103. On Canons

1. Iacobus, a canon, is indeed present in choir, but he does not discharge the office with the others by singing. For he hears the others of the other part of the choir; but the verses of his own part of the choir he recites in a low voice. Anxious about this practice of his, he asks whether he has sinned gravely, and whether he is bound to restore the fruits and distributions received.

Question. What is to be said in the case?

R. Roncaglia, tract 5, q. 2, c. 1, q. 6, has these things which pertain to our matter: “A beneficed cleric assigned to choir is bound so to sing, if he is not impeded by some cause, that he can be heard by the other part. Many oppose this obligation, since it is enough for him that that part of the choir in which he is found should speak in such a way that it may be heard by the other; for then all are judged to speak in that way, since they help one another by mutual communication. But this reason does not sufficiently convince me; for one assigned to choir, in order to satisfy his duty, and consequently to receive distributions, ought to serve the choir as such service requires; but the service of choir demands that one so recite that he can be heard by the other part. Besides, anyone assigned to the ministry of some community ought on his part to contribute to such ministry; but he certainly does not do this who says the canonical hours in such a way that he cannot be heard by his counterpart. From these reasons the common opinion is that he at least does not satisfy public recitation who recites in so low a voice that the matter stands as if he were reciting privately; and consequently he is to be deprived of distributions.”

Bonacina teaches these things about the same question, d. 1, q. 3, p. 2, par. 1, n. 17: “I respond secondly that he who recites his own verses in a low voice, and attentively hears the others of the other choir, does not satisfy the due service of choir, although he satisfies the obligation of reciting the divine office, nor is he bound to repeat the office. The reason is that ecclesiastical revenues are given to canons so that they may serve and sing with the others, Clem. 1, de Celebrat. missarum, final chapter, dist. 92, where it is said that clerics deputed to a church ought to assemble in the church for the daily office of psalmody. But clerics are not deputed, nor are they accustomed to assemble, so that they may hear the rest, but so that they may sing psalms together; just as a laborer is not hired for the vineyard so that he may stand by there, but so that he may apply his work in it; nor is a parish priest hired so that he may simply reside, but so that he may exercise the parochial burdens. Therefore they ought to sing psalms together; consequently he who recites his own verses in a low voice does not satisfy the duty of choir, although he attentively hears the others. ... Hence it follows that one reciting in a low voice, while the others sing, cannot receive distributions. The reason is both because distributions are conferred upon those singing and serving in choir, and because he who does not do what he ought does not receive what he ought; and because here he acts against commutative justice; therefore he is bound to restitution. ... I concede, however, that he can receive half the distributions, because he is not wholly lacking in his duty, since he is present at choir, recites the office in a low voice, and hears the rest. ... And in this way the words of the Constitution of Pius V, which begins Ex proximo lateranensi, are to be understood, in which it is decreed that a canon who does not sing psalms in choir, although he is present, loses the fruits which he would have gained if he had sung. The reason why they are to be understood in this way is both because he fulfills part of his duty, and therefore it does not seem fitting that he should lose all the fruits, and because in the aforesaid Constitution it is not said, ‘he who does not sing psalms,’ but ‘he who, assigned to choir, is present with the others at all the canonical hours without reciting.’”

The Supreme Pontiff indeed absolutely denies the fruits and distributions to him who is present in choir but does not recite the office either in choir or outside choir. But if he recites the office outside choir, he indeed receives the fruits of the benefice; for a beneficed cleric privately reciting makes his fruits his own. If, however, he recites the office neither in choir nor outside choir, he loses the fruits and distributions. For by reason of the omission of the office he loses the fruits; by reason of absence from choir he suffers the loss of distributions. Hence, if someone in choir indeed recites his own part of the office but does not sing psalms, while he hears the others singing their own part, he does not lose the fruits, since this man is not of a worse condition than one who did not come to choir and recited privately. But he seems to gain distributions by half, says Bonacina; for although he does not sing psalms, nevertheless he is really present at choir, reciting the office and hearing the rest. But if he is present at choir and recites the office, yet recites the whole office in a low voice, then, although he gains the fruits of the benefice, nevertheless he loses all distributions, since that presence in choir is then wholly material; and as one simply not reciting, even if he is present at choir, nevertheless loses distributions, so also, although he recites the whole office, but privately, he loses distributions; for if in the one case that presence is not considered sufficient for gaining distributions, neither is it considered such in the other case.

