Folia Canonica 5. (2002)
STUDIES - Jobe Abbass: Alienating Ecclesiastical Goods in the Eastern Catholic Churches
140 JOBE ABBASS consultors not required at this level? The answer has to be negative, because, according to CCEO canon 1039, consent is required of those concerned for any alienation, even when or, perhaps, especially when, the value of the goods exceeds the defined maximum sum. Suppose that the norms regarding alienation had to be applied in a CCEO canon 1042 transaction where the eparchy proposed taking out a mortgage against the bishop’s residence valued at 1.5 million dollars, the established maximum having been set at 1 million dollars. If the bishop, finance council and college of eparchial consultors are concerned parties whose consent would be required up to the maximum, then they would be all the more concerned when the value in this case exceeds the maximum. Still, it might by argued that, since CCEO canon 1036 §2,1 does not refer to the consent of the patriarch and the permanent synod in addition to (insuper) that of the bishop, the finance council and the college of eparchial consultors, then the latter consents are not needed, although the particular law of a patriarchal Church might establish such a requirement. In fact, among the many things that it could determine, the particular law might even prescribe that the consent of the synod of bishops is needed in these cases. However, the question of particular law aside, CCEO canon 1036 §2, 1, considered in the context of the other applicable norms on alienation, evidently requires the consent of the patriarch and his permanent synod in addition to the consent of the relevant bishop, finance council and college of eparchial consultors concerned in this case. 1036 §2, 2 (Goods of a Juridic Person Subject to a Bishop). If the alienation concerns goods of a juridic person subject to an eparchial bishop within the territory of a patriarchal Church, then consent is required of that eparchial bishop as well as the patriarch with the consent of the permanent synod. Using the same example mentioned earlier, if the alienation involves property owned by a religious congregation or public association of eparchial right, then these consents are needed in addition to the authorization of those concerned (CCEO c. 1039), namely, the bishop’s finance council, the college of eparchial consultors and the juridic persons involved (the religious congregation or public association). Since the latter consents would have been required had the value of the goods to be alienated been below the established maximum, the same would be all the more necessary where the value has exceeded the maximum. 1036 §2, 3 (Goods of a Juridic Person Not Subject to Bishop). If the alienation regards goods of a j uridic person not subj ect to an eparchial bishop, even of pontifical right, and those goods45 are located within the territory of a patriarchal 45 CCEO c. 1036 §2, 3 clearly states that the juridic person’s goods to be alienated must be within the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church. If the norm were to
