The property of clerics

We do not propose to treat here of the capacity of religious to own property; that question will be best considered when we treat of the state of religious. Here we only inquire into the property rights of the secular clergy.

The property of the clergy is divided by theologians into four kinds. What they possess as private persons, whether it has been given or bequeathed to them or they have inherited it, is called their patrimony. Quasi-patrimony is what they have obtained by the exercise of their ministry in stole fees, stipends, and casual offerings. Ecclesiastical goods are derived from the revenue of benefices. Savings are what a cleric has acquired by living sparingly and which he might have spent by living according to the ordinary standard.

Of these different kinds of property, patrimony and quasi-patrimony belong to the cleric; they are his private property, of which he has the ownership just like anybody else, for he is not deprived of the right to possess property by becoming a cleric. What he saves also from what he might have spent lawfully on his support belongs to him, for the labourer is worthy of his hire; he has a strict right to a decent living from the revenues of the Church, and what he saves from the sum required for this belongs to him as his own.

There is a difficulty concerning the profits derived from his benefice if the cleric has one. He may, of course, use the income derived from this source for his maintenance according to his rank; but supposing that a balance remains over, what must he do with that? Ecclesiastical law prescribes that he must employ it for pious purposes, and must not squander it or enrich his relations with it. He is bound under pain of sin to give it to the support of religion, or to the poor, or for educational or other pious causes. If he does not do this, he certainly sins against obedience; but does he also sin against justice, and is he therefore bound to make restitution ? This is a disputed question among divines. The more probable opinion is that he does not sin against justice and so is not bound to restitution; for the income derived from his benefice is his own property, and he may do what he pleases with his own, unless there be some free disposal of his property. law which restricts his In this case there is such a law, which must be observed, but which for all that does not make an act which it prohibits unjust; it only makes it unlawful (Can. 1473). . 2. In English-speaking countries there are few well-endowed benefices, so that in general the clergy have to be supported by the offerings of the faithful. As Leo XIII says in his Constitution Romanos Pontifices, May 8, 1881, the offerings of the faithful were not regarded as ecclesiastical property where religion and the clergy were sufficiently provided for from other sources. In Britain, however, the offerings of the faithful are almost the only means available for the maintenance of divine worship, the building and repair of churches and schools, the support of charitable institutions and of the clergy. Hence it becomes a matter of importance to be able to decide what offerings belong to the clergy as their own property, and what constitute ecclesiastical property and belong to the Church. Of the latter property the clergy are only the administrators, and they are bound to render an account of their administration to their superiors and to God. Rules for settling what offerings are private and what ecclesiastical property were drawn up by the Second Provincial Synod of Westminster, approved in the year 1856; and Pope Leo XIII sanctioned those rules and ordered them to be observed wherever his Constitution Romanos Pontifices should be in force. I here give Father Guy’s version of the rules: “ (1) Offerings of the faithful for the propagation and ornament of religion, for the support of the clergy, the relief of the poor, and other pious uses, are considered as made to God and the Church, and the administrators or guardians of them, whether ecclesiastics or laymen, are to be deemed merely dispensers of them, under an obligation of rendering an account to God of their stewardship. As here now it is required among the dispensers that a man be found faithful in those things which concern the rightful administration of Church property, it seems proper that in this synod we should treat this matter more fully, inasmuch as having been occupied with matters more important in the First Provincial Council, we deferred the consideration of this subject to a more convenient opportunity. _“* (2) Every effort must be made to determine, if there be any doubt, the intention and purpose of the donor or testator of each fund, and that the proceeds of it may be rigidly applied to the use prescribed by him.

“‘(3) If this intention cannot be ascertained from any trustworthy document, rules or canons by which a safe judgement may be formed in such cases should be observed.

(4) Whenever a church or school or any other building intended for religious uses is erected or provided, either wholly or in part, from money contributed by the faithful, or granted by any society administering the alms of pious Catholics, every edifice of this kind is to be considered as belonging for ever to the place where it stands.

“‘(5) The same judgement must be passed on buildings erected by any benefactor, unless it is clearly proved that he made a declaration that in erecting such an edifice he did not intend it for the advantage of the faithful of that place, but that he wished to confer a benefit on some particular order. The rules laid down in this and the preceding number as to rights in foundations are in the case of Regulars to be applied to new foundations only. ** (6) But the Bishop shall not be allowed on this account to take away a mission lawfully entrusted to any religious order. These rules regard merely a case in which a religious body either cannot or will not retain the care of a mission—for example, if a superior remove it to some other place, or for any other reason it there cease to exist altogether, and not for a time only. “ (7) If, however, any mission be founded altogether or for the most part by funds belonging to any religious body, which for good reasons may wish to leave entirely and go elsewhere, we recommend that a distinct agreement be made between the Bishop and the superiors of the order as to what has to be done; so that on the one hand just rights may not suffer, and on the other no scandal may arise nor grievous loss of souls ensue. (8) Much less is it lawful for any cleric, or even for the Bishop himself, to alienate Church property, as is evident from almost numberless decrees of canon law. If, however, on account of reasons approved of by the canons, such an alienation become necessary, the priest can never act in this matter without the authority of the Bishop, nor the Bishop without the precautions required by canon law.

