Rights in God's Church
Appendix 4. (861).
It is a universal law of mankind that rights without external sanction are usurped by the strong. The condition of families and individuals is explained in great part by this law, especially the servile condition. History shows at every moment that the strong form civil society to the exclusion of the weak, that is, of those without sufficient influence or strength to overcome the opposition of the strong who prevent their entrance into society. The persons thus constituting civil society and becoming citizens greatly increase their power over the rejects, whose rights have either insufficient guarantee or no guarantee at all. This is the origin of slavery, and the reason why slaves were soon considered mere things. If we look simply at the Middle Ages, from which modern societies take their birth, we see that force gradually gave way to Right through the hidden, continuous influence of Christianity. But how slowly progress was made! In order to protect the rights of strangers in the midst of powerful civil society, it was necessary: 1. for the strangers to form part of society; 2. for them to acquire a level of influence proportionate to the degree of their rights. The foundation of municipalities was a great step ahead; a substantial number of weak members obtained citizenship, and with it freedom. Their influence in civil organisation, however, was disputed, often in bloody battles. The learned Ciberio says:
| The word `bond-servant' vanished shortly after the formation of the municipalities. It was replaced by `due-payers' because these people were obliged to pay dues to their masters. They were `due-payers dependent on mercy' when the time and quantity of their duties was limited only by natural compassion, easily overcome by friendship. These unfortunates were also called `mortmain' [dead hands] because they could not make wills or contracts, nor marry anyone who was not a bond-servant of the same master |
(Dell'economia politica del medio evo, bk. 1, c. 2.)
If we examine the condition of the Church in recent times, we see that she has been deprived of the grade of civil influence required for sufficient defence of her temporal rights. She is no longer acknowledged civily as owner, and her goods have been considered as MORTMAIN, rather like the bond-servants called `due-payers' and `due-payers dependent on mercy', deprived of true ownership and incapable of making a will. The phrase has in fact been applied to clerics and religious, and shows the profound injustice of the thought behind it, as well as the impossibility of finding advocates for church temporalities in our modern civil society.
I am not considering all the causes which may have brought about this state of affairs. I am not denying that it can be seen as a reaction and compensation on the part of lay people; nor am I denying that clerics have often brought judgment upon themselves through their wrong interpretations of the Decretals: `neither clerics nor monks should involve themselves in secular business' (Decr. Greg., bk. 3, t. 50). But I am maintaining that greed and power have eliminated any civil influence on the part of the Church, and thus reduced it to the state of `due-payers' at everyone's mercy. Julian the Apostate had already profited by the moral counsels of the Gospel to deprive Christians of their rights, and this sophism prevails once more. You love poverty, he said, because it is counselled by your Gospel; hence, I shall take your goods. You renounce the world because virtue is your aim; hence, I declare you unsuitable for any public office in the judiciary. You say th at all your wisdom is to be found in the Crucified One whom you adore; hence, I forbid you education and so on. This is the same as saying that what a person does according to moral principles deprives him of his RIGHTS and gives others the possibility of usurping them. It is as though the spirit of the Gospel and church ministry were to exclude the good use of human things, rather than their abuse. But this has always been the pretext in such a sphere. It is at the basis of the odious French law which `privileges' the clergy by excluding them from the peerage, or from sitting as deputies - rights which are common to all citizens. In 1778, at the German College in Rome, Benedetto Bonelli defended several excellent propositions against this attitude. His fifth proposition states:
| Churchmen are forbidden from undertaking the administration of secular business when their motive is greed; they are not forbidden to do so when their motive is charity and just and lawful precautions are in force |
In the appendix to his thesis (De Ecclesiasticae vitae instituto a communis vitae societatisque officiis minime alieno, sect. 1: 5), he affirms:
| Churchmen should not even take part in those occupations in which envy may be their motive: guardianships, medicine, law and public offices. It is not the case that a churchman is always forbidden to act in secular business if it is privately or publicly necessary that he should do so (Thom., ST, II-II, q. 187, art. 2). So, if this work of theirs is not necessary, why should they do it? If it is necessary, let them do it. A person must be altogether a stranger to history if he is unaware that churchmen have carried out, when occasion demands, duties as guardians, executors and other officials in private and public. And in doing this they have acted for the sake of often bringing to society what is noble and salutary |
It is even more necessary for churchmen to be able to exercise the civil offices shown to be absolutely required for the defence of the Church.