Doubt III: Whether interrupting the parts of the same Hour is a grave sin

No one blames disjoining the Lauds from Matins, even for a light cause, since they can be said in the manner of two hours; nor is it culpable to separate one nocturn from another with a moderate interruption, since the sense can be completed and concluded in each nocturn. But the question concerns the interruption of the psalms, chapters, and lessons of the same hour, in which there may intervene either the exercise of another action incompatible with the office, or conversation with someone; but whichever occurs, if the interruption is moral and notable, it is guilty of mortal sin, according to the thirteen Doctors whom Diana cites, part one, tract. 12, resol. 4.

The REASON is, because the unity of each office belongs to the solemn rite of the office instituted by the Church; but this is often destroyed by such a notable interruption: and in consequence the precept is not satisfied; and while for the physical destruction of unity a grave interpolation of time is required, from which the unity of the action is mostly derived, nevertheless sin is not thereby committed unless such interpolation be moral and free.

Suarez, however, remits the measure for discerning a notable interruption to the judgment of a prudent man; who ought to weigh the quantity of each hour, which, the smaller it is, the more is it violated by the lesser delay of time also; wherefore that time which is judged slight in Matins will not be judged so slight in a briefer hour; nor ought the same delay of time be reckoned for the recitation of one psalm as of two.

In another way the office is interrupted, when, having begun, it is lightly set aside, with the intention of resuming it again; which Suarez condemns as culpable, since such a one behaves irreverently toward God; yet he does not sin mortally, provided he completes the interrupted office again.

Suarez adds further: if the office be interrupted even gravely, to do or say something that serves the office itself; for instance, consulting a companion about the manner in which such an office, in which some new difficulty occurs, should be said, or removing some cause of distraction; then there will be no sin: it would nevertheless be more prudent, if the hour be short, to repeat it from the beginning, at least if it were interrupted in the middle of a Psalm. But indecorous words, or even indecent actions, in the Divine office are gravely prohibited, Caput nullus, de consecr. dist. 5, and cap. Dolentes, de celebr. miss.

Twelve Doctors sustain the opinion contrary to the former, in Diana, at the place cited. So that they condemn a notable interruption of the office as venial only; to whom I add Tannerus, dispute 5, question 1, dub. 4, number 156, Peltanus, book 3 on good works, with whom Diana himself subscribes, with Bassaeus, V. hora, number 16.