Mass stipends

Finally, priests are bound in justice to say Mass for the intention of those from whom they have received a stipend for the purpose. The stipend is not the price of the Mass, for this cannot be bought and sold without committing the grave sin of simony. The stipend is given to provide for the support of the priest, who in return undertakes to say Mass for the giver of the stipend. In the early Church the faithful used to bring bread and wine to the priests, who selected from what was offered enough for the sacrifice, and reserved the rest for their support. This was found to be inconvenient, and in course of time the faithful who wished Mass to be offered for their intention contributed a sum of money for the support of the priest. This method, after all, is in substance what St Paul alludes to: “ Know you not that they who work in the holy place eat the things that are of the holy place; and they that serve the altar partake with the altar ?”¹ Simony may, indeed, be committed in transactions concerned with the Mass and stipends, but such sordid practices should not be presumed to be of ordinary occurrence (Can. 824).

Although a priest who accepts a stipend for a Mass does not sell the Mass, yet he enters into a strict contract with the giver of the stipend, and binds himself in justice to apply the Mass for his intention. He will, therefore, commit a grave sin against justice if he fail to fulfil his obligation, and he must restore the stipend which he received, but which he has no title to keep. Not only is the priest who has accepted a stipend bound in justice to say a Mass, but justice also requires that he should observe all the conditions of the contract into which he entered concerning the quality of the Mass, the place, and the time of celebration.

The law of the Church on the matter may be stated as follows: According to the received and approved custom and practice of the Church, it is lawful for any priest who says and applies Mass to receive an alms or stipend for it.

But whenever a priest says Mass more than once in the day, if he has applied one Mass by a title of justice, except on Christmas Day, he cannot receive a stipend for another Mass on the same day, but he may receive some compensation due for some extrinsic reason.

It is never allowed to apply Mass for the intention of someone who will offer a stipend and ask for the application of a Mass but has not yet done so, and retain a stipend given afterwards for a Mass said beforehand. Nor is it allowed to receive a stipend for a Mass which is due in justice and applied by another title. Nor to receive a double stipend for the application of the same Mass. Nor to receive one stipend for the mere celebration of Mass, and another for the application of the same Mass, unless it is certain that one stipend was offered for the mere celebration of the Mass without its application.

Those are called manual stipends which are offered for Masses by the faithful, as it were, out of hand, whether in order to satisfy their own devotion or to fulfil an obligation imposed on them by the will of a testator even in perpetuity.

The stipends of funded Masses are said to be like manual Masses which cannot be applied in the proper place, or by those who ought to apply them according to the laws of the foundation to which they belong, and so by law or by an indult of the Holy See they have to be given to other priests to be satisfied.

Other stipends which are received from the revenue of foundations are called funded or foundation Masses.

Let all appearance even of trading or trafficking with stipends for Mass be altogether avoided.

As many Masses must be said and applied as stipends were given and accepted, however small they were.

The obligation does not cease even though the stipends already received for Mass have been lost without any fault on the part of him who was burdened with their celebration.

If anyone offers a sum of money for Mass stipends without indicating the number of Masses which he wishes to be said, let the number be computed according to the tax of the place where he lived, unless it must be lawfully presumed that his intention was different.

It belongs to the local Ordinary to determine the manual stipend for Masses in his diocese by a decree made in diocesan synod as far as possible; nor is it lawful for a priest to exact a larger sum.

Where there is no formal decree of the Ordinary on the point, let the custom of the diocese be observed.

Religious, even though they be exempt, ought to abide by the local Ordinary’s decree or the custom of the diocese in the matter of the manual stipend of Masses.

A priest may receive a larger stipend for the application of Mass if it is offered voluntarily, and also a less, unless the local Ordinary has forbidden it.

It is presumed that the offerer of a stipend asked only for the application of Mass, but if he expressly stipulated that any circumstances should be observed in the celebration of Mass, the priest who accepts the stipend should comply with the desire expressed.

If the time for the celebration of Masses was expressly determined by the offerer of the stipend, the Masses must by all means be celebrated at that time.

If the offerer expressly determined no time for the celebration of manual Masses— (1) Masses offered for an urgent intention must be offered at the time required by the circumstances and as soon as possible.

(2) In other cases the Masses must be offered within a reasonable time in proportion to the greater or less number of Masses. The decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, May 11, 1904, assigned one month from the time of receiving the stipend as the limit within which one Mass is to be said, six months as the limit for one hundred Masses, and a longer or shorter period for a greater or less number.

If the offerer expressly left the time of celebration to the judgement of the priest, the priest may say the Mass at what time he pleases, but no one is allowed to receive more stipends than he can satisfy in one year.

In churches in which, on account of the special devotion of the faithful, stipends for Mass are so abundant that all cannot be said there within the proper time, let the faithful be informed by a notice placed in an open and conspicuous place that the stipends offered will be satisfied either there, when it can be done conveniently, or elsewhere.

Let one who has Masses to be said by others distribute them as soon as may be, but the lawful time for their celebrating begins from the day on which the priest who has to say them received the same, unless the contrary is certain.

Those who have a number of Masses of which they can freely dispose may give them to priests on whom they can rely, provided that they know that they are unexceptionable, or are recommended by the testimony of their own Ordinary.

Those who have given Masses, which they have received from the faithful or which are entrusted to them, to others to be said by them, remain bound by their obligation until they receive notice that the stipends have been received and the obligation accepted.

One who sends manual stipends to others ought to send the whole sum which he has received, unless either the offerer expressly allows him to retain a portion, or it is certain that the excess above the diocesan tax was given out of personal considerations, In Masses which are like manual Masses, unless the intention of the founder forbids it, any excess may lawfully be retained, and it is sufficient to send only the manual stipend of the diocese in which the Mass is celebrated, if the large stipend takes the place of a part of the dowry of the benefice or pious foundation.

Each and all administrators of pious foundations or persons who are bound in any way to fulfil obligations of having Mass said, whether ecclesiastics or laymen, towards the end of each year must give the Masses which have not yet been said to their Ordinaries according to the method to be defined by them.

This period is to be interpreted in such a way that in the Masses like manual Masses the obligation of handing them over runs from the end of the year within which they ought to have been said; but in manual Masses after a year from the day of undertaking them, unless the offerer determined otherwise.

The right and the duty of seeing that Mass obligations be fulfilled belongs to the local Ordinary in secular churches; in the churches of religious it belongs to their superiors, Let rectors of churches and of other pious foundations, whether secular or religious, in which Mass stipends are wont to be received, have a special book in which they note the number of stipends for Mass received, the intention, the amount of the stipend, and the celebration of the Masses.

The Ordinaries are under the obligation at least every year of examining these books in person or by deputy.

Moreover, local Ordinaries and religious superiors who give Masses to their subjects or to others to be said should at once put down in order in a book the Masses which they have received with their stipends, and should take care, as far as they can, that the Masses be said as soon as possible.

Indeed, all priests, whether secular or religious, ought to note accurately what Mass intentions they have received and which they have satisfied (Can. 824-844).

¹ 1 Cor. ix. 13.

I. Notion and origin. A stipend is an offering, that is, money or a thing estimable by price, which someone offers to a priest under this burden: that the priest apply the special fruit of the Mass to his, that is, the offerer's, intention. Hence the contract constituted once the stipend has been accepted takes on the nature of the contract: I give that you may do (cf. canon 1544, § 2).

The most remote origin is found in the offerings which the faithful in antiquity, when they came together for performing sacred rites, brought to the altar within the Mass itself (at the Offertory), both as a sign of communion with the Church and of participation in the Sacrifice itself, and also to provide for the necessary expenses of divine worship and for the support of the clergy (who were leading a common life) and of the poor.

In the first centuries of the Church, indeed, offerings of this kind were made only in bread and wine, then also in produce, oil, and incense. But already long before the eighth century the custom prevailed that, in place of the aforesaid offerings, or at least together with them, money was contributed as an offering for the sacrifice, destined for the common chest or treasury of the church. Then, as the common life of clerics gradually ceased, and especially as the private Masses of individual priests multiplied, the faithful began also to bestow an offering in money specifically upon individual priests for a sacrifice to be specifically applied for them. Traces of this practice are already found in documents of the eighth century; its universal use already came down in the twelfth century.¹

¹ Vlaming, Institutiones Iuris Ecclesiastici, n. 349.

II. Division. Stipends are divided into manual stipends, stipends after the manner of manual stipends, and founded stipends. Manual stipends are those which are offered by the faithful for Masses, either from their own devotion, as it were into the hand, or from an obligation, even perpetual, imposed by a testator upon his own heirs (canon 826, § 1). The latter burden the patrimony of some family. Stipends for founded Masses are called "after the manner of manual stipends" when they cannot be applied in their own place, or by those who ought to apply them according to the tables of the foundation, and therefore by law or by indult of the Holy See must be handed over to other priests so that satisfaction may be made for them (canon 826, § 2). Thus stipends of founded Masses become after the manner of manual stipends when they are transmitted to others who satisfy them. Founded stipends are those which are received from the revenues of foundations (canon 826, § 3; n. 233).

III. Lawfulness. According to the received and approved custom and institution of the Church, it is lawful for any priest celebrating and applying Mass to receive an alms or stipend (canon 824, § 1). The reason is that the stipend is not given and accepted after the manner of a price, that is, as a thing with which the Mass is exchanged - which would be simoniacal - but as a thing which is owed to the priest insofar as it is just that one who must serve the utility of others be supported by those others, according to these words of Sacred Scripture: "The laborer is worthy of his food";¹ "Who ever serves as a soldier at his own expense?"² (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 100, a. 2; St. Alphonsus, VI, 316, 320, doubt 4).

Thus it is lawful, even for a wealthy priest, to accept a stipend for a Mass. Nevertheless it would be little praiseworthy to celebrate principally on account of the stipend. Indeed, St. Alphonsus judges that one who acts thus is not easily excused from venial sin, "since it is a certain disorder to direct spiritual things to temporal things" (VI, 317; III, 55, question 6).

Note 1. It is also lawful, as Benedict XIV teaches,³ for priests celebrating with the bishop, for example in the Mass of ordination, to accept a stipend. Likewise it is permitted for newly ordained priests to receive an alms for the three Masses imposed upon them by the bishop (St. Alphonsus, VI, 829).

Note 2. One who celebrates several times in a day, if on one occasion he applies from a title of justice, cannot, except on the day of the Nativity of the Lord, receive an alms for another Mass, apart from some remuneration from an extrinsic title (canon 824, § 2). It is said:

1. From a title of justice, for example because of a stipend received, or if a pastor from office applies for the people; in this case, therefore, the pastor cannot receive a stipend for either Mass. For the rest, it is the same whether the Mass which has a stipend annexed is said in the first place or in the second place.

2. He cannot receive an alms for another Mass. Nevertheless nothing prevents him - provided that he does not receive an alms - from saying another Mass from a title of fidelity or charity; or even of justice, provided that the title of justice is not founded in stipend or in office.⁴

3. From an extrinsic title, for example of chant, hour, or place.⁵

Note 3. From canon 825 it is never lawful:

1. To apply a Mass to the intention of one who is going to request the application with an alms offered, but has not yet requested it, and to retain the alms afterward given for the Mass previously applied (n. 1; cf. n. 208).

2. To receive an alms for a Mass which is owed and applied by another title (n. 2). By another title, whether of justice, fidelity, obedience, etc. The reasons are: both because in the case the one who gave the stipend is more probably deprived of some fruit to which he has a right (n. 207); and because the one giving the stipend, according to received usage, judges that the Mass is applied for himself alone, while the priest accepting the stipend tacitly binds himself to that.

3. To accept a double alms for the application of the same Mass (n. 3; cf. n. 207).

4. To receive one alms for the celebration alone and another for the application, unless it is certain that one offering was made for celebration without application.

¹ Matthew 10:10.

² 1 Corinthians 9:7.

³ De sacrificio Missae, book III, chapter 11.

⁴ Cf. Sacred Congregation of the Council, 14 September 1878 (Collectio, n. 1500).

⁵ By these words the prohibition of the Sacred Congregation of the Council (15 October 1915), which existed on 2 November, was removed (Pontifical Commission, 13 December 1923, Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1924, p. 116). Moreover, Pius IX, by decree of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide, 15 October 1863, granted to Ordinaries of missions the faculty of allowing, when a just and grave cause intervenes, that priests subject to them may receive a stipend even for a second Mass to be celebrated on the same day. Even outside mission territory such indults are sometimes granted, but only conditionally, namely under the condition that the Masses be applied according to the mind of the bishop, who will receive the alms so that he may expend them for pious causes. If these pious causes are not further indicated, it is also lawful, indeed preferable, that the bishop expend them "in favor of poor priests, not excluding those who repeat the Sacred rite, insofar as they need assistance" (Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, 7 August 1909, Acta Apostolicae Sedis I, pp. 767-771; cf. especially the report of the consultor prefixed to this decision). In the case, however, the whole alms is to be sent to the bishop (Sacred Congregation of the Council, 27 February 1905; N. K. St., p. 134). Thus Aertnys-Damen, vol. II, n. 202.

IV. The just stipend. It belongs to the local Ordinary to define the manual stipend for Masses in his diocese by decree, issued as far as possible in diocesan synod; nor is it lawful for a priest to demand more than this (canon 831, § 1). Where a decree of the Ordinary is lacking, the custom of the diocese is to be observed (canon 831, § 2). Even religious, although exempt, must stand, concerning the manual stipend, by the decree of the local Ordinary or by the custom of the diocese (canon 831, § 3). Moreover:

1. A larger stipend than the local Ordinary or the custom of the diocese has established cannot be demanded. Nevertheless, when more ample stipends are generally provided, it does not seem illicit to say: "I cannot personally discharge your stipends unless you give as much as others have given."¹ Besides, it is not per se prohibited to require compensation for extraordinary labor or inconvenience, for example if a sung Mass is requested, or one to be said at a certain time or place, or if a journey must be made (St. Alphonsus, III, 55).

Corollary. One who demands a stipend larger than the statute permits sins against religion, for the law obliges from this virtue; likewise he sins against justice if he demands more than is fitting. He is not, however, guilty of simony unless he sells something spiritual, for example by demanding a larger stipend because of an indulgence annexed to an altar.

2. A larger stipend freely offered can be accepted (canon 832); nor can the bishop prohibit a larger one from being offered.²

3. Likewise a smaller stipend can be accepted, unless the local Ordinary has prohibited it (canon 832). If a prohibition has been made, it is not judged prohibited to accept a smaller stipend if a reason of mercy requires it.

4. If someone has offered a sum of money for the application of Masses, without indicating their number, this number is to be computed according to the alms of the place in which the offerer was staying, unless it ought legitimately to be presumed that his intention was otherwise (canon 830). These things are also to be applied to a testator.

¹ Aertnys-Damen, II, n. 207.

² Sacred Congregation of the Council, 16 January 1649.

Mass Stipends.—It is not unlawful to receive a stipend for the application of Mass, but irreligion, injustice, avarice, scandal and disobedience must be avoided. (a) Irreligion is committed if the stipend is offered or taken as the price of the Mass, or if Mass is said only because of the stipend, or is requested only for the sake of human favor (see 2333); (b) injustice is committed, if an excessive stipend is exacted; (c) avarice is committed when one is over-anxious about large stipends; (d) scandal is given when there is commercialism or the appearance of it in dealing with stipends; (e) disobedience is incurred when the laws of the Church on the amount of a stipend, the number of stipends that may be taken, their distribution, satisfaction, etc., are violated (see Canons 824-844). It is forbidden to require two stipends for one Mass, or one stipend for mere celebration and another for application.

“...They set forth: The Brief Quanta cura of 30 June 1741 had come to their notice.... Since in those regions of Holland under the yoke of heretics or unbelievers there are no ecclesiastical benefices or certain revenues for the support of life, ample Mass stipends and alms are customarily given by the pious faithful to Catholic Pastors and missionaries for the celebration of those Masses, so that from these stipends and alms they may receive support in default, as above, of benefices or certain ecclesiastical revenues. Sometimes, however, the same stipends and alms are given by reason of particular affection or gratitude toward those missionaries and Pastors, but not without regard to the aforesaid support. Many times also, especially at funerals, anniversaries, and greater feasts, the aforesaid Mass stipends and alms are given by way of one honorarium which the faithful from pious devotion are accustomed to confer on the occasion of the Sacraments of Penance and Holy Communion. Since these things are so, the Pastors and missionaries had no scruple about retaining for themselves part of the stipends and alms and entrusting the Masses to other needy priests who assist under the name of chaplains or coadjutors and take the place of those same missionaries and Pastors when they are absent or impeded by illness and in other similar necessities. But if the missionaries and Pastors were hereafter bound to hand over the whole alms received for the celebration of Masses to the substitute priest who offers the Sacrifice, either the missionaries themselves would be deprived of fitting support or, if they could not give part and a portion of the said stipend or alms to the priest celebrating—especially for the chaplains and coadjutors necessary as above—assistance of this kind would be lacking in those regions in which certain revenues and benefices for the support of the ministers of the Church are lacking.

“Therefore, these and other particular circumstances having been diligently considered, they most humbly supplicate Your Holiness for an opportune declaration.

“Response. Our Most Holy Lord Pope Benedict XIV benignly declared by an oracle of the living voice that the aforesaid cases are not comprehended in the prohibition contained in the above-mentioned Brief; and he further commanded that this declaration of his mind be signified through the office of the Sacred Penitentiary to the aforesaid petitioners and to others whom it shall concern....” Sacred Penitentiary, 6 April 1742.

1. "Whether a missionary can receive the alms of the Mass and apply it according to the mind or intention of a pagan offerer, who has as his purpose obtaining healing from illness, or liberation from prison and from the capital penalty which hangs over him?

R. "Affirmatively." S. C. de P. F. 11 March 1848., Cf. Enchirid. Moral. 368., I. M. 610.

2. In a certain religious community the father procurator was accustomed at the beginning of each month to distribute Mass intentions among the fathers dwelling in the same community. The same procurator received the stipends of these Masses abundantly, so that there were never lacking to him Masses to be distributed. Since at the beginning of some month a certain father forgot to go to the father procurator, and to ask from him new Masses to be celebrated, nevertheless he celebrated according to his intention. Hence the question was raised whether for that Mass the father procurator could retain a stipend from those already accepted, or whether a Mass had to be celebrated again.

R. It seems that the father procurator can retain the stipend for that Mass; nor does another seem to have to be celebrated. The reason is that that Mass was said for a certain and determinate intention. For that father knew both that the procurator had Masses with himself to be distributed, and that it was his will that they be said by the fathers dwelling in that community. There is added the authority of Francis Sylvius, Op. tom. 5. Orat. 11., which is the first on anticipated Masses, Concl. 2. He resolves almost the same case, and says: "He who celebrates in anticipation according to the intention of one who is accustomed to have Masses to be commended to others, that is, before he has either been requested by him or has himself reminded him, does not act badly, and can receive the stipend from him without scruple." And for this same opinion he cites Reginald, Rodriguez, Fagundez, and Aragonius, who writes thus concerning the preceding assertion: Therefore these things are certain, and I judge that no one can doubt concerning them; in which way Peter Navarra also speaks, apud Sylv. l. c. - Claude La Croix affirms the same, l. 6. n. 220: "I can," he says, "apply a Mass for him whom I know in fact wishes to ask a Mass from me, although he has not yet asked. Except if I knew that he wished to ask for some effect toward which the sacrifice would not yet help"; and he cites Pasq. and Sylvius. - And below, answering the question: "Whether he satisfies who celebrates for him whom God knows will first give the stipend," after bringing forward doctors on each side he says: "It must be said with the common opinion that such an application is always made illicitly, and often also invalidly." Illicitly indeed because of the special prohibition made by Clement VIII; often invalidly, because often at that time the intention of the petitioner does not yet exist; indeed, often neither does the motive or cause of asking. And he adds, n. 222: "All the opposite things are in the chaplain of whom Burgh speaks. Nevertheless Vasq., Rayn., and Avers. admit that Mass can be read for one actually dead, for whom afterward a Mass will first be requested, with a stipend offered, because thus it is usefully offered for that determinate person, already in need and capable of the whole fruit." - G. 337. 345. 346., I. M. 618.

3. Benignus the confessor, having been requested by his penitent concerning the celebration of Mass for the soul of his mother, who had died the preceding night, with a rich stipend offered to him, indeed promised his penitent that he would celebrate Mass, but he refused to accept the stipend from him, and left it to him, saying: I will say the Mass all the same. But afterward, thinking that he had not received the stipend, he omitted to celebrate the Mass without any scruple. Another time the same Benignus did almost the same thing on a similar occasion, when a pious woman offered him a stipend for the celebration of Mass. He renounced the stipend, promising the Mass, but afterward celebrated the Mass in a second intention, because, he says, the Mass is of infinite value. Likewise, on another occasion, a certain noble man offered Benignus a thousand lire for the celebration of ten Masses. Benignus indeed promised the Masses, but not on this occasion either did he accept the stipend, and he asked that man to be willing rather to give that considerable sum as alms to some poor family. He then celebrated the Masses, but again in a second intention. Finally, Benignus is called to a dying man, who asked him what would be better, and also what he could do more usefully and fruitfully: whether namely to leave his inheritance to the poor, or to destine it to building a public church and to the celebration of Masses for his soul after death. Without hesitation Benignus answered: There is no doubt that it is better to leave your whole inheritance to be distributed among the poor, who are the living temple of the Holy Spirit, who represent the very Person of Christ.

Quaer. What is to be said of the Case?

R. Benignus in the first Case undoubtedly sinned. For he undertook from justice an obligation of celebrating Mass; for he promised that he would celebrate Mass in exactly the same way as if he had accepted the stipend. Also in the second Case Benignus sinned. For, voluntarily renouncing the stipend offered and at the same time promising the Mass, he is certainly understood to promise the same Mass which was requested with the stipend offered, which indeed is not satisfied by a Mass in a second intention. And there can be no doubt that if the matter as it is were manifested to that pious woman, she would rightly and deservedly think herself gravely deceived. To apply Mass in a second intention is, besides the primary intention of the application of the Mass, to make another application of the same Mass, according to the opinion that Mass can be applied indefinitely; which opinion is altogether less probable, and, if perhaps it is false, that application is null. Likewise, to apply in a second intention can be explained through a conditional application in substitution for the first, if perhaps this has no place. Thirdly, finally, to apply in a second intention can be equivalent to a certain special Memento. Hence also in the third Case Benignus sinned. For certainly, if that noble man had known Benignus's manner of acting, he would have gone to another priest for the celebration of the Masses, since he altogether intended it, and therefore was offering a wholly extraordinary stipend. Who indeed would not say that Benignus deceived that noble man in a very grave matter? Finally, Benignus did not answer rightly; for there can be no doubt that a work of Religion, such as the construction of a church, which is destined for the worship of God and for the public good of souls, likewise the celebration of Masses or the Eucharistic sacrifice, whose fruit redounds to the whole Church, and whence there is such glory of God that greater cannot exist in this world, are works more excellent and more useful and more fruitful than a work of corporal mercy, namely alms given to the poor. These works likewise are also more useful and fruitful for the soul of the deceased after death; since both the prayers of the faithful in that church and the sacrifice of the Masses can certainly have more worth before God for the suffrage of his soul than alms given to the poor. Hence, when there is room for moderation of pious legacies, because, for example, the revenues no longer suffice for all the prescribed works, first other pious works are deleted, and meanwhile the number of Masses is left intact. And if the number of Masses also must be restrained, and some are to be celebrated with chant, one must begin from these, so that the number of Masses may be diminished as little as possible. Benedict XIV, de Syn. l. 13. c. 25. n. 34.

4. Obligation of celebrating by reason of stipend - Lambertinus had accepted a stipend from Florimund for one hundred Masses to be celebrated. Since meanwhile other rich Mass stipends were offered to Lambertinus by others, Lambertinus accepted all these, and immediately celebrated the Masses. Hence he celebrated the aforesaid one hundred Masses over a space of six months.

Quaer. Whether Lambertinus celebrated the aforesaid one hundred Masses within the due space of time?

R. It seems that it must be affirmed, if Florimund indicated to Lambertinus no reason from which the aforesaid celebration would have to be urged more quickly, for example, if he had handed over a rich and extraordinary stipend, if it concerned a person very recently deceased, etc. A special reason of urgency being excluded, Lambertinus satisfied his obligation. For first, by celebrating one hundred Masses in the space of six months, he celebrates the accepted Masses almost continuously, for he celebrates them almost on alternate days. Nor does it seem that the one giving the alms can demand more in the Case. Moreover, if for the obligation of one Mass a space of two months is commonly assigned, a greater space is certainly required when it is a question of several Masses. Wherefore, if it is a question of sixty Masses to be celebrated, a space at least twice as great seems to be granted, unless the offerer expressly declares otherwise. M. E. v. 1. p. 480., I. M. 624.

5. Martianus, having accepted a stipend for celebrating on a privileged altar, celebrated on another altar. But in order to gain a plenary indulgence for the deceased for whom he celebrated, after Mass he recited the prayer, En ego, o bone, etc.

Quaer. Whether Martianus is bound to perform another Mass on a privileged altar?

R. "More probably, negatively. The reason is that he who gave the stipend can seek nothing else than the privilege of the altar, or the plenary indulgence, since he has already obtained the Mass. But that indulgence can be bestowed upon the deceased even outside Mass, namely if the priest devoutly tries to apply some plenary indulgence to this deceased person, for example by traversing the Way of the Cross, or by reciting after Mass the prayer which begins: En ego, o bone et dulcissime Iesu, etc., and at the same time praying according to the intention of the Pontiff, etc." Thus Fr. Gury 344.

But, as is clear from the Responses of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, speaking per se, Martianus could not thus satisfy his obligation by celebrating on another non-privileged altar, and then gaining a plenary indulgence by the aforesaid prayer; rather, he ought to have celebrated on a privileged altar. Cf. Enchir. Mor. 629., I. M. 1380.

6. In a certain church a box was publicly set out near the door with this inscription: Alms for Masses to be celebrated on the Altar of the Chapel of the miraculous image of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Hence alms were collected daily from the box, and on the following day one Mass was celebrated at that Altar by the rector of the church, who took those alms for himself, whether they were more or fewer, but they always exceeded daily the sum of fifty lire.

It is asked: Whether the aforesaid rector acted rightly?

R. Negatively. For, as is clear from the obvious sense of that inscription, as many Masses ought daily to be celebrated as could be celebrated, according to the diocesan tariff. But if so many Masses could not be celebrated, e.g., on account of a lack of priests, then the offerers are to be warned. This is confirmed from the following Case resolved by the S. C. C.: In very many States of North America the custom had prevailed that, for the single Mass which is sung on the day of the Commemoration of all the faithful departed, the faithful should contribute money. But the sum of money thus collected was ordinarily so great that it would easily equal the alms of several hundred Masses. It was asked whether the aforesaid custom, which in some way at least was already becoming known to those offering, was to be absolutely prohibited. Now the S. C. C., Jan. 27, 1877, replied: "Let nothing be innovated: only let a tablet be placed in the church, by which the faithful may be taught that with those very alms one Mass is sung on the day of the Commemoration of all the faithful departed." For then without doubt the faithful would consent that one Mass be sung for all that money, and from mere liberality they would bestow the excess. A. S. S. vol. 10, p. 125.

7. The procurator general of a religious order received from a certain pious person 100 lire for 10 Masses. He put them away with all diligence in his desk; but on the following day he found nothing; and he could find nothing, because a household thief had stolen them. The same procurator at another time received 100 lire from another pious person, but one unknown to him, for 50 Masses. On the following day, when he wishes to exchange the received note of 100 lire for others of lesser value, he finds it to be false. Hence he now asks whether he is bound to the celebration of the aforesaid Masses.

It is asked: What is to be said to the Case?

R. In the first Case the procurator is bound to the celebration of the Masses. The reason is that he, having accepted the stipend, undertook the obligation of celebrating, or causing to be celebrated, those 10 Masses; but the stipend, once accepted, he made his own, or rather the Convent's, namely by accepting it in the name of the Convent and for the Convent: whence he, or rather the Convent, ought patiently to sustain the loss of that stipend: for a thing perishes to its owner. Nor perhaps is it valid to object that those 100 lire were found enclosed in some paper with a superscription indicating that they were a stipend for Masses to be celebrated. For the thief who stole them certainly will not employ them for the celebration of Masses, and this surely cannot prudently be presumed.

But it does not seem that in the other Case he is bound to the celebration of the Masses. For in Masses to be celebrated for a stipend an unnamed contract intervenes: I give that you may do. But that pious person, although in good faith, in reality gave nothing. Therefore also Fr. Procurator is bound to do nothing. Nor indeed is it valid to object that that pious person acted in good faith, and therefore truly had the will of imposing the obligation of Masses to be celebrated, an obligation accepted by the procurator. For the will of the pious person obligating, and the will of the procurator accepting the obligation, essentially presupposed the stipend offered and accepted, which does not exist.

8. "Whether a priest, in anniversaries of the dead which are requested out of devotion, satisfies by celebrating the Mass of the Saint, when according to the rubrics the Requiem Mass cannot be celebrated?"

R. "Affirmatively." S. R. C., Apr. 23, 1875, ad 4, n. 2352; Aug. 5, 1662, n. 1238.

9. "Does a priest, to whom an alms is given for celebrating a Mass for one or more deceased persons, or a votive Mass in honor of some Mystery of the Blessed Virgin Mary or of a Saint, satisfy his obligation by making the Mass conformable to the office, when otherwise the rite of the day does not permit the requested Mass, provided that he applies it according to the intention of the one giving the alms?"

R. It would seem that the proposed question should be answered negatively from the Decree of the S. R. C., Mar. 3, 1761, n. 2461: "On days on which private votive Masses or Masses of the dead can be said, a priest obliged to them by reason of a foundation or of an accepted manual stipend does not satisfy his own obligation by saying the Mass of the occurring day: for the express will of testators or petitioners, provided it be rational, must be fulfilled." The same negative response can be confirmed from another later Decree of the same S. R. C., Sept. 28, 1872, n. 3285.

