Case I: On Deprivation of the Title of Ordination and the Support of Erring Priests

The Vicar-General of Gran, by order of the Most Eminent Archbishop of that archdiocese, made the following exposition to the S. Congregation of the Council:

"The priests in the dioceses of Hungary are ordained to the title of their respective dioceses, owing to the fact that the titles enumerated in Canon Law cannot be employed in Hungary. The Most Eminent Archbishop of Gran applied for approbation for this title, but it was not granted, and instead he obtained faculty for dispensing for five years from the legitimate canonical titles so as to enable him to ordain the priests of the Archdiocese of Gran for the title of this archdiocese. The title of the diocese, according to the interpretation prevailing in Hungary, confers on the priests ordained with it the right to a pension or to support from the diocese in case of incapacity for the exercise of pastoral offices. For this object the dioceses of Hungary possess special foundations and institutes. The incardination of priests of another diocese gives the same right as the diocesan title to support from the diocese.

"Now this diocesan title gives rise to a question of great importance with regard to the discipline of the clergy, viz., as to whether priests who have been excommunicated and convicted of atrocious crimes by due process of law can, through the penalty of deposition from the diocesan title, as now used by dispensation in the Archdiocese of Gran, be deprived as absolutely as those who have been deprived, as a punishment, of the canonical title of a benefice. For it is to be feared that unhappy priests of this kind, after living a merely civil life and often in distant countries, might, when broken down in health and reduced to misery, allege the diocesan title to claim support from the archdiocese, if they cannot be entirely deprived of the diocesan title. And this would assuredly be no small incentive to bad priests to plunge into a dissolute life."

The ordinary, therefore, concludes by begging the S. Congregation "to be kind enough to solve this question, and enlighten me with regard to the application of the penalty of deprivation of the title."

Synopsis of the Question.—Total deposition (for there is also partial deposition), also known as simple and absolute, which is under discussion here, perpetually deprives the cleric, upon whom it is inflicted as a punishment, of his order (though not, of course, of the character) and of all ecclesiastical offices and benefices (Schmalz, V, tit. XXXVII, no. 135; Reiff. V, eod. t., no. 33; Bened. XIV, de Syn., 1. IX, c. VI, no. 3). From this general deprivation of offices and benefices is not excluded the benefice which a deposed cleric has acquired by the title of his ordination. For the law makes no such exception and "where law does not distinguish neither must we distinguish" (/. 9 in fin. de juris et fact, ignor.; c. 6, and pen. de majorit.). This is all the more evident from the fact that deprivation of such a benefice can be inflicted for crimes less grave than those for which total deposition is inflicted. On this point, see Monacelli, tit. XIII, form. 3, no. 22: "Clerics ordained to the title of a benefice, if they commit crime, or do not observe the law of residence, or otherwise act wrongly, may servatis servandis, be deprived of their benefices, notwithstanding that they have been ordained to the title of these benefices, or that this title has been used instead of that of patrimony, as has frequently been declared by the S. Congregation of the Council, and especially in Firmana of May 18, 1665 (lib. 24 decret., page 496); Romana of March 18, 1684 (lib. 34 decret., page 70), and Vercell. (of Dec. 15, 1690). And with Monacelli agree Lucidi, de Visit., c. III, Sec. 12 and Wernz, Jus Decret., tom. II, p. 136.

Now as the title of the diocese, which is used in Hungary by indult of the Holy See, takes the place of the title of benefice which, according to Trent sess. 21, Ch. 2, de reform., is a true and principal title of ordination, and as said title is purely ecclesiastical, I have no doubt but that the title of diocese is, like the title of benefice, lost by the punishment of deposition.

But it is an established principle of law that deposition does not deprive of the privileges fori et canonis, and that the deposed cleric remains in the clerical state. "Hence," as Layman says, lib. I, trac. V, p. III, c. V, no. 2, "the Church is bound to support a deposed cleric and one suspended from his benefice [Layman is speaking here of a cleric suspended ad modum poenae vindicativae and not ad modum censurae] lest to the shame of the clergy he be compelled to beg." The same teaching is given by Abb., c. pastoralis, Sec. verum, no. 16, de appellat., Avila, p. 4, dub. I, conclus. 3, and Suarez, who also explains how it is that, as concerns the right to support, the position of a deposed cleric is better than that of a cleric suspended per censurem from his benefice: "The doctors," he says, "make this distinction, between the cleric absolutely deposed or suspended from his benefice on account of crime, and the one who is under censure on account of contumacy, that the former must in case of indigence be supported from the fruits of the benefice (erg. ex c. Studeant, distinct. 50) lest he be compelled to beg, since it is not in his power to hold a benefice or the right to ecclesiastical revenues; while in the case of one thus punished on account of present contumacy the Church is not bound to support him out of its property, even if he be in indigence and compelled to beg, for he deserves all this by reason of his contumacy, and the disgrace resulting from it falls on his own person rather than on the clergy; and all this is permitted for the greater good of the Church, viz., the correction of contumacy" (Suarez, de cens., disp. 13, sect. 2, n. 14).

