Chapter VI — On the obligation of reciting the Canonical Hours, by which Beneficiaries are bound

I. Question I. Is one who holds a benefice, whether simple or with cure of souls, bound under grave fault to recite the Canonical Hours? Answer. Ecclesiastical benefices are Episcopates, Canonries, Plebanates, Rectorships, Provostships, Dignities, Prestimonies, and a Chaplaincy erected by the Bishop's authority. That all these beneficiaries are bound to pay the divine office was defined in the Lateran Council under Leo X, session 9, "We ordain"; and rightly, because he who freely takes upon himself some benefice ought to undergo its burdens: but the benefice is conferred with the burden of reciting the Canonical Hours; therefore he is bound to pay them. Wherefore a Beneficiary omitting the divine office, if he be initiated into sacred orders, perpetrates a twofold crime, one against Religion, the other against Justice. If he takes the benefice under compulsion of fear, and receives its fruits, he is bound to recite the Canonical Hours; if he is unwilling to receive the fruits, he comes off free from reciting the office.

II. He who holds a benefice reduced to commendam, until it be given to another, or a manual or regular one, is bound to recite the office: because it is a benefice, and he receives its fruits. For it does not matter that it can be revoked at will. For the burden lasts as long as the advantage lasts. If a benefice is given to someone that he play the organ, he ought to recite the office. If only the fruits of the benefice are conferred as a wage, then there is no duty of reciting the office.

III. Question II. Is one who receives prestimonies bound to the Canonical Hours? Answer. Some deny it; but the more probable and more common opinion affirms it, because these prestimonies are portions deducted from the revenues of a benefice, and so true benefices, as St. Pius V declared by motu proprio. If they are reckoned among benefices, they are subject to the burdens of a benefice. Similarly, those who have obtained a Chaplaincy erected by the Bishop's authority, and conferred by him, are bound to pay the Canonical Hours. But if it is neither erected by the Bishop nor conferred by him, he who holds it is free from the burden of paying the office. But if, by its institution, it is not collative, and afterwards is conferred once or twice by the Bishop, it does not thereby become collative, and so the holder is not subject to the recitation of the Hours. On the contrary, if Prelates frequently confer it — that is, at a fitting time for prescription — then those retaining it would be bound to the Canonical Hours, because through this frequent conferral it puts on the character of an ecclesiastical benefice.

IV. He who, before the legitimate age, obtains a collative Chaplaincy by dispensation of the Pontiff, is bound to recite the Canonical Hours; but he must have Masses celebrated by others.

V. Question III. Are pensioners bound to recite the Canonical Hours? Answer. If the pension is altogether lay, and is conferred by the title of a wage for service rendered to the Church, there is no obligation of reciting the office; on the contrary, if it is conferred on a Cleric as Cleric, and some order or tonsure is necessary in the recipient, then the recipient is bound not to the Canonical Hours, but to the little office of the Blessed Virgin, since St. Pius V so decreed, under the burden of restoring the fruits of the pension. But he is exempt from reciting the little office of the Blessed Virgin in whose person the pension is reserved for another's advantage: because only he who enjoys the advantage ought to undergo the burden of reciting the office.

VI. He who obtained a pension by clerical title, if he afterwards contracts marriage, is bound to recite the office of the Blessed Virgin, since it is an ecclesiastical pension, which requires clerical title in the recipient; and the same must be said of one who, after contracting marriage, obtains a pension by clerical title. He who resigns the whole pension is bound to nothing; if he resigns only part of the pension, he remains subject to the burden of reciting the office. A beneficiary Cleric, if he obtains a pension, is not bound to recite the Marian office, provided he recites the Canonical Hours. For the mind of St. Pius V is that one or the other office be recited, but not both.

VII. Question IV. Are Bishops and Cardinals bound to recite the Canonical Hours? Answer. Of Bishops there is no disagreement, but all affirm that they are bound. Of Cardinals Fr. Diana remains undecided, and suspends his judgment. But all the Theologians affirm that Cardinals are bound to pay the divine office, since the Cardinalate is a very great and eminent benefice. If all Beneficiaries are subject to the burden of reciting the office, Cardinals are bound by a stricter right, and undergo this burden on the day on which they receive the red biretta.

VIII. Question V. Are coadjutors of benefices bound to the Canonical Hours? Answer. A coadjutorship is not a benefice, even while some suitable stipend is assigned, because the benefice remains with the titular holder, nor can it be in two persons at once. But if some fruits are assigned to coadjutors, not as a stipend, but by way of a pension, then, like other pensioners, they are bound to recite the little office of the Blessed Virgin. If a coadjutor is given to an absent or sick Parish priest, to hold his place, he is then bound to discharge all the duties of the Parish priest. Finally, if coadjutors have expressly bound themselves, and have entered into a pact with the titular holder, the Pontiff dispensing, then they are bound to the Canonical Hours.

IX. Question VI. Is one who holds a benefice without fruits bound to the Canonical Hours? Answer. If he lacks the fruits by his own fault, he is bound, because he ought not to gather fruit from his own iniquity. That if the benefice lacks any fruit whatever, even then he is bound to the Canonical Hours, Medina, Paludanus, and Torquemada defend: because he who spontaneously accepts a benefice destitute of fruits also spontaneously and freely takes upon himself its burdens. Others deny it. I would say to the Beneficiary: either give up the benefice, or recite the office.

X. If a Beneficiary, against the order of law, does not reside, he is bound to the Canonical Hours. But if, the order of law being kept, he does not reside for a just cause, that even then he is bound to the Canonical Hours, Paludanus, Soto, Torquemada, Ledesma, Navarrus, and Córdoba teach. Leander, however, denies it. If the cause of absence is for the common good of the Church, then perhaps he could be said to be exempt. But if he is absent for his own peculiar advantage, even though an honorable one — for instance for the sake of studies, that he may become a Doctor or Master — he is nonetheless bound to recite the Canonical Hours. Nor may you object that study and the acquisition of knowledge redound to the honor and advantage of the Church: for these evasions are vain. Only in the case of defending the Church, or of protecting her rights, could it be disputed whether the Beneficiary were exempt. And even then, if he could recite the Canonical Hours, I see no solid reason why he should not. If a Beneficiary resigns the fruits to friends or blood-relations, he is beyond doubt subject to the recitation of the divine office. Similarly a Beneficiary who, on account of excommunication, does not receive the fruits, is bound to recite the divine office. But he who unjustly holds a benefice — as through simony, or because he is excommunicated, irregular, or lacking the legitimate age — is not bound to recite the Canonical Hours; but he must give up the benefice and restore the fruits. But he who, having legitimately obtained a benefice, is deprived of it by a judge's sentence for a year or a longer interval, is bound throughout that whole time to pay the Canonical Hours: since he ought not to gather advantage from his own fault.

XI. He who accepts a slender benefice is subject to the obligation of reciting the Canonical Hours, as the common and true opinion teaches. For this burden arises not from the revenues, but from the benefice. Therefore he who wills the benefice, wills by that very fact the burdens of the benefice. If the burden displeases him, let him give up the benefice.

XII. A Beneficiary who, having taken possession of the benefice, is impeded for some time from receiving the fruits, is bound to recite the Canonical Hours. For he who is deprived for some time of receiving the fruits, and probably hopes that he will receive them in due time, has the benefice, and the right of receiving the fruits. Those Beneficiaries are bound to recite the Canonical prayers whose first-year fruits, by statute of the Church or by custom, are distributed among their seniors: both because they voluntarily subject themselves to this burden, and because they have a right to receive the fruits. Yet the Council of Trent, session 24, chapter 14, and St. Pius V, in the constitution Dudum of the year 1570, disapproved this custom as depraved. But when a Beneficiary is impeded by force and fraud from receiving the fruits, without hope of receiving them, he is exempt from the burden of the divine office, and can give up the benefice. If, however, the impediment were not perpetual, nor for a very long time, and the Beneficiary wished to retain the benefice, then he would be bound to the Canonical Hours: because he both possesses the benefice and has hope of receiving the fruits.

XIII. A Beneficiary who, after the benefice has been conferred, is impeded by a lawsuit brought against him from taking possession of the benefice, is not bound to the Canonical Hours. For the burden of reciting the Canonical Hours arises not from the conferral alone, but from the peaceful possession of the benefice. From conferral a right is born, but a mutilated and imperfect one; it is perfected, however, by possession. From this absolute title the burden of the Canonical Hours arises. When, therefore, the beneficiary is in no way the cause why he is impeded from possession, but by a lawsuit brought against him is in very deed impeded from possessing the benefice, he is exempt from the burden, until he attains possession. For so long as possession is under litigation, the benefice, together with its fruits, is a contingent matter; and from a contingent matter a certain debt cannot flow.

XIV. If, on the contrary, a Beneficiary has obtained possession of the benefice and the administration of the fruits, and is afterwards sued in a lawsuit, then he is bound to the Canonical Hours: because then he enjoys the title, the possession, and the administration of the benefice. And this is the common opinion.

XV. Question VII. One who is in doubt about the slenderness of a benefice — is he bound to pay the burden of the Canonical Hours? Answer. Several of the Probabilists deny it. Fr. Tamburini, book 1 on the Decalogue, chapter 3, § 7, verse Beneficiarius, writes this: "We shall say below that a Beneficiary possessing a slender benefice is not obliged, according to a probable opinion, to pay the Canonical Hours. What, then, will happen, if, all things weighed, it is doubted whether a benefice is slender or not? I answer: I think it probable that he is obliged, and equally probable that he is not obliged. Wherefore it is lawful to embrace whichever of these opinions pleases you." It is worthwhile to set before the eyes of readers, even in this very Compendium, the sweetest fruits of Probabilism. "To embrace whichever of these opinions pleases you." If one is true, the other must needs be false. It is lawful for you, then, most sweetly to sip the poison of falsehood according to your inclination. But these things must be bewailed with tears rather than served up for mockery. Hence let the reader gather how true is what I said above: namely, that Probabilism is — saving a better judgment — antievangelical, because it establishes as a system that the use of falsity is licit, which must needs be found in one or the other of contrary propositions. The most benign Probabilist Leander follows Tamburini's doctrine. He who has two benefices, each of which is so slender that it does not suffice, but both together suffice for an honorable sustenance, is bound to the Canonical Hours, as all affirm. But those who have several rich benefices are bound to pay not two, but a single divine office. If, however, a Beneficiary unjustly holds several benefices, then several Theologians teach that he must recite several divine offices. I myself would say that such a Beneficiary must retain one benefice, and give up the rest. If a Beneficiary is a Priest, and has several benefices, does he perpetrate several sins if he omits the office? Not a few Theologians affirm it. But it is more probable to me that he commits only one sin against Justice, and another against Religion.