Composition

520. Declaration. Composition with the supreme pontiff also excuses from restitution. Composition is the remission of a debt made by authority of the supreme pontiff. By composition sometimes the remission of the whole debt is conceded, and sometimes, with the greater part of it remitted, a small part must be expended for pious causes. A twofold and diverse composition must be distinguished: a. for uncertain goods; b. for ecclesiastical goods.

521. Composition for uncertain goods (debts). 1. Since these goods cannot licitly be retained unless by prescription they have become the debtor's own, either restitution of them must be made (n. 503) or their condonation must be sought from the supreme pontiff.

2. The supreme pontiff is accustomed to make this condonation so that he decrees that some part of the debt be applied to pious causes, remits the remaining part, and finally supplies from the treasury of the Church the spiritual fruit which is withdrawn from the unknown owner by this condonation.¹

a. The just cause of the condonation is this: because through it provision is made for the conscience of the debtor, who, if restitution were omitted, would easily have remained in bad faith; and because through it at least part of the debt is acquired for pious causes, which perhaps would have received nothing.

b. By this condonation the obligation of restoring is considered altogether extinguished, so that the debtor is not bound to restore anything to the owner if by chance he appears afterward.²

3. To obtain composition recourse must be had to the Sacred Penitentiary; but where the bull of the Crusade is in force, whose last part is the bull of Composition, he who obtains the aforesaid bull for himself can obtain composition.

¹ Cf. Lugo, disp. 6, n. 150.

² Cf. Lehmkuhl I, n. 1024.

522. Composition for ecclesiastical goods. 1. That the supreme pontiff can make condonation where there is question of goods taken away from the Church and to be restored to it is easily conceded, since he himself is the supreme administrator of all ecclesiastical goods. This condonation is conceded both to governments and to private persons, not only for immovable goods but also for movable goods taken away from the Church.

2. Governments which occupied ecclesiastical goods have almost everywhere obtained condonation from the supreme pontiff, so that both governments and private persons who had received goods of this kind from the government possess them legitimately.

In recent time several compositions of this kind have been conceded to Catholic governments, and indeed so that ecclesiastical goods can be retained as one's own without the obligation of fulfilling any burden, and freely alienated.

a. For France, by the convention entered between Pius VII and Napoleon, July 15, 1801, condonation was made as to ecclesiastical goods which up to that time had been occupied and alienated by the government; afterward the condonation was extended to all goods occupied by the government up to that time, even if they had not yet been alienated.¹

b. For the kingdom of the Two Sicilies condonation was made March 17, 1819, as to ecclesiastical goods alienated before the year 1818.

c. For all Sardinia condonation was made May 14, 1828, as to all ecclesiastical goods occupied and alienated by the government up to that time.

d. For Belgium condonation was made Sept. 16, 1833, as to all ecclesiastical goods occupied by the government.

e. For Spain condonation was made through the concordat of 1851 and 1859, so that all who bought ecclesiastical goods usurped by the government can possess them safely in conscience without any obligation of prior burdens.

f. For the Archdiocese of Cologne and for the dioceses of Trier and Munster, condonation was made Nov. 27, 1891, as to occupations continued by the French government up to the end of the year 1814 on the left bank of the Rhine.

This condonation was extended on Feb. 7, 1894, to ecclesiastical goods which in the whole kingdom of Prussia were secularized up to the end of the year 1824 and at present are possessed by private persons as their own or will be possessed in the future.

3. To private persons who either themselves occupied ecclesiastical goods or bought them from a usurping government to which condonation has not been made, universal condonation has never been conceded; wherefore, in order that they may possess them legitimately, in individual cases they must have recourse to the Holy See for composition, unless the goods have already been prescribed.

Prescription of these goods seems to have to be admitted, provided the conditions required for this by canon law are present (n. 406). Yet because as to immovable ecclesiastical goods the existence of those conditions, and especially the good faith of possessors, can rarely be established, recourse to composition with the Holy See is to be advised.

4. As to movable goods, the Holy See establishes these things:² a. On those who acquired movable ecclesiastical goods which cannot be preserved, some alms must be imposed in favor of the pious places to which those goods belonged, insofar as they bought them at a price which, in the judgment of the ordinary or confessor, was less than just. b. If there is question of goods which can be preserved (sacred vessels, furnishings), there should be imposed on the penitents the obligation of having recourse as soon as possible to the ordinary, who will provide according to the faculty granted to him.

