Interesting history:
Jus ExclusivæThe alleged competence of the more important
Catholic countries,
Austria,
France, and
Spain, to indicate to their respective
cardinal protector, or cardinal
procurator, those members of the
Sacred College who were
personæ minus gratæ, so that, if there was a possibility of one of these becoming
pope, the authorized
cardinal might, before the decisive ballot, give his veto, in the name of his government, against such ɛƖɛctıon.
At one time this veto was given orally; later it was given in writing. The
cardinal protector, or cardinal
procurator, who cast the veto, was, as a rule, that member of the
Sacred College who had been created a
cardinal at the desire of his government. This declaration could only be made at the last moment, for the reason that, by traditional usage, a government might invoke this alleged right only once at the same
conclave, and consequently would not wish to employ it unnecessarily. A veto made after the ɛƖɛctıon was not recognized.
Opinions differ widely as to the antiquity of this right. It cannot be
proved that it is in any way related to the
rights in the papal ɛƖɛctıon, exercised by German kings and emperors in the early
Middle Ages. Indeed, it was not until the sixteenth century, that the more important
European countries obtained larger influence over papal ɛƖɛctıons, owing to the contentions of
France,
Spain, and the German emperor, for the control of
Italy. These governments were originally satisfied with the so-called "ballot of exclusion", i.e., they sought to unite more than one-third of the voters against an undesirable candidate and thus make his ɛƖɛctıon impossible, through lack of the
necessary two-thirds majority.
About the beginning of the seventeenth century, however, in the
conclaves that elected
Leo XI and
Paul V (1605),
Spain raised the claim, that it could exclude a candidate by a general declaration addressed to the
College of Cardinals.
Soon after, in the
conclaves of 1644 and 1655, which elected, respectively,
Innocent X and
Alexander VII, and in both of which Cardinal Sacchetti was excluded as a candidate, the term used for this action was
Jus Exclusivæ (right of exclusion). This right was, therefore, claimed about the middle of the seventeenth century; later dates suggested, e.g., 1691, or 1721, must be abandoned. It was also about the middle of the seventeenth century that treatises and polemic writings began to appear, in which the alleged right of exclusion was discussed; among such controversialists were the Cardinals Albizzi and
Lugo.
In the following period repeated use was made of this so-called right.
-1721 the German emperor formally excluded Cardinal Paolucci;
-1730 the King of
Spain excluded Cardinal Imperiali;
-1758
France exercised this right to exclude Cardinal Cavalchini.
-1830,
Austria against Cardinal Severoli, and
-1830,
Spain against Cardinal Giustiniani;
-1903
Austria again exercised this right, this time against Cardinal Rampolla.
As a matter of fact, no government has a
right to exercise any veto in a papal ɛƖɛctıon. On the contrary the
popes have expressly repudiated the exercise of such right.
Pius IV in the
Bull "In eligendis", of 9 October, 1562 (Magnum Bullarium, II, 97 sqq.), ordered the
cardinals to elect a
pope "Principum sæcularium intercessionibus, cæterisque mundanis respectibus, minime attentis" (without any regard to the interference of secular rulers, or to other human considerations). That he meant thereby what is now known as the right of exclusion cannot, indeed, be
proved; according to the foregoing account of its origin such claim did not then exist.
Gregory XV, in the
Bull "Æterni Patris Filius" (15 November, 1621, in "Magnum Bullarium", III, 444 sqq.) declared authoritatively:
"Cardinales omnino abstineant ab omnibus pactionibus, conventionibus, promissionibus, intendimentis, condictis, foederibus, aliis quibuscunque obligationibus, minis, signis, contrasignis suffragiorum seu schedularum, aut aliis tam verbo quam scripto aut quomodocunque dandis aut petendis, tam respectu inclusionis quam exclusionis, tam unius person quam plurium aut certi generis, etc.",
the sense of which is, that the
cardinals must abstain from all agreements, and from acts of any kind, which might be construed as binding them to include or exclude any one candidate, or several, or candidates of a certain class. It may be that the
pope does not even here refer to exclusion by a state, but only to the so-called "ballot of exclusion"; it has already been stated, however, that the governments at this time laid claim to a formal right of exclusion. In the
Bull "Apostolatus officium" (11 October, 1732, in "Magnum Bullarium", XIV, 248 sqq.)
Clement XII ordered the
cardinals in the words of
Pius IV, already quoted, to elect, "principum sæcularium intercessionibus cæterisque mundanis respectibus . . . minime attentis et postpositis" (i.e. without regard to the interference of secular rulers or to other human considerations).
By this time, however, governmental exclusion had long been the accepted form of the interference of secular rulers (intercessio principum) in papal ɛƖɛctıons. It is, therefore, precisely this exclusion which the
pope forbids. This command has all the more weight since we
know that this
pope was urged to recognize, within certain limits, the right of exclusion put forth by the
Catholic states; in the minutes of the deliberations of the commission of
cardinals appointed to draw up this
Bull the right of exclusion is explicitly characterized as an abuse. By the Constitution "In hâc sublimi", of 23 August, 1871 (Archiv für kath. Kirchenrecht, 1891, LXV, 303 sqq.),
Pius IX forbade any interference of the
secular power in papal ɛƖɛctıons.
It is plain, therefore, that the
popes have rejected all right of exclusion by a
Catholic state in a papal ɛƖɛctıon. Nor can it be admitted that this right has arisen through custom. None of the requisites essential to the growth of a customary right are present; reasonableness and prescription are especially lacking. To debar precisely the most capable candidates is an onerous limitation of the liberty of the electors, and injurious to the
Church. Moreover, the cases of exclusion by
Catholic states are too few to permit the inference of a right acquired by customary possession. Recent legislation by
Pope Pius X has absolutely repudiated and abolished forever this
Jus Exclusivae. In the Constitution "Commissum Nobis" (20 Jan., 1904) he declared that the
Apostolic See had never approved the civil veto, though previous legislation had not succeeded in preventing it: "Wherefore in virtue of
holy obedience, under threat of the Divine judgment, and pain of
excommunication latæ sententiæ . . . . . we prohibit the
cardinals of the
Holy Roman Church, all and single, and likewise the Secretary of the
Sacred College of Cardinals, and all others who take part in the
conclave, to receive even under the form of a simple desire the office of proposing the veto in whatever manner, either by writing or by word of mouth . . . . . And it is our will that this prohibition be extended . . . . . to all intercessions, etc. . . . . by which the lay powers endeavour to intrude themselves in the ɛƖɛctıon of a pontiff . . . . .
"Let no man infringe this our inhibition . . . . . under pain of incurring the indignation of
God Almighty and of his Apostles, Sts. Peter and Paul." The new form of
oath to be taken by all
cardinals contains these words: "we shall never in any way accept, under any pretext, from any
civil power whatever, the office of proposing a veto of exclusion even under the form of a mere desire . . . and we shall never lend favour to any intervention, or intercession, or any other method whatever, by which the lay powers of any grade or order may wish to interfere in the ɛƖɛctıon of a pontiff".
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677b.htm
Topic: Cardinal Rampolla (Read 6134 times)