Special Duties of Clerics

750. Cleric (kleros - lot), chosen into the lot or part of the Lord, is a Christian man who has been specially deputed to the service and worship of God. The name cleric is taken more broadly and more strictly. More broadly it signifies any Christian man who has been specially deputed to divine worship and service, whether this deputation happens through the reception of orders or through religious profession. Therefore in this sense all religious are comprehended by the name cleric, not excepting lay brothers and nuns. More strictly it signifies only those who by some ecclesiastical order or at least first tonsure have been deputed to the divine ministries.

In favorable matters the name cleric is taken in the first sense, but in odious matters in the second; in this same stricter sense there is also discussion here concerning the precepts or obligations of clerics.

Note. Since canonists treat expressly of the obligations of clerics, let it suffice in this place to speak: a. of vocation to the clerical state; b. of the divine office; c. of the obligation of spending superfluous goods on the poor.

THE sacredness of the duties which a cleric has to perform, and especially the service of the altar, require in him an internal holiness so that he may perform his duties worthily. ‘‘ Let them therefore be holy, because I also am holy, the Lord, who sanctify them.”¹ ‘This holiness must show itself in the exercise of all Christian virtues so that the cleric may be an example to those whom he is called upon to instruct and guide on the way to heaven. As the Council of Trent said: “ There is nothing which is so constant a lesson in piety and the worship of God as the life and example of those who have dedicated themselves to the divine service. For since they have been taken from worldly affairs and placed in a higher position, the faithful look upon them as models for their imitation. And so it becomes the clergy who have been set aside for the service of God so to order their lives and morals that in their dress, demeanour, walk, speech, and everything about them, nothing may be seen but what is serious, modest, religious spirit. and breathes the Let them avoid even slight defects, which in them would not be slight, so that their actions may win the veneration of all.”² This holiness of life is very frequently inculcated on the clergy in the councils and synods.³ Their occupations, if worthily performed, are means of sanctifying them and uniting them with God, and, moreover, the Church does what she can to secure the same end by prescribing the daily recitation of the divine office, and spiritual retreats at stated times (Can. 125, 126).

¹ Lev. xxi 8.

² Sess. 22, c. 1, de Ref.

³ 1 West., d. 24; 4 West., d. 12.

Great personal sanctity becomes the cleric, and is required if he is to perform his duties worthily. It is a disputed question among theologians whether the inferior clergy are as such in a state of perfection. It is allowed by all that bishops are in the state of practising perfection, inasmuch as they are in a permanent condition of life which is devoted to procuring the sanctification of those committed to their charge. Religious, too, by their vows assume the obligation of aiming at perfection, and in religious life find the means of acquiring it. Both bishops and religious, then, are in the state of perfection. St Thomas and many other theologians deny that the secular clergy inferior to bishops are in the state of perfection, properly so called. The chief reason is because their condition of life has not the permanence required for a state in the technical sense, and although they are occupied in labouring for the sanctification of others, like bishops, yet they do this rather as officials and helpers of bishops, not entirely in their own name and of their own authority. As the learned Suarez admits, the controversy is rather about words than things, and we may accept his conclusion that because the higher secular clergy are bound by vow to continence, and partake also in the duties of bishops, they may be said to be in an inchoate state of acquiring and practising perfection.¹

¹ Suarez, De Rel. 3, lib. 1 c. 17.

THE celibacy of the clergy rests on a positive enactment of ecclesiastical law which, nevertheless, supposes the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles about the excellence of virginity and its superiority to marriage. From the first ages of the Church it was felt that there was an incongruity between the Christian priesthood, with its duties of offering up the eucharistic sacrifice, and of whole-hearted devotion to the service of God, and the use of marriage. The example of our Lord and the counsels of St Paul told powerfully in the same direction. Already in the fourth century the law of celibacy existed which was formulated by Leo the Great in his letter to Anastasius written about the middle of the fourth century: “ Although,” he says, “ those who are not clerics may freely give themselves to marriage and the procreation of children, yet for the exhibiting of perfect chastity marriage is not allowed even to subdeacons, so that those who have wives should be as those who have them not, and those who have them not should remain single.” All the more stringently, he goes on to say, does the same law bind the higher clergy, deacons, priests, and bishops. This law was frequently inculcated by subsequent Popes, re-enacted in many ecclesiastical synods, and at latest in the Second Council of the Lateran (1139) marriage of the higher clergy was prohibited under pain of nullity. By ecclesiastical law, then, clerics in sacred orders are bound to observe perfect chastity, and marriage attempted by them is null and void. This law is known to all who aspire to sacred orders, and so those who choose the clerical state voluntarily embrace the law of continence. Indeed, a vow of perfect chastity is by ecclesiastical usage annexed to the reception of sacred orders, so that all who are ordained subdeacons, by the very fact of receiving ordination, take a solemn vow of chastity. The discipline of the Eastern Church is somewhat milder. Clerics belonging thereto may marry before the reception of sacred orders, and if they have already done this (Can. 132, 1072) they may keep their wives, except bishops. Even in the East clerics in sacred orders cannot contract a valid marriage.

There is a dispute among theologians as to whether the obligation of celibacy, which binds clerics in sacred orders, should be ascribed immediately to ecclesiastical law or immediately to a vow of chastity tacitly taken when sacred orders are received according to the precept of the Church. The question is not of great practical importance, for in any case the obligation of celibacy is derived ultimately from ecclesiastical law, which binds all clerics in sacred orders to the observance of perfect chastity. The violation of such a law, at any rate by external act, is not morally different from a violation of a vow of chastity. The more common and more probable opinion is that the obligation of celibacy is derived immediately from a vow of chastity which every subdeacon takes tacitly according to the precept of the Church when he receives the first of the sacred orders. Tacit profession even of the essential vows of religion was admitted in certain cases until it was altogether abrogated by a decree of Pius IX dated June 12, 1858. Boniface VIII decided that the vow of chastity thus tacitly taken by subdeacons is solemn, and that it annuls subsequent marriage if attempted.

A man who was married but whose wife is dead may be promoted to sacred orders. ‘‘ Men who have a wife” are prohibited from receiving orders according to Canon 987, 2; and Canon 132, sec. 3, lays down that a married man who, without a dispensation from the Holy See has received holy orders even in good faith is prohibited from the exercise of the same.

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.

ALL who are in sacred orders, all beneficed clergy, and all religious orders which have solemn vows and keep choir, are bound every day to recite the divine office, otherwise called the canonical Hours, or the breviary. This obligation is now enforced by positive ecclesiastical law in Canons 135, 1475 (sec. 1), 610, 413.

The obligation of saying the office begins for secular clerics with the reception of the subdiaconate, or the lawful and full possession of their benefice. The obligation as it affects religious is primarily incumbent on the superior, whose duty it is to provide for the saying or singing of the divine office under pain of grave sin. Each religious is bound to assist in choir unless lawfully excused, and if one who is solemnly professed is absent he must recite the office in private.

Religious under simple vows should be present in choir, but if they failed to be present they are not obliged to say the office in private, unless, of course, they be in sacred orders.

The obligation of saying the divine office for all who are bound by it is grave, so that a mortal sin is committed by wilfully and without lawful excuse omitting it or any considerable portion of it. According to theologians, one of the little Hours or any portion of the same length is to be reckoned considerable, so that its culpable omission will be a grave sin. Anything less than this will be only venial. A beneficed cleric not only sins by neglecting his office, but he loses his right to a proportional amount of the fruits of his benefice, and if he has already received that amount he must restore it to the fabric of the church or to the diocesan seminary, or give it to the poor (Can. 1475, sec. 2).

When two or more say the office together, the psalms may be said in alternate verses, one side listening while the other is reciting its verse. The rest listen while the lessons are said or sung by those appointed to the task.

Although the canonical Hours as said at different periods and in different churches have always been much the same in substance, yet in many details there has been considerable variety. Pope Pius V desired to introduce greater uniformity in the method of saying the divine office, and for this purpose he issued the Roman Breviary, and made its use obligatory on all who were bound to the office under pain of not satisfying their obligation. He abolished the use of other breviaries with the exception of such as dated back more than two hundred years. The divine office, therefore, must be recited according to the form of the Roman Breviary, and in Latin, the liturgical language of the Church.

Offices proper to particular countries, dioceses, and religious orders, are allowed to be inserted in the breviary and said only by the authority of the Apostolic See, and when a proper office has been thus granted it becomes obligatory on the grantees unless it was expressly conceded as permissive.

Pius V took away the obligation, which existed according to the rubrics of the breviary, of reciting the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin, the penitential and gradual psalms, and the Office of the Dead; but though he took away the obligation, still he exhorted those bound to the divine office to recite them, and granted indulgences to such as followed his exhortation. The recitation of the Litany of the Saints on the feast of St Mark, and on the Rogation Days, forms part of the office.

The office to be said on any particular day is indicated in the calendar drawn up and approved by the proper authority. It is a matter of obligation under pain of venial sin to adhere to the calendar, even if it seem to be wrong, unless it is manifestly against the rubrics or decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites. A reasonable cause, however, even though it be not a very grave one, will suffice to excuse the substitution of one office for another. If a wrong office has been said by mistake or inadvertence, there is no obligation to say the correct one; but if this is notably longer, some portion should be said to make up the difference.

The calendar to be followed is that of the church, diocese, or religious order to which one belongs. If absent from one’s place of domicile for a time, the general rule is that one’s own calendar should be followed; but in the case of regulars who recite the office in choir, a regular living for a time in another monastery should conform to the calendar of the place where he resides.

In each day’s office the order of the Hours should be observed at any rate under pain of venial sin. But here also any reasonable cause of some weight will excuse the saying of the Hours out of their proper order. If the time has arrived for anticipating Matins and Lauds for the next day, these may be said without any special reason even though the office of the day has not yet been finished, for each day’s office is independent of any other.

The divine office is a vocal prayer imposed on the clergy by the Church. It is not sufficient to run over it with the eyes or mentally; the words must be uttered and formed without. mutilation by the lips, though it is not necessary to produce an audible sound. The different Hours must be said without interruption as one continuous prayer under pain of venial sin, from which any reasonable cause will excuse. The recitation may be interrupted between the several Hours, between Matins and Lauds, and for the space of a few hours even between the Nocturns of Matins. Provided that the whole office be said within the natural or ecclesiastical day, whatever interruptions may have taken place, the obligation will be substantially fulfilled, and when an interruption has been made within an Hour, or even in the middle of a psalm or lesson, there is no obligation to repeat what has already been said.

As was said above, the divine office is the task of the day, and provided that the whole of it is said within the day, reckoning from midnight to midnight, the cleric will have fulfilled his duty substantially so as to be excused at least from mortal sin. The rubrics, however, which in this matter bind under venial sin, assign certain times of the day for the saying of the Office. Matins and Lauds should be said before Mass, Prime and Terce should be said before midday, Sext and None are said in the interval between midday and Vespers, Vespers and Compline are said when the sun is midway between the zenith and sunset. All the little Hours may be said before midday, and during Lent, beginning with the first Sunday, Vespers are also said before midday.

Matins and Lauds of the following day may be anticipated on the previous evening. The normal time for anticipating begins with the hour of Vespers, but a special privilege is often granted by which Matins and Lauds of the following day may be begun at 2 p.m. throughout the year. Indeed, there does not seem to be any necessity for a special grant, for a custom has been introduced, by the very common practice of good priests, of anticipating throughout the year after two o’clock. A cleric may safely follow this custom.

Permission to anticipate is a privilege which no one is bound to use; the obligation of the day’s office only begins at twelve o’clock.

The breviary contains rubrics directing that certain prayers be said on bended knee; these rubrics, however, do not bind when office is said privately out of choir. In private the office may be said in any place or in any position that is compatible with the due reverence to God which should be shown in prayer.

The obligation of saying the breviary is imposed by ecclesiastical precept, and the question arises what internal dispositions are necessary while reciting the office in order to satisfy the positive precept of the Church. Does one who is voluntarily distracted while saying the office satisfy his obligation, or must he repeat what he said with voluntary distractions ? It is not a question of what is required that prayer may be pleasing to God—voluntary distractions while praying are certainly venial sins—but the question is, what sort of attention is required by the law of the Church under pain of not fulfilling the obligation imposed by the law ?

Attention, which is an act of the mind adverting to what is being done, must be distinguished from intention, which is the will to do something. At least, a virtual intention to say the office is required that the act may be voluntary, such as the law prescribes. Theologians distinguish between internal and external attention. The former consists in directing the mind to God, or in thinking of the sense of the words uttered, or in being careful to pronounce them correctly, and it is certain that any of these forms of internal attention is sufficient to satisfy the precept. External attention means the abstaining while engaged in prayer from any external occupation which is incompatible with internal attention. Thus one who curiously examines a painting while praying, or intently listens to what someone is saying, has not external attention.

It is a disputed point among theologians whether this external attention is sufficient in order to satisfy the precept of saying the office, or whether there must be in addition internal attention. In other words, they dispute whether one who is voluntarily distracted but apparently devout while saying the breviary satisfies the law, or whether he must repeat what he has said with wilful distractions.

Although, of course, all should strive after internal attention, and sin is committed if voluntary distractions are admitted while praying, yet it is probable that external attention is sufficient to satisfy the positive law of the Church. For the Church does indeed prescribe prayer, but there is prayer in a real sense when one says the breviary with the intention of fulfilling his obligation, and with decorum and a devout demeanour, even though he is thinking of something else the while. If voluntary distractions destroy the essence of prayer, involuntary distractions will do so likewise, and yet it is impossible to avoid involuntary distractions altogether. This milder opinion is especially of use in order to calm scrupulous and anxious souls.¹ 9. As the obligation of saying the divine office arises from positive law, it does not bind when it would entail serious inconvenience. On this ground one who is sick, or who cannot say his office without causing a serious headache, is excused. Moreover, other occupations, undertaken for the good of our neighbour and such as cannot be neglected without his loss, will be a sufficient excuse for omitting the office, when both duties cannot be fulfilled. And so missionaries, who are all day long occupied in hearing confessions and preaching, are excused from the office which would interfere with their work, Even when there is not a sufficient cause to excuse of itself from the law, a dispensation may be lawfully obtained from the competent authority, if there be good cause for it. The Pope can grant a dispensation to any cleric, a bishop can dispense in particular cases with those of his diocese, and a regular prelate has similar powers for his own subjects. Wider powers are also granted as a special privilege by the Holy See. The faculty of saying fifteen decades of the rosary instead of the office is frequently granted to missioners who are lawfully prevented from saying the office. The meaning of which is that there must be some difficulty in getting in the office, but it need not be so great as would of itself excuse altogether from the obligation. Inasmuch as the office is composed of several portions which are usually said separately, there will be an obligation to say any such portion if it can be done without serious inconvenience, even though it be impossible to say the whole,

¹ Lugo, De Eucharist. 22, n. 25.

In general, clerics are forbidden to do anything which is unbecoming their state of life or which interferes with the due discharge of their duties—“‘ No man being a soldier to God entangleth himself with secular businesses,” says St Paul (2 Tim. ii 4). They are expressly forbidden to indulge in games of chance for money, to carry arms unless there is good reason to fear attack, to hunt with hounds, to enter inns and similar places without necessity or some good reason approved of by the Ordinary of the place (Can. 138).

Similarly, they are forbidden to practise medicine or surgery without leave of the Holy See, to act as public notaries, except in the ecclesiastical court, to hold public offices which involve the exercise of lay jurisdiction or administration.

Without leave of their own Ordinary they should not undertake the agency for property belonging to laymen, nor secular offices which entail the duty of rendering accounts; they should not exercise the office of procurator or advocate except in the ecclesiastical court, or when a cause of their own or of their church is being tried in the civil court; they should take no part, not even as witnesses, without necessity in a lay criminal trial.

Clerics are forbidden to go surety even with their own property without consulting the local Ordinary.

They are forbidden to offer themselves for the post of Members of Parliament or to accept it without leave of their own Ordinary and of the Ordinary of the place where the election is held (Can. 137, 139).

Clerics are forbidden to retain in their houses or in any way to be familiar with women about whom any suspicion can arise.

They may live under the same roof only with those women of whom natural ties allow no suspicion to be entertained, such as mother, sister, aunt, and so forth, or whose good character and mature age make them free from all suspicion.

The judgement as to whether the retaining or being intimate with women, even with those on whom suspicion does not usually fall, can in any particular case create scandal or be a danger to morals, belongs to the Ordinary of the place, whose duty it is to forbid such retaining or intimacy to clerics (Can. 133, sec. 4; West. d. 11, n. 3).

Canon 140 forbids clerics to be present at spectacles, dances, and pageants which do not become them, or when their presence would cause scandal, especially in public theatres.

“The word spectacula,” says Fr. Ayrinhac, ‘ comprises all theatrical representations and likewise such exhibitions as horse-races, bull-fights, prize-fights, etc., at least if it be taken in its most general sense.”” Dom Augustine gives a similar definition of the term.

Provincial legislation often makes this general law more precise. Thus 4 West., d. 11, n. g is as follows: “ We strictly prohibit ecclesiastics who have received sacred orders from being present at stage representations in public theatres or in places temporarily made use of as public theatres, under the penalty to transgressors of suspension to be incurred ipso facto, as has hitherto been the rule in all parts of England, with reservation to the respective Ordinaries.”

Clerics, therefore, are forbidden to be present at public not at private theatricals by this law. Custom in England makes an exception with regard to those exhibitions which are given by mere children.

Clerics are forbidden to enter military service, unless they do so with the leave of their own Ordinary in order that they may be free the sooner, and to aid in any way civil war and disturbances of public order (Can. 141).

Clerics are forbidden to trade in person or through another, whether in their own interest or in that of others (Can. 142).

The trading which is forbidden to clerics and all religious is trading in the strict sense of the term. In this sense to trade is to buy commodities, not for consumption, but with the intention of selling them again at a higher price without changing their nature. So that it is not trading in the strict sense to sell the produce of one’s own land, nor to sell what was bought for consumption but was found to be unsuitable, nor to sell without profit to the poor, nor to sell a picture painted by one’s self with colours bought in the market. However, certain transactions which have the appearance of trading are sometimes forbidden on account of the danger and scandal which they are apt to cause.

It is not illicit trading to invest money in Government stock or other bonds which bear interest, though it would be unlawful speculation to invest money with the intention of selling out at a profit if the price rises. Although it is forbidden to clerics to act as directors or to take part in the management of industrial and commercial companies, yet it is probable that a cleric may lawfully invest money in such enterprises as are honest merely with a view of getting interest on his investment. He only buys the right to receive interest on his money, much in the same way as if he invested it in Government stock.

The prohibition against trading binds under pain of grave sin if the matter be considerable. However, trading implies a habit, and so in the opinion of many divines to trade once in a way, even in a considerable quantity, would not be a mortal sin.

Canon 2380 prescribes that clerics and religious who violate the law against trading be punished by the Ordinary according to the gravity of the fault.

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.

THE duties of bishops of the Catholic Church are treated of at length in canon law; here we will touch upon the chief of them in so far as they affect conscience.

In order to be able to fulfil his various duties a bishop must habitually reside within the limits of his diocese.

It is a disputed point among theologians whether this obligation is derived immediately from the divine law or from the positive law of the Church. We may say that at least remotely and in substance it belongs to the divine law, for in detail it is determined by the positive law of the Church. The bishop need not always live in the episcopal city, but he should be there to pontificate in the cathedral on the more solemn festivals of the year. Notwithstanding the obligation of residence the Code of Canon Law allows a bishop to absent himself from his diocese for good cause for a period of two or three months every year provided that he can do so without injury to his flock. His own conscience must decide what cause is sufficient to justify his absence. Besides these two or three months a bishop may further absent himself if Christian charity, urgent necessity, due obedience, or the evident advantage of Church or State require it. But besides these reasons, in countries subject to the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda, the leave of the Sacred Congregation is also required for longer absence than the two or three months mentioned above.

At stated times bishops are bound to visit their dioceses in order to promote sound religious teaching and to correct errors in doctrine, to protect the good and punish the wicked, and to exhort the people to lead religious, peaceful, and good lives.¹ They are specially bound to watch over the morals and discipline of the clergy, and that there may be a constant supply of zealous priests for the needs of the diocese they should have a seminary for the education of those whom God calls to the clerical state. By the authority of the Holy See several dioceses may have a seminary in common if they are too small and poor to support a separate one for themselves. The care of sound Christian doctrine is specially entrusted to bishops, and in the exercise of this charge they may visit public and private institutions, except such as are exempted from their jurisdiction, and they may condemn bad books not only by their ordinary authority, but as delegates of the Holy See in this important matter, They are bound at times to preach the word of God; every Sunday and day of obligation, even on the feast days that have been suppressed, they are bound to offer up Mass for the people committed to their charge; they should hold a diocesan synod every ten years, and make their visit ad limina at the fixed times, in order to render an account of the state of their dioceses to the Holy See.

¹ Can. 343

THE canons attached to a cathedral church form the council or senate by whose advice and help the bishop is assisted in the government of the diocese. Collegiate churches were also served by a body of canons. By the common law, besides helping the bishop in the government of the diocese, canons were bound to residence near the church which they served; they were bound to sing the divine office every day in choir, and in turn to celebrate the conventual Mass. When a bishopric becomes vacant the government of the diocese devolves on the chapter of canons, who must elect within eight days after the vacancy occurs a vicar capitular to administer the affairs of the diocese until the appointment of a new bishop.

As there are either no prebends for the support of the canons in this country, or their income is too small for the purpose, our canons have been dispensed by the Holy See from the obligation of residence near the cathedral and from the daily celebration therein of Mass and divine office. They are, however, still bound to assemble at the cathedral on some one day in every month to be designated by the bishop, and on that day to sing office, say a conventual Mass, and hold a chapter. Similar provisions have been made in other countries, In the United States the place of canons is to some extent taken by the diocesan consulters.

In diocesan matters of importance the bishop is bound to ask the advice of his canons, and sometimes it is specially provided that he must obtain their consent to what he proposes to do.

Canons in England do not indeed elect a new bishop, but the Holy See has granted them the right of commendation, which is exercised by electing three clerics whose names they send in alphabetical order to the archbishop or to the senior bishop if the vacancy occurs in the archbishopric, ‘The bishops then hold a meeting and after deliberation send the names with their remarks and opinions concerning the merits of each to the Holy See. The Holy See selects one of the three or someone else as it is judged more expedient.

THE parochial system is not an institution of the primitive Church, much less of divine origin. For some centuries it was usual for the bishop to reside in some city with his body of clergy around him, some of whom were despatched as occasion required to minister to the faithful in outlying districts. In the fifth and sixth centuries parishes began to make their appearance in some places in the country districts, and in the eleventh, parish churches began to be instituted in the cities. Even at the period of the Council of Trent the parochial system had by no means become universal, but this council commanded that where churches had no fixed limits nor the pastors their own flock, and the sacraments were administered promiscuously to any who asked for them, the bishops should divide the people into fixed and proper parishes and assign to each its perpetual and separate parish priest, who might know them, and from whom alone they might lawfully receive the sacraments.¹ It added, indeed, that they might provide in some better way as circumstances of place demanded.

The Code of Canon Law prescribes that the territory of each diocese be divided into distinct parts called parishes, and that to each parish be assigned its own parish church with separate parishioners, and over it is to be placed its own parish priest for the necessary cure of souls (Can. 216).

The bishop should also divide his diocese into separate districts consisting of several parishes and called vicariates forane, or deaneries.

In the same way, where it can be done conveniently, vicariates apostolic and prefectures apostolic are to be divided.

The parts into which vicariates and prefectures apostolic are divided are called quasi-parishes, and the priests placed over them are called quasi-parish priests.

A parish priest is a priest or moral person or corporation who is collated to a parish in title with the cure of souls to be exercised under the authority of the local Ordinary (Can. 451).

A monastery or a cathedral chapter may have the habitual cure of souls as parish priest, but in accordance with Canon 471 such corporation must constitute a vicar to exercise the actual cure of souls, and allow him his decent support according to the judgement of the bishop.

‘When the parish priest has obtained possession of his parish, it is his lawful title for the exercise of all the duties and rights belonging to the office, and for the receiving of all the emoluments connected with it.

Quasi-parish priests and vicars of parish priests have in general all the rights and duties of parish priests (Can. 451, Sec. 2).

¹ Sess. 24, de Ref., c. 13.

In order that a parish priest may be able to fulfil his duties and be ready to help his parishioners in their spiritual needs, he should reside in the presbytery near the church.

The parish priest is allowed to be absent for two or three months, either continuous or interrupted, in the year, unless a grave reason in the judgement of the Ordinary himself requires a longer absence or permits only a shorter.

The days during which a parish priest is engaged in spiritual exercises, in accordance with Canon 126, once a year, are not reckoned in the two months of vacation.

Whether the time of vacation be continuous or interrupted, when the absence is to last beyond a week, the parish priest, besides a legitimate cause, ought to have the leave of the Ordinary in writing, and leave a vicar as substitute in his place to be approved by the same Ordinary; and if the parish priest is a religious he requires, in addition, the consent of his superior, and his substitute ought to be approved both by the Ordinary and by his superior.

If a parish priest is compelled by some sudden and grave reason to depart and to be absent beyond a week, let him inform the Ordinary by letter as soon as possible, telling him the reason of his departure and the priest who supplies for him, and let him abide by his commands. Even for a period of shorter absence a parish priest ought to provide for the needs of the faithful, especially if special circumstances demand it (Can. 465).

The Westminster Synods require that curates give notice to the parish priest if they wish to absent themselves even for a day.

On Sundays and on the other days of obligation throughout the year it is the peculiar duty of the parish priest to preach the word of God to the people in the usual homily, especially in the Mass, which is more frequented by the people.

The parish priest cannot habitually satisfy this obligation by employing another to do it, except for a good reason approved by the Ordinary.

The Ordinary may allow the sermon to be omitted on certain more solemn festivals, or even on some Sundays for a good reason (Can. 1344).

The kind and manner of instruction should be accommodated to the people, teaching them what is necessary for salvation, inveighing against vice and inculcating virtue, so that the people may be able to avoid hell and gain heaven, as the Council of Trent teaches.

The parish priest should prepare the children of his parish for the reception of the sacraments of Penance and Confirmation, and more specially for their first Communion. Moreover, after their first Communion he should take the opportunity to give them fuller instruction. On Sundays and days of obligation at some suitable time he should give catechetical instruction to the grown-up people of his parish (Can. 1330-1332).

To be able to fulfil his duties towards the members of his flock, a parish priest must know them, and he should not wait till they come to him; he should visit them and seek out those who have wandered from the fold. He is bound to correct the erring and to strive to recover them. He should also be able to devote some time to inquiring souls outside the fold. He should keep a book in which to enter particulars concerning the status animarum. He must be ready to administer the sacraments at the reasonable request of his parishioners, and he must say Mass in order that they may be able to fulfil their obligation of hearing it on the appointed days. Indeed, the provincial synods express a desire that there should be Mass daily in the parish church, and it will be the duty of the priest to provide this wherever the faithful have been led to expect it and frequent the church for the purpose.

On all Sundays and holidays of obligation, even on those that have been suppressed, parish priests are bound to apply Mass for their people (Can. 466).

Quasi-parish priests are bound to apply Mass for their people at least on the more solemn feasts mentioned in Canon 306.

The parish priest should say the Mass to be applied for the people in the parish church unless circumstances require or suggest otherwise. If he is lawfully absent he can apply the Mass for the people either himself in the place where he is staying, or through the priest who supplies for him in the parish (Can, 466, secs. 4, 5).

The Code mentions five kinds of parochial vicars: Vicarius curatus, Vicarius oeconomus, Vicarius substitutus, Vicarius adjutor, and Vicarius co-operator. (Vicar with the cure of souls, Vicar-econome, substitute Vicar, assistant Vicar, and co-operating Vicar.)

It will be sufficient for our purpose to say something on the duties of Vicarii co-operatores, or curates, as they are frequently called in this country.

If, on account of the number of people or for some other good reason, the Ordinary judges that one priest cannot look after a parish, he should appoint one or more curates and . assign them a decent support.

The rights and duties of a curate are to be learnt from the diocesan statutes, from the letters and faculties of the Ordinary, and from the commission of the parish priest, but unless his sphere of activity is expressly limited, he should, from the nature of his office, take the place of the parish priest and help him in the whole care of the parish, except that he is not bound to apply Mass for the people. He is subject to the authority of the parish priest, who ought in a fatherly manner to instruct and guide him in the cure of souls, watch over him, and at least once a year send a report concerning him to the Bishop (Can. 476).

THE Council of Trent declared¹ that no one should receive ordination who was not, in the judgement of his bishop, necessary or useful to the diocese, and it decreed that nobody should in future be ordained without being incardinated in the diocese for whose necessity or advantage he was taken, so that all priests may have occupation and may not wander about without fixed abode.

The new Code of Canon Law prescribes that all clerics must belong either to some diocese or to some religious order, so that unattached clerics are nowise tolerated. A cleric is incardinated in the diocese for whose service he was promoted by the reception of the clerical tonsure (Can, 111).

All clerics, but more especially priests, are bound by a special obligation to show reverence and obedience to their respective Ordinaries. As often and for so long as the necessity of the Church requires it, in the judgement of the Ordinary, and unless excused by some lawful impediment, clerics must accept and fulfil the duties of the office which is assigned them by the bishop (Can. 127, 128).

Although they have not a benefice or a residential office, clerics may not depart for any considerable time from their diocese without at least the presumed leave of their own Ordinary. One who with the leave of his own Ordinary has gone to another diocese while remaining incardinated in his own, can be recalled if there is a good reason and natural equity is observed, and the Ordinary of the other diocese also can for a good reason refuse him leave to stay any longer in his diocese, unless he has conferred a benefice on him (Can. 143, 144).

¹ Sess. 23, c. 15, de Ref.

I. The Notion of Clerics. Those who have been dedicated to the divine ministries by at least first tonsure are called clerics (can. 108, § 1). Besides, note:

1. Clerics are not all in the same grade, but among them there is a sacred hierarchy in which some are subordinated to others (can. 108, § 2). With these things considered, the sacred or ecclesiastical hierarchy can be defined: the body of clerics who, according to various grades, enjoy sacred power in the Church. It is distinguished into the hierarchy of Order and the hierarchy of jurisdiction, according as sacred power is concerned with the ministry of divine worship (for example, the dispensation of the sacraments, etc.) or with the governance of the faithful (cf. can. 948).

2. By divine institution the sacred hierarchy, by reason of order, consists of Bishops, presbyters, and ministers; by reason of jurisdiction, of the supreme pontificate and the subordinate episcopate; but by the institution of the Church other grades have also been added (can. 108, § 3).

3. Those who are enrolled in the ecclesiastical hierarchy are not chosen by the consent or calling of the people or of secular power; but in the grades of the power of order they are constituted by sacred ordination; in the supreme pontificate, by divine law itself, once the condition of legitimate election and acceptance of the same has been fulfilled; in the remaining grades of jurisdiction, by canonical mission (can. 109). This mission is called canonical because it is required precisely for having canonical, i.e. ecclesiastical, jurisdiction, just as civil mission is required for having civil jurisdiction. It is said: in the remaining grades of jurisdiction; hence, although the episcopate together with the papacy was instituted by Christ, individual Bishops nevertheless also need canonical mission on the part of the Roman Pontiff (cf. can. 329), not only so that territory may authoritatively be marked out for them and subjects assigned to them, as all concede, but also - according to the opinion today at least most common and certain - so that they may directly acquire their jurisdiction.

II. The Enrollment of Clerics in Some Diocese or Religion. Every cleric ought to be enrolled in some diocese or religion, so that wandering clerics are in no way admitted (can. 111, § 1).

1. Enrollment in some diocese. By reception of first tonsure a cleric is enrolled, or, as they say, incardinated, in the diocese for whose service he was promoted (can. 111, § 2). Moreover, in order that a cleric already enrolled in some diocese may be incardinated into another diocese, he must obtain: 1° from his own Ordinary letters of perpetual and absolute excardination, signed by the same; 2° from the Ordinary of the other diocese letters, likewise perpetual and absolute, of incardination, signed by the same (can. 112). Besides, there is excardination and incardination if the cleric has obtained a residential benefice from the Ordinary of the other diocese with the consent of his own Ordinary given in writing, or with permission granted by the same in writing to depart from the diocese in perpetuity (can. 114).

2. Enrollment in some religion. One professed with perpetual vows, whether solemn or simple, loses by the law itself the proper diocese which he had in the world (can. 585). If a religious constituted in sacred orders has lost his proper diocese through perpetual profession, and afterwards departs from the religion, he cannot exercise sacred orders outside the religion until he has found a Bishop benevolently receiving him, or the Apostolic See has otherwise provided. But if some Bishop has received such a religious, by that very fact he is incardinated in his diocese (can. 641).

III. The Rights of Clerics. Rights here are called those things which are founded in the very nature of the clerical state. Therefore:

1. Clerics alone can obtain ecclesiastical power, whether of order or of jurisdiction (can. 118).

2. All the faithful owe reverence to clerics, according to their diverse grades and offices, and they stain themselves with the delict of sacrilege if at any time they have inflicted a real injury on clerics (can. 119; cf. n. 614).

IV. The Privileges of Clerics. Privileges are those things which have been added to rights by positive law. They are: the privilege of the canon, the privilege of the forum, the privilege of exemption, and the privilege of competency.

1. The privilege of the canon is that by which a cleric is protected against every real or bodily injury by the penalties established against those who commit them. It is called the privilege of the canon because it was contained in the celebrated canon of Lateran Council II (1139).

2. The privilege of the forum is that by which a cleric is exempted from lay jurisdiction according to the norm of can. 120, soon to be cited. It is called the privilege of the forum, for forum (from fero or foris) according to the first imposition of the name signifies a public place to which goods for sale are brought; here, however, it chiefly signifies the place in which lawsuits and trials are carried on. Therefore, according to can. 120, clerics in all causes, whether contentious or criminal, must be summoned before an ecclesiastical judge, unless something else has been legitimately provided for particular places, or special permission has been obtained to summon them before a lay judge. If nevertheless they are summoned by one who had no prior permission, they can, by reason of necessity and to avoid greater evils, appear, but with notice having been given to the Superior from whom permission was not obtained. It is said:

a) In all causes; whether contentious or criminal, whether civil or ecclesiastical. Moreover, exemption from the jurisdiction of secular judges with respect to ecclesiastical causes is rather from native right than from privilege, even taken broadly; with respect to civil causes, exemption is from privilege. Nevertheless that privilege does not prevent clerics from generally being subject to civil laws; but if a cause is instituted, for example if there is question of punishing a transgression of civil law, the matter is to be referred to the ecclesiastical judge. Hence it is also said that clerics are subject to civil laws with respect to the directive part, but not with respect to the coercive part.

b) Must be summoned, i.e. cited as defendants, not as witnesses.

c) Unless something else has been legitimately provided for particular places. Thus, for example, in Austria, Bavaria, and Colombia, by concordats, the privilege of the forum has partly been derogated. Whether this privilege can also be derogated by way of custom, at least centenary custom, is disputed among canonists.

d) Or special permission has been obtained to summon them before a lay judge. Moreover, Cardinal Fathers, Legates of the Apostolic See, Bishops even titular, Abbots or Prelates nullius, supreme Superiors of religions of pontifical right, and major Officials of the Roman Curia, on account of affairs pertaining to their office, cannot be summoned before a lay judge without permission of the Apostolic See; others enjoying the privilege of the forum cannot be summoned without permission of the Ordinary of the place in which the cause is conducted. Yet the Ordinary should not deny this license without a just and grave cause, especially when the plaintiff is a layman, and most of all when he has fruitlessly given effort to settling the controversies between the parties (can. 120, § 2).

3. The privilege of exemption.¹ All clerics are immune from military service, from offices and public civil duties alien to the clerical state (can. 121). Duties and offices are understood: 1° those which are repugnant to the dignity of the clerical state, such as sordid duties; 2° those which can be composed with difficulty with the duties of the clerical state, such as offices for preserving public security, for keeping watches, for averting fires, and similar things.

4. The privilege of competency. It is the privilege by which a cleric burdened with debt and called into court by creditors cannot be deprived of those goods which are required for his honorable support; according to these words of can. 122: Clerics who are compelled to satisfy creditors are to have safe those things which, by the prudent judgment of the ecclesiastical judge, are necessary for their honorable support, while nevertheless their obligation of satisfying the creditors as soon as possible remains firm.

A cleric cannot renounce the privileges mentioned; but he loses them if he is reduced to the lay state,² or is punished with perpetual privation of the right of wearing ecclesiastical habit, according to the norm of can. 213, § 1 and can. 2304. But he recovers them if this penalty is remitted or he himself is again admitted among clerics (can. 123).

¹ Cf. Damen, Vrijdom der Geestelijken van krijgsdienst.

² Cf. scholion.

(St. Thomas, II-II, q. 184, a. 8; St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, book IV, nn. 83-191; Homo Apostolicus, Appendix 3.)

We shall speak first of the duties of clerics generally, then of the duties of some clerics specifically.

Can. 124 establishes generally: "Clerics ought to lead an interior and exterior life holier than laymen, and to excel them in virtue and right deeds as an example." Therefore they are bound to a holier life than laymen both by reason of the offices to which they are deputed, and by reason of the example to be furnished by them.

By reason of offices; concerning which St. Thomas says: "For the suitable execution of Orders, goodness of whatever sort is not sufficient, but excellent goodness is required, so that just as those who receive Order are constituted above the people in the grade of Order, so also they may be superior in the merit of holiness" (Supplementum, q. 35, a. 1, ad 3). And concerning the Priest in II-II, q. 184, a. 8, he says: "Through sacred Order someone is deputed to the most worthy ministries, by which Christ Himself is served in the Sacrament of the Altar; for this a greater interior holiness is required than even the religious state requires."

By reason of example; concerning which the Council of Trent says:² "There is nothing which more continually instructs others unto piety and the worship of God than the life and example of those who have dedicated themselves to the divine ministry. For since they are lifted from the things of the world into a higher place, the rest cast their eyes upon them as upon a mirror, and from them take what they may imitate. Wherefore it is altogether fitting that clerics called into the lot of the Lord so compose their whole life and morals that in habit, gesture, gait, speech, and all other things they display nothing except what is grave, moderate, and full of religion; and that they avoid even slight things, which in them would be very great, so that their actions may bring veneration to all."

After these things have been noted generally, following the Code of Canon Law we shall speak first of positive duties, then of negative duties, and finally specifically of the duty of reciting the canonical hours.

¹ Cf. Code of Canon Law, cann. 124-144; Decretals, book III, title 1, De vita et honestate clericorum; Council of Trent, session 22, decree on reform, c. 1; Exhortation to the clergy of Pius X, 4 August 1908; Wernz-Vidal, Ius canonicum, II, n. 87 sq.; Gasparri, Tractatus de sacra ordinatione, I, n. 1 sq.; Vermeersch-Creusen, Epitome Iuris Canonici, I, n. 214 sq.; Vlaming, Institutiones iuris ecclesiastici, part III, n. 489 sq.

² Session 22, decree on reform, c. 1.

For our purpose we shall speak chiefly about the duties of beneficiaries; first generally, then about the duties of parish priests in particular. Finally we shall add what must be observed by the assistants of parish priests.

The Special Duties of Clerics.—From the duties of Catholics in general we pass now to the special duties of clerics; for the clergy, on account of their position as the salt of the earth and the light of the world (Matt., v. 16), are bound to a greater internal and external holiness and edification than the laity. The word “cleric” is understood in a wide or in a strict sense. In the wide sense, a cleric is any Christian specially set apart for the service of God, whether by ordination or religious profession (e.g., lay brothers, nuns); in the strict sense, a cleric (clergyman) is one who has been admitted to Orders, or at least to their preparation through tonsure (Canon 108).

(a) Duties Before Entering the Clerical State.—The person who would enter the clerical state must have a vocation and a right intention. As to the latter, since the clerical state has for its ends the glory of God and the salvation of souls, it would be a serious sin to choose it principally for temporal ends, such as wealth, dignity or pleasure; but it is not a sin to desire secondarily and moderately the necessary support of the clerical state (I Cor., ix, 3).

(b) Duties After Entering the Clerical State.—The privileges of clerics are treated in canonical works. Here we speak only of duties. The obligations of a cleric are of two kinds—the positive, such as celibacy, and the negative, such as the avoidance of unbecoming amusements or occupations.

What about the holiness of life of clerics? - The life of clerics ought to be strong in internal holiness and external edification, not only negatively as regards immunity from sin, but also positively as regards the exercise of virtues. This is established: 1. From Sacred Scripture, from the Councils, from the Fathers, from Trent s. 22, c. 1 de R., s. 23, c. 4 de R., from the Letters of Pius X, Haerent animo, to the Catholic Clergy, August 4, 1908. 2. From the very excellence of the state and the office which they profess. But whether the clerical state strictly taken, insofar namely as it is distinguished from the state of Religious and of Bishops, is or is not a state of perfection, is disputed among doctors. Nevertheless it does not seem able to be denied that it is at least in some way a state of perfection. Suarez de Relig. t. 3, l. 1, c. 17, n. 2-4; S. Th. 2. 2. q. 184, a. 8; Suppl. q. 36, a. 4; L. l. 6, n. 803; E. M.

Note: In order that they might promote this interior holiness of life and exterior edification in clerics, the Supreme Pontiffs very greatly commended spiritual exercises. Cf. 220; A. S. S. v. 37, p. 422 ff.

The Council of Trent, moreover, exhorts deacons and subdeacons to receive Communion at least on Sundays and feasts, s. 23, c. 13 de R., and priests at least to celebrate Mass on the aforesaid days, ib. c. 14.

Are clerics bound to preserving celibacy? - In the Latin Church all clerics, from the episcopate to the subdiaconate inclusive, are held under a most grave precept to preserve perpetual chastity, so that they neither can licitly use a marriage contracted before sacred ordination, nor licitly nor validly afterward contract it. This is established from several chapters of Canon Law, especially C. 1, Dist. 28; C. unic. de Voto in 6; Trent s. 24, c. 9.

In the Latin Church. For some exception is given by tolerance of the Church among the Orientals. In the Oriental Church priests can never enter marriage after priestly ordination, nor deacons after the diaconate; but those married before the diaconate can be promoted to further orders, and nevertheless live with their wives. Bishops are excepted, all of whom must constantly preserve perfect chastity. Hence among the Greeks the subdiaconate is not numbered among sacred orders; and upon unmarried clerics in the ordination of the diaconate the precept of chastity is imposed. In some provinces, in which the ancient discipline of the Western Church has been restored, the same obligation is imposed in the ordination of the subdiaconate. Cf. 1015. L. l. 6, n. 806; S. Th. Suppl. q. 53, a. 3; C. Ut Clericorum 13 de Vit. et honest. cler., C. A crapula 14 e. t.; C. 1, 2 Qui cler. vel vov.; C. 1, 4 de Cler. coniug.; Benedict XIV, C. for the Italo-Greeks Etsi pastoralis, May 26, 1742, § 7, n.

26; Instruction for the Copts Eo quamvis tempore, May 4, 1745, § 30 ff.; E. M.

Ruthenian clerics in the Canadian region cannot be admitted into the Seminary unless they have promised before the Bishop that they will preserve celibacy perpetually; and only celibates will be able to be promoted to sacred orders in the Canadian region. For exercising the sacred ministry among the faithful of the Ruthenian rite, none can be admitted except celibate priests, or at least widowers and without children. S. C. de P. F., August 8, 1913, art. 10, 11; A. A. S. v. 5, p. 395. Celibacy is prescribed in the very same way for the Ruthenian clergy in the United States of North America by Pius X, C. Ea semper, XVIII Kal. Jul. 1907, c. 2, art. 10, 12; Supplem. 369.

During the first five centuries in the Western Church the obligation of preserving continence attached to the order of subdiaconate is not found. The first to command subdeacons to preserve it was St. Leo the Great, around the year 440, as is clear from his Epistle 84 to Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica. But since St. Leo's precept was no longer being sufficiently observed, D. Gregory the Great renewed it, around the year 581, further declaring that the subdiaconate is a sacred order and aggregated to the major orders. And then it is expressly and determinately established in the Decretals of Innocent III, C. Miramur 7 de Serv. non ordinandis. De Iustis de Dispens. Matrim. l. 3, c. 15, Appendix n. 11.

Is the obligation of celibacy of divine law? - Reply: Negatively; for if this law were of divine law, it would not vary concerning it between the Latin and Greek Church, since divine law does not vary according to diversity of places. It is therefore from the ordinance of the Church. Therefore the Church can dispense from that obligation.

Whether that obligation is immediately from a precept of the Church, or immediately from a vow to be emitted by precept of the Church? Trent s. 24, c. 9 refers to both, but does not define. There are those who teach that those ordained in sacred orders are held to chastity not from a vow, but from the sole ordinance of the Church, both because no mention of a vow is made, and because a precept of the Church is sufficient for this. But others commonly, with S. Th. 2. 2. q. 88, a. 11, derive this obligation immediately from a vow of chastity, which is emitted in the very fact of ordination according to the mind of the Church, and this is expressly had in the Law. C. Cum olim de Cler. coniug.; Benedict XIV, C. Inter praeteritos, December 3, 1749, § 41. And Boniface VIII declared this vow to be solemn. C. un. de vot. et vot. redempt. in 6. Wherefore a cleric initiated into sacred orders, sinning against chastity, sins also against religion by acts both external and internal. Therefore the obligation of celibacy extends to preserving all chastity. Cf. L. l. 6, n. 807, 808; Albit. de Inconst. in Fide c. 36, n. 132 ff.

What if someone were promoted to sacred orders either invincibly ignorant of the obligation of chastity attached to them, or expressly unwilling to vow that obligation itself, or if he were compelled to this by grave fear, or if he were ordained in the very age of infancy? - Reply to the first: Some probably say that he is held to chastity, namely by force of the universal law itself of the Church. Others "probably judge that if the ignorance had been altogether invincible, the ordained man would not be held to chastity, neither from a vow nor from a precept of the Church, because the Church would not intend to oblige such a one; but otherwise if the ignorance had been culpable, or if someone intended to receive the order with the same obligation with which others receive it." Ignorance of this kind is not presumed in the external forum, since it concerns a law so clear and most commonly handed down.

Reply to the second: "In such a case he would be held to chastity not from a vow, but from the precept of the Church, which from a motive of religion would bind him to chastity, the vow being absent."

Reply to the third: One must distinguish: If he did not have the intention of receiving sacred ordination, he is not held, as having been invalidly ordained. If he had the mind of receiving sacred orders, and the fear was just, more probably he is held, because since he is unwilling unreasonably, such fear neither exempts from law nor invalidates the vow. If again he had the mind of receiving sacred orders, but the fear was unjust, more probably he is not held, because of the opposite reason. Wherefore he can validly contract marriage, "but he cannot minister in the order while the marriage stands, nor enjoy clerical privileges." But the nullity of the ordination must be established in the external forum by canonical process. Cf. 106.

