Chapter 5

The wound in the left foot:
restrictions on free use by the Church of her own temporalities

129. It is clear from what has been said that the fall of pagan Rome, predicted by Scripture when speaking of "Babylon", was designed by Providence as more than an act of justice vindicating the blood of the martyrs and extirpating the final roots of idolatry; it also served to further the divine policy of the King of kings in his government of the human race. A new child of the Church of God-Incarnate was to take the place of the old, decrepit society. Sealed with a sacred, indelible mark on her forehead, she would be immortal like her mother, and together with her would move forward along the road of progress in the context of a hitherto unknown civilisation.

But the glory accruing to the divine element in the Church of Christ needed to be tempered and counter-balanced through the humiliation undergone by the human element in the Church in order that all the good achieved might be attributed to God and his Christ, not to mankind. Hence God in his wisdom permitted the barbarian conquerors providentially entrusted with the destruction of the Roman empire and unconsciously prompted to become disciples of Christ, to introduce the feudalism that finally extinguished the freedom of the Church and gave rise to all her afflictions. In the last analysis, increased wealth would not have been sufficient to debase the clergy to levels we have described, nor would temporal possessions have produced such consequences if they had remained independent. In fact, God has used temporal sovereignty to ensure the liberty of the apostolic see, enabling at least the head of the Church to escape universal bond-service, and thus be prepared to liberate the Church's members, the great work Rome still has to carry through.

130. There is no doubt that feudalism, if not the sole source of all the Church's ills, was by far the most important factor in their origin. It was a system dependent upon the pagan lordship of the barbarians, combined with bond-service and vassallage towards temporal rulers.

As lordship, it divided the clergy from the people (1st wound). It also split the clergy themselves into "upper" and "lower" classes, substituting for the ties between father and son the dissensions of ruler and subject. As a result, clerical education was neglected (2nd wound), and divisions emerged amongst the bishops who formed the upper clergy. Devotion to their own rights of lordship, and those of the rulers whose vassals they were, led to neglect of their brotherhood, separation from the people, and detachment from the body of the episcopate (3rd wound). As bond-service, feudalism made bishops, as feals and liegemen, personal subjects of the temporal lord. The Church and all it possessed was thus chained ignominiously to the chariot of lay power and dragged wherever temporal policy dictated. Exhausted, and effectively robbed of all the endowments she had received, the Church was incapable even of keeping and defending the nomination of her own pastors (4th wound).

I maintain that feudalism subjected the Church and all she had to these afflictions because barbarian rulers were accustomed to consider others within their territory as vassals, and instinctively looked upon the church from this point of view. Time-serving lawyers soon changed the fact of barbarian despotism into a theory of rights by claiming that "the principal involves the accessory." Because royal fiefs were the principal, the free possessions of the Church had to be considered on a par with them, and hence subject to feudal law. In this way feudalism absorbed everything, holding in bond the Church's persons and possessions.

131. I am not dealing here with the question of sovereignty, which concerns the see of Rome only, and has not occurred in other dioceses, at least for a long time. Sovereignty, as an expression of independent dominion, does not entail vassallage and its consequent restrictions on the free use of wealth, which corrupt and debase the clergy. Restrictions on temporalities are the miserable cause of the Church's incapacity in maintaining her ancient standards governing her possessions, in keeping her affairs in order, and in acquiring, administering and disposing goods according to her own spirit. This lack of suitable control over the administration and use of the Church's temporalities in accordance with traditional standards and the ecclesial spirit is the fifth wound that still afflicts and agonises her mystical body.

132. The few remaining traces of the feudal system are quickly vanishing as nations grow more civilised; the Church is no longer involved with feudalism. But the legal principles, customs and spirit of the system live on in government policy and modern codes of law affected by this disastrous heritage from the middle ages. I indicate the cause in order to examine its effects.

133. The early church was poor, but free. Persecution did not deprive her of freedom of government, nor did the violent appropriation of her possessions damage her true liberty. She was free of vassallage and enforced protection; she was no man's ward and paid no compulsory legal fees. But restrictions on the use of church temporalities were introduced by conditions which made it impossible for the Church to maintain her own traditional standards in the acquisition, administration and use of material benefits. As she gradually declined from these standards, which served to neutralise the corrupting and illusory aspects of temporalities, she was threatened by increasing danger. Let us see what these standards were.

134. The first requirement was that the acquisition of temporalities should depend upon spontaneous offerings. "Whatever house you enter, first say, 'Peace be to this house!'... And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the labourer deserves his wages" (1). The last words express the rule of the apostles, repeated more than once by St. Paul (2). Christ obliged the faithful to maintain those working for the gospel, and bestowed upon the latter the right to be maintained. But although Christ commanded maintenance, its obligation did not reduce the spontaneity of the offering which depended upon the deeper, free acceptance of his gospel, and willing incorporation into the body of the faithful. Human spontaneity ceases only when moral obligation is enforced with violence. Christ's one sanction was the words: "And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town" (3). Punishment for refusal to accept the obligation was left to divine justice, in the spirit of meekness proper to the divine lawgiver who promised nevertheless that justice would be done in good time (4).

The story of Ananias and Sapphira proves the same point: Peter said: "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your own disposal?" (5). In the same way, the collections ordered by St.Paul in the churches of Galatia and Corinth on behalf of the needy at Jerusalem were left to each believer's spirit of charity and discretion: "On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside, and store it up, as he may prosper" (6).

135. Moreover, the obligation Christ imposed on the faithful of maintaining the clergy did not extend beyond the strict needs of the preachers of the gospel who were told: "to remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they may provide," edentes et bibentes quae apud illos sunt. St. Paul used Christ's own expression when he wrote: "Do we not have the right to our food and drink?" (7). If it were left to the faithful to decide spontaneously what was necessary for the basic, obligatory maintenance of the clergy, offerings which exceeded the limits of this need would naturally depend even more upon the people's own initiative.

136. Tertullian is a witness that heartfelt spontaneity was still the rule at the end of the second and beginning of the third century. "Each one who can, puts aside some money monthly, or when he decides. No one is forced; all give spontaneously. These funds are the investments of piety" (8).
This rule reappears more or less clearly in the Church's finest centuries. She insisted that the faithful were not to be forced or fraudulently solicited to make offerings. At the end of the 9th century, the 3rd Council of Chalons issued decrees against these abuses in order to safeguard spontaneity of the gifts offered to the Church by the faithful (9).

