Abuses to Be Avoided in Accepting Stipends

From Mass stipends, thus canon 827, every kind even of negotiation or commerce is altogether to be kept away. This canon is neglected: 1. by those who of their own accord retain part of the stipend (n. 227); 2. by those who ask others that, when Masses have been transferred, they may retain part of the stipend (n. 227); 3. by booksellers or merchants who collect stipends and, in place of them, give books, periodicals, or other merchandise to priests who are going to celebrate the Masses,¹ whether with profit (commerce) or without profit (a species of commerce). The author of the stipend, however, can offer other things to the one who is going to celebrate, in place of money.

¹ Decree Ut debita of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, 11 May 1904 (article 8); cf. Sacred Congregation of the Council, 9 September 1874; decree Vigilanti studio, 23 May 1893.

Mass Stipends.—It is not unlawful to receive a stipend for the application of Mass, but irreligion, injustice, avarice, scandal and disobedience must be avoided. (a) Irreligion is committed if the stipend is offered or taken as the price of the Mass, or if Mass is said only because of the stipend, or is requested only for the sake of human favor (see 2333); (b) injustice is committed, if an excessive stipend is exacted; (c) avarice is committed when one is over-anxious about large stipends; (d) scandal is given when there is commercialism or the appearance of it in dealing with stipends; (e) disobedience is incurred when the laws of the Church on the amount of a stipend, the number of stipends that may be taken, their distribution, satisfaction, etc., are violated (see Canons 824-844). It is forbidden to require two stipends for one Mass, or one stipend for mere celebration and another for application.

“54. Likewise, it marks as a shameful abuse ever to claim alms for celebrating Masses and administering Sacraments, as also to receive any revenue called stole-right, and in general any stipend and honorarium whatsoever which is offered on the occasion of suffrages or of any parochial function—as though the ministers of the Church who, according to the received and approved custom and institution of the Church, use the right promulgated by the Apostle of receiving temporal things from those to whom spiritual things are ministered were to be marked with the charge of a shameful abuse. False, rash, injurious to ecclesiastical and pastoral right, insulting to the Church and her ministers.” Proposition of the Synod of Pistoia condemned by Pius VI.

25. By means of Masses any commerce, or kind of commerce, is prohibited under grave sin, whether to merchants or to others who are not merchants, whether to laymen or to ecclesiastics. And not only is the collection of Masses accepted from the faithful or from pious places prohibited, but also simply to request, accept, and hand over these Masses for any other end whatsoever than for the celebration itself of Masses, and with the full stipend then given and not commuted into another thing.

And this is prohibited both for Masses to be celebrated and for Masses already celebrated, namely if for these someone were to receive, in place of the stipend, books or other merchandise; so that for these Masses already celebrated, the contract not yet having been fulfilled, not merchandise but the stipend is to be handed over, whenever this falls into usage and habit and turns into the support of some commerce.

But it is prohibited to booksellers, merchants, sellers of sacred things, administrators of periodicals, and others requesting Masses, for example authors of books for selling them, to hand over not their own Masses, but others', namely those accepted from the faithful or from pious places. For these cannot be handed over except to those who celebrate them, whether by themselves or through their subjects. Contrary indults granted up to now all remain abrogated in the future. Paragraphs 8, 9, 10.

26. But it is not prohibited, in place of a stipend in money, to hand over to the Priest any other thing whatever in place of the stipend, whether by a merchant or by anyone else who asks of the Priest that he be willing to celebrate Mass for him or according to his intention, when namely, as is evident, it is a question of one's own Mass, not of another's which is committed to the Priest to be celebrated.

27. "Whenever this falls into usage and habit." Therefore a Priest who has bought cloth from a merchant and afterwards could not pay its price could on that occasion offer himself to celebrate Masses whose stipend would equal that price, and which perhaps he knows that that merchant must have celebrated from the legacy of his father. Nevertheless he could not do this habitually; for it is explicitly prohibited by the Decree and would certainly fall into support of that commerce.

