104. On Parish Priests

1. Romaricus, a parish priest, often omits the sermon on Sundays and feast days, either because few hearers are present, or because sermons are held in neighboring churches. Hence also he almost never has a sermon to the people in the time of Lent, in the time of Advent, and on certain more solemn feasts, because there are several other distinguished preachers. — Does Romaricus act well?

R. Romaricus acts badly, and gravely fails in his office. Nor is he excused from the fact that the number of the people is small, Benedict XIV, Notification 10, n. 3; Lucidi, ed. 3, vol. 1, p. 429; or from the fact that sermons are held in other churches, Benedict XIII, Constitution In supremo, 13 September 1724. Hence he also sins gravely by omitting the sermon in the time of Lent and Advent because notable preachers are not lacking in several other churches. But if in the parish church itself during the time of Lent and Advent there were another preacher, and there were a custom that the parish priest abstains from the sermon, then, unless the Bishop commands otherwise, he can stand by the aforesaid custom. Lucidi, loc. cit., pp. 430, 431. Finally, Romaricus also does not satisfy his office by omitting the sermon on the more solemn feast days, unless he has obtained dispensation from the Bishop. S. C. C., 1 April 1876; I. M. 240; Enchir. Mor. 212.

2. Romanus, a parish priest, indeed has a sermon to the people on Sundays and feast days; but in reality his sermon is not a certain formal sermon, but rather a brief and familiar discourse to the parishioners about matters necessary for salvation. Hence Romanus in his sermon often omits the explanation of the Gospel of the day. Likewise he also often omits teaching catechism to the children, saying that he is bound not to two sermons, but to one only. What is to be said of Romanus?

R. Romanus does not sin from the fact that he does not make a formal sermon. From Trent, sess. 5, c. 2, de R., it suffices that he “feed the peoples committed to him, according to his own and their capacity, with salutary words.” But in using a brief and familiar discourse, he acts well. For from Trent it is necessary, “with brevity and ease of speech,” so that he may be understood, “to explain the admonitions of salvation, and insert the same into the hearts of all, and instruct them in the law of the Lord.” Sess. 5, c. 2, de R.; sess. 24, cc. 4, 7, de R. Likewise, omitting the explanation of the Gospel in his sermons, he sins in nothing. For from the same Council of Trent, sess. 5, c. 2, de R.; sess. 24, c. 4, de R.; sess. 24, c. 7, de R., it suffices to teach the people those things which it is necessary for all to know for salvation, and to announce the divine law and instruct them in it.

But the fact that Romanus omits teaching catechism to the children cannot be excused. For although he is not bound by an obligation of having two sermons to the people, nevertheless he is bound by a twofold obligation: one, that on feast days he have a discourse to the people about divine things; the other, that he instruct children and all the more ignorant in the rudiments of the divine law and of faith. Benedict XIV, Encyclical Etsi minime; I. M. 239, 241; Enchir. Mor. 212.

3. Innocentius, a parish priest, received an alms so that Mass with chant would be celebrated and the office of the dead would be chanted for the soul of Sempronius. The alms received is to be proportionately divided among the ministers and all priests and clerics assisting at the Mass and chanting the office. The parish priest assists at the Mass, and likewise assists at the office while it is being chanted, but he himself privately recites the canonical hours of the day, and has no part at all in the chant of the Mass, nor consequently does he chant the office of the dead together with the others. Nevertheless he retains the part of the alms corresponding to him, both for assistance at the Mass and for assistance at the office. — Did Innocentius act rightly?

R. As regards assistance at the Mass, while at the same time reciting the breviary of the day, Innocentius does not seem to be disturbed. For if the Mass is celebrated, if there are other appointed singers, it seems that satisfaction has already been sufficiently made to the intention of the one offering, nor does it seem necessary that the other assisting priests and clerics also assist at the whole Mass even by chant, unless this is expressly prescribed. But as regards the office, Innocentius did not satisfy the imposed obligation of chanting the office; and therefore he does not seem able to retain for himself the corresponding part of the alms, since under this head the alms was not given for mere assistance, but for the chant of the office. This is moreover clear from S. R. C., 9 May 1857, Petrocor., 11 March 1871.

