Last week’s post defined ecclesiastical goods. Today’s post focuses on the four aspects of ecclesiastical goods that are indispensable in understanding how ecclesiastical goods play out in the Church: acquisition, retention, administration, and alienation.
Canon 1254 states: “§1 The catholic Church has the inherent right, independently of any secular power, to acquire, retain, administer and alienate temporal goods, in pursuit of its proper objectives. §2 These proper objectives are principally the regulation of divine worship, the provision of fitting support for the clergy and other ministers, and the carrying out of works of the sacred apostolate and of charity, especially for the needy.”
This canon stems from conciliar teaching that the Church and the political community are autonomous and independent of each other (Gaudium et Spes, 76). The key terms here are ‘acquire’, ‘retain’, ‘administer’, and ‘alienate’. As will be explained, there is a reason the Church uses these terms instead of their more common synonyms. This post will use the parish as an example of a public juridical person to enable easy understanding.
To acquire (acquirere) means to obtain something as one’s own or come into possession of something. Unlike the verb ‘to buy’ (emere), which means to get something as one’s own by purchase or through a financial transaction, ‘to acquire’ is broader because it includes things bought and received. A parish acquires ecclesiastical goods by buying them or as a gift from anyone (Christian or non-Christian).
To retain (retinere) means to keep in possession or use or to hold secure or intact. Although the verb ‘to keep’ (durare or tenere) means to hold securely in one’s possession, to retain implies continuous keeping in one’s possession even against threatened seizure or forced loss. A parish retains the land it legitimately acquires even if the donors or sellers wish to retrieve it. To administer (administrare) means to manage or supervise the use of something or to be in charge of something. Unlike the verbs ‘manage’ (efficere) or ‘supervise’ (procurare), or ‘to be in charge of’ (habere cura), to administer includes all of them.
To alienate (alienare) means permanently transferring ownership of a property or right to another. Unlike the verb ‘to sell’ (vendere), which means transferring ownership gratuitously in exchange for money, goods, or other compensation, to alienate includes all forms of transfer of ownership done gratuitously or with a return benefit, compensation, or consideration. When a parish gives out money to charity, it alienates the parish’s ecclesiastical goods gratuitously.
Apart from alienation, there is the temporary transfer of ecclesiastical goods, often for the purpose of administration. A diocese can entrust a parish, mission school, or mission hospital to a religious institute for administration. Property leasing also falls into this category, as the diocese or parish temporarily entrusts the property to another party to use in return for money or other form of compensation (cf. Can. 1297).
Canon 1255 states that “the universal Church, as well as the Apostolic See, particular Churches and all other public and private juridical persons are capable of acquiring, retaining, administering and alienating temporal goods, in accordance with the law.” Therefore, it is important to understand these four terms and how they apply to ecclesiastical goods in the Church to avoid conflict.
For instance, a diocese acquires a hospital by constructing one or receiving one through a community or individual donation. If the diocese that now owns the hospital invites a religious institute to manage it, it will still own and retain ownership of the hospital. The institute simply administers the hospital on behalf of the diocese. The religious institute only acquires it if the diocese legitimately alienates the hospital in the contract with the institute. This means that the diocese can always retrieve the hospital from the institute. Of course, this is not to be done arbitrarily, and civil and canonical terms must be upheld.
Canon 520 §1 provides that a diocesan bishop, but not the diocesan Administrator, can entrust (committere) a parish to a clerical religious institute or a clerical society of apostolic life. Paragraph two reads: “The entrustment of a parish, as in §1, may be either in perpetuity or for a specified time (Paroeciae commissio, de qua in § 1, fieri potest sive in perpetuum sive ad certum praefinitum tempus). In either case this is to be done by means of a written agreement made between the diocesan Bishop and the competent Superior of the institute or society. This agreement must expressly and accurately define, among other things, the work to be done, the persons to be assigned to it and the financial arrangements.”
Although this canon provides regulations concerning parishes, its interpretation could also extend to other public juridical persons, such as mission schools and hospitals entrusted to members of institutes of consecrated life and societies of apostolic life. In the wake of disputes between dioceses and institutes/societies, an argument is made, in reference to canon 520 §2, as to why an institute or society now owns a parish, school or hospital because it was given to them in perpetuity rather than for a specific time.
