Capítulo 2: Descripción y Análisis
3.2 Validación teórica del diseño
3.2.1 Integridad
of his prerogatives. The court of Münich placed no credit on the Emperor’s letter and on the debate sparked off by the Pope and tried to convince the latter not to let the nuncio go since the public finances were in a difficult situation. The Duke wrote that, by the time the nuncio reached his destination, things would be back to normal and he would be allowed to exercise his jurisdiction, in spite of the prelates’ opposition. On 20 May 1786, Zoglio arrived in Munich and presented his credentials to the court. On 26 May, the government announced the institution of the new nunciature which was going to deal with the affairs tackled up to then by the nunciatures of Vienna, Cologne and Lucerne.33 The analysis made in this paragraph, which will be continued in the next as well, is based on the interpretation of the policy of Pius VI which can be defined as dynamic, a perception which is in conflict with previous historical analyses, like that made by Blanning who, on the contrary, describe it as a useless noisy protest against the Imperial reformist centralism by certain isolated high prelates.34
3.2.1 The nuncio Pacca arrives in Germany. The Ems Punctation
About 15 days later, on 9 June, a new nuncio arrived in Bonn to replace Bellisomi. His name was Bartholomew Pacca. The reception he was given was hostile.35 One of the episodes that best illustrates this state of affairs is the
33 Von Pastor, History of popes, vol. XL, p. 41.
34 Blanning, Joseph II, p.100.
35 In his memoirs, Pacca wrote that: “Al mio arrivo sul tratto del Reno, gli arcivescovi elettori non vollero ne ricevere la mia persona in qualità di nunzio, ne accettare le credenziali pontificie, che io loro recava; proibirono ai loro sudditi il ricorso al mio tribunale, e dicastero e specialmente agli avvocati e procuratori, e si studiavano con ogni sforzo presso gli altri principi vescovi d’impedire l’esercizio della giurisdizione della nunziatura”. Trans. : “Upon my arrival to this part of the Rhine, the Elector Archbishops did not want to receive me as nuncio, nor accept my papal credentials which I brought to them; they forbade their subjects from coming to my court, and ministry, and especially the attorneys and proxies. They worked with every effort so that the other Bishop-Princes would prevent the nunciature from exercising its jurisdiction”. Pacca, Memorie storiche di monsignor Pacca, ora cardinale di S. Chiesa, sul di lui soggiorno in
dispute between the nunciature and Joseph II’s younger brother, the Archduke and Prince-Elector of Cologne, Maximilian Francis. In November, an argument started between the archbishop-elector and the nunciature of Cologne about a matrimonial dispensation granted by the nuncio. The prince of Hohenlohe, Bartestein, asked and received from Rome a dispensation from the second degree of kinship to marry his cousin, the countess of Blankenheim. After the exchange of missives between Cologne and Rome, the granting of the papal permission was, of course, up to the nuncio. After Pacca had fulfilled his “duty”, on 9 November he received a letter from the archbishop-elector, which read:
Sir, I have learned from a report of the vicar of Cologne that you have dispensed the countess of Blankenheim and the prince of Hohenlohe, Bartestein, from second degree of kinship. You will no doubt understand that there would be a situation of constant confusion if foreign bishops were to be allowed to exercise their jurisdiction in the dioceses of another, and interfere in the administration of his Episcopal functions. I trust that from now on you will abstain from the exercise of your jurisdiction in my archdioceses and will not force me to turn to more expedient means in order to maintain rights, with absolute respect and the utmost my affection, Maximilian Francis, Archbishop-Elector of Cologne.36
Germania, In qualità di nunzio apostolico Al tratto del Reno, dimorante in Colonia. Con un appendice su i nunzi (Modena, 1836) pp. 5-6. Pacca’s memoirs were published after the French revolution and the Napoleonic age and the values of the Restoration as testify so well as the consistency shown by Pius VI’s Church in its strong opposition to Jansenism and the Enlightenment.