“‘(9) In every mission where money is contributed by the faithful in the ways hereafter described it is to be accounted Church property, and not a donation to the priest. For from this money he must provide not only for his own decent support, but for the expense of religious worship, for the maintenance of the fabric, for payment of debts, where there are any, and for other wants. Wherefore, if any priest leave a mission during the course of the year, he has not a right to his proportion of the yearly income until the amount justly due for expenses be deducted. In like manner, what he has provided for the use of the church from the income of the - church—for example, wax candles, wine for the most holy Sacrifice, sacred furniture—these he should leave behind him, without any compensation, unless he can clearly show that the supply is excessive. “

(10) All are aware that there are now in operation different methods of raising money for the support of missions. The following in particular we do not disapprove of, till the charity of the faithful shall provide in a better way. They are:

(a) Letting of seats or places in the church to certain persons or families at a fixed rent to be paid to the church.

(b) Church collections made at the Offertory. (c) According to a custom prevailing generally in England, payment of a fixed sum, according to the part of the church which they occupy, by those who do not rent seats, yet are not content to occupy what is called the free space. (d) Sermons by some distinguished preacher of the word of God, after which the alms of the congregation, whose number is often swelled by a concourse of strangers, are collected for the general or particular use of the church or for some special purpose. (e) Collections which are either made from house to house, by persons appointed for the purpose, or by societies and confraternities lawfully appointed, or which are gathered from tens or hundreds as is done in the excellent society called the Society for the Propagation of the Faith, or contributions made by the more wealthy portion of the congregation at fixed times or yearly. “

(11) Although it is certainly much to be desired that many of these methods of maintaining the Church were done away with, yet experience has taught that it is as yet impossible altogether to dispense with them. Wherefore, in those places where one or more of these methods prevail, they ought to be so kept on that no innovations be introduced without the authority of the Bishop. Especially the free space should not be diminished nor narrowed without consulting him. But whatever money comes to the mission by these means, it should be considered as belonging not to the priest personally, but to the general wants of the mission. Therefore, whatever furniture, either sacred or domestic, he acquires from these sources, or whatever he expends in keeping in repair the church or other buildings in any way belonging to it, in this expenditure he is not making provision for himself, but is providing for the mission from mission property. ‘

(12) As soon, therefore, as any priest enters on a mission, an inventory of all property belonging to the mission should be placed in his hands by the dean or by someone deputed by the Bishop. The missionary is bound to keep the furniture and buildings in good repair, yea, rather to improve them, that he may deliver to his successor as much at least as he received himself. Should he provide for the renewing of what is grown old and mean, or procure something new and more elegant to ornament the place, a distinction must be made as regards the sources from which the expense is defrayed.

(a) If the priest has procured these things from his own property, or from the gifts of friends well disposed towards him, or in fine, from that portion of the income of the church which he might have expended on his own decent maintenance, they are to be considered as his own property, provided he has kept all that he received in good order. (b) But if these things were procured out of the general revenues of the church, or by gifts and collections from the congregation, or by money granted by the Bishop or the administrators of the temporalities of the diocese, they are to be deemed entirely the property of the mission, nor is it lawful for the priest on any account to claim them. “*

(13) It is also to be generally understood according to a rule of canon law that things adapted for ecclesiastical purposes given to a missionary are, unless there is proof to the contrary, given to the mission; but things adapted for personal use are presumed to be given to the priest personally, as are also such church things as are given by a flock to a priest as tokens of gratitude or affection. ‘

(14) Retributions for Masses are the property of the priest. In like manner, where it is the custom, which is a very ancient one in England, of making presents to each priest at Easter and Christmas, these gifts of right belong to them. But the priest should be on his guard lest he incur the suspicion of avarice, by receiving anything on account of his administering the sacrament of Penance.

