Last week’s post explained the meaning of acquiring, retaining, administering, and alienating ecclesiastical goods. There are several delicts concerning ecclesiastical goods. Today’s post examines the delicts according to the norms of canon 1376.
Canon 1376 states:
“§1 The following are to be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336 §§2-4, without prejudice to the obligation of repairing the harm: 1° a person who steals ecclesiastical goods or prevents their proceeds from being received; 2° a person who without the prescribed consultation, consent, or permission, or without another requirement imposed by law for validity or for lawfulness, alienates ecclesiastical goods or carries out an act of administration over them.
§2 The following are to be punished, not excluding by deprivation of office, without prejudice to the obligation of repairing the harm: 1° a person who through grave personal culpability commits the offence mentioned in §1, n. 2; 2° a person who is found to have been otherwise gravely negligent in administering ecclesiastical goods.”
There are several delicts here. The first category concerns stealing ecclesiastical goods or preventing their proceeds from being received. Stealing also includes embezzlement and misappropriation of Church funds. As explained in the past, the goods here concern the temporal goods of public juridical persons, such as money and other items. Canon 1267 §1 states: “Unless the contrary is clear, offerings made to Superiors or administrators of any ecclesiastical juridical person, even a private one, are presumed to have been made to the juridical person itself.”
On the other hand, this first category also concerns preventing the proceeds from ecclesiastical goods from being received. Unless otherwise stated, keeping collections or other Church funds to oneself rather than remitting them to the Church coffers also makes a priest guilty of this delict.
Canon 1267 continues: “§2 If there is question of a public juridical person, the offerings mentioned in §1 cannot be refused except for a just reason and, in matters of greater importance, with the permission of the Ordinary. Without prejudice to the provisions of can. 1295, the permission of the Ordinary is also required for the acceptance of offerings to which are attached some qualifying obligation or condition. §3 Offerings given by the faithful for a specified purpose may be used only for that purpose.”
The second category of delicts concerns administrators who alienate or carry out an act of administration over ecclesiastical goods without the prescribed consultation, consent, permission, or other requirement imposed by the law for the validity or lawfulness of the act. Several canons stipulate these guidelines for which an administrator is guilty of breaching.
Canon 1291: “The permission of the authority competent by law is required for the valid alienation of goods which, by lawful assignment, constitute the stable patrimony of a public juridical person, whenever their value exceeds the sum determined by law.”
Canon 1292: “§1 Without prejudice to the provision of can. 638 §3, when the amount of the goods to be alienated is between the minimum and maximum sums to be established by the Episcopal Conference for its region, the competent authority in the case of juridical persons not subject to the diocesan Bishop is determined by the juridical person’s own statutes. In other cases, the competent authority is the diocesan Bishop acting with the consent of the finance committee, of the college of consultors, and of any interested parties. The diocesan Bishop needs the consent of these same persons to alienate goods which belong to the diocese itself.
§2 The permission of the Holy See also is required for the valid alienation of goods whose value exceeds the maximum sum, or if it is a question of the alienation of something given to the Church by reason of a vow, or of objects which are precious by reason of their artistic or historical significance
§3 When a request is made to alienate goods which are divisible, the request must state what parts have already been alienated; otherwise, the permission is invalid.
§4 Those who must give advice about or consent to the alienation of goods are not to give this advice or consent until they have first been informed precisely both about the economic situation of the juridical person whose goods it is proposed to alienate and about alienations which have already taken place.
Canon 1293 “§1 To alienate goods whose value exceeds the determined minimum sum, it is also required that there be: 1° a just reason, such as urgent necessity, evident advantage, or a religious, charitable or other grave pastoral reason; 2° a written expert valuation of the goods to be alienated. §2 To avoid harm to the Church, any other precautions drawn up by lawful authority are also to be followed.
Canon 1294 “§1 Normally, goods must not be alienated for a price lower than that given in the valuation. §2 The money obtained from alienation must be carefully invested for the benefit of the Church, or prudently expended according to the purposes of the alienation.”
The third category of delicts concerns those who, through grave personal culpability, administered or alienated ecclesiastical goods without the prescribed consultation, consent, permission, or other requirements of the law. Within this category includes one who was gravely negligent in administering ecclesiastical goods. Instances here include priests who were negligent in safeguarding parish or school land or other property.
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️