Folia Canonica 5. (2002)

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

146

JOBE ABBASS

As for the alienation of well-known (insignes), but not precious, images, icons and relics of the patriarchal Church or the patriarch’s eparchy, CCEO canon 888 §2, with due regard for CCEO canon 1037 (firmo can. 1037), establishes that the patriarch needs the consent of his permanent synod in these cases. Therefore, given the nonns in canon 1037, there are three possible situations: 1) If these goods’ value is between the minimum and maximum amount and they are goods of the patriarchal Church, the patriarch needs the consent, not the counsel of the permanent synod. If the same goods belong to the patriarch’s eparchy, the patriarch requires the counsel of the college of eparchial consultors, and the consent of both the eparchial finance council and the permanent synod of the patriarchal Church. 2) If the goods’ value goes over the defined maximum amount, but not by double, the same consent of the permanent synod is required.

3) If the goods’ value exceeds twice the set maximum amount, CCEO canon 103 7,3 calls for the consent of the synod of bishops instead of the consent of the permanent synod prescribed by CCEO canon 888 §2.

Conclusion

When John Paul II presented the new Eastern Code to the bishops of the whole Church, he also indicated that it is an integral part of the “one Corpus Iuris Canonici” of the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, it is still common to see articles and manuals which intend to examine particular canonical subjects “in the Code” and “in the Church”, but they only treat those matters in the Latin Code and in the Latin Church, seemingly to the exclusion of the other Code in the one Corpus and the other Churches in the one Church of Rome. Yet, as the pope presented the new Eastern Code, he also urged proper and comparative studies of the two Codes of the Church in all canon law faculties so that canonists might truly come to know the one Corpus of the Church’s canon law. Unfortunately, in the area of ecclesiastical goods, very few comparative studies of the corresponding norms in the Eastern and Latin Codes have been done to date. Aside from the reasons that might explain this shortcoming, it is certain that such comparative studies will, in any event, not be proper or reliable if, in the first place, the respective canons in each of the Codes are not examined and correctly understood.

In an attempt to respond to the pope’s call for comparative studies of the Latin and Eastern Codes, this article has examined their corresponding norms on alienation of ecclesiastical goods (CIC cc. 1291-1298; CCEO cc. 1035-1042). Part I, which dealt with a number of questions common to both Codes, showed that many of the parallel norms were comparatively similar, though not identical. For example, the “higher authority” specified in CCEO canon 1040 could be seen to clarify who the “competent authority” is in CIC canon 1296 to decide on