Question VII: On the penalties and the marks of a proprietor

FIRST, the owner in death is deprived of sacred burial, cap. Monachi on the state of Monks; he is therefore to be buried in the dunghill with his money. But if he already lies in a sacred place, he is to be dug out. Secondly, by cap. cum ad Monasterium, on the state of Monks, it is decreed that the Owner be expelled: but this is not in use; rather he is delivered over to prison for Penance. Thirdly, from the Council of Trent sess. 25., let him be deprived for two years both of active and passive voice. See Sanch. l. 7. c. 20. Faust. l. 8. q. 158.

But the FIRST, and principal sign of ownership is noted at cap. Monachi, if a Religious is found to possess a peculium in his own name, where it is indicated as a penalty that, until he comes to his senses, he be removed from communion of the Altar, as guilty indeed both of sacrilege against the vow, and of theft, in retaining what belongs to another.

The SECOND sign, is the concealment of a thing; for even if from the beginning the thing be taken with the presumed permission of the superior, if nevertheless afterwards it is concealed with the mind of retaining it, and not yielding it to the prelate seeking it, the vice of ownership is incurred. And this indeed is true even if the thing has been taken with express license for the particular use of some Religious; for such permission is presumed granted with this tacit condition, that it be always under the dominion of the prelate; if the Religion be such as to be able to possess in common.

HENCE some draw from this a great indication of ownership, that someone keeps a thing sealed with a key without the license of the superior, even if he has obtained the thing itself with this license; which manner here argues a tenacity of mind and affection toward a thing not his own; moreover, as the sign of proprietary possession in civil law a key is wont to be given, leg. clavibus ff. on contracting purchases; for these reasons Alvarus Pelag. lib. 1. on the lament of the Church, cap. 67. Corduba in the exposition of the Rule, cap. 6. question 9. and Serena Conscientia question 81. are judged to have given rise and origin to this opinion. And truly of old it was utterly abhorrent to the Fathers to seal up a thing with a key, as Cassianus has lib. 4. c. 15. of the institutes.

TRULY it is certain, that in itself the key is not a sign of ownership, but of custody, as Suarez well notes lib. 8. on poverty, cap. 12.; whence it indicates ownership only insofar as it withdraws and conceals some thing from common use without the license of the superior, presumed or express, so that the superior cannot dispose of it, as various Authors argue at Suarez in the place cited, who warns that the custom of the Religion must be stood by in this matter, as also the permissions of superiors, who can either inhibit or concede it;

But whether it argues ownership to obtain a thing with an unreasonable, or unjust license of the superior; Suarez denies, with the others whom he cites; because although such permission be badly granted, since nevertheless it is not a dispensation from poverty, but a concession concerning remote matter of poverty, the subject can licitly use it, and with the stronger right, that he always has a mind prepared to remit such a thing at the nod, and pleasure, of the superior.