ECclesiastical Benefice. — In the 1917 Code of Canon Law an ecclesiastical benefice is defined as: “a juridical entity constituted or erected in perpetuity by ecclesiastical authority, consisting of a sacred office and the right to receive the revenues of the endowment pertaining to the office” (can. 1409). This definition, reaffirming the unitary juridical personality of the ecclesiastical benefice (Innocent IV, Apparatus in 5 libros Decretalium, Venice 1570, ad c. 3, X, 2), has the practical advantage of conferring upon it a certain independence from the elements that compose it (office, endowment and revenues): the ecclesiastical benefice is an ecclesiastical institution, a non-collegial moral person, possessing its own capacities, rights and duties.
I. HISTORY
Ecclesiastical property was originally constituted around the cathedral church; the bishop, as head of the clergy, was the direct administrator of all that was to serve for charity, the maintenance of the clergy, the needs of the community, and the buildings of worship and habitation. He was assisted in this task by deacons and officials (notaries, defenders) whose number, according to the importance of the see, was necessary for public and private acts. Since it is quite evident that a great city, such as Rome, Milan, Verona, etc., while retaining common institutions with others, required a far more complex set of arrangements than a small see lost in the mountains of Samnium or Bruttium, yet from the beginning a common prescription was adopted whereby the revenues of this collective property were divided into four (elsewhere even into three) parts: for the bishop, for the clergy, for the poor, and for the fabric and maintenance of ecclesiastical buildings.Where the urban clergy was organized under a monastic rule, it evidently continued to form a single body with the bishop and to share in the common revenues of the church and of the bishop himself. The situation became different, however, as soon as the great monastic foundations arose. Each of these formed its own corporate entity with its own buildings and possessions, constituted by founders or by benefactors who gradually enlarged its holdings; these latter often entered into the monastic association or became part of II. The head of the monastery was the true administrator not only of his monks but also of the patrimony, of dependents, colonists and servants. As a personal subject, the bishop, like any of the faithful, was responsible before the community for his own community and for the internal administration of its goods; indeed, in the course of time he often became almost an absolute master of it, and only he represented it in disputes that were dealt with in synods or before political authority. In this way, from the classical age onwards and increasingly during the early barbarian period, new patrimonial centres with their own life and interests, distinct and separate from those under the direct dependence of the bishop, were formed and organized. Indeed, in many regions the monasteries themselves could become the centre of a complex external activity, establishing foundations for clerics who provided for the various spiritual needs of the monks—especially when few among them were in sacred orders—serving as centres of succour for pilgrims and the wretched, and finally erecting chapels for the cura animarum, whose personnel consisted of servants, colonists, custodians, etc., or of inhabitants of the villas that had come into the possession of the monastery or had gradually arisen on its lands. There thus arose quite early a clergy in the service of the monastery that often had very indirect relations with the local bishop, although it had to receive from him sacred ordinations and holy oils.
These monastic institutions, with their progressive development, therefore came almost to be inserted into the diocesan circumscriptions, sometimes occupying territories in different dioceses, thus in some way disturbing the uniform distribution [of ecclesiastical structures] and creating de facto conditions that varied according to the nature and development of individual monasteries.
