Benefices

We do not propose to treat here of the capacity of religious to own property; that question will be best considered when we treat of the state of religious. Here we only inquire into the property rights of the secular clergy.

The property of the clergy is divided by theologians into four kinds. What they possess as private persons, whether it has been given or bequeathed to them or they have inherited it, is called their patrimony. Quasi-patrimony is what they have obtained by the exercise of their ministry in stole fees, stipends, and casual offerings. Ecclesiastical goods are derived from the revenue of benefices. Savings are what a cleric has acquired by living sparingly and which he might have spent by living according to the ordinary standard.

Of these different kinds of property, patrimony and quasi-patrimony belong to the cleric; they are his private property, of which he has the ownership just like anybody else, for he is not deprived of the right to possess property by becoming a cleric. What he saves also from what he might have spent lawfully on his support belongs to him, for the labourer is worthy of his hire; he has a strict right to a decent living from the revenues of the Church, and what he saves from the sum required for this belongs to him as his own.

There is a difficulty concerning the profits derived from his benefice if the cleric has one. He may, of course, use the income derived from this source for his maintenance according to his rank; but supposing that a balance remains over, what must he do with that? Ecclesiastical law prescribes that he must employ it for pious purposes, and must not squander it or enrich his relations with it. He is bound under pain of sin to give it to the support of religion, or to the poor, or for educational or other pious causes. If he does not do this, he certainly sins against obedience; but does he also sin against justice, and is he therefore bound to make restitution ? This is a disputed question among divines. The more probable opinion is that he does not sin against justice and so is not bound to restitution; for the income derived from his benefice is his own property, and he may do what he pleases with his own, unless there be some free disposal of his property. law which restricts his In this case there is such a law, which must be observed, but which for all that does not make an act which it prohibits unjust; it only makes it unlawful (Can. 1473). . 2. In English-speaking countries there are few well-endowed benefices, so that in general the clergy have to be supported by the offerings of the faithful. As Leo XIII says in his Constitution Romanos Pontifices, May 8, 1881, the offerings of the faithful were not regarded as ecclesiastical property where religion and the clergy were sufficiently provided for from other sources. In Britain, however, the offerings of the faithful are almost the only means available for the maintenance of divine worship, the building and repair of churches and schools, the support of charitable institutions and of the clergy. Hence it becomes a matter of importance to be able to decide what offerings belong to the clergy as their own property, and what constitute ecclesiastical property and belong to the Church. Of the latter property the clergy are only the administrators, and they are bound to render an account of their administration to their superiors and to God. Rules for settling what offerings are private and what ecclesiastical property were drawn up by the Second Provincial Synod of Westminster, approved in the year 1856; and Pope Leo XIII sanctioned those rules and ordered them to be observed wherever his Constitution Romanos Pontifices should be in force. I here give Father Guy’s version of the rules: “ (1) Offerings of the faithful for the propagation and ornament of religion, for the support of the clergy, the relief of the poor, and other pious uses, are considered as made to God and the Church, and the administrators or guardians of them, whether ecclesiastics or laymen, are to be deemed merely dispensers of them, under an obligation of rendering an account to God of their stewardship. As here now it is required among the dispensers that a man be found faithful in those things which concern the rightful administration of Church property, it seems proper that in this synod we should treat this matter more fully, inasmuch as having been occupied with matters more important in the First Provincial Council, we deferred the consideration of this subject to a more convenient opportunity. _“* (2) Every effort must be made to determine, if there be any doubt, the intention and purpose of the donor or testator of each fund, and that the proceeds of it may be rigidly applied to the use prescribed by him.

“‘(3) If this intention cannot be ascertained from any trustworthy document, rules or canons by which a safe judgement may be formed in such cases should be observed.

(4) Whenever a church or school or any other building intended for religious uses is erected or provided, either wholly or in part, from money contributed by the faithful, or granted by any society administering the alms of pious Catholics, every edifice of this kind is to be considered as belonging for ever to the place where it stands.

“‘(5) The same judgement must be passed on buildings erected by any benefactor, unless it is clearly proved that he made a declaration that in erecting such an edifice he did not intend it for the advantage of the faithful of that place, but that he wished to confer a benefit on some particular order. The rules laid down in this and the preceding number as to rights in foundations are in the case of Regulars to be applied to new foundations only. ** (6) But the Bishop shall not be allowed on this account to take away a mission lawfully entrusted to any religious order. These rules regard merely a case in which a religious body either cannot or will not retain the care of a mission—for example, if a superior remove it to some other place, or for any other reason it there cease to exist altogether, and not for a time only. “ (7) If, however, any mission be founded altogether or for the most part by funds belonging to any religious body, which for good reasons may wish to leave entirely and go elsewhere, we recommend that a distinct agreement be made between the Bishop and the superiors of the order as to what has to be done; so that on the one hand just rights may not suffer, and on the other no scandal may arise nor grievous loss of souls ensue. (8) Much less is it lawful for any cleric, or even for the Bishop himself, to alienate Church property, as is evident from almost numberless decrees of canon law. If, however, on account of reasons approved of by the canons, such an alienation become necessary, the priest can never act in this matter without the authority of the Bishop, nor the Bishop without the precautions required by canon law.

“‘(9) In every mission where money is contributed by the faithful in the ways hereafter described it is to be accounted Church property, and not a donation to the priest. For from this money he must provide not only for his own decent support, but for the expense of religious worship, for the maintenance of the fabric, for payment of debts, where there are any, and for other wants. Wherefore, if any priest leave a mission during the course of the year, he has not a right to his proportion of the yearly income until the amount justly due for expenses be deducted. In like manner, what he has provided for the use of the church from the income of the - church—for example, wax candles, wine for the most holy Sacrifice, sacred furniture—these he should leave behind him, without any compensation, unless he can clearly show that the supply is excessive. “

(10) All are aware that there are now in operation different methods of raising money for the support of missions. The following in particular we do not disapprove of, till the charity of the faithful shall provide in a better way. They are:

(a) Letting of seats or places in the church to certain persons or families at a fixed rent to be paid to the church.

(b) Church collections made at the Offertory. (c) According to a custom prevailing generally in England, payment of a fixed sum, according to the part of the church which they occupy, by those who do not rent seats, yet are not content to occupy what is called the free space. (d) Sermons by some distinguished preacher of the word of God, after which the alms of the congregation, whose number is often swelled by a concourse of strangers, are collected for the general or particular use of the church or for some special purpose. (e) Collections which are either made from house to house, by persons appointed for the purpose, or by societies and confraternities lawfully appointed, or which are gathered from tens or hundreds as is done in the excellent society called the Society for the Propagation of the Faith, or contributions made by the more wealthy portion of the congregation at fixed times or yearly. “

(11) Although it is certainly much to be desired that many of these methods of maintaining the Church were done away with, yet experience has taught that it is as yet impossible altogether to dispense with them. Wherefore, in those places where one or more of these methods prevail, they ought to be so kept on that no innovations be introduced without the authority of the Bishop. Especially the free space should not be diminished nor narrowed without consulting him. But whatever money comes to the mission by these means, it should be considered as belonging not to the priest personally, but to the general wants of the mission. Therefore, whatever furniture, either sacred or domestic, he acquires from these sources, or whatever he expends in keeping in repair the church or other buildings in any way belonging to it, in this expenditure he is not making provision for himself, but is providing for the mission from mission property. ‘

(12) As soon, therefore, as any priest enters on a mission, an inventory of all property belonging to the mission should be placed in his hands by the dean or by someone deputed by the Bishop. The missionary is bound to keep the furniture and buildings in good repair, yea, rather to improve them, that he may deliver to his successor as much at least as he received himself. Should he provide for the renewing of what is grown old and mean, or procure something new and more elegant to ornament the place, a distinction must be made as regards the sources from which the expense is defrayed.

(a) If the priest has procured these things from his own property, or from the gifts of friends well disposed towards him, or in fine, from that portion of the income of the church which he might have expended on his own decent maintenance, they are to be considered as his own property, provided he has kept all that he received in good order. (b) But if these things were procured out of the general revenues of the church, or by gifts and collections from the congregation, or by money granted by the Bishop or the administrators of the temporalities of the diocese, they are to be deemed entirely the property of the mission, nor is it lawful for the priest on any account to claim them. “*

(13) It is also to be generally understood according to a rule of canon law that things adapted for ecclesiastical purposes given to a missionary are, unless there is proof to the contrary, given to the mission; but things adapted for personal use are presumed to be given to the priest personally, as are also such church things as are given by a flock to a priest as tokens of gratitude or affection. ‘

(14) Retributions for Masses are the property of the priest. In like manner, where it is the custom, which is a very ancient one in England, of making presents to each priest at Easter and Christmas, these gifts of right belong to them. But the priest should be on his guard lest he incur the suspicion of avarice, by receiving anything on account of his administering the sacrament of Penance.

“‘(15) As to the application of money derived from stole fees, there is no uniform practice throughout the whole Church. For though the Church detests all filthy lucre in extorting or exacting money for the administration of the sacraments, yet the Council of Lateran, held under Innocent III in the year 1215, prescribed that the laudable customs in accordance with which offerings were made by the faithful to the ministers of the altar, on occasion of the administration of the sacraments, should be observed. The proceeds derived from this source should be ordinarily considered as belonging to the priests; though they are distributed in different ways in different places. That distribution seems to be the best which is most conducive to alleviate the burthens of the mission. “

(16) Whilst, therefore, we forbid anything to be asked for and much more anything to be exacted before the celebration of baptism and matrimony, and even after the celebration as a right, we leave it to the prudence of Bishops to determine in their diocesan synods what seems best adapted to the customs and state of places. Especially should they most vigilantly correct all abuses, if any exist, as to the amount or to the exaction of these offerings, by enforcing everywhere an equitable arrangement.”

These provisions seem to be in harmony with Canons 1182, 1519-1528, etc., of the new Code, and so it would seem that they are still in force.

MENTION has several times been made already of benefices, and in this place moral theologians usually treat of the special obligations in conscience of beneficed clergy. - An ecclesiastical benefice is a juridical entity founded or erected in perpetuity by competent ecclesiastical authority, and it consists of a sacred office and the right to receive the income from the dowry annexed to the office (Can. 1409).

The dowry of a benefice consists either of property whose ownership belongs to the juridical entity itself, or of certain and due payments made by some family or moral person, or of certain and voluntary offerings of the faithful, which belong to the rector of the benefice, or stole fees, as they are called, within the amounts fixed by the diocesan tax or lawful custom, or of choral distributions with the exception of a third part of them, if the whole income of the benefice consists of choral distributions (Can. 1410).

When he has lawfully taken possession of his benefice, every beneficiary enjoys all the rights both temporal and spiritual which are annexed to the benefice (Can. 1472).

Although the beneficiary may have other property besides what is derived from his benefice, he can freely use and enjoy the fruits of his benefice which are necessary for his decent support; but he is bound by the obligation of spending what remains over on the poor or on pious causes, but a Cardinal can dispose even by will of all the fruits of his benefice (Can. 1473).

If a cleric violates this precept and disposes of what remains over in other ways, he sins against obedience but probably not against justice, so that there is no obligation to restore what has been disposed of against ecclesiastical law.

The beneficiary is bound faithfully to fulfil the special duties annexed to his benefice, and, moreover, daily to recite the canonical Hours (Can. 1475, sec. 1).

If, without any legitimate excuse, he has failed to satisfy his obligation of reciting the canonical Hours, in proportion to his omission he does not make the fruits of the benefice his and must hand them over to the church fabric or to the diocesan seminary, or must give them to the poor (Can. 1475, sec. 2).

The beneficiary, as the guardian of his benefice, ought to administer the property belonging to his benefice according to law (Can. 1476, sec. 1).

If he is negligent or in any other way in fault, he ought to make good the damage done to the benefice, and he should be compelled to make compensation for it by the local Ordinary, and if he be a parish priest he can be removed from his parish in accordance with Canon 2147 ff.

The Code of Canon Law and the canonists should be referred to for fuller treatment of this matter.

II. Rights of clerics with respect to goods. 1. Clerics acquire full ownership, so that they can freely dispose of them, of non-beneficial goods. For from no source is it clear that ownership and the liberty of disposing are restricted in any way.

2. Clerics likewise acquire full ownership, so that they can freely dispose of them, of beneficial goods, insofar as these are necessary for suitable support. And this, as can. 1473 expressly establishes, is to be understood so that a cleric, even if he has other non-beneficial goods, can freely use and enjoy beneficial fruits which are necessary for his honorable support. Moreover, from these things it is deservedly deduced that the cleric can freely dispose also of goods which, from beneficial goods necessary for suitable support, he has set aside by living more frugally; and therefore they are called savings from frugality (St. Alphonsus, III, 490; IV, 185).

3. As regards those things which are superfluous after honorable support from beneficial goods, these things hold:

a) A cleric is bound to spend them for the poor or for pious causes, with the prescription of can. 239, § 1, n. 19 saved (can. 1473). By force of the prescription of can. 239, all Cardinals from their promotion in Consistory enjoy the faculty of freely disposing of beneficial revenues, even by testament, with the prescription of can. 1298 saved. For the rest, "it must be noted that in this, in order that the matter be considered grave, a much greater quantity is required than in theft" (St. Alphonsus, III, 490 under IV; St. Thomas, II-II, q. 185, a. 7). Under the name of the poor come "not only those begging door to door, but also those who otherwise cannot preserve their state; likewise blood-relatives, if they are truly poor, so that otherwise they cannot sustain their own state... But these needy blood-relatives the cleric can prefer to other poor persons, even those more gravely in need. The reason is that... the support of needy relatives pertains also to preserving the cleric's own state, since their poverty redounds to his own disgrace" (St. Alphonsus, III, 491, question 2).

b) It is disputed whether the obligation extends itself to stole fees which constitute the endowment of the benefice. It seems one must answer affirmatively, because on the one hand the law counts them among beneficial goods, and on the other hand, as regards the obligation imposed concerning them, it does not distinguish, or no longer distinguishes.

c) It is further disputed whether the obligation explained is an obligation of justice or of another virtue. If it is an obligation of justice, a cleric who, for example, has squandered things superfluous from beneficial goods, is bound to restitution. Moreover, a sufficiently probable opinion denies an obligation of commutative justice, because, as is deservedly deduced from canons 729, 2°, 1475, and 2403, the beneficiary makes the fruits of the benefice his own, provided he is not deprived of them as a penalty for delict or negligence (St. Thomas, Quodlibet 6, q. 7, a. 12, ad 3; II-II, q. 185, a. 7; St. Alphonsus, III, 492; IV, 183).

I. Notion of a benefice. An ecclesiastical benefice is a juridic entity constituted or erected in perpetuity by competent ecclesiastical authority, consisting of a sacred office and of the right of receiving revenues from an endowment annexed to the office (can. 1409). It is called a juridic entity, that is, a moral person; but the beneficiary is usually a physical person. Moreover, for constituting that juridic entity which is called a benefice, there are required:

1. A sacred or ecclesiastical office, and indeed taken in the strict sense, that is, a function stably constituted by ordination, whether divine or ecclesiastical, to be conferred according to the norm of the sacred canons, carrying with it at least some participation in ecclesiastical power, whether of order or of jurisdiction (can. 145).

2. The right of receiving revenues from the endowment annexed to the office. The endowment of a benefice is constituted either by goods whose ownership is in the juridic entity itself, or by certain and due payments of some family or moral person, or by certain and voluntary offerings of the faithful which pertain to the rector of the benefice, or by the rights, as they are called, of the stole within the limits of diocesan taxation or legitimate custom, or by choral distributions, with a third part of the same excluded,¹ if all the revenues of the benefice consist in choral distributions (can. 1410).

3. Legitimate erection, namely proceeding from competent ecclesiastical authority; hence, for example, a foundation of Masses, even though constituted in perpetuity, is not sufficient, but it is required that competent authority have erected it into the title of a benefice.

4. Erection in perpetuity, so that, when the beneficiary, for example the parish priest, has died or been removed, it persists.

Corollary. Beneficiaries are residential Bishops, canons, parish priests; but not apostolic administrators, confessors, episcopal secretaries, spiritual directors of religious women, assistant vicars, sacristans; nor religious Superiors, because although they discharge an office strictly so called, nevertheless they lack the right of receiving revenues from an endowment annexed to the office.

¹ This third part is to be converted into daily distributions among those present (can. 395).

II. Division of benefices. From can. 1411 benefices are distinguished into:

1. Consistorial, which are customarily conferred in Consistory; the rest are non-consistorial.

2. Secular or religious, according as they pertain to secular clerics alone or to religious clerics alone; but all benefices erected outside the churches or houses of religious are presumed, in doubt, to be secular.

3. Double or residential, or simple or non-residential, according as, besides the benefice-office, they have annexed to them the obligation of residing, or not.

4. Manual, temporary or removable, or perpetual or irremovable, according as they are conferred revocably or in perpetuity.

5. With cure or without cure, according as they have the cure of souls annexed or not.

III. Duties of beneficiaries. As the title of the article indicates, the discussion is about the duties which are common to beneficiaries, with the special obligations of some being omitted.¹ Moreover:

1. A beneficiary is bound faithfully to fulfill the particular burdens annexed to the benefice and, besides, to recite the canonical hours daily. If, detained by no legitimate impediment, he has not satisfied the obligation of reciting the canonical hours, he does not make the fruits his own in proportion to the omission, and he should hand them over to the fabric of the church or to the diocesan Seminary, or distribute them among the poor (can. 1475); these things were explained more fully in n. 1192.

2. A beneficiary must administer the goods pertaining to his benefice as the curator of the benefice (can. 1476); and in particular he must carry out as soon as possible the lesser repairs which fall upon him, lest the necessity of greater repairs arise (can. 1477, § 3).

3. Expenses connected in an ordinary way with the administration of benefice-goods and the perception of fruits are to be borne by the beneficiary. Expenses for extraordinary repairs of the benefice-house are to be borne by those upon whom falls the burden of repairing the benefice-church, unless the documents of foundation or legitimate agreements and customs provide otherwise (can. 1477, §§ 1 and 2).

4. A beneficiary is bound by the obligation of expending superfluous benefice-fruits for the poor or for pious causes; Cardinals, however, are not bound by this obligation (can. 1473). Since there is question of fruits which he has made his own (cf. can. 1409, 1472, and 1475), the said obligation is not to be judged an obligation of justice; hence a beneficiary who illicitly expends superfluous revenues is not bound to restitution (St. Thomas, Quodlibet 6, article 12, ad 3; St. Alphonsus III, 492).

¹ I note, however, can. 2381: One who obtains an office, benefice, or dignity with the burden of residence, if he is illegitimately absent: 1st, by that fact is deprived of all the fruits of his benefice or office in proportion to the illegitimate absence, and must hand them over to the Ordinary, who is to distribute them to the church or to some pious place or to the poor; 2nd, he is to be deprived of office, benefice, or dignity according to the norm of canons 2168-2175.

What should be said of a superior who would promote undeserving persons to ecclesiastical benefices?

(a) As regards guilt, it is a mortal sin to confer a benefice on one who is unworthy, or even (when there is question of a benefice to which the care of souls is attached) on one who is less worthy (see Canon 459, Sec. 1).

(b) As regards restitution, there is an obligation of reparation to the community, when it is made to suffer loss, and of compensation to an individual who is passed over in spite of his strict right (see three preceding paragraphs).

Contributions.—Contributions to the support of the clergy and church causes are neither sacrifices nor offerings in the strict sense of these words, since they are given not directly to God but to the ministers of God. The manner of making contributions to the Church has varied with time.

(a) Thus, in the first ages of the Church clerics having the care of souls were supported by the voluntary gifts of the people. These gifts were made especially during Mass. Bread and wine and other things necessary for divine worship and the support of the clergy were brought at the Offertory (the origin of the present Offertory collection), while food for the agapae or for the poor was presented for a blessing towards the end of the Canon, or before Mass.

(b) After peace had been given to the Church and the number of the faithful and of the clergy had greatly increased, it was found necessary to devise means for a more regular and certain supply of income. As early as the sixth century the ancient customs of first-fruits and tithes were made the subjects of conciliar enactments and imposed as specific taxes on crops or revenues. A more permanent system of church support was that of endowments or benefices which, owing to the increasing difficulties of older methods, sprang up about the sixth century and became universal in the eleventh. Fees in connection with the administration of sacred rites and stipends for Masses were in use in the seventh century.

(c) Today the system of benefices is the rule, while first-fruits and tithes are rare, though recognized by Canon Law. In some countries where benefices have been confiscated, part compensation is made in the form of pensions; in other countries (e.g., in the United States) the free-will offerings of the faithful is the usual system.

Do clerics sin gravely who outside their own house do not wear the habit or crown? - Reply to the first: Those clerics are either simply clerics, or beneficed, or constituted in sacred orders. If the first, they more commonly teach that, speaking in itself, they do not sin, not even venially, since by common law this grave obligation has been imposed only on clerics in sacred orders and on beneficed clerics. But they lack the privilege of the forum. Cf. Trent s. 23, c. 6 de R. Speaking in itself, for particular laws and customs of places must be attended to. If the second, it is certain that they sin mortally, unless there is a just excusing cause or smallness of matter; for grave penalties are imposed on them in Canon Law. But what span of time is required for mortal sin cannot be determined in general, but only from the circumstances. They commonly admit that it is venial to put aside the habit only once or again. La-Croix l. 1, n. 672 extends a brief time to five or six days. Nevertheless they also commonly admit that clerics sin gravely if even for a brief time they lay aside or conceal the clerical habit for an evil end. Benedict XIV de Syn. l. 11, c. 8; Trent s. 14, c. 6 de R.

Reply to the second: Clerics who are not constituted in sacred orders and are not beneficed never sin gravely. Thus most commonly. But again, do they lack the privilege of the forum? Cf. Trent s. 23, c. 6 de R. Even clerics, beneficed or initiated into sacred orders, at least do not sin gravely unless they omit wearing the crown, without a grave excusing cause and for a notable time, such as in this matter is not a time of one or another month. But whether it is grave not to wear the crown for an entire year is not clear. Theologians more commonly affirm it; but it is not clearly proved, because here doctors easily mix the crown with tonsure. L. l. 6, n. 825-827; La-Croix l. 1, n. 672; l. 4, n. 1372; E. M.

Who are obliged to the recitation of the canonical hours? - The canonical hours are public prayers, which its ministers pour forth in the name of the Church in the form prescribed by the same Church. Hence the fruit of these prayers is from the work of the minister working and from the work of the Church working; and it redounds to the minister himself, to those for whom they are specially applied, to the founders of benefices, and to all the faithful, for whom the Church prays.

In the Western Church the following are obliged to recite the canonical hours daily: 1. All clerics constituted in sacred orders, even those suspended and excommunicated. This is established from various places of Canon Law, from the Lateran Council of 1215, from the Bull of S. Pius V Quod a nobis, from the Constitution of Pius X Divino afflatu, Kalends of November 1911. 2. All beneficed persons who have right in the thing and full dominion of the benefice. It is drawn from the Lateran Council under Leo X, and also from the Bull of S. Pius V Ex proximo. 3. All religious of both sexes professed in an Order approved by the Church and destined for choir. This is clear from custom, and also from the Decree of Gregory X, etc. Cf. the Works of S. Peter Damian, Migne vol. 145, col. 222 ff.; Lugo, Resp. Mor. l. 5, d. 5, 6.

