Point III. On the Ownership of Clerics

I. The goods of clerics are distinguished into beneficial or ecclesiastical goods and non-beneficial goods.

1. Beneficial goods are those which come to them from the endowment of a benefice. Moreover, the endowment of a benefice is constituted either by goods whose ownership is in the juridic entity itself, or by certain and due payments of some family or moral person, or by certain and voluntary offerings of the faithful which belong to the rector of the benefice, or by stole fees, as they are called, within the limits of the diocesan tax or legitimate custom, or by choral distributions, with a third part of them excluded, if all the revenues of the benefice consist in choral distributions (can. 1410).

To beneficial goods are to be counted pensions or annual salaries which in Belgium and in those districts of Holland which, at the time of the Concordat of 1801, belonged to France, that is, in the whole diocese of Roermond, in part of Gelderland and Staats-Vlaanderen, are paid by the Government to Bishops, canons, and pastors.¹ The reason is that they represent the fruits formerly received from the endowment of benefices.² The same, for the same reason, seems to be said of annual payments which are sometimes stably assigned by the Government to some pastors under the name of competencies.³

2. Non-beneficial goods are all other goods of clerics. They are customarily divided into patrimonial and quasi-patrimonial goods. Patrimonial goods are those which fall to them by a profane title, for example by contract, inheritance, testament, labor, or industry, that is, profane labor or industry. Quasi-patrimonial goods are stipends which are received for sacred functions and, according to what has been said, do not pertain to the endowment of the benefice. To this class belong, for example, Mass stipends; likewise the third part of choral distributions, if all the revenues of the benefice consist in choral distributions (can. 1410).

To non-beneficial goods are counted: 1. supplements which are sometimes paid to pastors by municipalities or from the treasury of the Church; 2. annual pensions which in our country are paid by the Government to priests, except in the places enumerated above; 3. retirement pensions. The reason for all these is that they are not, or not necessarily, to be considered as representing fruits formerly received from the endowment of benefices. 4. Payments by whatever name which are assigned to vicars, because, since vicars lack a benefice, they neither are nor represent fruits of a benefice.

3. As regards offerings, I note:

a) Offerings handed over in boxes or collected for a certain end must be used for that end.

b) Certain and voluntary offerings of the faithful made in a place subject to a pastor are considered to have been granted to the pastor, unless the intention of the faithful to cede them to others is clear. If they are granted to the pastor, they pertain to the endowment of the benefice, and therefore are counted among ecclesiastical goods.

¹ Sacred Penitentiary, January 19, 1819 and August 19, 1821, collected response of January 9, 1823, apud Carriere, I, 194.

² Sacred Penitentiary, January 19, 1819 and August 19, 1821, collected response of January 9, 1823, apud Carriere, I, 194.

³ Sweens, n. 79.

II. Rights of clerics with respect to goods. 1. Clerics acquire full ownership, so that they can freely dispose of them, of non-beneficial goods. For from no source is it clear that ownership and the liberty of disposing are restricted in any way.

2. Clerics likewise acquire full ownership, so that they can freely dispose of them, of beneficial goods, insofar as these are necessary for suitable support. And this, as can. 1473 expressly establishes, is to be understood so that a cleric, even if he has other non-beneficial goods, can freely use and enjoy beneficial fruits which are necessary for his honorable support. Moreover, from these things it is deservedly deduced that the cleric can freely dispose also of goods which, from beneficial goods necessary for suitable support, he has set aside by living more frugally; and therefore they are called savings from frugality (St. Alphonsus, III, 490; IV, 185).

3. As regards those things which are superfluous after honorable support from beneficial goods, these things hold:

a) A cleric is bound to spend them for the poor or for pious causes, with the prescription of can. 239, § 1, n. 19 saved (can. 1473). By force of the prescription of can. 239, all Cardinals from their promotion in Consistory enjoy the faculty of freely disposing of beneficial revenues, even by testament, with the prescription of can. 1298 saved. For the rest, "it must be noted that in this, in order that the matter be considered grave, a much greater quantity is required than in theft" (St. Alphonsus, III, 490 under IV; St. Thomas, II-II, q. 185, a. 7). Under the name of the poor come "not only those begging door to door, but also those who otherwise cannot preserve their state; likewise blood-relatives, if they are truly poor, so that otherwise they cannot sustain their own state... But these needy blood-relatives the cleric can prefer to other poor persons, even those more gravely in need. The reason is that... the support of needy relatives pertains also to preserving the cleric's own state, since their poverty redounds to his own disgrace" (St. Alphonsus, III, 491, question 2).

b) It is disputed whether the obligation extends itself to stole fees which constitute the endowment of the benefice. It seems one must answer affirmatively, because on the one hand the law counts them among beneficial goods, and on the other hand, as regards the obligation imposed concerning them, it does not distinguish, or no longer distinguishes.

c) It is further disputed whether the obligation explained is an obligation of justice or of another virtue. If it is an obligation of justice, a cleric who, for example, has squandered things superfluous from beneficial goods, is bound to restitution. Moreover, a sufficiently probable opinion denies an obligation of commutative justice, because, as is deservedly deduced from canons 729, 2°, 1475, and 2403, the beneficiary makes the fruits of the benefice his own, provided he is not deprived of them as a penalty for delict or negligence (St. Thomas, Quodlibet 6, q. 7, a. 12, ad 3; II-II, q. 185, a. 7; St. Alphonsus, III, 492; IV, 183).