4. In a rural parish a great bell of the parish church was to be blessed. All things had been prepared for the blessing, and the Bishop was expected for the following day, the solemn feast of the Patron of the place. But on the evening before, the parish priest received word that the Bishop, impeded by infirmity, could no longer come. Wherefore, the preparation already made standing, and because of the great concourse of people coming from neighboring places, and considering the solemnity of the feast, the parish priest judged that in the case, at least by lawful epikeia, he could bless the bell; and this in fact he did.

Question. What is to be said in the case?

R. The act of the parish priest cannot be approved. For there is question of a thing which, although only by ecclesiastical law, nevertheless is of the episcopal order. Wherefore it cannot be delegated to a simple priest even by the Bishop himself, but there is need of Pontifical faculty. For in the blessing of bells there is not had a certain simple blessing with lustral water, but in that blessing holy chrism and the oil of the infirm are employed, as is to be seen in the Pontifical. Indeed, if the Bishop has obtained an indult of delegating to others the faculty of blessing things pertaining to divine worship, things in which sacred unction is employed are always excepted from that faculty. Gardell. 4290. Hence it appears that the parish priest in the case exercised an altogether illicit and invalid act from defect of power. Nor indeed is there place for epikeia, since there is question not of mere liceity but of the validity of the act, on account of defect of the required power, which is not obtained by force of epikeia. But, with the Bishop’s infirmity standing, it was easy in the opportune case to meet any inconvenience by warning the people and by substituting another pious and useful exercise for that function.

But whether Bishops can, without Pontifical indult, delegate to others the faculty of blessing sacred vestments is controverted. St. Alphonsus, bk. 6, n. 378, reports two opinions, then saying that he does not acquiesce in the affirmative opinion, since he has nowhere heard that Bishops have delegated a faculty of this kind to others. Benedict XIV, Notification 21, n. 9 ff., likewise says that the matter is still controverted, while at the same time asserting that the faculty of blessing sacred things in which sacred unction intervenes is altogether reserved to Bishops. And the same explicitly affirms in Notification 42, n. 38, concerning the blessing of bells, where he openly affirms: “It belongs to us to bless bells, and since we do not have the faculty of subdelegating this blessing, sacred unction being required in it, etc.” Cf. S. R. C., 14 April 1885, Briocen.

5. Bishop B. obtained from S. R. C. an indult for the faculty of subdelegating for the blessing of that sacred furnishing in which sacred unction is not used. But since no formula is found for the blessing of priestly or Levitical vestment, except that which is found in the Pontifical, parish priest A. uses the blessing which is found in the Pontifical for any vestment. Does he act rightly?

R. In the negative. “Subdelegated priests should use the blessing which is read in the Roman Ritual.” S. R. C., 16 March 1876, n. 3392.

6. Ioannes, a parish priest, accepted the office of administrative councillor of the Municipality, and wholly applies himself to administrative elections. Hence many complaints and grave scandals have arisen. After the Bishop had vainly warned him juridically three times, and paternally several times, he finally decreed his economical removal from the parish, and that he be transferred to another.

Question. What is to be said in the case?

R. The Bishop acted legitimately. For although a parish priest cannot be removed from his parish without canonical process and without a delict designated in law, Trent, sess. 21, c. 6, de R., nevertheless his economical removal can be made either from the imperitia and unsuitability of the parish priest for governing the parish, or from grave hatred and aversion of the people, especially when the parish priest’s manner of acting is such that it is a scandal to the people. For the utility of very many is to be preferred to the utility or will of one.

