97. On the Holy Life of Clerics

1. Ambrosius, a bishop, for reforming the morals of many from the clergy of his diocese, established the following things in the diocesan statutes, first promulgated by him: 1.º That clerics initiated in sacred orders and all beneficed clerics and religious clerics should not omit wearing the crown. — 2.º Under penalty of suspension incurred by the fact itself, he prohibited the same from omitting the cassock after sunset, even a single time. — 3.º He prohibited parish priests and other clerics constituted in sacred orders, whether seculars or regulars, from living alone with a maidservant who has not reached the fortieth year, adding that he prohibited this under grave obligation. — 4.º Having built and founded at his own expense a house of exercises, he prescribed that all clerics, whether seculars or regulars, should every three years perform exercises there for the space of eight days, with no payment, however, made for food, lodging, and other necessary things, but with a fine of five lire to be paid by transgressors. Now Rusticus, a parish priest in the country, since he himself has been the only cleric in his parish for many years, and there are not there distinguished families or persons, but simple farmers; since besides he is still far from cities on account of the absence of a railway, and finally the place is mountainous and cold, thinks that by legitimate epikeia he is exempted from the 1st, 2nd, and 4th statute. Moreover he thinks himself free by every right from the 3rd statute, although he has with him a woman not yet forty years old, who serves him in domestic matters; for he says that she is not a maidservant, but his blood-relative, although in a more remote degree.

It is asked: What as to the Case?

R. The bishop could rightly enact those statutes. For the bishop, as endowed with true power of jurisdiction in his diocese and over the clergy of his diocese and over the priests themselves, can establish those ecclesiastical laws which regard the right government and good of souls, provided however they are not opposed to common law. Cap. Institutionis 7, Cap. Ecclesiasticae 12, caus. 25, q. 2; Cap. Quod super his 9, de Maiorit. et obedientia; S. C. in Asc. 11 July 1767, § 4; Reiff., tit. 2, lib. 1, Decret. n. 69; Benedict XIV, de Syn. dioec., l. 13, c. 1, n. 3; Bouix, de Episc., v. 2, c. 5. But those statutes are not opposed to common law, as is clear to all as regards the tonsure or crown, clerical habit, and cohabitation with women. Cf. I. M. 100–103, 181.

And these things in general. Let us now weigh each statute in particular. The first Statute does not seem to bring with it of itself a grave obligation, since that grave obligation is neither declared nor confirmed by a grave sanction. Both are present in the other Statutes. Therefore that diverse manner of speaking indeed shows that the bishop strongly wishes all those clerics to wear the tonsure or crown, but that in this matter he does not impose a grave obligation, beyond that which is otherwise present from common law. A difficulty can be raised as regards religious, whether the bishop could legitimately establish the same thing for secular and regular clerics. He certainly could do this as regards religious who are not exempt; and this is clear. But could he do the same as regards exempt religious themselves? It is answered that he indeed could not do this directly, by reason of the very privilege of exemption. For this matter is not excepted from such a privilege, as are many others, in which regulars even though exempt are subjected to the jurisdiction, either ordinary or delegated, of bishops. If therefore regulars are exempt from episcopal jurisdiction, certainly the bishop cannot directly touch them by his jurisdiction with a precept or law or even a simple statute. Nevertheless the bishop could do this indirectly, insofar, namely, as although he cannot prescribe, he can nevertheless punish. For regulars, even exempt, are subject to bishops if they dwell and offend outside the cloisters, so that they can be visited, punished, and corrected by the Ordinary of the place, as delegated by the Apostolic See over this matter according to the canonical sanctions. Trent, sess. 6, de R., c. 3. It is said: if they dwell and offend outside the cloisters; for if they dwell within the cloisters and notoriously offend outside them with scandal of the people, they must be punished by their superior, and only in the case of negligence of the regular superior can they be punished by the bishop himself, as is held from the same Trent, sess. 25, de R., c. 14, and from the Motu proprio of Benedict XIII, 26 March 1729. But a regular not wearing the clerical crown or monastic crown through the city is one offending outside the cloisters. This is confirmed from S. C. EE. in Andrien., 15 Dec. 1584, and in Ravennaten., 12 Sept. 1594, apud Monacel., tom. 1, tit. 6, Formul. 20, n. 131; Ferraris, v. Regulares, art. 2, n. 48, whence it is held that regulars walking through the city and places without a companion, or by night, or indecently clothed and without due religious modesty, can be committed by the bishop to prisons as offending outside the cloisters, the form of Trent, sess. 25, c. 14, de R. R., nevertheless being observed. — “But if regulars offend within the cloisters, let the bishop admonish the regular superior, and insofar as he himself does not provide, let him have recourse to the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars.” S. C. EE. et RR., 26 March 1897.