137. Tithes, which God had assigned in the Old Testament to the Levites, were not confirmed by Christ under the new law. The reason, I think, is that the Author of grace did not want to add any extra burden to that required by the nature of things. Circumstances imposed only the maintenance of the clergy upon the faithful for whom they were working. There is no mention of any specific offering because needs would vary according to the number of workers. A predetermined amount would sometimes be excessive, sometimes insufficient. However, the Lord did not forbid tithes; he left them dependent upon the discretion of the faithful. As a result, the old rule was kept spontaneously in the first centuries, especially by christians coming from the synagogue (10). As late as the 6th century, Justinian forbade the forceful exaction of offerings and the use of ecclesiastical penalties for their non-observance. The decree seems to have been published at the insistence of bishops who wanted to preserve ancient customs (11).

The Church could and did command what had previously been custom. She first did this spasmodically during the 6th century (12), and later extended the precept universally when she found it fitting or necessary in order to ensure the maintenance of the clergy. Spontaneity only ceased when the offerings were enforced by sanctions imposed by the secular arm. This came about with the advent of feudalism in the 8th century (13).

138. Here we have to take into account a new species of rights introduced into the world by the gospel. We shall call them church rights. Previously, there had existed only rights in strict justice, and benefactions: the former were subject to coercion, the latter were totally free. But in reforming the world, the divine lawgiver inserted a third kind of moral action between the two already known.

An example of this lies in the right given by Christ to ministers of the sanctuary to live from the altar. The only sanction he imposed was the threat of heavenly punishment. Other examples are church laws whose only sanctions are canonical and spiritual penalties; the greatest punishment the Church can inflict is to cut off from the body of the faithful the disobedient and contumacious who are thus deprived of the benefits of church communion. This kind of punishment is altogether unknown and alien to temporal government: "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you" (14). We can easily imagine what occurred when church temporalities were no longer free possessions of the Church, but held under the dominion of temporal rule. Offerings were extracted by force, the only power of coercion available and understood by the secular arm which imagined that its work in this respect was a special benefit conferred on the Church: et qui potestatem habent super eos, benefici vocantur ["and those in authority over them are called benefactors"].

139. It was certainly just, and not at all contrary to the spirit of the gospel and the Church that possessions already obtained through spontaneous donations should be safeguarded, like all other kinds of ownership, by force exercised in the public good. Offerings made freely, once and for all, take on the nature of rights in strict justice. But the use of force is repugnant to the ancient rule when there is a question of impelling the faithful to make donations or offerings, as in the case of tithes, first fruits, and other obligations. Moreover, it cannot be maintained that the original spontaneity of offerings is forfeited because they have become customary. Asserting that a free donor is strictly speaking a debtor simply because he has continued to give over a long period is legal sophistry.

140. Coercion of previously spontaneous offerings, the first kind of enforced restriction imposed on the Church in her relationship to temporalities, lessens charity between faithful and clergy who were no longer bound by the love proper to benefactors and benefitted, or rather proper to mutual benefactors exchanging spiritual and temporal benefits: Si nos vobis spiritualia seminavimus, magnum est si nos carnalia vestra metamus? ["If we have sown spiritual good among you, is it too much if we reap your material benefits?"] (15). The easy, natural relationship between mutual benefactors is replaced by the cold, odious connection between debtor and creditor, which deprives the latter of the joy of giving and the former of gratitude in receiving. Moreover, the clergy, now sure of their maintenance, did not experience any fluctuation in offerings proportionate to their work.

141. A much more harmful restriction, however, was that which confused free and freely donated possessions belonging to the Church with feudal tenure, which tended to absorb every other type of holding. What belongs to the Church, it was asserted, belongs to the feudal lord served by persons in the Church. This kind of restriction on church temporalities is expressed clearly in the language of the period. Local churches were called mortmain, a harmful term, still in existence, indicating a category of serfs (16). This evil seed, after producing poisonous fruits in the clergy, finally brought forth our modern confiscations and the solemn decree of 2nd-4th November, 1789, in which the national assembly of France declared all church property to be at the disposition of the state. The revolution undertaken in the name of civilisation thus inherited the spoils of feudalism.

142. The second requirement protecting the Church from the corruption towards which temporalities could of themselves incline her was that goods should be possessed, administered and dispensed in common. Initially the faithful brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet. Distribution was made to each as any had need: prout cuique opus erat (17). We can only admire the love and union between the believers, and wonder at the common life amongst clergy and faithful. "The company of those who believed were of one heart and one soul, and no one said that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common" (18). The marvellous sight of this hitherto unknown brotherhood impelled Philo, although a Jew, to write a book in praise of what he beheld amongst christians in Alexandria. Saints throughout christian history have taken this brotherhood as the finest model of christian love. Chrysostom, for example, longed to introduce it amongst his people at Constantinople. It was the final perfection of what Livy tells us about Rome's outstanding centuries when, he says, private patrimonies were limited and public ownership extensive.

143. This requirement was preserved for a long time amongst the clergy. The bishops, as successors of the apostles, normally distributed each month what was necessary for the maintenance of the clergy who worked for the gospel in their dioceses. The funds came from church possessions; no one had anything of his own. When Constantine permitted wills to be made in favour of the Church in 32l, he laid down: "Everybody is entitled to leave the property he wishes to the holy and catholic council of the catholic Church" (19).

Later the Church expressly forbade to individual clerics the concession of goods alienated for the purpose from common possessions. The prohibition can be found in a rescript of the 5th century attributed to pope St. Gelasius which was also intended to ensure proper administration and conservation of church temporalities (20). Valentinian's law forbidding legacies in favour of individual members of the secular or regular clergy (21) was dictated by the same spirit in the Church. Holy men like Ambrose and Jerome did not object to this law, but they complained bitterly about churchmen who, to their shame, might have provoked it. "I do not regret the law, but I am sorry that we have merited it. Wounds have to be cauterised, but it is lamentable that we cause these wounds in ourselves. Let there be an heir by all means, but let it be the Church, the mother, nurse and guardian of the flock. Why should we stand between mother and children?" (22). St. Jerome wanted to protect the intrusion of individual monks and members of the clergy between the Church, as depository of pious offerings, and the children to whom she dispensed her wealth according to their need. Temporalities held in common and administered by the wise love of bishops after consultation with their clergy (23) were of great assistance in producing and safeguarding increased union amongst the clergy, and between the clergy and people.

144. When the gospel spread into the countryside, however, churches had to be established far from the cathedrals, and separate funds were necessarily assigned to them (24). This was first done by way of exception; monasteries, deserving churches and pilgrims were amongst the beneficiaries allowed the temporary usufruct of such funds, as pope Symmachus, ruling in the 6th century (25), makes clear. Hence the name "precary" (26). But possession, administration and use of church temporalities gradually lost contact with their original source in common ownership as individaul benefices made greater inroads into the common life of the clergy desired by the Church. Despite the frequent laws and canonical dispositions designed to restore it, the Church finally failed to safeguard the common life in its clergy. She was thwarted once more by the barbarous system of feudalism.

