IMMOVABLE
690
IMMUNITY
spirit with any particular <leceasecl human being. It
can only prove that the " control " of the medium is ex-
ercised by an intelligence other than human; and
there is no sort of evidence to prove the veracity of
such an intelligence. The reality of occasional obses-
sion by evil spirits has, since the time of Christ, been
always believed in the Church. Finally, the medium-
Lstic faculty, if it be the exercise of genuine power of
communication with souls passed out of this hfe, must,
according to Catholic theology, be effected not by use
of a merely supernormal personal aptitude, but by
a preternatural agency. It is the teaching of the
Church that no good, but serious moral evil will be the
ultimate result of invoking the intervention of such an
agency in human affairs. The view that faith in life
everlasting, revealed by Clu-ist and guaranteed by the
miraculous history of the Christian Religion, when
once lost may be restored by the instrumentality of
experiences like those of Moses Stainton or Mrs. Piper,
does not seem very solidly founded (see Obsession
and Spiritu.4.lism).
St. Thomas, Con. Gent., II. Ixxix, Ixxxi; Summa Theol., I. QQ. bcxvi, xc; Fi^ato, Pfttsdo; )Pei.i., Immortality of the Human Soul, tr. (St. Louis and London, 1906); Maher, Psychology (6th ed.. New York and London, 190.1); M.vrtineau. A Study of Religion (2 vols., 2nd cd.. Oxford. 18S9) ; .\loer. The Destiny of the Soul. A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life (14th ed.. New York. 1S,S9) contains a valuable bibliography of the subject, but the writer's presentation of Catholic doctrines is often grotesfiue; Ei.bk, Future Life in the Light of Ancient Wisdom and Modern Science, tr. (New Y'ork and London, 1907) ; The Ingersoll Lectures by William James, Royce, Fiske, Osier (NewYorlc and Boston. 1896-1904) are useful on .some par- ticular points ; RoHDE. Psyche. Scclenkult u. Vnsterhlichkcits- glaube der (Jriechen (2 vols'., .'ird ed., FreiburR. 1903); Kneib. Dcr Beucis fiir die Vnstcrhlichkeit der Seele (Freiburg, 1903); Knabenbaueh, Das Zcugnis fiir die Vnsterblichkeil (Freiburg. I.S78); Tiat. Deslinee de I'homme (Paris. 1S9S); Janet ano Seailles, History of the Problems of Philosophy, tr. (London, 1902). , . . ,
The literature of what claims to be the evidence of spiritual- ism has rapidlv incrc.ised in recent years. See Hyslop, Science and a Future 'Life (New York and London. 1906); Del.an.ne. Eridenre for a Future Life. tr. (Ixindon. 1909); Lodge, Sur- vival of Man (Ixindoii, 1909); Myehs, Human Personality and its Survival of the Bod ill/ State (Lon<loD, 1902-3); Idem. .Science and a Future Life (New York and Ixindon, 1898); Tweedale, Man's Survival after Death (London, 1909).
Michael M.\her.
Immovable Feast. See Fe.\sts, Ecclesi.\sticai..
Immunity (Lat. inimunita.'i) means an exemption from a legal obligation (miinus), imposed on a person or his property by law, custom, or the order of a supe- rior (lex 214, sqq". De verb, signif., 1. .")0, tit. 16). This exemption is therefore a kind of privilege and follows the same rules. In ecclesiastical terminologj-, immu- nities are exemptions established by law in favour of sacred places and sacred things, church property and persons. If we consider, not only actual exemp- tions, which vary at divers times and in divers coun- tries, but their principle, immunity may be defined as the exemption of ecclesiastical persons and prop- erty from secular jurisdiction. This principle varies necessarily in its application according to circum- stances.
In strongly hierarchical societies, for instance in a feudal society, immunities play an important part; on the other hand, in our modern society, where men are much more on a basis of equality, immunities are less useful; they are looked on with disfavour by the highly centralized secular power, and suffer, as is evi- dent, much more restriction.
Division. — An immunity according to its object, is local, real, or personal. Local immunity refers to places consecrated to Divine worship, to chiirches; real immunity, to Church property; • personal immu- nity, to clerics, their lawsuits and trials and, in a measure, to their property. We shall briefly consider each of these three kinds as viewed by canon law, after which we shall see to what extent they are in vogue in our modern societies.
A. Local immunity withdraws places dedicated to Divine worship from secular jurisdiction and pre-
serves them from acts that would profane the re.spect
due to holy places. It implies likewise the right of a per-
son to remain in a place consecrated to God, so that the
public authorities may not remove delinquents there-
from. This is the right of asylum (q. v.) ; it was greatly
restricted by canon law, and is now abandoned everv-
where without any formal protest from the Church. As
local immunity arises from a place or building being
dedicated to Divine worship, it must be considered as
attaching not only to churches that have been sol-
emnly consecrated, but also to those that have merely
been blessed, and to chapels and oratories legitimately
erected by ecclesiastical authority; it extends likewise
to the accessory buildings, sacristy, porch, yard,
belfry, and to the neighbouring consecrated ground
and the burial ground (ch. ii, 9, De immunit. eccles.
Ub. Ill, tit. 49). Among the profane acts forbidden in
churches by canon law, not to mention these that are
prohibited by their very nature, we may cite: crimi-
nal secular trials (c. v, h. t.) even under penalty of
excommunication; civil secular trials (c. li, h. t. in
VI); but acts of ecclesiastical jurisdiction (even judi-
cial) are not forbidden. Commerce and trading are
prohibited, likewise fairs, markets, and in general all
purely civil meetings, as secular deliberative assem-
blies Iparlamcnla), unless permission has been granted
by the ecclesiastical authorities, whose rights are thus
safeguarded. The employment of force to enter sa-
cred places, breaking down doors, interrupting or
preventing Divine service, are violations of local im-
munity. This crime was formerly punished with e.\-
communication i/i.so facto incurred, but this is no
longer enforced by the Constitution " .\postolic;e
Sedis". This kind of immunity exists in our day
almost unimpaired ; the l:iw recognizes the right of the
clergj- to the internal administration of their churches
and thus guarantees, either directly or indirectly, their
exclusive application to Divine service.
B. Real immunity withdraws Church property from secular jurisdiction, so that it is free from public charges, in particular from ta.xation. We are not speaking here of the sacred buildings or of the objects required in ecclesiastical ceremonies and the adminis- tration of the sacraments, which by their nature must not be used for profane purposes, but of tilings that have been set aside to furnish revenues for the churches, the clerg\-, and the different works organ- ized and controlled ty the Church ; we refer to Church property, in its widest sense, movable and immovable: lands, buildings, episcopal residences, presbyteries, monasteries, schools, ecclesiastical hcspitals, etc., also titles to property, real rights, incomes, etc. All these properties, sources of revenue to the Church and her ministers, were exempt from the charges and taxes imposed on the corresponding properties of the laity. And, as this exemption was general and public, clerics could not offer or consent to any taxes on the prop- erty of their benefices. As a matter of fact, this im- munity, recognized in principle by the laws of the Chris- tian States, flid not result in an actual freedom from taxation; not only was Church property subject to ec- clesia.stical taxes, annates, tithes, and others, but it contributed largely to the public expenditure of the State; however, the principle of immunity was pro- tected by having the subsidies voted by the clergy themselves as gratuitous gifts, after papal authoriza- tion. The amount of the subsidy was to be settled by the bishops and clergy, in accordance with canon xix of the I.ateran Council of 1179 (c. iv, /(. I.); and canon xlvi of the Lateran Council, of 1215, protects the clergy against excessive demands of princes, by requiring, under pain of nullity, the previous consent of the pope (c. vii, h. t.). The voting of the contributions from ecclesiastical property, as is well known, was the principal object of the celebrated .Assemblies of the French clergy (Bourlon, "Les assemblies du clerg^", Paris, 1907). At present, the property of the Church
