Ecclesiastical Tribunals

ECCLESIASTICAL TRIBUNALS. - These are the organs to which is normally entrusted the exercise of jurisdictional power in the strict sense, that is, of the judicial function, belonging to the Church.

Although in the Church, by reason of its organic divine institution, every public power, including the judicial, resides in the Pontiff and in the bishops, and every original separation of functions is therefore excluded, for the actual exercise of judicial attributions there came to be seen as ever more pressing — in relation to the expansion of the Church and the development of its institutions and of its law — the expediency of entrusting them to persons or organs particularly qualified to exercise them; whence the various ecclesiastical tribunals, distinguished analogously to the ecclesiastical hierarchy, whereby there are the tribunals of the Holy See, immediately attached to it, and the metropolitan and episcopal tribunals, which constitute, so to speak, the ordinary decentralized organs of ecclesiastical justice, that is, those which are attached to the ordinary hierarchical organization of the Church, according to the territorial distribution of the individual circumscriptions.

I. TRIBUNALS OF THE HOLY SEE.

I. APOSTOLIC PENITENTIARY.

It is the supreme tribunal of the Church for the internal forum.

1. HISTORY

As in the rest of Christendom, so too in Rome provision had to be made to organize in the basilicas and titular churches the administration of the Sacrament of Penance, with special regard also for the pilgrims who, out of spontaneous devotion or for penance of grave sins, flocked to the tombs of the Apostles. But the institution and organization of a true tribunal for cases of conscience in relation to the needs of the universal Church was reached only gradually; that is, as ecclesiastical discipline was perfected and jurisdictional powers were centralized in the Curia. In 1193 there is mentioned a Giovanni di s. Paolo, cardinal of St. Prisca, «qui confessiones pro papa tunc recipiebat»; it is not said, however, that he was the first to hold such an office, and certainly he must have had coadjutors or minor penitentiaries. Under Honorius III (1216-27) the names of some of these penitentiaries are known, among them several fratres, probably Cistercians. Under Gregory IX, his successor, Dominicans also appear (such as St. Raymond of Peñafort) and Franciscans in this office, as then under every pontiff of the 13th century. By necessity of things they had to follow the pontifical Court when it transferred outside Rome, and they were assimilated to the «chaplains» and familiares and to the notarii apostolici, thanks to the position of trust they held and to the delicate affairs that were often entrusted to them. Under Boniface VIII one can with certainty establish 8, 10 or 11 pontifical penitentiaries, by then predominantly friars, with the task of promptly and without expense dispatching those who had recourse to them. And even when the penitentiaries had to follow the Curia to Avignon, some of them remained in Rome; in 1339 it is known that there were four. Once the functioning of this tribunal had become more precise, it is found that it was headed by a cardinal with the name of poenitentiarius maximus, or summus, or generalis. And the general Council of Vienne (1311-12), under Clement V, established that his faculties should not cease even during the vacancy of the Apostolic See, given the practical importance for the faithful, and given also the long vacancies that in those times unfortunately afflicted the Church. The same Clement V charged the then major penitentiary Card. Fredol, bishop of Tusculum, to reorganize his office, limiting the writers to the number of twelve (const. Dignum est, 2 Sept. 1311); from this it is seen that the dispatch of absolutions, dispensations and other rescripts had assumed considerable proportions, without there being precise information about it.

Benedict XII (bull In agro dominico universali Ecclesiae, 8 Apr. 1338) issued new and precise norms for the organization and functioning of the Apostolic Penitentiary, by then risen to the status of a curial organ with its own organization. To the cardinal penitentiary was added a specialist in canon law, as expert and counselor in all pending questions; a certain number of minor penitentiaries were assigned, with delegated faculties, for reserved absolutions and dispensations, of writers and correctors for the drafting of rescripts, of distributors and dispatchers, procurators or advocates. Its specific field was the internal forum; but by the very nature of the questions proposed, which at times exceeded the strict limit of the internal forum, with some reflection also on the external forum, in part because of the tendency of every office to expand its own competence, especially in doubtful cases, the Penitentiary during the 15th century appeared with powers and faculties much broader than the original ones; the popes themselves in this age increased with new faculties its sphere of action, and Sixtus IV (bull Quoniam nonnulli, 9 May 1484) recognized this state of affairs, confirming certain faculties regarding the external forum.

But in the 16th century the Penitentiary too became the object of a radical reform, and Paul III, in 1534, instituted a special commission to prepare it, meeting however with tenacious opposition from the cardinal penitentiary, and the relative bull was published only by his successor Julius III in 1550 (bull Rationi congruit, 22 Feb.); then Pius IV, perfecting the work, published in 1562 a new bull (4 May, In sublimi b. Petri solio) by which the jurisdiction of the Penitentiary was severely reduced, assigning the solution of certain questions of the external forum to the Apostolic Datary, reducing the faculties of the cardinal penitentiary himself to the internal forum, and prohibiting with very severe penalties new extensions of the powers of this tribunal.

St. Pius V, in order to provide for a new arrangement of the Penitentiary, issued on 18 May 1569 three bulls: the first, In omnibus rebus, suppressed outright the Penitentiary then existing in order to reconstitute it almost ex novo on the basis essentially of the fundamental bull of Benedict XII: new personnel, with strict determinations and attributions: a regent as immediate assistant to the cardinal penitentiary, a datary, a theologian and a canonist, as expert in difficult questions, writers and procurators (only two) and the bollatore: for each of them precise duties were established. The bull, moreover, attributed to the new Penitentiary the express faculty of settling ex officio doubts and questions of conscience with interpretations having the character of authentic decisions. The second bull, Ut bonus, limited the various faculties of those attached to the Penitentiary, and the third, In earum rerum, reaffirmed the principle that to the tribunal of the Penitentiary belonged solely the internal forum, sacramental and extrasacramental. Consequently, the attributions of the minor penitentiaries were also reorganized, for whom true colleges were established: one for the Lateran Basilica, composed of Reformed Franciscans, a second for the Vatican Basilica, constituted by Jesuits, and a third for the Liberian Basilica, constituted by Friars Preachers. After the suppression of the Society of Jesus (1773) the Jesuits at St. Peter's were replaced by the Conventual Minors.