The second statute concerning habit brings with it a grave obligation; for this is drawn from the grave penalty of suspension, which is added. But can the bishop establish this penalty? It must be altogether affirmed from Trent, sess. 14, c. 6, de R., which explicitly grants this power to bishops. But as regards regulars, the same must be said as in the preceding statute.

The third statute concerning cohabitation with women brings a grave obligation, as is explicitly stated in the very enunciation. The matter is grave of itself, and not without scandal, if one cohabits with some young woman. As regards regulars, the matter is clear from what was said in the first statute. Only this must be noted: that regulars of this sort, living alone with women, are already dwelling and offending outside the cloisters.

Finally the fourth statute, by which the bishop orders the priests of his diocese to perform sacred exercises, neither exceeds the limits of ordinary episcopal power, nor is opposed to common law, but on the contrary is very much conformed to it, as is clear from the Encyclical Letter to all the Ordinaries of Italy, 1 Feb. 1710; Lucidi, de Visit., v. 3, p. 381 seqq., 3rd ed. It is confirmed from the response of S. C. C., 20 Sept. 1878, A. S. S., v. 12, p. 612. But it does not seem that the bishop can also bind exempt regulars. For those things which pertain to the observance of regular discipline are not subject to the jurisdiction or correction of the bishop. Moreover to perform spiritual exercises is a thing which pertains to regular observance and discipline, especially if it is noted that exercises of this sort would have to be performed outside the monastery, in a house built and founded by that bishop. The regular parish priests themselves, in those things which pertain to regular observance, are exempt from the bishop’s jurisdiction, visitation, and correction. Benedict XIV, C. Firmandis, VIII Id. Nov. 1744, pars. 8, 10; C. Apostolicum ministerium, 30 May 1753, par. 15. But does a statute of this sort bring a grave obligation? It seems it must be denied from the light penalty added, a fine of 5 lire.

Now the excuses of Rusticus cannot be approved. On account of a mountainous and cold place he is not dispensed from the tonsure or crown. Let him use a square cap and skullcap; and he will suffer no inconvenience from the inclemency of the air. That his parishioners are simple farmers and not noble citizens does not therefore dispense him from wearing the cassock outside the house, especially at night-time. Indeed, for guarding against many dangers and inconveniences, the lower in condition the parishioners are, the more necessary is greater exterior decorum in the parish priest. And exterior decorum of this sort is also necessary so that simple farmers may hold the parish priest in a certain greater veneration and show him greater reverence, owed to the priestly degree and apostolic ministry. That he is the only cleric in the parish, and the distance and difficulty of the journey, do not excuse him from the spiritual exercises, to be performed only every three years. Perhaps he himself undertakes other longer and more difficult journeys. Therefore let him ask a vicar from the bishop for the time of absence, let him call some nearer priest, and let him go to the episcopal city to perform the exercises, at least every three years according to the episcopal statute. Nor indeed will great expenses have to be made by him, since everything is furnished gratuitously during the whole time of the exercises. Although the railway is lacking, certainly other public carriages will not be lacking, which will carry him, even at modest expense, into the episcopal city. But although in full rigor he does not seem to act against the third statute, namely against the written letter, for by maidservant an outside person is ordinarily understood; nevertheless one must see carefully, lest, the circumstances considered, the association of that blood-relative in fact be a scandal to him and to others, and gravely harm his own reputation and good estimation, which all parishioners ought to have as very good concerning their parish priest. Let him set forth his case to the most reverend bishop.

2. Arcontius, a priest, suffering grave temptations against chastity, of which he previously was altogether free, fell into many sins against the same virtue; nevertheless he does not think that he commits sacrilege, first because, he says, ecclesiastical celibacy is to be observed not from a vow, but from mere ecclesiastical law; but positive human laws do not oblige with grave inconvenience. Secondly, because, although there is a vow, its obligation nevertheless ceases on account of changed circumstances of things, and on account of a supervening grave inconvenience which, if it had been foreseen, the vow would not have been emitted.