But once perpetual removal has been decreed, another benefice of equivalent revenue is to be conferred upon the parish priest, by way of permutation or translation. Thus from several Resolutions of S. C. C., from c. Quaesitum, de Rerum permutatione, and c. Scias, 35, caus. q. 1; Reiffenstuel, tit. de Rer. permut., n. 38; Schmalzgrueber, same title; M. E., vol. 9, pt. 2, p. 147; vol. 10, pt. 1, p. 4 ff.

7. Aurelius, a parish priest, is very often absent from the parish without legitimate permission, but so that he may attend to grave lawsuits in which he is involved because of debts contracted. Public report says that Aurelius rarely recites the breviary, and often is clothed in secular garments. Hence the Bishop, after a prior legitimate warning, first deprives Aurelius of the fruits of the benefice, which he distributes among the poor of the parish. Then, however, since no amendment followed, by one edict he cites Aurelius, and, canonical process having been instituted, deprives the same Aurelius of the parish. Aurelius protests sharply against the Bishop.

Question. What is to be said in the case?

R. From the Council of Trent, sess. 23, c. 1, de R., a Bishop can proceed against parish priests and others having the care of souls and not residing, whether by subtraction of fruits, or by deprivation of the benefice, or by censures. Nevertheless he must first cite them by edict. If the Bishop wishes to proceed by deprivation of fruits, he is furthermore bound to observe the intervals and quantities prescribed as regards non-resident Bishops, sess. 6, c. 1, de R. Thus S. C. C. The reason is that, expressly as regards deprivation of fruits, those things which have been established against non-resident Bishops are to be applied to non-resident parish priests. Yet the Bishop can carry out deprivation of fruits without observing any intervals as regards the fruits which, on account of omitted residence, the parish priest did not make his own. Thus the same S. C. C.; and the reason is that truly, from the same Council of Trent, for the proportion of the time of absence, a non-resident parish priest does not make the fruits his own, nor, with safe conscience, “even when no declaration has followed, can he retain them for himself, but he is bound, either he himself, or, if he ceases, through the ecclesiastical superior, to spend them for the Fabric of the churches or for the poor of the place, with every convention or composition which is called for fruits badly received being prohibited, by which the aforesaid fruits would also be remitted to him, in whole or in part.”

But if the Bishop wishes altogether to deprive the non-resident parish priest of the benefice, the Bishop is not bound to cite the parish priest by three edicts, but one suffices, with the assignment of a competent term. From executory decrees of the Bishop against non-resident parish priests, an appeal is not given with suspensive effect, but only with devolutive effect, since Trent, sess. 23, c. 1, de R., says that execution cannot be suspended by appeal. Wherefore Aurelius under this head protests in vain against the Bishop.

Moreover, when after six months from obtaining the benefice, the beneficed cleric, having been legitimately admonished, contumaciously omits, at least twice for fifteen days, to recite the canonical hours, he can be deprived of the benefice by the Bishop, as is clear from § Statuimus, sess. 9 of Lateran V. For a benefice, as is said there, is given on account of the office. But since the Council says, “a legitimate warning preceding,” one warning seems to suffice. Again Aurelius has nothing which he could bring against the Bishop also under this other head. Wherefore by right and deservedly he was deprived of the benefice, of which he is altogether unworthy. Cf. Suarez, bk. 4, de Hor. canon., c. 29, n. 4.

Finally, in the Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 6, de R., it is openly said: “All ecclesiastical persons ... if after they have been warned by their Bishop, even by public edict, they have not worn an honorable clerical habit ... according to the ordinance and mandate of the same Bishop, can and ought to be coerced by suspension from orders, and from office and benefice, and from the fruits, revenues, and proceeds of their benefices; and also, if after once being corrected they offend again in this matter, even by deprivation of offices and benefices of this kind.” Since, therefore, Aurelius was once legitimately warned, and amendment did not follow, also from this other grave and scandalous transgression he is altogether deprived of the benefice by right. Nor indeed has Aurelius anything which he can bring forward in his defense under this head, if he had previously been warned by public edict by the Bishop, and the Bishop had imposed upon him the ordinance and mandate of wearing the clerical habit.