§ 2. Obligations Common to Clerics of Major Orders

Two things must be recalled: perfect chastity and the divine office (cc. 132 and 135).

— As pertaining to the sanctity with which the Church wishes ministers of divine things to shine, she imposes on clerics of major orders the observance of perfect chastity, so that those sinning against it are also guilty of sacrilege (c. 132, §1). Consequently she keeps the same from marriage, ibid., or from its use, if, being married, they have received major orders with apostolic dispensation. Cf. c. 132, §3.

The Church wishes, besides, that this chastity be confirmed by a true vow. Cf. Wernz, Ius Decretalium, II, 196.

Whether the immediate title of the obligation is the vow or ecclesiastical law: this controversy is not solved by the Code. But the vow cannot be denied, as Ballerini lucidly shows (Op. theol., t. 4, tr. 9, n. 235-240). And these things are morally certain:

a) by positive law of the Church, a vow is imposed in the Latin Church on those about to receive the subdiaconate. For this vow is supposed in c. Cum olim, 6, De Clericis coniugatis (l. 3, t. 3), by the words: "We, attending to the fact that the Eastern Church has not admitted the vow of chastity"; it is supposed in c. un. Quod votum, De voto, in VI (l. 3, t. 15), by which the vow is said to be solemnized by the reception of sacred order; and it is formally taught in the Constitution Inter praeteritos, December 3, 1749, §41, of Benedict XIV. Besides, without a vow it cannot be explained how a cleric in sacred orders becomes guilty of sacrilege by merely internal lust: which nevertheless is commonly handed down;

b) those also who have been unwilling to vow chastity must observe chastity by force of ecclesiastical law, from religion, so that contrary sins are sacrileges. Yet because then they are bound by the title of ecclesiastical law alone, they would be immune from the guilt of sacrilege in an internal fault. But these clerics are held by a grave and perpetual obligation of changing this will and of emitting the vow;

c) the nullity of marriage attempted by a cleric in sacred orders proceeds immediately from ecclesiastical law, which wished that sacred order be a diriment impediment and therefore solemnized the annexed vow.

N.B. - In order that a cleric be bound by the vow itself, it suffices that he willed to receive sacred order with the burdens which are annexed by the Church to ordination, although perhaps he was ignorant of the necessity of the vow. Therefore it is in no way essential to the vow that, after hearing the invitation of the ordaining bishop, the one to be ordained physically approached with the customary step.

3. "A married man who without apostolic dispensation has received major orders, even in good faith, is prohibited from the exercise of those orders." Therefore for a married man who desires to receive sacred order there is need of a dispensation of the Holy See.

— Upon a cleric who, coerced by grave fear, has received sacred order, the Church does not impose the obligation of chastity or of reciting the divine office. Wherefore c. 214 orders that this cleric be reduced to the lay state by the judge, without any obligation either of chastity or of the divine office.

Except if, the fear having been removed, he has ratified his ordination. Ratification can be express or tacit, by the exercise of the order done in these circumstances, so that it seems reasonably to contain a will of subjecting himself to clerical obligations. Wherefore to one acting before a judge both these things will have to be proved: coercion and defect of ratification (c. 214).

But one whose ordination is to be attributed to some exterior force, if grave reasons accede, is not necessarily destitute of all hope of obtaining a dispensation from the obligations, even if the proof of grave fear or of defect of ratification is only incomplete.

— With the obligation of preserving chastity there is connected the grave question concerning the sanctity required so that someone can with a safe conscience be admitted to sacred orders or ascend to them.

In order we shall speak of the office of the Prelate of the external forum, who admits the candidate; of the obligation of the candidate who petitions sacred ordination; finally of the office and prudent manner of acting of the confessor who sacramentally hears a candidate as penitent.

I. On the Office of the Prelate. The Apostle himself, 1 Tim. 5, 22, already commended this: "Impose hands quickly on no one, nor communicate in others' sins." C. Nullus, 2, D. 24; Trent, sess. XXIII, Ref. c. 5 ff., order bishops diligently to investigate and prove the morals of clerics. St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 36, art. 4, ad 3, demands in the one ordaining certainty concerning the quality of those to be promoted; the same, 2, 2, q. 189, art. 1, ad 3, writes these things: "Sacred orders pre-require sanctity... whence the weight of orders must be imposed on walls already dried by sanctity from the moisture of vices." Benedict XIV, in the Constitution Obi primum, December 3, 1740, hands down similar things, and also inculcates these words of Lateran IV (1215), c. 27: "It is holier in ordination, especially of priests, to have few good ministers than many bad ones." The words are cited in c. Cum sit, 14, De aetate et qualitate praeficiendorum (I, 14).

Wherefore they not only can repel candidates whom they know secretly to be unworthy, but must be strong in taking away clerical dress from those whom it is established will not be sufficiently useful to the diocese, and in deferring orders for those who have not yet sufficiently amended even an occult vice, unless, with attention to the quantity and quality of the delict and the hope of amendment, the necessity or utility of their Church, for which they themselves must provide, should demand greater indulgence. Cf. St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 67 and 803.

II. On Candidates. The candidate himself who is not conscious that he can, without excessive difficulty, avoid every scandal and, to say the least, habitually observe perfect chastity, sins gravely if, before he has been made stronger, he has petitioned sacred ordination.

The reason is that interior and exterior sanctity must be said to pertain, partly of itself, partly from the positive will of the Church, to the obligation of the state of those who are in sacred orders. Now the perpetual natural law forbids that you undertake a state unless you know yourself morally fit for fulfilling its obligations. But these things hold the more strongly because there is question of a more sublime state, and because the perfect probity of the ministers of the Church is of such great importance for faith and morals either to be preserved, restored, or spread.