“‘(15) As to the application of money derived from stole fees, there is no uniform practice throughout the whole Church. For though the Church detests all filthy lucre in extorting or exacting money for the administration of the sacraments, yet the Council of Lateran, held under Innocent III in the year 1215, prescribed that the laudable customs in accordance with which offerings were made by the faithful to the ministers of the altar, on occasion of the administration of the sacraments, should be observed. The proceeds derived from this source should be ordinarily considered as belonging to the priests; though they are distributed in different ways in different places. That distribution seems to be the best which is most conducive to alleviate the burthens of the mission. “

(16) Whilst, therefore, we forbid anything to be asked for and much more anything to be exacted before the celebration of baptism and matrimony, and even after the celebration as a right, we leave it to the prudence of Bishops to determine in their diocesan synods what seems best adapted to the customs and state of places. Especially should they most vigilantly correct all abuses, if any exist, as to the amount or to the exaction of these offerings, by enforcing everywhere an equitable arrangement.”

These provisions seem to be in harmony with Canons 1182, 1519-1528, etc., of the new Code, and so it would seem that they are still in force.

558. • 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.

559. • 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.

168. First principle: Clerics have full dominion of patrimonial, casual, and also parcimonial goods. It is certain.

(A) With regard to patrimonial goods there is no difficulty: by natural right they belong to clerics; who, moreover, have emitted no vow of poverty, nor by any positive law are they deprived of the free disposition of these goods.

(B) Casual goods, or quasi-patrimonial goods, according to the common and in practice safe opinion, belong to clerics. For they are given by the faithful not indeed as the price of a sacred thing, but as compensation either for labor expended on the occasion of a sacred thing, or for expenses which clerics had to incur while preparing themselves to exercise sacred duties rightly, or by reason of gratitude. Now it is by no means established that the intention of the faithful is that clerics spend these offerings for pious uses; rather, from the circumstances they are judged to have given these absolutely, without any condition; therefore clerics are able to dispose of them at will.

169. Nevertheless the Church could make laws about this matter, which would have force in conscience, as in fact she made laws in the first centuries of the Church, and also in our days in certain dioceses: for the good of the Church can require this.

With regard to the division of casual goods between the pastor and his vicars, nothing is prescribed by the general law of the Church; hence particular Statutes, legitimate customs of places, and the intention of the faithful are to be attended to.

170. When there is question of offerings which are truly owed, e.g., on the occasion of marriage or a funeral, ordinarily it is defined by the Statutes what is owed, and what part is to be assigned to the pastor, to the vicars, or to other ministers: this law must be stood by altogether in conscience.¹

¹ In the Paris Statutes (Statuts Synodaux 1902, n. 580), it is rightly decreed that priests who demand more than has been determined by the Bishop act unjustly and are bound to restitution; in the same place (n. 581) it is recommended that casual rights are not to be exacted too rigorously, nor vindicated before tribunals without episcopal license; and (n. 583) that nothing is to be demanded from the poor, lest perhaps they be kept away from the sacraments.

If there is question of spontaneous offerings, and nothing has been defined concerning them, either by law² or by custom, the intention of the faithful must be attended to, since it is free to them to give something or not, and to whomever they wish. Generally they intend to bestow this offering on the priest himself who performed the sacred rite; but in a case of doubt, their will can be discreetly explored by this or a similar question: Do you wish to give this to the pastor, or to me?

² In the United States of America, concerning this division various laws are found in various dioceses: (a) in certain ones, e.g., Trenton (Statuta, n. 353-354), the alms which are paid out on the occasion of baptism, marriage, nuptial Mass, a sung Requiem Mass, all yield to the rector or pastor; he uses these to pay the expenses of the parochial house, and to supply suitable support to the vicars; if anything is left over, it is divided equally between the rector and his vicars. (b) In others, however, e.g., Baltimore and Wilmington (Stat. Wilmington., n. 282), alms of this kind are contributed in common, and then are divided so that, if there is one vicar, two parts yield to the pastor and one to the vicar; if there are two vicars, one half part yields to the pastor, and the other half is distributed equally among the vicars.

171. (C) Parcimonial goods are altogether under the dominion of clerics; for they have a right to honorable support, and therefore make their own those ecclesiastical revenues which are necessary for living honorably; hence if, by living sparingly and abstaining from legitimate recreations, they can set aside something from those revenues which they have made their own, this can be regarded as the fruit of industry and frugality, and it belongs altogether to them.

172. Second principle: Clerics are bound under grave obligation, at least from ecclesiastical law and charity, to spend the superfluous revenues of ecclesiastical goods on pious uses. It is certain.

It is explained. Here there is question only of revenues, not however of the goods themselves; for since the Church has made these goods her own, clerics cannot alienate ecclesiastical estates without injustice. But from these revenues clerics can turn to their own use whatever is required for honorable support, since benefices were instituted primarily for this end. But what remains is called superfluous; and these things, according to all, must be spent on pious uses from the law of the Church and from charity; whether also from justice or not will be said below.

