Folia Canonica 5. (2002)
STUDIES - Jobe Abbass: Alienating Ecclesiastical Goods in the Eastern Catholic Churches
144 JOBE ABBASS Unlike CIC canon 1292 §2, which calls for the consent of the Holy See besides (insuper) those required by § 1 of the same canon, the parallel CCEO canon 1036 §4 does not explicitly state that the Roman See’s consent is needed in addition to the consent of the authorities mentioned in its § 1. However, as explained above (cf. CCEO c. 1036 §2, 1), if the consent of these authorities is required when the value of the goods to be alienated is between the minimum and maximum established by the See of Rome, they undoubtedly remain concerned parties whose consent is also needed when the value exceeds the defined maximum. This interpretation is not only consistent with the practice of the Roman Apostolic See53 54 but also with the principle that, in any alienation, consent is required of those concerned (cf. CCEO c. 1039). Regarding the alienation of precious images or icons outside the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Churches and in the other Eastern Catholic Churches, CCEO canon 887 § 1 still requires the written consent of the hierarch who exercises authority over the church where those precious objects are located. As for the alienation of well-known images, icons and relics in the “other cases” contemplated by CCEO canon 1036 §4, CCEO canon 888 §2 also calls for the consent of the Holy See regardless of the value of these venerated objects. 4. Re: Goods of Patriarchal Church or of Patriarch’s Eparchy (c. 1037) If a proposed alienation regards the ecclesiastical goods of a patriarchal Church or of a patriarch’s eparchy, CCEO canon 1037 establishes that the patriarch will need counsel or consent before completing the transaction validly. Whose counsel or consent is required generally depends on the goods’ value, considered under the following three categories. 1037, 1 (Value between Minimum and Maximum). This number treats two separate cases. First, if the alienation concerns the goods of a patriarchal Church and the goods’ value falls between the minimum and maximum set by its synod of bishops, then the patriarch needs the counsel of his permanent synod. Secondly, if the proposed alienation involves goods of the patriarch’s eparchy within the same value range, then CCEO canon 1036, §1, 1 must be observed. That norm calls for the consent of the eparchial finance council and the consent of the 53 Compare, however, Nedungatt, Temporalities (nt. 4), 234-235. Referring to the wider application of the principle of subsidiarity with respect to the norms regulating alienation within the territory of a patriarchal Church, the author states: “It is to be noted that for acts of Extraordinary administration, there is no more recourse to the Apostolic See of Rome, as was prescribed for extraordinary acts in the previous Eastern Code. Such recourse has been reduced to a minimum in CCEO to transactions of precious objects or things donated to the Church by reason of a vow’ (c. 1036 §4).” 54 See: Kennedy, Temporal Goods (nt. 4), 1499.
