Folia Canonica 5. (2002)

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

142

JOBE ABBASS

Therefore, regarding the alienation of these precious goods within the territory of a patriarchal Church, besides the consents required by CCEO canon 1036 §3, CCEO canon 887 § 1 calls for the written consent of the hierarch who has authority over the church where the sacred icon or precious image is venerated. Clearly, while an eparchial bishop exercises vigilance over the administration of ecclesiastical goods in his eparchy (cf. CCEO c. 1022 §1* 48), in the matter of their alienation the hierarch intended here may also include major superiors who possess ordinary power of governance in institutes of consecrated life (cf. CCEO c. 984 §3).49 For example, if the proposed alienation involves a precious image located in the convent church of a religious order, then, in addition to the consent of the patriarch and the synod of bishops, the written consent of the major superior (hierarch) of that order would be needed, if that authorization is not already called for in the order’s statutes. His consent would also be required for validity (cf. CCEO c. 1035 §1, 3).50

The second CCEO norm worthy of note here regards icons, images and relics that are “well-known” {insignes). CCEO canon 888 §1 states:

churches, in the wider sense of a building for religious worship, which corresponds more accurately to the meaning of the Latin ”ecclesiam”.

48Indeed, while CCEO c. 1022 §1 specifies that it is the eparchial bishop who exercises vigilance over the administration of ecclesiastical goods in his eparchy, the parallel CIC c. 1276 §1 establishes a very different principle. It states: ”It is for the ordinary to exercise vigilance over the administration of all the goods which belong to juridic persons subject to him, without prejudice to legitimate titles which attribute more significant rights to him.” Since the definition of’’ordinary” (cf.CIC c. 134 §1) includes the Roman Pontiff, bishops, vicars general and episcopal vicars, CIC c. 1276 §1 does not identify only the diocesan bishop to be responsible for the administration of temporal goods in a diocese. See also: Abbass, Temporal Goods (nt. 4), 182—183.

49 Compare, however, H. Alwan, I sacramentali, i luoghi e i tempi sacri, il culto dei santi, il voto e il giuramento, in P. V. PlNTO (ed.), Commento al Codice dei Canoni delle Chiese Orientali, Rome 2001, 766. In his commentary on CCEO c. 887 §1, the author evidently interprets “hierarch” to refer only to the eparchial bishop or the local hierarch. Furthermore, he states: “The eparchial bishop or the local hierarch being, according to cc. 1022 and 1039, the custodian who must exercise vigilance over the administration of all ecclesiastical goods, that are located within the confines of his own eparchy, and that are under his power of governance can allow the transfer or alienation of objects of worship mentioned in this paragraph...”

50By referring to cc. 1034—1041, CCEO c. 887 §1 clearly intends that the hierarch’s consent is needed in addition to those required by cc. 1036-1037. Compare, however, Alwan, I sacramentali (nt. 48), 766-767. In his commentary on CCEO cc. 887-888, the author seems to argue that the consent of the hierarch in CCEO c. 887 §2 is sufficient for the alienation of precious images or icons. Regarding the alienation of well-known icons and images in the succeeding CCEO c. 888 §1, Alwan states: “In these cases, the consent of the hierarch is not enough; the consent of the Apostolic See is needed instead, or that of the patriarch with the consent of the permanent synod of the patriarchal Church...”