On Particular States

“This Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, having maturely weighed the present condition of the Church, which is prevented almost everywhere from unfolding its external action over ecclesiastical matters and persons, and having also considered the lack of means suitable for the regular organization of Courts, resolved expressly to grant to local Ordinaries the faculty of being able to employ more economical forms in the exercise of their disciplinary jurisdiction over clerics. But so that the whole order of justice may remain safe and intact and the canonical regularity and uniformity of proceedings may be preserved, it judged it opportune to issue the following norms, to be observed by the Courts. “I. The pastoral burden of caring for the discipline and correction of clerics dependent upon him rests upon the Ordinary, by watching over their manner of life and using canonical remedies to forestall and eliminate disturbances of order among them.

“II. Of these remedies, some prevent; others repress and bring a cure. The former are directed to preventing evil from occurring by removing incentives to scandal, voluntary occasions, and proximate causes of delinquency. The latter have the end of recalling delinquents so that they may come to their senses and repair the consequences of the crime committed.

“III. The application of these remedies belongs to the conscience and prudence of the Ordinary, according to the prescriptions of the canons and the gravity of the cases and circumstances.

“IV. Spiritual exercises, admonitions, and precepts are numbered especially among the means which preserve.

“V. These provisions ought to be preceded by a summary knowledge of the fact, which is to be recorded by the Ordinary so that he may be able to proceed further insofar as there is need and to render the superior authority more certain in the case of lawful recourse.

“VI. Canonical admonitions are made either in a paternal and secret form—even by letter or through an intermediary—or in legal form, yet in such a way that their execution is established by some act.

“VII. Insofar as the admonitions prove fruitless, the Ordinary directs the Court that a corresponding precept be enjoined upon the delinquent, in which there is declared what is to be done or omitted by him, with the threat of a corresponding ecclesiastical penalty which he shall incur in case of transgression.

“VIII. The precept is intimated to the accused by the Chancellor before the Vicar General, or before two ecclesiastical or lay witnesses of proven integrity.

Ҥ 1. The act is signed by the parties present and also by the accused, if he wishes.

Ҥ 2. The Vicar General can add an oath of preserving secrecy insofar as the nature of the title in question prudently requires it.

“IX. With respect to penal means, the Most Reverend Ordinaries are to note that by the present instruction no derogation has been made from the solemnities of trials commanded by the sacred canons, Apostolic Constitutions, and other ecclesiastical dispositions, insofar as these can be applied freely and effectively; rather, the economical forms are intended to provide for those cases and Courts in which solemn proceedings either cannot be employed or do not seem expedient. The extrajudicial remedy from an informed conscience for occult crimes, which the Holy Council of Trent decreed in session 14, chapter 1, On Reformation, to be employed, also preserves its full force, together with those rules and reservations which the Sacred Congregation of the Council has constantly observed for the interpretation of the said chapter in many resolutions, and especially in Bosnia and Sirmium, 20 December 1873.

“X. When it is necessary to proceed criminally, whether by reason of an infraction of a precept, common crimes, or a violation of the laws of the Church, the proceeding can be conducted in summary forms and without the formalities of a trial, the substantial rules of justice always being observed.

“XI. The proceeding is instituted ex officio, or in consequence of a petition and complaint, or of information obtained in another manner by the Court, and is brought to completion with this intention: that the truth be uncovered with every diligence and prudence, and that knowledge arise both of the crime and of the guilt or innocence of the accused.

“XII. The conduct of the proceeding can be committed to some upright and suitable ecclesiastic, with a Recorder present.

“XIII. Each Court needs a fiscal procurator for the protection of justice and law.

“XIV. Insofar as the work of the Court’s summoners is not available for intimations or notifications, it is supplied by their delivery being carried out by a qualified person who shall attest to the fact; or by transmitting them under registered cover through the postal office, in those places in which this system has become established, requesting proof of delivery, receipt, or refusal.

“XV. The basis of the criminal fact can be established by a statement contained in the proceeding and confirmed by authentic information, by extrajudicial confessions, or by depositions of witnesses; and, with respect to the title of transgression of a precept, it is established by a new presentation of the decree and of the act of intimation completed in the manners stated in articles VII and VIII.

“XVI. To establish specifically the culpability of the accused, legal proof is required, which ought to contain such elements that it demonstrates the truth, or at least induces moral certainty, with every reasonable doubt to the contrary removed.

“XVII. Persons whom it is expedient to examine are always heard separately.

“XVIII. Witnesses for proof or for the defense, whenever legal obstacles do not stand in the way, ought to be heard under oath, which can be extended, if necessary, to the obligation of secrecy.

“XIX. The examination of absent witnesses or of those dwelling in another Diocese is to be requested by way of assistance from the ecclesiastical authority of the place, a statement of the fact being transmitted to it; and the authority requested responds to the petition while observing the norms of the present instruction.

“XX. Whenever witnesses are indicated concerning facts or circumstances essentially useful to the merits of the case, who cannot be subjected to examination because it is judged unsuitable that they be summoned or because, having been summoned, they refuse, mention of them is made in the acts, and care is taken to supply their deficiency through depositions of other witnesses who know, by report or in another manner, that which is sought.

“XXI. When whatever is necessary to establish the fact and the responsibility of the accused has been collected, the latter is summoned for examination.

“XXII. In the summons, unless prudence forbids it, the accusations brought against him are set forth to him in full so that he may be able to prepare to respond.

“XXIII. But when, because of the character of the accusations or other circumstances, it is not prudent to disclose them in the act of intimation, it is indicated therein only that he is being summoned for examination so that he may excuse himself in a case which concerns him as accused.

“XXIV. If he refuses to appear for trial, the summons is repeated, in which a suitable peremptory term is fixed for him, and it is signified to him that, if he still refuses to obey, he shall be regarded as contumacious and shall in fact be considered as such insofar as, without a proven lawful impediment, he should also disregard this intimation.

“XXV. If he appears, he is heard in examination; and insofar as he makes allegations of some importance, these ought, as far as possible, to be exhausted.

“XXVI. Thence one proceeds to the formal presentation of the criminal fact and of the conclusions reached for holding the accused guilty and as having incurred the corresponding canonical penalties.

“XXVII. Since in this manner the accused has full knowledge of that which appears against him in the acts, beyond being able to respond, he can also avail himself of the right of defending himself personally.

“XXVIII. He can also, if he requests it, obtain the fixing of a term for presenting a defense by a memorial in writing, especially when, because of the provision of article XXIII, he was unable to be prepared with responses for his excuse.

“XXIX. When the proceeding has been completed, the investigating officer makes a summary of its essential conclusions.

“XXX. On the day on which the case is proposed, the accused has the faculty of causing himself to be represented and defended by another priest or a lay advocate previously approved by the Ordinary.

“XXXI. Insofar as the accused refuses to appoint a defender, the Ordinary provides by appointing someone ex officio.

“XXXII. The defender cautiously obtains knowledge of the proceeding and its summary in the chancery so that he may be prepared to carry out the defense, which can be presented in writing before the proposal of the case. He also is subjected to the burden of sworn secrecy insofar as it seems to the Ordinary that the nature of the case requires it.

“XXXIII. The proceeding and its summary are then transmitted to the fiscal procurator so that he may discharge his office ex officio; each is delivered to the Ordinary, who, having obtained full knowledge of the case, appoints the day on which it is to be discussed and resolved, taking care that the accused be informed of this.

“XXXIV. On the appointed day the case is proposed before the Vicar General, with the fiscal procurator, defender, and Chancellor participating.

“XXXV. After the opinion of the fiscal procurator and the arguments of the defense, sentence is pronounced, the dispositive portion being dictated to the Chancellor with explicit mention, in case of condemnation, of the canonical sanction applied to the accused.

“XXXVI. The sentence is intimated to the accused, who can interpose an appeal to the superior ecclesiastical authority.

“XXXVII. For the appeal, the norms established by the Constitution Ad militantes of Benedict XIV of happy memory, 30 March 1742, and the others issued by this Sacred Congregation in the Decree of 18 December 1835 and the Circular Letter of 1 August 1851, are observed.

“XXXVIII. Appearance for making an appeal is to be made within a term of ten days from notification of the sentence; when that term has elapsed without effect, the sentence itself is found in a state of execution.

“XXXIX. When an appeal has been interposed within ten days, the Court without delay remits to the superior ecclesiastical Authority before which the appeal was made all the original acts of the case, that is, the proceeding, the summary, the defenses, and the sentence.

“XL. The superior ecclesiastical Authority, having taken cognizance of the act of appeal, causes the appellant to be notified that within a term of twenty days he is to appoint a defender who must be approved by that same superior authority.

“XLI. When the said peremptory term has elapsed without effect, the appellant is judged to have renounced the benefit of the appeal, and consequently the appeal is declared extinguished by the superior authority.

“XLII. When the appeal is brought from the sentence of some episcopal Court to the Metropolitan Court, the archbishop, for the cognizance and decision of the case, follows the norm of proceeding handed down in this instruction.

“XLIII. If it happens that a cleric, notwithstanding the privilege of forum, is subjected by reason of common crimes to the proceeding and judgment of the secular authority, the Ordinary, in this case, takes summary cognizance of the criminal fact and weighs whether, according to the things handed down by the sacred canons, it gives rise in him to infamy, irregularity, or another ecclesiastical sanction.

Ҥ 1. While the trial is pending or the accused is detained, it is prudent that the Ordinary limit himself to provisional means.

Ҥ 2. When the trial has been completed, however, and the accused has been set free, the Court, according to the result of the information taken as above, proceeds according to the tenor of the dispositions of the present instruction.

“XLIV. In doubtful cases and in the various practical difficulties which can occur, let the Ordinaries consult this Sacred Congregation, so that contentions and nullities may be avoided.”

“This Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, holding it as certain that the economical modes of proceeding ordained by the Instruction of 11 June 1880 for ecclesiastical Courts in criminal cases concerning clerics ought also to be observed in acts of appeal interposed from the sentences of those Courts, judged the publication of the following disposition opportune:

“I. The defender of the accused or accused persons, to be chosen from among advocates approved by the Sacred Congregations, the customary deposit having first been made, prudently takes knowledge of the summary and proceeding before the Judge Reporter.

“II. Insofar as, by reason of the case, the Most Eminent Lord Cardinal Prefect judges it expedient, the defender is ordered to preserve secrecy under the bond of an oath.

“III. When the defenses have been presented in writing, they, insofar as the Most Eminent Cardinal Prefect likewise judges it opportune, can be communicated to the fiscal procurator of the Court a qua, so that he may respond in writing if he believes it necessary.

“IV. The defender can, with due caution, take knowledge of the response of the fiscal procurator before the Judge Reporter so that he may be able to reply last, likewise in writing.

“V. The presence of the defender and of the fiscal procurator is altogether excluded from the meetings of the Cardinals when the case to be resolved is proposed.

“VI. With the exception of the disposition of the preceding articles, all those things which the Sacred Congregation established by the Decree of 18 December 1835, by the Circular Letters of 1 August 1851, and by the Ordinance of 6 June 1847 remain in full force in all respects.”

“Decree for criminal cases. Not long ago certain rules were prescribed by the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars for the correct and expeditious determination of criminal cases which are brought on appeal from the Courts of Bishops or Ordinaries to the same Sacred Congregation. Since the impediments which had in some part stood in the way of their execution have been removed, it seemed good to the Most Eminent Fathers, in a meeting held on the fifteenth day before the Kalends of January 1835, to explain those prescriptions more fully and, with the assent and approval of Our Most Holy Lord Gregory XVI, to promulgate them again so that they may be most accurately observed by all whom they concern. They are as follows.

“I. To accused persons condemned by episcopal Courts in a criminal trial there is granted a period of ten days within which they can appeal to the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars.

“II. The ten days begin to be numbered not from the day on which the sentence was pronounced, but from the day on which it was announced by the courier to the accused or his defender.

“III. When that time has elapsed without the accused or his defender appealing, the bishop shall execute the sentence pronounced by him.

“IV. When an appeal has been interposed within ten days, the episcopal Court shall immediately transmit the original acts of the whole case to the Sacred Congregation, namely:

“1. The proceeding itself conducted in the Court. 2. Its summary, or a compendious exposition of the things which emerge from that proceeding. — 3. The defenses presented for the accused. — 4. Finally, the sentence pronounced.

“V. The Court itself shall notify the accused and his defender that the appeal is to be prosecuted before the same Sacred Congregation.

“VI. If no one appears, or if the acts of appeal are negligently or maliciously protracted, a suitable time shall be fixed by the Sacred Congregation; and when it has elapsed without effect, the case shall be regarded as abandoned and the sentence of the episcopal Court shall be committed to execution.

“VII. The summary of the proceeding which is prepared by the Judge Reporter is to be delivered to the accused or to him who undertook his defense.

“VIII. The pleadings or defenses to be distributed to the Most Eminent Fathers are not to be committed to print unless the Judge Reporter has given permission to print.

“IX. The case shall be determined on the appointed day by the Most Eminent Fathers assembled in plenary session.

“X. The Procurator General of the Treasury and the Judge Reporter shall be present at the same Congregation.

“XI. The Judge Reporter reports the whole state of the case to the Most Eminent Fathers, and the Procurator General of the Treasury shall stand for the episcopal Court and explain his conclusions.

“XII. After these things, the Most Eminent Fathers shall pronounce judgment, either confirming, invalidating, or even reforming the sentence of the episcopal Court.

“XIII. When sentence has been pronounced, it is remitted together with all the acts of the case to the same episcopal Court so that it may execute it.

“XIV. Revision or reconsideration of the adjudicated matter is not granted unless the power of granting it has been given by His Holiness and there are most grave causes, cognizance and judgment concerning which belong to the plenary Congregation.

“XV. Finally, let the episcopal Courts know that by the most recent laws promulgated for secular tribunals for investigating and repressing crimes, nothing has been taken away from the canonical forms and rules which they therefore ought altogether to follow, not only in conducting a proceeding, to which pertain these words of the edict of 5 November 1831: ‘Let nothing be altered insofar as it pertains to ecclesiastical judgments,’ but also in decreeing penalties, as was thus provided in the appendix of the same edict: ‘Tribunals of mixed jurisdiction shall punish clerics and ecclesiastical persons with those penalties which, according to the Canons and Apostolic Constitutions, the ecclesiastical Tribunal would inflict upon them.’” B., p. 163 ff.

“The Holiness of Our Lord has been informed of the repeated petitions presented to this Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars with the intention that the defender of the accused, whether public or private, be permitted, in addition to the Judge Reporter and the Procurator General of the Treasury, to be present at the Meetings of the same Sacred Congregation when criminal cases are proposed.

“His Holiness, in the audience of 6 June 1847, benignly receiving the petitions, determined:

“1. At the aforesaid Meetings of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, when criminal cases are treated, there can be present, in addition to the Judge Reporter and the Procurator General of the Treasury, also the defender of the accused, whether public or private, provided that he belongs to those lawfully approved.

“2. The Procurator General of the Treasury shall present his observations both of fact and of law and shall formulate his conclusions.

“3. The defender of the accused shall disclose the means of defense, to which the Treasury can reply; but the defender shall speak last.

“4. Then both the Procurator General of the Treasury and the defender shall depart, but the Judge Reporter shall remain to present the explanations which are requested; and the Lord Cardinals shall express their opinion and proceed to resolution of the case.

“5. The decree of the same Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars given on 18 December 1835 remains in full force in all other respects.” B., p. 165 ff.

The Circular Letters of 1 August 1851, cited in no. 37 of the preceding Instruction and no. 6 of the preceding Provisional Disposition, are found in A. S. S., vol. 15, p. 647. Cf. also the Declaration of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars of 21 December 1883 in M. E., vol. 5, part 1, p. 127.

Cf. B., p. 18 ff.

Cf. the Constitution of Benedict XIV, Ad militantis Ecclesiae, 30 March 1742.

Cf. Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 20 July 1878 and 1883, C. nos. 75, 78.

“On 20 July 1900, in a general meeting of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, this new method of treating business before the same Sacred Congregation was approved. At the end is presented the old procedure, which differs in certain respects.

“Art. 1. Whenever, in business conducted before the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, it seems expedient, both from the reports of Ordinaries and from the arguments of the parties, that the matter be reduced to the course of law, the rescript is: ‘Let it be proposed before the plenary meeting of the Most Eminent Fathers, the party having been cited and the doubt agreed upon.’

“2. In cases of this kind, only those are admitted as advocates or procurators who have been duly approved before the Sacred Congregations of the City.

“3. Before the Reverend Lord Summista, the individual acts which prepare the way for judgment are drawn up.

“4. Therefore, before the same Reverend Lord Summista, the more diligent party cites the adverse party ‘to agree upon the doubt, otherwise to see the proposition written below subscribed and debated,’ which, namely, is transcribed at the foot of the citation.

“5. Moreover, the Reverend Lord Summista inscribes upon the writ of citation the day and hour of the audience at which the citation can be read, and thereafter, with the consent of the parties, agrees upon either the proposed doubt or another; but if not, he commands the parties to set forth their rights by a memorial in the plenary Congregation. Furthermore, the same Reverend Lord Summista fixes a term for presenting the summaries and arguments of the parties, so that at the opportune time a summary or Consultation can be prepared for submission to the Sacred Congregation.

“6. If the cited party does not appear within the term fixed, he is cited a second time to agree upon the doubt and also for the Congregation to be appointed.

“7. If the party persists in his contumacy, the Reverend Lord Summista agrees upon the doubt and appoints the Congregation for the proposal of the case, yet in such a way that a space of at least thirty days intervenes; and the decree is intimated to the adverse party by a Courier or by letters registered at the post office, a receipt of delivery being requested, commonly called con ricevuta di ritorno.

“8. Once the doubt has been agreed upon, each party, or at least the more diligent party, shall deposit in the treasury of the Sacred Congregation a suitable sum of money for the necessary expenses, to be assessed in the individual cases by the Reverend Most Illustrious Lord Secretary.

“9. In a case of contumacy, if after sentence has been pronounced the contumacious party petitions for the benefit of a new hearing, he shall be bound to deposit in the treasury of the Sacred Congregation the entire sum of money necessary for the expenses of the new proposal.

“10. The documents of one party shall not be delivered to the other except in copies transcribed ex officio, a rescript of the superiors having first been obtained. The reports of Ordinaries and secret documents, if there are any, shall in no way be delivered.

“11. Before Advocates or Procurators commit to print the arguments and summaries which they wish to use, they shall submit them to the Reverend Lord Summista so that they may obtain permission to print; and this permission to print can be denied for the sole reason that the arguments are found to be too prolix.

“12. The printed pleadings shall, at least ten days before the appointed Congregation, be delivered both to the Most Eminent Fathers in duplicate and to the Secretary, Undersecretary, and Auditor; and six copies of the same pleadings shall be deposited in the Archives of the Sacred Congregation as soon as this can be done.

“13. The mutual delivery of pleadings and summaries between the parties is made ten days before the proposal of the case.

“14. Responses shall be distributed three days before the proposal of the Case, as in article 12, and shall be mutually delivered to the parties.

“15. The Reverend Most Illustrious Lord Secretary delivers the resolution of the Sacred Congregation in writing and signs it in his own name; and thereafter, either by himself or through an official deputed for this, he signifies it to the parties.

“16. If within ten days the defeated party petitions to be heard again, the Most Eminent Cardinal Prefect, after hearing the congress, can grant the benefit of a new hearing.

“17. But whenever the matter has been adjudicated with the clause et amplius—‘and no further’—then the benefit of a new hearing is not granted except by the plenary Congregation.

“18. If it happens that the case is proposed again, that which was respectively prescribed in the preceding articles is to be observed.

“19. When the case has been adjudicated, an authentic copy of the resolution shall be delivered to the party or parties requesting it.”

“5 September 1834. In the General Congregation held on the Nones of September in the year 1834, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Fathers decreed that the old and proper method or procedure of the Sacred Congregation for treating business concerning which there is contention between parties should be accurately observed in the future. It is as follows.

“1. Whenever, in business conducted before the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, it seems expedient, both from the reports of Ordinaries and from the arguments of the parties, that the matter be reduced to the course of law, the rescript is: ‘Let the parties set forth their rights before the Most Eminent N., who is to examine and report, the party having been cited and the doubt agreed upon.’

“2. Before the Most Eminent Reporter or his Auditor, with the Notary of the Sacred Congregation employed, the individual acts which prepare the way for judgment are drawn up.

“3. Therefore, before the same Auditor, the more diligent party summons the adverse party at law to agree upon the doubt, otherwise to see the proposition written below subscribed and debated, which, namely, is transcribed at the foot of the citation.

“4. The Most Eminent Reporter or his Auditor, with the consent of the parties, agrees upon either the proposed doubt or another; but if not, he commands the parties to set forth their rights by a memorial in the Sacred Congregation.

“5. If the cited party does not appear within the term, he is cited a second time to agree upon the doubt and also for the Congregation to be appointed.

“6. If the party persists in his contumacy, the Most Eminent Reporter or his Auditor agrees upon the doubt and appoints the Congregation for the proposal of the case, yet in such a way that a space of at least thirty days intervenes; and the decree is intimated to the adverse party by the courier.

“7. The original legal submissions which each party uses are deposited with the Lord Secretary fifteen days before the day of the proposal of the case, notice being transmitted on each side.

“8. The pleadings of each party are delivered ten days before the Congregation both to the Most Eminent Cardinals, to the Lord Secretary, and to the Secretariat of the Sacred Congregation.

“9. The mutual delivery of pleadings and summaries between the parties is made on that same day in the house of the Auditor of the Most Eminent Reporter.

“10. Responses are distributed and communicated three days before the proposal of the case, as in the preceding article.

“11. The Most Eminent Reporter delivers the resolution of the Sacred Congregation in writing and seals it in his own name, and delivers it through the Secretary so that it may be signified to the parties.

“12. If within ten days the defeated party petitions to be heard again, the Most Eminent Reporter can grant the benefit of a new hearing.

“13. Whenever the matter has been adjudicated by all the votes with the clause et amplius, or with only one dissenting vote with the clause et non concedatur, then permission to return is not granted except by the plenary Congregation.

“14. The case is proposed anew, the manner and terms of the first proposal being observed.

“15. When the case has been adjudicated, an authentic copy of the resolution is delivered to him who prevailed in the case.

“16. The victor petitions before A. C., who, as a mere executor, decrees that the resolution of the Sacred Congregation is to be executed.”

“Since, in addition to merely gracious and economical cases, contentious cases are also customarily proposed before the Sacred Congregation of the Council, from the beginning a manner of proceeding was introduced in them which would have in itself something both of the equity of the Sacred Congregation and of the strictness of civil Tribunals. But the form of acting established by Our predecessors underwent a certain change through a tradition retained by some person and inaccurately reported by those forensic authors who wrote about the practice of the Sacred Congregations. And so it gradually began to be changed and even to be held altogether abandoned by agents and procurators, not without harm to litigants and detriment to the order most necessary for the correct administration of justice. Therefore, in order that provision may be made for a disturbance of this kind, the preceding laws which agree with the rules in force being observed, by the authority of the Sacred Congregation spontaneously granted to Us in the meeting of 1 August of the current year and with the previous supreme sanction of His Holiness, which was added in the Audience of 9 August of the same year, We have resolved to establish, and do establish, the things which follow:

“1. Cases to be proposed before the Sacred Congregation, whether directly or on appeal, shall, according to its practice, be treated with the order of law observed whenever one of the litigants whose interest is involved, having appointed a lawful Procurator, has placed in the acts of the Sacred Congregation the words: Let nothing proceed.

“2. In this case only those procurators who have lawful standing before the other Tribunals of the City are admitted to act.

“3. No petition may be proposed before the plenary Congregation unless the Ordinary has already been heard and all those things which the Most Reverend Secretary shall judge necessary have been prepared, as was wisely established in another rule of this Sacred Congregation on 6 September 1751.

“4. Documents pertaining to the case shall be rejected if the respective court did not issue them, if they have not otherwise been rendered authentic, or if they bear no sign of authenticity. But when it happens that they are presented in the Secretariat, a note is to be made and inserted into the archive.

“5. The Most Reverend Secretary shall grant by rescript to the parties the communication of documents in copies to be made by officials of the Secretariat.

“6. When the Secretary has issued the decree, ‘Let it be placed upon the docket, the party having been cited for agreement upon the doubt and appointment of the Congregation,’ it will be possible to proceed through a citation by the more diligent party, at the foot of which, before it is transmitted to the other party, the Secretary or his Auditor shall appoint the day and hour of the audience at which it can be read.

“7. The audience shall be held on Fridays and Tuesdays of each week, excepting holidays according to the notice posted in the Secretariat.

“8. When the doubt—or doubts—has been agreed upon between the parties by the Secretary or his Auditor, it is to be signed; but when it has been signed, it will be unlawful to change it unless a new petition concerning the reform of the doubt has first been submitted for discussion contradictorily between the parties.

“9. When the parties do not agree, the doubt shall be formulated ex officio, the right of the parties to debate before the plenary Congregation even concerning reform of the doubt by a separate memorial on the same day on which the principal case is proposed being reserved by a suitable decree.

“10. If one of the parties does not appear, that party being contumacious, the doubt shall be agreed upon; and when it has been agreed upon according to the norm of law, it shall be notified together with the appointment of the Congregation.

“11. The pleadings and Summaries which the parties wish to use in the proposal of the case shall be delivered in writing to the Most Reverend Secretary or his Auditor within a term of thirty days before the proposal of the case—notice of which the Auditor shall give ten days beforehand. This shall be done both for preparing the summary of arguments to be printed in the docket and so that the advocate or procurator may be furnished with the faculty of printing them.

“12. The pleadings shall be composed in the Latin language according to the current practice, nor can they be accepted unless one of the Advocates or Procurators of the Roman Curia has signed them.

“13. However many the doubts may be, the pleadings cannot be extended beyond five sheets and the responses beyond two sheets except with the permission of the Most Reverend Secretary, who, according to the necessity and gravity of the case, shall freely grant or deny it. If anyone violates this law, he shall be condemned to a fine such as the Sacred Rota is accustomed to inflict in similar cases, to be paid for the benefit of the Sacred Congregation.

“14. According to the disposition in § 4, it is decreed that if, after all acts of preparation have first been completed, any one of the litigating parties should nevertheless remain contumacious, no delay shall be granted; but, with the Most Reverend Secretary reporting, resolution of the case shall take place even sub unica.

“It is called sub unica when, in the first proposal of the case, the clause et amplius is added to the resolution, which clause carries with it the prohibition of proposing the case any further.

“15. That party shall be regarded as contumacious which, having been duly summoned at law, never appeared and neither presented any pleading within the term fixed nor obtained a requested delay.

“16. The Most Reverend Secretary has the faculty of deferring the proposal of the case ex officio or at the petition of the parties, even if he had appointed it with the clause ‘altogether and unfailingly.’ But if an appointment of this kind has been determined by the Sacred Congregation, it will be necessary to petition for a new delay before the Sacred Congregation by a memorial.

“17. Ten days before the appointed Congregation, a duplicate copy of the pleadings (a summary of fact and law) shall be distributed to the Most Eminent Fathers; copies in the prescribed quantity are also to be delivered to the Most Reverend Secretary and his office, and likewise to the Undersecretary. This term shall also be observed for the exchange of pleadings between the parties.

“18. The responses shall be delivered by the end of the Wednesday preceding the Congregation, and unless they have been signed in the same manner as the pleadings, they shall be held of no account.

“19. Documents and observations produced after the responses, without the knowledge of the adverse party, shall be as though they did not exist.

“20. The information before the Most Eminent Fathers shall take place within the Thursday and Friday preceding the Congregation.

“21. Once the resolution of the case has followed, a new audience must be petitioned for within a term of ten days by an application before the Most Reverend Secretary.

“22. If the clause et amplius has been added by the Sacred Congregation, a new trial of the case must be petitioned for from the Most Eminent Prefect. If he should judge that it cannot be granted by him, he shall remit the application to the plenary Congregation with the decree: ‘By memorial, the party having been cited.’ In either case, if the prayers are admitted, the case cannot be proposed before three months, the same order as for the first proposal being observed; and if the petitioner is defeated, he shall be bound to reimburse, in favor of the victorious party, the expenses of this last proposal.

“23. When the resolution has passed into a matter adjudged, a copy of that resolution shall be given to the victor, who shall deliver it to the judge charged with the execution of Apostolic letters and decrees of the Sacred Congregation, so that he may obtain an executorial decree.

“24. In the cases of which there is discussion from § 14 to 22, and in the other cases in which, according to the decrees of the Sacred Congregation, reimbursement of expenses takes place (that is, in cases of marriage, support, attempted acts, and spoliation), the victorious party shall present an account to the Most Reverend Secretary, so that he may approve and moderate it and furnish it with an appropriate mandate according to the norm of the laws in force.

“Given from the Secretariat of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, 27 September 1847.”

Cf. the Constitution of Benedict XIV, Si datam hominibus, 4 March 1748; IV Nones of March 1747.

The process is to be constructed according to the Constitution of Benedict XIV, Dei miseratione, III Nones of November 1741, and the Instructions issued by the Holy Office, by the Sacred Congregation of the Council, and by the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith: C. 1570 ff.; A. S. S., vol. 1, p. 439 ff.; vol. 18, p. 344 ff.; vol. 26, p. 639; M. E., vol. 4, part 2, p. 32 ff.; vol. 8, part 1, p. 219; part 2, p. 122 ff.

“When the impediment of disparity of worship is at issue and it is clearly established that one party is baptized and the other was not baptized; when the impediment of a prior bond is at issue and it is certainly established that the first spouse is legitimate and still living; finally, when consanguinity or affinity from lawful intercourse is at issue, or even spiritual kinship, or the impediment of clandestinity in places where the Tridentine decree Tametsi has been published or has long been observed as such provided that the existence of impediments of this kind, not dispensed by the authority of the Church, is clearly established by a certain and authentic document, or, in its absence, by certain arguments—in these cases, the solemnities required in the Apostolic Constitution Dei miseratione being omitted, the marriage can be declared null by the Ordinaries, with the intervention, nevertheless, of the defender of the matrimonial bond, without there being need of a second sentence.” Holy Office, 5 June 1889; M. E., vol. 8, part 2, p. 122; vol. 9, part 1, p. 174.

“Spouses in matrimonial cases are subject to the bishop in whose diocese the husband has his domicile. An exception has place if the fellowship of conjugal life has been taken away either by separation from bed and board or by malicious desertion perpetrated by the husband. In the former case, each party must exercise before the bishop of the diocese in which that party has a domicile the right of accusation against the other which belongs to him or her. In the latter case, the wife can institute an action before the bishop within whose diocese her domicile is situated. After a judicial citation has been intimated, a change made with respect to the domicile of the spouses effects no change at all with respect to the competent judge.” Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith for the United States of America, 1883.

“Spouses in cases of mixed marriages are subject to the bishop in whose diocese the Catholic party has a domicile; and when both are Catholics, because the heretical party has returned to the Church, they are subject to the bishop in whose diocese the husband has a domicile.” Holy Office, 30 June 1892.

“But when it is a question of contracting a mixed marriage with a heretic separated from a heretical woman by a sentence of divorce of a civil tribunal, it will belong to the bishop of the domicile of the Catholic party to judge whether the contracting parties enjoy the freedom of state.” Holy Office, 23 June 1903; M. E., vol. 15, p. 289 ff.; A. S. S., vol. 36, p. 165 f.

“Wednesday, 15 May 1901. As has several times been decreed by the Supreme Pontiffs, in matters pertaining to the Holy Office it in no way belongs to Regular Superiors to take cognizance of the cases of their subjects; and consequently, under no title or pretext can or should they, unless by an express mandate of the Sacred Congregation, make inquiry concerning these things, receive denunciations, interrogate witnesses, examine accused persons, institute a judgment, pronounce sentence, or involve themselves in them or lay hands upon them in any other way or manner. Rather, when religious men know any of their subjects or confreres, or even superiors, to be guilty or suspected of crimes of this kind (especially as concerns abuse of Sacramental Confession), they are strictly bound, without any communication whatever with others, without asking any permission, and without any fraternal correction or admonition having been made beforehand, to denounce them without delay to the Holy Office or to the local Ordinaries. And lest these most sacred laws happen to be neglected or infringed through ignorance (which God avert), the grave burden rests upon Superiors of repeatedly bringing them, in whatever manner they shall judge more opportune, to the certain and distinct knowledge of their subjects, and of urging their full observance by them.”

“...After all things had been diligently weighed, the Most Eminent Fathers, in the meeting held on 4 March 1898, judged that the following were to be maintained: namely, that it is received law that prescription has place in ecclesiastical criminal cases, and indeed not only when the judge proceeds at the instance of a private accuser, but also when he inquires for public vindication, or ex officio; and that the proper effect of this prescription is that it extinguishes only the penal action, provided that prescription has been expressly pleaded in the judgment by the accused or the person under inquiry, or by his procurator.

“Hence it is easy to perceive that the right both of accusing and of inquiring remains intact until prescription is expressly pleaded, and that the judgment stands in every respect if it was not pleaded.

“But if prescription has been brought into the judgment and is recognized as lawful, it then extinguishes the criminal action, but not the civil action which may arise from the same offense; and hence it is manifest law that, notwithstanding prescription, the accused remains liable to all the noncriminal canonical effects arising from the offense committed. Indeed, although the penal action is extinguished by prescription, the exception is nevertheless not taken away, but remains perpetually according to the maxim of law: Temporal limits apply to bringing an action; exceptions are perpetual; and therefore that offense, even though prescribed, can always be pleaded against the accused by way of exception, and it prejudices him if he should wish to compete for ecclesiastical appointments.

“As concerns the time necessary to induce the said prescription, the general rule is that an action for injuries is prescribed by a space of one year, while the crime of embezzlement and offenses of the flesh are prescribed by a space of five continuous years from the day the offense was committed. Nevertheless, if successive and continuing offenses are at issue, no prescription has place in these except from the day the offense ceases; likewise, if the offense was totally occult, it is held that prescription runs not from the day the crime was committed, but from the day of the knowledge of the accuser or inquisitor.

“Finally, this must not be passed over: the crimes of abduction, rape by violence, and adultery joined with incest are prescribed only by the lapse of twenty years; but the crimes of substitution of a child, parricide, assassination, treason, duel, counterfeiting money, apostasy, heresy, simony, extortion under color of office, abortion, and sodomy are prescribed at no time whatever; rather, while they live, those accused of these crimes can perpetually be accused and subjected to inquiry.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 21 March 1898.

“1. Can marriages be declared null and invalid in the external forum when their nullity is known in the forum of conscience but cannot be proved in the external forum? 2. Can the aforesaid spouses be admitted to another marriage for as long as the impediment of their prior marriage remains occult and the aforesaid nullity of their marriage has not been proved in the external forum? 3. How is one to proceed with those who have passed to other nuptials, although the impediment of their prior marriage remains occult and cannot be proved in the external forum? 4. Is it lawful for spouses of this kind, if no scandal is present or feared, to remain in their later marriage, although the nullity of the prior one has not been proved in the external forum? “Response. To the first: Negative. To the second: Negative. To the third: In the external forum, the second marriage is to be held null. To the fourth: In the external forum it is not lawful; nevertheless, the spouses are to be admonished to make the impediment known, and the Vicar Apostolic is to use the faculty of dispensing.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 11 February 1804.

Cf. above, On Conscience, no. 114.