Reply to the fourth: "It is certain that he who is ordained before the use of reason, although the ordination is valid, nevertheless is not held to chastity; whence he can validly and licitly enter marriage." Benedict XIV, Bull Eo quamvis tempore, May 4, 1745, commands that in the sixteenth year of age an option be given to them; and, if they wish to preserve chastity, they are admitted to the exercise of the order; otherwise, if they do not wish. And he adds that after ratification they invalidly contract marriage and are held to the divine office. If after the use of reason, but before puberty, some probably say that he is held, others not improbably deny it. The reason is that such a vow, from which this obligation more probably comes, "constitutes a man in an irrevocable state, in which the Pontiff never or rarely dispenses; whence such a vow requires a mature and perfect use of reason." L. l. 6, n. 80, 781, 809-811; S. Th. Suppl. q. 39, a. 2; Sanchez in Dec. l. 5, c. 6, n. 5-8.

What about tonsure and habit? - Clerics are obliged to wear the tonsure and clerical clothing. This is established from various places of Canon Law, especially Conc. Tr. s. 14, c. 6 de R., s. 22, c. 1 de R., s. 23, c. 6 de R.; L. l. 6, n. 825; S. Th. 4, d. 24, q. 3, a. 1, q. 1; Suppl. q. 40, a. 1.

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.

What properly are tonsure, crown, and clerical habit? - Tonsure, to be worn by clerics, insofar as it is distinguished from crown, is the prohibition made to clerics of nourishing a beard, which today by custom must be altogether shaved, unless some necessity is present; and of letting the hair grow long, which is grave unless the hair is moderate, C. 4, 5, 7 de Vit. et honest. cler., or the custom of the region bears otherwise and scandal is absent. Nor indeed can they use artificial hair without the command of the bishop, S. C. C., December 9, 1690, unless custom obtains otherwise. The crown today is the tonsure on the top of the head in the manner of a crown. The crown must be broader or narrower according to order and dignity. La-Croix l. 4, n. 1373; Benedict XIV, Notification 96; de Syn. l. 11, c. 9; L. l. 6, n. 826; Clem. 2, C. 4, 5, 15 de Vit. et honest. cler.; Trent ll. cc.

Clerical habit is a cassock, and other things congruent to the order in the judgment of the Bishop, Trent s. 14 de R., c. 6; s. 22 de R., c. 1; s. 24 de R., c. 12 in fine; therefore they vary according to various places. A cassock is said to be a garment which flows down to the ankles, or at least to the knees, which by a certain epikeia and the custom of certain places has been received in towns and villages; and in the cities themselves also it is permitted outside sacred functions and the celebration of Mass. C. Clerici 15 de Vit. et honest. cler.; Sixtus V, C. Cum sacrosanctum, January 9, 1589; Benedict XIV, Notification 71, n. 9; S. Th. Suppl. q. 40, a. 1; E. M.

Note: Since many things, especially as regards the exterior attire of clerics, are by no means determined in particular by common law, but are various according to various regions, one must stand by the Statutes of each diocese, which a confessor of clerics must altogether not be ignorant of. In many dioceses it is altogether prohibited to admit to the celebration of Mass priests not wearing clerical habit, cassock, and tonsure. The penalties, however, laid down against those not wearing habit and tonsure do not seem to affect those who do not wear tonsure only.

Clerics are prohibited from wearing a ring, unless it belongs to them from the office of dignity, as are Bishops, Abbots, etc. C. 15 de Vit. et hon. cler.

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.

Is one who received sacred order through fear unjustly inflicted held to recite the office? - More probably they deny it. The reason is that although fear does not remove the voluntary, nevertheless the Church is not reasonably judged to wish to oblige to the burden of the office except those who receive the order altogether spontaneously. And therefore such persons ordained through grave fear are not even held to chastity. In the external forum, however, they are held to both until the fear has been established before the S. C. of the Sacraments. L. 144; A. S. S. v. 1, p. 330; v. 2, p. 443; v. 6, p. 85. Cf. here 99.

Are religious men and nuns, if for a just cause they do not come to choir, held to recite the office privately? - Reply: Negatively, if they have only simple vows. If for a just cause; for unless they are legitimately impeded, they too are held to be present at choir. S. C. of Bishops and Regulars, March 24, 1882; May 2, 1883; May 3, 1902; July 28, 1902. Affirmatively, if they have solemn vows. The reason is that the principal obligation for a religious man and a nun does not fall upon choir, but upon recitation of the office by reason of Religion, which undertook that burden from its institute. This obligation is established besides from the universal custom of nuns and religious, who, when they cannot be present at choir, believe themselves bound under grave obligation to recite the office privately. But a universal custom which was constantly observed with great inconvenience provides a sufficient argument concerning a grave obligation undertaken. S. Penitentiary to the Bishop of Perigueux, November 26, 1852.

From a privilege conceded by Innocent IV, regulars and nuns can for a reasonable cause satisfy by reciting the prayers of laymen and laywomen; for example, if a nun is scrupulous, extraordinarily weary, or occupied in useful ministries; if a religious is weakened from a journey or from preaching. Likewise prelates, even inferiors, can for a cause, for example studies, dispense with their subjects, as in other observances, so that they do not recite. L. 62, 142; Pellizzar. de Monialib. c. 6, n. 12 ff.; De Alexandris, Confess. monial. c. 8, q. 5; E. M.

Does a religious man or nun sin gravely who recites the office privately while he or she could easily be present at choir? - Reply: Negatively. For the obligation of choir, although it is grave for the community, is nevertheless held to be light for individual private persons, provided the choir is not entirely removed. But for choir four fit persons suffice, that is, those valid and free to sustain choir. But if the religious are fewer, they are in no way obliged to recite the office in choir; yet they are not exempted from private recitation, as was just said. Four fit persons, "for if they are sick, or legitimately occupied, they are not obliged to choir even if they are four. But Viva, etc., probably think that it suffices for satisfying choir that novices alone be present, because in favorable matters they are reckoned as religious." L. 143. A moderate cause, however, will be able to excuse from the light obligation of coming to choir. Clem. Gravi de Celebr. missar.

Note: That prelates sin gravely who from negligence permit a notable part to be omitted from being recited in choir. That those are not held to supply in choir what is omitted who, while others sing, prepare or transfer books, search out the psalms, strike the organ or bells, or perform other things necessary for choir, because while someone is occupied in matters pertaining to the solemnity of the office, the whole choir supplies for him, and all constitute one moral body. But he who responds alternately to choir by playing the organ, without pronouncing the versicle of his own part, does not seem to satisfy, because the organ does not pronounce words, and the office is not recited integrally. L. 143, 156; La-Croix 1300.

What specifically must be noted as regards recitation in choir or with a companion? - He who recites the office in choir or with a companion must recite integrally those things which are said secretly; hymns, psalms, and versicles by alternate, not by third, turns. But it suffices to hear, while another reads them, the antiphons, brief responsories, chapters, and lessons. As regards those things which the companion recites or reads, so that someone can satisfy, it is necessary that he pronounce all things duly and correctly, and that the person himself hear these things, although the companion may not be obliged to recite the divine office, indeed although he may be distracted; because these things do not impede someone from reciting according to the custom of the Church and communicating with a companion. Although, if the companion is obliged and does not attend, he does not satisfy, since he does not communicate with another. But because all those reciting constitute as it were one body, and because those things which they recite or read in turn are communicated, if someone is not at fault for not perceiving by ear those things which the other part of the choir or the companion recites, it is probable, provided he attends as much as he can, that he satisfies.

Hence one who is somewhat deaf and hears in confusion also satisfies, for example because there is noise, because the companion recites in a low voice, or because of the ineptitude of the reader. "For this precept of the office, from the benignity of the Church, must be interpreted benignly. On the other hand, it will be very liable to anxieties that companions in the office must always be solicitous as to what quantity the omission of hearing has reached, so that they are held or not held to repeat." L. 163.

Somewhat deaf; and also the deaf? If he recites with a companion, whom he is not compelled to use, doctors commonly deny it. If in choir, still more deny; but many also affirm, and not undeservedly, for the obligations and rights of choir must be measured by an equitable reason. Kenrick tr. 8, n. 16; D'Annibale ed. 3, p. 3, n. 151; La-Croix 1295; L. 162, 163; Laymann de Orat. et Hor. Canon. c. 5, n. 7; S. Jerome, Epist. 108, n. 19, Migne vol. 22, col. 896.

Outside choir, if only one or two recite the office, and in the choir of nuns, the Confiteor is recited only once and by all at the same time, with those words omitted, tibi pater, or vobis fratres; te pater or vos fratres; and then it is said: Misereatur nostri, peccatis nostris, perducat nos.

The reading of the Martyrology, which is read daily in choir at Prime before the verse Pretiosa, except the triduum before Easter, is part of the divine office; and it is established from the Rubrics of the same Martyrology that the memorial of the Saints must be read on the day preceding their feast. Lugo, Resp. Mor. l. 5, d. 17.

Note: "It is the common opinion that he satisfies well who hears from a companion the lessons, responsories, chapters, prayers, and antiphons. And probably he still satisfies who alone says the psalms and hears the lessons; or who says part of the psalms alone and part with a companion, because he sufficiently communicates in that part which he hears, and which by received usage is already satisfied by hearing." L. 162. "But it is certain that in choir it is not necessary to hear all, but it suffices to hear one, and it suffices to hear in confusion at least part of the other choir, although you cannot hear distinctly." L. 163. He satisfies choir who recites the psalms quietly, hearing the other part, since one part constitutes one body with the other and they communicate mutually; nor is it necessary that those reciting in one choir hear all those reciting in the other. As regards canons, cf. 220; L. 163; La-Croix 1298.

Are religious, living outside the cloister by permission, fugitive religious, those cast out by sentence, and those condemned to the galleys, held to the office? - Reply to the first: S. Alphonsus affirms it with others, adding: "as also those detained in prison." But Busembaum with others denies it concerning a religious "who has obtained a dispensation to live perpetually outside the monastery, because although he remains a religious he is nevertheless not regular." L. 141, 142.

Reply to the second: Bonacina denies it and Tamburini thinks it probable, but Lessius and Concina better teach that they are held. The reason is that just as they do not lose the religious state, so they are not exempted from its burdens. L. 142. And the same must be said of the excommunicated, even those to be avoided.

Reply to the third: "Not improbably they deny it with Busembaum, etc., with Scotus and Laymann, who call this opinion safe. The reason is that in them the essence of the religious state has now been extinguished, since they are no longer held to the vows, as Sanchez supposes as certain, nor is it in their power to return to religion." L. 142. But Sanchez de Matr. l. 8, d. 8, n. 11 speaks of one professed and dispensed for marriage. As regards one cast out, he brings forward another reason, "because since he is now justly outside the monastery and the monastic life, he is exempted from its burdens."

Reply to the fourth: The S. C. C., on August 13, 1707, and afterward when interrogated, was unwilling to decide the matter, and Clement XI also abstained from a decision. Doctors, however, rather excuse. "Cabassutius more commonly denies it, who nevertheless says that clerics constituted in sacred orders are held; but concerning both, Sporer, Lessius, etc. deny it. The reason is that such recitation would seem to yield to the disgrace of the religious order," and of the clerical state, namely if they live together with other condemned men and not in separate cells. And Kenrick tr. 8, n. 6 says, "from equity, the obligation seems remitted." L. 142; D'Annibale ed. 3, p. 3, n. 153; E. M.

How great is the obligation of the divine office? - The obligation of the divine office is grave in itself. Wherefore he sins gravely who, having this burden, omits the hours or a notable part of them. The reason is that he violates a precept in a grave matter, pertaining to the virtue of religion. C. Presbyter 1 de Celebr. miss.; L. 146; l. 3, n. 663; E. M.

Note: "That universally is judged small matter which does not reach the quantity of one complete hour." Thus most commonly. "He who omits the whole office is more truly to be said to commit only one sin, because the whole office of one day falls under one precept." L. 143, 147, 148.

Is it grave to omit Vespers on Holy Saturday? - Reply: Negatively. The reason is that the matter is light, both in itself and with respect to the whole office.

Are nuns who recite only the office of the Blessed Virgin bound to it under grave obligation? - Reply: In Orders in which only the office of the Blessed Virgin Mary is recited, this recitation does not oblige under grave obligation, although solemn vows are emitted in those Orders, for example, in the Order of the nuns called of the Visitation, as was decided several times. Moreover in communities in which, besides the office of the day to be recited, there also had to be recited the office of the Blessed Virgin, or of the Dead, or the seven penitential psalms, the obligation has altogether ceased from the Rubrics of C. Divino afflatu, title VII, n. 2. And if they were held from a peculiar constitution or from a legacy, they must seek commutation from the Holy See. Cf. 129; Gury-Ballerini 146; Bizzarri ed. 1885, p. 72; E. M.

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.

Note: Those are not obliged to restitution who from natural forgetfulness, just impediment, good faith, invincible ignorance, or otherwise without fault have omitted the hours. The reason is that in conscience a penalty is not owed where there is no fault. L. 151; l. 3, n. 665. "That a beneficed person can sometimes be excused from restitution for neglected hours by title of money spent, understand after the omission of the hours; for if before the omission, he is not excused, since proposition 33 was condemned by Alexander VII...; although not with this intention, for the poor or other pious uses.... And it is probable according to the opinion which Sanchez holds," etc. L. 153; l. 3, n. 700; La-Croix 1215. Under the name of the poor the beneficed person himself also is contained, provided he truly needs, and did not omit the office fraudulently, namely so that he might assign the fruits to himself as poor. Likewise whatever is spent on repairing or increasing the properties of the benefice is understood to be expended on pious causes. Suarez de Relig. t. 2, l. 4, n. 18, 19; L. l. 3, n. 672; E. M.

How many sins does one commit who is held to recitation of the office by title of benefice, by omitting it? - If one omitting it is unwilling to restore the fruits, he sins both against religion and against justice. The first reason is that the Church obliges to reciting the hours from a motive of religion. The second reason is that from the Lateran Council, he who does not say the office does not make the fruits his own. If one omitting it has the mind of restoring the fruits of the benefice, he indeed does not sin against justice, but he sins against religion. The first reason is that the Church confers the benefice under an obligation of justice, so that he does not make the fruits his own if he does not recite, but by no means under an obligation also of justice that he recite. Wherefore the obligation of the office does not arise immediately from the accepted benefice, but from the precept of the Church, imposed by reason of the benefice, from a motive of religion. The second reason is that, as is established from what has just been said, there are two grave precepts: first, by which beneficed persons are obliged to the office, for this was the end of the Church in the institution of benefices; second, by which one omitting the office is to restore the fruits. L. 145; l. 3, n. 663.

Can a beneficiary omitting the office on one day supply it on another day? - He is not excused from mortal sin, as all teach, and as is established from the cited Bull of S. Pius V. As regards restitution of the fruits, the first opinion, which Bonacina calls probable, affirms it. The reason is that in such a case this man has now repaid an equal thing, just as if a chaplain omits Mass on one day, he can well supply it on another. The second, most common opinion denies it. The reason is that S. Pius V, C. Ex proximo, sanctioned that one does not make the fruits his own who "has interrupted" the canonical hours "on one or several days." Here it must be noted that the Pontiff did not say "has omitted," but "has interrupted," by which word he sufficiently signified that one who interrupts the office on one day does not gain the fruits, even if he supplies on another day; because although he can be said not to have omitted the hours, nevertheless he cannot be said not to have interrupted them. L. l. 3, n. 667; S. Th. Quodl. 3, a. 29.

Is one who omits a part smaller than a complete hour held to restitution? - "If the omitted parts do not constitute grave matter, it is common that no restitution is owed, not even under venial sin, even if the fruits corresponding to that part would reach a great quantity." L. l. 3, n. 668.

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.

Is he held to recite the office again who doubts whether he has said it? - If the doubt is positive, that is, if some reason or probable conjecture is present that he recited it, although a reason also is not lacking for the opposite, he is not held; for he probably satisfied, and, with the probability of satisfaction of the law standing, the law in the case becomes of doubtful obligation. La-Croix 1235, 1237; and S. Alphonsus 150, who handed down this opinion as most common, citing several theologians for it; but afterward he withdrew from this opinion. If the doubt is negative, that is, if no reason or probable conjecture is present, then he is held to the recitation of the breviary. For then the law cannot prudently be called of doubtful obligation, since there is no probable motive suggesting its satisfaction. La-Croix l. c.; L. l. c.

At the end of the cited number this Holy Doctor has the following observation, useful for practice: "If you doubt whether you have said the whole hour or not, the Salmanticenses judge that, if you often labor under such doubt, you are not held to repeat, because then such doubt is easily presumed to arise from scruples; otherwise if rarely." Hence, they say, one is well excused from repeating the office if you do not remember having said something, and you have a just conjecture for believing that you said it; for example, if you remember that you began a psalm, or some lesson, or an hour, and afterward, distracted, reached the end of the psalm, lesson, or hour, without remembering whether you recited the whole; for presumption favors you, because you are accustomed to recite integrally those things whose recitation you began. But if you have reached 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 a later hour unless you first sent the prior one before it; therefore you can prudently believe that you omitted nothing. La-Croix 1236; L. 150.

In what rite must the office be recited? - The canonical hours, from the preceding law, had to be recited according to the prescription of the Roman breviary issued by order of S. Pius V and afterward corrected by order of other Pontiffs, so that all obliged to the hours would not satisfy their duty if they used another breviary, and therefore a beneficed person would not make the fruits his own. Cf. Suarez de Relig. t. 2, l. 4, de Hor. Can. c. 11, n. 3, 4. Religious are excepted who have the peculiar breviary of the order; the Milanese Church, which uses the Ambrosian rite, and the Chapels of Toledo, which use the Mozarabic rite; likewise Churches which for 200 years before the institution of the breviary by S. Pius V had a peculiar one. Those, however, could change their breviary into the Roman one, if the Bishop and the whole chapter consented. But once they used that faculty, they remained bound to the Roman breviary. Likewise they lost their privilege if they made any additions or changes in their liturgy. The Bishop can in these excepted churches prohibit the use of the Roman breviary; but if no such precept is present, whether someone privately can recite the Roman breviary is disputed. The same must be said of the missal. This is established from the Bull of the same S. Pius V Quod a nobis, July 7, 1568, and from C. Ex proximo; S. R. C., January 10, 1852, Cenomanen., n. 1993; Bouix de Iure Liturg. p. 4; L. 160; Lugo, Resp. Mor. l. 5, d. 7; E. M.

From the preceding law. For a new form of reciting the divine office was introduced by the Constitution of Pius X Divino afflatu, November 1, 1911, which is altogether preceptive. For in the aforesaid Constitution it is said: "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 pay the canonical Hours according to the Roman Breviary issued by S. Pius V and revised by Clement VIII, Urban VIII, and Leo XIII, we command that 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 presses, be religiously observed. At the same time we announce the penalties established in law to those who have failed in their duty of paying the canonical Hours daily; and they indeed should know that they will not satisfy so grave a duty unless they use this order of Our Psalter."

Note: Those who are not bound by reciting the office of the Blessed Virgin are not prohibited from using any formula of this kind of office, provided it is Latin, unless there is a legitimate custom of reciting it in the vernacular idiom. S. Pius V, C. Superni, March 11, 1571; S. R. C., January 15, 1897. Both breviaries and missals, and other liturgical books, cannot be printed without the attestation of the Ordinary, by which it is declared that they agree with those which have been printed at Rome. Liturgical books with Gregorian chant, also as regards the several Propers of churches, must be approved by the S. R. C. according to the Decree of November 27, 1908, A. A. S. v. 1, p. 159, 293. Clement VIII, Decree Cum in Ecclesia; Urban VIII, Decree Divinam psalmodiam; S. R. C., April 26, 1834, n. 2716; February 16, 1834, n. 2855; August 4, 1877, n. 3427. Cf. here n. 1306; E. M.

Do those satisfy who recite another breviary preserved from a custom of the place, introduced after the time determined by S. Pius V? - Reply: Negatively. S. R. C., January 10, 1852.

Does a priest need the permission of the Bishop to recite the Roman breviary in the aforesaid place where another is recited? - Reply: Negatively. This is established from the cited response of the S. R. C. "Privately," says Busembaum apud S. Alphonsus 160, "it is probable that it is lawful for all, even regulars, from custom to use the Roman, as Lessius, Rodriguez, Sa, Bonacina teach." Cf. n. seq.; for excepting custom, if there is any, the same reason in this case seems to be present. L. 161. Cf. also A. S. S. v. 1, p. 240.

Are clerics obliged to the breviary held to use the proper office of the diocese? - Reply: Affirmatively, provided that that proper office has been recognized and approved by the S. R. C. The reason is that although the concession of proper offices has the nature of a privilege, nevertheless all private persons are bound to use a privilege conceded to the whole community. The case is excepted, as is clear, in which private persons, by force of an Apostolic Indult, could not use the proper office of the diocese. Cf. n. 167.

Is there still an obligation of reciting the gradual psalms, the little office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the office of the Dead, which are noted in the rubrics of the breviary? - Reply: "The obligation ceases of reciting in choir, on the days prescribed hitherto by the Rubrics, the little office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the office of the Dead, and also the gradual and penitential psalms. But chapters which are held to these additional offices from a peculiar constitution or legacy will obtain their commutation from the Holy See." C. Divino afflatu, Rubr. title VII, n. 2.

Note: "Since through the new disposition of the Psalter the causes of the General Indult of July 5, 1883, for votive offices have ceased, these very offices, and other similar ones conceded from particular Indults, are altogether removed and declared removed." C. Divino afflatu, Rubr. title VII, n. 1.

In the Ambrosian Liturgy, according to the custom which has prevailed up to this time, all clerics ordained in sacred orders through the whole of Lent, except Sundays and Major Week, are held to recite the entire Office of the Dead; and on not a few ferial days through the year, part of the same Office. But from the Indult granted on February 23, 1897, by Leo XIII through the S. C. R., "all clerics constituted in sacred orders who follow the Ambrosian rite, outside choral officiation, on each day of Lent, except Festive days and Major Week, are to recite only Vespers of the Dead, and on the second day of November the entire Office for the Dead."

Must those obliged to the office recite under grave obligation the office of the Dead on the day of the Commemoration of all the Dead, and also the Litanies on the feast of S. Mark and during the triduum of the Rogations? - Reply to the first: "On the Commemoration of all the Faithful Departed, the office and Mass of the current day being omitted, only the office with Mass for the Dead is done, as is prescribed in the Appendix of the new Psalter. If on November 2 a Sunday or some double of the first class occurs, the Commemoration of the Dead is celebrated on the next following day, similarly not impeded; on which, if perhaps a double of the second class occurs, this is transferred according to the rule handed down title III, n. 3." C. Divino afflatu, Rubr. title XIII.

Reply to the second: "On the feast of S. Mark and in the triduum of the Rogations, the burden remains entire of reciting the Litanies of the Saints, even outside choir." C. Divino afflatu, Rubr. title VII, n. 3.

In what order are the canonical hours to be recited? - A twofold order is 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 concur at the same time. The order of hours is that which is set forth in the breviary, namely that Matins with Lauds is recited in the first place, then the little hours are added, that is, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, and finally Vespers with Compline follow. As regards the Saints concerning whom the canonical hours are to be recited, the office must be recited according to the calendar of one's own diocese, that is, of that in which someone has domicile or quasi-domicile, or a residential benefice. S. R. C., May 14, 1672, n. 1445. Pastors and their coadjutors are held to recite the offices of their own church, but not other priests who celebrate Mass in it or hear confessions. Masters and students of a seminary, living in it, are held to recite the offices proper to the church of the seminary, although they celebrate elsewhere. S. R. C. n. 2872, 2980.

On a journey: "When someone, for the sake of a journey, or study, or for other reasons, is outside his homeland or diocese, beneficed persons are always held to the office of their own Church; but simple priests can conform themselves to the office of the place where they stay." S. R. C., November 12, 1831, ad 46, n. 2682. But a regular "on a journey should follow the calendar of the divine office of the monastery from which he departed; when he arrives and remains in another monastery, even for a time, he should follow its calendar." S. R. C., August 31, 1839, n. 2801; "because everywhere he is held to be present at choir," S. R. C., September 25, 1852, n. 3001. One reciting privately is held to observe the calendar of the monastery from which he departed, S. R. C., June 27, 1896, ad 13, n. 3919. During Lent, regular preachers of the divine word, staying outside the monastery, must conform themselves to the Calendar of the Province, extended without any diversity for all in each year. S. R. C., August 31, 1839, n. 2801.

What if someone recites another office for the office of the day? - He who deliberately recites one office for another, if it is both of a plainly diverse rite and notably shorter, does not satisfy, as on Palm Sunday the office of Easter or Pentecost. If indeed it is not shorter, but only of a plainly diverse rite, it is probable that he satisfies, as for example if on the Nativity of the Lord he recites the office of the Passion; but he certainly does not lack light fault. But if it is of the same rite, but notably shorter, he does not satisfy. If under both heads it is nearly equal, he satisfies, although likewise he does not lack light fault; and this not only if he has done it three or four times in the year, but also if more often, which is the opinion of many and sufficiently probable, because the substantial form of the office seems to be quantity; but quality is only an accidental form. Indeed he does not even sin lightly if he has done this from some just cause, for example from devotion, or so that he may recite with a companion, or without reflection; and then, if after a small part of the office has been recited he notices that he has erred, it will be in his power either to pursue the one begun or the proper office. But it is better to recite the proper office, lest he persevere in error.

Hence, if someone, deliberately or without reflection, has recited an office notably shorter, he must supply what was more in the proper one. Likewise, whether someone did this deliberately or without reflection, on the day on which the recited office then occurs, this same office must more probably be recited again, not the one which he omitted, lest he err twice. Alexander VII, condemned proposition 34; S. R. C., June 17, 1673, n. 1474; January 27, 1899, n. 1011; L. 161; Lugo, Resp. Mor. l. 5, d. 8; La-Croix 1237, 1250, 1255; E. M.

What kind of sin is it to invert the order in recitation of the hours? - In private recitation, it never exceeds venial sin, because such inversion of order does not contain 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, you will be altogether free from every fault. Some say that inversion of order is a mortal sin if it is done frequently; but this must more probably be denied with S. Ligorius 169. "The same must be said if the order is inverted in the same hour." L. 170, 161 in fine. But he who so disturbs the parts of the office that scarcely the species of the office remains does not satisfy. Suarez d. 11, c. 7.

In public recitation it is disputed whether it is a grave sin or not to invert the order or to change the time of the hours. Some affirm it, if the inversion or change of time is notable and there is no excusing cause. The reason is that the canons repeat several times that the hours are to be recited at the stated times. Clem. Gravi 1 de Celebr. missar. But others deny it, because a circumstance of this kind does not pertain to the substance of the precept, but is merely accidental. Each opinion is probable; but the second is more probable, because a grave precept is not established. L. 171.

1. Ambrosius, a bishop, for reforming the morals of many from the clergy of his diocese, established the following things in the diocesan statutes, first promulgated by him: 1.º That clerics initiated in sacred orders and all beneficed clerics and religious clerics should not omit wearing the crown. — 2.º Under penalty of suspension incurred by the fact itself, he prohibited the same from omitting the cassock after sunset, even a single time. — 3.º He prohibited parish priests and other clerics constituted in sacred orders, whether seculars or regulars, from living alone with a maidservant who has not reached the fortieth year, adding that he prohibited this under grave obligation. — 4.º Having built and founded at his own expense a house of exercises, he prescribed that all clerics, whether seculars or regulars, should every three years perform exercises there for the space of eight days, with no payment, however, made for food, lodging, and other necessary things, but with a fine of five lire to be paid by transgressors. Now Rusticus, a parish priest in the country, since he himself has been the only cleric in his parish for many years, and there are not there distinguished families or persons, but simple farmers; since besides he is still far from cities on account of the absence of a railway, and finally the place is mountainous and cold, thinks that by legitimate epikeia he is exempted from the 1st, 2nd, and 4th statute. Moreover he thinks himself free by every right from the 3rd statute, although he has with him a woman not yet forty years old, who serves him in domestic matters; for he says that she is not a maidservant, but his blood-relative, although in a more remote degree.

It is asked: What as to the Case?

R. The bishop could rightly enact those statutes. For the bishop, as endowed with true power of jurisdiction in his diocese and over the clergy of his diocese and over the priests themselves, can establish those ecclesiastical laws which regard the right government and good of souls, provided however they are not opposed to common law. Cap. Institutionis 7, Cap. Ecclesiasticae 12, caus. 25, q. 2; Cap. Quod super his 9, de Maiorit. et obedientia; S. C. in Asc. 11 July 1767, § 4; Reiff., tit. 2, lib. 1, Decret. n. 69; Benedict XIV, de Syn. dioec., l. 13, c. 1, n. 3; Bouix, de Episc., v. 2, c. 5. But those statutes are not opposed to common law, as is clear to all as regards the tonsure or crown, clerical habit, and cohabitation with women. Cf. I. M. 100–103, 181.

And these things in general. Let us now weigh each statute in particular. The first Statute does not seem to bring with it of itself a grave obligation, since that grave obligation is neither declared nor confirmed by a grave sanction. Both are present in the other Statutes. Therefore that diverse manner of speaking indeed shows that the bishop strongly wishes all those clerics to wear the tonsure or crown, but that in this matter he does not impose a grave obligation, beyond that which is otherwise present from common law. A difficulty can be raised as regards religious, whether the bishop could legitimately establish the same thing for secular and regular clerics. He certainly could do this as regards religious who are not exempt; and this is clear. But could he do the same as regards exempt religious themselves? It is answered that he indeed could not do this directly, by reason of the very privilege of exemption. For this matter is not excepted from such a privilege, as are many others, in which regulars even though exempt are subjected to the jurisdiction, either ordinary or delegated, of bishops. If therefore regulars are exempt from episcopal jurisdiction, certainly the bishop cannot directly touch them by his jurisdiction with a precept or law or even a simple statute. Nevertheless the bishop could do this indirectly, insofar, namely, as although he cannot prescribe, he can nevertheless punish. For regulars, even exempt, are subject to bishops if they dwell and offend outside the cloisters, so that they can be visited, punished, and corrected by the Ordinary of the place, as delegated by the Apostolic See over this matter according to the canonical sanctions. Trent, sess. 6, de R., c. 3. It is said: if they dwell and offend outside the cloisters; for if they dwell within the cloisters and notoriously offend outside them with scandal of the people, they must be punished by their superior, and only in the case of negligence of the regular superior can they be punished by the bishop himself, as is held from the same Trent, sess. 25, de R., c. 14, and from the Motu proprio of Benedict XIII, 26 March 1729. But a regular not wearing the clerical crown or monastic crown through the city is one offending outside the cloisters. This is confirmed from S. C. EE. in Andrien., 15 Dec. 1584, and in Ravennaten., 12 Sept. 1594, apud Monacel., tom. 1, tit. 6, Formul. 20, n. 131; Ferraris, v. Regulares, art. 2, n. 48, whence it is held that regulars walking through the city and places without a companion, or by night, or indecently clothed and without due religious modesty, can be committed by the bishop to prisons as offending outside the cloisters, the form of Trent, sess. 25, c. 14, de R. R., nevertheless being observed. — “But if regulars offend within the cloisters, let the bishop admonish the regular superior, and insofar as he himself does not provide, let him have recourse to the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars.” S. C. EE. et RR., 26 March 1897.

The second statute concerning habit brings with it a grave obligation; for this is drawn from the grave penalty of suspension, which is added. But can the bishop establish this penalty? It must be altogether affirmed from Trent, sess. 14, c. 6, de R., which explicitly grants this power to bishops. But as regards regulars, the same must be said as in the preceding statute.

The third statute concerning cohabitation with women brings a grave obligation, as is explicitly stated in the very enunciation. The matter is grave of itself, and not without scandal, if one cohabits with some young woman. As regards regulars, the matter is clear from what was said in the first statute. Only this must be noted: that regulars of this sort, living alone with women, are already dwelling and offending outside the cloisters.

Finally the fourth statute, by which the bishop orders the priests of his diocese to perform sacred exercises, neither exceeds the limits of ordinary episcopal power, nor is opposed to common law, but on the contrary is very much conformed to it, as is clear from the Encyclical Letter to all the Ordinaries of Italy, 1 Feb. 1710; Lucidi, de Visit., v. 3, p. 381 seqq., 3rd ed. It is confirmed from the response of S. C. C., 20 Sept. 1878, A. S. S., v. 12, p. 612. But it does not seem that the bishop can also bind exempt regulars. For those things which pertain to the observance of regular discipline are not subject to the jurisdiction or correction of the bishop. Moreover to perform spiritual exercises is a thing which pertains to regular observance and discipline, especially if it is noted that exercises of this sort would have to be performed outside the monastery, in a house built and founded by that bishop. The regular parish priests themselves, in those things which pertain to regular observance, are exempt from the bishop’s jurisdiction, visitation, and correction. Benedict XIV, C. Firmandis, VIII Id. Nov. 1744, pars. 8, 10; C. Apostolicum ministerium, 30 May 1753, par. 15. But does a statute of this sort bring a grave obligation? It seems it must be denied from the light penalty added, a fine of 5 lire.

Now the excuses of Rusticus cannot be approved. On account of a mountainous and cold place he is not dispensed from the tonsure or crown. Let him use a square cap and skullcap; and he will suffer no inconvenience from the inclemency of the air. That his parishioners are simple farmers and not noble citizens does not therefore dispense him from wearing the cassock outside the house, especially at night-time. Indeed, for guarding against many dangers and inconveniences, the lower in condition the parishioners are, the more necessary is greater exterior decorum in the parish priest. And exterior decorum of this sort is also necessary so that simple farmers may hold the parish priest in a certain greater veneration and show him greater reverence, owed to the priestly degree and apostolic ministry. That he is the only cleric in the parish, and the distance and difficulty of the journey, do not excuse him from the spiritual exercises, to be performed only every three years. Perhaps he himself undertakes other longer and more difficult journeys. Therefore let him ask a vicar from the bishop for the time of absence, let him call some nearer priest, and let him go to the episcopal city to perform the exercises, at least every three years according to the episcopal statute. Nor indeed will great expenses have to be made by him, since everything is furnished gratuitously during the whole time of the exercises. Although the railway is lacking, certainly other public carriages will not be lacking, which will carry him, even at modest expense, into the episcopal city. But although in full rigor he does not seem to act against the third statute, namely against the written letter, for by maidservant an outside person is ordinarily understood; nevertheless one must see carefully, lest, the circumstances considered, the association of that blood-relative in fact be a scandal to him and to others, and gravely harm his own reputation and good estimation, which all parishioners ought to have as very good concerning their parish priest. Let him set forth his case to the most reverend bishop.

2. Arcontius, a priest, suffering grave temptations against chastity, of which he previously was altogether free, fell into many sins against the same virtue; nevertheless he does not think that he commits sacrilege, first because, he says, ecclesiastical celibacy is to be observed not from a vow, but from mere ecclesiastical law; but positive human laws do not oblige with grave inconvenience. Secondly, because, although there is a vow, its obligation nevertheless ceases on account of changed circumstances of things, and on account of a supervening grave inconvenience which, if it had been foreseen, the vow would not have been emitted.

It is asked: What as to the Case?

R. Arcontius is egregiously deceived in all things. He errs first when saying that ecclesiastical celibacy does not oblige except from mere ecclesiastical law, namely with no vow intervening. This is openly opposed to C. Quod votum un., de Voto et Voti Redempt., and Benedict XIV, C. Inter praeteritos, par. 1, 3 Dec. 1749.

He errs secondly, when he thinks that he does not commit sacrilege because celibacy is to be observed not from a vow, but only by force of ecclesiastical law itself. For 1.º since that law rests upon a motive of religion, its transgression is sacrilege, at least broadly such. 2.º Since, according to the opinion of all, that law solemnly consecrates the person himself to God by the public authority of the Church, its transgression is also sacrilege strictly and properly such.

He errs thirdly, when he thinks that on account of the grave temptations which he experiences he is not held by that law, since positive human laws do not oblige with grave inconvenience. This is not true, when there is question of a law depending upon the proper and free consent of the will, as this law is. Thus enclosure is prescribed to nuns, which certainly is a most grave thing; but it is free to nuns to enter religion, just as it is free to clerics to be initiated in sacred orders.

He errs fourthly, thinking that the vow of chastity ceases on account of changed difficulties of things. For generally the difficulty of observing chastity is intrinsic to chastity itself; it is for all. And only some special difficulty can be had for someone, but for him who is unwilling to use the necessary means, as especially prayer and flight from occasions. Since therefore that special difficulty is voluntary, namely depending upon the will, the matter is evident that on account of it the vow cannot cease; for otherwise the vow would cease on account of its voluntary violation, which cannot be. Hence it does not avail to say that such a difficulty was not foreseen; for although this difficulty was not foreseen, since it is from the will, it can always cease by the will, if one seriously wishes to apply the due remedies. Likewise a special difficulty can be had independently of one’s own negligence, on account of merely subjective circumstances of temperament. But neither does this special difficulty exempt from the vow of chastity. For first, if there is question of a vow of chastity generally, even of a simple vow of chastity outside Religion, this always remains firm, even if one is agitated by unusual and unforeseen impulses of the flesh; for speaking of itself, this difficulty is foreseen at least confusedly, since in fact it is neither extrinsic to this matter nor altogether rare, insofar as those who vow chastity, even the more holy and pure, ordinarily speaking, at least at some time in life experience this difficulty. Besides, there is added the grace of God, which is not denied to him who does what is in him; and if anyone freely cooperates with it, certainly there will be no danger of incontinence, and that special difficulty of resisting temptations is diminished. Wherefore the Council of Trent, sess. 24, c. 9, condemns those who assert that “all who do not feel that they have the gift of chastity, even if they have vowed it, can contract marriage; since God does not deny this to those rightly asking, nor permit us to be tempted above that which we can bear.” But here it must be noted that, if notable difficulty and change did not proceed directly and from within the vow of chastity itself, but only indirectly and from without, for example, if a woman who had emitted a vow of chastity had been oppressed by force by another, and therefore unless she married would be in a most miserable condition, there are some who hold that the vow of chastity then is extinguished. For this circumstance is not included in any way in that matter, nor could it in any way have been foreseen. If it had been foreseen, certainly the vow would not have been emitted. But vows, special conditions being excluded, of themselves do not oblige beyond that which here and now was promised by the one vowing. But what has been said concerning the firmness of a simple vow of chastity, notwithstanding grave temptations afterwards arising, much more holds of solemn vows, validly emitted in religious profession or in the reception of orders, which are always valid, whatever notable circumstance supervenes. For the religious and ecclesiastic in this case is not considered as a private person for whom it would then be better not to be bound by vow, but as a part of the community of the Church, for whom it is fitting to postpone private good; otherwise, as is clear, how many inconveniences, how many scandals and disturbances! The same must be said by the same reason of the common good concerning simple vows which are emitted by men or women in some Congregations, especially if an oath of perseverance is added; for then an explicit onerous contract intervenes. Wherefore, just as the Congregation cannot dismiss a student on account of supervening circumstances, except circumstances of crimes, so neither can the student on account of those same circumstances desert the Congregation. — Scavini, l. 2, n. 64, ed. Milan, 1874; Gury, v. 1, n. 311; La-Croix, l. 3, p. 1, n. 481; I. M. v. 1, n. 575.

3. Pomponius, a parish priest, very pious and good, used to have spiritual conferences with a certain very pious and good woman. The friendship from spiritual degenerated into sensual, and gradually became wholly carnal. To remove every scandal before it should arise, he went away into a distant region where the Council of Trent as regards clandestine marriages has not been promulgated. That woman went away with him, because she was publicly held as his sister. Since the aforesaid parish priest was not lacking in talent and art, he soon became familiar to the bishop, and vicar general of the whole diocese, enjoying among all, both he himself and his reputed sister, public reputation and estimation of piety and sanctity. Placed in these circumstances of things, greatly fearing for his soul and that of the woman, he contracts marriage with her, persuading her that he had sought and obtained Apostolic dispensation, but deceiving himself, on account of so great a difficulty of the matter and on account of the scandal which otherwise would be present, that by legitimate epikeia he was exempt from the ecclesiastical law of celibacy, and consequently had been able to contract both licitly and validly.

It is asked: What as to the Case?

R. The legitimate epikeia of Pomponius, parish priest and afterwards vicar general, is null; for there is no scandal except one altogether voluntary, namely depending upon his free will. For first, as is clear, there is no necessity of sinning with that woman. The whole sin depends upon his depraved will. Besides, he can very well be separated from that woman in residence, although she is publicly held as his sister, by simulating some pretext; and because she is publicly held as his sister, the separation is still easier, and there can be no scandal. Moreover, since he went to a distant region to sin, which that woman similarly did, why now should he not undertake another journey, for example to Rome, in order to convert himself sincerely to God? It will be easy for him to declare to that woman that he did not obtain Apostolic dispensation; perhaps she never even persuaded herself of this, since the matter is so foreign to practice. And thus by his own example let him induce to sincere conversion that woman whom he himself perhaps first induced to sin, and let him repair the scandal given to her. Finally, as is clear from what has been said, here the reason principally considered is that of the state itself and of the common good. Wherefore, on account of a private inconvenience, although grave, the vow does not cease. Much less indeed does the diriment impediment cease, directly regarding the common good, on account of an inconvenience, although grave, in the particular case of a private person, and especially a voluntary one.

4. Titius, a young man, called into the lot of the Lord, having entered the diocesan seminary by the counsel of his confessor, there led for some years a life commendable for piety and purity of morals. But by evil fate, circumvented by the blandishments of a very bad fellow-resident, he contracted a base friendship with him and more than once miserably fell with him into sin of the flesh. Having then been assigned to another residence by reason of studies, he escaped indeed free from the occasion, but, still addicted to the base passion, often clings to depraved thoughts and secretly sins with himself. The master of piety, who used to receive the confessions of the students in the seminary, exercises every diligence to draw Titius back from the depraved custom, but with no happy outcome. For while this man restrains himself for one or another week, then he returns again and again to sin from fragility.

Meanwhile the rector, according to the practice of the seminary, calls Titius, who had already completed the course of theology and recommended himself greatly by the exterior manner of his life, with other companions to receive the order of subdiaconate. Nevertheless the master of piety opposes and imposes on him a delay of ordination. But Titius, while according to custom he approaches him for confession, dissolved into tears, gives indubious signs of sincere sorrow and firm purpose, shows himself ready faithfully to execute all things which are proposed to him by the confessor, and asks him to concede to him to approach the subdiaconate, lest otherwise he incur great infamy among his companions and family, since the delay of ordination could be made honorable by no reason. The master of piety, at first uncertain, hesitates; but then shows himself ready to gratify Titius. Indeed, as he reasons with himself, the vice of impurity is not a crime from which irregularity is induced; and if Titius, on account of indubious signs of sorrow and purpose, can be absolved, he can also be admitted to Sacred Orders, since for duly receiving the sacrament of Order, as a sacrament of the living, no more is required than the state of grace. Hence he bestows upon Titius the benefit of absolution and permits him to be promoted.

It is asked: 1.º What dispositions are required in the subject for licitly and fruitfully receiving Sacred Orders? — 2.º Whether absolution is to be denied to a cleric habituated in sins of lust, who wishes to approach Sacred Orders without a preceding trial of continence? — 3.º Whether the master of piety conducted himself rightly with Titius, and reasoned rightly?

Resp. To the 1st: In order that sacred Orders be received licitly and fruitfully, there is need 1.º of divine vocation. This is commonly asserted by the doctors and is founded in the words of the Apostle to Hebr. c. 5, v. 4: “Nor does anyone take honor to himself, but he who is called by God as Aaron.” Hence the Roman Catechism, de Ord., n. 4, after it has stated who are to be judged to approach Sacred Orders wrongly, finally concludes: “But they are deservedly said to enter the Church by the door, who, legitimately called by God, undertake ecclesiastical offices for the sake of this one thing, that they may serve the honor of God.” But the reason of this divine vocation is that no one can spontaneously undertake an office and duty to be exercised, unless he has aptitude for it. But aptitude for divine ecclesiastical offices and duties is especially from divine grace. And this certainly will not be lacking to those whom God himself calls into his lot.

2.º There is need of the mind of becoming a cleric, namely of committing oneself to the service and worship of God. Hence the Council of Trent, sess. 23, c. 4, de Reformat., says that those are not to be initiated “concerning whom there is not a probable conjecture that they have chosen this kind of life not by the fraud of fleeing secular judgment, but that they may furnish faithful worship to God.”

3.º “It is necessary to have a good testimony from those who are outside”; 1 Tim. c. 3, v. 7. For this reason the Council of Trent, sess. 23, c. 5, de Reformat., prescribes that “those who are to be assumed to each of the major Orders should approach the bishop a month before ordination; and he should commit to the parish priest or to another, to whom it shall seem more expedient, that, the names and desire of those who wish to be promoted having been publicly set forth in the Church, he should diligently inquire from trustworthy persons concerning the birth, age, morals, and life of the ordinands themselves; and that he should transmit to the bishop himself as soon as possible testimonial letters containing the inquiry made.”

4.º Suitable doctrine is required, which is various for various Orders. This is openly clear from the Council of Trent, sess. 23, cc. 4, 11, 13, 14, de Reformat. For how indeed could ministers of the Church teach others those things which are necessary for salvation, and rightly administer the sacraments for their office, unless they had the knowledge necessary for this?

5.º Integrity of life is required. Wherefore negative sanctity and immunity from sin is required, and therefore the state of grace, since order is a sacrament of the living. Consequently immunity is required not only from censure, but also from irregularity, whether strictly or broadly such. Indeed from various decrees of both the S. C. of the Holy Office and the S. C. of Bishops and Regulars it is required at present that those to be initiated in sacred Orders be free from military service. And by the same reason of required sanctity, especially before sacred Orders, Spiritual Exercises are premised. — But besides negative sanctity, positive sanctity also is required. For this reason, besides Confirmation there is demanded a life altogether proved, not by an ordinary and common manner of living honorably, but altogether above it; not of any sort whatever, but excellent, as the Angelic Doctor says, Suppl. q. 35, a. 1, ad 3.

Concerning this eminent sanctity there is a question among the doctors. But to me it is altogether wonderful that such a question can exist in so evident a matter. Let us omit the doctors, because in this way we would always be occupied among opinions, and let us dwell only in the doctrine of the Council of Trent. Therefore let us see whether from the Council of Trent only immunity from sin suffices, or whether besides true sanctity of life, and indeed eminent sanctity, is required. Certainly this sanctity is manifestly carried before it by all those examinations to be made by the bishop. Sess. 23, cc. 5, 7, 13, de Ref. And if someone is to be ordained by another bishop, the Tridentine Synod prescribes in the same place, c. 8, that “his probity and morals be commended by the testimony of his Ordinary.” Testimonial letters, however, must be given for receiving orders, and not generally. S. C. C., 8 Aug. 1733.

But positive sanctity, and indeed conspicuous sanctity, the Council of Trent expressly requires in the ordinands in the cited places. For first, concerning those to be initiated with first tonsure, it says that there must be concerning them a probable conjecture that they will furnish faithful worship to God, c. 4. As regards those to be promoted to minor Orders, the Council wishes in them an ascent from degree to degree, so that in them, with age, merit of life and doctrine may increase more: which both the example of good morals and assiduous ministry in the Church, and greater reverence toward presbyters and the superior orders, and more frequent than before Communion of the Body of Christ, will especially approve, c. 11. As regards those to be promoted to major Orders, it wishes that only those be ordained whose proved life is old age, who hope, with God as author, that they can contain themselves, cc. 12, 13. Lastly, as regards those to be assumed to the presbyterate, still graver are the words of the Council. Let those, it says, who have conducted themselves piously and faithfully in the ministries already passed, and are assumed to the order of presbyterate, have a good testimony... and be so CONSPICUOUS in piety and chaste morals that a distinguished example of good works and admonitions of life can be expected from them, c. 14.

