The Causes Excusing from the Obligation

775. On the excusing causes themselves. Causes excusing from recitation of the office can be reduced to two: a. to infirmity; and b. to occupation, which cannot be joined with recitation of the office without grave inconvenience: for the Church is not judged to wish to oblige with grave inconvenience.

a. It is not necessary that express mention be made of physical impotence and dispensation. For it is evident of itself that he who lacks a breviary and cannot procure a breviary for himself is not held to reciting the office; likewise a blind man who cannot read is not held. But if these can recite some hour (Lauds or Compline) or a notable part of an hour from memory, they are held to recite it.

b. Likewise it is evident of itself that the supreme pontiff can dispense from the obligation of reciting the office, since this obligation is of ecclesiastical law. A bishop and a regular superior also can dispense in this precept, but unless they have obtained broader power, only in a particular case and for a time. Therefore they can dispense: a. if it is doubted whether the excusing cause suffices, that is, whether the inconvenience joined with recitation is sufficiently grave that the obligation ceases of itself; b. if recourse to the supreme pontiff is difficult; c. in a cause which frequently occurs, such as infirmity; d. in any cause, if the dispensation is sought for a short time.

776. General preliminary notices. 1. He who cannot recite the whole is held to a part, if in it the character of the end is preserved.¹ Therefore he who can recite an entire little hour is held under grave obligation to reciting it; he who cannot recite even a little hour is held to nothing, because a part which is less than a little hour is not judged to conduce notably to the end intended by the law.

2. He who has been legitimately excused from recitation of the office is not held in place of the office to pour forth other prayers or to supply through another, because the divine office is a personal burden.

3. He who cannot recite the office alone, but can with a companion, is held to employ a companion (even one who is not held to the office), if he can have him gratis and easily; but he is not held if he must hire him for pay or can find him only with great difficulty. The reason for the first is that recitation with a companion belongs to the ordinary means of reciting the office, which therefore must be employed if it can conveniently be had. The reason for the second is that this inconvenience is sufficiently grave to excuse from recitation.

Authors ask whether a beneficed person is held from the fruits of the benefice to hire a companion for pay, so that he may be able to recite the office. This obligation can be established: a beneficed person who is continuously impeded from reciting the office alone, and by reason of the benefice has no other obligation besides the divine office, is held either to hire a companion or to seek a dispensation.²

¹ To this pertains proposition 53 condemned by Innocent XI: He who cannot recite Matins and Lauds, but can recite the remaining hours, is held to nothing, because the greater part draws the lesser to itself.

² Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 158; Lehmkuhl II, n. 639.

777. Infirmity, and indeed both infirmity actually existing, which is so great that the office cannot be recited without notable difficulty, and a founded fear of increasing or contracting infirmity from recitation of the office. Therefore the following are excused:

1. The sick person who suffers from any grave disease whatever.

a. Therefore he is excused who suffers from notable pain of the head, so that he cannot perform his customary occupations; or who is so weakened from an internal disease that he is compelled to lie in bed; and this indeed holds even if he can spend one or another hour in conversations with visitors or can read newspapers: for recitation of the breviary of itself rather wearies and does not relieve; but those occupations of themselves rather relieve and do not burden.¹

b. A sick person who cannot recite the whole office, but doubts whether he can recite a part, is held to nothing, lest occasion be given to doubts and anxieties.

c. He who doubts whether infirmity suffices for excusing can stand by the judgment of a superior or of a prudent physician or of another prudent man, or even by his own judgment.

2. The convalescent person who from recitation of the office deservedly fears grave inconvenience, such as notable weariness, exhaustion of strength, heaviness of the head, crudity of the stomach, great pain, etc.

A convalescent person is excused for some time from recitation of the office, even if through the day he can speak with others or read something profane: for this, as has been said, is done for the sake of recreation and restores strength, but recitation of the office requires greater attention and therefore more wearies and hinders the restoration of strength. Moreover not all are wearied by recitation of the office in an equal way, but some more than others according to the character of their disposition and condition.

¹ Cf. Elbel II, pr. 7, n. 177.

778. Occupation undertaken from office or charity, which cannot be combined with recitation of the office and deferred to another time without notable detriment to oneself or another. Here it must be noted that no one is held to deprive himself of refreshment of the body or of necessary sleep, in order that he may be able to recite the office. Therefore the following are excused either in whole or in part:

1. He who in the evening, when the office has not yet been discharged, is unexpectedly called to a sick person, and on that day obtains no further suitable time for discharging it. Nor is he held, if he returns a little before midnight, to defer nightly rest in order to discharge the office.

2. He who is occupied the whole day in hearing confessions which cannot conveniently be deferred to another day, as in the time of exercises or missions; the same holds concerning other labors of this kind, for example, concerning visitation of the sick in time of contagion, etc.

It is false that he is excused from recitation of the office who during the day is occupied for seven hours with grave labors; indeed not even he is of himself excused from recitation who during the day is occupied for ten hours with grave and urgent labors, unless perhaps he is so wearied that he cannot recite the office without notable difficulty.

3. He who needs the whole time for preparing a sermon which he cannot omit without scandal. Yet if, foreseeing these straits of time, he did not prepare the sermon at an opportune time, by this negligence he certainly committed sin.