That sanctity or outstanding probity is to be placed among the obligations of the state is brought about by not a few texts. Already the Apostle himself, 1 Tim. 3, wishes deacons to be "modest (semnous), not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not pursuing base gain, having the mystery of faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved, and so let them minister, having no crime." C. A multis, 9, De aetate et qualitate ordinandorum (I, 11): "Let the impious blush and understand by the judgment of the Holy Spirit that those who have been placed in sacred orders, presbyterate, diaconate, subdiaconate, if they have not lived chastely, are to be excluded from all dignity of the same grades." Decree of Urban II: "Let no one be permitted to approach sacred order unless he be either a virgin or of proved chastity." Council of Trent, sess. XXIII, c. 13, Ref.: "Let subdeacons and deacons be ordained, having good testimony and proved in minor orders... who hope, with God as author, that they can contain themselves." Perfect conversion from morals is inculcated by the very exhortation of the Roman Pontifical to subdeacons: "If until now you have been drunk, from now on be sober; if until now unchaste, from now on chaste."

III. On Confessors. 1. By way of corollary, this rule can be proposed, not as universal but as general: that before sacred ordination sufficient proof of virtue be required, and therefore that purposes of virtue be confirmed by an acquired habit of chastity.

For since from the beginning one must live chastely in sacred order, and the common sense of men generally finds no other demonstration of capacity than experience, he who lacks an acquired habit of chastity could only rashly profess perfect chastity, which is wrong. Cf. the Dissertation of St. Alphonsus, Whether absolution is to be denied to a cleric habituated in occult sins of lust, who wishes to ascend to sacred orders, without a preceding experiment of continence. "That changes of this sort from a bad habit into the contrary good ordinarily happen not immediately, but gradually, after many struggles, unless an extraordinary change of heart by a peculiar grace of God should happen, experience itself, as we have already admonished, sufficiently shows; and he who knows the proneness of the human heart to evil does not doubt about this matter. For although man is free, nevertheless this is his ordinary way of acting, that he freely chooses what pleases him more; and although the least grace of itself is able to resist any temptation, the habituated man is not accustomed always and thoroughly to follow attracting grace; nor is God accustomed to amend men of this sort immediately, but gradually by degrees." Thus to the matter Ballerini-Palmieri, t. 2, tr. 9, n. 231; whom nevertheless we approve less when, with St. Alphonsus and not a few others, they allege the dangers of many sins which would be graver, and exclusion from marriage or from the state which brings the remedy of concupiscence. For those dangers and sins are compensated by not a few spiritual advantages of the better state. Cf. Lugo, Resp. mor., l. 1, dub. 18. Nor are all helped by marriage. But the requisites of the state must be invoked directly.

Nor, as is clear, do we appeal to some special law by which the Church would require previous probation. For such a law does not exist. The cited words themselves of the Pontifical suppose that it can happen that someone ascend immediately from a sinful life to sacred orders. But we rely on the natural obligation which follows the requisites for the clerical state.

2. The greater the danger of relapse and scandal is; the less the remaining aptitude and quality of the candidate is; the more easily he can withdraw from embracing the priestly state, the more firmly the preceding rule must be held.

Now a propensity to sodomy creates a graver danger of relapse and scandal than a propensity to fornication; and this is more dangerous than solitary lapse; but he can withdraw more easily who has not yet put on clerical dress, who possesses other means of support, than he who studies theology, who is close to sacred ordination, or has already received sacred order, or is poor: since all these outside the clerical state are almost destitute of counsel.

On the contrary, extraordinary signs of penitence and conversion, especially when secular life is first put aside, can give sufficient security even without previous experience. Cf. St. Alphonsus, cited dissertation.

3. When, on account of a native or acquired propensity, future lapses are foreseen from fragility, although outside a properly so-called habit, clerical life is regularly to be dissuaded. For that maimed and interrupted chastity in no way agrees with the desires of the Church; in him who has made a vow and embraced a more noble state it is accustomed to depress the soul: whence the man is rendered less strong for action; for a priest it easily prepares occasions of fatal sacrileges or of Masses celebrated without sacramental reconciliation with God: which diminishes reverence and esteem for the Most Holy Eucharist. Is it not better to be a fervent layman than a languid priest?

4. From these principles prudently weighed, the Confessor will adapt his manner of acting to individual cases. But already Benedict XIV, De Synodo, l. XI, c. 2, n. 18, taught that "no general rule is available which can be used by him, the Director, in cases of this kind. Wherefore we judge that no other counsel can be given to him than that he diligently inspect and maturely weigh all the circumstances of person, things, and cases; that he also remember that the parts not only of judge but also of physician have been imposed on him."

The confessor will forbid ascent to sacred orders, even with absolution denied, to him who joins a lukewarm life with a true habit of sin, or who is probably foreseen as about to sin scandalously. If accidental non-scandalous faults are foreseen, he generally will not advise ascent, although then he cannot strictly prohibit it. Indeed, unless the faults seem likely to be altogether rare and to be redeemed by the gifts of the priest, he will rather turn the penitent away from ascent. Nor should he trust too much even an experience of several months, if after entrance into the seminary the habit was not broken. For it happens that from the desire of proximate ordination the soul makes extraordinary efforts which after ordination it will not long bear, so that the bad habit afterward revives.

In his counsels let the confessor recall these things: a) that he easily becomes cruel toward the Church who in this matter shows himself too benign toward a private man; b) that the fruit of greater experience leads most to incline more toward severity.

But a practical near-perplexity is accustomed to beget itself: a) the often temporally wretched and spiritually dangerous lot to which the youth is exposed outside the seminary; b) the imminent reception of sacred order, especially priesthood, so that the candidate who then changes his plan can scarcely escape some mark.

Yet to him who desires more definite indications, these seem able to be handed down concerning the way in which the Confessor in a Seminary can fulfill his office. But, as Lehmkuhl, II, 760, rightly observes, "of most grave moment in the seminary is the office both of director and of confessor, that they direct the pupils in due time, form their souls, and disclose defect of aptitude."