“Not without great sorrow of soul—or rather, horror—did the Fathers of this Provincial Synod learn that certain legislators of this region had very recently proposed the establishment of a Court of Divorce, whose office would be to pronounce divorce from the bond on the ground of adultery. For besides the fact that such a law—which God avert—would be a subversion of the institution of almighty and most wise God and a usurpation of the rights of the Church of Christ, no one is ignorant, or can be ignorant, of how many and how great are the evils which flow from such a divorce and render it most hostile to civil society. For under the hope of a future divorce, marriages are contracted imprudently; quarrels—and, what the soul shudders to say, adulteries themselves—are provoked; the bond of charity between families gives way to irreconcilable hatred; fortunes are placed in jeopardy; the whole of society is scandalized. Finally, what shall become of the children whose parents have obtained a divorce? But We, whom God has placed as watchmen over this part of His Church, wish our diocesans always to remember that no one can, with a safe conscience: 1. cast a vote for such a law; 2. act in such a Court of Divorce in the part of the plaintiff, or of the judge, or of the notary or chancellor, or cooperate formally or in any other manner whatever; nevertheless, We do not intend to condemn those who, under compulsion, shall give testimony concerning the fact itself of adultery.” Fourth Provincial Council of Quebec, 1868; Collectio Lacensis, vol. 3, col. 718.

“The enacted law of the Swiss Confederation on civil status and marriage has decreed that all and each matrimonial case, ecclesiastical jurisdiction having henceforth been suppressed, is to be treated in lay tribunals according to the norm established for civil cases, and that sentences in them are to be pronounced according to the prescriptions of the common law and of the most recently enacted law. By the latter, even marriages of Catholics can, on certain very slight grounds, be perpetually severed and dissolved as to the bond, so that litigating spouses of this kind, after a sentence of divorce has been pronounced by secular judges, can pass to the contracting of other marriages if they wish. It is therefore asked:

“Fifth doubt. Can Catholic judges and advocates in lay tribunals of this kind, with a safe conscience, undertake and defend matrimonial cases, or take cognizance of and judge them?

“Sixth doubt. Can the same Catholic judges and advocates, with a safe conscience and according to the recent Swiss law, propose that the marriage bond be dissolved, or declare it dissolved, and also declare that spouses of this kind can pass to the contracting of another marriage, as the civil law in this case expressly commands and urges the judges to judge and declare?

“In discussing this question, it must not be forgotten that the secular tribunals whose office it is to judge civil cases are the same tribunals upon which, by the new law, it is incumbent to take cognizance of and judge matrimonial cases. Therefore, if Catholic judges should be forbidden to take part in tribunals of this kind we shall experience, to the great detriment of citizens, that those tribunals are deprived of the judges who, filled with the fear of God, judge piously and justly.

“Response. To the fifth and sixth. As regards judges, recourse is to be made in particular cases. As regards advocates, let the responses already given to the Bishop of Southwark be given, namely: Thursday, in the fourth place, 22 May 1860, to the doubt: Can a Catholic advocate defend the case of the respondent against a plaintiff seeking dissolution of the bond? The response was: Provided that the bishop is satisfied concerning the uprightness of the advocate, and provided that the advocate does nothing which departs from the principles of natural and ecclesiastical law, it can be tolerated.—And to another doubt: Is it lawful to act in the part of advocate and plaintiff when the end of the suit is simple separation without any sentence carrying with it the nullity of the marriage itself? The response was: Provision was made in the preceding; and Friday, 19 December of the same year: Provided that the Catholic party can approach no other tribunal from which he may obtain a sentence of separation as to bed and board, and provided that the sentence of this tribunal has no other effect than the aforesaid separation, it can be tolerated that Catholics act in that forum in the part of plaintiff and advocate, and provided that just grounds of separation exist in the judgment of the bishop; and if he has any further doubt, let the petitioner have recourse, setting forth all the circumstances and the dispositions of the law.” Holy Office, 3 April 1877.

“After the laws of divorce were recently restored among the French in the year 1884, several doubts were proposed to this Sacred Roman and Universal Inquisition by certain bishops of France: namely, whether it was lawful for lay judges to administer justice in cases concerning the separation of spouses, whether as to the bond or merely as to habitation; whether it was lawful for advocates and procurators to conduct cases of this kind before lay judges; whether it was lawful for those to whom it belongs by law to appoint defenders appointed by the court, as they call them; and finally, whether it was lawful for mayors (maires, as they are commonly called) to pronounce divorce.

“The Most Eminent Fathers, General Inquisitors together with me, the matter having been maturely considered, judged in the meeting of Thursday, in the fourth place, on 25 June 1885, that the following was to be decreed:

“In view of the most grave circumstances of affairs, times, and places, it can be tolerated that those who hold magistracies and advocates conduct matrimonial cases in France without being bound to resign their office, provided that they openly profess the Catholic doctrine concerning marriage and concerning matrimonial cases as belonging to ecclesiastical judges alone; and provided that, both concerning the validity and nullity of marriage and concerning the separation of bodies, which cases they are compelled to judge, they are so disposed in mind that they never pronounce a sentence contrary to divine or ecclesiastical law, nor defend a sentence to be pronounced, nor provoke or incite such a sentence; and that in doubtful or more difficult cases each approach his Ordinary, direct himself according to his judgment, and, insofar as there is need, have recourse through him to the Apostolic Penitentiary.

“The Most Holy Father ratified this decree, and therefore it is made known by these letters—which otherwise are not to be published—to all archbishops and bishops in France as their norm.”

“The following doubts were proposed to the Sacred Roman and Universal Inquisition by certain bishops of France. In the letter of the Sacred Roman and Universal Inquisition of 25 June 1885 to all the Ordinaries in the French dominions concerning the law of civil divorce, it was decreed as follows: ‘In view of the most grave circumstances of affairs, times, and places, it can be tolerated that those who hold magistracies and advocates conduct matrimonial cases in France without being bound to resign their office.’ It added conditions, of which the second is this: ‘Provided that, both concerning the validity and nullity of marriage and concerning the separation of bodies, which cases they are compelled to judge, they are so disposed in mind that they never pronounce a sentence contrary to divine or ecclesiastical law, nor defend a sentence to be pronounced, nor provoke or incite such a sentence.’ It is asked: 1. Is the interpretation spread throughout France and also given to print correct, according to which a judge satisfies the aforesaid condition if, although some marriage is valid before the Church, he truly and steadfastly abstracts from that marriage and, applying the civil law, pronounces that there is ground for divorce, provided that in his mind he intends to rupture only the civil effects and only the civil contract, and that the terms of the sentence pronounced regard these alone? In other terms, can a sentence so pronounced be said not to be contrary to divine or ecclesiastical law? 2. After a judge has pronounced that there is ground for divorce, can the mayor (le maire in French), himself also intending only the civil effects of the contract, as is explained above, pronounce the divorce, although the marriage is valid before the Church? 3. Once the divorce has been pronounced, can the same mayor civilly join with another a spouse attempting to pass to other nuptials, although the prior marriage is valid before the Church and the other party is living?—Response. To the first, second, and third doubts: Negative.” Holy Office, 27 May 1886.

“14 September 1886. Prince.... Following my request, His Eminence (the Cardinal Secretary of State) has just informed me, by order of His Holiness, that the Congregation of the Holy Office has declared that the decree of 27 May does not concern Belgium and that, consequently, nothing is changed in this country as regards the matter of divorce. † Dominic, Archbishop of Thessalonica, Apostolic Nuncio.” To the Minister of Foreign Affairs at Brussels.

“A certain French judge, formerly a student of theology, approaches his confessor and, after declaring various mortal sins, adds: ‘Concerning the sentences pronounced by me in the matter of civil divorce, there is nothing for me to say, Father. For I am accustomed to declare civil divorce whenever most grave reasons are present, whether on my part or on the part of those who have brought the case before me.’—‘You have acted wrongly,’ the priest replies, ‘and you have not read the decision by which the General Congregation of the Sacred Roman and Universal Inquisition recently (27 May 1886) forbade judges to act in this manner.’—‘Indeed, I know it perfectly well, Father, and nevertheless I do not judge that I have sinned, for the following reasons: 1. You also know, Father, the response given in the name of the Supreme Pontiff to the Government of Belgium by the Apostolic Nuncio. Now, an act tolerated in Belgium can also be tolerated in France when the same circumstances recur, unless a positive prohibition by the Supreme Pontiff is certainly adduced; and this is by no means constituted by the simple approval of a decree of the Holy Office. 2. Theologians do not agree concerning the force of a decision of this kind. 3. Finally—and this is the principal hinge of the matter—in the proposition most justly condemned on various grounds (27 May 1886), not even one word is read concerning the most grave reasons which can arise either on the part of the judge or on the part of the petitioners. Therefore, since it is lawful to use truly probable opinions, and since, as I trust, I have duly disposed myself and declared my mortal sins to you, I humbly ask you, Father, to be willing to impart absolution to me, to which, according to the doctrine of all, I have a right.’ The confessor labors to induce the penitent to abandon such an opinion, but in vain. On the other hand, moved by the reasons which the judge has brought forward, he does not dare to impose his own opinion upon him, and dismisses the absolved penitent in peace.—It is asked: Did the confessor act rightly?—Response. Confessors are bound, concerning the question proposed, to direct judges according to the recent declarations issued by the Holy See.” Sacred Penitentiary, 4 April 1887.

“N.... of Luçon, whose marriage was valid before the Church petitioned for divorce according to the abominable law now in force in France, and the civil judges have already pronounced that there is ground for divorce. The spouse N...., as article 264 of the aforesaid law provides, will soon present himself with the other spouse before the mayor so that the latter may pronounce the divorce. But if the mayor refuses to pronounce it, without doubt he will be deprived of his magistracy; and this will be very dangerous to the Catholic cause, of which that mayor has always shown himself a strenuous defender.—It is asked whether, on account of the most grave circumstances of affairs, times, and places, that mayor can pronounce the civil divorce, provided that: 1. he openly professes the Catholic doctrine concerning marriage and concerning matrimonial cases as belonging to ecclesiastical judges alone; 2. in the sentence itself, and speaking as a magistrate, he publicly declares that he wishes to rupture only the civil effects and only the civil contract, while otherwise the marriage bond remains entirely firm before God and conscience.—The Venerable Sacred Penitentiary responds to the foregoing for the Father in Christ, the Bishop of Luçon: in this particular case, if, after examining all its circumstances, he judges in the Lord that it is expedient, he can tolerate that the aforesaid mayor proceed to the act concerning which the petition was made, with the declarations proposed by him; in such a way, nevertheless, that in place of the words, ‘he wishes to rupture only the civil contract,’ he put, ‘he can regard only the civil contract.’” 24 September 1887.

“Although the oracle of the Holy See has repeatedly declared what is to be thought of the act of a civil judge pronouncing a sentence of divorce between spouses joined by a legitimate marriage contracted before the Church, theologians in France—and even bishops—are not of one mind in interpreting the decrees of the Sacred Congregations. Still greater confusion of minds has arisen since the public periodicals published the response of the Sacred Penitentiary given on 24 September 1887 to the Ordinary Bishop of Luçon, namely, that in the case, the due declarations of course having been made beforehand, it can be tolerated that the mayor pronounce the divorce. In the periodical Le canoniste contemporain, a certain writer interpreted this response as though it were equivalent to a decree permitting a mayor generally, in a similar case and after the due declarations had been made beforehand, to pronounce the divorce. And furthermore, since the same response was made public, the opinion has prevailed more and more that the act of a judge pronouncing a sentence of divorce and that of a mayor pronouncing it, provided that the prescribed declarations are made beforehand, is not contrary to divine law and therefore is not intrinsically evil. Therefore the petitioner—inasmuch as until now he held and taught as alone true the contrary opinion from the decrees issued on this matter by the Sacred Roman and Universal Inquisition—suppliantly requests, so that he may provide for his own conscience in fulfilling his episcopal office, a response concerning the following two doubts: 1. Is it lawful to infer from the aforesaid rescript of the Sacred Penitentiary to the Ordinary Bishop of Luçon that, universally, mayors in France who would otherwise be compelled to resign their office can, after the due declarations have been made beforehand, with a safe conscience pronounce divorce between spouses bound in the sight of the Church? 2. Can the same be said of a civil judge pronouncing a sentence of divorce between similar spouses and under the same declarations?—Response. To the first: In issuing the rescript in question, the Sacred Penitentiary had this alone in mind: to provide for the particular case according to its circumstances and necessities. To the second: Negative.” Sacred Penitentiary, 4 June 1890.

“Most Reverend Monsignor, I have reported to the Most Eminent Major Penitentiary the case of the mayor of that Diocese who, by virtue of his office, would have to assist at the civil marriage of a certain person who is already bound in the sight of the Church; and by command of the said Most Eminent One I must inform you that the named mayor cannot in any way lend himself to an act so contrary to the sanctity of marriage. Therefore, whatever the circumstances of the case may be, he must absolutely abstain from such assistance, even though it should consequently follow that he must resign. From the Sacred Penitentiary, 28 November 1883. Luigi Martini, Substitute of the Sacred Penitentiary.” To the Bishop of Ferentino in Italy.—Cf. no. 933.

“1. Human society, as God has established it, is composed of unequal elements, just as the members of the human body are unequal; to render them all equal is impossible, and the destruction of that same society would result (Quod Apostolici muneris).

“2. The equality of the various members of society consists only in this: that all men take their origin from God the Creator; have been redeemed by Jesus Christ; and must be judged by God according to the exact measure of their merits and demerits, and rewarded or punished (Quod Apostolici muneris).

“3. Hence it follows that, in human society, it is according to the ordering of God that there be rulers and subjects, masters and proletarians, rich and poor, learned and ignorant, nobles and commoners; and that all of them, united in the bond of love, mutually assist one another in attaining their final end in Heaven, and here on earth their material and moral well-being (Quod Apostolici muneris).

“4. Man has over the goods of the earth not only their simple use, as do brute animals, but also the right of stable ownership—and not only ownership of those things which are consumed by using them, but also of those whose use does not consume them (Rerum novarum).

“5. Private property, whether the fruit of labor or industry, or of another’s transfer or gift, is an irreproachable right of nature; and each person can reasonably dispose of it as seems good to him (Rerum novarum).

“6. To settle the conflict between the rich and proletarians, it is necessary to distinguish justice from charity. There is no right to make a claim except when justice has been violated (Rerum novarum).

“7. The obligations of justice on the part of the proletarian and the worker are these: to render wholly and faithfully the work which was freely and equitably agreed upon; not to inflict damage upon the property, nor offense upon the person, of employers; even in the defense of their own rights, to abstain from violent acts, and never to transform that defense into mutinies (Rerum novarum).

“8. The obligations of justice on the part of capitalists and employers are these: to render just wages to workers; not to injure their just savings, whether by violence, fraud, or manifest or disguised usury; to give them freedom to fulfill their religious duties; not to expose them to corrupting enticements and dangers of scandal; not to estrange them from the spirit of family and the love of saving; not to impose upon them work disproportionate to their strength or ill-suited to age and sex (Rerum novarum).

“9. The obligation of charity on the part of the rich and of property owners is to succor the poor and needy according to the evangelical precept. That precept binds so gravely that on the day of judgment an account of its fulfillment will be demanded in a special manner, according as Christ Himself said (Matt. 25) (Rerum novarum).

“10. The poor, moreover, ought not to blush at their poverty nor disdain the charity of the rich, especially keeping in view Jesus the Redeemer, who, although He could have been born amid riches, made Himself poor in order to ennoble poverty and enrich it with incomparable merits for Heaven (Rerum novarum).

“11. Capitalists and workers themselves can contribute greatly to the resolution of the labor question through institutions ordered to furnish timely assistance to the needy and to bring the two classes nearer and unite them with one another. Such are societies of mutual aid; the many forms of private insurance; patronages for children; and, above all, guilds of arts and trades (Rerum novarum).” Pius X, Motu proprio, 18 December 1903.

“It is altogether fitting that clerics called to the lot of the Lord so compose their whole life and conduct that in dress, gesture, gait, speech, and all other things they display nothing except what is grave, moderate, and full of religion.” Council of Trent, session 22, chapter 1, On Reformation.

“8. Priests living criminally in any manner pollute the power of the priesthood and, as unfaithful sons, think unfaithfully concerning the seven Sacraments of the Church, the keys, offices, censures, morals, ceremonies, and sacred things of the Church, the veneration of relics, indulgences, and orders.” Article of John Hus condemned at the Council of Constance.

“Bishops are not to presume to make anyone a subdeacon unless he has promised that he will live chastely, because no one ought to approach the ministry of the altar unless his chastity has been proved before the reception of the ministry.” Canon 1, distinction 28.

“If anyone says that clerics constituted in sacred orders, or regulars who have solemnly professed chastity, can contract marriage and that the contract is valid notwithstanding ecclesiastical law or the vow, let him be anathema.” Council of Trent, session 24, canon 9.

Pius IX condemned two errors: that the celibacy of clerics ought to be abolished, and that the state of marriage ought to be preferred to the state of virginity. The former is refuted in the encyclical letter Qui pluribus, 9 November 1849; the latter, in the Apostolic Letter Multiplices inter, 10 June 1851.

“...He who diligently weighs the genuine tradition concerning the celibacy and continence of the clergy will certainly find that, even from the first centuries of the Catholic Church, if not by a general and explicit law, at least by morals and custom it was established that not only bishops and priests, but also clerics constituted in sacred orders, should inviolably observe virginity or perpetual continence. For the very dignity of the sacred ministry, to which offices almost divine are assigned, seemed to require that those who were to sacrifice and also to bring forth the immaculate Victim, who is sanctity and purity itself, should shine either with the splendor of virginity or with perpetual continence. Moreover, the most abundant tradition of the Holy Fathers shows that the Apostles were either virgins or perpetually continent after marriage; hence they themselves also chose as their successors none other than those who cultivated virginity or professed inviolable continence. There is no need to delay here over what the Roman Church, Mother and Teacher of the others, instructed by the example and institutions of the Apostles did: for she never relaxed that obligation of preserving chastity, salutarily propagated it throughout the whole Western Church, and finally sanctioned it by an inviolable law. But among the Orientals also, the celibacy or continence of clerics, besides always having been in the highest honor, was religiously observed from the most ancient time, especially in churches where discipline flourished through the diligence of the bishops. Epiphanius, indeed, a man distinguished in sanctity and learning and one who knew the discipline of the Eastern Church very well, in his exposition of the Catholic faith (no. 21) expressly affirms that ‘the priesthood consists principally of the order of virgins, or, if not...of those who abstain from their wives, or who after such nuptials live in widowhood.’ For in the beginning, as Jerome says (Against Jovinian, book 1), ‘because the Church was being established in a people untrained from among the Gentiles,’ some were also assumed into the priesthood who were already joined in marriage, but who either lived continently in widowhood or passed their life as though they had no wives. Hence the same Epiphanius (Heresies, 59) expressly acknowledges how ‘the holy preaching of God does not admit as a deacon, priest, bishop, or subdeacon a husband of one wife who still begets children, but him who has abstained from his one wife or has lived in widowhood, especially where the ecclesiastical canons are sincere.’ Nor does the contrary custom or nonobservance of some particular Church stand in the way at all when the discipline of the Eastern Church is being discussed; for the same Epiphanius appositely continues: ‘But you will say to me: In certain places, priests, deacons, and subdeacons still beget children. Yet this is not according to the canon, but according to the mind of men.’ Therefore it cannot be doubted that in the time of Epiphanius clerics—from the subdeacon to the bishop—cultivated celibacy or continence. This can also be most suitably confirmed by the testimony of Jerome, who, on account of his long residence in the East, knew the morals and discipline of that Church most perfectly. For the Holy Doctor, against Vigilantius, the bitterest enemy of clerical continence, besides other arguments opposes the fact of the universal Church: ‘What will the Churches of the East do? What will those of Egypt and of the Apostolic See do, which receive clerics who are either virgins or continent, or, if they have had wives, cease to be husbands? This, then, was the tradition of the universal Church; these were the customs where the former discipline flourished.’

“Certain Greeks think and assert with too much confidence that bishops in the East observed continence of their own accord, not bound by any law, which they say was first enacted at the Synod in Trullo. But, besides the most clear testimonies of the Fathers, Justinian himself, who established laws long before the Trullan canons and who professes himself to be the executor of the earlier canons, inculcates more than once that bishops are to be chosen either from the order of monks or indeed from the clergy, but such as neither have a wife nor at least cohabit with her (book 1, Code, On Bishops and Clerics, law 4; Novels 123, chapters 14 and 29). Moreover, the same discipline prevails among the Eastern sects which had fallen away from unity even before the times of Justinian; for they all agree in this, that bishops are chosen celibate. (Consult the Jerusalem Itinerary of John of Catovice, who expressly attests this concerning the Chaldean Nestorians and the Maronites.)

“Far otherwise did it happen with respect to priests and other clerics; for that which in the time of Epiphanius was nonobservance or the lax custom of a certain Church in the course of time began to take root and spread, so that at length it pervaded almost the whole Eastern Church; and as the custom gained strength, that which had been permitted only to cantors and readers was also granted to priests and other clerics constituted in sacred orders, namely, that they might cohabit with wives whom they had married before sacred ordination. Indeed, in a certain Eastern province the tide of laxer discipline advanced so far that some presumed to attempt marriage even after the reception of sacred orders. This, nevertheless, was severely condemned and prohibited under the gravest penalties by both laws—that is, ecclesiastical and imperial—even before the Trullan canons, as the very laws of Justinian clearly show. For the aforesaid emperor gravely complains of certain clerics who, “despising the sacred canons, presumed to attempt nuptials after ordination” (Code, book 1, title 3, On Bishops and Clerics, § Sacris canonibus). For the sacred canons severely forbade, under penalty of deprivation of the sacred ministry, any of the priests, deacons, and subdeacons to marry after an ordination of this kind. “Hence,” the same Justinian continues, “just as such things are prohibited by the sacred canons, so also according to our laws the thing itself is prohibited”; and, adding civil penalties to canonical ones, he decrees that children begotten from such a nefarious union are illegitimate, as though they had been born from an incestuous union: “so that they are understood to be neither natural children nor bastards or spurious children, but altogether and in every respect prohibited and unworthy of the succession of their parents.” Thus far Justinian. And although in ecclesiastical law, as Benedict XIV most correctly says, there is left to the lay power only the glory of obeying, not the authority of commanding, nevertheless, in the matter at issue, the emperor speaks with relation to the sacred canons. (Instruction Eo quamvis tempore, 1 May 1745.)

“Nor does it stand in the way that the provincial Council of Ancyra, in canon 10, permitted deacons, if at ordination they had declared that they could not be continent, to contract marriage even after receiving orders. For, granted that that canon had the force of a concession for the province of Ancyra, it certainly could not change the discipline of the Eastern Church, and in fact it did not change it, as Epiphanius, Jerome, and other Fathers together testify in clear words, and as the emperor himself most openly maintains (Authenticae, collection 9, title 4, Novel 123, chapter 14: ‘He who ordains is not competent at the time of ordination to permit a deacon or subdeacon to take a wife after ordination,’ etc.). Therefore, the Trullan Synod itself, in canon 6, decrees generally, under penalty of deposition, that it is wholly unlawful for any subdeacon, deacon, or priest to contract nuptials after ordination (canon 6 of the Council in Trullo: ‘Since it has been said in the Apostolic Canons, canon 27, that of those who are promoted to the clergy without having taken a wife, only readers and cantors can take a wife, We also, observing this, decree that henceforth it shall be wholly unlawful for any subdeacon, deacon, or priest to contract marriage after his ordination. But if he should dare to do this, let him be deposed,’ etc.). Hence even Greek canonists freely acknowledge that the canon of the Council of Ancyra was wholly abrogated by the Quinisext Council (Balsamon, Zonaras, Aristenus, and others; Arcudius, Constitution, book 7, chapter 37; and Benedict XIV, Instruction Eo quamvis tempore).

“Since these things are so, anyone easily sees how alien from the genuine discipline of the Eastern Church is that custom by which subdeacons contracting marriage after an ordination of this kind are promoted to higher orders, since even the Trullan Synod itself wholly abhors this.

“Therefore His Holiness, who has very greatly at heart that the customs of that province, every corruption having been wiped away, be composed according to the norm of the purer Eastern discipline, cannot but follow with deserved praises the repeatedly confirmed purpose of Your Excellency, namely, henceforth to admit no one to sacred orders unless either wholly celibate or one who, before the subdiaconate, has married a lawful wife according to the Eastern custom. Here, therefore, let Your Excellency and the other Prelates of that province, remaining in this purpose, stand firmly; adhere to this....” Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 24 March 1858, to the Archbishop of Făgăraș and Alba Iulia of the Greek-Romanian rite.

“Since in certain missions the custom of wearing a cassock, especially when priests appear in public, has not hitherto been diligently observed by all—and indeed, in some places graver abuses have also begun to be introduced in this matter—this Sacred Congregation commands that all ecclesiastical men, mindful that it is altogether fitting for clerics to exhibit gravity and moderation even in dress, wear cassocks of either white or black color, according to the custom of the region and the indults of the Sacred Congregation, at least in public; and every evasion or pretext is to be removed in obtaining this. But if, compelled by necessity or on account of a journey through rough places, they are forced to lay aside the aforesaid habit, let them at least employ that garment which in no manner whatever is unbecoming to priestly modesty.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 8 September 1869, C. 326.

“We also decree that anyone having a benefice, if, after six months from obtaining the benefice, he has not said the Divine Office, no lawful impediment existing, shall not make the fruits his own in proportion to the omission of the recitation of the Office and of the time.” Lateran Council under Leo X, session 9, § Statuimus.

“We decree that he who has omitted all the canonical hours on one or more days shall lose all the fruits of the benefice corresponding to that day or those days; but he who has omitted Matins alone shall lose half; he who has omitted the other hours shall lose the other half; and he who has omitted any one of these shall lose a sixth part of the fruits of the same day. This is so even though someone assigned to choir who does not recite should be present with the others at all the canonical hours and should claim to have gained for himself, by presence alone, the fruits and distributions perhaps otherwise assigned, according to statutes, custom, foundation, or otherwise. He shall suffer also, besides the loss of the fruits and distributions. Likewise, let him who has not said the Office during the first six months understand that he has committed a grave sin, unless a lawful impediment has excused him.” Saint Pius V, Constitution Ex proximo Lateranensi, 20 September 1571.

“20. The restitution imposed by Pius V upon beneficiaries who do not recite is not owed in conscience before a declaratory sentence of the judge, because it is a penalty.”—“21. One who has a collative chaplaincy or any other ecclesiastical benefice, if he devotes himself to the study of letters, satisfies his obligation if he has the Office recited by another.”—“35. By one Office a person can satisfy a double precept for the present day and the morrow.”—Propositions condemned by Alexander VII.

“Are those professed with simple vows, which according to the encyclical letter of 19 March 1857 must precede the profession of solemn vows, bound to the Divine Office?—Response. They are not bound to private recitation of the Divine Office; nevertheless, they must be present in choir, like the solemnly professed.” Sacred Congregation on the State of Regulars, 6 August 1858; Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 24 March 1882; A. S. S., vol. 15, p. 250 ff.; vol. 16, p. 292.

“Are nuns in general strictly bound under grave sin, by virtue of their profession, to the recitation of the Divine Office proper to their institute?—Response. Affirmative with respect to nuns who have professed solemn vows according to a rule approved by the Apostolic See in which a burden of this kind is imposed. But if such a burden is not imposed in the rules, let the petitioner consult approved authors concerning the obligation which can arise from custom. But where the vows are simple, they are not bound.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 19 April 1844.

With respect to sisters who, because of the iniquity of the times, emit simple vows in monasteries of solemn vows: “The Bishop of Conversano asked the aforesaid Sacred Congregation whether they are bound to the Divine Office under grave sin like those with solemn vows, and on 8 February 1887 the Sacred Congregation responded: Affirmative, according to the constitutions of the respective monastery.”

“Whether cloistered nuns who have emitted only simple vows, in conformity with the instruction issued on this matter by the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, are bound in conscience to the recitation of the Divine Office outside choir.—The same Congregation, having maturely considered the whole matter, ordered that the response be: Negative.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 2 May 1883; M. E., vol. 7, part 2, p. 93.

“33. Restitution of fruits on account of the omission of the hours can be supplied by any alms which the beneficiary previously gave from the fruits of his benefice.” Proposition condemned by Alexander VII. Cf. no. 104.

“1. Was the innovation in the years 1748 and 1749 of the Breviary and Missal of Le Mans, which were altogether alien to the Roman rite, lawful when the old Breviary and Missal, corrected according to the Roman form, had first been removed, and the innovation had been made or approved by the authority of the Bishop and Chapter of the Church of Le Mans alone and without consulting the Apostolic See?—2. Insofar as the response is negative, did at least a liturgy of this kind become lawful by force of prescription, or of immemorial custom, so that today any priest of Le Mans can observe it with a safe conscience?—3. Insofar as the response is again negative, is any priest of Le Mans, even a canon and pastor, immediately bound in conscience to discharge the canonical hours and celebrate Mass according to the Roman rite, namely, when he recites and celebrates privately?—Response. To the first: Negative. To the second: Negative. To the third: Let him consult together both Constitutions of Saint Pius V, namely, that which begins Quod a nobis, 7 Ides of July 1568, and the other which begins Ex proximo, 12 Kalends of October 1571.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 10 January 1852, Le Mans.—In the bull Quod a nobis, the Pontiff removes and abolishes all breviaries which do not exceed two hundred years by institution or lawful custom.—In the other Constitution, Ex proximo he declares that all who are bound to the hours do not satisfy their duty if they use another Breviary, and therefore that beneficiaries do not make the fruits their own.

“Can clerics be permitted Breviaries which consist of separate leaves?—Response. Clerics of this kind are not to be disturbed.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 20 March 1869, Toulouse.

“The hymn Te Deum in the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary must be recited or said from the Nativity of the Lord until Septuagesima, and from the Sunday of the Resurrection until Advent; but in Advent and from Septuagesima until Easter, only on feasts of the Blessed Virgin Mary.—If the Office is recited in full, that is, with three Nocturns, the antiphons at Matins, Lauds, and Vespers are to be doubled; but not so if only one Nocturn is recited.—A commemoration of Saint Joseph can be added.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 27 February 1883, Rennes.

“1. Can a bishop by ordinary authority approve a translation into the vernacular language of the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary which is read in the Roman Breviary?—2. Can that same Office, thus translated and approved, be published and used by the faithful dwelling within the boundaries of the diocese, and especially by Religious Congregations of either sex?—Response. To the first: Affirmative. To the second: Affirmative, but only for private recitation.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 24 April 1896, Bois-le-Duc. And indulgences are gained. Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, 18 August 1903.

Are Premonstratensian religious dwelling outside the monastery, concerning whom the Statutes of the Order are silent, on 2 November, on the day of Saint Mark, and during the three Rogation Days “otherwise bound under any sin to the private recitation of the Office of the Dead and the Litanies?—Response. Affirmative; that is, they are bound, just as all those are bound who have the burden of reciting the canonical hours.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 4 August 1877, Order of Premonstratensians.

“His Holiness willed and commanded that, after the other praises of the Blessed Mary in the Litany of Loreto, and this throughout the universal Church henceforth, there be added in the last place, namely: Queen of the Most Holy Rosary, pray for us.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 10 December 1883, for the City and the World.

“Our Most Holy Lord established and decreed that after the praise Mother Most Admirable in the Litany of Loreto, another be added: Mother of Good Counsel, pray for us.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 22 April 1903.

“Is it lawful, under the title of special devotion, to add some versicle to the Litany of the Saints or the Litany of Loreto, or to sing or recite in churches new litanies concerning whose approval the Ordinary is in no way certain?—Response. Negative; and let the decrees of the Sacred Congregation be observed in every respect, and let the Ordinaries take care to collect and prohibit any formulas of litanies, both printed and manuscript, whose approval is not established. And since litanies are under discussion, inasmuch as it has become known to the Sacred Congregation that in certain churches, especially on the occasion of the Forty Hours’ Prayer, booklets are employed in which either the names of particular Saints are seen to have been added or one or another versicle is lacking in the prayers, therefore the Sacred Congregation, adhering to the Instruction of Pope Clement IX, § 24, commands that no other booklets be employed except those printed by the press of the Reverend Apostolic Camera or those entirely conforming to them.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 31 March 1821, General Decree.

“The decrees which forbid every addition in the Litanies are to be observed.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 14 August 1858, D. 576.

“According to the general decree of the same Sacred Congregation of Rites, 31 March 1821, it is not lawful, under the title of special devotion, to add some versicle to the Litany of the Saints; nevertheless, if not a versicle, is it lawful to add the name of some Saint, or even of several Saints, especially if they are held as Patrons of the diocese?...—Response. Negative in all respects, according to decrees issued on other occasions.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 27 September 1873, Lodi.

“...All litanies, except the most ancient and common ones which are contained in breviaries, missals, pontificals, and rituals, and except the Litany of the Blessed Virgin which is customarily sung in the sacred Shrine of Loreto, are not to be published without the review and approval of the Ordinary, nor recited publicly in churches, public oratories, and processions without the permission and approval of the Sacred Congregation of Rites.” Sacred Congregation of the Index, 23 April 1860, D. 3820. Add to the approved Litanies the Litanies of the Most Holy Name of Jesus and of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 2 April 1899, for the City and the World.

For Litanies to be recited lawfully in churches, especially before the Most Holy Sacrament, they need the approval of the Holy See. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 24 August 1880, Brescia; 6 March 1894, no. 3820. Unapproved Litanies cannot be recited or sung by nuns in public choir or in a public oratory. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 20 June 1896, no. 3317; 11 February 1898, no. 3981. Nor likewise can they be recited by several persons jointly in churches or public oratories without the intervention of the minister of the Church as such. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 20 June 1896, no. 3916.

“Whether, in sacred functions which are generally held in the evening hours in churches or public oratories with exposition of the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, it is lawful, as is the ancient custom in many churches even of the City, to sing the Litany of Loreto of the Blessed Virgin Mary by triple invocations, the faithful people responding with the fourth, and thus to complete in order the last invocation, Queen of the Most Holy Rosary, pray for us?—Response. Affirmative.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 6 December 1901.

“That custom of inserting between the first and second parts of the Angelic Salutation the words: ‘Blessed is Jesus, Savior of the world; I ask God to grant us to know Jesus, to believe in Jesus, to hope in Jesus, to love Jesus, to imitate Jesus,’ is altogether to be abrogated by you and prohibited by mandate of this Sacred Congregation. Indeed, nothing is contained in that prayer which is not holy and pious; but the Sacred Congregation judges that it is not to be tolerated that the Angelic Salutation, which possesses such great authority in the Church, be divided and another formula of prayer which has not been received by the Church be intermingled between its first and second parts.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 19 April 1784, D. 957, 678, 689, 995.

“A bishop must recite the Office and celebrate divine offices according to the rite of his diocese.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 11 June 1605, For a Regular, to the first.

“Beneficiaries are always bound to the Office of their own church; but simple priests can conform themselves to the Office of the place where they are staying.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 12 November 1831, Marsi, to the forty-sixth.

“Can secular priests who are considered attached to some church because they celebrate Mass there, hear confessions, or exercise any other sacred ministry, recite the Office of the Patron or Titular of that same church, who is not the Patron of the city or place, so that there may be uniformity between those priests and the pastor and assistant pastors of the church, who celebrate the feast of the Titular with the rite of a double of the first class with an octave, even though there is no obligation of choir?—Response. Negative, according to other decrees; for they must not be considered attached, but must actually be attached to the strict service of the church, as are the pastor and assistant pastor.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 7 December 1844, Mechelen, to doubt 1.

