1. Summa determinatae ecclesiae donata non probatur per declarationem titularis, qui in officio successit; nam cum sit pars in causa, eius declaratio uti testimonium acceptari nequit.
2. Neque eadem probatio efficitur simplici titulo praesumptivo, id est sola ratione inscriptionis schedulae quae missa est rectori ecclesiae a donante.
3. Legitima habenda non est provocatio ad praesumptionem de qua in can. 286, § 1 motu proprio Postquam Apostolicis Litteris, ratione reticentiae sive recurrentis sive Hierarchae. Legitimari nequit enim sic dicta translatio oneris probationis, ratione praedictae praesumptionis, ob conflictus utilitatum quae deprehendantur in modo processuali sese gerendi sive recurrentis sive Hierarchae (in casu habetur asseveratio credibilior recurrentis de summa in opus pium reapse impensa).
4. Legitimum est parvi facere praesumptionem de qua in can. 286, § 1 motu proprio Postquam Apostolicis Litteris etiamsi defuerint speciales permissiones canonicae quae requiruntur ad oblationes accipiendas, si 1) Hierarcha vel omisit exercitium proprii officii invigilandi, vel consentiebat cum modo sese gerendi rectoris ecclesiae; 2) de facto summae collectae habuerunt piam destinationem.
| 1. That a sum was donated to a specific church is not proved by the declaration of the titular who succeeded to the office; for, since he is a party to the case, his declaration cannot be accepted as testimony.
2. Nor is the same proof established by a merely presumptive title, that is, solely by reason of the address on the card sent to the rector of the church by the donor.
3. Resort to the presumption referred to in can. 286, § 1 of the motu proprio Postquam Apostolicis Litteris on the ground of the reticence of either the one making recourse or the Hierarch is not to be held lawful. For the so-called shifting of the burden of proof, by reason of the aforesaid presumption, cannot be legitimated on account of the conflicts of interest detected in the procedural conduct of either the one making recourse or the Hierarch (in the case at hand there is the rather credible assertion of the one making recourse that the sum was actually spent on a pious work).
4. It is lawful to give little weight to the presumption referred to in can. 286, § 1 of the motu proprio Postquam Apostolicis Litteris even if the special canonical permissions required for accepting offerings were lacking, if 1) the Hierarch either omitted the exercise of his own office of vigilance or was in agreement with the conduct of the rector of the church; 2) the sums collected in fact had a pious destination. |