So indeed according to Bonacina, loc. cit., and according to the cited Bull of St. Pius V. But St. Alphonsus, bk. 3, n. 675, contends that canons not present in choir, without a legitimate or just cause, by the fact itself and before any sentence lose both all distributions and also the fruits of the benefice; likewise that canons indeed present in choir, but not singing, also lose all distributions and fruits; and that those likewise present in choir, reciting the psalms in a low voice and hearing the other part, lose all distributions and are bound to restore the fruits of the prebend. The holy Doctor confirms this from the Constitution of Benedict XIV, Cum semper oblatas, and from the letter Dilecte fili to His Eminence Cardinal Delphinus, Patriarch of Aquileia.

Now then, canons absent from choir, even in time of vacations, do not gain distributions, unless by fiction of law they are judged present. They also do not gain distributions who are present at choir but do not sing psalms, even if they recite the whole office in a low voice; indeed even if they recite only part in a low voice and hear another part in choir, for even in this case they do not sing psalms. So indeed from the cited Constitution and from the cited letter of Benedict XIV. But as regards the fruits of the prebend, those who are absent from choir, if they recite the office, must indeed restore the fruits of the prebend, but not before the sentence of a judge, and if they are absent beyond the conciliar months and without a legitimate or just cause. Nor is the contrary proved from the cited Constitution and cited letter of Benedict XIV. For the prescription of the Council of Trent, sess. 24, c. 12, de R., is still in force in this matter. Cf. S. C. C., in Verulana, Residence, 6 June 1863. Wherefore the Constitution of Benedict XIV is to be understood of those prebends which consist of daily distributions. Cf. Barbosa, de Canon. et Dignit., c. 20, n. 18; Lucidi, ed. 3, vol. 1, p. 322, n. 106. Hence even canons who are present at choir, but recite the office in a low voice and do not sing psalms, or even simply do not recite, are bound to restore the fruits of the prebend, but not before sentence, and only beyond the conciliar months. Cf. I. M. 219, 220, 221.

It must be noted here, 1., that a twofold kind of revenues has been established for canons: one from prebends, which is called by the name of fruits; the other from daily distributions. cc. 19, 27, de Praeb., c. 10, Extr. Comm., same title. The former are given on account of the benefice itself or prebend, and therefore so that they may recite the canonical hours; the latter on account of presence, and consequently so that they may be present at choir. Cf. Lucidi, ed. 3, vol. 1, p. 286, n. 27 ff.; Trent, sess. 24, c. 3, de R.; sess. 22, c. 3, de R.; sess. 24, c. 12, de R. To these are added emoluments from anniversaries, from legacies, from public supplications, from lawful funerals, etc., which are commonly called distributions among those present. Cf. Benedict XIV, Notification 107, n. 7.

It must be noted, 2., that, the question concerning choir in order to gain fruits and distributions being set aside, but speaking of choir in general in order to satisfying the obligation of the divine office, whether those who recite the psalms in a low voice while hearing the other part satisfy it, according to the far more probable and more common opinion it must be affirmed. The reason is that, in order to satisfy the office in choir, it is not necessary that each one hear all the voices of the other part; for each part with the other constitutes one body, and they mutually communicate. L. 1, 3, n. 675; G. 127.

2. Three canons, brothers by blood, two of whom also carried out the parochial office, were unjustly and violently expelled from their own see by the demagogues of Italy, to which they could not return without danger of prison or life. During the whole time of absence they were deprived by the other canons of the emoluments which are called adventitious, namely those which arise from associations of the dead, anniversaries, public supplications, and other sacred functions. These emoluments, on account of the death of two canons, the four canons only who remained divided among themselves.