“Masters and students dwelling in a seminary are bound to the Office of the church attached to the seminary, although elsewhere they celebrate Mass, assist at sacred functions, and hear confessions.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 7 September 1850, Adria, to the first.

“While traveling, a regular bound to choir shall follow the calendar of the Divine Office of the monastery from which he departed; when he arrives at and remains in another monastery, even temporarily, let him follow its calendar. During Lent, preachers of the divine word staying outside the monastery must conform themselves to the calendar of the province, extended without any difference to all for each year.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 31 August 1839, Order of Friars Minor Capuchin, to the first and second; 25 September 1852, Order of Friars Minor; 27 June 1897, to the thirteenth, Order of Friars Minor.

“The decree by which the Sacred Congregation of Rites on 31 August 1839 prescribed that certain regulars must conform themselves to the Office of the community in which they reside, even though merely as persons passing through, is to be understood only of those regulars who recite the Divine Office in choir, and not indiscriminately of all, although they are not bound to choir.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 18 September 1877, in a case of the Society of Jesus, to the third.

“Must religious of either sex who do not have their own calendar use the diocesan calendar?—Response. Affirmative, with the addition of Offices particularly granted to regulars dwelling in that diocese.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 22 July 1848, Doubts, to the first.

“Chaplains and confessors of nuns cannot recite their Office.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 21 March 1795, Coimbra, to the third.¹

“Whether in the Ambrosian Liturgy, as is done in the Roman, the feasts of Saint Joseph, Spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and of the Annunciation of the Mother of God herself can henceforth be celebrated on 19 and 25 March even when they occur on Fridays of Lent, the Offices and Masses already revised being employed and the rubrics observed?—Response. Affirmative in all respects.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 23 February 1897.

There was given “a general indult, both to chapters and to all communities of ecclesiastics and to individual members of both clergies, to discharge votive Offices throughout the year in place of ferial Offices, except on Ash Wednesday, throughout the whole of Passiontide, and in sacred Advent from 17 to 24 December; as regards choral recitation, with the consent of the chapter or community, to be approved once for all by the Ordinary; but as regards private recitation, at the pleasure of individual clerics.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 5 July 1883, for the City and the World.

“1. Are the words of the indult, ‘but as regards private recitation, at the pleasure of individual clerics,’ to be understood only of those who are bound to choir by no canonical title?—2. Once the recitation of the votive Office has been established with the consent of the chapter or community approved by the Ordinary, is it lawful at any time to depart from that acceptance?—3. Can the indult itself be accepted in such a way that on certain days of the year the ferial Office can be said in choral recitation, but on others votive Offices? “Response. To the first: Affirmative.—To the second and third: Negative. And thus they rescripted, declared, and commanded to be observed.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 10 November 1883, Doubts.

“34. One who recites the Paschal Office on Palm Sunday satisfies the precept.” Proposition condemned by Alexander VII.

“Does a cleric constituted in sacred orders satisfy his obligation if, spontaneously or by invitation, he joins himself to clergy singing or reciting an Office different from the Office of that cleric?—Response. Generally, Negative.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 27 January 1899, Mariupol. Cf. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 11 June 1605, For a Regular, to the third.

“Whether, if through forgetfulness or inadvertence a double or semidouble Office of some Saint was omitted in choir or privately on the same day on which it should have been celebrated according to the rubrics, it must be celebrated on some other day of either the same month or another following month which is not impeded by an Office of nine lessons?—Response. Negative.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 17 June 1673, Doubts.

“After the prayer of the day and before the others, a commemoration must always be made of another feast of whatever rite which concurs, if it has place; then the remaining commemorations are to be made according to the order which either the General Rubric of the Breviary, title 9, no. 11, or the Table of Occurrence inscribed in the same Breviary prescribes. This order is of the following tenor: 1. of a privileged Sunday; 2. of an octave day; 3. of a greater double; 4. of a lesser double reduced after the manner of simples; 5. of a common Sunday; 6. of a day within the octave of Corpus Christi; 7. of a semidouble; 8. of a day within a common octave, likewise reduced to the simple rite; 9. of a greater feria or vigil; 10. of a simple. And thus it commanded to be observed.” General Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 5 February 1895.

The commemoration to be made of the Patron or Titular of the church is a commemoration of the Patron or Titular of one’s own church, namely, to whose service a person is attached by any canonical title. Apart from the commemoration of the Titular or Patron of the church and, with respect to regulars, of their own Founder, no commemoration of the Patron of the place, diocese, province, or kingdom is to be made by force of the rubric, unless a contrary custom prevails. Thus from the General Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 27 June 1899, no. 4043.

It must be noted here that “he is called the Titular or Patron of the church under whose name or title the church was founded and from whom it is named. But the Patron of a place is properly he whom a certain city, diocese, province, kingdom, etc., has chosen for itself as a singular Patron before God, the rules established for his election in the decree of blessed memory of Urban VIII, 23 March 1630, being observed.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 9 May 1857, Saint-Brieuc.

Cf. D. no. 3701.

When Matins is finished, when in private recitation it is separated from Lauds, is the prayer of the Office of the day to be said?—Response. The prayer of the Office is to be added Sacred Congregation of Rites, 18 May 1883, Mariupol.—After the respective prayer the following are to be added: ℣. The Lord be with you, etc.; ℣. May the souls of the faithful, etc.; and Our Father, etc. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 1 February 1886, Doubts.

Cf. no. 131.

Cf. above, On the Precepts of the Church, no. 1571.

“At what hour is it lawful to begin the private recitation of Matins with Lauds on the evening of the preceding day?—Response. The private recitation of Matins with Lauds of the following day can begin when the sun holds the middle of its course between midday and sunset.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 16 March 1876, Zacatecas.

“The Sacred Congregation of Rites graciously granted that the Missionaries of the aforesaid Regular Province (the Westphalian Province of the Order of Friars Minor Capuchin), while sacred expeditions continue or when they apply themselves to preaching by reason of spiritual exercises, may anticipate the recitation of Matins with Lauds on the preceding day immediately after midday. This present indult is to remain in force for the next ten years. Anything whatever to the contrary notwithstanding.” 20 November 1896.

“54. He who cannot recite Matins and Lauds, but can recite the remaining hours, is bound to nothing, because the greater part draws the lesser to itself.” Proposition condemned by Innocent XI.

“The Supreme Congregation, which is called the Holy Office, by a mandate given to it by the Most Holy Father to examine the disastrous law concerning military conscription recently promulgated by the Italian government insofar as it affects clerics to be initiated into sacred orders, after it had diligently directed its attention to this matter in the meeting held on Thursday, in the fourth place, 9 September of this year 1875, moved by the intention that, insofar as it can be done, amid the innumerable difficulties which present themselves, it might render easy the promotion of those clerics who are rightly endowed with all the conditions prescribed by the sacred canons, and that those might be excluded who, after performing military service, give no certain guarantee that they will become good and useful priests, judged it opportune to furnish to the Most Reverend Bishops of the Italian dioceses certain rules, precepts, and instructions which can be applied to the various possible eventualities and which are all contained in the following articles.

“1. With respect to those ecclesiastical students who, through the greatest misfortune, belong to the first category and cannot hope that they will at some time be exempted from undergoing military service, nor, because money is lacking, enlist for one year of voluntary military service, their promotion to sacred orders must be deferred altogether until they have performed three or five years of service as conscripted soldiers, unquestionable proofs of a divine vocation having first been established.

“2. It seems by no means expedient in particular cases to invoke, by way of favor, a delay until the twenty-sixth year of age for undergoing either voluntary service of one year or compulsory service of three years, after the example of those whom articles 7, 8, and 9 of the law mention, with the intention that their studies may be completed and sacred orders received; because, although petitions of this kind might perhaps be accepted, disastrous and irreparable disadvantages could nevertheless follow from this, both for the Church and also for the students themselves, if by chance it should happen that, while they are performing military service, they lose, as they say, their divine vocation and are led away into wickedness or error.

“3. It seems more useful to approve their voluntarily undergoing military service for one year. To this end, the Most Reverend Bishops shall take care that a pious society, whether among clerics or among Catholic laity and presided over by those same Bishops, be established and promoted in their dioceses. From its donations the price established by the Sovereign could be paid, either in full or in part according to the various condition of the students, and assistance could be given to them during the time of voluntary military service.

“4. Nevertheless, this benefit ought to be conferred only upon those students who, both by reason of their good character and also by reason of the well-regulated conduct of their past life, afford the firmest hope that they will persevere in their holy purpose during the whole period of voluntary military service, and therefore afterward continue the course of ecclesiastical life; lest perhaps the idleness of someone be fostered and the liberality of the pious be squandered in vain upon one who, shrinking from three years of military service, after the year of voluntary service had elapsed, would depart from the purpose of ecclesiastical life under the pretext of a lack of divine vocation.

“5. Students who are excluded from undergoing military service because of any bodily defects can be promoted to sacred orders, even within the two-year period during which they are subject to another examination by the military conscription board, provided that the defect is of such a kind that it cannot in any way be doubted that the preceding judgment of exclusion will not be revoked.

“6. Nevertheless, those things which have been decreed by the sacred canons remain firm and unchanged with respect to those who suffer from bodily defects which induce what is called irregularity; for them, a dispensation of the Roman Pontiff must be implored in individual cases.

“7. More ample precautions must certainly be employed with respect to young clerics who have performed compulsory military service for three or five years and then present themselves to resume the ecclesiastical habit and life. The criteria for admitting them can be these: (a) a divine vocation to the ecclesiastical state, already sufficiently proved beforehand; (b) commendable conduct of life constantly preserved throughout the time of military service; (c) a firm purpose of mind to resume the ecclesiastical habit and life immediately upon returning home.

“8. But in order that moral certainty may be had concerning the good dispositions of soul which the younger clerics preserved amid arms and the dangers of barracks life, the Most Reverend Bishops shall apply their most diligent labor, using all those helps which may be able, if not to overcome, at least to lessen the many difficulties that arise; some of these are proposed below.

“(a) Upon those young men who depart with the firm purpose of persevering constantly in their holy vocation, besides salutary admonitions that they cultivate and preserve the spirit by frequenting, insofar as it can be done, the duties of religion and by reading ecclesiastical books, especially the Imitation of Christ of à Kempis, there should be imposed, if necessary even delivered in writing, the obligation of continually informing their own bishop of the places where from time to time they have been stationed for a longer period with their military comrades, so that he may be able to recommend them to the vigilance, charity, and prudence of the local bishop and receive from him opportune information concerning them, an assistant there being chosen, some upright ecclesiastical man or even a layman, especially from among those who have enrolled in the society for contributing money toward payment of the tax imposed upon voluntary soldiers, concerning which above in article 3. This kind of guardianship is regarded as necessary, not merely very useful; nor should it seem so burdensome to the Most Reverend Bishops to render one another an office of this kind.

“(b) If sufficiently favorable reports have been received concerning the conduct of any, upon returning home they can be admitted anew into the number of the clergy, but not so readily to sacred orders. For unquestionable proofs of a divine vocation ought first to be required, a stay of one or two years in some ecclesiastical college or in the seminary itself being imposed upon those clerics, yet separately from the students; and where places of this kind are lacking, it is preferable to subject them to the direction and diligent vigilance of some upright, learned, and prudent priest, so that the ecclesiastical spirit may revive in the young men themselves and those vices may be corrected which, however cautious they may have been, it is exceedingly difficult for them not to have contracted in the exercise of military service.

“(c) Finally, the greater or lesser need for sacred ministers in each diocese ought to be a criterion for effecting their promotion to sacred orders more easily or with greater difficulty, lest at some time the Lord’s anointed, when war threatens, be compelled again to undergo military service of greater or lesser duration according to the various categories in which they are enrolled, with the abundantly disastrous disadvantages which usually follow from it.

“9. For the same reasons, precautions no less grave are required in conferring benefices or cathedral canonries, especially the theological, penitentiary, and parochial ones. The latter ought to be conferred only—except in a case of extreme necessity—upon those who are no longer liable to military conscription, inasmuch as they have passed the thirty-ninth year of their age; and this should certainly be adopted in practice as a most firm axiom.

“10. To render this plan easier in practice, it would be praiseworthy and useful for the Most Reverend Bishops diligently to promote what are called ecclesiastical vocations among adult young men wholly exempt from every danger of ever again undergoing military service, whether by educating them for the sacred ministry in seminaries, yet separately from the students, or by educating others in whatever manner they shall judge opportune for obtaining a happy result.

“11. But if at some time necessity should perhaps compel parishes and other ecclesiastical benefices to be conferred upon priests who, although they have already completed the course of military service according to the categories to which they belong, are nevertheless bound by civil law to take up arms again when war presses, it is entrusted to the prudent judgment of the Most Reverend Bishops to employ special precautions in conferring them: by declaring the man placed in possession of the benefice removable in these cases; or at least by prudently obliging him to agree to the condition of voluntarily leaving, according to the prudent judgment of his own bishop, a portion of the revenues and proceeds of the parochial benefice to him who will meanwhile act in his place during his absence.

“12. The same condition would have to be required in the conferral of penitentiary and theological canonries.

“13. When, because of the varying rule of months or for other causes, the conferral belongs to the Holy See, it will likewise be opportune for the Most Reverend Bishops, in the commendatory letters which are given, to make express mention of the condition in which those who compete to obtain the benefice find themselves being made; namely, whether or not they are still subject to the law of undergoing military service at some time.

“14. The same measures of vigilance noted in article 8 under letter (a) ought to be employed with respect to those ecclesiastical men of whom article 11 treats whenever they serve as soldiers while war threatens; and once they have returned home from military service, before they undertake again to exercise sacred ministry, they must withdraw for appointed days in order to devote themselves to pious exercises of religion by which the ecclesiastical spirit may be aroused anew.

“15. In those cases which have thus far been mentioned, the Most Reverend Bishops can exempt pastors and others who possess ecclesiastical benefices from the law of continuous residence to which they would be bound by reason of their office; and likewise they can absolve clerics and priests from an irregularity into which they may perhaps have fallen during the whole period of military service.

“16. But if any cases with extraordinary and unforeseen circumstances should occur, it will belong to the prudence of the Most Reverend Bishops to have recourse to the Holy See for the reception of opportune instructions.” Rome, 16 September 1875.

“Given the custom which prevails in Spain, namely, that bulls are driven in the arena, the undersigned petitioner, knowing that in certain places a priest is sent into the arena carrying holy oil with him so that, if necessity demands, he may administer Extreme Unction to one in need, humbly asks: 1. Can the prelate consent that a priest attend the spectacle carrying holy oil with him? 2. Given that it appears indecent for so holy a thing to be kept in so profane a place, could the holy oil be kept as a precaution in another nearby place? 3. Can it be tolerated that a priest, even by force of custom, be present at the arena?—Response. To the first: Negative.—To the second: It can be tolerated that the holy oil be kept in a nearby sacred place, or at least in an honorable and becoming one, precaution being taken lest from the presence of the holy oil the spectacle itself appear to be approved or promoted, and lest this be done by agreement.—To the third: Negative.” Sacred Penitentiary, 19 September 1893.

“We altogether forbid priests, deacons, or subdeacons the companionship of concubines and wives, and cohabitation with other women except those whom the Synod of Nicaea permitted to live with them solely on grounds of relationship, namely, a mother, sister, paternal aunt, or maternal aunt, or others of this kind concerning whom no just suspicion can arise.” First Ecumenical Lateran Council, canon 3.

“Is it lawful for clerics promoted to sacred orders or possessing benefices to acquire shares of the limited partnership of Città di Castello, which carried on the business of money?—Response. It is not lawful.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 30 January 1846, B., p. 530.

When a doubt was proposed concerning shares “in various commercial, industrial, or exchange companies, etc.,” which had been received by two priests through inheritance and were to be retained, His Holiness graciously remitted the petition to the Bishop with all necessary and opportune faculties, so that, provided the things narrated were true, for five years only he might act upon, establish, and decree concerning the petitions, gratuitously, whatever in his judgment and conscience he should judge more expedient in the Lord. Sacred Congregation of the Council, 6 July 1855.

“Is it lawful for ecclesiastical persons to purchase certificates in railroads and receive the profit arising from them?—Response. His Holiness grants faculties to be communicated to the Bishops through the Sacred Congregation of Bishops, permitting ecclesiastics to receive shares of railroads from their own money only.” Holy Office, 1 April 1857.

“Those are not to be disturbed who acquire in their own money certificates or shares of railroads and of similar companies or funds serving the public utility, provided that they are prepared to stand by the mandates of the Apostolic See, that they know for certain that those companies have no proposed end which is unlawful or in any way suspect, and that they undertake no part of the administration in those companies, nor carry on the trading of shares of those same companies.” Holy Office, 17 November 1875. Diocesan Synod of Albano, year 1886, part 4, article 1, no. 13; M. E., vol. 5, part 2, p. 128.

“1. Is it lawful for ecclesiastics of Castellammare to defend in lay tribunals their own cases and those of churches, the poor, and miserable persons without the permission of the Bishop?—2. Can they act or appear, by themselves or through procurators, in the said tribunals for their active civil cases against laymen without the permission of the Bishop in the case?—Response. To the first: Affirmative. To the second: Provision was made in the first.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 8 May 1716.

“...Always remain so far removed from political affairs and affairs of State that you do not undertake the administration of civil affairs even when asked and wearied by earnest entreaties; this this Sacred Congregation has always seriously and strictly prohibited and furthermore prohibits.... For the word of God is to be sown, not by these arts, but by charity, contempt for human things, modesty, frugality of life, patience, prayer, and the other virtues of apostolic men.... But if princes should at times seek your counsels, only after you have been asked many times and have pleaded this prohibition of Ours shall you give those counsels which are faithful, just, and wise unto eternity; but immediately leave the court and palace and depart into your dioceses to devote yourselves to sacred functions.... To the peoples, moreover, preach obedience toward princes, even those difficult to please; for their prosperity and welfare pray to God from the heart both privately and publicly; and do not censure their actions, even when they persecute, nor criticize their severity, nor reprehend anything in them; but in patience and silence await the time of consolation from the Lord. Do not in any manner sow factions in their regions, whether of the Spaniards, the French, the Turks, the Persians, or the like; indeed, insofar as lies in you, remove all contentions of this kind by the roots.... In the preaching of the word of God and the administration of the sacraments, do not create any suspicion of tumult and rebellion by the frequency of sermons and assemblies..., and altogether forbid public affairs to be treated on that occasion. Let neither you nor your men continually adhere to the side of anyone, nor be so beholden to anyone, especially to the more powerful, that you seem to serve him alone and not the whole province. Therefore, do not permit yourselves to be bound by excessive but insidious benefactions, which not only obstruct the common good but also impede the freedom of speaking and of reprehending the faults of the benefactor himself.” Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith to the first Vicars Apostolic, 1659 23 November 1845; Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, 1674; Clement XI, Constitution In excelsa, 13 September 1669; Alexander VIII, Constitution Sacrosancti Apostolatus Officiis.

“It is well known that the Roman Pontiffs, in every age and everywhere, have directed their thoughts and cares to the right formation of those who are called to the lot of the Lord. For they either erected or fostered with favor schools, seminaries, and universities of studies themselves, in which chosen students of both clergies could be imbued both with humane letters and with all sacred and profane sciences, and could also be honored with any academic degrees. Yet this was done in such a way that they were formed in true and genuine knowledge joined with faith and piety, since the direction and vigilance of doctrine and discipline, faith and morals, were exercised by the Apostolic See and by the Bishops.

“It happens in these days, however, on account of the changed circumstances of affairs in Italy, that certain members of both the secular and regular clergy are considered bound to complete certain courses of studies at the universities of the civil Government, from which the wise and salutary influence of the Church and the vigilance of sacred pastors are altogether excluded. Since matters stand thus, there is no one who does not see what and how great are the dangers and injuries which can befall ecclesiastical youth. Therefore cautious provision must be made so that the limits of the asserted necessity are not exceeded and the threatening dangers are diligently avoided. Wherefore the Sacred Congregation charged with the affairs of Bishops and Regulars has determined to impart the present Instruction, according to the mind of Our Most Holy Lord Pope Leo XIII, to the Bishops and Superiors of Orders and Congregations in Italy.

“I. Insofar as students who have acquired qualification outside the Government lyceums are also admitted to the universities, Bishops and Superiors of Orders and Religious Congregations shall not send their subjects to be prepared at the said lyceums, but rather to ecclesiastical institutes, schools, and colleges whose excellent and truly Catholic manner of teaching is fully ascertained. But if, because of the lack of such institutes, schools, and colleges, or for other grave causes, it should be altogether necessary to send some to the Government lyceums, those things established below concerning access to the universities are to be accurately observed in this case.

“II. Let no one of the secular clergy attend Government universities without the express permission of his Bishop; in granting it, the Bishop is to have before his eyes only what the necessity of the diocese demands, so that suitable professors furnished with a diploma may be obtained for institutes of instruction already erected or to be erected.

“III. Orders and Congregations which do not profess the office of teaching shall not send their students to Government universities. Novices of Orders and Congregations which teach by their institute shall never be sent to the said universities; but the professed shall not attend them unless the express permission of the Superior General has first been obtained. He shall grant it only to those who are required and sufficient for their colleges and schools.

“IV. Students of both clergies shall pursue in the said universities only those curricula of studies which relate to obtaining the laurea or the academic degrees which they need.

“V. An accurate selection of those to be sent to the universities is of the greatest importance. Permission is not to be given to students before they have laudably completed the entire course both of philosophy and of theology prescribed by the diocesan statutes for the secular clergy and by the Constitutions of the Order or Congregation for religious.

“VI. Regard is indeed to be had in those who are sent for strength and perspicacity of intellect, assiduity in studies, and a character which ought to be well educated, strong, and tenacious of a good purpose. But above all it must be examined what uprightness of soul and integrity of morals are found in those to be chosen. They must be young men who esteem most highly the gift of faith and the vocation by which they have been called to the lot of the Lord; who ardently love the Catholic Church; who profess veneration and obedience toward the Holy Apostolic See in mind, word, and deed; young men who, imbued with the teachings of our most holy Religion and devoted to pious exercises, shine forth by integrity of morals and the praise of a truly ecclesiastical life. Finally, let such be chosen as afford a well-founded hope that each, by his manner of acting, will add honor to the ecclesiastical body through excellence in the sciences and vindicate veneration for it through the praise of his virtues.

“VII. In order to forestall dangers more safely, let the Bishops take care that their ecclesiastical students, as long as they attend the university, dwell in the seminary; if this does not exist, in some religious house, or at least with some approved secular priest—unless perhaps they have parents there in whose house they can dwell. Diligent priests or laymen of recognized piety would also seem worthy of praise and favor if, wherever it can be done, they were to establish some hospitable house for ecclesiastical students, in which the latter might find, at little expense, a safe dwelling suited to quiet study and to the exercises of a pious life.

“VIII. If the university is situated outside the diocese, the students’ Ordinary shall commend them to the Bishop of the place, to whom the students shall be bound to present themselves when they arrive and repeatedly to pay their respects while they remain there. Let the Ordinary and the Bishop of the place agree with one another that the students be committed to the care and vigilance of some priest outstanding in virtue, knowledge, and experience with youth, who may direct them and repeatedly inform the Ordinary concerning their manner of acting. Moreover, let the Bishop require frequent letters from his students; and let him himself gladly use this epistolary commerce to instruct, encourage, and confirm them in their holy purpose by counsels and admonitions.

“IX. Superiors of Orders and Congregations shall always prefer universities in places where they have a house of their Order or Congregation, and shall command the students to dwell in it. If they have no house of their own in any university city, they shall take every care that the students be received into another religious house, an episcopal seminary, or another ecclesiastical institute. When a convent or house of their own is lacking, they shall never send only one of their subjects to attend a university, but two together or more, so that they may guard and assist one another and encourage one another to the fulfillment of the duties of their vocation. Let them command the Superior of the nearest house, or another religious man endowed with virtue, knowledge, and diligence, repeatedly to visit those students, to examine and report upon their manner of life and assiduity in studies, so that the Superior General may be able to provide by opportune counsels according as there is need. Moreover, let the Superior General take care that the students write letters to him; and let him frequently write back to them, so that he may foster their union with the head of the Order or Congregation and by paternal instructions and admonitions preserve them in the spirit of obedience and observance.

“X. To the zeal and prudence of the Bishops and Superiors is committed the care of choosing among several that university in which lesser dangers are foreseen and, from the circumstances, the employment of counsels by which provision may be made for the tranquility, morals, and progress of the students appears easier. If by chance it should happen that some professor sometimes gives lectures ex professo against religion or morals, let the Bishop and Superior General take care that the students either pass to another university or not be present at lectures of this kind, relying, namely, upon the disposition of the law which requires registration in the university course but does not demand attendance at all and each of the lectures. Apart from this case, however, let ecclesiastical students attend the lectures diligently, so that they may provide for their own progress in the sciences, exhibit to their fellow students an example of assiduity, and to the professors a testimony of respect.

“XI. As regards books and compendia of lectures in which perhaps certain things occur against religion, morals, the truth of ecclesiastical history, or the rights of the Catholic Church or of the Roman Pontiff, insofar as the use of such books or compendia cannot be avoided, the Bishops and Superiors shall provide in the case as is fitting; and moreover they shall take care to furnish an antidote to the poison through excellent books to be procured for their students and through the assistance of priests outstanding in learning, piety, and experience, who may bring help to the students in recognizing the snares of sophisms and refuting the errors with which schoolbooks or summaries of lectures might be infected.

“But let them earnestly deter their students from reading newspapers or periodical pamphlets which deceive by false or dangerous doctrines, accounts, and illicit things, and little by little, imperceptibly disturb and pervert the manner of thinking and acting rightly.

“XII. Let the Bishops and Religious Superiors exhort their subjects to show themselves respectfully observant, with dignity, toward the administrators and professors of the university; but let them treat all their fellow students courteously, yet no one with great familiarity. Let them altogether forbid them to enroll in circles or other associations, whatever their name, of a political or contentious character; and let them never be present at assemblies of students which may be convened, whose end or purpose is to complain against the administrators or professors or to protest in any manner whatever.

“XIII. Let Bishops who have their see in university cities take care most lovingly to foster circles or societies of ecclesiastical students where they exist and diligently to found them where they are lacking. For this let them employ the work of priests, whether secular or regular, whom they judge more suitable; at least one of these shall discharge the office of ecclesiastical assistant. It shall belong to this assistant to convoke the meetings of the students and preside over them. In these meetings, ecclesiastical students, with political contentions and party zeal removed, shall discuss, debate, or read upon humane letters, historical disciplines, and philosophical or theological theses. Nor shall they omit to pour forth together certain pious prayers and to appoint other opportune acts of religion and piety to be fulfilled on fixed days, so that praiseworthy emulation, fraternal charity, and Christian piety may reign in these associations. Secular students can also be admitted into these circles of ecclesiastics, but cautiously and with the ecclesiastical assistant approving; and only those who are well regarded in their manner both of thinking and of acting and are commended for religion, piety, and excellent morals.

“XIV. Let the Bishops and Religious Superiors each earnestly exhort their own students to persevere firmly in the spirit of their holy vocation. To this end, let them readily employ all the more efficacious means, namely, prayer, frequency of the sacraments, the exercise of pious acts, contempt of vanities, and flight from evil and even idle men. Fidelity in acts of observance which are suited to their state is especially to be commended to religious students, namely: each day, mental prayer, examination of conscience, spiritual reading, silence, and retirement.

“During the annual vacations, religious students shall return altogether to their convent or to a religious house of their Institute; everywhere they shall resume with the community the acts of regular observance. During the said vacations, all students, whether of the secular or regular clergy, shall devote themselves to holy spiritual exercises.

“XV. But if, notwithstanding the precautions and diligences thus far indicated and others which pastoral and paternal solicitude may suggest, Bishops or Religious Superiors should know that any of their subjects is departing from the right path of truth or virtue, let them recall the one who is going astray from the university without delay; for it is preferable to interrupt his course of studies rather than thus permit him to suffer detriment to his soul.”

“The Holiness of Our Lord, considering on the one hand that the number of ecclesiastical benefices has been greatly diminished, and desiring on the other hand to have a means of coming to the assistance of poor Priests, has deigned to decree, in conformity with the august intentions already manifested to Your Eminence:

“1. That, beginning from this day, at the very act of their promotion, all and each of the pensions of which they may happen to be in possession must be lost by all those who are promoted to the cardinalitial dignity, to residential Bishoprics, to Nunciatures of the first and second class, to the Secretariates of the Sacred Congregations of Bishops and Regulars, of the Council, and of Propaganda, as well as to the office of Assessor of the Holy Office and of Major-domo of His Holiness.

“2. That all those who already enjoy an ecclesiastical pension cannot obtain another unless they disclose to the Apostolic Datary that which they already enjoy; this disclosure must be made under penalty of nullity of the grant of the second pension.

“3. That all those who enjoy ecclesiastical pensions, at the act of obtaining any benefice in Rome, must lose those pensions. To prevent any fraud, those appointed to any benefice, before having the relative Bulls expedited, must, under penalty of nullity of the provision which may happen to be at issue, declare the pensions which they already enjoy.

“4. That the privileges be abrogated and abolished which, by virtue of pontifical grants, the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, the Conclavists, other persons, or colleges of persons have hitherto used to transfer to others the pensions conferred upon them.

“5. The other dispositions of common law concerning the manners in which ecclesiastical pensions become vacant remain firm and in their full force.... 24 May 1899.” Secretariat of State.

“Every election of a bishop, priest, or deacon made by princes shall remain invalid according to the rule (Apostolic Canon 30) which says: ‘If any bishop, having employed secular powers, should obtain a church through them, let him be deposed, and let all who communicate with him be separated. For it is fitting that he who is to be advanced to the episcopate be elected by bishops, as was defined by the holy Fathers who assembled at Nicaea in the rule (canon 4) which says: It is most fitting that a bishop be ordained by all the bishops who are in the province. But if this should be difficult, either on account of pressing necessity or on account of the length of the journey, nevertheless, with three assembling together in every manner for this same purpose, let the consecration then take place. But confirmation of the things which are done in each province shall be assigned to the Metropolitan Prelate.’” Seventh Ecumenical Synod, Second Council of Nicaea, year 787, canon 3, On Sacred Elections.

“In agreement with the Apostolic and synodical canons which altogether forbid promotions and consecrations of bishops made by the power and command of Princes, We define and pronounce Our judgment also: if any bishop, through the craftiness or tyranny of Princes, has received consecration to a dignity of this kind, let him be deposed in every manner, since he wished or consented to possess the house of God not from the will of God and by ecclesiastical rite and decree, but from the will of carnal sense, from men and through men.” Eighth Ecumenical Synod, Fourth Council of Constantinople, canon 12.

“In agreement with the preceding Councils, this holy and universal Synod has defined and established that promotions and consecrations of bishops are to be made by the election and decree of the college of bishops, and it promulgates by law that none of the lay Princes or powerful men is to insert himself into the election or promotion of a patriarch, metropolitan, or any bishop, lest, namely, disorderly and unfitting confusion or contention arise from this, especially since it is fitting that no one among those in authority or among the other laity have any power in such things, but rather be silent and attend to his own affairs until the election of the future pontiff regularly receives its completion from the college of the Church. But if any layman is invited by the Church to take counsel and cooperate, it is lawful for such a one, with reverence, if perhaps he wishes, to comply with those who call him; for in this manner he may regularly promote for himself a worthy pastor for the salvation of his Church. But whoever among secular Princes and powerful men, or any layman of another dignity, attempts to act against the common, harmonious, and canonical election of the ecclesiastical order, let him be anathema until he obeys and consents to that which the Church shall have shown itself to will concerning the election and ordination of its own Prelate.” Eighth Ecumenical Synod, Fourth Council of Constantinople, canon 22.

“Let no one lay hands upon anyone for consecration as bishop unless he has been canonically elected. But if he should presume to do so, both the consecrated and the consecrator shall be deposed without hope of restoration.” First Ecumenical Lateran Council, year 1123, canon 10.

“Those also who have migrated from church to church We hold alien from Our communion until they return to those cities in which they were first constituted. But if, while one has migrated elsewhere, another is ordained in the place of the living man, he who deserted his city shall remain without priestly dignity for as long as his successor rests in peace.” Anathemas of Pope Damasus in the Fourth Roman Synod, year 380, no. 9.

“50. The lay authority has of itself the right of presenting bishops, and can require of them that they undertake the governance of dioceses before they themselves receive canonical institution from the Holy See and Apostolic Letters.—51. Indeed, the lay Government has the right of deposing bishops from the exercise of pastoral ministry and is not bound to obey the Roman Pontiff in those things which concern the episcopate and the institution of bishops.”—Propositions condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus.

Cf. the Instruction of Urban VIII, year 1627, concerning the construction of processes of inquiry into the qualities of those who are to be promoted to the governance of cathedrals or other higher churches or monasteries.

“It was always a matter of the greatest care to the Roman Pontiffs that such Pastors be placed over each Church throughout the world as would know well and be vigorously capable of sustaining so great a burden, formidable even to angelic shoulders. From this it came about that from ancient times they issued many enactments by which either new norms for the happy selection of Bishops were handed down or the observance of those already handed down was urged.

“Among these, We judge worthy of special remembrance those things which, before the Most Sacred Council of Trent, the Supreme Pontiff Leo X (bull Supernae dispositionis, issued 3 Nones of May 1514), and after it Sixtus V (bull Immensa, issued 11 Kalends of February 1587), Gregory XIV (bull Onus, issued on the Ides of May 1591), and Urban VIII (Instruction concerning the manner of observing the prescriptions of the Council of Trent and the Constitution Onus of Gregory XIV in processes for the election of Bishops, issued in the year 1627.—In the Council of Trent this matter is treated in session 7, chapter 1; session 24, chapter 2; session 25, chapter 1) most wisely established concerning the qualities of those to be promoted and the form to be observed in their promotion. Nevertheless, We desire above all to recall those things which were decreed by Our Predecessors of pious memory, Benedict XIV (bull Ad Apostolicae, issued 16 Kalends of November 1740, and Gravissimum, issued 18 January 1757) and Leo XIII (bull Immortalis memoriae, issued 11 Kalends of October 1878). The latter, grieving that the method introduced by the former in this most grave matter had gradually receded from use and intending to restore it, from the first year of his Pontificate established by the Constitution Immortalis memoriae a special Congregation of Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, whose office it was, while the form and procedure hitherto observed by this Holy See in all respects in the election and confirmation of Bishops of foreign regions remained intact, diligently to lend its work to the promotion of those to be placed over the dioceses of Italy.

“The salutary effects of this most provident institution having been proved by experience, scarcely had We, though unwilling, by God’s disposition undertaken to govern the universal Church, when We directed Our mind to perfecting and advancing it. To this end, joining the aforesaid Congregation for the election of the Bishops of Italy founded by Leo XIII to the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, over which We Ourselves immediately preside, We decree and establish that—while there are preserved in their entirety the procedures and forms which at present are employed in the election of Bishops for places subject to the Sacred Congregations of the Propagation of the Faith and of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, or where the matter is regulated by particular Constitutions or Concordats—the selection and promotion of all other Bishops be referred to the same Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office as its own proper matter.