However, the cardinal penitentiaries often managed to obtain, frequently vivae vocis oraculo, further faculties, with the old tendency to extend their competence also to the external forum. Urban VIII (Sept. 17, 1634) attempted to impose some restriction, and Innocent XII, with the bull Romanus Pontifex (Sept. 5, 1692), issued a definitive catalogue of the tribunal's attributions. Half a century later, Benedict XIV, with four documents, again sought to fix the organization of the Penitentiary. With two bulls dated April 13, 1744 (Pastor bonus and In Apostolicae), new and precise norms were issued for the handling of the various penitential cases: absolutions of reserved cases, matrimonial dispensations and dispensations de irregularitatibus, dispensations and rescripts in other matters of conscience, authentic resolution of doubts submitted; he circumscribed the faculties pertaining to the officials. Then in 1747 (bull Quanvis, Dec. 13) and in 1748 (bull Pastorali, Aug. 15) he made some adjustments and clarifications to his previous norms. The Penitentiary had occasion to broaden its field of action once again, especially during the difficult period of the revolutionary occupation and the Napoleonic domination, reacquiring faculties in the external forum, albeit with certain limitations, until with the great reorganization by Pius X in 1908 it received its present structure, as it results from the CIC.

Giuseppe Löw

II. CURRENT ORGANIZATION

Canon 258 § 1 of the CIC establishes that the Tribunal of the Sacred Penitentiary "for the internal forum alone, bestows graces, absolutions, dispensations, commutations, sanations, condonations; it further examines questions of conscience and resolves them." It is said to be for the internal forum alone, because for the external forum the other dicasteries of the Holy See provide. Only by way of exception do the measures of this sacred tribunal have value also for the external forum (cf. cann. 1047 and 2251 and the apostolic constitution Quae divinitus of 25 March 1935: AAS, 27 [1935], pp. 97-113). To the Tribunal of the Sacred Penitentiary there has been annexed since the time of Benedict XV (25 Apr. 1917) the Office of Indulgences, so that "it also falls to it to judge everything that relates to the use and the granting of Indulgences, saving the right of the Holy Office as regards the doctrinal part of Indulgences and the discipline of new devotions" (can. 258 § 2).

The Sacred Penitentiary is today composed of two sections:

Tribunal and Indulgences. It is governed by the cardinal major penitentiary (SS. DD. Nostri Papae et S. Sedis Apostolicae Maior Poenitentiarius). He is first of all the penitentiary of the Pope and therefore it falls to him to assist the Pope ex officio at the point of death; then major penitentiary of the Apostolic See, and, as such, he has very ample powers over all the faithful for cases of conscience and for the granting of indulgences. From him exclusively depend, in regard to Confession, the four patriarchal Basilicas of Rome (St. John Lateran, St. Peter's in the Vatican, St. Mary Major, St. Paul Outside the Walls) and the basilicas of Italy immediately subject to the Pope (such as those of St. Francis at Assisi and of St. Anthony at Padua), where he appoints, precisely for the ministry of confessions, the minor penitentiaries. To these he also grants certain special faculties to absolve from censures and to dispense from vows, from irregularities or from impediments: similar faculties he can also grant to other confessors throughout the world. The major penitentiary, in the event of a vacant see, retains all his faculties and in cases of grave and urgent necessity can do what is usually reserved personally to the Pope (constitution Quae divinitus, n. 12; cf. the constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis of 8 Dec. 1945, n. 17: AAS, 38 [1946], p. 72). During the conclave the major penitentiary is permitted to communicate with the office of the Sacred Penitentiary; and letters outgoing and incoming, bearing the seal of that office, are not subject to the examination prescribed for all other correspondence (constitution Quae divinitus, cit. n. 12; cf. the constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, cit., n. 17). If, during the vacancy of the Holy See, the major penitentiary should die, the cardinals must appoint the cardinal who, during the vacancy, will act as major penitentiary (constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis cit., n. 14).

The cardinal penitentiary is assisted by a superior prelate, called the regent. The secretariat office comprises, besides the regent, a secretary, two substitutes — one for the Tribunal and the other for the Indulgences — and other officials (constitution Quae divinitus, nn. 1 and 2). There also forms part of the Sacred Penitentiary a body of prelates, who meet periodically, under the presidency of the major penitentiary whose council they form, in the so-called "Signatura Sacrae Poenitentiariae Apostolicae." In this are treated the more complicated and graver cases (constitution cit., nn. 5 and 6 b).

All other cases are treated in the Congresses for the Tribunal and for the Indulgences, by the regent and the secretary with the substitute of the respective section. For the resolutions agreed upon in Congress, the three officials who take part in it are jointly responsible before the cardinal major penitentiary, who can reserve to himself, if he deems it opportune, the definitive approval of all the resolutions taken in Congress (constitution cit., n. 6 a). The more important cases, whether of the Signatura or of the Congress, are then referred and submitted to the Holy Father by the cardinal major penitentiary, in the periodic audiences (constitution cit., n. 6 c).

Recourse to the Sacred Penitentiary for matters regarding the Tribunal can be made directly by the person concerned or, by his express commission, by the confessor (cf. cann. 2252, 2254 and 2290); in practice recourse through the confessor is preferable. The case is to be set out without names or with fictitious names, briefly, but with all the circumstances deemed necessary or useful for a more exact judgment on the case itself. The exposition can be made in the vernacular; preferably, when clarity and precision do not suffer thereby, in Latin. The place and the date are not to be omitted, with the complete indication of the address, for the reply.

Recourse to the Sacred Penitentiary — for matters of Indulgences — is to be made, as a rule, through one's own Ordinary.

Browne, The decree • Consilium sum • of Sacred Penit., in The Irish eccles. Record, 42 (1933), pp. 411-15; A. Canestri, De noviss. Poenit. Apost. reformatione, in Apollinaris, 8 (1935), pp. 569-90. As regards the Indulgences, v. INDULGENZA, Giovanni Sessolo

II. APOSTOLIC SIGNATURA.

It is the supreme ecclesiastical tribunal, superior to the diocesan and regional tribunals and to the Sacred Roman Rota itself; it presents a certain analogy with the Court of Cassation in relation to the Italian tribunals. Although it is not a tribunal of appeal, like the Sacred Rota, because it concerns itself more than anything else with procedural questions pro vigili legum tutela (cf. AAS, 8 [1916], p. 209), sometimes nevertheless it also treats questions of merit; it extends its competence both in the strictly judicial field and in the administrative one, always however in relation to justice.

1. HISTORICAL NOTES

Referendary was he who in the last period of the Roman Empire concerned himself with and reported to the emperors concerning the petitions addressed to them by the citizens. This office then passed into certain episcopal curias and into the Roman one.

