Article III. On The Dominion Of Secular Clerics

36. Preliminary Note. Almost this whole matter pertains to canon law, and therefore the positive ecclesiastical laws enacted concerning this matter must especially be attended to. For fuller doctrine the canonists are to be consulted.

Divisions. Clerical dominion (which is also sometimes called clerical peculium) is fourfold:

1. patrimonial peculium; 2. quasi-patrimonial; 3. beneficial; and 4. savings peculium.

2. Patrimonial peculium, or the patrimonial goods of a secular cleric,¹⁴⁷ are those goods which come to clerics independently of every ecclesiastical ministry as well as benefice; but they are called patrimonial because ordinarily they come from paternal inheritance, although they can also come from any profane cause, for example from donation, from profane labor, from published books, etc. Of patrimonial goods the secular cleric has perfect dominion;¹⁴⁸ for in this matter he is not of worse condition than a layman.

3. Quasi-patrimonial peculium (they are also called quasi-ecclesiastical or industrial goods) are those goods which clerics acquire not indeed by reason of an ecclesiastical benefice (or from goods offered and appropriated to the Church herself), but by reason of personal ecclesiastical ministry, as it were by way of wages and stipend; or more briefly: they are those goods which come to clerics from a spiritual title indeed, but not from the title of a benefice. To these goods pertain those so-called "stole rights," which are given to non-beneficiary clerics on account of ecclesiastical functions performed,¹⁴⁹ the stipends of manual Masses (but not the stipends of founded Masses), gratuitous offerings which the faithful offer to the pastor and other priests, and generally all those goods or revenues which are received especially by non-beneficiary priests on account of ecclesiastical offices performed. Non-beneficiary priests are, for example, vicars and cooperators of pastors, those serving hospitals, spiritual rectors of schools, etc. Of these quasi-patrimonial goods clerics have perfect dominion. Thus the common opinion. The reason is that neither from the nature of the thing nor from positive law is the dominion of clerics over such goods limited.

4. Beneficial peculium is those revenues which a cleric receives by reason and title of an ecclesiastical benefice; or more briefly, they are the revenues of an ecclesiastical benefice destined for the fitting support of beneficiary clerics. Concerning the origin and history of benefices, the authors who are canonists dispute much.¹⁵⁰ As strictly beneficial revenues according to modern practice are held not only the proper fruits of the benefice, for example revenues coming from estates, fields, etc., pertaining to the benefice, but also:

a) Pensions or supports which civil governments sometimes regularly pay to beneficiary clerics, for example in Germany, in Austria, etc. Thus the Sacred Penitentiary expressly established on 19 Jan. 1819 and 9 Jan. 1823. The case seems different concerning pensions which are sometimes granted to an emeritus cleric by the government or even from some benefice formerly held.

b) Contributions of the faithful¹⁵¹ imposed by way of a tax, when a suitable support of beneficiary clerics cannot be had either from beneficial goods or from a pension of the civil government. For these offerings seem to be almost the same as the tithes imposed in ancient times. Now tithes are very commonly held as beneficial revenues.¹⁵² Likewise to beneficial revenues seem to pertain those offerings of the faithful which, by force of statutes or custom, are given to pastors by reason of the title, for example in North America at the time of Christmas or Easter,¹⁵³ or stole rights that are strictly parochial.

c) Stipends of founded Masses which are united with a benefice, if nevertheless they are received by the beneficiary himself; for if those Masses are said by a non-beneficiary priest, their stipends are no longer beneficial peculium.

d) Choral distributions of canons. If, however, all the revenues of the benefice consist in choral distributions, then the third part is left to the free disposition of the beneficiary.¹⁵⁴

In present days almost no other ecclesiastical benefices are given (besides the Cardinalate) except parishes, canonries, episcopates, and certain ecclesiastical chaplaincies.

With regard to the suitable support of the beneficiary, beneficial peculium is either a) necessary or b) superfluous or c) savings, concerning which below.

