Title XXIV: On Donations

Latin source headnote: It can be understood in two ways, and according to the first understanding this it says: One who is liberal in giving considers himself to owe what he gives. Or thus, according to the other understanding: Those promising to give something are bound to fulfill it as a debt.

Gregory the Great, to the Patrician of the Gauls.

For prudent [men such as you to adhere to kings is the consolation of many. For while they understand that a more excellent place has been given to them for the utility of the soul, it is certain that, where they find a cause of reward, they do not set it aside. With how much affection and how great devotion your glory has expended itself in the causes of the poor through zeal for piety, we learned from the report of our dearest son Candidus the priest. But because] nobility in a certain manner imposes this law upon itself, that it considers itself to owe what it voluntarily bestows and, unless it has increased in its benefices, thinks that it has furnished nothing, [saluting your glory with paternal love, we confidently commend to you the aforesaid priest and the patrimony of our church, so that, fortified by the aid of your favor, he may sustain no troubles or burdens. If therefore care for good endeavor advances in you, so that with your assistance the utilities of the poor are nourished and we perceive what we presume concerning your charity, increase the safeguards of your favor, because] in the minds of nobles a good is seen as half-complete when it is left without addition.

Latin source headnote: A donation made by a prelate without consulting the chapter and to the harm of the church is not valid.

Alexander III, to the Bishop of Paris.

We believe it is not hidden from your fraternity that, since a bishop and every other ecclesiastical prelate is a proctor, not owner, of ecclesiastical property, he can improve the condition of the church but ought not to make it worse. But we have received that P. of good memory, your predecessor, at the insistence of certain persons made grave donations burdensome to the church from the property of the bishopric, to the detriment of the church, without consulting his Catholic canons. Hence, because donations of this kind are not valid by law, by apostolic authority we grant you that it be lawful for you lawfully to revoke donations of this kind from both clerics and laymen.

Latin source headnote: In considering whether a donation made by a prelate is valid, the quantity of the thing donated and the custom of the place ought to be attended. This it says by adhering to the letter.

The same, to the Bishop of Worcester.

Moreover, if it should happen that an abbot of your diocese makes a donation with the prior and certain members of his convent, or the abbot alone makes one, and afterward a part of the convent protests, the quantity of the thing given and the custom of that land—which nevertheless does not manifestly oppose the sacred canons—are to be attended more diligently, and according to this the gift is to be adjudged valid or invalid. But when to someone, etc. (cf. c. 4, On Conditions Apposed, IV. 5.)

Latin source headnote: A church not vacant cannot be granted as a benefice, but it can be granted in ownership, yet by authority of the bishop and without prejudice to the prelate.

The same, to the Abbot of Saint Albert.

To consultations (And below:) Furthermore, if any cleric has been instituted in some church by the ordinary judge upon presentation of one who was believed to be patron of that church, and afterward another has evicted the right of patronage in judgment, the cleric who was instituted ought not on this account to be removed from the church itself if, at the time of his presentation, the one who presented him possessed the right of patronage of the church. But if he did not possess the right of patronage but was only believed to be patron when he was not and did not have possession of the patronage, according to English custom he will be able to be removed from that church. But donations or grants of churches, if any are made to private persons while those who possess the churches themselves are living, ought to be of no moment. If they are made to religious places by the bishop or by his authority, they ought to be held valid, in such a way indeed that the persons who possess the aforesaid churches ought not to be despoiled of them during their life without their assent.

Latin source headnote: Notwithstanding an oath not to enfeoff anew, a prelate can complete a fief if it appears that the vassal was deceived in the measure.

Innocent III, to the Bishop of Florence.

By your letters you took care to propose to us that, when certain noble Florentines, powerful, ready for service, and devoted, during the time of schism kept J., Bishop of Florence of good memory, in their house against the attacks of the emperor and his supporters, that bishop, after the storm of schism was quieted, at the mandate of Pope Alexander of happy memory, our predecessor, granted them four modii of land in fief; and, after he afterward entered upon the way of all flesh, B. of good memory, his successor, invested the aforesaid nobles with the certain fief, as is customary. But when they caused the land assigned to them to be measured, they found only two modii, and insistently petitioned that the fief be completed. Concerning this you doubt, because they are not in possession of it, lest you appear to confer it anew, although they took care to exhibit fidelity to you and were invested with four modii; before you determined to assent to their petition, you thought that the Apostolic See should be consulted. We therefore, attending that the church ought not to employ any fraud in its acts, answer your fraternity in this manner: you will safely be able to complete the fief for those nobles, since that land was assigned to them under the name of four modii, and the aforesaid bishop promised that he would give four. [Given at Rome at Saint Peter's, on the second day before the Ides of December. 1205.]

