Support of pastors

715. On the precept itself. 1. By natural and divine right the faithful are held to furnish pastors with what is necessary for sustenance. The Church determines this law as to mode and quantity by the precept of paying tithes.

a. The law of nature requires that those who spend their work for the spiritual utility of the faithful receive from the faithful what is necessary for sustenance, just as those who procure the temporal happiness of citizens, such as princes and soldiers, must be sustained by citizens:² For who ever serves as a soldier at his own charges?³

b. The divine law is contained in these words of the Lord, who says concerning those who work for the salvation of souls: the laborer is worthy of his food;⁴ and the Apostle writes in the same sense: Do you not know that those who work in the sanctuary eat the things that are of the sanctuary; and those who serve the altar share with the altar? So also the Lord ordained that those who announce the Gospel live from the Gospel.⁵

c. In the first centuries of the Church clerics devoted to the care of souls were fed by the spontaneous offerings of the faithful; but afterwards, especially from the ninth century, tithes had to be paid from the precept of the Church.⁶

2. The law of tithes having been abrogated almost everywhere, in most places provision has been made for the support of pastors from elsewhere, either by the revenues of benefices or by a pension paid by the government; but where provision has not been made from elsewhere, as in North America, the obligation is incumbent on the faithful of contributing the things necessary for the support of pastors.

a. The Fathers of the Third Council of Baltimore decreed that this obligation also urges from ecclesiastical right; and they took care that in their catechism, to be published by their command, there be inserted as the fifth precept of the Church: To contribute some subsidy for the suitable support of pastors.

b. In our regions the faithful contribute something to the support of the ministers of the Church by paying stole fees. Although the faithful are bound to pay these according to the custom of the place, nevertheless a priest would act against the mind of the Church if he denied sacraments or sacramentals to those not paying.

3. Since the ecclesiastical precept does not determine more exactly the mode and quantity of the subsidy to be contributed, it must be said that generally there is incumbent on the individual faithful the obligation of contributing something according to their means for the support of pastors.

Although this precept is certain and of itself obliges under grave obligation, nevertheless the faithful are not easily to be accused of grave sin because of this subsidy omitted, unless by refusing the subsidy without just reason they are the cause that priests are in need or the rest of the faithful are too much burdened.⁷

Note. In collecting the subsidies of the faithful, priests must carefully avoid those things which cast them into suspicion of avarice, render the Catholic religion hateful to the faithful, and contemptible to non-Catholics.⁸

¹ Gury-Sabetti, Compendium theol. moralis (Ratisbon: Pustet, 1897), n. 343 s.; Genicot, l.c., I, n. 431.

² Cf. St. Thomas, II-II, q. 87, a. 1.

³ 1 Cor. 9:7.

⁴ Matt. 10:10; cf. Luke 10:7.

⁵ 1 Cor. 9:13, 14.

⁶ C. Pervenit 5; Nuncios 6; Quoniam 13; Ad apostolicae 20, etc., De decimis (III, 30). Cf. concerning the precept of paying tithes Ballerini-Palmieri II, n. 1157; Kirchenlexikon, 2nd ed., "Zehnt."

⁷ Kenrick, Theologia moralis, 3rd ed. (Mechlin: Dessain, 1860), whose opinion in this matter others commonly approve.

⁸ Cf. Third Council of Baltimore, n. 292, 293.

“ Know you not,” says St Paul, “‘ that they who work in the holy place eat the things that are of the holy place; and they that serve the altar partake with the altar? So also the Lord ordained that they who preach the gospel should live by the gospel.”¹ As, then, there was special provision made by God for the support of the priests and the maintenance of religion under the Old Law, so under the New Law our Lord commanded that his ministers should be supported by those to whom they ministered. The faithful, then, are bound by divine precept to contribute according to their means to the support of their pastors.

The method of fulfilling this duty has varied at different times; nowadays, at least in English-speaking countries, the offerings of the faithful are almost the only source of church revenue, as they were in the first ages of Christianity. The Church urges this divine precept and further determines it either by universal law or by provincial and diocesan regulations.²

¹ 1 Cor. ix 13, 14.

² Cf. 1 West., d. 23, nn. 4, 5; 2 West., d. 8; 3 Plen. Baltim., tit. 9; can. 1496.

Ministers of religion have a right in justice to decent support, for from the fact that they are put by lawful authority in spiritual charge of a parish or mission, the people under their care are bound by an implicit contract to support them, just as citizens are bound to support temporal rulers, magistrates, and officials.¹ The obligation, then, to support one’s pastors is grave, but it is difficult to determine when mortal sin is committed in particular cases by failing to comply with this duty. Much depends on the degree of necessity in which a pastor is placed, and on the means of the parishioner, The sacraments and ministrations of the Church should never be refused to the poor who cannot pay the usual fee, nor more especially is the priest justified in refusing the consolations of religion to dying people on the ground that they neglected the duty of supporting their pastors during life. The priest is bound by other ties to his flock than by the hope of earthly reward,

¹ St Thomas, Summa, 2-2, q. 87, a. 1.

“…Among the rights divinely attributed to the Church, this certainly is one: to acquire any goods and other civil revenues, without any dependence upon any external authority, and freely to administer them.

“That right was conferred by God upon the Church so that she might provide more securely and stably both for the worship owed to the Divinity, for the support of her ministers, and, finally, for works of charity. Indeed, for the attainment of this end she can also, by her own authority, impose upon the faithful those monetary assessments which she herself shall judge necessary. Therefore, a civil law which, in its own name, intrudes itself into the goods and revenues of the Church so as to dispose of them at pleasure, and exempts the faithful from paying monetary assessments sanctioned by ecclesiastical law, directly opposes divine law and wrongfully attributes to itself a power which it lacks.

“…For these reasons that same civil law issued in Italy is of no force; and the conscience of the faithful remains bound to pay tithes as before.

“The Holy See gave a declaration equal to this as far back as the year 1853, when the Subalpine Kingdom abolished tithes on the island of Sardinia (Acta Pii IX, vol. 2, p. 335); just as the Supreme Pontiff Alexander III, writing to the Bishop of Vercelli, declared altogether null the letters of the emperor by which exemption from paying tithes was granted (title On Tithes, etc., ch. 25).

“Wherefore, even if that civil law had assigned compensation equal to the tithes taken away and, for that reason, had brought no detriment to the Church in a useful matter, it nevertheless would have done injury to her by intruding itself into her affairs and rights without any dependence upon the supreme authority which the Church herself received from God….” Sacred Penitentiary, 25 August 1887.

“1. First of all, the Ordinaries, in whatever ways they shall judge opportune, are to teach the faithful that the right of receiving tithes could in no way have been taken from the Church by the civil power, and therefore that the faithful are altogether bound to pay them no differently than before, and that no one can be freed from a burden and obligation of this kind except by ecclesiastical authority alone.

“2. Therefore, so that an easier way may lie open to the faithful for consulting their consciences and freeing themselves perpetually from the burden of paying tithes, the same Ordinaries shall exhort them to seek admission to a just redemption of the tithes, or even, where the case permits, to an equitable composition concerning them. For this purpose, by special and express Apostolic authority, the Sacred Penitentiary, by the tenor of these letters, grants to all local Ordinaries in Italy the necessary and opportune faculties, to be valid for five years only.

“3. Once the redemption or composition of the tithes has been made, their price—determined by the prudent judgment of the Ordinaries according to the particular circumstances of each case—since it stands in place of the principal of the tithes, is to be placed in a secure, honorable, and productive investment; but the fruits are to be applied to the benefices or pious places which suffered the loss.

“4. Those who have neither redeemed the tithes nor made any composition concerning them, and who have been unwilling to pay them in full to the cathedral or to any other churches or persons to whom they are lawfully owed, are not to be absolved unless full restitution has followed (Council of Trent, sess. 25, On Reformation, ch. 12), saving, however, the rules handed down by approved authors concerning those who labor under need or poverty.

“5. The Ordinaries are furthermore to know that it is tolerated that either they themselves, or parish priests and others whose interest is involved, petition the government for compensation for the damage inflicted upon them; yet in such a way that nothing is contained in a petition of this kind which could be taken to prove that the power of disposing of tithes belongs to the secular authority, and it is to be expressly signified that compensation is sought solely under the title of lawful indemnification.” Sacred Penitentiary, 2 September 1887.

“The obligation of paying tithes still persists, notwithstanding the abolition decreed by civil law, since the latter is by no means competent to decree those things which pertain to the Church.” Sacred Penitentiary, 20 November 1902; 8 March 1898; A. S. S., vol. 36, p. 63. Cf. no. 1331.

1. The law of abolition of tithes having been proclaimed, Ambrosius the pastor remains uncertain whether he can receive the pension assigned to him by the Government as compensation; and insofar as he can receive this pension, whether he can at the same time receive the tithes of those parishioners who still voluntarily offer them.

Q. What as to the Case?

R. Ambrosius seems able to receive the pension assigned by the Government, by title of compensation by reason of damage on account of the abolition of tithes made by that Government. Likewise Ambrosius seems able still to receive the tithes voluntarily offered to him by good parishioners who still wish to fulfill this obligation. For on account of the abolition of tithes they are not exempted from the obligation of paying tithes; nor consequently does the pastor lose the right of receiving them, if they are offered. This is confirmed from Resp. S. Poenit. 1860: “They can, according to the oracle of the Most Holy Lord, by title of mere compensation for damage inflicted on them by the Government on account of the impeded exaction of tithes, receive the pensions assigned by the Government; first having been made, either by the Ordinary of the place in common, or by any one of the said pastors or ecclesiastics in particular, a protestation that by a perception of this sort the abolition of tithes made by the Government is in no way recognized or approved; and the debtors of the same tithes having been cautiously admonished that they are not, by force of the law passed by the Government, freed from the burden of paying the same.” Scav. l. 4. n. 237; I. M. 1548.

2. A certain bishop, in order to foster the devotion and piety of his people, in the visitation of the diocese constituted in individual cities and towns a feast day to be celebrated in honor of the Saint, Patron of the place. But he established two feast days to be celebrated in the whole diocese, namely in honor of the Saint, Patron of the whole diocese, and in honor of the Saint, titular of the Cathedral Church.

Q. What as to the Case?

R. Bishops can institute some feast in honor of Saints, not Blesseds, at least with the consent of clergy and people, which is judged sufficiently present if they do not contradict, from C. Conquestus 5. de Feriis. Nevertheless Urban VIII, C. Universa, 15 Sept. 1641, admonishes bishops not to be easily induced to instituting new feasts, but that they should strive to abstain. Lig. l. 3. n. 266. Moreover by the aforesaid [Constitution] of Bl. Urban VIII it is conceded that the feast be celebrated “of one of the more principal Patrons in any Kingdom or Province, and likewise of another more principal one in any city, town, or village, where it happens that these Patrons are had and venerated.” Enchir. Mor. 1551. But today it is not lawful to choose Patrons except Saints, not Blesseds, and except with the consent of the people and clergy and bishop, and except the cause be brought forward and examined in the S. R. C. Therefore it will be lawful for the bishop, with the consent of clergy and people, to add the feast of the Patron, not of the Titular, or of one of the principal Patrons, both of the diocese and of each place. S. R. C. 23 Jun. 1703, Concordiae; Ferraris v. Festa n. 2 seqq., 141; I. M. 1550.

1132. 1. Origin of the law. The institution of the priesthood being posited, and the deputation of special ministers for exercising sacerdotal offices in the name of the whole people, the faithful are bound to furnish the things necessary for sustenance to pastors and others having the care of souls. For since these must devote the chief part of life to preparation for, and exercise of, the sacred ministry, they are not able, from what commonly happens, to sustain themselves, and therefore they must receive food and clothing from others. But since they labor for the souls committed to them, it is wholly equitable that they receive necessities from them.

(A) Thus the matter stood under the Old Law. In the partition of the land of Chanaan, no part had been assigned to the priests and Levites, because the Lord wished to be their portion and inheritance.¹ But priests had a right to the firstfruits, which were offered to God by the sons of Israel;² Levites had a right to the tenth part of the fruits;³ but these were bound to give the tenth part of the tithes to the priests.⁴ Moreover the Lord commanded the sons of Israel "that they give to the Levites from their possessions cities to dwell in, and their suburbs round about; that they themselves may remain in the towns, and that the suburbs may be for cattle and beasts."⁵ In truth forty-eight cities were assigned to the Levites, of which thirteen were reserved for the priests. - From these things it is clear that God, on the one hand, willed the Levites to be immune from temporal cares, and, on the other hand, wisely provided for their necessities.

¹ Num. 18:20.

² Num. 18:8-19.

³ Num. 18:21.

⁴ Num. 18:26.

⁵ Num. 35:2-4.

1133. (B) Under the New Law, it was declared in a general way that every worker, even he who labors for the salvation of souls, is worthy of his food;⁶ and that those who serve the altar can eat of the altar: "Know you not, that they who work in the holy place eat the things that are of the holy place: and they that serve the altar partake with the altar? So also the Lord ordained that they who preach the Gospel should live by the Gospel."⁷

⁶ Matt. 10:10.

⁷ 1 Cor. 9:13-14.

In truth, in the first centuries of the Church, clerics assigned to the care of souls were sustained by the spontaneous offerings of the faithful, especially those which were offered on the occasion of the Eucharistic sacrifice. To this custom succeeded the payment of tithes, which already from the ninth century flourished in many provinces.⁸ Elsewhere benefices were instituted, from the revenues of which ministers of the Church received whatever was necessary for their own sustenance.⁹ But in many regions tithes were abolished; in certain others benefices were usurped, in place of which a pension was to be paid by the Government. But certain Governments, as in France, no longer wish to pay pensions; and thus we are compelled to return to the ancient custom of offerings. Besides, in the missions, clerics often have nothing except what the faithful freely offer.

⁸ You will find documents in the Decretals, l. III, tit. 30, De decimis, primitiis et oblationibus.

⁹ Read the documents in the Decretals, l. III, tit. 5-13.

From these things it is clear that in every time, by divine right, the duty has lain upon the faithful of providing for the legitimate necessities of pastors, but that this duty has been fulfilled in diverse ways, according to diverse times and various regions, according to the prescriptions of canon law.

1134. 2. Character and extension of the law. (A) By divine and ecclesiastical right, the duty lies upon the faithful, according to each one's resources, of contributing something to the sustenance of their own pastors.

This is already established from the brief historical exposition outlined above; and it is confirmed by the following argument: when a pastor or other minister is legitimately deputed by ecclesiastical superiors to exercise the care of souls in such a parish or mission, a quasi-contract is entered into between the pastor and the faithful: he indeed assumes the obligation of duly performing sacred functions and administering the sacraments; but they oblige themselves to sustain the pastor decently, according to their powers.

That this is wholly agreeable to reason St. Thomas thus declares:¹⁰ "That the people should minister the necessities of sustenance to those who ministered to divine worship for the salvation of the whole people is dictated by natural reason; just as to those who watch over the common utility, namely princes and soldiers, and others of this kind, the stipends of sustenance are owed by the people. Whence also the Apostle proves this by human customs, saying:¹¹ 'Who serveth as a soldier at any time at his own charges? Or who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof?'"

¹⁰ St. Thomas, II-II, q. 87, a. 1.

¹¹ 1 Cor. 9:7.

Therefore, by force of quasi-contract, the faithful are bound to provide necessities for pastors and others having the care of souls.

1135. (B) The existence of this obligation is indeed certain, but to define its extension strictly is very difficult, unless an ecclesiastical law intervenes clearly determining it. Where the payment of tithes still flourishes, the tenth part of the fruits must be paid. But where it does not exist, the only general rule is that individuals contribute something according to their own part, lest priests lack necessary sustenance.

Whence we make our own the words of Kenrick:¹² "As long as no burden is imposed and defined by a certain law, we do not dare to condemn as guilty of mortal sin him who omits to contribute an equitable portion, as often as there is no danger lest priests be in need for that cause, or other faithful be too much burdened. But those who out of avarice refuse to give anything, in the circumstances which we have indicated, seem gravely guilty, and unworthy of sacramental forgiveness: for they violate the law of Christ the Lord concerning the sustenance of the ministers of the Gospel, and expose themselves and others to the risk of salvation."

¹² Kenrick, Theologia Moralis, Mechlin, 1861, tract. IV, n. 64.

Wherefore it is wholly fitting that priests exact their rights not so much by threats and harsh rebukes as by kindly admonition and persuasion; for, as St. Thomas rightly says,¹³ "ministers of the Church ought to have greater care for promoting spiritual goods among the people than for collecting temporal goods; and therefore the Apostle did not wish to use the power handed down to him by the Lord, namely that he should receive the stipends of sustenance from those to whom he preached the Gospel, lest some impediment be given to the Gospel of Christ."

¹³ St. Thomas, II-II, q. 87, a. 1, ad 5.

One must especially beware lest the sacraments be denied to the faithful who are unwilling to give an offering in collections, to which it is not established that they are bound under grave sin, especially to those who are near death.¹⁴ Even if certain faithful had sinned gravely by providing nothing, when they could and ought, this sin is not more irremissible than others.

¹⁴ On this see the Third Council of Baltimore, n. 292.

Besides, experience establishes that those priests receive abundant offerings from the faithful who, on the one hand, labor strenuously for the salvation of souls, and, on the other, show themselves kindly and merciful toward the people committed to them, especially if honestly and in detail, insofar as this can be done, they render an account of the monies which they have received.

1136. (C) It belongs to the Bishop to determine the manner in which money ought to be collected for providing for the expenses of worship and the honorable sustenance of priests, and to pursue disobedient pastors with canonical penalties. Wherefore the S. C. of the Council, being asked whether a Bishop can compel pastors to collect the offerings of the faithful, on April 29, 1911, answered: "The Bishop in the case can under grave obligation compel pastors to collect the offerings of the faithful, either by themselves or through another, and after warnings pursue them with canonical penalties, and, if they have been contumacious, with the things to be observed by law having been observed, even remove them from the parish."¹⁵

¹⁵ A. A. S., III, 273.

And let these things suffice concerning the precepts of the Church, which, if they are rightly kept, will promote temperance and chastity not a little, and also pious sentiments of mutual love between pastors and the sheep committed to them.

1. The Church claims the right, independently of the civil power to exact from the faithful whatever is necessary for divine worship, for the decent support of the clergy, and for all other purposes implied in her divine mission.¹

¹ C. I. C., can. 1496.

To this right corresponds, on the part of the faithful, the duty of paying public worship to God and of providing the means necessary for that worship and for the support of those engaged in it. “Know you not,” says St. Paul, “that they who work in the holy place eat the things that are of the holy place; and they that serve the altar, partake with the altar? So also the Lord ordained that they who preach the gospel, should live by the gospel.”²

² 1 Cor. IX, 13 sqq.

“As there was special provision made by God for the support of the priests and the maintenance of religion under the Old Law, so under the New Law our Lord commanded that His ministers should be supported by those to whom they ministered. The faithful then are bound by divine precept to contribute according to their means to the support of their pastors.”³

³ Thos. Slater, S.J., Manual of Moral Theology, Vol. I, p. 580.

2. The manner in which this obligation must be met is determined by the Church for every age and country.

The historians of ecclesiastical discipline trace the custom of paying tithes to the very beginning of the Christian era. Thomassin finds its first recorded manifestation in the conduct of those among the early Christians who sold their property and gave the proceeds to the Apostles for their own support and that of the poor.⁴ Origen derived the precept from Holy Writ.⁵ St. Caesarius of Arles admonished his diocesans to “give the tithes of their harvest each year to the Church and to the poor,” adding that good Christians should not be content with obeying this precept, but should dedicate the surplus of the remaining nine-tenths of their crops to the needy.⁶ The law enjoining the payment of tithes can be traced back to the Council of Macon (585), which decreed a revival of the “ancient custom” according to which the tithe was paid by all under pain of excommunication.⁷ Under the Carolingian régime the tithe attained its full development as a fiscal obligation. Gratian’s Decretum, published about the middle of the twelfth century, contains some twenty texts on the subject. In course of time, however, the tithe as a legal tax became odious and was no longer enforced. In France it was suppressed after the Revolution by a series of laws, beginning with that of Sept. 21, 1789.⁸ In the countries where it is still enforced as a true tax of obligation, says Villien, “when one gives what he can, no more is demanded.”⁹

⁴ Ancienne et Nouvelle Discipline de l’Eglise, P. III, l. 1, c. 1.

⁵ See Migne, P. G., XII, 640 sqq.

⁶ Villien, History of the Commandments of the Church, p. 327.

⁷ See the text in Villien, op. cit., pp. 329 sq.

⁸ Villien, op. cit., p. 355.

⁹ Op. cit., p. 355.

The new Code of Canon Law provides that, “so far as regards tithes and the payment of tithes and first-fruits, the peculiar statutes and praiseworthy customs of each country should be observed.”¹⁰

¹⁰ C. I. C., can. 1052.

Regarding statutes, can. 1507 says: “The taxes to be paid throughout each ecclesiastical province for the various acts of voluntary jurisdiction, or for the execution of Apostolic rescripts, or on the occasion of the administration of the Sacraments or sacramentals, should be determined by a provincial council or at a meeting of the bishops of the province; but no decision taken by them shall go into force until it has been approved by the Holy See.”

3. The obligation, then, of contributing to the support of church and pastor is a dictate both of religion and of justice, and consequently grave; but it is not easy to determine when a mortal sin is committed in particular cases by failure to comply with this duty. Archbishop Kenrick says: “All must be convinced that each individual Catholic is in duty bound to contribute something on his part towards the necessary support of the clergy; but as long as this obligation is not enjoined and defined by any definite law, we would not venture to condemn any one as guilty of mortal sin who neglects to contribute a fair share, provided there is no danger that the clergy suffer want and provided others are not unduly burdened on this account. However, those who, in the circumstances just described, refuse to give anything out of avarice, seem to be guilty of grave fault and unworthy of sacramental absolution, because they transgress the law of Christ our Lord concerning the support of the ministers of the gospel and endanger their own salvation and that of others.”¹¹

¹¹ F. P. Kenrick, Theol. Mor., 2nd ed., Malines 1860, p. 142: “But all ought to be persuaded that it is necessary for each person to contribute something for his part, lest priests lack necessary support; but so long as the burden is not imposed and defined by any certain law, we do not dare to condemn of mortal sin one who omits to contribute a fair portion, whenever there is no danger that the priests lack it for this reason or that the other faithful are burdened excessively. Those, however, who through avarice refuse to give anything in the circumstances which we have indicated seem gravely guilty and unworthy of sacramental absolution; for they violate the law of Christ the Lord concerning the support of the ministers of the Gospel and expose themselves and others to the danger of salvation.”

This passage from Kenrick is quoted in Sabetti-Barrett’s Compendium Theologiae Moralis, the manual of moral theology now most widely used in our seminaries, with the following statute of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore appended as a warning to the clergy not to be too exacting in their demands: “Rumor has it (oh, that it were groundless and false!) that in some places are found priests who, when no grave fault is apparent, deny the benefit of sacramental absolution to those of the faithful who refuse to contribute to collections a share to which it is not clear that they are obliged under pain of mortal sin, nay, who even (what is far more contemptible) refuse to assist the sick and the dying and to bring them the Sacraments.”¹²

¹² Conc. Plen. Balt. III, n. 292; Sabetti-Barrett, Comp. Theol. Mor., 27th ed., p. 333. The passage reads as follows in the original: “Report has it—would that it were groundless and false!—that in some places priests are found who, where grave fault does not appear, deny the benefit of sacramental absolution to the faithful who are unwilling to give an offering to collections to which it is not established that they are bound under grave sin; indeed, they even refuse—what is far more detestable—to assist the sick and those near death and to provide the sacraments. . . .”

“Much depends,” says Father Slater, “on the degree of necessity in which a pastor is placed, and on the means of the parishioner.”¹³ Entrance into the church during divine worship should be absolutely free to all, regardless of any contrary custom existing before the promulgation of the Code.¹⁴ No priest is justified in refusing the consolations of religion to the dying on the ground that they have neglected the duty of supporting their pastors during life. The priest is bound to his flock by such exalted ties that his actions must not even be suspected of material motives.

¹³ Slater, Manual of Moral Theol., Vol. I, p. 581.

¹⁴ C. I. C., can. 1181.

4. Sabetti-Barrett’s Compendium in this connection asks and answers two practical questions, to wit: a) May priests who do not receive sufficient support from their parishioners collect alms outside the limits of their parishes? Answer: No, unless they have obtained permission from their own bishop. For the Baltimore Council says: “Since grave inconveniences may arise from the practice of unattached and unknown priests going about collecting alms from the faithful, it has pleased us strictly to forbid any priest, without the written permission of his Ordinary, to collect alms outside the congregation entrusted to his care, or in any other diocese without the permission of the Ordinary of the same.”¹⁵

¹⁵ Conc. Plen. Balt. II, n. 119; III, nn. 294 sqq.

b) The question whether a priest may leave the altar during Mass to take up a collection, is answered by the same authors negatively, in view of the prohibition contained in the decrees of the Second and Third Plenary Councils of Baltimore.¹⁶

¹⁶ Sabetti-Barrett, Compend. Theol. Mor., p. 333; Conc. Plen. Balt. III, n. 293: “Most grave are the words of the preceding Council by which it condemned the perverse manner of acting of those priests who withdraw from the altar during the very solemnities of Mass and go around the sacred building asking alms from each of the faithful. But such obstinacy of some and such sloth in observing even the strictest laws appears that we, who have been appointed guardians of ecclesiastical laws, are constrained to promulgate anew and inculcate with a loud voice the decree of our predecessors. Therefore, we reprove the noted most shameful abuse, injurious to the Church and her sacred rites, which provokes the blush and indignation of Catholics but the derision and contempt of non-Catholics, and we decree that it is to be utterly rooted out. In this matter the conscience of each bishop is burdened.”

In collecting the customary revenues from the faithful the clergy should carefully avoid anything and everything that might arouse a suspicion of avarice or render the Catholic religion odious to the faithful or contemptible to non-Catholics.¹⁷

¹⁷ H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, p. 749.

