The Church's right to own property

The Right of the Church to Possess Property

We have already seen that not only physical persons but corporations or societies can also own property. The Church is a perfect, independent, and visible society founded by Christ our Lord, and endowed by him with all the rights and privileges which are necessary to enable her to attain her end. This end is the sanctification and salvation of souls by the preaching, propagation, and exercise of the Christian religion. It is obvious that for the support of the Church’s ministers and missionaries, for the building and upkeep of churches, for the decent and proper exercise of religious worship, and for numerous other purposes, ample revenues and lands are required, and, inasmuch as the Church has the obligation and the right to work for the end for which she has been founded by God, so she has the right to the necessary means. This reasoning is confirmed by the condemnation by the Popes of several false propositions bearing on the Church’s right of ownership¹ (Can. 1495).

¹ Props. 10, 32, 33, 36 of Wyclif; and Prop. 26 of the Syllabus.

The general truth that the Church has a right to own movable and immovable property is certain, and does not depend for its validity on the question as to who is the definite owner of Church property. This was a disputed question, some theologians maintaining that God is the immediate as well as the ultimate owner, inasmuch as Church property is said to be given to God; others taught that the universal Church or the Pope is the owner; others, again, that the corporations constituted by individual churches, dioceses, religious congregations, and orders are the real owners of the ecclesiastical property belonging to those institutions. This last opinion is commonly accepted nowadays, and it seems more in keeping with the intention of the donors of such property, which is usually the benefit of a particular religious institution for the honour of God, and in this sense they make their offering to God (Can. 1499, sec. 2).

The administration and management of Church property belong to those ecclesiastics who have been lawfully placed over the churches, dioceses, institutes, etc., to which the property belongs; and the Pope as the supreme head of the Church on earth has the supreme administration, or the altum dominium, as it is called.¹

¹ Can. 1519-1521, etc.

195. Errors. (A) Certain heretics denied that the right belongs to the Church of acquiring temporal goods, because she is a spiritual society; among whom are: Arnaldus Brixinensis, in the twelfth century; the Waldenses, in the thirteenth century; Marsilius of Padua and Wyclif, in the fourteenth century; and also many Protestants, under Luther as leader, in the sixteenth century. They contended, namely, that "it is against Sacred Scripture that ecclesiastical men have possessions; that Pope Sylvester and Emperor Constantine erred by endowing the Church; that the Pope, with all his clerics having possessions, are heretics, because they have possessions, and besides all consenting to them, namely secular lords and other laymen."²

² In Denzing., nn. 486, 509, 512.

(B) But not a few modern Politicians attack the same right in a twofold way: (a) others, the bolder, hold that the Church has no right of possessing temporal things unless this power has been conceded to her; and that this faculty, once conceded, can be revoked at will, and goods previously acquired can be snatched away. (b) Others, more moderate, indeed confess that there belongs to the Church a certain right of possessing and administering temporal things, but that it must be limited by the State in the manner in which the State itself judges this opportune.

196. Thesis: The Church has the right of possessing and administering temporal goods, granted to her divinely, and therefore independently of the State. It is certain from the Code, c. 1495.

Scripture. (A) Already from the Old Testament it can be gathered that priests and levites received from God the right of possessing and administering certain temporal things. It is true indeed that in the division of the land of Canaan no part was assigned to them, because the Lord wished to be their portion and inheritance.³

³ Num., XVIII, 20.

(a) But the priests had a right to the first-fruits, which were offered to God by the children of Israel;¹ the levites to the tenth part of the fruits;² but they were bound to give the tenth part of the tithes to the priests.³ (b) Besides, the Lord commands the children of Israel "that they give to the levites, from their possessions, cities to dwell in and their suburbs round about; so that they themselves may remain in the towns and the suburbs may be for cattle and beasts of burden."⁴ In fact forty-eight cities were assigned to the levites, of which thirteen were reserved to the priests. - From these things it is established that God, on the one hand, wished the levites to be immune from temporal cares, and on the other, wisely provided for their necessities. From which already it can probably be inferred that the right belongs divinely to the Christian Church of possessing something, so that she may provide for the necessities of ministers.

¹ Num., XVIII, 8-19.

² Num., XVIII, 21.

³ Num., XVIII, 26.

⁴ Num., XXXV, 2-4.

197. (B) Under the New Law nothing indeed has been explicitly defined concerning this matter, but only the general principle has been declared, namely that those who serve the altar can eat from the altar: "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 partake with the altar? So also the Lord ordained for those who announce the Gospel, to live by the Gospel."⁵

⁵ I Cor. IX, 13-14.

But the Church vindicated to herself the right of possessing from the beginning.

Thus in the first centuries she already possessed the Catacombs, in which the martyrs and departed Christians were buried; and afterward those buildings which were constructed over the Catacombs and elsewhere for celebrating the divine offices. This is surely established from various testimonies; according to Eusebius,⁶ Gallienus restored to the Church temporal goods taken away in the time of persecution; the Liber Pontificalis likewise testifies to this, where it treats of Pope Dionysius:⁷ "He divided churches among the priests, and established cemeteries and parishes of the diocese"; so also Aurelian restored to the Bishop of Antioch goods usurped by Paul of Samosata. But Constantine ordered to be restored "not only those places to which Christians had been accustomed to assemble, but also others... belonging to the right of their body, that is, of the Churches, not of individual men."¹ Besides, he donated the Lateran palace to the Roman Pontiff, and built many basilicas, which he gave to the Church; and from this time the Church acquired many temporal goods, and her rights were fully recognized by the State.² - Now, if in the time of persecutions she vindicated to herself the right of possessing, this power was considered to flow not from the Roman Emperors, who pursued her with hatred, but from Christ Himself.

⁶ Hist. eccles., VII, 13, in Migne, P. G., XX, col. 675.

⁷ Lib. Pontif., ed. Duchesne, Paris, 1886, t. I, p. 157.

¹ In Lactantius, De morte persec., 48, P. L. VII, col. 269. - Cf. Marucchi, Elements d'Archeol. chret., 1900, t. I, p. 117; Duchesne, Les Origines chret., c. 23, § 4; Allard, Hist. des Persec., t. II, ch. I.

² Gosselin, Pouvoir du Pape au moyen age, 2nd ed., Paris, 1845, p. 98-141; Rivet, Du Regime des biens d'Eglise avant Justinien, specialement sous les Emp. chretiens, Lyon, 1891; Fourneret, Les Biens d'Eglise apres les edits de pacification, Paris, 1902.

198. By reason. And rightly; for he who wills the end wills the means. But Christ wished the Church not only to subsist, but to advance, and to lead the Nations to the true faith. But the Church cannot perform this unless she has the right of acquiring certain temporal things. Indeed (a) she cannot subsist without ministers, who promote divine worship, preach Christian doctrine, minister the sacraments, and therefore expend themselves for the salvation of souls; but ministers cannot carry this out unless they are suitably educated and decently supported, having at least food and things with which they may be covered. (b) She cannot propagate the faith without incurring many expenses by sending missionaries to foreign Nations, distributing Catholic books, building new churches, providing for the necessities of the poor, widows, and orphans, etc. (c) For divine worship itself there are required temples, altars, sacred vestments, and other things of this kind. (d) Since the Church is a hierarchical society, there are Superiors, whose necessities must be aided; ecclesiastical tribunals, Congregations, in one word all those things which are altogether necessary for ruling a most ample society. Therefore if Christ wished the Church to subsist and fulfill her offices, by that very fact He wished temporal goods necessary for attaining this end to be possessed. - Moreover elsewhere it has been proved (Treatise on the Church, n. 109) that the Church is a complete and independent society; therefore she has the right of possessing independently of the State.