The diocesan circumscriptions, by contrast, had a more homogeneous origin with the city as their centre; and their territory was, for the most part, that which depended on the city, unless some particular local circumstance had imposed exceptions. But apart from the particular geographical and social conditions that obtained in Egypt, Africa, Asia, and in the West in Ireland and lesser Britain, one particular fact acquires importance: as the work of evangelization spread and the population grew, Christian communities were organized in small centres where the rural population gathered. It became necessary, therefore, to provide for these centres as well. Unlike the civitates, these were called plebes, although sometimes one term was used for the other. In any case, with plebs there was designated not only a population but also the place where it dwelt. Each such plebs had its own well-defined boundaries, generally in relation to the geographical conformation of the locality. It was possible, therefore, to establish there a sub-centre on the model of the episcopal city, with the necessary buildings for worship: a church and baptistery, a cemetery, and dwelling places, with a clergy capable of performing ritual functions and thus obliged to reside on site under the guidance of an archpriest, plebanus or prior. A particular patrimony therefore had to be formed, administered by this clergy, inalienable because sacred, proportionate to needs. During the barbarian invasions such a process was not entirely interrupted or brought to a halt. It is evident, however, that in those regions where civil life was wholly or almost wholly extinguished, or where civilization had not penetrated or had done so only very weakly during the Roman age, the process of ecclesiastical organization took a quite different course: it was the monasteries that paved the way for the establishment of episcopal and plebanal structures, and it was the local lords themselves, once converted, who saw to it that churches arose on their territory for themselves and for their dependents, and who granted revenues and lands for the use of the churches themselves, of which they continued to be owners or at least guardians. This phenomenon could also occur in civilized countries and thus fall within the ambit of the diocese, for those new localities that came into being when, thanks to a relative peace and security, the population felt sufficiently safe and grew in number and importance. We might say that we are at the first formation of the beneficial regime, arising from diverse circumstances. Even in this initial segmentation of ecclesiastical property, collective ownership of goods is preserved, for each of these larger rural centres was governed by a distinct clergy in its various ranks, as was that of the city.
A second important step toward the establishment of ecclesiastical benefices within the common patrimony of the Church was marked by the division of that part which was to remain for the exclusive enjoyment of the bishop from that which was assigned to the clergy of the cathedral. A similar development occurred in abbeys, particularly in large abbeys, when a special abbatial portion was separated from the monastery’s patrimony and constituted as a distinct portion. Where the bishop was established within the monastery, at a certain point it too had to detach itself from the original monastery to become independent with its own patrimony and secular clergy (e.g., Salzburg); in some places, such as England, this complete separation did not occur until much later. These constitutional changes took place at different times and under reciprocal influences from place to place; in any case, the bishop and the cathedral clergy, the abbot and the monastery had distinct interests and administration, with their own legal personality and regulations.
A further development occurred when portions detached from episcopal tables were used to establish special foundations for the worship and service of particular shrines in honor of the Virgin, martyrs or local saints, or saints whose cult was to be expanded. In these as well (as in the original parishes), it was intended that the clergy assigned should be collegially organized, like that of the cathedral. Elsewhere, specific portions of property were permanently allocated to enduring charitable works, such as hospitals, over which the clergy exercised supervision and administration, deriving sustenance for themselves as well. Often private benefactors entrusted their foundations to the direct supervision of the bishop or the cathedral clergy. The same phenomenon occurred in large monasteries, and in this way a new and complex hierarchy of institutions dependent on bishops, chapters, and abbots was established, or even placed directly under the Holy See for greater stability and protection.
To maintain discipline among the clergy assigned to the service of the cathedral church, renewed efforts were made from the 8th century onward to restore common life, in the same cloister, dormitory, and refectory, under the Rule of St. Augustine and with particular statutes. Yet it proved impossible to prevent the common revenues from being distributed to individual members in varying proportions according to rank, with full freedom to dispose of them as they wished; thus, only the administration remained common. In many places, no further progress was made; in others, however, the revenues were no longer distributed to individuals for their personal benefit, but the properties themselves were divided, forming separate patrimonies (prebends) with separate administration, while retaining in common only certain specific revenues (anniversaries and the like) and reserving a portion for the church’s fabric. What was done in the cathedral church was also done in other churches and even in parishes that still maintained a collegiate clergy.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to trace step by step these changes, which varied according to place and time and were sometimes interrupted by reform attempts. Every country, one might say, has its own particular history, but it is certain that the segmentation of patrimonies that had begun in pre-barbarian times did not cease. During the feudal age (and thus not solely because of invasions), many of these patrimonies were lost or had to be alienated, even in the form of fiefs or emphyteusis; yet such losses were constantly compensated by a new influx of goods from laypeople, bishops, and clerics who, with their personal patrimonies, contributed to increasing the endowments of existing ecclesiastical institutions, establishing new ones, erecting new parishes or other supplementary institutions to aid the population, endowing altars for the celebration of Masses, and providing for the sustenance of clerics—often with particularistic intentions characteristic of the feudal age. A state of affairs developed, in our view, that was confused and arbitrary; for thanks to these personal initiatives, the foundation of ecclesiastical institutions was not always in response to local needs but rather to the desires of founders to provide for a greater number of clerics and greater splendor of worship; while often the wealth of revenues did not correspond to the importance of the office but depended on the generosity of the founder. Added to this was the fact that each of these foundations or endowments, from the most powerful and elevated to the most modest and limited, was always established with the intention that it be perpetual and unchangeable, and always with its own legal personality, though not always according to a uniform model sanctioned by canonical rules; for each, alongside generic and common attributes, could be clothed with privileges, obligations, and conditions of existence entirely particular to itself.