Nevertheless, to the proposed question by a very recent Decree the S. R. C. itself replies: "Affirmatively; but it is more advisable that, as far as can be done, satisfaction be made to the intention of the one giving the alms by a Mass either of requiem or votive." S. R. C., June 13, 1899, n. 4031.

10. Retention of part of the stipend - Titius the priest, while making spiritual exercises, is very greatly troubled by three matters. a) To relieve the poverty of priests who, dwelling in a small town, very often lacked alms for Masses, by the help of a certain layman, a most industrious man, he collected many Masses with a stipend of two or three lire. But distributing these to the priests he retained whatever exceeded the synodal tariff of their diocese, assigning part of it to himself under the title of labor and industry employed, and granting part to the man out of gratitude. Aware of this matter, the priests of the small town were silent, giving thanks to Titius from the heart. b) Since a quantity of gold coin had been sent to him from France for Masses to be celebrated, he granted the whole stipend to the priests celebrating, but first exchanged the gold coin into another which is called paper money, and retained for himself whatever profit there was. c) From A., a nobleman to whom he had rendered a great favor, he received a stipend of one hundred lire for a Mass to be celebrated, yet he entrusted that celebration to another priest, giving an alms according to the synodal tariff.

Titius opens all these things in sacramental confession. The confessor remains uncertain, asking himself:

1. On what basis and how much can a priest receive as the stipend of a Mass? - 2. Whether it is licit to entrust a Mass to another to be celebrated, with part of the stipend retained? - 3. What is to be judged concerning the individual things in the Case?

Resp. to the 1st. In the first Question there are two questions. The first is: On what basis can a priest receive a stipend for the celebration of Mass? - To receive a stipend for the sacrifice of the Mass itself is certainly simony, and illicit. For simony consists in this, that a spiritual thing is given for a temporal thing. But if a stipend is received, not under a title intrinsic to the Mass itself, but under the extrinsic title of the support of the priest, simony ceases, and it is licit. Yet with this title, commonly admitted, there is difficulty in explaining how the stipend is owed from justice. Under the title of support alone, the stipend cannot be owed from justice. Otherwise a stipend would be owed from justice to anyone needing support, although he did nothing. By mere donation and alms that which is given and donated is ordinarily given for support. Therefore support is rather the extrinsic end than the intrinsic title of the stipend in the celebration of Masses. Now the stipend in this celebration of Masses is owed from justice. Therefore its intrinsic title is to be sought apart from every simony. Moreover there is the most grave difficulty: how, if a priest receives a stipend under the title of support alone, he can receive it even though he does not need support, because, e.g., he can already sufficiently support himself from a benefice. Therefore a title must be sought by force of which any priest can receive a stipend for the celebration of Masses. This title consists in this, that it is the wage of a work or of labor which someone performs. But labor is any inconvenience by which one is affected in carrying out the sacrifice of the Mass. Now that which is given on account of the work, or labor, is the wage of the work and labor, and therefore there is no simony; since on both sides there is something temporal; nor consequently is that which is given and received given and received as the price of a spiritual thing.

Indeed, as in all other matters there is a wage of work and labor, so also in the celebration of Masses. And as in all other matters one can bargain for that wage of labor, so also in the celebration of Masses; and therefore then the stipend is owed from justice, and the Mass will have to be celebrated. The contract which intervenes is certainly not of sale and purchase of the Mass; but it is an unnamed contract, I give that you may do. Hence in Luke 10:7 it is said: The laborer is worthy of his wage; and in 1 Cor. 9:7: Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Why is the laborer worthy of a wage, except by reason of the labor which he undergoes for the advantage of others? Why is the soldier worthy of a stipend, except because military service is laborious and very useful to others? It is indeed true that, in the celebration of Masses, as in other spiritual things, labor, as advantageous and useful to others, does not give a right to a wage, since advantage and usefulness of this kind is spiritual and unsalable. Yet, although that labor, by reason of the office performed, or as advantageous to another for whose sake it is done, cannot be sold, nor gives a right to a wage: nevertheless from this it does not follow that precisely as it is labor, bringing weariness and trouble, requiring time, and hindering one from other lucrative functions to which one could apply himself, it is not worthy of compensation and wage. And indeed every labor is estimable by price not only by reason of the help or office rendered, but also by reason of itself. And thus in the wage of labor, great account is often taken, and the wage increases, by reason of the greater weariness itself or the longer time, although the usefulness of that labor is less. Therefore one who asks a wage with regard to labor alone in the manner aforesaid commits no injustice and no simony in itself. In itself; for simony can then intervene only if, namely, a prohibition of the Church intervenes; and therefore simony then would be, not of divine law, but of merely ecclesiastical law. Hence the other proposed difficulty vanishes: for whether the priest is rich or poor he always has a right to the stipend of his labor, he is always worthy of his wage. But he who, with regard to his sacred action, or insofar as this is advantageous and useful to another, demands something, commits simony of divine law, because he sells the sanctity of his work.

As to the other question of the first Question: How much can a priest receive as the stipend of a Mass? at first sight it would seem necessary to say that he can and ought to receive as much as is required and suffices for his honest support. For to this the wage of labor is of itself ordered, namely that by his labor a man be honestly supported. But because not every labor which is placed in individual actions merits the whole support of that day, what has been received by usage and approved or established by prelates must be observed. Therefore a priest can receive as the stipend of a Mass the quantity established by diocesan law or custom. This, however, of itself does not prevent him also from being able to receive less or more. For as a priest can celebrate Mass altogether gratuitously, so also he can celebrate it for a lesser stipend. And nothing prohibits the faithful from offering also a richer stipend with liberal charity.

As regards the second Question, one can entrust to another the celebration of a Mass. For, speaking regularly, it makes no difference whether one celebrates by himself or through another. But if the Mass to be celebrated is entrusted to another, it is not licit to hand over to the same person a lesser stipend, even a just one, if the greater stipend was received under the title of celebration alone. Indeed then every title for retaining part of that stipend is lacking. And this is confirmed from prop. 9 condemned by Alexander VII, whence it is held that a priest acting thus by no means satisfies through another, a lesser stipend having been conferred on him. But if the greater stipend is accepted not under the title of celebration alone, but under another extrinsic title, and with regard not only to the Mass but also to the person, then it is licit to retain the excess of the stipend, and to hand over to the priest celebrating only the part of a just and ordinary stipend. For then a title for retaining that part is not lacking.

As to the third Question, Titius does not seem to have acted rightly in the first Case. For he assigned to himself part of the stipend under the title of labor and industry. But the labor and industry of Titius certainly do not appear estimable by price. For all the labor and all the industry of Titius consist in this, that he asks a friend who is willing to collect Masses and hand them over to him. Therefore the labor and industry is rather that of that layman, a most industrious man, who collected many Masses and handed them over to him. Titius likewise granted part of the stipend to the aforesaid man out of gratitude. If a concession of this kind was made to remunerate the labor and industry of that most industrious layman, Titius does not seem to be disturbed. For the aforesaid layman is called most industrious, and in reality he collected many alms, and those not ordinary. Therefore there is no doubt that he was worthy of an equitable remuneration of his labor. - Nor likewise did Titius act rightly in the other Case. For all know that the value of gold coin is different and greater. Therefore those who entrust a stipend in gold coin for Masses to be celebrated by that very fact give a greater stipend for the celebration of Masses. Therefore to change money of this kind, and to hand over the stipend to the priests celebrating, but to retain for himself whatever profit there may be from that change, in reality is nothing other than not to hand over to the aforesaid priests the whole stipend, by retaining part of it for himself, which is altogether prohibited. Finally, in the third Case Titius does not seem to be disturbed. For the greater stipend had been given to Titius not only under the title of the celebration of the Mass, but by another personal cause, namely on account of the great favor rendered to that nobleman.

11. "Titius gathers a great quantity of Masses in Portugal, receiving the stipend in Portuguese money, which he exchanges for Spanish money, obtaining a profit of 30 and even of 40 per 100. He has these Masses celebrated by Spanish priests, giving them the same stipend, retaining for himself the profit of the exchange. Is it licit for Titius to retain the profit of the exchange of Portuguese money with Spanish money? - R. Negatively." - S. C. C., Nov. 21, 1898.

12. Several bishops in France obtained an Apostolic indult, by force of which parish priests have the faculty, on certain days on which otherwise Mass would have to be said for the people, of celebrating the most holy sacrifice according to the intention of the one giving the stipend, yet under this law, that that stipend be sent to the bishops and be spent for diocesan pious works determined by the Holy See. Now, since the faithful very often offer for this Mass an alms richer than the ordinary stipend, not a few parish priests, after sending, as is proper, to the bishops the stipend taxed by the diocesan statutes, claim that it is licit for what exceeds to be kept by themselves, because there is present, they say, an extrinsic title for retaining this part of the alms, namely either extraordinary labor, if the Mass is with chant, or if some journey must be made, or especially liberality spontaneously and evidently imparted with regard only to the person.

It is asked: Whether parish priests, after sending to the bishop the stipend taxed by the diocesan statutes, are able to retain for themselves the excess of the alms of the Masses?

R. Negatively, unless it is established with moral certitude that the excess of the common alms was offered with regard to the person, or on account of greater labor or inconvenience. S. C. C., Jan. 31, 1880, A. S. S. vol. 13, p. 261. The reason is that the Apostolic indult granted to parish priests, namely of celebrating according to the intention of the one giving the stipend the holy sacrifice of the Mass which was to be applied for the people, was not given unconditionally and absolutely by the Supreme Pontiff, but on this condition, that the accepted stipend be sent to the bishops and be spent for diocesan pious works determined by the Holy See. Therefore, just as the accepted stipend must be handed over in its entirety to the one celebrating the Mass, so in the Case the aforesaid stipend must be applied in its entirety to those pious works. And this is confirmed from the fact that the Supreme Pontiff by that Apostolic privilege did not have regard to the condition of the parish priests, but intended to favor only those pious works. Now although an accepted stipend, however rich, must be handed over in its entirety to the priest celebrating the Mass, nevertheless part of it can be retained if it is established with moral certitude that the excess of the common stipend was given under a title extrinsic to the celebration itself of the Mass, namely with regard to extraordinary labor, because there is question, e.g., of a Mass with chant, or with regard to the person, that is, on account of his dignity, or office, or relationship, or poverty, or on account of gratitude owed to him. For in the Case the parish priests do not have to send to the bishops anything except the stipend of the Masses. Therefore they can retain that excess for themselves. - I. M. 624, 625.

13. Generosus, a very rich and very pious man, was accustomed to give several alms to the parish priest, who was also his confessor, and left them to the discretion of the same parish priest, so that he might dispose of them according to his own pleasure. Now, dying, Generosus left a legacy of twenty thousand lire to the same parish priest, namely that he himself should celebrate, or cause to be celebrated, a Mass for his soul daily for a year.

It is asked: 1. Whether the parish priest can, on Sundays and feast days, entrust to another the Mass to be celebrated for the people, so that he himself can celebrate the aforesaid Mass? 2. Whether the parish priest can entrust the Mass in the Case to another to be celebrated, handing over to him only the ordinary stipend? 3. Whether one who unduly retains part of the stipend is guilty of theft; and is bound to restitution, and to whom he ought to restore?

Concerning things to be observed and avoided in satisfying manual Masses. To n. 627.

1. The reason for the Decree is the growing danger, from the present state of things and the malice of men, lest alms for Masses received be lost and the obligations undertaken not be satisfied. Therefore the end of a decree of this kind is that greater cautions be employed, lest the pious wills of the faithful be frustrated, and so that the obligations undertaken in the celebration and application of Masses may be fulfilled studiously and holily. Paragraph Ut debita.

2. The definition and determination of manual Masses which is made here is to be understood and held only for the effects of the present Decree. Paragraph Declarat.

3. Now these are Masses entrusted to others to be celebrated: 1. those which are not established in perpetuity or quasi-perpetuity; 2. those which are established in perpetuity, but not constituted in some church or annexed to some benefice; 3. those which are constituted in some church, or annexed to some benefice, but are celebrated outside that church, or by another and not by the beneficiary, for whatever reason. Paragraphs Declarat, Pariter, Ad instar.

4. But Masses annexed to benefices, which by law can and must be handed over to other Priests when the beneficiary does not celebrate and apply them himself, are those which from the tables of foundation the beneficiary is not bound to celebrate himself. St. Alphonsus, book 6, n. 330; paragraph Ad instar.

Likewise Masses which from a perpetual burden adhere to a church, monastery, confraternities, or any pious places whatever, which by law can be handed over to other priests, are those which are constituted in no church, so that they can be applied anywhere by any priest at the judgment of the administrators. Paragraph Ad instar; Sacred Congregation of the Council, December 19, 1904.

5. The terms established are: one month for one Mass, a half-year for one hundred Masses, or another longer or shorter space of time according to the greater or lesser number of Masses; in such a way nevertheless that it is lawful for no one to assume so many Masses that he himself probably cannot satisfy them within a year from the day of the obligation undertaken, always preserving the will of the offerers, whether explicitly or implicitly demanding a shorter time or conceding a longer one. Paragraphs Iam vero, 1, 2, 3.

6. No one can seek and accept more Masses than he can probably celebrate within the established terms of time, whether by himself or through Priests subject to him. Therefore the collection of Masses made by a private person so that they may then be distributed among various Priests, although poor, is prohibited. And "by himself": nevertheless it is not prohibited to accept Masses so that someone may hand them over to the Ordinary or Prelate, or to accept them not so that he himself may celebrate them, but so that he may hand them over to another, the offerer having been warned about this matter. Paragraph Iamvero, 1.

7. A month is established for one Mass indefinitely, and therefore whether it is a question of Masses for the living or for the departed. If it is not a question of the recently departed, to defer them for a week seems to be only a light sin. For one Mass, or for several, which are not given by one and the same offerer, but by several: namely, for each one then the useful time will be one month from the day of acceptance. Therefore, if in that time the Priest could not celebrate all, he is bound to warn the offerers, unless the will of the offerers is otherwise established. Paragraph 2; Sacred Congregation of the Council, February 27, 1905.

8. A half-year is established for one hundred Masses, namely if they are accepted from one and the same offerer. It seems only light if someone were to defer a few of them, four or five, for a brief time, for three or four weeks. There are those who extend the brief time to five weeks. Paragraph 2.

9. From the fact that the Decree assigns a month for one Mass as the useful time, and a half-year for one hundred, various Authors assign variously the time for another number of Masses. But since for several Masses, one hundred in number, a half-year is assigned, that is, 180 days for 100 Masses, evidently the Sacred Congregation assigns 14 or 15 Masses for each month, that is, a Mass to be celebrated almost every other day. Hence the useful time, more or less as it is said by the same Sacred Congregation, can easily be determined for another number of Masses. And thus it seems possible to deduce that for two hundred Masses the useful time will be an entire year, for three hundred a year and a half, etc. Paragraph 2.

The Archbishop of Lviv of the Ruthenians proposed the following computation to the Sacred Congregation: namely, that up to ten Masses one month be established; for the first and second month, twenty Masses celebrated; and for each subsequent twenty Masses one month always be established successively, and thus for one hundred, six months are had. The Sacred Congregation neither approved nor reproved it, but answered: the matter is left to the discreet judgment and conscience of Priests, according to the Decree and the rules handed down by approved doctors. Sacred Congregation of the Council, February 27, 1905.

10. But it is lawful for no one to assume so many Masses that he himself probably cannot satisfy them within a year from the day of the obligation undertaken, always nevertheless preserving the contrary will of the offerers, who either demand a shorter time for the celebration of Masses, whether explicitly or implicitly because of some urgent cause, or concede a longer time, or spontaneously give a greater number of Masses. Paragraph 3.

11. Therefore, if three hundred Masses are offered to someone by the same offerer, which he himself could not satisfy except within a year and a half, he is bound to warn the offerer; but he can simply accept them if he can and wishes to celebrate them within a year. But if six hundred Masses are offered by the same offerer, it is evident that then the offerer is altogether consenting to the delay of celebration beyond a year, since all cannot be celebrated in one year by one and the same Priest. On the contrary, the offerer can implicitly demand a shorter time for the celebration of Masses because of some urgent cause, for example if it is a question of Masses for the recently departed, which under grave obligation must be celebrated at least within a month, and which, for example, are offered to a regular Prelate of some monastery, namely so that they may be celebrated by the regulars of that monastery as soon as possible.

12. All, however bound to fulfill burdens of Masses, whether ecclesiastics or laymen, at the end of any year must hand over to their own Ordinaries the burdens of Masses which they have not yet satisfied. For founded Masses or Masses annexed to some benefice, the obligation of depositing them runs from the end of that year within which the burdens ought to have been fulfilled. But for manual Masses the obligation of depositing them begins after a year from the day of the burden undertaken, if it is a question of a large number of Masses; for these certainly the obligation is to hand over those remaining Masses, not yet celebrated, at the end of the year, to their own Ordinaries.

For if it is a question of a smaller number of Masses, or of a diverse will of the offerers, the prescriptions of the preceding article 3 remain preserved. Cf. n. 10. For they must be celebrated within the time established by law: within a month, within six months, or within the shorter or longer time established by the offerer, without the Priest being able to retain them for an entire year. Hence, if he himself cannot celebrate them, he must take care that they be celebrated by others in due time, although the obligation of handing them over to the Bishop before the elapsed year is not had. Paragraph 4.

13. Therefore all those who have not satisfied the obligations undertaken after the elapsed year established by this article 4 are held by the obligation of handing over uncelebrated Masses to the Ordinary, that is, to their own Ordinary: Regulars to the Regular Superior, seculars to the Bishop. If a Priest handing over these Masses to the Ordinary would be left without Masses, authors teach that he can retain some Masses for himself, for example fifteen or twenty; but it is better to warn the Ordinary concerning this matter.

14. The preceding prescription obliges of itself under grave sin. For concerning the observance of all these things, the conscience of all whom it concerns is gravely burdened. Paragraph Super. Against transgressors of the preceding article 4, the Bishop can proceed in particular, all things to be observed having been observed, with censures.

15. Those who have an overflowing number of Masses, concerning which it is lawful for them freely to dispose, can assign them, besides to the Ordinary or to the Holy See, also to Priests well-disposed to themselves, provided these are certainly and personally known to them and above every exception. Paragraph 5. "Those who have an overflowing number of Masses": those namely who are not in delay as regards the celebration of Masses. For these, after the elapsed year, must hand them over only to the Ordinary, according to the preceding article 4. Therefore others, who have free disposition of Masses and who during the year have not been negligent in seeing to their celebration, can hand them over to other Priests also to be celebrated.

16. Those who have handed over Masses with their alms to the Ordinary or to the Holy See are relieved from every obligation before God and the Church, namely after they have handed over the Masses and alms. Paragraph 6. To the Ordinary, or to the Holy See, or to the Superiors General of Orders or Religious Congregations. Sacred Congregation of the Council, February 27, 1905.

But those who have handed over to others to be celebrated Masses received from the faithful and entrusted in any way to their faith, whether from the commission and handing over of the faithful, or from a testament or legacy, whether from the offerer himself or from his mandatary, executor, or anyone else, are held by the obligation until they have obtained proof of the celebration performed, whether by written document for the external forum, or only by living voice for the internal forum. Paragraph Qui vero.

17. Therefore the obligation of obtaining proof affects those who have handed over to others to be celebrated Masses received from the faithful, or in any way entrusted to their faith. Therefore it does not affect others who commit their own Masses to others to be celebrated. The former, if the alms are lost and the Mass is not celebrated from any cause even fortuitous, are bound to supply from their own goods and to satisfy the Masses. Paragraph Qui vero.

18. Diocesan Ordinaries will immediately enter in order into a book the Masses which, from the disposition of the preceding articles, they will gather, with the respective alms, and will take care, according to their strength, that they be celebrated as soon as possible, in such a way nevertheless that manual Masses be satisfied first, then those which are after the likeness of manual Masses.

But in distribution they will observe the rule of the Decree Vigilanti, namely: "they will first distribute the intentions of Masses among priests subject to themselves whom they know to need them; then the others they will commit either to the Holy See, or to other Ordinaries, or also, if they wish, to priests outside the diocese, provided they are known to themselves and above every exception," the rule of article 6 always remaining firm concerning the obligation until they have required from the priests proof of the celebration performed. Paragraph 7. Cf. n. 6.

"Diocesan Ordinaries": it is a question of Ordinaries of places; but evidently, by proportionate reason, the same is to be understood concerning Ordinaries of Regulars. Therefore in the present article 7, under the name of Ordinaries come also Regular Prelates for their respective subjects. Sacred Congregation of the Council, February 27, 1905.

19. Manual Masses are first to be satisfied: those namely which the faithful request to be celebrated, with a manual stipend offered, to whomever or in whatever way they hand over this stipend, whether by short hand or in testaments, provided they do not constitute a perpetual foundation, or one such and so long-lasting that it must be held as perpetual. Paragraph Declarat. Moreover, by the present Decree there are counted among manual Masses those which indeed burden the patrimony of some private family in perpetuity, but are constituted in no church, which Masses can be satisfied anywhere by any priests at the judgment of the father of the family. Paragraph Pariter.

20. After manual Masses, those which are after the likeness of manual Masses are to be satisfied. These, from the present Decree, are those which, constituted in some church or annexed to benefices, cannot be applied by the proper beneficiary or in the proper church, from this or that cause; and therefore either by law or with an indult of the Holy See must be handed over to other Priests so that they may be satisfied. Paragraph Ad instar.

21. "They will first distribute among Priests subject to themselves, then the others... or also, if they wish, to priests outside the diocese." As regards those first Priests, an obligation indeed is imposed on Bishops; but no strict right arises from this for Priests, as the matter is evident of itself; for otherwise Bishops would be obliged from strict justice to prefer those priests in the distribution, and consequently to make them indemnified if they passed them over. Certainly from the Decree a certain simple mandate made to Ordinaries is drawn out: "they will distribute," and nothing else.

22. The Ordinary must take care that, insofar as can be done, stipends accepted from various benefactors be handed over to various priests, so that the Masses may be celebrated within the due time. Sacred Congregation of the Council, February 27, 1905; namely within the time established by this Decree Ut debita, just as Masses entrusted by particular offerers. It then suffices that the Priests celebrate according to the mind of the Ordinary, who nevertheless must form the intention for the individual offerers, according to the rules handed down by approved authors of moral theology. Nevertheless it would be better if the prescribed intentions are made known to the priests. Sacred Congregation of the Council, February 27, 1905. But when stipends are received from the hand of the Ordinary, the useful time by concession of the Holy See begins from the day on which the Priest receives them from the Ordinary, not from the day on which the faithful first handed them over. Sacred Congregation of the Council, February 27, 1905.

23. Bishops also are bound to hand over Masses to Priests known to themselves and above every exception. And besides, they themselves also remain obligated concerning the celebration of the Masses until they have required from the Priests proof of the celebration performed.

24. But if diocesan Bishops and Regular Prelates hand over Masses to be celebrated to other Bishops or Regular Prelates, they remain free from any other obligation, even if they hand them over to Superiors General of Religious Congregations. Sacred Congregation of the Council, February 27, 1905.

25. By means of Masses any commerce, or kind of commerce, is prohibited under grave sin, whether to merchants or to others who are not merchants, whether to laymen or to ecclesiastics. And not only is the collection of Masses accepted from the faithful or from pious places prohibited, but also simply to request, accept, and hand over these Masses for any other end whatsoever than for the celebration itself of Masses, and with the full stipend then given and not commuted into another thing.

And this is prohibited both for Masses to be celebrated and for Masses already celebrated, namely if for these someone were to receive, in place of the stipend, books or other merchandise; so that for these Masses already celebrated, the contract not yet having been fulfilled, not merchandise but the stipend is to be handed over, whenever this falls into usage and habit and turns into the support of some commerce.

But it is prohibited to booksellers, merchants, sellers of sacred things, administrators of periodicals, and others requesting Masses, for example authors of books for selling them, to hand over not their own Masses, but others', namely those accepted from the faithful or from pious places. For these cannot be handed over except to those who celebrate them, whether by themselves or through their subjects. Contrary indults granted up to now all remain abrogated in the future. Paragraphs 8, 9, 10.

26. But it is not prohibited, in place of a stipend in money, to hand over to the Priest any other thing whatever in place of the stipend, whether by a merchant or by anyone else who asks of the Priest that he be willing to celebrate Mass for him or according to his intention, when namely, as is evident, it is a question of one's own Mass, not of another's which is committed to the Priest to be celebrated.

27. "Whenever this falls into usage and habit." Therefore a Priest who has bought cloth from a merchant and afterwards could not pay its price could on that occasion offer himself to celebrate Masses whose stipend would equal that price, and which perhaps he knows that that merchant must have celebrated from the legacy of his father. Nevertheless he could not do this habitually; for it is explicitly prohibited by the Decree and would certainly fall into support of that commerce.

28. The alms is to be handed over entirely to the one celebrating. The case is excepted in which the priest spontaneously, not having been asked, yields part of the stipend handed over to him to the one handing it over. But it is not a question of the case in which the excess of stipend is not given in view of the celebration of Mass, but in view of the person, for whatever other reason it is given, and this is certain.

29. Against this prescription, and consequently he would not incur the penalties, although he would sin from another source, would not sin a Priest who, celebrating a second Mass on the same day and accepting alms for it from indult, had to hand this over entirely to the Bishop, and handed over to him only part. Sacred Congregation of the Council, February 27, 1905. But although for this second Mass on the same day a stipend cannot be accepted by general law, nevertheless the priest can apply it according to that intention to which by the rule of the Order, if for example he is a religious, he is obligated, or by the statute of a pious Congregation or pious Sodality to which perhaps he is enrolled, he is held.

On the contrary, priests to whom by rectors or administrators of churches the satisfaction of one or several legacies of Masses founded in the church is committed could not at their own judgment commit the celebration of those Masses to other priests outside the proper church and with a lesser alms. Sacred Congregation of the Council, December 19, 1904.

30. Moreover it is lawful for no one, not even Bishops, not even with the permission of the offerers, without permission of the Holy See, to subtract anything from stipends handed over to Sanctuaries so that provision may be made for their adornment; nor, so that necessary expenses for the celebration itself of Masses may be sustained, namely for hosts, wine, etc., if the church has no other revenues, and for this reason the number of Masses is not diminished. Concerning this matter, cf. Enchiridion Morale, n. 624. Paragraph 11.

31. But whoever shall have dared to violate in any way or under any pretext the statutes in preceding articles 8, 9, 10, and 11, cf. here nn. 25, 30, if he is of the priestly order, will be liable to suspension from divine things reserved to the Holy See and to be incurred ipso facto; if he is a cleric not yet initiated to the priesthood, he will be subject to suspension from the orders received and moreover will become incapable of attaining higher orders; but if a layman, he will be bound by excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Bishop. Paragraph 12.

32. Therefore Cardinals and Bishops, since they are not expressly mentioned, do not incur the aforesaid suspension. But the aforesaid penalties are incurred by those who exercise the commerce condemned by the preceding articles 8, 9, 10, cf. n. 25, by means of Masses, and those who illegitimately retain part of the stipend, even so that provision may be made for the adornment and ornament of sanctuaries, according to articles 9 and 11. Cf. nn. 25-30. But ignorance excuses from incurring penalties of this kind, even crass and supine ignorance, and also probably affected ignorance; for from the Decree itself daring, presumption, and knowledge are required. Paragraphs 8, 12.

33. "He will become incapable." This incapacity renders ordination only illicit, and not also invalid; and if it is occult it can be dispensed by the Bishop, by force of chapter Liceat.

34. But by the present Decree nothing has been taken away from article 12 of the second series of excommunications of the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis. It remains whole and unmoved. Therefore several who do not incur the excommunication reserved to the Supreme Pontiff by the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, incur the excommunication and suspension imposed by the Decree.

...Ut debita, as is established from what has been said. For those incur it who knowingly hand over Masses, or even accept them, conducting some kind of commerce with the alms of Masses: namely by handing over or accepting Masses accepted from the faithful and from pious places, not specifically for their celebration, but for any other end; by commuting the accepted alms into other things, or diminishing them; by selling or buying things, or entering into subscriptions of periodicals, by means of Masses; finally by subtracting something from Masses handed over to a sanctuary, so that provision may be made for their adornment and ornament.

35. Then follows paragraph 14 of the present Decree, a certain prudential and provisional disposition, which now no longer has place.

36. Finally, as regards Masses annexed to benefices, whenever they are handed over to other Priests to be celebrated, the Eminent Fathers declare and establish that the alms must be no other than the synodal alms of the place in which the benefices are erected.

But for Masses founded in parishes and other churches, the alms which is given must be no other than that which is found to have been taxed in perpetuity in the foundation or in the successive indult of reduction, always nevertheless preserving the rights, if there are any legitimately recognized, either for the fabrics of churches or for their rectors, according to the declarations presented by the Sacred Congregation in the Munich case, July 25, 1874, and in the Hildesheim case, January 21, 1898. Paragraph 15.

Hence priests enjoying founded chaplaincies, whether ecclesiastical or lay, cannot commit to other Priests the Masses of their chaplaincies to be celebrated, with the alms established according to their own judgment, but must observe the preceding dispositions of article 15 of the Decree. Sacred Congregation of the Council, December 19, 1904.

Masses founded in churches are Masses whose obligation is perpetual and which have not been erected as a title by authority of the Bishop, and therefore are distinguished from benefices. Ferraris, v. Beneficium, art. 1, nn. 9-10. But for admitting perpetual burdens of this kind, permission of the Bishop is necessary.

37. As regards Masses annexed to benefices, as for example is the Mass for the people to be celebrated by a pastor, nothing is said concerning time and place; for those things are to be observed which would have to be observed by the beneficiary himself. "Preserving the rights for the fabrics of churches": for in favor of the ministers and those serving the churches that portion of revenues can be retained which at the beginning of the foundation, or in another legitimate way, was assigned to them, independently of the special work to be performed for fulfilling the legacy. "Preserving the rights for the rectors of churches": namely when the alms of Masses of certain legacies in part hold the place of the parochial congrua. Paragraph In Monacen.

