Last week’s post examined the bribery of one who exercises an office in light of canon 1377 §1. Today’s post discusses canon 1377 §2, which focuses on the illegitimate fee increase by one who exercises an ecclesiastical office or function.
Canon 1377 §2 states: “A person who in the exercise of an office or function requests an offering beyond that which has been established, or additional sums, or something for his or her own benefit, is to be punished with an appropriate monetary fine or with other penalties, not excluding deprivation of office, without prejudice to the obligation of repairing the harm.”
The Dicastery for Legislative Texts describes this delict as “bribery in acts of office.” Stole fees (jura stolae) refer to the money a cleric receives “on the occasion of the administration of the sacraments and sacramentals.”
This delict exists because of stole fees or other stipulated amounts by the competent authority that people offer for the sacraments or other administrative services in the Church.
Canon 848 provides that “the minister is to seek nothing for the administration of the sacraments beyond the offerings defined by the competent authority, always taking care that the needy are not deprived of the assistance of the sacraments because of poverty.”
Canon 1264 provides that the provincial Bishop’s meeting is competent to determine the taxes for executive acts which grant a favour, and the offerings for the administration of sacraments and sacramentals. Canon 952 reiterates:
“§1 The provincial council or the provincial Bishops’ meeting is to determine by decree, for the whole of the province, what offering is to be made for the celebration and application of Mass. Nonetheless, it is permitted to accept, for the application of a Mass, an offering voluntarily made, which is greater, or even less, than that which has been determined. §2 Where there is no such decree, the custom existing in the diocese is to be observed. §3 Members of religious institutes of all kinds must abide by the decree or the local custom mentioned in §§1 and 2.”
At their January 2024 meeting, the bishops of Owerri Ecclesiastical Province reviewed the stole fees applicable in the six dioceses within the province. The new rates, which entered into force on Easter Sunday, 31 March 2024, are Baptism of Children of wedded couples (₦300), Baptism of Children of unwedded couples (₦500), Adult Baptism (₦2000), First Holy Communion (₦500), Confirmation (₦1000), Marriage (₦2,500), Mass Intention (₦200), Novena Mass Intentions (₦2000).
On 15 August 2024, the Archbishop of Owerri went further to stipulate fees applicable only in Owerri Archdiocese. The decree states that parishes, chaplaincies and special jurisdictions may also collect the following in addition to the N2,500 stole fee for marriage: ₦10,000 for the choir, ₦5,000 for the CYON (₦2,500 for parish ad quem and ₦2,500 for parish ad quo), ₦5,000 for a non-member of the Mary League Girls’ Association (₦2,500 for parish ad quem and ₦2,500 for parish ad quo). It then states: “Therefore, the total amount of money that may be collected for Marriage in Owerri Archdiocese is ₦22,500.00 ONLY. No parish priest, chaplain or administrator of special jurisdiction is permitted under any guise to collect any amount of money that exceeds the above-stipulated amount (Can.848).”
The decree further abolishes collecting money for registration of weddings, transfer/reception of file, clerical work, marriage course and fuel/diesel, reply to banns of marriage, mass or retreat weddings, and practice of unauthorised post-nuptial thanksgiving after post-communion prayer as well as calls for cash donation and support at Wedding Masses.
The delict of bribery in acts of office is about corruption, and it is broadly divided into two.
The first is illegitimately increasing the amount stipulated by the competent authority. For instance, a priest who increases the marriage stole fees from N2,500 to N3,000 in Owerri Ecclesiastical Province is guilty of the delict.
The second category concerns requesting extra contributions from the one receiving a service in addition to the offering which the competent authority established. An example is asking an intending couple for a diesel fee in addition to stole fees for their marriage ceremony. Since this is increasingly becoming a custom due to Nigeria’s high energy cost and diminishing parish income, the interpretation varies according to the diocese and modality of request. Owerri Archdiocese has abolished it; hence, any priest who does so in whatever form in the archdiocese is guilty of the delict.
On the other hand, the modality of request determines the delictual nature of the act in dioceses where the custom has neither been abolished nor approved. Using the template of N2,500 for marriage stole fees, a priest, for instance, asks for ₦10,000 for diesel for the wedding mass. If the priest simply bills the couple ₦12,500 for marriage, then the priest is guilty of increasing the stipulated fee, even if the extra was for diesel. Here, there is malicious intent to deceive the recipient. However, if the priest clearly indicates that the stole fee is ₦2,500, then an optional ₦10,000 is for diesel, then the delict is absent. Nevertheless, if the priest makes it obligatory, the delict is present. Yes, the couple could decide to have their wedding celebrated without electricity or could provide diesel themselves. The delict is also present if the priest emotionally blackmails the couple to pay money for diesel. However, once a diocese abolishes it, priests can no longer ask for such fees in any form, even if presented as optional. Doing so is committing the delict of bribery.
The penalty for a minister guilty of the delict is punishment with an appropriate monetary fine or other penalties, not excluding deprivation of office. The minister is also obliged to repair the harm done for charging more than required. The decree from Owerri Archdiocese reads: “The reply to Banns of Marriage should NEVER be accompanied with a particular sum of money from any parish or priest. In the event of any imposition or forceful collection, the couple is free to apply to the Archbishop for dispensation from the Banns of Marriage.” Therefore, in the archdiocese of Owerri, in addition to the Archbishop granting dispensation from the banns of marriage for priests insisting on payment, he can still punish the parish priest for contravening the law that such fees are abolished. Such a priest will be punished for breaching the norms of Canon 1377 §2.
Another example of the delict is bribery in the ecclesiastical tribunal. The law forbids a procurator (one who by mandate performs judicial acts for someone) or an advocate (one appointed by a party to safeguard one’s rights regarding the law) to resolve litigation by bribery or to agree for an excess profit or a share in the object of dispute. In addition to the agreement being null, the judge can fine them, while the bishop presiding over the tribunal can suspend or remove them from office and even from the list of advocates approved for the tribunal (cf. Can. 1488 §1). Furthermore, advocates and procurators can be punished if they deceitfully withdraw a case from a competent tribunal so that the cases will be decided more favourably in other tribunals (cf. Can. 1488 §2). Finally, canon 1489 states: “Advocates and procurators who betray their office for gifts, promises, or any other reason are to be suspended from the exercise of legal assistance and punished with a fine or other suitable penalties.”
This post concludes with the commentary from the Dicastery for Legislative Texts on canon 1377 §2:
“One must keep in mind, however, that there are gestures and expressions of gratitude which, if moderated and contained according to local customs, can be legitimate and do not constitute a delict. Generally, public administrations establish parameters to measure admissible gifts or gifts within reasonable limits, the total prohibition of which could even damage legitimate social relations. In the same way, and taking into account the austerity required of clerics, it may be legitimate to accept certain gifts that are moderate and compliant with the law, if they cannot potentially cause scandal.”
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️