In the Western Church; for, as Benedict XIV says, C. Eo quamvis tempore, §§ 44, 45, "deacons, subdeacons, and priests of the Eastern Church are compelled by no express law... to the recitation of the divine office." Nevertheless, "even among the Orientals the laudable custom of reciting the divine office has prevailed." And indeed this has the force of law; whence "the discipline of the Eastern Church subjects generally all those constituted in sacred order to the obligation and precept of reciting the divine office, according to the custom of the nation." L. 140 ff.; S. Th. 4, dist. 15, q. 4, a. 1, q. 3; E. M.

You will resolve: Those who are constituted in minor orders are not held to the hours, or to another determined prayer. A cleric begins to be obligated from the hour of receiving the subdiaconate, and indeed to the hours corresponding to the hour at which he is ordained. Wherefore one ordained at midday must begin from Sext, and cannot begin from Vespers. But whether a subdeacon who recited that part before ordination has satisfied his obligation, some deny, while others probably affirm. The reason is that that debt can well be paid in anticipation which certainly is to be contracted morally. L. 140. As regards beneficed persons, the obligation begins from the day of entering into possession of the benefice, and therefore they must begin from Matins. They are not held before accepted possession, nor if without their fault they receive no fruits and are not going to receive them, because they do not have the benefice according to every effect. This is certain. But it is probable that one who does not reside by legitimate permission or dispensation, and therefore does not receive fruits, is not held to the hours, because this obligation is on account of the sustenance given. On the contrary, he is held who, although he does not receive all his fruits, nevertheless receives so great a part as suffices for sustenance. Nor is he excused, if he is not constituted in sacred orders, because he has proposed to himself not to receive the fruits of the benefice; because benefices have been instituted not for the advantages of private persons, but for divine worship. Cf. Trent s. 21, c. 6 de R.; Lugo, Resp. Mor. l. 5, d. 6, 2; Viva on Alexander VII, prop. 21, § ult.; L. 144 and l. 3, n. 664 ff. As regards religious, the obligation begins from the hour of profession made, from the hour of the day, not of choir.

Novices, lay brothers, religious of the Society of Jesus, military religious, hospitallers, and the rest not destined for choir are not held to the hours. L. 141.

Are beneficed persons who omit the divine office held to restitution? - So great is the obligation of the divine office that it induces for him the burden of restitution of the fruits, in proportion to the omission of the office, who by title of benefice is held to the hours, if, six months having elapsed after obtaining possession, he culpably has not recited the office. After: wherefore he does not make his own fruits, not of the prior and posterior time, but only of the posterior time. This is clear from the Lateran Council under Leo X. S. Pius V then issued a Bull by which he confirmed this decree. And he declared that one who on one day omitted the whole office is held to restore all the fruits corresponding to that day; for example, he who receives annually 365 florins is held for one day to restore one florin; but he who omitted Matins only, half the fruits of one day; he who omitted the remaining hours, also half; but he who omitted one of them, the sixth part. And that restitution is to be made either to the fabric of the church in which the benefice is, or to the poor. Bull of Leo X de Reform. Curiae, chapter Reform. Curiae et aliorum, § Statuimus; S. Pius V, C. Ex proximo, September 22, 1571; L. 151 and l. 3, n. 663, 666, 672, 673; E. M.

Must a beneficiary omitting the office restore all the fruits of the benefice? - Reply: Sanchez, Soto, etc., probably say from benign interpretation that they are not held to restore all the fruits, but only those which correspond to the burden of the omitted office. The reason is both because the Bull of S. Pius was thus received and thus explained by usage, as being more conformable to natural equity; and because it seems harsh that Bishops, pastors, and chaplains, who bear other burdens, should be obliged in the same way as simple beneficiaries, because all these receive fruits not only for the office, but also for other burdens. L. l. 3, n. 673.

What are a benefice and a pension? - An ecclesiastical benefice, considered in itself, is a portion of goods dedicated to God, joined to an ecclesiastical office legitimately erected and perpetually subsisting. But with respect to the beneficiary it is commonly defined: A perpetual right belonging to a cleric, legitimately instituted, of receiving fruits from ecclesiastical goods, on account of a spiritual office constituted by the authority of the Church herself. The goods are something temporal; the office, spiritual; the right, temporal annexed to the spiritual. Salaries which the State, the immovable goods having been usurped, has substituted for their revenues, put on the nature of the thing substituted and are judged by its law. S. Penitentiary, January 19, 1819. A portion of goods dedicated to God, joined to an ecclesiastical office; hence, when all the revenues of the Canons of some Chapter are in Distributions among those present, a true benefice is still had. Legitimately erected. The Bishop erects benefices in his own diocese, and also suppresses and divides them, with those things being observed which must be observed by law. If evident necessity of the Church presses, the Bishop can proceed to dividing a parish, even when the pastor is unwilling. Benedict XIII, C. In supremo. Perpetual. In a benefice perpetuity is altogether necessary, so that, when the beneficed person has died or been removed, it is not extinguished, but is vacant until it is conferred on another, and the beneficed person receives it perpetually and not at the will of the giver. Moreover the intervention of ecclesiastical authority is necessary, annexing temporal goods to a spiritual office and erecting them into the title of a benefice. Hence a foundation of Masses even established perpetually and committed to a priest is not a benefice when the authority of the Church does not intervene to erect it into a benefice.

The right of receiving a certain part of the fruits from another's benefice is called an ecclesiastical pension. When the revenues of benefices have been diminished or lost from public seizures, the diminution or loss of revenues of benefices affects beneficiaries and pensioners in common, proportionately, yet so that to Bishops and pastors the Tridentine congrua must be preserved complete and untouched, Decree Cum nuperrimi, January 20, 1871; S. C. of Bishops and Regulars, June 21, 1871, that is, 1000 scudi for Bishops and 100 for pastors.

A scudo is worth 5.37 lire. But the proportion is to be established, with 1000 or 100 deducted, upon the remaining revenue, S. C. of Bishops and Regulars, May 30, 1873. According to the style of the curia, the Roman Pontiff alone can impose a pension, namely a perpetual one. Law certainly requires that benefices be conferred without diminution. Council of Trent s. 21, c. 6 de R., s. 23, c. 18 de R.; L. l. 3, n. 74; l. 4, n. 83, 138; Lugo, Resp. Mor. l. 5, d. 2.

186 bis. The fruits of the intermediate time of a vacant benefice belong to the successor, for whom they must be faithfully reserved, or to the church, for whose utility they are to be expended, from C. Cum vos 4 de Off. iud. ord.

The unreceived fruits of a benefice, when the beneficed person has died, belong to the successor, unless they are owed to the Apostolic Camera, to which the S. C. de Propaganda Fide afterward succeeded, Pius VII, C. Catholicae fidei, June 19, 1817. When a beneficed person resigns the benefice or renounces it, or is transferred to another benefice, some hold that the fruits not yet received pertain to him; others judge that they pertain to the benefice itself, since the beneficed person, as a quasi-usufructuary, does not have right to the fruits of the usufructuary thing except during his possession of it. Reiffenstuel l. 1, title 7, n. 55.

Of how many kinds are benefice and pension? - Some benefices are major, others minor. Major benefices, in which there is external and internal jurisdiction, are those to which the highest grade in the Church adheres, such as Patriarchate, Archbishopric, Bishopric, Cardinalate, and in the opinion of some also an Abbey. These, however, are usually indicated not by the common word benefices, but by their proper word; and sometimes they are also called consistorial benefices, because the Roman Pontiff is ordinarily accustomed to make their collation in the Consistory of Cardinals. Those benefices which are not contained in the number of the aforesaid are called minor, and some are double, others simple. They are called double which, besides the common recitation of the canonical hours, which inheres in all benefices, and the ministry of the altar, have something else annexed, namely either preeminence and jurisdiction in the internal forum, and they are called curates; or only preeminence, and they are personates; or some function, and they are called offices; or preeminence and jurisdiction in the external forum, and they are dignities. Moreover, of dignities, some are major, and they are those already listed, namely Bishopric, Archbishopric, Primacy, Patriarchate, Cardinalate, and above all the Pontificate; others are minor, such as Archdeaconry, etc. Under the name of dignities generally taken in Apostolic Rescripts, minor Dignities come. Simple benefices are instituted only for pouring forth prayers to God and for the service of the altar, such as an ecclesiastical chaplaincy, etc. L. 84, 116; Bouix de Par. p. 172 ff.

Dignities: they are benefices having preeminence and jurisdiction, which jurisdiction today generally is not had; and therefore they would be true personates. Nevertheless the title of dignity remains by reason of a certain special honorific prerogative. And thus they always precede simple canons. They have various names; and even the first dignity has various names, and so now the dean, now the Archdeacon, etc., is the first dignity.

Commend: Formerly churches were commended for a time to someone, who was called commendatory, for their custody, administration, and their necessity and utility. Now it is a true benefice, which by this extraordinary title is conferred perpetually by the Supreme Pontiff on someone who could not conveniently obtain a benefice in the ordinary way, also for the advantage of the commendatory himself, who therefore makes the fruits his own and consequently also has the obligations of a beneficed person.

Chaplaincy: It is a certain perpetual foundation of Masses, which is lay when ecclesiastical authority does not intervene in it. But if the aforesaid foundation is made with the intervention and authority of the Ordinary, it is ecclesiastical and is a true simple benefice. The chaplain, moreover, is held to observe the obligations imposed in the documents of foundation, as regards time, as regards place, and as regards other things.

One pension is lay, another clerical. A lay pension is given either to a layman or to a cleric, on account of a temporal ministry or temporal cause; and it is something wholly temporal. A clerical pension is given to a cleric as a cleric, and it is called mixed if it is given to a poor cleric, an old man, etc., so that he may be supported, or on account of another temporal cause; but it is simply clerical if it is given, for example, to a preacher, coadjutor of a pastor, etc., on account of a spiritual ministry.

It is lost, as a benefice is, by death, religious profession, promotion to the Cardinalate, to the Episcopate, marriage, etc. Cf. the most recent prescriptions of Leo XIII, May 24, 1899. L. 137; l. 3, n. 73 ff.; Schmalzgrueber l. 3, t. 5, 12; Ferraris v. Beneficium, Pensio; E. M.

It is not lawful without permission of the Holy See, which is given through the S. C. C., to yield a pension to another for a time or for life and to make an agreement with him concerning it. S. C. of Bishops and Regulars, March 12, 1840.

How are ecclesiastical benefices acquired; who confers them? - Ecclesiastical benefices are commonly acquired in three ways: 1. By election, by which a cleric is elected by the whole chapter or congregation and is confirmed by the ecclesiastical superior or prelate. Unless the elected person consents within a month and seeks confirmation within three months from knowledge of the election, the election is invalid. C. 6 de Elect. in 6. 2. By presentation, by which someone is presented by the patron to the superior, by whom he is necessarily accepted and instituted if he is found suitable. Nomination can be referred here, namely by which someone, although not a patron, nevertheless by indult offers someone to the superior for some benefice, so that it may be conferred on him by the Superior. 3. By collation, when gratuitously a benefice is given by the sole right of the prelate. Hence another division of benefices arises, into elective, patronate, and collative.

In the election of the Supreme Pontiff, those things alone and all those things must be observed which have been established concerning it in the Constitution of Pius X Vacante Sede, December 25, 1904. "Verbal institution or canonical collation of a benefice, after it has been accepted, grants right in the thing, or perfect right with respect to the benefice, even before the handing over of possession and the apprehension of this." Reiffenstuel l. 3, t. 7, n. 77. Wherefore he acquires full administration of the benefice and can have and exercise its care. Reiffenstuel ib. n. 56.

Benefices can also be acquired by prescription, by three-year possession and colored title, which in the case is collation made by him in whom resides the ordinary power of conferring benefices, whether the collation was invalid from itself, because less canonical; or on the part of the collator, because collation did not pertain to him; or on the part of the beneficed person, because he was incapable, provided he is a cleric, except however those who entered simoniacally and intruders.

Option is a certain right by which the older canons, for example, after leaving a prebend, are able within a certain time to choose and obtain another vacant one, which is not reserved. 188.

Benefices are conferred by the Supreme Pontiff in the whole world, and by Bishops in their own dioceses. Bishops by their ordinary right; the Supreme Pontiff also by his own right, but extraordinary, namely by the right of reservation, or devolution, or prevention. When the see is vacant, the Chapter cannot confer benefices which pertain to the Bishop.

Moreover, benefices are reserved to the Supreme Pontiff whose collation in Law has been established for the same Supreme Pontiff. And thus there are reserved to the Supreme Pontiff: the major dignity of each cathedral and collegiate church; the benefices of officials of the Roman curia; those which are vacant in the Curia or at the See, or in the titles of Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church while they are absent; those which become vacant when the episcopal see is vacant, or otherwise than by resignation in the pontifical months, January and February, April and May, July and August, October and November; those concerning which Bishops have disposed against the decrees of the Council of Trent, or apart from the form prescribed by the same Council; those resigned with the form of publication neglected; those conferred on sons of heretics; a benefice dismissed into the hand of the Ordinary, if someone has obtained from the Roman Pontiff another residential benefice incompatible with it; those which are vacant on account of heresy, on account of confidential simony, on account of laying aside clerical habit, on account of a simulated examination for others, or pensions offered so that they may obtain benefices, etc. Benefices are vacant at the See by the natural death of the beneficed person at the Holy See, or within two stages near the Curia, that is, within two stages or forty Italian miles from it, if namely the beneficed person came to the Curia for the sake of treating some business, C. Licet 2, C. Praesenti 34 de Praeb. in 6. Benefices are vacant in the Curia when they are vacant by any act which is completed in the Curia, for example promotion of the beneficed person, resignation of the benefice, etc. Benefices not conferred in due time by inferior collators devolve to the same Supreme Pontiff, to supply for their negligence; for benefices are to be conferred within six months, and within a month if they have been resigned into the hands of the Ordinary. Finally the right of prevention is exercised in benefices if in them the Supreme Pontiff, knowingly and willingly, has placed his hand by some act, intending to confer it, for example if he gave the beneficed person a coadjutor with future succession. And these benefices are also called affected. Decretals, title de Elect.; Trent s. 14, c. 13 de R., s. 25, c. 7 de R.; Gregory XIII, C. Humano vix iudicio, January 7, 1584; S. Pius V, C. In conferendis; Riganti Reg. 1, n. 39; Reg. 9, n. 30, 35; Reg. 19, n. 209, 212; Wernz, Ius Decret. t. 2, title 16; Scavini ed. 12, Milan 1874, v. 3, n. 626, 627; L. 85, 86; l. 3, n. 101 ff.; E. M.

The reservations of benefices are contained in the Corpus of Canon Law, in the Extravagants, in the Bulls of subsequent Pontiffs, all of which perpetually have force, and in the Rules of the Apostolic Chancery, which nevertheless cease when the Pontiff has died, though not in all things; and when a new Pontiff has been elected, they again begin to oblige, unless they have been legitimately derogated. Proem. and Reg. 1; Riganti, Proem. n. 66.

But by the death of the Pope only those benefices cease to be reserved which are contained in the ninth Rule, namely those vacant in the Pontifical months. Riganti, Proem. n. 67, 68. For indeed reserved benefices are of different kinds: some by reason of the quality of benefices, as is the reservation of bishoprics and first Dignities; others by reason of persons, as the benefices of Cardinals, Curials, and Officials of the Apostolic See; others by reason of the mode by which they are vacant, as benefices vacant by reason of Apostolic collation of another incompatible one; others by reason of place, as benefices vacant at the See or in the Roman Curia; others by reason of time, as are benefices vacant in the Pontifical months. As regards benefices vacant by reason of months, Bishops who truly and personally reside can, if they petition, obtain the alternation of months, so that in one month, January, the Supreme Pontiff disposes concerning the benefice; in the other month, February, the Bishop disposes; and so in the following months.

Reservations by reason of quality, person, and mode are perpetual. The same must be said concerning reservation by reason of place; but parish churches are to be excepted, which, becoming vacant at the Curia after the death of the Pontiff, or becoming vacant while he is living but not conferred, are immune from reservation. Their collation is free to Ordinaries, lest their long vacancy be able to bring danger to souls, C. Si Apostolica 35. 6 de Praeb. in 6. Likewise also the other benefices vacant by death at the Curia, if they are not conferred within a month by the Supreme Pontiff, can be conferred by Ordinaries. C. Statutum 3 de Praeb. in 6. Scavini, Milan 1874, ed. 12, v. 1, n. 343 ff.

Reservation by reason of months ceases, because it is by reason of time, in which the Rules of the Chancery do not oblige, namely when the See is Vacant. Reservation by reason of the benefices themselves, or of the beneficed persons, or of the mode by which they were conferred, or of the place in which they became vacant, does not cease; for benefices are already reserved antecedently to the death of the Pontiff and consequently remain reserved. Reservation is not then first introduced by the death of the Pontiff, and the Rules of the Chancery, as not in force, cannot introduce it; but neither can they remove it once introduced before, which is quite different.

By a special Indult, faculty is given to Cardinals of conferring certain benefices reserved to the Holy See.

Benefices of lay right of patronage are not subjected to reservation of the Holy See, Riganti on Reg. 1, n. 327, when the right of patronage belongs from foundation, endowment, construction, and not from mere privilege, unless the benefices become vacant at the See, or unless the Supreme Pontiff has placed his hand upon them, or they are affected. Riganti l. c. n. 335 ff. But they are subjected to reservation when the right of patronage is ecclesiastical, namely conceded to a church, Riganti l. c. n. 144, 154; Scavini, Milan 1874, ed. 12, v. 1, n. 347, par. 1.

The right of patronage is called lay when it arises from a benefice founded, restored, or endowed by someone or by his ancestors, although it is in the possession of a priest who enjoys it by the right of his ancestors. It is ecclesiastical when it belongs to someone by reason of a benefice which he himself possesses, for example a bishopric, or from the fact that he founded, restored, or endowed a benefice from ecclesiastical goods.

A lay patron is granted four months from the day on which he knew the benefice to be vacant, so that he may present a suitable cleric. If he presents an unworthy one, he is to be warned that he present another. And if a second time he presents an unworthy one, he falls from his right, which devolves to the bishop. But if he presents a worthy one, a more worthy one having been passed over, he is to be instituted.

An ecclesiastical patron is granted six months. If he presents an unworthy one, he falls from his right, and the Bishop for that turn freely confers the benefice upon any other, according to the judgment of his conscience.

If there is question of parochial benefices, institution must be made within two months from the day of presentation. S. Pius V, C. In conferendis, April 15, 1567.

The Bishop freely confers the benefice when the time assigned to patrons has elapsed without any presentation made by them, provided however that they knew the benefice to be vacant.

188 bis. Note: 15. "Apostolic Protonotaries Supernumerary remain subject to their own Ordinary, according to the form of the Council of Trent s. 24, c. 11, and their benefices, vacant outside the Roman Curia, are by no means reserved to the Apostolic See."

44. "The benefices of those who enjoy the title and honor of Protonotaries ad instar, as Canons of some Chapter, if they become vacant outside the Roman Curia, are by no means reserved to the Apostolic See. But the benefices of those who enjoy such title and honor as a private person cannot be conferred except by the Apostolic See." Pius X, Motu Proprio Inter multiplices, February 21, 1905.

What is the right of patronage; how is it acquired; what are the obligations and rights of the patron? - The right of patronage is the faculty or right, first of all, of presenting a cleric so that a benefice may be conferred on him. Namely presentation gives right to the thing. The one presented, however, must be suitable and not unworthy. Therefore it is necessary that he be examined by the Ordinary. He who has this faculty of exhibiting a cleric to the Bishop is called patron.

It has certainly been received by the most ancient discipline of the Church that those who would either erect, endow, or restore temples or benefices would be permitted to choose clerics acceptable to themselves for those same benefices and to present them to Bishops. By the law itself, moreover, the right of patronage passes to heirs. The right of patronage can likewise be acquired from the concession of the Supreme Pontiff alone.

The patron is held to keep the church, chapel, or altar of the patronage in good repair and to provide their protection. But he also has the right of honor, seat, incense, prayers, burial, and support from the surplus revenues of the church or benefice, if he tends toward want. Trent s. 7, c. 13 de R.; s. 14, c. 12, 13 de R.; s. 24, c. 3 de R.; s. 25, c. 9 de R.; L. 87; l. 3, n. 71; Wernz, Ius Decret. t. 2, title 19.

What benefices are to be conferred by concours? What form is to be observed in concours? - Trent s. 24, c. 18 de R., weighing how much it conduces to the salvation of souls that parishes be governed by worthy men, expressly commanded that they cannot be conferred except on the more worthy among those who, by an experiment to be instituted before the Bishop himself, or, if he is impeded, by his vicar general and examiners, not fewer than three, have been approved; declaring provisions made otherwise null and invalid by the law itself. Indeed S. Pius V, C. In conferendis, March 18, 1567, besides the aforesaid nullity of collation, established that this concession is devolved to the Apostolic See, or to those to whom the right of conferring the parish belongs. To parishes add, in Italy and adjacent Islands, the theological and penitentiary prebend, which likewise are benefices to be conferred by concours, and to doctors or those to be distinguished with the doctorate within a year, from Benedict XIII, C. Pastoralis officii. Concours has place in curate benefices of ecclesiastical right of patronage, but by no means in curate benefices of the lay right of patrons. In this case, if several have been presented, all are to be examined, and from all those approved one suitable one is to be instituted. Fagnan, C. 24 de Iure patronatus, n. 31. The form of concours is had in Trent s. 24, c. 18 de R.; C. of S. Pius V In Conferendis; C. of Benedict XIV Cum illud, December 14, 1742.

For the concours to be valid, it must be made before synodal examiners, or, if these are lacking, pro-synodal examiners legitimately elected. Trent s. 24, c. 18 de R.; Benedict XIV de Syn. l. 4, c. 7, n. 3. The signatures of the acts are substantial, so that the acts may be authentic and make faith. Nearly all the remaining formalities are accidental. A. S. S. v. 7, p. 353 ff.; Benedict XIV de Syn. l. 4, c. 7, 8; l. 13, c. 24, n. 7; Reclusius de Concursibus; Bouix de Par. p. 352 ff.; E. M.

190 bis. Note: In several places an Indult has been conceded so that parishes may be conferred at will without concours, as, for example, to the Bishops of Latin America. Unless such an Indult is had, or a Concordat or other exemption of this kind, concours is to be announced by the Bishop for curate benefices, and, in Italy, for the Theological and Penitentiary Canonry, ten or twenty days before. The examiners in it are synodal or pro-synodal examiners; the former elected by the Bishop in synod, the latter outside Synod with the consent of the Chapter, and at present there is no need of an indult of the Holy See. The Examiners pronounce judgment concerning knowledge and morals. But the election of the more worthy one, relative to the benefice, pertains to the Bishop. If the benefice is reserved to the Holy See, the Bishop transmits the Acts of the Concours to the Apostolic Dataria, which chooses the more worthy one, unless the reservation is by reason of papal months, because then the Bishop himself chooses the more worthy and presents him to the Apostolic Dataria. Competitors who think themselves aggrieved can have recourse to the Metropolitan or to the nearer Bishop or to the Holy See.