38. Finally, it will be the office of individual Ordinaries to take care that in individual churches, besides the table of perpetual burdens and the book in which manual Masses which are handed over by the faithful are listed in order with their alms, there also be books in which the satisfaction of the said burdens and Masses is marked. Paragraph Denique.

39. Likewise it will belong to them to watch over the full and complete execution of the present Decree, which His Holiness commands to be inviolably observed by all, anything whatsoever to the contrary notwithstanding. Paragraph Ipsorum.

May 22, 1907.

To n. 627 bis.

1. By this Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, Recenti, May 22, 1907, it is declared an abuse and violation of the law to deduct something on one's own authority from the accepted stipend of Masses, and, with part of the money retained for oneself, to commit the Masses themselves to others to be celebrated, because of the consent of the priest receiving with a more or less even mind, or because of the end of helping some pious work or exercising charity.

2. Likewise it is declared an abuse and violation of the law to collect a great number of Masses, gathered in immense quantity in the hands of private persons, always liable to the danger which always threatens things committed to private trust.

3. Finally, it is declared an abuse and violation of the law to commit Masses to be celebrated not only more abundantly than it would be lawful to distribute to private persons, but also more inconsiderately to entrust them to unknown priests, because of the appearance of some name or title of theirs, or because of the recommendation of others who do not know them sufficiently. Hence it is deduced that it is enough if someone does not personally know the Priest, but from the trustworthy recommendation of others who fully know him, knows that he is upright and deserves all confidence.

4. But since Bishops and Ordinaries of places are admonished to employ every care and vigilance in this matter, and to teach the clergy and administrators of pious legacies the gravity of the matter, it is evident that not only ecclesiastics but also laymen are bound by these Decrees.

5. To extirpate the evil by the roots, the Sacred Congregation decrees three things under grave fault.

First, that in the future whoever wishes to commit Masses to be celebrated to Priests, whether regular or secular, residing outside the diocese, must do this through the Ordinary of those Priests, who for regulars is their Superior, or at least after he has been heard and has consented. For the Ordinary can have those Priests well known to himself.

But the Bishop of these Priests cannot prevent Masses from being transmitted to those Priests if the aforesaid Priests are worthy persons and deserve all confidence. Likewise the Bishop of those who send the Masses cannot prevent the transmission of Masses, unless it is a question of those Masses which, by his subjects not having been celebrated or caused to be celebrated within a year, according to the Decree Ut debita, article 4, must be handed over to their own Bishop.

Nor indeed do those seem to be comprehended by the present Decree who commit their own Masses to others, but those who commit the Masses of others to Priests to be celebrated. For each one can dispose of his own things as he wishes, provided he does this without unjust harm to others.

6. Second, that each Ordinary, as soon as it is permitted, draw up a catalogue of his Priests, and describe the number of Masses which each is bound to satisfy, so that thereafter he may proceed more safely in assigning Masses.

7. The obligation, as is evident, is for the Bishop, so that he may know which Masses each one is bound to celebrate from obligation of benefice, chaplaincy, or commission, so that he himself may thereafter proceed more safely in assigning Masses. The same obligation belongs to the Regular Superior. But by the present Decree no obligation is imposed also on Priests that they give an account to the Ordinary of Masses privately committed to them.

8. Third, finally, if any Bishops or Priests wish in the future to send Masses, of which there is an overflowing quantity, to Prelates or priests of churches which are situated in the East, always and in individual cases they must do this through the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide.

9. "If any Bishops or Priests": wherefore this Decree does not touch laymen. "Of which there is an overflowing quantity": not others; of which there is an overflowing quantity, whether for themselves, as regards Priests, or also for their subjects, as regards Bishops, and as regards Masses accepted from others; not as regards their own Masses, which they themselves hand over, with their own money, to be celebrated.

10. Through the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide; or also through Apostolic Delegates, or Superiors of Religious to their subjects. Sacred Congregation of the Council, September 9, 1907. Cf. also the Decree of the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, July 15, 1908, which is had in the text under n. 627 bis at the end.

11. His Holiness held and confirmed the preceding prescriptions as ratified, and ordered them to be published so that they may be observed, anything whatsoever to the contrary notwithstanding.

367. Principles. - I. A stipend or alms may lawfully be accepted for a Mass which one is not bound to say for another. For a stipend is not given as the price or compensation for the Mass, but as a means for the support of the minister. This is also established from Sacred Scripture (1 Cor. 9:13): Know you not that they who work in the holy place eat the things that are of the holy place; and they that serve the altar partake with the altar?

II. Priests are bound in justice to celebrate Mass and determinately to apply it according to the intention of those who have given a stipend for this purpose. For an onerous agreement is entered into with them, which must be observed by the title of justice, just as in any other contract. Hence a priest who, either by himself or through another minister, omits to apply according to the intention of the one who gave the stipend is bound to restitution by strict right.

III. A priest cannot satisfy two stipends by one Mass, but must offer a distinct Sacrifice for each. The reason is: 1. Because it is not certainly established that a Mass offered for several persons profits each as much as it profits one person when applied for him alone, although this is far more probable. 2. Because in this way the priest, in receiving an honorarium, would exceed the measure of decent support ¹. 3. Because this same thing is established from proposition 8 condemned by Alexander VII, which is as follows: A priest can accept a doubled stipend for the same Mass by applying to the petitioner even a part of the most special fruit corresponding to the celebrant himself.

¹ According to this argument, this could have seemed sufficiently firm at the time when the amount of the stipend could appear proportionate to the decent support of a priest, that is, support becoming the condition of a priest.

368. Questions. - QUESTION 1. What is to be judged a just stipend for a celebrating priest? Reply. The amount of a just stipend cannot be determined universally. It is lawful to demand the stipend established by the Bishop or by custom. - St. Lig., no. 319. Regulars also are bound under grave obligation to conform themselves to this rule, according to a Decree of the Sacred Congregation cited by Benedict XIV, Instit. 56, no. 10. - St. Lig., no. 320. Indeed, at least with regard to manual alms, the Bishop can prohibit acceptance of a stipend smaller than the established rate. - Benedict XIV, ibid. ². Nevertheless, just as a smaller stipend can be accepted from charity or friendship, so also a larger one may lawfully be received from the liberality of the giver. Likewise, a priest can receive more for extraordinary labor, for example, for celebrating Mass at such an hour or in such an inconvenient place, etc.

² The decrees which Benedict XIV (Instruct. 56, no. 20) reports regard only perpetual obligations of Masses; and in them it is established that the Superiors of Regulars should not permit a larger or smaller sum of money to be fixed in the future for perpetual Masses. The rate established there by Innocent XIII, namely, sixty scudi annually, is not now observed and cannot be observed because of the changed value of money. The same occurs with regard to stipends for adventitious Masses, which at that time reached ten Roman asses at Rome and which the Sacred Congregation then decreed were not to be changed, as the same Benedict XIV relates (loc. cit., no. 23). But although a stipend twice as great is now given, who would say that it is adequate for the decent support of a priest? And it is indeed astonishing that some are now found so foolish as to clamor against the riches of clerics, when, because the value of money has now changed so greatly, we see that the wages both of laborers and craftsmen and of those devoted to public or private offices have been increased; but we know that the stipends established for the support of clerics have until now been fixed at that amount which, although it was adequate some centuries ago, now scarcely suffices for living a most straitened life!

QUESTION 2. Does a priest who, after accepting a stipend, delays celebrating Mass sin gravely?

Reply. Affirmatively. The reason is that he violates a contract in a grave matter. This is also established from the Decrees of the S. Congregation of the Council of the year 1652. - St. Lig., no. 317.

369. QUESTION 3. What delay is judged grave?

Reply. It is disputed; certainly a delay that exceeds three months can be considered grave. - Thus commonly with St. Ligorius, against others who require an entire year. More probably, however, a priest who celebrates the promised Mass within two months does not sin gravely. But in Masses to be celebrated for persons recently deceased, a delay of one month is to be regarded as grave according to St. Ligorius, the Salmanticenses, Lugo, etc. Moreover, the statutes of Bishops must also be attended to. But certainly a priest sins gravely whenever he omits to celebrate, within the time suited to the circumstances, a Mass requested and promised for obtaining some pressing grace, and for that reason he is bound to restore the stipend received, even though he afterward celebrated.

For the rest, although burdens undertaken cannot be fulfilled within a short time, nevertheless, if the one giving the alms for the celebration of other Masses knows this and consents that they be celebrated only when the burdens already undertaken have been satisfied, this is not prohibited. - Thus the S. Congregation of the Council. - Cavalieri, vol. 5, p. 107, ad duodecimum.

QUESTION 4. Does a priest who omits to celebrate Mass sin gravely if the stipend accepted for it does not constitute grave matter?

Reply. It seems that the answer is affirmative, unless perhaps the stipend is so slight that the Mass appears to have been promised gratuitously. The reason is that the one who gave the stipend suffers notable spiritual detriment. Thus St. Lig. and others commonly, against others.

370. QUESTION 5. Whether and how does one who omits a Mass gratuitously promised sin?

Reply 1. He does not sin whenever there is no contract of a true promise, but the one promising manifests only a benevolent purpose.

Reply 2. More probably, he sins only venially when a true promise has intervened, because a simple promise does not bind under grave obligation unless, as Lugo says, the one promising expressly binds himself under grave obligation and in justice.

QUESTION 6. Can a priest satisfy several Masses gratuitously promised by one Mass?

Reply. Affirmatively. The reason is that Masses promised gratuitously by no means induce the obligation of a contract properly so called, not even by the title of mere fidelity ³. Moreover, it is much more probable that an application of the Sacrifice made for several persons profits each as much as it profits one alone. Besides, the reason of justice which requires that the safer part be chosen does not press here, for no remuneration is received. - Thus Elbel, De Contr., no. 337, etc.

³ The Author here seems to suppose that the priest did not will to assume even the obligation of fidelity which is proper to every true promise, and thus that no contract whatever of a promise properly so called intervened.

QUESTION 7. Is a priest guilty of simony if he celebrates principally in consideration of the stipend?

Reply. Negatively, of itself, unless, namely, he regards the stipend as the true price of the celebration. Yet he cannot be excused from sin, since it is odious that anyone should abuse sacred ministry for the sake of making money. Nevertheless, a priest does not sin who secondarily celebrates in consideration of the remuneration to be received, especially if it is necessary for him. Nor is he stained by any fault if, after accepting a stipend, he is thereby determined to celebrate, although otherwise he would have omitted the Mass; for then he is moved not by reason of the stipend, but by the obligation to be fulfilled. Thus commonly.

371. QUESTION 8. Can a priest entrust a Mass to another to be celebrated while giving him a smaller stipend than he himself accepted?

Reply. Negatively. The reason is that, on account of the appearance of base gain, the S. Congregation of the Council prohibited this by a Decree approved by Urban VIII and confirmed by Innocent XII, in which the following is contained: The Church, wishing to remove every damnable gain, prohibits a priest who has undertaken to celebrate a Mass with a certain alms from entrusting the same Mass to another to be celebrated while retaining for himself a part of the alms for that Mass. Hence Alexander VII also condemned the following proposition expressed under no. 9: After the Decree of Urban, a priest to whom Masses to be celebrated are entrusted can satisfy through another by giving him a smaller stipend and retaining another part of the stipend for himself. Indeed, Benedict XIV, in the Encyclical Letter Quanta cura of June 30, 1741, condemns with the penalty of suspension incurred by the very fact and reserved to the Apostolic See a priest who, collecting stipends of a greater value for Masses to be celebrated according to the custom or statutes of places, arranges for the Masses to be celebrated there, or in places where smaller stipends are given, while retaining a part for himself. - See St. Lig., no. 321.

Except: 1. Unless the excess of the stipend was given in consideration of the person, friendship, poverty, gratitude, or kinship. 2. Or if the other priest remits the excess entirely of his own accord and without being asked. - St. Lig., ibid., etc., and others commonly.

372. QUESTION 9. Is one who retains part of the stipend bound to restitution?

Reply. Affirmatively. The reason is: 1. Because this is deduced from the condemned proposition of Alexander VII related above. For the proposition said that a priest who retained a part of the stipend could satisfy through another; therefore, it follows that the contradictory is true, namely, that he cannot satisfy. But satisfaction regards not only the moral goodness of the act, but also its justice; and one who does not satisfy an obligation of justice is bound to restitution. 2. Because a priest who divides the stipend acts against the will of the giver; for the will of the giver is not only that the Mass be celebrated, but that it be celebrated for such a stipend. For he does not wish gratuitously to give anything to one who does not celebrate. - Thus St. Lig., no. 322, saying that this opinion is to be held. It is disputed, however, to whom restitution ought to be made, namely, whether to the one giving the alms or to the celebrant. It seems it should be made rather to the celebrant. - St. Lig., ibid.

QUESTION 10. Can a priest to whom a generous stipend is offered for today's Mass, retaining it, ask another priest to celebrate in his place, while promising to celebrate on the following day for the person for whom that other priest was going to celebrate for the ordinary alms?

Reply. It is disputed. The first opinion denies it, as though this could not be excused from the appearance of base gain ⁴. - Thus St. Lig., no. 322, dub. 4, who nevertheless adds that this does not seem to be condemned as a grave sin.

⁴ For this opinion St. Alphonsus adduces nothing except the authority of Concina, who leaves the matter to the judgment of prudent men if the priest is poor - as though poverty could remove from sacred ministries the appearance of base gain! For the rest, the second opinion is not only far more probable because of the solidity of its reasons and the weight of authority, but is also confirmed by the most common practice of devout and prudent priests.

** The VV. found several things (pp. 386-388) to criticize in this little note. Nevertheless, they admit (p. 387) that this exchange of intentions is lawful in itself, even when the stipends are retained by both priests. Thus they say: We do not deny, nor does the Holy Doctor disapprove, that a priest can, speaking per se, exchange an intention with another, while each priest retains his own... stipend. And in fact occasions for requesting this of another priest are not so infrequent, as happens, for example, if you have accepted a stipend for a Mass to be celebrated on a certain day, and on that day it unexpectedly happens that you ought to celebrate Mass either for a sick person, or for a deceased person, or for a bridegroom and bride, etc. But since, as the VV. admit, St. Alphonsus finds nothing that can in itself be censured in an exchange of intentions of this kind, those things which the VV. object readily fall of themselves.

Concina (De Eucharistia, diss. 2, ch. 6, sec. 2, no. 16) speaks thus on this matter: Nor do I see how this can be excused from the appearance of base commerce. For this exchange of days and Masses tends to produce greater gain. The sole end of the exchange is commerce. The meaning is somewhat obscure, for the word mercimonium of itself signifies the same as merchandise. But the VV. bring assistance by interpreting appearance as semblance, and by understanding base commerce (p. 387) as base gain. Meanwhile, it is sufficiently astonishing that in former times no one saw this baseness until Concina at last brought some light into the world! The VV. note (loc. cit.) that few of the Authors have touched upon this question. But since both the VV. themselves and St. Alphonsus (as they themselves admit) found nothing to disapprove in this exchange of Masses, is it not evident that the matter was scarcely treated by anyone for this reason, namely, that there was no ground for calling its uprightness into doubt? But let us come more closely to the point.

Let it now pass that, as we have said, other causes are often present on account of which this exchange of intentions happens to be requested; nor, moreover, is it customary to inquire which priest accepted the larger stipend. But why, finally, is it base gain? Concina answers: because greater gain is sought; and the VV.: because he seeks another priest lest he lose a julius. But what if a priest wishes to preserve the larger stipend, which he thinks has been offered to him by divine providence, so that he may bring assistance to a sick person, or help a needy old woman, or buy a moral work of St. Alphonsus either for himself or to give to another priest? For, with St. Alphonsus approving, it is honorable to exchange an intention while retaining one's own stipend. But to will to use an honorable means for assisting the poor is also honorable. Where, then, is the baseness? But if the VV., with Concina, imagine that it is done inordinately, namely, for a less honorable end, then certainly the end of the agent accidentally adjoined will be called depraved, but not the work considered in itself.

The VV. add (loc. cit.): In the Note the weight of authority is vaunted, but which authorities these are is not indicated.

Reply. The fact that throughout so many centuries there existed only the most rigorous Concina (as St. Alphonsus says), who found here the guilt of base commerce, as he calls it, already proves more than sufficiently that against him stood both those who touched upon the question and those who, by the very fact that they raised no question about it, taught that none was to be raised. Did not St. Alphonsus also (as the VV. admit) find no guilt in this matter unless recourse is had to some inordinate end by which the priest might perhaps be moved? And does not the suffrage of all against Concina alone have some weight of authority?

The VV. insist (loc. cit.), saying that they wonder that in the Note it is remarked as less coherent that Concina excepted the case of a poor priest, as though poverty could remove the appearance of base gain. For, say the VV., if a poor priest does this, he acts not as moved by desire for gain, but in order to provide for necessity; and then the appearance of base gain is in fact removed.

Reply. This excuse of Concina confirms what was said above: that the act which, considered in itself, can be judged indifferent should not generally be presented as culpable, since it can become good or bad according to the diversity of the end.

For poverty alone cannot furnish a priest with an honorable end on account of which he may honorably judge that the stipend offered to him is to be preserved for his own uses. But that an act of this kind, honorable in itself, should be painted with those terms full of odium, gain and commerce, ought indeed to have been left to Concina's heated imagination; for verbal sallies of this kind are not to be regarded as theological reasons.

The VV. add (loc. cit.) that they do not know whence it was established that devout and prudent priests most commonly observe a practice disapproved by St. Alphonsus.

Reply. Whoever is not a stranger in this world plainly knows that occasions are not infrequent for exchanging an intention among priests so that the will of one offering a stipend for a Mass to be celebrated on a stated day may be satisfied. Yet when devout and prudent priests act thus, they do not observe a practice painted by Concina's fervid genius with the colors of base gain and commerce, but the practice which the VV. themselves testify was not disapproved by the Holy Doctor Alphonsus.

Finally, the VV. recall that in the year 1860 the S. Congregation of the Council replied concerning certain doubts about Mass stipends: Let the petitioner consult theologians, especially St. Alphonsus de Liguori and Benedict XIV, and conform himself to their opinions.

Reply 1. The present question is by no means found among the doubts proposed to the Sacred Congregation. Therefore, this does not pertain to the matter. 2. Do not the VV. themselves admit that this practice is not disapproved by St. Alphonsus?

The second opinion affirms it, with Lacroix, no. 134, and others.

373. QUESTION 11. How are Masses to be assessed for the saying of which a testator left a certain sum of money? Reply. They are to be assessed according to the custom of the place or the diocesan law in force for private Masses. But if the testator himself fixed the stipend below the custom of the place or the standard of the accepted rate, the number of Masses is to be reduced by the Ordinary according to due proportion. - Thus the S. Congregation established, as cited by St. Ligorius, no. 320. - Gousset, no. 295.

QUESTION 12. Can wealthy priests accept a stipend?

Reply. Affirmatively. The reason is that every laborer, whether rich or poor, is worthy of his hire, as Christ Himself says, Luke 10:7, and according to the Apostle, 1 Cor. 9:13. Besides, if they could not accept a stipend, and on the other hand they are not bound to celebrate without a stipend, since there is no law obliging them to celebrate in this way, the faithful would often be unable to obtain Masses. This is established, moreover, from the practice of the universal Church. - St. Lig. and others commonly.

374. QUESTION 13. Can the editor of a religious periodical accept from a priest who is a subscriber a certain number of Masses to be celebrated in place of the annual subscription price?

Reply. Affirmatively. This is established from a Declaration of the S. Penitentiary. For when the editor of a certain religious periodical had asked the S. Penitentiary whether he could with a safe conscience give his periodical to priests on the condition that they celebrate a number of Masses corresponding to the price paid by others for the periodical, the S. Penitentiary, on Oct. 6, 1862, having maturely considered the aforesaid doubt, replied: Affirmatively, provided that the Masses are celebrated.

Consequently, it is not unlawful to give books on matters pertaining to Religion in return for Masses to be celebrated, provided that equality is preserved between the stipends of the Masses and the price of the works. For the same reasoning applies both to a periodical sheet published, for example, every month, and to complete works that are published and disseminated at one time.

375. QUESTION 14. Can a priest, for the dissemination of good books, buy them by means of a stipend equivalent to certain Masses to be celebrated by him, and afterward sell them at the current price in the book trade, so that he receives a notable profit from it?

Reply. Negatively, because any trading on the occasion of Masses to be celebrated is prohibited on account of the appearance of base gain ⁵. This is also established from the response of the S. Penitentiary on Nov. 19, 1863. For when the following questions had been proposed: 1. Can a priest, under the pretext of disseminating religious books, with a safe conscience buy them and afterward sell them at the current price among booksellers, so that he gains twenty, thirty, or forty percent? 2. Can he accept Mass stipends for books sold, and gratuitously offer the buyer books proportionate to the profit received? 3. Can the same priest sell the aforesaid books to other priests who lack Mass stipends, with the obligation of celebrating Masses corresponding to the price of these books, so that he himself obtains a profit of thirty, forty, or fifty percent?

⁵ According to the resolution of the preceding question, it is equivalent whether you pay a price for acquiring books or assign the stipends of Masses to be celebrated by you. Therefore, the circumstance of books which are acquired by assigning Mass stipends has no bearing here. The reason of baseness, therefore, is to be sought in the trading which is prohibited to clerics by the sacred canons.

** From this, when the doubt was proposed whether those act unlawfully who, for Masses celebrated, receive books or other merchandise in place of a stipend, every appearance of trading or base gain being excluded, the S. Congregation of the Council replied on Sept. 9, 1874: Negatively.

The S. Penitentiary, having maturely considered the aforesaid doubts, replied that every kind of trading or commerce relative to Masses to be celebrated is prohibited to priests by Canon Law, and especially by the Constitution Apostolicae servitutis of Benedict XIV. But if any doubt remains for the aforesaid priest, let him submit it to the S. Penitentiary ⁶.

⁶ ** The responses of the S. Congregation of the Council of Sept. 9, 1874, pertain here.

1. Does it savor of base commerce, and therefore is it to be disapproved and, if necessary, restrained by Bishops even with ecclesiastical penalties, when booksellers or merchants act in such a manner that, by employing public inducements and rewards, or in any other way, they collect alms for Masses and repay the priests to whom they entrust the celebration of them not with money but with books or other merchandise? The S. Congregation replied: Affirmatively.

2. Can this manner of acting be rendered honorable either because, without any diminution being made, as many Masses are entrusted for celebration by the aforesaid collectors as correspond to the alms collected, or because by it assistance is given to poor priests who lack Mass alms? The S. Congregation replied: Negatively.

3. Are collections and disbursements of alms of this kind also then to be disapproved and restrained by Bishops, as above, when the profit derived from the exchange of merchandise for alms is expended not for the collectors' own benefit, but for the use and increase of pious institutions and good works? The S. Congregation replied: Affirmatively.

4. Do those participate in base commerce, and therefore are they to be disapproved and also restrained, as above, who hand over to booksellers, merchants, and other collectors of them the alms for Masses received from the faithful or from pious places, whether or not they receive anything from them by way of reward? The S. Congregation replied: Affirmatively.

5. Do those participate in base commerce, and therefore are they to be disapproved and restrained, as above, who receive from the said booksellers and merchants books or other merchandise for Masses to be celebrated, whether at a reduced or full price? The S. Congregation replied: Affirmatively.

But then, you will say, how do these Resolutions, and especially this fifth one, cohere with those cited above (no. 374 and the Note), one of which proceeded from the S. Penitentiary and the other from the same S. Congregation of the Council, and indeed on the same day, Sept. 9, 1874?

Reply. The Responses cohere very well with one another when account is taken of the grave disadvantages which can be present or absent. For, as had to be noted in discussing these matters, first of all the intention of those who offer Mass stipends must not be neglected. Certainly, if the faithful offering Mass stipends granted the faculty that those Masses could be celebrated by priests who were going to subscribe to periodicals, there would be no doubt that the editors of the periodicals acted lawfully. For it belongs to those offering to prescribe not only the celebration, but also the time, place, and persons of the celebration; but only those who hand over adventitious Masses can grant the faculty that the sacred rites be performed by others without limitation of time or places. But it not rarely happens that even perpetual Masses, and Masses from distant regions as well, are handed over to the editors of periodicals. In that case, unless those who founded or bequeathed them permitted them to be offered at any time and place, those who transmit them altogether lack that faculty. Moreover, the mind of pious founders, whose devotion is generally directed toward some Sanctuary or Church, is not easily presumed unless it has been expressed. From these things it is evident how greatly unbecoming it is that editors of periodicals, by their own authority, entrust Masses for celebration to whomever, wherever, and whenever it pleases them, as though they were the owners of the alms and could disburse them at will. And this manner of acting will appear still more to be disapproved if it is observed that, in order to be able to satisfy those requesting them, these editors must necessarily gather for themselves not some small number of Masses, but an immense accumulation of them, contrary to the mind of Benedict XIV, who in the Apostolic Constitution beginning Quanta cura disapproves collections of Masses of this kind, since innumerable disadvantages can arise from them. Among these, this must be noted above all: it is impossible for so many obligations undertaken to be satisfied within a short time.

The response of the Sacred Congregation, which is related on page 258 concerning the Decree of the Bishop of Caltanissetta, ought to be read thus: THE DOUBT HAVING BEEN REFORMULATED - Whether, and how, a response is to be made to the Bishop of Caltanissetta in the case? - Negatively in all respects, to both.

For the Decree of the aforesaid Bishop, by which it was forbidden that Masses to be celebrated should be entrusted or accepted in exchange for books or journals, etc., had in view the averting of certain inconveniences, which the Sacred Congregation also disapproves.

Therefore, the Sacred Congregation did not wish to disapprove that Decree; but it gave the aforesaid Response to the twofold doubt proposed by the same Bishop, whether, those inconveniences having been removed, both those entrusting and those accepting Masses to be celebrated as above would act illicitly.

Indeed, to the doubt again proposed to the same Sacred Congregation: Whether, and how, editors or administrators of religious periodicals are to be disapproved who entrust Masses to priests for celebration, retaining from their alms a price corresponding to the periodicals themselves, in the case? In May of the current year 1875, the response was: Negatively, provided that nothing be withdrawn from the will of the founders or offerers concerning the amount of the stipend and the place and time of the celebration of the Masses; that every deliberate collection of alms for Masses be excluded; and that testimony of the completed celebration of the Masses be given to the one to whom it is due by right. In this Response of the Sacred Congregation, the disadvantages on account of which the same Sacred Congregation had otherwise disapproved this practice are indicated at the same time.

376. QUESTION 15. Can administrators of churches retain something for themselves from the alms for Masses for the expenses of altars, lights, etc.? Reply. Negatively, unless the churches have no other revenues; and then the value of the expenses which are necessary for the Sacrifice of the Mass itself must in no way be exceeded ⁷. - Thus the S. Congregation of the Council established (as cited by Lacroix, no. 95, and St. Lig., no. 322). An archpriest, however, is not bound to furnish utensils to adventitious celebrants unless their expenses are paid. - Thus the S. Congregation on March 18, 1686. - St. Lig., no. 322.

⁷ The Decree also adds the following: And nevertheless, even in that case care must be taken that, from the monies which remain after the expenses have been deducted as above, absolutely as many Masses be celebrated as were prescribed by those offering the alms.

QUESTION 16. Must one make restitution who, having accepted a stipend to celebrate Mass at a privileged altar, celebrates it at another altar?

Reply. It seems that the answer is negative; but he will be bound to gain a plenary indulgence applicable to the dead, such as the indulgences of the Way of the Cross, etc. For in this way a proportionate compensation is furnished. If, however, he accepted for this purpose a stipend larger than the ordinary one, he is bound to restore the excess. - Thus St. Lig., no. 229. - Elbel, no. 210. - Sporer, nos. 137 and 355.

But if anyone accepts a stipend to celebrate in a certain place, for example, at a miraculous Statue, or in a Chapel so that the people may hear Mass, or at a certain time, for example, on Saturday in honor of the Blessed Virgin, in such a way that the place and time are intended in themselves, he cannot retain the stipend unless he has said Mass at the prescribed time and place ⁸. The reason is that otherwise the one giving the stipend is judged to be gravely unwilling. But it is otherwise if the time and place are not intended in themselves.

⁸ This last clause will perhaps appear somewhat too severe; for the will of one who establishes agreements of this kind does not seem generally to be extended to that degree. This is also confirmed by the doctrine proposed in the following Question 18.

377. QUESTION 17. Must one who is bound by a stipend to celebrate at a privileged altar for a deceased person say a Requiem Mass when the rite permits it?

In Benefices which are conferred in title, the Beneficiary is not bound to give a stipend according to the measure of the revenues of the Benefice; "but it is enough that the Rector of the Benefice, who can celebrate through another, assign to the celebrating priest the congruous alms according to the custom of the city or province, unless another thing has been provided by the foundation of the Benefice itself." S. C. C. approved by Urban VIII, Const. Cum saepe, 21 June 1625. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 4, p. 39 ff., 537 ff.

"Chaplains legitimately impeded on some day of any week, who satisfy the celebration of Masses through another priest, are not bound to pay to this priest the stipend established for Chaplains, but only the manual alms." S. C. 14 Apr. 1725.

"The whole alms is to be paid (by a parish priest in manual Masses); unless it is established with moral certainty that the excess of the common alms was offered in view of the parish priest himself." S. C. C. 25 July 1874.

A testator left to Church N. 500 scuta, so that from the revenues each year as many Masses would be celebrated as could be celebrated, an alms of three lire having been given for each one. It is asked whether the aforesaid Church could give to the celebrant one lira while retaining the other two for itself? Response was made: "that only the customary alms is owed to the celebrating priest; but the rest yields to the advantage of the Church." S. C. C. 3 Aug. 1638.

