Case 8. Duty of Residence

Titius and Caius, regular priests, were serving a certain mission in England. Titius, the superior, departed early in the morning to conduct certain business and would not return until ten o’clock in the evening. Caius also, although he knew that some of the parishioners were ill, since he thought no one was placed in grave danger, left the house after the superior in order to visit friends. Returning at nine o’clock in the evening, Caius heard that a messenger had come at four o’clock reporting that a certain parishioner was gravely ill. Hastening to the sick man’s house, Caius sorrowfully found that he was already dead and had not received the sacraments before death. He was therefore tormented by scruples as to whether or not he was guilty of mortal fault. Hence it is asked:

1. What is the obligation of residence that rests upon priests, and what is its nature?

2. Do both the superior and the regular subjects who serve missions in England have the care of souls?

3. What is the obligation of missionaries to administer the sacraments and care for the sick?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. What is the duty of residence which is incumbent on priests with the cure of souls?

“ In order that they may be able to fulfil the duties of their charge, and be always ready to help the faithful in their spiritual needs, parish priests are bound to reside in the church house or in some place near the church. This law was enforced by the Council of Trent, and it has been further determined in particular points by provincial law. In the province of Westminster curates must give notice to the head priest if they wish to absent themselves even for a day. When there is another priest in residence, the head priest may absent himself for a few days without acquainting the bishop, provided that he has some good reason, that he takes care that it does not occur too often, and that he is not away on a Sunday or on a day of obligation. If he wants to be away on one of these days he must have the leave of the bishop or of the vicar-general in writing, except when the case is urgent, and then he must leave a suitable person as his substitute, and give notice to the Bishop or to the vicar-general as soon as possible.” 1

2. Do both the regular superior and his subjects who serve a mission in England exercise the cure of souls?

Yes, they are all presented to the bishop by their religious superior and they receive their faculties and office from the bishop. When there are several priests who have the cure of souls in one mission, whether they be seculars or regulars, one is named by the bishop as head priest; the others are his assistants, but all have the cure of souls according to the Westminster Synods. “ We decree that all others exercise the care of souls only with dependence on the first one. ” (iv West, x, 2). “ Moreover, from the fact that the care of souls is principally entrusted 1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. i, p. 630.

to the rectors of missions, let the assistants not think themselves exempt from so great a burden; for it is their duty, in dependence upon the rector, to assist him, namely by preaching, hearing confessions, teaching catechism to children, visiting the sick and administering the sacraments to them, and fulfilling the other duties of a missionary ” (iv West, xi, 6).

3. What is the obligation of missionary priests to administer the sacraments and look after the sick?

Missionary priests who have the cure of souls are bound to administer the sacraments to those under their charge whenever these ask for them reasonably. They should take special care of the sick as the Ritual admonishes them: “ The parish priest must first remember that care of the sick is not among the least parts of his office. Therefore, as soon as he knows that anyone among the faithful committed to his care is sick, he shall not wait to be called to him, but shall go to him of his own accord; and that not only once, but rather often, so far as there is need” (De Visit. et Cura Infirm.).

4. The case. Titius in the case was justified in leaving home for the day; explicitly or implicitly he left Caius in charge. Caius followed the example of Titius and left home for the day although he knew that there were several sick people in the parish, but he thought that none of them was in serious danger. As a matter of fact one died without the sacraments while the priest was away, and he might have had them if Caius had stayed at home as he should have done. There is no indication in the case that Caius went away on necessary business; it would appear that he went on pleasure. He can not be excused from all fault in leaving when he knew that there were several in the parish who were sick. If he had left advert-ing to the probability of one of them dying in consequence without the sacraments, he would have sinned grievously. As this can hardly be said, we must say that he sinned at least venially, unless with full knowledge of all the circumstances he judged that no harm would result to his flock.