Provision of minor offices in the Roman Curia is made by concours, whose laws are had in the Order to be observed in the same Curia, which is had after the Constitution Sapienti consilio. In a concours for provision of minor administrators in the Roman Curia, the examiners are held to announce first those suitable, and then which among them are to be preferred to others. The outcome of the scrutiny will be reported to the Supreme Pontiff, so that, with him approving, one can come to the nomination of the candidate.

Those who believe themselves less worthy, but not unworthy, can nevertheless compete.

Even when a parish is to be conferred without concours, for example because it is of lay right of patronage, the bishop is held to examine the one presented from the Council of Trent s. 24, c. 18 de R. Indeed he can even examine again pastors once examined, if grave suspicion of lack of skill is had against them. The Capitular Vicar can also do this. And the successor Bishop can also do this for the sole quiet of his conscience. S. C. C., August 28, 1628; January 16, 1667; February 5, 1688.

To whom are benefices to be conferred? - Benefices are not to be conferred except on suitable and worthy persons, who namely show beforehand the conditions or qualities required by the sacred canons. Namely, the one to be chosen for a benefice must be:

1. Of honorable morals; hence the wicked, criminal, infamous, irregular, censured, simoniac, murderer, one who has procured abortion, a heretic and his favorer, receiver, etc., is deservedly rejected, as is established from various texts of law. R. I. 87 in 6; Trent s. 7, c. 3 de R.

2. That he be strong in knowledge, which indeed from Trent s. 7, c. 1 de R., s. 22, c. 2 de R., s. 24, c. 12 de R., is diverse according to the diverse quality of benefices.

3. That he be celibate; for from Canon Law a married man cannot be admitted; and a collation made to one who is joined in marriage exists as invalid. And, if a cleric constituted in minor orders has a benefice and contracts marriage, he is to be deprived of the benefice, C.

Si qui 1, C. Sane 2, C. Quod a te 3, C. Diversis 5 de Cler. coniug., or even by the law itself he loses it, Schmalzgrueber l. 3, title 3, n. 5.

4. That he be born of legitimate parents, and not the son of a heretic; otherwise the election is null. Trent s. 7, c. 1 de R., s. 22, c. 2 de R., s. 24, c. 1 de R., s. 25, c. 15 de R.; Benedict XIV de Syn. l. 13, c. 24, n. 11 ff.; Pichler l. 1, t. 17, n. 4 ff.

5. That he have the prescribed age; and it is common that if age is lacking even as regards one hour, the collation of the benefice is null. Trent s. 22, c. 4; s. 23, c. 6 de R.; s. 24, c. 8, 12 de R.; L. l. 6, n. 799. Cf. n. 909.

6. That the one to be chosen be marked at least with first tonsure; otherwise it is not conferred on a cleric. C. 7 de Praescript.; C. 2 de Instit. But if the benefice requires a certain sacred order, it is necessary that within a year from possession that order be received. But if there is grave necessity or utility of the church, the Bishop can dispense with the beneficed person so that he may devote himself to studies. Schmalzgrueber l. 3, t. 4, n. 62, from Trent s. 5, c. 1 de R., s. 6, c. 2 de R. Except, unless it requires such an order actually; then the order is required at the very time at which the benefice is acquired. Here nevertheless it must be noted that even concerning a layman election and nomination sometimes is accustomed to be made, namely under hope of future clerical state.

7. That he have a true intention of persevering in the ecclesiastical state and of receiving the sacred order which is required for the benefice, unless a just cause occurs which persuades otherwise; otherwise he would deceive the Church in a grave matter, whose intention is that he receive the order at the established time. Hence he would sin gravely who without that intention received a benefice requiring sacred order; and indeed this intention must be true and determinate. Trent s. 22, c. 4 de R.; L. l. 6, n. 785. And, if the benefice is a parish church, and someone received it not intending to be promoted to the priesthood, he must restore the fruits which he thus fraudulently received, unless afterward with changed will he was promoted. C. Commissa 35 de Elect. in 6. If no sacred order is annexed to the benefice, he more truly sins lightly, because from no law is it established that this is lethal.

8. Finally, that the one to be instituted to a benefice not already be provided with another benefice; for it is certain by canon law that plurality of benefices in one cleric is absolutely prohibited. Nevertheless, with the dispensation of the Supreme Pontiff acceding, if some honorable cause is present, several benefices can be obtained. Indeed, even without dispensation, in some cases several benefices can be obtained. For incompatibility of benefices is had as regards residential benefices, which impose continuous residence; as regards uniform ones under the same roof, which namely have the same offices, at the same time, and in the same Church annexed; as regards sufficient ones, that is, those which suffice for the honorable and fitting sustenance of the beneficed person. But a second simple benefice can be obtained if the first does not suffice for honorable sustenance. Yet, even if the first two benefices do not suffice for this honorable sustenance, a third benefice cannot be obtained without special dispensation of the Apostolic See. Trent s. 7, c. 2, 4 de R.; s. 24, c. 17 de R.; C. 28 de Praeb., etc.; Trent s. 22, c. 2 de R.; L. 112-118; S. Th. Quodl. 8, a. 13; Quodl. 9, a. 15; Sanchez de Matr. l. 7, d. 45; Schmalzgrueber l. 3, t. 5 de Praeb.; Benedict XIV de Syn. l. 13, c. 8, n. 8, 9; E. M.

Religious cannot obtain secular benefices, nor consequently can they be elected as canons, nor even as pastors of a secular parish, without dispensation of the Holy See. Those perpetually secularized, by the simple Rescript of secularization, can neither licitly nor validly receive and obtain ecclesiastical benefices.

How are benefices lost? - Benefices can be lost in four ways: 1. By the death of the beneficed person, because they are conceded only to persons and cannot pass to heirs by hereditary right. 2. By a sentence of the judge, either merely declaratory of the crime, if there is question of certain enormous crimes by which the benefice is lost by the fact itself, with the aforesaid sentence acceding, or condemnatory, on account of crimes not so enormous. Where there is question of perpetual benefices, or strictly such, no one can be despoiled of a benefice except on account of a crime expressed in law and with the order of law observed. The principal crimes expressed in law are: heresy, simony, assassination, homicide, abortion, concubinage, sodomy, residence not observed, alienation of the things of the benefice. Cf. Trent s. 21, c. 6 de R., s. 25, c. 6, 14 de R.; S. Pius V, C. Horrendum, August 30, 1568; Sixtus V, C. Effraenatam, October 29, 1588; Extravagant Ambitiosae; C. 1 de Homic. in 6. But by economic removal, "if the bishop has considered the cause necessary, he will licitly be able to transfer persons from one place to another." C. Quaesitum de Rer. permut. Reiffenstuel title cited, n. 38; Schmalzgrueber same title. But if benefices are not perpetual, nor strictly such, but benefices are manual, as they are called, then benefices can be taken away at the will or judgment, for example of the Bishop, and the beneficed person is removable, but from a just cause. 3. By translation or promotion; or by free renunciation, which is the voluntary dismissal of one's own benefice made into the hand of the legitimate superior accepting it; or by resignation, which is renunciation made in favor of another, into the hand of the legitimate superior accepting it; or by permutation, which is mutual resignation of the benefice, in favor of another, into the hand of the legitimate superior accepting it. Novices are prohibited from renouncing before the two months nearest to profession. Trent s. 25, c. 16 de Reg. In the renunciation of benefices, publication of them must be made from the Constitution of Gregory XIII Humano vix iudicio, January 13, 1583, in the mode and form prescribed in the same Constitution. The aforesaid Constitution was confirmed by Benedict XIV, C. Ecclesiastica, June 15, 1746.

4. By the mere disposition of law, after marriage or religious profession; by acceptance and peaceful possession of another incompatible benefice; if someone provided with a benefice previously resigned by another has delayed possession beyond three months from the day of collation; if someone having obtained a parochial benefice has not ascended to the priesthood within a year; if someone has laid aside the clerical habit; if someone has given his name to military service; but in these two last cases there is need of a declaratory sentence. Sanchez de Matr. l. 7, d. 42, n. 4; C. Beneficium 4 de Regular. in 6; Trent s. 7, c. 4 de R.; S. Pius V, C. Cum sacrosanctum, VI Id. Jan. 1588; cf. n. 191. L. 133-136; l. 3, n. 80 ff.; Riganti on Reg. 45, n. 1; Lugo, Resp. Mor. l. 5, d. 4; A. S. S. v. 1, p. 513 ff.; v. 18, p. 181 ff.; v. 29, p. 226; v. 38, p. 27 ff.; Monit. Eccles. v. 17, p. 146; E. M.

192 bis. Note: Solemn profession induces vacancy of benefices, but by no means simple vows before it. Nevertheless in Institutes of simple vows, perpetual vows induce vacancy of residential benefices.

Economic or disciplinary removal of pastors can be made, with the Decree Maxima cura of the S. C. Consistorial, August 20, 1910, observed, which is in force also in England, in North America, and in Australia. Its legitimate causes are: insanity, lack of skill, deafness and blindness, hatred of the people, loss of reputation, notorious crime, bad temporal administration, neglect of duties, disobedience to the precepts of the Ordinary. First an invitation is to be made to the pastor that he renounce, and in the decree of removal the Bishop must proceed with the consent of two examiners. And, if there is place for revision of the decree, the consent of two pastor-consultors is needed. Removal of this kind, moreover, provides right to a pension.

Resignation. Renunciation and resignation of benefices are often used indiscriminately. Nevertheless the distinction properly is: for resignation is the cession of a benefice in favor of another before the Pontiff; but renunciation is the pure and simple dismissal of it in the hands of the legitimate superior. Resignation of benefices, or renunciation of them, in order to be valid, must be done freely in the hands of the Bishop or Supreme Pontiff accepting it, and if the benefice is of right of patronage or elective, also with the consent of the Patron or electors. But it must be published by the newly provided person in the form prescribed by Gregory XIII, C. Humano vix iudicio, January 5, 1584. This form, however, by no means must be observed in the renunciation of a benefice by force of the Decree Maxima cura.

What are the obligations of beneficed and pensioned persons? - The obligations of beneficed persons are of different kinds: some are special, which will be set forth in their proper places, where there is discussion of Bishops, canons, and pastors; others are common to all. Common to all beneficiaries are: 1. The obligation of reciting the canonical hours. 2. The obligation of restoring fruits if they omit the recitation of the office and other obligations to be fulfilled. 3. They are held under grave obligation to expend on pious uses or alms all revenues from merely ecclesiastical goods which are left over from their honorable sustenance. Trent s. 25, c. 1 de R.; S. Th. 2. 2. q. 185, a. 7; Quodl. 6, a. 12. 4. They must wear tonsure and ecclesiastical habit, and also preserve celibacy. Benedict XIV, C. Apostolicae Ecclesiae; de Syn. l. 12, c. 3. Those not wearing the habit do not make the fruits their own. Benedict XIII, C. Catholicae Ecclesiae, May 2, 1725. 5. They cannot alienate the goods, whether immovable or movable, such as sacred furnishings of the church, give them in pledge, make them subject to servitudes, or change the form of estates, not even for the better, unless it is much and evidently better. C. 1 de Pignor.; Benedict XIV, Notification 69, n. 5. 6. They must keep the things of their benefice in good repair and protect its rights, from the surplus revenues of the benefice themselves, if there are any; otherwise according to the judgment of the Ordinary. C. Quicumque 1, C. De his 4 de Eccles. aedific.; Trent s. 21, c. 7 de R.; L. 7 C. de Usufr. 7. If the benefice is residential, they must dwell in the place of the benefice and fulfill by themselves the burdens annexed to the benefice. C. 2, 3, 4, 9, 16 de Cler. non resid.; Trent s. 24, c. 12 de R. 8. Those provided with benefices having care of souls, or with dignities or canonries in Cathedrals, must elicit the profession of faith within two months from the day of possession obtained; otherwise they do not make the fruits their own afterward, and until they have emitted the profession. Trent l. c. Nevertheless they can emit the profession of faith after institution or collation has been received and before they are put into possession. S. C. C., May 11, 1782, in one of Tarazona, ad 1; April 23, 1902. But now from S. C. Consistorial, March 1, 1911, the profession of faith must be emitted before possession of the benefice. A. A. S. v. 3, p. 134. Likewise all beneficed persons are held to emit the oath according to the formula prescribed by Pius X in the Motu Proprio Sacrorum antistitum. 9. If a sacred order is annexed to the benefice, they must receive this in the next year from entering possession, as has already been said. 10. Finally they must fulfill the obligations established in the documents of foundations. E. M.

From the Constitution of Benedict XIII Pius et misericors, April 26, 1725, in Italy and the adjacent islands, they are also held to pay to the fabric of the cathedral church the half-annate. But at present it is almost everywhere no longer paid.

The obligations of pensioned persons are: 1. To recite the office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, unless from another head he is held to the hours, from S. Pius V, C. Ex proximo; otherwise he does not make the fruits his own, in proportion to the time and office. But this Bull was not received everywhere. Cf. Suarez de Relig. t. 2, l. 4, c. 30, n. 22; L. l. 3, n. 74. 2. If the pension or pensions taken together exceed annually 60 ducats of the camera, that is, 322 lire, he is held to go about in habit and tonsure, Sixtus V, C. Cum sacrosanctum and C. Pastoralis; otherwise he loses the pension by the law itself, ib. § 2, namely if he seems to have returned to the lay state, Schmalzgrueber l. 3, t. 12, n. 28. 3. He must be celibate; marriage having been entered, the pension is lost. And it is also lost through solemn religious profession, and through promotion to a residential episcopate, after possession has been obtained. Cf. n. 187. Probably he can altogether freely dispose of the pension. But, since it is a personal right, he himself cannot transfer the pension to another cleric. L. 139; l. 3, n. 491.

What must be noted especially concerning the application of Masses? - He who by reason of a benefice is held to celebrate is also held to apply the Mass for the founder, unless the contrary intention of this person is established. S. C. C., March 21, 1868; A. S. S. v. 3, p. 525; L. l. 6, n. 332. If the beneficed person is indeed held to celebrate, but the application of the Mass has been left free to him, he can certainly receive a stipend for it. But otherwise it must be said if in the foundation of the benefice the contrary has been guarded against, or nothing has been expressed. S. C. C., July 13, 1630; L. 324; Ferraris v. Missa, art. 3, n. 17. Unless it is expressed that he celebrate by himself, he will be able to celebrate and apply through another. S. C. C., September 17, 1783; February 24, 1872; A. S. S. v. 7, p. 181, 182; L. 330. "He who cannot satisfy the foundation because of illness is not held, if it is brief, for example of fifteen days, or even of one or another month, as Lugo d. 21, n. 49 probably teaches, to substitute another or to compensate, since not even honorable masters deal so strictly with servants," L. 333, provided however that the founder did not will otherwise. C. Significatum 11 de Praebend. But otherwise, if the illness is long-lasting, unless perhaps he is both poor and was promoted to orders by that benefice, for he will be able to be vacant as long as he labors under it. S. C. C., February 5, 1650; April 24, 1655; Elbel de Euchar. 214; L. 333. From S. C. C., June 4, 1689; November 17, 1695, if the infirmity exceeds fifteen days, he is held to supply through another.

He who is held daily to celebrate by himself and to apply for the founder can four or six times in a year celebrate for himself, for one joined to him, for a friend or benefactor, provided no other stipend is received; and likewise he will be able once in a month, for the sake of devotion and reverence, to be vacant, and this from the presumed will of the testator. Wherefore this is illicit if the contrary will is established. C. Significatum 11 de Praebend.; S. C. C., April 18, 1683; Benedict XIV, Instruction 56, n. 5, 6; Elbel de Euchar. 215; L. 332; A. S. S. v. 7, p. 179. Masses are to be celebrated at the designated time and place, and ordinarily this is grave. Nevertheless to celebrate before or after, within a modest time, namely within a month, or in another place once or twice in a month, or more often from a just cause, is free from grave fault, unless either another mind of the founder seems to be present, or unjust damage of another forbids it. But the Ordinary has the right to change the time and place, from a just cause, by interpreting the will of the founder. Elbel de Euchar. 216; L. 329; Lugo, Resp. Mor. l. 5, d. 9, d. 26.

Is there an obligation of choosing the more worthy for benefices? - It is certain that those who promote less worthy men to bishoprics and cardinalates are in no way excused from mortal sin. This is had from Trent s. 24, c. 1 de R., confirmed from proposition 47 condemned by Innocent XI. "From this it is clear that Pontiffs and kings who do not promote the more worthy to the aforesaid dignities do indeed sin gravely. The reason is that, since the aforesaid benefices or dignities have been instituted for the common good of the Church, those greatly detract from it who omit choosing the more suitable for the governance of Churches." L. 91. The same must be said of the Minister of cults who proposes to the Prince, and of Bishops who are consulted by Governments, unless they suggest those whom they judge more worthy and more useful to the Church. It is likewise certain that Bishops are equally held to choose the more worthy for curate benefices. The reason is the same; Trent s. 24, c. 18; S. Pius V, C. In conferendis, March 18, 1567. But the greater worthiness of those to be chosen is not to be taken absolutely, but respectively to the utility of the Church. Wherefore the more worthy is understood not as he who is more learned, but he who is more apt and useful than the others for fulfilling the functions annexed to the benefice. L. 92; S. Th. 2. 2. q. 185, a. 3; Quodl. 4, a. 15; Quodl. 6, a. 9; Quodl. 8, a. 6.

Do Bishops sin mortally by choosing less worthy men for simple benefices, with the more worthy omitted? - There is a twofold opinion. "The first probable opinion denies it, because only a modest damage is brought upon the community.... The second opinion, however, more common and more probable, teaches that under grave obligation the more worthy are to be chosen even for simple benefices.... The reason is that the utility itself of the Church, on account of which benefices were instituted, of itself demands that the more worthy be promoted; otherwise clerics would apply themselves little to rendering themselves more worthy, and thus the utility of the Church would be greatly deficient.... Nevertheless doctors limit this and say that it is not a mortal sin: 1. If the more worthy is passed over not everywhere, but once or twice.... 2. If the excess of worthiness is small.... 3. If the benefices are of small moment.... 4. If by law of foundation someone must be chosen from some family, college, or town.... 5. If it is foreseen that the more worthy will soon leave the benefice." L. 93-96. Add: 6. If no certain hope appears that the more worthy is going to be elected, it is expedient to vote for the less worthy, if this other would certainly be elected. For by dissenting, one would sow nothing other than enmities and discords. Indeed, one must even vote for the less worthy if otherwise an unworthy one would be elected. And, if no worthy one occurs, it is permitted even to confer the benefice on an unworthy one, if both necessity presses and it is hoped that he will be useful, or more useful than harmful, or if a more unworthy one must be excluded. Ferraris v. Beneficium, a. 5, n. 28.

Are lay patrons, not kings, held under mortal sin to present the more worthy for curate benefices? - "The first opinion, which Paludanus and Garcias, P. Navarro and others hold, denies that they are held to present the more worthy, whether the benefice is simple or curate." For the Council of Trent imposes no other burden on a layman than to present a suitable one. "But one must altogether hold with the second opinion that in curate benefices the patron, even a lay one, is held under grave obligation to present the more worthy. This seems certain to me, because in these benefices the same reason indeed runs which does in episcopal benefices, for which Trent has already declared, as we saw above, that the more worthy are to be promoted by all." Lay patrons, not kings: for "it is certain that patrons of bishoprics, as are kings, are held to this from the cited chapter 1 of Trent s. 24 de R., as above, where the Council declared this concerning all promoting. It is certain that if patrons are ecclesiastical, they are also held to present the more worthy, as the Council sanctioned," c. 18 of the aforesaid session 24. For curate benefices: indeed, "if the benefices are simple, just as it is probable that Bishops are not held under grave obligation to confer them on the more worthy, so it is also probable that patrons are not held to this. But because it is more probable, as we have said, that those are to be conferred on the more worthy, so we also judge more probably that patrons are held under grave obligation to present the more worthy. The reason, etc." L. 97. Benedict XIV, Epistle Redditae nobis, April 9, 1745. Cf. here n. 190.

Must those resigning benefices also seek the more worthy? - "The first opinion denies it... and Lugo with Vazquez calls it probable.... The second, altogether opposite opinion absolutely affirms that one resigning is held to seek the more worthy.... The third opinion... then only admits that resignation can be made to one not more worthy, when the one resigning-to is equally worthy as the one resigning, because then no damage is inflicted on the Church. But among all these opinions, the opinion of the most learned Lugo seems more equitable to me, namely that the whole reason of fault in this point is to be taken from the reason of damage which would come to the Church, etc." L. 98, 99.

Are the more worthy to be chosen also for regular prelacies? - "The first opinion denies it, unless there is question of a generalate or perpetual prelacy... but one must altogether affirm with the common opinion.... The reason is that they are as it were Bishops." L. 100, 101; S. Th. Quodl. 8, a. 6.

He who seeks and obtains a benefice can commit the judgment concerning his own suitability and worthiness to the estimation of others, although he does not reckon himself more worthy than others, provided he does not recognize himself as certainly unworthy. S. Th. 2. 2. q. 185, a. 3; E. M.

Is the election of a worthy person in benefices valid, with a more worthy one omitted? - "If the benefice is simple, it is certain from the common opinion of the doctors that it is valid.... It is doubtful if it is curate. Paludanus, etc., probably deny it.... But Lugo, etc., more probably affirm that the collation is valid." L. 102, 103; S. Th. 2. 2. q. 63, a. 2 ad 3.

Parochial prebends, to be conferred by the concours prescribed by Trent, and also for Italy and the adjacent Islands the penitentiary and theological canonry, likewise to be conferred by concours from Benedict XIII, are invalidly conceded even to the simply worthy, with the more worthy or more suitable passed over. Trent s. 25, c. 18 de R.; S. Pius V, C. In conferendis; Benedict XIII, C. Pastoralis officii, May 19, 1725.

Is the promotion of an unworthy person invalid? - If the unworthiness regards the lack of those qualities which render one incapable, because by strict law they are required for valid attainment of a benefice, such as age, legitimacy, celibacy, clerical state, sacred order which is actually had or at least received within a year, if however it was annexed to the benefice, doctorate if it is necessarily required, that someone not be excommunicated, a murderer, a son of heretics, that he was not a public heretic or schismatic, etc., then it is clear that that election is null.

If unworthiness indicates only mere ineptitude for performing the offices inhering in the benefice itself, such as defect of knowledge, defect of upright life and reputation, exercise of a ludicrous art, etc., then the election is not, at least in the external forum, invalid by the law itself, because nothing has been defined concerning this. Nevertheless it is to be invalidated from Trent, which commanded "that ecclesiastical benefices, especially those having care of souls, be conferred on worthy and capable persons... but that collation or provision otherwise made be altogether invalidated." S. 7, c. 3 de R. Trent s. 25, c. 15 de R.; Decretals title de Filiis presbyter.; L. l. 7, n. 316; Schmalzgrueber l. 1, t. 14, n. 30, 31. Cf. 196, 909, 1116, 1240, 1317.