It was the bishop’s responsibility, as is clear, to ordain clerics in the number required by the offices and foundations existing in his diocese—that is, in relation to the established prebends—since on the one hand every cleric had a right to decent sustenance, and on the other there should be no clerics without an office provided with the means necessary for their support. In the case of ecclesiastical institutions (e.g., monasteries and chapters) endowed with special rights and exemptions, the right to ordain clerics was regulated by particular provisions, but always in accordance with the principle stated above. And since clerics had a right to sustenance and could not be deprived of their offices without being reduced to beggary, such deprivation could occur only for very serious reasons—that is, for faults committed—through a strictly ecclesiastical judgment, in a manner analogous to what occurred for the faithful.
In this development of ecclesiastical patrimonial organization, which continued for centuries, feudalism certainly exerted its influence, especially by integrating the most important ecclesiastical institutions into the fabric of the state, granting them privileges and exemptions of a political and social nature, and placing them in different conditions from place to place and from institution to institution, thus creating a curious disparity that might appear arbitrary were it not generally caused by momentary historical circumstances or geographical reasons, or both. As for the smaller institutions, we see them, in their various forms, reflecting that same odd variety that characterizes the lower fiefs, with this difference, however, that in the latter the reflection is usually of economic conditions, while in benefices it is the piety of the faithful that proceeds according to that particularistic spirit of which we have spoken. Yet it is easy to see that all feudal influence did not succeed in undermining the very substance of the ecclesiastical institution, as is clear to anyone who examines the history—especially of the episcopal and plebanal institutions—both in the strictly spiritual sphere and in the feudal context. It was particularly the Investiture Controversy and then the legislation of the decretals that, reacting against the laicizing tendency, preserved for the benefice system that sacred character which was in danger of being lost through excessive dependence on secular power.
Pio Paschini
II. PRESENT CANON LAW
1. Elements
The Code only vaguely alludes to the relationships among the three elements of the ecclesiastical benefice.a) The sacred office is defined by can. 145 as a charge or complex of powers and obligations of jurisdiction or order that belong to its holder (v. UFFICIO). Undoubtedly, the sacred office presents itself as an institutional organ of the Church, which, in relation to the benefice, has the character of cause and end, and explains the intervention of ecclesiastical authority in the constitution and regulation of the benefice itself; but the benefice is a juridical entity in its own right, and thus, at least in theory, possesses its own personality independent of the office to which it is attached, although the office constitutes a necessary prerequisite for II.
b) The endowment is the second element of the benefice, forming its patrimonial basis, from which the revenues due to the holder of the office are derived. Landed property was formerly considered almost the sole source of wealth, so that the benefice was almost always composed of a mass of immovable goods, usually lands, owned by the Church and enjoyed by the office-holder; even today such property constitutes the ordinary basis of the benefice’s endowment, but the content of the latter has so expanded that it is possible for a benefice to exist even without any landed endowment, and even without any capital consolidated in revenue-bearing securities. It follows that the autonomy of a patrimony owned by the benefice is not always an essential requirement of the endowment; it is its normal condition, but it cannot be excluded that the endowment may consist also of services and real rights, and even of simple customary offerings recognized by the faithful for the benefit of the entity.
