Things Forbidden to Clerics

In general, clerics are forbidden to do anything which is unbecoming their state of life or which interferes with the due discharge of their duties—“‘ No man being a soldier to God entangleth himself with secular businesses,” says St Paul (2 Tim. ii 4). They are expressly forbidden to indulge in games of chance for money, to carry arms unless there is good reason to fear attack, to hunt with hounds, to enter inns and similar places without necessity or some good reason approved of by the Ordinary of the place (Can. 138).

Similarly, they are forbidden to practise medicine or surgery without leave of the Holy See, to act as public notaries, except in the ecclesiastical court, to hold public offices which involve the exercise of lay jurisdiction or administration.

Without leave of their own Ordinary they should not undertake the agency for property belonging to laymen, nor secular offices which entail the duty of rendering accounts; they should not exercise the office of procurator or advocate except in the ecclesiastical court, or when a cause of their own or of their church is being tried in the civil court; they should take no part, not even as witnesses, without necessity in a lay criminal trial.

Clerics are forbidden to go surety even with their own property without consulting the local Ordinary.

They are forbidden to offer themselves for the post of Members of Parliament or to accept it without leave of their own Ordinary and of the Ordinary of the place where the election is held (Can. 137, 139).

Clerics are forbidden to retain in their houses or in any way to be familiar with women about whom any suspicion can arise.

They may live under the same roof only with those women of whom natural ties allow no suspicion to be entertained, such as mother, sister, aunt, and so forth, or whose good character and mature age make them free from all suspicion.

The judgement as to whether the retaining or being intimate with women, even with those on whom suspicion does not usually fall, can in any particular case create scandal or be a danger to morals, belongs to the Ordinary of the place, whose duty it is to forbid such retaining or intimacy to clerics (Can. 133, sec. 4; West. d. 11, n. 3).

Canon 140 forbids clerics to be present at spectacles, dances, and pageants which do not become them, or when their presence would cause scandal, especially in public theatres.

“The word spectacula,” says Fr. Ayrinhac, ‘ comprises all theatrical representations and likewise such exhibitions as horse-races, bull-fights, prize-fights, etc., at least if it be taken in its most general sense.”” Dom Augustine gives a similar definition of the term.

Provincial legislation often makes this general law more precise. Thus 4 West., d. 11, n. g is as follows: “ We strictly prohibit ecclesiastics who have received sacred orders from being present at stage representations in public theatres or in places temporarily made use of as public theatres, under the penalty to transgressors of suspension to be incurred ipso facto, as has hitherto been the rule in all parts of England, with reservation to the respective Ordinaries.”

Clerics, therefore, are forbidden to be present at public not at private theatricals by this law. Custom in England makes an exception with regard to those exhibitions which are given by mere children.

Clerics are forbidden to enter military service, unless they do so with the leave of their own Ordinary in order that they may be free the sooner, and to aid in any way civil war and disturbances of public order (Can. 141).

Clerics are forbidden to trade in person or through another, whether in their own interest or in that of others (Can. 142).

The trading which is forbidden to clerics and all religious is trading in the strict sense of the term. In this sense to trade is to buy commodities, not for consumption, but with the intention of selling them again at a higher price without changing their nature. So that it is not trading in the strict sense to sell the produce of one’s own land, nor to sell what was bought for consumption but was found to be unsuitable, nor to sell without profit to the poor, nor to sell a picture painted by one’s self with colours bought in the market. However, certain transactions which have the appearance of trading are sometimes forbidden on account of the danger and scandal which they are apt to cause.

It is not illicit trading to invest money in Government stock or other bonds which bear interest, though it would be unlawful speculation to invest money with the intention of selling out at a profit if the price rises. Although it is forbidden to clerics to act as directors or to take part in the management of industrial and commercial companies, yet it is probable that a cleric may lawfully invest money in such enterprises as are honest merely with a view of getting interest on his investment. He only buys the right to receive interest on his money, much in the same way as if he invested it in Government stock.

The prohibition against trading binds under pain of grave sin if the matter be considerable. However, trading implies a habit, and so in the opinion of many divines to trade once in a way, even in a considerable quantity, would not be a mortal sin.

Canon 2380 prescribes that clerics and religious who violate the law against trading be punished by the Ordinary according to the gravity of the fault.

Several things are prohibited to clerics, either because they bring with themselves a danger of harm, such as suretyship (can. 137); or because they are unbecoming to the clerical state, such as unbecoming arts, games of chance, etc. (can. 138); or because they are alien to the clerical state, such as the medical art, notariate, etc. (can. 139 sq.).

I. Suretyship. A cleric is prohibited from standing surety, even with his own goods, without the local Ordinary having been consulted (can. 137). The reason is evident; for experience establishes that suretyships, even when made with due prudence, often create harm or at least danger of harm for those who have aided others in such a way. There is added that, even if the surety can fulfill the obligations which he has taken upon himself - which is required in every suretyship - nevertheless often from those financial vicissitudes there arise dissensions and contentions which can be an impediment to the fruitful ministry of clerics. A fortiori it is not lawful for clerics to stand surety with goods not their own, or goods in any way pertaining to the Church, since they are not owners of those goods, but only administrators (cf. can. 1523, 1° and 1527).

II. Unbecoming or Base Arts (can. 138), of which kind are, for example, the offices of butchers, innkeepers and tavern-keepers, actors and comedians, shoemakers, lay service or servitude, etc. (St. Alphonsus IV, 189).¹

¹ Cf. c. 3, D. 44; c. 1, Clem. III, 1; Trent, session 22, on reform, c. 1.

III. Games of Chance, with Money Staked (can. 138). Games are distinguished into games of chance, games of skill, and mixed games, according as they are governed by fortune alone, or by skill alone, as playing chess, or by fortune and skill, as playing cards. Therefore:

1. It is prohibited only to give oneself to games of chance with money staked (can. 138). Other games are not prohibited of themselves; nevertheless, accidentally they can become sinful, for example through excessive frequency, through neglect of the sacred ministry, and so forth.

2. Clerics sin gravely by giving themselves to games of chance: 1° if they play with grave scandal; 2° if they play frequently and for a long time. Moreover, sufficient frequency is present sooner if one plays for a great sum of money than if for a moderate sum (St. Alphonsus III, 896-898).

3. Religious, both because of their state and because of scandal, more easily sin gravely than secular clerics, and the more easily according as they profess stricter observance, especially if by acting so they would open a way for such games in their Order, or would play for a notable sum; in the latter case they would also sin against poverty (St. Alphonsus III, 901; V, 32).

Corollary. A prohibition of a Bishop would not seem equitable by which, in general, all games even privately exercised would be forbidden to clerics; for unless particular circumstances advised such a prohibition, such a prohibition would have to be called too severe and alien from the mind of the Church.¹ Moreover, although the game of dice remains prohibited to clerics, nevertheless a constitution of a Bishop would have to be criticized by which at once a grave penalty, for example excommunication, would be imposed on violation of this law. Thus the secretary of the Sacred Congregation of the Council² wished mitigated a decree of the Bishop of Vaison by which priests playing dice were struck with excommunication latae sententiae. The prohibition indeed was held valid, but the penalty had to be mitigated.³

¹ Cf. Benedict XIV, De Synodo dioecesana, book XI, c. 10, n. 4.

² 20 December 1687.

³ Cf. Benedict XIV, De Synodo dioecesana, book X, c. 2, n. 2; book XI, c. 10, n. 5; cf. also c. 1, D. 35; c. 15, X III, 1; c. 11, De excessibus praelatorum, V, 37; Trent, session 22, on reform, c. 1.

IV. Carrying Arms. They should not carry arms unless a just cause for fearing is present (can. 138). For it is fitting that a cleric, a minister of the peaceful God, express in his external conduct the spirit of Christ's gentleness and meekness, with which spirit the apparatus of arms, especially when carried publicly, can with difficulty be combined. Here also attention should be paid to civil laws, which commonly impose similar prohibitions on all citizens indiscriminately.

V. Hunting. They should not indulge in hunting, and should never exercise noisy hunting (can. 138). Hunting - by which bird-catching is also comprehended - is distinguished as twofold, noisy and quiet. Noisy hunting is that which is done with great tumult and noise of weapons, dogs, and beaters; quiet hunting is that which is done with snares and nets, or even with a shotgun, but without the aforesaid noise. Therefore:

1. Noisy hunting is forbidden simply; but quiet hunting, if it is done moderately and without scandal, is not prohibited. Nevertheless, particular statutes or precepts should be attended to; since the Ordinary, if a just cause is present, can altogether prohibit hunting with a shotgun, though not with a censure added, unless for grave and special causes.¹

2. Noisy hunting exercised without grave scandal and not frequently is not mortal (cf. St. Alphonsus III, 606; Homo Apostolicus, tract 10, n. 72).

3. Finally note that fishing is forbidden by no canon.

¹ Cf. Sacred Congregation of the Council, Gnesen and Posen, 11 June 1921 (A. A. S. 1921, p. 498).

VI. Entrance into Taverns. They should not enter taverns and other similar places without necessity or another just cause approved by the local Ordinary (can. 138).

VII. The Medical Art. Without an apostolic indult they should not exercise medicine or surgery (can. 139, § 2).

Except if in some region - as can happen in mission lands - physicians are lacking, while observing what must be observed (St. Alphonsus VII, 384).¹ Attention should also be paid to civil laws, which commonly establish penalties against physicians practicing the medical art without examination and public certificate.

¹ Cf. Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, 28 November 1641 (Collectanea, n. 334).

VIII. Notariate. They should not act as tabelliones or public notaries, except in an ecclesiastical Curia (can. 139, § 2). The office of notary, actuary, or tabellio, from writing up "acts" or recording them on "tablets," is permitted to clerics only in ecclesiastical Curias; not as though this office would otherwise be unbecoming to them, but because it can with difficulty be combined with ecclesiastical duties, on account of the continual attention of mind which it requires.

IX. Lay Jurisdiction. They should not assume public offices which carry with them the exercise of lay jurisdiction or administration (can. 139, § 2). Offices are understood which refer proximately to the government of a state, province, or kingdom, such as, for example, the offices of President of the republic, Minister, Syndic, and so forth. But there are not comprehended in this paragraph offices which pertain only remotely to government, but in themselves properly constitute a certain council, such as, for example, the office of deputy, councillor, senator, etc. But observe the things which follow:

X. The Office of Senator or Deputy. They should not solicit nor accept the office of senators or of orators for making laws, whom they call deputies, without permission of the Holy See in places where a pontifical prohibition has intervened; in other places, they should not attempt the same thing without the permission both of their own Ordinary and of the Ordinary of the place in which the election is to be held (can. 139, § 4).

Moreover the Commission of the Code declared: "If by force of the constitution of the state Cardinals, Archbishops, and Bishops are senators by law, and the Holy See in some way has approved this, the same can fulfill an office of this kind without special permission of the Holy See, provided they satisfy their obligations through a Vicar General or in another way. In any other case they need the permission of the Holy See. But Ordinaries, in granting permission to priests who desire to present themselves as candidates for elections of deputies, should show themselves rather difficult than easy."¹

¹ A. A. S. 1922, p. 313.

XI. Administration of Goods. Without the permission of their own Ordinary they should not enter upon managements of goods pertaining to laymen, or secular offices which carry with them the burden of rendering accounts (can. 139, § 3). Of this kind are, for example, the offices of tutors, curators, administrators, and executors of testaments.

As regards the administration of goods pertaining to laymen, it will not be useless to recall to memory the decree of the Sacred Consistorial Congregation,¹ which indeed praised the zeal of clerics in founding and protecting money chests or savings banks for the temporal assistance of the faithful, but nevertheless prohibited them from fulfilling in them the offices of president, director, secretary, treasurer, and offices very similar to these, without permission of the Holy See. Today, of course, according to the tenor of can. 139, § 3, permission of the Ordinary will suffice.

¹ 18 November 1910.

XII. The Office of Advocate. They should not exercise the office of procurator or advocate, except in an ecclesiastical tribunal, or in a civil one when there is question of their own cause or that of their church (can. 139, § 3). A procurator is understood as one who conducts the parts of the parties before the judge, by petitioning, concluding, etc., for them. An advocate strictly so called, or causidicus, is one who argues the cause of a client before the judge. An advocate differs from a jurisconsult, who only gives counsel, explains the way to the process, but does not defend the client in judgment. An advocate could have fulfilled the parts of a jurisconsult.

Note the things which are had at the end of can. 139, § 3: "In a lay criminal trial pursuing a grave personal penalty, let them have no part, not even giving testimony without necessity." By a grave personal penalty is understood not only capital punishment or mutilation, but every penalty by which the personal or bodily integrity of the delinquent is injured. It is said "let them have no part"; therefore every intervention is denied to them, whether as judge, or as advocate, or as notary. Indeed, as is said at the end of this paragraph, they should not even give testimony in such trials without necessity.

XIII. Use of Public Amusements. They should not be present at spectacles, dances, and processions which are unbecoming to them, or at which it would be a scandal for clerics to be present, especially in public theaters (can. 140). Therefore, by common law the aforesaid amusements are prohibited insofar as the presence of clerics would be unbecoming, or would be a scandal to the faithful; this can easily occur in public theaters. But particular statutes are also to be attended to.

Corollary I. The things which are said here about spectacles and theaters must also be applied to our modern bioscopes. Indeed, in Rome it has been prohibited not only to both clergy, even pilgrims, to attend public cinematographs, even if they treat of a sacred object, but canonical penalties have moreover been threatened, not excluding suspension from divine things.¹

Corollary II. To attend a certain musical work is not prohibited by common law, unless because of circumstances it would fall under the general prohibition by which clerics ought to avoid those things which are a scandal to the faithful, or which generally are unbecoming to their state (cf. can. 124).

¹ A. A. S. 1918, p. 300.

XIV. Military Service. They should not enter secular military service voluntarily, unless they have done this with the permission of their own Ordinary, so that they may become free more quickly; nor should they assist in any way in civil wars and disturbances of public order (can. 141, § 1). A minor cleric who, against the prescription of § 1, has of his own accord given his name to military service, falls by the law itself from the clerical state (can. 141, § 2). Besides, with respect to every cleric, any offices are vacant by the fact itself if against the prescription of can. 141, § 1, he has of his own accord given his name to secular military service (can. 188, 6°).

XV. Trading. Clerics are prohibited from exercising trading or commerce by themselves or through others, whether for their own advantage or that of others (can. 142). Clerics or religious exercising commerce or trading by themselves or through others against the prescription of can. 142 are to be restrained by the Ordinary with suitable penalties according to the gravity of the fault (can. 2380). Commerce coincides with trading properly so called; but the word trading extends more broadly, as will be clear from what is to be said.

1. Notion. Trading properly so called, or commerce, is the buying or exchange of merchandise with the intention of selling it more dearly, not changed for the better (St. Alphonsus III, 837). For it there are required: 1° that a thing be bought and sold; 2° that it be sold more dearly; 3° that it be sold not changed for the better; 4° that it was bought with the intention of selling it more dearly and not changed for the better (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 77, a. 4, ad 1; St. Alphonsus III, 331, 330).

Trading improperly so called is the buying or exchange of a thing made with the intention of selling it more dearly after it has been changed by art or industry. Moreover, someone can change a thing either by himself, or through his own servants, or through workers hired for this.

2. Prohibition. a) Trading properly so called is prohibited to clerics (can. 142). It is the same whether they exercise it by themselves or through others, for their own advantage or for the advantage of others (can. cited).

The reason of the prohibition is explained thus by St. Thomas: "Clerics ought to abstain not only from those things which are evil according to themselves, but also from those things which have the appearance of evil; and this indeed happens in trading, both because it is ordered to earthly gain, of which clerics ought to be despisers, and also because of the frequent vices of traders ... There is also another reason, because trading too greatly involves the mind in secular cares, and consequently draws it back from spiritual things; hence also the Apostle says in 2 Timothy 2: 'No one serving God entangles himself in secular business'" (II-II, q. 77, a. 4, ad 3; St. Alphonsus III, 831).

b) Trading improperly so called is prohibited to clerics if the thing to be sold is changed through workers hired for this. For trading of this kind, by which another's labor is bought and from it gain is taken, was equated in the ancient law with trading properly so called, nor is there reason for interpreting trading, concerning which can. 142 speaks, otherwise (cf. can. 6, n. 2). The same, for the same reason, must be said about exchange,¹ if someone exercises it by way of habit or art, by doing banking.²

c) Trading improperly so called is not prohibited to clerics if they change the things to be sold by themselves or through their own servants. One who by himself changes things and sells them more dearly does nothing other than receive the just reward of his labor. Moreover this, provided that the craft is fitting for them, considering the circumstances, and is done without neglect of their own ministry, must be called equally lawful for clerics as for laymen, because it contains nothing disordered, as is clear from the example of St. Paul;³ therefore it was never prohibited by any law. And to him who changes the things to be sold by himself, there is equated in law one who changes them through his own servants, i.e. through labor already owed from elsewhere.

