PASTORAL VISIT. — It is the direct knowledge which, through inspection, the pastor acquires of the conditions of the territory entrusted to him in order to ascertain its needs and provide for them with zeal and charity, according to the norms of the CIC, can. 343. The right and indeed the duty of the pastoral visit to the churches of their respective ecclesiastical circumscriptions belongs to patriarchs, metropolitans, and bishops, as it is an absolutely necessary means for the good governance of souls (Council of Trent, sess. XXIV, de ref., cap. 3).
I. HISTORICAL NOTES
For this reason, from the very origins of Christianity, the visit has been regarded as one of the most serious obligations of the pastoral ministry. Of St. Peter, the Acts attest that he “circuibat civitates ac vices ut confirmaret fideles” (Acts 9:32), and following his example, bishops have diligently fulfilled this duty. It suffices to recall, for instance, St. Basil of Caesarea, of whom Socrates wrote: “Urbes perlustrans languentes in fide confirmabat” (Hist. eccl., IV, cap. 21). St. Martin of Tours was no less diligent. 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 all places, some of which were infested by the Donatist schism, he preferred to appoint another bishop on the spot rather than retain jurisdiction over that part of the flock which he could not inspect (Ep., 209: PL 33, Ep., 209, col. 953).The first written law on the obligation of the sacred visit dates to the Council of Tarragona (a. 516), can. 8: “ut antiquae consuetudinis ordo servetur et annuis vicibus ab episcopo dioceses visentur” (cf. Hefele-Leclerq, II, p. 1028, n. 8); this provision was later revised and better defined by other Spanish councils, such as those of Lugo (a. 569, of doubtful existence, cf. ibid., III, p. 193), of Braga (a. 572, can. 1; cf. ibid., p. 194), the Fourth Council of Toledo (a. 633, can. 36; cf. ibid., p. 272), and became widespread, especially in Italy and France, during the pontificate of St. Gregory the Great, until it was incorporated into authentic compilations, where the decretals were mostly concerned with repressing abuses, particularly in the case of sacred visits due to excessive exactions. On this point, many councils have harsh words for certain bishops. Later, the practice developed in many places, especially outside Italy, of entrusting the entire responsibility for the visit to archdeacons.
And since not a few physical and moral persons, by virtue of privileges and exemptions obtained, were not subject to the archdeacons, the juridical institution of the pastoral visit, toward the end of the Middle Ages, almost completely lost its character and utility. The Council of Trent extended its reform to this field as well, by facilitating the bishops’ fulfillment of such a grave duty. It declared that the pastoral visit was a personal duty of the bishop; it was not to be entrusted to others except for grave reasons, such as, for example, the poor health of the prelate or the vastness of the diocesan territory. In such cases, the bishop was to entrust the task to his vicar general or to another suitable person. The useful time for completing the sacred visit, according to pre-Tridentine law (c. 10, C. 10, q. 1), was extended to two years, but only if the size of the diocese made it impossible to complete the visit within one year (sess. 24, cap. III, de reform.).
However, the CIC, taking into account a draft of the Vatican Council (C. Martino, Concil. vatic. docum. collect., Paderborn 1873, p. 138) and the practice now common and not disapproved by the Holy See, establishes that the bishop, personally or, if legitimately impeded, through a procurator, must visit the diocese at least in part every year and in its entirety once every five years. To eliminate inconveniences arising from exemption privileges, Trent had granted visitors the power to act not only by virtue of their ordinary authority but also as delegates of the Apostolic See. The CIC no longer mentions such delegation, and on the other hand it strictly determines which persons and which institutes exempt in certain circumstances the bishop may visit; therefore, it must be held that such power is ipso iure annexed to the office, and thus the bishop, even when visiting in accordance with the law those persons and institutes that are exempt, acts by ordinary, albeit vicarious, authority.
II. CURRENT LAW
Persons, things, and places are subject to the bishop’s visit. As regards persons, the visit may be general or special. It is special if it concerns a particular office or a specific person guilty of some fault. It is general if it concerns offices or persons in general. A special visit takes place only when a just cause renders it necessary (can. 1939 CIC). Furthermore, everything that serves the public exercise of divine worship is subject to episcopal visitation, such as sacred vestments and vessels; benefices and pious foundations; pious legacies; ecclesiastical goods; pious causes in general; and all sacred places, such as churches and oratories, public and semi-public; and pious places, such as hospitals, orphanages, almshouses, and similar institutions.As regards private oratories, the bishop must visit them for the first time solely for the purpose of granting the nihil obstat for the celebration of Mass in accordance with can. 1195 of the CIC. However, it is not excluded that the bishop may subsequently ascertain *de visu* whether the norms of decency and the conditions laid down in the apostolic indult are being observed in such oratories; at least when his intervention is prompted by accusations, denunciations, or any public rumor of non-compliance.
Pious places are subject to episcopal visitation even if exempt and entrusted to lay persons, provided they have been erected by ecclesiastical authority or are at least dependent upon it in such a way that, by law or by foundation, they are subject to the jurisdiction or inspection of the ecclesiastical superior (can. 344, 1489, 1491, CIC). The only places and institutes excluded from visitation are those erected by private persons or by civil authority for secular or purely philanthropic purposes.