“And since it is proper to this Congregation that its members and officials, for the faithful discharge of their office and for preserving secrecy inviolate in all things and with all persons, are bound under penalty of major excommunication latae sententiae, to be incurred by the fact itself and without another declaration, from which they can be absolved by none except Us and Our Successors for the time being, the Roman Pontiffs, exclusively even with respect to the Sacred Penitentiary and the Lord Cardinal Major Penitentiary himself, except at the point of death: We will and expressly declare that all and each person, of whatever dignity and preeminence they may be, who happens to have a part in any manner, by any reason or title, in the business of choosing Bishops through the aforesaid Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office, shall henceforth be bound by precisely the same obligation under altogether the same penalties and sanctions.

“But so that a certain and constant norm might be at hand for that same Supreme Congregation in dispatching this most grave business, We have taken care to have the method to be followed in this matter described point by point in an opportune Instruction. In it, besides those things which We established concerning the most accurate inquiry to be carried out into the faith, life, morals, and prudence of those to be promoted, We have recalled into full force the examination in doctrine which, with regard had for the prescriptions of Saint Charles Borromeo in the First Provincial Council of Milan, part 2, We command to be made without exception by those to be promoted themselves.

“Finally, so that all these things may be fully fulfilled by the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office itself, We command those to whom it pertains that the vacancy of episcopal sees not excepted above be notified to it henceforth as soon as possible and by direct means, by letters addressed to its Cardinal Secretary.

“These things We declare, decree, and sanction, anything whatever to the contrary notwithstanding.

“Given at Rome, at Saint Peter’s, on 17 December 1903, in the first year of Our Pontificate.” Pope Pius X.

“Can the conferral in Latin America of a deanery and other benefices of cathedral or collegiate churches subject to Apostolic reservation, made by Ordinaries without a special indult of the Holy See, be considered valid in dioceses where common law has not been derogated from by agreements of the Holy See with civil governments or otherwise by another special grant of the Roman Pontiff?

“Response. Negative, unless there is a special, authentic, and indubitable indult of the Holy See; this therefore is not to be presumed, but must be certainly proved and expressly recalled to memory in the very instrument of conferral of the benefice.” Sacred Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, 5 November 1901; A. S. S., vol. 34, p. 400.

“The Council of Trent decreed (session 24, chapter 18, On Reformation): ‘The Bishop, immediately upon receiving notice of the vacancy of a parochial church, shall, if there is need, appoint in it a suitable vicar with a fitting portion of the fruits assigned at his judgment, who shall sustain the burdens of that church until provision is made for it concerning a rector.’

“It then belongs to the Bishop to announce the competition by public edicts. The term to be established in the edicts according to the same Council of Trent is ten days; but the Constitution In conferendis of Saint Pius V, § 6, grants that this term can be prolonged for another ten days and no further. Once the term established in the edicts has elapsed, the competition takes place. But since neither in the conciliar decree nor in the Pius V Constitution had any certain and particular form or method to be observed in conducting the examination in the competition been proposed, therefore, in order to avoid the inconveniences arising from this, the Sacred Congregation of the Council, in letters issued by command of Clement XI of holy memory on 10 July 1721, prescribed a certain method of holding a competition for parochial churches to be observed thereafter. At a later time, Benedict XIV of holy memory, in the Constitution which begins Cum illud, 14 December 1742, confirming the aforesaid letters—which are reproduced there in full—judged that certain things were moreover to be added or changed, and that certain things briefly handed down in them were to be explained more clearly.

“According to the prescription of the Council of Trent and of the Constitution of Benedict XIV, the examination by competition, both concerning doctrine and concerning the other requisite qualities of the competitors, is to be held when the vacancy of a parochial church has occurred. Nevertheless, in certain dioceses there prevails a custom of separating the examination concerning doctrine from the examination concerning the other canonical requisites, and, the latter being reserved for the competition itself for the vacant parish, of instituting the examination concerning knowledge at another more opportune time. Therefore, an examination concerning knowledge is generally held twice a year; those who are approved in it have the right to compete for any parochial benefice which becomes vacant within the next six years, but at the end of the six-year period they are bound to present themselves again for examination if they wish to obtain a parochial benefice. Those who have been appointed among the synodal or pro-synodal examiners, or who, because of the dignity of an office or benefice which they enjoy or because of the long labor by which they have served the Church with praise, furnish abundant testimony of knowledge, can be dispensed by the Bishop, after hearing the judgment of the examiners, from the law of undergoing this new examination when the six-year period has elapsed. Moreover, when some parish is vacant, a competition is held, the examiners—after employing the precaution which is in use—judging which of the competitors are fit to govern the vacant parish, while the Bishop’s right of choosing from among those approved the one whom he himself judges worthier and more suitable always remains intact. This practice, moreover, is customarily approved by the Apostolic See for a time.”

“1. Whoever in the same year wishes to follow the double theological and legal course shall lose every right to academic degrees in both courses.

“2. The Superiors of any school, lyceum, or University, before admitting them to the examination for degrees, must require from the candidates a certificate establishing that they were not at the same time enrolled in another Institute.

“3. No one shall be admitted to the school of the canonical text unless he proves in writing that for one year he attended the Institutes of Canon Law at some lyceum or Seminary.” Sacred Congregation of Studies, 11 July 1896.

Cf. M. E., vol. 15, pp. 316, 471.

“57. The prescription of the synod which generally and indiscriminately rejects as an abuse every dispensation by which more than one residential benefice is conferred upon one and the same person; likewise, insofar as it adds that it is certain, according to the spirit of the Church, that no one can enjoy more than one benefice, even a simple one: by reason of its generality, derogates from the moderation of the Council of Trent, session 7, chapter 5, and session 24, chapter 17.” Proposition of the Synod of Pistoia condemned by Pius VI.

“1. Do Religious permanently secularized by a simple Rescript of perpetual Secularization have authorization to receive and retain Ecclesiastical Benefices, whether Residential or even with the Care of Souls, without habilitation by the Apostolic See?—2. Are the institutions of Pastors and Canons who were formerly Religious merely perpetually secularized and not habilitated for Benefices invalid, although made in good faith?—3. Finally, can they themselves remain in possession of the Benefices as lawful possessors?—Response. To the first: Negative.—To the second: The investitures at issue in the case are null in their root.—To the third: Negative; and let them have recourse to the Holy See for sanation, revalidation, habilitation, and faculty.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 14 January 1899.

“Whether Pastor M., perpetually secularized and lawfully instituted in the Care of Souls, could make his own the fruits of the Parochial Benefice, and in what measure?—Response. Affirmative to the first part.—To the second: Only for his suitable support.” Sacred Congregation, 21 February 1899.

“Does perpetual profession (of simple vows) in the Congregation of the Missionary Sons of the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary induce the vacancy of residential benefices?—Response. Affirmative.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 25 August 1903; M. E., vol. 15, p. 342.

“Do those who obtain a benefice with the care of souls, dignities, and canonries in metropolitan or cathedral churches satisfy the precept of the Sacred Council of Trent, session 24, chapter 12, On Reformation, if they emit the profession of faith after receiving institution and collation but before they are placed in possession in the case, etc.?—Response. Affirmative.” 23 April 1902; 11 May 1782.

“The Holy Synod exhorts and admonishes all and each who in any manner have from the Apostolic See any right concerning the promotion of those to be placed in charge, or who otherwise lend their labor, innovating nothing in these matters according to the present circumstances of the times, that they remember above all that they can do nothing more useful for the glory of God and the salvation of peoples than to take care that good pastors, fit for governing the Church, be promoted; and that, by sharing in the sins of others, they sin mortally unless they diligently take care that those whom they themselves judge more worthy and more useful to the Church be placed in charge—not through prayers, human affection, or suggestions of those soliciting, but as their merits demand—and those whom they know to have been born of lawful marriage and to be endowed with life, age, learning and all the other qualities which are required according to the sacred canons and the decrees of this Council of Trent.... The same Synod decrees that all and each of those things which have elsewhere been established in that same Synod concerning the life, age, learning, and other qualities of bishops to be placed in charge are likewise to be required in the creation of Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, even if they are deacons; these the Most Holy Roman Pontiff shall assume from all the nations of Christendom, insofar as it can conveniently be done, according as he finds them suitable.” Council of Trent, session 24, chapter 1, On Reformation.

“54. When the Council of Trent said that those sin mortally by sharing in the sins of others who promote to churches any except those whom they judge more worthy and more useful to the Church, the Council seems, first, by ‘more worthy’ to wish to signify nothing other than the worthiness of those to be elected, the comparative being taken for the positive; or, second, by a less proper manner of speaking it puts ‘more worthy’ so that they exclude the unworthy, but not the worthy; or, finally, third, it speaks when a competition is held.” Proposition condemned by Innocent XI.

“Does a Bishop possess the right to elect to the prebend of the theologian and penitentiary him whom he himself judges more worthy among those approved in a formal competition; or is he rather bound to elect him whom the examiners have declared more suitable in the same competition?—Response. Affirmative to the first part; negative to the second.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 21 December 1829; A. S. S., vol. 2, pp. 81, 122.

“A Bishop is not bound to elect as more worthy him whom the examiners approved by a greater number of votes.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 3 March 1877.

“It was established by the Council of Trent, session 25, chapter 10, that in each diocesan synod some suitable persons are to be designated by the Bishop, to whom ecclesiastical and spiritual cases and those pertaining to the ecclesiastical forum are to be committed by delegation in the regions, in such a way that each diocese has at least four, and even more, approved persons to whom cases of this kind can be delegated. This disposition of Trent is more broadly explained and illustrated by Benedict XIV in his Apostolic Letter beginning Quamvis, 26 August 1741, and also in his golden work On the Synod, book 4, chapter 5. The same is to be said concerning Synodal Examiners, for the Council of Trent, session 24, chapter 1, decreed that in a diocesan synod at least six Examiners are to be proposed who satisfy the synod and are approved by it.

“From this manner of speaking, moreover, Trent indicates clearly enough both that more than six can be designated and that it desires more to be proposed, as Benedict XIV rightly observes in his work On the Synod, book 4, chapter 7, no. 3, after Barbosa in the Collection on chapter 17, session 24, no. 85. There, nevertheless, it is reported to have been decided by the Sacred Congregation of the Council that no more than twenty are to be proposed, perhaps, the Pontiff continues, because of the danger that, when their number is increased excessively, the selection of the persons proposed may be less diligent.

“The Most Eminent Fathers of this Sacred Congregation, weighing these things with mature deliberation, have reached this judgment through the present decree: that the number of Synodal Judges and Examiners is to be restrained, yet in such a way that, with this Sacred Order authorizing, only those are to be had, and in the following numbers, namely: nine Synodal Judges and twenty Synodal Examiners.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 15 September 1874.

“Since by divine precept it has been commanded to all to whom the care of souls is committed to know their sheep, offer sacrifice for them, feed them by the preaching of the divine word, the administration of the sacraments, and the example of all good works, exercise paternal care for the poor and other miserable persons, and apply themselves to the other pastoral duties—and since all these things can in no way be performed and fulfilled by those who do not watch over or assist their flock, but desert it after the manner of hirelings—the Most Sacred Synod admonishes and exhorts them that, mindful of the divine precepts and made a pattern of the flock, they feed and govern in judgment and truth. But lest those things which had already been holily and usefully enacted concerning residence under Paul III of happy memory be drawn into meanings alien to the mind of the Most Sacred Synod, as though by force of that decree it were lawful to be absent for five continuous months, the Most Sacred Synod, adhering to them, declares that all placed over any patriarchal, primatial, metropolitan, and cathedral churches, under whatever name and title, even if they are Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, are bound to personal residence in their church or diocese, where they are bound to discharge the office enjoined upon them; nor can they be absent except for the causes and in the manners written below. For since Christian charity, urgent necessity, due obedience, and evident utility of the Church or commonwealth sometimes demand and require that some be absent, the same Most Sacred Synod decrees that these causes of lawful absence are to be approved in writing by the Most Blessed Roman Pontiff or by the Metropolitan, or, when he is absent, by the oldest resident suffragan Bishop, who must likewise approve the absence of the Metropolitan; except when the absence occurs because of some duty and office of the commonwealth attached to the episcopate. Since its causes are notorious and sometimes sudden, it will not be necessary even to notify the Metropolitan of them. Nevertheless, it shall belong to him together with the Provincial Council to judge the permissions given by himself or by a suffragan, to see that no one abuse that right, and that those who err be punished with canonical penalties. Meanwhile, let those about to depart remember that provision must be made for their sheep in such a way that, insofar as it can be done, they receive no harm from their absence. But since those who are absent only for a short time are not considered absent according to the judgment of the ancient canons, because they are immediately to return, the Most Sacred Synod wills that, apart from the aforesaid causes, that period of absence in each year, whether continuous or interrupted, ought in no manner to exceed two, or at most three, months; and that care be taken that this occur for an equitable cause and without any detriment to the flock. Whether it is so, it leaves to the conscience of those departing, which it hopes will be religious and God-fearing, since hearts lie open to God; at their peril they are bound not to do His work deceitfully. Meanwhile it admonishes and exhorts them in the Lord that during that period of the Lord’s Advent, Lent, the Nativity and Resurrection of the Lord, Pentecost, and likewise the days of Corpus Christi—on which the sheep ought especially to be refreshed and rejoice in the Lord through the presence of the pastor—they are in no manner to be absent from their cathedral church, unless episcopal duties call them elsewhere in their diocese.

“But if anyone—which may it never happen—should be absent contrary to the disposition of this decree, the Most Sacred Synod establishes, besides the other penalties imposed and renewed under Paul III against nonresidents and the guilt of mortal sin which he incurs, that in proportion to the time of absence he does not make the fruits his own, nor can he with a safe conscience, even when no other declaration has followed retain them for himself; but he is bound, either by himself, or, if he fails to do so, through the ecclesiastical superior, to distribute them to the fabric of the churches or to the poor of the place. Every agreement or settlement which is called one for fruits wrongly received, by which even the aforesaid fruits might be remitted to him in whole or in part, is prohibited, notwithstanding any privileges granted to any college or fabric.

“The Most Sacred Synod declares and decrees precisely the same, even as regards guilt, loss of fruits, and penalties, concerning inferior curates and all others who obtain any ecclesiastical benefice having the care of souls; yet in such a way that whenever it happens that they are absent, the cause having first been considered and approved by the Bishop, they shall leave a suitable vicar, to be approved by the Ordinary himself, with a due assignment of compensation. They shall not obtain permission to depart, to be granted in writing and gratuitously, for more than two months unless for a grave cause. But if, when cited by edict even not personally, they should be contumacious, it wills the Ordinaries to be free to compel them through ecclesiastical censures, sequestration and withdrawal of fruits, and other remedies of law, even to deprivation; nor can this execution be suspended by any privilege, permission, familiarity, exemption—even by reason of any benefice—agreement, statute confirmed even by oath or by any authority, custom even immemorial, which is rather to be judged a corruption, or appeal or inhibition even in the Roman Curia, or by force of the Constitution of Eugene. Finally, the Holy Synod commands both that decree under Paul III and this present one to be published in provincial and episcopal councils; for it desires those things which belong so greatly to the duty of pastors and the salvation of souls to be frequently impressed upon the ears and minds of all, so that henceforth, with God assisting, they may not be abolished by any injury of the times, forgetfulness of men, or desuetude.” Council of Trent, session 23, chapter 1, On Reformation.

Cf. the Constitution of Benedict XIII, Maxima vigilantia, XVIII Kalends of July 1727.

Translated Bishops who meanwhile retain in Italy the temporary administration of their former diocese “can, only during an administration of this kind, enjoy all the honors, privileges, indults, and faculties which belonged to them as the proper Ordinary Bishops.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 25 June 1897, no. 3958.

“...Bishops shall not neglect to visit their own diocese by themselves, or, if they are lawfully impeded, through their Vicar General or a visitor; if on account of its extent they cannot visit the whole each year, let them visit at least the greater part of it, yet in such a way that the whole is completed within two years by themselves or their visitors.... The principal end shall be to introduce sound and orthodox doctrine, heresies having been expelled; to protect good morals and correct evil ones; to inflame the people by exhortations and admonitions toward religion, peace, and innocence; and to establish the other things, according as place, time, and occasion shall permit through the prudence of the visitors, for the fruit of the faithful.... Neither they nor any of their men shall receive anything by reason of procuration for the visitation...neither money nor any gift whatever, even however it may be offered except, nevertheless, provisions for food, which are to be furnished to them and their men frugally and moderately, only according to the necessity of the time, and no further.” Council of Trent, session 24, chapter 3, On Reformation.

“Treating of Seminaries of Clerics, the Holy Synod of Trent, session 23, chapter 18, On Reformation, after prescribing many things which concern the admission of students and their religious and literary education, adds these things: ‘All these things and others opportune and necessary for this matter each Bishop, with the counsel of two senior and more weighty Canons whom they themselves shall choose, shall establish as the Holy Spirit shall suggest, and by frequent visitation they shall take care that these things are always observed.’

“Proceeding then to those things which concern economical administration, it establishes that ‘those same Bishops, with the counsel of two from the Chapter, one of whom is to be elected by the Bishop and the other by the Chapter itself, and likewise of two from the Clergy of the City, of whom the election of one shall similarly belong to the Bishop but that of the other to the Clergy,’ shall provide all things which relate to establishing the fabric of the College, paying compensation to teachers and ministers, maintaining the youth, and other expenses.

“Thus the Holy Synod commands that a twofold council be present in establishing and governing Seminaries: one for the matter of discipline and the other for temporal administration, distinct in number of persons, form of election, and office; although nothing prevents the two Canons who are in the body of consultors for the economical matter from themselves being elected by the Bishop and deputed also for discipline, provided that the distinction of number is preserved....

“Nor can it be objected that the Ordinaries are thereby impeded in the ready governance of the pious institute; since it is a received rule, handed down by this Sacred Congregation from the year 1585 and often afterward confirmed, that Bishops are bound to employ the counsel of the deputies, but not likewise to follow it. Indeed, in the case of Osca in the month of October 1585, the Sacred Congregation judged ‘that it suffices that the Bishop seek counsel of this kind, and that, after employing their counsel, the Bishop can establish and deliberate those things which according to his prudence he shall judge more expedient.’ But that which stands only for counsel cannot be an impediment; rather, it serves for light, direction, and assistance....

“What form of election is to be observed in constituting the deputies is clearly apparent from the cited text of the Council.

“Nor is it known with less clarity in which affairs the vote of the consultors is to be sought; namely, in all those things which concern both the discipline and education of clerics and the financial administration of the pious house. Hence this Sacred Congregation, in the aforesaid case of Osca of the year 1585, declared that ‘the Bishop is bound, with the counsel of the deputies, to provide both concerning the formation, discipline, and morals of the Clerics and concerning the administration of temporal things;...but that the collection made for the Seminary belongs to the Bishop alone.’

“And in the case of Salerno in the month of July 1589, the following doubts having been proposed:

“II. ‘Is their counsel—that is, of the two deputies over discipline—to be employed both in establishing the universal rules of the Seminary and in the election of each of the boys to be admitted, in the election of teachers, of books to be read, of the confessor, in the punishment of the disorderly, expulsion, visitation, and similar matters?’

“III. ‘Are four others to be deputed, and are the deputies to be employed in counsel only in the assessment and contribution of fruits from the union of benefices and in the other difficulties by which the establishment or preservation of the Seminary might be impeded or disturbed; or also in the collection and temporal administration both of the said Seminary—as, for example, the appointment or dismissal of temporal ministers and servants, daily expenses, provision of food—and also of all the goods and revenues of the Seminary itself, even from united benefices—as, for example, leases, grants, and other contracts and lawsuits?’ The response was:

“To the second: They are to be employed in all these things.

“To the third: The Bishop is bound to employ the counsel of the deputies both concerning formation, discipline, and morals and concerning the administration of temporal things.

“But since one of the consultors deputed over temporal affairs is to be elected by the Clergy, the Clergy can exercise its right in the Synod, if one is held at that time, as the Doctors teach; otherwise the election is to be conducted in a particular assembly of the entire Clergy of the City.

“Finally, this Sacred Congregation in the cited case of Salerno of the year 1589 resolved that the office of all those elected ought to be perpetual and that no one can be removed except for a lawful cause; and it often afterward confirmed this.

“But if, because of death, departure, or another just reason, either of them should cease from his office, his substitution is to be made by those by whom the prior election was conducted.

“Given at Rome from the Sacred Congregation of the Council, 15 March 1892.”

“But since certain persons, under the appearance of piety but denying its power—as the Apostle says—claim for themselves authority to preach, although the same Apostle says: ‘How shall they preach unless they are sent?’ let all who, being prohibited or not sent and apart from authority received from the Apostolic See or the Catholic Bishop of the place, presume publicly or privately to usurp the office of preaching be bound by the bond of excommunication; and unless they come to their senses as quickly as possible, let them be punished by another suitable penalty.” Fourth Lateran Council, year 1215, Decrees, from chapter 3, Decree against the Waldensians.

“17. Priests of Christ who live according to His law and possess knowledge of Scripture and an affection for edifying the people ought to preach, notwithstanding a pretended excommunication. But if the Pope or some Prelate commands a priest so disposed not to preach, the subject ought not to obey.—18. Anyone who approaches the priesthood receives by mandate the office of preaching; and he ought to execute that mandate, notwithstanding a pretended excommunication.” Articles of John Hus condemned by the Council of Constance and by Martin V.

“14. It is lawful for any deacon or priest to preach the word of God without authority of the Apostolic See or of the Catholic Bishop.” Proposition of John Wycliffe condemned by the Council of Constance.

“We believe preaching to be very necessary and praiseworthy; nevertheless, We believe that it is to be exercised by authority or permission of the Supreme Pontiff, or by the Prelates’ permission.” Prescribed profession of faith of the Waldensians.

“But since the preaching of the Gospel is no less necessary to the Christian commonwealth than reading, and this is the principal duty of Bishops, the same Holy Synod has established and decreed that all Bishops, Archbishops, Primates, and all other Prelates of churches are bound personally, unless lawfully impeded, to preach the holy Gospel of Jesus Christ. But if it should happen that Bishops and the other aforesaid persons are detained by a lawful impediment, they shall be bound, according to the form of the General Council, to assume suitable men to execute the office of preaching of this kind salutarily. But if anyone should neglect to fulfill this, let him be subject to strict punishment. Archpriests also, parish priests, and all others who in any manner hold parochial churches or other churches having the care of souls shall, personally or through other suitable men if they are lawfully impeded, at least on Sundays and solemn feasts feed the people committed to them with salutary words according to their own capacity and that of the people, teaching those things which it is necessary for all to know for salvation and announcing to them, with brevity and ease of speech, the vices which they must avoid and the virtues which they must pursue, so that they may be able to escape eternal punishment and attain heavenly glory. But if any one of them neglects to perform this, even if he should claim to be exempt from the jurisdiction of the Bishop for any reason; even if the churches should be said to be exempt in any manner, or perhaps annexed or united to some monastery, even one existing outside the diocese, provided that they are in fact in the diocese, let the provident pastoral solicitude of the Bishops not be lacking, lest this be fulfilled: ‘The little ones asked for bread, and there was no one to break it for them.’ Therefore, when, having been admonished by the Bishop, they have failed in their duty for a space of three months, let them be compelled by ecclesiastical censures or otherwise at the judgment of the Bishop himself, in such a way that, if it should seem expedient to him, some honorable compensation be paid from the fruits of the benefices to another who will perform it, until the principal incumbent, coming to his senses, fulfills his office.

“...But regulars of any Order whatsoever cannot preach even in churches of their own Orders unless they have been examined and approved by their Superiors concerning life, morals, and knowledge, and have their permission. With that permission they are bound to present themselves personally before the Bishops and seek a blessing from them before they begin to preach. But in churches which are not of their own Orders, besides the permission of their Superiors, they are also bound to have the permission of the Bishop, without which they can in no manner preach in churches not of their own Orders; and the Bishops shall grant this permission gratuitously.

“But if—which God avert—a preacher should disseminate errors or scandals among the people, even if he preaches in a monastery of his own or another Order, the Bishop shall forbid him to preach. But if he should preach heresies, let the Bishop proceed against him according to the disposition of law or the custom of the place, even if the preacher himself should claim to be exempt by a general or special privilege; in which case the Bishop shall proceed by Apostolic authority and as a delegate of the Apostolic See. But let the Bishops take care that no preacher be vexed on account of false information or otherwise calumniously, or have just occasion to complain of them.” Council of Trent, session 5, chapter 2, On Reformation.

“The Holy Synod, desiring that the duty of preaching, which is the principal duty of Bishops, be exercised as frequently as possible for the salvation of the faithful, adapting more suitably to the use of the present times the canons issued on this matter under Paul III of happy memory commands that in their own church they themselves, personally, or, if they are lawfully impeded, through those whom they shall assume for the duty of preaching, but in other churches through the pastors, or, when these are impeded, through others to be deputed by the Bishop at the expense of those who are bound or accustomed to furnish it, in the city or in any part of the diocese where they shall judge it expedient, announce the Sacred Scriptures and the divine law at least on all Sundays and solemn feast days; but during the seasons of fasts, Lent, and the Advent of the Lord, daily or at least three days in the week if they shall judge it fitting, and at other times whenever they shall judge that it can opportunely be done. And let the Bishop diligently admonish the people that each person is bound to be present at his own parish, where this can conveniently be done, to hear the word of God. But let no secular or regular presume to preach, even in churches of his own Order, when the Bishop opposes. The same Bishops shall also take care that, at least on Sundays and other feast days, the rudiments of the faith and obedience toward God and parents be diligently taught to boys in each parish by those to whom it shall pertain; and, if there is need, they shall compel them even through ecclesiastical censures, notwithstanding privileges and customs. In the remaining matters, let those things which were decreed concerning the duty of preaching under the same Paul III retain their force.” Council of Trent, session 24, chapter 4, On Reformation.

“So that the faithful people may approach the reception of the sacraments with greater reverence and devotion of soul, the Holy Synod commands all Bishops not only, when these are to be administered by themselves to the people, first to explain their force and use according to the capacity of those receiving them, but also to take care that the same is observed piously and prudently by each Pastor, even in the vernacular language if there is need and it can conveniently be done, according to the form to be prescribed by the Holy Synod in the catechism for each sacrament. The Bishops shall take care that this be faithfully translated into the vernacular language and expounded to the people by all Pastors; and likewise that, during the solemnities of Masses or the celebration of divine offices, they explain the sacred utterances and admonitions of salvation in the same vernacular language on each feast or solemn day, and endeavor, useless questions having been put aside, to implant them in the hearts of all and instruct them in the law of the Lord.” Council of Trent, session 24, chapter 7, On Reformation.

“Pastors are bound on Sundays and feasts of precept to deliver a sermon to the people according to the prescription of the Council of Trent; nevertheless, it will belong to the prudence of the Bishop to dispense from this ordinance on certain more solemn days.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 1 April 1876; A. S. S., vol. 9, p. 468.

Pastors and others upon whom the care of souls principally rests, although other priests are present to assist them or to exercise the care on certain days, are bound personally to preach and explain the catechism on all feast days unless they are lawfully impeded. Sacred Congregation of the Council, 8 May 1706; 28 April 1736.

A Pastor cannot claim the customary alms, even under the title of poverty, when he wishes personally to give sermons in his own church, in which he is accustomed to preach, because he fulfills his own duty; except in the case in which the community or the patron had deputed the Pastor or wished to pay spontaneously. Sacred Congregation of Bishops, 30 June 1615; Scavini, Milan, 1874, vol. 1, no. 638.

Are Pastors in whose churches sacred sermons are held during Advent and Lent by preachers approved by the Ordinary freed from the obligation of explaining the Gospel in the celebration of the parochial Mass?—Response. “Deferred; and for the present let the custom of each parish be observed.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 29 March 1817.

If the community or temporal lord of the place nominates the preacher and pays the alms, the custom is to be observed. Sacred Congregation of Bishops, 7 February 1615; Sacred Congregation of the Council, June 1696. But approval belongs to the Bishop alone. Scavini, in the place cited.

“65. The proposition declaring that the irregular clamor of the new institutions which have been called exercises or missions...perhaps never, or at least very rarely, reaches the point of producing an absolute conversion; and that those external acts of emotion which appeared were nothing other than passing flashes of natural disturbance: is rash, ill-sounding, pernicious, injurious to the custom piously and salutarily frequented by the Church and founded in the word of God.” Proposition of the Synod of Pistoia condemned by Pius VI.

“We decree and declare that all and each Bishop, adorned with whatever dignity, even the cardinalitial, and likewise Abbots having jurisdiction quasi-episcopal over clergy and people with a separate territory, are bound on Sundays and the other feast days which are still observed by precept, and those which have been removed from the number of feast days of precept, every excuse of meagerness of revenues or any other exception having been removed, to celebrate and apply Mass for the people committed to them.

“And lest an opening be given to any doubt, We declare that the same Bishops and Abbots shall satisfy this duty by the celebration and application of one Mass for the whole people committed to them, even if they govern two or more dioceses and abbacies united aeque principaliter. We know indeed that Our Roman Congregations have decreed otherwise concerning Pastors governing two or more parochial churches united aeque principaliter; in each of these, individual Masses must be celebrated and applied for the people on feast days. But the principle governing Pastors is one thing, that governing Bishops another. For since a special and defined care of the people in each parish is committed to each Pastor, on feast days the Pastor must not only celebrate for the people, but must also admit the people into the parochial church so that they may be present at the most sacred Sacrifice of the Mass, hear the word of God, receive the sacraments according to opportunity, and be cultivated by all those duties which are to be performed especially on Sundays and other feast days. But these things cannot hold for Bishops, who are in a dissimilar condition and case, since by no law today are they commanded to perform the holy Sacrifice in the cathedral church on all feast days.

“Although it is by no means necessary, nevertheless We judge it opportune to declare that the things established above do not pertain to Bishops who are called Titular and who, promoted to the episcopal dignity, are therefore adorned by the Roman Pontiff with the title of cathedral churches which once flourished but now are destitute of Catholic clergy and people, lest, namely, their ancient dignity and memory be entirely destroyed. For since they do not take possession of their sees—only after receiving this are Bishops bound to fulfill the duty of which We have spoken (Sacred Congregation of Rites, in the case of Marsi, 12 November 1831)—and since neither clergy nor people is entrusted to their governance, it is sufficiently established that just as they lack the use and exercise of the power received from episcopal consecration, so they are likewise not subject to the duties and burdens of episcopal care. Nevertheless, if regard is had for episcopal equity and charity, it cannot but seem fitting that they also occasionally offer the Sacrifice, so that God may look upon the miserable condition of those churches by whose title and name they are themselves honored. Those things which were said by Pius VI, Our Predecessor, in the consecration of a Bishop on 4 October in the year 1778 in the Ostian basilica agree most excellently with this matter. For when he was enumerating the causes on account of which the Apostolic See is accustomed to confer even churches occupied by infidels, he said: ‘There ought to exist someone upon whom it singularly rests, if not to govern that captive portion of a miserable flock, at least assiduously to pour forth prayers and tears for it to the Father of mercies.’” Leo XIII, Constitution In suprema rei, Ides of June 1882.

“20. Since a Bishop ought on feast days to apply Mass for his sheep, it is asked whether, when the Bishop celebrates pontifically on these days, the Canons ought to sing the conventual Mass for benefactors, and when?—22. Are Bishops bound to the application of Mass for their sheep after obtaining possession, or immediately upon being elected in consistory?—23. Are Vicars Capitular bound to this application of Mass while the see is vacant?—Response. To the twentieth: Let the hebdomadary, or he upon whom the burden of the conventual Mass rests, celebrate it as a low Mass either before or after the pontifical Mass.—To the twenty-second: After obtaining possession.—To the twenty-third: Negative.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 12 November 1831, Marsi.

“1. Are Vicars Apostolic and missionaries who in any manner undertake the care of souls in some determined place indiscriminately bound by justice to apply Mass for the people on feast days? And insofar as the response is affirmative: 2. Upon which Vicars Apostolic and missionaries does a burden of this kind rest? 3. To those who are not bound by justice, must the response be, ‘It is fitting by charity,’ or ‘They are bound by charity,’ to apply Mass for the people? 4. If the formula ‘They are bound by charity’ is approved, must it be understood of an obligation under grave sin?—Response. To the first: Negative, provided that it is not a question of places in which episcopal sees and parishes have already been canonically erected and to which a Vicar Apostolic and missionary have been sent to act in the place of lawful pastors. To the second: Provision was made in the first. To the third: The expression ‘they are bound by charity’ is to be avoided; but it is to be said, ‘it is fitting by charity,’ and this in such a way that no signification of a properly so-called obligation appears. To the fourth: Provision was made in the third.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 23 March 1863. Previously the Sacred Congregation had responded: “Missionaries are bound by charity.” A. S. S., vol. 1, p. 407; vol. 24, p. 511.

Also exempt from this obligation are parochial vicars or coadjutors who do not exercise the primary care of souls, but only a subsidiary care; chaplains of nuns; chaplains of hospitals; and of other places of this kind. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 14 June 1845, Münster, to the second; Sacred Congregation of the Council, 2 June 1860.

“We declare, establish, and decree that Pastors and all others actually exercising the care of souls must celebrate and apply the most sacred Sacrifice of the Mass for the people committed to them, both on all Sundays and other days which are still observed by precept, and also on those which, by the indulgence of this Apostolic See, have been removed and transferred from the number of feast days of precept, just as they themselves as curates of souls were bound to do while the aforesaid Constitution of Urban VIII remained in its full force, before feast days of precept were diminished and transferred.—But as regards transferred feast days, We make this one exception: namely, that when the divine office together with the solemnity has been transferred to Sunday, only one Mass is to be applied for the people by Pastors; since the Mass, which is the principal part of the divine office, must be considered to have been transferred together with the office itself.” Pius IX, Constitution Amantissimi, 3 May 1858.

A Pastor must celebrate Mass on Sundays and feast days in his own church, and not in another, notwithstanding any custom whatever to the contrary. Sacred Congregation of the Council, 15 September and 17 November 1629.

“Are Pastors bound to offer the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass for the people themselves, if they are not impeded by a lawful cause; or can they satisfy this duty through another, for example, a chaplain or a visiting priest?—Response. Affirmative to the first part; negative to the second, except in a case of true necessity and when a canonical cause concurs.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 25 September 1847; 18 July 1789; Lucidi, chapter 3, § 11, nos. 369 ff.

“Must the application always be made by the Pastor, even when he celebrates privately while another celebrates the parochial Mass?—Response. Affirmative, according to other decrees.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 20 December 1864, Chambéry.

“On Sundays and other feast days, when a corpse is present, can Pastors celebrate Mass for the deceased and transfer to another day the Mass to be applied for the people in the case? And insofar as the response is negative, can they at least supply for the application of the Mass for the people through another priest in the case?—Response. To the first and second: Negative.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 26 January 1771.

“1. Does a Pastor who is absent from his parish on a feast day satisfy his obligation by celebrating Mass for the people in the place where he is staying; or is he rather bound to substitute another who will say Mass for the people in his own church? 2. Is he bound to apply Mass for the people in the place where he is staying; or rather, upon returning to the parish, is he bound to apply it in his own church? 3. Is a Pastor who is lawfully impeded by illness from celebrating Mass bound, after recovering his health, to apply as many Masses for the people as he omitted during his illness, whether in the case in which he could celebrate neither by himself nor through another, or in the case in which he could do so through another but, from some vain fear or negligence, did not take care or did not obtain that another celebrate for him?—Response. A Pastor lawfully absent from his parish on a feast day satisfies his obligation by applying Mass for his people in the place where he is staying, provided that, for the necessary convenience of the people, another priest celebrates in the parochial church and explains the word of God. But a Pastor impeded in any lawful manner from celebrating Mass is bound to have it celebrated and applied for the people by another on the feast day in the parochial church; but if this was not done, he must apply Mass for the people as soon as he can.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 14 December 1872; A. S. S., vol. 7, p. 191.

