Download Who has the Right to administer Ecclesia

Who has the Right to administer
Ecclesiastical Goods1?2:
A Brief Historical Revisit
DEAN JOHNPAUL MENCHAVEZ Y DUMLAO
T
he question proposed in the title has been the puntum dolens
in Ecclesiastical Patrimonial Law throughout the bi-millennial
history of the Church. The response today is clearly spelled out
in the present Code of Canon Law, in particular in three canons:
Initially submitted to Prof. Martin Grichting, in partial fulillment of the requirements
of the Questioni in Diritto Patrimoniale, Faculty of Canon Law, Pontiical University of the
Holy Cross. This paper aims to synthesize the principal ideas tackled in his classes held on
8 to 12 March 2010.
2
This has been a premise in the lectures. Ecclesiastical goods are today deined as
“goods belonging to an ecclesiastical public juridical person. Whether or not a good is
ecclesiastical depends not on the nature of the good, but rather on who has title to it.”
(Notes taken and translated from the Manual of Schouppe, J.P., “Diritto Patrimoniale”)
1
175
c. 492f.3, c.5324 and c.5375. But since time immemorial, the answer was
never uncomplicated. In the 19th century, for example, the lay faithful of
one diocese declared that they themselves, in a letter to the archbishop,
were the ones responsible in the administration of the temporal concerns.6
A brief historical review with the direct references to the sources (see
footnotes) might sufice to conclude that such tendency was not quite
3
Can. 492 §1. In every diocese a inance council is to be established, of which
the diocesan bishop himself or his delegate presides and which consists of at least three
members of the Christian faithful truly expert in inancial affairs and civil law, outstanding
in integrity, and appointed by the bishop.
§2. Members of the inance council are to be appointed for ive years, but at the end
of this period they can be appointed for other ive-year terms.
§3. Persons who are related to the bishop up to the fourth degree of consanguinity or
afinity are excluded from the inance council.
Can. 493 In addition to the functions entrusted to it in Book V, The Temporal Goods
of the Church, the inance council prepares each year, according to the directions of the
diocesan bishop, a budget of the income and expenditures which are foreseen for the entire
governance of the diocese in the coming year and at the end of the year examines an
account of the revenues and expenses.
Can. 494 §1. In every diocese, after having heard the college of consultors and the
inance council, the bishop is to appoint a inance oficer who is truly expert in inancial
affairs and absolutely distinguished for honesty.
§2. The inance oficer is to be appointed for a ive-year term but can be appointed
for other ive-year terms at the end of this period. The inance oficer is not to be removed
while in this function except for a grave cause to be assessed by the bishop after he has
heard the college of consultors and the Finance council.
§3. It is for the inance oficer to administer the goods of the diocese under the
authority of the bishop in accord with the budget determined by the inance council and,
from the income of the diocese, to meet expenses which the bishop or others designated by
him have legitimately authorized.
§4. At the end of the year, the inance oficer must render an account of receipts and
expenditures to the inance council.
4
Can. 532 In all juridic affairs the pastor represents the parish according to the norm
of law. He is to take care that the goods of the parish are administered according to the
norm of cann. 1281-1288.
5
Can. 537 In each parish there is to be a inance council which is governed, in
addition to universal law, by norms issued by the diocesan bishop and in which the
Christian faithful, selected according to these same norms, are to assist the pastor in the
administration of the goods of the parish, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 532.
6
Letter of Catholics from Charleston (South Carolina, USA) to the Archbishop of
Baltimore, Ambrose Maréchal, 1818, in Documents Relative to the Present Distressed
State of the Roman Catholic Church in the City of Charleston, p.13f.
176
Boletín Eclesiástico de Filipínas,Vol. LXXXIX, No. 895 (March - April 2013)
original. As early as the start of the 6th century the patrimonial conlicts7
were already noteworthy. At the end of the 8th century, apparently the
Bishops have lost the necessary independence: the laymen who have
been responsible in the construction of the churches have the right
to trade ecclesiastical goods.8 It was the dark ages when many priests,
have been found to be in a very disprestiged state9. During that time, such
could also be evidenced with the rising phenomenon of “altar priests” who
earn their living exclusively from Mass stipends leading to an unwanted
dependency of the priest in relation to his plebs.
