On Particular States

"Not without great sorrow of mind, or rather horror, have the Fathers of this Provincial Synod learned that certain legislators of this region have very recently proposed that a Court of divorce be established, whose office would be to pronounce divorce from the bond on account of adultery. For besides the fact that such a law, which may 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 how many and how great evils flow from such divorce, which render it most hostile to civil society. For under the hope of future divorce marriages are contracted imprudently, quarrels are provoked, and, what the soul shudders to say, adulteries themselves; the bond of charity between families yields place to irreconcilable hatred; fortunes are placed in danger; the whole of society is scandalized. Finally, what will become of the children whose parents have obtained divorce? But We, whom God has placed as watchmen in this part of His Church, wish our diocesan faithful always to remember that no one can, with conscience safe: 1. cast a vote for such a law; 2. in such a Court of divorce, act the parts of plaintiff, or of judge, or of notary or chancellor, or concur formally or in any other way; nevertheless We do not intend to condemn those who, compelled, would bear testimony concerning the very fact of adultery." Fourth Provincial Council of Quebec, year 1868, Collectio Lacensis, Vol. 3, col. 748.

"The law of the Swiss Confederation issued concerning civil status and civil marriage sanctioned that all and singular matrimonial causes, ecclesiastical jurisdiction being suppressed from now and henceforth, are to be treated in the tribunals of laymen according to the norm which is established in civil causes, and that sentences are to be pronounced in them according to the prescriptions of common law and of the most recently issued law, by which marriages even of Catholics can, under certain very slight reasons, be perpetually broken and dissolved as regards the bond; so that spouses of this kind litigating, after a sentence of divorce of secular judges has been issued, can pass, if they wish, to contracting other marriages. Therefore it is asked:

Fifth doubt: Whether Catholic judges and advocates in lay tribunals of this kind can with safe conscience undertake and defend matrimonial causes, or know and judge them?

Sixth doubt: Whether the same Catholic judges and advocates, according to the recent law of Switzerland, can with safe conscience propose the bond of marriage as to be dissolved or declare it as dissolved, and also declare that spouses of this kind can pass to contracting another marriage, as the civil law in this case expressly orders 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 causes, are the same ones to which by the new law it belongs to know and judge matrimonial causes. Therefore, if it has been forbidden to Catholic judges to take part in tribunals of this kind, we shall experience, to the great harm of citizens, that these tribunals are deprived of those judges who, filled with the fear of God, judge piously and justly.

Resp. To the fifth and sixth. As regards judges, let recourse be had in particular cases. As regards advocates, let the responses already given to the Bishop of Southwark be given, namely: Feria III, place IV, 22 May 1860, to the doubt: Whether a Catholic advocate can defend the causes of the defendant party against the plaintiff seeking dissolution of the bond? The response was: Provided that the Bishop is certain of the uprightness of the advocate, and provided that the advocate does nothing which turns aside from the principles of natural and ecclesiastical law, it can be tolerated. And to another doubt: Whether it is lawful to act the parts of advocate and plaintiff when the end of the suit is a simple separation without any sentence drawing with itself the nullity of marriage? The response was: Provided for in the preceding. And Feria IV, 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 regards 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 in that forum act the parts of plaintiff and advocate; and provided that there are just causes of separation in the judgment of the Bishop. And if he has any doubt besides, let him have recourse, setting forth all circumstances and dispositions of the law." S. I. C. 3 April 1877, to the Bishop of St. Gall. Archiv fur Katholisches Kirchenrecht, etc., edited by Dr. Friedrich H. Vering, Mainz, 1878, p. 294 ff.

"After the divorce laws had recently been restored among the French in the year 1884, several doubts were proposed by some Bishops of France to this Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition: namely, whether it was right for lay judges in causes concerning separation of spouses, whether concerning the bond or only concerning habitation, to pronounce law; whether for advocates and procurators to handle causes of this kind before lay judges; whether for those to whom it belongs by law to appoint official defenders, as they call them; finally, whether for syndics (commonly maires) to pronounce divorce.

The Most Eminent Fathers, General Inquisitors together with me, the matter having been maturely weighed, on Feria V, place IV, on the day 25 June 1885, judged that this must be decreed:

Attending to the most grave circumstances of things, times, and places, it can be tolerated that those who hold magistracy and advocates handle matrimonial causes in France, without being bound to leave office, provided that they openly profess Catholic doctrine concerning marriage and concerning matrimonial causes as pertaining to ecclesiastical judges alone; and provided that they are so disposed in mind, both concerning the validity and nullity of marriage and concerning separation of bodies, concerning which causes they are compelled to judge, that they never pronounce a sentence, nor defend for one to be pronounced, nor provoke or excite to it, that is repugnant to divine or ecclesiastical law; and in doubtful or more difficult cases let each approach his own Ordinary, direct himself by 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 to all Archbishops and Bishops in France for their norm by these letters, which otherwise are not to be published."

"By certain Bishops of France the following doubts were proposed to the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition: In the Letter of the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition of 25 June 1885 to all Ordinaries in the French Dominion concerning the law of civil divorce, it is thus decreed: Attending to the most grave circumstances of things, times, and places, it can be tolerated that those who hold magistracy and advocates handle matrimonial causes in France, without being bound to leave office. It added conditions, of which the second is this: Provided that they are so disposed in mind, both concerning the validity and nullity of marriage and concerning separation of bodies, concerning which causes they are compelled to judge, that they never pronounce a sentence, nor defend for one to be pronounced, nor provoke or excite to it, that is repugnant to divine or ecclesiastical law. It is asked: 1. Whether the interpretation spread through France and even given to print is right, according to which there satisfies the aforesaid condition a judge who, although some marriage is valid before the Church, abstracts from that marriage with a true and constant mind, and, applying the civil law, pronounces that there is place for divorce, provided that he intends in mind to break only the civil effects and only the civil contract, and that the terms of the sentence pronounced regard only those things? In other terms, whether a sentence thus issued can be said not to be repugnant to divine or ecclesiastical law? 2. After the judge has pronounced that there is place for divorce, can the Syndic (in French, le maire), himself also intending only the effects and the civil contract, as is set forth above, pronounce the divorce, although the marriage is valid before the Church? 3. Once divorce has been pronounced, can the same Syndic civilly join with another the spouse attempting to pass to other nuptials, although the prior marriage is valid before the Church and the other party is living? - Resp. To the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd doubt, in the negative." S. I. C. 27 May 1886.

"A woman, separated from her husband by force of a sentence as regards bed, would wish to undertake a certain public office for sustaining life. But the government does not allow this unless she asks for divorce. She would wish to ask, but, in her intention, always with the bond saved. The Parish Priest, who is also her confessor, asks whether she can be admitted to the sacraments, and for light or counsel concerning the rest, as below. Resp. To the penitent woman, in the case, nothing else is to be advised except that she abstain under grave obligation from seeking divorce." S. Poenit. 5 Jan. 1887, to a Parish Priest of France.

"Most Reverend Monsignor. I have reported to the Most Eminent Major Penitentiary the case of the Syndic of that Diocese, who by force of his office would have to assist at the civil marriage of a certain person who is already bound in the face of the Church, and by command of the praised Eminent one I must signify to you that the named Syndic 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 if it should follow afterwards that he must resign. From the Sacred Penitentiary, 28 Nov. 1883. Luigi Martini, Substitute of the Sacred Penitentiary." To an Italian Bishop.

"14 September 1876. Prince, ... Following my request, His Eminence (the Cardinal Secretary of State) has just informed me, according to the orders 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 modified in that country in what touches the matter of divorce. + Dominic, Archbishop of Thessalonica, Apostolic Nuncio." To the Minister of Foreign Affairs at Brussels. Cf. Nouvelle Revue Theolog. Vol. 18, p. 73.

"1. Whether marriages can 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. Whether the aforesaid spouses can be admitted to another marriage, as long as the impediment of their prior marriage remains occult, and the nullity of their aforesaid marriage has not been proved in the external forum? - 3. How one must act 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. Whether it is lawful for spouses of this kind, if there is no scandal and none is feared, to remain in their later marriage, although the nullity of the prior has not been proved in the external forum? Resp. To the 1st, in the negative. To the 2nd, in the negative. To the 3rd, in the external forum the second marriage is to be held as null. To the 4th, in the external forum it is not lawful; nevertheless the spouses are to be admonished that they make the impediment known, and let the Apostolic Vicar use the faculty of dispensing." S. C. de P. F. 11 Feb. 1804.