It is asked: What as to the Case?

R. Arcontius is egregiously deceived in all things. He errs first when saying that ecclesiastical celibacy does not oblige except from mere ecclesiastical law, namely with no vow intervening. This is openly opposed to C. Quod votum un., de Voto et Voti Redempt., and Benedict XIV, C. Inter praeteritos, par. 1, 3 Dec. 1749.

He errs secondly, when he thinks that he does not commit sacrilege because celibacy is to be observed not from a vow, but only by force of ecclesiastical law itself. For 1.º since that law rests upon a motive of religion, its transgression is sacrilege, at least broadly such. 2.º Since, according to the opinion of all, that law solemnly consecrates the person himself to God by the public authority of the Church, its transgression is also sacrilege strictly and properly such.

He errs thirdly, when he thinks that on account of the grave temptations which he experiences he is not held by that law, since positive human laws do not oblige with grave inconvenience. This is not true, when there is question of a law depending upon the proper and free consent of the will, as this law is. Thus enclosure is prescribed to nuns, which certainly is a most grave thing; but it is free to nuns to enter religion, just as it is free to clerics to be initiated in sacred orders.

He errs fourthly, thinking that the vow of chastity ceases on account of changed difficulties of things. For generally the difficulty of observing chastity is intrinsic to chastity itself; it is for all. And only some special difficulty can be had for someone, but for him who is unwilling to use the necessary means, as especially prayer and flight from occasions. Since therefore that special difficulty is voluntary, namely depending upon the will, the matter is evident that on account of it the vow cannot cease; for otherwise the vow would cease on account of its voluntary violation, which cannot be. Hence it does not avail to say that such a difficulty was not foreseen; for although this difficulty was not foreseen, since it is from the will, it can always cease by the will, if one seriously wishes to apply the due remedies. Likewise a special difficulty can be had independently of one’s own negligence, on account of merely subjective circumstances of temperament. But neither does this special difficulty exempt from the vow of chastity. For first, if there is question of a vow of chastity generally, even of a simple vow of chastity outside Religion, this always remains firm, even if one is agitated by unusual and unforeseen impulses of the flesh; for speaking of itself, this difficulty is foreseen at least confusedly, since in fact it is neither extrinsic to this matter nor altogether rare, insofar as those who vow chastity, even the more holy and pure, ordinarily speaking, at least at some time in life experience this difficulty. Besides, there is added the grace of God, which is not denied to him who does what is in him; and if anyone freely cooperates with it, certainly there will be no danger of incontinence, and that special difficulty of resisting temptations is diminished. Wherefore the Council of Trent, sess. 24, c. 9, condemns those who assert that “all who do not feel that they have the gift of chastity, even if they have vowed it, can contract marriage; since God does not deny this to those rightly asking, nor permit us to be tempted above that which we can bear.” But here it must be noted that, if notable difficulty and change did not proceed directly and from within the vow of chastity itself, but only indirectly and from without, for example, if a woman who had emitted a vow of chastity had been oppressed by force by another, and therefore unless she married would be in a most miserable condition, there are some who hold that the vow of chastity then is extinguished. For this circumstance is not included in any way in that matter, nor could it in any way have been foreseen. If it had been foreseen, certainly the vow would not have been emitted. But vows, special conditions being excluded, of themselves do not oblige beyond that which here and now was promised by the one vowing. But what has been said concerning the firmness of a simple vow of chastity, notwithstanding grave temptations afterwards arising, much more holds of solemn vows, validly emitted in religious profession or in the reception of orders, which are always valid, whatever notable circumstance supervenes. For the religious and ecclesiastic in this case is not considered as a private person for whom it would then be better not to be bound by vow, but as a part of the community of the Church, for whom it is fitting to postpone private good; otherwise, as is clear, how many inconveniences, how many scandals and disturbances! The same must be said by the same reason of the common good concerning simple vows which are emitted by men or women in some Congregations, especially if an oath of perseverance is added; for then an explicit onerous contract intervenes. Wherefore, just as the Congregation cannot dismiss a student on account of supervening circumstances, except circumstances of crimes, so neither can the student on account of those same circumstances desert the Congregation. — Scavini, l. 2, n. 64, ed. Milan, 1874; Gury, v. 1, n. 311; La-Croix, l. 3, p. 1, n. 481; I. M. v. 1, n. 575.

