QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
THE SACRAMENTS
by
E. J. MAHONEY
LONDON
BURNS OATES & WASHBOURNE LTD
PUBLISHERS TO THE HOLY SKB
I947
NIHIL OBSTAT
Georgius Can. Smith, S.Th.D., Ph.D.
Censor deputatus
IMPRIMATUR
E. Morrogh Bernard
Vic. Gen.
WlSTMONASTKRtl,
Du 29 Oc(obrnt 1945
First edition 1946
Second impression 1947
THIS BOOK, PRODUCED IN COMPI FTP
CONFORMITY WITH THE AUTHORED
ECONOMY STANDARDS, is PR iTED^N
GKEAT BRITAIN. AT THE ANCX
··
TIDrDLt
TIPTRHE,
Essex
>
FOREWORD
This book consists of classified and corrected material which was first
published in The Clergy Review from 1931 to 1944. Whether it be that
subscribers esteem their copies too highly to part with them, or that they
considered them, on the contrary, not worth preserving, past numbers are
now difficult to obtain. It is thought, accordingly, that the clergy and
others might find it convenient to have in one volume a selection from
“Questions and Answers” dealing with the sacraments.
Since the “Table of Contents” is so detailed, an alphabetical Jndcx is
unnecess^ ry, and an Index to the canons of the Code has been compiled
instead.
My thanks are due to the proprietors and to the editor of the Review,
not only for permitting, but for urging me to republish material which
many may think unworthy of resurrection.
E. J. Mahoney
Poles, Ware, Heris.
5, January, 1944.
ABBREVIATIONS
yl.yl.5. = Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Commentarium Officiale. (Romae,
Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis.)
Addit, et Variat. = The section at the beginning of the current Missale
Romanam entitled “Additiones et Variationes in Rubricis Missalis”.
Apollinaris = Apollinaris, Commentarium luris Canonici. (Romae, Ponti
ficium Institutum Utriusquc luris, Piazza S. Apollinare, 49.)
Bouscaren, Digest — The Canon Law Digest. Officially Published Documents
Affecting the Code of Canon Law. Vol. I (1934); Vol. II (1957.)
By T. Lincoln Bouscaren, S.J. (Bruce Publishing Company, Mil
waukee, U.S.A.)
Caerem. Epp. = Caerentoniale Episcoporum, Clementis VIII, Innoccntii X et
Benedicti XIII Jussu Editum, Benedicti XIV et Leonis XIII Auctori
tate Recognitum. (Marictti, 1935.)
Clementine Instruction = Instructio Clementina pro Expositione SSmi Sacra
menti Occasione XL Horarum (1731). It is printed with annotations
in Vol. IV of Decreta Authentica S.R.C. English translation by Rev.
J. O’Connell. (Burns Oates and Washbourne, 1927.)
Code — Codex luris Canonici, Pii X Pontificis Maximi lussu Digestus, Bene
dicti Papae XV Auctoritate Promulgatus. (Romae, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1918.)
Code Commission — Pontificia Commissio ad Codicis Canones Authentice
Interpretandos.
De Defectibus = The section at the beginning of the current Missale Romanum
entitled “De Defectibus in Celebratione Missarum Occurrentibus”.
Denz. = Enchiridion Symbolorum Definitionum et Declarationum De
Rebus Fidei et Morum. Auctore Henrico Dcnzingcr. (Herder.)
E.T.E. = Ephemerides Theologicae Eovanienses. (18 Rue des Récollcts, Louvain.)
N.K.L. = Nederlandsche Kafholieke Stemmen (Zwolle, J. M. W. Waanders.)
Fontes = Codicis luris Canonici Fontes. Vols. I—VIII. (Romae, Typis
Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1926-1939.)
Jus Pontificiam = Jus Pontificiam seu Ephemerides Romanae ad Canonicas
Disciplinas Spectantes. (Romae, Via Monteselva 3.)
Ordo Administrandi = Ordo Administrandi Sacramenta et Alia Quaedam
Officia Peragendi ex Rituali Romano Extractus Nonnullis Adicctis
ex Antiquo Rituali Anglicano. (Burns Oates and Washbourne, 1915.)
Periodica — Periodica de Rf Morali Canonica Eitnrgica Fundata ab Arthuro
Vermcersch, S.J., Edita a Professoribus Pontificiae Universitatis
Gregorianae. (Romae, Universitas Gregoriana.)
Preces et Pia Opera = Preces et Pia Opera in Favorem Omnium Christifidelium
vel Quorundam Coetuum Personarum Indulgentiis Ditata et Op
portune Recognita. (Romae, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1938.)
There is an English translation (Burns Oates and Washbournc) of the
previous 1929 edition, entitled The Raccolta. The translation of
current 1938 edition, also entitled The Raccolta, is published by
Benzigcr, New York.
Propaganda = Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide.
7
ABBREVIATIONS
8
R//. Celebr. Miss. = The section at the beginning of the current Missale
Romanum, entitled “Ritus Servandus in Celebratione Missae”.
Ri1Halt Romanum = Rituale Romanum Pauli V Pontificis Maximi Jussu
Editum Aliorumquc Pontificum Cura Recognitum atque Auctoritate
D.N.Pii Papac XI ad Normam Codicis Juris Canonici Accomodatum. (Romae, Desclcc, 1935.)
Ritus Servandus = Ritus Servandus in Solemni Expositione et Benedictione
Sanctissimi Sacramenti. (Burns Oates and Washbourne, 1938.)
Rubricae Generales = The section at the beginning of the current Missale
Romanum, entitled “Rubricae Generales Missalis”.
S.C. Cone. = Sacra Congregatio Concilii.
S.C. Consist. = Sacra Congregatio Consistorialis.
S.C. Indulg. = Sacra Congregatio Indulgentiis Sacrisque Reliquiis Prae
posita.
S.C. Relig. = Sacra Congregatio de Religiosis.
S.C. Sacram. = Sacra Congregatio de Disciplina Sacramentorum.
J. Off. = Suprema Sacra Congregatio Sancti Officii.
J*. Poenit. = Sacra Pocnitentiaria Apostolica.
S.R.C. = Sacra Congregatio Sacrorum Rituum. The numeral refers to
the Decreta Authentica of the Congregation, Vols. I-VL (Romae,
Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1898-1927.)
SyHoge = Sylloge Praecipuorum Documentorum Recentium Summorum
Pontificum et S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fide nccnon Aliarum
SS. Congregationum Romanarum. Ad Usum Missionariorum.
(Romae, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1939.)
Tbcol. Moralis = Manual of Moral Theology variously entitled Compendium,
Institutiones, Summula, or Manuale.
VFestm. = Decreta Quatuor Conciliorum Provincialium IP'estmonastenensium
1852-1873. (Burns and Oates, n.d.) English translation entitled:
The Synods in English. By Rev. Robert E. Guy, O.S.B. (Stratfordon-Avon, 1886.)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FAGI
Foreword
Abbreviations .
I. BAPTISM
Qtnumow
§1. Baptismal Rites
1. The Font Water.
.......
*9
2. I Christen Thee .
.......
20
3. Vernacular at Solemn Baptism
.....
20
4. Baptismal Ceremonies.
.
.
.
.
·
.22
5. Supplying Baptismal Ceremonies .
.
.
.
.25
6. Ceremonies at Conditional Baptism
.
.
.
.23
7. Meaning of Supplied Ceremonies .
.
.
.
.25
8. Changed Christian Name ......
26
§2. Recipient of Baptism
9.
to.
11.
12.
13.
14.
tj.
(6.
Procedure in Baptizing Children .....
27
Intention of Receiving Baptism .....
30
Baptism and Use of Reason .
.
.
·
·
.31
Baptism of Embryo .......
32
Conditional Adult Baptism .
.
.
·
.
.52
Baptizing a Dying non-Catholic............................................... 33
Baptism: Parochial Right
.
.
.
·
.
«54
Baptismal Vows .
.
·
·
·
.
·
.
35
§3. Converts
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
Baptism and Parental Consent
.
.
.
.
.36
Ordinary for Reception of Converts
....
37
Reception of Converts: Sub-delegation .
.
.
.38
Reception of Converts : Censure .
.
.
.
.58
Reception of Converts: Abjuration
.... 41
Converts: Modified Abjuration .....
42
Reception of Converts: Witnesses.
.... 43
Reception of Converts : Confession
.... 44
§4. Baptismal Sponsor
25. One Baptismal Sponsor
.·····
46
26. Catechumen as Sponsor
......
47
27. Unlawful Baptismal Sponsor
.....
47
28. Baptismal Sponsor: Touching Child
....
48
29. Baptismal Sponsor “Pro Forma” .....
49
50. Proxy of Baptismal Sponsor................................................ 52
CONTENTS
ΙΟ
PAGE
QUESTION
§5 Registration of Baptism
31. Registration of Baptism : Adoption
32. Registration of Baptism: Domicile
33. Double Registration: an Objection
34. Non-Catholic Certificate of Baptism
53
54
H. CONFIRMATION
35.
36.
37.
38.
Priest Minister of Confirmation
Validity of Confirmation
Confirmation and First Communion
Confirmation Register .
59
59
6o
III. HOLY EUCHARIST: THE MASS
§1. Eucharistic Matter and Form
39. Valid Eucharistic Matter .
40. Defective Wine Consecrated .
41. Modicissima/\qua
42. Doubtful Consecration
45. Mass with Leavened Bread .
44. Ablutions at Mass
45. Renovation of Sacred Species
§2. Sung Mass
46. Pro-Subdeacon ....
47. Missa Cantata: Incense and Servers
48. Chant: The Proper
49. Chant: Intonations and Introit
50. Communion Chant
§3. Requh-m Mass
ji. Requiem Mass in Oratories .
52. Requiem Mass in Cemetery Chapel
j 3. Requiem Mass Formula
34. Orationes pro Defunctis
j5. Communion before Requiem
56. The Benedictus Chant.
57. Funeral Pall
.
.
.
.
§4. Various Rubrics
j8. Asperges: Method of Sprinkling .
59. Asperges in Convent Chapels
60. Asperges before Requiem .
61. Titular in “A Cunctis”
62. “A Cunctis”: Founder’s Name
63. Alternative to "A Cunctis” .
64. “Oratio Imperata” Ceasing .
65. Homily on the Gospel .
62
63
64
65
66
67
67
68
70
73
75
75
76
77
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
CONTENTS
1j
.
question
K4. Various Rubrics—continued.
66. Vernacular Scripture at Sunday Mass
67. Prayers with the Notices
68. Collection by Mass Celebrant
69. Celebrant with Defective Sight
70. First Friday Votive Mass
§5. Missa
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
Pro Populo
Missa
Missa
Missa
Missa
Missa
Missa
pro
pro
pro
pro
pro
pro
Populo:
Populo:
Populo:
Populo:
Populo:
Populo :
Justice .
Induit .
Care of Souls .
Army Chaplains
Supply Priest .
Delegation
§6. Mass Offerings
77. Nature of the Mass Offering
78. Time for Discharging Mass Obligations
79. November Masses
80. Mass Obligations: Rifled Box
81. Second Mass Intention
82. Mass Offering in England
83. Masses for Deceased Clergy
§7. Duplication
84. Duplication: Visiting Priest
85. Duplication in Different Parishes .
86. Duplication in Convent Chapel
87. Duplication on Board Ship .
88. Duplication: Number Present
89. Duplication Rubric
§8. Sunday and Festal Precept
90. Semi-public Oratory .
91. Convent Chapel ....
92. Private Oratory ....
93. Portable Altar ....
94. Civilians Attending Military Mass
95. Mass Precept and Children
96. School-children Missing Mass
97. Local Holy Days of Obligation
98. Transferred Holy Day of Obligation
99. Christmas and Sunday Obligation
§9. Prayers after Mass
100. Omission of Leonine Prayers
101. Method of Reciting Leonine Prayers
102. Leonine Prayers: Russia
103. Leonine Prayers: Indulgence
104. Sacred Heart Invocation after Mas.)
105. Domine Salvum Fac Regem
CONTENTS
FAGI
ξιο. Server
106.
107.
(08.
109.
no.
and
Congregation
Celebrant without Server .
Weekday Mass without Server
Mass Without Anyone Present
One Server for Two Masses
Mass Server: Vesture
.
·
·
The Server’s Confiteor
Standing during Credo .
.
·
The Laity’s Offertory
Pray the Mass .
.
·
·
The People Answering: Dialogue Mass
’34
136
’39
140
’4’
IV. HOLY EUCHARIST: COMMUNION
§1. Rites of Holy Communion
Dividing the Sacred Host .
Priest Communicating Himself .
118. Deacon Administering Holy Communion
119. Handling the Corporal
12°. Communion during Exposition .
121. Communion During Another Mass
122. Times for Holy Communion
123. Voice in Distributing Communion
124. Communion Plate
125. Communion Cloth
126. Purification after Communion
146
’47
’47
148
’49
150
’50
’54
Dispositions of Communicant
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
157.
138.
Refusing Communion Before Mass
Evening Communion
Communion During Sung Mass .
Mass or Communion?
Communion on Holy Saturday .
Communion Twice on Christmas Eve
Non-Catholic Seeking Communion
Women Communicating Hatless .
Communicants and Cosmetics
Precedence in Receiving Communion
Genuflecting at Communion
Nine Fridays and Good Friday .
156
’57
’59
160
161
162
165
166
166
The Eucharistic Fast
’39· Mass: Not Fasting
140. Eucharistic Fast: Time Computation
Eucharistic Fast: Saliva
Eucharistic Fast: Lozenge .
'43- Eucharistic Fast: Liquid Paraffin
Eucharistic Fast: Purifying Paten
143. Eucharistic Fast: Ablutions
167
168
170
’73
’74
CONTENTS
>5
FâOB
gvimox
§3. The Eucharistic Fast —continued
146. Eucharistie Fast: The Infirm
147. Breaking Fast “Per Modum Potus
*
148. Eucharistic Fast: Induits .
149. Eucharistic Fast: Priests’ Induits .
150. Eucharistic Fast: Night Workers .
151. Non-Fasting Evening Communion
§4. Communion of the Sick
152. Communion of the Sick: Rites .
155. Communion of the Sick: Vesture
154. Communion of the Sick: Blessing
155. Communicating the Sick in Church
156. Communicating Expectant Mothers
157. Plural Communion of the Sick .
158. Communicating Others in the House
159. Communion: Non-Catholic Servers
160. Communion of the Sick: Frequency
161. Obligation of Viaticum
162. Viaticum Before Operations
163. Viaticum: Parochial Right .
.
§5. The Paschal Precept
164. Time of Paschal Precept
165. Easter Communion in Parish Church
166. The Sick and Paschal Precept
167. Paschal Precept and Sanctions
168. Dispensing from Paschal Precept
174
>79
180
181
182
184
185
186
186
188
188
189
190
192
195
195
>95
196
V. HOLY EUCHARIST: EXPOSITION
169.
170.
171.
172.
173.
174.
175.
176.
177.
178.
179.
180.
181.
182.
183.
184.
185.
186.
187.
Origins of Benediction
Benediction: Sign of the Cross .
·
Method of Inccnsation
.
·
Incensation by Server .
.
.
.
Assistant Priest ar Benediction .
.
Deacon Touching Holy Eucharist
·
Ciborium Benediction
.
.
·
Repeated Benedictions
.
.
·
The Number at Benediction
.
.
Camp Benediction ....
O Salutaris
.....
Prayers During Corpus Christi Octave
Divine Praises .....
Forty Hours: “Missa pro Pace’’ .
·
Forty Hours “ad Instar” .
.
·
Collection During Exposition
October Devotions: Obligation .
October Devotions: Morning Exposition
October Benedictions: Ordinary’s Sanction
>97
198
>99
200
201
202
203
204
204
206
207
208
208
209
CONTENTS
VI. PENANCE
eAOK
QtJtWOM
€1. Confessor’s Jurisdiction
Rector
188. Faculties
" ’ ’ of
foSeminary
—:189. Confessions on Shipboard .
190. Meaning of Sea Voyage
191. Faculties in Aeroplanes
192. Faculties in War Time
‘93- Supplied Jurisdiction
194. Faculties in Common Error
195. Army Chaplains Absolving Civilians
196. Army Chaplains Absolving Priests
197. Faculties of Suspended Priest
198. Jurisdiction of Orthodox Priests
§2. Confessions of Religious
199. Ordinary Confessor .
200. Extraordinary Confessor .
201. Supplementary Confessor .
202. Gravely Sick Religious
203. Gravely Sick Religious: Approbation
204. Sick Religious .
Si-
216
217
218
218
220
221
222
224
229
230
23i
233
Reserved Cases
205.
206.
207.
208.
209.
210.
211.
212.
213.
214.
Juveniles and Censures
Re-incurred Censure .
Doubtfully Reserved Censure
Censure and General Absolution.
Absolution of Censure “ab Homine”
Absolution from Heresy
Canon 2350: Co-operation .
Cases Reserved to the Ordinary .
Reservations in Internment Camps
Reservation “Respective Ordinario”
234
23 5
236
237
238
239
240
24i
A
§4.
Confessor’s Obligations
21 j. Passio Domini, etc. .
216.
217.
218.
219.
S'
Absolution Form for Children
General Absolution .
Confessional Seal
Vesture in the Confessional
.
243
244
245
246
247
Dispositions of the Penitent
220.
221.
222.
223.
224.
22j.
226.
Purpose of Amendment
Contrition during Absolution
Generic Confession of Past Sins .
Non-Catholic’s Absolution
Deaf Mutes and Confession
Annual Confession .
“Quamprimum” in Canon 807
247
248
249
2 jo
2i4
CONTENTS
VIL INDULGENCES
pacb
question
General Rules Regarding Indulgences
227.
228.
229.
230.
231.
232.
Indulgences: Usual Conditions ....
255
Indulgences: Reception of Sacraments
.
.
.256
Confession and Indulgences
.
.
.
,
.256
Jubilee Confession and Communion .
.
.
-257
Indulgences: Foreign Missions ..... 258
A.P.F. Indulgences ....... 259
§2. Stations of the Cross
233. Erecting Stations of the Cross ..... 260
234. Erecting Stations: Delegation ..... 261
23 j. Crosses of the Stations
.
.
.
.
.
.265
236. Removal of Stations ....... 264
237. Kissing a Stations Crucifix
.
.
.
.
.265
§3. Various Other Indulgences
238. Privileged Altar “Pro Defunctis”
.... 266
239. Papal Blessing ........ 267
240. Indulgenced Crucifix ....... 268
241. Faculty for Rosary Indulgences ..... 269
242. Additions to the Rosary ...... 270
243. Rosary of the Five Wounds
.
.
.
.
.271
244. Prayers Before and After Mass ..... 272
245. “En Ego” Indulgence
...... 273
246. 2 November: Visit to a Church ..... 274
247. Indulgence for Converts .
.
.
.
.
.275
VIII. EXTREME UNCTION
248.
249.
250.
251.
2 j 2.
253.
254.
255.
Hospitals and Spiritual Provision
.... 277
Ministration to the Dying .....
2,g
Healing Effect of Extreme Unction
.... 279
Plural Extreme Unction .....
28i
Subject of Extreme Unction
....
"sAnointing Air Raid Victims
.
.
.
,
.282
Religious and Last Sacraments .
.
.
’
.'28'
The Last Blessing
.....
t
IX. HOLY ORDERS
256.
2 j 7.
258.
259.
260.
261.
262.
263.
The Minister of Holy Orders
...
286
Ordination Days
.
.
.
.
.
.
,g
Ordination Preface ......
^88
Application for Holy Orders
·
.
.
.
289
Theology Before Ordination
..... 2oo
Ex-Religious in Minor Orders ..... 290
Sacerdotal Anniversary .....
Newly Ordained Priest .....
292
CONTENTS
. HOLY MATRIMONY
ΓΑΟΜ
qumttom
§1. Marriage Preliminaries
264. Form of Betrothal .
·
·
·
265. Breach of Promise .
266. Previous Investigation: Whose Duty? .
267. Freedom to Marry: Meaning
268. Freedom to Marry: Diocesan Certificate
269. “S.C. Sacram.,” 29 June, 1941 .
270. Banns: Six Months’ Residence .
271. Confession Before Marriage
.
·
§2. Marriage Impediments
272. Chastity and Marriage Consent .
273. Divorce and Marriage Consent .
274. Safe Period and Marriage Consent
275· Ignorance of Natural Law Impediment
276. Non-Catholics and Impediments .
277· The Unbaptized and Impediments
278. Ligamen: Presumed Death .
279· Ligamen and Civil Divorce
280. Crimen: Promise of Marriage
293
293
294
295
297
298
299
300
301
302
3°3
305
307
308
309
Dispensations
281.
282.
283.
284.
285.
286.
287.
288.
289.
290.
Implied Dispensation from Crimen
Untrue Canonical Cause .
.
Periculum Matrimonii Civilis .
Angustia Loci .
.
.
.
Dispensation Refused
.
.
Dispensation Ceasing.
.
.
Priest Dispensing Impediments .
“Omnia Parata” a Cause .
.
Meaning of “Omnia Parata”
.
Canon 1045 · Qualified Priest .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
JZO
323
Mixed Marriages
291.
292.
293.
294.
295296.
297.
298.
299.
300.
301.
302.
303.
304.
Disparity of Worship: Non-Catholics .
In Ecclesia Catholica Baptizata .
Marriage and Doubtful Baptism .
Disparity of Worship: Guarantees
Guarantees: Certainty
.
,
Guarantees in Danger ot Death .
.
Guarantees: The Third Promise .
