Holiness of Life

751. On vocation itself and its necessity. 1. By the name of clerical state here is understood the condition of those who have received sacred order: for since the condition of those who have been initiated only in minor orders is not yet constant and immovable from obligation, clerics of minor orders do not yet have a state properly so called.

2. A twofold vocation is distinguished: external, which consists in this, that the one to be ordained, having been approved and elected by the bishop, is admitted to the clerical state; internal, which consists in the decree of divine providence by which, from the common state of laymen, some are chosen to the clerical state and fitting helps are prepared for them for fulfilling the special obligations of this state.

3. That external vocation is required is clear from this: that the bishop must approve those whom he admits to the ecclesiastical state before he confers orders on them.

In this sense are to be understood the words: Nor does anyone take honor to himself, but he who is called by God as Aaron was;² and elsewhere the Apostle says: Impose hands quickly on no one.³ But let these (deacons) first be proved, and so let them minister, having no crime.⁴

4. That internal vocation is required for the clerical state is gathered both from the nature of divine providence and from the singular excellence of the state itself, and from the condition of the Christian Church.

a. Since divine providence directs all things to their ends, a special end demands a special decree, which destines to the end and prepares for those destined means consonant with the end; but the clerical state constitutes a special end distinct from the common end of other men and more excellent, which because of its excellence demands more abundant and more perfect helps of grace.

b. Since the Church of Christ is on the one hand perpetual, but on the other cannot endure without ministers, divine providence must at no time fail to prepare for the Church ministers suited by vocation to the clerical state.

5. He who does not follow a divine vocation to the clerical state certainly known does not seem to sin gravely, but he certainly sins lightly.

a. Since this vocation is only an invitation to a higher state and does not involve a strict precept, he who does not follow it does not commit a sin properly so called because of this. Moreover this would be a sin insofar as he who does not follow God calling deprives himself of the graces necessary for obtaining salvation; but God denies to no one graces sufficient for salvation; indeed through the help of prayer efficacious graces also can be obtained.

b. But he sins lightly, because, supposing a divine vocation certainly known, the one called cannot be carried to declining the will of God except by motives not consonant with reason, such as weariness of labor, sensuality, desire of worldly liberty, etc.

6. He who enters the clerical state without a vocation certainly known does not seem to sin gravely, provided he has a good will of fulfilling all the obligations of the clerical state and is duly admitted by superiors to receiving orders.

He who lacks vocation must be kept from orders, even if he is imbued with good morals. But if one who feels himself destitute of vocation nevertheless enters the clerical state, he acts rashly, yet he does not seem to sin gravely. For he would sin insofar as he either would not wish or would not be able to fulfill the offices of the state; but since good will is supposed in him, he will not be deprived by God of necessary graces for this reason alone, that he lacks vocation. Yet this is certain: a priest destitute of vocation experiences greater difficulties in fulfilling his offices and is therefore in greater danger of losing eternal salvation.

¹ Ballerini-Palmieri IV, n. 224 ss.; Genicot II, n. 24 ss.; Aem. Berardi, De clerico ad ordines sacros initiando (Faenza: Novelli, 1888); Vermeersch, De vocatione religiosa et sacerdotali (Bruges: Beyaert, 1903).

² Heb. 5:4. In this place there is discussion of external vocation. Therefore the Roman Catechism (part 2, c. 7, q. 3): "But they are said to be called by God who are called by the legitimate ministers of the Church."

³ 1 Tim. 5:22.

⁴ Ibid. 3:10; cf. Council of Trent, sess. 23, c. 5, De reform.

752. On proving clerics to be promoted to sacred orders. 1. From many laws of the Church, a grave obligation is incumbent on the bishop of carefully proving clerics to be initiated in sacred orders and of keeping away the unworthy, who are imbued with depraved morals. Although the habit of any grave sin renders one to be ordained unworthy, nevertheless this holds most of all concerning the vice of luxury, wherefore the laws of the Church explicitly require that those to be ordained be of proved chastity.

a. And let these (deacons) first be proved, and so let them minister.¹

b. Let no one be permitted to approach sacred order unless he is either a virgin or is of proved chastity.²

c. Let subdeacons and deacons be ordained who have good testimony and have been proved in minor orders ... who hope, God being the author, that they can contain themselves.³

2. As regards the force of these laws, some affirm that they oblige only the bishop, that he keep from sacred orders those who are not immune from external sins (concerning which, namely, it can be established in the external forum of the Church);⁴ but others contend that they affect not only the bishop but also the one to be ordained and his confessor, so that by force of these laws the one to be ordained is prohibited under grave obligation from approaching orders unless he has already amended himself from the habit of sinning, especially against chastity; and that the confessor is bound under grave obligation to deny absolution to a cleric with a bad habit wishing to approach sacred orders, even if otherwise disposed, because this very will itself is gravely sinful, unless he is endowed by God with so great a compunction as to furnish security concerning change of life.⁵

3. Concerning a habituated cleric. He is not immune from grave sin who, laboring under a bad habit of sinning, receives sacred order, unless he has a founded hope that, once ordained, he will preserve chastity.

a. It is difficult to demonstrate that the aforesaid laws of the Church refer directly and immediately not only to the bishop and to external proof, but also to the one to be ordained and to his internal state;⁶ nevertheless from them the mind and intention of the Church is clear, which in those to be promoted to sacred orders desires and requires immunity from a bad habit even internal.

b. From the nature of the matter a cleric cannot approach sacred orders with a safe conscience unless he holds a founded hope that he will live at least habitually chastely, as he is about to promise to God in ordination; but he who is entangled in a bad habit cannot have this hope (except in the case of extraordinary help). He can indeed, with the help of grace, overcome any temptations whatever; but considering the character of the human heart and the ordinary operation of divine grace, he will not overcome them, but exposes himself to manifest danger of sinning against the vow and of accumulating very many sacrileges.

How long a cleric must be free from a bad habit, so that safely, that is, with founded hope of preserving chastity in the future, he can approach sacred order, cannot be determined by a general rule, since it depends on diverse circumstances, namely on the intensity of the bad habit, on the greater or lesser diligence of employing means of amendment, on the danger of giving scandal to the faithful by external sins, etc. But this counsel must altogether be given, that at least for several (six) months he have amended the custom of sinning before he approaches sacred order.

¹ 1 Tim. 3:10.

² C. Nemo 12, d. 32.

³ Council of Trent, sess. 23, c. 13, De reform.

⁴ Ballerini-Palmieri; Berardi.

⁵ St. Alphonsus defends this opinion in the dissertation De clerico habituato in vitio turpi cupienti statim initiari in sacris, l. 6, n. 63-77.

⁶ Cf. Benedict XIV, De synodo, l. 11, c. 2, n. 18.

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.

To these pertain:

I. Penance and Prayer. 1. Let local Ordinaries take care: 1° that all clerics frequently wash away the stains of conscience by the sacrament of penance; 2° that the same daily devote themselves for some time to mental prayer, visit the Most Holy Sacrament, honor the Virgin Mother of God with the Marian rosary, and examine their conscience (can. 125).

