**Exemption.** — In canon law, the term has passed from its rudimentary etymological signification (ex emere: to take away, to free from...) to denote the liberation of a person, whether physical or moral, from a pre-existing and obligatory submission to a superior.
**SUMMARY:**
I. Concept
II. The evolution of the exemption in the course of the centuries. Modes of granting II. —III. The extension of the acts of exemption
IV. Exemption in its field
V. Exemption.Thus creating a new type of exemption of places, not to be confused with local exemption, which might be called *exemptio locorum*.
With this clarification, it is evident that the expression *mixed exemption* cannot be admitted to indicate the complex of local and personal exemptions, whereas this expression can be used to denote the combination of exemptions of places and personal exemptions (and thus be applicable to the current exemption enjoyed by regulars and other exempt religious).
From the diversity of juridical effects attached to local exemption arises the distinction of this exemption into passive and active, and the subdivision of passive exemption into full and semi-full. It happens, namely, that some monasteries and some churches of particular importance, after obtaining a more or less extensive exemption in favor of the monks or clergy belonging to the monastery or church — an exemption consisting in the subtraction from the power of the diocesan bishop (— negative advantages, for example, that of escaping his canonical penalties) and in the transfer of an almost equivalent power to the abbot or prelate at the head of the monastery or church (— “positive” advantages) — obtained the faculty of extending a part of this exemption to the population within their territory. When the population received only negative advantages, there was “full passive local exemption”; when, instead, the abbot or prelate could exercise a certain power over such population, that is, act in some way for their benefit, there was “active local exemption”; finally, when not even the negative advantages could be communicated, one spoke of “less than full passive (local) exemption.” The apex of “active exemption” is reached by abbeys and prelatures *nullius*. It should be noted that in the current exemption enjoyed by exempt clerical religious, there is a new type of “activity,” inasmuch as, not by virtue of a local exemption, but deriving from the complex of personal and local exemptions (— forming the unitary complex of the privileged *exemplificatio* [prerogative of exempt religious]), even those who reside permanently day and night in the institutes of these religious, by reason of education, illness, service, or hospitality (cf. can. 514 § 1), in a certain way come to enjoy the exemption with regard to confessions, preaching, vows, etc., being able to confess to confessors authorized solely by the legitimate religious superior, and to hear preachers approved solely by him, etc.
III. THE OBJECTIVE EXTENSION OF EXEMPTION
To supplement this brief informative introduction, three observations must be added concerning the extension that this special canonical-juridical provision can assume.1) The nature of the passive subject (whether it be a physical or moral person, a clerical or lay religious institute, etc.) makes possible a greater or lesser objective extension of the exemption. For example, in order that secular clergy be exempt from the local Ordinary, it suffices that the exercise of the latter’s power be excluded in certain points of canonical discipline; whereas, in order that clerical religious — since it would be incongruous for the Holy See to exercise directly over them all the power that would otherwise belong to the local Ordinary — may effectively enjoy exemption from the said Ordinary, it is necessary that a power almost equivalent to that of the local Ordinary be vested in their superiors.
2) Every time — that is, for whatever point of canonical discipline — in which a physical or moral person is freed from a pre-existing and obligatory submission to a superior, exemption is thereby effected; however, it is necessary to distinguish cases of exemption from the various juridical institutes concerning exemption.
3) Canon law has for centuries given to the expression *privilegiatum exemplificatio* the specific meaning of the systematic granting of exemption from the local Ordinary, to which derogation is made only by means of certain exceptions (praeterquam in casibus a iure expressis). Granted with this official exception (cf., for example, cann. 616 § 1, 618 § 1), the expression *privilegiatum exemplificatio* is the qualification of *religio exemplata* (can. 488 n. 2) given to all Orders — with the exception of nuns who do not depend on a regular prelate (can. 613) — and to religious institutes of simple vows to which the *privilegiatum exemplificatio* has been specially granted (can. 618 § 1).
