DECET QUAM MAXIME (On Abuses in
Taxes and Benefices)
Pope
Clement XIV
Encyclical of
Pope Clement XIV promulgated on 21 September 1769.
To the Bishops of
Venerable Brethren, Greetings and Apostolic
Blessing.
It is altogether befitting for the ministers of
the Church and the dispensers of divine mysteries to be exempt from any
suspicion, however light, of avarice; then they can be free to exercise their
sacred ministry in such a way that they can justly glory that their hands have
acted free of any reward. In fact Christ ordered this when He sent His
disciples to preach the gospel with the words, "Freely give what you have
freely received" (Mt 18:8). Paul also stated (1 Tm 3:8; Ti 1:7) that this
should be required of those chosen for the ministry of the altar. This,
finally, Peter inculcated in those in charge of the care of souls, saying,
"Be shepherds of the flock of God entrusted to you, watching over it not
for sordid gain, but freely" (1 Pt 5:2). Pastors of the Church, who ought
to be an example to the faithful, must diligently observe this divine command
and thus show themselves irreprehensible; they must
also be vigilant so as not to permit the lower ministers over whom they have
charge to perpetrate anything to the contrary. They should always remember that
noble sentiment of Ambrose (Commentary on Lk 4:52), "Nevertheless, it is
not sufficient if you yourselves do not seek profit: the hands of your
household must also be restrained. Therefore instruct your household, exhort
and watch over it: and if your servant deceive you,
let him be repudiated, if apprehended, as scripture instructs."
Accordingly, both the holy councils and
previous Roman Pontiffs have repeatedly advocated that every possible avenue be
closed so that such evil abuses never creep into the Church of God, or if, by
chance, they had already done so, they be totally eradicated from its midst. It
is lamentable that these sanctions have either lacked effect in some dioceses
or been insufficiently strong or valid enough to root out totally all contrary
usages. And We know that this has come about because those whose duty it was to
carry them out most strictly have put forward various excuses, such as ancient
and inveterate custom or the need of bestowing some reward on the ministers of
ecclesiastical curias or the necessity of making up for the lack of the means
of support required for a proper and decent manner of living in keeping with
one's state.
Because he understood all this properly, Innocent
XI, desiring to invalidate any excuses whatsoever, in 1678 ordered that
everything pertinent to the matter be collected from the sacred canons, the
Council of Trent, the interpretations given by the congregations of this
Council, and proposals from consultations with bishops. Furthermore he ordered
that an explicit determination and mention by name be made of all
ecclesiastical affairs for which the reception of any payment on the part of
ecclesiastical courts and episcopal curias was forbidden. The sole exception
concerned what ought to go to the Chancellor alone as a proper remuneration or
as a necessary payment. The same document also provided that in these matters
the same procedure and uniform discipline be observed in all ecclesiastical
curias; any custom to the contrary should be completely repudiated. Innocent XI
approved and confirmed this on October first of the same year and ordered its
promulgation and observance. Nevertheless, not even this was enough to restore
the universal collapse of ecclesiastical discipline or to curb depraved customs
rooted in various dioceses. One objection was that the aforesaid did not impose
a law to be observed in ecclesiastical curias outside of
2. Accordingly, with sorrow We have learned
that many abuses in the exercise of spiritual power (which not only totally
destroy ecclesiastical discipline, but also enfeeble and bring the greatest
shame upon your dignity and power) still exist in your ecclesiastical curias.
To be sure your piety, your holy mode of life, your solicitude for your
churches is more than sufficiently known to Us. We also know that these abuses
have been introduced in the past, first from some secondary ministry or other,
and have been gradually spread from diocese to diocese, perhaps without the
knowledge of bishops. In certain places the greater dignity of a particular
church has even led to the increase of such abuses. Some ministers, whose
successors in office or ministry paid little attention and incautiously
followed the footsteps of their own predecessors, deemed these long standing
and customary abuses worthy of being proposed for approval by synodal
constitutions. Accordingly, you can in no way be blamed; rather you are worthy
of commendation because, as We have learned, you are grieved by these abuses
and wish to extirpate them.
We, however, perceiving how much you will be
detested for this and how great the obstacles will be unless the Apostolic
Authority assists you in this enterprise, accordingly make this intervention.
We do this especially because of the diversity of the fees and the varying
practices in different dioceses. As a result of Our intervention, We anticipate
conformity among all dioceses. Wherefore We are confident that you will
faithfully carry out Our decrees which were requested by Charles Emmanuel, the
illustrious king of
3. First, as far as concerns holy orders, you
can hardly be ignorant of the practically innumerable laws of the Church which
forbid bishops and others ordaining or any officials to receive anything from
conferring orders. This was most clearly forbidden by the Ecumenical Council of
Chalcedon in 451 (canon 2), by the Roman Synod held under St. Gregory the great
in 600 or 604 (canon 5) and elsewhere in his Epistles (bk. 4, epistle
44, indictment 13), by the Second Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 787 (canon
5), by that of Pavia in 1022 (canon 3), by the Fourth Lateran Council under
Innocent III in 1215, as well as by the councils of Tours, Braga ant Barcelona,
among others (collected by Christian Wolf in dissert. 2 proem. de simonia,
chap. 9, tome 4 and by Gonzales-in chapter Antequam I de simonia,
no. 9), and, most recently, by the Council of Trent (session 21, chap. 1 on
reform) which emended the ancient canons allowing a spontaneous offering to be
accepted and restored ecclesiastical discipline concerning ordination to its
pristine and ancient purity.