Guarantees in Writing
Guarantees and Sanatio
Lapsed Catholic’s Marriage.
Disparity of Worship: Implied Dispensation
Dispensation “ad Cautelam”
Ordinary for Dispensation .
Mixed Marriage without Dispensation '
-
324
326
326
328
32 9
33°
332
334
336
337
338
339
34°
34°
CONTENTS
qUMTIOW
FACW
§5. The Form of Marriage
305. Assisting Priest: Curate
306. Assisting Priest: Supply
307. Assisting Priest: Sub-delegation
308. Ab Acatholicis Nati .
309. Special Form of Marriage .
310. Form of Marriage in Germany
Marriage Form in Eastern Rites
Non-Catholic Form of Marriage
3’3- Parochus Proprius
3’4- Parochus Sponsae
341
342
344
345
346
347
348
348
350
351
§6. Celebration of Marriage
515. Kneeling during Marriage Rite
316. Non-Catholic Witnesses
317. Marriage on Holy Saturday
318. Ego Coniungo Vos .
319. Nuptial Blessing Within Sanctuary
320. Nuptial Blessing: Widows .
321. Short Form of Nuptial Blessing .
322. Nuptial Blessing: Induit
323. Nuptial Blessing on All Souls’ Day
324. Simple Marriage Blessing .
325. Priest as Civil Registrar
.
·
326. Marriage Register
§7. Revalidation of Marriage
327. Revalidation: Abrogated Impediment
328. Revalidation: Converts’ Marriages
329. Petition for Sanatio .
330. Execution of Sanatio .
331. Sanatio and Marriage Consummation
332. Revalidation: Civil Registrar
333. Registration of Revalidated Marriages
*35
35 5
355
357
358
359
360
*56
362
363
364
366
367
368
369
370
370
§8. Marriage Causes
334. Indissolubility of Marriage .
335. Papal Dissolution of Legitimate Marriage
336. Papal Dissolution: Procedure
337.
337- Civil Marriage .....
338. Non-Catholics and Canon 1990 .
539. Procurators and Advocates .
340. Marriage Causes: Bibliography .
.
377
578
379
§9. Attempted Marriage
341. Civil Marriage Preceding .
Marriage Before Non-Catholic Minister
*·
34
343· Civil Marriage: Danger of Death
Civil Marriage: Reception of Sacraments
345- Legitimacy from Putative Marriage
385
384
584
371
375
376
(8
CONTENTS
XI. SACRAMENTALS
PAGB
gxnuTiON
346.
347.
348.
349.
3 jo.
351.
352.
353.
354.
355.
356.
357.
358.
Paschal Holy Water .
Paschal Blessing of Houses.
Holy Water and Blessings
The “Misereatur” Formula
Unico Signo Crucis .
Churching an Unmarried Mother
Churching a Non-Catholic .
Churching a Bad Catholic .
Plural Churching
Public Blessings
Mass in a Hall: Blessing
Blessing of Bells
Benedictio Mulieris Praegnantis
Code Index....................................................
•
•
•
•
•
386
387
388
389
390
59°
391
393
394
394
395
395
397
398
I. BAPTISM
May one add ordinary water repeatedly to that in the font when the latter is
getting low ?
Canon 757, §2: Si aqua benedicta in baptisterio adeo sit imminuta, ut
minus videatur sufficere, alia non benedicta admisceatur, etiam iterato,
minore tamen copia.
Each time it is desired to use the font, water may be added so as to
make the quantity sufficient for Baptism, provided that what is added is
less in quantity than that already in the font. If the latter is so low that
it is impossible to obtain sufficient water, except by adding a greater quan
tity than what is already in the font, fresh water should be blessed with the
rite provided for the purpose in the Rituale Romanian, Tit. ii, cap. viii, or in
our Ordo Administrandi, Tit. ii, cap. vi.
It is evident that if water is repeatedly added the amount will eventually
exceed the original quantity of blessed water. Most of the commentators
do not advert to this difficulty; some permit two or three additions;1
others say it may be done several times; Dunne concludes that the addition
may be repeated as often as necessary, even though the total is eventually
greater than the amount of baptismal water originally in the font,2 and
we think that this is correct.
If there is time, is there a grave obligation to use baptismal water and to perform
the subsequent ceremonies, when baptising at borne a child who is dangerously ill ?
Canon 759 and Rituale Romanum, Tit. ii, cap. i, n. 28: In mortis periculo
. . . a sacerdote vel diacono, serventur quoque, si tempus adsit, caere
moniae quae baptismum sequuntur.
J'.R.C., 23 January, 1914, η. 4310; Fontes, η. 6395: An in administratione baptismi, quando imminet periculum mortis, post infusionem
aquae, urgeat sub gravi Ritualis Romani praescriptum quoad unctionem
Chrismatis, traditionem linteoli et cerei? Resp. Standum est Rituali Romano.
The obligation to perform the subsequent ceremonies immediately,
deferring those which precede until they can be performed in the church,
is plain enough from the above texts. We are not aware of any explicit
direction to use, on such occasions, baptismal water; but it seems to us
rules, even though the rite is not strictly solemn Baptism—omnibus ritibus
servatis, canon 737, §2—and, therefore, is not strictly within the terms of
i
QQ. 2, J
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
zo
canon 757, §1, which requires baptismal water for solemn Baptism. That
baptismal water should be used is the teaching of Clacys-Bouuacrt, Jus
Canonicum, II, §41; Callcwacrt in Collationes Brugenses, 1932, p. 453; Dunne,
The Ritual Explained, p. 25 ; Lchmkuhl, Tbeol. Moralis, II, §60, and most of
the older writers. It is also prescribed as a matter of course by some local
synods in recalling the obligation of canon 759, e.g. Middlesbrough Decrees,
1933. n· 96·
It is implied, perhaps, in the reply S.R.C., n. 4510, that the performance
of the subsequent ceremonies is per se a grave obligation; the same cannot
be said with equal confidence of the use of baptismal water on these occasions.
In any case, the obligation is qualified by the words “si tempus sit”, and the
priest himself must be the judge whether, on being summoned to administer
Baptism, it is wise to spend time assembling the various requirements for
the complete observance of the above rules.
2.—I Christen Thee
Theologians usually teach that the form of Baptism, to be valid, must contain
some word expressing ablution as the equivalent of the Latin “baptizo”. It would,
therefore, appear that “ I christen” would be invalid, and that Catholics should not
speak of a christening but of a Baptism.
The principle is that any word which, in the vernacular, is synonymous
with “baptize” is valid. De Smet in De Sacramentis, p. 184, §1, cites the
Flemish kerstenen and the English christen as examples of valid alternative
words, and he notes that in 1894 the Holy Sec approved a Slavonic Ritual
with kristiti in the vernacular form.
The pre-Reformation use in England seems to have been: “I Christen
thee, etc.”, and this certainly continued for some time after the Reformation.
A Ritual printed at Douay by Laurence Kellam in 1610, was evidently meant
for the use of the Seminary priests returning to England; it is entitled
“Manuale Sacerdotum . . . insignis Ecclesiae Sarisburensis”. The only
English form on page 63 is: “I Christen thee *N in the name of the
Father, and of the Sonne, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen” vel in lingua
Latina sic: “Ego baptizo te ‘N’ in nomine, etc.” It will be noticed that the
form contains “Amen”, which is lacking in the modern rituals.
To be lawful the form in our present Ritual: “I baptize thee, etc.”, must
always be used, but there cannot be any doubt that “I christen thee, etc.”, is
valid.
3.—Vernacular at Solemn Baptism
I/ for the convenience oj the godparent the interrogations are made in English,
is it permissible to omit the Latin form of the questions ? The case of the wedding
service, where the interrogations are made in English only, might be adduced as an
argument to support the omission of the Latin baptismal interrogations—at least in
England. If the questions must first be asked in Latin, then in English, it would
seem that the responses should also be in Latin and English. But would it be correct
for the priest who baptises to make these {Latin) responses ?
In
BAPTISMAL RITES
Q. 3
S.R.C., 5 March, 1904; Periodica, III, p. 287: An adhiberi possit idioma
.vernaculum in administratione baptismi? Resp. Affirmative quoad ques
tiones et responsa patrini vel matrinac, si eadem a parocho prius sermone
latino recitentur.
Quite apart from the directions of our liturgical text in the rite of
marriage, there is this difference to be remembered: the consent in marriage
is the sacrament and is therefore properly given, not in Latin, but in a
language which the parties and the witnesses certainly understand. The
marriage rite varies considerably in different countries; nor is it particularly
ancient, since the assistance of a priest was not absolutely necessary before
Tametsi of the Council of Trent. The baptismal rite, on the contrary, is
extremely ancient, particularly the opening questions, and the Church has
often declined to modify it in any way.
Apart Jrom the interrogations, is it necessary for the Creed and the Lord's
Prayer to be said first in Latin then in English—particularly as in most cases it is
necessary for the priest to lead the English recitation oj these prayers ?
5.R.C., 30 Dec., 1881, n. 3535.10: Num patrini in Baptismo recitare
possint Pater et Credo lingua vernacula, dum Parochus ea recitat latino
sermone? Resp. Posse. The decision assumes that these formulae shall
be said in Latin by the priest, but permits the vernacular to be used by the
sponsors. A common practice is for the priest to start each in a loud voice in
the vernacular, having invited the sponsors to recite them, and to continue
himself the Latin formula in a lower voice.
Is one permitted to recite after each prayer in the baptisma, rite an English
translation, as is already directed to be done for certain of the forms used ?
It is not only permitted but desirable for the priest to explain, either
before the rite or afterwards, the Latin prayers used in the administration of
the sacraments. But in the rite itself the vernacular may be used only when
it is sanctioned by the Ordo Administrandi.
For about half a century, at least, the local rituals used in this country
permitted an English version of all the baptismal prayers to be recited after
each Latin form. This is found in Ordo Baptizandi Attaque Sacramenta
Administrandi, Dublin, 1774, and in a book with the same title, Paris, 1738.
It is not found in a London edition of 1686, nor in a London edition of 1788.
Therefore, the practice was sanctioned throughout the middle of the
eighteenth century, but we have no information why it was discontinued.
Those in favour of more vernacular in the liturgy have, it would seem, a
good argument from this practice of our forefathers. It meant exactly
doubling the length of the rite, for the rubrics required, of course, that the
Latin should be recited as well as the English: “Licet omnia prout supra,
vulgari lingua reddita, in gratiam adstantium, subnecti possint: praescriptus
tamen latine baptizandi ritus servandus est.”
In the above replies we have not touched on the question whether the
use of the vernacular in liturgical rites is desirable or not; we have merely
stated the law as it exists at the moment of writing.
Q. 4
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
zz
4.—Baptismal Ceremonies
Neither the “Rituale Romanum" nor our “Ordo Administrandi" state the
exact time of entry into the baptistery. Is it more correct to make the interrogations
“N. Credis in Deum, etc", within the gates of the baptistery ?
It is true that the Ordo Administrandi, which is based on the official text
of the Rituale Romanum then current, does not make it quite clear. The
commentators solved the doubt by quoting the very explicit directions con
tained in Memoriale Rituum, Tit. vi, cap. ii, §5, namely the priest pronouncesthe exorcisms standing with his back to the entrance of the baptistery;
in the same place he puts on the white stole, enters the baptistery and,
standing before the font, puts the questions N. Credis in Deum, etc.
These rubrics are now included in the latest (1925) typical edition of the
Rituale Romanum'. “12. Ac deinde, antequam accedat ad Baptisterium,
versis renibus ostio cancellorum Baptisterii, dicit Exorcizo te, etc. 17.
Stans ibidem extra cancellos, deponit stolam violaceam, et sumit stolam albi
coloris. Tunc ingreditur Baptisterium, in quod intrat etiam patrinus cum
infante. Sacerdos ad fontem interrogat, etc.”
A query has arisen in observing the law of supplying the omitted ceremonies.
The growth of hair on the head of an adult makes it difficult to anoint the crown of the
head', should it be done in such cases on the forehead?
Rituale Romanum, Tit. ii, cap. v, n. 21: Sacerdos intingit pollicem in
sacro Chrismate, et ungit infantem (quem patrinus vel matrina, vel uterque
simul tenet) in summitate capitis in modum crucis dicens (singulariter
singulis) : Deus omnipotens, etc.
Although we have not been able to find any writer dealing expressly
with this point, a solution of the doubt may be found by examining the
analogous situation in pouring the baptismal water on the hairy head of a
candidate. The Ritual does not, indeed, specify on what part of the head
the water is to be poured, and everyone admits some element of doubt if it
flows merely over the hair without anywhere touching the skin. But the
bracketed instruction in Ordo Administrandi, Tit. ii, cap. i, n. 10, is more
explicit: “Abluenda est pars capitis superior. Sedulo curandum est ut
pellem capitis aqua immediate tangat. Quod si capillatus fuerit qui baptizan
dus occurrit, densius capillamentum discriminet Sacerdos sinistrae manus
digitis cum aquam dextra infundit.” Hence two methods arc suggested:
the water may be poured on the crown of the head in such wise that it
flows also on the forehead; or the pouring may begin on the forehead and
continue on to the crown of the head.
Similarly, though the matter is not of the same gravity, it would seem
that the anointing of a hairy candidate should be performed by making a
large sign of the cross so as to include, if the hair cannot be parted, the
forehead or the sides of the head.
Whilst anointing the breast and shoulders with the Oil of Catechumens the priest is
directed to say theformula : “Ego te linio etc." But the “Ordo Administrandi" (1915)
Ij
BAPTISMAL RITES
QQ· 5, 6
only indicates one cross—after “linio". At what point in the formula does the
priest anoint the shoulders, i.e. “inter scapulas" ?
Apart from the rule that this anointing formula is only recited once for
both unctions, the rubrics do not settle the point raised. Rubricians make
various suggestions. A modern writer of authority directs that both
anointings should be completed at the place marked with the cross: “Expletis
interrogationibus, intingit pollicem dextrum in Oleo Catechumenorum et
infantem ungit; proferens formulam: Ego te linio ►!< ungit infantem in pectore
in modum Crucis, dein inter scapulas pariter in modum crucis et dicit:
oleo salutis, etc.”*1 The author most commonly used by us in England and
who faithfully records our customs is Fr. Dunne. He writes: “While
making the downward stroke on the breast he says Ego te linio and while
completing the cross, oleo sahitis ; while making the downward stroke between
the shoulders, he says in Christo Jesu Domino nostro, and while completing
the cross, ut habeas vitam aeternam.”2
5. —Supplying Baptismal Ceremonies
Vhat should be done at the conditional Baptism of reputed Catholic children
if it is doubtful whether the ceremonies have been performed ?
Canon 760: Cum baptismus sub conditione iteratur, caeremoniae, si
quidem in priore baptismo omissae fuerunt, suppleantur, salvo praescripto
can. 759, §3; sin autem in priore baptismo adhibitae sunt, repeti in altero
ant omitti possunt.
The case could never arise in the conditional Baptism of children formerly
baptized by non-Catholic ministers; whatever doubt there may be about the
validity of the former Baptism, it is certain that the ceremonies—even
though attempted—were invalid. The doubt is restricted, therefore, to
cases of reputed Catholics who are to be re-baptized conditionally owing
to some doubt having arisen about their former Baptism, c.g. no record or
witnesses of its performance can be traced. We are aware that, when a
case of this kind arises, it is the more common practice to administer con
ditional Baptism without any of the ceremonies. But it seems to us a
necessary deduction from the terms of canons 759 and 760 that, in the
ccmmon law, the conditional Baptism in these cases should be “solemn”,
i.e. accompanied by all the ceremonies. The Church sets such value on
these ceremonies that canon 760 states they may be repeated at a con
ditional Baptism, even when it is certain that they took place at the former
doubtful Baptism, c.g. when the doubt is whether the water touched the
'-andidate. Cf. Dunne, The Ritual Explained, p. 24.
6. —Ceremonies at Conditional Baptism
In an orphanage children are often received of whose Baptism no proof can be
obtained, and if is the custom in such cases to administer conditional Baptism privately,
i.e. without the ceremonies in the Ritual. In this practice correct ?
1 Morutti» Caeremoniale* BZ, p. 177.
1 The Ritual Explained* p. 20.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
24
Canon 759, §2: Extra mords periculum baptismum privatum loci
Ordinarius permittere nequit, nisi agatur de haereticis qui in adulta aetate
sub conditione baptizentur.
§3. Caeremoniae autem quae in baptismi collatione praetermissae quavis
radone fuerint, quamprimum in ecclesia suppleantur, nisi in casu de quo in §2.
Canon 760: Cum baptismus sub conditione iteratur, caeremoniae, si
quidem in priore baptismo omissae fuerunt, suppleantur, salvo praescripto
can. 759, §3; sin autem in priore baptismo adhibitae sunt, repeti in altero aut
omitti possunt.
Several points of difficulty converge on cases of this kind. There is,
for example, the question of securing in children who have reached the age
of reason the knowledge and intention proportioned to their years. Nor
should Baptism be repeated, even conditionally, unless after an inquiry the
doubt persists: in some cases the law itself resolves the doubt, e.g. canons
746 and 747 decide about fetal baptism: canon 749 directs foundlings to be
baptized conditionally when investigation about the fact of Baptism is un
successful. Each case must be decided individually on its own merits, but
the Holy See accepts for Baptisms in England the cautious doctrine of
Lacroix: “Si quibusdam locis . . . nec sollicite observent ea quae catholica
Ecclesia requirit ad valorem Sacramenti, debere, a talibus baptizatos, sub
conditione rebaptizari.”1
Assuming the lawfulness of administering conditional Baptism, the
general principle about the accompanying ceremonies of the Ritual is that
persons have a right to them, as being valuable spiritual benefits, and there
fore they may not be withheld except only in the case of the conditional
baptism of adult heretics.
(i) For children who have not reached the age ot reason the correct
procedure is quite certain: their conditional Baptism must be accompanied
by all the ceremonies prescribed in the Ritual for the Baptism of infants.
This is clearly deduced from canon 760, compared with canon 88, and it is
to be presumed (praesumptio iuris non ds iure, canons 1825-1828) that the age of
reason is seven years completed. It must be observed that “private”
Baptism is not synonymous with “secret” Baptism or with its adminis
tration “at home”; it is styled “private” when unaccompanied by the
ceremonies, as defined in canon 737, §2, and from canon 759, §1, it is
evident that the essential ceremonies in question are those which precede
the baptismal formula. An ordinary may permit “solemn” Baptism in a
private house for the reasons mentioned in canon 776, but the common law
does not permit, except in danger of death, “private” conditional Baptism
of infants either in a house or in a church. Accordingly, the infants of this
orphanage should be taken to the church and baptized conditionally with all
the ceremonies of the Ritual, unless the Ordinary permits these rites to be
performed in the orphanage. There is a decree of the Holy Office, 2 April,
1879,2 which directs Baptisms of this kind to be administered secretly, and
Dunne3 quotes another of 3 June, 1908, in the same sense. But seeing that
the Code is silent about the secrecy which used to be required, wc agree with
Gougnard4 that it is no longer the common law.
1 Fontes, η. 4748, ad finem.
1 Fontes, η. ιοόι.
’ The Rifuil Explained, p. 25.
1 Collationes Theologicae, 1956» p. 8).
BAPTISMAL RITES
(ii) For children who have reached the age of reason the correct pronately for all adults; that is to say, the Ordinary may permit or direct the
conditional Baptism of children over seven to be “private” if they are heretics,
i.c. born of heretical parents, or regarded in the external forum as belonging
to an heretical sect. In the case, however, of Catholic children over seven
whose Baptism is considered doubtful, the conditional Baptism should be
“solemn”; Dunne states that there is no decree directing this to be done, but
it seems to us to be a necessary conclusion from the terms of canons 759
and 760, which are contained in the rubrics of the BJtuale Romanum, cap. i,
n. 28, and cap. iii, η. 12.1
(iii) In this country the “private” conditional baptism of adult heretics
is the law of I Westm., Dec. XVI, n. 8, and not merely permissive as in the
common law of canon 759, §2: “Huiusmodi baptismus non fiat publice sed
omnino privatim, cum aqua lustrali, et absque caeremoniis.” It is also
evident in this law that “omnino privatim” means “secreto”, as in Lancaster
Statuta, 1935, n. 87, and in Middlesbrough Decrees, 1933, n. too.
(iv) What should be done with regard to persons who have been
wrongly denied the ceremonies at their conditional Baptism? The question
is met by J. Off., 2 April, 1879, ad 3 : “. . . quid faciendum de permultis
huiusmodi qui fere passim iam per multos annos in pueritia sub conditione
sine caeremoniis iam baptizati sunt? R«/>. Dissimulandum; quod si
quis pctat, remittitur prudenti arbitrio R.P.D. Ordinarii.”2
IFTw/ are the reasons underlying the law that the ceremonies and prayers preceding
Baptism must be supplied, since Baptism has already been administered? Is the
baptised infant still, so to speak, in the possession of the unclean spirit? Why
should the child be asked, through its sponsors, if it wishes to be baptised ? Why do
the sponsors not contract spiritual relationship ?
Rituale Romanum, Tit. ii, cap. v, Ordo Supplendi Omissa: ... ut
idoneus sit frui gratia baptismi tui, quem suscepit, salis percepta medicina
. . . ut discedas ab hoc plasmate Dei N., quod Dominus noster ad templum
sanctum suum vocare dignatus est, ut fieret templum Dei vivi. . . .