145. Feudalism involves vassallage, which alone is sufficient to make it repugnant to the freedom characteristic of the Church. But possessions of the feudatory acquire in addition a special kind of restriction resulting from the personal vassallage of the subject enjoying their usufruct. This is another reason why feudalism is intrinsically opposed to ecclesiastical office and the spirit of the Church, the personal existence of whose ministers vanishes in the divine constitution Christ left to his Church.

Her ministers no longer represent themselves, but the Church; the whole body of the Church acts through them in all they do by virtue of the power proper to the head. Like a foot or arm in the human body, the various organs reflect no individual personality. A perfect mystical unity is the foundation of this wonderful constitution. The members of the human body wishing to assert themselves individually would ruin the beauty and proportions of the body, either making it a monster or destroying it altogether; and the same must be said of the the Church. Yet this is precisely what the feudal system set out to do. Each vassal can only stand for himself, for the person he serves, and for what belongs to that person.

Moreover, vassallage and service, granted to temporal rulers, fulfilled essentially temporal and secular functions. As long as riches were unfettered, they could be used for spiritual purposes, and wealth in the Church's free possession was so used. It was administered and dispensed in a spirit of love to maintain the Church's ministers and support divine worship. The outstretched hands of the poor, of widows, lepers, slaves, pilgrims and the destitute became vaults where the Church could deposit her treasures without fear of theft.

The mother of the faithful could accomplish all this without abandoning her ecclesial ministry; she did indeed minister to her children with motherly love and christian mercy (27). The vassal, the bond-servant who has to think of serving his master, and administer what he possesses in such service, has another aim, quite different from that of the Church. He is no longer bonus miles Jesu Christi ["a good soldier of Jesus Christ"]; he is entangled with the affairs of this life, despite the apostle's command (28). He is an isolated individual, a man like everyone else, a courtier sharing the luxury of court life, perhaps the leader of an armed troop. As he becomes lord or baron on his own behalf and that of his ruler, the Church ceases to be visible in him; he is no longer bishop and leader of his church, and of the people once united with him.

146. This tremendous, unnatural transformation of churchmen impressed the minds of medieval bishops with the idea of their own individuality, and weakened the notion of unity in the episcopal and clerical body. It loosened the ties that gave the whole body of the Church its capacity for every kind of good, and obscured the splendour it had possessed in its finest hours; it broke up dioceses according to state and feudal boundaries; and finally it split up and lessened church temporalities which both as effect and cause symbolised either the moral unity or disgregation of those administering them. Eventually, almost all church property came to be administered and enjoyed by individual clerics. Hence the philosophical meaning of "benefices", rooted in the word itself; benefice is a technical word in feudal vocabulary indicating in the first instance the lands granted in usufruct by a ruler to his courtiers and messmates in recompense for services rendered.

147. We need to realise that when an idea or a form impresses itself on human intelligence and imagination, it becomes the norm or model of all other thoughts and ways of acting capable of absorbing it. Notions unable to assimilate it become subordinate and accessory to it, like dependents crowded around their master. In the Church's early history, unity was the dominant idea in christian minds. As a result, everything the faithful and clergy said and did in church dispositions, in their reciprocal care of one another, and in the administration of possessions was illumined and governed by the unity of Christ. Feudalism, on the other hand, was founded on the totally different idea of division, which springs from the notion of lordship or dominion. This system governing the temporal order impressed its fundamental form of lordship deeply in the minds of ecclesiastics with disastrous consequences for the Church.

148. Force, violence, personal valour and lordship constituted the norm for the barbarians who conquered Europe. Little by little the Church imbued their uncouth minds with its own contrary idea. Naturally, the opposed notions struggled for mastery, and the conflict took on an aspect common to every engagement between two societies dominated by contrasting ideas. On the one hand, they fight quite openly, each side using its own weapons; on the other, they attempt some kind of conciliation and fusion. Each idea becomes partly subject to the other, although they preserve their mutual incompatibility.

In our case, barbarian governments, while oppressing the Church, tried to subject and remodel it completely in accordance with their idea of mutual, individual lordship sustained by force. Almost unwittingly, however, they absorbed intimately the contrary idea of service, morality, unity and spirituality proper to the Church. Hence the contradictory features of actions which expressed immense piety and generosity towards the Church, and extremely injurious despotism and irreverence. The type of action depended upon subjection to their own original outlook, or to that acquired from the Church's teaching.

The same occurred with the clergy. They taught ferocious barbarians the meekness of the gospel, opening their minds to the ecclesial idea of unifying charity. At the same time, they themselves suffered in the great conflict by absorbing the opposite idea. The result was an extraordinary mixture from within clerical ranks of holy, heroic efforts to maintain the unity of Christ, combined with sacrilegious disorders, degrading abasement and individualistic tendencies destroying the unity of the christian, ecclesial community. Conflict between the two ideas, and contradictory actions in both temporal and ecclesiastical orders, is characteristic of the middle ages, and is alone sufficient to explain all the occurrences of the period, but especially the strife between empire and Church. The Church and its dominant idea can never perish because Christ's word lives on, although heaven and earth may pass away. Whenever the idea of violent, temporal domination and disunion - so contrary to the idea proper to the Church - prevails and compromises the very existence of the clergy, the Church rises like an awakening giant, repels the invader and renews in herself and in her ministers the idea on which her life depends (29).

149. All this helps to explain the vicissitudes suffered by church temporalities. Medieval lords, acting in accordance with their idea of individuality and lordship, not only looked upon the Church's unfettered possessions as fiefs, but appropriated them, disposed of them as though they were their own, bestowed them on lay people, and alienated them. Usurpations of this kind provided ample fuel for conflict between rulers and the Church which fought the abuses with conciliar enactments, papal decrees and canonical penalties.

Bishops loyal to the rulers absorbed the idea of individuality along with their fiefs. It led them to dispose of church properties as their own possessions. Unmindful of common ownership, prelates alienated church temporalities which they enfeoffed, exchanged, bestowed on laymen, and spent on high living and making war. The Church replied with innumerable canons and decrees whose effect was to tie the Church still closer to the alienation, administration and disposal of church property. Simultaneously, the lower clergy were divided from the bishops, and had to be protected assiduously by the Church against the despotism and cruelty of their pastors. One consequence was the frequent dissension between chapters and bishops, which often lives on today; another was the irremovability of parish priests, which deprives bishops of the power to remedy promptly the scandals and spiritual afflictions imposed on the people.

150. But the Church's divine Founder did not want the principle of communion in church temporalities to perish, either relative to their possession or to their administration and use. Monasticism and religious life, which make express, public profession of this saving principle, rose and flourished at this time. The faithful, guided by christian instinct that never fails them, became more inclined to bestow their offerings and donations on the regular clergy who upheld the ancient requirement, than upon the secular clegy. When the 3rd Lateran Council (1179) decreed the restitution of tithes enfeoffed on laypeople, the latter restored them for the most part to the monasteries rather than to the churches owning them. This was later permitted by the popes, provided the local bishop gave his consent (30).

151. A third, precious requirement in ancient days was that "the clergy should use church temporalities only for the strict needs of their maintenance; the remainder to be applied to pious works, especially in alms for the poor." Christ founded the apostolate on poverty, and on abandonment to Providence which would have moved the faithful to support those evangelising them. He himself was the perfect examplar: "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head" (31), and he made his own way of life the condition for those wanting to follow him. Peter had abandoned even his humble nets in order to follow his naked Master. Although the apostolic college had its own fund supported by the offerings of the faithful, the money was held in common as an example for later Church practice. When the paralytic asked him for alms, Peter could reply: Argentum et aurum non est mihi ["I have no silver and gold"] (32). Needs were satisfied by the apostles' right to live in the homes of the welcoming faithful who thus received more than they gave. St. Paul instructed his disciple, Timothy, in the same way of life: "There is great gain in godliness with contentment; for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world; but if we have food and clothing, with these we shall be content" (33).

Hence in the finest period of the Church, entering the ranks of the clergy was equivalent to a profession of evangelical poverty (34). The phrase "secular clergy" had not been invented, and appeared only in times of ecclesiastical decadence when the clergy seemed to have sided with the world. The profession of poverty was for long the glory of the priestly ministry; the majority of men called to the priesthood abandoned their possessions or gave them away to the poor. As Isidore of Pelusium said: tum voluntaria paupertate gloriabuntur ["they will glory in voluntary poverty"] (35).

The administration and distribution of the Church's wealth could thus be entrusted to sincerely disinterested persons acting as trustees for the poor. Julian Pomerius, after speaking of the voluntary poverty of bishops Paulinus of Nola and Hilary of Arles, who abandoned great wealth to become poor men of Chirst, adds: "It is easy to understand, therefore, that holy men like this (who had renounced everything to become followers of Christ) were perfectly aware that the Church's possessions are made up simply of the devotion of the faithful, of satisfaction for sins, and of what belongs to the poor. They never used this wealth for their own benefit as though it belonged to them, but accepted it in trust for the poor. The Church holds its possessions in common with those who have nothing, and cannot therefore share them with people who already have enough of their own. Benefiting the well-off means throwing away what is distributed" (36).

The clergy, as poor men themselves, took their maintenance from the common purse proper to the needy. The bishop, as first amongst the poor and the one responsible for the distribution, could rightly take something for himself (37) and the lower clergy. This rule was so deeply rooted in people's hearts that it was not judged fitting for a priest to live off the Church if he had his own patrimony. Because he did not belong to the poor, he had no right to depend upon the Church, nor take from the needy what was theirs. This was correct, and reaffirmed by Julian: "Those with their own money, who still want a share in the distribution, sin gravely when they accept what belongs to the poor. The Holy Spirit is surely speaking about the clergy when he says: 'They feed on the sin of my people.' The poor, who have nothing, receive the nourishment they need, not sins; the rich do not receive nourishment - they have that already - but take upon themselves the sins of others. The same applies to poor people who can work to support themselves; they should not presume to take what belongs to the weak and sick.

The Church should not have to disburse assistance to those not in need, lest she should be unable to help the indigent. And those who serve the Church are altogether too worldly if they imagine they should receive earthly wages (38) rather than eternal rewards... If a minister of the Church has not enough to live on, the Church gives him what is necessary but nothing over and above, so that he may not lose the reward which he can now look forward to with certainty, as the Lord himself has promised. As for those who ask for nothing, but nevertheless live off the Church without any real need - well, it is not for me to say what kind of sin they commit by depriving the poor of their food. People like this should assist the Church with what they have, not burden her with what they waste as if they had the right to live in the community without intending to feed the poor, help our guests, or use their own money for our daily needs" (39).

152. Prior to the middle ages abuses against this noble requirement were the result of human weakness; they were not characteristic of clerical life which, in fact, repudiated them. But the standard could not be maintained, generally speaking, when the Church's possessions, having lost their original nature, fell under the feudal system, and the principal churchmen themselves became feudatories. From that moment, the disbursement of goods was governed by another law; instead of flowing down to the poor, they either remained stationary or finished in the rapacious hands of the local lord. The idea of "trust", the first concept characterising the possession of church temporalities, perished or at least lost its force for many; absolute ownership prevailed, and sacred trust was violated.

153. The division of common holdings into benefices assigned to individual clerics also prevented episcopal distribution of subsidies to the clergy in proportion to their labours and deserts. A human stimulus to the fulfilment of their sacred duties was thus lost to the clergy, who became financially independent of their bishops.(40)
Another serious disadvantage was the decline of the splendid example of public, ministerial maintenance of the poor on the part of the Church, which inevitably led also to neglect of spiritual instruction for the needy. The constant care taken by the Church for the poor, whom it considered its very own, had enabled its material assistance to be viewed as spiritual instruction, so that the needy had a twofold stimulus for gratitude towards her maternal care. She merited and received love and reverence as mother of body and soul.

But with the withdrawal of the clergy from this work, the daily practice of charity was, as it were, secularised. Separate institutions were established for various works of charity which gradually came under the control of lay people. In the designs of Providence the great advantage here was the immense increase of zeal amongst christians in the exercise of works of charity; on the other hand, works of charity, having been cut off from the spiritual wisdom proper to the Church, now became exercises in philanthropy without reference to God and the salvation of souls. The seed was sown for modern social assistance, and only when the clergy renews its generosity and largeheartedness will the characteristics of divine love be restored.

As we look forward to that time (which perhaps is not so distant), let us hope that there will no longer be a wall of division between laypeople and clergy. Such separation leads to lack of spiritual understanding amongst the laity who thus tend to materialism with all its sterile consequences. But lay co-operation is of the highest practical value when the barriers of division have been abolished, and the two parties have become one body in Christ, just as head and members form one human body.

As we were saying, however, the distribution of benefices impeded the spontaneous flow of ecclesial wealth into the hands of the poor. The obligation of almsgiving was parcelled out amongst the beneficiaries without supervision or wise control on the part of the bishops. From that moment, the poor ceased to be a sacred charge consigned to the care of the churches.