Formerly stricter dispositions and penal sanctions had been established for missionaries of the East Indies, China, Japan, and America, both South and North, exercising illicit trading.⁴ But because these laws seemed to pertain to the common law and today have not been taken up in the Code, they seem to have been abolished by can. 6, n. 6; certainly with respect to the penal sanction, by the same can. 6, n. 5.

d) The obligation of the prohibition is grave from its kind. Therefore one who frequently trades sins gravely; moreover, sufficient frequency is present sooner if someone trades in a great quantity. One who rarely trades sins only lightly, because the canon speaks of exercising trading (St. Alphonsus III, 831).

e) Not only extreme necessity, but even grave necessity excuses from the obligation, namely if it is necessary for the sustenance of the cleric or the family living with him. Nevertheless, in a case of grave necessity, so that the danger of illusion may be avoided, outside Italy permission of the Ordinary is required; within Italy, permission of the Holy See. Thus, considering the Constitution of Clement XIII Cum primum,⁵ which from can. 6, n. 2 seems still to be in force (St. Alphonsus III, 833).

Corollary I. It is lawful "1° to sell fruits gathered from one's own fields; 2° to buy livestock, and sell them after they have been fattened on one's own estates, or to feed flocks so that offspring, wool, etc., may be sold; 3° to exercise an art fitting to one's own state, and to sell the works; 4° to buy fruits and sell animals fattened on them, since properly the labors for taking gain are sold rather than things not changed; 5° to buy for one's own uses, even broadly, and afterwards to sell what remains; indeed, when the price rises, even by purposely using more sparingly, to preserve things for the sake of sale."⁶ 6° To buy, for example, grapes and grain, and from them, either by oneself or through one's own servants, but not through hired workers, to make wine and bread, and sell them with profit. But it is unlawful to buy materials and from them, through hired workers, to manufacture any things which are sold with profit (St. Alphonsus III, 836).

With respect to establishing a printing press, hold these things: It is lawful: 1° if printing is done either through members of the Order or through one's own servants; nor is it prohibited that a hired servant be used, both because a little is reckoned as nothing, and because the accessory follows the principal; 2° if printing is indeed done through hired servants, but there is question of printing one's own works; for it is lawful to make these fruitful just like one's own land. It is unlawful if a printing press is established for printing the works of others, and this through hired servants.

Corollary II. It seems lawful for religious houses to buy things pertaining to devotion and sell them with some profit to guests, provided the profit is received as just compensation of expenses and labor expended, or as a stipend. The reason is that, in the case, the things, strictly speaking, are not sold more dearly. Nor is prohibited trading had if, for example, a missionary quasi-sells depicted or photographically printed cards of his mission to his benefactors, even if at a dearer price than he bought them, because from the circumstances the profit obtained assumes the character rather of alms made to the Mission than of price.

Corollary III. Trading which is called by some political, by which namely someone buys necessary things and sells them to the state or army, that trading, I say, is prohibited to clerics from can. 139, § 2, insofar as it would involve a public office which would carry with it the exercise of lay jurisdiction or administration. If somewhere from charity this were necessary, for example if a missionary in time of famine buys grain for his neophytes, practically no profit will be present, or there will be a case of excuse; nevertheless, it is expedient that the permission of the Bishop be sought.

Corollary IV. To this also pertains the buying of bonds and shares; but concerning it there will rather be distinct discussion in the scholion, after we have briefly noted the remaining things to be noted concerning the obligations of clerics.

¹ Concerning exchange, cf. n. 938.

² Benedict XIV, Constitution Apostolicae, 25 February 1741; Clement XIII, Constitution Cum primum, 17 September 1759.

³ Acts of the Apostles XVIII, 3; XX, 34; 2 Thess. III, 8.

⁴ Constitutions of Urban VIII Ex debito (1633); of Clement IX Sollicitudo (1669).

⁵ 17 September 1759.

⁶ Lehmkuhl, Theologia Moralis, II, n. 774.

XVI. Can. 143 declares: Clerics, although they do not have a residential benefice or office, should nevertheless not depart from their diocese for a notable time without at least the presumed permission of their own Ordinary.

XVII. Can. 144: One who with the permission of his own Ordinary has passed into another diocese, while remaining incardinated in his own diocese, can be recalled for a just cause and with natural equity preserved; and also the Ordinary of the other diocese can for a just cause deny to him permission of further staying in his own territory, unless he has conferred a benefice.

¹ Cf. our little work De virtute castitatis et de vitiis oppositis, n. 18.

Negative Duties of Clerics.—The negative duties of clerics are the avoidance of certain acts, occupations, or amusements forbidden as worldly, undignified, dangerous, distracting or scandalous (I Thess., v. 22; II Tim., ii. 4).

(a) Forbidden Acts.—A cleric may not go surety without permission, lest he or his church be involved in scandalous embarrassments (Canon 137); nor engage in trade, lest he be distracted from his spiritual duties and exposed to the danger or suspicion of injustice or greed (Canon 142; for penalty attached see Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, AAS, 42-33D).

(b) Forbidden Occupations.—These include, first, employments and pursuits unbecoming to clerics (such as those of butcher, actor, innkeeper); next, those that are incompatible with the ministry (such as the practice for profit of the medical profession, public magistracies, government jobs, civil court functions, legislative offices, Canon 139); finally, those that are contrary to the mildness that should distinguish clerics (viz, the occupation of fighting man or soldier, Canon 141; see also Canon 984 on executioners). But exceptions may be made for a just cause.

(c) Forbidden Amusements.—Clerics should not take part in undignified diversions or cruel sports, such as the hunting of big game with great uproar of dogs and guns (Canon 138) or in gambling, and they should not enter saloons or similar places (Canon 138). Clerics are also forbidden to assist at unbecoming shows, performances, dances, or at any theatrical entertainment where their presence gives scandal (Canon 140). To gamble much (say, several times a week and for a considerable time at each game) is considered a serious matter; but it is not sinful to indulge in a game of chance now and then, if the stakes are moderate and there is no scandal.

Is it lawful for clerics to bear arms? - The bearing of arms, necessity being excluded, is prohibited to clerics by canon law. C. Clerici 2 de Vita et honest. cler. The reason is that the bearing of arms is unbecoming to the character of clerics, who after the example of Christ ought to be meek and humble of heart. Hence theologians with Benedict XIV, Notification 101, say that clerics in sacred orders who embrace military life sin gravely. Nevertheless those are not to be reprehended who cooperate in a just war by counsel, exhortation, or even help; and if they have temporal jurisdiction, they can declare war, enroll an army, provide arms, provided they do not bear arms nor discharge the office of commander. Necessity being excluded; because necessity has no law. C. Dilecto 6 de Sent. excomm. in 6; in Canon Law this is not repugnant by divine law. Hence even priests fought in the Old Law, 1 Macc. 10. Suarez de Censur. d. 47, s. 6; Lugo, Resp. Mor. l. 5, d. 14; S. Th. 2. 2. q. 40, a. 2. "The dispositions by which it is provided that clerics subject to military service not be promoted to major orders before that military service has been completed are preceptive." S. O., August 31, 1904. Cf. E. M.

As regards those, moreover, who are held to perform military service, the rules, precepts, and documents handed down by the S. O. on September 16, 1875, are to be observed.

Religious likewise bound to military service cannot be admitted to sacred orders and to solemn profession in regular orders. But in Institutes of simple vows, they will be able to be admitted only to temporary vows until the time of military service. When that is finished, the former must remain in simple vows at least for a year; the latter will emit profession again for a year. S. C. de Relig., January 1, 1911. Clerics who in any way bring aid to civil wars and political contentions, deserting their proper place of residence or clerical garments, immediately remain suspended from the exercise of orders and grades, and from any ecclesiastical office and benefice; and they become incapable of obtaining any ecclesiastical offices or benefices in the future, every faculty of dispensing being taken away from Ordinaries. Cf. here 1240. Clerics likewise generally are prohibited from involving themselves in political parties, which often is not without scandal of the people.

Are fishing and hunting prohibited to clerics? - Fishing is lawful, as something which by its nature is altogether quiet, nor is it read anywhere as proscribed. But frequent and clamorous hunts are interdicted, namely those which are done with great apparatus of men, dogs, hawks, nets, and arms. If they are done rarely, they lack grave fault; if they are quiet, they are lawful, unless they are positively prohibited by the Ordinary. But so that they can be exercised with arms, the permission of the Ordinary is needed. C. 1 de Cler. ven.; C. 1 Ne cler. vel mon.; Trent s. 24, c. 12 de R.; Benedict XIV de Syn. l. 11, c. 10, n. 6-10; L. l. 3, n. 606; S. Th. 2. 2. q. 168, a. 2.

Is the game of dice prohibited to clerics? - A game of dice is said to be one which is wholly situated in pure chance, and whose outcome depends on mere accident, without the skill of the player obtaining any part in it; such is, for example, the game of knucklebones. As regards inferior clerics, doctors commonly say that this is not positively prohibited, because as regards them, at least from custom, the canons have been derogated, just as regards laymen. But it is prohibited to clerics constituted in orders and to beneficed clerics. This is established: 1. from natural law, because, speaking in itself, it is unbecoming to a cleric and brings scandal; 2. from canon law. Lateran Council IV, can. 16; Trent s. 22, c. 1 de R.; Benedict XIV de Syn. l. 10, c. 2, n. 2; l. 11, c. 10; L. l. 3, n. 884, 895.

Do clerics playing dice sin gravely? - If there is question of a public gambler, all agree that he sins gravely if he exposes a large quantity of money in the game, or a modest quantity, but the game is not only frequent, but also for a long time. The reason is that the sacred canons prohibit games of chance to clerics, C. 15 de Vit. et hon. cler.; C. 11 de Excess. prael., and because the game of dice notably dishonors the clerical state, drawing the mind too much away from divine things. Frequent, for a long time: "What sort of frequency is mortal? Bordon thinks it is to play once in a week, but Roncaglia deservedly thinks this too rigid. Indeed Lessius and Wigandt think that clerics playing for a brief time, even if often, for the sake of recreation, are not to be condemned of mortal sin, unless the proper statutes of the diocese prohibit it." L. l. 3, n. 896-898.

Here account must be taken of the reason of scandal and of custom. Wherefore there must be weighed "the quality of the person, whether he is of great or small estimation; for clerics who do not lead so exemplary a life in reality do not introduce grave scandal if they are seen even frequently to be occupied in such games, provided they do not neglect their own ministries. Indeed they provide no scandal if they do this merely for the sake of recreation. And this can truly be said to be excused by today's universal custom, which certainly differs from that ancient strict discipline of the primitive Church." L. l. c. n. 900. "Clerics who rarely, moderately, and privately, without scandal, play dice do not sin gravely. Indeed probably not even venially, if they play for the sake of recreation in a place where the aforesaid canons are not rigidly observed." L. l. c. n. 899.

As regards religious, they, because of their state and the scandal of others, can more easily sin gravely by playing dice or knucklebones. Nevertheless, scandal and a precept to the contrary being set aside, religious also are excused from mortal sin if they play for a small amount or not frequently; and they are also excused from venial sin if they do it on account of a reasonable cause, for example to console a sick person or a sad companion. Indeed this is lawful even for the sake of recreation and with due moderation, where it is permitted by approved custom. L. l. c. n. 872, 873.

As regards Bishops, they, if they play dice, since this is very unbecoming to the episcopal state, can scarcely be excused from mortal sin. "A Bishop," says S. Alphonsus l. c. n. 902, "playing a game of mere chance even once, I think can with difficulty be excused from grave scandal; just as also I judge if they are frequently occupied in other games of cards not altogether fortuitous." L. l. c. n. 898-902; S. Th. 2. 2. q. 168, a. 3.

Is every game of cards judged aleatory? - One game of cards is of pure chance and altogether aleatory; but another is mixed, partly aleatory, partly depending on the skill and industry of the player. Concerning the former the same must be said as above concerning dice. But since by present custom the prohibition of the ancient canons seems greatly tempered, the reason of scandal must rather be attended to in practice. But the latter kind of game is not to be held as unlawful, if the reason of scandal and a special law prohibiting it are absent; for it is not properly an aleatory game.

Do clerics or religious sin mortally who, by being present, watch those playing dice? - "This indeed is prohibited by C. Clerici 15 de Vita, etc., where they are commanded not to be present at games of this kind. Commonly, however, doctors deny that they sin mortally in this, unless they were the cause of a mortal game, or negligently corrected the players, or unless they took complacency in such a game insofar as it is mortal; otherwise if they were present only for the sake of delighting themselves in the skill or fortune of those playing.... Bishops, however, who are present at these games deliberately and frequently can with difficulty be excused even from the sin of grave scandal." L. l. 3, n. 903; Sanchez, Cons. Mor. l. 1, c. 8, d. 29.

Do clerics sin mortally by being present at bullfights? - S. Pius V, by a motu proprio of November 1, 1567, prohibited the aforesaid agitation of bulls and other wild beasts to all, and brought excommunication upon clerics, both secular and regular, obtaining ecclesiastical benefices or instituted in sacred orders, who were present at it. Gregory XIII, on August 2, 1575, by another motu proprio moderated the former. Finally Clement VIII, on January 3, 1596, moderated still more the motu proprio of S. Pius V. Gutierrez apud Sanchez, Cons. Mor. l. 1, c. 8, d. 31, teaches that through the Constitution of Clement the prohibition made to secular clerics constituted in sacred orders or obtaining benefices, of being present at the agitation of bulls, was not taken away. But this is not sufficiently established from the words of the Pontiff. Nevertheless the S. Penitentiary, on September 19, 1893, responded that it cannot be tolerated that a priest be present at the circus, even by force of custom. Regulars, moreover, were positively and clearly excepted by the Pontiff himself from his limitation, and therefore they are prohibited from being present. Villada, Cas., etc., p. 1, p. 344; S. Th. 4, d. 16, q. 4, a. 2, q. 3; E. M.

What about entrance into taverns; about dances and comedies; about dwelling with women? - Entrance into eating-houses and taverns outside necessity is altogether forbidden to clerics, C. Clerici 15 de Vit. et honest. cler. And certainly this is too opposed to clerical modesty and gravity.

To be present at dances, both public and private, and at public comedies, synods everywhere, after Trent s. 22, c. 1 de R., s. 24, c. 12 de R., prohibit clerics under the precept of obedience, as Benedict XIV notes, de Syn. l. 11, c. 10, both because of the grave disgrace of the clerical state which usually arises from this, and because of the danger to which the holiness of clerical life is exposed, and because of the grave scandal of laymen. C. 15 de Vit. et honest. cler.; L. l. 3, n. 427, 429.

Nevertheless this does not prohibit clerics, for the sake of honest recreation and exercise, from acting in those representations or being present at them which are held in communities, with the rules of modesty and temperance, however, observed. There are also certain public spectacles which do not seem so unbecoming to clerics, such as military exercises, horse races, enclosures of wild beasts, feats of jugglers, extraordinary musical gatherings, etc. Here the whole matter must be judged from the nature of the thing itself, from the custom of the region, from the place, from the frequency, from the quality of the person, and the like. And it must be observed that vain and lascivious music is also prohibited in Churches, but by no means pious music, which by its harmony can excite to devotion. Trent s. 22 de Observ. et vit., etc.; Benedict XIV, encyclical Epistle Annus qui, February 21, 1749, § 3 ff.; Notification 37; S. R. C., July 7, 1894, n. 3830.

By Decree of the Vicariate, July 15, 1909, the clergy, both secular and regular, are prohibited at Rome from being present at public Cinematographs, without any exception. A. A. S. v. 1, p. 600.

Dwelling under the same roof with women is prohibited to clerics, unless they need them and they are free from every suspicion. Such are presumed to be blood relatives in the first and second degree and relatives by affinity in the first; but not likewise in the second, unless one owes reverence to the other, as the widow of an uncle or of a nephew; nor likewise strangers, unless they are both of proved virtue and regularly of advanced age. All these things must be in the estimation of the Ordinary. Advanced, that is, they must be at least forty years old. Regularly; for it is lawful to dwell with younger women, the wives of one's servants, or maidservants or attendants of those who are of the household. C. 1, 9 de Cohabit. cler.; C. 27, d. 81; Trent s. 22, c. 1 de R., s. 25, c. 14 de R. The reason is the danger of fall and of scandal. Benedict XIV, Instructions 82, 83; de Syn. l. 11, c. 4, n. 7; Pirhing l. 3, t. 2, n. 2, 3; Reiffenstuel l. 3, t. 2, n. 8; E. M.

Is trade lawful for clerics? - Trade properly so called is interdicted to clerics constituted in sacred orders, and to all religious, so that they sin gravely if they devote much labor to trade. Trent s. 22, c. 1 de R.; C. 15, 16 de Vit. et honest. cler.; C. 1, 3, 6 Ne cler. vel monach.; L. l. 3, n. 381; S. Th. 4, d. 16, q. 4, a. 3, q. 3.

Trade properly so called is when someone buys a thing with the intention that, by selling or exchanging it whole and unchanged at a dearer price, he may gain. Can. 3, caus. 14, q. 4; S. Th. 2. 2. q. 77, a. 4. Properly so called, or lucrative; for there is usually also distinguished economic trade, by which things necessary for sustenance are bought and superfluous things are sold; and artificial trade, by which something is bought so that, changed either naturally or by one's own industry, it may be sold. Neither of these is prohibited in itself. But if things are changed by another's industry, or by hired workers, or if things are sold in a public workshop, this too is unbecoming to the clerical state. For this artificial trade denotes a gain-seeking mind, equally as lucrative trade does, in either case. Cf. Bizzarri ed. 1885, p. 238.