199. Difficulties are solved. (A) If the Church has the right of possessing independently of the State, she will soon become richer, because ecclesiastical goods are not alienated, but are increased daily; and from this corruption will pervade ecclesiastical men.

Resp. We do not deny that abuses can sometimes creep in on the occasion of ecclesiastical goods; but from this it by no means follows that the right itself of possessing is evil and therefore must be destroyed; otherwise every right would have to be overthrown, as liable to abuses; reason itself demands that abuses indeed be removed, but not the right itself of possessing. Now the Church prevents many abuses by her laws; for, as was said above (n. 181), beneficiaries who have richer revenues are bound to spend the superfluous on good works, and thus they can enrich neither themselves nor their family. - If sometimes ecclesiastical goods are increased, likewise the number of the faithful increases, and the necessities to be relieved also increase; moreover the greatest part of pagans has not yet received the Gospel, and under this head abundant resources are required for converting the Gentiles.

200. (B) Ecclesiastical goods generally are badly cultivated and administered; and this surely does much harm to the public good.

Resp. That an abuse of this kind was not common is established historically; for Religious Orders, even according to non-Catholic writers as witnesses,¹ generally fostered the cultivation of fields most greatly, and by tireless labor and skillful industry converted deserted regions into fertile fields;² in fact a long possession of the same fields increases their fertility not a little, since abundant crops can be received from uncultivated earth only after many labors and a long time. - But if, from the lack of skill or laziness of certain beneficiaries, some ecclesiastical goods are badly cultivated, let the abuse be removed, while the right itself of possessing remains safe.

¹ Thus Taine, L'Ancien Regime, 9th ed., Paris, 1880, p. 6-7.

² Montalembert, Les Moines d'Occident, 7th ed., Paris, 1892, t. I, p. 69 sq.; t. II, p. 446-461; Martin, Les Moines, Paris, 1880, t. I, ch. 6; G. Kurth, Origines de la civilisation moderne, Paris, 1886, t. II, p. 168-185.

201. (C) If ecclesiastical estates are multiplied, then the State is defrauded of taxes, since those estates, according to ecclesiastical law, enjoy immunity.

Resp. From history it is established that this immunity was not harmful to the State. For the Church often, when public calamities were threatening, spontaneously and freely brought help to the State, so that she gave more than the Government could have demanded under the name of taxes.³ Today, however, by taxes on dead hand and other things of this kind, ecclesiastical goods are often burdened more heavily than lay possessions. Therefore Politicians complain unjustly under this head.

³ Viollet, Histoire des Instit. politiques et administratives de la France, Paris, 1898, t. II, p. 398 sq.; Bourgain, Contribution du Clerge a l'impot sous la Monarchie francaise, Questions Historiques, new series, t. IV, p. 66 sq.

202. Three principal opinions have been produced concerning this matter.

(A) Certain persons, with Navarro,¹ said that the dominion of ecclesiastical goods is in the power of God and Christ, not metaphorically, but properly, so that the Church and the Sovereign Pontiff have only the dispensation of these goods, not however dominion. - Yet this opinion is today deservedly judged antiquated; for it can in no way be proved that God or Christ resumes under His own special dominion goods whose dominion He left to men from the beginning. These are indeed said to be dedicated, or donated, to God, but metaphorically, insofar as they ought to be spent in His honor, and cannot be snatched away without a special injury done to God; but dominion must remain in the power of some human person.

¹ Navarro, De Reditibus ecclesiasticis, q. I, monit. 40.

203. (B) Others hold, after Fagnanus,² that dominion of these goods is in the power of the Sovereign Pontiff, or of the universal Church, of which he is the head. Yet we judge this less probable. To the universal Church belong indeed those goods which have been specially donated to her, or were acquired by her, for the general rule of the Christian people; but not those which have been legitimately acquired by various communities canonically erected, on account of the argument soon to be set forth.

² Fagnan, In lib. III Decret., cap. Relatum, Ne clerici vel monachi, n. 26 sq.

204. (C) The third opinion, and today certain from the Code, c. 1499, is that the particular dominion of ecclesiastical goods is in the power of particular churches and colleges canonically erected, to which they have been donated, as long as they remain united to the Catholic Church. - It is called particular dominion, because high or eminent dominion remains in the power of the Pontiff, who, on account of the public good, can alienate or transfer these goods, as we said of the State with regard to the goods of private persons.

205. The fundamental reason is because (a) on the one hand, parishes, communities, and colleges, by the very fact that they are canonically erected, obtain from the Church the right of accepting donations and acquiring goods; (b) on the other hand, the faithful, when they bestow these goods on some church or college, do not intend to give them to the universal Church, but to this church or community which they favor with special love. - And this is confirmed by the practice of the Church; for when doubts arise concerning the legitimate possession of this or that ecclesiastical estate, or lawsuits between two communities, the Roman Congregations are accustomed to inquire to which community or college a good of this kind was donated, and what the intention of the donors was.

206. Yet it was said: as long as the churches or communities remain united to the Apostolic See; for they received this faculty of possessing from the universal Church, nor can they retain it against her will when they are separated from her. Moreover the intention of the faithful was to give these goods to such a parish or community insofar as it was Catholic, and therefore united to the center of Catholic unity.

207. Corollaries. (A) The Supreme Pontiff has the right of supreme dispensation of all ecclesiastical goods, and can alienate or transfer them insofar as the common good of the Church requires this.

For these goods were donated to churches or communities for promoting the good of the Church; now sometimes it happens that the good of the Church demands that these goods be transferred or ceded to others, because the colleges which enjoy them cease to exist, or abuse these goods, or because peace between the Church and the State cannot be retained or restored without a partial or total cession of ecclesiastical goods.

208. In fact the Roman Pontiffs have sometimes, although rarely, used this power; thus Clement V, in the Council of Vienne, transferred most of the goods of the Templars to the institute of St. John; Martin V, in the Council of Constance, granted to the Teutonic nation that it might retain certain ecclesiastical goods acquired simoniacally; Benedict XIV conceded to the bishops of Albania the faculty of condoning ecclesiastical goods unjustly seized to their possessors, lest otherwise these fall into apostasy; Pius VII, for the good of peace and the happy restoration of the Catholic religion in France, declared that those who had acquired alienated goods of the Church were not to be disturbed.

209. (B) These goods, from Code c. 1514, must be spent on the uses predetermined, unless the Sovereign Pontiff, by his supreme power, on account of the good of the Church, has judged otherwise. - For this is clear from the quasi-contract between the donors and the churches to which the goods were given. Moreover, if the utility of the Church demands something else, the Supreme Pontiff can interpret the will of the donors. Therefore recourse must be had to him for the commutation of pious works which can no longer be fulfilled.

871. Things to be noted beforehand. A moral person, as it is taken here, is a juridic being, or civil body, to which laws have conceded the privilege of perpetual succession. - It consists either of several coexisting persons, as a college; or of one person who never dies, as the Bishop, who always lives in his successors. - It differs, of itself, from a conventional society: for this is entered by contract among private persons, who have co-ownership, and therefore retain a strict right to common goods. Cf. n. 1157. A conventional society (for example industrial) can receive legal existence, but it does not become a juridic being and moral body in the strict sense.

Colleges are held, generally, after the manner of private persons: hence they can enter contracts, act in judgment, etc.

We said generally: for in the ownerships of stable colleges, members have only the right of administering them and perceiving fruits from them, and that according to the norm of the foundation; yet with the substance of the ownership preserved. For this reason, communities are ruled in many things by the law of minors. Thus, for example, immovables and precious movables of churches, monasteries, municipalities, etc., cannot be alienated without the command of the supreme power (D'Annibale, Summ. I, n. 43 seq.; Ferraris, v. Collegium).

These things having been noted beforehand, let there be discussion of moral persons: 1. in the civil order; 2. in the religious order.

872. Moral persons, in the civil order, are States or republics and communities, whether regional (of provinces or districts) or municipal.

The state and municipalities have the right of possessing temporal goods and administering them. - The reason is that such a right is required for the end of civil society, i.e. for the common good of citizens.

Scope of ownership. I. The ownership of the state, or State, embraces things of a twofold kind: 1. Things generally unfruitful, but devoted to common necessities, for example the more principal roads, navigable rivers, seashores and lands emerging by the recession of the sea, ports, warships, fortified citadels and military garrisons, houses destined for supreme rulers and their ministers, public libraries and museums, etc. - 2. Fruitful things, movable and immovable, acquired by any legitimate title, for sustaining the expenses of the universal government.

II. The ownership of regional and municipal communities consists of common buildings, schools, lay hospitals, prisons, public roads, fields, forests, etc. - To these are numbered, in certain regions, palaces of Bishops, seminaries, canonically erected hospitals, cemeteries, churches, indeed also sacred vessels; which certainly is repugnant to Canon Law, unless some concession has been made by concordats (Carriere, o.c., n. 67; Craisson, Man. Juris can., 936, 5315).

873. Principles. I. The Church can legitimately acquire and possess temporal things. It is of faith, as is certain from the condemnation of the tenth proposition of Wycliffe: "It is against Scripture that ecclesiastical men have possessions" (likewise, from proposition 32 and 33). To this also pertains the twenty-sixth proposition condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus: "The Church does not have a native and legitimate right of acquiring and possessing."¹³

874. II. The right of acquiring and possessing, which the Church enjoys, cannot be limited to movable goods. For immovables are necessary for churches, episcopal houses, presbyteral houses, for monasteries, hospitals, seminaries, etc.; and therefore the faculty of possessing goods of this kind inheres in the Church, by natural and divine law, namely by the same law by which it was given to her to exist and to spread herself into the whole world, independently of every secular power (cf. Aichner, Comp. Juris eccl., § 222).

Hence it is inferred: 1. The civil State that does not admit the aforesaid right violates divine law, just as it would violate natural law if it did not permit a singular person at will to become the subject of right (De Angelis, l. 3, tit. 5, n. 4).

2. Ownership of ecclesiastical goods does not pertain to the state; indeed, not even high ownership belongs to it. For the Church is a society altogether diverse from the state, and superior to it. - Therefore if the state needs some ecclesiastical good, for example to construct a road, it is necessary that it obtain the consent of the Church (cf. n. 149). See the Spanish Concordat of the year 1851, art. 40; Spanish Civil Code, n. 38, 746.

3. Ecclesiastical goods are regularly immune from taxes and civil burdens; otherwise the right of the Church in temporal goods would not be independent (St. Alphonsus, de Privil., n. 20). Yet these goods can, from privilege, be burdened with taxes, as in fact sometimes happened in certain places, from concession of the Holy See (Aichner, § 227).

4. Violators of ecclesiastical ownership are always guilty of injustice, indeed often of sacrilege (cf. n. 583), and deservedly are punished with penalties and censures (cf. n. 1325 seqq.).

875. Questions. QUAER. 1. Who has ownership of the goods of the Church?

Resp. 1. Direct Ownership of those goods pertains immediately to particular churches, but mediately to the Catholic society itself, i.e. to the universal Church.

Hence: if some pious institute, parish, monastery, etc., is suppressed, the goods of the suppressed institute continue to belong to the universal Church, by which they are to be destined to another end. Nor does the Supreme Pontiff himself bear himself in this matter as proprietor, but as supreme administrator (Aichner, l.c., § 223).

2. Usufruct respectively pertains to those special associations or institutes to which the same goods have been left by the faithful.

Whence it happens that the rights of each institute are separate, and cannot be taken away thence by the mere will of prelates, or transferred to other places. This, however, the Supreme Pontiff can do as supreme administrator of all ecclesiastical goods.¹⁴

QUAER. 2. To whom does the administration of ecclesiastical goods pertain?

Resp. 1. The right or power of administering the goods of the Church belongs to those ecclesiastical persons to whom ownership, at least useful ownership, belongs: for the accessory follows its principal.

Therefore by law the administrators are: a) the Roman Pontiff for the whole world; - b) the Bishop for his diocese; - c) Chapters and Superiors of Orders for the goods of the Order, province, convent: all these, however, inferior to the Pope, according to the judgment of the Holy See and according to the laws of the universal Church, in whose possession is the principal ownership and government.

2. The administration itself pertains, in fact, to those to whom it was legitimately committed by the one having power, and therefore remains necessarily subject to the one committing it.¹⁵

In this administration indeed, laymen are sometimes permitted to have their part; but from this they acquire no right, just as curators acquire none from administration of goods that pertain to minors (Bargilliat, Prael. Juris can., n. 970; Craisson, n. 5303; Aichner, § 225).

876. Note. 1. If the aforesaid rights of the Church are restricted by secular power, for example if by law (which they call amortization) the quantity of goods to be acquired is determined; or if the consent of the civil government is required beforehand: laws of this kind, although contrary to sacred canons, can be observed, insofar as namely the Church does not contradict. Indeed, they often must be observed, lest acts of administration become civilly invalid, and from this a greater detriment come to the Church.

2. If the right of the Church is entirely denied, recourse should be made to common Law, i.e. to the law that the laws concede to all citizens. Religious communities and pious institutes can acquire and preserve goods especially in three ways; and indeed: a) by obtaining the right of a college or civil corporation, or recognition of public utility; - b) by entering some contract of society, for example that by which goods are possessed in common for attaining a certain end approved by law; - c) by taking care that a simple contract of purchase be entered in a private name. In which case, one must watch that those possessing goods of the community in their own name immediately make a valid testament, which is diligently preserved in the community's archive (Konings, n. 623). Cf. Pelt, o.c., p. 61, as regards religious Congregations.

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.

619. • I. The Church can legitimately acquire and possess temporal things. This proposition is of faith, as is evidently clear from the condemnation of propositions 10, 32, and 33 of Wycliffe. Cf. Syll. pp. 26. p. XLII.

II. The Church can acquire and possess not only movables, but also immovables, and indeed by divine right, both natural and positive, and independently of secular power.

III. Therefore it belongs not to secular power, but to the Church, to judge how far the right of acquiring and holding temporal goods ought to extend; and civil laws commonly called laws of amortization, excluding a special privilege conceded by the Church, are iniquitous and injurious to the Church. - But by laws of amortization are understood those civil laws by which provision is made lest the Church acquire temporal goods, especially immovables, without the consent of secular power, or at least beyond a certain quantity, lest, as they say, she become rich beyond measure.

IV. Therefore the Republic does not even have eminent dominion (n. 590) in the goods of the Church, and therefore, if it needs the goods of the Church, it is necessary that it obtain her consent.

V. Therefore the immunity of ecclesiastical goods from taxes, at least within certain limits, is also to be asserted by divine right, both natural and positive; for if this immunity were entirely denied, it would also have to be denied that the right of the Church concerning temporal goods is independent of civil power.

See these propositions more fully developed and proved, if you please, apud Craisson, Elem. Jur. Can.,¹ Devoti, Inst. Jur. Can.,² or Kenrick.³

620. • In what way dominion of the Church is recognized by our law. The Fathers of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore wisely observe: "Since in these Federated States it is intact for all citizens and inhabitants to conduct themselves freely and without punishment according to the precepts of their religion, and the civil laws recognize and proclaim this; nothing at all would seem to stand in the way of our accurately observing those laws of the Church which have been passed up to this time by Councils and Pontiffs for rightly acquiring Ecclesiastical Goods and preserving them whole and untouched." Yet they no less wisely note that these laws are not yet recognized in certain States.⁴

And indeed, in truth, the Church among us 1° is subject to a law of amortization, at least in this sense, that, unless they are handed over in property (in fee simple) to a Bishop or another, generally she can acquire and have only a determined species or quantity of immovables. 2° She is generally subject to the eminent dominion of the Republic. 3° The immunity of ecclesiastical goods is circumscribed by narrow limits; for only churches and places adjacent to them, and colleges (corporations), are accustomed to be exempted from taxes, and these not everywhere. 4° Not everywhere can she acquire and hold goods in her own name.

621. • There are three sentences concerning the subject to which direct dominion of ecclesiastical goods inheres. The first holds that it inheres in the churches themselves, or institutes, for whose use they have been acquired. The second holds that it resides with the Supreme Pontiff. The third, which according to St. Alphonsus¹ is truer and more common, holds that it exists with no man, whether public or private, but with the Catholic Church, while administration alone consists with the ministers of the Church.²

622. • So that ecclesiastical institutes may canonically acquire temporal goods, it generally suffices that those things be observed which are required among private persons for the forum of conscience. Thus, so that something may be acquired by donation, acceptance by the legitimate Superior of the ecclesiastical institute to which the donation is made suffices.

But so that they may be acquired and held among us by a civilly valid title, it is necessary that either 1° they be conceded to someone in trust, or 2° they be acquired by right of a college or corporation, or 3° they be handed over to a Bishop or to some other person in property (in fee simple).

But none of these titles is canonical or altogether safe. Not the first. For they can be conceded in trust in a double way, namely to the Bishop, or to trustees, whom the adults, whether women or men, who profess that they pertain to some religious Communion, have chosen from their own body. But to the Bishop as such, and thus also to his successors in perpetuity, generally there has been conceded only a certain species of ecclesiastical goods, namely churches and presbyteries, to be acquired in trust, and this only in certain States. - That this title is not canonical is clear even from this, that it is restricted to a certain species of goods. But experience proves that it is not altogether safe; for in political disturbances those things which are possessed in the name of the Church or of some religious community are more liable to so-called legal depredations. Yet that title is more canonical than the rest, since by force of it the Bishop possesses in the name of the Church, and through him the dominion of the Church over her goods is recognized. It is also safer than the rest, as will be clear from what is to be said.

The worst of all is the other manner of acquiring, namely through trustees elected by the adults of some Congregation. For to these elected in this way the right will belong of repairing and changing the church, of building a new one, of erecting a pastoral house and other buildings for the use of the Congregation; of making statutes according to which the temporal affairs of the Church are to be administered; of disposing of the revenues of the church, leasing seats, choosing and removing ministers, and determining their salaries and even offices, etc. Moreover at appointed times, by majority of votes, either the Congregation itself or the college of trustees substitutes new trustees in the place of those whose trust, which has been defined to a certain number of years, expires, or confirms the old. It is sufficiently clear how greatly all these things are opposed to the discipline and even to the constitution of the Church, and this although the Bishop or Pastor is from the number of trustees, or is elected by them as President of their college, or even statutes are made by which the right of the Church is preserved. For those statutes, just like the election of the Bishop or Pastor as President, by which moreover little is obtained, can be annulled by the same majority by which they exist.

Nor can the second title be called canonical or altogether safe. For the right of a college or corporation is liable to the infidelity of directors; it can also be revoked (see n. 618), and regularly has the attached condition that goods beyond a certain defined value not be acquired for the college.

Finally neither can the third title be held canonical or safe. "For those things which," says Kenrick,¹ "have been handed over to the Bishop in property are liable to very many dangers, since they can be burdened by debt, or, if the testament is not rightly made, pass into the hands of others."

Moreover one from these three titles (or perhaps even that which exists from a contract of partnership, and concerning which below), although not canonical nor altogether safe, must necessarily be chosen, so that the goods of the Church may be protected at least in that manner in which it can be done. But which of the three is to be preferred, and what cautions must be employed so that the dangers joined with each may be removed as far as it can be done, is clear from the following statutes of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore.

623. • 1° Bishops, priests, and all others "with whom goods, whether movable or immovable, given for ecclesiastical uses are held, are admonished that they take care as soon as possible that those things, in that way which in the individual Federated Provinces will seem safest, be preserved according to the civil laws for the uses designated by the donors."¹ From these words it is sufficiently clear that trustees can in no way be employed in that signification which was declared at n. 622. But if somewhere, where formerly they were brought in, they seem still to have to be tolerated, they are to be restrained within just limits, concerning which below. For Pius VII not undeservedly pronounced their right, insofar as it does not depend on Bishops, immoderate and unbridled, in letters given to the Archbishop of Baltimore on 24 Aug. 1822.²

2° In States in which Bishops, because of defect of another civilly legitimate title, are forced to take care that the property of ecclesiastical goods be ascribed to themselves as physical persons, their conscience is burdened by the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide,³ that by testament, which also must be drawn up if any other method whatever of holding and protecting ecclesiastical goods is brought into effect,⁴ or by another legitimate instrument, they provide for the security of those goods; but let them deposit a duplicate exemplar of this testament with the Archbishop, but the Archbishop with the senior Bishop; and this within three months from their consecration. But if some Bishop neglects this, the Archbishop will remind him of his office, and report him, if he ceases for a long time, probably if he delays, to the Sacred Congregation.⁵

3° "Let them" (Bishops) "also have an inventory of ecclesiastical goods, and all titles and instruments duly arranged."¹

4° "If it happens that they," for a longer time, "reside outside the diocese, let them leave letters of procuration" (power of attorney) "with some approved man who can preserve these goods for ecclesiastical uses."²

5° "We most greatly desire," say the Fathers, "that no church be erected or consecrated in the future unless it has been assigned to the Bishop in whose diocese it is to be erected, by written instrument, for divine worship and the utility of the faithful, whenever this can be done; with the privileges of Regulars" (concerning which below) "preserved whole and untouched."³

6° Bishops are admonished "that they not allow priests to retain with themselves in their own name those things which have been donated by the faithful for public and ecclesiastical uses, and committed to their trust."⁴

7° Religious communities, both of men and also of women, and whatever other pious institutions, are forced to provide for the security of their goods in one of the four following ways.

a) By obtaining, where it can be obtained, right of a college (Right of Corporation). b) Through a contract of partnership, by which goods are possessed in common by three or four members of the Community, so that all the partners possess that right during the time of their natural life; but, when any one of them has died, the right of possessing all the goods remains with the surviving partners, with no power having been made to any of them of alienating in his lifetime, or of leaving by testament after death, the aforesaid goods. In this case, care will only have to be taken that, when one of the partners has died, another from the members of the Community be admitted into the partnership. c) "If only the way of testament remains for transmitting goods to successors, he who possesses the goods of the Community in his own proper name must take care that immediately he perfect a testament according to the civil laws, which is to be diligently preserved in the archives of the Community."⁴ d) "As to Communities" whose "goods are possessed by the Bishop, ... through the testament of the Bishop sufficient provision is made for the security" of those goods. These things according to the mind of the Decree of the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, 15 Dec. 1840.¹

624. • Administration of right, or the very right of administering ecclesiastical goods, pertains to that authority to which dominion of those goods pertains; for the accessory follows its principal; but administration is the accessory of dominion; therefore, just as the dominion of ecclesiastical goods, from the sentence of St. Alphonsus (see above n. 621), pertains to the Church, so likewise the administration of them belongs to the same.

But under the name of the Church here comes the Supreme Pontiff for the whole world; the Bishop for his diocese; Chapters and Superiors of Orders and Congregations for the goods of the Order, Province, or Convent; the parish priest for the goods of his church; and the Pope indeed with subordination to divine right, but the rest with subordination to the Pope and to the laws sanctioned for them.

But administration of fact pertains to those to whom it is legitimately committed by those to whom administration of right belongs, and is necessarily subject to the one committing it.

625. • In what way administration is to be conducted.

I. As to the goods of the diocese generally, the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore has these things:²

"It would turn very much to the solace of the Bishop and utility of the Church, if ... he named a Steward, or in temporal affairs a Procurator, lay or cleric, whose duty it would be to have care of the episcopal house in temporal matters, and also to conduct the temporal administration of churches and ecclesiastical goods at the nod of the Bishop, and to render an account to him at appointed times of all things committed to him."

II. The goods of individual churches are administered by the Missionaries set over them and the Lay Trustees.

A) As to Missionaries, Bishops are admonished by the Fathers of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore:

1° "That they watch lest priests, either by rashly erecting or repairing churches, or by contracting debt in another way, burden the affairs of the church, or break faith to the disgrace of Religion; therefore let them exact an account at least each year, and let them not allow them to contract debt without a license given in writing, in the name or for the cause of the church.

2° That "priests be admonished not to mix their own affairs with the affairs of the church, with danger to their reputation or offense to the faithful, who easily think an injury is being done to the church. Therefore let them have a book in which all the things of the church are catalogued; and, if they themselves have contributed money for the use of the church, let this be done with the Bishop approving, and with the knowledge of trustworthy men, and let it be recorded in the book, so that the Bishop, when holding visitation, can inspect individual things and protect the rights of all."²

3° "Priests who administer churches whose title has been handed over to Bishops are not to establish lay trustees in them without the authority of the Bishops, or permit them to be elected by the faithful, lest perhaps some impediment arise to the administration of them."³

See moreover those things which above, n. 623, 1°, 5°, 6°, we reported from the same Council.

626. • B) As to lay trustees, "that they may be restrained within due limits, in whatever way finally they are chosen" (therefore comprehended by this decree are not only those who have been constituted by the authority of the Bishops alone, but also those who were formerly constituted in that way which was mentioned at n. 622), the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore:⁴

a) Declares "that it is the universal law of the Catholic Church that all those who in any way administer the goods of the Church do this licitly only with the Apostolic See or Bishop consenting, and that in the administration of them they are subject to the authority and jurisdiction of the Bishops, or, if they are exempt, to the authority and jurisdiction of those whom the Apostolic See shall have designated."⁴

b) The Fathers extend to all the churches of these provinces, and counsel that everywhere there be observed, the following statutes of the Third Provincial Council of New York.⁵

1° "That he not be admitted into the number of the Lay Trustees concerning whom, under the election itself or a little before, it has been established that he has given his name to any secret Society, or has not received the Easter Sacraments."

2° "Let the Lay Trustees thoroughly understand that it is altogether wicked for them to divert the least part of the goods of the Church to their own uses under any title or pretext, or to strangers, except by permission of the Bishop and with the Apostolic Constitutions concerning alienation of ecclesiastical things observed."

3° "Ordinary expenses excepted, let it not be licit for the Lay Trustees to expend a sum of money beyond three hundred dollars" ($300) "upon any particular work, unless the Bishop assents in writing."

4° "Let the Lay Trustees know that the decision of naming and creating the Pastor of the church, and of retaining him in office or the contrary, rests with the Bishop. It also belongs uniquely to the Bishop himself to assign a certain sum of money to pastors of souls for their support; nor is it licit for the Lay Trustees to retain, lessen, or increase stipends of this kind."

5° "It belongs to the Pastor to designate the Organist, Singers, Sacristan, Custodian or Apparitor, Schoolmaster, if some school exists in the parish, and other men of this kind who serve the altar or temple."

6° "Let the Lay Trustees beware lest, without consulting the Pastor, they prescribe anything to the Parishioners as law or norm. But if some discrepancy should arise between the Pastor and the Lay Trustees consulting about things to be done, and they are not able by themselves to compose the dissension, the Bishop will settle the controversy, and all will obey his judgment and sentence."

627. • III. As to Regulars, they have either undertaken diocesan works to be governed, that is, works which are sustained by money and other means drawn from the diocese, for example a quasi-parish, or they have not. In the former case, in the administration of goods which pertain to those works and which cannot be proved by a written document to have been handed over to the Order for use, or is not clear of itself, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the Bishop or to the agreements entered between him and the Order. It is said: or is not clear of itself, so that movables of religious houses, for example furniture, books, etc., may be excluded. For Regulars acquire these from their own monies or monies given to them for this purpose. - In the latter case they are not subject to the Ordinary, unless otherwise it was agreed between them and the Ordinary at the threshold of the foundation.

As to Nuns, see what is to be said in the Treatise on Particular States, n. 1189.

Note. - Under the name of ecclesiastical goods in this place come not only those things which are held as such in the strict sense, but also those in the broad sense. Therefore we shall treat 1° of beneficial goods; 2° of taxes to be paid to the Bishop; 3° of the remaining ecclesiastical goods.

628. • A benefice is defined by Canonists: A perpetual right of receiving fruits from the goods of the Church on account of some spiritual office constituted by the authority of the Church and to be exercised in one's own name.

It is said: 1° perpetual right. But this perpetuity can be understood in a double way, namely by reason a) of the benefice, which once erected always remains; b) of the beneficiary, who obtains the right of receiving the fruits of the benefice not for a time, but as long as he shall have lived. Commonly the Doctors assert that perpetuity accepted in both senses is of the nature of an ecclesiastical benefice; yet this is not admitted by all, and Leurenius, cited by Cardinal Soglia,¹ admits only perpetuity of the former kind as essential to benefices. Bouix,² St. Alphonsus,³ and others embrace the sentence of Leurenius.

It is said: 2° of receiving fruits from the goods of the Church. Ecclesiastical goods from which those fruits are received are called the dowry of the benefice, and consist either in rural or urban estates, or in pastures, woods, or similar things, or in those rights which obtain the place of fruits and in Roman Law are equated with immovable things, such as rents or annual revenues.

It is said: 3° on account of some spiritual office, as for example on account of the obligation of reciting the canonical hours, of serving some Church by administration of the Sacraments, preaching, celebration of Mass, etc. But this spiritual office is indeed the foundation and cause of the benefice, but it is not the benefice itself.

It is said: 4° constituted by the authority of the Church, namely of the Supreme Pontiff or of the Bishop.

629. • From the given definition of a benefice it is sufficiently clear that the question concerning the dominion of Clerics is almost useless as to these provinces. For goods pertaining to the dominion 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, etc.; - 2° quasi-patrimonial, which are acquired by occasion and with regard to ecclesiastical functions not attached to a benefice, for example by celebrating Mass, preaching, etc. They are also called quasi-ecclesiastical or casual, and to them pertain the Offerings of the faithful for the support of priests, as is clear also from the response of the Sacred Penitentiary given on 9 Aug. 1824; - 3° ecclesiastical, which arise from benefices of the Church; - 4° parcimonial, which a Cleric sets aside by living sparingly from the fruits of a benefice, and which he could consume by living honorably. - Now, scarcely one Parochial benefice is yet known certainly to exist in these Provinces;¹ therefore the goods of Clerics here are no others except patrimonial and quasi-patrimonial; for there can be no question of parcimonial goods where there are no beneficial goods which may be spared. Therefore our Clerics have perfect dominion of all their goods, and the question is useless for us whether they are bound to restitution when they spend badly the superfluous things of ecclesiastical or beneficial goods, and the other questions connected with it: namely, what is understood by superfluous; whether Clerics can preserve the superfluous for the future; whether a Cleric who has from patrimony whence he may live can also sustain himself wholly from the fruits of a benefice; whether also pensioners, whose pension is extracted from the fruits of a benefice, ought to expend the superfluous upon the poor. Concerning all these things, if a case were to occur as to priests arriving in these Provinces from elsewhere, where they had a benefice, or concerning our Bishops, for whom the so-called Cathedraticum is the dowry of a benefice, either St. Alphonsus¹ or Kenrick² can be seen.

630. Note. - Kenrick³ contends that the offices which in several States are committed to a priest with the fruits of the lands which are joined to presbyteries, and likewise the pension which is paid to priests by lay trustees on account of the care of souls and is annexed to it, are to be held after the manner of benefices. But undeservedly, as indeed it seems to us. For as to the fruits of those lands, although they are immovables and given on account of a spiritual office, and committed to the trust of the Bishop or another, nevertheless they are not benefices; for the spiritual office on account of which they are given is exercised among us not in one's own name, but in the name of the Bishop. Therefore at least one of the conditions required for a benefice is lacking (see n. 628). Nor is the pension paid by lay trustees a benefice or given in place of it. Wherefore, in our judgment at least, Kenrick⁴ does not rightly apply to this pension the response which the Sacred Penitentiary⁵ gave concerning salaries which in France and Belgium are paid to priests by the Government. For these are paid in compensation for beneficial goods which were taken away at the time of the French disturbance, and therefore they have the same nature as the goods for which they are substituted; and no one will affirm this of a pension paid by lay trustees.

There is only one case in which among us a priest receiving revenues from those lands, or a pension paid by lay trustees, would be guilty of injustice and bound to restitution, namely if he neglected the office on account of which they are given, i.e. duties which regard the care of souls. For then the title by which they are received is lacking. Moreover, it cannot easily be defined how much is to be restored if one has neglected some duties, for example to receive Confessions or to preach the word of God. For the most part it will suffice to shake off sluggishness and show himself liberal toward the poor.

631. • Taxes to be paid to the Bishop are either ordinary or extraordinary.

Among ordinary taxes the principal is the Cathedraticum, to be paid by all parish priests, beneficiaries, and secular churches, but not by those churches of Regulars which are not subject to the Bishop. Among us the name of Cathedraticum has been transferred to the contribution to be paid for the support of the Bishop.¹

An extraordinary tax is especially constituted by the Procuration, or that which is given to the Bishop in the name of sustenance by the churches which he canonically visits.² See what was said at n. 356, Resp. 3° a).

632. • The remaining ecclesiastical goods are A) Tithes,³ which are none here. B) First-fruits,⁴ which now have almost everywhere ceased, nor here were they ever to be given by right. C) Daily distributions, which come to Canons present in choir,⁵ and concerning which among us, with no Chapters erected up to now, a question would be moved uselessly. D) Offerings, concerning which now, and indeed more fully for us, we must treat.

633. • The uncertain generosity of the faithful, which up to now generally has not failed, is the chief, and in very many places the only, means by which our Clergy is supported. Now:

Quaer. 1° Whether and in what way are our faithful bound to contribute to the support of the Clergy, and generally of religion?

Resp. with Kenrick:⁶ "This ... ought to be persuaded to all: that it is fitting that individuals contribute something for their own part, lest priests" and religion "lack necessary support; but as long as no certain law enjoins and defines the burden, we do not dare to condemn of mortal sin him who omits to contribute an equal portion, whenever there is no danger lest priests be in need on that account, or other faithful be excessively burdened. But those who through avarice refuse to give anything, in the circumstances which we have indicated" and these circumstances occur more rarely, "seem gravely guilty and unworthy of sacramental pardon; for they violate the law of Christ the Lord concerning the support of the Ministers of the Gospel, and expose themselves and others to danger of salvation."

634. • Quaer. 2° What are the principal species of offerings in these Provinces?

Resp. Comprehending those things which can be called offerings only in the broadest sense, the principal are: a) monies which are accustomed to be collected in individual parishes for determined pious causes; b) pious donations and legacies; c) contributions of various Societies; d) subsidies given in certain States by civil power to Catholic schools, orphanages, hospitals, and similar pious places or institutes; e) subsidies furnished by European Mission Societies; f) collections which are accustomed to be held during divine Offices; g) revenues from the leasing of seats or benches; h) stipends of Masses; i) Offerings properly so called, or stole fees.

635. • Offerings of which in n. 634 under a), b), c), d), from justice are to be spent for the special ends for which they are made. Yet limit this according to L. IV. 931. q. II.

Monies of which in the same n. 634 under a), namely those which are accustomed to be collected in individual parishes for determined pious causes:

1° Cannot be collected by a priest outside the congregation entrusted to him or in another diocese without written license of the Ordinary, and this under penalty of suspension ferendae sententiae. "But let Religious remember to bring with them the license of their Superior."²

2° If it is a question of giving a Mission in some parish, "the Fathers judged it would be advisable ... that before Missionaries approach collections, or even sell, either by themselves or through others, pious books, Rosaries, Crosses, Medals, and other things of this kind in congregations where Missions are made, they obtain both the previous assent of the Pastor and the approbation of the Ordinary."³

3° "It seems that by no excuse can there be covered the practice of procuring monies for ecclesiastical uses by those means which provide a direct occasion of sinning, are not infrequently causes of public scandal, and expose the Catholic name to the mockeries and reproaches of outsiders."⁴ - Therefore the Bishops in Pastoral Letters given to the Clergy and faithful say: "We forbid all Catholics from having anything to do with them" (the Fairs, Excursions, and Picnics), "except when managed in accordance with the regulations of the Ordinary, and under the immediate supervision of their respective Pastors."¹

4° The conscience of Bishops is burdened that they take care lest priests depart from the altar during the solemnities of Masses and go around the sacred building, asking alms from individual faithful.²

636. • The collection of money which is accustomed to be gathered during the solemnities of Masses, and the revenues of seats or benches, since they come on the occasion of the Sacrifice, pertain to the parish priest, unless there is either another custom or another intention of those offering.³ It is clear that among us they must be held as revenues of the churches under each of these titles.

Note. - Seats or benches:

1° To lease them is not simoniacal; for although here the temporal is concomitantly annexed to the spiritual, namely to assistance at the divine Offices, nevertheless it is annexed to the same only extrinsically, since one need not necessarily assist at the divine Offices in some seat or bench, and this convenience, as entirely temporal, is worthy of a price. But "the Supreme Pontiff Pius IX declared that the practice, if it exists, of exacting money at the doors of Churches so that the faithful may enter and be present at the divine mysteries is very displeasing to him, and he wished it to be entirely eliminated."⁴

2° To guard against most grave inconveniences and evils "it is necessary," says Kenrick,⁵ "to abstain from selling benches, lest the buyers obtain full right (n. 590) in them, since it is enough that they be able to occupy them while the solemnities of Masses are performed, with the laws and rules otherwise observed."

637. • Concerning Mass stipends the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore established:

1° "That no one exact more, nor regularly less, than what shall have seemed opportune and just to his Bishop."⁶

2° "That foundations" of Masses, whether for a time or in perpetuity, "not be accepted without the prior assent of the Bishop, if it is a question of a secular institute, or of the regular prelate, if the foundation is made in favor of an exempt Community."¹ - But as to the stipend of these, the Fourth Decree of the First Synod of Cincinnati is commended as a norm, by which it is established "that for a private Mass there exist a principal of at least 50 dollars" ($50), "but for a sung Mass 100 dollars" ($100).² - The Fathers also establish that the abuse by which "public and frequent invitations to alms to be spent upon foundations of this kind, for several continuous months, are inserted in popular newspapers among other profane business," is to be removed "without delay by Bishops and prelates."³

3° "That in individual secular and regular churches there be a catalogue or table of burdens which have been imposed upon them in perpetuity or for a certain prefixed time, and respectively accepted; and that in the sacristy of the same place there be preserved books, in one of which perpetual or temporal burdens of this kind, but in the other manual and adventitious Masses, are inscribed, together with a faithful and distinct notation of the subsequent fulfillment of each."⁴

As to stole fees, see n. 356.

198. Notions. - Here by a moral person is understood an aggregation of several into one moral body, by which it comes about that they are able collectively to possess goods in common, so that they now pertain to the body, not to the individual members.¹ But if it is acknowledged by the authority of the legislator, it civilly obtains juridical existence and diverse rights, and thus becomes a juridical person (rechtspersoon).

¹ The definition is also verified of foundations, as they say, direct foundations, or concerning goods given to a work or destined end: then all in whose favor the foundation is erected possess collectively, for example, all citizens of a city if there is question of a charitable foundation. Nor is it an obstacle that a collegial person can exist without any members, because that is a fiction of law: namely, it is feigned to continue so that it does not need a new erection if members arrive.

By reason of the end toward which they conspire, some moral persons are civil, which immediately pursue a temporal good; others ecclesiastical or religious, which pursue spiritual and eternal goods. Likewise they are public or private, according as the good to which they tend is common and public, or particular and private: thus the State, provinces, and municipalities are public societies; colleges of workers or industrial societies in the actual constitution of civil society are private.

199. Principles. - I. Public civil societies exist by natural right itself and have the right of possessing goods. For men need the assistance of public society, and permanent possession of goods is necessary to society for attaining its end.

The dominion of the republic, by reason of goods, is distinguished as twofold:

a) public dominion, consisting of those things which serve public use and cannot be the object of private dominion, such as public roads, rivers, seashores, fortified citadels, and other things of this kind (C.C., a. 538, 540);

b) private or national dominion of the State, consisting of private goods which the republic possesses and which can be alienated and come to private persons, such as places left by the sea, islands formed in navigable rivers, immovable goods which lack an owner, abandoned inheritances, suppressed roads, or other things which cease to be of public dominion, forests or public buildings which are in the power of the government. This distinction, proportion being observed, is valid concerning the dominion of provinces and municipalities.

II. Private societies can be formed from the free consent of citizens and can possess goods. For men have a natural right of association to a private end which is an honorable good; but if possession of goods is necessary for this end, these also they can possess collegially.

Therefore such societies do not have their being or their right of possessing from the State; nor can they be prohibited or restricted by the State, or subjected to various conditions, except by reason of the common good insofar as is necessary. Although there will more easily be reasons for intervening in these than in the dominions of private persons.

III. The Church, not only by right of nature but from divine right from her founder Christ, independently of the State, has the right of possessing temporal goods, because it is necessary for her end. This is proved in the treatise on the Church,² and is enunciated in can. 1495 and 1499.

² Cf. Wicleff prop. 10, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 condemned; C. Trid. sess. 22 de ref. c. 11; Pius IX, in the bull Apost. Sedis; Syll. prop. 26 and 27.

But other lesser religious societies can exist dependently upon ecclesiastical power and enjoy the capacity of possessing (ibid.); of these some are collegial societies of persons, others non-collegial, such as benefices. Thus according to the norm of can. 100:

"§ 1. The Catholic Church and the Apostolic See have the character of a moral person from divine ordination itself; the remaining inferior moral persons in the Church obtain it either from the prescription of law itself (as Religious Institutes or religious houses), or from the special concession of a competent ecclesiastical Superior given by formal decree for a religious or charitable end.

§ 2. A collegial moral person cannot be constituted except from at least three physical persons.

§ 3. Moral persons, whether collegial or non-collegial, are equated to minors."

200. Conclusions. - 1. Therefore the Church's full right, independent of the State, of possessing temporal goods is certain. Yet this is not everywhere formally acknowledged by the State, although Catholics can rather often use general legislation concerning societies. In Belgium, the right of dominion is acknowledged to the cathedral church, to the fabrics of parochial churches, and to diocesan seminaries.

2. From moral philosophy it is established that public societies exist by natural right and possess goods; but by civil law that dominion ought to be confirmed, protected, and rightly ordered. Therefore it is no more licit to steal public goods than the goods of private persons; but as to common goods which citizens can enjoy, the conditions established by legitimate authority must be observed, so that in this way the rights of all may remain entire.

3. Private societies also are endowed by nature with the faculty of possessing goods, just as with the right of existing. Therefore the State cannot take away or restrict that right, except insofar as the common good demands it. For the State exists to promote the good of citizens, not to destroy private activity; for which reason by civil law private societies ought rather to be promoted than repressed, provided there is absent from them whatever openly disagrees with morality, with justice, and with the safety of the republic. Thus Leo XIII, enc. Rerum novarum.

In the Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland, England, and the United States of America, the laws are favorable for forming and acknowledging societies; likewise in Germany corporate law is highly evolved, but only the law can confer capacity upon religious societies. In Spain and Portugal, the authority of law must intervene so that a moral person may be constituted. In France, civil law is much more difficult for acknowledging moral persons, especially for religious.

In Belgium, societies instituted for the sake of profit are acknowledged (C.C., a. 1832-1834), especially commercial societies (C. Com. t. IX), professional unions (law of March 31, 1898), indeed from the recent law of June 27, 1921 also societies not instituted for profit.

THERE WERE certain heretics, whom Valencia disp. 5. quaest. 10. punct. 2. relates, whom Vuicleph followed; he was condemned for it in the Council of Constance, sess. 8., as were those also denying that dominion over things is lawful to ecclesiastics.

I ASSERT, however, as of faith, that dominion over temporal things is lawful to the Church, and to Bishops.

IT IS PROVED by D. Bonaventure, in Apol. pauperum, responsionis tertiae cap. 2., from Iosue 21, where the priests of the old law had possessions and fields.

IT IS PROVED secondly by the holy Doctor, resp. tertiae cap. 1. ex 5. Actorum, where Peter says to Ananias: While it remained, did it not remain to thee, etc., as Chrysost. observes, homil. 12. in Acta, and Valencia notes, disp. 5. quaest. 10. punct. 2. It was declared also by the Church, as the holy Doctor teaches, cap. 2. resp. quartae; and it was declared in the Councils of Antioch, cap. 24, Agath. cap. 48, Carthag. III. cap. 49, and it is had in multis decretis, which the holy Doctor brings forward, loc. cit.

FIRST, Can. si quis de clericis 12. quaest. 2. it is had: if any of the clerics should presume, with damnable and punishable obstinacy, either to suppress, or deny, or take away, or perhaps hand over to adversaries, the documents by which the possession of a Church is firmly held, whatsoever loss has been brought upon the Church through the absence of the documents, let him restore from his own means.

D. GREGORY the Great, registr. lib. 2. epist. 43., and it is related at 12. quaest. 2. c. Sicut, where it is had, as the Church ought not to lose her own things, so she ought not with the heat of rapacity to invade things belonging to others.

IN the Council of Agath.: If a Bishop shall have granted liberty to slaves of the Church, those things which had been given to them in the manumission they shall hold with perpetual firmness. The Church therefore has slaves; but where there is servitude, the correlative dominion is present, as the holy Doctor infers.

MOREOVER, that distinct dominions belong to distinct Churches is proved by the holy Doctor, 16. quaest. 2. Can. Si quis, Nicholas P., where he says: if any of the Bishops should arrange to build a church in the territory of another city for whatever advantage of his own, let him not presume to make the dedication, which belongs to him in whose territory the church arises.

THE SAME cause, quaest. 3. Can. Praesulum, Gelasius Pope: it has also pleased that this be annexed, that if, which God forbid, the means of a Church, and likewise Dioceses, should be possessed by certain Bishops, claiming them to themselves by right, the tricennial law has closed it: because the authority of our sons the Princes has so commanded.

THE SAME quaest., among the things mentioned, where the question of boundaries is decided, Innocent says: cap. 6. inter, si a legitimate boundary does not enclose the same Basilica, and yet a long-time prescription is proven to be alleged, the appeal of the present Bishop shall not avail: since the tricennial objection imposes silence upon them. These things also secular Princes enjoin, as the Roman authority decreed for prelates.

Hence the holy Doctor gathers not only that Churches have distinct dominion, because they prescribe mutually against each other, but also that they have it according to Divine law equally, and human, for the reason that prescription, as is evident in the alleged canon, arises from the edict of Princes; yet the approval rests on the authority of the supreme Pontiff.

He proves this more openly from 11. quaest. 1., the words of Ambrose against Auxentius: If the emperor demands tribute, we do not deny it; let the lands of the Church pay tribute (the holy Doctor infers) but he who is bound to tribute to Caesar by reason of estates — those estates are held not so much by divine law as by human, the Savior bearing witness, who says, Matth. 22: Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God, the things that are God's.

Further, dist. 8. cap. 1., from D. Augustine on John: By what right do you defend the villas of the Church? Divine, or human? Divine right is had in the Divine scriptures; human in the laws of kings. Whence by what right does anyone possess what he possesses? Is it not by human right? Not by Divine right: The earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof, Psal. 23. The same he has on John: Do not say, what is it to me, and to the king? What then to thee, and to thy possession? for by the laws of kings possessions are possessed. Thou hast said: what is it to me, and to the king? Do not call them thy possessions, for thou hast thyself renounced those human laws by which possessions are possessed. What can be said clearer than these things (the holy Doctor says) to show that the Church truly possesses temporal goods by Divine and human right? Wherefore he proclaims him importunate and impudent who denies these things.

It is proved also by reason by the holy Doctor at the end of that chapter, and D. Thom. art. 6, which Gregorius de Valencia, puncto 6, proclaims evident. To that which is not in the precept, but only in the counsel, no one is bound, unless someone binds himself to it by a particular vow; or it be necessary to execute the duty of the office owed: But the renunciation of temporal things is not commanded by God, nor do ecclesiastics vow it, nor is it necessary for ecclesiastics to rightly fulfill their function: Therefore. Tannerus also uses this argument, disp. 6. quaest. 3. dubio 3. num. 61.

He proves the same from the Fathers, Chrysost. homil. 8. in Matth., Orig. homil. 16. in Genes., Gregor. lib. 3. Dial. cap. 14., August. cont. Adimant. c. 26. See the holy Doctor, resp. tertiae cap. 1.

You will object: as religious ought to be poor in order to serve God, so also clerics according to their name, because they are called into the lot of the Lord.

The holy Doctor answers, that clerics and Religious dedicate themselves to God in different ways; for clerics do not vow poverty.

You will say: the ancient clerics led a common life, 12. quaest. 1. cap. Scimus, from Pope Urban.

The holy Doctor answers, that clerics led the common life only by counsel; afterwards, charity growing cold, it had to be otherwise. And so D. Augustine, who admitted no one to orders who would not live in common, afterwards changed his opinion, as he himself testifies, 12. quaest. 1. cap. Certe ego, from serm. 2. de communi vita clericorum, or: ad fratres in eremo.