(i) The obligation of supplying the omitted ceremonies is formulated
both in the Ritual and in canon 759, §3, and is usually considered a grave
one. By comparing the “Ordo Supplendi Omissa” in cap. v with the full
rite in cap. ii, it will be seen that many of the phrases are slightly altered
to meet the situation when the ceremonial rites alone are being adminis
tered to a child already baptized. Some of these are noted in the full rite
contained in our Ordo Administrandi, which is based on an earlier recension
to accompany the preceding words instead of being related to the words
1 Occasionally writers reckon as infants, for the purpose of baptism, children who have
not reached the ape of puberty, e.g. Dictionnaire de Droit Canonique, Fasc. VII, col. 153 ad
finem·, we think this must be due to inadvertence or to confusing the question of ceremonies
with that of absolution from censure
* Fontes, n. io6j.
q. 8
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
26
“ut discedas”. Many Rituals are in circulation and our correspondent may
have one which contains the vivid anachronism “Vis baptizari ?”; all those
we have consulted omit these words, and our Ordo Administrandi contains
a footnote to that effect.
(ii) One explanation for the retention in substance of all the preceding
ceremonies may be that we have here, as it were, a dramatic representation
which, by a kind of ritual fiction, imagines the child to be unbaptized for
the purpose of receiving blessings which normally precede Baptism. It is
somewhat on these lines that many writers explain the cxequial absolution
prayers of the Libera: the dead person is, in fact, already judged by God,
but the prayers dramatically imply that he is awaiting judgement.
This explanation is unsatisfactory, since the Church has provided a
formula which definitely assumes that the child is already baptized. If the
Church desired to eliminate the force of the exorcisms, it could have been
effected by introducing the word “dudum” in the appropriate places, as
has been done in the second prayer of the “Ordo Supplendi Omissa”
before the words “rudimenta fidei”.
It is equally unsatisfactory to argue that there is nothing manifestly
inappropriate in exorcizing a baptised person, since the exorcisms of the
Pontifical may be applied to such. To suppose that every candidate for
Baptism is possessed by the devil, whatever meaning we give to this notion
in the Pontifical, is a gross exaggeration. Cf. Ephemerides Liti/rgicae, 1928,
p. 155, and the series of articles in that year explaining the baptismal cere
monies.
The correct explanation, it would seem, is that given by St. Thomas
in III, 71, 3, ad 3: “ . . . dispositio sufficiens ad suscipiendam gratiam
baptismalcm est fides et intentio, vel propria cius qui baptizatur, si sit
adultus, vel ipsius Ecclesiae, si sit parvulus. Ea vero quae aguntur in
exorcismo ordinantur ad removendum impedimenta; et ideo sine eo potest
aliquis consequi effectum baptismi: non tamen sunt huiusmodi praeter
mittenda, nisi in necessitatis articulo: et tunc cessante periculo debent
suppleri, ut servetur uniformitas in baptismo. Nec frustra supplentur post
baptismum, quia sicut impeditur effectus baptismi antequam percipiatur;
ita potest impediri postquam fuerit perceptus.” As we all unhappily know,
we remain liable to the external influence of evil spirits even after Baptism,
and the internal inclination to sin also remains; these are impediments
to the use of grace of our Baptism, and the effect intended by the Church
in the exorcisms and other baptismal rites is to remove them.
(iii) The notion of spiritual paternity in the sponsor is necessarily
attached to baptismal regeneration, the effect of which is distinct from the
effect of the accompanying rites conveniently described as sacramentals.
Accordingly, as stated in canon 762, §2, the sponsor who intervenes at the
ceremonies alone—styled in some Rituals sponsor catechesis—contracts no
spiritual relationship.
8.—Changed Christian Name
An adult convert, James Brown, desires to take the Christian name John at
Baptism. The parish priest, fearing subsequent confusion as to the man’s identity,
enters bis name as James in the baptismal register. Is this correct ?
27
RECIPIENT OF BAPTISM
Q. 9
The common law of the Church, so far as we can discover, does not
provide for this contingency. The baptismal register is a public document
(canon 1813), and the obligation of inscribing it correctly (canon 777) has
appropriate sanctions (canon 2406, §1). The latter canon provides,
amongst other things, against falsifying entries therein (falsare, adulterare,
destruere vel occultare).
In the civil law a person may change his name as often as he sees fit,
provided it is not done for illegal purposes. But in so doing he runs the
risk of confusing his identity, thus endangering his rights to property and
other things, and to avoid this risk the proper course is to execute a deed
and have it enrolled at the Central Office of the Supreme Court of Judicature,
or to publicize the change by announcement in the London Gazette and in the
newspapers.
In order to avoid needless conflict between civil and ecclesiastical
registers, the best course is for the adult convert to retain at Baptism the
Christian name which was entered in the civil register at the time of his
birth. But there may be good reasons for a change; for example, the name
may have profane or anti-Christian associations, and therefore be contrary
to the law of canon 761. In this case we think that the original name
should also be inscribed in the register, together with the Christian name,
in order to avoid subsequent confusion. This procedure is of obligation
in some dioceses as in Malines: “Quod si baptizandus infans sub profano
aliquo nomine in registris status civilis inscriptus iam fuerit, nomen alicuius
e Coelitibus ci imponatur. Nomen tamen profanum simul cum alio vel
aliis in libro baptismal! notetur, ne ex nominum diversitate postea dubium
oriatur de infantis identitate”.1 If this course is followed, every subsequent extract from the register should indicate both names, e.g. “Joannes
(/>; registro civili Jacobus) Brown”. Alternatively, the person could be
advised to adopt the procedure for changing his name as already indicated,
but in our view a double entry in the baptismal register suffices in the
circumstances.
§2. RECIPIENT OF BAPTISM
9.—Procedure in Baptizing Children
Is it possible to set out simply and clearly the correct procedure and rules for
receiving young children of various ages into the Church, and for baptising them
conditionally ?
The following chart docs not include Baptisms in danger of death, nor
the supplying of ceremonies omitted on such occasions. We believe it is
correct, but there arc some aspects of these cases which are unchartable.
In compiling the chart we have kept in mind, in addition to the common
law, the directions of the Westminster Provincial Councils and the rubrics
of the Ordo Administrandi which are of obligation throughout this country.
1 Statuta, 1924, n. 243.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Q. 9
28
We have not taken into account local diocesan legislation, which may deter
mine doubtful points such as those mentioned in Notes 4 and 9; this is of
obligation in those dioceses alone.
Disposition,f
Ceremonies to
Ordinary's Required Censure
Incurred i? be Employed?
in the
Intervention
Necessary ? Subject ?
(6)
(î)
(7)
6)
A.
Sponsor
Required?
Convert
Form to
be Used?
(8)
ABSOLUTE:
No (4)
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No (9)
Catholics up
to 7
No
No
No
Yes, if former
ly omitted;
otherwise op
tional
Permis
sible
No
Non-Catholics up to 7
No (4)
No
No
Yes
No
No
Catholics 7
onwards
No
Yes
No
Yes, if former
ly omitted;
otherwise op
tional
Permis
sible
No
Non-Catholics
7 to X4 or
11 (2)
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Non-Catholics 14 or
x 2 onwards
Ye»
Yes
Yes
No
No
Up to 7 (l)
7 onwards (a) 1
B.
CONDITIONAL:
Yes, minus
absolution
from cen
sure (9)
Yes
Explanatory Notes
(1) Canon 745, §2. A candidate is an adult when he has reached the
age of reason, which, from canon 88, §5, is presumed to be the age ol seven
years completed, a presumption, however, which yields to proof of the
contrary. Cf. canons 1825-1828.
(2) A censure cannot be incurred by an unbaptized person. Therefore,
in the case of absolute Baptism it is irrelevant whether the candidate has
reached the age of puberty or not. A baptized person does not incur
censure before this age. From canon 88, §2, the age of puberty is presumed
to be 14 for males and 12 for females. In our view one may follow the
probable opinion which, for the purpose of censures, regards the age as
14 for both sexes, unless local law directs that the rule of canon 88, §2, must
be strictly followed. Cf. Q. 205.
(5) The absolute Baptism of adults must be referred to the Ordinary
in principle from canon 744. The conditional Baptism of adult reputed
29
RECIPIENT OF BAPTISM
q.
9
heretics needs the Ordinary’s intervention in so far as it accompanies recon
ciliation with the Church. This is the common law from canon 2314,
§2, when the censure has been incurred. Moreover, the English bishops
in 1902 reserved the reconciliation of all converts to themselves. Cf.
Westminster Synod, XLI, 1902, Appendix II.
(4) Cf. canon 751. The infant children of non-Catholic parents are
lawfully baptized, whether absolutely or conditionally, provided a guarantee
is obtained from the parents or other responsible persons that they will be
educated as Catholics, and no reference to the Ordinary is necessary in the
common law. Doubtful cases should be referred to him.
(5) By “dispositions” we mean: intention, instruction and attrition, as
in canon 752. For the absolute Baptism of adults, minister and subject
should be fasting (decet); Mass with Holy Communion should normally
follow from canon 753.
(6) The canonical conditions for incurring censure may often be lacking,
but it is normally presumed to have been incurred by all heretics who have
reached the age or puberty. We have in the above chart considered only
the censure attached to heresy, etc., in canon 2314. Other censures which
the candidate may have incurred will usually be absolved in the internal
forum of Penance. Cf. canon 2251.
(7) The order of Baptism is either “Ordo Parvulorum” {Ordo Adminis
trandi, Tit. ii, capp. ii and iii) or “De Baptismo Adultorum” {Rj/nak Romanum,
Tit. ii, cap. iii). Almost universally in this country Ordinaries permit the
“Ordo Parvulorum” for adults from canon 755, §2.
The law about the ceremonies is in canon 760. Cf. Q. 6. Conditional
Baptism without ceremonies is not only permissible for adult non-Cathnlics
from canon 759, §3, but obligatory in this country from 1 Westm., Dec.,
XVI, n. 8. It is to be done secretly and with holy water.
In all other cases of conditional Baptism, i.e. all infants whether Catholics
or not, and all adult Catholics, the ceremonies if formerly omitted must
be supplied from canon 760; otherwise they arc optional. The rite is to be
performed in a church unless the Ordinary permits otherwise. Cf. canons
773» 776·
The necessity for conditional Baptism of those already baptized with
the Catholic rite will seldom arise.
(8) Canon 763, §1 : “Cum baptismus iteratur sub conditione, idem
patrin s, quatenus fieri potest, adhibeatur, qui in priore baptismo forte
adfuit; extra hunc casum in baptismo conditionato patrinus non est neces
sarius.” Therefore a sponsor is not employed at the conditional Baptism
of children under seven, whose previous doubtful Baptism was administered
by a non-Catholic minister.
(9) Cf. Dunne, The Rifttai Explained, p. 39, and Ordo Administrandi,
Tit. iii, cap. iv, n. 6. There is no definite ruling, but it appears more in
accordance with the common law to omit the “Forma Reconciliandi Con
versum” when administering absolute Baptism to an adult convert; where
it is customary, as Fr. Dunne says, to employ the convert form, both the
absolution from censure and the sacramental absolution are omitted.
The case is different when baptizing conditionally an adult reputed heretic
who has not reached the age of puberty; the “Forma Reconciliandi Con
versum” provides a liturgical rite for the occasion and it should be em
ployed minus the absolution from censure.
Q. XO
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
;o
10.—Intention of Receiving Baptism
In reconciling to the Church a family with a number of small children, some
difficulty arose regarding a child who was not quite seven years old, namely whether it
could be validly baptised without previous instruction. As a matter of fact, some
elementary instruction was given, but the child, on being brought to the font, resisted
strenuously and was most unwilling to be baptised. M'as the sacrament validly
received ?
We may put aside everything pertaining to the fruitful reception of
Baptism and examine the only relevant point affecting its valid reception,
namely the degree of intention necessary on the part of a subject who has
attained the use of reason.
That an habitual intention suffices is universally taught. Moreover,
it is commonly held that an implied habitual intention is sufficient, e.g. the
desire for Baptism contained within the desire to become a Christian, though
the person may be entirely ignorant of the nature of Baptism. Since, how
ever, the sufficiency of this implied intention is questioned by some, the
common teaching is that one should not be content with it, outside the
danger of death,1 but that an explicit intention should be secured. Thus,
canon 752, §2: “In mortis autem periculo, si nequeat in praecipuis fidei
mysteriis diligentius instrui, satis est, ad baptismum conferendum, ut aliquo
modo ostendat se eisdem assentire serioque promittat se christianae reli
gionis mandata servaturum. §3. Quod si baptismum ne petere quidem
queat, sed vel antea vel in praesenti manifestaverit aliquo probabili modo
intentionem illum suscipiendi, baptizandus est sub conditione; si deinde
convaluerit et dubium de valore baptismi collati permaneat, sub conditione
baptismus rursus conferatur.”
The point in the above case is to decide whether the child has attained
the use of reason. If it has the use of reason, it is subject, as an adult, to the
law which reouires an intention of receiving Baptism. Canon 745, §2:
“Cum agitur de baptismo: 1. Parvulorum seu infantium nomine veniunt,
ad normam can. 88, §3, qui nondum rationis usum adepti sunt, eisdemque
acccnsentur amentes ab infantia, in quavis aetate constituti. 2. Adulti
autem censentur, qui rationis usu fruuntur; idque satis est ut suo quisque
animi motu baptismum petat et ad illum admittatur.” It is clear that, for
the purpose of receiving Baptism, an adult is one who enjoys the use of
reason, and that the age limit determined in canon 88, §3, indicates merely a
praesumptio juris, not a praesumptio juris et de jure.2 The rule of canon 88, §3,
that an infant is one who has not reached the age of seven years completed,
is a legal presumption which must nevertheless yield to the truth, whenever
it is established that the use of reason is enjoyed before that age. If, in a
given case, a child under the age of seven is proved to possess the use of
reason, it cannot validly be baptized without an intention, in proportion to
its years, of receiving the sacrament.
In the case submitted it appears that the sacrament was validly received.
If the child had actually attained the use of reason, it could form an in1 Prümmer, Tbtol. Moralis, III, §135 ; De Smet, De Sacramentis, §273.
’ Cf. Canons 1823 and 1826.
O’ f
31
RECIPIENT OF BAPTISM
q. ii
tention from the elementary instruction given before Baptism; the resistance
at the font could be due to sudden fright and in no sense to a revocation of
the intention formed. On the other hand, if no benefit was received from
the elementary instruction, it argues that the child had not attained the use
of reason and could validly be baptized as an infant. But, in all such
border-line cases, outside the danger of death, it is far better to delay
Baptism in order that the minimum for its valid reception may be assured.
11.—Baptism and Use of Reason
An indifferent Catholic father and Protestant mother have four children who
have been baptised in the Church of England. The ages of the children are 3, 5,
61 and 9 years. Through the efforts of the priest, the three children of school age
have entered the Catholic school to be brought up Catholics, with the consent of the
parents. They are all receiving religious instructions, and the two eldest are being
prepared to make their first confession and Holy Communion when they are ready.
Should all three children of school age be conditionally baptised at once, or should this
ceremony be deferred until the time of first confession and Communion ?
Canon 745, §2: Cum agitur de Baptismo: 1. Parvulorum seu infantium
nomine veniunt, ad normam can. 88, qui nondum rationis usum adepti
sunt, eisdemque acccnsentur amentes ab infantia, in quavis aetate constituti.
2. Adulti autem censentur, qui rationis usu fruuntur; idque satis est ut suo
quisque motu baptismum peut et ad illum admittatur.
Canon 752, §1: Adultus, nisi sciens et volens probeque instructus, re
baptizetur; insuper admonendus ut de peccatis suis dolcat.
It is clear that the meaning of “adult”, in this connexion, is not to be
extended to other laws. From canon 88, §3, a child before the age of seven
is presumed not to have the use of reason; after that age it is presumed to
have it. The presumption is what is called praesumptio suris, namely it
must yield to the truth in a given case.1 It is quite likely, for example, that
the presumption of having the use of reason is not actually realized in a child
of 7I, and the presumption of not having it is not realized in a child of 6 j.
Accordingly, the two youngest children (5 and 5) arc infants, and should
be baptized conditionally without any delay; canon 770: “Infantes quam
primum baptizentur; et parochi ac concionatores frequenter fideles de hac
gravi obligatione commoneant.” The Baptism of the child of 9, if it is of
normal intelligence, should be delayed until it is sufficiently instructed.
There is required an intention for receiving the sacrament validly; for
receiving it fruitfully, attrition and elementary knowledge of the truths
necessary for salvation arc required. As a practical solution, we think that
Baptism should be deferred till the time when the child is ready for first
confession and Communion. The case of the child of 61 offers some little
difficulty, which has already been discussed in Q. 10.
The minimum instruction which should precede the baptism of adults
is usefully summarized by Propaganda, 18 October, 1885, ad xvii:
.
excepto mortis corum periculo, haec pro oculis a missionariis habeantur,
nempe ut catechumeni cognoscant principalia myteria fidei, Symbolum,
1 Cf. Canons 1825 and 1826.
qq.
11, 13
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Orationem Dominicam, decalogum, praecepta Ecclesiae, effectum Baptismi,
actus virtutum theologorum carumque motiva”.1 This instruction in
cludes everything usually set out by the authors as necessitate medii and
necessitate precepti. Obviously, “cognoscant” in this text must be under
stood in conjunction with the subject’s capabilities which, in the case of a
young child, would be very small.
12.—Baptism of Embryo
As far as my experience goes, Catholics generally presume embryo délit eries dead
and tbty are burnt or disposed of without Baptism. 1 should be surprised to learn
that medicals and nurses did otherwise. I know oj no specific leaflet on the subject,
suitable for distribution generally. As the matter would appear to be grave, urgent
and offrequent occurrence, and so little seems to be done in authoritative declarations
or instruction in seminaries, what method do you suggest to make the necessity and
method of Baptism known to the general public ?
Canon 745: Curet parochus ut fideles, praesertim obstetrices, medici
cr chirurgi, rectum baptizandi modum pro casu necessitatis probe ediscant.
Canon 747: Curandum ut omnes fetus abortivi, quovis tempore editi,,
si certo vivant, baptizentur absolute; si dubie, sub conditione.
Canon 748: Monstra et ostenta semper baptizentur saltem sub condi
tione; in dubio autem unusne an plures sint homines, unus absolute bap
tizetur, ceteri sub conditione.
We know of no specific leaflet dealing with the above question. It
will be found, we think, that the subject is always explained in the seminary
course in the moral treatise on Baptism. The parish priest will observe the
terms of canon 743 either by informing nurses and others of their obligation,
particularly if his parish contains hospitals or maternity clinics, or by re
ferring them to such associations as the Catholic Nurses' Guild or the Guild
of SS. Luke, Cosmas and Damien.
The fullest theological treatment about signs of life in the embryo is in
Merkelbach, Questiones de Lmbryologia, p. 70 seq. Though interesting, it is
not strictly necessary for the due observance of the law; Baptism should
always be administered conditionally unless it is absolutely certain that life
is wholly extinct.
13.—Conditional Adult Baptism
Positive doubt exists concerning the Baptism oj a youth, bom 0/ Catholic parents,
educated a Catholic and always reputed as such. Is it necessary to refer the case to the
Ordinary before re-baptrfing him conditionally 1
Canon 744: Adultorum baptismus, ubi commode fieri potest, ad loci
Ordinarium deferatur, ut, si voluerit, ab eo vel ab eius delegato sollemnius
conferatur.
This canon is a good example of a direction of the Code which seems to
1 Fonus. n. 490 j.
RECIPIENT OF BAPTISM
require some further specification by local law. Even in the case of absolute
Baptism it is so mildly expressed that some hesitate to call it a law: “Verba
ista ita temperate sunt posita ut, potius quam praeceptum, continere vide
antur votum quod ipse Ordinarius complere potest statuto quo baptismum
adultorum sibi reservet.”1 Still less, therefore, is there an obligation from
the common law of this canon to refer cases of adult conditional Baptism
to the Ordinary, and those commentators who advert to the point rightly
teach that the canon does not include such cases. Thus VermeerschCreusen, loc. cit.\ Claeys-Bouuaert, Jus Canonicum, §25; Ayrinhac, Legislation
on the Sacraments, p. 21. If a priest cannot come to a decision about the
lawfulness of conditional Baptism he should consult the Ordinary, but this
is not the purpose of the direction in canon 744: it is to give the opportunity
to the Ordinary, if he so desires, of baptizing adults with greater solemnity,
a circumstance which clearly does not accompany such cases as the above.
In some places local law requires a reference to the Ordinary even for
the conditional Baptism of adults. Thus, Malines Statuta, 1924, n. 249,
and Lancaster Statuta, 1935, n. 85. Throughout England and Wales, the
Ordinary’s consent is required for the conditional Baptism of converts,
which normally accompanies their reception into the Church, even though
they have not, perhaps, incurred the censure of canon 2314, §1.
14.—Baptizing a Dying Non-Catholic
A priest is called to the bedside of a dying non-Catholic. He finds that the person
is a Christian in good dispositions, has a knowledge of the truths necessaryfor salvation,
and a desire to do everything that is required to save his soul, but has no desire to be
reconciled with the Church and is in good faith. There is no time to have recourse
to the Ordinary. Is if permissible, assuming bis first Baptism to be doubtfully valid,
to baptise him again conditionally ?
Canon 752, §1: Adultus, nisi sciens et volens probeque instructus, ne
baptizetur. . . .
§2. In mortis autem periculo, si nequeat in praecipuis fidei mysteriis
diligentius instrui, satis est, ad baptismum conferendum, ut aliquo modo
ostendat se eisdem assentire serioque promittat se Christianae religionis
mandata servaturum.
