Question IX: Whether a regular prelate can dispense his subject, which subject, and in what

THAT this power exists in Prelates the Seraphic Doctor supposes rather than proves, exposit. in Eccl. fol. 314. col. 2. The reason is, that Religious Prelates in exempt Orders succeed to Bishops; whence they are said to have a power, as it were, Episcopal; as was seen above, quaest. 2. But Bishops can dispense with their subjects in many matters: Therefore.

BESIDES, the urgent necessity of the Brethren requires that at times something be dispensed with them; but it would be hard always to have recourse to the Pontiff, or to others delegated by him; while meanwhile the public or private salvation of someone might be endangered.

FINALLY, the common law grants to Greater Prelates, having ordinary jurisdiction, that they may provide for the salvation of their subjects in all things; which cannot be done unless they have the power of dispensing; whose act pertains to ordinary jurisdiction in Bishops, or in those having a power quasi-episcopal.

THERE remains therefore to see in what matters they can dispense; for it is certain that the power of dispensing in all things is not granted to Regular Prelates; since not even Bishops have it; for many things are reserved to the Supreme Pontiff; but that those things which are not reserved, but are left by common law to the disposition of Bishops, are without doubt left also to Prelates of Regulars for their subjects.

WHEREFORE doubt can arise only concerning those things in which the dispensation of a Regular is valid, as Suarez notes, tome 4. de Relig. lib. 2. cap. 120. These are Vows, Irregularities, the precepts of the Church, and the observance of the Rule.

AS TO Vows, if they are essential to Religion, in them only the Pope can dispense, as we said above: on vows with D. Bonavent. in 4. dist. 38. art. 2. quaest. But if they were made within Religion itself, the Prelate can void them by dominative power, or change them; or dispense by the power of Jurisdiction, as Suarez teaches above.

AS TO Irregularities, as they are ordinarily imposed by the Supreme Pontiff, so are they removed; yet since some are in the common law, over which Bishops have power, it must be said that Regular Prelates can over the same, with respect to their subjects. I said in the common law, because if for some special reason the dispensation of certain irregularities is granted to Bishops, it is probably denied to Regulars according to Suarez n. 11. Whence he judges that irregularities contracted from a hidden crime, whose dispensation is given to Bishops in the Council of Trent sess. 14., are not to be dispensed by other Prelates; and he brings forward in proof of this special concession a declaration of the sacred Congregation in these words: In this decree (namely the Tridentine) inferiors are not comprehended, having ordinary and quasi-episcopal jurisdiction, but only Bishops, exclusively as regards all others.

FOR WHICH REASON Suarez does not judge it absurd, num. 12., that Religious, though exempt, should have recourse to Bishops for the absolution of such irregularities, since they cannot be absolved of them by their own through their subordinates; because the act of dispensation was made proper to the Bishop by the Council; wherefore it does not imply that they have jurisdiction in this case, though they do not have it in others, just as Religious can be partakers of an Episcopal Indulgence, because it is in favor, as is also that case of which we speak.

But if the power of dispensing in this irregularity be granted to the Regular Prelates themselves by privilege or delegation, they can forbid their subjects to have recourse to others for absolution; since the Prelate has the power that no one interfere with his subjects in those things which he himself can furnish; otherwise Regular observance and peace would easily be disturbed; as Suarez has it, cit. cap. 12. num. 15. Yet there are not lacking those who think that whatever is granted to Episcopal Prelates for the good governance of souls, the same is not denied to Regulars by an equality of reason and obligation, as Suarez notes, and rightly grants, num. 24. It will be otherwise, however, if such concessions are made to Bishops on account of their greater authority or gravity to be conciliated; for since they frequently deal with uneducated laity, who little venerate the Mysteries of faith or the Majesty of the orthodox Religion, they sometimes need to obtain special indults, by which their authority, sustained with greater splendor and more august veneration, may be set before the people.

Let the same judgment be concerning dispensation in the precepts of the Church, as in the things said above. For the common Rule is: Whatever is granted to Bishops by common law for the salvation of souls, that is not denied to Prelates holding a quasi-episcopal power. For since in the observance of fasting, in hearing Mass on a feast day, in the recitation of the Office, and similar ecclesiastical precepts frequently occurring and not rarely needing dispensation, recourse cannot easily be had to the Supreme Pontiff, nor even to the Bishops themselves, even if the Religion were not exempt; the moral necessity of good governance requires that this power be left in the hands of the Prelates of the Orders, who are accustomed to be had at a nod, since they reside continually in their convents.