No one may claim immunity against the bishop’s right of visitation unless there exists a particular and specific exemption in relation to the visitation, such as the law of foundation, prescription, or an apostolic indult, which can be demonstrated with certainty. Even in such a case, the Ordinary always retains the right to demand an account, despite contrary customs (can. 1492, §1 CIC). However, in accordance with 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 so as to withdraw from supervision and inspection *in totum*; for this would break the backbone of ecclesiastical discipline.
By general provision of the CIC, regular religious are exempt from episcopal visitation, except in the cases expressly enumerated in can. 344, §2 (cf. can. 615). Thus, can. 296 subjects regular missionaries to the visitation of the apostolic vicar or apostolic prefect for all matters concerning the governance of the mission, the cura animarum, the administration of the sacraments, the direction of schools, the offerings for the mission, and the fulfillment of pious wills in favor of the same mission. Can. 631, §1 declares that the religious vicar who exercises the cura animarum in a regular parish church—even if it is the general seat of the Order—is subject to the immediate visitation of the local Ordinary, in the same manner as a secular parish priest, with the faculty to issue decrees against him and to apply penalties in case of negligence in office.
Can. 617, §2 then places under the special supervision of the local Ordinary any house of regular religious not formed in the sense indicated in can. 488, §6, and confers upon him the right to take administrative measures in case of abuses or scandals. According to can. 1261, §2, religious, including the exempt, are bound to observe the prescriptions on 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 the exempt—or in any other sacred place unless they have first been approved by the local Ordinary.
Finally, schools run by regulars are subject to episcopal visitation, with the exception of those internal to exempt professed houses (can. 1382 CIC). In general, exempt religious of any kind are under the jurisdiction and thus subject to the visitation of the local Ordinary for all matters concerning the cura animarum, i.e., the pastoral duty toward the Christian people. Female religious orders, however, are less exempt from episcopal authority than male regular orders.
Religious women are either immediately subject to the Holy See, or directly under the jurisdiction of the local Ordinary, or subject to a regular prelate. With regard to episcopal visitation, can. 512, §1, n. 1 recognizes and imposes upon the local Ordinary the right and duty to visit every five years:
*all things (persons, matters, and places)*—monasteries immediately subject to the Apostolic See or to the diocesan Ordinary—and as visitor, he may and must question such religious as he deems appropriate and has the right to know everything pertinent to the purposes of the sacred visitation: to preserve and foster the religious spirit and to remove abuses and inconveniences. Consequently, all religious questioned are bound to answer truthfully, the visitor being 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, etc.
The same can. 512 §2, n. 1 further grants the local Ordinary the right and duty to visit every five years the monasteries of nuns dependent on regulars, and to do so jointly with the regular superior, in the act of a sacred visitation with limited authority, since he may inquire only into matters concerning the law of enclosure, with the faculty to question the religious and to learn what is necessary in the matter in accordance with can. 513 §1 (Pontif. Commiss. interpr. CIC, 24 Nov. 1920; AAS, 12 (1920), p. 575). If, however, the regular superior were to neglect the quinquennial visitation, the local Ordinary may visit the monastery of nuns as if it were immediately subject to him, i.e., *circa omnia*.
On the contrary, all religious who do not fall under the designation of "regulars" in the sense defined by can. 488, n. 7 CIC—even if exempt—must possess an apostolic privilege in order to enjoy exemption from episcopal visitation (cf. can. 512; 618–19; 690 §2; 1261 §2; 1491, CIC). The bishop may also visit institutes no longer erected as moral persons and entrusted to a religious house, though not in an absolute and universal manner if the religious house is of pontifical right; rather, the visitation is limited to religious instruction, the honesty of morals, pious practices, and the administration of the sacraments (can. 1491 §2).
In carrying out the sacred visitation, the bishop may be assisted by two *convisitatores* of his free choice, not more than two, despite any privileges or customs to the contrary (can. 343 §2 CIC). In conducting the visitation, the bishop must proceed *de plano*, in a paternal manner and *sine strepitu iudicii*, with regard to the object of the visitation itself; and against the measures taken by the visitor, no appeal lies, but only a *recursus in devolutivo*. Thus, such measures possess particular juridical force and efficacy if they fall within the scope of the object and purpose of the visitation. Other causes 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 instruct and judge them according to the proper forms (can. 345 CIC). In such a case, recourse or appeal would be given *in suspensivo*, depending on the nature of the matters and the measures taken. This would occur especially when the visitor imposes penalties more vindictive than corrective, or even a most grave medicinal penalty such as excommunication; for then he would act less as a father and more as a judge: *ad vindictam*, rather than *ad correctionem*.
Custom regulates the provisions of board and cash allowances for travel and maintenance expenses for the bishop and his retinue. Besides custom, however, diocesan, provincial, or regional law has force in the matter, if such law exists. In any case, such provisions are due only once even if the visitation is made several times in the year. Can. 346 of the Code of Canon Law stipulates that the visitation must be carried out with diligence but without unnecessary delay and without superfluous expenses being charged to those who are obliged to bear them; and it is absolutely forbidden for the visitor to ask for or receive gifts either for himself or for his retinue. Finally, the Code (can. 274, n. 5) contemplates the case of grave negligence on the part of the bishop in fulfilling this duty; and then the metropolitan intervenes, who, only after having informed the Holy See of the omitted visitation and having received permission from the same, may visit the suffragan diocese in place of the bishop. On that occasion he may perform whatever is required to achieve the purpose of the sacred visitation and, in addition, may absolve cases reserved to the diocesan bishop and punish even with censures notorious crimes and manifest offenses that may have been committed against him or his retinue.
