Folia Canonica 4. (2001)
STUDIES - George Nedungatt: Who is to Administer Church Property? - The Answer of the Ecumenical Councils
WHO IS TO ADMINISTER CHURCH PROPERTY? 129 the ministry of the priesthood to burden their fellow-bishops and suffragans in any way whatsoever. For this reason this holy and universal synod has decreed that no archbishop or metropolitan should leave his own Church and visit other Churches under the pretext of an official visitation, nor abuse his authority over other Churches and consume the revenues which they have at their disposal and for feeding the poor and thus, by a form of greed, be a burden to the consciences of our brothers and fellow ministers. An exception is made in the ease of hospitality, which may sometimes arise on account of necessary travel. But even then he must accept with reverence and fear of God, nothing else than what is found prepared from that which is currently at hand. He should quickly continue the journey he has undertaken without asking or demanding any at all of the things which belong to that Church or the suffragan bishop. For if the sacred canons decree that every bishop should be sparing in his use of what belongs to his own Church, and should no way spend or consume the ecclesiastical revenues in an unfitting or unreasonable way for his own advantage, what kind of impiety do you think he will be found guilty of if he has no scruples about going around and burdening the Churches entrusted to other bishops and thereby incurring the charge of sacrilege? Whoever attempts to do such a thing, after this directive of ours, shall incur from the patriarch of the time the punishment commensurate with his unjust and greedy behaviour, and shall be deposed and excommunicated as the sacrilegious person he is or, to put it otherwise, as an idolater, according to the teaching of the great Apostle? In Canon 20 the same Council of Constantinople IV deals with still another abuse: No bishop should repossess, on his own initiative and authority, lands that have been conferred on someone without reference to the person who is the recognized authority in the city or region. It has come to the ears of this holy synod that in certain places some, on their own authority and without the agreement of those who are entrusted with such decisions, callously and mercilessly expel people who have received some of their lands by emphyteusis, on the pretext that the contract about the agreed rent has been broken. This must not be allowed to happen unless the person who made the emphyteutic contract first listens to the objections through the mediation of some suitable and trustworthy persons. Then, if the leaseholder has not paid for three years the rent due, he may be expelled from his lands. But it is necessary after the rent has been unpaid for three years, to go to the authorities of the city or region and bring before them a charge against the person who obtained the emphyteutic lease, and to show how he has defaulted. Only then, after the decision and judgement of the officials, may the Church take back its property. Nobody may effect the confiscation of the aforesaid lands on his own initiative and authority, since this would be a sign of the worst form of profiteering and greed. * 29TANNER, (ed.), Decrees (nt. 3), 180-181; JOANNOU, Discipline (nt. 21), 327-329.
