TITLE OF ORDINATION. — It consists in the guarantee of a sufficient lifelong income for the decent support of the candidate for ordination (can. 979 § 2).
I. Historical Notes
In the early days of the Church, ordination to sacred orders was dependent upon the availability of a permanent position in a particular church, with the result that support was assured to the exclusion of others. The conferral of the Sacrament of Holy Orders only upon those who had been assigned to a church meant that ordination had necessarily to be carried out with due regard to the needs of individual places and of the faithful communities. The ordained cleric was enrolled among the clergy attached to a particular church, remaining perpetually incardinated there, with the obligation of performing the prescribed service, so much so that the church and the ecclesiastical office to which the cleric was destined came to constitute the purpose and title of the ordination, in the sense that this could be conferred only ad titulum, that is, with the incardination of the cleric to a specific church.This principle was reaffirmed by the decree of the Council of Chalcedon in 451, issued in response to ordinations of clergy in disproportionate numbers relative to the available revenues and hence without assignment to a church (ordinationes sine titulo): the Council (can. 6) declared null any ordination if the cleric did not actually assume the exercise of ecclesiastical ministry, and at the same time decreed that no cleric could be ordained unless he had been assigned a stable office (titulus) in a particular church. The effects of this decree, however, were of very short duration, for in the 6th century numerous clerics were again ordained without any title, on the ground that the conferral of Holy Orders should be distinguished from the title, that is, from the ecclesiastical office to which was attached the right to receive the fruits of church property. Probably to remedy these new abuses, in the 6th century the cleric, immediately after ordination, was invested with a benefice from which to draw income for his support, thus equating the titulus ordinationis with the titulus beneficii, which then remained the normal title of ordination.
Toward the end of the 11th century, the decree of the Council of Chalcedon was reaffirmed once more, but without any result.
Meanwhile, in the early years of the 12th century, a new tendency was gaining ground: namely, the conferral of Orders upon those who, though lacking a canonical title (titulus beneficii), possessed a patrimony sufficient to guarantee them decent support for life. Alexander III, at the Third Lateran Council of 1179, upheld the rule that clerics should be ordained primarily with the titulus beneficii, but also permitted, in a secondary capacity, that they might be ordained with private patrimony when the needs of the church and of worship so required (can. 5). He decreed, in fact, that if a bishop ordained a deacon and a priest without a certain and stable title sufficient to guarantee their support, he was obliged to provide for their maintenance until he had assigned them an adequate benefice, unless the cleric was able to support himself with his own or his father’s goods (c. 4, X, de praebendis et dignitatibus, III, 5); thus originated the titulus patrimonii, that is, a patrimony constituted by the candidate for himself or by a third party for the candidate, so that he might have a reserve fund at his disposal, and an institution which had long been common in practice was officially recognized. The aforesaid decree also provided for sanctions against bishops who failed to observe it, stipulating that they should be obliged to provide maintenance for the ordained cleric if they had conferred Holy Orders without a title or patrimony; a sanction of a patrimonial nature, to which, however, the bishops found a way to escape by exacting an oath from the ordained clerics that they would never claim maintenance. Subsequent conciliar decrees, however, declared those who had forced the ordinands to swear that they would always refrain from requesting maintenance to be simoniacs. Given the exclusively alimentary nature of the sacred patrimony, this could not be governed by the common law relating to lay property but had to avail itself of the special norms, prerogatives, and privileges enjoyed by church property, such as inalienability and immunity from seizure, which were then recognized.
The Council of Trent regulated the titulus patrimonii with stable norms, laid down in sess. 21, c. 2, de reformatione, which may be said to contain the complete and definitive discipline of the institution. The Council first decreed that a cleric, even if in possession of all other requirements, could be ordained to sacred orders only if he had an ecclesiastical benefice from which to derive honest support. By requiring the titulus beneficii for ordination, the Council of Trent confirmed the decree of can. 6 of the Council of Chalcedon; only subsidiarily did it admit the titulus patrimonii, as well as the titulus pensionis (that is, a fixed income preferably constituted on immovable goods and guaranteed by them), enjoining bishops to ordain to this title—according to their judgment—only that limited number of clerics deemed strictly necessary or useful to individual churches, and to ensure before ordination that the cleric was truly in possession of a patrimony or pension sufficient for his decent maintenance. It also excluded, as an unreliable and precarious means, the titulus mensa, consisting in the right of the cleric to be maintained by a third party (as happened especially in Germany, where the wealthy used to have a cleric ordained), who promised an alimentary allowance.
BIBL.:
See the works cited under the heading BENEFICIO ECclesiastico and ORDINE SACRO.