"... Whoever diligently considers the genuine tradition concerning 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 Presbyters, but also clerics constituted in sacred orders, should inviolate preserve virginity or perpetual continence. For the same dignity of the sacred ministry, to which almost divine offices are attributed, seemed to demand this: that those who were to immolate and even to produce the immaculate victim, which itself is holiness and purity, should shine either with the splendor of virginity or with perpetual continence. Moreover, the very ample tradition of the Holy Fathers shows that the Apostles were either virgins or perpetually continent after marriage; whence they themselves also chose no other successors for themselves than those who had cultivated virginity or professed inviolate continence. Here there is no need to linger over what the Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the others, taught by the example and institutions of the Apostles, did, since it never abandoned that obligation of preserving chastity, propagated it salutarily through the whole western Church, and finally sanctioned it by an inviolable law. But also among the Orientals, celibacy or continence of clerics, besides the fact that it was always in the greatest honor, was religiously observed from the most ancient time, especially in churches where discipline flourished by the diligence of Bishops. Indeed Epiphanius, a man distinguished in holiness and doctrine, and one who knew very well the discipline of the Eastern Church, in the exposition of the Catholic faith (n. 21), affirms in express words that 'the Priesthood chiefly consists from the order of virgins, or if not... from those who are continent from their wives, or who live in widowhood after one marriage.' For in the beginning, as Jerome speaks (book against Jovinian), 'because the Church was being formed as rude from the Gentiles,' some were assumed to the priesthood who had already been joined in marriage, but either continently in widowhood, or they led life as though they did not have wives. Whence the same Epiphanius (heresy 59) expressly acknowledges how 'the holy preaching of God does not receive into Deacon, Presbyter, Bishop, and Hypodeacon a man of one wife still begetting children, but him who has contained himself from 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 discourse is being instituted concerning the discipline of the Eastern Church; for the same Epiphanius aptly continues: 'But you will say to me: altogether in certain places Presbyters, Deacons, and Hypodeacons still beget children. But this is not according to the canon, but according to the mind of men.' Wherefore it cannot be doubted that in the time of Epiphanius clerics, from Hypodeacon to Bishop, cultivated celibacy or continence. This can also be most aptly confirmed by the testimony of Jerome, who, because of long residence in the East, had known most perfectly the customs and discipline of that Church. Moreover, the holy Doctor opposes to Vigilantius, most hostile to clerical continence, besides other arguments, the fact of the universal Church: 'What will the Churches of the East do, what those of Egypt and of the Apostolic See, which receive clerics either as virgins or continent; or if they have had wives, cease to be husbands? These finally were the tradition of the universal Church, these were the customs, where the prior discipline flourished.'

Certain of the Greeks think and too confidently assert that Bishops in the East observed continence of their own accord, constrained by no law, which they say was first sanctioned in the Trullan Synod. But besides the clearest testimonies of the Fathers, even Justinian himself, who disposed laws long before the Trullan Canons, and who professes that he is the executor of prior Canons, repeatedly inculcates that Bishops be chosen either from the order of monks, or indeed from the clergy, but those who either do not have a wife or at least do not live with her (Book 1, Code, On Bishops and Clerics, law 4; Novel 123, chapters 14, 29). Moreover, the same discipline flourishes among the eastern Sects which had defected from unity even before the times of Justinian; for all agree in this, that Bishops be chosen celibate (consult the Jerusalem itinerary of John Catovicus, who testifies to this in express words concerning the Nestorian Chaldeans and concerning the Maronites).

It happened quite otherwise as regards Presbyters and other clerics. For what in the time of Epiphanius was the nonobservance or lax custom of some particular Church, in the course of time began so to take root and be propagated that finally it invaded almost the whole eastern Church; and, custom growing strong, what had been permitted only to Cantors and Readers was also attributed to Presbyters and to other clerics constituted in sacred orders: namely, that they might live with wives whom they had taken before sacred ordination. Indeed, the heat of a laxer discipline in some Eastern Province advanced so far that some even after the reception of sacred Orders presumed to attempt marriage; which nevertheless by each law, namely Ecclesiastical and Caesarean, and indeed before the Trullan Canons, was severely disapproved and prohibited under most grave penalties, as even the laws themselves of Justinian clearly show. For the aforesaid Emperor complains gravely concerning certain clerics who, despising the sacred Canons, had presumed to attempt nuptials after ordination (Code, book 1, title 3, On Bishops and Clerics, section Sacris Canonibus). Indeed the sacred Canons severely forbade, under penalty of privation of the sacred ministry, that any of the Presbyters, Deacons, and Subdeacons could be married after an ordination of this kind. Whence, 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, heaping civil penalties upon canonical ones, he decrees that sons received from such a wicked conjunction are illegitimate, as if they had been born from an incestuous marriage: 'so that they be understood neither as natural nor as illegitimate or spurious, but as altogether and from every side prohibited, and unworthy of the succession of their begetters.' Thus far Justinian. And although in ecclesiastical laws, as Benedict XIV most rightly says, there has been left to the lay power only the glory of obeying, not the authority of commanding, nevertheless in the matter of which there is question, the Emperor speaks relatively to the sacred Canons. (Instruction Eo quamvis tempore, 1 May 1745.)

Nor does it stand in the way that the Provincial Council of Ancyra, canon 10, permitted Deacons, if at ordination they had declared that they could not contain, to contract marriage even after Orders had been received. 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 reality it did not change it, as Epiphanius, Jerome, and other Fathers testify together in clear words, and the Emperor himself most openly maintains. (Authentics, collection 9, title 4, Novel 123, chapter 14: He who ordains not being able, at the time of ordination, to permit a Deacon or Subdeacon to take a wife after ordination, etc.) Wherefore even the Trullan Synod itself, canon 6, generally decrees under penalty of deposition that it is wholly lawful to no Subdeacon or Deacon or Presbyter to contract nuptials after ordination (Canon 6, Council in Trullo: Since in the Apostolic Canons, canon 27, it is said that, of those who are promoted to the clergy without having taken a wife, only Readers and Cantors can take a wife; and we, observing this, decree that henceforth it is lawful to no Hypodeacon, or Deacon, or Presbyter at all to contract after his ordination. But if he shall have dared this, let him be deposed, etc.); whence also the Canonists of the Greeks freely acknowledge that the Canon of the Council of Ancyra was wholly abrogated by the Quinisext Council (Balsamon, Zonaras, Aristenus, and others. Const. Arcudius, book 7, chapter 37, and Benedict XIV, Instruction Eo quamvis tempore).

Since these things are so, anyone easily sees how alien that custom is from the genuine discipline of the Eastern Church, namely, that hypodeacons contracting marriage after an ordination of this kind should be promoted to higher orders, since this is wholly abhorrent even to the Trullan Synod itself.

Wherefore His Holiness, to whom it is supremely dear that the customs of that Province, every corruption having been removed, be arranged according to the norm of a purer eastern discipline, cannot but follow with deserved praises Your Excellency's repeatedly confirmed proposal, namely, henceforth to admit no one to sacred Orders, unless he is either altogether celibate, or one who before the hypodeaconate, according to eastern custom, has taken a legitimate wife. Here, therefore, let Your Excellency and the other Prelates of that Province, remaining in the proposal, stand firmly; here cling..." Instr. S. C. de P. F. 24 March 1858, for a certain Province of the Greek rite.

"Since in some Missions the custom of using the talar garment, especially when Priests proceed in public, has not up to this time been diligently observed by all; indeed, in some places even graver abuses in this matter have begun to be introduced, this Sacred Congregation commands that all ecclesiastical men, mindful that it is altogether fitting for Clerics to show gravity and moderation even in habit, should wear talar garments, whether of white or black color, according to the custom of the region and the Indults of the Sacred Congregation, at least in public, and that every evasion or pretext in obtaining this be removed. But if, compelling necessity or the cause of a journey through rough places, they are forced to put off the aforesaid habit, let them at least use that garment which in no way at all is unbecoming to priestly modesty." S. C. de P. F. 8 Sept. 1869, to the Apostolic Vicars of India.

"From the decree of the Lateran Council under Leo X, augmented by St. Pius V in the year 1751, beneficiaries are bound to restore the fruits of the benefice according to the proportion of omission of the Office, six months having elapsed from the day of possession of the Benefice. For in the aforesaid Council, session 9, section Statuimus, it is said thus: We also establish that anyone having a benefice, if after six months, the benefice having been obtained, he has not said the divine Office, with a legitimate impediment ceasing, does not make the fruits his own according to the proportion of the omission of recitation of the Office and of time. Then St. Pius V in his Constitution 186, which begins Ex proximo Lateranensi, issued in the year 1571, sanctioned thus: We establish that he who has omitted all the canonical hours on one or more days loses all fruits of the benefice which correspond to that day or those days; but he who has omitted Matins only, half; he who has omitted the other hours, the other half; even if someone assigned to choir, not reciting, should be present with the others at all canonical hours, and should pretend that he has made fruits and distributions, perhaps otherwise assigned by presence alone according to statute, custom, or otherwise, accrue to himself. Let him also understand that, besides the loss of fruits and distributions, he has committed grave sin. Likewise, he who in the first six months has not said the Office, unless a legitimate impediment excused him, should understand that he has committed grave sin, etc. Moreover, restitution of this kind is certainly owed before the sentence of a judge, as is clear from the condemned proposition 20 of Alexander VII, which said: restitution imposed by Pius V upon Beneficed clerics not reciting is not owed in conscience before the declaratory sentence of a judge, because it is a penalty." St. Alphonsus, bk. 3, nn. 663, 666, 672; bk. 4, n. 151.