2. All secular priests ought at least every third year to give themselves to spiritual exercises, for a time to be determined by their own Ordinary, in some pious or religious house designated by the same; nor is anyone to be exempted from them except in a particular case, for a just cause and by express permission of the same Ordinary (can. 126).

Pius XI, in the encyclical on spiritual exercises,¹ greatly commends to clerics a recollection to be made every month or at least every third month.

¹ 20 December 1929 (A. A. S. 1929, p. 689).

II. Obedience.¹ 1. All clerics, but especially presbyters, are held by a special obligation each to show reverence and obedience to his own Ordinary (can. 127).

2. As often and for as long as, in the judgment of one's own Ordinary, the necessity of the Church requires it, and unless a legitimate impediment excuses, clerics must undertake and faithfully fulfill the office which has been committed to them by the Bishop (can. 128).

Priests are held to obedience by a further special title, by force of the promise which they made on the occasion of ordination into the hands of the consecrating Bishop.

Exempt religious promise reverence and obedience anew by this promise to their own Ordinary Prelate, i.e. to their major religious Superior.

¹ Cf. Ned. Kath. Stemmen, 1910, p. 143; 1912, pp. 9, 67; 1914, pp. 100, 130.

III. Cultivation of the Sciences. 1. Clerics, after receiving the priesthood, should not interrupt studies, especially sacred studies; and in the sacred disciplines they should follow that solid doctrine handed down by the elders and commonly received by the Church, avoiding profane novelties of words and knowledge falsely so called (can. 129).

2. Once the course of studies has been completed, all priests, even if they have obtained a parochial or canonical benefice, unless they have been exempted by the local Ordinary for a just cause, are to undergo an examination every year for at least a full three years in the various disciplines of the sacred sciences, previously opportunely designated, according to the manner to be determined by the same Ordinary (can. 130, § 1). In the conferral of ecclesiastical offices and benefices, account should be taken of those who, other things being equal, have excelled more in the aforesaid examinations (can. 130, § 2). Add can. 2376: Priests who, neither dispensed by the Ordinary nor detained by a legitimate impediment, refuse to make the examination mentioned in can. 130, are to be compelled to it by the Ordinary with suitable penalties.

a) Priests who study in lay universities are not exempted from the examination of which there was discussion.¹ Nothing prevents, however, the threefold annual examination from being deferred until they have completed their studies.²

b) Religious pastors or religious vicars with care of souls are not bound to undergo that examination if they have undergone before the religious Superior or his delegate the examination of which there is discussion in can. 590.³ But in the case of negligence of religious Superiors concerning that examination, recourse is to be made to the Sacred Congregation of Religious.⁴

c) What has been said about religious pastors or religious vicars with care of souls is to be said by the same right about other religious.

3. In the episcopal city and in each vicariate forane, more often in the year, on days to be fixed beforehand by the judgment of the local Ordinary, meetings are to be held which they call collations or conferences, concerning moral and liturgical matters; to these can be added other exercises which the Ordinary has judged opportune for promoting the knowledge and piety of clerics (can. 131, § 1). If it is difficult to hold meetings, written solved questions are to be sent, according to norms to be established by the Ordinary (can. 131, § 2). Unless they have previously expressly obtained exemption from the local Ordinary, all secular priests are bound to attend the meeting, or, if the meeting is lacking, to send a written solution of the cases; and likewise religious, even exempt, who have care of souls, and also, if the collation is not held in their houses, other religious who have obtained the faculty of hearing confessions from the Ordinary (can. 131, § 3). Add can. 2377: Priests contumacious against the prescription of can. 131 are to be punished by the Ordinary according to his prudent judgment; but if they are religious confessors not bearing care of souls, he is to suspend them from hearing confessions of seculars.

¹ Sacred Consistorial Congregation, 30 April 1918 (A. A. S. 1918, p. 237).

² Vermeersch-Creusen, Epitome, n. 218.

³ Pontifical Commission, 14 July 1922 (A. A. S. 1922, p. 526).

⁴ Pontifical Commission, 14 July 1922 (A. A. S. 1922, p. 526).

IV. Chastity; concerning which several things must be noted.

1. The obligation of celibacy and perfect chastity. Clerics constituted in major orders are kept from marriage and are held by the obligation of preserving chastity in such a way that those sinning against it are also guilty of sacrilege, saving the prescription of can. 214, § 1¹ (can. 132, § 1). The aforesaid clerics attempt marriage not only illicitly but also invalidly (can. 1072). The obligation of perfect chastity also binds a married man who has been initiated into sacred order with apostolic dispensation.

The said obligation of preserving perfect chastity certainly arises from the solemn vow of chastity, which is plainly made tacitly in the reception of major order, from Boniface VIII,² from John XXII,³ and from the Constitution of Benedict XIV Inter praeteritos, § 41 (St. Alphonsus VI, 808). Likewise it arises from ecclesiastical law, insofar as perfect chastity regards external and mixed acts, so that a major cleric who had entirely been ignorant of or had excluded the vow of chastity would nevertheless, through an external violation of perfect chastity, sin both against chastity and against religion, namely because the ecclesiastical law was passed from the motive of this virtue; in a word, he would become guilty of carnal sacrilege (cf. can. 132, § 1). With respect to merely internal acts, the matter is deservedly called into doubt, since ecclesiastical law more probably cannot, and in fact is not presumed to, regard acts of this kind. Besides, note:

a) Married men, while the wife is living, are kept from receiving orders (can. 987, 2°). A married man who without apostolic dispensation has received major orders, even in good faith, is prohibited from the exercise of those orders (can. 132, § 3).

b) Minor clerics can indeed enter marriage, but unless the marriage was null by force or fear inflicted on them, they fall by the law itself from the clerical state (can. 132, § 2).

c) From can. 188, 5°, any offices of clerics are vacant by the fact itself and without any declaration, even if they have contracted only civil marriage, as they say.

d) With respect to the Eastern Church these things hold: 1° Clerics who contracted marriage before the subdiaconate can receive the remaining orders and continue married life, except Bishops, who are bound to bid farewell altogether to married life. 2° Clerics once initiated into the subdiaconate are prohibited from contracting marriage; not indeed by vow, but by prescription of the Church. Indeed, "the marriage would be not only illicit, but also invalid."

2. Means of preserving chastity; to which can. 133 refers: Clerics should take care not to keep with themselves or in any way frequent women concerning whom there could be suspicion (§ 1). It is lawful for them to cohabit only with those women in whom a natural bond allows nothing evil to be suspected, such as mother, sister, paternal aunt, and the like, or from whom proven honesty of morals joined with more advanced age removes every suspicion (§ 2). Judgment whether keeping or frequenting women in some particular case can be a scandal or bring danger of incontinence belongs to the local Ordinary, whose duty it is to prohibit clerics from this keeping or frequenting (§ 3). The contumacious are presumed concubinarians (§ 4).