154. The fourth requirement governing church temporalities and safeguarding the integrity of the clergy was that "ecclesiastical wealth used for pious, charitable purposes, should also be assigned to fixed, determined works to prevent arbitrariness and self-interest from interfering in disbursement of finances." As church riches grew and abuses increased, the Church intervened, although defects in administration were spasmodic and contained. Church resources were allotted to definite purposes according to a fourfold division: for the support of the bishop, the lower clergy, the poor, and the upkeep of church buildings and cult. The Councils of Agde, 506, and Orleans, 511, decreed this division on the basis of older canons. Gregory the Great recalls it in many of his letters (41). It is certain that the best remedy against the corruption accompanying riches was the establishment of laws regulating the precise uses to which they could be applied (42). Abuse is inevitable if the employment of great wealth is left to the arbitrary decision of the person to whom it is entrusted. The corruption and ruin of many monasteries has almost certainly to be attributed to the lack of a law definite enough to determine the principal uses of the great riches possessed by religious houses. As a result, abbots and other superiors controlling finances spent the income as they pleased.

155. But feudalism amongst ecclesiastics made this requirement impossible. Feudalism can be reduced in principle to an armed aristocracy whose interests, along with the interests of the local lords, demands the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the great families, that is, in very restricted circles. Worldly power depended upon this concentration of wealth, and consequently opposed its equitable distribution in brotherly love. Benefices were thus a necessary institution to assure the maintenance of the weakest elements in the clergy, who would have starved to death without some safeguard against the rapacity of the great lords, bishops included. Bishops no longer formed part of the people as in ancient days when episcopal ordination entailed the profession of poverty (however noble one's origins) and acceptance of a place amongst the poor; they were now members of a ruthless, dominant aristocracy. Henceforth, abuse became law. The Church's canons were either evaded by endless sophistry (43) or openly and violently broken. The fourfold division of church wealth, and the application of income for fixed purposes, became intolerable. The ancient rule sank without trace, along with its guiding spirit.

156. The fifth requirement safeguarding the Church from the danger of riches in the centuries before feudalism was "a generous spirit, prompt to give, slow to receive." The great rule fixed in human hearts was Christ's noble, astounding word: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (44). This was the good news the Church brought to a world enslaved by selfishness; it was a light shining in all that the Church did and undertook. Bishops considered temporalities and their administration a burden, to be borne only from motives of charity (45). Laws making difficult the alienation of donated property were not yet in force; offerings were accepted reluctantly, and distributed freely. St. Ambrose refused donations and legacies if he knew that poor relatives of the donors would suffer as a result : non quaerit donum Deus de fame parentum... misericordia a domestico progredi debet pietatis officio (46) ["God does not look for offerings that leave relatives hungry... mercy must begin at home"]. The Church could do this because its spirit was unfettered, especially by the so-called protection exercised by secular rulers.

One effect of the restrictions forced upon the Church by this system was her inability to act with the splendid generosity so often shown by early bishops. I have already mentioned the ideas of St. Augustine in this respect. In a sermon preached to the people, the bishop of Hippo had to defend himself against the accusation that "bishop Augustune gives with total generosity, but takes nothing." What a glorious accusation! (47). As a result, so the complaint ran, the church of Hippo received no benefactions and no legacies. Possidius, in his life of Augustine, tells how the bishop restored property donated to the church by one of the wealthy townsmen who, despite having no further legal claim to the land, asked for it back on behalf of his son. Augustine returned it, and refusing a large sum which the man sent for the poor, reminded him that he was doing wrong.

Possidius also mentions Augustine's reaction to the envy of one of the lower clergy because of episcopal control of church finances (48). The bishop who, like all bishops of his time, spoke about everything to the people of God, referred to this in a sermon. He said that he would gladly have lived on collections from God's people rather than be burdened with responsibility for finances, which he was ready to cede to the people so that all God's servants and ministers might live by sharing at the altar as did the priests of the Old Testament. But the laypeople refused his offer absolutely (49).

157. St. John Chrysostom explained in a sermon to his people why the Church accepted fixed, regular donations rather than live, as it had done previously, on occasional collections from the faithful. The clergy were forced to do this not for themselves, but for the sake of the destitute affected by the lessening of charity amongst the faithful. "Your tightfistedness has brought the Church to this state. If things were done according to the laws reaching back to apostolic times, the Church's income would flow without fail and without fear of diminution from your good will. But you are all seeking treasure on earth now, and locking up your wealth in vaults, while the Church has to spend money on widows, virgins, travellers, captives, the handicapped and mutilated, and other needy persons. So how can the Church act otherwise?" (50).

158. The change which took place in the Church during the period of barbarism can only be deplored. The clergy, noted previously for their uprightness, generosity and charity in their best representatives, fell from their own high standards, and began to merit the accusations made against those "those whose avarice makes felt its power." We must examine the two causes contributing to this decline: the influence of the barbarian rulers, and the way in which the Church was forced to defend herself in its endeavour to avoid a greater evil.

159. As we have seen, feudalism altered the nature of church temporalities, leaving them open to frequent alienation through concessions made to laypeople by rulers and by feudal bishops themselves. The Church had to legislate against these abuses, and as a result her laws tended in exactly the opposite direction to that of the fifth ancient requirement we are examining. From now on her decrees sought "to facilitate maximum acquisition and preservation of temporalities, and impede all possible alienation of goods." Legislators usually react to the worst aspect of abuse, and often exaggerate in their attempts to enforce the right. They also tend to overlook the possible effects of new legislation in cases of extreme outrage, as ours was; they fail to note how diminished freedom of action impedes other benefits, and as a result they prevent the best use of a situation as they block abuses. Finally, it is also possible that legislation legitimately directed against abuse may live on after the abuse has been eradicated. In this case, human nature is continually restrained and fettered by laws which have lost their justification.

In particular, it certainly was a great evil to deprive church temporalities fraudulently of their original purpose by putting them to profane use as rewards for worldly services, or as sinecures. This was definitely not the intention of their pious benefactors. But it was also an immense good for bishops, with the advice of their clergy, to be able to renounce, when opportune, gifts and legacies offered to the Church, to sell and disburse possessions to the needy without too many difficulties and formalities. In this way the Church was able to help mankind in all its afflictions. The Church is rich enough if her treasure is love, and her administration beneficence; the Church is happy enough if she can repeat St. Ambrose's dictum: "Aurum Ecclesia habet, non ut servet, sed ut eroget, et subveniat in necessitatibus" [The Church's wealth is not to be hoarded, but used to alleviate necessity] (51).

