questions answered
by wm. b. smith

Peter’s Pence

Question: In a discussion with a tax adviser, I wanted to leave a Peter’s Pence bequest in my will. The adviser said I should not do this because it is a contribution to a “foreign country” not a charity. Is this so?

Answer: First, seek another adviser. Second, ask the first one for a small refund. A Peter’s Pence donation is “a free offering of Catholic dioceses to the Pope” (New Catholic Encyclopedia v.11, p. 235). You are free to make such a dedicated bequest in your will either to your parish or your diocese both of which are 501-C-VS recognized and so designated by the Federal Tax code.

A designated bequest can be received by your parish or your diocese not for general purposes (of parish or diocese) but only for the purpose designated. I can assure you the pastor or the bishop will be only too happy to honor that designation. Both canon law and moral law impose an obligation that the intent of the donor be honored.

A Peter’s Pence donation is to support the Pope and especially the Pope’s charities which are considerable as are those of the Pontifical Council Cor Unum, established by Pope Paul VI (1971) and codified by the Constitution Pastor Bonus (1988) n.145.

Perhaps confusion might arise with some direct contribution to Vatican City State, an independent civil entity, within the city of Rome, to repair its roads or upgrade some physical maintenance.

Even there, if a bequest is sizable, you might do well to consult with the national office of the Knights of Columbus. I am neither a lawyer nor a tax adviser, but the national office of the Knights of Columbus (Hartford, Conn.) has a long, distinguished and effective record of support for the Holy See and the works of the Holy See. My guess is that their legal and practical advice will far surpass what your local adviser came up with.

Anointing Infants?

Queston: At an area meeting of clergy, three of my priest colleagues stated that they anointed gravely ill infants because the Catechism did not forbid this. Is this permissible?

Answer: In short, the answer is no. It is neither logical nor correct to have the Catechism answer questions that were not asked of it. (cf. CCC ##1514-1516) Whereas, the same Catechism (1992) does cite the relevant canon law and the Rite of Anointing (1972) both of which directly answer this question.

First, the law—Canon 1004, #l: “The anointing of the sick can be administered to any member of the faith who, having reached the use of reason (adepto rationis usu) begins to be in danger by reason of illness or old age.” (The 19l7 Code employed the same language (post adeptum usum rationis [cn. 940, #l].)

Next, the Rite of Anointing (Ordo Unctionis Infirmorum (11/30/72) states in the Praenotanda or “Introduction”: “Sick children may be anointed if they have sufficient use of reason (cum talem habent usum rationis) to be comforted by this sacrament” (Ordo, n. 12).

Since your letter describes “infants” as those who are 1 or 2 years old, clearly these are not the proper recipients of this Sacrament since by no calculation would anyone suggest that they have reached the age of reason.

A Catholic University dissertation (Canon Law Series #419) treats at some length the question of attaining the use of reason in this context (cf. C. G. Renati, The Recipient of Extreme Unction [1961] pp. 101-108). Renati argues that in the past some particular legislation required the recipient to be of a fixed age beyond that which brings the use of reason. But, Pope Benedict XIV (1748) ruled emphatically: “As soon as children are judged capable of knowing right from wrong and of being answerable for their acts they can be anointed should they fall seriously ill” (p. 102). Not to administer this Sacrament to children who have reached the use of reason was described by the Decree Quam singulari (1910) as a “detestable abuse.”

In view of Renati’s scholarly research it is fair to say that it has never been the tradition nor the practice of the Church to administer this Sacrament to those who have never attained the use of reason—they are simply ineligible to receive this Sacrament.

Does this leave us without spiritual means and aids for infants who are seriously ill? I think not! Surely prayer (individual or group) can be offered, novenas can be offered as can all sorts of pious works and efforts. Indeed, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass can be offered for this specific purpose.

Unnecessary Security

Question: It is often alleged that the Church has “vast holdings,” and while the Church talks “poverty,” she and her representatives don’t live that way. Are there any norms or guidance in this area?

Answer: In a highly litigious society such as ours, the “vast holdings” seem most often to be the target of opportunity for litigants energized by contingency fees. Often, in fact, “holdings” refer to Church property and buildings that cost more to maintain than they generate in income. Investments, such as they are, have their ups-and-downs – when down, hospital endowments and scholarships of all kinds can and do suffer.

Nonetheless, I suspect that few things alienate the faithful more quickly or more thoroughly than the twin sins of luxuria and avaritia. The Catholic faithful do not donate funds to the Church or to Religious Orders with the hope that the administrators of same will always outwit the market and invest more shrewdly than investment managers.

Perhaps, the administrators of Dioceses and Orders are themselves convinced that there is no limit to “necessary security.” For some, you never have enough for a rainy day even where it hardly rains at all. While airtight boundaries may not be legislated in detail, there are general norms for the whole Church to observe.

Canon 1254, #1 of the Code of Canon Law (1983) establishes the right of the Church to acquire, retain, administer and alienate temporal goods in pursuit of “its proper objectives.” Paragraph #2 of the same canon details those “proper objectives”: to regulate divine worship; support clergy and other ministers; carry out works of the apostolate and of charity, especially for the needy (cn. 1254, #2).

The Commentary of the Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland provides, I think, good guidance here. It states, that cn. 1254, #2 explicitates the “proper objectives” of paragraph #1: “They must be emphasized: —the regulation of divine worship, a primary objective;—the support of those engaged in divine worship, a clear corollary;— the carrying out of apostolic works, a necessary consequence; education, care of the sick, missionary endeavors, family programs etc.; — the charitable care of the needy; . . .” (The Canon Law [1995] p. 708).

While that Commentary notes that this list is not exhaustive, it states, I think correctly, “ecclesiastical property which is not in fact devoted to one or other of these purposes is not rightly held, and should therefore be reassigned. The Church is opposed to the accumulation of property, of whatever kind, which serves no purpose other than to provide unnecessary security” (p. 708).
The American Code commentary (CLSA) correctly notes that this canon (1254) in the new Code (1983) was specifically revised according to the letter and spirit of the Council (Vatican II, GS, n. 88) to avoid “excessive possessiveness” and to forward the conciliar teaching that “the spirit of poverty and of charity are the glory and authentication of the Church of Christ” (CLSA, Commentary [2nd ed., 2000] p. 1455).

Fr. R. Cantalamessa makes a similar point in his book, Poverty (Alba House, 1997) that some once summarized the spirit of the old Code in matters of poverty as: “Prudent management of the economy, wise capitalization and secure bank accounts.” This, he says, reduced poverty to individual dependence on superiors in the use of goods and money. The result was a poverty that was individual not necessarily communal and collective. “Today, on the other hand, everyone would admit that it is wrong to call oneself poor when one belongs to a rich community” (pp. 32-3).

This applies not only to those under solemn vows, but the spirit of poverty and of charity (as virtues) apply to the whole Church. It is for me an iron rule: worldliness among the clergy guarantees disaffection among the laity.