In the 6th century there is already talk of iudices palatini, as counselors of the Pope in the handling of causes. Born counselors of the Pope were the cardinals, but certain causes were also remitted to other palace officials (10, X, 11, 22). Requests to the Pope, at the beginning, were made orally, but after Innocent III all acts were written, and to the requests addressed to him the Pope began to reply by appending with his own hand a mark, which was gradually determined with precise norms and which then remained unchanged, such as fiat, fiat ut petitur, fiat et dispensamus, fiat de omnibus, fiat motu proprio, fiat sub data petita etc.; and alongside he placed the initial of his own baptismal name, this at least from Boniface IX onward (before, the rule used in appending the name is not known). Thus there came about the Signatura. But not all petitions (v.) were annotated by the Pope: some were annotated by others ex mandato speciali or even by general mandate in certain matters. Sinibaldo Fieschi, later Innocent IV (1243-54), explicitly names in his Commentaria the title of referendary, whereas previously the same duty was performed by the notaries of the Apostolic Chancery; the most ancient personage, so far historically identified with the appellation of referendary, is the Spaniard Pietro Roderico, under Boniface VIII, in 1294.

From the pontificate of Eugene IV (1431-47) there recurs a new way of marking petitions by means of the intimate referendary, with the formula: Concessum in praesentia domini Papae.

The office of the Segnatura thus originated from the fact that an ecclesiastical dignitary had the faculty of signing, in the name of the Pope, the rescripts that the Pope did not reserve to himself. This dignitary later became the head of a group of referendaries, and under Sixtus IV (1471-84) there existed a Signatura communis, distinct from the papal Segnatura. When the distinction between the Signatura iustitiae and the Signatura gratiae came about is not easy to say (cf. W. V. Hofmann, Forschungen zur Geschichte der Kurialen Behörden vom Schisma bis zur Reformation, Rome 1914, I, pp. 67-79; II, pp. 131-34).

It is not known how much truth there is in the report that already under Sixtus IV the distinction had taken shape between the referendaries of the Segnatura di Grazia, who were to number 10, and those of Giustizia, numbering 6. Certainly it was then that the total separation from the Apostolic Chancery (v.) was brought about. Alexander VI on 4 May 1493 separated the two segnature (the distinction therefore existed before). Under Julius II (1503-13) each Segnatura was presided over by a prefect, and thus the division of both Segnature was complete. The abuses that had crept in prompted attempts at reform on the part of the popes of the Renaissance; these, however, were never fully applied, not even with the Council of Trent, which limited itself to making a few observations, without special ordinances.

The first true reform, however, is owed to Pius IV (cf.

the bull Cum super nos of 1 July 1562); Sixtus V then, with his famous bull Immensa aeterni Dei of 22 Jan. 1588, reformed, along with the whole Curia, the two Segnature as well; that of Giustizia remained with the characteristics and prerogatives of a tribunal, while that of Grazia was transformed into one of the 15 congregations, with a clearly distinct competence. Each of the two Segnature was placed under a cardinal. Sixtus V also reduced the number of referendaries to one hundred, and of these no more than 70 could be assigned to the Signatura gratiae. From Clement VII (1523-34) onward they were called referendarii utriusque Signaturae and served one and the other indifferently. The Signatura Iustitiae was erected into a true and proper tribunal; some referendaries became true judges and were called praelati votantes, having a decisive vote in sentences, while the others were deprived of it. Alexander VII, on 13 June 1659, erected a college of referendarii utriusque Signaturae, which he wished to be formed of twelve voters of the Signatura Iustitiae. These voting referendaries were at the same time referendaries of the Segnatura di grazia and of giustizia. The prefects of the Signatura Gratiae, from the pontificate of Clement IX onward, are no longer encountered. The task of the Signatura Gratiae was the dispatch of affairs in matters of grace, which had to be resolved by the Roman Pontiff himself, affairs both contentious and non-contentious, such as extraordinary remedies against a sentence, the granting of the clause appellatione remota or its removal, the commutation of last wills, etc. The referendaries examined the cases entrusted to them and reported on them in the assemblies, which the Pope presided over with the participation of the cardinals whom he summoned and of the prelates having jurisdiction in urbe (cf. I. De Luca, Relatio Curiae Romanae, Cologne 1683, disc. 30, pp. 163-64).

From Clement IX (1667-69) onward almost all the functions of the Signatura Gratiae were transferred to the Dataria Apostolica, and the Signatura Gratiae, instead of meeting every week as before, began to assemble once or twice a year, as was the case under Benedict XIV. Under him it was not the Prefect of the Signatura Gratiae but the datary of the Pontiff, Giovanni Giuseppe Millo, who signed the supplications with the clause concessum in praesentia. Even after being made cardinal, Millo continued as before, assisted by the officials of the Dataria: thus his successors continued. The two Segnature thus lasted until the French Revolution. The referendaries in the meantime, distinguished into voting and non-voting, participating and non-participating, continually obtained new and greater privileges from the Roman Pontiffs.

Once the Papal State had been reconstituted, Pius VII, on 6 July 1816, with the motu proprio Quando per admirabile, laid the foundations of the new legislation, and the Segnatura di Giustizia became a civil tribunal and remained such, with some modifications under Leo XII and Gregory XVI (Regolamento legislativo e giudiziario of 1834: Acta Greg. XVI, IV, Rome 1904, p. 299 ff.), until the fall of the temporal power. The Segnatura di Grazia was made to rise again by Leo XII in 1826, but it lasted a short time, because after the death of Card. Cacciapiatti in 1839 no one spoke of this Segnatura any more, and in 1899 even the register of supplications was suppressed by Leo XIII. Thus one arrives at the reform of Bl. Pius X, on 29 June 1908, which has the competences of the two ancient Segnature as it were united in one and the same organ.

Its manner of proceeding is regulated by the Lex propria Sacrae Romanae Rotae et Signaturae Apostolicae, annexed to the constitution. On 6 March 1912, with the approval of the same Pope, complementary norms were promulgated: Regulae servandae in iudiciis apud Supremum Signaturae Apostolicae Tribunal (AAS, 4 [1912], pp. 187-206). Benedict XV extended the competence of the Signatura Apostolica with the chirograph Attentis expositis of 28 June 1915 (AAS, 7 [1915], pp. 320-325); and in the same year, on 3 Nov., he approved other norms, presented to him by Card. Lega, prefect of the Signatura Apostolica, so that activity in the administrative and graced field might be regulated: thus one has the Appendix ad regulas servandas in iudiciis, apud Supremum Signaturae Apostolicae Tribunal (P. Gasparri, CIC Fontes, VIII, Rome 1938, pp. 608-18).

