Article — Gury-Ballerini, Compendium of Moral Theology (8th ed., 1884)
Article III. On the Obligation of Celebrating by Reason of a Stipend
- Principles. - I. A stipend or alms may lawfully be accepted for a Mass which one is not bound to say for another. For a stipend is not given as the price or compensation for the Mass, but as a means for the support of the minister. This is also established from Sacred Scripture (1 Cor. 9:13): Know you not that they who work in the holy place eat the things that are of the holy place; and they that serve the altar partake with the altar?
II. Priests are bound in justice to celebrate Mass and determinately to apply it according to the intention of those who have given a stipend for this purpose. For an onerous agreement is entered into with them, which must be observed by the title of justice, just as in any other contract. Hence a priest who, either by himself or through another minister, omits to apply according to the intention of the one who gave the stipend is bound to restitution by strict right.
III. A priest cannot satisfy two stipends by one Mass, but must offer a distinct Sacrifice for each. The reason is: 1. Because it is not certainly established that a Mass offered for several persons profits each as much as it profits one person when applied for him alone, although this is far more probable. 2. Because in this way the priest, in receiving an honorarium, would exceed the measure of decent support 1. 3. Because this same thing is established from proposition 8 condemned by Alexander VII, which is as follows: A priest can accept a doubled stipend for the same Mass by applying to the petitioner even a part of the most special fruit corresponding to the celebrant himself.
1 According to this argument, this could have seemed sufficiently firm at the time when the amount of the stipend could appear proportionate to the decent support of a priest, that is, support becoming the condition of a priest.
- Questions. - QUESTION 1. What is to be judged a just stipend for a celebrating priest? Reply. The amount of a just stipend cannot be determined universally. It is lawful to demand the stipend established by the Bishop or by custom. - St. Lig., no. 319. Regulars also are bound under grave obligation to conform themselves to this rule, according to a Decree of the Sacred Congregation cited by Benedict XIV, Instit. 56, no. 10. - St. Lig., no. 320. Indeed, at least with regard to manual alms, the Bishop can prohibit acceptance of a stipend smaller than the established rate. - Benedict XIV, ibid. 2. Nevertheless, just as a smaller stipend can be accepted from charity or friendship, so also a larger one may lawfully be received from the liberality of the giver. Likewise, a priest can receive more for extraordinary labor, for example, for celebrating Mass at such an hour or in such an inconvenient place, etc.
2 The decrees which Benedict XIV (Instruct. 56, no. 20) reports regard only perpetual obligations of Masses; and in them it is established that the Superiors of Regulars should not permit a larger or smaller sum of money to be fixed in the future for perpetual Masses. The rate established there by Innocent XIII, namely, sixty scudi annually, is not now observed and cannot be observed because of the changed value of money. The same occurs with regard to stipends for adventitious Masses, which at that time reached ten Roman asses at Rome and which the Sacred Congregation then decreed were not to be changed, as the same Benedict XIV relates (loc. cit., no. 23). But although a stipend twice as great is now given, who would say that it is adequate for the decent support of a priest? And it is indeed astonishing that some are now found so foolish as to clamor against the riches of clerics, when, because the value of money has now changed so greatly, we see that the wages both of laborers and craftsmen and of those devoted to public or private offices have been increased; but we know that the stipends established for the support of clerics have until now been fixed at that amount which, although it was adequate some centuries ago, now scarcely suffices for living a most straitened life!
QUESTION 2. Does a priest who, after accepting a stipend, delays celebrating Mass sin gravely?
Reply. Affirmatively. The reason is that he violates a contract in a grave matter. This is also established from the Decrees of the S. Congregation of the Council of the year 1652. - St. Lig., no. 317.
- QUESTION 3. What delay is judged grave?
Reply. It is disputed; certainly a delay that exceeds three months can be considered grave. - Thus commonly with St. Ligorius, against others who require an entire year. More probably, however, a priest who celebrates the promised Mass within two months does not sin gravely. But in Masses to be celebrated for persons recently deceased, a delay of one month is to be regarded as grave according to St. Ligorius, the Salmanticenses, Lugo, etc. Moreover, the statutes of Bishops must also be attended to. But certainly a priest sins gravely whenever he omits to celebrate, within the time suited to the circumstances, a Mass requested and promised for obtaining some pressing grace, and for that reason he is bound to restore the stipend received, even though he afterward celebrated.