The decree of the Council is as follows:
"Since all suspicion of avarice must be absent from ecclesiastical
ordinations, the bishops or other conferrers of orders or their ministers may
not accept anything for the conferring of any order whatsoever, even
ecclesiastical tonsure, or for dimissorial letters and testimonials, or for the
seal or anything else, even if spontaneously offered, under any pretext
whatever. Where the commendable custom of not accepting anything is not
prevalent, notaries may receive one tenth of an aureus for dimissorial or
testimonial letters, but only when no salary is provided for their office. The bishop,
however, may not receive, directly or indirectly, any remuneration from that
given to the notary for these letters. Ordaining bishops and their ministers
are to offer their services freely. All contrary decrees and customs, which are
rightly called abuses and simoniacal corruptions, are rendered null and void.
Those acting to the contrary, both those giving and those receiving shall ipso
facto incur, in addition to divine retribution, the punishments inflicted
by law."
4. Therefore We instruct and order you not to
accept anything, even when offered spontaneously, for the bestowing of any
orders whatsoever, even for clerical tonsure, for dimissorial or testimonial
letters, for the seal, or for any other reason. The single exception is the
offering of a wax candle, which is the custom of the Roman pontifical. The
quality of the candle and its weight must be left completely up to the judgment
and free will of those who are being ordained. Likewise your vicar generals
will observe the same sanction as well as vicars forane, chancellors, other
ministers, associates, and members of your retinue whom the Council of Trent
forbids to receive or demand under any title any emolument, reward, or gift on
the occasion of sacred ordinations.
5. However, in those dioceses where no stipend
or salary is provided for the chancellor or notary of the ecclesiastical curia
for the carrying out of their office, We grant them permission, in the case of
an order already conferred, to be able to exact for each dimissorial letter the
tenth part only of a single aureus or ten obols of Roman coinage. They may
receive the same in cases of clerical tonsure, its dimissorial letters, and
ordinations to be received from a bishop who comes from outside the diocese.
They may not receive remuneration from an order priest bound by vows of strict
poverty and not having the use of money. When the above-mentioned testimonial
or dimissorial letters refer to several orders already conferred or to be
conferred by an outside bishop, the same scale of remuneration must be
observed: it is by no means permitted to increase or multiply the stipend of
ten obols in proportion to the number of individual orders contained in the
same letters. By this, however, it is not Our mind to oblige the chancellor or
notary to be required to describe simultaneously different orders conferred at
different times and at different ordinations in the same testimonial letters;
this We order to take place only when it is a question of those orders, viz.
minor orders, which were conferred atone and the same ordination. As for
dimissorial letters which are given for several orders to be received from an
outside bishop, We forbid that their texts be multiplied or anything else be
demanded for requesting the conferral of the orders or for access to the place
of ordination or under any other title of gift or reward.
6. Moreover, regarding the order of the
subdiaconate, there may be greater labor on the part of the chancellor or the
notaries to establish the veracity and propriety of the titles of patrimony or
benefice under which each one wishes to be promoted. For this labor as well as
for the other acts which must precede the conferring of the said order, We
grant them the right to receive some remuneration congruent with their labor.
This is to be estimated by the bishop according to his judgment and conscience,
which is to be weighty, provided that the stipend for the inscription, seal and
all other things does not exceed one aureus or sixteen and a half julios. Those
who are to be promoted to orders, or their parents, to be free to use any
notary legitimately approved for the composing of such decrees without being
compelled to appear before the aforesaid curias together with the necessary
witnesses for the establishment and stipulation of the patrimony and for the
other required acts. The notary of the curiato whom
the decree is given, may accept remuneration from the bishop as described above
or the sum of one aureus or sixteen and one-half julios, either for registering
it or for any other labor. However, he under no pretext can ask for or receive
anything for the publication of the decree or for letters of publication. This
is explicitly stated in the decree of the Council of Trent cited above; it is
clearly affirmed by the Sacred Congregation of the Council in the case of the
diocese of Vicenza, 7 February 1602 and by the sacred Synod of bishops in the
case of the diocese of Gerona, 25 October 1588 (to be found in Fagnani in his
chapter on ordination and simony, number 32ff.).
7. There are always two conditions to be
observed when notaries and the chancellor receive remuneration: first, they
must not be receiving a stipend or salary for exercising their office;
secondly, no part of the remuneration may go to the bishop, to any other
conferrer of orders, or to any official or minister, as has been declared by
the same Council of Trent.
8. In some curias there is the custom whereby
the bishop or the vicar general demands money before permission is granted for
recently ordained priests to celebrate their first Mass. Money is also
requested from priests, coming from another diocese with commendatory letters
from their respective bishops, before they are allowed to carry out divine
services. We can hardly conceive of such base practices as being free from the
suspicion of shameful profit and avarice. This custom, although introduced and
preserved under the title of a stipend or remuneration given to the one who
examines the priests regarding their knowledge of sacred rites and ceremonies,
must, nevertheless, be totally eliminated. It is alien to the sacred canons and
has been frequently repudiated.