"Whether those professed of simple vows, which must be premised to the profession of solemn vows according to the Encyclical Letter of 19 March 1857, are bound to the divine Office? - Resp. That they are not bound to private recitation of the divine Office; nevertheless they must be present at choir, as those solemnly professed." S. C. over the State of Regulars, 6 Aug. 1858; S. C. EE. and RR. 24 March 1882. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 15, p. 250 ff.; Vol. 16, p. 292.

"Whether nuns in general are strictly obligated under grave obligation, by force of their profession, to recitation of the divine office proper to their Institute. - Resp. In the affirmative as regards nuns professed with solemn vows according to a rule approved by the Apostolic See in which a burden of this kind is imposed. If, however, such a burden is not imposed in the rules, let the Orator consult approved authors regarding the obligation which can arise from custom. But where the vows are simple, they are not bound." S. C. EE. and RR. 19 April 1844.

"From the Sacred Congregation of Rites there have come to light some historical Lessons of the Roman Breviary and of the Proper of Saints of the Supreme Pontiffs, reformed entirely or in part. Lest any opening to equivocation be open in this matter, it is judged opportune to declare that modifications of this kind were approved and published by the same Sacred Congregation only for this purpose, that they must be inserted in new editions of the Breviary and of the aforesaid Proper, to be duly completed; by no means, however, so that those who recite the Canonical Hours according to editions already existing are obligated to assume them." S. R. C. 14 Dec. 1883.

A doubt having been proposed concerning private recitation of the Office of the Dead on 2 Nov. and of the Litanies on the day of St. Mark and the three days of Rogations, as regards Premonstratensian religious living outside the Monastery, concerning which the Statutes of the Order are silent, "whether they are otherwise bound under any sin to private recitation of this kind, the Sacred Congregation of Rites judged that it should rescript: In the affirmative, that is, they are bound, as all who have the burden of reciting the Canonical Hours are bound." 4 Aug. 1877.

"His Holiness willed and commanded that to the other praises of the Blessed Mary in the Litany of Loreto, this also be added henceforth in the universal Church in the last place, namely: Queen of the Most Holy Rosary, pray for us." Decree for the City and the World, S. R. C. 10 Dec. 1883.

"Whether it is 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? - Resp. In the negative; and let the decrees of the Sacred Congregation be entirely observed, and let Ordinaries take care to collect and forbid any formulas whatever, both printed and manuscript, of Litanies concerning whose approval there is no certainty. And since the discourse is concerning Litanies, since it has come to the knowledge of the Sacred Congregation that in some churches, especially on the occasion of the Prayer of Forty Hours, little books are used 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 Clement XI, section 24, commands that no other little books be used except those printed by the press of the Reverend Apostolic Camera, or entirely conformable to the same." S. R. C. 31 March 1821, General Decree.

"The Decrees which forbid every addition in Litanies are to be observed." S. R. C. 14 Aug. 1858.

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 some versicle, is it lawful to add the name of some Saint, and even of several Saints, especially if they are held as Patrons of the Diocese? Resp. In the negative in all things, according to other Decrees of the S. R. C., 27 Sept. 1873.

"All Litanies except the most ancient and common ones, which are contained in Breviaries, Missals, Pontificals, and Rituals, and except the Litanies of the Blessed Virgin which are customarily sung in the sacred House of Loreto, are not to be published without the revision and approval of the Ordinary, nor are they to be recited publicly in churches, public oratories, and Processions without the license and approval of the S. R. Congregation." S. C. of the Index, 23 April 1860. Add to the praised Litanies, from the S. R. C., 12 Aug. 1862, the Litanies of the Most Holy Name of Jesus.

"That custom of inserting between the first and second part of the Angelic Salutation these words: Blessed Jesus, Savior of the world, I ask God that He give 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 to be prohibited by mandate of this Sacred Congregation. Indeed, nothing is contained in that prayer which is not holy and pious; but to divide the Angelic Salutation, which obtains such authority in the Church, and to mix between its first and second part another formula of praying, which has not been received by the Church, the Sacred Congregation judges is not to be tolerated." S. C. de P. F. 19 April 1784, to the Apostolic Vicar of Sutchuen. Cf. Gardellini, n. 1157.

Cf. On the Sixth Precept of the Church, N. 489.

"At what hour is it lawful to begin the private recitation of Matins with Lauds on the evening of the preceding day? Resp. That private recitation of Matins with Lauds of the following day can begin when the sun holds the middle course between noon and sunset." S. R. C. 16 March 1876.

"Whether the aforesaid response is to be understood in such a way that he would not satisfy his obligation who recited Matins with Lauds on the evening of the preceding day before the sun held the middle course between noon and sunset? Resp. Let approved authors be consulted." S. R. C. 13 July 1883.

A regular Bishop must recite the Office of his Diocese, not of his Order. S. R. C. 11 June 1605. Cf. Gardellini, n. 265.

"Beneficed clerics 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. For wanderers it is more advisable that they use the calendar of their own diocese, because otherwise great confusion of offices would arise." S. R. C. 12 Nov. 1831.

"Whether Clergy ascribed to some parish church, yet not obligated to choir, nor enjoying a Benefice, and Clergy living only under the same Parish and not attached to another Church, are bound to recite the particular Offices of that Parish...? Resp. They can, but are not bound; and therefore they fulfill the burden of the Canonical Hours by conforming themselves in the recitation of the Office to the Diocesan Calendar." S. R. C. 20 Sept. 1806.

"Whether secular Priests, who are considered to be ascribed to some Church because they celebrate Mass there, hear Confessions, or exercise any other sacred Ministry, can recite the Office of the Patron or Titular of the same Church, who is not Patron of the City or place, so that there may be uniformity among those Priests and the Pastor and Vice-pastors of the Church, who celebrate the Feast of the Titular of the same double rite of the first class with Octave, even if there is no obligation to choir? Resp. According to other decrees, in the negative; for they ought not to be considered, but truly to be ascribed to the strict service of the Church, as is the Parish Priest and Vice-parish Priest." S. R. C. 7 Dec. 1844.

Masters and students living in a Seminary are bound to the Office of the Church attached to the Seminary, although they celebrate Mass elsewhere. S. R. C. 7 Sept. 1850; Gardellini, n. 5145.

"On a journey the order of the divine Office of the Monastery from which he departed is to be followed... (During the time of Lent, preachers of the divine word staying outside the monastery ) must conform themselves to the Calendar of the Province, extended without any diversity for all in any year." S. R. C. 31 Aug. 1839, Order of Friars Minor Capuchin; Gardellini, n. 4874, to 1 and 2.

"Whether religious of either sex not having their own Calendar must use the diocesan Calendar? Resp. In the affirmative, with Offices added which have been peculiarly granted to Regulars staying in that diocese." S. R. C. 22 July 1848.

Chaplains and Confessors of Nuns cannot recite their Office. S. R. C. 21 March 1795; 17 Aug. 1833; Gardellini, nn. 4464, 4715.

There has been given "a General Indult, both to Chapters and to any Communities of ecclesiastics whatever, and to individuals of each Clergy, of discharging votive Offices through the year in place of Ferial Offices, except on Ash Wednesday, during the whole time of Passiontide and of Holy Advent from 17 to 24 Dec.; as regards choral recitation indeed, by the consent of the Chapter or Community to be approved by the Ordinary once for all; but as regards private recitation, at the choice of individuals of the Clergy." S. R. C. 5 July 1883. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 16, p. 47 ff.

"Whether the words of the Indult, but as regards private recitation, at the choice of individuals of the Clergy, are to be understood only of those who are bound to Choir by no canonical title? Resp. In the affirmative." S. R. C. 10, 24 Nov. 1883. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 16, pp. 206, 256.

"Whether, if in choir or privately, through forgetfulness or inadvertence, the Office, double or semidouble, of some Saint has been omitted on the same day on which it ought to have been made according to the Rubrics, it ought to be made on some other day, either of the same month or of the next following, not impeded by an Office of nine lessons? Resp. In the negative." S. R. C. 17 June 1675.

Cf. N. 64, at the end.

Whether, Matins having been finished, the Prayer of the Office of the day is to be said? Resp. That the Prayer of the Office is to be added. S. R. C. 18 May 1883, in a Marianopolitan case.

"1. Whether it is lawful for ecclesiastics of Castrum Maris to defend their own causes, those of churches, of the poor, and of miserable persons in lay tribunals without the license of the Bishop? 2. Whether they can act or appear by themselves or through procurators in the said tribunals for their active civil causes against laymen without the license of the Bishop in the case? Resp. To the 1st, in the affirmative. To the 2nd, provided for in the first." S. C. EE. and RR. 8 May 1716.

