Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 12.djvu/535

 PROPERTY

469

PROPERTY

the canonical rule, seek to get their own churches con- secrated upon such terms as to withdraw their endow- ment {'olem) from the bisho])'s power of disjiosilion. This ,ve disapprove in (lie i>asl and for I lie future forbid" (cf. Chalons in Mansi, X, 119). On the other hand many ordinances, for example that of the Council of Carpentras in 527 (Mansi, VIII, 707), make it quite clear that while the bishop's right was main- tained in theory, the practice prevailed of leaving the offerings of the faithful to the church in which they were made so long as they were there needed. The payment of tithes, which seems first to have been put forward as a contribution of general obligation by certain bishops and synods in the sixth century (see Selliorne, "Ancient facts and fiction", cap. xi), must have told in the same direction. It seems tolerably plain that this collection must always have been un- dertaken locally, and the threefold partition of tithes which is spoken of in the so-called "Capitulare epis- coporum" and which reappears in the "Egbertine Excerptions" takes no account of any bishop's share. The tithes are to be devoted first to the upkeep of the church, secondly to the relief of the poor and of pil- grims, and thirdly to the support of the clergy them- selves. Even if, according to the celebrated ordinance of Charlemagne in 778-9, the tithes which everyone was bound to give "were to be dispensed according to the bishop's commandment", local custom and tradition were everj'where placing checks upon any arbitrary apportionment. Usage varied considerably, but in almost all cases the resources so provided seem to have been expended parochially and not upon the general needs of the diocese.

It was in the ninth century particularly that not only in the matter of tithes but in the revenues of bishoprics and monasteries a general apportionment? began to be arrived at. Both bishop and abbot had now become great personages, maintaining a certain state which could not be kept up without considerable expenditure. The common expenses of the diocese and the monastery tended more and more to become the private property of the bishop and the abbot. Disputes naturally arose, and before long there came a division of these resources. The bishop shared the revenues with the chapter and separate establish- ments, or menses, were created. Similarly the abbot lived apart from his monks and in a large measure the two systems became mutually independent. Naturally in the case of cathedral chapters the proc- ess of division went further and although the chap- ters still held property in common and administered it through a steward, or "ceconomus", each of the canons in the course of time acquired a separate preb- end, the administration of which was left entirely in his hands. The same freedom was gradually con- ceded to parish-priests and other members of the clergy, once they had duly been put in possession of their benefices. To all intents and purposes it might be said that in the later Middle Ages the parish- priest, whether rector or vicar, had succeeded, so far as concerned the limits of his own jurisdiction, to the administrative duties formerly exercised by the bishop.

Still the old idea that all church property was "the patrimony of the poor" was not lost sight of. In theory always, and most commonly in practice, the rector collected the revenues of his benefice, his tithes and other dues and offerings in trust for the poor of the parish, reserving only what was necessary for his own reasonable support and for the main- tenance of the church and its ser\aees. In England there was a general and well-understood rule that the rector of the parish kept the chancel of the church in repair, while the parishioners were bound to see that the nave and the rest of the fabric was maintained in proper condition (see Bishop Quivil's "Exeter Decrees", cap. ix; Wilkins, "Concilia", II, 138).

The long-protracted process of division and adjust- ment which led up to the comparatively stable and well-defineil ownership of cluu'ch property in the later Middli- Ages was also, as might be expected, fertile in abuses. The imjiropriation of tithes by the monasteries set an example wliieh vmseru]5ulous and powerful laymen were not slow to follow, with more or less pretence of respecting t he forms of law. Great landowners assuming patronal rights over the monas- teries situated within their domains named them- selves or other secular persons to be abbots and seized the revenues which the abbot separately enjoyed, while the patrons, or advocati, of individual parish churches were continually attempting to make simoniacal compacts with those whom they proposed to present to such benefices. But there can be no doubt that from the eleventh century onwards the more centralized government of the Church, as well as the marked progress made in the study of canon law, did much to check these abuses even during the worst times of the Great Schism.

Acquisition. — Turning from early history to ques- tions of principle we find it laid down by the canonists that as regards the acquisition of property the Church stands on the same footing as any corporation or any private individual. There is nothing in the nature of things to prevent her from recei\'ing legacies or gifts either of movable or immovable goods, and she may also allow her possessions to grow by invest- ments, by occupation, by prescription, or by the emoluments resulting from any legitimate form of contract. Indeed if the civil power interferes sub- stantially with the freedom of collecting alms and receiving donations the rights of the Church are thereby invaded. The laws which were enacted in the latter part of the thirteenth century both in England and in France to check the passing of prop- erty into "mortmain" were for this reason always regarded as WTong in principle, though the loss oc- casioned to the feudal lord by the cessation of reliefs, escheats, wardships, marriages, etc., when the land was made over to ecclesiastical uses could not be denied. No doubt this legislation of the civil power was in practice acquiesced in while licenses to ac- quire land in mortmain were obtainable without great difficulty upon adequate compensation being made (this was known in France as the droit d' amortisation, see VioUet, "Institutions politiques", II, 398-413), but the restrictions thus imposed were never accepted in principle. Such papal pronouncements as the "Clericis laicos" of Boniface VIII claimed that the Church possessed the right to acquire property by the donations of the faithful independently of any interference on the pai-t of the State and that if compensation was made it should be done through the free action of the Holy See, in whom the dominion of all church goods ultimately rested, acting in willing response to any reasonable representations that might be addressed to it.

Later on and especially since the Reformation in countries where no state provision or endowment exists for the maintenance of the clergy, custom, generally endorsed by the enactments of provincial synods and the sanction of the Holy See, has intro- duced besides certain traditional jura, or rights, for spiritual services various exceptional methods of adding to the slender resources of the missions or stations: Such are for example bench-rents or charges for more advantageous seats, collections, charity sermons, and out-door collections made from house to house. At the same time the dangers of abuse in this direction are jealously watched. It is particularly insisted upon that there should be a suf- ficiency of free seats to allow the poor readily to dis- charge the obligation of attending Sunday Mass. The bishops are charged to see that bazaars and en- tertainments got up for church purposes are not an