9. What We have said up to this point
concerning holy ordinations can be equally applied to the conferral or provision
of ecclesiastical benefices. This is evident if you read the canons of the
Church which have been drawn up to eradicate completely abuses springing up in
this matter at various times (cf. chapter si quis q. 3, chapter non
satis 8, chapter cum in ecclesia 9, chapter Jacobus 44 de simonia
and elsewhere in Christian Wolf in his cited dissertation de simonia
chapter 10). And although nothing was specifically decreed by the Council of
Trent, nevertheless the Sacred Congregation of the Council, with the approval
of the Supreme Pontiff Gregory XIII, declared that the decree (chapter 1,
session 21 de ref.) had force also in the conferring of benefices,
especially those having the care of souls. It also declared that nothing could
be accepted for the seal, notwithstanding any time honored custom to the
contrary (Garz. de benef. part. 8 chapter 1, numbers 76ff., Fagnan.
chapter In ordinando de simonia, number 31, Gallemart. in chapter 1,
session 21 de reform.). Hence this same Sacred Congregation, with the approval
of the Supreme Pontiff, declared in a letter to the bishop of
10. We have called these matters to your
attention, venerable brothers, so that you might know how greatly abhorrent to
ecclesiastical discipline are the customs which exist here and there in your
dioceses concerning the conferral of benefices and with what care you must
strive to remove them totally. When you confer ecclesiastical benefices-those
involving the care of souls, those which are residential, those which have no
obligations, and those which are called revocable chaplaincies, establish and
observe the rule that you neither demand nor receive anything under any pretext
or title, even that of a gift, reward or voluntary offering, especially when
approving or selecting the most worthy candidates for parochial churches or the
possession of benefices. The same canonical sanctions apply to any other
bestowers, vicars general, chancellors, relatives, friends and members of your
households, all of whom are forbidden to receive anything.
11. From this general regulation are exempted
only chancellors or notaries who, as We have indicated elsewhere in this
letter, receive no stipend or salary for the exercise of their office. In this
case the chancellor, if it is a question of benefices involving the care of
souls, can exact ten obols for the edict or letter which publicly announces the
availability of the benefice, five obols for each copy thereof, and five obols
for posting them. If the announcement must be posted outside the city, he may
receive a daily remuneration, determined by each diocese, for the expenses of
the journey and its necessary arrangements. When a chancellor sends a letter
bestowing a benefice which either involves the care of souls or entails no
obligations, he may receive a suitable recompense for his labor according to
the judgment of the bishop. This, however, may not exceed one aureus or ten
julios of Roman coinage for the writing, the seal and other details, as has
been frequently declared by the Sacred Congregation of the Council, especially
on 15 January 1594 (Gallemart. loc. cit.) and in a letter to the bishop
of Vicenze, 8 March 1602 (Fagnan. loc. cit. n. 32) and by the Sacred
Congregation of Bishops of 25 October 1588 (Fagnan. ibid. n. 25). And,
finally, for inscribing the requisite documents for taking possession of these
benefices, he may receive three julios if they are within the city, four julios
if in the suburbs, and what each diocese determines for his daily expenses if
they are elsewhere. If the benefice is located in a place where there is a
chancellor or notary of the vicar forane, the person receiving the benefice
may, without any constraint, choose to summon the chancellor of the episcopal
curia for the act of taking possession. A notary may as a
recompense accept only two julios from persons who, having been examined
as applicants for a benefice, receive testimonial letters of approval and use
them as proof of their suitability.
12. We are well aware that the chancellor or
notary labors greatly in the selection of candidates for parish churches: he
accepts testimony as to the qualities, merits, and good works of the applicants
on behalf of the Church; he places in the record of the selection process the
requirements to be exhibited by the applicants; he summarizes these
requirements and makes several copies of the same for the bishop or the vicar
general taking his place; he delivers to the individual examiners the material
acquired so that they may make a judgment regarding the knowledge of the
applicants, their way of life, and the other gifts necessary for them to
administer a church. Moreover he draws up the moral questions proposed by the
same examiners, counts their votes, proposes the act of selection, watches over
the applicants for two and at times three days, and presides in person over the
examination of the above-mentioned moral questions, etc. That some account
should be taken of this labor We grant by way of
indulgence, leaving it to the judgment and conscience of the bishop to
determine a remuneration appropriate only to the labor involved.
13. There are certain benefices reserved to and
conferred by the Holy See. There are also benefices involving the care of souls
for which testimonial letters of approval are given to the Apostolic Dataria as
well as notice of the selection of the candidates held according to the form of
the Council of Trent. Finally there are those benefices without the care of
souls, especially residential benefices, for which testimonial letters
concerning the manner of life, morals and suitability of the applicants are
likewise customarily offered to the same Apostolic Dataria. In all these cases
let chancellors beware not to ask for any remuneration, reward or anything
else, even if spontaneously offered, for these letters except two julios for
the actual writing, the paper and the seal on the letter of suitability. They
may also accept two julios for testimonial letters about the manner of life and
moral qualities of the applicants.
14. For the execution of the apostolic letters,
when these are to be sent in the form which is called gratiosa, let
neither the bishops nor other officials presume to claim for themselves the
office of executors. It depends on the judgment and choice of those who have
been given the benefices to elect an executor or notary for the act of taking
possession of the benefice. There are two instances, however, when the
chancellor might receive remuneration: when the chancellor is selected as the
official for a person provided with a benefice; and when the apostolic letters,
sent in the forum called dignum, are directed to the ordinary, his
officialis or vicar, and are to be carried out by them. In both cases, if there
is no one who legitimately contests the appointment so that there is only an
executor, the chancellor may receive remuneration for copying the same
apostolic letters, placing them in the record, and for carrying out properly
the other customary duties. This payment, not to exceed a gold scutum or
sixteen and a half julios, is to be determined in proportion to the task by the
judgment and conscience of the bishop. The bishop or any other prelate, his
vicar, officialis, friends, and household members, however, are absolutely
forbidden to receive any remuneration, gift, or other offering. However, if
someone contests the appointment so that a judicial process must be
inaugurated, it is left to the serious judgment and conscience of the bishop to
determine a recompense that conforms to the work undertaken by the notary or
chancellor. In no case is any part of this payment to be given, either directly
or indirectly, to the bishop or others mentioned above. Moreover, for the act
of taking possession of the benefice, let the same provisions mentioned above
be observed.