Therefore: a) with a lay youth let him see what the purpose of priestly life effects. If little, let him turn the habituated one away from entrance into the seminary. He can more easily favor entrance into religion, if the vocation otherwise appears serious and the libidinous propensity is not rooted in the very temperament of the body. For there are those who are moved to embrace religious life by the very plan of breaking off sins. A good hope of amendment is founded upon such a thought; b) let the habitual confessor of a seminarian first propose remedies, admonish concerning consequences, threaten; in the second or at most third year, unless the habit is shown to have been conquered, let him require departure; c) to a religious, after medicine has been tried in vain, already before theology, let the confessor clearly manifest the difficulty which will stand in the way of receiving sacred orders, so that he himself, with prudent men, such as the moderator of spirit or religious Superior, may maturely deliberate what is better to be established concerning his lot: whether faith and morals seem sufficiently safe in secular life that this is honestly to be desired, or whether to remain in religion without sacred orders is more expedient for him. With a religious in theology one must act as with a seminarian.

Let an extraordinary confessor urge departure of a penitent on the threshold of diaconate or priesthood: let him not require it, unless the propensity was toward sins more than weekly, or toward scandalous sins.

N.B. - The habit of solitary vice among some suddenly and fully ceases on some occasion; among others it is, as it were, gradually killed. Therefore it can sometimes be the fruit of patience that it lead by degrees to moral health.

Corollary. The prudent selection of seminarians is seen to be of the greatest moment. The seminary ought to be open to no one whose entrance has not been fully free, truly supported by supernatural motives; whose temperament seems too prone to venereal things.

Therefore these things must be diligently examined in candidates. Supernatural motives will be known from questioning. That the election of state is entirely free will be seen partly from questioning, partly from the circumstances. Two things can obstruct this liberty: if parents of slight condition have greatly desired that the son embrace the ecclesiastical state, especially if they have lived laboriously and sparingly so that they might make a supply of humanities studies for the son; if the son has been educated by another's money or in an ecclesiastical college, an apostolic school, a small novitiate, gratuitously. Wherefore, although certain ones can abuse this facility, with all things weighed, I would consider it opportune that the directors of a college of this kind help those who are seen to be little fervent to procure for themselves an honest secular state. Surely religion will receive less detriment from the fiction and fraud of some than from the morally coerced entrance of those who enter the seminary or novitiate because they know every other way is cut off from them. Finally, a libidinous propensity can be diagnosed by expert physicians. For which reason, if from the physical appearance of the candidate or from his origin some such thing is feared, a medical examination should be requested. And what prevents the adolescent from being asked, indeed ordered, to disclose secretly to some most approved priest if he experiences any difficulties in preserving chastity? The utility is common to the candidate and the diocese; there is no danger of infamy. And he who is unwilling to disclose the matter has the option of not petitioning entrance.

— Appendix I belongs to this section. I. Preliminary Notions. The divine office is called the complex of chants, prayers, and readings by which public or liturgical worship is daily rendered to God in the Church. Cf. what has been said elsewhere concerning the nature and modes of liturgical worship. Cursus was also the name both of the whole office and of the individual hours.

2. Choral celebration is distinguished, whether solemn or not solemn, and private celebration by one or by several. The matter and order of each celebration are the same; but the rubrics of the office are rightly understood only from choral celebration. If Terce is excepted, when it is connected with a pontifical Mass, the lesser hours and Compline are never solemnly celebrated.

II. Historical Evolution of the Office. Cf. Appendix I.

— III. The Obligation of the Office. 1. In c. 135 we have the first written law which formally imposes the daily recitation of the canonical hours upon clerics of major orders.

The progress of this obligation can be described approximately in this way. The obligation of the office was first, in some measure, that of all the faithful. The necessity, for clerics, of ministering at the hours at which the faithful assisted created for them a proper title of obligation, arising from custom and sanctioned by various decrees of councils or synods. Therefore the obligation was first restricted to daily Vespers and Lauds, and affected clerics both of major and minor orders whose ministry was necessary. After the faithful deserted the daily offices, the obligation nevertheless remained for clerics and was extended also to the other offices, so that a cleric impeded from choir was obliged by private recitation. Finally the principle of the obligation, which previously was the office of ministering, became sacred order itself.

Monks at the beginning seem to have been bound by no special obligation. But since they professed the most perfect observance of the Christian life, they were assiduous in common prayer; afterward, however, when, with the cenobitic life, a proper institute of prayer arose among monks and was confirmed by their own rules, they were admitted by the Church into a part of the public ministry of prayer, especially in its very head, or in the city of Rome.

2. The obligation of beneficiaries is recalled and sanctioned in c. 1475.

3. The choral obligation of a chapter is promulgated in cc. 413 and 414.

4. The obligation either of choir or of the divine office is no longer recalled among the common obligations of religious. But what religions in which there is an obligation of choir must perform is explained in c. 610.

Lest we have to go over the argument again, we shall set forth together the obligations of clerics who are in sacred orders, of canons, and of many religious. First we shall treat of the private and solitary recitation of the hours, then of recitation with a companion and of the obligation of choir.

— The persons obliged are:

1. All clerics constituted in major orders, unless they have been legitimately reduced to the lay state. The immediate title of the obligation is sacred order; wherefore the beginning of the obligation is from the moment of received subdiaconate, so that the cleric must recite the hours corresponding to that moment, but not those which are prior in time. Now Prime corresponds to the sixth hour of the morning; Terce to the ninth hour; Sext to midday.

Can the one to be ordained satisfy the law by reciting, before ordination, the part which, after sacred order has been received, he will have to recite? This seems to be answered affirmatively, because, although he does not yet recite the office in the name of the Church, which the patrons of the stricter, probable opinion object, the one to be ordained offers an anticipated payment which the Church is judged to accept, especially since ordination is often so prolonged that the delayed hour cannot be recited in its own time.