3. Penal sanctions. a) Clerics constituted in minor orders, guilty of some delict against the sixth precept of the decalogue, are to be punished according to the gravity of the fault, even by dismissal from the clerical state if the circumstances of the delict advise this, besides the penalties threatened by can. 2357 for some delicts even against laymen (can. 2358).

b) Clerics in sacred orders, whether secular or religious, who are concubinarians, after warning has been issued uselessly, are to be compelled to withdraw from illicit cohabitation and to repair scandal, by suspension from divine things and by privation of the fruits of office, benefice, or dignity, with observance of cann. 2176-2181 concerning the manner of proceeding against concubinary clerics. If they have committed a delict against the sixth precept of the decalogue with minors below the age of sixteen years, or have committed adultery, defloration, bestiality, sodomy, pandering, or incest with blood relatives or relatives by affinity in the first degree, they are to be suspended, declared infamous, deprived of any office, benefice, dignity, or function which they have, and in graver cases deposed. If they have offended otherwise against the sixth precept of the decalogue, they are to be restrained with suitable penalties according to the gravity of the case, not excluding privation of office or benefice, especially if they have care of souls (can. 2359).

c) Clerics constituted in sacred orders, or regulars or nuns after a solemn vow of chastity, and likewise all who presume to contract marriage, even only civilly, with any of the aforesaid persons, incur excommunication latae sententiae simply reserved to the Apostolic See. Besides, clerics, if after warning they have not come to their senses within the time fixed beforehand by the Ordinary according to the diversity of circumstances, are to be degraded (can. 2388, § 1). Finally, as has already been noted, any offices of clerics are vacant by the fact itself and without any declaration, even if they have contracted only civil marriage, as they say (can. 188, 5°).

¹ Can. 214, § 1 establishes: A cleric who, compelled by grave fear, received a sacred order and afterwards, once the fear was removed, did not ratify that same ordination at least tacitly by the exercise of the order, while nevertheless willing by such an act to subject himself to clerical obligations, is to be reduced to the lay state by sentence of the judge, after the coercion and the lack of ratification have been legitimately proved, without any obligations of celibacy and canonical hours.

² C. unic., De voto, III, 15.

³ C. unic., Extravagantes, I, 6.

V. Common Life. The custom of common life among clerics is to be praised and recommended, and where it flourishes, it is to be preserved as far as can be done (can. 134).

VI. The Divine Office. Clerics constituted in major orders, except those mentioned in cann. 213 and 214, i.e. those who have been legitimately reduced to the lay state, are held by the obligation of reciting the canonical hours completely every day according to their proper and approved liturgical books (can. 135); concerning these, see Article III.

VII. External Gravity. To this pertain those things which regard ecclesiastical habit, hair and tonsure, and the rest of the apparatus of external things.

1. Ecclesiastical habit. a) All clerics are to wear decent ecclesiastical habit, according to legitimate customs of places and the prescriptions of the local Ordinary (can. 136, § 1).

b) A cleric who, with no necessity compelling, does not wear the prescribed habit sins generally gravely, as is clear from the gravity of the penalty soon to be reported, and also from the doctrine of the Council of Trent,¹ which charges with temerity and contempt of religion clerics who, valuing their proper dignity and clerical honor lightly, wear lay clothing even publicly. A cleric sins only lightly if, without a just cause, for a brief time, without a depraved end and without grave scandal, he puts off the habit. He does not sin if he does this even for a long time but with proportionate cause, for example to avoid danger of death or grave harm (St. Alphonsus VI, 825; Examen Ordinandorum, n. 49).

c) Minor clerics who by their own authority and without legitimate cause have put off ecclesiastical habit and tonsure, and when warned by the Ordinary have not amended themselves within a month, fall by the law itself from the clerical state (can. 136, § 3). Major clerics, after a month has passed uselessly from the warning, are to be suspended from the orders received; and if they have notoriously passed over to a kind of life alien to the clerical state, and, after being warned again, have not come to their senses, they are to be deposed after three months from this last warning (can. 2379). Any offices are vacant by the fact itself if a cleric by his own authority and without just cause has laid aside ecclesiastical habit, and, when warned by the Ordinary, has not resumed it within a month from receiving the warning (can. 188, 7°).

2. Hair and tonsure. The meaning of this crown is disputed; for they narrate that Blessed Peter was shaved on the head by pagans for the sake of mockery, and was shorn around in a circle, and that from this the use of wearing the crown was introduced into the Church. Others derive it from symbolic reasons, either insofar as this crown or shaving of the head, already among Greeks and Romans and so among monks and clerics, though with a higher meaning, would be a sign of servitude,² or as an imitation of the thorny crown of Our Lord, or on the contrary as a sign of reign or royal dignity (cf. St. Thomas, Supplementum, q. 40, a. 1).

a) All clerics are to wear the tonsure or clerical crown, unless the received customs of peoples bear otherwise, and are to use a simple style of hair (can. 136, § 1). It is said "unless the received customs of peoples bear otherwise," because the custom of wearing the crown has not been received in some regions, or at least has fallen into desuetude, which desuetude is now recognized in the Code itself. A wig can licitly be used from a just cause with the permission of the Bishop. But it is not lawful to celebrate with it except with the permission of the Supreme Pontiff, or of another endowed with the faculty of granting permission; a faculty of this kind has been given, for example, to Nuncios, provided true necessity is present (St. Alphonsus VI, 398).³

b) The gravity of the obligation of wearing the tonsure is not established, unless it is omitted from contempt, or someone constituted in sacred orders neglects it for a very long time, for example for many months (St. Alphonsus VI, 826; Homo Apostolicus, Appendix 3, n. 50).

c) With respect to the penal sanction, cf. can. 136, § 3, reported above.

Note. Formerly in the Western Church it was forbidden to wear a beard, except in a case of necessity, with the permission of the Bishop being added, or from privilege (as for Capuchins), or from particular usage.⁴ But the Code is silent concerning this matter; therefore a general prohibition is no longer had, although neither has positive license been given. Hence the Sacred Congregation of the Council, in the Wroclaw case,⁵ responded that the Code had not conceded the wearing of a beard, and that Ordinaries have the right to keep in force, each for his own diocese, the prohibition in force before the Code.

3. The rest of the apparatus of external things. Concerning the ring, can. 136, § 2 says: Let them not use a ring, unless this has been conceded to them by law or apostolic privilege. Thus, for example, from liturgical laws the ring belongs to Bishops because of spiritual marriage with the Church (can. 349, § 1, n. 2). In the Code it is also conceded to Abbots (can. 325) and Doctors (can. 1378); from privilege, sometimes to certain canons. Nevertheless, with respect to the wearing of a ring in Mass, can. 811, § 2 establishes: "(A priest about to celebrate Mass) should abstain ... from zucchetto and ring, unless he is a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, a Bishop, or a blessed Abbot, or unless an apostolic indult permits him the use of the same in celebrating Mass."

For the rest, attention must be paid to the general principles and obligations connatural to clerics, taken from the character of the clerical state itself (can. 124). Thus in general, luxury of every kind is always to be prohibited to clerics.⁶ Under this name come, for example, boasting and the use of perfumes, concerning which c. 1, causa 21, qu. 4; likewise c. 1, c. 21, q. 4: display and sumptuousness in furnishings, concerning which, among other things, Trent⁷ declares: "not only does [the Council] command that bishops be content with modest furnishings ..., but also that in the rest of the manner of life and the whole household, they take care that nothing appear which does not display simplicity, zeal for God, and contempt of vanities ... What has been said concerning Bishops, it determines that the same is to be observed, according to the condition of their grade, in all who hold any ecclesiastical benefices."

