89. On Tithes, on the Institution of Feasts

1. The law of abolition of tithes having been proclaimed, Ambrosius the pastor remains uncertain whether he can receive the pension assigned to him by the Government as compensation; and insofar as he can receive this pension, whether he can at the same time receive the tithes of those parishioners who still voluntarily offer them.

Q. What as to the Case?

R. Ambrosius seems able to receive the pension assigned by the Government, by title of compensation by reason of damage on account of the abolition of tithes made by that Government. Likewise Ambrosius seems able still to receive the tithes voluntarily offered to him by good parishioners who still wish to fulfill this obligation. For on account of the abolition of tithes they are not exempted from the obligation of paying tithes; nor consequently does the pastor lose the right of receiving them, if they are offered. This is confirmed from Resp. S. Poenit. 1860: “They can, according to the oracle of the Most Holy Lord, by title of mere compensation for damage inflicted on them by the Government on account of the impeded exaction of tithes, receive the pensions assigned by the Government; first having been made, either by the Ordinary of the place in common, or by any one of the said pastors or ecclesiastics in particular, a protestation that by a perception of this sort the abolition of tithes made by the Government is in no way recognized or approved; and the debtors of the same tithes having been cautiously admonished that they are not, by force of the law passed by the Government, freed from the burden of paying the same.” Scav. l. 4. n. 237; I. M. 1548.

2. A certain bishop, in order to foster the devotion and piety of his people, in the visitation of the diocese constituted in individual cities and towns a feast day to be celebrated in honor of the Saint, Patron of the place. But he established two feast days to be celebrated in the whole diocese, namely in honor of the Saint, Patron of the whole diocese, and in honor of the Saint, titular of the Cathedral Church.

Q. What as to the Case?

R. Bishops can institute some feast in honor of Saints, not Blesseds, at least with the consent of clergy and people, which is judged sufficiently present if they do not contradict, from C. Conquestus 5. de Feriis. Nevertheless Urban VIII, C. Universa, 15 Sept. 1641, admonishes bishops not to be easily induced to instituting new feasts, but that they should strive to abstain. Lig. l. 3. n. 266. Moreover by the aforesaid [Constitution] of Bl. Urban VIII it is conceded that the feast be celebrated “of one of the more principal Patrons in any Kingdom or Province, and likewise of another more principal one in any city, town, or village, where it happens that these Patrons are had and venerated.” Enchir. Mor. 1551. But today it is not lawful to choose Patrons except Saints, not Blesseds, and except with the consent of the people and clergy and bishop, and except the cause be brought forward and examined in the S. R. C. Therefore it will be lawful for the bishop, with the consent of clergy and people, to add the feast of the Patron, not of the Titular, or of one of the principal Patrons, both of the diocese and of each place. S. R. C. 23 Jun. 1703, Concordiae; Ferraris v. Festa n. 2 seqq., 141; I. M. 1550.