The excusing causes are:

I. Physical inability; to this belong lack of a breviary and blindness. Nevertheless a blind man and one who lacks a breviary is bound to recite the part which he holds in memory, provided it is both notable in itself, or reaches the quantity of a little hour, and can be recited sufficiently according to the prescribed form. Hence proposition 54 was condemned by Innocent XI:¹ "One who cannot recite Matins and Lauds, but can recite the remaining Hours, is bound to nothing, because the greater part draws the lesser to itself." Therefore he is bound to the possible part who holds in memory some morally entire hour, for example with only the little chapter and prayer unknown; or who from a longer hour can recite from memory, in the order of the breviary, a notable continuous part, or even a somewhat continuous part, such as several psalms of the Nocturns; but not one who knows only parts that are not sufficiently connected (St. Alphonsus IV, 158).

¹ Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1204.

II. Moral inability, or such inability that the office cannot be recited without notable inconvenience. For this reason the following are excused:

1. The sick laboring under grave illness; likewise convalescents or those slightly ill, if the illness is joined with weariness of strength or notable heaviness of the head. If a sick man could not celebrate Mass and recite the office, he can celebrate, with the recitation of the office omitted. Moreover it must be noted "that in doubt whether an illness suffices or not for excusing, he can commit himself to the judgment of a physician ... or acquiesce in the judgment of the Superior, who in such a doubt can also dispense; or finally he can remit himself to the probable judgment of a prudent man; ... and he can also stand by his own judgment, if he himself can prudently form such a judgment" (St. Alphonsus IV, 154).

"If there is doubt that recitation would gravely harm him, then certainly he is not bound; indeed he cannot recite, because the natural right of preserving health is to be preferred to the precept of the Church" (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.).

Finally, "if someone because of his infirmity is certain that he cannot recite the whole Office, and doubts whether he can recite part, he is probably bound to nothing; ... for this man is reasonably excused from the whole Office, lest he be greatly troubled by scruples, not knowing how far he can and is bound to recite. For this anxiety would bring him great inconvenience" (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.).

2. Those laboring under such weakness of the eyes that recitation becomes hard.

3. The scrupulous; namely, "if someone were suffering grave anxieties, recitation of the Office could sometimes even be forbidden to him, until he seems able to recite without so great an inconvenience; since a great inconvenience excuses of itself from the precepts of the Church" (St. Alphonsus IV, 177 at the end).

III. An occupation to be preferred, that is, such an occupation as cannot be omitted without scandal or some other grave inconvenience, whether one's own or another's, and is incompatible with the recitation of the breviary. For this reason someone can be excused who, for example, is called to a sick person toward night, or by reason of hearing confessions, or of offering assistance to the sick, or of preparing a lesson or giving a sermon. Here, however, note: 1st, he sins who, when he can anticipate the business, does not anticipate it, or after the business has been completed does not recite what he can still conveniently recite; 2nd, he who is habitually so occupied with business that opportunity of reciting the Office is not available should either dismiss some labors or seek a dispensation.

It can also happen that an imprisoned cleric is excused from reciting the office in order to avoid disgrace to his state.

If someone cannot recite the Office without a companion, but can with a companion, he is bound to use that means, which is also consonant with the primitive institution, if the companion can be had without great inconvenience both to himself and to the companion (St. Alphonsus IV, 158).

IV. Dispensation.¹ 1. The Pope can dispense, even with a beneficiary, since the burden of the office annexed to the benefice must be derived from ecclesiastical law alone.

2. Bishops can dispense when recourse to the Holy See is difficult and at the same time there is danger of grave harm in delay (can. 81); likewise, for a just cause, with some particular person for a brief time, namely from immemorial use or privilege (St. Alphonsus IV, 159).

3. Exempt major superiors, with respect to their subjects, can do the same thing as Bishops (can. 81 compared with can. 198). But regular Prelates can dispense their subjects who are not constituted in sacred orders, for a just cause, from the office as from other things (St. Alphonsus IV, 142).

Note. Clerics constituted in major orders who have legitimately been reduced or returned to the lay state are freed from the burden of the divine office; likewise solemnly professed religious not constituted in major orders who, having obtained an indult of secularization, have left the religion (can. 640).

¹ We add dispensation, although in a particular case it rather relaxes the law than excuses from the obligation.

The causes excusing from the recitation of the Divine Office are 1º impossibility; 2º charity; 3º dispensation.

93. • I. Impossibility, whether physical or moral, which consists in grave difficulty of reciting the Office. Hence he is excused:

1º Who does not have a Breviary, because, for example, undertaking a journey, he forgot it, or lost it on the journey, with inability to procure another. If, however, through his own fault he forgot or lost it, or threw it away, he sinned gravely ¹, and the omission of the Hours is to be imputed to him. 2º Who labors under a grave illness, for example, fever, pain of the intestines or head; or who justly fears lest grave inconvenience follow from the recitation, etc. Hence he is sufficiently excused who prudently believes or fears that because of the recitation of the Office some notable heaviness of the head, or rawness of the stomach, or weariness of strength, or some other grave inconvenience would thence come upon him. - St. Ligorius, n. 154, note 1.

¹ Better say that this person has sinned gravely or lightly, according as the cause of the omission existed as gravely or lightly culpable.

3º One convalescing from grave illness can be excused for some days at the judgment of a prudent person, until his strength is restored. And this can be admitted even if the sick person already celebrates Mass. - St. Ligorius, ibid., note 2.

4º He also is excused who in time of persecution fears lest from the recitation of the Breviary he be betrayed; likewise he who labors gravely with his eyes, etc. - St. Ligorius, nn. 156 and 157, and others commonly.

II. Charity toward one's neighbor, that is, a grave occupation which cannot be omitted without scandal or notable detriment of the neighbor. Such occupation excuses from the recitation of the Office, because the natural precept of charity prevails over ecclesiastical law. Hence you are excused from the recitation of the Hours, either totally or partially,

1º If at night, about to recite the Office, for example Vespers, you are called immediately to a dying person, and time or convenience for discharging the obligation of the Office does not suffice for you.