What is indispensable, however, is that the endowment be capable of achieving its purposes, namely, of producing the necessary revenues for the functioning of the office and for the maintenance of the office-holder. The endowment and its revenues must therefore possess the character of certainty and stability, as prescribed by cann. 1409, 1415, 979. Another characteristic of the endowment, which determines its relationship with the benefice, is that the goods constituting the endowment are owned by the benefice itself: they are therefore true ecclesiastical goods, and as such are treated in canon law (can. 1495-97).
Canon 1410 extends the concept and content of the benefice endowment in relation to the changed economic conditions of the modern economy and enumerates five categories of constituent elements of an endowment: each category may constitute a sufficient endowment, and all or several of them may be united in the mass of goods of an endowment. The following may therefore constitute a benefice endowment: 1) a mass of goods owned by the benefice itself, whether immovable or movable, corporeal or incorporeal, or real rights; 2) certain services owed by a moral person or a single family; 3) secure voluntary offerings of the faithful that accrue to the incumbent of the benefice (sacramental tithes, first-fruits, quests, regalia may fall within this category: can. 1502); 4) stola rights, within the limits of diocesan taxation or custom (cf. can. 1507); 5) choir distributions, excluding the third part thereof, where all the revenues of the prebend consist solely of distributions.
According to can. 1415, §3, it is then permitted for the local ordinary to erect parishes even if it is not possible to constitute a sufficient endowment, provided that it is foreseen that the necessary means will not be lacking.
c) The revenues of the endowment are the third constitutive element of the benefice, together with the right of the holder of the office and of the benefice to enjoy them. The benefice revenue is the juridical element that, lying between the office and the endowment, objectively becomes the connective tissue of the benefice and, subjectively, gives rise to the right to enjoy the revenues, which highlights the figure of the office-holder as one entitled to the revenues of the endowment. The revenue may be said to be the sum of goods or values periodically produced by the endowment and that may be consumed or expended without diminishing the patrimonial substance of the benefice itself. In fact, what is commonly called the revenue of the benefice, of which the beneficiary may freely avail himself, must be distinguished into three parts or quotas: a first part, which, since the endowment must not be depleted (can. 1476), is destined to its replenishment, since it cannot remain intact if the deficit in production is not made good; a second part is that destined for the congruous maintenance of the beneficiary, as the primary juridical obligation of the benefice toward the holder of the office; the third part consists of the net revenue that remains, and which represents the surplus revenue referred to in can. 1473.
2. Division
Can. 1411 adopts, in comparison with the endless divisions of antiquity, a clear and justified nomenclature:concisorial benefices are those that are usually conferred in consistory (v.) or by the Sacred Consistorial Congregation, non-concisorial all the others;
they are secular or religious according as they belong exclusively to secular or religious ecclesiastics. The wording of the Code is uncertain; nevertheless, three elements, whether individually or collectively, may identify the religious or secular nature of a benefice: the will of the founder to attribute it only to religious; the nature of the benefice office proper to religious, such as the office of abbot, regular canon; the fact that the benefice is united *pleno iure* or incorporated into a religious house (can. 1425, 1442);
they are called residential (or double) or non-residential (or simple) according as they do or do not impose upon the holder of the office the obligation of residence;
they are amovible (or temporary) or inamovible (or perpetual) according as their conferral is revocable or perpetual (v. AMOVIBILITÀ);
they are curate benefices those that have attached to them the care of souls, non-curate the others.
