Clerical dress and tonsure

Ever since about the sixth century clerics have had a special dress of their own to distinguish them from laymen. It is their uniform, like that of soldiers or sailors, and is a perpetual reminder to them that they should always conduct themselves as becomes their profession. At first the clerical dress was introduced by custom, and then sanctioned by positive law. On this point the Council of Trent (sess. 14, c. 6, de Ref.), after saying that although the habit does not make the monk, yet clerics must always wear the dress suited to their order, so that by the decency of their dress they may make manifest the goodness of their moral character, goes on to prescribe under pain of suspension that all in sacred orders and beneficed clerics should wear the clerical dress suited to their order and dignity, according to the ordinance and command of their bishop. “ Let all clerics wear a decent ecclesiastical dress according to the lawful customs of the place and the precepts of the local Ordinary ” (Can. 136).

The common law of the Church therefore imposes on all the clergy the obligation of wearing the clerical dress, and it leaves to bishops the task of making further regulations on the point suitable to the circumstances of the country. In England, the Fourth Synod of Westminster (d. 11, nn. 12-14) decreed that the Roman collar was always to be worn, that the dress must be of black or dark material, and that in the house or church the cassock should be worn. The Third Plenary Council of Baltimore (n. 77) made the same regulations for the United States, except that the wearing of the cassock in the house or in the church is prescribed, not merely declared to be especially becoming.

The clerical tonsure is also prescribed by the common law of the Church, but it has not been reintroduced into England since the Reformation, nor is it in use in the United States. However, the obligation of not wearing hair on the face is laid down in the Fourth Synod of Westminster (doc. cit.). On this point Canon 136 prescribes: “Let them wear the tonsure or clerical crown, unless this be against the received manners of the people, and let them use a simple and ordinary care of the hair.”

All religious are bound by these and similar obligations of clerics according to Canon 592.

These laws of themselves bind under pain of mortal sin which, however, would not be committed if there were good cause for doing what they forbid, nor if they were neglected without contempt or grave scandal for a short time. Theologians consider that the clerical dress would have to be neglected for more than three or four days in order to sin grievously, and a much longer time would be required for a grave violation of the law concerning tonsure. Venial sin, of course, is committed by breaking the law without legitimate excuse even for a short time.

“Since in certain missions the custom of wearing a cassock, especially when priests appear in public, has not hitherto been diligently observed by all—and indeed, in some places graver abuses have also begun to be introduced in this matter—this Sacred Congregation commands that all ecclesiastical men, mindful that it is altogether fitting for clerics to exhibit gravity and moderation even in dress, wear cassocks of either white or black color, according to the custom of the region and the indults of the Sacred Congregation, at least in public; and every evasion or pretext is to be removed in obtaining this. But if, compelled by necessity or on account of a journey through rough places, they are forced to lay aside the aforesaid habit, let them at least employ that garment which in no manner whatever is unbecoming to priestly modesty.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 8 September 1869, C. 326.

45. • Clerics, at least those initiated in major Orders, are obliged to wear the tonsure and clerical dress. This is clear from the whole of Canon Law, especially from the Council of Trent, sess. 14, ch. 6, De Reformat., where it is said: “But because, although the habit does not make the Monk, nevertheless clerics must always wear garments congruent to their own Order, so that by the decency of the exterior habit they may show the interior honesty of morals.” Moreover in the same place it is enjoined on Bishops that they seriously admonish transgressors, and if they do not obey, remove them from sacred functions.

But the clerical habit varies for various regions. Therefore one must stand both by custom and by the particular statutes of places.

46. Questions. - QUESTION 1º. Do clerics sin gravely by not wearing the habit?

Resp. Yes, of itself, unless there is present a just reason, or lightness of matter excuses, or the smallness of the time. - St. Ligorius, Bk. 6, n. 825; Benedict XIV, On the Diocesan Synod, bk. 11, ch. 8; Ferraris, v. Clericus.

But they commonly admit that it is venial only once or again to leave off the habit. But how much space of time is required for mortal sin can be determined not in general, but only from the circumstances.

But for those making a journey a shorter habit is permitted, but of black color, and one in which the decorum and honesty of the clerical state shine forth. But the clerical habit can be totally left off for a grave cause, for example, if persecution is imminent, or if one must pass through places of heretics, infidels, or impious men, etc.

47. • QUESTION 2º. Are clerics not constituted in sacred Orders also bound under grave or under light obligation to wear the clerical habit?

Resp. It seems one must deny as to each. For from the common opinion they are not bound to this under grave obligation, scandal being excluded; nor probably under light obligation, strictly speaking and of itself, because the obligation seems to have been imposed only on clerics constituted in sacred Orders. Nevertheless attention must be given to particular laws and to the custom of places. Besides, even simple clerics, as long as they wish to be clerics, must wear garments redolent of clerical modesty ¹.

¹ A cleric not wearing the habit and tonsure, if after being admonished a third time by the Bishop he is not corrected, loses the privilege not only of the forum but also of the canon. St. Alphonsus (Bk. 6, n. 827).

Nevertheless beneficed clerics must be excepted, who, although they are not in sacred Orders, are bound by the same law as higher clerics to wear the habit, and indeed under the penalty of suspension from benefices and every ecclesiastical dignity, as is clear from the Bull of Sixtus V, Cum sacrosanctae, 9 Jan. 1588 ².

² ** This suspension seems to have been abrogated by force of the Constitution of the Supreme Pontiff Pius IX.

48. • QUESTION 3º. Do clerics sin gravely by not wearing the tonsure or crown?

Resp. 1º Clerics who are not constituted in sacred Orders never sin gravely, unless they are beneficed. - Thus most commonly.

Resp. 2º Even clerics initiated in sacred Orders at least do not sin gravely unless they omit wearing the tonsure for a notable time ³, such as is not the time of one or another month. But whether it is grave not to wear the tonsure for a whole year is not clear. Theologians more commonly affirm; but it is not clearly proved. - See St. Ligorius, Bk. 6, On Order, n. 820.