But those things which are granted to Bishops by special law, pertaining more to the function of Orders than to the exercise of jurisdiction, are not considered permitted to Regular Prelates; for what would such an indult serve? unless perhaps the said Prelates were such that they could confer minor Orders by privilege.

Hence Suarez proposes the doubt, whether that special Concession made to Bishops by the Council of Trent sess. 11. and 13., for promoting one ordained to a higher order before the year from which he received the former, was made also to Regular Ordinaries, so that by their letters of dimission they can send their Religious before a year from the order received to the Bishop, that they may receive new orders; and he reports the declaration of the Cardinals made in the said sess. 23. at Marzillam, lib. 3. tit. 13. cap. 9., in these words: the Bishop to whom the one ordained is dimitted cannot make this judgment: Therefore it pertains to the Bishop from whom he is dimitted; but such is whoever is an Ordinary, as is clear from the other part of the same declaration of the Cardinals, in cap. 13., in these terms in Suarez, num. 22.: on account of the eminence of Doctrine, and good testimony, and with the consent of the ordinary, the Supreme Pontiff grants that in a shorter time, etc. wherefore since the name of Ordinary comes to the General or Provincial; to these will pertain to grant letters of dimission to those to be ordained, but not to the ordaining Bishop.

It is confirmed because the council grants that promotion before the finished year on account of the necessity or utility of the Church in which the one to be ordained serves; but the judgment of this utility or necessity stands with the Prelate ordaining; therefore it also stands with him to give the said letters.

Nevertheless Suarez concludes that, notwithstanding these, since the whole execution of the matter depends on the ordaining Bishop, who can refuse the letters of dimission, though the validity of the letters depends more on the Ordinary; and truly usage has prevailed that, with both concurring, namely the Ordinary and the Ordaining, that aforesaid promotion takes effect; the former indeed gives sufficient proof of letters and of life, and at the same time intimates the necessity and utility of the Church; the latter, accepting this, is accustomed to dispense in the intervening time by a simple declaration of his will, which he performs for the most part, at least in Gaul, through his Vicar presiding over the examination of those to be ordained.

Finally, as to Regular Observance: there are many things which conduce to it. Some generically and essentially; some specifically; and some even contingently. Generically and essentially, the three substantial vows conduce to Regular observance, emitted in every Religion, without which Religion itself cannot stand, as was said above, where we treated of the Religious state: In these, however, dispensing is granted to no one below the Supreme Pontiff, as was asserted above at the proper beginning of this question; and it is clear from the Council of Trent sess. 25. de Regul. cap. 1. VII. and from the common Custom of all Orders; for nowhere has it yet been seen that Prelates of Religions have usurped this power to themselves, and deservedly, since it leads to ruin of every kind.

Specifically, there conduce to the state or Regular observance, beyond the three vows common to all Religious, certain particular vows, which are as it were the specific differences of such a Religion, as in the Jesuits to obey the Supreme Pontiff in undertaking missions: in the Minims not to eat meat, etc.

That in these also a Regular Prelate cannot dispense is certain; though he can in some event declare the cessation of the obligation in one or another act.

He can first, because those vows compose the special Order of Regular observance within such a state; which no Prelate can change, especially because it depends on the statutes in General Chapters, which are above particular Superiors, not able to dispense in the law of a superior; add that such statutes, approved by the Supreme Pontiff, pass into laws enacted by himself.

I said, though he can in some event, etc. For where subjects are vexed by scruples of doubt whether it be lawful for them, some special cause occurring, to do something against such vows; the authority of a superior can intervene to remove the scruples, by declaring that they may, by way of concession, act in such a case, as is clear from the indult of Pius II. given to the Friars Minor, in Suarez, num. 46., in these words: Prelates may grant, or dispense with, weak and infirm subjects in things which are not contrary to the Rule.

Where note, that those things which are substantial in the genus, or for the whole Religion, cease as to obligation for particular cases in the same genus; whence although in our Rule it is ordained for the whole Order that we walk with bare feet, shod only with sandals; yet the Rule itself declares that for some in particular, on account of their necessity, that obligation does not lie; whence the Pontiff subjoins, after he had said, with weak subjects, etc., those things which are not against the Rule, doubtless because he himself indulges the infirm, that they may take in those things which are necessary for their solace.