But the reason is taken from the very dignity and ministry of the priest, who, as the Roman Catechism, de Ord., n. 5 says, “separated from the rest of the people, exercises himself in a ministry by far the greatest and most excellent of all.” The same Roman Catechism, in the cited place, n. 2, professedly declares the excellence of this dignity and ministry. “For,” it says, “since bishops and priests are, as it were, interpreters of God and certain messengers, who in his name teach men the divine law and precepts of life, and bear the person of God himself on earth, it is clear that their function is one than which none greater can be thought.” Therefore, as they are more excellent than all others of the people in dignity and ministry, so also they ought to surpass the rest of the people in honesty of morals and sanctity of life.

Wherefore the same Council of Trent, sess. 22, c. 1, de Ref., speaking of the life and honesty of clerics, says: “There is nothing which more continually instructs others to piety and the worship of God than the life and example of those who have dedicated themselves to the divine ministry. For since they are lifted from the things of the world to a higher place, the rest cast their eyes upon them as upon a mirror, and from them take what they imitate. For this reason it is altogether fitting that clerics, called into the lot of the Lord, so compose their life and all their morals, that in habit, gesture, gait, speech, and all other things, they show forth nothing except what is grave, moderate, and full of religion; that they avoid even light offenses, which in them would be greatest, so that their actions may bring veneration to all.” And the Plenary Council of Latin America, n. 658, unhesitatingly affirms that those who have given their name to the clerical militia “ought to shine with the adornment of all virtues and especially with the highest piety.”

And this eminent honesty of morals and sanctity of life ought especially to shine forth in perfect observance of continence and chastity. Whence before all things a priest ought to be modest, continent, 2 Tim. c. 3, vv. 2, 8. And, as the cited Plenary Council of Latin America, n. 644, says, chastity “is the proper and angelic ornament of the priestly order.”

To the 2nd: An affirmative response to the second question is a necessary corollary of the response already given to the first question. Concerning a cleric habituated in base sin and with the habit not yet extirpated, it certainly cannot be said that his life is proved, that his proved life is old age, nor certainly does a reasonable hope shine that he will be modest and continent. He is not conspicuous in chaste morals; nor can it reasonably be hoped that he will be conspicuous in the future. How therefore can ascent to sacred Orders prudently be permitted to a cleric of this sort, habituated in base sin, the habit of vice not yet changed into a habit of virtue? “No one,” says Innocent III in the Decretal A multis 9, de Aetate et qualit. et ord. praefic., “should be permitted to approach Sacred Order, unless he exists either a virgin or of proved chastity.” The aforesaid cleric certainly does not exist of proved chastity.

And hence it is clear why, although one habituated in base sin, if he has sincere sorrow and purpose, can be absolved, he can no longer be absolved if he wishes to be promoted to sacred Orders; namely, because he does not exist of proved chastity. Therefore it is altogether necessary that a serious trial of chastity to be observed should precede.

Indeed, an experiment of this sort can be supplied by some extraordinary grace of compunction, concerning which valid conjectures are available to the confessor. For by that more fervent penitence and contrition of soul a reasonable hope certainly shines that a cleric of this sort, constant in his purpose, will be chaste and modest. But because sincere and true conversions of this sort, extraordinary ones, are rare, and cannot always be discerned from their exterior signs even with evident certainty, hence the confessor must proceed cautiously in this matter. Wherefore no other counsel can be furnished to that confessor than that he diligently inspect and maturely weigh all the circumstances of the person, things, and cases, and implore with earnest prayers the help of Divine Light in so grave a matter. Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 11, c. 2, n. 18.

And nevertheless “the confessor must strive with every effort to render persuaded one of this sort to be initiated, although extraordinarily compunct, that he defer receiving Orders, until by the proof of some notable delay he shows himself more purged from the crimes committed.” Thus St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 77, where he concludes the Dissertation concerning this matter in these very grave words: “Moreover I confess that great caution must be applied in absolving clerics of this sort, who, scarcely emerged from the filth of vices, desire to ascend to the ministry of the Altar; for no one doubts that frequently a bad outcome of these men is deplored, not without the greatest detriment of the Church and ruin of peoples.”

To the 3rd: As regards the third question, it must be noted first of all that when Titius entered the diocesan seminary he was not only a good but an excellent young man, since it is said that there he led for some years a life commendable for piety and purity of morals. But he was corrupted by the companionship of a very bad fellow-resident. Indeed the master of piety, who used to receive the confessions of the students in the seminary, did very well to exercise every diligence that he might draw Titius back from the depraved custom. But he certainly ought also to have acted, and perhaps did act, so that that destructive student would be denounced to the Rector of the seminary, so that he would immediately be expelled from the seminary. Likewise the master of piety acted well when he imposed upon Titius a delay of Ordination. For Titius was found precisely in that miserable condition of a cleric habituated in the sin of lust, and habituated already for several years, without any preceding trial of continence. The same master of piety is likewise to be praised when afterwards he hesitates uncertainly concerning imparting absolution to Titius on account of those graver circumstances in which Titius is found. For from this it appears that the aforesaid master had the gravity and difficulty of the matter well known.

And as regards the fact of absolution having been imparted, the master of piety certainly cannot be absolutely reprehended, if the Case is considered speculatively and as it lies. For on the one hand, as is said in the Case, Titius, dissolved into tears, gives indubious signs of sincere sorrow and firm purpose, showing himself ready faithfully to execute all things which are proposed to him by the confessor. On the other hand, it is affirmed in the Case that Titius otherwise would incur great infamy among his companions and family, since the delay of ordination could be made honorable by no reason. For if Titius shows altogether indubious signs of sorrow and purpose, truly ready to execute all necessary means in order that he may live chastely, what more can be required from him, so that a reasonable hope is present that, with God as author, he will lead a chaste life hereafter? If besides infamy would truly follow from the delay of Ordination, neither would St. Alphonsus himself make any difficulty in granting absolution. The Holy Doctor, in the cited place, after affirming that absolution must be deferred, even for an extraordinarily compunct cleric, if the cleric wishes to be Ordained immediately, so that by the trial of time he may show himself more purged from the crimes committed and be more firmly proved; soon excepts the case of infamy to follow: “Provided however,” he says, “I except, that he himself from this delay of Ordination is not to undergo a mark, or proximate danger of infamy.”

Hence, practically speaking, it is indeed difficult to reprehend the master of piety, if in truth he was deceived. Nevertheless, if he himself had applied greater severity and had delayed the Ordination of Titius altogether to another time, after the chastity of Titius already proved by fact, and so that Titius himself might better apprehend the immense gravity of the matter, that master, truly a master of piety, would be fully approved and praised by me. For practically speaking, that solemn affirmation of Titius, and without any restriction, of following the counsels of the confessor, even those poured-out tears of Titius, in those straits of proximate Ordination already prepared and expected, can easily be suspect. But the infamy is rather apparent than real, since there can always be some honorable cause of the delay of Ordination, and the true cause can always be concealed under at least some pretext. “Then it will be necessary,” says Benedict XIV in the cited place, “and this certainly will not be very difficult for a prudent confessor, to place before the eyes of an Ordinand of this sort not only that eternal salvation ought to be preferred to any human respect, but also that there is nothing of infamy in this, if someone says and acknowledges that he wishes to think more maturely about entering an institute of life of this sort, which carries with it graver burdens, and which, once undertaken, will necessarily have to be observed through the whole life.”

Finally, as regards the reasons by which the master of piety was moved to granting absolution and permitting proximate Ordination, the first of them, that the vice of impurity is not a crime from which irregularity is induced, is of no moment. For although the vice of impurity, taken generally and of itself, does not induce irregularity properly such, or a canonical impediment, nevertheless it certainly induces irregularity in a broad signification, or unworthiness and unsuitability for receiving sacred Orders. And this unworthiness and unsuitability certainly suffices that someone be removed from sacred Orders.

Nor is the other reason better, that Order is a sacrament of the living, for the due receiving of which no more is required than the state of grace. For Order is indeed a sacrament of the living, but it is a sacrament which confers the most excellent power, the most noble dignity, and the most divine office; for the execution of which no one is apt and suitable, as St. Dionysius says apud St. Thomas, Suppl. q. 36, a. 1, “unless according to his whole habit he has been made God-formed and most like to God.”

1. Benedictus, a beneficed cleric and organist of the Cathedral Church, when he plays the organ so that, in the chant of the divine office, he may respond to the versicles which the whole choir sings, does not himself alternately sing the versicles, nor pronounce them in a low voice, but only plays the organ, saying that the sound of the organ responds to the chant of the choir. And since he himself plays the organ, he thinks that he sufficiently and altogether satisfies the obligation of the divine office.

One must treat 1º of the common obligations of clerics; 2º of the peculiar obligations of certain ones.

Clerics are chiefly obliged: 1º to holiness of life; 2º to celibacy; 3º to ecclesiastical habit and tonsure; 4º to the canonical Hours.

We shall speak of the obligations 1º of Bishops; 2º of Pastors; 3º of Canons.

123. • Clerics enjoy certain privileges from Canon Law and from Roman Civil Law, indeed according to several from divine law, namely the privilege of immunity, lest they be punished by a lay court, and of exemption from the lay forum as to their own goods, both ecclesiastical and patrimonial.

But these privileges and most other ones, in many places, as also in France, are no longer acknowledged by the civil power ¹. Nevertheless there remains everywhere the privilege which is called of the Canon, by reason of which they incur excommunication who unjustly lay hands upon Clerics, as is established from the Second Lateran Council, in which it is said: "If anyone, at the instigation of the devil, lays violent hands on a Cleric or Monk, let him lie under the bond of anathema."

¹ ** This namely is the beginning, or rather the consequence, of apostasy from the Christian Religion. For the power which holds any Religion whatsoever in the same place has surely consummated apostasy from the Christian Religion. There you find Christian men; but you do not have a Christian kingdom or empire.

This privilege is enjoyed by 1º all Religious, even novices; 2º all Clerics, even those endowed only with simple tonsure; 3º indeed all Nuns and all religious persons living under a rule in Community, and also tertiaries of each sex wearing the habit of religious Orders and living in Community. - St. Ligorius, Bk. 1, Appendix II. - Hom. Apost., tr. 22, ch. 2.

124. • The privileges of Bishops regard 1º censures and irregularities; 2º impediments of matrimony; 3º vows and oaths; 4º other special cases, as may be seen apud St. Ligorius, Bk. 1, at the end of the Appendix on privileges, and in Hom. apost., tr. 20, ch. 3.

I. Concerning censures and irregularities.

1º They can absolve subjects from any hidden papal cases whatsoever, at least those reserved before Trent ², with the cases of the Bull Coenae excepted.

² Whether Bishops can absolve from cases reserved after Trent, if they are hidden, was not the one opinion of the Doctors. For the affirmative opinion stood Bonacina, Mazzuchellus, Peregrinus, Bossius, Gavantus, and Suarez alleged by Diana (tom. 3, tr. 3, res. 27, n. 2); to whom St. Alphonsus (Bk. 6, n. 594) adds Sanchez, Sorbus, Delbene, Renzi, Beia, Mazzotta, and Diana himself, who brings forward these reasons (l.c.): "This opinion is proved, because although the Council uses a word of past time, nevertheless it is extended also to future things because of the nature of law, whose property is to comprehend future things, as is had in the final chapter, De Constit., and the Doctors there. And it is confirmed from law Ariani, C. De haereticis, where it is had that the law is always in fresh observance and always speaks. But a general Council has the force of law, both because the Council grants to Bishops the said faculty generally, not distinguishing between past and future reservations; therefore it must be understood generally (law Pretio, ff. de publ. in rem action., and ch. Solitae, § final, de maior. et obed.); and because the faculty of absolving which is given in jubilees extends to future sins; and because the Council in the said decree places a general rule concerning pontifical Reservations, namely that they are to be understood of public crimes, but not of hidden ones, with the limitation placed in the same decree; and finally because in reserved cases and in cases to be reserved there is the same reason of absolution, if they are hidden, and therefore in each one there ought to be the same disposition of law. For why

To these reasons there is added an argument taken from the Constitution of Sixtus V, Effraenatam, 29 Oct. 1588, against those procuring abortion. For while he reserved to himself both absolution from the sin and censure, and dispensation from irregularity as to clerics who perchance were accomplices in this crime, he judged that the privilege granted to Bishops by the Synod of Trent, that they can absolve from hidden papal cases, had to be expressly derogated. But there would have been no need to derogate this privilege if the privilege did not extend itself to cases reserved after the Synod of Trent. Therefore.

And St. Alphonsus indeed (l.c.) grants that these things are affirmed very probably; nevertheless he judges that the response is not solid enough which the aforesaid Doctors return to those objecting the Declaration of Gregory XIII, when they answer that it is not authentically established concerning it. But on the contrary St. Alphonsus opposes the authority of Fagnani, who (In C. Dilectus De Tempor. Ordin., nn. 30-33), while generally establishing the thesis that Bishops cannot absolve from hidden cases reserved by a new Constitution after the Council of Trent, adds that the Sacred Congregation so judged. Indeed this thesis of Fagnani and the alleged Declaration would otherwise overthrow also the opinion of St. Alphonsus, which we shall set forth below.

For the rest it seems plainly to be said that the reasons brought forward by Fagnani for that thesis are very lame. And surely, first, he argues from the fact that today a Bishop cannot absolve from heresy and from the other cases reserved in the Bull Coenae, although they are hidden. But from these things one argues wrongly to other cases. For the faculty of absolving from cases, even hidden ones, reserved in the Bull Coenae, according to the opinion of the Doctors, was taken away from Bishops by force of the derogatory clause concerning the decrees of any Council whatsoever, which, according to Benedict XIV (De Syn. Dioec., bk. IX, ch. 4, n. 8), after Card. De Lugo (De Fid., disp. 23, n. 48), began to be appended to the same Bull under Gregory XIII. But this clause is by no means found in other Constitutions which reserve some case to the Supreme Pontiff.

Fagnani next argues from the response given to the Archbishop of Florence under Gregory XIII. For when the Archbishop of Florence had doubted (I recount the matter in the words of the same Fagnani) whether by force of ch. 6, sess. 24, he could absolve a nun who secretly and for an evil end had broken enclosure, notwithstanding the Bull of Pius V, which seems to have place in a public case, there was a divergence in opinions. For out of ten Cardinals, three judged that the Bull was to be understood also in hidden cases, because its words are general, and only the case in the article of death is excepted, etc.; and because it had already been declared that the Bull Coenae Domini, which prohibits absolution by others, has place even in hidden cases; and because, since the Bull was drawn up after the Council, it is judged to have derogated the Council. Four judged that that Bull did not have place in hidden cases. But the remaining three said that the matter should be brought before the Most Holy One; who declared that the Bull of Pius V has place even in hidden cases.... Hence afterwards the Sacred Congregation, having been generally consulted, whether, if a nun of some monastery subject to the jurisdiction of Regulars secretly committed an offense in the matter of enclosure, she could in the forum of conscience be absolved by force of the same Decree by the Bishop, to whom, as Delegate, authority in those things which pertain to enclosure was attributed by the Decree ch. 5, sess. 25, De Regularibus, with the aforesaid Bull of Pius V standing, responded: SHE CANNOT. Thus Fagnani. But this argument too labors under the same defect as the preceding one. For 1º the Declaration of Gregory XIII affects only the Constitution of St. Pius V concerning the enclosure of nuns. 2º The response of the Sacred Congregation, which is added, regards only the case of violated enclosure. 3º Indeed another reason for this negative response was available; for the power given to the Bishop as Delegate of the Apostolic See concerning the enclosure of exempt nuns attributes to him no jurisdiction over the exempt nuns themselves (see St. Alphonsus, bk. 6, n. 602, q. VII). Indeed this can seem the stronger reason why the faculty was denied. For otherwise, since nuns are reckoned among persons impeded from going to the City, and according to the common opinion one thus impeded is not held to seek absolution by letters (see St. Alphonsus, bk. 7, n. 89), by common law the faculty of absolving would be made to the Bishop, unless the exempt nun, removed from the jurisdiction of the Bishop, had another Ordinary. Therefore the reasons of Fagnani conclude nothing concerning the general question.

St. Alphonsus (bk. 6, n. 504, at the end), after mentioning from Fagnani the history of the aforesaid Declaration, judged that that Declaration was indeed not to be extended to all Constitutions, but only to those which are fortified with the same clauses; in which matter, as is plain, he departs from Fagnani. Thus he says: It must be noted with the same Fagnani (In C. Quoniam De Constit., nn. 29-30), that for the cases contained in two Bulls, namely in the Bull Coenae and in this aforesaid one of St. Pius V, derogation was made from the faculty granted by Trent to Bishops in the said ch. Liceat, because of the derogatory clauses, namely in the first: "Notwithstanding the decrees of any Council"; and in this second: "Unless in the article of death." Hence we say that any Bull whatsoever, where the aforesaid clauses are present, takes away from Bishops the faculty of absolving hidden cases reserved to the Pope; but not other Bulls, in which no derogatory clause is present, as Diana, p. 7, tr. 2, res. 22.

But this theory ought to be ascribed neither to Diana nor to Fagnani. Not to Diana, since he (l.c.) indeed excepts if in the new Constitution there is a clause sufficiently derogating this decree of the Council; but nowhere does he say that a clause of this sort is contained in the words, "Unless in the article of death." Not to Fagnani, who (in the cited ch. Dilectus) extends his doctrine to any reservations whatever later than Trent; but elsewhere (in the cited ch. Quoniam) merely says that the Sacred Congregation declared: from the Bull Coenae the faculty attributed to Bishops by the decree of the Council (ch. 6, sess. 24) was taken away, and similarly from the Bull of Pius V the faculty belonging to Bishops (from the same ch. Liceat) of absolving nuns secretly offending in the matter of enclosure was removed. But concerning the clauses of the same Bull of St. Pius V he has nothing at all. Therefore what St. Alphonsus adds from his own opinion, that this is to be understood of any Constitution having the clause, "Unless in the article of death," this indeed, as we saw above, was said by three Cardinals in the Congregation, with reasons brought forward which do not seem to be of great weight; but that there is any value in this opinion of theirs no one has defined, nor is it in any way established that Gregory XIII had this before his eyes in his Declaration. Wherefore that extension to other Constitutions, viewed according to the principle on which it rests, does not seem sufficiently firm.

Finally, of lighter weight are the things which Cajetan Giraldi has concerning the Decree or Declaration mentioned by Fagnani, both in the Exposit. Iuris Pontif. (part 2, sect. 152), and in the Notes to Thesaurus' work De Poenis Ecclesiasticis (part 1, ch. 22). For thus he writes concerning this matter: Since it is not indicated by Fagnani in what year this decree, first cited by him, was issued, lest its issuance be called into doubt, after the Registers of the Sacred Congregation of the Council had been diligently turned over by me, I found that it had been issued in the month of January 1589 in the Response to Postulate XII, which among other things Gaspar Visconti, Archbishop of Milan, made to the same Congregation on the occasion of the visitation to the sacred thresholds. For when the said postulate XII expressed in the Italian idiom what, translated into Latin, sounds thus: "Because it often happens that censures reserved to the Apostolic See are incurred by contravening Papal Constitutions issued after the Council of Trent, the Archbishop desires the faculty of absolving the contraveners, who sometimes remain bound by censures for a longer time, since they do not have the means of obtaining absolution from the Roman Curia, especially concerning the enclosure of nuns and of male Regulars," as is found in bk. 5 of the Decrees, p. 239, the Sacred Congregation abstained from the concession of the Postulate, but only tacitly confirmed what the Archbishop himself thought concerning this faculty by these precise words, in the month of January 1589, as they are found in the cited bk. 5, p. 240: "Reservations of cases newly made after the Council are not comprehended in ch. 6, sess. 24, De Reform., and especially concerning the enclosure of nuns." Gallemart reports that this declaration, at this same chapter, was confirmed by Gregory XIII. From these things it is plain what the sense of the Bishops was, soon, as it were, after the publication of Trent, concerning the faculty attributed to them in the cited ch. 6.

I said that these things are of lighter weight; for who, I ask, would admit this response, such as it is, as the first decree of the Sacred Congregation on this matter, which Gregory XIII then confirmed, if indeed the mere denial of a requested faculty is worthy of the name of a response, when that Postulate of the Archbishop of Milan is said to have been offered in the month of January in the year 1589, while Gregory had already departed from life four years before? And then, what does this TACIT RESPONSE, which Giraldi fashions for himself, have in common with the Decree by which the Sacred Congregation, according to Fagnani, EXPRESSLY responded that thing, namely, SHE CANNOT? Indeed, what does the question concerning hidden cases, about which Fagnani speaks, have in common with the Postulate of the Archbishop of Milan, in which a faculty of absolving is sought without any distinction between hidden and non-hidden cases? Therefore the whole force of the argument will finally reside in this, that in the supplicatory petition that opinion of the petitioner is found expressed. But ought the private opinion of the Bishop petitioning to be confused with the Decree of the Sacred Congregation, which responds nothing about that very opinion? Surely if this new canon is established, and if the opinions which the petitioner expressed in a supplicatory petition must be held as so many Decrees of the Sacred Congregation, we shall now say that this too has been defined by the Sacred Congregation: that a Bishop cannot absolve from papal cases those who are detained by a legitimate impediment from approaching the Pontiff for absolution from papal cases! For in the same petition the faculty is sought of absolving those who otherwise remain (these are the words of the Postulate) bound by censures for a longer time, since they do not have the means of obtaining absolution from the Roman Curia; and nevertheless the Sacred Congregation did not judge that assent should be given to that petition, but denied the faculty of absolving them. Therefore let us conclude that Giraldi's great labor in searching the Registers of the Sacred Congregation not only contributed nothing to proving the authenticity of the Declaration about which the question is, but on the contrary, since he did not find anything better in the same Registers, although most diligently turned over, it rather has deservedly cast the gravest suspicion that Prosper Fagnani, who dictated his work while blind, slipped in memory, and that this Declaration in fact never existed.

But neither do those things completely settle the controversy which are reported from the Cremonensis of 4 Dec. 1632 in another Severina of 28 May 1796, where the Secretary narrates these things: "Adhering (the Sacred Congregation) to declarations made at other times, it rescripted that Bishops by force of ch. 6, sess. 24, De Reform., cannot absolve or dispense in the case of heresy, nor in other cases reserved to the Apostolic See by a new law after the Council. But in these cases, in which such a faculty has not been taken away from Bishops, it is indeed transferred to the Capitular Vicar," etc. And surely here it is not sufficiently apparent whether that new law must be taken for one which, in the accustomed manner, reserves absolution from sin to the Apostolic See, or rather must be taken for one which only places an exception upon the faculty conceded to Bishops by that ch. 6 concerning hidden cases, of which sort are held to be the Constitution of Pius V as to the enclosure of nuns, and that of Gregory XIII concerning the cases of the Bull Coenae. Now unless this is certainly defined, nothing in fact can be concluded from these things. For the rest, if the consequences are inspected, surely you would say that that reservation must be taken in this latter sense. For it follows: "But in these cases in which SUCH A FACULTY HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN AWAY FROM BISHOPS," etc. Therefore the context requires that the preceding words be understood of a new law by which such a power has been taken away. But such a power is no other than that which is conceded to Bishops by ch. 6 concerning hidden cases. Therefore the new law is here to be understood as one by which the Pontiff after Trent has placed an exception or limitation upon the faculty of Bishops concerning hidden cases, not indeed as one by which he has generally reserved some case to the Apostolic See.

And these things indeed have been said concerning the state of the controversy, as it has hitherto been possible to judge from the reasons which are customarily brought forward by each of the dissenting parties. For that the Apostolic See was able to revoke the faculties conceded to Bishops by ch. Liceat, as in fact was done, for example, as to the cases contained in the Bull Coenae, or was able so to circumscribe them that, for example, they would not extend themselves to reservations later than Trent, no one ought or can doubt.

For the rest, after the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis issued by our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius IX on 12 Oct. 1869, there is now no doubt that a controversy of this sort must be held as defined. "Nevertheless" (says the Supreme Pontiff) "we will that the faculty of absolving conceded by the Synod of Trent to Bishops, sess. 24, ch. 6, De Reform., remain firm in any censures whatsoever reserved to the Apostolic See by this Our Constitution, with only those excepted which we have declared reserved in a special manner to the same Apostolic See."

Therefore the difference between the old Law and the new resides in this: that in the former the cases contained in the Bull Coenae and the censures issued against violators of the enclosure of Nuns were excepted; but in the more recent one, only the cases reserved in a special manner to the Apostolic See are excepted. These are fourteen, to which must be added 1º the interdict against universities, Colleges, and Chapters appealing from the ordinations or mandates of the Roman Pontiff existing at the time to a future universal Council; 2º from the Declarations of the Holy Office of the Inquisition, 17 June 1866 and 4 April 1871, the case of a person of whatever sex falsely denouncing a Priest for the crime of solicitation in Confession.

would the authority of Bishops be lesser in new reservations than in old ones?

2º They can dispense from all irregularities and absolve from all suspensions on account of a hidden offense, excepting irregularity from voluntary homicide.

3º In irregularities also doubtful from defect. (Probably.)

4º In non-hidden irregularities from defect of birth for minor Orders and simple benefices. - Council of Trent, sess. 24, ch. Liceat. - See St. Ligorius, bk. 4, Appendix on privileges, n. 49 and following.

125. • II. Concerning impediments of matrimony, Bishops can dispense:

1º In impeding impediments, except the vow of perpetual chastity, the vow of entering Religion, espousals, and the impediment of disparity of worship between Catholics and heretics.

2º In supervening impediments, once marriage has been contracted, in order to asking for the debt, for example, if they contracted affinity because either one had carnal intercourse with the other's blood relatives; or if one vowed chastity. Indeed the Bishop can also dispense the spouse from a vow of perpetual chastity which he or she emitted before marriage, so that he or she may exercise matrimonial rights ³.

³ ** Nevertheless the Confessor ought to know that in these circumstances, which sometimes do not permit delay, or do not leave prompt access to the Bishop, another way is present by which provision is made for the necessity of the spouses, namely that one spouse indirectly irritates the vow of the other, that is, suspends its obligation. See vol. 1, n. 330.

3º In doubtful diriment impediments ⁴. - St. Ligorius, Appendix, n. 55, where he says that this opinion is very common.

⁴ ** Yet someone will be able to note that, where the impediment is doubtful, there is no need that a dispensation be sought, as will be said in the treatise on matrimony.

4º Per accidens in certain diriment impediments, both before and after the contracted marriage, when recourse to the Pope is very difficult, or when there is danger in delay ⁵, or where there is imminent danger of scandal, infamy, incontinence, etc. - St. Ligorius, ibid., n. 56 and following.

⁵ ** St. Alphonsus, as we shall see in the Treatise on Matrimony, judges it probable that the impediment ceases when, some grave cause urging, access is not open even to the Bishop.

5º In publications of the Banns. - St. Ligorius, ibid. - See the things to be said in the Treatise on Matrimony, n. 739.

III. Concerning vows and oaths, Bishops can dispense:

1º In all simple private vows, excepting the five reserved to the Pope, namely of perpetual chastity, of Religion, and of pilgrimages to Jerusalem, to the thresholds of the Apostles, and to St. James of Compostela (tom. 1, n. 330).

2º In all oaths, if you except oaths accepted by a third party, which were not extorted by fear or fraud. - St. Ligorius, passim.

126. • IV. Concerning certain particular cases, Bishops can dispense:

1º In all matters of lighter moment, both from custom and because recourse to the Pope would be too inconvenient.

2º In all things which commonly occur, for example, in fasting, in abstinence, in the divine Office for particular cases ⁶, or for a brief time, etc.

⁶ ** Understand, with particular persons; for in common law Bishops do not have the faculty of dispensing with a whole community.

3º In all statutes which have the clause, "until dispensation is given." But whether a Bishop can dispense in canonical statutes not expressly reserved, St. Ligorius judged that the negative opinion is altogether to be held, bk. 1, n. 191 ⁷.

⁷ ** St. Alphonsus (Hom. Apost., tr. II, ch. VI, n. 58) writes these things concerning this question: But whether Bishops can dispense in all Canonical laws where the Dispensation is not expressly reserved, many Doctors admit this, as Soto, Covarruvias, Sporer, St. Antoninus, who calls it common, and Elbel, who calls it most common and for it adduces St. Bonaventure and Scotus, and Castropalaus calls it probable with the Gloss on ch. Nuper, De Sent. Excomm., where the Pontiff thus acknowledged: "Yet because the founder of the Canon did not specially retain absolution to himself, by that very fact he seems to have conceded to others the faculty of relaxing." And the Gloss adds: "Here is an argument that Bishops can dispense where Dispensation is not specially prohibited, from law Nec non, ff., Ex quibus causis." But on the contrary Suarez, Bonacina, the Salmanticenses, etc., deny from ch. Dilectus, De Temp. Ord., where a certain Bishop, since he had conferred several orders on one person on the same day, was suspended for this reason: "Since a Dispensation of this sort from the Canon was by no means permitted to him." And they respond to the text first alleged, that that disposition was made only for absolution from censures. But, notwithstanding this, the first opinion is sufficiently probable, because we can use the same response for the second text, that it has force only in the matter of ordination. All the more because in the first text the words seem to speak generally, but in the second specially about ordination, since that word, "of this sort," is used. Thus far St. Alphonsus.

4º For performing the Sacred Rite from midday. By force of the quinquennial faculties they enjoy the privilege of celebrating for one hour before dawn and another after midday, and of communicating this faculty to suitable Priests.

5º They can choose for themselves a Confessor outside the diocese, provided he is their subject, and they can take him with them to different places; but if he is not a subject, he must be approved by the Ordinary of the place. Cardinals can do the same, but only at Rome, although they can take him whom they have chosen with them outside Rome. - St. Ligorius, Appendix, bk. 1, n. 65.

6º They can dispense from interstices for ordination. - St. Ligorius, bk. 6, n. 793.

7º They can absolve from some cases per se papal, but which by common law are reserved to Bishops or Ordinaries. They are the following: 1º The excommunication imposed on Clerics constituted in sacred orders, or Regulars or Nuns, after a solemn vow of chastity, presuming to contract marriage; and also all persons presuming to contract marriage with any of the aforesaid persons. From the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis of Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius IX.

2º Likewise the excommunication imposed on those procuring abortion, the effect following. From the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, etc.

3º Likewise on those knowingly using false Apostolic Letters, or cooperating in the crime in that matter. From the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, etc.

4º A light striking of a Cleric, or a grave one done by a woman, or by a boy, or by another person impeded from being able to approach the Apostolic See. From ch. Pervenit, 17, and ch. Quod de his, 26, and ch. Quamvis, 58, De Sent. Excommunic.

5º Reincidence into the censure by which anyone is punished who, absolved in the article of death by one not having the faculty, does not present himself to the Superior.

6º Communication in a criminal crime with those excommunicated by the Bishop. From ch. Nuper, 29, and ch. Si Concubinae, 55, De Sent. Excomm. ⁸.

⁸ ** In order that it may be understood what this privilege of Bishops means for itself, it must be noted that by general law it has been sanctioned that he who communicates, that is, cooperates, in the same crime with him who for this very crime has already been excommunicated, incurs altogether the same excommunication. The Doctors derive this rule from ch. Si Concubinae, 55, De sent. Excom., which they usually allege here. Therefore if there is question of a crime reserved to the Pope, the communication in that crime will also be reserved to the Pope; if the crime is reserved to the Bishop, communication will likewise be reserved to the Bishop. Therefore it is plain that the privilege about which the Author speaks concerns absolution from an excommunication reserved to the Bishop; for he therefore says, "with those excommunicated by the Bishop." But then, you will say, what privilege will it be, that the Bishop can absolve an excommunicated person not indeed by the Pope, but by a Bishop? That the reason may be understood, one must have recourse to the doctrine concerning those excommunicated by name ab homine, whom by law only the excommunicator can absolve (see Bonacina, De Cens., disp. 2, q. 2, p. 6, § 1, n. 9). But by force of the privilege the faculty is given to Bishops of absolving him for whom it is difficult to approach the excommunicator. To this matter the Doctors adduce ch. Nuper, 29, de Sent. excom., in which this question is clearly solved. For thus Innocent III says: "Since such a person communicates in the crime and participates with the criminal, and by this seems, by reason of the condemned crime, to offend against him who condemned: absolution will then deservedly have to be sought from him or from his superior by merit of the offense, since equal punishment binds the doer and the consenter.... But if from some just cause it is difficult for him to approach the excommunicator himself, we concede by way of indulgence that ... he be absolved by his Bishop or proper priest." See Thesaurus, De Poen., part 2, word Censura, ch. V.

7º The extraction of one who has fled for refuge from the Church, done by private authority, or the striking or plundering of the goods of the same fugitive, likewise by private authority. Ch. Definivit, 35, caus. 17, q. 4.

8º A visit of a sick person made by a physician, if after he has visited him on the third day, it has not been established for him by the testimony of the Confessor that the same sick person has made sacramental confession, or has deferred it by the counsel of a learned Confessor. From the Roman Council under Benedict XIII, tit. 32, ch. 1.

9º All censures reserved to the Pontiff, if the offense is hidden, with those excepted about which above, n. 84, in the Note.

10º All papal censures and cases, even reserved in a special manner, if because of a legitimate impediment or urgent necessity of hearing confession the Apostolic See cannot be approached. - See St. Ligorius, bk. 7, n. 213.

179. What are the obligations of inferiors as regards ecclesiastical superiors? - Subjects are bound to exhibit to their spiritual superiors love, honor, and obedience in those things which look to their jurisdiction and care; likewise necessary support. It is proved: 1. This is clear from many places of Sacred Scripture, 1 Tim. 5:17, 18; Heb. 13:17, etc. 2. As regards love, reverence, and obedience: because they are superiors, having true jurisdiction; as regards support: because the worker is worthy of his wage. As to those who apply their work to the common utility, that is, to Princes, soldiers, and others of this kind, stipends of sustenance are owed by the people, so also to those who minister to worship unto the salvation of the whole people, the people owes stipends of sustenance. - Trent, s. 25, c. 17, de R.; Leo XIII, encyclical Sapientiae christianae, Jan. 10, 1880; St. Thomas, Quodl. 6, a. 10; Quodl. 10, a. 12.

180. You will resolve: Therefore all Christians are bound under grave fault to obey the Supreme Pontiff in things pertaining to faith, to morals, and to Christian discipline; for in these he is the Vicar of Christ on earth. In the same way diocesan subjects are bound to obey Bishops, according to the reason of the matter, in those things which look to their jurisdiction.

181. What are the obligations of ecclesiastical superiors? - Spiritual superiors in turn are bound to exhibit to subjects love, spiritual care, doctrine, and good example. It is proved: 1. This is clear from many places of Sacred Scripture; cf. the Epistles to Timothy and to Titus, and the Council of Trent, s. 23, c. 1, de R. - 2. It is evinced from their office itself. - Whence neglect of souls as regards their Christian instruction and administration of the sacraments, as regards their due admonition and correction, in ecclesiastical superiors is not only against charity, but also against justice, and for the most part a mortal sin, according to that saying of Ezek. 34:2, 4: Woe to the shepherds of Israel: that which was weak you have not strengthened, and that which was sick you have not healed, etc. - L. 357 seqq.

16. From those things which were said in the two preceding articles, judgment can be borne concerning theaters, namely whether those who are present at theaters sin. For if they sin, they can sin only on account of base looks, or base things heard. Now then, theaters of themselves are not evil, but indifferent, since they can be had well and badly. Yet ordinarily speaking, it cannot be denied that they are full of dangers, especially for adolescents, whose blood is already sufficiently boiling of itself; for they foster luxury, feed the sight basely, enervate the soul, and sharpen passions. - Wherefore there is no sin either to be present at comedies, or to act them, if they are honorable. "The office of actors, which is ordained to exhibiting solace to men, is not according to itself illicit," says the Angelic Doctor, 2.2, q. 168, a. 3. - But if they are somewhat base, the hearer will sin only venially, unless perhaps he knows by experience that he is moved vehemently by entertainments of this kind toward lust, with proximate danger of consent, so that the spectacle is for him a proximate occasion of sinning. - If finally the comedy is notably base, either in itself or in manner, he sins mortally per se. Per se; for it would be venial to view it only on account of curiosity, or on account of empty solace, with all danger of base delectation excluded; nevertheless, practically speaking, this danger will easily be present in adolescents, or in others of little timorous conscience; and unless scandal is present, which plainly would be present if clerics and religious were present at base comedies, as Benedict XIV observes. - L. 427, 428; Hom. Apost., tract. 9, n. 10; G. 247.

17. Note. 1. Holzmann and La-Croix deservedly condemn as mortal, on account of the scandal of others, both those who cooperate by money or applause in notably base comedies, and also those who are bound to impede them and, when they conveniently can, do not impede them; a fortiori those who compose or represent them. - 2. Since it is not illicit from a just and proportionate cause for someone to expose himself to danger, especially if by salutary safeguards the danger of sinning is averted, the following can be present at spectacles without sin, provided they are not gravely base: 1. married women, lest they displease a commanding husband; 2. male and female servants, that they may serve their masters; 3. sons and daughters of the family, if parents command it; 4. soldiers and magistrates, that they may care for good order to be preserved; 5. kings and princes, that they may conciliate the affection of subjects to themselves; 6. courtiers, who are bound to accompany the prince, etc., provided all these do not have a depraved intention and do not consent to carnal delectation perhaps arising. - 3. Yet since the matter, as commonly happens, is full of dangers, a prudent confessor ought, as far as can be done, to avert his penitents from spectacles of this kind. - 4. But it is lawful for workers to build and adorn theaters, if the adornments are in themselves honorable, because it is lawful for Princes to permit spectacles.

18. Can comedians and actors never be absolved unless they renounce their profession?

R. Certainly comedians and actors are not to be absolved unless they first renounce base representations; but since spectacles are not of themselves altogether illicit, nor even the office of actors, says St. Thomas, l. c., is of itself illicit, neither are those exercising it in the state of sin, provided they use play moderately, that is, by not using some illicit words or deeds for play, and by not applying play to undue affairs and times. Therefore actors are not always to be dismissed without absolution. "All things being equal," says D. Gousset, theol. mor., t. 1, n. 648, "one will be more indulgent toward an actress who is under the authority of marital power than toward an actor who is master of his actions." - Diana, tr. 5, de scandalo, resol. 25-29; St. Francis de Sales, Introduction to the Devout Life, part 1, ch. 23.

“Bishops are not to presume to make anyone a subdeacon unless he has promised that he will live chastely, because no one ought to approach the ministry of the altar unless his chastity has been proved before the reception of the ministry.” Canon 1, distinction 28.

“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 the vow, let him be anathema.” Council of Trent, session 24, canon 9.

Pius IX condemned two errors: that the celibacy of clerics ought to be abolished, and that the state of marriage ought to be preferred to the state of virginity. The former is refuted in the encyclical letter Qui pluribus, 9 November 1849; the latter, in the Apostolic Letter Multiplices inter, 10 June 1851.

“...He who diligently weighs the genuine tradition concerning the celibacy and continence of the clergy will certainly find that, even from the first centuries of the Catholic Church, if not by a general and explicit law, at least by morals and custom it was established that not only bishops and priests, but also clerics constituted in sacred orders, should inviolably observe virginity or perpetual continence. For the very dignity of the sacred ministry, to which offices almost divine are assigned, seemed to require that those who were to sacrifice and also to bring forth the immaculate Victim, who is sanctity and purity itself, should shine either with the splendor of virginity or with perpetual continence. Moreover, the most abundant tradition of the Holy Fathers shows that the Apostles were either virgins or perpetually continent after marriage; hence they themselves also chose as their successors none other than those who cultivated virginity or professed inviolable continence. There is no need to delay here over what the Roman Church, Mother and Teacher of the others, instructed by the example and institutions of the Apostles did: for she never relaxed that obligation of preserving chastity, salutarily propagated it throughout the whole Western Church, and finally sanctioned it by an inviolable law. But among the Orientals also, the celibacy or continence of clerics, besides always having been in the highest honor, was religiously observed from the most ancient time, especially in churches where discipline flourished through the diligence of the bishops. Epiphanius, indeed, a man distinguished in sanctity and learning and one who knew the discipline of the Eastern Church very well, in his exposition of the Catholic faith (no. 21) expressly affirms that ‘the priesthood consists principally of the order of virgins, or, if not...of those who abstain from their wives, or who after such nuptials live in widowhood.’ For in the beginning, as Jerome says (Against Jovinian, book 1), ‘because the Church was being established in a people untrained from among the Gentiles,’ some were also assumed into the priesthood who were already joined in marriage, but who either lived continently in widowhood or passed their life as though they had no wives. Hence the same Epiphanius (Heresies, 59) expressly acknowledges how ‘the holy preaching of God does not admit as a deacon, priest, bishop, or subdeacon a husband of one wife who still begets children, but him who has abstained from his one wife or has lived in widowhood, especially where the ecclesiastical canons are sincere.’ Nor does the contrary custom or nonobservance of some particular Church stand in the way at all when the discipline of the Eastern Church is being discussed; for the same Epiphanius appositely continues: ‘But you will say to me: In certain places, priests, deacons, and subdeacons still beget children. Yet this is not according to the canon, but according to the mind of men.’ Therefore it cannot be doubted that in the time of Epiphanius clerics—from the subdeacon to the bishop—cultivated celibacy or continence. This can also be most suitably confirmed by the testimony of Jerome, who, on account of his long residence in the East, knew the morals and discipline of that Church most perfectly. For the Holy Doctor, against Vigilantius, the bitterest enemy of clerical continence, besides other arguments opposes the fact of the universal Church: ‘What will the Churches of the East do? What will those of Egypt and of the Apostolic See do, which receive clerics who are either virgins or continent, or, if they have had wives, cease to be husbands? This, then, was the tradition of the universal Church; these were the customs where the former discipline flourished.’

“Certain Greeks think and assert with too much confidence that bishops in the East observed continence of their own accord, not bound by any law, which they say was first enacted at the Synod in Trullo. But, besides the most clear testimonies of the Fathers, Justinian himself, who established laws long before the Trullan canons and who professes himself to be the executor of the earlier canons, inculcates more than once that bishops are to be chosen either from the order of monks or indeed from the clergy, but such as neither have a wife nor at least cohabit with her (book 1, Code, On Bishops and Clerics, law 4; Novels 123, chapters 14 and 29). Moreover, the same discipline prevails among the Eastern sects which had fallen away from unity even before the times of Justinian; for they all agree in this, that bishops are chosen celibate. (Consult the Jerusalem Itinerary of John of Catovice, who expressly attests this concerning the Chaldean Nestorians and the Maronites.)

“Far otherwise did it happen with respect to priests and other clerics; for that which in the time of Epiphanius was nonobservance or the lax custom of a certain Church in the course of time began to take root and spread, so that at length it pervaded almost the whole Eastern Church; and as the custom gained strength, that which had been permitted only to cantors and readers was also granted to priests and other clerics constituted in sacred orders, namely, that they might cohabit with wives whom they had married before sacred ordination. Indeed, in a certain Eastern province the tide of laxer discipline advanced so far that some presumed to attempt marriage even after the reception of sacred orders. This, nevertheless, was severely condemned and prohibited under the gravest penalties by both laws—that is, ecclesiastical and imperial—even before the Trullan canons, as the very laws of Justinian clearly show. For the aforesaid emperor gravely complains of certain clerics who, “despising the sacred canons, presumed to attempt nuptials after ordination” (Code, book 1, title 3, On Bishops and Clerics, § Sacris canonibus). For the sacred canons severely forbade, under penalty of deprivation of the sacred ministry, any of the priests, deacons, and subdeacons to marry after an ordination of this kind. “Hence,” the same Justinian continues, “just as such things are prohibited by the sacred canons, so also according to our laws the thing itself is prohibited”; and, adding civil penalties to canonical ones, he decrees that children begotten from such a nefarious union are illegitimate, as though they had been born from an incestuous union: “so that they are understood to be neither natural children nor bastards or spurious children, but altogether and in every respect prohibited and unworthy of the succession of their parents.” Thus far Justinian. And although in ecclesiastical law, as Benedict XIV most correctly says, there is left to the lay power only the glory of obeying, not the authority of commanding, nevertheless, in the matter at issue, the emperor speaks with relation to the sacred canons. (Instruction Eo quamvis tempore, 1 May 1745.)

“Nor does it stand in the way that the provincial Council of Ancyra, in canon 10, permitted deacons, if at ordination they had declared that they could not be continent, to contract marriage even after receiving orders. For, granted that that canon had the force of a concession for the province of Ancyra, it certainly could not change the discipline of the Eastern Church, and in fact it did not change it, as Epiphanius, Jerome, and other Fathers together testify in clear words, and as the emperor himself most openly maintains (Authenticae, collection 9, title 4, Novel 123, chapter 14: ‘He who ordains is not competent at the time of ordination to permit a deacon or subdeacon to take a wife after ordination,’ etc.). Therefore, the Trullan Synod itself, in canon 6, decrees generally, under penalty of deposition, that it is wholly unlawful for any subdeacon, deacon, or priest to contract nuptials after ordination (canon 6 of the Council in Trullo: ‘Since it has been said in the Apostolic Canons, canon 27, that of those who are promoted to the clergy without having taken a wife, only readers and cantors can take a wife, We also, observing this, decree that henceforth it shall be wholly unlawful for any subdeacon, deacon, or priest to contract marriage after his ordination. But if he should dare to do this, let him be deposed,’ etc.). Hence even Greek canonists freely acknowledge that the canon of the Council of Ancyra was wholly abrogated by the Quinisext Council (Balsamon, Zonaras, Aristenus, and others; Arcudius, Constitution, book 7, chapter 37; and Benedict XIV, Instruction Eo quamvis tempore).

“Since these things are so, anyone easily sees how alien from the genuine discipline of the Eastern Church is that custom by which subdeacons contracting marriage after an ordination of this kind are promoted to higher orders, since even the Trullan Synod itself wholly abhors this.

“Therefore His Holiness, who has very greatly at heart that the customs of that province, every corruption having been wiped away, be composed according to the norm of the purer Eastern discipline, cannot but follow with deserved praises the repeatedly confirmed purpose of Your Excellency, namely, henceforth to admit no one to sacred orders unless either wholly celibate or one who, before the subdiaconate, has married a lawful wife according to the Eastern custom. Here, therefore, let Your Excellency and the other Prelates of that province, remaining in this purpose, stand firmly; adhere to this....” Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 24 March 1858, to the Archbishop of Făgăraș and Alba Iulia of the Greek-Romanian rite.

“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.

“A bishop must recite the Office and celebrate divine offices according to the rite of his diocese.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 11 June 1605, For a Regular, to the first.

“Beneficiaries are always bound to the Office of their own church; but simple priests can conform themselves to the Office of the place where they are staying.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 12 November 1831, Marsi, to the forty-sixth.

“Can secular priests who are considered attached to some church because they celebrate Mass there, hear confessions, or exercise any other sacred ministry, recite the Office of the Patron or Titular of that same church, who is not the Patron of the city or place, so that there may be uniformity between those priests and the pastor and assistant pastors of the church, who celebrate the feast of the Titular with the rite of a double of the first class with an octave, even though there is no obligation of choir?—Response. Negative, according to other decrees; for they must not be considered attached, but must actually be attached to the strict service of the church, as are the pastor and assistant pastor.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 7 December 1844, Mechelen, to doubt 1.

