Last week’s post examined the delicts concerning ecclesiastical goods according to the norms of canon 1376. Today’s post focuses on the delict against ecclesiastical goods according to canon 1377 §1.
Can. 1377 §1 states: A person who gives or promises something so that someone who exercises an office or function in the Church would unlawfully act or fail to act is to be punished according to the provision of can. 1336 §§2-4; likewise, the person who accepts such gifts or promises is to be punished according to the gravity of the offence, not excluding by deprivation of office, without prejudice to the obligation of repairing the harm.
Two terms might be confusing regarding this delict: bribery and lobbying. Bribery involves paying something in an effort to buy power or influence a decision that would not otherwise be made. It is always illicit and immoral and often done secretly. On the other hand, lobbying is also an effort to influence the decisions of those in power by offering contributions. Lobbying is often done openly and transparently and is not always considered illegal or immoral. A typical example of lobbying is the Church openly campaigning against proposed legislation for same-sex marriages or abortion. Such campaigns involve money in organising awareness programs.
The delict focuses on bribery, which could be active or passive. The one who promises or gives something so that someone who exercises an office or function acts unlawfully or fails to act is guilty of active bribery. The one exercising an office or function is guilty of passive bribery if one acts unlawfully or fails to act when one receives something or when a promise is made.
If what the ecclesiastical officeholder does concerns the sacraments, simony, that is, the “deliberate act of buying or selling a spiritual good” (cf. Can. 1380), comes into play. One must note this is a malicious delict, so the intention to do that must be ascertained.
A typical example is when a wealthy family invites a priest to celebrate the mass in their home without the permission of their proper parish priest. If the family promised a gift before, the priest is guilty of an unlawful act by celebrating in another territory without permission (lack of jurisdiction), passive bribery, and simony. If the priest did it hoping for a reward, he celebrated the mass unlawfully, but the delict of bribery and simony is absent. The delict is absent here because although the priest hopes for something, there is a probability, even if remote, that he receives nothing. The delict of bribery is also absent if the priest never expected anything because he has already received many past favours from the family. Is celebrating the mass in compensation for past favours simony? Simony is a malicious delict. Since all priests and religious receive favours just for being who they are, one must ascertain the direct connection between past favours and celebrating that unlawful mass.
What does one say regarding statements such as: “After all I did for the bishop or superior, he or she still posted me to this place.” “After everything I did, I still did not get appointed to that ecclesiastical office.” The above could mean two things: the priest or religious attempted to bribe or lobby the bishop or superior but could not succeed.
What did the priest or religious do for the bishop or superior to expect a reward of being posted in choice places or appointed to a higher ecclesiastical office, so much so that they are disappointed, sad, and even angry that their efforts were in vain? These efforts to influence the bishops and superiors can come through official remittances in support of the diocese/congregation beyond the real capacity of that public juridical person, personal gifts to the bishop or superior, personal private donations to the diocese/congregation or the bishop/superior or bishop/superior-oriented initiatives, and praise singing of the bishop or superior, dishonest feedback about the bishop/superior’s pastoral plans when consulted, even privately.
Do these actions fall within the delict? Canon 1377 speaks of active and passive bribery, that is, giving or promising something so that someone who exercises an office or function in the Church would unlawfully act or fail to act. The one who gives is guilty of active bribery, while the one who receives is guilty of passive bribery. Yet, it is highly unlikely that a priest or a religious would dare to promise the bishop or superior money or other gifts so that the bishop or superior acts in their favour. Jesus did not commend James and John for seeking to sit beside him. Instead, he began teaching about how the greatest among the disciples must be their servant and how service is the hallmark of a leader (Matt 20:25-28; Mark 10:42-45).
Without the remote possibility of bribery, the resentment for the bishop or superior simply means that the lobbying failed.
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️
