|
Objection 1: It would seem that bishops sin mortally if they
distribute not to the poor the ecclesiastical goods which they acquire.
For Ambrose [Basil, Serm. lxiv, de Temp.] expounding Lk.
12:16, "The land of a certain . . . man brought forth plenty
of fruits," says: "Let no man claim as his own that which he has
taken and obtained by violence from the common property in excess of his
requirements"; and afterwards he adds: "It is not less criminal to
take from him who has, than, when you are able and have plenty to
refuse him who has not." Now it is a mortal sin to take another's
property by violence. Therefore bishops sin mortally if they give not
to the poor that which they have in excess.
Objection 2: Further, a gloss of Jerome on Is. 3:14, "The
spoil of the poor is in your house," says that "ecclesiastical goods
belong to the poor." Now whoever keeps for himself or gives to others
that which belongs to another, sins mortally and is bound to
restitution. Therefore if bishops keep for themselves, or give to
their relations or friends, their surplus of ecclesiastical goods, it
would seem that they are bound to restitution.
Objection 3: Further, much more may one take what is necessary for
oneself from the goods of the Church, than accumulate a surplus
therefrom. Yet Jerome says in a letter to Pope Damasus [Can.
Clericos, cause. i, qu. 2; Can. Quoniam; cause. xvi, qu.
1; Regul. Monach. iv, among the supposititious works of St.
Jerome]: "It is right that those clerics who receive no goods from
their parents and relations should be supported from the funds of the
Church. But those who have sufficient income from their parents and
their own possessions, if they take what belongs to the poor, they
commit and incur the guilt of sacrilege." Wherefore the Apostle says
(1 Tim. 5:16): "If any of the faithful have widows, let him
minister to them, and let not the Church be charged, that there may
be sufficient for them that are widows indeed." Much more therefore
do bishops sin mortally if they give not to the poor the surplus of
their ecclesiastical goods.
On the contrary, Many bishops do not give their surplus to the poor,
but would seem commendably to lay it out so as to increase the revenue
of the Church.
I answer that, The same is not to be said of their own goods which
bishops may possess, and of ecclesiastical goods. For they have real
dominion over their own goods; wherefore from the very nature of the
case they are not bound to give these things to others, and may either
keep them for themselves or bestow them on others at will.
Nevertheless they may sin in this disposal by inordinate affection,
which leads them either to accumulate more than they should, or not to
assist others, in accordance with the demands of charity; yet they are
not bound to restitution, because such things are entrusted to their
ownership.
On the other hand, they hold ecclesiastical goods as dispensers or
trustees. For Augustine says (Ep. clxxxv ad Bonif.): "If we
possess privately what is enough for us, other things belong not to us
but to the poor, and we have the dispensing of them; but we can claim
ownership of them only by wicked theft." Now dispensing requires good
faith, according to 1 Cor. 4:2, "Here now it is required among
the dispensers that a man be found faithful." Moreover ecclesiastical
goods are to be applied not only to the good of the poor, but also to
the divine worship and the needs of its ministers. Hence it is said
(XII, qu. ii, can. de reditibus): "Of the Church's
revenues or the offerings of the faithful only one part is to be
assigned to the bishop, two parts are to be used by the priest, under
pain of suspension, for the ecclesiastical fabric, and for the benefit
of the poor; the remaining part is to be divided among the clergy
according to their respective merits." Accordingly if the goods which
are assigned to the use of the bishop are distinct from those which are
appointed for the use of the poor, or the ministers, or for the
ecclesiastical worship, and if the bishop keeps back for himself part
of that which should be given to the poor, or to the ministers for
their use, or expended on the divine worship, without doubt he is an
unfaithful dispenser, sins mortally, and is bound to restitution.
But as regards those goods which are deputed to his private use, the
same apparently applies as to his own property, namely that he sins
through immoderate attachment thereto or use thereof, if he exceeds
moderation in what he keeps for himself, and fails to assist others
according to the demands of charity.
On the other hand, if no distinction is made in the aforesaid goods,
their distribution is entrusted to his good faith; and if he fail or
exceed in a slight degree, this may happen without prejudice to his
good faith, because in such matters a man cannot possibly decide
precisely what ought to be done. On the other hand, if the excess be
very great he cannot be ignorant of the fact; consequently he would
seem to be lacking in good faith, and is guilty of mortal sin. For it
is written (Mt. 24:48-51) that "if that evil servant shall
say in his heart: My lord is long a-coming," which shows contempt
of God's judgment, "and shall begin to strike his
fellow-servants," which is a sign of pride, "and shall eat and
drink with drunkards," which proceeds from lust, "the lord of that
servant shall come in a day that he hopeth not . . . and shall
separate him," namely from the fellowship of good men, "and appoint
his portion with hypocrites," namely in hell.
Reply to Objection 1: This saying of Ambrose refers to the
administration not only of ecclesiastical things but also of any goods
whatever from which a man is bound, as a duty of charity, to provide
for those who are in need. But it is not possible to state definitely
when this need is such as to impose an obligation under pain of mortal
sin, as is the case in other points of detail that have to be
considered in human acts: for the decision in such matters is left to
human prudence.
Reply to Objection 2: As stated above the goods of the Church have
to be employed not only for the use of the poor, but also for other
purposes. Hence if a bishop or cleric wish to deprive himself of that
which is assigned to his own use, and give it to his relations or
others, he sins not so long as he observes moderation, so, to wit,
that they cease to be in want without becoming the richer thereby.
Hence Ambrose says (De Offic. i, 30): "It is a commendable
liberality if you overlook not your kindred when you know them to be in
want; yet not so as to wish to make them rich with what you can give to
the poor."
Reply to Objection 3: The goods of churches should not all be given
to the poor, except in a case of necessity: for then, as Ambrose
says (De Offic. ii, 28), even the vessels consecrated to the
divine worship are to be sold for the ransom of prisoners, and other
needs of the poor. In such a case of necessity a cleric would sin if
he chose to maintain himself on the goods of the Church, always
supposing him to have a patrimony of his own on which to support
himself.
Reply to Objection 4: The goods of the churches should be employed
for the good of the poor. Consequently a man is to be commended if,
there being no present necessity for helping the poor, he spends the
surplus from the Church revenue, in buying property, or lays it by
for some future use connected with the Church or the needs of the
poor. But if there be a pressing need for helping the poor, to lay by
for the future is a superfluous and inordinate saving, and is forbidden
by our Lord Who said (Mt. 6:34): "Be . . . not
solicitous for the morrow."
|
|