Today, where the private recitation of the office is much more separated from the choral, the opinion of La Croix, Theol. mor., l. 4, n. 1187, no longer seems probable, which obliged one ordained subdeacon to recite the hour which then had to be said in choir. Wherefore, if one was ordained at the eleventh hour, he himself obliged him only to Vespers, since at the eleventh hour all the little hours usually had already been paid in choir. Already St. Alphonsus, l. 4, n. 140, called the opinion which we have set forth above the truer one;

2. All beneficiaries, not legitimately impeded. These are bound from the day of accepted possession of the benefice, if they perceive or will perceive the fruits. Wherefore they must recite the entire office of the day.

He who has not satisfied that obligation does not make the fruits his own in proportion to the omission, "and let him hand them over to the fabric of the church or to the diocesan seminary, or distribute them among the poor" (c. 1475, §2).

Therefore the Church obliges from justice⁽¹⁾ the beneficiary who with grave fault has omitted the canonical hours to restore the fruits in proportion. A threefold mode of restitution is permitted to him. By the Constitution Ex proximo, September 22, 1571, St. Pius V so declared that "in proportion to the omission," that one who on one day has omitted the entire office must restore all the fruits corresponding to that day, that is, the 365th part of the annual revenue; but one who has omitted only Matins with Lauds, half the fruits of one day; one who has omitted the remaining hours, also half; and one who has omitted one of those, the twelfth part of the same sum. Cf. Epitome I. C., II, 800.

From the very words of the Constitution Supernae dispositionis of Leo X, in the Lateran Council, §38, and from the received interpretation, the fruits perceived in the first semester are condoned. And although he has sinned gravely, a beneficiary who on the next day supplies the omitted office is probably excused from restitution (the Salmanticenses and others).

Moreover, according to the common opinion, he who perceives the fruits of a benefice also on account of other burdens does not owe all the fruits. Wherefore, on account of the whole office omitted, bishops and pastors are not judged to have to restore beyond the third or fourth, indeed probably the fifth, part of the fruits; canons, not beyond half, indeed the fourth part; chaplains, not beyond half or the third part. Cf. St. Alphonsus, l. 3, n. 673; l. 4, n. 415; Epitome I. C., II, 800.

Finally, since today even benefices with care of souls are accustomed to be so slight that they scarcely suffice for the support of the beneficiary, and since the negligent beneficiary is not prohibited from keeping as a poor man what as blameworthy he has lost, almost never today will there be place for this penalty. Cf. Palmieri, Op. th., t. 4, tr. 9, n. 342.

⁽¹⁾ D'Annibale, however, III, 65, thinks that this restitution is owed by way of a conventional penalty rather than from justice.

3. Those solemnly professed in religions in which there is an obligation of choir (c. 610).

By these clear words: 1. on account of the many more recent institutes which have been approved without choir, there is no longer any common obligation of the divine office for religious; 2. those solemnly professed in religions in which there is an obligation of choir are held to private recitation of the office if, being destined for choir, they have been absent from choir. Therefore a question can no longer be raised today about their grave obligation. On the controversy before the Code, cf. Palmieri, Op. theolog., t. 2, tr. 9, nn. 333-334; 3. those simply professed, or nuns who now do not have solemn vows, are not held, unless perhaps from their own Constitutions, although they belong to institutes with solemn vows. Cf. response of the Sacred Penitentiary, November 24, 1852.

And even where they have solemn vows, nuns of the Visitation, and any others who must recite only the Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, are judged to be held by only a light obligation.

The professed are held from the moment of profession, just as the ordained are held from ordination.

— By one recitation of the breviary he satisfies this obligation, both he who has several benefices and he who is held by several titles, for example as subdeacon and professed. And the omission of that office is judged to be one single sin against religion. Yet the beneficiary who is unwilling to restore the fruits, when he owes them, must also accuse a sin against justice. Cf. Palmieri, l. c., n. 355.

— The substance of the obligation is this: that the canonical hours be recited entire daily "according to the proper and approved liturgical books" (c. 135).

Approved liturgical books are the Roman Breviary, reformed by St. Pius V, with the new order of the psalter introduced by Pius X and prescribed for validity, Constitution Divino afflatu, November 1, 1911 (A. A. S., 3, 633; Per., t. 6, p. 125).

Yet churches or religions which in 1568 were using another breviary approved by custom of at least two hundred years were able to preserve that one. Yet if they use the faculty of taking the Roman breviary, they are then prohibited from returning to their former one.

The obligation of reciting the breviary includes the obligation of having it such as it has been imposed, and therefore of acquiring for oneself new approved offices. Yet the mind of the Holy See is not to oblige clerics who recite the breviary according to an already existing edition to assume new or reformed lessons of the office (S. R. C., December 14, 1883).

The proper liturgical books must be used. Wherefore he will not have satisfied who, alone or with a companion, has recited the office of another breviary too different from his own. Cf. S. R. C., January 27, 1899; Decr. auth., n. 4011. Yet others think otherwise (St. Alphonsus, n. 161; Ferreres, II, n. 85).

— Besides the customary office, the litanies of All Saints must be recited, even privately, on the very feast of St. Mark and on the three Rogation days. Those litanies cannot be anticipated on the previous day. Today this obligation of private recitation is certain; but the gravity of that obligation is less certain, on account of the less severe words of the rubric: "Let them say those litanies privately." Cf. Palmieri, l. c., n. 382.

Before the reform of Pius X, the Office of the Dead, which now is the proper office of that day, had to be added on the day of the commemoration of all the faithful departed to the office of the octave of All Saints.

— The Mode of Recitation. There is prescribed:

1. Vocal recitation. It pertains to the substance that words be formed, which supposes at least some breath, however slight: voice of itself is audible. But he who is conscious to himself that through the proper organs, the tongue and lips, he forms syllables, and does not merely produce some motion in the throat or deliberately suppress the breath, effects vocal recitation. Wherefore the question whether or not it is required that someone be able of himself to hear himself can be omitted, and is better omitted, as being scrupulous. Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri, l. c., nn. 394-396.

