Folia Canonica 5. (2002)

STUDIES - Jobe Abbass: Alienating Ecclesiastical Goods in the Eastern Catholic Churches

ALIENATING IN THE EASTERN CATHOLIC CHURCHES

141

Church, then consent is required of the patriarch with the consent of the permanent synod. These consents are in addition to those necessary according to that juridic person’s typicon or statutes. Therefore, regarding the alienation of ecclesiastical property belonging to religious institutes or public associations of either patriarchal or pontifical right located within the territories of the patriarchal Churches, consent will be required of the patriarch, his permanent synod and the authority determined in the typicon or statutes. Here, in a clear application of the principle of subsidiarity in favor of the patriarchal Churches, the legislator has even conceded his authority regarding consent in relation to juridic persons of pontifical right.

1036§3 (Value Exceeds Maximum by Double). Within the territory of a patriarchal Church, if the value of the goods to be alienated exceeds the defined maximum by double, or if the alienation, regardless of value, concerns precious goods or goods given to the Church by reason of a vow, then §2 is to be followed but the patriarch will need the consent of the synod of bishops instead of the permanent synod in these cases. Regarding all alienations within the territories of the Eastern patriarchal Churches, then, this norm fully applies the principle of subsidiarity by effectively constituting the patriarch with the synod of bishops to be the superior authority in these matters.

With respect to the alienation of precious goods, two other CCEO norms should be considered here.46 In the case of the proposed alienation of sacred icons or precious images, CCEO canon 887 §1 establishes:

Sacred icons or precious images, that is, those that are outstanding due to antiquity or art, that are exposed in churches for the veneration of the Christian faithful, cannot be transferred to another church or alienated without the written consent given by the hierarch who exercises authority over that same church,47 with due regard for cann. 1034-1041. * 3

apply as long as the juridic person is located within the patriarchal territory, then one might conclude erroneously that, in this case, a religious order of pontifical right, for example, which is located in a patriarchal territory, could alienate properties it owns at its apostolic mission in the diaspora with the consent of the patriarch and his permanent synod. Compare, however, G. Nedungatt, A Companion to the Eastern Code (Kanonika 5), Rome 1994, 257. The author’s corrected translation of CCEO c. 1036 §2,

3 states: “In patriarchal Churches, if the value of goods exceeds the maximum amount fixed by the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church, but is not double, the consent is required: of the patriarch given with the consent of the permanent synod, in the case of the goods of a juridical person which is not subject to an eparchial bishop, even if that juridical person be of pontifical law, but is located within the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church.”

46 See also: Chittilappilly, Temporal Goods (nt. 4), 59-60.

47 The CLSA translation of ’’Church” here, which could be interpreted to refer only to one of the Eastern Catholic Churches sui iuris, is corrected to intend one of their