Hence, in the present case the deposed cleric on the one hand is deprived of the title of diocese with which he was promoted to orders, but on the other hand the diocese is bound to support him, if he is in indigence, lest he inflict disgrace on his state by being compelled to beg; just as a cleric ordained to the title of a benefice who, by incurring the penalty of deposition, loses his benefice, but who, for the reason already given, must be supplied with the necessities of life from the revenues of the benefice or otherwise from the property of the Church.

It might be objected that it is useless to deprive a deposed cleric of the title of diocese, with its right to support, if the diocese is afterward obliged to support him by reason of the clerical state which he still retains. For thus the same thing is both taken away and given to him.

But this is not correct. For the maintenance due to a cleric from the title of ordination (in the present case from the title of diocese) is more considerable, both by reason of the specific obligation and of the dignity and quantity, than the support given to a cleric, deposed for crime and reduced to misery, as a kind of alms, on the ground that he has not yet been expelled from the clergy.

But what if a cleric, unchastened by his deposition, continues in the slough of offense? Is he to be perpetually supported from the property of the Church?

The canons in this case decree that a deposed cleric "if he has been incorrigible is to be excommunicated; then, his contumacy increasing, he is to be anathematized, and if after this he is still in contempt and reaches the extreme stage of evil, as the Church can do nothing more with him, he is to be punished by the secular arm" (C. 10 De Judiciis); in other words, if the deposition has proved of no avail, the process of actual degradation can be resorted to, which, among other effects, imports that the cleric is deprived of the privilege fori et canonis, ejected from the clerical state, and deprived of all ecclesiastical provision (Schmalz., V, XXXVI, n. 139; Reiff. eod. lib. et tit., n. 32; S. Alphon. VII, c. III, n. 324, and other Doctors passim), including certainly support in case of destitution.

But as it is not always expedient, especially in our times, to degrade a deposed cleric, in these cases there is nothing to hinder a bishop from depriving such a cleric of all ecclesiastical subsidy by the passing of a second sentence, even in contumacy, as is taught by Layman, and Abbate in the passages cited, and by Suarez in disp. 27, n. 5; the same thing is evident from the rules of law: "The greater always contains the less," and "there is no doubt but that the part is contained in the whole" (De reg. jur. in 6 reg. 35.8o).

For since a bishop can deprive a cleric cumulatively of a number of things by degradation, why cannot he deprive him of a part of them only when there is a sufficient cause?

Besides, if the deposed cleric is also excommunicated (as seems to be the case with the priests concerned in the present question) he loses ipso facto all ecclesiastical aids by reason of the censure, as long as he perseveres in his contumacy, according to the opinion of Suarez, with others (see S. Alph., lib. III, n. 670), based on the argument from c. Pastoralis, and verum, de Appellat., which says: “Ecclesiastical revenues are justly withdrawn from him to whom the communion of the Church is denied,” or such a one may justly be deprived of them by judicial sentence, according to the more common opinion (Schmalz., V, 39, 158; D’Annibale, I, and 365, n. 33).

After this, that the proposed question may be rightly solved, it is asked: Whether priests, who have been excommunicated and found guilty of atrocious crimes by due process of law, can, by the penalty of deposition from the title of diocese, as this is at present used by apostolic dispensation in the Archdiocese of Gran, be as absolutely deprived as those who are deprived by the penalty of deposition from the canonical title of benefice?

The Most Eminent Fathers of the Congregation of the Council, in the general meeting held on June 11, 1910, decided to answer the proposed question: In the affirmative, saving, however, the dispositions of the law with regard to support for those who are really indigent.

Our Most Holy Father Pope Pius X. in an audience granted on the 12th of the same month of June to the undersigned secretary, was pleased to approve and confirm the sentence of the Most Eminent Fathers.

C. Card. Gennari, Prefect. Basilius Pompili, Secretary.