173. It is proved. (A) From authority; besides the ancient canons¹ which explicitly treat of this matter, we have the Tridentine Council, which concerning Bishops, Cardinals, and consequently other beneficiaries, decrees as follows:² "Let them not strive, from the revenues of the Church, to enrich their blood-relatives or household members, since even the canons of the Apostles forbid ecclesiastical things, which are God's, to be given to blood-relatives; but if they are poor, let them distribute to them as to poor persons; but let them not divert them, nor dissipate them, for their sake..."¹

¹ See these in the Decree of Gratian, cause 12, q. 1.

² Sess. XXV, cap. I de Reformat.

¹ Today, however, from the Code, c. 239, n. 19, Cardinals can freely dispose of beneficial revenues; but, from can. 1473, other beneficiaries are bound to spend superfluous fruits for the poor or for pious causes.

(B) From the intention of donors: for they gave moneys and other goods to the Church so that they might be turned to pious uses, not however to profane uses, and therefore for the support of clerics and other pious works, not however for increasing the riches either of clerics or of their family.

174. Disputed question. (A) From this not a few canonists and theologians infer that clerics are bound from justice to spend the superfluous revenues of ecclesiastical goods on pious uses. For (a) according to the Fathers and sacred canons, ecclesiastical goods are the patrimony of Christ, the patrimony of the poor, so that clerics who spend these goods for profane uses are held guilty of rapine and sacrilege.² Now this signifies nothing else than that they are guilty of true injustice, and therefore are bound to restitution. (b) The faithful, in giving their goods to the Church, intended nothing else than to support clerics, relieve the poor, and foster divine worship; not however to enrich clerics or their nephews; but clerics, by accepting benefices, at least implicitly and by force of a quasi-contract, take upon themselves to execute the intentions of the donors; therefore, by dissipating ecclesiastical revenues, they violate the quasi-contract and therefore justice.

² Thomassin expressly reports these texts, op. cit., ch. 26-33.

175. (B) The more probable opinion, however, holds that the obligation of spending the superfluous goods of ecclesiastical goods on pious uses is not from justice.³ For (a) before the division of ecclesiastical goods, a fourth part was distributed to clerics for their support, and what remained fell altogether under their dominion as the wages of labor; but, after the division of goods had been made, benefices correspond to this fourth part, and therefore the revenues of benefices fall under the dominion of clerics; therefore, by spending them, even contrary to the laws of the Church, they do not violate justice, but obedience and charity.

³ St. Thomas, Quodlibet VI, p. 7, a. 12, ad 3; Soto, l. X, q. 4, a. 3; Lugo, disp. IV, n. 17; Lessius, l. II, c. 4, n. 43; Salmantic., c. II, n. 155; St. Alphonsus, n. 492; most recent authors.

(b) From the Tridentine Council, beneficiaries who reside in the place of the benefice and fulfill their duties make the fruits of their benefices their own; for this is drawn from the fact that those who do not reside, or do not emit the profession of faith, do not make the fruits their own; but to make the fruits one's own is the same as to acquire dominion over them; and if they truly acquire dominion of fruits of this kind, they do not sin against justice, even by squandering them.

176. Ecclesiastical goods are indeed called the patrimony of Christ, because they have been given in view of Christ; the patrimony of the poor, because the superfluous revenues must be distributed to the poor from charity; and those who dissipate these superfluous goods are held guilty of rapine, because, as was said above, n. 85-86, the Fathers with a certain oratorical exaggeration accuse of injustice the rich who do not feed the hungry.

177. Hence in practice it is permitted to follow the more benign opinion, nor are beneficiaries who have not spent these superfluous goods on pious uses to be compelled to restitution; but at the same time they are to be admonished that there lies upon them a grave obligation of applying these to pious uses, at least from charity.

Moreover, from can. 1299-1301, beneficiaries are bound to take care that sacred furnishings acquired from ecclesiastical goods be given to their own church.

178. Notes for France and the United States. (A) In France there are no longer benefices properly so called; but the Sacred Penitentiary responded several times that pensions which are paid by the Government to pastors, even removable ones, and to canons, assume the nature of benefices, and have attached to them the obligation of spending the superfluous on pious uses, and of observing residence under penalty of not making the fruits one's own. - But since pensions of this kind are so small that they scarcely suffice for honorable support, there is no difficulty.