Are those who choose for a benefice a worthy person, with a more worthy one omitted, held to restore the damage brought upon him or upon the church? - The first opinion affirms that they are held to restitution; but some say that they are held to compensate the damage to the more worthy one omitted; others think the damage must be repaired not only to the more worthy one, but also to the church. The second opinion denies that they are held to restitution either toward the church or toward the more worthy one, but otherwise if an unworthy one is chosen. "Each opinion," says S. Alphonsus, "is very probable," asserting that the second is more probable to him. The reason of this second opinion is that, by that law of choosing the more worthy, there is not had, from the mind of the Church, as it were a contract with the candidates concerning choosing the more worthy, but only a most wisely had prescription that collators of benefices provide for the good of the Church in a better way. Nor do those more worthy men who have been passed over have a strict right from justice to obtain those benefices, but only aptitude. But if an unworthy one is chosen, damage is had to the church, and from damage arises the obligation of restitution or of reparation of the damage inflicted. L. 107; l. 3, n. 547, 585. Cf. 199.

When benefices are conferred by concours, is the one choosing a worthy person, with a more worthy one omitted, held to repair the damage to this latter? - The first opinion affirms it. The reason is that benefices are common goods and rewards of merits. The second opinion denies it. The reason is that the pact which is had in concours is not a rigorous pact, obliging according to the laws of commutative justice, but is only a promise obliging from fidelity; for benefices have been instituted especially for undertaking divine worship. But concours looks only to this, that it may appear who are worthy, who more worthy. L. 109; l. 3, n. 585; Elench. quaest. reform. q. 47.

Does a less worthy man, opposing himself through concours to a more worthy one, sin mortally, and is he held to restitution if he obtains the benefice? - Reply: Affirmatively, if the one opposing himself is unworthy, because he illicitly and unjustly obtains it. Negatively, if he is simply less worthy. The reason is that it does not pertain to him to discuss merits, but to the examiners and to the one conferring the benefice. And this is the mind of the Church and the common practice, that all worthy persons compete. L. 110; S. Th. 2. 2. q. 63, a. 3; q. 185, a. 3.

Are examiners held to denounce the more worthy to the Bishop? - The first probable opinion denies it with Lugo, etc., because from Trent s. 24, c. 18 de R., not the more worthy but the suitable are to be announced by the examiners, so that from these the Bishop may then choose the more worthy. The second opinion, more probable and more common to S. Alphonsus, affirms it. The reason is that concours is prescribed for this purpose, that the Bishop may more easily and more safely be able to choose the more worthy. L. 111; E. M.

Must examiners judge not only concerning the knowledge of the competitors, but also concerning the other moral endowments? - Reply: Affirmatively. "When the examination has been completed," says Trent, "let as many as have been judged by these to be suitable in age, morals, doctrine, prudence, and other things opportune for governing the vacant church be announced." S. C. C., August 2, 1607, expressly declared that examiners "gravely fail in their duty if they are judges of doctrine only, and do not inquire who before the others, by probity of morals, labors, obedience previously shown to the church, and the other endowments necessary for abundantly undertaking the parochial office, are suitable and commendable." Indeed it adds that there is no collation which has been made upon the judgment of examiners limited to doctrine alone. And Benedict XIV, Encyclical Cum illud, December 14, 1742, openly reproved the contrary abuse growing up somewhere, de Syn. l. 4, c. 8. A. S. S. v. 2, p. 81, 90; v. 11, p. 13, 127; E. M.

Synodal Examiners: At present their office is not only to examine for obtaining parishes, but also to give consent for the economic removal of pastors. They must take an oath concerning faithfully fulfilling the duty and preserving secrecy. But on occasion of the examination for parishes they can receive nothing, neither before nor after; otherwise they cannot be absolved from the vice of simony, which both they themselves and the others giving incur. In choosing examiners and pastor-consultors, from the Decree Maxima cura concerning administrative removal from office and curate benefice, can. 4, the law to be observed everywhere in the future is this: 1. If a Synod is held, in it, according to received norms, as many are to be chosen as the Ordinary by his prudent judgment shall have judged necessary. 2. When examiners and pastor-consultors have died in the interval between one synod and another, or have ceased from the duty by another reason, the Ordinary substitutes other pro-synodal ones with the consent of the Cathedral Chapter, and, this being lacking, with the consent of the Diocesan Consultors. 3. This rule is also to be observed in choosing examiners and pastor-consultors whenever a synod is not held. 4. Examiners and consultors, whether elected in synod or outside synod, fall from office after five years from their nomination, or even sooner when a new synod arrives. Nevertheless, with those things observed which must be observed by law, they can be elected again. 5. They cannot be removed by the Ordinary during the five years except from a grave cause and with the consent of the Cathedral Chapter or of the diocesan consultors.

Synodal judges: They are also to be chosen by the Bishop in Synod. If, after a year has elapsed, a new Synod is not celebrated, with the counsel of the Chapter, new pro-synodal judges are to be constituted. Cf. Benedict XIV de Syn. l. 4, c. 5, 10. To these from the Council of Trent s. 15, c. 10, ecclesiastical and spiritual causes are to be committed.

What about the power of the vicar general? - A vicar general is he who is legitimately deputed to exercise episcopal jurisdiction generally, in place of the Bishop, so that his acts are judged to have been done by the Bishop. He must be a Doctor or Licentiate in Canon Law, or otherwise suitable. A Vicar General, during his duty, is a titular apostolic protonotary. Pius X, Motu Proprio Inter multiplices, February 22, 1905.

Whatever generally the Bishop can do from ordinary jurisdiction proper to himself, but not delegated, although ordinary as being annexed to an office, the Vicar can do, who with the Bishop constitutes one tribunal. Nevertheless this general rule has several exceptions, and certain things require a special mandate. And thus the Vicar General cannot confer, suppress, divide, or unite benefices; nor can he "concede dimissorial letters, unless he has express faculty concerning this from the Bishop, or unless the Bishop is outside the province, or distant by two or at least one day's journey from his own diocese." L. 787; C. Cum nullus de Temp. ord. in 6. Likewise the Bishop can, according to his own judgment, limit the jurisdiction of his Vicar in certain cases. But it is certain from several decisions of the S. C. C. that the Vicar General can, just as a pastor can, validly assist at marriage without the special mandate of the Bishop, and can concede to another, who is a priest, faculty of validly assisting at it, since he is an Ordinary, Trent s. 24, c. 1 de R. Benedict XIV de Syn. l. 2, c. 3, 8; Schmalzgrueber l. 4, title 16, n. 90, 91, 92; L. App. de Priv. 31, 47, 58; Plenary Council of Latin America 221; E. M.

The Vicar General can likewise approve Confessors, dispense in the proclamations of marriage, and bring censures.

But the Vicar General cannot know graver criminal causes, C. 2 de Off. vic. in 6; convoke a synod, S. C. C., December 4, 1655; Benedict XIV de Syn. l. 2, c. 3; visit the diocese; absolve from cases reserved by law to the Bishop alone, C. 4 de Poen. et rem. in 6; or dispense from irregularities from a hidden delict, Trent s. 24, c. 6 de R.

Precedence above all dignities and canons not vested belongs to the Vicar General. But precedence never belongs to him, namely neither in choir nor in processions, above canons clothed in sacred vestments. S. R. C., December 2, 1690, n. 1845.

Concerning the Vicariate of the City, cf. Constitution Etsi nos of Pius X, Kalends of January 1912, A. A. S. v. 4, p. 5 ff.

It cannot be prohibited, at least speaking generally, that Vicars General of the Dioceses of North America be from the number of the Consultors, unless the Consultors are very few. S. C. Consistorial, February 27, 1914.

Can any Bishop licitly confer orders? - For licitly conferring and receiving orders it is required that the one to be initiated, even with first tonsure, be ordained by his own Bishop, or by another, but with his permission. Therefore a Bishop cannot licitly ordain except subjects, either by reason of origin, or by reason of domicile, or by reason of benefice, or by reason of familiarity, and indeed by reason of the necessity of dioceses. C. Cum nullus 3, de Temporum ordin. in 6; C. Eos qui 2, e.t.; Trent, sess. 23, C. 3, 8, 9, de Ref.; Pius X, Encyclical Letter to the Bishops of Italy, July 28, 1906; L. 760, 769, 771.

By reason of origin, if namely they were born in his diocese. But one who is born somewhere by chance must be ordained by the Bishop of the domicile of his father, unless the father afterward contracted domicile there where the one to be initiated was born; or by the Bishop of the place where the father was born, if the father at the time of the birth of the son had domicile nowhere. But if the son is illegitimate and not legitimated, the domicile of the mother is attended to. But exposed infants whose parents are unknown are judged natives of the place in which they were exposed. Finally, neophytes are judged natives of the place in which they were baptized. Paul III, Constitution Cupientes, March 31, 1542. But no account is taken of baptism under condition. Kenrick, tr. 20, n. 15. - Honorante, Praxis Secr. Urb. Vic., c. 1, note 9; Schmalzgrueber, l. 1, p. 3, tit. 11, n. 37, 38; Giraldi, p. 2, s. 96; L. 760, 770, 772, 773.

By reason of domicile, only he is to be judged a subject as regards orders who comes somewhere with the intention of remaining there perpetually, and proves this intention either by habitation of ten years, or by building a house with the carrying over of the greater part of his goods, while remaining there at the same time for some notable time; and he must swear that he then has this intention. Innocent XII, Constitution Speculatores, Nov. 4, 1694; L. 760, 770, 773, 778; Lucidi, Visit. sacr. lim., c. 2, n. 88, 91.

From the more recent Decree of the S. C. C., July 20, 1898, a cleric legitimately excardinated in perpetuity from his own diocese by legitimate document, and legitimately incardinated in another diocese, namely by written document, with the oath prescribed by Innocent XII having been taken, and in perpetuity, and with suitable documents having first been obtained from the dismissing Bishop concerning birth, morals, and studies, can indeed be promoted to orders by the Ordinary of the new diocese.

Likewise a layman can obtain letters from his own Ordinary, by force of which, dismissed from his own diocese, as an extra-diocesan he can become proper to a benevolent receiving Bishop, and by this title be promoted by him to clerical tonsure and to sacred orders, provided however that: 1. Dismissal by his own Bishop is granted from a just cause, in writing, and for a determined diocese; 2. Acceptance is made, with the rules established for incardinating clerics observed, and with the Decree Vetuit, Dec. 22, 1905, also observed as regards pupils dismissed from seminaries; 3. The oath is taken according to the path of the Constitution Speculatores before clerical tonsure. S. C. C., Nov. 24, 1906.

By reason of benefice, it does not suffice that someone is immediately going to receive a benefice from some Bishop, so that he can be ordained by him or receive first tonsure; but it is required that the benefice actually be possessed, and of itself suffice for suitable sustenance without the supplement of patrimony. One who has a benefice in two dioceses can be ordained in either. C. Cum nullus, de Temp. ord. in 6; L. 760, 770, 774, 776, 777.

By reason of familiarity, so that a Bishop, but not merely a titular Bishop, can ordain someone, it is required that for three years he has maintained him with himself in his actual service, and that within a month he confer on him a benefice sufficient for suitable sustenance, so namely that the one to be ordained, when the familiarity ceases, may have from which he can live. Therefore it matters little in what diocese the benefice is placed; and, if the one to be ordained has a benefice or patrimony, this obligation of conferring a benefice on him ceases. Nor does it matter that he does not dwell in the buildings of the Bishop, provided he lives in the place where the Bishop is or nearby. - Trent, sess. 14, C. 2, de Ref.; sess. 23, C. 9, de Ref.; Innocent XII, Constitution Speculatores; L. 760, 770, 778, 780; Giraldi, p. 1, s. 97.

The one to be ordained can choose whichever he wishes among these various Bishops, and then vary in each order. But he who is chosen cannot ordain him without testimonial letters of the Bishop of origin, of domicile, and of that place in which perhaps someone has stayed at that age and for so long a time, namely about six months morally continuous, that he could have contracted a canonical impediment. L. 789. But if there is question of those to be promoted who were formerly assigned to military service, testimonial letters are necessary as often as they have stayed in some diocese at least for a trimester morally continuous. S. C. C., Sept. 9, 1893; Jan. 26, 1895; June 25, 1904; S. C. Disc. Reg., Nov. 27, 1892. And if they cannot obtain the aforesaid testimonial letters from the Ordinaries of places, then, after faculty of the Holy See has first been obtained, they are to be admitted to taking a supplementary oath for the time in which they were assigned to military service. Holy Office, March 12, 1896. Testimonial letters; namely not given generally, but for receiving orders; and therefore they must bear witness concerning the requisites for receiving orders, concerning birth, age, morals, and the absence of any canonical impediment. Those to be ordained by the Bishop of benefice, if they are going to return to their own diocese, must be examined by the Bishop of domicile before the granting of testimonial letters. Trent, sess. 23, C. 8, de Ref.; Innocent XIII, Constitution Apostolici ministerii, § 5; Benedict XIII, Constitution In supremo; S. C. C., Aug. 8, 1733.

It is grave to confer orders or tonsure on the subject of another without express consent, or without dimissorial letters of his Bishop, Trent, sess. 7, C. 10, 11, de Ref.; sess. 14, C. 2, de Ref.; sess. 23, C. 10, de Ref., or of his vicar general when the Bishop is acting for a long time in remote places, C. 3, de Temp. ordin. in 6, or of the capitular vicar after a year of vacancy, or within the year, but only on those constrained by reason of a benefice already received or to be received; i.e., either already obtained, or if they have been elected to it. Cf. Trent, sess. 21, C. 2, de Ref.; Lucidi, C. 2, n. 72. A neighboring Bishop can also ordain the subject of another if his own Bishop has been declared suspended by public sentence. C. Eos qui 2, de Tempor. ordinat. in 6. - A Bishop is bound by himself to confer orders on his own subjects; yet when a just cause intervenes, of sickness or another similar cause, e.g., absence, it is lawful for him to dismiss them to another Bishop. But the cause why the proper Bishop does not ordain must be expressed in the dimissorial letters. Trent, sess. 7, C. 11, de Ref.; sess. 23, C. 3. But they can be given to any Catholic Bishop, S. C. C., March 16, 1624, except to one who has renounced the episcopate, if he has yielded both the place and the dignity, C. 1, de Ordin. ab Episcopo, qui renuunt. And if they have been given by name to one in favor of the one to be ordained, it is open to him, with that one passed over, to approach another. L. 788. But they are had as in the manner of a grace made; therefore they do not expire when the right of the one giving is resolved, L. 787, nor are they suspended when he is suspended, unless they were given for a definite time or were revoked. - Lugo, Resp. Mor., l. 1, d. 32; E. M.

The praised Decree Vetuit of the S. C. C., Dec. 22, 1905, His Holiness Pius X established and decreed: "1. That in the future no local Ordinary admit into his Seminary a subject of another diocese, whether cleric or layman, unless he has first asked by secret letters from the proper Bishop of the petitioner and has learned whether this man was formerly dismissed from his Seminary. But if this is established, omitting judgment about the causes or determination whether the other Bishop acted justly or unjustly, let him bar entrance into his Seminary to the one asking. "2. But those who were admitted in good faith, because they kept silent that they had previously lived in another seminary and afterward were dismissed from it, as soon as this condition of theirs is known, are to be admonished to depart. But if they wish to remain, and this is permitted to them by the Ordinary, by that very fact they remain ascribed to this diocese, with the canonical rules for their incardination and ordination nevertheless observed; but once advanced to the priesthood, they are prohibited from returning to the diocese from whose Seminary they were dismissed and from having a stable domicile there. "3. Likewise, since almost a similar reason holds, those who, dismissed from Seminaries, enter some religious institute, if they leave it after they have been initiated in sacred orders, are forbidden to return to the diocese from whose Seminary they were dismissed. "4. But those dismissed from some religious Institute are not to be admitted into a Seminary unless the Bishop has first, by secret letters, sought information from the moderators of the same Institute about the morals, character, and ability of those dismissed, and it is established that there is nothing in them which is less suitable to the priestly state. Cf. here n. 279 bis. "Finally let Bishops remember that it is not lawful for them, in their own name, to impose hands on anyone who is not subject to them in that way and by one of those titles which are established in the Constitution Speculatores of Innocent XII and in the decree of the S. C. of the Council which begins A primis, on July 20, 1898. And likewise no one can be ordained who is not useful or necessary for the church or pious place for which he is assumed, according to the prescriptions of the holy Council of Trent in chap. 16, Sess. 23, de reform."

Does irregularity also deprive of benefices? R. Negatively as regards a simple benefice, which imports no exercise of sacred order; for then no reason of deprivation is present. Affirmatively as regards a benefice to be obtained, to which an office is annexed which it is not lawful for an irregular person to discharge. For a benefice is given for the sake of the office; but an irregular person is incapable of the office, since he cannot exercise order. Therefore at least licitly he cannot receive the benefice. At least licitly: for if it has been conferred on him, it is probable that the conferral is valid, and therefore after the irregular person has begun possession of it, if he fulfills the burdens of the benefice through another, he makes the fruits his own, which not even Suarez himself and St.

Alphonsus, patrons of the contrary opinion as more probable, deny. The reason is that penalties are not to be imposed unless they are clearly expressed in Law, but nowhere is it expressed that irregularity renders a man incapable of a benefice. Others nevertheless press the place of Trent, sess. 22, chap. 4, de Ref., where it is said that provision made to those who lack due qualifications is invalid. L. 343. But as regards a benefice already obtained before irregularity, which requires the exercise of sacred order, if the irregularity proceeds from defect of infirmity, there is no doubt that the benefice can be retained, if the burdens are fulfilled through another. Chap. Ex parte, de Cler. aegr. But if it is from delict, the irregular person must be deprived of it by sentence of a judge; and although he is not deprived by that very fact, chap. Ex litteris, de Excess. praelat., nevertheless he is bound to seek dispensation.

But if he does not seek it, or cannot obtain it, he is bound to renounce the benefice. The reason is that if he cannot licitly satisfy the burdens of the benefice, neither can he licitly retain it. Nevertheless he will be able to defer this renunciation if he labors under great poverty and has already delegated another for fulfilling the burdens of the benefice. Thus they commonly interpret the law. Nevertheless, by that very fact a sentence of deposition from the benefice is had if it is a case excepted by name in law, such as homicide in chap. Pro humani 1, § 2, de Homic. in 6. L. 342, 343, 344; Lugo, Resp. Mor., book 2, dub. 11.

1. A parish being vacant for nine months, without the Bishop, the Ordinary of the place, conferring it upon anyone, the Archbishop, in order to supply his negligence, confers it as devolved to himself. — Does he do this by right?

R. In the negative. For inferior collators must confer benefices within six months; otherwise the collation for that turn is devolved to the immediate superior. Wherefore, if the Bishop is negligent in the collation of a benefice, it is devolved to the Metropolitan, c. 2, de Concess. Praeb., c. 41, de Election., Riganti on Rule 9, § 3, n. 133. But exempt churches, parishes, and benefices resigned into the hands of the Ordinary are excepted. These are immediately devolved to the Roman Pontiff.

Within six months; but if they are parochial benefices reserved to the Holy See, Bishops are bound, within four months from the day of vacancy, to indicate to the same Holy See the more suitable persons; and, if they are of the right of patronage, they cannot defer institution beyond two months from the day of presentation. Otherwise the complete disposition of them remains reserved to the Holy See, yet with the faculty granted to the patron, if the parochial benefice is of the right of patronage, “for obtaining institution, to have recourse to the Metropolitan or the nearer Ordinary, or to the Apostolic See.” St. Pius V, Constitution In conferendis, 18 March 1567, § 4; D’Annibale, ed. 3, pt. 3, nn. 31, 35.

2. A benefice being vacant, its patron, for the space of a month as it passed, neglects to present a candidate to the Bishop. The Bishop then freely confers the benefice within a month. But the patron protests. Does he do so by right?

R. By right. For if a lay patron presents no one within the space of four months after the vacancy of the benefice, and an ecclesiastical patron within the space of six months, the benefice is conferred absolutely by the prelate, by devolved right. The Bishop, however, can, from the devolution made to him, prolong the time for conferring the benefice for six months. But in the case only a month had elapsed. Therefore the patron protests by right. Riganti on Rule 42; D’Annibale, ed. 3, pt. 3, n. 30.

Except, however—and perhaps the case was such—if the benefice became vacant by resignation. For if the resignation was not made into the hand of the Pontiff, he who accepted it, namely the Ordinary of the place, must either reject it or confer the benefice, whatever it may be, even one of lay patronage, within a month, although it became vacant in a pontifical month, provided only that it is not reserved under another head. But he upon whom the benefice has been conferred must take possession of it within three months from the day of collation. And if either the collator delays provision, or the one provided delays possession, in the former case the provision is devolved to the Holy See; in the latter the benefice is vacant by that very fact. Gregory XIII, Constitution Humano vix iudicio, 5 January 1584, § 7; D’Annibale, loc. cit., n. 58.

3. Bishop A., in good faith, conferred a benefice upon a certain cleric in a pontifical month, namely, one in which the collation of the benefice was reserved to the Holy See. After six years the error is detected. Must the cleric restore the fruits received and leave the benefice?

R. In the negative. For the collation or institution of a benefice, although it was invalid, can nevertheless be ratified by possession for three years from Rule 36 of the Apostolic Chancery, which is entitled De Triennali. This ratification rests 1. upon a colored title of collation or institution made by Apostolic or ordinary power. Wherefore it does not profit those who do not have this title; for example, if someone received a benefice not from the Bishop but from the capitular vicar, or did not leave a benefice received and vacant because an order had not been received in its time. It rests 2. upon peaceful possession. Wherefore again it does not profit those who begin possession by force, or who suffer controversy during the three-year period. But whether good faith is also required, as in prescription, some affirm, because no prescription is given without good faith; others deny, because the rule concerning triennial possession does not require it.

Moreover, from the rule of triennial possession are excepted beneficed clerics entering simoniacally by real and mutually completed simony, and those intruded into benefices reserved in the Body of the Law, that is, vacated in the Curia by death, and also parochial benefices against or outside the Tridentine form. St. Pius V, Constitution In conferendis; Riganti on Rule 36, Pal. tr. 13, d. 2, p. 33, n. 10; La Croix, bk. 4, n. 712; Lugo, de Iust., d. 7, nn. 113, 126; D’Annibale, ed. 3, pt. 3, nn. 48, 49, 50.

Now in the proposed case a colored title of collation was not lacking; for the benefice was conferred by the Ordinary, namely by him in whom resides the ordinary power of conferring benefices. The cleric’s possession was consequently peaceful, continuous, complete, as appears from the case itself, since that defect was detected only after six years. Nor, in the proposed case, was there a simoniacal entrance, nor was there question of a benefice vacant in the Curia by death, nor of a parochial benefice. Therefore the aforesaid cleric is wholly favored, as by a prescription, by the Rule De Triennali in both fora.

4. From the most recent convention entered into between the Holy See and the Spanish Government in the year 1851, it was sanctioned that the right of presenting certain canons to cathedral churches should belong to the civil power. But it sometimes happened that canons thus presented by the Government lacked the qualities required by law. It is most evident then that the Ordinary can in no way confer institution and canonical collation of the benefice upon such men. But juridical proof of unworthiness is often very difficult, both because occult delicts are involved, and because graver crimes cannot be brought forward in a public judgment without disgrace to the ecclesiastical order and scandal to the people.