28. The alms is to be handed over entirely to the one celebrating. The case is excepted in which the priest spontaneously, not having been asked, yields part of the stipend handed over to him to the one handing it over. But it is not a question of the case in which the excess of stipend is not given in view of the celebration of Mass, but in view of the person, for whatever other reason it is given, and this is certain.

29. Against this prescription, and consequently he would not incur the penalties, although he would sin from another source, would not sin a Priest who, celebrating a second Mass on the same day and accepting alms for it from indult, had to hand this over entirely to the Bishop, and handed over to him only part. Sacred Congregation of the Council, February 27, 1905. But although for this second Mass on the same day a stipend cannot be accepted by general law, nevertheless the priest can apply it according to that intention to which by the rule of the Order, if for example he is a religious, he is obligated, or by the statute of a pious Congregation or pious Sodality to which perhaps he is enrolled, he is held.

On the contrary, priests to whom by rectors or administrators of churches the satisfaction of one or several legacies of Masses founded in the church is committed could not at their own judgment commit the celebration of those Masses to other priests outside the proper church and with a lesser alms. Sacred Congregation of the Council, December 19, 1904.

30. Moreover it is lawful for no one, not even Bishops, not even with the permission of the offerers, without permission of the Holy See, to subtract anything from stipends handed over to Sanctuaries so that provision may be made for their adornment; nor, so that necessary expenses for the celebration itself of Masses may be sustained, namely for hosts, wine, etc., if the church has no other revenues, and for this reason the number of Masses is not diminished. Concerning this matter, cf. Enchiridion Morale, n. 624. Paragraph 11.

Titius, a priest and editor of an excellent Catholic daily paper, for the greater diffusion of his newspaper, yearly seeks for himself from the procurator general of a religious order, a kinsman of his, several alms, and indeed rich ones, of Masses to be celebrated everywhere. These he then commits for application to priests who ask to subscribe to his newspaper, retaining for himself from the alms only as much as corresponds to the just price of the subscription. With the greatest diligence he can, he takes care that the Masses are celebrated and that nothing is subtracted from the will of those who offered the alms, both concerning the quantity of the stipend and concerning the time of celebration, with testimony also being given, to whom by law it is due, concerning the completed celebration of the Masses.

One day, speaking about this manner of acting of his with a priest friend, he is warned by him that this is now forbidden under penalty of censure to be incurred by the fact itself, through the decree Vigilanti studio, issued by the Sacred Congregation of the Council on May 25, 1893. But Titius immediately responded that this decree is not applied to him, since it regards only booksellers or merchants, who studiously collect alms of Masses, which they then commit to priests for celebration in order to make profit, repaying newspapers, books, or other merchandise in place of money.

It is asked: 1.º Whether Titius rightly interpreted the decree of which there is question in the Case? - 2.º Whether he incurred the penalty of suspension threatened to priests in the same decree? - 3.º What must be done by him in the future?

R. To the 1st. The whole resolution of the Case depends on the resolution of the first Question. Now as regards this first Question, there can be no doubt that Titius did not rightly interpret the decree Vigilanti studio. The aforesaid decree regards not only booksellers or merchants, but all. For first, the only reason which could be brought forward by Titius for limiting the aforesaid decree to booksellers and merchants is this: that in the first Doubt, resolved by the S. C. C. in the year 1874, and inserted in the present decree with the other resolved Doubts, the discourse is of booksellers and merchants. But evidently the doctrine of the Sacred Congregation of the Council cannot be restricted to booksellers and merchants. For the shameful trafficking which the Sacred Congregation disapproves is not shameful trafficking because it is done by booksellers and merchants, but because it is a certain trafficking in Masses. By whomsoever trafficking of this sort is done, it is shameful and damnable.

