*89.* _Priesthood_, _Discipline_.—The inferior authority in the Church may
be said to be in the priesthood, whose rights and duties are fixed by the
canon law, but who are still further subject to the reasonable diocesan
rules made by the bishop. The disciplinary relation of a priest to his
bishop is substantially the same as that of a captain to his colonel, and
implicit obedience in accordance with the discipline of the Church may be
strictly enforced by the bishop in so far as it relates to ecclesiastical
matters, including doctrine and discipline, in which the priest can not
resort to the courts of the State, but must submit to the tribunals of the
church.(168)
*90.* _Congregation, Insubordinate, Discipline._—The male members of a
congregation are invested with no visitorial or controling power, but only
such authority as is given under the laws of incorporation.(169) Where an
inferior organization, as a congregation, refuses to receive a clergyman
appointed by the bishop, it is an act of insubordination to the
ecclesiastical authority of the Church and in violation of its discipline,
which authorizes the issuing of a peremptory mandamus commanding them to
admit the clergyman.(170)
*91.* _Pastor, Parish, Relation._—When a clergyman’s connection with a
church had been duly dissolved, he ceased to be pastor of the church and
an arrangement with the parish to retain his relation as pastor of such
church was nugatory and void.(171)
*92.* _Clergymen, Citizens._—Clergymen residing in an incorporated town
are not exempt from the performance of any duties required of citizens,
unless such exemption is given by statute.(172)
*93.* _Doctrine and Discipline, Authority._—In all matters concerning
doctrine and discipline of the Church, the inferior authority, such as
ministers, priests, and deacons, as well as the congregation, must submit
to the decision of the higher authority, whether bishop, synod, or
council.(173)
*94.* _Sect, Suit, Property._—A number of people formed a congregation and
became incorporated in 1810, the members being mostly of Presbyterian
extraction. This independent congregation bought and paid for property,
the title vesting in the corporation. In 1811 the congregation passed
resolutions unanimously that it “would be imprudent and unscriptural” to
establish a new religious sect, and voted to join the First Reformed Dutch
Church, which had an organization of inferior and superior authority. The
congregation was received into and became a part of the general
organization, and remained so until 1860, when a majority of the
congregation voted to employ a Methodist minister, and when his name was
submitted to the superior authority, the “classis,” he was rejected as not
belonging to the church. Then by a majority vote, the congregation seceded
and assumed its first name, and thereafter brought suit for the church
property. The court held that by joining the First Reformed Dutch Church,
the title of the property vested in the congregation of that church as
represented by its corporation, and that when the majority seceded and
left the church, they had no right nor title to any of the property. And
the court laid down the general rule that a majority of a church
congregation may direct and control any church matters consistently with
the particular and general laws of the organization or denomination to
which it belongs, but not in violation of them.(174)
*95.* _Priest, Salary._—The fact that a bishop who holds the title to all
the diocesan property in his own name in trust appoints a priest to the
parish or as chaplain to a hospital, does not give the priest a right of
action against the bishop personally for his salary. The relation of
bishop and priest is not that of employer and employe, but is that of
ecclesiastical superior and inferior.(175)
*96.* _Curate, Induction, Rector._—The _jus patronatus_ of the Spanish law
has been abrogated in Louisiana. The wardens of the church can not compel
a bishop to institute a curate of their appointment, nor is he in any
sense subordinate in his clerical functions to the wardens of any church
within his diocese.(176) In the absence of a positive rule of the
ecclesiastical body, no ceremony of induction is necessary for the rector
of a parish.(177) A clergyman appointed “permanently” to a rectorship
holds it for an indefinite period during the pleasure of the contracting
parties, and either of the contracting parties may give the other notice
of termination, and with the concurrence of the higher ecclesiastical
authority of the diocese, a change may be made.(178) It is doubtful,
however, whether in most States a permanent appointment would not be
construed as a contract for life, determinable only for good cause.(179)
*97.* _Controversy, Tribunal, Decision._—When the clergyman and his
parishioners submit a controversy to an ecclesiastical tribunal, the
decision, if not impeached for good cause, is justification in the party
conforming to it.(180) And a minister who submits to a church tribunal and
is ousted after fair hearing and trial, can not obtain a writ of mandamus
from the civil court to compel his reinstatement.(181) Also, after a
minister has been dismissed in due manner by the tribunal of his
denomination, the civil court will enjoin him from usurping his