Constituted in sacred orders; for the common opinion is that trade is not prohibited to clerics in minor orders. But it is doubted whether it is forbidden to beneficed clerics in minor orders. Molina, etc., deny it. But the opposite is better to be held with the common opinion, which Lugo, etc., hold. L. l. c.

If they devote much labor to trade; for a cleric does not sin gravely by exercising trade two or three times when it is not shameful and not in a great quantity, because the laws speak of one exercising it. Hence, even if he trades only once or again in grave matter, Cajetan, Salas, etc., probably hold that he does not even sin gravely. L. l. 3, n. 831. For trade to be forbidden to clerics, there is required the mind of buying more cheaply so that it may be sold more dearly; hence it is lawful for them to sell more dearly so that they may buy more cheaply. L. l. c. 336.

Benedict XIV, Bull Apostolicae servitutis, February 25, 1741, established that the penalties inflicted against cleric-traders must also be extended to clerics illicitly trading in any way under the name of a layman, just as if they illicitly exercised those same businesses by themselves and in their own name. These penalties are of ferendae sententiae as regards clerics and monks. But as regards missionaries of the East Indies and of America, to whom trade and commerce are more gravely interdicted, these penalties are incurred by them by the fact itself from the Constitution of Urban VIII Ex debito, February 22, 1633; Clement IX, Sollicitudo pastoralis officii, June 17, 1669; and Resolution of the S. O., March 6, 1817. Cf. 1218.

Clement XIII, Bull Cum primum, September 17, 1759, again prohibited clerics from trading through interposed persons, and especially from exercising active exchange through others, namely from acting the parts of a money-changer; adding that if necessity of the family is present, or if a business comes to him by some title from laymen, a cleric still cannot trade without permission of the Apostolic See in Italy, and outside Italy, without permission of the Bishop. Moreover he adds that if a doubt arises concerning some contract, whether it can licitly be entered by a cleric, "the most expeditious way is to write to the S. Congregation of the Council, which will decide the doubt." L. l. c. 832, 833. But from received customs, if a cleric has succeeded his father in businesses of this kind together with his brothers, he is permitted to exercise them through others. Likewise no permission is needed if someone trades in order to procure the necessities of life for himself, and not only for his state.

It is certain that it is not lawful for clerics or religious to lease the things of laymen for the sake of making gain. The reason is that although this is not properly trade, but only a certain species of trade, nevertheless it is forbidden by the Council of Chalcedon, C. Pervenit 1, caus. 21; C. 1 Ne cler. vel mon. And therefore from another's farms it is not lawful to fatten sheep, swine, etc., so that they may afterward be sold, unless somewhere a contrary custom flourishes. To lease; for he who succeeds to the lessee will be able to retain it. Fagnan on C. 1, n. 81 Ne cler. vel mon.

By no law is it forbidden to clerics to give a loan to others, and consequently to buy obligations of companies, or even shares, provided however that the companies set no illicit end before themselves, that they do not involve themselves in the administration and trade of those companies, and that they abstain from any trade of those obligations and shares. S. O., April 15, 1885.

Neither by an obligation nor by a share can one be said to exercise commerce and trade through an interposed person. For the company itself, whether industrial or even trading, certainly does not exercise industry or trade by mandate or in the name of such a bondholder or shareholder, but altogether independently of him. The bondholder and shareholder only cooperates by helping with his money given. La-Croix l. 3, p. 2, n. 1005, 1006; Molina d. 339, n. 2; Lugo de Inst. d. 26, n. 29; Resp. Mor. l. 3, d. 20; L. l. 3, n. 834, 835; Benedict XIV de Syn. l. 10, c. 6; S. Th. 2. 2. q. 77, a. 4 ad 3; E. M.

The obligation of a company is a title for receiving a certain fixed emolument from money given to the company as a loan. Wherefore through an obligation someone becomes a creditor of the company. A share of some company is a title by which someone, on account of the sum contributed to the company, has a right to receive a variable, proportionate emolument. Through a share someone becomes a partner of the company, but not for that reason an administrator.

It is likewise prohibited to all clerics to exercise the offices of president, moderator, secretary, treasurer, and similar offices in money chests, rural banks, savings banks, and other similar works for the temporal assistance of the faithful. S. C. Consist., November 18, 1910.

You will resolve: It is not trade prohibited to ecclesiastics or religious if from their own grapes they make wine, even through others, and sell it; if they buy cattle which, fattened on their pastures, they sell, because they sell the fruits of their own estates or fields; nor likewise if they nourish flocks so that they may sell the offspring, milk, and wool.

Nor does a cleric sin: 1. If he buys a field with fruits already mature and sells them, because he sells the fruits of his own field. 2. If that which he had bought for his own uses he afterward, either because he does not need it or because his plan has changed, sells more dearly. 3. It is also lawful in itself for clerics to buy iron in order to sell swords; colors, in order to sell paintings; wool, in order to sell cloth, provided however that they themselves make these things, but not through hired workers, because otherwise this would come very close to trade; and likewise provided that they themselves do not sell these things in a public workshop, which would be unbecoming. L. l. c. 834, 836; E. M.

Is it lawful for clerics to alienate the things of the Church? - Paul II in the Extravagant Ambitiosae de Reb. Eccl. non alienand. prohibits, under grave penalties, the alienation of immovable goods and precious movable goods of the Church which can be preserved; and he declares the alienation altogether invalid. L. 187. Cf. 1209 and vol. 1, n. 1173; C. I. 434; C. G. 2045: the goods of ecclesiastical Institutes cannot be alienated without the approval of the Government.

What arts and offices are prohibited to clerics? - It is prohibited to clerics in sacred orders and to monks to exercise medicine and surgery where there is need of incision, amputation, or cauterization, and no necessity is present; and indeed under irregularity if mutilation or death follows from it. For this is opposed to the gentleness which all clerics ought continually to have. If however a skilled person is not present and the case is urgent, a cleric will be able without sin, and therefore without danger of penalty or irregularity, to effect an incision or cauterization. Likewise other ecclesiastics can be present with the best counsels of the healing art. But to exercise the medical art publicly, on account of indecency, is altogether alien from present practice, although it is done without cauterization and incision. It is also prohibited to clerics and monks to hear civil law and medicine publicly. But as regards law, because of the changed circumstances of times, it is permitted to hear it publicly in schools with due permission of their own superiors. Likewise it is permitted, with permission of Ordinaries and with every indecency removed, to hear lessons concerning pastoral medicine, which according to present practice are customarily had. But secular and regular clerics who frequent Government Universities for the sake of studies must observe the prescriptions established by the S. C. of Bishops and Regulars, Instruction Perspectum, July 21, 1896. These laws oblige all. Clerics cannot frequent the aforesaid Universities without permission of their Ordinary, nor religious without permission of their Superior General and without urgent necessity. Likewise every art which is generally judged contrary to the honor of the clerical state is prohibited to all clerics by the same canon law, such as the art of butchers, tavern-keepers, jesters, actors, etc. Decretals, titles de Vit. et honest. cleric.; Ne cler. vel mon., etc.; Lugo, Resp. Moral. l. 4, d. 34; E. M.

Moreover, beneficed clerics or those in sacred orders are everywhere by canon law prohibited under grave obligation from exercising the following offices: 1. Of tutor, curator, or procurator of minors, and any other which is of public ministry, such as prefect of a city, quaestor, etc., and which obliges them to render accounts concerning justice or concerning goods administered, except the case in which the wards or minors are near relatives of the clerics. Cf. C. un. de Oblig. ad ratiocin.; Clement XIII, C. Cum primum, par. Et parem; C. I. 246. But by present practice it has been received that they can be deputies, senators, and municipal councilors, unless a special prohibition is present.

2. Of judge in a case of blood; of soldier; of advocate, procurator, and notary in secular courts, except the case in which the cleric acts a cause either his own, or of his Church, or of a poor person, or of a person joined to him in the fourth degree; of administrator of the goods of a private lay person, not miserable, with the obligation of rendering accounts of the substance administered. For the rest, doctors do not dare to condemn of mortal sin a cleric who by such procuration would not neglect his ministries, especially if he did this not for the sake of avarice, but to preserve more fittingly his own state and that of his family. For the Law speaks only of him who so immerses himself in procurations of this kind that he would be compelled to neglect his ministries. L. 190; l. 3, n. 838. Decretals l. 1, t. 37 de Postulando; Trent s. 7, c. 14 de R., s. 23, c. 1 de R.; Benedict XIV de Syn. l. 13, c. 10; S. Th. 2. 2. q. 187, a. 2; q. 71, a. 2; Lugo, Resp. Mor. l. 4, d. 29; L. 189; l. 7, n. 384, 385, 389; E. M.

185 bis. Note: No one from the secular clergy can frequent royal Universities without the express permission of his Bishop, and no Religious without the express permission of the General Superior. Permission cannot be given except to those who have first completed with praise the philosophical and theological course. If the University is in another diocese, the young men must present themselves to the Bishop of the place, and as much as can be done, they must stay in the Seminary. Religious, however, either in their own house, or in another religious house, or in a seminary, or in some ecclesiastical Institute. Those who have given their name to some Catholic University, or likewise to a Catholic Institute, are not to learn in a civil University the disciplines concerning which there have been teachers in these. Pius X, Motu Proprio Sacrorum antistitum, September 1, 1910. Secular clerics cannot direct journals or periodical sheets without permission of the Ordinary. Nor can they exercise the office of Deputy without the consent of their own Ordinary and of the Ordinary of the place where they wish to present themselves as candidates. Thus it has been decided several times. Clerics and priests are prohibited from giving their name to any society which does not depend on the Bishops. Cf. 1240 bis.

98. • Generally, clerics are prohibited from giving themselves to those things which are unbecoming to the ecclesiastical state, for example, from exercising the art of butcher, innkeeper, physician, and surgeon, except in a case of necessity; from acting as judge in a case of blood, or advocate, or patron, or notary in secular contracts. Likewise clerics are prohibited from going about armed, entering taverns, and many other things. But the following are especially prohibited to clerics: 1º habitation with women; 2º games of chance; 3º bearing arms and hunting; 4º trading. Of each briefly.

101. • A game of dice is said to be one which is situated wholly in pure lot, and whose outcome depends on mere chance, without the player's industry obtaining any part in it: such, for example, is the game of dice.

Games of dice are severely prohibited to clerics, at least those constituted in major Orders and beneficed persons. This is established 1º from the Fourth Lateran Council, canon 16, where it is said: "Let clerics not play at dice and games, nor be present at games of this sort"; 2º from the Council of Trent, sess. 22, ch. 1, De Reformat.

With laws of this sort considered, he who, initiated in sacred Orders, indulged in games of this sort for the sake of gain and much, was commonly held guilty of grave sin. - St. Ligorius, bk. 3, n. 896. - But from present custom the prohibition of the ancient Canons seems greatly tempered.

At present, according to many, a cleric is judged immune from every sin who plays sparingly, moderately, privately, and without scandal at dice and cards, however much the outcome depends on fortune, if he plays where the aforesaid Canons are not rigidly observed. - St. Ligorius, n. 899. - A fortiori he would be free from every fault who for the sake of recreation and without scandal would recreate himself with those games; for example, if there is no gain or the least gain, or if the gain is assigned to the poor, because custom in this way has interpreted the sacred Canons.

102. • QUESTION. Is any card game whatsoever judged aleatory?

Resp. No. For a twofold card game must be distinguished. One is of pure lot and altogether aleatory; but another is mixed, or partly aleatory and partly depending on the skill or industry of the player. This latter kind of game is not to be held as illicit of itself, if it is played moderately, without scandal, and for a small quantity of money, unless nevertheless it is prohibited somewhere by special law; for thus the interpretation of the law and universal custom bear. Yet clerics should take care lest in playing they be carried away to excesses, levity, and dissipation of mind, and also to the affection of cupidity or passion. It is especially expedient that they generally abstain from playing with seculars, unless these are men of uncommon prudence and gravity; because otherwise their holy ministry will easily suffer detriment, and sometimes grave detriment. Above all they must beware of waste of time, and as much as possible of the scandal of the faithful.

103. • The bearing of arms, necessity excluded, is prohibited to clerics. This is established, besides other things, from the Decretals, bk. 3, tit. 1, De vita et honest. Cleric., ch. 2, where it is said: "Let clerics bearing arms be excommunicated." The reason is that bearing arms is unbecoming to the character of clerics, who, after the example of Christ, ought to be meek and humble of heart. From another side, the arms of clerics ought to be merely spiritual, since it belongs to them to fight against the powers of darkness. Hence the theologians with Benedict XIV, note 101, say that clerics in sacred Orders who embrace military service sin gravely. Nevertheless they are not to be reprehended who cooperate in a just war by counsel, exhortation, or even aid, provided they do not bear arms nor discharge the office of leader. These things are established from various places of Canon Law. I said outside necessity, because necessity has no law.

104. • Hunting is prohibited to clerics; but understand hunting to be noisy hunting, or that which is done with dogs and the noise of arms, or with hawks; but not quiet hunting, for example, with snares or other instruments. This is established from various places of Canon Law, but especially from the Fourth Lateran Council, canon 15, where it is said: "We interdict hunting and fowling to all clerics; whence let them not presume to have dogs or birds." Likewise from the Council of Trent, sess. 24, ch. 13. - See St. Ligorius, bk. 5, n. 606.

But it is disputed whether noisy hunting is a grave sin if it happens rarely. St. Ligorius denies, scandal being excluded. Likewise hunting with a gun and one dog does not seem strictly prohibited of itself; but generally it involves indecency, nor is it free from some scandal, unless perhaps it happens rarely, for example, without running, in a garden, etc.

16. From those things which were said in the two preceding articles, judgment can be borne concerning theaters, namely whether those who are present at theaters sin. For if they sin, they can sin only on account of base looks, or base things heard. Now then, theaters of themselves are not evil, but indifferent, since they can be had well and badly. Yet ordinarily speaking, it cannot be denied that they are full of dangers, especially for adolescents, whose blood is already sufficiently boiling of itself; for they foster luxury, feed the sight basely, enervate the soul, and sharpen passions. - Wherefore there is no sin either to be present at comedies, or to act them, if they are honorable. "The office of actors, which is ordained to exhibiting solace to men, is not according to itself illicit," says the Angelic Doctor, 2.2, q. 168, a. 3. - But if they are somewhat base, the hearer will sin only venially, unless perhaps he knows by experience that he is moved vehemently by entertainments of this kind toward lust, with proximate danger of consent, so that the spectacle is for him a proximate occasion of sinning. - If finally the comedy is notably base, either in itself or in manner, he sins mortally per se. Per se; for it would be venial to view it only on account of curiosity, or on account of empty solace, with all danger of base delectation excluded; nevertheless, practically speaking, this danger will easily be present in adolescents, or in others of little timorous conscience; and unless scandal is present, which plainly would be present if clerics and religious were present at base comedies, as Benedict XIV observes. - L. 427, 428; Hom. Apost., tract. 9, n. 10; G. 247.

17. Note. 1. Holzmann and La-Croix deservedly condemn as mortal, on account of the scandal of others, both those who cooperate by money or applause in notably base comedies, and also those who are bound to impede them and, when they conveniently can, do not impede them; a fortiori those who compose or represent them. - 2. Since it is not illicit from a just and proportionate cause for someone to expose himself to danger, especially if by salutary safeguards the danger of sinning is averted, the following can be present at spectacles without sin, provided they are not gravely base: 1. married women, lest they displease a commanding husband; 2. male and female servants, that they may serve their masters; 3. sons and daughters of the family, if parents command it; 4. soldiers and magistrates, that they may care for good order to be preserved; 5. kings and princes, that they may conciliate the affection of subjects to themselves; 6. courtiers, who are bound to accompany the prince, etc., provided all these do not have a depraved intention and do not consent to carnal delectation perhaps arising. - 3. Yet since the matter, as commonly happens, is full of dangers, a prudent confessor ought, as far as can be done, to avert his penitents from spectacles of this kind. - 4. But it is lawful for workers to build and adorn theaters, if the adornments are in themselves honorable, because it is lawful for Princes to permit spectacles.

18. Can comedians and actors never be absolved unless they renounce their profession?

R. Certainly comedians and actors are not to be absolved unless they first renounce base representations; but since spectacles are not of themselves altogether illicit, nor even the office of actors, says St. Thomas, l. c., is of itself illicit, neither are those exercising it in the state of sin, provided they use play moderately, that is, by not using some illicit words or deeds for play, and by not applying play to undue affairs and times. Therefore actors are not always to be dismissed without absolution. "All things being equal," says D. Gousset, theol. mor., t. 1, n. 648, "one will be more indulgent toward an actress who is under the authority of marital power than toward an actor who is master of his actions." - Diana, tr. 5, de scandalo, resol. 25-29; St. Francis de Sales, Introduction to the Devout Life, part 1, ch. 23.