2º If the whole day you are occupied in hearing confessions which, because of peculiar circumstances, cannot be deferred, for example, in sacred missions, and especially under their end, when you are about to depart, etc.

3º If you could not omit a sermon without scandal or detriment to reputation, and nevertheless time for preparing it would not suffice if the Office had to be recited.

4º If you are occupied the whole day in settling quarrels, or in assisting the sick, for example, in time of contagious disease, etc. - St. Ligorius, n. 156, and others.

94. • III. Legitimate dispensation, or one conceded by a legitimate Superior.

1º The obligation of reciting the Divine Office, since it is of ecclesiastical law, can be removed by ecclesiastical Superiors.

2º The Pope can validly concede this dispensation in every case, even without cause; but licitly from a reasonable cause, for example, because of excessive occupation, for quieting scruples, etc.

3º A Bishop also can dispense from this law, but not validly without sufficient cause, and only with someone in particular for a time, namely: 1º when there is doubt about moral inability, or about the gravity of a detriment to be feared; 2º when recourse to the Pope is difficult; 3º when the dispensation is sought on account of a cause which frequently recurs, for example, because of infirmity; 4º when the dispensation is sought for a brief time. - Thus St. Ligorius, n. 159. - Recall what was said in the Treatise on Laws, vol. 1, n. 115.

95. Questions. - QUESTION 1º. What must be done in doubt whether infirmity suffices for excusing or not?

Resp. 1º The sick person can commit himself to the judgment of a physician, as is said in Canon Law, ch. Fraternitatis, De frig. et mal.; 2º he can acquiesce in the judgment of the Superior, who in doubt also has power to dispense; 3º he can remit himself to the probable judgment of a prudent man; 4º indeed probably he can also stand by his own judgment, if he himself is able to form such a judgment. - St. Ligorius, n. 154 ².

² ** St. Alphonsus (bk. 4, n. 154) adds these things: If it is only doubtful whether the indisposition reaches so far as to excuse, as above; then, since the law of reciting is in possession and the doubt concerns the exemption, the law must certainly be fulfilled. This holds, however, when it is a pure doubt; otherwise if there is a probable judgment. Tournely, Roncaglia, Elbel, Anacletus, etc. In which you again see that, in the judgment of St. Alphonsus, the principle of possession certainly holds when it is a matter of negative doubt, but not where a probable opinion stands on the other side. See above, Vol. I, the Note to n. 80.

St. Alphonsus adds besides (ibid.): But what if, these things having been premised (namely those which Gury reports in this place), the doubt still persists? It is answered: if the doubt is whether the recitation would gravely harm him, then he is certainly not bound, indeed he cannot recite, because the natural right of preserving health is to be preferred to the precept of the Church, as Viva and the Salmanticenses say with others; unless he did it from love of virtue, the danger of death being excluded, according to what was said in bk. 3, n. 371, with Lugo, the Salmanticenses, Villalobos, etc. But these things are to be understood with discretion: 1. because, if the recitation would in fact gravely harm him, it would perhaps follow that afterwards he would have to be free from reciting for a longer time, which love of virtue ought rather to shun. 2. The citation of bk. 3, n. 371 seems perhaps less to the point. For the question there concerns Monks who by living austerely perhaps incur some loss of a longer life. On which matter Lugo, whom St. Alphonsus cites, has thus (De Iust., disp. 10, n. 32): It is inferred, seventhly, that penances, fasts, and mortifications of the flesh voluntarily undertaken are unlawful only when they would bring a notable hastening of death...; otherwise... it is not unlawful to perform those works, although some shortening of life, not notable, is feared. Now that danger of a harm perhaps to follow little by little differs considerably from the injury which by the very fact will bring grave harm to the one reciting.

QUESTION 2º. To what is a sick person bound, if he is certain that he cannot discharge the whole Office, but doubts whether he is able to recite a part?

Resp. Probably he is bound to nothing. For he is reasonably excused from the whole Office, lest he be distressed by scruples, not knowing how far he can and is bound to recite; indeed such anxiety, as St. Ligorius says, would bring him great harm. - St. Ligorius, n. 154, at the end.

96. • QUESTION 3º. Is one who is in any way impeded from reciting the whole Breviary bound to the part which he can recite?

Resp. Entirely yes. The reason is evident. For the obligation of the Breviary falls on its individual parts, since the thing prescribed is divisible. This is also established from proposition 54 condemned by Innocent XI, which lies thus: "He who cannot recite Matins and Lauds, but can recite the remaining Hours, is bound to nothing, because the greater part draws the lesser to itself." Therefore he who lacks a Breviary, and knows nothing else by memory except Lauds or Compline, is bound under grave obligation to recite those.

QUESTION 4º. Are you bound to recite the Psalms if you have only these before your hands, or know them by memory, with the Lessons and Responsories left aside?

Resp. More probably, yes. The reason is that, since you can recite a notable part of the Office, there is no cause why you should be excused from it. - St. Ligorius, n. 158. - Lacroix, n. 1220. - Sporer, etc. Yet several say that you are bound to nothing, because then the form prescribed by St. Pius V is lacking. Moreover the opinion of these seems sufficiently probable. Nor does the above-cited proposition 54 condemned by Innocent XI stand in the way, because in that proposition there is question of one who can complete entire Hours. - But the following rule is handed down by St. Ligorius and others ³: If you can recite as much as is a little Hour, you are bound under grave obligation to recite it; but if less, you are not obliged to recite anything even under venial obligation, because such a small part, taken separately, is not judged appreciable for the end intended by the law.