Besides, this is evident not only from the subject matter, but from the whole tenor of the decree, from its beginning, progress, and end. Now this is the beginning of the decree: "With vigilant zeal this Sacred Congregation has continually applied itself to tearing up and eradicating abuses relating to the celebration of Masses, and has issued several decrees by which it wished every damnable profit in this matter to be removed, and commanded the pious wills of testators and the faith pledged to benefactors to be exactly observed and religiously guarded." Therefore in that decree there is question of tearing up and eradicating abuses relating to the celebration of Masses, by whomsoever they are committed, and not only abuses of booksellers and merchants. Likewise there is question of removing damnable profit on the occasion of Masses, by whomsoever this damnable profit is sought, and not only of the damnable profit of booksellers or merchants. And the generality of the decree appears also from that other clause of the beginning, namely that the mind and desire, indeed the mandate, of the Sacred Congregation is that the will of testators and the faith owed to benefactors be exactly observed and guarded.

The same is evinced from the whole progress of the decree. For, after the already narrated beginning of the aforesaid decree, these words immediately follow: "Wherefore, to restrain the depraved license of certain persons who were using the aid of Masses for more easily exchanging newspapers, books, and other merchandise with the clergy, the Sacred Congregation established certain things, and, Pius IX of happy memory approving them, took care that they be issued and made known to Ordinaries, so that they might be observed by all." Here the Sacred Congregation takes a step toward showing practically and concretely the abuse relating to the celebration of Masses and the damnable profit in this matter. The abuse and damnable profit consists in this, that several persons, for rendering the exchange of things easier, use the aid of Masses. In this indeed is the abuse, damnable profit, or depraved license, as it is here called by the Sacred Congregation. This depraved license is not condemned because it is done by booksellers or merchants, but is condemned considered in itself, because it contains an abuse relating to the celebration of Masses and damnable profit on the occasion of Masses.

Then in the decree are added and inserted the Doubts proposed and already resolved before by the Sacred Congregation, not all the Doubts, but only some which would be more to the point. For it is said: "For, among other things, the following Doubts having been proposed, etc." Therefore when afterward, in the first Doubt, there is question of booksellers and merchants, that expression concerning booksellers and merchants is not to be taken taxatively, but demonstratively, namely as an example of the aforesaid depraved license. Wherefore, whether or not they are booksellers or merchants by profession, all who use the aid of Masses in order to exchange books or merchandise more easily carry before themselves a depraved license, commit an abuse relating to the celebration of Masses, and seek for themselves a damnable profit.

And here, before we proceed further, it must be noted that Titius has in fact fallen into the abuse reprobated by the Sacred Congregation, has sought the damnable profit proscribed by the same Sacred Congregation, and has used the depraved license which the praised Sacred Congregation condemns by its decree.

For this is that which Titius does: he exchanges the numbers of his newspaper more easily with the clergy by the aid of Masses. Indeed, as is said in the Case, for the greater diffusion of his newspaper Titius yearly seeks for himself from the procurator several alms, and indeed rich ones, of Masses. And indeed, as the matter is clear in itself and is proved by the fact itself, there is no doubt that that means of Masses helps much for selling and spreading merchandise, books, and newspapers; since it is far easier to exchange books and other merchandise with the clergy by the aid of Masses.

Besides, after the related Doubts resolved elsewhere, the Sacred Congregation complains that salutary dispositions of this sort, through ignorance or malice, have rather often been neglected, and abuses in this matter have grown strong very broadly and widely. Whence it is that the Sacred Congregation thinks it necessary to recall among all to memory and full observance that which had long before been decreed. Therefore the Sacred Congregation evidently does not direct its decree to booksellers and merchants, but to all, and regards all indiscriminately, since certainly it wishes to remove from the universal Church that aforesaid depraved license and shameful trafficking.

Finally, if any doubt should remain in a matter so certain, it would surely appear with all evidence from the sanction with which the Sacred Congregation judged it opportune to strengthen its decree. For it is established that those sinning against the related decrees, if they are priests, are subject to suspension a divinis reserved to the Holy See; if they are clerics not yet initiated into the priesthood, they are subject to the same suspension as regards orders received and are besides made incapable of receiving higher orders; if finally they are lay persons, they are bound by excommunication reserved to bishops. A sanction of this sort upon priests, clerics, and lay persons sinning against the decrees surely shows that in those decrees there is question not only of booksellers and merchants, but that whoever they may be who sin against those decrees, they are subject to the aforesaid penalties.