Question. 1. Whether and how the Ordinary can proceed in the case ex informata conscientia, and thus, the unworthiness of the elect having been made manifest, deny canonical collation of the benefice. — 2. Whether it is lawful for the Bishop to proceed economically in the case. — 3. Whether from a sentence given in the economical process there is an appeal to the Metropolitan in the case.

R. To the first: in the negative. To the second and third: in the affirmative, according to the form of the Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 1880; Sacred Congregation of the Council, 9 April 1892. The reason is that, since according to the present discipline Bishops cannot inflict this censure in perpetuity, and, once institution has been denied to a cleric presented by a patron, that penalty would become perpetual as regards exclusion from the benefice, therefore there is need of a summary process according to the cited Instruction. I. M. 1125; M. E., vol. 7, pt. 2, p. 75; E. M. 8.

5. A beneficed cleric having been translated to another benefice, while the fruits of the benefice were already hanging, mature but not yet received, a question was moved between him and his successor, whether those hanging fruits, still to be received, belonged to the present beneficed cleric, or rather to the predecessor, and whether they were to be divided between them.

R. This matter is greatly controverted among doctors. Therefore let the case, with all its circumstances, be set forth to the Sacred Congregation, so that it may be defined by it. A. S. S., vol. 16, p. 79; M. E., vol. 12, p. 317 ff.

But if there were question not of a beneficed cleric translated, but of one deceased, the aforesaid fruits certainly belong to the successor, from the Constitution of Julius III, Cum sicut, 26 June 1550, confirmed by the Constitution of Urban VIII, Aeternus rerum conditor.

6. Osius founded a chaplaincy in a parish church under this resolutive condition: that if by some civil law, or from any other cause whatever, it should be suppressed, the goods would return to the heirs. Now a law was in fact passed for the suppression of ecclesiastical benefices; whence the aforesaid chaplaincy was also in fact suppressed. Hence the heirs of Osius reclaim the goods of the chaplaincy, and do not intend to fulfill the pious burdens annexed to it.

Question. 1. What is a chaplaincy? — 2. What is an ecclesiastical and a lay chaplaincy? — 3. What is to be said in the case?

R. A chaplaincy is the temporal or perpetual right of receiving revenues from goods for the temporal or perpetual celebration of Masses at a certain altar or oratory. If they have been founded with the intervention and authority of the Ordinary, they are ecclesiastical; if without his intervention and authority, they are lay. Ecclesiastical chaplaincies, if they are conferred in perpetuity by the Bishop, are true benefices, and collative. But if they are conferred at the will and discretion of the Bishop, they are called manual benefices. As regards lay chaplaincies, although they must be conferred upon clerics, and these are irremovable, the Bishop cannot involve himself in conferring them, and one must stand by the dispositions of the founder or of the heirs. Schmalzgrueber, bk. 3, tit. 5, n. 8; D’Annibale, ed. 3, pt. 3, n. 71.

Now, since the chaplaincy in the case was founded expressly under the resolutive condition of a law of suppression, when the condition exists, the chaplaincy vanishes, and consequently the burdens annexed to it vanish. Wherefore, although the heirs of Osius can be asked and admonished that they be willing both to preserve the chaplaincy and to fulfill the pious burdens, nevertheless they cannot be obligated. A. S. S., vol. 10, p. 89.

7. Seius, a beneficed cleric, left to his nephew a rich fortune, which he himself had acquired from the fruits of his benefice and from his industrious administration and economy. For five years Seius, although always asked, delayed paying a pension with which the benefice was burdened in favor of Ambrosius, a priest. The benefice has now been conferred upon Augustinus, a priest, from whom Ambrosius claims payment of the pension for the preceding five years, which he could never obtain from Seius. But Augustinus refuses to pay, saying that not he, but the nephew of Seius, is bound to that payment under the title of restitution.

Question. What is to be said in the case?

R. “The question is elegant,” says D’Annibale, Summ., pt. 3, n. 73, note 47, ed. 3, “who, when a beneficed cleric has died, must pay pensions perhaps unpaid by him: the heir, or the successor in the benefice? The far more common opinion burdens the latter, as in taxes from L. 7, de Vectigal. Others deny this, and more rightly, because a pension is part of the fruits, which the beneficed cleric, as if an associate, administered in his own name and in the name of the pensioner. Nor does the cited L. 7 stand in the way, because there the estates themselves are claimed, here the fruits; namely because the fisc has a tacit mortgage in the goods, L. 1, C. In quibus causis pign.” And indeed one must entirely stand by this opinion.

For first, the pension is to be paid each year by the beneficed cleric. Therefore the new beneficed cleric is bound only to pay the pension which corresponds to the fruits received in the first, second, and other years of his possession of the benefice, not of another’s. Therefore no obligation has been imposed upon him of paying a pension owed by another beneficed cleric. With respect to the first and second beneficed cleric, the obligation of the possessor of the benefice is personal, not real. Furthermore, a pension is the right of receiving a certain part of the revenues or fruits from another’s benefice, withdrawn for a time. Therefore a pension does not affect the benefice, but the fruits of the benefice. Therefore the aforesaid obligation, with respect to the first and second possessor of the annual fruits, is a real obligation; and accordingly those fruits pass from the first to the second possessor always bound to the third. Therefore the nephew of Seius, the present possessor of the aforesaid fruits, he alone is bound to restore the unpaid pensions.

That the nephew of Seius is truly the possessor of those fruits is gathered from the obvious sense of the exposition of the case. For that fortune acquired by Seius and left to him is said to have been constituted not only from the fruit of industrious administration and economy, but also from the revenues themselves of the benefice.

8. “Whether the sacristan of a rural church, where the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist is always reserved, is bound to reside there, so that he may daily celebrate the most holy sacrifice of the Mass; or whether he can be absent for five or six days in any month, so that he may attend to other obligations in another church?”

R. “He is bound to residence and to daily celebration of Mass, either by himself or through another priest.” S. R. C., 16 March 1833, Firmana.

9. Iofridus possesses a rich benefice. Since he has a probable hope that he will be promoted to the episcopate or the cardinalate, in which state he sees that he can bring much utility to the Church, he abstains from almost every alms, and reserves for himself the ecclesiastical fruits not necessary for his congruous sustenance, both for acquiring that higher state and for afterwards preserving it, once acquired, with due decorum.

Question. Does he do this licitly?

R. Illicitly. This is clear from the common authority of theologians, who raise the question whether there is an obligation of giving alms from those goods which one needs in order to acquire a better state; and they distinguish between a rich layman and a beneficiary. They indeed affirm that “a layman can keep from patrimonial goods for changing his own state or that of others. ... But Bishops and other ecclesiastics cannot from the goods of a benefice change a state to a higher one for themselves, or for relatives, or for friends, as Corduba well taught, because those goods are not given except for congruous sustenance.” Thus Vasquez, tract de Eleemosyna, c. 4, last dub., n. 14. Thus also Cardinal De Lugo, Resp. Mor., bk. 5, d. 11, who, besides Vasquez, also cites Navarro and Malderus for this doctrine.

Except, however, the case which Cardinal de Lugo himself excepts, namely when those ecclesiastical fruits are not reserved for acquiring an episcopate or another ecclesiastical dignity, but this is to be accepted from elsewhere and proximately; and one lacks the money required for making the necessary expenses.

1. The Bishop of Parma, having instituted a universal heir, bequeathed to the Bishop of Parma pro tempore a cross with gems, a precious ring, and a pastoral staff; to the archpriest a cross with a gold chain; to the lord rector of the seminary a white chasuble; to the seminary of Parma one half of the sacred vestments, and the other half to the seminary of Berceto; to the Vicar General a silver chalice; to the secretary a precious stole. The Bishop testator says further that all the gold and silver utensils and sacred vestments were in his ownership, that is, either received by gift or acquired with his own money, by no means from the revenues of the Church. Moreover it is asserted that the deceased Bishop had spent in alms and other pious works during ten years more than he had received from the mensa in as many years. But the council of the Fabric of the cathedral church did not judge these legacies of the Bishop to be valid, thinking that the right of spoil belonged to itself over the whole sacred furnishing of the Bishop, or, as it is called, over the Bishop’s chapel. Hence:

Question. Whether, and what, sacred furnishing was validly bequeathed by testament in the case?

R. “In the affirmative in all things and more.” S. C. C., 19 January 1884. The reason is that by chapter 1, de Testam., it has been granted to clerics to make a testament concerning all things which do not have the nature of ecclesiastical revenues. This is confirmed by chapter Quia nos, 9, same title; final chapter, de Pecul. cler.; Constitution of St. Pius V, Romani Pontificis, as Navarrus, de spol. cler., § 1, n. 4; Bursatus, cons. 377, n. 28, § Attamen; Barbosa, bk. 3, c. 17, n. 62; Azor, Inst. moral., t. 2, bk. 8, c. 3, p. 11; Panimolus, decis. 20, annotation 1, n. 11; Ventriglia, etc., teach. And this is certain today from the Constitution of Pius IX, Quum illud, 1 June 1847. For in it it is decreed that there are not owed to cathedral churches all those utensils which were procured with goods not belonging to the church, and which are not proved to have been given to the church.

Furthermore, certainly no one would say that faith can be denied to the affirmation of the Bishop. For there is question of a Bishop, and the Supreme Pontiff himself in his Constitution Quum illud wishes the deposition of Bishops in this matter to be admitted for truth. Moreover, that charity of the Bishop, which exceeded the revenues of the episcopal mensa, excludes the hypothesis that that sacred furnishing was bought with the revenue of the mensa, c. Cum in officiis, 7, de Testam.; cf. Ferraris, v. Spolium; and therefore it was exempt from spoil in favor of the Fabric of the Cathedral.

As regards spoil, however, it must be noted that clerics by Canon Law are deprived of the faculty of making a testament as regards the superfluous goods of their benefices; although they can make a testament concerning their patrimonial, industrial, and parsimonial goods. For while they live, they are bound by precept of the Church to expend the former upon pious works. cc. 1, 7, 8, 9, 12, de Testam. Now the superfluous goods of benefices left by a cleric were called spoils, which formerly belonged to the church in which the cleric had obtained the benefice, from c. 7, de Testam. This discipline, set aside for some time, was restored to force by Trent, sess. 25, c. 1, de R., and by several Roman Pontiffs. It was established, however, that the superfluous goods of benefices, concerning which clerics cannot make a testament, should yield and be applied by right of spoil to the Apostolic Camera. Also things acquired illicitly by clerics through trading are subjected to the penalty of spoil. Benedict XIV, Constitution Apostolicae servitutis, 25 February 1741; Acta S. Sed., vol. 16, p. 460 ff.

2. A regular Bishop, gravely sick with an illness from which he afterwards died, several months before his death repeatedly said to his nephew, in whose house he was sick and who had deserved exceedingly well of the Bishop himself: “You are lord of all that I have; it displeases me that they are few,” adding that he had some sum of money. Hence, two or three days before the death of the Bishop, the said nephew took from his chest, from the moneys which were found there, about a thousand scudi, no word having been made about this with the Bishop, whose remaining moneys and movable goods, after he had died, were taken under the name of spoil by the ministers of the Apostolic Camera.

Question. 1. Whether such a religious is exempted from the vow of poverty and is made true owner of ecclesiastical revenues like secular Bishops. — 2. Whether it is open to religious Bishops to make a testament concerning patrimonial goods, or goods acquired by their own industry, in the way in which this is lawful for secular Bishops. — 3. Whether the nephew of the Bishop could in safe conscience receive and retain those moneys.

R. To the first. The first opinion, which several theologians hold, affirms; and Sanchez says that it is probable, loc. cit., in decal., c. 6, nn. 7, 13. The second opinion, which far more theologians hold, denies. Wherefore according to this opinion that religious Bishop is made only administrator of ecclesiastical revenues. Sanchez says that this opinion is most true, loc. cit., n. 8. “A regular Bishop,” says Cardinal De Lugo, Resp. Mor., bk. 5, dub. 1, n. 3, “although he has free administration of his revenues, nevertheless does not have ownership of them, according to the more common opinion.” “A religious who becomes a Bishop,” says St. Thomas, II-II, q. 88, a. 11, ad 4, “as he is not absolved from the vow of continence, so neither from the vow of poverty, because he ought to have nothing as his own, but as dispenser of the common goods of the Church; similarly also he is not absolved from the vow of obedience, but by accident he is not bound to obey if he has no superior, as neither is the abbot of a monastery, who nevertheless is not absolved from the vow of obedience.”

To the second. Some affirm, because just as for making a donation in life the mere free administration of goods suffices, so also the same suffices for giving in death. Sanchez says that this opinion is probable, loc. cit., n. 10. But others, far more numerous, among whom is Sanchez himself, loc. cit., openly deny that it is open to them to make a testament. “The reason is that the paternal inheritance and whatever else a religious Bishop acquires from any source whatever, he acquires for his church with free administration only, as is clear from the single chapter, 18, q. 1. ... But administration is ended by death, from which the testament begins to have force. Therefore it is not open to him to dispose after death, which is done by testament.” Sanchez, loc. cit. “A donation on account of death,” says Cardinal De Lugo, loc. cit., n. 6, “can no more be made by a regular Bishop concerning goods quasi-patrimonial than concerning goods acquired from the fruits of the church, just as neither can a testament be made by him concerning any goods, even for pious causes, as we have reported above from the common opinion of the doctors with Thomas Sanchez.” “To the third,” says St. Thomas, II-II, q. 185, a. 8, “it must be said that it is by accident that religious Bishops are not bound to obey the prelates of their religions.... But they can in no way have property. For they do not claim a paternal inheritance as their own, but as owed to the church.... But he can in no way make a testament, because only the dispensation of ecclesiastical things is committed to him, which ends with death, from which a testament begins to have force, etc.” E. M. 252.

Although the matter of benefices has been treated at length by most Theologians, nevertheless it is filled with innumerable and intricate difficulties, which otherwise have altogether vanished in France, from the time when by force of the Concordat between Pius VII and the French Government benefices were taken away and commuted into a yearly pension to be paid by the Government.

We must speak briefly about benefices regarded only in general, namely 1º about the nature; 2º about the acquisition; 3º about the loss of benefices.

127. • A benefice is a perpetual right of receiving fruits from the goods of the Church because of some spiritual office constituted by the authority of the Church.

One benefice is simple, another double.

1º A simple benefice is one which has no obligation annexed except that of performing the divine Offices, such as canonries, chaplaincies, etc.

2º A double benefice is one which has jurisdiction, administration, and care of souls annexed, such as the episcopate, the parochial office, etc. It is called double because it is subject to a double burden; for besides the recitation of the breviary, common to all, it has some administration and eminence.

3º The pension which is paid by the Government in France to Bishops and Canons and Pastors, since it has been substituted in place of benefices, obtains their place, and therefore must be regarded as an ecclesiastical good, as is plain from various responses of the Sacred Penitentiary (tom. 1, n. 563).

128. • The way of acquiring a benefice is threefold: 1º by election, by which a Cleric is chosen by the whole Chapter and is confirmed by the Superior; 2º by presentation, by which someone is offered by the Patron to the Superior, and is instituted by him if he is found suitable; 3º by collation, when a benefice is freely given from the sole right of the Prelate, and is not subject to the right of Patronage. - St. Ligorius, n. 85.

In any diocese the Bishop is the proper collator of benefices, unless by legitimate prescription such a right belongs to another. But the Pope is the supreme and universal collator of all non-patronage benefices. - St. Ligorius, n. 86.

The right of Patronage is twofold: 1º ecclesiastical, if it has arisen from some title of the Church; 2º lay, if it has been acquired by some layman through the foundation, for example, of a Church. The right of Patronage is constituted by os, aedificatio, fundus, namely patronage, the building of the Church, and donation of the land. - St. Ligorius, n. 87.

129. Questions. - QUESTION 1º. What qualities are required for obtaining a benefice?

Resp. It is required 1º that the person be suitable and capable, that is, that he be a Cleric, not illegitimate, of good morals; 2º that he have enough knowledge and skill for rightly performing the duty annexed to the benefice. - St. Ligorius, n. 112.

130. • QUESTION 2º. Is there an obligation of choosing the more worthy for a benefice?

Resp. 1º Affirmative, and indeed under grave obligation per se as to benefices with cure, or double benefices, because the good of the Church demands this. But that it be a grave sin, it is required that the one choosing, after all the circumstances have been diligently inspected, judge that the one chosen is evidently and much less worthy. But greater worthiness is not to be taken absolutely, but relatively to the utility of the Church and of the faithful. - St. Ligorius, nn. 91-92.

131. • Resp. 2º Affirmative, also more probably and more commonly as to simple benefices, because the advantage of the Church also and distributive justice demand this; unless rarely one less worthy is chosen, and there is question of benefices of lesser moment. - St. Ligorius, n. 93 and following. Nevertheless the election of one less worthy is more probably valid in every case, nor does it induce the burden of restitution per se ¹. - St. Ligorius, nn. 102, 103, 106.

¹ ** Well does the Author add, "per se"; for otherwise one must speak if some implicit or explicit pact is violated, for example, if collation is made by concursus.

132. • QUESTION 3º. Is it lawful for someone to possess several benefices?

Resp. Generally no, unless they are simple and do not oblige to residence. Indeed, neither by dispensation of the Pontiff can several benefices be held at the same time if there is not present a cohonestating cause, because this is against natural law, since one suffices for honorable support ², and various duties cannot rightly be performed by one and the same person. - St. Ligorius, n. 117 and following.

² ** This reason sometimes fails. For in certain places no one applies for the parochial benefice, because it has revenues so slender that it by no means suffices for the support of the pastor. Hence it also happens that for this cause the Sacred Congregation sometimes dispenses a Pastor from applying Mass for the people on certain days.

133. • QUESTION 4º. What causes cohonestate plurality of benefices?

Resp. According to the common judgment of the Doctors, they are the following: 1º necessity of the Church, namely if other suitable ministers are lacking; 2º utility of the Church, namely if one alone, although absent, is judged likely to profit more by his authority, doctrine, and prudence than another; 3º prerogative of merits, namely if someone should excel among others in doctrine, counsel, etc. - St. Ligorius, n. 118.

134. • Benefices can be lost in four ways: 1º by the death of the benefited one, because they are conceded only to persons; 2º by disposition of law ipso facto because of certain enormous crimes; 3º by sentence of the judge because of crimes not so enormous ³; 4º by spontaneous dimission or resignation.

³ ** Even in the preceding case a sentence of the judge is required, if not condemnatory, at least declaratory of the crime; because no one is compelled to abdicate by himself.

But resignation is twofold: 1º tacit, for example, if someone enters Religion; 2º express, if it is done before a Superior accepting it. But this is either simple or conditioned, accordingly as it is done simply without condition, or with some condition appended, namely that it be conferred upon a certain designated person, etc. - St. Ligorius, nn. 133, 134.

135. • QUESTION. What are the conditions, that resignation or permutation of a benefice may be valid?

Resp. It is required 1º that it be made freely; 2º that it be made before ⁴ the Bishop. or Pope; 3º that it be accepted by the Prelate, in whose hands it is made, and by him to whom it is conferred; 4º that the consent of the Patron or of the electors be present, when the benefice is from patronage or election. - See St. Ligorius, n. 133.

⁴ ** Understand, with the consent and authority of the Bishop or Pontiff intervening, accordingly as the collation of the benefice belongs to the Bishop or to the Pope.

To a benefice is referred an ecclesiastical pension, which is the right of receiving fruits from another's benefice. But a pension is threefold: 1º lay, which is given to laymen because of temporal service toward the Church; 2º ecclesiastical, which is given to Clerics because of spiritual ministry; 3º mixed, which is given to a Cleric only for honorable support.

Moreover for the validity of a pension there is required 1º that dispensation of the Pope accede; 2º that it be given from a just cause; 3º that ordinarily it not exceed the third part of the benefice.

"From the decree of the Lateran Council under Leo X, augmented by St. Pius V in the year 1751, beneficiaries are bound to restore the fruits of the benefice according to the proportion of omission of the Office, six months having elapsed from the day of possession of the Benefice. For in the aforesaid Council, session 9, section Statuimus, it is said thus: We also establish that anyone having a benefice, if after six months, the benefice having been obtained, he has not said the divine Office, with a legitimate impediment ceasing, does not make the fruits his own according to the proportion of the omission of recitation of the Office and of time. Then St. Pius V in his Constitution 186, which begins Ex proximo Lateranensi, issued in the year 1571, sanctioned thus: We establish that he who has omitted all the canonical hours on one or more days loses all fruits of the benefice which correspond to that day or those days; but he who has omitted Matins only, half; he who has omitted the other hours, the other half; even if someone assigned to choir, not reciting, should be present with the others at all canonical hours, and should pretend that he has made fruits and distributions, perhaps otherwise assigned by presence alone according to statute, custom, or otherwise, accrue to himself. Let him also understand that, besides the loss of fruits and distributions, he has committed grave sin. Likewise, he who in the first six months has not said the Office, unless a legitimate impediment excused him, should understand that he has committed grave sin, etc. Moreover, restitution of this kind is certainly owed before the sentence of a judge, as is clear from the condemned proposition 20 of Alexander VII, which said: restitution imposed by Pius V upon Beneficed clerics not reciting is not owed in conscience before the declaratory sentence of a judge, because it is a penalty." St. Alphonsus, bk. 3, nn. 663, 666, 672; bk. 4, n. 151.

Order of Speaking. - In the very section in which it proposes the law of clerics in general, the Code assigns the three later titles to ecclesiastical offices, ordinary and delegated power, and the reduction of clerics to the lay state: which titles are thus placed between clerics in general and clerics in species. But it reserves the title concerning benefices to the fifth Part of the third book.

Omitting here the notions concerning ordinary and delegated power, which generally in moral theology have been accustomed to be suggested rather than formally handed down, and also passing over the canonical argument concerning reduction to the lay state, it has seemed to us, on account of the connection of the matters, to treat conjointly of offices and benefices insofar as will be sufficient for our end.

— An ecclesiastical office, taken broadly, "is any function which is exercised unto a spiritual end; but in the strict sense, it is a function stably constituted by either divine or ecclesiastical ordinance, to be conferred according to the norm of the sacred canons, bearing with itself at least some participation of ecclesiastical power, whether of order or of jurisdiction" (c. 145, §1). "In law, it is taken strictly, unless something else appears from the context of the discourse" (c. 145, §2).

Therefore a stable, not temporary, constitution of the function; a conferral to be made according to the rules of law, not at the discretion of the Superior; and participation of some spiritual power pertain to the essence of an office properly so called. Therefore, only in the broad sense do these have an office: an apostolic administrator, of whom c. 312 ff. treats, even a perpetual one, or a simple confessor, for stability of office is lacking; the secretary of a bishop, the spiritual director of a monastery, for the conferral is made at the discretion of the Superior; a lay custodian of a church, for he participates in the power neither of order nor of jurisdiction. On the contrary, a residential bishop, a canon, a pastor, a regular Superior exercise an office properly so called.