Latin source headnote: In donations the fullest interpretation is made, and on this account a burdensome clause apposed after many donations regards only the nearest donation. This it says, and it is a singular case.

The same, to R. de Burg. and G. Berbur., Abbots.

When our beloved sons the abbot and monks of Melrose proposed before us that the noble man Alan wished violently to reduce into forest certain lands assigned in alms to their church of Machelin by William, formerly his father, we recall that we commanded you to compel that A. by ecclesiastical censure, appeal being set aside, to desist from undue molestation of them concerning those lands. But, in order that you might fulfill the apostolic mandate concerning that cause, proceeding more diligently in the cause, when the parties were constituted in your presence, you received witnesses on either side and, after lengthy disputes and debates had been held in the cause itself concerning their attestations and also the instruments, you proceeded as far as the pronouncement of sentence, [and,] remitting the cause itself sufficiently instructed to our hearing, [you assigned to the parties as a term the octaves of Saint Andrew most recently past. Therefore, when the party of the abbot and monks came at that term, finally, because the opposing party, though awaited for a long time, did not come, we had diligent deliberation with our brothers concerning the aforesaid instruments, the depositions of witnesses, and the allegations of each party; and, after the truth had been more diligently inquired into and discussed, we clearly recognized that sentence concerning that cause was to be given for the aforesaid monastery.] But so that through your diligence an end may be imposed upon the same cause, we remit to you, enclosed under our bull, the tenor of the instruments, the depositions of the witnesses, and also the allegations, as we had received them, marked with the protection of your seals; by apostolic writings we command you—we command that, supported by our authority, you proceed, appeal being set aside, to issue sentence for that monastery, compelling contradictors by ecclesiastical censure and causing what you adjudge to be firmly observed by our authority, since from the tenor of the instrument it clearly appears that this was the mind and intention of the donor: that the clause concerning the forest placed at the end of the instrument ought, according to a sound understanding, to be referred not to the earlier donation, which was so free and pure as to be immune from secular vexation and custom, but to the later grant, which has a pension and delimitation inserted; because in contracts a full, in testaments a fuller, and in benefices the fullest interpretation is to be employed. [But if not all, etc. Given at Anagni, on the second day before the Nones of March. 1204.]

Latin source headnote: If a bishop receives certain proceeds in a church that he granted to a pious place with the consent of the chapter, he is seen to have donated those; otherwise, all proceeds apart from the cathedraticum fall to the pious place. And if the bishop granted it with the consent of the patron, the patron is understood to have donated the right of patronage.

The same, to the Bishop of Ely.

Of the pastoral office (And below: [cf. c. 28, On the Office of a Delegated Judge, I. 29.]) Your discretion further led you to consult us whether, if a bishop, with the patron consenting, grants some church to religious men using this simplicity of words, “We grant you that church,” by that very fact that church is seen to have been granted to their uses, or only the right of patronage. But we thought that we should answer your inquiry in this manner: if the bishop confers the church upon them with the consent of the patron, assuredly the patron is seen to confer what is his, namely, the right of patronage; and the bishop confers that which he himself temporally obtains in it, so that, if he receives some portion of the fruits of that church, that portion is converted to their uses. But if the bishop ought to have no portion of its proceeds, we believe all the proceeds apart from the cathedraticum are to be converted to their uses; but, for the bishop's donation to be lawful, the consent of his chapter is to be sought. [To explain, etc. (cf. c. 28, On Tithes, III. 30.) Given at Rome at Saint Peter's, on the fourteenth day before the Kalends of January. 1204.]

Latin source headnote: Hospitallers can, to their own prejudice, subject and donate themselves and their house to another religious house. This it says according to the understanding of the gloss.

The same, to the Bishops of Florence and Fiesole.

