point — Gury-Ballerini, Compendium of Moral Theology (8th ed., 1884)
Point III. On the Dominion of Clerics
- The goods of Clerics are distinguished as of four kinds, namely: 1. patrimonial, which come from paternal inheritance, or from any other profane cause, for example, from donation, succession, etc.; 2. quasi-patrimonial, which are acquired on occasion and with regard to functions, for example, by celebrating Mass, preaching, etc. They are also called quasi-ecclesiastical, or casual; 3. ecclesiastical, which are received from benefices of the Church, for example, from revenues of benefices, etc.; 4. parcimonial, which a Cleric sets aside by living sparingly from the fruits of a benefice, and which he could consume by living honorably.
- Principles. I. A Cleric has perfect dominion of patrimonial goods. The reason is that a Cleric is per se truly capable of dominion, nor is he prohibited by any law from freely disposing of the aforesaid goods. Indeed that right is supposed in six hundred places of canon and civil law.
II. A Cleric has perfect dominion of quasi-patrimonial goods, or quasi-ecclesiastical, or casual goods. The reason is that these goods are not the fruits of a benefice, nor the price of a sacred office, but as it were a certain stipend for extrinsic labor to which the Cleric is not bound, or also a certain largess bestowed by the faithful for the support of the Cleric. - Thus commonly. - St. Lig., n. 491. - Lugo, d. 4, n. 23, etc. - It is also established from the response of the Sacred Penitentiary given on August 9, 1824, which declared that the offerings of the faithful are not ecclesiastical goods, as will be reported below, n. 563.
III. A Cleric can use the fruits of a benefice for honorable support; but he is bound to spend all superfluity on the poor, or on other pious works. The first reason is that one ministering to the Church can live honorably from the goods of the Church, since benefices were established especially for this end. The second reason is drawn from the precept of the Church, which is evident from innumerable decrees of Councils and of the Sacred Canons. For the Canons of the Church impose this obligation on Clerics, or suppose it to have been imposed, says Benedict XIV, De Syn., l. 7, c. 2, n. 4.
IV. A Cleric enjoys perfect dominion of parcimonial goods, and therefore can dispose of them as a true owner. The reason is that a Cleric has a strict right to honorable support; therefore whatever he takes from this support by living more sparingly belongs to him and remains in his free power, since that right is altogether absolute. - St. Lig., n. 491. - Lessius, c. 4, and others commonly.
- Questions. Q. 1. Whether Clerics badly spending the superfluities of ecclesiastical goods are bound to restitution?
Resp. Probably negatively, because although the precept of the Church is established, nevertheless the obligation from justice is not established. Indeed from the Council of Trent it seems to be gathered that they make the fruits their own, although with the obligation of spending the superfluity in alms or other pious works. For the Council says of non-resident Clerics: "Let them not make the fruits their own." - Lugo. - Billuart. - Lessius. - St. Thomas, etc.
Yet others probably affirm, because Clerics are only administrators and stewards of ecclesiastical goods. Collet. - Laymann. - Antoine. - The first opinion, that is, the negative, says St. Lig. in Retract., q. X, seems no less probable in practice, especially on account of the authority and reason of St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 185, art. 7 1. But as regards the guilt of the violated precept of the Church, for grave matter there is required a much greater quantity than in theft, namely, according to the truer opinion, approximately a twentieth part of the superfluities 2. - St. Lig., n. 491, IV.
1 ** St. Thomas asks (Quodl. 6, art. 12), "Whether clerics sin mortally if they do not bestow in alms those things which are superfluous to them." And (ibid., ad 3) he responds: "In the second things," namely in those goods which are principally attributed to the uses of ministers, such as are the prebends of clerics and other things of this kind, "they do not commit sin except through abuse, as was said concerning patrimonial goods. Hence one is not bound to restitution, but only to doing penance."
And hence it is easily clear in what place they are to be held who, for the contrary opinion, boast of Sacred Scriptures, Sacred Canons, the primitive Church, being fortified by the prescription of fifteen centuries, by the authority of the Holy Fathers and Pontiffs, confirmed by traditions, etc., as may be seen in the compendium of the Salamancans (tr. XI, c. 9, n. 120). For where, I ask, will they find St. Thomas contradicting the Scriptures, Fathers, Decrees of Pontiffs, Sacred Canons, etc.?
They allege also the authority of St. Charles Borromeo in the Synod of Milan. But Benedict XIV, being carried away by the zeal of no party (De Synod., lib. 7, cap. 2, n. 12): "But we," he says, "have found nothing of this kind decided by St. Charles." Then (ibid., n. 14) he says that the method of those is not to be approved who inculcate that this obligation arises from the office of justice in such a way that they wish the question to be held as defined; but he advises that the obligation indeed be inculcated, but that they cease in Synods to ask whence this arises.
2 This norm will be able to have place only when the superfluities so abound that a twentieth part of them much exceeds the common gravity of matter in theft; and here, moreover, that gravity of matter seems to have to be understood not as relative, but as absolute. I said, "much exceeds"; for St. Alphonsus (lib. 5, n. 491, IV) with St. Thomas requires for this a great excess beyond the common gravity.
- Q. 2. What is understood as superfluous per se?
Resp. That is judged superfluous which remains over after honorable support. Moreover the honorable support of a Cleric is that which befits a Cleric by reason of his state, dignity, etc. Wherefore it does not exclude honorable recreations, moderate donations, and other expenses of this kind; but these can be determined by the judgment of a prudent and timorous conscience rather than by a general rule. - Billuart, art. 5.
Q. 3. Whether Clerics can preserve the superfluity for the future?
Resp. Affirmatively, because per se there is no obligation of immediately spending superfluities; indeed they can laudably be preserved for a pious foundation, provided good faith is used and the danger is absent lest afterward they be converted to profane uses. - St. Thom., 2. 2, q. 185, art. 7. - St. Lig., n. 491.
- Q. 4. Whether a Cleric who has from patrimony that by which he may live can support himself from the fruits of a benefice?
Resp. Affirmatively with St. Lig., n. 491. - St. Thom., 2. 2, q. 185, art. 7. - Billuart, diss. 3, art. 5, and others commonly, against a few. The reason is that it is just that he who labors in the Church be supported by the same, and it is entirely per accidens that he is rich or poor. Therefore not by reason of poverty, but of labor, does a Cleric have a right to support. Hence a Cleric can spare his patrimony, while he uses the fruits of the benefice for support befitting his dignity. It is also established from the words of the Apostle, I Cor. 9: "Who ever serves as a soldier at his own wages?... Do you not know that they who work in the Sanctuary eat the things that are of the Sanctuary; and they who serve the Altar participate with the Altar?"
Q. 5. Whether pensioners also ought to spend the superfluity on the poor?
Resp. Negatively, because the Supreme Pontiff, by drawing pensions from the fruits of a benefice for a just cause, already applies those same fruits to pious uses; hence those fruits do not carry with them the obligation of another application. - Lugo, d. 4, n. 32. - St. Lig., n. 491.
- Q. 6. Whether the pension which in France is paid to Priests by the Government has the character of an ecclesiastical good 3?
3 It is best done that theories of this kind are set forth in this and the following question; nevertheless, only for merely theoretical regions, namely for sterile erudition, do these things serve. For in practice, since that which those atheist governments give especially to priests of the Catholic Religion is so slender and utterly miserable - for a government truly is atheist which holds in the same place both religion and any superstitions whatever - the question concerning revenues superfluous to suitable support is altogether idle.
Resp. Affirmatively, because from the Concordat of the year 1801, the aforesaid pension seems to have been established in compensation for ecclesiastical goods which were snatched away during the French upheaval. Therefore it has the same nature as the goods for which it is substituted. This is also established from these responses of the Sacred Penitentiary.
"1. Whether the salaries which in Belgium are paid by the Government to Pastors and Canons take on the character of benefices or ecclesiastical goods, and have attached the obligation inherent in these goods, namely the strict and canonical obligation of spending superfluities on the poor or on pious causes, and of residence under the penalty of not making the fruits their own?
"The Sacred Penitentiary, the matters set forth having been weighed, responded: That already at other times it had been answered affirmatively by the Holy See, by the counsel of the secret Congregation.
"Given at Rome, on January 19, 1819.
"2. The Sacred Penitentiary, consulted whether that response ought to be applied to salaries which are paid by the Government to Pastors and Canons of the kingdom of the Gauls, judged that it should be answered: Affirmatively.
"Given at Rome, in the Sacred Penitentiary, on August 19, 1821.
"3. Whether the response for Belgium of January 19 ought to be applied only to fixed salaries of 1,000 livres for Parish Priests and 750 livres for Assistants, or ought to be extended to the offerings of the faithful?
"The Sacred Penitentiary, concerning the matters newly set forth, judged that it should be answered: Affirmatively as to the first part, negatively as to the second."
- Q. 7. Whether supplements also are to be reckoned ecclesiastical goods, which in France are bestowed on Priests by parishes or municipalities?
Resp. It seems that one must affirm with Carrière, n. 193, and others more commonly. The reason is that these also must be judged as coming from the general administration of the Government, and therefore by force of the Concordat between the Pope and the Government. For they are not bestowed except from a general decree of the Government (art. org. 67) and from its consent; therefore they are judged to have been constituted by the Government itself, and are as it were part of the endowment which it promised. - The same must be said a fortiori of pensions which are bestowed by the Government on Canons.
Yet it must be said altogether otherwise concerning supplements, or concerning a pension, which is bestowed on some Cleric from the free and private offerings of the faithful. For then they do not come from the public authority, and therefore are not constituted in place of ecclesiastical goods. - Nor are there to be counted among ecclesiastical goods pensions which are bestowed by the Government on aged Priests, or on Religious formerly expelled from a monastery; for they are aids or a certain compensation, to be altogether equated with patrimonial goods.
- Resolutions. 1. Distributions which are accustomed to be made for assistance in choir are to be numbered among quasi-patrimonial goods; because although those distributions are given on occasion of a benefice, nevertheless they are not given immediately for the title, but for personal service, and as a stipend of the person. - Thus more probably. - Lugo, d. 4, n. 25. - St. Lig., n. 491. - Salmant., etc.
- The same must be said of curial rights, or of revenues of the stole, as they say, that is, those which are owed to a Parish Priest as Parish Priest, for example, those things which are brought with blessed bread, or which are bestowed upon him for funerals, although he did not in any way attend them, etc. The reason is that they are given to the Parish Priest as a certain stipend of his labor and solicitude; nor do the faithful seem to confer these things on the Church, but on the Parish Priest, so that they are his without any burden. - St. Lig., n. 490 and 491.
- Offerings which are made in boxes set out for a certain use are certainly to be applied to that use, and therefore the Parish Priest cannot claim them for himself, because the will of those offering is sufficiently established. The same must also be said of collections which are made, whether within or outside the Church, for a certain end.
From practice, sufficiently common at least today, almost only the offerings which are made at the altar in Mass, and those which, on occasion of the administration of the Sacraments, for blessing marriages, for obsequies and burials, or for other similar functions, are specially brought, belong to the Parish Priest. But the other offerings must be applied to the Churches themselves, altars, or other certain ends, from custom or from the intention of the faithful. - See Casus, n. 507.