³ ** St. Alphonsus had prefaced this rule with these things: "Busembaum with Bonacina, Holzmann with Illsung, and Croix with Laymann and Filliuccius, rightly assign this rule, that if you can recite as much as a little Hour, you are bound under grave obligation to recite it."

But, what you will surely wonder at, neither Busembaum, nor Bonacina, nor Holzmann, nor Illsung, nor Laymann, nor Filliuccius has anything about a rule of this sort. Therefore Croix alone is the one who (Bk. 4, n. 1220) wished to deduce it from Illsung, who again entirely wrongly wished to deduce another rule of his from Laymann. But from Croix this rule flowed into St. Alphonsus, and from the Holy Doctor into Gury, and into Scavini, who (tr. 5, disp. 1, ch. 2, art. 3, § 5, n. 1, in note) wrote: "Behold the rule: if you can recite as much as a little Hour, you are bound under grave obligation."

I said that Illsung wrongly wished to deduce a certain rule of his from Laymann. For after he had stated beforehand (tr. 5, disp. 1, q. 1, art. 6, n. 41) that he who cannot say even an entire Hour is not obliged to say the Psalms, or prayers, or parts of Hours, he adds: "Laymann is still more severe; for he judges that, although Matins is only one Hour, he who could say all its Psalms, but not the Lessons because of lack of a book, would altogether be bound to say them. Hence he says that, provided someone can say only as much as suffices for an omission mortally sinful, as indeed all the Psalms of Matins, exceeding the smallness of the other Hours, would suffice, by this very fact there is an obligation of saying; which also seems true to me." But from this Croix fashioned his rule, reasoning thus: From Laymann and Illsung, someone is obliged to say that whose omission is gravely sinful. But the omission of one little Hour is gravely sinful. Therefore he who can recite as much as one little Hour is bound to this under grave obligation. But Croix indeed drew this inference, not Illsung, who, with the context considered, together with the mark of a more severe opinion attributed to Laymann in comparison with others, seems to be understood of a notable part of one and the same Hour which is omitted. Otherwise it would be inferred that one who knows by memory only two Psalms of Matins, the last two from Lauds, and two from Vespers, is now, as if from the opinion of Illsung, bound under grave obligation to recite these, since they exceed, not merely equal, the measure of one little Hour; which certainly Illsung did not even dream of.

Moreover Croix and Illsung attribute both Croix's rule and Illsung's other rule to Laymann wholly wrongly. For he (Bk. 1, tr. 4, ch. 19, n. 6), after positing this thesis: "If the precept is about an indivisible thing, he who is excused from a substantial part of it is excused from the whole," then subjoins this exception: "Unless the part of the precept which cannot be observed is slight, so that he who observes the remainder is judged morally to fulfill the precept as to substance." But he adds an example also from the Breviary, saying: "It is similar if someone has lost his Breviary, and in the Matins of some feria knows all the Psalms by memory, but does not know the three Lessons with the Responsories, he is obliged to recite the Psalms, because then the part which is omitted is not notable." And from these things indeed Illsung generally inferred that one is obliged to recite the Psalms of Matins, even if someone lacks the Lessons; and further he inferred as if from the mouth of Laymann a certain general principle about the obligation of reciting that whose omission would be gravely sinful. But both of these are vainly ascribed to Laymann. For Laymann immediately follows: "But something else must be said about Matins of nine Lessons, the omission of which is judged notable; wherefore he who cannot recite that part seems to be excused from the whole." Therefore Laymann did not say generally that the Psalms of Matins must be recited if the Lessons are lacking; but he asserted this only concerning the lack of three Lessons in the Matins of a feria. Much less does he generally admit the obligation of reciting that whose omission constitutes grave fault; for is not the omission of the nine Psalms of Matins grave? Yet he excuses from reciting them one who lacks the nine Lessons. Namely, he takes the norm not from the part of the Hour considered in itself, but from its proportion to preserving the substance of the precept, which he says must be measured, not in relation to the whole Office, but in relation to individual Hours. Therefore he subjoins (l.c., n. 7): "If the precept is about a divisible thing, he who is excused from one part must nevertheless observe the other, since in that part the substance of the precept can consist; for example, a priest who for some cause is impeded from reciting Matins is nevertheless bound to recite the little Hours and Vespers, if he can." From these things it is also clear that Bonacina (De Pecc., disp. 2, q. 8, punct. 1, n. 7) did not rightly number Laymann among those who assert that he who cannot recite the greater part of the Divine Office is not bound to the lesser, since otherwise Bonacina had established the same principle as Laymann (l.c., n. 4), namely that he who cannot conveniently fulfill the whole precept is bound to fulfill part, provided it is a notable part and is judged intended by the Superior, provided namely, as Laymann says, that in that part the substance of the precept is preserved. And from these things we are again taught how cautiously allegations are to be trusted, although the authors apud whom they stand may seem more accurate.

97. • QUESTION 5º. Are you bound to employ a companion if you are not able to recite the Hours alone?

Resp. Yes, if you easily find someone whom you can conveniently employ. The reason is, 1º because then there is not inability properly so called; 2º because the precepts of the Church require ordinary diligence for their fulfillment. But no means is more ordinary than to employ in recitation a companion whom perhaps you can easily find. - Thus commonly. - St. Ligorius, n. 158. - Salmanticenses, etc.

QUESTION 6º. Are you bound to employ a companion, with a stipend paid, if you cannot conveniently find another?