2. Entire recitation, "without syncopation and abbreviation of words and syllables," and without precipitation.

A defect in this matter, since it is accustomed to affect the final syllables of words, will generally be venial; for this does not take away every signification. Someone can be excused by stammering, and even by a custom which, reprehensible in the beginning, has actually become invincible, provided efforts are applied to laying it aside. And because anxiety itself can impede correct pronunciation, it is sometimes better to obtain a dispensation until healing has been obtained with peace;

3. Devout recitation. Therefore an intention of worshiping God by the recitation is required. For an act of religion is prescribed, to which such an intention is essential. But that intention demands the use of no formula; and it is present in reality as soon as you take up the breviary to pay the accustomed task.

All also require attention which they call external, and which looks to this: that exterior actions be excluded which cannot be composed with interior attention. This is required by c. Dolentes, 9, De celebratione missarum (III, 41).

Sufficient diligence also is of itself required so that an accurate recitation be made.

Attention which they call internal they distinguish into superficial, or to correct pronunciation; literal, or to the signification of the words; spiritual, or to God or divine things. And although this notion, which belongs to acts of the will, is little suited to acts of the intellect, nevertheless they distinguish further formal attention, which is truly present, and virtual attention, which in moral estimation is judged to be present because the will of attending has not been retracted.

There have been not a few controversies concerning the necessity of so-called interior attention.

But if the matter is considered more closely, just as external attention is defined by the exclusion of exterior actions which would occupy the mind, so internal attention is defined by the exclusion of wandering of the mind morally diverting it elsewhere.

Now, when we intend to pray expressly, the reverence due to God demands that morally we place ourselves wholly present to God. Wherefore voluntary distraction of mind is at least lightly sinful. Yet that irreverence does not take away the essence of prayer: for this it is enough that, from the intention of worshiping God, you use words containing His praise or beseeching Him. Cf. Lugo, Euch., d. 22, n. 15 ff. But no argument proves that more is prescribed by the Church. Indeed now, since c. 135, adding nothing, prescribes merely the entire recitation of the canonical hours, the very probability now seems to us to be absent from the stricter opinion.

Nor is the substance of the obligation necessarily lacking in him who recites the hours in the state of mortal sin; indeed, even with actual complacency in sin or with the will of sinning. For the will of praying and praising God can stand together with a present affection toward a sin of another kind. Cf. Palmieri, l. c., n. 429. Yet venial irreverence is committed in the latter case;

4. Continued recitation, at least so that the individual hours be recited in one morally continuous course, unless a just cause prevents it. Yet a culpable interruption does not exceed venial fault, and what has been said does not have to be repeated; for the individual verses of the psalms have a complete signification and through the intention of completing the hour are sufficiently joined together among themselves. St. Alphonsus, l. 4, n. 168.

Matins, however, can be separated from Lauds; nor does he seem to sin who interposes three hours between the individual nocturns, since several say, although undeservedly, that this was the ancient custom.

Just causes for interrupting an hour or psalm are furnished by every utility, one's own or another's, which would be inconveniently delayed: civility, devotion, obedience to be furnished, etc. St. Alphonsus, l. 4, n. 168.

A pious priest, as is clear, will strive to avoid the very occasions of interruptions;

5. Ordered recitation, so that you recite in their order: a. the individual offices; b. the individual hours; c. the individual parts of the hours. Nevertheless:

As to a. The substitution of another office from the Roman Breviary is of itself venial; and for a reasonable cause, for example to recite with a companion of the same rite, or on account of making a journey, the change will be lawful.

Yet it would be grave to choose an office which would at the same time be notably shorter and of a plainly different rite, as if on Palm Sunday you recited the office of Easter. Cf. proposition 34 among those reproved at least as scandalous by Alexander VII, Denzinger, n. 1134. Likewise the deformity, and therefore the fault, would be grave if for the whole year you recited the same office at will.

He who through error has recited one office for another satisfies the obligation. But if it was notably shorter, an equitable compensation from the psalms of the omitted office is to be advised; yet it cannot be imposed strictly, since in that addition the form of the breviary is not preserved. Cf. Palmieri, Op. theol., t. 4, tr. 9, nn. 283-290.

If while praying you notice the error, you have the option either of continuing, in order to preserve unity, or of changing, so that you may accord more with the precept of the Church. This reason seems the stronger, so that it is better to use the principle: "An error is corrected where it is discovered."

Likewise, if you have recited concerning a Saint before the day, it will be better, when the day arrives, to recite again concerning the same Saint than to restore the omitted office.

These conclusions bring this corollary with themselves: that for him to whom the proper office of some saint is lacking, the common office of saints of the same class is to be recited; and if this is lacking, another office must be taken which you have from your own breviary, not from the breviary of another rite.

As to b. A change of order among the hours is venial; and it is excused by a lighter cause than a change of office.

But he who has recited the same hour twice is excused from reciting no other hour, because, by acting otherwise, he would corrupt the prescribed form.

Right order also demands that, unless a just cause excuses, you complete the office of the day before you begin the office of the following day. Wherefore the most recent formulae of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide grant anticipation in this way: "That, when the divine office of the day has been completed, with a legitimate cause concurring, Matins with Lauds of the following day may be recited privately immediately after noon."

Yet he who, after anticipated recitation of Matins, from devotion, so that the recitation may agree more with the nature of that hour, defers Compline of the day to the evening time, seems in no way to be reprehended. In this opinion we have been confirmed by the opinion of officials of the Sacred Congregation of Rites.

As to c. Nor is it judged grave of itself that in the same hour you invert the order of the parts; as, for example, if delay would be inconvenient, you recite all the psalms of the morning hour, and then the lessons which were not at hand. Yet here one must beware lest he change the form too much. Cf. St. Alphonsus, l. 4, n. 170, and Palmieri, l. c., n. 404.