³ What the Author above, n. 46, warns, that for a grave cause the clerical habit can licitly be put aside, this same thing must be held about the tonsure, and all the more easily, because it is not the case that, just as garments can be put off and changed quickly when danger is imminent, so the tonsure can be put off quickly when there is need.

1088. • Clerics, at least those initiated in major Orders, are obliged to wear the tonsure and clerical garment. This is clear from the whole of Canon Law, especially from the Council of Trent, Sess. 14. c. 6 de Ref., where it is said: "For although habit does not make a Monk, nevertheless clerics ought always to wear garments proper and congruent to their Order, so that through the decency of exterior habit they may show the intrinsic honesty of morals." Moreover in the same place it is enjoined on Bishops that they seriously warn transgressors, and, if they do not obey, remove them from sacred functions.

But the clerical habit is various for various regions. Speaking of habit, the Fathers of the Plenary Council of Baltimore II² prescribe these things: 1° "We wish that ... while they are acting at home or in church, they always use the cassock, which is proper to a Cleric. When they go outside for the sake of office or of recreating the mind, or on a journey, it is permitted to be clothed in something shorter, which nevertheless is of black color, and is drawn below the knees." 2° "Let them not cultivate hair and beard studiously, or after the manner of laymen. Pope Pius IX recently condemned the long beard of Clerics.³ We command all ecclesiastics in this matter to follow the custom of the Roman Church as the norm to be followed."

"In this region the tonsure for the most part is not made except in the initiation itself; since we live among heretics, for whom it would foster derision without profit of religion." Thus Kenrick.

2222. • I. All Clerics are held, from canon law, to carry TONSURE and the CLERICAL HABIT. This is established especially from the Council of Trent,³ which nevertheless left it to the judgment of Bishops to determine what garment is congruent. Therefore in this matter one must stand by the various decrees of places.⁴

Furthermore: 1. Beneficiary Clerics or those constituted in Sacred Orders sin gravely who for a notable time lay aside clerical dress, or who from contempt neglect to carry the crown and shorn hair. But what is to be understood here by a notable time cannot easily be defined. The Authors commonly do not condemn of mortal sin a priest who would go about without tonsure for six or eight weeks; but they say that one going about without clerical dress more easily sins mortally, on account namely of the scandal which, especially in certain regions, would arise from such insolence.⁵

2. Clerics constituted in minor Orders do not sin gravely if they neglect to carry the habit or tonsure. Thus commonly the Doctors. Indeed, from the bull Pastoralis of Sixtus V (31 January 1589), he is excused from every fault who receives neither a pension nor other ecclesiastical goods exceeding the value of 60 ducats annually.

2223. • II. Clerics, even those constituted in Sacred Orders, are excused who lay aside the habit either FOR A BRIEF TIME, or FROM A JUST CAUSE of concealing themselves, e.g. to avert some grave harm.⁶ - And hence it is that in certain regions, as in England and in the federated States of America, clerics, from the prudent concession of Bishops, neither wear the crown nor ever carry the cassock in public.

It is ASKED. What PENALTIES do Clerics not wearing the clerical habit incur?

Resp. 1. If they are in Sacred Orders or beneficed, and after the third admonition of the Bishop they do not amend themselves, they immediately lose the privilege of forum and canon⁷ (cf. n. 2234). - Indeed, "if, after they have been warned by their Bishop, they have not carried the habit..., they ought to be coerced through suspension from orders and office, and from benefice and fruits...; and also, if once corrected they offend again in this, even through deprivation of offices and benefices." Thus Trent, sess. 14, cap. 6, de Ref.

Resp. 2. If they are in minor Orders, and neither serve some church by command of the Bishop, nor by his permission are engaged in some school, they lose the privilege of forum even without any admonition.⁸ But where a Cleric, from the disposition of law, loses the privilege of forum, he also loses ipso facto all other clerical privileges, so that he must be considered as a lay person.⁹ Thus from the Declaration of the Sacred Congregation of IMMUNITY, made on 20 September 1860, which nevertheless, according to certain Authors, extends itself only to clerics of the Pontifical Dominion.¹⁰

I say. Clerics ought to lead an interior and exterior life holier than laymen, and to excel them in virtue and right deeds as an example (Can. 124). Although the necessity of this holiness does not properly need proof, nevertheless it is useful here to set forth whence it is gathered.

1st. From the nature of the clerical state. Most holy is the ministry of clerics, since they are always applied, proximately or at least remotely, to sacred things, to conferring the sacraments upon the faithful, to solemnly rendering the divine praises in the name of the Church, to teaching the Christian people concerning the way of eternal salvation, and also to celebrating the most holy sacrifice of the Mass. For why have clerics and priests been constituted in the Church? That they may be, as the Gospel bears witness, the salt of the earth and the light of the world. Moreover they cannot be such unless they shine forth with distinguished and splendid holiness of morals. Not only the sublimity and excellence of the offices to be fulfilled, but also the garments with which the cleric is clothed cry out that he ought to profess holiness. Hence St. Jerome says, Epistle 58: "The garment cries out, the state cries out, the profession of the mind cries out holiness."

2nd. From Scripture. Thus concerning the priests of the old law the Lord said, Lev. xxi, 6: "They shall be holy to their God, and shall not pollute his name; for they offer the incense of the Lord and the bread of their God, and therefore they shall be holy." Likewise in Isaiah, lii, 11, it is said: "Be cleansed, you who bear the vessels of the Lord." Moreover, if such holiness of life was required in priests who offered oxen and sheep and other animals to God, what will be required in those who sacrifice the divine Lamb himself? And if such cleanness was required in those who bore the vessels of the Lord, how much purer must it be in those in whose hands the Lord himself is borne?