Catharina de Saccharo imposed on her heirs the celebration of as many annual Masses in perpetuity, with an alms of three lire for each one, as could be celebrated from the fruits of the inheritance. A part of these came to the Seminary, which asked from the S. C. whether it could give one lira for each Mass. Response was made: affirmatively. 18 July 1699.

We think that the many things which have been prescribed concerning this matter can be set forth summarily in this way.

— I. The Undertaking of the Obligation. These things are not lawful:

1. by celebrating several times in the day, to accept a double or triple stipend, except for the three Masses on the Nativity of the Lord; or by one Mass to satisfy an obligation of justice, such as a pastor has, and to say another for a stipend. For the other Mass only some remuneration from an extrinsic title is permitted (c. 824, §2), for example, of singing, of the hour, of a distant place. But it does not matter which Mass is said first;

2. to receive a stipend for a Mass which is already owed from justice (c. 825, 2° and 3°), or which in any way is applied to another first intention; but "as many Masses must be celebrated and applied as stipends, even small ones, have been given and accepted" (c. 828);

3. to retain an alms for a Mass applied before it has been requested (c. 825, 1°), unless the offerer, having been warned, ratifies the matter.

In this way we reconcile with the absolute prohibition of the Code the opinion admitted by St. Alphonsus, l. 6, c. 3, n. 337, and rejected by R. P. Cappello, op. c., I, n. 604, which permits that for a person already deceased, to whom it will profit to be aided more quickly by a Mass, a priest who foresees that a stipend is going to be offered may already offer the Mass and afterward receive the stipend. Yet if we wish to speak accurately, money given in this way will no longer have the character of a stipend of the Mass, but rather of a remunerative donation for the benefit received of Masses celebrated. Wherefore the offerer seems to have to be warned that he should ratify the matter;

4. to accept one stipend for the celebration alone, another for the application of the same Mass, "unless it is certain that one offering was offered for celebration without application" (c. 825, 4°);

5. to receive so many burdens of Masses to be celebrated personally that you cannot satisfy them within a year (c. 855).

Therefore he who can say within a year 300 Masses for a stipend is forbidden to bind himself to celebrating more than 300 Masses personally. Nor, since the law does not distinguish, does it matter if an option is given of saying them over several years. Yet the express consent of the offerers, who know the quantity of Masses already accepted, seems able to permit this: no injury is done to one who consents;

6. by means of stipends really, or even in appearance, to trade or conduct commerce (c. 827). What trading or commerce is was explained above, n. 21. Those devices have the appearance of trading which, although they do not fall under the strict definition of trading, nevertheless are imbued with the color of trading because of profit studiously sought from the collection and distribution or exchange of stipends.

For, since in every trading or commerce these two things are discerned: acquisition, and a profitable sale or quasi-sale intended through the acquisition itself, the very appearance of trading seems to require both elements at least in some imperfect way. Now the acquisition will be the studied collection of stipends, made in order to obtain profit from paying out or distribution, which will be a quasi-sale, although the proper character of gainful or artificial trading is in part lacking.

And so he trades by means of stipends who collects stipends of greater price so that, having obtained Masses with a smaller stipend, he may profit from them; or who collects stipends so that he may profit from the exchange of money. But he commits the appearance of trading who collects stipends so that, having obtained the consent of celebrants, he may be able to retain part for himself. He conducts commerce by means of stipends who collects stipends so that he may convert them into books which, with profit, he hands over to priests for money, or so that he may transfer them to another place where the use of a smaller stipend prevails. But if he hands over books without profit, still that collector of stipends commits the appearance of trading. These things, therefore, cannot be done without an indult of the Holy See.

But he who, from stipends not studiously collected, retains a part for himself or for a good work neither trades nor exercises commerce, although this is forbidden by a direct prohibition;

7. to demand a stipend beyond the tax established by the Ordinary or by custom, or, unless you are moved by reason of particular friendship or mercy, to be content with less, if the local Ordinary has forbidden smaller stipends to be accepted. For exempt religious themselves are held to observing these taxes and statutes.

It is lawful to increase the tax for an added extrinsic labor of singing, etc.

— II. The Gravity and Execution of the Obligation. 1. The priest must celebrate the Masses thus promised under grave obligation. Yet he who omits one out of a hundred promised for the same intention does not seem to Lehmkuhl, II, 269, 1, and Cappello, I, 668, certainly to sin gravely, because he lessens one series by a modest part; which, however, others do not admit.

There were also those who said that the obligation of one Mass is not grave if the stipend is not grave. And Ballerini, IV, 1012, does not judge this opinion improbable. In the appended note, Palmieri would rather gather the gravity from the precept of the Church, because, as he himself says, if it arose from contract, a small sum of money would have to be restored under grave obligation, which cannot be admitted. All these things seem to us to rest on a confusion by which the contract concerning the celebration and application of Mass is assimilated to sale. The obligation of celebrating one Mass is grave because the priest from justice has bound himself to a matter of great moment. Nor does one who violates the obligation have to restore a small sum of money under grave obligation, but to take care that the Mass be said.

2. The obligation does not cease even if, without fault of him who is burdened with the duty of celebrating, the alms already received have perished (c. 829). And this from natural law itself, as R. P. Arendt, S.J., lucidly proves in a special dissertation.

We restrict that severity to him who was held by a personal obligation of celebrating, by himself or through others. For this is general, that if someone, from another's onerous obligation, has obtained that to which he had a right, he must now execute his own obligation absolutely, in whatever way the profit received has perished.

But if there were question of one who was only a mandatary (of whom in c. 837), who merely had to transmit stipends and had never acquired the stipends, he would be held to nothing if those stipends had perished by a fortuitous event while with him. For these had not entered his patrimony; and the obligation of mandate must be said to cease by impossibility of execution.

3. He who accepts a sum for Masses to be said, the number of which was not defined, must compute his obligation according to the tax of the place in which the offerer was dwelling, "unless another intention of his is legitimately presumed" (c. 830).

4. Masses must be said at the time expressly prescribed; if it was not expressly prescribed, the celebrant must say as soon as possible the Masses whose cause urges; but others within a moderate time.

This can be estimated according to the rules of the decree Ut debita, May 11, 1904, so that one promised Mass ought to be said within a month, then for two Masses of the same intention three days beyond a month can be counted; ten Masses offered by the same person are to be completed within a month and a half; but six months are deputed for one hundred Masses to be said. All these things are to be taken not mathematically but morally.

But a delay of one or another month beyond the lawful time is considered grave.

5. The offerer is presumed to have requested only the application of the Mass; "yet if the offerer has expressly determined some circumstances to be observed in the celebration of the Mass, the priest, accepting the alms, must stand by his will" (c. 833).

And so in itself the priest is permitted to choose the quality of the Mass according to his devotion; yet the circumstances which he has tacitly admitted by receiving the alms he will have to observe. And many circumstances, for example, of a privileged altar, of black vestments, of a votive Mass, are such that, since they are not burdensome, they ought not to be compensated by a greater stipend. And although a Mass with black vestments or of the feria with the proper prayer of the deceased is no longer required for gaining the indulgence of a privileged altar, "nevertheless we are admonished by the decree of the Holy Office (Section on Indulgences), February 19-20, 1913, that this is laudably done, when it is lawful and fitting, for the sake of piety toward the deceased" (Periodica, VII, 121).

6. Toward the end of any year, whoever by any title are obliged to burdens of Masses are to hand over to their Ordinaries the burdens of Masses for which satisfaction has not yet been made, according to the manner to be defined by them (c. 841, §1). In Masses "after the manner of manual," the obligation runs from the end of the civil year within which the burdens ought to have been fulfilled; in manual Masses, after a year from the day of the burden undertaken, without prejudice to a diverse will of the offerers (c. 841, §2).

The diverse will of the offerers, when there is question not of Masses which, as Masses after the manner of manual, have proceeded from a pious foundation, but of manual Masses, could grant a time greater than a year; in which case the burdens will not have to be handed over. Masses after the manner of manual are made from founded Masses, because they can no longer be celebrated by the persons obliged, and are to be handed over to Ordinaries. But they admit that this time can be taken morally and that some Masses can be retained at the end of the year, lest a priest lack stipends (Cappello, op. c., I, p. 712).

7. Local Ordinaries and religious Superiors who entrust Masses to be celebrated to their own subjects or others must take care, as far as they are able, that they are celebrated as soon as possible (c. 844).

We interpret this canon, rather obscure, in this way. Since local Ordinaries and Superiors have many subjects to whom they entrust Masses, the faithful not rarely hand over a great number of Masses to them with that intention, that they may be celebrated more quickly than by individual priests. Yet nothing indicates that the lawful time is in itself to be defined otherwise. The same persons, besides, are accustomed at the end of the year to receive burdens for which the space of time has already elapsed. This is another reason for taking care that those burdens be fulfilled as soon as possible. Yet since they ought not to transmit the burden of these Masses to others, and so preserve too many to be fulfilled, they are merely warned that they "take care as far as they are able." For it can happen that, because of too great an abundance, the Masses cannot be discharged so quickly.

8. He who is held not indeed by the obligation of celebrating but of distributing Masses should distribute the Masses as soon as possible; but, unless something else is clear, the time of lawful celebration has its beginning from the day on which the priest about to celebrate them has accepted them (c. 837).

Here there is question of the administrator of a pious cause, or an heir or executor of a testament, who, as the first offerer, has Masses to be distributed; but not of him, for example, a Superior, who has already undertaken in himself the burden of celebrating by himself or through others. For it cannot be in this one's judgment that, by delaying distribution, he increase the lawful time.

— III. Transmission of the Obligation. 1. The severity of recent decrees, especially of the decree Recenti decreto, May 22, 1907 (Periodica, III, 138 or II-III, 322), having been moderated, the Code permits Masses to be handed over to well-regarded priests, whom either the transmitter himself has known to be "above every exception," that is, altogether worthy, or the testimony of their own Ordinary has commended (c. 838).

Those above every exception are the same as excellent persons, or those upon whom suspicion cannot fall. This is properly said of a witness who is eminently suitable (cf. Reiffenstuel, Ius can., II, 20, 10-11). Transmission permitted to approved priests is prohibited from being made to booksellers or merchants who collect alms of Masses and repay to priests not the money itself but books and other merchandise (cf. Sacred Congregation of the Council, September 9, 1874; decree Vigilanti studio, May 23, 1893). But it is not disapproved that stipends which abound be entrusted to a good priest to be distributed to poorer priests. But in order that they be handed over to a pious work, for example, an institute for spreading good periodicals, it is necessary that there be certainty about an indult by which either retention of part of the stipend, or exchange with religious newspapers, is permitted, although because of the appearance of trading or the dangers of abuses, these things were prohibited by the decree Ut debita of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, May 11, 1904.

But the bishop does not seem able by synodal statute to prohibit what c. 838 expressly permits, that Masses be handed over to other approved priests outside the diocese, nor to attach a condition unknown to common law, for example, the consent of the Ordinary "lest stipends be transferred outside the diocese." We say this about stipends of which priests have free disposition. For if there is question of stipends offered to a church, for example, a secular sanctuary which is a place of pilgrimages, the local Ordinary could use his jurisdiction in those churches to command that stipends accepted there not go beyond the boundaries of the diocese. But insofar as they are executors of pious wills (c. 1515), they can indeed impede those transfers which they judge imprudent or alien to the mind of the donor; yet they cannot directly prohibit stipends from being carried outside the diocese.

But sometimes, in an indult for the reduction of founded Masses, provision is made that Masses to be celebrated outside the diocese not be handed over beyond a third part; or bishops are permitted to forbid transfer beyond the disposition of the Code. Thus in the month of March 1922 the Sacred Congregation of the Council indulged to the bishops of the Netherlands that they could prohibit priests from transmitting Masses outside the diocese without their consent (cf. Periodica, XII, p. 37 ff.).

2. He who has handed over to another for celebration Masses committed to his faith remains obliged "until they have obtained testimony of the obligation accepted by the same persons and of the stipend received" (c. 839).

And so concerning the execution itself of a legitimately transferred obligation, contrary to what was provided by the decree Ut debita, no solicitude is now imposed by positive law upon him who transfers the burden.

3. Manual offerings are to be transmitted entire, "unless either the offerer expressly permits something to be retained, or it is certain that the excess above the diocesan tax was given with consideration of the person" (c. 840, §1). They are to be transmitted entire at least in this way, that the celebrant by the celebration acquires a right to the whole stipend.

Is this prescription of positive law alone, which, already from Urban VIII and Innocent XII, Constitution Nuper, December 23, 1697, was sanctioned, and afterward several times and now by c. 840, §1 is confirmed, or also of natural law? There are those who think that in itself it is lawful that you offer less, though a just stipend, to the priest, and retain the excess, because this is the common norm admitted concerning him who executes through another an obligation undertaken. Thus Busembaum himself in c. 3, dub. 1 De Eucharistia. Others think the same in itself lawful for a priest, but not for a layman transmitting, because in a priest, but not in a layman, the intention of the offerer is fulfilled, who was deputing the alms for the congruent support of a priest. Thus Suarez, Sacr., I p., d. 86, s. 3, toward the end. But this assimilation of one transmitting an alms with the executor of any obligation seems false to us. For he who offers the alms of a Mass to one accepting it by no means, at least in itself, simply says to him: "Take care that so many Masses be celebrated"; but he intends to join such an alms with the Masses which will be said. He admits no other title besides celebration by which that money can be kept. Nor does he destine it immediately to the support of the priest, but only through the mediation of celebration; that is, he does not give the money except as a stipend of a Mass. Nor is the thing indifferent; for from a more abundant alms he can hope for a better or more intense application of the fruit for himself (cf. Sacred Congregation of the Council, in the Cause of Montevideo and others, January 10, 1920, among the observations of the secretary, A. A. S., XI, 1920, p. 72). And so with the much more common opinion today, we hold that the alms is customarily offered in such a way that, already in itself, the distributor or priest who transfers the obligation undertaken to another can retain for himself no part of the stipend received by any title.

He who has secretly retained part of the stipend has sinned against justice and is held to restitution. Thus we say with St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 321, and we prove it both from the nature of the offense, which contains the malice of theft, and from the obvious sense of the decrees of the Holy See. Already Alexander VII condemned proposition 9: that a priest can satisfy through another "by conferring a smaller stipend on him"; and Benedict XIV, Constitution Quanta cura, declared that collectors of Masses who retained part of the stipend for themselves were not immune from theft. Wherefore at least concerning those who are not priests (for the collectors in themselves were not priests), the matter can no longer be doubted. Yet there were those who thought that the obligation of restitution is not certainly clear. Thus Ballerini, IV, 1017; more expressly Noldin, III, 191, and even now, Arregui, Summarium, n. 567, 5. But cf. the strong reasons, both historical and intrinsic, which R. P. Arendt opposes to these in the booklet De laesione iustitiae commutativae in missae manuali stipendio alteri celebranti diminuto (Prato, 1914). That injustice primarily injures the offerer himself of the stipend. Wherefore c. 840, §1 admits that it can be expressly permitted by the offerer that something be retained. Yet restitution can also be made to the celebrating priest; indeed to him occult restitution is to be made, so that the will of the offerer, not revoked, may obtain its effects.

But he does not violate justice who, by title of donation, obtains from the celebrant part of the stipend or even the whole stipend which he had to hand over. And in itself the matter stands the same whether the celebrant wished to offer the Mass gratis or for a partial stipend. Yet the danger of abuse is much greater in a partial donation than in a complete donation. Wherefore partial liberality could be prohibited where full liberality was admitted, and must be proposed and admitted more cautiously than complete liberality.

Canon 840 itself permits that the excess above the diocesan tax be retained if it is certain that the excess was given with consideration of the person, so that it is not a formal part of the stipend.

4. "In Masses after the manner of manual, unless the mind of the founder stands in the way, the excess is legitimately retained, and it is enough to remit only the manual alms of the diocese in which the Mass is celebrated, if the rich alms partly holds the place of the dowry of the benefice or pious cause" (c. 840, §2).

For the founder is judged not only to have prescribed Masses, but also to have wished to benefit the service of some church and therefore its beneficiaries. Yet the Code does not simply permit that the richer alms of a founded Mass be retained in part whenever Masses are celebrated elsewhere or by another than ought in itself to have been done, but attaches this condition: "If the greater alms is, as it were, a partial dowry of the benefice or pious cause." But then it does not require that the customary alms of the place where the Masses were founded be assigned, but declares it sufficient that the alms of the diocese where the Mass will be celebrated be paid. This can give place to cunning devices. Yet it does not seem able to be a frequent abuse.

— Corollaries or Scholia. It is helpful to illustrate the doctrine handed down by certain cases. In solving these, the rule of c. 827, concerning every appearance of trading to be kept away from the offering of Masses, must always be kept before the eyes, besides the principle of justice concerning fulfilling the will of the offerer.

1. It is lawful to ask another that he be willing to celebrate gratis and yield the whole stipend to the transmitter. Nor, because of a particular cause of consoling someone's affliction or of a good work, is a priest forbidden to ask part of the stipend from the celebrant, provided the concession is not made a condition without which the Mass would not be transmitted: for then the character of true liberality would be absent; and provided Masses are not collected with the mind of obtaining in this way parts of stipends: for then an appearance of commerce would be introduced.

2. Priests can exchange intentions of Masses among themselves, retaining their respective stipends even when unequal, since then each renounces the whole of the other's stipend, and abuse is more difficult. Yet a studied capture of a richer stipend would have to be reproved, namely if frequently, by seeking out rich stipends, you acquire profits of this kind for yourself.

3. A pastor who entrusts to another the singing of a Mass whose celebration is placed among parochial rights, for example, in the funerals of the dead, does not have to hand over to the celebrant except the customary alms for a Mass which is sung at such an hour; the rest he licitly retains as pertaining to stole fees.

4. He to whom Masses are legated, which the testator has taxed above the customary alms, if he fulfills the burden through another, can easily keep the excess by title of legacy.

5. But if Masses have been legated not to a definite priest, but to a church, the Sacred Congregation of the Council, June 25, 1874, judged that the alms, from the mind of the founder, cannot be separated from celebration. Much less will this separation be permitted if not even the church itself was determined: then it is clear that the testator wished favor to be given to the celebrant alone.

6. It is not lawful for rectors of churches to take anything from manual stipends by which provision may be made for the beauty and ornament of the church; the same is lawful for paying the expenses of celebration, if the Church has no other revenues destined to this end, provided as many Masses are celebrated as have been prescribed by the offerers. But from perpetual foundations it is lawful to deduct the expenses of utensils (cf. A. S. S., XXI, p. 299 ff.).

Nor does a rector of a church seem able to be prohibited from asking from outside priests who desire to celebrate in his church that they pay the expenses of celebration (cf. St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 322, end; d'Annibale, III, 190 [17]).

7. For churches which receive Masses in too great a quantity for them to be able to be celebrated there in due time, c. 836 sets down this rule: "The faithful are to be warned by a notice placed in an open and obvious place, that the Masses offered will be celebrated either there, when it will conveniently be possible, or elsewhere."

8. He who demands a greater stipend without a title of extrinsic labor or something similar is presumed in the external forum to be simoniacal; but in the internal forum he will be guilty of scandal, of a violated law obliging from religion, and also of injustice, since he asks beyond what is just (Bucceroni, II, p. 157), but not of the sin of simony unless he wished to sell sacred things, as if he asks more on account of a privileged altar or a miraculous place.

9. He who had promised Masses for a stipend is not in itself freed by occult restitution of the money, since the offerer of the stipend is nevertheless frustrated of the Masses to which he had acquired a right, nor is money equivalent to Masses. But either an occasion must be offered to the same person of obtaining Masses, or condonation must be obtained from the Holy See, which can supply the defect from the treasures of the Church.

— IV. Annotation of Masses. 1. The rector of any church or pious place in which alms of Masses are customarily received must accurately note, in a special book, the number, intention, alms, and celebration of the Masses received. And Ordinaries, whether of places or major Superiors of exempt clerical religions, must review books of this kind each year by themselves or through others (c. 843).

2. Moreover the local Ordinaries themselves and religious Superiors who entrust Masses to be celebrated to their own subjects or others must enter in order in a book the Masses which they have accepted with their alms. "Indeed all priests, whether secular or religious, must accurately annotate what intentions of Masses each has received and for which he has satisfied" (c. 844).

That this burden is a matter of conscience is evident in itself, lest because of our negligence we ourselves violate grave obligations, or, oppressed by some accident, prepare inextricable difficulties for successors.

— V. Penalties. By more than one earlier decree penalties latae sententiae were established. The Code does not confirm these; but it wills that those who have committed an offense against the prescription of c. 827, by which every appearance also of trading is kept away from the offering of Masses, or of c. 828, by which as many Masses are commanded to be celebrated and applied as stipends have been accepted, or of c. 840, §1, which commands that one transmitting Masses transmit entire the manual offerings of Masses accepted, be punished by their Ordinary according to the gravity of the fault, not excluding suspension, or deprivation of benefice or office, or, if there is question of laypersons, excommunication (c. 2324).

— VI. Indults. The Holy See can condone faults in the external forum and remit several obligations, since it can compensate not a few defects from the treasures of the Church.

For the same reason, it can in advance indulge certain things which otherwise would be prohibited, especially when it is not always clear that there is question of natural law. And when the prohibition is of positive law, its intervention bars the excesses whose danger is usually the cause of the law.

— VII. On Gregorian Masses and the Gregorian Altar. 1. In his Dialogues, l. 4, c. 55 (P. L., 77, 410 ff.), St. Gregory relates that on the thirtieth day the soul of the monk Justus, for whom he had commanded that the sacred rite be celebrated through thirty strictly continuous days, was freed from purgatorial flames. Hence there prevailed the pious use of the Gregorian thirty, which is subject only to these conditions: that in an uninterrupted series through thirty days Mass be offered by one or several priests for one and the same soul. Through thirty days, I say, so that on the Nativity of the Lord only one Mass can be computed for the same thirty. But not long ago, March 15, 1884 (A. S. S., XVI, 509), the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences affirmed that confidence concerning the special efficacy of Gregorian Masses is pious and reasonable. This efficacy is explained in Nouvelle Revue Theologique (t. 21 [1889], p. 121) by the special intercession of St. Gregory. Hence it follows that a priest derogates from an obligation of justice who, having undertaken the special burden of thirty continuous Masses, interrupts the same, unless he has done this from an indult of the Holy See, which can supply the defect. Thus an interruption of three days at the end of Holy Week does not stand in the way of the virtue of the thirty; thus by decree of May 26, 1918, the Sacred Penitentiary made the faculty that on June 29 of that year priests could interrupt the thirty in order to celebrate Mass for the intention of the Supreme Pontiff for peace. But, with the intervention of apostolic authority set aside, the priest who says disconnected Gregorian Masses deprives the offerer of the stipend of a reasonable hope of special fruit. But if, as usually happens, that burden has been compensated by a greater stipend, he keeps that increase for himself without title (cf. decree of the Holy Office, December 11, 1912 [A. A. S., V, 32-33]).

What, then, remains to be done by him who, distracted, has interrupted the series?

Although other counsels also are suggested, if the Gregorian thirty was to be executed from justice, as Gregorian, the truly secure way will be of having recourse to the Sacred Penitentiary. Yet Cardinal Gennari also thinks it sufficient that he take care that Mass be said at the Gregorian altar of the City, or at an altar privileged after the manner of Gregorian.

For they judge the special efficacy of thirty Masses to be connected likewise with one Mass which is said at the Gregorian altar which exists at Rome in the church of Monte Celio. For, besides the common character of a privileged altar, it is said to have a special power for the souls of purgatory, the persuasion concerning which, approved by the same decree of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, seems to bear the same explanation. You may say the same of Gregorian altars after the manner, which after the decree of the Holy Office, December 11, 1912, are no longer newly conceded (cf. Gennari, Questioni teologico-morali, n. 417).

— I. 1. From the present discipline, priests, as such, must celebrate several times in the year; and bishops and religious Superiors must take care that priests celebrate at least on individual Sundays and feasts of precept.

2. Because of the necessity of the Church, the proper Ordinary can prescribe celebration to a priest not impeded, by conferring on him an office with which celebration is required. The Supreme Pontiff and a religious Superior can impose the same directly and simply, or prescribe application.

3. Pastors must sometimes sacrifice for their sheep.

4. A beneficiary must celebrate and apply Mass so that he satisfies the letters of foundation.

5. A voluntary promise can oblige from religion, if it is a vow; from fidelity, if it is a simple promise; from justice, if it is a contract.

II. Founded Masses are those whose stipends are received from the revenues of foundations. But a foundation designates temporal goods given to some moral person in the Church with the perpetual or at least long-lasting burden of performing a pious work, for example, of celebrating Masses. The written consent of the local Ordinary or major Superior of exempt religious is required for a foundation to be accepted; the goods are first to be kept according to his prudent judgment and as soon as possible to be placed fruitfully. Copies of the documents are to be placed in the archive of the curia of the Ordinary or Superior and of the moral person to whom the foundation pertains. A little table of the burdens of the Church is to be kept with the rector; and the burdens to be fulfilled and fulfilled are to be annotated in a book for this. Burdens are to be executed accurately according to the will of the testator; nor can perpetual transfer of burdens from one altar or church to another, or reduction of Masses, be made without an apostolic indult. An accidental change of the will of the testator seems permitted to the Ordinary. Burdens remaining at the end of the year are to be handed over to the Ordinary.

III. A stipend, by which provision is made at least in part for the support of the minister, and which is not paid as the price of the Mass but as a real prestation in a legitimate contract, by which prestation having been performed, the priest obliges himself to the application of the Mass, is paid and accepted without the stain of simony.

To remove all avarice, 1. these things are forbidden: except for the three Masses on the Nativity of the Lord, on the same day to satisfy by one or several Masses an obligation of justice and of stipend; to retain a stipend for the application of a Mass before it has been requested, unless the offerer, having been warned, ratifies the matter; to accept one stipend for celebration alone, another for application, unless it is certain that the other was offered for celebration alone; to receive so many personal burdens that you cannot satisfy them within a year; by means of stipends really, or in appearance, to trade or conduct commerce; to demand a stipend beyond the established tax; or, against the prohibition of the Ordinary, to be content with less.

2. The obligation of celebrating from a stipend is grave; nor does it cease even if the alms received have perished while with him who is held by the burden of celebrating. For a sum received, Masses, unless something else is demonstrated, are to be said in that number which the tax of the place where the offerer was dwelling has defined. Masses are to be said at the time expressly prescribed; or as soon as possible, if the cause urges; and by him who undertook the burden of celebrating, always within a moderate time, so that for two Masses of the same intention, three days beyond a month can be awaited. An undue delay of one or another month is considered grave. The quality and place of the Mass to be said in themselves remain in the power of the celebrant. Ordinaries and Superiors who entrust Masses to others to be celebrated must take care, as far as they are able, that they are celebrated as soon as possible. They are also to be distributed as soon as possible by the distributor, especially since in itself the time of celebration begins from the distribution having been made. Toward the end of the year, the remaining burdens of Masses are to be handed over to the proper Ordinaries. For Masses which are celebrated after the manner of manual, that is, elsewhere and by others than the documents wished, since they draw their origin from a foundation, the civil year is considered in itself; for others, the year from the day of the burden undertaken, without prejudice to a diverse will of the offerers.

One obliged can transmit Masses to priests above every exception, even outside the diocese, unless, as regards Masses received in churches subject to him, the Ordinary has forbidden this (response of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, February 19, 1921); but the transmitter remains obliged until he has obtained testimony of the accepted obligation and of the stipend received. Except with the express assent of the offerer, manual offerings are to be transmitted entire; and he who has secretly retained part of the stipend has violated justice and must restore: thus the truer opinion. The excess which certainly was given with consideration of the person can be retained. In Masses after the manner of manual, in itself it is enough to remit the alms of the place where they will be celebrated, if the rich alms partly holds the place of a dowry.

3. Obligations of Masses and their execution are to be annotated accurately by all priests; and the books of the rector of a church are to be reviewed each year by the Ordinary, by himself or through another.

Those who offend are to be struck by grave penalties by Ordinaries. But the Holy See can condone faults and remit obligations which it has the means of compensating from the treasures of the Church.

He who, distracted, has interrupted the series of a Gregorian thirty should have recourse to the Sacred Penitentiary, unless he otherwise compensates or supplies the defect.

262. 1. The origin of stipends. Mass stipends derive their origin from the offerings of the faithful (bread and wine), which were offered amid the solemnities of the Mass in the primitive Church. From these offerings were chosen those things which were necessary for the consecration and for the Communion of the faithful; the remainder, however, was distributed among the clergy and the poor. Gradually offerings of bread and wine of this kind ceased, and in their place the faithful offered money, especially in those regions where wine and grain could not be had so easily. At first money was offered in the Mass itself, just as even in our days such offerings of money are sometimes made during Mass. From the eighth century onward, the rather general practice seems to have been introduced of offering money outside Mass with the intention that the ministerial fruit of the Mass be applied for the offerers. From all these things it is evident that Mass stipends are not payment for the Mass, but rather offerings for the support of clerics.³⁶¹

2. The lawfulness of a stipend. It is lawful for any priest to accept a just stipend for the application of the ministerial fruit, not indeed as the price of the sacrifice - for this would be simony - but as a certain aid to honorable support.³⁶² For those who serve the altar can also live from the altar.³⁶³ Wherefore even those priests who have sufficient revenues from elsewhere can nevertheless accept Mass stipends. For just as a beneficiary is not bound to live from his own private goods, but can use the revenues of the benefice, so a priest sacrificing for others can accept Mass stipends from them. A priest, however, who celebrates Mass solely because of the stipend, and who otherwise would not celebrate, does not indeed commit direct simony, since he does not intend precisely to sell the Mass, but nevertheless he acts inordinately and for the most part sins venially. If, however, he expends the money received for good or pious uses, he does not seem to sin when led by this intention.³⁶⁴

The Church gravely prohibits a priest from accepting several stipends for the same Mass,³⁶⁵ and this even if he applies both the ministerial and the most special or personal fruit.³⁶⁶ Therefore as many Masses must be celebrated and applied as the stipends, even small ones, which have been given and accepted.