Resp. No, according to the common opinion. The reason is that the means is wholly extraordinary, and also is full of inconveniences; whence the Church is not judged to oblige to it. Indeed, if a companion who will recite with you gratis does not promptly occur, you are not bound to seek someone with anxiety and solicitude, because this too would become an extraordinary means. - Thus the Salmanticenses, ch. 3, n. 44. - Suarez, On Religion, tom. 2, bk. 4, ch. 8, n. 12.

1081. (A) Physical or moral impossibility excuses from recitation of the office as long and insofar as it perseveres. For no one is held to the impossible, and a positive law does not oblige with such great inconvenience.

Thus one who has lost the breviary, or while traveling has not taken it with him through forgetfulness, is excused from reciting it as long as, without grave inconvenience, he cannot have another; yet if he has retained notable parts by memory, he is held to say them. Say the same concerning one who has become blind. But the sick and convalescent person who cannot read without great fatigue is for a time dispensed from it. In doubt, he can stand by the judgment of a superior, or of a physician or prudent friend, or by his own judgment.

One who can recite one part, but not other parts, is by no means dispensed from that one, because any notable part obliges of itself, and indeed under grave obligation; hence the following proposition 54 was deservedly reproved by Innocent XI: "One who cannot recite Matins and Lauds, but can recite the remaining hours, is held to nothing, because the greater part draws the lesser to itself."¹

¹ Denzinger, n. 1071.

One who cannot recite the office alone, but can with a companion, is nevertheless not held to employ a companion, unless he easily finds him without inconvenience. - One who cannot recite the hours is not strictly held to pour forth other prayers, because the object of the precept is the office ordered by the Church, but not any prayer whatever; but this is altogether to be counseled, since the mind of the Church is that sacred ministers pray for the people.

To moral impossibility approaches the greatest difficulty which the scrupulous sometimes suffer in discharging the divine office; wherefore they can be dispensed for a time by the confessor, until they are able to recite it without grave anxiety.

1082. (B) The greatest utility of the neighbor excuses from reciting the office, when there is question of an occupation which cannot be combined with recitation, nor otherwise be deferred to another time without grave inconvenience. The reason is that the divine law of charity is to be preferred to ecclesiastical law. - Wherefore they are excused: -

(a) One who, about to recite Vespers and Compline, is suddenly called to a gravely sick person, and afterward does not return at a time suitable for recitation of the office.

(b) One who throughout the afternoon time hears confessions which cannot conveniently be deferred to another day.

(c) One who throughout the whole day is occupied without interruption in assisting the sick at a time of contagious disease, or the gravely wounded.

(d) One who, about to have a sermon which he cannot omit, needs the whole time for preparing it. - In these or similar cases, no one is held to deprive himself of necessary refreshment of the body or sleep so that he can recite the office.

But a prudent and pious priest will try to foresee these difficulties, and will generally find time for saying the breviary without neglecting the functions of a pastor.

1083. (C) Dispensation from a legitimate superior. For since there is question of a merely ecclesiastical law, the Supreme Pontiff can validly dispense from it in every case; licitly, however, when the cause is reasonable, even if of itself it would not suffice. - But a Bishop cannot of himself dispense from it, since it is a universal law; but from general custom, which is held as legitimate, he is able to grant a dispensation in some particular case for a time, a just cause being present.

II. On The Manner Of Reciting The Divine Office.

Three things especially are to be inquired: 1. what office is to be recited; 2. what external conditions are required; 3. what internal dispositions of soul.

1. On The Office To Be Recited.

378. On causes excusing from the recitation of the Office. Three causes excusing from the recitation of the Hours are customarily enumerated: 1. physical inability; 2. moral inability; 3. legitimate dispensation. The first two causes excuse because no one is bound to the impossible and because a positive law does not oblige with great inconvenience; the third cause excuses because the recitation of the Office is prescribed not by natural or divine law but by ecclesiastical law alone. But the obligation of an ecclesiastical law ceases through legitimate dispensation. A few things are to be explained concerning the individual excusing causes.

1. Physical inability is a physical obstacle impeding the recitation of the Office. Obstacles of this sort are: lack of a breviary (if someone does not know how to recite the Office from memory), blindness, grave illness, etc. For both physical and moral inability the following general rule is valid: He who cannot recite the entire Office, but can recite a notable part, such as a Little Hour is considered to be, is bound gravely to recite this part. This rule is confirmed because the contrary was condemned by Innocent XI (prop. 54).²⁷² But he who cannot recite even a Little Hour is now bound to nothing, since so small a part does not notably conduce to the end intended by the law prescribing the recitation of the Office.²⁷³ He who cannot recite the Office alone is bound to employ a companion gratuitously, if this is possible without great inconvenience. The reason is that any precept which can be fulfilled by ordinary means must be fulfilled. But to employ a gratuitous companion for reciting the Office is considered by St. Alphonsus²⁷⁴ and several other authors to be an ordinary means. Authors do not agree whether a beneficiary who is unable to recite the Office alone is bound to hire a companion for the recitation of the Office from the revenues of the benefice. Some answer affirmatively, but others negatively. St. Alphonsus²⁷⁵ calls both opinions probable. In practice, a dispensation or interpretation from the competent authority is then better sought.

He who is legitimately excused from the recitation of the Office because of physical (or moral) inability is not bound to say other prayers in place of the Office, because such a commutation is prescribed nowhere. Nevertheless, a cleric impeded from saying the Office laudably recites other prayers; for in this way he shows his good will to satisfy the precept of praying specially imposed upon him by the Church.

²⁷² Cf. above, n. 360.

²⁷³ St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 4, n. 158.

²⁷⁴ Ib.

²⁷⁵ Ib.

The causes excusing from the recitation of the divine Office are 1° impossibility; 2° charity; 3° dispensation.