— Provision of an Office in General. 1. Without canonical provision, that is, without a legitimately made grant of the office, an ecclesiastical office cannot be obtained validly.

2. Provision or promise of an office which is not vacant produces no effect (c. 150).

3. By a Superior below the Roman Pontiff, provision is forbidden to be made to a person whom his proper Ordinary has not found suitable.

4. The modes of providing are:

Free conferral by a legitimate Superior;

Institution of a presented person;

Confirmation of an elected person or admission of one postulated;

Election and acceptance of the elected person, if the election does not need confirmation.

— Free Conferral. 1. The right of conferring offices of itself belongs to the Ordinary of the place, in his own territory.

2. Ecclesiastical offices can be validly conferred only on clerics; offices with care of souls only on priests (cc. 153, 154).

Nor are two incompatible offices to be conferred on the same person, that is, offices which cannot be fulfilled at the same time by the same person (c. 156).

3. Conferral cannot of itself be deferred beyond six useful months from notice of the vacancy having been had. Except if, in the prudent judgment of the Ordinary, the circumstances of places and persons demand further delay (cc. 155 and 458).

4. "The provision of any office whatsoever is to be committed to writing" (c. 159).

— Institution of a Presented Person is had when the right of patronage or an apostolic indult gives someone the faculty of presenting or nominating. Cf. below, concerning Benefices.

— Confirmation of an Elected or Postulated Person.

Election is the collegial calling of a suitable person to a vacant office.

From the general rule, it is not to be deferred beyond a useful trimester from notice of the vacancy having been had. Electors are said to have active voice; those eligible, passive voice. All electors must be convoked. With a special constitution or custom saved, convocation is made by the president of the college; the absent cannot send a vote or constitute a procurator; several titles do not confer several votes. No one can give his vote to himself. The ordinary mode of election is scrutiny, through secret votes. The extraordinary mode is quasi-inspiration, when without a prior agreement, all, to a man, pronounce someone elected; and compromise, when electors, by unanimous and written consent, transfer the right of electing for that turn to one or several suitable persons, whether from the body of the college or from outsiders. The election must be proclaimed by the president and immediately intimated to the elected person, who, at least within a useful octiduum from the received intimation, must manifest whether he consents to the election or renounces it. From the election an acquired right arises for the elected person, subordinated to his consent. The election having been accepted, the elected person must within eight days, from the competent Superior, by himself or through another, petition confirmation, which he cannot deny if he has found the elected person suitable and the election was legitimately carried out. Confirmation is to be given in writing, and of itself confers full right.

The election of the Supreme Pontiff is governed solely by the peculiar law of the Constitution Vacante Sede, December 25, 1904 (cc. 160-178).

Postulation is a petition presented to the competent Superior, by which those electing ask that the office be conferred upon a person who labors under a dispensable impediment, for example defect of age.

Postulation must be sent within an octiduum to the Superior who can confirm the election and dispense from the impediment. That Superior can freely reject the postulation. Wherefore, before the postulation is admitted, the one postulated has acquired no right. The postulation having been admitted, the one postulated, within a useful octiduum from the signified admission, must accept or refuse the office. By acceptance he has acquired full right (cc. 179-182).

— Election and Acceptance of the Elected Person. If the election does not need confirmation, the elected person obtains full right by the simple acceptance of his election.

Thus the elected Supreme Pontiff; thus, of itself, the elected Superior General of a religious institute.

— You will ask by what obligation offices and benefices must be conferred on worthy and more worthy persons. Cf. Lehmkuhl, I, 1159 with note.

1. Election or presentation of an unworthy or unsuitable person, whatever office is in question, is always to be charged as grave sin. For it contains a grave abuse concerning a sacred thing. And the provision is null, or at least can be invalidated by sentence of the legitimate Superior.

2. The conferral of an office with care of souls made to one less worthy in preference to one notably more worthy is grave sin, on account of the spiritual utility of which it deprives the faithful. Cf. c. 459, by which the conscience of the Ordinary of the place is gravely burdened, and, concerning bishops, proposition 47 condemned by Innocent XI (Denzinger, 1197). The very presentation of one less worthy to a benefice with care of souls is similarly blameworthy: yet the Superior will of itself be able to confirm one presented who is absolutely worthy, since, below the Pope, no one can take away an acquired right and therefore repel such a person.

3. Concerning a grave obligation of not omitting the more worthy in the conferral of a simple benefice or presentation to such a benefice, it is not established, at least if this acceptance of persons is not too frequent. Compare c. 153, §2 and c. 459, §1.

4. If at any time clerics are called to a benefice through a competition, a much graver reason imposes the election of the more worthy.

For most ascribe a strict right to the more worthy person that he be preferred, so that his being passed over is injurious to him. Yet this does not seem to be established, since a competition is principally instituted not for the utility of the contenders but for the utility of the Church, so that it may have good ministers and pastors. Commutative justice also intervenes less toward the more worthy person when the competition is made not specially for some benefice, but generally for benefices now or later vacant.

5. But who is to be held more worthy is established from many elements. For the estimation of worthiness is made not absolute but relative. Therefore the more worthy is he who, with all things weighed, even what advantage birth and riches can bring, is judged to suit a certain church more. Indeed, in general the utility of the Church must not be neglected. Wherefore in conferring some benefice the collator can omit the more worthy person for whom he reserves another benefice of greater moment for the good of the Church. Cf. c. 459, §2; Prummer, Manuale, q. 77.

— 1. An ecclesiastical office is lost by resignation freely made and accepted by the legitimate Superior.

With a special prohibition saved, it is lawful for a just cause to resign an office; Superiors are admonished not to accept resignations without a just and proportionate cause. The office is vacant from the moment at which the acceptance has been signified to the one resigning.

The resignation of the Supreme Pontiff, without anyone's acceptance, is of itself valid (c. 221).

Besides express resignation, which, for validity, must be made in writing or before two witnesses, there are cases of tacit resignation introduced or admitted by the law itself. They are numbered in c. 188.

2. An office is lost by privation, whether by the law itself or from a decree of the legitimate Superior. The cause can be delict, incapacity, or reason of the common good. Process is required when there is question of an irremovable office or of a parish; no mode of proceeding is necessary in other cases. From the decree of the Ordinary, recourse to the Holy See is given in devolutive effect.

3. An office is also lost by transfer, which only he can carry out who has the right of accepting resignation or of removing from the prior office and promoting to the other. The transfer of a consenting cleric can be made for any just cause; the transfer of an unwilling cleric requires the causes and mode of privation; and the transfer of a pastor is governed by the special law of cc. 2162-2167.

"In transfer, the prior office is vacant when the cleric canonically takes possession of the other, unless something else has been provided by law or prescribed by the legitimate Superior" (c. 194).

— 1. Who may confer them. The Supreme Pontiff can confer all benefices; he reserves to himself the conferral of certain benefices (c. 1435).

The conferral of vacant benefices of itself belongs to the Cardinal in his own title or diaconia; to the Ordinary of the place in his own territory.

2. The mode to be observed. With the limited faculty of imposing pensions saved (c. 1429), a collator lower than the Pope cannot confer benefices with diminution (c. 1440).

3. On whom they are to be conferred. Secular benefices are to be conferred only on seculars, religious benefices only on members of the religion to which the benefices belong (c. 1442).

4. Beginning of possession. No one can take possession of a benefice by his own authority; but legitimate sending into possession is required (cc. 1443, 1444).

5. Two incompatible benefices cannot validly be accepted or retained by the same cleric. Such are those whose burdens he cannot fulfill at the same time, or of which either one suffices for his honest support (c. 1439).

— Some benefices are conferred freely, others are subject to the servitude of the right of patronage.

The right of patronage designates the sum of privileges, with certain burdens, which belong by concession of the Church to Catholic founders of a church, chapel, or benefice, or to their successors. Besides the family coat of arms, a distinct place in the church, and precedence before laymen in processions or similar functions, the chief right of the patron is that he can present a cleric to the vacant church or vacant benefice. One legitimately presented and found suitable, the presentation having been accepted, has a right to canonical institution, which only the Ordinary of the place grants (cc. 1448-1471).

In the future, however, no right of patronage can be validly constituted. In its place spiritual suffrages will be offered to founders, with the faculty of stipulating that the benefice be conferred the first time upon the cleric founder or another cleric whom the founder has designated. And Ordinaries are ordered to strive that, at least in place of the right of presenting, patrons be willing to be content with spiritual suffrages. Cf. cc. 1450, 1451.

Distinct from the right of patronage is an apostolic indult of presenting to a vacant church or to a vacant benefice: we are admonished by canon 1471 that this privilege is of strict interpretation.

— 1. "After a year from any religious profession emitted, parochial benefices are vacant; after three years, the rest" (c. 584).

2. They are vacant through voluntary and accepted resignation. This must be simple and absolute. The Ordinary cannot admit one made for the advantage of others or under a condition which touches the provision of the benefice or the distribution of revenues, unless the benefice is litigated and the resignation is made by one of the litigants for the advantage of the other (c. 1486).

It is required besides that a cleric in sacred orders have elsewhere the things necessary for honest support; and if the benefice was his title of ordination, express mention of this matter and of the substitution of another title of ordination is required (cc. 1484, 1485).

— The exchange of two benefices cannot validly be made unless for a just cause, without detriment to others, with the patron consenting, if there was one, and with the Ordinary of the place consenting.

But an exchange of benefices of which both or either one is reserved to the Holy See cannot be admitted by the Ordinary (c. 1487).

If they are unequal, they cannot be compensated by reservation of fruits or by the furnishing of a thing estimable by price (c. 1488, §1).

Nor can it be made among more than two beneficiaries (c. 1488, §2).

— I. An ecclesiastical office, taken broadly, is any function exercised unto a spiritual end; but strictly, and thus it is of itself taken in law, it is a function: a. stably constituted by divine or human ordinance; b. to be conferred in the mode defined by the canons; c. attributing some power of order or jurisdiction.

Canonical provision or nomination is essential; nor is it validly made or promised before the office is vacant. But it is made through free conferral, with a competition sometimes acceding for discerning suitable persons, which of itself belongs to the Ordinary of the place in his own territory; or through institution of a person presented by a patron or by him to whom a similar faculty has been conferred from indult; or through confirmation of an elected or postulated person. He is elected who, being suitable, is called collegially to a vacant office, whether through secret votes of scrutiny, or through quasi-inspiration, immediately by unanimous consent, or through compromise, when the electors by unanimous and written consent transfer the right of electing to one or several. He is postulated whom the electors, although laboring under a dispensable impediment, wish to have the office conferred upon, a dispensation having been granted. The election having been accepted, the elected person must, within eight days, petition confirmation from the competent Superior, which cannot be denied to one suitable and legitimately elected. Yet the election of the Supreme Pontiff cannot be confirmed; that of a Superior General of a religion of itself does not have to be confirmed: then by the very acceptance full right is acquired. But after the postulation has been freely accepted by the Superior who can confirm the election and dispense from the impediment, the one postulated acquires right by acceptance.

Offices are of themselves to be conferred on him who, with all things considered, is judged more worthy or to be preferred. And he will have sinned gravely who has called an unworthy person. Passing over the more worthy person is not proved grave in conferral or presentation to an office not having care of souls.

An office is lost by accepted resignation, by privation legitimately carried out, and by transfer, which, if the cleric is unwilling, requires the causes and mode of privation.

II. An ecclesiastical benefice is a juridic entity, a moral person, erected in perpetuity by competent ecclesiastical authority, and consisting of a sacred office and the right of perceiving revenues from the endowment annexed to the office.

Benefices are erected by: the Supreme Pontiff; a Cardinal in his own title or diaconia, when they do not belong to an exempt clerical religion; and Ordinaries of places. The endowment can now be contained not only in goods possessed by the church, but also in taxed prestations of the faithful, whether owed or voluntary. A benefice is distinguished as consistorial, which is conferred in consistory, and non-consistorial; secular and religious, according as it belongs only to secular or religious clerics; double or residential, and simple, without the obligation of residing; with care of souls or with the care of souls, or not having care of souls; manual, temporary or removable, and perpetual or not removable.

All benefices can be conferred by the Supreme Pontiff; and some are reserved to him; those not reserved are conferred by the Cardinal in his own title or diaconia, and by the Ordinary of the place in his own territory. Some are conferred freely; others are subject to the right of patronage, which now cannot be constituted in the future, and which attributes certain privileges, with a burden, especially that of presenting a candidate. The beneficiary enjoys the spiritual and temporal rights of his benefice and perceives its revenues, with the burden, from which Cardinals are exempted, of destining superfluous revenues to the poor or to pious causes.

A benefice is vacant after three years from religious profession; indeed after one year, if it was parochial; it is also vacant through accepted resignation, which must be absolute. The very exchange of benefices is subject to various rules to be observed.

I. Question I. Is one who holds a benefice, whether simple or with cure of souls, bound under grave fault to recite the Canonical Hours? Answer. Ecclesiastical benefices are Episcopates, Canonries, Plebanates, Rectorships, Provostships, Dignities, Prestimonies, and a Chaplaincy erected by the Bishop's authority. That all these beneficiaries are bound to pay the divine office was defined in the Lateran Council under Leo X, session 9, "We ordain"; and rightly, because he who freely takes upon himself some benefice ought to undergo its burdens: but the benefice is conferred with the burden of reciting the Canonical Hours; therefore he is bound to pay them. Wherefore a Beneficiary omitting the divine office, if he be initiated into sacred orders, perpetrates a twofold crime, one against Religion, the other against Justice. If he takes the benefice under compulsion of fear, and receives its fruits, he is bound to recite the Canonical Hours; if he is unwilling to receive the fruits, he comes off free from reciting the office.

II. He who holds a benefice reduced to commendam, until it be given to another, or a manual or regular one, is bound to recite the office: because it is a benefice, and he receives its fruits. For it does not matter that it can be revoked at will. For the burden lasts as long as the advantage lasts. If a benefice is given to someone that he play the organ, he ought to recite the office. If only the fruits of the benefice are conferred as a wage, then there is no duty of reciting the office.

III. Question II. Is one who receives prestimonies bound to the Canonical Hours? Answer. Some deny it; but the more probable and more common opinion affirms it, because these prestimonies are portions deducted from the revenues of a benefice, and so true benefices, as St. Pius V declared by motu proprio. If they are reckoned among benefices, they are subject to the burdens of a benefice. Similarly, those who have obtained a Chaplaincy erected by the Bishop's authority, and conferred by him, are bound to pay the Canonical Hours. But if it is neither erected by the Bishop nor conferred by him, he who holds it is free from the burden of paying the office. But if, by its institution, it is not collative, and afterwards is conferred once or twice by the Bishop, it does not thereby become collative, and so the holder is not subject to the recitation of the Hours. On the contrary, if Prelates frequently confer it — that is, at a fitting time for prescription — then those retaining it would be bound to the Canonical Hours, because through this frequent conferral it puts on the character of an ecclesiastical benefice.

IV. He who, before the legitimate age, obtains a collative Chaplaincy by dispensation of the Pontiff, is bound to recite the Canonical Hours; but he must have Masses celebrated by others.

V. Question III. Are pensioners bound to recite the Canonical Hours? Answer. If the pension is altogether lay, and is conferred by the title of a wage for service rendered to the Church, there is no obligation of reciting the office; on the contrary, if it is conferred on a Cleric as Cleric, and some order or tonsure is necessary in the recipient, then the recipient is bound not to the Canonical Hours, but to the little office of the Blessed Virgin, since St. Pius V so decreed, under the burden of restoring the fruits of the pension. But he is exempt from reciting the little office of the Blessed Virgin in whose person the pension is reserved for another's advantage: because only he who enjoys the advantage ought to undergo the burden of reciting the office.

VI. He who obtained a pension by clerical title, if he afterwards contracts marriage, is bound to recite the office of the Blessed Virgin, since it is an ecclesiastical pension, which requires clerical title in the recipient; and the same must be said of one who, after contracting marriage, obtains a pension by clerical title. He who resigns the whole pension is bound to nothing; if he resigns only part of the pension, he remains subject to the burden of reciting the office. A beneficiary Cleric, if he obtains a pension, is not bound to recite the Marian office, provided he recites the Canonical Hours. For the mind of St. Pius V is that one or the other office be recited, but not both.

VII. Question IV. Are Bishops and Cardinals bound to recite the Canonical Hours? Answer. Of Bishops there is no disagreement, but all affirm that they are bound. Of Cardinals Fr. Diana remains undecided, and suspends his judgment. But all the Theologians affirm that Cardinals are bound to pay the divine office, since the Cardinalate is a very great and eminent benefice. If all Beneficiaries are subject to the burden of reciting the office, Cardinals are bound by a stricter right, and undergo this burden on the day on which they receive the red biretta.

VIII. Question V. Are coadjutors of benefices bound to the Canonical Hours? Answer. A coadjutorship is not a benefice, even while some suitable stipend is assigned, because the benefice remains with the titular holder, nor can it be in two persons at once. But if some fruits are assigned to coadjutors, not as a stipend, but by way of a pension, then, like other pensioners, they are bound to recite the little office of the Blessed Virgin. If a coadjutor is given to an absent or sick Parish priest, to hold his place, he is then bound to discharge all the duties of the Parish priest. Finally, if coadjutors have expressly bound themselves, and have entered into a pact with the titular holder, the Pontiff dispensing, then they are bound to the Canonical Hours.

IX. Question VI. Is one who holds a benefice without fruits bound to the Canonical Hours? Answer. If he lacks the fruits by his own fault, he is bound, because he ought not to gather fruit from his own iniquity. That if the benefice lacks any fruit whatever, even then he is bound to the Canonical Hours, Medina, Paludanus, and Torquemada defend: because he who spontaneously accepts a benefice destitute of fruits also spontaneously and freely takes upon himself its burdens. Others deny it. I would say to the Beneficiary: either give up the benefice, or recite the office.

X. If a Beneficiary, against the order of law, does not reside, he is bound to the Canonical Hours. But if, the order of law being kept, he does not reside for a just cause, that even then he is bound to the Canonical Hours, Paludanus, Soto, Torquemada, Ledesma, Navarrus, and Córdoba teach. Leander, however, denies it. If the cause of absence is for the common good of the Church, then perhaps he could be said to be exempt. But if he is absent for his own peculiar advantage, even though an honorable one — for instance for the sake of studies, that he may become a Doctor or Master — he is nonetheless bound to recite the Canonical Hours. Nor may you object that study and the acquisition of knowledge redound to the honor and advantage of the Church: for these evasions are vain. Only in the case of defending the Church, or of protecting her rights, could it be disputed whether the Beneficiary were exempt. And even then, if he could recite the Canonical Hours, I see no solid reason why he should not. If a Beneficiary resigns the fruits to friends or blood-relations, he is beyond doubt subject to the recitation of the divine office. Similarly a Beneficiary who, on account of excommunication, does not receive the fruits, is bound to recite the divine office. But he who unjustly holds a benefice — as through simony, or because he is excommunicated, irregular, or lacking the legitimate age — is not bound to recite the Canonical Hours; but he must give up the benefice and restore the fruits. But he who, having legitimately obtained a benefice, is deprived of it by a judge's sentence for a year or a longer interval, is bound throughout that whole time to pay the Canonical Hours: since he ought not to gather advantage from his own fault.

XI. He who accepts a slender benefice is subject to the obligation of reciting the Canonical Hours, as the common and true opinion teaches. For this burden arises not from the revenues, but from the benefice. Therefore he who wills the benefice, wills by that very fact the burdens of the benefice. If the burden displeases him, let him give up the benefice.

XII. A Beneficiary who, having taken possession of the benefice, is impeded for some time from receiving the fruits, is bound to recite the Canonical Hours. For he who is deprived for some time of receiving the fruits, and probably hopes that he will receive them in due time, has the benefice, and the right of receiving the fruits. Those Beneficiaries are bound to recite the Canonical prayers whose first-year fruits, by statute of the Church or by custom, are distributed among their seniors: both because they voluntarily subject themselves to this burden, and because they have a right to receive the fruits. Yet the Council of Trent, session 24, chapter 14, and St. Pius V, in the constitution Dudum of the year 1570, disapproved this custom as depraved. But when a Beneficiary is impeded by force and fraud from receiving the fruits, without hope of receiving them, he is exempt from the burden of the divine office, and can give up the benefice. If, however, the impediment were not perpetual, nor for a very long time, and the Beneficiary wished to retain the benefice, then he would be bound to the Canonical Hours: because he both possesses the benefice and has hope of receiving the fruits.

XIII. A Beneficiary who, after the benefice has been conferred, is impeded by a lawsuit brought against him from taking possession of the benefice, is not bound to the Canonical Hours. For the burden of reciting the Canonical Hours arises not from the conferral alone, but from the peaceful possession of the benefice. From conferral a right is born, but a mutilated and imperfect one; it is perfected, however, by possession. From this absolute title the burden of the Canonical Hours arises. When, therefore, the beneficiary is in no way the cause why he is impeded from possession, but by a lawsuit brought against him is in very deed impeded from possessing the benefice, he is exempt from the burden, until he attains possession. For so long as possession is under litigation, the benefice, together with its fruits, is a contingent matter; and from a contingent matter a certain debt cannot flow.

XIV. If, on the contrary, a Beneficiary has obtained possession of the benefice and the administration of the fruits, and is afterwards sued in a lawsuit, then he is bound to the Canonical Hours: because then he enjoys the title, the possession, and the administration of the benefice. And this is the common opinion.

XV. Question VII. One who is in doubt about the slenderness of a benefice — is he bound to pay the burden of the Canonical Hours? Answer. Several of the Probabilists deny it. Fr. Tamburini, book 1 on the Decalogue, chapter 3, § 7, verse Beneficiarius, writes this: "We shall say below that a Beneficiary possessing a slender benefice is not obliged, according to a probable opinion, to pay the Canonical Hours. What, then, will happen, if, all things weighed, it is doubted whether a benefice is slender or not? I answer: I think it probable that he is obliged, and equally probable that he is not obliged. Wherefore it is lawful to embrace whichever of these opinions pleases you." It is worthwhile to set before the eyes of readers, even in this very Compendium, the sweetest fruits of Probabilism. "To embrace whichever of these opinions pleases you." If one is true, the other must needs be false. It is lawful for you, then, most sweetly to sip the poison of falsehood according to your inclination. But these things must be bewailed with tears rather than served up for mockery. Hence let the reader gather how true is what I said above: namely, that Probabilism is — saving a better judgment — antievangelical, because it establishes as a system that the use of falsity is licit, which must needs be found in one or the other of contrary propositions. The most benign Probabilist Leander follows Tamburini's doctrine. He who has two benefices, each of which is so slender that it does not suffice, but both together suffice for an honorable sustenance, is bound to the Canonical Hours, as all affirm. But those who have several rich benefices are bound to pay not two, but a single divine office. If, however, a Beneficiary unjustly holds several benefices, then several Theologians teach that he must recite several divine offices. I myself would say that such a Beneficiary must retain one benefice, and give up the rest. If a Beneficiary is a Priest, and has several benefices, does he perpetrate several sins if he omits the office? Not a few Theologians affirm it. But it is more probable to me that he commits only one sin against Justice, and another against Religion.