³⁶¹ Cf. Benedict XIV, De syn. dioec. l. 5, c. 8, and especially Inst. eccl. LVI.

³⁶² Code of Canon Law, c. 824, § 1.

³⁶³ Cf. 1 Cor. 9:13; St. Thomas, S. theol. 2, 2, q. 100, a. 2 ad 2. Wherefore Pius VI condemned as rash and injurious to the Church and her ministers the proposition (54) of the Synod of Pistoia asserting that it is a shameful abuse to receive an alms for celebrating Masses (Denz., n. 1554).

³⁶⁴ St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 55, q. 5, and l. 6, n. 317.

³⁶⁵ Cf. proposition 10 condemned by Alexander VII and the Code of Canon Law, c. 825, n. 3.

³⁶⁶ Cf. above, n. 240.

264. 3. The obligation from an accepted stipend. From an accepted stipend there arises a grave obligation of justice to say Mass, and this with those conditions which were imposed by the giver of the stipend and freely accepted by the priest.

The reason is that a legitimate contract (do ut facias) has been entered into between the offerer of the stipend and the priest, which gives rise to an obligation of justice for each contracting party, namely, that the offerer leave his money at the free disposition of the priest, and that the priest perform those things which the offerer required. Hence a priest who, after accepting a stipend, does not apply Mass according to the intention of the offerer gravely injures justice and is bound to restitution. Thus holds the most common and certain opinion.

Although certain theologians, such as Billuart, Sporer, and Elbel,³⁶⁷ opined that a priest does not sin gravely by the omission of a Mass if the stipend offered is only light matter, nevertheless it is almost certain that a priest, even though the stipend accepted is small, sins gravely if he omits the Mass. The reason is twofold: 1. because the offerer is unjustly deprived of a great spiritual good, such as the ministerial fruit of the Mass; 2. because the priest transgresses a most grave precept of the Church.

It is another question whether in this case the priest not only sins gravely but is also bound to restitution. "A priest who has not satisfied his obligation is not bound under grave sin to restore the stipend unless the stipend constitutes a relatively grave sum." Thus Noldin³⁶⁸ and others. This opinion, however, seems scarcely probable. For nearly all teach that the omission of one Mass for which a stipend has been accepted is an objectively mortal sin against strict justice. But every violation of strict justice joined with an objectively grave sin also induces a grave obligation of restitution. Hence, for example, a priest who by theft took three francs from a rather wealthy man would not be bound under grave sin to restitution, since the thing taken is light matter. But if the same priest received from the same man a Mass stipend of three francs and did not discharge it, he would sin gravely and would be bound under grave sin to restitution. The reason is that in the case of theft the natural law alone obliges to restitution; but in the case of a Mass not said for an accepted stipend, the grave obligation of ecclesiastical law is added to the natural law. Other writers, however, prefer to say that in this case the priest is not indeed bound under grave sin to restore the accepted stipend, but that he must under grave sin take care that the omitted Mass be said by himself or by another priest. The two manners of speaking are not essentially different.^368a

³⁶⁷ Cited by St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 317, Question 3.

³⁶⁸ De sacr.¹⁷, n. 186.

^368a Cf. Cappello, De sacr., n. 669.

265. The contract which is entered into between the giver of the stipend and the celebrating priest is not a contract of sale and purchase, because otherwise there would be simony, as has already been said. More truly, this contract is reduced to the unnamed contract: Do ut facias. Once this contract has been entered into, the stipend immediately passes into the ownership of the priest, and accordingly, if it perishes culpably or inculpably, it perishes for the priest, who must nevertheless say the promised Mass. Thus at least if there is question of a stipend for manual Masses;³⁶⁹ but if the goods given for founded Masses have perished, the obligation of saying the founded Masses no longer seems to be present. In practice, the case must be referred to the bishop or to the Sacred Congregation of the Council, which alone can reduce the burdens of Masses. Although the accepted stipend immediately passes into the ownership of the priest, nevertheless it is more advisable, and sometimes even commanded, not to disburse the money before the Mass has been said.

4. The obligation of the circumstances. The obligation arising from a stipend extends not only to saying the Mass itself, but also to all the circumstances tacitly or expressly stipulated. Circumstances of this kind are those of place, time, a privileged altar, a votive Mass, and Gregorian Masses.

³⁶⁹ Some authors, such as Gasparri (De euchar., n. 588) and Génicot (Theol. mor. II, n. 230), think but do not prove that a priest is not obliged to say manual Masses whose stipend has perished without his fault, for example, by theft. The Code of Canon Law, c. 829, establishes the contrary: "Although, without the fault of him who is burdened with the obligation of celebrating, the alms for Masses already received have perished, the obligation does not cease."

266. a) The circumstance of place and time. If it is established that the offerer or founder of the stipend gravely intended the place and time, for example, that the Mass be said at an altar where a miraculous image is preserved, or on such a feast, then the priest is bound under grave sin to observe this circumstance; if he neglects it, he must restore the stipend accepted. But if the intention of the offerer or founder was not so grave concerning these circumstances, the obligation of the priest is lighter.

If the offerer expressly prescribed no time for the celebration of manual Masses, a distinction must then be made: a) Masses offered for an urgent cause must be celebrated as soon as possible within a useful time, for example, Masses for the recovery of health, for a happy delivery, etc. b) In other cases, Masses must be celebrated within a moderate time according to the greater or smaller number of Masses.³⁷⁰

But if the offerer expressly left the time of celebration to the discretion of the priest, the priest will be able to celebrate them at the time which pleases him more, yet in such a way that no one is permitted to receive so many burdens of Masses to be celebrated personally that he cannot satisfy them within a year.³⁷¹ Therefore, the provisions formerly made concerning this matter by the decree Ut debita of May 11, 1904, now no longer have anything except directive force. It had been established that the useful time for celebrating one accepted Mass was one month, and for celebrating one hundred Masses, six months, or another longer or shorter space of time according to the greater or smaller number of Masses. When it is established in c. 835 that no one can licitly accept so many Masses as he himself will not be able to say within a year, this seems to be understood unless the offerer expressly consents to a delay beyond a year. For no reason is apparent why an offerer cannot commission Masses to be said beyond the space of a year.³⁷² He who has Masses to be celebrated by others is to distribute them as soon as possible; but the legitimate time for their celebration begins from the day on which the priest who is to celebrate receives them, unless something else is established.³⁷³

All, whether clerics or laymen, who are obliged to fulfill burdens of Masses must, at the end of the year, hand over to their proper Ordinaries those Masses which they have not yet discharged, unless the number of Masses remaining is small or the intention of the offerers permits their further retention.³⁷⁴ I say: all, whether clerics or laymen. For laymen are sometimes administrators of pious causes, or by force of a testament or legacy must take care that a certain number of Masses be said. In these or similar cases laymen are bound to take care that the prescribed Masses be said within a year. The year must be computed in two ways: For quasi-manual Masses the obligation to hand them over to the Ordinary begins on December 31 of that year in which the Mass ought to have been said. For example, a founded Mass is to be said on May 30; if it has not been discharged by December 31 of the same year, it must be handed over to the local Ordinary. If there is question of manual Masses, the obligation to hand them over to the Ordinary arises 365-366 days after the stipend was accepted.³⁷⁵

³⁷⁰ Code of Canon Law, c. 834.

³⁷¹ Ibid., c. 835.

³⁷² Thus also Vermeersch, Theol. mor. III, n. 297 (5).

³⁷³ Code of Canon Law, c. 837.

³⁷⁴ Thus the cited decree, n. 4. The proper Ordinaries of exempt religious are their major superiors.

³⁷⁵ Code of Canon Law, c. 841, § 2.

267. b) The circumstance of a privileged altar. If the offerer expressly requested that Mass be said at a privileged altar, this condition must be fulfilled. What a local, personal, and mixed privileged altar is will be said below in n. 564.

Let these things be said briefly: A Mass celebrated at a privileged altar has attached to it a plenary indulgence to be gained for the person for whom the Mass is offered. The application of the Mass and the application of the indulgence cannot be separated in such a way that the Mass is said for one person and the indulgence applied for another.³⁷⁶ An altar is privileged for one deceased person, not for many at the same time. A privileged altar for both the living and the deceased is rarely granted. A Mass offered at a privileged altar for a deceased person no longer must be a Requiem Mass, although this is fitting, as was formerly prescribed.³⁷⁷ A local privileged altar designates in certain churches a particular fixed altar, but not a portable one. A personal privileged altar is a pontifical indult granted to certain priests to celebrate Mass sometimes at any altar whatsoever, with which a plenary indulgence is joined. If a priest bound to celebrate at a privileged altar omitted this through forgetfulness, even in good faith, he cannot compensate for it by the application of another plenary indulgence.³⁷⁸

³⁷⁶ Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, January 23, 1901. Cf. Analecta ecclesiastica, 1895, p. 83 ff.

³⁷⁷ Holy Office, February 20, 1913 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis V, 122).

³⁷⁸ Cf. below, in the treatise on indulgences, n. 565.

268. c) The circumstance of a determinate votive Mass. This circumstance seems to bind only under light sin, unless it is certainly established that the offerer of the stipend strongly intended a special votive Mass. Hence, for example, a priest who said the Mass of the day in place of a votive Mass of the Blessed Virgin Mary seems to have satisfied the substantial obligation. Likewise theologians commonly teach that the obligation of celebrating for the living is satisfied by a Requiem Mass, and the obligation of celebrating for the deceased by the Mass of a saint. It is plainly not fitting, however, that a Requiem Mass be applied for the living unless there is a just cause, for example, because only black vestments are available.

269. d) The circumstance of Gregorian Masses. This circumstance binds rather gravely and consists in this: that thirty Masses be said on thirty consecutive days for the soul of one deceased person,³⁷⁹ whether by one priest or by several priests. Today no plenary indulgence is joined to these Gregorian Masses, but it is piously believed that through the special intercession of St. Gregory the soul of the deceased is specially assisted by these Masses.³⁸⁰ From Holy Thursday until Easter exclusively, the number of these Masses can licitly be interrupted.³⁸¹ On the Nativity of the Lord only one Mass can be counted toward the Gregorian Masses. If a priest inculpably omitted a Mass of this kind on one day, he is not certainly bound to begin the entire number again, but it seems sufficient simply to complete the thirtieth number, because that burden would be too hard, nor is it established that the soul of the deceased suffered notable injury from this omission, especially if the priest celebrates the Mass at a privileged altar.³⁸²

³⁷⁹ It is not lawful to apply these Masses either for several deceased persons or for the living (Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, August 24, 1888).

³⁸⁰ Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, March 15, 1884, and August 24, 1888.

³⁸¹ Benedict XIV, Inst. eccl. 34, n. 22.

³⁸² It is certainly safer, as is evident of itself, in this case to begin the set of thirty again or to seek remission from the Holy See. Cf. Larraga-Sanchez, Prontuario⁹, n. 1273; Monitore ecclesiastico XIII, 40; Marc, Inst. Alphons.¹⁶ II, n. 1622.

270. 5. The amount of the stipend need not be such as furnishes the priest his entire support on the day on which he celebrates; for the act of sacrificing does not require an entire day, and before receiving the subdiaconate the priest ought to have procured for himself another title of support. With account taken of the circumstances of places and times, the stipend must be measured according to the law established by the bishop or introduced by legitimate custom; or, in other words: The diocesan rate must be observed by all. Even exempt religious are subject to diocesan law in this matter,³⁸³ and therefore they cannot, at least from diocesan persons, either demand a greater stipend or ordinarily accept manual Masses for a lesser stipend, at least if the local Ordinary has prohibited this.³⁸⁴ For foundations of Masses, however, exempt religious are not bound to the diocesan rate.³⁸⁵

Nothing prevents any priest from accepting a larger stipend which is spontaneously offered by the faithful.³⁸⁶ But if, beyond the alms fixed by the bishop, the priest who is to celebrate demands more for the Mass itself, he not only transgresses the law of the Church but also injures commutative justice;³⁸⁷ yet he probably does not commit the sin of simony.³⁸⁸ It is lawful, however, to demand a larger stipend because of special temporal burdens joined to the Mass. For then not the Mass itself, but something accidental and temporal, is appraised at a material price. Thus, for example, it is lawful to demand more for a sung Mass, for a Mass to be said at a late hour, or in a distant place. But it is not lawful to demand more for a Mass to be said at a privileged altar or before a miraculous image, because simony would then be committed by selling a spiritual favor for a temporal price.

If someone offered a sum of money, for example, one hundred dollars, for the application of Masses without indicating their number, the offering is reckoned according to the alms of the place in which the offerer resided, unless it must be legitimately presumed that his intention was otherwise. Therefore, if the offerer resides in the United States, where the Mass stipend is customarily one dollar, the stipend of one dollar can be taken even here in Europe.

But if someone by testament or legacy commissioned Masses to be celebrated and did not determine the amount of the stipend, either a) recourse must be had to the bishop so that he may prescribe a fitting stipend, or b) the stipend must be fixed according to the custom of the place in which the offerer resided,³⁸⁹ or according to the legitimately presumed will of the testator.

It is evident of itself that a priest can, at least on some occasions, celebrate Mass from charity either without a stipend or with a reduced stipend. He must take care, however, lest prejudice to other priests be generated by this manner of acting.

³⁸³ Code of Canon Law, c. 831, § 3.

³⁸⁴ Sacred Congregation of the Council, May 8, 1905.

³⁸⁵ Code of Canon Law, c. 1550.

³⁸⁶ Ibid., c. 832.

³⁸⁷ Sacred Congregation of the Council, January 16, 1649, and March 2, 1861.

³⁸⁸ Cf. above, II, n. 563.

³⁸⁹ Code of Canon Law, c. 830.

271. 6. Surplus Masses to be handed over to others. In recent years the Sacred Congregation of the Council has issued many provisions concerning the manner in which a priest can hand over to others the Mass stipends he has accepted. The principal provisions are these:

a) Founded, quasi-manual, and manual Masses are distinguished.³⁹⁰

Founded Masses are those whose stipends are received from the revenues of foundations and which are to be celebrated in perpetuity in some determinate church or at a determinate altar, for example, certain chaplaincies. We do not now treat of these here, since the conditions imposed by the testator must be diligently observed, and no one except the Supreme Pontiff can dispense from them.

Quasi-manual Masses are those which are indeed founded in some church or annexed to some benefice, but which can licitly, by law or by an indult of the Holy See, be handed over to other priests to be said elsewhere.

Manual Masses are those which the faithful request to be celebrated after offering a manual stipend. It matters little whether the stipends were given from hand to hand or proceeded from a testamentary disposition, provided, however, that the money handed over does not constitute a perpetual foundation to be discharged altogether in a determinate place. Likewise counted among manual Masses are those which indeed burden the patrimony of some private family in perpetuity but are not established in any church. These Masses can be discharged anywhere by any priests at the discretion of the family.³⁹¹

b) "It is lawful for no one to assume more Masses than he himself probably cannot satisfy within a year from the day the obligation was undertaken, yet always without prejudice to the will of the offerers," who can either grant a longer time or require a determinate shorter time.³⁹² At the end of the year, however, surplus Masses must be handed over to the Ordinary. Cf. what was said above concerning this matter, and especially concerning the manner in which the year or time within which the priest must discharge surplus Masses of this kind which he has received is to be computed.

³⁹⁰ Code of Canon Law, c. 826.

³⁹¹ Ibid.

³⁹² Decree Ut debita, May 11, nn. 3 and 4.

272. c) A priest who has surplus Masses can transmit them: a) to the Ordinary or to the Holy See, and then by the very act of handing them over he is freed from every obligation before God and the Church;³⁹³ b) to other priests, provided that it is established for him that they are "above every exception," that is, truly worthy or commended by the testimony of their own Ordinary.³⁹⁴ In this case, however, the first priest is not freed from the obligation undertaken until he has obtained from the other testimony of the accepted obligation and of the stipend received.³⁹⁵

He who wished to send stipends to priests of an Eastern rite had to do this through the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith or to apostolic delegates for the priests of their district.³⁹⁶ Nevertheless, it is lawful to send stipends to the East to priests of the Latin rite, with the same clauses which must be observed in transmission to another priest in the West. Hence stipends can be sent directly to delegates, vicars, and prefects apostolic; likewise religious priests can send stipends to their confreres living in the East; but if they wish to send them to religious of another regular institute, it is safer to hand them over to the superior general of the same institute residing in the West.

Since nothing special has been established in the Code of Canon Law concerning the transmission of stipends to Eastern priests, the decisions just indicated no longer seem to have preceptive force, but only directive force.

³⁹³ Decree Ut debita, May 11, n. 6.

³⁹⁴ Thus the Code of Canon Law, c. 838, which therefore somewhat mitigated the decree Ut debita. A bishop cannot prohibit a priest from sending stipends for manual Masses outside the diocese; it is otherwise with founded or quasi-manual Masses, or with Masses offered not to some priest but to some sanctuary subject to the jurisdiction of the bishop. Sacred Congregation of the Council, February 19, 1921 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis XII, 230).

³⁹⁵ Code of Canon Law, c. 839.

³⁹⁶ Sacred Congregation of the Council, May 22 and September 9, 1907.

273. d) It is prohibited by means of Masses to buy or sell books, sacred utensils, or any other things whatsoever, whenever this becomes a habitual practice and tends toward the support of some commerce.³⁹⁷ Nevertheless, the custom existing in several places is tolerated whereby assistant priests say Masses and receive their support for them from the pastor.³⁹⁸

Experience establishes that by transactions and acceptances of this kind some commerce, at least a disguised commerce, which is rather unbecoming is carried on. But he who acts otherwise, or illicitly retains something from transmitted stipends, is to be punished by the Ordinary according to the gravity of the fault, without excluding, if the matter requires it, suspension, deprivation of a benefice or ecclesiastical office, or, if there is question of laymen, excommunication.³⁹⁹ The excommunications latae sententiae which formerly existed in this matter have been suppressed.

³⁹⁷ Decree Ut debita, n. 10.

³⁹⁸ Sacred Congregation of the Council, February 27, 1905.

³⁹⁹ Code of Canon Law, c. 2324.

274. e) It is altogether prohibited to retain any part of a manual stipend and to hand over to another priest the Mass to be said with a diminished stipend.

Wherefore Alexander VII condemned proposition 9: "After the decree of Urban, a priest to whom Masses to be celebrated are handed over can satisfy through another by giving him a lesser stipend and retaining for himself another part of the stipend."⁴⁰⁰ The Holy See sometimes permits a small part of the stipend to be retained to be expended for pious causes.⁴⁰¹ It must be noted, however, that all indults granted in this matter before the year 1904 have been revoked.⁴⁰² Certain authors⁴⁰³ think that a priest who retains part of a manual stipend does indeed sin gravely, but probably does not injure justice and accordingly is not bound to restitution, provided, however, that he takes care that the determinate number of Masses be celebrated. This opinion seems to us improbable. For if it were true, then a priest who retains, for example, one thousand francs from one thousand rather ample stipends, but has those Masses discharged elsewhere, would be bound to nothing from justice. This seems very unfitting. The reason for the injured justice seems to be this: A stipend is not the price of a Mass, but is an offering permitted by the Church and given by the offerer to the one who is to say the Mass. Although, therefore, the first priest receiving the stipends immediately becomes their owner, nevertheless he is not the absolute owner, but only when he fulfills the precepts issued by the Church concerning this matter. But if he gravely violates these precepts, he loses ownership and is bound to restitution. Moreover, the Church has gravely commanded that part of a manual stipend not be unduly retained. Authors most commonly defend the obligation of restitution in this case,⁴⁰⁴ at least those who wrote after the proposition condemned by Alexander VII.

⁴⁰⁰ Denz., n. 1109.

⁴⁰¹ Cf. Sacred Congregation of the Council, February 27, 1905, response to the Society of the Most Holy Savior.

⁴⁰² Decree Ut debita, n. 9.

⁴⁰³ For example, Noldin, De sacr.¹⁷, n. 192; Génicot, Theol. mor. II, n. 231; D'Annibale, Summula Theol. mor. III, 190, n. 17; Ballerini-Palmieri, Opus theol. IV, n. 1017.

⁴⁰⁴ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 322; Vermeersch, Theol. mor. III, n. 299.

275. It is lawful to retain part of the stipend in the following cases:

a) By virtue of a pontifical indult granted after the year 1904.⁴⁰⁵

b) If the donor consents.⁴⁰⁶

This is evident. Not only explicit consent, but also implicit consent sometimes suffices. Thus, if because of friendship, gratitude, etc., the donor gave, in view of the person of the recipient, a notably larger stipend than is customarily given, he is considered implicitly to consent that the recipient retain the excess part. Therefore, for example, if in such a place the amount of the ordinary stipend is two francs and the donor gave twenty francs, a priest handing this Mass over to another priest is not bound to give twenty francs, but two francs. If, however, the excess is moderate, the donor's implicit consent is not established and must not be presumed.

c) If there is question of stipends which are not strictly manual, but quasi-manual.

For then it suffices to hand over a stipend according to the diocesan rate of the place in which the Mass is celebrated,⁴⁰⁷ provided that these Masses are annexed to some benefice or, from the intention of the founder, constitute part of the fitting support of the pastor. "Considering that the alms for the Masses of certain legacies in part take the place of the 'parochial congrua,' the Most Eminent Fathers have judged it lawful for a pastor, if he cannot satisfy them personally, to commit these Masses to another priest, with the ordinary alms of the place assigned, whether for read or sung Masses.... In legacies of Masses founded in some church, that portion of the revenues which at the establishment of the foundation or in another legitimate manner was assigned to the ministers and those serving the church, independently of the special work to be performed for the fulfillment of the legacy, can be retained in their favor."⁴⁰⁸ Hence, for example, a pastor who commits to a vicar a funeral or nuptial Mass to be sung is not strictly bound to give him more than the customary stipend which is given for a Mass sung at such an hour, although the pastor himself received a much larger stipend. For these funeral and nuptial Masses are numbered among the stole fees which belong to the pastor. Nevertheless, ordinarily it seems very equitable that the vicar who performed the entire burden also receive some part of these stole fees.

d) If the recipient freely consents.

For Benedict XIV⁴⁰⁹ declares: "A priest who has accepted a stipend of greater value for the celebration of a Mass cannot give a stipend of lesser value to another priest, even if he had indicated to the same celebrating and consenting priest that he had accepted an alms of greater value." Hence it does not suffice that the priest celebrating the Mass consent in any manner whatsoever to the diminution of the stipend offered, because he can consent because of moral necessity; rather, it is required that he consent altogether freely and expressly.

e) If some church is poor and does not have sufficient revenues.

For then it can subtract from the stipends offered by it to priests celebrating in this church such a part as suffices for the necessary expenses of each Mass, for example, for wine, candles, the use of vestments, etc. Thus Innocent XII.⁴¹⁰

In the Tarragona case, the Sacred Congregation of the Council granted for a five-year period that he who by office distributes Masses in that diocese retain three percent for himself as an honorarium.

⁴⁰⁵ Cf. the preceding number above.

⁴⁰⁶ Code of Canon Law, c. 840, § 1.

⁴⁰⁷ Ibid., § 2.

⁴⁰⁸ Thus it is contained in the decree Ut debita, n. 15. Cf., however, the response of the Sacred Congregation of the Council to the Bishop of Breda, February 27, 1905.

⁴⁰⁹ Constitution Quanta cura, June 30, 1741.

⁴¹⁰ Constitution Nuper, December 23, 1697.

276. 7. The register and book of Masses. Rectors of churches and of other pious places, whether secular or religious, in which alms for Masses are customarily received, are to have a special book in which they accurately note the number, intention, alms, and celebration of the Masses received. The Ordinaries, whether bishops or religious superiors, are bound at least every year to inspect books of this kind personally or through others.

Likewise, local Ordinaries and religious superiors who commit Masses to be celebrated to their own subjects or to others are quickly to enter in order in a book the Masses which they have received with their alms, and are to take care to the extent of their powers that they be celebrated as soon as possible.

Every private priest also is to have a special book in which he records all Masses to be discharged and discharged, with the stipend accepted.⁴¹¹

The register of founded Masses must be preserved in a safe place.^411a

⁴¹¹ Code of Canon Law, cc. 843 and 844.

^411a Ibid., c. 1549, § 1.

277. Scholion 1. On the exchange of Masses. A priest is probably immune from every sin who, after accepting a more ample stipend for celebrating Mass on a determinate day, when on that day he cannot discharge this Mass, sometimes asks another priest to celebrate for him, while at the same time promising that on another day he will celebrate according to the intention of that priest. Thus rightly hold Billuart,⁴¹² Génicot,⁴¹³ Vermeersch,⁴¹⁴ and others. Wherefore there is no appearance of shameful gain on account of which St. Alphonsus⁴¹⁵ condemns this manner of acting as a venial sin. For here there is not an exchange of stipends but of Masses, and it is the same as if someone were to say to another: I will say Mass for you tomorrow if you say Mass for me today.

⁴¹² De euchar., diss. 8, a. 6.

⁴¹³ Theol. mor. II, n. 231, 9th ed.

⁴¹⁴ Theol. mor. III, n. 300.

⁴¹⁵ Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 322, dub. 4.

278. Scholion 2. On the Mass of a newly ordained priest. Newly ordained priests celebrating with the bishop can and must apply that Mass, but whether they can accept a stipend for it without the express consent of the offerer is not so well established. Since custom is contrary, the negative opinion is better in practice, although the affirmative opinion is theoretically more true. On the other hand, it is lawful to accept a stipend for the three Masses which are imposed upon newly ordained priests by the bishop.⁴¹⁶

⁴¹⁶ Cf. Benedict XIV, De sacrif. Miss. l. 3, c. 16, n. 10; St. Alphonsus, loc. cit., n. 829.

1607. The STIPEND of a Mass is called the alms which the faithful bestow on priests, that the Sacrifice may be offered to God for them or to their intention.

By reason of stipend, Masses are distinguished into adventitious and founded. ADVENTITIOUS or manual Masses are called those which, by reason of an offered stipend, are to be celebrated in a determined number. FOUNDED Masses are called those which, in perpetuity or at least for a long time, daily or on certain days, are to be celebrated and applied, by reason of a foundation, that is, of a good left to some ecclesiastical Institute with the burden that Masses be celebrated. Therefore the fruit of the foundation has the nature of a stipend.

These things having been premised, we shall speak: 1. concerning the liceity of a stipend; 2. concerning the office of one accepting a stipend; 3. concerning reduction and condonation of Masses.

1608. Principle. It is licit for any priest, even a rich one, to accept a JUST STIPEND for celebrating Mass. - St. Thomas brings forward the reason, saying: "The priest does not accept money as the price of consecration, but as the stipend of his support."¹⁵ And because even the rich are worthy of reward when they place some work worthy of price, it follows also that rich priests licitly exact a stipend.¹⁶

Hence, more probably, a priest who intends to offer principally on account of the stipend is not infected with the stain of simony, although he is not easily excused from venial sin, because the temporal thing is then accepted not as the price of the thing, but for the stipend of support.¹⁷

1609. Questions. Q. 1. What stipend is to be had as JUST?

Resp. "The just stipend of a Mass is not indeed the sustenance of one day, as some have said; for the priest, besides the action of sacrificing, can occupy himself in the rest of the day in preaching, teaching, and similar exercises, so that he may gain entire support; but it is that which has been fixed by the Bishop, or by custom, or at least by a prudent man, if a tax made by custom or by the Bishop is lacking."¹⁸ And this opinion is common and to be held from the declaration of the S. C. of the Council.¹⁹ - "Wherefore Roncaglia rightly says that if a testator left Masses to be celebrated, without the alms having been fixed, they are to be celebrated according to the common tax, or are to be taxed according to the custom of the place, as the S. C. C. also declared,²⁰ with account taken of a rich or small inheritance."²¹

Q. 2. Whether REGULARS are held under grave obligation to stand by the Bishop's tax?

Resp. Affirmatively, according to the common opinion and from the decree of the S. C. of the Council,²² by which it was sanctioned thus: "The alms for any Mass whatever to be celebrated by Regulars in their churches is to be taxed by the judgment of the Ordinary, according to the custom of the region."²³

Q. 3. Whether it is licit for a priest to accept a stipend BELOW or ABOVE the tax?

Resp. 1. If only the law is considered, it is licit for a priest to obligate himself to celebrating Mass for a smaller alms, or below the tax; for anyone can yield his own right, and also celebrate without any stipend. But because remission of the customary alms can become damaging to other priests and in some way detract from the dignity of the Sacrifice itself, more probably it is licit for the Bishop to prohibit that an alms less than just be accepted, from the declaration of the S. C. of the Council.²⁴ "Wherefore, in the case in which the Bishop prohibits it, priests are altogether held to obey him." - Nevertheless, if someone knowingly has accepted smaller stipends, he ought to celebrate as many Masses as he promised, as the S. C. of the Council declared by order of Urban VIII in the year 1625;²⁵ nor can he licitly diminish their number, unless he acted ignorantly, as authors rightly concede.²⁶

Resp. 2. It is not licit for a priest to exact a stipend above the tax; for the Council of Trent commands Bishops that they altogether prohibit "importunate and ungenerous exactions of alms, rather than requests, and other things of this kind, which are not far from the simoniacal stain, or certainly from base gain."²⁷ Yet he can receive more, both from the spontaneous liberality of the giver, and the Bishop has no power to prohibit this, as was decided by the S. C. of the Council;²⁸ and from justice for extraordinary labor, for example for Mass to be celebrated at such an hour, or in such an inconvenient place. Whence requests are not illicit, indeed neither are agreements, provided they are just and moderate, and provided they are made without scandal.²⁹

Q. 4. Whether it is licit for one having faculty of celebrating twice in the day to accept a stipend for the second Mass?