It is truly painful, and damaging to the true interests of the Church, as well as scandalous, if public opinion is generally convinced that the Church's hands are always extended to receive, but never to give. It is sad to find people thinking that what the Church puts into her treasury never leaves it; the result is contempt, envy, the elimination of generosity amongst the faithful, and the suspicion that the Church's wealth goes on accumulating over the centuries irrespective of the needs of the poor, of commerce and of a nation's self-defence. Governments are presented with an excuse for intervening in the disposition of church temporalities, and use the opportunity to impose shameful laws of amortization; the people grow more and more disenamoured of the clergy and the Church; unbelief spreads; those who hate the Church curse and malign her; and finally the ruling faction, or the mob incited by subversive elements, uses violence to break open the locked vaults and plunder the treasure of the sanctuary. As far as I am concerned, it would be preferable by far if the Church of God avoided all these evils rather than abound in temporalities. In these circumstances it would be better if she took no steps to prevent even deliberate alienation of part of her wealth.

160. Ecclesiastical admonitions, canons and punishments gradually domesticated the barbarian conquerors and prevented their use of church temporalities in their own interests. But secular authority not only damaged the Church through violence and expropriations; the effect of its generosity towards the Church, and of the laws dictated in a worldly and profane spirit for the safety and protection of her possessions, was far worse. Civil government has no feeling for what concerns the Church; every time it interferes in ecclesial matters, it chills and deadens her spirit.

Charlemagne and Otto I benefited the Church. Nevertheless, the unfortunate donation of fiefs (dependent not only on devotion to the Church but also on a policy which desired simultaneously to diminish the power of the nobility and to subject that of the bishops) proved to be a hook on which the clergy were caught. From that moment, the secular power interfered unceasingly in church affairs; temporal favours and endearments from rulers destroyed the freedom which is the air on which the Church lives.

Temporal power can assist the Church only by brute force, the sole means naturally available to it. But force by its nature is diametrically opposed to the spirit of the Church. What kind of impression is made by a Church whose weapons are chains, batons and the sword? This horrible monstrosity is repugnant to good and bad alike. Yet temporal rule knows no other way of offering protection, which it imposes without limit; it commands, and extends its command as far as possible. Although incapable of understanding the Church's true good, it claims to be her judge and imagines that it can benefit her on its own level. It administers her goods as though they were its own, without realising how different they are; it wants to accumulate all it can, and spend as little as possible; if necessary, it enriches the Church with privileges and immunities, granting her special, exaggerated and sometimes unjust protection contrary to civil equity and detested by those who cannot share such rights (52). The requirement demanding generous giving and hesitant acceptance of wealth, although part of the nature of the Church, becomes impossible to practise when her possessions are no longer in her free use, but subject to lay power.

161. There was yet another special requirement ruling the Church's activity in early days, and demonstrating her extraordinary character. The sixth requirement impelled her "to want the administration of her possessions to be made public."

We have seen that in early times bishops explained everything, including their use of temporal benefits, to their people and clergy. Moreover, the priests and deacons involved in ecclesiastical administration had to have the approval of the christian people, according to apostolic tradition (53). They had to be known and trusted. St. Paul, for example, suggests with great delicacy that the christians at Corinth choose their own representatives to take their alms to the needy brethren at Jerusalem: "On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that contributions need not be made when I come. And when I arrive, I will send those whom you accredit by your letter to carry your gift to Jerusalem. If it seems advisable that I should go also, they will accompany me" (54).

He was bishop and apostle; all authority was in his hands. Nevertheless, he left the choice of envoys to his people: omnia mihi licent, sed non omnia expediunt ["all things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful"] (55). The Corinthians could not have doubted St. Paul's trustworthiness, but this was not sufficient. When there is a question of temporal interests, the apostle wishes to be as free as possible. He reserves the use of his apostolic authority for cases where it is necesary; the rest he leaves to the people, who are glad to undertake their responsibility. There is a good, natural satisfaction in using one's own judgment and interest in carrying out what can be seen as necessaary. St. John Chrysostom was not afraid to give an account of his administration of church income; "And we are ready to inform you of our administration" (56). The same spirit and practice animated the other bishops of old.

162. The proper use of the Church's possessions is not sufficient, nor is it enough that rulers should be informed of what is done with them. The people who make the offering should also be aware of what is carried out. It would be an incredible help to the Church in the first place if all her possessions, especially those belonging to religious orders, were tied by her own wise laws to uses determined in the greatest possible detail. Each good work should be assigned a suitable sum, neither too great nor too small, and a clear, annual statement of income and expenditure for these works should be published, enabling God's faithful to approve or disapprove of the administration. Governments would be informed in the same way, and this ought to be sufficient. On no account is it fitting or expedient that justice and charity, according to which the Church administers her temporalilties, should be hidden under a bushel. On the contrary, it is highly desirable that it should be put on a stand to give light to all. The faithful would respond favourably; instruction and example would be available to the whole world; and only then in the light of public opinion, would human weakness amongst the Church's ministers be capable of resisting inevitable temptation. When human beings cannot conceal their sins, they do not sin - or at least they do not go on sinning for long. An obligation to present the faithful, and the general public, with an account of their administration would provide the stimulus necessary for awakening many drowsy consciences, and ensure that church offices were in the hands of honest, sincere, devout persons.

163. Finally, I would like to indicate briefly a seventh and last requirement, that is: "the Church should administer her temporalities watchfully and carefully." The Church has always insisted on this from those entrusted with her administration; her possessions belong to God and the poor, and any loss through negligence or inertia on the part of administrators would amount to sacrilege. It was disregard of this important requirement which gave governments greater opportunity for taking over churh administration and perpetuating the restrictions imposed on the Church and her temporalities.

164. It is true that the Church, persecuted and oppressed, has always been at odds with temporal authority, whether friendly or otherwise. She has also had the much greater burden of providing for the good of souls. There has never been sufficient time available for her to obtain perfect method in administration, nor a completely secure organic economy. If we consider what the Church has received during the centuries of her existence, and how much has been lost through lack of serious, careful administration, we can only imagine where the Church would be now if her temporalities had always been wisely administered. But the limited energy of the human spirit is never enough for two simultaneous undertakings, despite their mutuual connection. The spiritual aims of the Church necessarily absorbed almost all her attention, and very little practical application could be devoted to the care of her temporalities until the more important part of her legislative discipline (directly concerned with the salvation of souls) could be finalised. Moreover, only experience could show the immense damage inflicted on the spiritual element in the Church by neglect of her material affairs.

