ARTICLE III: ON THE OBLIGATION OF CELEBRATING BY REASON OF STIPEND

1323. Principles. - I. A stipend or alms can lawfully be accepted for a Mass which one is not bound to read for another. For a stipend is not given as a price or compensation of the Mass, but as a means for the support of the Minister. This is also established from 1 Cor. 9. 13: Do you not know that they who work in the sanctuary eat the things that are of the sanctuary; and they who serve the altar participate with the altar?

II. Priests are bound from justice to celebrate Mass and to apply it determinately according to the intention of those who have given the stipend for this. For there intervenes with them an onerous agreement, which, by the title of justice, must be observed not otherwise than in any other contract. Hence a priest who, whether through himself or through another Minister, omits to apply according to the intention of him who gave the stipend, is bound to restitution by strict right.

III. A priest cannot satisfy a double stipend by one single Mass, but for each one he must offer a distinct Sacrifice. The reason is, 1° because it is not certainly established that a Sacrifice offered for several persons profits each one as much as it profits when applied for one alone, although this is more probable to many; 2° because this very thing is established from the 8th proposition condemned by Alexander VII, p. XIII.

1324. Questions. - Query 1° What is judged the just stipend of a priest celebrating?

Resp. The quantity of a just stipend cannot be universally determined. It is lawful to require the stipend established by the Bishop or by custom.¹ To this rule even Regulars are bound to conform themselves under grave obligation, from the Decree of the Sacred Congregation cited by Benedict XIV.² - St. Alphonsus.³ And indeed the Bishop, at least as regards manual alms, can prohibit a stipend less than the established tax from being accepted (Benedict XIV⁴); that this not be done regularly is prohibited by the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore.⁵ - Nevertheless, just as through charity or friendship a lesser stipend can be admitted, so also from the liberality of the giver it is right to receive a greater one. Likewise, a priest can receive more for extraordinary labor, e.g. for a Sacrifice to be celebrated at such an hour or in such an inconvenient place, etc. - Nor is a priest to whom richer stipends are available obliged to accept those which correspond to the tax; for he would be obliged with his own loss.

Query 2° Does a priest sin gravely who, after receiving a stipend, delays celebrating Mass?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is because he violates a contract in a grave matter. This is also established from the Decrees of the S. C. C. in the year 1625. - St. Alphonsus.⁶

Query 3° What delay is judged grave?

Resp. It is controverted; certainly a delay which exceeds three months can seem grave. - Thus commonly with St. Alphonsus,⁷ against others who require an entire year. - But more probably a priest does not sin gravely who celebrates a promised Mass within two months. In Masses, however, which are to be celebrated for the dead, a delay of one month is reputed grave according to St. Alphonsus,¹ Salmanticenses, Lugo, etc. - Besides, the statutes of Bishops also must be attended to. Certainly, however, a priest sins gravely whenever "he omits to celebrate, within a time fitting to the circumstances, a Mass requested and promised for obtaining some urgent grace"; and therefore he who has accepted a stipend for a happy childbirth is bound to restore the accepted stipend if, even licitly, he has celebrated after the childbirth. - The will of the one giving the stipend must also be attended to; for when it is principally given for assisting the priest, and the burden of celebrating is not imposed so strictly, even a very long delay will be without fault.

"But that a more distinct account may be had of the obligation of accurately fulfilling the burdens of Masses, both manual and for an indefinite time, we decree that in each secular and regular church there be a catalogue or table of burdens, which have been imposed on them in perpetuity or for a certain and predefined time, and respectively accepted; and that in the same place in the sacristy books be kept, in one of which perpetual burdens of this sort or temporary burdens are to be inscribed, but in the other manual and adventitious Masses, together with a faithful and distinct notation of the subsequent fulfillment of both."²

Query 4° Does a priest sin gravely by omitting to celebrate a Mass, if the stipend accepted for it is not grave matter, e.g. $0.50?

Resp. Affirmatively, more probably, unless perhaps the stipend is so slender that the Mass appears to have been promised gratis. The reason is because he who gave the stipend suffers a notable spiritual detriment.³

Query 5° Whether, or in what way, does one sin who omits a Mass promised gratis?

Resp. 1° He does not sin whenever there is not truly a contract of promise, but the one promising only shows a benevolent purpose.

Resp. 2° More probably he sins only venially when a true promise has intervened; because a simple promise does not oblige under grave obligation, unless, as Lugo says, the one promising expressly obliges himself under grave obligation and from justice.

Query 6° Is a priest guilty of simony who celebrates chiefly with a view to the stipend?

Resp. See n. 353, Query 3°. Resp. ad 1.

1325. Query 7° Can a priest commit a Mass to another to be celebrated, giving a smaller stipend than he himself has received?

Resp. No, not indeed generally of itself, but because, on account of the appearance of base gain, the S. C. C. prohibited this by a Decree approved by Urban VIII and confirmed by Innocent XII, where these things are had: "Wishing to remove every damnable gain from the Church, it prohibits a priest who has undertaken to celebrate a Mass with a certain alms from committing the same Mass to another to be celebrated while retaining for himself part of the same Mass." Cf. proposition 9 condemned by Alexander VII, p. XIII, and the Rescript of the S. C. C. 19 Jan. 1869.

Except: 1° If from the circumstances it is morally established that the excess of the stipend was handed over by a title extrinsic to the celebration, for instance friendship, gratitude, etc. 2° If another priest, entirely spontaneously and not having been asked, remits either part of the ordinary stipend or the excess. 3° If there is not question of manual Masses, concerning which alone the Decrees speak, but either 1) of perpetual Masses entrusted to some priest, or 2) of Masses to be celebrated by force of a rich legacy left to some priest for life, or 3) of those which are to be celebrated from a benefice or foundation, provided that the contrary has not been provided for in the foundation, a stipend is given according to the tax or custom of the place, and, if there is question of founded Masses, the one celebrating has been determined at least in some way, e.g. the Pastor for the time being. Thus St. Alphonsus,² to whom especially the S. C. C., in the Response of 29 Aug. 1860, refers for the solution of this question. See p. LXXXI. 7. The Response of the S. C. C. 18 July 1868 to the Archbishop of Cologne agrees as regards founded Masses. 4° If the remission is made, even when the one remitting has been asked, but with him consenting with complete liberty, especially in favor of a pious work, provided however: a) there is not question of a matter which by its amplitude and its annexed laws takes on the appearance of public business, which is illicit to clerics; and b) in the case of an extraordinary stipend, those who gave that stipend did not give it on that condition, that they should perceive more abundant fruit from the Mass, which indeed is to be presumed, unless the contrary is sufficiently established, as in the exception under 1°. - Besides, all the exceptions are to be understood with this addition: provided nothing is taken away from the will of the founders or givers concerning the place and time of the celebration of the Masses, any studied collection of them being excluded, and the one to whom it belongs by law being taught concerning the subsequent celebration of them.¹

It is pleasing here to append the following questions proposed to the Sacred Congregation of the Council by the Archbishop of Cologne.

I. "Many Masses to be sung have been founded in parochial churches, ... to which a richer dowry has been assigned by the founders, to be administered by the church-provisors, from which Pastors, to whom by diocesan law and custom the celebration of these Masses belongs, receive an alms greater than the diocesan one, although no priest has expressly been called by the founders to celebrate these Masses."

II. "In celebrating Marriages and obsequies of the dead, stole-fees are not paid to the Pastor in a lump, but a certain portion is assigned for individual acts required for duly performing these functions. Hence a certain alms also, and one richer than for the other manual Masses, has been fixed by the Ordinary both for nuptial Masses and for funeral Masses; the celebration of which by law and custom belongs to the Pastors."

III. "Very many alms are offered through the year to Pastors by the faithful for Masses to be sung, either according to the tax constituted by the Ordinary, or even richer alms are spontaneously handed over."

"But since Pastors are sometimes hindered by illness, absence, and other sacred functions from celebrating these Masses themselves in the three cases set forth, other priests supply their places, whether attached to the same churches for their assistance, whose salary is paid by the church-provisors, or even outsiders. Hence the question arises whether Pastors in the same three cases must hand over the whole alms to the priests supplying their places; or whether rather it is lawful for them, retaining part for themselves, to give a smaller alms to the celebrant? But if in these cases part of the alms can licitly be retained by the Pastors, it is further asked whether the diocesan alms for low Masses must be paid by them to the priest celebrating, or rather that constituted by the Ordinary for sung Masses?"

To these questions the S. C., on 28 March 1874, rescribed: Let it be deferred; and the matter having again been maturely weighed and discussed in the meetings of the day 25 July 1874, judged that response should be made:

To I. That the whole alms must be paid by the Pastor for Masses whether low or sung.

To II. Since there is question of stole-fees, it is enough if the Pastor recompenses the celebrant with the ordinary alms. (11) p. 418.

To III. That the whole alms must be paid, unless it is established with moral certainty that the excess of the common alms was offered with regard to the person of the Pastor himself.¹

But these resolutions, since there is question of a matter of strict right, are valid also for our quasi-pastors. More easily, however, among us cases occur in which richer stipends are offered on account of a title distinct from the celebration of Masses, for instance for the support of a Missionary to whom certain or sufficient revenues are lacking.²

Query 8° Is he who retains part of the stipend bound to restitution?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is, 1° because this is deduced from the proposition condemned by Alexander VII related under this n. q. 7°. For the proposition said that a priest retaining part of the stipend can satisfy through another; therefore it follows that the contradictory is true, namely that he cannot satisfy; but satisfaction regards not only the honesty of the act, but also its justice; and he who does not satisfy an obligation of justice is bound to restitution; 2° because a priest dividing a stipend, if it is richer, acts against the will of the giver: for the will of the giver is not only that Mass be celebrated, but that it be celebrated for such a stipend. For he does not wish to bestow something gratuitously on him who does not celebrate. - Thus St. Alphonsus,³ saying that this opinion must be held. But to whom must restitution be made, namely to the one giving the alms, or to the celebrant? More commonly and more probably they teach that it must be made to the celebrant.¹

Query 9° Can a priest to whom a rich stipend is offered for today's Mass, having retained this, ask another priest to celebrate for him, promising to celebrate on the following day for the same person, who is going to be celebrated for an ordinary alms?

Resp. It is controverted. The first opinion denies it, since this cannot be excused from the appearance of base gain. - Thus St. Alphonsus, who says that Concina thinks thus rightly, adding however that he deservedly does not dare to condemn this as grave, and leaves it to the judgment of prudent men whether the poverty of the priest can excuse from every fault.²

The second opinion affirms, with Lacroix,³ and others.

Query 10° How are Masses to be taxed, for the reading of which a testator has left some sum of money?

Resp. They are to be taxed according to the custom of the place or the law of the diocese prevailing for private Masses. But if the testator himself has taxed them, but below the custom of the place or the norm of the received tax, they are to be taxed by the Ordinary according to the custom of the place, account being taken of whether the inheritance is rich or slender. - Thus the S. C. determines in St. Alphonsus.⁴

Query 11° Can rich priests accept a stipend?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is because every worker, whether rich or poor, is worthy of his wage, as Christ himself says in Luke⁵ and according to the Apostle.⁶ Besides, if they could not accept a stipend, and otherwise are not bound to celebrate without a stipend, since there is no law which obliges them to celebrate thus, the faithful would often be unable to obtain Masses. This is established besides from the practice of the universal Church. - St. Alphonsus,⁷ and others commonly.

Query 12° What is to be said of booksellers and merchants who in various ways exchange Masses to be celebrated for books or merchandise?

Resp. The S. C. C., 9 Sept. 1874, to the following doubts:

1. Whether the manner of acting of those booksellers or merchants savors of base traffic, and therefore is to be disapproved and, if necessary, restrained also by ecclesiastical penalties by their Bishops, who, by employing public invitations and premiums or in any other way whatever, collect alms for Masses, and to priests, to whom they commit them to be celebrated, repay not money but books or other merchandise?

2. Whether this manner of acting can be made honorable either because, with no diminution having been made, as many Masses are committed to be celebrated by the aforesaid collectors as correspond to the alms collected, or because through it poor priests, lacking alms for Masses, are assisted?

3. Whether collections and distributions of alms of this kind, even then, are to be disapproved and restrained, as above, by Bishops, when the profit which is drawn from the exchange of merchandise with alms is expended not for the private advantage of the collectors, but for the use or increase of pious institutions and good works?

4. Whether they concur in base traffic, and therefore are to be disapproved and even restrained, as above, who hand over alms for Masses accepted from the faithful or from pious places to booksellers, merchants, and other collectors of them, whether they receive or do not receive anything from the same under the name of a premium?

5. Whether they concur in base traffic, and therefore are to be disapproved and restrained, as above, who receive from the said booksellers and merchants, for Masses to be celebrated, books or other merchandise at the price of these, whether diminished or whole?

6. Whether they act illicitly who for Masses celebrated receive, in place of a stipend, books or other merchandise, with any commerce or appearance of base gain being excluded?

Responded: - To 1. Affirmatively.

To 2. Negatively.

To 3. Affirmatively.

To 4. Affirmatively.

To 5. Affirmatively.

To 6. Negatively.

Query 13° Can administrators of Churches retain something for themselves from the alms of Masses for the expenses of altars, lights, etc.?

Resp. No, unless the Churches have no other revenues; and then in no way must the value of the expenses which are necessary for the Sacrifice of the Mass itself be exceeded, and nevertheless also in that case care must be taken that from the monies which remain, the expenses as above having been deducted, absolutely as many Masses are celebrated as were prescribed by those offering the alms.¹ See the exception in Ben. XIV, Inst. 56. n. 13.

Query 14° Must he restore who, after receiving a stipend for a Mass to be celebrated on a privileged altar, celebrates the same on another altar?

Resp. It seems it must be denied; but he will be bound to gain a plenary indulgence applicable to the dead, such as are the indulgences of the Way of the Cross, etc. For thus a proportionate compensation is bestowed. If, however, he has accepted a stipend greater than ordinary for this, he is bound to restore the excess. - Thus St. Alphonsus,² Elbel,³ Sporer.⁴

But if someone accepts a stipend in order that he celebrate in a certain place, e.g. at a miraculous Statue, or in a Chapel so that the people may hear Mass, or at a certain time, e.g. on the Sabbath day in honor of the Blessed Virgin, so that the place and time are intended of themselves, he cannot retain the stipend unless he has read the Mass at the prescribed time and place. The reason is because otherwise the one giving the stipend is judged to be gravely unwilling. But it is otherwise if the time and place are not intended of themselves.

Query 15° Is one obliged by stipend to celebrate on a privileged altar for a deceased person bound to read a Mass of Requiem, when the RITE permits it?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is because this is required for gaining indulgences, as is clear from the declaration of the S. C. R. 11 April 1840.⁵

Query 16° Does one obliged by stipend to READ a Mass of Requiem, or a votive Mass, satisfy if he says another Mass?

Resp. Affirmatively as regards a Mass of Requiem, unless the testator or the one giving the stipend has expressly asked that it be said (S. R. C. 5 Aug. 1662 and 12 Sept. 1840). - Negatively as regards a votive Mass (S. R. C. 12 Sept. 1840), unless either 1° the one requesting consents; or 2° a votive Mass has been accepted which is not permitted to be celebrated, as in honor of a Mystery or of a Blessed; or 3° a votive Mass has been accepted for a day on which it is prohibited, and cannot conveniently be deferred to a free day.

But truly, neither in the case of a Mass of Requiem expressly requested, nor in the case of a votive Mass, do they sin gravely who read the Mass of the day, and not even lightly in the excepted cases, or when a legitimate cause is present, such as however one's own devotion is not.¹ The reason is because the essential value is the same; but the privation of accidental value does not bring so grave a prejudice. Besides, the virtue of fidelity in the case does not oblige so gravely.

Note, however, that here there is not question of the cases treated under q. 14° and q. 15°, nor of Masses of Requiem to be celebrated in chant, concerning which, as also concerning this whole question, see de Herdt.²

Query 17° Can a stipend be received for a Mass to be celebrated on the day of the Commemoration of all the faithful departed?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is because not all priests are bound on this day to apply Mass for all the dead, indeed they are not 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 a Decree of the S. C.³ But this being posited, absolutely nothing stands in the way of a stipend being able to be accepted for Mass. - Thus commonly.⁴

Query 18° What does the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore counsel, and what does it prescribe, concerning Masses to be founded or founded Masses?

Resp. To the first. In the Appendix of the Council⁵ there is reported, and therefore by way of norm seems to be counseled, Decree LV of the Second Provincial Council of Cincinnati, which reads thus: "That a certain norm be established in this Province for foundations of Masses, ... the Fathers judged that foundations of this kind, especially when they are perpetual, because of the peculiar circumstances in which we are placed, ... are to be admitted with great caution; also on this condition, that for a private Mass there first exist a fund of at least fifty scutata, but for a sung Mass, of one hundred scutata." ... But the best precaution will be if the agreement to be entered into with the founder contains at least these conditions: 1) that there will be no future obligation of celebrating, if the capital destined for this end for any cause whatever has either perished, or remained idle or unfruitful; 2) that the number of Masses to be celebrated be diminished proportionately, if for any cause whatever the revenues do not reach the stipend established by the founder; and therefore that not only the capital, but also the stipend of the Masses be determined, or at least that the faculty of reduction be reserved to the Ordinary; 3) that, if for any cause whatever the Church in which the Masses are to be celebrated should lack a priest, or even be destroyed, they can be celebrated in another to be designated by the Ordinary.

Resp. to the second. "Let foundations not be accepted without the previous assent of the Bishop, if there is question of a secular institute, or of the regular Prelate, if the foundation is made in favor of an exempt community."¹

Query 19° What is the reduction of Masses?

Resp. It is the diminution of the number of Masses to be celebrated, granted by legitimate authority for a legitimate cause.

It is said: 1° of Masses to be celebrated; for reduction regards the future, or Masses to be omitted; and, if there is question of Masses omitted, there is a condonation, which is reserved privatively to the Supreme Pontiff. If it is granted, a small alms is imposed, which is called composition. B. 14. d. S. L. 13. c. ult. n. 15.

It is said: 2° by legitimate authority, namely through the Supreme Pontiff, as the S. C. C. declared, with Urban VIII and Innoc. XII approving, in the Bull Nuper. - Nevertheless the Bishop also will be able to reduce if either a) as is plain of itself, he has obtained an Indult for this, in the use of which Indult, lest Bishops wander from the path, rules are suitably handed down by Benedict XIV in the book On the Diocesan Synod, C. ult. n. 22-29; likewise nn. 32. 34. 35; or b) the founder has given the Bishop this faculty;² or c) the imposed and accepted burden was made inter vivos by force of a convention entered into with the Bishop; for that convention includes this tacit condition: the thing, or capital, remaining in that state in which the fruits yield at least the ordinary stipend of a manual Mass. Therefore in the case of diminution of revenues or loss of the fund, the Bishop by his ordinary power, or by assuming the parts of a judge, can either rescind the contract, or at least reduce it to the terms of right.³

It is said: 3° for a legitimate cause, e.g. diminution of revenues, increase by the Bishop of the alms, etc.