§3. Quod si baptismum ne petere quidem queat, sed vel antea vel in
praesenti statu manifestaverit aliquo probabili modo intentionem illum
suscipiendi, baptizandus est sub conditione. . . .
The canon has in mind the absolute Baptism of infidels; without actually
solving the controversy concerning the sufficiency of an implied intention,
it provides a practical rule by distinguishing between ordinary circumstances
and the danger of death; and, further, by distinguishing in §§2 and 5 between
those dying people who are and those who are not destitute of senses.
The directions apply all the more easily to conditional Baptism in the
above case, since it cannot be doubted that the dying person amply possesses
the qualifications for valid Baptism. Of these qualifications the most
important is the intention to receive the sacrament. If, therefore, the per1 Vcrmccrsch-Crcuscn, Epitome, Π, §28.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
son is destitute of senses, and there is no means of exploring his wishes, he
may be baptized conditionally. He has, at least, an habitual intention,
and there is no reason to suppose that he would resist the minister’s good
offices.
If, on the other hand, he is capable of giving some slight attention to the
subject—aliquo modo as stated in canon 752, §2—in our view his consent
should first be obtained. It is true that, as a Christian, he enjoys an habitual
intention with respect to Baptism, but an adult not destitute of senses must,
at least, not be averse to receiving conditional Baptism. Most non
Catholics would strongly object to it, in which case this actual contrary
intention would negative the habitual intention which it is presumed they
have got. There is no necessity, in these circumstances, to raise the question
of reconciliation with the Church, seeing that the person is in good faith and
time is lacking for the ordinary procedure to be observed.
The point is not raised in the above question, but it may be noted that,
in similar circumstances, the conditional administration of the sacraments
of Penance and Extreme Unction is also permitted secluso scandalo, pro
vided it is judged that the dying person has the minimum intention. The
fullest discussion of the matter is in Periodica, 1929, pp. 125-148.
Parents dwelling in other parishes frequently bring children to be baptised in my
parish, since the church can be more conveniently reached. Is it quite in order for me
to baptise them without the express permission of their own parish priests ?
Canon 758, §1: Minister Ordinarius baptismi solemnis est sacerdos;
sed eius collatio reservatur parocho vel alii sacerdoti de eiusdem parochi vel
Ordinarii licentia, quae in casu necessitatis legitime praesumitur.
§2. Etiam peregrinus a parocho proprio in sua paroecia sollemniter
baptizetur, si id facile et sine mora fieri potest; secus peregrinum quilibet
parochus in suo territorio potest sollemniter baptizare.
Canon 774, §1: Quaelibet parochialis ecclesia, revocato ac reprobato
?[uovis contrario statuto vel privilegio vel consuetudine, baptismalem habeat
ontem, salvo legitimo iure cumulativo aliis ecclesiis iam quaesito.
- §2. Loci Ordinarius potest pro fidelium commoditate permittere vel
iuberc ut fons baptismalis ponatur etiam in alia ecclesia vel publico oratorio
inter paroeciae fines.
(i) Parochus proprius, in this connexion, is the priest in whose parish the
parents of the candidate have a domicile or quasi-domicile.1 By the
common law solemn Baptism is reserved to this priest, and his right is violated
by any other priest who administers the sacrament without proper authori
zation. To this law, as to most positive laws, there arc exceptions. Local
law or legitimate custom may sanction a departure from the common Law
Fanfani records that in Rome itself there is an ancient custom of taking in
fants to be baptized at St. Peter’s.2 Canon 774 provides for an exception
in favour of churches, other than the parish church, which have acquired
1 Cf. Canon 94.
• De litre Parochorum, §244.
35
RECIPIENT OF BAPTISM
q.
16
a cumulative right to a font. Blat defines this as a right whereby people may
be baptized lawfully in that place, as well as in the parish church. A reply
of the Code Commission, 12 November, 1922, declared that such cumulative
right cannot, in future, be acquired by custom: a church which, before the
Code, had an exclusive right to a font, now possesses merely a cumulative
right, according to the prescriptions of canon 774.1
(ii) The exception which is most likely to operate in this country is
mentioned in canon 758, namely a case of necessity when the permission
of the parish priest is to be presumed. The necessity in question is clearly
not the extreme kind, arising in danger of death, when any lay person may
baptize privately, or any priest may baptize with the subsequent ceremonies,
as canon 759 determines. It is necessitas communis, and examples of it sug
gested by the authors arc: the case of people coming from a long distance
and finding that the parish priest is absent, or the fear that Baptism will be
neglected unless it is administered at once. In the circumstances in which
we are living, which are largely those of a missionary country, a priest should
never refuse to baptize the subject of another parish priest, in our view,
since the law is not clearly known by the people, and there is a much wider
principle than that of canon 738 to be kept always in mind, namely the
principle that the sacraments are not to be refused to those who seek them
reasonably. But the faithful should be informed of their obligations in
this respect; it is not that a parish priest is unduly jealous of his legal rights,
but that as pastor of souls he is responsible for the Baptism of infants within
his territory.
16.—Baptismal Vows
At tbe close of missions the faithful are generally urged to renew their baptismal
vows. If this act is a vow, in the usual meaning of the word, it would appear that all
subsequent sins also violate the virtue of religion ; if it is not a vow, why call it such ?
Canon 1507, §1: Votum, id est promissio deliberata ac libera Deo facta
be bono possibili et meliore, ex virtute religionis impleri debet.
St. Thomas, Dist. XXXVIII, q. 1, a. 2 (Parma, IV, p. 1006): Illud autem
votum quod habet aliquid necessitatis, habet incomplete rationem voti
. . . et hoc est votum commune, quod est de his ad quae omnes tenentur ...
Ad tertium dicendum quod transgressio voti communis non facit
speciale peccatum, sed addit peccato specialem deformitatem: magis enim
peccat baptizatus eodem genere peccati quam non baptizatus. ... Et
ideo non frustra emittitur, cum aliquam obligationem addat, sicut lex
scripta addit aliquam obligationem supra legem naturae; et ita non facit
aliud peccatum, sed novam deformitatem addit.
The question raised about baptismal “vows” could be applied also to the
marriage “vows”, for they are not vows in the strict sense of the word as
defined in canon 1307, §1. One of the ways of discerning whether a person
has made a vow properly so called is to discover whether he had a deliberate
intention of binding himself under pain of sin; and if the object matter is
already of obligation under pain of sin, there can be no vow properly so
called unless the person deliberately intends to add to this obligation by
'A.A.S., XIV, 1922, p. 662.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
binding himself through the virtue of religion, in such manner that its nonobservance will be of the nature of sacrilege. It is possible, though not in
our view desirable, for the renewal of baptismal “vows” to be vows in the
strict sense of the word. Usually this renewal is not meant or intended to
be anything more than a solemn resolution to avoid sin.
But they can be called vows in a wide sense of the word, since by Baptism
the soul is dedicated to God’s service, and, as St. Thomas observes, following
St. Paul’s teaching in Hebrews x, 29, the sins of a baptized person have there
by an additional deformity. Similarly, it would appear, since the marriages
of Christians are a symbol of Christ’s union with the Church, their infidelities
have a deformity which is lacking in the marriages of the unbaptized, and
the obligations assumed with the marriage contract may rightly be called
vows, though not in the strict sense of the word. Cf. Prümmcr: 'Yheol.
Moralis, II, §401, f.: . . . . “votum in baptismo emissum renuntiandi
Satanae, mundo et pompis eius . . . non est votum in stricto, sed in lato
sensu, ita ut baptizatus peccans contra promissiones datas gravius quidem
peccat quam homo non baptizatus, sed tamen verum sacrilegium non
committit ob laesionem voti in baptismate. Ita sententia communis. Ratio
est, quia ille, qui in baptismo tales promissiones dat, non intendit se obligare
sub peccato speciali contra religionem, sed solummodo promittit fidelem
observantiam omnium mandatorum Dei.”
§3. CONVERTS
17.—Baptism and Parental Consent
&rl a&d thirteen, being educated with Catholics in a convent school, urgently
desires to be received into the Church—she is not baptised—but the father will not
consent. Is it permitted to baptise her in spite of this ?
Canon 745, §2.2: Adulti autem censentur, qui rationis usu fruuntur;
idque satis est ut suo quisque motu baptismum petat et ad illum admittatur.
In itself, the lawful reception of Baptism on the part of one who has
reached the age of reason does not require the consent of parents. It is a
matter gravely affecting personal salvation, and a human being with the use
of reason needs the consent of no one in order to obey the divine law.
Similarly, in principle, the minister is bound to baptize a person who seeks
this sacrament with proper knowledge and dispositions. “Filii infidelium
vel haereticorum, si adultam aetatem sint adepti, i.c. rationis usum habeant,
possunt, absque parentum iniuria, baptizari, non obstante dictorum paren
tum reluctantia.”1
But, owing to accidental circumstances and contingencies, an act which
is per se lawful may rightly be delayed. Some writers, as Gcnicot, hold
that if there is no danger of death, to delay Baptism is not gravely sinful,
unless it is done out of contempt? What length of time constitutes a grave
neglect cannot be determined from the divine law, and the Church, it appears,
is not competent to determine the matter since she has no jurisdiction over
1 De Smet, De Sacramentis, §297.
* Tbeol. Morales, II, §149; St. Thomas, SupplemesU, 6, j.
CONVERTS
Q. 18
unbaptized persons. Many manualists hold that it is a grave breach of the
divine law to delay Baptism until there is danger of death, since Christ
wishes all men to belong to the visible Church during their span of human
life.1 It is agreed amongst all the writers that it cannot be determined how
soon a person, who has decided to be baptized, is bound sub gravi to receive
the sacrament.
Not only may Baptism be delayed without grave sin, but without any
sin at all, if circumstances justify the delay; and it may actually be virtuous,
because prudent, to defer the time of reception. Considerations which
would point to such a decision are the subsequent danger of perversion in a
child who is baptized in spite of its parents’ wishes, and the possibility of
grave harm falling on the Church through such a practice, which may be
against the civil law. These are the considerations contained in a reply of
the Holy Office, 21 July, 1880: “An tuto admitti possit ad fidei catholicae
professionem puella decem annorum in monasterio degens, eiusdem patre
haeretico invito. Resp. Curet prius Vicarius Ap. totis viribus consensum
patris puellae obtinere: si consensus non obtineatur, perpendat serio in
commoda quae ex talis puellae admissione in Ecclesiam provenire prae
videantur tum quoad periculum proximum perversionis eiusdem puellae,
tum quoad grave damnum scholae ac missionis catholicae; et quatenus nulla,
aut spernanda incommoda praevideantur, eamdem admittat sine mora:
quatenus vero gravia praevideantur incommoda futura, eiusdem admis
sionem ad formalem et publicam professionem fidei catholicae differat, nisi
periculum mortis immineat; et interim curet eam hortari ut in bono pro
posito perserveret, atque Deum precetur ut obstacula omnia auferre dig
netur; simulque curet ut ipsa in monasterio manere pergat, et tali modo suam
educationem catholicam compleat et perficiat.”2
18.—Ordinary for Reception of Converts
A priest wishes to receive into the Church a person whom be has instructed who
lives in a diocese other than his own, and to receive him in that diocese. When
applying for the necessary faculty must be write direct to the Ordinary (or the
vicar general}, or must bis application go through the parisb-priest-to-be of the convert ?
And if the former, bas any reference to be made to the parish priest before the reception
takes place?
(i) The reconciliation of a convert is not a parochial right but is a matter
for the Ordinary of the place where the convert is received. This is apparent
from the common law in such canons as 2314, §2, and from the unanimous
decision of the English bishops in 1902: “. . . idcirco ab Episcopis un
animis, in recenti suo annuo Provinciae Westmonasteriensis Conventu,
decisum est ut convertendorum Ecclesiae reconciliationem unusquisque
Episcopus in propria sua Dioecesi sibi reservaret”.8 Therefore it is open
to any priest, even though he does not belong to the Ordinary’s diocese, to
apply for the faculty himself without any reference to the future parish
priest of the convert.
1 Cf. Noldin, T'heol. Moratis, II, §73, ad 2.
‘ Fantes, η. xo66.
’ Westminster Synod, XLI, 1902, Appendix II
Γ
QQ. 19, 20
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
3e
(ii) Since the matter is wholly within the Ordinary’s discretion, it will
be found that local regulations determine its details: for example, the
Ordinary may require the convert’s fitness to be attested by a parish priest,
or he may prohibit the reception ceremony to take place anywhere except
in a parish church. In such cases, as is evident, the intervention of the
parish priest will be a necessary preliminary. Otherwise it will only be
necessary to inform the parish priest of the place, in order that the details
may be inscribed in the parochial register. In practice there should be no
difficulty. When the extern priest applies to the Ordinary for a faculty he
will be informed of the local law.
19.—Reception of Converts: Sub-delegation
May a priest who has received a faculty for the reception of a convert ask another
priest to receive the convertfor him ?
Absolution from censure in the external forum is an act of external juris
diction. Moreover, abstracting altogether from the fact that a given con
vert has not perhaps incurred the censure, the faculty of receiving him
publicly into the Church is reserved to the jurisdiction of the bishops since
the Low Week meeting of 1902.
As an act of jurisdiction, which the priest is delegated by the Ordinary to
perform, it cannot be sub-delegated by the priest, since his power is not ad
universitatem negotiorum·, canon 199, §3: “Potestas delegata ad universitatem
negotiorum ab eo qui infra Romanum Pontificem habet ordinariam potesta
tem, potest in singulis casibus sub-delegari. §4. In aliis casibus potestas
jurisdictionis delegata sub-delegari potest tantummodo ex concessione
expresse facta. . . .”
As an absolution from censure in the external forum, the principle of
canon 199 is applied in canon 2253: “Extra mortis periculum potest absol
vere ... 3. A censura a sure reservata, ille qui censuram constituit vel
cui reservata est, eorumque successores aut competentes Superiores aut
delegati.”
Apart, therefore, from the danger of death, when anyone may reconcile
a convert, the priest who receives a faculty from his Ordinary cannot sub
delegate another priest, unless permission to do so is granted to him by the
Ordinary.
20.—Reception of Converts: Censure
The formula to be used in receiving a convert into the Church contains an ab
solution, in the external forum, from the censure of excommunication. If we apply the
canonical rules with regard to censures it would appear that the majority of converts,
if not all of them, cannot have incurred the censure owing to their invincible ignorance.
Of what value, then, is the absolution ?
(i) The implications in this question arc many and far-reaching. One
of the effects of excommunication is to deprive die censured person of the
59
CONVERTS
Q. 20
sacraments: if material heretics who are in good faith are not excommuni
cated, why are they refused the sacraments, except perhaps in periculo mortis ?
Also, if they arc not excommunicated, why is it necessary to seek episcopal
permission to reconcile them to the Church ? Provided they are validly
baptized, are they not members of the Church already ? Here arc some
views on the subject proposed.
(a) The liberal view is well expressed in a contribution by M. Antoine
Malvy, Recherches de Science Religieuse, February 1927, reprinted in Docu
mentation Catholique, XVIII, 1927, col. 550. It is maintained that baptized
non-Catholics in good faith are members of the body of the Church pre
cisely because they are not excommunicated. Amongst other conclusions it
is held that canon 751, §2 is a positive law which admits of many exceptions,
on a principle of epikeia, not only in periculo mortis but, perhaps, on other
occasions: in any case the law must yield whenever it is in conflict with the
divine law of Charity.
(/>) The view diametrically opposed to this is defined in Jus Pontificium,
1951, p. 52. The position defended is quite simple. It is that the de
finition of a heretic in canon 1325, §2, and the excommunication incurred by
heretics in canon 2314, §1, apply to material as well as formal heretics, and,
to this extent, we have an exception from the usual canonical rules concern
ing ignorance and imputability in the matter of incurring censures.
If a choice had to be made between these two views, there is no question
that the second fits in best with Catholic discipline and, in particular, with
our practice in reconciling converts. It provides the simplest possible
answer to the question put above. But one feels a certain misgiving in
applying the notion of censure to people who have done no wrong and
committed no crime, for the notion of censure consists in penalty, medicinal
punishment, for some wrong knowingly committed.
(r) It seems better, therefore, to adopt another explanation, not so
simple as cither of these views just given, but probably nearer the truth.
We may leave entirely out of the discussion the lawfulness of giving some
sacraments, under certain conditions, to unreconciled heretics in periculo
mortis, i.e. to those who have not expressly abjured their errors. 11 needlessly
complicates the issue we are discussing ahd throws no light on the problem.
The solution which I think is the correct one consists in perceiving a
distinction which the Code itself supplies. The sacraments are to be denied
both to material and formal heretics but for different reasons: to formal
heretics because they merit punishment, the censure of canon 2314, §1;
to material heretics because they are excluded by canon 751, §2, which is
not an ecclesiastical punishment, nor even merely an ecclesiastical law, but
a necessary deduction from the concept of the Church: “Ecclesia est societas
hominum . . . eiusdem Christianae fidei professione et eorundem sacra
mentorum communione adunatorum, ad aeternam salutem consequendam.”*1
Those who reject the rule of faith proposed by the Church arc not members
of the Church, and may not lawfully share in the privileges of members as,
for example, the reception of the sacraments. This notion of membership
of the Church is the one which is admirably explained by Cardinal Billot.2
(ii) To apply this to the procedure for reconciling converts:
1 Tanqucrcy, Tbeol. Dogmat. Fundament., §940.
1 De Feelesta, Theses X and XI.
Q. io
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
4o
(a) It is difficult, in the first place, to say with certainty that a given
convert has not incurred the censure. It is not amongst those which crass
ignorance excuses and it is not unlikely that, during a given period previous
to his submission, there was sufficient knowledge for incurring a censure.
Therefore, absolution from censure is given, at least ad cautelam., when
receiving a convert into the Church. If there is doubt on the point, the
rubric directs the priest to insert the word “forsan” before “incurristi”.
(/>) Moreover, the important distinction between the internal and the
external forum must always be remembered. The external government
of the Church regards the external actions of people: de internis non indicat
praetor. Hence the obvious principle of canon 16, §2: “Ignorantia vel error
circa legem aut poenam . . . non praesumitur.” It is open to the authority
of the external forum to regard the members of heretical sects as excom
municated, even though, in the internal forum of conscience, they may be
guiltless of any act meriting punishment. We say “it is open to them” to do
so, but whether they do, as a matter of fact, must depend on their own
avowal, explicit or implicit.
(r) Even though there is no express direction from the competent
authority that converts from heretical sects are all reckoned to be excom
municated, the absolution from censure should, in my opinion, always be
given. It is, at least, a liturgical law, with the authority of our English
Ordo Administrandi supporting it. The formula in Tit. iii, cap 5, is sub
stantially the rite drawn up by Bishop Hedley and published by the Catholic
Truth Society, based on instructions of the Holy Office. It was incorporated
into the Ordo Administrandi at the time of the revision of the book in 1915.
In this text, rubric 2 takes it for granted that absolution from censure will
be given to all who have reached the age of puberty. Nothing is said about
omitting the absolution in cases where the censure is reckoned not to have
been incurred; the only concession is the permission to insert the word
“forsan” in cases of doubt, “in dubio gravi vel levi”. There is no more
reason for omitting this absolution, in cases where it is morally certain that
no censure has been incurred, than for omitting the absolution from cen
sures which occurs in the ordinary form of confessional absolution.
(J) Lastly, and the most important point of all, abstracting from all
question of excommunication, the licence of the Ordinary is always necessary
before reconciling a convert to the Church. “Episcopus in sua dioecesi est
inquisitor natus haereticae pravitatis”.1 He is, by nature as it were, the
custodian of the faith of his flock, a prerogative abundantly evident in the
rite of consecration, and reflected in canon 2314, §2, which is often puzzling
to the casual reader; the censure attached to heresy is reserved to the Holy
See, if absolution is sought in the internal forum; but in the external forum
the bishop can deal with it “sua auctoritate ordinaria”. Previous to 1902
it appears that it was the practice of the English bishops to give delegated
faculties habitually to priests in the matter of reconciling heretics. Either
because it was abused by priests receiving converts without sufficient
instruction, or for some other reason, the faculty was withdrawn in
1902.
1 Ojctti, Synopsis, §2285.
CONVERTS
21.—Reception of Converts: Abjuration
In the form Jor the Reconciliation oj a Convert in my edition, bearing the “Im
primatur” of Cardinal Vaughan, dated May 1902, the profession of faith required
of the convert is the Creed of Pius IV. The shorter formula beginning “I, N.N.,
having before my eyes the holy Gospels, etc.”, is given as an alternative. On the other
hand my “Ordo Administrandi” (1915) and the twopenny “Form for the Reception
oj a Convert”, C.T.S., 1934, give the latter formula only and make no mention of an
alternative. Couldyou say whether the use of the Creed of Pius IV is authorised
in the reconciliation of a convert in England ? I ask this question for a very practical
reason; the opening paragraph of the shorter formula seems inapplicable to a large
proportion of converts nowadays, and the shrewder among them are apt to notice it. It
frequently happens, especially with the younger ones, that they have not “held and
believed doctrines” opposed to the teaching of the Church', indeed, they have seldom
“held and believed” anything in particular at all. Moreover, I must confess to finding
difficulty in explaining to them what “inasmuch as having been bom outside that
Church” can mean. As an unusually perspicacious convert recently said to me:
“Surely everybody who has not been baptised *in utero’ is bom outside the Church?”
And what is the force of the “inasmuch” ? “Brought up” instead of “bom” would
be understandable.