3rd. From the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Thus St. Chrysostom, Hom. 10, on I Epistle to Timothy: "The priest ought to have an immaculate life, so that all may look upon him as upon some excellent exemplar; for therefore God has chosen us, that we may be as lights and teachers of the rest, and live on earth as Angels." St. Thomas, Suppl. q. 35, art. 1, ad 3: "The suitable execution of Orders requires, not goodness of just any sort, but excellent goodness, so that just as those who receive Order are constituted above the people by the grade of Order, so also they may be superior by the merit of holiness."

4th. From Councils. They are innumerable both in canon law and concerning the holiness of clerics, which also are confirmed by very many Councils. Let the few words of the Council of Trent suffice. The solemn decree, sess. 22, cap. 1, de Reformat., reads thus: "Thus it is altogether fitting that clerics called into the lot of the Lord should so compose their life and all their morals, that in habit, gesture, gait, speech, and all other things they present before themselves nothing except grave, moderate, and religion-full things."

And from the Plenary Council of Baltimore II, n. 152: "Wherever they may be, priests should bear before themselves, both in gait and gesture, and in their very countenance and voice, the modesty and gravity which befit them. Excessive elevation of voice, immoderate laughter, scurrilous jokes, and finally whatever is an indication of a mind not well composed, let them avoid with the greatest zeal." These same things are confirmed, and many other things added, by the Baltimore Fathers, Plen. Council III, nn. 74 et seq.

Let the oath against Modernism, "the profession of Faith having been premised according to the formula prescribed by Our predecessor Pius IV of holy memory, with the definitions of the Vatican Council added, they shall give to their own prelate," thus Pius X: "1st. Clerics to be initiated into major orders, to each one of whom beforehand let there be handed a copy both of the profession of faith and of the formula for making the oath, so that they may accurately know them beforehand, with the sanction for violation of the oath added. 2nd. Priests destined for receiving confessions and sacred preachers, before they are endowed with the faculty of exercising those duties. 3rd. Pastors, Canons, Beneficiaries, before entering upon possession of the benefice. 4th. Officials in episcopal curias and ecclesiastical tribunals, not excepting the Vicar General and judges. 5th. Those chosen to hold sermons during the time of Quadragesima. 6th. All officials in Roman Congregations or tribunals, before the Cardinal Prefect or the secretary of the same, whether of the congregation or of the tribunal. 7th. Moderators and Doctors of religious families and Congregations before they enter upon Office"; Professors in seminaries and scholasticates must repeat the oath year by year.

Those who refuse or violate the oath are to be reported to the S. Office. - Motu Proprio, Sacrorum Antistitum, 1 Sept. 1910.

Confessors approved by their Ordinary, outside their own diocese, can be admitted to hear confessions even for some more or less long space of time, without being compelled again to take the anti-modernist oath. S. C. Cons. 20 June 1913. The prescriptions concerning the Vigilance Councils and the anti-modernist oath, after the feast day of Pentecost 1918, will continue to remain in force until the Apostolic See shall have established otherwise concerning this matter. S. C. S. Off. 22 March 1918.

Question. Can a Bishop oblige a priest of his diocese to administer sacraments in a place in which such a function would induce danger?

Resp. Affirmatively, for priests are ordained in a diocese for its utility and necessity; and therefore he can by his command compel priests free from incompatible offices to relieve souls constituted in necessity. They promise obedience to their Bishop in ordination so that they may dedicate themselves to the spiritual good of the diocese. Besides, among us a priest can scarcely be found who would even think about the danger. - Cf. Nouv. Rev. Théol., v. 46, p. 244.^1

^1 Cf. Addenda, p. 1087, n. 6.

I say. All clerics receiving sacred Orders, by that very fact contract the obligation of ecclesiastical celibacy. It is established from canon law: Clerics constituted in major orders are barred from nuptials and are held by the obligation of preserving chastity in such a way that those sinning against it are also guilty of sacrilege, with the prescription of can. 214, §1 (Can. 132, §1) being safe. Indeed a major cleric reduced to the lay state is held by the obligation of celibacy, with the prescription of can. 214 being safe, concerning a cleric who, coerced by grave fear, received sacred order and then was legitimately reduced to the lay state. Cf. Can. 212, §2. Likewise from the Council of Trent, sess. 24, can. 9, where it is defined thus: "If anyone says that clerics constituted in sacred Orders, or regulars who have solemnly professed chastity, can contract marriage, and that the contract is valid, notwithstanding ecclesiastical law or vow, let him be anathema."

Question 1. Is the obligation of celibacy of divine law?

Resp. Negatively, according to the common opinion; but it is from mere ecclesiastical institution, namely from the force of the precept of the Church or also from the vow annexed to sacred Orders. The reason is that the existence of such a divine law is proved by no testimony, whether written or handed down, while on the contrary not a few places of the Sacred Canons prove the existence of ecclesiastical law, and especially that place from the Council of Trent related above, where it is said: "Notwithstanding ecclesiastical law." Therefore . . . § 2. Clerics constituted in minor orders can, indeed, contract marriage, but unless they have been coerced by force or grave fear, by that very right they fall from the clerical state (Can. 132). - Cf. St. Alphonsus, de Sacram. Ordin., n. 807.

Question 2. Does the obligation of celibacy proceed immediately from the precept of the Church or mediately, namely from the vow which really, although tacitly, is emitted in the ordination itself?

Resp. Some probably thought that the obligation of celibacy is from ecclesiastical law alone, and that no vow properly so called is emitted in ordination. This opinion, which also today has patrons, as it seems, arises from the doctrine of certain ancients wrongly understood; but the more common and true opinion holds that this obligation arises from vow, inasmuch as the Church commands clerics both chastity and, at the same time, the mode of professing chastity, namely from vow. - Cf. Baller., note (b), p. 30.

Question 3. Is the obligation of celibacy universal in the Church?

