Chapter VI — On the plurality of benefices

I. Trent, session 24, chapter 17 On Reformation, establishes these things: But that those who at present hold several parochial churches, or one cathedral and another parochial, be altogether compelled — any dispensations and unions for life notwithstanding — one parochial only, or the cathedral alone, being retained, to dismiss the other parochial ones within the space of six months: otherwise let both the parochial ones and all the benefices which they hold be reckoned vacant by the law itself; nor let those obtaining them before retain the fruits with a safe conscience after the said time.

II. He therefore who has several benefices which cannot be administered together is bound within two months to renounce the benefices which he cannot administer with the first obtained. Trent adds there at the beginning: Since the ecclesiastical order is perverted when one man occupies the offices of several clerics, it was provided by the holy canons that no one ought to be enrolled in two churches. But because many, by an affection of wicked cupidity deceiving themselves and not God, are not ashamed to elude by various arts the things which have been well constituted, and to obtain several benefices at once; the holy Synod, desiring to restore the due discipline for governing churches, by the present decree, which it commands to be observed in any persons whatsoever, by whatsoever title, even though they shine with the honour of the cardinalate, establishes that in future one ecclesiastical benefice only be conferred upon individuals. Which indeed, if it do not suffice for honestly sustaining the life of him upon whom it is conferred, let it nevertheless be lawful that another simple benefice sufficient be conferred upon the same, provided that both do not require personal residence. And let these things pertain not only to cathedral Churches, but also to all other benefices, and so forth.

III. No one, even if he be a Cardinal, can by right have several benefices — not indeed simple ones, if one suffice for congruous sustentation; and if they be benefices with the care of souls, not even if one do not suffice, and on that account it is not lawful to possess several. These things are clear and manifest.

IV. SOLE QUESTION. Whether the plurality of benefices is forbidden by natural right, and not only by canon right? ANSWER. Some actions are so forbidden by natural right that in no circumstance can they turn out lawful, as perjury, adultery, fornication, and so forth. Others are indeed forbidden by natural right, as homicide, which is sometimes lawful by public authority. In this second kind St. Thomas places, Quodlibet 9, article 15, the having of several prebends. But there are certain actions which absolutely import a certain deformity or inordination, which nevertheless are made good by certain circumstances supervening; just as to kill a man, or to strike him, imports in itself a certain deformity; but if it be added, to kill a malefactor on account of justice, or to strike a delinquent for the sake of discipline, it will not be a sin but virtuous. In the number of these actions is seen to be the having of several prebends. For although it contain certain inordinations, nevertheless other circumstances can supervene so making the act honourable that the aforesaid inordinations are totally evacuated; as, for instance, if there be need of his service in several Churches, or if he can serve the Church more, or as much absent as another present, and if there be other things of this kind. And then, these conditions supervening with a right intention, it will not be a sin, even no dispensation intervening, if the natural right alone be considered: because dispensation does not pertain to natural right, but only to positive.

V. A plurality of benefices, says the Angelic, is absolutely forbidden by natural right. Clothed with circumstances of utility and of the necessity of the Church, it can turn out lawful. These circumstances being taken away, no dispensation can make honourable a plurality of benefices, as St. Thomas concludes in the same place. But if the ancient laws have been abrogated through custom, then, the aforesaid circumstances supervening, even without a dispensation it is lawful to have several prebends; without which circumstances it is not lawful, however much a dispensation intervene: because a human dispensation does not take away the bond of natural right, but only the bond of positive right, which is established by man and can be dispensed by man.

VI. They object: A custom obtains, even among upright and well-behaved ecclesiastics, of having several benefices. I answer that, the recounted circumstances being taken away, a plurality of benefices repugns natural right itself, because one man cannot serve several Churches at once, nor feed several distant flocks at once, nor sing at once in several distant choirs. That probity is fictitious and masked which violates natural right.