The interpretation of the decree set forth is confirmed also from the end of the same decree. For the Sacred Congregation, in order to bring an effective remedy to the aforesaid damnable profit, depraved license, and shameful trafficking on the occasion of Masses, renewing the dispositions of preceding Roman Pontiffs concerning burdens of Masses to be fulfilled, commands that at the end of each year all and each, in every place, beneficiaries and administrators of pious causes, or persons in any way obligated to fulfill burdens of Masses, whether ecclesiastics or lay persons, at the end of each year deliver to their own Ordinaries the burdens of Masses which remain and which they have not yet satisfied. By this final prescription, under a grave precept of obedience, added to the preceding sanction of suspension and excommunication, the Sacred Congregation certainly does not regard merchants and booksellers only, but all who are in any way obligated to fulfill burdens of Masses.

And hence it is clear that the interpretation of Titius is also false when he asserts that the decree concerns a studied collection of Masses. That word studied is not found in the decree. Moreover, a studied collection is not lacking in Titius. Does not Titius collect Masses with this zeal, this art and industry, so that by the aid of Masses he may obtain a greater diffusion of his newspaper?

Only this much could be said in favor of Titius: that he himself does not in reality collect Masses, since he obtains them only from the procurator, his kinsman. But neither can Titius be excused from this. For the collection reprobated by the Sacred Congregation does not consist in this, that someone seeks and obtains Masses from several persons, but consists only in this, that he heaps up a great number of Masses, whether he obtains them from several persons or from only one. Moreover, in the Case not even collection from several persons is lacking. For that procurator, as is accustomed to be done, seeks and obtains Masses from several persons. But what someone does through another, he seems to do through himself. And it matters little indeed whether Titius himself assumes for himself the labor of seeking Masses from several persons, or whether he leaves labor of this sort to the procurator. A collection of Masses is always had, and in the Case a collection for the end prohibited by the decree.

To the 2nd. A few things are now to be said concerning the second and third Question. Titius seems able to be excused from suspension. For, as is clear from the exposition of the Case, Titius acts in good faith. Wherefore, since he is immune from sin, he is also immune from censure. Certainly the contumacy necessary for incurring censure is in no way detected in Titius.

To the 3rd. But in the future Titius must either desist altogether from his manner of acting, or he must seek an Indult from the Holy See, as several have done.

But here a difficulty rises to be resolved: how the Holy See can grant an Indult in trafficking in Masses. If it were really a question of shameful trafficking in Masses, the Holy See could neither give, nor certainly would give, an Indult in shameful trafficking of this sort. But in this matter it is a question only of the appearance of shameful trafficking, prohibited by the Church, and of the danger of scandal, and of the danger lest the will of benefactors and testators not be fulfilled. Hence, with conditions added for removing the aforesaid danger of scandal and infidelity, an Indult can well be given in this matter by the Church, and in fact is given.

274. e) It is altogether prohibited to retain any part of a manual stipend and to hand over to another priest the Mass to be said with a diminished stipend.

Wherefore Alexander VII condemned proposition 9: "After the decree of Urban, a priest to whom Masses to be celebrated are handed over can satisfy through another by giving him a lesser stipend and retaining for himself another part of the stipend."⁴⁰⁰ The Holy See sometimes permits a small part of the stipend to be retained to be expended for pious causes.⁴⁰¹ It must be noted, however, that all indults granted in this matter before the year 1904 have been revoked.⁴⁰² Certain authors⁴⁰³ think that a priest who retains part of a manual stipend does indeed sin gravely, but probably does not injure justice and accordingly is not bound to restitution, provided, however, that he takes care that the determinate number of Masses be celebrated. This opinion seems to us improbable. For if it were true, then a priest who retains, for example, one thousand francs from one thousand rather ample stipends, but has those Masses discharged elsewhere, would be bound to nothing from justice. This seems very unfitting. The reason for the injured justice seems to be this: A stipend is not the price of a Mass, but is an offering permitted by the Church and given by the offerer to the one who is to say the Mass. Although, therefore, the first priest receiving the stipends immediately becomes their owner, nevertheless he is not the absolute owner, but only when he fulfills the precepts issued by the Church concerning this matter. But if he gravely violates these precepts, he loses ownership and is bound to restitution. Moreover, the Church has gravely commanded that part of a manual stipend not be unduly retained. Authors most commonly defend the obligation of restitution in this case,⁴⁰⁴ at least those who wrote after the proposition condemned by Alexander VII.