Resp. Some exception is given from the tolerance of the Church among the Orientals. For in the oriental Church, priests indeed can never enter marriage after priestly ordination or even after the diaconate; but those married before the diaconate can be advanced to further Orders, and nevertheless have intercourse with their wives. Bishops, however, are excepted, who all ought constantly to preserve perfect chastity. But among the Greeks subdiaconate is not numbered among sacred Orders. Hence the precept of chastity is imposed on unmarried clerics in the ordination of the diaconate.

Question 4. Is he who expressly does not wish to vow chastity held to chastity?

Resp. Affirmatively; if not from vow, since no one is compelled to be bound by vow unwillingly, certainly from the precept of the Church, which by motive of religion binds him to chastity when the vow is lacking. Others hold that he is bound to emit the vow of chastity; but no one doubts that the Church can oblige him to this. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 809.

Question 5. Whether or when can a married man, his wife living, receive sacred Orders?

Resp. Affirmatively, provided the permission of the Apostolic See is added. For such a one is simply impeded; indeed a married man who without Apostolic dispensation has received major orders, even in good faith, is prohibited from the exercise of the same orders. Cf. Can. 987, §2; 132, §3.

I say. §1. Let all clerics wear a becoming ecclesiastical habit according to the legitimate customs of places and the prescriptions of the Ordinary of the place; let them wear the tonsure or clerical crown, unless the received customs of peoples bear otherwise, and let them employ a simple care of the hair.

§2. Let them not use a ring, unless this has been conceded to them by law or by apostolic privilege.

§3. Minor clerics who by their own authority, without legitimate cause, have put aside the ecclesiastical habit and tonsure, and, having been warned by the Ordinary, have not amended themselves within a month, fall by the law itself from the clerical state (Can. 136).

Question. What is specially prescribed in this matter for our priests?

Resp. These things were established by the Plenary Council of Baltimore II, n. 148: "We wish that they [priests] observe the law of the Church, and that while acting at home or in church, they always use the cassock, which is proper to a cleric. When they go out for the sake of office or recreation of mind or on a journey, it is licit to be clothed in a somewhat shorter garment, which nevertheless is to be black in color and extend below the knees. Let them despise and reject certain more becoming and more elegant forms of garments, which are newly invented day by day, since even the more serious among secular men shrink from these. Yet let them be mindful of their dignity, and not present themselves by clothing and habit as rough and uncultivated. St. Charles, that outstanding restorer and vindicator of sacred discipline, warns that in clerical habit there should appear neither too carefully sought elegance of adornment, nor too abject negligence and affected filth."

But the Fathers of the Plenary Council of Baltimore III, n. 77, after they had again confirmed and inculcated those things, add the following: "By strict precept we enjoin upon our priests that, both at home and outside, whether they live in their own diocese or outside it, they wear the collar which is called Roman. And because the reason of the ecclesiastical law concerning the dress of clerics is no less valid concerning regulars than seculars, regular priests also are held by the law of using either the Roman collar or clothing suitable for distinguishing clerics from laymen, whenever, having set aside the habit proper to their own order, they go out."

Clerics constituted in major orders, excepting those of whom in can. 213, 214, are held by the obligation of reciting the canonical hours daily according to their own and approved liturgical books (Can. 135). In the two canons mentioned there is question of those legitimately reduced or to be reduced to the lay state. The canonical hours are called a collection of prayers and lessons to be recited at certain hours, on individual days, by persons deputed to this. Hence they are also called: 1st. the divine office, because they are recited in honor of God; 2nd. the ecclesiastical office, because they are discharged in the name of the Church; 3rd. the canonical office, because they must be recited according to the rules of the Canons; 4th. Breviary, because that Office is a compendium of the Old and New Testament, and also of the sentences of the Fathers and the life of the Saints.

In the course of times the form and quantity of the Breviary was varied. The Council of Trent, sess. 25 at the end, commanded that a new reform of the Roman Breviary be made. St. Pius V corrected it, increased it with some additions, and by the Constitution Quod a nobis, on 7 July 1568, prohibited all other Breviaries which by institution or legitimate custom did not exceed 200 years.

This Roman Breviary, corrected at repeated times, was finally reformed by Pius X in his Constitution Divino Afflatu, issued 1 Nov. 1911.

"Therefore by the authority of these letters, before all things we abolish the order of the Psalter, such as it is in the Roman Breviary today, and we altogether forbid its use from the Kalends of January of the year one thousand nine hundred and thirteen. But from that day, in all churches of the secular and regular Clergy, in monasteries, orders, congregations, and institutes of religious, by all and each who, from office or from custom, discharge the canonical Hours according to the Roman Breviary edited by St. Pius V and revised by Clement VIII, Urban VIII, and Leo XIII, we command the new order of the Psalter, such as We have approved with its Rules and Rubrics and have decreed to be published by the Vatican types, to be religiously observed. At the same time we denounce the penalties established in law against those who have failed in their office of discharging the canonical Hours daily; and indeed let them know that they will not satisfy so grave an office unless they employ this order of Our Psalter."

Therefore all who are obligated to recite the divine office according to the Roman Breviary edited by St. Pius are bound to observe "the norms for discharging the canonical Hours prescribed in the Constitution Divino Afflatu and in other dispositions of the Apostolic See." S. C. R., 11 June 1913; 23 Jan. 1912; Motu Proprio, Abhinc duos annos, 23 Oct. 1913; S. C. R., 28 Oct. 1913, 14 Jan. 1914. Therefore the ancient order of the Psalter has been abolished and its use forbidden; the Psalter according to the new order is obligatory, and indeed for this reason, that if someone observes the other order, he does not satisfy his office. Indeed if someone has obtained a pontifical indult of retaining the old order of the Psalter for private recitation of the Hours, it is not licit for him "at pleasure to follow either order of the Psalter, employing now the old, now the new, according to his own convenience"; but he ought "to recite for each Hour," as Pius X himself decreed, "all the psalms and the remaining things according as they are distributed in the Roman Breviary edited by St. Pius V and revised by Clement VIII, likewise Urban VIII, and Leo XIII, yet with the new order or Calendar observed daily according to the aforesaid Apostolic Constitution (Divino Afflatu) and the rules or rubrics annexed to the same, prescribed for the diocese, chapter, or clergy to which each is ascribed, and with firm abolition of the general indult given on 5 July 1883 for Votive Offices." - S. C. of the Council, 10 March 1913.