“We altogether forbid priests, deacons, or subdeacons the companionship of concubines and wives, and cohabitation with other women except those whom the Synod of Nicaea permitted to live with them solely on grounds of relationship, namely, a mother, sister, paternal aunt, or maternal aunt, or others of this kind concerning whom no just suspicion can arise.” First Ecumenical Lateran Council, canon 3.

1031. Clerics constituted in sacred orders ought not only to manifest internal holiness by external habit, but also to abstain from all offices and businesses which impede them from duly fulfilling the ministry committed to them, or diminish the reverence owed to clerical dignity: "No man being a soldier to God entangles himself with secular businesses, that he may please him to whom he has approved himself."¹ But since, among those things which keep clerics from their duties, trading is principal, we shall speak: 1. concerning trading prohibited to clerics; 2. concerning other forbidden arts.

¹ II Tim., II, 4.

I. On Trading Prohibited To Clerics.

1032. Trading is distinguished as twofold, namely strictly and broadly taken.

The former consists in this, that a thing is bought so that under the same form it may be sold again at a higher price. Hence four things are required for trading properly so called: (a) to buy a thing: for if I sell a thing arisen from my own land, it is not properly called trading; (b) to buy the thing so that it may be sold again: for, if I buy a thing so that I may enjoy it, I do not trade, - although afterward, indeed on the same day, having changed my mind, I sell it again, for example, because I have encountered an unexpected occasion; (c) so that it may be sold again under the same form: for if the thing, changed by art or industry, is sold again, it is not strictly called trading, for example, if someone buys grapes and sells wine made from them; (d) so that it may be sold again at a higher price: for if merchandise is sold again at almost the same price, so that profit is not received, it is not properly trading.

But the latter, or trading broadly so called, is that which lacks at least one of the four conditions explained above.

1. On Trading Properly So Called.

1033. "Clerics are prohibited from exercising business or trade, whether by themselves or through others, whether for their own utility or for that of others" (Code, can. 142).

This was already certain from book III of the Decretals, title L, Ne clerici vel monachi saecularibus negotiis se immisceant, cap. 6: "According to the statutes of our predecessors we prohibit under threat of anathema that monks or clerics trade for the sake of gain." This decree was confirmed by the Council of Vienne: "Against other clerics publicly insisting on trades or secular commerce or offices not befitting the clerical purpose, or carrying arms, let them (the Bishops) so strive to observe the canonical statutes that those also may be restrained from excesses of this sort."² - But the reason for the prohibition is that clerics may be turned away from solicitudes of temporal things and from desire of riches, which are by no means reconciled with sacred offices: "For they who will to become rich fall into temptation, and into the snare of the devil, and into many unprofitable and harmful desires, which drown men in destruction and perdition."¹

² Decretal., Clementin. l. III, tit. I, c. 1, p. 1156, ed. Friedberg.

¹ I Tim., VI, 9-10.

1034. (a) This prohibition indeed also affects those who intend to spend all profits on pious works; for the end of the one acting does not change the nature of the work, and otherwise this pious intention does not take away anxieties and vain cares. - It moreover comprehends those who trade through lay persons, both because, from rule of law 72 in VI, "he who acts through another is the same as if he acted through himself," and because Benedict XIV declared that the prohibition and canonical penalties are extended "to clerics unlawfully trading in any way under the name of a layman, just as if they exercised those unlawful businesses by themselves and in their own name."²

² Benedict XIV, Bull Apostolicae servitutis, Feb. 25, 1741, § 1 (Bullar. Bened., t. I, n. 13).

(b) This prohibition is of itself grave, as is certain both from the end of the law and from the penalties brought against trading clerics, both in the old and in the recent law (can. 2380). Yet it admits smallness of matter; thus to trade twice or three times in light matter, indeed, according to several, in grave matter (provided not graver), does not exceed venial sin; but what matter is grave or light must be determined by the judgment of a learned and pious man, according to the various circumstances.³

³ St. Alphons., l. III, n. 831; D'Annibale, t. III, n. 156.

(c) Major clerics and beneficed clerics are certainly held by this law, and also minor clerics, since the laws related above by no means distinguish; hence, if these wish to trade, let them withdraw from the clergy, as is licit for them.

But missionaries in the East Indies and in America specifically (but not in other regions) are prohibited from devoting themselves to trading under any pretext, even once, by themselves or through ministers, both in their own name and in the name of their religions; and indeed under penalty of excommunication latae sententiae, and loss of all merchandise and profits; these penalties indeed were in force up to this point, from the authentic declaration of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide.⁴ - Yet this excommunication was not properly reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, since the delinquent could be absolved by his confessor once the profits had been restored; but if the profits had not been restored, he could be absolved by no one: wherefore this was not properly a reservation, but a condition of absolution. - The same penalties were incurred by immediate superiors, Provincials, and Generals who had not punished their subjects delinquent in this matter, at least by removal from the places where the delict had been committed.

⁴ In Collectanea, n. 351; ibid., n. 352, it is declared: "From which excommunication latae sententiae to be incurred by the fact itself no one can be absolved, except one constituted in the article of death, unless profits of this sort have been restored... That the same prohibition and penalty... affect not only European missionaries, but also any ecclesiastical men whatever, who under the name of missionaries, or under any other title, have for the time been sent, or in any way will stay in those parts."

(d) If a cleric is pressed by present want, he can devote himself to some licit trade, so that he may meet this necessity. If the necessity is not urgent, or if there is question only of the necessity of parents, let the cleric seek an Indult from the Apostolic See, if he is within Italy, - or from the Ordinary, if he dwells outside Italy; but let the Indult not be granted unless the aforesaid necessity is true and another way of aiding it is lacking; and the Indult ceases by the law itself as soon as the necessity itself ceases or another reason is at hand for providing for it.¹

¹ Thus Clement XIII, Bull Cum primum, Sept. 17, 1759, in Collectanea, n. 340, p. 118.

1035. Corollary. From this it is given to be understood what a cleric is to do if he receives a commercial institution by inheritance, or in another way. According to Benedict XIV,² he ought immediately to give up that institution, if he can do so without temporal detriment; if he cannot without detriment, let him ask from the Holy See permission to retain it, in all cases. In the letters granting the permission, a suitable time is to be prescribed for giving up the business; meanwhile, however, let the cleric administer through a layman.

² Benedict XIV, Const. Apostolicae servitutis, Feb. 25, 1741.

2. On Trading Broadly Taken.

1036. The general principle is that trading broadly so called is licit for clerics, because ecclesiastical laws prohibit only trading strictly so called.

Nevertheless, from the common consent of canonists and theologians,³ in one case it is forbidden, namely when a thing is bought so that afterward, changed by the industry of other men, it may be sold again for the sake of gain. For that kind of trading so closely approaches trading strictly so called that morally it hardly differs from it, for example, if I buy cloth, and from it a garment is made by the industry of a hired tailor, so that I may sell it again at a higher price, it is morally speaking the same as if I buy the garment made so that the same may be sold again. - It generates the same evils, namely temporal solicitudes and desire of riches. - Finally, unless it were prohibited, the law prohibiting strict trading would very easily be eluded: for a cleric, wishing to trade, would buy material from merchants, and would take care that it be changed by hired workers before it was sold.

³ Reiffenstuel, in tit. De vita et honest., n. 131; Pirhing, in tit. Ne clerici, n. 4; Schmalzgrueber, ibid., n. 18; De Lugo, De Justitia, disp. XXVI, n. 34; St. Alphons., l. III, n. 836; D'Annibale, t. III, n. 155, note 9.

1037. Corollaries. (a) It is licit for a cleric to buy a thing so that, changed by his own industry, he may sell it again: for then he sells the fruit of his own labor and exercises a little art; but manual labor is much commended by St. Paul and the Fathers.

(b) Likewise it is licit to buy animals so that, fattened, they may be sold again: for this change is partly the fruit of nature and partly the fruit of one's own labor.

(c) Likewise a cleric licitly sells things gathered from his own estates, whether they have not been changed, or whether they have been changed even by the work of hired workers; for this is not properly to trade, but to cultivate fields.

(d) It is also licit for a cleric to buy a house or estates, so that he may lease them and thence make profit: for this is not trading, but the leasing of things, which is prohibited by no law. - Yet in all these things one must carefully avoid whatever can bring disgrace upon clerical dignity.

3. On The Buying And Selling Of Titles Of Credit.

1038. Since today public revenues (rentes sur l'Etat), and also shares and bonds of companies (actions, obligations, stock, bonds), are frequently bought or sold, it remains to inquire whether clerics can devote themselves to these businesses.¹ Now there is a great difference between bonds and shares: a bond is a right to a determined annual profit from a sum of money which has been given, as it were in loan, to some company; but a share is a certain part of the capital from which the company is constituted, and confers a right to a proportionate part of the profits. Hence the owner of a bond (l'obligataire, bond-holder) is one of the creditors of the company, while the shareholder (l'actionnaire, stock-holder) is a co-proprietor of the social fund.

¹ Concerning these things and concerning speculations of the Exchange, cf. On Justice, n. 932-938, and Supplement for France, p. 219-224.

1039. (A) Clerics are not prohibited from buying bonds in any companies whatever, the rules of justice and cooperation being observed. For a bond can be held as a loan, or a redeemable rent-charge, or as a contract of credit; but all these things are licit, as we proved in the Treatise on Justice, n. 932; nor otherwise are they prohibited to clerics, since in no way do they savor of trading. - Yet bonds of companies which are instituted for an evil end cannot be bought, because thus one would cooperate in the evil committed by these.

1040. (B) The difficulty is greater as to shares, and there is a threefold opinion.

(a) Some say that it is not licit for clerics to buy shares in commercial or industrial companies.¹ For these companies properly trade; and therefore to buy or retain shares in these companies is nothing other than to exercise business through others, since the administrators manage all business in the name of the shareholders; but a cleric cannot trade even through another. - This is confirmed by the decision of the Holy Office, April 1, 1857; to the doubt: "Whether it is licit for ecclesiastical persons to buy titles on railroads and to receive the profit coming from them"; it responded: "The Most Holy grants faculties to Bishops, to be communicated through the Sacred Congregation of Bishops, of permitting ecclesiastics to receive shares of a railroad from their own money only";² therefore, they say, without special license it is not licit.

¹ Lehmk., t. II, n. 612; Marc, t. II, n. 2228.

² In Ball. P., Tr. IX, n. 478.

(b) But others distinguish between companies which are called commercial and those which are industrial;³ as to the former, it is not licit for clerics to buy shares, because then they would cooperate in commerce; in reality the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, having been asked: "Whether it would be licit for clerics constituted in sacred orders or beneficed to acquire shares in the said company" (there was question of a banking company to be constituted), responded: "it is not licit."⁴ - As to industrial companies, clerics are not prohibited from buying shares, because they can exercise industrial arts; hence the Sacred Congregation of the Council declared that religious can exercise the art of miller, provided it be done through hired workers.⁵

³ Craisson, in Revue des Sciences ecclesiastiques, t. XIII, 1866, p. 460-483, n. 356; Icard, t. II, n. 356.

⁴ Bizzarri, Collectanea, Rome, 1885, p. 530.

⁵ Ferraris, word Clerici, art. 3, nn. 37, 43.

1041. (c) The third opinion,⁶ which we embrace as more probable, teaches that it is licit for clerics to buy shares in any companies whatever, whether industrial or commercial, provided nevertheless that these conditions are observed: the cleric is only a shareholder, but not a partner properly so called, and therefore he is not held beyond the value of his shares; - the company has no illicit or suspect end; - nor does the cleric undertake a part of administration in that company; - nor does he exercise trading in shares; - and he abstains especially from those aleatory speculations described elsewhere, On Justice, n. 932-938.

⁶ Bouix, in the periodical Revue des Sc. eccles., t. II, 1860, p. 444-470; Vecchiotti, Institutiones Canonicae, Turin, 1876, t. I, p. 399-400; Sanguinetti, Juris ecclesiastici Institutiones, 2nd ed., Rome, 1890, p. 157-163; Allegre, Code civ. commente, Paris, 1902, p. 310-315; Nouvelle Revue Theologique, t. XXV, 1893, p. 604-614; Ball. P., n. 474-478, who has this opinion as probable.

In reality, according to common estimation, shareholders are not thought to trade either by themselves or through others; in themselves indeed they are co-proprietors of the fund, and, if the matter is regarded in the abstract, the business of the company is managed in their name; but in fact, shareholders hardly know how the affairs of the company are managed, care little about them, and, even when they have the right of casting a vote in general Assemblies, often bid farewell to this right, and otherwise are by no means held to use it. Wherefore they can rest securely, because they can lose nothing except the price of the shares which they bought; therefore they are generally no more entangled in secular solicitudes than if they possessed public revenues; nor is their desire much inflamed, since the profit received thence is often not much greater than the ordinary increase received from bonds; hence the motives on account of which trading is prohibited to clerics do not apply here. - This is confirmed from the response of the Holy Office, April 15, 1885, where it is declared "that ecclesiastical persons are not to be troubled if they have bought or buy shares or titles of a bank, provided they are prepared to stand by the commands of the Holy See, and abstain from any trading of the said titles, and especially from every contract which has the species, as it is commonly said, of games of the stock exchange,"¹ (of speculations and games of the Exchange).

¹ Nouvelle Revue Theologique, t. XXV, 1893, p. 610; Ball. P., n. 478.

But from this response it is clear that it is not licit for clerics to buy or sell titles or merchandise for a term, nor even to buy them for this end, that they may often be sold again at a higher price.²

² What was explained above, On Justice, n. 938. But if some cleric buys securities not for this end, that he may sell them again, but for receiving revenues, and afterward sells them again, an opportunity being given, he does not trade, from the things said above, n. 1032.

II. On Other Arts Forbidden To The Clergy.

1042. 1. The general principle is that arts are forbidden to clerics which greatly disgrace the clerical state, or entangle them too much in secular businesses. Thus, from the former head, the arts of innkeepers, butchers, actors, etc., are prohibited to clerics; offices by which they devote their industry and labor to the services and abject servitudes of lay persons.¹ - From the other head, they are prohibited from exercising the office of advocate or procurator (avoue) before civil tribunals, unless they plead their own cause or that of their own church; in a lay criminal trial pursuing a grave penalty, let them have no part, not even bearing testimony without necessity. But in ecclesiastical courts, clerics can advocate and act as proctors, and exercise the office of clerk or public notary, as is clear from the Code, can. 139.

¹ From the Code, c. 138, "clerics should entirely abstain from all those things which disgrace their state; let them not exercise unbecoming arts."

Regularly clerics are forbidden to assume the office of tutor without the permission of the Bishop,² unless there is question of blood relatives or relatives by marriage whose tutelage they cannot reject, or of needy wards.

² By particular law, in certain dioceses, the license of the Bishop is always required: "We likewise forbid them to accept the charge of tutor, subrogated tutor, or curator, unless with special authorization on our part." (Statuts Synod. de Paris, n. 180.)

1043. 2. From the Code, can. 139, "let them not assume public offices which carry with them the exercise of lay jurisdiction or administration." Moreover, as to private businesses, "without the license of their Ordinary let them not enter upon managements of goods belonging to lay persons, or secular offices which carry with them the burden of rendering accounts." (Code, can. 139, § 3.) - It should also be noted that, from can. 137, a cleric is prohibited from becoming surety (cautionnement), even concerning his own goods, without having consulted the Ordinary of the place. From can. 1516, "a cleric or religious who has received goods for pious causes... in trust, ought to make his Ordinary more certain concerning his trust...; but if the donor has prohibited this... let him not accept the trust. The Ordinary ought to demand that fiduciary goods be placed in safety."

"Let them neither solicit nor accept the office of senators or spokesmen for making laws, whom they call deputies, without the license of the Holy See in places where a pontifical prohibition has intervened; likewise let them not attempt this in other places without the license both of their own Ordinary and of the Ordinary of the place in which the election is to be made."

1044. 3. From the Code, can. 139, § 2, "without an apostolic indult let (clerics) not exercise medicine or surgery." Thus no longer is a distinction made between major and minor clerics; and deservedly, since today physicians and surgeons are easily found. - But in regions where they are lacking, as in missions, indults are granted to missionaries rather easily.

1045. 4. From the Code, c. 141, clerics "are not to undertake secular military service as volunteers, unless with the license of their Ordinary, so that they may become free sooner, they have done this; nor are they to bring help in any way to civil wars and disturbances of the public order. A minor cleric who... of his own accord has given his name to military service falls by the law itself from the clerical state."

Principle and general rule. Clerics must flee secular business and amusements, and all things which can scarcely be reconciled with the sanctity, modesty, decorum, and dignity of the clerical state.

Most prohibitions, as far as substance is concerned, are already repeated from ancient memory, that is, especially from the fourth century. Recommendations are read among the Holy Fathers of that age, for example St. Jerome in Ep. 52, to Nepotianus (P. L., 22, 527 ff.); and St. Augustine in sermon 355, in which he describes the life which he was leading with clerics (P. L., 39, 1569 ff.); but the discipline is confirmed and completed by canons of the Council of Nicaea (325) and of many particular councils, for example Laodicea, about the middle of the fourth century, Sardica (343), and those of later centuries. Thus, on account of the customs of invading barbarians, it was necessary to prohibit hunting, at least noisy hunting; because monks and regular canons were deserting monasteries in order to betake themselves to public schools and there were learning temporal laws and medicine, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries studies of this sort were forbidden to them and afterwards to clerics; and in the Decretals the practice itself of medicine, at least dangerous practice, was prohibited.