⁴⁰⁰ Denz., n. 1109.

⁴⁰¹ Cf. Sacred Congregation of the Council, February 27, 1905, response to the Society of the Most Holy Savior.

⁴⁰² Decree Ut debita, n. 9.

⁴⁰³ For example, Noldin, De sacr.¹⁷, n. 192; Génicot, Theol. mor. II, n. 231; D'Annibale, Summula Theol. mor. III, 190, n. 17; Ballerini-Palmieri, Opus theol. IV, n. 1017.

⁴⁰⁴ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 322; Vermeersch, Theol. mor. III, n. 299.

275. It is lawful to retain part of the stipend in the following cases:

a) By virtue of a pontifical indult granted after the year 1904.⁴⁰⁵

b) If the donor consents.⁴⁰⁶

This is evident. Not only explicit consent, but also implicit consent sometimes suffices. Thus, if because of friendship, gratitude, etc., the donor gave, in view of the person of the recipient, a notably larger stipend than is customarily given, he is considered implicitly to consent that the recipient retain the excess part. Therefore, for example, if in such a place the amount of the ordinary stipend is two francs and the donor gave twenty francs, a priest handing this Mass over to another priest is not bound to give twenty francs, but two francs. If, however, the excess is moderate, the donor's implicit consent is not established and must not be presumed.

c) If there is question of stipends which are not strictly manual, but quasi-manual.

For then it suffices to hand over a stipend according to the diocesan rate of the place in which the Mass is celebrated,⁴⁰⁷ provided that these Masses are annexed to some benefice or, from the intention of the founder, constitute part of the fitting support of the pastor. "Considering that the alms for the Masses of certain legacies in part take the place of the 'parochial congrua,' the Most Eminent Fathers have judged it lawful for a pastor, if he cannot satisfy them personally, to commit these Masses to another priest, with the ordinary alms of the place assigned, whether for read or sung Masses.... In legacies of Masses founded in some church, that portion of the revenues which at the establishment of the foundation or in another legitimate manner was assigned to the ministers and those serving the church, independently of the special work to be performed for the fulfillment of the legacy, can be retained in their favor."⁴⁰⁸ Hence, for example, a pastor who commits to a vicar a funeral or nuptial Mass to be sung is not strictly bound to give him more than the customary stipend which is given for a Mass sung at such an hour, although the pastor himself received a much larger stipend. For these funeral and nuptial Masses are numbered among the stole fees which belong to the pastor. Nevertheless, ordinarily it seems very equitable that the vicar who performed the entire burden also receive some part of these stole fees.

d) If the recipient freely consents.

For Benedict XIV⁴⁰⁹ declares: "A priest who has accepted a stipend of greater value for the celebration of a Mass cannot give a stipend of lesser value to another priest, even if he had indicated to the same celebrating and consenting priest that he had accepted an alms of greater value." Hence it does not suffice that the priest celebrating the Mass consent in any manner whatsoever to the diminution of the stipend offered, because he can consent because of moral necessity; rather, it is required that he consent altogether freely and expressly.

e) If some church is poor and does not have sufficient revenues.

For then it can subtract from the stipends offered by it to priests celebrating in this church such a part as suffices for the necessary expenses of each Mass, for example, for wine, candles, the use of vestments, etc. Thus Innocent XII.⁴¹⁰

In the Tarragona case, the Sacred Congregation of the Council granted for a five-year period that he who by office distributes Masses in that diocese retain three percent for himself as an honorarium.

⁴⁰⁵ Cf. the preceding number above.

⁴⁰⁶ Code of Canon Law, c. 840, § 1.

⁴⁰⁷ Ibid., § 2.

