Article II. On Suspension

993. Definition. - Suspension is a censure by which a Cleric is deprived for a time, in part or in whole, of the use of the power which he has by reason of Order, office, or benefice.

Suspension is a censure because of itself it is imposed medicinally by way of admonition, so that the delinquent may cease from contumacy. Thus: 1. it differs from deposition and degradation, which are mere and perpetual penalties for the vindication of a crime; 2. it differs from irregularity, which is not of itself a penalty, but a mere impediment or inability preventing not only the exercise of ecclesiastical power but also its reception.

Nevertheless, suspension is not necessarily and essentially a censure; for sometimes it is imposed either for a definite time or perpetually to punish fault which is merely past, and therefore it is then not medicinal. This is established from the practice of the Church, from book 2 of the Decretals, title 20, chapter 33.

Division. A twofold suspension is distinguished:

1. Total, by which a Cleric is barred from every ecclesiastical function or right.

2. Partial, by which he is deprived only of some function or right.

But partial suspension is threefold: 1. from Order, which deprives one of the exercise of the functions of Order, for example, the celebration of Mass, the solemn chanting of the Gospel or Epistle, etc.; 2. from office, which deprives one of the use both of Order and of jurisdiction, whether in the external forum or even in the internal forum; 3. from benefice, which deprives one of the revenues and administration of the benefice. But each of these can again be subdivided into total or partial suspension, whether from Order, office, or benefice. See St. Alphonsus, no. 315 and following.

994. General Rules. - I. Rule. A suspended Cleric sins gravely if he solemnly exercises a forbidden act of sacred Order, unless he is excused by invincible ignorance or another legitimate cause, for example, necessity. The reason is that in a grave matter he resists the Church. Nevertheless, he can do all those things which are customarily done by laics, for example, sing in choir in the manner of laics, etc. But one suspended from Order, if he exercises it, not only sins gravely but also incurs irregularity, as we shall say in its place.

II. Rule. Suspension absolutely and simply, without any determination to this or that, is always considered total and therefore deprives one of every use of Order, jurisdiction, and benefice. But partial suspension deprives one only of that part of this power which is expressed in the law, statute, mandate, or sentence.

III. Rule. Suspension from Order absolutely and simply deprives one of the exercise and use of every Order, whether major or minor. Suspension from jurisdiction imports deprivation of all jurisdiction.

IV. Rule. Suspension from office simply and without limitation deprives one of the use both of jurisdiction and of Order, or of every ecclesiastical ministry. Hence a Pastor suspended from Office can neither celebrate Mass, nor preach, nor preside over offices, nor administer the Sacraments.

995. Resolutions. - 1. One simply suspended from Order is not understood to be suspended from jurisdiction, and vice versa. One suspended from a higher Order is not thereby suspended from a lower one. Likewise, one suspended from a benefice is not considered suspended from office, nor vice versa.

2. Irregularity is not incurred by violation of a suspension imposed on account of an offense which is merely past, or imposed perpetually. St. Alphonsus, no. 314 and following. The reason is that such a suspension has the character of a mere penalty and not of a censure, as was said above, no. 941; therefore, there is not then a violation of censure. A fortiori, this is so if the suspension was imposed on account of an inculpable defect of mind or body. Nor is irregularity incurred through the exercise of any act from which someone was suspended, except the solemn exercise of sacred Order. Thus commonly.

3. A Bishop suspended from pontificals, if he celebrated Mass, even with pontificals, would not incur irregularity, because he would not exercise a substantial act of episcopal Order. St. Alphonsus, no. 314, etc.

4. Acts of Order of a suspended Cleric which do not depend upon jurisdiction are valid, because the Church cannot take away the power of Order, but can only prohibit its exercise. But acts of jurisdiction are invalid if the suspended person has been denounced by name, because he is deprived of actual jurisdiction; they are valid, however, unless he has been denounced, because the Church, by the very fact that it tolerates the suspended person, does not take away his jurisdiction, for the good of the faithful. St. Alphonsus, no. 314, etc.

996. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Can a suspended Priest be absolved from sins by a simple Confessor before he is released from the censure by the Superior?

Reply. Affirmatively. The reason is that the effect of suspension is not to deprive one of the reception of the Sacraments. It suffices, therefore, if he is disposed for the Sacrament of Penance, namely, if he is at least attrite concerning his sins and promises that as soon as possible, insofar as it lies in him, he will procure absolution from the censure, and that in the meantime he will not use the prohibited power or rights.

QUESTION 2. Can a partial suspension be imposed for only a venial fault?

Reply. Affirmatively, according to the common opinion, provided it is for a brief time ¹, and therefore imposed ab homine. The reason is that it does not then introduce a great burden, and therefore proportion between fault and penalty is not lacking. It is otherwise, however, if it were for a long time or imposed by law so that it is incurred without a previous admonition; for such a censure is not incurred except on account of mortal sin. St. Alphonsus, no. 320, etc.

¹ But the Author himself has already admonished several times that suspension for a definite time, whether long or brief, is not a censure properly so called. Concerning these things the Rieti Commentary speaks briefly and clearly thus (section 13): Suspension and interdict are sometimes imposed by way of punishment alone or of a certain deprivation. By way of punishment, when contumacy is not restrained, but they are imposed upon individuals for offenses altogether past, that is, which have no successive course, as they say; or are established perpetually, or until a certain day, or for as long as it shall seem good to the Ordinary. But by way of a certain deprivation, when they are imposed upon some College or University. Between censures and penalties or deprivations this especially differs: one who violates a censure by exercising Order incurs irregularity; but violation of a penalty or deprivation makes no one irregular unless something else is provided in law, as in chapter Cum aeterni 1, On Sentences and Matters Adjudged, in the Sext, where a judge is declared irregular if he damnably intrudes himself into divine things during the suspension otherwise imposed upon him for a year.

997. • QUESTION 3. How is suspension removed?

Reply 1. If the suspension has the character of a censure, it is removed like excommunication, namely, by absolution alone, and indeed that of the Superior if it is reserved. Nevertheless, if it was imposed for a definite determined time or under a condition, it ceases of itself when the time has elapsed or the established condition has been fulfilled.

Reply 2. But if it was imposed perpetually on account of fault altogether past, it is removed as a mere penalty by dispensation alone of the Prelate or his delegate, because it is not then a censure. Thus commonly.

QUESTION 4. What form must be employed for removing suspension?

Reply 1. If the suspension is occult, it is removed by absolution under the general form: I absolve you from every bond, etc.

Reply 2. If it is public, it is removed in the internal forum by the same form; but in the external forum the solemn form determined in the Ritual must be employed. But no one can solemnly absolve from suspension except the Superior himself or another specially delegated for this.

QUESTION 5. Can a Priest simply approved absolve a person suspended by censure at the point of death if the Superior or delegate is lacking?

Reply. Not a few deny this, being led by the reason that no cause appears why the Church should confer such power upon him; for suspension does not deprive one of the faculty of receiving the Sacraments, if you except promotion to a higher Order. It therefore suffices for eternal salvation that one suspended and constituted in such danger be absolved from sins. Others, however, probably judge that a Priest in this case can absolve the dying person. The reason is that the Council of Trent says generally and without distinction, from any censures; and thus, since it excepts no censure, it is not ours to distinguish where the law of the Council distinguishes nothing. See Diana, tome V, treatise 1, resolution 205.

998. • I. Those who, already marked with the episcopal character, having been nominated and presented or elected to vacant churches, see above, no. 973, dare to undertake their care, governance, and administration before the exhibition of the Apostolic Letters incur the penalty of suspension from the exercise of Pontificals ², reserved in a special manner to the Roman Pontiff. From the Constitution Romanus Pontifex of Pius IX, 28 August 1873.

² By the name of Pontificals is understood the authoritative use of Pontifical insignia, such as the miter, pastoral staff, and pallium. Therefore, one suspended from Pontificals is barred from acts of episcopal Order which are customarily performed with the aforesaid insignia. Therefore, without dispensation he cannot confer the sacrament of Confirmation or Orders, nor consecrate virgins, Churches, etc., because these are numbered among Pontificals. Nevertheless, he can celebrate Mass in the manner of other priests, hear confessions, baptize, and even impose censures, confer benefices, and exercise other acts of jurisdiction, for these do not pertain to Pontificals.

From the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis.

999. • II. Chapters and Convents of Churches and monasteries, and all others, who receive for the governance and administration of those Churches or monasteries Bishops or other Prelates provided in any manner by the same Holy See for the aforesaid Churches or Monasteries before they have exhibited the Apostolic Letters concerning their promotion, incur by the act itself a simply reserved suspension from the receipt of revenues from their Benefices at the good pleasure of the Holy See ³.

³ This suspension strikes moral persons or communities, see above, no. 950, question 7, such as chapters and monasteries, if they have received Bishops or Prelates provided by the Holy See for their respective Churches or Monasteries, but who have not yet exhibited the Apostolic Letters concerning their promotion, and accordingly have shown obedience and subjection to them as endowed with legitimate authority.

But since suspension can be imposed either upon a Chapter as a moral person, or upon the individual Clerics of that Chapter, or simultaneously upon the Chapter and the individuals, the question is whether Chapters and monasteries here incur suspension only from the benefices which they possess in common, as Suarez judged (On Censures, disputation 31, section 5, no. 23, and disputation 28, section 3, no. 5), or also from those which individuals obtain, as Bonacina thought (tome 3, disputation 3, question 4, point 10, no. 4)? The opinion of Suarez, says the Rieti Commentary, agrees better both with the words of our Constitution and with the rules of Canon Law; and in doubt, since we are dealing with penal matters, it is to be preferred.

Bonacina was moved (loc. cit.) by the fact that in the Extravagant Iniunctae, On Election, chapter 1, from which this censure is taken, it is said and any others, just as in our Constitution it is said and all others. But since all those others do not belong to the Chapter or monastery, let it be granted that they are punished with deprivation of those things which the individuals obtain, since they undergo no other deprivation; but if the members of the Chapter or monastery were punished thus in addition, they would now undergo a double penalty in comparison with those others.

But here take care to observe that both in the Constitution Iniunctae and in the text of our Constitution, under the name of benefices come also goods which pertain to monasteries. Hence that which we indicated above, in the Note to no. 972, XI, is confirmed: how, under the appellation of benefices, the usurpation of goods pertaining to monasteries falls under the censure of excommunication reserved in a special manner.

III. Those ordaining someone without the title of a Benefice or patrimony, with an agreement that the ordained person not seek support from them, incur by the law itself a suspension for three years from the conferral of Orders. From the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis ⁴.

⁴ This suspension is imposed generally upon a Bishop who promotes to sacred Orders a cleric not possessing suitable means of support through a Benefice, patrimony, etc. And since the Holy Synod of Trent decreed, session 21, chapter 2, On Reformation, that henceforth no secular cleric be promoted to sacred Orders unless it is first legitimately established that he peacefully possesses an ecclesiastical benefice or patrimony which suffices for his honorable support; and since the laws, chapter Cum secundum 16, On Prebends, require that whoever promotes to sacred Orders a cleric lacking a benefice or patrimony be bound to supply him with what is sufficient for honorable support; it is therefore established that a Bishop prevaricates who ordains one destitute of the title of a benefice or patrimony and at the same time, by entering into an agreement, exempts himself from the burden of providing him with those things necessary for support. And indeed, the penalty of suspension inflicted for agreements of this kind is seen inserted in the canonical laws concerning Simony, chapter Si quis 45, since these agreements savor of a certain simony. This canon, however, has a limitation in our Constitution; for in it a three-year suspension from the Order thus received was also inflicted upon the ordained person, but by force of the new law only those ordaining incur the suspension. See Avanzini, Commentary, no. 49, where he suitably resolves at length the doubts concerning this matter.

Moreover, when a cleric is or is not to be judged, in the present matter, destitute of every title, the Rieti Commentary embraces briefly and properly thus (section 145): The Pontiff says, without a title. But one is understood to be ordained without a title also if he is ordained with a false title,

(which, namely, does not exist, whether the estates, instruments, or names of those establishing it are fictitious), or with one from which no right of receiving fruits passes to the ordained person. Not so, if my opinion is of any worth, for we are dealing with penal matters, if a right of this kind does indeed pass but: 1. the title is not sufficient; or the title is sufficient but the right of receiving the fruits was established, 2. from a certain day, for example, from the day of ordination to the subdiaconate, or 3. perhaps only until a day, for example, for three years. For in the first case some title exists; in the second it exists in law; in the third it exists in fact and reality. Nor does one incur the suspension if he ordained him under a fictive title, which, namely, really exists but was established for appearance's sake, that is, perfunctorily and without the intention of establishing it, or a fiduciary title, which, namely, is established under the condition that it be afterward restored following ordination, or that the ordained person not receive the fruits, because it is valid, according to the Sacred Congregation of the Council, 14 May 1671, apud Benedict XIV, Notification 26, no. 18; or under a title subject to restitution in integrum or rescission, because meanwhile it is valid; or under an unjust title, which, namely, was made without the form of law being observed, because it is uncertain whether it is invalid, at least in the forum of conscience, as St. Alphonsus has it, book 3, nos. 711 and 927.

