1. Privilegia onerosa, quae ius electionis, nominationis vel praesentationis pro quocumque officio vel beneficio non consistoriali vacanti secumferunt, integra manent et de eorum cessatione cum patronis agendum est; sed interim Episcopus dioecesanus potest suspendere exercitium privilegii; quae suspensio, ex iusta causa decreta, non violat ius seu privilegium praesentandi.
2. Iusta causa suspensionis oritur ex motu proprio Ecclesiae Sancate, I, n. 8: «Commissioni Codici Iuris Canonici recognoscendo committitur reformatio systematis beneficialis. Interim curent Episcopi, suis auditis Consiliis presbyterorum, ut provideatur aequae distributioni bonorum, etiam redituum ex beneficiis provenientium». Equidem, «remuneratio clericis tribuenda praecipue eadem requiritur pro omnibus in iisdem adiunctis versantibus, ratione quidem habita tum ipsius muneris naturae, tum temporum locorumque conditionum». Logice sequitur quod Episcopi dioecesani expectare non debeant exitum tractationum cum patronis vel reformationis systematis beneficialis; sed ex nunc possunt et debent normis ordinare distributionem redituum etiam ex beneficiis provenientium, ita ut omnes sacerdotes aequam habeant remunerationem.
3. Recursu reiecto in Congressu, utpote manifeste fundamento carente, instantia pro suspensione exsecutionis impugnatae decisionis in limine reicienda est.
| 1. Onerous privileges, which carry with them the right of election, nomination, or presentation for any vacant non-consistorial office or benefice, remain intact, and their cessation must be negotiated with the patrons; but in the meantime the diocesan Bishop can suspend the exercise of the privilege; and this suspension, decreed for a just cause, does not violate the right or privilege of presentation.
2. A just cause for suspension arises from the motu proprio Ecclesiae Sanctae, I, n. 8: «The reform of the benefice system is entrusted to the Commission for the Revision of the Code of Canon Law. In the meantime the Bishops, having heard their councils of priests, are to take care that provision be made for the equitable distribution of goods, including the revenues coming from benefices». Indeed, «the remuneration to be given to clerics is required to be above all the same for all who find themselves in the same circumstances, account being taken both of the nature of the function itself and of the conditions of times and places». It follows logically that diocesan Bishops ought not to wait for the outcome of the negotiations with the patrons or of the reform of the benefice system; but as of now they can and must regulate by norms the distribution of revenues, including those coming from benefices, so that all priests may have equitable remuneration.
3. The recourse having been rejected in the Congress as manifestly lacking foundation, the petition for suspension of the execution of the impugned decision is to be rejected in limine. |