---
On the Nature and Characteristics of the Sacred Patrimony
It must be held that the sacred patrimony, as a title of ordination, must be considered inalienable and immune from seizure. Indeed, security and stability could not exist if the goods of the patrimony were subject to the disposition of the cleric or to forced execution by creditors. The opinion of some scholars who maintain that can. 979 § 2 abrogated the norm laid down by the Council of Trent, which established the inalienability of the sacred patrimony, is therefore not to be accepted: although the CIC contains no express norm establishing the inalienability and immunity from seizure of this patrimony, it must be held that the norm is implicit in the text of the cited canon, in accordance with can. 6 § 6, and, should any doubt remain, the provision of can. 6 § 4 should in any case be applied, namely, that there should be no departure from the old law. The CIC has not laid down precise norms regarding the guarantee and sufficiency of the patrimony or pension, but has left these to the discretionary judgment of the bishops, who, in making their determination, will take into account the various circumstances of place and time. In the subsequent can. 980, the legislator decreed that if the ordained cleric loses the title, he must procure another, unless the bishop considers him otherwise provided with means of support; and it further stipulated that whoever, without apostolic indult, has ordained or allowed the ordination of a cleric without a title must himself and his successors provide maintenance for the ordained until he is otherwise provided for, thus determining civil liability for non-observance of the norms on the title of ordination, and considering any agreement to waive such liability.
In cases where the canonical titles of benefice, patrimony, and pension—titles which are becoming increasingly rare in some countries—are lacking, canon 981 permits recourse to the titles of diocesan service and mission. The first consists of an obligation assumed by the ordaining bishop to provide adequately and for life for the decent sustenance of the ordained, who, for his part, binds himself by oath to serve for life in the diocese; the second concerns a similar formal promise on the part of the ordinand to dedicate himself in perpetuity to missionary service in territories dependent on the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, accepting whatever assignments may be entrusted to him by the competent superiors, who are bound to provide for his sustenance.
The oath taken by the ordinand to serve perpetually in diocesan or missionary work is given, in accordance with canon 981, without any reservation, so much so that the bishop may always compel one who has taken it to engage in the cura animarum. Previously, by contrast, the possibility of the Ordinary compelling a priest to accept a parochial office was rather doubtful, and in fact the jurisprudence of the Roman Congregations had issued conflicting decisions on the matter, some holding that the bishop’s ordinary faculties were sufficient, while others required special delegated faculties (cf., e.g., the decisions of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, 7 Aug. 1910, in *Monitor Ecclesiasticus*, 22 [1911], pp. 437 ff.). Further effects of the oath envisaged by canon 981 include the prohibition for the cleric to incardinate elsewhere and—according to a school of canonists—to enter a religious institute. Indeed, some writers maintain that the oath to serve in the diocese does not, by virtue of canon 1319 § 2, preclude entry into religion, and that the prohibition applies only to those who have placed themselves at the disposal of a mission unless they have obtained the necessary authorization from the Holy See; others, however, take a different view, holding that the oath constitutes a *iuris vinculum* such as to forbid entry into religion, irrespective of the application of canon 542, n. 2, under which the bishop is empowered to forbid the admission to novitiate of clerics who have received major orders whenever grave harm to souls might otherwise ensue and be unavoidable.
Canon 982 provides that for religious the canonical title consists of the solemn religious profession, the so-called *titulus paupertatis*, that is, the means of support deriving from belonging to a religious order, in the sense that the mere status of religious entitles one to maintenance and thus permits ordination. When the vow of poverty is a simple, perpetual vow, the *titulus paupertatis* takes the more attenuated form of the *titulus mensae communis* or of the congregation or a similar type.
II. THE “TITULUS PATRIMONII” IN ITALIAN LAW
Among the various canonical titles, in Italian law particular consideration is given to the *titulus patrimonii* or sacred patrimony, with the question arising whether the institution is admitted and its canonical regime recognized, in the sense that neither the alienation nor the expropriation of the goods of such patrimony may be permitted, nor may the income from these goods be subject to attachment or sequestration.As is well known, conflicting opinions have been advanced on this matter by doctrine and jurisprudence. According to an authoritative view, which seems acceptable, the goods constituting the sacred patrimony are themselves exempt from forced execution, the provisions of the common canon law in force in states where concordats had not established otherwise being applied to them. Indeed, it must be held that these provisions were not abrogated either by the Civil Code of 1 January 1865 or by the current one, neither of which regulated the matter of the sacred patrimony, though both recognized it in various forms as an autonomous juridical institution (art. 48 of the transitional provisions of the Civil Code of 30 November 1865, no. 2606; art. 4 of the preliminary provisions of the Civil Code of 1865; art. 15 of the preliminary provisions of the current Civil Code). In view of the fact that no provision has been made by the Italian legislator regarding the inalienability of the goods constituting the *titulus patrimonii*, it is concluded that the sacred patrimony continues to be governed by canon law norms, provided they do not conflict with state law, and that therefore the goods constituting it must be considered inalienable.
As regards the income derived from the goods of the *titulus patrimonii*, it must be held that such income is not subject to attachment, taking into account the provision of art. 545 of the Code of Civil Procedure concerning non-attachable credits. Indeed, it is clear that the very purpose of such income is eminently alimentary, so that it seems correct to apply the prohibition on attachment envisaged by the cited article for alimentary credits.