Question VI: Whether bishops, and other ecclesiastics, have dominion over revenues that are superfluous to their state

I have already shown that they have ownership of certain goods; and indeed the ownership of immovable goods given to the Church resides with the Church, as St. Augustine discusses tract. 6. in Ioan., for the Bishop cannot alienate them, nor even lease them, except under certain conditions. Say the same of consumable goods, for which the same reasoning holds Authent. Praeterea, C. de sacrosanctis Ecclesiis.

But they have ownership of the stipends given them for their own particular ministries, as for Masses, etc.; the same of the distributions (as they are called) which they receive for personal services, as is gathered from cap. un. de cler. non residentibus, in 6.

It is also certain that they have ownership of that part designated to them, namely one of four. For it was the ancient custom that the goods of the Church be held in common and possessed by the Clergy, distributed by the Bishop, as is gathered from Can. 38. Apost. Afterwards, as the number of clerics grew and the dishonesty of dispensers increased, this arrangement was instituted by Sylvester in the Roman Synod, cap. 4., that the total income of the Church be divided, with the first part for the Bishop; the second for the other clerics; the third for the poor; the fourth assigned to the fabric. So it appears also in 12. quaest. 2.

Therefore, where this distribution still prevails, the Bishop has his fourth part in ownership; but where all things are held in common, he has ownership of those things that befit his state. All of this the holy Doctor has, more or less, loco citato.

The question, then, is: whether he is the owner of that part of the revenues that is superfluous, and so is bound to give to the poor only out of charity; or also out of justice, because their ownership resides with the poor.

The first opinion is that of Cajetan here, that other Ecclesiastics besides Bishops are not bound to dispense anything to the poor out of justice, and so are owners of everything. But Bishops ought out of justice to give to the poor that part which by the judgment of the wise is found not necessary for them, because it is too ample.

The second opinion denies to Bishops, and to all Ecclesiastics, ownership of the part of the income that is superfluous, and accordingly teaches that they are bound out of justice to give it to the poor. Thus Alensis 3. part. quaest. 36. m. 5. art. 2. Richar. 4. dist. 45. art. 3. quaest. 1. Palud. in 4. dist. 24. quaest. 3. art. 3. Antoninus 3. part. tit. 15. cap. 1. §. 19. Gabriel. in 4. dist. 15. quaest. 8. concl. 5. Maior. 4. dist. 14. quaest. 17. Petrus a Soto lect. 3. de Sacerd. vita, Michaël Medina lib. 7. de recta in Deum fide, cap. 27. Thomas Vuald. lib. 1. doctrinalis fidei antiquae, l. 4. cap. 42. and others cited by Couar. in can. cum in officiis, de testam. And it is the common opinion of the Canonists, vigorously defended by Nauar. tract. et Apolog. de reddit. Eccl.

The third opinion holds that Bishops and the others have ownership of these revenues. Thus D. Thom. here, and quodlib. 6. art. 12. Adrian. de restit. quaest. 12. Sylvester. verb. clericus, 4. quaest. 20. et verb. restitutio, 3. quaest. 5. Gerson in suis moral. tit. de avaritia, Sotus lib. 10. de iustitia, quaest. 4. art. 3. Driedo lib. 2. de libertate Christiana, cap. 4. Ioan. Arbotaeus in Theoph. disp. 10. quaest. 3. puncto 7. Tannerus disp. 6. quaest. 3. num. 3. dub. 22, where he asserts that the part of the poor is owed by justice when it is set apart.

As for D. Bonaventure, he seems clearly to favor this opinion in the Apology for the Poor, fourth response, cap. 1, toward the end, where he compares Ecclesiastics, in giving their superfluities to the poor, with the religious, and says they bear some obligation, though not an equal one, because they are indeed not bound by so strict a law to give those things to the poor; for it is not of perfection to give to each his own. But he refers us to part 1 of the third response, where he plainly follows the second opinion.

I assert, with the second opinion, that all Ecclesiastics are bound by justice to give their superfluities to the poor.

It is proved first by the holy Doctor by a universal argument, in the fourth response of cap. 1: for by the law of nature all things were common; afterwards, when things were usurped by the powerful, it was agreed by the law of nations that the rich should possess what they had acquired, provided they bound themselves to dispense their superfluities to the needs of the poor. This clearly pertains to justice.

It is proved by the holy Doctor in the third response of cap. 1, from the most weighty arguments of D. Prosper in de vita contemplativa, lib. 2. cap. 9, where he says: The holy men knew that the goods of the Church were nothing else than the vows of the faithful, and the prices of sinners, and the patrimony of the poor: they did not claim them for their own uses as their own property, but dispensed them as entrusted to the poor.