Christ's example is sufficient to persuade me that at the beginning it is impossible, and not even fitting, to pay much attention to temporalities. I think he made do with an unfaithful administrator even amongst the apostles to show us that the rule of the spirit was to be the one object which did not permit of distraction, even at the risk of material failure. Let me conclude by pointing out that Pascal II's generous proposal of renouncing all fiefs is sufficient evidence for what I say. The great man had laid the axe to the root of the evil tree, but his own time was too soft to sustain such a remedy.

165. This book, begun in 1832 and completed a year later, lay forgotten for some years. The time did not seem ripe for publishing what had been written only as a release for my own sorrow at the sight of the afflictions endured by the church of God. But now (1846) that the invisible head of the Church has chosen as pope a person [Pius IX] who seems destined to renew our age and give the Church the impetus necessary for a new, glorious stage of unimaginable development, I have remembered these pages and willingly entrust them to friends who have shared my sorrow, and now look forward with me in hope.

Notes

(1) Luke 10. 5, 7

(2) 1 Cor 9. 4, 15; 1 Tim 5. 17-18

(3) Matt 10. 14

(4) Matt 10. 15

(5) Acts 5. 1-11

(6) 1 Cor 16. 2

(7) 1 Cor 9. 4

(8) Modicam unusquisque stipem mentrua die, vel cum velit, et si modo possit, apponit; nam nemo compellitur, sed sponte confert. Haec quasi deposita pietatis sunt (Apol., c. 39) [PL 1, 533].

(9) Thomassin, p. 3, lib. 1, c. 23, par. 2 [Thomassin L., Vetus et Nova Ecclesiae Disciplina, Lucae 1728]

(10) Irenaeus, lib. 4, c. 34 [PG 7, 1025]. Origenes, Hom. in Num. [PG 12, 640-655]. Where St. Cyprian says: At nunc de patrimonio nec decimas damus (De Unitate Ecclesiae, c. 5) [PL 4, 535], Liber de Unitate Ecclesiae], he seems to be reproving the less fervent who did not pay tithes.

(11) Lib. 39, Cod. de Episcop. et Cleric. [Thomassin, op. cit. p. 3, lib. 1, c. 7, par. 12].

(12) E.g., at the end of the 2nd Council of Macon, 585 [SC 6, 673-680].

(13) In Capitul. An. 779, 794, 801 [cf MHG, Legum sectio II, Capitularia Regum Francorum].

(14) Matt 20. 25-26; Luke 22. 25-26

(15) 1 Cor 9. 11

(16) "Husbandland was not the property of serfs who as a result were called mortmain because they had no right of ownership" (Cibarario, Dell'Economia del medio Evo, lib. 33, c. 3) [Turin 1839].

(17) Acts 4. 35

(18) Acts 4. 32

(19) Cod. de sacros. Ecclesiis, lib. 1.

(20) Gratianus, Caus. XII, q. 2, c. 23: nec cuiquam clerico propotione sua aliquid solum Ecclesiae putetis deputandum, ne per incuriam et negligentiam minuatur: sed omnis pensionis summam ex omnibus praediis rusticis urbanisque collectam ad antistitem deferatis.

(21) L. Valentiniani 20. De Episcopis et Clericis, lib. 14. Cod. Theod. Tit. 2, ad Damasum R.P.

(22) Ep. ad Nepotianum [PL 22, 532-3]. St. Ambrose also mentions this law of Valentinian: Quod ego non ut quaerar, sed ut sciant quid non quaerar, comprehendi, malo enim nos pecunia minore esse, quam gratia. A little later he adds: "The Church's possessions are at the disposition of the poor. How many captives has the Church ransomed, how much food has she distributed to the hungry, and how much help to refugees?" [PL 16, 1018].

(23) Berardi [Gratiani Canones genuini... t. 1. p. 2, p. 423, Turin 1754] states: Etenim ea aetate quotiescumque negotium ecclesiasticum peragendum erat, episcopus cleri consilium convocato synodo, expetebat.

(24) Postea vero primum factum, ut presbyteris ruralibus, quod parochos adpellabant, bonorum administrationem concederent, eorumdemque exemplo presbyteris illis, qui in civitatibus titulos, sive ecclesias regere dicebantur. Id etiam totum constat ex concilio Aguthensi, cui praefuit idem Caesarius anno 506, praesertim vero can. 32, et 33 [Berardi, op. cit., p. 464].

(25) Gratianus, op. cit., caus. XVI, q. 1, c. 61.

(26) A modern author notes that in the beginning, enjoyment of goods was not granted to individuals where a group of priests was lacking: car dans celle-ci la vie comune maintint encore quelque temps l'ancien átat de choses (Walter, Manuel de Droit Ecclësiastique, par. 204) [traduit de l'Allemand, p. 323, Paris 1840].

(27) The same idea is expressed by Julius Pomerius (5th century). Nunc autem quod christiani temporis sacerdotes magis sustinent quam curant possessiones Eccleiae, etiam in hoc, Deo serviunt: quia si Dei sunt ea quae conferuntur Ecclesiae, DEI OPUS AGIT, qui res Deo consecratas, non alicuius cupiditatis, sed fidelissimae dispensationis intentione non deserit. Quapropter possessiones quas oblatas a populo suscipiunt sacerdotes, NON SUNT INTER RES MUNDI DEPUTARI CREDENDAE, SED DEI. (De Vita Contemplativa, lib. 2, c. 11) [PL 59, 461].

(28) LABORA SICUT BONUS MILES Christi Jesu. Nemo militans Deo implicat se negotiis saecularibus (2 Tim 3.4).

(29) We have said that the two ideas of individuality and organic unity proper to the barbarian empire and the Church respectively are irreconcilable, and that their momentary peaceful fusion is more apparent than real. Again, individuality seems at times to have annihilated its opposite, although the Church has always reasserted herself in moments of extreme crisis and renewed its own outlook. But this does not mean we have to predict unending conflict between temporal and spiritual powers. Peace is possible and will be achieved, but on one condition: the temporal power has to reject completely the notion of individuality, a relic of barbarian violence and feudalism, and reestablish itself on the idea of the Church which cannot perish. Conciliation is impossible between the two ideas, but perfectly feasible between the spiritual and temporal orders. Temporal regimes have to change from being lordships to civil societies. And such a desirable change is now beginning to take place after a thousand years of strife. The whole of European society is taking part in this new birth. The expulsion from governments of uncivilised dominion, which threatens the peace of the world, is the great work prepared by Providence through the intestine struggles of humanity which have been carried on under the formal appearance of centuries old conflict between lay and ecclesiastical power, and still burn under the ashes until the work is brought to perfect completion.

(30) Decr. Greg, lib. 3, tit. 10, c. 7; lib. 5, tit. 33, c. 3; and in lib. 3, tit. 13, c. 2, par. 2.