“Masters and students dwelling in a seminary are bound to the Office of the church attached to the seminary, although elsewhere they celebrate Mass, assist at sacred functions, and hear confessions.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 7 September 1850, Adria, to the first.

“While traveling, a regular bound to choir shall follow the calendar of the Divine Office of the monastery from which he departed; when he arrives at and remains in another monastery, even temporarily, let him follow its calendar. During Lent, preachers of the divine word staying outside the monastery must conform themselves to the calendar of the province, extended without any difference to all for each year.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 31 August 1839, Order of Friars Minor Capuchin, to the first and second; 25 September 1852, Order of Friars Minor; 27 June 1897, to the thirteenth, Order of Friars Minor.

“The decree by which the Sacred Congregation of Rites on 31 August 1839 prescribed that certain regulars must conform themselves to the Office of the community in which they reside, even though merely as persons passing through, is to be understood only of those regulars who recite the Divine Office in choir, and not indiscriminately of all, although they are not bound to choir.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 18 September 1877, in a case of the Society of Jesus, to the third.

“Must religious of either sex who do not have their own calendar use the diocesan calendar?—Response. Affirmative, with the addition of Offices particularly granted to regulars dwelling in that diocese.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 22 July 1848, Doubts, to the first.

“Chaplains and confessors of nuns cannot recite their Office.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 21 March 1795, Coimbra, to the third.¹

“Whether in the Ambrosian Liturgy, as is done in the Roman, the feasts of Saint Joseph, Spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and of the Annunciation of the Mother of God herself can henceforth be celebrated on 19 and 25 March even when they occur on Fridays of Lent, the Offices and Masses already revised being employed and the rubrics observed?—Response. Affirmative in all respects.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 23 February 1897.

“We altogether forbid priests, deacons, or subdeacons the companionship of concubines and wives, and cohabitation with other women except those whom the Synod of Nicaea permitted to live with them solely on grounds of relationship, namely, a mother, sister, paternal aunt, or maternal aunt, or others of this kind concerning whom no just suspicion can arise.” First Ecumenical Lateran Council, canon 3.

“...Bishops shall not neglect to visit their own diocese by themselves, or, if they are lawfully impeded, through their Vicar General or a visitor; if on account of its extent they cannot visit the whole each year, let them visit at least the greater part of it, yet in such a way that the whole is completed within two years by themselves or their visitors.... The principal end shall be to introduce sound and orthodox doctrine, heresies having been expelled; to protect good morals and correct evil ones; to inflame the people by exhortations and admonitions toward religion, peace, and innocence; and to establish the other things, according as place, time, and occasion shall permit through the prudence of the visitors, for the fruit of the faithful.... Neither they nor any of their men shall receive anything by reason of procuration for the visitation...neither money nor any gift whatever, even however it may be offered except, nevertheless, provisions for food, which are to be furnished to them and their men frugally and moderately, only according to the necessity of the time, and no further.” Council of Trent, session 24, chapter 3, On Reformation.

“Pastors cannot be absent from residence beyond three or four days, even within the conciliar months, unless in a case of necessity and with the permission of the Ordinary, whose conscience is burdened concerning this matter.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 29 August 1793, no. 189. Cf. no. 204.

“By the disposition of the Sacred Council of Trent all pastors of souls are commanded to preach to the people on Sundays and feast days and to teach children the rudiments of the faith. Whenever the aforesaid Archbishop personally fulfills all these things in the church in which he resides, the Pastor of the same church is by no means bound to undertake the same burdens. But if the Archbishop has not made both an explanation of the Gospel and an exposition of the catechism, then and in that case let the Pastor fulfill the duty incumbent upon him by performing either the explanation of the Gospel omitted by the Bishop or the exposition of the catechism, so that the people may have both aids.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 28 November 1785, no. 192. Cf. no. 212.

"... Whoever diligently considers the genuine tradition concerning celibacy and continence of the clergy will certainly find that, even from the first centuries of the Catholic Church, if not by a general and explicit law, at least by morals and custom, it was established that not only Bishops and Presbyters, but also clerics constituted in sacred orders, should inviolate preserve virginity or perpetual continence. For the same dignity of the sacred ministry, to which almost divine offices are attributed, seemed to demand this: that those who were to immolate and even to produce the immaculate victim, which itself is holiness and purity, should shine either with the splendor of virginity or with perpetual continence. Moreover, the very ample tradition of the Holy Fathers shows that the Apostles were either virgins or perpetually continent after marriage; whence they themselves also chose no other successors for themselves than those who had cultivated virginity or professed inviolate continence. Here there is no need to linger over what the Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the others, taught by the example and institutions of the Apostles, did, since it never abandoned that obligation of preserving chastity, propagated it salutarily through the whole western Church, and finally sanctioned it by an inviolable law. But also among the Orientals, celibacy or continence of clerics, besides the fact that it was always in the greatest honor, was religiously observed from the most ancient time, especially in churches where discipline flourished by the diligence of Bishops. Indeed Epiphanius, a man distinguished in holiness and doctrine, and one who knew very well the discipline of the Eastern Church, in the exposition of the Catholic faith (n. 21), affirms in express words that 'the Priesthood chiefly consists from the order of virgins, or if not... from those who are continent from their wives, or who live in widowhood after one marriage.' For in the beginning, as Jerome speaks (book against Jovinian), 'because the Church was being formed as rude from the Gentiles,' some were assumed to the priesthood who had already been joined in marriage, but either continently in widowhood, or they led life as though they did not have wives. Whence the same Epiphanius (heresy 59) expressly acknowledges how 'the holy preaching of God does not receive into Deacon, Presbyter, Bishop, and Hypodeacon a man of one wife still begetting children, but him who has contained himself from one wife or has lived in widowhood, especially where the ecclesiastical canons are sincere.' Nor does the contrary custom or nonobservance of some particular church stand in the way at all, when discourse is being instituted concerning the discipline of the Eastern Church; for the same Epiphanius aptly continues: 'But you will say to me: altogether in certain places Presbyters, Deacons, and Hypodeacons still beget children. But this is not according to the canon, but according to the mind of men.' Wherefore it cannot be doubted that in the time of Epiphanius clerics, from Hypodeacon to Bishop, cultivated celibacy or continence. This can also be most aptly confirmed by the testimony of Jerome, who, because of long residence in the East, had known most perfectly the customs and discipline of that Church. Moreover, the holy Doctor opposes to Vigilantius, most hostile to clerical continence, besides other arguments, the fact of the universal Church: 'What will the Churches of the East do, what those of Egypt and of the Apostolic See, which receive clerics either as virgins or continent; or if they have had wives, cease to be husbands? These finally were the tradition of the universal Church, these were the customs, where the prior discipline flourished.'

Certain of the Greeks think and too confidently assert that Bishops in the East observed continence of their own accord, constrained by no law, which they say was first sanctioned in the Trullan Synod. But besides the clearest testimonies of the Fathers, even Justinian himself, who disposed laws long before the Trullan Canons, and who professes that he is the executor of prior Canons, repeatedly inculcates that Bishops be chosen either from the order of monks, or indeed from the clergy, but those who either do not have a wife or at least do not live with her (Book 1, Code, On Bishops and Clerics, law 4; Novel 123, chapters 14, 29). Moreover, the same discipline flourishes among the eastern Sects which had defected from unity even before the times of Justinian; for all agree in this, that Bishops be chosen celibate (consult the Jerusalem itinerary of John Catovicus, who testifies to this in express words concerning the Nestorian Chaldeans and concerning the Maronites).

It happened quite otherwise as regards Presbyters and other clerics. For what in the time of Epiphanius was the nonobservance or lax custom of some particular Church, in the course of time began so to take root and be propagated that finally it invaded almost the whole eastern Church; and, custom growing strong, what had been permitted only to Cantors and Readers was also attributed to Presbyters and to other clerics constituted in sacred orders: namely, that they might live with wives whom they had taken before sacred ordination. Indeed, the heat of a laxer discipline in some Eastern Province advanced so far that some even after the reception of sacred Orders presumed to attempt marriage; which nevertheless by each law, namely Ecclesiastical and Caesarean, and indeed before the Trullan Canons, was severely disapproved and prohibited under most grave penalties, as even the laws themselves of Justinian clearly show. For the aforesaid Emperor complains gravely concerning certain clerics who, despising the sacred Canons, had presumed to attempt nuptials after ordination (Code, book 1, title 3, On Bishops and Clerics, section Sacris Canonibus). Indeed the sacred Canons severely forbade, under penalty of privation of the sacred ministry, that any of the Presbyters, Deacons, and Subdeacons could be married after an ordination of this kind. Whence, the same Justinian continues, 'just as such things are prohibited by the sacred Canons, so also according to our laws the thing itself is prohibited'; and, heaping civil penalties upon canonical ones, he decrees that sons received from such a wicked conjunction are illegitimate, as if they had been born from an incestuous marriage: 'so that they be understood neither as natural nor as illegitimate or spurious, but as altogether and from every side prohibited, and unworthy of the succession of their begetters.' Thus far Justinian. And although in ecclesiastical laws, as Benedict XIV most rightly says, there has been left to the lay power only the glory of obeying, not the authority of commanding, nevertheless in the matter of which there is question, the Emperor speaks relatively to the sacred Canons. (Instruction Eo quamvis tempore, 1 May 1745.)

Nor does it stand in the way that the Provincial Council of Ancyra, canon 10, permitted Deacons, if at ordination they had declared that they could not contain, to contract marriage even after Orders had been received. For granted that that Canon had the force of a concession for the Province of Ancyra, it certainly could not change the discipline of the Eastern Church, and in reality it did not change it, as Epiphanius, Jerome, and other Fathers testify together in clear words, and the Emperor himself most openly maintains. (Authentics, collection 9, title 4, Novel 123, chapter 14: He who ordains not being able, at the time of ordination, to permit a Deacon or Subdeacon to take a wife after ordination, etc.) Wherefore even the Trullan Synod itself, canon 6, generally decrees under penalty of deposition that it is wholly lawful to no Subdeacon or Deacon or Presbyter to contract nuptials after ordination (Canon 6, Council in Trullo: Since in the Apostolic Canons, canon 27, it is said that, of those who are promoted to the clergy without having taken a wife, only Readers and Cantors can take a wife; and we, observing this, decree that henceforth it is lawful to no Hypodeacon, or Deacon, or Presbyter at all to contract after his ordination. But if he shall have dared this, let him be deposed, etc.); whence also the Canonists of the Greeks freely acknowledge that the Canon of the Council of Ancyra was wholly abrogated by the Quinisext Council (Balsamon, Zonaras, Aristenus, and others. Const. Arcudius, book 7, chapter 37, and Benedict XIV, Instruction Eo quamvis tempore).

Since these things are so, anyone easily sees how alien that custom is from the genuine discipline of the Eastern Church, namely, that hypodeacons contracting marriage after an ordination of this kind should be promoted to higher orders, since this is wholly abhorrent even to the Trullan Synod itself.

Wherefore His Holiness, to whom it is supremely dear that the customs of that Province, every corruption having been removed, be arranged according to the norm of a purer eastern discipline, cannot but follow with deserved praises Your Excellency's repeatedly confirmed proposal, namely, henceforth to admit no one to sacred Orders, unless he is either altogether celibate, or one who before the hypodeaconate, according to eastern custom, has taken a legitimate wife. Here, therefore, let Your Excellency and the other Prelates of that Province, remaining in the proposal, stand firmly; here cling..." Instr. S. C. de P. F. 24 March 1858, for a certain Province of the Greek rite.

"Since in some Missions the custom of using the talar garment, especially when Priests proceed in public, has not up to this time been diligently observed by all; indeed, in some places even graver abuses in this matter have begun to be introduced, this Sacred Congregation commands that all ecclesiastical men, mindful that it is altogether fitting for Clerics to show gravity and moderation even in habit, should wear talar garments, whether of white or black color, according to the custom of the region and the Indults of the Sacred Congregation, at least in public, and that every evasion or pretext in obtaining this be removed. But if, compelling necessity or the cause of a journey through rough places, they are forced to put off the aforesaid habit, let them at least use that garment which in no way at all is unbecoming to priestly modesty." S. C. de P. F. 8 Sept. 1869, to the Apostolic Vicars of India.

"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.

"1. Whether and how canons hearing confessions during the time of the divine offices ought to be considered present in choir for the effect of gaining distributions in the case? 2. Whether and how the same canons celebrating Mass during the time of the divine offices ought to be held as present in choir for the same effect in the case? 3. Whether and how canons assisting the Archbishop in Pontificals and other functions, or celebrating a private Mass, absent from choir, gain distributions in the case? 4. Whether and how the same canons assisting the Archbishop in treating the affairs of the diocese, or accompanying him in the diocese outside the residence, gain distributions in the case? 5. Whether and how canons absent from choir to examine the accounts of the capitular fund gain distributions in the case? 6. Whether and how canons absent from choir, devoting themselves to the ministry of preaching, gain distributions in the case? 7. Whether and how canons gain distributions while they are absent from choir for the examination of ordinands or confessors in the case? 8. Whether and how canons exercising the office of rector, administrator, professors, and examiners in the seminary, absent from choir, gain distributions in the case? 9. Whether and how canons absent from choir, as Pro-vicar general, Chancellor, and Actuary, and exercising other offices in the archiepiscopal curia, gain distributions in the case? 10. Whether and how canons absent from choir, devoting themselves to the administration of capitular things or of the archiepiscopal mensa, gain distributions in the case? 11. Whether and how the canon Chancellor of the Chapter, occupied in the archive for capitular business, gains distributions in the case? And insofar as negatively, 12. whether the Most Holy Lord is to be consulted for absolution and condonation of distributions received in the case? Resp. To the 1st, in the negative in all things, except the Penitentiary. To the 2nd, in the negative, unless with the license of the prefect of choir and for the convenience of the people. To the 3rd, in the affirmative to the first part, as in the Lycien. case, 27 August 1641; to the second part, in the negative. To the 4th, in the negative in all things. To the 5th, in the affirmative for the time to be predefined by the Bishop. To the 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th, in the negative in all things. To the 10th, as regards the canon administrator of capitular things, in the affirmative for the days and hours in which he actually applies himself to the administration; in the rest, in the negative. To the 11th, in the negative, unless in a case of urgency. To the 12th, in the affirmative, with one Mass celebrated with chant, the whole Chapter standing by." S. C. C. 20 Dec. 1862; 24 Jan. 1885. Cf. Lucidi, Vol. 3, word 235, 3rd ed.; Acta S. Sed. Vol. 1, p. 285 ff.

"4. Whether and how those conversing in choir during the time of the divine offices lose daily distributions in the case? 5. Whether conversations on account of which distributions are lost can be constituted from several small conversations in the case? Resp. To the 4th, in the affirmative. To the 5th, in the affirmative, if several are made in the same hour." S. C. C. 27 March 1847. Cf. Lucidi, Vol. 1, p. 555.

"Moreover His Holiness admonishes and exhorts the same Ordinaries, that, with the fruit which indeed is very abundant from the aforesaid spiritual exercises being opportunely proposed and explained, they diligently excite all of the clergy subject to them, but especially rectors of souls, confessors, canons, and other beneficed clerics bound to the service of choir, to perform the same exercises at least once in the year in the houses of the Religious of the Society of Jesus, or of the priests of the Congregation of the Mission, if they are present; if not, in another pious or regular house to be designated and approved by the same Ordinaries for this.

But so that individuals may come more eagerly to the same spiritual retreat, His Holiness grants in the Lord to all the aforesaid rectors of souls, confessors, canons, beneficed clerics, and other priests and clerics, who for ten days in each year have performed the same exercises in the aforesaid houses, and have remained there by day and night, and meanwhile, truly penitent and having confessed, have received the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, as often as they have done this, a plenary indulgence and remission of all their sins.

Moreover, he kindly absolves Parish Priests, while they are devoting themselves to exercises of this kind, only once in the year, during that time, from residence. He commands that the same be observed as regards canons, beneficed clerics, and others bound by personal residence and devoted to the service of choir, whom nevertheless he decrees to gain entire fruits, and any daily distributions whatever of their canonries and benefices respectively, just as if they were personally present at choir and the divine offices, provided nevertheless that they perform the same exercises, with license having first been obtained from the Ordinary, by whom it will by no means be granted during the time of Advent and Lent and on more solemn festivities, nor ever to all canons and others serving choir at the same time, but with that method used, that the service of choir is in no way interrupted; and as regards parish priests, with suitable administrators first substituted, to be approved by the Ordinary himself, who may laudably administer the care of souls. Moreover His Holiness commands that these Letters be published in that diocese and be inscribed in the registers of the chancery for the perpetual observance of the things contained in them, and that for this very end their publication be renewed henceforth every three years." Encyclical Letter of the S. C. EE. and RR., 1 Feb. 1700, to the Bishops of Italy and adjacent Islands. Cf. Lucidi, Vol. 3, p. 381 ff., 3rd ed.; Acta S. Sed. Vol. 12, p. 609 ff.; Gardellini, n. 4189.

"Whether a Parish Priest and other Priests assisting at the Funerals of the dead and the daily Offices for the same, and receiving a stipend for that function, are bound to discharge the Office of the Dead by themselves, so that those only assisting, and not singing or psalmodizing, do not make the fruits their own; or whether it is sufficient that they assist, and the schola discharge the Office, while they meanwhile pour forth other prayers at their own pleasure, for example, reciting the Breviary for their daily obligation. Resp. In the affirmative as regards the first part, in the negative as regards the second." S. R. C. 9 May 1857, Périgueux. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 1, p. 285 ff.

1023. Under the name of clerics, in the broad sense, come all baptized persons who have been specially deputed, by legitimate authority, to the service and worship of God. In this sense religious of each sex are comprehended, lay brothers not excepted. - In the strict sense, only those are called clerics who by some ecclesiastical order, or at least by first tonsure, are devoted to divine ministries and offices. But here the matter is to be treated only of clerics understood in the stricter sense.

Now, in the dogmatic Treatise on Order, we explained the distinction of clerics from lay persons, and also the principal functions annexed to the priesthood and to the several orders; in the moral Treatise on Order, concerning vocation to the clerical state, the conditions required for ordination, and irregularities which bar one from orders, we likewise briefly discussed a few things; therefore it remains that we briefly touch upon the principal duties: 1. of clerics in general; 2. of those who have been initiated in sacred orders; 3. of priests.

1024. Sacred Scripture¹ declares in manifold ways that clerics, especially those initiated in sacred orders, are to be adorned with holiness both internal and external, not only because they are ministers of God, but also because they ought to furnish the faithful with good example: "In all things show thyself an example of good works, in doctrine, in integrity, in gravity, the sound word, irreprehensible, that he who is on the contrary side may fear, having no evil to say of us."²

¹ I Tim., III, 1-13; IV, 6-16; II Tim., I, 6-14; II, 1-26; Tit., I, 5-9; II, 1-8.

² Tit., II, 7-8; cf. I Pet., V, 3, where it is said concerning priests: "Being made a pattern of the flock from the heart."

The Fathers and Councils taught the same, whose decrees the Council of Trent thus contracts:¹ "There is nothing which more continually instructs others unto piety and the worship of God than the life and example of those who have dedicated themselves to the divine ministry; for since they are seen as raised from the things of the world to a higher place, the rest cast their eyes upon them as upon a mirror, and from them take what they may imitate. Wherefore it is altogether fitting that Clerics, called into the lot of the Lord, should so compose their whole life and morals that in habit, gesture, walk, speech, and all other things they show nothing except what is grave, moderate, and full of religion; that they avoid even light delicts, which in them would be greatest, so that their actions may bring veneration to all."

¹ Trident., sess. XXII, cap. 1 de Reformatione. - From the Code, c. 124, "clerics ought to lead an interior and exterior life holier than lay persons, and to excel them in virtue and right deeds as an example." Cf. can. 125, 126.

Since ascetical writers discuss at length the internal holiness and virtues of clerics, here we shall briefly touch upon what the sacred canons have established concerning their external life:² 1. concerning external habit; 2. concerning certain secular arts forbidden to the clergy; 3. concerning certain amusements to be avoided.

² What we explain here in a briefer style, we contract from the manuscripts of S. Many, professor of Canon Law at the Catholic University of Paris, who kindly gave me permission to use those things which he collected by assiduous labor and arranged lucidly with a fuller pen.

To external worship are referred clerical habit and tonsure.

I. On Clerical Habit.

1025. The matter is not of sacred vestments which clerics use in divine offices, but of the garments which they wear in the common intercourse of life.

1. Origin of clerical clothing.³ Through the first five centuries, clerics were not distinguished from lay persons by the form or color of garments, but only by modesty and simplicity. Indeed, when some, especially in Gaul, put on the pallium which was proper to philosophers and monks, St. Celestine censured them.⁴ - But, already from the sixth century, ecclesiastical habit was distinguished from secular habit: namely, after the invasion of the Barbarians, many lay persons began to put on their shorter garments, while clerics retained the ancient garments of the Romans; indeed a few lay persons, especially nobles, likewise preserved the toga and pallium, but clerics were distinguished from these, because they imitated the simplicity and form of the habit of monks. - In the course of time, the Roman Pontiffs began now to command that clerics retain long and modest garments, and not be drawn by the example of lay persons who were assuming shorter ones. The Council of Trent confirmed their decrees:¹ "But because, although habit does not make the monk, nevertheless clerics ought always to wear garments suited to their proper order, so that by the decency of external habit they may show the inward honesty of morals..." The Code of Canon Law, can. 136, § 3, is consonant.

³ Thomassin, Discipline de l'Eglise, P. I, l. II, ch. 43-44, 46, 48, 50-57.

⁴ Ep. ad Episcopos Narbonensis et Viennensis provinciae, an. 428, in Migne, P. L., t. L, p. 429-436.

¹ Trident., sess. XIV, cap. 6 de Reformat.

1026. 2. Obligation of wearing clerical habit. By common law, all clerics are held to wear clerical habit, and indeed of itself under grave obligation, unless a legitimate reason excuses. We briefly declare this:

(a) This obligation was restricted to clerics constituted in sacred orders or beneficed, because the Council of Trent embraces only these; but from the Code, c. 136, it is extended to all clerics under penalty of falling from the clerical state, if, after being warned by the Ordinary, they have not amended themselves.

(b) An obligation of this sort is grave, as is certain from the very end of the law, namely of distinguishing clerics from lay persons, of protecting them against various dangers, and of recalling to memory the duties of clerical state; and also from the penalties established against delinquents, as may be seen in can. 136, § 3 and 2379. Yet it admits lightness of matter, for example, if someone lays aside the habit for a time shorter than a week.² - Hence one who at home puts off clerical dress, about to assume it again when he goes outside, does not incur the penalties, nor more probably does he sin, unless the contrary is declared from a particular statute; yet it is fitting that a cleric wear it even at home, unless a grave reason excuses.

² D'Annibale, Summula, t. III, n. 146, note 7 (3rd ed., p. 132).

1027. (c) Clerical clothing, according to Trent, is that which is fitting to the order and dignity of clerics. - Sixtus V had indeed enjoined that the talar garment was to be worn under the penalties stated above; but his successors tempered this constitution, and today the Code commands clerics only to wear "decent ecclesiastical habit, according to the legitimate customs of places and the prescriptions of the Ordinary of the place" (can. 136); however, the talar garment must always be worn in Mass (can. 811).

Moreover Trent (l. c.) had already left to Ordinaries the power of establishing what garment would befit the order and dignity of clerics, and in practice one must stand by the statutes of each diocese. Now, in most Catholic regions, provincial Councils or diocesan statutes have compelled clerics to wear the talar garment, and indeed one of black color.¹

¹ Thus in the statutes of the diocese of Paris (n. 196-197) one reads: "The ecclesiastical costume is composed of the cassock, to which the usage of the dioceses of France has added the rabat, the cincture, and the hat with broad brims raised on the sides... In the whole extent of the diocese, the ecclesiastical costume as it has just been described must be worn. We forbid, under penalty of suspension, every ecclesiastic dwelling in our diocese and admitted there to celebrate the holy Mysteries, to appear outside, even once, without the cassock, in the whole extent of the diocese of Paris." - As to the United States of America, C. Pl. Baltimore III, n. 77, establishes these things: "Therefore we will and command that all observe the law of the Church, and always use at home or in church the talar garment which is proper to the cleric. When they go outside... it is licit to be clothed with a certain shorter garment, which nevertheless is to be of black color and extended to the knees, so that they may be distinguished from lay persons... By a strict precept we enjoin 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."

(d) From wearing clerical dress a reasonable cause excuses, that is, according to the sacred canons, a just fear lest one suffer a grave injury, or a long journey; but when a pilgrim cleric stays in some place for a notable time (for example, for two weeks), he ought to reassume the clerical habit either of his own domicile or of the place where he is staying.

II. On The Tonsure Of A Cleric.

Tonsure is taken in a twofold sense: for hair cut short, or for the round shaving of the hair on the crown of the head.

1028. 1. Historical survey.² (A) Through the first five centuries no trace is found of tonsure properly so called, but only that clerics are advised neither to nourish long hair, nor to shave their head.

² Thomassin, op. cit., l. II, ch. 38-42.

(B) In the sixth century, cutting of the hair becomes, as it were, a sign of clerical state, so that clerics may be distinguished from lay persons, who were more intent on nourishing long hair. Around the end of the same century, and especially in the seventh, clerics wore not only the tonsure but the crown, that is, with the whole upper part of the head shorn, they left below a circle of hair, in the manner of a crown, as is also the custom today among some Regulars. - Toward the ninth century, the hair was not only cut but also shaved, so that the crown stood out more. - As the fourteenth century was tending toward its end, the shaved part of the head underwent diminution, so that the tonsure was not greater than it is today. Indeed, in the fifteenth century, in several regions, it had almost become obsolete. But Trent renewed the ancient discipline in a general way concerning the life, honesty, and external worship of clerics; and in nearly the whole Catholic world the provincial Councils which were celebrated restored the laws concerning clerical tonsure.¹

¹ Thus Conc. provinc. Mediolanense V (an. 1579), among the Acta Ecclesiae Mediolan., Lyons, 1683, t. I, p. 219, where the measure of the tonsure is prescribed for each order; C. Romanum (an. 1725), tit. 16, c. 3, and in the Appendix, n. 18, pp. 63, 313, ed. Brussels, 1726.

1029. 2. Present discipline. By common law, there is a precept of wearing the tonsure, or clerical crown, unless the received customs of peoples carry otherwise. - Thus the Code confirming the ancient canons concerning this matter (can. 136, § 1). Sixtus V had gone before, speaking under grave penalties.² Moreover the Code in the same place warns clerics to employ "simple care of the hair."

² Bullar. Rom., t. V, P. I, p. 43.

(a) This obligation binds all clerics. Thus can. 136, but in regions where there are many Protestants, for example, in England or the United States of America, the custom has prevailed that the clerical crown is not worn, which custom the Code approves.

(b) The obligation is of itself grave, but for mortal sin it is required that one habitually, or at least for a whole year, neglect to wear the tonsure without legitimate reason.

1030. Scholion. As to the beard, there has not been the same practice and discipline in various centuries; in the first times of the Church, clerics nourished a modest beard; from the ninth century they were accustomed to cut it away, but afterward in many regions they began decently to nourish it. - Today, by common law, only that clerics should nourish a beard is prohibited; this does not exclude a moderate beard.³ But by particular law, customary or synodal, it can be prescribed, and in fact in many dioceses it is prescribed, that the whole beard be cut away.⁴

³ De Angelis, in tit. de Vita et honest. cleric., n. 7; Santi, ibid., n. 36.

⁴ "The wearing of the beard is forbidden in the diocese. If, for reasons of health or other grave motives, priests should think that they ought to keep the beard, they could not do this without having obtained our authorization. - Authorization to keep the beard does not dispense from wearing the tonsure." (Statuts Synodaux de Paris, n. 195.)

1031. Clerics constituted in sacred orders ought not only to manifest internal holiness by external habit, but also to abstain from all offices and businesses which impede them from duly fulfilling the ministry committed to them, or diminish the reverence owed to clerical dignity: "No man being a soldier to God entangles himself with secular businesses, that he may please him to whom he has approved himself."¹ But since, among those things which keep clerics from their duties, trading is principal, we shall speak: 1. concerning trading prohibited to clerics; 2. concerning other forbidden arts.

¹ II Tim., II, 4.

I. On Trading Prohibited To Clerics.

1032. Trading is distinguished as twofold, namely strictly and broadly taken.

The former consists in this, that a thing is bought so that under the same form it may be sold again at a higher price. Hence four things are required for trading properly so called: (a) to buy a thing: for if I sell a thing arisen from my own land, it is not properly called trading; (b) to buy the thing so that it may be sold again: for, if I buy a thing so that I may enjoy it, I do not trade, - although afterward, indeed on the same day, having changed my mind, I sell it again, for example, because I have encountered an unexpected occasion; (c) so that it may be sold again under the same form: for if the thing, changed by art or industry, is sold again, it is not strictly called trading, for example, if someone buys grapes and sells wine made from them; (d) so that it may be sold again at a higher price: for if merchandise is sold again at almost the same price, so that profit is not received, it is not properly trading.

But the latter, or trading broadly so called, is that which lacks at least one of the four conditions explained above.

1. On Trading Properly So Called.

1033. "Clerics are prohibited from exercising business or trade, whether by themselves or through others, whether for their own utility or for that of others" (Code, can. 142).

This was already certain from book III of the Decretals, title L, Ne clerici vel monachi saecularibus negotiis se immisceant, cap. 6: "According to the statutes of our predecessors we prohibit under threat of anathema that monks or clerics trade for the sake of gain." This decree was confirmed by the Council of Vienne: "Against other clerics publicly insisting on trades or secular commerce or offices not befitting the clerical purpose, or carrying arms, let them (the Bishops) so strive to observe the canonical statutes that those also may be restrained from excesses of this sort."² - But the reason for the prohibition is that clerics may be turned away from solicitudes of temporal things and from desire of riches, which are by no means reconciled with sacred offices: "For they who will to become rich fall into temptation, and into the snare of the devil, and into many unprofitable and harmful desires, which drown men in destruction and perdition."¹

² Decretal., Clementin. l. III, tit. I, c. 1, p. 1156, ed. Friedberg.

¹ I Tim., VI, 9-10.

1034. (a) This prohibition indeed also affects those who intend to spend all profits on pious works; for the end of the one acting does not change the nature of the work, and otherwise this pious intention does not take away anxieties and vain cares. - It moreover comprehends those who trade through lay persons, both because, from rule of law 72 in VI, "he who acts through another is the same as if he acted through himself," and because Benedict XIV declared that the prohibition and canonical penalties are extended "to clerics unlawfully trading in any way under the name of a layman, just as if they exercised those unlawful businesses by themselves and in their own name."²

² Benedict XIV, Bull Apostolicae servitutis, Feb. 25, 1741, § 1 (Bullar. Bened., t. I, n. 13).

(b) This prohibition is of itself grave, as is certain both from the end of the law and from the penalties brought against trading clerics, both in the old and in the recent law (can. 2380). Yet it admits smallness of matter; thus to trade twice or three times in light matter, indeed, according to several, in grave matter (provided not graver), does not exceed venial sin; but what matter is grave or light must be determined by the judgment of a learned and pious man, according to the various circumstances.³

³ St. Alphons., l. III, n. 831; D'Annibale, t. III, n. 156.

(c) Major clerics and beneficed clerics are certainly held by this law, and also minor clerics, since the laws related above by no means distinguish; hence, if these wish to trade, let them withdraw from the clergy, as is licit for them.

But missionaries in the East Indies and in America specifically (but not in other regions) are prohibited from devoting themselves to trading under any pretext, even once, by themselves or through ministers, both in their own name and in the name of their religions; and indeed under penalty of excommunication latae sententiae, and loss of all merchandise and profits; these penalties indeed were in force up to this point, from the authentic declaration of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide.⁴ - Yet this excommunication was not properly reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, since the delinquent could be absolved by his confessor once the profits had been restored; but if the profits had not been restored, he could be absolved by no one: wherefore this was not properly a reservation, but a condition of absolution. - The same penalties were incurred by immediate superiors, Provincials, and Generals who had not punished their subjects delinquent in this matter, at least by removal from the places where the delict had been committed.

⁴ In Collectanea, n. 351; ibid., n. 352, it is declared: "From which excommunication latae sententiae to be incurred by the fact itself no one can be absolved, except one constituted in the article of death, unless profits of this sort have been restored... That the same prohibition and penalty... affect not only European missionaries, but also any ecclesiastical men whatever, who under the name of missionaries, or under any other title, have for the time been sent, or in any way will stay in those parts."

(d) If a cleric is pressed by present want, he can devote himself to some licit trade, so that he may meet this necessity. If the necessity is not urgent, or if there is question only of the necessity of parents, let the cleric seek an Indult from the Apostolic See, if he is within Italy, - or from the Ordinary, if he dwells outside Italy; but let the Indult not be granted unless the aforesaid necessity is true and another way of aiding it is lacking; and the Indult ceases by the law itself as soon as the necessity itself ceases or another reason is at hand for providing for it.¹

¹ Thus Clement XIII, Bull Cum primum, Sept. 17, 1759, in Collectanea, n. 340, p. 118.

1035. Corollary. From this it is given to be understood what a cleric is to do if he receives a commercial institution by inheritance, or in another way. According to Benedict XIV,² he ought immediately to give up that institution, if he can do so without temporal detriment; if he cannot without detriment, let him ask from the Holy See permission to retain it, in all cases. In the letters granting the permission, a suitable time is to be prescribed for giving up the business; meanwhile, however, let the cleric administer through a layman.

² Benedict XIV, Const. Apostolicae servitutis, Feb. 25, 1741.

2. On Trading Broadly Taken.

1036. The general principle is that trading broadly so called is licit for clerics, because ecclesiastical laws prohibit only trading strictly so called.

Nevertheless, from the common consent of canonists and theologians,³ in one case it is forbidden, namely when a thing is bought so that afterward, changed by the industry of other men, it may be sold again for the sake of gain. For that kind of trading so closely approaches trading strictly so called that morally it hardly differs from it, for example, if I buy cloth, and from it a garment is made by the industry of a hired tailor, so that I may sell it again at a higher price, it is morally speaking the same as if I buy the garment made so that the same may be sold again. - It generates the same evils, namely temporal solicitudes and desire of riches. - Finally, unless it were prohibited, the law prohibiting strict trading would very easily be eluded: for a cleric, wishing to trade, would buy material from merchants, and would take care that it be changed by hired workers before it was sold.

³ Reiffenstuel, in tit. De vita et honest., n. 131; Pirhing, in tit. Ne clerici, n. 4; Schmalzgrueber, ibid., n. 18; De Lugo, De Justitia, disp. XXVI, n. 34; St. Alphons., l. III, n. 836; D'Annibale, t. III, n. 155, note 9.

1037. Corollaries. (a) It is licit for a cleric to buy a thing so that, changed by his own industry, he may sell it again: for then he sells the fruit of his own labor and exercises a little art; but manual labor is much commended by St. Paul and the Fathers.

(b) Likewise it is licit to buy animals so that, fattened, they may be sold again: for this change is partly the fruit of nature and partly the fruit of one's own labor.

(c) Likewise a cleric licitly sells things gathered from his own estates, whether they have not been changed, or whether they have been changed even by the work of hired workers; for this is not properly to trade, but to cultivate fields.

(d) It is also licit for a cleric to buy a house or estates, so that he may lease them and thence make profit: for this is not trading, but the leasing of things, which is prohibited by no law. - Yet in all these things one must carefully avoid whatever can bring disgrace upon clerical dignity.

3. On The Buying And Selling Of Titles Of Credit.

1038. Since today public revenues (rentes sur l'Etat), and also shares and bonds of companies (actions, obligations, stock, bonds), are frequently bought or sold, it remains to inquire whether clerics can devote themselves to these businesses.¹ Now there is a great difference between bonds and shares: a bond is a right to a determined annual profit from a sum of money which has been given, as it were in loan, to some company; but a share is a certain part of the capital from which the company is constituted, and confers a right to a proportionate part of the profits. Hence the owner of a bond (l'obligataire, bond-holder) is one of the creditors of the company, while the shareholder (l'actionnaire, stock-holder) is a co-proprietor of the social fund.

¹ Concerning these things and concerning speculations of the Exchange, cf. On Justice, n. 932-938, and Supplement for France, p. 219-224.

1039. (A) Clerics are not prohibited from buying bonds in any companies whatever, the rules of justice and cooperation being observed. For a bond can be held as a loan, or a redeemable rent-charge, or as a contract of credit; but all these things are licit, as we proved in the Treatise on Justice, n. 932; nor otherwise are they prohibited to clerics, since in no way do they savor of trading. - Yet bonds of companies which are instituted for an evil end cannot be bought, because thus one would cooperate in the evil committed by these.

1040. (B) The difficulty is greater as to shares, and there is a threefold opinion.

(a) Some say that it is not licit for clerics to buy shares in commercial or industrial companies.¹ For these companies properly trade; and therefore to buy or retain shares in these companies is nothing other than to exercise business through others, since the administrators manage all business in the name of the shareholders; but a cleric cannot trade even through another. - This is confirmed by the decision of the Holy Office, April 1, 1857; to the doubt: "Whether it is licit for ecclesiastical persons to buy titles on railroads and to receive the profit coming from them"; it responded: "The Most Holy grants faculties to Bishops, to be communicated through the Sacred Congregation of Bishops, of permitting ecclesiastics to receive shares of a railroad from their own money only";² therefore, they say, without special license it is not licit.

¹ Lehmk., t. II, n. 612; Marc, t. II, n. 2228.

² In Ball. P., Tr. IX, n. 478.

(b) But others distinguish between companies which are called commercial and those which are industrial;³ as to the former, it is not licit for clerics to buy shares, because then they would cooperate in commerce; in reality the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, having been asked: "Whether it would be licit for clerics constituted in sacred orders or beneficed to acquire shares in the said company" (there was question of a banking company to be constituted), responded: "it is not licit."⁴ - As to industrial companies, clerics are not prohibited from buying shares, because they can exercise industrial arts; hence the Sacred Congregation of the Council declared that religious can exercise the art of miller, provided it be done through hired workers.⁵

³ Craisson, in Revue des Sciences ecclesiastiques, t. XIII, 1866, p. 460-483, n. 356; Icard, t. II, n. 356.

⁴ Bizzarri, Collectanea, Rome, 1885, p. 530.

⁵ Ferraris, word Clerici, art. 3, nn. 37, 43.

1041. (c) The third opinion,⁶ which we embrace as more probable, teaches that it is licit for clerics to buy shares in any companies whatever, whether industrial or commercial, provided nevertheless that these conditions are observed: the cleric is only a shareholder, but not a partner properly so called, and therefore he is not held beyond the value of his shares; - the company has no illicit or suspect end; - nor does the cleric undertake a part of administration in that company; - nor does he exercise trading in shares; - and he abstains especially from those aleatory speculations described elsewhere, On Justice, n. 932-938.

⁶ Bouix, in the periodical Revue des Sc. eccles., t. II, 1860, p. 444-470; Vecchiotti, Institutiones Canonicae, Turin, 1876, t. I, p. 399-400; Sanguinetti, Juris ecclesiastici Institutiones, 2nd ed., Rome, 1890, p. 157-163; Allegre, Code civ. commente, Paris, 1902, p. 310-315; Nouvelle Revue Theologique, t. XXV, 1893, p. 604-614; Ball. P., n. 474-478, who has this opinion as probable.

In reality, according to common estimation, shareholders are not thought to trade either by themselves or through others; in themselves indeed they are co-proprietors of the fund, and, if the matter is regarded in the abstract, the business of the company is managed in their name; but in fact, shareholders hardly know how the affairs of the company are managed, care little about them, and, even when they have the right of casting a vote in general Assemblies, often bid farewell to this right, and otherwise are by no means held to use it. Wherefore they can rest securely, because they can lose nothing except the price of the shares which they bought; therefore they are generally no more entangled in secular solicitudes than if they possessed public revenues; nor is their desire much inflamed, since the profit received thence is often not much greater than the ordinary increase received from bonds; hence the motives on account of which trading is prohibited to clerics do not apply here. - This is confirmed from the response of the Holy Office, April 15, 1885, where it is declared "that ecclesiastical persons are not to be troubled if they have bought or buy shares or titles of a bank, provided they are prepared to stand by the commands of the Holy See, and abstain from any trading of the said titles, and especially from every contract which has the species, as it is commonly said, of games of the stock exchange,"¹ (of speculations and games of the Exchange).

¹ Nouvelle Revue Theologique, t. XXV, 1893, p. 610; Ball. P., n. 478.

But from this response it is clear that it is not licit for clerics to buy or sell titles or merchandise for a term, nor even to buy them for this end, that they may often be sold again at a higher price.²

² What was explained above, On Justice, n. 938. But if some cleric buys securities not for this end, that he may sell them again, but for receiving revenues, and afterward sells them again, an opportunity being given, he does not trade, from the things said above, n. 1032.

II. On Other Arts Forbidden To The Clergy.

1042. 1. The general principle is that arts are forbidden to clerics which greatly disgrace the clerical state, or entangle them too much in secular businesses. Thus, from the former head, the arts of innkeepers, butchers, actors, etc., are prohibited to clerics; offices by which they devote their industry and labor to the services and abject servitudes of lay persons.¹ - From the other head, they are prohibited from exercising the office of advocate or procurator (avoue) before civil tribunals, unless they plead their own cause or that of their own church; in a lay criminal trial pursuing a grave penalty, let them have no part, not even bearing testimony without necessity. But in ecclesiastical courts, clerics can advocate and act as proctors, and exercise the office of clerk or public notary, as is clear from the Code, can. 139.

¹ From the Code, c. 138, "clerics should entirely abstain from all those things which disgrace their state; let them not exercise unbecoming arts."

Regularly clerics are forbidden to assume the office of tutor without the permission of the Bishop,² unless there is question of blood relatives or relatives by marriage whose tutelage they cannot reject, or of needy wards.

² By particular law, in certain dioceses, the license of the Bishop is always required: "We likewise forbid them to accept the charge of tutor, subrogated tutor, or curator, unless with special authorization on our part." (Statuts Synod. de Paris, n. 180.)

1043. 2. From the Code, can. 139, "let them not assume public offices which carry with them the exercise of lay jurisdiction or administration." Moreover, as to private businesses, "without the license of their Ordinary let them not enter upon managements of goods belonging to lay persons, or secular offices which carry with them the burden of rendering accounts." (Code, can. 139, § 3.) - It should also be noted that, from can. 137, a cleric is prohibited from becoming surety (cautionnement), even concerning his own goods, without having consulted the Ordinary of the place. From can. 1516, "a cleric or religious who has received goods for pious causes... in trust, ought to make his Ordinary more certain concerning his trust...; but if the donor has prohibited this... let him not accept the trust. The Ordinary ought to demand that fiduciary goods be placed in safety."

"Let them neither solicit nor accept the office of senators or spokesmen for making laws, whom they call deputies, without the license of the Holy See in places where a pontifical prohibition has intervened; likewise let them not attempt this in other places without the license both of their own Ordinary and of the Ordinary of the place in which the election is to be made."

1044. 3. From the Code, can. 139, § 2, "without an apostolic indult let (clerics) not exercise medicine or surgery." Thus no longer is a distinction made between major and minor clerics; and deservedly, since today physicians and surgeons are easily found. - But in regions where they are lacking, as in missions, indults are granted to missionaries rather easily.

1045. 4. From the Code, c. 141, clerics "are not to undertake secular military service as volunteers, unless with the license of their Ordinary, so that they may become free sooner, they have done this; nor are they to bring help in any way to civil wars and disturbances of the public order. A minor cleric who... of his own accord has given his name to military service falls by the law itself from the clerical state."

1046. Clerics ought to avoid certain amusements, because they disgrace clerical dignity, or are dangerous, or provide scandal; thus especially hunting, entrance into taverns, certain games, dances, and spectacles.

1. On hunting. (A) With respect to canon law, three species of hunting are distinguished: clamorous, which is done with great noise of arms and dogs, for taking larger wild beasts, namely boars, stags, etc.; quiet, which is done with snares and nets, for taking birds, hares, etc.; almost intermediate, which is usually done with firearms indeed employed, but without great noise and with few dogs.

(B) Now clamorous hunting (to which that which is done with falcons and hawks is assimilated) is prohibited to clerics, even minor ones, and indeed of itself under grave obligation: for it is opposed to clerical modesty and gentleness, and also to the spirit of religion, because of the vehement distractions of mind which easily arise from hunting. Wherefore, in book V of the Decretals, tit. 24, De Clerico venatore, c. 2, one reads: "We interdict to all servants of God huntings and woodland wanderings with dogs, and hawks or falcons"; and in the Code, c. 138, it is established that clerics never exercise clamorous hunting.

(C) But quiet hunting, according to all, is licit for clerics. But concerning intermediate hunting there is doubt. Benedict XIV has as more probable the opinion which declares it illicit, because the canons, without any distinction, prohibit hunting which is done with dogs.¹ Nevertheless, by customary law benignly interpreting those canons, this kind of hunting does not seem prohibited; for the texts of law prohibited hunting such as was then done, and with all the circumstances which rendered it unbecoming for clerics, namely with great tumult of arms, dogs, and companions; and these indeed have no place in intermediate hunting.² From the Code, clerics "are not to indulge in hunting"; and therefore the modest and rare use of non-clamorous hunting is tolerated.

¹ Benedict XIV, De Synodo, lib. XI, c. 10, n. 8.

² Thus Reiffenst., in tit. De Clerico venatore, n. 11; Schmalzgr., ibid., n. 10.

1047. 2. On entrance into taverns. Clerics are prohibited from entering taverns for the sake of eating and drinking, except in a case of necessity, namely when they are making a journey: "And let them entirely avoid taverns, unless perhaps for a cause of necessity, when they are placed on a journey."³ But taverns, of which there is question there, were places and fomentations of intemperance and incontinence. Therefore by common law there do not come under this name houses which principally serve for providing refreshment or lodging. - From the Code, c. 138, clerics "are not to enter taverns and other similar places without necessity or another just cause approved by the Ordinary."

³ Decretal. lib. III, tit. I, c. 15, p. 453, ed. Friedberg.

1048. 3. On games. (A) Merely aleatory games, namely those which depend almost totally on chance, are prohibited to clerics if they are done for the sake of gain: "Let them not devote themselves to games of chance, money having been exposed."⁴ For from these games, when they are done frequently for the sake of gain, there often arise distractions and anxieties of soul, - grave loss of money to the detriment of the player himself or of pious works, - lies, frauds, quarrels from desire or from fear of great damage. But those who play at dice sparingly, for the sake of recreation, and with scandal excluded, exposing only small sums, do not sin, according to the common interpretation. - But those who play frequently, that is, several times in the week, and for a long time, although they do not expose a great sum of money, sin gravely of itself, according to the more probable opinion.

⁴ Code, can. 138.

(B) But industrial or mixed games, which depend more on skill than on fortune, do not seem prohibited by common law, provided they are not too prolonged, nor scandal given. Yet in some dioceses they are permitted only under certain restrictions.¹

¹ In the Paris statutes, n. 173, these things are wisely decreed: "We likewise remind them that the games which are permitted cease to be so as soon as one plays too often, or longer than the need of honest recreation demands, or in circumstances proper to edify the faithful badly, as would happen, for example, if one played in public places. The most innocent games also become blameworthy if they occasion somewhat considerable losses of money."