15. As for benefices which are given by way of
patronage, if the fiscal promoter or the one receiving the benefice contests
that it is not given by way of patronage but is freely conferred, everything is
to be observed as determined above concerning benefices freely given when
someone contests the appointment. Thus the chancellor may receive two julios
for the edict against the contestor or contestors, ten obols for each copy of
the edict, and one aureus or sixteen and a half julios for the letter of
institution. For posting the same edict he may receive what was decreed in the
case of benefices involving the care of souls. Should a dispute arise among the
co-patrons or their representatives concerning not the right of patronage but
its applicability, then let the case be considered as profane, and the
emoluments may be exacted which correspond to the customary rates of each
curia.
16. Likewise, We generally prohibit bishops,
other prelates, their vicars and officiales from presuming to exact anything in
the following cases: from removable chaplaincies; from establishing or erecting
chaplaincy benefices, sodalities, and congregations; from establishing,
blessing, consecrating, visiting, and approving churches or oratories in accord
with apostolic or ordinary authority. The chancellor alone may receive a
recompense befitting his labor as decided by the bishop, provided that it does
not exceed sixteen and a half julios.
17. As for matrimony or espousals, We propose
that you observe what the sacred canons (chapter cum in ecclesia 9,
chapter suam nobis 29, de simonia), St. Gregory the Great
(epistle to Januarius the bishop of Cagliari (book 4, indict. 12, epistle 27)
and others to be found in the praiseworthy work of Christian Wolf (in
dissertat. chapter 7) and most recently the Council of Trent (session 22,
chapter 5, de reformat. Matrimon.) have
decreed. Bishops, their vicars, and officials, members of their households, and
ministers should freely offer their services in these matters. They shall not
presume to exact any reward or compensation, even if freely offered, for any of
the following: decrees concerning marriage dispensations received from the Holy
See; their labor in examining witnesses for such dispensations; the reception
of other testimony; the writing of testimonial letters as to a person's
canonical or other freedom to marry; dispensing from the banns, required by the
Council of Trent, to be announced during Mass on three consecutive feast days
by the pastors of those to contract a marriage, granting permission to marry at
home or elsewhere; allowing marriages to take place during inappropriate or
forbidden times or before a priest other than the pastor. The same is true for
any other act which must be performed. All this has been declared by the Sacred
Congregation of the Council with the approval of the Supreme Pontiff, any
contrary custom however ancient notwithstanding (Garz. de benefic. part.
8, chapter 1, number 102 and ff. and Fagnan, chapter quoniam, ne praelati
vices suas, number 30).
18. The same is especially true where bishops
are accustomed to grant pastors permission to proclaim banns of marriage in the
church on three successive feast days or to be present at the celebration of
the marriages when these pastors know there is no impediment. Such permission
should be obtained gratis. Care should also be taken that any indiscriminate
requirement that this permission be obtained before the celebration of marriage
not render the contract of marriage more difficult and afford an occasion for
great hardships. The Sacred Congregation of Bishops in its reply to the bishop
of
19. Where the chancellor receives no set salary
for exercising his office, he may receive as recompense for his labor and as a
necessary stipend for his support some remuneration for the execution of
apostolic letters for matrimonial dispensations. When the chancellor himself
examines witnesses to establish the truth of what is contained in the petition,
he may receive something proportionate to the number of witnesses and the gravity
of his labor, but this should not exceed five julios. If, however, the
testimony of the witnesses is examined by another, the chancellor may receive
only two julios for the letter of delegation; he may receive absolutely nothing
for the decree, seal or anything else. The chancellor may also receive two
julios for testimonial letters regarding freedom to marry: this would
recompense him for their writing, the paper and seal and everything else. He
may also receive ten obols for each of the witnesses he examines regarding a
person's freedom to marry and the lack of any canonical impediment. Ten obols
may be given when he acknowledges testimonial letters of freedom to marry on
behalf of those residing elsewhere, unless there is need to examine another
witness to remove all possible doubt. The chancellor may also receive ten obols
for any necessary examination in the disposition of witnesses.
20. To exact money or anything else in the
dispensation of the sacraments has always seemed equally detestable. It is a
practice proceeding from avarice and greed. Therefore the sacred canons have
frequently denounced it as infected with simony and have taken care to repress
it with proper punishments and ecclesiastical censures, as is clear from
chapter 9 cum in ecclesiae corpore, chapter 42 ad apostolicam, de
simonia and from several decrees of councils (cf. Christian Wolf loc.
cit. chapters 7 and 8). Adhering faithfully to these principles the Sacred
Congregation of the Council has at no time allowed the exacting of anything in
the administration of the sacraments. For instance, when a doubt was proposed
whether the pastor could receive the dish used for the administration of
extreme unction, the same Congregation, in a letter to the bishop of Alba, 20
February 1723, replied: "Its reception is not to be permitted" (Thes.
resolut. tome 2, page 280). Likewise, when the bishop of Vaison during the
synod held in 1729 drew up an assessment to be observed in his diocese in
which, among other things, the following directions concerning baptism were
instituted: "The godfather or godmother shall supply at least one candle
and a white cloth for the baptismal ceremony, unless they prefer to give five
bronze coins for these and the recording of the act in the public baptismal record,"
the question was proposed: "Should the tax prescribed in the said synod be
observed?" The congregation replied in a letter to the bishop of Vaison on
6 February 1734: "Emphatically no" (Thes. resol. tome 6, page
209).
21. Among other things which are more
frequently and bitterly denounced by the sacred canons and councils is the
custom which once prevailed here and there of demanding money for the reception
of chrism and holy oil. Bishops have vainly tried to excuse this practice under
various names, e.g., a cathedraticum, an Easter offering, or an episcopal
custom (chapter 8 non satis, chapter 16 ea quae, chapter 36 in
tantum, de simonia and elsewhere in Christian Wolf, loc. cit.,
chapter 7 secundum sacramentum). Accordingly, when the Patriarch of the
Maronites at Antioch had been accustomed to receive a monetary offering during
the distribution of the holy oils, although it was clear that the money was not
given or received as payment for the oil but as an alms for the patriarch and
as a support for the tasks incumbent on the patriarchal office and dignity,
nevertheless to remove any suspicion of simony the aforesaid custom was
rejected by the particular congregation to which the affairs of the Maronites
belong, and Benedict XIV confirmed its decree (constit. apostolica 43,
Bullar. tome 1).
22. We think that this is more than enough,
venerable brethren, for you to understand your duty in the administration of
the sacraments, for carrying it out perfectly, and for totally eradicating the
improper practices prevailing in some dioceses whereby money is demanded by the
bishop or the prefect of the sacristy in the distribution of holy oils. This
practice has been frequently reprobated by the Sacred Congregation of the
Council especially in a reply to the diocese of Amalfi, 18 July 1699, confirmed
on 6 February 1100, to doubt 12, "Is the archbishop required to demand
that the holy oils be given gratis to the pastors of churches?" to which
the Congregation replied "affirmatively." And the Sacred Congregation
of Bishops held in Acerenza, 18 March 1706, prescribed the same (Petras Comment.
ad constitut. 5 Innocentii IV number 38).
23. As to the offering of a candle to the
bishop administering confirmation, which We have heard
takes place in some of your dioceses, it is evident that the pontifical ritual
books do not mention this practice. Moreover, the sacred function of ministry
compels all ministers to observe moderation in the reception of offerings and
in their way of proceeding so that their ministry not be
censured by giving the impression of avarice or greed for money with the result
that the reverence due to so great a sacrament becomes thereby cheapened.
Consequently great care must be taken lest there arise
a suspicion that the candle is not freely offered but demanded. In the latter
case the faithful, especially the poor, would refrain from receiving the
sacrament or delay its reception longer than is proper. Therefore it is most
desirable that this custom be totally removed or, at
least, that it be observed in such a way that it depend completely on the free
will of those making the offering.
24. The same laws, moreover, prescribe that
bishops, their chancellors, and notaries ought to exercise their ministry
gratis when, after previous examination and approbation, faculties are given to
anyone for hearing sacramental confessions, for administering the sacraments,
and for exercising ecclesiastical ministries. The same is true when they
appoint suitable vicars whether permanent or removable, economic officials, and
coadjutors. This is stated in cap. ad nostrum de simonia and is declared
by the frequently cited reply to the diocese of Vicenza of 7 February and 8
March 1602 and by the reply to the diocese of Gerona, 25 October 1588, question
7, which repudiate any pretext otherwise, even that of recompense for drawing
up letters permitting the exercise of these ministerial offices.
25. We judge that none of you can be ignorant
of how it has been frequently and severely forbidden to demand money for
funeral and burial services (cf. Christian Wolf, loc. cit. chapter 12
and Van-Espen. in jus eccles. unis. chapter 4, paragraph 2, title 38). Let it suffice to indicate what St. Gregory the
Great wrote in his letter to Januarius, the bishop of Cagliari (book 9, indict.
2, epistle 3 and also book 7, indict. 2, epistle 56): "A most famous
woman, Nereida, has complained to Us that your fraternity has not blushed to
ask of her a hundred solidis for the burial of her daughter . . . If this is
true, it is a very serious matter; it is far from the office of a priest to ask
a price for ground allotted for decomposition and to desire profit from
another's grief. We have forbidden this improper custom in Our church and We
have never allowed this evil custom to take over . . . Wherefore, I reprove
this vice of avarice; may no one presume to practice it elsewhere."
Nevertheless, these laws have never condemned the laudable and pious custom,
observed from the earliest days of the Church, of making an offering for the
dead at funerals; nor have the clergy ever been forbidden to receive them.
Accordingly, Gregory (loc. cit.) immediately adds: "If, indeed,
parents, relatives or heirs of such a one wish to spontaneously offer something
for the lighting of candles, We do not forbid it being accepted. But to demand
or ask for something We totally prohibit."
Likewise, Innocent III made the same decision at the Lateran Council (chapter ad
Apostolicam 42 de simonia).
26. To be sure, in the absence of personal
tithes and with a decline in bequests of property or mixed goods to monasteries
and chapters of canons, it was sometimes necessary to compel, as it were, the
laity to offer pious oblations, which are now customary, so as to provide for
the necessities of pastors and parish churches. Nevertheless, the sanctity of
ecclesiastical discipline has always been considered, and caution has been
taken lest there be aberrations with regard to these laudable customs on the
part of clerics through excess or the laity by defect. Therefore, among other
things, it was forbidden that funeral services and burials of citizens or
foreigners be impeded or delayed for the sake of demanding emoluments
introduced by pious custom. It was also forbidden that anything be demanded for
permission to transfer the corpse or to bury it in one place rather than
another.
27. Except for the traditional offering
bestowed with a view to pious offices offered for the benefit of soul and body,
nothing else is to be tolerated in your dioceses. The pastor may not receive
anything, whether occasionally or habitually, with respect of the circumstances
and various dignity of persons or in consideration of
the prestige of the place of burial, whether in the church or in a more
imposing place belonging to the church. It is also abhorent to the sacred
canons that the bishop demand or receive any money for burying either an adult
or a child in any diocesan church, even that of religious communities, as the
Sacred Congregation of the Council declared against the bishop of Vicenza and
as the holy synod of bishops maintained against the bishop of Gerona (Fagnan.
in the chapter In ordinando, de simonia 10, numbers 32 ff.),
notwithstanding any custom, however ancient, or any pretext, title, or claim to
the contrary.
28. In the visitation of your dioceses do not
even allow yourselves to be suspected of avarice or base gain. It should be
obvious that you seek not your own good but that of
Jesus Christ's when you carefully observe what the fathers of the Council of
Trent enjoin in this regard: "Let (visitors) not be troublesome by useless
or burdensome expenses. Neither they nor any of their staff are to accept any
money or gift under any title even from bequests for pious purposes unless this
is due by law, despite any custom to the contrary, no matter how long standing.
They may receive only a frugal or modest sustenance for only necessities during
the time of visitation. However, those being visited may decide whether to give
what they were formerly accustomed to pay, that is a certain sum of money, or to
provide the aforesaid sustenance" (session 24, chapter 3, de ref.).
29. The Sacred Congregation of the Council has
issued various declarations and edicts on this decree. Some may be mentioned
here. First, it has often been disputed whether the bishop can exact what are
called "provisions" for visiting the cathedral or the clergy residing
within the city or any other place where he usually resides. Some have observed
that the statutes enacted by the Council of Trent applied only to the visitation
of the diocese without any mention of the city. And sustenance, some argued,
was to be given "for only necessities during the time of visitation,"
and such necessity surely does not seem to be present when the bishop visits
places in which he is bound to reside or is accustomed to live at least some
part of the year. The Sacred Congregation, however, decided that any
traditional canons or customs to the contrary were abolished by the
aforementioned decree of the Council of Trent. The same Congregation constantly
replied negatively in the case of Castro on 17 November 1685, in the case of
Amalfi on 18 July 1705, in the case of Policastro on 1 June 1737 and, most
recently, in the case of Torre San Gennaro on 30 January 1768. The same was the
opinion of the sacred synod of bishops, as is clear from the letter sent to the
Patriarch of Venice on 26 May 1592.
30. The aforementioned decree of the Council of
Trent, also agreeing with what is found in the chapter Si episcopus de off.
Ordinarii, 6, expressly states that neither bishops nor any of their staff
are to accept any money or gift under any title. They may receive only
sustenance or, if those being visited prefer, money
corresponding to this sustenance. And yet there were some who argued that they
could receive sustenance in addition to money, or
along with sustenance transportation by horse for themselves and their
ministers, or something else under some title or pretext of a civic nature.
These, however, have always lost their case in the Sacred Congregation of the Council
which has constantly disapproved their manner of action as alien to the Council
of Trent. In the case of the visitation of St. Mark the following two
questions, among others, were asked: V. "Must the clergy pay anything to
the ministers and other officials for the visitation of the bishop?" VI.
"Must the same clergy pay for transportation by horse for a visiting
bishop?" On 7 July 1708, the following prescript was sent: "Earlier
decrees must be followed: as to Proposition V that issued to the bishop of
Amalfi, 18 July 1699 (to Proposition III, Decret., book 49, page 252);
as to Proposition VI that issued to the bishop of Abruzzo, December 1784 (Decret.,
book 4, page 10)." Consequently the response of the Congregation,
according to the decrees it indicated, was: "To Proposition V, sustenance
is owed only as determined by the Council; to Proposition VI, negative."
In another case concerning St. Mark, the Congregation on 16 January 1723
replied to various questions. Question III: "Should the accustomed sum of
money, reckoned according to the practice of the place to be visited, be paid
for supplying provisions, and for providing three meals to the bishop and his
retinue, and for providing transportation, habitation and other
necessities?" Question IV: "Are food and other necessities to be
provided for the bishop and his retinue throughout the whole visitation?"
Replying to Question III, the Congregation stated: "It is the option of
those being visited to provide either sustenance or money, but if money is paid
the three meals are excluded; and as for transportation by horse, follow the
decree of 7 July 1708 in the case of St. Mark, preposition VI. Regarding
Question IV, the answer is provided in III." Likewise, in the case of
Policastro the same topic came up in question II: "Can the bishop demand
from the archpriest and clerics XV ducats in money in addition to food and
transportation on horseback for himself and his retinue?" The
Congregation's response on 1 June 1737 was "No."
31. It was also disputed whether the bishop and
his officials could demand for themselves some remuneration if in the course of
the visitation they examine wills and legacies on behalf of pious causes and
hand them over for execution. On this matter the Sacred Congregation of the Council
declared in the case of the bishop of
32. The same is to be observed when inspecting
records of pious legacies and their satisfaction and when requisitioning
accounts pertaining to the administration of churches, confraternities, pious
monetary institutions and similar places. The bishop and all his officials are
to carry out these tasks freely. This is clear from what has been said above
and from the responses of the Sacred Congregation of the Council. On 27 June
1637 the Council declared in the case of the bishop of
33. Since the declarations of the Sacred Congregation
are firmly based on the sacred canons, it is difficult to reconcile with the
decrees of the Council of Trent the following rather corrupt customs of bishops
and their officials: receiving during the visitation a remuneration for
inspecting certain wills or for reviewing the accounts required from
administrators of churches and pious places; receiving transportation on
horseback or at least their provisions for the entire time of the visitation;
or claiming as their own lamps or candles placed on the main and other altars
of the church. Being contrary to the sacred canons, these and similar practices
are to be completely eliminated.