179. (B) In the United States of America there are neither benefices nor pensions paid by the Government; but, according to the ecclesiastical laws there in force,¹ two kinds of goods must be carefully distinguished: (a) the revenues of the church, an account of which rectors must render, namely collections made in the church, unless the Bishop has otherwise determined concerning them; likewise all things which come from the rental of pews, from the cemetery and schools; legacies, annual subscriptions, and donations made to the rector of the church either by private individuals or by societies, especially of movable things, such as furnishings, priestly vestments, gold and silver vessels, unless the contrary has been explicitly declared by the donors. From these revenues all things must be taken which are necessary for divine worship, for the support of the clergy (according to the Statutes of each diocese), and of the parish School.

¹ Concil. Plen. Baltimor. III, n. 264-283; Statuta Baltim., n. 83-96, and other Statutes of each diocese.

180. (b) The goods which clerics can vindicate for themselves as their own, and which they can use and enjoy freely, namely: the fixed and determined sum of money which, under the name of salary, is assigned by the Bishop, within or outside the synod, to pastors and their vicars.¹ Priests, however, must be content with a smaller sum, if the parish or missions over which they preside cannot supply this; nor is the Bishop bound to make up the deficiency of salary, but only those things which are necessary for honorable support. Priests must collect their salary at an opportune time; if they have not collected it, nor vindicated it for themselves by a writing approved by the Ordinary or his Chancellor, they are considered by that very fact to have renounced their right.² - Mass stipends according to the tax fixed by custom or Statutes. - If a Mass is sung, what is above the ordinary stipend is commonly held as a stole-right and belongs to the pastor. - Offerings which they receive on the occasion of a sermon, or of another work of this kind; or donations spontaneously and explicitly made to them for their own utility.

¹ C. Balt. Plen. III, n. 273. - In certain dioceses no salary is assigned, but the special collection which is made on the days of the Nativity and Resurrection of the Lord is wholly permitted to the pastor by way of salary.

² C. Balt. Plen. III, n. 281.

Various Goods of Clerics. Various goods fall to clerics:

1. By a profane title: whether by inheritance, or by donation or legacy, or by profane labor or industry. Those goods are called patrimonial, and they are subject to no peculiar rule.

2. By title of a permanent sacred office, and this in two ways: a) either they are the revenues of a stable benefice. Concerning these c. 1473 has this: "Although a beneficiary should have other goods that are not beneficial, 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 for the poor or pious causes, with the prescription of c. 239, § 1, n. 19 preserved." By this prescription, Cardinals obtain, from privilege, the free disposition of those fruits, with sacred furnishings excepted, which they must give to a pious place or to a religious or ecclesiastical person, unless they prefer (those who have domicile in the City) that they yield in fact to the pontifical sacristy. Cf. c. 1298.

Nevertheless, it is not established that the obligation is of justice. Wherefore the cleric indeed sins gravely against religion who badly expends a quantity much greater than is required for grave theft; but neither is he himself bound to restitution; and those who, without deceit or unjust means, receive those goods from one distributing badly, are easily also immune from mortal sin. You will find the question set forth at length in Carrière, De iustitia et iure, I, 153-176.

b) Or they are oblations which are called curial rights or rights of stole. These are owed, for example, to the pastor as pastor, for baptism, marriage, funerals, although he did not intervene in them (c. 463, § 3). Concerning these, below.

3. By title of an exercised sacred function: they are stipends. Although the Church has the right of obliging a cleric that superfluous goods be destined to pious uses, it has not instituted this obligation. And choral distributions are equated to stipends.

4. By reason of parsimony. Goods thus obtained, as fruits of personal industry, are assimilated to patrimonial goods.

Goods obtained by oblations and stipends are called casual goods (although there is not one use of the word).

To which genus of goods, therefore, must the rights of stole be ascribed? The opinion more received today assimilates them to quasi-patrimonial goods (Carrière, I, n. 182).

Now, however, it must be observed that by force of c. 1410, through the rights of stole, and also, if all revenues of the benefice consist in choral distributions, through two parts of the distributions, the dowry of the benefice can be constituted. But if this is done, they are then shown to put on the character of ecclesiastical goods. Hence the question arises whether or not the superfluous goods of the dowry so constituted must be applied to the poor or pious causes, no otherwise than the beneficial revenues of goods whose ownership is in the juridical entity itself. If you consider the general words of c. 1473, commanding, without another distinction, that beneficial fruits superfluous to support be expended for the poor or pious causes, you will affirm the obligation; but if, on the other hand, you consider that up to this point, before the erection of the benefice, those same goods were acquired fully by the rectors without this burden, and that elsewhere, e.g. in Belgium and in France, from the very responses of the S. Penitentiary of 19 Jan. 1819 and 9 Aug. 1821, these things pass into the free dominion of pastors, you will conclude that that question cannot be well solved without the authority of the Holy See. (For the responses cf. Carrière, De iustitia et iure, I, 194.) - Much more will this intervention be necessary if the diocesan Prelate wishes that those superfluous goods be assigned by pastors to an end which he has defined. Thus, in more than one Apostolic Vicariate, rights of stole have been accustomed to be computed into the annual sum which the Apostolic Vicar must allot to missionaries for their support.