¹ Session 14, chapter 6, on reform.

² Vlaming, n. 514; Gasparri, I, n. 38.

³ Cf. Sacred Congregation of Rites, n. 2027, ad 5; Benedict XIV, De Synodo, book 11, c. 9.

⁴ Cf. response of the Nuncio of Munich, given on 4 May 1863 to the Archbishop of Munich.

⁵ 10 January 1920.

⁶ Cf. Trent, session 22, on reform, chapter 1.

⁷ Session 25, on reform, chapter 1.

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.”

38. • How great the internal holiness and external edification of clerics ought to be needs neither demonstration nor exposition. For the very idea alone of the clerical state and of the priesthood manifestly argues this. Therefore in very few words we shall declare that clerics ought to be pious, holy, and modest, both from the nature of their state and from Scripture, the Fathers, and the Councils.

1º 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 upon the faithful, to divine praises solemnly paid in the name of the Church, to instructing the Christian people about 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, with the Gospel as witness, they may be the salt of the earth and the light of the world. But they cannot be such unless they shine forth with distinguished and splendid holiness of morals. Not only the sublimity and excellence of the duties to be fulfilled, but even the garments with which the cleric is clothed, cry out that he must profess holiness. Hence St. Jerome says, Epistle 58: “The garment cries out, the state cries out, the profession cries out holiness of soul.” 2º From Scripture. Thus concerning the priests of the old law the Lord said, Lev. 21:6: “They shall be holy to their God, and shall not pollute his name: for they offer the incense of the Lord and the loaves of their God, and therefore they shall be holy.” Likewise in Isa. 52:12 it is said: “Be cleansed, you who carry the vessels of the Lord.” But if such holiness of life was required in priests who offered oxen and sheep and other animals to God, what must be required in those who sacrifice the divine Lamb himself? And if such cleanness was required in those who carried the vessels of the Lord, what purity of soul must be required in those who carry the Lord himself in their hands? Read also St. Paul to Titus, Timothy, etc.

3º From the Fathers. Thus St. Chrysostom, hom. 10 on the First Epistle to Timothy: “The priest ought to have an immaculate life, so that all may look upon him as upon some excellent example; for therefore God chose us, that we may be as luminaries and teachers of the rest, and live as Angels on earth.” St. Thomas teaches that greater holiness is required in a priest than in a simple religious, saying, 2.2, q. 184, art. 8: “Through Sacred Order someone is deputed to the most worthy ministries, by which Christ himself is served in the ministry of the Altar; therefore for this there is required greater interior holiness than the state of Religion also requires” ¹. And in the Supplement, q. 35, art. 4: “For the fitting execution of Orders, excellent goodness is not sufficient; but just as those who receive Order are constituted above the people by the grade of Order, so also they should be higher by merit of holiness.”

¹ ** In this place St. Thomas compares a priest with a lay religious, and merely contends that a priest, as to dignity, excels a lay religious because of the preeminence of Order.

4º From the Councils. Innumerable things are found in Canon Law about the holiness of clerics, which are also confirmed by very many Councils. But it is enough to report what the Council of Trent has by solemn Decree, sess. 22, ch. 1, De Reformat.: “It is altogether fitting that clerics called into the portion of the Lord so compose their whole life and morals that in habit, gesture, walk, speech, and all other things they bear before them nothing except what is grave, moderate, and full of religion.”

— Since, especially today, orders are not received without some intention and hope of priesthood, we must be solicitous about vocation to the sacerdotal state alone. Concerning this, these few things are noted.

1. By the will by which Christ instituted in His Church the perpetual Sacrifice and the perpetual dispensation of the sacraments, several of which can be conferred only by sacred ministers, by the same will He also willed to adorn the Church with an abundance of priests who would offer that Sacrifice and dispense these sacraments. And it pertains to divine Providence efficaciously to provide that the Church not lack necessary ministers.

Therefore it cannot be doubted that many are called to the priesthood, insofar as they receive efficacious graces for embracing and exercising that state holily.

But while the evangelical counsels of themselves are proposed to all, on the contrary it is certain that the sacerdotal state is not proposed to all, since priests pertain to the hierarchy which God Himself willed to be distinct from the people. Besides this, while a religious, as such, pursues his own proper sanctity, the sacerdotal state is referred not so much to the private good of someone as to the common good of the Christian republic. No one becomes a priest for himself.

2. Nor does someone become a priest by his own will alone.

On the contrary, in Sacred Scripture and in the Council of Trent the action of God calling and of the ecclesiastical Superior is placed directly. "Nor does anyone take honor to himself, but he who is called by God, as Aaron was" (Epistle to the Hebrews 5:4). "Impose hands hastily on no one." Thus the Apostle admonishes his disciple in 1 Timothy 5:22. And the Council of Trent, after in sess. 23, cap. 4, it had recalled that not all can aspire to the hierarchy, in can. 7 strikes with anathema him who says that "those who are neither duly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical and canonical power, but come from elsewhere, are legitimate ministers of the word and of the sacraments." Again, however, it is within the power, at least of the Supreme Pontiff⁽¹⁾, that because of the necessity of the Church he can command a faithful man to ascend to the sacerdotal state. Therefore:

3. To the question, who are called to the sacerdotal state, we judge that this must briefly be answered thus:

a) by the will of God consequent upon the external assumption itself, all those who have been duly assumed by the Church, to whom the selection of priests has been committed, are called. Therefore the Catechism of the Council of Trent, on the cited place of the Epistle to the Hebrews, says: "They are said to be called by God who are called by the legitimate ministers of the Church." And in the letter of July 2, 1912, the Cardinal Secretary of State reported that the judgment of the Commission of Cardinals had been approved by the Supreme Pontiff, by which the work of Canon Lahitton, La vocation sacerdotale, is said to be worthy of distinguished praise in that part in which it establishes "1. That no one ever has any right to ordination antecedently to the free election of the bishop."

b) But if you ask who are called by the antecedent will of divine good pleasure, that is, who please God when they aspire to that state, in vain and without valid argument will you demand some special instinct or quasi-internal speech of God calling; but it is lawful for any suitable person to seek this state with a sincere intention of executing the obligations of the same state. Nor in this matter is it lawful or expedient for the confessor himself to assume other parts than those of a prudent counselor, lest the one ordained, with danger of unhappy and sometimes scandalous inconstancy, seem to himself to have undertaken grave obligations by another's command. But with St. Th., 2, 2, q. 189, art. 1, ad 3, and St. Alph., l. 6, n. 802, in order that someone be suitable, besides gifts of talent and suitable knowledge, we require the present sanctity of life itself. For sacred orders are received by those who do not have well-chastened morals with too much detriment to themselves and danger to the Church, and too much against its mind, for these men to be able of themselves to ascend to the priesthood without grave guilt (cf. what was written above, n. 34). But we understand sincere intention as conceived by spontaneous will. For those who seek spiritual offices from a human intention, and those who receive the same unwillingly, moved by necessity or by the authority or consideration of parents, can be judged equally fragile and dangerous to the Church. But by these notes of suitability and right intention true vocation is composed.