34. Although the 18 March 1645 decree of the
Sacred Congregation of the Council in the case of Vicenza states that the
bishop and his officials may never receive anything for decrees and judgments
relative to the execution of wills and legacies, he may, nevertheless, during
the visitation receive the portion due him from pious legacies and offerings
and other things which come to the church on the occasion of a funeral. This is
customarily called the fourth canonical part, and its acceptance was allowed by
the same Congregation in responding to Question VIII in the case of the bishop
of Urgel on 25 January 1676 and 14 February 1693. The bishop has this right
from the sacred canons (chapter 14 officii, et
requisiti 5, de testamentis). That the Council of Trent wished this
right to remain in force is clear insofar as the Council severely prohibits
bishops from receiving anything for the visitation even from testaments for
pious uses "except that which is owed to them from pious bequests by
law" (session 24, chapter 3, de ref.). In exacting this portion or
canonical fourth, bishops must observe the correct limits as determined by the
same holy canons (chapter finali de testamentis), which state: "The
canonical portion....ought not be deducted from what is bestowed to churches or
other pious places for building, decoration, candles, anniversaries on the
seventh, twentieth, or thirtieth days, or for perpetuating divine worship.
Practically the same is found in cap. ex parte de
verb. signif. Moreover nothing is deducted from a
legacy providing a marriage dowry for girls, as the Sacred Congregation of
Bishops responded in the case of Nocera, on 14 September 1592. Nor is anything
taken from legacies for the celebration of Masses. The Sacred Congregation of
the Council on 13 January 1714 in the case of Nocera declared this to be so (quartae
canonicae, decret., book 64) even though from time
immemorial the same fourth was granted to bishops from all legacies.
35. As for convents of nuns or houses of pious
women who live apart from the world in the manner of nuns, the apostolic
constitutions and the Congregations both of Bishops and of Religious have
decreed, with the approval of the Supreme Pontiffs, that bishops, prelates,
vicar generals, special delegates, officials, as well as relatives and members
of their households may not demand or receive remuneration of any kind for the
following: admitting girls to the religious life; approving their dowries;
examining their motive for entering an institute of religious life; receiving
their profession; allowing girls to receive their education within a convent;
assisting at their renunciation of goods before they are admitted to
profession; presiding at the election of an abbess or other superior; granting
permission for doctors, surgeons and other professional men to enter the
convent; granting a person permission to address nuns or others living in the
cloister; delegating confessors, chaplains, financial officials, administrators
of temporal goods, and other ministers; and, in general, for any act necessary
for nuns to pursue their way of life.
36. An exception to this general rule is made
for the sustenance required by the bishop or prelate on the occasion of some of
these actions. And yet this may be provided only by way of recompense or
donation, and it is not to exceed an amount sufficient for three days. The
chancellor, however, may be recompensed for his labor in drawing up the
documents of renunciation and in depositing the dowry, but this should never
exceed ten julios.
37. In addition to the above, there are many
more acts that should be utterly free from any remuneration. These pertain
either to the exercise of spiritual power or to those episcopal functions for
which the bishop, although permitted to receive his sustenance, may neither
directly nor indirectly accept any remuneration under any pretext or title,
even that of a gift or a spontaneous offering. The same applies to their
vicars, officials, and household members. We shall specifically enumerate at
least the most important of these. Drawn from the sacred canons, apostolic
constitutions, and decrees of the sacred congregations, they are frequently
mentioned by eminent authorities and are rather commonly known.
38. For granting letters patent, as they are
called, or permission to preach in Lent and Advent and any other time and in
any place (Council of Trent, session 5, chapter 2, de reform.).
For granting permission to perform servile
works on feast days for a grave cause (Urban VIII in his constitution, Universa)
several decrees of the sacred congregations of the council and the bishops
(Ferrar. verba festa, numbers 31 ff.), although the money which is
received from using this permission is to be converted to pious uses.
For reviewing administrative accounts of
churches and pious places, and for the revision of these accounts whether done
by the bishop, some general delegate or a delegate specifically chosen by the
bishop, with the exception, however, indicated above.
For recognizing, approving, and promulgating
relics, indulgences, and privileged altars.
For granting permission to
seek alms or anything else, even if granted to those from outside the diocese.
For appointing church
custodians and sacristans.
For granting testimonial
letters of poverty or another state of life. The chancellor, however, may receive ten
obols.
For granting testimonial letters which state that
someone has not entered any order or received clerical tonsure. The chancellor
may be offered ten obols only.
For the act of renunciation
of the clerical state and its admission as well as for letters of attestation
as to its renunciation. For
these documents the chancellor can require ten obols.
For searching the episcopal
archives to find parochial books listing baptisms, confirmations, weddings, and
deaths. For each book the
chancellor can require only twenty obols. The same may be asked for a letter
attesting a particular record. It is, however, allowable to accept a larger
remuneration depending on the dignity of the person requesting or whether the
testimonial letters are to be used outside the diocese or kingdom.
It might happen, however, that the parochial
records are unclear regarding the matter for which testimony is sought, and
consequently it is necessary to obtain proof from witnesses. In this case the
chancellor may not only receive the prescribed assessment for examining
witnesses and for recording their testimony, but also another fifteen obols for
writing the testimonial letters. The vicar general may receive thirty obols for
the decrees ordering information to be sought and for ordering the letters
testifying as to the information he received and evaluated.