The things said thus far about the threefold peculium of clerics can be briefly and clearly comprehended in this way:

A cleric acquires

a) patrimonial peculium as a man,

b) quasi-patrimonial peculium as a cleric,

c) beneficial peculium as a beneficiary.

¹⁴⁷ Religious clerics are not treated here, since they are bound by the vow of poverty and therefore cannot freely dispose of temporal goods.

¹⁴⁸ Cf. c. 12 X, 26, 9; St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 490.

¹⁴⁹ Sometimes the offerings made by the faithful in place of tithes on account of particular ecclesiastical functions are called stole rights. Those stole rights are beneficial goods when they are given to truly beneficiary clerics (Cod. iur. can. c. 1410).

¹⁵⁰ See our Man. iur. can., 8th ed., p. 503.

¹⁵¹ The denier du culte, worship tax for the support of pastors, but not worship tax for the support of chaplains, sacristans, churches, etc.

¹⁵² Cf. tit. 30, l. 3 de decimis, primitiis et oblationibus, and tit. 39 de censibus, exactionibus et procurationibus; cf. also Wernz, Ius Decret. III 183, and Bargilliat, Prael. iur. can. n. 1384.

¹⁵³ Cf. Bargilliat, l. c.

¹⁵⁴ Cod. iur. can. c. 1410.

37. Obligations Concerning Beneficial Peculium. a) All modern theologians and canonists teach that true dominion over beneficial revenues belongs to clerics, when these are necessary for suitable support, so that they can dispose of them with the same liberty with which they enjoy patrimonial and quasi-patrimonial goods.

In ancient times indeed a few canonists taught the contrary, but their opinion is now entirely obsolete. The reason is that, as St. Paul testifies, all who serve the altar share with the altar.¹⁵⁵ Therefore clerics can take honorable support from the revenues of the benefice, and this even if they have other patrimonial or quasi-patrimonial goods.¹⁵⁶ But what support is to be called suitable cannot be determined by a certain rule, but is left to the prudent judgment of a God-fearing cleric. For many circumstances must be attended to, namely a) the person of the cleric; for one thing is the support of a simple rural pastor who enjoys very good health, and another is the support of an elderly and weak bishop. Likewise b) circumstances of places and times must be attended to. To suitable support also pertain honorable recreations, hospitality to be exercised, certain gifts to be given, and becoming maintenance of blood-relatives, especially if they are needy. With regard to the manner of living, the admonitions given by the Council of Trent to bishops should be kept before the eyes of all clerics.¹⁵⁷ A beneficiary cleric may indeed bestow alms from the goods of his benefice, but not gifts, at least not larger ones.¹⁵⁸

b) Beneficiary clerics (Cardinals excepted¹⁵⁹) are held under grave obligation to expend superfluous revenues from beneficial goods upon the poor or upon pious causes.¹⁶⁰ Thus all teach, and it is clearly drawn both from the Council of Trent¹⁶¹ and especially from Cod. iur. can. c. 1473, which establishes: "Although a beneficiary has other non-beneficial goods, he can freely use and enjoy the beneficial fruits which are necessary for his honorable support; but he is held by the obligation of expending the superfluous goods for the poor or pious causes, with the prescription of can. 239, § 1, n. 19 remaining safe."