Question. What is to be said in the case?

R. Note beforehand: 1. All choral emoluments come, some from the prebend, but others from added pious legacies for Masses and other sacred functions to be performed. The question concerns the emoluments of this second kind; and these emoluments are likewise of a twofold species. For some are fixed from the perpetuity of legacies; others are uncertain and manual, which come from alms, or passing legacies, and other ways by the piety of the faithful. 2. There are legitimate causes of absence from choir which grant the right not only of receiving fruits and daily distributions, but also the other extraordinary distributions and all emoluments which derive from fixed offerings, if the special will of the testator or giver does not stand in the way. Among causes of this kind is counted the absence of canons compelled by demagogues, during the necessity of that absence. For this forced absence is reduced to bodily necessity, which gives a right even to fixed emoluments, as the doctors teach according to c. Consuetudinem, single chapter, de Cler. non resid., in 6, and as is clear from several responses of S. C. C. — I. M. 220.

Wherefore the response to the proposed question is that those absent canons gain all fixed offerings only, in which the special disposition of the testator or giver does not stand in the way, during the necessity of that absence; and that the other present canons, who unduly received the same emoluments of the absent, are bound to restitution of them. S. C. C., 8 July 1865; A. S. S., vol. 2, p. 407 ff.; Lucidi, ed. 3, vol. 1, p. 304.

3. Theodorus, a canon, who was accustomed diligently to frequent choir, is absent from choir because of grave infirmity, although he is not on that account lying in bed. The other canons would wish to deprive him of the fruits of the prebend and of distributions.

Question. Do they do this by right?

R. In the negative. To a sick canon, during his infirmity, although he is not present at choir, all the fruits of his canonicate are owed, as also distributions, provided that before the infirmity he was accustomed to serve his church. S. C. C., 5 March 1667. And this is also clear from c. Quum percussio, 1, de Cler. aegr., and it is the common opinion of the doctors. Schmalzgrueber, bk. 3, tit. 41, nn. 86, 87, 88; I. M. 220.

4. Iosephus, a canon, because of grave infirmity had to be absent from choir and from the diocese for two whole years. The Chapter, relying upon custom, during this whole time denied to him both benefice fruits and distributions. Did it do so by right?

R. In the negative. Wherefore both the daily distributions and the benefice fruits, of which the aforesaid canon was deprived, are to be restored in the case. S. C. C., 7 April 1900. The reason is that infirmity is a canonical cause of absence both from choir and from the place of the benefice. Wherefore a canon absent by reason of infirmity is bound neither to renunciation of the benefice nor to putting a substitute. S. C. C., in Piscien., 23 July 1764. And, although a canon in good health may be absent from choir and from the place of the benefice, and therefore lose the daily distributions, nevertheless he does not lose the fruits of the prebend before sentence and by the fact itself. I. M. 220. But the custom in the case, as unjust, is irrational and of no value. M. E., vol. 12, p. 340 ff.

5. Bonifacius, a penitentiary canon, on Saturday and Sunday and on the vigils of solemn feasts and on all feast days is in the confessional awaiting penitents, who are accustomed to confess on these days; but he does not always hear confessions, whence, while the other canons chant the office in choir, he often recites the office privately. On other days, however, Bonifacius is also in the confessional, hearing the long confessions of a few devout women, who come to him daily. The canons, who know the matter plainly, wish entirely to deprive Bonifacius of distributions. For they say that on Saturday, Sunday, and feast days, while the office is chanted in choir, there often are no penitents at that hour; and that those devout women, on other days, could well confess at another hour.

Question. Do they do this by right?

R. From the Council of Trent, sess. 24, c. 8, de R., a penitentiary canon, while he hears confessions in the church, is meanwhile judged present in choir. The same is clear from the Decisions of S. C. C. while he is actually hearing confession. Benedict XIV, Instruction 107, n. 55. Wherefore Bonifacius cannot by right be deprived of distributions on those days on which he actually hears confessions. The question can only be about those days on which he does not hear confessions, but awaits penitents.