Hence the first argument is drawn: the goods of the Church are said in the decrees of the Fathers to be given to the Lord God, as appears in 12. quaest. 2. cap. Qui Christi, and 12. quaest. 1. cap. Res Ecclesiae, while Ecclesiastics are said to have only their administration. This argument the holy Doctor repeats in the third response, cap. 1, toward the end.

Valentia responds that the meaning is that those goods were given over to the worship of God; otherwise they would not be owners of any necessary portion.

This, however, is frivolous, for the necessary part for the ministers is understood; for the title stands: Who serves at the altar, let him live from the altar. Moreover, it presses the point that they are said to be not owners, but universal administrators. I urge this: for D. Bernard calls the Pope himself by that name in the book de consid.

From this the second argument is also brought out: always in the Church, among holy men and the Fathers, it has been understood that goods of this kind pertain especially to the poor, to widows, etc., as appears from Clem. lib. 2. Constit. Apostol. cap. 29. cap. 30, and 12. quaest. 1. cap. Praecipimus, and cap. ex his.

Valentia responds that by this alone is indicated that the strictest precept of almsgiving presses.

On the contrary: because, when by the intention of the givers they are applied to this use, it is no longer a precept of mercy, but of justice.

The third argument is drawn: for in various decrees they are said to be dispensers, not owners, as in 16. quaest. 1. cap. Decimae, and 23. quaest. 7. cap. Quod autem, and Extra de donationibus, cap. 2.

Valentia responds that either immovables are meant, or utensils; if revenues, it is understood for that time when some part has been set apart for the uses of the poor; or if they speak universally, the meaning is that the precept of Almsgiving presses.

Against this, however: for they plainly deny ownership, and assert mere administration.

I urge further: for in other decrees they are called murderers of the poor, plunderers, etc. if what is left over to them they do not give to the poor, as in dist. 42. cap. Ordinamus, and 12. quaest. 2. cap. Gloria, §. Amico, and often elsewhere.

Valentia responds that these things are said by way of exaggeration; as also of avaricious Laymen.

But in truth the things laid down in the decrees are defined for practice, and decreed as statutes, not for sermons.

It is confirmed further: for those goods were bequeathed under this condition: therefore they have no force unless the condition is fulfilled, as appears in the Civil Law, Cod. de Donationibus, which are sub modo, or under a condition, and in the Canon Law cap. Verum, extra de conditionibus appositis.

Valentia responds that this is not firm enough, for otherwise Ecclesiastics who do not give their superfluities to the poor would not be owners of any portion. But those goods do not seem to have been given under that express condition, as appears from the form of the ancient donations, such as those of the Emperor Constantine, Tom. 1. Conciliorum.

But in truth it suffices that the donations were given according to the formula commonly understood by holy men, as D. Bonaventure used to say.

It is confirmed: for by the Canon Law they are even forbidden to make wills: therefore they are not owners; nor does it avail to say they can do this by dispensation; for dispensation is then made by the authority of the Apostolic See, as Tanner noted, disp. 6. quaest. 3. num. 82.

Valentia heaps up many things, quite frivolous, to defend his opinion.

For first he vainly proclaims our opinion harsh and groundless. But it is not harsh, since it is what is commonly accepted in the Church, nor is it said without foundation.

He objects secondly from the Council of Trent, sess. 23. cap. 1. de reform., where it is decreed that Ecclesiastics having the care of souls who do not reside shall not make their fruits: therefore it supposes that those who do reside make their fruits. It is confirmed: for those who do not attend the offices do not acquire distributions, cap. unic. de cler. non resid. in 6, where it is decreed.

It is answered that this concludes, at most, that they make their fruits and acquire distributions according to the rite of the Church, such that what must be spent according to their state is in their ownership.

He objects thirdly: the ministers of the Church ought not to be in a worse condition than the other ministers of the commonwealth; but these become owners of the whole stipend: therefore.

It is answered that they have these goods as Ecclesiastics, and therefore are not of a worse condition, but of a higher state of perfection, as the holy Doctor admonishes in both places, where he compares Laymen with Ecclesiastics.

He objects fourthly certain absurdities. First, the poor could steal from avaricious clerics who do not dispense alms. Secondly, those who pay tithes could reserve a part so that the poor be rendered indemnified. Thirdly, an action in court would be given to the poor against clerics who do not dispense. Fourthly, why has the Church permitted the right of the poor not to be observed?

These things are frivolous, and are resolved in one word: for neither is it free to anyone to make justice for himself; nor does the Church fail, since it has added very many decrees on this matter.

Hence Azor. p. p. lib. 12. cap. 8. quaestio 3. Malder. 2. 2. quaest. 32. art. 6. dub. 2. Bassaeus V. eleemos. num. 6. say that the Bishop is bound to seek out the poor, that he may relieve them.