Summa summae S. Thomae, Tomus III

Note 1° that the goods of clerics are of three kinds, namely patrimonial, quasi-patrimonial and ecclesiastical. — Patrimonial are those which come to them independently of all ministry as well as ecclesiastical benefice, and are common to them and to laymen. — Quasi-patrimonial are those which come to clerics not by reason of an ecclesiastical benefice, or from goods offered and appropriated to the Church itself, but by reason of personal ecclesiastical ministry, as it were its wage and stipend; or, what is the same, those which are offered by the faithful, to be appropriated not to the Church itself, but to particular ministers of it for the stipend of the work, e.g., for the celebration of Mass, funeral offices, sermon, singing, etc. — Ecclesiastical are those received by clerics by reason and title of benefice, say canonries, deaneries, etc. As to distributions called among those present, more probably they are to be referred to ecclesiastical goods, if, as ordinarily happens, they be given out of the goods of the Church.

[Distinguished also are parcimonial goods, which indeed by their nature pertained to ecclesiastical goods, but which the cleric alienated from his own suitable sustentation, by living more sparingly than he could live honestly. They seem reducible to quasi-patrimonial.

Note 2° that in the first times of the Church the goods of clerics were common, as now they are in monasteries, dispensation left with the bishop. But truly, as the multitude of faithful and clerics daily grew, and because of the cupidity of some the common manner of living became more difficult, supreme Pontiffs ordered these goods to be divided into four portions : the first assigned to the bishop; the second to the clergy; the third to the fabric; the fourth to the poor. So it is read in the Decree, cause 12, q. 2, cap. Concesso; cap. Quatuor; cap. de Reditibus; cap. Cognovimus, etc.

This division first begun under B. Sylvester, about the year 324, as is evident from cap. 4 of the Roman council celebrated by him, did not everywhere straightway prevail, but advanced little by little.

With progress of time however it happened that this fourth part of the poor is found no longer in many churches, perhaps because it perished through injury of times, or pillage of enemies, or other calamity; or perhaps because it was not constituted in lands, but in moneys which distributed at last came to an end; or finally because neither by founders nor by prelates of the Church was any portion assigned to the poor, which at least for the most part is true regarding churches erected after the time when the division was made.

Note 3° that the fruits of benefices can be regarded either insofar as they are necessary to honest sustentation, or insofar as they are superfluous to that honest sustentation, which does not consist in an indivisible, as we shall say below.

I suppose 1° as certain that clerics have dominion over patrimonial goods, so that validly they can dispose of them at pleasure; because in their ordination they did not abdicate such dominion, nor does ordination or clerical office bind them to that. Whence, in this respect, they are of like condition before and after received clericate.

I suppose 2° with the more common opinion that clerics have absolute dominion over quasi-patrimonial goods, just as over patrimonial ones; because these goods are given to clerics as a certain stipend of sustentation, not merely gratuitous, but owed them by reason of personal work, and therefore left to their free dispensation. For the faithful conferring do not intend to impose any burden upon them, but to satisfy their own obligation, nor can any canon of law evince that any burden be imposed by the Church on such goods.

I suppose 3° also with the common opinion that clerics have absolute dominion over the portion of ecclesiastical revenues congruous to necessary sustentation, so that concerning it and patrimonial goods they can dispose at pleasure. The reason is, because this portion is the just stipend of the office which a benefice has annexed; for he who serves the altar has right to live of the altar, according to the Apostle, I Cor., IX, 13. Whence the same must be said as of quasi-patrimonial goods.

It is confirmed. Every manual laborer, and what touches us more closely, a singer, e.g., organist, sacristan, laymen, become absolutely masters of the portion which is granted to them out of ecclesiastical goods for the stipend of their office, and can dispose of it at pleasure. Why not the cleric too?

The difficulty therefore chiefly concerns the part of ecclesiastical revenues superfluous to congruous sustentation. Indeed all agree that clerics cannot licitly dispose of it at pleasure, as of patrimonial or quasi-patrimonial goods, or the necessary part, but that they are bound, at least by law of charity and ecclesiastical precept, to expend it upon the poor or other pious uses. Whether truly they are also bound by justice, so that they be liable to restitution if they spend it on profane uses, is greatly disputed.