This may seem foolish quibbling; but, surely, it is desirable for the convert, with
bis bands on the gospel at such a solemn moment of bis life, that the formula should be
absolutely accurate and applicable to bis own case, without any explaining away or
mental reservation?
The alternative oj the Creed oj Pius IV would solve the difficulty in many cases,
besides providing a more logical and dignified profession of faith that is also more
official. But it is undoubtedly unsuitable for many of the simpler converts, and in this
respect the shorter formula is certainly preferable.
We are of the opinion that the profession of faith, as contained in the
“Forma Reconciliandi Conversum” in the English Ordo Administrandi,
should always be used, and that the use of the alternative form, as contained
in the earlier books, is now incorrect. This is supported by the general
rubrics, nn. 2, 11 and 16, and also by the fact that in the rite itself there is no
alternative form.
It is the form for the external forum and, as explained in canon 2314, §2,
the local Ordinary is competent to deal with it “praevia abiuratione iuridice
pcracta”. Because it is a question of the external forum of ecclesiastical
law, and not the internal forum of conscience, the priest is not free to form his
own judgement about the convert’s state. In the confessional, on the other
hand, dealing with a penitent’s lapse into heresy, it is open to him to judge
that there is no censure, or even no sin, owing to the penitent’s ignorance or
good faith. But the external government of the church regards the external
actions of people: de internis non iudicat praetor. The external authority
has determined a particular form for receiving converts, and the whole of
the rite assumes that the person is being absolved from the censure of
excommunication. The word “forsan” may be added to the form, if
desired.
In the case of an intelligent convert who is really worried about the
external procedure, probably a simple explanation of the difference between
Q. 21
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
42
the external and internal forum would restore his confidence. It is clearly
impossible to have a variety of liturgical texts to suit the needs of each con
vert. He may be told that, in the forum of conscience and in the eyes of God,
he may be entirely free from any guilt in having, so far, been a non-Catholic;
but he is required, as an act of humility and submission, publicly to abjure
the errors which, in good faith, he has held.
With regard to the actual words of the profession of faith, there is nothing
objectively untrue in the phrase “inasmuch as I have held and believed
doctrines opposed to her teaching” when uttered by a person who formerly
held and believed no doctrine whatever; for this condition of not believing
anything is clearly opposed to Catholic doctrine. Implicitly, at least, the
persuasion that one religion is as good as another, or that it is of no con
sequence whether one accepts any revealed truths are, in a sense, “doctrines
opposed to her teaching”. This is the force of “inasmuch”.
“Having been born outside that Church” is a phrase which is certainly
open to criticism, though its meaning is plain. In the Code the more
accurate expression is found “ab acatholicis natus”.
This profession of faith is the one which the Holy Office directed to be
used, in the reconciliation of heretics, 20 July, 1859.*
1 The document
expressly notes that the profession of faith to be used differs from that of
Pius IV. A modified form has been approved for the United States, as
noted at the end of the reply to Q. 22, but we must use the one in our Ordo
Administrandi unless a change is authorized.
At the conditional Baptism of an adult reputed heretic, who has not
reached the age of puberty, the “abiuratio” made during the profession of
faith is omitted; this was the decision of the Holy Office, 8 March, 1882;2
it is also the direction given in our Ordo Administrandi, Tit. iii, cap. iv, nn. 2
and 6: “Abiuratio nisi sit impubes.” The implication is that an abjura
tion of error, though contained within the profession of faith, is part of the
purging of the “delictum”, and is only explicitly required when this latter
has, at least in the external forum, been committed. Accordingly, in the
replies given in column three, Q. 9, the incurring of censure carries with it
the necessity of making an abjuration of errors.
22.—Converts: Modified Abjuration
Could one reasonably request the Ordinary to dispense a convert from uttering the
abjuration given in the “Forma reconciliandi conversum” ? The person feels that be is
insulting his parents' memory in condemning, so strongly his former beliefs.
Canon 81: A generalibus Ecclesiae legibus Ordinarii infra Romanum
Pontificem dispensare nequeunt, ne in casu quidem particulari . . . nisi
difficilis sit recursus ad Sanctam Sedem et simul in mora sit periculum gravis
damni, et de dispensatione agitur quae a Sede Apostolica concedi solet.
Canon 2314, §2: . . . Ordinarius, non vero Vicarius Generalis sine
mandato speciali, resipiscentem, praevia abiurationc iuridicc peracta aliisque
servatis de iure servandis, sua auctoritate ordinaria in foro exteriore absolvere
potest . . .
1 Fcw/r/, n. 955.
1 Ibid., n. 1075.
45
CONVERTS
q.
Ordo Administrandi, Tit. iii, cap. iv, n. z: Ab iis vero, qui illam aetatem
(pubertatis) excesserunt, formalis sectae abiuratio ad quam pertinuerunt est
exigenda (cf. Instr. S. R. U. Inquisit. 29 Nov., 1878, et Resp. 3 Junii, 1908).
S. Off., 28 March, 1900; Fontes, n. 1237: . . . Accedit quod valde
consultum est ut haereticis conversis modus abiurandi facilis et commodus
reddatur, et ut conversiones nullum strepitum vel admirationem excitent,
quod fieret, si iudiciales aut iuridicae formae adhiberentur . . . Quae
cum ita sint, Ep. “N”, ut sensus citati decreti non ansam praebeat dubiis,
a Sacra Inquisitione Congr. humillime petit, ut declaretur num possit
Episcopus ordinaria sua facultate absolvendi haereticos etiam tunc uti, si
non fiat abiuratio in stricto sensu iuridica, sed coram solo sacerdote ab Epis
copo delegato, aut coram tali sacerdote et teste.
R. Respondendum Episcopo ad mentem: Mens est quod abiuratio fieri
potest coram quopiam ab Episcopo delegato ut notario, et aliquibus per
sonis uti testibus . . .
(i) From the above texts it is evident that the reconciliation of a person
above the age of puberty, who has belonged to an heretical sect, necessarily
includes some abjuration of the errors formerly held, even though in good
faith. It is a general law of the Church which is not usually dispensed, and
accordingly one could not, with any prospect of success, request an Ordinary
to use the powers given to him from canon 81.
(ii) The words of abjuration are contained in our Ordo Administrandi
and may not be modified on the authority of the priest delegated to receive
the convert. But it seems to us that the Ordinary could be petitioned, in
an exceptional case and for grave reasons, to sanction a modification of the
terms of abjuration in the Ritual, provided always that the substance of the
act is preserved. A suggested modification may be seen in The Clergy Review,
XV, 1938, p. 221, and XVIII, 1940, p. 395, in the course of discussion on the
subject by Fr. Bcvcnot, S.J.; also a newly approved formula for the United
States, ΧΧΠ, 1942, p. 472. It would not be an unreasonable request, since
the mode of making the abjuration has varied in different times and places,
and it is the desire of the Church to make it as easy as possible. But it is
entirely a matter for the discretion of the Ordinary.
23.—Reception of Converts: Witnesses
When did the law requiring the presence of two witnesses at a convert's reception
come into force ? If this formality is not observed what is the status of the convert ?
The rite of reconciling heretics is largely based on the supposition that
they are being absolved from censure in the external forum, at least ad
cautelam and for the due observance of the liturgical rite. A rejection or
abjuration of previous heresy is a necessary part of the procedure. It is an
act of a public nature and therefore subject to the law of the Church, but the
exact formality to be observed has varied at different times; what has always
remained constant is the legal requirement of some proof that the abjuration
of heresy has taken place. The Pontifical contains an “Ordo ad reconcilian
dum” which supposes that the bishop is reconciling the convert personally,
and it is because of this native power of the episcopate that canon 2514, §2,
declares that the excommunication attached to heresy may be removed by
q. 24
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
44
any bishop in the external forum. The bishop may delegate this power of
his to some other priest, as is commonly done when a priest receives the
faculty to reconcile a convert.
The common law now requires the presence of two witnesses at this act
of abjuration. Previous regulations may be seen in Ojetti, Synopsis s.v.
abiuratio and baeresis. An Instruction of 8 April, 1786, required it to be
“coram paucis”. A reply of the Holy Office was given to a German bishop,
28 March, 1900, who had pleaded a local custom of abjuration before the
priest alone; it reasserted the law requiring witnesses: “Mens est quod
abiuratio fieri potest coram quopiam ab Episcopo delegato ut notario, et
aliquibus personis uti testibus.”1 Our Ordo Administrandi, Tit. iii, cap. 4,
n. j, states: “Tam abiuratio haeresis quam neo-conversorum Baptismus
conditionatus . . . semper fieri debent coram Notario vel Sacerdote ab
Episcopo delegato nec non duobus saltem testibus.” The chapter opens
with a reference to an Instruction of the Holy Office, 20 June, 1859—an error
of date for 20 July of that year.2 This Instruction does not determine the
juridical form of the abjuration, but a further Instruction for the English
bishops, 20 January, 1900, is mentioned in the Ordo Administrandi. We
cannot trace the text of this document; according to Dunne, it is to the
effect that when the presence of witnesses cannot be secured without real
difficulty, it is left to the discretion of the bishops in England to dispense
from the common law and practice, provided that the abjuration takes place
inforo extemo, and that it can afterwards be proved.3 Accordingly, rubric 5 in
the Ordo Administrandi continues: “nisi in casu particulari propter verum in
commodum Episcopus ab hac lege recedere permittat”. A declaration of the
HolyOffice, 19 February, 1916,4 states the law in almost exactly the same terms
as are now found in canon 2314, §2: “Abiuratio vero habetur iuridice peracta
cum fit coram ipso Ordinario vel eius delegato et saltem duobus testibus.”
Unless, therefore, the bishop dispenses the common law, the
abjuration must take place in the presence of two witnesses. If, through
negligence, this formality is not observed, there is fault on the priest’s part,
but the convert’s status as a reconciled person is not affected, in our view.
There is nothing in the wording of the law which argues that witnesses arc
necessary for the validity of the act. If we suppose, for the sake of argument,
that the defect renders the absolution of the external forum invalid, the
person at least receives absolution in the internal forum when he goes to
confession, which will normally be immediately after the external forum
absolution. This sacramental absolution is valid from canon 2247, §3, since
the censure is not one of those reserved to the Holy See specialissimo moder,
and from canon 2251, a person absolved in the internal forum may consider
himself absolved ceteris paribus also in the external forum.
24.—Reception of Converts: Confession
In the case of a doubtfully baptised convert, about to be reconciled, is confession a
strict obligation ? Or may it be held with Cappello, “De Poenitentia" (1938), §51,
that the convert may to some extent be excused ?
1 Fontes, n. 1257.
* Ibid., n. 955. Eng. Tr. in Guy, Sjnods in English, p. x6z.
» Tin Ritual Explained, p. 54.
♦ Fontes, n. 1299.
45
CONVERTS
1 Westm., Dec. XVI, n. 8: Confessio etiam sacramcntalis semper in tali
casu (i.e. baptizandi sub conditione) exigenda est.
5. 0/Λ, 17 December, 1868: Λη debeat, iuxta Synodi Provincialis Decre
tum a S. Sede probatum, confessio Sacramcntalis a neo-convcrsis in Anglia
exigi; et an ea debeat esse integra. Resp. Affirmative, et dandum esse
decretum latum 17 Junii, 1715.
17 June, 1715: . . . esse rebaptizandum sub conditione; et collato
Baptismo eius praeteritae vitae peccata confiteatur, et ab iis sub condi
tione absolvatur. (Both this and the previous reply are in IV Westm.,
Appendix XVIII, p. 334.)
Propaganda, 12 July, 1869: Quoad dubium ab A.T. (Archiep. Quebec)
propositum atque sacramentalcm confessionem attingens a neoconversis
exigendam, observandum recurrit responsum elapsi anni, licet Episcopis
Angliae tantummodo rogantibus datum, universalem legem continere,
proindeque non solum in Anglia, sed in aliis etiam regionibus obligare.
Hinc patet, quod nullatenus permitti potest ut praedictae decisioni contraria
sententia doceatur. (The full text of query and reply is in Ecclesiastical
Review, XXVIII, 1908, p. 511; other variations of it are given by the
manualists.)
Cappello, De Poenitentia, §51 : Ubi S. Sedes vel Episcopi jubent confessionem,
haec regulariter imponenda est neo-convcrsis; attamen cum haec lex pro
babiliter sit mere ecclesiastica, quoties vere probabile est priorem baptis
mum fuisse invalidum, urgenda est cum ea moderatione quae propria est
legum positivarum. In ceteris regionibus ubi non praecipitur confessio valde
consulenda est. . . .
(i) If the subject is considered apart from the positive law there is
evidently room for much variety of opinion, particularly when the prin
ciples of probabilism are applied. Prc-baptismal sins arc not necessary
matter for the sacrament of Penance, and therefore, if the convert’s first
Baptism is doubtful, his obligation to confess must equally be doubtful: the
view that he is not strictly bound to confess his sins is a logical application
of probabilist principles.
(ii) For people in this country, and in other places where the positive
law insists on the necessity of confession, the question is purely academic,
for there can be no doubt whatever that confession must always accom
pany the reception of a convert, and it will be observed that the above
decisions of the Holy Sec are referred to in Tit. iii, cap. iv, n. 5, of our
Ordo Administrandi. The reason is, firstly, that the convert may have a
more complete assurance that his sins arc remitted. But the query of the
English bishops, which elicited the reply in 1868, mentions a further reason:
“attenta praesertim diligentia juniorum e Clero Anglicano circa ritum
baptizandi fideliter servandum, et attento proinde majori numero eorum,
de quorum baptismatis infantilis valore non licet dubitari”.
, Cappello does not discuss this problem with his accustomed complete
ness. It is true we have here a positive law which must be interpreted
in the manner of such, but given the repeated and express guidance of the
Holy See, directions which have been introduced into our Ritual, it is
difficult to imagine a reason which would justly excuse a convert from its
observance, unless it be the kind of reason which excuses any penitent
from making here and now an integral confession. If, for the sake of
argument, a grave reason does exist, a dispensation from observing the
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
46
law could be sought from the Ordinary, but we doubt whether it would be
granted.
(Hi) The reply given by Cardinal Barnabo in 1869 to the Ordinary of
Quebec states that confession is obligatory throughout the whole Church,
and that the contrary opinion may not be taught. It was promulgated
only in Quebec, and some have even doubted its authenticity; moreover,
it is stated on the authority of Bucceroni that the Cardinal Secretary of the
Holy Office declared in 1897 that the decree given for England in 1868 was
not general but given only for one locality, and the same view is accepted
by Cardinal d’Annibale,1 himself an assessor of the Holy Office and a writer
still held as an outstanding authority in Rome.
We agree that the law requiring a convert at his reception to confess the
sins of his past life applies strictly only to England and other localities
specifically named; for the rest of the Church the opinion given above
under (i) may be followed. The whole subject, and the side issues arising
from it, will appeal to those of an argumentative turn of mind, but we must
be content to refer to some authors who give a more thorough examination
than Cappello: De Smet, De Sacramentis, §306 seq.; Ojetti, Synopsis, III,
§3163 seq.: Ecclesiastical Review, XXXVIII, 1908, p. 508.
§4. BAPTISMAL SPONSOR
25.—One Baptismal Sponsor
A priest holds the view that two sponsors are necessary, and if the parents provide
only one he insists on pressing any available person into this office, notwithstanding the
parents' objections. Is this practice correct? If not, is the additional sponsor
valid ?
Canon 764: Patrinus unus tantum, licet diversi sexus a baptizando, vel
ad summum unus et una adhibeantur.
Canon 765: Ut quis sit patrinus, oportet: .... 4. Ab ipso baptizando
eiusvc parentibus vel tutoribus aut, his deficientibus, a ministro sit desig
natus. . . .
The priest’s practice is clearly unlawful from a comparison between
these two canons. One not only suffices but is the sole valid sponsor unless
the parents appoint a second, and the minister’s right to select persons for
the office does not arise unless the parents have failed to nominate.
The second one is valid provided the parents, notwithstanding their
unwillingness, accept him or her as an additional sponsor in deference to
the priest’s wish. In many cases, we imagine, the parents would withhold
their consent to the appointment, and regard the new-comer as merely a
witness.
1 Tbtol. Moralis, HI, p. i6z.
BAPTISMAL SPONSOR
47
26.—Catechumen as Sponsor
When about to perform the rite of solemn Baptism, the priest finds that the person
acting as sponsor is under instruction but notyet received into the Church. May he be
admitted as a valid sponsor ?
Canon 762, §1 : Ex vetustissimo Ecclesiae more nemo sollemniter
baptizetur, nisi suum habeat, quatenus fieri potest, patrinum.
2.
Canon 765: Ut quis sit patrinus, oportet: 1. Sit baptizatus.
Ad nullam pertineat haereticam aut schismaticam sectam.
Canon 1239, §2: Catechumeni qui nulla sua culpa sine baptismo
moriantur, baptizatis acccnscndi sunt.
Some slight reason exists, perhaps, for supposing that a catechumen
may act validly as sponsor, from the last canon cited, which, for the purposes
of ecclesiastical burial, regards a catechumen as being equivalent to a bap
tized person—there is clearly baptism of desire in such cases.
But it seems to us quite certain, though we cannot find a post-code
author who discusses the point, that the rule of canon 1239, §2, which is
made for a definite contingency, cannot be regarded as a general principle.
De Smet, writing just before the Code, and citing c. 102, Dist. IV De
Consecratione, notes that the decree says nothing about the validity of the
action; but he continues: “sub poena tamen nullitatis auctores passim
exigunt caracterem baptismalem in susceptore, idque merito, cum absurdum
censeatur patrem spiritualem esse illum qui spiritu nondum est natus”.
This teaching is quite explicit in canon 765, where all the conditions enu
merated arc necessary for the validity of the act, and which is contrasted
with the following canon 766 which determines the conditions required
only for its lawfulness. Pre-Code law did not clearly distinguish the two
things.
If it be urged that very likely the catechumen is already validly baptized,
he is still incapable of being a valid sponsor from canon 765.2. Nor may
it be said that he is no longer a member of an heretical sect, since he has
renounced it by putting himself under instructions; for the law regards
him as pertaining to the sect until he abjures and is absolved from the
censure, at least ad cautelam, during the rite of reception into the Church.
In the circumstances, if no valid sponsor is obtainable, the rite should
be performed without one, rather than run the risk of depriving the can
didate of Baptism. The phrase “quatenus fieri potest” in canon 762, §1,
implies that the presence of a sponsor at solemn Baptism is not a conditio
sine qua non. Cf. also Propaganda, 1 April, 1816: “An, cum valde difficile
hic sit invenire patrinos quales Ecclesia requirit, Baptismus licite conferatur
sine patrinis. Rzj/>. Si patrini haberi non possunt, absque patrinis non
necessariis necessarium Baptisma conferendum.”1
27.—Unlawful Baptismal Sponsor
Titius, a priest, is administering Baptism. He notices as godmother a young
woman who bas been living in sin for some time and bas not made ber Easter duty. He
1 Vontes, n. 4701.
Q. 28
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
rtfuses to continue with the Baptism until another godmother is found.
in bis action ?
48
Is beJustified
Canon 765: Ut quis sit patrinus, oportet: ... 2. Ad nullam pertineat
haereticam vel schismaticam sectam, nec sententia condemnatoria vel
dcclaratoria sit cxcommunicatus aut infamis infamia iuris aut exclusus ab
actibus legitimis. . . .
Canon 766: Ut autem quis licite patrinus admittatur, oportet . . .
2. Non sit propter notorium delictum cxcommunicatus vel exclusus ab
actibus legitimis vel infamis infamia iuris, quin tamen sententia intercesserit,
nec sit interdictus aut alias publice criminosus vel infamis infamia facti. . . .
“Living in sin” suggests that the proposed sponsor is either incapable,
from canon 765, or unacceptable, from canon 766, for the office of sponsor.
It will be necessary to determine the phrase “living in sin” more accurately.
Thus infamia iuris accompanies bigamy (canon 2356) and conviction of
certain gross sexual crimes (canon 2557). Exclusionfrom lawful acts, amongst
which is the office of sponsor, follows upon public adultery or concubinage
(canon 2557, §2) and mixed marriage without a dispensation (canon 2375).
A person who is otherwise suitable, but who has not observed the
Paschal precept, cannot for that neglect alone be rejected from the office
of baptismal sponsor. It is, however, essential from canon 765.4 for the
sponsor to be chosen by the parents or guardians of the child; a priest
may lawfully use his influence to persuade the parents or guardians to choose
a sponsor who has observed the precept.
Many teach that, on the score of avoiding scandal, it is lawful to reject
a sponsor who has neglected the Paschal precept, or who has in some other
way not specified in the law given grave offence.1 In such cases it will be
necessary to establish that the offence is publicly known, and that the guilty
person cannot be admitted as sponsor without causing scandal.
Unless the priest can rely on the parties bringing the child at some other
time, it is usually preferable to proceed with the Baptism lacking a sponsor
than to run the risk of the child not being baptized.
28.—Baptismal Sponsor: Touching Child
Inasmuch as the law requires, for the validity of the act, that the sponsor should
touch the child, it would be convenient to know the correct way of performing this act.
Canon 765: Ut quis sit patrinus oportet: ... 5. Baptizandum in actu
baptismi per se vel per procuratorem physice teneat aut tangat vel statim
levet seu suscipiat de sacro fonte aut de minibus baptizantis.