Now, if he recites the office privately in the confessional seat, while the other canons chant the office in choir, so that afterwards he may hear confessions more freely and conveniently, this certainly does not suffice for him to be considered present in choir and to gain distributions, as Barbosa teaches, cited by Benedict XIV, loc. cit. But if on certain determined days he sits in the confessional, indeed not actually hearing confessions, but awaiting penitents, with the mandate of the Bishop acceding, then he is judged present in choir and gains distributions, as is gathered from the Decision of S. C. C., 19 January 1646, M. E., vol. 9, pt. 2, p. 242. If finally, during the time of the office, he remains in the confessional, indeed not always actually hearing confessions, but awaiting those about to come who are accustomed to come, it seems altogether truer that he does not lose distributions.

For otherwise the purpose of the Council of Trent would be wholly frustrated. For in many places penitents are not accustomed themselves to call the confessor in the sacristy or in another place, but are accustomed to find him in the church in the confessional seat awaiting them; if they do not find him, they go away without confessing. And St. Alphonsus holds this, bk. 4, n. 131, and D’Annibale, ed. 3, pt. 3, n. 186, also adheres to this opinion as the truer one. Moreover, if in such a case, with the mandate of the Bishop acceding, the penitentiary canon is judged present in choir and gains distributions, the same seems to have place even without the mandate of the Bishop; the mandate certainly does not confer the right of absence, but only declares the case as corresponding to the purpose of the Tridentine law. Wherefore, if without any hallucination the matter is evident that penitents are truly accustomed to come on those days and at those hours, the penitentiary sitting in the confessional and awaiting them surely fulfills the purpose of the Council of Trent. And thus S. C. C., 24 January 1642, judged that “the penitentiary, when he is not impeded in the duty of confession, ought to be present at the divine offices.” But impeded in the duty of confession is both he who actually hears confessions, and he who awaits penitents who are accustomed to come. Otherwise, to avoid every inconvenience in this matter, recourse should be had to the Bishop, who may declare when, the circumstances being considered, the duty of the penitentiary requires that he be present in the confessional seat, ready to await and invite penitents. A. S. S., vol. 29, p. 498 ff.

6. “At the Cathedral Chapter of Città della Pieve, for many years now a usage has prevailed of omitting the recitation of the canonical hours of Sext and None in a choral voice after the conventual Mass, and of reciting them in a low voice during the time of the same Mass, for various reasons: 1. when the Bishop celebrates pontifically or is present at the solemn Mass in the pontifical throne; 2. when the service of choir is prolonged because of a longer Mass, or because of some extraordinary function; 3. in the times of Advent and Lent by reason of the sermon.

Question. 1. Whether a usage of this kind can continue, and insofar as in the negative; — 2. Whether it can continue by permission of the archdeacon, or, when he is absent, by permission of the older canon prefect of choir; and insofar as in the negative; — 3. Whether at least it can continue by permission of the Bishop?

R. In the negative to all; nor is satisfaction made to the obligation of choir through the private recitation just described of Sext and None during the time of the conventual Mass.” S. R. C., 16 March 1833, n. 2699.

7. “In the Cathedral church of Oppido, up to the year 1838, on days prescribed by the rubric, the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, or of the Dead, or the Gradual Psalms, or the Penitential Psalms was customarily recited; but these have since been omitted. Since, however, an arbitrary omission of this kind has persevered even to these times, it is asked of S. R. C.:

Whether, considering the long space of almost 30 years, it is permitted to persevere in the omission set forth; or whether rather the laudable custom of saying these additions to the divine office must be resumed?

R. The ancient custom must entirely be resumed according to the decrees issued at other times, and especially in Alexandrina, 22 September 1827.” S. R. C., 20 December 1864, n. 3129.