3. Pomponius, a parish priest, very pious and good, used to have spiritual conferences with a certain very pious and good woman. The friendship from spiritual degenerated into sensual, and gradually became wholly carnal. To remove every scandal before it should arise, he went away into a distant region where the Council of Trent as regards clandestine marriages has not been promulgated. That woman went away with him, because she was publicly held as his sister. Since the aforesaid parish priest was not lacking in talent and art, he soon became familiar to the bishop, and vicar general of the whole diocese, enjoying among all, both he himself and his reputed sister, public reputation and estimation of piety and sanctity. Placed in these circumstances of things, greatly fearing for his soul and that of the woman, he contracts marriage with her, persuading her that he had sought and obtained Apostolic dispensation, but deceiving himself, on account of so great a difficulty of the matter and on account of the scandal which otherwise would be present, that by legitimate epikeia he was exempt from the ecclesiastical law of celibacy, and consequently had been able to contract both licitly and validly.

It is asked: What as to the Case?

R. The legitimate epikeia of Pomponius, parish priest and afterwards vicar general, is null; for there is no scandal except one altogether voluntary, namely depending upon his free will. For first, as is clear, there is no necessity of sinning with that woman. The whole sin depends upon his depraved will. Besides, he can very well be separated from that woman in residence, although she is publicly held as his sister, by simulating some pretext; and because she is publicly held as his sister, the separation is still easier, and there can be no scandal. Moreover, since he went to a distant region to sin, which that woman similarly did, why now should he not undertake another journey, for example to Rome, in order to convert himself sincerely to God? It will be easy for him to declare to that woman that he did not obtain Apostolic dispensation; perhaps she never even persuaded herself of this, since the matter is so foreign to practice. And thus by his own example let him induce to sincere conversion that woman whom he himself perhaps first induced to sin, and let him repair the scandal given to her. Finally, as is clear from what has been said, here the reason principally considered is that of the state itself and of the common good. Wherefore, on account of a private inconvenience, although grave, the vow does not cease. Much less indeed does the diriment impediment cease, directly regarding the common good, on account of an inconvenience, although grave, in the particular case of a private person, and especially a voluntary one.

4. Titius, a young man, called into the lot of the Lord, having entered the diocesan seminary by the counsel of his confessor, there led for some years a life commendable for piety and purity of morals. But by evil fate, circumvented by the blandishments of a very bad fellow-resident, he contracted a base friendship with him and more than once miserably fell with him into sin of the flesh. Having then been assigned to another residence by reason of studies, he escaped indeed free from the occasion, but, still addicted to the base passion, often clings to depraved thoughts and secretly sins with himself. The master of piety, who used to receive the confessions of the students in the seminary, exercises every diligence to draw Titius back from the depraved custom, but with no happy outcome. For while this man restrains himself for one or another week, then he returns again and again to sin from fragility.

Meanwhile the rector, according to the practice of the seminary, calls Titius, who had already completed the course of theology and recommended himself greatly by the exterior manner of his life, with other companions to receive the order of subdiaconate. Nevertheless the master of piety opposes and imposes on him a delay of ordination. But Titius, while according to custom he approaches him for confession, dissolved into tears, gives indubious signs of sincere sorrow and firm purpose, shows himself ready faithfully to execute all things which are proposed to him by the confessor, and asks him to concede to him to approach the subdiaconate, lest otherwise he incur great infamy among his companions and family, since the delay of ordination could be made honorable by no reason. The master of piety, at first uncertain, hesitates; but then shows himself ready to gratify Titius. Indeed, as he reasons with himself, the vice of impurity is not a crime from which irregularity is induced; and if Titius, on account of indubious signs of sorrow and purpose, can be absolved, he can also be admitted to Sacred Orders, since for duly receiving the sacrament of Order, as a sacrament of the living, no more is required than the state of grace. Hence he bestows upon Titius the benefit of absolution and permits him to be promoted.

It is asked: 1.º What dispositions are required in the subject for licitly and fruitfully receiving Sacred Orders? — 2.º Whether absolution is to be denied to a cleric habituated in sins of lust, who wishes to approach Sacred Orders without a preceding trial of continence? — 3.º Whether the master of piety conducted himself rightly with Titius, and reasoned rightly?