"... Always be so far distant from political matters and affairs of State that you should not undertake the administration of civil matters, not even if asked and wearied by earnest prayers; as this Sacred Congregation has always seriously and strictly prohibited and further prohibits... For the word of God must be disseminated not by these arts, but by charity, contempt of human affairs, modesty, frugality of life, patience and prayer, and the other virtues of apostolic men... But if Princes should sometimes seek your counsels, you will give, only after having been asked many times and after alleging this our prohibition, those things which are faithful and just, and eternity with wisdom; but soon leave the court and palace and depart into your Dioceses, to devote yourselves to sacred functions... But to the peoples preach obedience toward Princes, even harsh ones, for whose prosperity and safety both privately and openly pray to God from the soul, and do not carp at their actions, even when they are persecuting, nor blame their severity, nor reprehend anything in them; but in patience and in silence await the time of consolation from the Lord. Do not in any way sow any factions in their regions, whether of Spaniards, or of French, or of Turks, or of Persians, or of similar persons; indeed, as much as is in you, remove all contentions of this kind by the roots... In the preaching of the word of God and in the administration of the Sacraments, do not create any suspicion of tumult and rebellion from the frequency of sermons and gatherings..., and altogether prohibit that on that occasion anything be done concerning matters that pertain to the public commonwealth. Let neither you nor yours continually adhere to the side of anyone, or be so bound to anyone, especially from among the more powerful, that you seem to serve that one alone, not the whole province. Wherefore, do not allow yourselves to be bound by excessive but treacherous favors, which not only harm the common good, but also hinder the liberty of speaking and of reprehending the vices of the benefactor himself." Instruction of the S. C. de P. F. to the first Apostolic Vicars, 1659; 23 Nov. 1845; S. C. S. O. 1674; Clement XI, Const. In excelsa, 13 Sept. 1669; Alexander VIII, Const. Sacrosancti Apostolatus Officiis.

"Whether it is lawful for Clerics promoted to sacred Orders or possessing benefices to acquire shares of the limited partnership society of Citta di Castello," which exercised the commerce of money. Resp. "It is not lawful." S. C. EE. and RR. 30 Jan. 1846. Cf. Bizzarri, Collectio, ed. 1885, p. 530.

"Whether it is lawful for ecclesiastical persons to buy titles upon railways and to receive the profit arising from them. Resp. The Most Holy Lord grants faculties to be communicated to Bishops through the Sacred Congregation of Bishops, of permitting ecclesiastics to accept railway shares from their own money only." S. O. 1 April 1857.

A doubt having been proposed concerning shares "in various commercial, industrial, or exchange Societies, etc.," accepted by two priests by inheritance and to be retained, the Most Holy Lord "kindly remitted the prayers to the Bishop with all necessary and opportune faculties, so that, the things narrated truly existing, for five years only concerning those prayers he should deal gratuitously, establish, and decree whatever he should judge, according to his own judgment and conscience, to be more expedient in the Lord." S. C. C. 6 July 1855. Cf. Nouvelle Revue Theologique Vol. 17, p. 589 ff.; Gury-Dumas, n. 105.

"Whether the law by which, according to the Holy Council of Trent, the Ordinary is bound to visit the Communities and Monasteries of his Diocese also extends to Communities and Monasteries which are ruled by a Superior or Superior General?" Resp. "As regards exempt Regulars, in the negative, except cases expressed by law. But with respect to Brothers and Sisters of pious Congregations of simple vows, not exempt, in the affirmative, the Statutes and Constitutions approved by the Apostolic See being saved." S. C. EE. and RR. 27 Feb. 1865. Cf. Wolfgang Mühlbauer, Decreta Authentica, word Visitation.

"Parish Priests are bound on Sundays and feasts of precept to have a sermon for 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 some more solemn days." S. C. C. 1 April 1876. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 9, p. 468.

This is contrary to the Council of Trent, session 24, chapter 12, on Reform, and contrary to the Declaration of the S. C. C., 25 July 1570. Nevertheless, as is clear from the decrees themselves of the S. C. C., the faculty of substituting themselves mutually has not been taken away, provided that: 1. the substituting person is present in the city where the Church exists, or in the suburbs or territory; 2. the substitute is one from among the Capitulars; 3. each is not bound at the same time to the same service; and 4. substitutions of this kind are not too frequent. Cf. Lucidi, Vol. 1, p. 282 ff., 3rd ed.; Wolfgang Mühlbauer, Decreta Authentica, word Substitute.

"1. Whether and how canons hearing confessions during the time of the divine offices ought to be considered present in choir for the effect of gaining distributions in the case? 2. Whether and how the same canons celebrating Mass during the time of the divine offices ought to be held as present in choir for the same effect in the case? 3. Whether and how canons assisting the Archbishop in Pontificals and other functions, or celebrating a private Mass, absent from choir, gain distributions in the case? 4. Whether and how the same canons assisting the Archbishop in treating the affairs of the diocese, or accompanying him in the diocese outside the residence, gain distributions in the case? 5. Whether and how canons absent from choir to examine the accounts of the capitular fund gain distributions in the case? 6. Whether and how canons absent from choir, devoting themselves to the ministry of preaching, gain distributions in the case? 7. Whether and how canons gain distributions while they are absent from choir for the examination of ordinands or confessors in the case? 8. Whether and how canons exercising the office of rector, administrator, professors, and examiners in the seminary, absent from choir, gain distributions in the case? 9. Whether and how canons absent from choir, as Pro-vicar general, Chancellor, and Actuary, and exercising other offices in the archiepiscopal curia, gain distributions in the case? 10. Whether and how canons absent from choir, devoting themselves to the administration of capitular things or of the archiepiscopal mensa, gain distributions in the case? 11. Whether and how the canon Chancellor of the Chapter, occupied in the archive for capitular business, gains distributions in the case? And insofar as negatively, 12. whether the Most Holy Lord is to be consulted for absolution and condonation of distributions received in the case? Resp. To the 1st, in the negative in all things, except the Penitentiary. To the 2nd, in the negative, unless with the license of the prefect of choir and for the convenience of the people. To the 3rd, in the affirmative to the first part, as in the Lycien. case, 27 August 1641; to the second part, in the negative. To the 4th, in the negative in all things. To the 5th, in the affirmative for the time to be predefined by the Bishop. To the 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th, in the negative in all things. To the 10th, as regards the canon administrator of capitular things, in the affirmative for the days and hours in which he actually applies himself to the administration; in the rest, in the negative. To the 11th, in the negative, unless in a case of urgency. To the 12th, in the affirmative, with one Mass celebrated with chant, the whole Chapter standing by." S. C. C. 20 Dec. 1862; 24 Jan. 1885. Cf. Lucidi, Vol. 3, word 235, 3rd ed.; Acta S. Sed. Vol. 1, p. 285 ff.

"4. Whether and how those conversing in choir during the time of the divine offices lose daily distributions in the case? 5. Whether conversations on account of which distributions are lost can be constituted from several small conversations in the case? Resp. To the 4th, in the affirmative. To the 5th, in the affirmative, if several are made in the same hour." S. C. C. 27 March 1847. Cf. Lucidi, Vol. 1, p. 555.

"Moreover His Holiness admonishes and exhorts the same Ordinaries, that, with the fruit which indeed is very abundant from the aforesaid spiritual exercises being opportunely proposed and explained, they diligently excite all of the clergy subject to them, but especially rectors of souls, confessors, canons, and other beneficed clerics bound to the service of choir, to perform the same exercises at least once in the year in the houses of the Religious of the Society of Jesus, or of the priests of the Congregation of the Mission, if they are present; if not, in another pious or regular house to be designated and approved by the same Ordinaries for this.

But so that individuals may come more eagerly to the same spiritual retreat, His Holiness grants in the Lord to all the aforesaid rectors of souls, confessors, canons, beneficed clerics, and other priests and clerics, who for ten days in each year have performed the same exercises in the aforesaid houses, and have remained there by day and night, and meanwhile, truly penitent and having confessed, have received the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, as often as they have done this, a plenary indulgence and remission of all their sins.

Moreover, he kindly absolves Parish Priests, while they are devoting themselves to exercises of this kind, only once in the year, during that time, from residence. He commands that the same be observed as regards canons, beneficed clerics, and others bound by personal residence and devoted to the service of choir, whom nevertheless he decrees to gain entire fruits, and any daily distributions whatever of their canonries and benefices respectively, just as if they were personally present at choir and the divine offices, provided nevertheless that they perform the same exercises, with license having first been obtained from the Ordinary, by whom it will by no means be granted during the time of Advent and Lent and on more solemn festivities, nor ever to all canons and others serving choir at the same time, but with that method used, that the service of choir is in no way interrupted; and as regards parish priests, with suitable administrators first substituted, to be approved by the Ordinary himself, who may laudably administer the care of souls. Moreover His Holiness commands that these Letters be published in that diocese and be inscribed in the registers of the chancery for the perpetual observance of the things contained in them, and that for this very end their publication be renewed henceforth every three years." Encyclical Letter of the S. C. EE. and RR., 1 Feb. 1700, to the Bishops of Italy and adjacent Islands. Cf. Lucidi, Vol. 3, p. 381 ff., 3rd ed.; Acta S. Sed. Vol. 12, p. 609 ff.; Gardellini, n. 4189.

"Whether a Parish Priest 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 to discharge the Office of the Dead by themselves, so that those only assisting, and not singing or psalmodizing, do not make the fruits their own; or whether it is sufficient that they assist, and the schola discharge the Office, while they meanwhile pour forth other prayers at their own pleasure, for example, reciting the Breviary for their daily obligation. Resp. In the affirmative as regards the first part, in the negative as regards the second." S. R. C. 9 May 1857, Périgueux. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 1, p. 285 ff.

Cf. On the Eucharist, N. 361.

S. R. C., 16 July 1605, declared: "that Canons and Choristers are bound to wait for the Bishop wishing to come to the Church, and not to begin the offices except after his arrival, provided that the hour of the office has certainly been intimated, and that the Bishop does not delay beyond the signal given for beginning the office and cause the ministers of choir and the Canons to wait longer."

The same S. C. R., 12 June 1627, commanded "that Decrees made at other times be observed, namely that at the appointed hour with the Bishop, and intimated to him, so that he can come if he wishes; and the signal having been given, if the Bishop has come after the Hours have begun for the divine offices, not all Canons are bound to proceed to meet him, but only four or five from the Chapter, so that the greater part of the Chapter or Canons remains in choir to continue the Hours."

It is lawful for the Bishop to compel the Canons of the Cathedral to serve him as often as he exercises the pontifical office in the Cathedral or in the city and suburbs; yet in such a way that if it is outside the cathedral Church, this Church is not deprived of due worship and service. But when he approaches Churches in which there are other dignities and Canons, the Bishop should know that the Canons of the Cathedral altogether precede the Canons and dignities of the Collegiate Church. Thus the S. R. C.; the decree was confirmed by Clement VIII, 13 June 1592.

And this also proceeds when the Bishop celebrates, or for any cause is present at Mass or solemn Vespers in exempt Churches (therefore much more if in some Congregation or Confraternity, etc.), and in Churches immediately subject to the Apostolic See, yet existing within the limits of his Diocese. S. R. C. in Alexandrina S. Petri, 7 Feb. 1604.

Likewise, they are bound capitularly to assist the Bishop solemnly performing Ordinations in chant among the divine offices. But if they are done privately, only three should serve. S. R. C. 7 Dec. 1658.

Likewise, they are bound to assist the Bishop preaching pontifically with cope, miter, and staff. S. R. C. 3 Dec. 1701. And those refusing are to be punished by other penalties, beyond loss of distributions. Gardellini, n. 1447.

The Canons of the Cathedral cannot be compelled to assist the Bishop if he has approached other Churches to celebrate privately. Indeed, they are not bound to assist him celebrating Mass privately in his own Cathedral, unless there is a custom, which must be observed. S. R. C. 5 July 1603 and 25 April 1608. But then, according to the same Sacred Congregation, the Bishop is said to approach the Church privately when he approaches without the pontifical cope; and thus he assists.

When the Bishop approaches the Cathedral pontifically, the sprinkler is to be offered by the first dignity of the Chapter with a kiss of the sprinkler and of the hand. But if he approaches another Church, with the Cathedral Chapter assisting, the sprinkler is to be given by the dignity or superior of that Church. S. R. C. 23 March 1592, with Clement VIII confirming. Cf. Scavini, bk. 1, n. 598, Milan, 1874; Wolfgang Mühlbauer, Decreta Authentica, words Canons, Bishop.

There is no election of a Capitular Vicar while the Bishop is living and has been shamefully cast out from his See. S. C. EE. and RR. 3 May 1862. Cf. Bizzarri, Collectio, p. 608, ed. 1885.

In the month of March, year 1863, the S. C. C. responded to the question concerning the nomination of two Vicars, the See being Vacant: "that it can be tolerated." On 21 April 1592 the S. C. C. declared: "With the See vacant, only one Vicar is to be elected. Moreover, by that decree, namely of the Council of Trent, the custom of electing two or more, especially immemorial, was not removed."

"Whether a Bishop has the right of choosing for the prebend of Theologian and Penitentiary the one whom he himself among those approved in the formal competition judged more worthy; or rather whether he is bound to choose him whom the examiners in the same competition declared more suitable? - Resp. In the affirmative to the first part; in the negative to the second." S. C. C. 21 Dec. 1829. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 2, pp. 81, 122; Ferraris, Vol. Praebenda Theol., Cassinese Addition.

"In whatever Order or Congregation... whether solemn vows or simple vows are omitted in them... no one is to be admitted to the habit without testimonial letters both of the Ordinary of origin and also of the Ordinary of the place in which the Postulant, after having completed the fifteenth year of his age, has remained beyond a year." Decree of the S. C. over the state of Regulars, Romani Pontifices, 23 Jan. 1848, to be observed everywhere.

"Whether the reception of the habit is null without testimonial letters? Resp. That the reception of the habit is illicit, but not invalid; that testimonial letters omitted in reception to the habit are to be obtained as soon as possible; otherwise Novices will by no means be able to be admitted to profession. Whether profession is invalid if it is made with testimonial letters omitted? Resp. That it is not invalid, but illicit." Same Sacred Congregation, 1 May 1851.

The Decree Romani Pontifices, 25 Jan. 1848, on testimonial letters of Ordinaries to be required "regards only religious men, not nuns." S. C. over the State of Regulars, 25 Feb. 1863.

The laws to be observed in testing those who ask to be admitted to the Religious habit, and in admitting Novices to Profession, are contained in the Decree of Regular Discipline of 25 Jan. 1848 for Italy and the adjacent Islands, Savoy included. Bizzarri, Collectanea, p. 832 ff., ed. 1885.

"Whether profession made without the form of the Decree of Regular Discipline first having been observed is null or only illicit? Resp. That it is only illicit, but not null." Same Sacred Congregation, 16 Jan. 1852.

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, and also in the rules and Constitutions of the respective Order. Same Sacred Congregation, 1 May 1851. In the aforesaid Decree of Clement VIII you have Institutions concerning the reception and education of Novices in Monasteries and Convents designated or to be designated. Bizzarri, Collectanea, p. 845 ff., 867 ff.

"Lay brothers are not to 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 by order of Clement VIII, ed. 19 March 1693; S. C. over the State of Regulars, 1 May 1851 to the 7th; Encyclical Letter Neminem latet, 19 March 1857.

"The Sacred Congregation judged... that it is not lawful... to exact from Novices... under whatever pretext... except food and clothing for that time in which he shall have been in probation." S. C. EE. and RR. 11 Dec. 1789; Council of Trent, session 25, On Regulars, chapter 16.

"The mind of the Sacred Congregation is that henceforth the year of probation or Novitiate, and solemn Profession, be made in Monasteries destined for the Novitiate according to the form of the Constitution of Clement VIII Regularis disciplinae restitutioni... so that, according to the prescription of the Council of Trent, session 25, chapter 16, On Regulars, the time of Novitiate having been finished, Superiors admit to profession the novices whom they have found suitable, or cast them out from the Monastery." S. C. EE. and RR. 12 July 1793. But on 19 Sept. 1686, the Sacred Congregation had declared Clothing and Profession in a Convent not designated for the Novitiate null, adding that "the year of probation is to be computed from the day of entrance to the legitimate place of Novitiate." Cf. Bizzarri, Collectanea, p. 279 ff.

"1. Whether, when Novices, clerical or lay, in good faith have received the habit before the time, so that when the year and day of the novitiate have been finished they have not reached the age prescribed by the Constitution for profession, profession can be deferred for them without dispensation and danger of Nullity until they have reached the prescribed age? 2. Whether, without dispensation and danger of Nullity, profession can sometimes be deferred, both for clerics and laymen who, when the year and day of the Novitiate have been finished, have reached the age required for profession, if, in the prudent judgment of the Father Vicar General or of the Fathers Conventual of the Conventual Chapter, there are grave causes for deferring profession? Resp. To each, in the affirmative, and more, etc." S. C. EE. and RR. 12 Jan. 1731, of the Order of Discalced Augustinians.

"His Holiness wills and commands that all to be promoted to Orders, both minor and major, perform spiritual exercises for ten continuous days before Ordination, in exactly the same way which is prescribed for those to be promoted at Rome by the Constitution Apostolica sollicitudo of Alexander VII. Likewise, all those who wish to embrace the religious state in any Monastery, even one subject to Regulars, are to 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. Moreover His Holiness desires... that all professed Nuns once in the year, for some time which seems opportune, perform the same exercises." Encyclical of the S. C. EE. and RR., 9 Oct. 1682.

"... As regards religious families of whatever Order, Congregation, and Institute in which solemn vows are emitted, we establish and decree that the profession of solemn vows will be entirely null, void, and of no force, whether knowingly or ignorantly, in whatever way, pretext, and color, made by any novices whatever, even lay and conversi, who, although they have completed probation and novitiate as by law, do not first emit the profession of simple vows and remain in it for a full three years; although either by the Superiors, or by the novices, or by each, there is held respectively the intention of receiving to solemn vows and emitting them, and all the rites prescribed for the profession of solemn vows are employed." Brief of Pius IX Ad universalis Ecclesiae, 7 Feb. 1862. Solemn profession can for just causes be further deferred by the Superior General or Provincial, not however beyond the age of completed 25 years. Encyclical Letter of the S. C. over the State of Regulars Neminem latet, 19 March 1857, to which for the dominion of the Austrian empire this Instruction was added: "... But particular circumstances of things require that in religious houses constituted in the announced dominion the profession of solemn vows be deferred according to the custom and practice introduced there for some years now. Wherefore this is the mind and will of His Holiness, that Regular Superiors should use the faculty attributed to them in the said decree, namely of deferring the profession of solemn vows, according to the above-mentioned custom and practice." Cf. Francis Sentis, Clementis Papae VIII Decretales, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1870, p. 81.