These canons were collected by Gratian in his Decree; the ordinances were perfected in the Decretals of Gregory IX and in Book VI of the Decretals, chiefly in the titles De vita et honestate clericorum (III, 1); Ne clerici vel monachi saecularibus negotiis se immisceant (III, 50).

The Council of Trent renewed all these things in its decrees on Reformation (sess. XXII, c. 1, Ref.; sess. XXIV, c. 12, Ref.). These decrees were in force until the present Code of Canon Law.

Corollaries. The following must be fled: 1. things which are dangerous to the virtue and name of clerics. Wherefore:

a) they cannot keep with themselves, or in any way frequent, women concerning whom there can be suspicion;

b) they can cohabit only with women closely related, that is, blood-relations of the first and second degree or those to whom reverence is owed, and affines of the first degree, or with those from whom tried honesty of morals, joined with more advanced age, removes every suspicion.

The Ordinary of the place is accustomed to define these things more by synodal statutes, just as he can also in a particular case prohibit clerics from keeping or frequenting a related woman with whom by accident there is danger of scandal or incontinence (c. 133).

This is to be understood when the cleric himself is head of the house. But, scandal or particular danger always being excluded, cohabitation with women who belong to the family of related persons with whom clerics dwell is also judged honest. Cf. Palmieri, Op. theol., tom. 4, tr. 9, n. 455;

c) on the contrary, common life of itself brings a protection of virtue and fervor. Wherefore in c. 134 this is called to be commended and observed.

2. Things which are dangerous to peace of soul and honest support. Wherefore, without the local Ordinary having been consulted, a cleric is prohibited from becoming surety, even concerning his own goods (c. 137).

He becomes surety who undertakes to fulfill the obligation in the place of an impotent principal debtor.

3. Things which are unbecoming either in themselves or with the clerical state considered. Once the principle has been stated, c. 138 brings forward these examples:

a) "let them not exercise unbecoming arts." Such are the arts of butcher, tavern-keeper;

b) "let them not devote themselves to games of chance, money having been exposed." To devote oneself is to indulge in a thing often and for a long time. A game of chance is one which is founded more on fortune than on skill.

Therefore common law does not prohibit moderate play, for a short time or for the sake of recreation. Indeed it expressly mentions only play where money is staked. Synodal definitions must be attended to.

The gravity of the sin will depend on scandal, time, money, and the quality of the person. Received customs influence scandal. Already to watch certain public games can be grave;

c) "let them not carry arms, unless when a just cause of fearing is present." It is especially prohibited that they walk publicly armed.

Hidden carrying will not be grave and will easily be excused by some reason of defense. Nor are they prohibited from keeping defensive arms at home.

d) "let them not indulge in hunting; but noisy hunting let them never exercise."

Therefore, by common law, hunting that is not noisy is not prohibited unless for too much time; but frequent noisy hunting was thought already before to be forbidden under grave sin. Synodal statutes can prohibit these things more severely;

e) "let them not enter taverns and other similar places without necessity or another just cause approved by the Ordinary of the place."

A tavern, with attention to common law, is to be understood as a common inn or eating-house where wine, beer, and liquors are openly and indiscriminately sold retail to any who come. Cf. Periodica, XI, p. 19. Those places which are principally destined for refreshment or lodging are by no means such: trattoria, albergo. Nor are a decorous cafe or restaurant of themselves comprehended under this name. But the particular law and usages of certain regions have introduced a stricter discipline, which keeps clerics from going to any cafe. Even then, however, there must be excepted houses which, with the Ordinary not objecting, are commonly frequented by clerics.

Necessity can be had on a journey. Another just cause can arise for a cleric who accompanies parents, or young men committed to his care, or who by reason of relationship visits an innkeeper. But it suffices that the cause be tacitly approved by the Ordinary, or that he be presumed to be about to admit the cause.

Synodal statutes are accustomed to define these things more. And pilgrims must obey these laws, although they escape the attached penalties or censures;

f) "let them not be present at spectacles, dances, and pageants which disgrace them or in which it would be a scandal for clerics to take part, especially in public theaters" (c. 140).

Therefore these things are not prohibited absolutely, but insofar as the reason of decorum or the reason of scandal has opposed the presence of clerics. Thus nothing prevents a cleric from hearing a public concert, or watching an honest dance which is part of a classical tragedy exhibited before select persons, or participating in some way in a solemn pageant on account of a religious or patriotic cause. While, on the contrary, it is of itself unbecoming that he be present at bullfighting, that he lead dances, that he take part in a worldly or too profane pageant. But twice, on March 31, 1916, and December 10, 1917, the Sacred Consistorial Congregation forbade that in North America priests promote and favor dances which were held for sustaining pious works, or be present at them, if perhaps they were promoted by laymen. Cf. A.A.S., VIII, 147, and X, 17; or Periodica, VIII, 161, and IX, 43.

If these spectacles are exhibited in public theaters, the prohibition is urged more severely on account of the place itself, suspect of itself, and which clerics are almost everywhere simply forbidden to approach. As regards private theaters, the circumstances must be prudently weighed.

"Cinematographic" spectacles are akin to theatrical spectacles. Yet the usages of places must be observed. In the City, by a decree of May 15, 1918, each clergy is absolutely prohibited from access to public cinematographic exhibitions (A.A.S., X, 300).

4. Things which are alien to the clerical state. Wherefore:

a) "without an apostolic indult let them not exercise medicine or surgery" (c. 139, §2).

Missionaries are accustomed to obtain such an indult, in which incision or cauterization is excepted, that is, such things as bring danger of life or mutilation ¹. Before the Code, the more benign opinion indulged practice without incision or cauterization. The Code prohibited every practice. Practice means frequent use, so that an accidental intervention is not prohibited.

Nor does there seem to be prohibited a practice circumscribed to relatives, to one's own community. Partial and non-lucrative use by which only certain easy and safe remedies are applied can also be excused. Although while they think of healing the body, clerics must avoid harming souls, whether on account of the envy of physicians or on account of the loss of time which is owed to sacred ministries.

Besides, as is clear, in true necessity the law of charity always prevails, by which we are ordered to bring help to a neighbor in need.

Clerics who, exercising the medical or surgical art forbidden to them, have sinned gravely, become irregular from delict if death follows from it (c. 985, 6);

b) "let them not act as tabellions or public notaries, except in the ecclesiastical Curia" (c. 139, §2).

A public notary draws up juridical instruments, such as testaments and contracts, and gives them public faith, especially as to the date or day on which they are said to have been made;

c) "let them not assume public offices which carry with them the exercise of lay jurisdiction or administration" (c. 139, §2).

A king or judge exercises lay jurisdiction; but the prefect of a province, or mayor, exercises administration.

Jurisdiction or administration is understood in this place as singular, not that which is exercised collectively by several. For by this canon it is by no means prohibited that someone exercise the office of deputy to a municipal council or parliament;

d) without the permission of his Ordinary, therefore, for religious of an exempt clerical religion, of the major Superior, the management of goods belonging to laymen, and secular offices which carry with them the burden of rendering accounts, are prohibited (c. 139, §3).

The private usefulness of the family to which a cleric belongs and the usefulness of the social order can recommend these managements. Pius X of happy memory had this in mind, when in the decree Docente Apostolo, November 18, 1910 (A.A.S., II, 910; Periodica, V, 261), he so prohibited clerics in "social" works from assuming temporal administrations that at the same time he foresaw the necessity of making an exception. But the exception which he had then reserved to himself is now permitted to the judgment of the Ordinary, as the Commission of the Code declared in plenary meetings, June 2-3, 1918 (A.A.S., 1918, 344).

Secular clerics are prohibited from being tutors of strangers, but not of related persons. Synodal statutes not rarely require the assent of the bishop.

But there are not a few secular offices which oblige to accounts: for example, the office of those directing postal services, railways, or keeping mortgages;

e) "let them not exercise the office of procurator or advocate, except in an ecclesiastical tribunal, or in a civil one, when there is question of their own cause or the cause of their church."

The procurator here is the one whom in French they call avoué, who, representing the litigating parties, acts for them in civil causes; but the advocate is the patron of causes. Before the Code, they permitted clerics also to be able in the forum of laymen to advocate for causes of related persons up to the fourth canonical degree, and of miserable persons. Therefore the disposition of the Code is stricter. The severity is explained because today even in the civil forum there are not lacking those who are ordered to undertake the patronage of the poor gratis, for God. Perhaps, however, under the name of one's own cause the cause also of blood-relations can be understood, as Rev. Fr. Maroto insinuates, Institutiones canonicae, n. 568. The cause of his church is, for a cleric, the cause of the church or monastery or religion to which he is ascribed;

f) "in a lay criminal trial, pursuing a grave personal penalty, let them have no part, not even bearing testimony without necessity" (c. 139, §3).

Before the Code, clerics were prohibited from being witnesses in a cause of blood, that is, where the penalty of death or mutilation is decreed, unless permission of the bishop had been obtained and a protestation made that they in no way intended the penalty of blood. Can. 139, §2 seems to extend the prohibition to every criminal trial by which a grave personal penalty will be pronounced; but at the same time an excuse of necessity is admitted.

A personal penalty is one which directly affects the person either in his body, as capital penalty, or in his liberty, for example prison beyond six months. An excuse of necessity can be the defense of the accused, the vindication of an innocent person, public harm to be averted, or the very coercion of public power. It is sometimes provided by particular laws that clerics not bear testimony without the permission of the bishop;

g) in order to solicit or accept the office of senator or deputy to Parliament, clerics need the permission both of their own Ordinary and of the Ordinary of the place in which the election is to be made. In granting this permission the Ordinaries ought rather to show themselves difficult. Cf. response of the Pontifical Commission, April 25, 1922, A.A.S., 1922, XIV, 313, or Periodica, XI, p. 127.

If any pontifical prohibition has intervened, such as long was in force in Italy, the faculty of the Holy See is necessary (c. 139, §4).

But Cardinals and bishops themselves need the permission of the Holy See, unless by the law of the state they are senators, and the Holy See has approved this in some way. Cf. the response of the Commission just cited;

h) they are forbidden voluntarily to undertake secular military service, except in the case mentioned above, n. 13, 3; and they are ordered to abstain from internal wars and disturbances of public order (c. 141, §1).

¹ On account of just causes, the exception itself is sometimes prudently moderated.

1132. • The Plenary Council of Baltimore II sets forth the negative obligations of Clerics in the following words.

1° "Let them not be present at stage-plays, spectacles, dances."⁴

2° "Let them abstain from every forbidden" (that is, clamorous, or which is done with dogs and the noise of weapons, or hawks, or which would be scandalous) "kind of hunting."⁵

3° "Let them not practice medicine and surgery, neither for the sake of gain nor under the appearance of charity" (that is, habitually and by profession; not in some particular case and by accident). "In this matter we most strictly command that those things be observed which were established by Benedict XIV."⁶ But the summary of those things which are established, or rather taught, by Benedict XIV is this: a) An Apostolic indult is required, to obtain which a cause is necessary, namely either defect of a surgeon, if it is a question of surgery, or scarcity of physicians, if it is a question of the exercise of medicine, or poverty of the cleric. b) Nothing is to be demanded, nor, from the poor, even from those spontaneously offering, is anything to be accepted. c) Medicine to be practiced without incision or burning, and ordinarily also surgery.¹

4° "We decree that clerics not carry arms of any kind for offense, or even for defense, unless perhaps outside the city they must make a journey in suspected places."²

5° "Let priests diligently avoid every illicit game; and let them also abstain from all games of whatever kind, even if for diversion of the mind, which can be for scandal,"³ for example to Sectarians.

But today a cleric is judged immune from grave sin who plays in a mixed game, or rarely, moderately, privately, and, as was just said, without scandal, in a game of chance; indeed also from light sin if he plays in a game of skill, or, for the sake of recreation, in any game whatever, in places where the Canons concerning gaming are not rigidly observed.⁴

6° "Let them not rashly approach profane tribunals for the sake of business or litigation."⁵ Cf. n. 113, Resp. to 2nd, 2°. 3°.

7° "Renewing the precepts of the Canons, we decree that they not carry on traffic of any things or goods, or of money;⁶ that they not exercise gainful negotiations in their own name, or under the covering of another name; that they not rent another's estates for the sake of profit; that they not stand surety for others; that they not, without consulting the Bishop, become agents in the affairs of others; that they not undertake care and tutelage of anyone, except of their own, unless the Bishop consents." ... "We forbid priests, while preaching, or on the occasion of preaching, or under any other pretext whatever, from the pulpit or from the place of the altar, to make words to the people too often concerning their revenues, honoraria, stipends, Sunday collections, and other things of this kind, and to complain as if these were not sufficiently ample or were less than just." ... "We prescribe ... that no one hereafter accept deposits of this kind" (of money with priests under this condition, that, increased by interest, it be recovered at a fixed time), "not even under the pretext that they are to be converted into the temporal good of the Church, works of mercy, or other pious uses, unless beforehand the permission of the Bishop, to be granted in writing, is had."¹

8° "That we may remove from clerics the occasion of crime, which is not usually absent in inns and taverns, we altogether forbid them the entrance and use of inns, except on a journey from necessity."²

9° "First of all we will that" (the priest) "not use excessive association and familiarity with secular women, not even his own being excepted; nor permit them, even though joined by near blood-relationship, to dwell in the same house with him, unless they are most respected in life and morals, and in no way, whether directly or indirectly, interfere in managing sacred duties or administering the things of the church. Let him have no housekeeper, maidservant, or other female servant, unless she is of more mature age and enjoys a reputation wholly intact. Let him never speak before them or before relatives, if he has any with him, about the governance of the flock, about affairs of the church, about the vices or defects of parishioners.... Also with women devoted to the pursuit of piety, let there be for him no familiarity, no custom, which the reason of charity or of office does not demand."

Wherefore they are also prohibited from acquiring shares ("stock") of banks called en commandite ("joint stock banking companies"), as was answered by the S. C. of Bishops and Regulars, June 30, 1845, apud Lucidi, de visitatione Liminum Apost. Tom. I. p. 499, n. 493, which several, on account of parity of reason, extend to shares of mines, woolen factories, and the like. See Scavini (Ed. 12th) Tom. I. n. 576. 13). Yet they are not prohibited from acquiring bonds ("bonds").

2224. • To Clerics generally are PROHIBITED the things which are unbecoming to their state, either because they draw the mind away too much from divine things, or because they bring chastity into danger. - Things of this kind are certain secular arts and offices, trading, games of chance, hunting and the bearing of arms, entrance into taverns, dances and comedies, and conversation with suspect women.

2225. • I. As regards ARTS, by canon law every art which is judged contrary to the respectability of the clerical state is prohibited to ALL CLERICS, as the art of an innkeeper, butcher, jester, etc. - from Clement. Dioecesanis, de vita et honest. Clericorum.¹¹

Specifically, to Clerics INITIATED IN SACRED ORDER there is prohibited: 1. The public study of medicine, namely in public schools and Universities.¹² - 2. The exercise of the medical and surgical art where there is need of incision, amputation, or cautery, and necessity is not present: and indeed under the penalty of irregularity, if mutilation or death follows from this (cf. n. 1940, 3). - Yet if an expert is lacking, and the case urges, the Cleric can without sin, and therefore without danger of penalty or irregularity, perform incision or cautery.¹³ Nor is he prohibited from giving his help to others, especially to the poor or relatives, and from aiding them with excellent counsels of the salutary art.¹⁴

2226. • II. As regards OFFICES, it is forbidden to Clerics in sacred Orders, or to beneficiaries: 1. that they act as judge in a cause of blood; likewise that they act as advocate or notary in secular courts: except in the case in which one's own cause had to be defended, or the cause of one's own Church, or the cause of a poor person or of a person joined by nearness (at least in the fourth degree), who would not find another defender; - 2. that they act as tutor or curator of minors, if an account must be rendered for goods administered; except in the case in which the wards or minors were near by consanguinity (or affinity); - 3. that they act as procurator of secular persons, if an account must be given concerning the procuration. The reason for all these things is that saying of the Apostle: "No one serving as a soldier for God entangles himself with secular business" (2 Tim. 2:4).

But although the office of procurator is generally forbidden, "I would nevertheless not dare," says St. Alphonsus,¹⁵ "to condemn of mortal sin a cleric who, on account of such procuration, would not neglect his ministries; especially if he did this not for the cause of avarice, but in order to preserve more fittingly his own state and that of his family." For the law speaks only concerning him "who would so immerse himself in procurations of this kind that therefore he would be forced to neglect his ministries."

2227. • TRADING properly so called, or lucrative, is the purchase of a thing made for this end, that, the thing not having been changed, it be resold with profit. Improperly so called, or artificial, is the purchase of a thing made for this end, that, changed by art or industry, it be resold with profit, e.g. if from purchased wool cloth to be sold is made.