Resp. To the 1st: In order that sacred Orders be received licitly and fruitfully, there is need 1.º of divine vocation. This is commonly asserted by the doctors and is founded in the words of the Apostle to Hebr. c. 5, v. 4: “Nor does anyone take honor to himself, but he who is called by God as Aaron.” Hence the Roman Catechism, de Ord., n. 4, after it has stated who are to be judged to approach Sacred Orders wrongly, finally concludes: “But they are deservedly said to enter the Church by the door, who, legitimately called by God, undertake ecclesiastical offices for the sake of this one thing, that they may serve the honor of God.” But the reason of this divine vocation is that no one can spontaneously undertake an office and duty to be exercised, unless he has aptitude for it. But aptitude for divine ecclesiastical offices and duties is especially from divine grace. And this certainly will not be lacking to those whom God himself calls into his lot.

2.º There is need of the mind of becoming a cleric, namely of committing oneself to the service and worship of God. Hence the Council of Trent, sess. 23, c. 4, de Reformat., says that those are not to be initiated “concerning whom there is not a probable conjecture that they have chosen this kind of life not by the fraud of fleeing secular judgment, but that they may furnish faithful worship to God.”

3.º “It is necessary to have a good testimony from those who are outside”; 1 Tim. c. 3, v. 7. For this reason the Council of Trent, sess. 23, c. 5, de Reformat., prescribes that “those who are to be assumed to each of the major Orders should approach the bishop a month before ordination; and he should commit to the parish priest or to another, to whom it shall seem more expedient, that, the names and desire of those who wish to be promoted having been publicly set forth in the Church, he should diligently inquire from trustworthy persons concerning the birth, age, morals, and life of the ordinands themselves; and that he should transmit to the bishop himself as soon as possible testimonial letters containing the inquiry made.”

4.º Suitable doctrine is required, which is various for various Orders. This is openly clear from the Council of Trent, sess. 23, cc. 4, 11, 13, 14, de Reformat. For how indeed could ministers of the Church teach others those things which are necessary for salvation, and rightly administer the sacraments for their office, unless they had the knowledge necessary for this?

5.º Integrity of life is required. Wherefore negative sanctity and immunity from sin is required, and therefore the state of grace, since order is a sacrament of the living. Consequently immunity is required not only from censure, but also from irregularity, whether strictly or broadly such. Indeed from various decrees of both the S. C. of the Holy Office and the S. C. of Bishops and Regulars it is required at present that those to be initiated in sacred Orders be free from military service. And by the same reason of required sanctity, especially before sacred Orders, Spiritual Exercises are premised. — But besides negative sanctity, positive sanctity also is required. For this reason, besides Confirmation there is demanded a life altogether proved, not by an ordinary and common manner of living honorably, but altogether above it; not of any sort whatever, but excellent, as the Angelic Doctor says, Suppl. q. 35, a. 1, ad 3.

Concerning this eminent sanctity there is a question among the doctors. But to me it is altogether wonderful that such a question can exist in so evident a matter. Let us omit the doctors, because in this way we would always be occupied among opinions, and let us dwell only in the doctrine of the Council of Trent. Therefore let us see whether from the Council of Trent only immunity from sin suffices, or whether besides true sanctity of life, and indeed eminent sanctity, is required. Certainly this sanctity is manifestly carried before it by all those examinations to be made by the bishop. Sess. 23, cc. 5, 7, 13, de Ref. And if someone is to be ordained by another bishop, the Tridentine Synod prescribes in the same place, c. 8, that “his probity and morals be commended by the testimony of his Ordinary.” Testimonial letters, however, must be given for receiving orders, and not generally. S. C. C., 8 Aug. 1733.

But positive sanctity, and indeed conspicuous sanctity, the Council of Trent expressly requires in the ordinands in the cited places. For first, concerning those to be initiated with first tonsure, it says that there must be concerning them a probable conjecture that they will furnish faithful worship to God, c. 4. As regards those to be promoted to minor Orders, the Council wishes in them an ascent from degree to degree, so that in them, with age, merit of life and doctrine may increase more: which both the example of good morals and assiduous ministry in the Church, and greater reverence toward presbyters and the superior orders, and more frequent than before Communion of the Body of Christ, will especially approve, c. 11. As regards those to be promoted to major Orders, it wishes that only those be ordained whose proved life is old age, who hope, with God as author, that they can contain themselves, cc. 12, 13. Lastly, as regards those to be assumed to the presbyterate, still graver are the words of the Council. Let those, it says, who have conducted themselves piously and faithfully in the ministries already passed, and are assumed to the order of presbyterate, have a good testimony... and be so CONSPICUOUS in piety and chaste morals that a distinguished example of good works and admonitions of life can be expected from them, c. 14.

