TITLE OF ORDINATION. – It consists in the guarantee of a life income sufficient for the ordinand’s decent support (can. 979 § 2).
I. HISTORICAL NOTES
In the earliest period of the Church, ordination in sacris was conditional upon the availability of permanent employment in a particular church, thereby ensuring the cleric’s livelihood. Conferring the Sacrament of Orders only upon one who had been assigned to a church meant that ordination necessarily had to proceed with regard to the needs of the individual places and communities of the faithful. The ordained cleric was enrolled among the clerics attached to a particular church, remaining incardinated there in perpetuity, with the obligation of performing the prescribed service, so that the church and ecclesiastical office to which the cleric was destined came to constitute the purpose and title of ordination, in the sense, that is, that ordination could be conferred only ad titulum, namely with the incardination of the cleric in a particular church.This principle was reaffirmed by the provision of the Council of Chalcedon in 451, issued in response to the ordination of clerics in numbers disproportionate to the available revenues and therefore without assignment to a church (ordinations sine titulo): the Council (can. 6) declared the ordination null if the cleric had not actually undertaken the exercise of ecclesiastical ministry and, at the same time, decreed that a cleric could not be ordained unless a stable office (titulus) in a particular church had been entrusted to him. The effects of the provision, however, were quite short-lived, since in the 6th century numerous clerics were once again ordained without any title, on the basis of the consideration that the conferral of Orders had to be distinguished from the title, that is, from the ecclesiastical office to which the right to receive the revenues from the church’s goods was attached. Probably, in order to remedy these new difficulties, in the 6th century the cleric, immediately after ordination, was invested with a benefice from which to derive the income necessary for his support; thus the titulus ordinationis came to be equated with the titulus beneficii, which thereafter remained the normal title of ordination. Toward the end of the 11th century, the provisions of the Council of Chalcedon on this matter were reaffirmed, but without any result.
Meanwhile, in the early years of the 12th century, a new tendency was asserting itself: namely, to confer Orders upon those who, although lacking a canonical title (titulus beneficii), possessed an accumulation of goods capable of guaranteeing them a respectable livelihood for the duration of their lives. Alessandro III, at the Third Lateran Council in 1179, maintained the rule that clerics should be ordained principally with the titulus beneficii, but also permitted, in a subordinate capacity, their ordination on the basis of private patrimony when the needs of the church and of worship required it (can. 5). He provided, in fact, that if a bishop had ordained a deacon or a priest without a certain and stable title sufficient to guarantee his support, he was obliged to provide for his maintenance until he had endowed him with an adequate benefice, unless the cleric was able to support himself with his own or paternal goods (c. 4, X, de praebendis et dignitatibus, III, 5). Thus originated the titulus patrimonii, that is, an accumulation of goods constituted as patrimony for himself by the person to be ordained, or by a third party for the person to be ordained, so that the latter would have a reserve fund at his disposal; and an institution that had long frequently occurred in practice was officially recognized. The aforementioned provision also established a sanction for bishops who failed to observe it, imposing upon them the obligation to provide food and maintenance for the ordained cleric if they had conferred Holy Orders without a title or patrimony. This was a pecuniary sanction from which, however, the bishops found a way to escape by making ordained clerics swear that they would never bring a claim for maintenance. Subsequent conciliar provisions, however, declared those who compelled ordinands to swear that they would always refrain from requesting maintenance to be guilty of simony. Given the exclusively alimentary character of the sacred patrimony, it could not be governed by the common law relating to lay goods, but had to enjoy the special rules, prerogatives, and privileges enjoyed by Church property, such as inalienability and exemption from seizure, which were subsequently recognized for II.