The whole divine Office is divided into seven Hours, namely Matins with Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers, and Compline.

I say 1st. Those obligated to recite the canonical Hours daily are: 1st. all clerics constituted in sacred orders, even suspended and excommunicated; 2nd. all beneficed persons who have a right in the thing and full dominion of the benefice; 3rd. §1. In religions whether of men or of women, in which there is an obligation of choir, in individual houses where there are at least four religious bound to choir and actually not legitimately impeded, and even fewer if the constitutions so provide, according to the norm of the constitutions the divine office must daily be discharged in common (Can. 610).

I say 2nd. This obligation, which indeed is grave, is affixed to the day, so that in no way can satisfaction be made to it on another day; therefore, from the mind of the Church, it ceases with the day assigned to it, and therefore is usually called the burden of the day. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 146.

Question 1. What is grave matter in the omission of the Office?

Resp. Theologians most commonly agree that the omission of one little Hour, or of Compline, or of a part of the Nocturns equivalent at least to the quantity of one little Hour, is a notable part and therefore a mortal sin; but the omission of a smaller part does not exceed venial sin. Yet this does not import that several mortal sins are committed if, with the case of retracting an evil will excluded, several notable parts are omitted, because the whole Office falls under one precept. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 147 et seq. - Lacroix, lib. 4, n. 1201.

It is light to omit Vespers of Holy Saturday.

Question 2. Are Religious destined to choir, if for a just cause they do not come to choir, bound under grave sin to recite the Office privately?

Resp. Affirmatively. In religions whether of men or of women in which there is an obligation of choir, solemnly professed who were absent from choir must, excepting conversi, recite the canonical hours privately. Cf. Can. 610, §3. Professed of temporary vows of whom in can. 574: where the obligation of choir is in force, they are not bound by the law of privately reciting the divine office, unless they are constituted in sacred orders or the constitutions expressly prescribe otherwise. Cf. Can. 578.

Question 3. Does a Religious sin gravely who recites the Office privately, when he can easily be present at choir?

Resp. Negatively, because the obligation of choir, although it is grave for the community, is nevertheless held light for private individuals, provided that the choir is not wholly taken away. But four free persons, or persons capable of sustaining choir, suffice for choir. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 143.

Question 4. Are those obligated to the Office bound to supply those things which they omit in choir because of functions of choir, for example, by ringing bells or playing organs, or by seeking Psalms, and other similar things?

Resp. Negatively, and the reason is that omission in choir, provided it is not too great, is supplied by the companions. Thus he satisfies who, while others recite, coughs, etc., and probably also if an entire Psalm is said meanwhile. But a fortiori he is not bound to repeat who has not heard some things of the opposite side. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 143.

Question 5. Is there still given an obligation of reciting the Gradual Psalms, the little office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the office of the dead?

Resp. Negatively, because they do not oblige those reciting privately, nor do they now oblige even for choir. "The obligation likewise ceases of reciting in choir, on the days prescribed by the Rubrics hitherto in force, the little office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the office of the dead, and also the Gradual and Penitential Psalms. But chapters which from a peculiar constitution or legacy are held to those added Offices will obtain their commutation from the Holy See." - Const. Divino Afflatu, tit. VIII, 2.

Question 6. Are those obligated to the Office bound under grave sin to recite the Litanies on the feast of St. Mark and the triduum of Rogations?

Resp. Affirmatively. "On the Feast of St. Mark and in the Triduum of Rogations, the burden of reciting the Litanies of the Saints remains entire, even outside choir." Const. Divino Afflatu, tit. VIII, 3. But neither in choir nor outside choir can they be anticipated in the evening. Rubr. Brev.

Question 7. Are Nuns who are obligated to recite the office of the Blessed Virgin Mary bound under grave sin to recite it?

Resp. Negatively, if there is question of those Nuns who are neither destined to choir nor are Nuns strictly so called, as, for example, Sisters of Mercy. Indeed, not only are they not bound under grave sin, but neither under light sin, of themselves, because the obligation of reciting the office of the B. V. M. among Nuns of this sort comes from a rule which does not oblige under sin. - But if there is question of Nuns of the Visitation, who are certainly destined to choir and generally also emit solemn vows, a distinction must be made between those who in fact, among us, have emitted solemn vows and those who have pronounced only simple vows; and it must be said that the former are held under grave sin, but not the latter. For to the Bishop of Le Mans asking: "Are Nuns in general strictly obligated under grave sin by force of their profession to recitation of the divine Office proper to their Institute?" the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars responded on 19 Apr. 1844: "Affirmatively with regard to Nuns professed of solemn vows according to a rule approved by the Apostolic See in which this kind of burden is imposed. But if such a burden is not imposed in the rules, let him consult approved authors in relation to the obligation which can arise from custom. But where the vows are simple, they are not held." But which Nuns among us emit solemn vows will be said below.

Many others judge that the obligation is not grave, or at least that this is not established. For under the name of divine office come the canonical Hours strictly so called. Cf. Vives, 484, 2. - Bucceroni, n. 116. - Bizzari, p. 72, 495. - Vermeersch, De Relig. Inst., v. 1, n. 316. - Ferreres, v. 2, n. 50. - Bulot, v. 2, n. 69.

Question 8. If someone doubts whether he has omitted something in the Office, is he bound to recite it?