To the point, the work of Lahitton mentioned above was also praised by the Commission, with the Pontiff approving, insofar as it establishes: "2. That the condition which must be attended to on the part of the one to be ordained, which is called sacerdotal vocation, consists by no means, at least necessarily and by ordinary law, in some internal aspiration of the subject or invitation of the Holy Spirit for entering the priesthood; 3. but, on the contrary, nothing more is required in the one to be ordained, so that he may be duly called by the bishop, than a right intention together with suitability, placed in those gifts of grace and nature, and proved by that probity of life and sufficiency of doctrine, which make a founded hope that he will rightly be able to undertake the duties of the priesthood and holily to observe its obligations." Cf. Periodica, VI, 262, and our little work: De vocatione religiosa et sacerdotali.

⁽¹⁾ The Code, c. 973, §2, denies that a cleric of inferior grade can be compelled by the bishop to receive superior orders. Concerning the prior law, cf. Gasparri, De sacra ordinatione, I, 638, 639.

"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

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.

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."

739. The qualities and endowments required in one to be ordained are usually enumerated: divine vocation, legitimate age, due knowledge, congruous morals, and, for the major orders, a title of support.

1. Divine vocation, as is intimated in Heb. V, 4 and John XV, 16. For the ordained man is mediator between men and God, by whom therefore he ought to be accepted; he is dispenser of the mysteries of God, whence he must be legitimately deputed by Him.

Its signs are suitability for the clerical state and priesthood from the gifts of grace and nature, right intention or a free, firm, and constant will of assuming and fulfilling the obligations of the state, and for the most part a supernatural inclination or impulse of grace, although by ordinary law this is not necessary. These signs constitute an internal vocation and in first act; in second act it is formally conferred and externally completed by the bishop calling in the name of God.²

² Cf. Lahitton, La vocation sacerdotale; Hurtaud, La vocation au sacerdoce; Mulders, La vocation au sacerdoce.

2. Canonical age, as is clear from the Council of Trent, sess. 23, de ref., c. 12, and from can. 974, 3 and 975.

For tonsure and minor orders no age is directly determined, but only indirectly insofar as other qualities are required, such as certain knowledge. For major orders can. 975 establishes: "Let the subdiaconate not be conferred before the completed twenty-first year; the diaconate before the completed twenty-second; the presbyterate before the completed twenty-fourth"; for the episcopate the completed thirtieth year is required from can. 331, 2. These are to be understood of a civil year and are to be understood strictly, so that he cannot be ordained without dispensation who lacks only a few hours.

Dispensation concerning age pertains to the Holy See; it dispenses very rarely for the subdiaconate, rarely for the diaconate, more often for the presbyterate even in the defect of one and a half years. It is accustomed to delegate to bishops the faculty of dispensing in the defect of one year, but only for receiving the priesthood.

3. Due knowledge, as is clear from the Council of Trent, sess. 23, de ref., cc. 13-14, and from can. 974, 4, by which the one to be ordained should know "so much... as suffices for him to be directed in the act of that order..., more or less according as his office extends itself to more or fewer things; namely, that those who are set over others, receiving care of souls, should know those things which pertain to the doctrine of faith and morals, and that others should know those things which look to the execution of their order" (q. 36, a. 2).

From can. 976: "1. Let no one, whether secular or religious, be promoted to first tonsure before the theological course has been begun. 2. Let the subdiaconate not be conferred except as the third year of the theological course is ending; the diaconate except when the fourth year has been begun; the presbyterate except after the middle of the same fourth year. 3. The theological course must have been completed not privately, but in schools established for this according to the plan of studies determined in the law, can. 1365."

From can. 331, 5, a bishop must possess a doctorate or at least a licentiate in sacred theology or canon law from an athenaeum or institute of studies approved by the Holy See, or be truly skilled in the same disciplines; but if he belongs to some religion, he must have from his major superiors either a similar title or at least testimony of true expertise.

4. Morals congruous to the order to be received, which should become known from probity of life, so that it can prudently be expected that the one to be ordained will exercise the order worthily and will be a worthy priest (can. 974, 2 and 973).

For this reason it is established in law: a) Let priests, especially pastors, take pains that boys who show indications of an ecclesiastical vocation be kept by particular cares from the contagions of the world, be formed to piety, be imbued with the first studies of letters, and that the germ of divine vocation in them be fostered (can. 1353).

b) Care is to be taken that those aspiring to sacred orders be received into the Seminary from tender years; but all are bound to remain there at least for the whole course of sacred theology, unless the Ordinary in particular cases, for a grave cause, his conscience being burdened, has dispensed (can. 972, § 1).

c) Those who aspire to orders and legitimately remain outside the Seminary are to be commended to a pious and suitable priest, who watches over them and forms them to piety (ibid., § 2).

5. A title of support is a surety by which provision is made for the one to be ordained concerning honest and perpetual support (can. 979, § 2). It is required for major orders from the Council of Trent, sess. 23, de ref., c. 2, and from can. 974, 7, both lest clerics be forced to practice a base art or to beg, and that they may more freely devote themselves to spiritual things.

The title can be various.

A. For secular clerics:

1. The title of a canonical benefice (can. 979, § 1), which, namely, has actually been obtained and peacefully possessed.

2. If this is lacking, the title of patrimony or pension (ibid.), whose quantity and nature, so that it may be truly sufficient, must be defined by the statutes or norms of the Ordinary (ibid., § 2).

3. If the customary titles are lacking, the title of service of the diocese can supply, or also of the mission for places subject to the S. C. de Prop. Fide, yet in such a way that the one to be ordained devotes himself by oath to perpetual service of the diocese or mission (can. 981, § 1): entrance into religion is not excluded by the oath in a diocese, but is excluded in missions, without permission of the Holy See.

B. For religious:

1. The title of poverty, or of solemn religious profession, for regulars, who namely have emitted solemn vows (can. 982, § 1).

2. For religious of perpetual simple vows, the title of common table or of the congregation or another title, according to the norm of the constitutions (can. 982, § 2).

Let it be noted: a) He who loses the title is not thereby suspended, but must provide another for himself, unless, in the judgment of the bishop, provision has otherwise been made for his congruous support (can. 980, § 1).

b) The bishop who knowingly ordains or permits to be ordained a subject without a canonical title, himself and his successor must furnish necessary sustenance to the same needy man, until provision has otherwise been made for congruous support (ibid., § 2).

c) But if a bishop ordained someone without title with the agreement that the ordained man would not ask sustenance from him, this agreement would lack all force (ibid., § 3).

d) An insufficient title of benefice can be supplied by patrimony and conversely, as the S. C. C. resolved, as Benedict XIV has it, Quaest. can. 46.

e) The resignation of a benefice, by whose title the cleric was ordained, is void unless express mention is made that the cleric had been promoted by its title, and that, with the consent of the Ordinary, he substituted another title for it (can. 1485).

f) Religious with temporary vows, as regards the title of ordination, are ruled by the law of seculars (can. 982, § 3).

g) Religious who depart must seek another title for themselves, and meanwhile, until they have found a benevolent receiving bishop, or the Apostolic See has otherwise provided, they cannot exercise sacred orders outside religion (can. 641).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IT IS CERTAIN that they are in the state of perfection. It is proved from the outstanding titles given to the Bishop.