(C) As to the use of the wheel which is called bicyclette, bicycle, nothing has been defined by common law; but in some dioceses, Bishops have prohibited its use, and the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars praised one of them, Sept. 28, 1894 (Act. S. Sedis, t. XXVII, p. 437). The matter depends greatly both on the customs of the region, and on the motive and manner of using this wheel; if a cleric moderately and prudently uses this wheel, whether for the sake of honest recreation or for visiting parishioners, in a region where the faithful suffer no scandal from this, it does not seem to be prohibited; but if immoderately, for wasting time, with scandal of the common people, such abuse must be reproved: concerning which Bishops are judges.

1049. 4. On dances and spectacles. (A) Clerics are prohibited not only from leading dances, but also from being present at them, when something unbecoming is done there; indeed already in the Council of Agde (an. 506) one read: "Priests, deacons, subdeacons or those thereafter, to whom there is no license of taking wives, should also avoid banquets of others' weddings, nor mingle with these companies where amorous and shameful things are sung, or obscene motions of bodies are displayed by choirs and dances, lest hearing and sight deputed to sacred mysteries be polluted by the contagion of base spectacles and words."² This particular law was extended to the universal Church by custom and particular statutes, and also by the general declaration of Trent.³ The Code, can. 140, thus explains and defines the matter: "Let them not be present at spectacles, dances, and pageants which disgrace them, or at which it would be a scandal for clerics to be present, especially in public theaters."

² Decret. Gratiani, distinct. XXXIV, c. 19, p. 130, ed. Friedberg.

³ Trident., sess. XXII, cap. 1 de Reformat.

(B) Clerics are prohibited from being present at comedies or spectacles that are dangerous or of the lowest repute, which disgrace clerical dignity. Besides the ancient canons which forbid this, the words of Lateran IV concerning clerics can be alleged: "Let them not attend to mimes, jesters, and actors." Therefore, by common law, comedies and tragedies which display nothing dishonorable are not forbidden. Today, however, in public theaters, the things which accompany or follow even honest comedies generally offend clerical modesty. Moreover diocesan laws determine more specifically which spectacles are to be avoided.¹

¹ To the point Conc. Plen. Baltim. III, n. 79: "Therefore, that its own honor and comeliness may be preserved for the ecclesiastical order, we command that priests entirely abstain from public horse races, from theaters and spectacles." The Paris Statutes declare the matter more fully, n. 234: "We forbid all clerics, and, under penalty of suspension, all priests and ecclesiastics in sacred orders, to attend representations of public theaters, operas, balls, cafe-concerts and in general profane spectacles where the presence of an ecclesiastic could become a subject of scandal... We signal, as little conformable to clerical dignity and modesty, the presence of ecclesiastics in circuses, public concerts, fairs." - Note also n. 231: "We absolutely forbid them to frequent the Exchange or to play at the Exchange; to frequent racetracks or to engage in wagers at races."

There are especially two: celibacy and the recitation of the divine office.

1050. The law of ecclesiastical celibacy, as today it flourishes in the Latin Church, consists in this, that major clerics, namely subdeacons, deacons, presbyters, and bishops, can contract matrimony neither licitly nor validly, but ought to cultivate perpetual continence, and, from a peculiar obligation of religion, are held to abstain from every act, whether internal or external, against chastity. Trent thus declares this:³ "If anyone shall say that clerics constituted in sacred orders, or regulars who have solemnly professed chastity, can contract matrimony, and that one contracted is valid notwithstanding ecclesiastical law or vow... let him be anathema." By the Code, c. 132, the law was confirmed: "Clerics constituted in major orders are barred from nuptials and are so held by the obligation of observing chastity that those sinning against it are also guilty of sacrilege." - Sacred ministers who attempt to contract matrimony incur excommunication latae sententiae simply reserved to the Apostolic See, and, if they do not repent, degradation. (Code, c. 2388.) - Wherefore here we shall explain only three things: 1. the origin and history of this law; 2. the motives on which it rests; 3. the means, especially canonical, by which celibacy may be observed.

² Among the almost countless works on ecclesiastical celibacy these can be consulted: A. de Roskovany, Coelibatus et Breviarium, Pest and Nitra, 1861-1888, where you will find the whole literature on celibacy recounted up to the year 1886, t. IV and VII; and the Supplements, t. III; A. Pavy, Du Celibat ecclesiastique, 2nd ed., Paris, 1852; Dufieux, Nature et virginite, considerations physiologiques sur le celibat religieux, Paris, 1854; Phillips, Colibat (i.e., on Celibacy), Freiburg, 1884.

³ Trident., sess. XXIV, can. 9; cf. sess. XXV, cap. 14-15 de Reform.

I. Historical Survey Of Ecclesiastical Celibacy.

The law which prescribes celibacy to clerics is not divine, but ecclesiastical; nevertheless it has foundations in Scripture, and was gradually introduced into the Latin Church by custom, particular statutes, and finally by a universal decree; but in the Eastern Church, continence is imposed not upon all but only upon certain sacred ministers, as will be clear from what is to be said.

1051. 1. Continence is commended in Sacred Scripture. (A) Christ himself by his example commended perfect virginity: indeed, conceived from eternity by virginal generation in the bosom of the Father, in time he willed to have no mother except a virgin; he cultivated virginity throughout his whole life; dying on the cross, he committed his virgin mother to a virgin disciple. - Likewise by teaching purity of heart,¹ perfect self-denial,² the counsel of leaving all things, even parents, children, and wife,³ he laid the foundations of continence. This he intimated more explicitly when he said to the disciples:⁴ "For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made so by men; and there are eunuchs who have castrated themselves (i.e., through continence) for the kingdom of heaven."

¹ Matt., V, 8: "Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God."

² Matt., XVI, 24.

³ Matt., XIX, 29.

⁴ Matt., XIX, 12.

(B) Paul, adhering to the footsteps of Christ, cultivated continence himself, and gave his disciples the counsel of not marrying, so that they might serve God more fervently:⁵ "For I wish all of you to be as myself: but each one has his own gift from God... But concerning virgins I do not have a precept of the Lord; but I give counsel as one having obtained mercy from the Lord, that I may be faithful... He who is without a wife is solicitous for the things which are the Lord's, how he may please God. But he who is with a wife is solicitous for the things which are of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided." Now one who wishes to expend himself wholly for the glory of God and the salvation of souls will try to bring a counsel of this sort into practice.

⁵ I Cor., VII, 1-38.

(C) Nevertheless neither Christ nor the Apostles commanded continence to clerics; indeed it cannot be proved that the use of marriage was forbidden to married men who received the priesthood; only bigamists, that is, those who had successively had two wives, were barred from sacred orders: "Therefore a bishop ought to be irreprehensible, the husband of one wife... Let deacons be husbands of one wife."¹

¹ I Tim., III, 2, 12.

1052. 2. History of clerical continence up to the Council in Trullo (691). (A) Through the first three centuries virginity is indeed much extolled by the Fathers, and there are already found Christians of each sex who remain celibate, especially among clerics; for many of them, wishing to imitate the examples of Christ and the Apostles and to be immune from the solicitudes of the world, remained continent after receiving sacred orders, even when before ordination they had contracted nuptials.²

² This is certain especially from the things which Paphnutius declared in the Council of Nicaea (325), where there was question of enacting a law of celibacy; cf. Socrates, H. eccles., I, 11; Sozom., H. eccles., I, 23; Hefele, Histoire des Conciles, Paris, 1869, t. I, p. 422-426.

(B) But the first provincial Council which prescribed celibacy to sacred ministers was that of Elvira (an. 305), which established (can. 33): "It has pleased us to prohibit in all that bishops, priests, and deacons, or all clerics placed in the ministry, abstain from their wives and do not generate children: but whoever shall have done this, let him be expelled from the honor of clerical state."³ - The Council of Arles (an. 314) established almost the same thing. In the Eastern Church, the Council of Neo-Caesarea (an. 314) brought the penalty of deposition against priests taking a wife:⁴ "If a priest has taken a wife, he ought to be deposed from his order." But deacons who, at the time of their ordination, had said that they wished to marry, could afterward take wives.⁵ - But thus far there was no universal law. In the Council of Nicaea certain Fathers proposed to extend the Elviran statute to the universal Church; yet Paphnutius, a bishop in Egypt, resisted them, who, although he himself had always cultivated perfect continence, vigorously declared that celibacy was not to be imposed upon all sacred ministers, because, he said, not all can perpetually contain themselves.¹ Wherefore the Council abstained from enacting a universal law concerning this matter; but at the same time it interdicted bishops, priests, deacons, and other clerics from having with them introduced women, unless perhaps a mother, sister, aunt, or another person beyond all suspicion.²

³ In Hefele, t. I, p. 147. - The word prohibere here is improper, but the sense accepted by all is the same as if praecipere were said.

⁴ In Hefele, I, p. 217; Roskovany, I, p. 18. - Some doubted the truth of this fact, but without grave reason, as Hefele shows, l. c.

⁵ Thus the Council of Ancyra (an. 314), can. 10 (in Hefele, I, p. 204; Roskov., I, 17): "Whatever deacons, when they are ordained, if in the ordination itself they protested, saying that they wished to have wives and could not contain themselves: these, if afterward they have come to nuptials, remain in the ministry, because the bishop gave them license for these things. But whoever indeed kept silence, and received the imposition of hands, having professed continence, if afterward they have come to nuptials, they ought to cease from the ministry or clergy, receiving only lay communion."

¹ In Hefele, I, p. 422-426.

² Hefele, I, 370; Roskov., I, p. 19-20. - Introduced women were not wives, but women who were held as sisters.

1053. (C) But various canons in each Church, Eastern and Western, prohibited bishops, priests, and deacons, who had received sacred orders unmarried, from afterward taking wives. Yet in the Eastern Church, deacons who, at the time of their ordination, had declared that they wished to marry, could use this benefit, as we noted above.

But as to married men who received sacred orders, the practice of the Latin Church differed wholly from the practice of the Eastern Church: for in the former, sacred ministers had to abstain from the use of matrimony;³ while in the Eastern Church they were prohibited from leaving their wives, and could live maritally with them, except, however, on the days on which they wished to celebrate the sacred rite; it should also be noted that gradually by custom it was prohibited that non-celibates be chosen as bishops.

³ St. Jerome testifies to this, ep. 48, n. 21: "Bishops, priests, deacons are chosen either virgins, or widowers, or certainly after priesthood forever chaste"; Roskov., I, p. 35-42, relates other texts of the same author.

1054. (D) As to subdeacons, certain particular Councils had indeed enjoined celibacy upon them, but before the sixth century a law of this sort was not universal, even in the West, because the subdiaconate was still numbered among the minor orders. St. Leo (an. 444) had indeed prescribed continence to subdeacons;⁴ but this was not immediately brought into practice through the whole Church. Afterward St. Gregory established the same thing especially for Sicily, where the contrary practice flourished: "Wherefore it seems to me that from the present day it should be said to all Bishops that they should presume to make no one a subdeacon unless he has promised that he will live chastely."¹ But that statute was not observed by all, and certain variations and exceptions remained up to the twelfth century.

⁴ St. Leo, Ep. ad Anastasium, cap. 4, in Roskovany, t. I, p. 98.

¹ St. Gregory M., lib. I, Ep. 44, to Peter the subdeacon, of Sicily, in Roskov., I, 143-144.

1055. 3. Decrees of the Trullan Council (an. 692) and the practice of the Greek Church. The distinction which flourished between each Church as to the extension of celibacy was confirmed by the decrees of the Council which is called Quinisext, because it had to complete the fifth and sixth Council, or Trullan, from the trullus or hall where it was held. These things it established concerning clerical continence:² -

² In Roskovany, t. I, p. 167-171; Hefele, t. IV, p. 208-212.

(a) It confirms the past canons concerning the avoidance of the cohabitation of women who are not immune from all suspicion; moreover clerics are prohibited from ever contracting second nuptials.

(b) Sacred ministers are also forbidden to marry after their ordination: "That henceforth it be lawful for no subdeacon at all, or deacon, or priest, after ordination to contract marriage. But if he shall have dared to do this, let him be deposed." (Can. 6.)

(c) But if someone, before he is ordained subdeacon, or deacon, or priest, wishes to marry, let him do this; nor at the time of ordination should it be asked of him that he profess that he will abstain from his legitimate wife;³ nevertheless if he is promoted to the episcopate, he ought to cultivate continence: "The wife of him who is promoted to episcopal dignity, having first been separated by common consent of herself and her husband, after he has been ordained and consecrated as bishop, should enter a monastery built far from the dwelling of the bishop, and enjoy the bishop's provision." (Can. 48.) Likewise, "those who assist at the divine altar ought, at the time of handling sacred things, to be altogether continent, so that they may be able to obtain that which they ask simply from God." (Can. 13.)

³ The Fathers of this Council acknowledge that the contrary law flourishes in the Roman Church: "Since we know that it has been handed down as a canon of the Roman Church that those to be promoted to the diaconate or presbyterate profess that they will no longer be joined to their wives." (Can. 13.)

This discipline indeed flourishes even now in the Greek Church; but subdeacons are not regarded as sacred ministers, and therefore they can marry; but, if before the diaconate they have not taken a wife, they can no longer marry afterward.

1056. 4. History of celibacy in the Latin Church from the Trullan Council up to Trent. (A) While the Eastern clergy thus mitigated ecclesiastical discipline concerning celibacy, the Roman Pontiffs unconquerably defended and protected clerical continence against its attackers and violators. Yet they could not provide this without the greatest efforts and struggles. For in the ninth to twelfth centuries, great corruption of morals flourished among princes, peoples, and the clerics themselves, nor was the Chair of Peter altogether immune from that corruption; but, on the one hand, provincial Councils, such as Worms (Worms, an. 868), Soissons (Soissons, an. 889), Erfurt (Erfurt, an. 932), Anse (Anse, near Lyons, an. 994), Bourges (Bourges, an. 1031), etc.; and on the other hand, the Supreme Pontiffs, such as Leo VII (an. 938), Leo IX (an. 1051), Stephen X (an. 1057), and especially Gregory VII (an. 1074-1078), etc., not only recalled the law of celibacy to memory, but also did not hesitate to strike with severe penalties those violating the same.¹

¹ Their decrees and many others can be read in Roskovany, t. I, p. 191 sq.; cf. Vacandard, La loi du celibat ecclesiastique in Revue du clerge francais, Jan. 1, 1905.

1057. (B) Especially celebrated is can. 7 of Lateran II (an. 1139), by which the marriages of major clerics, hitherto illicit, are declared wholly invalid:² "But that the law of continence and cleanness pleasing to God may be spread in ecclesiastical persons and sacred orders, we establish: that bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons... who, transgressing their holy purpose, have presumed to couple wives to themselves, be separated. For we judge that a coupling of this sort, which is certain to have been contracted against ecclesiastical rule, is not matrimony." By this decree the law of celibacy was greatly strengthened, so that nothing more remained except to bring it into practice.

² Roskovany, t. I, p. 335; Hefele, t. VII, q. 237. - Lateran I, an. 1123, indeed reproved these marriages and ordered those contracted to be dissolved, but did not declare the same to be void.

1058. (C) In the time of the pseudo-reformation, Protestants, haters of ecclesiastical institutions, attacked ecclesiastical celibacy with all their strength, and very many priests and monks who adhered to this heresy soon flew together to the desired nuptials, adhering to the footsteps of Luther rather than of Christ and the Apostles. But, notwithstanding the petitions of certain princes, even Catholic ones, Trent confirmed the ancient canons, declared the marriages of major clerics void, and renewed the penalties brought against concubinarians, granting to Ordinaries the power of proceeding against delinquents without the noise and form of judgment, every appeal or exemption having been removed, so that the plague of incontinence might more easily and efficaciously be eradicated.³ These decrees indeed almost all particular councils or synods, which have been held up to the present day, made their own and promulgated.

³ Trident., sess. XXIV, can. 9; sess. XXV, cap. 14-15 de Reformat.

II. Motives On Which The Law Of Ecclesiastical Celibacy Rests.

1059. A law of this sort is indeed ecclesiastical, but, far from opposing the natural law, it seems altogether consonant with reason and faith.

The fundamental reason is taken from this, that the Christian priest acts in the place of Christ on earth, receives his power, and therefore ought to imitate his virtues, and in his manner of acting approach as nearly as possible the High Priest. But, from what has been said, Christ cultivated most perfect virginity, and not obscurely commended its practice. - And this indeed will appear more clearly if the functions of the priest are more intimately regarded on the part of God, of the faithful, and of society itself.

1060. 1. If the priest is considered in his relations to God, he ought to offer prayers and sacrifices, not only in his own name, but also in the name of the whole Christian people: "For every high priest taken from among men is appointed for men in the things that are to God, that he may offer gifts and sacrifices for sins."¹ Now virginity is desired for fulfilling each office perfectly.

¹ Hebr., V, 1.

(A) And first indeed for prayer. For although married persons can pour forth prayers, nevertheless the Apostle exhorts them that they contain themselves for a time, so that they may devote themselves more easily and fervently to prayer:² "Do not defraud one another, except perhaps by consent for a time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer." In reality those who have married, and have children to be educated, are greatly entangled in secular cares, and are delayed by domestic solicitude from the office of prayer; while, on the contrary, the clean of heart ascend to God and converse with him more easily. But priests ought several times in the day to pray for themselves and for the whole Christian people, and indeed long and perseveringly, and therefore to be immune from secular cares; otherwise, from things commonly occurring, they will pray neither at length nor fervently; but, distracted in mind, they will scarcely recite a few prayers.

² I Cor., VII, 6.

Usefulness. - A distinct knowledge of the state of clerics and of their rights and obligations reveals to very many readers or hearers of moral theology their own rights and offices, which is altogether required for honesty of life; but to others it supplies a just estimation of that state, by which not a few practical errors, for example unjust violations of rights or privileges, are forestalled.

Order of speaking. - Although we must be content with a summary proposition of the argument, we shall make the order of the Code of Canon Law itself rather constantly our own; yet in such a way that at the same time we shall treat of offices and benefices, which in the Code are separated in distinct books.

— Clerics ought already to consider it no small honor that they have been enrolled among those who, by divine institution, are distinct from laymen. Cf. c. 107, already cited at n. 2.

Moreover, the state of clerics brings with it rights and privileges. Rights are goods or useful things which, from the very character of the clerical state, inviolably belong to clerics; but privileges are goods or useful things which, by the positive benefit of the legislator, have been added in order better to protect the dignity of the state.

I. Rights. 1. Therefore, because it is the state of those who preside, the clerical state makes clerics fit for legitimately participating in the power either of order or of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and for obtaining ecclesiastical benefices and pensions (c. 118).

This state is required as a condition of validity when there is question of jurisdiction, benefices, and pensions, unless by apostolic good pleasure the defect has been healed.

2. Hence the person of clerics acquires a certain sanctity, which is so violated by every real injury that the author of the injury is guilty of sacrilege (c. 119).

But real injury embraces all exterior actions which by deeds, not words, are injurious against the body, liberty, or dignity. Cf. Wernz, Ius Decretalium, t. 2, n. 163.

3. And in a general way reverence is owed to clerics by the faithful, which is different according to the different grade and office.

II. Privileges. Common privileges are the privilege of the canon, by which the sanctity of the state is protected; the privilege of the forum; the privilege of immunity from services; the privilege or benefit of competence.

1. The privilege of the canon punishes with penalties those who are guilty of real injury toward clerics. It is called "of the canon" because of canon 15, Si quis, suadente diabolo, of Lateran Council II, 1139, in which it was contained. This canon afterwards became c. 29, C. XVII, q. 4.

Besides other penalties, whether latae or ferendae sententiae, he who has laid violent hands upon the person of the Roman Pontiff contracts excommunication most specially reserved to the Apostolic See, and is ipso facto to be avoided; he who has done so upon the person of a Cardinal, Legate of the Roman Pontiff, Patriarch, Archbishop, or Bishop, even titular, incurs excommunication latae sententiae reserved in a special manner to the Apostolic See; he who has done so upon the person of clerics or other religious of either sex is punished with excommunication latae sententiae reserved to his proper Ordinary (c. 2343).

2. By the privilege of the forum, clerics are exempted from lay jurisdiction, so that even in their temporal cause they cannot be convened, at least as defendants, before the tribunal of laymen, "unless for particular places something else has been legitimately provided" (c. 120), or unless the permission of the competent ecclesiastical Superior has been obtained.

Permission is reserved to the Holy See when there are to be convened Fathers Cardinals, Legates of the Apostolic See, bishops even titular, abbots or prelates nullius, supreme Superiors of religions of pontifical right, and major Officials of the Roman Curia on account of business pertaining to their office; others can be convened by permission of the Ordinary of the place in which the cause is conducted; and he is admonished not to refuse permission without a just and grave cause (c. 120, §2).

Those convened, nevertheless, can appear, the Superior "from whom permission had not been obtained" having been notified (c. 120, §3).

Derogation is made from this privilege by concordats, and also by custom, at least centenary custom. The Secretariat of State acknowledged this for Belgium, Germany, and Holland in the year 1911. Cf. Periodica, I, 190. Elsewhere also the Church is accustomed to be silent concerning this often violated privilege of the forum, and generally tries to obtain this, that without the permission of the Holy See a bishop, especially in a criminal cause, not be dragged before a lay judge.

Therefore we shall advise that due permissions be sought; but generally we shall not disturb the good faith of the parties or magistrates. Yet we shall opportunely admonish the faithful that the divine natural law always remains in force, which forbids scandals and diminutions of ecclesiastical authority to be permitted without a proportionate cause. Concerning this privilege, cf. Wernz, op. cit., V, n. 291 ff.

3. The privilege of immunity or exemption looks to this: that clerics be considered immune from services which the Church judges can scarcely be reconciled with their state. These services are chiefly military service and certain public offices, for example that they not be assumed as jurors in criminal causes.

It belongs to the Church, as a Society indirectly superior, to estimate what duties and civil offices are alien to the clerical state. Yet the Church by no means refuses to arrange the matter amicably with civil governments.

Historically, personal immunity was first sanctioned by Constantine the Great on October 31, 313 ¹.

Since, however, not a few civil laws boldly violate the rights of the Church, clerics, with the permission of their Ordinary, will be able voluntarily to undertake secular military service so that they may sooner become free (c. 141): sooner, that is, that they may serve for a shorter time, or be liberated earlier.

But on July 15, 1919, the Sacred Congregation of Religious declared that the decree Inter reliquas, January 1, 1911, concerning religious bound to military service, was still in force, and besides established certain things by way of corollary. A.A.S., XI, 321.

4. By the benefit of competence or of suitable support, a cleric who is not solvent is permitted to retain those things which, by the prudent judgment of an ecclesiastical judge, are necessary for his honest support (c. 122).

This benefit drew its origin from the way in which c. Odoardus, I, X, III, 23, was understood. Cf. Wernz, op. cit., II, 170.

Since, in present-day civil law, it has been made common to all debtors, it will not be denied to clerics, except that civil laws wish the matter to be determined by the decision of a civil judge.

¹ Its history in Roman law is narrated in Archiv f. k. Kirchenrecht, 37, p. 356 ff.

Loss of privileges. These privileges, granted on account of the decorum of the clerical state, cannot cease through renunciation by clerics (c. 72). Indeed clerics of themselves must use them; yet prudently: wherefore c. 120 positively indulges them, when summoned before a lay judge, that, in order to avoid greater evils, they may appear, the Superior from whom permission had to be obtained having been made aware.

But they are lost by a cleric who is reduced to the lay state, or is deprived in perpetuity of the right of wearing ecclesiastical habit. When the state or the right of wearing the habit has been restored, they are recovered (c. 123). And by the law itself minor clerics fall from the clerical state if they have entered marriage, or on their own authority, without a legitimate cause, have put aside ecclesiastical habit and tonsure, or have enrolled for military service (cc. 132, §2; 136, §3; 141, §2).

Therefore, by the clear disposition of the law, we are today dispensed from the solicitude of defining the conditions under which clerics can use these privileges. Cf., for example, d'Annibale, Summula, I, 100. The privileges belong to all who have not fallen from the clerical state or have not been legitimately stripped of clerical habit.

I. Rights belong inviolably to clerics from the very character of their state: fitness for participating in the power either of order or of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and for obtaining ecclesiastical benefices and pensions; protection of sanctity; a title of reverence.

II. Privileges have been added by the positive benefit of the legislator for protecting the dignity of the state. They are the privilege of the canon, by which penalties, graver according to the more noble quality of clerics, are brought against those who, by deeds, are injurious against their body or dignity or liberty; the privilege of the forum, by which, even in a temporal cause, before a tribunal of laymen, they cannot be convened at least as defendants unless for particular places something else has been legitimately provided. Legitimate derogation is made by concordats; and also by custom, at least centenary. The privilege of immunity from services which are scarcely compatible with the dignity of clerics; the privilege of competence, by which a cleric who is not solvent is permitted to keep those things which are necessary for his honest support.

These privileges are not lost by renunciation, but by reduction to the lay state.

It must be treated 1° concerning the common obligations of Clerics; 2° concerning the peculiar obligations of certain ones.

Clerics are chiefly obliged: 1° to sanctity of life; 2° to celibacy; 3° to ecclesiastical habit and tonsure; 4° to the canonical Hours; 5° to suitable knowledge; 6° to the ecclesiastical ministry to be performed fittingly; 7° to the obedience and due reverence to be furnished to the Bishop justly commanding. Concerning the four former here; concerning the rest in their proper places.

1082. • How great the internal sanctity and exterior edification of Clerics must be needs neither demonstration nor exposition. For the very idea alone of Clericate and Priesthood manifestly argues this. Therefore in very few words we shall declare that Clerics must be pious, holy, and modest, both from the nature of their state, and from Scripture, the Fathers, and Councils.

1° 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 the Sacraments to be conferred on the faithful, to the divine praises solemnly to be paid 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 are Clerics and Priests constituted in the Church? That they may be, according to the testimony of the Gospel, the salt of the earth and the light of the world. Moreover they cannot be such unless they shine before others by an illustrious and excellent sanctity 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 must profess sanctity. Hence St. Jerome says:¹ "The garment cries out, the state cries out, the profession cries out sanctity of soul."

2° From Scripture. Thus the Lord said concerning the priests of the old law: They will be holy to their God, and they shall not pollute His name: for they offer the incense of the Lord and the breads of their God, and therefore they will be holy.² Likewise in Isaiah it is said: Be cleansed, you who carry the vessels of the Lord.³ Moreover if so great sanctity of life was required in priests who offered oxen and sheep and other animals to God, what will have to be required in those who sacrifice the divine Lamb Himself? And if so great cleanness was required in those who carried the vessels of the Lord, what purity of soul will have to be required in those who carry the Lord Himself in their hands? Read also St. Paul to Titus, Timothy, etc.

3° From the Fathers. Thus St. Chrysostom:⁴ "The Priest ought to have an immaculate life, so that all may look to him as to some excellent example; for God chose us for this, that we may be as lights and teachers of the rest, and may live on earth as Angels." St. Thomas⁵ teaches that greater sanctity is required in a priest than in a simple Religious, saying: "Through Sacred Order someone is deputed to most worthy ministries, by which Christ Himself is served in the ministry of the Altar; for which greater interior sanctity is required than even the State of Religion requires." And in the Supplement:⁶ "For the suitable execution of Orders, goodness of any sort does not suffice; but excellent goodness is required, 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 merit of sanctity."

4° From Councils. Innumerable things are contained in Canon Law concerning the sanctity of Clerics, which also are confirmed by very many Councils. But let it suffice to report that which the Council of Trent has by solemn Decree:¹ "It altogether becomes Clerics called into the lot of the Lord so to compose their whole life and morals, that in habit, gesture, walk, speech, and all other things they display nothing except what is grave, moderate, and full of religion." - The Plenary Council of Baltimore II² exhibits the practical interpretation of this Decree in these words: "Wherever they have been, whether they travel, or walk through the streets, or mingle in conversations among themselves or with those given to the world, let them show in their walk and gesture, and in countenance itself and voice, the modesty and gravity which befit them. Let them avoid with highest zeal excessive raising of the voice, immoderate laughter, scurrilous jokes, finally whatever is an indication of a soul not well composed. Let them not utter more free, insolent, impious words, even by reporting the sayings of others; let them restrain and coerce, if not otherwise, by mouth and countenance, others uttering them."

1083. • All Clerics receiving Sacred Orders contract ipso facto the obligation of celibacy. This is clear from various Decrees of Canon Law; but especially from c. 1. D. 28, where St. Gregory thus prescribed: "Let Bishops presume to make no one subdeacon, unless he has promised that he will live chastely, because no one ought to approach the ministry of the Altar unless his chastity has been proved before the ministry has been received." - Likewise from the Council of Trent,³ where it has thus been defined: "If anyone has said that clerics constituted in Sacred Orders, or Regulars solemnly professed to chastity, can contract marriage, and that the contract is valid, notwithstanding ecclesiastical law or vow, let him be anathema."

1084. Questions. - Query 1° Whether the obligation of celibacy is of divine law?

Resp. Negatively with the common opinion against some; 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 celibacy was introduced only from the precept of the Church or of the Apostles. Moreover this is clear from the Council of Trent related above, where it is said: "Notwithstanding ecclesiastical law." Therefore, etc. - Thus commonly Theologians.¹ Therefore the Church can dispense from that obligation. But she never dispenses with those constituted in Sacred Orders, so that they can be bound by the bond of matrimony, except by that law, that they be altogether kept from clerical offices. Thus Pius VII convalidated the sacrilegious marriages of some priests who during the time of the "Gallican" disturbance entered nuptials.

1085. • Query 2° Whether the obligation of celibacy proceeds immediately from a precept of the Church, or mediately, namely from the vow which is emitted in the ordination itself?

Resp. Each opinion according to St. Alphonsus is probable; but the more common and more probable is that which says that this obligation arises from a vow. It is proved, 1° from c. 6. Tit. III. L. III. Decr., where it is said: "Therefore we attending to the fact that the Oriental Church has not admitted the vow of continence," etc. Therefore in the Western Church it is admitted. Moreover this is clear from c. unico. T. XV. L. III in 6°, and from C. Inter praeteritos, § 41, Benedict XIV, Dec. 3, 1749, where this is expressly said. 2° from the fact that if the obligation were from the law of the Church alone, the Pope could absolve all clerics from it: which would be against the common opinion.²

1086. • Query 3° Whether the obligation of celibacy is 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 diaconate; but married men before diaconate can be advanced to further Orders, and nevertheless converse with their wives. Bishops are excepted, who all must constantly preserve perfect chastity. But among the Greeks subdiaconate is not numbered among Sacred Orders. Hence for clerics not married, in the ordination of Diaconate the precept of chastity is imposed, and today, in a certain Province of the Greek rite, even in the ordination of Subdiaconate, as is clear from the Instruction of the S. C. de P. F.³

1087. • Query 4° Whether he would be held to chastity who expressly did not wish to vow chastity?

Resp. This one would nevertheless be held to chastity, if not from vow, since no one can be bound by a vow unwillingly, yet certainly from the precept of the Church, which from the motive of Religion would bind him to chastity, the vow failing. - Thus commonly with St. Alphonsus.¹ Others wish that he is held to emitting a vow of chastity; and no one will deny that the Church can oblige him to this.

Note. By what pact chastity must be observed by a priest, the Plenary Council of Baltimore II teaches, a. 164-168.

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.

1089. • Canonical Hours are called: the collection of prayers and readings to be recited by persons deputed to this, at certain hours, on individual days. Hence the Hours are also called 1° the Divine Office, which is recited in honor of God; 2° the Ecclesiastical Office, which is paid in the name of the Church; 3° the Canonical Office, which must be recited according to the rules of the Canons; 4° the 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.

The origin of the Divine Office as to substance seems to have to be traced back from the very times of the Apostles, as is gathered from various places of the Acts of the Apostles, from the testimonies of the Fathers, and from various documents.

In the course of times the form and quantity of the Breviary were various. The Council of Trent¹ commanded that a new reform of the Roman Breviary be made. St. Pius V corrected it, increased it with some additions, and by the Bull Quod a Nobis, July 7, 1568, prohibited all other Breviaries which did not exceed 200 years by institution or legitimate custom.

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

It must be treated 1° concerning the obligation of the Breviary; 2° concerning the time established for the recitation of the Hours; 3° concerning the mode of reciting them; 4° concerning the causes excusing from recitation.

Point I. On the obligation of reciting.

1090. Principles. - I. The following are obliged to recite the canonical Hours daily:² 1° All Clerics constituted in Sacred Orders, even those censured and deposed. This is clear from various places of Canon Law; from the Lateran Council, year 1215, from the Bull of St. Pius V Quod a Nobis. - 2° All beneficed persons who have a 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 Pius V: Ex proximo. - 3° All Religious of each sex professed in an Order approved by the Church, or in which solemn vows are emitted, and destined for choir. It is clear from custom, and also from the Decree of Gregory X, etc. Cf. n. 1205. q. 2°.

II. All these sin gravely if they omit the whole Office or a notable part of it without legitimate cause. The reason is clear; for they violate the law of the Church in a grave matter. - St. Alphonsus,¹ and others most commonly.

III. The obligation of reciting the Hours is affixed to the day, so that it can in no way be satisfied on another day; therefore the obligation, from the mind of the Church, ceases with the day assigned to it, and for this reason is usually called the burden of the day.

1091. Questions. - Query 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 matter of mortal sin; but that the omission of a lesser part does not exceed venial sin.²

1092. • Query 2° Whether it is grave to omit Vespers on Holy Saturday?

Resp. Negatively, at least more probably, because the matter is very slight both in itself and in respect to the whole Office.³

1093. • Query 3° Whether he commits one or multiple grave sins who omits the whole Office?

Resp. He seems to commit one grave sin only. - Thus commonly Theologians with St. Alphonsus after St. Antoninus, 3rd part tit. 13. c. 4.; because the whole Office of the day falls under one precept. Yet several sins could be committed from an evil will interrupted and resumed several times, for example if someone intends to omit the Office or some hour, afterwards proposes to say it, and again is turned away from the good purpose.⁴

1094. • Query 4° Whether if someone doubts whether he has omitted something in the Office, he is held to recite it?

Resp. Negatively, if either there is present a solitary probability or presumption for the Office having been paid, or it is a question of a scrupulous person; otherwise affirmatively. Cf. things said n. 67. b).

Hence (they say) you are well excused from repeating the Office if you do not remember having said something, and you have a just conjecture of believing that you said it: for example, if you remember that you began some Psalm, or Reading, or Hour, and afterwards, distracted, you have come to the end of the Psalm, Reading, Hour, without remembering whether you recited the whole; for presumption favors you, because you are accustomed to recite integrally those things whose recitation you began. 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 a later Hour unless you have recited the prior one first, and therefore you can prudently believe that you omitted nothing.¹

1095. • Query 5° Whether Religious who for just cause do not come to choir are held under grave obligation to recite the Office privately?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is that the principal obligation for a Religious does not fall on choir, but on the recitation of the Office by reason of the Religion which undertook that burden from its institute. This obligation is clear from the universal sense and custom of Religious, who, when they cannot be present at choir, believe themselves bound under grave obligation to reciting the Office privately. But universal custom, which has been constantly observed by Religious and Nuns with great inconvenience, furnishes a sufficient argument concerning the grave obligation undertaken. Whence the opinion of some is not probable, who say that the obligation of the Office does not urge a Religious outside choir. Yet both the Constitutions and the legitimate customs of each Order must be consulted.² Those professed of simple vows, concerning whom n. 1187 will be treated, are not held to private recitation; yet they must be present at choir as solemnly professed. Bizzarri, Collect.

1096. • Query 6° Whether a Religious sins gravely who recites the Office privately, while he can easily be present at choir?

Resp. Negatively. For the obligation of choir, although it is grave for the Community, nevertheless is held as light for individual private persons, provided the choir is not altogether taken away. But four free persons, or persons valid for sustaining the choir, suffice for choir. But if Religious are fewer, they are in no way obliged to recite the Office in choir; yet they are not exempted from private recitation, as has just been said.⁴

1096. • Query 7° Whether those obliged to the Office are held to supply those things which they omit in choir on account of the functions of choir, for example by ringing bells or playing organs, or by looking for the Psalms, and other similar things?

Resp. Negatively. The reason is that omission in choir, provided it is not excessive, is supplied by the companions. Thus he satisfies who coughs while others are reciting, etc., and probably even if an entire Psalm is said in the meantime. But he does not satisfy who, while the Office is sung, answers the choir alternately by playing the organ, without uttering the versicles of his own part. A fortiori he is not held to repeat who did not hear some things of the opposite part, even if it is a question of a notable part, provided he sufficiently attended.¹

1097. • Query 8° What Breviary must be used?

Resp. By common law the Breviary reformed by St. Pius V alone must be used; this is clear from the Bull of the same St. Pius V, Quod a Nobis, given July 7, 1568. In this Bull the Pontiff takes away and abolishes all other Breviaries which from institution or legitimate custom do not exceed two hundred years. Yet he permits that even those older than two hundred years can be changed into the Roman Breviary, if the Bishop and the whole Chapter consent. But he commands that this Breviary be observed throughout the whole world, with only the exception just related. Indeed in another Constitution, which begins Ex proximo, he declares that all obliged to the Hours will not satisfy their duty if they use another Breviary.

1098. • Query 9° Is there still given an obligation of reciting the gradual Psalms, the little Office of the B. V. M., and the Office of the dead?

Resp. 1° Negatively as to Clerics who recite the Office privately.

Resp. 2° Negatively also for those reciting the Office in choir, unless where there is present a custom of reciting the aforesaid Offices from the time of St. Pius V. - Thus the S. Congregation of Rites declared several times. Yet this obligation, where it exists from custom, does not affect individual private persons outside choir.²

Query 10° Whether those obliged to the Office must under grave obligation recite the Office of the dead on the day of the Commemoration of all the deceased, and also the Litanies on the feast-day of St. Mark and on the three days of Rogations?

Resp. to 1st Affirmatively, according to all. But this Office consists only of Vespers, Matins, and Lauds.¹

Resp. to 2nd Affirmatively, according to the common opinion. The reason is that in the Rubric after Monday of the fifth Sunday after Easter it is said thus: "Those who are not present at the procession of Rogations shall privately after Lauds say the Litanies with their prayers and orations." But the word "shall say" imports a grave precept when the matter is grave, such as certainly is the matter of the Litanies. Besides, everywhere the custom of reciting the Litanies on these days prevails. But custom is the best interpreter of laws. Yet some deny the grave obligation, saying that the precept is not clear, especially not the grave precept. - "I do not dare to call the second opinion improbable, but the first pleases me more." (f) p. 483.

1099. • 1° The time prescribed for fulfilling the entire recitation of the Office begins from midnight and is ended at the following midnight, so that whoever recites the whole Office within this time is always to be exempted from grave sin, at whatever hour he satisfies such duty. The reason is that, as to substance, one satisfies by reciting the whole Office on the natural day. Indeed Matins and Lauds, by a privilege granted by the Church, can be recited on the preceding day in the evening.

2° Matins and Lauds must be recited by priests before the celebration of Mass. This is clear from the Rubric of the Missal, tit. 1, de Preparat. sac., where it is read: "The priest about to celebrate Mass, at least Matins with Lauds having been completed," etc. Likewise from the Constitution of Innocent IV, year 1254. See below, q. 2 and 3, n. 1100.

3° All the little Hours can be recited in the morning time; and indeed the two earlier ones must be recited before midday; but the two later ones can be said during the whole time both morning and evening. Vespers and Compline are recited from midday up to midnight. Yet in Lent from the first Sunday Vespers can be recited before dinner on account of the ancient discipline, according to which the fast was not broken before the recitation of Vespers. But on Sunday Vespers cannot be anticipated, because the fast is not observed on that day.

Formerly the Hours were recited thus: Matins after midnight, Lauds at dawn, Prime after sunrise, Terce at the ninth hour in the morning, Sext at midday, None at the third hour in the afternoon, Vespers at sunset, Compline at the twilight of night. Hence a cleric ordained subdeacon is held only to reciting the Hours corresponding to the time of ordination. Therefore if the ordination is made before the ninth hour in the morning, he will be held to reciting Terce, but not to the preceding Hours. But more probably he does not satisfy if he recites the part of the Office to which he is held before ordination; yet the opposite opinion is also probable to St. Alphonsus. See the arguments of each opinion in the same author.²

1100. Questions. - Query 1° Whether the little Hours can be recited even before dawn without any cause?

Resp. Affirmatively, more probably. The reason is that since the ancient custom of reciting those Hours at a determined time has been taken away, no other law or new custom has imposed the obligation of paying them only in the time following dawn. Indeed grave Theologians expressly assert that these Hours can be recited during the whole morning time, or from midnight to midday. Thus expressly St. Alphonsus.³

Query 2° Whether the obligation of reciting Matins and Lauds before Mass urges under grave obligation?

Resp. Negatively, at least more probably. The reason is that there is no connection between the Office and Mass, and therefore the recitation of Matins does not seem to be a disposition for celebrating, since a priest can also dispose himself piously for the Sacred rite by praying otherwise; nor does a grave obligation appear from the Rubric related above, and generally it is apprehended not under grave obligation, but under light. - Thus commonly, with St. Alphonsus³ and Benedict XIV.⁴ Otherwise, according to the truer opinion, if it is a question of recitation in choir before the conventual Mass to be celebrated in chant.

Query 3° What cause can excuse from that obligation?

Resp. Any moderate reasonable cause will excuse, for example if someone asking a priest to celebrate Mass for him desires that it be celebrated at once; likewise if the people, or some grave person, is waiting; if the Superior commands; if the time of celebrating has arrived and the celebration cannot be deferred without some inconvenience; if greater convenience of study, or greater utility to be perceived from studies, requires this; if some unexpected business has arisen; if some penitent must be heard first; and similar things.¹

1101. • Query 4° At what hour is it permitted to begin the recitation of Matins in the evening of the preceding day, according to the privilege related above?

Resp. From the common opinion of Theologians it is permitted to begin at the hour of Vespers, which is had when the sun holds the middle of its course between midday and setting; for then, according to all, the ecclesiastical day begins, since first Vespers are accustomed to be chanted. This is confirmed by universal custom. Hence in various places tables are usually prepared determining this hour at the diverse times of the year.² Yet our Bishops can communicate to "ecclesiastical men, whether secular or regular, the faculty which they have," of privately reciting, with a legitimate cause concurring, Matins with Lauds of the following day immediately after two hours have elapsed after midday. See p. LXXII, Faculty 1 among Extra. C.

Query 5° Whether the recitation of Matins must be repeated if it was had before the aforesaid time?

Resp. Affirmatively, more probably. The reason is that the Breviary is the burden of the day; therefore it must be recited on the day itself assigned; but if the aforesaid anticipation is made, now the Office is recited outside the day, just as if the little Hours of the following day were recited before midnight.³ It is confirmed from the declaration apud Muhlbauer.⁴

Addendum and Corrigendum. - I confirm the sentence of St. Alphonsus, according to which more probably the recitation of Matins must be repeated if it was had before that time at which the sun holds the middle of its course between midday and setting, from the declaration which is read apud Muhlbauer. But it was asked whether this declaration is to be understood in such a way that he would not satisfy his obligation who recited Matins with Lauds on the evening of the preceding day before the sun holds the middle of its course between midday and setting. The S. C. responded on 13 July 1883: "Approved Authors are to be consulted." Among the approved authors who have written on this question, that St. Alphonsus is second to none is not something I need say.

1102. • Query 6° Whether the Matins of the Office of the dead and the Litanies for the feast of St. Mark and the days of Rogations can be recited on the previous evening?

Resp. to 1st Affirmatively, more probably. It is clear from universal custom, and also from the Rubrics, which read thus: "The Benedicamus Domino having been said, the Matins of the dead begins absolutely." Therefore since the Matins of the Octave of the feast of All Saints is accustomed, or certainly is able, to be anticipated, consequently the Matins of the dead also can be anticipated.

Some deny this with Lacroix, relying on a Decree of the S. Congregation of Rites, Sept. 1, 1607. But that Decree, according to St. Alphonsus,¹ seems to regard only recitation in choir; concerning which matter indeed there cannot be doubt after the Response of the S. R. C., Sept. 4, 1745 in Ratisbon (apud Gardellini n. 4177).

Resp. to 2nd Negatively. The reason is that the Litanies are affixed to the day, nor do they seem of themselves to be joined with Matins and Lauds. Besides, they supply assistance at the procession, which is altogether affixed to the day. Furthermore if the feast of St. Mark is transferred, the Litanies must not be transferred; therefore they do not inhere in Matins, nor do they have any connection with it.²

1103. • Query 7° Whether one foreseeing an impediment to reciting the Office is held to anticipate the time of the Hours?

Resp. Negatively, probably, if it is a question of Matins and Lauds to be recited the day before, because the time of the precept is not yet running, but only of the privilege. Affirmatively, if the day of precept has already begun, because the Office is prescribed to be recited within the breadth of the whole day, and he who, the precept now urging, is going to be impeded, is held to prevent it. L. V. 155. Cf. above n. 548. q. 3°. n. 550. q. 1°.

1104. • Query 8° At what hour can the recitation of Vespers begin in the morning during Lent?

Resp. The Salmanticenses say³ that Vespers in Lent can be recited from the eleventh hour, or one hour before midday.

But as to the hour of reciting any part whatever of the Office, that must not be passed over which St. Alphonsus has:⁴ "That someone may licitly anticipate or postpone the due time of the Hours, any useful or honest cause suffices, ... greater devotion, or rest, a time more apt for studying, and the like."

Moreover there is no obligation to recite Vespers before midday, but it is a mere privilege, which no one is held to use. But Compline does not enjoy the aforesaid privilege; whence also during Lent it is to be recited after midday.

1105. • 1° As to place. The Office of choir must be recited in the place itself destined for this, or in choir or in the Church. But the Office, if it is recited privately, can be said in every place, whether in an oratory, whether at home, whether in the country, or even in the road while walking, or while making a journey, provided the place is fitting for the attention required and devotion.

2° As to posture. The Office can privately be recited in every decent posture, whether on bended knees, whether standing, whether sitting, whether walking. Thus universal practice, with which all Theologians agree.

1106. Questions. - Query 1° Whether it is permitted to recite the Office lying down in bed?

Resp. Negatively, a reasonable cause being excluded; for such a posture often has some irreverence. The same also must be said of any other posture redolent of softness. Yet this irreverence never exceeds venial sin. - Thus Concina and Viva apud St. Alphonsus.² But any moderate cause whatever will excuse from every fault, for example sickness or any infirmity, headache, weariness, or if someone cannot sleep at night, he could recite the Office without being held to rise.

Query 2° Whether it is permitted to recite the Office in a carriage or on horseback?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is that this is prohibited by no law; nor otherwise does it stand in the way of attention, nor of the reverence due to prayer, even if others were traveling and conversing at the same time. For this has obtained by general custom, even of the pious. - Thus commonly.

1107. • Query 3° Whether it is fault not to observe the rubric according to which certain prayers are to be recited on bended knees?

Resp. 1° Negatively, if it is a question of recitation outside choir; for by custom and common interpretation this rubric regards choir alone. These things indeed laudably are done in private recitation, but are omitted without fault. - St. Alphonsus³ and others commonly. Say the same of the Sign of the Cross, and of other signs used in choir.