I. Trading PROPERLY SO CALLED is severely prohibited to RELIGIOUS, BENEFICED Clerics, and those who have been INITIATED IN SACRED ORDERS: as is established from innumerable witnesses of canon law, and especially from Trent.¹⁶ Whence they sin gravely, indeed, they incur suspension and excommunication ferendae sententiae (and also the penalty of spoliation), if they trade frequently; but if rarely, and not in a great quantity, they are excused (at least from mortal sin) on account of smallness of matter, because the laws speak concerning one exercising it, such as he is not who posits one or another act.

But it does not matter whether the trading is exercised in one's own name, or in another's, or through others; for this is forbidden under the same penalties both by the bull Apostolicae of Benedict XIV, 25 February 1741, and by the constitution Cum primum of Clement XIII, 17 September 1759. - Whence, if business begun by a layman is transferred to a cleric by any title whatever, it must immediately be laid aside by him, even in the case in which the trading could be exercised through co-heirs or partners. But if they cannot be laid aside without detriment, continuation is indeed permitted by reason of necessity, but only for a time, and through an interposed lay person, and with the permission of the Sacred Congregation of the Council in Italy, or of the Ordinary outside Italy.¹⁷

2228. • II. ARTIFICIAL trading is not prohibited to Clerics, nor to Religious, provided they exercise it HONESTLY, and BY THEMSELVES. The reason is because to buy a thing so that, changed for the better, it may be sold more dearly is not properly to trade, but to obtain the reward of one's labor, as St. Thomas teaches¹⁸ with others. And this is clear from the example of St. Paul, who was of the tent-making art.

We said honestly, i.e. without scandal, without disgrace, and without detriment to one's own ministry; by themselves; because if things are changed by hired workers, another's labor is now judged to be bought and sold with profit: which is equated with trading properly so called.

From these things you will resolve: 1. It is LICIT for a Cleric to rent out his estates and animals for a pension; - to cultivate his fields by the work of laymen, and to sell the fruits; - to buy animals, and fatten them with fodder coming from his own lands; indeed probably, with fodder bought for this end, that he may sell them fattened with profit, or that he may make profit from offspring, milk, wool. - Similarly, it is licit for a Cleric to buy several things for the security of his provision, and to sell more dearly what remains; or to sell more dearly that which he had bought for his own use, if an occasion presented itself of buying another similar thing more cheaply; for these things pertain to economy.

2. It is NOT LICIT for a Cleric to lease the fields of another, so that he may cultivate them through workers, and sell their fruits; or so that he may fatten animals, and sell them fattened; nor to buy estates or animals for this end, that he may resell them with profit.¹⁹ - Nor is it licit, either by himself or through others, to contract active exchange, as Clement XIII decreed in the cited Constitution Cum primum; - nor to acquire shares of a partnership in commendam (commonly accomandita), as is established from the declaration of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars made on 30 January 1846²⁰ (cf. n. 1158). - But otherwise, if it is a question of mere obligations, which have only the character of a loan: such as annual revenues founded in the public treasury, and bonds of industrial companies. Yet it would not be licit to trade in them, i.e. habitually to buy them with the mind of selling more dearly when their price has increased.

To the question: "Whether it is licit for ecclesiastical persons to buy TITLES over railroads and to receive the profit coming from them?" the Congregation of the HOLY OFFICE on 1 April 1857 responded: "The Most Holy One grants faculties to be communicated to Bishops through the Sacred Congregation of Bishops, of permitting ecclesiastics to receive shares of railways, from their own money only."²¹

Whether that Response can be extended to similar cases, with respect to all industrial or mercantile companies, is not outside controversy; but it seems probably to be affirmed.²²

NB. As regards commerce which is exercised in the Indies, recall what was said n. 1346.

2229. • 1. HUNTING is prohibited to Clerics. This is established from various places of Law, but especially from the Fourth Lateran Council, can. 15, and from Trent,²³ which specifically enjoins upon beneficiaries that "they abstain from illicit hunts, fowling, etc."

Furthermore it must be NOTED: - 1) The Doctors commonly understand this prohibition concerning clamorous hunting, or that which is done with a great noise of arms and dogs for killing larger wild animals; but not concerning quiet hunting, which is done without noise for catching birds or smaller wild animals, such as hares, foxes, etc. Fishing is forbidden by no canon. - 2) Clamorous hunting is not a grave sin, unless it is frequent, or is done with scandal, or with great expenses. - Indeed, it is probably devoid of every fault if it is rare and moderate; or is done from necessity, or for the sake of exercise, without the omission of duties.²⁴ Diocesan Statutes must also be consulted about a matter of this kind.

2. BEARING OF ARMS, necessity having been set aside, is prohibited to clerics, just as hunting is.²⁵ This is established from cap. 2, de vita et hon. Cler., where it is said: "Clerics bearing arms are to be excommunicated." - The reason is because arms

are instruments of savagery; and therefore most alien from the meekness of Christ the Lord. Wherefore Clerics constituted in sacred Orders sin gravely who take up military service. Yet those are not to be reprehended who cooperate in a just war by counsel, exhortation, or even assistance, provided they do not bear arms, nor perform the office of commander.¹

Note. Today, in several Kingdoms, clerics are forced to enroll in secular military service. - Concerning this violation of clerical immunity PIUS IX complained bitterly in the Letter Singularis given on 29 September 1864 (cf. Syllabus n. 32) and in the allocution held on 12 April 1875 to the Catholic international deputation. - Finally, the Congregation of the HOLY OFFICE, 16 September 1875, handed down certain norms to Bishops, that they might provide, as far as they can, for the good both of religion and also of the clerics themselves who are constrained to serve as soldiers.²

2230. • Innocent III in the Fourth Lateran Council, concerning the life and honesty of Clerics, gravely decreed these things: "Let Clerics altogether avoid taverns, unless perhaps constituted on a journey by cause of necessity."³ And this is the universal law, to which other decrees in different dioceses have been added, which therefore must be consulted, lest one depart from the rules of decency.

As regards secular banquets, St. Jerome admonishes:⁴ "Let us never seek them; when asked, let us rarely accept: a cleric is easily contemned who, often called to dinner, does not refuse."

2231. • The GAME OF DICE is prohibited to Clerics in Sacred Orders, as also to Beneficiaries, and especially to Bishops, as is established from the Fourth Lateran Council can. 16⁵ and from Trent.⁶ Now under games of dice are to be understood games of chance, which depend not on art but on chance: such are games of knucklebones, or dice; but not games of cards, unless they are of mere chance.⁷

Hence St. Alphonsus teaches: - 1. The aforesaid clerics sin gravely if they frequently and for a long time indulge in public games of mere chance, although in a small amount; "because a game of this kind notably disgraces the clerical state. - And the same must be said if they expose a great sum to the game, although rarely: at least when in this there would be grave scandal of others."⁸

2. They do not sin gravely if they play rarely, moderately, and privately, without scandal of others. Indeed, not even venially, as is probable, if this is done for the sake of recreation, in a place where the aforesaid canons are not rigidly observed.⁹

2232. • DANCES, COMEDIES, and generally all SPECTACLES are prohibited to Clerics. This is established from Trent.¹⁰ And the reason is because such amusements disgrace the clerical state, and because by them sanctity of life is brought into the utmost danger. - Yet it is not prohibited to Clerics that, for the sake of honorable recreation and exercise, they be present at those spectacles which are customarily represented in Communities. - Indeed, it is not prohibited to them that they act some parts in scenes of this kind, all the rules of modesty and temperance being surely observed.¹¹

2233. • I. In the FIRST NICENE Council¹² (can. 3) these things are read: "The great Synod has altogether forbidden that it be licit, not for a Bishop, not for a Presbyter, not for a Deacon, nor for anyone at all who is in the Clergy, to have an introduced woman,¹³ unless perhaps a mother, or sister, or aunt, or only those persons who escape suspicion." And TRENT commands that the disobedient be affected by the most severe penalties to be inflicted by the Bishop.¹⁴

It is permitted, speaking in itself, to live with women who are not suspect, such as commonly are reputed: 1) relatives by blood in the first and second degree; 2) relatives by affinity in the first degree; 3) women rather advanced in age, and commendable by reputation, although they are strangers. - We said speaking in itself, that is, provided every danger and scandal are excluded, and diocesan Statutes are obeyed, which certainly, in this matter, have the force of law.

II. Not only must conversation with women be avoided by Clerics, but also, as far as it can be done, the very ACCESS to their houses, and every useless COLLOQUY with them. Whence Scripture (Ecclus. 42:12): "Do not tarry in the midst of women; for from garments proceeds the moth, and from a woman the iniquity of a man." - And lest anyone trust in past chastity for himself, thus St. Augustine admonishes, apud St. Thomas:¹⁵ "I have found great Prelates of the Church to have fallen under this appearance, concerning whose fall I no more presumed than concerning Jerome and Ambrose."¹⁶ (cf. n. 1791, 3).

Note. Suitably here there come to be transcribed the excellent ADMONITIONS of the provincial Council of Vienna celebrated in the year 1858:¹⁷ "It befits a Priest," says the holy Synod, "to flee not only evil, but also the appearance of evil. Let him utterly abstain from more frequent companionship with women, even those who not undeservedly obtain the praise of piety and modesty. The maidservants whom he needs for managing domestic affairs should be of more mature age and of most entire reputation, chaste, sober, subject, so that he who is on the opposite side may revere, having nothing evil to say; he is not to tolerate that they dress more expensively, or frequent dances. Whatever savors of more familiar commerce, let it be far away. Let him not have a maidservant as a table-companion, nor walk with her, or go to others' houses, or ride in the same vehicle, unless perhaps public. Let him by no means allow her to involve herself in matters which do not pertain to her, or arrogate to herself the role of mistress. It is over with the authority of the Pastor, whom his people suppose to depend upon the imperious will of a woman. - Nor must anything be indulged to female relatives by blood which disgraces the priestly house, or disturbs the order of ecclesiastical affairs."

2234. • The PRIVILEGES of Clerics are restricted to almost THREE, which are: 1. the privilege of competence, by force of which a cleric bound by debt and unequal to paying cannot be constrained to pay unless first the things necessary for honorable support have been deducted; 2. the privilege of canon, by reason of which they incur excommunication who unjustly lay hands upon clerics (or Monks of either sex) (cf. n. 1329); - 3. the privilege of forum, by which it happens that Ecclesiastical persons (under which name Religious men and women equally come) can be summoned only in the ecclesiastical forum.¹⁸

The conditions necessarily to be observed by Clerics, that they may enjoy the privilege of forum, are thus set forth by Trent:¹⁹ "Let him (a cleric) not enjoy the privilege of forum unless he has an ecclesiastical benefice; or, carrying clerical habit and Tonsure, serves some Church by command of the Bishop; or in a Seminary of Clerics, or in some school or university, with the permission of the Bishop, is engaged as if on the way to receiving major Orders" (cf. n. 201 and 2223).

These privileges have been derogated more or less through various Concordats, which the Holy See wishes to be religiously observed.

"Moreover, in those places in which the privilege of forum has not been derogated by the Supreme Pontiffs, if in them it is not possible to prosecute one's rights except before lay judges, individuals are held first to ask permission from their own Ordinary, that they may be able to summon CLERICS into the forum of laymen; and Ordinaries will never deny it, especially when they themselves have given their labor in vain to reconciling controversies between the parties. - But it is not licit to summon BISHOPS into that forum without the permission of the Apostolic See. And if anyone shall have dared to drag before a lay judge or judges either a cleric without permission of the Ordinary, or a Bishop without permission of the Holy See, it will be in the power of those same Ordinaries to proceed against him, especially if he has been a cleric, by penalties and censures ferendae sententiae as against a violator of the privilege of forum, if they shall judge this expedient in the Lord" (Instruction of the HOLY OFFICE, 23 January 1886).²⁰

Generally clerics are prohibited lest they give themselves to those things which disgrace the ecclesiastical state; but especially the following things are forbidden to them: 1st. habitation with women; 2nd. game of chance; 3rd. carrying of weapons and hunting; 4th. business; 5th. entrance into taverns; 6th. exercise of medicine and surgery. Something will be said briefly concerning each.

Habitation under the same roof with women, already from the earlier times of the Church, was generally prohibited to clerics through the sacred canons. For thus it is had in the First Council of Nicaea, can. 3: "The great Synod altogether forbade that it be licit for a Bishop or Priest, nor Deacon, nor any one at all of those who are in the clergy, to have an introduced woman, except indeed mother or sister or aunt, or only persons who flee every suspicion."

Thus also the new Code:

§1. Let clerics take care not to retain with themselves or in any way frequent women concerning whom suspicion could exist.

§2. It is licit for them to cohabit only with those women in whom the natural bond permits nothing evil to be suspected, such as mother, sister, aunt, and the like, or from whom proven honesty of morals, joined with more advanced age, removes every suspicion.

§3. Judgment whether retaining or frequenting women, even those upon whom suspicion commonly does not fall, in some particular case can be a scandal or bring danger of incontinence, pertains to the Ordinary of the place, whose office it is to prohibit clerics from this retention or frequentation.

§4. The contumacious are presumed concubinarians (Can. 133).

But as regards this region, the Plenary Council of Baltimore III, n. 81, has these things: "Because it is not enough to admit no crime in the clergy, but it is altogether necessary to keep far away even the lightest suspicion of crime, we admonish the Bishops in the Lord that they diligently and firmly watch over the execution of the decree of Our Predecessors concerning the association of clerics with women. 'Therefore we wish, first of all, that [a priest] not use excessive association and familiarity with secular women, not even excepting his own; and that he not allow them, although joined by near relationship, to dwell with him in the same house, unless they have been most proven in life and morals, and in no way, whether directly or indirectly, involve themselves in carrying out sacred offices or in administering the things of the church. Let him have no housekeeper, maid, or other female servant, unless she is of more mature age and enjoys a wholly unimpaired reputation. Never in their presence or that of relatives, if he has any with himself, let him speak words concerning the governance of the flock, concerning the business of the church, concerning the vices or defects of parishioners.' Besides, to avoid inconveniences of manifold kind, We make Our own the words of the Fathers of the Plenary Council of Ireland at Maynooth, namely, 'let no pastor . . . retain in his house families of in-laws or blood-relatives. But if his assistants live in the same house with the pastor, we wish that pastors in the aforesaid house in no way retain younger blood-relatives or in-laws, unless the Ordinary permits it.'"

I

Let clerics abstain entirely from all those things which disgrace their state: let them not exercise unbecoming arts; let them not occupy themselves with aleatory games, with money exposed; let them not carry weapons, unless a just cause of fearing is present; let them not indulge in hunting, and let them never exercise noisy hunting; let them not enter taverns and other similar places without necessity or another just cause approved by the Ordinary of the place (Can. 138).

Dice-playing, namely that which is placed wholly in pure fortune and whose outcome depends on mere chance, is severely prohibited to clerics. Cf. Plen. Council of Baltimore II, nn. 154, 155, 162, in append. p. 287, and Plen. Council of Baltimore III, nn. 80, 82.

Concerning this matter the Baltimore Fathers, Plen. Council II, n. 154, speak thus: "There are some games which, although they are done privately and at home, nevertheless disgrace a cleric. There are others in which dice indeed and painted cards, as they call them, are employed; but insofar as they can honorably recreate and delight the mind, they are not forbidden by the sacred canons. Therefore let a cleric flee illicit games; let him use licit ones so that by excess or scandal they do not become illicit."

Carrying weapons also is prohibited unless a just cause of fearing is present. Carrying is prohibited because it disgraces the character of clerics, who ought to be meek according to the example of Christ. Cf. Plen. Council of Baltimore II, n. 153.

Let them not indulge in hunting; therefore the very custom seems rather to be prohibited. But let them never exercise noisy hunting, which is done, as formerly it was done, with dogs and the clatter of weapons or falcons.^1 Hunting with one dog here and there and briefly done for honorable recreation, a fortiori for health, does not seem illicit, scandal being removed. Cf. S. C. de Prop. Fide, Aug. 1827.

^1 Cf. Addenda, p. 1112, n. 56.

Clerics are prohibited from exercising business or trade by themselves or through others, whether for their own utility or that of others (Can. 142). Cf. St. Alphonsus, de Contract., nn. 832 and 833.

Yet note that by ecclesiastical law only business properly so called is forbidden, for which these things are required: that a thing be bought and sold; that it be sold more dearly and unchanged; that it was bought with the intention that, unchanged, it be sold more dearly. Therefore it is a certain species of purchase and sale. The profit to be sought is its very end. Another kind is purchase and sale by which necessities are bought for sustenance, and superfluous things are sold, and it is called economic. Finally, another kind is purchase and sale by which something is bought and, changed by industry, is sold, and it is called artificial. Business strictly so called in some way denotes a habit, and therefore one who negotiates once or again does not of itself gravely violate the law. The second species is licit to all. Finally, the third is illicit to clerics if it disgraces their state. Business properly so called of itself disgraces the clerical state, because it is ordered to profit, and on account of the frequent vices of those engaged in business. - St. Thomas, 2-2, q. 77, a. 4, ad 3. Business exercised through others in their name is likewise prohibited to clerics. Benedict XIV, by the Apostolic Constitution, forbade that business be exercised by clerics through others; and therefore he ordered business begun by others but falling to clerics by inheritance or by another title to be immediately dismissed. But if this cannot be done, he permitted business to be conducted by a lay person for a time, with faculty of the Apostolic See in Italy and of the Ordinary outside Italy. For a similar reason, to guard against abuses, Clement XIII, by the Constitution Cum primum, prohibited that, even when necessity for the sustenance of themselves and their own compels, business be begun without the permission of the same, of the Supreme Pontiff for Italy and of the Ordinary outside Italy. - Cf. St. Thomas, 2-2, q. 77, art. 4. Scavini, lib. 1, tract. 3, n. 477.