In the past, with the distinction between proper and improper benefices, other species of benefices were listed that the Code, in can. 1412, recalls as having some similarity to benefices but that are nevertheless excluded from the category for the lack of some essential element. The similar institutes are: parochial vicariates not erected in perpetuity; lay chaplaincies; life pensions or pensions payable at a fixed term on the revenues of another benefice; temporary commendations. It is not excluded that such institutes, if they possess the essential elements, may become true benefices.
Some benefices sometimes assume specific or customary names according to the offices to which they are attached: thus they are called titles (cardinal), mensa (episcopal), prebends (canonical), congrua (parochial), etc.
3. The relations of the holder of the benefice
The personal or subjective relations of the beneficiary with the benefice are, in general terms, enunciated by can. 1472: “The cleric invested with the benefice, once he has taken possession of it, enjoys all the spiritual and temporal rights and duties attached to it.” In the first place, the beneficiary, as holder of the sacred office, has the right and duty to exercise all the powers that are proper and specific to it (v. UFFICIO): this relation is certainly the most important and has a public character, given the juridical publicity of the Church, of which all ecclesiastical offices partake; and the Code imposes penalties, even pecuniary ones, against the cleric who fails in his office obligations (cf. can. 1475, 2186, 2175).In relation to the endowment, the beneficiary is its direct administrator *ex officio* (can. 1476, §1), both to enjoy its fruits (can. 1473) and to bear the burdens connected with its ordinary administration (can. 1477, §1). The norms for ordinary and extraordinary administration are the same as those imposed by the Code, by the Holy See, and by local ordinaries for the administration of ecclesiastical goods (can. 1476-83).
In relation to income, the beneficiary must first, as has been said above, restore the endowment of his liabilities. He may, however, freely dispose of that portion of the income which accrues to him as an acquired right for the fulfillment of his office’s duties (can. 1473).
The precise nature of this right is not undisputed among authors, also due to differing conceptions regarding the nature of the ecclesiastical benefice. According to both ancient and modern theories of the benefice, many have insisted upon the figure of the usufructuary, whether formal or causal; others have even resorted to the marital relationship between spouses. Yet, with due reservations, it seems more accurate to insist upon the concept of a salary owed by law to the ecclesiastical official by the benefice. It must indeed be recalled that the life of the office is guaranteed, from an economic standpoint, by the benefice, which serves as a means thereto. Certainly, the benefice itself, as a moral person with the character of a foundation, is the owner of an endowment, a permanent source of the income necessary for the functioning of the office. Logically, therefore, the first to have a right to the income is not the beneficiary but the office, from which the official derives the *ius percipiendi reditus*, and of using them.
The portion of the income that remains, or net income, the beneficiary must, according to can. 1473, expend on the poor. Canonists debate whether this obligation should be classified as one of justice or of charity, but the former conception prevails.
4. **Erection.** — The juridical personality of the benefice proceeds solely from the act of will of the ecclesiastical legislator, even in the case where a private individual donates the goods of the endowment. The benefice is a juridical person, i.e., it is recognized as such in canon law only when it is erected or constituted (synonymous terms) by ecclesiastical authority (can. 1409). The essential conditions for the erection of a benefice are:
a) the competent ecclesiastical authority: the Roman Pontiff may constitute any benefice; in practice, he has reserved to himself the erection of coniectorial benefices (can. 1414, § 1) and of capitular dignities (can. 394, § 2); other benefices may be erected by the local Ordinary (can. 1414, § 2). Cardinals may erect non-curated benefices in their own titular churches or diaconates (can. 1414, § 4);
b) just cause, i.e., the spiritual necessity or utility of the Church for the salvation of souls and the increase of divine worship;
c) the objective perpetuity of the benefice itself in its elements: sacred office, endowment, and income (can. 1409).
Other conditions mentioned by the Code are: the existence of a place for the title of the benefice, such as a bishopric or a chapter (can. 1426); having consulted those who have an interest (can. 1416); and documenting the erection through a juridical instrument in the form of a decree with explicit mention of the place of the benefice, the endowment, and the obligations and rights of the beneficiary (can. 1418). In the act of foundation, the one offering the goods for the benefice’s endowment may impose conditions even contrary to the Code, provided they are honest and compatible with the nature of the benefice, which, once admitted by the legitimate ecclesiastical authority, may not be changed except to the advantage of the Church and with the founder’s consent (can. 1417; and V. PATRONATO, PATRONO).
