Exclusive

Emergence of the right of exclusive

The exclusive one is distinguished from imperial approval, into force in the first centuries of the Christianity, by which the Emperor sanctions afterwards the result of the poll.

It draws its origins from the pressures exerted as from the 16th century by the crown of Spain. If Charles Quint is satisfied with semi-official pressures, his/her son Philippe II provides in 1590 a list of seven cardinals among whom the conclave is supposed to make its choice, thus posing its veto against any other candidate. It is indeed of political pressures and not about a legal privilege. Nevertheless, the cardinals obtempèrent: Gregoire XIV figure well among the seven imperial candidates. In 1591, Philippe II of the same fact for the conclave which Innocent IX will leave.

The attitude of papacy with respect to these pressure official is not clear. Pie IV recognizes them in its bubble In eligendis (1562) but it reveals them like simple recommendations. In 1621, Gregoire XV, in Æterni Patris , condemns conventions of election, but without naming them. Clément XII in 1732 makes in the same way. The crown of Spain thus continues to distribute vetoes or lists of official candidates. It is joined in 1655 by the crown of France, which prohibits the election of the Sacchetti cardinal. However, Louis XIV remains timid on the matter: he thus lets elect the Chigi cardinal, future Alexandre VII, at the time of this same conclave. The term of juice exclusivæ (“right of exclusive”) starts to appear, but alleged the forever officially recognized “right”.

The exclusive modern one

In 1691, Léopold I {{er}}, Germanic Roman Emperor, emits his veto against the candidature of the Barbarigo cardinal. The conclave sees a turning: previously, the vetoes had, to function, be constant by cardinals convinced of their utility. From now on, it is the only voice of the monarch who counts. The number of the countries likely to carry the exclusive one is stabilized to three: Spain, the Holy roman Empire (of which the right will be recovered then by Austria) and France, in spite of the attempts of the crown of Portugal to be made some recognize the right. The right to veto is reduced to only one and single name, announced in an official way by the ambassador of the country close the Holy See or a cardinal amenable to the country, which takes the name of “protective cardinal” (or “cardinal procurator”) of the country. This formalization of the exclusive growth paradoxically monarchs to be resorted again to the official pressures, when their right of exclusive was exhausted.

One can mention the exclusive ones:

of the Holy roman Empire against the Paolucci cardinal in 1721 (Innocent XIII is elected);
of Spain against the Imperiali cardinal in 1730 (Clément XII is elected);
of France against the Cavalchini cardinal in 1758 (Clément XIII is elected);
of Austria against the Severoli cardinal in 1823 (Leon XII is elected);
of France against the Albani cardinal in 1829 (Pie VIII is elected);
of Spain against the Giustiniani cardinal and France against the Macchi cardinal in 1830 (Gregoire XVI is elected);
of France against the Bilio cardinal in 1878 (Leon XIII is elected).

He is necessary to add to it the attempt at exclusive conclave of 1846, where the Gaysruk cardinal, elected by Austria, is able too late to prevent the election of the Cappellari cardinal. One can also notice that France of the III {{E}} République, in 1878, takes again a prerogative attached to the crown of France.

Exclusive the most famous is that carried the August 2nd 1903 by the cardinal Puzyna, prince-bishop of Cracow, against the cardinal Rampolla, which then joins together on its name 29 votes. In spite of the protests of the cardinals, the exclusive door its fruits: at the time of the second vote, Rampolla gains a voice, but loses six of them, then still eight, the following day. One of the first acts of the new elected official, Black and white X, will be to prohibit under penalty of Excommunication a cardinal from carrying exclusive (apostolic Constitution Commissum nobis of the January 20th 1904), “in order to prevent the Heads of State interposing or from interfering under some pretext” into the conclave.

This provision is part from now on of the oath of observance lent by any néo-cardinal, as well as payment of the conclave. It was called in question by no successor of Magpie X.

Random links: