Regulars

127. On the power delegated to regulars. 1. Regulars, by force of the privilege of the supreme pontiffs, can in their churches or oratories, both by themselves and through other priests, distribute the Eucharist to any of the faithful, even on the day of Easter; for the old law by which the administration of holy communion in their churches was prohibited to regulars on this day¹ has now been abrogated.²

a. On that day there had been prohibited not only the distribution of the Eucharist by which the faithful would satisfy the precept of annual communion, but also that which they received for the sake of devotion. The prohibition remains of receiving prescribed holy communion in churches of regulars, whether on Easter day or on any other day, unless by contrary custom the prohibition has been removed. But it is permitted to receive holy communion for the sake of devotion in non-parochial churches, especially those of regulars, on any day whatever, even on Easter day.

b. Religious can provide prescribed holy communion, both on Easter day and on other days, to all the faithful in those regions where the precept of receiving paschal holy communion in one's own parish has been derogated by contrary custom. Moreover, they can provide it to all those who participate in the privilege of exemption, such as, besides novices, familiars, i.e., those laypersons "who are of the family of the regulars and their continuous table-companions," among whom resident students are to be numbered.

2. a. "In every clerical religion the right and office belongs to superiors of ministering Viaticum and extreme unction to sick professed members, novices, and others staying day and night in the religious house by reason of service, or education, or hospitality, or ill health."

b. In houses of nuns the ordinary confessor, or the one who takes his place, has the same right and office.

c. In a lay religion this right and office belongs to the pastor of the place or to the chaplain whom the Ordinary has substituted for the pastor.³

Although it is not licit for regulars publicly to carry holy communion to the sick, because publicly carrying the Eucharist through the streets is a proper parochial right, nevertheless they can licitly give holy communion to them privately, as it is licit for priests (n. 132).

¹ S. C. C., 31 Jan. 1682.

² S. C. C., 28 Nov. 1912.

³ Cn. 514.

439. The Minister of Extreme Unction is every priest and only a priest, which was expressly defined by the Council of Trent;¹ for St. James had said that the priests of the Church should be brought in, who should pray over the sick man.

1. Every priest can validly confer the sacrament of extreme unction; for to administer this sacrament validly jurisdiction is not required, but only the power of order, which belongs to every priest, even one excommunicated, suspended, or degraded.

2. The ordinary minister is the parish priest of the place in which the sick man lives; but in a case of necessity, and with the at least reasonably presumed permission of the same parish priest or ordinary, any priest can administer this sacrament.²

a. The simply reserved excommunication which up to this point a regular incurred who, outside a case of necessity, administered this sacrament without the permission of the parish priest or ordinary, has been removed by the new Code.

b. In a case of necessity, namely if the parish priest is absent, or unjustly refuses to minister the sacrament, or is bound by excommunication or suspension, any priest can, from the presumed permission of the bishop, and from charity also ought, to administer this sacrament.

3. To regulars and to those who are of their household extreme unction is conferred by the regular superior, or by him whom he shall have deputed. Regulars can administer this sacrament also to those who remain in their house day and night for the sake of hospitality or infirm health.³

¹ Sess. 14, c. 3 and can. 4, De extr. unct. Cn. 938, 1.

² Cn. 938, 2.

³ Cn. 514, 1.

Religious Orders have at different times received very ample privileges from the Holy See, so as to enable them to work for God and the Church with the greater freedom and fruit according to their Institute. These privileges are granted immediately to the religious superiors, and are by them communicated as occasion requires to their subjects. The regular or mendicant Orders, who take solemn vows, are exempt from the jurisdiction of the Ordinaries, and subjected immediately to the Holy See. Exemption, however, and many other privileges of religious have been largely curtailed, especially since the time of the Council of Trent, and now, as far as their work among the faithful is concerned, and their public conduct, regulars are to a great extent subject to the authority and correction of the Ordinary.

III. Subsidiary notions. In order that the things which pertain to the law of religious may be better understood, it is pleasing to add the notions which the Code in can. 488, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th places first, and which regard: 1st, houses; 2nd, provinces; 3rd, members of religions; 4th, Superiors. Now:

1. A religious house is called a house of some religion in general; a regular house is a house of an Order; a formed house is called a religious house in which at least six professed religious dwell, of whom, if there is question of a clerical religion, at least four are priests (can. 488, 5th).

2. By the name of province is understood the union of several religious houses joined together among themselves under the same Superior, constituting part of the same religion (can. 488, 6th).

3. Under the name of religious come those who have pronounced vows in some religion; under the name of religious of simple vows, those who are in a religious Congregation; of regulars, those who are in an Order; of sisters, religious women of simple vows; of nuns, religious women of solemn vows, or, unless something else is clear from the nature of the thing or from the context of the discussion, religious women whose vows from the institute are solemn but for some places by prescription of the Apostolic See are simple (can. 488, 7th). To nuns pertain Carmelite religious women, Poor Clares, religious women of the Most Holy Redeemer (Redemptoristines), etc.

4. Under the name of major Superiors come: the Abbot Primate, the Abbot Superior of a monastic Congregation, the Abbot of a monastery sui iuris, even if belonging to a monastic Congregation, the supreme Moderator of a religion, the provincial Superior, their vicars, and others having power after the manner of provincials (can. 488, 8th); likewise probably the superior and superiorissa of a house which is sui iuris (cf. can. 504).

Can there be an invincibly erroneous conscience concerning the precepts of natural law? - "It is certain that in the first principles of natural law, as also in the proximate conclusions and certain obligations of one's own state, invincible ignorance is not given, because by the very light of nature such things are known to all, except to him who closes his eyes lest he see them.... On the contrary, however, the unanimous opinion of theologians is... that in mediated and obscure conclusions, or those remote from the principles, invincible ignorance is indeed given and must be admitted." L. 1. 1. n. 8. 170 seq.; Struggl tr. 3. q. 1. n. 10-13; S. Th. Quodl. 3. a. 36, De Verit. q. 17. a. 2; De Malo q. 3. a. 8; Rom. 2:14. 15. In the first principles of natural law, for example: good is to be done, evil avoided; the highest good is to be loved, evil detested; what you do not wish for yourself, do not do to another; thanks are to be given to benefactors, etc. In proximate conclusions, for example: God is to be worshiped, parents are to be honored, theft is not to be committed, etc. In remote conclusions, for example: private revenge is not to be exercised, abortion is not to be procured, etc. Eternal law, existing in the divine mind, most perfectly exhibits the order of things. Natural law, which is the application of eternal law, exists in the human mind. Therefore natural law, by the very fact that it is manifested through human reason, falls short of the highest perfection of eternal law.

Hence it happens that not always what we think and judge, in more difficult matters, corresponds to the rules of the divine mind, and remains obscure and unknown to us. Whence that thing, although materially and in itself it pertains to natural law, nevertheless does not pertain formally and as regards us, since it has not been sufficiently promulgated to us by the natural light. - Wirceburg. De Actib. hum. c. 1. a. 3.

Must a law be extended from case to case because of identity of reason? - "Penal laws are not to be extended from case to case." L. 1. 6. n. 689. For hatreds are to be restricted. R. I. 49 in 6. - Likewise invalidating laws or laws granting some right cannot be extended from case to case; for then the act lacks value, or has force only from the positive will of the legislator. C. I. beginning, Dispos. etc. a. 4. - It must likewise be denied as regards other laws, even if the same reason runs; a fortiori if there is only a similar reason. For not the reason of the law, but the will of the legislator, duly intimated to the subjects, has the force of law and obliges. For the legislator can well dispose concerning one thing and not concerning another. Hence the common axiom: The reason of the law is not the law; and the end of the precept does not fall under the precept. L. 20. 21 de Legib.; S. Th. 1. 2. q. 100. a. 9 ad 2; L. 1. 3. n. 273. But "to act contrary to the end of the law is a certain disorder, which does not seem to be excused from all fault." L. 1. 3. n. 1030. - But if it is not licit of itself to extend a law from case to case, a fortiori it is not licit to extend a privilege from persons to other persons, from things to other things. C. 27 de Praeb. in 6; Reg. 28 de R. I. in 6; L. 14. 15. 16 de Legib.

Except nevertheless whenever otherwise something manifestly absurd or inequitable would follow, and the legislator could manifestly be accused of injustice, imprudence, ignorance. Thus by the Constitution Decori of S. Pius V, nuns are prohibited from going out of the monastery, except because of a great fire, or epidemic, or the sickness of leprosy. Therefore they will also be able to go out for another similar cause, for example flooding of the monastery, collapse, attack of robbers.

But this is chiefly had in the following: 1. In correlatives, for example, between husband and wife, betrothed man and betrothed woman; whence if the husband because of the adultery of the wife is admitted to divorce from bed, the wife also enjoys that right because of the adultery of the husband; if the betrothed woman is freed from betrothal because of the long absence of the betrothed man, C. 5 de Spons., similarly he is freed because of the absence of the betrothed woman. For then the legislator, expressly willing one thing, is judged to have implicitly willed the other also. 2. In things equated by law, such as presentation, postulation, election to a benefice; eggs and milk foods by reason of abstinence. What the law disposes in these matters concerning one, it is judged to dispose the same concerning another. And thus, if the more worthy is to be elected, the more worthy is also to be presented; if eggs are permitted, milk foods also are permitted. R. I. 53 in 6. 3. In connected things, of which one cannot stand without the other. Therefore he to whom a case is committed can also compel the parties to appear. C. 5 de Off. Deleg. 4. In things contained: for in the whole the part is contained; thus he who can make a testament can also make legacies; those to whom marriage is prohibited are also prohibited betrothal. L. 16 de Sponsal.

And these things have force even if the question concerns a penal law. Nor then does the rule have force: Hatreds are to be restricted, favors broadened. For that proceeds only when the disposition of the law is extended from interpretation of congruity, not when it must be extended from interpretation of necessity, which ought not so much be called extension as mere comprehension. And certainly extension of law is of two kinds: one necessary, the other congruential. The former is altogether required for justice or rectitude; but the latter not so, but is only voluntary, because although the law can justly comprehend many other things, nevertheless a lesser comprehension suffices for the justice of the law and the property of the words, with the reason of the law also being preserved. Now the general rule about not broadening penal laws must be understood of voluntary interpretation, that is, without which the prudent disposition and justice of the law can still be preserved; not of the necessary extension of law, which is required so that justice or equity may be preserved. And thus, a heretic is irregular. Therefore also an apostate. L. 12 de Legib. - L. 200, 1. 3. n. 293. 1027; Ithur. Cas. 53.

As it is necessary to extend a law when its reason is manifest, L. 12 de Legib., so also it is necessary to restrict it when similarly its reason is manifest; because the thing itself about which the question is concerned requires restriction; because otherwise something unjust or absurd would follow; because the case is altogether rare and foreign to the mind of the legislator; because otherwise the law would become too hard and severe. L. 18. 25 de Legib.

What are the principal privileges of Regulars? - As regards communication of privileges. All regular orders communicate in the privileges of other orders, whether mendicant or not. L. l. 4, n. 60. "These mendicant religions communicate in the privileges of the other religions, or congregations, or monastic or non-monastic colleges... And this holds even if in a privilege granted to another religion or congregation there is a clause that it is not to be communicated... Both lay brothers, for they themselves are truly religious, and novices enjoy privileges of this sort... religious promoted to the episcopate also enjoy them, provided there is not question of things by which, if Bishops used them, some prejudice would come to religion, as would be dwelling in a monastery, giving a vote." L. 9. - Male tertiaries who live collegially enjoy the privileges of Orders. S. C. EE. et RR., 20 Dec. 1616; Bizzarri, Collect., 1885, p. 569 ff. Nuns enjoy the same privileges (understand favorable ones) of which they are capable, as religious of the same order. The reason is that since they themselves live under the same rule, they are part of the order, and therefore deservedly ought to enjoy the privileges of the order. Hence an abbess can dispense in fasts, office, etc., according to the privileges granted to the prelates of her order; because, although she herself cannot dispense by herself on account of defect of spiritual authority, she can nevertheless do this by commission of the prelate, which is presumed to have been made to her as soon as she was elected abbess. L. 10; l. 4, n. 60, 63. As regards women of the third order and their privileges, cf. Collectan. S. C. de P. F., n. 445; Benedict XIV, Not. 29, 105, n. 59 ff. - As regards secular Franciscan tertiaries, cf. Constitution of Leo XIII in Ferraris, Supplementum, v. S. Franciscus Assis., etc.

More recent Institutes of simple vows are excluded from this participation in privileges. Nevertheless the Carmelite Sisters of France obtained it by special Decree of S. C. EE. et RR., 23 Mar. 1869, so that they participate in the spiritual graces of the Carmelites of solemn vows, exemption excluded. Ferraris, Supplementum, v. Carmelitae, n. 9. Privileges granted to some place or person, not as to a particular person, but as to a member of a community, are understood to be granted also to other places and religious of the same dignity and grade, both of that order and of others which have communication, namely when the same or a similar reason applies. L. 11. Privileges are not communicated: 1. When they are odious or contrary to proper statutes, so that they prejudice the good or common observance of religion. 2. When they are granted to some private person, or to some congregation, but for a determined time, or through particular Briefs, or on account of a particular reason which has no place in the others, or concerning an exorbitant thing which is usually granted with difficulty and is worthy of special commemoration; or, from the General Decree of S. C. R., 20 Mar. 1706, concerning those things which regard Masses and offices. 3. Likewise the privilege of receiving sacred orders from any Bishop is not communicated. Benedict XIV, C. Impositi nobis, 27 Feb. 1747, par. Quod vero. Privileges granted to religious families by Canon Law or by the Holy See are understood to be granted in such a way that they do not prejudice the legitimate power of superiors. Wherefore the same Prelates can from a just cause take away, at least as to liceity, or limit for subjects the use of privileges. L. 6; l. 4, n. 64; E. M.

As regards interpretation of privileges. - Privileges "which are granted to some order, convent, community, or to another pious cause, all are to be interpreted not only broadly but even most broadly, even if they are contrary to Common Law or to some third party. For privileges granted to communities are all presumed to be remuneratory of services furnished, and therefore all are held as favorable." L. 8.

Bishops and other secular Prelates are prohibited from juridically and authentically interpreting the aforesaid privileges. If any doubt arises, let judgment be made concerning it among skilled men, or let the Apostolic See be consulted. Generals of religions for the whole order interpret privileges not only doctrinally, but also juridically and authentically, so that all subjects are held to stand by their interpretation, when they interpret either laws and customs, or privileges. The same power was given to other regular Prelates, even immediate ones, but let them proceed prudently and from the counsel of skilled persons, so that for the forum of conscience they may be able, by Apostolic Authority, to interpret and declare authentically and juridically all the said things. L. 6.

As regards exemption. - Regulars have the privilege of exemption from the jurisdiction of Bishops, which they cannot renounce, C. Cum tempore de Arbitris. Wherefore regular Prelates have in their churches and monasteries quasi-episcopal jurisdiction, both as regards persons and as regards places. - The privilege of exemption is enjoyed not only by professed and lay brothers, but also by novices and tertiaries who stay within the cloisters; likewise, as regards censures, sacraments, and burial, by servants of regulars, who actually serve and reside within the cloisters of monasteries as, so to speak, of the family and perpetual table companions, no otherwise than the lay brothers themselves. Trent, s. 25, c. 11 de Reg. This exemption is not universal, but has several exceptions, especially for men, as regards delicts committed by regulars living outside the monastery, as regards hearing confessions of seculars, as regards the celebration of Masses; and for nuns, as regards enclosure. Trent, s. 6, c. 3 de R.; s. 22, Decr. de Observ., etc.; s. 25, c. 5, 9, 14 de R.; Gregory XV, B. Inscrutabili, 5 Feb. 1622; Clement VIII, B. Suscepti muneris, 23 Feb. 1596; Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 9, c. 16. Likewise it has no place when subjection to the jurisdiction and laws of the Ordinary is necessary for avoiding scandal or for procuring the common good. Schmalz., l. 1, t. 2, n. 38. "But all exempt persons, both secular clerics and any regulars whatsoever, even monks, when called to public processions, are to be compelled to come, except however those who live perpetually in stricter enclosure." Trent, s. 25, c. 13 de Reg. Monasteries are not to be erected without the permission of the Bishop of the place. Trent, s. 25, c. 3 de Reg. Besides, permission of the Supreme Pontiff is required, which is required also for abandoning monasteries already built. C. un. de Excess. praelator. in 6; Benedict XVI, C. Instaurandae, de Syn., l. 9, c. 1, n. 9; Leo XIII, C. Romanos Pontifices, VIII Id. Maii 1881; Ferraris, v. Regulares, art. 2; L. 72, 74, 82, 83, 91.

The Bishop proceeds also against exempt persons, in causes of faith, as an Apostolic delegate. And in causes of faith of this sort, which pertain to the Holy Office, Regular Prelates cannot involve themselves; and whether they themselves or other religious, not denouncing to the Holy Office, or impeding superiors, subjects, or confreres who are heretics or suspect concerning the faith from being denounced to the same Holy Office, incur excommunication. Commonly speaking, it is certain that regulars who dwell in mission residences are exempt from the jurisdiction of the Ordinary, although they are few in number; and, outside mission places, both the persons and the monasteries and churches of regulars are exempt from the visitation of the Bishop, provided that at least twelve or six religious dwell in them; indeed only three suffice at present for Italy. S. C. EE. et RR., 26 Mar. 1897. But except: 1. Churches of seculars whose pastor is a religious. 2. Churches of regulars, if they are parishes, yet only as regards those things which look to the parish and to the pastor, insofar as he carries out that office. Cf. Benedict XIV, C. Firmandis, 4 Nov. 1744; Leo XIII, C. Romanos Pontifices, VIII Id. Maii 1881; Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 3, c. 2, n. 1; A. S. S., vol. 38, p. 147.

The Bishop can oblige secular confessors, and also regulars, to the conference of Cases of Conscience, if they do not have it in their own Convents. In England and Scotland, all Rectors of Missions, Vicars, and other religious men, missionaries, who inhabit hospices and small Mission houses, must attend the conferences of the clergy from the cited Constitution of Leo XIII, Romanos Pontifices. Regulars in mission places, deputed to the care of souls, can be recalled by their superiors, or removed by the bishop, according to equitable judgment, no cause assigned by either, Benedict XIV, C. Firmandis; but if the regular superior recalls them, he must propose others to be substituted, with the Bishop approving, S. C. de P. F., 27 July 1882. Insofar as they are religious, they are subject to Regular Superiors; but insofar as they exercise the care of souls, to the Vicar Apostolic. S. C. de P. F., 18 Jan. 1886. Likewise the goods of religious are exempt from the jurisdiction of the Bishop. But administrators of monasteries of nuns must render an account to the Bishop of the administration of goods. L. 79, 80, 81; Benedict XIV, Inst. 29. As regards more recent Institutes of simple vows which have already been approved by the Holy See, the Bishop can demand no account of the administration of goods which those same Institutes possess, Leo XIII, C. Conditae a Christo, VI Id. Dec. 1900. They render this account every three years to the S. C. of Religious. Cf. A. S. S., vol. 25, p. 622 ff.

Constitution of Leo XIII, Romanos Pontifices, VIII Id. Maii 1881. Some heads of controversies concerning Bishops and Regular Missionaries of England and Scotland are defined. The aforesaid Constitution was then extended to many other places, to all Latin America, Plenary Council of Latin America; to the Philippine Islands, Secretariat of State, 1 Jan. 1910; to all the provinces of the Canadian Dominion, S. C. Cons., 14 Mar. 1911. It is disputed whether regulars can have recourse to the Bishop for obtaining graces. Many deny it, founded on this, that such recourse implicitly says a desertion of exemption. Others better affirm with Schmalz., l. 2, t. 2, n. 149, and Bouix, de Iud., vol. 1, p. 256, and teach that recourse to the Bishop is licit in those things which pertain to gracious jurisdiction, of which sort is absolution from sins and censures; dispensation in vows, oaths, irregularities; in laws of recitation of the breviary, fast, etc. But they require a threefold condition, namely: 1. that the Pope or his legate cannot easily be approached; 2. that the superiors of the order lack the faculty of dispensing; 3. that there is permission of the prelate, at least presumed. Cf. 263. But there is no doubt that regulars can use Lenten indults, which are rather given by the Holy See and promulgated by Bishops, unless they are prohibited by a special vow. S. O., 20 Dec. 1871. - E. M. Modern Institutes approved by the Holy See also enjoy exemption as regards internal government. Cf. cited Leo XIII, Conditae a Christo, A. S. S., vol. 28, p. 499 ff.

As regards irregularity. - "Regulars can dispense with their subjects in all hidden irregularities in which Ordinaries can dispense with their diocesans. And they can do the same with seculars." L. 104. "They can besides dispense with subjects in any irregularity, either on account of delict or on account of defect," namely those which are usually regularly dispensed. L. 105; Frassinetti, Comp., 6th ed., vol. 2, n. 681. In the cited place the Holy Doctor soon descends to particular cases, concluding: "Finally regulars can dispense with their subjects in all inabilities and penalties contracted by reason of delict... even if those are reserved to the Pontiff." Cf. L. l. 7, n. 355, 358, 364, 396; Lehmkuhl, 11th ed., vol. 2, n. 834.

As regards indulgences. - "All professed regulars enjoy the indulgences granted to any religious order," L. l. 4, n. 64, namely according to the Brief of Leo X, Dudum per Nos accepto, 10 Dec. 1519, and the Brief of Paul V, Romanus Pontifex, 23 May 1606, indulgences exclusively proper to each order being excluded from this communication, S. C. Indulg., 25 Apr. 1735; Theod. a Spiritu S., p. 2, p. 88 ff., p. 114. "It must be noted that the privilege of a privileged altar is not communicable by general communication of privileges, from the Decree of S. C. Indulg., dated 5 Feb. 1748, and approved by Benedict XIV on 2 Mar. of the same year." L. l. 6, n. 339. More recent nuns of simple vows, in France, of ancient religious orders, from a special indult, "can gain all indulgences which were granted to the religion or Institute of other nuns emitting solemn vows, according to the respective Institute or rule." S. C. Indulg., 10 July 1843; S. Poenit., 12 July 1847.

But Institutes of Tertiaries dwelling in Community and emitting simple vows participate in all Indulgences directly granted to the First and Second Orders, provided they are legitimately aggregated to the Orders. S. C. Indulg., 28 Aug. 1903; E. M., de Stat. part., n. 248.

It must further be noted that personal privileges and indulgences in churches of regulars vanish when the religious have been driven out, although some religious remains in the church as chaplain or custodian. But real privileges, such as the right of burying, when a religious is left there under the name of chaplain or custodian, must be exercised by him. S. C. C., 29 May 1841; 29 Aug. 1864; 16 Sept. 1871; S. C. Indulg., 24 May 1819; A. S. S., vol. 1, p. 287; vol. 4, p. 228; vol. 7, p. 34. - E. M.

281 bis. Secular Tertiaries of St. Francis, by force of the Apostolic Letters of 5 May 1909 and the Rescript of 17 May 1909, enjoy communication of all Indulgences and spiritual fruits with the First and Second Order of St. Francis, the extension then having been made to General Absolutions. S. O., 12 June 1913, A. A. S., vol. 5, p. 306 ff. Secular Franciscan Tertiaries reciting in place of the canonical hours twelve Our Fathers, Hail Marys, and Glory Bes cannot by this recitation alone satisfy all other obligations, as regards prayers, which they have contracted from enrollment in other pious sodalities. S. O., 11 June 1913. Third Orders proceeding collegially, in their own habit and under a cross, always and everywhere have precedence over any Sodalities whatsoever. S. R. C., 18 Feb. 1899; E. M.

What is the power of the Church to institute feast days? The Church enjoys the power of instituting feasts and of commanding their sanctification under grave obligation to all the faithful, as one which has received from Christ all power in order to the spiritual good of the faithful. The Pope alone can proclaim feasts for the universal Church, because he alone enjoys jurisdiction over the universal Church. Bishops also can institute feast days in their own diocese; for they have the faculty of making laws in their own diocese. Yet from C. Conquestus ult. de Fer. Bishops are forbidden to establish new feasts without consulting the clergy and faithful. But whether at present Bishops can still institute new feasts, the first opinion affirms, provided they are instituted in honor of Saints, not of Blesseds, with the counsel of some clerics employed; yet they are admonished that they should strive to abstain. Urban VIII, C. Universa, 13 Sept. 1642.; Bonac. tom. 2, d. 6, q. un., p. 1, n. 3 seqq. The second opinion denies it from the Response of the S. R. C. 23 June 1703, n. 2113. And a Bishop certainly could not institute new feasts in those places in which, with Governments or the Bishops themselves requesting, the Holy See willed, by determining the number of feasts, to establish a uniform manner for all of sanctifying feast days. Bouix de Iur. Liturg. p. 4, c. 4.; E. M. Cf. following number.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the preceding law. For a new form of reciting the divine office was introduced by the Constitution of Pius X Divino afflatu, November 1, 1911, which is altogether preceptive. For in the aforesaid Constitution it is said: "In all churches of the secular and regular clergy, in monasteries, orders, congregations, and institutes of religious, by all and each who from office or from custom pay the canonical Hours according to the Roman Breviary issued by S. Pius V and revised by Clement VIII, Urban VIII, and Leo XIII, we command that the new order of the Psalter, such as we have approved with its Rules and Rubrics and have decreed to be published by the Vatican presses, be religiously observed. At the same time we announce the penalties established in law to those who have failed in their duty of paying the canonical Hours daily; and they indeed should know that they will not satisfy so grave a duty unless they use this order of Our Psalter."

What is the religious state? - The religious state, considered as regards its intrinsic essence, is defined: A stable institute of life, approved by the Church for the faithful, who under a certain rule and common manner of living wish to tend to perfection through the three vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, with a handing over of themselves made to God and accepted by him. Therefore religious do not necessarily belong either to the hierarchy of jurisdiction or to the hierarchy of order; but they are, or can be, simple faithful in the Church, and therefore of either sex. - Suarez, de Relig. tr. 7, l. 2, c. 1, n. 1.

Their state is a state of perfection. There is indeed a twofold state of life: one of common life, which intends nothing other than the observance of the commandments of God; another of perfection, which adds the observance of the counsels. The perfection of Christian life is in charity. "Each thing is said to be perfect insofar as it attains its proper end, which is the ultimate perfection of the thing. But charity is that which unites us to God, who is the ultimate end of the human mind." St. Thomas 2. 2, q. 184, a. 1. Therefore the perfection which constitutes the state of perfection, distinct from the state of common life, is the perfection of charity.

Moreover a threefold perfection of charity can be considered. The first is absolute, by which "God is loved as much as he is lovable, and such perfection is not possible for any creature, but belongs to God alone." Another, by which "the affection according to its whole power always actually tends toward God; and such perfection is not possible on the way, but will be in the fatherland." The third, by which "those things are excluded which are repugnant to the motion of love toward God.... And such perfection can be had in this life. And this in two ways: in one way insofar as from the affection of man is excluded everything which is contrary to charity, such as mortal sin; and without such perfection charity cannot exist, whence it is of the necessity of salvation; in another way insofar as from the affection of man is excluded not only that which is contrary to charity, but also everything which impedes the affection of the mind from being totally directed to God, without which perfection charity can exist." St. Thomas 2. 2, q. 184, a. 2. Hence precepts pertain to that former charity; counsels to this latter.

Therefore that perfection of charity is certainly not in merely essential charity, but in a certain peculiar superabundance of charity, which surpasses the common and necessary charity of Christians. But this excess of charity is not situated in some one or several transitory acts of charity, even if they are of great or greatest intensity; but in such charity, in preparation of soul and habitual disposition, that a man is proximately prepared and disposed to act easily and ordinarily according to the precepts and counsels of God. St. Thomas q. 184, a. 2, 3, 4. And thus the same Angelic Doctor, q. 186, a. 1 ad 4, says: "The state of religion is principally instituted for acquiring perfection through certain exercises by which the impediments of perfect charity are removed." And a. 2: "He who assumes the state of Religion ... is held to tend to this and to give labor to it, that he may have perfect charity."

Now the state of perfection is twofold: one is the state of acquired perfection, another of perfection to be acquired. The former is proper to Bishops, the latter to religious. Indeed the state of Bishops is the state of exercising charity in a more notable grade, and of moving others to it by chosen works of zeal. But the state of perfection to be acquired is one thing incomplete or begun, another complete. For the former the three principal evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity, and obedience are not required; but some counsel is sufficient, whether it is one of those three principal ones or another, for the counsels are very many in number. But for the latter the three evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity, and obedience are required and suffice, to be observed from obligation; and consequently they must be confirmed by vow. For by these three vows almost all impediments of charity are removed. But the religious state is the complete state of perfection to be acquired. - St. Thomas q. 184, a. 4-8; q. 186, a. 3-7; Quodl. 3, a. 17; Quodl. 4, a. 24; Quodl. 5, a. 19.

Those three vows, although nevertheless of themselves they ought to be perpetual, for this is required by the very nature of the state; by no means is it required from the intrinsic nature of the thing that they be solemn, but it is enough that they be simple. This is openly established from the Constitution Quanto fructuosius of Gregory XIII, 1583, and Ascendente Domino, 8 Kalends of June 1584, where it is established that those who have emitted the three simple vows in the Society of Jesus are truly and properly religious. Moreover Leo XIII, Decree of March 16, 1886, established that knights of the Teutonic Order continue to become true religious, but emit only simple vows.

The solemnity of vows is from the disposition of the Church; hence it is a certain force added to them, of constituting one as religious properly and strictly such from canonical institution, and of making certain acts of a religious, concerning the matter of the same vows, void or at least voidable, and of dissolving ratified marriage, and of rendering the vows themselves altogether firm and stable. And that force is absolute, and not merely relative to a certain time, or until the religious, free from vows, is dismissed. Hence for the solemnity of vows it is not sufficient that there be just any force of producing the aforesaid effects; but that force must be absolute, i.e., so perpetual and immutable that neither the religious nor even the religion itself can suspend or remove that force and the vow itself. But it is by no means required, as is clear, that that force of the vow and the vow itself cannot be removed by the Roman Pontiff; for that force is of ecclesiastical law, and therefore the Pope can dispense both from the effect of the solemnity of vows, while solemn vows remain, Decree of the S. C. of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, July 31, 1878, and from the solemn vows themselves. Therefore the solemnity of a vow is in its complete dependence on and subjection to the Supreme Pontiff, in the full acceptance and approval of the Church as regards the being of the vow, its force, and the said canonical effects. And thus Busembaum, l. 3, n. 195, says a solemn vow "is that which is accepted as such by the Church.... But simple is every vow which does not have such solemnity," namely such acceptance of the Church as regards the aforesaid canonical effects. And the S. Penitentiary in the year 1820 declared: "a solemn vow is that which is accepted as such by the Church, and renders the one vowing perpetually and immovably incapable of contracting marriage and of acquiring or retaining dominions of things." "And this is," says Cajetan on 2. 2, q. 88, a. 7, "what Boniface VIII determined in the Sixth, saying that the solemnity of a vow was found by the institution of the Church alone." And St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 189, a. 5: "The vow of religion is twofold. One is simple, which consists in the promise alone made to God, which proceeds from interior deliberation of the mind, and this vow has efficacy from divine law.... But another is the solemn vow, which makes a monk or religious; and this indeed is subjected to the ordering of the Church because of the solemnity which it has annexed," a solemnity not extrinsic from extrinsic ceremonies, but intrinsic by reason of the object insofar as it extends broadly, and of the immobility of the vow itself. And from this ordering of the Church the Angelic Doctor immediately repeats that a vow made before puberty "does not have its effect, so that it makes the one professing already to be religious," and consequently that it is not solemn, "however much someone may have full use of reason, or be capable of fraud, namely because the Church regards that which is in the majority of cases." Therefore the solemnity of a vow is not from the nature itself of the vow, but from the constitution alone of the Church, accepting and approving the vow, and by that acceptance and approval implicitly blessing the person and perfectly, totally, and stably consecrating him in order to observe chastity, obedience, and poverty, in the profession of a certain rule, "by which through renunciation of the world and of one's own will someone assumes the state of perfection, and totally subjects himself to divine service." St. Thomas 2. 2, q. 83, a. 7. "The solemnity of a vow consists in a certain spiritual blessing and consecration, which is done through the ministry of the Church; therefore the solemnization of a vow falls under the disposition of the Church." St. Thomas l. c. a. 9; C. Quod votum un. de Vot. et vot. red. in 6. - St. Thomas 2. 2, q. 88, a. 7, 9; q. 133, a. 1; q. 134, a. 4, 5; q. 186. Cf. here vol. 1, n. 571.

Hence a distinction is especially had between Religion properly and strictly said, according to canonical institution, and a religious Congregation. For by Religions properly and strictly said are to be understood institutes which have the essence of the religious state with solemn vows; but by Religious Congregations are to be understood institutes which have the essence of the religious state, but with simple vows only, approved however by the Holy See, and so approved that the vows which are emitted in such a Congregation are not private vows, but public, i.e., are accepted by someone in the name of the Congregation or of the Apostolic See, whence they are said to be made into his hands. Otherwise it is not a religious Congregation, but a secular one. Benedict XIV, Brief Quo magis, December 18, 1742; S. C. Bishops and Regulars, August 11, 1889; Enchiridion Morale 248, ed. 4, p. 224.

By this pronouncing of the three vows, with attention to their nature, there is had a total handing over of oneself to God, St. Thomas q. 186, a. 7, a. 6 ad 2; yet this is accepted not immediately by God himself, but by some man in his name. And thus it was always judged by the Fathers that the religious state is a donation and handing over of oneself made to God. But God, "according to ordinary providence, does not receive a peculiar care of governing a private person immediately by himself, nor does he need these sensible things, so that he may use them immediately and without the intervention of secondary causes. And therefore a donation thus made to God either would be vain and idle, or as if tempting God by demanding immediate governance from him: and for this reason it does not please him, nor is it accepted immediately by him." Suarez, de Relig. l. 2, c. 4, n. 7, 8. By the acceptance and approval of these vows on the part of the Church, a blessing and consecration of the person is implicitly had, whence the person becomes sacred, i.e., irrevocably devoted to God. And then the vows are solemn. St. Thomas 2. 2, q. 184, a. 4. - And if the acceptance on the part of the Church is not for every effect of the aforesaid vows, but only for some, and therefore the vows are not solemn but simple, then there is not had a blessing and consecration of the person, but a certain simple blessing, which does not devote the person to God so immovably. Hence a dismissed person is ordinarily accustomed also to be dispensed from vows, and ceases to be dedicated to God. - Consequently, as by the profession of solemn vows a certain handing over and donation of oneself is had, so by simple vows a simple promise is had. St. Thomas Quodl. 3, a. 17, 18; Quodl. 8, a. 10; Quodl. 10, a. 11.

Hence it is entirely clear that the approval of the Church is needed for the religious state in the face of the Church. But the Church no longer approves eremitical life in the religious state, but common life under a certain rule and under certain constitutions. C. fin. de rel. dom.; C. un. e. t. in 6; Benedict XIV, Notification 105, n. 59 ff.; St. Thomas 2. 2, q. 188, a. 8; E. M.

248 bis. The approval required, for Orders of solemn vows, is the approval of the Supreme Pontiff; for Institutes of simple vows, the approval is first of the Bishops and then of the S. C. of Religious, as can be seen in the Norms edited for institutes of this kind by the S. C. Bishops and Regulars, June 28, 1901. - The approval of New Institutes and of their Constitutions is now done according to the Particular Norms established by the S. C. of Religious, March 24, 1914. "No Bishop or Ordinary of any place, unless the license of the Apostolic See has been had by letters, is to found a new Sodality (Religious) of either sex, or permit one to be founded in his Diocese." Pius X, Motu Proprio, July 16, 1906.

The Constitution of Supreme Pontiff Leo XIII Conditae a Christo Ecclesiae, 6 Ides of December 1900, and the Norms of the S. C. Bishops and Regulars, June 28, 1901, constitute the current Law according to which the Holy See is accustomed to approve New Institutes of simple Vows, for women and for men. At present they are accustomed to be approved only with simple vows, by a threefold Decree: of Praise, of Approval of the Institute, and of definitive Approval of the Constitutions. Regularly Religious Institutes without their own habit, and whose members do not live in Community, are not approved by the Holy See. Yet there are not lacking some Institutes approved by the Holy See without a special habit, and whose members, some live in Community and others outside Community.

From this approval of the Church, finally, depends the truly religious state and religious order or religion. To the point Benedict XIV, C. Quamvis iusto, Pridie Kalends of May 1749, § 13: "For if," he says, "for the essence of the truly religious state it is required that religion or an order in a state of this kind be established by the confirmation of the Apostolic See, according to canonical sanctions, concerning which in C. un. de Relig. dom. in 6, and it is not sufficient to have obtained merely from the same Apostolic See the approval and confirmation of rules which some society of men or women has prescribed for itself to be observed; if the vows of poverty, obedience, and chastity emitted by the English Virgins according to the form of the rules approved by Clement XI cannot be said to be joined with express or tacit profession in some order approved by the Apostolic See in the state of true religion, as is stated above, it is clearly evident both that the state of the English Virgins is not the state of true religion, and that the vows which are made by them must be judged at most simple vows, but not solemn ones, according to the paths of the Decretal of Pope Boniface VIII, which alone exists under the title de Voto et voti redempt. in 6." Cf. ib. § 14. Hence it is clear that religious vows are solemnized through the very profession of a rule fully approved by the Apostolic See in the state of true or strict religion.

Third Orders: Tertiaries, some are religious, living in community; others are secular, living in the world. As Confraternities imitate chapters and collegiate bodies of churches, so these secular third orders imitate religious congregations. Religious of solemn and simple vows cannot be enrolled in these secular Third Orders. S. C. Indulg., July 16, 1887; January 31, 1893. And the faithful regularly can be enrolled in only one Third Order. S. C. Indulg., June 21, 1893. Secular Tertiaries do not enjoy communication of privileges and indulgences with Regulars of the first and second Order, and with other Tertiaries. S. C. Indulg., July 18, 1902. But Tertiaries living in community, and bound by simple vows, legitimately aggregated to Orders, enjoy the indulgences of the first and second Order. S. C. Indulg., August 28, 1903. - Secular Third Orders have precedence in processions above any Sodalities whatsoever, provided they proceed collegially, in their proper habit, and under the cross.

You will resolve: From the profession of the religious state there results a reciprocal obligation between the religious and the community, namely by which not only is the religious held to remain in the order and to live in it according to his own rule and constitutions, but the order in turn is held not to cast him out without a just cause. The reason is that "a religious becomes a member of one mystical body, which is the religion itself; but this cannot be done except through mutual union between the whole and the part; and that union, since it is moral, is made through mutual obligation." Suarez, de Relig. l. 2, c. 4, n. 10.

A religious, by force of his profession, is not held to be perfect, but is held under grave obligation to devote himself in some way to perfection. St. Thomas q. 186, a. 1. But he must tend to perfection primarily through the essential means of the religious state, namely through observance of the three vows, poverty, chastity, and obedience; secondarily through accidental means, namely through the proper rules of the order, at least by not despising those helps. St. Thomas q. 186, a. 2, 7. Hence he sins gravely who firmly resolves not to tend to perfection, or in no way to care about it. And against this obligation of tending to perfection he does not sin gravely who only sometimes would sin gravely, but would not be habitually so disposed that he does not attend to it.

But whether a religious sins gravely who intends to observe only the commands under grave obligation, and as for the others, resolves to transgress them all, or not to care about them, is disputed. The first opinion probably affirms it, because a religious of this kind no longer tends to perfection. The second opinion, however, more common and more probable, denies it. The reason is that the obligation of tending to perfection is from religious profession, which consists in vows. From vows there is not a grave obligation of observing all things, but all things which gravely regard the vows themselves.

But to profess a rule, or according to a rule, is not to vow to observe all things which are in the rule, but to oblige oneself to regular life, against which nothing is gravely contrary except only that which is gravely against a grave precept expressed in the rule. But contempt of both is directly contrary to the profession of perfection and of regular life. L. 11; St. Thomas 2. 2, q. 186, a. 9; Quodl. 1, a. 20; Sanchez, in Decal. l. 6, c. 5, n. 5.

Therefore he also sins gravely who transgresses rules, even those obliging only to venial fault, or to none, from formal contempt, namely when he transgresses them with the mind of not being subject to them, or to the precepts of prelates. But otherwise if he transgresses them led by concupiscence, or because he thinks they are not necessary for salvation, or if he judges that they are not commanded under grave obligation. - Therefore to transgress rules in matters of small matter, even from custom, of itself does not exceed venial sin. Of itself, for it can be grave by reason of scandal, or if it were gravely pernicious to Religion by inducing others by bad example to laxity of the rule, or by reason of proximate danger of sinning gravely in some particular case, and if from it he were constituted in such a state that he must be expelled as incorrigible. St. Thomas q. 186, a. 9. - Yet not rarely there is no sin in transgression of rules, because rules do not oblige under fault, and the religious either places the act without advertence, or indeed places it with advertence, but from a just and reasonable motive. L. 10; Trent s. 25, c. 1, 22 de Reg.; E. M. - Ferraris v. Religiones Regulares et Militares.

Does the Rule always oblige and how? - Whether there is an obligation of observing the Rule, and how great it is, is ordinarily explained in the Rule itself. If nothing is determined in it, custom is to be attended to, which is the best interpreter of laws. Moreover no obligation is to be imposed unless it is certainly established concerning it. But sometimes in the Rule and in the Constitutions a grave obligation is imposed; sometimes only a light obligation of observing them; and sometimes there is had only an obligation of accepting or executing a penalty. If some Rule or Constitution contains no such obligation, then that Rule or Constitution is not properly a law or statute, but a mere counsel, by which a certain determined manner of perfection is proposed, to which the religious ought to aspire. Sanchez, in Decal. l. 6, c. 4, n. 9.

Hence in Rules and Constitutions prescriptions are to be distinguished from spiritual documents, which are often contained in them. - And although the Rules of Religious Institutes of themselves do not always oblige to sin, nevertheless sometimes of themselves and by accident they can oblige by force of the virtue of obedience; but they always oblige by force of a higher natural law, unless they present themselves as mere counsels. Practically speaking, however, in their transgression some fault is rarely absent. Rules of this kind are now customarily called Constitutions. Cf. Cases of Conscience, ed. 6, vol. 2, App. XI.

Besides the Rules, all Religious are evidently held to observe the laws of the Church with great submission. Several Apostolic Constitutions and Decrees gathered into one concerning the discipline of Regulars are to be read by the same Regulars at public table or in Chapter at stated times. But it is most highly commended to Bishops that they effectively spread among Religious Families and also diocesan Institutes the knowledge of the Decrees of the Holy See which regard religious life. S. C. of Religious, July 3, 1910.

Do religious, dispersed by force, remain bound by the obligations of religious life? - R. In the affirmative. For they remain true religious. Hence they are by no means to be judged released from their solemn vows; yet by reason of the peculiar condition in which they are found, some modification is to be attended to as regards obedience and poverty, for as regards chastity there can be no difficulty.

As regards obedience, from the accident of the suppression of the religion, the professed do not become seculars, nor are they released from vows, by which they still remain bound; but only it is permitted to them by the Sacred Congregation to live in the world and in the habit of a secular cleric, nevertheless carrying inwardly something proper to the regular habit, under the obedience and jurisdiction of the Ordinary. Yet they always remain subject to their own superiors. As regards poverty, dispersed regulars can licitly and validly procure for themselves useful or necessary things, but by no means superfluous ones, have money with them, and enter various contracts of buying, selling, and donation. For religious can do all these things from the license and deputation of prelates; moreover in the case of dispersion a deputation of this kind is rightly presumed. For then each one, by the fact itself, is deputed as if steward of himself, at least for all cases in which recourse to a superior cannot be had. L. 65 Note; Cardinal De Luca, Works tom. 14, Annot. ad S. Conc. Trid. disc. 36, n. 1-4; de Regul. p. 1, disc. 28, n. 16; E. M.

Does a religious promoted to a parish or episcopate remain bound by the obligations of religious life? - R. To the first: In the affirmative, and therefore he is held to wear the habit of the religion and to observe the rule in all things which can stand with his office, unless a contrary legitimate custom excuses. But if he acquires anything from the parochial office, he acquires it for the parish. - The Superior of a religious Order cannot exercise the office of pastor. S. C. Regular Discipline, May 28, 1715; Ferraris v. Parochus, art. 2, n. 85.

R. To the second: In the affirmative, according to the form of the Constitution Custodes of Benedict XIII, S. C. Bishops and Regulars, May 6, 1864. He is indeed held by the vow of obedience, but to the Roman Pontiff alone. He is also held by the vow of poverty; but first, after confirmation, he becomes capable of dominion and recovers rights of succession, even those which he had renounced, which are deferred to him after promotion; second, he does not acquire for himself, but for his cathedral church; and titular Bishops must distribute these things into pious works. Therefore he can neither dispose of these acquired goods by legacy, nor make a testament concerning them. Yet he can use and enjoy them, and dispose of his revenues among the living, as secular Bishops do. Likewise he is held by the Rules, but only by those which, in his judgment, are not repugnant to episcopal dignity and office. Yet he must wear the habit, at least as regards color, as before, and he can use the form which secular Bishops use. - Those promoted to the Cardinalate are judged to have the same law. C. Statutum est 1, causa 18, q. 1; C. Clerici 15 de Vita et hon. cler.; Ferraris v. Episcopus, a. 7; Suarez tom. 4, tr. 8, l. 3, c. 17, n. 5; c. 18, n. 4; L. 4; Lugo de Iust. et Iur. d. 3, n. 232, 233; Resp. Mor. l. 5, d. 1, 12; St. Thomas 2. 2, q. 185, a. 8; E. M.

Do apostates and fugitives remain bound by the same obligations? - R. In the affirmative, for they are released by no obligation legitimately. - If these and those acquire anything, when they have died it belongs by right of spoil to the Apostolic Camera. Gregory XIII, C. Officii nostri, January 27, 1577. - Lugo, de Iust. et Iur. d. 3, n. 235; Resp. Mor. l. 4, d. 37; Ferraris v. Apostasia, n. 21 ff.; L. 80, 82.

For apostasy from an Order or Institute, unless the Religious has returned within three months; and for flight from a Monastery, taking a woman with him, "the penalty of expulsion or dismissal is judged as if brought by law." S. C. of Religious, May 16, 1911.

Are those cast out and dismissed free from the said obligations? What about those secularized? - R. To the first: In the affirmative as regards merely regular observances; for by sentence, separated from religious life, they are no longer bound by the observances proper to religious life. Religious solemnly professed, not yet initiated in sacred orders, who are cast out or return to the world from Indult of the Holy See, are also released from the burden of the breviary. Cf. n. 112. - R. In the negative as regards vows, if it is a question of those solemnly professed; for by ejection they by no means cease. Hence they are held under grave obligation to amend themselves. Those cast out must walk in clerical habit and tonsure and be subject to the Ordinary of the place, also by force of the vow of obedience. Urban VIII, Decree de Apost. et eiect., 1624. They cannot make a testament, and whatever they acquire, by right of spoil, when they have died, pertains to the Apostolic Camera, excepting those things which they have preserved or acquired from goods of the religion. Gregory XIII, C. Officii nostri, 1577. In the meantime they have administration and use of goods, nor is it inspected how they expend them; but they can claim no dominion for themselves. St. Pius V, C. Grave nobis, May 26, 1560. - R. In the affirmative as regards vows, if it is a question of simple vows. For those dismissed and cast out are ordinarily accustomed also to be dispensed from simple vows, either by their own superiors, if they have such faculty, or by the Holy See. Bishops in France can dispense nuns of the ancient orders, who emit only simple vows, while the vow of chastity remains firm. S. Penitentiary, December 23, 1835. - Innocent XII, July 24, 1674; L. 79 ff.; St. Thomas Quodl. 12, a. 36; Ferraris v. Eiicere; Benedict XIV, de Syn. l. 13, c. 11, n. 19, 20; L. 142; E. M. "All Religious constituted in sacred orders, expelled or dismissed, remain perpetually suspended.... Clerics not in sacred orders are prohibited from ascending to higher orders. But all who have been expelled or dismissed, even if they have truly amended themselves, will not be able to be admitted to their own or another Order or Congregation without special license of the Holy See." S. C. of Religious, May 16, 1911.

R. To the second: Secularization contains the faculty for a Religious of living in the world. He is still held by vows. He is held, by force of the vow of obedience, to obey the Ordinary of the place. S. C. of Religious, September 1, 1912. He can make honest and licit expenses; but he does not acquire dominion of those things which are given to him. Hence he cannot dispose of them, and when he has died, they pass to the Camera of spoils. Nor indeed can he obtain ecclesiastical benefices without a new Indult.

Indults of perpetual or temporary secularization, or of relaxation of perpetual vows, or even only of temporary vows, or of the oath of perseverance, or of certain particular promises, granted to priests and clerics constituted in sacred orders, are always understood with the following clauses, even if not expressed, dispensation from which is reserved to the Holy See, namely: They are forbidden, without a new and special indult of the Holy See: 1. any office, and, as regards those who are habilitated for benefices, any benefice in cathedral basilicas; 2. any teaching office and office in major and minor clerical seminaries and other Institutes in which clerics are educated, as well as in Universities and Institutes which enjoy apostolic privilege of conferring academic degrees in philosophy, theology, and canon law; 3. any office or function whatsoever in episcopal Curias; 4. the office of Visitor and Moderator of Religious houses of either sex, even if it is a question of merely diocesan congregations; 5. habitual domicile in places where there exists a convent or religious house of the Province or Mission to which the secularized priest or cleric, or the one released from perpetual vows, as above, was enrolled. S. C. of Religious, June 15, 1909.

Is divine vocation required? - R. In the affirmative. In the Norms of the S. C. Bishops and Regulars, June 28, 1901, art. 55, 56, it is said that, among the conditions required for the admission of aspirants to the Institute, first of all a true vocation proceeding from a supernatural end is required.

It is certain that a divine vocation is given to the religious state, by which namely God calls some, before others, to this more excellent state, and bestows graces so that they may rightly live according to it. This is proved: 1. from the common authority of the doctors; 2. because, if divine vocation is given to the priestly state, the same must consequently be said of religious life, which is a more perfect and much more difficult state. For since the clerical and religious states contain the exercise of greater holiness than that which is commonly required of all, God does not move all, but only some, by special movements of grace to embrace it. Cf. S. C. of Religious, April 5, 1910, ad 2; St. Alphonsus l. 6, n. 802, 803, 804.

Who can enter religion? - From the preceding Law, still in force, but to which several other things have been added: all those and only those can enter religion who 1. are their own masters; 2. are not bound to others by some graver obligation; and 3. are not criminals. Those who are not their own masters, but depend on others, cannot validly enter and profess without their consent. But the others validly enter and profess, although illicitly. L. 65; St. Thomas 2. 2, q. 189, a. 5, 6; E. M.; Lugo, Resp. Mor. l. 3, d. 1, d. 21; l. 4, d. 47.

261 bis. You will resolve: From the first head, the following cannot enter religion: those before puberty, because they are subject to parents or guardians as regards the disposition of life; spouses after consummated marriage, unless the other party is guilty of a delict on account of which he or she can licitly be dismissed. Religious profession entered into by a spouse, the other spouse being unwilling, is resolved into a simple vow of chastity from presumption of law, C. 3, 12 de Conv. coniug.

A Bishop already consecrated and even only confirmed cannot enter religion without the license of the Supreme Pontiff, because of the spiritual marriage by which the Bishop is bound to his church. C. Licet de Regular.; C. Inter de Transl. Episcop. - From the second head the following cannot enter: those liable to intricate and litigious accounts, those burdened with debt; those who have seduced a virgin with marriage promised; those who would leave brothers in extreme necessity, parents or unemancipated children in grave necessity. - From the third head those cannot enter whom from public acts it is established have been accused or investigated for crime. C. Cum de omnibus and C. Ad Romanum of Sixtus V; C. In suprema of Clement VIII. - Illegitimates from the same law are admitted validly and licitly. Sixtus V, C. Cum de omnibus, November 26, 1587; Gregory XIV, C. Circumscripta, March 15, 1591; Clement VIII, C. In suprema, April 2, 1862. From Clement VIII, C. Cum ad singularem, March 19, 1603: "If someone exceeding the twenty-fifth year has asked for the regular habit and is without learning, let him be counted only among the number of Conversi." - Lugo, Resp. Mor. l. 3, d. 1; L. 65, 71, 76, 969, 971; St. Thomas 2. 2, q. 185, a. 4; q. 189, a. 5, 7; E. M.

Can a religious pass from his own order to another stricter one? - A religious can well pass from his own order to another stricter one, after license has been sought from his prelate, although denied, from C. Licet 18 de Regular., if nevertheless according to the precept of Urban VIII it has been established that that religion is prepared to receive him. Hence they commonly hand down that the prelate would sin gravely if without just cause he denied the license, because he would inflict grave injustice on the subject by drawing him back from a more perfect state. But in this matter the particular law of each religion is to be attended to. - Trent s. 24, c. 19 de Reg.; L. 73; St. Thomas 2. 2, q. 189, a. 8; Pignatelli, Cons. Can. a. 1, cons. 39; Lugo, Resp. Mor. l. 4, d. 41.

A transfer of this kind by license of Superiors is not opposed to the Decree of the S. C. of Religious, September 7, 1909. Cf. above n. 262. Yet the practice now and the style of the Curia is that license be sought from the S. C. of Religious.

Whether, when, and how must a novice or novice-woman dispose of his or her goods? - A novice or novice-woman, excepting the Society of Jesus, must renounce his or her goods within the two months immediately before profession of solemn vows, not before, and with the license of the Bishop or his vicar. Trent s. 25, c. 16 de Reg.; S. C. Regular Discipline, August 1, 1862; S. C. Bishops and Regulars, May 3, 1902. - But before profession of simple vows they must cede, for the time in which they remain in the same profession of simple vows, the administration, usufruct, and use to whomever they please, and also to their order or monastery, if they so wish. S. C. Regulars, June 12, 1858; S. C. Bishops and Regulars, May 3, 1902.

Lugo, Resp. Mor. l. 4, d. 44, 45.

In the more recent Norms of the Sacred Congregation for more recent Institutes it is said, the ancient formula unchanged: "Before the first emission of vows they must dispose of the use and usufruct of the revenues or fruits of their goods, in whatever way they please, and also, if they judge it so according to their own choice, in favor of their Institute. They must also before first vows cede the administration of their goods to the person or persons well-liked by them; and, if they freely wish, also to their own Institute, having been forewarned and accepting. - A change of the aforesaid disposition and cession can be made with the license of the Moderatrix General. In order that perpetually professed Sisters may licitly divest themselves of the radical dominion of their goods by acts inter vivos, the license of the Apostolic See is required. - It is fitting that, before they first emit temporary vows, they dispose entirely freely by testament of their present and future goods. - Professed Sisters, both for making and for changing a testament, need leave of the Apostolic See, or in an urgent case of the Ordinary, or of the Superiorissa General and even local, if it cannot be done otherwise." Norms 115, 117, 120-122.

But in order that a renunciation of this kind be valid in conscience, there is no need of the solemnities of civil law. L. l. 3, n. 935; Ferraris v. Annus probat. n. 53; v. Novitius n. 30 ff.; v. Moniales n. 98 ff.; E. M.

The dowry of a deceased nun, the three-year period of simple vows not yet completed, according to the norm of the Decree of the S. C. Bishops and Regulars, May 3, 1902, passes

Is a novice held to regular discipline? - The Rules and precepts of the order do not of themselves oblige novices. For Novices have not yet professed the Rule, and are only in the way of probation. C. Ad Apostolicam 16 de Regular. But although the prelate cannot command a novice by reason of vows, as is clear, nevertheless he can command by reason of the power which any superior naturally has in any community, and by reason of ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the novice. C. Recolentes de statu monachor. Hence several infer that he can bind novices by precepts under sin and under censures, and reserve cases with respect to them. But several other grave theologians teach the contrary as regards this last point, namely that novices, without license of the prelates of the order, can validly confess to any Confessor approved by the Ordinary of the place for seculars, and be absolved by him, even from cases reserved in the religion. But generally novices enjoy all privileges, indulgences, protection of the canon, etc., which the professed of the order which they intend to embrace enjoy; for from R. I. 55 in 6: "He who feels the burden ought also to feel the advantage." Schmalz. tit. de Regular. n. 85 ff.; Ferraris v. Novitiatus n. 13-16, 20, 21.

Only the Master of Novices hears the Confessions of these. Yet it is lawful for the Superior, even the local one, to hear them once or twice in the year. Thus from the Constitution Quum ad Regularem of Clement VIII, March 19, 1603, apud Bizzarri, Collection, at the end. But at present Novices, as all other Religious, can freely confess to any Confessor approved by the Ordinary of the place. S. C. of Religious, May 3, 1914, A. A. S. v. 6, p. 232.

What is the force of religious profession? - Religious profession is distinguished in two ways; for one is such broadly, another strictly. The former is had through simple vows, the latter through solemn vows. But where the word profession is used without addition, it is customarily understood of profession strictly taken. - Solemn profession frees the professed from paternal power, because the professed passes into the full power of the regular superior and is fully subjected to him. But understand this concerning burdens, not concerning favors. For this is a benefit, and what is conceded in favor of someone is not to be turned to his disadvantage, R. I. 16 in 6. Hence the professed retains rights of succession, and if goods come to the son after profession, they pertain to a quasi-military peculium, all of which, although he does not acquire them for himself, he nevertheless acquires for the monastery. Schmalzgr. l. 3, t. 27, n. 67 ff. - Solemn profession dirimently impedes marriage to be contracted and dissolves a ratified marriage. - Solemn profession induces the vacancy of benefices. Indeed even perpetual profession in Institutes of simple vows induces the vacancy of residential benefices. S. C. Bishops and Regulars, August 25, 1903; March 30, 1908. Likewise profession frees from irregularity coming from birth, in relation to receiving sacred orders; not likewise to prelacies. C. 1 de Filiis presbyt. - Other vows previously emitted are commuted into religious profession, unless they have been made in favor of a third party and accepted by him. C. Scripturae 4 de Vot. et vot. redempt.; C. Qui post 5 de Reg. et trans. in 6. - St. Thomas 2. 2, q. 88, a. 12 ad 1; q. 189, a. 3 ad 3; E. M.

More recent male and female religious emit only profession of simple vows, first for a time and then in perpetuity. But they can never remain without vows; rather, when the time of temporary vows has elapsed, these are at once to be renewed. Indeed nuns also belonging to regular Orders in several regions emit only simple vows, and are subjected to the jurisdiction of Ordinaries, so that Superiors no longer have any jurisdiction over them. Four monasteries of the Visitation in the United States of North America and the Monasteries of Savoy retain solemn vows. - S. C. Bishops and Regulars, March 23, 1869.

Can someone desert religion whenever he wishes because of nullity of profession? - R. In the negative. For he must object in the first five-year period, unless he is restored in full by the Holy See. But the cause of nullity must be examined by his own prelate and by the Ordinary of the place. While appeal is pending, he cannot go out after the first sentence. Trent s. 25, c. 19 de Reg.; Benedict XIV, C. Si datam, published on March 16, 1748; Ferraris v. Professio religiosa n. 65 ff.; Lugo, Resp. Mor. l. 3, d. 21.

Can a superior expel some religious? - R. In the affirmative, if however he has this power proper or delegated, according to the various constitutions of religious orders. For generally speaking, besides the major superior, other inferior superiors do not have this power. Bizzarri ed. 1855, p. 856. But a canonical process and judgment, and a legitimate cause, are required. Such is: to have kept silent about an essential impediment, or a defect harmful to the community; to have committed "grave external and public fault, and that the guilty one is also incorrigible" in grave sins. S. C. Bishops and Regulars, November 4, 1892. - St. Thomas Quodl. 12, a. 36; Benedict XIV, de Syn. l. 13, c. 11, n. 15 ff.; Ferraris v. Apostasia n. 8.

Infirmity is not a just cause for dismissing a professed person, nor is the sole petition of a professed person asserting that he does not have, or has lost, the mind and vocation for the religious state. S. C. on the State of Regulars, June 12, 1858; S. C. Bishops and Regulars, November 19, 1886.

The simple vows which are emitted before solemn vows for men are perpetual on the part of the one vowing, and can be dissolved on the part of the Order in the act of dismissal of the professed, after an examination has been held. For nuns [source print damaged here], these vows are likewise perpetual on the part of those vowing; dispensation concerning them is reserved to the Roman Pontiff. And for dismissing them, recourse is to be made to the Holy See. S. C. on the State of Regulars, March 19, 1857; June 12, 1858; February 7, 1862; S. C. Bishops and Regulars, May 3, 1902; July 15, 1902.

As regards more recent Institutes, for the dismissal of a religious or sister of temporary vows, a grave cause is required; a graver cause and incorrigibility, if they have perpetual vows. The dismissal of a Nun or Sister of perpetual vows is to be confirmed by the S. C. of Religious. Moreover, for a religious who has solemn, or perpetual, or temporary vows, but at the same time is bound to sacred orders, a threefold admonition or correction and a summary process are pre-required according to the Decree Auctis admodum of the S. C. Bishops and Regulars, November 4, 1892, and the Decree Quum singulae of the S. C. of Religious, May 16, 1911, which is reported here in the following number. - Norms 192 ff.; E. M.

279 bis. Decree - On the method to be observed in rendering a sentence of expulsion or dismissal from orders and religious institutes. "... 1. The competent Curia or competent Tribunal for rendering sentence is constituted by the Superior or Moderator General and the Definitors or Counselors or Assistants, not fewer than four; if any are lacking, in their place the same number of Religious are to be chosen by the President of the Curia or Tribunal, with the consent of the other Counselors.

In Congregations of Monks, the Tribunal is constituted by the Abbot General with his Council. If some Abbey is attached to no Congregation, recourse is to be made to the Holy See in individual cases.

2. In any Curia or Tribunal let there be constituted by the General Council a Promoter of Justice for the protection of right and law, who is to be a Religious of the same Order or Congregation.

3. Hereafter only a Summary Process is to be instituted in expelling or dismissing Religious who either have professed solemn vows in Orders, or perpetual vows in Congregations or Institutes, or, if they have emitted only temporary vows, are nevertheless constituted in Sacred Orders; special privileges by which some Order or Institute may enjoy being saved.

4. One cannot proceed to instructing the Process unless after a threefold admonition has been given and correction inflicted in vain, saving the exceptions under numbers 17 and 18.

5. The admonition is to be made by the legitimate Superior, even local, yet by mandate or license of the Provincial or quasi-Provincial Superior; he will join to the last admonition the threat of expulsion or dismissal. For the effect of expulsion or dismissal, an admonition or correction has no force unless it has been given for some grave delict.

6. Admonitions cannot be repeated unless the delict has been repeated; but in continuous or permanent delicts it is necessary that between one admonition and another there intervene a space of at least two whole days. After the last admonition, six whole days are to be awaited before progress is made to further steps.

7. From the Process there must be established the guilt of the accused, as well as the gravity and number of the delicts, the fact of the threefold admonition, and the defect of repentance after the threefold admonition.

8. In order that the guilt of the accused be established, such proofs are to be brought forward as would move the mind of a prudent man. These proofs can be taken from the confession of the accused, from the deposition of at least two trustworthy witnesses, confirmed by oath and strengthened by other supports, and from authentic documents.

9. The gravity of the delict is to be taken not only from the gravity of the law violated, but also from the gravity of the penalty sanctioned by law, from the gravity of the deceit, and from the gravity of the harm, whether moral or material, inflicted on the Community.

10. For the effect about which there is question, at least three grave crimes of the same species are required, or, if of different species, such that taken together they manifest a perverse will obstinate in evil, or only one permanent crime which by a threefold admonition virtually becomes threefold.

11. In order that the fact of the threefold admonition be established, ordinarily an authentic document must be brought forward concerning this. Therefore it is necessary: a) that this be done either before two witnesses, or by a letter registered by public record-keepers, with faithful proof of reception or rejection having been sought; b) that a document be drawn up concerning the admonition carried out, signed by the said witnesses and to be preserved in the Registers or Archive; or that a copy be made of the above-said letter, likewise signed before dispatch by two witnesses as testimony of conformity, and likewise to be kept in the Registers or Archive.

12. A new crime committed after the threefold admonition, or the obstinate and hardened manner of acting of the delinquent, proves the defect of repentance.

13. The Provincial or quasi-Provincial Superior of the delinquent Religious, after the admonitions and corrections have fallen out in vain, will diligently collect all acts and documents which exist concerning the guilt of this Religious and will transmit them to the Superior General, who must hand them over to the Procurator of Justice, so that he may examine them and propose his accusations, if he judges that any are to be proposed.

14. The accusations proposed by the Procurator of Justice and the results of the Process must be notified to the accused, and a suitable time, to be determined at the discretion of the Judge, must be conceded to the same, in which he may be able to present his defenses, either by himself or through another Religious of the same Order or Institute. But if the accused himself has not presented his own defenses, the Curia or Tribunal must constitute ex officio a defender who is a member of the respective Order or Institute.

15. The Curia or Tribunal, having diligently weighed the allegations both of the Promoter and of the Accused, if it has indeed judged them to be adverse to the accused, will be able to pronounce the sentence of expulsion or dismissal; nevertheless, if the condemned person has duly appealed to the Sacred Congregation of Religious within ten days from notification of the sentence, it cannot be handed over to execution until judgment has been rendered by the same Sacred Congregation.

16. But notwithstanding the appeal, the guilty one can be sent back to the world at once by the supreme Moderator or Abbot General, with the consent of his Chapter or Council, if from his presence there threatens danger either of very grave scandal or likewise very grave harm to the community and their members. In the meantime let him put off the habit and remain suspended, if he is constituted in Sacred Orders.

17. He who has been guilty of even only one delict, from which danger of grave public scandal or very grave detriment to the whole Community threatens, can likewise be sent back to the world even by the Provincial Superior or Abbot, the religious habit being immediately laid aside, provided that the delict itself and the guilt of the Religious to whom it is imputed have certainly been established; and meanwhile let the Process be instituted for rendering the sentence of expulsion or dismissal. Those who are constituted in Sacred Orders are likewise to remain suspended.

18. Likewise against certain delicts the penalty of expulsion or dismissal is judged as if brought by law. These delicts are: a) public apostasy from the Catholic Faith; b) apostasy from an Order or Institute, unless the Religious has returned within three months; c) flight from a Monastery, having taken a woman with him; d) and much more the contract, as they say, civil, or the attempt or celebration of marriage, even valid, or when the vows are not solemn or do not have the effect of solemn vows.

In these cases it is enough that the Superior General or Provincial, with his respective Council, issue a declaratory sentence of the fact.

19. A sentence of expulsion or dismissal, in whatever way brought, if it is a question of a Religious in Sacred Orders, is to be communicated at once to the Ordinary of origin and the Ordinary of the place where he is staying, or where he is known to wish to establish his seat.

20. All Religious about whom there is question, constituted in Sacred Orders, who have been expelled or dismissed, remain perpetually suspended until they have obtained dispensation from the competent Authority after amendment of life. Religious or Clerics not in Sacred Orders, expelled or dismissed, are prohibited from ascending to higher Orders without leave of the Holy See. But all expelled or dismissed, even if they have truly amended themselves, will not be able to be admitted to their own or to another Order or Congregation without special license of the Apostolic See.

21. For expelling Nuns who have professed vows, whether solemn or simple, in an Order properly so called, and for dismissing Sisters who have emitted perpetual vows in Religious Institutes, grave external causes are required, together with incorrigibility, by the judgment of the Abbess or Superiorissa with her Council, respectively to be manifested by secret votes, an experiment having first been had, so that hope of repentance has vanished and from the continual faults of the incorrigible Nun or Sister harms threaten the Monastery or Institute. Less grave causes are required for dismissing Sisters of simple vows in Religious Orders. Just and grave causes must be proved by the Ordinary of the place and, if the Monastery is subject to Regulars, also by the Regular Superior. Furthermore it is necessary that confirmation of the Sacred Congregation be added, so that expulsion or dismissal on the part of the Order or Institute does not obtain juridical effect before it has been confirmed by the Sacred Congregation. Only in the case of grave external scandal, the Bishop of the place approving, can a Nun or Sister be sent back to the world at once, yet in such a way that the confirmation of the Holy See be sought without delay." S. C. of Religious, May 16, 1911.

Those constituted in sacred orders and bound by simple vows, whether perpetual or temporal, who have spontaneously sought and obtained dismissal from the Apostolic See, or otherwise have been dispensed from simple, perpetual, or temporary vows by Apostolic privilege, cannot go out from the cloister until they have found a Bishop as benevolent receiver and have provided for themselves concerning an ecclesiastical patrimony; otherwise they remain suspended from the exercise of the orders received. This is extended to pupils of temporal vows who would already have been released from any bond of profession because of the elapsed time for which vows were pronounced by them. Decree Auctis admodum of the S. C. Bishops and Regulars, November 4, 1892.

What is the force of the solemn vow of poverty in relation to the ownership of goods? - A Religious, by force of the solemn vow of poverty, is rendered absolutely incapable of dominion in particular, or personally, over any temporal thing estimable by price, even with the license of the superior. - Absolutely incapable, i.e., incapable perpetually and immutably, both on the part of the religious and on the part of religion.

In particular, or personally: for the solemnity of the vow of poverty does not prevent the community from being able to acquire and possess goods, whether by itself or through subjects, unless its constitutions stand in the way. Hence the widely spread axiom of canon law: Whatever a monk acquires, he acquires not for himself, but for the monastery. Cf. Schmalzgr. l. 3, t. 27, n. 75 ff. Of a temporal thing estimable by price: because the religious retains dominion over spiritual goods, honor, reputation, and similar things.

Likewise he retains the right of electing, presenting, and conferring a regular benefice. Even with the license of the superior, namely of the regular superior: for this incapacity can be removed by the Supreme Pontiff, without the solemnity of the vow being thereby impeded. Cf. 248. Of dominion, i.e., of dominion both direct and also merely useful. Therefore the ownership of temporal goods, the right of enjoying, the right of using, the right of simply retaining or possessing, the right, i.e., in one's own name and by one's own judgment, is opposed to the solemn vow of poverty; but by no means the usufruct, use, and retention of mere fact, i.e., with the license of the superior, dependently on the superior, and also mere administration. For through this he acquires no temporal advantage for himself by which he might become rich or less poor, and disposes of no thing for his own temporal emolument. Lugo d. 3, n. 155. - C. Cum ad monasterium 6 de Stat. monach.; Trent s. 25, c. 2, 3 de Reg.; Bizzarri ed. 1885, p. 276, 279, 335, 336, 384; E. M.

What is grave matter in transgression of the vow of poverty? - It is difficult to hand down some determined rule as regards the quantity required for grave sin, as is established from the very multiplicity of opinions concerning this matter. - Generally speaking, that matter is to be held grave which constitutes grave sin in theft. For an act of ownership which is grave by reason of matter against justice is also grave against religion when the vow of poverty is added. For the vow of poverty precisely impedes this, namely an act of ownership. But some say that only that matter is grave which is grave in thefts of children in the household, which others more probably deny. For their condition is altogether different as regards the goods of the monastery and as regards paternal goods. And since, as regards religious, it is a question of spiritual detriment, the superior must always be judged more unwilling than the father of a household. And hence it is clear that the aforesaid grave matter is not absolutely grave matter in theft, if the monastery is very wealthy, but only relatively grave matter, namely relative to a monastery moderately rich, as to the common rule, with attention given to the harm which Religion suffers from the sin of ownership. For if it is grave in the reason of an act of theft, it is already grave in the reason of an act of ownership against the vow of poverty. But here the harm of society or community, from which absolutely grave matter is determined, certainly cannot be attended to, but merely the act of ownership, and the grave matter of this act as respectively such. And if the harm of society or community had to be attended to here, since the harm to be attended to here is spiritual harm, it is clear that not only then must absolutely grave matter be rejected, but even on the contrary respectively grave matter must be restricted rather than extended. But this respectively grave matter as regards a monastery moderately rich is that very matter which is respectively grave as regards a person moderately rich. But it is altogether discordant to introduce, for constituting grave sin against the vow of poverty alone, a still greater quantity than that absolutely grave for theft.

Yet this grave matter, according to diverse circumstances, as in theft, can be still greater or lesser. More is required for rich convents than for other poor ones. - More also if a religious usurps things of the monastery for his own use, or for others of the same community, than if he were to expend them on outsiders; for in the former case the thing remains at home. More, if the thing is not from money, but from clothing, books, and similar things. It is not mortal to steal edible things on several occasions, even if they come to a great quantity, provided they are not reserved by the religious, and provided the damage to the convent is not excessive and in an extraordinary and more precious thing. More is also required in small thefts, which moreover, with a notable interval interposed, do not coalesce into grave matter, than in other ordinary thefts. Furthermore, more is required in sins against religion alone, or committed against the vow alone, than at the same time against justice; for in the former case the act of ownership, as is clear, is less. Hence also in the same case of sin against religion alone more is required for sinning gravely when gifts are received from outsiders to be expended on others in one's own name, than if these were retained for one's own uses; and more is also required if someone expends or retains goods of which he has radical dominion. For the whole malice of the act is in this, that it is an act of ownership without dependence on the superior, against his will. Finally more or less is required according as the act participates more or less in ownership. And thus generally a religious does not sin gravely when he secretly receives some thing from the community for his own use, or if he lends for consumption or lends for use to another a thing conceded to him for use. - L. 24, 25, 27; l. 3, n. 545; H. A. tr. 3, n. 10;

Lugo d. 3, n. 170 ff.

Those things which are light only against the vow of poverty, and therefore only against religion, do not coalesce to constitute at the same time a grave sin, because the reason of grave real harm inflicted is lacking, as in sins against justice.

Is it lawful for religious to have a peculium, i.e., a temporal good destined for their own uses, but by no means for the common uses of the monastery? - It is certain that such a peculium with independent use of it is illicit; for it is against poverty and against Trent s. 25, c. 2 de Reg. - But it is disputed whether peculia with dependent use were prohibited by Trent s. 25, c. 2 de Reg. From custom and permission of the Apostolic See, the use of a peculium and life allowance still perseveres in several monasteries and is licit. All agree that in those convents in which common life is not observed because of poverty, or because of the negligence of superiors in supplying necessary things to subjects, peculia can be conceded at the nod of the prelates. The reason is that the Tridentine Council then commands common life to religious when "nothing that is necessary is denied" by the convent. - A regular cannot refuse common life if the superiors wish to choose it. The reason is that this would be against the vow of poverty, for it would be to have goods independently of the will of superiors. - Clement VIII, Constitution on the Reform of Regulars; L. 15; E. M.

In the Norms of the S. C. Bishops and Regulars, art. 127, 128, it is said: "All things in the Institute are to be called and to be common, as regards furnishings, food, and clothing. Yet it is fitting for each, indeed in common custody but separately, to keep and distribute clothing of strict personal use. The furnishing which the sisters use, with superiors permitting, is to befit poverty, and nothing superfluous is to be in it, nor is anything necessary to be denied to them." As is clear, no distinction is made between superiors and subjects as regards common life. And from the Decrees of Clement VIII for the Reform of Regulars, art. 10, it is explicitly commanded that common life is to be observed also by Superiors.

Does he sin against the vow of poverty who receives money from an outsider to be spent at will on pious works? - R. In the negative, if the pious works are determined by the donor himself. For then no act of ownership is had. The Religious is only the executor of another's commission. - But if the works are in no way determined by the donor, Fr. Gury 157 affirms it, because he would make an act of ownership. But Sanchez, in Decal. l. 7, c. 30, denies it. The reason is that while he distributes that money not in his own name but in another's, he makes no act of ownership. - St. Thomas Quodl. 3, a. 15.

Are religious by the vow of poverty prohibited from receiving another's thing in deposit without the license of the prelate? - R. In the affirmative, if it is by force of the contract of deposit, because then there is present a true right and obligation from justice. In the negative, if it is only into faithful custody, for then no right and obligation from justice is had.

What is the object of the vow of chastity? - The object of the vow of chastity comprehends two things, namely those things which by natural and divine law are already prohibited by the virtue of chastity, and also those things which can licitly be done in legitimate marriage.

What about enclosure? - For the greater custody of chastity enclosure was introduced, by force of which nuns cannot go out from the monastery except by license of the Pontiff or Bishop, which can also be given only in extraordinary cases. But religious men cannot be absent from the house without the license of the prelate. Nor indeed can women enter the enclosure of regular men, nor persons of whatever sex or age enter the enclosure of nuns. Likewise frequent access to nuns is prohibited, and to regulars, as is fitting, more severely than to others, both secular clerics and laymen. - C. 20, caus. 18, q. 2; Trent s. 25, c. 4, 5 de Reg.; Benedict XIV, Decretal Letter Gravissimo, October 31, 1749; C. Quamvis iusto, April 20, 1749; Clement VIII, C. Nullus; Ferraris v. Moniales a. 3; E. M.

Enclosure is also to be observed in hospices, stations, and houses of regulars in places of missions; and its norm and limits are constituted by the Decree of the S. C. de Propaganda Fide, August 26, 1780, Collect. n. 410.

As regards modern Religious Institutes of simple vows, they have enclosure, indeed not strict, but partial, determined in the Constitutions themselves, which requires at least that in all houses some part be reserved for the Sisters themselves, into which no other is admitted. Norms of the S. C. Bishops and Regulars for more recent Institutes, n. 170. It will belong to the Bishop to take care that this partial enclosure be rightly observed, and to restrain whatever defect creeps into it. Norms n. 172.

Sisters seeking alms must have the license of the Ordinary, and are held to observe the prescriptions established by the Decree Singulari quidem of the S. C. Bishops and Regulars, March 27, 1896, and also the norms which were promulgated by the S. C. of Religious, Decree De eleemosynis, November 21, 1908, both for mendicant Orders and for non-mendicant religious Orders or Institutes. A. A. S. v. 1, p. 153. From this Decree the Friars Minor are exempted as regards collections customarily made in favor of the Holy Land. S. C. of Religious, October 1, 1909.

As regards Sisters who provide assistance to the sick either in public Hospitals or in private houses, works of charity are by no means approved which seem unbecoming to virgins dedicated to God and clothed in ecclesiastical habit. Norms art. 15, 291.

Confraternities are prohibited in Convents of Religious women, whether of solemn or simple vows; but by no means pious Associations of women only, the things to be observed having been observed. But if it is a question of erecting pious Associations of either sex, the matter is remitted to the Ordinaries. S. C. Bishops and Regulars in Tirasonensi, November 9, 1595; January 18, 1907. - Lugo, Resp. Mor. l. 4, d. 40.

Without a special faculty, male and female Religious cannot receive outside persons as guests in their own house, except by reason of charity when some case occurs. - Outside youths cannot live in Convents of men by any title or pretext unless they have completed the twenty-first year of age. - S. C. Bishops and Regulars, May 16, 1675.

The use of the telephone is now permitted by common custom to all religious, men and women. Yet due cautions, as is clear, must be used.

What sort of sin is it to go out from the monastery without license? - For nuns living within enclosure it will always be grave, since the Church prohibits it under a most grave penalty, namely excommunication. - For religious men it will be grave if it is done rather often with scandal, or furtively at night; but only venial if someone goes out once or twice, or only sometimes during the day. - Clement VIII, on the Reform of Regulars, art. 19, prohibited a general license from being given, or one without a companion; but it is not certain whether the ordinances of Clement VIII are all preceptive, or at least some directive. Cf. Salm. tr. 15, c. 5, n. 163. Yet one can stand by legitimate custom, and by the Constitutions of each order approved by the Holy See. - The prescription of a companion is still in force from the practice of the S. C. Bishops and Regulars and now of the S. C. of Religious in the approval of more recent Institutes, especially as regards nuns. Norms a. 174. - L. 37; Suarez, de Relig. tr. 8, l. 1, c. 6, n. 8.

What about the obligation of wearing the habit? - In those Institutes in which a certain habit is ordered to be worn as a sign of religious profession, speaking of itself, the formal putting off of the habit, i.e., by changing the habit so that one is not recognized as a religious, if done rashly, is a mortal sin. C. Ut periculosa 2 Ne clerici vel monachi in 6. - Bouix v. 2, p. 585 ff.

What is the object of the vow of obedience? - A Religious from the vow of obedience is obliged to all things which the superior commands according to the rule and constitutions of the order, whether directly and expressly, or indirectly and implicitly. This is established from the very nature of the vow of obedience made in such a religion; for the object of this vow is this: to obey the superior commanding according to the rule of such an order. No religious superior has power above or against the rule. The former power exceeds the limits of promised obedience; the latter would tend to the destruction of religion. - C. 6 de Statu monach.; Suarez, de Rel. t. 3, l. 10, c. 8; St. Thomas Quodl. 10, a. 10; 2. 2, q. 88, a. 5 ad 3; q. 104, a. 5 ad 3; Lugo, Resp. Mor. l. 3, d. 3; S. C. of Religious, May 3, 1914, A. A. S. v. 6, p. 231; E. M.

Can merely internal acts be commanded by force of the vow of obedience? And what also about the other vows? - Almost all agree concerning the vow of poverty, that it touches only external acts of ownership as its proper object. This does not exclude, as is clear, that someone can sin against the vow of poverty also by an internal act, e.g., by a desire of exercising an act of ownership; for that desire is specified by such an object, which by hypothesis is against the vow of poverty.

As regards the vow of chastity, Salmanticenses tr. 15, c. 6, n. 20, Sanchez in Decal. l. 5, c. 6, 9, Busembaum apud St. Alphonsus 37, Gury 165, and several others affirm that its object is both exterior acts and interior acts, because, they say, the vow of chastity is commonly understood thus. But this does not demonstratively prove the assertion, since in several Constitutions of Orders and Congregations this explanation is not found, and religious who vow very often have not given their work to theological studies in such a way that they can have knowledge of this matter. They are content to vow as the others vow according to the mind of the Church approving the Constitutions of the Order and Congregation. Nor indeed can they have another intention. Hence there are not lacking those who think that the vow of chastity touches only external acts and is violated by these. For they say that the Church is not accustomed to command merely interior acts; and therefore neither do vows of religion, approved by the Church, extend themselves to merely internal acts. But it is answered, and thus the common opinion is maintained at the same time, namely, that the vow of chastity in religion is certainly more perfect than a vow outside religion. Moreover the vow of chastity outside religion, since it is understood as a vow of perfect chastity, comprehends both internal and external acts; for chastity extends itself to both. It is confirmed from the Norms art. 129: "Through the vow of chastity the sister emitting profession binds herself to preserving celibacy, and besides, by a new title, that is, of the vow itself, to abstaining from any act whatsoever opposed to chastity."

As regards the vow of obedience, there are various opinions. For some think that the vow of obedience touches only exterior acts and the exterior execution of the mandate of the superior, which Gury 169 also has; others, on the contrary, judge that that vow extends itself even to merely internal acts. St. Thomas 2. 2, q. 186, a. 5 ad 4, although he says this vow of obedience has a certain universality, nevertheless says that it does not extend to all particular acts, and seems to exclude, besides others, also internal acts, concerning which there is discussion in the objection, for he refers himself to q. 104, a. 5, where he positively excludes acts of this kind from obedience to be offered to men. The Angelic Doctor indeed has these things at the aforesaid q. 104, a. 5: "in those things which pertain to the interior movement of the will, man is not held to obey man, but God alone." And ibid. ad 3, he says of religious: "as regards those things alone they are held to obey which can pertain to regular conduct." And q. 186, a. 7 c., he says that through the vow of poverty the good of exterior things is offered to God, through the vow of chastity the good of one's own body, through the vow of obedience one's own will. And ibid. ad 1 he says: "The vow of religion is ordered as to its end to the perfection of charity, to which all interior acts of virtues pertain.... And therefore interior acts of virtues ... do not fall under the vow of religion, which is ordered to them as to its end." Yet obedience is to be offered from the soul, since the vow is about the virtue of obedience, not merely about material compliance. - Lugo, Resp. Mor. l. 6, d. 7.

Therefore there is a difference between the vow and the virtue of obedience. The former regards only the external execution of the precept of the superior. The latter extends itself to perfect submission of the will both to the precept of the superior and to his simple manifested will, and also to the Rules or Constitutions. The virtue of obedience certainly commands submission of the will to the will of the superior commanding, and altogether prohibits contempt of him.

Moreover the opening of conscience to be made to a superiorissa or superior, in institutes of nuns of either solemn or simple vows, and in congregations of men of profession and rule wholly lay, is altogether not obligatory. Minor Superiors who dare to induce to this are to be denounced to superiors, and Major Superiors doing this are to be denounced by their own subjects to the S. C. Likewise the right of permitting or prohibiting access, or more frequent access, to sacred communion in no way pertains to Superiors, but only to Confessors, and indeed by reason of mere counsel. But the reason for the prohibition that was made of rendering an account of one's own conscience was not only the violation of secrecy most greatly to be preserved in that matter, but also and chiefly because of the abuse by which, "although manifestation of conscience had been permitted so that pupils might more easily learn from experienced superiors in doubts the arduous way of perfection, on the contrary from some of these there was introduced an intimate scrutiny of conscience, which is reserved solely to the sacrament of penance." S. C. Bishops and Regulars, December 14, 1890. That Decree is to be read publicly once in the year. E. M. Cf. C. Nova 10 de Poenit. et remiss.

And this reason of abuse, as is clear, is universal, and consequently, by reason of the matter, the reported Decree, on this side, regards all religious Institutes, as was also twice declared to me by the Secretaries of the S. C. Bishops and Regulars. And indeed it does not appear how Superiors could oblige their own subjects, by reason of rendering an account of conscience, to make an extra-sacramental confession before them, since already after the Decree of Clement VIII, May 26, 1593, they could not oblige them to make sacramental Confession itself to them; and much less does this seem possible today, after the Decree of Pius X, August 5, 1913, concerning sacramental absolution to be imparted to religious members, by force of which all religious can freely confess to any confessor approved by the Ordinary of the place. - Furthermore, Regular Superiors can in no way know the causes of their subjects which pertain to the Holy Office.

And as regards Religious women, if ever they ask to confess to some extraordinary Confessor, in no way can they be impeded by their own Superiorissas under pretext of any reason whatsoever, as has already been declared several times by the S. C. S. C. Bishops and Regulars, August 5, 1904.

"... As regards the exemption of regulars, the prescriptions of canonical law are certain and known. Namely, although in the ecclesiastical hierarchy, which is constituted by divine ordination, presbyters and ministers are inferior to Bishops and are ruled by their authority,¹ nevertheless, so that in religious Orders all things might better be fitted and connected among themselves, and individual members might enjoy a peaceful and even course of life, and finally that provision might be made for the increase and perfection of religious life,² not without reason did the Roman Pontiffs, whose office it is to delimit dioceses and to assign to each his subjects to be ruled by sacred power, establish that the regular clergy was exempt from the jurisdiction of Bishops. The cause of this was not that it pleased them that religious societies should enjoy a more favorable condition than the secular clergy, but that their houses were held by a fiction of law as certain territories torn away from the dioceses themselves. From this it came about that religious families, which by common law ought immediately to be subject both to Bishops on account of hierarchical principate and to the Supreme Pontiff on account of pontifical primacy,³ continued to be in his power, and by privilege went out from the power of Bishops.

1. Council of Trent, sess. 23, De sacramento ordinis, can. 7.

2. St. Gregory the Great, Epistle III, bk. IX. - Benedict XIV, Decretal Epistle Apostolicae servitutis, the day before the Ides of March 1742.

3. Vatican Council, Constitution Pastor aeternus, chap. 3. "But since in reality they pass their lives within the boundaries of dioceses, the force of this privilege is so tempered that diocesan discipline is kept whole and intact, and thus that the regular clergy in many things must be subject to episcopal power, whether ordinary or delegated.... Moreover, by common law¹ it has been established that houses which do not contain at least six religious members must altogether be in the power of Bishops.... When a doubt had long ago been proposed to Clement VIII, whether religious men sent to the Indies for the cultivation of souls were to be considered as though living outside the enclosures of the monastery, and therefore were ordered by the Tridentine law to be subject to Bishops, that Pontiff, through the Constitution Religiosorum quorumcumque, 6 Ides of November 1601, had decreed that they were 'to be reputed as religious living inside the cloisters; wherefore in those things concerning the care of souls they are subject to the Ordinary of the place; but in the rest they remain subject not to the Ordinary of the place, but to their own Superiors.' Nor did Benedict XIV think and judge otherwise in his Constitutions Quamvis, 5 Kalends of March 1746; Cum nuper, 6 Ides of November 1751; and Cum alias, 5 Ides of June 1753. From all these things it is clear that even hospices and houses, however sparsely occupied because of the fewness of their inhabitants, are comprehended by the right of this privilege of which there is question, and this not only in places where Apostolic Vicars preside, but also where Bishops preside; for in the Constitutions which We have recalled, Bishops were being treated." Leo XIII, Constitution Romanos Pontifices, 8 Ides of May 1881.

1. Innocent X, Constitution Instaurandae, 15 Oct. 1652; Constitution Ut in parvis, 10 Feb. 1654.

"Let there be promised to the Ordinary of the place only that submission which is conformable to the character of each Institute. Consequently, without speaking of purely diocesan Congregations, which depend completely upon the Bishops, let Congregations approved by the Holy See and contemplated by the Apostolic Constitution Conditae a Christo, published by Our Holy Father Pope Leo XIII on 8 December 1900, promise submission to the Bishops within the terms of that same Constitution; as regards Regular Orders, let them promise submission to the Bishops within the terms of common law. Now, according to this common law, as you know very well, Regulars depend upon the Bishops for the erection of a new house in the diocese; for public schools, asylums, hospitals, and other establishments of this kind; for the promotion of their subjects to Orders; for the administration of the Sacraments to the faithful; for preaching; for the exposition of the Blessed Sacrament; for the consecration of churches; for the publication of indulgences; for the erection of a Confraternity or pious Congregation; and for permission to publish books. Finally, Regulars depend upon the Bishops in that which regards the care of souls in places where they are invested with this ministry." Letter of the S. C. EE. et RR., 10 July 1901.

"... As regards the exemption of regulars, the prescriptions of canonical law are certain and known. Namely, although in the ecclesiastical hierarchy, which is constituted by divine ordination, presbyters and ministers are inferior to Bishops and are ruled by their authority ¹, nevertheless, so that in religious orders all things might better be apt and connected among themselves, and individual associates might enjoy a peaceful and even course of life, and finally that provision might be made for the increase and perfection of religious conversation ², not undeservedly did the Roman Pontiffs, whose office it is to describe dioceses and to assign to each his subjects to be ruled by sacred power, establish that the Regular Clergy is exempt from the jurisdiction of Bishops. The cause of this matter was not that it pleased them that religious societies should enjoy a better condition than the secular clergy, but that their houses were held by fiction of law as certain territories torn away from the dioceses themselves. From this it came about that religious families, which by common law ought immediately to be subject both to Bishops on account of hierarchical principate and to the Supreme Pontiff on account of pontifical primacy ³, continued to be in His power, and by privilege went out from the power of Bishops. But since in reality they pass life within the boundaries of dioceses, the force of this privilege is so tempered that diocesan discipline is kept whole and intact, and thus that the regular clergy in many things must be subject to episcopal power, whether ordinary or delegated... Moreover, by common law ⁴ it has been established that houses which do not contain at least six religious associates must altogether be in the power of Bishops... When a doubt had long ago been proposed to Clement VIII, whether religious men sent to the Indies for the cultivation of souls were to be considered as though living outside the enclosures of the monastery, and therefore were ordered by the Tridentine law to be subject to Bishops, that Pontiff, through the Constitution Religiosorum quorumcumque, 6 Ides of November 1601, had decreed that they were 'to be reputed as religious living inside the cloisters; wherefore in those things concerning the care of souls they are subject to the Ordinary of the place; but in the rest they remain subject not to the Ordinary of the place, but to their own superiors.' Nor did Benedict XIV think and judge otherwise in his constitutions Quamvis, 5 Kalends of March 1746; Cum nuper, 6 Ides of November 1751; and Cum alias, 5 Ides of June 1753. From all these things it is clear that even hospices and houses, however infrequent by fewness of inhabitants, are comprehended by the right of this privilege of which there is question, and this not only in places where Apostolic Vicars preside, but also where Bishops preside; for in the Constitutions which we have recalled, Bishops were being treated." Leo XIII, Const. Romanos Pontifices, 8 Ides of May 1881.

¹ Council of Trent, session 23, On the sacrament of Order, canon 7.

² St. Gregory the Great, Epistle III, book IX. Benedict XIV, decretal Epistle Apostolicae servitutis, the day before the Ides of March 1742.

³ Vatican Council, Constitution Pastor aeternus, chapter 3.

⁴ Innocent X, Constitution Instaurandae, 15 Oct. 1652; Constitution Ut in parvis, 10 Feb. 1654.

1. "Angelus, a regular, is constituted by his superior to hear the confessions of his confreres, and by the bishop he is approved simply for seculars. But behold, suddenly good Father Angelus becomes deaf, so that he must be removed from the sacred ministry of confessions. For this reason, in his place, the superior substitutes another confessor for the religious, forbidding that anyone else exercise the same office. But after three months had elapsed, Father Angelus, healed from his infirmity beyond the expectation of all, eagerly applies himself to receiving the confessions of the faithful. He also hears the confessions of nuns of the same order, exempt from episcopal jurisdiction and subject to the superior alone."

It is asked: 1.º Whether Father Angelus, having recovered his hearing, validly received the confessions of seculars? - 2.º Whether he validly absolved the aforesaid nuns?

R. To the 1st. Affirmatively. The reason is that he was approved by the bishop for them simply, without the clause concerning the consent of the superior; therefore that approval was by no means revoked. Therefore it continued to be valid. Therefore good Father Angelus is not to be disturbed, nor are the seculars heard and absolved by him to be disturbed. Let him certainly proceed with ready spirit and with great fruit to use the faculty of receiving confessions made to him by the bishop.

To the 2nd. Negatively. For he could not validly absolve nuns not subject to the bishop, but dependent upon the superior of the monastery alone, just as he then could not have absolved his religious companions; because the faculty of absolving religious men and nuns of the same order had been withdrawn from him by the superior, and not restored." Thus Fr. Gury 566, 567.

The response to the 2nd question, with regard to the nuns, does not seem altogether sufficient. Father Angelus indeed invalidly absolved the nuns; but the proper reason is that he lacked the special approval of the Ordinary of the place, required for hearing the confessions of nuns. For by the bishop, as is drawn from the Case, he was not approved except for seculars. I. M. 791.

2. "Benitius, a regular priest, a moderator in a certain college, at vacation time sometimes leads a band of students into distant regions for the sake of recreation, and receives their confessions, although outside the diocese, from the sole license of the bishop under whom the college is.

It is asked: Whether Benitius validly absolved his students outside the diocese from the sole delegation of his own bishop?

R. It is controverted. More probably affirmatively. The reason is 1.º because, since students or boarders have actually every sort of dependence upon the regulars, they are now their familiars. 2.º Because to several regular orders ... indeed also to some secular Congregations ... there belongs the privilege of familiarity for their boarders. But from the communication of privileges the other regular orders now obtain such a privilege. Therefore, etc. Now this opinion has as patrons several Roman theologians, and indeed very grave ones." Thus Fr. Gury 554.

It must be noted with regard to this resolution that, if regulars enjoy the aforesaid privilege of familiarity with regard to boarders, and therefore Benitius more probably validly absolved his students outside the diocese without the approval of the Ordinary of the place, it is not understood to what purpose in the Case and in the Question it is said that Benitius absolved from the sole license or delegation of the bishop under whom the college is. For if in the diocese of the bishop under whom the college is, Benitius cannot hear the confessions of students without the approval of the same bishop, neither outside his diocese can he hear those confessions without the approval of the Ordinary of the place. But if the aforesaid students truly enjoy the privilege of familiarity, then Benitius can in that same diocese under which the college is hear the confessions of the students even without the license, or delegation, of the bishop. I. M. 785.

376. II. Necessity. 1° According to the Code (can. 877), the judgment of suitability is necessary for all confessors, even regulars, for licitly hearing confessions: "Let both local Ordinaries not grant jurisdiction, and religious Superiors not grant jurisdiction or license for hearing confessions, except to those who have been found suitable through examination, unless there is question of a priest whose theological doctrine they have ascertained from elsewhere." This law has rightly been established, so that unskillful and unworthy ministers might be kept away from the sacred tribunal.

2° It was expressly declared by Pius V that doctors and lectors of Sacred Theology are not exempt from this law.¹ But those who possess a parochial benefice to which care of souls is attached do not need special approval; for by the very fact that they are deputed to this office, they are implicitly recognized as suitable for hearing confessions. Moreover, one who is not endowed with doctrine and prudence must not be assumed as pastor (can. 453), and the Ordinary can compel a pastor, and indeed even a canon, concerning whose suitability doubts arise, to a new test of doctrine.²

¹ Constitution Romani Pontificis, 8 Aug. 1571.

² "If after jurisdiction or license has been granted they prudently doubt whether a priest previously approved by them still remains suitable, let them compel him to a new test of doctrine, even if there is question of a pastor or penitentiary canon" (Can. 878).

3° Exempt regulars today need approval for receiving the confessions of regulars of their own order;³ but in this case let the religious Superiors judge concerning their suitability (can. 877).

³ Exempt regulars are those who pronounce solemn vows, such as Franciscans, Dominicans, Benedictines, and also certain Congregations enjoying this special privilege, such as the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer. - Concerning all those things which pertain to the approval of Regulars, Piat Montensis discusses fully, Praelect. Juris Regularis, Tournai, 1898, t. II, p. 170-205; cf. the compendium of the same work, by V. ab Appeltern, 1903, p. 549-560.

380. 3° The Ordinary should not revoke approval from one who truly remains suitable, since in this matter he acts as judge, who is bound to pass judgment according to truth; therefore he sins if he revokes or suspends it without cause.² Nevertheless one to whom approval has been denied even unjustly cannot validly absolve, since jurisdiction also has been denied to him, without which absolution is invalid.³ - Besides, the Bishop is not bound to confer jurisdiction on every suitable person: for this is left to his judgment.

² Code, c. 880.

³ From the old law it was clear from the condemnation of proposition 13 by Alexander VII, 24 Sept. 1665, apud Denzing., n. 984; cf. Viva, op. cit. on proposition XIII; Vacant, Dict. de Theol., t. I, p. 736-737.

392. (d) Hence, once the Code had been promulgated, a controversy arose concerning the power of delegating belonging to pastors. 1) Some thought that pastors could, at least in urgent cases, delegate other priests to hear the confessions of their subjects, by force of the general principle that those having ordinary power can delegate it. 2) But the Pontifical Commission for authentically interpreting the Canons of the Code, on 16 Oct. 1919, declared that pastors, vicars of pastors, or other priests delegated for the universality of cases cannot delegate to secular or regular priests jurisdiction for receiving confessions, nor extend beyond the circumscribed limits jurisdiction to those already approved, but need for this a special faculty or mandate of the Ordinary of the place. And deservedly; for the Code designates no one except the Ordinary of the place as the source from which delegation is to be received, and positively denies this faculty of delegating to the penitentiary canon; hence by being silent about the pastor, it denies him the same faculty; - moreover, already for three centuries, the whole jurisprudence tends to this, that the Ordinary of the place be constituted, for seculars, the sole source of delegated jurisdiction.¹

¹ J. Creusen and A. Vermeersch, Summula novi juris, 1918, n. 346; A. Boudinhon, Rev. du cl. fr., 15 Apr. 1919, p. 96, and 1 July 1919, p. 73.

In practice, however, there is scarcely any difficulty; for Bishops are accustomed to grant to pastors living within the limits of the diocese the faculty of calling pastors exercising ministry in contiguous places of their diocese and of conferring jurisdiction on them; moreover recourse to the Bishop is easy today.

394. (B) From law, or from the Code: (a) Cardinals and Bishops, whether residential or titular, from the accepted authentic notice of canonical provision having been completed, can choose for themselves and their families a priest for receiving confessions; if he lacks jurisdiction, he obtains it by the law itself, even with respect to reserved sins and censures also, with the sole exception of censures reserved to the Apostolic See in the most special manner and those which are attached to the revelation of the secret of the Holy Office.²

² Code, c. 239 and 349.

(b) Any priests undertaking an overseas journey, provided they have from their own Ordinary, or from the Ordinary of the port, whether initial or intermediate, the faculty of receiving confessions, can during the whole journey validly and licitly absolve both the faithful sailing with them, and the faithful who for any reason come to the ship, and those who, when they themselves call at land in passing, ask to confess to them, and can validly and licitly absolve them even from cases reserved to the Ordinary of the place.³

³ Code, c. 883.

406. (A) Religious, even exempt, receive jurisdiction for receiving the confessions of seculars or religious from the Ordinary of the place in which the confessions are heard; but they cannot use the same without at least the presumed permission of their own superior. Moreover, Ordinaries are not to grant jurisdiction habitually except to religious presented by their own superior, nor are they to deny it without grave cause to those who are presented by the superior; nevertheless this ought not to be done without a previous examination by which they have been found suitable, except in the case of a priest whose theological doctrine has been ascertained from another source.²

² Code, c. 874, 877.

444. From these cases the following can absolve: 1) by ordinary power, both the Supreme Pontiff and the Major Penitentiary; 2) by delegated power, Bishops and priests delegated by the Holy See, or by another Superior having the faculty of subdelegating: "From a censure reserved to the Apostolic See, these and others can absolve who have obtained from it the power of absolving, whether general, if the censure is simply reserved, or special, if it is reserved in a special manner, or finally most special, if it is reserved in a most special manner."² Thus delegation is always required also for absolving from a sin reserved to the Apostolic See without censure.

² Code, c. 2253, § 3.

635. 1° On confession and communion. (a) Apart from a special concession, one cannot satisfy the paschal precept and gain the Jubilee by one confession and communion.⁶ Yet, with respect to confession, one can first confess in order to gain the Jubilee; and if afterwards, within the year, he has admitted no mortal sin, he will not be bound to confess, since the law of annual confession obliges only those who are conscious of grave sin (n. 245). Nor is absolution required, if one is in the state of grace, unless it is expressly said in the Bull, as in the year 1851, "having confessed their sins and having expiated them by sacramental absolution."

⁶ Sacred Penitentiary, January 25, 1875, in Acta S. Sedis, VIII, pp. 266-267; cf. p. 361.

(b) Confession and communion must be made during the time of the Jubilee, but not on the vigil, unless from first Vespers, when it is already customarily begun at Rome.

(c) He who, after confession has been performed, falls into mortal sin before he has completed the last work, must repeat confession, so that by sacramental absolution he may recover grace;¹ nor is it sufficient for him to elicit perfect contrition.

¹ Bull Inter praeteritos, n. 79.

636. 2° On the visitation of churches. Which churches are to be visited, and how often, the Supreme Pontiff designates in the City, and the Bishop of each diocese outside the City.

(A) Thus for the year 1900, Leo XIII prescribed² that the four basilicas of Blessed Peter and Paul, St. John Lateran, and St. Mary Major should be visited at least once in the day for twenty continuous or interposed days, whether natural or ecclesiastical, by inhabitants residing at Rome; for at least ten days by pilgrims. But if those residing in the City, or on the journey itself, are prevented by illness or by another legitimate cause from making certain or all visitations, they can nevertheless gain the Jubilee by performing other works enjoined by confessors.

² Bull Properante, in Act. S. Sedis, XXXI, p. 644 sq.

(B) Outside the City, (a) Bishops determine, according to the Bull of the Pontiff, how many churches and how often they are to be visited. In places where there is one church, they can grant that all the prescribed visitations be made in this church; this power was given to them in the year 1852 in a general manner,³ so that they enjoy it even if the Bull of the Jubilee is silent concerning this matter. They can also designate a public oratory, if Mass is habitually celebrated in it.⁴

³ Decret. authent., n. 353, March 15, 1852.

⁴ Sacred Penitentiary, January 15, 1886, in Act. S. Sedis, XVIII, p. 334.

(b) If the same church must be visited several times, this can be done on the same day or on distinct days, unless in the Bull of the Jubilee it is defined otherwise. But visitations made in the same church must be so distinguished from each other that each time it is necessary to go out from the church in order that a new visitation can be made.

(c) Regulars cannot gain the Jubilee by performing the prescribed visitations in their own church, unless they have obtained a special privilege from the Roman Pontiff.⁵ But if they are legitimately impeded from visiting the churches designated by the Ordinary, each one can obtain commutation from his own confessor.

⁵ Sacred Penitentiary, 1875, in Act. S. Sedis, VIII, p. 554.

(d) Often also the number of visitations is diminished by instituting processions, with the license of the Bishop, from a special privilege granted by the Holy See. In which case the faithful who, because of the narrowness of the church or oratory, remain outside the doors and pray with the others, form one body morally, and therefore satisfy the visitation for gaining the Jubilee, provided, however, that all who can be contained in the church enter it. Likewise, if because of a legitimate reason processions are made with vestments not choral, without a cross, with psalmody in a low voice, or even without any chant, this is valid.¹

¹ Sacred Penitentiary, in Act. S. Sedis, VIII, p. 554; vol. XXXIV, p. 638; vol. XXXV, p. 43.

1154. 4° On the previous examination. (a) Anyone to be promoted, whether secular or religious, must undergo a previous and diligent examination concerning the very order to be received. (b) One to be promoted to sacred orders is to be examined also in other tractations of sacred theology designated by the Bishop. (c) Regularly, the local Ordinary who ordains by his own right or gives dimissorial letters receives this examination. (d) The names of those to be promoted to the several sacred orders are to be publicly announced in the parochial church of each candidate, and indeed on a feast day of precept during the solemnities of Masses or on another day and hour at which a greater frequency of people is had in the church. (e) All the faithful are held by the obligation of revealing to the Ordinary or pastor before the sacred ordination any impediments to sacred orders, if they know any. (f) But the Ordinary can prescribe other inquiries, according to his prudence and conscience¹.

¹ Codex, can. 996-1000.

Whether exempt Regulars are held by the prohibitions of Bishops

64. Hence you will ask whether or not exempt Regulars are held by Episcopal prohibitions.

Opinions of those who affirm, and arguments

Most affirm that they are held. And some indeed subject Regulars in this matter even to the ordinary jurisdiction of the Bishop, either because these Regulars do not demonstrate their exemption, or because this is a cause of faith, in which Regulars are subject to the Bishop.¹ So Pennacchi,² Ciolli.³

But others argue rather from the power of proceeding even as delegated by the Holy See, which is confirmed to Bishops by article 29 of the Constitution Officiorum. So Palmieri,⁴ who acknowledges that he is moved by this reason alone, and Wernz.⁵

But neither group seems to us to establish the matter.

General force of exemption

For Regulars properly so called - and also members of certain Congregations, for example of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer - have a general privilege of exemption which, as commending the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, receives a broad interpretation;⁶ and the houses of Regulars, by a fiction of law, are as if torn away from the Diocese.⁷ But outside the diocese, of himself, a Bishop has no power. Therefore that principle has force which we remember was handed down in the school of law at Rome: as regards jurisdiction, the Bishop has no power over Regulars except what is expressly granted to him in the law.⁸

But the contrary assertion of the distinguished Pennacchi, by which Regulars would have to bring forward an Indult concerning each exemption, plainly overturns the accepted notion of the exemption of Regulars, suppresses the generality of the privilege, and is repugnant to authors and to the Constitution Romanos Pontifices itself.⁹ For they propose the causes in which Regulars are subject to Bishops as exceptions and temperaments of the privilege that has been made. Nor do Doctors omit carefully to prove the individual derogations.

Moreover, among the exceptions, which nevertheless they have collected with most diligent care, the present case is nowhere indicated.¹⁰ Yet the doctors do not pass over this matter, since they expressly teach that Regulars are subject to Bishops in the publication of their own books, which, equally as those by seculars, are to be subjected to the previous censorship of the Bishop.

Nor is a stronger argument sought from the kind of prohibition which in some way concerns faith. For Regulars are subject to Bishops in causes of faith only insofar as judicial cognizance of causes which pertain to the Holy Office belongs privatively - that is, with regular Superiors excluded - to Bishops, who are born Inquisitors.¹¹ But from this it does not follow that Bishops have a general power of commanding things which are thought to benefit faith.

But that regular Superiors have their own role in this matter of books is clear from the authority which is given them by articles 15 and 36; it is clear from the Brief of promulgation of the new Index, by which Leo XIII, September 27, 1900, equally commits to Bishops and to Superiors of Regulars the care of urging the laws of the Index, each for his own subjects.

Force of the clause: "also as delegates of the Apostolic See."

Thus far concerning the former opinion opposed to us.

But those later authors who draw reasons from the delegated power of Bishops do not seem to bring us stronger arguments.

Certainly, Bishops need delegated power in order to be able to give precepts to Regulars as such.

The Holy Synod of Trent granted this power to them several times in the chapters De Reformatione. It also permitted Bishops to establish certain things concerning exempt persons and Regulars "even as delegates of the Apostolic See," as when it gave them the mandate of visiting monasteries in which regular observance does not flourish.¹²

But by what law do you infer from this: whenever this faculty of proceeding also as from Apostolic delegation is attributed to Bishops, any general act of theirs obliges exempt persons and Regulars? By what canon is this declared? Reverend Father Wernz himself¹³ does not deny the ambiguity of that clause. He brings forward three interpretations of it. "It can scarcely be denied," he himself continues, "that there are not lacking ancient and new authors who ... less rightly restrict that word also to signifying cumulative jurisdiction alone (over one's own subjects)." These, therefore, at least tacitly, disagree from Fagnani, whose support Father Wernz uses. But what of that interpreter of law? In chapter Ad audientiam 3, De ecclesiis aedificandis (III, 48), nn. 46, 47, 54, he sees contained in the clause "also as delegates" a delegated power by which Bishops can also dismember parishes subject to Regulars.

But if we wish to transfer this into our argument, we shall say by parity: by force of that clause the Bishop will be able to proscribe with a censorial mark the books of all, even of exempt persons and Regulars. But Fagnani himself has no universal opinion by which he contends: a Decree which the Bishop issues even as Delegate of the Apostolic See always affects exempt persons and Regulars.

Indeed, does not Fagnani himself, whom we know to favor the causes of Regulars little, nevertheless in chapter 19, De officio iudicis ordinarii (I, 31), n. 5, deny that a Bishop delegated by the Pope can proceed against exempt persons, if no mention of exemption has been made in the letters; and testify that this is the doctrine of Hostiensis and John Andrew?¹⁴ Moreover, in our age, neither De Angelis¹⁵ nor Santi¹⁶ attribute to this obscure clause, "also as delegate of the Apostolic See," efficacy of itself to widen the spaces of the ordinary power of the Bishop, but rather efficacy of warding off whatever impediments could obstruct the exercise of this authority.

Therefore we shall say thus: that clause gives Bishops a more expedited power and removes obstacles which could impede the end for which the delegation was made.

Was perhaps extension to Regulars demanded here by the intended end?

By no means. In the present case, there could of itself have been intended equally a greater and more certain efficacy of proscription for touching the books of all, rather than an extension of episcopal prohibition to exempt persons who are entrusted to the care of other Prelates. Now: a) if we consider the letters Inter multiplices, by which that faculty was first conferred, Pius IX, through these letters, stirred up Ordinaries to exercise their power of proscribing books, so that harmful writing might be met more swiftly in individual dioceses when evil was pressing.¹⁷ And once the necessity of prompt coercion had been declared, he immediately connects the granted delegation.¹⁸ But what could the exemption of Regulars do against this swift coercion, whose obstacles he wished to remove? Are not Regulars, outside rare cases of necessity, prohibited from dangerous readings by their own Superiors? But various pretexts of another kind could stand in the way, for example the lack of the condition required by Clement VIII (below here), approval received from one's own Bishop, etc., on account of which they might perhaps contend that jurisdiction was lacking in the Bishop for proscribing the book itself, and might hold his judgments "as not issued." And in truth, questions were being raised concerning the power of a Bishop to punish certain books. Cf. Albitius, De Inconstantia in Fide.¹⁹ And difficulty could be made by the declaration of Clement VIII, by which he had declared concerning this faculty of Bishops: "the case will be very rare, nor is this power to be used without a most grave cause, and the Holy See must be made more certain concerning its use."²⁰ Cf. also the letters of Propaganda Fide, August 11, 1855.²¹ Besides, when the exemption of Regulars is the cause or occasion of a delegation of this kind, the exemption is generally expressly derogated from. b) If we look to the present article 29, the delegation is joined with the indicated office, by which Bishops must see to it that harmful writings "be removed from the hands of the faithful." Who are those faithful if not diocesan subjects?

For this reason, until the Holy See defines the contrary, we judge that the opinion can be retained which makes Regulars immune from Episcopal prohibitions. With us Péries,²² Génicot,²³ Oietti,²⁴ Piat,²⁵ Van Coillie,²⁶ and practically Sleutjes²⁷ defend this. At the same time, however, Regulars, according to their prudence and humility, will beware lest by openly reading those things which the Bishop has prohibited, or even by openly receiving them within their houses, they be a scandal to diocesan subjects, or seem by some ostentation of immunity to undermine the authority of the Bishop.²⁸

¹ We omit certain futile reasons, as when they say that exemption ought not give a privilege of running into danger in faith or morals. By a similar reason you could demonstrate that the prohibition of one Bishop binds neighboring dioceses and perhaps the whole world. But the question looks to this: to which Prelate belongs the care of providing for the safety of Regulars. And if, from article 26, the faculty of reading books prohibited by the Holy See does not contain the faculty of reading books condemned by Bishops, it is clear that this regards those who are held by the prohibition of Bishops.

² Op. cit., n. 67.

³ N. 61, p. 60.

⁴ Op. cit. on articles 26 and 29.

⁵ Loc. cit., n. 111, note 82.

⁶ From the general principle of St. Alphonsus, Appendix De Privilegiis, n. 8. Cf. Suarez, De Legibus, book 8, chapter 27, n. 7.

⁷ Constitution Romanos Pontifices of Leo XIII, beginning.

⁸ Cf. Piat, Praelectiones iuris regularis, vol. 2, pp. 195, 196, question 9, end.

⁹ Loc. cit.

¹⁰ Even in recent catalogues and after Apostolic delegation has been granted. Cf., for example, Piat, Praelectiones iuris regularis, vol. 2, pp. 202-205; Oietti, Synopsis rerum moralium et iuris pontificii, s.v. Exemptio.

¹¹ A cause of this kind was the suspicion of heresy which those reading books of heretics incurred, but not those reading obscene books. Cf. Albitius, De Inconstantia in fide, chapter 30, nn. 414 and 417, 418.

¹² Session XXI, chapter 8, De Reformatione.

¹³ Ius Decretalium, vol. 2, n. 696.

¹⁴ Even in a favorable matter, it was much doubted whether or not a Bishop could aid Regulars by faculties delegated to him of dispensing, etc. Besides, the jurisdiction of a Legate is delegated and of itself is not extended to Regulars.

¹⁵ Praelectiones iuris canonici on book 1, title 29, n. 2.

¹⁶ Praelectiones iuris canonici on the same place, n. 3.

¹⁷ Cf. letters Inter multiplices.

¹⁸ For thus it states: "If due obedience responds to these [exhortatory letters], most grave evils will be removed, especially in those dioceses in which the necessity of prompt coercion is urgent. But lest anyone under the pretext of defect of jurisdiction or under some other sought-out color ... His Holiness has granted ... that in this matter they proceed also as delegates of the Apostolic See." Nor does he say under the pretext of exemption, as would have been natural if he had been thinking of Regulars; but he uses those words which are easily referred to jurisdiction lacking absolutely, or as regards books.

¹⁹ Chapter 30, nn. 164-186.

²⁰ Declaration of Rule X, related by Albitius, Inconstantia in Fide, n. 186, and by Arndt, op. cit., n. 163.

²¹ Collectanea C. Prop. Fidei, n. 1886.

²² Op. cit., p. 164.

²³ Op. cit., I, n. 451.

²⁴ Analecta Ecclesiastica, 1898, p. 383.

²⁵ Nouvelle Revue Théologique, vol. 31, pp. 572-582.

²⁶ Op. cit., p. 27.

²⁷ De prohibitione, p. 18.

²⁸ But we deny that this scandal can scarcely be avoided, as Reverend Father Wernz thinks; for even without scandal there are held in the houses of Regulars books proscribed by the Holy See. Nor must they constantly manifest the faculty they have.

Which Prelates possess this faculty

96. 2. Prelates to whom quasi-episcopal jurisdiction belongs are Nuncios,¹ Apostolic Vicars, Capitular Vicars, and Superiors of exempt Regulars, both Generals and Provincials, and also, as is probable, Locals,² provided they truly preside over a convent or monastery. Thus Guardians of the Friars Minor; Priors of the Friars Preachers; Provincials, Rectors, Vice-Rectors of the Society of Jesus, and Superiors of houses which are of their own right. But not Ministers, nor Priors who are subject to an Abbot.³

The same power belongs to the Vicar General, not as to a Prelate, but insofar as he exercises episcopal jurisdiction as one judge with the Bishop.

What power has been conceded to them

3. To these Prelates an ordinary power is made of conceding license, for individual books, and only in urgent cases.

For individual books

For individual books, strictly, would signify for certain books designated individually, and not by some general reason of books, for example, which might be useful for making this lucubration. Yet because the faculty can be taken broadly, a sufficiently special designation seems to suffice so as to contract the faculty to a few books, provided the other condition of an urgent cause is observed.

In urgent cases

In urgent cases only. A case will urge if a just cause of reading suffers no delay necessary for Roman recourse.⁴

But the cause ought not to be of so great necessity that it excuses from the law; but we seem able to be content with notable utility, on account of which a general license would deservedly be given by a competent Superior; indeed with less, since there is less danger in the reading of one individual book. Suppose, for example, that a rare occasion is offered of reading a book which is indeed prohibited but useful for studies.

It can be delegated

Since this power is ordinary, it can be delegated to Deans, Parish Priests, and Confessors themselves (for whom it will often be useful to have it).

It extends to obscene books

It is not circumscribed by object, so that, if nevertheless a just cause underlies it, it comprises a book obscene of set purpose.⁵

¹ The principle from which they could regularly do those things "which the Ordinary could do in his diocese" seems sufficiently to have force for this use. Pirhing and Schmalzgrueber on book 1, title 30, n. 4.

² Cf. Vermeersch, De Religiosis, etc., t. 1, n. 412.

³ The distinguished Pennacchi, A. S. S., n. 63, p. 385, whom Ciolli, n. 59, still follows, undeservedly excludes from use of this faculty all regular Prelates whose authority, circumscribed to monks, is not exercised over some people. He gives as reason that, in the latter part of article 25, the Legislator sets down the case in which Prelates of this sort have obtained from the Holy See the faculty of imparting to the faithful license of reading and retaining prohibited books. Therefore the Prelates must be understood only as those who would have faithful. But by the name of faithful there come only "secular men and those living in the lay state." But what prevents some expression in the two sentences from being taken in a sense accommodated to each sentence? Therefore in the former sentence, Prelates possessing jurisdiction as if episcopal will be all who are accustomed to come under this name; in the latter they will be those who "de facto" have faithful. Besides, why say more? Even if this article did not include regular Prelates in express words, it was not fitting to pass over the Constitution Romani Pontificis circumspecta of St. Pius V, which universally disposes: "The Regular Prelates themselves, by themselves, can do altogether the same toward Brothers and Nuns ... subject to them, which Bishops can do toward clerics and laymen subject to them, both as regards faculties of absolving and dispensing of this sort and as regards any other faculties whatsoever, by the same authority and tenor, even perpetually we concede and indulge, and also declare." That this Constitution still has force, Piat, Prael. Iur. regul., t. 2, p. 87, note 2, shows. This concession plainly suffices in the present species. Cf. also the general principle in Suarez, De Relig., tract 8, book 2, chapter 12. On the matter also very well Wernz, cited place, n. 111, note 78.

