166. On Trafficking in Masses

Titius, a priest and editor of an excellent Catholic daily paper, for the greater diffusion of his newspaper, yearly seeks for himself from the procurator general of a religious order, a kinsman of his, several alms, and indeed rich ones, of Masses to be celebrated everywhere. These he then commits for application to priests who ask to subscribe to his newspaper, retaining for himself from the alms only as much as corresponds to the just price of the subscription. With the greatest diligence he can, he takes care that the Masses are celebrated and that nothing is subtracted from the will of those who offered the alms, both concerning the quantity of the stipend and concerning the time of celebration, with testimony also being given, to whom by law it is due, concerning the completed celebration of the Masses.

One day, speaking about this manner of acting of his with a priest friend, he is warned by him that this is now forbidden under penalty of censure to be incurred by the fact itself, through the decree Vigilanti studio, issued by the Sacred Congregation of the Council on May 25, 1893. But Titius immediately responded that this decree is not applied to him, since it regards only booksellers or merchants, who studiously collect alms of Masses, which they then commit to priests for celebration in order to make profit, repaying newspapers, books, or other merchandise in place of money.

It is asked: 1.º Whether Titius rightly interpreted the decree of which there is question in the Case? - 2.º Whether he incurred the penalty of suspension threatened to priests in the same decree? - 3.º What must be done by him in the future?

R. To the 1st. The whole resolution of the Case depends on the resolution of the first Question. Now as regards this first Question, there can be no doubt that Titius did not rightly interpret the decree Vigilanti studio. The aforesaid decree regards not only booksellers or merchants, but all. For first, the only reason which could be brought forward by Titius for limiting the aforesaid decree to booksellers and merchants is this: that in the first Doubt, resolved by the S. C. C. in the year 1874, and inserted in the present decree with the other resolved Doubts, the discourse is of booksellers and merchants. But evidently the doctrine of the Sacred Congregation of the Council cannot be restricted to booksellers and merchants. For the shameful trafficking which the Sacred Congregation disapproves is not shameful trafficking because it is done by booksellers and merchants, but because it is a certain trafficking in Masses. By whomsoever trafficking of this sort is done, it is shameful and damnable.

Besides, this is evident not only from the subject matter, but from the whole tenor of the decree, from its beginning, progress, and end. Now this is the beginning of the decree: "With vigilant zeal this Sacred Congregation has continually applied itself to tearing up and eradicating abuses relating to the celebration of Masses, and has issued several decrees by which it wished every damnable profit in this matter to be removed, and commanded the pious wills of testators and the faith pledged to benefactors to be exactly observed and religiously guarded." Therefore in that decree there is question of tearing up and eradicating abuses relating to the celebration of Masses, by whomsoever they are committed, and not only abuses of booksellers and merchants. Likewise there is question of removing damnable profit on the occasion of Masses, by whomsoever this damnable profit is sought, and not only of the damnable profit of booksellers or merchants. And the generality of the decree appears also from that other clause of the beginning, namely that the mind and desire, indeed the mandate, of the Sacred Congregation is that the will of testators and the faith owed to benefactors be exactly observed and guarded.

The same is evinced from the whole progress of the decree. For, after the already narrated beginning of the aforesaid decree, these words immediately follow: "Wherefore, to restrain the depraved license of certain persons who were using the aid of Masses for more easily exchanging newspapers, books, and other merchandise with the clergy, the Sacred Congregation established certain things, and, Pius IX of happy memory approving them, took care that they be issued and made known to Ordinaries, so that they might be observed by all." Here the Sacred Congregation takes a step toward showing practically and concretely the abuse relating to the celebration of Masses and the damnable profit in this matter. The abuse and damnable profit consists in this, that several persons, for rendering the exchange of things easier, use the aid of Masses. In this indeed is the abuse, damnable profit, or depraved license, as it is here called by the Sacred Congregation. This depraved license is not condemned because it is done by booksellers or merchants, but is condemned considered in itself, because it contains an abuse relating to the celebration of Masses and damnable profit on the occasion of Masses.

Then in the decree are added and inserted the Doubts proposed and already resolved before by the Sacred Congregation, not all the Doubts, but only some which would be more to the point. For it is said: "For, among other things, the following Doubts having been proposed, etc." Therefore when afterward, in the first Doubt, there is question of booksellers and merchants, that expression concerning booksellers and merchants is not to be taken taxatively, but demonstratively, namely as an example of the aforesaid depraved license. Wherefore, whether or not they are booksellers or merchants by profession, all who use the aid of Masses in order to exchange books or merchandise more easily carry before themselves a depraved license, commit an abuse relating to the celebration of Masses, and seek for themselves a damnable profit.