The Council of Trent regulated the titulus patrimonii with stable norms, set out in sess. 21, c. 2, de reformatione, which may be said to contain the complete and definitive regulation of the institution. The Council first established that a cleric, even if possessing all the other requirements, could be ordained in sacris only if provided with an ecclesiastical benefice from which he could derive an honorable livelihood. By requiring the qualification of the titulus beneficii for ordination, the Council of Trent confirmed the provision of can. 6 of the Council of Chalcedon; only as a subsidiary alternative did it admit the titulus patrimonii, as well as the titulus pensionis (that is, a fixed income preferably established upon and guaranteed by immovable property), instructing bishops to ordain under such a title — according to their judgment — only that limited number of clerics deemed strictly necessary or useful for the individual churches, and to ensure before ordination that the cleric truly possessed a patrimony or pension sufficient for his respectable maintenance. It further excluded, as an insufficiently secure and precarious means, the titulus mensae, consisting in the cleric’s right to be maintained by a third party (as occurred especially in Germany, where the wealthy used to have a cleric ordained), who promised a variable maintenance allowance that could cease when the priest obtained a benefice or acquired another means of livelihood. Finally, it prohibited, unless the bishop had authorized it, the alienation of goods constituted as sacred patrimony until the cleric had obtained another benefice; it likewise prohibited renunciation of the patrimony or pension without the permission of the Ordinary, or the declaration that such titles had lapsed. The Tridentine provision sought to restore the titulus beneficii to its position as the normal title for ordination, and the titulus patrimonii to that of a subsidiary title, to be granted exceptionally when the possibility of a titulus beneficii was lacking. In order for the sacred patrimony to fulfill more effectively the purpose for which it had arisen, other privileges were subsequently provided in addition to those of inalienability and exemption from seizure established earlier. The rule remained that the sacred patrimony had to consist of certain, income-producing immovable goods; nevertheless, canonists and canonical jurisprudence tempered the principle by admitting that the patrimony could also be constituted on ground rents or other charges burdening immovable property, with the obligation, on the part of the person establishing it, in the event of redemption of the ground rent, to maintain the ordained cleric until a new investment had been made. It was also recognized that the goods forming the sacred patrimony enjoyed the privilege of not being subject to mortgage, in order thereby to ensure the cleric what was necessary for his support, without fear of action by a creditor seeking to expropriate him; likewise, the cleric or the person who had constituted the patrimony was required to possess the goods comprising the sacred patrimony truly and without contest.
Canon law also recognizes two other titles of ordination, namely the titulus paupertatis or mensae communis and the titulus missionis: the former was introduced by Pius V, who, in the bull Romanus Pontifex of 14 October 1368, extended to the regular clergy the Tridentine provisions concerning the title, establishing that anyone who entered an Order acquired the right to be maintained at its expense.
The titulus missionis had a particular origin. In Italy and abroad, between the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, colleges were founded for the education of those who wished to devote themselves to the apostolate in mission territories, to which they were subsequently bound to go by a special oath. The Holy See, bearing in mind their particular circumstances, relaxed the ordinary provisions in order to facilitate their promotion to sacred Orders: thus, for example, on 1 May 1579 Gregory XIII granted that the students of the English College in Rome could be ordained without a title, and the same faculty was likewise extended to others. This absence of a specific title of ordination and the office of missionary apostolate soon gave rise to the new title of mission, which received its first regulation in Urban VIII’s brief Ad uberes fructus, dated 18 May 1638, although the taking of the missionary oath continued always to be required.
In later centuries the title of mission was also granted to indigenous priests and to members of exclusively missionary institutes, giving rise to a series of particular provisions, collected and almost codified in the instruction of 27 April 1871.
