Folia Canonica 5. (2002)
STUDIES - Jobe Abbass: Alienating Ecclesiastical Goods in the Eastern Catholic Churches
132 JOBE ABBASS followed the 1917 Latin Code, the new CCEO norms were undoubtedly formulated with the new CIC canons in mind. Within the Pontificia Commissio Codici luris Canonici Orientalis Recognoscendo (PCCICOR), Jan _ezá_ reported on the initial working sessions (May 8-21, 1977) of the study group that drafted these norms. He stated: In general, the subdivision of this part (of the schema) is kept just as in PA. However, regarding the same canons, where it was possible, the former text remained (19 cc.), or at least was changed very little (7 cc.); in others, however, we adapted the canons to today’s circumstances, having the text of the C.I.C. Commission before us.21 c) Special Consent (CCEO c. 1041 ; CIC c. 1298). For all intents and purposes identical to the intent of CIC canon 1298, CCEO canon 1041 establishes that, unless an asset has little value, administrators are not to sell or lease ecclesiastical goods to their relatives up to the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity without the special, written (cf. CCEO c. 151422) permission (licentia) of the authorities mentioned in CCEO canons 1036-1037. These sales or leases could, therefore, involve sums much below the minimum established by the synod of bishops or the Roman See, as the case may be. The obvious intention of the norm is to prevent against possible conflicts of interest. However, the special permission in these cases is required only for liceity. d) No Consent But Civilly Valid Alienation (CCEO c. 1040; CIC c. 1296). If ecclesiastical goods are alienated without the necessary consent or other canonical requirements but the alienation is nevertheless valid with respect to civil law, CIC canon 1296 states: Whenever ecclesiastical goods have been alienated without the required canonical formalities but the alienation is valid civilly, it is for the competent authority, after having considered everything thoroughly, to decide whether and what type of action, namely, personal or real, is to be instituted by whom and against whom in order to vindicate the rights of the Church. Regarding the interpretation of CIC canon 1296, a question has arisen as to which “competent authority” is meant to decide whether and which type of action to take in these situations. V. De Paolis argues: “Which is the competent authority depends on the juridic person in question: it is the authority to which the same juridic person is subject.”23 However, that would not seem to be so in all cases. For example, if a bishop proceeds with the sale of parish propriety without the consent either of the finance council, the college of consultors or the pastor, 21 22 23 21Nuntia 5 (1977) 49. 22 CCEO c. 1514 states: “An administrative act which regards the external forum must be put in writing...” 23 De Paolis, Beni temporali (nt. 1), 194. *