IT IS PROVED by D. Bonaventure, first in the Apology for the Poor, chapter 3, first response, at the end, from D. Dionysius, On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chapter 1, where he says: As he who says Hierarchy says summarily the whole array of sacred things, so in saying Hierarchy he points to that which abides in God, and to the Divine man, in whom every Hierarchy is perfected. Hence the same Saint, in chapters 5 and 6, calls Bishops perfecters, even with respect to religious, as Valentia also notes, disputation 10, question 2, point 4.

NEXT he brings forward D. Jerome, epistle 128 to Fabiola: So great should be the knowledge and erudition of the Pontiff of God, that his steps and movements and all his utterances may be vocal; let him conceive truth in his mind, and resound with it in all his habit and adornment, so that whatever he does, whatever he says, may be the doctrine of the Apostles.

HE OBSERVES, however, with D. Jerome, epistle 85 to Oceanus, that the Bishop is indeed not held to excel in all things — otherwise he could not be a Bishop unless he were a Virgin — but it is fitting that he excel in those things which pertain to the office of feeding the flock. Therefore St. Jerome says: Let him be chosen as future Pastor of the Church in comparison with whom the subject people may deservedly be called a flock.

HE BRINGS FORWARD also D. Gregory, part 2 of the Pastoral Rule, chapter 1, where he says: The action of the Prelate ought to precede the action of the people by as much as the life of the Shepherd is wont to differ from the flock: he cites the same in the Pharetra in the place quoted. Whereupon D. Gregory infers: It is not fitting to approach the state of prelacy unless one be perfect: powerful in Virtues, let him come to govern even when compelled; empty of Virtues, let him not approach even when compelled.

IT IS PROVED also by D. Bonaventure, book 1 of the Pharetra, chapter 19, from the perfections which the holy Fathers require in Bishops.

D. GREGORY, in the Registrum, book 5, chapter 129: When the Bishop changes his mind together with his place: Let him not believe that reading alone and prayer suffice him, so that, withdrawn from others, he may sit studying and bear no fruit from his hand, but let him have a generous hand, let him meet the necessity of the suffering, let him consider another's poverty his own: because if he has this not, he holds the name of Bishop in vain.

THE SAME, book 8, chapter 119: Let your fraternity hasten to present itself with its whole mind humble in prosperity, and, when adversities come, upright with justice, friendly to the good, opposed to the perverse. Pressing never the face of anyone speaking the truth for it; devoting himself to works of mercy according to the possibilities of his substance, and desiring to be able to devote himself to them even beyond; compassionating the weak, rejoicing with the well-disposed, reckoning the losses of others as his own, exulting over the joys of others as over his own, vehement in correcting vices, soothing the spirit of his hearers in cherishing virtues: in anger holding judgment without anger: in tranquillity not abandoning the sentence of his severity.

THE SAME, part 2 of the Pastoral Rule, chapter 1: The action of the Prelate ought to transcend the action of the people by as much as the life of the Shepherd is wont to differ from the flock. For he must diligently study to measure himself, under how great a necessity of uprightness he is held to be bound, under whose care the people is called a flock.

D. ISIDORE, book 2 On Ecclesiastical Offices, chapter 5: To the Bishop, when he is consecrated, a staff is given, that by his judgment he may either rule the subject people, or correct it, or sustain the infirmities of the weak.

D. AUGUSTINE, in the Dialogue, question 65, to Orosius: Let him know that he is not a Bishop who desires to preside, not to profit.

The same, book 19 On the City of God, chapter 19: Bishop is a name of work, not of honor: for episcopos in Greek we may say in Latin superintendere, to superintend, that he may understand that he is not a Bishop who has loved to preside, not to profit.

D. AMBROSE, On the Dignity of Priests, chapter 3: As the episcopal grade is higher than all others, so, if it slips through negligence, its fall is more grievous.

D. JEROME, on chapter 3 of Sophonias: He who desires a bishopric desires a good work; see what he said: work, not dignity. But if he has looked only at dignity, he will quickly fall.

D. BERNARD, epistle 42: In all things, after the example of the Apostle, let your ministry be honorable — ministry, I say, not lordship: him indeed you shall honor, not yourselves. For he who seeks his own desires himself to be honored, not the ministry. But you shall honor it not by the finery of garments, not by the ostentation of horses, not by spacious buildings, but by adorned morals, spiritual pursuits, and good works.

THE SAME, much earlier in the same place: In all his acts or words let the Bishop seek nothing of his own, but only either the honor of God, or the salvation of his neighbors, or both.

THE SAME, book 4 On Consideration: Holiness befits the house of a Bishop, modesty befits it, honesty, and discipline of morals.

IT IS PROVED also by the S. Doctor, part 2 of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, cited chapter, where he compares Bishops to the celestial Dominations, which, as D. Dionysius says, On the Celestial Hierarchy, chapter 3, just as they are elevated above the other inferior choirs, so they elevate them to God. For Bishops are destined to the lofty ministries of ruling peoples toward the supreme end, of entering the Holy of Holies as mediators between God and us, of consecrating Priests, of anointing with chrism, nay even of making the Chrism and the holy Oil, of applying the keys, of judging, of excommunicating rebels, of feeding the sheep with doctrine, and of directing them, so that they do not refuse to give their soul for them. Which gifts, and others, demand heroic CHARITY; for no one has greater CHARITY than to lay down his life for his friends. Hence Zacharias, cited chapter 6, speaking of the ancient Pontiff, who prefigures our Bishops, says: He shall sit, and shall rule, and shall be a priest upon his throne; and there shall be a counsel of peace between them, and the crowns shall be for a memorial in the temple of the Lord.

Therefore Peter, 1 Peter chapter 5: Feed the flock of God which is among you, etc., neither as domineering over the clergy, but being made a pattern of the flock from the heart.

The S. Doctor shows the same from the epistles of Paul to Timothy and Titus, in which he prescribes the norm of sanctity by which Bishops, shining forth most splendidly, may, as it were exemplars, be able to instruct and correct others, and be censors of vices more by life than by words.

It is proved also by the S. Doctor, sermon 22 of the Hexaëmeron, before the middle, because Bishops are destined not only for the most high sacrifice, which is not granted to Kings, whence they even excel them in this, as D. Bernard says, sermon on the Lord's Supper, cited by D. Bonaventure, part 2 On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chapter 1, but also to be anointed with Chrism, and to distribute ordinations, and to give the Holy Spirit, which was granted to the Apostles alone. Wherefore they succeed the Apostles in high dignity, and accordingly they are held to emulate Apostolic sanctity. Therefore the Bishop must be so holy as to be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince those who contradict, as is said in Titus 1. Therefore Bishops ought to be perfect, and among them the Supreme Pontiff most perfect. This from S. Bonaventure, in the place cited.