In light of the discussions above on acquiring, retaining, administering, and alienating, one must emphasise that the canonical term used here is commissio, ‘entrustment’ (noun form of committere, to entrust), which is completely different from alienatio, ‘alienation’ (noun form of alienare, to alienate). The code also used the same verb committere regarding entrusting a parish to the parish priest as the proper pastor (committitur parocho, qua proprio eiusdem pastori) (cf. Can. 515 §1). Entrusting a hospital to an institute does not mean that the diocese has alienated the hospital or that the institute has acquired it.
Second, ‘in perpetuity’ is examined in contrast to a ‘specified time’ (sive in perpetuum sive ad certum praefinitum tempus).
Ordinarily, contracts run for three, five, or ten years. Hence, instead of renewing the contract every three, five or ten years, the diocese gives a long-term contract in the form of an indefinite control of the hospital. Nevertheless, the perpetual permission to administer does not entail that the diocese alienated the hospital or that the institute or society acquired it. The diocese still retains ownership and can, for grave pastoral reasons, terminate the contract given in perpetuity. In cases where the contract is for a specific time, the diocese does not renew the contract at the expiration of the existing contract.
There seems to be a mix-up in interpreting ‘in perpetuity’ in canon 520 and canonical privileges in administering ecclesiastical goods. Canonical privilege is a favour granted to a physical or juridical person (cf. Can. 76 §1). Canon 78 states: “§1 A privilege is presumed to be perpetual, unless the contrary is proved. §2 A personal privilege, namely one which attaches to a person, is extinguished with the person. §3 A real privilege ceases on the total destruction of the thing or place; a local privilege, however, revives if the place is restored within fifty years.”
First, while privileges can be granted to a juridical person, such as a religious institute to administer a hospital, and “centennial or immemorial possession of a privilege gives rise to the presumption that it has been granted” (Can 76 §2), the entrustment in the contract does not change to the alienation of the hospital by the owner and acquisition of the hospital by the current holder after hundred years of administration. Second, privileges can be revoked by the competent authority (cf. Canon 79).
One emphasises that all arguments above are based on the 1983 Code, and the situation differs for parishes, mission hospitals, or schools entrusted to the religious before 1966. The 1917 Code considered the parish a territorial administrative division of the diocese (cf. Can. 216 CIC 17), particularly connected with the benefice system of remuneration of clerics.
The term ‘benefice’ denotes “either certain property destined for the support of ministers of religion, or a spiritual office or function, such as the care of souls, but in the strict sense it signifies a right, i.e. the right given permanently by the Church to a cleric to receive ecclesiastical revenues on account of the performance of some spiritual service.” The Second Vatican Council and the 1983 Code reformed the benefice system (cf. Presbyterorum Ordinis, 20 and Can. 1274).
Canon 1409 CIC 17 defines an ecclesiastical benefice as “a juridic entity constituted or erected in perpetuity by competent ecclesiastical authority consisting of a sacred office and the right of receiving income from the assets attached to that office.” Hence, canon 1425 CIC 17 provides that a parish can be entrusted to the religious in what pertains “only to temporalities” (ad temporalia tantum) or “in full right” (pleno iure).
The first means that the religious institute participates only in the proceeds of the parish, and the religious Superior must present a priest from the secular clergy to the local Ordinary to administer the parish, assigning him a due proportion. The second means that the parish becomes religious, and the religious Superior can appoint a priest from his own institute to administer the parish on its behalf with the prior approval of the local Ordinary, who also exercises vigilance regarding matters that pertain to the care of souls. Canonical praxis also allows entrusting a parish to the religious in a way that is not for “only to temporalities” or “in full right; that is, a religious who governs the parish as a parish priest or a vicar (cf. Can. 630 CIC 17).
The law provided that a parish cannot be united pleno iure without an indult from the Apostolic See (cf. Can. 452 CIC 17). This is where the theme of perpetuity becomes nuanced because of the benefice system, which gives a permanent right to benefit from the proceeds of a property.
First, as defined above, alienation also entails transferring a right. In this case, the diocese permanently transferred the right to receive support from the parish to the religious institute through an apostolic indult. On the other hand, if in the strict sense of ‘alienation’ and ‘acquisition’ respectively, one argues that the diocese did not alienate the parish and the religious institute never acquired it, the indult gave the institute the right to retain and administer, or at least benefit from the parish in perpetuity. The same plays out for mission hospitals and schools entrusted pleno iure to the religious before 1966. Although Pope Paul VI abrogated entrusting parishes “in full right” in 1966 (Ecclesiae Sanctae, I, 21, 2°), parishes already entrusted to the religious remain because the law is not retroactive.
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️
