Case 4. An Avaricious Priest

Titius, a missionary in England and not exempt from every suspicion of avarice, is in no way content with the sum of money which, according to a custom of the diocese approved by the bishop, is offered by the faithful in consideration of the administration of the sacraments and other functions. Indeed, unless at least the richer persons pay a sum twice as large as that assessed, he reproaches them most harshly, saying that they defraud him and the Church of God. Therefore he exacts from the richer persons two shillings instead of one for a baptism, and in a similar manner increases the other stole fees. During the time of spiritual exercises, however, he begins to doubt whether he has thereby contracted any guilt, and even a burden of restitution, or not, and therefore questions the Father who gives the exercises concerning his doubts. It is asked:

1. How are the goods of clerics divided, and what right regarding them belongs to clerics in England?

2. Can stole fees in England be exacted under the title of commutative justice?

3. Does anyone sin against commutative justice who exacts something beyond the diocesan assessment by reason of stole fees?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. How is the property of clerics divided and what rights have clerics therein in England ? Clerics have property rights like other people, and what they have inherited as private persons or what has been given to them personally is called their patrimony. Quasi-patrimony is what they have acquired by their own labor, either in their clerical capacity as stole fees, stipends for Masses, etc., or otherwise. Savings are what they might have spent on their own support by living up to the ordinary standard, but which they have saved by living frugally. What is derived from all these sources is the private property of the cleric, and like other people he may dispose of it as he chooses. What the cleric derives from his benefice, if he has one, is called ecclesiastical property in the narrower sense. This the cleric may spend on his decent support, but what remains over must by ecclesiastical law be spent on pious causes. In England there are very few benefices; the clergy live on the income of their churches, and besides their support they are paid a small salary from the same or some other source.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. i, p. 361 and following.

2. May stole fees be demanded in England on the title of commutative justice ?

Yes, for stole fees form part of their means of support, to which the clergy have a strict right in justice, as St. Thomas teaches.²

2 Summa, II–II, q. 100, a. 3.

3. Does he sin against commutative justice who exacts a stole fee higher than what is fixed by the bishop?

Yes; because the regulations of the bishop constitute his title to demand a stole fee; he has no title to demand one higher than what the bishop has fixed ; and so if he does this, he takes what does not belong to him, unless it is given freely.

4. The case. Titius was not justified in demanding more for stole fees than the custom of the diocese warranted.

If by his manner he forced the faithful to give double of what the bishop had sanctioned, he sinned against commutative justice and is bound to make restitution of what he has taken in excess of the usual sum. He may be excused from making restitution to such as gave the larger sums grudgingly indeed, but still not altogether forced against their will.