II. CONSTITUTION OF THE TRIBUNAL OF THE APOSTOLIC SIGNATURA

At present the Apostolic Signatura is composed of an undetermined number of cardinals, who are the true judges of the Supreme Tribunal, with a deliberative vote; among these one is Prefect. Immediately after comes the Most Excellent Secretary, to whom belongs the title Auditor Sanctissimi (cf. the chirograph of Benedict XV Attentis expositis: AAS, 7 [1915], p. 324). He personally directs the activity of the Tribunal and often, together with the Cardinal Prefect, decides many questions directly. Then come the voting prelates and the referendaries, who carry out duties similar to those of the consultors of the Holy Congregations, the former with a deliberative vote, the latter with a consultative one. The voting prelates number 7, plus two supernumeraries; the number of referendaries, however, is not defined. Of the voting prelates one is promotor of justice, the other defender of the bond. The permanent officials of the Tribunal are the summarists, the notary and the archivist-protocolist.

III. COMPETENCE

The competence of the Apostolic Signatura is summarized by the CIC in cann. 1602-1605. It is judicial and administrative in nature and extends also into the civil forum for Vatican City. In the ecclesiastical forum it is limited, as to territory, by the S. Congreg. for the Eastern Church (cf. the motu proprio Sancta Dei Ecclesia of 23 March 1938, in AAS, 30 [1938], p. 154); as to subject matter, it is limited by the Congregations of the Holy Office and of the Sts. Rites (can. 259) and by the Pontifical Commission for the authentic interpretation of the CIC.

In the first place, its subject matter is whatever concerns the activity of the members of the S. Roman Rota, and it judges violations of secrecy by the prelate auditors and claims for damages arising from a null or unjust act (can. 1603 § 1, n. 1); and it rules on the objection of suspicion raised against some prelate auditor, and if necessary decrees his replacement (can. 1603 § 1, n. 1); a complaint of nullity against Rotal sentences, when it is not joined with an appeal, is always brought before the Apostolic Signatura (can. 1603 § 1, n. 3). To the same is reserved the restitutio in integrum against Rotal sentences that have become res judicata but are found to be manifestly unjust for reasons of fact or of law, such as the falsity of some document, the fraud of one of the parties to the case, or the production of new documents undermining the thesis that appeared proven (can. 1603 § 1, n. 4). Finally, it grants, if the case warrants, the benefit of a new examination against Rotal sentences in matrimonial causes and in all those concerning personal status that do not become res judicata, whenever the S. Rota refuses to grant a new petition (can. 1603 § 1, n. 5). In these cases, generally, after the decision of the Apostolic Signatura, the question is again treated before the S. Rota, unless the Signatura itself, by commission of the Pope, must enter into the merits of the cause.

In the event of a conflict of competence between different tribunals, there is the faculty, according to the circumstances, or the obligation to have the question settled by the Signatura, unless conflicts of this kind must be resolved by another tribunal or by the legate of the Holy See, according to the localities (can. 1612). As a consequence of the Concordat between the Holy See and Italy (art. 34), Austria (art. VII, 64) and Portugal (art. 25), it falls to the Signatura to carry out the formal revision of sentences in matrimonial causes before they are transmitted to the authorities of the respective States for civil effects. The Signatura sometimes judges directly on the merits of causes, in first, further and last instance, but this not by ordinary competence, rather by pontifical commission. Moreover, the Signatura exercises jurisdiction in an administrative manner when it examines petitions addressed to the Roman Pontiff to obtain that a cause be treated, in first instance, before the S. Rota (can. 1603 § 2), or that it be evoked from one tribunal to another. Many cases can still arise, not contemplated by the CIC, which offer occasions to anyone who may have an interest to turn to the Apostolic Signatura with petitions in which aliquid petitur quod potissimum respiciat administrationem iustitiae (cf. the Chirograph of Benedict XV, loc. cit., p. 323). Finally, after the erection of the State of Vatican City, the Signatura

Apostolica has become the Supreme civil Tribunal of that same State. It acts therefore as a court of cassation, within the limits, it is understood, of pontifical territory (cf. Lex fundamentalis, in AAS, Supplemento, 21 [1929], p. 3).

IV. PROCEDURE

First of all, a distinction must be made between the Congresso and the Piena Segnatura Plenaria. The former is made up of the Cardinal Prefect, the Secretary and the voting prelates; it deals with questions of lesser importance and meets in the offices of the Segnatura at the Palazzo della Cancelleria. The Piena Segnatura is composed of all the cardinals belonging to the Tribunal, who assemble in the Vatican on Saturdays. Besides the secretary, those voting prelates who have studied the questions of the day are invited. The most important questions are reserved to the Piena Segnatura, but it is very difficult to define in an absolute way the limits of the Piena Segnatura's attributions, also because the Congresso may have powers delegated by the Supreme Pontiff.

The manner of proceeding of the Segnatura also varies according to the different kind of questions.

Here, however, is a generic outline concerning judicial questions. The party with an interest presents the libellus to the Secretary, through the notary-protocolist, setting out the grounds of the recourse and paying a security deposit.

The Secretary entrusts the case to a prelate referendary and to one or more voting prelates, as the case may be, so that they may study it and one voting prelate may then report on it to the Congresso. If the question is not of grave importance, it is immediately decided; otherwise the decision is remitted to the Piena Segnatura. Here the proceedings follow the ordinary process and are very simple: the Secretary establishes the joinder of issue and the instruction of the case is closed. The Defender of the Bond or the Promoter of Justice intervenes, or both, as the case may be; the party's advocate naturally intervenes; the voting and referendary prelates appointed in the individual cases may, upon invitation, make their own observations. One of the cardinals acts as relator or ponens on the day of the Piena Segnatura and all cast their vote, written or oral. Thus the sentence is rendered, which may also be motivated.

In the case of a recourse for some grace or commission, the final report is submitted to the Roman Pontiff by the Cardinal Prefect or by the Secretary, and the grace obtained is then communicated to the interested parties by a decree of the Segnatura bearing the clause Ex audientia SS.mi. There is no possibility of appeal from the Congresso to the Piena Segnatura. Against a negative reply of the former, one may nevertheless insist before the same Congresso.

For the Signatura S. Poenitentiariae, v. above, I. Penitenzieria Apostolica.

Pietro Santini

III. SACRA ROMANA ROTA.

The ordinary tribunal for the universal Church, instituted by the Holy See, to receive, on appeal, from any other ecclesiastical tribunal, diocesan or regional, sentences in the second and further instance.