I. QUESTION I. What is a pension, and who can by right impose it? ANSWER. It is a right of perceiving some fruits from a benefice granted to someone, whether for life or for a time. One is lay, and another clerical, founded in a spiritual title, ordained to a spiritual end, and which supposes an Order in the receiver. Another they call mixed, which is given either to a poor cleric, or to an aged parish priest for maintenance. The Roman Pontiff alone can adjoin these pensions upon benefices. Bishops can impose upon the beneficiaries themselves, from a just cause, the burden of paying pensions: and because they do not burden the benefices but the persons, pensions of this kind cease at the death of the pensioner.

II. QUESTION II. What causes are required, that pensions may lawfully be imposed? ANSWER. Three are assigned by right. 1. That the resigners have, the benefice being dismissed, maintenance whereon to live; 2. There is the reason of equality in the exchange of benefices, as when a richer benefice is exchanged with a slender one; 3. There is the occasion of ending a suit.

III. A pension must needs be moderate, regard being had to the benefice upon which it is imposed; so that there always remain to the beneficiary that part of the fruits which suffices for his congruous sustentation. Wherefore it is never to be reckoned that the Pontiff wills to burden a benefice against the rule predetermined by Trent, session 24, chapter 13 On Reformation. For the valid imposition of a pension the beneficiary's consent is commonly required.

IV. QUESTION III. Who are capable of a clerical pension? ANSWER. A lay pension can be conferred upon any layman, even a woman, if the conditions be present. But a clerical one can be delivered only to those who have been initiated at least with the first tonsure. The age necessary for a pension is fourteen years. The excommunicated and the irregular are capable of no pension. The illegitimate also are incapable of a pension.

V. A beneficiary ought to pay a pension; he is nevertheless not bound to pay his predecessor's pensions, as seems to me the more probable. A pensioner cannot dispose at his pleasure of the goods of a clerical pension, but is bound to distribute the superfluous to pious uses, whatever some may say to the contrary.

VI. The burdens of a pensioner are: 1. The recitation of the Office of the Blessed Virgin; 2. The payment of the papal tithe, and of the subsidy for the repair of the Church, and to serve the Church according to his measure. What? Shall pensioners devour the pious revenues of the Church, that they may flow with idleness, that they may play, that they may serve little matrons? Pensioners ought to manifest the pensions and benefices obtained before. But this I leave to be resolved from the rules of the Chancery.

VII. A pension is extinguished: 1. By the death of the pensioner; 2. If a cleric be enrolled in the army, and being admonished does not forsake it; 3. By his profession made in some Religion; 4. If he contract matrimony; 5. By promotion to the episcopate; 6. If he refuse openly to wear the tonsure and the clerical habit; 7. If he himself remit the pension; unless he had been ordained under the title of the pension, in which case he cannot remit it without the bishop's authority. To Cardinals alone, and to a few others, the privilege of transferring pensions is wont to be granted.

VIII. AN ADMONITION. Hitherto I have culled a few things concerning pensions out of those which the canonists commonly dispute. The origin of pensions and their increase would have to be set forth. But this is not of this place and time. This I admonish in passing, that the revenues bestowed by the pious faithful upon the Church are for the maintenance of the ministers, of the clergy, and of the poor of that place in which the Church is. If the benefices be burdened with pensions, they cannot distribute alms. Never did the faithful understand that their goods should go to the feeding of strangers, far less to the fostering of their luxury, display, and idleness. Only the common good of the Church and true utility can be a just reason for giving moderate pensions to those alone who are not of the magnates and matrons, but well deserving of the Church, and who continually labour for the defence and increase of the Church. But let it be enough to have indicated these things.

IX. QUESTION IV. Of how many kinds is a coadjutorship? ANSWER. Twofold: one temporary and revocable; the other perpetual and irrevocable. The first is assigned to an aged parish priest not able to perform his own office, to whom is given a coadjutor who may supply his place, a congruous stipend being assigned out of the fruits of the benefice. A perpetual coadjutorship with the right of succeeding in the benefice is forbidden by Trent to be granted, session 25, chapter 7 On Reformation, in these words: In coadjutorships also with future succession let the same be observed in future, that they be permitted to no one in any benefices whatsoever. That the Supreme Pontiff alone can sometimes, the cause being known and necessity urging, grant a coadjutorship with future succession, the Council likewise declares. A coadjutorship is not a benefice. Coadjutors with future succession are bound, the principal commanding, to serve the prebend and canonry. When the letters of coadjutorship are expedited, if the principal has died, the succession is null.

I. QUESTION I. What age is required in those to be promoted to ecclesiastical benefices? ANSWER. Concerning the one to be elected to the papacy the sacred canons decree nothing. For the episcopate the 30th year completed is required; in France the 27th year suffices. The age required for canonries and other dignities is defined by Trent, session 24, chapter 12, and is known to all, so that it needs no explanation.

II. QUESTION II. What knowledge and probity of morals is required in those to be promoted to benefices? ANSWER. Of knowledge it has already been said above, and it pleases me only to repeat that the knowledge of holy Scripture, and chiefly of the New Testament, is in the highest degree necessary. From this most salutary fount ought directors of souls first of all to draw the rules of Christian profession. Hence they ought first to learn what is the spirit of the Christian life, what the form of morals, what the sanctity of life. Then let them read Trent and its Catechism and the other graver theologians. Bishops ought seriously to examine these men first upon holy Scripture, then upon Trent. But concerning the morals and probity of those to be promoted to the government of souls several things have already been said elsewhere. But our writings avail nothing unless bishops be learned and upright, who may be able to judge for themselves; or unless they be at least endowed with a serious mind and a prudent judgment, by which they can discern the true from the false, flatterers from upright men. I esteem more highly a prudent, mature, and upright bishop who is skilled in the spirit of Christianity delineated in the Gospel with a most simple pencil, than very many laureates in either law, forestalled and full of various petty opinions and sophistical disputations.

III. QUESTION III. Whether it be lawful to desire the government of souls? ANSWER. St. Thomas, Quodlibet 2, article 8, writes here: He who desires a prelacy is either proud or unjust. For it is an injustice that a man should will to receive for himself more of honour, or of power, or of other goods, unless he be worthy of greater. But that a man should assume that he is more worthy of a prelacy than all those over whom he receives the prelacy, is of pride and presumption. Whence it is plain that whosoever desires a prelacy is either unjust or proud. And therefore no one ought to arrive at a prelacy by his own desire, but by the judgment of God, according to that of the Apostle to the Hebrews 5: No man taketh the honour to himself, but he that is called by God as Aaron was. See what he has, 2-2, question 100, article 5, reply 5; likewise in Book 4, distinction 25, question 3, article 3, reply 4.

IV. QUESTION IV. Is it lawful to seek a vacant Church? ANSWER. St. Raymond in his Summa, Book 1, title 1, § 7, writes these things: I distinguish, saving a better judgment, that a man cannot seek for himself a dignity or another benefice having the care of souls annexed. And in this I feel with Hugh. But a simple benefice, if he needs it and feels himself worthy, he can seek without fear of the sin of simony.

V. St. Antoninus, part 2, title 1, chapter 4, § 4, has these things: If a man hold out prayers for himself, for obtaining a dignity or benefice or Church having the care of souls, such prayers induce simony according to Hugh, Raymond, and Thomas, even however worthy he might be: because … by the very fact that he thrusts himself forward, he seems presumptuous and ambitious, and consequently unworthy. And the reason is, according to Thomas in his Quodlibets, because no one can worthily exercise the care of souls outside grace or with mortal sin, because in doing those things which pertain to the care he will sin mortally: but no one can be outside mortal sin, if he be presumptuous and simoniacal. Whence no one ought to assume the honour to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron.

VI. It is nevertheless lawful to compete for an examination according to the rule prescribed by Trent, if, the counsel of prudent men going before, you subject yourself to the examination, that you may obey the Church calling, and may with humble obedience subject yourself to the judgment of your Pastor. For the rest, if the appetite for a benefice lie hidden, and ambition creep secretly, the competition itself can be infected with vice. Wherefore, before you expose yourself to this contest, the counsel of a man truly upright and learned is always to be sent before. Let your intention be sincere, of labouring in the vineyard of the Lord and of furnishing worship to God. Question your conscience, weigh seriously the course of your life, your fortitude, your zeal, and your works. And unless you wish willingly to deceive yourself, your conscience as judge will pronounce a right judgment. If the signs of vocation appear, trust not in your own strength but in the help of God. Extremes are to be guarded against in this most grave business also. Do not resist a superior commanding; do not thrust yourself forward of your own accord.

VII. It is opportune that those to be promoted to benefices be of the bosom of the Church of that place in which the benefice is. In several kingdoms laws obtain which prescribe this. Which laws, as being just, are to be observed and imitated, unless a peculiar circumstance stand in the way. When founders have determined that the benefices are to be conferred upon blood-relations, they ought to be conferred upon the nearer, on the hypothesis that he be worthy. Spurious and illegitimate persons are excluded. The degree of nearness ought to be taken from the civil law. Foundlings, or those exposed on account of their parents' want, are commonly held for legitimate. Those bound by the greater excommunication, by suspension, by interdict, or by irregularity are unfit for benefices. Similarly neophytes, or those recently converted to the faith, are reputed unfit.

VIII. QUESTION V. In what ways can benefices be acquired? ANSWER. In three ways: 1. By a patron's presentation and the institution following; 2. By election and confirmation; 3. By free collation. For the right of patronage affords the right of nominating or presenting someone to be instituted in a vacant ecclesiastical benefice. It is acquired in three ways, whether lay or ecclesiastical: 1. By foundation, when someone grants ground for a church to be built; 2. By construction, when someone at his own expense builds a church; 3. By endowment, when someone bestows sufficient revenues upon a church and its ministers. But that a man may possess the title of a right of patronage, he ought to afford certain documents, as Trent determined, session 25, chapter 9.

IX. To ecclesiastical patrons six months are granted within which they ought to present candidates; to secular ones four. To mixed patrons, of seculars and ecclesiastics, six. This half-year or four-month period is reckoned from the day of certain notice of the vacancy had. If a suit arise between the patrons and the bishop, the days do not run, as authors commonly teach. No one can present himself. Those to be presented ought to have the conditions which render a cleric apt for a benefice.

X. Institution is the concession of a Church or benefice made by the authority of the bishop or Ordinary, not to any cleric whatsoever, but solely to him who has been nominated or presented by a patron. A presented cleric is bound within the term of law to exhibit personally the document of presentation, as Trent determines, session 24, chapter 18 On Reformation. When several clerics are nominated by several patrons, the worthier ought to be preferred.

XI. Election is the canonically made calling of some man to a Church vacant of its pastor, to be confirmed by the superior's authority. If the election does not require confirmation, it is called collation, not election. Elective benefices are patriarchates, primacies, archbishoprics, bishoprics, archdeaconries, abbacies, priorates, and so forth. Formerly the election of pastors belonged to the clergy and the people. A different discipline now obtains.

I. QUESTION I. Whether the worthier, the worthy being passed over, ought to be elected to ecclesiastical benefices? ANSWER. He is called worthier who is more useful for the ministry. This worthiness is to be gathered not from knowledge alone, nor from probity alone, but from all the endowments seriously weighed; and judgment is to be formed which of those to be elected is more useful for governing the evangelical flock. The Council of Trent, session 24, chapter 1 On Reformation, teaches that electors, communicating in others' sins, sin mortally, unless they diligently take care that those be set over churches whom they themselves have judged worthier and more useful to the Church, and not indeed by prayers, or human affection, or the suggestions of the ambitious, but by their merits requiring it.

II. Fr. Thomas Tamburini, Book 8, chapter 4, § 4, no. 5, writes these things: “I assert secondly that all benefices — whether greater, as a cardinalate and bishopric, or lesser, as a canonry and chaplaincy; whether having the care of souls, as an abbacy and parish, or not having it, as the aforesaid canonry and chaplaincy, and the other benefices which are named simple — abstracting from those which are given in competition (of which presently at no. 14) — I assert, I say, that it is enough for avoiding mortal sin if they be conferred upon the worthy and fit, although the worthier or the most worthy be passed over.”

III. Fr. Filliucci, tract 41, in the Appendix, chapter 4, no. 181: “I say fifthly that the opinion which reckons it enough to elect the worthy to benefices which are not given in competition is probable, from Trent, session 7, chapter 5 On Reformation, saying: Let them be conferred upon the worthy; and from the universal estimation in the creation of beneficiaries, cardinals, bishops, abbots, and so forth, who, if they be held among the worthy, the elector and the election are praised. But it would not commonly be praised, if it were evil and a mortal sin.”

IV. These things I have transcribed, that it may be more explored and more discovered by all whither the genius of certain casuists tends, and that they do not fear to elude the most clear words of Trent. What they are about to do when the canons and laws are not so perspicuous, let the wise judge. Fr. Tamburini in the same place, no. 8, adds these things: “Since immediately before, the Council seems to be content with the worthy, either first it seems by this to wish to signify by worthier nothing else than the worthiness of those to be elected, the comparative being taken for the positive; or secondly by a less proper locution it sets down worthier, that it may exclude the unworthy … or lastly, thirdly, it speaks when there is a competition.”

V. The Venerable Innocent XI condemned this opinion of Tamburini, proposition 47, which is of this kind: When the Council of Trent said that those communicating in others' sins sin mortally, who promote to churches any others than those whom they have themselves judged worthier and more useful to the Church, the Council either first seems by this to wish to signify by "worthier" nothing else than the worthiness of those to be elected, the comparative being taken for the positive; or secondly, by a less proper locution it sets down "worthier," that it may exclude the unworthy; or lastly it speaks thirdly, when there is a competition.

Dignities and Offices, as the Holy Doctor observes in the Speculum, cap. 3, are of two kinds: some are Ecclesiastical, others Secular. Again, of the Ecclesiastical, some have annexed care of souls, such as Bishoprics and Prelacies (praepositurae); and others are simple benefices.

Distributive justice intervenes in the distribution of Ecclesiastical benefices, and consequently the opposite vice in a bad distribution: so judge D. Bonaventure, loco citato, art. 2, Valencia, disput. 5, quaest. 7, puncto 2, and others; for these benefices are not proper debts owed to anyone by his merits, but are compared with all the men of the community, so that a worthy man may be taken from among them, and among the worthy the worthier may be chosen, if need be. Yet I would not deny that Commutative justice also intervenes, which gives stipends of tithes even to the ministering benefice-holder, etc., as is intimated in Num. 18, Luke 10, 1 Cor. 9, 1 Tim. 5. Add that in the cap. finalia, extra de rescriptis, it is laid down: a benefice is not given except on account of an office, and even before the distribution one looks at whether he has merits proportionate adequately; but here it does not stop, but proceeds to compare his merits with the merits of others; and thus, among many compared, one is chosen. Hence it is called Election, as it were the selection of one from among many, as the Holy Doctor proves in book 1, dist. 40, art. 2, quaest. 2, from that text of Cant. 5: My Beloved is chosen out of thousands.

It is certain, moreover, that in elections to benefices it is necessary that a worthy man be chosen. So testifies Innocent III with the General Lateran Council, in cap. Grave nimis, which the Holy Doctor often urges in his treatises on Poverty. Hence the Council of Trent, cap. 1 de Reformatione, declares that there is no election to benefices — those which in Cathedral Churches have annexed the office of reading Sacred Scripture — in an unworthy person, or one less suitable, and who cannot himself fulfill that office.

The question is a grave one: whether they are bound to choose not only worthy men, but even the worthier.

The first opinion is that it is enough to choose a worthy man. So Hugo and the Apparatus seem to think, on cap. Licet ergo, § quaest. 1, and on cap. Monasterium 16, quaest. 7, and others, as cited by Covarruvias, Relectio on the rule Peccatum non dimittitur, nisi restituatur ablatum, part. 2, § 7 — who nevertheless says they spoke in the external forum.

Very many have followed this view, if any of the following conditions is present. First, when the excess is not notable; second, when the worthier man is of another house, or of another Church, or a stranger; third, when the greater part wishes to elect the less worthy man, then the lesser part may give him their suffrage, even if they had sworn to elect the worthier; fourth, when another unworthy man is elected, if he does not give his suffrage to this less worthy one, and the worthier would have to be excluded on account of the fewness of votes; fifth, when the worthier man presides over another Church and would have to be postulated; sixth, when the worthier man is entangled in external affairs, or does not reside as much as the less worthy; seventh, if the less worthy is already experienced and eloquent in the Prelacy, and the worthier inexperienced; eighth, when it is not free for the collator or the institutor to confer upon another, or to institute another, than the one presented to him by the Patron; ninth, if a benefice, by an institution confirmed by the Church, is to be given to someone from a certain Family or township; tenth, if the founder of a parochial benefice presents a worthy man, and not the worthier; for this is permitted him. Eleventh, when someone resigns a benefice to a worthy man, passing over a worthier one. Finally, a lay patron may elect and present a less worthy man, leaving aside a worthier. You will find all this in Valetus, de differentia utriusque fori, v. electio, diffic. 1; Ioan. de Cruz, in direct., part. 1, punct. 7, quaest. 7, art. 2, dub. 9, concl. 2; Riccius, part. 3, decis. 214, num. 3; Sylvius, 2. 2, quaest. 63, art. 2, quaeritur 4, concl. 3; Tanner, 2. 2, diffic. 4, quaest. 8, dub. 2, num. 17; Lessius, lib. 2, cap. 34, disp. 13, num. 58; Villalobos, in summa, Tom. 2, tract. 8, diffic. 4, num. 6. See also Malderus, 2. 2, tract. 9, c. 2, dub. 7; Diana, part. 2, tract. 5, resol. 110; Bassaeus, V. electio, num. 10; Lezana, tract. 1, cap. 15, num. 14; Bonagratia, V. electio, num. 161.

Far more do they assert that it is licit for a Patron to present a less worthy man, excluding the worthier — with regard to a lay Patron: Lambertus, de iure patron., part. 1, lib. 2, quaest. 10, art. 3, num. 17; Riccius, in decis., part. 3, decis. 306; Belletus, in disquis. clerical., part. 1, § 4, num. 50; Ioan. Valetus, in differ. utriusque fori, v. Electio, num. 1 — and Ledesma calls this opinion probable, summa, part. 2, tract. 7, cap. 2, conclus. 7, diffic. 9; Bannes, 2. 2, quaest. 63, art. 2, dub. 4; and most recently Garzias follows it in its terms, de benef., tract. 2, part. 7, cap. 16, num. 19; Petrus Navarrus, de restit., lib. 2, cap. 2, num. 150. Diana does not reject it, part. 1, tract. 15, resol. 37.

SENTENTIA, however — the view holding that one is bound in conscience to choose the worthier man for any Ecclesiastical benefice whatever — is expressed by D. Bonaventure in the Speculum animae, part. 3, where he says: Around the conferring of Ecclesiastical benefices I then understand acception of persons to have the character of mortal sin, when an Ecclesiastical benefice is conferred upon someone unworthy, knowingly with the worthy passed over, whether out of regard for kinship, or even for a temporal benefice, or for spiritual affection; Likewise, too, to elect a rich man to a dignity of the Church, contemptuously passing over a poorer but better-instructed man. Hence Augustine, on that text: "Do not in acception of persons," etc., James 2: Who (he says) would endure it, if someone should elect a rich man to a seat of honor in the Church, contemptuously passing over a poorer man, better instructed and holier? But if the benefices are temporal, in them acception of persons can be mortal sin in the article of necessity, when someone is bound to confer a benefice by precept, and the benefice is given to him who does not need it, by reason of a particular love; and he who is in straitened necessity is despised. Such is the word of St. Bonaventure.

D. Thomas followed him, here, 2. 2, quaest. 63, art. 2, and in quodlibet, quaest. 7 and 8; Alexander of Hales, 2. part., quaest. 136, memb. 2; Lyranus, on cap. 21 of John; Richard and Maior, in 4 Sent., dist. 15; Adrian, quaest. de restitut.; Covarruvias, relect. on the Rule Peccatum, part. 2, § 7, num. 4; Soto, lib. 3 de Iustitia, quaest. ultim., art. 2; Valencia, disput. 5, quaest. 7, puncto 2; Caspensis, Tract. 18, disput. 2, sect. 2; Fagundez, lib. 8 on the eighth precept, cap. 22, alleging very many who constantly affirm that even the Supreme Pontiff, electing less worthy men with the worthier left aside, sins lethally. These are Decius, in cap. constitutus, 2, § 7, num. 4; Cajetan, 2. 2, quaest. 63, art. 2; D. Thomas de Salonis, ibidem; Navarrus, de orat., Miscell. 38; Azorius, part. 2, lib. 6, cap. 15, quaestio 1; Reginaldus, tract. 3, num. 19; Sayrus, decis. 22 de poenitent.; Riccius, in collectan., part. 4, coroll. 93; Stephanus Gratianus, decis. 97; Raudensis, decis. 25; Barbosa, in remiss. ad Trident., sess. 24, cap. 8, numero 27; Goncales, regul. 8, glossa 4, numero 128; Rodriquez, in summa, part. 1, cap. 106; Cardinal Zapata, de provis. benefic., part. 2, num. 5, fol. 53; Lessius, lib. 2 de Iust., cap. 34, num. 64 — and Tanner says it is the common view, disp. 4, quaest. 8, num. 14; Bassaeus, V. electio, num. 11.

Indeed, not only in Pastoral benefices but even in the other simple Prebends they expressly deny that it is licit to elect a less worthy man: Vasquez, opusc. de benef., cap. 2, dub. 8, num. 78, and, as regards the more distinguished benefices, Rebellius subscribes, de obligatione Iustitiae, part. 1, l. 3, quaest. 9, num. 22; Salon, quaest. 3, art. 2; and the others cited above by Fagundez.

THOUGH on this point Reginaldus holds the opposite, Tom. 2, tract. 3, cap. 15, n. 179; Aragon, loco cit.; Lessius, l. 2, cap. 34, dub. 14, num. 66; and others cited by Fagundez, saying it is not deadly if done only once or twice; and universally the opposite is held by Navarrus, de restit., l. 2, cap. 2, num. 172; Ledesma, in summa, part. 2, tract. 7, cap. 2, concl. 7, diffic. 15; Gutierrez, can. quaest., lib. 2, cap. 11, num. 12; Gazia, de Benefic., Tom. 2, part. 7, cap. 16, num. 16; Diana, part. 1, tract. 15, resol. 38.

I ASSERT, with the sentiment of D. Bonaventure, that the worthier man is always owed election in conscience for any Ecclesiastical benefice whatever.