Canonists and theologians dispute whether this grave obligation is an obligation of justice, so that its transgression constitutes an obligation of restitution, or whether it is only a grave obligation from ecclesiastical law. The truer and much more common opinion teaches that that obligation arises only from ecclesiastical law and does not imply restitution if it has been neglected.¹⁶² Already St. Thomas taught that opinion.¹⁶³ For he objects to himself: "Whoever consumes what belongs to another is held to restitution: but the goods of clerics are the goods of the poor, as is clear through Jerome's gloss on that of Isaiah 3:14: 'The plunder of the poor is in your house.' Therefore if clerics uselessly consume ecclesiastical goods, they are held to restore to the poor from elsewhere, if they have anything." ... To this objection he responds: "Ecclesiastical goods must not only be dispensed to the poor, but also to the ministers of the Church: whence according to the canons they must be divided in this way, that some part go to the use of the poor and some part to the uses of ministers and to the worship of the Church. Therefore it must be said otherwise concerning those ecclesiastical goods which principally are to be attributed to the necessities of the poor and consequently to the necessities of ministers, such as are the goods of hospitals and of other such things. And otherwise concerning those goods which are principally attributed to the uses of ministers, such as are prebends of clerics and other such things. For in the first goods sin is committed not only from abuse, but also from the very condition of the things, while someone assumes for his own uses what belongs to another; and therefore he is held to restitution as a defrauder of another's thing. But in the second goods sin is not committed except through abuse, as was said also concerning patrimonial goods. Hence one is not held to restitution, but only to performing penance." The fundamental reason why a cleric abusing the superfluous goods of his benefice is not held to restitution is this: restitution is not to be imposed unless its obligation is certainly established. Now no certain title of restitution can be brought forward, nor any ecclesiastical law clearly prescribing this obligation.¹⁶⁴ Moreover, although the obligation of restitution is not to be urged, nevertheless in the case in which a cleric has not expended notable superfluous beneficial revenues for pious causes, he is accustomed to cause grave scandal and must be gravely rebuked; for it matters little whether he goes to Gehenna because of violated justice or because of violated obedience. What injury in this matter is grave sin must be prudently determined with the circumstances of the donor and of the donation considered. Certainly, however, a much greater quantity (perhaps twice or three times greater) is usually required than in theft gravely illicit, since the cleric does not take what belongs to another, but badly expends his own.¹⁶⁵

Relatives or other non-poor men who have received superfluous revenues of this kind from a beneficiary cleric through donations among the living are not to be obliged to restitution; indeed, if they were in good faith, they did not sin. But the matter is otherwise if a beneficiary cleric having superfluous beneficial revenues dies without a testament; for in this case, since the intention of the dead cleric must be presumed to have been that he wished to dispose of those goods as he ought, and since he certainly ought to have disposed of those revenues for the poor or pious causes, the heirs cannot licitly usurp the goods left behind, if they certainly are superfluous beneficial revenues. This indeed holds a fortiori if they have impeded the cleric from making a testament. Nevertheless in practice this case happens rather rarely; first, because clerics rarely have beneficial revenues so ample that after suitable support something superfluous still remains; then, supposing that the benefice really was very rich, nevertheless it is almost impossible to discern among the goods left behind which were savings goods and which were superfluous beneficial goods. Hence lay heirs generally are not to be disturbed, provided that they did not fraudulently procure for themselves such an inheritance, which perhaps comes from superfluous beneficial revenues. Besides, they are often in good faith, and if the confessor wished to compel them to return goods of this kind, perhaps they would refuse to obey, and thus from material sins formal sins would be made; which indeed must be avoided.

Note. Since the sudden death of clerics happens not rarely, each secular cleric, and especially each beneficiary, should not delay making his testament. Especially he should not omit to dispose of sacred vestments, paraments, and vessels. Special statutes have been enacted in this matter for Cardinals.¹⁶⁶ For it can be very unbecoming that these things be left to the free disposition of laymen or be sold by laymen at a greatly diminished price.¹⁶⁷ Moreover, it is usually much better and more conformable to the mind of the Church that a beneficiary cleric at once spend superfluous goods received from beneficial revenues on pious causes or on the poor, so that it is not necessary to make a testament about them.

There are authors, for example Hollweck,¹⁶⁸ who teach that all secular clerics, even non-beneficiaries, are held to spend superfluous goods received from ecclesiastical ministry on pious causes. This opinion indeed is to be counseled in practice, since it is fitting to right reason and to the clerical state, but it cannot be imposed as a strict obligation.