Resp. 2° If it is a question of recitation in choir, it is disputed. More probably it seems to be affirmed, because a rubric prescribing something imposes a precept. Yet such omission can never exceed venial fault.

Query 4° Whether it is a sin to recite the Breviary in an indecent place?

Resp. More probably it seems to have to be denied of itself, unless the place were an obstacle to due attention, for example on account of a crowd of people, noise, etc.; otherwise it would be indecent to pray in an indecent place, which is false, since, because God is everywhere, He can also be prayed to and adored everywhere, as is clear from the Apostle:² I will men to pray in every place. - St. Alphonsus³ and others, against some who said that there is venial sin, because this is not without some irreverence.

The Hours must be recited 1° in the prescribed order; 2° with due pronunciation; 3° with sufficient attention and devotion.

1108. • A double order must be observed in the recitation of the Breviary, namely the order of Offices and the order of Hours. 1° The order of Offices is described in the calendar of feasts and in the rubrics for their translation, where several occur at once. From the Declarations of the S. R. C.: a) In doubt the Diocesan Directory must be followed, even if to someone it seemed certain that it errs. b) Simple priests, or those who are neither beneficiaries nor, according to St. Alphonsus,⁴ Religious, can conform themselves to the office of the place in which they are staying.⁵ 2° The order of Hours is that which is set forth in the Breviary, namely that Matins with Lauds be recited in the first place, then the little Hours be added, that is, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, and finally Vespers with Compline follow.

1109. Questions. - Query 1° Whether he satisfies the precept of reciting the Hours who by error or inadvertence recites another Office for the Office of the day?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is that the Church is not presumed to wish to oblige someone twice to this burden on one day, and because the substance of the recitation has been sufficiently preserved. Hence the common axiom which is held as a rule in these circumstances: Office is valid for Office. Therefore there is no obligation, the recitation having been completed, of reciting another Office. - Thus commonly.¹ - The same also must be said of any part of the Office according to the axiom: An error is corrected where it is discovered.

Yet it is a counsel, says Laymann with others, not an obligation, to add the proper things of the omitted Office. But when the Office would be notably shorter, for example the Office of some Saint for the Office of Sunday, compensation must be made by reciting nine Psalms from the first Nocturn.²

1110. • Query 2° If someone by error has recited only some part of an undue Office, and notices the error, whether he can continue the begun Office, or whether he is held to recite the remaining things from the Office of the day?

Resp. According to the common opinion of Theologians, freedom is given. Therefore he can either continue, or recite the remaining things from the due Office, yet with the Psalm or prayer finished. But it is better to change the Office according to many who establish this rule: "An error is corrected where it is discovered." But this is from mere counsel, not from precept.³

1111. • Query 3° Whether, when you have already said one Office for another, you can 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. The reason is that the Church then only prescribes an Office to be transferred when it is impeded by a Sunday or a greater Office; besides, there is present the obligation of conforming oneself with the common rite of the Church. - Thus Lugo.⁴ St. Alphonsus says this more probably,⁵ and it must be held as morally certain from the Decree of the S. R. C., June 17, 1673, apud Gardellini.⁶

1112. • Query 4° Whether or how he sins who knowingly recites another Office for the Office of the day?

Resp. 1° He commits no sin if he does this for 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 has been approved by the Holy See and is equal or nearly equal; indeed the mere reason of companionship appears sufficiently reasonable, says St. Alphonsus.¹

Resp. 2° The reason being excluded, it will indeed be a sin, but venial only, if the Office is changed into an equal or almost equal one, because the obligation is satisfied as to substance, provided nevertheless (which seems more equitable to St. Alphonsus,² although he holds as sufficiently probable the opinion which does not admit that restriction) that it happen rarely. - St. Alphonsus² against others who say that it is always mortal.

Resp. 3° If a notably shorter Office is recited, it is a grave sin, because then the substance of the obligation is not satisfied. This is clear both from the nature of the thing and from proposition 34 condemned by Alexander VII. See p. XIV.

1113. • Query 5° What kind of sin is it to invert the order in the recitation of the Hours?

Resp. 1° In private recitation it never exceeds venial sin, because such inversion of order does not contain 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 proceeded further in the recitation, you will be wholly without fault. Some say that inversion of order is a mortal sin if it happens frequently; but this is more probably to be denied with St. Alphonsus.³

Resp. 2° In public recitation it is disputed whether it is a grave sin or not to invert the order or to change the time of the Hours. Each opinion is probable; but the negative is more probable, because a grave precept is not clear. - Thus St. Alphonsus, apud whom the reasons of each opinion may be seen.⁴

1114. • Query 6° What is a cause for inverting the order of the Hours?

Resp. Any reasonable cause excuses. But the following can be assigned, namely: 1° if you are invited by a friend to recite some Hour with him, and you have not yet recited the preceding Hour or Hours; 2° if in the morning you do not have a Breviary at hand, and cannot conveniently wait, then from a Diurnal which you have you could recite the day Hours, afterwards to recite Matins; 3° if you do not have the Readings at hand, you can recite the Psalms of Matins and Lauds, indeed also the remaining things, the Readings being postponed; 4° if you come to choir when the Hour has already begun, you can go on with the others and afterwards supply what has been omitted. Likewise if you come to choir when one Hour has already been completed, you can sing the later one with the choir, and afterwards supply the earlier. - Thus St. Alphonsus¹ and others commonly.

2195. • What the nature of the clerical State is and what its origin is has been set forth above, in the Treatise on Order (n. 1885 sqq.), where we saw that it was instituted partly divinely and partly canonically. It remains, therefore, that we discuss the Obligations of CLERICS, both by reason of state, - and by reason of benefice, if they possess any, - and by reason of sacred office.

The obligations by which Clerics are held by reason of STATE can conveniently be reduced to these TWO, namely: 1. that they perform all things which are specially prescribed to them; 2. that they avoid those things which are forbidden to them.

2196. • To Clerics are prescribed: 1. Holiness of life; 2. Celibacy; 3. Recitation of the canonical Hours; 4. Wearing of the habit and tonsure.

"Whoever professes some state," says St. Thomas,¹⁹ "is held to those things which befit that state." From which, for the clerical state, the following are deduced:

Principles. I. Clerics are held, in a peculiar manner, to HOLINESS OF LIFE. This is proved 1) from several places of Sacred Scripture, and especially from the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, in which the Apostle is wholly intent on this, that he impel both priests and Bishops of the New Law, and the ministers of priests, i.e. deacons, to the pursuit of virtue and holiness. - 2) From the doctrine of the Holy Fathers, who everywhere affirm this primary obligation of clerics and gravely exhort them to it.²⁰ "For the suitable execution of Orders" (says St. Thomas, resuming the common doctrine of ecclesiastical writers on this matter), "not just any goodness suffices, but excellent goodness is required: so that, just as those who receive Order are placed above the people by the grade of Order, so also they may be superior in merit of holiness."²¹ - 3) From very many Councils, and especially from these words of Trent:²² "It is wholly fitting that clerics called into the lot of the Lord so compose their whole life and morals that in habit, gesture, gait, speech, and all other things they show forth nothing except what is grave, moderated, and full of religion." - The same is evinced from what was said concerning the one to be Ordained (n. 1912 sqq.).

2197. • II. Clerics IN SACRED ORDERS are held to a holiness SO MUCH GREATER as the GRADE of the sacred hierarchy in which they are placed is higher. - The reason is taken both from the excellence of the office which they perform, by ministering at the altar and praying for the people; and especially from the necessity in which they daily are placed of preaching the divine word and ministering the Sacraments. Whence St. Thomas:²³ "Because through sacred Order someone is deputed to the most worthy ministries, by which Christ Himself is served in the Sacrament of the altar: for this, a greater interior holiness is required than even the state of Religion requires. Whence, other things being equal, a cleric constituted in sacred Orders sins more gravely if he does something contrary to holiness than some Religious who does not have sacred Order."

2198. • Note. Clerics and priests, who before Ordination are already supposed to have reached some grade of perfection, are bound to use those means by which holiness already acquired can be preserved and can take on new increase. Among these means the following in the first place are commended by St. Alphonsus: 1. A life so stably ordered that each thing may be done in its own time. - 2. Frequent prayer, both vocal and mental, especially before and after the celebration of Mass. - 3. Spiritual reading, and this daily, especially in the Lives of the Saints. - 4. Study of sacred theology, and especially of moral theology. - 5. Daily visitation of the Most Holy Sacrament and of the Blessed Virgin Mary. - 6. Daily examination of conscience and frequent confession. - 7. Guard of the senses and flight from conversation with seculars. - 8. Annual celebration of spiritual exercises for a full week, and monthly for one day. - 9. Pious and constant devotion toward the Blessed Virgin, which effectively impels to this, that fervent prayers be recited daily to Her with the third part of the Rosary, and that every Saturday some act of mortification be exercised in Her honor.²⁴

2199. • For the holiness of Clerics and Priests, inviolable chastity of the body is required before all things. Hence the following:

Principles. I. The obligation of observing PERPETUAL CELIBACY is contracted, ipso facto, by all who receive SACRED ORDERS. This is established from various decrees of canon law; and notably from can. 1, dist. 28, where St. Gregory prescribed thus: "Let Bishops presume to make no Subdeacon except one who has promised that he will live chastely: because no one ought to approach the ministry of the altar unless his chastity has been approved before the ministry received." Likewise from Trent, sess. 24, can. 9, where this was defined: "If anyone shall say that Clerics constituted in sacred Orders, or Regulars solemnly professing chastity, can contract marriage, and that the contract is valid, notwithstanding ecclesiastical law or vow: let him be anathema"¹ (cf. n. 2013).

2200. • II. The obligation of ecclesiastical celibacy is not of divine law; but arises from the LAW OF THE CHURCH prescribing chastity, and the vow of chastity.² The reason of the former is "because, although celibacy had its origin from the Apostles, as the Doctors prove, nevertheless only from a precept of the Church or of the Apostles (as Bellarmine proves) was it introduced and established, as is clear from the very words of Trent."³ - The reason of the latter is taken chiefly from the Law,⁴ where it is said: "We therefore, attending to the fact that the Oriental Church has not admitted the vow of continence."

But among the GREEKS, with the Church tolerating it, even to the present times there is in force canon 13 of the Trullan Council, which indeed against the institutes of the Elders permitted that deacons and presbyters can licitly come together with the wives whom they took BEFORE Ordination; meanwhile, however, those two edicts being preserved in their pristine integrity, by one of which it is prescribed that Bishops live in perpetual celibacy, and by the other that, after sacred Orders have been received, it is no longer licit for clerics to contract nuptials.⁵ - Whence it happens that SACRED ORDER is among the Greeks, as among the Latins, a diriment impediment of contracting marriage; but the use of marriage (if married men have been ordained) is gravely illicit only to Bishops, while among the Latins it is gravely illicit to all clerics constituted in Sacred Orders (recall what was said n. 1939, 2, and 2013).

2201. • Will you ASK whether the obligation of celibacy arises immediately from the precept of the Church, or mediately, namely from the vow which is emitted in Ordination itself? - R. Both opinions, according to St. Alphonsus, are probable; but the second, which says that this obligation arises from a vow, is more common and more probable. For this is expressly said in various chapters of canon law; and moreover, if the obligation were from the law of the Church alone, the Supreme Pontiff could release all priests from it: which is against the common opinion of the Doctors.⁶

From these things you will resolve: 1. The Church can dispense in the vow of continence annexed to sacred Orders, as in all other vows.⁷ Yet it never dispenses with those constituted in Sacred Orders except under this condition, that the dispensed be altogether removed from clerical offices.⁸

2. If someone, in receiving Order, expressly did not wish to vow chastity, he would nevertheless be held to celibacy: not indeed by force of the vow, which he did not emit; but by force of the precept of the Church, which would bind him to chastity from a motive of religion when the vow is lacking.⁹

3. If someone were ordained before the use of reason, certainly he would not be held to celibacy. But whether one Ordained before puberty would be held is disputed probably on both sides.¹⁰

4. If someone is ordained through extrinsic fear unjustly inflicted, and does not have the intention of receiving Order, he is not validly ordained, nor is he held to chastity or to the Breviary. Indeed, even if from fear he consented to Ordination, it is more probable that he is not held to the burdens; because his vow is more probably to be judged invalid. Nevertheless, it is expedient that one so Ordained seek dispensation, if he does not wish to exercise the Order but to enter marriage. But he would be held if the fear had been justly inflicted, or if the Ordained man knowingly ratified his ordination, e.g. by spontaneously exercising the Order.¹¹

2202. • Note. The law of celibacy is most fitting to the clerical state, and morally necessary to the end of the Church. - The reasons are: 1) The holiness and dignity of the Eucharistic Sacrifice and of the other mysteries, which are to be handled by ministers of the altar. - 2) The office of teaching and exhorting: for a married priest cannot with perfect authority and efficacy teach the most holy truths of the Gospel, and especially opportunely exhort virgins and widows to continence. - 3) The administration of the Sacraments; for how could the Christian faithful, unless sacred ministers excelled in the vigor of chastity, be induced to open candidly to them the secrets of their consciences, and how would they show to the Sacraments themselves that highest reverence which they merit? - 4) Care of the sick, and generally ministries of charity; for souls empty of carnal cares and affections, and full of the spirit of Christ, pour themselves out into charity and into most abundant beneficence, as is everywhere established from the works of Catholic charity.¹² - See more among the dogmatic Authors, or Canonists.

2203. • The CANONICAL HOURS are vocal prayers instituted by the Church and, from her precept, to be paid to God by persons deputed to this.

They are customarily called by various names. They are called the Breviary, either because they briefly commemorate the oracles of the Scriptures, the sayings of the Fathers, and the deeds of the Saints; or because they are a compendium of the longer prayers which in ancient times had to be recited. - They are also called: the ecclesiastical Office, because they are paid in the name of the Church; the canonical Office, because they must be paid according to the rules of the canons; the divine Office, because they have been instituted for the honor and worship of God.

The canonical Hours are numbered SEVEN, namely: Matins with Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers, and Compline. - Matins with Lauds and Vespers are called the MAJOR HOURS, the others MINOR or little HOURS.

The canonical Hours, as regards substance, repeat their ORIGIN from the very times of the Apostles, as is established from Acts of the Apostles 2:42, and more manifestly from the Apostolic Constitutions, lib. 8, can. 34, where these things prescribed to Clerics are read: "Make prayers in the morning, at the third hour, sixth, and ninth, and in the evening and at cockcrow."¹³ But as regards the FORM in which they are recited today, it must be said that the canonical Hours are the work of the Roman Pontiffs: first (in the fourth century), St. Damasus, using for this the work of St. Jerome; then (in the fifth century), Gelasius in the Roman Council; then (in the sixth century), St. Gregory the Great; then (in the thirteenth century), Gregory IX, who reduced them into a briefer form; afterward (in the sixteenth century), St. Pius V; then (in the seventeenth century), Clement VIII and Urban VIII;¹⁴ and finally (in our times), Leo XIII.¹⁵

With these things having been premised, there must be explained: 1. what is the obligation (whether for Clerics, or also for Religious) of reciting the canonical Hours; 2. in what form and manner they must be recited; 3. what are the causes excusing from recitation.

2204. • Principles. I. The OBLIGATION of reciting the canonical Hours arises FROM A THREEFOLD title, namely: from the title of sacred Order, from the title of ecclesiastical Benefice, and from the title of Religion bound to choir. Thus all.

1. From the title of ORDER, Clerics constituted in Sacred Orders are bound, even those suspended and excommunicated. "For," says Benedict XIV,¹⁶ "the daily task of the canonical Hours coheres with sacred Order; and the more common opinion of theologians teaches that it was received by ancient tradition and placed in custom by immemorial usage."

This obligation begins from the Hour corresponding to the hour at which the subdiaconate was conferred; whence, if the Order is conferred at the eleventh hour in the morning, the obligation begins from Sext.¹⁷

2. From the title of BENEFICE, all beneficiaries are bound, even if only tonsured, provided they have a right in the thing or full possession of the benefice: which must not be too slight (i.e. which reaches at least a third part of support), and from which they receive or will receive fruits.¹⁸ Thus from the decree of the Fifth Lateran Council, declaring: "We establish that anyone having a benefice, if after six months, the benefice having been obtained, he has not said the divine Office, does not make the fruits his own, in proportion to the omission." But he who, after admonition, continues to omit the recitation of the Office can also be deprived of the benefice. - St. Pius V decreed besides, in the Constitution Ex proximo, that he who omits Matins restore half the part of the fruits corresponding to that day; he who omits the other Hours, the other half; but he who omits only one of the little Hours, a sixth part. - And the same must be said if someone, through several light omissions during the Office of the day, reaches grave matter. - Nor is one omitting the Office on one day excused from restitution if he supplies on another.¹⁹

But this restitution must be made before every sentence; because recitation is absolutely necessary for gaining the fruits. - Further, it must be made to the poor, or to the fabric of the church, or to the house of the benefice, or for increasing its fields. Similarly, it can be applied to Masses for the dead; because souls in purgatory are truly poor.²⁰ Nor can it be supplied by any alms which the beneficiary previously made from the fruits of his benefice, as is established from proposition 33 condemned by Alexander VII. But if someone after the omission has given alms, being either forgetful or perhaps ignorant of the restitution to be made, he can probably compute them.²¹

It is said in the decree: after six months; from which it follows that a beneficiary who neglects the Office during the first six months indeed sins gravely against religion, but not against justice, and therefore is not held to restitution.²²

Will you ASK whether a beneficiary ought to restore ALL THE FRUITS according to the Offices which he omitted? - R. A simple beneficiary, who has only the burden of wearing the habit and tonsure, must restore all the fruits. But other beneficiaries are held to restore only those fruits which correspond to the burden of the Office. "The reason is both because the bull of St. PIUS V has been received thus and has been explained thus 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 manner as simple beneficiaries. Therefore they say that a Bishop or pastor is held to restore a third or a fourth (or, as others think, a fifth) part of the fruits, retaining the others for the other burdens which they satisfy; - Canons, half the part (and, according to some, only a fourth); those having a chaplaincy, half or a third part (for a chaplain is held to the Office, since any chaplaincy to be conferred by a Bishop, and erected by his authority, is truly a benefice, even if it is removable at will; otherwise, if it is not erected by authority of the Bishop, although it is conferred by him). The reason is that all these receive fruits not only for the Office, but also for other burdens."²³

3. From the title of RELIGION assigned to choir, all Regulars solemnly professed who come under the name of Choristers, although they have not been promoted to Orders nor are to be promoted to them, are bound under grave sin to the canonical Hours, whether publicly in choir or privately.

This obligation arises from custom already prescribed and having the force of law among Regulars assigned to choir. But the obligatory force of this custom is established both from the fact that it has been constantly observed by Regulars and by Nuns and with great inconvenience, and from the fact that Prelates have always gravely reprehended transgressors. But if, says St. Alphonsus, in some Religion it were established that there is no such custom, such an obligation would not be in it.²⁴

It was asked: "Whether Professed of simple vows, which must be premised to the profession of solemn vows according to the encyclical letters given on 19 March 1857, are held to the divine Office?" And the Sacred Congregation on the State of Regulars, at the command of Pius IX, responded, on 6 August 1858: "that they are not held to private recitation, but nevertheless must be present at Choir as those solemnly Professed."²⁵

2205. • St. Alphonsus further adverts:²⁶ 1. "No individual Religious or Nun is held under grave sin to say the Hours in choir, provided, however, that the choir is not taken away.... But paucity of religious excuses the whole Community from choir. Therefore, unless there are present at least four available ones (i.e. neither sick nor legitimately occupied), there is no obligation of choir."

2. Prelates sin gravely if from negligence they permit a notable part of the Office to be omitted in choir; because they are bound to protect and preserve regular observance.²⁷

3. Religious dwelling with permission outside the cloisters are held to the Office; likewise, if they are fugitives, or imprisoned. - But otherwise, if they have been ejected, or condemned to the galleys.¹

4. Lay brothers ought, from the prescription of the Rule, to recite certain prayers, but not under grave obligation.

2206. • II. The obligation of reciting the canonical Hours is so GRAVE that everyone upon whom this duty is incumbent sins gravely if, without legitimate cause, he omits the whole Office of one day, or a notable part of it. The reason is because he violates a precept in grave matter, namely in matter which pertains to the most excellent virtue of religion. - Yet this omission, according to the truer opinion, is not a sevenfold sin, but only one. "But if someone omitted several Hours from intentions morally interrupted, then he would commit several sins."² (cf. n. 328, Rule 32; n. 331, 3).

Furthermore, in assigning what is that notable part whose omission would be a mortal sin, there is not one opinion of all theologians. - As far as St. Alphonsus is concerned, having rejected as improbable the opinion of those who affirm that the omission of one whole little Hour is light matter, he embraces the opinion of Sanchez, who says that the matter is light whenever it does not reach the quantity of one entire little Hour. Hence it is probable that he does not sin gravely who omits all Vespers of Holy Saturday. But he sins gravely who omits one entire Nocturn, or even three Lessons with the responsories, if they are such that they equal a little Hour. - But neither would he be excused from mortal sin who recited only very little from a little Hour.³

2207. • Two things here come TO BE NOTED: 1. There is a grave obligation of reciting the Office of the Dead on the day of the Commemoration of all the dead; likewise, of reciting the Litanies on the feast-day of St. Mark and during the three days of Rogations.⁴ - 2. Today there is no obligation to recite, on the days assigned in any month, the little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Office of the Dead, the penitential Psalms, or the Gradual Psalms. Except if a custom of reciting them flourishes somewhere: which, however, does not oblige the individuals outside choir, but only the Community. Thus the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 10 January 1609.⁵

It is ASKED. What in DOUBT whether something from the Office has been OMITTED?

Resp. 1. In a STRICT doubt (i.e. negative, or positive and probable on both sides) the part about which you doubt certainly must be recited. Except if an equitable interpretation of the law, or a circumstance of fact, furnishes a legitimate excuse. Thus "the scrupulous are not to be obliged to repeat, because in these persons, for the most part, doubts are not true doubts, but empty apprehensions."

Resp. 2. In a BROAD doubt, i.e. if you have either a unique probability, as often happens, or another founded presumption that you have omitted nothing, you are not held to repeat. "Whence the Authors teach that you are well excused from repeating if you do not remember that you said something, and you have a just conjecture for believing that you said it; for example, if you remember that you began a psalm, a lesson, or an Hour, and afterward, not distracted on purpose, or not interrupted, you find yourself at the end of the Hour, reading or reciting by memory those things in which ordinarily you are not accustomed to err." - Likewise, "if ordinarily you are not accustomed to say a later Hour except after the prior one, you can prudently believe that you have omitted nothing"⁶ (cf. n. 50 and 98, 2).

2208. • The canonical Hours must be RECITED: 1. according to the prescribed form; 2. according to the due order; 3. at a suitable time and place; 4. vocally, integrally, and continuously; 5. attentively and devoutly.

Now concerning each, several things.

I. The canonical Hours must be recited ACCORDING TO THE FORM PRESCRIBED by the Church; whence:

1. The GENERAL FORM must be observed by all, according to the Constitution Quod a nobis of St. PIUS V, given on 7 July 1568, by which the Roman Breviary is prescribed for the whole Latin Church, and all other Breviaries are abolished, unless by institution or legitimate custom they precede by 200 years. Indeed, in the other Constitution Ex proximo, the Pontiff declares that those obliged to the Hours will not satisfy their duty if they use another Breviary, and therefore that Beneficiaries do not make their fruits their own. (Except if a legitimate dispensation is added.)⁷

2. The SPECIAL FORM of one's own Calendar or Directory must be observed, so that the Office is recited on any given day as it is prescribed there, even if the error seemed manifest, e.g. as regards the transfer of some Feast: according to the decision of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 23 May 1835,⁸ in Namurcen.

But in composing the proper Calendars of dioceses, the decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites approved by URBAN VIII must absolutely be observed: where the Ordinaries of places, both secular and Regular, are forbidden, by their own authority, to change the rite placed in the Roman Calendar or Rubrics of the Breviary into a higher rite, or to extend Offices conceded for one place to another place.⁹ - Likewise, proper Offices approved by the Sacred Congregation of Rites for some diocese or for a religious Order obtain the force of law, although they have the character of a privilege. Moreover, particular Offices granted only in a permissive manner become obligatory if they have once been received by use (Sacred Congregation of Rites, 2 May 1801).

2209. • Note. 1. Regulars dwelling outside the monastery are held to the Breviary of their Order; but if they are assigned to choir and are staying in another Convent of their Order, they ought to follow the Office of that Convent; "because everywhere they are held to be present in choir."¹⁰ - 2. Canons and Beneficiaries are held to the Office of their own Church, even if they are absent from it. Likewise Masters and students dwelling in a Seminary are held to the Office of the Church attached to the Seminary, although they celebrate Mass elsewhere.¹¹ - 3. Clerics who are not beneficiaries, if they are absent from their own diocese, can conform themselves to the Office of the place where they are newcomers; but they are by no means held to this. Indeed, it is also preferable that one's own Office be retained, lest confusion arise. (Sacred Congregation of Rites, 12 November 1831, Marsorum, to 50.)¹²

2210. • II. The canonical Hours must be recited both according to the order of OFFICES and according to the order of HOURS.

A) The ORDER OF OFFICES is found either in the Calendar of Feasts of each diocese or Religion, or in the Rubrics for their transfer, where several concur at the same time. He who knowingly and without reasonable cause changes this order, by reciting for the Office of the day another Office, sins, according to the diversity of Offices, either gravely or lightly: he sins gravely if he recites a notably shorter Office, as is established from proposition 34 condemned by Alexander VII: "On Palm Sunday one reciting the paschal Office satisfies the precept"; but he sins lightly if he changes the Office into an equal or almost equal one; because he satisfies the obligation as to substance; provided, St. Alphonsus adds, that this is done rarely.¹³

But the exchange is devoid of every sin if it is made on account of a reasonable cause, for example if someone cannot easily have the proper Office, or if he recites another approved Office with a companion; "because the very association excuses, provided the Office is not notably shorter."¹⁴ And thus Chaplains and table-companions of Cardinals or Bishops can conform themselves to them in the Office. The same must be said of those who undergo spiritual exercises among Religious. But otherwise, concerning the Chaplain of Nuns, from the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 21 March 1795.¹⁵

It is ASKED. What ought he to do who notices that he has ERRED in the Office?

Resp. 1. If he notices the error after the complete recitation, he is not held to repeat; because the Church is not presumed to wish to oblige someone on one day twice to this burden. - Hence the common axiom: Office for Office. Nevertheless, if the Office had been notably shorter, he ought to supply the defect: e.g. if in place of the Office of a Sunday he had recited the Office of a Saint, he ought to add nine Psalms, taking them from the first Nocturn.

Resp. 2. If he notices the error after a recitation not complete, e.g. after Matins has been recited, he can either continue, or recite the rest from the prescribed Office. This latter is to be preferred, according to that: An error is corrected where it is detected.¹⁶

Resp. 3. He who has erred cannot, on the day on which the Office already recited occurs, say the omitted Office; but he ought to recite again the one recited, so that thus he may conform himself to others. Nor can one who has omitted an Office transfer it to another day, even one not impeded. Thus the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 17 June 1673.¹⁷

2211. • B) The ORDER OF HOURS is that which is indicated in the Breviary, prescribing namely that first Matins with Lauds be recited, then the little Hours, that is, Prime, Terce, Sext, and None, and finally Vespers with Compline. Nor ought Matins of the following day to be recited before the Office of the present day has been completed.

Inversion of this order: 1. OUTSIDE CHOIR and contempt having been set aside, is only venial, even if it is done frequently; because the substance of the precept remains preserved. - Indeed, it is devoid of every fault if it is done from a reasonable cause, e.g. so that you may conform yourself to the choir, or to a friend, etc. 2. IN CHOIR, it is controverted whether it is a grave sin (and the same controversy exists concerning a change of the time of the Hours). The affirmative opinion is probable, but the negative is more probable; because there is no certainty about a grave precept.¹⁸

2212. • III. The Hours must be recited at a suitable TIME and PLACE. - For these two complete the order.

A) As regards TIME, thus formerly the Hours were recited: Matins after midnight, Lauds at dawn, Prime after sunrise, Terce in the morning at the ninth hour, Sext at midday, None at the third hour in the afternoon, Vespers at sunset, Compline at the twilight of night.¹⁹

But according to present discipline: the legitimate TIME, within the limits of which the precept obliges under grave sin, is from midnight of one day until midnight of the following day, so that before the aforesaid first limit no one is held to begin, and after the second no one can satisfy his obligation.²⁰ But each one is free in this to follow either true time, which a sundial indicates, or mean time, which public clocks signify. Thus from the Response of the Sacred Penitentiary, 18 June 1873.²¹ But the suitable TIME, which of itself obliges under light sin, unless a reasonable cause prevents it, is determined in the following manner:

1. The time of Matins, outside choir, from privilege or already prescribed custom, begins from the hour of Vespers of the preceding day (i.e. as soon as the sun becomes nearer to its setting than to midday), and lasts until the following midday. - And this likewise holds for the Office of the Dead outside choir; but not for the Litanies, which must be recited on the very day assigned.²²

But whether one satisfies by saying Matins at the SECOND HOUR after midday? - Some with the Salmanticenses affirm, saying that an anticipation of this sort, by force of a custom already introduced, is licit; but it must more truly be denied, both because there is no certainty about the aforesaid custom, and the tables which are customarily composed in various places are opposed to it; and because (if northern regions in the month of December are excepted) it is not yet the proper hour of Vespers, and therefore the ecclesiastical day has not yet begun.²³ The Holy See is indeed accustomed frequently to grant the privilege of beginning the recitation of Matins at the second hour after midday, and indeed at every time of the year; but it is accustomed to add this clause: "a reasonable cause being added."²⁴ Therefore, if a reasonable cause is lacking, if one endowed with the privilege anticipates the Office, he indeed satisfies his obligation, but he sins venially.

2. The time of the little Hours extends from dawn until midday. Yet they are licitly recited already from midnight; but None (and according to many also Sext) can be recited after midday without cause.²⁵

3. The time of Vespers and Compline (outside choir) runs from midday to midnight. But on Lenten ferias, from the first Sunday, Vespers (not Compline) can (and in choir must) be recited before the meal: in memory of the ancient discipline according to which the fast was not broken before the recitation of Vespers.²⁶

It was said above: unless a reasonable cause prevents it. But what cause must be judged REASONABLE, St. Alphonsus explains thus:²⁷ "That someone may licitly anticipate or postpone the due time of the Hours, any useful or honorable cause suffices, namely a sermon to be prepared or heard, danger of a supervening occupation or labor, greater devotion or rest, a more suitable time for studying,

and the like. Yet deservedly Concina says that mere greater convenience, without another honorable motive, does not suffice for excusing."

2213. • B) As regards PLACE, the divine Office in Cathedrals, in Collegiate churches, and in the churches of Regulars assigned to choir, must be recited publicly, in the place destined for this, or in choir. - But privately it can be recited in every place, provided the recitation is made without contempt, and provided the place is not incompatible with attention and intention.¹

It is ASKED. What concerning the POSTURE OF THE BODY in reciting?

Resp. 1. Not to observe, in choir, the posture prescribed by the Rubrics, e.g. by not standing, not genuflecting, etc., is a light irreverence, which does not exceed venial fault. - 2. Outside choir, to omit it is devoid of every fault, although it is laudable to observe it. - "Yet the Doctors think that he is not excused from venial sin who without cause would recite the Office lying in bed"; for such a posture is not free from irreverence. Otherwise, if someone recited thus because he is kept in bed by infirmity or weariness, or because he passes a sleepless night.²

2214. • IV. The canonical Hours ought to be recited WORTHILY, i.e. vocally, integrally, and continuously. And indeed by these words is expressed the DUTY OF THE MOUTH which, according to the Fourth Lateran Council, Cap. Dolentes, must be carefully fulfilled.

We said: 1. VOCALLY, and indeed distinctly: because the Office is a vocal prayer, and not purely mental. - Hence, it does not suffice to read only with the mind, or to run through with the eyes alone. Nor is it enough to recite in the throat, or between the teeth, or by syncopating, or with a stammering tongue, voluntarily abbreviating, or rushing. Yet according to the more probable opinion, it is not required that the one reciting hear himself; for, as Sylvius teaches, such an obligation is proved by no law.³

Therefore, if someone recites the Office with a companion, both ought to use such a voice that one hears the other, and the recitation ought to proceed so distinctly that neither begins his own verse until the other has completed his; for a companion cannot morally make his own what he does not hear, and accordingly he does not recite the Breviary integrally: which nevertheless is required. - Whence a deaf man, who in choir utters the versicles of his own part, but does not hear the versicles of the other part, ought to supply, by reciting softly what the others sing. - On the contrary, those who, while others are reciting, perform certain things necessary for the choir, even through an entire psalm, are not held to supply what was omitted; "for then through the companions that is supplied which perhaps they themselves do not sufficiently perceive, provided the omission is not too prolonged. - The same must be said of the organist, if he himself utters the versicles of his part."⁴

If you recite the Office with a companion who cuts off syllables, but in such a way that the sense is not notably changed: it is probable that you are not held to repeat, unless it is clear to you that the companion omitted a notable part. "Yet I would think," St. Alphonsus adds, "that you are not excused from venial sin if of your own accord you recite with such a mutilating companion, unless some cause is present, namely if you are invited by a Superior or a very grave person, or for a similar cause."⁵

We said 2. INTEGRALLY. Now to integrity belong the Pater, Ave, and Credo, at the beginning and end of the Hours, as is noted in the Rubrics. Outside choir, the antiphon of the Blessed Virgin Mary is not to be added by precept, except at the end of Lauds and Compline. - Likewise, the Confiteor and Misereatur at Prime and Compline can be recited alternately with a companion, but they ought not to be, except in choir (S. R. C., 12 November 1831 in Marsorum to 42).⁶ Nor do the prayers Aperi and Sacrosanctae belong to the integrity of the Office, though they are laudably and most usefully recited.⁷

We said 3. CONTINUOUSLY, i.e. without interruption in the same Hour, unless a reasonable cause excuses. Yet the common opinion teaches that Lauds can be separated from Matins even without any cause. But when they are separated, Matins having been finished, the Pater noster must be said (which moreover ought to be done after any Hour whatever) with the prayer of the Office of the day; but Lauds are to be begun as in the Psalter.⁸ The Nocturns can probably be separated from one another, at least for three hours, according to the ancient rite, or even for a longer time, with cause.⁹

It must be noted: 1. Among the JUST CAUSES of interrupting the Office, especially if it is long, as the Office of Sunday, St. Alphonsus counts the following: one's own or another's utility, courtesy, devotion, execution of the commands of Superiors, the hearing of the confession of someone who would not willingly wait. - You can similarly interrupt if something suddenly seems to you to need to be done or noted down, so that you may remove distraction, or so that you may not forget the matter; and a fortiori it is licit to interrupt, in order to elicit some pious affection of the heart or some little prayer. We said little prayer; for long prayers would be mixed inopportunely with the recitation of the Office.¹⁰

2. The interruption of some Hour made without reasonable cause, and prolonged for a notable time, cannot be excused from venial sin. - Yet the whole Hour is not to be repeated, although a great interval, for example a whole night, is interposed; because the individual psalms, indeed the individual verses, have a complete signification, and are sufficiently united either through the intention of continuing, or through the subsequent recitation.¹¹

2215. • V. The canonical Hours ought to be recited with ATTENTION AND DEVOTION: in which two things is contained the duty of the mind and heart.

A) As regards ATTENTION, it is certain that some attention is required in the recitation of the Office. A DOUBLE attention can be had, namely external and internal. 1. EXTERNAL attention consists in this, that nothing be done which is incompatible with the recitation: as it would be to chat, write, attentively listen to others speaking, and other things of this kind; but not to walk, wash oneself, gather herbs, flowers, set the fire, make the bed, comb the head, look at a hill, a river, etc., since such actions, of themselves, do not exclude attention to other things. Thus commonly with Navarro, Suarez, etc. "But Bonacina rightly adverts that some actions, with respect to one person, perhaps are distractive, but with respect to another are not."¹²

2. INTERNAL attention is placed in the application of the mind to that which is being done; and this can be threefold, namely: to the words only, that they may be duly pronounced; to the sense of the words, that they may be rightly understood; and finally to God or to divine things, so that the mind and thought of the one reciting are fixed either upon God himself, or upon his attributes, or upon the mysteries of the Lord's Passion, or upon the deeds of the Virgin Mother of God or of the Saints.¹³

With these things having been premised, THREE things are to be established as certain: 1. He who, while reciting the divine Office, does not have at least external attention, does not satisfy his obligation: whence, a Beneficiary voluntarily distracted in this way is held to restitution; because he certainly does not make his fruits his own. Thus all.¹⁴ - 2. He who cares nothing about internal attention sins at least venially; because he acts irreverently toward God¹⁵ (cf. n. 372, 6). - 3. Attention to the words suffices, with the general intention of worshipping God.¹⁶

2216. • It is ASKED. Whether INTERNAL attention is required under grave obligation?

Resp. 1. Very many indeed deny it with St. Antoninus and St. Thomas, teaching that it is true prayer which is made with the intention of praying and external attention. - The reason is both because prayer, according to St. Damascene, is a petition of fitting things from God: but it is not repugnant that our petitions can be represented by us to God even with an actual wandering of the mind; and because, if internal attention were of the essence of prayer, not even one involuntarily distracted would satisfy his obligation; for once the essence of a thing has been destroyed, although inculpably, the thing itself is destroyed. This opinion appears sufficiently probable, so that a Beneficiary, relying upon it, is not held to restore fruits received in good faith.

Resp. 2. But the more common and more probable opinion affirms it; because without internal attention prayer cannot consist, which is generally defined: the elevation of the mind to God; whence, by the very fact that the Church prescribes prayer, she also prescribes internal attention. And with this opinion there seem to harmonize both the words of the Lord, complaining about the Jews (Matt. 15:8): "This people honors me with lips: but their heart is far from me"; and the words of Trent, prescribing (sess. 24, cap. 12) that: "All (namely Canons) be compelled to perform the divine Offices... and in choir... reverently, distinctly, and devoutly to praise the name of God with hymns and canticles."¹⁷

But St. Alphonsus NOTES that even if this latter opinion is held, two things nevertheless are required in order that someone be said not to satisfy the Office: namely, that he distract himself voluntarily, and then that he fully notice his distraction. - It is said that he fully notice it; for the Doctors commonly hold that one reciting does not sin in any way if, when he notices the distraction, he uses moderate diligence for attending to the recitation. But if he half-fully notices the distraction, and does not retract it, he indeed sins venially; but he substantially satisfies the Office, since the first will of attending always perseveres, as long as it has not been revoked with full advertence.¹⁸

2217. • B) As regards PIETY or devotion, at least that is required and prescribed by which the recitation of the Office becomes an act of religion. - Hence he would not satisfy the precept who read the Hours in order to acquire knowledge for himself, to accommodate himself to a friend, etc.; for the intention of praying is necessary, not indeed actual and explicit, but virtual and implicit: which then is already had when, according to custom, the breviary is taken up so that the precept may be fulfilled¹⁹ (cf. n. 213).

The things we have said are valid concerning the bare observation of the PRECEPT. - But St. Alphonsus earnestly commends this to all, that they pay the divine Office with the greatest ardor of piety, extolling its EXCELLENCE with these praises: "A hundred private prayers cannot have so great a price as one prayer of the divine Office includes; because this is offered to the Lord in the name of the whole Church, with the words of God himself.... Let us firmly persuade ourselves that, after the most holy Sacrifice of the Mass, no more precious treasure is found in the Church than the divine Office, from which daily we can draw rivers of graces."²⁰

But that this desirable piety, and due attention, may always accompany the recitation of the Office, the COUNSELS which the holy Doctor supplies in these words will help not a little: "1. At the beginning to form the intention of praising God; - 2. to renew the intention at the Gloria Patri, or at the beginning of each psalm; - 3. to represent to oneself some mystery of the Passion; - 4. carefully to guard the senses, and other things of this sort."²¹

2218. • The principal causes which EXCUSE from the recitation of the divine Office are the following THREE: 1. impotence, 2. charity toward the neighbor, 3. dispensation.²²

I. IMPOTENCE, whether physical or moral, excuses, because no one is held to the impossible. He who can recite a part is held to perform that; indeed, if the part is as great as a little Hour, he is held under grave obligation; for the obligation is divisible, as is established from proposition 54 condemned by Innocent XI (cf. n. 224). - But if the part which you can recite does not reach the matter of a little Hour, "not even under venial sin are you obliged to recite anything; because such a slight part, taken separately, is not judged appreciable for the end intended by the law."²³

Hence: 1. Those laboring under grave illness are excused; likewise, those convalescing from grave illness (for some days, at the judgment of a prudent man) until their strength is restored; and this must be admitted even if they celebrated Mass, or read some book of recreation. - He who is certain that, on account of infirmity, he cannot recite the whole Office, and doubts whether he can recite a part, is excused from the whole Office, lest namely he be distressed by scruples, not knowing how far he can and is held to recite. The reason is because, in doubts of this sort, the natural law of preserving health prevails, and fear of grave harm is already a grave cause (cf. n. 223).²⁴

2. He is excused who in a time of persecution fears lest, from the recitation of the Breviary, he be betrayed.²⁵

3. He is not excused who lacks the Roman Breviary, and has another at hand, for example Benedictine or the like; because by either one the substance of the precept can be fulfilled. And this, St. Alphonsus says, is the more pious, reasonable, and to-be-followed opinion. - Likewise, if, having the common Office and not the proper Office of that day, you are held to say the Hours from the common, as Croix with others more truly thinks.²⁶

4. A blind man is not excused who knows by memory either the whole Office, or a notable part of it; but he is not held to commit to memory what he does not know, because this would be a means extrinsic to the precept. - On the contrary, one not able to recite alone is held to use a companion, if he can use him without his own grave inconvenience; because the use of a companion, in such a case, is judged an ordinary means of fulfilling the precept. - We said without his own grave inconvenience; because if a companion who would recite with you does not readily occur, or if you ought to pay him a stipend, you are not held to a means of this sort, extraordinary, unless you are a Beneficiary and wish to make your fruits certain.²⁷

2219. • II. CHARITY excuses, that is, a grave occupation which cannot be omitted without scandal or notable detriment of the neighbor. The reason is because the natural precept of charity prevails over ecclesiastical law (cf. n. 682).

Hence a priest is EXCUSED, either totally or partially: 1. if through the whole day he receives confessions which he cannot defer; - 2. if unexpectedly he is summoned to a dying person, and afterward no time remains which he might spend on recitation; - 3. if he is held to prepare hastily a sacred sermon which he cannot omit without scandal or reproach; - 4. if he is occupied the whole day in settling quarrels or assisting the sick, e.g. in time of plague.²⁸

2220. • III. DISPENSATION granted by legitimate power excuses. The reason is because what is of ecclesiastical law can be taken away by ecclesiastical power.²⁹ Furthermore, dispensation is validly granted: 1. by the Supreme Pontiff in every case, even without cause; 2. by the Bishop

(or by a Regular Prelate, with respect to his own subjects); but only from a just cause, with someone in particular, and for a brief time. But a cause of dispensing exists when there is doubt about moral impotence, when recourse to the Pope is difficult, when dispensation is sought on account of a motive which recurs frequently, e.g. on account of infirmity. And the Vicar General himself can do this, provided he has received a special mandate from the Bishop.¹

In Germany, and in distant regions, Bishops generally possess a more ample power. For there, by force of quinquennial faculties, they can grant to clerics that, in place of the divine Office, they recite the Rosary or other prayers, in the case in which they would not be able to carry the Breviary with them, or would be impeded by another cause.

2221. • Questions. ASK 1. Whether he who foresees an impediment is held to ANTICIPATE the recitation?

Resp. 1. If he foresees it on the preceding day, he is not held to anticipate Matins with Lauds; because the obligation of the precept has not yet begun, whence he is not held to use a privilege. - 2. If he foresees it on the day itself of the obligation, and can anticipate without great difficulty, he is held to this; because the precept presses for the whole day, and for any part of it; and therefore, within the latitude of the whole day, it must be fulfilled, namely at the time at which it can be done.²

ASK 2. What IN DOUBT, whether the cause of exemption is sufficient or not?

Resp. 1. In doubt whether the recitation will bring grave inconvenience upon you, you are not held to recite, as we have already said (n. 2218. Hence 1). - 2. In doubt whether you are excused in another way, e.g. by reason of labor, journey, charity to be exercised, etc., you are held to recite, unless a uniquely probable reason, or probable judgment, stands in your favor. But in this case it is better to remit the matter to the judgment of a prudent man, and especially to the judgment of the Superior, who can dispense in doubt.

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

2224. • To Clerics generally are PROHIBITED the things which are unbecoming to their state, either because they draw the mind away too much from divine things, or because they bring chastity into danger. - Things of this kind are certain secular arts and offices, trading, games of chance, hunting and the bearing of arms, entrance into taverns, dances and comedies, and conversation with suspect women.

2225. • I. As regards ARTS, by canon law every art which is judged contrary to the respectability of the clerical state is prohibited to ALL CLERICS, as the art of an innkeeper, butcher, jester, etc. - from Clement. Dioecesanis, de vita et honest. Clericorum.¹¹

Specifically, to Clerics INITIATED IN SACRED ORDER there is prohibited: 1. The public study of medicine, namely in public schools and Universities.¹² - 2. The exercise of the medical and surgical art where there is need of incision, amputation, or cautery, and necessity is not present: and indeed under the penalty of irregularity, if mutilation or death follows from this (cf. n. 1940, 3). - Yet if an expert is lacking, and the case urges, the Cleric can without sin, and therefore without danger of penalty or irregularity, perform incision or cautery.¹³ Nor is he prohibited from giving his help to others, especially to the poor or relatives, and from aiding them with excellent counsels of the salutary art.¹⁴

2226. • II. As regards OFFICES, it is forbidden to Clerics in sacred Orders, or to beneficiaries: 1. that they act as judge in a cause of blood; likewise that they act as advocate or notary in secular courts: except in the case in which one's own cause had to be defended, or the cause of one's own Church, or the cause of a poor person or of a person joined by nearness (at least in the fourth degree), who would not find another defender; - 2. that they act as tutor or curator of minors, if an account must be rendered for goods administered; except in the case in which the wards or minors were near by consanguinity (or affinity); - 3. that they act as procurator of secular persons, if an account must be given concerning the procuration. The reason for all these things is that saying of the Apostle: "No one serving as a soldier for God entangles himself with secular business" (2 Tim. 2:4).

But although the office of procurator is generally forbidden, "I would nevertheless not dare," says St. Alphonsus,¹⁵ "to condemn of mortal sin a cleric who, on account of such procuration, would not neglect his ministries; especially if he did this not for the cause of avarice, but in order to preserve more fittingly his own state and that of his family." For the law speaks only concerning him "who would so immerse himself in procurations of this kind that therefore he would be forced to neglect his ministries."