Resp. Negatively, if the doubt is positive, that is, if he probably judges that he has satisfied, as is established from the things said concerning probabilism. St. Alphonsus said that this opinion is most common, although afterward in the Reformed Questions he retracted it. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 150; and QQ. reform., elen. 2, n. 1. - Baller., note (c), p. 38.

Hence you are well excused from repeating the Office if you do not remember that you said something, and you have a just conjecture for believing that you said it; suppose, if you remember that you began a Psalm or some Lesson or Hour, and afterward, distracted, came to the end of the Psalm, Lesson, or Hour without remembering whether you recited it whole; for the presumption favors you, because you are accustomed to recite integrally those things whose recitation you have begun. Likewise, if you have come to some Hour, for example Sext, and you doubt whether you recited the preceding one, you can hold the same decision, because you are not accustomed to recite the later Hour unless you first premised the earlier one, and therefore you can prudently believe that you omitted nothing.

I say 1st. The time predetermined for fulfilling the entire recitation of the Office begins from midnight and ends at the following midnight, so that anyone who recites the whole Office within this time, at whatever hour he satisfies such a duty, must always be exempted from grave sin. Indeed Matins and Lauds, by a privilege conceded by the Church, can be recited the day before toward evening; nevertheless no one is bound to use this privilege, even if he foresees an impediment to reciting the Office on the very day of obligation. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 172.

I say 2nd. Formerly the Hours were recited thus: Matins after midnight, Lauds at dawn, Prime after sunrise, Terce at the ninth hour of the morning, Sext at midday, None at the third hour of the afternoon, Vespers at sunset, Compline at the twilight of night. Hence a cleric ordained subdeacon is bound only to reciting the Hours corresponding to the time of ordination. Therefore if ordination is made before the ninth hour of the morning, he will be bound to recite Terce, but not the preceding Hours. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 140.

I say 3rd. But today, by custom and the consensus of theologians, the little Hours can be recited at whatever morning time; indeed the two prior ones, namely Prime and Terce, not only can but also ought to be recited before midday. Vespers and Compline are recited from midday until midnight. In Lent, however, Vespers can be recited before midday, on account of the ancient discipline according to which the fast was not broken before recitation of Vespers; but afterward in the course of times, when the hour of dinner was anticipated to midday, the hour of Vespers also began to be anticipated. From this it is also clear why Sundays are excepted, namely because on those days the fast is not observed. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, Hom. Ap., Append. 3, n. 74.

Question 1. Whether and what sort of obligation is present of reciting Matins and Lauds before Mass?

Resp. It seems certain that some obligation is present, as is drawn both from the Constitution of Innocent IV, year 1254, and from the Rubric of the Missal, Tit. I, de Praepar. Sacerd. celebraturi, and especially Tit. X, de defect. - But it is commonly taught that such obligation is light, and that any moderate reasonable cause excuses from it; no otherwise than, with any useful or honorable cause intervening, someone will be able wholly licitly to recite either Vespers and Compline at morning time, or Matins and Lauds, Prime and Terce at evening time. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 173; and de Euchar., n. 347. - Benedict XIV, de Sacr. Missae, lib. 3, cap. 13.

Question 2. At what hour is it licit to begin the recitation of Matins on the evening of the preceding day, according to the privilege related above?

Resp. In private recitation of the Office, Matins for the following day can be begun at the second hour of the afternoon, nor is it required that the order of the diocesan Directory table be observed; but it cannot be begun at the same hour in public or choral recitation. The hour of reciting Matins can be counted indiscriminately from the local meridian circle, or from the official meridian circle called "Greenwich." - Decr. Authen. R. S. C. R., n. 4158. Cf. Can. 33.

Question 3. At what hour can the recitation of Vespers be begun in the morning during Lent?

Resp. The Salmanticenses say that Vespers in Lent can be recited from the eleventh hour, or one hour before midday. But the general rule is that Vespers can be recited privately at the same hour at which they are customarily recited in choir. Moreover, in choir they must be recited after the conventual Mass and None. But the hour of conventual Mass depends on the custom of places. Besides, there is no obligation present of reciting Vespers before midday, but it is a mere privilege which no one is bound to use. But Compline does not enjoy the aforesaid privilege; whence even through Lent it must be recited after midday. - Cf. Salmant., tract. 16, cap. 3, n. 15.

I say. There is a twofold order to be observed in the recitation of the Breviary, namely the order of Offices and the order of Hours. The order of Offices is described in the calendar of feasts and in the rubrics for their translation where several occur together. But the order of Hours is that which is set forth in the Breviary, namely that first Matins with Lauds be recited, then the little Hours be joined, that is Prime, Terce, Sext, None, and finally Vespers with Compline follow.

Question 1. Does he satisfy the precept of reciting the Hours who, from error or inadvertence, recites another Office for the Office of the day?

Resp. Affirmatively, and the reason is that the Church is not presumed to wish to oblige someone twice in one day to this burden, and because the substance of recitation has been sufficiently preserved. Hence the common axiom, which is held as a kind of rule in these circumstances: Office is valid for Office. Therefore there is no obligation, once recitation has been completed, of reciting another Office. Yet it is counsel, not obligation, to join the proper parts of the omitted Office. But now it must be observed that that general principle, Office for Office, must be understood according to the dispositions of the Constitution Divino Afflatu; and therefore it does not hold if someone follows the suppressed order of the Psalter, but it does hold if he observes the new one.

Question 2. If someone from error has recited only some part of an undue Office, and notices the error, can he continue the Office begun, or rather is he bound to recite the remaining things from the Office of the day?

Resp. According to the common opinion of theologians, liberty is given. Therefore he can either continue or recite the remaining things from the due Office, yet with the Psalm or prayer finished. Nevertheless it is better to change the Office, according to many, who establish this rule: Error is corrected where it is detected. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 161. - Lacroix, lib. 4, n. 1255.