Nor does it stand in the way that the Pontiff uses the word dispense, because this is not to relax the law, but to declare it, according to the more probable opinion, which St. Bonaventure teaches, in 4. dist. 38. art. 2. quaest. 3., and which we maintained here, tract. de voto, disp. 1. quaest. 29., where we also showed that this right of dispensing belongs to Prelates having a quasi-episcopal power: Yet it must be noted that the vows of subjects are of a twofold kind; For some are those which each one already professed in Religion emits for the sake of greater devotion and piety, and these the Prelate can void, change, or dispense, as he himself judges better; even if they were emitted with his license, as the master, disp. cit. de voto, above; for by the emission of a vow the will of the subject is not exempted from the power of the Prelate, to whom the dispensation of the vow may seem to conduce more to the Religious's salvation than its observance.

¶ SOME vows also are emitted by subjects, which pertain to such a state by the statute of Religion, as we intimated above. And indeed to dispense with these for the whole Religion is not the part of the Regular Prelate, but of the Supreme Pontiff, as has been proven: yet for one or another case it can be done otherwise, as has been said.

NEITHER will you say: To what purpose then so many indults of Pontiffs, granting Prelates the faculty of dispensing even for one or another case, as experience shows in every Religion?

Suarez ANSWERS, cap. 12. num. 26. that this faculty is indeed annexed by law to the prelacy; yet since the Prelate himself can be anguished by scruples, whether there be a greater or lesser necessity of the subject, and whether such be the circumstance of the matter requiring dispensation, that it can be granted, it is necessary that the authority of the Supreme Prelate intervene to remove this anxiety and to approve such a circumstance of the matter, that dispensation may be made more easily, more expeditiously, and more securely; for the declaration of the law, whereby someone is exempted from its observance, does not suffice on the judgment of a learned man, much less of one seeking it, but an authoritative definition of the Prelate having the power for it is required, as I taught from the mind of the Angelic Doctor, above on the vow.

¶ LASTLY, certain things conduce to Regular observance according to the ordinance of each Religion, made in Provincial or other Chapters, or introduced by laudable custom; as not to lock the door of the cell with a key, to observe silence at the appointed hours, not to enter another's cell, and the like: in these, however, there is not properly a dispensation, but a license granted on petition; for since ordinances of this kind are only directive, or only penal, at the judgment of the Superior, not for the most part binding unto sin, except per accidens, no dispensation is required, which is proper to a law that binds.

¶ THEN these things are not simply commanded, but that they be done in the due manner, that is, with the license of the Superior: therefore this suffices, as a condition affecting the matter of merit; whence although without a cause, or at least for the delight of mind, or at the request of a companion, the subject petition license in these things, he uses it licitly and validly, which however is not admitted in a dispensation: Nor ought the Prelate to be too severe in these, at least if he suspects no bad custom to be bred from them; for otherwise the austerity of Prelates in granting these or similar licenses brings it about that occasions of acting against them stealthily are seized, and bad manners creep in from there; whence, with brow too much furrowed, Prelates sterner than the strict, often strive in vain to shut off their access.

¶ AS TO the Prelates who can grant these dispensations, or licenses, namely whether they are Local, Provincial, or General, the common law determined nothing; which, since it speaks only of Bishops, or Abbots — which Abbots, though they were prefects of convents, yet a single one presided over his whole order — we cannot argue otherwise concerning Regular Prelates than by consequences derived from their power; for Religious Prelates, if exempt, succeeded to their place as regards the governance of subjects, as I have touched upon more than once elsewhere in this disputation.

¶ YET since each Religion has prescribed to itself an order among Prelates, as I said, quaest. 3., that order and its practice must be kept; nevertheless Suarez hands down the general rule of this practice, namely, that each Prelate can dispense in those things which are granted to him to be dispensed either by law or by the Rule itself; and he teaches that this rule is handed down by Innoc. in cap. 2. de eo, qui furt. Ord. suscepit, and confirmed by the common approbation of the Doctors, as is clear from Sylvester and Angelo, V. dispensatio, and others, in cap. ut si Clerici, §. de adulteriis in indic.

¶ BUT since in the Rules and Constitutions of Religions some things are accustomed to be reserved to the General Minister, some also to the Provincial; those things are considered permitted to inferior Prelates which are not found forbidden to them, or specially reserved to superiors: Except the Society of Jesus, by the Bull of Greg. XIII., in Suarez, num. 15. where he teaches, that whatever is not specially granted to the Prelates of this Society is considered forbidden.

¶ FINALLY, as to the persons to whom the dispensation is to be imparted, it is necessary that they be subjects of the one dispensing by some law; wherefore they are in a threefold difference: For either they are the Prelates themselves, middle and lowest; or professed subjects, whose privileges and exemption the Novices in many things enjoy; or finally they are seculars, serving Regulars domestically.

¶ That the lowest Prelate have recourse to the proximate superior for dispensation in those things which are forbidden to himself, or to the supreme Superior of the Religion, if they are specially reserved to him, the common practice teaches.

¶ Say the same of the intermediate Prelate also with respect to the supreme one; but he can dispense with himself by himself: For this is believed to be the intent of the Pontiff, from whom he obtains jurisdiction; otherwise Religion would not be sufficiently provided for in its head, as Suarez argues, cap. 14. num. 5.

¶ But professed subjects are the proper matter into which dispensation falls; whence they are to be dispensed by their own Prelates, to whom they are actually subject; for a local prelate of one convent cannot dispense with the subjects of another; otherwise the order of Prelacy would not be rightly instituted in distinct places.

¶ HENCE those Religious who, according to the particular Statutes, constitutions, or Customs of their order, are subject to the Prelates of the places through which they pass, seek dispensations or licenses from no others than these. For since these are for that time the Prelates of those who among us are commonly called Foreigners, they cannot at the same time be subject to the Prelates of their own residence in the execution of some act; otherwise confusion and contradiction would arise from the diverse wills or mandates of either Prelate; to remove which the Seraphic Doctor shows, in 4. dist. 19. art. 3. quaest. 1. fundam. ult., that God provided for the execution of jurisdiction by a singular Prelation of one, so that all of one parish are governed by one Pastor, all of one diocese by one Bishop, etc., as was shown by me, tomb 4. de Actib. hum. disp. 17. quaest. 14., where I also showed that the Guardian of the way, or of the place through which one passes, commanding the pilgrim brother, can bind him to apply Masses for the alms of his Convent, though the Guardian of the residence of such a Religious had previously commanded the opposite; for our Constitutions subject us, by reason of the journey, to the Prelates of the convents through which we pass.

¶ Yet if it can be done that the dispensation be sought from one's own Prelate, by deferring it, and its execution not touch the Prelate of the place of the journey; for the conservation of peace and order, it is better expedient that it be deferred.

¶ NOR do the things lately said stand in the way, that the sacred Cardinal Congregation declared concerning secular Clerics that they are not subject to the Prelates under whom they pass on a journey as regards dispensation, as Suarez has it, cap. cit. num. 1. at the end; on account of which authority he infers the same concerning Religious, not seeing the contrary kept in the special statutes of Religions on account of the stricter discipline: but where there is a special Constitution, the example of others does not militate against it; otherwise there would be no reason why it should be special.

MOREOVER I said above that Novices enjoy the Privileges and exemption of the professed in many things; because Prelates cannot conduct themselves toward them equally as toward the professed in all things; whence they cannot impart to them those dispensations which are to endure perpetually in their effects, as to dispense in the interstices, irregularities, etc., that they may be promoted to orders; unless they have a special Privilege for it; it is clear because the power of dispensing with professed subjects is prudently believed to be conferred on Prelates for this reason, that as much as lies in them, they are subject to them perpetually; but the state of a Novice is mobile and uncertain, as Suarez well shows, in the place cited.

FINALLY, as to lay or secular persons ministering in the convents of Regulars, they are not to be exempted from the power of Bishops by the Privileges of the latter, unless they are expressed in them under a special title; as appears in the Indult of Eugenius IV. for the Monks of St. Jerome, which is extended by communication to others; where the faculty of dispensing with seculars serving domestically is given to local Prelates, that they may be excused from the ecclesiastical fast, and eat meat, urgent necessity pressing, etc. for which consult the Compendia of the Privileges of the Society, V. dispensatio.