¹ Sacred Penitentiary, March 20, 1818. Brief of Pius VII, Oct. 20, 1821.

² Sacred Penitentiary, June 1, 1869.

241. Five exempting causes can be enumerated: remission, compensation, prescription, composition, and extreme necessity.

The express, tacit, or even presumed remission of the creditor exempts from restitution. It is required, however, that express remission be: a) altogether free, i.e., immune from every error, fraud, force, and fear; b) made by him who has the power of remitting according to both natural and positive law. Hence, e.g., remission is invalid if the creditor is deceived concerning the quantity of the debt, thinking it to be much less than it really is; likewise, if the debtor falsely pretends to be miserable and exceedingly poor in order to arouse the creditor's mercy; likewise, if a wife remits restitution to be made from her husband's goods, etc. - Sometimes a confessor can prudently seek express remission from the creditor in the name of the penitent if it is truly exceedingly hard for the penitent to make restitution. Nevertheless, let the confessor be very cautious lest the seal of confession be violated and lest great inconveniences arise for himself from such a request.

Tacit or presumed remission is regarded as present when it can prudently be judged that the creditor, if asked in a fitting manner by the debtor or by the confessor in the name of the debtor, would willingly remit the debt; e.g., in thefts committed by children of a family, at least if the thing taken away no longer exists; for parents ordinarily are not so unwilling on account of the thing itself taken away as on account of the furtive manner of its taking. Likewise, the husband's remission can sometimes be presumed in thefts by the wife, provided they were committed for reasonable expenses. Likewise, in petty thefts committed by servants in food and other things committed to their care. Likewise, in petty thefts (which did not coalesce into grave matter within a short time) committed by workers, e.g., by carrying away small things such as wood, metal, cloth, etc., the owner is not greatly unwilling, because he does not suffer great damage. Therefore, after the deed, remission can be presumed. Nevertheless, workers are to be deterred from thefts of this kind, both because of the bad example with respect to their other companions and because of the danger of gradually arriving at grave matter.

Compensation is the reciprocal extinction of two debts and is had when a creditor has exacted, either from the debtor himself or from that debtor's debtors, those things to which he had a right. E.g., Peter owes Paul 100 francs; Andrew owes Peter 100 francs. Paul, who cannot obtain the sum of 100 francs from Peter, exacts it (with the authority of civil law) from Andrew and obtains it. Both debts are now extinguished. In practice the statutes of civil law concerning this matter are to be observed.

Prescription extinguishes, after the legitimate time, the debt of a possessor in good faith, as was said above in n. 213; but it can never free a possessor in bad faith from the obligation of restitution, because the necessary condition, namely, good faith, is lacking.

242. Composition, which is a remission of debt made by the Supreme Pontiff, can have place only: a) in ecclesiastical goods; and b) in goods which are owed to uncertain owners. Since the Supreme Pontiff has the high dominion of all ecclesiastical goods, he can for a just cause on account of the common good remit ecclesiastical goods usurped or acquired in another illegitimate manner both to civil governments and to individual persons.

Ecclesiastical goods usurped have many times been remitted to civil governments. Thus, e.g., all ecclesiastical goods occupied up to 15 July 1801 were remitted to the government of France. But the faithful who bought or acquired by another title these goods usurped up to that time, although this acquisition was made after 15 July 1801, can retain them rightfully and peacefully.¹¹⁶ This is also established from the letters of Pius VII directed to the Bishop of Poitiers in 1822. But ecclesiastical goods usurped in the latest French persecution have not yet been remitted. For Spain remission was made both by the Concordat on 16 March 1851 and by the additional convention on 25 August 1859. - For Belgium remission was made on 16 December 1833 with respect to all goods usurped by the government. - For the Kingdom of Prussia remission was made on 7 February 1894 concerning all goods which were secularized up to the end of the year 1824 and are at present possessed by private persons as their own or will be possessed in the future.¹¹⁷ - For Italy the faculty of making composition was granted to the bishops if the ecclesiastical goods occupied do not exceed the value of 30,000 francs.¹¹⁸

How one is to act with private persons who bought ecclesiastical goods usurped by the civil government or acquired them by another title cannot be determined by one general rule. The statutes enacted for the individual regions are to be consulted. But if some doubt remains, recourse is to be had to the Sacred Penitentiary.

If there is question not of ecclesiastical goods but of goods belonging to an uncertain owner and therefore to be distributed to the poor or to pious causes, theologians commonly teach that the Supreme Pontiff can for a just cause grant composition, because even the support of the poor in some manner belongs to the Church and is subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Pontiff, who can dispense in all things which are not directly contrary to natural or divine law. But no one will say that composition, when the legitimate owner cannot be found, is directly contrary to natural or divine law. The Supreme Pontiff ordinarily makes this composition in such a manner that he decrees that some part of the debt is to be applied to pious causes or to the poor, remits the remaining part, and finally from the treasury of the Church supplies the spiritual fruit which would have come to the unknown owner if he had given in alms or to pious causes all those goods taken away from him. To obtain this composition it is ordinarily necessary to have recourse to the Sacred Penitentiary, which grants it provided that: a) the owner is uncertain; b) the case is occult; c) the delinquent is poor. In Spain, Portugal, and other places where the Bull Cruciada is still in use, special faculties concerning this matter are had.¹¹⁹

But what is to be done if, by an unexpected event, after the debt to be restored has been distributed to the poor or to pious causes, the true owner appears? In that case: a) prescription can be employed, which, especially in movable things, does not require a long time according to modern laws. But if: b) the legally determined time has not yet elapsed, the debtor is nevertheless not held to restore that which he has already given in good faith to the poor or to pious causes,¹²⁰ and indeed, according to many theologians, not even that which the Supreme Pontiff remitted.¹²¹

Extreme or quasi-extreme necessity excuses, and indeed exempts from every obligation of restitution, when no hope appears of removing it. For then restitution is morally impossible. But no one is bound to the impossible.

¹¹⁶ Cf. the response of the Sacred Penitentiary, 20 March 1848.

¹¹⁷ Cf. Vogt, Kirchenvermögensrecht § 20.

¹¹⁸ Cf. Cardinal Gennari, Consultazioni morali canoniche-liturgiche, consultation I, pp. 17-54.

¹¹⁹ Acta Apostolicae Sedis VII (1915), pp. 553 and 562.

¹²⁰ Cf. Tanquerey, De iust. n. 610.

¹²¹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 592.

340. The causes definitively exempting from the obligation of restoring are:

1. The destruction of the thing owed in species without fault of the debtor of good faith, or, for a debtor of bad faith, if the thing would have perished at the same time from a natural cause with the owner: it exempts, namely, from restitution of the thing.

2. Condonation (total or partial) or remission of the debt made by the creditor, whether express, or implicit or tacit (for example, by deleting the chirograph), or legitimately presumed on account of a positive and solid foundation, as can exist for thefts of sons and sometimes for little thefts of servants, which can be conjectured from the love and liberality of the father or owner, the quantity and quality of the thing, and other circumstances (a. 1282-84).

Moreover, for legitimate condonation three conditions are required: a) that it be perfectly free, immune from error, fraud, fear, or force; whence it does not hold if it has been extorted by threat, or if the creditor errs, or is deceived concerning the quantity of the debt which he thinks much smaller, or the debtor feigns poverty; b) that it be made by him who has power, namely, who has actual dominion of the things and free administration, whence invalid is a condonation made by a wife concerning the goods of the husband or of the community; c) that the law not obstruct.

3. Compensation (a. 1289 sq.), by which a certain debt of justice is extinguished equally on each side, whether it has been made to the debtor himself if the creditor owes him as much, or made to the creditor through an equivalent donation, or made to the creditor's creditor, as if Paul owes 100 fr. to Peter, and John 100 to Paul, but Peter asks payment from John.

Yet this cannot be done except from a reasonable cause, if the creditor cannot obtain payment otherwise, or only with difficulty; because a personal right is injured and the order of law which the law orders to be observed is interrupted (a. 1239), which will not be licit except on account of a proportionate cause.

4. The legitimate authority of a superior, whether a) through prescription; or b) through the sentence of a judge, provided it has been obtained in good faith and without unjust means, in the case of juridical fault or doubtful matter: thus it happens that someone can retain what perhaps he owed, or another on account of juridical fault is bound to pay him; or c) through composition of the Supreme Pontiff, by which, with a just reason, the restitution to be made for ecclesiastical goods taken away, or for debts toward unknown persons, is partially or totally remitted: for the Supreme Pontiff is the natural administrator of ecclesiastical goods, indeed also of pious causes; but the part which is remitted can be supplied to the creditor in spiritual utility from the treasury of the Church.

But if afterward the owner appears, probably the debtor can judge himself liberated from every obligation.

341. Does not a cession of goods exempt from the obligation of paying debts integrally? - Resp.:

1. Cession of goods per se does not take away such an obligation but only excuses for a time, on account of the debtor's inability to pay all debts.

2. Whence, if someone culpably or fraudulently has become unable to pay, or makes a cession from bad faith, he is not exempted from the obligation of restoring the whole, because since he is an unjust damager, the creditors are not judged to condone, nor would the law establish this equally.

3. In the case in which someone from mere misfortune has become unequal to paying debts, a) if in the very contract of cession the creditors explicitly declare that the debtor either will be free or will remain obligated, that contract is to be observed. b) Likewise the law is to be observed, if it itself declares the obligation to remain, as happens in Belgian law (29 June 1887, a. 25; C. C., a. 1270; C. Com., a. 586) for compositions which merchants unequal to paying enter upon with creditors for preventing bankruptcy. c) But with the express disposition of creditors or of law excluded, the obligation of paying the remaining things is not extinguished but only suspended.

Nevertheless if somewhere a contrary persuasion commonly prevails, this can be admitted or tolerated: it is reported to be so in England, where businessmen are accustomed to receive a greater price on account of danger to capital from the foresight of such a loss, and therefore they more easily consent to it. But in many regions it is not so.

342. Observation. - He who enters religion is not on that account exempted from the obligation of restoring, nor yet does the religion contract that obligation, but he himself must restore as far as he can from goods if he has any, and afterward, with the consent of the superior, work and do other things fitting to his state, so that he can complete payment.

But by positive ecclesiastical law such a one is prohibited under grave obligation to enter (can. 542). But considering natural law alone:

a) if within a short time, for example, two years, he can satisfy the obligation of restoring at least for a great part, he is bound to defer entrance until restitution has been made;

b) but if there is no founded hope that he can restore within a short time, with a cession of goods having been made to the creditors, he can enter, especially if from a long delay a special danger of salvation threatens him: for because of money the person of a free man cannot be obligated, but only his thing (q. 189, a. 6, ad 3).

II. Composition with the supreme Pontiff is then had when the Roman Pontiff, by his supreme power, so treats that one part of the debt indeed is expended on pious causes, but the other is forgiven to the debtor, supplying out of the treasury of the Church the spiritual benefit which would accrue to the owner if the whole debt had been spent on alms. ^{457 457} S. Lig., Homo apost., X, 117, 2°.

For the composition to be legitimate, and to free the debtor in the forum of conscience, it is required: 1° That the owners be altogether uncertain; for if they are known in some degree, as in petty thefts, or merchants cheating in weight and measure, they cannot without injustice be directly despoiled without their consent. 2° That a just cause be present; for otherwise the composition would indeed be valid, but illicit, in ecclesiastical matters; in other matters, however, the cause failing, it would also be invalid, because in the first case the supreme Pontiff dispenses in his own law, but not so in the second. — If, however, the cause has been just, the composition once made is not revoked, although the owner appears, because dominion has already been legitimately transferred. So Lugo, against others, who wish the debtor in that case to be held to restitute to the owner that by which he has been enriched. ^{458 458} Id., lib. IV, n. 592 et 593 ; Homo apost., X, 68.

This composition is made through the bull of the Crusade, for those to whom it has been granted, for example, in Spain, in Sicily, etc. It can also be obtained from the Holy Penitentiary, to which, by the bull Pastor bonus, was granted the faculty of remitting part of what has been wickedly taken or retained, if the owner is uncertain, the case occult, and the offender poor. But the part which is not remitted must be given to the poor, or expended on pious works, and indeed, if possible, in those very places where the unjust acquisition of those goods was made.

As regards the bishops, the truer opinion holds that the faculty of composition does not belong to them, since it is an act of supreme power. ^{459 459} Id., lib. IV, n. 696.