IV. Those ordaining the subject of another ⁵, even under the pretext of a Benefice immediately to be conferred or already conferred but by no means sufficient, without dimissorial letters from his Bishop ⁶; or even their own subject who has remained elsewhere for so long a time that he could have contracted a canonical impediment there, without testimonial letters from the Ordinary of that place ⁷. From the same Constitution Apostolicae Sedis ⁸.

⁵ By the subject of another we must understand one who is not a subject of the one ordaining, either by reason of origin, domicile, benefice, or service or familiarity, although he may by chance have been born in the latter's diocese; for the Bishop of origin is said to be the one in whose Diocese his father had a domicile when the one to be ordained came forth into the light, or his mother if he is illegitimate. See the Rieti Commentary, section 140.

But the one ordaining will avoid the suspension intended here if he has ordained a cleric after first conferring a benefice upon him; for from this he has now begun to be his subject, provided that the benefice exists in his Diocese, from the Constitution Speculatores, section 3, of Innocent XII; that it is sufficient; and that the one to be ordained is in peaceful possession of it.

I said, that it is sufficient, etc.; for Innocent XII had provided all these things in the cited Constitution, section 3: Although a cleric by reason of any Benefice obtained in another Diocese is said to be subject to the jurisdiction of that Bishop in whose Diocese the Benefice is situated, nevertheless We will that henceforth in this matter the following rule be observed unshaken: that no one be considered to acquire a subjection of this kind for the effect of receiving Orders unless the aforesaid Benefice is of such revenue that, after burdens have been deducted, it suffices of itself for a fitting support of life, whether according to the synodal rate or, if that is lacking, according to the custom of the region for those to be promoted to sacred Orders, and unless it is peacefully possessed by the one to be ordained; every faculty of supplying what is lacking from the fruits of the same Benefice by the addition of patrimony, even abundant, which the one to be ordained might possess in the same or any other Diocese, being removed.

⁶ Those are called dimissorial letters by which faculty is given to another Bishop to ordain one's own subject under the condition that he nevertheless remain a subject of his own Bishop. Moreover, these letters can be given not only by the proper Bishop of the one to be ordained, but also by the Vicar General if the Bishop dwells in remote places; and even by the Capitular Vicar while the See is vacant, and indeed even within the year to those constrained, that is, those for whom, by reason of a benefice either received or to be received, it is necessary that the conferral of some sacred Order or tonsure not be deferred.

⁷ Those are called testimonial or commendatory letters by which the Ordinary certifies that the cleric to be promoted is adorned with such morals that he is fit to receive Orders. Moreover, testimonials must always be sought from the Bishop of domicile; likewise from the Bishop of origin and from the Bishop of that place where someone was born by chance, Constitution Speculatores, sections 4 and 5; and in addition where someone has remained for some time, where, finally, he has remained so long at that age that he could have contracted a canonical impediment there. For after seven years he could have contracted censures and irregularities; but a stay longer than six months recommends that testimony of a state free from the bonds of matrimony be required.

⁸ Those things said in the preceding Notes concerning testimonial and dimissorial letters pertain also to those who have given their names to Pious Societies or Congregations in which simple vows are vowed. Therefore, these too cannot be promoted to tonsure or Orders without dimissorials or testimonials from that Bishop in whose Diocese they are staying, Sacred Congregation of Bishops, 6 May 1864. The law is otherwise with Regulars. For them their one Ordinary is the superior of the domicile, that is, of the monastery in which the one to be ordained dwells. Therefore, they are not bound to present dimissorials of the Ordinaries of their own origin, Sacred Congregation of the Council, 28 February 1754, but those of their Regular Superiors; these nevertheless can be given only to the diocesan Bishop, Benedict XIV, Constitution Impositi nobis. And although formerly it was not sufficiently agreed by whom dimissorials should be given to Novices, St. Alphonsus, book 6, no. 765, today it is provided that, during the three years after novitiate and before solemn profession, they can be given by Regular Superiors only with respect to tonsure and minor Orders, Sacred Congregation of Regulars, 12 January 1858. But if they have deserted Religion or have been dismissed from it, whether the former after (before?) simple vows or the latter before solemn vows have been emitted, they fall again under the jurisdiction of the Bishop to whom they were subject before they entered Religion, Sacred Congregation of Regulars, 20 January 1860; Sacred Congregation of Bishops, 6 March 1864.

In addition to these, according to the Council of Trent: 1. one who ordains either his own subject or another's in the Diocese of another without the express permission of its Ordinary, session 6, On Reformation, chapter 5; 2. titular Bishops, if they promote anyone to minor Orders or first tonsure, session 14, On Reformation, chapter 2; finally, 3. Capitular Vicars who, within the year, grant dimissorials to Orders to persons who are not constrained, incur suspension: the former indefinitely, the second for one year from the exercise of Pontificals, and the third likewise for one year from office and benefice.

V. One who, except in a case of legitimate privilege, has conferred sacred Order without the title of a Benefice or patrimony upon a Cleric living in some Congregation in which solemn profession is not emitted, or even upon a religious not yet professed, incurs by the law itself a suspension for one year from the conferral of Orders ⁹. From the same Constitution.

⁹ That which the Council of Trent established concerning the title necessary for sacred Orders for the secular clergy, St. Pius V likewise sanctioned for the Regular clergy, Constitution Romanus Pontifex, 15 October 1568. The inconvenience which he willed to forestall he thus explains (section 2): Since... certain Religious or canons or clerics of certain Orders, as We have received with displeasure, living in common in the manner of Regulars within the cloisters of monasteries or houses, who never or only for a definite time emit profession and can freely and licitly depart from the cloister or be dismissed and return to the world, under the pretext of Religion presume to be promoted to sacred Orders neither with the title of a sufficient Benefice nor according to the tenor of the Decree, and are everywhere promoted by certain Bishops, and thence for the most part this inconvenience occurs, that those thus promoted and departing from the cloister and wandering through the world are compelled either to beg or to exercise sordid gain, not without their own disgrace, contempt for the Order, and the scandal of very many

of Christ's faithful. But St. Pius supplies the remedy thus (section 3): The aforesaid decree (namely, that of Trent, session 21, chapter 2, On Reformation), speaking of secular Clerics, by the tenor of these presents We extend and enlarge to each and every Religious Cleric of whatever Order, or secular Cleric living in common after the manner of Religious, not professed; and We interdict and prohibit the aforesaid Religious and other non-professed persons from being promoted to sacred Orders, and likewise all... Bishops... from conferring those Orders upon Religious persons of this kind, unless the form of the said Decree is observed...; and We suspend by the law itself for one year from the conferral of such Orders those who act contrary thereto.

In our Constitution is added: except in a case of legitimate privilege; that this was granted, for example, to the Society of Jesus is evident from these words of the Constitution of Gregory XIII (Constitution Ex Sedis Apostolicae, 28 February 1573): And likewise that those who have emitted the aforesaid three vows in the same Society may, with the permission of their Superior General, be promoted even to the sacred Orders of the priesthood, even before solemn profession has been emitted... approving the aforesaid Institutes, by the tenor of these presents and by Apostolic authority, insofar as there is need, We grant this anew.

VI. Expelled Religious living outside Religion incur by the law itself perpetual suspension from the exercise of Orders ¹⁰. From the same Constitution.

¹⁰ The canonical reason why an expelled Religious remains suspended is also this: one who is expelled from his Religion thereby lacks the title of his ordination, and indeed also a church to which he is attached. Thus Avanzini (Commentary, no. 53), who then asks why Apostates and fugitives do not incur the same penalty.

For, as the Rieti Commentary excellently states, two things are necessary for Religious to contract this suspension, namely, that they have been expelled and that they are living outside Religion. Therefore, apostates and fugitives do not incur it; nor are expelled Religious still bound by it if they have entered another Religion, even one less strict. And it is further necessary that someone have been justly expelled, that is, for a just cause and with the order of law observed; for there must be no departure here from that law which is constantly observed in other laws. Hence one who has been unjustly expelled ought indeed to abstain from the exercise of Orders, lest he cause scandal; but if he does not abstain, he sins against charity, but does not act against a censure; and therefore guilt binds him, not irregularity; and not even guilt, if scandal is absent, for example, if he celebrates where it is unknown that he has been expelled and this cannot easily become known.