It could be remembered that during this feudalist era, the lords were
the ones who have been responsible for the construction of the new
churches (the buildings), and this lead to the system of the church-of-hisown or the chiesa propria. The priest’s role was to follow his lord. He was
the administrator of a large mass of goods, but a paid worker of the lord.
The wind started to blow to other direction under the famous Gregorian
reform, which was anchored in the Church’s battle in relation to the
investitures. This was patent in the Synod of Clermont10 that prohibited
laymen to retain neither altars nor churches. The same disposition
was echoed in the First Lateran Council11, treating such intromission as
sacrilegious.
The conlictive dispositions, each highlighted in the previous
paragraphs, were resolved by Gratian (citing Synod IX of Toledo, year
655) in his masterpiece Concordantia disconcordantium canonum12
where he recognizes but at the same time limits the rights of these lords in
ecclesiastical goods. The lords, the founders of these churches, according
to him, have the right to provide for, advise, and look for priesthood
candidates who will take care of the churches. They have the Ius Patronatus,
7
Synod of Agde, 506 in Corpus Christianorum, SL, vol. 148: Concilia Galliae
A.314-A.506, ed. Ch. Munier, Turnhout 1963, p. 202f.
8
Capitular of the Synod of Francoforte, 794, can. 54 in Monumenta Germaniae
Historica Legum (MGH) sectio, III. Concilia, II, 1, p. 171.
9
See Agobard’s recount to Archbishop of Vienne in MGH Epistolae V, p. 203.
10
Year 1095, c.18, in R. Sommerville, m The Councils of Urban II, Ámsterdam 1972,
S.78.
11
Year 1123, c.8, in Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta, vol.2, p. 190f.
12
Specially in C. 16, q. 7, c.32. and C. 16, q. 7, dictum post c.30.
CANON LAW: Who has the Right to Administer Ecclesiastical Goods
177
as Ruinus von Bologna13 coined it. However, neither do they possess the
right to sell these churches, donate, nor use them for personal motives. The
institutionalization of the ius patronatus was key to patrimonial law’s big
problem, as it integrated the question of temporal goods within the internal
jurisdiction of the Church.
This did not resolve everything though. As soon as the Protestant
revolution broke loose, along with the substantial disrepute of the papacy
and the rise of the nation-states, the civil authorities remained in command,
and unfortunately, for many of them, the Church was but an instrument
for political motives. This has been the main tenet of Josephinism in
Austria, the Jurisdictionalism that embraced Italy, Gallicanism in France,
and Febronianism in Germany. The control over the ecclesiastical goods
was no longer a competency of ecclesiastics. This also happened in the
democratization in the United States and Switzerland.
In Austria, the Josephinist ecclesiology presupposed the exclusively
spiritual authority of the Church (radically not temporal, a sphere reserved
to the State) in the preaching of the Gospel, Christian doctrine, liturgy,
administration of the sacraments and internal discipline of the ecclesiastics,
along with the utilitarist view of the faith.14 In Italy, Napoleon I could
be quoted using the term—“utili ecclesiastici.”15 An ex-priest and a
josephinist managed to apply what was already disposed in Austria.16
And although the candor of a statesman17 apparently proclaimed “Libera
Chiesa in libero Stato,” it was but understood as freedom exclusively in
spiritual matters. Both in Austria and Italy, the State was institutionally in
control, not excluding the remuneration of the clergy through the congrua,
13
Summa decretorum, Paderborn 1902, p. 368.
Secret Instruction for the Giunta Economale (~Cult Ministry), Court of Vienna,
2.VI.1768 in F. Maass, Der Josephinismus. Quellen zu seiner Geschichte in Osterreich
1760-1790. Amtliche Dokumente aus dem Wiener Haus-, Hof-, und Staatsarchiv, vol.1
Wien 1951, p. 288f.
15
In front of the Council of State of the Italic Kingdom, 1805 in L. Rava, Il Consiglio
di Stato nel Regno Italico e l’opera di Napoleón I. re (1805-1814), Roma 1932, p. 208f.
16
Giovanni Bovara, Minister for Worship, Instruction on the institution and direction
of the Fabbricierie, art. 1,6,9,16 (15.IX.1807) in Manuale de’Fabbricieri o sia Collezione
dei Decreti e Regolamenti riguardanti l’amministrazione delle chiese pubblicato per
ordine di S.E. il signor Conte Ministro per Culto, Milano 1812, pp. 10f.