What a share is and what a bond is. A share is a part of the whole capital of some company. Namely the whole capital (stock) of a company devoted to business ordinarily is divided into parts of determinate value, shares, actions, Aktien; and one who possesses them has a right to a part of the fruits and benefits coming from the action of the company, and is called a shareholder or partner or member of the company (stockholder). Such a company, suppose, needs a new sum of money; it seeks money by mutuum by issuing new titles to those who hand over a certain sum as mutuum. These titles are called bonds, because by these the company obliges itself toward creditors for interest and principal. One who possesses bonds (bonds, obligations, Obligationen) (bondholder) is a simple creditor of the company.

Therefore it is asked whether it is licit for clerics to accept bonds of such companies. Certainly this is licit for them, because it is permitted to them to lend or give their money as mutuum for interest. But what concerning buying shares of these companies? It is certain, at least we judge that this must be held altogether, that habitually to buy those shares at a cheaper price so that they may be sold at a greater price, or to speculate, is altogether prohibited; this truly disgraces the priestly state and gives scandal to the people. But to obtain more or less legitimate profit by holding shares of either commercial or industrial companies certainly is not illicit. For authors vary; nor has the Holy See decided the matter by its responses. Indeed one who retains these shares and does not intervene in the very administration of the company certainly does not effectively influence the direction, and thus, strictly speaking, he does not engage in business. Often shareholders have no part at all in administering the business, or are not bound to have a part, or perhaps their influence is so small that it can be considered nothing. Finally, the response of the S. C. of the Inquisition seems to favor the more benign opinion. "According to the things set forth and with attention to the peculiar circumstances of the times, ecclesiastical persons are not to be disturbed if they have bought or buy shares or titles of a banking house, provided they are prepared to stand by the commands of the Holy See, and abstain from any business of the said shares or titles, and especially from every contract which has the appearance, as it is commonly said, 'of the games of the exchange,'" 15 April 1885. Cf. Ball.-Palm., v. 4, nn. 299 et seq. - Bulot, nn. 94 et seq. - Ojetti, Synopsis, Actiones. - Sebastiani, n. 390. - Genicot, n. 49. - Diction. de Theol. Cathol., Commerce, Antoine.

"Stock in law represents the capital of corporations and is usually divided into shares of a definite value denoting the rights in the assets, profits and management of the company. A certificate of stock is a mere evidence that the person therein designated is entitled to an interest in the company which is stated. Stock may be common and preferred; holders of the common stock have an equal right in the company and its profits: holders of the preferred stock are entitled to a preference over the other shareholders, but they are not creditors of the corporation. Dividends on stock represent a division of the surplus or net profits arising from the business of the company. Stock is considered as personal property and may be transferred at the will of the owner by proper assignment of the certificate." - The Americana, v. 14.

"Preferred stock has a fixed rate of dividends attached to it, which must be paid before the common stockholders can receive anything. Preferred stock differs from a bond in that it is not secured by a mortgage on the property while the holder, in the United States generally, has a voice and a vote in the management. The preferred stockholder is thus not a creditor, but a preferred partner in the concern. The common stock is entitled to all the earnings after the interest on the bonds and the dividends on the preferred stocks have been paid. Its rate of dividend thus depends on the profits of the company. . . ."

"Bonds represent the funded debt of a company and are usually secured by some mortgage on its property. They are of various kinds. The first mortgage bond usually stands highest, in that it has a first lien on the property covered by the mortgage. In some cases however prior-lien bonds are issued and these, as their name indicates, take precedence."

"Second and third mortgage bonds take rank after the first. . . . Registered bonds are bonds recorded on the books of the corporation in the names of their holders to whom the interest is sent; coupon bonds are bonds to which are attached dated certificates representing the interest due on the bond at the regular periods of payment. These may be cut off from the bond and the interest collected through the bank the same as checks." - Pratt, The Work of Wall Street, pp. 77-78.

As regards us, the Baltimore Fathers establish these things: "Renewing the precepts of the Canons, we decree that [clerics] not conduct trade of any things or goods whatsoever, or of money; not exercise gainful businesses in their own name, or under the covering of another's name; not hire others' estates for the sake of profit; not become surety for others; not, without the Bishop having been consulted, become procurators in the affairs of others; not assume the care and guardianship of anyone, except their own, unless the Bishop consents." - Cf. Plen. Council of Baltimore II, n. 157; and Plen. Council of Baltimore III, n. 82.

Entrance into taverns and similar places outside a case of necessity, or another just cause approved by the Ordinary, is prohibited. Cf. Lateran Council IV. "Let [clerics] entirely avoid taverns unless perhaps they are placed on a journey by cause of necessity." Plen. Council of Baltimore II, n. 62, and Plen. Council of Baltimore III, n. 80.

Let clerics not be present at spectacles, dances, and pageants which disgrace them, or in which it is unfitting for clerics to take part, especially in public theaters (Can. 140).

§1. Let them not volunteer for secular military service unless with the permission of their Ordinary, so that they may be free more quickly; nor let them render aid in any way to civil wars and disturbances of public order.

§2. A minor cleric who, against the prescription of §1, has voluntarily given his name to military service, by the law itself falls from the clerical state (Can. 141).

§1. Let them avoid also those things which, although not unbecoming, nevertheless are foreign to the clerical state.

§2. Without apostolic indult let them not practice medicine or surgery; let them not act as recorders or public notaries, except in an ecclesiastical Curia; let them not assume public offices which carry with them the exercise of lay jurisdiction or administration.

§3. Without the permission of their Ordinary let them not enter upon managements of goods belonging to laymen, or secular offices which carry with them the burden of rendering accounts; let them not exercise the function of procurator or advocate, except in an ecclesiastical tribunal, or in a civil one when there is question of their own cause or that of their church; in a lay criminal trial pursuing a grave personal penalty, let them have no part, not even bearing testimony without necessity.

§4. Let them not seek nor accept the office of senators or of legislators, whom they call deputies, without the permission of the Holy See in places where a pontifical prohibition has intervened; likewise let them not attempt this in other places without the permission both of their own Ordinary and of the Ordinary of the place in which the election is to be made (Can. 139).

Pius X, by a decree of the Sacred Consistorial Congregation, altogether prohibits men of sacred order, whether secular or regular, from taking up for exercise, or retaining once taken up, those offices which carry with them the cares, obligations, and risks assumed in the administration of money-chests, banking houses, etc.; such are the offices of president, manager, secretary, treasurer, and similar offices. 18 Nov. 1910. As regards the permissions to be had concerning the exercise of these various offices, recourse is to be made to one's own Ordinary. - Pontifical Commission for the authentic interpretation of the canons of the Code, 2-3 Jun. 1918.

A cleric is prohibited from giving surety, even concerning his own goods, unless the local Ordinary has been consulted (Can. 137).

I. QUESTION I. Do clerics sin mortally who wear neither the clerical garb nor the tonsure? ANSWER. The graver theologians affirm it; innumerable Councils command under penalty of excommunication that clerics wear the tonsure and the clerical habit openly, and that they nourish not long hair. The probabilists define all things otherwise. Fr. Claude La Croix, Book 4, no. 1371, reports the opinion of Gobat denying that it is mortal, if scandal and contempt be absent. The same opinion concerning a cleric nourishing hair he reports at no. 1373, and writes that it is more common and more probable that such a cleric does not sin mortally, although bishops and synods threaten such men with excommunication: because, he says, a threat does not always indicate a grave precept. Synods and bishops therefore perpetrate an injustice, threatening a most grave penalty for a light fault. Even if a grave threat did not always indicate a grave precept, does it therefore not indicate one in this case? And so it will be said in another case. And by these little distinctions the most salutary sanctions of synods and bishops are eluded. Casuists of this kind are to be asked by what right they wrest the decrees of synods and bishops to their own petty thoughts. Who conferred authority upon them so frequently to extenuate ecclesiastical and divine laws and to accommodate them to human appetitions? What of this, that the graver probabilists do not excuse such clerics from grave fault, as the most learned presbyter Bonus Merbesius adverts, dissertation 6, question 15, saying: And indeed those casuists themselves, most of whom are versed nothing in unrolling the sacred letters, nothing in reading the holy Fathers and the Councils, but, trusting to I know not what, have all faith in all things, have gone over to that part, that they should reckon the neglect and omission of the tonsure and of the clerical habit among mortal sins; and moreover should assert that men conscious of such an omission are struck, or to be struck, with the anathema of excommunication.

II. QUESTION II. Do clerics sin who accommodate the clerical habit to the form of the lay habit, and wear borrowed and curled hair sprinkled with odoriferous powder, the tonsure scarcely appearing? ANSWER. What shall I mutter against the torrent, and indeed the foaming torrent, of human custom? Shall I send forth the sound of my voice against a common and prevailing corruption? Shall I blush at the doctrine of the Councils and of holy mother Church and at the Gospel of Christ? God forbid. The clerical state shines among all ecclesiastical orders, whose Patriarch is not a man but Christ himself, who called the Apostles and their successors. The clerical and monastic habit fights in hostile fashion with luxury, display, and worldly vanity. What if cloistered men should accommodate the monastic garment to the form commonly called the new fashion? What if curled, long-haired, crisped, wide-sleeved, they should wear hair sprinkled with Cyprian powder? All would cry out: What monsters are these? Have the cloistered gone mad? The exclamations and wonderings would be most just. But is not the clerical state itself excellent and eminent? Therefore it ought to stand further from the vanity, luxury, and pomps of the world. The Tridentine Fathers and the other theologians laboured so greatly that they might maintain against the innovators that the clerical garb is distinct from the lay; and very many clerics now by deed deny the doctrine defined in Trent. Nay, in some places laymen wear the clerical garb and clerics the vain pomps of laymen. What does it matter that the garment be black, if the form and the ornament breathe vanity? Although several wear not a black but a shining and gilded one, chiefly when they go into the country and make journeys. Let us hear the Tridentine Fathers, who cry out, session 14, chapter 6 On Reformation: But so great today has grown the rashness of some, and the contempt of religion, that, holding of small account their own dignity and clerical honour, they wear even publicly lay garments, setting their feet in different places, one in divine things, the other in carnal.

III. But what is to be said of those confessors who absolve clerics of this kind — sleek, brawny, bearded, long-haired, crisped, and curled — everywhere rattling with display, venery, and satanic pomp, and send them to the altars to sacrifice? With what conscience and religion (says Merbesius in the place cited) do confessors bestow upon them the benefit of absolution, being about to experience the extreme punishments with clerics of this kind preserved?

IV. QUESTION III. Do clerics sin mortally who accept a benefice with the mind of forsaking the clerical state if opportunity should occur? ANSWER. Theologians commonly affirm it, because those clerics circumvent the Church in a grave matter, and steal the sacred revenues, since they have not been called into the lot of the Lord. Some affirm that these sin mortally if the care of souls be annexed to the benefice, otherwise if the benefice be simple. The distinction is vain, because in either case the Church is circumvented in a grave matter, although more enormously in the one case than in the other.

V. QUESTION IV. From what things ought clerics to abstain? ANSWER. The Council of Milan enumerates several things from which clerics are bound to abstain: 1. They ought not to mingle themselves in profane businesses; 2. To abstain from the art of measuring; 3. From businesses and merchandise; 4. From renting estates for the sake of gain; 5. From undertaking the guardianship or care of others; 6. From going surety for others; 7. From service to be furnished to women; 8. They are bound to abstain from games of dice and from clamorous hunting. That I may begin from these last.

VI. QUESTION V. Do secular presbyters sin who serve as handmaids to matrons? ANSWER. The present-day corruption, by which presbyters serve lay families, and under pretext of educating children transact the affairs of the family, serve mistresses and matrons, and hold out consecrated hands by which they support them as they walk, is monstrous and horrid. These presbyters disfigure the priestly dignity, and hold cheap their own character, and profane the sacred grade. Bishops with an evangelical breast ought to keep presbyters of this kind from the altar and to interdict them from sacred things.

VII. QUESTION VI. Whether trade is interdicted to clerics? ANSWER. All absolutely affirm it. For St. Paul says, 2 Timothy 2: No man being a soldier to God entangleth himself with secular businesses. Not a few casuists have devised several opinings, all of which after his manner Fr. La Croix collects, Book 3, part 1, nos. 997 and following. First he asserts that a cleric can buy something to consume, and sell it at an increased price, hoping to buy it more cheaply. For it is, he says, an act of economic prudence. Sacred, or rather profane? He adds there, nos. 999 and following, that Manriquez and Derbenne, on Gobat's testimony, teach that presbyters can buy grapes and sell wine. He adds at no. 1000: Gobat, he says, thinks that in Germany it is lawful in monasteries to sell wine and bread through servants. For this is not properly to keep a tavern or to trade, but to sell one's own to passers-by. This not only in Germany, but also in Italy and elsewhere. Through that particle properly all the canons are eluded which forbid trade and merchandise to clerics, and chiefly to the cloistered. Very many other opinions favouring the trade of clerics Fr. La Croix reports, which I have indicated in Vol. X, Book 2, dissertation 2, chapter 11. Now I pass them over, and let it be enough to admonish the reader that he abstain from those things which are less becoming to a cleric.

VIII. QUESTION VII. Whether hunting is interdicted to clerics? ANSWER. All absolutely affirm it; innumerable are the canons prohibiting the same. Clamorous huntings are forbidden, namely those performed with dogs, birds, and arms, suppose fowling-pieces. But quiet huntings, without dogs and birds and fowling-pieces, but with nets and snares alone, are lawful to clerics, as is gathered from Trent. Fr. La Croix, Book 4, no. 1574, says: “Those prohibitions are now so mitigated that if they be done for the sake of recreation without great clamour, scandal, or contempt, mortal sin is not easily committed. Navarrus, Molina, Turrianus, de Lugo, MS. Suárez, Sá, and Castropalao add that they are excused even from venial, if the hunting be rare and moderate and for the restoring of strength.”

IX. I confess that I am shaken with grave fear and trembling, when on the one hand I see the Supreme Pontiffs, bishops, and sacred synods threatening excommunication to clerics not wearing the clerical garb, and prohibiting merchandise, hunting, and so forth; and when on the other hand I see the cited casuists erecting a tribunal above the Pontiffs, bishops, and Councils, and crying out to clerics that those prohibitions are now so mitigated that violators do not sin mortally. Fr. La Croix subjoins in the same place, no. 1576: “Dicastillo, no. 300, thinks that hunting even with apparatus and clamorous is not forbidden to clerics, unless it be done frequently; and he adds with Cajetan, Navarrus, Sylvester, Bannez, Molina, Tuty, and Diana that, although it be done frequently, he does not dare to condemn it of mortal sin, if it be done for the sake of recreation.”

X. Like interpretations stalk through the whole of theology, and the divine laws themselves are accommodated with limits and little distinctions to the morals of men. What does it profit that sacred Councils, bishops, and Pontiffs frame canons for the reformation of discipline, if very many continually teach clerics and the people that the canons are today so mitigated that they do not oblige under mortal sin, nay not even under venial, if the things forbidden be done for the sake of recreation? Assuredly all clerics will confess that they hunt, play, and trade for the sake of recreation, and several other things which I pass over in silence. Why do we wonder if we see discipline, both ecclesiastical and monastic, never reformed but on the contrary daily relaxed? Whether very many casuists be the cause, and whether it is to be forbidden them to dare to mitigate the sacred canons, let the wise judge.

XI. QUESTION VIII. Whether games of dice are forbidden to clerics? ANSWER. Not only ancient but also recent canons forbid to clerics games of dice, or of fortune and chance. The Fourth Lateran Council under Innocent III, canon 16, says: Let clerics not play at dice and knucklebones, nor be present at games of this kind. The Gloss adds several things, and cites Novel 123, chapter 10, where these things are had: But we interdict most holy bishops, presbyters, deacons, subdeacons, lectors, and all others … to play at tables, or to become partakers or spectators with others playing, or to come to any spectacles whatsoever for the sake of beholding. The Council of Trent, session 22, chapter 1 On Reformation, among the several things which it prescribes concerning the life and honesty of clerics, inculcates these: The holy Synod establishes that the things which have been otherwise abundantly and salutarily sanctioned by the Supreme Pontiffs and by the sacred Councils concerning the life, honesty, culture, and doctrine of clerics to be retained, and likewise concerning luxury, revellings, dances, DICE, GAMES, and any crimes whatsoever, and concerning secular businesses to be fled, be in future observed under the same or greater penalties to be imposed at the Ordinary's arbitration; nor let an appeal suspend this execution, which pertains to the correction of morals.