Question 3. When you have already said one Office for another, can you recite the omitted Office on the day on which the Office already recited by you will occur?

Resp. Negatively, but the Office recited must be recited again, because there is present an obligation, although light, of conforming oneself with the common rite of the Church. St. Alphonsus says this more probably, but it must be held as morally certain from the decree of the S. R. Congregation on 17 June 1673, Authentic Decrees, n. 1474.

Question 4. Whether or how one sins who knowingly recites another Office for the Office of the day?

Resp. He commits no sin if he does this from a reasonable cause, for example, if he cannot easily have the proper Office, or if for the sake of charity he recites with a companion saying a different Office, provided that Office is approved by the Holy See and is equal or nearly equal; indeed St. Alphonsus says that the reason of companionship alone appears sufficiently reasonable. But when the case of a reasonable cause is excluded, it will indeed be a sin, but only venial, if the Office is changed into an equal or nearly equal one, because satisfaction is made to the obligation as to substance. If finally a notably shorter Office is recited, it is grave sin, because then satisfaction is not made to the substance of the obligation. This is clear both from the nature of the thing and from proposition 34, condemned by Alexander VII, which thus sounds: "On Palm Sunday, one reciting the Easter Office satisfies the precept." - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 161.

Question 5. What kind of sin is it to invert the order in the recitation of the Hours?

Resp. In private recitation it never exceeds venial sin, because such inversion of order does not contain a grave deformity; for the order to be observed is only under a secondary precept and as a circumstance of lesser moment. But if from some just cause you change the order, for example, to recite with a companion who has already advanced further in recitation, or because you do not have the Breviary at hand but only the Diurnal while you are carried by vehicle, you will be entirely free from all fault. But a fortiori these reasons and others of this sort excuse you from all fault if you recite Matins of the following day before completing the Office of the present day, even according to those who wish to find some deformity in this inversion, concerning which, however, it is not established. But in public recitation there is controversy whether it is a grave sin or not to invert the order or change the time of the Hours; but the negative opinion is more probable, because this kind of inversion or change does not pertain to the substance of the precept and is merely accidental. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 170 et seq. - Lacroix, lib. 4, nn. 1309 et seq.

Indeed from a reasonable cause it will be licit to invert the parts of the Hours, for example, to say the psalms and then afterward the lessons, indeed also these after other Hours have been recited, as if someone on a journey did not have the lessons of Matins.

Question 6. Is it licit to recite the Breviary in the vernacular language?

Resp. Negatively, and one acting thus is bound to say it again in Latin. "Those who are obligated to the recitation of the divine office and of any part of the Roman Breviary must recite these only in the Latin language; otherwise they do not satisfy the obligation." On account of this explicit reason, the S. R. C. responds Affirmatively to the question: "Whether a priest, carrying out the Divine Office of the Roman Breviary in the vernacular language, e.g., of the Nativity of the Lord, of the dead, etc., with the people, or discharging the Litanies of the Saints in the processions of Rogations in the same language, is bound to recite these parts of the Roman Breviary again in the Latin language?" 3 July 1904.

I say. Pronunciation ought to be vocal, entire, and continuous. And 1st. indeed it ought to be vocal, for the Office ought to be recited by voice, and indeed by a distinct voice; but it does not suffice that it be read by mind alone, or merely run through with the eyes; nor is it enough if it is recited in the throat or between the teeth, or by syncopating, or by abbreviating with a stumbling tongue; for that which is prescribed is properly vocal prayer. But prayer is not considered properly vocal unless it is made with a distinct voice. 2nd. It ought to be entire; and to integrity belong the Pater, Ave, and Credo at the beginning and end of the Hours, according as is noted in the Rubrics, but not the prayers Aperi Domine and Sacrosanctae, which are recited only by counsel. 3rd. It ought to be continuous; and therefore any notable interruption within one Hour, if it is made without any cause, is not free from fault; but it does not exceed venial sin. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 166.

Question 1. Must one reciting the Office hear himself, so that he can be said to pray vocally?

Resp. Negatively, because vocal prayer is said by opposition to mental prayer, and is truly had as often as the words are truly pronounced, even though they are heard by no one; and therefore it suffices if the one reciting is conscious to himself that he pronounces the words. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 163.

Question 2. What are just causes for interrupting the Office?

Resp. Any reasonable cause suffices for interrupting any Hour whatever; but the following causes are especially enumerated: 1st. any utility, one's own or another's, which cannot be deferred without some inconvenience; 2nd. a reason of urbanity or charity, or a reason of executing the commands of superiors; 3rd. if the confession of someone is to be received who does not gladly wait; 4th. if you wish to do or note something so that you may remove distraction or solicitude, for example, lest you forget, etc., provided however that this is not done frequently, because frequent interruption for this cause is not free from some irreverence; 5th. some brief prayer or some pious affection of the heart can also licitly be inserted into the recitation. Nevertheless it would be less becoming, for the sake of meditating, to linger in these things longer and frequently, because the nature of recitation or vocal prayer would not be sufficiently preserved; and if, by inserting longer vocal prayers and those least pertaining to the Office, a notable part were added to the Hours, this, according to some, would be venial, as contrary to the prescribed form. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 168. - Lacroix, lib. 4, n. 1307.

Question 3. Can Matins be separated from Lauds?

Resp. Affirmatively, in private recitation; Negatively, in public recitation in choir, except on the night of the Nativity of the Lord. Thus the Rubrics of the Breviary, which see for the prayers to be said at the conclusion of Matins and the beginning of Lauds, both on ordinary days, and in the Triduum of the death of the Lord, and in offices of the Dead.

Question 4. Can the Nocturns be separated without cause?