8. Ioannes Baptista, a canon, is assiduously present at choir and chants the canonical hours. But he is never present at the Chapter. For he says: I willingly renounce the right of suffrage. Likewise, in the council of the Bishop, he never expresses his opinion, saying: I know that it will be rejected by the Bishop.

Question. What is to be said in the case?

R. Ioannes Baptista, ordinarily not intervening in the Chapter, is not free from grave fault. Bonacina, de Hor. Can., d. 2, q. 1, p. 2, n. 4. The reason is that the right of being present at the Chapter has annexed to it a grave obligation of administering and governing the goods of the Church, and of expediting other business of the Church. Ordinarily, and accordingly, he is excused 1. in the time of vacations, unless some most grave business to be treated is pressing; 2. if he is sometimes absent for a just cause, without graver detriment to the church; 3. when the business to be treated is altogether light. Bouix, de Canonic., pt. 3, c. 6.

Likewise Ioannes Baptista is not free from fault when, having been asked by the Bishop in council, he keeps silent his own opinion. For since canons are the born counsellors of the Bishop, whenever the Bishop employs them in council, they are consequently bound to state their opinion, although afterwards the Bishop is free to depart from the counsel of the canons. Benedict XIV, de Syn., bk. 13, c. 1, n. 7.

9. Ubaldus, in the concursus for the theological prebend, received the greatest number of votes. Likewise Victorinus, in the concursus for the penitentiary prebend, was declared first among all the approved. But the Bishop, in each concursus, as the more worthy and more suitable, chose two from those approved by the examiners, both of whom had obtained the lowest grade of approval, and conferred the prebends upon them. Hence Ubaldus and Victorinus protest; for they say that from the Constitution of Benedict XIII, he is to be chosen, and the theological and penitentiary prebend conferred upon him, who in the concursus has been declared by the examiners to be approved as more suitable.

Question. What is to be said in the case?

R. Among canons the theologian and the penitentiary are eminent. It belongs to the theologian canon to interpret Sacred Scripture. Trent, sess. 5, c. 1, de R.; Benedict XIV, de Syn., bk. 13, c. 9, n. 17. But the office of the penitentiary canon is to hear confessions. Trent, sess. 24, c. 8, de R.; Benedict XIV, de Syn., bk. 3, c. 4, n. 3. Benedict XIII, Constitution Pastoralis officii, for Italy and the adjacent islands, prescribed the form of the concursus by which prebends of this kind are to be conferred. But it is wholly false what Ubaldus and Victorinus assert, namely that in the aforesaid Constitution it is defined that the one more worthy and more suitable is to be chosen by the examiners. For before those words, reported not altogether exactly by Ubaldus and Victorinus, these words are found, by which every doubt is removed. For it is prescribed that the aforesaid prebends be conferred upon the more suitable one declared in a formal concursus IN EXACTLY THAT WAY IN WHICH PAROCHIAL CHURCHES ARE CONFERRED. But the choice of the more worthy among the approved for parochial churches, upon whom the parochial church is conferred, pertains to the Bishop, and not to the examiners. Trent, sess. 24, c. 18, de R.; Benedict XIV, Constitution Cum illud, 14 December 1742. Therefore, if prebends of this kind are to be conferred in exactly that way in which parochial churches are conferred, the choice of the more worthy among the approved, in a formal concursus, pertains not to the examiners, but to the Bishop, and consequently the prebend is to be conferred upon him.

This is manifestly proved from several Decisions of S. C. C. in A. S. S., vol. 2, p. 74 ff., p. 122 ff. It is confirmed from the reasoning of Cardinal Paulutius, cited by Riganti on Rule 1 of the Chancery, § 10, n. 31: “He who does not have the faculty of announcing the concursus cannot choose the more suitable one, since this choice is an integral part and, as it were, the closure of the whole concursus, which by the Council of Trent is attributed only to those who have the right of completing the concursus, as S. C. C. responded at another time, 1 December 1608.” Therefore, since the examiners do not have this faculty of announcing the concursus, neither will they be able to choose the more suitable one; and accordingly this choice is proper to the Bishop.