"Those who perhaps have put on the habit of Religion when already older than 25 years, or near this age, can, when the year of Novitiate has already been completed, be admitted to solemn vows and profession, or must the three-year period of further probation also be awaited with such persons? Resp. In the negative to the first part; in the affirmative to the second." S. C. over the State of Regulars, 20 Jan. 1860.

"Whether in the case in which a secular priest, who has long since passed the year 25, has sought and obtained the habit, solemn profession, namely of solemn vows, can be deferred for him, after the profession of simple vows has been emitted, beyond the customary three-year period, if namely within the three-year period of simple vows he has not given sufficient arguments concerning his vocation? Resp. In the negative, namely, that it cannot be deferred." S. C. 16 Aug. 1866. "They declared nevertheless that recourse must be had to the Sacred Congregation in particular cases in which some peculiar cause concurs." Bizzarri, Collectanea, p. 867, ed. 1885.

"When can those Professed of simple vows emit the renunciation of which the Sacred Council of Trent, session 25, On Regulars, chapter 16, treats, and by which they abdicate from themselves the dominion of their things? Resp. That the renunciation which the Council of Trent regards in the cited chapter 16, session 25, On Regulars, has place for the professed of simple vows within the two months immediately before the profession of solemn vows." Decree of Pius IX, 1 Aug. 1862.

"Whether for the validity of renunciations of underage Novices, and of female Novices, which are made on the occasion of Profession, it suffices to observe the form of the Council of Trent, or whether the solemnities prescribed by the current Judicial Code are necessary," as regards contracts of women and minors? Resp. "In the affirmative to the first part. In the negative to the second." S. C. EE. and RR. 17 March 1843.

"Those professed of simple vows must remain in the houses of the professed and of studies, and observe perfect common life. For the valid emitting of solemn vows after simple vows, express profession is required, and therefore tacit profession is entirely abrogated." Same Sacred Congregation, 12 June 1858. "The Most Holy Lord... established and constituted that, notwithstanding the Apostolic Letters of Clement VIII and any other contrary things whatever, those professed of simple vows can lawfully and freely emit the profession of solemn vows in their time in the Convent or House in which they are found, the other things to be observed by law nevertheless being observed, without being bound to profess in the house where the Novitiate was completed." Same Sacred Congregation, 9 Dec. 1859. Cf. Decrees of Clement VIII Regularis disciplinae, 12 March 1596; Sanctissimus in Christo Pater, 20 June 1599; Nullus omnino, 25 June 1555; Const. of Urban VIII Sacra Congregatio, 21 Sept. 1624.

"Religious profession is not weakened by the Rescripts of which there is question, namely of Secularization; and therefore Indultaries are not bound to repeat Profession and Novitiate when they seek to return to the Cloisters; nevertheless legitimate custom introduced and the prescriptions of individual regular Orders are saved. But suitable documents of the previous life and morals can be required by religious Superiors, while they were living in the world, and they can be obligated to perform spiritual exercises." S. C. EE. and RR. 30 Jan. 1824.

"Whether young men who before exclaustration, because of the extinguished College, had emitted simple vows are to be reputed free from them, so that if Monasteries are opened again, they must begin and pursue the Novitiate according to the Decree over the State of Regulars Neminem latet, 19 March 1857? Resp. In the negative." 4 July 1862.

Resp. "In the 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 Religion which determine the matter of the vow of poverty. Likewise, he is bound to observe other rules and observances not repugnant to the dignity and episcopal office with the same obligation, grave or light, by which he was bound before he obtained the episcopal dignity; yet in such a way that in peculiar cases he can prudently make judgment whether those rules agree with episcopal dignity and office." S. C. EE. and RR. 6 May 1864. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 1, p. 449 ff.

"Care must be taken that Regulars expelled from their own houses, insofar as they cannot be received into another monastery, come together into some particular house to be designated by their Superiors, and there not omit to observe, in the best way that can be done, the rule which they have professed, with prohibition made to each of departing without due license." S. Poenit. 18 April 1867. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 3, p. 151 ff.; Scavini, bk. 1, n. 669 ff., Milan, 1874.

Cf. N. 54.

"So that the decrees of the Council of Trent concerning the vow of poverty to be guarded may be observed more faithfully, it is commanded that no one from among 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, acquired either from sermons, or from lectures, or for Masses, whether to be celebrated in his own Church or anywhere whatever, or by another just labor and cause of theirs, and under whatever name acquired, even if they are subsidies of relatives, or pious largesses, legacies, or donations; but let all these things at once be handed over to the Superior and incorporated into the convent, and be mingled with the other goods, revenues, moneys, and proceeds of it, so that from this common food and clothing can be supplied to all. But of those things which had been conceded for necessity, let no one possess anything as his own, nor use it as his own. No dispensation of any Superiors whatever, no license as regards immovable or movable goods, can excuse the brothers from being liable to the fault and penalty imposed by the same decrees of the Council and to be incurred by the very fact, even if Superiors assert that they can grant dispensations or licenses of this kind, to whom We will that faith by no means be given in this matter." Const. of Clement VIII for the reform of Regulars, 20 March 1601, nn. 3, 5, 7.

"The Eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinal Victor Augustus Isidore, Archbishop of Mechlin, together with his suffragans, requested from Our Most Holy Lord that, in order to remove any doubts whatever, he deign to explain and declare whether the rescript of 1 Dec. 1820, by which the Sacred Penitentiary, by Apostolic authority, granted to regulars of Belgium of either sex, even solemnly professed, that they could acquire, retain, and administer goods, and dispose concerning them, the solemn vow of poverty notwithstanding, still remains in its entire force." The Decree of the year 1820 is this: "The Sacred Penitentiary, understanding that the government altogether wishes that that old decree of the day 18 Feb. 1809, namely decret relatif aux congregations des maisons hospitalieres de femmes, article 9, 'Each hospital sister will preserve the entire property of her goods and revenues, and the right of administering and disposing of them according to the Napoleonic Code,' be observed by the regulars of the kingdom of Belgium, by which the property, possession, and administration of goods which have come to them is vindicated to individual religious or nuns, grants by express Apostolic authority to regulars of either sex already solemnly professed, that they can acquire, retain, and administer those goods, and dispose concerning them for pious and honorable uses, the vow of poverty notwithstanding, provided that they do this with due dependence on legitimate Superiors."

Our Most Holy Lord Leo XIII, Pope by divine providence... commanded that response should be made: In the affirmative; and by the tenor of the presents he deigned to declare, insofar as there is need, that all and singular regulars of Belgium of either sex, even those who have pronounced solemn vows, have validly and lawfully exercised and do exercise all the aforesaid acts; and therefore that they could and can, with safe conscience, even with an oath, assert that they wished, according to the norm of civil laws, to acquire true dominion of the goods possessed by them, together with the right of disposing concerning them. Concerning these things His Holiness commanded that this decree be issued and reported in the acts of the Congregation mentioned above (Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs). Any contrary things whatever by no means standing in the way." 31 July 1878.

"16. He likewise grants to solemnly professed regulars that they can legitimately obtain and retain in administration Chaplaincies or one ecclesiastical Benefice only, even residential or with care of souls, with the consent and at the nod of the Ordinary of the place, and with their own superiors agreeing; which nevertheless they are bound to give up at once when they have been recalled by the same Superiors to the cloisters.

"17. He grants to local Ordinaries as regards nuns, and to Superiors general as regards men regulars, the faculty of indulging, either by themselves or through suitable persons to be subdelegated by them, to their respective subjects suppressed in Italy, that, with peculiar circumstances considered and while these endure, notwithstanding the solemn vow of poverty, they may be able to receive, enter into, and retain goods pertaining to them by legitimate right, and even inheritances, nevertheless with the right acquired by a third party saved, and concerning these not only to enter into contracts, but also to dispose for pious and honorable uses, and especially in favor of their Order or Institute, and also in signification of a grateful mind, through acts either among the living or by reason of death, with the counsel and approval acceding of the Ordinary himself or Superior or another deputed by him, or at least in case of necessity of the confessor. Yet in such a way that they are bound, as long as they have lived in a community which can possess temporal goods, to hand over the administration and revenues of their things to the same community, and to leave to the same Religion whatever has come to them from the goods of their own Religion, with precautions employed. But if the community is from among those to whom the possession of temporal goods is not permitted, in this case let them commit the administration to some third person, so that without the license of the Ordinary or of the regular Superiors, they cannot apply any of the fruits to themselves or dispose in any way.

"18. He indulges to all and singular suppressed regulars of either sex, that they can cautiously place moneys acquired by legitimate title, with the license of their superiors, and, insofar as there is question of nuns, with the license of the Ordinary of the place, in an honorable and lawful investment, either through interposed persons; yet by this law, that regulars living in community are bound to hand over the titles and revenues of the same moneys to the same community, or to some third person, as above, and cannot dispose concerning them in any way without the license of the same superiors or of the Ordinary himself." S. Poenit. 18 April 1867.