“1. Are Pastors governing two or more parishes bound, by themselves or through others, to celebrate two or more Masses for the people on feast days? 2. And insofar as they are bound personally, can the faculty of bination be granted to them according to the tenor of the Constitution of Benedict XIV, Declarasti nobis?—Response. To the first: A Pastor as in the case is bound, either by himself or through another, to have as many Masses celebrated as the number of parishes he governs. To the second: There is no place for the faculty of repeating Masses, unless, because of a deficiency of clergy, there is no other priest who can celebrate and apply in the place of the Pastor.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 4 February 1883. In the first case, “parishes united by an extinctive union” are excepted. Sacred Congregation of the Council, 26 February 1774; M. E., vol. 5, part 1, p. 28.

“The Ordinary of the Diocese of Dijon in France sets forth the following: Because of the insufficient number of priests in the Diocese of Dijon, it not rarely happens that the same Pastor serves three churches, namely: 1. His own parish; 2. Permanently, another church which, situated in another place and not enjoying a parochial title, is annexed to the parochial church; 3. Temporarily, the church of a place which has a parochial title but, because of a scarcity of priests, does not possess its own resident Pastor.

“By force of his institution, such a Pastor celebrates twice on each Sunday and feast day, namely, in his own parochial church and in the other church which is not parochial but is permanently annexed to the parochial church, as stated. It follows that the same man is wholly unable to celebrate Mass on Sundays and feast days in the third church, namely, that of the parish of which he has temporary care. Nevertheless, since he is bound to watch over that parish in which he does not reside, both by visiting the sick and catechizing the children and by fulfilling many other duties, he receives two hundred francs from the French Government for the above-mentioned functions.

“We ask: 1. Must such a priest supply the Masses which he cannot celebrate for his second parish on Sundays and feast days, regard being had also to the circumstance that the said pension of two hundred francs scarcely remunerates the aforesaid duties, the two parishes being very distant from one another? 2. Must he apply one or the other of the Masses which, as stated, he celebrates on each Sunday and feast day simultaneously for both parishes? 3. Must he apply for this parish as a private Mass that Mass which is celebrated in the annexed church without a parochial title? Since it has happened that several priests in good faith have not celebrated for their second parish as in the case, we ask that, if necessary, their omissions be condoned.

“Response. To the first: Affirmative, except that it would be desirable for him to celebrate the second Mass in the second parish. To the second: It is not lawful. To the third: Affirmative, if he cannot celebrate in the second parish; the matter having been brought before His Holiness also concerning sanation for the past.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 24 July 1886.

“Can a Pastor who could not celebrate Mass on the day on which it had to be read for the people, in order to satisfy this burden, apply in the case a second Mass to be celebrated by bination on a subsequent feast day?—Response. Negative.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 5 March 1887.

“Are rectors of souls bound to apply Mass for the people on 25 June if the feast of Saint John the Baptist happens to be transferred to that day as to its proper seat (according to the rubric) in the case?—Response. Negative.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 28 April 1888; A. S. S., vol. 21, p. 152.

“In our diocese, as, I think, in other dioceses of France, the custom has prevailed that, when a Pastor dies, the care of the parish is committed to one of his vicars until a new pastor is appointed. In certain cases this vicar indeed receives a part of the fruits which commonly arise from parochial duties; nevertheless, he by no means enjoys the stipend granted to Pastors by the Government. We therefore ask whether, in such a state of affairs, parochial vicars are bound to apply Mass for the people on Sundays and feast days and other days prescribed by law.—Response. They are bound.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 23 August 1888.

“A Pastor who is a Canon is bound personally to the application of Mass for the people even on those days on which the Bishop celebrates pontifically in the cathedral, but through another on those feast days on which, as a Canon, he must sing and apply the conventual Mass for benefactors.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 24 August 1867.

“...As pertains to the aforesaid needy Pastors, We grant to each of you Bishops the faculty of dispensing opportunely with those whom you have truly known to be such, to this effect: that, even on feast days of this kind, they may freely and lawfully receive an alms from some pious offerer and apply the Sacrifice for him insofar as this is required by him, provided that, for the necessary convenience of the people, they celebrate Mass in the parochial church itself; with this condition nevertheless added, that within that same week they apply as many Masses for the people as, on feast days occurring within the week, they offered according to the particular intention of another pious benefactor.” Benedict XIV, Constitution Cum semper oblatas, § 8.

“1. Does the obligation of applying Mass for the people, which according to the law of the Western Church is imposed upon Pastors and other ecclesiastical men having the care of souls, likewise have place for the same persons of the Eastern rite? And insofar as the response is affirmative: 2. Concerning the determination of the days, must the laws and reasonable customs which perhaps flourish in certain dioceses of the said rite be observed? 3. In the absence of these laws and customs, must a determination of this kind be made according to the norm and in every respect according to Western laws? 4. For grave causes and circumstances, can there be place for some reduction of the days prescribed by Western laws, and even for a total dispensation, yet with the obligation of praying for the people in those very Masses which otherwise would have to be applied for them?—Response. To the first: Affirmative, the doubt having been reformulated as follows: Does the obligation of applying Mass for the people, which according to the law of the Western Church is imposed upon Bishops and Pastors, likewise have place for the same persons of the Eastern rite? To the second: Affirmative. To the third: Negative. To the fourth: Provision was made in the third, and according to the mind. The mind is that, when opportunity is given, there be manifested to the Bishops of the Eastern Church the obligation which in that Church also rests upon pastors of souls of applying Mass for the people on some occasions; and therefore, as pertains to the determination of the days, the discipline of the Western Church is to be explained to them, so that they may take light from it by which they may be able to judge until such time as that discipline can be adapted to their dioceses; and likewise that in each case they propose to the Holy See the modifications which they judge more necessary.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 23 March 1863; A. S. S., vol. 1.

“Our Most Holy Lord Leo XIII issued the Constitution In suprema on 10 June of the current year concerning the obligation of all Bishops to apply Mass for the people on feast days.... It does not escape Your Reverence that, according to the decretal of Innocent III in the Fourth Lateran Council, Licet graecos, and according to the explanation given to it in the Congregation of Theologians held in the year 1631 before Cardinal Pamphili, the sounder part of the Doctors—not even excepting Lambertini (Benedict XIV)—adopted the opinion that Orientals are not comprehended in Apostolic Constitutions except in these three cases: 1. In points of faith and Catholic doctrine. 2. Where the matter itself shows that they are comprehended, insofar as it is not merely an ecclesiastical law but a declaration of divine and natural law. 3. When, although disciplinary ordinances are in question, Orientals are expressly named therein. To this doctrine of theologians and canonists the sanction of the Holy See has not yet acceded; nevertheless, it is certain that the Orientals have held from time immemorial, as a theoretical and practical opinion, that they are not comprehended in disciplinary Constitutions except in the aforesaid manner, and that this opinion of theirs has never been condemned by the Holy See. This theory having been posited, it is clear, first, that all Bishops, even Eastern Bishops, are certainly comprehended in the cited Constitution of the Holy Father In suprema, because it declares the divine law concerning the obligation of Mass for the people; for by force of the pastoral office, Bishops of every rite are certainly bound by divine law to apply it. Hence it is not a point of mutable discipline which could be changed or abolished according to different rites, or changed or abolished by any contrary custom—which would be nothing other than an erroneous abuse—when the obligation of Bishops to offer the Holy Sacrifice personally for the people is in question; but not so if the number of Masses which must be offered on each feast day is in question. This number is determined by ecclesiastical law in the application of divine law; and therefore, according to different circumstances, all diversity and dispensation are not excluded.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 8 November 1882.

“It shall not be lawful for those obtaining dignities, canonries, prebends, or portions in cathedrals or collegiate churches, by force of any statute or custom, to be absent from those churches for more than three months in any year; saving, nevertheless, the Constitutions of those churches which require a longer time of service. Otherwise, in the first year, each shall be deprived of half the fruits which he has made his own by reason even of prebend and residence; but if he shall again have employed the same negligence, he shall be deprived of all the fruits which he gained in that same year; and if his contumacy increases, proceedings shall be taken against him according to the Constitutions of the sacred canons. But let those who have been present at the stated hours receive the distributions; let the rest, every collusion or remission being excluded, lack these, according to the Decretal of Boniface VIII which begins Consuetudinem, which the Holy Synod recalls into use, notwithstanding any statutes and customs. Moreover, all shall be compelled to perform the divine offices personally and not through substitutes, to assist and serve the Bishop when he celebrates or exercises other pontifical functions, and, in the choir instituted for psalmody, reverently, distinctly, and devoutly to praise the name of God with hymns and canticles. Let them furthermore continually use seemly dress, both in church and outside it; abstain from illicit hunting, fowling, dances, taverns, and games; and excel in such integrity of morals that they may deservedly be called the senate of the Church.” Council of Trent, session 24, chapter 12, On Reformation. Cf. M. E., vol. 7, pp. 265 ff.

Can Canons serve the church and choir through substitutes? This is contrary to the Council of Trent, session 24, chapter 12, On Reformation, and to the Declaration of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, 21 February 1682. Nevertheless, as is evident from the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Council themselves, the faculty of substituting for one another has not been removed, provided that: 1. the one making the substitution is present in the city where the church is situated, or in its suburbs or territory; 2. the substitute is one of the capitulars; 3. both are not bound to the same service at the same time; and 4. substitutions of this kind are not excessively frequent. Cf. Lucidi, vol. 1, pp. 282 ff., 3rd ed.; Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, ed. Richter, Leipzig, 1853, p. 359.

“...Our Most Holy Lord Pope Leo XIII, since, on account of the paternal and apostolic solicitude which he bears for the Roman Church above all others, he wills both that the rights of divine worship be preserved intact in the City and that satisfaction be given, insofar as is lawful, to other public and private necessities, adhering to the footsteps of his Predecessors and especially of Pius IV, Innocent XII, and Pius VII, establishes and decrees the following:

“1. On 24 December next, at first Vespers on the Vigil of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, all and each choral indult, whether granted in favor of a person, or for the sake of institutes and pious works, or by reason of certain offices, in whatever manner and under whatever title, shall cease, notwithstanding any privileges; henceforth they shall be of no value and shall avail no one any longer.

“2. In the future, those who have a lawful cause for obtaining exemptions from choir shall address their petitions to the Sacred Congregation of the Council, which Our Most Holy Lord deputes solely and exclusively to expedite these favors, such that indults obtained otherwise, in any manner, even by an oracle of the living voice, must be deemed of no value as obreptitious and subreptitious.

“3. Whenever the Sacred Congregation of the Council shall require the vote of the Chapter for granting indults, let it require that vote to be expressed by secret ballots.

“4. Since, from the Motu proprio Cum sicut accepimus, issued by Pius IV, Supreme Pontiff, on the twelfth day before the Kalends of December in the year 1560, all and each of the revenues belonging to the Chapters both of the patriarchal basilicas and of any other churches whatever of the City are to be divided into daily distributions, the canonical sanctions in force concerning this matter, and confirmed by the Sacred Congregation of the Council often and especially in the case of Valva on 24 November 1838, shall be observed integrally and exactly in the City also. Therefore, any contrary custom which may perhaps have become established being removed and abolished, henceforth all the fruits belonging to the aforesaid Chapters shall be divided entirely into daily distributions for the days and hours.

“Wherefore one who is absent without a lawful cause shall lose all those fruits and, if perhaps he has received any, shall be bound to restitution, saving, nevertheless, particular constitutions by which a greater penalty is imposed.

“But one who is absent for a lawful cause, if because of illness or another just title recognized in the due manner and form he is reputed as present in choir for gaining distributions, shall receive the daily distributions in full; but if according to the censure of law he is not held as present in choir, he shall indeed acquire the two parts which occupy the place of a prebend, but shall lose the third.

“5. To this last class of absentees belong assistants of the Sacred Congregations who, in order to devote themselves to this office, have obtained an indult of absence. And therefore they shall gain two parts of the daily distributions only for the days and hours during which they are absent from choir on account of their offices; but they shall lose the third, as the Sacred Congregation of the Council expressly established in the case Doubts concerning indults on 6 May 1820, to the Third Doubt, and confirmed, after the matter had been discussed anew, on 25 May 1822. Our Most Holy Lord recalls these resolutions to full observance and, insofar as there is need, renews and confirms them, the conscience of each one whom it concerns being strictly burdened in this matter.

“6. No one among the absentees shall ever receive the extraordinary distributions which are commonly said to be among those present, any privilege and indult to the contrary ceasing, as provided under no. 1 of the present Decree; saving, nevertheless, the different prescriptions of pious founders.

“7. Indults which are customarily granted in the summertime for the sake of caring for health shall be confined to the space of one month, saving, nevertheless, the ancient privilege of the Lateran basilica.

“8. The privilege of the Loreto pilgrimage is reduced to eight days for the Chapters enjoying it; but that of the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, to three months.

“Finally, in all those matters for which the present decree does not provide, His Holiness wills and commands that the prescriptions of the Sacred Council of Trent and the resolutions of the Sacred Congregation of the Council issued for the regulation of choral discipline be observed by all exactly and in conscience.

“And he commanded all these things to be published by the present Decree of this Sacred Congregation and to be inviolably observed, any things whatever to the contrary notwithstanding.

“Given at Rome from the Sacred Congregation of the Council, 17 September 1902.”

“1. Whether and in what manner Canons hearing confessions during the divine offices must be considered present in choir for the purpose of gaining distributions in the case? 2. Whether and in what manner the same Canons celebrating Mass during the divine offices must be held as present in choir for the same purpose in the case? 3. Whether and in what manner Canons assisting the Archbishop at pontifical and other functions, or while he celebrates a private Mass, although absent from choir, gain distributions in the case? 4. Whether and in what manner the same Canons gain distributions when assisting the Archbishop in treating the business of the diocese or accompanying him in the diocese outside the place of residence in the case? 5. Whether and in what manner Canons absent from choir to examine the accounts of the capitular fund gain distributions in the case? 6. Whether and in what manner Canons absent from choir while devoted to the ministry of preaching gain distributions in the case? 7. Whether and in what manner Canons gain distributions while they are absent from choir for the examination of ordinands or confessors in the case? 8. Whether and in what manner Canons exercising in the seminary the functions of rector, administrator, professors, and examiners, although absent from choir, gain distributions in the case? 9. Whether and in what manner Canons absent from choir in order to exercise the offices of pro-Vicar General, Chancellor, notary, and other offices in the archiepiscopal curia gain distributions in the case? 10. Whether and in what manner Canons absent from choir while devoted to the administration of capitular property or of the archiepiscopal mensa gain distributions in the case? 11. Whether and in what manner a Canon who is Chancellor of the Chapter, occupied in the archive with capitular business, gains distributions in the case? And insofar as the response is negative: 12. Whether His Holiness is to be consulted for absolution and condonation of distributions received in the case?

“Response. To the first: Negative in all cases, except for the Penitentiary. To the second: Negative, unless with the permission of the Prefect of Choir and for the convenience of the people. To the third: Affirmative to the first part, as in the case of Lycia, 27 August 1641; negative to the second part. To the fourth: Negative in all cases. To the fifth: Affirmative for the time to be prescribed by the Bishop. To the sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth: Negative in all cases. To the tenth: As regards the Canon administrator of capitular property, affirmative for the days and hours on which he actually applies himself to the administration; in the other cases, negative. To the eleventh: Negative, unless in a case of urgency. To the twelfth: Affirmative, one Mass having been celebrated with chant, the whole Chapter being present.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 20 December 1862; 24 January 1885; A. S. S., vol. 1, pp. 285 ff.

“4. Whether and in what manner those conversing in choir during the divine offices lose their daily distributions in the case? 5. Can the conversations because of which distributions are lost be constituted by several brief conversations in the case?—Response. To the fourth: Affirmative. To the fifth: Affirmative, if several occur in the same hour.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 27 March 1847.

“Does a Canon Penitentiary who is absent from choir in order to hear the confessions of the faithful by virtue of his office gain, besides the ordinary distributions, both the shares forfeited by others and the other emoluments or extraordinary distributions, whether fixed or contingent, in the case?—Response. Affirmative, and more.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 6 July 1889; A. S. S., vol. 22, p. 297.

“1. Is the Canon Theologian bound to attend choir in the evening of those days on which he teaches in the morning in the case?—2. Besides the daily distributions, are uncertain emoluments also due to him on the aforesaid days in the case?—3. Is he likewise to be declared exempt from choir for the aforesaid purpose of gaining distributions and uncertain emoluments on those days on which, although he does not teach, he nevertheless assists at the examination of clerics by reason of his office in the case?—Response. To the first: Negative.—To the second: Affirmative, excepting emoluments which, by the will of testators or donors, are due only to those actually present.—To the third: Affirmative, as in the second, and according to the mind: the mind is that the Archbishop prescribe a suitable term for drawing up statutes to be approved by him.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 7 December 1861.

“All dignitaries or Canons, beneficiaries, and other members of choir who devote labor to drawing up either ordinary or Apostolic processes shall be held as present in choir, their duty having been changed; and therefore they shall receive all emoluments, even contingent ones.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 21 November 1893, no. 3812.

“Moreover, His Holiness admonishes and exhorts the same Ordinaries that, after the fruit—certainly most abundant—which is received from the aforesaid spiritual exercises has been opportunely proposed and explained, they diligently incite all the clergy subject to them, but especially rectors of souls, confessors, Canons, and other beneficiaries bound to the service of choir, to perform those same exercises at least once each year in houses of Religious of the Society of Jesus or of priests of the Congregation of the Mission, if there are such; otherwise, in another pious or regular house to be designated and approved for this purpose by the Ordinaries themselves.

“But so that individuals may assemble more readily for the same spiritual retreat, His Holiness bestows in the Lord upon all the aforesaid rectors of souls, confessors, Canons, beneficiaries, and other priests and clerics who for ten days each year shall perform those same exercises in the aforesaid houses and remain there day and night, and in the meantime, truly penitent and having confessed, shall receive the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, as often as they do this, a plenary indulgence and remission of all their sins.

“Furthermore, he benignly absolves Pastors devoting themselves to exercises of this kind, only once each year during that time, from residence. He commands that the same be observed with regard to Canons, beneficiaries, and others bound to personal residence and assigned to the service of choir, whom he nevertheless decrees to gain the entire fruits and all the daily distributions of their respective canonries and benefices, just as if they were personally present at choir and the divine offices, provided, nevertheless, that they perform those exercises after first obtaining permission from the Ordinary, which is by no means to be granted during the seasons of Advent and Lent or on more solemn feasts, nor ever to all the Canons and others serving the choir at the same time, but with that manner employed by which the service of choir is in no way interrupted; and, as regards Pastors, suitable administrators having first been substituted and approved by the Ordinary himself, who will administer the care of souls laudably. His Holiness further commands that these letters be published in that diocese and copied into the registers of the chancery for the perpetual observance of those things contained in them, and that, for this very end, their publication thereafter be renewed every three years.” Encyclical Letter of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 1 February 1700, to the Bishops of Italy and the adjacent Islands; A. S. S., vol. 12, pp. 609 ff.

“Whether a Pastor and other priests assisting at the funerals of the dead and the daily offices for the same, and receiving a stipend for that function, are bound personally to discharge the Office of the Dead, such that those who merely assist and do not sing or chant do not make the fruits their own; or whether it suffices that they assist and the schola discharge the office, while they meanwhile pour forth other prayers according to their pleasure, for example, reciting the breviary for their own daily obligation.”—Response. Affirmative as regards the first part; negative as regards the second. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 9 May 1857, Périgueux.

“Votes in Chapters must be secret at least in all business of greater moment according to the norm of the Constitution of Alexander VII, Pro commissa, 3 April 1657; likewise whenever the business of any Canon is in question; indeed, even if the matter proposed is judged of lesser moment, whenever discord or controversy arises among the capitulars.” Sacred Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, 5 November 1901.

“The abuse of celebrating a private Mass at the choir altar while the canonical hours are being discharged is to be entirely eliminated.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 21 November 1893, no. 3814.

“In Masses and other functions which require the ministry of a deacon and subdeacon—Vespers and Matins therefore being excluded—Canons are bound to serve dignitaries and Canons who are celebrating, even if they are merely coadjutors, in churches where the prebends are not all presbyteral, unless necessity or custom provides otherwise; and this only in their own churches, but not in other churches unless the Chapter intervenes.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 12 July 1892, no. 3782.

In the case of Lycia, 17 August 1641, which the Sacred Congregation of the Council judged, the following is found in the resolution of the third doubt. Since it had been asked of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, “Does the decree of the Council, chapter 12, session 24, On Reformation, at the words Moreover, all, have place when the Bishop celebrates pontifically in other churches subject to him which exist in the city, or, vested with cope and miter or with the cappa, assists at divine offices and solemn Masses or exercises other pontifical functions...if a sufficient number of Canons and ministers remains in the cathedral church?” the Sacred Congregation responded: It has place.

It is lawful for the Bishop to compel the Canons of the cathedral to serve him whenever he exercises a pontifical function in the cathedral, or in the city and suburbs; provided, nevertheless, that if this is outside the cathedral Church, the latter is not deprived of the worship and service due to it. But when he goes to churches in which there are other dignitaries and Canons, let the Bishop know that the Canons of the cathedral wholly precede the Canons and dignitaries of the collegiate church. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 23 March 1592, Seville, to the second.

And this applies also when the Bishop celebrates, or for any cause assists at a solemn Mass or Vespers, in exempt churches immediately subject to the Apostolic See, provided that they exist within the boundaries of his diocese. Sacred Congregation of Rites, Alexandria, 7 February 1604, to the first.

Likewise, the Canons are bound capitularly to assist the Bishop when he solemnly performs ordinations with chant during the divine offices. But if they are performed privately, only three shall serve. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 7 December 1658, Civita Ducale.

Canons of the cathedral cannot be compelled to assist the Bishop if he goes to other churches to celebrate privately. Indeed, neither are they bound to assist him when he celebrates Mass privately in his own cathedral, unless there is a custom, which is to be observed. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 5 July 1603, Città di Castello. According to the same Sacred Congregation, a Bishop is then said to go privately to a church when he goes without the pontifical cappa, and thus assists.

When the Bishop goes pontifically to the cathedral, the sprinkler is to be presented by the first dignity of the Chapter, with a kiss of the sprinkler and of the hand. But if he goes to another church, with the cathedral Chapter assisting, the sprinkler is to be given by the dignity or Superior of that church. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 23 March 1592, Seville, to the fifth.

Cf. General Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 22 May 1894, no. 3828.

The election of a Vicar Capitular is null while the Bishop is living and has been shamefully expelled from his see. Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 3 May 1862; Bizzarri, Collection, p. 608, ed. 1885.

In March of the year 1863, the Sacred Congregation of the Council responded concerning the nomination of two Vicars while the see was vacant: “It can be tolerated.” On 21 April 1592 the Sacred Congregation of the Council declared: “When the see is vacant, only one Vicar is to be elected. For the rest, the custom of electing two or more, especially an immemorial one, was not abolished by that decree,” namely, of the Council of Trent.

“When a Chapter has been reduced to only one member, can he alone, while the see is vacant, elect the Vicar of whom the Council of Trent speaks in chapter 16, session 24?—Response. Affirmative, provided that he does not elect himself.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 12 March 1662.

Cf. the Norms for their nomination and the use of insignia in the Brief of Leo XIII, Illud est, 29 January 1894, Decree no. 3817.—M. E., vol. 14, p. 498, no. 6.

With regard to them, the Constitution of Pius IX, Apostolicae Sedis, IV Kalends of September 1872, is to be observed. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 18 March 1898, no. 3988.

Cf. the privileges of titular or honorary Apostolic Protonotaries, Decree no. 2583; of those ad instar participantium, Decrees nos. 3262 and 3988.

“Pastors cannot be absent from residence beyond three or four days, even within the conciliar months, unless in a case of necessity and with the permission of the Ordinary, whose conscience is burdened concerning this matter.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 29 August 1793, no. 189. Cf. no. 204.

“Whether and when Pastors are bound under grave sin, personally or at least through another, to assist the dying until the final agony of life, although they have already been duly fortified with the sacraments and appear to be well disposed?—Response. The prescriptions of the Roman Ritual are to be followed; in the remaining matters, let approved authors be consulted.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 23 March 1878.

Cf. no. 213

“By the disposition of the Sacred Council of Trent all pastors of souls are commanded to preach to the people on Sundays and feast days and to teach children the rudiments of the faith. Whenever the aforesaid Archbishop personally fulfills all these things in the church in which he resides, the Pastor of the same church is by no means bound to undertake the same burdens. But if the Archbishop has not made both an explanation of the Gospel and an exposition of the catechism, then and in that case let the Pastor fulfill the duty incumbent upon him by performing either the explanation of the Gospel omitted by the Bishop or the exposition of the catechism, so that the people may have both aids.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 28 November 1785, no. 192. Cf. no. 212.

“Is the blessing of houses on Holy Saturday among parochial rights?—Response. Affirmative.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 7 March 1903.

“The Sacred Congregation of the Council decrees that the blessing of a woman after childbirth must be done by the Pastor if he himself has been requested, but that it can be done by any Priest if he likewise has been requested, in any Church or public Oratory, after the Superior of the Church has been informed.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, January.

“By force of the decree of 12 September 1857, is it lawful to impart the blessing of a woman after childbirth, according to the Roman Ritual, to a mother whose offspring died without baptism; or must that blessing be withheld from her?—Response. The blessing is not to be denied.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 19 March 1896.

“Can a curate-administrator appointed by the Bishop while a parish is vacant, by force of the disposition of the Council of Trent, session 24, chapter 18, delegate another priest for all duties or only for certain acts?—Response. Affirmative to the first part, unless the will of the Ordinary stands in the way.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 9 May 1874.

“3. Do Apostolic Missionaries enjoy ordinary jurisdiction as Pastors, or only delegated jurisdiction in the missions to which they have been sent by the Vicar Apostolic? 4. Can the same missionaries, by their own authority just as Pastors, delegate a priest for the purpose of assisting at and blessing the marriages of the Christians committed to them? Likewise, can they hear the confessions of their own Christians even in another Vicariate?—Response. To the third: Negative to the first part; affirmative to the second.—To the fourth: Provision was made in the preceding.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 23 August 1852.

“Whether, when there is a necessity of dividing certain parishes entrusted pleno iure to missionary Religious, the new filial parishes must be considered subject to the same right in favor of those same Religious, if the latter assume all the burdens thereof together with the respective people.

“Response. 1. The division of parishes properly so called must be made ad normam iuris. 2. The Religious have no right to the new parish, nor can the Bishop grant it to them. 3. If the Bishop cannot provide for it otherwise, let him have recourse to the Holy See for the corresponding faculties to entrust it provisionally to the Religious, while it remains secular and of free collation.—It is to be noted, as regards the first point, that the law requires that, in effecting the dismemberment of a parish, the interested parties first of all be heard.” Sacred Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, 5 September 1893; 16 November 1896.

“By the law of 4 June 1899, no. 350, and the regulation approved by Royal Decree of 25 August 1899, no. 350, the Pastors of Italy have received an allowance of 900 lire annually, which will afterward be raised to 1,000 lire.

“Now such a supplement to the congrua is given by the Administration of the Fund for Worship, which derives the sums from the goods of the Ricettizie and Comunerie suppressed by the Government and from the goods of the Ecclesiastical Estate—that is, from suppressed Benefices and from religious Communities expelled and despoiled. Consequently, what is given to Pastors as the congrua, or a supplement to the congrua, does not belong to the Parish to which that congrua or supplement is offered. This being posited, can a Pastor in conscience:

“1. Accept the congrua or supplement to the congrua constituted from goods which belonged not to the parish but to other moral bodies?

“2. If the congrua or supplement to the congrua is given to a Pastor in whose Church there was a Comuneria—Collegiate or Riccettizia—and is constituted from the goods of that same Comuneria, now relinquished to the Municipalities, must the Pastor share it with his Clergy, and can he retain it all for himself as revenue of the Parish?

“3. And if the Pastor knows that his allowance, received from the Fund for Worship directly or through the Municipality, belonged to a moral entity—situated in his Church or elsewhere—with determined burdens of Masses and other works of worship and piety, must he, at least in proportion to the allowance, satisfy those same burdens?

“4. In the act of acceptance, must the Pastor make at least orally some protest, also so as not to incur the censures issued against usurpers of the goods of the Church?

“5. Can the Bishops themselves burden the supplement to the congrua given to Pastors for the benefit of their Church or their Clergy?

“6. Do the Bishops themselves, or the Pastors, have the faculty of treating with the Fund for Worship and with the Municipalities concerning everything that regards the congrua or its supplement?

“Response. To the first: With attention to the circumstances of the times, it can be tolerated, scandal being removed and the intention being held of standing by the commands of the Church.—To the second, third, and fifth: Recourse is to be had to the Sacred Congregation of the Council.—To the fourth: It is sufficient to observe the conditions appended to the response to the first.—To the sixth: It can be tolerated.” Sacred Penitentiary, 14 December 1899.

“1. Is it lawful for Municipalities to request or accept from the Fund for Worship the transfer of the revenues of suppressed Ricettizia Churches and religious Corporations under the conditions established by the aforesaid law of 4 June 1899?—2. Can Municipalities which claim the right of patronage over the Parochial Church, or which have entered in the municipal budget a sum for the expenses of Worship, lawfully, so as not to burden the populations greatly, delete from the municipal budget the item for Worship and provide for it instead from the revenue of the suppressed Ricettizia Churches, as the law prescribes?—3. Can the surplus revenue be considered the property of the Municipalities? And can these consider themselves not bound to fulfill the religious burdens annexed to the abolished foundations, or attached to the revenues of the suppressed moral bodies and ecclesiastical entities?

“Response. To the first and second: With attention to the circumstances of the times, it can be tolerated, provided, nevertheless, that scandal is removed and every effort is employed so that, insofar as it can be done, the utility of the Church is cared for.—To the third, the doubt having been reformulated: ‘Whether the Municipalities are bound to fulfill the burdens annexed to the ecclesiastical goods or revenues received from the Civil Authority.’ Response. Insofar as it can be done, affirmative.” Sacred Penitentiary, 14 December 1899.

“Can a Bishop, under the same precept of obedience and the same threatened censures, compel idle priests who are sustained by good health to undertake the care of churches, at least until it is possible to provide them with a Pastor?—Response. Affirmative, when grave necessity urges, and for a time.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 17 January 1866.—“But as regards Religious men, insofar as they live outside the cloister by the temporary permission of their Superiors, let him treat the matter with those same Superiors.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 28 March 1890.

“Not without great sorrow of soul has Our Most Holy Lord Pope Leo XIII learned that some priests who emigrated from Italy, especially southern Italy, to the regions of America lead a life which is entirely at variance with that integrity and holiness of morals which an ecclesiastical man ought to display.

“Therefore, the Most Blessed Father, wishing according to his powers to resist the further spread of so great an evil by renewing and enlarging those precautions and remedies which had already been employed in past years, after hearing the opinion of the Cardinals of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, commanded that same Congregation to send the following prescriptions to the Bishops and Ordinaries both of Italy and of America:

“I. With respect to Italian priests who have emigrated and are dwelling in America, the local Prelates shall proceed summarily against delinquents according to the form of the sacred canons, even as delegates of the Apostolic See, if there is need.

“II. But with respect to the future, the Bishops and Ordinaries of Italy are absolutely prohibited from granting to their priests of the secular clergy letters of departure for emigration to the regions of America.

“III. An exception may be admitted only, the conscience of the Bishop being burdened, for some priest of his diocese who is of mature age, endowed with sufficient sacred learning, and adduces an entirely just cause for emigration. Yet he must have good testimony to an unstained life hitherto spent laudably in the works of the sacred ministry, with a true ecclesiastical spirit and zeal for the salvation of souls; and therefore he must offer a founded hope of edifying by word and example the faithful and peoples to whom he asks to pass, and furnish moral certainty that the priestly dignity will never be stained by him through the exercise of any vulgar crafts and commercial dealings whatever.

“IV. But in a case of this kind, the same Italian Bishop and Ordinary, all things having been duly weighed and proved, shall treat the matter directly, without the intervention of the priest making the request, with the American Ordinary to whose diocese the latter desires to pass; and after obtaining from that American Ordinary the formal acceptance of the same priest together with the promise of deputing him to some office of the ecclesiastical ministry, he shall report each and every thing to the aforesaid Sacred Congregation of the Council. If the latter shall finally give consent, the Bishop can then grant the letters of departure, communicating to the American Prelate by a secret letter, unless they are already known to him, the personal particulars of the emigrating priest, for the purpose of preventing fraud concerning the identity of the subject. The same priest may not emigrate from that diocese to another in America without a new permission of the Sacred Congregation.

“V. Priests of the Eastern rite are excluded under every hypothesis.

“VI. But if emigration is not in question, but rather some priest of Italy who, for personal and honorable temporary causes, wishes to go to parts of America, it shall be sufficient that his own Ordinary, after examining these things and provided that nothing else stands in the way, furnish him in writing with his permission for a time—not exceeding the limit of one year—in which the aforesaid reasons for departure are declared, with the condition that he immediately remain suspended a divinis when the appointed term has expired, unless he has obtained its lawful extension.

“VII. Those priests who enjoy some special Apostolic privilege for this purpose are not comprehended under these laws concerning emigration to the Americas.

“Given at Rome from the Sacred Congregation of the Council, 27 July 1890.”

“No one is certainly unaware that foreign clerics coming from distant transmarine shores, according to the statutes of the ancient Fathers, the canonical sanctions of title 22, book I of the Decretals, and the very rules of prudence, are to be admitted to the exercise of the sacred ministry only with caution. For because of the distance and dissimilarity of places, it is often difficult safely and expeditiously to form a just judgment concerning the persons and their qualities and concerning the validity of the documents which are exhibited by newcomers; fraud and deceit sometimes creep in, as experience bears witness; whence danger threatens everywhere lest unworthy and wicked men be placed over the flock of the faithful, with the gravest offense to the divine majesty and harm to the Christian commonwealth.

“To ward off these dangers, the Sacred Congregation of the Council, by the special mandate of Our Most Holy Lord Leo XIII, issued a law by circular letters given to the Ordinaries of Italy and America on 27 July 1890, by which it confined the migration of Italian priests to America within certain rules.

“These rules are as follows: Cf. part II and following of the preceding Decree.

“By this law many harmful things were removed and taken away, but not all, nor entirely. For experience has taught that, from a perverse interpretation of article 5 recited above, the effect of that salutary law has very often been frustrated. Furthermore, it has become evident that the migration of priests to America and to the Philippine Islands, not only from Italy but also from other regions of Europe, is excessive and sometimes even harmful.

“Wherefore the Most Eminent Fathers of the Sacred Congregation, after the reports of many Bishops had been duly examined, as was fitting, complying with the wishes of those same Bishops and maturely weighing all things, judged that broader and more ample provision concerning this matter was to be made by a new general law, which is contained in these chapters:

“I. For clerics of Italy, the dispositions contained under nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 in the circular letters of 27 July 1890 remaining firm, the conscience of all Ordinaries both of Italy and of America is gravely burdened concerning their full observance.