36 “Signore. da un rapporto del mio vicario di Colonia sono stato informato che voi avete dispensato la contessa di Blankenheim ed il principe di Hohenlohe Bartenstein nel secondo grado di consanguineità. Voi vi persuaderete senza dubbio, che nascerebbero continue confusioni se vescovi stranieri volessero esercitare una giurisdizione nella diocesi di un altro, ed ingerirsi nell’amministrazione delle sue funzioni episcopali. Io mi lusingo, che voi d’ora innanzi vi asterrete da ogni esercizio di giurisdizione nella mia archidiocesi, e non mi porrete nella necessità
Pacca’s response was as sharp in tone as that of the Archbishop Maximilian’s letter. After having conferred with Rome, he replied that he had not granted the dispensation as a bishop, but as a tool of the Pope and that, as there could be no Catholic church out of the primate’s jurisdiction; “It exceedingly pained me to meet with Your Honour’s displeasure, but I was obliged to fulfil the duties of my ministry, following the orders and the commissions of the Holy See”.37
However the ecclesiastical electors of the Rhine decided to convene a congress in order to attract all parties and to take advantage of the Imperial rescript of 12 October 1785. The city of Ems in the Rhineland was chosen as the meeting place for the princes’ envoys. The Imperial court followed the preparations for the congress without much enthusiasm and asked them to vow not to make any decisions which could injure the Emperor’s best interests;
indeed Joseph II was aware of the ambitions of the Archbishop of Mainz. The preliminary negotiations took place during the first months of 1786 and the conference finally began on 24 July. The Archbishop of Mainz was represented by his coadjutor Heimes; the vicars-general of Cologne and Trier, Tautphoeus and Beck, had been sent by their archbishops; the ecclesiastical counsellor Bonicke was the person in charge from Salzburg.38 He had received instructions
di ricorrere a mezzi più efficaci per mantenere i diritti, essendo colla più perfetta stima, Affezionatissimo, Massimiliano Francesco arcivescovo elettore di Colonia”. Pacca, Memorie storiche, p. 66.
37 “[…] che mi doleva sommamente d’incorrere nella disgrazia di sua altezza, ma che ero obbligato ad adempiere i doveri del mio ministero, eseguendo gli ordini, e le commissioni della Santa Sede It exceedingly pained me to meet with Your Honour’s displeasure, but I was obliged to fulfil the duties of my ministry, following the orders and the commissions of the Holy See”.
Idem, p. 67.
38 “The oldest member of the group was Tautphoeus, the deputy for Cologne, former Vicar general of Münster. He was seventy years old and hard of hearing”. Von Pastor, History of popes, vol. XL, p. 44.
from Beck prescribing him to keep watch on the congress so that no privilege was granted to the bishopric of Mainz and so that some basic rules were abided by without incurring complaints from the Emperor and the other princes – these rules comprised the respect due to the Pope and the prohibition of forming alliances against other political powers. Nevertheless, the intention of the congress had clearly been stated: “to restore the archbishops and bishops’
rights… and to bring them to fulfillment”.39 The negotiations which took place at Ems were kept secret and no discussions or conflicting opinions were put down in writing.
On 25 July they agreed on the plan and the next day they discussed the complaints brought against the court of Rome. The gravamina of 1768 was taken as a reference point: they resolved to reject all papal reserves and dispensations, the nuncios and papal notaries, the decrees of the Roman congregations, the records of information prepared by the nuncios on the bishops. The annates and pallium rights had to be reduced and, within each diocese, courts of appeal had
to be created. On 28 July all complaints had been dealt with and the conclusions sent to the archiepiscopal courts to be ratified.
They were aiming at an internal reform of the Church which involved new ways of organizing and reforming the clergy, the abolition of all the immunities granted to ordinary bishops, the simplification of worship, the suppression of blessings, brotherhoods, processions and church ornaments. The contrasts between the Archbishops of Cologne and Mainz caused these projects to fail. The metropolitan of Trier refused with some indignation the idea of dispensing from reciting the breviary those priests who were too occupied with
39 Von Pastor, History of popes, vol. XL, p. 45.
the ministry: according to the archbishop that would have given them “more free time to gamble and drink”. The archbishops did not even agree on the complaints which arose against the court of Rome and, from 3-8 September, they wrote to the Emperor asking him to send their petitions to Rome. If these turned out to be unsuccessful, they wanted a national council to be called: “to free the German nation at long last from all the forms of oppression”.40 If even this procedure proved unfeasible, then they would have been obliged to appeal to the Diet. The conclusions reached in the congress were stated in twenty-two articles. Under Febronius’ influence, a distinction was made in the introduction between the Pope’s fundamental and this usurped rights. Moreover the primacy of the jurisdiction received confirmation. But the usurped rights, introduced by the
“factious” decretals, had to be abolished and the Episcopal rights needed to be restored in its entirety.
“According to the first article the bishops, as successors of the apostles, could have been bound or not whenever the Church needed it”.41 All the people living within their dioceses would have been subject to them in matters of religion, and the diocesans – with the exception of their spiritual pastor - could not have appealed to Rome. Moreover the only exceptions to be acknowledged would have been the ones confirmed by an imperial privilege or by the Empire in general. The religious could not receive any orders or regulations by their generals or other superiors living outside Germany. With regard to the nuncios, the jurisdiction of the Pope’s envoys was completely suppressed.42 The nuncios were the Pope’s ambassadors “and had to abide by His authority after the Emperor’s statement dated October 12th 1785 which was based on the
40 Idem, p. 48.
41 Von Pastor, History of popes, vol. XL, p. 49.
42 Ibidem.