66. On Ecclesiastical Goods

1. Ioannes a Deo, a most pious physician, partly from his own patrimony, partly from donations spontaneously made to him, partly from donations made to him at his request, founded an immense hospital, in which a thousand poor persons are admitted and cared for altogether gratis. That the good of souls also might be promoted, Ioannes was accustomed to call the Capuchin Fathers from a neighboring convent, that they might hear the confessions of the sick and have a sermon for them on Sundays and feast days. Then also, from the neighboring house of the Sisters of Charity, he often called Sisters, that they might offer help to the sick women. But behold, Ioannes dies, and his son receives the hospital by inheritance from his father. Since he also is a physician and equally pious as his father, he undertakes to continue the pious work. But the pastor of the place brings suit against him, contending that the hospital is a good ecclesiastical from its institution, and parochial, since it is situated in his parish; and therefore that it pertains to him.

Q. 1. Whether the Church has dominion of goods? 2. What as to the case?

R. To the first. Cf. I. M. 869. - To the second. The pastor in the case seems altogether deceived. For from the fact that this sort of work was instituted from a pious end and with the purpose of charity and mercy, it certainly does not follow that that hospital is an ecclesiastical good. Otherwise, if a layman in his own house received poor boys, that he might teach them the rudiments of the Christian faith, and if he destined the whole house or a part of it to this pious work, by that very fact he would then lose the dominion and ownership of the house, which is absurd. But from the fact that Ioannes called the Capuchin Fathers and the Sisters of Charity, that in the aforesaid hospital they might exercise works of mercy, whether corporal or spiritual, neither does it thence follow that the aforesaid hospital is an ecclesiastical good. Finally, this certainly cannot be drawn from the fact that the aforesaid hospital was founded from the patrimony of Ioannes himself. Perhaps the pastor can affirm that only from the fact that it was founded from offerings and donations of the faithful spontaneously made to Ioannes, or at the instance of Ioannes himself. But even this foundation is altogether weak. For, the offering and donation having been made to Ioannes, the thing offered and donated was now Ioannes's; although the offering and donation was made under a mode, or burden, of founding a hospital, and for the pious purpose of helping the poor. For from this head it follows only that Ioannes could not dispose at will of the accepted offerings and donations; but it does not follow that the founded hospital is not his, but is an ecclesiastical good, proper to the pastor of the place.

A sacred place is indeed distinguished, first, and it is a church, which becomes sacred either by the solemn consecration of the bishop, or even by the simple blessing of a priest. A cemetery is also a sacred place, which becomes sacred by blessing. Second, a religious place, in which, by the authority of the bishop, works of piety and mercy are exercised. Places of this sort are subject to the authority of bishops, and enjoy the immunity of asylum. Hence, for a religious place it is required that in it a work of religion or charity be exercised, and that it be erected by the authority of the Supreme Pontiff or of the bishop, as, for example, a monastery or a confraternity of laymen, which are destined to a work of religion; an orphanage or a hospital, which serve for a work of charity. C. Ad haec 4, de Relig. domib. Wherefore a sacred place, a religious place, is not an orphanage or hospital erected by laymen, with the bishop's authority in no way intervening, nor a private oratory in a private house; and for this reason these are rather accustomed to be called pious places from their destination to a pious work; and consequently they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Ordinary, nor do they enjoy the immunity of asylum. Schmalz., l. 3, t. 36, n. 24; t. 40, n. 19.

The bishop can visit sacred and religious places, Trent, s. 22, c. 8, de R., s. 25, c. 8, de R., with the exception, however, of the houses of regulars, by privilege of exemption. But truly pious places he cannot visit, except in the cases expressed in law. S. C. C. apud Fagnan., C. Ad haec 4, de Relig. dom., n. 54. Nevertheless, the founder having died, he can inspect whether all things proceed according to the will of the deceased, C. 7, de Testam., and therefore require the accounts of administration yearly, unless either they are under the immediate protection of kings, Trent, s. 22, c. 9, de R., or something else was provided on the threshold of the foundation, from Clem. 2, pr., de Relig. domib., Trent, l. c.; Schmalz., l. 3, t. 40, n. 18.

Therefore the hospital erected by Ioannes, although it can be held as a pious place, is by no means a sacred place, a religious place; and as a private oratory, although it is a pious place, nevertheless does not cease to be private property, so also the hospital of Ioannes is altogether private property, and neither the pastor nor the bishop can claim in it any right of dominion and ownership, apart from the other rights altogether distinct which have already been indicated, by which the bishop, and not the pastor, enjoys. The pastor has only the right and obligation of administering the sacraments there, since it is situated within the boundaries of his own parish, and the place is not exempt. Therefore let him hear the confessions of the sick and of the dying, let him minister viaticum and extreme unction, let him offer assistance to the sick in the last agony of life; and both Ioannes a Deo and afterward his pious son, and also the Capuchin Fathers, and also the Sisters of Charity, will rejoice altogether over this zeal of his, and will congratulate him. - Cf. I. M. 869.

2. Polydorus, a pastor, neglecting the poor, gathered a notable sum of money from stipends of Masses and other honoraria, from a benefice, from a certain pension received from the Government, from the revenues of his patrimony, and from sparingness in food; he distributed it partly among various relatives and friends, and partly reserved it for old age. But seized by sudden death, he was taken from the living without a testament. Wherefore all those things which are left by Polydorus are divided among the heirs.

Q. 1. What sort is the dominion of clerics? 2. Whether and how did Polydorus sin? 3. Whether the heirs are held to restore that reserved money to the poor?

R. To the first. Cf. I. M. 870. To the second. Polydorus did not sin of himself by spending among relatives and friends the money received from stipends of Masses and other honoraria, and likewise from the sparingness employed in his own sustenance; for these goods are his, nor as to their use does he have any special obligation. Likewise he did not sin by distributing the money proceeding from that Government pension. For, since this pension, as appears sufficiently from the case, is not by title of benefice, but by another title, which in the case is not indicated, it also is his, nor of itself does it bring any special obligation. The same must be said a fortiori about the revenues of his patrimony distributed among friends and relatives. But he sinned gravely of himself by spending similarly the revenues of the ecclesiastical benefice while neglecting the poor. For a beneficiary indeed has perfect dominion of these revenues, so that he can use them freely for honorable sustenance; nevertheless he has a grave obligation, but at least probably not from justice, of spending the surplus on the poor, or on pious causes. I. M. 870; Lugo, Resp. Mor., l. 5, d. 11.

To the third. They are not held. For Polydorus at least probably did not sin against justice by not spending on the poor the surplus of the revenues of the benefice, concerning which alone there can be question. Therefore much less can the heirs be held from justice. For the obligation of Polydorus was not real but merely personal; but the heirs do not have this personal obligation. Besides, in the case there is truly the greatest difficulty of knowing whether the money left by Polydorus proceeds from the surplus revenues of the benefice, or from other goods. And although this perhaps can be affirmed of some quantity, it is very difficult that it be established that Polydorus did not also secretly give sufficient alms. I. M. 871; G. 508, 509.