17
Camillo Benso di Cavour in front of the Chamber, March 1861 in Z. Giacometti,
Quellen zur Geschichte der Trennung von Staat und Kurche, Tubingen 1926, S. 664f.
14
178
Boletín Eclesiástico de Filipínas,Vol. LXXXIX, No. 895 (March - April 2013)
the religion fonds (Austria) and the Fondo per il culto (Italy). In France, it
was more radical. The Church was forced to kneel to the civil authorities,
as ecclesiastical goods were decreed to be transferred to associations du
culte18, and under the threat of nationalization of all the Church’s subinstitutions. In the US, the historical sources evidence a similar medieval
usurpation of a few Catholics, “elected annually by the congregation
(the faithful) temporal administrators and possessors of the goods of the
Church,” who argue that “they and they alone have the natural right of
selecting and removing their pastors.”19 In all these particular problems,
the Magisterium of the Church had not failed to respond.20
The Code of Canon Law of 1917 was sensitive to these abuses. CIC
17 in nine canons spell out the dispositions regarding Ecclesiastical
Beneits.21 In synthesis, the system of CIC 17 was based on foundations
from which the benefactor earned his living. Simply put, the central point
is the ecclesiastical beneit, a juridical being constituted by the competent
ecclesiastical authority. The Bishop had his mensa episcopalis while the
canonigo had his prebende. The beneiciary had to administer these goods
in accordance with the law.
The Second Vatican Council laid the foundations of the natural
right of the Church in the administration of temporal goods in Lumen
Gentium 8, highlighting that the temporal Church and the celestial Church
constitute a singular reality, and in Gaudium et Spes 76, stating the fact
that the Church uses material instruments in as much as they are required
by her own mission. The beneiciary system was suppressed. In the
Decree Presbyterorum Ordinis22, not only did the role of the Pastor—that
18
Law in relation of the separation of Church and State, 9.XII.1905, in Z. Giacometti,
p. 272f.
19
English translation from the unpublished lectures notes of Prof. Martin Grichting,
2009.
20
cf. Pope Pius X’s encyclicals Vehementer nos (11.II.1906), Gravísimo oficii (10.
VIII.1906), Une fois encore (6.I.1907), A. Maréchal, Ratio status religiones catholicae
in diocesi Baltimorensi reddita ab Ambrosio Archiepiscopo, English translation in
Documents of American Catholic History, ed. J.T.Ellis, vol.1, Wilmington (Delaware),
Reprint 1987, pp.214-216.
21
Canon 1409, 1410, 1472, 1476, 1182, 1183, 1184, 1520, 1521.
22
PO17. (Relationship to the world and temporal goods, and voluntary poverty.) In
their friendly and brotherly dealings with one another and with other men, priests are able
to learn and appreciate human values and esteem created goods as gifts of God. By living
CANON LAW: Who has the Right to Administer Ecclesiastical Goods
179
is, the Bishop and the parish priest— who governs the circumscription
was highlighted, in addition, their duty to consult the experts in economic
affairs was established.
CIC 83 translated these dispositions through canons 1279.1 and 1282.
The story behind these canons, as published in Comunicationes, is of
particular interest. There, one can ind, for example, the redaction process
that included the addition of sive clerici in c.1282 necessary to clarify
what has been historically polemical.
Can. 1279 §1. The administration of
ecclesiastical goods pertains to the one who
immediately governs the person to which the
goods belong unless particular law, statutes,
in the world, let priests know how not to be of the world, according to the word of our Lord
and Master. By using the world as those who do not use it, let them achieve that freedom
whereby they are free from every inordinate concern and become docile to the voice of
God in their daily life. From this freedom and docility grows spiritual discretion in which
is found the right relationship to the world and earthly goods. Such a right relationship is
of great importance to priests, because the mission of the Church is fulilled in the midst of
the world and because created goods are altogether necessary for the personal development
of man. Let them be grateful, therefore, for all that the heavenly Father has given them to
lead a full life rightly, but let them see all that comes to them in the light of faith, so that
they might correctly use goods in response to the will of God and reject those which are
harmful to their mission.
For priests who have the Lord as their “portion and heritage,” (Num 18:20) temporal
goods should be used only toward ends which are licit according to the doctrine of Christ
and the direction of the Church.
Ecclesiastical goods, properly so called, according to their nature and
ecclesiastical law, should be administered by priests with the help of capable laymen
as far as possible and should always be employed for those purposes in the pursuit
of which it is licit for the Church to possess temporal goods-namely, for the carrying
out of divine worship, for the procuring of honest sustenance for the clergy, and for
the exercise of the works of the holy apostolate or works of charity, especially in
behalf of the needy. Those goods which priests and bishops receive for the exercise of
their ecclesiastical ofice should be used for adequate support and the fulillment of their
ofice and status, excepting those governed by particular laws. That which is in excess
they should be willing to set aside for the good of the Church or for works of charity. Thus
they are not to seek ecclesiastical ofice or the beneits of it for the increase of their own
family wealth. Therefore, in no way placing their heart in treasures, they should avoid all
greediness and carefully abstain from every appearance of business.”
180
Boletín Eclesiástico de Filipínas,Vol. LXXXIX, No. 895 (March - April 2013)
or legitimate custom determine otherwise and
without prejudice to the right of the ordinary
to intervene in case of negligence by an
administrator.
Can. 1282 All clerics or laypersons who take part
in the administration of ecclesiastical goods by a
legitimate title are bound to fulill their functions
in the name of the Church according to the
norm of law.
The previously highlighted, according to the commentary of WernzVidal, is in contrast with “under his own name or title,” “in the name of
the some Catholics,” or “in the name of the State,” a speciication of the
legislator which not unimportant.
These two canons are supported by the previously cited ones: c. 537
and c. 493: regarding the Financial Council whom the Pastor must listen
to before acting in light of the economic condition of the diocese (c.1277).
The Bishop presides but is not a member of the Council.
He is neither a counterpart nor a rival, but is rather a collaborator. His
task is to give the necessary indications in line with his pastoral goals,
while those in the Council have to ind solutions (or suggest alternatives)
in harmony with these aims. By doing so, both arbitrary government
and unnecessary democratization are evinced in the administration of
ecclesiastical goods.n
____________________
Rev. Fr. Dean Johnpaul Menchavez y Dumlao is
candidate for the degree of Doctorate in Canon Law at the
Pontiicia Università della Santa Croce in Rome. He was
ordained priest in 2012 and incardinated in the Prelature
of Opus Dei and the Holy Cross. He also holds a degree
in Bachelor of Sacred Theology from the University
of Navarre (Spain), Master of Science in Industrial
Economics, and Bachelor of Arts in Humanities-Liberal Arts from the University
of Asia and the Paciic (Philippines).
CANON LAW: Who has the Right to Administer Ecclesiastical Goods
181
Presence
VIRGINIA S. SAN JUAN1
love to do many things: writing, arts, photography, architecture,
gardening, computer. I know that God’s gifts were not given for selfserving goals but for others. Inasmuch as I relish my gifts, I must
learn to let go if God asks me to. My mother is now suffering from a
progressive Alzheimer’s disease. It is NOT an easy sickness to deal with
and it took some time for me to accept it. It’s unpredictable. It’s physically,
emotionally, and mentally taxing.
I
The greatest demand it asks, however, is simply to watch over her, a
passivity that can make one feel trapped or restless. Jesus implored His
apostles to keep vigil (cf. Mt.26:40), yet they couldn’t. Later, I realized
that God is giving me another gift, the total offering of myself, to just “be
there” for someone. My “presence” is the present. It is an active passivity
that does not try to change the other but accepts who she is. It is an active
passivity that cares for another even though she’s not capable of giving
back.
No wonder, we all have to go through infancy, so we can be watched
over by our mothers who sellessly provide us their comforting and warm
presence when we need them. No wonder, Jesus offered Himself as the
EUCHARIST, the total and perfect Presence. Though we are not worthy
to receive Him, He is there when we need Him. Through His perfect Gift,
we are healed.n
Ms. Virginia S. San Juan is a graduate of the University of the Philippines College
of Architecture. She is single and currently caring for her mother. Though practically
retired from Architectural work and Computer graphics, she is happily inding new artistic
expressions through crafts, crochet, recycling, and gardening.
1
182
Boletín Eclesiástico de Filipínas,Vol. LXXXIX, No. 895 (March - April 2013)