In Belgium (and formerly in France) and in the parts of Holland which in the year 1801 (of the Concordat) pertained to France, the annual salaries which are paid by the Government to bishops, canons, and pastors (even those who are called succursalistae) represent the fruits of a benefice and are ruled by their law (cf. resp. Paenit. 19 Jan. 1819; 9 Aug. 1821). But by that law there are not ruled the annual sums which are paid to vice-pastors, since these do not have a benefice - (thus De Brabandere against Marres) - nor supplements which are sometimes added by municipalities or parishes to the annual pension; nor pensions which are assigned to sacred ministers after they have discharged their office: for they do not regard sacred functions. (Cf. Génicot-Salsmans, I, 475 note 1; Aertnijs-Damen, I, 663 Q. 5, who thinks differently about supplements.)

Counsel. Of itself it is fitting that clerics destine to pious works whatever remains to them of emoluments which they have obtained from sacred functions or on their occasion. Cf. Lehmk., I, 1072 note, p. 607, who is lengthy in handling the whole question, n. 1072-1075.

On Oblations. Monies collected for a certain end or handed into boxes must be applied to that end. Oblations freely made by the faithful in the territory of a pastor and in the place subject to him (therefore not in the churches of regulars, seminaries, etc.) are presumed to have been conceded to pastors. Today, however, the intention of the faithful, from sufficiently common practice, seems rather to be that only oblations made during Mass at the altar, or for certain ministries, should fall to the pastor. Cf. De Meester, Juris can. Comp. II, n. 836, 837.

The taxes prevailing from legitimate custom are owed by the faithful on the occasion of the administration of the sacraments. The pastor has the right of demanding them, even if he himself did not perform the office by himself, yet in such a way that he does not deny gratuitous ministry to those who are not solvent (c. 463). "Those refusing are to be punished by the prudent judgment of the Ordinary until they have satisfied" (c. 2349).

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.

Since the condition of the temporal things of the Church in our Federated States is altogether peculiar and because, on account of circumstances, in many things it cannot be arranged according to the norm of the sacred Canons, a fuller treatment concerning them is necessary. We comprehend the whole matter in four questions. I. Whether and of what temporal things the Church can have dominion, and in what way this is recognized by our law. II. What is the subject in which direct dominion of ecclesiastical goods resides, and what is required so that they may be legitimately acquired and held. III. To whom the administration of ecclesiastical goods pertains, and in what way it is to be conducted. IV. What are the various species of ecclesiastical goods, and what is to be observed here concerning each.

194. Notions. - Clerics can have goods of three genera:

1st. Patrimonial or profane and quasi-patrimonial goods, which come to them from parents or others by inheritance or donation, or which they acquire by their own profane labor or industry, by exercising an art distinct from the sacred ministry, for example, by writing books, making paintings, teaching philosophy; to these can be equated those things which from frugality of life they subtract from the honorable support owed to them from ecclesiastical goods: for this is reckoned a fruit of industry.

2nd. Casual goods, which come to them by reason of personal ministry, and are handed over to them immediately by the faithful absolutely and without restriction: not as the price of a sacred thing, but as compensation of expenses or extraordinary labor or as a stipend of support, for example, stipends of Masses not connected with a benefice; offerings on the occasion of preaching or the administration of sacraments; also stole fees (c. 463, § 3), unless they partially constitute the dowry of a benefice, as the custom is not to consider them in our regions;¹ likewise choral distributions of canons, unless in the erection of the benefice they are assigned for the dowry according to can. 1410.

¹ This is also established for Belgium and France from the responses of the Sacred Penitentiary, Jan. 19, 1819 and Aug. 9, 1821; furthermore it is not demonstrated that those responses were revoked by more recent ordinances.

3rd. Ecclesiastical goods, or revenues which by reason of a benefice or ecclesiastical dignity are conceded to them from the goods of the Church itself and from the dowries of benefices; which consequently belong immediately to the church itself and only mediately to clerics by reason of the benefice.

195. Principles. - I. Clerics have full dominion over patrimonial and casual goods.

The reason is that they come to them by personal title and have been handed over directly to them.

II. Clerics have from ecclesiastical goods a right to honorable and suitable support according to that saying, I Cor. IX, 13: "Do you not know that those who work in the sanctuary eat the things which are of the sanctuary?"; but by ecclesiastical law they are obligated under grave obligation, a personal obligation, at least from religion and charity, to expend the superfluities of revenues on pious uses.