Ordo Administrandi, Tit. i, cap. ii, nn.19 and 21 : Tunc Patrino, vel Matrina,
vel utroque (si ambo admittantur) infantem tenente, Sacerdos vasculo, seu
urceolo, accipit aquam baptismalem et de ea ter infundit . . . Mox
Patrinus, vel Matrina, vel uterque simul, infantem de sacro fonte levant,
suscipientes illum de manu Sacerdotis.
(i) The law is perfectly observed if the godparent holds the child during
the actual pouring of the water by the priest. The alternative “statim levet
1 Gougnard, Collation/s Th/ologicar.
iqiî.
p. 42; Prümmcr, Tbtol. Moralis, III, §146.
49
BAPTISMAL SPONSOR
Q. 29
seu suscipiat” has reference, it would appear, to Baptism by immersion, in
which ease the sponsor is directed cither himself to raise the child from the
water or to receive the child, when raised by the priest, from the hands of
the priest. The old translation (1829) of the Bjrnan Catechism stresses the
word “suscipientes” to the extent of describing the sponsor, rather curiously,
as an “undertaker”.
For various reasons it is sometimes preferable for a nurse or other person
to hold the child over the font. The minimum then required for a valid
act of sponsorship is for the sponsor to touch the child physically during the
act of Baptism. The words of the Code “aut tangat”, sanctioning this
usage, adopt the direction given by Propaganda, 21 January, 1856:*1 “baud
susceptio absoluta requiritur, cum tenere aeque intelligatur ac sufficiat si
patrinus, ut in more est, physico contactu infantis, jungat se cum eo cuius
manibus ille tenetur, et ad aquae infusionem comitetur deferentem, quin
opus sit ut patrinus vel matrina tantum, amoto deferente, infantem suas
in manus excipiens, sacerdoti baptizandum exhibeat”. The authors usually
recommend that the sponsor should touch the child on the shoulder or on
the breast; it suffices if the contact is made over the clothes of the child, or
if the sponsor is wearing gloves. It is necessary for both sponsors to touch
the child in this manner.
(ii) Does it suffice if this touch takes place not during the actual pouring
of the water, but immediately before or afterwards ? De Smet, quoting
S.C. Cone., 20 December, 1653, affirms that this suffices: “Valet etiam si in
patrinum electus prolem baptizandam e manibus sacerdotis acceperit im
mediate, licet in ipso actu baptizandi illam non tetigerit. . . . Quinimo
probabilius sufficit ut patrinus infantem quem tenet, immediate ante
baptismum, baptizanti offerat ac porrigat.”2 This document is not in the
Fontes, and De Smet, in a folium issued after the Code, directed the note to
be deleted for some reason. We think the act to be certainly valid if by
“touching afterwards” is meant “lifting from the font or receiving from the
minister” as in the latter part of canon 765, §5, even though this direction
refers primarily to Baptism by immersion. We think also that a simple
touch, cither immediately before or after the Baptism, is probably equivalent
to the directions of the canon “in actu baptismi physice tangat”, though the
point is disputable; the authors we have consulted do not advert to it.
Whether valid or not, it is certainly incorrect, and the simple directions of the
Ordo Administrandi, which are the same as those of the Bdtuale Bomanum,
should be exactly observed.
29.—Baptismal Sponsor “Pro Forma”
John, a parishioner, happening to be in church at the time appointedfor Baptisms,
was requested by his parish priest to act as god-father to a baby whose parents bad
made no provision for sponsorship. They were total strangers to John, who would,
in the ordinary course, never see them again; nor bad he any reason to believe that bis
intrusion into their family affairs would be welcomed, or that be would be given any
opportunity offulfilling the duties of a god-parent. Explaining this to the paroebus,
1 Fontes, n. 4840.
1 De Sacramentis, §345, §2.
Q. 29
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
J0
be said that be could not conscientiously undertake the grave responsibilities of being
god-parent to the child. To this the parochus replied that he only wished him to
offdate at the ceremony, that it was not for him to argue with his rector but to do
wbat he was asked, and that if there was any scruple in his mind, the rector's authority
should suffice to allay it. Upon this John gave in unwillingly, but is disturbed as to
whether be should not rather bave persisted in his refusal. Wbat are bis obligations,
and is the parish priest entitled to act in this way ?
(i) Canon 769. Patrinorum est, ex suscepto munere, spiritualem filium
perpetuo sibi commendatum habere, atque in iis quae ad Christianae vitae
institutionem spectant, curare diligenter ut ille talem in tota vita sc praebeat,
qualem futurum esse sollemni caeremonia spoponderunt.
The obligation is insisted upon in an instruction of the Holy Office, 9
December, 1745, which contains the following teaching of Benedict XIV:
“Et licet a Laymanno dicatur, patrinos amplius non curare de praedicta
susceptorum institutione, unusquisque tamen facili negotio percipere poterit,
aliud esse quod patrini non curent, aliud quod non teneantur curare.
Tenentur etiam hodie ad id praestandum, si carnales parentes id facere
negligant, uti docet S. Thomas1 ubi postquam inquit unumquemque obligari
ad faciendum id quod facere promisit, ad rem ita subdit: ubi nutriuntur,
loquitur de pueris baptizatis inter catholicos Christianos, satis possunt ab hac
cura excusari, loquitur de patrinis, praesumendo quod a suis parentibus diligenter
instruantur. Si tamen quocumque modo sentirent contrarium, tenerentur secundum
suum modum saluti spiritualium filiorum curam impendere. ... Et qui secus agit, se
peccati reum fateri debebit."2
(ii) The most one can say, therefore, is that the obligation always
exists but that the sponsor is not called upon to intervene, if the parents, as
would normally be the case, are doing their duty. In any case, he is only
bound, as St. Thomas says, “secundum suum modum”; the right of the
parents to educate their children religiously or not is unassailable in civil
law, and the most the sponsor can do is to use whatever influence or per
suasion he possesses.
Now, even with these limitations, it is an onerous task for anyone to
undertake, and it is clearly wrong to force it on an unwilling subject. In
canon 765, the first among the conditions for the validity of the act is that
the sponsor should have the intention of undertaking the office: “intention
em habeat id munus gerendi”. Hence, some authors rightly draw the
deduction that, unless undertaken voluntarily, the act is invalid: “Intentio
requiritur quia munus patrini voluntarie suscipiendum est; nemo coactus
valide fit patrinus.”3 We cannot find the point expressly treated by the
writers on the subject, but, on an analogy with other actions, the sponsor
in this case would be reckoned valid in the external forum (e.g. he would
contract spiritual relationship, diriment of marriage), unless he could prove
rhat his act was not free; in the internal forum of conscience he can consider
himself free from any moral obligation with regard to the spiritual duties of
a sponsor.
(iii) Unfortunately, it is the fact that sponsors frequently carry their
1 Summa Thtol., Ill, 6", 8.
* Fonfts, n. 798.
’ Qacys-Bouuacn, jus Canoniar:,, I, §-»6.
BAPTISMAL SPONSOR
Q. 29
obligations very lightly indeed, and regard this solemn act as a mere cere
mony. “Subjective forsan oh ignorantiam ct dissipationem excusantur;
at manet pastorum obligatio mores christianos pro posse restaurandi.”1
There is nothing in the canons, or in the teaching of authors, to justify re
garding sponsorship as a mere ceremonial rite, and it is, at least, the duty of
the clergy not to encourage such an attitude. The Church would not make
a ceremonial observance diriment of marriage. A decision given in 1925 by
the Congregation of the Sacraments touches, indirectly, on the point. It deals
with the practice, prevailing in some districts, whereby the actual sponsor
left it to the minister or the parents to select any available person to stand as
his proxy: “. . . praedicta consuetudo est reprobanda: (1) quia indubitanter
constare debet patrinum in facie Ecclesiae proprium munus suscepisse,
quod per dictam consuetudinem manet incertum ct acquivocum; (2) quia
patrinus suum munus suscipere debet cum plena notitia et conscientia
inde exorientis obligationis ad mentem canon 769, quod excludere videtur
praefata consuetudo, quippe quae redigit patrini officium ad quemdam
inanem ritum. . . .”2 In the circumstances of the case submitted to the
Congregation of the Sacraments^ the practice is reprobated because it makes
sponsorship an empty rite. The employment of a sponsor “pro forma”,
without anyone at all really undertaking the duties, is still more to be
condemned.
(iv) There remains the objection that, frequently, the parents bring no
sponsor to the Church, thus putting the minister in an awkward dilemma.
What is to be done ? One safeguard, as Prümmer notes, is for the priest
to arrange about sponsors before the ceremony, instead of waiting till the
moment of Baptism arrives3. But this is not always practicable, particularly
when parents bring their children for Baptism at certain advertised times.
From canon 765 the designation of a sponsor falls to the minister if the
parents or guardians fail in procuring one; he might be able to get some good
and charitably disposed person to undertake the office freely and willingly.
Failing this, if he judges that the child is entitled to Baptism in the Catholic
Church, he should baptize it without a sponsor rather than refuse Baptism:
canon 762 requires a sponsor “quatenus fieri possit.” “Ffaec ultima verba
ostendunt baptismum sollemnem non esse omittendum vel notabiliter re
tardandum si haberi nequeat patrinus. . . ,”4* Wouters quotes a Provincia!
Council of Utrecht in the same sense.6 The solution given by the Holy
Office for missionary parts is that the parents may answer in the rite without,
of course, thereby contracting the obligations of sponsors.®
The Instruction concludes aptly with a phrase which summarizes the
point of view sustained throughout this discussion: “Tandem Sacer Ordo
una tecum est in improbanda parentum incuria, qui munus patrini non
selectis idoneis personis, sed cuicumque qui eis cum Baptismus conferri
debet, occurrit, committunt, licet pro certo habeant ipsum suum Elium
spiritualem non amplius esse revisurum. . . .
1 Clacys-Bouuacrt, Jus Canonicum, I, §49.
a 29 July, 1925; A.AS., XVIII, 1926, p. 43.
• Tbeol. Moralis, 111, §147.
• Clacys-Bouuacrt, ibid., §44.
6 Theol. Moralis, II, §85.
• Fontes, n. joii.
Iri
q.
jo
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
30.—Proxy of Baptismal Sponsor
iFbat is required for the valid and lawful appointment of a proxy for the sponsor
at Baptism?
S.C. Sacram.,!} November, 192.5 ; A.A.S., XVIII, 1926, p. 43 ; Etenim
prouti nemo a parocho proprio est admittendus ad patrini munus, qui condi
tionibus ad validam aut licitam hujus muneris susceptionem requisitis non
praestat, ita quoties in sacramenti collatione quis patrini partes expleat non
suo nomine, sed alterius certae et determinatae personae nomine ejusque
mandato, hujusmodi mandatum seu mandantis voluntas legitime probetur
oportet, videlicet per idoneos testes aut per scriptum ac legitimum documen
tum, nisi aliunde intentio mandantis sit certo et indubitanter parocho
proprio baptizandi vel confirmandi explorata, adeo ut parochus investigare
queat an designatus patrinus polleat qualitatibus jure requisitis, atque in
libris, ubi ad tramitem ss. canonum est notanda sacramenti collatio, in
scribatur nomen tum procuratoris tum mandantis, qui se quidem patrini
munus cum hujus legalibus effectibus suscepisse scire debet. Hisce praecipue
de rationibus hic Sacer Ordo reprobandam censuit consuetudinem quae, etsi
recte observetur, mandatum dumtaxat generaliter praesumptum continet.
(i) Beyond the statement in canon 765, §5, that the sponsor must touch
the child “per se vel procuratorem”, the Code contains no directions about
the appointment of a proxy, though from such canons as 1089, §1, 1659 or
1660 one may deduce what is the correct procedure.
The Instruction given by the Holy See, 25 November, 19251, was
occasioned by a question sent from Utrecht. It was the custom, in that
diocese, for the principal to give no express mandate to his proxy: instead
the minister or the parents invited some person to represent the absent
sponsor at the Baptism. To the question whether such sponsor contracted
spiritual relationship and the consequent marriage impediment, the reply
was: “Si patrinus, agnoscens huiusmodi consuetudinem, eidem sese con
formare intendat, et aliunde patrinus ipse esse possit ad normam can. 765,
Affirmative?' The act is valid if the principal, having the five qualifications
set out in canon 765, accepted the office and left it to some other person to
appoint his proxy: that is to say, a special express appointment of a proxy
by the principal is not necessary for validity.
(ii) But, as is evident, this haphazard method of acting by proxy is
open to many objections, the chief of these being that certainty is lacking
with regard to the principal’s qualifications and to his willingness to assume
the obligation of sponsor. Therefore, on the occasion of this reply, a full
Instruction also appeared explaining the gravity of the sponsor’s office,
deprecating the Utrecht custom and any other tendency to make the office
a mere matter of form. The paragraph dealing with the appointment of
the proxy is given above: the act is not only valid but lawful, if the prin
cipal, having the five qualifications of canon 766, secures the appointment
of a proxy expressly, by writing, by witnesses, or by making his intention
known to the parish priest. Both the name of principal and proxy are to be
entered tn the baptismal register. Nothing is said about the qualifications
‘ English Tr. Bouscarcn, Digut, I, p. 338.
H
REGISTRATION OF BAPTISM
q.
5ι
of the proxy, anti we may not, therefore, conclude that the proxy must
come up to the standard of canons 765, 766. He must clearly, for
validity, have sufficient knowledge to understand what he is doing, and,
in our view, for the act to be lawful, he must also be a Catholic.
§5. REGISTRATION OF BAPTISM
31.—Registration of Baptism: Adoption
In the case of legal adoption of a child, when the adopting parents are most anxious
that the child should not discover from its baptismal certificate that it is an adopted
child, would the priest who holds the baptismal register be justified in cancelling the
original entry and substituting the names of the adopting parents for the real parents or
parent ? Alternatively, would he be justified in annotating the original entry with a
reference to a substitute entry containing the names of the adopting parents, and in
giving a copy of the substitute entry, when asked, for required purposes ? The civil
authorities issue a fresh birth certificate when so requested by the adopting parents,
on which their names alone appear, and unless the Church provides something similar,
the kindly intentions of the adopting parents will be frustrated. If nothing is allowed
in existing local legislation, would fresh legislation be possible within the framework
of the Code of canon taw ?
When the parish priest oj a baptised infant knows, only in ordinary confidence,
that a child is not the child of its apparent father but of another man, and that the
apparent father was moved to marry its mother out of compassion for her, and that be
expressly wishes the child to pass as bis own and bear bis name, is the priest entitled
to enter the apparent father in the registers as the child's real father ?
Canon 470, §1 : Habeat parochus libros paroeciales, idest librum baptizatorum ... et omnes hos libros, secundum usum ab Ecclesia probatum
vel a proprio Ordinario praescriptum, conscribat ac diligenter asservet.
Canon 777, §1 : Parochi debent nomina baptizatorum, mentione facta de
ministro, parentibus ac patrinis ... in baptismali libro . . . referre.
§2. Ubi vero de illegitimis filiis agatur, matris nomen est inserendum,
si publice eius maternitas constet, vel ipsa sponte sua scripto vel coram
duobus testibus id petat; item nomen patris, dummodo ipse sponte sua a
parocho vel scripto vel coram duobus testibus id requirat, vel ex publico
authentico documento sit notus; in ceteris casibus inscribatur natus tanquam
filius patris ignoti vel ignotorum parentum.
(i) Though the question raised is a difficult problem, and one which is
not adequately examined by the writers we have consulted, the correct
procedure can be determined if it is remembered that a parish priest making
entries in his register is merely acting as a public notary, and in no sense as
a judge of what is fitting or expedient.1 The same observation applies to
the certified copies which he makes from the register. It would therefore
be a grossly improper procedure for him to cancel any record therein, or to
provide an extract which is not in every particular identical with the original.
His duty is to inscribe the details as required by the law in canon 777, and to
1 Cf. Jus Pontificium, 1939. ρ· 5·
Q. 52
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
î4
nuke only those additions or annotations required by other laws or by the
Ordinary’s directions: thus, from canon 1103, §2, marriage particulars are
to be entered in the baptismal register. It is similarly his duty, when pro
viding an extract from the register, to give a faithful copy of the document
as it stands. An illegitimate child, for example, registered as such, may have
become legitimate by the subsequent marriage of the parents, but the parish
priest may not of his own authority alter the original record ; he may, how
ever, acting under instructions from the Ordinary, record in a marginal
addition the fact of legitimacy from subsequent marriage.
Answering a question on the subject in The Clergy Review, I, 1931, p. 115,
Mgr. Cronin suggested various formulae which might be used, subject
to the approval of the local Ordinary, in registering the Baptisms of adopted
children. Cases of adoption arc rather unusual, and when one occurs the
parish priest should either make the entry as directed by canon 777 or refer
it to the diocesan curia.
The kindly intention of the adopting parents is certainly a weighty
consideration, though it is scarcely possible, one would think, to ensure that
the adopted child shall be permanently ignorant of its own identity. There
arc equally weighty reasons, c.g. the impediment of consanguinity or the
inheritance of property, why its identity should not be obscured. In the
case of a child, registered as in canon 777, §2, and afterwards adopted, the
Ordinary might see fit to have the record removed from the parish register
and transferred to the curial archives, on analogy with the arrangement for
marriages of conscience in canon 1107; the true record would remain, but
a copy would not be issued except after special investigation; moreover, the
fact of Baptism can be established, for the purpose of Confirmation or Mar
riage, without an official extract from the register. In all cases of Baptism
after adoption, provided the child is illegitimate and of unknown parents,
the parochial clergy could be instructed to send the particulars for entry
into the curial archive. But we think it unlikely that any ecclesiastical law
or regulation would ever sanction, without any qualification, an official
record that a child by adoption is the real child of the persons named, except
when the parents themselves make this false statement.
(ii) Paternity is one of the most difficult things to prove even in a court
of law. The parish priest inscribing the baptismal register, as already stated,
is not a judge but a notary. He should disregard knowledge obtained
privately in confidence and accept the man’s statement for entry into the
register, unless there is an authentic public proof, as mentioned in canon 777,
§2, that the father is someone else. In this case the testimony of the apparent
father “sponte sua” and the testimony “ex publico authentico documento”
being in conflict, the proper course is to seek the Ordinary’s judgement.
This is the solution of a similar case given by Vcrmeersch in Periodica, 1930,
p. 167, a solution based on such canons as 1031, 1032, 1034, which direct
a reference to the Ordinary for the solution of similar doubts in other
matters.
32.—Registration
of
Baptism: Domicile
A child whose parents are domiciled in parish “A” is born in a nursing home in
parish “B” and baptized in the nearest church, which is that of parish “C”. In
which parish register should the entry be made ?
r.'J,
jj
n
REGISTRATION OF BAPTISM
q.
53
Canon 90, §1: Locus originis filii ... est ille in quo, cum filius natus
est, domicilium, aut, in defectu domicilii, quasi-domicilium habebat pater
vel, si filius sit illegitimus aut postumus, mater.
Canon 778: Si baptismus nec a proprio parocho nec eo praesente ad
ministratus fuerit, minister de ipso collato quamprimum proprium ratione
domicilii parochum baptizati certiorem reddat.
S.C. Sacram., 29 June, 1941, n. n (
CONFIRMATION
35.—Priest Minister of Confirmation
When a priest, delegated by the Holy See, administers this sacrament, is the form
contained in the Pontifical io be varied in any particulars ?
A long Instruction from the Congregation of the Sacraments, 20 May, 1954,1
gives, firstly, for the priest’s information, a summary of the law, as modified
by the Code and recent directions of the Holy See, concerning the minister
and the age of the subject; secondly, the liturgical and canonical rules to be
observed in the administration of this sacrament; thirdly, the formula to be
used by the priest minister.
The third section of the Instruction is now printed in the typical edition
of the PJtuale Romanum (1925) among the appendices. It differs from the
form in the Pontifical only in the omission of references to pontificalia used
by bishops exclusively, and also in a fuller and more explicit version of the
rubrics.
The words and actions are the same as when the sacrament is adminis
tered by a bishop, so that the priest who has not got the modern PJtuale
Romanum may follow the rite as given in the Pontifical, or in the R/7w
Servandus.
The only important addition, not in the rite itself, is the first rubric
which requires the priest minister to explain, before administering the
sacrament, that the ordinary minister is a bishop, and that a priest is function
ing by delegation of the Holy See. The decree of delegation must be read
in the vernacular.
36.—Validity of Confirmation
Is the sacrament of Confirmation validly conferred on a candidate who arrives after
the extension of the bishop's hands, with the accompanying form “Spiritus Sanctus",
etc., at the opening of the rite, but approaches with the rest singly and is anointed with
the form “Signo te, etc." ?
Canon 789: Confirmandi, si plures sint, adsint primae manuum im
positioni seu extensioni, nec nisi expleto ritu discedant.
Imposition of hands, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, is essential
for the sacrament of Confirmation. But our rite contains two such im
positions: (i) at the beginning of the ceremony, (ii) accompanying the
unction with chrism. Some older theologians used to maintain that the
first was at least as necessary as the second for the validity of the sacrament,
but the view that it was not essential predominated and is expressly taught
by the Holy Office, 17 April, 1872: “Saepe accidit in Chrismate infantium,
praesertim in multitudine eorum ut furtim aliquis immisceatur qui tamen
1 A.A.S., XXVII, 1935, p. 12.
OQ. 57, 38
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
60
praesens non tuit in prima manuum extensione Episcopi. An dicti in
fantes relinquendi sint confirmati absque prima manuum extensione ?