1128. • I. Impossibility, whether physical or moral, which consists in grave difficulty of reciting the Office. Hence he is excused:

1° Who does not have a Breviary, because, for example, when undertaking a journey he forgot it, or on the journey lost it, with inability to procure another. Yet if he forgot, lost, or threw it away by his own grave fault, he sinned gravely, and the omission of the Hours is imputable to him.

2° Who labors under grave illness, for example fever, pain of the intestines or of the head; or who justly fears lest from the recitation grave inconvenience follow, etc. Whence he is sufficiently excused who prudently believes or fears lest on account of the recitation of the Office there arise for him notable heaviness of the head, or crudity of the stomach, or exhaustion of strength, or another grave inconvenience.¹

3° One recovering from grave illness can be excused for some days according to the judgment of a prudent man, until his strength is restored. And this can be admitted even if the sick man already celebrates Mass.²

4° He is also excused who in time of persecution fears lest he be betrayed by the recitation of the Breviary; likewise he who labors gravely in the eyes, etc. - St. Alphonsus³ and others commonly.

II. Charity toward one's neighbor, that is, grave occupation which cannot be omitted without scandal or notable detriment of the neighbor. Such occupation excuses from the recitation of the Office, because the natural precept of charity prevails over ecclesiastical law. Hence you are excused from recitation of the Hours either totally or partially:

1° If at night, about to recite the Office, for example Vespers, you are called at once to a dying person, and neither time nor convenience is available to you for paying the obligation of the Office.

2° If you are occupied the whole day in hearing Confessions which on account of peculiar circumstances cannot be deferred, for example in sacred missions, and especially near their end, when you are about to depart, etc.

3° If you could not omit a sermon without scandal or detriment of reputation, and yet time for preparing it would not be available if the Office had to be recited.

4° If you are occupied the whole day in quieting quarrels, or assisting the sick, for example at the time of contagious disease, etc. - St. Alphonsus⁴ and others.

1129. • III. Legitimate dispensation, or one granted by a legitimate Superior.

1° The obligation of reciting the divine Office, since it is of ecclesiastical law, can be taken away by ecclesiastical Superiors.

2° The Pope can grant this dispensation validly in every case, even without cause; but licitly from a reasonable cause, for example on account of excessive occupation, for calming scruples, etc.

3° The Bishop also can dispense from this law, but not validly without sufficient cause, and only with some particular person for a time, namely 1° when there is doubt concerning moral inability, or concerning the gravity of the detriment to be feared; 2° when recourse to the Pope is difficult; 3° when the dispensation is sought on account of a cause which frequently recurs, for example on account of infirmity; 4° when the dispensation is sought for a brief time. - Thus St. Alphonsus.¹ - Recall the things said, n. 154.

See also Faculty 26. Form I. p. LXXII. Certain Bishops, from Apostolic Indult, are able to commute Matins and Lauds into other prayers in favor of priests who have heard Confessions for five hours of the same day.

1130. Questions. - Query 1° What must be done in doubt whether infirmity suffices for excusing or not?

Resp. 1° The sick man can commit himself to the judgment of a physician; 2° he can acquiesce in the judgment of the Superior, who in doubt can also dispense; 3° he can remit himself to the probable judgment of a prudent man; 4° indeed he can probably also stand by his own judgment, if he himself can make such a judgment; 5° if by none of these modes the doubt can be solved, the law, as being certain, will possess, except in the case either of solitary probability for the sufficiency of the cause (see n. 66. 2°), or of fear lest recitation gravely harm health (see n. 67. 1° c)).²

Query 2° To what is a sick man held if he is certain that he cannot pay the whole Office, but doubts whether he is able to recite a part?

Resp. Probably he is held to nothing. For he is reasonably excused from the whole Office, lest he be troubled by scruples, not knowing how far he can and is held to recite; and this anxiety indeed, as St. Alphonsus says, would bring him great harm.³

1131. • Query 3° Whether one impeded in any way from reciting the whole Breviary is held to the part which he can recite?

Resp. Affirmatively altogether. The reason is plain. For the obligation of the Breviary falls on its individual parts, since the thing prescribed is divisible. This is also clear from proposition 54 condemned by Innocent XI, p. XVII. Therefore he who lacks a Breviary and knows nothing else by memory except Lauds or Compline is held under grave obligation to recite these.

Query 4° Whether you are held to reciting the Psalms if you have only these at hand, or know them by memory, the Readings with the Responsories being left aside?

Resp. Affirmatively, more probably. The reason is that since you can recite a notable part of the Office, there is no cause why you should be excused from it.¹ But the following rule is handed down by St. Alphonsus² and others: If you can recite as much as is a little Hour, you are held under grave obligation to recite it; but if less, you are not obliged to recite anything even under venial sin, because such a small part, taken separately, is not judged estimable for the end intended by the law.

Query 5° Whether you are held to use a companion if you are not able to recite the Hours alone?

Resp. Affirmatively, if you easily find someone whom you can conveniently use. The reason is, 1° because then there is no properly so-called inability; 2° because the precepts of the Church require ordinary diligence for their fulfillment: but no means is more ordinary than to use a companion in recitation. - Thus commonly. - St. Alphonsus.³

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I say 1st. Impossibility, whether physical or moral, which consists in grave difficulty, excuses from the obligation of reciting the Office, and the reason is that no one is held to the impossible. - Hence he is excused: 1st. who does not have a Breviary, for example, he forgot it when undertaking a journey, or lost it on the journey, with inability to procure another; 2nd. who labors under grave illness, or who justly fears lest a grave illness follow from recitation; 3rd. who in a time of persecution fears lest he be betrayed by recitation of the Breviary; 4th. who labors gravely in his eyes, etc. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 154 et seq.