1. HISTORICAL NOTES

The beginning of the Tribunal can be traced back to the 12th century, with the so-called Capellani Papae, entrusted with hearing, in the name of the pope, cases which he did not intend to handle in person or through the cardinals; and precisely in that period, Lucius III (1181-85) began to revive Roman law as an auxiliary of canon law. Already under Innocent III (1198-1216) there is record of some ten magistri with the title of auditores causarum or Capellani Papae: and it was not by chance that they were distinguished by such titles, because in reality those Capellani were entrusted with instructing cases and judging in the name of the Pope, who then confirmed their sentence (cf. E. Cerchiari, Capellani Papae et Apostolicae Sedis Auditores Causarum Sacri Palatii Apostolici seu Sacra Romana Rota ab origine ad diem 20 sept. 1870, III, Rome 1920, pp. 6-11). Under the pontiffs who immediately followed Innocent III, the presence of the Capellani became stable and their number increased: besides the title of Capellani Papae one finds that of Sedis Apostolicae Capellani and of Sacri Palatii Auditores. Under Boniface VIII (1294-1303) the common title was: Capellanus Papae ac

Auditorum causarum Palatii Papae. Information on the manner of acting of the Capellani in the 13th century can be read in the work Speculum iuris written by Guillaume Durand (d. 1296), who was one of the most illustrious chaplains of the early times (v. DURAND, GUILLAUME). Their office was the handling of cases as true judges, but with authority delegated by virtue of a commission entrusted to them from time to time; with the growth in the number of trials, the Capellani proceeded under a single general commission, and therefore were also called Generales Auditores palatii domini Papae. The jurisdiction was never considered ordinary in an absolute sense, nor perpetual: at the death of each pontiff the activity of the auditors ceased forthwith.

When John XXII in 1331 dictated the Ratio Iuris, the college of the Cappellani must have been very flourishing, and then there was a true organization of the tribunal, with a special regulation and its own seat in the pontifical Palace itself at Avignon. The said Ratio iuris remained as the magna charta of the Auditores. They formed an autonomous college, no longer part of the papal consistory. They judged indeed even in its absence: they had coadjutors and notaries; the work was distributed in such a way that the Capellanus senior assigned to himself the first cases that came up, gradually attributing to the others those that followed. The figure of the ponens or relator of the case necessarily also took shape. The Capellani, even though they never formed an integral part of the Chancery, always had a certain bond of union with the chancellor (later vice-chancellor) and all new auditors took the oath in his hands. Under Martin V (1417-31) the dependence became more pronounced and remained so until 1870. When, under Benedict XII (1334-42), the privilege of the Capellani — that is, of being counted among the Officials of the Apostolic See — was called into doubt, the same Pope in Jan. 1335 confirmed that qualification with the constitution Cum sicut accepimus.

The name Rota spread during the Avignon period, from the beginning of the 14th century. Among the furnishings of the papal Palace there was also a revolving stand, Rota, on which the rolls of the cases were placed: it seems that the tribunal and the Capellani took their specific designation from that stand or else from the fact that the auditors sat in a circle. According to others, however, the name Rota derives from the fact that cases were judged in turn. For the first time in documents the word Rota appears in the collection of decisions of the auditor Tommaso Fastoli, published in 1337.

During the Avignon period the number of chaplains was never defined and the group of its members, although forming a college, it was still unable to enjoy particular rights. Callistus III (1455-1458) and Pius II (1458-64) intended to complete this evolution, but in fact they never carried out their plan. As for the number, only Sixtus IV (1471-1484), on July 1, 1472, with the bull Romani Pontificis, fixed it at twelve. He himself made exceptions, as later did Innocent VIII (1484-92) and Alexander VI (1492-1503); to be admitted to the college, the rule then required that they had taught law in some public university. From Pope Julius II (1503-13) onward the number remained unchanged and there were no further exceptions until the year 1870. The appointment of the chaplains always came directly from the Pontiff, although the privilege of two auditors was granted, one for the Kingdom of Castile and one for that of Aragon. Germany too had its auditor shortly afterward. France had one under Sixtus IV in the person of Guillaume de Pereriis, the said Pope having also made an exception to the already complete number of its members. Other States and cities were able to have the privilege of a capellanus within the Rotal College: Bologna in 1507, with Pope Julius II; Milan in 1562, with Pius IV; Venice in 1585, with Sixtus V; Ferrara in 1597, with Clement VIII, and finally Perugia, with Urban VIII. This diversity of provenance and origin on the part of the auditors has always been a characteristic of the Rotal College: all its members, however, were always equal in rank and in right.

The competence of the Rota could extend to the most disparate cases in object and in importance: ecclesiastical, civil and even public law. Among the matters submitted to its judgment one may recall the matrimonial process of Henry VIII with Catherine of Aragon, the question of the investiture of the Duchy of Ferrara, the disputed precedence between the two basilicas, the Lateran and the Vatican, the difference between cardinal priests and deacons regarding the right of option. Only on Oct. 2, 1746, with the constitution Iustitiae et pacis, did Benedict XIV define in a binding manner the competence of the Rota; if in past times it had not generally acted as a court of appeal, it now assumed almost its nature. The Pontiff in fact determined in the first place which cases were to be called minus graves and which graviores; he then fixed the competence of the various tribunals of Rome, that of the Capitoline Curia, that of the cardinal vicar and that of the auditor of the Apostolic Chamber; he attributed finally to the Rota all the major cases coming both from the tribunal of the cardinal vicar and from that of the auditor of the Chamber, and all those coming from any part of the Roman Curia; moreover, as a consummate jurist, he distinguished the different cases in which the Chaplains could act individually as simple prelates, without committing the college of the Rota, and when they had to act as auditors of the tribunal of the Rota. From the 15th century onward, both the individual members and the entire Rotal College saw privileges and honors from the Roman Pontiffs always increase, mindful of the importance of their service; add that as many as five of the Roman Pontiffs came from the college of the rotals: Clement VIII, Gregory XV, Innocent X, Alexander VIII and Clement XIII.