XII. Fr. La Croix, Book 4, no. 1570, reports Salas, Molina, Rebello, Aversa, and Castropalao interpreting that the custom of playing is forbidden, but by no means one or another occasion. Nay, he adds that Sá and Valentia excuse even the custom of playing from mortal sin, if it be not done for the sake of gain but for the sake of recreation. Nay, he says, Salas thinks that the prohibition of these games does not extend to lay religious, because the text has it only of clerics. But the common opinion holds the opposite, he concludes.

XIII. Clerics reading these things, and forestalled by the allurements of Probabilism, begin, supported by the authority of the cited casuists, to play one and another time. From repeated occasions a custom is made, and then, with Sá and Valentia patronizing them, they say that they play for the sake of recreation and not for gain. For this is something accessory. At last, with Salas patronizing them, they conclude that this custom does not extend to lay religious. Since, they say, the cited authors are grave, upright, and classic. But do thou, reader, figments of this kind being dismissed, seriously bend thy mind to the doctrine of the Councils, chiefly of Trent, and abstain altogether from games of dice. Do not begin, unless thou wilt pursue and contract a depraved custom. Scarcely have I read any one of the cited casuists who with fervent zeal and diligent study promotes the observance of the sacred canons; but they direct their endeavours and studies through almost the whole of theology to mitigating, softening, tempering the laws and canons, and accommodating them to human frailty. But whether this be so, be thou thyself, reader, the judge.

XIV. Clerics walking about masked sin mortally. Diana, Vol. VII, tract 5, resolution 6, says: I think there is no receding from the common opinion of the Doctors, namely that in such a case secular and regular clerics commit a mortal sin.

I. God repels from the priesthood those ignorant of holy Scripture. Because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will reject thee, that thou shalt not do the office of priesthood to me. Osee 4. And the Evangelist Matthew, chapter 23, cries out: Woe to you, blind guides.

II. All affirm that knowledge is required in those to be ordained; but few explain what kind of knowledge is necessary. The knowledge which the Prophets and Evangelists inculcate is the knowledge of holy Scripture. St. Paul, 1 Timothy 3, says: All Scripture divinely inspired is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice: that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work. First therefore the study of holy Scripture is necessary, that the true image of the Christian spirit may be formed. Instructed with this divine knowledge, you will be able with unstumbling foot to read the moral authors also: because then you will know how to discern the true from the false. Not only the divine Scriptures themselves, but all the Councils and Fathers inculcate the study of the divine law dictated by God himself to the sacred writers. The Second Nicene Council, canon 2, says: The substance of our Hierarchy is the divinely delivered eloquences, and the true knowledge of the divine Scriptures. Again, distinction 38, chapter Cum ignorantia, these things are had: Let priests therefore know the holy Scriptures and the Canons. God will reprove thee for the neglect of the Scriptures; and he will judge according to the mandates of his law described in holy Scripture. It pleases me to transcribe hither the words of the distinguished theologian Louis Habert, On the Sacrament of Order, part 2, chapter 8.

III. “Away therefore with those modern moral theologians who in the books published by them establish the doctrine of morals by petty reasonings and probable — not to say sophistical — arguments, and scarcely remember the sacred Scriptures, save that they may bend their sense to preconceived opinions; and they proceed so far as to pronounce as suspected in the faith those who assert that, as the dogmas of faith, so moral conclusions are to be sought from the sacred Writings, from the canons of the Church, and from the writings of the holy Fathers. It would be worth the labour that hierarchical men should have collected in their possession the propositions excerpted in great number from books of this kind, and censoriously noted both by the Supreme Pontiffs and by bishops in various places, and chiefly by the Gallican ones in the years 1655 and 1700, and also by distinguished Academies.”

IV. But if in clerics to be ordained, if in parish priests, if in confessors the study of the Scriptures is required, what shall be said of bishops? These, since they are the teachers of the Christian people, ought much more deeply than the other subaltern ministers to be skilled in the Scriptures, the canons, and the Fathers, that they may be able to imbue others with sound doctrine, and to assume into their own help those worthy and apt for the profit of the Church, but to keep off and repel the unworthy and unfit from the ministry.

The holy Doctor laments most anxiously, in his letters to the Provincials, RELIGIOUS entangled in secular business.

I ASSERT that it is an evil to engage in business of this kind, unless one takes it up out of charity.

It is PROVED from St. Bonavent. opusc. 25. memorialium, and from St. Thom. here following him 2. Timot. 2. No man that fighteth for God entangleth himself with secular business.

The same is had cap. Sunt nonnulli, 26. quaest. 1.

That it is LAWFUL however out of charity the holy Doctors prove, because the state of Religion is ordered to charity. Thus to the Apostles he commends Rom. ult. Phoebe: That you assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you. The same is had in decr. dist. 88. cap. 2. Decreti, and 4. Reg. 4. Eliseus said to the woman: hast thou any business, and wouldst thou have me speak to the King, or to the captain of the army?

The holy Doctor however admonishes lib. 1. and St. Thom. opusc. 19. cap. 15. and Caiet. here ad 3. as also Valent. quaest. 5. puncto 1. that these businesses must be carried on without tumult, disquiet, or clamor, that is, religiously done.

Caius, a missionary priest in England, in order to pay the expenses of the mission, persuaded certain young people of both sexes to perform a celebrated play about the Nativity of the Lord in the municipal hall (Town Hall). Since the people, both orthodox and heterodox, attended the hall in great numbers and contributed a large sum of money, on the second day of the performance Caius himself, with Patrick, a priest-friend from Ireland, attended the play in order to show his gratitude both to the actors and to the people. When the Bishop, however, a diligent defender of ecclesiastical law, heard this, he asked a certain theologian whether each of them had not incurred the suspension imposed by the Fourth Council of Westminster, decree xi, no. 9. Hence it is asked:

1. Give a doctrinal interpretation of the law in question in the case.

2. Are travelers bound by the laws of the place?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. Give a doctrinal interpretation of the law in question.

The wording of the law is as follows: “ We strictly prohibit ecclesiastics initiated into sacred orders from being present at stage performances in public theaters or in places serving temporarily for the use of a public theater, imposing upon transgressors the penalty of suspension to be incurred by the fact itself—

—which has hitherto been in force everywhere in England, with reservation to the respective Ordinary.” Hence all ecclesiastics in sacred Orders are strictly forbidden to be present at scenic representations (stage plays?) either in public theaters or in places which are used for the time being as public theaters, and the penalty of suspension is ipso facto incurred by those who violate this precept, and their absolution is reserved to their respective Ordinary. Private theatricals in a place not open to the public do not come under the law. If the public are admitted with or without payment and a stage play is exhibited, the place is being used as a theater and persons in sacred Orders must not be present. Plays given by school children are excepted by custom, even if they be given in a public hall or theater.

2. Are peregrini bound by local laws?

Probably peregrini are not bound by the special laws which are in force in the place where they are staying for the time.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. i, p. 94.

3. The case. As far as I am aware there is no authoritative definition of what is meant by a scenicum spectaculum. Still there can be no reasonable doubt that an opera is comprised in the term. An opera is a scenic representation or stage play, which is perhaps as near an English equivalent of scenicum spectaculum as can be got. The opera was acted by youths of both sexes in the Town Hall, and the public flocked to hear it. It, therefore, came under the prohibition, and Caius violated the law in being present. The law is mentioned in all the faculties granted to priests in this country, and so we must presume that Caius knew that he was violating it. Caius, therefore, was suspended and must not exercise the duties of a priest until he has been absolved by his bishop, or by some one who has special faculties for the case from the bishop. Patrick is a stranger, and does not incur suspension, but he does wrong in being present at the opera and renders himself liable to punishment at the hands of the bishop.

Caius, the procurator of a certain religious Order, proposed to Julius, his confessor, certain scruples of conscience to be resolved. For since the Order needed money to build new monasteries, and the government stock which it possessed was not very profitable, Caius, having found an opportunity when its price had risen modestly, sold it and bought more remunerative shares, some in railways and others in a certain recently established company for providing all things (General Stores). Afterwards, however, he doubted whether these things were lawful for religious. Hence it is asked:

1. What is trading?

2. What kind of trading does ecclesiastical law prohibit, and to whom?

3. What is to be said of the case?

Trading in the strict sense is buying commodities with the intention of selling them at a higher price without changing their nature. Buying commodities for use or for consumption is not trading, nor is selling the produce of one’s own land or labor.

2. What sort of trading is forbidden by ecclesiastical law and to whom?

Ecclesiastics in sacred Orders and all religious are forbidden to trade in the strict sense. They are also forbidden to buy material and change it by hired labor for sale at a profit, and to buy animals and fatten them for sale on hired land, for such actions have the appearance of trading. Benedict XIV also declared that they are forbidden to trade by means of agents.

3. The case. Caius did nothing reprehensible in selling government stock at a profit when it rose in price, provided that it was not bought cheaper with the intention of selling afterwards at a profit when it should rise. Nor did he do wrong in investing part of the proceeds in railway stock which brought in a higher interest. There is more difficulty about his buying shares in the company which owned the stores. Most authors would say that this is not lawful, inasmuch as Caius thereby became a member of a trading company and traded by means of the servants of the company. However, unless he is a director of the company or otherwise takes an active part in managing its affairs, it is probable that he does not do wrong here either. Practically all that he does is to buy the right to receive a dividend on his shares if the company succeeds in business; there is no scandal, and no interference with his spiritual avocations. This is the opinion of several recent authors, quoted and followed by Génicot (II, n. 41), and others. We suppose of course that Caius has no reason to suspect that the company does business dishonestly.

Four Catholic missionaries were preaching the Gospel with great fruit to peoples in central Africa, far removed from other Europeans. The natives, however, began a war of extermination against all Europeans, killing those whom they found scattered about. Hence the rest fled to fortified places, and one day a band of Europeans came to the missionaries to conduct them to a safe place. But behold, on the journey a great multitude of barbarians attacked the small band from every side, so that there was scarcely a slender hope of escape unless all fought. Hence the missionaries were placed in the greatest straits, for Christian examples seemed to teach that in such circumstances they should rather die patiently and without resistance; on the other hand, however, unless they fought, not only they themselves but also the brave band with them would almost certainly perish. Finally they took guns and, fighting like the others, reached the safe place. Hence it is asked:

1. By what law are clerics forbidden to bear arms?

2. Do clerics who are homicides never incur a penalty?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. By what law are clerics forbidden to bear arms?

Clerics are bound by their profession to manifest in their conduct the meekness of Christ, and all that militates against this obligation is forbidden by the natural and divine law. To bear arms like soldiers would be contrary to their profession and would give scandal, so that it is forbidden by natural and divine law. It is also expressly forbidden by positive law: “ Let clerics who bear arms be excommunicated.”¹

1 Corpus Juris Can., iii, tit. 1, c. ii.

2. Does a cleric who commits homicide incur any special penalty?

Yes, “ whoever by any unjust and gravely culpable action, directly or indirectly, physically or morally, are guilty of homicide, thereby contract irregularity. Even casual homicide produces irregularity if it is the effect of grave negligence. If any one is killed in an unjust war all who fought on the other side contract irregularity, unless they were compelled to fight, or abstained from any action which could be the cause of death.”²

2 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, p. 438.

3. The case. The missionaries acted wisely in taking guns and helping to defend themselves and those who had come to their rescue. They were being attacked as whites, not as preachers of the Gospel, and they would certainly have been killed unless they had defended themselves. They also had obligations of gratitude and charity towards the small band that came to rescue them. When the taking up of arms is necessary for self-defence it is not forbidden; necessity knows no law. Even a cleric may lawfully kill another in self-defence without incurring irregularity or any other penalty.

Caius, a physician, renounced the vanities of the world in order to enter a religious Order. Having become a priest, when he is called to the sick he does not hesitate to prescribe remedies suited to bodily diseases, so that not rarely he heals both the souls and the bodies of sick parishioners. Given the opportunity he also does the same for members of the household; indeed, once, in someone’s sudden danger, he amputated an arm. Nevertheless, a doubt occurs to other religious of the same Order whether all these things are lawful for priests. Hence it is asked:

1. Whether and to what extent are the medical and surgical arts prohibited to clerics?

2. Whether and how could a priest exercising those arts incur irregularity?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. Are clerics forbidden to practise medicine and surgery, and how far?

According to the common opinion clerics are forbidden to practise medicine and surgery without an indult of the Holy See. Some, however, restrict the prohibition to studying medicine and surgery, and practising surgery.

1 Génicot, vol. ii, n. 36.

2. If a priest practised medicine and surgery could he become irregular and how?

He would become irregular if death followed from his performing a surgical operation which he is forbidden to do.¹

1 St. Alphonsus, lib. vii, 384.

3. The case. Caius had better restrict himself as a general rule to looking after the souls of his parishioners, and leaving the practice of medicine to lay doctors. Some religious Orders have a privilege of allowing their members who have studied medicine to prescribe for the sick where there are not suitable lay doctors. In the supposition that the case was one of necessity Caius was justified in amputating the arm, and as he did not commit sin by doing this, neither did he incur irregularity.²

2 Ibid., viii, n. 384.

(1) Are the clergy allowed to speculate on the rise and fall of shares?

(2) Are they altogether forbidden to have anything to do with business on the stock exchange?

(3) If they have in their possession shares that stand at a high price, may they not sell them and buy others at a lower price, and so make a profit?

According to Canon Law a cleric is forbidden to have anything to do with any negotiatio quaes tuosa (as opposed to negotia oeconomica).

By a negotiatio quaestuosa is understood any business in which things are bought and sold again for profit, either in the same condition or altered by the hired labor of others. A priest may therefore sell for profit things that he possesses or has bought for his own use, even if they are not superfluous. He also may buy things, and sell them for profit, after they have been altered or improved, provided the whole transaction is not unbefitting to one in his position. But he must not employ others to alter and improve the things before selling them for a higher price than that at which he bought them, because then he would be carrying on a business by means of others.

This prohibition applies to all who have received major orders, to all holding benefices, even if they have not received major orders, and to all regulars. It is a binding rule, but admits of trivial exceptions, so that certainly only a venial sin is committed if only little business transactions take place, with objects of small value. It is not a grievous sin if some more important business is transacted once, or even now and then. Whether the clergy are allowed to take part in joint-stock companies or in stockexchange business, has been frequently discussed.

(1) It is certainly permissible to buy bonds issued by state or town, and to take interest upon them, for this is simply investing money at interest.

(2) It is certainly permissible to take bonds of joint-stock companies, because, in this case also, it is equivalent to lending money at interest. If the company exists for some bad object the question will arise as to whether it is right to cooperate with it.

(3) It is a very debated point whether the clergy may take shares in a joint-stock company. Many regard it as altogether inadmissible for the clergy to take shares, because thus they take part in a money-making business. Others distinguish between industrial undertakings and trading companies; they think it wrong for the clergy to take shares in the latter, but they consider it permissible for them to take shares in industrial companies, such as mining, railways, and tramways. A double difficulty is very apt to occur in the case of many industrial undertakings, (a) that in them a man carries on a business through some one else, and (b) that these undertakings may generally be regarded as trading companies. Wernz, for instance (III. n. 219), considers a watch factory to be a trading company. On this there are several decisions of the S. C. Off. to be taken into account. According to a decree dated November 17, 1875, it is permitted for the clergy to buy shares in railway and other similar companies (this probably includes trolley lines, steamship and canal companies). A decision dated April 1, 1857, had authorized Bishops to give such permission " de propria persona tantum "; but of course it was not intended that endowments could be applied to such purposes, or that the clergy should borrow money in order to take shares. As to bank shares, a decision of April 15, 1885, states:... "ecclesiastical persons are not to be disturbed if they buy shares or securities of a bank, provided they are prepared to obey the commands of the Holy See and abstain from every management of those shares or securities, and especially from every act called stock-exchange gambling." A priest may therefore hold shares in a bank, but he may not take any part in the management, or attend general meetings. A difficulty is likely to arise herefrom the fact that many banks are connected with stock-exchange speculations and other forbidden proceedings.

It is permissible to take shares in an insurance company, provided that they do not serve any bad purpose. The clergy may also take shares in a company formed to build a Catholic clubhouse or to start a Catholic paper, as in such cases the object of the company is not to make money, but to promote some good end.

(4) Gambling on the stock exchange is forbidden to the clergy, as appears from what has already been said. Therefore to buy bonds and sell them, speculating on their rising or falling in value, especially in time bargains and such matters, in order to make a profit, is negotiatio quaestuosa, and therefore forbidden.

In answer to the questions submitted to us, we may reply: (1) The clergy are not allowed to carry on any speculations in shares, in the sense just stated, because they are stock-exchange speculations.

(2) It is not stock-exchange business, but stock-exchange speculation, that is forbidden. (3) The clergy may certainly sell shares that stand at a high price and buy others of lower value with a view to making a profit; or they may buy shares that stand low, in hopes of their rising in value. This does not amount to speculation. The clergy, however, are advised to make only safe investments, in order not to lose their own savings, and not to risk money derived from church property, which ought to be applied to good purposes.— Dr. Goepfert.