Resp. Negatively, unless the Supreme Pontiff has indulged it.³⁰ It is clear from the Constitution Quod expensis of Benedict XIV, issued on August 26, 1748, and from various declarations of the S. C. of the Council.³¹ But neither is it licit to accept anything for the celebration alone, with the application remaining free. But for peculiar labor, for example by reason of a journey to a distant church, it is permitted, from the prudent judgment of the Bishop, to perceive something.³² - But under the aforesaid prohibition are not comprehended the three Masses which it is licit to celebrate on the solemnity of the Nativity of the Lord; for that repetition is conceded not from Indult, but from immemorial custom; whence it is licit to accept three stipends for three Masses.

But there are comprehended the two Masses which, from the concession of Benedict XIV, are permitted to be added in the kingdoms of Spain and Portugal on the day of the Commemoration of all the dead; unless somewhere another ancient privilege already existed.³³

1610. Principles. I. From acceptance of a stipend there arises an obligation OF STRICT JUSTICE to celebrate as many Masses as, by reason of the alms accepted, have been promised. - For, says Suarez, "there intervenes the true nature of justice, founded on mutual consent burdensome on both sides, which is explained by these words: I give that you may do; but this is a title of justice."³⁴

It is said to celebrate as many Masses, etc., since this 10th proposition was condemned by Alexander VII: "It is not against justice to accept a stipend for several Sacrifices, and to offer one Sacrifice." Moreover, the reason of the condemnation is both because the opinion which says that the Sacrifice is of finite value, both intensively and extensively, does not lack all probability; and because a stipend can be accepted only by the title of support; whence, one stipend having been accepted, the title for accepting another fails.

It is asked: Whether a priest OMITTING to celebrate a Mass owed either from stipend or from gratuitous promise sins gravely?

Resp. 1. He certainly sins gravely if the alms given is grave matter; and this is the unanimous opinion of authors. But according to the more probable opinion, he sins gravely also if the alms is only light matter. "The reason is that gravity of matter here is more probably to be measured not in order to the stipend, but to the fruit of the Mass, of which the one handing over the alms is deprived, to whom from privation of this kind grave damage certainly is brought."³⁵

Resp. 2. If he omits a Mass promised gratis, it is disputed. Others say that he sins gravely, on account of the reason just brought forward. "But others probably deny, because simple promise does not oblige under grave sin unless the one promising expressly obligates himself under grave sin.... But all agree that he sins gravely who omits a Mass owed from vow, or from the precept of a Prelate: because no one can doubt that this is grave matter in a vow or precept"³⁶ (cf. n. 628 and 1062).

1611. II. The obligation of celebrating from the acceptance of a stipend can, a peculiar stipulation being excluded, be fulfilled THROUGH ANOTHER; yet under this law, that the WHOLE STIPEND be handed over to him. The reason of the first is that, such stipulation being excluded, the obligation is only real, whence it suffices that the thing owed be furnished. - The reason of the second is that the priest "although he acquires ownership of the alms, nevertheless acquires it according to the will of those who give the alms; and he who furnishes the alms asks not only for a Mass, but also wishes that it be celebrated for such an alms; for a greater stipend makes him perceive richer fruit from the Sacrifice; and therefore this intention enters into the substance of the contract; therefore if the priest retains part of the stipend, he unjustly retains it against the will of the giver."¹ - And hence it is why the Church strictly prohibits that a priest who has undertaken a Mass to be celebrated with a certain stipend commit the same Mass to another to be celebrated, with part of the stipend retained for himself. Thus from the Decree of the S. C. C. approved by Urban VIII and confirmed by Innocent XII. And this 9th proposition was condemned by Alexander VII: "After the decree of Urban, a priest to whom Masses to be celebrated are handed over can satisfy through another, with a smaller stipend conferred on him, another part of the stipend retained for himself."²

Hence: 1. A procurator or executor of a testament is to be condemned for shameful gain, who causes Masses committed to himself to be celebrated where there is a smaller tax, so that thus he may retain the excess for himself.³ But an heir who, on account of an inheritance accepted, is held concerning Masses to be celebrated, can, if the place of celebration and the stipend have not been determined, commit them to any priests whatever to be celebrated.

2. He who, against the prohibition of the Church, retains part of a stipend for himself, not only sins, but is held to restitution. But this, according to the more common and more probable opinion, is to be made to the celebrant, "because, the burden having been transferred to him, the right also to the whole stipend is transferred according to the will of the lord."⁴

1612. From the aforesaid prohibition, namely that nothing be subtracted from the stipend, a threefold CAUSE can excuse: namely the will of the one bestowing the alms, the spontaneous yielding of the one undertaking the burden of celebrating, and concession of the Holy See.

1. The will of the one bestowing the alms excuses: for he can at will exceed the customary tax, either with the intention that the whole stipend fall to the celebrant, or with the intention that the excess fall to the one receiving. Nor, however, is it required that the one giving the stipend expressly manifest this intention of his. It suffices that from circumstances his will be morally clear. Hence, if for adventitious Masses a greater stipend is given, not so much in view of the Mass as of friendship, poverty, gratitude, kinship, etc., the priest can retain the excess for himself and commit the celebration of the Mass to another.⁵

As regards founded Masses, one must distinguish: if the intention of the founders was only that Masses be celebrated, the whole stipend is to be handed over to the celebrant. Thus from a recent decree of the S. C. C., in the Cologne case, July 18, 1868.⁶ But if by their mind they also intended to render better the incomes of the pastor or chaplain, the excess can be retained. And the same must be said, as is evident, if besides the celebration of Mass, other offices are to be fulfilled.

With respect to beneficiaries,⁷ it has been declared in the Bull Nuper of Innocent XII: "it is enough that the rector of a benefice, who can celebrate Mass through another, give to the priest celebrating a suitable alms, according to the custom of the city or province, unless something else has been provided in the foundation of the benefice."⁸ - The same must be said of a removable chaplain, "provided certain revenues for the chaplaincy have been established annually, and assigned perpetually to the chaplain; otherwise, however, if a certain alms is given to a chaplain of this kind for each Mass to be celebrated."⁹

2. The spontaneous and liberal yielding of the priest to whom the celebration is committed excuses; for just as he can remit the whole, so also a part. "Nevertheless, this is by no means to be admitted if you indicate the greater price accepted and ask the priest to remit it; or ask from him whether he consents that you retain a part; for then you cannot retain it, even if he agrees; for this in the Bull Quanta cura of Benedict XIV is asserted as an execrable abuse forbidden by several Pontiffs."¹⁰

3. Concession of the Holy See excuses. For the Roman Pontiff, by the supreme authority in which he has power in the Church, can concede that some part of the alms, the circumstances of things suggesting it, be retained. A concession of this kind in favor of poor churches was made through the Decree of the S. C. of the Council confirmed by Innocent XII. But in this Decree¹¹ it is read: "It is not to be permitted that churches and pious places, or their administrators, retain from the alms of Masses to be celebrated any portion, however minimal, by reason of the expenses which they undergo in the celebration of Masses, unless the churches and pious places have no other revenues which they can licitly expend for the use of the same expenses; and then what portion they will retain ought by no means to exceed the value of the expenses which necessarily must be undergone only for the very Sacrifice of the Mass; and nevertheless, even in that case, it must be cared for that from the monies which remain, expenses as above having been deducted, absolutely as many Masses be celebrated as had been prescribed by those offering the alms."¹² See also the Decree of the S. C. C., April 24, 1875.¹³

It is asked: Whether it is licit to EXCHANGE Masses, without unequal stipends being exchanged?

Resp. Such an exchange, principally if it is made by reason of retaining the greater stipend, seems to involve shameful gain, and therefore seems also to be disapproved: yet not under grave sin, especially if poverty excuses.¹⁴

1613. III. To make gain from stipends of Masses which are transmitted to others is most severely prohibited. For such a manner of acting very greatly dishonors the dignity of the Holy Sacrifice, and is a cause why this most august Sacrifice is held as of less account among the faithful. Concerning this matter these things are to be noted:

1. They are subject to excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Roman Pontiff who "collect alms of greater price for Masses, and seek profit from them by causing them to be celebrated in places where Mass stipends are customarily of lesser price."¹⁵ These things have been more fully explained elsewhere (n. 1339).

2. The manner of acting of those booksellers or merchants savors of shameful trade, and therefore is to be disapproved and, if there is need, restrained even by ecclesiastical penalties by Bishops, who, public invitations and rewards being employed, or in any other way whatever, collect alms for Masses, and to priests to whom they commit them to be celebrated, pay not money, but books or other merchandise. Nor can this manner of acting be made honorable because the Masses are celebrated in the due number, or because in this way help is given to poor priests lacking alms of Masses, or because the gain which is drawn from the exchange of merchandise with alms is expended not for the proper advantage of those collecting, but for the use and increase of pious institutions and good works. - Wherefore it is not licit to cooperate in a manner of acting of this kind, whether by handing over alms for Masses to those collecting, or by accepting the burden of celebrating Masses.¹⁶

3. Priests do not act illicitly who for Masses celebrated receive books or other merchandise in place of a stipend, any species of negotiation or shameful profit being excluded.¹⁷

But whether the moderators or administrators of religious newspapers are to be disapproved, who commit Masses to be celebrated to priests, retaining from their alms the price corresponding in the case to those same newspapers? To this question the S. C. OF THE COUNCIL responded:¹⁸ "Negatively, provided nothing is subtracted from the will of the founders concerning the quantity of the stipend, the place and time of the celebration of Masses, every studied collection of Masses being excluded, and the one to whom it belongs by law being informed concerning the completed celebration of the Masses, the matter having been mentioned to the Most Holy."

1614. IV. All CIRCUMSTANCES of celebration which the one giving the alms stipulated are to be observed religiously. - The reason is that a true contract, I give that you may do, intervened, which induces obligation.

It remains that certain particular things, both concerning adventitious Masses and concerning founded Masses, be weighed in this place.

1615. I. TIME OF CELEBRATION. Adventitious Masses must, under grave obligation, be celebrated either at the established time, or within a moderate time, unless the one offering the stipend consents to delay.

It is said 1. at the established time, if indeed it has been expressly determined. Yet delay to the following day seems able to be excused, unless the one asking for the Mass fixed this day on account of a grave cause, or also offered a greater stipend to this end.¹⁹

It is said 2. or within a moderate time, if indeed none has been fixed beforehand. But the moderation of time must be taken altogether relatively.

And indeed: 1. any delay is to be judged grave by which the one asking for the Mass would be frustrated in the intended end. Wherefore a priest sins gravely "if he omits, within a time suitable for celebration, a Mass asked for the obtaining of some urgent grace, say for a happy childbirth, for escaping danger, for winning a lawsuit, etc. The reason is that the circumstance of time then pertains to the substance of the thing asked; whence, that time having passed, the priest is held to restore the stipend, and to warn the giver concerning the Masses omitted at the suitable time."²⁰ 2. "In Masses for the dead, many theologians deservedly regard a delay of one month as grave."²¹ 3. In other Masses, a delay of two months is to be judged grave; wherefore satisfaction must be made within two months, with this exception: unless the Holy See has conceded a delay; cf. n. 1620.

It is said 3. unless the one offering consents to delay. For to one knowing and willing, no injury is done. Thus also the S. C. C. defined.²² - Now, such consent is presumed by the fact itself if someone offers many Masses, for example 200, to a priest to be celebrated by the priest himself. Not likewise "when Masses are handed over to a community of several priests to be celebrated; because then he who gives the alms for many Masses is presumed to wish them to be celebrated sooner. Yet this is not to be understood as though all the priests of that community ought to occupy themselves in satisfying Masses of this kind, but that they ought not to defer as long as would be necessary if those Masses were committed to one person. Hence, I say then the whole number can be distributed among the individuals of the community, or at least among the greater part of it, if it is more numerous; and this distribution having been made, the whole community will be able to satisfy within only as much time as would be conceded to each member of the community for satisfying his own proportion. For Holzmann well says that those committing these numerous Masses can easily foresee that the community has other obligations."²³

1616. II. PLACE OF CELEBRATION AND KIND OF MASS. The celebrant who does not observe the condition of PLACE sins more or less gravely, according to the greater or lesser repugnance of him who gave the alms. - Indeed, if the place was intended equally principally, for example the Holy House of Loreto, he is held to restore the stipend.

One obligated to celebrate at a privileged altar satisfies by using a personal privilege;²⁴ and he who celebrated without satisfying the obligation undertaken is not now held to restitution of the stipend, but only to gaining a plenary indulgence applicable for the dead.²⁵ Thus the S. IND. C., February 22, 1847. But before the fact, it is not licit so to establish with oneself. The same Congregation, July 24, 1885.²⁶

Not to observe the KIND of Mass, for example if you celebrate the Mass of the occurring feast for a votive Mass or of Requiem, even when this is conceded by the Rubrics, does not exceed venial sin, since the substance of the Mass is equally had; wherefore the celebrant can also retain the stipend. - But if for a just cause the priest has acted thus, for example for observing the Rubrics, he has sinned in no way.²⁷

1617. Masses can be founded either for a time, or in perpetuity. Wherefore we note from the sacred Canons the following:

1. Perpetual burdens of Masses cannot be undertaken by secular priests without the written license of the Bishop or Vicar General. - But among Regulars, license of the Superior General or Provincial is required, as is clear from the decree Cum saepe of the S. C. of the Council, issued by the authority of Urban VIII and confirmed by Innocent XII through the Bull Nuper in the year 1697.

2. A beneficiary who has a benefice or chaplaincy with the burden of Masses ought, notwithstanding any custom whatever, to apply those Masses for the founders, or to their intention. - But indeed "when, in the foundation of a benefice or chapel, it has been expressly provided that the celebrant is not held to application of the Sacrifice, in that case the celebrant will be able to accept a new stipend, and by one Mass satisfy the obligation of the benefice or chapel, and likewise the one giving the new stipend." Decree of the S. C. C., July 13, 1630.¹ - "But when it had been asked from the S. C. on March 18, 1668, whether Masses ought to be applied for the testator when in the testament nothing had been declared concerning application, the S. C. C. responded that they are to be applied for the testator. - And the same was declared, on February 6, 1627, concerning chaplains who celebrate so that confreres or Nuns may be present at the Mass; since it is said that they cannot receive a stipend."² Moreover, "unless it is expressed in the institution of the chaplaincy that the chaplain celebrate by himself, he can always celebrate through another."³

3. Chaplains, Beneficiaries, etc., who from the law of foundation are held to apply Mass only on feast days, are still bound to apply on reduced feasts, as pastors are; for reduced feasts are always held in the Church as feasts of precept. Thus from the Letters Paternae charitati of Pius VII, April 10, 1818⁴ (cf. also n. 891, 1).

4. Canons, in cathedral and collegiate Churches, ought to celebrate daily the conventual Mass for their benefactors; although these, in their donations, had made absolutely no agreement for themselves, but had only declared that they offered their goods to God for the remission of their sins; and although contrary custom, even immemorial, flourished somewhere. - Indeed, where the custom flourishes of applying a second or even third Mass for them, the Bishop ought to command that this custom be kept holily; but where it does not flourish, at least in the Memento of the second and third conventual Mass, let a commemoration of them be made. Thus Benedict XIV, Const. Cum semper.⁵

5. A priest who, on account of a benefice or chaplaincy, is held to celebrate daily can, from the common opinion, sometimes omit the celebration of Mass if a legitimate cause intervenes, for example devotion, reverence toward the Sacrifice, or infirmity not exceeding 15 days, indeed, Lugo says probably, even if the infirmity were prolonged for two months. He can also probably, provided he does not accept a stipend, celebrate four or six times in the year for himself or for a very dear friend; for this is reasonably presumed from the mind of the founder. Otherwise, however, if he had expressed the contrary; for example by saying: "I will that Mass be celebrated daily, by the chaplain or by another"; or also: "I will that, in such a church, Mass be celebrated daily," etc.⁶

6. It is not licit to celebrate founded Masses in another church, on another altar, or at another hour than those which were established by the founder. Nor is this obligation light if the founder stipulated circumstances of this kind on account of a grave cause, for example on account of the memory or convenience of his own family, or of the people. But if no special end gave occasion to the stipulation, or if the cause why it was made no longer exists, for example if the family is extinct, or if it dwells elsewhere: the aforesaid obligation will not be grave; indeed, it will be null if the priest compensates it by celebrating on a privileged altar.⁷ Otherwise, the obligation is so grave that the priest would sin mortally if he often, or without cause, or without dispensation, omitted or changed those circumstances. "I said often; for he will sin only venially if he does it rarely, say once or twice in the month; and he is more easily excused if he changes only the altar, and not the church. Likewise, I said without cause; for he will by no means sin if he celebrates elsewhere from a just cause, say if the altar is execrated, or because, having come out of the sacristy, he saw that it was occupied by another. - Likewise, I said without dispensation; for the BISHOP can well dispense that celebration be made in another place, from a reasonable cause, say on account of the utility of one's own church, etc."⁸ For this faculty belongs to Bishops, as Delegates of the Holy See, as is commonly drawn from Trent.⁹ But where the transfer is opposed to the express will of the testator, or to divine worship, or to the convenience of the people, it is not customarily conceded by the S. Congregation of the Council, and in that case Bishops cannot dispense.¹⁰

1618. It is asked: Whether PRESCRIPTION can be made against burdens of Masses?

Resp. Some affirm; "but, according to the truer opinion, such prescription is not admitted, since in Trent¹¹ it is forbidden that derogation can be made from all burdens imposed, both in foundation and in any other pious disposition or conferral of benefices; and Pius IV in the Bull by which he confirmed the Council declared void whatever might be done in the future against it.... But an irritating clause binds even the ignorant, and in beneficial causes infects title and possession. At least we say, in practice the first opinion can be probable with difficulty, since good faith can with difficulty be presumed in beneficiaries, since it is rather presumed that they know the laws of the benefice."¹²

Note. - 1. Authors notice that it is most opportune that any priest note in a book the Masses accepted and the Masses celebrated by himself, so that thus, even in the case of unexpected death, all things become known to the heirs. 2. But this is altogether prescribed by Innocent XII to all rectors and ministers of churches, whether secular or regular, that each year they be able to render an account to their Superiors concerning Masses celebrated, whether they are perpetual, temporary, or even manual. - And moreover, the table of perpetual and temporary burdens must be exposed in a more visible and obvious place, to guard against burdens of Masses being undertaken beyond their strength, from the Bull Nuper.

1619. REDUCTION of Masses is properly called that by which burdens of Masses are constrained to a lesser number for future time, whether this is done in perpetuity or for an established time. - When reduction is referred to past time and imports the omitted celebration of Masses, then it is properly called remission, absolution, and CONDONATION.¹³

1620. Principles. I. Reduction of Masses, today, can be made only by the APOSTOLIC SEE, but not by the Bishop, nor by a regular prelate. - This is evident from the Constitution Nuper of Innocent XII, § 1, where it is said thus: "It is strictly prohibited that Bishops... in any way reduce any burdens of Masses to be celebrated, either imposed after the same Council or at the threshold of foundation; but for all these to be reduced, moderated, or commuted, recourse is to be had to the Apostolic See."¹⁴ The same applies both concerning condonation and concerning concession of a longer time for fulfilling burdens of Masses.¹⁵ Only in a twofold case does the right of reducing Masses belong to Bishops: 1. if the testator himself has granted this faculty to the Bishop; 2. if the Holy See has conceded such privilege to Bishops, as frequently obtains.

1621. II. Reduction or condonation of Masses can be made only when a JUST CAUSE intervenes. This is evident of itself. - "But the CAUSES from which the Apostolic See is accustomed to reduce Masses are scarcity of priests, smallness of stipend, or increase of the current stipend, diminution of the revenues of a monastery, or greater expenses necessary for living, etc.; finally if necessity of the brethren, or of the fabric of the church or monastery, urges."¹⁶

Note. For obtaining reduction or condonation, recourse is made to the Holy See, through the S. C. of the Council, or through the Fabric of St. Peter. - But when the Holy See grants CONDONATION on account of just causes, it always imposes some salutary penance, and especially the penance of celebrating a certain number of Masses. - Moreover, it supplies from its spiritual treasury whatever has been sinned in fulfilling the burdens; and for the suffrage of souls for whom the omitted Sacrifices ought to have been offered, it commands that a suitable number of Masses be celebrated daily by the chaplains assigned to this office in the Vatican Basilica. But if someone, with the intention of obtaining a condonation of this kind, has presumed to omit the celebration of Masses, in this case, the grace in no way suffices, and hope of this kind, as irrational and illicit, is condemned and reprobated.¹⁷

If it concerns only the internal forum, that is, if someone omitted either founded or adventitious Masses without the omission being publicly established, and has become unable to satisfy: for condonation, recourse can be made to the S. Penitentiary, namely through the confessor, who ought to conceal the name of the penitent.

1622. III. To Bishops belongs the faculty of INTERPRETING, in doubt, the will of founders, and of reducing burdens of Masses undertaken by contract to equity. For in these things Bishops use their judicial power, which is proper to ordinary jurisdiction; wherefore, if they pronounce concerning an obligation constituted or not constituted, concerning a burden resolved or not resolved, etc., they do not exceed the limits prescribed to them by common law. Nor then is there place for reduction at the Holy See (cf. n. 1083 and 1087, q. 2).

It is asked: Whether sometimes a chaplain, or beneficiary, can by himself diminish the number of Masses?

Resp. "If the revenues fail in whole, without his fault, it is certain he is not held to celebrate Masses," as is commonly taught and as the S. C. C. defined.¹⁸ "But if the revenues fail in part, it also seems certain that the chaplain can diminish Masses, in the case in which the testator designated a suitable alms, for example three small coins for each Mass; because then, just as the number of Masses would have to be increased if the revenues were increased, so it is to be diminished if the revenues are diminished."¹⁹

NB. It is greatly to be desired that those who impose perpetual burdens of Masses, in the very act of foundation, grant to the beneficiary or Bishop the faculty of reducing their number, in the case in which the revenues are diminished.

1323. Principles. - I. A stipend or alms can lawfully be accepted for a Mass which one is not bound to read for another. For a stipend is not given as a price or compensation of the Mass, but as a means for the support of the Minister. This is also established from 1 Cor. 9. 13: Do you not know that they who work in the sanctuary eat the things that are of the sanctuary; and they who serve the altar participate with the altar?

II. Priests are bound from justice to celebrate Mass and to apply it determinately according to the intention of those who have given the stipend for this. For there intervenes with them an onerous agreement, which, by the title of justice, must be observed not otherwise than in any other contract. Hence a priest who, whether through himself or through another Minister, omits to apply according to the intention of him who gave the stipend, is bound to restitution by strict right.

III. A priest cannot satisfy a double stipend by one single Mass, but for each one he must offer a distinct Sacrifice. The reason is, 1° because it is not certainly established that a Sacrifice offered for several persons profits each one as much as it profits when applied for one alone, although this is more probable to many; 2° because this very thing is established from the 8th proposition condemned by Alexander VII, p. XIII.

1324. Questions. - Query 1° What is judged the just stipend of a priest celebrating?

Resp. The quantity of a just stipend cannot be universally determined. It is lawful to require the stipend established by the Bishop or by custom.¹ To this rule even Regulars are bound to conform themselves under grave obligation, from the Decree of the Sacred Congregation cited by Benedict XIV.² - St. Alphonsus.³ And indeed the Bishop, at least as regards manual alms, can prohibit a stipend less than the established tax from being accepted (Benedict XIV⁴); that this not be done regularly is prohibited by the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore.⁵ - Nevertheless, just as through charity or friendship a lesser stipend can be admitted, so also from the liberality of the giver it is right to receive a greater one. Likewise, a priest can receive more for extraordinary labor, e.g. for a Sacrifice to be celebrated at such an hour or in such an inconvenient place, etc. - Nor is a priest to whom richer stipends are available obliged to accept those which correspond to the tax; for he would be obliged with his own loss.

Query 2° Does a priest sin gravely who, after receiving a stipend, delays celebrating Mass?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is because he violates a contract in a grave matter. This is also established from the Decrees of the S. C. C. in the year 1625. - St. Alphonsus.⁶

Query 3° What delay is judged grave?

Resp. It is controverted; certainly a delay which exceeds three months can seem grave. - Thus commonly with St. Alphonsus,⁷ against others who require an entire year. - But more probably a priest does not sin gravely who celebrates a promised Mass within two months. In Masses, however, which are to be celebrated for the dead, a delay of one month is reputed grave according to St. Alphonsus,¹ Salmanticenses, Lugo, etc. - Besides, the statutes of Bishops also must be attended to. Certainly, however, a priest sins gravely whenever "he omits to celebrate, within a time fitting to the circumstances, a Mass requested and promised for obtaining some urgent grace"; and therefore he who has accepted a stipend for a happy childbirth is bound to restore the accepted stipend if, even licitly, he has celebrated after the childbirth. - The will of the one giving the stipend must also be attended to; for when it is principally given for assisting the priest, and the burden of celebrating is not imposed so strictly, even a very long delay will be without fault.

"But that a more distinct account may be had of the obligation of accurately fulfilling the burdens of Masses, both manual and for an indefinite time, we decree that in each secular and regular church there be a catalogue or table of burdens, which have been imposed on them in perpetuity or for a certain and predefined time, and respectively accepted; and that in the same place in the sacristy books be kept, in one of which perpetual burdens of this sort or temporary burdens are to be inscribed, but in the other manual and adventitious Masses, together with a faithful and distinct notation of the subsequent fulfillment of both."²

Query 4° Does a priest sin gravely by omitting to celebrate a Mass, if the stipend accepted for it is not grave matter, e.g. $0.50?

Resp. Affirmatively, more probably, unless perhaps the stipend is so slender that the Mass appears to have been promised gratis. The reason is because he who gave the stipend suffers a notable spiritual detriment.³

Query 5° Whether, or in what way, does one sin who omits a Mass promised gratis?

Resp. 1° He does not sin whenever there is not truly a contract of promise, but the one promising only shows a benevolent purpose.

Resp. 2° More probably he sins only venially when a true promise has intervened; because a simple promise does not oblige under grave obligation, unless, as Lugo says, the one promising expressly obliges himself under grave obligation and from justice.

Query 6° Is a priest guilty of simony who celebrates chiefly with a view to the stipend?

Resp. See n. 353, Query 3°. Resp. ad 1.

1325. Query 7° Can a priest commit a Mass to another to be celebrated, giving a smaller stipend than he himself has received?

Resp. No, not indeed generally of itself, but because, on account of the appearance of base gain, the S. C. C. prohibited this by a Decree approved by Urban VIII and confirmed by Innocent XII, where these things are had: "Wishing to remove every damnable gain from the Church, it prohibits a priest who has undertaken to celebrate a Mass with a certain alms from committing the same Mass to another to be celebrated while retaining for himself part of the same Mass." Cf. proposition 9 condemned by Alexander VII, p. XIII, and the Rescript of the S. C. C. 19 Jan. 1869.

Except: 1° If from the circumstances it is morally established that the excess of the stipend was handed over by a title extrinsic to the celebration, for instance friendship, gratitude, etc. 2° If another priest, entirely spontaneously and not having been asked, remits either part of the ordinary stipend or the excess. 3° If there is not question of manual Masses, concerning which alone the Decrees speak, but either 1) of perpetual Masses entrusted to some priest, or 2) of Masses to be celebrated by force of a rich legacy left to some priest for life, or 3) of those which are to be celebrated from a benefice or foundation, provided that the contrary has not been provided for in the foundation, a stipend is given according to the tax or custom of the place, and, if there is question of founded Masses, the one celebrating has been determined at least in some way, e.g. the Pastor for the time being. Thus St. Alphonsus,² to whom especially the S. C. C., in the Response of 29 Aug. 1860, refers for the solution of this question. See p. LXXXI. 7. The Response of the S. C. C. 18 July 1868 to the Archbishop of Cologne agrees as regards founded Masses. 4° If the remission is made, even when the one remitting has been asked, but with him consenting with complete liberty, especially in favor of a pious work, provided however: a) there is not question of a matter which by its amplitude and its annexed laws takes on the appearance of public business, which is illicit to clerics; and b) in the case of an extraordinary stipend, those who gave that stipend did not give it on that condition, that they should perceive more abundant fruit from the Mass, which indeed is to be presumed, unless the contrary is sufficiently established, as in the exception under 1°. - Besides, all the exceptions are to be understood with this addition: provided nothing is taken away from the will of the founders or givers concerning the place and time of the celebration of the Masses, any studied collection of them being excluded, and the one to whom it belongs by law being taught concerning the subsequent celebration of them.¹

It is pleasing here to append the following questions proposed to the Sacred Congregation of the Council by the Archbishop of Cologne.

I. "Many Masses to be sung have been founded in parochial churches, ... to which a richer dowry has been assigned by the founders, to be administered by the church-provisors, from which Pastors, to whom by diocesan law and custom the celebration of these Masses belongs, receive an alms greater than the diocesan one, although no priest has expressly been called by the founders to celebrate these Masses."

II. "In celebrating Marriages and obsequies of the dead, stole-fees are not paid to the Pastor in a lump, but a certain portion is assigned for individual acts required for duly performing these functions. Hence a certain alms also, and one richer than for the other manual Masses, has been fixed by the Ordinary both for nuptial Masses and for funeral Masses; the celebration of which by law and custom belongs to the Pastors."

III. "Very many alms are offered through the year to Pastors by the faithful for Masses to be sung, either according to the tax constituted by the Ordinary, or even richer alms are spontaneously handed over."

"But since Pastors are sometimes hindered by illness, absence, and other sacred functions from celebrating these Masses themselves in the three cases set forth, other priests supply their places, whether attached to the same churches for their assistance, whose salary is paid by the church-provisors, or even outsiders. Hence the question arises whether Pastors in the same three cases must hand over the whole alms to the priests supplying their places; or whether rather it is lawful for them, retaining part for themselves, to give a smaller alms to the celebrant? But if in these cases part of the alms can licitly be retained by the Pastors, it is further asked whether the diocesan alms for low Masses must be paid by them to the priest celebrating, or rather that constituted by the Ordinary for sung Masses?"

To these questions the S. C., on 28 March 1874, rescribed: Let it be deferred; and the matter having again been maturely weighed and discussed in the meetings of the day 25 July 1874, judged that response should be made:

To I. That the whole alms must be paid by the Pastor for Masses whether low or sung.

To II. Since there is question of stole-fees, it is enough if the Pastor recompenses the celebrant with the ordinary alms. (11) p. 418.

To III. That the whole alms must be paid, unless it is established with moral certainty that the excess of the common alms was offered with regard to the person of the Pastor himself.¹

But these resolutions, since there is question of a matter of strict right, are valid also for our quasi-pastors. More easily, however, among us cases occur in which richer stipends are offered on account of a title distinct from the celebration of Masses, for instance for the support of a Missionary to whom certain or sufficient revenues are lacking.²

Query 8° Is he who retains part of the stipend bound to restitution?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is, 1° because this is deduced from the proposition condemned by Alexander VII related under this n. q. 7°. For the proposition said that a priest retaining part of the stipend can satisfy through another; therefore it follows that the contradictory is true, namely that he cannot satisfy; but satisfaction regards not only the honesty of the act, but also its justice; and he who does not satisfy an obligation of justice is bound to restitution; 2° because a priest dividing a stipend, if it is richer, acts against the will of the giver: for the will of the giver is not only that Mass be celebrated, but that it be celebrated for such a stipend. For he does not wish to bestow something gratuitously on him who does not celebrate. - Thus St. Alphonsus,³ saying that this opinion must be held. But to whom must restitution be made, namely to the one giving the alms, or to the celebrant? More commonly and more probably they teach that it must be made to the celebrant.¹

Query 9° Can a priest to whom a rich stipend is offered for today's Mass, having retained this, ask another priest to celebrate for him, promising to celebrate on the following day for the same person, who is going to be celebrated for an ordinary alms?

Resp. It is controverted. The first opinion denies it, since this cannot be excused from the appearance of base gain. - Thus St. Alphonsus, who says that Concina thinks thus rightly, adding however that he deservedly does not dare to condemn this as grave, and leaves it to the judgment of prudent men whether the poverty of the priest can excuse from every fault.²

The second opinion affirms, with Lacroix,³ and others.

Query 10° How are Masses to be taxed, for the reading of which a testator has left some sum of money?

Resp. They are to be taxed according to the custom of the place or the law of the diocese prevailing for private Masses. But if the testator himself has taxed them, but below the custom of the place or the norm of the received tax, they are to be taxed by the Ordinary according to the custom of the place, account being taken of whether the inheritance is rich or slender. - Thus the S. C. determines in St. Alphonsus.⁴

Query 11° Can rich priests accept a stipend?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is because every worker, whether rich or poor, is worthy of his wage, as Christ himself says in Luke⁵ and according to the Apostle.⁶ Besides, if they could not accept a stipend, and otherwise are not bound to celebrate without a stipend, since there is no law which obliges them to celebrate thus, the faithful would often be unable to obtain Masses. This is established besides from the practice of the universal Church. - St. Alphonsus,⁷ and others commonly.

Query 12° What is to be said of booksellers and merchants who in various ways exchange Masses to be celebrated for books or merchandise?

Resp. The S. C. C., 9 Sept. 1874, to the following doubts:

1. Whether the manner of acting of those booksellers or merchants savors of base traffic, and therefore is to be disapproved and, if necessary, restrained also by ecclesiastical penalties by their Bishops, who, by employing public invitations and premiums or in any other way whatever, collect alms for Masses, and to priests, to whom they commit them to be celebrated, repay not money but books or other merchandise?

2. Whether this manner of acting can be made honorable either because, with no diminution having been made, as many Masses are committed to be celebrated by the aforesaid collectors as correspond to the alms collected, or because through it poor priests, lacking alms for Masses, are assisted?

3. Whether collections and distributions of alms of this kind, even then, are to be disapproved and restrained, as above, by Bishops, when the profit which is drawn from the exchange of merchandise with alms is expended not for the private advantage of the collectors, but for the use or increase of pious institutions and good works?

4. Whether they concur in base traffic, and therefore are to be disapproved and even restrained, as above, who hand over alms for Masses accepted from the faithful or from pious places to booksellers, merchants, and other collectors of them, whether they receive or do not receive anything from the same under the name of a premium?

5. Whether they concur in base traffic, and therefore are to be disapproved and restrained, as above, who receive from the said booksellers and merchants, for Masses to be celebrated, books or other merchandise at the price of these, whether diminished or whole?

6. Whether they act illicitly who for Masses celebrated receive, in place of a stipend, books or other merchandise, with any commerce or appearance of base gain being excluded?

Responded: - To 1. Affirmatively.

To 2. Negatively.

To 3. Affirmatively.

To 4. Affirmatively.

To 5. Affirmatively.

To 6. Negatively.

Query 13° Can administrators of Churches retain something for themselves from the alms of Masses for the expenses of altars, lights, etc.?

Resp. No, unless the Churches have no other revenues; and then in no way must the value of the expenses which are necessary for the Sacrifice of the Mass itself be exceeded, and nevertheless also in that case care must be taken that from the monies which remain, the expenses as above having been deducted, absolutely as many Masses are celebrated as were prescribed by those offering the alms.¹ See the exception in Ben. XIV, Inst. 56. n. 13.

Query 14° Must he restore who, after receiving a stipend for a Mass to be celebrated on a privileged altar, celebrates the same on another altar?

Resp. It seems it must be denied; but he will be bound to gain a plenary indulgence applicable to the dead, such as are the indulgences of the Way of the Cross, etc. For thus a proportionate compensation is bestowed. If, however, he has accepted a stipend greater than ordinary for this, he is bound to restore the excess. - Thus St. Alphonsus,² Elbel,³ Sporer.⁴

But if someone accepts a stipend in order that he celebrate in a certain place, e.g. at a miraculous Statue, or in a Chapel so that the people may hear Mass, or at a certain time, e.g. on the Sabbath day in honor of the Blessed Virgin, so that the place and time are intended of themselves, he cannot retain the stipend unless he has read the Mass at the prescribed time and place. The reason is because otherwise the one giving the stipend is judged to be gravely unwilling. But it is otherwise if the time and place are not intended of themselves.

Query 15° Is one obliged by stipend to celebrate on a privileged altar for a deceased person bound to read a Mass of Requiem, when the RITE permits it?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is because this is required for gaining indulgences, as is clear from the declaration of the S. C. R. 11 April 1840.⁵

Query 16° Does one obliged by stipend to READ a Mass of Requiem, or a votive Mass, satisfy if he says another Mass?

Resp. Affirmatively as regards a Mass of Requiem, unless the testator or the one giving the stipend has expressly asked that it be said (S. R. C. 5 Aug. 1662 and 12 Sept. 1840). - Negatively as regards a votive Mass (S. R. C. 12 Sept. 1840), unless either 1° the one requesting consents; or 2° a votive Mass has been accepted which is not permitted to be celebrated, as in honor of a Mystery or of a Blessed; or 3° a votive Mass has been accepted for a day on which it is prohibited, and cannot conveniently be deferred to a free day.

But truly, neither in the case of a Mass of Requiem expressly requested, nor in the case of a votive Mass, do they sin gravely who read the Mass of the day, and not even lightly in the excepted cases, or when a legitimate cause is present, such as however one's own devotion is not.¹ The reason is because the essential value is the same; but the privation of accidental value does not bring so grave a prejudice. Besides, the virtue of fidelity in the case does not oblige so gravely.

Note, however, that here there is not question of the cases treated under q. 14° and q. 15°, nor of Masses of Requiem to be celebrated in chant, concerning which, as also concerning this whole question, see de Herdt.²

Query 17° Can a stipend be received for a Mass to be celebrated on the day of the Commemoration of all the faithful departed?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is because not all priests are bound on this day to apply Mass for all the dead, indeed they are not obliged to celebrate. Therefore they can apply Mass at will either for all the dead dwelling in Purgatory, or for some only. This is established from a Decree of the S. C.³ But this being posited, absolutely nothing stands in the way of a stipend being able to be accepted for Mass. - Thus commonly.⁴

Query 18° What does the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore counsel, and what does it prescribe, concerning Masses to be founded or founded Masses?

Resp. To the first. In the Appendix of the Council⁵ there is reported, and therefore by way of norm seems to be counseled, Decree LV of the Second Provincial Council of Cincinnati, which reads thus: "That a certain norm be established in this Province for foundations of Masses, ... the Fathers judged that foundations of this kind, especially when they are perpetual, because of the peculiar circumstances in which we are placed, ... are to be admitted with great caution; also on this condition, that for a private Mass there first exist a fund of at least fifty scutata, but for a sung Mass, of one hundred scutata." ... But the best precaution will be if the agreement to be entered into with the founder contains at least these conditions: 1) that there will be no future obligation of celebrating, if the capital destined for this end for any cause whatever has either perished, or remained idle or unfruitful; 2) that the number of Masses to be celebrated be diminished proportionately, if for any cause whatever the revenues do not reach the stipend established by the founder; and therefore that not only the capital, but also the stipend of the Masses be determined, or at least that the faculty of reduction be reserved to the Ordinary; 3) that, if for any cause whatever the Church in which the Masses are to be celebrated should lack a priest, or even be destroyed, they can be celebrated in another to be designated by the Ordinary.

Resp. to the second. "Let foundations not be accepted without the previous assent of the Bishop, if there is question of a secular institute, or of the regular Prelate, if the foundation is made in favor of an exempt community."¹

Query 19° What is the reduction of Masses?

Resp. It is the diminution of the number of Masses to be celebrated, granted by legitimate authority for a legitimate cause.

It is said: 1° of Masses to be celebrated; for reduction regards the future, or Masses to be omitted; and, if there is question of Masses omitted, there is a condonation, which is reserved privatively to the Supreme Pontiff. If it is granted, a small alms is imposed, which is called composition. B. 14. d. S. L. 13. c. ult. n. 15.

It is said: 2° by legitimate authority, namely through the Supreme Pontiff, as the S. C. C. declared, with Urban VIII and Innoc. XII approving, in the Bull Nuper. - Nevertheless the Bishop also will be able to reduce if either a) as is plain of itself, he has obtained an Indult for this, in the use of which Indult, lest Bishops wander from the path, rules are suitably handed down by Benedict XIV in the book On the Diocesan Synod, C. ult. n. 22-29; likewise nn. 32. 34. 35; or b) the founder has given the Bishop this faculty;² or c) the imposed and accepted burden was made inter vivos by force of a convention entered into with the Bishop; for that convention includes this tacit condition: the thing, or capital, remaining in that state in which the fruits yield at least the ordinary stipend of a manual Mass. Therefore in the case of diminution of revenues or loss of the fund, the Bishop by his ordinary power, or by assuming the parts of a judge, can either rescind the contract, or at least reduce it to the terms of right.³

It is said: 3° for a legitimate cause, e.g. diminution of revenues, increase by the Bishop of the alms, etc.

373. The obligation of celebrating arises from a handed-over stipend. - A stipend is a sum of money or another thing estimable by price, which is given to a priest for support, with the charge of offering the sacrifice to a determinate end. That obligation is of commutative justice: it arises from an onerous unnamed contract, do ut facias, by which, on the one hand, the priest, having accepted the stipend, is bound from justice to celebrate for him who furnished the stipend, so that if he does not do so, he is bound to restore; and on the other hand, when with the promise of a stipend the priest has celebrated for someone, this person is bound from justice to pay the stipend.

That contract is not one of buying and selling a sacred thing, and simoniacal, but licit: for the stipend is not given as the price of the Mass or of labor intrinsic to it and inseparable from it, but only for the support of the priest, that he may be able to carry out his ministry. For a) a painter is said to paint a church gratuitously, even if colors and other things necessary for painting are given to him, indeed also support itself; - b) just as wax, bread, wine, and sacred vestments can be required from the faithful, so also the support of the priest who is necessary for the sacrifice of the Mass; - c) for priests can live from the priesthood, because it is said, I Cor. IX, 13-14: Do you not know that those who work in the sanctuary eat the things that are of the sanctuary, and those who serve the altar share with the altar? So also the Lord ordained that those who announce the gospel should live from the gospel; since He had said: For the worker is worthy of his food..., of his wage (Matt. X, 10; Luke X, 7); whence also in the Old Law priests were fed by the victims; - d) surely no one is bound to deliver himself gratuitously to the service of others (I Cor. IX, 7); therefore priests can live from the offerings of the faithful; but if they deliver themselves to the particular service of one person by applying Mass to him, they can require from him a particular offering; - e) with which agrees the universal practice of the Church, approved by its authority: Council of Trent, sess. 22, de obs.; Council of Constance, sess. 8, prop. 25; Pius VI in the condemnation of prop. 54 of the Synod of Pistoia; and can. 824, § 1: "According to the received and approved custom and institution of the Church, it is permitted to any priest celebrating and applying Mass to receive an alms or stipend."

It is confirmed from the origin of the stipend, which is in the offerings of the faithful. In the primitive Church, within the solemnities of Masses, the faithful gave their offerings, namely bread and wine, at the altar, from which priests took the things necessary for the sacrifice offered for all; the things which remained over yielded partly to clerics and partly to the poor. Afterwards, besides bread and wine, for the use of priests and clerics, other things were offered as alms: oil, milk, honey, fruits, incense, then also coins. From this it came about that they also offered coins before Mass, and those offering asked that the sacrifice itself be offered specially for them. From the seventh century the custom was introduced of celebrating thus for particular faithful persons to a special intention; in the twelfth century the use of stipends is universal.

374. Corollaries. - From the aforesaid it follows:

1. Not only a poor but also a rich priest can accept a stipend, as universal practice bears: for everyone can live from his office, and the worker is worthy of his wage; nor is he himself, but he who asks for the sacrifice, bound to furnish the things necessary for it.

2. On the day of the Nativity of the Lord, three stipends are licitly accepted, because the whole which the priest receives on that day and on other days does not exceed the sustenance necessary for the whole year; in itself this would also be licit on the commemoration of all the departed, or in bination, unless the Church prohibited it in order to restrain cupidity. Whence can. 824, § 2: "But as often as he celebrates several times in a day, if he applies one Mass from a title of justice (i.e., from office, benefice, or stipend), the priest, except on the day of the Nativity of the Lord, cannot receive an alms for another, except some remuneration from an extrinsic title."

3. Beneficiaries who from a foundation are bound to celebrate Mass on certain days, but not to apply it, can accept a stipend from another to whom they apply it: for in this case the stipend of the foundation is given on account of extrinsic labor, or an office undertaken toward the parish, church, or chapel.

375. Quantity of the stipend. - The title of the stipend is the support of the priest, not indeed of one whole day, for in the rest of the day he can also preach, teach, and do similar things; nor precisely support for the time of the Mass alone: for celebration impedes the priest for a great part of the day from many other works by which he could seek his livelihood; wherefore St. Alphonsus says that support for half or a third part of the day suffices.

Since food, clothing, habitation, books, and other things necessary for priests, just as also money itself, are not always of the same value, and since circumstances of places and times vary, the stipend also varies. But just as the price of things can be taxed by civil authority, so also the Supreme Pontiff, and the Bishop in the diocese, can determine the quantity of support to be given and the quantity of money corresponding to it; which determination is presumed right unless it contains evident injustice; whence it effects that priests cannot require more, nor the faithful, against the will of the priest, give a lesser stipend for a celebrated Mass, without acting unjustly. But if a legal taxation is lacking, the stipend is determined by custom. Hence can. 831:

"§ 1. It belongs to the Ordinary of the place to define the manual offering for Masses in his diocese by decree, issued, as far as possible, in a diocesan Synod; nor is it licit for a priest to require a greater one.

"§ 2. Where a decree of the Ordinary is lacking, the custom of the diocese is to be observed.

"§ 3. Even religious, although exempt, must stand, concerning the manual offering, by the decree of the Ordinary or by the custom of the diocese."

To require beyond the just stipend is simony, at least of ecclesiastical law (can. 730).

376. Observations. - 1. A Bishop cannot prohibit priests from accepting a greater stipend spontaneously offered (S. C. C., Jan. 16, 1649); but he can prohibit a lesser one from being accepted, lest the sacrifice of the Mass become cheapened (S. C. C., July 16, 1689). Hence can. 832: "It is right for a priest to accept a greater offering voluntarily offered for the application of Mass; and, unless the local Ordinary has prohibited it, also a lesser one."

2. A priest can require a greater stipend for extraordinary labor and for a title extrinsic to the Mass, for example for a long journey, a later hour, chant, a determinate day, etc.; unless this is already owed from elsewhere. Not, however, for a spiritual emolument, for example for celebration at the altar of a miraculous image; whence can. 918, § 2: "For Masses to be celebrated at a privileged altar, a greater alms for the Mass cannot be required under pretext of the privilege."

3. It is licit to make an agreement concerning the stipend of Masses, but according to the taxation or custom: for since it is given from justice, nothing prevents it from being brought into an agreement; nevertheless scandal is to be avoided in such agreements, as much as possible.

377. The quality and quantity of the obligation from stipend. - From a stipend there arises the obligation of celebrating the sacrifice according to the intention of him who gives the stipend. The obligation is of justice, because the priest and the faithful person enter into a true contract, in which on the one hand the faithful person furnishes the stipend so that Mass may be celebrated, and the priest on the other hand accepts the stipend with the burden of celebrating the sacrifice. The obligation, even of saying one Mass, is from its genus grave, because the gravity here is to be measured not from the stipend but from the spiritual fruit, the privation of which is a notable harm.

This is clear from the insistence with which the Church in many decrees urged the grave obligation, and from the fact that authors today now commonly teach this; - unless perhaps the number of Masses to be said to the altogether same intention is great, or unless the stipend is so slight that the Mass is judged to have been promised gratuitously, because a simple promise, in itself and unless someone intended otherwise, does not oblige under grave sin.

Hence in the case in which one Mass has been omitted, the grave obligation remains of applying it as soon as possible, if the end can still be obtained, or of warning the offerer and returning the stipend. And one who has omitted to apply a Mass in fitting time is bound from justice to restore the stipend; nevertheless the obligation of restoring is not grave unless the stipend constitutes matter at least relatively grave.

378. The mode of fulfilling the obligation. - The obligation contracted from a stipend can be considered:

1. As to the person. Speaking in itself, the priest can satisfy by himself or through another; but if the giver bears this with difficulty, nevertheless there does not seem to be a grave obligation of celebrating by himself, because satisfaction is made as to substance even through another.

From can. 838: "Those who have a number of Masses concerning which they may dispose freely, can assign them to priests acceptable to themselves, provided that it is well established to them that these are beyond all exception or are commended by the testimony of their own Ordinary"; nevertheless in that case "they are held by the obligation until they have obtained testimony of the obligation accepted by the same priests and of the stipend received" (can. 839).

A fortiori it is licit to hand over Masses to be celebrated to the Ordinary.

2. As to number: The priest is bound to celebrate and apply as many sacrifices as he has accepted stipends, even if they are slight (can. 828), because the one giving the stipend asks for a certainly valid application, indeed a Mass reserved to himself, to the exclusion of others if the application made to these should harm him.

Hence one who has done otherwise is bound to reparation if it is still possible, and otherwise to restitution. Cf. Urban VIII, June 21, 1625; and propositions 8 and 10 condemned by Alexander VII.

3. As to time: The priest is bound to celebrate at the time explicitly or implicitly determined (can. 834).

Hence a) he who accepted a stipend that he might celebrate on a certain day, for example on a determinate feast, is bound to celebrate on that day; b) a Mass requested for an urgent necessity, for example for one in agony, for winning a lawsuit soon to be judged, for one recently deceased, for a happy childbirth, for avoiding danger, must be celebrated as soon as possible and in useful time; c) if a great number of Masses is handed over to the same priest at the same time, or if the one handing them over knows that the priest is bound to many other Masses, then he is deservedly judged to consent to a longer delay; on the contrary if a great number is handed over to a community of many priests; d) those who offer stipends in places where, on account of a great concourse, many stipends are offered, are judged to consent to delay; e) but if the time is determined in no way, the priest is bound to celebrate within a moderate time, according to the greater or lesser number of Masses; f) if the offerer has expressly left the time of celebration to the judgment of the priest, the priest will be able to celebrate them at the time which pleases him more, but at least within a year to be computed from the time of reception. Thus according to the norm of can. 834 and 835.

The S. C. C., May 11, 1904, interpreted a moderate time thus: "within a month for one Mass, and a semester for 100 Masses, and another longer or shorter space of time, more or less long, according to the greater or lesser number of Masses," for example, a month for 3 or 4 Masses, 40-45 days for 10, 2 months for 20, 3 for 40, 4 for 60, 5 for 80, 6 for 100, a year for 200 (S. C. C., Feb. 27, 1905). This taxation, although the Code abstained from proposing it, nevertheless furnishes a prudent rule from which one should not depart much. But it is to be taken not mathematically but morally, and it is to be understood with respect to individual offerers, not cumulatively with respect to all. The time is to be computed from the moment at which the Masses are received, whether from the donor, or from the one handing them over, or even from the Ordinary, unless something else is established (can. 837), i.e., unless something else has been agreed upon either explicitly or implicitly, as if an urgent cause is present, or the time has been expressly determined, or the one transmitting adds a condition.

A notable delay is a grave sin: it obliges to restitution if the cause of celebrating has ceased; if it remains, the priest is bound to compensate by spiritual goods (as by prayers, fasts, indulgences) the spiritual harm which perhaps followed from the delay.

4. As to place and quality and other circumstances. If the offerer has expressly determined some circumstances in the celebration of the Mass, the priest, accepting the alms, must stand by his will (can. 833).

The priest, if he cannot or will not observe the circumstances, must warn the offerer about this; and if that person does not contradict, he is not bound to the circumstances. If he has celebrated while not observing the circumstances, in grave matter he must supply the defect. Nevertheless he is not bound to restore the stipend, unless the circumstance was intended by the offerer as a condition without which not.

Hence a) when someone accepts a stipend that he may celebrate in such a place, for example at the altar of the Blessed Virgin Mary, in such a chapel, he is bound to celebrate there; nevertheless the omission of this circumstance generally is not gravely culpable, and is excused by a reasonable cause, nor of itself does it induce the burden of restitution; the omission of the same circumstance in many Masses of the same donation would more easily be grave, provided the circumstance had been stipulated for a grave reason.

b) One who by a stipend is bound to celebrate at a privileged altar does not satisfy at another altar, unless he enjoys the personal privilege of an altar, nor does he satisfy by applying another plenary indulgence, because the deceased does not gain this so certainly (S. C. Indulg., May 2, 1852). But if from an error committed in good faith he has not satisfied, he is bound in compensation to apply another plenary indulgence to the deceased (S. C. Indulg., Feb. 22, 1847, and July 24, 1885).

c) One who is bound to say a votive Mass does not satisfy by applying the Mass of the day, unless a legitimate impediment excuses; nevertheless this defect of itself does not exceed venial sin.

d) If a faithful person asks for a Mass for a deceased person, the priest satisfies by a Mass of the saint and is not bound to say a Mass of requiem, unless it was expressly requested; similarly one who must apply for the living satisfies by a Mass of requiem, unless another was expressly asked for. The offerer is presumed to seek only the application, not the rite (can. 833).

e) If a Mass is asked in honor of some mystery of Christ, of the Blessed Virgin Mary, or of a Saint, satisfaction is made by the Mass of the current day, unless a votive Mass is expressly asked; although it is more advisable, as far as possible, to satisfy by a votive Mass (S. C. R., June 13, 1899).

f) If a faithful person asks for a sung or solemn Mass, the priest applying a low Mass validly applies, but does not perfectly satisfy (S. C. P. F., June 8, 1844), and therefore he is bound to celebrate a sung or solemn Mass, which nevertheless he does not owe to this faithful person, but can apply to another.

g) If thirty Gregorian Masses are asked, Mass is to be celebrated without interruption for thirty continuous days for one and the same deceased person, though it is not necessary that it be celebrated by the same priest. They are called Gregorian because, as the S. C. Indulg. declared, March 15, 1884, it is piously and reasonably believed that the souls for whom they are applied are specially helped by them on account of the intercession of St. Gregory, so that they may be liberated from purgatory. It is essential that the Masses be celebrated without interruption through thirty continuous days, the last three days of Holy Week excepted (S. Off., Dec. 12, 1912).

Hence that circumstance gravely obliges. Whence he who voluntarily interrupted the tricenary is bound to repeat the series; but if involuntarily, whether he is bound so to supply, they dispute. Several deny it, because the priest is not judged to have willed to oblige himself to this, nor the one offering the stipend reasonably to require it; nevertheless they advise applying a plenary indulgence to the deceased in compensation.¹ But they speak too confidently, for the whole matter depends upon the intention of the one bestowing the stipend; and there are among those bestowing, especially in certain regions, some who strictly require certainly valid execution of the contract. Whence in practice it seems rather, for caution, that recourse must be had to the Sacred Penitentiary;² nevertheless some judge that it also suffices that the one interrupting take care that one Mass be celebrated at a Gregorian altar in the City, or at some other altar which is privileged after the manner of the Gregorian, because they think that in this way the same assistance of St. Gregory is obtained.

¹ Thus, for example, Marc, Aertnijs-Damen, Prummer, Cappello.

² Thus Vermeersch, Th. M., III, n. 278, which Cappello also holds, o. c., n. 769.

379. Corollaries. - Hence the following dispositions are easily understood:

I say 1st. §1. According to the received and approved custom and institution of the Church, it is lawful for any priest celebrating and applying Mass to receive an alms or stipend (Can. 824); but once the stipend has been accepted, there arises an obligation of justice, which indeed is not satisfied by one single Mass if several stipends have been accepted, however infinite the value of the Mass may be; rather, for each stipend a distinct sacrifice must be offered. The reason of the first is both because the stipend is not given as the price of the Mass, and therefore no comparison is made between a sacred thing and money, and because it is just that those who work in the sanctuary should live from the sanctuary. But the reason of the second is that, once a stipend has been accepted, a burdensome pact intervenes, which by title of justice, not otherwise than in any other contract, must be observed. Finally, the reason of the third is taken both from prop. 8 condemned by Alexander VII, which has itself thus: "A doubled stipend can be accepted by a priest for the same Mass, by applying to the one asking even the part of the most special fruit corresponding to the celebrant himself"; and especially from the first part of prop. 10 condemned by the same Alexander VII, which lies thus: "It is not against justice to accept a stipend for several sacrifices and to offer one sacrifice." Wherefore he who celebrates one Mass, when he has accepted several stipends, is held no less to restitution than he who, having accepted only one stipend, says no Mass. - Cf. Viva, on the cited proposition. - Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, n. 369.

I say 2nd. Every species of negotiation or commerce must be altogether warded off from the alms of Masses (Can. 827).

Question 1. With relation to the acceptance of a stipend and the application of the Mass, what is not lawful?

Resp. It is never lawful:

1st. To apply Mass to the intention of him who, with the alms offered, is about to ask for the application, but has not yet asked, and afterward to retain the alms given for the Mass previously applied;

2nd. To receive alms for a Mass which is owed and applied by another title;

3rd. To accept a double alms for the application of the same Mass;

4th. To receive one alms for the celebration alone, another for the application of the same Mass, unless it is certainly established that one stipend was offered for celebration without application (Can. 825).

Question 2. Which stipends are called manual, which after the manner of manual, and which founded?

Resp. §1. Stipends which are offered by the faithful for Masses, whether from their own devotion, as if to the hand, or from an obligation, even perpetual, made by a testator upon his own heirs, are called manual.

§2. Stipends of founded Masses are called after the manner of manual when they cannot be applied in their own place, or by those who ought to apply them according to the tables of the foundation, and therefore by law or by indult of the Holy See they must be handed over to other priests so that satisfaction may be made for them.

§3. Other stipends which are received from the revenues of foundations are called founded, or founded Masses (Can. 826).

Question 3. How many Masses must be celebrated and applied?

Resp. As many Masses must be celebrated and applied as stipends, even small ones, have been given and accepted (Can. 828).

Question 4. What if the alms have already perished before the application of the Mass?

Resp. Although without fault of him who is burdened by the obligation of celebrating the alms of Masses already received have perished, the obligation does not cease (Can. 829).

Question 5. How must the number of Masses be computed, if the offerer has given a sum of money without indicating the number?

Resp. If anyone has offered a sum of money for the application of Masses, not indicating their number, this is to be computed according to the alms of the place in which the offerer was staying, unless it must legitimately be presumed that his intention was otherwise (Can. 830).

Question 6. Whose office is it to define the manual stipend of Masses?

Resp. §1. It belongs to the local Ordinary to define the manual stipend of Masses in his diocese by decree, issued, as far as can be done, in the diocesan Synod; nor is it lawful for a priest to demand one greater than this.

§2. Where a decree of the Ordinary is lacking, the custom of the diocese is to be observed (Can. 831).

It is lawful for a priest to accept a greater stipend freely offered for the application of a Mass; and, unless the local Ordinary has prohibited it, also a lesser one (Can. 832).

Question 7. What is the presumption when there is doubt concerning the mind of the offerer?

Resp. The offerer is presumed to have asked for the application of the Mass alone; yet if the offerer has expressly determined some circumstances to be observed in the celebration of Mass, the priest, accepting the alms, must stand by his will (Can. 833).

Question 8. Within what time must Masses be said?

Resp. §1. Masses for the celebration of which a time has been expressly prescribed by the offerer must be celebrated altogether at that time.

§2. If the offerer has expressly prescribed no time for the celebration of manual Masses:

1st. Masses offered for an urgent cause are to be celebrated as soon as possible in useful time;

2nd. In other cases Masses are to be celebrated within a moderate time, according to the greater or lesser number of Masses.

§3. But if the offerer has expressly left the time of celebration to the choice of the priest, the priest will be able to celebrate them at the time which pleases him more, with the prescription of can. 835 remaining firm (Can. 834).

With relation to §2, 2nd, that moderate time seems to be one month for one Mass, six months for a hundred.

Question 9. How many burdens of Masses to be celebrated by himself is it lawful for no one to receive?

Resp. It is lawful for no one to receive so many burdens of Masses to be celebrated by himself that he cannot satisfy them within a year (Can. 835).

Question 10. What must be done in churches in which, on account of the particular devotion of the faithful, alms of Masses so flow in that all Masses cannot be celebrated there in due time?

Resp. Let the faithful be advised, by a notice placed in an open and obvious place, that the Masses offered will be celebrated either there, when it can conveniently be done, or elsewhere (Can. 836).

Question 11. When must one who has Masses to be celebrated through others distribute them?

Resp. He who has Masses to be celebrated through others should distribute them as soon as possible, with the prescription of can. 841 remaining firm; but the legitimate time for their celebration begins from the day on which the priest who will celebrate has received them, unless something else is established (Can. 837).

Canon 841 prescribes the following:

§1. All and individual administrators of pious causes, or those obliged in any way to fulfill burdens of Masses, whether ecclesiastics or laymen, toward the end of each year should hand over to their Ordinaries, according to the manner to be defined by them, the burdens of Masses for which satisfaction has not yet been made.

§2. But this time is to be understood thus: that in Masses after the manner of manual, the obligation of depositing them runs from the end of that year within which the burdens should have been fulfilled; but in manual Masses, after a year from the day of the burden undertaken, with the different will of the offerers being preserved.

Question 12. To which priests can one who has a number of Masses concerning which it is freely lawful for him to dispose assign them?

Resp. He can assign them to priests acceptable to himself, provided it is honestly established to him that they are above every exception or commended by the testimony of their own Ordinary. - Cf. Can. 838.

Question 13. How long do those remain obliged who have handed over to others to be celebrated Masses received from the faithful or in any way committed to their faith?

Resp. They remain obliged until they have obtained testimony of the obligation accepted by those same persons to whom they handed them over, and of the stipend received. - Cf. Can. 839.

Question 14. Must one who commits Masses to be celebrated to others give the accepted stipends entire? Is it ever lawful for him to retain something?

Resp. §1. He who transmits manual Mass stipends to others must transmit the accepted stipends entire, unless either the offerer expressly permits something to be retained, or it is certainly established that the excess above the diocesan tax was given in view of the person.

§2. In Masses after the manner of manual, unless the mind of the founder stands in the way, the excess is legitimately retained, and it is enough to remit only the manual alms of the diocese in which the Mass is celebrated, if the rich alms takes the place in part of the dowry of the benefice or pious cause (Can. 840).

Question 15. To whom does the right and office of watching that the burdens of Masses are fulfilled pertain?

Resp. In churches of seculars it pertains to the local Ordinary; in churches of religious, to their Superiors (Can. 842).

Question 16. Who are held to have a book into which they report in order the number of Masses, the intention, the alms, and the celebration?

Resp. §1. Rectors of churches and of other pious places, whether secular or religious, in which alms of Masses are accustomed to be received, should have a special book in which they accurately note the number of Masses received, the intention, the alms, and the celebration.

§2. Ordinaries are held by the obligation of reviewing books of this kind at least each year, either by themselves or through others (Can. 843).

§1. Likewise local Ordinaries and religious Superiors who commit Masses to be celebrated to their own subjects or to others should quickly report in a book, in order, the Masses which they have received with their alms, and should take care according to their strength that they be celebrated as soon as possible.

§2. Indeed, all priests, whether secular or religious, must accurately note what intentions of Masses each has received, and for which he has made satisfaction (Can. 844).

Question 17. Can a priest to whom a rich stipend is offered for today's Mass retain this and ask another priest to celebrate for him, promising to celebrate on the following day for the same one, who is about to have it celebrated for the ordinary alms?

Resp. Affirmatively, at least probably, both because nothing appears in this permutation of intention which savors of the appearance of base gain, and because thus bears the most common practice of pious and prudent priests. Nor, finally, is a sufficient weight of authority lacking to this opinion; indeed, St. Alphonsus himself is not altogether alien from embracing it, nor does he condemn a practice of this kind as mortal. - Cf. Ballerini, note (a), p. 254.

Question 18. Does one satisfy who, after accepting a stipend for a Mass to be celebrated on a privileged altar, celebrates the same Mass on another altar?

Resp. Negatively; and besides, as is established from a recent response of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences given 24 July 1885, a defect of this kind cannot be supplied or compensated by some other plenary indulgence applicable to the dead. - Cf. Nouvelle Revue Theologique, vol. 17, pp. 595 and following. - Ballerini-Palmieri, vol. 5, p. 676, n. 104.

Question 19. Is one obliged by a stipend to celebrate on a privileged altar for a deceased person bound to read a Mass of Requiem when the rite permits it?

Resp. Negatively. Thus the Holy Office, Feb. 20, 1913.

Question 20. What is to be said about that custom which exists in very many Dioceses of the United States, namely that on the day of the Commemoration of all the Dead a rich sum of alms is collected, and one Mass is said for all?

Resp. It is not to be disapproved; for, when the doubt was proposed by the Bishop of Rochester, the Sacred Congregation of the Council responded on 27 Jan. 1877: "Let nothing be innovated; only let a notice be placed in the church, by which the faithful are taught that by those very alms one Mass is sung on the day of the Commemoration of all the faithful departed." - Cf. Acta S. Sedis, vol. 10, p. 120. - The Pastor, vol. 3, p. 382.

Question 21. By what name do pious foundations come?

Resp. §1. By the name of pious foundations are signified temporal goods given in any way to some moral person in the Church, with the burden, in perpetuity or for a long time, of celebrating some Masses from the annual revenues, or of fulfilling other predefined ecclesiastical functions, or of performing some works of piety and charity.

§2. A foundation, legitimately accepted, takes on the nature of a synallagmatic contract: I give that you may do (Can. 1544).

It belongs to the local Ordinary to prescribe norms concerning the dowry below which a foundation cannot be admitted, and concerning the distribution of its fruits. But in order that a foundation can be admitted, the consent of the local Ordinary, given in writing, is required; before he gives it, he must know that the moral person can satisfy its new and old burden, and that the revenues altogether answer to the burdens. Furthermore, in the acceptance, constitution, and administration the patron of the church has no right. Money and movable goods are to be deposited in a safe place, and let them cautiously be invested as soon as possible for the benefit of the foundation. But all foundations are to be consigned in writing; a double copy of the records is to be preserved, one in the archive of the Curia, the other in the archive of the moral person. With the prescriptions of can. 1514, 1517, and can. 1525 being observed, in any church a table of burdens arising from foundations is to be prepared, and besides the book concerning which in can. 843, §1 (on Masses), another book is to be retained, in which individual perpetual and temporary burdens, their fulfillment, and the alms are noted. - Cf. Can. 1546-1549. If there is question of foundations in churches, even parochial ones, of exempt religious, the cited rights and offices of the local Ordinary belong exclusively to the major Superior. - Cf. Can. 1550.

I. The most wise Pontiff Benedict XIV set this argument in full light both in his treatise On the Sacrifice of the Mass and in the work On the Synod. I have reported entire in Vol. VIII, Book 3, dissertation 2, chapter 6, the decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs and of the Sacred Congregation of the Council of Trent upon this argument, which you can see there. Now I shall resolve certain little questions.

II. QUESTION I. By whom is the alms to be conferred upon a priest celebrating Mass to be fixed? ANSWER. By the bishop, as the Congregation of the Council determined, since a general rule cannot be prescribed. If a priest exact more alms than the bishop's fixing prescribes, he injures not only the law of the Church but commutative justice itself. Nor is it required, as all theologians teach, that the alms suffice for the entire sustenance of one day, because the action of the Sacrifice does not require the whole day but half an hour. Wherefore secular priests are not promoted to sacred Orders without a title either of patrimony or of benefice.

III. QUESTION II. Is it lawful for a rich priest to accept an alms that he may celebrate Mass? ANSWER. If several ancient canons be consulted, they seem to grant an alms to a priest about to celebrate on account of sustenance; but the universal custom of the Church, by which one must always stand, permits to all priests indiscriminately an alms for a Mass to be celebrated. Which custom rests upon holy Scripture, since St. Luke says, chapter 10: For the labourer is worthy of his hire; and St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 9: Know you not, that they who work in the holy place eat the things that are of the holy place; and they that serve the altar partake with the altar? Let the Apostle's whole chapter be read. That priests are rich or poor is, as regards this, by accident. He that serveth the altar, let him live by the altar.

IV. QUESTION III. What priests in celebrating afford a suspicion of simony? ANSWER. Those who, the alms being lacking, desist from celebrating. For the author of the opusculum On the Office of a Priest, chapter 1, once attributed to St. Thomas, says: A priest nevertheless cannot celebrate with this intention, that from it he may obtain money, for he would sin mortally. Very easily do many flatter themselves, and study to disguise this intention with various pretexts. But let priests consult their own fervour, and the profit which they take from celebration, and hence, when they will not lie to themselves, they will gather whether they celebrate principally for the end of the Sacrifice, or for the gaining of bread.

V. QUESTION IV. Can a priest celebrate through another, retaining for himself part of the stipend accepted? ANSWER. Many affirm it, whose opinion Alexander VII condemned, no. 9: After the decree of Urban, a priest to whom Masses to be celebrated are delivered can satisfy through another, a lesser stipend being conferred upon him, another part of the stipend being retained for himself. Fr. Viva upon this proposition 9, no. 8, reports the lax opinion of Bordoni asserting that the aforesaid priest does not sin against justice, but only against the obedience owed to the Pontiff: upon which opinion Fr. Viva brings forth this most probabilistic judgment: Although this is not without its own probability, it seems nevertheless more probable, and so forth. If that opinion is not without its own probability, then by force of Probabilism it can be committed to execution.

VI. Fr. Tamburini, Book 3, Method of the Mass, chapter 1, § 5, no. 15, says: “If a man, being a procurator that a hundred Masses, for example, be celebrated, which Masses in this city are wont to be said for, say, two hundred julii: if a man, I say, by his own industry send or go to another city, where within the demanded time they may be said for a hundred julii, I think it not improbable that such a procurator can retain for himself the other hundred. The reason is that a parity can be taken from a servant who by extraordinary industry (for to the ordinary and moral he is obliged by his very service), by his own labour buys things at less than they are commonly worth in the market: for he can retain what is over, as being the fruit of his own industry. In a like way therefore in our case.” A most witty comparison of profane service with the procurators to whom the care of Masses to be celebrated is committed! All things become lawful by the probable and by the non-probable. The filthiest gain is insinuated in the very celebration of Masses. A Christian man would scarcely think such things, did he not meet those writings. Servants let out their labours to their master. Wherefore it can scarcely, or at least rarely, happen that they can gain for themselves by extraordinary industry, since the time to be laid out in extraordinary industry has been sold to the master. But even granting the servant's gain, to extend it to procurators of Masses seems to abhor from truth and honesty.

VII. Fr. Dominic Viva in his Treatise on Proposition 9 of Alexander VII, no. 8, says: “If collectors of alms for Masses be priests, and Masses to be celebrated be not delivered to them, but they bear themselves as laymen who take care of the celebration of Masses, they will be able, from Navarrus, Córdoba, and Tamburini, probably against Pellizzari and Soto, to take a moderate wage for their labour out of what is given for the Mass, since this seems lawful by the law of nature.” Good heavens! The law of nature permits that out of the offerings conferred by the faithful for the most sacred Sacrifice of the Mass to be celebrated, priests take a wage, provided that in collecting the alms they bear themselves as laymen and not as priests! The practice of both opinions, of Tamburini and Viva, Benedict XIV prohibited in his Constitution 21, whose beginning is Quanta cura, where among other things these things are had: There are forbidden traffickings upon the alms of Masses; that is, those who collect alms in those places in which the stipends or alms for Masses are of a greater price, but take care that the Masses be celebrated in places in which they are wont to be celebrated for a lesser price: if they be laymen, let them incur excommunication; but if clerics or priests, suspension to be absolved by the Roman Pontiff alone. See also what the same Pontiff writes, Book 5, On the Synod, chapter 8, no. 9, and chapter 9, no. 2.

VIII. A beneficiary, when he is compelled to celebrate through another, can lawfully afford the accustomed alms, although he himself perceive a greater one from the benefice, as the Sacred Congregation determined. In those Masses therefore which they call manual, it is forbidden to celebrate through others, a lesser stipend being conferred than was accepted. When a man commits a Mass to be celebrated to a priest instructed with singular uprightness, a greater stipend being conferred, he ought not to celebrate through another, even the whole stipend being conferred. Several other little questions some raise here, which savour of trafficking and bring in disgust.

IX. A priest who accepts scanty stipends from several, promising a Mass to each, cannot satisfy with one Mass alone. Fr. Viva, question 5, last article, no. 9, says: “But Trullench and Tamburini, Book 3, chapter 1, § 3, think probable the opinion of Suárez teaching that in that case this can be granted to a poor priest, when, compelled by poverty, he consents.” This opinion was disapproved on the 14th by a decree of the Sacred Congregation. Fr. Viva heaps up many things from Tamburini and other probabilists, to show that the decree of the Sacred Congregation is not opposed to the opinion of Suárez; but at no. 10 he confesses with de Lugo that by the decree of the Congregation it is forbidden that the opinion of Fr. Suárez be reduced to practice. And at last, contrary to his custom, he concludes: I judge in the third place that the opinion of Suárez is false.

X. QUESTION V. Can a priest accept a twofold stipend — one for the attendance, as it is called, at a designated church, the other for the application? ANSWER. De Lugo and Tamburini affirm it, provided it be established that the one willed only the presence, the other only the application. Fr. La Croix reports for this opinion Suárez, Vásquez, Pasqualigo, Aversa, and others, and himself after his manner brings forth nothing.

XI. But the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XIV, Vol. 5, note 15, reports a decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council of the 9th of January and the 6th of February in the year 1617, which contains this. Whether priests who under no other obligation celebrate in confraternities or in monasteries of nuns than for the adornment of the church, or that the confraternity brothers or the nuns may satisfy the precept of hearing Mass, can accept beyond the stipend which they receive from the confraternities or the nuns another stipend? The Sacred Congregation of the Council on the 9th of January and the 6th of February in the year 1617, in the Traguriensian case, answered that they cannot.

XII. A priest cannot receive a twofold stipend, one for the fruit of impetration of the Mass, another for the fruit of satisfaction, whatever some may formerly have devised to the contrary. He who accepted a stipend for a Mass to be celebrated where and when he shall have willed, if someone afterwards ask him to celebrate at a certain place or time, can he accept something for such an obligation? There are those who affirm it: to me subtle figments of this kind seem tinged with the soot of a base trafficking. Similarly I do not approve the opinion of Fr. La Croix, Book 6, part 2, no. 141, which he reports from Fr. Gobat in these words: If nevertheless it be agreed concerning the most special fruit, or another part of the fruit not sought, to be applied to a third party, that it may profit him as much as it can, that something can therefore be taken Gobat notes, no. 52, provided he warn the giver of the uncertainty whether such an application profit him. Distinctions of this kind in a most grave matter I do not approve.

XIII. QUESTION VI. Can several obligations be satisfied by a single Mass? ANSWER. Although Urban VIII, Supreme Pontiff, forbade this, there have not therefore been lacking those who maintained the opposite. Their opinion Alexander VII proscribed in this thesis 10: It is not against justice to accept a stipend for several sacrifices and to offer one sacrifice; neither is it against fidelity, even if I promise, by a promise confirmed even by an oath, to him who gives the stipend, that I will offer it for no other. Let the reader observe that this thesis was maintained and devised by certain Catholics, and let him seriously consider what can be expected from them in controverted matters, if against a truth so clear they could write such things. You promised, you swore that you would sacrifice for no other; nevertheless you sacrifice, and do not sin even against fidelity? Did Socrates, Plato, Cicero, Seneca, or Plutarch ever write such things?

XIV. When a man has accepted stipends for Masses to be celebrated, he ought not long to defer the celebration. Diana, de Lugo, and Pasqualigo teach that it cannot be deferred beyond three months. Urban VIII forbids in his decree that more Masses be accepted than can be celebrated within a small time. But the time of three months does not seem small. The quantity of time cannot be defined; but the circumstances, and especially the wills of the offerers and the necessities for the relieving of which the Masses are prescribed, are to be attended to. He who cannot celebrate the Masses for which he accepted stipends ought to furnish that which he can. He ought to admonish the offerers, if circumstances permit, that they take care that the Masses be celebrated. But his reputation is injured. Alas, wretched man! You squander your reputation by iniquitous actions which misbecome a priest of Christ; and when satisfaction must be made to God and to your neighbour, do you set your reputation against it?

XV. He who has vowed to offer a sacrifice for thanksgiving cannot accept a stipend, because he is presumed to have had this intention. He who accepted a stipend that he might celebrate a Mass of Requiem does not gravely sin if he celebrate another Mass; nevertheless, when the rubrics permit, faith is to be kept with the offerer, and he is to be warned that such a Mass cannot be celebrated. The anticipated celebration of Masses — namely, that a Mass to be celebrated tomorrow be celebrated today — since it is to the offerer's advantage, lacks fault, unless the offerer's intention be otherwise. He who is bound to celebrate every day can once in the week for reverence' sake omit it; he cannot nevertheless accept a stipend and celebrate for another. He who by the burden of a chaplaincy is bound to celebrate daily, if on account of the crimes of pollution, fornication, drunkenness, and so forth he be suspended by his confessor as unworthy, ought to fulfil his burden through another priest.

XVI. When a testator of a chaplaincy does not prescribe the number of Masses, it is better to consult the bishop. If a chaplain be sick, for about two months authors commonly free him from celebrating through another. But that priests may be freed from every doubt, the synodal laws or approved customs of each diocese are to be consulted. Too lax is the opinion which frees a chaplain from the burden of celebrating for the whole time in which he is sick. He who labours under the falling sickness ought to abstain from celebration. If he fall rarely, let the bishop be consulted, who, all things being regarded, may decide.

XVII. The intention of applying the Mass for the offerers is required. A habitual one does not suffice, whatever some may say; nor is an actual one necessary; but a virtual one suffices. Neither lawful nor valid is the application of a Mass for him whom God knows will first give a stipend; and La Croix says from Bassaeus that Clement VIII forbade this, which decree I have not seen.

XVIII. The reduction of Masses Benedict XIV set in full light, Book 5, On the Synod, chapter 10, where after many indicated decrees of Pontiffs he concludes: “Nevertheless after Urban VIII other Roman Pontiffs — namely Alexander VII, Clement X, Clement XI, Innocent XII, and Benedict XIII — granted to almost all religious institutes the privilege that the superiors general, mature counsel being employed and certain rules being observed which are expressed in the letters of the same privileges, could each in his own religious order moderate the burdens of Masses previously left and accepted: and the same faculty was made by Benedict XIII of holy memory to all bishops who by themselves or by their procurators were present at the Roman Council held in 1725, as may be seen in the same Council, title 15, chapter 8.”

XIX. QUESTION VII. On what days ought those who bear the care of souls to apply the Mass for the flock committed to them? ANSWER. Various disputations were formerly among authors upon this matter. All these the most learned Pontiff Benedict XIV, happily reigning, took away in his encyclical letter upon the parochial and conventual Mass, whose beginning is Cum semper oblatas, given in the year 1744. I have reported the entire letter in Vol. VIII, Book 3, dissertation 2, chapter 6. Now I transcribe a few words. We think it opportune to declare to your Fraternities that it will be abundantly enough for us, and consequently can be enough for you, that those who exercise the care of souls celebrate and apply the sacrifice of the Mass for the people on Sundays and on the other days of precept throughout the year. Read the entire letter, in which you will find most wholesome documents for parish priests. There are also rejected the excuses of those pastors who omitted to apply the Sacrifice on the said days for the flock committed to them on account of the slenderness of their revenues.

XX. QUESTION VIII. At what hour is it lawful to celebrate? ANSWER. From dawn until noon, as the common opinion teaches. Various causes can occur for anticipating or protracting this celebration by an hour. He who without cause violates the law of the prescribed time sins. I reckon that in this matter one rarely sins gravely, on account of the various customs of places.

XXI. QUESTION IX. When is it lawful to celebrate several times on the same day? ANSWER. Formerly priests celebrated several times. At present it is granted only on the day of the Nativity of the Lord to celebrate three Masses. No one nevertheless is bound to celebrate three. Several cases are wont to be assigned in which it is lawful to repeat Masses. If a parish priest have several parishes, and unless he celebrate several Masses some parish would lack a Mass, then, they say, he can double. But in our age, in which the supply of priests is most abundant, this necessity scarcely occurs.

XXII. QUESTION X. In what place is one to celebrate? ANSWER. In a church either consecrated, or at least blessed by the bishop, at an altar either consecrated or in which there is a consecrated stone. The bishop can impart a faculty of celebrating outside a church in some honourable place for a just cause. A bishop on a journey can celebrate at a portable altar, both in his own and in another's diocese. Upon which matter Clement XI published a decree in the year 1703, which I have reported entire in Vol. VIII, Book 3, dissertation 2, chapter 7. In a ship also it is lawful to celebrate, provided there be no danger of the blood being spilled.

XXIII. QUESTION XI. What is to be said of private oratories? ANSWER. The Council of Trent, session 22, On the Celebration of Mass, forbids that bishops permit celebration in private houses. Fr. La Croix, Book 6, part 1, no. 267, relates that bishops exercise the power of granting private oratories. In Italy this faculty of erecting oratories in the houses of seculars is granted by the Supreme Pontiff alone.

XXIV. In oratories of this kind it is forbidden to celebrate on the feasts of the Nativity of the Lord, of the Epiphany, of Easter, of Pentecost, of the Annunciation, of the Assumption, of the Apostles Peter and Paul, and of All Saints, unless it be otherwise expressed in the privilege.

XXV. They satisfy the precept of hearing Mass on a feast day in these private oratories all who dwell in the house of the privileged person, as father, mother, daughter-in-law, son-in-law, wife, sons, daughters, grandsons, great-grandsons, and others descending by the direct line and remaining under the government of the privileged person: in one word, all those and those alone who are expressed in the privilege. It were to be wished that Christians would sustain this inconvenience of visiting the supreme Lord in his own house. Not a few extort these privileges out of ostentation and out of sloth.

XXVI. Many probabilists — Azor, Castropalao, Pellizzari, Busembaum, Burghaber, Gobat, whom Fr. La Croix reports, Book 3, part 1, no. 618 — teach that even those who are not of the family satisfy the precept of hearing Mass on a feast day in private oratories of this kind, and La Croix himself calls their opinion probable. But this opinion is not probable but utterly false, and the Pontiff disapproves it in these words contained in the Bull: But we will that others who are not of the family be not reckoned free from the obligation of hearing Mass in a church. Many other interpretations I pass over.

XXVII. QUESTION XII. What is to be held concerning the consecration of a church and its pollution? ANSWER. A church can be blessed by a simple priest by commission of the bishop; it can be consecrated by the bishop alone. The Supreme Pontiff can commit to a simple priest that he consecrate a church.

XXVIII. A church is polluted: first, on account of a homicide perpetrated in it, even without the shedding of blood, or if a wound be so deadly that there or elsewhere death must follow. Second, by a public shedding of blood or of seed mortally evil, and consequently by a sacrilegious conjugal act. Third, by the burial of an excommunicated person to be shunned, or of an unbeliever. Fourth, by the destruction of the church, or the demolition of the greater part.

XXIX. An altar apt for sacrifice ought to have been consecrated by its own bishop, whether fixed or portable. The notable breaking of the same renders it execrated. If the stone be broken into two parts, of which each is apt to sustain the chalice, paten, and host, either can serve for an altar.

XXX. QUESTION XIII. Is a priest bound to offer Mass? ANSWER. All the faithful are bound by natural, divine, and ecclesiastical precept to offer sacrifice to God through public ministers. Therefore by the same right priests are bound, since these two things are reciprocal. See Vol. VIII, Book 3, dissertation 2, chapter 8. Cajetan on 3, question 82, article 10, taught that priests who rarely or never perform sacred rites sin only venially. This opinion as false and lax St. Pius V commanded to be struck out of Cajetan's commentaries.

XXXI. Parish priests and all who have the care of souls are bound by themselves, or, if they be hindered, through others, to celebrate as often as the faithful are bound to assist at Mass. Nor hence gather that these ought to celebrate on feast days alone: for since they are pastors, they are bound to celebrate if not daily, yet frequently, that by their example they may allure their sheep to receive the divine pasture. The other priests ought to celebrate at least on Sundays and the other feasts, as the Council of Trent, session 13, chapter 14, prescribes. On the other days let them celebrate more or less according to their greater or lesser fervour. Although formerly in time of persecution priests celebrated without a minister, nevertheless, persecution ceasing, the opposite discipline has always obtained of celebrating with a minister. Therefore of St. Sixtus St. Laurence said: Thou wast never wont to offer sacrifice without a minister.

Caius, a missionary priest in England, while occupied with spiritual exercises, is troubled by scruples about the obligation to celebrate Mass by reason of a stipend. He therefore goes to a confessor, to whom he relates that he is accustomed to accept more Masses to be celebrated for stipends than he can satisfy. He is unwilling, however, to hand the stipends to another priest; hence sometimes he retains the stipend but does not celebrate the Mass, which he hopes is not mortal because of the small amount, for it does not exceed two shillings and sixpence. Sometimes also he defers for four or six months the celebration of a Mass due by reason of a stipend. Indeed, if it concerns stipends handed over by a certain pious association established to promote devotion toward the souls in purgatory for the souls of the departed in general, without scruple he defers the due celebration of the Mass beyond six months. Hence it is asked:

1. Whence arises the obligation to celebrate Mass by reason of an accepted stipend, and is it a grave obligation?

2. Within what time must a Mass be celebrated by reason of a stipend?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. Whence arises the obligation of saying Mass by reason of accepting a stipend, and is the obligation a grave one?

The obligation of saying Mass for the intention of the person who has given a stipend arises from a contract which the priest enters into with the giver, and from ecclesiastical law. It is not a contract of buying and selling, but an innominate contract — Do ut facias. The stipend is given for the support of the priest, and the priest undertakes to apply Mass for the intention of the giver. The obligation is a grave one of justice, as the nature of the obligation, the intention of the parties, and the law of the Church make manifest. Innocent XII commanded that “ absolutely let as many Masses be celebrated as shall have been prescribed by those offering alms.”

2. Within what time is Mass to be said for which a stipend has been given?

The decree S. C. C. Ut debita, 11th May 1904, answers this question:

“ A reasonable period for fulfilling obligations of manual Masses is one month for one Mass, six months for one hundred Masses, and another longer or shorter span of time, more or less according to the greater or smaller number of Masses.”

3. The case. In accepting more stipends for Masses than he can satisfy Caius transgressed the decree S. C. C., Ut debita, which prescribes:

“ It is lawful for no one to undertake so many Masses that he probably cannot himself satisfy them within a year from the day the obligation was undertaken.” In neglecting to celebrate Mass although bound to do so on account of having received a stipend for it Caius committed grave sin, and he is bound to restore the stipend to the giver if the occasion on account of which the Mass was asked for has now passed by, or otherwise to say the Mass as soon as possible. If he can not do this, he should hand over the stipends to his Ordinary, or to some reliable priest of the diocese. In deferring the celebration of Mass for which he has accepted a stipend much beyond a month he has committed so many grievous sins.

Caius, a priest, wrote to Titius, likewise a priest and the author of a theological book, and asked that a copy of the said book be sent to him. The author sent the book and at the same time wrote that the best manner of paying the price would be for Caius to celebrate five Masses, for he had more intentions than he could satisfy, and those five had already been in his hands for two months. Caius, however, doubts whether it is lawful for him to buy the book in this way; indeed, he thinks that Titius has offended against the decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council of May 11, 1904. Hence it is asked:

1. How is it shown that it is lawful and honorable to accept stipends for Masses?

2. What did the Sacred Congregation of the Council determine on May 11, 1904, concerning the doubts to be treated in the case?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. How is it shown that it is lawful to receive stipends or Masses?

The Mass is not sold for the stipend, but the priest undertakes to say a Mass for the intention of the person who asks for it. But it is only right and proper that one who occupies himself for the benefit of another, should receive his support or part of it from him for whose benefit he labors. A soldier fighting or training to do so for his country’s defence has a right to be supported meanwhile at his country’s expense. In the same way the stipend is given to the priest for his support by one who benefits spiritually by the priest’s celebration of Mass.

2. What did the S. C. C. decree May 11, 1904, bearing on the points in the case?

The decree S. C. C., Ut debita, contains the following: “ Almsgiving of the Mass can never be separated from the celebration of the Mass, nor be exchanged or diminished for other things, but must be handed over to the celebrant in full and in its own kind;” furthermore, “ to sell or buy books, sacred utensils or any other things and to enter into associations (as they call them) with newspapers and periodicals by means of Masses is unlawful and altogether prohibited. This, however, is valid not only if it is about Masses to be celebrated, but also about Masses already celebrated, whenever it passes into use and habit and tends to the benefit of some commerce.”

3. The case. Caius would seem to have interpreted the decree too strictly The decree indeed, forbids trading with stipends for Masses, and as a general rule prescribes that the whole stipend received for a Mass is to go to the priest who says the Mass. It is specially forbidden for booksellers to collect intentions for Masses and get them said by priests who receive books instead of the stipends. However, Titius did none of these things. He had some Masses to be said for stipends, and he was at liberty to ask Caius, if he knew him to be an honest priest, to say some of those Masses. Caius was indebted to Titius for the price of the book. It was lawful to square accounts without the necessity of sending money backwards and forwards. Fr. Lehmkuhl says: “Only if [a priest]

has surplus stipends not deliberately collected or who entrusts Masses to be celebrated to other priests with the right to the full stipends, but they, moved by another consideration, buy periodicals from him, it will be lawful to balance the account of what was given and received.”¹

1 Casus Conscientiae, vol. ii, n. 223.