II. THE CURRENT CANONICAL LEGISLATION
The CIC lists the canonical title among the positive requirements for the licit conferral of the major Orders and, while completely reorganizing the subject, adopts the principles that had governed it until then. Canon 979 § 1 establishes that pro clericis saecularibus titulus canonicus est titulus beneficii, eoque deficiente, patrimonii aut pensionis: this means that even today, as a rule, the source of income for an ecclesiastic is constituted by the right to a benefice and, in its absence, by a sacred patrimony or a pension. § 2 of the same canon provides that titulus debet esse et vere securus pro tota ordinati vita et vere sufficiens ad congruum eiusdem sustentationem...: the expression vere securus must be understood to mean that even the owner’s will is not sufficient to transfer ownership of the goods constituting the t. until the bishop authorizes it, which leads, with good reason, to the conclusion that such goods must be regarded as inalienable and exempt from seizure. Indeed, security and stability could not exist if the goods of the patrimony were not removed from the cleric’s power of disposition and from compulsory execution by creditors. The opinion of certain scholars, therefore, is not to be accepted, according to which can. 979 § 2 abrogated the rule laid down by the Council of Trent, which established the inalienability of the sacred patrimony: although the CIC contains no express rule establishing the inalienability and immunity from expropriation of this patrimony, it must nevertheless be held that the rule is implicit in the text of the aforementioned canon, in accordance with n. 6 of can. 6; and, should any doubt remain, the provision of n. 4 of the same canon would in any case have to be applied, according to which veteri iure non est recedendum. The CIC has not laid down precise rules concerning the security and sufficiency of the patrimony or pension, but has left these matters to the discretionary judgment of the bishops, who, in making their determination, will take account of the various circumstances of place and time. In the subsequent can. 980, the legislator provided that if an ordained person in sacris loses his title, he must acquire another, unless the bishop considers him otherwise supplied with means of support; it further established that whoever, without an apostolic indult, has ordained or allowed a cleric without a title to be ordained must himself, and his successors, provide sustenance for the ordained person until he is otherwise provided for, thereby determining civil liability for failure to observe the rules concerning the t. of o., and declaring void any possible agreement exempting one from such liability.In cases where the t. beneficii, patrimoni and pensionis are lacking—which in some countries are becoming increasingly rare—can. 981 permits this deficiency to be supplied by the t. servitii dioecesis e missionis. The former consists in an obligation undertaken by the ordaining party to provide adequately and for the whole of the ordained person’s life for his decent support; for his part, the latter undertakes by oath to render service throughout his life in the diocese. The other concerns a similar formal promise by the ordinand to devote himself in perpetuity to the service of the mission in the territories dependent upon the S. Congregation De Propaganda Fide, accepting the assignments entrusted to him by the competent superiors, who are bound to provide for the ordained person’s support.
The oath by which the ordinand undertakes to devote himself in perpetuity to the service of the diocese or mission is given, in accordance with can. 981, without any reservation, so much so that the bishop may always oblige the person who has taken it to devote himself to the care of souls. Previously, by contrast, the Ordinary’s power to compel a priest to assume a parish office was somewhat doubtful; indeed, the jurisprudence of the Roman Congregations contained conflicting decisions on the matter, some considering the bishop’s ordinary faculties sufficient, while others required particular delegated faculties (cf., e.g., the decisions of the S. Congreg. del Concilio, 7 Aug. 1910, in Monitore ecclesiastico, 22 [1911], p. 437 ff.). Further effects of the oath referred to in can. 981 consist in the prohibition against the cleric leaving the diocese and—in the opinion of some canonists—entering religious life. Indeed, certain writers maintain that the oath to render service in the diocese does not, under can. 1319 § 2, prohibit entry into religious life, and that the prohibition applies only to those who have placed themselves at the disposal of a mission, unless they have obtained the relevant authorization from the Holy See. Others, on the contrary, hold a different view, maintaining that the oath constitutes an iuris vinculum and thus does not permit entry into religious life, independently of the application of can. 542, n. 2, under which the bishop is authorized to prohibit the admission to the novitiate of clerics who have received the major Orders, whenever otherwise irreparable grave harm to souls might result.