READINGS.—Thos. Slater, S.J., A Manual of Moral Theology, Vol. I, pp. 580 sq.—H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, pp. 748 sq.—J. B. Ferreres, S.J., Compendium Theol. Mor., Vol. I, pp. 382 sq.—J. Wernz, S.J., Ius Decretalium, Vol. III, nn. 142, 214.—Sabetti-Barrett, Compendium Theol. Mor., pp. 332 sqq.—F. P. Kenrick, Theologia Moralis, 2nd ed., Vol. I, Malines 1860, pp. 140 sqq.

A. Villien, History of the Commandments of the Church, pp. 320–356.

S. Th. II-II, q. 86 and 87.

705. Oblation {offerande} generally is the bestowal of some thing not asked for; hence religious oblation is a spontaneous largess for divine worship. Taken generically, it also includes sacrifice, in which a thing is offered insofar as it is to be consumed into something sacred (n. 694); taken specifically, as distinct from sacrifice, it is the largess of a thing as whole in honor of God.

One kind is immediate and properly so called, by which something is immediately offered to God in His honor, whether to be deputed to worship itself, or to the uses of the ministers, or to the use of the poor: then the priest accepts, not indeed in his own name, but in the name of God.¹ Thus formerly the first-fruits of the fruits of the earth and of animals were offered from special reverence and gratitude for divine worship; today various collections are made for pious works. Another kind is mediate and improperly so called, which is immediately offered to priests, as tithes in the Old Testament and in the Middle Ages were imposed for the sustenance of ministers, and now Mass stipends are offered: then the priest accepts in his own name (q. 85, a. 3, ad 3; q. 86, a. 1 and 2).

¹ "The priest is constituted in a certain way as sequestrator and mediator between the people and God,... and therefore it pertains to him to exhibit divine dogmas and sacraments to the people; and again those things which are of the people, such as prayers, and sacrifices, and oblations, ought to be exhibited to the Lord through him, according to the Apostle to the Hebrews V, 1. ... And therefore the oblations which are exhibited to God by the people pertain to priests, not only so that they may convert them to their own uses, but also so that they may dispense them faithfully, partly indeed by expending them on those things which pertain to divine worship, partly on those things which pertain to their own sustenance, and partly also for the uses of the poor, who are to be sustained, as far as possible, from the goods of the Church, because the Lord also had purses for the use of the poor," q. 86, a. 2.

706. Oblation according to its nature is voluntary and free; but per accidens it can be obligatory:

1. From contract, as if someone receives land of the church under the condition that at certain times he make oblations, by way of rent.

2. From a preceding deputation or promise, as if someone by donation or testament leaves some thing afterward to be paid to the church.

3. From the necessity of the church or of ministers: for natural law dictates this, that the people supply necessary support to those who minister in divine worship for the salvation of the whole people; furthermore divine law established this (Mt. X, 10; I Cor. IX, 13). Namely, public worship cannot conveniently be had without churches, ornaments, ministers; therefore the faithful are bound by oblations to procure that the things necessary for public worship be had, and therefore, in a case of necessity, oblations can be prescribed by the Church to all the faithful.

4. From custom the faithful are bound in certain solemnities to certain customary oblations, for example, on the occasion of the reception of some sacrament (such as Baptism or Extreme Unction), of proclamation, dispensation, funerals, etc.

When an oblation is obligatory, it often remains voluntary in some way as to the quantity or species of the thing offered; nevertheless the Church can also stipulate the quantity and impose a determinate tax, and thus it has done several times (a. 1).

707. An oblation can be made, as far as is of itself, from all things licitly possessed; - per accidens it can be illicit, for example, 1. if it tends to the detriment of another to whom a debt or assistance is to be rendered; 2. on account of scandal, if it is made from profit received from sins, for example, from prostitution; 3. on account of contempt, if a vile or useless thing is offered, etc. (a. 3).

708. The precept of the sustenance of ministers. - By natural and divine law, as we noted in n. 706, the faithful are bound to supply the necessaries for sustenance to pastors and ministers; this was also confirmed by ecclesiastical law (can. 1502), which can determine this obligation as to mode and quantity.

In the first centuries of the Church the spontaneous oblations of the faithful sufficed for this; afterward tithes had to be paid by precept. But with this law abrogated almost everywhere, in several places provision has been made for the sustenance of pastors either by the revenues of benefices and stole fees or also partly by a pension paid by the government; but where provision has not been made otherwise, the obligation falls upon the faithful of contributing the necessaries for this, as in North America.

The precept is certain, as is clear from the profession imposed on the Waldensians, and from the condemnation of prop. 18 of Wycliffe, and of itself it obliges under grave obligation. And indeed 1. if it has been accurately determined anywhere, it must be observed in this way by the faithful; 2. but where it has not been determined, the obligation generally falls upon individual faithful, according to their resources, of contributing something for the sustenance of their ministers.

In practice, however, a) the faithful are not easily to be accused of grave sin, unless without reason they refuse a subsidy, and thus are the cause that priests are in need or at least in a certain serious want;

b) although those denying an imposed subsidy commit a sin of a twofold species, of irreligion and injustice, the Church nevertheless does not seem to urge its right under the burden of restitution; hence the sin seems rather to be opposed to legal justice than to commutative justice;

c) indeed, generally a priest who would deny the sacraments to those not paying would act against the mind of the Church;

d) besides, in collecting the subsidies of the faithful, priests should diligently beware of all things which may introduce suspicion of avarice.

709. Observation. - Supreme adoration is formally referred to reverence for God (q. 84, a. 1, a. 2, ad 2); oblation properly so called is specially referred to the recognition of divine benefits (q. 86, a. 4); sacrifice is specially referred to the protestation of the supreme dominion of God, because we have all things from God and they are God's (I-II, q. 102, a. 3).

This precept is of natural and positive law, both divine and ecclesiastical. It is natural, indeed, insofar as it involves the necessary support of the ministers of the Church; for, as St. Thomas excellently proves, natural reason dictates that, just as to those who watch over the common utility, namely princes and soldiers and others of this kind, stipends for livelihood are owed by the people, so also to those who minister to divine worship unto the salvation of the whole people, the people themselves should supply the necessities of livelihood. In this same sense that precept is also of positive divine law, as is clear from Matt. x, 10, and I Cor. ix, 7 and seq. But St. Thomas adds: "the determination of a certain part is reserved to the ordering of the Church." Moreover, in the beginnings of the Church there was no determination of this kind, and priests were supported by the gifts of the faithful spontaneously contributed, especially those which were offered on the occasion of celebrating the sacrifice. To this ancient custom succeeded the payment of tithes, which several Councils enjoined, especially in the ninth century. But today in most places tithes have been removed, and the Clergy is supported either by the revenues of benefices, or by a pension received from the Government, or by the uncertain generosity of the offerings of the faithful, as obtains among us. This is indeed uncertain and diverse according to the statutes and customs of diverse dioceses, but perhaps up to now it has been lacking to no one. - Cf. St. Thomas, 2-2, q. 87, art. 1. - Kenrick, tract. 4, part. 2, nn. 62 and seq.

The Church also has the right, independent from the civil power, of requiring from the faithful those things which are necessary for divine worship, for the honorable support of clerics and of other ministers, and for the other ends proper to itself (Can. 1496).

Question 1. Are the faithful among us who never contribute anything toward the support of pastors to be considered guilty of mortal sin?

Response. Concerning this matter Kenrick writes thus: "All must be persuaded of this, that individual persons ought for their part to contribute something, lest priests lack necessary support; but as long as no certain law imposes and defines the burden, we do not dare to condemn as guilty of mortal sin him who omits to contribute an equitable portion, whenever there is no danger lest priests lack on that account, or other faithful be too heavily burdened. But those who from avarice refuse to give anything, in the circumstances which we have indicated, seem gravely guilty and unworthy of sacramental absolution; for they violate the law of Christ the Lord concerning the support of ministers of the Gospel, and they expose themselves and others to danger to salvation." - Cf. Kenrick, loc. cit. n. 64.

Here the following statute of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, under n. 292, is to be attended to: "Report says (may it be vain and false) that in some places priests are found who, where grave fault does not appear, deny the benefit of sacramental absolution to the faithful who are unwilling to give alms to collections, to which it is not established that they are held under grave sin; indeed also (which is far more detestable) they refuse to assist the sick and those near to death and to provide the sacraments. We can scarcely bring our mind to suspect anything so atrocious and unworthy concerning the ministers of our churches. But if anyone exists who has attempted any such thing, let Bishops remember that they are gravely failing in their office unless they take action against the guilty one according to his desert."

Question 2. Can priests who do not have equitable support from their own faithful collect alms outside the limits of their parish?

Response. Negatively, unless they have permission of their own Bishop granted in writing. For thus the Baltimore Fathers established: "Since from the wandering about of vagabond and unknown priests for collecting alms from the faithful grave inconveniences arise, it has seemed good strictly to prohibit that any priest, without the permission of his own Bishop, granted in writing, should ask alms outside the congregation committed to him, or in another diocese without the license of the Ordinary." - Cf. Conc. Plen. Balt. II, n. 119; and Conc. Plen. Balt. III, nn. 294 and 295.

Question 3. What must be said concerning those priests who, during the solemnities of Masses, withdraw from the altar, for collecting offerings?

Response. They are altogether to be condemned, as is clear from the following words of Conc. Plen. Balt. III, n. 293: "Most grave are the words of the former Council, by which it condemned the perverse manner of acting of those priests who, during the solemnities themselves of Masses, withdraw from the altar and walk around the sacred building, asking alms from individual faithful. But so great appears the obstinacy of certain persons and their negligence even in observing the strictest laws, that we who have been constituted guardians of ecclesiastical laws are constrained with a loud voice to promulgate and inculcate anew the decree of our Predecessors. Therefore, the 'most shameful abuse, injurious to the Church and its sacred rites, and which provokes the shame and indignation of Catholics and the mockery and contempt of non-Catholics, we reprobate and decree must be utterly extirpated. In this matter the conscience of individual Bishops is burdened.'"

Entrance into the church for sacred rites is to be altogether free of charge, any contrary custom being reprobated (Can. 1181).

§ 1. There can be a distinct place in the church for magistrates, according to their dignity and rank, according to the norm of liturgical laws.

§ 2. Without the express consent of the local Ordinary, let no faithful person have a place in the church reserved for himself and his own; but the Ordinary is not to provide consent unless sufficient care has been taken for the convenience of the rest of the faithful.

§ 3. In concessions once made there is always present the tacit condition that the Ordinary can, for a just cause, revoke the concession, notwithstanding any lapse of time (Can. 1263).

Note. - Concerning the sixth precept of the Church, it will be treated where Matrimony is treated.

THE distinction between Sacrifice and Oblation is that of genus and species; for every Sacrifice is an oblation, but not the reverse. Among oblations the chief are First-fruits and Tithes; formerly both were paid by force of the ceremonial law, at least in respect of some determination; but now they are usually paid for the sustenance of the Church's ministers, or in recognition of natural gratitude.

On First-fruits nothing special remains to be explained beyond what has already been said; for although various chapters of Law, and likewise the Fathers and councils, intimate for them an obligation equal to that of Tithes, as in Suarez, cited in the place above, yet in various places they have fallen into disuse, either on account of the perversity of Heretics, or because the Ministers of the Churches are sufficiently sustained by Tithes and other means. Wherefore I shall here subjoin only a few things about Tithes. It should be noted, moreover, that Tithes take their name from the number ten, which among all numbers is the most perfect, as I shall show below; whence those offering this perfect number to God retain the imperfect for ourselves, arguing as it were that every perfect thing is to be rendered back to God; from which head D. Paul was inferring the greatness of Melchisedech, who prefigured Christ for us: consider (he says) how great this one is, to whom even Abraham the Patriarch gave tithes out of the chief things.

HERETICS, according to their custom, reprehend this holy practice of paying to the Church a tenth part of fruits or of other things: Valentia reports them disp. 6. quaest. 5. punct. 1. This error is condemned in the Council of Const. sess. 8., and is the eighteenth among the errors of Wyclif; and therefore the Council of Trent sess. 25. cap. 12. declares: Those who withhold or hinder tithes are to be excommunicated; nor are they to be absolved from this crime except after full restitution has been made. Understand, however, with Navar. cap. 21. num. 32., when restitution can be made before absolution, when no necessity presses, such as death or other, in order that absolution may come first. And in the Clementina Cupientes, de poenis, Religious are excommunicated who in sermons dissuade the payment of tithes.

MOREOVER, God had instituted tithes to be paid in the time of the old law, to honor God as rewarder, and to profess faith in the Redeemer, as D. Bonav. teaches in 4. dist. 1. p. 2. quaest. 3., and for the institution of a right life.

FIRST, indeed, God the rewarder is honored by tithes, (says the holy Doctor). For the number ten is the most perfect, because it has three perfections in itself. The first is of unity, which is perfect, since it is the beginning of every number. The second of the ternary, which is a perfect number consisting of all its parts, both aliquot and non-aliquot. The third of the senary, which consists of all its aliquot parts. And these together make up the denary, in which is the state [of perfection]: for those wishing to ascend again resume counting: undenarius, duodenarius, etc., adding units to the denary up to the hundredth number, from which one sheep went astray. This is the reason of Chrysost. homil. 1. Imperf. apud Suar. c. 11. n. 5.

SECOND, tithes are ordered to the professing of faith in the Redeemer. For man is expressed by the tenth drachma that was lost; which, when found, completes the ten choirs in heaven, as Beda says in Glossa ad 15. Lucae, and at that place the holy Doctor, with the Gloss, understands by the woman wisdom; by the ten drachmas, or denarii, the nine choirs of Angels and the tenth of man, which God fashioned, hewn from His own image. Hence, they say, God commanded tithes to be brought to Himself to signify the redemption of man, and gave the ten commandments. See the holy Doctor excelling there in his distinction.

THIRD, tithes are ordered to the institution of a right manner of life; for while a tenth part is given to God, that which is the perfection of our life is referred to Him, and the remainder, which is imperfect, is left to us. See the holy Doctor.

THIS payment is indeed excellently proved by D. Bonav. ad 10. Lucae from those words: But in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they have: for the labourer is worthy of his hire.

FURTHER he proves it from 1 Cor. 9, not only by the authority but by the arguments of the Apostle: Who ever serves in the army at his own charges? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit? Who feeds a flock and does not eat of its milk? etc. For it is written in the law of Moses: You shall not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treads out the corn. Does God care for oxen? Or does he speak indeed for our sakes? For these things are written for us, that he who ploughs ought to plough in hope, and he who threshes, in hope to receive fruit. If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it a great matter if we reap your carnal things?

HENCE he proves it from 6. ad Galatas: Let him that is taught in the word communicate to him that teaches him, in all good things.

THE SAME is found in 1 Timot. 5: The Priests that rule well are worthy of double honour: especially they who labour in word and doctrine. For the Scripture says: You shall not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treads out the corn.

THE holy Doctor confirms it with the argument of Christ: For the labourer is worthy of his hire, which sense is also expounded by D. August. in Psalm. 146. et lib. 10. homiliarum, homil. 48., who says most beautifully: Our forefathers abounded in all riches because they gave tithes to God and paid tribute to Caesar. But now, since devotion to God has withdrawn, the exaction of the fisc has come in. We refused to share tithes with God; now the whole is taken away: the fisc takes what Christ does not receive. Valentia also uses these means disp. 5. quaest. 5. punct. 1., and Suar. tract. 2. l. 1. cap. 10. et sequent.

THE SAME is proved from the Decretals tit. de decimis. See Valentia loc. cit. and Suar.

But by what right tithes are paid.

THE holy Doctor supposes in 4. dist. 1. p. 2. quaest. 3. that tithes were introduced by the law of nature, and soon also established by Divine law; for thus all the Jews gave tithes to the Priests, and these gave a tenth of the tithes to the Pontiff, Numer. 18, and this was called the tithe of the tithe, as D. Bonav. notes ad Psal. 64.

THE holy Doctor, on the title of Psalm 93, which is inscribed quarta Sabbathi, observes that this fourth of the Sabbath is Wednesday, on which the Lights were created, and in it the brightness of the Church itself was shadowed forth; and therefore the four Ember seasons begin on Wednesday, and Lent on Wednesday. For we ought to offer the first-fruits of the times, that is, the four Ember seasons, and the tithe of the days, that is, Lent. Wherefore we give a tenth rather than a ninth or eleventh; because the tenth order of Angels fell, which is to be restored to men.

DOCTORS indeed dispute: what quota ¹, that which is the tithe itself, is still owed by Divine law to the Ministers of the Church. ¹ N. Editor's note: the print reads 'an quota partis' (hyphenated 'par-tis' across a line break), an obvious print typo; rendered as 'quota pars' (what portion) because 'partis' is ungrammatical here.

INNOCENTIUS in Rubr. de decimis, and the Gloss on cap. 1. de decimis, lib. 6., and other Jurists cited by Couar. l. 1. var. cap. 17. and by Nauarro Man. cap. 21. num. 28., think that by Divine law men are bound not only to pay something for the sustenance of the Church's ministers, but to a quota, that is, a tithe.

THE FOUNDATION of these is, that the Pontiffs in the Decretals extra, de Decimis say that tithes are to be paid by divine precept. Likewise that they were not established by men but by God: C. Parochianos, C. Tua nobis, C. Cum non sint, and C. In quibusdam.

THE TRUE opinion, however, is that the quota, that is, the tithe, is not to be paid from an old, but now from an Ecclesiastical precept. But from a Divine precept a sufficient recompense is to be given to the ministers of the Church for their sustenance. So D. Thom. art. 1., Suar. cap. 10. n. 1., Nauar., Couar. above, Valentia quaest. 5. punct. 1., who says this is common to the Theologians, whom Suar. cites. Indeed Maior in 3. dist. 37. quaest. 36. reprehends the opposite opinion as Judaizing.

This is without doubt the opinion of D. Bonav., who ad 10. Lucae and in the other places cited understands the payment of tithes in that sense alone, as is clear to the reader, and he expounds the Scriptures above adduced by the holy Doctor from the New Testament in this way.

TO the Decretals the Theologians cited by Valentia reply that an exemplary or imitative observance is meant, that is, that tithes are to be paid by Ecclesiastical law, imitating the ancient Divine precept; hence he who precepts it after the manner of the divine law asserts its greater firmness, as Suar. notes cap. 10.

I would add that those Decretals register the institution of this rite, but that the Church changed the modes and retained that in which we are still bound now that the Redemption is already accomplished, namely to pay something to God the rewarder.

From what has been said I conclude, with the common opinion, that the law of tithes as regards the quota can be abolished by a contrary custom. The reason, as given by Valentia puncto 2., is that it is a human law, which can be abrogated by a reasonable and prescriptive custom.

ON this Suar. treats more fully cap. 34.

IT IS DECREED by law that tithes be paid from all things justly divided, and hence from the fruits of lands and of other fruitful things, and of mills, fishponds, etc., which are called praedial tithes. Likewise from the profit of any personal trade, military service, hunting, which are called personal tithes. And also of cattle and sheep, which can be called mixed; because they are ascribed partly to the fruits of lands, by which they are fed, partly to industry.

Coelestinus III asserts that tithes are to be paid from all these: C. Non est, extra de Decimis. By custom, however, only the praedial ones are in use, and some mixed ones, as Navar. notes num. 31. cap. 31., Valentia p. 3., Suar. cap. 10., Bassaeus v. Decimae. But the personal ones, by a now-prescribed custom, are not paid anywhere in the world. See the Doctors in Fag. praec. 5. l. 1. cap. 2., Bonac. de decimis, p. 2., Bassaeo num. 40.

