Within the Catholic Church, an ecclesiastical judge (Latin : judex, or judex ecclesiasticus) is an ecclesiastical person who possesses ecclesiastical jurisdiction either in general or in the strict sense. The judge presides over all baptized persons within their jurisdiction.
The official body appointed by the qualified ecclesiastical authority for the administration of justice is called a court (judicium ecclesiasticum, tribunal, auditorium) Every such ecclesiastical court consists at the least of two sworn officials: the ecclesiastical judge who gives the decision and the clerk of the court (scriba, secretarius, scriniarius, notarius, cancellarius), whose duty is to keep a record of the proceedings and the decision. [1] As a rule, however, an ecclesiastical court forms a collegiate tribunal, the members of which either join with the presiding officer in giving the decision as judges (judices) or merely advise with him as councillors (auditores, assessores, consultores, consiliarii). [2]
Connected with the courts are advocates, procurators, syndics, defenders, promoters, conservators, apparitors, messengers etc. The procurators and advocates conduct the case as the representatives or defenders of the parties to the suit; [3] the syndic is the counsel of a juridical person, a collegiate body or a chapter. [4] The chief duty of the conservators is to represent the rights of the personae miserabiles, i.e. members of orders, the poor, widows, orphans. [5] The fiscal promoter (promotor fiscalis) is appointed by the ecclesiastical authorities to watch over ecclesiastical discipline, [6] consequently in penal cases he appears as public prosecutor. A defensor matrimonii, or defender of the matrimonial tie, assists in suits concerning the invalidity of a marriage. [7]
Up until 1858, ecclesiastical judges tried church clergy in church courts or ecclesiastical courts. Charges dealt in these courts were often very lenient, especially when dealt to church clergymen.
The ecclesiastical judge must have certain physical and moral qualities. He must be competent, i.e. must be authorized to pass judgment on a given person in a given case. Proceedings held before a judge without competence are null and void. It is necessary to have full use of his senses and understanding, and suitable legal knowledge; the person appointed must be at least 20 years old; but 18 years will suffice for a judge appointed by the pope or if the parties agree to it. [8] The judge must have a good reputation, must not be excommunicated, suspended from office, or under an interdict. [9]
The judge must be impartial; a suspicion of partiality attaches to the judge who is personally interested in a case [10] or is related by blood within the fourth degree to one of the parties, or connected with one by marriage, [11] or who lives in the same house, or dines at a common table, or is otherwise friendly, or on the other hand inimical, towards one of the parties, [12] and he may be rejected (recusari, exceptio judicis suspecti) by the accused or by both parties as prejudiced (suspectus). If objection be raised against a judge on the ground of prejudice, which must be done in writing and if possible before the beginning of the action, [13] arbitrators are to pass on the objection; [14] if, however, objection be raised against the delegate of the bishop, the decision rests with the bishop. [15] If the objection be declared well-founded, the judge transfers the case, with the concurrence of the party who brought the accusation, to another or to a higher judge. [16]
If the judge lacks the necessary qualifications, and this be known to the parties in the suit, the decision is invalid; if, however, his unfitness be unknown to the parties, and he follow statute canon law, the church supplements the deficiency, even if the judge have acted in bad faith.
Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is exercised over all baptized persons. Those subject to the jurisdiction of a certain judge are said to be within the competence (competentia) of his court, or have their forum in him. The forum is either the free, voluntary choice of the parties (forum prorogatum), or it is defined by law (forum legale), but in criminal and matrimonial cases there is no forum prorogatum. [17] Ecclesiastics can choose another judge only with the permission of the bishop, and in this case he must be an ecclesiastic [18] The legal forum (forum legale) is either ordinary, if the proper course of the regular courts is followed, or extraordinary, if for legal reasons a regular court is passed over. Moreover, the forum legale is either general (commune), corresponding to the universally valid law, or special or privileged (speciale sive privilegiatum), resting on privilege, as in the case of ecclesiastics on account of the privilegium fori which they cannot renounce.
As the jurisdiction of a judge is generally limited to a defined locality, the forum commune is fixed by the domicile or quasi-domicile of the accused. The axiom holds: Actor sequitur forum rei, the plaintiff goes to the court of the accused. [19] Domicile is that place where one actually resides with the intention of always remaining there. Quasi-domicile is determined by actual residence at the place and the intention to remain there at least the greater part of the year; there is also a domicile by operation of law, legal or fictitious domicile (domicilium legale sive fictitium)—thus a wife may be subject to the jurisdiction of the domicile of the husband, children to that of the parents, religious to that of the place where the monastery is situated, persons having no fixed abode to that of the present place of residence.
A process can be instituted at Rome against an ecclesiastic who is only accidentally there. [20] Besides the—usual—forum domicilii, there is also that of the object (forum rei sitae, where the thing is situated), i.e. complaint can be brought before the judge in whose district the controverted object is; [21] the forum where the contract is made (forum contractus), i.e. the parties can bring action before the judge in whose district the disputed contract has been made; [22] that of the offence (forum delicti), within the jurisdiction where the offence was committed. [23]
There is also a forum arising from the connection of matters (forum connexitatis sive continentiae causarum), if the matters in dispute are so interrelated that one cannot be decided without the other; [24] the forum of a counterplea (forum reconventionis sive reaccusationis), i.e. in a criminal suit the defendant can, on his side, accuse the plaintiff in the court of the judge before whom he himself is to be tried. [25] If the judge wishes to bring an accusation, the superior appoints the judge who is to hear it. [26] The decision of an incompetent judge is valid if by common error (error communis) he is held to be competent In civil disputes the parties can entrust the decision to any desired arbiter. [27]
If the judge render a defective decision, appeal can be taken to the next higher judge; this relation of the courts to one another and the successive course of appeals (gradus), called succession of instances, follows the order of superiority. From the beginning the bishop, or his representative, the archdeacon, or the "official" (officialis), or the vicar-general, was the judge in first instance for all suits, contentious or criminal, which arose in the diocese or in the corresponding administrative district, so far as such suits were not withdrawn from his jurisdiction by the common law. The court of second instance was originally the provincial synod, later the metropolitan. [28] The court of the third instance was that of the pope. The court of the first instance for bishops was the provincial synod, the metropolitan, the exarch or the patriarch; the court of second instance was that of the pope; [29] only the pope could be the judge of first instance for exarchs and patriarchs.
Since the Middle Ages the pope is the judge of first instance in all more important episcopal causes (causae maiores, graviores, difficiliores, arduae), the number and extent of which are in no way exactly definable, but to which above all belong the causae criminales graviores contra episcopos—more serious criminal charges against bishops [30] Conformably to this the diocesan bishop or his representative (the vicar-general, or officialis, or some other diocesan authority) became the judge of the court of first instance, so far as common law has not withdrawn from him this jurisdiction. [31] If the see is vacant the vicar-capitular is judge of the court of first instance. The judge of the second instance is the metropolitan. [32] For archdioceses, as a rule, the judge of second instance is a neighbouring archbishop or bishop appointed by the Holy See. [33] The same ordinance also applies to exempt bishoprics. [34] The court of the third instance is the Apostolic See, but in the causae maiores it is the court of first instance. As, however, the pope is the judex ordinarius omnium, the ordinary ecclesiastical judge of all, ecclesiastical suits without exception can be brought or summoned before the papal forum as the court of first instance. [35]
In the Middle Ages the lower courts were often evaded, or the popes summoned the suits at one before their forum. [36] This custom had some advantages on account of the better legal education and greater impartiality of the members of the papal court, but the administration of justice was delayed and made more costly by the rule enforced in the papal courts that the parties must appear in person. Such summonses to Rome, as to the court of first instance, diminish unduly the authority of the lower courts. To put an end, therefore, to constant complaint on this point, the decretals [37] ordained that in future, before the rendering of the sentence, no one could appeal to a higher court without giving a sufficient reason to the judge a quo (from whom the appeal was made), and that the appeal could only be accepted by the judge ad quem (to whom appeal lies) after he had satisfied himself of the validity of the appeal. [38] Lawsuits, therefore, pending before the Apostolic See were to be tried by a judge belonging to the place whence the appeal came, and especially appointed by the pope. [39] In the late Middle Ages rulers of countries were frequently granted for their domains the papal privilegia de non evocando (exemption from summons); in some cases, they forbade the appeal to a foreign court.