⁴ To Roman recourse, I say. For just as concerning reserved cases, so concerning this matter the impediment seems able to be estimated with respect to him who has the ordinary faculty, that is, in the case, with respect to the Holy See. Therefore the said superiors will enjoy the faculty of an urgent case although opportunity is at hand of approaching a Bishop furnished with a delegated faculty.

⁵ Nordin, Summa theol. mor., n. 694, note.

Faculties delegated by the Holy See

97. Greater faculties are sometimes delegated by the Apostolic See to the same Prelates, by which they are permitted to concede to their subjects a general faculty of reading and retaining prohibited books.

Concerning the right interpretation of those faculties, these things occur to be observed.

Interpretation

a) These faculties are to be interpreted broadly.

Communication with successor and by delegation

b) From the new discipline introduced through the Decree of November 24, 1897, these faculties, which are conceded for a certain space of years, if they are handed to Bishops, also pertain to Vicars General; if they are given to Ordinaries of places, or to Superior Generals of Regular Orders, they pass (in the state in which they were) to their successors, substituted in their place by stable or passing title; and, from the decree of December 14, 1898, they are in themselves delegable.¹

Use in favor of themselves

c) Bishops can concede the faculty to themselves by force of the obtained Indult, since the act pertains to voluntary jurisdiction.²

And of Regulars

c) Bishops seem able to use those faculties which they have obtained in favor of Regulars, lest the favor of exemption yield to their detriment.³

Limits of a temporal faculty

d) Unless the formula restricts the power, the Bishop can make the permission perpetual. But if he cannot give perpetual permission, he does not seem to exceed his power if he gives the faculty until revocation. For this is numbered among temporal faculties.

What if the indult is temporary

But by no means must he circumscribe the faculties which he concedes by the same time by which he himself has the faculty of conceding. For it is well conceived that for a quinquennium a faculty is given to someone of giving even perpetual licenses; and there is no reason why you should restrict to the time of the indult the time of the faculty granted by force of the indult. Otherwise, a Bishop who obtained a quinquennial indult four years earlier could now make a faculty only for one year; and he whose indult would expire after a month could permit reading only for a month. Doctors adhere to our interpretation and the style of the Sacred Congregation of the Index accords with it.⁴

Yet this must be understood in itself. For in the Indult the time can be expressly defined beyond which permission cannot be conceded; and the present mind of the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide⁵ seems to understand indults conceded by it in that manner which in itself we reject.

e) The modes and limits which are prescribed in the indult must be well observed.⁶

And so, in the use of the Indult the apostolic authority by force of which the faculty is conceded must be recalled.

The faculty must be conceded altogether gratis.

The power is not accustomed to extend to all books to be conceded, but certain ones designated by name, or certain classes of books, are excepted.⁷ For example, delegation is never given for permitting books obscene of set purpose.

Often, especially for books against Religion, Bishops can concede the faculty only to those persons who are furnished with a certain quality.

While it is always required that Bishops concede this permission only with selection, or with prudent discretion of persons and circumstances, and from a just and reasonable cause (article 25), the cause itself is sometimes indicated taxatively: "for the effect of attacking them (heretics)." Cf. n. 98, 5.

The form of the Indult which the Sacred Congregation of the Index grants to Bishops is this:

Most ample and Reverend Lord,

Our Most Holy Lord Pius Pope X, kindly receiving the suppliant prayers by which Your Amplitude asked the faculty of permitting to the Christian faithful committed to your pastoral care the reading of books prohibited by the Apostolic See, committed to this Sacred Congregation of the Index that it should impart to You, concerning whose religion, doctrine, and piety he has very great confidence, the aforesaid faculty, namely of conceding to the faithful of Your diocese, from a just and reasonable cause, license of reading and retaining prohibited books, with certain laws and conditions nevertheless preserved, until ...

Wherefore you can concede:

1°. To upright and learned men only, license of reading and retaining any books whatever (and periodicals) prohibited by the Apostolic See, excepting those which defend heresy or schism, or overturn the very foundations of religion; whose reading you can permit only to those whom you know to be more outstanding in doctrine, piety, and zeal for the faith; but you shall permit to no one the reading of books treating obscene things of set purpose.

2°. To youths who in public schools, gymnasia, lyceums, academies apply themselves to studies, you can similarly concede license of reading and retaining, for as long as they are placed in that necessity, books proscribed by the same Apostolic See which by command of lay power they are compelled to have at hand.

But the aforesaid licenses are to be conceded gratis under any title whatever, and without any emolument to be received by Your episcopal curia, under penalty of nullity; and in each letter of concession express mention must be made of the Apostolic faculty.

In faith of which, etc.

Given at Rome, from the Secretariat of the Sacred Congregation of the Index, on the ... day of the month ... in the year ...

To the Most Ample and Reverend Lord

Lord ...

¹ Some have been deceived by the prior law, for example Hilgers, p. 31, note 2, who deny that these faculties can be delegated.

² Sleutjes, De prohibitione, p. 32.

³ Vermeersch, De Religiosis, I, n. 382.

⁴ Zitelli, Apparatus iuris eccl., p. 541, note; Arndt, cited work, p. 252; Wernz, cited work, n. 111, note 79; Hilgers, cited work, p. 31, note 2.

⁵ The clause in the diocese is taken by the same Sacred Congregation in such a way that, when the faculty is made, the Bishop conceding it and the subject to whom he concedes it must both be present in the diocese.

⁶ The Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide has a longer Instruction, which we have copied in the fourth part of this work.

⁷ At least expressly. For in n. 2° of the formula just recited no books are excluded.

An apostolic faculty does not permit books prohibited by Bishops

98. 1. The Holy See does not lack the power of permitting someone books prohibited by Ordinaries, but the intention or will is lacking unless the indult gives express permission of reading and retaining books condemned by whomsoever. This clause is contained in no general formula. Therefore the Holy See is accustomed to act here in the same way as when it gives a faculty in reserved cases. Cases which the Bishop has reserved to himself have not customarily been contained by an apostolic faculty.

By their ordinary power

But this holds concerning episcopal proscription as it is a diocesan decree, not however as it is borne from delegated power. For the Holy See itself is judged to act through its delegate. Hence books proscribed by a delegate as such are judged condemned by apostolic authority. Wherefore the faculty of reading books disapproved by the Holy See must consequently comprehend these.

Corollary

Therefore exempt persons, for example regulars, if you contend that they are held by the prohibitions of bishops insofar as delegated faculty has been conceded to these,¹ will be able, once an apostolic indult has been obtained, actually to read works proscribed by Bishops.

One who can read a book can in itself retain it

2. The faculty of reading books seems in itself to comprise the faculty of preserving the same, yet circumscribed by the same limits. Wherefore, if the reading has been conceded only for a passing act, or if the one has permitted it who enjoys power only for an urgent case, a distinct faculty must be sought for habitual preservation, all the more because sufficient time is at hand to obtain it.

One who can read books can also read periodicals

2. The faculty of reading prohibited books comprises the faculty of reading periodicals. For attention is turned less severely to periodicals than to books.² It is confirmed indirectly from our article 26. For while it denies that one who has the apostolic faculty of reading books can read books or periodicals proscribed by Ordinaries of places, it indirectly says that periodicals condemned by the Apostolic See can in themselves be read by him.

But, on the contrary, the faculty of reading periodicals cannot be understood concerning books.

Clauses: excepting books against Religion

3. The clause, excepting books of set purpose against Religion, seems able to be understood concerning books which with direct intention have been written against every religion.³

Of this sort are those which of set purpose try to demonstrate that every religion is harmful or false; or which of set purpose blaspheme God and every worship; but not those which reject positive religion in order to preach natural religion.

Or which overturn the foundations of religion

4. The exception of books which in any way overturn the foundations of religion excepts books which defend materialism, atheism, positivism.

What of the clause: "for the effect of attacking."

5. The concession is sometimes clothed with this clause: "for the effect of attacking them (bad writers)." All admit that this clause is to be interpreted benignly and without scruple.⁴ Indeed, according to a very probable opinion, those words indicate the reason why the exception has been made, not a condition to which the use of the conceded faculty is tied:⁵ so that it is justified by any right end whatever. This is confirmed from the fact that at the same time the Superior judged that the danger of perversion was not imminent for the dispensed person. St. Alphonsus.⁶ Thus Zitelli,⁷ Planchard,⁸ Génicot.⁹ This will hold much more if there is added: and as an aid to one's own office and honorable studies.

Use outside the diocese

6. Unless the use is clearly more circumscribed, you can use everywhere the faculty of reading books condemned by the Holy See, whether the Holy See itself directly, or the Bishop from delegated power, has made this permission for you. For here holds the rule concerning dispensation, according to which dispensation from commission and dispensation from ordinary power are in themselves contained by the same limits. Schmalzgrueber, on book 5, title 33, n. 111. With us is Sleutjes, De prohibitione, etc., p. 31.

Moreover, the clause: in such a way that books are not taken out of this diocese, does not seem in itself to have the force of prohibiting use outside the diocese, since it rather looks to this, that books not be introduced into another diocese in a stable manner, although he who is endowed with the faculty can read also there books occurring there or brought with him there.¹⁰

¹ Cf. above, part I, n. 64.

² Cf. Arndt, cited work, p. 223, n. 166; Pennacchi, cited work, n. 64; Ciolli, cited work, n. 55.

³ Cf. above, n. 92.

⁴ Cf. Heymans, cited work, n. 345.

⁵ A condition sine qua non is customarily indicated more clearly: otherwise not; not otherwise; otherwise the whole will be void. Zitelli, Apparatus, p. 541, note.

⁶ Book 7, n. 291.

⁷ Apparatus, p. 541, note.

⁸ Rev. Th. Fr., 1897, pp. 31, 32.

⁹ Cited work, I, 457.

¹⁰ For reading, in another diocese, books prohibited by the Bishop of that diocese, the faculty of another Bishop cannot benefit those who are bound by this episcopal law, such as those would be who acquired at least a quasi-domicile in another diocese. Against Heymans, cited work, n. 343, and De Brabandere, cited work, n. 136.

It confirms the disposition of Clement

113. 1. That clause reports, almost to the letter, the words of the Instruction of Clement VIII added to the Rules of the Index. From this:

Equally with the rest they are subject to the censure of the Ordinary

a) The doctrine, already certain before, is confirmed, according to which exempt Regulars are subject to the censure of the Ordinary of the place equally with the rest. Equally, I say, not more.¹ Therefore, only for books which from common law are subject to censure.

How far, besides, the faculty of the proper Prelate is required

b) There is also commemorated the decree of Trent, session 4, concerning the edition and use of sacred books, by which they are further bound to obtain the faculty of their proper Prelate. But because, in that decree, speech is only concerning books of Sacred Scripture, annotations, and commentaries, the pontifical law concerning the faculty of the proper Prelate to be sought seems to be circumscribed to the same things. Cf. Desjardins, Etudes, t. 71, p. 365.² But as to other works, they will stand by their proper Constitutions.

Which Regulars?

2. Regulars are to be understood as those strictly such.³ Those who are called such more broadly will much less escape the censure of the Ordinary. For the rest they will observe their proper Rules.

Each concession to be printed

3. Each concession is to be printed at the beginning or end of the work in that manner in which the sole concession of the Bishop is to be appended to the books of others. Cf. below, n. 116.

¹ Wernz, n. 121, note 103, also holds the same, against certain persons who, relying on I know not what reason, already wish all books of Regulars to bear testimony of a double approval.

² Most think that by the Instruction of Clement VIII that prescription was extended to every book. Thus C. Gennari (cited work, in this place), Genicot (cited work, 460), and Pennacchi (n. 73). But in the same words by which our article does, that Instruction appeals to the decree of the Council of Trent. Therefore we do not perceive the force of the inference made. Nevertheless Boudinhon also admits this in this article, and Wernz, note 103. For the rest the matter is of the smallest importance, since at least from their proper Constitutions the books of Regulars must be approved by their Superiors.

³ They are, however, the solemnly professed, and, from the Constitution of Gregory XIII, Ascendente Domino, also the simply professed of the Society of Jesus. Concerning the simply professed of other Orders this is doubted. Cf. Bizzarri, Collectanea, 1st ed., p. 801, note.

The former law partly abrogated

114. 1. By the former law, by order of Alexander VII, those dwelling in the Pontifical State had to offer their books to be approved by the previous censure of the Cardinal Vicar of the City and of the Master of the Sacred Palace. Now the special obligation, if any remains, is circumscribed to the City alone.

Force of the present article. It imposes an obligation

2. Proceed now: the obligation seems to remain. For although the sentence of the law is in itself ambiguous and can be taken of a mere privilege,¹ nevertheless the reason of the former disposition remains in such a way that a correction of that law, which would be inexplicable, does not seem to have to be admitted. The usage of the City agrees, in which the Masters of the Sacred Palace urge their right in this way.²

But the reason of this sanction is drawn from a certain peculiar authority with which books that are considered to have been written under the eyes of the Holy See are vested, so that they seem to have to be fortified by the caution of Roman censure.

And it confers a privilege

3. At the same time, however, the article confers a most equitable privilege, by which these books, even if they are published elsewhere, need have no other approval. Thus the law is not made harsher for the inhabitants of the City, and fitting honor is given to Apostolic censure.

Whom it affects

4. Those properly dwell in the City who there have at least a quasi-domicile.³ Those, however, who actually stay at Rome even for a shorter time will be able, as pilgrims, to share in the privilege of the inhabitants.

¹ Cf. Palmieri, in this place; Ojetti, Analecta Eccl., 1898, pp. 383, 384.

² Cf. Wernz, n. 121, note 104.

³ Quasi-domicile is acquired by real habitation joined with the intention of staying in some place for the greater part of the year. Thus the opinion received in the curia, although some, as Lehmk. II, 775, are content with staying through a notable part of the year: as, for instance, through 4 months. Penn., A. S. S., cited place, n. 74, p. 495, judges that no space of stay is required for the use of that privilege.

Difference from the Tridentine censure

126. 1. Thus, by expressing it more clearly, the Tridentine excommunication is renewed,¹ which nevertheless struck only anonymous books, while, according to interpreters of the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis (which confirmed the same censure), books which bear before themselves the name of the author are now also comprehended.

It is necessary only that the approval of the Ordinary was given

2. Without the approval of the Ordinary. It is enough, for escaping the censure, that it has been given, although perhaps not in writing nor appended in the book. And although regulars besides need the license of their Prelate, they do not commit the excommunication if the book is approved solely by the Ordinary of the place.

Who are printing?

3. Printing, in the present case, seem to be only those who either are owners of the typography or sustain their person, so that they conduct the matter in their name. For the Tridentine text in the cited place contains commands and penalties which cannot be accommodated to workers, etc. Cf. Pennacchi, Ballerini, Arndt,² Hollweck,³ against Piat (on Van der Velden), p. 861.

Causing to be printed

4. Causing to be printed: as the editor of the book, he by whose care the book is printed; not necessarily the author, for example, if he merely gave or sold the manuscript, caring nothing for the printing.

Who absolves from this excommunication?

5. Excommunication reserved to no one. Therefore every Confessor can absolve from it, provided that contumacy has ceased.

¹ Session 4 (Decree concerning the edition and use of sacred books). As Hollweck, Die Strafgesetze, etc., sec. 108, 1, wishes, also for this reason it is established a little more severely than in the Council of Trent, because the Tridentine decree did not clearly comprehend Sacred Scripture itself.

² Avanz.-Penn., t. 2, appendix 38, p. 232; note 62 on Gury, II, 789; cited work, pp. 246, 247, n. 180.

³ Cited place. This sentence, which earlier, by I know not what law, R. D. Van Coillie, Collat. Brugg., p. 551, had accused of too much benignity, he sincerely confessed in the Commentary in this place to be sufficiently pleasing to himself.

— I. On a religious promoted. One named a Cardinal or bishop, whether residential or titular, remains a religious, bound by vows and the other obligations of his profession, except those which he himself prudently judges cannot be composed with his dignity. He is exempted from the power of Superiors, and, by force of the vow of obedience, remains subject to the Roman Pontiff alone. Of goods which he had or which come to him, he recovers or obtains the use, usufruct, and administration. But dominion, if he himself is incapable, he acquires for the diocese, vicariate, or prefecture, if he has been a residential bishop, Apostolic Vicar, or Apostolic Prefect; otherwise he acquires it for the capable Order or the Holy See. A Cardinal besides freely disposes, even by testament, of benefice revenues, with the special law concerning sacred furnishings saved (cc. 626-628; 239, §1, n. 14 and 1298).

Having laid aside the cardinalate or episcopate, the religious must return to religion, but he can choose any house in which he may dwell; nevertheless he lacks active and passive voice.

— A religious who governs a parish remains bound to observing the vows and constitutions, insofar as this can stand with his office. He is subject to the religious Superior alone in those things which pertain to religious discipline; but in his office he undergoes the cumulative jurisdiction of the Superior and of the local Ordinary, so that the Ordinary prevails over the Superior. Alms for the persons or works of his parish he himself collects, administers, and spends, with the vigilance of his Superior saved; but to receive, collect, and administer alms for building, preserving, or adorning the parochial church pertains to the local Ordinary, or, if the church belongs to a religious community, to the Superior. For the investment of money which has been given in view of the parish, he must obtain the previous assent of the local Ordinary. A religious pastor is always removable at the will both of the local Ordinary, with the Superior notified, and of the Superior, with the local Ordinary notified, and this by equal right. Cf. cc. 630, 631, 454, §5.

— I. Religious promoted to the cardinalate or episcopate, and Apostolic Prefects, remain religious, bound by vows and obligations which can be composed with their state. By force of the vow of obedience they are subject to the Supreme Pontiff alone. They preserve or recover the usufruct of their goods; but dominion, if they themselves are incapable, they acquire for the diocese, vicariate, or prefecture over which they are placed; the rest, as before, acquire it for the Order or the Holy See. Cardinals freely dispose of benefice revenues.

II. A religious pastor, in carrying out his office, undergoes the cumulative jurisdiction of his own Superior and of the local Ordinary, so that the Ordinary prevails over the Superior. He is removable at the will of either.

I. All Christians more or less, according as their condition bears, ought to give their labour to the holy Scriptures. But upon this study Regulars and all men addicted to sacred things are most gravely bound to apply themselves. John Trithemius, Abbot of the illustrious Order of the most holy Patriarch Benedict — most fruitful of distinguished men, not only in ancient times but even in our own age, God being its author — in homily 4 On the Study of the Sacred Scriptures, thus addresses his monks: We see among you certain men ignorant of the Scriptures, unstable of mind, unruly and wandering, to whom we impute ignorance the more, the less they are inclined to discipline. It is base indeed not to know what thou art commanded; it is baser to know and not to learn; but basest of all to contemn. And there are among you those who despise saving knowledge; there are also those who neglect to learn: what if I add that there are others who utterly contemn the knowledge of the divine Scriptures?

And a little before he has these things: O most foolish and most abandoned loiterers, who contemn saving knowledge, and love ignorance of the divine Scriptures rather than understanding! Will affected ignorance render you obnoxious to fewer stripes? Or will you therefore be innocent before God when you offend, because you are willingly ignorant of the mandates of God? With a twofold penalty shall you be tormented: the one, that you contemn to know the way of the mandates of God; the other, that you have not kept the words of God. … Of you also, O most foolish men of darkness, is that saying of St. Jerome understood, that there ignorance is no longer excusable where it is known what that is which is ignored. But it is the more to be guarded against by you, lest you at last be reckoned with those who said to God: Depart from us, we will not the way of thy sciences.

II. Nor are those only to be blamed who unhappily labour under a gross and supine ignorance of those things which regard their own state; but also those who in a certain most mournful sleep most willingly slumber, who are unwilling to move either arm or foot that they may attain necessary knowledge; and moreover those who wear away their time in learning arts, sciences, and disciplines which draw them away from the knowledge which cloistered men ought chiefly to procure. It pleases me to transcribe the words of Louis of Granada, part 2, On Prayer, chapter 4, § 7: “How many are studious today in the World! And among these, how few are disciples of JESUS CHRIST! And what is most bitter, those very men who, having recently left the world, embrace Religion, at that very time at which they ought to strip off the old man and devote themselves to this discipline, when they have scarcely begun to taste God, and have with difficulty opened their eyes to knowing him, are placed among the gentile Philosophers, and are exercised in worldly sciences, where for a long time not a word of JESUS CHRIST is heard. Which study, although on account of the change of times and the perversity of heretics it be in some way necessary, we ought nevertheless to receive it as a great wound of our age and life, as being that which snatches from us so much time, and separates us and makes us exiles for so many years from the company of our Saviour. Chiefly if we attend to what Gregory Nazianzen says, that all those sciences and disciplines of the gentiles entered into the Church as the plagues of Egypt on account of our sins. But since the wretched condition of the times has driven us to this necessity, a congruous time would have to be given and assigned to it; and so provision would have to be made that the edifice and foundation of virtue should be so constituted in the souls of those who begin that they might suffice for sustaining that burden. But so long as the work is tender, and the Christian yet an infant tastes JESUS CHRIST, it is folly to wean him from that very thing, and to give him a taste of the books of the gentiles, where he sees nothing but subtle arguments and sophisms full of fallacies. But what, if we weigh it well, is this other than to imitate the cruelty of Pharaoh machinating the ruin of the people of God, when he commanded that as soon as a Hebrew male was born he should be suffocated in the river and in the waters of Egypt? All things (says the Wise Man) have their time … a time of embracing, and a time to be far from embraces. That time was owed to God, for embracing and for procuring a love so strong that it could not be suffocated or extinguished by the waters of the world: which being done, it will be permitted a little to recede from his embraces, that one may attend to the necessities of one's neighbour. What else did our God will in the law, when he forbade that the newly betrothed should be compelled to take arms and go forth to war? What did he signify, when he forbade to work with the firstborn of an ox, and to shear the firstlings of the sheep, save that that beginning of the firstborn, of which we here speak, should be free from bonds and burdens, that it might expend itself wholly upon itself and upon its own progress? Against all these laws they act who steal away that time from the study of true wisdom and of true knowledge, that they may addict themselves wholly to human sciences.” Thus far the most wise Louis of Granada, to whom nothing is lacking save antiquity, that he might be named a Father of the Church.

III. If the reckoning of the times compelled our elders, when the Philosophy of the Arabs flourished, to give their labour to the Aristotelian doctrines, that they might stab heathen and superstitious men with their own weapons, the opposite vicissitude of the times ought to urge us to apply ourselves to those studies which are opportune for refuting and converting heretics and bad Catholics. At present among the heathen and the Turks who surround us there is no study of Philosophy: they labour under a supine ignorance, and little is needed whereby it may be refuted. There are now heretics who assail Catholic dogmas, and certain Catholic writers who, with a pious intention but forestalled by a false manner of opining, accommodate the rules of evangelical Morals, even unwillingly, too much to human appetitions. Upon that study therefore, that we may imitate our elders, we must apply ourselves which is opportune for tearing up the errors of these men. Christian Theology consists of things to be believed and things to be done; and these two cannot long stand separated.

IV. The method therefore which I suggest to be held by novices, the year of noviceship being completed (far be it that I should wish to erect a tribunal, and propose it as a censor), is this. In a few months let them learn the just rules of reasoning drawn from Dialectic, without the trifles and sophistical cavillings which corrupt the mind, or at least dispose it perversely. Let those rules teach the way of inquiring into truth, since truth alone and unique is the way which leads to heaven. Four or five months having elapsed in this study, let them expend upon the reading of holy Scripture and of ecclesiastical history that triennium which they are wont to consume in the study of Philosophy. It were exceedingly to be desired that someone should publish a course of ecclesiastical history accommodated to the use of the schools, and digested into opportune tracts or dissertations. There would have to be sent before a brief synopsis of the history of the Old Testament, illustrated with few but opportune disputations. Afterwards a specimen of Christian history would have to be run through, that young men might know who were our heroes, and what their acts and deeds. Some very brief dissertations could be added for every century. That work ought to be like a philosophical course, to be substituted for it, and to be completed, as that is, in a triennium. Young men instructed with these safeguards would approach the learning of sacred Christian Theology, both of things to be believed and of things to be done. Then true and constant theologians would depart from the schools. These things I have indicated in passing, subjecting them to the judgment of the wise.

V. Very many other things concerning the religious state would have to be said; but I should overleap the confines of a compendium if I went further. Let these things therefore which have been said suffice, and let them turn out to the greater glory of God and the profit of readers. Amen.

End of the Work

MUtatur the obedience of the Religious assumed to the Episcopate, so that he is subjected no longer to Praelates, but to the supreme Pontiff, the Father of all Religions, in a higher way, as D. Bonavent. teaches in 4. dist. 38. q. ultima, ad ult., and it is found in can. statutum, 18. quaest. 1.

They inquire here whether a Religious is capable of ownership of stable goods.

It is answered negatively with D. Bonav. 4. dist. 38. art. 2. quaest. ult. ad ult. D. Thom. 2. 2. q. 185. art. 8. et quaest. 88. art. 11. ad 4. Sotus lib. 19. quaest. 5. art. 7. Sylvester V. religio 7. n. 11. Rodriquez tom. 2. quaest. 58. art. 1. Sylvius 2. 2. quaest. 185. art. 8. Valerus in differ. utriusque fori verb. regularis, differ. 5. Tolet. lib. 5. cap. 4. Diana part. 2. tract. 2. resol. 61, who all, with others, adduce that the Bishop is bound, on one assumed from among the regulars, to the observance of the vows by cap. de monach. 16. quaest. 1. That this is the common opinion, Azor says, tom. 1. lib. 12. cap. 7. quaestio 4.

They think indeed that such an exemption from the obligation of the vows is granted, Villalob. sum. tom. 2. tract. 25. diffic. 40. Medina de sacra hominum continentia, lib. 5. cap. 26. et 27. Angles in 4. quaest. de voto, dub. 6. Quand. in 4. dist. 38. prop. 17. I add that things repugnant to the state do not bind, as D. Thom. says, loco cit. Valentia puncto 8. Sylv. ad locum cit. D. Thom. Bassaeus V. episc. num. 7.

But they inquire: whether a Bishop assumed from a religion becomes the owner of ecclesiastical revenues, and in this respect is absolved from the vow of poverty.

The negative opinion the holy Doctor holds, loco cit., together with forty-two Doctors cited by Sanchez tom. 2. lib. 6. cap. 6, to whom add Tanner dist. 5. quaest. 4. dubio 6. num. 151. Sanctarellus tract. de Apost. cap. 6. dub. 3. Cenedo de paupert. relig. dub 43. Barbosa in collect. tom. 4. part. 2. causa 18. quaest. 1. Faustus in Thes. lib. 6. quaest. 190, cited by Diana part. 2. tract. 2. resol. 50.

The reason is that these men ascend to a higher state of perfection, and so ought not to relax anything except what is repugnant to the state of a Bishop. But poverty does not stand in the way as regards ownership.

The opposite, however, is taught by Sotus lib. 7. q. 4. art. 2. Medin. de sacr. cont. lib. 5. cap. 26. Angl. 4. 2. part. quaest. unic. de vot. art. 2. dub. 6. Vasquez 1. 2. disp. 165. cap. 8. num. 91. Diana part. 3. tract. 2. Resol. 50. et part. 5. tract. 8. Resol. 31. Hurt. 2. 2. disp. 160. sect. 3. and others cited by them. They rely on this, because in cap. unic. 18. quaest. 1. de religioso Episcopo it is said: Like a lawful heir he has afterwards the power of claiming by law his paternal inheritance. But claiming belongs to owners alone, leg. in rem, ff. de rei vendic.

¶ You ask also whether he is bound to the observances of fastings, prayers, and the like, if they are not repugnant to the Episcopate.

I think he is not bound, so long as he has other weighty occupations. So think Sanctarellus loco cit. Lessius lib. 2. cap 40. dub. 14. num. 113. Sanchez loco cit. num. 19. Villalob. num. 17.

Hence it follows that such a Bishop is not bound to the offices of his religion, nor to the fasts. So Faustus in Thes. lib. 6. quaest. 194. Diana loco citato.

It follows secondly that he is not bound to wear the habit of his Religion; Sanctarellus above tract. de apost. cap. 1. dub. 4. Barbosa in collect. tract. 3. lib. 3. tit. 24. and others. He does indeed enjoy the privileges granted to the individual members of the Religion, as Bassaeus says, num. 7.

From what has been said you have that the Bishop is bound to residence. He is bound also to preach, if he can, from 1. Timot. 3. and the Council of Trent, sess. 5. cap. 4. and sess. 24. cap. 2. He is bound to convene a Synod every year; and to make visitation. He is bound to administer the Sacraments of Confirmation and Orders, but especially to have fit ministers.

I treat many other things concerning the duties of Bishops in my proper treatises; wherefore I stop here.

CUM the most excellent state of the Church is divided into two parts, the Clerical and the Monastic, after the Praelates of the Clerics have been treated in the preceding books, it now fittingly occurs to treat of the Prefect of the Monks, or Regulars: for he obtains a quasi-episcopal power over those subject to him, since he truly takes the place of a Bishop where the exemption of the Regulars prevails, as will be explained more fully in its place below; here, however, I wish to admonish the reader that I shall treat here, and rather strictly limit myself to, those questions which may apply to any Praelate of a Religion; the others, however, whether not thereby weighty, or resting on the particular statutes of Religious, I leave to be discussed elsewhere, since they contain not much Doctrine, and since each is bound by his own obligation to learn or teach them at home: Nevertheless I shall say something, compelled to it, of the proper ordinances of some Institutes, insofar as it touches the present undertaking.

It must be noted beforehand that a twofold power can be considered in Praelates: one is of Dominion: the other is of Jurisdiction: the former arises from the power of commanding, wherefore it can exist in the Father of a family with respect to his household, as also in a master with respect to his servant: the latter is born of the reception of that Order which Jurisdiction can follow from the declaration of a superior.

Rursus a Praelatus is taken either broadly, insofar as he presides over some in spiritual things, in which sense the Parish priest is said to preside over those entrusted to his care; or properly, for him who has Jurisdiction in the contentious forum, in which sense Praelatus is now commonly understood.

ASSERO, supposing the institution of the regular life, that some pre-eminence in it is simply necessary, so all hold commonly with Suarez, to be cited below.

PROBATUR by the holy Doctor, loco citato. The institution of the regular life is of beginners tending toward the advance of perfection; but such have need of having a superior, at whose nod they may avoid what is harmful, pursue what is useful, be taught what they are ignorant of, etc., as D. Paul says, Hebr. 5. you have need that you be taught, what are the elements of the beginning of the words of the Lord.

PROBATUR secondly in the same place by the holy Doctor: that some are imperfect, who customarily run the more sluggishly in the stadium of virtues, and have need of someone by whom they are not only allured by examples, but also compelled by precepts to the exercise of virtue; which cannot be done without the power of Praelation; but men very imperfect, affected only with the desire of profiting, are wont to enter Religion from the world; and these are detained from sins at the beginning more by human fear than by the divine precept.

PROBATUR thirdly by the Seraphic Doctor. In every well-ordered government it is necessary that there be someone to correct vices and defects; for, as the holy Doctor observes here, sin is like a fever, or a wound, which unless the skill of physicians forestalls them, pass into a worse state; nor can he who falls into fault of himself rise again, unless he is supported by a stronger and corrected; for fault leaves behind it a certain languor, over which it is necessary that power be obtained; wherefore it is said, Luke 9. he gave them virtue and power, that they might cure languors; but the languor of the infirm man is cured by humbly obeying the command of the physician, as the Seraphic Doctor concludes there; but the physician, unless he be in the same house with the infirm man, can allow him to perish before he knows that he is infirm.

PROBATUR finally by Suarez tomo 4. de Relig. lib. 2. cap. 1. There being one correlative, it is necessary that the other exist: but Praelation and obedience in the regular life are two correlatives; the latter exists necessarily in it; therefore also the former.

From these you have that this power ought to be not only directive, but also coercive; for the former without the latter is for the most part useless, since it cannot be given over to execution.

HABES secondly, that it need not necessarily, but befits it, to be a power of jurisdiction; for although everyone is contained sufficiently in religious observance by the dominative power, as appears now in the Nuns, and formerly in so many convents of Monks, whose Prefect for the most part excelled the others not in the dignity of the priesthood, but in the humility of his ministry, as is clear (omitting other instances) in D. Benedict, of whom we read that he was an Abbot, that is, the Father of Monks, but not a priest, as Suarez notes num. 3. et D. Bonavent. in cap. 7. nostrae Regulae: Nevertheless, since the stronger and more efficacious way of coercing faults is through the power of Jurisdiction, and since it can be exercised excellently together with the Power of Dominion, it was fitting that both be joined in the Praelates of Religions, as now almost everywhere it has grown strong by the usage of the Nations.

But this he urges the more strongly, because now most convents of men are exempted from the Jurisdiction of the Bishops, and it would be arduous to govern these either by the supreme Pontiff alone, or by those whom he delegates, since these delegations, being frequent and extraneous, would be liable to various exceptions, and would hinder rather than help.

HABES thirdly, that the power of regular Praelation ought to be Monarchical; both because the Government of the Church, being the most perfect, is such, as the Seraphic Doctor inculcates so often and everywhere; and the fellowship of Religious is (so to speak) a homogeneous part of the ecclesiastical government, the rather because it continually applies itself to the acquiring of perfection, the attainment of which would be not a little delayed if it depended on a multitude, not on unity: Add that the Praelates of Religions ought to succeed into the place and the paternal affection; but one family cannot have several fathers.

ELECTION is made in three ways, according to the chapter, Quia propter de Elect. The first way is by public acclamation, which takes place when, without any preceding consultation, but by a sudden impulse, all agree as one, and at the same time name him and elect him: but this mode, since it depends on a divine impulse, has no rules prescribed by law.

The SECOND way of electing is by Scrutiny, which is made when those who must, will, and can be present are there, two or three trustworthy men are taken from among the rest, who diligently inquire into the votes of each, set them down in writing, and publicly announce them: in which case he is held to be elected in whom the greater part of the electors, or voters, has consented.

The THIRD way is by Compromise, and it takes place when several more suitable men are chosen by the whole assembly, into whose hands all the rest transfer their whole power of electing, according to a certain norm.

BESIDES these modes another is sometimes admitted, which is made by the nomination of a successor; yet this is not in use in ecclesiastical election, lest the prelacy seem to be possessed by succession or hereditary right, and lest various inconveniences be invited which would arise from the perverse affection of someone choosing a successor for himself at pleasure. In some Religions, however, someone is named who, as soon as the General or Provincial Superior dies, supplies his place until the Chapter is celebrated.

The mode MOST USUALLY employed in Religions is by Compromise, whose norm, like that of the scrutiny, is prescribed in the said chapter Quia propter, in these words: When the election is to be celebrated, all being present who must, and will, and can conveniently attend, three men of proven fidelity are to be taken from the college, who in secret and one by one diligently inquire into the votes of all, and, having reduced them to writing, straightway publish them in common, with no obstacle of appeal at all interposed, so that, the scrutiny having been held, he may be elected in whom all, or the greater and saner part of the Chapter, consents.

ALTHOUGH mention is made here of the College, nevertheless the election of any Prelate is included, whether of a Church or of a Religion, as all the expositors approve, at Suarez cap. 5, just as is had more expressly in the Council of Trent, session 25, cap. 6 de reformatione: In the first place the holy Synod strictly commands that all the aforesaid (whether Abbots, namely, or Generals) must be elected by secret votes, in such wise that the names of the individual electors are never published, nor may provincials or abbots in the future constitute priors, or others with any title whatever, for the purpose of carrying out an election, or supply the voices or suffrages of the absent, etc.

Hence, all having been convoked who can, will, and must attend by citata duly issued, according to the words of the said chapter Quia propter, before all else the conditions for electing are to be examined, especially for the General: these however are either canonical or moral; these latter I reviewed above with the Saintly Doctor, in the disp. de prudent., the former I shall briefly indicate here, with Suarez treating at length in cap. 3.

The first condition, therefore, required by the Canons, is that the one elected have the legitimate age, which according to the chapter Cum in cunctis, de elect. is twenty-five years, as you also have repeated in the Council of Trent, session 24, cap. 12. And although in the said places the talk is of those who hold ecclesiastical dignities with the care of souls, we need not doubt that regular prelacy is comprehended there, since it is truly a dignity gravely annexed to the ordinary care of souls, as Suarez teaches, loco citato, num. 7.

Yet since in Bishops an age of 30 years is required in the same place, both on account of the episcopal dignity and on account of the graver causes which it falls to them to expedite, a similar age seems to be demanded also in regular prelates holding a quasi-episcopal power, such as Generals and provincials. But since the law speaks only of Bishops, who are indeed inferior in dignity to the said Prelates, although they often surpass them in the gravity of affairs on account of the diversity of provinces, that law is not to be extended beyond the proper signification of the words, especially because it renders ipso facto null the contrary act, which in that case is odious, and therefore to be restricted, as Suarez notes, loco cit., adducing Panormitanus, who shows that the common law said nothing definite even about an Abbot, although not rarely he holds a quasi-episcopal power, and accordingly that he is comprehended under the inferior dignities, insofar as the disposition of the law demands.

Nevertheless, although the common law determined nothing about these; the common usage of all Religions seems indeed to have provided for them abundantly; for since a Generalate or Provincialate requires long experience of affairs, which is acquired only over the course of many years, they are not wont to be elected to those dignities below the fortieth year of age, and we know only of the Seraphic Doctor Bonaventure, who, as Suarez observes, cit. loco, on account of his singular gifts and the excellence of his doctrine, in the 35th year of his age and the 13th of his Religion was elected General of the whole Order of Minors; for in him the maturity of spirit and genius had long outgone the gray hairs of years: not unlike is the example of Claudius Aquaviva, as Suarez has in the same place, elected Prefect General of the Society while he was in the thirty-ninth year of his age and the fifteenth of his Religion.

The second condition is solemn profession in the same religion: it is had in various chapters of the ancient law, as cap. Cum ad nostram, cap. in magistro, cap. Cum causam de electione; and it is confirmed anew in the Council of Trent, session 14, cap. 10 de reformat. and session 25, cap. 21 de Regular.

Some cry out that this condition is so necessary that they assert it to be of natural law, at Suarez, num. 12, and it seems to be figured in those prohibitions of the old law, Deuteronomy 22, by which it was forbidden to plough with an ox and an ass together, or to take a garment woven of wool and linen; for where the profession is unequal, the bond of love cannot be equal; for unlike things, by a certain natural tedium, do not long sustain one another, but seek divorce: thus argues Clement V, Clementina I, and the Second Council of Seville, saying: In one and the same office the profession ought not to be unequal, for those cannot cohere and be joined whose vows and studies are diverse.

Yet I do not deny, with Suarez, that these inconveniences can be otherwise remedied, namely when necessity presses, and the abundance of grace persuades in the professed of another Order, who can easily make himself conformable to the rest and conciliate their minds benevolently; but this case, being extraordinary, is not subject to the present determination of the laws.

But if the Council of Trent determines concerning an Abbess that she is not to be elected unless she has lived laudably in religion for eight years, or at least five; yet this is not to be extended to the election of men, either from the same precept or from the nature of the thing: both because the masculine genus is not comprehended under the feminine, although not conversely; and because the law is odious, therefore to be restricted. Moreover, a longer probation of morals is demanded in women, in whom an experience of more frequent frailty has been found.

Titius, the confessor of the pupils in a certain college of Regulars, during the vacation visits a house in another diocese which some of the pupils occupy, and one of them asks Titius to hear his confession. Titius agrees, but afterwards doubts the validity of the absolution given by him. Caius, a priest of the same Order who with a certain scholastic has charge of the pupils, tells that same pupil who wishes to confess that it is lawful to go to the secular priest who has the care of souls there. Hence it is asked:

Caius, a regular priest, after successfully passing the examination required by the Bishop, received from him ordinary faculties until the next synod. The superior of the house, who alone went to the synod, carried with him the faculty papers of the other Fathers to be renewed, but he could not find those of the absent Caius, which therefore were not renewed by the Bishop. Caius returned home on the following Saturday and there was not enough time to seek faculties from the Bishop; hence a doubt arose whether or not he could hear confessions. After some discussion of the doubt, the superior permitted Caius to hear the confessions of the faithful; afterwards, however, he was tormented by scruples concerning the validity of the absolutions that were given by Caius. Hence it is asked: