Property Rights of Clerics

380. Declarations. The goods of clerics are of three kinds:

1. Patrimonial goods, which come to clerics from paternal inheritance or from any other profane cause, for example, donation, contract, industry, or another mode of this kind common with seculars, for example, by teaching letters.

Of these goods clerics have perfect ownership equally as laymen: for by no positive law is natural right now limited in this matter with respect to clerics.¹

2. Quasi-patrimonial or quasi-ecclesiastical or casual goods, which clerics acquire from ecclesiastical functions and offices, such as stipends of Masses and sermons.

To these goods belong: a. stole fees; b. salaries which are received by assistants of pastors, military chaplains, professors of religion in gymnasia; stipends for the office of teaching theology in universities or seminaries, whether they are paid by the Church or by the government; distributions which are given to canons, fruits of a lay benefice; c. offerings of the faithful which are given to the pastor himself; d. pensions which, whether by the government or by the Church, are conferred upon retired or sick clerics.

Of these goods clerics likewise have perfect ownership: for there is no reason for affirming that they have limited ownership; and indeed neither those who bestow goods of this kind nor the Church have limited this ownership in any way.

3. Ecclesiastical or beneficial goods, which clerics receive from ecclesiastical benefices.

a. From beneficial goods there are distinguished goods simply ecclesiastical, such as beneficial lands, which pertain to the Church; beneficiaries have their administration and usufruct. Here there is no question of beneficial lands, but of the fruits which clerics receive from them.

b. To ecclesiastical or beneficial goods also belong: alpha. salaries which are paid by the government to pastors, canons, or bishops; for the Church considers these as ecclesiastical goods, because they are paid by the government in place of goods of the Church that were taken away.² Likewise, beta. supplements which are paid out to pastors by the community for suitable support, because by public authority they are substituted in place of ecclesiastical goods.

c. The notion of ecclesiastical good is to be taken strictly, that is, only for those goods which come from an ecclesiastical benefice properly so called, and is not to be extended to goods which a cleric acquires for himself from some ecclesiastical office (as of vicar general, rector of a seminary, professor of sacred theology), even if these goods are drawn from ecclesiastical goods.³

These ecclesiastical goods are either necessary, parsimonial, or superfluous. a. Those are called necessary which clerics need for honest support. b. Those are called parsimonial which clerics could consume by living honorably, but which by living more sparingly they set aside from the revenues of the benefice. c. Those are called superfluous which remain over after honest support.

¹ Cf. Benedict XIV, De synodo dioec., l. 7, c. 3.

² S. Poenitent., 19 Jan. 1819; 19 Aug. 1821; 9 Aug. 1824.

³ Cf. Hollweck, Das Testament der Geistlichen (Mainz: Kirchheim, 1901), p. 32 ff., who calls these goods ecclesiastical; on the contrary, Hilgenreiner, Professorengehalt eines Geistlichen (Linz. Quartalschrift, 1902), p. 349 ff.

381. On the ownership of clerics in ecclesiastical goods. 1. In ecclesiastical goods necessary for suitable or honest support, clerics have perfect ownership; for from the Council of Trent beneficiaries make the fruits received from benefices their own,¹ but by these words the acquisition of ownership is signified.

a. Therefore clerics can take honest support from the revenues of the benefice even if they have other goods; for benefices were chiefly instituted for this end, that those who serve the Church may also be supported by the Church.² But if a cleric lives from his own patrimony, he can receive as much from ecclesiastical goods and dispose of it at will.

b. What support is suitable must be defined not by a certain rule, but by prudent judgment. In rendering this judgment account must be taken of alpha. the person, for more things are necessary to one than to another; beta. the custom of the place; gamma. the office and quality of the benefice. Moreover, under suitable support are also comprehended alms to be given, hospitality, honest recreations, moderate donations, a quantity reserved for future events, and decent support of blood relatives if they need it, so that prodigality and avarice may equally be absent from an ecclesiastical man.

c. With respect to goods left by a cleric, concerning which it is not established by what title they were acquired, it must be distinguished in this way: if it is established that the cleric acquired other goods besides the revenues of the benefice, he must be presumed to have consumed the beneficial goods for his support, but reserved the others for blood relatives. But if it is not established that he acquired other goods besides beneficial goods, he must be presumed to have left ecclesiastical goods until something else is proved.³

2. In parsimonial ecclesiastical goods clerics likewise have perfect ownership: for they are goods set aside from necessaries; but in these they had acquired perfect ownership; therefore also in those they have perfect ownership, since they do not lose the ownership which they had acquired.

3. Even in superfluous goods clerics acquire true ownership; yet they are bound under grave obligation to distribute them to the poor or to other pious uses.

a. That clerics acquire true ownership in superfluous goods is the opinion of St. Thomas,⁴ which St. Alphonsus holds sufficiently probable.⁵ And indeed ecclesiastical goods are offered by the faithful to the Church with this pious intention, that they may be dedicated to the honor of the saints. But it must be said that the Church acquires true ownership and free disposition of those goods, so that it can validly dispose of them for any use whatsoever, but licitly only for a pious and religious use, since that alone corresponds to the nature of the goods and the intention of the faithful.

b. While the Church, with benefices having been constituted, gives a part of these goods to clerics, it transfers true ownership in these goods to them, but at the same time also the obligation which inheres in them, namely of not spending them except for pious uses. That clerics have true ownership in superfluous goods is clear from the Council of Trent, which teaches concerning ecclesiastical goods generally and without distinction that clerics make their fruits their own.

c. Therefore clerics have in ecclesiastical goods, even superfluous goods, true ownership, but ownership burdened with a charge which the nature of the goods demands, namely of distributing them to pious uses. Whether clerics are bound to this distribution from justice is disputed; but because the opinion which denies an obligation of justice has true probability, clerics who spend superfluous goods badly cannot be obligated to restitution, either themselves or their heirs. But concerning this matter it will be said below.

Note. It is altogether fitting that a cleric distribute even goods which are not ecclesiastical, at least in part, to the poor or to pious causes; for the people easily take scandal if all non-ecclesiastical goods are given to blood relatives who are not in need.

¹ Sess. 24, c. 12, De reform., and elsewhere often.

² 1 Cor. 9:7-14.

³ Cf. Schmalzgrueber, in tit. De pecul. cler., n. 15.

⁴ Summa, II-II, q. 185, a. 7; Quodl., 6, a. 12, ad 3.

⁵ L. 3, n. 492, compared with Quaest. ref., q. X.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

3. As regards offerings, I note:

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

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

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

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

³ Sweens, n. 79.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

560. • Questions. Q. 1. Whether Clerics badly spending the superfluities of ecclesiastical goods are bound to restitution?

Resp. Probably negatively, because although the precept of the Church is established, nevertheless the obligation from justice is not established. Indeed from the Council of Trent it seems to be gathered that they make the fruits their own, although with the obligation of spending the superfluity in alms or other pious works. For the Council says of non-resident Clerics: "Let them not make the fruits their own." - Lugo. - Billuart. - Lessius. - St. Thomas, etc.

Yet others probably affirm, because Clerics are only administrators and stewards of ecclesiastical goods. Collet. - Laymann. - Antoine. - The first opinion, that is, the negative, says St. Lig. in Retract., q. X, seems no less probable in practice, especially on account of the authority and reason of St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 185, art. 7 ¹. But as regards the guilt of the violated precept of the Church, for grave matter there is required a much greater quantity than in theft, namely, according to the truer opinion, approximately a twentieth part of the superfluities ². - St. Lig., n. 491, IV.

¹ ** St. Thomas asks (Quodl. 6, art. 12), "Whether clerics sin mortally if they do not bestow in alms those things which are superfluous to them." And (ibid., ad 3) he responds: "In the second things," namely in those goods which are principally attributed to the uses of ministers, such as are the prebends of clerics and other things of this kind, "they do not commit sin except through abuse, as was said concerning patrimonial goods. Hence one is not bound to restitution, but only to doing penance."

And hence it is easily clear in what place they are to be held who, for the contrary opinion, boast of Sacred Scriptures, Sacred Canons, the primitive Church, being fortified by the prescription of fifteen centuries, by the authority of the Holy Fathers and Pontiffs, confirmed by traditions, etc., as may be seen in the compendium of the Salamancans (tr. XI, c. 9, n. 120). For where, I ask, will they find St. Thomas contradicting the Scriptures, Fathers, Decrees of Pontiffs, Sacred Canons, etc.?

They allege also the authority of St. Charles Borromeo in the Synod of Milan. But Benedict XIV, being carried away by the zeal of no party (De Synod., lib. 7, cap. 2, n. 12): "But we," he says, "have found nothing of this kind decided by St. Charles." Then (ibid., n. 14) he says that the method of those is not to be approved who inculcate that this obligation arises from the office of justice in such a way that they wish the question to be held as defined; but he advises that the obligation indeed be inculcated, but that they cease in Synods to ask whence this arises.

² This norm will be able to have place only when the superfluities so abound that a twentieth part of them much exceeds the common gravity of matter in theft; and here, moreover, that gravity of matter seems to have to be understood not as relative, but as absolute. I said, "much exceeds"; for St. Alphonsus (lib. 5, n. 491, IV) with St. Thomas requires for this a great excess beyond the common gravity.

561. • Q. 2. What is understood as superfluous per se?

Resp. That is judged superfluous which remains over after honorable support. Moreover the honorable support of a Cleric is that which befits a Cleric by reason of his state, dignity, etc. Wherefore it does not exclude honorable recreations, moderate donations, and other expenses of this kind; but these can be determined by the judgment of a prudent and timorous conscience rather than by a general rule. - Billuart, art. 5.

Q. 3. Whether Clerics can preserve the superfluity for the future?

Resp. Affirmatively, because per se there is no obligation of immediately spending superfluities; indeed they can laudably be preserved for a pious foundation, provided good faith is used and the danger is absent lest afterward they be converted to profane uses. - St. Thom., 2. 2, q. 185, art. 7. - St. Lig., n. 491.

562. • Q. 4. Whether a Cleric who has from patrimony that by which he may live can support himself from the fruits of a benefice?

Resp. Affirmatively with St. Lig., n. 491. - St. Thom., 2. 2, q. 185, art. 7. - Billuart, diss. 3, art. 5, and others commonly, against a few. The reason is that it is just that he who labors in the Church be supported by the same, and it is entirely per accidens that he is rich or poor. Therefore not by reason of poverty, but of labor, does a Cleric have a right to support. Hence a Cleric can spare his patrimony, while he uses the fruits of the benefice for support befitting his dignity. It is also established from the words of the Apostle, I Cor. 9: "Who ever serves as a soldier at his own wages?... Do you not know that they who work in the Sanctuary eat the things that are of the Sanctuary; and they who serve the Altar participate with the Altar?"

Q. 5. Whether pensioners also ought to spend the superfluity on the poor?

Resp. Negatively, because the Supreme Pontiff, by drawing pensions from the fruits of a benefice for a just cause, already applies those same fruits to pious uses; hence those fruits do not carry with them the obligation of another application. - Lugo, d. 4, n. 32. - St. Lig., n. 491.

563. • Q. 6. Whether the pension which in France is paid to Priests by the Government has the character of an ecclesiastical good ³?