6. Timely recitation. Here it is useful to distinguish the primary, secondary, and privileged determination of time. The primary is to be observed under grave obligation, and it holds even if the secondary cannot be observed, almost as the obligation of annual Communion remains for him who is impeded from communicating in Paschal time. By that primary determination, the office of one day is to be recited within the twenty-four hours from midnight to midnight, or it is the burden of the day. The secondary determination induces a light obligation which ceases on account of a reasonable cause. By this determination, Matins with Lauds and the first two little hours are to be recited before noon; Sext and None can be paid before or after noon; the afternoon time is assigned to Vespers and Compline. Yet within Lent, that is, from the Saturday before the first Sunday, with Sunday excepted, Vespers, from a rubric which does not oblige under sin, are recited before the meal, from about the eleventh hour. Therefore he who has foreseen that he will be impeded after the meal can and must recite Vespers and Compline in the morning and as in their own time. Cf. Arendt: "Whether the opinion is probable which frees a cleric in sacred orders from the obligation of anticipating in the morning the evening canonical hours when he foresees that he will be absolutely impeded from reciting them in the afternoon" (Monitore, 1916, fasc. VI-VII). Yet the extrinsic probability of the more benign opinion, which then excuses from the obligation of anticipating, is not to be denied. Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri, l. c., n. 370; Lehmkuhl, II, 795 f.

Finally, by the determination of time which is called privileged, Matins, Lauds included, can be anticipated on the preceding day.

This, contrary to what Palmieri thought, Op. theol., t. IV, tr. 9, in the note added under number 415, is in no way to be attributed to the regular recitation of the two parts of Matins in the first watches of the night. For all Matins, even when it comprised eighteen psalms, had regularly to be recited after midnight, so that Lauds, which properly were called the morning hour, would be completed at sunrise. The very Invitatory of Lent testifies this to us: "Let it not be vain for you to rise before light." The matter seems to us to be explained in this other way.

In the ancient age, since they opposed day rather to night, they were not accustomed to derive the beginning of the day from midnight. Wherefore night could be ascribed rather indifferently to either of the days between which it was placed. The Jews, however, reckoned the Sabbath to have begun from the evening of Friday. Therefore, since Matins had to be recited in the night time, rather than rise before light, it seemed more convenient, and therefore was sufficiently natural, to satisfy the obligation of chanting Matins in the same night time but before lying down. Moreover, on feasts of a double office, one was paid in the evening, the other before light. Add that, on account of preachings, all the hours, except Compline, were anticipated. Thus the custom of anticipating Matins gained strength, and it persevered even after midnight was judged to be the beginning of the day of twenty-four hours. Lauds, moreover, were anticipated with Matins, which they had been accustomed immediately to follow.

By successive enlargements it came to this, that, the long controversy having been removed by the response of May 12, 1905, in the Placentina,⁽¹⁾ it was simply lawful for all to begin Matins from the second hour. Thereafter the Sacred Congregation of Rites quite easily grants the faculty of beginning from the first hour; indeed, anticipation from the first hour is permitted after the manner of a privilege to priests of various associations; from the twelfth hour it can be granted by Legates of the Roman Pontiff to individual clerics and religious; the same is contained in the faculties of Propaganda Fide.

But the foresight of an impediment compels no one to use the faculty of anticipating Matins on the preceding day. At least the most approved usage has interpreted the faculty thus. For, after the whole Sabbath was separated from Sunday, anticipation made on the preceding day could now be nothing but a privilege which each one could use, but no one had to use.

As has already been said elsewhere (Theol. fund., n. 371), from the express concession of c. 33, in the private recitation of the hours the option is given of local time, true or mean, and of legal time, whether regional or extraordinary.

Matins with Lauds, by the rubric, must be recited before the sacred rite. The night of the Nativity of the Lord is excepted, in which Lauds after the first Mass are recited even in choir. Although some urge this rubric under grave sin and others under light sin, the obligation under sin is not established. Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri, l. c., nn. 405-406. And since today the private office is joined with Mass by a lesser connection, for so often a priest must read a Mass differing from the office, that obligation seems to be denied by a stronger argument.

⁽¹⁾ In the year 1905, to doubt 1, "Whether in private recitation Matins for the following day can begin at the second afternoon hour, or whether the table of the diocesan directory must be followed at all times?" the Sacred Congregation of Rites had responded: "Let approved authors be consulted." Cf. Per., 3, 107. But in the authentic edition, n. 4158, the response was rendered in these other words: affirmative to the first part, negative to the second. Cf. Per., 7, 80. On the controversy concerning the second hour, see Ballerini-Palmieri, l. c., nn. 407-416.

— Gravity of the Obligation. The obligation of reciting the canonical hours, by the consent of all, is grave.

The opinion, not indeed of all,⁽¹⁾ but very common and confirmed by the authority of St. Alphonsus, judges grave the omission of any hour, even a little hour, and, in a longer hour, of a quantity somewhat greater. And even after the reform of the Psalter carried out by Pius X, by which most of the little hours were abbreviated, we know that this strict opinion alone is approved by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office.

That gravity is gathered especially from the common estimation of experts and the usage of the timorous: these are among the signs by which a grave obligation is discerned.⁽²⁾ "For an intrinsic argument, I think, is difficult to find." Thus Palmieri, Opus Theol., t. IV, tr. 9, n. 357. Yet he himself adds this: by the omission even of one little hour, the intention of the Church is gravely injured, namely that all the hours of day and night, and thus all time, be dedicated to God through the service of certain prayers. But a grave injury to that intention effects a grave deformity.

Since lessons are not properly prayers, they say that the quantity required for grave sin must be increased. Wherefore the omission of three lessons with responsories is judged light.

And what is admitted concerning petty thefts holds here also. If you take away something from the individual hours, the grave quantity must be increased. Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri, l. c., n. 358.