For the rest, although burdens undertaken cannot be fulfilled within a short time, nevertheless, if the one giving the alms for the celebration of other Masses knows this and consents that they be celebrated only when the burdens already undertaken have been satisfied, this is not prohibited. - Thus the S. Congregation of the Council. - Cavalieri, vol. 5, p. 107, ad duodecimum.
QUESTION 4. Does a priest who omits to celebrate Mass sin gravely if the stipend accepted for it does not constitute grave matter?
Reply. It seems that the answer is affirmative, unless perhaps the stipend is so slight that the Mass appears to have been promised gratuitously. The reason is that the one who gave the stipend suffers notable spiritual detriment. Thus St. Lig. and others commonly, against others.
- QUESTION 5. Whether and how does one who omits a Mass gratuitously promised sin?
Reply 1. He does not sin whenever there is no contract of a true promise, but the one promising manifests only a benevolent purpose.
Reply 2. More probably, he sins only venially when a true promise has intervened, because a simple promise does not bind under grave obligation unless, as Lugo says, the one promising expressly binds himself under grave obligation and in justice.
QUESTION 6. Can a priest satisfy several Masses gratuitously promised by one Mass?
Reply. Affirmatively. The reason is that Masses promised gratuitously by no means induce the obligation of a contract properly so called, not even by the title of mere fidelity 3. Moreover, it is much more probable that an application of the Sacrifice made for several persons profits each as much as it profits one alone. Besides, the reason of justice which requires that the safer part be chosen does not press here, for no remuneration is received. - Thus Elbel, De Contr., no. 337, etc.
3 The Author here seems to suppose that the priest did not will to assume even the obligation of fidelity which is proper to every true promise, and thus that no contract whatever of a promise properly so called intervened.
QUESTION 7. Is a priest guilty of simony if he celebrates principally in consideration of the stipend?
Reply. Negatively, of itself, unless, namely, he regards the stipend as the true price of the celebration. Yet he cannot be excused from sin, since it is odious that anyone should abuse sacred ministry for the sake of making money. Nevertheless, a priest does not sin who secondarily celebrates in consideration of the remuneration to be received, especially if it is necessary for him. Nor is he stained by any fault if, after accepting a stipend, he is thereby determined to celebrate, although otherwise he would have omitted the Mass; for then he is moved not by reason of the stipend, but by the obligation to be fulfilled. Thus commonly.
- QUESTION 8. Can a priest entrust a Mass to another to be celebrated while giving him a smaller stipend than he himself accepted?
Reply. Negatively. The reason is that, on account of the appearance of base gain, the S. Congregation of the Council prohibited this by a Decree approved by Urban VIII and confirmed by Innocent XII, in which the following is contained: The Church, wishing to remove every damnable gain, prohibits a priest who has undertaken to celebrate a Mass with a certain alms from entrusting the same Mass to another to be celebrated while retaining for himself a part of the alms for that Mass. Hence Alexander VII also condemned the following proposition expressed under no. 9: After the Decree of Urban, a priest to whom Masses to be celebrated are entrusted can satisfy through another by giving him a smaller stipend and retaining another part of the stipend for himself. Indeed, Benedict XIV, in the Encyclical Letter Quanta cura of June 30, 1741, condemns with the penalty of suspension incurred by the very fact and reserved to the Apostolic See a priest who, collecting stipends of a greater value for Masses to be celebrated according to the custom or statutes of places, arranges for the Masses to be celebrated there, or in places where smaller stipends are given, while retaining a part for himself. - See St. Lig., no. 321.
Except: 1. Unless the excess of the stipend was given in consideration of the person, friendship, poverty, gratitude, or kinship. 2. Or if the other priest remits the excess entirely of his own accord and without being asked. - St. Lig., ibid., etc., and others commonly.
- QUESTION 9. Is one who retains part of the stipend bound to restitution?