³ It is best done that theories of this kind are set forth in this and the following question; nevertheless, only for merely theoretical regions, namely for sterile erudition, do these things serve. For in practice, since that which those atheist governments give especially to priests of the Catholic Religion is so slender and utterly miserable - for a government truly is atheist which holds in the same place both religion and any superstitions whatever - the question concerning revenues superfluous to suitable support is altogether idle.

Resp. Affirmatively, because from the Concordat of the year 1801, the aforesaid pension seems to have been established in compensation for ecclesiastical goods which were snatched away during the French upheaval. Therefore it has the same nature as the goods for which it is substituted. This is also established from these responses of the Sacred Penitentiary.

"1. Whether the salaries which in Belgium are paid by the Government to Pastors and Canons take on the character of benefices or ecclesiastical goods, and have attached the obligation inherent in these goods, namely the strict and canonical obligation of spending superfluities on the poor or on pious causes, and of residence under the penalty of not making the fruits their own?

"The Sacred Penitentiary, the matters set forth having been weighed, responded: That already at other times it had been answered affirmatively by the Holy See, by the counsel of the secret Congregation.

"Given at Rome, on January 19, 1819.

"2. The Sacred Penitentiary, consulted whether that response ought to be applied to salaries which are paid by the Government to Pastors and Canons of the kingdom of the Gauls, judged that it should be answered: Affirmatively.

"Given at Rome, in the Sacred Penitentiary, on August 19, 1821.

"3. Whether the response for Belgium of January 19 ought to be applied only to fixed salaries of 1,000 livres for Parish Priests and 750 livres for Assistants, or ought to be extended to the offerings of the faithful?

"The Sacred Penitentiary, concerning the matters newly set forth, judged that it should be answered: Affirmatively as to the first part, negatively as to the second."

564. • Q. 7. Whether supplements also are to be reckoned ecclesiastical goods, which in France are bestowed on Priests by parishes or municipalities?

Resp. It seems that one must affirm with Carrière, n. 193, and others more commonly. The reason is that these also must be judged as coming from the general administration of the Government, and therefore by force of the Concordat between the Pope and the Government. For they are not bestowed except from a general decree of the Government (art. org. 67) and from its consent; therefore they are judged to have been constituted by the Government itself, and are as it were part of the endowment which it promised. - The same must be said a fortiori of pensions which are bestowed by the Government on Canons.

Yet it must be said altogether otherwise concerning supplements, or concerning a pension, which is bestowed on some Cleric from the free and private offerings of the faithful. For then they do not come from the public authority, and therefore are not constituted in place of ecclesiastical goods. - Nor are there to be counted among ecclesiastical goods pensions which are bestowed by the Government on aged Priests, or on Religious formerly expelled from a monastery; for they are aids or a certain compensation, to be altogether equated with patrimonial goods.

565. • Resolutions. 1. Distributions which are accustomed to be made for assistance in choir are to be numbered among quasi-patrimonial goods; because although those distributions are given on occasion of a benefice, nevertheless they are not given immediately for the title, but for personal service, and as a stipend of the person. - Thus more probably. - Lugo, d. 4, n. 25. - St. Lig., n. 491. - Salmant., etc.

2. The same must be said of curial rights, or of revenues of the stole, as they say, that is, those which are owed to a Parish Priest as Parish Priest, for example, those things which are brought with blessed bread, or which are bestowed upon him for funerals, although he did not in any way attend them, etc. The reason is that they are given to the Parish Priest as a certain stipend of his labor and solicitude; nor do the faithful seem to confer these things on the Church, but on the Parish Priest, so that they are his without any burden. - St. Lig., n. 490 and 491.

3. Offerings which are made in boxes set out for a certain use are certainly to be applied to that use, and therefore the Parish Priest cannot claim them for himself, because the will of those offering is sufficiently established. The same must also be said of collections which are made, whether within or outside the Church, for a certain end.

From practice, sufficiently common at least today, almost only the offerings which are made at the altar in Mass, and those which, on occasion of the administration of the Sacraments, for blessing marriages, for obsequies and burials, or for other similar functions, are specially brought, belong to the Parish Priest. But the other offerings must be applied to the Churches themselves, altars, or other certain ends, from custom or from the intention of the faithful. - See Casus, n. 507.

166. I. Preliminary remarks concerning the various species of goods of clerics. Goods possessed by clerics can be of four kinds: -

1. Patrimonial, or profane, goods, i.e., those which come to them from parents or others either by inheritance or donation, etc.; or those which by their own labor or industry they gain, by exercising an art distinct from sacred duties, e.g., by writing books, making statues, etc.

2. Casual, or quasi-patrimonial, goods, which accrue to them from labor spent in exercising ecclesiastical duties, such as Mass stipends, offerings received on the occasion of preaching or of the administration of the sacraments, stole revenues, etc.

167. 3. Ecclesiastical goods, namely the revenues which come from ecclesiastical benefices, or from those goods which are proper to the Church; pensions which are paid by the Government for ecclesiastical goods unjustly taken away, or supplements which are paid out by the community for the suitable support of clerics, if by public authority they are substituted in place of benefices.⁴

⁴ Thus, e.g., in France what is called denier du culte.

4. Parcimonial goods, namely those which, by living sparingly, clerics reserve for themselves from ecclesiastical revenues which they licitly could have consumed for honorable support.

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.

37. Obligations Concerning Beneficial Peculium. a) All modern theologians and canonists teach that true dominion over beneficial revenues belongs to clerics, when these are necessary for suitable support, so that they can dispose of them with the same liberty with which they enjoy patrimonial and quasi-patrimonial goods.

In ancient times indeed a few canonists taught the contrary, but their opinion is now entirely obsolete. The reason is that, as St. Paul testifies, all who serve the altar share with the altar.¹⁵⁵ Therefore clerics can take honorable support from the revenues of the benefice, and this even if they have other patrimonial or quasi-patrimonial goods.¹⁵⁶ But what support is to be called suitable cannot be determined by a certain rule, but is left to the prudent judgment of a God-fearing cleric. For many circumstances must be attended to, namely a) the person of the cleric; for one thing is the support of a simple rural pastor who enjoys very good health, and another is the support of an elderly and weak bishop. Likewise b) circumstances of places and times must be attended to. To suitable support also pertain honorable recreations, hospitality to be exercised, certain gifts to be given, and becoming maintenance of blood-relatives, especially if they are needy. With regard to the manner of living, the admonitions given by the Council of Trent to bishops should be kept before the eyes of all clerics.¹⁵⁷ A beneficiary cleric may indeed bestow alms from the goods of his benefice, but not gifts, at least not larger ones.¹⁵⁸

b) Beneficiary clerics (Cardinals excepted¹⁵⁹) are held under grave obligation to expend superfluous revenues from beneficial goods upon the poor or upon pious causes.¹⁶⁰ Thus all teach, and it is clearly drawn both from the Council of Trent¹⁶¹ and especially from Cod. iur. can. c. 1473, which establishes: "Although a beneficiary has other non-beneficial goods, 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 goods for the poor or pious causes, with the prescription of can. 239, § 1, n. 19 remaining safe."

Canonists and theologians dispute whether this grave obligation is an obligation of justice, so that its transgression constitutes an obligation of restitution, or whether it is only a grave obligation from ecclesiastical law. The truer and much more common opinion teaches that that obligation arises only from ecclesiastical law and does not imply restitution if it has been neglected.¹⁶² Already St. Thomas taught that opinion.¹⁶³ For he objects to himself: "Whoever consumes what belongs to another is held to restitution: but the goods of clerics are the goods of the poor, as is clear through Jerome's gloss on that of Isaiah 3:14: 'The plunder of the poor is in your house.' Therefore if clerics uselessly consume ecclesiastical goods, they are held to restore to the poor from elsewhere, if they have anything." ... To this objection he responds: "Ecclesiastical goods must not only be dispensed to the poor, but also to the ministers of the Church: whence according to the canons they must be divided in this way, that some part go to the use of the poor and some part to the uses of ministers and to the worship of the Church. Therefore it must be said otherwise concerning those ecclesiastical goods which principally are to be attributed to the necessities of the poor and consequently to the necessities of ministers, such as are the goods of hospitals and of other such things. And otherwise concerning those goods which are principally attributed to the uses of ministers, such as are prebends of clerics and other such things. For in the first goods sin is committed not only from abuse, but also from the very condition of the things, while someone assumes for his own uses what belongs to another; and therefore he is held to restitution as a defrauder of another's thing. But in the second goods sin is not committed except through abuse, as was said also concerning patrimonial goods. Hence one is not held to restitution, but only to performing penance." The fundamental reason why a cleric abusing the superfluous goods of his benefice is not held to restitution is this: restitution is not to be imposed unless its obligation is certainly established. Now no certain title of restitution can be brought forward, nor any ecclesiastical law clearly prescribing this obligation.¹⁶⁴ Moreover, although the obligation of restitution is not to be urged, nevertheless in the case in which a cleric has not expended notable superfluous beneficial revenues for pious causes, he is accustomed to cause grave scandal and must be gravely rebuked; for it matters little whether he goes to Gehenna because of violated justice or because of violated obedience. What injury in this matter is grave sin must be prudently determined with the circumstances of the donor and of the donation considered. Certainly, however, a much greater quantity (perhaps twice or three times greater) is usually required than in theft gravely illicit, since the cleric does not take what belongs to another, but badly expends his own.¹⁶⁵

Relatives or other non-poor men who have received superfluous revenues of this kind from a beneficiary cleric through donations among the living are not to be obliged to restitution; indeed, if they were in good faith, they did not sin. But the matter is otherwise if a beneficiary cleric having superfluous beneficial revenues dies without a testament; for in this case, since the intention of the dead cleric must be presumed to have been that he wished to dispose of those goods as he ought, and since he certainly ought to have disposed of those revenues for the poor or pious causes, the heirs cannot licitly usurp the goods left behind, if they certainly are superfluous beneficial revenues. This indeed holds a fortiori if they have impeded the cleric from making a testament. Nevertheless in practice this case happens rather rarely; first, because clerics rarely have beneficial revenues so ample that after suitable support something superfluous still remains; then, supposing that the benefice really was very rich, nevertheless it is almost impossible to discern among the goods left behind which were savings goods and which were superfluous beneficial goods. Hence lay heirs generally are not to be disturbed, provided that they did not fraudulently procure for themselves such an inheritance, which perhaps comes from superfluous beneficial revenues. Besides, they are often in good faith, and if the confessor wished to compel them to return goods of this kind, perhaps they would refuse to obey, and thus from material sins formal sins would be made; which indeed must be avoided.

Note. Since the sudden death of clerics happens not rarely, each secular cleric, and especially each beneficiary, should not delay making his testament. Especially he should not omit to dispose of sacred vestments, paraments, and vessels. Special statutes have been enacted in this matter for Cardinals.¹⁶⁶ For it can be very unbecoming that these things be left to the free disposition of laymen or be sold by laymen at a greatly diminished price.¹⁶⁷ Moreover, it is usually much better and more conformable to the mind of the Church that a beneficiary cleric at once spend superfluous goods received from beneficial revenues on pious causes or on the poor, so that it is not necessary to make a testament about them.

There are authors, for example Hollweck,¹⁶⁸ who teach that all secular clerics, even non-beneficiaries, are held to spend superfluous goods received from ecclesiastical ministry on pious causes. This opinion indeed is to be counseled in practice, since it is fitting to right reason and to the clerical state, but it cannot be imposed as a strict obligation.

4. Savings peculium consists of those things which a beneficiary cleric saves from beneficial goods by living more modestly. Concerning these goods he can dispose freely. It is clear of itself, because the cleric has a right to suitable support from beneficial goods. Therefore if he has freely subtracted something for himself from that suitable support, concerning that also he can dispose freely.

The whole doctrine concerning the revenues of secular clerics can be expressed by this single phrase: secular clerics have free disposition over all their revenues, except superfluous beneficial revenues, which indeed under a grave precept, but not under the obligation of restitution, they must expend for the poor or pious causes.

¹⁵⁵ Cf. 1 Cor. 9:13.

¹⁵⁶ Cod. iur. can. c. 1473.

¹⁵⁷ Sess. 25, c. 1 de reform.

¹⁵⁸ How a cleric can support blood-relatives from beneficial revenues is excellently taught by St. Ambrose, De offic. l. 1, c. 3, and St. Thomas, S. theol. 2, 2, q. 185, a. 7 ad 2.

¹⁵⁹ Cod. iur. can. c. 239, § 1, n. 19.

¹⁶⁰ Pious causes are judged to be all those works or institutes which from their nature or from the end of the one acting proximately serve a supernatural end. Pious causes are not those so-called humanitarian institutes, for example hospitals, asylums entirely profane, which indeed serve social utility, but not religion.

¹⁶¹ L. c.

¹⁶² Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 492. Concina, Theol. christ. in Decal. I, diss. 6, c. 18, attacks this opinion most vehemently indeed, but not effectively.

¹⁶³ Quodl. 6, q. 7, a. 12 ad 3; S. theol. 2, 2, q. 185, a. 7.

¹⁶⁴ Cf. Billuart, De iure et iust. diss. 3, a. 5, where this controversy is treated excellently.

¹⁶⁵ Cf. St. Alphonsus, l. c. n. 490, IV, who defends the more severe opinion.

¹⁶⁶ Cf. Cod. iur. can. c. 1298.

¹⁶⁷ c. 1301: "Cardinals, residential bishops, and other beneficiary clerics must through a testament valid also in civil law take care that, according to canonical prescriptions, disposition be made concerning sacred furnishings. Wherefore they must in timely fashion designate a person of intact reputation who, when their death comes, may take possession not only of the sacred furnishings, but also of books, documents, and other things pertaining to the church and legitimately hand them over to whom they are owed."

¹⁶⁸ Das Testament der Geistlichen, Mainz 1901.

38. Scholion. On The Administration Of Ecclesiastical Goods. Beneficiary clerics are held to administer all ecclesiastical goods with diligent care according to canonical sanctions and particular statutes. If they presume to usurp ecclesiastical goods or convert them to their own uses, they are punished by excommunication and other grave penalties.¹⁶⁹ Especially the pontifical and episcopal statutes concerning alienation of ecclesiastical goods are to be observed.^169a Not rarely in modern times particular statutes have also been enacted by civil governments concerning the administration of ecclesiastical goods; these, if they are tolerated from Concordats or from the concession of the Supreme Pontiff, each cleric must diligently observe. Otherwise great inconveniences can arise. In the administration of ecclesiastical goods a cleric must indeed avoid all negligence, but he should also beware everything that savors of purely worldly commerce. Hence let the cleric not be too solicitous about those material things. Especially let him avoid speculative actions, as they say, at banking exchanges.¹⁷⁰ For it is established by sad experience that through those actions clerics have both given scandal to the faithful and moreover inflicted great losses on ecclesiastical goods. Certainly in itself clerics can licitly buy bank shares and obligations, since even today the Church has not prohibited this (at least expressly), but it is prohibited to a cleric to practice commerce and trade, as things which do not befit clerical dignity.

¹⁶⁹ Cod. iur. can. c. 2346.

^169a Cf. Pontif. Commissio d. 29 Iul. 1929 (Act. Ap. Sed. XXI 574).

¹⁷⁰ Commonly, Bank and Börse.

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.

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.

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.

I suppose 1° as certain that clerics have dominion over patrimonial goods, so that validly they can dispose of them at pleasure; because in their ordination they did not abdicate such dominion, nor does ordination or clerical office bind them to that. Whence, in this respect, they are of like condition before and after received clericate.

I suppose 2° with the more common opinion that clerics have absolute dominion over quasi-patrimonial goods, just as over patrimonial ones; because these goods are given to clerics as a certain stipend of sustentation, not merely gratuitous, but owed them by reason of personal work, and therefore left to their free dispensation. For the faithful conferring do not intend to impose any burden upon them, but to satisfy their own obligation, nor can any canon of law evince that any burden be imposed by the Church on such goods.

I suppose 3° also with the common opinion that clerics have absolute dominion over the portion of ecclesiastical revenues congruous to necessary sustentation, so that concerning it and patrimonial goods they can dispose at pleasure. The reason is, because this portion is the just stipend of the office which a benefice has annexed; for he who serves the altar has right to live of the altar, according to the Apostle, I Cor., IX, 13. Whence the same must be said as of quasi-patrimonial goods.

It is confirmed. Every manual laborer, and what touches us more closely, a singer, e.g., organist, sacristan, laymen, become absolutely masters of the portion which is granted to them out of ecclesiastical goods for the stipend of their office, and can dispose of it at pleasure. Why not the cleric too?

The difficulty therefore chiefly concerns the part of ecclesiastical revenues superfluous to congruous sustentation. Indeed all agree that clerics cannot licitly dispose of it at pleasure, as of patrimonial or quasi-patrimonial goods, or the necessary part, but that they are bound, at least by law of charity and ecclesiastical precept, to expend it upon the poor or other pious uses. Whether truly they are also bound by justice, so that they be liable to restitution if they spend it on profane uses, is greatly disputed.

Among those who defend the affirmative part there is not one principle. Some affirm it because they think clerics have nowise dominion of this superfluous part; others, who although they acknowledge true dominion, wish it bound, as, e.g., the dominion of an heir over an inheritance burdened with legacies or debts. This opinion resting on one or other foundation we confess outright to be probable, safer in practice and to be counseled to clerics. However, with the more probable and now more common opinion,

I say 1° : It is more probable that clerics, at least now after benefices have been created, have absolute dominion of the part of ecclesiastical revenues superfluous to congruous sustentation, so that concerning it they can validly dispose at pleasure (though illicitly, as I shall say below); nor are they bound by justice to bestow it upon the poor or pious uses, and consequently are they not liable to restitution, if they spend it on other uses. So Ostiensis, Barbatus, Adrianus, Dominicus Soto, Bannez, Lorca, Valencia, Lopez, Covarruvias, Lessius, Sarmiento, Banat, Garcias, Wigers, Sylvius, Cabassutius, and more.

Proof. of conclusion 1° by authority of canons. Cap. Consuetudinem, on clerics not resident, lib. III, tit. 3, in 6°, it is enacted that those absent from choir do not acquire dominion of daily distributions, nor make them their own. The same is enacted by Trent, sess. XXII, cap. 3 On Reform. Cap. Commissa, On election., in 6°, it is said that one accepting a parish without intention of receiving priesthood within the year ought to restitute the fruits of the parish, because he makes them not his own. Pius V, bull 138, declares that a beneficed man not reciting the office does not make the fruits his own. The same Trent declares, sess. XXIV, cap. 12 On Reform., of him who within two months emits not profession of faith. Ergo, a contrario sensu, those who satisfy the imposed obligations acquire dominion of these fruits and make them their own, else otherwise those who satisfy the office and those who do not satisfy would be equal.

Nor say that this dominion is bound; for nothing of the kind is intimated by the cited authorities, nor can it be proved by other authority or sufficient reason, as will appear from the solution of objections. Nay rather the contrary is evinced from the following reasons : unless perchance you say the bond affects not the things themselves, but persons, insofar as they are bound by law of charity or burden of restitution.

Proof. 2nd by reason. According to the common opinion, which the greater and saner part of adversaries admits, beneficiaries are absolute masters of certain fruits, namely those necessary to their sustentation, and concerning these they can dispose at least validly at pleasure. Ergo also of all. —

Proof of the consequence. Beneficiaries receive all revenues of their benefices indistinctly, and can apply these or those to their sustentation, and consequently concerning these or those, validly at least, dispose at pleasure. Ergo on the side of fruits they cannot be said masters of certain determinate ones, and not of others; but, since all are received indistinctly, indistinctly they undergo the same lot regarding reason of dominion. Ergo of all : so that the obligation they have of expending superfluous goods on pious uses is not real, that is, annexed to the thing itself, but personal, that is, imposed on the person itself. Which obligation neither repugns true and absolute dominion, nor impedes valid disposition of things, nor induces burden of restitution, as appears in the obligation of almsgiving.

Proof 3°. Whoever possesses a thing is judged master of it, nor can he be compelled by justice to abdicate it unless it appear to be another's, according to rule 65 of law in 6°: «In equal fault or case, the condition of the possessor is better.» But clerics possess all the fruits of their benefice, nor can it be proved from any head that they have not dominion of them, or are held to restitution if they expend them ill. Ergo.

Proof of the minor. That cannot be proved, neither on the part of the donors, nor on the part of the Church receiving.

Not on the part of donors; because the faithful gave these goods simply and absolutely to the Church and ecclesiastics, not truly under a condition at least expressed and reduced into pact of bestowing superfluous goods on pious uses. Although perchance they hoped and intended this, yet they did not draw this intention into pact as a condition sine qua non; which would be necessary that the donation be judged conditional, and not absolute. For the inner mind of the contractor affects not the contract, nor obligates the other contractor by justice, unless it be expressed and reduced into pact : e.g., Caius bequeaths to Titius his student nephew a thousand florins, likewise to Sempronius, another nephew, head of a family, a thousand aurei, intending and hoping that the latter expend a thousand florins on studies, and the former a thousand aurei for relief of family; if nevertheless he express not this intention, nor apply it as condition, Titius becomes absolute master of the thousand florins, and Sempronius of the thousand aurei, nor are they held to restitution if they spend them on other uses. So again you give alms to a pauper, intending and hoping that he pray for you; the pauper prays not for you, nevertheless he becomes absolute master of the alms, nor is he held to restitute it.

— Proof therefore of the antecedent. 1° This condition expressed and reduced into pact is read nowhere, let the adversaries show. 2° If such donation of the faithful were conditional, it would follow that clerics who bestow not superfluous goods on the poor are masters of no part of their revenues (which the greater part of adversaries denies), since a donation under unfulfilled condition falls. Ergo.

Not on the part of the Church receiving. If the Church judged or wished clerics held by strict right to restitution of fruits ill spent, doubtless she would have declared it somewhere in clear and express terms. But she declared this nowhere in clear and express terms. Ergo. — The major seems necessarily to be admitted, since this matter is of greatest moment, seeing that it regards the conscience of all beneficiaries, public edification and relief of the poor, and by several is recalled into doubt or denied.

— Proof therefore of the minor. No canon whatsoever either of councils or Pontiffs could the adversaries bring forward hitherto which clearly and expressly import or signify this obligation of restitution. Ergo nowhere does the Church declare it, or let them say where.

You will say : The Church in many canons enacts that clerics ought to dispense ecclesiastical goods not as proper but as common, that they are not masters but administrators only. Similarly the holy Fathers, Jerome, Aug., Chrysostom, Ambrose, Gregory, say ecclesiastical goods are the poor's, whereby while defrauded there is rapine and sacrilege, and everywhere these goods are called «things of God, goods of the Crucified, patrimonies of the poor.» Ergo.

I answer. As to canons and holy Fathers who flourished before the eighth century, they are to be understood of ecclesiastical goods before their division; for although by B. Sylvester this division was begun, yet only in the eighth century did it begin to be received in many places. As to those who follow the eighth century, thus they spoke according to pious exaggeration, or, as it is said, concionatorily, not theologically, on account of the strictest obligation by which clerics are bound to bestow these goods on pious uses, as I shall say below; for in similar fashion they speak of secular rich men, whom nevertheless no one denies absolute masters of their own goods. Thus St. Basil, of secular misers : «It is the bread of the hungry, he says, which thou retainest; the garment of the naked which thou keepest in thy chest, etc.» Aug., Serm. 206²⁶³, of seculars says, they invade others' goods who bestow not superfluous goods on the poor. ²⁶³ Formerly de Diversis 70.

Likewise ecclesiastical goods are called «things of God, goods of the Crucified, etc.,» because for Christ's sake and unto worship of God and sustentation of his ministers were they donated; but not that none besides Christ or God be master of them : unless perchance thou understand it thus, that none be master of them as of patrimonial goods, as though concerning these as licitly as concerning those he could dispose at pleasure.

Similarly they are called patrimonies and aliment of the poor, because they are owed to them by rigorous precept of the religion and charity of the Church, though not of justice. Thus by the same holy Fathers sometimes the superfluous goods of laymen are equally called patrimonies of the poor, although most certainly they are not owed them by justice, but by charity only. Moreover these and like manners of speaking can rightly be understood of ecclesiastical goods, insofar as they embrace not only goods of clerics, but fabric and poor.

The mind of D. Thomas is expounded in proof of the conclusion. The holy Doctor, Quodl. VI, q. 7, a. 12, where he discusses whether clerics are bound under mortal sin to give alms from superfluous goods, when in the body he had spoken generally of ecclesiastical goods as such, that clerics are not masters but dispensers, and had resolved that they can sin twofoldly in administration of their goods : one way, from condition of the thing itself, namely while he usurps to himself as own what belongs to another; another way, from disordered use of those things which fall to his part, as of others, that is of patrimonial goods, he had said at the beginning of the body (which already plainly asserts our opinion), he proposes to himself argument third in order in these words : «Whoever consumes what belongs to another is held to restitution. But goods of clerics are the poor's, as is evident by the gloss of Jerome above that Isai., III, 14 : The spoils of the poor are in your house. Ergo, if clerics uselessly consume ecclesiastical goods, they are held to restitute elsewhere to the poor, if they have wherewith.» Behold the very argument of the adversaries. Let us hear the answer of the holy Doctor : «To the third, he says, it must be said that ecclesiastical goods are to be dispensed not only to the poor, but also to the ministers of the Church. Whence, according to the canons, they ought to be divided in this way, that some part fall to uses of the poor, and some part to uses of the ministers and to the worship of the Church. Otherwise therefore must be said of those ecclesiastical goods which are principally to be attributed to needs of the poor, and consequently to needs of ministers, such as are goods of hospitals and other suchlike; and otherwise of those goods which are principally attributed to uses of ministers, such as are prebends of clerics and other suchlike. For in the former goods sin is committed not only by abuse, but even from the very condition of things, while someone takes to his own uses what belongs to another; and therefore he is held to restitution, as a defrauder of another's property. In the latter goods truly sin is committed only by abuse, as was said of patrimonial goods. Whence one is held not to restitution, but only to performing penance.»

The same opinion and for the most part the same manner of speaking the holy Doctor holds constantly in the Summa, 2a 2ae, q. 185, a. 7, c, where he asks : «Whether bishops sin mortally, if they lavish not on the poor ecclesiastical goods which they administer.» Whatever moreover he resolves of bishops in this part, the same must be said of other beneficed men. Therefore, since he had premised that bishops have absolute dominion of their proper goods, and by virtue of such dominion can validly dispose of them at pleasure, nor are they held to restitution if they expend them ill, seeing that they sin not from condition of things, but because of disorder of affection; but of ecclesiastical goods, namely generally and indistinctly, that they are not masters, but administrators and procurators only, because among ecclesiastical goods, besides goods of the bishop, are numbered also goods of other clerics, of fabric and of the poor, of which bishops are not masters but administrators only : these things, I say, premised, the holy Doctor subjoins : «If therefore the goods which ought to fall to the use of the bishop be distinct from those which are to be bestowed on the poor and ministers and worship of the Church, and if the bishop retain something to himself of those which are to be bestowed on the poor, or even to be expended on the use of ministers or divine worship : there is no doubt that he acts against faith of dispensation, sins mortally and is held to restitution. Of these however (note well) 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.» Here this clause is wanting by error of typographer or copyist : «He is held however not to restitution,» notes Sylvius, after Dominicus Soto and the Douai edition, and well; else the sentence will be imperfect, nor will there be any distinction which the holy Doctor intends, between goods assigned to the use of bishop and not assigned, but everywhere will be sin and obligation of restituting.

Truly, although St. Thomas expressed not this clause, that he indicated it more than sufficiently and that it certainly is of his mind the following moments evidently prove. 1° The disparity of which just now, which the holy Doctor intends between both goods, as is evident from text; which otherwise does not subsist. 2° That he says the same reason is of goods assigned to use of bishop as of proper goods. This parity moreover St. Thomas understands doubtless, not indeed as regards everything generally (for it is certain that ecclesiastical goods are more strictly tied to poor and pious uses than patrimonial ones, and this the holy Doctor openly signifies ad 2, where he says those cannot be expended to enrich parents, which nevertheless is licit of patrimonial goods); but this parity, I say, he understands as regards all those things which he previously attributed to patrimonial goods. For of this proposition : «There seems to be the same reason as concerning proper goods,» the natural and plain sense is : There seems to be need to say what I said of proper goods. I said moreover of proper goods, that bishops «have true dominion of them,» and thence are not obligated «from the very condition of things to confer them on others,» but can «at pleasure» validly dispose of them, although sometimes illicitly, on account of «disorder of affection,» either retaining to himself more than behooves, or bestowing less than charity requires on the poor; in which case however, «they are not held to restitution, because such things are assigned to their dominion.» Ergo the same throughout he judges and says of goods assigned to use of bishop, unless you wish to accuse him both of falsehood and of drowsiness. And by these all evasions of adversaries are cut off.

Father Henno answers that the holy Doctor speaks «manifestly» of the portion necessary to congruous sustentation, not of superfluous. And I say this evasion «manifestly» repugns the text of St. Thomas. For the holy Doctor speaks, as is evident to the reader, of the whole portion specially assigned to use of bishop, and as it is distinct from the other portions of poor, fabric and other clerics. And besides, if clerics be masters of any part, they are masters of the whole, as we proved above.

Nevertheless the praised author confidently proceeds in these words : «That moreover D. Thomas favors not the adversaries but us most formally, is evident from Quodlibet VI, where he says : «Of ecclesiastical goods clerics are not true masters», but dispensers.» With peace to the religious man I would say : He reads not St. Thomas in the place cited; else he would have seen there the same «most formally» asserting that the cleric unduly spending ecclesiastical goods assigned to his own uses sins only by abuse, as he had said of patrimonial goods, «nor is held to restitution, but only to performing penance.» Let the text cited above be re-read.

When truly St. Thomas says, not only in the cited Quodlibet but also in the Summa, cited, but also in the Summa, question now often cited 185, that clerics are not masters of ecclesiastical goods but dispensers, he speaks not of ecclesiastical goods which are specially destined to uses of clerics, unless you wish him speaking contradictory things within few lines, but of ecclesiastical goods, either considered before division, or, which is truer, of those indeed after division, but indistinctly and in common, insofar as they comprehend goods of fabric and those which «are principally to be attributed to needs of the poor, and consequently to needs of ministers, such as are goods of hospitals and other suchlike.» These things not gratis nor from us, but «most formally,» as you see, from St. Thomas, the cited Quodlibet. Moreover of such ecclesiastical goods we say not that clerics are masters, but dispensers only. Such ecclesiastical goods moreover are called such, both because, as St. Thomas says, «consequently they are to be attributed to needs of ecclesiastics»; and because they are goods given first to the Church, and by the Church assigned to the aforesaid uses; and finally because their administration is entrusted to ecclesiastics.

Let the fair reader judge now by what species of truth the most illustrious Pontas said, word Beneficier, case 13, that St. Thomas «persevered even unto death in the opposite opinion, as, he says, is evident in his Summa, where he most clearly and without ambiguity teaches the same opinion.» This Parisian Doctor would need to be far more sharp-sighted than the older and sharpest interpreters of St. Thomas, who saw in him most clearly and without ambiguity what those highest and sharpest men turning over night and day his Summa Angelica never saw the shadow of; nay rather whose opposite they acknowledged handed down most clearly and without ambiguity.

I say 2nd : Clerics by stricter right than seculars are bound to bestow ecclesiastical goods superfluous upon the poor or pious uses, so that they sin mortally if they spend them on profane uses. It is common.

Proof. 1° from the strictest precept of the Church which renews from ancient canons Trent, sess. XXV, On Reform. cap. 1, in these words : «He altogether forbids them (bishops) that they strive to enrich kinsmen and household servants from revenues of the Church, since also the Canons of the Apostles prohibit giving ecclesiastical things, which are God's, to kinsmen, but, if they be poor, distribute to them as to the poor; nor sell or dissipate them for their sake.» Which he extends below to all beneficed men.

Where this particle is to be noted, «which are God's,» whereby the motive of this precept is signified. Since these goods are offered to God, or rather to the Church, that they may fall to worship of God (for God cannot be visibly approached, nor does he need these things), it is fitting, from their very condition, that they be expended on uses grateful to God, howsoever God himself would spend them, if as man he disposed of them. And therefore the Church commanded that they be expended on such uses.

Because however the Church commanding or forbidding something from motive of some virtue transfers the matter commanded or forbidden to species of that virtue; thus, e.g., because she forbids theft in sacred place from motive of religion, to steal in sacred place is sin against religion : hence follows that clerics, not only by obedience due to the Church, but even by virtue of religion, are bound to expend superfluous goods on pious uses.

Proof. 2nd. Clerics, by reason of grade obtained in the Church, are as fathers and tutors of the poor. Ergo they are bound by stricter precept of charity than seculars to succor them.

Therefore, according to us, beneficiaries are bound threefoldly by title to expend fruits superfluous to themselves of their benefice toward relief of the poor, or other pious uses, 1° from law of the Church; 2° from virtue of religion; 3° from precept of charity^{264 264} Because the doctrine here expounded had been attacked unjustly and violently by Daniel Concina, of the Dominican family, Billuart had defended his opinion and himself most sharply against his Brother, inserting here a Christian Admonition to R. Father Daniel Concina, author of CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY, in defense of the preceding doctrine. Since truly this prolix apology brings forth no new argument, and would occupy place now in vain, we judged it to be done away. Should anyone perhaps please to read it, let him approach the fuller Summa.

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.

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

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

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

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

4. What is to be said of the case?

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

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

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

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

2 Summa, II–II, q. 100, a. 3.

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

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

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

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