Following the precedents of the Synod of Constance [40] and Synod of Basle, [41] the Council of Trent [42] decreed: the court of the bishop is the court of first instance Each suit must be brought to a close within at least two years. During this period no appeal is permitted, neither can the higher judge summon the case before his forum; an appeal before the lapse of two years is permissible only if a final sentence has been pronounced.
In case of appeal to the Apostolic See, or if the latter, for good reasons, summons a suit from the beginning before its forum, the suit is to be decided either at Rome or by delegated judges on the spot (judices in partibus). As on account of the remoteness of the place where the dispute arose and the consequent lack of knowledge of local persons, unsuitable judges have been at times appointed at the place where the dispute arose, the bishops are each to select, on occasion of the provincial—or diocesan synod, at least four men (judices synodales) having the qualities designated by Boniface VIII, [43] and present their names to the Apostolic See, which in its selection of judges is to be so limited to the persons thus named that the delegation of any other person is invalid; as provincial and diocesan synods are no longer regularly held, bishops are permitted to make this selection with the advice of the diocesan chapter; [44] consequently, judges so appointed are called judices prosynodales.
At present, this also is no longer customary: on the contrary, the Apostolic See appoints its representatives in partibus entirely independently, but it is so arranged that the delegation is bestowed on neighbor bishops and archbishops for a definite term of years. Such delegation is all the more necessary in case a State does not permit ecclesiastical suits to be tried outside of its boundaries, or will only permit the judgement of such a court to be executed within its territories by the secular power.
This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain : Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1913). "Ecclesiastical Courts". Catholic Encyclopedia . New York: Robert Appleton Company.Pope Nicholas I, called Nicholas the Great, was the bishop of Rome and ruler of the Papal States from 24 April 858 until his death. He is remembered as a consolidator of papal authority, exerting decisive influence on the historical development of the papacy and its position among the Christian nations of Western Europe. Nicholas I asserted that the pope should have suzerainty over all Christians, even royalty, in matters of faith and morals.
An ecclesiastical court, also called court Christian or court spiritual, is any of certain courts having jurisdiction mainly in spiritual or religious matters. In the Middle Ages, these courts had much wider powers in many areas of Europe than before the development of nation states. They were experts in interpreting canon law, a basis of which was the Corpus Juris Civilis of Justinian, which is considered the source of the civil law legal tradition.
Febronianism was a powerful movement within the Catholic Church in Germany, in the latter part of the 18th century, directed towards the nationalizing of Catholicism, the restriction of the power of the papacy in favor of that of the episcopate, and the reunion of the dissident Churches with Catholic Christendom. It was thus, in its main tendencies, the equivalent of what in France is known as Gallicanism. Friedrich Lauchert describes Febronianism, in the Catholic Encyclopedia, as a politico-ecclesiastical system with an ostensible purpose to facilitate the reconciliation of the Protestant bodies with the Catholic Church by diminishing the power of the Holy See.
The Arches Court, presided over by the Dean of Arches, is an ecclesiastical court of the Church of England covering the Province of Canterbury. Its equivalent in the Province of York is the Chancery Court.