Reply. Affirmatively. The reason is: 1. Because this is deduced from the condemned proposition of Alexander VII related above. For the proposition said that a priest who retained a part of the stipend could satisfy through another; therefore, it follows that the contradictory is true, namely, that he cannot satisfy. But satisfaction regards not only the moral goodness of the act, but also its justice; and one who does not satisfy an obligation of justice is bound to restitution. 2. Because a priest who divides the stipend acts against the will of the giver; for the will of the giver is not only that the Mass be celebrated, but that it be celebrated for such a stipend. For he does not wish gratuitously to give anything to one who does not celebrate. - Thus St. Lig., no. 322, saying that this opinion is to be held. It is disputed, however, to whom restitution ought to be made, namely, whether to the one giving the alms or to the celebrant. It seems it should be made rather to the celebrant. - St. Lig., ibid.
QUESTION 10. Can a priest to whom a generous stipend is offered for today's Mass, retaining it, ask another priest to celebrate in his place, while promising to celebrate on the following day for the person for whom that other priest was going to celebrate for the ordinary alms?
Reply. It is disputed. The first opinion denies it, as though this could not be excused from the appearance of base gain 4. - Thus St. Lig., no. 322, dub. 4, who nevertheless adds that this does not seem to be condemned as a grave sin.
4 For this opinion St. Alphonsus adduces nothing except the authority of Concina, who leaves the matter to the judgment of prudent men if the priest is poor - as though poverty could remove from sacred ministries the appearance of base gain! For the rest, the second opinion is not only far more probable because of the solidity of its reasons and the weight of authority, but is also confirmed by the most common practice of devout and prudent priests.
** The VV. found several things (pp. 386-388) to criticize in this little note. Nevertheless, they admit (p. 387) that this exchange of intentions is lawful in itself, even when the stipends are retained by both priests. Thus they say: We do not deny, nor does the Holy Doctor disapprove, that a priest can, speaking per se, exchange an intention with another, while each priest retains his own... stipend. And in fact occasions for requesting this of another priest are not so infrequent, as happens, for example, if you have accepted a stipend for a Mass to be celebrated on a certain day, and on that day it unexpectedly happens that you ought to celebrate Mass either for a sick person, or for a deceased person, or for a bridegroom and bride, etc. But since, as the VV. admit, St. Alphonsus finds nothing that can in itself be censured in an exchange of intentions of this kind, those things which the VV. object readily fall of themselves.
Concina (De Eucharistia, diss. 2, ch. 6, sec. 2, no. 16) speaks thus on this matter: Nor do I see how this can be excused from the appearance of base commerce. For this exchange of days and Masses tends to produce greater gain. The sole end of the exchange is commerce. The meaning is somewhat obscure, for the word mercimonium of itself signifies the same as merchandise. But the VV. bring assistance by interpreting appearance as semblance, and by understanding base commerce (p. 387) as base gain. Meanwhile, it is sufficiently astonishing that in former times no one saw this baseness until Concina at last brought some light into the world! The VV. note (loc. cit.) that few of the Authors have touched upon this question. But since both the VV. themselves and St. Alphonsus (as they themselves admit) found nothing to disapprove in this exchange of Masses, is it not evident that the matter was scarcely treated by anyone for this reason, namely, that there was no ground for calling its uprightness into doubt? But let us come more closely to the point.
Let it now pass that, as we have said, other causes are often present on account of which this exchange of intentions happens to be requested; nor, moreover, is it customary to inquire which priest accepted the larger stipend. But why, finally, is it base gain? Concina answers: because greater gain is sought; and the VV.: because he seeks another priest lest he lose a julius. But what if a priest wishes to preserve the larger stipend, which he thinks has been offered to him by divine providence, so that he may bring assistance to a sick person, or help a needy old woman, or buy a moral work of St. Alphonsus either for himself or to give to another priest? For, with St. Alphonsus approving, it is honorable to exchange an intention while retaining one's own stipend. But to will to use an honorable means for assisting the poor is also honorable. Where, then, is the baseness? But if the VV., with Concina, imagine that it is done inordinately, namely, for a less honorable end, then certainly the end of the agent accidentally adjoined will be called depraved, but not the work considered in itself.
The VV. add (loc. cit.): In the Note the weight of authority is vaunted, but which authorities these are is not indicated.
Reply. The fact that throughout so many centuries there existed only the most rigorous Concina (as St. Alphonsus says), who found here the guilt of base commerce, as he calls it, already proves more than sufficiently that against him stood both those who touched upon the question and those who, by the very fact that they raised no question about it, taught that none was to be raised. Did not St. Alphonsus also (as the VV. admit) find no guilt in this matter unless recourse is had to some inordinate end by which the priest might perhaps be moved? And does not the suffrage of all against Concina alone have some weight of authority?
The VV. insist (loc. cit.), saying that they wonder that in the Note it is remarked as less coherent that Concina excepted the case of a poor priest, as though poverty could remove the appearance of base gain. For, say the VV., if a poor priest does this, he acts not as moved by desire for gain, but in order to provide for necessity; and then the appearance of base gain is in fact removed.
Reply. This excuse of Concina confirms what was said above: that the act which, considered in itself, can be judged indifferent should not generally be presented as culpable, since it can become good or bad according to the diversity of the end.
For poverty alone cannot furnish a priest with an honorable end on account of which he may honorably judge that the stipend offered to him is to be preserved for his own uses. But that an act of this kind, honorable in itself, should be painted with those terms full of odium, gain and commerce, ought indeed to have been left to Concina's heated imagination; for verbal sallies of this kind are not to be regarded as theological reasons.
The VV. add (loc. cit.) that they do not know whence it was established that devout and prudent priests most commonly observe a practice disapproved by St. Alphonsus.
Reply. Whoever is not a stranger in this world plainly knows that occasions are not infrequent for exchanging an intention among priests so that the will of one offering a stipend for a Mass to be celebrated on a stated day may be satisfied. Yet when devout and prudent priests act thus, they do not observe a practice painted by Concina's fervid genius with the colors of base gain and commerce, but the practice which the VV. themselves testify was not disapproved by the Holy Doctor Alphonsus.
Finally, the VV. recall that in the year 1860 the S. Congregation of the Council replied concerning certain doubts about Mass stipends: Let the petitioner consult theologians, especially St. Alphonsus de Liguori and Benedict XIV, and conform himself to their opinions.
Reply 1. The present question is by no means found among the doubts proposed to the Sacred Congregation. Therefore, this does not pertain to the matter. 2. Do not the VV. themselves admit that this practice is not disapproved by St. Alphonsus?
The second opinion affirms it, with Lacroix, no. 134, and others.
- QUESTION 11. How are Masses to be assessed for the saying of which a testator left a certain sum of money? Reply. They are to be assessed according to the custom of the place or the diocesan law in force for private Masses. But if the testator himself fixed the stipend below the custom of the place or the standard of the accepted rate, the number of Masses is to be reduced by the Ordinary according to due proportion. - Thus the S. Congregation established, as cited by St. Ligorius, no. 320. - Gousset, no. 295.
QUESTION 12. Can wealthy priests accept a stipend?
Reply. Affirmatively. The reason is that every laborer, whether rich or poor, is worthy of his hire, as Christ Himself says, Luke 10:7, and according to the Apostle, 1 Cor. 9:13. Besides, if they could not accept a stipend, and on the other hand they are not bound to celebrate without a stipend, since there is no law obliging them to celebrate in this way, the faithful would often be unable to obtain Masses. This is established, moreover, from the practice of the universal Church. - St. Lig. and others commonly.
- QUESTION 13. Can the editor of a religious periodical accept from a priest who is a subscriber a certain number of Masses to be celebrated in place of the annual subscription price?
Reply. Affirmatively. This is established from a Declaration of the S. Penitentiary. For when the editor of a certain religious periodical had asked the S. Penitentiary whether he could with a safe conscience give his periodical to priests on the condition that they celebrate a number of Masses corresponding to the price paid by others for the periodical, the S. Penitentiary, on Oct. 6, 1862, having maturely considered the aforesaid doubt, replied: Affirmatively, provided that the Masses are celebrated.
Consequently, it is not unlawful to give books on matters pertaining to Religion in return for Masses to be celebrated, provided that equality is preserved between the stipends of the Masses and the price of the works. For the same reasoning applies both to a periodical sheet published, for example, every month, and to complete works that are published and disseminated at one time.
- QUESTION 14. Can a priest, for the dissemination of good books, buy them by means of a stipend equivalent to certain Masses to be celebrated by him, and afterward sell them at the current price in the book trade, so that he receives a notable profit from it?
Reply. Negatively, because any trading on the occasion of Masses to be celebrated is prohibited on account of the appearance of base gain 5. This is also established from the response of the S. Penitentiary on Nov. 19, 1863. For when the following questions had been proposed: 1. Can a priest, under the pretext of disseminating religious books, with a safe conscience buy them and afterward sell them at the current price among booksellers, so that he gains twenty, thirty, or forty percent? 2. Can he accept Mass stipends for books sold, and gratuitously offer the buyer books proportionate to the profit received? 3. Can the same priest sell the aforesaid books to other priests who lack Mass stipends, with the obligation of celebrating Masses corresponding to the price of these books, so that he himself obtains a profit of thirty, forty, or fifty percent?
5 According to the resolution of the preceding question, it is equivalent whether you pay a price for acquiring books or assign the stipends of Masses to be celebrated by you. Therefore, the circumstance of books which are acquired by assigning Mass stipends has no bearing here. The reason of baseness, therefore, is to be sought in the trading which is prohibited to clerics by the sacred canons.
** From this, when the doubt was proposed whether those act unlawfully who, for Masses celebrated, receive books or other merchandise in place of a stipend, every appearance of trading or base gain being excluded, the S. Congregation of the Council replied on Sept. 9, 1874: Negatively.
The S. Penitentiary, having maturely considered the aforesaid doubts, replied that every kind of trading or commerce relative to Masses to be celebrated is prohibited to priests by Canon Law, and especially by the Constitution Apostolicae servitutis of Benedict XIV. But if any doubt remains for the aforesaid priest, let him submit it to the S. Penitentiary 6.
6 ** The responses of the S. Congregation of the Council of Sept. 9, 1874, pertain here.
1. Does it savor of base commerce, and therefore is it to be disapproved and, if necessary, restrained by Bishops even with ecclesiastical penalties, when booksellers or merchants act in such a manner that, by employing public inducements and rewards, or in any other way, they collect alms for Masses and repay the priests to whom they entrust the celebration of them not with money but with books or other merchandise? The S. Congregation replied: Affirmatively.
2. Can this manner of acting be rendered honorable either because, without any diminution being made, as many Masses are entrusted for celebration by the aforesaid collectors as correspond to the alms collected, or because by it assistance is given to poor priests who lack Mass alms? The S. Congregation replied: Negatively.
3. Are collections and disbursements of alms of this kind also then to be disapproved and restrained by Bishops, as above, when the profit derived from the exchange of merchandise for alms is expended not for the collectors' own benefit, but for the use and increase of pious institutions and good works? The S. Congregation replied: Affirmatively.
4. Do those participate in base commerce, and therefore are they to be disapproved and also restrained, as above, who hand over to booksellers, merchants, and other collectors of them the alms for Masses received from the faithful or from pious places, whether or not they receive anything from them by way of reward? The S. Congregation replied: Affirmatively.
5. Do those participate in base commerce, and therefore are they to be disapproved and restrained, as above, who receive from the said booksellers and merchants books or other merchandise for Masses to be celebrated, whether at a reduced or full price? The S. Congregation replied: Affirmatively.
But then, you will say, how do these Resolutions, and especially this fifth one, cohere with those cited above (no. 374 and the Note), one of which proceeded from the S. Penitentiary and the other from the same S. Congregation of the Council, and indeed on the same day, Sept. 9, 1874?
Reply. The Responses cohere very well with one another when account is taken of the grave disadvantages which can be present or absent. For, as had to be noted in discussing these matters, first of all the intention of those who offer Mass stipends must not be neglected. Certainly, if the faithful offering Mass stipends granted the faculty that those Masses could be celebrated by priests who were going to subscribe to periodicals, there would be no doubt that the editors of the periodicals acted lawfully. For it belongs to those offering to prescribe not only the celebration, but also the time, place, and persons of the celebration; but only those who hand over adventitious Masses can grant the faculty that the sacred rites be performed by others without limitation of time or places. But it not rarely happens that even perpetual Masses, and Masses from distant regions as well, are handed over to the editors of periodicals. In that case, unless those who founded or bequeathed them permitted them to be offered at any time and place, those who transmit them altogether lack that faculty. Moreover, the mind of pious founders, whose devotion is generally directed toward some Sanctuary or Church, is not easily presumed unless it has been expressed. From these things it is evident how greatly unbecoming it is that editors of periodicals, by their own authority, entrust Masses for celebration to whomever, wherever, and whenever it pleases them, as though they were the owners of the alms and could disburse them at will. And this manner of acting will appear still more to be disapproved if it is observed that, in order to be able to satisfy those requesting them, these editors must necessarily gather for themselves not some small number of Masses, but an immense accumulation of them, contrary to the mind of Benedict XIV, who in the Apostolic Constitution beginning Quanta cura disapproves collections of Masses of this kind, since innumerable disadvantages can arise from them. Among these, this must be noted above all: it is impossible for so many obligations undertaken to be satisfied within a short time.
The response of the Sacred Congregation, which is related on page 258 concerning the Decree of the Bishop of Caltanissetta, ought to be read thus: THE DOUBT HAVING BEEN REFORMULATED - Whether, and how, a response is to be made to the Bishop of Caltanissetta in the case? - Negatively in all respects, to both.
For the Decree of the aforesaid Bishop, by which it was forbidden that Masses to be celebrated should be entrusted or accepted in exchange for books or journals, etc., had in view the averting of certain inconveniences, which the Sacred Congregation also disapproves.
Therefore, the Sacred Congregation did not wish to disapprove that Decree; but it gave the aforesaid Response to the twofold doubt proposed by the same Bishop, whether, those inconveniences having been removed, both those entrusting and those accepting Masses to be celebrated as above would act illicitly.
Indeed, to the doubt again proposed to the same Sacred Congregation: Whether, and how, editors or administrators of religious periodicals are to be disapproved who entrust Masses to priests for celebration, retaining from their alms a price corresponding to the periodicals themselves, in the case? In May of the current year 1875, the response was: Negatively, provided that nothing be withdrawn from the will of the founders or offerers concerning the amount of the stipend and the place and time of the celebration of the Masses; that every deliberate collection of alms for Masses be excluded; and that testimony of the completed celebration of the Masses be given to the one to whom it is due by right. In this Response of the Sacred Congregation, the disadvantages on account of which the same Sacred Congregation had otherwise disapproved this practice are indicated at the same time.
- QUESTION 15. Can administrators of churches retain something for themselves from the alms for Masses for the expenses of altars, lights, etc.? Reply. Negatively, unless the churches have no other revenues; and then the value of the expenses which are necessary for the Sacrifice of the Mass itself must in no way be exceeded 7. - Thus the S. Congregation of the Council established (as cited by Lacroix, no. 95, and St. Lig., no. 322). An archpriest, however, is not bound to furnish utensils to adventitious celebrants unless their expenses are paid. - Thus the S. Congregation on March 18, 1686. - St. Lig., no. 322.
7 The Decree also adds the following: And nevertheless, even in that case care must be taken that, from the monies which remain after the expenses have been deducted as above, absolutely as many Masses be celebrated as were prescribed by those offering the alms.
QUESTION 16. Must one make restitution who, having accepted a stipend to celebrate Mass at a privileged altar, celebrates it at another altar?
Reply. It seems that the answer is negative; but he will be bound to gain a plenary indulgence applicable to the dead, such as the indulgences of the Way of the Cross, etc. For in this way a proportionate compensation is furnished. If, however, he accepted for this purpose a stipend larger than the ordinary one, he is bound to restore the excess. - Thus St. Lig., no. 229. - Elbel, no. 210. - Sporer, nos. 137 and 355.
But if anyone accepts a stipend to celebrate in a certain place, for example, at a miraculous Statue, or in a Chapel so that the people may hear Mass, or at a certain time, for example, on Saturday in honor of the Blessed Virgin, in such a way that the place and time are intended in themselves, he cannot retain the stipend unless he has said Mass at the prescribed time and place 8. The reason is that otherwise the one giving the stipend is judged to be gravely unwilling. But it is otherwise if the time and place are not intended in themselves.
8 This last clause will perhaps appear somewhat too severe; for the will of one who establishes agreements of this kind does not seem generally to be extended to that degree. This is also confirmed by the doctrine proposed in the following Question 18.
- QUESTION 17. Must one who is bound by a stipend to celebrate at a privileged altar for a deceased person say a Requiem Mass when the rite permits it?
Reply. Affirmatively. The reason is that this is required for gaining the indulgences. But on days on which Requiem Masses are prohibited, the priest gains the indulgences by saying the Mass of the day, as has been declared several times by the Sacred Congregation. Thus to the question: Whether those who celebrate at a privileged altar on individual days must always use black vestments on days not impeded, in order to obtain the indulgence of the privilege? The S. Congregation of Rites replied affirmatively on April 11, 1840 9. - St. Lig., no. 339.
9 According to another response of the same Sacred Congregation, the priest, in order to gain the indulgence, must wait for a day on which he can celebrate a Requiem Mass, provided, however, that a day of this kind occurs within the same week.
QUESTION 18. Does one who is bound by a stipend to say a Requiem or votive Mass satisfy if he says another Mass?
Reply. Affirmatively. The reason is that the Mass is the same as regards its substance; and if a just reason is present, there will be no sin. Hence, if the Rubrics do not permit a Requiem or votive Mass to be said on that day, the Mass of the day must be said, and in this way the obligation is truly satisfied. But one who does this without a legitimate reason cannot be excused from venial sin; nor is private devotion regarded as a sufficient reason. - Thus St. Lig., no. 328, etc.
QUESTION 19. Can a stipend be received for a Mass to be celebrated on the day of the Commemoration of All the Faithful Departed?
Reply. Affirmatively. The reason is that not all priests are bound on this day to apply Mass for all the dead; indeed, neither are they obliged to celebrate. Therefore, they can apply Mass at will, either for all the dead dwelling in Purgatory or for some only. This is established from the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Aug. 4, 1663. This being so, nothing whatever prevents a stipend from being accepted for the Mass. - Thus commonly, St. Lig., no. 338 10.
10 ** A question is commonly raised concerning a priest who applies the Mass for the one who first offers a stipend. On this matter St. Alphonsus writes (Lib. 6, no. 337): Lugo (De Poenitentia, disp. 13, no. 137) and Palaus (tr. 22, q. unica, punct. 6) say that the application of the Mass made for the first offerer is valid, but unlawful by reason of the prohibition of Clement VIII, which Paul V promulgated on Nov. 15, 1605, forbidding this custom as dangerous under several titles, liable to scandals of the faithful, and too greatly at variance with the ancient custom of the Church. But more probably, as Croix rightly says, bk. 6, part 2, no. 222, such an application will be not only unlawful, but often invalid, because it will often happen that the Mass is then said for a cause which does not yet exist, for example, if a stipend is offered for liberation from prison, from infirmity, etc. Since that cause is not now present, the effect of the Mass would have to remain suspended, which does not seem credible.
But on this matter La Croix deceived St. Alphonsus when he imagined Lugo to be contrary to him, although Lugo otherwise hands down the same doctrine as he. Behold the words of Lugo (loc. cit.): Concerning the application of the Mass under that condition (namely, for the one whom God already now foresees will offer the first stipend to him, etc.), there are two sufficiently common opinions, the one conceding that it is valid, the other denying it.... Diana with others follows the latter..., many of whom, however, do not speak of that case, but of the anticipated application of a Mass for the one who afterward will come first, without referring the condition to the knowledge of God already present. And indeed, if the former opinion is understood with a certain moderation, namely, that the priest applies today's Mass not indifferently for whoever will first come and offer a stipend, but for the first one whom God already sees will offer a stipend for a Mass to be said for some necessity already existing at that time, namely, for someone already now deceased, and not for a necessity which will arise afterward, then, speaking speculatively, there is nothing which prevents the validity of such an application, as the adversaries themselves seem to admit.
Moreover, this very thing is what, after Vasquez, Aversa, etc., neither Croix nor St. Alphonsus rejects, provided, namely, that the cause for which the stipend will later be offered already exists now. Indeed, since Lugo (loc. cit., nos. 138, 139) judges that even the case in which he himself thinks the application valid is included in that prohibition of Clement VIII, or rather of Paul V, and since he himself finds other disadvantages in an anticipated application of this kind, he can perhaps appear more severe even than St. Alphonsus, who, after Collet, seems in no way to disapprove this anticipated application (loc. cit., no. 337, at the end).