Thus can. 1473: "Even if a benefice-holder has other non-beneficial goods, he can freely use and enjoy beneficial fruits which are necessary for his honorable support; but he is held by the obligation of expending the superfluous for the poor or for pious causes, with the prescription of can. 239, § 1, n. 19 being saved," namely, the privilege of Cardinals, who enjoy the faculty "of freely disposing of beneficial revenues even by testament," but not of sacred furnishings (c. 1298). The obligation is derived from the intention of the Church, which is also affirmed by the Council of Trent, sess. 25, c. 1 de ref.; and from the intention of the donors who handed over money and other goods to the Church for pious uses, not for profane ones. But it is a personal obligation, which therefore does not pass to heirs or donees; the cleric making the fruits his own acquires true dominion of the revenues, but with the obligation of expending the superfluous, which presses at least from religion and from charity, for that it presses from justice is not proved, as we already learn from St. Thomas.² Whence no obligation of restitution is given.

² Quodl. VI, q. 7, a. 12, ad 3; II-II, q. 158, a. 7.

For grave fault there is required a quantity much greater than for theft. St. Alphonsus judges, Th. M., l. 3, n. 490, and l. 4, n. 183, that a notable quantity is the twentieth part, or 5%, of superfluous revenues, if the superfluities are great.

196. Practical conclusions. - 1. A cleric, like any citizen, can fully dispose of goods which are not strictly ecclesiastical; yet by reason of his state he must use them without scandal and with clerical modesty preserved, and he is more strictly bound to relieve the poor and sustain pious causes.

2. Unless necessity threatens of providing for the poor, a benefice-holder can reserve superfluities for pious uses in the future, provided nevertheless that he apply caution, lest, prevented by death, the revenues be plundered by blood relatives.

3. In several regions, ecclesiastical goods which formerly supplied revenues to benefice-holders have now almost totally been plundered by the government or private persons; but the pension which in Belgium, in many parts of the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, etc. (and formerly in France) is paid to bishops, pastors (even succursalists), and canons, according to the declarations of the Sacred Penitentiary (Jan. 19, 1819; Aug. 9, 1821; Jan. 9, 1823), assumes the character of a benefice, yet for the most part is so modest that by itself alone it scarcely suffices for the suitable support of a cleric. But this does not seem valid concerning supplements which are paid to pastors by municipalities or church fabrics, nor is it valid concerning pensions of old age or adverse health which come to them after the office has already been abdicated; nor concerning those things which are paid to vicar cooperators or other helpers, who do not have a benefice.

4. In other regions, as in the United States of America, contributions of the faithful imposed by way of tax for the support of benefice-holders take the place of ecclesiastical goods and revenues; just as those things which by force of statutes or custom are given to pastors by reason of title, as at the time of the Nativity or Easter is accustomed to happen in certain places.

The goods of clerics are distinguished into four kinds, namely: 1st. Patrimonial goods, which come from paternal inheritance or from any other profane cause, for instance from donation, succession, etc.; 2nd. Quasi-patrimonial goods, which are also called quasi-ecclesiastical or casual, and these are those which are acquired on occasion and in view of functions, e.g., by celebrating Mass, preaching, etc.; 3rd. Ecclesiastical goods, which are received from benefices of the Church, e.g., from revenues of benefices, etc.; 4th. Parcimonial goods, which a cleric sets aside by living sparingly from the fruits of a benefice, and which he could consume by living honorably.

Note 1° that the goods of clerics are of three kinds, namely patrimonial, quasi-patrimonial and ecclesiastical. — Patrimonial are those which come to them independently of all ministry as well as ecclesiastical benefice, and are common to them and to laymen. — Quasi-patrimonial are those which come to clerics not by reason of an ecclesiastical benefice, or from goods offered and appropriated to the Church itself, but by reason of personal ecclesiastical ministry, as it were its wage and stipend; or, what is the same, those which are offered by the faithful, to be appropriated not to the Church itself, but to particular ministers of it for the stipend of the work, e.g., for the celebration of Mass, funeral offices, sermon, singing, etc. — Ecclesiastical are those received by clerics by reason and title of benefice, say canonries, deaneries, etc. As to distributions called among those present, more probably they are to be referred to ecclesiastical goods, if, as ordinarily happens, they be given out of the goods of the Church.

[Distinguished also are parcimonial goods, which indeed by their nature pertained to ecclesiastical goods, but which the cleric alienated from his own suitable sustentation, by living more sparingly than he could live honestly. They seem reducible to quasi-patrimonial.