I. Importance of the question. - To hear confessions of priests is a work of highest importance, which must be fulfilled with great discretion and prudent zeal, both on account of their dignity and on account of the great influence which they were born to exercise. For just as their holy life contributes to forming the morals of the people, so their evil examples or neglected duties contribute to the corruption of the people. For they must preside over others in virtue and not cease to feed the sheep of Christ with doctrine, prayer and example, and the sacraments. Hence the confessor must take pains to retain them in the fervor of priestly life, and to preserve them from tepidity or relaxation.¹

¹ On this argument St. Alphonsus, Homo apost., app. IV, section 1, n. 9; Praxis Conf., nn. 49-52, 183, 196 sq.; Aertnijs, Th. P., nn. 153-162 and n. 42; Reuter, Neo-Conf., n. 154.

II. Manner of conducting oneself with priests. - The confessor, in receiving the confessions of priests:

1. Let him conduct himself altogether reverently.

2. If they are upright, since they know moral theology, there is generally no need to question them concerning the species and number of sins, unless their confession is manifestly insufficient or they are of neglected conscience; in doubt concerning the gravity of fault, it can be asked of them whether they thought themselves to sin gravely.

3. The exhortation is not to be omitted, but let it be brief and modest, and made indirectly, saying for example: "we priests."

4. Let him proceed firmly in making corrections if they should be necessary, and let him be constant in denying absolution if it should be fitting, for example if some were recidivists or occasionaries without amendment.

5. Nor let him be disturbed if at times he hears many sins. Priests live in the midst of solicitations, and it would be a wonder if, among so many priests, some did not sometimes fall, at least secretly.

III. Admonitions to be furnished to priests. - The confessor can persuade priests before other things:

1. That they apprehend well the dignity of their vocation and its obligations.

2. That they devote themselves wholly to the sheep and try to profit them by prayers, example, and ministry; especially that they have special care for the sick, the poor, and children.

3. That with the greatest zeal they avoid four vices which are most unbecoming to a cleric and more dangerous to him, namely idleness, lust, drunkenness, and avarice.

IV. Means opportunely to be inculcated. - To lead a truly priestly life, there contributes much, first of all, the firm purpose of such a holy life; if this purpose is lacking, life will be unstable, fruitless, and full of dangers; but if it stands, there will arise cheerfulness in discharging ecclesiastical duties, delight in the exercise of virtues, strength against rushing temptations, and perseverance in all these things.

For putting the purpose into execution and standing firm in it, the following are especially powerful:

1. Zeal for prayer, both mental meditation and consideration of divine things ordered to pious affections: without mental prayer, says St. Alphonsus,² a priest will most difficultly be good, since there will be lacking light in the mind for understanding supernatural truths and the warmth of fervor in the will by which he may be moved to live holily; and also prayer strictly so called and vocal prayer, necessary so that he may obtain graces for himself and for his ministry, and others may understand this necessity of praying.

² Praxis Conf., n. 183.

2. The divine office, than which, among prayers to be poured forth, nothing is more excellent and salutary after the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. And indeed, in it the priest uses words inspired by the Holy Spirit in Scripture or composed by the Church of God, joins himself to the heavenly court, continues the work of Christ, performs the work of the whole Church whose legation he bears, by his praises repairs sins, elicits acts of the theological virtues, and implores divine help for himself and the whole human race.

3. The Sacrifice of the Mass, which is the center of our religion, to which all ceremonies and prayers of the Church are ordered, and to which the priest ought to refer every care. Let him avoid a threefold abuse: celebrating in an incongruous manner, namely too slowly or too hastily, which contains irreverence; celebrating from mere custom, without preparation and thanksgiving, with tepidity and coldness; celebrating with consciousness of mortal sin, so that, as the Apostle says, he is guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord.

4. Frequent confession, every week or fortnight, necessary for greater purity and for safer direction. Let every priest have a confessor in whom he places full confidence, and to whom he perfectly lays open his conscience.

5. Love of study, according to that saying, I Tim. IV, 13, 16: "Attend to reading, exhortation and doctrine... Attend to thyself and to doctrine; be earnest in them. For doing this, thou shalt save both thyself and those who hear thee." Hence all priests ought to take pains that for several days in the week, indeed daily, they devote some time to the study of sacred doctrine, chiefly dogmatic and moral theology, as is required for their own salvation and that of neighbor. For they must propose doctrine to the people, explain the sacraments, inculcate the precepts to all and proper duties to individuals, and judge concerning cases of conscience. Nor let them pretend that all time for study is lacking to them: for how much time is worn away uselessly!

6. Spiritual exercises held every year, for exploring the state of conscience more diligently and ordering the state of the soul, for healing languor and stirring up fervor, in solitude and perfect separation from every business, so that the priest may be able to be wholly for God, to meditate on eternal truths, to pray in secret, and to hear the voice of God.

V. The principal obligations proper to priests are usually numbered as:

1. To lead a holy and perfect life, in imitation of Christ, whose ministers they are on earth.

2. To recite the divine office daily.

3. Also to observe continence, if they belong to the Latin Church.

4. To celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass at least several times in the year: thus by reason of the priesthood; for they can be bound more often by reason of a special office, benefice, or stipend.

5. To exercise the sacred ministry and administer the sacraments, if necessity is present or a special office falls upon them.

6. To abstain from those things which are unbecoming to their state, as from worldly spectacles, dances and pageants, business and trade, games of chance, etc. (can. 138-142).

7. To expend revenues superfluous from ecclesiastical goods for the poor and for pious causes (can. 1473).

VI. A priest is to be questioned concerning his obligations if he seems to be of neglected conscience:³

³ St. Alphonsus, Praxis Conf., n. 49 sq.; Aertnijs, Th. P., n. 42.

A. A simple priest: whether he has recited the canonical hours, whether he has satisfied Mass burdens or has deferred celebrating these for a long time, whether he does not finish Mass too hastily, whether he has observed ecclesiastical law as to business transactions, games of chance, or speculations, worldly affairs which are unbecoming, whether in a case of necessity he has not refused to exercise the sacred ministry, whether he has lived piously and ordered his time well.

B. A confessor: whether he has acquired the knowledge necessary for hearing confessions, whether he has given sufficient labor to study and whether he continues to study, whether he has absolved those who remained in a proximate occasion of sin, or were recidivists and brought no extraordinary signs of their disposition, whether he administers the sacrament of Penance with great care, and is neither more rigorous nor more benign toward penitents. But if he confesses a grave sin against chastity committed with another person, let him be questioned whether it was with his own penitent, whether he heard the confession of the accomplice and absolved from that sin, whether perhaps he solicited a penitent.

C. A pastor: whether, as far as he can, he corrects the vices of subjects, especially of those who provide public scandal; whether he watches that all fulfill the paschal precept and has admonished those who have neglected it; whether he has administered the sacraments in danger of death, or when he himself was requested; whether he has furnished due assistance to the dying; whether on Sundays he has held sermons; whether he has instructed the people concerning Christian doctrine, especially the ignorant concerning the mysteries of faith and the means to salvation, and those about to marry on the occasion of future marriage, but midwives and physicians concerning the right manner of baptizing in a case of necessity; whether he has rightly instructed children in the catechesis of Christian doctrine and prepared them for holy communion at the age when they can already be suitable; whether he has given good example and avoided everything which could scandalize the sheep; whether he has also promoted the faithful to piety and devotion; whether he has celebrated Mass for the flock and bestowed the alms due.

VII. Observation. - Since a pastor and other priests upon whom the ministry of souls rests must always be ready for administering the sacraments, they must always be in the state of grace, lest they minister sacrilegiously.

360. Preliminary note. In now treating the canonical Hours, we omit those things which pertain to the history, liturgy, and ascetic practice of this prayer. Among moderns, Batiffol¹⁸¹ and Suitbert Bäumer¹⁸² have written on the history of the Breviary. De Herdt,¹⁸³ Schüch,¹⁸⁴ and many others treat the liturgy of the Breviary. Bacuez,¹⁸⁵ however, treated its ascetic practice.

The canonical Hours have been called by many and diverse names,¹⁸⁶ e.g., canon, synaxis, collect, action, divine psalmody, course, divine office, ecclesiastical office, hourly prayers, canonical prayers, work of God, duty of service, Mass, evening Mass, breviary. This last name (so frequently used in our days) signified in ancient times a compendium or epitome either of the prayers to be said by clerics or of the Rubrics to be observed in the Office. For since the Divine Office, which was performed in choir, had been written in volumes of the greatest bulk, gradually smaller manual books containing an abbreviated Office were composed, which were called breviarium, breviarius, portiforium, portifex, etc.

It is useful now first to recount in a single view the propositions concerning the canonical Hours condemned by Alexander VII and Innocent XI, so that they may be commended more easily to memory and may not afterward have to be repeated in diverse places.

1. The following five propositions were condemned by Alexander VII (in 1665 and 1666):¹⁸⁷ "One who recites the Paschal Office on Palm Sunday satisfies the precept" (prop. 34). "By one Office someone can satisfy the twofold precept for the present and the following day" (prop. 35). "Restitution imposed by Pius V upon beneficiaries who do not recite is not owed in conscience before a declaratory sentence of a judge, because it is a penalty" (prop. 20). "Restitution of revenues on account of the omission of the Hours can be supplied by any alms which the beneficiary previously gave from the revenues of his benefice" (prop. 33). "One who has a collative chaplaincy or any other ecclesiastical benefice, if he devotes himself to literary studies, satisfies his obligation if he has the Office recited by another" (prop. 21).

2. Proposition 54 was proscribed by Innocent XI (in the year 1679): "He who cannot recite Matins and Lauds, but can recite the remaining Hours, is bound to nothing, because the greater part draws the lesser to itself."¹⁸⁸

¹⁸¹ Histoire du Bréviaire (3rd ed., 1911).

¹⁸² Geschichte des Breviers (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1895).

¹⁸³ Liturgia.

¹⁸⁴ Pastoraltheologie.

¹⁸⁵ Le Bréviaire (German trans., 1891: Das Brevier vom Standpunkt der Frömmigkeit betrachtet).

¹⁸⁶ Cf. Bäumer, l.c., § 1.

¹⁸⁷ Denz. nn. 1134f., 1120, 1133, 1121.

¹⁸⁸ Denz. n. 1204.

361. The parts of the Divine Office. According to the present discipline of the Roman rite, the following parts pertain to the Divine Office which is to be performed by ecclesiastical precept:

1. The seven canonical Hours, namely Matins with Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers, Compline. Some authors think that this division was introduced on account of the verse of Ps. 118, "Seven times a day I have given praise to thee," or on account of seven moments in the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ.¹⁸⁹ The Pretiosa is not indeed a distinct Hour, but nevertheless pertains to the Divine Office. Since in ancient times there existed the custom of saying Matins and Lauds at midnight or at another time of night, these two Hours are called the nocturnal Office; but the other Hours are called the daytime Hours. In a broader sense the whole Office to be recited daily is called the daytime Office, because it is to be performed on every day.

2. The Office of the Dead on the day of the commemoration of all the faithful departed, on which day the Office of the current day is omitted.¹⁹⁰

3. On the feast of St. Mark and during the three days of the Rogations, the Litany of the Saints is to be recited, even outside choir;¹⁹¹ it cannot be anticipated on the preceding day.

Today there is no longer any obligation of reciting a) the Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, b) the Office of the Dead (outside the day mentioned above), c) the Penitential Psalms, d) the Gradual Psalms.¹⁹² The prayers Aperi at the beginning and Sacrosanctae at the end do not pertain to the integrity of the Office; but they are added very piously and usefully.

Note. With regard to those who legitimately use a special rite, the particular statutes concerning the parts pertaining to the Divine Office are to be consulted.

¹⁸⁹ These are the seven things on account of which we sing psalms at the Hours: Matins binds Christ, who cleanses crimes; Prime fills him with spittle; Terce gives the cause of death; Sext fastens him to the cross; None divides his side in two; Vespers takes him down; Compline lays him in the tomb.

¹⁹⁰ Pius X, Const. Divino afflatu, 1 Nov. 1911, tit. XIII (Act. Ap. Sed. III, 649).

¹⁹¹ Pius X, Const. Divino afflatu, 1 Nov. 1911, tit. VIII, n. 3. If the feast of St. Mark is transferred, the Litanies are not transferred.

¹⁹² Ibid., n. 2.

362. Obligation. By common law the following are gravely obliged to recite the Divine Office daily:

1. all clerics constituted in major orders;¹⁹³

2. all beneficiaries, even those not constituted in major orders;

3. all religious of either sex assigned to choir, but only after solemn profession.

All authors teach that the obligation of reciting the Divine Office is grave of its kind. Therefore he who omits the entire Office or a notable part of it without an excusing cause sins gravely. One little Hour, or an equivalent part, is considered a notable part. Hence, e.g., if someone without sufficient reason omits Terce or Compline, or from several Hours omits so many parts which, taken together, are equivalent to Terce or Compline, he sins mortally. The reason for such severity seems to be this, that especially in this matter the saying holds: "He who is negligent in a small thing shall gradually fall." For a cleric who from levity sometimes omits even a little Hour of the Divine Office will easily neglect greater things also and will gradually fall into other grave sins. Theologians dispute whether it is also a mortal sin to omit Vespers on Holy Saturday, which are then very brief. Nothing certain can be said in this dispute. Therefore, after the omission has been made, the existence of mortal sin is not to be asserted, all the more because the far more common opinion holds that this omission is only a light sin.¹⁹⁴

He who culpably omits the entire Office of one day commits only one grave sin, because he violates only one precept and that by one act of the will. But if several acts of the will not joined to one another are present, there are also several sins, as is evident from what was said above in I, n. 377 concerning the numerical distinction of sins.¹⁹⁵

Something more must now be said concerning the individual categories of persons who are obliged to the Office.

¹⁹³ Clerics of the Eastern Churches must in this matter observe the statutes of their own Church; cf. Papp-Szilagyi, Enchir. iur. eccl. orient. cath. sect. 2, § 56.

¹⁹⁴ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 4, n. 147.

¹⁹⁵ St. Antoninus (S. theol. Part III, tit. 13, c. 4, § 5) says: "If someone omits all the Hours of one day, ... he does not thereby commit seven mortal sins, but one, and one so much graver the more he omits of it, because the whole Office of one day falls under one precept."

363. The obligation of clerics in major orders.

This obligation, already existing for centuries from customary law, is expressed in these words in the Code of Canon Law, c. 135: "Clerics constituted in major orders, except those concerning whom in cann. 213 and 214, are bound by the obligation of reciting the canonical Hours in full every day according to their own approved liturgical books." All clerics constituted in sacred orders, although excommunicated, suspended, or degraded, are bound to the Divine Office. For if clerics who have been punished on account of crimes were freed from the burden of the Office, they would then derive some advantage from iniquity, which certainly would be incongruous. But when a cleric in major orders has legitimately been reduced to the lay state, the obligation of reciting the Divine Office ceases.¹⁹⁶

For clerics, the grave obligation of reciting the Office begins at the hour at which the order of subdiaconate is received. Therefore he who is ordained in the morning before the ninth hour is bound neither to Matins and Lauds nor to Prime, but ought to begin with Terce; he who is ordained after the ninth hour of the morning ought to begin with Sext. Nevertheless, in either case it is better if the cleric begins with Prime. But he who before ordination recited the Hours to which he was not yet bound must more probably recite them again after ordination, because no one can satisfy a precept at a time when it does not yet exist; just as I cannot today recite the Office to which I am obliged only on the following day. The contrary, however, is maintained by some authors, e.g., Lugo,¹⁹⁷ Noldin,¹⁹⁸ etc., and this opinion is deservedly called probable by St. Alphonsus.¹⁹⁹

¹⁹⁶ Code of Canon Law, c. 213.

¹⁹⁷ De euchar. disp. 16, sect. 2, n. 39.

¹⁹⁸ De praeceptis n. 756.

¹⁹⁹ Theol. mor. l. 4, n. 140.

364. The obligation of beneficiary clerics.

1. A grave obligation of reciting the Divine Office falls upon all beneficiaries, even those not constituted in major orders, from the day possession of the benefice is taken. For St. Pius V²⁰⁰ declared concerning every beneficiary: "Likewise, let him who ... has not said the Office, unless a legitimate impediment has excused him, understand that he has committed a grave sin." In our regions there are very few beneficiaries not yet initiated into sacred orders. Other beneficiaries are especially pastors, canons, bishops, certain chaplains, etc.

2. A beneficiary who, "detained by no legitimate impediment, has not satisfied the obligation of reciting the canonical Hours does not make his own the revenues in proportion to the omission, and let him hand them over to the fabric of the church or to the diocesan seminary, or expend them upon the poor."²⁰¹ This return of revenues obliges by the fact itself, i.e., before the sentence of a judge, as is evident from proposition 20 condemned by Alexander VII and cited above. Beneficial revenues are not indeed the price for the Divine Office recited, for this would be simony, but nevertheless they are granted under the condition that the beneficiary recite the Office. For just as no one receives the subdiaconate unless he promises to observe chastity, so no one receives a benefice unless he promises the daily recitation of the Office. But a beneficiary who, with a legitimate excusing cause, e.g., infirmity, excessive labor, etc., does not say the Office can lawfully receive the beneficial revenues. If the omitted part of the Office does not constitute grave matter, i.e., a part equivalent to a little Hour, there is no grave obligation of restitution. Thus the more common and more probable opinion.²⁰²

²⁰⁰ Const. Ex proximo, 1571.

²⁰¹ Code of Canon Law, c. 1475, § 2. In the ancient law, revenues of the first semester did not have to be restored, but in the new law this indult no longer seems to exist.

²⁰² St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 668.

365. 3. The quantity of restitution on account of neglect of the Office is to be measured according to the statutes enacted by St. Pius V. "We establish that he who has omitted all the canonical Hours on one or more days shall lose all the revenues of his benefice or benefices which would correspond to that day or those days if they were divided daily; but he who has omitted Matins alone shall lose half; he who has omitted all the other Hours shall lose the other half; he who has omitted individual ones of these shall lose a sixth part of the revenues of the same day." But the difficulty is whether equal restitution is to be made by a simple beneficiary (e.g., by a canon) and by a beneficiary with cure (e.g., by a pastor). Several theologians and canonists maintain the affirmative part, e.g., Peter Navarrus,²⁰³ Castropalaus,²⁰⁴ Suarez,²⁰⁵ Azor,²⁰⁶ Schmalzgrueber;²⁰⁷ and this opinion receives great weight from the very Constitution of St. Pius V, who speaks indiscriminately concerning all benefices and makes no distinction between simple benefices and benefices with cure. But the other, far more common, indeed today almost universal, opinion rightly teaches that a beneficiary with cure is bound only to partial restitution of the revenues of the benefice if he indeed neglected the Office but fulfilled the other works of his benefice. How great this partial restitution is cannot easily be determined. D'Annibale²⁰⁸ rightly says concerning this matter: "How great [the part to be restored is], whether half, as the stricter authors hold, or a fifth, as the more benign hold, is not agreed; therefore it is better to leave this between these to the judgment of a good man, who will have to measure the matter variously according to the offices." And in truth, if these offices incumbent in addition to the canonical Hours are grave, it is just that the beneficiary have some recompense, although he neglected the canonical Hours. He can retain for himself at least half and even two-thirds of the beneficial revenues for such recompense. Hence, e.g., if a certain pastor has culpably neglected the whole Office on one day and has annually 3,000 francs in strictly beneficial revenues, i.e., about 8 francs each day, he certainly sufficiently satisfies his obligation of restoring if he expends about 4 francs, or even 2 francs, upon the poor or for the benefit of the church.²⁰⁹ But if he omitted not the entire Office but only part of it, the restitution is to be proportionally diminished.

There are several authors, e.g., Suarez,²¹⁰ Bonacina,²¹¹ St. Alphonsus,²¹² Noldin,²¹³ Göpfert,²¹⁴ who teach that a poor beneficiary obliged to restitution can apply to himself the alms to be given; indeed, Ballerini²¹⁵ thinks that a beneficiary with cure for whom the beneficial revenues are necessary for fitting support is bound to nothing from the omission of the Divine Office alone, provided that he otherwise fulfilled the obligations of the benefice. Whether these opinions correspond to the mind of the Church, which so gravely obliges beneficiaries to the recitation of the Office, I do not dare to say. It is greatly to be desired that the Church herself authoritatively establish what obligation exists in these and similar cases. It must be recalled that alms made before the omission cannot be reckoned toward the restitution to be made, as is evident from proposition 33 condemned by Alexander VII. But alms made after the culpable omission can be reckoned toward the restitution to be made.

²⁰³ De restit. l. 2, c. 2, n. 283.

²⁰⁴ Opus mor. tr. 7, disp. 2, punct. 7, n. 8.

²⁰⁵ De relig. l. 4, c. 30, n. 6.

²⁰⁶ Instit. mor. Part I, l. 10, c. 14, q. 5.

²⁰⁷ Ius can. l. 1, n. 98.

²⁰⁸ Summula Theol. mor. III, n. 64.

²⁰⁹ Noldin (De praeceptis n. 758) asserts: "A bishop or pastor who fulfills his pastoral offices will scarcely have to restore a tenth part of his revenues on account of the neglected recitation of the Breviary." This opinion indeed seems excessively benign, since the Church treats beneficiaries who neglect the recitation of the Office so severely.

²¹⁰ L.c., n. 21.

²¹¹ De Offic. div. disp. 1, q. 5, punct. 4, n. 8.

²¹² Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 672.

²¹³ De praeceptis n. 758 d.

²¹⁴ Moraltheol. I, 331.

²¹⁵ Opus Theol. mor. IV, n. 106.

366. On the obligation of canons to recite the Office in choir. A few things are to be said here, since this matter pertains rather to canon law and is often determined more precisely by particular statutes or by legitimate customs. All chapters of canons (whether in cathedral or collegiate churches) are bound under grave sin to say the whole Divine Office chorally, unless a special permission of the Holy See is present.²¹⁶ A bishop can in no way dispense from this grave obligation by his own authority. Canons who through their own fault and without legitimate permission are absent from the choral Office sin gravely or lightly according to the quantity of the matter, although they recite the Divine Office privately. They are also bound to restore the beneficial revenues received.²¹⁷ According to the more probable opinion, a continuous culpable absence of five days is grave matter.²¹⁸ Concerning what causes excuse from choral attendance, see the canonists.²¹⁹ Canons are bound not only to be materially present in choir, but also devoutly to sing psalms and chant; otherwise they lose not only beneficial revenues but also the so-called "daily distributions."²²⁰

²¹⁶ Council of Trent, sess. 24, de reform. c. 12; Code of Canon Law, c. 413f.

²¹⁷ Cf. S.C.C., 10 July 1920, where almost the whole doctrine concerning the obligation of canons is clearly set forth.

²¹⁸ Cf. Billuart, De orat. diss. 2, a. 8, § 4.

²¹⁹ Cf. our Man. iur. can. q. 143.

²²⁰ Council of Trent, l.c., and Benedict XIV, Const. Cum semper oblatas, 19 Aug. 1744.

367. The obligation of solemnly professed religious.

A grave obligation of reciting the Office falls upon religious of either sex, and it arises not from simple vows but from solemn profession alone. The choral obligation, however, must be distinguished from the obligation of reciting the Divine Office privately. In some religious orders, the simply professed are indeed obliged to the choral Office in the same manner as the solemnly professed,²²¹ but, unless they are constituted in sacred orders, they are never obliged to private recitation.²²² The choral obligation of religious is already presupposed in the Council of Vienne,²²³ where it is said: "In cathedral, regular, and collegiate churches let psalms be sung devoutly at the due hours, ... if they wish to avoid the indignation of God and of the Apostolic See." But the obligation of privately reciting the Divine Office for solemnly professed religious of either sex arose from immemorial custom having the force of law; now, however, it is established in express words in the Code of Canon Law, c. 610, § 3.

Lay brothers or lay sisters after solemn profession are not obliged to recite the Divine Office,²²⁴ since these men and women are deputed not to choir but to other offices. Whether they are bound under sin to other prayers prescribed for them by their Rule depends upon certain and legitimate particular statutes. But if a doubt is present concerning the quality of this obligation, the more benign side is to be followed. For the most part, lay brothers and lay sisters are not obliged under sin to perform the prayers imposed by the Rule. The obligation of many religious sisters or even nuns to recite the Marian Office daily is not grave; indeed, of itself its omission does not even induce light fault.²²⁵ Nevertheless, the Constitutions of the individual Congregations are to be attended to.

The canonists treat the manner of reciting the Office in choir, the place of the choir, and the persons necessary for the choral Office. Cf. our Man. iur. can. q. 235ff.

²²¹ Cf. Sacred Congregation of Religious, 6 Aug. 1868.

²²² Sacred Congregation of Religious, 28 July 1902.

²²³ Lib. 3, tit. 14, c. 1 in Clem.

²²⁴ Cf. Code of Canon Law, c. 610, § 3.

²²⁵ Cf. Normae n. 156.

368. The form of the Divine Office is here called the objective arrangement of prayers determined for each day. For the Church has determined not only in general the obligation of reciting the Office, but also its rite through the so-called Rubrics. The following is to be held as a general principle: The rites and Rubrics truly prescribed by the Church oblige in conscience; nevertheless, parvity of matter is possible in their transgression, and indeed, when a sufficient cause is present, their transgression becomes lawful.

A grave violation of the form of the Divine Office is present in the following cases, unless a legitimate excusing cause exists:

1. if someone changes the rite by using a breviary other than the one prescribed;

2. if someone recites the Office in a language other than Latin;

3. if someone recites an Office notably different in quality and quantity.

With regard to 1. St. Pius V²²⁶ prescribed that all who are obliged to the Divine Office are gravely bound to recite it according to the form and rite of the Roman Breviary, except those churches and religious orders which two hundred years previously (i.e., before the year 1368) were already using another legitimately approved breviary. But even to these privileged ones it was then conceded that, with the consent of the bishop and the entire chapter, or of the prelate and the community, they could use the Roman Breviary in choir. By force of this Pian privilege, even in our times several churches, e.g., Milan, Trier, etc., and several religious orders, e.g., the Benedictines, Carthusians, Dominicans, etc., employ their own breviary. The choral recitation of the Office must without any doubt be celebrated under grave obligation according either to the Roman rite or to another legitimately prescribed rite; nor is any change now lawful without special permission of the Holy See.

But if there is question of a change of rite in private recitation: a) it is indeed certain that a religious cleric using his own breviary, if he is elevated to the episcopal dignity, ought to leave his own rite and in all things follow the Roman rite or the rite of his diocese. The same holds for his chaplain who recites the Office with him. Thus the Sacred Congregation has established several times.²²⁷

b) Authors taught rather commonly that all who assist at the choral recitation of the Office can always conform themselves to that choral Office, even if of themselves they are bound to follow another rite. Hence, e.g., a secular priest assisting and singing psalms at the choral Office of Benedictines or Dominicans satisfies his obligation and is not bound to recite the Office according to the Roman rite. The reason is that holy Mother Church greatly favors the choral recitation of the Office, because in choir the Office is customarily celebrated with greater solemnity and devotion than in private. But apart from a special privilege (such as the Jesuits during the Exercises and the Benedictines possess)²²⁸ or apart from a sufficient cause, such as is possessed, e.g., by a priest seeking the religious state who sings psalms in the choir of those religious, this doctrine is no longer sufficiently safe today. For to the question, "Does a cleric constituted in sacred orders satisfy his obligation if, spontaneously or upon invitation, he joins clergy who chant or recite an Office different from the Office of that cleric?" the Sacred Congregation of Rites responded on 27 Jan. 1899: "Generally, no."²²⁹

c) Authors do not agree whether, at least in a case of necessity, a religious having his own breviary can satisfy by reciting the Office of the Roman Breviary and, conversely, whether a cleric obliged to the Roman rite satisfies his obligation by employing the breviary of some privileged order; nor has a general law been enacted concerning this matter. St. Alphonsus²³⁰ writes: "If you lacked the Roman Breviary and had another, for example a Benedictine one or something similar, you are bound to recite from it. The reason is that there is a twofold precept of the Office: one universal precept concerning the performance of the Hours; the other concerning the observance of the form of each day; whence, if you cannot observe one, you are bound to the other. But the Salmanticenses contradict this, saying that one is not bound, because, as they say, the precept of the Office is indivisible; that is, the precept of reciting it and of reciting it under one form. And they infer this from the words of the Bull of Pius V, where it is said: 'that satisfaction cannot be made except in this form alone.' Notwithstanding this, the first opinion, as more pious and reasonable, seems to me to be followed." Outside a case of necessity, one reciting the Office cannot lawfully use the breviary of another rite.²³¹

With regard to 2. If someone recites the Divine Office in a language other than Latin, e.g., the psalms in the Hebrew language or the Litanies or Vespers in the vernacular language with the people, he does not satisfy his obligation. Thus at least if the one reciting belongs to the Latin rite.

²²⁶ Const. Quod a nobis, 1568.

²²⁷ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 4, n. 161, q. 3, n. 2.

²²⁸ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 11 July 1908 (Anal. eccl. XVI [1908], 391).

²²⁹ Decr. auth. n. 4011, ad 3.

²³⁰ L.c., n. 158.

²³¹ Noldin (De praeceptis n. 760) says: "Priests and religious who must use their own, non-Roman breviary in choir can recite the private Office according to the Roman Breviary." So far as I know, neither any decree of the Roman Curia nor the doctrine of canonists permits this so universally; and therefore such a religious would sin if, without a grave cause, he recited the Office according to the Roman rite while abandoning his own rite.

369. With regard to 3. The quality of the Office to be recited daily is customarily determined in the Calendar or Directory. The general rule is: Everyone is bound to use his own calendar. Concerning the application of this rule, the following things are to be noted:

1. Beneficiaries, such as pastors, canons, residential bishops, etc., are always bound to the Office of their own church. Thus the Sacred Congregation of Rites several times, on 12 Nov. 1831 and 23 Nov. 1906.²³² The same holds for clerics assigned to some church.²³³ But only those who exercise the care of souls in it by a stable office (and not merely a transitory one), e.g., pastors and assistant pastors, are considered assigned to some church. Teachers and students of a seminary are considered assigned to the church of the seminary;²³⁴ therefore they are bound to recite the Offices proper to the church of the seminary. The Offices proper to some church are: the Office of the titular of the church, of the dedication of the church, of an outstanding relic, etc.

2. Clerics who are not beneficiaries and are not specially assigned to some church are bound to follow the calendar of their diocese. But if they remain outside the diocese for a short time, they can, but are not bound to, follow the calendar of that diocese where they are here and now. But if they have acquired a quasi-domicile in a place outside the diocese, they are bound to follow the calendar of that place.²³⁵ Thus the more probable opinion. The reason is that clerics having a quasi-domicile somewhere are subject to the bishop of that place.

Hence, e.g., a cleric in major orders who, for the sake of study, resides at some university for the greater part of the year better recites the Office according to the calendar of the diocese in which the university is situated; and indeed immediately from the day on which he arrives at the university, because he also immediately acquires a quasi-domicile on that day, since he has the intention of remaining in that place for the greater part of the year. If such a cleric is a priest, still another reason presses. For in saying Mass he is bound to conform himself to the calendar of the church in which he celebrates (a few cases excepted). But the mind of the Church is that the Mass correspond to the Divine Office recited.

3. Regulars are bound to use their own calendar, i.e., that of the convent or monastery in which they dwell. But regulars who are traveling must still follow the calendar of their own convent, unless a) they arrive at another convent of the same order, whose calendar they ought to observe; b) they remain for a longer time, e.g., for a month, outside every convent of their order, e.g., for the sake of preaching or health. For then "they ought to conform themselves to the calendar of the province extended without any diversity to all for each year."²³⁶

Note. Since the calendar is customarily prepared by men learned in the Rubrics and Liturgy, the Office can and ought always to be recited as determined in the calendar, unless an error of the calendar is manifest.²³⁷

²³² Decr. auth. n. 2682, ad 46, and n. 4194, ad 8. If a bishop governs two dioceses or if a pastor governs two parishes, he recites the Office of that place where he habitually resides. Cf. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 28 May 1898, Decr. auth. n. 3993, ad 1.

²³³ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 7 Dec. 1844 (Decr. auth. n. 2873).

²³⁴ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 7 Sept. 1850 and 23 Nov. 1906 (l.c., nn. 2980 and 4194, ad 8); cf. also Noldin, l.c., n. 762.

²³⁵ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 14 May 1672 and 12 Nov. 1831 (l.c., nn. 1445 and 2682, ad 46).

²³⁶ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 31 Aug. 1839. The Sacred Congregation of Rites on 27 June 1896 established that religious absent from their convent for several days ought in the private recitation of the Office to follow the calendar of the monastery from which they departed.

²³⁷ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 13 June 1899 (Decr. auth. n. 4031).

370. With regard to exchanges of one Office for another, it must first be distinguished whether such exchanges are voluntary or involuntary.

1. If someone voluntarily, without a grave reason, exchanges the Office to be recited for another notably different in quality and quantity, he sins gravely. Thus the common opinion, which is confirmed from proposition 34 condemned by Alexander VII, in which it was asserted that on Palm Sunday it was lawful to recite the Paschal Office. He sins lightly or not at all who for a reasonable cause changes the Office for another of almost the same quality and quantity, e.g., because the Office to be recited is not contained in the breviary possessed. But the intention of reciting the Hours with a companion is not a sufficient cause for changing the Office,²³⁸ as was already said above.

2. If someone has involuntarily erred in the Office, the following three rules are to be attended to:

a) Office stands for Office.

b) An error is corrected where it is discovered.

c) An error is not corrected by an error.

By reason of the first rule, no one is bound to recite the Office appointed for that day if, after performing the wrong Office, he discovers his error. But if the Office recited erroneously was much shorter than the Office actually prescribed, then some compensation is to be made. Thus, e.g., if someone had recited the Office of a saint in place of the Sunday Office, which according to the old Roman Breviary consisted of twelve psalms in the first Nocturn, he had to supply nine psalms. Thus the common opinion.²³⁹

By reason of the second rule, he who, after part of the Office has already been performed, notices that he said the wrong Office should perform the remainder from the true Office. There are, however, authors such as Lessius, the Salmanticenses,²⁴⁰ Noldin,²⁴¹ etc., who teach that in this case it is lawful to complete the Office begun, lest unlike parts be joined into one Office. The first opinion is better and more common; whence St. Alphonsus²⁴² says: "I think with Croix and Tamburini that it is better to recite from the proper Office, lest you continue the error." But when someone through error, e.g., has recited Sext twice, he cannot therefore omit None or another similar part of the Office. For Office indeed stands for Office, but Hour does not stand for Hour. For when one Hour is omitted, the form of the Office has already been notably changed, and the whole Office of such a day has not in fact been recited. This is a sin.²⁴³

By reason of the third rule, he who through error recited an Office not yet occurring must recite that Office again on the day on which it is actually prescribed. There are, however, authors, e.g., St. Alphonsus,²⁴⁴ Noldin,²⁴⁵ Lehmkuhl,²⁴⁶ etc., who teach that in this case the omitted Office is to be recited. The reason is that, just as the Office of a saint is rightly transferred on account of an impediment of the day to another unimpeded day, so the Office seems reasonably able to be transferred on account of a moral impediment, such as error or ignorance is considered to be, lest the saint be deprived of his honor in that year. Nevertheless, the first opinion is truer and more common; for the deprivation of honor which the saint suffers from the fact that one cleric does not recite his Office is so small that it ought to yield to the order established in the calendar.²⁴⁷

²³⁸ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 27 Jan. 1899. Hence the opposite opinion of St. Alphonsus (Theol. mor. l. 4, n. 161, q. 3, n. 4) and of other authors seems to have to be abandoned because of the contrary decision of the Sacred Congregation of Rites.

²³⁹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, l.c., q. 3.

²⁴⁰ In St. Alphonsus, l.c., q. 5.

²⁴¹ De praeceptis n. 764.

²⁴² L.c.

²⁴³ Cf. also Noldin, l.c.

²⁴⁴ L.c., q. 5.

²⁴⁵ L.c.

²⁴⁶ Theol. mor. II, n. 790.

²⁴⁷ Cf. Cavalieri, Commentaria II, c. 41, nn. 21-28; cf. also Decr. auth. n. 1474.

In order to satisfy fully the ecclesiastical precept, the Divine Office must be recited: 1. in the due order, place, posture, and time; 2. integrally; 3. continuously; 4. vocally; 5. with attention and intention.

371. 1. The due order must be observed not only among the different Offices, as the calendar determines it, but also within the same Office, as the Rubrics prescribe. Nevertheless, the inversion of the first order is more prohibited than that of the second. According to the Rubrics, the order of the Hours is the following: first Matins with Lauds is to be recited, and then Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers, and Compline. Inversion of this order never becomes a mortal sin, since it does not injure the substance of the Office; indeed, it is not even a venial sin if there exists a cause, even one only slightly impelling. Thus, e.g., it is lawful to say the Little Hours first and then Matins and Lauds if someone does not have a breviary at hand but only a diurnal; if someone cannot read the lessons well but can more easily say the psalms and antiphons, it is lawful for him now to omit the lessons and afterwards to say them separately; if someone arrives in choir when an Hour has already begun, he laudably continues by singing psalms with the others in choir, but afterwards he will complete privately those things which have not yet been said. Some say that it is entirely lawful not to recite the commemorations in the order designated by the Rubrics, since these Rubrics are not preceptive but directive.²⁴⁸

To invert the order of the Hours in choral recitation is at least a venial sin, since the Rubrics for this recitation are customarily much more gravely obligatory than for private recitation.²⁴⁹

²⁴⁸ Cf. Noldin, l.c., n. 171.

²⁴⁹ Some authors, such as the Salmanticenses, Suarez, Dominic Soto, Concina, etc., think that a notable inversion made without legitimate cause is a grave sin; but the opposite opinion is more probable. Cf. St. Alphonsus, l.c., n. 171.

372. Place and posture are indeed very accurately prescribed for the choral recitation of the Divine Office, but in private recitation great liberty is conceded. Hence the Office can be recited privately in any place and posture, provided, however, that the necessary attention is possible. The Sacred Apostolic Penitentiary granted a plenary indulgence to all who recite the entire Office before the Most Blessed Sacrament.²⁵⁰ By common law, all the Rubrics which prescribe certain genuflections, inclinations, signs of the cross, etc., refer to choral recitation, and do not oblige in private recitation. In certain religious orders some genuflections and inclinations are prescribed even for private recitation. The prayer Sacrosanctae, to be recited after the Office, must be said on bended knees if someone wishes to gain the favors attached to it. The sick alone are not bound to this genuflection.²⁵¹

²⁵⁰ Decree of 23 Oct. 1930 (Act. Ap. Sed. XXII, 493), decree of 5 Dec. 1930 (Act. Ap. Sed. XXIII, 23), and decree of 7 Nov. 1932 (Act. Ap. Sed. XXIV, 411).

²⁵¹ Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, 12 June 1855 and 7 Jan. 1856.

373. The time formerly assigned for reciting the Hours was this: Matins around midnight; Lauds at dawn; Prime after sunrise; Terce at the ninth hour; Sext at noon; None at the third hour after noon; Vespers at sunset; Compline at the twilight of night. Nevertheless, the same customs in this matter did not prevail in all churches. According to the present discipline, legitimate particular statutes are to be observed in choral recitation, yet in such a way that Matins and Lauds are always said before the conventual Mass corresponding to the Office. But as regards private recitation, there exists only one grave obligation, namely, to complete the whole Office within the natural day, or a space of twenty-four hours.²⁵² This time of twenty-four hours determined by law is, as they say, for terminating the obligation, but not for urging it. Therefore, he who by midnight has not yet completed the Divine Office of the present day is no longer bound to complete it in the hour immediately following, although he can do so. The reason is that the Office is considered as the burden of the day. On 23 July 1893 the Sacred Congregation of the Council permitted each person, as regards the recitation of the Hours and the Eucharistic fast, freely to observe either natural solar time or so-called legal time.²⁵³ Since, therefore, this legal time in some regions is half an hour later than solar time, there it is lawful, e.g., already at half past one in the afternoon to anticipate Matins and Lauds. Under venial sin, unless, however, a legitimate excusing cause is present, it is prescribed that Matins, Lauds, Prime, and Terce be recited before noon, but Vespers and Compline after noon. It is free to recite Sext and None either before or after noon. During Lent, except on the first three days and on Sundays, Vespers are to be said before noon, either at the eleventh hour or at any other morning hour. Nevertheless, a sufficient cause for saying the entire Office privately at any hour of the day is easily present, e.g., study to be done, a sermon to be prepared, confessions to be heard, greater devotion, etc.

The Rubric of the Missal²⁵⁴ prescribes that Matins and Lauds be recited by the priest before the celebration of Mass. Although some²⁵⁵ have thought that this Rubric obliges gravely, nevertheless the more common and more probable opinion admits only a light obligation.²⁵⁶ The reason is that there is not so close a connection between the Mass and the Office, since today the Mass not rarely does not correspond to the Office said (e.g., when Mass is said in another church or a Requiem Mass is said). Moreover, the recitation of Matins does not seem to be a necessary preparation for celebrating, since a priest can sufficiently dispose himself for celebrating Mass by praying in another manner. Nevertheless, there is a true moral obligation to recite Matins and Lauds before celebrating Mass, both because all the Rubrics of the Missal are more probably preceptive, and because failure to perform this recitation is numbered among the defects of the Mass. But for the recitation of Matins lawfully to be postponed until after Mass has been celebrated, a reasonable cause is required, e.g., lack of time, inconveniences otherwise arising, etc. It would, however, be a grave disorder if the conventual Mass corresponding to the Divine Office were celebrated without an urgent cause before Matins and Lauds had been recited in choir. Thus the truer and more common opinion.²⁵⁷

On the anticipation of Matins and Lauds. Matins and Lauds may be anticipated, i.e., recited on the preceding day, from that hour at which the sun holds the midpoint of its course between noon and sunset, according to the table inserted at the beginning of the breviary. By a special privilege this anticipation is sometimes conceded from one o'clock in the afternoon; indeed, to priests of the Order of St. John of God on 12 June 1899 and to all who possess the Bull of the Crusade, the privilege of anticipating immediately after noon was conceded. According to the discipline now in force, even apart from a special privilege, anticipation may always be made in private recitation from two o'clock in the afternoon, as the Sacred Congregation of Rites manifestly declared on 12 May 1905.²⁵⁸ The other Hours (and also the Pretiosa) cannot be anticipated on the preceding day.

²⁵² Cf., however, below concerning the anticipation of Matins and Lauds.

²⁵³ The Sacred Congregation of Rites established the same on 12 May 1905, ad 3 (Decr. auth. n. 4158).

²⁵⁴ Rit. serv. in Miss. I, n. 1; De defect. X, n. 1.

²⁵⁵ St. Antoninus (S. theol. P. 3, tit. 13, c. 4, § 4 and c. 6, § 6), Ledesma, Antoine, etc.; cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 347.

²⁵⁶ Cf. St. Alphonsus, l.c., and Concina, In Decal. l. 2, diss. 2, c. 9, § 8, n. 11.

²⁵⁷ Benedict XIV, St. Alphonsus, Soto, and many others cited by St. Alphonsus, l.c., n. 348, hold it. If several conventual Masses are to be said on some day, it suffices that Matins and Lauds have been recited before the principal Mass.

²⁵⁸ The following responses of the Sacred Congregation of Rites were issued concerning this matter: 1. "Whether in private recitation Matins for the following day can be begun at two o'clock in the afternoon, or whether the table of the diocesan directory is to be followed at all times? — Affirmative to the first part; negative to the second." 2. "Whether also in public or choral recitation the Office can be begun at two o'clock in the afternoon? — Negative." 3. "Whether the hour for reciting Matins can be reckoned indiscriminately from the local meridian circle or from the official meridian circle, called Greenwich, which indeed anticipates the hour of the local circle (at Piacenza) by approximately a third of an hour? — At will" (Decr. auth. n. 4158). In some periodicals and authors, "Approved authors are to be consulted" is read as the response to the first question, but the text as it is found in the authentic Decrees is to be followed.

374. 2. That the Office is to be recited integrally each day is certain. Hence he is guilty of mortal sin who culpably omits a notable part of it, whether that notable part is continuous or composed of many separate small parts. One Little Hour, or another equivalent part, is considered a notable part, as was already said above in n. 362. If someone pronounces the individual words of the Office with notable truncation or, as it were, swallows very many syllables of words, he indeed sins against the integrity of the Office; but Billuart,²⁵⁹ with other authors, rightly observes that in these cases a mortal sin is rarely present unless the truncation is truly enormous. The reason is that in moral matters we ought so to speak that no entrance is given to infinite scruples; but this would happen if, because of certain slight mutilations which so easily creep in, grave matter of sin were finally constituted at the end of the Office.

The integrity of the Office is in no way injured if someone sings psalms alternately in choir; indeed, if someone occupied with necessary duties of the choir, e.g., playing the organ, does not recite alternately some verses or even an entire psalm. For then, as they say, the choir supplies.²⁶⁰ He who plays the organ while the Office is sung in choir does not satisfy his obligation unless he intelligibly pronounces the alternate verses with one part of the choir and responds with the choir to those things which are customarily said by one person.²⁶¹ Even in private recitation it is lawful to recite the Office alternately with a companion, as it is celebrated in choir. The companion called in can be a layman, indeed even a woman.²⁶² It is required, however, that the one who is obliged to the Office and thus sings psalms alternately hear his companion singing psalms,²⁶³ whence a deaf person cannot say the Office in this manner. Nothing, however, prevents the companion called in from being deaf and hearing nothing of the recitation of the Office, provided nevertheless that he himself intelligibly pronounces the alternate verses and is heard by the one who is obliged to the Office. Alternate private recitation is customarily of no small assistance to devotion, and therefore is to be counseled if it can conveniently be done.

²⁵⁹ De orat. diss. 2, a. 8, § 7.

²⁶⁰ The Sacred Congregation of the Council determined on 12 Apr. 1919, 16 Apr. and 19 July 1921, that a bishop about to celebrate a pontifical Mass satisfies the obligation of the canonical Hour (Terce and None) by reciting the prayers prescribed by the Caeremoniale Episcoporum (Act. Ap. Sed. XIII, 480).

²⁶¹ Thus the common opinion; cf. Concina, In Decal. l. 2, diss. 2, c. 5, q. 13.

²⁶² Cf. Billuart, De orat. diss. 2, a. 8, § 7.

²⁶³ Authors rather commonly agree that a deaf cleric cannot recite the Office alternately with a private companion. Some, however, are more benign if the deaf person assists in choir.

375. 3. Continuously, i.e., without interruption, the individual Hours are to be said. Nevertheless, with all theologians agreeing, any interruption, even one made without a reasonable cause, never constitutes a mortal sin. For the sole grave obligation is the recitation of the entire Office within the space of one day. Yet a notable interruption which is made without cause between parts of the same Hour seems to be a venial sin, since irreverence in prayer arises from it. Thus, e.g., if someone were to say one psalm of Prime in the morning and recite the other two psalms of this Hour in the evening, and were to do this without reasonable cause, he would sin venially. If the interruption of the Hour is only brief, a sufficient cause excusing from all fault is easily present. Thus, e.g., a confessor sitting in the confessional and awaiting penitents can recite the Office, even though he foresees several interruptions from the arrival of some confessing persons. It is also lawful briefly to interrupt the recitation of the Breviary in order to greet a friend encountered or to give a brief answer. Although Matins and Lauds constitute one Hour, nevertheless it is lawful, even without a reason, to separate Matins from Lauds in private recitation (but not in choir). Then, however, by the general prescription of the Rubric, after Matins let there be said: Dominus vobiscum, the prayer of the day, Benedicamus, Fidelium. But it is necessary that afterwards, before Lauds thus separated from Matins, the Pater noster and Ave be said.²⁶⁴ In Matins each Nocturn can be separated from the others by a space of three hours, because even in antiquity the individual Nocturns were separated from one another by such a space. According to St. Alphonsus,²⁶⁵ a just cause for interrupting the Office is "any advantage of one's own or another's which would inconveniently be deferred. Likewise civility or devotion, as to execute the commands of a superior; if you wish to do or note something so that you may remove a distraction or solicitude, lest you forget, provided this is not done frequently." It is also lawful to interpose some brief ejaculatory prayer in order to increase devotion. For the maxim is valid: One prayer is not interrupted by another.