But the reason is taken from the very dignity and ministry of the priest, who, as the Roman Catechism, de Ord., n. 5 says, “separated from the rest of the people, exercises himself in a ministry by far the greatest and most excellent of all.” The same Roman Catechism, in the cited place, n. 2, professedly declares the excellence of this dignity and ministry. “For,” it says, “since bishops and priests are, as it were, interpreters of God and certain messengers, who in his name teach men the divine law and precepts of life, and bear the person of God himself on earth, it is clear that their function is one than which none greater can be thought.” Therefore, as they are more excellent than all others of the people in dignity and ministry, so also they ought to surpass the rest of the people in honesty of morals and sanctity of life.

Wherefore the same Council of Trent, sess. 22, c. 1, de Ref., speaking of the life and honesty of clerics, says: “There is nothing which more continually instructs others to piety and the worship of God than the life and example of those who have dedicated themselves to the divine ministry. For since they are lifted from the things of the world to a higher place, the rest cast their eyes upon them as upon a mirror, and from them take what they imitate. For this reason it is altogether fitting that clerics, called into the lot of the Lord, so compose their life and all their morals, that in habit, gesture, gait, speech, and all other things, they show forth nothing except what is grave, moderate, and full of religion; that they avoid even light offenses, which in them would be greatest, so that their actions may bring veneration to all.” And the Plenary Council of Latin America, n. 658, unhesitatingly affirms that those who have given their name to the clerical militia “ought to shine with the adornment of all virtues and especially with the highest piety.”

And this eminent honesty of morals and sanctity of life ought especially to shine forth in perfect observance of continence and chastity. Whence before all things a priest ought to be modest, continent, 2 Tim. c. 3, vv. 2, 8. And, as the cited Plenary Council of Latin America, n. 644, says, chastity “is the proper and angelic ornament of the priestly order.”

To the 2nd: An affirmative response to the second question is a necessary corollary of the response already given to the first question. Concerning a cleric habituated in base sin and with the habit not yet extirpated, it certainly cannot be said that his life is proved, that his proved life is old age, nor certainly does a reasonable hope shine that he will be modest and continent. He is not conspicuous in chaste morals; nor can it reasonably be hoped that he will be conspicuous in the future. How therefore can ascent to sacred Orders prudently be permitted to a cleric of this sort, habituated in base sin, the habit of vice not yet changed into a habit of virtue? “No one,” says Innocent III in the Decretal A multis 9, de Aetate et qualit. et ord. praefic., “should be permitted to approach Sacred Order, unless he exists either a virgin or of proved chastity.” The aforesaid cleric certainly does not exist of proved chastity.

And hence it is clear why, although one habituated in base sin, if he has sincere sorrow and purpose, can be absolved, he can no longer be absolved if he wishes to be promoted to sacred Orders; namely, because he does not exist of proved chastity. Therefore it is altogether necessary that a serious trial of chastity to be observed should precede.

Indeed, an experiment of this sort can be supplied by some extraordinary grace of compunction, concerning which valid conjectures are available to the confessor. For by that more fervent penitence and contrition of soul a reasonable hope certainly shines that a cleric of this sort, constant in his purpose, will be chaste and modest. But because sincere and true conversions of this sort, extraordinary ones, are rare, and cannot always be discerned from their exterior signs even with evident certainty, hence the confessor must proceed cautiously in this matter. Wherefore no other counsel can be furnished to that confessor than that he diligently inspect and maturely weigh all the circumstances of the person, things, and cases, and implore with earnest prayers the help of Divine Light in so grave a matter. Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 11, c. 2, n. 18.

And nevertheless “the confessor must strive with every effort to render persuaded one of this sort to be initiated, although extraordinarily compunct, that he defer receiving Orders, until by the proof of some notable delay he shows himself more purged from the crimes committed.” Thus St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 77, where he concludes the Dissertation concerning this matter in these very grave words: “Moreover I confess that great caution must be applied in absolving clerics of this sort, who, scarcely emerged from the filth of vices, desire to ascend to the ministry of the Altar; for no one doubts that frequently a bad outcome of these men is deplored, not without the greatest detriment of the Church and ruin of peoples.”