4. Savings peculium consists of those things which a beneficiary cleric saves from beneficial goods by living more modestly. Concerning these goods he can dispose freely. It is clear of itself, because the cleric has a right to suitable support from beneficial goods. Therefore if he has freely subtracted something for himself from that suitable support, concerning that also he can dispose freely.

The whole doctrine concerning the revenues of secular clerics can be expressed by this single phrase: secular clerics have free disposition over all their revenues, except superfluous beneficial revenues, which indeed under a grave precept, but not under the obligation of restitution, they must expend for the poor or pious causes.

¹⁵⁵ Cf. 1 Cor. 9:13.

¹⁵⁶ Cod. iur. can. c. 1473.

¹⁵⁷ Sess. 25, c. 1 de reform.

¹⁵⁸ How a cleric can support blood-relatives from beneficial revenues is excellently taught by St. Ambrose, De offic. l. 1, c. 3, and St. Thomas, S. theol. 2, 2, q. 185, a. 7 ad 2.

¹⁵⁹ Cod. iur. can. c. 239, § 1, n. 19.

¹⁶⁰ Pious causes are judged to be all those works or institutes which from their nature or from the end of the one acting proximately serve a supernatural end. Pious causes are not those so-called humanitarian institutes, for example hospitals, asylums entirely profane, which indeed serve social utility, but not religion.

¹⁶¹ L. c.

¹⁶² Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 492. Concina, Theol. christ. in Decal. I, diss. 6, c. 18, attacks this opinion most vehemently indeed, but not effectively.

¹⁶³ Quodl. 6, q. 7, a. 12 ad 3; S. theol. 2, 2, q. 185, a. 7.

¹⁶⁴ Cf. Billuart, De iure et iust. diss. 3, a. 5, where this controversy is treated excellently.

¹⁶⁵ Cf. St. Alphonsus, l. c. n. 490, IV, who defends the more severe opinion.

¹⁶⁶ Cf. Cod. iur. can. c. 1298.

¹⁶⁷ c. 1301: "Cardinals, residential bishops, and other beneficiary clerics must through a testament valid also in civil law take care that, according to canonical prescriptions, disposition be made concerning sacred furnishings. Wherefore they must in timely fashion designate a person of intact reputation who, when their death comes, may take possession not only of the sacred furnishings, but also of books, documents, and other things pertaining to the church and legitimately hand them over to whom they are owed."

¹⁶⁸ Das Testament der Geistlichen, Mainz 1901.

38. Scholion. On The Administration Of Ecclesiastical Goods. Beneficiary clerics are held to administer all ecclesiastical goods with diligent care according to canonical sanctions and particular statutes. If they presume to usurp ecclesiastical goods or convert them to their own uses, they are punished by excommunication and other grave penalties.¹⁶⁹ Especially the pontifical and episcopal statutes concerning alienation of ecclesiastical goods are to be observed.^169a Not rarely in modern times particular statutes have also been enacted by civil governments concerning the administration of ecclesiastical goods; these, if they are tolerated from Concordats or from the concession of the Supreme Pontiff, each cleric must diligently observe. Otherwise great inconveniences can arise. In the administration of ecclesiastical goods a cleric must indeed avoid all negligence, but he should also beware everything that savors of purely worldly commerce. Hence let the cleric not be too solicitous about those material things. Especially let him avoid speculative actions, as they say, at banking exchanges.¹⁷⁰ For it is established by sad experience that through those actions clerics have both given scandal to the faithful and moreover inflicted great losses on ecclesiastical goods. Certainly in itself clerics can licitly buy bank shares and obligations, since even today the Church has not prohibited this (at least expressly), but it is prohibited to a cleric to practice commerce and trade, as things which do not befit clerical dignity.

¹⁶⁹ Cod. iur. can. c. 2346.

^169a Cf. Pontif. Commissio d. 29 Iul. 1929 (Act. Ap. Sed. XXI 574).

¹⁷⁰ Commonly, Bank and Börse.