You will object, first: To aspire to the state of perfection is worthy of praise; but to aspire to a bishopric is not praiseworthy: therefore it is not the state of perfection.

The S. Doctor answers, in the cited place in the Pharetra, from D. Jerome: that to desire a bishopric is to desire a good work, so long as the work is desired, not the eminence of dignity.

You will object, secondly: For perfection poverty is required, which is not in a Bishop.

The S. Doctor answers, in the Apology for the Poor, in the cited place, that poverty is not necessary to every perfect man, but that in some riches are also required, provided he be detached in heart from covetousness. For Bishops are destined for the governance of the people, for the sustentation of the poor and of the clergy, and other splendid expenditures, and therefore they ought to have revenues. The S. Doctor pursues this at length in the Apology for the Poor, third response, chapter 2, at the end.

Therefore in the Pharetra, in the cited place, he brings forward that saying of D. Augustine, sermon 52 to the Fathers in the desert: It is not for a Bishop to keep gold and to withdraw his hand from the beggar.

From what has been said you have whence Bishops contract the obligation of perfection.

It is answered, first, that it arises from the office of feeding the flock by word and example, as the S. Doctor pursues at length above.

It is answered, secondly, that it arises also from fidelity, for the Bishop is the Spouse of the Church, Can. licet, and Can. inter among the extracts On the translation of Bishops, and Can. sicut cui, question 7, question 1, as Valentia says, point 4: for he ought to be holy, that he may exercise the holy wedlock, seeking the things that are above for himself and for others. That this is signified by the sandals of Bishops, opened above, D. Bonaventure says, on Psalm 119.

I. The vocation of which the discourse now is can be described as being an act of supernatural providence, by which God chooses these men rather than those, and prepares them with endowments consonant with the sacred offices to be performed. The priestly state is supernatural, for which no one is fit by his own industry and labour; and therefore a supernatural providence is necessary, which may direct and confer helps consonant with so great a state. Those whom God calls to this state, he prepares with opportune endowments.

II. The necessity of that divine vocation the holy Scriptures manifest. Christ the Lord, who was made the exemplar to be imitated by us, was foreordained a priest according to the order of Melchisedech, as is had in Psalm 109. He came not of himself, but sent by the Father, that he might be for us a Pontiff, says St. Paul, Hebrews 7, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens. Wherefore he himself cried out in the temple, teaching: I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true. John 7. He, being sent by his Father, called the Apostles to the same priesthood; he called unto him whom he would himself. Mark 3. When the Apostles had to substitute one who should fill the place of Judas, they implored from God signs by which the one to be elected might be manifested: Show whether of these two thou hast chosen. Acts 1. Those who dare, not being called, to occupy this dignity, are thus disapproved by Christ: Amen, amen I say to you, he that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber. John 10. He subjoins in the same place: By me, if any man enter in, he shall be saved. Lastly St. Paul, Hebrews 5, says: Neither doth any man take the honour to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was. So Christ also did not glorify himself, that he might be made a high priest: but he that said unto him: Thou art my Son.

III. The things which hitherto have been said out of the holy Scriptures could be confirmed by the examples of the holy Fathers. The more they shone with holiness, the more strongly did they either refuse ordination or, being expressly called, gave assent. Innumerable examples could I adduce, which the brevity set before me does not suffer.

IV. The divine vocation is as it were the fount and root of the graces and gifts which confer strength equal to the sustaining. The vocation being taken away, the necessary safeguards are lacking; and it being posited, all things succeed prosperously. Those who, God not calling, but either the dignity of splendour alluring or the little gain of revenues impelling, receive sacred Orders, cannot please God. Would the services of servants be pleasing to their masters which were performed against their will? Let us hear Christ himself speaking, Matthew 15: Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Again John 15: Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, he will take away. Those words are to be noted, in me. It is not enough to bear fruit. It must be seen whether they be in God: in me. Lastly Matthew 7: Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.

V. Who, meditating these oracles, O Christ Jesus, does not tremble in all his limbs? Who does not see how tremendous and fearful is the deliberation of choosing thy sheep, without imploring the mercy of God and the grace of vocation? What then, you will say, are so many priests, so many pastors to be reckoned, who, no prayer being sent before, no examination of vocation being made, undertook that state? Will they therefore sow in another's field, whence they cannot reap? Do they run in vain, since they are not sent by God? Ought they to forsake this state? If the state can be forsaken, as the government of souls, without doubt it must be laid down when grave signs occur that the vocation to such a state was lacking, and that the gifts of vocation are lacking. For the rest, the secret of the divine vocation lies hidden from us, and is open to God alone. Saul was called, Judas was called; both were disapproved. The beginnings of others' vocation appeared evil to men; but the pursuit was good, the outcome holy. Of Catholics few are chosen; many are called. No one nevertheless ought to despair of his own salvation. But all ought to busy themselves with pious prayers and laborious works, that they may make their own vocation certain and holy. No one can forsake his own state, from which he cannot recede without sin.

VI. Nor should you object that the doctrine given turns many away from the religious state: since I reply, Would that it were true, that it turned away very many of those who enter in troops not through the door, but otherwise, as thieves and robbers. For it is better (says the Fourth Lateran Council) chiefly in the ordination of priests, to have a few good than many bad. Here let those consider again who, that they may fill Churches, monasteries, convents, and colleges, under pretext of the necessity of propagating offspring and of filling their seats, admit indiscriminately the lame, the humpbacked, the blind, and the dissolute. Here the propagation is heavenly, spiritual, and divine. It ought to proceed from God, not from human industry.

VII. QUESTION I. What are the signs of a vocation to the religious and priestly state? ANSWER. Those are not called to sacred Orders whom defects of body and of mind render unfit for performing the sacred ministries. Defects of body are plain to all. Of defects of mind some are ambiguous, others probable, others almost certain. Of defects of mind some are as it were implanted by nature, and are called defects and vices of nature: as a fierce spirit, a savage or stern disposition, or a soft, flowing character unstable to every wind; a blunt, leaden, stupid talent, altogether inept for acquiring the necessary sciences. Others are moral and voluntary, as anger, pride, ambition, and vicious habits. Those who labour under vices of nature are not to be promoted to the sacred duties. Shall priests of a fierce disposition allure the flock? Shall pastors of leaden and blunt talent pour forth the divine eloquences upon the people? If they be of a soft and flowing character and an effeminate nature, they lack evangelical fortitude, by which they may repel ravening wolves and press down the proud. But at their sides, they say, sit fit ministers, by whose help they direct the flock. O men most wretched in their own ways! Are pastors therefore made for the state, and ministers for the doctrine? And the ministers lack the grace of vocation, and lack the abundance of heavenly gifts: since these have been intruded for the most part not by God calling, but by human artifice pandering. It is a most pernicious illusion to wish to compensate the ineptitude of a pastor by the skill of ministers.

VIII. Moral defects of mind, because voluntary, can be corrected, chiefly when the vocation is true. A different judgment is to be formed of these and of incurable vices of nature. For if a keen talent, an excellent disposition, fortitude of mind, and the other endowments of nature be present, crimes and vices can be amended. Let a prudent director prescribe to penitents an exercise of piety; let him scatter the seeds of virtues; and from the fruits he will gather whether the plant is to be transferred into the heavenly garden.