The office of one day falls under one precept. Wherefore, unless the acts of will are multiplied from elsewhere, by cessation or interruption, he who has omitted the office of one day commits one sin.

But he who by one act of will removes from himself the availability of the breviary is more truly, according to the principles concerning the numerical distinction of sins, guilty of one sin. Cf. I, n. 437.

On the contrary, if he has determined that he will omit the breviary for several days, but has preserved the availability of reciting it, they wish there to be as many sins as there are days on which the breviary is omitted. We have tried to give the difficult reason for this opinion in Theol. fund., l. c.

⁽¹⁾ Cf. Dominic Soto, De Iust., l. 10, q. 5, art. c., conclusion 4, e.

⁽²⁾ Theol. mor., I, 233, p. 214.

— Causes Excusing from the Recitation of the Breviary are:

1. Impotence from lack of the breviary, blindness, etc. Yet except notable parts which, morally as a whole and according to the obligatory form, you already hold from memory. There is no obligation of learning the Hours by memory. A notable part would be some hour, even a little hour, of which you are ignorant only of the prayer, chapter, or hymn; an entire nocturn of Matins. Indeed more probably, though the probability of the contrary opinion is not denied, if you are ignorant only of the lessons, but can recite several psalms in the order of the Breviary, you are held to these.

But he who, being obliged to the Roman Breviary, has available only the Benedictine or Ambrosian is not held to recite this. For the obligation is of reciting from one's own liturgical book;

2. Grave inconvenience, which, for example, dim eyes, great scruples, grave illness, or even light illness joined with notable heaviness of the head, weariness of strength, or probable danger or fear of great inconvenience of this kind, produce.

In doubt concerning sufficient infirmity, one can stand by the judgment of a physician or prudent man, especially of a Superior, who then, by dispensing, can remove every scruple. If the doubt perseveres after inquiry, there is no obligation of reciting. And lest he be disturbed by troublesome anxieties, an infirm person who is certain that he cannot recite the whole office, and doubts about a part, is probably held to nothing. Convalescents also, for some days, are excused by the judgment of prudent persons, even if meanwhile they celebrate Mass or have conversations. Nor if someone, for the sake of recreation, can read for several hours, must he now certainly recite the office. For, according to the disposition of the convalescent, the one perhaps first refreshes, while the other can be troublesome and very laborious.

Grave inconvenience can also arise from external danger, for example during a raging persecution, or from dishonor of the ecclesiastical order, as if, in prison for an infamous cause, a cleric in sacred orders would betray himself.

He who can easily have a companion and recite with him must use such a means, which is very consonant with the primitive institution. But a companion is not to be sought with difficulty; nor is he to be hired for a price: the use of a companion would then be an extraordinary means;

3. A graver occupation, especially a sudden one, such as of preparing a lesson or sermon; works of charity to be furnished, which you cannot combine with reciting the breviary, as if you are morally occupied the whole day with confessions, are called toward night to one dying, etc. Sudden, I say, and accidental occupation; for the recitation of the Breviary must be combined with ordinary duties, unless you prefer to dismiss certain labors or petition a dispensation;

4. Dispensation, which only the Supreme Pontiff validly concedes without cause. The Ordinary of the place cannot dispense from common law, but universal custom, by which one can stand, permits that for a brief time, for a just cause, he dispense, unless he has obtained a greater faculty. D'Annibale, III, 153. He can provide for an urgent case from the Code itself. A Legate of the Roman Pontiff can commute the obligation.

And regulars have their own privileges.

— What Office Is To Be Recited? Each one, in reciting the office, must follow his own calendar.

A bishop, even a regular, must recite the office of the Church over which he is placed. If he governs two dioceses, he recites the office of the diocese in which he habitually resides, or even in which he is actually staying. S. R. C., June 11, 1605; January 17, 1880; May 28, 1898, Decrees nn. 181, 3508, 3993 ad 1.

Priests recite the office of the church to which they are attached, even as vicars. S. R. C., February 4, 1898, Decree n. 3979 ad 7.

Outside their proper domicile, bishops and beneficiaries must always recite the office of their proper church.

Concerning an absent bishop who governs two dioceses, nothing has been defined. Let him recite his habitual office; or, if it varies according to the diocese in which he actually resides, he seems to have the option of either office. Simple priests can conform themselves to the office of the place where they are staying.

In transit through various places, it is more advisable that they use the calendar of their proper diocese. S. R. C., November 12, 1781, Decree n. 2680. But if, for example as seminarians, they have acquired quasi-domicile in some place, they more probably must recite the office of that place rather than the office of their domicile.

Regulars who are obliged to choir, in another house, must follow the calendar of that house, at least in choir. Otherwise, those who are staying for a brief time, as below a month, in another house should keep the order of their own house. S. R. C., September 25, 1852; June 27, 1896 ad XIII, Decrees nn. 3001 and 3919. In a longer stay they can follow the calendar of the house in which they are staying. On a journey let them keep the calendar of their own house. But if they live for a longer time outside monasteries, for example Lenten preachers, let them follow the common calendar of the Province, without attending to the proper offices of houses. S. C. R., August 31, 1839, Decree n. 1801.

In foreign missions, sometimes there is no calendar except that of the religious who labor there. If a twofold calendar is had, the bishop recites the office of the diocese; regular pastors, which we think holds concerning religious, keep the proper calendar of their religion, with the exception of the offices of the Titulars of the Churches over which they preside. S. C. R., May 13, 1892, Decree n. 3772 ad 1 and 2.

— What in Doubt Concerning the Recited Office or a Part of It? In negative doubt, the office must be paid. But in positive or probable doubt, the Church, in accordance with her humanity, is not judged to oblige one perhaps to recite twice.⁽¹⁾ Various presumptions can confer this probability: as if you remember that you began, and, without voluntary interruption, find yourself at the end of a psalm, lesson, or hour. And in these matters it is often expedient not to repeat, in order to avoid habitual anxieties and scruples by which the task of the Divine Office gradually becomes an unbearable burden, rather than spiritually feeding and refreshing the soul.