I ASSERT first that tithes are to be paid not to Laymen but to the ministers of the Church: C. Quamvis grave, de decimis; and he seems to understand it of those only who have the care of souls, cap. Cum contingat de decimis. So D. Bonav. intimates ad 10. Lucae.

But from the tithe-revenues of these, curates and their clerics are accustomed to be fed, as Valentia notes punct. 4. quaest. 5. And given the precept of the Church, they are to be paid also to the body of Ecclesiastics; so D. Thom. quaest. 87. art. 3. and others cited by Bass. num. 10.

I ASSERT second: praedial tithes pertain to the Parish priests of the place where the lands are. So D. Thom. art. 3. ad 1., and it is gathered ex c. Quoniam de decimis and cap. ult. de Parochis. In this, however, one must stand by custom, as is had in c. Ad Apostolicam and c. Cum sint de Decim, and D. Thom. hands down art. 3. ad 2.

I ASSERT third that by concession of the Supreme Pontiff tithe-fruits can be extended to the uses of Laymen. First, by sale or donation. Second, by privilege of the Supreme Pontiff for a time or in perpetuity. Third, by concession in perpetual feud, made by some Prelate of the Church before the Lateran Council under Alexander III, which was celebrated in 1107: c. Cum Apostolica. After the said Council, however, no Prelate inferior to the Supreme Pontiff can grant such a feud to Laymen.

FOURTH, by a concession in feud made by a Prelate of some Church, if such tithes were once legitimately possessed by Laymen under the title of feud and have returned from the feud to the Church. So Valentia and others.

FIFTH, by the title of Lease: c. Vestra, de locato, et conducto; provided the direct dominion remain with the Ecclesiastic who leases, as D. Thom. notes art. 3. ad 3., and only its fruit be with the Layman who takes the lease; nor is this lease to be made in perpetuity, as Sylvester notes v. Decimae, nor beyond three years, where the Extravagant of Paul III de rebus Ecclesiae non alienandis has been received, which forbids this under excommunication.

IN this category also the Council of Trent sess. 25. cap. 11. de reform. declares void whatsoever leases of the goods of Churches, even confirmed with Apostolic authority, which a Provincial Synod, or those deputed by it, shall judge to have been contracted for a long time, even thirty years, to the damage of the Church and against the Canonical sanctions.

I ASSERT lastly that those are bound to pay tithes who either receive the Sacraments in some Church, or hold lands in its territory under any title, were it more than spiritual, even if they be Clerics, unless privilege, custom, or condonation ordain otherwise. So D. Thom. art. 4. and D. Bonav. locis adductis, Valentia quaestione prima p. 5., Suar. cap. 16., Less. l. 2. cap. 39. disp. 5., Lillius tract. 27. cap. 8., Vasq. de benef. cap. 1. dub. 8. num. 37., Regin. l. 19. num. 87., Fagund. l. 1. cap. 4. et l. 2. cap. 1., Bassaeus num. 5. So it is had in C. ex transmissa v. Fideles omnes, c. Tua nobis.

AS to Clerics, it is had in cap. 2. de decim., where however he speaks of their being paid from secular goods, not from the goods of the Church, as Suar. warns cap. 17., with the Theologians and Canonists.

INFIDELS, however, since they are aliens and do not receive the Sacraments, are not bound to Tithes. Therefore c. Ex transmissa explains who are bound to them.

As to Jews, they are bound to pay the real burdens: c. De terris; but not tithes of lands. Then c. Quamco lays down that they can be compelled to the tithes of lands which were accustomed to be paid before the lands came to them. The Gloss adds the reason, because a thing passes with its burden.

But baptized heretics are bound, for they are subjects of the Church. See Suar. cap. 16. num. 3.

NOTE, however, that by prescription it can come about that tithes be paid not in the Parish where the land is, but in another: c. Ad Apostolica, c. Cum sint homines, de decim.; it is gathered ex c. Ad aures de Praescript. and cap. 1. de Praescrip. in 6.

Titius, the Rector of a mission, when during a political disturbance he did not receive the stipend due to him, deserted the mission of which he was in charge, because no one is bound to work without pay, although his confessor opposed him, saying that innocent sheep ought not to be handed over to the wolf by the shepherd. Then the Bishop, after taking useless pains to make Titius return to the mission, in virtue of holy obedience ordered a priest who did not have the care of souls to act in place of the fleeing Rector; but he too refused to obey. Hence it is asked:

1. Do secular priests have a right to receive support?

2. Can one with the care of souls abandon residence because he does not receive the stipend due to him?

3. What is the force of the Apostolic oath commonly pronounced by priests of England?

4. What is to be said of the priests in the case?

The case was proposed in the Diocese of Northampton, 1901?

1. Have secular priests a right to their decent support?

Yes, the Church forbids any one to be promoted to sacred Orders without a title, i.e., a provision for his decent support. If a bishop culpably ordains a priest without a title, the bishop is bound to provide for his support until he can provide for himself.¹

1 will answer in the words of Gasparri: “ But, having received the priesthood, a priest is so incardinated in the diocese to which he belongs that he cannot depart without the permission, or without the letters, as they say, of excardination of his Bishop. The Bishop can deny permission to depart, provided that he assigns a suitable support to the priest. But if the Bishop both denies permission and cannot or will not assign a suitable support, the priest cannot on that account depart by his own will, but has recourse to the Sacred Congregation. The Bishop can recall one departing without his permission or that of the Sacred Congregation, even by censures, even if the priest had obtained a residential benefice in another diocese. This doctrine is most certain, and the Sacred Congregation has handed it down rather often.” (De Sac. Ordin., n. 860).

2. Can one who has the cure of souls abandon his charge because he does not receive the pension which is due to him?

3. What is the force of the Mission oath commonly taken by English priests?

By the terms of the Mission oath the cleric swears that he will not enter into any Religious Order after he is promoted to sacred Orders without special leave of the Holy See. He further swears that he will work for the salvation of souls in the diocese for which he is ordained, under the authority of the bishop. The formula of the oath is given in Concilia Westmon., p. 385.

4. The case. Titius should not have abandoned his post. He should have applied to the bishop whose duty it was to try to make provision for the decent support of Titius, and if this could not be done, to remove him to another post. Even if the bishop improperly refused to do anything for him, Titius should not have left the place, but should have appealed to Rome. The other priest on being ordered by his bishop to fill the vacancy was bound to obey, and he sinned in not obeying; but he also had a claim on the diocese for his decent support if he had no other title.

2 Gasparri, De Sacra Ordin., n. 612.