It is PROVED by D. Bonaventure, first, on cap. 21 of John, where Christ the Lord, about to elect the Supreme Pontiff, examines Peter three times: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these? The Holy Doctor discusses this passage, collat. 99 on 21 John, finding Anthony of the Prelates in those words. For the first part: Simon, is interpreted as Hearing, or Obedient; for he who wishes to preside over others and to command must first have learned to be subject and to obey. The other part is Ioannis, or Ione; for he is called in Matth. 16 Simon Bar-iona, that is, son of the Dove, on account of the simple innocence of his life. But this name was changed into Cephas, which signifies head, κεφαλή, as the Holy Doctor says, so that he might have the eminence of perfection and holiness such as is owed to a Head, in whose figure Saul was good, and better than he was not in all Israel, and from his shoulder and upward he overtopped with his whole head, as is said in 1 Reg. 10. Yet let him keep humility together with loftiness. Hence he calls him Simon, by which name he was called while as a poor man he toiled at fishing, so that he might always remember his former state; for so too it was said to Saul, 1 Reg. 15: When thou wast a little one in thine own eyes, wast thou not made the head of the tribes of Israel? Now in the head science flourishes; for thus he must be most learned. Hence God threatens him, Osee 4: Because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will reject thee, that thou shalt not exercise the priesthood for me, etc. Straightway Christ says: Lovest thou me more than these? to show that he ought to be more eminent and outstanding than the rest in Charity, so as to fulfill the office of Pastor most perfectly, even to offer his throat and expose himself to the slaughter of six hundred beasts for the safety of the flock. Hence D. Augustine says, Tract. 123 on John: If thou lovest me: feed my sheep, not thine own; seek my glory, not thine own; my gains, not thine own.

Of this also Isidore, Etymologiae, lib. 7, cap. 9. Hence Augustine says that to love is: To love God gratuitously, and not to expect other goods besides him. But in what manner he ought to be loved, he had said above, cap. 14: If any man loves me, he will keep my word. For, as Dionysius says, de divinis nominibus, cap. 4: the divine love is ecstatic, not allowing its lovers to remain in themselves; and because to love God in this way is to feed the sheep of the Lord, which he redeemed with his own blood, therefore there follows here: Feed my lambs, or sheep; that is, if thou lovest me, feed them, as D. Augustine, cited above, says: Feed with the word, feed with example, feed also with the fruits of the holy prayers, as St. Bernard says, epist. 101. More particularly, in what way the sheep ought to be fed spiritually, the same Bernard says, serm. 76 in Cant.: The Pastor of sheep ought to be in the pastures of the Scriptures, as in the inheritance of the Lord. And this, so that precepts may be imposed upon hard and carnal souls; the burdens of dispensations upon the weak; sound counsels and strong exhortations upon the healthy. Such is his word. Such Pastores the Lord promised, Jer. 3: I will give you Pastors who shall feed you with knowledge and doctrine.

THEREFORE in figure the ancient Fathers fed sheep before they were called to Scepters, as Moses, Exod. 2; David, 1 Reg. 16; and others; wherefore Christ, Jo. 10: I am the good Shepherd. Hence he wished first to be revealed to shepherds, as D. Ambrose notes in the Homily on the Nativity of the Lord. Hence Peter himself, 1 cap. 5: Feed the flock which is among you. Hence the reproach: Woe to the Pastors of Israel, who fed themselves, Ezech. 34. And Thren. 1 he laments: Her Princes are become like rams that find no pasture; and Joel 1: The herds have groaned, because they have no pasture, etc. Such is the word of the Seraphic Doctor, collat. 50 on cap. 21 of John, cited above.

HENCE in a grave commentary he closes with an Epiphonema, and here there stands open what is necessary for the successors of Peter, namely a fervid and true love of God, so that they love God, not themselves, and the Divine honor, not their own, and Divine gains, not their own. And perhaps first he says: Feed my lambs, twice; and once: Feed my sheep. For by lambs are signified the simple, the weak, and the poor, who ought to be fed with a twofold pasture, namely bodily and spiritual. By sheep are signified the stronger and richer, who ought to be fed with spiritual pasture. Hence the Gloss: To feed sheep is to provide, if need be, earthly succor to subjects, to furnish examples of virtues: as the Pastor feeds his flock: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and shall take up the young in his bosom, Isa. 40. Therefore he who succeeds to Peter in the pastoral office, and does not love God, nor feed the sheep, is an Idol, not a Pastor — O Pastor, and idol, leaving the flock, Zach. 11. But I resume the name Cephas, Xefali, head, and send it back to that discourse on election, in which I have adapted the Anatomy of the human head in every way to a Rector, or to the Head of some Church.

It is PROVED secondly by the Holy Doctor, from the Fathers, lib. 3 of the Pharetra, cap. 38, all with one mouth approving it.

D. GREGORY, lib. 25 Moral., cap. 11, writes thus: Because we close our eyes to things internal and invisible, and are fed by things visible, we often venerate a man not for what he himself is, but for what surrounds him; and since we do not look at what he is, but what he can be, in acception of persons we are led not by persons, but by things adhering to them. Read what he pursues there.

D. JEROME, on cap. 2 of Malachi: Among all the sins of Priests, this is noted as if the greatest, that they consider not causes but persons, and despising the just poor man, honor the unjust rich. The authority of D. Jerome is also cited, 8, quaest. 1, cap. Licet ergo.

He also, lib. 2 on Isa., cap. 3, in the Gloss, on the words: "Why do ye crush," sharply rebukes thus: Our Princes, while they publicly accuse and confound poor delinquents, make not even a gesture at the rich sinning worse, in whose houses is the rapine of the poor, while they treasure up to themselves the goods of the Church and abuse for their pleasures what is given for the sustenance of the poor, and reserve to themselves, or distribute to their kinsmen, and make of others' want their own riches, or those of their own; and lib. 3, on cap. 6 of Amos: Whoever in judging is led by kinship, or friendship, or on the contrary by hostile hatred or enmities, perverts the judgment of Christ, which is justice.

D. AMBROSE, lib. 2 de officiis, cap. 24: Far be grace the cause; let merits be discerned: let there be nothing of opinion; nay, it weighs upon Faith, if in judging thou favorest the more powerful, accusest the cause of the inferior, or the innocent poor man, and excusest the rich man guilty of fault.

ST. BERNARD, lib. 2 de consideratione: Think it no small guilt of sin, if thou takest the faces of sinners, and judgest not rather the causes of merits. Here he addresses the Supreme Pontiff Eugenius III.

The same St. Leo asserts, epist. 84, cited in cap. Metropolitano, dist. 63, where he commands that, the Metropolitan being deceased, the best man be substituted and ordained.

AND Innocent III, cap. unica extra, prescribes that Ecclesiastical benefices ought not to be dispensed out of carnal affection, but by discreet judgment to the more suitable person. The same is clear from the letter of Pope Siricius to all the Orthodox, Tomo 1 of the Concil., and from the Council of Basel, where in the form of the oath exacted from electors it is prescribed (he says): I will elect the worthier.

FINALLY in the Council of Trent, sess. 24, in the Decree de Reform., cap. 1, it is asserted that the Electors of Bishops, communicating in the sins of others, sin mortally, unless they take care to prefer those whom they themselves judge worthier and more useful to the Church, etc., by reason of their demanding merits. Regarding this, Clem. VIII, decreto Reform. Regular., and Urban VIII, demand before elections the oath of electing the worthier.

It is PROVED by reason by both Holy Doctors. Whenever a less worthy man is preferred to a worthier one for a benefice, he must be preferred on account of irrelevant conditions, whether of friendship, of kinship, or of other similar things; but this is to accept persons: Therefore. This argument St. Bonaventure brings, in the Speculum, loco citato, and in the Pharetra, from the Fathers alleged above.

It is PROVED fourthly by the Holy Doctor, on Luke 12, in those words: Who, thinkest thou, is the faithful and wise dispenser, where he says: He calls prelates dispensers: So let a man account us, as the ministers of Christ, and dispensers of the mysteries of God. Such faithful men it is difficult to find. Hence there: Now it is sought among the dispensers, that some faithful one be found; namely faithful and prudent in election. Hence Prov. 27: Be diligent to know the countenance of thy cattle, and consider thy flocks. Few are intent upon the utility of the flock; hence Ezech. 34: Woe to the Pastors of Israel.

Consider the Holy Doctor, who infers that these are dispensers, not lords; and consequently cannot dispense goods except to the intention of the Lord; and he brings the example of Joseph, who was the best Dispenser in the land of Egypt, Genes. 41. Hence he pronounces Woe upon them, who in elections do not conduct themselves faithfully and prudently, providing most excellently, as far as can be done, for the ministers of the Church.

Fagundez uses this argument, num. 2, where he also observes, with Cotta de memorabilibus, V. Papa, pag. 655, and D. Ambrose de dignitate Sacerdotali, and D. Gregory, homil. 9 in Evangelia, that the Supreme Pontiff is not excluded from this obligation; nay, he is bound the more, the greater and more universal the administration with which he is endowed. This the Holy Doctor also shows in the place cited, and Pinellus, lib. de rescindendis vend. p. p., cap. 2, num. 30. Nay, D. Bernard de considerando uses this very medium.

By these arguments it is shown that the same must be observed even in simple benefices; for these too are goods falling under dispensation, not under free jurisdiction. Wherefore the reason is not taken from the side of the benefice as it is relative to the spiritual good of the people, but as in itself it is a good for the recipient, and a good of the Republic, or of the Church, which the faithful dispenser is bound to confer to the mind of the Lord, without acception of persons; and thus St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, and others spoke universally, as Diana saw, p. p., tract. 15, resol. 38, with Bannes, 2. 2, quaest. 63, art. 2, dub. 5.

NOR do they adequately extricate themselves, with others there cited by Diana, by inferring that all future Prelates will be in an evil state: For they often elect less worthy men.

I SAY, indeed: Let them look to themselves; yet not all are of that kind.

He urges secondly: For the Council of Trent commands that only Pastoral benefices be conferred upon the worthier, and consequently does not seem to include Canonicates, which in sess. 24, cap. 12 it admonishes should be conferred, if it can be conveniently done, at least in part, upon Doctors or even Licentiates in Theology: Therefore it does not compel that they be conferred upon the worthier.

It is CONFIRMED from practice: For Pastoral benefices are conferred by concursus; not so the rest. Nor do the Laws speak of these so clearly.

But truly, as is gathered from what has been said, all simple benefices too are included in this prohibition, as is clear to the reader of the testimonies. Nor does the Council of Trent proceed by mere admonition in these benefices; but in sess. 22, cap. 2 it commands that: Whosoever hereafter shall be assumed to Cathedral Churches, he not only be fully endowed with birth, age, morals, and life, and other things required by the sacred Canons; but also constituted previously in Sacred Order, at least for a space of six months. The instruction regarding which matters, if their knowledge is nothing or recent, let it be taken from the Legates, or Nuncios of the provinces, of the Apostolic See, or from his Ordinary, and he failing, from the neighboring Ordinaries; and in knowledge, besides these, let him so excel that he can satisfy the necessity of the office imposed upon him. And therefore let him previously in a university of studies have been meritoriously promoted Master, or Doctor, or Licentiate in Sacred Theology, or in Canon law, etc. But if he be a regular, let him have a like attestation from the Superiors of his Religion. And all the aforesaid, from whom the instruction or attestation is to be taken, let them be bound to report these things faithfully and gratuitously: otherwise let them know that their consciences are gravely burdened, and they will have God and their Superiors as avengers: This the holy Council decrees under grave obligation of conscience.

¶ Since these things are so, much more must this be asserted in Pastoral benefices, as nearly all assert, cited by Fernandez in Exam. Theol., part. 4, cap. 4, § 1; Castellinus, Tract. de elect. can., cap. 9; Molfesius, in summa, tom. 1, tract. 6, tit. de benefic., num. 6 and 61; Turrianus, 2. 2, tom. 2, disp. 22, dub. 2; and others whom Barbosa cites and follows, in collect. prael., 1, l. 1, tit. 6, cap. 19, num. 4; Vega, in summa, Tom. 1, cap. 109; Malderus, 2. 2, tract. 9, cap. 2, disp. 7; Vasquez, opusc. de benefic., cap. 2, § 3, dub. 1 and 8; Azorius, part. 2, l. 6, cap. 15, quaestio 1, 8 and 9 — all of whom pronounce the transgression of this precept mortal. Whatever the Gloss on cap. licet erg., 8, quaest. 1, and on cap. Monasterium, dist. 16, quaest. 7, and cap. 2 de offic. custodis, and cap. 3 de iure patron., with Rocchus, de iure patron. et honorificum, quaest. 15, toward the end, may assert to the contrary; Pedrazza, in summa prax., tr. 7, § 36; Filliuccius, tom. 3, tract. 41, cap. 4, n. 181; and Alexander of Ales, part. 2, quaest. 136, § 2 — who says that the passing over of the worthier is sin only in Bishoprics, but not in the other benefices, even those having care of souls. And Kings too are held to this, as Lessius notes, lib. 2, cap. 34, dub. 14, num. 64. Though regarding these, and regarding the Pope, they judge the opposite probable, besides those alleged; so also Diana, p. p., tract. 15, resol. 40, and others cited by Fagundez, cap. 22.

¶ Nay, I deduce from what has been said that even those resigning benefices are held to this, as Navarrus teaches, in miscell. 38, n. 7; Soto, de Iustitia, l. 3, quaest. 6, art. 2; Vasquez, opusc. de beneficiis, cap. 2, § 4, disp. 7, num. 100. Whatever Diana may judge to the contrary, loco citato, resol. 41, with Reginaldus, Tom. 1, l. 30, tract. 3, cap. 74, n. 110; Lessius, l. 2, cap. 34, dub. 13, num. 61; Malderus, 2. 2, tract. 9, cap. 2, dub. 7, citing Cajetan, Sà, and Salon. For he is a distributor, even if he resigns a benefice to a Nephew fixed upon beforehand, without comparison; for he still excludes the worthier, and sins against Distribution, and also against Commutative Justice; because he is unworthy, though flesh and blood may present him as worthy: Hence Vasquez infers that such commit more crimes than they think.

¶ But here a question arises: Whether not only he who elects an unworthy man, but also he who elects a less worthy man, omitting a worthier, sins against Commutative Justice, and is held to restitution.

The first opinion is that the matter is not against the Commutative, but only against the Distributive, from which no obligation of restitution arises. They judge it probable and safe in practice: Villalobos, in summa, Tomo 2, tract. 8, diff. 8, num. 15; Soto, de Iustitia, l. 4, quaest. 6, art. 3, ad 6; Navarrus, cap. 17, num. 74, and others, to whom Diana subscribes, parte 2, tract. 5, resol. 110, where he adds that the less worthy man, even conscious of his lesser dignity, may safely accept that benefice. Turrianus consents, 2. 2, Tract. 2, disp. 22, dub. 3, num. 8; Soto, de Iustitia, l. 3, quaest. 6, art. 2, after conclusion 9.

Yet Turrianus adds that this is true after the election; for before it, if he knows, he is bound not to concur, lest he cause injustice. Ledesma subscribes to him, Tom. 2, tract. 7, concl. 7, diffi. 19; Sylvius, 2. 2, quaestio 63, art. 2, concl. 4. Moreover Lessius says the less worthy man may even offer himself, by concurring. So l. 2, cap. 34, dub. 41, num. 70, cited by Diana.

The Vicar-General of Gran, by order of the Most Eminent Archbishop of that archdiocese, made the following exposition to the S. Congregation of the Council:

"The priests in the dioceses of Hungary are ordained to the title of their respective dioceses, owing to the fact that the titles enumerated in Canon Law cannot be employed in Hungary. The Most Eminent Archbishop of Gran applied for approbation for this title, but it was not granted, and instead he obtained faculty for dispensing for five years from the legitimate canonical titles so as to enable him to ordain the priests of the Archdiocese of Gran for the title of this archdiocese. The title of the diocese, according to the interpretation prevailing in Hungary, confers on the priests ordained with it the right to a pension or to support from the diocese in case of incapacity for the exercise of pastoral offices. For this object the dioceses of Hungary possess special foundations and institutes. The incardination of priests of another diocese gives the same right as the diocesan title to support from the diocese.

"Now this diocesan title gives rise to a question of great importance with regard to the discipline of the clergy, viz., as to whether priests who have been excommunicated and convicted of atrocious crimes by due process of law can, through the penalty of deposition from the diocesan title, as now used by dispensation in the Archdiocese of Gran, be deprived as absolutely as those who have been deprived, as a punishment, of the canonical title of a benefice. For it is to be feared that unhappy priests of this kind, after living a merely civil life and often in distant countries, might, when broken down in health and reduced to misery, allege the diocesan title to claim support from the archdiocese, if they cannot be entirely deprived of the diocesan title. And this would assuredly be no small incentive to bad priests to plunge into a dissolute life."

The ordinary, therefore, concludes by begging the S. Congregation "to be kind enough to solve this question, and enlighten me with regard to the application of the penalty of deprivation of the title."

Synopsis of the Question.—Total deposition (for there is also partial deposition), also known as simple and absolute, which is under discussion here, perpetually deprives the cleric, upon whom it is inflicted as a punishment, of his order (though not, of course, of the character) and of all ecclesiastical offices and benefices (Schmalz, V, tit. XXXVII, no. 135; Reiff. V, eod. t., no. 33; Bened. XIV, de Syn., 1. IX, c. VI, no. 3). From this general deprivation of offices and benefices is not excluded the benefice which a deposed cleric has acquired by the title of his ordination. For the law makes no such exception and "where law does not distinguish neither must we distinguish" (/. 9 in fin. de juris et fact, ignor.; c. 6, and pen. de majorit.). This is all the more evident from the fact that deprivation of such a benefice can be inflicted for crimes less grave than those for which total deposition is inflicted. On this point, see Monacelli, tit. XIII, form. 3, no. 22: "Clerics ordained to the title of a benefice, if they commit crime, or do not observe the law of residence, or otherwise act wrongly, may servatis servandis, be deprived of their benefices, notwithstanding that they have been ordained to the title of these benefices, or that this title has been used instead of that of patrimony, as has frequently been declared by the S. Congregation of the Council, and especially in Firmana of May 18, 1665 (lib. 24 decret., page 496); Romana of March 18, 1684 (lib. 34 decret., page 70), and Vercell. (of Dec. 15, 1690). And with Monacelli agree Lucidi, de Visit., c. III, Sec. 12 and Wernz, Jus Decret., tom. II, p. 136.

Now as the title of the diocese, which is used in Hungary by indult of the Holy See, takes the place of the title of benefice which, according to Trent sess. 21, Ch. 2, de reform., is a true and principal title of ordination, and as said title is purely ecclesiastical, I have no doubt but that the title of diocese is, like the title of benefice, lost by the punishment of deposition.

But it is an established principle of law that deposition does not deprive of the privileges fori et canonis, and that the deposed cleric remains in the clerical state. "Hence," as Layman says, lib. I, trac. V, p. III, c. V, no. 2, "the Church is bound to support a deposed cleric and one suspended from his benefice [Layman is speaking here of a cleric suspended ad modum poenae vindicativae and not ad modum censurae] lest to the shame of the clergy he be compelled to beg." The same teaching is given by Abb., c. pastoralis, Sec. verum, no. 16, de appellat., Avila, p. 4, dub. I, conclus. 3, and Suarez, who also explains how it is that, as concerns the right to support, the position of a deposed cleric is better than that of a cleric suspended per censurem from his benefice: "The doctors," he says, "make this distinction, between the cleric absolutely deposed or suspended from his benefice on account of crime, and the one who is under censure on account of contumacy, that the former must in case of indigence be supported from the fruits of the benefice (erg. ex c. Studeant, distinct. 50) lest he be compelled to beg, since it is not in his power to hold a benefice or the right to ecclesiastical revenues; while in the case of one thus punished on account of present contumacy the Church is not bound to support him out of its property, even if he be in indigence and compelled to beg, for he deserves all this by reason of his contumacy, and the disgrace resulting from it falls on his own person rather than on the clergy; and all this is permitted for the greater good of the Church, viz., the correction of contumacy" (Suarez, de cens., disp. 13, sect. 2, n. 14).

Hence, in the present case the deposed cleric on the one hand is deprived of the title of diocese with which he was promoted to orders, but on the other hand the diocese is bound to support him, if he is in indigence, lest he inflict disgrace on his state by being compelled to beg; just as a cleric ordained to the title of a benefice who, by incurring the penalty of deposition, loses his benefice, but who, for the reason already given, must be supplied with the necessities of life from the revenues of the benefice or otherwise from the property of the Church.

It might be objected that it is useless to deprive a deposed cleric of the title of diocese, with its right to support, if the diocese is afterward obliged to support him by reason of the clerical state which he still retains. For thus the same thing is both taken away and given to him.

But this is not correct. For the maintenance due to a cleric from the title of ordination (in the present case from the title of diocese) is more considerable, both by reason of the specific obligation and of the dignity and quantity, than the support given to a cleric, deposed for crime and reduced to misery, as a kind of alms, on the ground that he has not yet been expelled from the clergy.

But what if a cleric, unchastened by his deposition, continues in the slough of offense? Is he to be perpetually supported from the property of the Church?

The canons in this case decree that a deposed cleric "if he has been incorrigible is to be excommunicated; then, his contumacy increasing, he is to be anathematized, and if after this he is still in contempt and reaches the extreme stage of evil, as the Church can do nothing more with him, he is to be punished by the secular arm" (C. 10 De Judiciis); in other words, if the deposition has proved of no avail, the process of actual degradation can be resorted to, which, among other effects, imports that the cleric is deprived of the privilege fori et canonis, ejected from the clerical state, and deprived of all ecclesiastical provision (Schmalz., V, XXXVI, n. 139; Reiff. eod. lib. et tit., n. 32; S. Alphon. VII, c. III, n. 324, and other Doctors passim), including certainly support in case of destitution.

But as it is not always expedient, especially in our times, to degrade a deposed cleric, in these cases there is nothing to hinder a bishop from depriving such a cleric of all ecclesiastical subsidy by the passing of a second sentence, even in contumacy, as is taught by Layman, and Abbate in the passages cited, and by Suarez in disp. 27, n. 5; the same thing is evident from the rules of law: "The greater always contains the less," and "there is no doubt but that the part is contained in the whole" (De reg. jur. in 6 reg. 35.8o).

For since a bishop can deprive a cleric cumulatively of a number of things by degradation, why cannot he deprive him of a part of them only when there is a sufficient cause?

Besides, if the deposed cleric is also excommunicated (as seems to be the case with the priests concerned in the present question) he loses ipso facto all ecclesiastical aids by reason of the censure, as long as he perseveres in his contumacy, according to the opinion of Suarez, with others (see S. Alph., lib. III, n. 670), based on the argument from c. Pastoralis, and verum, de Appellat., which says: “Ecclesiastical revenues are justly withdrawn from him to whom the communion of the Church is denied,” or such a one may justly be deprived of them by judicial sentence, according to the more common opinion (Schmalz., V, 39, 158; D’Annibale, I, and 365, n. 33).

After this, that the proposed question may be rightly solved, it is asked: Whether priests, who have been excommunicated and found guilty of atrocious crimes by due process of law, can, by the penalty of deposition from the title of diocese, as this is at present used by apostolic dispensation in the Archdiocese of Gran, be as absolutely deprived as those who are deprived by the penalty of deposition from the canonical title of benefice?

The Most Eminent Fathers of the Congregation of the Council, in the general meeting held on June 11, 1910, decided to answer the proposed question: In the affirmative, saving, however, the dispositions of the law with regard to support for those who are really indigent.

Our Most Holy Father Pope Pius X. in an audience granted on the 12th of the same month of June to the undersigned secretary, was pleased to approve and confirm the sentence of the Most Eminent Fathers.

C. Card. Gennari, Prefect. Basilius Pompili, Secretary.