Kesp. Affirmative. Curandum tamen ut omnes confirmandi adsint etiam
primae manuum impositioni:”1 Cappello cites a later reply of the Holy
Offici' 22 March, 1892, in the same sense, and there is a direction of Propaganda, 6 August, 1840, that the sacrament is not to be repeated condition
ally in a case where the confirming priest omitted all the preceding rites and
prayers, beginning to confirm the candidates at Signo te, etc. It is therefore
quite certain that the essentials arc in this second imposition of hands which
accompanies the anointing.
Nevertheless it is gravely unlawful to miss any part of the rite. Unless
there is some grave reason, which is rather difficult to imagine in this country,
we are of the opinion that candidates who come late should not be allowed
to present themselves at the second imposition of hands; their reception of
the sacrament can easily be deferred to some other occasion.
37.—Confirmation and First Communion
Amongst the children in a first Communion class in the parish school are a few
who have not been confirmed. Since the bishop would be visiting the parish for Con
firmation in two months' time, it wasjudged better that the children should defer first
Communion until after Confirmation. Was this a right decision?
In a reply of the Congregation oj the Sacraments, 50 June, 1952,2 the ruling
of canon 788 concerning the age for Confirmation was reaffirmed, and a
previous interpretation declared to be preceptive. The document continued:
“declarat eadem Sacra Congregatio, equidem opportunum esse et con
formius naturae et effectibus sacramenti Confirmationis, pueros ad sacram
Mensam prima vice non accedere nisi post receptum Confirmationis sacra
mentum, quod est veluti complementum Baptismatis et in quo datur
plenitudo Spiritus Sancti (St. Thomas, p. iii, quaestio 72, art. 2); non
tamen iidem censendi sunt prohiberi quominus ad eandem Mensam prius
admittantur, si ad annos discretionis pervenerint, quamvis Confirmationis
Sacramentum antea accipere non potuerunt”. The instruction on this
point was repeated, 20 May, 1934, in the rules formulated for priests dele
gated to administer the sacrament of Confirmation.
The decision reached above was not, therefore, correct. The reason,
of course, is that a child who has reached the age of discretion is bound by
the law of the Church to make his first Communion, and the lack of Con
firmation is not an adequate reason for postponement.
38.—Confirmation Register
It appears that the law requiring the particulars of Confirmation to ÙY entered
also in the baptismal register is not usually observed in this country. Is it a grave
obligation ?
1 Fontes, n. 1012.
* A.AJ., XXIV, 1952, p. 271.
6j
CONFIRMATION
Q. 58
Canon 798: Nomina ministri, confirmatorum, parentum et patrinorum,
diem ac locum confirmationis parochus inscribat in peculiari libro praeter
adnotationem in libro baptizatorum de qua in can. 470, §2.
Canon 470, §2: In libro baptizatorum adnotetur quoque si baptizatus
confirmationem receperit . . . eacque adnotationes in documenta accepti
baptismatis semper referantur.
There is a similar law requiring the particulars of marriage to be entered in
the baptismal register, and everyone perceives its purpose: since a baptismal
certificate is required before marriage, the fact of the particulars of a previous
marriage being recorded will be a safeguard against bigamous marriages.
It cannot tie maintained that there is the same gravity in the law which
requires an entry of the fact of Confirmation to be made in the baptismal
register: it is altogether unlikely that anyone would want to be confirmed
more than once. But parties should be confirmed before marriage (canons
1021, §2, and 787), and the Instruction on Marriage Preliminaries, S.C.
Sacram., 29 June, 1941, mentions the certificate amongst the documents
required. The double entry is meant, we suppose, for the sake of security,
and all the modern registers of Baptism have a space for the details of Con
firmation. We think, accordingly, that the obligation of this law is per re
grave,1 though it could be maintained, no doubt, that in many places custom
sanctions its non-observance.
1 Cf. Cappello. De Sacramentis.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
III. HOLY EUCHARIST: THE MASS
§r. EUCHARISTIC MATTER AND FORM
39.—Valid Eucharistic Matter
A priest in an invaded district, having exhausted his stock of wine and altar
breads, can obtain only commercial wine and “ersat^’ bread made from a little
wbeaten flour and a great deal of potato. Except by using these unsatisfactory
materials he will be unable to say Mass and give Viaticum to the dying, and he is unable
to approach the local Ordinary. Is bejustified in using them ?
Canon 815, §1: Panis debet esse mere triticeus et recenter confectus ita
ut nullum sit periculum corruptionis. §2. Vinum debet esse naturale
de genimine vitis et non corruptum.
S.C. Sacram., 26 March, 1929: Ideo consequitur panem ex alia substantia
conflatum, vel illum cui tanta sit admixta quantitas a tritico diversa, ut
iuxta communem aestimationem, tritici panem esse dici nequeat, materiam
validam pro conficiendo Sacrificio et Sacramento Eucharistico haud con
stituere. Item ut valida materia haberi nequit vinum, seu potius liquor, qui
sit ex pomis aliisque fructibus eductus, vel chimicae artis ope elaboratus,
quamvis vini colorem eiusque quodammodo elementa continere edicatur,
vel illud vinum, cui aqua maiore vel pari quantitate sit permixta.
The teaching of the authors and the earlier decisions of the Holy See
have all been incorporated in the above decree, which must now be con
sidered the locus classicus of the law on the subject.
(i) Local legislation usually requires the clergy to use only that wine
which has been certificated by the bishop. It is a positive law which does not
bind in a grave emergency, when one is permitted to use any genuine wine
which has been produced from the grape. If it is obtained from a reliable
source, e.g. “château bottled”, even though possibly not lawful matter,
owing, for example, to its alcoholic strengthening being above what is
permitted, its validity can be regarded as morally certain.
Similarly it is permitted, in an emergency, to disregard the local legis
lation about the altar breads, and be content with moral certainty that the
flour used is made from genuine wheat. If an alien grain, such as barley,
is used, or even mixed with the wheaten flour so that the former prepon
derates, the matter is invalid; a fortiori it is invalid if the alien substance
is not any form of grain but potato. Thus the Instruction: “Imo, uti
dubia reputanda erit materia, nec proinde adhibenda, si, licet non maiore
aut pari quantitate quaecunque alia substantia tritico aut vino commis
ceatur, notabilis tamen quantitas aliena sit ipsi admixta.” It is implied in
this text, as is explicitly stated with regard to the wine, that a foreign sub
stance in equal quantity renders the matter invalid.
(ii) The unsatisfactory matter which the priest proposes to use is regarded
as bread in the common estimation, and this is, indeed, the accepted criterion
for determining valid sacramental matter. But it must be observed, as the
63
EUCHARISTIC MATTER AND FORM
q.
40
Instruction states, that the matter needs to be “wheaten” bread in the
common estimation, not merely “bread”; the same rule must apply to what
is regarded as the juice of the grape, and it was precisely in order to warn
us against the use of substitute or ersat^ materials that the Instruction was
issued in 1929. The “common estimation” criterion, elaborated by
theologians long before substitutes were invented, cannot be applied to
accepting as valid matter for the Holy Eucharist a liquor manufactured from
chemicals, or bread composed chiefly of potato.
(iii) It would take us beyond the limits permitted to outline all the
possible defects in the bread or wine. The best manual treatment is Cap
pello, De Sacramentis, §265 seq., and in periodical literature the Ecclesiastical
Review, July, 1938, “Mass W’ine, Its Manufacture and Church Legislation”.
If, for any solid reason, the matter is reckoned doubtful, it is forbidden
to use it for the Holy Eucharist even in the circumstances outlined above.
It is true that, in spite of the condemned proposition regarding the use of
probable opinions in administering sacraments,1 the theologians teach
that doubtful matter may be used and a sacrament conferred conditionally
whenever the urgent spiritual need of the faithful demands it. But the
Holy Eucharist must be excepted from this doctrine, firstly, because actual
reception of Viaticum is not necessary necessitate medii for salvation;2 secondly,
because the use of doubtful matter exposes the faithful to the risk of material
idolatry.3 Unless, therefore, a priest has moral certainty that the bread and
wine is valid matter, he is forbidden to use it for Mass.
40.—Defective Wine Consecrated
Owing to the difficulty of obtaining good wine, and the need of making it last as
long as possible, it quickly deteriorates and corrupts. W'hat should the celebrant do if,
after receiving the chalice, he concludes that the matter used is invalid?
The situation is described in the Missal, De Defectibus, IV, 6, a text which
should be carefully read, and amplified by the teaching of the commentators.
The best and most recent of these, Fr. J. B. O’Connell, The Celebration oj
Mass, I, p. 221, writes as follows: “. . . he takes a fresh Host, and offers it
mentally, without raising it. Next he takes fresh wine and water (at the
centre of the altar and without ceremonial actions, except the sign of the
cross over the water), offers it mentally, and then consecrates both the bread
and wine, beginning at Qui pridie, without genuflexions or any elevation.
He then consumes the Host (although he has already consumed another
Host) and the Precious Blood. . . .”
The principle behind these directions is, firstly, to secure that both species
shall be lying on the altar together and at the same time : secondly, to omit all
unessential actions, such as genuflexions and elevation, in order not to draw
the public attention unnecessarily to the incident. It is for this latter reason
that the rubric directs, when the case occurs in a public place with many
present, the re-consecration of the wine alone; the priest will then begin
from the words Simili modo.
1 Dcnz. ixji.
’ Priitnmcr, Tbeo!. Moralis, III, §18.
• Noldin, Tbeo!. Moralis, ΙΠ, §12.
q.
4i
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
64
It may happen that some considerable delay intervenes before fresh wine
can be procured; the priest should, nevertheless, await its arrival in order to
complete the sacrifice. If his decision on the invalidity of the matter is not
made until his return to the sacristy, nothing further should be done.
41.—Modicissima Aqua
What is the exact proportion oj water to be added to the chalice beyond which the
matter is to be reckoned invalid?
Canon 814: Sacrosanctum Missae sacrificium offerri debet ex pane et
vino, cui modicissima aqua miscenda est.
R/7. Celebr. Miss., VII, 4: infundens parum aquae in Calice . . .;
VII, 9: infundit paululum aquae in Calicem.
Caerem. Epp.,II, viii, 62: infundit pauculum aquae in Calicem. . . .
S.C. Sacram., 26 March, 1929: Item ut valida materia haberi nequit
vinum . . . cui aqua maiore vel pari quantitate sit permixta. . . . Imo, uti
dubia reputanda erit materia, nec proinde adhibenda, si, licet non maiore
aut pari quantitate quaecunque alia substantia tritico aut vino commisceatur,
notabilis tamen quantitas aliena sit ipsi admixta.
The above rubrics determine the amount of water to be added at the
Offertory, whereas the Instruction, 26 March, 1929, discusses the preparation
of the wine before it is brought to the altar. In order to obey the rubrics,
which do not determine the proportion of water, one drop suffices; but
several drops arc permitted and recommended by the writers, and it is
usually quite unnecessary to be scrupulous, since the rubrics themselves do
not determine the quantity but simply direct that a “little” water should be
added. It is implied that the quantity of wine is far in excess of the water,
which becomes absorbed into the former.
If it is necessary to use the smallest possible amount of wine, the amount
of water should be correspondingly less in order to obey the rubrical
directions. But the point may be reached, particularly if it is feared that the
wine is already, perhaps, adulterated before being brought to the altar,
when the question ceases to be merely rubrical, and is concerned rather
with deciding whether the matter is valid. We are then to be guided by
the Instruction of 26 March, 1929, from which two points transpire: if the
quantity of water equals that of wine the matter is invalid; secondly, if the
quantity added is “notable” the matter is doubtful and may not be used
even in cases of necessity.
It has never been officially determined what proportion of water to wine
is reckoned notable. Some permit as much as one third, an opinion not easily
to be accepted as safe; others suggest one eighth, a conservative estimate;
an examination of the commentators reveals a general agreement that one
fifth comes well within what is a lawful proportion of water.1
The underlying theological principle is thus explained by St. Thomas in
discussing whether the substance of the water is converted into the Precious
Blood: “. . . aliorum opinion probabilior est, qui dicunt, aquam converti
‘ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Tbeol. Moralis. VI. ^zio; Cappello. De Sacramentis, I, ^204;
O’Connell, Celebration of Mass, Π, p. 8ι.
ό5
EUCHARISTIC MATTER AND FORM
q.
42
in vinum, et vinum in sanguinem: hoc autcm fieri non posset, nisi adeo
modicum apponeretur de aqua, quod converteretur in vinum: et ideo
semper tutius est parum de aqua apponere, et praecipue si vinum sit debile,
quia si tanta fieret appositio aquae, ut solveretur species vini, non posset
perfici sacramentum . .
42.—Doubtful Consecration
If it should happen that a priest, whilst saying the “Unde et Memores" his no
recollection of having recited the words of consecration, is it obligatory or lawful to
repeat them'?
De Defectibus, V, 2: Si celebrans non recordetur se dixisse ca quae in
consecratione communiter dicuntur, non debet propterea turbari. Si tamen
certo ei constet, se omisisse aliquid eorum quae sunt de necessitate Sacra
menti, id est, formam consecrationis, seu partem: resumat ipsam formam, et
cetera prosequatur per ordinem. Si vero valde probabiliter dubitet, se
aliquid essentiale omisisse: iteret formam saltem sub tacita conditione. Si
autem non sunt de necessitate Sacramenti, non resumat, sed procedat
ulterius.
The kind of doubt which makes a repetition of the form obligatory,
and therefore lawful, is one which is based on a solid probability. It must
be a prudent doubt, as canon 732, §2, states in dealing with the repetition of
certain sacraments. Other things being equal, a doubt which arises merely
and solely from not recollecting the utterance of the words should be dis
missed at once. A judgement should be made that an action which has been
properly performed on every morning of a man’s life has been rightly done,
even though, on one occasion, the recollection of it is wanting. To repeat
the form in such circumstances is unlawful, though, no doubt, scrupulosity
would excuse one from committing any sin. “Si in Missa post con
secrationem dubium tibi oriatur de formae debita prolatione, vel de totali
omissione, nihil repetere debes, nec potes, cum alias haec omittere non
soleas: iudicandum enim est ex communiter contingentibus, nisi tamen valde
probabiliter dubites, ut loquitur Rubrica.”2
A doubt of this kind might be prudent if some other element entered into
the case, in addition to the non-recollcction of having uttered the words.
For example, a priest might be aware of the fact that, owing to his state of
health or some unusual anxiety, he is forgetting to do other things in his
daily life which he has been accustomed habitually to do. D’zYnnibale care
fully distinguishes in applying the doctrine to the various sacraments:
“Quoad dubium vero haec regula sancienda est: si hoc prudens est, sacra
mentum iterare licet; si est imprudens, non licet omnino. Sed cum agitur
de baptismo, vel sacerdotio, aliqnale dubium sufficit; cum de Eucharistia
et poenitentia, in quibus sola repetitione formae opus est, non prorsus inane.
In dubiis autem huiusmodi sacramentum iterare, nedum licet, sed regulariter
oportet, nempe sub conditione.”3
1 Summa Tbeol., III, 74, 8.
1 Tummolo-Iorio, Theol. Moralis, II, §105.
• Tbeol. Moralis, ΙΠ, §268.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
66
43.—Mass with Leavened Bread
Everyone knows that unleavened bread is valid matter, but the manualists do not
discuss very fully whether leavened bread may be used in a case of necessity, e.g. in
order that the people may observe the Sunday precept if by a mischance, a Host of
unleavened bread cannot be obtained.
Canon 816: In Missae celebratione sacerdos, secundum proprium
ritum, debt panem azymum vel fermentatum adhibere ubicumque Sacrum
litet.
De Defectibus, III, 3 : . . . similiter si non sit azymus, secundum morem
Ecclesiae Latinae, conficitur, sed conficiens graviter peccat.
Canon 866, §3 : Sanctum Viaticum moribundis ritu proprio accipiendum
est; sed, urgente necessitate, fas esto quolibet ritu illud accipere.
The older authors gave only one example of the necessity which permits
leavened bread, namely the case mentioned in De Defectibus, III, 5, when it
is detected either before or after the consecration that the Host is of invalid
matter—for example, that it is corrupt. The necessity is that the sacrifice
should be completed, and if no unleavened bread is available, leavened should
be used. This is the only example given by most of the modern authors
following St. Alphonsus, e.g. Noldin, Theol. Moralis, III, §107.
Cappello gives a second case of necessity—the need of administering
Viaticum to a dying person. He argues from canons 851 and 866, which
contain the milder modern discipline permitting Viaticum to be adminis
tered, in a case of necessity, by a Latin priest “in fermentato”. The canons,
of course, refer to administering Holy Communion, not to saying Mass, but
he argues from this rule that saying Mass “in fermentato” is permitted
in a case of extreme necessity for the purpose of administering Viaticum.
Tummolo-Iorio agrees that this opinion is probable.*
1 The older authors
expressly denied that the necessity of Viaticum justified celebrating Mass
“in fermentato”,2 and the modern manualists we have consulted follow this
teaching with the exception of the two authors mentioned. If such extreme
necessity does not justify the use of leavened bread, in the opinion of
most writers, it is obvious that less urgent necessities do not; for example,
the case put in this question, or the case of a priest travelling in parts where
there are no Latin churches. The reason is the predominance of the rule
that a priest may not celebrate except in his own rite.
We must conclude, therefore, that if no unleavened bread is obtainable,
the people must forego their Sunday obligation. This positive law is of
lesser gravity than the law of using unleavened bread in the Western Church.
Actually, it is a fairly simple matter to make a paste of flour and water and
bake it by spreading it on a heated metal plate. The necessity of Viaticum
might conceivably be so urgent that there would be no time to do this, and
we agree with the authors mentioned that unleavened bread may then be
used.
1 Tbtot. Moratif, II» §278.
1 Gasparri, De Eucbariftiai §804.
67
EUCHARISTIC MATTER AND FORM
QQ· 44, 45
44.—Ablutions at Mass
Is it permitted, in cases of necessity, to use only water at the ablutions ?
It is commonly taught, following St. Alphonsus, Theol. Moralis, VI, §408,
that the rubric does not bind sub gravi. Its non-observance would not even
be a venial sin in cases of necessity, e.g. if it was not discovered that the
cruet was empty until the moment of the ablutions arrived and wine could
not easily be obtained.
When it is foreseen that the necessity will be permanent, for example,
owing to the extreme scarcity of wine, an induit should be obtained. The
permission is included in the Apostolic faculties, Formula III, issued by
Propaganda to missionary ordinaries: “Permittendi ut in utraque purifi
catione calicis aqua tantum adhiberi possit, dummodo tamen extrema adsit
vini deficientia.” T.R.C., 12 May, 1944, sanctioned during the war the use
of water alone “iis in locis ubi, iuxta prudens Ordinarii iudicium, vini
angustiae hodie habeantur vel in posterum praevideantur.”
45.—Renovation of Sacred Species
The Congregation of Rites directs the Sacred Species to be renewed each week, a
regulation which is faithfully observed in Ireland. Yet in England the idea is current
that once a fortnight suffices. Is there anyjustification for this practice ?
Canon 1272: Hostiae consecratae, sive propter fidelium communionem,
sive propter expositionem sanctissimi Sacramenti, et recentes sint et fre
quenter renoventur, veteribus rite consumptis, ita ut nullum sit periculum
corruptionis, sedulo servatis instructionibus quas Ordinarius loci hac de
re dederit.
Rituale Romanum, Tit. iv, cap. i, n. 7: Sanctissimae Eucharistiae par
ticulas frequenter renovabit. . . .
Caerem. Epp., I, vi, 2: Eius (sacristae) praecipua cura erit ... ut ea
quae ad sacrosanctae Eucharistiae cultum et honorem spectant nitide
conserventur . . . iliaque (Sancta Eucharistia) saltem semel in heb
domada mutetur ct renovetur.
J.R.C., 12 September, 1884, n. 5621.2: In Ecclesiis huius dioecesis
servari ne potest consuetudo renovandi SSmam Eucharistiam semel vel bis
in mense; licet qualibet hebdomada iuxta Caeremoniale Episcoporum eadem
SSma Eucharistia foret renovanda ? Resp. Servetur dispositio Caeremonialis Episcoporum.
(i) The common law does not define the time limit strictly but leaves
the matter to the local Ordinary. Since the purpose of the law is to prevent
the Sacred Species from becoming corrupted, it might happen that local
climatic conditions require renewal every two or three days, even though the
local Ordinary has given no instructions on the subject. If there is no danger
of actual corruption, reverence requires that renewal should be frequently
effected. Many ancient legal texts, in addition to that of the Caeremoniale
Episcoporum1 determine this frequency as weekly, and there is not the
1 Cf. Collationes Brumeuses, 1928, p. 60.
Q. 46
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
68
slightest doubt that weekly renewal is the most perfect observance of the
law, especially in localities where no local regulations exist.
(ii) As indicated in canon 1272, it is open to the Ordinary to determine
the time limit more exactly. If, as our correspondent says, the weekly rule
is faithfully observed in Ireland, it is because this is the law of the Plenary
Council of Maynooth, 1927, n. 339: “Ad periculum coruptionis evitandum,
hostiae consecrandae sint recentes, et consecratae renoventur octavo quoque
dic.” Priests who are accustomed to this rule rightly continue to observe
it, even when they may be outside of the territory subject to the Maynooth
Council. If, as we shall show, certain local English regulations direct
fortnightly renewal, it is for the purpose of determining the limit beyond
which one may not go; obviously, these laws are more perfectly observed by
renewing the Sacred Species at periods of less than a fortnight, and it will be
found that local laws usually imply this by directing that renewal shall be
at least once a fortnight, e.g. Westminster Synod, III, 1858, n. 19: “Hostiae
. . . renoventur saltem infra 14 dies”; Liverpool Synod, 1934, n. 202: “In
hac dioecesi hostiae consecratae saltem alternis hebdomadis renoventur”;
Lancaster Statuta, 1935, n. 162: “The Eucharistic Hosts should be renewed
at least every other week”; Malines Statuta, 1924, n. 280: “Octava quaque
die, maxime ubi loci vel aeris humiditas id requirit, aut saltem singulis
quindenis, substituatur hostiae novae. . . .”