For granting permission to
relinquish churches or benefices (Council of Trent, session 23, chapter 1, de
ref.). Likewise for commendatory letters required by priests, clerics or
others moving to other dioceses.
For writing letters of warning of
excommunication in cases where hidden matters have been made public, whether
these letters are issued by the episcopal curia or by the ordinary of the
place, or whether they come from the Holy See. The chancellor may receive ten
obols for his labor in writing them. Likewise he alone will be given another
sum, reckoned according to the conscience of the bishop, for making copies of
these letters and for procuring the previous decree of the vicar.
For writing warnings, sentences, or declarations
of censures received for striking a cleric or any other cause; also for the
sentence of absolution and for the absolution itself from censures (chapter ad
aures de simonia). The chancellor may exact twenty obols as recompense for
their writing, provided that it is not a question of carrying out letters of
the Sacred Apostolic Penitentiary; in this case the chancellor may not be
recompensed. Twenty obols can also be paid to the chancellor for the list of
censures commonly called a schedule and for the list of those censures which
are customarily imposed. The same is observed when absolving from an oath but
in the following manner: if the absolution is granted in the ecclesiastic
curia, the chancellor may be paid twenty obols only for its attestation; when done
outside the curia, he may receive the same fee only for the letters of
delegation.
For granting permission to
exercise pontifical rights.
For executing apostolic letters that impart
blessings or absolutions, and for writing letters by which pastors or others
are granted the faculty contained in the same apostolic letters, the chancellor
may receive only thirty obols for both.
For executing apostolic letters or faculties
granted by a congregation pertaining to the purchase, sale, or exchange of
churches and pious places, or pertaining to a census, the chancellor may be
remunerated according to his labor, but this is not to exceed ten julios. If the Holy See has requested the bishop to inquire
into the truth of what is contained in the libellus of supplication, then the
chancellor may receive ten obols for each witness examined. He may also receive
something for drawing up edicts, for examining witnesses as to the usefulness
of any sale, and for anything else in this matter. The sum, granted in accord with
his labor, is to be determined by the conscientious judgment of the bishop.
For writing the decree of sale which by force
of chapter 12, terrulas, question 2, only takes place with the authority
of the ordinary.
39. Fines or monetary punishments, when imposed
in proportion to the crime or the nature of the wrongdoer, must be expended
only for pious purposes and the exactment of justice so that nothing can in any
way accrue for the private gain of the bishop, his vicar, or any other
official. So that all doubt or suspicion of improper use be removed, it may be
well or even necessary that the sentences themselves designate the pious uses
or the churches benefitting from aforementioned pecuniary punishments, although
those most in need and the domicile of the offenders should always be kept in
mind.
40. We must now add other things pertaining to
the forum of settling disputes, so that ecclesiastical discipline in these
matters too be restored to its pristine splendor and
dignity. Deliberations must be characterized by a more mature judgment, and We are to be fully informed of the customs existing in
dioceses. There is one thing, meanwhile, which We must
impress upon you, namely, that ecclesiastics who pass sentence in spiritual
matters should fulfill their task with such sanctity and piety that nothing
obscures the candor of ecclesiastical purity. Therefore your ecclesiastical
judges shall not demand or accept any remuneration, even for delivering
sentences in spiritual cases and in those especially which have to do with
religion, such as those against people suspected of heresy and found guilty of
superstition, or which concern espousal, matrimony, censures and other such
matters. In the words of Innocent III to the prelates and clerics of Lombardy
(chapter cum ab omni de vita et honestate clericorum), "Realizing
that there are revenues deputed for you and for other clerics so that you might
live properly, you should not reach out to base gain or look for evil rewards.
Your light should shine as an example to the laity and, unlike seculars, you
should not seize the occasion of the law for evil commerce. Just as you abstain
from these exactions in other respects and are eager to grant the force of the
law to litigants, even when they are deceitful, so the same is demanded from
those passing judgments, since not even judges are allowed to sell a just
judgment and even secular laws reject sentences that can be bought."
41. In keeping with Our
apostolic office and its obligations, We propose these things to you. If you
rightly carry them out, they will aid the splendor of ecclesiastical
discipline, the tranquility of your consciences, and the best guidance of your
flocks. We do not think that they will be burdensome and harmful to you,
although they will somewhat reduce your customary emoluments. Even the least
suspicion about you is absent in view of your exemplary piety, proven religious
sentiments, and your zeal for preserving ecclesiastical discipline whereby what
till now was gain for you will in the future be considered a loss for Christ.
You will place your true gain in this alone, that the worship of God be ever
increased, that the people committed to you be more easily and felicitously fed
by your word and example.
Moreover, those versed in the ecclesiastical
affairs of your island and especially those representing the king have informed
Us that your accustomed revenues, except for those few
which you are now forbidden to demand or receive, can provide for your
episcopal dignity and will suffice for the necessities of your churches. So
that you do not think that you have any support for these customs, even most
ancient, upon which you have relied till now, you must be mindful of what
Alexander III (chapter cum in ecclesis, de simonia) wrote as He
upbraided those who unduly clung to their customs, "Many think that they
may have permission since they believe that the law concerning the dead has
force by reason of its age. Blinded by cupidity, they are not sufficiently
aware that crimes are the more heinous the longer they shackle the
spirit." We declare and teach that these customs, even though most ancient
or supported by synodal constitutions and any other authority, even apostolic,
are to be considered as abuses and corruptions. That you will in no way be wanting
in zeal, diligence and industry on behalf of Our
concern for your churches, is Our certain and most firm hope. Meanwhile, as a
pledge of Our paternal love and benevolence for you,
We grant you the apostolic blessing.
Given in