THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
published, contrary to the pope s will, as imperial law on Feb. 13, and on Mar. 25 provided with the lu'crssary expciifive provisions for France and the Kingdom
3. The of Italy (cf. Desenne, ut sup., pp. 581, 583; Concordat Debidour, ut sup., pp. 693 sqq.), was never
of Fou- recognized by Pius VII. as a concordat, but tainebleau, was always declared to be only a prelimi- 1813. nary outline, and even as such was revoked by him on Mar. 24, 1813. It refcns mainly to the ofBcial confirmation of the bishops. The treaty never actually went into effect, inasmuch as the Napoleonic rule ceased.
The concordat of 1817 between Pope Pius VII. and King Louis X\'III. of France never attained to the force of law. An attempt was made after the Restoration to repeal the concordat of 1801 and the " organic articles," and negotiate a new concordat, more acceptable to the Curia; extensive proceedings to that end took place at Rome between the French envoy. Count Blacas d'Aulps, and the cardinal secretary of state, Consalvi. The result
4. The was the treaty of June 11, 1817, which re- Concordat stored the concordat of 1516 in place of the
of 1817. concordat of 1801 and the " organic articles," and promised to rehabilitate the episcopal sees abrogated by the bull of Nov. 29, 1801, and coordinate them with the existing dioceses by endowing both alike with landed estates and public revenues. Moreover, the king declared in art. x. of his agreement with the pope that he purposed to employ all the means at his command " to abate as soon as possible the disorders and obstructions which interfere with the weal of religion and the execution of the laws of the Church." As the Protestants likewise would lose their legal protection by repeal of the " organic articles," it is obvious that this step contemplated some redress for them also. The French government being too shrewd to mistake the dangers of this agreement, submitted the concordat to the legislative chambers in modified form, safeguarding the State's position; but as it encountered vehement opposition both inside and outside the chambers, it was withdrawn by the government and never again introduced (Bullarium Romanum, xv., pp. 365 sqq.; Debidour, ut sup., pp. 696 sqq.; Nussi, pp. 153 sqq.).
2. Germany and Austria: The status set up by the Princes' Concordats and by the Concordat of Vienna was modified in Germany by the Reformation, the ReHgious Peace of Augsburg in 1555, and the Peace of Osnabriick in 1648, but not overturned. Not until the secularization of church property in the German Empire by the decree of the imperial deputation, Feb. 25, 1803 (Mirbt, QueZ/en, pp. 338-339), did the ancient Roman Catholic Church of Germany collapse. At the outset Pius VII. had hoped to be able to recon-
1. Incon- struct the Roman Catholic Church in ^'^oWati^s" Ciermany by means of a concordat of the with the empire, and in this he had Napoleonic counted upon Napoleon's assistance. Era. But when he saw that he was deceived therein, and when furthermore the Peace of Pressburg (Dec. 26, 1805), the conclusion of the Rhenish Confederation (July, 1806), and the abdication of the German imperial crown by Emperor Francis II. (Aug. 6, 1806) precluded the prospect of an alliance with the empire as such, he entered into negotiations through an extraordinary nuncio. Cardinal della Genga (subsequently Pope Leo XII.), with various individual German states. From July, 1806, till Sept., 1807, he negotiated fruitlessly with Bavaria (cf. H. von Sicherer, Staat und Kirche in Bay em vom Regierungsantritt des KurjuTsten Max Josephs IV bis zur Erklarung von Tegemsee, 1799-1821, Munich, 1874, pp. 112-113), and he proceeded with Wurttemberg and Baden from Sept. 8, 1807, till the close of October. Owing to the intervention of Napoleon, however, all nego-
tiations came to nothing; and the Roman Church in Germany stilU found itself in the same status in 1813 and 1815 as in 1803. At the time of the Congress of Vienna (Sept., 1814-June, 1815) only five incumbents of German episcopal sees were still alive; and four of these were past seventy years. The Curia proposed no new arrangement, but as far as possible the restoration of the old. It asked for restitution of the status quo ante helium, and in Germany especially the relinquishment of ecclesiastical property and revenues that had been lost to the Church since 1801 and 1803; also the rehabilitation of the spiritual principalities, and of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation with its old legal temporal and ecclesiastical relations with the papacy. When the Curia failed to obtain its demands at the Congress it reserved all of its rights in the form of a solemn protest on the part of the papal legate, on July 14, 1815; and Pius VII. confirmed his action in an allocution of Sept. 4 of the same year. At the same time he expressed the hope of a salutary — in the Roman view — understanding with the German Confederation, an idea which was entertained at Rome till 1816.
Meanwhile, as early as February of the year in question, the Curia made known its disposition to institute separate negotiations, at all events with Bavaria. The Bavarian government had cherished the thought of a separate concordat ever since the Peace of Luneville and the decree of the imperial deputation in 1803. It had resumed diplomatic
intercourse with the pope in the sumdat'with" 1815, for this purpose, and in-
Bavaria structed its envoy Haffelin to further 1817. ' business. The upshot was the
conclusion of a concordat at the beginning of Oct., 1817, though it is dated June 5. King Maximilian ratified it on Oct. 24; the pope, in an allocution of Nov. 15, published the bull which confirmed the same.
The " convention " is worded in Latin, and its form ia patterned after the French agreement (Bullarium Romanum, xiv., pp. 314 sqq.; Nussi, pp. 146 sqq.; Mirbt, Quellen, p. 344). A tacit reservation of the State found expression when the concordat was published as state law. This was accomplished first by an " Edict concerning the External Legal Relations of the Kingdom to Religion and Ecclesiastical Organizations " (the so-called " Religious Edict ") of May 26, 1818. Herein the provisions of the concordat were treated not as applying to the kingdom, but merely to the Catholics of the kingdom, and that only with respect to the internal affairs of their communion. These " organic articles " could not have been a surprise to the Curia, but some appearance was made of regarding them in that light; and in connection with them there arose a dispute similar to the one in France, not even yet quite settled, between the Bavarian government and the papal court as to the actual signification of the concordat. Not until a declaration of the religious edict was assured by King Maximilian Joseph of Bavaria did Pius VII. publish the delimiting bull of Apr. 1, 1818, Dei ac domini nostri Jesu Christi (Bullarium Romanum, 'xv. 17 sqq.), on Sept. 8. 1S21. The history of the Bavarian Concordat is thoroughly treated on the basis of the archives in Von Sicherer's Staat und Kirche, mentioned above; cf. also N. von Lerchenfeld, Zur Geschichte des bayrischen Konkordats, Nordlingen, 1SS2; H. Briick, Geschichte der katholischen Kirche, ii., Mainz, 1889, pp. 12 sqq.; M. von Seydel, Bayrisches Staatsrecht, vi., Freiburg, 1893.
With the Protestant states of Germany the Curia tlc.'^iied to conclude concordats in order to secure in