Canon 982 provides that for religious persons the canonical title is constituted by the sollemiis religiosus professio seu titulus, ut dicitur, paupertatis, that is, by the means of support arising from belonging to a religious Order, in the sense that the mere status of religious gives the right to maintenance and therefore permits ordination. When the vow of poverty is a simple, perpetual vow, the titulus paupertatis assumes the more attenuated form of titulus mensae communis or Congregationis, or a similar form.
III. THE «TITULUS PATRIMONII» IN THE ITALIAN LEGAL ORDER
Among the various t. of o., Italian law is concerned above all with the titulus patrimonii, or sacred patrimony, the question being whether the institution is recognized and whether its canonical regime is acknowledged—in other words, whether the alienation or expropriation of the property forming such patrimony, as well as the attachment and sequestration of the income from that property, may be permitted.As is well known, conflicting opinions have been advanced on this matter by legal scholarship and jurisprudence. According to an authoritative opinion, which appears preferable, the property constituting the sacred patrimony is, as such, exempt from compulsory execution, the provisions of the common canon law in force in States where the concordats had not established otherwise being applied to II. Indeed, it must be held that these provisions were abrogated neither by the Italian Civil Code of 1865 nor by the current Code, neither of which regulated the matter of the sacred patrimony, although both recognized it in various provisions as an autonomous legal institution (art. 48 of the transitional provisions of the Civil Code of 30 Nov. 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). Since, therefore, the Italian legislator enacted no provision concerning the inalienability of the property constituting the titulus patrimonii, one is led to conclude that the sacred patrimony continues to be governed by canonical rules, provided that they do not conflict with statutory law, and that the property constituting it must consequently be regarded as inalienable.
As regards, finally, the income derived from the property of the titulus patrimonii, it must be considered exempt from attachment, in view of the provision of art. 545 of the Code of Civil Procedure concerning claims exempt from attachment. Indeed, it is quite clear that the raison d’être of such income is eminently alimentary, and it therefore appears correct to apply the prohibition of attachment laid down by the aforementioned article for alimentary claims.
BIBLI: A. Bride, Titre canonique, in DThC, XV, col. 1146 sgg.; Wernz-Vidal, IV, 1, p. 289 sgg.; F. Walter, Man. del dir. eccles. di tutte le confessioni cristiane, II, Pisa 1848, p. 15 sgg.; T. Santachiara, Il tit. patrim. nello stor. e nel dir., Alatri 1908, p. 36 sgg.; N. Coviello, Man. di dir. eccles., 2ª ed., a cura di Del Giudice, I, Roma 1922, p. 90 sgg.; C. Magni, Il tit. patrim. e il Concordato, in Riv. di dir. process. civ. (1932), p. 177 sgg.; A. Vermeersch-J. Creusen, Epit. iuris can., II, 5ª ed., Bruges 1934, p. 169; D. Schiappoli, Alienabilità ed espropriabilità del sacro patrim., in Foro ital., 3 (1935, 1), col. 1532; P. Fedele, Effetti civ. del tit. patrim., in Il dir. eccles., 46 (1935), p. 500-509; F. Cappello, Tract. can.-mor. de Sacram., II, Torino 1935, p. 401 sgg.; G. Saviano, Il tit. patrim. nella legisla. ital., in Studi in onore di F. Scaduto, II, Firenze 1936, p. 310 sgg.; M. Falco, Corso di dir. eccles., I, Padova 1938, p. 78; II, ivi, p. 64 sgg.; X. Paventi, De iuram. ac de tit. missionis, Roma 1946; M. Petroncelli, Lineam. di dir. can., 2ª ed., Napoli 1947, p. 194 sgg.; E. Miranda, De Tit. missionis, Betzada 1948; V. GIUDICE, Man. di dir. eccles., 7ª ed., Milano 1949, p. 107 sgg.; M. Petroncelli, Lex. di dir. eccles., I, Napoli 1950, p. 207 sgg.; X. Paventi, Breviarium iuris mission., Roma 1952, pp. 180-86.