²⁶⁴ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 18 May 1883 and 1 Feb. 1886 (Decr. auth. n. 3574, dub. II, and n. 3653).

²⁶⁵ Theol. mor. l. 4, n. 168.

376. 4. By the mouth or vocally the Office must be recited, since by its nature it is a public prayer, which must always be vocal. Therefore the individual words must be formed with the mouth, lips, and tongue even in private recitation. Moreover, they must be so pronounced that the one praying is conscious that he is truly uttering words, even though in fact he does not hear them.²⁶⁶ It is not required, however, that the uttered words be capable of being heard by those standing nearby. Indeed, it is a hardly praiseworthy custom so to utter, or rather hiss, the words of the Office in private recitation that those standing nearby suffer annoyance from it. A cleric merely reading the Office mentally or running through it with the eyes alone does not satisfy his obligation, at least if he does not have a special privilege. Leo X is said to have conceded to the Friars Minor (and through communication of privileges to all regulars) the privilege that, both in the canonical Hours and in the Mass, they are not bound to utter the words vocally, but satisfy the obligation by saying mentally those things which in the Ordinary are commanded to be said secretly. St. Alphonsus,²⁶⁷ citing several authors, writes concerning this matter: "The Salmanticenses rightly argue: private recitation, in which nothing is said in order that it may be understood by others, can by this privilege be made entirely mentally." In our times Victorius ab Appeltern, O. Cap.,²⁶⁸ and Il Monitore Ecclesiastico²⁶⁹ defend the same doctrine as safe in practice. Because of the authority of St. Alphonsus, whose opinions any confessor can follow in practice unless the Roman Curia has expressly established otherwise, I indeed would not dare to declare guilty of mortal sin a regular cleric who had said the entire Office only mentally; but not a few authors teach that this privilege conceded by Leo X no longer exists today.²⁷⁰ In choral recitation each chorister must recite or sing the Office alternately in a loud voice. It is not required, however, that he himself be heard by the opposite choir; it suffices that he can be heard by those standing near. For the essence of choral recitation seems to consist in this: that each chorister suitably assists with his voice so that one part of the choir may worthily understand the other part.²⁷¹

²⁶⁶ Cf. St. Alphonsus, l.c., n. 163.

²⁶⁷ Ib., n. 63.

²⁶⁸ Corp. iur. regul. q. 2-7.

²⁶⁹ Vol. 14, p. 80ff.

²⁷⁰ E.g., Noldin, De praeceptis n. 765; Ferraris, Prompta Bibl., s.v. "Divinum Officium," n. 100.

²⁷¹ Cf. Concina, In Decalog. l. 2, diss. 2, c. 5, q. 18.

377. 5. With due intention and attention the Office must be recited. The required intention is the intention of praying, or of honoring and worshiping God. It is not required that this intention be explicit and express, but it suffices that the cleric say the Office for the sake of satisfying his obligation. This good intention is most excellently expressed in the words of the beautiful short prayer to be placed before the Hours: "Lord, in union with that divine intention with which Thou Thyself didst render praises to God upon earth, I render these Hours unto Thee."

Concerning the required attention, enough has already been said above in n. 354. According to all theologians, external attention is certainly required; whether, in addition, at least some internal attention is required for satisfying the obligation is disputed among authors. See above, n. 355ff.

Several remedies for repelling distractions are counseled: 1. at the beginning of the Office to form a vigorous and explicit intention of praising God; 2. to renew this intention at the Gloria Patri or at the beginning of each psalm; 3. to represent to oneself some mystery of the Passion during the recitation of the Office; 4. diligently to guard the senses; 5. to conduct oneself composedly and reverently by external gestures of the body; hence it is preferable to say the Office on bended knees or before the Most Holy Eucharist, but not sitting or lying down unless a reasonable cause is present; 7. to study the right understanding of the psalms and of the other things which occur in the Office. For not rarely distractions arise from the fact that a cleric does not perceive and has never understood the true sense of the sentences which he recites.

378. On causes excusing from the recitation of the Office. Three causes excusing from the recitation of the Hours are customarily enumerated: 1. physical inability; 2. moral inability; 3. legitimate dispensation. The first two causes excuse because no one is bound to the impossible and because a positive law does not oblige with great inconvenience; the third cause excuses because the recitation of the Office is prescribed not by natural or divine law but by ecclesiastical law alone. But the obligation of an ecclesiastical law ceases through legitimate dispensation. A few things are to be explained concerning the individual excusing causes.

1. Physical inability is a physical obstacle impeding the recitation of the Office. Obstacles of this sort are: lack of a breviary (if someone does not know how to recite the Office from memory), blindness, grave illness, etc. For both physical and moral inability the following general rule is valid: He who cannot recite the entire Office, but can recite a notable part, such as a Little Hour is considered to be, is bound gravely to recite this part. This rule is confirmed because the contrary was condemned by Innocent XI (prop. 54).²⁷² But he who cannot recite even a Little Hour is now bound to nothing, since so small a part does not notably conduce to the end intended by the law prescribing the recitation of the Office.²⁷³ He who cannot recite the Office alone is bound to employ a companion gratuitously, if this is possible without great inconvenience. The reason is that any precept which can be fulfilled by ordinary means must be fulfilled. But to employ a gratuitous companion for reciting the Office is considered by St. Alphonsus²⁷⁴ and several other authors to be an ordinary means. Authors do not agree whether a beneficiary who is unable to recite the Office alone is bound to hire a companion for the recitation of the Office from the revenues of the benefice. Some answer affirmatively, but others negatively. St. Alphonsus²⁷⁵ calls both opinions probable. In practice, a dispensation or interpretation from the competent authority is then better sought.

He who is legitimately excused from the recitation of the Office because of physical (or moral) inability is not bound to say other prayers in place of the Office, because such a commutation is prescribed nowhere. Nevertheless, a cleric impeded from saying the Office laudably recites other prayers; for in this way he shows his good will to satisfy the precept of praying specially imposed upon him by the Church.

²⁷² Cf. above, n. 360.

²⁷³ St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 4, n. 158.

²⁷⁴ Ib.

²⁷⁵ Ib.

379. 2. Moral inability is a grave inconvenience which would arise from the recitation of the Office. Such an inconvenience can arise especially a) from illness, b) from grave necessary labors. "By reason of infirmity, not only those who labor under grave illness are excused from the Office, but also those who cannot recite it except with grave inconvenience or probable danger of such inconvenience. Hence those are sufficiently excused who prudently believe or fear that from the recitation of the Office there will come upon them a notable heaviness of the head, indigestion of the stomach, or weariness of strength; or if they believe that a fever will be slower to remit." Thus St. Alphonsus,²⁷⁶ with several other authors. The same holy Doctor rightly asserts that this also holds even if the sick person were to read some book to console his mind. For reading of this sort, which holds still more for reading newspapers and illustrated periodicals, does not weary but rather relieves, whereas the recitation of the Office is customarily the cause of rather great weariness. He who doubts whether some infirmity sufficiently excuses from recitation of the Office can stand by the judgment of his superior, confessor, physician, or another prudent man.

It is certain and admitted by all that a grave occupation undertaken from duty or charity sometimes constitutes moral inability to recite the Office. The following can be held as a general rule: An occupation excuses from the recitation of the Office when it is prescribed by a greater precept than that which enjoins the recitation of the Office, and it cannot be deferred to another time. This rule is founded upon the principle admitted by all: In a conflict of two laws, the stronger law prevails. Hence there follow some practical applications:

Solutions. a) He who, when about to recite the Office, is suddenly called to administer the sacraments to a dying person ought first to administer the sacraments, even if in this manner he cannot recite the Office. For in this case the precept of charity prevails over the ecclesiastical precept of reciting the Office.

b) He who is occupied in hearing confessions which cannot be deferred to another day without notable inconvenience (e.g., during the time of a Mission), in such a way that he cannot recite the Office except at an unseasonable hour of the night or with enormous weariness, is legitimately excused from the Office. The reason is that in this case three precepts, namely, the precept of charity toward one's neighbor (the salvation of souls), the precept of fulfilling the office of confessor, and the precept of not ruining one's health, prevail over the ecclesiastical precept of reciting the canonical Hours. Casuists, however, dispute uselessly concerning the precise duration of time for which confessions must be heard in order that a confessor be excused from recitation of the Office, some excusing a confessor who hears confessions for seven hours in a day, others requiring a space of ten hours. The practical solution depends upon the bodily condition of the confessor. If after seven hours spent in the confessional he is so weary that he is no longer able to recite the canonical Hours without great weariness, he is legitimately excused; but if some confessor is so robust that even after ten hours spent in the confessional he is still easily able to recite the Divine Office, he is not excused. In practice it is better that, in these or similar cases, either a dispensation be conceded by the legitimate superior, or what must be done be determined.

c) He who needs the whole time for preparing a sermon which he cannot omit or defer without great inconvenience; he who must spend the whole day making a necessary journey on which he cannot recite the breviary, are legitimately excused. The reason is that even in these cases the law of reciting the Office ought to yield to the stronger law.

²⁷⁶ Ib., n. 154.

380. 3. Legitimate dispensation can suspend the obligation of reciting the Office or even remove it entirely. For this whole obligation arises from ecclesiastical law alone, which is dispensable. But since this ecclesiastical law is universal and obliges so gravely, no one except the Supreme Pontiff can dispense from it by his own authority. In an urgent case, however, bishops and Regular prelates can for a just cause dispense their subjects for a time. In present times bishops, by force of special faculties, can not rarely concede to their subject clerics that in place of the Divine Office they may recite the Rosary or other prayers. Clement VII²⁷⁷ conceded to superiors of Regulars that they may dispense from recitation of the Divine Office their subjects occupied in preaching the word of God, hearing confessions, lecturing on Sacred Theology or the Sacred Canons, or applying themselves to study or to the salvation of souls. In place of the Office, these superiors must then prescribe seven or six psalms, the Pater noster seven times, and the Apostles' Creed twice. Such a faculty of dispensing seems still to exist in our days.²⁷⁸

²⁷⁷ Const. Dudum, § 2.

²⁷⁸ Cf. our Man. iur. can. q. 237.

381. Scholion. On certain other prayers. Besides the canonical Hours, the Church employs several other prayers in exercises of worship; these prayers are found in various liturgical books. The Litanies are especially of frequent use. According to the present discipline, only the following five Litanies are permitted in properly liturgical offices: 1. the Litany of All Saints, which for centuries has already been in use in many ecclesiastical ceremonies, e.g., during the three Rogation days, on the feast of St. Mark, in the conferral of major orders, etc.; 2. the Litany of Loreto, which was recited from the twelfth century onward, but was approved by Sixtus V on 11 July 1587 and afterwards enlarged by certain additions;²⁷⁹ 3. the Litany of the Most Holy Name of Jesus, approved by Pius IX on 21 Oct. 1862; 4. the Litany of the Most Sacred Heart, approved on 2 Apr. 1899; 5. the Litany in honor of St. Joseph, approved on 18 Mar. 1909. Besides these Litanies there exist very many others which, however, have not been approved by the Apostolic See and cannot lawfully be employed in properly liturgical offices, such as Mass, Vespers, and all devotions before the Most Blessed Sacrament solemnly exposed. Nothing, however, prevents these unapproved Litanies from being employed in private devotions, if otherwise they contain nothing worthy of reprehension. A bishop cannot approve new Litanies to be recited publicly.²⁸⁰

²⁷⁹ Cf. Sauren, Die Lauretanische Litanei nach Ursprung, Geschichte und Inhalt, Kempten 1895, or De Santi, Le Litanie Lauretane, Rome 1897.

²⁸⁰ Code of Canon Law, c. 1259, § 2.

813. To the third question it is answered: The obligation of clerics constituted in major orders to perfect chastity, so that any sin whatsoever (even internal) committed against chastity has the character of sacrilege, does not arise from ecclesiastical law alone, but from the vow annexed to the subdiaconate (which consequently also obliges to celibacy and which, because of its solemnity, furthermore constitutes a diriment impediment of any subsequent matrimony). Thus St. Thomas,⁹⁷ St. Bonaventure,⁹⁸ Peter Ledesma,⁹⁹ and commonly the Thomists, Suarez,¹⁰⁰ Reiffenstuel,¹⁰¹ Benedict XIV,¹⁰² St. Alphonsus,¹⁰³ and among moderns, with many others, Feije,¹⁰⁴ Freisen,¹⁰⁵ Wernz-Vidal,¹⁰⁶ and Lehmkuhl.¹⁰⁷ Many authors, both ancient and modern, for example, Scotus,¹⁰⁸ John of Torquemada,¹⁰⁹ Hinschius,¹¹⁰ Scherer,¹¹¹ Leitner,¹¹² Sägmüller,¹¹³ Hollweck,¹¹⁴ Scharnagl,¹¹⁵ and De Smet,¹¹⁶ teach the contrary opinion, namely, that the obligation both of celibacy and of complete chastity, so that every voluntary violation of chastity is sacrilege, arises from ecclesiastical law alone. - The former opinion seems to be preferred, both because Boniface VIII in the text cited below speaks expressly of a vow solemnized through the reception of sacred order, and because otherwise it seems unintelligible how a cleric in major orders committing a merely internal sin against chastity truly perpetrates sacrilege, as the most common opinion and the Code of Canon Law, can. 132, § 1, teach. For the Church probably cannot command merely internal acts. Therefore, if someone posits an internal act against a merely ecclesiastical precept, he does not commit sacrilege. The authors of the second opinion indeed have recourse to some personal consecration, I know not what, which according to them the cleric receives in sacred order; but this particular consecration is fictitious, and it is not found in the sacred orders of the Eastern Church, nor is any trace of it found anywhere. Furthermore, even if this ecclesiastical consecration were admitted (not granted), it is not apparent how it could be violated by true sacrilege through a merely internal act. Finally, moralists quite commonly teach that a sin of lust committed by a cleric in major orders and the same sin committed by a solemnly professed religious do not differ essentially, so that a regular priest committing such a sin is not bound in confession to declare his religious state, provided that he confesses his priestly state. Moreover, it seems certain that the violation of a truly solemn vow really differs from the violation of some merely ecclesiastical consecration. Nor should anyone say: if the Church cannot command an internal act, neither can she command a vow, which essentially consists in an internal act of the will; for although the Church cannot absolutely command some vow, she can nevertheless annex a vow to some state to be undertaken, so that no one can licitly undertake that state unless he also emits the prescribed vow. Thus no one can undertake the religious state unless he emits the three customary vows. In like manner, no one can licitly undertake the state of sacred order unless he emits the vow of perfect chastity.

It is said, 2. in the Latin Church; for in certain Eastern Churches this impediment of sacred order does not exist, so that clerics can enter matrimony before receiving the subdiaconate and afterward use this matrimony even after receiving the orders of the diaconate and priesthood. But if the wife of an Eastern cleric in major orders has died, second nuptials are prohibited and invalidated.¹¹⁷ Besides, the practice is not the same in all the Eastern Churches, both with respect to the celibacy of clerics and with respect to clerics in major orders who attempt second nuptials.¹¹⁸ Eastern bishops must observe celibacy altogether.¹¹⁹

It is said, 3. clerics initiated into sacred order cannot licitly use a matrimony perhaps contracted previously. A husband can receive sacred orders, provided that his wife freely consents and emits a vow of perpetual chastity (either in a monastery, or, if suspicion of a violation of chastity is absent, in the world).¹²⁰ Besides, according to the discipline now in force, a husband is impeded from receiving orders.¹²¹ Therefore, in practice the Holy See must be consulted, which determines what is to be done. Matrimony indeed is not dissolved as regards the bond by the reception of sacred order, but divorce as regards bed and even habitation is commanded.¹²²

⁹⁷ S. theol. 2, 2, q. 88, a. 11. Elsewhere (Suppl., q. 53, a. 3) the Holy Doctor says: "Sacred order ... has from the constitution of the Church that it impedes matrimony; nevertheless, differently among the Latins than among the Greeks; because among the Greeks it impedes matrimony to be contracted solely by the force of order, but among the Latins it impedes by the force of order and, further, by the vow of continence which is annexed to sacred orders; although someone does not emit this verbally, nevertheless, from the very fact that he receives the order according to the rite of the Western Church, he is understood to have emitted it."

⁹⁸ Bk. 4, dist. 38, tit. 2, q. 1.

⁹⁹ De magno sacr. matrim., q. 53, a. 3.

¹⁰⁰ De virt. relig., tr. 7, bk. 9, c. 17, n. 11.

¹⁰¹ Ius can., bk. 4, tit. 6, n. 15.

¹⁰² De syn. dioec., bk. 12, c. 4, n. 2.

¹⁰³ Theol. mor., bk. 6, n. 808. The Holy Doctor calls this opinion more probable and more common.

¹⁰⁴ De imped. et dispens. matrim., 384.

¹⁰⁵ Gesch. des kan. Eherechtes, 767 ff.

¹⁰⁶ Loc. cit. V, n. 284. Wernz treats this question excellently (with Ballerini).

¹⁰⁷ Theol. mor. II, n. 782.

¹⁰⁸ Bk. 4, dist. 37, sole q.

¹⁰⁹ Comm. in Decr. Grat., c. 3, D. 84.

¹¹⁰ System d. kath. Kirchenr. I, 159.

¹¹¹ Kirchenr. II, 367.

¹¹² Lehrb. d. kirchl. Eherechtes, 189.

¹¹³ Kirchenr. I, 264.

¹¹⁴ Kirchenr., 257.

¹¹⁵ Das feierl. Gelübde als Ehehindernis, 207 ff.

¹¹⁶ Loc. cit., n. 574.

¹¹⁷ Benedict XIV, Constitution Anno vertente, June 19, 1750; cf. also Papp-Szilagyi, Enchir. iur. eccl. orient. cath., 3rd ed., §§ 16 f. and 101.

¹¹⁸ Cf. Papp-Szilagyi, loc. cit., and especially Wojuki, Die Wiederverehelichung der Priester in der morgenl. Kirche, in Arch. f. kath. Kirchenr. (1908), p. 405 ff.

¹¹⁹ Benedict XIV, Constitution Etsi pastoralis, May 26, 1742.

¹²⁰ c. 6, X, 3, 32.

¹²¹ Code of Canon Law, can. 987, n. 2.

¹²² Leitner, Lehrb. des kirchl. Eherechtes, 193.

Clerics enjoy certain privileges from canon law, indeed according to many from divine law.

All the faithful owe reverence to clerics, according to their different grades and functions, and they stain themselves with the crime of sacrilege if at any time they have inflicted real injury upon clerics (Can. 119).

§1. Clerics in all causes, whether contentious or criminal, must be summoned before an ecclesiastical judge, unless provision has been legitimately made otherwise for particular places.

§2. Cardinals, Legates of the Apostolic See, Bishops even titular, Abbots or Prelates nullius, supreme Superiors of religions of pontifical right, major Officials of the Roman Curia, on account of business pertaining to their function, cannot be summoned before a lay judge without the permission of the Apostolic See; others enjoying the privilege of forum, without the permission of the Ordinary of the place in which the cause is carried on; which permission, nevertheless, the Ordinary, especially when the plaintiff is a layman, should not deny without a just and grave cause, especially when he has given effort in vain to settling the controversies between the parties.

§3. If nevertheless they are summoned by one who has had no previous permission, they can, by reason of necessity, appear in order to avoid greater evils, yet after the Superior from whom permission was not obtained has been informed (Can. 120).

All clerics are immune from military service, and from civil public functions and offices foreign to the clerical state (Can. 121).

For clerics who are compelled to satisfy creditors, let those things be safe which, according to the prudent judgment of the ecclesiastical judge, are necessary for honorable support of themselves, yet with the obligation of the same clerics to satisfy creditors as soon as possible remaining firm (Can. 122).

A cleric cannot renounce the aforesaid privileges; but he loses them if he is reduced to the lay state or is punished with perpetual privation of the right of wearing ecclesiastical garb, according to the norm of can. 213, §1, 2304; but he recovers them if this penalty is remitted or he himself is again admitted among clerics (Can. 123).

Religious of either sex, even lay religious, enjoy the privilege of the canon. Cf. Can. 2343, §4.

I. QUESTION I. Do clerics sin mortally who wear neither the clerical garb nor the tonsure? ANSWER. The graver theologians affirm it; innumerable Councils command under penalty of excommunication that clerics wear the tonsure and the clerical habit openly, and that they nourish not long hair. The probabilists define all things otherwise. Fr. Claude La Croix, Book 4, no. 1371, reports the opinion of Gobat denying that it is mortal, if scandal and contempt be absent. The same opinion concerning a cleric nourishing hair he reports at no. 1373, and writes that it is more common and more probable that such a cleric does not sin mortally, although bishops and synods threaten such men with excommunication: because, he says, a threat does not always indicate a grave precept. Synods and bishops therefore perpetrate an injustice, threatening a most grave penalty for a light fault. Even if a grave threat did not always indicate a grave precept, does it therefore not indicate one in this case? And so it will be said in another case. And by these little distinctions the most salutary sanctions of synods and bishops are eluded. Casuists of this kind are to be asked by what right they wrest the decrees of synods and bishops to their own petty thoughts. Who conferred authority upon them so frequently to extenuate ecclesiastical and divine laws and to accommodate them to human appetitions? What of this, that the graver probabilists do not excuse such clerics from grave fault, as the most learned presbyter Bonus Merbesius adverts, dissertation 6, question 15, saying: And indeed those casuists themselves, most of whom are versed nothing in unrolling the sacred letters, nothing in reading the holy Fathers and the Councils, but, trusting to I know not what, have all faith in all things, have gone over to that part, that they should reckon the neglect and omission of the tonsure and of the clerical habit among mortal sins; and moreover should assert that men conscious of such an omission are struck, or to be struck, with the anathema of excommunication.

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.

III. But what is to be said of those confessors who absolve clerics of this kind — sleek, brawny, bearded, long-haired, crisped, and curled — everywhere rattling with display, venery, and satanic pomp, and send them to the altars to sacrifice? With what conscience and religion (says Merbesius in the place cited) do confessors bestow upon them the benefit of absolution, being about to experience the extreme punishments with clerics of this kind preserved?

IV. QUESTION III. Do clerics sin mortally who accept a benefice with the mind of forsaking the clerical state if opportunity should occur? ANSWER. Theologians commonly affirm it, because those clerics circumvent the Church in a grave matter, and steal the sacred revenues, since they have not been called into the lot of the Lord. Some affirm that these sin mortally if the care of souls be annexed to the benefice, otherwise if the benefice be simple. The distinction is vain, because in either case the Church is circumvented in a grave matter, although more enormously in the one case than in the other.

V. QUESTION IV. From what things ought clerics to abstain? ANSWER. The Council of Milan enumerates several things from which clerics are bound to abstain: 1. They ought not to mingle themselves in profane businesses; 2. To abstain from the art of measuring; 3. From businesses and merchandise; 4. From renting estates for the sake of gain; 5. From undertaking the guardianship or care of others; 6. From going surety for others; 7. From service to be furnished to women; 8. They are bound to abstain from games of dice and from clamorous hunting. That I may begin from these last.

VI. QUESTION V. Do secular presbyters sin who serve as handmaids to matrons? ANSWER. The present-day corruption, by which presbyters serve lay families, and under pretext of educating children transact the affairs of the family, serve mistresses and matrons, and hold out consecrated hands by which they support them as they walk, is monstrous and horrid. These presbyters disfigure the priestly dignity, and hold cheap their own character, and profane the sacred grade. Bishops with an evangelical breast ought to keep presbyters of this kind from the altar and to interdict them from sacred things.

VII. QUESTION VI. Whether trade is interdicted to clerics? ANSWER. All absolutely affirm it. For St. Paul says, 2 Timothy 2: No man being a soldier to God entangleth himself with secular businesses. Not a few casuists have devised several opinings, all of which after his manner Fr. La Croix collects, Book 3, part 1, nos. 997 and following. First he asserts that a cleric can buy something to consume, and sell it at an increased price, hoping to buy it more cheaply. For it is, he says, an act of economic prudence. Sacred, or rather profane? He adds there, nos. 999 and following, that Manriquez and Derbenne, on Gobat's testimony, teach that presbyters can buy grapes and sell wine. He adds at no. 1000: Gobat, he says, thinks that in Germany it is lawful in monasteries to sell wine and bread through servants. For this is not properly to keep a tavern or to trade, but to sell one's own to passers-by. This not only in Germany, but also in Italy and elsewhere. Through that particle properly all the canons are eluded which forbid trade and merchandise to clerics, and chiefly to the cloistered. Very many other opinions favouring the trade of clerics Fr. La Croix reports, which I have indicated in Vol. X, Book 2, dissertation 2, chapter 11. Now I pass them over, and let it be enough to admonish the reader that he abstain from those things which are less becoming to a cleric.

VIII. QUESTION VII. Whether hunting is interdicted to clerics? ANSWER. All absolutely affirm it; innumerable are the canons prohibiting the same. Clamorous huntings are forbidden, namely those performed with dogs, birds, and arms, suppose fowling-pieces. But quiet huntings, without dogs and birds and fowling-pieces, but with nets and snares alone, are lawful to clerics, as is gathered from Trent. Fr. La Croix, Book 4, no. 1574, says: “Those prohibitions are now so mitigated that if they be done for the sake of recreation without great clamour, scandal, or contempt, mortal sin is not easily committed. Navarrus, Molina, Turrianus, de Lugo, MS. Suárez, Sá, and Castropalao add that they are excused even from venial, if the hunting be rare and moderate and for the restoring of strength.”

IX. I confess that I am shaken with grave fear and trembling, when on the one hand I see the Supreme Pontiffs, bishops, and sacred synods threatening excommunication to clerics not wearing the clerical garb, and prohibiting merchandise, hunting, and so forth; and when on the other hand I see the cited casuists erecting a tribunal above the Pontiffs, bishops, and Councils, and crying out to clerics that those prohibitions are now so mitigated that violators do not sin mortally. Fr. La Croix subjoins in the same place, no. 1576: “Dicastillo, no. 300, thinks that hunting even with apparatus and clamorous is not forbidden to clerics, unless it be done frequently; and he adds with Cajetan, Navarrus, Sylvester, Bannez, Molina, Tuty, and Diana that, although it be done frequently, he does not dare to condemn it of mortal sin, if it be done for the sake of recreation.”

X. Like interpretations stalk through the whole of theology, and the divine laws themselves are accommodated with limits and little distinctions to the morals of men. What does it profit that sacred Councils, bishops, and Pontiffs frame canons for the reformation of discipline, if very many continually teach clerics and the people that the canons are today so mitigated that they do not oblige under mortal sin, nay not even under venial, if the things forbidden be done for the sake of recreation? Assuredly all clerics will confess that they hunt, play, and trade for the sake of recreation, and several other things which I pass over in silence. Why do we wonder if we see discipline, both ecclesiastical and monastic, never reformed but on the contrary daily relaxed? Whether very many casuists be the cause, and whether it is to be forbidden them to dare to mitigate the sacred canons, let the wise judge.

XI. QUESTION VIII. Whether games of dice are forbidden to clerics? ANSWER. Not only ancient but also recent canons forbid to clerics games of dice, or of fortune and chance. The Fourth Lateran Council under Innocent III, canon 16, says: Let clerics not play at dice and knucklebones, nor be present at games of this kind. The Gloss adds several things, and cites Novel 123, chapter 10, where these things are had: But we interdict most holy bishops, presbyters, deacons, subdeacons, lectors, and all others … to play at tables, or to become partakers or spectators with others playing, or to come to any spectacles whatsoever for the sake of beholding. The Council of Trent, session 22, chapter 1 On Reformation, among the several things which it prescribes concerning the life and honesty of clerics, inculcates these: The holy Synod establishes that the things which have been otherwise abundantly and salutarily sanctioned by the Supreme Pontiffs and by the sacred Councils concerning the life, honesty, culture, and doctrine of clerics to be retained, and likewise concerning luxury, revellings, dances, DICE, GAMES, and any crimes whatsoever, and concerning secular businesses to be fled, be in future observed under the same or greater penalties to be imposed at the Ordinary's arbitration; nor let an appeal suspend this execution, which pertains to the correction of morals.

XII. Fr. La Croix, Book 4, no. 1570, reports Salas, Molina, Rebello, Aversa, and Castropalao interpreting that the custom of playing is forbidden, but by no means one or another occasion. Nay, he adds that Sá and Valentia excuse even the custom of playing from mortal sin, if it be not done for the sake of gain but for the sake of recreation. Nay, he says, Salas thinks that the prohibition of these games does not extend to lay religious, because the text has it only of clerics. But the common opinion holds the opposite, he concludes.

XIII. Clerics reading these things, and forestalled by the allurements of Probabilism, begin, supported by the authority of the cited casuists, to play one and another time. From repeated occasions a custom is made, and then, with Sá and Valentia patronizing them, they say that they play for the sake of recreation and not for gain. For this is something accessory. At last, with Salas patronizing them, they conclude that this custom does not extend to lay religious. Since, they say, the cited authors are grave, upright, and classic. But do thou, reader, figments of this kind being dismissed, seriously bend thy mind to the doctrine of the Councils, chiefly of Trent, and abstain altogether from games of dice. Do not begin, unless thou wilt pursue and contract a depraved custom. Scarcely have I read any one of the cited casuists who with fervent zeal and diligent study promotes the observance of the sacred canons; but they direct their endeavours and studies through almost the whole of theology to mitigating, softening, tempering the laws and canons, and accommodating them to human frailty. But whether this be so, be thou thyself, reader, the judge.

XIV. Clerics walking about masked sin mortally. Diana, Vol. VII, tract 5, resolution 6, says: I think there is no receding from the common opinion of the Doctors, namely that in such a case secular and regular clerics commit a mortal sin.

I. God repels from the priesthood those ignorant of holy Scripture. Because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will reject thee, that thou shalt not do the office of priesthood to me. Osee 4. And the Evangelist Matthew, chapter 23, cries out: Woe to you, blind guides.

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.

III. “Away therefore with those modern moral theologians who in the books published by them establish the doctrine of morals by petty reasonings and probable — not to say sophistical — arguments, and scarcely remember the sacred Scriptures, save that they may bend their sense to preconceived opinions; and they proceed so far as to pronounce as suspected in the faith those who assert that, as the dogmas of faith, so moral conclusions are to be sought from the sacred Writings, from the canons of the Church, and from the writings of the holy Fathers. It would be worth the labour that hierarchical men should have collected in their possession the propositions excerpted in great number from books of this kind, and censoriously noted both by the Supreme Pontiffs and by bishops in various places, and chiefly by the Gallican ones in the years 1655 and 1700, and also by distinguished Academies.”

IV. But if in clerics to be ordained, if in parish priests, if in confessors the study of the Scriptures is required, what shall be said of bishops? These, since they are the teachers of the Christian people, ought much more deeply than the other subaltern ministers to be skilled in the Scriptures, the canons, and the Fathers, that they may be able to imbue others with sound doctrine, and to assume into their own help those worthy and apt for the profit of the Church, but to keep off and repel the unworthy and unfit from the ministry.

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.

Titius, a confessor, remains doubtful whether certain drunkards who belong to his mission sin or not by omitting Mass on Sunday. The circumstances of the case are as follows. Every Saturday afternoon these men receive their wages for the week’s labor. Having received the money, they immediately go to the tavern and drink until they are drunk. They return home at about eleven o’clock at night, when the tavern closes, and on the following day suffer the effects of drunkenness in bed. Titius doubts whether they are guilty not only of drunkenness but also of the Mass omitted on Sunday, for they are drunk before the law begins to urge, and when it urges they are incapable of fulfilling the law. Hence it is asked:

1. What causes exempt from a law, and what causes excuse from a law?

2. Is it lawful voluntarily to posit either kind?

3. Is someone bound, if he can, to remove an excusing cause in order to fulfill the law?

4. What is to be said concerning the case?

1. What are causes exempting from a law and causes excusing from a law?

Causes exempting remove a subject from the jurisdiction, as does departure from the territory within which the law binds. Causes excusing relieve him of the obligation of obeying the law though he remains subject to it.¹

1 Bucceroni, vol. i, no. 216.

2. Is it lawful to put both causes exempting and causes excusing voluntarily?

A subject may put causes exempting voluntarily, for a law does not compel a man to remain subject to it; it only obliges him to act in conformity with it as long as he remains subject. By special law, however, one who has incurred a reserved case in one diocese can not be absolved from it if he go to another diocese with the intention of getting absolution there.

While remaining under the jurisdiction of the law, a subject may not do anything with the intention of avoiding the obligation of complying with it. But for a sufficiently grave reason he may do something, although he foresees that the doing of it will make it impossible for him to comply with a positive law.

3. Is one bound to remove an excusing cause if he can, so as to be able to comply with a law?

Much depends on the nature of the law in question, for some laws bind more strictly than do others. Thus Lehmkuhl says: “Nor do they judge that anyone is bound by force of the law of hearing Mass to procure release from a censure, liberation from prison, etc., if, being imprisoned, he cannot assist at Mass, unless perhaps for a long time, or through design lest he be present at the sacred rite, he neglects these things. Nevertheless, they hold that someone is bound to remove those bonds or impediments by reason of the precept of Easter Communion; for which precept, even several days before the time of the law becomes urgent, it is not lawful to place an impediment, unless a sufficiently grave cause is present.”²

2 Theol. Mor., vol. i, n. 158.

4. The case. Titius, a confessor, doubts whether some drunkards in his parish commit sin by omitting Mass on Sundays. Every week these men get their week’s wage after mid-day on Saturday. They go straight to the public-house and get drunk, returning home about 11 p.m. when the public-house closes. Next day they sleep off the effects of drink in bed. Although they certainly sin against temperance, Titius doubts whether they commit sin by not hearing Mass, for they are drunk before the time when the law of hearing Mass begins to be urgent, and when Sunday comes they are too ill to get up. If there were question of putting some honest excusing cause, the doubt of Titius would be well founded. Thus Gury says: “It would be lawful, from mere pleasure, to enter upon a journey which would impede attendance at Mass throughout the whole of Saturday, up to one or another hour before Sunday.”¹ This, however, can not be applied to our case. For in this matter much depends on the intention of the legislator. He does not intend to restrict the liberty of his subjects so far as to compel them to forego honest recreation on Saturday, though this will prevent them hearing Mass on Sunday. But the legislator does not use the same indulgence in favor of drunkards, who get drunk on Saturday afternoon, foreseeing that they will not be in a fit state to hear Mass on Sunday. They sin, then, not only against temperance, but also against the obligation of Sunday Mass.

1 Gury, in Génicot, vol. i, no. 116.

Titius, a religious priest, was giving spiritual exercises to young men about to be initiated into holy orders. Caius, one of them, a man of excellent disposition and character, came to him and said that he wished to renounce his intention of receiving the priesthood because he was not certain that he was called by God. He applied to himself the words of St. Alphonsus (vi, 802): “Therefore those who, not called by God, thrust themselves into sacred ministries are themselves those of whom it says through Jeremiah: ‘I did not send the prophets, and they themselves ran.’ Indeed, as the Catechism says, nothing can be more unhappy and wretched than this kind of men, nothing more calamitous to the Church.” Titius, however, wished to know how Caius should be treated. Hence it is asked:

1. What is a divine vocation to a definite state of life?

2. How can a divine vocation to the priesthood be recognized?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. What is a divine vocation to a certain state of life?

A divine vocation may be defined as a purpose of Divine Providence choosing a person for a special state of life and giving him the helps that are required for it. Such a vocation is manifested in him who is called by an internal and external fitness for the state, and by special lights of the understanding and motions of the will by which he is conscious that he could serve God and save his soul in that state.

2. How may a divine vocation to the priesthood be known?

A divine vocation to the priesthood may be known by the signs which have just been mentioned. If the person in question be fit to exercise the duties of the priesthood, if he hold out hopes that he will do so with the help of God, if he wishes to receive the priesthood so as to be able the better to serve God, help his fellow men, and save his soul, he shows the ordinary signs of a vocation from God.

3. The case. Titius should put a few questions to Caius with a view to finding out whether he is fit for the priesthood and whether there is a prospect of his being able to fulfil its duties properly. As he is a youth of excellent disposition and character and therefore fit for the priesthood, it will be well to ask him why up to the present he fostered the intention of becoming a priest. In all probability the answer will be satisfactory and will show that his intention was supernatural, resting on faith, on the desire to please God and save his soul. In that case he should be encouraged to persevere; he should be told to put his trust in God, who will never forsake those who trust in Him; he should be told that the words of St. Alphonsus are not meant for him, but for such as are unfit for the priesthood and who do not intend to fulfil its duties, but who intrude themselves into the clerical state for worldly motives.

Julius, the youngest son of a certain nobleman, who was soon to be initiated into the subdiaconate, came to Caius, a priest who was giving spiritual exercises to certain clerics about to be ordained. Caius had described the burdens of the priesthood in grave words, and thereby had aroused anxieties and doubts in Julius’s mind. For Julius had never seriously thought about those burdens; almost from infancy he had always heard from his parents and from a certain bishop who was a very close friend of the family that he ought to devote himself to the service of the Church, which needs such men to hold ecclesiastical prelacies. Led by this purpose he had pursued his studies at college, and had become a cleric rather to answer the expectation of his parents and friends than to indulge his own inclination. He intends faithfully to fulfill, with God’s help, whatever the duties of the state may be; he hopes that he can bear the burdens, and moreover he is imbued with good morals. When Caius heard these things, he began to doubt Julius’s vocation and whether he ought not advise Julius to return to his parents and to the world. Hence it is asked:

1. What is a divine vocation to the priesthood?

2. What is the obligation to follow a divine vocation?

3. Does one who becomes a priest without being called sin, and to what extent?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. This question is answered above, p. 23.

2. What obligation is there to follow a divine vocation?

A vocation to the priesthood is a great favor bestowed by God and it should be thankfully received. It is not commonly imposed by God as a precept, and so there would not be sin in neglecting to follow it except in cases where by so doing he who is called knowingly exposes his salvation to danger.

3. Is sin committed and how by becoming a priest without a vocation?

One who is unfit for the priesthood or who does not intend to live up to its obligations and yet becomes a priest sins grievously. One who is not unfit and who intends to live up to his obligations, but who becomes a priest from natural motives without a divine vocation, acts rashly, but in the judgment of many theologians he does not sin grievously. The reason is because such a one violates no grave precept, nor does he expose himself to serious danger of losing his soul or doing serious harm to others.¹

1 Ballerini-Palmieri, Opus Morale, tract, ix, c. ii, n. 6.

4. The case. Julius is not unfit for the priesthood, though the motives which have led him so far. are natural rather than supernatural. Caius would do well to tell him to take the opportunity of the retreat to think seriously over his position. He might teach him how to make his election of a state of life on supernatural principles. Let him think therefore on the duties and helps of the priesthood, and of its dangers as well, and then if in the presence of God he thinks that he can serve God and the Church and save his soul as a priest, and if he can purpose to do this, let him be ordained. If any doubt remains he should defer ordination for a time until his course is clear. But if he can not look at things from this supernatural point of view he had better return to his family.

Titius, an Anglican minister, in order to be certain of the validity of his ordination, had been ordained by a certain schismatic bishop, and afterwards married. After some years, having been converted to the Catholic faith, he now inquires whether and under what conditions he may exercise the sacred ministry, or even make use of marital rights; concerning the validity of the priesthood received, however, there can be no doubt. Hence it is asked:

1. To what are clerics in sacred orders bound by the law of celibacy?

2. May a married man receive sacred orders, and under what conditions?

3. Would impure thoughts be sacrilegious in a priest who had been ordained in ignorance of the law of celibacy?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. To what are clerics in sacred Orders bound by the law of celibacy?

They are bound to observe perfect chastity, in thought and deed, and they are incapable of contracting a valid marriage.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. i, p. 601.

2. Is a married man allowed to receive sacred Orders and on what conditions?

A man who was married but whose wife is dead or lawfully divorced, when this is possible, may receive sacred

Orders. One whose wife is still living and not lawfully divorced may not be ordained without the free and express consent of his wife, who, if she consents, must herself take a vow of chastity.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. i, p. 602.

3. Would bad thoughts be sacrilegious in a priest who had been ordained in ignorance of the law of celibacy?

Such a one would not be bound by vow to observe chastity, for a vow can not be taken by one who is ignorant of it. He would, however, be bound to observe chastity by ecclesiastical law. But probably law does not touch merely internal acts, and so although bad thoughts would be sins against the Ninth Commandment, probably they would not have the additional malice of sacrilege, as bad thoughts of priests ordained under normal conditions certainly have.

4. The case. Titius, an Anglican minister, to make sure of his ordination, got ordained by a schismatic bishop and afterwards married. It is supposed in the case that this ordination is certainly valid. As sacred Order is a diriment impediment of marriage, 2 it follows that the minister was not married validly. As he is not married he has no marital rights, and he must separate from his reputed wife. The greatest consideration should be shown to the lady which is possible under the circumstances. Titius was ordained by a schismatic, and he thus incurred irregularity, which prohibits him from exercising his orders. He should submit his case to the bishop, who after inquiring into all the circumstances of the case, and if necessary consulting the Holy See, will settle what is best for all concerned.

*Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri, Opus Morale, vol. vi, n. 1143 nota.

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

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

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

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

3. What is to be said of the case?

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

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

In certain circumstances the solemn promise of ecclesiastical obedience is demanded. Such promise is, in first place, by precept, made and confirmed by oath to the Pope. The cardinals take this oath of loyalty to the Pope upon their elevation to the cardinalate; the archbishops before their investure with the pallium; this oath of loyalty forms part of the ceremonies at the consecration of bishops and abbots; it is contained in the Tridentine confession of the faith, and hence is required of all who, according to ecclesiastical precept, must make the Tridentine confession of faith. In the latter the formula is: I promise and swear true obedience to the Roman Pontiff, the successor of blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and the vicar of Jesus Christ.

Besides this oath of loyalty to the Pope, there is at the consecration of priests a simple promise of obedience (not on oath) given by the newly ordained into the hands of the officiating bishop, to him, and his successors, if he is the diocesan bishop of the newly ordained, otherwise to the ordinary of the diocese to which the newly ordained will belong: Do you promise reverence and obedience to me and my successors (to the Pontiff or to your Ordinary Prelate for the time being). R. I promise.

Only after this solemn promise has been given, the kiss of peace is imparted to the ordained, and the latter receives full recognition as lawful priest of the Catholic Church.

What new obligations are assumed by this oath, and by this promise? That some new obligation is assumed can hardly be doubted. The oath taken binds the conscience with a new moral bond, at least that of the religio, so that disobedience is not merely disobedience but perjury as well, and related to sacrilege. The simple promise of the newly ordained priest, though not possessing the same rigor of obligation, must still be viewed, even though in lesser degree, as a vinculum religionis, or as a ratification of the vinculum created by the ordination, as the solemn elevation to the most sublime state is on the part of the Church only consummated and approved after the deliverance of this promise. Though a new bond of obligation is therefore forged, the question follows: is there a new obligation? This can, in a certain sense, be affirmed, but also just as correctly denied. An obligation ensues to something new, inasmuch as with that promise of subjection a new office is undertaken; hence there ensue new obligations of office and state of life, especially new obligations of duty toward the higher ecclesiastical superiors. But these obligations already exist independently of the oath rendered or the promise made: they are not created by the latter, only confirmed and emphasized.

In matter and extent the obligation of canonical obedience is, on the one hand, measured by the office and the state, in the assumption of which the vow of obedience and submission is rendered; on the other hand the power to impose commands and to require obedience is measured by the official position of the one to whom the vow is made.

WERNZ, in his Jus Decretalium, Vol. 2, n. 192, says correctly that, “The promise of obedience or the oath of loyalty extends for clerics only to lawful and ecclesiastical matters, especially to those specially expressed in the formula of the oath, and thereby bishop or clerics in no wise become vassals, or political subjects, of the Pope.” Special matters are referred to in the bishop’s oath; not in the oath in the Tridentine confession of faith. In this therefore, the affirmation by oath has reference only to the universal relation of submission of the Catholic Christian to the ecclesiastical precepts of the Papal See.

In regard to the priestly promise, WERNZ, loc. cit., explains: “Canonical obedience, which a cleric and beneficed person is bound to render to his bishop, consists generally in this: that he promptly comply with the bishop’s laws and precepts, sentences and corrections, teachings and admonitions. Among other things, by virtue of the canonical obedience promised, this especially is also required: that a cleric not depart into another diocese without the permission of his bishop, abandoning the service of the Church to which he had been assigned at ordination.—Therefore permission is to be given by the bishop in lawful form and cannot be denied without just cause.—A bishop cannot retain against his will a diocesan cleric who is not assigned to a definite place, lest he depart from his diocese and accept a parish elsewhere; but if, because of necessity, he wishes to retain him altogether in the diocese or recall him to it, he is not forbidden to do so, provided that he furnishes him with suitable support.”

The first and chief duty of canonical obedience is, then, not to abandon of one’s own accord the assumed office, nor to break arbitrarily the relation to the diocese.:

Then follows, as second obligation, the duty to obey, in the charge undertaken, the ecclesiastical instructions of the bishop, and to obey, still more zealously, the related higher regulations. Such higher regulations are contained, for instance, in the constitution of Leo XIII on prohibited books, and printing. Apart from par. 22, which commends a general precept specially to the clergy, par. 42 is particularly addressed to priests: “Men of the secular clergy are not even to publish books that treat of purely natural arts and sciences without consulting their Ordinaries, so that they may furnish an example of an obedient disposition toward them.—The same men are forbidden, without the permission of their Ordinaries, to undertake the direction of newspapers or periodicals.”

The last sentence touches, therefore, a third instance, i. e., non-ecclesiastical matters, in regard to which priests may owe submission and obedience to their bishop. But we see that this is a fact only in a very restricted extent. In this sentence there is reference to things which prejudice in a high degree the fulfilling of the obligations of office and state, or which endanger the reputation of the priest or the priestly state. That in such matters the bishop may exert power is evident; that such conditions be prevented is probably the reason for the general precept. Where, therefore, conditions or reasons prevail, like those which occasioned the papal precept, the bishop may act by power of his authority, and demand the priest’s obedience. In other non-ecclesiastical matters this will hardly be the fact: except where matters are concerned which also otherwise are shown to be prohibited or to be required; to an exact fulfilment of duty, in all matters, the bishop must without doubt hold his clergy in a special manner, as they should set a good example to the rest of the faithful, always and everywhere, by spotless conduct and faithful fulfilment of duty. Without question the episcopal authority remains therefore quite within the privileges of its office when it, in kindred and not necessarily ecclesiastical matters, without actual command imparts admonitions and directions, in order to prevent faulty steps, or to warn against faulty actions and ways of acting, which might give scandal, or may be unedifying. Aug. Lehmkuhl, S.J.