PASTORAL VISITATION. — This is the direct knowledge that the pastor, through inspection, acquires of the conditions of the territory entrusted to him, in order to identify its needs and provide for them with zeal and charity, in accordance with the norms of the CIC, can. 343. The right and, even more, the duty of pastoral visitation of the churches within their respective ecclesiastical jurisdictions belongs to patriarchs, metropolitans, and bishops, since it is an absolutely necessary means for the proper governance of souls (Council of Trent, sess. XXIV, de ref., chap. 3).
I. HISTORICAL NOTES
For this reason, from the origins of Christianity the visitation was regarded as one of the most serious obligations of the pastoral ministry. Of St. Peter the Acts attest that he « circuibat civitates ac vicos ut confirmaret fideles » (Act. 9, 32). Following this example, the bishops diligently fulfilled this duty. It is sufficient to recall, for example, St. Basil of Caesarea, of whom Socrates wrote: « Urbes perlustrans languentes in fide confirmabat » (Hist. eccl., IV, cap. 21). Nor was St. Martin at Tours any less devoted to II. St. Augustine writes of himself: Quoniam visitandarum ecclesiarum ad meam curam pertinentium necessitate proiectus sum... (Ep., 56: PL 33, col. 223). And since he could not personally visit certain distant localities infested by the Donatist schism, he preferred to establish another bishop there rather than keep under his jurisdiction that portion of the flock which he found it impossible to inspect (Ep., 209: PL 33, Ep., 209, col. 953). But the first written law concerning the obligation of the sacred visitation dates back to the Council of Tarragona (a. 516), can. 8: « ut antiquae consuetudinis ordo servetur et annuis vicibus ab episcopo dioceses viserentur » (cf. Hefele-Leclerq. II, p. 1028, n. 8); this provision was subsequently repeated and more precisely defined by other Spanish Councils, such as those of Lugo (a. 569, though its existence is doubtful: cf. ibid., III, p. 193), Braga (a. 572, can. 1; cf. ibid., p. 194), the Fourth Council of Toledo (a. 633, can. 36; cf. ibid., 272), and was generalized almost everywhere, especially in Italy and France under the pontificate of St. Gregory the Great, until it entered the authoritative compilations, where the decretals were concerned chiefly with repressing abuses, particularly on the occasion of sacred visitations because of excessive exactions. In this connection several Councils use vehement language against certain bishops. Subsequently, in many places, especially outside Italy, the practice arose of entrusting the entire responsibility for the visitation to the archdeacons.And since not a few persons, both physical and juridical, by privileges and exemptions they had obtained, were not subject to the archdeacons, the juridical institution of pastoral visitation, toward the end of the Middle Ages, almost entirely lost its character and usefulness. The Council of Trent extended its reform to this field as well, by making it easier for bishops to fulfill so serious a duty. It declared that pastoral visitation was the personal duty of the bishop and was not to be entrusted to others except for grave reasons, such as, for example, the prelate’s poor health or the vastness of the diocesan territory. In such cases the bishop was to entrust it to his vicar general or to another suitable person. The period allowed for carrying out the sacred visitation, which under pre-Tridentine law was one year (c. 10, C. 10, q. 1), was extended to two years, but only when, because of the extent of the diocese, the visitation could not be completed within the year (sess. 24, cap. III, de reform.). The CIC, however, taking into account a draft of the First Vatican Council (C. Martin, Concil. vatic. docum. collect., Paderborn 1873, p. 138) and the practice by then common and not disapproved by the Holy See, establishes that the bishop, personally or, if lawfully impeded, through a procurator, is to visit the diocese at least in part every year and in its entirety once every five years. To eliminate difficulties arising from privileges of exemption, the Council of Trent had granted visitors authority to proceed not only by virtue of their ordinary authority but also as delegates of the Apostolic See. The CIC no longer mentions this delegation; on the other hand, it expressly determines which exempt persons and institutions the bishop may visit in certain circumstances. It must therefore be held that this power is ipso iure attached to the office and that, consequently, even when the bishop visits exempt persons and institutions in accordance with the law, he acts by ordinary authority, though in a vicarious capacity.