Among those who defend the affirmative part there is not one principle. Some affirm it because they think clerics have nowise dominion of this superfluous part; others, who although they acknowledge true dominion, wish it bound, as, e.g., the dominion of an heir over an inheritance burdened with legacies or debts. This opinion resting on one or other foundation we confess outright to be probable, safer in practice and to be counseled to clerics. However, with the more probable and now more common opinion,

I say 1° : It is more probable that clerics, at least now after benefices have been created, have absolute dominion of the part of ecclesiastical revenues superfluous to congruous sustentation, so that concerning it they can validly dispose at pleasure (though illicitly, as I shall say below); nor are they bound by justice to bestow it upon the poor or pious uses, and consequently are they not liable to restitution, if they spend it on other uses. So Ostiensis, Barbatus, Adrianus, Dominicus Soto, Bannez, Lorca, Valencia, Lopez, Covarruvias, Lessius, Sarmiento, Banat, Garcias, Wigers, Sylvius, Cabassutius, and more.

Proof. of conclusion 1° by authority of canons. Cap. Consuetudinem, on clerics not resident, lib. III, tit. 3, in 6°, it is enacted that those absent from choir do not acquire dominion of daily distributions, nor make them their own. The same is enacted by Trent, sess. XXII, cap. 3 On Reform. Cap. Commissa, On election., in 6°, it is said that one accepting a parish without intention of receiving priesthood within the year ought to restitute the fruits of the parish, because he makes them not his own. Pius V, bull 138, declares that a beneficed man not reciting the office does not make the fruits his own. The same Trent declares, sess. XXIV, cap. 12 On Reform., of him who within two months emits not profession of faith. Ergo, a contrario sensu, those who satisfy the imposed obligations acquire dominion of these fruits and make them their own, else otherwise those who satisfy the office and those who do not satisfy would be equal.

Nor say that this dominion is bound; for nothing of the kind is intimated by the cited authorities, nor can it be proved by other authority or sufficient reason, as will appear from the solution of objections. Nay rather the contrary is evinced from the following reasons : unless perchance you say the bond affects not the things themselves, but persons, insofar as they are bound by law of charity or burden of restitution.

Proof. 2nd by reason. According to the common opinion, which the greater and saner part of adversaries admits, beneficiaries are absolute masters of certain fruits, namely those necessary to their sustentation, and concerning these they can dispose at least validly at pleasure. Ergo also of all. —

Proof of the consequence. Beneficiaries receive all revenues of their benefices indistinctly, and can apply these or those to their sustentation, and consequently concerning these or those, validly at least, dispose at pleasure. Ergo on the side of fruits they cannot be said masters of certain determinate ones, and not of others; but, since all are received indistinctly, indistinctly they undergo the same lot regarding reason of dominion. Ergo of all : so that the obligation they have of expending superfluous goods on pious uses is not real, that is, annexed to the thing itself, but personal, that is, imposed on the person itself. Which obligation neither repugns true and absolute dominion, nor impedes valid disposition of things, nor induces burden of restitution, as appears in the obligation of almsgiving.

Proof 3°. Whoever possesses a thing is judged master of it, nor can he be compelled by justice to abdicate it unless it appear to be another's, according to rule 65 of law in 6°: «In equal fault or case, the condition of the possessor is better.» But clerics possess all the fruits of their benefice, nor can it be proved from any head that they have not dominion of them, or are held to restitution if they expend them ill. Ergo.

Proof of the minor. That cannot be proved, neither on the part of the donors, nor on the part of the Church receiving.

Not on the part of donors; because the faithful gave these goods simply and absolutely to the Church and ecclesiastics, not truly under a condition at least expressed and reduced into pact of bestowing superfluous goods on pious uses. Although perchance they hoped and intended this, yet they did not draw this intention into pact as a condition sine qua non; which would be necessary that the donation be judged conditional, and not absolute. For the inner mind of the contractor affects not the contract, nor obligates the other contractor by justice, unless it be expressed and reduced into pact : e.g., Caius bequeaths to Titius his student nephew a thousand florins, likewise to Sempronius, another nephew, head of a family, a thousand aurei, intending and hoping that the latter expend a thousand florins on studies, and the former a thousand aurei for relief of family; if nevertheless he express not this intention, nor apply it as condition, Titius becomes absolute master of the thousand florins, and Sempronius of the thousand aurei, nor are they held to restitution if they spend them on other uses. So again you give alms to a pauper, intending and hoping that he pray for you; the pauper prays not for you, nevertheless he becomes absolute master of the alms, nor is he held to restitute it.

— Proof therefore of the antecedent. 1° This condition expressed and reduced into pact is read nowhere, let the adversaries show. 2° If such donation of the faithful were conditional, it would follow that clerics who bestow not superfluous goods on the poor are masters of no part of their revenues (which the greater part of adversaries denies), since a donation under unfulfilled condition falls. Ergo.

Not on the part of the Church receiving. If the Church judged or wished clerics held by strict right to restitution of fruits ill spent, doubtless she would have declared it somewhere in clear and express terms. But she declared this nowhere in clear and express terms. Ergo. — The major seems necessarily to be admitted, since this matter is of greatest moment, seeing that it regards the conscience of all beneficiaries, public edification and relief of the poor, and by several is recalled into doubt or denied.

— Proof therefore of the minor. No canon whatsoever either of councils or Pontiffs could the adversaries bring forward hitherto which clearly and expressly import or signify this obligation of restitution. Ergo nowhere does the Church declare it, or let them say where.

You will say : The Church in many canons enacts that clerics ought to dispense ecclesiastical goods not as proper but as common, that they are not masters but administrators only. Similarly the holy Fathers, Jerome, Aug., Chrysostom, Ambrose, Gregory, say ecclesiastical goods are the poor's, whereby while defrauded there is rapine and sacrilege, and everywhere these goods are called «things of God, goods of the Crucified, patrimonies of the poor.» Ergo.

I answer. As to canons and holy Fathers who flourished before the eighth century, they are to be understood of ecclesiastical goods before their division; for although by B. Sylvester this division was begun, yet only in the eighth century did it begin to be received in many places. As to those who follow the eighth century, thus they spoke according to pious exaggeration, or, as it is said, concionatorily, not theologically, on account of the strictest obligation by which clerics are bound to bestow these goods on pious uses, as I shall say below; for in similar fashion they speak of secular rich men, whom nevertheless no one denies absolute masters of their own goods. Thus St. Basil, of secular misers : «It is the bread of the hungry, he says, which thou retainest; the garment of the naked which thou keepest in thy chest, etc.» Aug., Serm. 206¹, of seculars says, they invade others' goods who bestow not superfluous goods on the poor.

Likewise ecclesiastical goods are called «things of God, goods of the Crucified, etc.,» because for Christ's sake and unto worship of God and sustentation of his ministers were they donated; but not that none besides Christ or God be master of them : unless perchance thou understand it thus, that none be master of them as of patrimonial goods, as though concerning these as licitly as concerning those he could dispose at pleasure.

Similarly they are called patrimonies and aliment of the poor, because they are owed to them by rigorous precept of the religion and charity of the Church, though not of justice. Thus by the same holy Fathers sometimes the superfluous goods of laymen are equally called patrimonies of the poor, although most certainly they are not owed them by justice, but by charity only. Moreover these and like manners of speaking can rightly be understood of ecclesiastical goods, insofar as they embrace not only goods of clerics, but fabric and poor.

The mind of D. Thomas is expounded in proof of the conclusion. The holy Doctor, Quodl. VI, q. 7, a. 12, where he discusses whether clerics are bound under mortal sin to give alms from superfluous goods, when in the body he had spoken generally of ecclesiastical goods as such, that clerics are not masters but dispensers, and had resolved that they can sin twofoldly in administration of their goods : one way, from condition of the thing itself, namely while he usurps to himself as own what belongs to another; another way, from disordered use of those things which fall to his part, as of others, that is of patrimonial goods, he had said at the beginning of the body (which already plainly asserts our opinion), he proposes to himself argument third in order in these words : «Whoever consumes what belongs to another is held to restitution. But goods of clerics are the poor's, as is evident by the gloss of Jerome above that Isai., III, 14 : The spoils of the poor are in your house. Ergo, if clerics uselessly consume ecclesiastical goods, they are held to restitute elsewhere to the poor, if they have wherewith.» Behold the very argument of the adversaries. Let us hear the answer of the holy Doctor : «To the third, he says, it must be said that ecclesiastical goods are to be dispensed not only to the poor, but also to the ministers of the Church. Whence, according to the canons, they ought to be divided in this way, that some part fall to uses of the poor, and some part to uses of the ministers and to the worship of the Church. Otherwise therefore must be said of those ecclesiastical goods which are principally to be attributed to needs of the poor, and consequently to needs of ministers, such as are goods of hospitals and other suchlike; and otherwise of those goods which are principally attributed to uses of ministers, such as are prebends of clerics and other suchlike. For in the former goods sin is committed not only by abuse, but even from the very condition of things, while someone takes to his own uses what belongs to another; and therefore he is held to restitution, as a defrauder of another's property. In the latter goods truly sin is committed only by abuse, as was said of patrimonial goods. Whence one is held not to restitution, but only to performing penance.»

The same opinion and for the most part the same manner of speaking the holy Doctor holds constantly in the Summa, 2a 2ae, q. 185, a. 7, c, where he asks : «Whether bishops sin mortally, if they lavish not on the poor ecclesiastical goods which they administer.» Whatever moreover he resolves of bishops in this part, the same must be said of other beneficed men. Therefore, since he had premised that bishops have absolute dominion of their proper goods, and by virtue of such dominion can validly dispose of them at pleasure, nor are they held to restitution if they expend them ill, seeing that they sin not from condition of things, but because of disorder of affection; but of ecclesiastical goods, namely generally and indistinctly, that they are not masters, but administrators and procurators only, because among ecclesiastical goods, besides goods of the bishop, are numbered also goods of other clerics, of fabric and of the poor, of which bishops are not masters but administrators only : these things, I say, premised, the holy Doctor subjoins : «If therefore the goods which ought to fall to the use of the bishop be distinct from those which are to be bestowed on the poor and ministers and worship of the Church, and if the bishop retain something to himself of those which are to be bestowed on the poor, or even to be expended on the use of ministers or divine worship : there is no doubt that he acts against faith of dispensation, sins mortally and is held to restitution. Of these however (note well) which are specially assigned to his own use, there seems to be the same reason as concerning proper goods : namely that on account of immoderate affection and use he sins indeed, if he retain immoderately to himself and aid not others as required debt of charity.» Here this clause is wanting by error of typographer or copyist : «He is held however not to restitution,» notes Sylvius, after Dominicus Soto and the Douai edition, and well; else the sentence will be imperfect, nor will there be any distinction which the holy Doctor intends, between goods assigned to the use of bishop and not assigned, but everywhere will be sin and obligation of restituting.

Truly, although St. Thomas expressed not this clause, that he indicated it more than sufficiently and that it certainly is of his mind the following moments evidently prove. 1° The disparity of which just now, which the holy Doctor intends between both goods, as is evident from text; which otherwise does not subsist. 2° That he says the same reason is of goods assigned to use of bishop as of proper goods. This parity moreover St. Thomas understands doubtless, not indeed as regards everything generally (for it is certain that ecclesiastical goods are more strictly tied to poor and pious uses than patrimonial ones, and this the holy Doctor openly signifies ad 2, where he says those cannot be expended to enrich parents, which nevertheless is licit of patrimonial goods); but this parity, I say, he understands as regards all those things which he previously attributed to patrimonial goods. For of this proposition : «There seems to be the same reason as concerning proper goods,» the natural and plain sense is : There seems to be need to say what I said of proper goods. I said moreover of proper goods, that bishops «have true dominion of them,» and thence are not obligated «from the very condition of things to confer them on others,» but can «at pleasure» validly dispose of them, although sometimes illicitly, on account of «disorder of affection,» either retaining to himself more than behooves, or bestowing less than charity requires on the poor; in which case however, «they are not held to restitution, because such things are assigned to their dominion.» Ergo the same throughout he judges and says of goods assigned to use of bishop, unless you wish to accuse him both of falsehood and of drowsiness. And by these all evasions of adversaries are cut off.

Father Henno answers that the holy Doctor speaks «manifestly» of the portion necessary to congruous sustentation, not of superfluous. And I say this evasion «manifestly» repugns the text of St. Thomas. For the holy Doctor speaks, as is evident to the reader, of the whole portion specially assigned to use of bishop, and as it is distinct from the other portions of poor, fabric and other clerics. And besides, if clerics be masters of any part, they are masters of the whole, as we proved above.

Nevertheless the praised author confidently proceeds in these words : «That moreover D. Thomas favors not the adversaries but us most formally, is evident from Quodlibet VI, where he says : «Of ecclesiastical goods clerics are not true masters», but dispensers.» With peace to the religious man I would say : He reads not St. Thomas in the place cited; else he would have seen there the same «most formally» asserting that the cleric unduly spending ecclesiastical goods assigned to his own uses sins only by abuse, as he had said of patrimonial goods, «nor is held to restitution, but only to performing penance.» Let the text cited above be re-read.

When truly St. Thomas says, not only in the cited Quodlibet but also in the Summa, cited, but also in the Summa, question now often cited 185, that clerics are not masters of ecclesiastical goods but dispensers, he speaks not of ecclesiastical goods which are specially destined to uses of clerics, unless you wish him speaking contradictory things within few lines, but of ecclesiastical goods, either considered before division, or, which is truer, of those indeed after division, but indistinctly and in common, insofar as they comprehend goods of fabric and those which «are principally to be attributed to needs of the poor, and consequently to needs of ministers, such as are goods of hospitals and other suchlike.» These things not gratis nor from us, but «most formally,» as you see, from St. Thomas, the cited Quodlibet. Moreover of such ecclesiastical goods we say not that clerics are masters, but dispensers only. Such ecclesiastical goods moreover are called such, both because, as St. Thomas says, «consequently they are to be attributed to needs of ecclesiastics»; and because they are goods given first to the Church, and by the Church assigned to the aforesaid uses; and finally because their administration is entrusted to ecclesiastics.

Let the fair reader judge now by what species of truth the most illustrious Pontas said, word Beneficier, case 13, that St. Thomas «persevered even unto death in the opposite opinion, as, he says, is evident in his Summa, where he most clearly and without ambiguity teaches the same opinion.» This Parisian Doctor would need to be far more sharp-sighted than the older and sharpest interpreters of St. Thomas, who saw in him most clearly and without ambiguity what those highest and sharpest men turning over night and day his Summa Angelica never saw the shadow of; nay rather whose opposite they acknowledged handed down most clearly and without ambiguity.

I say 2nd : Clerics by stricter right than seculars are bound to bestow ecclesiastical goods superfluous upon the poor or pious uses, so that they sin mortally if they spend them on profane uses. It is common.

Proof. 1° from the strictest precept of the Church which renews from ancient canons Trent, sess. XXV, On Reform. cap. 1, in these words : «He altogether forbids them (bishops) that they strive to enrich kinsmen and household servants from revenues of the Church, since also the Canons of the Apostles prohibit giving ecclesiastical things, which are God's, to kinsmen, but, if they be poor, distribute to them as to the poor; nor sell or dissipate them for their sake.» Which he extends below to all beneficed men.

Where this particle is to be noted, «which are God's,» whereby the motive of this precept is signified. Since these goods are offered to God, or rather to the Church, that they may fall to worship of God (for God cannot be visibly approached, nor does he need these things), it is fitting, from their very condition, that they be expended on uses grateful to God, howsoever God himself would spend them, if as man he disposed of them. And therefore the Church commanded that they be expended on such uses.

Because however the Church commanding or forbidding something from motive of some virtue transfers the matter commanded or forbidden to species of that virtue; thus, e.g., because she forbids theft in sacred place from motive of religion, to steal in sacred place is sin against religion : hence follows that clerics, not only by obedience due to the Church, but even by virtue of religion, are bound to expend superfluous goods on pious uses.

Proof. 2nd. Clerics, by reason of grade obtained in the Church, are as fathers and tutors of the poor. Ergo they are bound by stricter precept of charity than seculars to succor them.

Therefore, according to us, beneficiaries are bound threefoldly by title to expend fruits superfluous to themselves of their benefice toward relief of the poor, or other pious uses, 1° from law of the Church; 2° from virtue of religion; 3° from precept of charity²

[The contrary opinion St. Liguori calls probable and much more common among recent authors. Yet this seems to him sufficiently probable in practice, especially on account of authority of St. Thomas, whose arguments he admits as valid³. Whence it must be concluded that the cleric who canonically bestows not his superfluous goods is held not to restituting from his proper goods, but only to doing penance.

You will ask 1° what is to be understood under name of superfluous.

I answer. Superfluous is estimated what exceeds honest or congruous sustentation. Moreover congruous sustentation of cleric is judged that which is necessary to sustaining becomingly his own state and providing for family, according to condition, grade, dignity, quality of the beneficed man and region in which he dwells. So understands St. Liguori⁴.

You will ask 2° how much is required in this matter to constitute mortal sin.

I answer. Greater quantity is required than in theft. Of the beneficed man says the Angelic Doctor, 2a 2ae, q. 183, a. 7, c : «Of those things which are specially assigned to his own use, there seems to be the same reason as concerning proper goods, namely that, on account of immoderate affection and use, he sins indeed if he retain immoderately to himself and aid not others as required debt of charity. But if the aforesaid goods be not distinct, distribution of them is committed to his good faith. And if he fail or abound but slightly, this can be done without detriment of good faith, because man cannot punctually receive in such matters what ought to be done. But if excess be much, it cannot lie hidden.» Not therefore is matter grave unless excess be much, that is, according to truer opinion, the twentieth part of superfluous goods, provided these reach a notable sum ⁵.