I say 2nd. Charity toward the neighbor, that is, a grave occupation which cannot be omitted without scandal or notable detriment of the neighbor, excuses from recitation of the Breviary; and the reason is that the natural precept of charity prevails over ecclesiastical law. - Hence you are excused from recitation of the Hours, either totally or partially: 1st. if, by night, when you are about to recite the Office, for example Vespers, you are called at once to a dying person, and neither time nor convenience is available to you for discharging the obligation of the Office; 2nd. if you are occupied the whole day in receiving confessions which, on account of peculiar circumstances, cannot be deferred, for example, in sacred missions, and especially toward their end when you are going to depart, etc.; 3rd. if you could not omit a sermon without scandal or detriment to reputation, and yet time for preparing it would not be available if the Office had to be recited; 4th. if you are occupied the whole day in settling quarrels or assisting the sick, for example, in a time of contagious disease, etc. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 156.

I say 3rd. Legitimate dispensation, or one conceded by a legitimate superior, disobliges from saying the Breviary. The reason is that, with legitimate relaxation of the law supposed, the force of binding cannot remain. But this dispensation can be conceded: 1st. by the Pope validly in every case, even without cause; but licitly from a reasonable cause; 2nd. by the Bishop, but not validly without sufficient cause, and only with someone in particular for a time. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 159.

Yet note that in this region some Bishops, by force of an Apostolic Indult, are accustomed to dispense priests from Matins and Lauds of the following day as often as they receive sacramental confessions for five hours in one day, with a shorter other prayer enjoined, to be recited in place of the stated Office.

I. Several are the causes excusing from reciting the office, such as inability, infirmity, sudden and continual grave occupation, and things of that kind. Several have amplified these causes beyond what is fair.

II. Question I. He who cannot recite alone, but can with a companion — is he bound to procure a companion, that he may be able to pay the Hours? Answer. This question is understood when a companion can conveniently be had. For if it were necessary to seek out a companion at a price paid, it is more likely that no one is bound with so great a burden. He would do this best if the one reciting were rich: for he would help a poor cleric, and...

both would praise God — Laymann, Filliucci, Lessius, Villalobos, and others distinguish. If, being well, you were using a companion, you must likewise use one while you labor under an inconvenience of the eyes, or another impediment; but not if, being well, you were reciting without a companion. Leander, Juan Sánchez, Diana absolutely deny that a companion must be procured. The true opinion affirms it. Because the precept of the Church must be fulfilled in the best way it can be. Therefore he who can conveniently have a companion must procure one. A blind man is not bound to commit the office to memory in order to be able to recite it. But if a blind man, or others lacking the Breviary, know the office by heart, they are bound to recite it. Hence, if they know by heart the office of the common, blind persons or others bound by impediment, when the office of the feria, or the proper office of some Saint, is in course, must recite that. These, however, to avoid the difficulty, commonly implore from their Superior a commutation into the office of the Blessed Virgin. A blind man holding a prebend is bound to attend choir, and to recite the Hours there so far as he can.

III. He who lacks the Breviary without fault is excused from the recitation; yet if he knows the Hours by heart, he is bound to recite them. He who by his own fault deprives himself of the Breviary, so as to become unable to pay the burden of the Hours, not only sins gravely by that action by which he stripped himself of the Breviary, but sins so long as he persists in the depraved determination of not reciting. But as soon as he changes his will, and repents of his prior action, he then ceases to sin, and is excused from recitation, since he is unable to recite. He who obtained a benefice before knowing how to recite the office sinned in obtaining it, and is bound diligently to learn the manner of reciting the office.

IV. Question II. What infirmity excuses from reciting the Hours? Answer. A certain and precise rule cannot be designated. The precepts of the Church, like the evangelical precepts, are precepts of charity, insofar as all things promote charity; wherefore they do not oblige with grave detriment to one's own health. A sick man lying abed must be treated benignly. He who has suffered a fever for several days is exempted from the office for a fitting interval of time. Some speak too laxly on this argument. They teach that those do not sin who read tales or histories, or converse with friends, even though they omit the office, while they labor under a quartan fever: because, they say, the reading of tales and conversations with friends recreate the soul, while the recitation of the office afflicts the sick man. To remove doubts and perplexities, dispensation must be sought from a Superior.

V. Question III. What occupation exempts from reciting the office? Answer. An occupation which cannot be deferred, and which redounds to the spiritual good of the Neighbor, exempts from the Canonical Hours. Leander excuses from saying the office those who are about to give a public lecture for obtaining a chair or a degree. This opinion is altogether false to me. I do not deny that a case of exemption can sometimes occur; but this happens very rarely. Leander teaches things more lax still concerning daily Preachers in the time of Lent, all of whom — even those who preach not from obedience, but voluntarily and for a wage — he exempts from reciting the divine office. Hear his own words: "I answer that it is also more probable that even the daily Preacher, who preaches daily in Lent only voluntarily, or for a wage, is excused from saying the daily Hours, if he cannot conveniently recite them ... And surely if this our opinion were not probable, and safe in practice, woe, woe to the Lenten Preachers; a thousand times woe to them." Thus far Leander, the most benign among the Probabilists. But woe, and a thousand times woe, to those Casuists who dare to write such things. Is he who preaches voluntarily and for a wage every day exempt from reciting the Canonical Hours? Who can hear these things without scandal? If the precept of prayer presses most frequently, when does it oblige more strongly than when the apostolic ministry is being exercised? And besides, the contrary experience of all pious Preachers proves that this debt can also be paid during that time.