II. CURRENT LAW
Persons, things, and places are subject to the bishop’s visitation. With regard to persons, the visitation may be general or special. It is special if it concerns a particular office or a specific person guilty of some offense. It is general if it concerns offices or persons in general. A particular visitation takes place only when a just cause makes it necessary (can. 1939 CIC). Moreover, everything that serves the public exercise of divine worship is subject to episcopal visitation, such as vestments and sacred vessels; benefices, pious foundations; pious legacies; ecclesiastical goods; pious causes in general; and also all sacred places, such as public and semipublic churches and oratories, and pious institutions, such as hospitals, orphanages, poorhouses, and other similar institutions.With regard to private oratories, the bishop must visit them the first time only for the purpose of granting the nulla osta for the celebration of Holy Mass in accordance with can. 1195 CIC. It is not, however, excluded that the bishop may subsequently ascertain de visu whether the norms of propriety and the conditions imposed in the apostolic indult are being observed in such oratories; this at least when his intervention has been prompted by accusations and denunciations, or by some otherwise public report of noncompliance. Pious institutions are subject to episcopal visitation even if exempt and entrusted to laypersons, provided that they were erected by ecclesiastical authority or at least depend upon it in such a way that, by law or by their foundation, they are subject to the jurisdiction or inspection of the ecclesiastical superior (cann. 344, 1489, 1491, CIC). Excluded from visitation are only places and institutions erected by private persons or by civil authority for a profane or purely philanthropic purpose. No one may claim immunity against the bishop’s right unless there exists a particular and specific exemption with regard to visitation, such as a foundation law, prescription, or apostolic indult, capable of certain demonstration. Even in this case, the Ordinary always has the right to require an accounting, notwithstanding contrary customs (can. 1492, § 1 CIC). Nevertheless, according to can. 1509, n. 7 CIC, prescription is a legitimate title of exemption from visitation if it is invoked against one prelate in favor of another, but not against any superior in such a way as to withdraw the institution in totum from supervision and inspection; this would indeed destroy the backbone of ecclesiastical discipline. By a general provision of the CIC, regular religious are exempt from episcopal visitation, except in the cases expressly listed in can. 344 § 2 (cf. can. 615). Thus can. 296 subjects regular missionaries to the visitation of the apostolic vicar or apostolic prefect with regard to everything concerning the governance of the mission, the care of souls, the administration of the Sacraments, the direction of schools, offerings for the mission, and the fulfillment of pious obligations in favor of the same mission. Similarly, can. 631 § 1 declares the religious vicar who exercises the care of souls in a regular parish church subject to the immediate visitation of the Ordinary of the place, even if the general house of the Order were located there, on the same footing as a secular parish priest, with the power to issue decrees against him and impose penalties in the event of negligence in office. Can. 617 § 2, moreover, places under the special supervision of the Ordinary of the place any house of regular religious not constituted in the sense indicated by can. 488, 5°, and grants him the right to take administrative measures in cases of abuses or scandals. According to can. 1261 § 2, religious, including those who are exempt, are obliged to observe the prescriptions concerning worship which the Ordinary may issue for his territory, and for this purpose the bishop may visit their churches and public oratories. Furthermore, can. 1279 § 1 prohibits the display of unusual images in churches, including those of exempt religious, or in any other sacred place, unless they have first been approved by the Ordinary of the place. Finally, schools conducted by regular religious are also subject to episcopal visitation, with the exception of internal schools for exempt professed members (can. 1382 CIC). In general, exempt religious of every kind are under the jurisdiction and therefore subject to the visitation of the Ordinary of the place in everything concerning the care of souls, that is, the pastoral duty toward the Christian people. Female Orders, however, are less exempt from episcopal authority than are male regular Orders. Religious women are either immediately subject to the Holy See, directly under the jurisdiction of the Ordinary of the place, or subject to a regular prelate. With regard to episcopal visitation, can. 512 § 1, n. 1 recognizes the right of the Ordinary of the place and impresses upon him the duty to visit every five years
circa omnia (persons, things, and places) the monasteries immediately subject to the Apostolic See or to the diocesan Ordinary; as visitor, he may and must question those religious women whom he considers it appropriate to hear, and he has the right to learn everything that falls within the purposes of the sacred visitation: preserving and increasing the religious spirit and eliminating abuses and inconveniences. Consequently, all the religious women questioned are bound to answer truthfully, since the visitor is a true superior and not merely an inspector or reporter (can. 513 § 1). Moreover, the bishop may inquire into regular discipline, the administration of goods, and so forth.
The same can. 512 § 2, n. 1 further assigns to the Ordinary of the place the right and duty of visiting every five years the monasteries of nuns dependent on religious superiors, and this cumulatively with the regular superior, and in the exercise of a sacred visitation with limited authority, since he may inquire only into matters concerning the law of enclosure, with the power to question the religious and to ascertain whatever is necessary in this matter according to can. 513 § 1 (Pontif. Commiss. interpr. CIC, 24 Nov. 1920; AAS, 12 [1920], p. 575). If, however, the regular superior were to neglect the five-year visitation, the Ordinary of the place may visit the monastery of nuns as though it were immediately subject to him, that is, circa omnia. Conversely, all religious who do not fall under the designation of regulars in the sense established by can. 488, n. 7 CIC, even if exempt, must obtain an apostolic privilege in order to enjoy exemption from episcopal visitation (cf. cann. 512; 618-19; 690 § 2; 1261 § 2; 1491, CIC). The bishop may also visit institutes not erected as juridical persons and entrusted to a religious house, but not absolutely and universally if the religious house is of pontifical right; rather, his visitation is limited to religious instruction, moral integrity, devotional practices, and the administration of the Sacraments (can. 1491 § 2). In carrying out the sacred visitation, the bishop may be assisted by co-visitors of his own free choice, who may not number more than two, notwithstanding privileges or contrary customs (can. 343 § 2 CIC). In conducting the visitation, the bishop must proceed de plano, in forma paterna et sine strepita iudicii, with regard to the object of the visitation itself; and no appeal lies against the measures adopted by the visitor, but only a recourse in devolutivo. Consequently, such measures have particular legal force and efficacy when they remain within the scope of the object and purpose of the visitation. Other cases are more appropriately deferred to another time; but if the bishop were to decide them on the occasion of the visitation (e.g., a jurisdictional or boundary dispute), he would have to investigate and judge them according to the procedural forms (can. 345 CIC); in that event, recourse or appeal in suspensivo would lie, depending on the nature of the matters and measures. This would occur especially when the visitor imposed penalties that were more vindictive than corrective, or even a very severe medicinal penalty such as excommunication; for then he would be acting more as a judge than as a father: ad vindictam, rather than ad correctionem.
Custom regulates the provision of food and the monetary allowances for travel and maintenance expenses for the bishop and his retinue. In addition to custom, however, diocesan, provincial, or regional law has force in this matter, where such law exists. In any case, such provisions are owed only once if the visitation is carried out several times in the same year. Can. 346 CIC provides that the visitation is to be carried out diligently but without unnecessary delays and without superfluous expenses being charged to the person obliged to bear them; and the visitor is absolutely forbidden to ask for or receive gifts either for himself or for his attendants. Finally, the CIC (can. 274, n. 5) contemplates the case of grave negligence on the part of the bishop in carrying out this duty; in that event the metropolitan takes his place, and only after notifying the Holy See of the omitted visitation and receiving permission from it may he visit the suffragan diocese in place of the bishop. On that occasion he may do whatever is required to achieve the purpose of the sacred visitation, and may additionally absolve cases reserved to the diocesan bishop and punish
also with censures notorious crimes and manifest offenses that may have been committed against him or his attendants.