Note 2° that in the first times of the Church the goods of clerics were common, as now they are in monasteries, dispensation left with the bishop. But truly, as the multitude of faithful and clerics daily grew, and because of the cupidity of some the common manner of living became more difficult, supreme Pontiffs ordered these goods to be divided into four portions : the first assigned to the bishop; the second to the clergy; the third to the fabric; the fourth to the poor. So it is read in the Decree, cause 12, q. 2, cap. Concesso; cap. Quatuor; cap. de Reditibus; cap. Cognovimus, etc.

This division first begun under B. Sylvester, about the year 324, as is evident from cap. 4 of the Roman council celebrated by him, did not everywhere straightway prevail, but advanced little by little.

With progress of time however it happened that this fourth part of the poor is found no longer in many churches, perhaps because it perished through injury of times, or pillage of enemies, or other calamity; or perhaps because it was not constituted in lands, but in moneys which distributed at last came to an end; or finally because neither by founders nor by prelates of the Church was any portion assigned to the poor, which at least for the most part is true regarding churches erected after the time when the division was made.

Note 3° that the fruits of benefices can be regarded either insofar as they are necessary to honest sustentation, or insofar as they are superfluous to that honest sustentation, which does not consist in an indivisible, as we shall say below.

You will ask 1° what is to be understood under name of superfluous.

I answer. Superfluous is estimated what exceeds honest or congruous sustentation. Moreover congruous sustentation of cleric is judged that which is necessary to sustaining becomingly his own state and providing for family, according to condition, grade, dignity, quality of the beneficed man and region in which he dwells. So understands St. Liguori²⁶⁶. ²⁶⁶ Ibid., n. 491, quaer. 2°.

You will ask 2° how much is required in this matter to constitute mortal sin.

I answer. Greater quantity is required than in theft. Of the beneficed man says the Angelic Doctor, 2a 2ae, q. 183, a. 7, c : «Of those things which are specially assigned to his own use, there seems to be the same reason as concerning proper goods, namely that, on account of immoderate affection and use, he sins indeed if he retain immoderately to himself and aid not others as required debt of charity. But if the aforesaid goods be not distinct, distribution of them is committed to his good faith. And if he fail or abound but slightly, this can be done without detriment of good faith, because man cannot punctually receive in such matters what ought to be done. But if excess be much, it cannot lie hidden.» Not therefore is matter grave unless excess be much, that is, according to truer opinion, the twentieth part of superfluous goods, provided these reach a notable sum ²⁶⁷. ²⁶⁷ Id., ibid., lib. V, n. 183.

You will ask 3° who come under name of poor.

I answer. Under name of poor come not only those begging door to door, but also those who unless they receive alms cannot preserve their own state, even kinsmen, if they be truly poor. It is licit even to prefer these to others even more gravely needy, «because, says St. Liguori, relief of needy kinsmen pertains also to the proper state of the cleric being preserved, since their poverty redounds to his disgrace ²⁶⁸.» This accords with the decree of Trent cited above. ²⁶⁸ Lib. IV, n. 491, quaer. 2°.

You will ask 4° whether beneficiaries may reserve superfluous goods for the future for pious uses.

I answer. The Angelic Doctor, ubi supra, ad 4 : «The goods of the Church ought to serve uses of the poor. And therefore, if anyone, no necessity of providing for the poor impending, buy possessions from what superabounds from revenues of the Church, or lay them up in treasure for future utility of the Church and needs of the poor, he does laudably. But if necessity of bestowing on the poor impend, it is superfluous and disordered care that anyone conserve for the future; which the Lord forbids, Matth., VI, 34 : Be not solicitous for tomorrow.»

It must be noted however that if anything be reserved for the future, sufficient caution must be employed, lest upon death coming such revenues perchance be pillaged by kinsmen ²⁶⁹. ²⁶⁹ Id., ibid., quaer. 4°.

You will ask 5° whether it is licit for a beneficed man to reserve something for himself for the future.

I answer. that he can moderately reserve certain things, so that provision may be made against infirmity and other necessities which can probably occur, provided however actual grave necessity of poor urge not; yet with this condition, that, if afterwards he need these not, they be expended according to prescription of canonical law.

You will ask 6° whether beneficed men validly make testament concerning superfluous revenues.

I answer. affirmatively, according to the opinion defended above and from usage received in many places. But this is not licit except for pious causes. For although, where usage has prevailed, they testate validly even unto profane uses, nevertheless they sin mortally unless they do this from indult of the Pope²⁷⁰. ²⁷⁰ De Angelis, lib. III, tit. 26.

You will ask 7° whether the salary which is paid by government in France to priests takes on the nature of ecclesiastical goods.

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.