The importance and influence of the jurisprudence was always very considerable. The Rotal decisions, always reasoned and often published, were frequently cited by jurists and by judges of every tribunal and influenced not a little the application of the science and the formation of the greatest juridical maxims. They, like those of the Segnatura, form part of the stylus et praxis Curiae Romanae and are one of the criteria to which one must resort in case of a gap in the law (CIC, ca. 20; v. INTERPRETATION). With the occupation of Rome by the French troops in 1798, the Rota too almost totally ceased its activity. As the Papal State reorganized, the Rota resumed its activity after 1815; in 1816 Pius VII attributed to the province of Ravenna the privilege of having an auditor, in place of Venice. With the Edict of 1821 the commercial cases of the Papal State were assigned to the Rota, on appeal. Once the ecclesiastical and civil tribunals had been completely transformed, the Rota became an ordinary court of appeal for the civil and ecclesiastical cases of the State of the Church, and the Segnatura was transformed into a kind of civil Cassation. The Regulation of Gregory XVI of 1834 coordinated the activity of the two judicial bodies in such a way that their life had to cease automatically with the end of the Papal State in 1870. With Pope Pius X in 1908 the Rota (CIC, 1598-1691) and the Apostolic Segnatura rose again, for which the Lex propria S. Romanae Rotae et Signaturae Apostolicae was published. In 1910 the Regulae servandae in iudiciis apud S. Romanae Rotae tribunal were added. Many documents were then completed and unified in 1934 by the Normae S. Romanae Rotae tribunalis, which govern at present the activity of the sacred tribunal.

II. CONSTITUTION OF THE S. ROTA

The Rota is composed of a number of prelates (v. UDIITORI DI ROTA) no longer strictly defined. Each auditor has the faculty, with the consent of the College, to choose two assistants for study; the dean also three. It does not appear that there are currently any assistants.

Immediately after the auditors come the promoter of justice and the defender of the bond: their office, in case of necessity, may also be entrusted to several persons of equal or subordinate rank. Only priests with a doctorate in utroque iure, of good repute and mature age, may be elected to the two offices. They are elected by the Roman Pontiff, on the proposal of the College. Besides the permanent substitutes of the Defender of the bond or the Promoter of justice, other priests, appointed case by case, carry out the delicate task of the defense of marriage or of rights. There are finally notaries, scribes, the archivist, the distributor, the accountant and the cursors. The advocates are not part of the tribunal, but are free professionals; their intervention, however, is more than ever necessary, because there is no case without at least one advocate, chosen by one or by both parties or assigned ex officio in cases of free legal aid or at least of reduction of expenses. Belonging to the Rota, by right, are the ten consistorial advocates; then follow the ten procurators of the SS. Palazzi Apostolici, and finally there is the series of all the rotal advocates, who do not form a college and are not limited in number (v. AVVOCATO). To become a rotal advocate, besides obtaining a doctorate in canon law, it is necessary to have attended the three-year course at the studio of the Rota and to pass an examination, which entitles one to the diploma. Advocates are required to have their domicile in Rome, if they intend to practice before the S. Rota; they must render account of the fees requested from their clients; accept the cases of free legal aid entrusted to them by the Dean and finally render account, before the same S. Rota and the cardinalitial Commission of vigilance at the Apostolic Signatura, of any shortcoming or infraction of their duties.

III. COMPETENCE AND ACTIVITY OF THE S. ROTA

Before the Rota at present cases of an ecclesiastical nature and, in particular, matrimonial cases are for the most part studied and resolved. Cases of a criminal nature and of Sacred Ordination are also sometimes treated. The Rota also judges cases of legal separation, and furthermore of matrimonial dispensation, when this matter is joined with that of nullity. Regarding the sentences issued by the lower tribunals, the Rota can judge on the complaint of nullity, on restitution in integrum and on the recourse for a new examination, after a double conforming sentence in cases of personal status.

The S. Rota is by nature a tribunal of appeal (can. 1598); it therefore receives, in second instance, in the first place and necessarily, all cases coming from the tribunal of the Vicariate of Rome; it receives, always in second instance, cases coming from other diocesan or regional tribunals of any province of the Holy Church (can. 1599 § 1). It has this faculty cumulatively with all the local tribunals of appeal. The Rota receives finally, in third and further instance, cases already treated by a tribunal of appeal that have not yet passed into judgment.

The Rota is, however, also a tribunal of first instance for cases reserved to the Holy See (cf. 1557 § 2) and when the Roman Pontiff, on his own initiative or at the request of the parties, assigns cases to be defined before the S. Rota from the first instance. Any further instances will naturally take place always before the same sacred tribunal, saving the competence of the Apostolic Signatura. However, the so-called causae maiores (can. 1600) are absolutely excluded from its competence, because they are reserved personally to the Roman Pontiff (can. 1557 § 1).

After the constitution of the State of Vatican City, the S. Rota is a Court of appeal. This jurisdiction is understood to be limited by the boundaries of Vatican City (cf. Lex fundamentalis, in AAS, Suppl., 1929). An example of the grandiose present activity of the Rota can be drawn from the commentary (AAS 44 [1932], pp. 297-334) that reports the account of 1951. The tribunal had to concern itself with 244 trials; 189 of these reached sentence and there were 186 cases of nullity or of dispensation; 2 cases iurium, 1 of separation. There remained suspended and therefore placed in the archive 55 trials, of which 49 of nullity, 3 of separation, 1 tituli nobiliaris, 1 damnorum, and 1 of maintenance.

IV. PROCEDURE OF THE S. ROTA

The Rota is a collegiate tribunal (can. 1598). Each judging panel is generally made up of three auditors: the eldest of these is president, almost always the ponens, and possibly the instructor of the case. If a case has been judged, in a lower tribunal, by a greater number of judges than three, the Rota is not bound to increase the number of rotal judges (can. 1596). The judging panel, in certain cases, may be made up of five, seven or more auditors; the case in which all its members take part is not excluded (it is then said to be videntibus omnibus): this happens when a case is remitted to the Rota by the Apostolic Signatura, restitution in integrum having been granted, and in the cases in which the Pontiff has so disposed. In this case no exception is made for rotal judges who have already dealt with the same question previously, nor is any account taken of whether the number of rotal judges is even or odd. Each panel constitutes as it were a tribunal in itself and may be regarded as a section, of equal rank and in all respects identical to every other panel. When a case reaches the Chancery of the Rota, the dean may assign it to any panel; in any further instances, the case passes automatically to the panel made up of the more senior auditors. When the dean, by special decree, assigns a case to a particular panel, he determines the president and the ponens; on occasion, however, one or two of the auditors of the panel may be replaced by others who follow, when illness or another just reason intervenes. If the ponens already designated should subsequently have just reason to withdraw, then, having heard the other two auditors, the ponenza may be entrusted to another. A case pending before the S. Rota is designated, more than by the protocol number, by the name of the diocese, by the subject matter and the names of the parties, by the name of the ponens: coram, with the addition of the date of the sentence.