office.(182)
*98.* _Priest, Dwelling, Servant._—A Catholic priest in charge of a
congregation at the will of the bishop and occupying a dwelling-house
belonging to the church, is a servant and not a tenant, and his right to
occupancy ceases with his services.(183) The law is different with regard
to a Methodist minister who is in charge of his parish by an annual
conference and can not be ejected by the congregation or bishop until the
next conference, as he has possession of the church property without
superior authority.(184)
*99.* _Injunction, Bishop, Priest, Trial._—On application for an
injunction to restrain the bishop from passing a sentence against a
priest, the only ground on which a court can exercise jurisdiction is that
the threatened action of the bishop will affect the civil rights of the
priest.(185) A bishop can not remove a priest without an accusation,
hearing, or trial, and forbid him to exercise any priestly function where
such removal would cut off the priest’s income and destroy his means of
living in his vocation.(186) However, in the same case it was held that a
complaint stating that the bishop failed and neglected to assign the
plaintiff to the exercise of his office of priest in said diocese to the
plaintiff’s damage, etc., failed to show that any right of property or
civil right was involved and the priest was non-suited, while in the
former case an injunction was issued against the bishop.(187)
*100.* _Confession, Privacy, Authority._—A Catholic priest, although about
to administer an office of his religion to a sick person at the latter’s
request, has no legal authority, by virtue of his priestly character, to
forcibly remove from the room a person lawfully there.(188)
*101.* _Debts, Permission, Presumed._—Notwithstanding a rule or
ecclesiastical law of the church that a pastor shall not contract debts in
the name or for the sake of the church without the written permission of
the bishop, such written permission is not evidence that debts contracted
under it are the legal debts of the bishop. The authority which bishops
delegate to priests is under the ecclesiastical law and prima facie
ecclesiastical authority, and must be presumed to be so in the absence of
all evidence to the contrary.(189)
*102.* _Official Acts, Subscriptions._—The official acts of a minister
coming in question incidentally, unless contrary to the statute, are as
valid as the official acts of any other officer.(190) A clergyman who was
engaged to conduct dedication services and was requested by the officers
of the local corporation to solicit subscriptions for paying off the
indebtedness of the church, but was not appointed agent to receive such
subscriptions, had no authority to accept a subscription for the
corporation.(191)
*103.* _Exemptions, Clergy._—The exemptions given ministers by the
statutes of some States are liberally construed.(192) Without any
statutory exemption, the clergy are liable for all duties required of
other citizens.(193)
*104.* _Minister, Contributions, Deposed._—No religious teacher or
minister can be enjoined from receiving voluntary contributions, although
he has been deposed by some ecclesiastical tribunal.(194)
*105.* _Fees, Usages, Excess._—The fees of a priest of the Catholic Church
are regulated by the laws and usages of that Church, and where in this
country the pew rent and collections go for the support of the priest and
the current church expenses, a priest is not accountable for the excess of
such collections over these expenditures.(195)
*106.* _Salary, Fees._—Under the act of March, 1814, incorporating a
congregation, the congregation, being the legal owners and temporal
administrators of the property which it was authorized to hold, had the
exclusive power to fix the salary of the parish priest or the tariff of
fees for marriages, burial, etc. No such power could be exercised under
that act by the Pope or any bishop.(196)
*107.* _Clergyman, Salary._—Where a clergyman agreed with a congregation
that the salary should be what could be raised by subscription, the
congregation was bound to use due diligence in procuring subscriptions,
and as it did so, that was all that the clergyman could recover.(197)
*108.* _Curate, Services._—In an action by a curate against a religious
corporation for personal services, the court will not inquire into the
spiritual relations existing between the parties, but will examine their
legal rights only.(198)
*109.* _Minister, Dismissal, Money Advanced._—After a parish has voted to
dismiss the minister, it is not competent to prove irregular conduct or
immorality in answer to his claim for salary, without alleging it in the
vote of dismissal.(199) In Illinois it was held that a priest who advanced
money from his private resources for improving church property, had an
equitable lien upon the property for all the money advanced, with legal
interest.(200) But in Pennsylvania, where a priest under the direction of
the bishop built a church in his parish for mission purposes, and in doing
so expended some of his own money, it was held that in the absence of
proof of any rule or custom of the Catholic Church making the payment of
such expenses obligatory on the parish, that he could not recover the
money so expended from his congregation.(201)