But, evidently, just as outside the unitary complex of the *privilegiatum exemplificatio* there is room for precise and effective circumscribed exemptions — certain points of canonical discipline — so it is not excluded that religious not included among the “exempt” (and thus, in this sense, “non-exempt”) may enjoy, and in fact do enjoy, certain subtractions from the pre-existing obligatory submission to the local Ordinary. Therefore, in order to respect the official denomination *religio exemplata*, “on the other hand, so as not to contradict reality, one must logically distinguish between exemption properly so called (called *privilegiatum exemplificatio*) and improper exemption (juridical and concrete liberation from some point of the normal submission established by canonical discipline).”
IV. EXEMPTIONS CURRENTLY IN FORCE IN CANON LAW
Turning now to the current canonical discipline, taking into account the superior from whom one may be declared exempt, there is exemption, total or partial, from the local Ordinary, from the metropolitan, from religious superiors, from the parish priest, and from the tribunals of the Holy See. From the local Ordinary there is truly total exemption for abbeys and prelatures *nullius* (can. 319-28), cardinals (who are not themselves local Ordinaries; the CIC expressly speaks of the exemption of the private chapel: can. 239 § 1, 18, but the exemption regarding judicial causes is implicitly indicated in can. 1557 § 1, 2; moreover, there is true exemption also for can. 239 § 1, 2 concerning the power of confessing for priests not approved by the local Ordinary, etc.), heads of state, their sons and daughters, and those who have the right to immediate succession, with regard to judicial causes in general (can. 1557 § 1, 1) and matrimonial causes in particular (can. 1962), with regard to the imposition or declaration of ecclesiastical penalties (can. 2227 § 1), with regard to the obligation to appear as witnesses in the seat of the diocesan tribunal (can. 1770 § 2, 1), and religious, of whom we shall speak later. Exemption is also provided for soldiers (cf. can. 451 § 3) and for certain churches (cf. can. 344 § 1) within the limits to be established from time to time by the Holy See.From the metropolitan there is exemption for bishops immediately subject to the Holy See (can. 285) and for exempt religious.
From the parish priest there is complete exemption for diocesan seminaries (can. 1368) and for exempt religious; in practice, clerical religious institutes, even if not exempt, are also exempt; houses of religious and pious works may also be exempt if so decreed by the local Ordinary (can. 464 § 2). Moreover, there is exemption with regard to funeral taxes for cardinals (can. 1219 § 1), resident beneficiaries (can. 1220), religious and novices (can. 1221 § 2-2, 1230 § 5), as well as for domestic servants who reside permanently in the houses of these religious and die in said houses (can. 1221 § 3).
From the ordinary tribunals of the Holy See are exempt heads of State, etc., cardinals, legates of the Holy See, and bishops, even titular ones, with regard to penal causes (can. 1557 § 1).
In the apostolic constitution *Ad incrementum decoris* of Pius XI (15 Aug. 1933, AAS, [1934], p. 497) assessors and secretaries of the Roman Congregations, apostolic protonotaries *de numero*, auditors of the Sacred Roman Rota, clerics of the Apostolic Camera who retain their domicile in Rome, and voting prelates and referendaries of the Segnatura are declared exempt from the jurisdiction of the local Ordinary, under the same conditions as the foregoing.
In the law of the Eastern Church there exists a juridical institution analogous to exemption called the right of stauropagy.