You will ask 3° who come under name of poor.

I answer. Under name of poor come not only those begging door to door, but also those who unless they receive alms cannot preserve their own state, even kinsmen, if they be truly poor. It is licit even to prefer these to others even more gravely needy, «because, says St. Liguori, relief of needy kinsmen pertains also to the proper state of the cleric being preserved, since their poverty redounds to his disgrace ⁶.» This accords with the decree of Trent cited above.

You will ask 4° whether beneficiaries may reserve superfluous goods for the future for pious uses.

I answer. The Angelic Doctor, ubi supra, ad 4 : «The goods of the Church ought to serve uses of the poor. And therefore, if anyone, no necessity of providing for the poor impending, buy possessions from what superabounds from revenues of the Church, or lay them up in treasure for future utility of the Church and needs of the poor, he does laudably. But if necessity of bestowing on the poor impend, it is superfluous and disordered care that anyone conserve for the future; which the Lord forbids, Matth., VI, 34 : Be not solicitous for tomorrow.»

It must be noted however that if anything be reserved for the future, sufficient caution must be employed, lest upon death coming such revenues perchance be pillaged by kinsmen ⁷.

You will ask 5° whether it is licit for a beneficed man to reserve something for himself for the future.

I answer. that he can moderately reserve certain things, so that provision may be made against infirmity and other necessities which can probably occur, provided however actual grave necessity of poor urge not; yet with this condition, that, if afterwards he need these not, they be expended according to prescription of canonical law.

You will ask 6° whether beneficed men validly make testament concerning superfluous revenues.

I answer. affirmatively, according to the opinion defended above and from usage received in many places. But this is not licit except for pious causes. For although, where usage has prevailed, they testate validly even unto profane uses, nevertheless they sin mortally unless they do this from indult of the Pope⁸.

You will ask 7° whether the salary which is paid by government in France to priests takes on the nature of ecclesiastical goods.

I answer. affirmatively, because from the Concordat of the year 1801 the said salary was stipulated in compensation of ecclesiastical goods confiscated and alienated at the time of the Gallican disturbance. Ergo it takes on the same nature as had the goods for which it substitutes.

It is also established from the following responsions of the holy Penitentiary.

1° «Whether salaries paid in Belgium by government to pastors and canons take on character of benefices or ecclesiastical goods, and have annexed obligation inherent in those goods, namely strict and canonical obligation of expending superfluous goods on the poor, or pious causes, and residence, under penalty of making not their fruits?» The holy Penitentiary, having weighed the exposition, answered : «Already elsewhere answer was given by the Holy See, with counsels of secret Congregation, affirmatively. Given Rome, January 19, 1819.»

2° «The holy Penitentiary consulted : whether that responsion ought to be applied to salaries paid by government to pastors and canons of the kingdom of France, judged that answer must be given affirmatively.»

3° «Whether the responsion for Belgium of January 19 ought to be applied only to fixed salaries of 1000 livres for pastors and 750 livres for curates, or extended to offerings of the faithful? The holy Penitentiary judged over the newly exposed things that answer must be given: affirmative as regards first part, negative as regards second. Given Rome, August 9, 1824.»

From this last responsion follows that voluntary offerings made by faithful to pastors, likewise revenues called casual, are reckoned among quasi-patrimonial goods, whose use is free.

Conversely, supplements bestowed by municipalities on pastors are commonly held as part of pension, seeing that they are granted only by general decree of government (Organic Art. 67), and by virtue of Concordat entered between supreme Pontiff and government. — Except, unless this supplement was stipulated on account of non-obligatory and laborious functions; in which case it takes nature of quasi-patrimonial good.

To be noted for practice. The question of use of ecclesiastical goods in France, as also in several other regions, today has become almost speculative. For pensions paid by government in compensation of revenues which flowed from benefice-goods confiscated and alienated are so small that they suffice not even for honest sustentation of ministers of the Church : whence nothing superfluous from these can remain over. If some, living miserably, reserve something of such revenue, which scarcely seems possible, this belongs to genus of parcimonial goods, and falls outside canonical law.]