IX. The signs of a divine vocation in a youth to be promoted to sacred Orders are: 1. If the youth be torn away from the delights of the world and severed from the enticements of the world; 2. If he feel himself kindled not for a private life to be led with himself, but for service and the salvation of his neighbour, and for fulfilling the work of God; 3. If he be affected with a study of prayer, that by its help he may be able to explore the divine will: for prayer is a commerce with God, and joins the soul to him, and asks the necessary gifts; 4. An ardent desire of attaining sacred Orders. This sign nevertheless is frequently false, as proceeding from a cupidity of gaining bread, or of obtaining a dignity, not from a love of serving God. For very many seek the clerical state because they are incited to it by their parents, because they hope thence to unburden their family. Others, pressed by the want of family means, refuse to labour with their own hands, as the Apostle Paul did, to dig and to harrow; and they consider the clerical state as it were an art and profession by which without labour and sweat they can conveniently attain food and clothing. Wherefore the signs recounted are ambiguous, and it will be the part of a prudent director to detect, according to the diversity of circumstances, which is a true and which a painted vocation. But the matter has come to such a pitch of evils that very many, no counsel being sent before, assume a state out of their own inclination, and not all bishops are vigilant in exploring the vocation of those to be ordained.

X. QUESTION II. Is it lawful for clerics to seek ecclesiastical dignities and the government of souls? ANSWER. Those who seek the government of souls — namely the episcopate, a parish, and so forth — are either foolish or proud. St. Thomas turns over this question at large, II-II, q. 185, art. 1, where he distinguishes three things: 1. There is the office, which regards the worship of God and the utility of the neighbour; 2. There is the loftiness of grade, by force of which a pastor rules over subjects; 3. There are the revenues and the service of subjects. The desire of labouring and working in the vineyard of the Lord is good; but as it is borne toward dignities, honours, grades, and temporal emoluments, it is vain and ambitious. Very many say: I desire to avoid idleness, and to attain an occupation of labouring and working in the vineyard of the Lord. Under this mask iniquity lies to itself, and cupidity lurks, and ambition creeps. If a man desire the episcopate, he desireth a good work, says Paul: Jerome subjoins: a work, not a dignity; a labour, not delights, by which humility may decrease, not swell with loftiness. If these men truly wished to labour in the vineyard of the Church, is it not open to all? Let them visit the hospices and console the sick; let them go to the country districts and the mountains; let them instruct the rude, teach the ignorant, unteach the erring, succour the poor, preach the word of God. Let them go to the bishop and say: Behold me, send me. What? We wish to send, not to be sent; to command, not to obey; to be served, not to serve; to be exalted, not to exalt. This assuredly is the legitimate and genuine answer.

XI. What of those who play the courtier and solicit patrons, that they may procure for themselves a bishopric or a parish; who serve matrons themselves, that they may bind their lovers to intercede and to procure a grade and a dignity? These are the vilest bondmen of ambition, thieves and robbers, who, being unable to enter through the door, take care that ladders be applied to the windows, that they may be able to ascend, and study to be helped and raised up by any men and women whatsoever. They prate that in this age all things are so distributed that, unless human industry and offices and procurations be employed, all lie prostrate, and no one is promoted. I distinguish. That no one is promoted without offices and procurations: by man, I concede; by God, I deny. Tell me: do you wish to be promoted by man or by God? By God, you say. Why then do you prate that human industry is necessary? Is God ignorant of your endowments and your aptitude? Or if he shall have judged you fit, does he not dispose by his infallible providence that you be set over the Church to be governed? You press that God does not work miracles without necessity, and does not forbid but command human industry. Human industry indeed God requires in all those things which depend upon man, otherwise in those which he has reserved to himself. The vocation to the government of the Christian Church is the work of God alone. Do not the sacred canons themselves forbid offices and procurations of this kind? But why do we pour forth more words? Unless those who preside reject all those whom they shall know to prepare for themselves a way to grades and dignities of the Church by offices and ambition, our labour is in vain. Truth is of itself clear. It has need of execution, not of persuasion.

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.

If any one is expected to be all things to all men it certainly is the priest. The priest is there for the people’s sake, and he must be able to mingle and to talk with them. He must know also how to mix with those of refined forms, in order to gain an influence in their circles for the interests of religion. This ability must be aimed at in the priest’s training. The Council of Trent (sess. 22) has impressed upon priests the sacred duty that in their garb and demeanor, their manner and conversation, as in their whole bearing and actions, they should be dignified. And even Holy Writ, that sober book of wisdom, has not disdained, in ancient times already, to give rules of demeanor, as for instance in the following passages: Prov. xvii, 24; xviii, 13; Ecli. xix, 26, 27; xx, 7, 8; xxi, 23, 26, 27, 29; xxxi, 12; xxxii, 10-13, etc.

No doubt remains therefore that upon polished demeanor and pleasing ways great stress is to be laid by the priest. If he lacks these he can not be surprised if he meets with lack of regard, or is even avoided. No man’s ways are more closely watched than the priest’s (Compare I Cor. iv, 9). It must be obvious, also, that it is polish of deportment which opens to the priest the door of cultured society, where he can gain not only personal regard for himself, but also esteem for the priesthood in general. Of course the priest’s polished forms must never degenerate into affectation, and never must the priest in his worldly deportment in the least degree forget or compromise his priestly dignity. He should bear himself, frankly and unostentatiously, as a college bred man, in speech and manner, and should demonstrate that he is not only well versed in the sciences but that he also has the tact and well bred forms required in polite society and in the intercourse with persons of rank.

Virtue and piety are of themselves precious pearls, and if set in amiableness and pleasant demeanor their value will be enhanced and will invite imitation. There are many people who by our unaffectedness, coupled with reserve and ennobled by modesty, may be divorced from their prejudices against virtue and incited with a desire for that which formerly was to them unattractive and somber. Only in this way will the priest succeed in making himself beloved, as of God so also of man, such as the Holy Spirit in Ecclesiasticus xlv, 1, says in praise of the leader of the people: Beloved of God and men. With this ideal attained, and if the clergyman has by well bred ways gained esteem and respect in social circles, it will be much easier to gain friendly footing with families of refinement and thus exercise a good influence also in those circles.

This matter receives usually small notice, but wrongly so. If we glance at the model given us in the life and doctrine of Christ, the right appreciation for this consequential matter can not be lacking. In this connection the following passages in the New Testament should also be compared: Phil. iv, 5, 8; Rom. xii, 10, 13, 15, 18; xiii, 7; Luke xiv, 8-11; xxii, 26; Matth. v, 39-42; x, 16; xi, 29; xx, 27, 28.

The priest’s life must be fashioned in every respect after Christ, the High Priest, who in all His poverty did not forego nobility of birth, and in all His humility took with dignity His part as true man among men; surely our divine Teacher did not see in these qualities any danger of lessening the fruits of His activity, or of suffering in genuine popularity.

Let us draw briefly the conclusion: We must earnestly endeavor to imitate the example of the incarnate God, and in very truth “become all things to all men” (I Cor. ix, 22).

Jos. M.