VI. Pious works voluntarily undertaken, urgent necessity being absent, do not excuse from the office. He who foresees a future impediment is bound to anticipate the office, whatever certain men say to the contrary.

VII. Question IV. He who cannot recite the greater part of the office — is he bound to recite the lesser? Answer. Leander of the Most Holy Sacrament, treatise 8, disputation 5, question 52, defends the denying opinion as not only probable, but more probable. Fr. Tommaso Tamburini, book 2 on the Decalogue, chapter 5, § 8, number 3, defends the same, and cites for it Azor, Castropalao, Sanchez, Filliucci; and Leander alleges many others. This opinion was condemned by Innocent XI. Its falsity is manifest. For the divine office is a certain moral whole, consisting of seven parts, each of which constitutes a certain peculiar whole. For each of the seven Hours completes an entire and perfect prayer. He who cannot pay an entire debt — say a hundred — but can pay twenty, is he not bound to pay the twenty? "The greater part," they say, "draws the lesser to itself: the accessory follows the principal." Ineptly are axioms of this kind applied to decisions of morals. When things are indivisible, the accessory follows the principal; not so when they can be divided and separated. That other axiom has its place in reckonings, where the greater part decides the matter; not so in other divisible matters, as is established from the condemned proposition.

VIII. He who cannot recite half the office, but can recite the other half, is bound to this, whatever Leander, Castropalao, Diana, and others say. He who lacks the Breviary, but has the Diurnal, is bound to recite the psalms of Matins, although for the denying opinion Leander, question 60, cites Pellizzari, Tamburini, Filliucci, Diana, and others.

IX. Question V. Who can dispense from reciting the office? Answer. The supreme Pontiff, as the supreme guardian of the laws and the maker of ecclesiastical law, can dispense, for a just cause, throughout the universal Church. Bishops too, in their own diocese, can dispense — not in perpetuity, but according to the variety of circumstances, a just cause occurring. Similarly, Regular Prelates can dispense their Religious for a time, a just cause pressing.

Titius, a confessor, remains doubtful whether certain drunkards who belong to his mission sin or not by omitting Mass on Sunday. The circumstances of the case are as follows. Every Saturday afternoon these men receive their wages for the week’s labor. Having received the money, they immediately go to the tavern and drink until they are drunk. They return home at about eleven o’clock at night, when the tavern closes, and on the following day suffer the effects of drunkenness in bed. Titius doubts whether they are guilty not only of drunkenness but also of the Mass omitted on Sunday, for they are drunk before the law begins to urge, and when it urges they are incapable of fulfilling the law. Hence it is asked:

1. What causes exempt from a law, and what causes excuse from a law?

2. Is it lawful voluntarily to posit either kind?

3. Is someone bound, if he can, to remove an excusing cause in order to fulfill the law?

4. What is to be said concerning the case?

1. What are causes exempting from a law and causes excusing from a law?

Causes exempting remove a subject from the jurisdiction, as does departure from the territory within which the law binds. Causes excusing relieve him of the obligation of obeying the law though he remains subject to it.¹

1 Bucceroni, vol. i, no. 216.

2. Is it lawful to put both causes exempting and causes excusing voluntarily?

A subject may put causes exempting voluntarily, for a law does not compel a man to remain subject to it; it only obliges him to act in conformity with it as long as he remains subject. By special law, however, one who has incurred a reserved case in one diocese can not be absolved from it if he go to another diocese with the intention of getting absolution there.

While remaining under the jurisdiction of the law, a subject may not do anything with the intention of avoiding the obligation of complying with it. But for a sufficiently grave reason he may do something, although he foresees that the doing of it will make it impossible for him to comply with a positive law.

3. Is one bound to remove an excusing cause if he can, so as to be able to comply with a law?

Much depends on the nature of the law in question, for some laws bind more strictly than do others. Thus Lehmkuhl says: “Nor do they judge that anyone is bound by force of the law of hearing Mass to procure release from a censure, liberation from prison, etc., if, being imprisoned, he cannot assist at Mass, unless perhaps for a long time, or through design lest he be present at the sacred rite, he neglects these things. Nevertheless, they hold that someone is bound to remove those bonds or impediments by reason of the precept of Easter Communion; for which precept, even several days before the time of the law becomes urgent, it is not lawful to place an impediment, unless a sufficiently grave cause is present.”²

2 Theol. Mor., vol. i, n. 158.

4. The case. Titius, a confessor, doubts whether some drunkards in his parish commit sin by omitting Mass on Sundays. Every week these men get their week’s wage after mid-day on Saturday. They go straight to the public-house and get drunk, returning home about 11 p.m. when the public-house closes. Next day they sleep off the effects of drink in bed. Although they certainly sin against temperance, Titius doubts whether they commit sin by not hearing Mass, for they are drunk before the time when the law of hearing Mass begins to be urgent, and when Sunday comes they are too ill to get up. If there were question of putting some honest excusing cause, the doubt of Titius would be well founded. Thus Gury says: “It would be lawful, from mere pleasure, to enter upon a journey which would impede attendance at Mass throughout the whole of Saturday, up to one or another hour before Sunday.”¹ This, however, can not be applied to our case. For in this matter much depends on the intention of the legislator. He does not intend to restrict the liberty of his subjects so far as to compel them to forego honest recreation on Saturday, though this will prevent them hearing Mass on Sunday. But the legislator does not use the same indulgence in favor of drunkards, who get drunk on Saturday afternoon, foreseeing that they will not be in a fit state to hear Mass on Sunday. They sin, then, not only against temperance, but also against the obligation of Sunday Mass.

1 Gury, in Génicot, vol. i, no. 116.