And here, before we proceed further, it must be noted that Titius has in fact fallen into the abuse reprobated by the Sacred Congregation, has sought the damnable profit proscribed by the same Sacred Congregation, and has used the depraved license which the praised Sacred Congregation condemns by its decree.

For this is that which Titius does: he exchanges the numbers of his newspaper more easily with the clergy by the aid of Masses. Indeed, as is said in the Case, for the greater diffusion of his newspaper Titius yearly seeks for himself from the procurator several alms, and indeed rich ones, of Masses. And indeed, as the matter is clear in itself and is proved by the fact itself, there is no doubt that that means of Masses helps much for selling and spreading merchandise, books, and newspapers; since it is far easier to exchange books and other merchandise with the clergy by the aid of Masses.

Besides, after the related Doubts resolved elsewhere, the Sacred Congregation complains that salutary dispositions of this sort, through ignorance or malice, have rather often been neglected, and abuses in this matter have grown strong very broadly and widely. Whence it is that the Sacred Congregation thinks it necessary to recall among all to memory and full observance that which had long before been decreed. Therefore the Sacred Congregation evidently does not direct its decree to booksellers and merchants, but to all, and regards all indiscriminately, since certainly it wishes to remove from the universal Church that aforesaid depraved license and shameful trafficking.

Finally, if any doubt should remain in a matter so certain, it would surely appear with all evidence from the sanction with which the Sacred Congregation judged it opportune to strengthen its decree. For it is established that those sinning against the related decrees, if they are priests, are subject to suspension a divinis reserved to the Holy See; if they are clerics not yet initiated into the priesthood, they are subject to the same suspension as regards orders received and are besides made incapable of receiving higher orders; if finally they are lay persons, they are bound by excommunication reserved to bishops. A sanction of this sort upon priests, clerics, and lay persons sinning against the decrees surely shows that in those decrees there is question not only of booksellers and merchants, but that whoever they may be who sin against those decrees, they are subject to the aforesaid penalties.

The interpretation of the decree set forth is confirmed also from the end of the same decree. For the Sacred Congregation, in order to bring an effective remedy to the aforesaid damnable profit, depraved license, and shameful trafficking on the occasion of Masses, renewing the dispositions of preceding Roman Pontiffs concerning burdens of Masses to be fulfilled, commands that at the end of each year all and each, in every place, beneficiaries and administrators of pious causes, or persons in any way obligated to fulfill burdens of Masses, whether ecclesiastics or lay persons, at the end of each year deliver to their own Ordinaries the burdens of Masses which remain and which they have not yet satisfied. By this final prescription, under a grave precept of obedience, added to the preceding sanction of suspension and excommunication, the Sacred Congregation certainly does not regard merchants and booksellers only, but all who are in any way obligated to fulfill burdens of Masses.

And hence it is clear that the interpretation of Titius is also false when he asserts that the decree concerns a studied collection of Masses. That word studied is not found in the decree. Moreover, a studied collection is not lacking in Titius. Does not Titius collect Masses with this zeal, this art and industry, so that by the aid of Masses he may obtain a greater diffusion of his newspaper?

Only this much could be said in favor of Titius: that he himself does not in reality collect Masses, since he obtains them only from the procurator, his kinsman. But neither can Titius be excused from this. For the collection reprobated by the Sacred Congregation does not consist in this, that someone seeks and obtains Masses from several persons, but consists only in this, that he heaps up a great number of Masses, whether he obtains them from several persons or from only one. Moreover, in the Case not even collection from several persons is lacking. For that procurator, as is accustomed to be done, seeks and obtains Masses from several persons. But what someone does through another, he seems to do through himself. And it matters little indeed whether Titius himself assumes for himself the labor of seeking Masses from several persons, or whether he leaves labor of this sort to the procurator. A collection of Masses is always had, and in the Case a collection for the end prohibited by the decree.

To the 2nd. A few things are now to be said concerning the second and third Question. Titius seems able to be excused from suspension. For, as is clear from the exposition of the Case, Titius acts in good faith. Wherefore, since he is immune from sin, he is also immune from censure. Certainly the contumacy necessary for incurring censure is in no way detected in Titius.

To the 3rd. But in the future Titius must either desist altogether from his manner of acting, or he must seek an Indult from the Holy See, as several have done.

But here a difficulty rises to be resolved: how the Holy See can grant an Indult in trafficking in Masses. If it were really a question of shameful trafficking in Masses, the Holy See could neither give, nor certainly would give, an Indult in shameful trafficking of this sort. But in this matter it is a question only of the appearance of shameful trafficking, prohibited by the Church, and of the danger of scandal, and of the danger lest the will of benefactors and testators not be fulfilled. Hence, with conditions added for removing the aforesaid danger of scandal and infidelity, an Indult can well be given in this matter by the Church, and in fact is given.