“But the faculty granted under no. 5 is restricted to a case of strict and urgent necessity, as, for example, the grave illness of someone dwelling in America whom Christian charity or a duty of piety may require them to visit, when there is no time to have recourse to the Holy See. But in this and similar circumstances the cause of urgent necessity must be expressed clearly and determinately in the letters of departure, the time of absence must be restricted to six months, and the Sacred Congregation of the Council must be informed of the matter immediately.

“II. But outside Italy, henceforth it shall not be lawful for the Ordinaries of Europe to grant their Clerics letters of departure for America unless the consent of the Bishop of that diocese to which the priest desires to go has first been sought, secret letters having been exchanged for this purpose in which the American Prelate is informed concerning the age and the moral and intellectual qualities of the emigrating priest.

“Nevertheless, a case of strict and urgent necessity is excepted, in which, in the same manner as above, permission can be granted by his own Ordinary, but it shall be valid for only six months, the cause of urgent necessity having been noted and the Bishop of the place to which the priest is departing having been advised by letter.

“III. Finally, for those about to migrate from any part of the world to the Philippine Islands, the same laws and norms shall be observed as for Italian priests going to America, with this difference, however: for European priests, permission is to be sought from the Sacred Congregation of the Council; but for priests of America or another region, from the Apostolic Delegation at Washington.

“Therefore, henceforth letters of departure for clerics about to migrate to America and to the Philippine Islands shall be drawn up in the specific form according to the rules established above; those drawn up otherwise shall be of no value and shall be judged as such by the Ordinaries of those dioceses.

“A report concerning all these things having been made to Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius X in the audience of 17 September of the current year by the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, His Holiness confirmed the Decrees of the Most Eminent Fathers and commanded them to be published by circular letters of the Sacred Congregation and to be duly observed by all, anything whatever to the contrary notwithstanding.

“Given at Rome from the offices of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, 14 November 1903.”

“55. Likewise, in that it professes that it vehemently desires that some means be found of removing the minor clergy—by which name it designates clerics in the lower orders—from cathedrals and collegiate churches, providing otherwise—namely, through upright laymen of more advanced age, with a suitable stipend assigned—for the ministry of serving Masses and other offices as acolytes, etc., as it says used to be done formerly, when offices of that kind had not been reduced to a mere appearance for receiving the greater orders; insofar as it censures the institution which provides that the functions of the minor orders are to be performed or exercised only by those who are constituted in or assigned to them (Fourth Provincial Council of Milan); and this according to the mind of the Council of Trent (session 23, chapter 17), ‘that the functions of the holy orders from the diaconate to the order of porter, laudably received in the Church from Apostolic times and for some time interrupted in many places, be recalled according to the sacred canons, and not be disparaged by heretics as idle’: a rash suggestion, offensive to pious ears, disturbing to the ecclesiastical ministry, diminishing the decorum to be preserved, insofar as it can be, in the celebration of the mysteries, injurious to the duties and functions of the minor orders and to the discipline approved by the canons and especially by Trent, and favoring the insults and calumnies of heretics against it.” Proposition of the Synod of Pistoia condemned by Pius VI.

“The Catholic Church has this wholly as her own: that she continually directs all her strength both toward fostering Christian piety and toward extirpating vices. Hence, nearly in our own age, not only have true religious Congregations grown to the great good of the Christian and civil commonwealth, but also various pious Societies of the faithful have been formed which both follow the evangelical counsels and perform the duties of charity with greater freedom—duties from exercising which, through the wickedness of the times, religious families are almost or altogether prohibited. But since these pious Societies of the faithful, no less than true religious Congregations, have been praised by the Holy See and their statutes approved, and since it was furthermore requested that new Societies of this kind be approved, discussion began concerning the nature of those Societies and the mind of the Holy See in approving them. For this reason, in a general Congregation of the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church for Bishops and Regulars, by the mandate of Our Most Holy Lord Pope Leo XIII, these two questions were asked: I. Whether it is expedient that the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars grant a decree of praise or approval to those Institutes which, besides Sisters living in community, have other Sisters bound by simple vows, whether temporary or perpetual, who live in their own homes without bearing any outward sign by which it may become known that they are members of some regular Institute. II. Whether it is expedient that the same Sacred Congregation grant a decree of praise or approval to those Institutes whose members, even if they live in community, nevertheless bear no sign of that same Institute, and indeed endeavor to conceal both the Institute itself and its nature. Moreover, in the plenary Congregation held in the Vatican Apostolic Palace on 21 June 1889, the Most Eminent Fathers decreed: When the Sacred Congregation praises or approves Institutes of this kind, even under the express name of Congregations, it intends to praise or approve them not indeed as formal Religious Orders of solemn vows, nor even as formal or true religious Congregations of simple vows, but only as pious Societies in which, besides the other things which are required according to the present discipline of the Church, no religious profession properly so called is emitted; rather, the vows, if any are made, are considered private, not public vows accepted in the name of the Church by a lawful Superior. The Sacred Congregation furthermore praises or approves these Societies under the essential condition that they be fully and perfectly known to their respective Ordinaries and be entirely subject to their jurisdiction. Finally, although the members of these Societies wear no regular habit, nevertheless let them take care that in themselves there be not ‘...the adornment of clothing’ (1 Peter 3:3), nor anything which might offend the sight of anyone, but that which befits religious persons ‘professing piety through good works’ (1 Timothy 2:10); and let them beware lest that which is concealed through prudence of spirit degenerate through prudence of the flesh into culpable simulation. The Holy Father ratified and confirmed this decree and commanded it to be inserted in the Statutes of Institutes of this kind.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 11 August 1889.

“Institutes of Tertiaries are not to be approved unless they are aggregated by the Superiors General of those Orders from which they borrow both name and habit into their own respective Third Order, and are admitted to participation in Indulgences and spiritual graces insofar as it is lawful to grant this.” Norms of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 28 June 1901, no. 16.

“His Holiness decreed: first, that Institutes of Tertiaries living in Community and emitting simple vows, provided that they are lawfully aggregated to the Orders from which they borrow their name and habit, participate in all Indulgences granted directly by the Roman Pontiffs only to the First and Second Orders; second, that their churches enjoy the same Indulgences which the churches of the respective First and Second Orders enjoy; third, that other Indulgences previously granted to Third Orders of this kind shall henceforth be proper only to Tertiaries living in the world.” Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, 28 August 1903.

Concerning women of the Third Order and their privileges, cf. Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 17 January 1763, no. 445.

“A solemn vow is that which is accepted as such by the Church and renders the one vowing perpetually and immutably incapable—regard being had to ordinary law and a pontifical dispensation being excluded—of contracting marriage and of acquiring or retaining ownership of things, as Father Piringh speaks with the other authors who treat of the sacred canons in book 3 of the Decretals, title 54, § 1. Since, therefore, the nuns of France now, in order to accommodate themselves to the civil laws, emit the vow of poverty in such a way that they by no means abdicate ownership of their property, but retain it as their own and intend, when there is need, to dispose of it according to the civil laws, for this reason their vow, whether for five years or perpetual, is certainly not solemn, nor is it accepted as such by the Church. But if this vow of poverty is not solemn, neither can the other two vows of chastity and obedience be considered solemn; since, according to the nature of solemn religious profession and the discipline of the Church, one vow cannot be solemn without another.” Sacred Penitentiary, 1820, to the Bishop of Limoges.

“When the Benedictine Nuns from the monastery of Cambrai, founded in the year 1625, had fled in the year 1793 because of political disturbances, they first established their seat in the Diocese of Salford, then in the place of Stanbrook, with the intention of returning. But now, having abandoned the intention of returning, they ask that their vows be ratified as solemn.—Response. The solemnity of the vows hitherto emitted in the aforesaid monastery is established; and, insofar as there is need, the Sacred Congregation, by force of special faculties granted by Our Most Holy Lord, establishes and decrees that the vows which shall hereafter be emitted in the same monastery are to be held as solemn.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 25 July 1896.

“80. Rule I, which establishes universally and indiscriminately that the regular or monastic state by its nature cannot be combined with the care of souls and with the duties of pastoral life, and therefore cannot come to form part of the ecclesiastical hierarchy without, on the contrary, conflicting with the principles of monastic life itself: false, pernicious, injurious to the most holy Fathers and Prelates of the Church who joined the institutes of regular life with the duties of the clerical order, and contrary to the pious, ancient, and approved custom of the Church and to the sanctions of the Supreme Pontiffs; as though monks who are commended by gravity of morals and holy formation of life and faith were not rightly aggregated to the offices of clerics, not only without offense to religion but also with much utility to the Church. From the decretal letter of Saint Siricius to Himerius of Tarragona, chapter 13.

“81. Likewise, in that which it subjoins, that Saints Thomas and Bonaventure were so engaged in defending the institutes of the mendicants against eminent men that less heat and greater precision would have been desirable in their defenses: scandalous, injurious to the most holy Doctors, and favoring the impious insults of condemned authors.

“82. Rule II. The multiplication of Orders and their diversity naturally produce disturbance and confusion; likewise, in that which it premises (§ 4), that the founders of Regulars who arose after the monastic institutes, adding Orders to Orders and reformations to reformations, effected nothing other than to extend more and more the primary cause of the evil: understood of Orders and Institutes approved by the Holy See, as though the distinct variety of pious duties to which distinct Orders are devoted must by its nature produce disturbance and confusion; false, calumnious, injurious to the holy founders and their faithful pupils, and also to the Supreme Pontiffs themselves.

“83. Rule III, by which, after it premised that a small body dwelling within civil society without being almost a part of it, and establishing a small monarchy in the state, is always dangerous, it then accuses under this title private monasteries associated under one head by the bond of a common institute, as so many particular monarchies dangerous and harmful to the civil commonwealth: false, rash, injurious to regular Institutes approved by the Holy See for the advancement of religion, and favoring the attacks and calumnies of heretics against those same Institutes.

“84. Article I. Only one Order is to be retained in the Church, and the Rule of Saint Benedict is to be chosen before the others, both on account of its excellence and on account of the illustrious merits of that Order; yet in such a way that, in those matters which may perhaps occur as less suitable to the condition of the times, the manner of life instituted at Port-Royal should furnish light for examining what it would be fitting to add or subtract.

“II. Those who join this Order are not to become participants in the ecclesiastical hierarchy; nor are they to be promoted to sacred Orders, except at most one or two, to be ordained as curates or chaplains of the monastery, the rest remaining in the simple order of laymen.

“III. Only one monastery is to be admitted in each city, and it is to be situated outside the walls of the city in more hidden and remote places.

“IV. Among the occupations of monastic life, its own part is to be inviolably preserved for manual labor, with suitable time nevertheless left to be spent in psalmody or even, if anyone wishes, in the study of letters. Psalmody ought to be moderate, because its excessive length produces haste, weariness, and wandering; by however much psalmody, orations, and prayers have been increased, by an equal proportion the fervor and holiness of Regulars have been diminished at all times.

“V. No distinction among monks assigned either to choir or to ministries is to be admitted; this inequality has at all times aroused the gravest quarrels and discords and has expelled the spirit of charity from communities of Regulars.

“VI. The vow of perpetual stability is never to be tolerated. The ancient monks did not know it, although they were the consolation of the Church and the ornament of Christianity. Vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience shall not be admitted in the manner of a common and stable rule; if anyone wishes to make all or some of these vows, he shall seek counsel and permission from the Bishop, who nevertheless shall never permit them to be perpetual or to exceed the limits of one year; only the faculty of renewing them shall be given under the same conditions.

“VII. The Bishop shall have every oversight of their life, studies, and progress in piety; to him it shall belong to admit and expel monks, yet always after receiving the counsel of their companions.

“VIII. Regulars of the Orders which still remain, even if priests, could also be admitted into this monastery, provided that they desired to devote themselves in silence and solitude to their own sanctification. In that case, there would be place for a dispensation from the general rule established in no. II, yet in such a way that they do not follow a manner of life differing from the others, so that no more than one, or at most two, Masses are celebrated each day, and it ought to be sufficient for the other priests to concelebrate with the community.

“Perpetual vows are not to be admitted until the fortieth or forty-fifth year; nuns are to be devoted to solid exercises, especially labor; they are to be called away from the carnal spirituality by which most are occupied; it is to be considered whether, as regards them, it would be better for the monastery to be left in the city.

“A system subversive of the discipline now in force and already approved and received from antiquity; pernicious, opposed and injurious to the Apostolic Constitutions and the sanctions of many Councils, even general ones, and especially of Trent; favoring the insults and calumnies of heretics against monastic vows and regular Institutes devoted to the more stable profession of the evangelical counsels.” Propositions of the Synod of Pistoia condemned by Pius VI.

“52. The Government can by its own right alter the age prescribed by the Church for the religious profession of both women and men, and command all religious Families that they admit no one to pronounce solemn vows without its permission.—53. The laws which pertain to protecting the state of religious Families and their rights and duties are to be abrogated; indeed, the civil Government can furnish assistance to all who wish to defect from the institute of religious life which they undertook and to break solemn vows; and likewise it can utterly extinguish those same religious Families, just as collegiate Churches and simple Benefices even of the right of patronage, and subject and claim their goods and revenues for the administration and judgment of the civil power.” Propositions condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus.

“...It has seemed good to issue two chapters of prescriptions: the one concerning Societies which have not yet obtained the commendation or approval of the Apostolic See, the other concerning the rest, whose laws the Apostolic See has either reviewed or whose institute it has commended or approved.—The first chapter contains the following things to be observed:

“1. It belongs to the Bishop not to receive into the diocese any recently established Society before he has examined and likewise approved its laws and constitutions: namely, if they are opposed neither to the faith and uprightness of morals nor to the sacred canons and decrees of the Pontiffs, and if they are suitably adapted to their established end.

“2. No house of new Societies shall be founded by lawful right unless the Bishop consents and approves. But the Bishop shall not impart permission to found unless, after an inquiry has been diligently made, he knows what sort of persons they are who request it: whether they think rightly and uprightly, whether they are endowed with prudence, whether they are chiefly led by zeal for the divine glory and for their own salvation and that of others.

“3. Insofar as it can be done, rather than found or approve a new Society of some kind, Bishops will more usefully adopt some one of those already approved which professes a similar institute of action.—Hardly any Societies are to be approved, except perhaps in regions of the Missions, which, without a certain and proper end having been established, undertake to exercise universally any works whatever of piety and beneficence, even though wholly disconnected from one another.

“Bishops shall not permit any Society to be established which lacks the revenues necessary for the support of the members.—Societies which live by collected alms, and likewise communities of women which attend the sick in their homes by day and by night, are to be approved very cautiously, indeed only with difficulty.—But if some new Society of women has this end, that in its own houses it open hospitals for receiving men and women indiscriminately, or similar houses for receiving priests who, when sick, may be relieved by the care and labor of Sisters, Bishops shall not approve proposals of this kind unless mature and severe counsel has been employed.—Furthermore, Bishops shall by no means permit houses of Religious in which lodging and sustenance are furnished for payment to men or women arriving from elsewhere.

“4. No diocesan Society shall pass into other dioceses unless both Bishops consent, both of the place from which it departs and of the place to which it wishes to migrate.

“5. If a diocesan Society happens to be propagated into other dioceses, it shall not be lawful to change anything concerning its nature and laws except with the consent of the individual Bishops in whose dioceses it has houses.

“6. Once Societies have been approved, they are not to be extinguished except for grave causes and with the consent of the Bishops in whose territories they have existed. Nevertheless, it is lawful for the Bishops, each in his own diocese, to suppress individual houses.

“7. The Bishop shall be informed individually concerning girls seeking the religious habit, and likewise concerning those who, their probation having been completed, are about to emit vows; it shall belong to him also to examine them according to custom and, if nothing stands in the way, to admit them.

“8. The Bishop has the power of dismissing professed members of diocesan Societies, with both perpetual and temporary vows being remitted, with the single exception—at least by his own authority—of that of observing perpetual chastity. Care must nevertheless be taken that by a remission of this kind the right of another is not injured; but it is injured if this is done without the knowledge of the moderators and when they justly dissent.

“9. Let the Superiors be elected by the Sisters according to the law of the constitutions. Nevertheless, the Bishop, either personally or through a delegate, shall preside over the casting of ballots; it is within his power, according to the duty of conscience, to confirm or rescind the completed election.

“10. The Bishop has the right to visit the houses of every diocesan Society and likewise to inquire into the pursuit of virtues, discipline, and financial accounts.

“11. To designate priests for sacred functions, confessions, and sermons, and likewise to establish matters concerning the dispensation of the sacraments, is the office of the Bishops, for diocesan Societies just as for the others; this is expressly determined in the following chapter, no. VIII.

“The other chapter of prescriptions, concerning Societies whose laws the Apostolic See has either reviewed or whose institute it has commended or approved, contains the following things to be observed:

“1. To receive candidates and to admit them to the sacred habit or to the profession of vows are functions of the Superiors of the Societies; yet the faculty attributed to the Bishop by the Council of Trent remains intact (session 25, chapter 17, On Regulars and Nuns), so that, when women are in question, he examine them ex officio both before they receive the habit and before they emit profession. It belongs similarly to the Superiors to arrange the individual houses and to dismiss novices and professed members, yet with all those things observed which must be observed according to the laws of the Institute and the pontifical decrees.—Their own assemblies or Chapters and Councils have the right of committing the offices and administrations, both those which pertain to the entire Society and those which are exercised in individual houses. But in the assemblies of women’s Societies for the assignment of offices, the Bishop in whose diocese they are held shall preside personally or through another as a delegate of the Apostolic See.

“2. To remit vows, whether temporary or perpetual, belongs to the Roman Pontiff alone. No Bishop is given the right of changing the constitutions, since they are approved by the Apostolic See. Likewise, Bishops may not change or modify the governance which, according to the norm of the constitutions, rests with the moderators either of the whole Society or of the individual houses.

“3. The rights of Bishops, each in his own diocese, are to permit or prohibit the establishment of new houses of Societies; likewise, the erection of new churches by them, the opening of public or semipublic oratories, the celebration of Mass in domestic chapels, and the exposition of the August Sacrament openly for the veneration of the faithful. It belongs similarly to Bishops to regulate solemnities and supplications which are public.

“4. If houses of Societies of this kind use episcopal enclosure, the rights which are attributed to Bishops in this matter by pontifical laws remain intact. But if any use an enclosure which they call partial, it shall belong to the Bishop to take care that it is duly observed and to restrain whatever defect may creep into it.

“5. The male or female members of these Societies, as regards the internal forum, are subject to the power of the Bishop. But in the external forum they are subject to him as regards censures, the reservation of cases, the relaxation of vows which are not reserved to the Supreme Pontiff alone, the proclamation of public prayers, and the other dispensations and concessions which sacred Prelates can impart to their faithful.

“6. But if any request to be promoted to sacred orders, the Bishop shall beware of ordaining them, even if they are dwelling in the diocese, unless under these conditions: that each be proposed by his own moderators; that those things sanctioned by sacred law concerning dimissorial or testimonial letters have been duly fulfilled; that they not lack a title of sacred ordination, or at least be lawfully exempted from it; and that they have devoted themselves to theological studies according to the Decree Auctis admodum, issued on 4 November 1892.

“7. With respect to Societies which live by begging, let those rights stand for Bishops which are contained in the Decree Singulare quidem, promulgated by the Sacred Council placed over Bishops and Religious Orders on 27 March 1896.

“8. In those things which pertain to spiritual matters, Societies are subject to the Bishops of the dioceses in which they are situated. It shall therefore belong to these Bishops to designate priests for sacred functions and to approve them for sermons. But if they are women’s Societies, the Bishop shall likewise designate both ordinary and extraordinary priests for confessions, according to the norm of the Constitution Pastoralis curae, issued by Benedict XIV, Our Predecessor, and of the Decree Quemadmodum, issued by the Sacred Council placed over Bishops and Religious Orders on 17 December 1890; this decree also pertains to associations of men who are not initiated into sacred orders.

“9. The administration of the goods which the individual Society possesses must rest with its Supreme Moderator or Mother General and their Councils; but the revenues of the individual houses must be administered by their individual Superiors according to the laws of each Institute. The Bishop cannot demand any account of these things. But if funds have been assigned or bequeathed to a particular house to be spent on the worship of God or beneficence in that very place, the moderator of the house shall indeed administer them, yet shall report to the Bishop and show himself wholly subject to him; in such a way, namely, that neither the Superior nor the Mother General of the whole Society may conceal from the Bishop, alienate, or divert to other uses anything from these goods. Therefore, whenever it shall seem good, the Bishop shall examine the accounts of receipts and expenditures for goods of this kind; the same shall take care that the principal not be diminished and that the revenues not be wrongly expended.

“10. Wherever institutes to be cared for are attached to the houses of Societies, such as houses for women, orphanages, hospitals, schools, and asylums for educating children, let all these be subject to episcopal vigilance as regards religious instruction, uprightness of morals, exercises of piety, and the administration of sacred things; the privileges which may have been attributed to colleges, schools, or institutes of this kind by the Apostolic See remaining intact.

“11. In the houses of any Societies whatsoever whose members profess simple vows, the Bishops of the respective dioceses have the right of visiting the churches, sacristies, public oratories, and confessionals, and of opportunely establishing and commanding matters concerning them.—In Societies of priests, the Superiors alone shall take cognizance of conscience and discipline and likewise of economic matters. But in associations of women, as also of men who abstain from the priesthood, it shall belong to the Bishop to inquire whether discipline flourishes according to the norm of the laws; whether sound doctrine or uprightness of morals has suffered any detriment; whether any offense has been committed against enclosure; and whether the sacraments are received with proper and regular frequency.—If the Bishop should perhaps find anything worthy of censure, let him not issue a decree, but let him immediately admonish the moderators to make provision; if they neglect this, let him provide for it himself. But if any matters of greater moment occur which admit no delay, let him issue a decree immediately; let him, however, refer the decree to the Sacred Council placed over Bishops and Religious Orders.

“The Bishop, especially during visitation, shall exercise his rights of which We spoke above as regards schools, asylums, and the other institutes mentioned.—But as regards the economic affairs of women’s Societies and likewise of men lacking the priesthood, the Bishop shall take cognizance only of the administration of funds or legacies which have been assigned to sacred purposes or to assisting the inhabitants of the place or diocese.

“Moreover, by those things which We have hitherto enacted and sanctioned, We will that absolutely nothing be derogated from the faculties or privileges granted either by Our decree or any other decree of the Apostolic See, or confirmed by immemorial or centennial custom, or even contained in the laws of some Society approved by the Roman Pontiff...anything whatever to the contrary notwithstanding.” Leo XIII, Constitution Conditae a Christo Ecclesiae, VI Ides of December 1900.

“The principle of the Sacred Congregations has very frequently been declared: that no Archbishop or Bishop can be the Superior of Institutes of nuns which are propagated through several dioceses and have their own Mother General; rather, they are governed by the Mother General, in such a way that the houses and Sisters of the individual dioceses are subject to the jurisdiction of the individual Ordinaries according to the norms established by the Most Sacred Canons.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, General Congregation, 26 January 1885.

“Must Mothers General, at least those whose Institute still lacks the approval of the Holy See, whenever they wish to transfer some Sister from one house to another in a different diocese, or to appoint a subordinate Superior or release her from office, confer on the matter with the Ordinaries in whose dioceses those houses are found, obtain their confirmation or at least assent, or inform them of the matter?

“Response. In the cases in question, Mothers General may exercise their own right; and it suffices that those same Superiors, merely by reason of courtesy, inform the Bishop of the place concerning the said dispositions.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 9 April 1895.

“With regard to the transfer of Sisters belonging to Institutes subject to a Mother General, provision is for the most part made in the respective constitutions, in which, according to the form of the common law, it is established that their transfer among the houses of the Institute belongs to the Mother General; but in some of the said constitutions it is added that the Mother General shall endeavor in this matter to act in concert with the Ordinaries, and, generally speaking, the Mothers General conduct themselves thus in practice. Then, since the houses of the Institutes are subject to the jurisdiction of the Ordinaries of the places where they exist, those Ordinaries can visit them and issue those decrees which they judge necessary for removing abuses which may have been introduced contrary to the Common Law and the disposition of their own constitutions, even in those things which regard administration and instruction; nevertheless, they can add nothing contra vel praeter constitutiones. And this is verified with greater reason for the external schools which the Sisters maintain and for the direction of the orphanages entrusted to them, since vigilance over the instruction and education of youth belongs to the local Ordinary.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 14 May 1872.

“1. That the Friars Preachers and Minors were not in the state and way of those being saved, and that their mendicity and poverty were neither meritorious nor salutary; since, bodily health and other just impediments ceasing, they ought to work with their own hands and not remain idle in hope of another’s aid.—2. And that, with the permission or commission of the Roman Pontiff or of the diocesan Bishops, they could not freely exercise the office of preaching and hear confessions, as though through this prejudice were inflicted upon parochial priests.” Errors of William of Saint-Amour condemned by Alexander IV in the year 1256, Constitutions Veri solis radius, XVI Kalends of November, and Multa cordis amaritudine, XII Kalends of November.

“22. The Saints who instituted private religious orders sinned by instituting them thus.—23. Religious living in private religious orders are not of the Christian religion.—24. Friars are bound to acquire sustenance through the labor of their hands and not through mendicity.—31. Those who found cloisters sin, and those who enter them are diabolical men.—34. All the mendicant Orders are heretical, and those giving them alms are excommunicated.—35. Those entering religion or some Order are by that very fact incapable of observing the divine precepts and consequently of attaining the kingdom of heaven unless they apostatize from those same Orders.—45. All religious orders without distinction were introduced by the devil.” Propositions of John Wyclif condemned at the Council of Constance.

“41. Ecclesiastical Prelates and secular princes would not do ill if they destroyed all the sacks of mendicity.” Proposition of Martin Luther condemned by Leo X.

“I. Care must be taken, as was already admonished concerning Nuns in the Letters of 28 June 1866 under no. 7, that Regulars expelled from their own houses, especially professed Clerics, insofar as they cannot be received into another monastery, assemble in some particular house to be designated by their Superiors, and there not omit to observe the rule which they professed in the best manner possible, each being prohibited from departing without due permission.

“II. Care must likewise be taken that even Regulars who are compelled to live outside cloisters and the aforesaid houses as temporarily secularized remain in their vocation and fulfill, likewise in the best manner possible, the solemn vows by which they consecrated themselves to God. Hence the Sacred Penitentiary declares to all Regular Superiors that their jurisdiction over their own suppressed subjects, even those dwelling outside cloisters, has by no means ceased. For although each Regular dwelling outside a cloister is not exempt from the jurisdiction of the Ordinary of the place in which he dwells as regards ecclesiastical governance and discipline, nevertheless, as regards regular discipline and the obligations which proceed from religious profession and are compatible with his new state, he is bound to be subject and obedient to his own Superiors.

“III. It decrees that the aforesaid houses, provided that at least three Regulars have assembled in them to dwell there, of whom at least one is a Priest, shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Minister Provincial, and that they are to be governed by a particular Superior to be constituted there.

“IV. It grants that in those same houses, provided that at least four Regular Priests dwell in them, there may be erected, with those things which must be observed by law being observed, a private Oratory, first to be visited and approved by the Minister Provincial or by another suitable Person deputed by him, in such a way that Mass may be celebrated in it by Regular Priests, the Most Holy Eucharist reserved, and Holy Communion received by Religious and Oblates alone, and the precept of hearing Mass satisfied.

“V. It likewise grants that in Oratories erected in this manner the Regulars themselves may enjoy all and any Most Holy Indulgences granted and assigned to the houses or churches from which they were expelled, yet according to the form and the time expressed and defined in the Apostolic concessions and indults; in such a way, nevertheless, that the aforesaid Indulgences shall be considered to continue entirely as before in the churches of the Order to which they had been attached and assigned, so long as some Priest of the same Order has been placed over those churches by lawful authority.

“VI. It furthermore declares that the privileges which Regular Superiors have hitherto used with regard to the particular blessings of their own Order remain intact; and likewise that the personal Most Holy Indulgences granted by the Holy See to all and each Regular of either sex, even those living in the world with lawful permission, and not revoked, remain intact.

“VII. But it decrees that women Regulars expelled from their own cloisters, however exempt they may be, and even those transferred into new houses according to the Letters of 28 July 1866, are wholly subject to the jurisdiction of the Ordinary of the Place in which they dwell.

“VIII. Moreover, it grants to Ordinaries of Places the faculty of imparting, according to their prudence, to those same women Regulars dwelling in new houses the Indult of a private Oratory, such that, with those things which must be observed by law being observed, Mass may be celebrated daily in that Oratory and the Most Holy Eucharist reserved, and there the Religious themselves, Lay Sisters, Novices, and Pupils, if there are any, and other Women attached to those houses, besides the one serving the Mass, may be refreshed with Holy Communion and may satisfy the precept of hearing Mass.

“IX. It furthermore grants to the women Regulars themselves the privilege imparted above under no. V to male Religious, namely, that of enjoying in the aforesaid Oratories all and any Most Holy Indulgences which had been attached or assigned to the church or Monastery from which they were expelled.

“X. It declares and decrees that it is lawful for suppressed Regulars, even those dwelling outside the aforesaid houses, to discharge the canonical hours according to the Calendar of their own Order and, notwithstanding the lack of a sacred title, to exercise their Orders and celebrate Mass in any church with the permission of the local Ordinary according to the rite of the church in which they happen to celebrate; yet preserving the rite of their own Order if they celebrate in their own church, the custody of which has lawfully been entrusted to at least one of their Confreres, or in one of the aforesaid Oratories of their Order.

“XI. It furthermore declares that nothing stands in the way of those suppressed Regulars being able to use the faculty already granted to them by the local Ordinary of hearing the sacramental Confessions of the Christian faithful, provided, nevertheless, that the same faculty has not expired or been revoked by the Ordinary himself, and provided that they use it only in those places for which they were approved.

“XII. It grants to Superiors, both General and Provincial, the faculty, either personally or through other suitable Religious men deputed by them, of permitting suppressed Regulars of their Order, during the present circumstances of the times, to choose for themselves any Confessor, whether Regular or Secular, yet from among those approved by the local Ordinary, by whom also, insofar as there is need, they may be absolved from cases and censures reserved within their own Order and may receive in the forum of conscience alone the favor of a dispensation from an irregularity contracted in any manner from the violation of those same censures, provided that it remains occult.

“XIII. It furthermore declares that it is lawful for any suppressed Regulars whatsoever, whether dwelling in some house as in no. I or dwelling outside religious houses as temporarily secularized, to make their sacramental Confessions before Confessors of their own Order lawfully approved by their own Prelate.

“XIV. It grants to the same Superiors General that, while the present circumstances of the times likewise endure and until it shall seem otherwise to the Holy See, after the office of inferior Superiors has been completed, they may, with the counsel of their Definitors, confirm them anew in that same office and substitute others for them, according as they judge more expedient in the Lord.

“XV. It grants to Regular Clerics already solemnly professed that, by the title of poverty or another title of their own Institute, they may be promoted to Sacred Orders by the Ordinary of the Place in which they have domicile, or by another Bishop with dimissorial letters given by him, with the consent of their own Regular Superior and with those things which must be observed by law being observed, and that, when thus promoted, they may minister in their Orders until they have been dismissed for a lawful cause from their own Order or Institute.

“XVI. It likewise grants to Regulars solemnly professed that they may obtain in administration and lawfully retain Chaplaincies or only one Ecclesiastical Benefice, even residential or with the care of souls, with the consent and at the pleasure of the Ordinary of the Place and with their own Superiors consenting; which, nevertheless, they are bound to resign as soon as they have been recalled to the cloisters by those same Superiors.

“XVII. It grants the faculty to local Ordinaries with respect to Nuns, and to Superiors General with respect to male Regulars, of permitting, either personally or through suitable persons to be subdelegated by them, their respective subjects suppressed in Italy, with attention to the particular circumstances and while they endure, notwithstanding the solemn vow of poverty, to receive, enter upon, and retain goods lawfully belonging to them, and even inheritances, saving, nevertheless, the acquired right of a Third party; and concerning those goods not only to enter into contracts but even to dispose of them for pious and honorable uses, and especially in favor of their own Order or Institute, as well as as a sign of grateful spirit, by acts either inter vivos or causa mortis, with the counsel and approval of the Ordinary himself, or the Superior, or another deputed by him, or at least, in a case of necessity, of the Confessor; yet in such a way that they are bound to deliver the administration and revenues of their property, for as long as they live in a Community which can possess temporal goods, to that same Community, and to leave to the Religion itself, with precautions employed, whatever may have come to them from the goods of their own Religion. But if the Community is one of those to which the possession of temporal goods is not permitted, in that case let them entrust the administration to some Third person, in such a way that without the permission of the Ordinary or of the Regular Superiors they cannot apply any of the fruits to themselves or dispose of them in any manner.

“XVIII. It grants to all and each suppressed Regular of either sex that money acquired by a lawful title may, with the permission of their Superiors and, insofar as Nuns are in question, with the permission of the local Ordinary, be cautiously placed in an honorable and lawful investment, whether in their own name or through intermediary Persons; under this law, nevertheless, that Regulars living in Community are bound to deliver the securities and revenues of that money to the same Community, or to some Third Person as above, and that they likewise cannot dispose of them in any manner without the permission of those same Superiors or of the Ordinary himself.

“XIX. Finally, it declares that the aforesaid things are to be considered granted without any prejudice to any general or special Indult imparted by the Holy See to any Order or Person; and that the Constitutions of any Order, Congregation, and Institute, and any other things whatsoever, even worthy of special mention, operating to the contrary, by no means stand in the way of those aforesaid things.” Sacred Penitentiary, for Regulars suppressed in Italy, 18 April 1867.

“Since the Sacred Penitentiary on 18 April 1867 decreed in no. 3 that civilly suppressed Regular Houses, provided that at least three Regulars, of whom at least one is a Priest, assemble in them to dwell there, shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Minister Provincial and are to be governed by a particular Superior to be constituted there:

“Question 1. How must Provincial and Local Superiors conduct themselves when the Ordinary of the place wishes to subject to Sacred Canonical Visitation the churches and houses, and to the so-called auricular visitation the Regulars who, dwelling together in the number of three, hold those churches and houses of their Order?

“2. Does the cited Decree of the Sacred Penitentiary comprehend the case in which, either because of a lack of habitation or because they are impeded by violence, they cannot live together, and yet many more than three assemble daily to celebrate Mass, hear Confessions, and perform other offices at the Church of their own Order, which is held by their Confrere, and there also, either in the Sacristy or in some room, regularly treat of the affairs of the Order and Convent? And insofar as the response is affirmative:

“3. How must the Superiors conduct themselves when the Ordinary of the place wishes to subject the church and the Regulars to sacred Visitation, as was stated in the first?

“4. Are Regulars who, although they cannot live together, nevertheless assemble together as was stated in the second and, on appointed days under the direction of one of their Confreres, give and hear the resolution of Cases of Conscience, bound to go to the Ordinary or the Pastor of the place in order to be present at the said resolution?