(31) Matt 8. 20; Luke 9. 58

(32) Acts 3. 6

(33) 1 Tim 6. 6-8

(34) Julian Pomerius states expressly: Itaque sacerdos, cui dispensationis cura commissa est, non solum sine cupiditate, sed etiam cum laude pietatis, accipit a populo dispensanda et fideliter dispensat accepta; QUI OMNIA SUA, AUT PAUPERIBUS DISTRIBUIT, AUT ECCLESIAE REBUS ADJUNGIT, ET SE IN UMERO PAUPERUM, PAUPERTATIS AMORE, CONSTITUIT; ita ut UNDE PAUPERIBUS SUBMINISTRAT, INDE ET IPSE TAMQUAM PAUPER VOLUNTARIUS VIVAT. (De vita Contemplativa, lib. 2, c. 11) [PL 59, 455]

(35) lib. 5, ep. 21 [PG 40, 1522].

(36) De Vita Contemplativa, lib. 2, c. 9 [PL 59, 454-455]. Special note should be taken of the sentence: quod habet Ecclesia cum omnibus nihil habentibus habet commune. It shows that in the opinion of the time, the Church's goods were for common, not individual use.

(37) This rule is noted in the decree of Gratian where it is given as one of the apostolic canons: Ex his autem, quibus episcopus indiget (SI TAMEN INDIGET) ad suas necessitates et peregrinorum fratrum usus et ipse percipiat, ut nihil ei possit omnino deesse.

(38) In the light of these words, benefices are even less desirable because they remind us of gifts made by lords of this world to persons coveting them.

(39) Julian Pomerius [op. cit., PL 59, 454-455].

(40) This is clear from St. Cyprian's order that two readers, Celerinus and Aurelius, should be given the same assistance as the priests: ut et sportulis eisdem cum presbyteris honorentur [PL 4, 333]. St. Gregory makes the same point in several of his letters, one of them to a bishop: de redditibus Ecclesiae, quartam in integro portionem Ecclesiae tuae clericis, secundum meritum vel officium, sive laborem suum, ut ipse unicuique dandam perspexeris, sine aliqua praebere debeas tarditate (lib. 11, ep. 510 [PL 77, 1293].

(41) [PL 77, 521. 541. 612. 863. 1293]. In Spain there was a threefold division of church temporalities. The part destined for the poor was united with the portions of the bishop and the lower clergy.

(42) Probably the four divisions depended in quantity upon the varying needs of the recipients. Berardi [op. cit. p. 394], commenting on a canon of pope Gelasius, says: In quo sane illud observandum est, quadripartitam illam ecclesiasticorum redituum distributionem non adeo rigide esse intelligendam, ut ad proportionem quandam, ut vocent, geometricam, non ad arithmeticam rationem exigatur.

(43) One of the worst manipulations of language or, to put it more simply, plain lying, is the use of the term commendam. The law forbade a person to possess more than one benefice. To evade this stipulation the administration of benefices was entrusted and commended to individuals. Administration of the temporalities of monasteries and bishoprics was thus handed over to laypeople who had no hesitation in taking the incomes for themselves. It was rather like entrusting a sheep to a wolf. The whole of jurisprudence was riddled with similar harmful lies.

(44) Acts 20. 35

(45) "God is my witness that the care of church temporalities, which people think we want to dominate, is a burden for me, undertaken only because of the service of love I owe my brethren, and the fear of God. If I could carry out my duties without it, I would be more than happy" [PL 33, 481].

(46) In Luke, c. 18 [PL 15. 1880-81].

(47) [PL 39, 1571].

(48) Human nature is never free from defects, but here we want to distinguish partial and exceptional errors from those which have become universal practice and threaten the fabric of society by eliminating the foundations on which it rests.

(49) Sed nunquam id laici suscipere voluerunt (Possidius, Vita August.) [PL 32, 53]

(50) Hom. 11 [21], In ep. ad [1] Cor [PG 61, 179-80].

(51) The wonderful teaching of St. Ambrose and other fathers is recorded in Corpus Iuris Canonici, where mention is made of the spirit of generosity in the Church, and her willingness to melt down the sacred vessels in order to help the living vessels redeemed through the blood of Christ (cf. Gratian, op. cit., caus. 12, q. 1, can. 2, 20, 21).

(52) Exemption from taxes has to be considered in separate periods because all modern european states have changed their nature since their inception. In the first period, these states were lordships. Contributions from subjects became the private possession of the ruler who as lord administered the state on his own account. Consequently he was bestowing something of his own when he entrusted a public office to the person of his choice. Nobles and ecclesiastics were exempt. But european states gradually changed into true societies through the hidden influence of christianity and especially that of the popes. The question now arises: is it according to equity that in a civil society, church temporalities should be exempt from taxes? If these temporalities do not exceed what is necessary for the maintenance of the clergy, and the remainder is given to the poor, exemption from taxes would not seem equitable; if temporalities exceed these limits, or are no longer applied to their original charitable purposes, it is reasonable to tax them on a par with other possessions. At least, this would be the most decent and useful solution for the Church itself.

The formalities needed to convalidate the alienation of private possessions were added to in the case of church temporalities. For instance, the length of time needed for prescription was increased; and on the other hand, wills in favour of the Church were more easily made than other testaments, from a legal point of view. Was this just? If these dispositions were intended to defend the Church against fraudulent usurpation of her goods (always more prevalent than usurpation of private possessions), they cannot be considered unreasonable. Again, these laws often benefited justice in so far as the amendments they entailed prepared the way for juster laws applicable to all citizens. The formalities required by roman law for the validity of wills, for instance, had certainly become excessive. The Church appealed for their reform in her own regard, and thus paved the way for greater liberty for all in testamentary affairs. But when legislation has been corrected, it is not desirable for the Church in civilised nations to possess any privileges which benefit her in temporal matters. All she needs is the sacred, inviolable right which is natural to her, that is, complete freedom both to accept and administer the spontaneous offerings of the faithful, and to disburse them according to the spirit of love which animates and informs her.

(53) The choice of the first deacons is instructive on this point. The apostles summoned the body of the disciples and said: "Therefore, brethren, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint to this duty" (Acts 6. 2). The assembly is left to make the choice according to its own good judgment ("Pick out from among you"); the apostles reserve for themselves confirmation of the choice and the ordination of those elected. The fullness of authority received from Christ was used as a little as possible. Prudence of this kind should be a divine rule for all holding authority in the Church.

(54) 1 Cor 16. 2-4

(55) 1 Cor 6. 12

(56) In Ep. ad [1] Cor, Hom. 21 [PG 61, 179].