The scrupulous, however, must be prohibited from repeating anything, in doubt whether they have recited or satisfied. St. Alphonsus, l. 4, n. 175, 1.

⁽¹⁾ There are those who wish to appeal here to the principle of probabilism. But they sin by confusion of doubt of law and doubt of fact. Cf. Theol. mor., I, 365 and 369.

— N.B. The rite by which the breviary must be recited is defined for all by the Sacred Congregation of Rites; but the very force of the precept is declared and urged by the Sacred Congregation of the Council for secular clergy and by the Sacred Congregation of Religious for religious. Dispensations also are conceded by each of the latter Congregations according to the secular or religious quality of the person.

— Counsels. Although the breviary is recited validly in a place where noise is made by others, a pious priest nevertheless will try to recite the canonical hours in that place where the recitation can be devout and edifies those standing by. Therefore public ways seem to be excluded, at least in inhabited places, and, if another option is had, public carriages which, on account of noise or conversations, are inconvenient, while the most fitting place is a church or chapel where the Most Holy is reserved. Let a fitting time also be chosen, anticipating rather than delaying: he gives twice who gives quickly, and he also gives more willingly who gives early. But so that the breviary may be recited more sweetly, let all scrupulosity be avoided, and let a sincere will of praying as the Church prescribes be fostered, so that the task may be offered to God as if spontaneously.

— Object of the Choral Obligation. 1. From c. 413, §2, the Divine Office to which the chapter of a cathedral or collegiate church is bound "comprehends the psalmody of the canonical hours and the celebration with chant of the conventual Mass, besides other Masses to be celebrated either according to the rubrics of the Missal or from pious foundations." And from c. 414, "All and each who obtain a choral benefice are bound to pay the divine offices in the choir itself on individual days, unless service by turn has been granted by the Apostolic See or by the laws of the foundation."

These things are from common law. But in mission places and also elsewhere, from various indults, that obligation is sufficiently moderated.

2. From c. 610, in religions which have choir, "where there are at least four obliged to choir," therefore not novices or lay brothers, "and actually not legitimately impeded," by infirmity or occupations, "and even fewer if the constitutions so bear, the divine office must be paid in common daily according to the norm of the constitutions. A Mass also corresponding to the office of the day must be celebrated daily according to the rubrics in religions of men and also, insofar as can be done, in religions of women."

That obligation is grave in religious Orders. In other religions the constitutions must be considered.

Yet the omission of one little hour in choir is not judged grave by many. Palmieri, Op. theol., l. c., n. 335.

A notable inversion of order is held by some as lethal; but the matter is not demonstrated.

But the time must be reckoned according to the common usage of the place (c. 33, §1).

The grave obligation of taking care that choir be had rightly presses Superiors, that is, bishops with respect to canons and domestic Superiors with respect to religious. In religions the obligation of choir can also be satisfied through novices.

— Mode of Recitation. One reciting with a companion or in choir:

1. Must himself, if he is the one held, recite his proper part suitably. Moreover, even if they are more than two, they must arrange themselves for the psalms in only two choirs, equal or unequal in number, so that all recite alternate verses. This is established from the usage of the Church. A greater option is permitted for lessons, responsories, chapters, antiphons, and prayers, which can either be distributed among all so that each has his own part to be recited, or all be said by one, so that the rest merely hear. Indeed, from St. Alphonsus, l. 4, n. 162, he probably satisfies who alone recites the psalms and hears the lessons from another; but he would not satisfy who merely recited the lessons;

2. Must try so that he himself attends to those things which are recited by the companion or in choir, and this so that in the part which he does not recite he may formally communicate. Yet the precept is human. Wherefore only he is judged not to have satisfied who has had a reflexively voluntary distraction for a notable time; that is, who not only has been voluntarily distracted but has also noticed that he is being wholly carried away in mind and yet has not collected himself. Cf. Lehmkuhl, II, 806.

Similarly, one who does not perceive distinctly, but only confusedly, whether because he is somewhat deaf, or on account of noise, or on account of a defect of choir or of a companion who nevertheless recites substantially well, is judged to have satisfied, especially if with his eyes he reviews what he does not recite. St. Alphonsus, l. 4, n. 163.

There is greater doubt concerning a deaf man who chants his parts in choir. More probably he indeed gains distributions (Suarez, l. c., l. 4, c. 28, nn. 17-18), but he does not fulfill the task of the office unless he recites in a low voice those things which he does not chant. Yet some respond more benignly. Thus d'Annibale, II, 51 (38).

On the contrary, he who in choir recites his own part in a low voice and hears the other probably satisfies the obligation of the office, because through the others with whom he is joined he sufficiently communicates with the other part; yet a canon does not gain distributions unless he sings, or chants like the others.

— I. On the Part of the Companion:

1. No quality of person, or obligation to the office, or attention is required.

2. It suffices that the companion substantially pronounce his own part, by taking up the other. For the things which he inserts into the recitation of the other are virtually reputed omitted, so that if they were many, they must be repeated by the other.

II. You do not have to repeat what in choir you neither recited nor heard while you were occupied in incensing at the Magnificat or Benedictus, or in carrying around necessary books, or in foreseeing the lesson soon to be sung, or in performing other things necessary in choir, because the whole choir supplies these things and recites or sings these not only in its own name but also in the name of the ministers. Cf. Laymann, 4.1, 5, 7.

But that he who for the whole time merely plays the organ can satisfy, not a few have affirmed; St. Alphonsus, l. 4, n. 143, denies it. And unless custom interprets the matter thus, we judge that the response must be made with St. Alphonsus. Palmieri, however, l. c., n. 335, inclines to the more benign side.