Nomination

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

The various methods of designatingpersons forecclesiastical benefices or offices have been described under B;B;E;C I. All these methods are more or less included in the ordinary sense of the termnomination; but in its strict canonical sense, nomination is defined as the designation of aperson for anecclesiastical benefice or office made by the competentcivil authority and conferring on theperson named theright to be canonically instituted by theecclesiastical superior. It follows the rules of patronal presentation, being based on the same grounds as the right of patronage, viz., the endowment of churches orbenefices by kings, princes, or communities. Its method of action is designed to keep the prerogatives of the two powers clearly separated, the intervention of thesecular power taking effect in the free choice of a fitperson, thespiritual jurisdiction being reserved intact to theecclesiastical superior, who alone can givecanonical institution. At the present time appointments tobenefices by right of nomination, especially tobishoprics, is generally settled by negotiation and previous understanding between the two powers. Under the old regime the nominatedperson himself applied forcanonical institution; the superior made inquiry as to the applicant and, unless the inquiry disclosed unworthiness or unfitness, grantedcanonical institution according to the customary forms—most often by consistorialpreconization. Whatever procedure may be followed, theperson named by thecivil power has nospiritual jurisdiction until he has been canonically instituted; and if he should dare to intrude in the administration of thediocese with no other title than his nomination by thesecular authority, not only would all his acts be null and void, but he, and with him those who should have consented to his acts, would incurexcommunication and other penalties; moreover, he would forfeit the right resulting from his nomination (Const. "Romanus pontifex", 28 Aug., 1873, and the texts there cited. Cf.E, vol. V, p. 691, col. 1).

The most important application of the right of nomination by princes is, withoutdoubt, that which relates to the major or consistorial,benefices, especiallybishoprics. Without going back to the intrusions of royal power in episcopal elections in the barbarian kingdoms, or in theCarlovingian Empire, or the Byzantine, it must be remembered that the Concordat of Worms (1121), which ended theConflict of Investitures, included an initial measure for the separation of the parts and prerogatives of the two powers in the choice ofbishops. The emperor recognized the freedom of episcopal elections andconsecrations; thepope, on his side, agreed that elections should be held in the emperor's presence, withoutsimony or restraint, that the emperor should decide in case of dispute, that he should give temporal investiture, by the sceptre, to the bishop-elect, while investiture by ring andcrosier, symbolic ofecclesiastical jurisdiction, should be combined with theconsecration. The custom of election ofbishops by chapters, which was thecommon law of the thirteenth century, left, officially, no opening for royal interference, but princes none the less endeavoured to have their candidates elected. This became more difficult for them when, by successive reservations, thepopes had made themselves masters of all episcopal elections, thus occasioning serious inconveniences. While inGermany the Concordat of 1448 re-established capitular elections, inFrance, on the contrary, after the difficulties consequent upon thePragmatic Sanction ofBourges (1438), the quarrel ended with the Concordat of 1516. In this instrument we find the right of nomination guaranteed to the kings ofFrance for consistorialbenefices,bishoprics, abbacies, and priorates; and thence the arrangement passed into most of the subsequentconcordats, including that of 1801 (cf. Nussi, "Quinquaginta conventiones", Rome, 1869, tit. v). The royal ordinance ofFrancis Ipromulgating theBull ofLeo X says: "Such vacancy occurring, the King ofFrance shall be bound to present and name [theBull says onlynobis nominabit] a master … and otherwise fit, within six months … that we may appoint his nominee to the vacant see." If thisperson is rejected, the king will nominate another within three months; if not, thepope can himself appoint. The same right of nomination is extended to abbacies and priorates, with some exceptions. TheConcordat of 1801 (articles 4 and 5) accords to the First Consul the same right of nomination, but only forbishoprics, and without fixing a limit of time for its exercise. In other countries (e.g.Spain) the right of the temporal ruler includes otherbenefices besidesbishoprics.

Such being the nature of the very definite right of nomination, nothing but malicious provocation can be discerned in the conflict brought on by M. Combes, when Prime Minister ofFrance (1902-5), in regard to thenobis nominavit, the expression which figured in theBulls forFrenchbishops. By a notedated 21 Dec., 1902, the French Government demanded the suppression of thenobis, as if to make it appear that the head of the State nominatedbishops absolutely, like government officials. The Vatican explained thetrue nature of the nomination as the designation of aperson by the head of the State, the latter indicating to thepope the cleric whom he desires as head of such adiocese, thepope accordingly creating that candidatebishop bycanonical institution. The fact was pointed out that the wordnobis is found in the episcopalBulls of all nations which have by concordat the right of nomination; also that, with very rare exceptions, it appears in all theBulls forFrance under the Concordat of 1516 as under that of 1801; that previously, in 1871, the French Government having obtained without any difficulty the suppression of the wordpræsentavit, had, upon representations made byRome, withdrawn its demand for the suppression of thenobis; above all, it was insisted on that the letters patent of the French Government to thepope had from time immemorial contained the words: "We name him [the candidate] and present him to Your Holiness, that it may please Your Holiness, upon our nomination and presentation, to provide for the said bishopric", etc. The Vatican nevertheless declared that it did not desire to refuse any satisfactory revision; various formulæ were proposed on either side, without success; at last theHoly See consented to suppress the wordnobis employing the usual formula in drafting letters patent. (On this conflict see the "Livre Blanc du Saint Siège"; vi, in "Acta S. Sedis", 15 Jan., 1906.) This concession, as weknow, did not delay the separation which the French Government was determined to have at any price. (See B;B;C;E;I.)

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT