Case 4. Clerical Life

Caius, an English priest ordained under the title of patrimony, holds no office in the diocese. Hence, being free, he is accustomed to spend the greater part of the year traveling outside England. He does not shave his beard or wear the tonsure, and without scruple attends stage performances in public theaters outside England, since the inhabitants think that he is an Anglican minister. He readily defends his manner of acting, since according to canonists only this is established by ecclesiastical law: “A cleric shall grow neither long hair nor a beard; that is, an excessive cultivation of the hair which smacks of a wanton and effeminate fashion is forbidden to him.”¹ And although attendance at public spectacles is also forbidden to him, obscene and shameful spectacles are understood.² Titius, however, a newly ordained priest, having heard these things, cannot reconcile them with the doctrine that he heard in the seminary. Hence it is asked:

1 Santi, Praelect. Jur. Can. iii, 1, n. 36. 2 Ibid., n. 41.

1. What do the written ecclesiastical laws prescribe concerning the things that occur in the case?

2. Has custom always interpreted those same laws in the same sense?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. What does the written ecclesiastical law prescribe concerning the matters touched on in the case?

By the written common law clerics are forbidden to cultivate the beard with special care, after the manner of dandies, as Santi explains in the passage quoted. But provincial law and custom approved by authority in England goes further and prohibits the wearing of hair on the cheeks or on the chin (iv Westmon., d. xi, n. 13). The common law prescribes the clerical tonsure, but in this matter custom in England is contrary to the law, and ecclesiastical authority does not intervene.

With regard to theaters the law in England is severe; it prohibits “ ecclesiastics who have received sacred Orders from being present at stage representations in public theaters or in places temporarily made use of as public theaters, under the penalty to transgressors of suspension to be incurred ipso facto, such as has hitherto been the rule in all parts of England with reservation to the respective Ordinaries.”¹ More or less similar prohibitions exist in most provinces. The old written law was as stated by Santi.²

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. i, p. 614.

2 Cf. Ben. xiv, De Synodo Dicecesana, xi, c. x, n. 11.

2. Has custom always interpreted these laws in the same way?

No; as is clear from what has just been said, both the law on these matters and its interpretation have varied considerably in different ages and countries. There is not uniformity with regard to them even now, so that the provincial or synodal decrees have mainly to be consulted and followed by the conscientious cleric.

3. The case. Although Caius had been ordained on his patrimony he was not at liberty to wander about as he chose. He had been ordained for the service of the diocese to which he belongs, and the bishop should see that he has suitable employment as long as he can work. He did wrong in growing his beard, though custom excuses him with regard to the tonsure. In going without scruple to plays in public theaters when out of England he also did wrong, for now the common law of the Church, introduced by universal provincial law, forbids clerics to go to public theaters. Out of England, however, he would not incur the suspension inflicted by English Provincial law, nor, inasmuch as he is a peregrinus, would he incur any penalty which the law of the place inflicts for such an offence. He might, however, be punished by the bishop of the place where he transgressed the law, inasmuch as it is a mere application of the prohibition of the common law by which clerics are forbidden to do what is not becoming in them.¹

1 Génicot, Casus Conscient., vol. i, p. 20; Analecta Ecclesiastica, 1910, p. 174.