The rotal tariffs vary according to the importance and gravity of the case; they are made known in a special table which sets out the minimum and maximum fees that may be charged by advocates to their clients; free legal aid, or at least a reduction of the judicial expenses, is not infrequently granted. The acts of the process are generally printed, at the expense of the parties concerned, at the Vatican Printing Press, while nevertheless always remaining secret. The advocates and the parties to the case, whenever they wish, may inspect the procedural acts, as soon as the instruction is finished, which is generally secret. However, the S. Rota publishes each year in the AAS, albeit in a generic manner, the list of all the cases dealt with in the previous year, together with the dispositive part, with the names of the parties omitted, and sometimes also the indication of the diocese, so that the divulging of information that could harm the parties concerned themselves may not be easy.

The secrecy and the seriousness of rotal practice can also be inferred from the fact that at the moment fixed for the definitive sentence of a case, each auditor, after having studied the procedural acts personally and separately from every other, is bound to produce his own vote in writing. There is moreover an oral discussion among the judges, and sometimes, in the diversity of opinions, someone, if he considers it opportune, may even accede to the opinion of another: the vote of each member of the panel is equal to that of the others and to that of the president and ponens himself. It may even happen that the ponens must then draft a sentence with a conclusion contrary to his own point of view, if the other two colleagues have been of a different opinion from his. Their votes, finally, are closed in an envelope and sealed: even the Dean is forbidden to look at them; only the Roman pontiff could order their consultation. Every year all the sealed envelopes containing the votes of cases more than ten years old are destroyed by fire.

Since the S. Rota is a pontifical tribunal, it is like a guide for all the other tribunals, both diocesan and regional; its sentences and decisions are regularly published in special volumes, with the omission, as mentioned above, of the names of the parties; this printed publication takes place, as a rule, 10 years after the notification of the sentence to the parties concerned.

V. FUNCTIONS AND PRIVILEGES OF THE PRELATE AUDITORS

Leaving aside what has by now fallen into disuse, we limit ourselves to pointing out a few points of the constitution Ad incrementum of 15 Aug. 1934, published by Pius XI, with the intention of coordinating, according to the various ranks, the prelature of the Roman curia (v. PRELATI).

The auditors are domestic prelates and familiars of the Roman Pontiff; they are exempt from the jurisdiction of the Ordinaries. As apostolic subdeacons, they serve as ministers, with various functions, in the solemn functions of the Roman Pontiff. They assist at the blessing and the imposition of the Palls; and at the blessing of the Agnusdei; the lambs from whose wool the Palls must then be made are entrusted to the dean in person. Two prelate auditors, for the second time, promulgate in Latin and in Italian the bull of indiction of the Holy Year; three auditors, among the most senior, are ascribed, by right, to the S. Congregation of Rites, as Prelates Official. During the Conclave, the auditors guard the Rota reserved to the cardinals. In forensic ceremonies they wear the toga over the plain habit and wear the doctoral biretta with a red border and tassel. They enjoy the right of pontificals like the protonotaries apostolic of number.

ae littér. ecclés., 24 (1923) pp. 348-59; R. Fiamingo, La S. Rom. Rota e la Segnatura Apostolica, in Il dir. eccles., 43 (1932), pp. 345-61; C. Bernardini, Leges processuales vigentes apud S. R. Rotae Tribunal, Rome 1935; F. Roberti, CIC Schemata, IV, De Processibus, Vatican City 1940, pp. 74-79; id., De Processibus, I, 2nd ed., Rome 1941, pp. 346-78.

Pietro Santini

II. METROPOLITAN AND DIOCESAN TRIBUNALS.

I. HISTORY

From the earliest times of the Church, first-instance jurisdiction was ordinarily exercised by the bishop within the Christian communities, and already in the 2nd and 3rd centuries there is evidence of frequent appeals from bishops to the Pope. With the cessation of the persecutions, episcopal jurisdiction was recognized, with unappealable character, by imperial constitutions for civil cases, where the parties consent to it. After the Lombard invasion, which had diminished the civil prerogatives of the episcopal tribunals, with the Carolingian Empire and afterwards these regained authority in relations with the State, but at the same time they saw the contentious jurisdiction of the urban deans and archdeacons arise and increasingly assert itself, with their own tribunals, from which appeal lay to the episcopal one. With the Council of Trent, all inferior tribunals were abolished, and cognizance in the first instance of all cases "ad forum ecclesiasticum quomodolibet pertinentes, etiam si beneficiaes sint" was brought back before the local Ordinaries (sess. XXIV, cap. XX de reform.).

The competence of these tribunals, therefore, was increasingly defined and unified, and at the same time their functioning and organization increasingly took on a character differentiated from the administrative activity of the bishops themselves, with the distinction of judicial functions, entrusted, together with the presidency of the tribunal, to the official, from administrative ones devolved upon the vicar general (v. PRESIDENTE DEL TRIBUNALE).

The CIC reaffirmed, in principle, this separation of offices (can. 1573 § 1), as the basis of the constitution of episcopal tribunals. For this reason, while the principle was also reiterated that the bishop is in his diocese the judge born of all controversies that the Holy See does not reserve to itself (except where he is a party to the case, as in questions touching the temporal goods of the mensa or of the curia: can. 1572 § 2), the bishop is advised to exercise judicial functions, especially if criminal or contentious of grave moment, through the ordinary tribunal, presided over by the official or the vice-official (can. 1578; see also, for inquisitions in criminal trials, can. 1940).

As for the subsequent degrees of the judicial hierarchy, since the rule was fixed by the Council of Trent that first-instance cases were always within the competence of the episcopal tribunal, grievances against its sentences were brought before the metropolitan, the patriarch, the primate and the Apostolic See.

Then, once the patriarchal and primatial dignities were reduced to a purely honorary title and without any special jurisdiction (can. 271), the degrees of jurisdiction remained fixed in the three instances, respectively before the bishop, the metropolitan and the Holy See.

Thus there are, in the system of the CIC (l. IV, part 1), the ordinary tribunals of first instance before the bishop; the ordinary tribunals of second instance before the metropolitan; and the pontifical tribunals (the Sacred Roman Rota, the Apostolic Signatura). To preserve, moreover, the right of the parties to the threefold degree of jurisdiction, for cases tried in the first instance before the metropolitan (which happens, obviously, for subjects, bodies or persons, belonging to his episcopal see) it is established that the tribunal of a local Ordinary, designated once and for all, judges them in the second instance. Provision is made analogously for archbishops without suffragans or for bishops immediately subject to the Holy See (can. 1594).

II. ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONING

The constitution of ordinary ecclesiastical tribunals, which is identical for the first and second instance, just as the rules for the handling of cases before them are identical (can. 1595), may be with a single judge or collegiate, depending on the matters or the cases.

The single judge — in the person of the bishop and, on his behalf, in cases that he does not reserve to himself, of the official or the vice-official (v. PRESIDENT OF THE TRIBUNAL) — must however always be assisted in any judgment by two assessor consultants, chosen from among the synodal judges. These are priests of exemplary life and experts in canon law, appointed in the synod and by the bishop in the interval between one synod and the next, with delegated power.

The collegiate tribunal is constituted by the official or the vice-official, as president, and by two or four other judges, designated by the Ordinary in rotation from among the synodal judges. The college must be composed of three members in contentious cases relating to the bond of Holy Orders, to marriage, or to the rights and temporal goods of the cathedral church; likewise in criminal cases that may entail the deprivation of an irremovable benefice, or the imposition or declaration of excommunication. Reserved, instead, to a tribunal of five judges are cases relating to crimes that entail the penalty of deposition, of perpetual deprivation of the ecclesiastical habit, or of degradation. The Ordinary, moreover, may entrust to a college of three or five judges also the cognizance of other cases, and he is advised to do so especially if they are matters that « attentis temporis, loci et personarum adiunctis et materia iudicii » appear of greater difficulty or importance (can. 1577 § 2).

The sentences of the collegiate tribunal are rendered by majority of votes; the direction of the process belongs to the president.

The same rules apply to the two degrees of jurisdiction, but if a case has been handled collegially in the first instance, it must also be so in the appellate degree, and with a number of judges no smaller.

Besides the judges, other officials form part of the staff of the ecclesiastical tribunal, whose presence is necessary for all the acts of the tribunal or is required only for certain judgments and on given circumstances. Of the first kind is the notary (v.) or actuary, who must be present at every process, and by whom all the acts must be drawn up, or at least signed, under penalty of nullity. He corresponds to the chancellors of the lay forum; he is designated by the judge before beginning the cognizance of the case. Other auxiliary organs are the cursors, for notifications, and the apparitors, for executions, whose functions may be discharged by the same person. Their acts carry public authority. Cursors and apparitors are as a rule laymen; the notary is normally a priest, and must always be one in the criminal cases of clerics.

Judicial officials who, instead, do not necessarily intervene in all cases, but only in certain ones, are the promoter of justice (v.) and the defender of the bond (v.), who represent the public interest in the ecclesiastical tribunal and watch over the regular administration of justice.

The promoter of justice intervenes in criminal cases, in which, indeed, the exercise of the criminal action or accusation belongs exclusively to him; he intervenes furthermore in contentious cases in which, in the judgment of the Ordinary, the public good is at stake, and finally he may take the initiative, in conjunction with the interested parties, or in their stead if they lack standing to act, to promote cases of matrimonial nullity (cann. 1586, 1934, 1971). The defender of the bond intervenes obligatorily in cases concerning marriage and Holy Orders, with the task of defending the bond in question. Both are elected by the Ordinary, are removable by the bishop for just cause, and must be confirmed when the bishop himself changes.

The parties to a case may be represented in judgment by a procurator and defended by an advocate, whose functions may however be exercised by the same person, provided he has the required qualifications and is duly authorized by the competent ecclesiastical authority. Their appointment, moreover, is not obligatory, save for a prescription of law or an order of the judge.

To the poor is granted free legal aid (v.), total or partial (can. 1914), with the designation, by the judge, of a defense counsel appointed by the court.

III. THE ECCLESIASTICAL TRIBUNALS FOR MATRIMONIAL JUDGMENTS IN ITALY

The organization of the ecclesiastical tribunals outlined thus far applies to the whole Church in general. For Italy, however, following the serious practical problems that arose as a result of the application of the Concordat of 11 February 1929, which recognized civil effects for canonical marriage and for the related declarations of nullity issued by the ecclesiastical tribunals, it was deemed advisable to distribute differently the organization of the tribunals of first and second instance appointed to hear such controversies. Therefore, by the motu proprio Qua cura of 8 December 1938, Pius XI decreed that each conciliar region of Italy should have a single tribunal charged with judging the cases of matrimonial nullity of all the dioceses of the region. Competence for the judgment of appeal from the rulings of each regional tribunal was assigned to another among them, specifically designated, according to the following table:

IV. ECCLESIASTICAL TRIBUNALS FOR RELIGIOUS AND DELEGATED TRIBUNALS

In addition to the ordinary tribunals of first and second instance of the bishop and the metropolitan, for subjects under their jurisdiction, the canonical order provides — for religious who are exempt from this jurisdiction — special tribunals established within the ambit of the individual religious orders. In this regard the CIC (cann. 1579, 1594 § 4) lays down that in controversies between exempt religious of the same clerical religious order, unless the constitutions provide otherwise, the judge of first instance is the provincial superior or, in the case of a monastery sui iuris, the local abbot. If the controversy concerns two religious provinces, the judge is the superior general (supremus moderator) of the order, or, in the case of two monasteries, of the monastic congregation.

If, however, the controversy arises between physical or moral persons of different religious orders, or between members of the same non-exempt or lay religious order, or between a religious and a secular cleric or a layperson, the local diocesan tribunal is always competent as judge of first instance.

In second instance, cases heard before the provincial superior are brought to the tribunal of the superior general; those heard before the local abbot, to the tribunal of the supreme moderator of the monastic Congregation; and those, finally, judged by the tribunal of the bishop, to the ordinary tribunal of second degree according to the common rules (can. 1594 §§ 1, 2, 3).

To the ecclesiastical tribunals considered thus far, and to those others at the Holy See, ordinary or special, of which mention is made in its proper place, there may finally be added the category of delegated tribunals. These may be established for just reasons by the Pontiff and, in exceptional cases, by bishops, abbots and prelates nullius, as well as by vicars and apostolic prefects. The delegation must be in writing and in general expires with the conclusion of the process of cognition. The delegated judge of the Holy See may avail himself of the personnel of the diocesan Curia in which he is to judge, as well as of any other person he may prefer.

Judges delegated by Ordinaries must avail themselves of the personnel of the diocesan Curia, unless the bishop, in some peculiar case, has decided that recourse must be had to others (cann. 1606-1607).

Arnaldo Bertola