⁴⁰⁸ Thus it is contained in the decree Ut debita, n. 15. Cf., however, the response of the Sacred Congregation of the Council to the Bishop of Breda, February 27, 1905.

⁴⁰⁹ Constitution Quanta cura, June 30, 1741.

⁴¹⁰ Constitution Nuper, December 23, 1697.

380. Special prohibition of any negotiation or trafficking with Mass stipends. - Can. 827 prescribes: "From the offering of Masses any even appearance of negotiation or trafficking is altogether to be kept away"; by which words not only negotiation or trafficking itself, but also those things which bear their appearance, i.e., appearance or founded suspicion, and cooperation in all these things, are prohibited (S. C. C., May 11, 1904). This prohibition is grave from its genus.

One conducts negotiation or trafficking with Mass stipends:

1. Who, by means of stipends collected or accepted for that end, conducts some commerce, for example of books or sacred utensils, namely by handing over merchandise for stipends, so that from the difference of the stipends, or even from the sale of the merchandise alone, he may receive profit.

Nevertheless it is not prohibited: a) for booksellers or merchants to commit Masses to be celebrated for themselves and their deceased to a priest, and to hand over to him books or utensils for the stipend;

b) for priests to accept wine, oil, grain, and other things for Masses to be celebrated or celebrated, or to pay a debt, provided that the appearance of negotiation is kept away;

c) for rectors of churches and seminaries or moderators of pious works to accept stipends spontaneously offered and to ask priests to pay the Masses gratuitously, turning over the alms to the aforesaid works;

d) for assistant vicars or other priests living in the house of a pastor to cede to him, for food and service, the alms of a daily Mass, whether low or sung.

These are not negotiations, but payments or donations.

2. Who collects or accepts stipends so that, by transmitting Masses to be celebrated for a lesser stipend, or from the exchange of money, he may receive profit. Hence can. 840, § 1: "One who transmits manual offerings of Masses to others must transmit the accepted offerings entire, unless either the offerer expressly permits something to be retained, or it is certainly established that the excess above the diocesan tax was given in consideration of the person."

For from the intention of the offerer, the whole stipend in itself is destined to the celebrant, nor therefore can a part be retained for pious uses.

Whence he who retains part of the stipend sins against justice and is bound to restore to the celebrant.

Nevertheless:

a) It is not illicit to retain part: 1. if the offerer expressly permits it; 2. if it is certainly established that the richer stipend was given in consideration of the person, for example by reason of special friendship, necessity, gratitude, recompense, etc.; 3. if the priest to whom celebration is committed spontaneously remits part of the stipend; 4. if the greater alms pertains to parochial rights, which are called stole fees, as in funeral or nuptial Masses, because these belong to the pastor; 5. if someone has an indult granted after 1904; 6. if it is a matter of founded Masses which could not be celebrated in due time, unless the mind of the founder stands in the way. For concerning these can. 840, § 2, holds: "In Masses after the manner of manual ones (namely founded Masses which could not duly be applied), unless the mind of the founder stands in the way, the excess is legitimately retained and it is enough to remit only the manual alms of the diocese in which the Mass is celebrated, if the rich alms takes the place in part of the dowry of a benefice or pious cause."

b) Nor is it illicit to commute the intentions of Masses, even if the stipends are unequal, as if Peter today celebrates according to the intention of Paul, and Paul tomorrow according to the intention of Peter; or Paul in Peter's church according to the intention of the absent Peter, and Peter according to the intention of Paul: such an agreement is only concerning mutual service to be rendered.

c) It is not illicit to retain from the stipend for the expenses of transmission or administration, provided that not more is retained than is necessary for expenses (S. C. C., Feb. 25, 1905); but the same does not hold for the expenses of altars, vestments, lights, wine, hosts, unless the church is very poor (Innocent XII, Const. Nuper, Nov. 23, 1697, VII), in which case the Ordinary can grant that a moderate offering be required, which it belongs to him to define in such a way that it is lawful for no one, not even exempt religious, to require a greater one (can. 1303, § 2 and 3).