“Since in no. 2 of the same Letter the Sacred Penitentiary declared that the jurisdiction of Regular Superiors over their own suppressed subjects, even those dwelling outside cloisters, has by no means ceased, and declared them subject to the jurisdiction of the local Ordinary only as regards ecclesiastical governance and discipline:

“Question 5. By force of this declaration, does the local Ordinary have the power, independently of the good pleasure of the Regular Superior and even against his express will, of enjoining upon a Regular Priest who, although compelled by violence, lives separated from the other Confreres, nevertheless obeys the Superior of his Order in all things, the execution of some ecclesiastical duty or office permanently and irrevocably?

“6. Can the local Ordinary treat with dispersed Regulars concerning matters pertaining to the Order or to the churches of the Order so as to decree something without the Regular Superior having been heard?

“7. Can Pastors summon and compel violently dispersed Regulars who live as in the fifth to perform ecclesiastical functions in the church of their own Parish, even in the case in which the Regulars are found occupied in furnishing assistance to the church of their own Order, and especially if they assemble there daily as was stated in the second?

“It not rarely happens that the civil Government or Municipalities, after consummating the usurpation of churches and houses of Regulars, grant those churches and some part of the house to local Ordinaries or Pastors, even with the express condition of erecting a parish or a branch of a parish in the said churches:

“Question 8. Can local Ordinaries and even Pastors use according to their own good pleasure the said Churches or houses granted to them by the usurpers, or are they rather bound to restore the churches and houses to the Regular Superiors to whom they belong by law?

“9. In the case in which the erection of a parish or branch of a parish in the said churches is in question, can the local Ordinary erect the parish or branch and provide for it independently of the Regular Superior, or is he rather bound to erect that parish or branch and provide for it according to the manner prescribed by the Apostolic Constitutions for parishes of Regulars?

“To the first: The aforesaid churches and houses, as well as the Religious dwelling there, enjoy the same immunity from the jurisdiction of the Ordinary which they enjoyed before.

“Response. To the second: Insofar as the aforesaid Regulars, who because of a lack of habitation or violence are prohibited from dwelling within the cloister, dwell in a house near the Convent and are accustomed to assemble together with the community or with those who have been permitted to dwell within the cloister, as is asserted in the question, in order to perform sacred functions in their own church and to care for those things which pertain to the Order and Convent, affirmative—that is, they are comprehended; otherwise, negative. Yet this is so in such a way that Ordinaries cannot extend their jurisdiction over the persons beyond ecclesiastical governance and discipline, the jurisdiction of Regular Superiors as regards regular discipline and the obligations which proceed from religious profession being preserved according to no. 2 of the aforesaid Instruction. To the third and fourth: Provision was made in the second.

“To the fifth: Negative.

“To the sixth: As regards the first part—that is, matters pertaining to the Order—negative; as regards the second part—that is, matters pertaining to the Churches of the Order—in the cases of which there was discussion in the first and second, provision has already been made; in the other cases, recourse is to be had in individual cases.

“To the seventh: As regards those of whom there was discussion in the second question, provision has already been made; as regards the others, negative, unless they are bound by a special title to serve the parochial church.

“As regards the eighth and ninth: Generally speaking, negative; but recourse is to be had in individual cases.” Sacred Penitentiary, 12 September 1872.

“Can the faculty contained under no. 17 of the Instruction of the Sacred Penitentiary of 18 April 1867 also be extended to Italian Religious subjects before they have emitted the solemn vow of poverty; that is, when the profession of solemn vows is made, can it be permitted to them by Superiors General that they may retain, etc., ownership of lawful goods and inheritances which they already possessed?

“Response. Negative; rather, they are bound wholly to abdicate every right and ownership of those goods according to the constitutions of their own Order. But the same Sacred Penitentiary declares that its mind in granting the faculty expressed in no. 17 of the Instruction of 18 April 1867 was in no manner that Superiors General of regular Orders might grant to subjects suppressed in Italy the ownership or dominion of goods accruing to them for any reason whatever, which the same Regulars, by reason of solemn profession, acquire not for themselves but for the monastery or Order.” Sacred Penitentiary, 21 May 1880.

The more recent Instructions and faculties of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars of 24 March 1903 for religious Congregations of men and Sisters in France are consonant with these Declarations and Faculties of the Sacred Penitentiary. M. E., vol. 15, pp. 157 ff.

“Affirmative according to the form of the Constitution of Benedict XIII beginning Custodes: namely, a Regular Bishop is bound to observe the rules of his religious Order which determine the matter of the vow of poverty; likewise, he is bound to observe the other rules and observances not repugnant to episcopal dignity and office, with the same grave or light obligation by which he was bound before he obtained the episcopal dignity; yet in such a way that in particular cases he can prudently render judgment whether they accord with the episcopal dignity and office.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 6 May 1864; A. S. S., vol. 1, pp. 449 ff.

“A professed Regular incapable of possessing goods, when raised to the episcopate...recovers the right of succeeding to inheritances conveyed to him after obtaining the episcopate, for the utility of his church as regards ownership and for his own advantage as regards usufruct.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 7 December 1639; A. S. S., vol. 1, p. 227.

1. If the discussion concerns nuns belonging to an Order in which solemn vows were formerly emitted, the following doubts proposed by the Bishop of Le Mans pertain here: “1. Do the spiritual privileges granted to Regulars—for example, indulgences—nevertheless remain? 2. Is the vow of entering religion still reserved to the Apostolic See? 3. Can the Ordinary, for a sufficient reason, dispense from vows emitted by nuns, the vow of perpetual chastity remaining? 4. Is the same to be said of the vows of men as of the vows of nuns, as it seems?

“Response. To the first: The Sisters of monasteries of France can gain all the indulgences which were granted to the religious Order or Institute of other nuns emitting solemn vows according to the respective Institute or rule, and this by an Indult confirmed by Our Most Holy Lord Gregory XVI. To the second: Affirmative; but the vow of a woman whose intention had regard to monasteries as they now exist in France is not reserved, because those monasteries, with attention to the particular circumstances, are considered by the Apostolic See not as truly and properly religious Orders but as families of most pious women. To the third: From the declaration of His Holiness, the Bishops of France, matters standing thus, can dispense. To the fourth: The decrees issued on other occasions by the Sacred Penitentiary pertain only to nuns.” Sacred Penitentiary, 11 December 1835.

2. But if the matter concerns more recent religious Congregations of men and Sisters approved by the Holy See, both the rescript of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars of 20 September 1840 and the observations frequently made by that Sacred Congregation upon their Constitutions pertain to this question; by these it is asserted that, in Congregations of this kind, vows emitted, whether perpetual or temporary, are dispensed by the Roman Pontiff alone. This was finally confirmed by the Norms of the Sacred Congregation for more recent Institutes, no. 112, Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 28 June 1901, and the Constitution Conditae, part 2, no. 2.

3. “Can a Bishop dispense from vows emitted in uncloistered Congregations not approved by the Holy See, which are subject to the governance of another Mother General, whether: 1. they have houses situated in several dioceses; or 2. they have no houses outside the diocese in which they arose?—Response. To the first and second: As regards the nonreserved vows of poverty and obedience, a Bishop can dispense in either case, provided that a right of a third party acquired from an onerous contract is not injured when that party is reasonably unwilling; as regards the reserved vow of chastity, negative from the ordinary power of the Bishop, unless it is established that the vow was not perpetual and absolute.” Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, 2 August 1876, no. 2091.

“Does the dispensation of vows for merely diocesan nuns of filial houses existing in a diocese different from that in which the principal house is situated belong to the Ordinary of the filial house, or rather to the Ordinary of the principal house?—Response. To the first: Affirmative. To the second: Negative.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 21 April 1903.

“1. In any Order, Congregation, Society, Institute, Monastery, or House whatsoever, whether solemn or simple vows are emitted in them, and even if Orders, Congregations, Societies, Institutes, Monasteries, and Houses are in question which, by a particular privilege contained even in the body of the law, or by any other title, are not comprehended in general decrees unless special, individual, and express mention is made of them, no one shall be admitted to the habit without testimonial letters both from the Ordinary of origin and also from the Ordinary of the place in which the Postulant, after completing the fifteenth year of his age, has remained for more than one year.

“2. In the aforesaid testimonial letters, after they have diligently inquired, even through secret information, into the qualities of the Postulant, the Ordinaries must report concerning his birth, age, morals, life, reputation, condition, education, and knowledge; whether he is under investigation, bound by some censure, irregularity, or other canonical impediment, burdened by debt, or liable to render an account of some administration. And let the Ordinaries know that their conscience remains burdened concerning the truth of the things set forth; nor is it ever free for them to deny testimonial letters of this kind; in the same letters, nevertheless, concerning each of the foregoing articles they must attest only those things which they shall judge in conscience that they can affirm in the Lord.

“3. The observance of this decree is strictly enjoined, even in virtue of holy obedience, upon all and each Regular Superior and other Religious whom it concerns, of whatever rank they may be and even of an exempt and privileged Institute and one requiring express mention; and whoever, contrary to the tenor of this decree, shall receive anyone into the religious habit shall by that very fact incur the penalty of deprivation of all offices and of active voice, and of perpetual incapacity for obtaining others thereafter, from which he can be dispensed only by the Apostolic See.

“4. By force of any privilege, faculty, indult, dispensation, or approval of rules and constitutions even in specific form which any Order, Institute, Superior, or Religious may obtain from the Apostolic See, it shall never be considered that derogation has been made from this decree unless derogation from it is made expressly and by name, even if general derogatory clauses, however broad, are appended in the concession. But if it should happen that a dispensation from the same decree is at any time granted expressly and by name to some Institute, it cannot be extended to others by force of any privilege or communication of privileges.

“5. On the first day of January in every year, this decree shall be read in the public refectory under penalty of deprivation of office and of active and passive voice, to be incurred by the Superiors by the very fact.

“But lest the observance of this decree be impeded by any reason, title, or pretext, His Holiness derogates wholly from any constitutions operating to the contrary...and any other things whatever to the contrary, and declares that derogation has been made from them.” Decree Romani Pontifices of the Sacred Congregation on the State of Regulars, 25 January 1848.

“1. Do testimonial letters given by Ordinaries through private letters suffice?—Response. Affirmative.”

“2. Do testimonial letters suffice in which the Ordinaries do not attest specifically concerning all those things which are prescribed in the Decree Romani Pontifices, but report only in general concerning the qualities of the Postulant?—Response. To the second: Affirmative; but let the Regular Superiors observe the other things to be observed by law for knowing the individual qualities of Postulants.

“3. What is to be done if the Ordinaries respond that they do not know the Postulants?—Response. The Postulants can be admitted to the habit and Novitiate if the Ordinary, when requested by the Superior, expressly responds that he cannot inform himself concerning the qualities of the Postulant because he does not know him, provided, nevertheless, that the deficiency of testimonial letters is supplied by other accurate information and a trustworthy report, and the other things to be observed by law are observed; and that, before they are admitted to the habit, the Postulants remain at least three months in the convent and are diligently proved there.

“4. Can Superiors admit a Postulant to the habit of their Order without the testimonial letters of the Ordinary when the latter affirms that he cannot give them because he is prohibited by the civil authority?—Response. The testimony of the Ordinary given even through private and secret letters suffices; but if the Ordinary, when requested by the Superior, refuses in any manner to give testimonial letters because of the cause stated above, the Postulant can be admitted, the deficiency of testimonial letters being supplied by other accurate information and a trustworthy report.

“5. Can Superiors admit to the habit soldiers concerning whom the Ordinaries affirm that in France they cannot obtain information, since they have no delegates in the army and the Pastors cannot have any knowledge of them?—Response. Affirmative, if the Ordinary, when requested by the Superior, responds that he cannot obtain information for the stated reason, provided that the deficiency of testimonial letters is supplied by other accurate information and a trustworthy report, and that the other things to be observed by law are observed; and that, furthermore, before they are admitted to the habit, the Postulants remain at least three months in the convent and are diligently proved there.

“6. What is to be done when the Ordinaries are unwilling to give testimonial letters for no other reason than that they oppose the Postulant’s entrance into religion?—Response. Ordinaries, as is prescribed in Article 2 of the Decree Romani Pontifices, cannot deny testimonial letters; but if they refuse to give them, recourse must be had to the Sacred Congregation on the State of Regulars.

“7. In those Orders in which, besides lay conversi, there are Donati or Oblati, must testimonial letters be required before the reception of the habit of Donati and Oblati, or rather of Conversi?—Response. Before the reception of the habit of Donati and Oblati.

“8. Is the reception of the habit without testimonial letters null?—Response. The reception of the habit is illicit, but not invalid; testimonial letters omitted at reception to the habit must be obtained as soon as possible, otherwise the Novices can by no means be admitted to profession.

“9. Is a profession invalid if it is made with the testimonial letters omitted?—Response. It is not invalid, but illicit.” Sacred Congregation on the State of Regulars, 1 May 1851.

The Decree Romani Pontifices of 25 January 1848 concerning the testimonial letters to be sought from Ordinaries “regards only male religious, not nuns.” But it must be observed everywhere. Sacred Congregation on the State of Regulars, 25 February 1863.

The laws to be observed in proving those who petition to be admitted to the religious habit and in admitting novices to profession are contained in the Decree Regulari Disciplinae of 25 January 1848 for Italy and the adjacent Islands, Savoy included. Bizzarri, Collect., pp. 832 ff., ed. 1875.

“Is a profession made without first observing the form of the Decree Regulari disciplinae null or merely illicit?—Response. It is merely illicit, not null.” The same Sacred Congregation, 16 January 1852.

Priests cannot, for the Vestition of Nuns, the emission of Vows, etc., use books of the Nuns unless they have been approved by the Holy See, or at least by the Ordinaries. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 12 September 1857, Molinen., ad 16.

“The Celebrant who is to receive the vows of those professing, after receiving the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, after the Confiteor and the words which are customarily said before the Communion of the faithful have been completed, shall turn toward those professing while holding the Sacred Host in his hand; then they shall each read their profession in a loud voice, and after each one has read it, he shall immediately receive the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist. But in the renewal of vows, the Celebrant, turned toward the Altar, shall wait until those renewing have pronounced the formula of vows; unless they are few, they shall all recite the formula of renewal together, with one leading, and afterward shall receive the Most Holy Body of the Lord in order. This method, nevertheless, once it has been received, is by no means to be placed in the respective Constitutions of the Congregations. Any particular Decrees whatsoever operating to the contrary notwithstanding, which are to be considered wholly revoked and abrogated.” General Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 14 August 1894.

“Does the General Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites of 14 August 1894, by which, in order to remove every ambiguity and introduce uniformity, a method to be observed in profession and renewal of vows within Mass is established, have binding force for all Religious Congregations of either sex?—Response. Affirmative, where vows are pronounced or renewed within Mass.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 5 June 1896.

The qualities required in those to be admitted are those which are prescribed “in the Constitution of Sixtus V Cum de omnibus, with the moderation of Gregory XIV, and in the Decree of Clement VIII Cum ad regularem disciplinam, as well as in the rules and Constitutions of the respective Order.” Sacred Congregation on the State of Regulars, 1 May 1851. In the aforesaid Decree of Clement VIII one has Instructions concerning the reception and education of novices in monasteries and convents designated or to be designated. Bizzarri, Collect., pp. 843 ff., 867 ff.

“Conversi shall not be received before the twentieth year of their age, and unless they know at least the chief heads of Christian doctrine.” Instruction concerning the reception and education of novices, issued by command of Clement VIII, 19 March 1693; Sacred Congregation on the State of Regulars, 1 May 1851, to the seventh; Encyclical Letter Neminem latet, 19 March 1857.

“The Sacred Congregation…has judged…that it is not lawful…to exact anything from a novice…under any pretext whatever…except food and clothing for the time during which he shall be on probation.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 11 December 1789; Council of Trent, Session 25, De Regularibus, ch. 16.

“The mind of the Sacred Congregation is that henceforth the year of probation or novitiate and solemn profession be made in monasteries designated for the novitiate according to the form of the Constitution of Clement VIII Regularis disciplinae restitutioni…in such a way that, according to the prescription of the Council of Trent, Session 25, ch. 16, De Regularibus, when the time of the novitiate has been completed, Superiors shall admit to profession the novices whom they have found suitable, or shall eject them from the monastery.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 12 July 1793. On 19 September 1686, moreover, the Sacred Congregation had declared null any vestition and profession made in a convent not designated for the novitiate, adding that “the year of probation is to be computed from the day of arrival at the lawful place of novitiate.” Bizzarri, Collect., pp. 279 ff.

“1. When clerical or lay novices have in good faith received the habit before the proper time, in such a way that when the year and day of novitiate have been completed they have not attained the age prescribed by the Constitution for profession, can profession be deferred for them, without a dispensation and danger of nullity, until they have attained the prescribed age? 2. Can profession sometimes be deferred, without a dispensation and danger of nullity, both for clerics and for laymen who, when the year and day of novitiate have been completed, have attained the age required for profession, if, according to the prudent judgment of the Father Vicar General or of the Fathers of the conventual chapter, grave causes for deferring profession are present?—Response. To both, affirmative, and more, etc.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 12 January 1731.—Cf. no. 277.

“When can those professed in simple vows make the renunciation of which the Council of Trent, Session 25, ch. 16, De Regularibus, treats, and by which they abdicate from themselves the dominion of their property?—Response. The renunciation which the cited chapter 16, Session 25, De Regularibus, of the Council of Trent regards has place for those professed in simple vows within the two months immediately preceding the profession of solemn vows.” Decree of Pius IX, 1 August 1862.

“For the validity of the renunciations of novices who are minors and of female novices, which are made on the occasion of profession, does it suffice to observe the form of the Council of Trent, or are the solemnities prescribed by the present judicial code” concerning contracts of women and minors “necessary?—Response. Affirmative to the first part; negative to the second.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 17 March 1843. A renunciation once made in this manner can indeed be renewed at the proper time according to the prescribed formalities of the code, but it cannot be changed. Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 16 September 1885.

“Those professed in the said simple vows shall be participants in all the graces and privileges which those professed in solemn vows lawfully use, enjoy, and possess in the aforesaid Order. “The years of profession which are required in the said Order in order that one may enjoy active and passive voice and may be admitted to offices shall be computed from the day of the emission of simple vows.” Sacred Congregation on the State of Regulars, 12 June 1888, nos. 6 and 8.

“It is asked whether those professed in simple vows, who by the cited Decree (Sacred Congregation on the State of Regulars, 12 June 1858, nos. 6 and 8), as regards the rights both of graces and privileges and of active and passive voice, are equated with those professed in solemn vows, can lawfully and validly be and be capable of being elected, as those professed in solemn vows, as prelates or Superiors in the same Order?—Response. Negative.” Sacred Congregation on the State of Regulars, 16 January 1891.

“His Holiness wills and commands that all who are to be promoted to Orders, both minor and major, perform the spiritual exercises for ten continuous days before Ordination, in precisely the same manner which is prescribed for those to be promoted at Rome, Constitution Apostolica sollicitudo of Alexander VII. Likewise, let all those women who wish to embrace the religious state in any monastery whatsoever, even one subject to Regulars, perform the same exercises for ten days before they receive the habit and are admitted to the novitiate; and the same exercises are to be repeated for ten days before they are admitted to profession. His Holiness furthermore desires…that all professed nuns once a year, for some period of time which shall seem opportune, perform the same exercises.” Encyclical of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 9 October 1682.

“…With regard to religious families of whatever Order, Congregation, and Institute in which solemn vows are emitted, We establish and decree that any profession of solemn vows whatsoever, made either knowingly or unknowingly, in any manner, under any pretext and color, by any novices whatsoever, even lay novices and conversi, who, although they have completed probation and the novitiate as required by law, have not first emitted a profession of simple vows and remained in it for a complete three years, shall be wholly null, invalid, and of no force, even though either the Superiors, or the novices, or both respectively have the intention of receiving and being received to solemn vows and of emitting them, and all the rites prescribed for the profession of solemn vows are employed.” Brief of Pius IX Ad universalis Ecclesiae, 7 February 1862.—Solemn profession can for just causes be further deferred by the Superior General or Provincial, but not beyond the completed age of twenty-five years. Encyclical Letter of the Sacred Congregation on the State of Regulars Neminem latet, 19 March 1857, to which this Instruction was added for the territory of the Austrian Empire: “…But the particular circumstances of affairs require that in religious houses situated in the aforesaid territory the profession of solemn vows be deferred according to the custom and practice introduced there for some years past. Therefore, it is the mind and will of His Holiness that Regular Superiors ought to use the faculty attributed to them in the said decree, namely, of deferring the profession of solemn vows, according to the custom and practice mentioned above.” Cf. Franciscus Sentis, Clementis Papae VIII Decretales, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1870, p. 81.

From the declarations of the Sacred Congregation on the State of Regulars of 12 June, 6 August 1858, 25 February 1859, etc., the simple vows of which there is question are perpetual on the part of the one vowing, and dispensation from them is reserved to the Supreme Pontiff. On the part of the Order, however, they can be dissolved by the dismissal of those professed, in such a way that, dismissal having been given, those professed are by that very fact freed from every bond of the said vows. The faculty of dismissing them belongs to the Master General of the Order with his General Council, who, for extraordinary cases, can subdelegate at least three upright and prudent religious. Neither a process nor the form of a trial is required for decreeing dismissal; rather, it can be undertaken with the truth of the fact alone having been considered, yet with the greatest charity and prudence and for just and reasonable causes. No one, however, can be dismissed because of an illness arising after profession of simple vows.

“It sometimes happens that one simply professed petitions for his own dismissal, asserting that he does not have, or has lost, the spirit and vocation for the religious life. It is now asked whether this assertion of his, obstinately maintained, even if no other cause of dismissal is present, can be considered a sufficient ground and a just and reasonable cause, to the end that he, bound by a simple vow, can be dismissed from the Order?—Response. Negative, since the simple vows of which there is question are perpetual on the part of the one vowing, and dispensation from them is reserved to the Supreme Pontiff.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 19 November 1886.—Cf. M. E., vol. 6, part 1, p. 126.

“Can those who perhaps have donned the religious habit when already older than twenty-five years or near that age, after the year of novitiate has been completed, be admitted to solemn vows and profession, or must a further three years of probation be awaited also with such persons?—Response. Negative to the first part; affirmative to the second.” Sacred Congregation on the State of Regulars, 20 January 1860.

“In the case in which a secular priest who has long passed his twenty-fifth year petitioned for and obtained the habit, can solemn profession (namely, of solemn vows), after profession of simple vows has been emitted, be deferred for him beyond the customary three years, if, namely, within the three years of simple vows he has not given sufficient indications of his vocation?—Response. Negative; namely, it cannot be deferred.” Sacred Congregation, 16 August 1866. “They declared, nevertheless, that recourse must be had to the Sacred Congregation in particular cases in which some peculiar cause concurs.” Bizzarri, Collect., p. 867, ed. 1885.

“…1. In all and each of the monasteries of nuns of whatever Order or Institute in which solemn vows are emitted, when probation and the novitiate have been completed according to the prescription of the Sacred Council of Trent, the Apostolic Constitutions, and the laws of the Order or Institute approved by the Holy See, let the female novices emit simple vows after they have completed the age of sixteen years established by the same Council of Trent, or another higher age which perhaps is required by the Constitutions of their own Order or Institute approved by the Holy See.

“2. After the completion of three years, to be computed from the day on which they emitted simple vows, let those professed in this manner, if they are found worthy, be admitted to the profession of solemn vows; with any power of dispensing in this matter being withdrawn, in such a way, namely, that if any should be admitted to solemn profession before the complete three years have elapsed, for any cause whatsoever, the profession itself would be wholly invalid and of no effect.

“3. Nevertheless, Indults already imparted by the Holy See, by force of which, in some places or Institutes, the profession of simple vows can be emitted for a longer time, are declared to remain in their full force. “4. Furthermore, for just and reasonable causes, concerning which both the Superior of the monastery and the Mistress of Novices must give testimony in writing, the Ordinary for monasteries subject to his jurisdiction, and the Superior General or Provincial for monasteries which enjoy the privilege of exemption, can permit, in particular cases, that the profession of solemn vows be deferred, but not beyond the completed age of twenty-five years.

“5. Simple vows emitted as stated above are perpetual on the part of the one vowing, and dispensation from them is reserved to the Roman Pontiff.

“6. Those thus professed in simple vows use and enjoy the same indulgences, privileges, and spiritual favors which those professed in solemn vows of each one’s own monastery lawfully use and enjoy; and insofar as they are overtaken by death, they respectively have a right to the same suffrages.

“7. They are bound to the observance of the rules and constitutions no less than those solemnly professed; likewise, they are bound to assist at choir; but insofar as they are lawfully impeded from assisting at choir, they are not bound to the private recitation of the Divine Office.

“8. The time prescribed by the constitutions of any Order or Institute for obtaining active and passive voice is computed from the day of the emission of simple vows; nevertheless, those professed in simple vows shall never have a vote, or indeed even a place, in chapters in which, and insofar as, there is question of admitting candidates to solemn profession. They can indeed be deputed to minor offices of the monastery; but they cannot be elected to the duties of Superior, Vicaress, Mistress of Novices, Assistant or Councilor, and Bursar.

“9. Those who first pronounced simple vows are considered to have preference by law, as being seniors; yet in such a way that any who, according to what was stated above, have deferred solemn profession beyond three years shall in the meantime yield place even to younger solemnly professed nuns, and shall receive again the rights acquired by reason of the earlier profession as soon as they themselves have also emitted solemn vows.

“10. The dowry established for each monastery must be delivered to the monastery itself before the profession of simple vows.

“11. Those professed in simple vows retain the radical dominion of their goods, concerning which they cannot dispose definitively except within the two months immediately preceding solemn profession, according to the norm of the Sacred Council of Trent, Session XXV, De Regularibus et Monialibus, chapter XVI. The administration of the same goods, as well as the disbursement and use of any revenues whatsoever, is wholly forbidden to them. Therefore, before profession of simple vows, they must cede, for the time during which they shall remain in the same profession of simple vows, the administration, usufruct, and use to whomever they please, and even to their own Order or monastery, insofar as nothing prevents this on its part and they themselves, with full liberty, judge it opportune. But if during the time of simple vows other goods come to them by a lawful title, they indeed acquire the radical dominion of them, but they must cede the administration, usufruct, and use as soon as possible, as above, while also observing the law of not abdicating radical dominion except within the two months immediately preceding solemn profession.

“12. For the dismissal from the monastery of the aforesaid women professed in simple vows, recourse must be had to the Holy See in individual cases, distinctly setting forth the grave causes which seem to counsel or demand dismissal.

“13. To a Sister professed in simple vows departing from the monastery, whether because of a dispensation from vows obtained from the Holy Apostolic See or because of a decree of dismissal issued as above, the dowry must be restored intact as regards the principal, the fruits being excluded.

“The Sacred Congregation strictly commands that all the things prescribed, declared, and sanctioned above be observed and put into execution, under precept of obedience, by all whom they concern, any contrary things whatsoever notwithstanding, even those worthy of special and individual mention, from which His Holiness declares that special and full derogation has been made for the effect of the foregoing.” Decree Perpensis of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 3 May 1902.

“Those professed in simple vows are not bound to the recitation of the Divine Office outside choir.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 28 July 1902.

The chapter for admitting to solemn profession has a merely consultative vote. In it “a discussion concerning the qualities of the candidate can also have place; the scrutiny, however, must be conducted by secret ballots. Furthermore, if all or most of the ballots should be contrary to admission to solemn profession, so that, with article IV of the Decree itself also having been considered, there would be question of dismissing the Sister from the monastery, the matter would have to be submitted to the judgment of the Holy See, to which, therefore, the Ordinary—or, for exempt monasteries, the Regular Prelate—shall transmit a distinct report of all things.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 18 July 1902.

“By the Decree Perpensis temporum adiunctis of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 3 May 1902, it was prescribed that in monasteries of nuns in which solemn vows are emitted, simple vows also be prefixed to them by the novices; moreover, by a Response of the same Sacred Congregation given in a case of Bologna on 28 July 1902, it is resolved that the rite or ceremonial received in each Monastery is to be employed in emitting the first profession, for which, with the words expressing the solemnity of the vows, if they are present, suppressed from the customary formula, it is to be added that the novice pronounces simple vows according to the Decree issued by the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars on 3 May 1902; but that the second profession can be emitted privately in choir or in an interior oratory before the community into the hands of the Superior, with the prior approval of the Ordinary or, as regards exempt Monasteries, of the Regular Prelate. These things therefore having been sanctioned—that in the first profession of simple vows the received rite is to be employed, with only the words expressing the solemnity of the vows suppressed, and that the second profession of solemn vows can be emitted privately—this doubt occurs to me:

“1. Does it belong to the Ordinary or, as regards exempt Monasteries, to the Prelate of the Regulars, after hearing the opinion of the Superior, to decree that the second profession also be made publicly before the Ordinary or the Ordinary’s commissioner?

“2. What ceremonial is to be employed in the second profession if it is made privately before the Superior, and what ceremonial is to be employed if it is made publicly before the Ordinary or his commissioner? 3. Whether and in what manner, in the latter case, the symbolic actions are to be retained: the blessing and bestowal of the veil, ring, and crown, which hitherto were employed in the rite of solemn profession and, according to the mind of the Decree Perpensis temporum adiunctis, henceforth will already be in use in the first profession of simple vows?

“Response. To the first: Affirmative, provided that the Superior and the Community request that the profession in question be made publicly. To the second: In either case of the second profession, it is required only that the Professed pronounce the formula of profession, employing the words which express the solemnity of the vows. To the third: Provision was made in the second.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 15 January 1903.

“Those professed in simple vows must remain in houses of profession and studies and observe perfect common life. For validly emitting solemn vows after simple vows, express profession is required, and therefore tacit profession is wholly abrogated.” Sacred Congregation on the State of Regulars, 12 June 1858. “His Holiness…established and decreed that, notwithstanding the Apostolic Letters of Clement VIII and any other contrary things whatsoever, those professed in simple vows can lawfully and freely emit the profession of solemn vows at the proper time in the convent or house in which they are found, with the other things to be observed by law nevertheless being observed, without being bound to profess in the house in which the novitiate was completed.” The same Sacred Congregation, 9 December 1859. Cf. Decrees of Clement VIII Regularis disciplinae, 12 March 1596; Sanctissimus in Christo Pater, 20 June 1599; Nullus omnino, 25 June 1555; Constitution of Urban VIII Sacra Congregatio, 21 September 1624.

“Religious profession is not invalidated by the rescripts of which there is question (namely, of secularization), and therefore the recipients of the Indult are not bound to repeat profession and the novitiate when they petition to return to the cloisters, saving, nevertheless, a custom lawfully introduced and the prescriptions of the individual Regular Orders. Suitable documents concerning their previous life and morals while they were living in the world can, nevertheless, be required by the Religious Superiors, and they can be obliged to perform spiritual exercises.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 30 January 1824.

“The precedence of religious who have obtained an Indult of perpetual secularization is to be computed from the day of their return to religion.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 30 April 1838.

“Are young men who had emitted simple vows before exclaustration (because their college was suppressed) to be considered free from them, in such a way that, if the monasteries are opened again, they must begin and pursue the novitiate according to the Decree of the Sacred Congregation on the State of Regulars Neminem latet, 19 March 1857?—Response. Negative.” Sacred Congregation on the State of Regulars, 4 July 1862. Bizzarri, Collect., ed. 1885, p. 864.

“As Institutes of simple vows have been very greatly increased by a singular benefit of God, just as many good things arise from them, so the easy departure of members of societies of this kind, and the consequent return by established law to the diocese of origin, gives rise to some inconveniences. Moreover, the poverty of temporal goods by which the Church is now oppressed renders these more grave, whence Bishops often cannot provide that those men lead their life honorably. Considering these and other things of the same kind, even concerning members of Orders of solemn vows, some sacred Prelates of places, for the decorum of the ecclesiastical order and the edification of the faithful, petitioned the Apostolic See with earnest prayers that some remedy be applied. Therefore, when Our Most Holy Lord Leo XIII had referred the whole matter to this Sacred Congregation placed over the affairs and consultations of Bishops and Regulars, the Most Eminent Fathers, in a plenary assembly held in the Vatican buildings on 29 August 1892, after prior mature examination and discussion and after considering the whole rationale of the matter, judged that opportune provisions should be issued through a general decree to be observed everywhere for all future times. Since Our Most Holy Lord, in an audience kindly granted to the undersigned Secretary on 23 September of this year 1892, deigned to approve and confirm them, the things which follow are established and decreed by Apostolic authority through the present decree.

“I. The Constitution of Saint Pius V of 14 October 1568, beginning Romanus Pontifex, and the declaration of Pius IX of happy memory issued on 12 June 1858, by which the Superiors of Regular Orders are prohibited from granting dimissorial letters to novices or to those professed in simple triennial vows, so that they may be promoted to Sacred Orders by title of poverty, remaining firm, the same provisions are extended also to Institutes of simple vows, in such a way that henceforth the Superiors of these Institutes cannot grant dimissorial letters for Sacred Orders or in any manner promote members to Sacred Orders by title of common table or of mission, except only those members who have already emitted vows which are indeed simple but perpetual, and have been stably aggregated to their own Institute; or who have remained at least three years in temporary simple vows, as regards those Institutes which defer perpetual profession beyond three years. To this effect, all Indults and privileges already obtained from the Holy See are revoked, as are contrary provisions contained in the respective Constitutions, even if such Constitutions were approved by the Holy Apostolic See.

“II. Hence it is fitting that it be known that in the future there will be no dispensation from the general rule that a member of a Congregation of solemn vows is to be promoted to major Orders only after he has first emitted solemn profession, or that a member attached to an Institute of simple vows is to be promoted only after he has persevered for a complete three years in simple vows. But if at times a lawful cause occurs why someone should receive Sacred Orders before the three years have been completed, a dispensation can be sought from the Apostolic See so that the cleric can pronounce solemn vows although he has not completed the three years; but as regards Institutes of simple vows, so that he can emit perpetual simple vows although he has not completed the time prescribed by the Constitutions of the respective Institute for the profession of perpetual simple vows.

“III. The provisions contained in the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, issued by command of Urban VIII of happy memory on 21 September 1624, beginning Sacra Congregatio, and in the Decree of the same Sacred Congregation, issued by command of Innocent XII of happy memory on 24 July 1694, beginning Instantibus, and in other general Decrees, by which the method to be observed by Superiors of Regular Orders in expelling their own members is regulated, not only remain in their force, but are imposed for observance also upon Superiors of Institutes of simple vows whenever there is question of dismissing a member professed in vows which are indeed simple but perpetual, or one bound by temporary simple vows and furthermore constituted in Sacred Orders; in such a way that they also cannot dismiss any of them, as was just stated, except for a grave, external, and public fault, and unless the guilty person is also incorrigible. But in order that someone truly be considered incorrigible, Superiors must first give a threefold admonition and correction at distinct times; and when this has accomplished nothing, the Superiors must institute a process against the delinquent, confront the accused with what results from the process, and grant him suitable time within which he can present his defenses either by himself or through another religious of the same Institute. But if the accused himself has not presented his own defenses, the Superior or tribunal must appoint as defender ex officio, as above, a member of the respective Institute. After these things, the Superior with his Council can pronounce a sentence of expulsion or dismissal; this, however, shall have no effect if the condemned man has duly appealed from the sentence pronounced to the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, until a definitive judgment shall have been pronounced by the same Sacred Congregation. But whenever, for grave causes, the aforesaid method of proceeding cannot be observed, recourse must then be had to this Sacred Congregation for the purpose of obtaining a dispensation from the prescribed solemnities and the faculty of proceeding in a summary manner according to the practice prevailing in this Sacred Congregation.

