecclesiae placuit (Council of Chalcedon, 451) [SC 4, 1709]

Stabili definitione consultum est, ut de caetero observaretur, ne quis ad eam Ecclesiam, quae episcopum perdidisset, nisi vicinae Ecclesiae episcopus exequiarum tempore accederet, qui visitatoris vice tamen ipsius curam districtissime gereret, ne quid ante ordinationem discordantium in novitatibus clericorum subversioni liceret. Itaque cum tale aliquid accidit, vicinis vicinarum Ecclesiarum inspectio, recensio, descriptione mandatur (Council of Riez, 493, Can. 6) [SC 4, 536].
In 524 and 525, the Councils of Valentia and Ilerda, in Spain, confirm the norms of Chalcedon [SC 5, 749, 759].

The 2nd Council of Orleans, 553, canon 6, [SC 5, 927] decreed that at the death of a diocesan bishop, the neighbouring bishop. when carrying out the funeral, should call the clergy together, make an exact inventory of that church's possessions and entrust them to zealous and careful persons, as the Council of Riez states.

The 5th Council of Paris, 614, [cf. SC 6, 1389-1390] decreed in canon 7 that no one, even at the king's command, should interfere with the property of any deceased bishop or cleric under pain of excommunication. Such property should ab archidiacono vel clero in omnibus defensentur et conserventur.

The celebrated Hincmar of Rheims wrote to the bishops and principal clergy of his province in the 9th century (Ep. IX): "Et sicut episcopus et suas et ecclesiasticas facultates sub debita discretione in vita sua dispensandi habet potestatem ita facultates Ecclesiae viduatae post mortem episcopi penes oeconomum integrae conservari jubentur futuro successori ejus episcopo; quoniam res et facultates ecclesiasticae NON IMPERATORUM ATQUE REGUM POTESTATE SUNT ad dispensandum vel invadendum, sive diripiendum, sed ad defensandum, atque tuendum." Hincmar wrote in the same fashion to Charles the Bald (Epis. XXIX), and repeats himself in various other letters, ex. gr. XXI, XLV [PL 126, 258, 260].
Gerbert, another famous bishop of Rheims, who later became pope Sylvester II, reaffirms the teaching in letter 118 to clergy and people [PL 139, 240].

Constant repetition of the canons and insistence upon the law prevented rulers laying hands on the Church's revenues without incurring public disapproval until the end of the 9th century. Hence in 882 the Annales Bertiniani, for example, note as a crime that the emperor Charles the Fat had granted the revenues of the church of Metz for the use of Hugh, son of Lothaire the Younger, quas sacri canones futuro episcopo reservari praecipiunt [PL 115 and 125].

(63) It is well known, and noted in the corpus of canon law, that tithes were usurped as fiefs by lay people, and granted as fiefs by rulers, or even by bishops and rectors of churches (v. L'Estravagante de iis quae fiunt a Praelat. sine consensu capit. 17).

(64) v. ex. gr. Alexandre, op. cit., saec. VIII et XIV, Dissert. VIII, art. III.

(65) The Council of Meaux, 845, acted with apostolic freedom in admonishing Charles the Bald when he oppressed the Church by granting its possessions to lay people. "... against all authority, against the decrees of the fathers and the entire tradition of christian religion, lay people have lived as lords and masters in regular monasteries amongst priests, levites and other religious, ruling and judging their life and customs as if they were abbots. They have also dispensed them and, according to the rule, confided to their care the souls of men and the tabernacle of God without the permission or even the knowledge of the bishop." Cf. can. 10 and 42. The fathers decree, therefore, ut praecepta illicita jure beneficiario de rebus eccclesiasticis facta a Vobis (they are addressing Charles the Bald) sine dilatione rescindantur, et ut de caetero ne fiant, a dignitate Vestri nominis regii caveatur. They remind him energetically that even the soldiers who crucified Christ did not go as far as insulting him by rending his cloak: "ante oculos reducentes tunicam Christi, qui vos elegit et exaltavit, quam nec milites ausi fuerunt scindere, tempore vestro quantocitius reconsuite et resarcite: et nec violenta ablatione, nec illicitorum praeceptorum confirmatione res ab Ecclesiis vobis ad tuendum et defensandum ac propagandum commissis auferre tentate; sed ut sanctae memoriae avus et pater vester eas gubernandas vobis, fautore Deo, dimisereunt, redintegrate, praecepta regalia earumdem ecclesiarum conservate et confirmate (Can. II) [SC 9, 962-988]
It is noticeable that this council distinguishes between allodial, unconditional grants to the church and feudal grants. The king is reproved especially for dispensing the former to lay people

(66) The appendix to Flodcardus contains the following Notitia de Villa Novilliaco. Defuncto Tispino archiepiscopo, tenuit Dominus, rex Carolus Remense EPISCOPIUM in suo dominatu, et dedit villam Novilliacum in beneficio Anschero Saxoni [PL 135, 410], that is, to a soldier. Here it is obvious that temporalities have been confused with the episcopacy. But there is truly no limit to the efforts and improvisations of greed and power united in obtaining their own satisfaction. When rulers were pressed by the Church not to leave dioceses without pastors for lengthy periods, they invented certain commissionaries, called chorepiscopi, whom they sent in place of bishops while they themselves retained the episcopal revenues. These non-pastors were a great affliction to the church. Complaints and decrees against the chorepiscopi flooded in from 9th century councils. Eventually, after causing endless problems in the the Church, these anomalous beings were eliminated. Flodoardus comments on a letter of Hincmar to pope Leo IV (lib. III, Hist. Remensis, c. 10): In hac vero epistola, de his quos temeritas chorepiscopalis ordinare, vel quod Spiritum Sanctum consignando tradere praesumebat, requisivit. Et quod terrena potestas hac materia saepe offenderet, ut videlicet episcopo quolibet defuncto, per chorepiscopum solis pontificibus debitum ministerium perageretur, et res ac facultates Ecclesiae saecularium usibus expenderentur, sicut et in nostra Ecclesia jam secundo actum est [PL 135, 151].

(67) The steps by which rulers gradually usurped the choice of bishops, beginning with petitions and recommendations, and finishing with commands and violence may be seen in Thomassin, Vet. et Nov. Eccl. Discipl. p. 1, lib. 1, c. LIV [Thomassin, op. cit., P. II, L. I, c. LIV]