5. **Innovations.** — Can. 1440 reaffirms the ancient principle that benefices must be transmitted without any diminution, save for the exceptions permitted by law (c. 15, C. I, q. 3; c. 10, X, III, 5; c. 15, X, III, 39, etc.). The Code, however, provides for the possibility of modifications and establishes in can. 1419–1430 the specific norms governing such changes.
For every innovation made by Ordinaries, the Code requires as essential conditions: just cause, i.e., the utility or necessity of the Church; competence, since certain innovations are reserved to the Holy See; sufficient endowment for any new benefices that may arise from the innovation; an authentic document in the form of a decree evidencing the modification; having heard the opinion of the cathedral chapter and any interested parties; and, where applicable, the consent of the patron. Innovations consist in changes relating to the status of the benefice, and this may occur through union, division and separation, transfer of seat, and change of type.
a) **Union** occurs when two benefices are combined into one: it is an *unio aequae principalis* if the benefices retain their juridical individuality and the rights and burdens inherent to them are conferred upon a single holder; it is called *unio minus principalis* or *per subjectionem* when the united benefices remain in existence but one or more are considered accessory to a principal one; *unio extintiva* causes the united benefices to cease to exist in order to create an entirely new one (can. 1419, 1420). As a form of union, mention must be made of the so-called *incorporation*, whereby a benefice is united *pleno iure* or *simpliciter* to a moral person, such as a church, monastery, or religious house (can. 1425). The *incorporatio pleno iure* of a benefice with a monastery or religious house has, by the will of the legislator, the effect of rendering the benefice religious in the sense that the legal representative and administrator, as well as the holder of the office, must be a religious (can. 1411, § 2; 1442). Even *incorporatio simpliciter seu quoad temporalia tantum* produces the same effect with regard to the benefice’s endowment, while the holder of the office may be a secular cleric, who will receive his sustenance from the income of the benefice’s endowment in the agreed measure.
In recent times, the Holy See has proceeded to unite benefices with religious houses under the formula *“ad nutum S. Sedis.”*
The expression seems to signify a union *“pleno iure,”* with the sole reservation that the religious house may be deprived of the parish united to it by a simple administrative act, without the requirement of a process as would ordinarily be demanded by canon law (A. Gutierrez, in *Commentarium pro Religiosis*, 26 [1947], p. 74). The Code, in fact, recognizes no other unions than those mentioned in can. 1425, the meaning of which is derived from ancient law (can. 6, n. 2). The question is, however, not entirely undisputed, as is evident from the position *“Romana et aliarum administrationis”* in the Archive of the Sacred Congregation of Religious, N. 7941/29, section *“Maschi.”*
The competence for the union of benefices is indicated in can. 1422, 1423, 1424. The following are reserved to the Holy See: the *unio extintiva* of any benefice, except in the cases of can. 394 and can. 1355, n. 31; the union of benefices whose erection is reserved to it, or which are exempt from Ordinaries; the *unio aequae* and *minus principalis* of a religious benefice with a secular one or vice versa; the union of a benefice of one diocese with a benefice of another diocese, even if both are governed by the same Ordinary; and the union of a parish with the episcopal or capitular mensa, a monastery, religious house, or other moral person, or with a dignity or benefice of cathedral or collegiate churches (can. 1422; 1423, § 2; 1424).
Local Ordinaries may unite *aequo vel minus principaliter* parochial churches (or benefices) of any kind under their jurisdiction, even with a non-curated benefice, provided that in the latter case, if it is a *unio minus principalis*, the non-curated benefice remains accessory (can. 1423, § 1); incorporations or unions *pleno vel simpliciter iure* of parishes with moral persons are reserved to the Holy See, but Ordinaries may unite a parish (parochial benefice) with a cathedral or collegiate church located within the parish territory, in such a way that, after assigning a suitable portion of the income to the parish priest or vicar, the remainder benefits the church itself (can. 1423, § 2); and in general, Ordinaries may effect all unions of benefices except those reserved to the Holy See, as is implicitly derived from can. 1422, 1423. Unions of simple benefices with capitular mensae (can. 394, § 3) and with seminaries (can. 1355, n. 3) are expressly permitted.
b) Division and dismemberment are two closely related modes of innovation: with the first, one ecclesiastical benefice is divided into two; with dismemberment, part of the territory or of the benefice’s endowment is detached and assigned to another ecclesiastical entity. The Apostolic See reserves to itself the dismemberment of any religious benefice that is not a parish, as well as the withdrawal of an endowment without the erection of a new benefice (can. 1422). Local Ordinaries may dismember non-religious benefices, reduce the endowment of a benefice to erect another of the same kind, detach part of the goods and territory from a benefice; moreover, Ordinaries may divide any parish—even a religious one—by erecting a perpetual vicariate or a new parish, and may dismember the territory of any parish, or divide non-curated benefices (can. 1427).
c) Transfer of seat consists in transferring the title of the benefice from one place to another. The Apostolic See reserves to itself the transfer of consistorial and religious benefices (can. 1422); local Ordinaries may transfer the seat of a parochial secular benefice and of any other secular benefice when the church in which they are founded is ruined and irreparable (can. 1426).
d) Conversion consists in changing the species of a benefice, for example from curate to non-curate, from religious to secular, or vice versa. It is reserved to the Apostolic See to transform curate benefices into non-curate ones, and religious benefices into secular ones or vice versa (can. 1430, 1422); while Ordinaries may transform removable parishes into non-removable ones, but not the reverse, and simple benefices into curate ones (can. 1423, § 1).
6. Suppression of benefices – This is the total extinction of a benefice, not in the sense of intrinsic cessation (since the moral person is presumed perpetual), but in the sense of suppression of the benefice insofar as the competent authority revokes the legal personality it had granted. Suppression is reserved to the Apostolic See (can. 1422). Once this has occurred, the endowment and revenues change their destination within the Church and in respect of the purposes of the foundation; the sacred office (if it is not also suppressed) passes to other ecclesiastical persons, while the juridical office is extinguished.
7. With regard to the conferral of benefices, see canonical provision.
II. Italian Law
Until 1867 the Italian State recognized the juridical personality of benefices erected by ecclesiastical authority; but with the law of 15 August 1867, no. 384, it no longer recognized the juridical personality of the benefices of collegiate chapters, of various benefices of cathedral chapters, and of all minor non-curated benefices, while continuing to recognize bishoprics, abbacies or prelatures *nullius*, parochial or coadjutor benefices, those of palatine churches, and some benefices of cathedral chapters. When this law was extended to Rome and the suburbicarian dioceses (by the law of 19 June 1873, no. 1402), nearly all categories of benefices that had been suppressed elsewhere in Italy were excepted from this denial of recognition.With the Concordat and its implementing laws (especially the law of 27 May 1929, no. 848, and Royal Decree of 2 December 1929, no. 2262), the Italian State, while continuing to recognize the personality of those benefices that already possessed it, admits the possibility of recognition—granted case by case by decree of the Head of State, after the opinion of the Council of State—for any category of benefice. Without such recognition the benefice (unless it already existed and was recognized before the Concordat) does not exist in the eyes of the State and civil law. Likewise, any substantial change in the purpose, in the destination of goods, or in the modes of existence of a benefice already recognized civilly has no civil effect unless an analogous decree of recognition is obtained (the doctrine is somewhat uncertain as to when a “substantial change” occurs). *V. also* BENI ECCLESIASTICI; CONGRUA; ITALIA; PROVVISTA.