When a question arose concerning the same hospital between our beloved sons, the Hospitallers of the Holy Sepulcher of Pisa of the Hospital of Jerusalem on the one side, and the brothers of the Hospital of Saint Allucius of the diocese of Lucca on the other, after those Hospitallers had received an adverse sentence in the possessory action that they attempted once and a second time, although for dissimilar causes, then, recurring to the petitory action, through their proctor before our beloved son Andrew, our subdeacon and chaplain, whom we appointed as auditor for him and the proctor of the other party, they took care to propose that, when G., formerly rector, and the brothers and patrons of that Hospital of Saint Allucius, having held a common deliberation, decided to subject the hospital itself to the aforesaid Hospitallers, they committed their functions in this to three proctors, establishing in common that they would accept what was done concerning this through them. These, afterward approaching the aforesaid Hospitallers, established with them that some persons should be sent to that hospital who would receive assignment of it in their name. And when they sent two of their brothers there for this purpose, they, in the chamber of the aforesaid rector, received the donation and assignment of the aforesaid hospital both from the aforesaid master and from the aforesaid proctors and other brothers of that house. (And below:) But the proctor of the other party answered in opposition that the aforesaid donation deserved to be retracted because it had been celebrated by the aforesaid rector and the fewer brothers, without consulting many of the brothers, who were moreover excommunicated and perjured, and concerning a thing in litigation and in fraud of the parish priest of Pescia, who had moved a question concerning that hospital. And he alleged that all these things were sufficiently proved by the depositions of the witnesses produced. But when the other party answered manifoldly to these things, it was disputed on either side for some time. Therefore, having understood these and the other things that the parties took care to propose before the aforesaid chaplain, and having diligently inspected their attestations, attending that the brothers and patrons of Saint Allucius alleged for themselves—or rather against themselves—their own turpitude, namely, perjury, excommunication, and fraud committed not indeed against them but by them; and understanding that the donation made by them to the aforesaid Hospitallers was pure and simple, because laws assist not deceivers but the deceived, whence through the things proposed above they could not lawfully defend themselves against their own act; and since certain of those things were not proved, by the counsel of our brothers we took care to adjudge the aforesaid Hospital of Saint Allucius, with its appurtenances, to the Hospitallers of the Holy Sepulcher, in such a way that through this sentence of our determination no prejudice is generated against the diocesan bishop and the parish priest of Pescia, since a thing transacted between some ought not to generate prejudice against others.

Latin source headnote: A donation of a fiftieth or hundredth part that a bishop makes with grave detriment to his church can lawfully be revoked; nor can he confer beyond a fiftieth or hundredth part without authority of the superior, even when injury to the church is absent.

The same, to the Bishop of Saint Andrews.

The oracle of the Apostolic See (And below:) [Moreover,] since it often happens that bishops successively confer upon religious places from revenues pertaining to them beyond a fiftieth portion, in such a way that sometimes revenues of this kind are diminished to a third or fourth part, and sometimes more or less, your fraternity consulted us whether it is in any way lawful for their successors to revoke the things that have thus been granted beyond the fiftieth portion. We therefore answer your inquiry in this manner: although it is determined in the canon that, if any bishop should perhaps wish to construct a monastery in his parish and endow it from the property of the church over which he presides, he ought to bestow there no more than a fiftieth part; but upon a church that he wishes to form under monastic rules or magnify for his own burials, no more than a hundredth part of the revenue of the church over which he presides; nevertheless, because it is consequently added in the same canon that this equity of moderation is to be observed—that he confer a suitable subsidy upon the one to whom he gives, and not inflict grave harms upon the one from whom he takes—with this caution observed, that he assume only one of these two rewards, whichever he pleases, this is always to be observed: one bishop or another ought not only not to confer more, but neither so much nor less, with grave detriment to his church, whether he wishes to do it together and once, or repeatedly by conferring successively upon the same or diverse churches. Hence, when it is established that grave detriment was conferred in any portion whatsoever, whether from possessions or proceeds pertaining to the episcopal table or cathedral church, it can lawfully be revoked unless an action of this kind is excluded by prescription or another lawful exception. For even if at first sight it is presumed that collation of a fiftieth or hundredth part does not inflict grave detriment, nevertheless, because not only if this is done often but even if it is done once, from various circumstances it can sometimes be apprehended to be very harmful—which indeed can be known more from demonstration of the fact than from expression of any statute—neither a fiftieth nor a hundredth part ought to be conferred, once or successively, with grave harm to the church. But if the bishop abounds to such an extent that without harm to his church he can assist the necessity of another church by even more than a fiftieth or hundredth part, although by himself he ought not to exceed the limit predefined by the canon, by which those wishing incautiously to give lavishly were restrained, nevertheless, by authority of the superior pontiff provision can be made for another's poverty in an even greater sum [from his abundance.] [Given at the Lateran, on the eighth day before the Ides of April, in the tenth year. 1207.]

Latin source headnote: A donation can be revoked by the donor, but not by his heir who remained silent, on account of the ingratitude of the donee in the cases expressed here.

Gregory IX.

On account of the ingratitude of the person upon whom liberality was conferred, the person of the donor could by rigor of law revoke it if perhaps he laid impious hands upon him, presumed to inflict upon him atrocious injuries, grave damage to his property, or danger to his life; this nevertheless is not extended to the successors of the donor who remained silent concerning it.