"Whether the faculty which is contained under n. 17 of the Instruction of the Sacred Penitentiary, 18 April 1867, can also be extended to Italian religious subjects before they emit the solemn vow of poverty; that is, whether while the profession of solemn vows is made, they can be permitted by Superiors General to be able to retain, etc., the property of legitimate goods and inheritances which they already possessed? Resp. In the negative, but they are bound altogether to abdicate themselves from every right and property of the same goods according to the Constitutions of their own Order. But the Sacred Penitentiary declares its mind, in granting the faculty expressed in n. 17 of the Instruction given 18 April 1867, in no way to have been that through Superiors General of regular Orders there could be indulged to subjects suppressed in Italy the property or dominion of goods coming to them by whatever reason, which the same regulars, by reason of solemn profession, acquire not for themselves but for the monastery or Order." S. Poenit. 21 May 1880.

"Those professed of simple vows in Orders in which solemn vows are emitted will be able to retain the radical dominion, as they say, of their goods; but the administration of them, and the spending and use of revenues, is altogether interdicted to them. Therefore before the profession of simple vows they must cede for the time during which they 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 have so judged according to their own choice." S. C. over the State of Regulars, 12 June 1858.

"Concerning the vow of poverty the following disposition was established by the Apostolic See as regards some more recent institutes of this kind: 'The professed will be able to retain the radical dominion, as they say, of their goods; but the administration of them, and the spending and use of revenues, is altogether interdicted to them as long as they remain in the institute. Therefore before profession they must cede, even privately, the administration and use to whomever they please, and even to their own institute, if they have so judged according to their own choice. But this cession will no longer have force in the case of departure from the institute; indeed, there can be added the condition that it is revocable whenever, even if they have remained in the institute; but the professed during vows will be able by no means to use this right of revoking in conscience, unless the good pleasure of the Apostolic See accedes. This must also be said concerning goods which after profession have come to them by hereditary title. Nevertheless, they will be able to dispose concerning dominion, either by testament or, with the license however of the General Moderatrix, through acts among the living; nor is it forbidden to them to perform those acts of property, with the license of the same General Moderatrix, which are prescribed by laws.'" Bizzarri, Collectanea, pp. 793, 806, ed. 1885.

"... Wherefore, striving to guard lest from gifts... grave inconveniences arise even under the appearance of good... We wholly interdict to regular persons of either sex every and any giving and sending of gifts... except lighter little gifts of food or drink, or those pertaining to devotion or Religion... to be handed over... unless in reality for divine worship, and for the true necessities of Christ's poor, with the order of charity observed in this, and with account had of necessity, by counsel and consent of Superiors for relieving them, or otherwise in lawful things... Yet declaring by these things that laudable hospitality, commended by apostolic doctrine and sacred canons, especially toward the poor and pilgrims, is in no way diminished or prohibited... By like reason also We strictly inhibit that anyone... receive anything against this prohibition expressed above... But if he shall receive anything, let him not make that which he has received his own... But by the fact itself... he is altogether bound to its restitution in each forum; so that, the restitution itself not having been really made, he cannot even be absolved in the forum of conscience... This restitution, however, We will to be made to that Monastery, House, or other place from whose goods the gift was made, or if it was not given from its goods, to the one in which the same religious making the gift emitted profession..." Clement VIII, Const. Religiosae Congregationes, 13 Kal. July 1594. "... He declares that gifts can be bestowed by Religious of either sex from causes of gratitude, conciliation, benevolence, and preservation of the same toward the Religion itself or the Convent, and from other causes which of their nature contain an act of virtue and merit; yet modestly and discreetly, and provided that this is not done except with the license of local Superiors, and also with the consent of the greater part of the Convent, if such consent is required in that Religion..." Urban VIII, Const. Nuper a Congregatione, 16 Oct. 1640. Cf. Constitutions and Decrees to be read by Regulars at the public table or Chapter.

"In all houses of Novitiate common life will be established... In other houses a common chest will be established... in which all Religious will deposit money..." S. C. EE. and RR. 22 April 1851. Bizzarri, pp. 852, 853.

"A professed Regular, incapable of goods, assumed to the Episcopate... recovers the right of succeeding to inheritances, after the Episcopate has been attained, brought to him for the utility of his Church as regards property, and for his own advantage as regards usufruct." S. C. C. 7 Dec. 1639. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 1, p. 227.

"The Holiness of Our Lord... not wishing that in Monasteries of Nuns men teach Music, Song, or Sound, either to Nuns or to secular women staying in the Enclosure, either at the grates, or at the door, and much more with entrance into the Monastery, commanded, etc." S. C. EE. and RR. 4 Aug. 1800; 18 Aug. 1843.

"... The same Sacred Congregation... by special mandate of Our Most Holy Lord Clement X, by this present Decree, in virtue of holy obedience, commands all and singular Superiors... that henceforth they receive or admit no one to dwell within the cloisters as Tertiaries, or Oblates, or Donati, or Committed, or Servants, nor as guests or postulants, or singers, or called by any other name whatever, and clothed or to be clothed in any habit whatever, or under whatever pretext, cause, or sought color, unless he has completed the twentieth year of his age; and that all thus received or admitted, with only those excepted who, having completed the age of 15 years, are making the year of probation as Clerics or Choristers in the habit of Novices, they altogether remove and cast out from Monasteries or Regular Houses..." S. C. EE. and RR. 16 May 1675. Bizzarri, Collectanea, p. 274.

"Whether custom or prescription can bring it about that elections which have been made against the form of the Decree of Trent, session 25, chapter 6, On Regulars, are ratified and valid? Resp. In the negative." S. C. EE. and RR. 11 March 1836.

The jurisdiction of Regular Superiors "over their own suppressed subjects, even those living outside the cloisters, has by no means ceased. For although each Regular living outside the cloisters, as regards polity and ecclesiastical discipline, is not exempt from the jurisdiction of the Ordinary of the place in which he lives, nevertheless as regards regular discipline and obligations which flow from religious profession and are compatible with his new state, he is bound to be subject to his own Superiors and to obey them." S. Poenit. 18 April 1867. "With the rights acquired by the Province over each of its own alumni kept whole and intact... the S. C. over Regular Discipline decreed that all Religious universally... as long as because of present circumstances it happens that they live outside the boundaries of the Regular Province, whether at home or elsewhere, are to be subjected to the inspection and jurisdiction of the territorial Provincial..." S. C. over Regular Discipline, 5 Aug. 1872. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 3, p. 151 ff.; Vol. 7, p. 407 ff.

"... As regards the exemption of regulars, the prescriptions of canonical law are certain and known. Namely, although in the ecclesiastical hierarchy, which is constituted by divine ordination, presbyters and ministers are inferior to Bishops and are ruled by their authority ¹, nevertheless, so that in religious orders all things might better be apt and connected among themselves, and individual associates might enjoy a peaceful and even course of life, and finally that provision might be made for the increase and perfection of religious conversation ², not undeservedly did the Roman Pontiffs, whose office it is to describe dioceses and to assign to each his subjects to be ruled by sacred power, establish that the Regular Clergy is exempt from the jurisdiction of Bishops. The cause of this matter was not that it pleased them that religious societies should enjoy a better condition than the secular clergy, but that their houses were held by fiction of law as certain territories torn away from the dioceses themselves. From this it came about that religious families, which by common law ought immediately to be subject both to Bishops on account of hierarchical principate and to the Supreme Pontiff on account of pontifical primacy ³, continued to be in His power, and by privilege went out from the power of Bishops. But since in reality they pass life within the boundaries of dioceses, the force of this privilege is so tempered that diocesan discipline is kept whole and intact, and thus that the regular clergy in many things must be subject to episcopal power, whether ordinary or delegated... Moreover, by common law ⁴ it has been established that houses which do not contain at least six religious associates must altogether be in the power of Bishops... When a doubt had long ago been proposed to Clement VIII, whether religious men sent to the Indies for the cultivation of souls were to be considered as though living outside the enclosures of the monastery, and therefore were ordered by the Tridentine law to be subject to Bishops, that Pontiff, through the Constitution Religiosorum quorumcumque, 6 Ides of November 1601, had decreed that they were 'to be reputed as religious living inside the cloisters; wherefore in those things concerning the care of souls they are subject to the Ordinary of the place; but in the rest they remain subject not to the Ordinary of the place, but to their own superiors.' Nor did Benedict XIV think and judge otherwise in his constitutions Quamvis, 5 Kalends of March 1746; Cum nuper, 6 Ides of November 1751; and Cum alias, 5 Ides of June 1753. From all these things it is clear that even hospices and houses, however infrequent by fewness of inhabitants, are comprehended by the right of this privilege of which there is question, and this not only in places where Apostolic Vicars preside, but also where Bishops preside; for in the Constitutions which we have recalled, Bishops were being treated." Leo XIII, Const. Romanos Pontifices, 8 Ides of May 1881.