To the 3rd: As regards the third question, it must be noted first of all that when Titius entered the diocesan seminary he was not only a good but an excellent young man, since it is said that there he led for some years a life commendable for piety and purity of morals. But he was corrupted by the companionship of a very bad fellow-resident. Indeed the master of piety, who used to receive the confessions of the students in the seminary, did very well to exercise every diligence that he might draw Titius back from the depraved custom. But he certainly ought also to have acted, and perhaps did act, so that that destructive student would be denounced to the Rector of the seminary, so that he would immediately be expelled from the seminary. Likewise the master of piety acted well when he imposed upon Titius a delay of Ordination. For Titius was found precisely in that miserable condition of a cleric habituated in the sin of lust, and habituated already for several years, without any preceding trial of continence. The same master of piety is likewise to be praised when afterwards he hesitates uncertainly concerning imparting absolution to Titius on account of those graver circumstances in which Titius is found. For from this it appears that the aforesaid master had the gravity and difficulty of the matter well known.

And as regards the fact of absolution having been imparted, the master of piety certainly cannot be absolutely reprehended, if the Case is considered speculatively and as it lies. For on the one hand, as is said in the Case, Titius, dissolved into tears, gives indubious signs of sincere sorrow and firm purpose, showing himself ready faithfully to execute all things which are proposed to him by the confessor. On the other hand, it is affirmed in the Case that Titius otherwise would incur great infamy among his companions and family, since the delay of ordination could be made honorable by no reason. For if Titius shows altogether indubious signs of sorrow and purpose, truly ready to execute all necessary means in order that he may live chastely, what more can be required from him, so that a reasonable hope is present that, with God as author, he will lead a chaste life hereafter? If besides infamy would truly follow from the delay of Ordination, neither would St. Alphonsus himself make any difficulty in granting absolution. The Holy Doctor, in the cited place, after affirming that absolution must be deferred, even for an extraordinarily compunct cleric, if the cleric wishes to be Ordained immediately, so that by the trial of time he may show himself more purged from the crimes committed and be more firmly proved; soon excepts the case of infamy to follow: “Provided however,” he says, “I except, that he himself from this delay of Ordination is not to undergo a mark, or proximate danger of infamy.”

Hence, practically speaking, it is indeed difficult to reprehend the master of piety, if in truth he was deceived. Nevertheless, if he himself had applied greater severity and had delayed the Ordination of Titius altogether to another time, after the chastity of Titius already proved by fact, and so that Titius himself might better apprehend the immense gravity of the matter, that master, truly a master of piety, would be fully approved and praised by me. For practically speaking, that solemn affirmation of Titius, and without any restriction, of following the counsels of the confessor, even those poured-out tears of Titius, in those straits of proximate Ordination already prepared and expected, can easily be suspect. But the infamy is rather apparent than real, since there can always be some honorable cause of the delay of Ordination, and the true cause can always be concealed under at least some pretext. “Then it will be necessary,” says Benedict XIV in the cited place, “and this certainly will not be very difficult for a prudent confessor, to place before the eyes of an Ordinand of this sort not only that eternal salvation ought to be preferred to any human respect, but also that there is nothing of infamy in this, if someone says and acknowledges that he wishes to think more maturely about entering an institute of life of this sort, which carries with it graver burdens, and which, once undertaken, will necessarily have to be observed through the whole life.”

Finally, as regards the reasons by which the master of piety was moved to granting absolution and permitting proximate Ordination, the first of them, that the vice of impurity is not a crime from which irregularity is induced, is of no moment. For although the vice of impurity, taken generally and of itself, does not induce irregularity properly such, or a canonical impediment, nevertheless it certainly induces irregularity in a broad signification, or unworthiness and unsuitability for receiving sacred Orders. And this unworthiness and unsuitability certainly suffices that someone be removed from sacred Orders.

Nor is the other reason better, that Order is a sacrament of the living, for the due receiving of which no more is required than the state of grace. For Order is indeed a sacrament of the living, but it is a sacrament which confers the most excellent power, the most noble dignity, and the most divine office; for the execution of which no one is apt and suitable, as St. Dionysius says apud St. Thomas, Suppl. q. 36, a. 1, “unless according to his whole habit he has been made God-formed and most like to God.”