Rights in God's Church
Appendix 6. (931).
The right of nomination became hereditary when it was considered an entail on the ownership of a private chapel raised to the status of parish church. It was an abuse, however, from the start. The reasons inducing the Church to agree to it were the lack of priests, the intermingling of ecclesiastical and feudal power, and the decision of the kings of France to sequestrate church temporalities and enfeoff them to lay people (Decret. pt. 2, c. 16, q. 1, c. 59. Capit. 1, Carol. Magni, 803 AD, c. 1; ibid., Corr. Rom). French royalty considered itself absolute patron of churches, and went so far as to interfere violently in the nominations to ecclesiastical offices. It usurped investiture to church posts, and exercised the same rights over priests as over its vassals (Edict. Carol. M. ad comites, 810 AD. - Decret. p. 2, c. 16, q. 7, c. 29 (Leo III, c. 800 AD); - c. 37, eod. (Council of Mainz. 813 AD); - c. 38, eod. (Council of Chalon-sur-Saône II, 813 AD). - Capit. I, Carol. M. 803 AD, c. 2, - Capit. Ludov. 816 AD, c. 9). In the 9th century, lay lords, despite the sanctions imposed by the Church, appointed priests at will. The following extract from the De Privileg. et Iure Sacerdotum of Agobard, Bishop of Lyons, will give some idea of the conditions of the time:
| The impious custom has grown to such an extent that you find almost no one alive, however little honour and temporal glory he may have achieved, who does not have his own domestic priest, not for the sake of obeying him but to demand from him unceasingly licit and illicit obedience not only in divine functions but even in human things. So you often find priests waiting at table, or mixing wines, or taking dogs for walks, or holding horses while ladies mount, or looking after tiny fields. The people of whom we are speaking cannot have good priests in their houses (what good cleric would degrade his name and life by bearing with such men?) NOR DO THEY CARE WHAT KIND OF CLERICS THEY ARE, OR HOW IGNORANT, OR HOW INVOLVED IN WRONG-DOING. All they want are their own priests so that they may have an excuse for abandoning the major churches and public devotions. It is clear that they do not keep priests for the honour of religion because they do not honour them. They no minate them contumeliously when they want us to ordain them priests. They ask or command us, saying: `I have a cleric whom I have fed along with my own bond-servants, or beneficiaries, or paid servants,' or `I have obtained him from someone or other, or from one region or another. I want you to ordain him priest for me.' When this has been done, they think that senior priests are unnecessary for them, and they frequently abandon public devotions and sermons. |
(De privileg. et jure sacerdot., c. 3)
Bishops and Councils, especially the 3rd and 4th Lateran Councils, tried to remedy the damage, but only to the extent of maintaining that the local bishop was judge of the suitability of priests nominated by patrons. The hereditary right of nomination was left unmolested for the sake of avoiding greater evils (Council of Seligenstadt, 1022 AD, c. 13 - Council of Bourges, 1031 AD, c. 21. - Decretal., bk. 3, t. 5, De praebend., c. 3 - De jure patron., c. 4: 33 - bk. 5, t. 37, De poen., c. 11).