Resp. Affirmatively, as is established from universal custom, to which no law can be opposed. Indeed formerly, from the practice of the Church, they were separated, since they were customarily recited at various hours of the night. Besides, not a few say that this separation, thus made without special cause, can extend to three hours. But if there is a just cause for the sake of which the Nocturns ought to be separated, the interval of three hours can also be prolonged longer according to the measure of that cause. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 167 and 168. - Reuter, n. 262.

Question 5. To what is one bound, by reason of pronunciation, when reciting the Hours with a companion or with choir?

Resp. To satisfy the obligation it is required: 1st. that the recitation be made by alternate verses, and if more than two recite, after a double choir has been made, it ought to be recited alternately, because this mode is admitted by the custom of the Church; 2nd. that the verses be said successively and not at the same time; nor may one resume before the other has completed his part; 3rd. that the things which are said by one be heard by the others, so that they may communicate and one moral prayer be made. Yet it is not necessary that the hearers pronounce in a low voice the part of the others. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 162.

Question 6. Do you satisfy if you recite the Hours with a layman, or with another not obligated, or with one distracted or not attentive?

Resp. Affirmatively, in all these cases, and the reason is that these things do not impede you from reciting the Hours according to the custom of the Church. The defect of obligation or attention on the part of the other does not change nor vitiate your recitation. Therefore, if the companion is obligated and does not attend, he himself does not satisfy, since he does not communicate with you; but he does not prevent you from communicating with him, if he pronounces rightly and you hear rightly. - Cf. Lacroix, n. 1295.

I say. The Office must be recited attentively and devoutly, since it is prayer, and indeed public prayer, or prayer to be recited by a public minister deputed by the Church. Hence one voluntarily distracted in reciting the Hours sins at least venially.

Question 1. How many kinds of attention are distinguished in the recitation of the Hours?

Resp. Twofold, namely internal and external. The former consists in an interior advertence of the mind to that which is being done; but the latter is that which excludes every external action physically incompatible with recitation, such as chatting, writing, etc. Again, internal attention is threefold, namely 1st. spiritual, which is to God Himself as the terminus of prayer; 2nd. literal, or to the sense of the words and the signification of the things; 3rd. material, which is directed to the words only, namely to pronouncing them rightly. - Any one of these is best and certainly suffices according to the opinion of all. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 176.

Question 2. Is some internal attention required under grave sin?

Resp. It is much controverted among theologians, but the opinion of those who say that external attention, absolutely speaking, suffices for satisfying the substance of recitation and for removing mortal sin is probable. The reason is that, if internal attention were required, one who recited the Hours involuntarily distracted would not satisfy his obligation; for when the essence of a thing is destroyed, although inculpably, the thing itself remains destroyed. Yet not even the theologians who hold the contrary opinion wish to admit this. Wherefore St. Alphonsus thus concludes: "The first opinion [namely the affirmative] seems more probable at least on account of extrinsic authority and is wholly to be counseled as safer; but the second, denying, both on account of the authority of the Doctors, which is not to be contemned, and on account of reasons supported by foundations that are not light, appears sufficiently probable." - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 176 et seq. - Lacroix, lib. 4, n. 1344.

II. QUESTION II. Do clerics sin who accommodate the clerical habit to the form of the lay habit, and wear borrowed and curled hair sprinkled with odoriferous powder, the tonsure scarcely appearing? ANSWER. What shall I mutter against the torrent, and indeed the foaming torrent, of human custom? Shall I send forth the sound of my voice against a common and prevailing corruption? Shall I blush at the doctrine of the Councils and of holy mother Church and at the Gospel of Christ? God forbid. The clerical state shines among all ecclesiastical orders, whose Patriarch is not a man but Christ himself, who called the Apostles and their successors. The clerical and monastic habit fights in hostile fashion with luxury, display, and worldly vanity. What if cloistered men should accommodate the monastic garment to the form commonly called the new fashion? What if curled, long-haired, crisped, wide-sleeved, they should wear hair sprinkled with Cyprian powder? All would cry out: What monsters are these? Have the cloistered gone mad? The exclamations and wonderings would be most just. But is not the clerical state itself excellent and eminent? Therefore it ought to stand further from the vanity, luxury, and pomps of the world. The Tridentine Fathers and the other theologians laboured so greatly that they might maintain against the innovators that the clerical garb is distinct from the lay; and very many clerics now by deed deny the doctrine defined in Trent. Nay, in some places laymen wear the clerical garb and clerics the vain pomps of laymen. What does it matter that the garment be black, if the form and the ornament breathe vanity? Although several wear not a black but a shining and gilded one, chiefly when they go into the country and make journeys. Let us hear the Tridentine Fathers, who cry out, session 14, chapter 6 On Reformation: But so great today has grown the rashness of some, and the contempt of religion, that, holding of small account their own dignity and clerical honour, they wear even publicly lay garments, setting their feet in different places, one in divine things, the other in carnal.

II. All affirm that knowledge is required in those to be ordained; but few explain what kind of knowledge is necessary. The knowledge which the Prophets and Evangelists inculcate is the knowledge of holy Scripture. St. Paul, 1 Timothy 3, says: All Scripture divinely inspired is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice: that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work. First therefore the study of holy Scripture is necessary, that the true image of the Christian spirit may be formed. Instructed with this divine knowledge, you will be able with unstumbling foot to read the moral authors also: because then you will know how to discern the true from the false. Not only the divine Scriptures themselves, but all the Councils and Fathers inculcate the study of the divine law dictated by God himself to the sacred writers. The Second Nicene Council, canon 2, says: The substance of our Hierarchy is the divinely delivered eloquences, and the true knowledge of the divine Scriptures. Again, distinction 38, chapter Cum ignorantia, these things are had: Let priests therefore know the holy Scriptures and the Canons. God will reprove thee for the neglect of the Scriptures; and he will judge according to the mandates of his law described in holy Scripture. It pleases me to transcribe hither the words of the distinguished theologian Louis Habert, On the Sacrament of Order, part 2, chapter 8.