Title XIII: On Whether the Property of a Church May Be Alienated

Latin source headnote: A prelate cannot give the property of one church to another, nor exchange their properties with one another, without the consent of both.

From the Fourth Council of Lyon.

It is not lawful for a bishop or abbot to transfer the land of one church to another, although both are in his power; nevertheless, if he wishes to exchange their lands, let him do so with the consent of both parties.

Latin source headnote: Secular princes cannot donate the property of a church, and those who receive it from them are excommunicated and lose everything that they otherwise lawfully held from the church. This it says according to one understanding, which is sufficiently pleasing.

From the same.

Those who seek the property of a church from kings and, by the impulse of dreadful cupidity, seize the substance of the needy, let the things they obtain be held invalid, and let them be excluded from the communion of the church whose resources they desire to take away.

Latin source headnote: A rector of a church who gives the church property of twice the value can manumit slaves of the church; nevertheless, the person manumitted and his descendants will be under the patronage of the church. It is commonly summarized thus, although Panormitanus does not approve what is said concerning the valuation.

From the Council of Toledo.

The consent of the whole council determined that priests who either leave something to their church or, having nothing, nevertheless acquire certain estates or households for their churches may manumit some persons from the household of that church according to the measure of the property conferred, as the ancient canons decreed, in such a way that, with their peculium and posterity, they remain freeborn under the patronage of the church, pursuing the services enjoined upon them according to their ability.

Latin source headnote: If a prelate, giving nothing of his own to the church, manumits a slave of the church, the manumission is not valid.

From the same.

Let bishops who contribute nothing of their own to the church of Christ [fear this divine sentence and] not presume, to their own condemnation, to make free persons from the servants of the church. For it is impious that one who has not brought his own property to the church of Christ should inflict loss and intend to alienate the right of the church. Therefore, without any opposition, a successor bishop shall recall such free persons to the right of the church, [because not equity but wickedness absolved them.]

Latin source headnote: The property of a church ought not to be alienated.

From the Council at Senlis.

Let no one be permitted to alienate immovable property of his church, whether a house or a field, a garden or a rural slave [or civic loaves,] or to obligate it to creditors by title of a special hypothec. The word “alienation” includes a conditional grant, donation, sale, exchange, and a perpetual contract of emphyteusis. Hence let all priests [altogether] abstain from alienation of this kind, fearing the penalties that the constitution of Leo threatens.

Latin source headnote: An alienation made concerning the property of a church is not valid, and the alienators, unless they restore the property, are excommunicated; any cleric can contradict and reclaim the property with its fruits. This it says, and the text is notable and is alleged daily.

Pope Symmachus.

If any of the priests, deacons, or defenders has subscribed to one alienating an estate of the church, let him be struck by the anathema by which an angered God strikes souls, the punishment that we premised against the alienator being preserved, unless perhaps both the alienator, while he reclaims it, and the person who received it provide for themselves by swift restitution. But if, with less care for their soul, they perhaps neglect the offered remedy, in addition to the penalty prescribed concerning this, let the instrument drawn up therefrom be emptied of force, although from the beginning it had none. But it is also lawful for any ecclesiastical persons to offer the voice of contradiction, and for them to be supported by ecclesiastical authority so that they can reclaim alienated things with their fruits. But we wish the law of this constitution to be observed only in the Apostolic See, with the custom preserved in all churches throughout the provinces that their rectors see to accord with their profession of religion.

Latin source headnote: Unfertile land of a church can be given in emphyteusis to one by whose effort it may be reduced to cultivation.

Alexander III, to the Bishop of Worcester.

To the ears (And below:) But those lands that, cleared from woods, have been made arable, you will be able to grant under hereditary right, to be held under an annual payment, to those by whose labor, or that of their parents, it is established that those lands were cleared, unless perhaps they can then be conferred upon others with the same labor and burden for the greater utility of your church.

Latin source headnote: One swearing not to alienate the goods of the church cannot alienate those that are of the table, or those concerning which it is doubted whether they are of the table. This it says, as far as § Possessions. The Abbot.—(Possessions, etc.:) A bishop can, with the consent of the chapter, exchange or alienate possessions of the church that are less useful for more useful ones. This it says.

Celestine III, to the Archbishop of Ravenna.

So that the doubt of a proposed question may be untied by the providence of the Apostolic See, the Roman Church, over which although unworthy we preside, has been accustomed to answer the consultations of individuals. Indeed, you asked us whether the possessions or revenues of royal tithes, and those proceeding from other certain places, which your predecessor of good memory, until he closed his last day, held in his hands and took or expended for his own use, and did not enfeoff to others, are to be understood as belonging to his archiepiscopal table; and whether any contract of alienation can intervene concerning them when by the oath of fidelity you are bound to alienate nothing from the Apostolic See. Therefore, by the present page, we answer your inquiry in this manner: whether they are understood to be of the table or not, we consider it more prudent that they not be alienated. But we grant you free faculty to alienate or exchange possessions that are less useful to your church for other more useful ones, with the counsel and assent of your brothers and of the sounder part of the chapter. [You asked, etc. (cf. c. 1, On the Use and Authority of the Pallium, I. 8.) Given at the Lateran, in the third year. 1193.]

Latin source headnote: A canon cannot lease an estate of the church in perpetuity.

The same, to the Bishop of Exeter.

Know that it has come to our hearing that certain canons of the church of Exeter, without consulting the other brothers, leased in perpetuity certain estates of that church, to its harm and their detriment, after receiving money therefrom. Therefore, by apostolic writings we command your fraternity that, if what is asserted is true, you take care lawfully to revoke those leases, in such a way indeed that, if those estates cannot otherwise be recalled, you compel, appeal being removed, those whom you know to be the authors of these leases to refund to the lessees the money received therefrom, lest, if leases of this kind happen to persist in their stability, grave disadvantage could thereby come to that church.

Latin source headnote: Possessions that are of the table cannot be alienated. And churches accustomed to be governed by regulars ought not to be conferred upon secular clerics. This it says. John of Imola.

Innocent III, to the Archbishop of Monreale.

You ought not to alienate possessions pertaining to your table or that of the chapter, or assign to clerics or lay persons churches in which monks have been accustomed to minister. Therefore, by authority of the present letters, we forbid your fraternity to grant to anyone seeking them possessions, villages, or churches that have not been accustomed to be assigned as benefices. Rather, you are not to delay, appeal being set aside, to recall to their former uses the Church of Saint Clement of Messina, which you are said to have conferred upon Gerard the Teuton; likewise the Church of the Holy Sepulcher of Messina, which you are said to have conferred upon Falcon the canon; and the benefice that you are said to have conferred upon Thomas, son of I. Ferrarius, to the grave prejudice of your church. [Given at Rome at Saint Peter's, on the eleventh day before the Kalends of June, in the first year of our pontificate. 1198.]

Latin source headnote: A church is restored against an alienation through which it was enormously injured. This it says according to the truer reading.

The same, to the Bishop of Moriana and the Provost of Ulcinj.

Know that it has come to our hearing that, when the monastery of Tusia was oppressed by the greatest burden of debts, our beloved sons its abbot and convent, compelled by necessity, granted a certain village in fief to the layman B., with this condition added: that the same layman should pay eighty pounds for which the same village had been obligated, which he did not delay to carry into effect. Hence, because the aforesaid monastery, as they say, was enormously injured in this, in that from the revenues of the aforesaid village the convent was accustomed to receive one course on individual days, and fish or another equivalent on feasts of twelve lessons, they humbly supplicated us that we cause the aforesaid fief to be recalled for the utility of the monastery, especially since in the first year the same layman received from its proceeds beyond the aforesaid sum, and for many years afterward took its fruits. Therefore, wishing so to provide for the burdens of the aforesaid monastery that we do not appear to inflict injury upon others, by apostolic writings we command your discretion that, after more fully inquiring into the truth, if you find that the aforesaid monastery incurred enormous loss on this account, you compel the often-mentioned layman, after previous admonition, by ecclesiastical censure, appeal being set aside, to leave the aforesaid fief free and quiet to that monastery, once the money that he is known to have expended for discharging the aforesaid fief or even for the utility of that monastery has been received from the same abbot and convent, since the fruits received until now ought to suffice him for his labor. [No letters, etc. Given at the Lateran, on the fourth day before the Kalends of April, in the ninth year. 1206.]

Latin source headnote: An alienation of ecclesiastical property made without the lawful assent of ecclesiastical persons is not valid, although approved by a constitution of laymen.

The same, in the General Council.

Since no power of disposing of the property of a church is attributed to laymen, however religious, whom the necessity of obeying awaits, not the authority of commanding, we grieve that in certain of them charity grows so cold that they do not fear to attack by their constitutions—or rather, destitutions—the immunity of ecclesiastical liberty that not only the holy Fathers but also secular princes fortified with many privileges, unlawfully presuming not only concerning alienation of fiefs and other possessions of churches and usurpation of jurisdictions, but also concerning mortuaries and other things that appear annexed to spiritual right. Wishing therefore concerning these matters to consult the indemnity of churches and provide against such great burdens, with the approval of the sacred council we decree that constitutions and sales of this kind, concerning fiefs or other ecclesiastical goods presumed without the lawful assent of ecclesiastical persons on occasion of a constitution of lay power—which can be called not a constitution but a destitution or destruction—and also usurpation of jurisdictions, are not valid, with the presumers to be compelled by ecclesiastical censure.