The Roman Rota, formally the Apostolic Tribunal of the Roman Rota, and anciently the Apostolic Court of Audience, is the highest appellate tribunal of the Catholic Church, with respect to both Latin Church members and the Eastern Catholic members and is the highest ecclesiastical court constituted by the Holy See related to judicial trials conducted in the Catholic Church. An appeal may be had to the pope himself, who is the supreme ecclesiastical judge. The Catholic Church has a complete legal system, which is the oldest in the West still in use. The court is named Rota (wheel) because the judges, called auditors, originally met in a round room to hear cases. The Rota was established in the 13th century.
Characterisation, or characterization, in conflict of laws, is the second stage of the procedure to resolve a lawsuit that involves foreign law. The process is described in English law as Characterisation, or classification within the English judgments of the European Court of Justice. It is alternatively known as qualification in French law.
Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is jurisdiction by church leaders over other church leaders and over the laity.
In the jurisprudence of the canon law of the Catholic Church, a dispensation is the exemption from the immediate obligation of law in certain cases. Its object is to modify the hardship often arising from the rigorous application of general laws to particular cases, and its essence is to preserve the law by suspending its operation in such cases.
A defender of the bond is a Catholic Church official whose duty is to defend the marriage bond in the procedure prescribed for the hearing of matrimonial causes which involve the validity or nullity of a marriage already contracted. In current Canon Law the role is provided for in Book VII, Title 1, which deals with marriage processes.
A Commissary Apostolic is Commissary who has been appointed by the pope, hence commissary Apostolic.
The right of patronage in Roman Catholic canon law is a set of rights and obligations of someone, known as the patron in connection with a gift of land (benefice). It is a grant made by the church out of gratitude towards a benefactor.
Trusteeism and the trustee system are practices and institutions within certain parishes of the Catholic Church in the United States, under which laypersons participate in the administration of Ecclesiastical Property. When laypersons are among the trustees, the Church seeks agreement with the civil authorities to have the property administered under principles of canon law.
Canonical institution is a technical term of the canon law of the Roman Catholic Church, meaning in practice an institution having full recognition and status within the Catholic Church.
"Appeal as from an abuse" is a legal term applied in the canon law of the Catholic Church, meaning originally a legal appeal as recourse to the civil forum (court) against the usurpation by the ecclesiastical forum of the rights of civil jurisdiction. It could also mean a recourse to the ecclesiastical forum against the usurpation by the civil forum of the rights of ecclesiastical jurisdiction.
The Judiciary of Brazil is the group of public entities designated by the Brazilian constitution to carry out the country's judicial functions.
In the canon law of the Catholic Church, excommunication is a form of censure. In the formal sense of the term, excommunication includes being barred not only from the sacraments but also from the fellowship of Christian baptism. The principal and severest censure, excommunication presupposes guilt; and being the most serious penalty that the Catholic Church can inflict, it supposes a grave offense. The excommunicated person is considered by Catholic ecclesiastical authority as an exile from the Church, for a time at least.
In the canon law of the Catholic Church, a notary is a person appointed by competent authority to draw up official or authentic documents. These documents are issued chiefly from the official administrative bureaux, the chanceries; secondly, from tribunals; lastly, others are drawn up at the request of individuals to authenticate their contracts or other acts. The public officials appointed to draw up these three classes of papers have been usually called notaries.
The jurisprudence of Catholic canon law is the complex of legal theory, traditions, and interpretative principles of Catholic canon law. In the Latin Church, the jurisprudence of canon law was founded by Gratian in the 1140s with his Decretum. In the Eastern Catholic canon law of the Eastern Catholic Churches, Photios holds a place similar to that of Gratian for the West.
A censure, in the canon law of the Catholic Church, is a medicinal and spiritual punishment imposed by the church on a baptized, delinquent, and contumacious person, by which he is deprived, either wholly or in part, of the use of certain spiritual goods until he recovers from his contumacy. These goods can encompass access to the sacraments, participation in certain liturgical activities, and involvement in ecclesiastical functions.
In France, the correctional court is the court of first instance that has jurisdiction in criminal matters regarding offenses classified as délits committed by an adult. In 2013, French correctional courts rendered 576,859 judgments and pronounced 501,171 verdicts.