VII. Those who have presumed to receive an Order from one who has been excommunicated, suspended, or interdicted by name, or from a notorious heretic or schismatic, incur by the law itself suspension from the Order received; but We declare that one who in good faith has been ordained by any one of them does not have the exercise of the Order so received until he is dispensed ¹¹. From the same Constitution.

¹¹ One who receives Orders, as the Rieti Commentary observes, incurs suspension under our Constitution in this case alone, namely, if he has received them from a Bishop excommunicated, suspended, or interdicted by name, or from a notorious heretic or schismatic.

And indeed, if someone receives Orders from one excommunicated by name by the Supreme Pontiff, he incurs in addition an excommunication reserved to the same Pontiff, according to what was said above, no. 975, XVII.

For the rest, under the Constitution it makes a difference whether someone received Orders in bad faith or in good faith. If in bad faith, that is, if he presumed to do so, he will be bound by perpetual suspension, from which it pertains to the Roman Pontiff alone to dispense; but if in good faith, he will not properly be called suspended, but only the exercise of the Order is interdicted to him until his Bishop has dispensed him. But what if he doubted

and, from culpable negligence indeed, but not broad, gross, or supine, neglected to inquire? Can he not be dispensed by the Bishop because he was not in good faith? Or can he, because he did not presume? And it replies: Since that which is more favorable to the accused must always be adopted, I think the latter. Furthermore, for someone to incur this suspension it is necessary that he have received an Order; therefore, if he was invalidly ordained, suspension cannot even be conceived.

VIII. Secular Clerics from outside Rome who have remained in the City for more than four months and have been ordained by someone other than their own Ordinary without the permission of the Cardinal Vicar of the City, or without a previous examination held before him, or even by their own Ordinary after they have been rejected in the aforesaid examination; and likewise Clerics belonging to any of the six suburbicarian Bishoprics, if they are ordained outside their own Diocese with dimissorial letters of their Ordinary directed to someone other than the Cardinal Vicar of the City; or if, before receiving sacred Order, they have not first made spiritual exercises for ten days in the Roman house of the Priests called the Congregation of the Mission, incur by the law itself, at the pleasure of the Holy See, suspension from the Orders thus received; while the Bishops ordaining them incur suspension from the use of Pontificals for one year. From the same Constitution.

1000. Suspensions Imposed by the Council of Trent, of Which Some Are Reserved to Bishops and Others to No One. - I. No Bishop may, under the pretext of any privilege, exercise Pontificals in the Diocese of another unless with the express permission of the Ordinary of the place and only upon persons subject to that Ordinary. If otherwise has been done, the Bishop is suspended by the law itself from the exercise of Pontificals, and those thus ordained from the exercise of their Orders (session 6, chapter 5, On Reformation) ¹².

¹² By this Decree it is not excluded that Clerics of other Dioceses also can be ordained by an outside Bishop in another Diocese when the Clerics both have dimissorial letters from their own Ordinary and this outside Bishop exercises Pontificals there with the express permission of the Ordinary of the place.

And according to a Resolution of the Sacred Congregation, 22 February 1630, which is customarily cited, a Bishop present in another Diocese can, with the aforesaid prior permission of its Ordinary, ordain both his own subjects and those of the Bishop granting permission without incurring the penalties.

II. Those who were not constrained by reason of a Benefice received or to be received and, while the See was vacant, were ordained within a year from the day of the vacancy by dimissorial letters received from the Chapter, if they were thus constituted in minor Orders, are to enjoy no clerical privilege, especially in criminal matters; but if thus constituted in major Orders, they are suspended by the law itself from the exercise of their Orders at the pleasure of the future Prelate (session 7, chapter 10, On Reformation) ¹³.

¹³ It pertains to the Capitular Vicar, and not to the Chapter, to grant dimissorial letters after a year, as is reported to have been decided in the Sacred Congregation of Bishops, 12 January 1604.

But the Vicar of the Pope is not prohibited from granting dimissorial letters even immediately after the Apostolic See becomes vacant; for the Tridentine Decree in no way restricts the jurisdiction of the Apostolic See, even when vacant.

But while an episcopal See is vacant, recourse for receiving Orders within the year must be had neither to the nearest Bishop nor to the Metropolitan, but to the Apostolic See.

Nevertheless, while the See is vacant, the Chapter can within the year give testimony of fitness, or testimonial letters.

III. None of the Bishops who are called titular, even if they reside or remain in a place of a Diocese nullius, even exempt, or in some monastery of any Order, may, by virtue of any privilege granted to him for the time being of promoting whomever comes to him, promote or ordain the subject of another, even under the pretext of familiarity and continual sharing of his table ¹⁴, to any sacred or minor Orders or to first tonsure without the express consent or dimissorial letters of his own proper Prelate. One who acts contrary is suspended by the law itself from the exercise of Pontificals for one year, and the one so promoted from the exercise of the Orders thus received until it shall seem good to his Prelate (session 14, chapter 2, On Reformation).

¹⁴ Namely, Pius IV had decreed that titular Bishops could ordain no one by reason of familiarity, Constitution Cum sicut accepimus, 12 May 1562.

IV. If anyone petitions to be promoted by someone other than his own Bishop, this is by no means to be permitted to him, even under the pretext of any general or special Rescript or privilege, unless his uprightness and morals are commended by the testimony of his Ordinary. If otherwise is done, the one ordaining is suspended from the conferral of Orders for one year, and the one ordained from the exercise of the Orders received for as long as it shall seem expedient to his own Ordinary ¹⁵.

¹⁵ Here the matter concerns only a lack of testimonial letters, and not the absence of dimissorial letters. And it can in fact happen that a Cleric approaches either with dimissorial letters or under the pretext of some general or special Rescript or privilege, and lacks the testimony of his Ordinary by which his uprightness and morals are commended (session 25, chapter 8, On Reformation).

V. Abbots and other exempt persons, or any colleges or Chapters ¹⁶, even of cathedral churches, are not to grant dimissorial letters to any secular Clerics ¹⁷ that they may be ordained by others. But those granting dimissorial letters contrary to the form of the Decree are suspended by the law itself from office and Benefice for one year (session 23, chapter 10).

¹⁶ Understand Chapters which by some special right have jurisdiction in some part of a Diocese; for another decree exists concerning Chapters while the See is vacant.

¹⁷ Namely, just as Abbots established within the boundaries of some Diocese can confer tonsure and minor Orders upon their own Regular subjects only, but not upon secular subjects, so the same thing has been established concerning the granting of dimissorial letters.

VI. If any pastor or other priest, whether Regular or secular, even if he contends that this is lawful for him by privilege or immemorial custom, has dared to join in matrimony or bless the betrothed of another parish without the permission of their pastor, he remains suspended by the law itself until he is absolved by the Ordinary of that Pastor who ought to have assisted at the matrimony, or from whom the blessing ought to have been received (session 24, chapter 1, On Reformation).

VII. If Bishops, which God forbid, have not abstained from this crime of concubinage and, after being admonished by the Provincial Synod, have not amended themselves, they are suspended by the fact itself (session 25, On Reformation, chapter 14).

1001. • Deposition and degradation are most grave penalties very closely allied to suspension and are customarily likened to it, because they affect Clerics alone and in the same manner induce privation of ecclesiastical rights and Benefices. Nevertheless, they are not properly censures, because they are inflicted only as punishment and not as medicine.

Deposition is an ecclesiastical penalty by which a Cleric is deprived of the use of ecclesiastical power and of every radical title for exercising it, and also of every right validly to possess Benefices, and this perpetually. It is therefore of itself an irremissible penalty. See St. Alphonsus, no. 324 and following.

Degradation is the solemn privation of all titles, goods, privileges, and ecclesiastical goods, so that the degraded person, with only the indelible character of Order remaining, is reduced to the lay condition. Hence it differs from deposition: 1. because degradation is a solemn privation of ecclesiastical goods, but deposition is not such; 2. because degradation deprives one of both clerical privileges, namely, of canon and forum, whereas deposition does not deprive one of these privileges. Hence one who struck a deposed person would incur excommunication, but not if he laid violent hands upon a degraded person; for the latter does not differ from a layman.

Degradation cannot be inflicted except for monstrous crimes, such as the manifest crime of heresy, falsification of Apostolic letters, habitual and notorious sodomy, a most grave calumny laid against a Bishop, etc. See St. Alphonsus, ibid.

QUESTION. Is a degraded person bound to the canonical Hours and to the vow of chastity?

Reply. Affirmatively as to both, because he ought not to be released from this burden and receive an advantage from his own malice. Hence he would contract matrimony invalidly. St. Alphonsus, no. 327.