“IV. Members professed in solemn vows, or in perpetual or temporary simple vows, who are constituted in Sacred Orders and have been expelled or dismissed, shall remain perpetually suspended until the Holy See provides for them in another manner; and, in addition, until they have found a benevolent receiving Bishop and have provided themselves with an ecclesiastical patrimony.

“V. Those constituted in Sacred Orders and bound by simple vows, whether perpetual or temporary, who of their own accord have petitioned for and obtained dismissal from the Apostolic See, or otherwise have by Apostolic privilege been dispensed from simple vows, whether perpetual or temporary, shall not depart from the cloister until they have found a benevolent receiving Bishop and have provided themselves with an ecclesiastical patrimony; otherwise they shall remain suspended from the exercise of the Orders received. This is extended also to members professed in temporary simple vows who have already been released from every bond of profession because the time for which the vows were pronounced by them has elapsed.

“VI. Those professed in either solemn or simple vows shall not be admitted to Sacred Orders by local Ordinaries unless, besides the other things established by law, they present testimonial letters showing that they have devoted themselves to sacred theology for at least one year, if there is question of the subdiaconate; for at least two years, if of the diaconate; and, as regards the priesthood, for at least three years, with the regular course of the other studies nevertheless having been previously completed.

“The aforesaid Sacred Congregation, by the express mandate of His Holiness, establishes and decrees these things, any contrary things whatsoever notwithstanding, even those worthy of special and individual mention.

“Given at Rome, from the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 4 November 1892.”

“1. Are these words of the Decree Auctis admodum, ‘they have found a benevolent receiving Bishop and have provided themselves with an ecclesiastical patrimony,’ to be understood conjunctively, in such a way that both are necessary for removing the suspension—namely, both to find a benevolent receiving Bishop and to constitute an ecclesiastical patrimony—or does it suffice merely to find a benevolent receiving Bishop?

“2. Are these words which are read in no. V, ‘otherwise they shall remain suspended from the exercise of the Orders received,’ to be understood in such a way that a religious who, after obtaining Apostolic permission, has departed from the cloister without first finding a benevolent receiving Bishop or providing himself with an ecclesiastical patrimony is suspended only until he finds a benevolent receiving Bishop and constitutes an ecclesiastical patrimony for himself; or is he suspended until the suspension is removed by the Apostolic See, after a benevolent receiving Bishop has been found and an ecclesiastical patrimony constituted?

“Response. To the first: Affirmative to the first part; negative to the second. To the second: Likewise affirmative to the first part; negative to the second.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 20 November 1895.

“The instructions to be given in this regard (concerning expulsion) are summed up in the sense that the Superiors of religious Orders, Congregations, Institutes, etc., shall set forth before the same Sacred Congregation (of Discipline) the grounds of incorrigibility, the obstinacy of the individual; and at the same time shall request the faculty of a summary process, which is granted, always saving the examination of witnesses and the defense of the accused, made by a religious to be deputed ex officio; and that the sentence of expulsion be notified to the Ordinary of origin of the condemned man and to the condemned man himself, to whom the right of appealing it before the aforesaid Sacred Congregation is reserved.” Sacred Congregation of Regular Discipline, 12 June 1883.

“In order that the decrees of the Council of Trent concerning the faithful observance of the vow of poverty may be observed more faithfully, it is commanded that no one of the friars, even if he is a Superior, can possess as his own, or even in the name of the convent, immovable or movable goods, or money, revenues, alms—whether from sermons, lectures, or for Masses to be celebrated either in their own Church or anywhere whatsoever—or things acquired by their own just labor and cause and under any name whatsoever, even if they were subsidies from blood relatives, pious benefactions, legacies, or donations; rather, let all these things be immediately delivered to the Superior and incorporated into the convent, and let them be mingled with its other goods, revenues, money, and proceeds, so that common food and clothing can thereby be supplied to all. But of those things which had been granted for necessity, let no one possess anything as his own or use it as his own. No dispensation, no permission of any Superiors whatsoever, as regards immovable or movable goods, can excuse the friars from being subject to the fault and penalty imposed by the same decrees of the Council and to be incurred by the very fact, even if the Superiors assert that they can grant dispensations or permissions of this kind; We will that no credence whatever be given to them in this matter.” Constitution of Clement VIII for the reform of Regulars, 20 March 1601, nos. 3, 5, 7.

“The Bishop of Zamora in Spain sets forth that N. N., a Nun of the Premonstratensian Order in the convent of the city of N. in this diocese, has from the Spanish civil Constitutions the right to enter upon an inheritance which has fallen to her from the death of her brother, a priest recently deceased. Hence it is asked:

“1. Whether the aforesaid Nun, given the solemn religious profession which she emitted long ago, can lawfully in conscience undertake proceedings, either personally or through a procurator, so that she may enter upon the inheritance in her own name before the secular judge, yet for the good of the whole Community, as is fitting; or whether she rather needs a lawful dispensation from the vow of poverty in order to undertake the aforesaid juridical proceedings for acquiring the inheritance?

“2. Given that she needs a dispensation, can this be granted to her by the Superior of the convent or by the Bishop to whom the convent is subject; or, by reason of the solemn vow, must it necessarily be obtained from the Apostolic See? Finally, given the necessity of having recourse to the Apostolic See for the aforesaid dispensation, the Bishop petitioner humbly requests:

“3. That the faculty be granted to the aforesaid Nun to institute and complete juridical proceedings through a procurator for entering upon the inheritance for herself and in her own name, which shall redound to the good of the whole Community.

“4. That a sufficient faculty be granted to the same Bishop petitioner so that he may dispense from the vows of poverty in similar cases, so that he may be able to provide for the urgency which regularly occurs in them.

“Response. To the first and second: Provision will be made in the Third. To the third: Affirmative for the faculty requested; yet in such a way that the inheritance be acquired for the Monastery. To the fourth: Affirmative for the faculty requested for three years, only for urgent cases, namely, those in which time does not permit recourse to the Holy See.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 15 January 1897.

“The Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lord Cardinal Victor Augustus Isidore, Archbishop of Mechelen, together with his suffragans, petitioned Our Most Holy Lord that, for the removal of any doubts whatsoever, he might deign to explain and declare whether the rescript of 1 December 1820, by which the Sacred Penitentiary, by Apostolic authority, granted to Regulars of either sex in Belgium, even those solemnly professed, that they could acquire, retain, and administer goods and dispose of them, notwithstanding the solemn vow of poverty, still remains now in its full force.” The Decree of the year 1820 is this: “The Sacred Penitentiary, understanding that the Government wills absolutely that that former decree of 18 February 1809 (namely, the decree concerning congregations of women’s hospital houses, art. 9: ‘Each hospital sister shall retain the entire ownership of her goods and revenues, and the rights to administer them and dispose of them in conformity with the Napoleonic Code’) be observed by the Regulars of the Kingdom of Belgium, by which the ownership, possession, and administration of goods which have come to them is vindicated to the individual male or female religious, grants by express Apostolic authority to Regulars of either sex already solemnly professed that they may acquire, retain, and administer those goods, and dispose of them for pious and honorable uses, notwithstanding the vow of poverty, provided that they do this with due dependence upon their lawful Superiors.”

“Our Most Holy Lord Leo XIII, Pope by divine providence…commanded that the response be: Affirmative; and by the tenor of the present letters deigned to declare, insofar as necessary, that all and each of the Regulars of either sex in Belgium, even those who have pronounced solemn vows, have validly and lawfully exercised and do exercise all the aforesaid acts, and therefore could and can with a safe conscience assert, even with an oath, that they willed to acquire, according to the norm of the civil laws, true dominion of the goods possessed by them, together with the right of disposing of them. Concerning these things His Holiness commanded that this decree be issued and entered into the acts of the Congregation mentioned above (for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs). Any contrary things whatsoever by no means standing in the way.” The same Sacred Congregation, 31 July 1878.

“Those professed in simple vows (in Orders in which solemn vows are emitted) can retain, as they say, the radical dominion of their goods, but the administration of them and the disbursement and use of the revenues are wholly forbidden to them. Therefore, before the profession of simple vows, they must cede, for the time during which they shall remain in the same profession of simple vows, the administration, usufruct, and use to whomever they please, and even to their own Order, if they shall judge this according to their pleasure.” Sacred Congregation on the State of Regulars, 12 June 1858.

The same provision was extended to nuns of solemn vows who, before those vows, must now emit simple vows for three years. Cf. no. 277, Decree Perpensis. With respect to the more recent Institutes of simple vows: “115. Before the first emission of vows, they (Sisters and male Religious) must dispose of the use and usufruct of their revenues or fruits in whatever manner they please.… They must also cede the administration of their goods to a person or persons favorable to them.…—116. The cession of administration and the disposition of use and usufruct shall no longer have force in the case of departure from the Institute.…—117. The revocation and even alteration of these acts of Cession and Disposition cannot lawfully be made while the vows endure without the permission of the Moderatrix General.…—119. Those professed are prohibited from abdicating radical dominion before the profession of perpetual vows by acts inter vivos;—121. and without the permission of the Apostolic See.—120. It is fitting that all freely dispose of their goods by testament before vows.—122. Professed Sisters, both to make and to change a testament, need the permission of the Apostolic See.…—124. Concerning goods which come to the Sisters after vows have been emitted…they must or respectively can dispose according to the norms hitherto established.…—125. Sisters can in no manner dispose of a dowry offered to the Institute.—126. Whatever the Sisters shall have acquired after the emission of vows by their own industry or in consideration of the Institute, they cannot ascribe or reserve to themselves; rather, all those things must be assigned to the goods of the community, for the common utility of the Institute or house.” Norms of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 28 June 1901.

“…Therefore, taking care lest from gifts…grave inconveniences arise even under the appearance of good…We wholly forbid to Regular persons of either sex every and any bestowal and sending of gifts…except lighter foods or drinks, or little gifts pertaining to devotion or religion…to be delivered…unless they are in fact for divine worship and the true needs of the poor of Christ, with the order of charity observed in this and account taken of necessity, to be relieved with the counsel and consent of the Superiors, or otherwise in lawful matters.… Declaring, nevertheless, that through these things the praiseworthy hospitality commended by Apostolic teaching and the sacred canons, especially toward the poor and pilgrims, is by no means diminished or prohibited.… For the same reason We also strictly prohibit anyone…from receiving anything contrary to this prohibition expressed above.… But if anyone shall have received anything, he shall not make what he received his own.… Rather, by that very fact…he shall be wholly bound to its restitution in both forums; to such an extent that, unless the restitution itself has actually been made, he cannot be absolved even in the forum of conscience.… We will, moreover, that this restitution be made to that monastery, house, or other place from whose goods the bestowal was made; or, if the gift was not made from its goods, to the place in which the same religious donor emitted profession.…” Clement VIII, Constitution Religiosae Congregationes, 19 June 1594.—“…It declares that gifts can be given by religious of either sex for causes of gratitude, of conciliating benevolence and preserving it toward the religion itself or the convent, and for other causes containing in their nature an act of virtue and merit, yet modestly and discreetly, and provided that this not be done except with the permission of the local Superiors, and also with the consent of the greater part of the convent, if such consent…is required in that religion.…” Urban VIII, Constitution Nuper a Congregatione, 16 October 1640. Cf. Constitutions and Decrees to Be Read by Regulars at the Public Table or Chapter.

“Common life shall be established in all houses of novitiate.… In other houses a common treasury shall be established…in which all the religious shall deposit money.…” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 22 April 1851; Bizzarri, pp. 852, 853; cited Norms, nos. 127, 128.

“Since it is fitting that men who, freed from secular cares through Regular vows, have professed an institute of stricter life should abhor all familiarity with women, hence it is that it has been sanctioned both by decrees of general and provincial Councils and by Constitutions of the Supreme Pontiffs, especially the most recent Constitutions of Saint Pius V, Gregory XIII, and Benedict XIV, that no access be open to any women whatsoever within the enclosures of male religious, under the most grave penalties inflicted both upon men who shall have admitted women within the precincts of Regular houses under any pretext whatsoever, and upon women who shall have violated the enclosure of the same houses. Adhering to these most salutary sanctions, the Sacred Congregation, although it has not ceased from time to time to admonish Prefects of Missions if it learned that any had sometimes been insufficiently vigilant in this matter, nevertheless, with the passage of time—whether through forgetfulness of the law or because the disposition of man is prone to diminish the force of even the most sacred laws—it has more frequently happened, as was reported to the same Congregation in the letters of many, that women were sometimes admitted into the stations and hospices of Missionaries, and received the Sacrament of Penance in rooms or other places within the precincts of the hospices. Knowing well how unbecoming and dangerous this is, the Sacred Congregation, which desires that its Missionaries dwelling among enemies of the Christian name abstain not only from evil but also from every appearance of evil, so that, according to the admonition of the Apostle, they may be without offense to Jews, Gentiles, and the Church of God, upon the report of the Reverend Father Lord Stephen Borgia, Secretary, established and commanded that hospices and stations, or any houses whatsoever of any Order, Congregation, or Regular Institute existing anywhere in mission territories, in which two or three Missionaries of the Latin rite dwell or happen to dwell, be subject to the laws of enclosure, in such a way that it is wholly lawful for no Regular to introduce any woman into the private rooms, lodgings, or retreats of the same hospices or stations under any title, appearance, or pretext, and much less to administer there to them the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance; nor is it lawful for women, under the claim of any permissions whatsoever, to enter the aforesaid private rooms, lodgings, or retreats of the hospices, under the penalties inflicted by the sacred canons and the above-mentioned Constitutions of the Pontiffs against violators of enclosure. But so that access to the interior oratories, churches, and places where sacred rites are performed in the same hospices may be open also to women, so that they may assist at the most holy Sacrifice of the Mass and other ecclesiastical functions and receive the Sacrament of Penance, the same Sacred Congregation declares and decrees that women can be admitted into the interior churches, chapels, or public oratories of the aforesaid hospices, to which, nevertheless, they shall proceed by a direct path and shall not turn aside into rooms or private lodgings, and shall return by the same way by which they entered. The Sacred Congregation furthermore commands and enjoins that the Confessions of women be heard openly in churches, chapels, or public oratories, where these are present; but where these are lacking, in another open and accessible place, and as near as possible to the door of the hospice, to be designated by the respective Ordinaries and, when these are lacking, by the local Superiors of Missions, with an iron grate or another barrier interposed between the face of the Confessor and the woman penitent. Those who shall act otherwise and contravene these most salutary ordinances shall incur the penalties against violators of enclosure and against contemners of the sacred canons and the aforesaid Apostolic Constitutions.

“This Decree of the Sacred Congregation having been reported to Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius VI in an audience held by the same Lord Secretary on 2 July of the current year, His Holiness benignly confirmed it, adding the force of his Apostolic authority, and commanded that it be inviolably observed by all under the penalties mentioned above.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 26 August 1780.

“The Decree (26 August 1780) is to be upheld, but accommodated to the circumstances of places and times, and therefore is to be observed only in those houses which pertain to the missions and in which two or three Regular Missionaries remain stably.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 5 March 1787.

“…The same Sacred Congregation…by special mandate of Our Most Holy Lord Clement X, by this present Decree commands in virtue of holy obedience all and each of the Superiors…that henceforth they shall receive or admit no one to dwell within the cloisters as tertiaries, oblates, donati, commessi, servants, guests, postulants, cantors, or persons designated by any other name whatsoever and clothed or to be clothed in any habit, or under any pretext, cause, or contrived color, unless he has completed the twentieth year of his age; and that they shall wholly remove and eject from the monasteries or Regular houses all thus received or admitted (except only those who, having completed the age of fifteen years, pass the year of probation as clerics or choristers in the habit of novices).…” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 16 May 1675; Bizzarri, Collect., p. 274.

“1. Can a Bishop, by his own authority, permit women who wish to enter as boarders to be received in monasteries subject to enclosure?—2. Likewise, can the Ordinary, by his own authority, transfer any nun temporarily or perpetually from one monastery to another, even of the same Order, when a just cause intervenes?—3. Finally, can the Ordinary, by his own authority, transfer some nun when she has been elected Superior of another monastery, or judges that a transfer of this kind together with this office is useful and expedient?—Response. Negative in all.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 16 July 1884.

“For the Holy See, especially since the time of the Council of Trent, neither permits nor grants that solemn vows be emitted in societies or communities of women unless they dwell under inviolable enclosure and live therein perpetually.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 24 September 1816. Cf. Constitution of Saint Pius V Circa pastoralis. A Bishop can, however, obtain papal enclosure from the Holy See even for nuns with simple vows, with the consent of all nuns having a vote expressed by secret ballots. Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 6 December 1839. Cf. Bizzarri, Collect., p. 412; pp. 723–737, 742, 743; A. S. S., vol. 1, pp. 708 ff.; vol. 31, p. 529; Lucidi, ch. 5, § 2, no. 42.

“1. If the vows are not solemn, are the nuns nevertheless bound to observe the enclosure which they vow by a simple vow, under the censures decreed by the Council of Trent, when the Bishop has restored the enclosure? 2. Does he also incur the penalty of excommunication who enters the enclosure of the monastery without permission, when the enclosure has been restored by the Bishop?—Response. To the first: Negative as regards the penalties prescribed by the sacred canons and Apostolic Constitutions. To the second: Affirmative with respect to censures perhaps imposed by the Bishop.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 1 August 1839.

“Our Lord’s Holiness…not willing that in monasteries of nuns men teach music, singing, or instrumental music either to nuns or to secular women dwelling in the enclosure, either at the grilles or at the door, and much less by entering the monastery, commanded, etc.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 4 August 1800; 18 August 1843.

Since a priest…exercising the office of Pastor in this diocese had signified by letters given during the past month of May that it would be very useful if older boys could be admitted into the schools of the Sisters, and since letters of this kind had also been submitted to the examination of the Sacred Congregation, the same Sacred Congregation decreed that the matter was to be remitted to the Ordinary, so that he could permit the admission of boys up to the completion of their twelfth year, but in separate rooms and in those places where there is necessity or evident utility. Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 16 November 1870, to the Archbishop of Utrecht.

The use of the telephone is not permitted to nuns except by a special faculty of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars and with due precautions employed. From the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 20 March 1895.

“Those women show themselves worthy of singular protection and assistance who, devoting themselves to God in pious and religious Institutes, exercise works of mercy far and wide for the good of their neighbors, not only directly, but also by seeking alms for sustaining the same works, and thereby displaying distinguished praise for humility, patience, charity, and the other virtues. Since, nevertheless, this ministry of collecting alms, because of the feminine disposition of those seeking and the present condition of human society, is not free from dangers unless fortified with suitable precautions, the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, at the request of some Bishops, after the matter had been diligently and maturely considered, established and decreed the things which follow.

“1. In Institutes of simple vows, the members shall not undertake the work of seeking alms except in a spirit of faith, because they seek alms not for themselves but for Christ Jesus himself, mindful of his words: ‘As long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.’ Furthermore, they shall treat the Ordinaries of places, even if they are only passing through their territories, with submission, reverence, and devotion as parents and patrons, whom they shall approach with confidence for counsel, assistance, and protection in every necessity.

“2. It is not lawful for the same Sisters of simple vows to seek alms either within the diocese in which they reside or outside it without the permission of the Ordinary of the place of their respective residence.

“3. Those about to seek alms outside the diocese of their respective residence must furthermore obtain permission from the Ordinary of the place in which they desire to seek alms.

“4. Nothing, however, prevents the Superiors, without any permission having been sought, from accepting alms voluntarily offered from anywhere for relieving the poverty of the houses or pious works over which they preside, or even from seeking them by letters from any honorable and benevolent persons whatsoever, until they are prohibited by the lawful Superior for a reasonable cause.

“5. The Ordinary of the place in which the house of Sisters wishing to seek alms is situated shall not grant them permission: 1.º if the true necessity of the house or pious work is not established for him; 2.º if the collection can conveniently be made through others to be designated by the Ordinary himself. But if the necessity can be met through collection in the place in which the Sisters reside or within their own diocese, the Ordinary shall not impart to them permission to collect alms outside the diocese.

“6. Each permission shall be delivered gratis and in writing, in which each Ordinary can impose the laws and conditions which, in view of the circumstances of places, times, and persons, he shall judge more opportune in the Lord. The permission of the Ordinary of the Sisters’ pious house shall contain either commissorial letters to Pastors or other prudent persons for Sisters seeking alms within the diocese, or commendatory letters to the Ordinaries of other dioceses for Sisters seeking alms outside their own diocese. In the commissorial letters, Pastors or other upright persons shall be commanded to assist the Sisters with counsels and with the best service they can, to watch over their manner of acting, and, if they learn of anything less than upright in them, to report it immediately to the Ordinary himself. In the commendatory letters, the Ordinaries of places shall be entreated that each, in his own diocese, protect and assist the Sisters admitted to seek alms as though he held them as his own subjects.

“7. Each local Ordinary shall not admit Sisters arriving from another diocese to collect alms unless they shall first have shown him the permission of their own Ordinary. But to Sisters presenting such a permission, he may, if he pleases, impart his own permission to seek alms in his diocese. But where Sisters, even though furnished with both permissions, conduct themselves badly in seeking alms, the Ordinary shall immediately command them to return to their own house and, if necessary, compel them even by suitable means.

“8. Superiors, especially outside the place where they have houses, shall never send Sisters to seek alms unless in pairs, mature in age and spirit, within the diocese for no longer than one month, outside the diocese for no longer than two months, and always furnished with that sum of money by which, should any unforeseen case compel them, they can return home immediately. Sisters seeking alms shall always and everywhere be distinguished by the modesty which is fitting, beware of familiarity with men and useless conversations, avoid outcries, taverns, and other unsuitable places, and not make a longer stay in houses than is necessary for awaiting alms. They shall never go about singly, nor be separated from one another unless impelled by necessity. When making a journey, if it can conveniently be done, they shall use the railway; but, as far as they can, they shall neither depart from one place nor arrive at another during the night. They shall forewarn of their future arrival the one to whom the Bishop’s letters were given; and when they have arrived, they shall present themselves to him and employ entreaties that he intercede for obtaining hospitality at some pious Institute of women, or at least with some honorable woman, but never in a house where they could encounter some danger. They shall not omit morning and evening prayers; every day in the morning they shall seek one of the nearer churches and there assist at Mass; each week they shall be refreshed by the Sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist. They shall not seek alms through the places before sunrise or after sunset. When the time assigned to them for seeking has elapsed, without any delay they shall return by a direct route to their own Superior. They shall never demand alms arrogantly or as though due; rather, after briefly and humbly setting forth their own poverty and that of the pious works, they shall accept whatever is voluntarily offered; otherwise, let them patiently trust in divine providence. They shall observe exactly any other suitable norms which may be given by their own Superior.

“Given at Rome, from the Secretariat of the aforesaid Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 27 March 1896.”

“Can custom or prescription bring it about that elections made contrary to the form of the Decree of the Council of Trent, Session 25, ch. 6, De Regularibus, are ratified and valid?—Response. Negative.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 11 March 1836.

“Since in the Constitution Exposcit debitum of 1 January 1583 Gregory XIII commanded that the office of Prioress could not continue beyond three years and that, when the three years had been completed, she should have no authority in the monastery, and since the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars had responded several times in this sense, the Petitioner proposes certain doubts.

“1. It is asked whether the aforesaid Constitutions and resolutions were given for the universal Church and are to be observed?—2. In the negative case, can the Superiors of those Convents whose Constitutions are either silent concerning this election or permit a new election of the Superior be elected again?—3. In either case of number II, and for monasteries in which a new election of the Superior is expressly permitted, it is asked: for the confirmation of this election, does the authority of the Ordinary suffice, or must recourse be had to the Holy See?

“Response. To the first: Affirmative.—To the second: Provision was made in the first.—To the third: Insofar as the Constitutions are silent, or expressly say that another Abbess or Superior is to be elected after three years, the reelection of the same person to the office of Abbess or Superior requires confirmation of the Holy See; but insofar as Constitutions approved by the Holy See after the aforesaid Constitution of Gregory XIII permit a reelection of this kind, the tenor of the same Constitutions is to be observed.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 4 May 1901.

“The rights acquired by each province over its own members remaining safe and intact…the Sacred Congregation on Regular Discipline decreed that all Religious without exception…for as long as, because of present circumstances, they happen to dwell outside the boundaries of the Regular province, whether at home or elsewhere, shall be subject to the supervision and jurisdiction of the territorial Provincial.…” Sacred Congregation on Regular Discipline, 5 August 1872; cf. no. 251; A. S. S., vol. 3, pp. 151 ff.; vol. 7, pp. 407 ff.

“65. Superiors must be obeyed in the exterior, and the extent of the vow of obedience of Religious reaches only to the exterior. But in the interior the matter is otherwise, where God alone and the director enter.—66. A certain new doctrine in the Church of God is worthy of ridicule: that a soul, as regards the interior, ought to be governed by the Bishop; and that if the Bishop is not capable, the soul should approach him with its director. I call the doctrine new because neither Sacred Scripture, nor Councils, nor Canons, nor Bulls, nor the Saints, nor authors have ever handed it down, nor can they hand it down, because the Church does not judge concerning hidden things, and the soul has the right of choosing whomever it sees fit.—67. To say that the interior must be manifested to the external tribunal of Superiors, and that it is a sin not to do this, is a manifest deception, because the Church does not judge concerning hidden things, and by these deceptions and dissimulations they prejudice their own souls.—68. In the world there is no faculty or jurisdiction to command that the letters of the director concerning the interior of the soul be disclosed; and therefore it is necessary to observe that this is an assault of Satan, etc.” Propositions of Michael de Molinos condemned by Innocent XI.

“Just as it is the condition of all human things, however honorable and holy they may be in themselves, so also it is the condition of laws wisely established, that they can be translated and drawn by men through abuse to improper and foreign purposes; and therefore it sometimes happens that they no longer attain the end intended by the legislators, and indeed sometimes that they obtain the contrary effect.

“And it is especially to be lamented that this has occurred with respect to the laws of many Congregations, Societies, or Institutes either of women who pronounce simple or solemn vows, or of men whose profession and governance are wholly lay. For sometimes in their Constitutions a manifestation of conscience had been permitted, so that the members might more easily learn from experienced Superiors, amid doubts, the arduous way of perfection; but, on the contrary, an examination of the intimate conscience, which is reserved solely to the Sacrament of Penance, was introduced by some of these. Likewise, in the Constitutions it was prescribed according to the tenor of the Sacred Canons that sacramental Confession in communities of this kind be made to the respective ordinary and extraordinary Confessors; but the discretion of the Superiors advanced so far that they denied some extraordinary Confessor to subjects even in a case in which they greatly needed him in order to take counsel for their own conscience. Finally, a norm of discretion and prudence had been imparted to them so that they might rightly and holily direct their subjects with respect to particular penances and other works of piety; but this also, through abuse, was extended even to this: that they either permitted them to approach the Sacred Synaxis according to their pleasure, or at times wholly prohibited them. Hence it came about that provisions of this kind, which had been salutarily and wisely established for the spiritual progress of the members and for preserving and fostering the peace and concord of unity in the communities, were not rarely turned to danger of souls, anxiety of consciences, and furthermore disturbance of external peace, as the recourses and complaints of subjects everywhere interposed before the Holy See most evidently prove.

“Therefore Our Most Holy Lord Leo XIII, Pope by divine providence, by reason of that particular solicitude by which he excels toward this most select portion of his flock, in an audience held by me, the Cardinal Prefect of the Sacred Congregation placed over the affairs and consultations of Bishops and Regulars, on 14 December 1890, after all things had been carefully and diligently considered, willed, established, and decreed the things which follow.

“I. His Holiness invalidates, abrogates, and declares to be of no force henceforth any provisions whatsoever of the Constitutions of pious Societies and Institutes of women, whether of simple or solemn vows, and also of men who are wholly lay, even if the said Constitutions received approval from the Apostolic See in any form whatsoever, even that which they call most special, insofar, namely, as they regard in any manner and under any name the intimate manifestation of heart and conscience. Therefore, he seriously enjoins upon the male and female moderators of Institutes, Congregations, and Societies of this kind that the aforesaid provisions be wholly deleted and entirely expunged from their own Constitutions, Directories, and Manuals. He likewise invalidates and abolishes any usages and customs whatsoever concerning this matter, even immemorial ones.

“II. He furthermore strictly prohibits the aforesaid male and female Superiors, of whatever rank and preeminence they may be, from attempting, directly or indirectly, by precept, counsel, fear, threats, or blandishments, to induce the persons subject to them to make a manifestation of conscience of this kind to them; and conversely he commands the subjects to denounce to the major Superiors minor Superiors who dare to induce them to this; and if there is question of a male or female Moderator General, the denunciation must be made by them to this Sacred Congregation.

“III. This, however, by no means prevents subjects from being able freely and spontaneously to open their minds to Superiors for the purpose of obtaining counsel and direction from their prudence amid doubts and anxieties, for the acquisition of virtues and progress in perfection.

“IV. Furthermore, what is prescribed by the Most Holy Council of Trent in Session 25, ch. 10, De Regularibus, and what is established by Benedict XIV of holy memory in the Constitution which begins Pastoralis Curae, remaining firm with respect to the ordinary and extraordinary Confessors of communities, His Holiness admonishes Prelates and Superiors not to deny an extraordinary Confessor to subjects whenever the subjects are driven to this in order to take counsel for their own conscience, without the same Superiors inquiring in any manner into the reason for the petition or showing that they bear it ill. And lest so provident a provision be rendered vain, he exhorts the Ordinaries to designate, in places of their own dioceses in which communities of women exist, suitable priests furnished with faculties, to whom the women can easily have recourse for the Sacrament of Penance.

“V. But as regards the permission or prohibition of approaching the Sacred Synaxis, the same His Holiness decrees that permissions or prohibitions of this kind belong only to the ordinary or extraordinary Confessor, and that Superiors have no authority to interpose themselves in this matter, except in a case in which one of their subjects, after the last sacramental Confession, has been a scandal to the community or has perpetrated a grave external fault, until he has again approached the Sacrament of Penance.

“VI. Hence all are admonished to take care to prepare themselves diligently for and approach the Sacred Synaxis on the days established in their own rules; and whenever, because of the fervor and spiritual progress of someone, the Confessor shall judge it expedient that he approach more frequently, this can be permitted to him by the Confessor himself. But one who has obtained from the Confessor permission for more frequent and even daily Communion shall be bound to inform the Superior of this; and if the latter considers that he has just and grave causes against more frequent Communions of this kind, he shall be bound to manifest them to the Confessor, whose judgment must be wholly acquiesced in.

“VII. The same His Holiness furthermore commands all and each of the Superiors General, Provincial, and local of the Institutes mentioned above, whether of men or of women, diligently and accurately to observe the provisions of this Decree, under the penalties to be incurred by the very fact against Superiors who violate the mandates of the Apostolic See.

“VIII. Finally, he commands that copies of the present Decree, translated into the vernacular tongue, be inserted into the Constitutions of the aforesaid pious Institutes and, at least once a year, at an appointed time in each house, be read in a loud and intelligible voice, either at the public table or in a Chapter specially convoked for this purpose.

“And thus His Holiness established and decreed, any contrary things whatsoever by no means standing in the way, even those worthy of special and individual mention.

“Given at Rome, from the Secretariat of the aforesaid Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 17 December 1890.”

“Most Illustrious and Reverend Lord and Brother: By mandate of Our Most Holy Lord Leo XIII, by the present letter I transmit to Your Excellency the Decree annexed hereto, recently issued by this Sacred Congregation placed over the affairs and consultations of Bishops and Regulars by command of the same His Holiness, by which the manifestation of conscience, by whatever name it may be called, is wholly prohibited both for monasteries of nuns, even of solemn vows, and for Institutes of simple vows of either sex, except only Institutes of men wholly ecclesiastical in nature and governance.

“Declarations and provisions are furthermore given concerning the regulation of Communions and the more ready granting of extraordinary Confessors.

“For this purpose, His Holiness committed to me that the aforesaid Decree be transmitted to Your Excellency as Metropolitan, so that you may take care to communicate copies of it with the Bishops dependent upon Your Excellency; and they in turn are to communicate copies of the same Decree with the individual male and female Superiors of the monasteries and pious houses of their respective dioceses. Finally, His Holiness commands all local Ordinaries not to cease diligently and carefully to watch over and procure the full execution of the aforesaid Decree, even by force of a special delegation of the Apostolic See.

“These were the things to be signified and declared by me to Your Excellency, for whom I beseech all prosperity from the Lord.—Rome, 20 January 1891.”

“1. Is the favor granted to nuns of having recourse to an extraordinary Confessor whenever ‘they are driven to this in order to take counsel for their own conscience’ so unlimited and unconditional that they can use it constantly without ever having recourse to the ordinary Confessor, and without being able to be questioned even by the Bishop on this point and in some manner hindered by him if they were being guided by blameworthy and foolish reasons? “2. Do the additional Confessors have any duties of conscience to refuse to hear the Confessions of the Sisters when they recognize that no plausible motive exists which constrains them to have recourse to them?—3. If several Sisters—and still worse, if the greater part of them—were constantly to have recourse to one of the additional Confessors, must the Bishop remain silent, or intervene with some provision in order to safeguard the maxim sanctioned in the Bull Pastoralis: ‘It is known to be generally established that only one Confessor is to be deputed for each monastery of nuns’?—4. And given that he must intervene, what provision can he lawfully adopt?

“Response. To the first: Negative.—To the second: Affirmative.—To the third: Negative to the first part; affirmative to the second.—To the fourth: Let the Ordinary admonish the nuns and Sisters in question that the provision of article IV of the Decree Quemadmodum constitutes only an exception to the common law, solely for cases of true and absolute necessity, whenever they are driven to this, while that which is prescribed by the Sacred Council of Trent and by the Constitution of Benedict XIV of holy memory beginning Pastoralis curae remains firm.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 1 February 1892.

“1. Who is understood under the name of the Prelate or Superior whose office it is to grant or deny an extraordinary Confessor to subjects? Is it the one who deputed the ordinary Confessor, or rather the one who presides over the house, whether a man or a woman?—2. Since, from the Decree, the Superior, whoever he may be, cannot deny an extraordinary Confessor, nor indeed show that he bears the petition ill, is he bound always to indulge the entreaties of the subject, although he plainly sees that the necessity is feigned and, because of scruples or some other defect of mind, apprehended as true by the one petitioning?—3. Must the Prelate who, from what has been said, grants an extraordinary Confessor to the subject designate by name in each case the person of the Confessor himself, or can the same religious choose, from among the various persons deputed by the Ordinary, the one who is to fulfill this office for him?—4. Whether the Constitutions of certain religious families, by which nuns or religious are forbidden to receive the Sacred Eucharist beyond certain and appointed days, were abrogated in this respect by the Decree of 17 December 1890, in such a way that, notwithstanding them, it is lawful for the Confessor to grant more frequent access to his religious penitents; or whether they still remain in force after the aforesaid Decree.

“Response. To the first: Negative to the first part; affirmative to the second.—To the second: Affirmative; but subjects are to be admonished that they cannot request extraordinary Confessors unless they are driven to this in order to take counsel for their own conscience.—To the third: Negative to the first part; affirmative to the second.—But as regards the last doubt, which concerns more frequent access to the Sacred Synaxis than on the days established in their own rules, those Constitutions by which nuns or religious are forbidden to receive the Sacred Eucharist beyond certain and appointed days are to be considered abrogated.” Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 17 August 1891.