V. THE EXEMPTION OF RELIGIOUS
The categories into which all religious institutes may be grouped, so far as concerns their freedom from the jurisdiction of the local Ordinary according to common law (i.e., apart from special privileges granted to individual institutes), may be reduced to three fundamental classes: exempt religious institutes, non-exempt religious institutes of pontifical law, and diocesan religious institutes. The foundation of the freedom enjoyed by the first class is the principle of systematic exemption contained in the *privilegium exemplarismi*, from which no derogation is permitted except in cases expressly provided by law (can. 615). The foundation of the freedom enjoyed by the second class is the principle of freedom with regard to internal governance, likewise not subject to derogation except in cases expressly provided by law. The foundation of the freedom enjoyed by the third class is the distinction between internal and external superiors.The demands for greater freedom, arising from the clerical character of a religious institute and, to a much lesser extent, from its being a male institute, have led to a subdivision of the classes into respective categories. Thus, in the class of exempt religious institutes we have: clerical orders, exempt clerical congregations, lay orders of men, and nuns subject to a regular prelate; in the class of non-exempt religious institutes of pontifical law: clerical congregations, male lay congregations, female congregations, and nuns not dependent on a regular prelate; in the third class: clerical congregations, male lay congregations, and female congregations.
The concrete content of the freedom enjoyed by each of these categories is given by the sum of points in canon law in which these categories are withdrawn from the power of the bishop. For exempt religious institutes, this sum is, indirectly, the enumeration of the exceptional cases in which the fundamental principle of exemption is derogated; for non-exempt religious institutes, it is, directly, the enumeration of the cases in which the opposite principle of subjection is limited. For the purpose of a clear presentation of the first and second types of “sum,” it may be helpful to specify the cases in which exempt religious institutes enjoy freedom by virtue of the fundamental principle contained in the *privilegium exemplarismi*, and, conversely, to specify all the cases in which the lack of this privilege does not diminish the corresponding concessions of freedom, keeping non-exempt religious institutes subject to the power of the local Ordinary.
Since it is evidently impossible here to summarize, even in a simple enumeration of their respective names, the juridical situations of the various categories of religious institutes with regard to their freedom from the local Ordinary, we shall confine ourselves to three examples. By way of principle rather than example, mention must be made of can. 505 § 1, by which clerical exempt religious institutes are granted, in addition to the dominative power recognized for all religious institutes (inasmuch as it is susceptible of quantitative and qualitative specification according to the juridical standing of the various categories of institutes, and thus the source and measure of the corresponding degree of freedom from the local Ordinary), the power of jurisdiction in both the external and internal forum. By this power, clerical exempt religious institutes attain in exemption those positive advantages regarding confessions, preaching, punitive power, etc., without which—especially in view of the clerical character of such institutes—the exemption granted by a fundamental principle would in reality remain incomplete. The granted power of jurisdiction places the major superiors of such institutes among the ranks of Ordinaries (can. 198 § 1), so that normally in all prescriptions of canon law in which the term “Ordinary” appears, clerical exempt religious institutes, instead of being subject to the local Ordinary, are subject to their own major superiors.
With regard to non-exempt religious institutes of pontifical law, the current canon law recognizes, by a fundamental principle, freedom from the local Ordinary with regard to internal governance (can. 618 § 2, 2). To grasp the full scope of this principle, one must consider the extent to which internal governance is achieved according to the character of the institute. In clerical institutes, since clerical life is incorporated into religious life, the juridical scope of internal governance is considerably greater than in corresponding lay institutes, and thus becomes the source and measure of a greater freedom from the local Ordinary (cf. especially A. Larrinosa, *De potestate dominativa publica in iure canonico*, in *Acta Congressus Iuridici Internationalis Romae*, 12–17 Nov. 1934, IV, pp. 145–56).
Finally—even to justify the inclusion of diocesan religious institutes (which are plainly subject to the local Ordinary, but *ad normam iuris*) within the framework of the varying degrees of freedom from the local Ordinary recognized for religious institutes—it must be observed that everything which current canon law reserves to the Holy See (whereas in earlier discipline it was within the competence of the diocesan Ordinary) constitutes a true and absolute freedom from the said Ordinary. Fundamental in this regard is the provision that reserves to the Holy See the suppression of the sole house of a diocesan religious institute. It suffices to consider what a situation of dependence this provision prevents—and in fact entails in its absence.