¹ Council of Trent, session 23, On the sacrament of Order, canon 7.

² St. Gregory the Great, Epistle III, book IX. Benedict XIV, decretal Epistle Apostolicae servitutis, the day before the Ides of March 1742.

³ Vatican Council, Constitution Pastor aeternus, chapter 3.

⁴ Innocent X, Constitution Instaurandae, 15 Oct. 1652; Constitution Ut in parvis, 10 Feb. 1654.

S. C. de P. F., 18 Jan. 1886, Leo XIII approving on the 19th of the same month.

"Concerning the dependence of Missionaries of the Society of Jesus on the Regular Superior and on the Apostolic Vicar: Insofar as they are religious, they are subject to Regular Superiors by force of the vow according to the Constitutions of the Society; but in cases expressly named by law, and generally in those things which regard the care of souls and the administration of sacraments, they are subject to the Apostolic Vicar by canonical obedience, as Clement VIII already sanctioned, that religious sent to India in things concerning the care of souls are subject to the Ordinary of the place, but in the rest remain subject not to the Ordinary of the place, but to their own Superiors. Clement VIII, Bull, 6 Ides of Nov. 1601, Religiosorum quorumcumque.

Concerning the right of assigning the same Missionaries to various offices: Both for the ministry of Missionaries concerning the care of souls, and for caring for pious Institutes which are in the power of the Apostolic Vicar, such as Seminaries, Catechumenates, Hospitals, popular Schools, and things similar to these, the designation of persons whom the regular Superior presents and the conferral of jurisdiction pertain to the Apostolic Vicar. Therefore also the removal and transfer of these persons pertain to the Apostolic Vicar and to the regular Superior according to the norms established by Benedict XIV in the Bull Firmandis, that is: But if the case should happen in which either the Bishop or the regular Superior judges that some one of the aforesaid Parish Priests is to be removed from the exercise of care, and deprived of the same, since it is by no means lawful for Parish Priests of this kind to accede to the care of souls without the prior approval of the Bishop, although deputed by their own superiors, and the same are removable at will; therefore it was doubted whether the Bishop could proceed to removals of this kind without the consent of the regular Superior, and whether he ought to bring forward the causes of removal to the same and verify them; and also whether the regular Superior, coming by his own right to a similar removal and privation, was bound to seek the consent of the Bishop and to make known and approved to him his reasons for acting. Concerning this matter the aforesaid Congregation of the Council decreed that Parish Priests of this kind can be removed from the care of souls both by the Bishop and by the regular Superior, with equal right, the consent of the other not being required; nor is one bound to open to the other the causes of his judgment, much less to prove and verify them. This We approve and confirm in all things.

Concerning Colleges in the Missions of the Society of Jesus: As regards Colleges, and the Schools and Boarding-houses of Colleges, in which religious men, according to the prescriptions of their Order, are accustomed to give work to instructing youth, right reason demands and the Holy See wills that the privileges granted to Regulars remain firm and entire. Therefore both the governance of those Institutes and the designation of persons in them pertain to regular Superiors according to the Constitutions of the Society.

Concerning the administration of temporal goods in the same Missions: As regards the administration of revenues arising from the works of religious, it is established: 1. The administration of revenues of Colleges and Boarding-houses, and likewise of recompenses which come to individuals, with apostolic dispensation, from stipends of Masses and rights of stole, or from personal industry, pertain to regular Superiors. 2. It is permitted to the Apostolic Vicar to establish a Cathedraticum, to be paid to himself, to be approved beforehand by the Sacred Congregation. But from the pensions of military Chaplaincies, what remains beyond their honorable support is to be handed over entirely by regular Superiors to the Apostolic Vicar. 3. The proceeds of which it has been spoken are to be expended not outside the Mission, but in the works of the Mission; for this end the regular Superior is bound every three years to render account concerning them to the Sacred Congregation.

Moreover the Most Eminent Fathers judged that the Most Holy Lord should be supplicated that he deign to extend to India the Apostolic Constitution Romanos Pontifices, given by him in the year 1881 for England and Scotland and afterwards extended to other regions. And the Supreme Pontiff, approving this also, granted the requested extension.

These decisions, which also regard the regular Superior and religious Missionaries, are nothing other than an application or explanation of common law, or of decisions already given at other times for places of Missions."

"3. He decrees that the aforesaid houses, designated by Superiors into which dispersed Religious have come together, provided that at least three Regulars have come together into them to live there, will be subject to the jurisdiction of the Provincial Minister, and that they are to be governed by a particular Superior to be constituted there. 4. He indulges that in the same houses, provided that at least four Regular priests live in them, a private Oratory can be erected, with the things to be observed by law observed... in such a way that in it Mass can be celebrated by Regular priests, the Most Holy Eucharist reserved, and Holy Communion received only by Religious and Oblates, and satisfaction made to the precept of hearing Mass. 5. He likewise indulges that in Oratories thus erected the Regulars themselves can enjoy all and any Indulgences granted and assigned to the houses or Churches from which they had been driven out." S. Poenit. 18 April 1867. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 5, p. 151 ff.

"Whether and to whom belongs, in the case, the right of funerals as regards Religious dispersed by force of the present circumstances? Resp. In the affirmative in favor of Regulars, as often as Religious live together under a legitimate Superior at least in the number of three, and others living outside depend on the same; otherwise in favor of Parish Priests." S. C. EE. and RR. 11 March 1881.

Cf. Scavini, bk. 1, n. 669 ff., 12th ed., Milan, 1874; Acta S. Sed. Vol. 1, p. 238 ff., 168; Vol. 3, p. 140 ff., 151; Vol. 5, p. 569 ff.; Vol. 7, p. 147 ff.

Cf. On Penance, N. 557.

"For the Holy See, especially from the time of the Council of Trent, neither permits nor indulges that solemn vows be emitted in Societies or Communities of women, unless they live and remain perpetually under inviolate enclosure." S. C. EE. and RR. 24 Sept. 1816. Cf. Const. of St. Pius V Circa pastoralis. But the Bishop can obtain from the Holy See papal enclosure even for Nuns with simple vows, with the consent of all vocal nuns acceding by secret votes. S. C. EE. and RR. 6 Dec. 1839. Cf. Bizzarri, Collectanea, pp. 412, 723-737, 742, 743; Acta S. Sed. Vol. 1, p. 708 ff.; Lucidi, chapter 5, section 2, n. 42.

1. If the discourse is concerning Nuns belonging to an Order in which solemn vows were previously emitted, here pertain the doubts proposed by the Bishop of Le Mans: "1. Whether the spiritual privileges granted to Regulars, for example indulgences, nevertheless remain? 2. Whether the vow of entering Religion is still reserved to the Apostolic See? 3. Whether the Ordinary, on a sufficient reason being given, can dispense concerning vows emitted by nuns, the vow of perpetual chastity remaining? 4. Whether the same thing must be said concerning vows of men as concerning vows of nuns, as it seems? Resp. To the 1st: That the Sisters of monasteries of France can gain all indulgences which have been granted to the Religion or Institute of other nuns emitting solemn vows according to the respective Institute or rule, and this from an indult confirmed by Our Most Holy Lord Gregory XVI. To the 2nd: In the affirmative; but the vow of a woman whose intention had regard to monasteries as they now exist in France is not reserved: because namely those same monasteries by the Apostolic See, with the peculiar circumstances considered, not as Orders truly and properly religious, but as families of most pious women. To the 3rd. From the declaration of His Holiness, the Bishops of France, things thus standing, can dispense. To the 4th. The decrees issued at other times through the S. Penitentiary regard only nuns." S. Poenit. 11 Dec. 1835.

2. But if the matter is concerning the more recent Congregations of Nuns approved by the Holy See, to this question pertain both the Rescript of the S. C. EE. and RR. of 20 Sept. 1840, and the Observations often made by the same S. C. on their Constitutions, by which it is asserted that in Congregations of this kind the vows emitted are dispensed by the Roman Pontiff alone.

3. "Whether a Bishop can dispense from vows emitted in non-enclosed Congregations, and not approved by the Holy See, which are subject to the governance of some Superior General; whether 1. they have houses situated in several dioceses; or 2. they have no houses outside the diocese in which they arose? Resp. To the 1st and 2nd, as regards the non-reserved vows of poverty and obedience, that the Bishop can in either case dispense, provided that a right acquired by a third party from an onerous contract is not injured while he is reasonably unwilling; as regards the reserved vow of chastity, negatively from the Bishop's ordinary power, unless it is established that the vow was not perpetual and absolute." S. C. S. O. 2 Aug. 1876.

"1. Whether, if there are not solemn vows, nuns nevertheless are bound to observe the enclosure which they vow by a simple vow, under the censures enacted by Trent, where the Bishop has restored the enclosure. 2. Whether he also incurs the penalty of excommunication who without license enters the precincts of the monastery, where the enclosure has been restored by the Bishop? Resp. To the 1st, negatively as regards the penalties prescribed by the sacred canons and apostolic constitutions. To the 2nd, affirmatively with relation to censures perhaps imposed by the Bishop." S. C. EE. and RR. 1 Aug. 1839.

Cf. N. 54.