(iii) In other places the Ordinary is content with the terms of canon 1272,
e.g. Middlesbrough Decrees, 1933, n. 107. I Westm., Dec. XVIII, n. 13, has
“frequenter” in the text of the law and contains in an historical note the
information that weekly renewal was required by an Oxford Council in 1222.
The question remaining, therefore, is whether, in those places which have no
local law on the point, renewal must be weekly, as J.R.C., n. 3621, determines.
In our view, this is not strictly of obligation, and a fortnightly renewal
suffices. The reason for this opinion is the fact that the Holy Sec has fully
approved the text of local synods permitting a fortnightly renewal, which
would not have been done if it was opposed to the common law. An earlier
Malines Council determining the time as “singulis mensibus aut circiter”
was changed by the Holy Sec to “singulis saltem hebdomadis aut circiter”,
permitting by the word “circiter” a certain latitude.1 Benedict XIV, in
Etsi Pastoralis, 26 May, 1742, §vi, n. 4,2 uses the phraseology employed in
many local councils of our own day: “singulis octo diebus aut saltem quin
decim”. The reply 5.R.C., η. 3621, recommending the rule of Caerent. Epp.,
must be interpreted, in our view, according to custom which, as far as we
know, everywhere tolerates fortnightly renewal unless there exists local
legislation to the contrary, as in Ireland.
§2. SUNG MASS
46.—Pro-Subdeacon
In the Dominican rite at High Mass the subdeacon at the Offertory offers the chalice
and paten (containing the oblations, bread and wine) to the deacon, who then passes
1 Collationes Brugtnsa, loc. cit.
* Forties, n. 528.
69
SUNG MASS
them to the celebrant. Should a pro-subdeacon not yet tonsured do this ?
wears the maniple nor prepares the chalice.
Q. 46
He neither
(i) As in many other practices, the Holy See has been progressively
liberal in permitting the office of subdeacon to be performed by one not in
major orders. In 1715 permission was refused to certain canons in minor
orders; in 1784 the practice was forbidden “extra casum absolutae et prae
cisae necessitatis”. On the other hand, rather than tolerate the French
custom of chanting a solemn Mass with the assistance of a deacon only, the
Archbishop of Cambrai was instructed, in 1853, to use a cleric in minor
orders as subdeacon.1 Up to 1906 some real and urgent necessity was re
quired to justify the practice. The decree of 10 (14) March, 1906, n. 4181,
which is the present discipline on the subject, merely requires any reasonable
cause, which would be, for example, just the desire to have a solemn Mass;
but it would, in our view, be unreasonable to make use of this permission if a
cleric in major orders can easily be obtained.
(ii) In all the official texts and commentaries we have consulted the
rule is rigidly maintained, as expressed in n. 4181, that the pro-subdeacon
must at least be tonsured. It is purely a matter of positive law, and it is
quite possible that the Dominicans and other regulars enjoy an induit
permitting a non-tonsured person to act as pro-subdeacon, e.g. a professed
subject of the Order, but we know of no justification for this practice in the
common law as interpreted by canonists and liturgists of repute. On the
contmry, the Franciscans were instructed, 22 July, 1848, n. 2965.5, that a
regular, even in cases of necessity, must not perform this office unless he is a
cleric, a rub'ng summarized by Ojctti “debet necessario esse clericus, etsi sit
regularis”.2 Wc do not know of any texts or arguments in favour of em
ploying a non-tonsured person for this office, apart from permission by
induit.
(iii) As to what is permitted a cleric pro-subdeacon on these occasions,
the principle seems to be, as far as matters of this kind can be reduced to
a principle, that he may not do any of the things which are specifically the
office of a subdeacon, under the penalty of possibly incurring the irregularity
of canon 985.7. This office is described in the Ordination rite as follows:
“Subdiaconum enim oportet aquam ad ministerium altaris praeparare;
Diacono ministrare; pallas altaris et corporalia abluere; Calicem et Patenam
in usum sacrificii eidem offerre”. Hence n. 4181 rules that he must not
wear a maniple; that he must not, before the Offertory, wipe the chalice and
pour the water therein—this is to be done by the deacon; that, after bringing
the chalice to the altar, he must not touch it during the Canon nor remove
and replace the pall; finally, that after the ablutions he must not wipe the
chalice—this is to be done by the celebrant.3
The directions arc quite clear for a solemn Mass celebrated according to
the Roman rite. Dominicans and some other regulars have a rite which
varies, in some particulars, from that of the Roman Missal: the chalice is
prepared at the sedilia between the epistle and gospel; after the offertory has
been read, both deacon and subdeacon cross over to the epistle side, where
------ - - -- — — 1
1 1 ■ » — - — ■— I ■ -- —
_ - - _____ _ _ -_
1 J.R.C. nn. 2221 and 2525. Cf. t’Ami du Clergé, 1924, p, ΪΟ$.
’ Synopsis, s.v. Subdiaeoniis.
•The text in Decreta Authentica, Vol. VI, Appendix I (1912), differs slightly from its
original form as printed in Periodica, 1911, p. xxo.
Q. 47
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
70
the latter, having removed the veil and pall, presents the prepared chalice
to the deacon, who offers it to the celebrant. It seems clear that a pro
subdeacon must not prepare the chalice at the sedilia·, he carries the chalice
and paten with the host to the celebrant and deacon seated there, and the
deacon pours in the water and wine.
The only question, therefore, is whether a pro-subdeacon should at the
offertory present the prepared chalice to the deacon. We have found no
discussion of the point amongst the writers on the subject, but we think he
should not do so since the Ordination rite describes one of the duties of the
subdeacon to be: “Calicem et Patenam in usum sacrificii eidem (diacono)
offere”.
47.—Missa Cantata: Incense and Servers
What is the rule concerning the use of incense at “Missa Cantata', i.e. a sung
Mass without deacon and subdeacon ?
The rule is that the incensation at the accustomed places in a solemn Mass
is not permitted in a Missa Cantata without a special induit. This rule has
often been stressed by the Congregation of Rites, and a negative reply was given
to a Spanish bishop in 1884, who pleaded a local custom which could not be
discontinued without offending the people.1 An induit, it appears, is very
easily obtained, and the faculty is often included, with various limitations,
in the quinquennial faculties of Ordinaries and in the faculties issued by
Propaganda for missionary countries. Facultates Apostolicae quas S.C. de
Propaganda delegare solet Ordinariis Missionum, art. 1, n. 7: “Permittendi
thurificationem in Missis cantatis a solo celebrante absque ministris, dum
modo duo saltem clerici supcrpellicco induti Missae inserviant.”2 The
quinquennial faculties given to American bishops contain it under the
section from the Congregation of Rites, n. 9: “to permit the use of Incense in a
Missa Cantata without deacon and sub-deacon”. A later edition of the same
faculties continues, “but only on feasts that are doubles of the first and
second class, on Sundays, and when the sung Mass is celebrated before the
Most Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist solemnly exposed”.3 The faculty,
if obtained by the Ordinary, is communicated to the clergy in their pagella
of faculties, or promulgated in some other way as in Liverpool Synod, 1934,
n. 120.
Is a sung Mass without sacred ministers permitted if the priest has only one
server? O'Connell, “Celebration of Mass", III,p. 208, in bis description of the rite
assumes that there are two servers.
The rubrics and official decisions about the sung Mass with no sacred
ministers are meagre, and the rubricians are not always in agreement in
describing the rite. It is a celebration with some solemnity, and the writers
therefore assume that at least two servers will be assisting; J'.R.C., n. 3059.7,
is sometimes quoted for the toleration of two servers: “. . . quoad Missas
1 j June, 1884, η. 3611, 6.
1 Vromant, Commentarium, 1926 and 1930.
• Eng. Tr. given by Bouscaren, Digest, I, p. 69; II, p. 13.
7i
SUNG MASS
q.
48
Parochiales vcl similes dîcbus solemnioribus, ct quoad Missas quae cele
brantur loco solemnis atque cantatae, occasione rcalis atque usitatae cele
britatis et solemnitatis, tolerari posse duos Ministros Missae inservientes.
. .
Certainly the sung Mass can be brought within the terms of this
direction, and it would follow therefore that one server suffices. Fr.
O’Connell on p. 204 notes that the use of more than one server is permitted
at a sung Mass, thus teaching by implication that more than one is not
obligatory.
48.—Chant: The Proper
If the choir is unable to sing the Proper, even on a monotone, may it be omitted
altogether or sung by the celebrant himself ?
Caerem. Epp., I, xxviii, 6: Sed advertendum erit, ut, quandocunquc
per organum figuratur aliquid cantari, seu responderi alternatim versiculis
Hymnorum, aut Canticorum, ab aliquo de choro intelligibili voce pronun
tietur id, quod ob sonitum organi non cantatur. Et laudabile esset, ut
aliquis cantor coniunctim cum organo voce clara idem cantaret. Cf. also
Motu Proprio, 22 November, 1903, III, 8.
J’.R.C., 22 May, 1894, n. 5827.2: Ea, quae cantorum schola exequi
alternatim debet, nunquam esse omittenda; sed vel per integrum cantanda,
vel si vocibus iungantur Organa partim concinenda, partim sub Organis
clara voce legenda, prout Caeremoniale Episcoporum praescribit; Symbolo
excepto, quod per integrum, si recurrat, semper canendum erit.
8 August, 1906, n. 4189.1: Quando organa pulsantur, si praedicta,
nempe Graduale, Offertorium et Communio non cantentur, recitanda sunt
voce alta et intelligibili, iuxta mentem Caercmonialis Episcoporum. Cf.
nn. 2994 and 3108.
The directions of the above texts are not meant as the normal, still less
as the ideal, method of rendering the Proper at a sung Mass. The chant
may be executed (in more than one sense of the word) in this way when
ever it is not possible to sing it exactly as the Graduale prints it. Happily,
we think, the method of alternating chant and organ is not common in this
country; it is more usual for at least one singer to chant the text on a mono
tone, a practice which has the full approval of the Holy See; moreover, the
text may be merely recited, audibly and intelligibly, instead of being sung
on a monotone. It must be observed, however, that the practice is tolerated
only when there is an organ playing, and that the Credo may never be
rendered in this way.
The reason for these very liberal provisions is the desire of the Church
for a sung Mass, if it is at all possible, since the chief difficulty is the Proper.
But there is no justification for pushing these concessions still further, and
permitting the celebrant himself to take the office of cantor at a sung Mass.
We can find only one writer who is prepared to sanction this practice,
provided the chant or recitation is not done at the altar but at the sedilia'.
l'Ami du Clergé, 1928, p. 542; two years later, 1930, p. 112, a decided negative
was given by that journal to an exactly similar question, and without any
exception being made for the priest performing the office of cantor at the
sedilia. The rubrics for the sung Mass, except for the final blessing, direct
q.
49
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
ηζ
the priest to recite everything in a subdued voice. If the assistance of the
faithful is so meagre that not even one person can be found able to read the
Proper aloud, it seems to us that the priest must be content with low Mass.
The replies quoted above mention only the Gradual, Offertory and
Communion chants. From canon 20 the directions may be applied to the
other parts of the Proper, and the commentators generally explain them
in this sense. Cf. O’Connell, Celebration of Mass, III, p. 5 o.
49.—Chant: Intonations and Introit
Is if obligatory for the priest's chant of the "Gloria" and "Ite Missa Est" to
correspond with the plain chant Mass sung by the choir ?
It preserves the unity of the chant if the celebrant intones the Gloria
corresponding to the text sung by the choir, and the Ite Missa Est corres
ponding to the Kyrie of the same Mass; unity is required, in principle, from
n. 11, a, of Pius X’s Mo tn Proprio'. "Kyrie Gloria Credo, etc., in Missa unitatem
praescierant sui cuiusque textus propriam. Non itaque licet ea partibus
separatis componere . . .” But the text of the Vatican Gradual itself
permits alternative chants for the celebrant which do not correspond with
the rest of the Mass. Also, 5.R.C., n. 3421.1-3, directs the Gloria and
Ite Missa Est to be “in tono de B.V.M. quoties Praefatio de Nativitate
Domini dicenda est”. Accordingly, there is no strict rule that the cele
brant’s chant must correspond to the pieces sung by the choir.
May the choir sing the Introit during the progress of the celebrant to the altar,
whenever a sung Mass is not preceded by the Asperges ?
Caerem Epp., II, viii, 30: Cum vero Episcopus pervenerit ante
infimum gradum altaris . . . facit confessionem iunctis manibus. . . .
Interim cessat sonitus organorum et chorus incipit Introitum.
5.R.C., 14 April, 1753, n. 2424: An a cantoribus in choro incipi possit
Introitus missae priusquam sacerdos eandem missam celebraturus ad altare
perveniat. Pesp. Negative et amplius.
Graduale Romanum (Ed. Vaticana, 1907) De Ritibus Servandis, n. 1 : Ac
cedente Sacerdote ad altare, incipiunt Cantores Antiphonam ad Introitum....
The Introit is obviously, in its origins, a processional chant meant to be
sung whilst the clergy arc approaching the altar. The psalm was reduced to
one verse by at least the eleventh century because, as seems a likely explana
tion, there was no reason for continuing it once the procession had arrived
at the altar.1
But the more primitive use in ecclesiastical rites may never be reintro
duced without authorization, even though it is considered more reasonable
and preferable. The common interpretation of the rubrics, based particu
larly on the express ruling of 5.R.C., n. 2424, is that the Introit may never be
sung until the celebrant has arrived at the foot of the altar. This is the
Roman custom, even at a papal Mass, when there occurs a solemn entry
‘ Fortescue, The Mast, p. 219.
SUNG MASS
from the chapel where Terce has been recited. Many think that the reason
for the practice lies in the fact that the Confiteor and other prayers have been
said for centuries at the foot of the altar, whereas they were originally said
before arriving there. The Introit is preparatory in character and is now
subject to the same rule.
Nevertheless, the rubric of the Vatican Gradual clearly directs that the
Introit is sung whilst the priest is approaching the altar, and the question is
whether this comparatively new rubric modifies in any way the rule which
was certainly obligatory up to 1907, or whether it is to be interpreted in
accordance with the pre-existing rule.
The majority of liturgists, as far as we can ascertain, hold that the Vatican
Gradual introduced no change. They have good reasons for this view, and
a writer in Ephemerides Eiturgicae states with truth: “talis est praxis romana et
omnium ecclesiarum”.1 But these writers, in dealing with the text in the
Vatican Gradual, are forced to give it a meaning which the words, as they
stand, do not convey. They say that “accedente” means “perveniente”,
and “altare” means “ad gradum altaris”. It is our opinion that those who
framed the rubric in the Vatican Gradual had no intention of reverting to a
more primitive custom, and that if further direction were to be sought from
Ô'.R.G, the ruling would be that the Introit should not be sung till the priest
has reached the foot of the altar.
In the meantime, those who wish to interpret the rubric of the Vatican
Gradual according to the plain meaning of words are entitled to do so, saving
the authority of local Ordinaries who may issue directions for those subject
to them. There is sufficient authority amongst the writers to justify the
practice. Fortescue: “Lately the rule was not to begin the Introit till the
celebrant was at the altar, whereby its meaning as the processional psalm
was destroyed. Now the Vatican Gradual has restorea the old idea; the
Introit is to be sung whilst the celebrant goes to the altar.”2 Hodum:
“Nota secundum novas rubricas in Graduait Romano insertas, Introitum
cantari debere non ingresso celebrante sed accedente sacerdote ad altare.
. . .”3 A writer in Questions Liturgiques et Paroissiales, 1934, p. 108, entirely
in favour of a literal understanding of the text in the Vatican Gradual,
argues that it is directive, not preceptive, in much the same way as other
rubrics concerning the number of cantors for the singing of the Alleluia and
Gradual: the express ruling of the Congregation ofPJtes in 1753 is considered
to be abrogated by the later text of 1907, as provided for in canons 17 and
22 of the Code, and the rubric of Caeremoniale Episcoporum is held to apply
only to the Pontifical Mass.
50.—Communion Chant
Inasmuch as the Communion antiphon originated as a chant during the distribution
of Holy Communion, is there any reason why it should not be sung whilst Holy Com
munion is being distributed to the people during a sung Mass? The practice is to
defer it until the distribution of Holy Communion is completed. Is there any direction
ordering it to be so deferred?
1 hu et Praxis, 1938, p. 126.
* Of>. cit., p. 224.
’ Collationes Brugenses, 1937, p. J9> note.
J/
q.
J0
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
74
The origin of the chant was certainly as described. “The rite of Com
munion was, especially in early ages, a very long and complicated thing.
Meanwhile the choir sang. It is the same idea as at the Introit and Offertory.
. The Communion was a psalm with Gloria Patri and an antiphon before
and after it. Down to the twelfth century all allusions to it show this. Then
it was postponed until after the Communion, probably because the Agnus
Dei took more time. So Durandus notes that this chant is often called
Post-communio. About the same time it was gradually shortened, a result
of the lessening of the number of communicants at a sung Mass.”1 Popular
explanations of the Mass2*recall, as a matter of antiquarian interest, that the
Communion antiphon used to be sung whilst Holy Communion was being
distributed. They take for granted that it is so no longer.
But there is really no reason for deferring the chant until the end of the
Communion; the present writer can find no direction anywhere ordering this
to be done; on the contrary, it appears more correct to sing the chant during
the Communion. Often, no doubt, this is not possible when the singers
are also communicating, and it is the exception for the faithful to com
municate during a sung Mass because it is usually at a late hour. But the
Communion chant may be sung, if desired, at this time.
The rubric in the Missal is as follows: “Si in Missa sollemni fiat Com
munio, omnia serventur, ut supra, sed prius communicet Diaconum et Subdiaconum, deinde alios per ordinem: et Diaconus purificationem eis minis
trat. Interim a choro cantatur Antiphona quae dicitur Communio.”8
There is no reason for restricting the word “interim” to the purification.
The rubric of the Gradual has, perhaps, encouraged the practice of deferring
the singing: “Sumpto Sanctissimo Sacramento, cantatur a Choro Anti
phona quae dicitur Communio, intonata ab uno, duobus aut quatuor Can
toribus, ut ad Introitum dictum est.”4* The direction “sumpto, etc.” refers
to the celebrant and not to the rest of the faithful, as may be deduced from
an equivalent rubric in the Caeremoniale Episcoporum : “Episcopus vero, tersis
manibus, deponit mitram, legitque communionem ex libro, quae etiam can
tatur a choro post Agnus Dei, postquam Episcopus sumpserit communion
em.”6
De Herdt supports this interpretation: “Communio cantanda est non
ante nec infra, sed immediate post sumptionem S. Sanguinis, infra puri
ficationes, vel infra distributionem communionis, si fiat.”0 “Communio
ita dicitur, quia sicut olim, sic etiam nunc cantatur infra communionem
populi, si fiat infra Missam. . . . Quando olim infra communionem
populi cantabatur, psalmus addebatur; cessante autem frequenti populi
communione, et multiplicatis missis privatis, sub quibus communio non
distribuebatur, sola antiphona ad communionem reservata fuit.”7 If there
are a large number of communicants, De Herdt permits the singing of psalms
and hymns in honour of the Blessed Sacrament, in addition to the proper
antiphon. Λ decree, J.R.C., 14 January, 1898, forbids the singing of
1 Fortescue, T2m Alar/, p. 386.
’ E.g., O’Brien, A History of the Mass, p. 387.
• R/7. Celebr. Miss. X, 9.
4 De Ritibus Servandis in Cantu Missae, IX.
• II, viii, 78.
• Praxis Pontificalis, Π, §191.
’ Sacrae Liturgiae Praxis, II, §118.
7J
REQUIEM MASS
qq.
51, 52
hymns in the vernacular whilst Holy Communion is being distributed during
a solemn Mass, but Latin chants arc permitted, and the most suitable would
be the psalms which used to accompany the Communion antiphon. Traces
of them still exist in the Missal, as in the sequence of psalms during Lent, or
they could be discovered from liturgical sources.
§3. REQUIEM MASS
51.—Requiem Mass in Oratories
The rubric “De Missis Defunctorum” {Addit, et Variat. Ill, 6) says: “In
die iii, vii, xxx et anniversaria ... in qualibet Ecclesia . . .” Does this
phrase include semi-public oratories ? The reason for questioning this is that in the
previous section (III, 5) a distinction is made between “ecclesia” and “oratoria
semipublica”.
We think that the meaning of “in qualibet Ecclesia” in this rubric is to
include oratories and semi-public oratories. In the previous n. 5, dealing
with the faculty of saying a Requiem Mass in various edifices on the occasion
of decease or burial, different rules are made for churches and for oratories
public, semi-public and private. In n. 6, on the contrary', the rule is for every
church, and therefore implies that there is no distinction between them.
Certainly, by relying on the strict meaning of words, n. 6 would have to be
restricted to buildings which come within the definition of “ecclesia”, but
there is ample authority amongst the rubricians for interpreting it in the wider
sense: Croegaert, De Rubricis Missalis (1935), p. 222, quoting Ephemerides
Liturgicae, 1922, p. 380; l'Ami du Clergé, 1925, p. 734, quoting Brehm,
Synopsis Additionum, p. 199.
52.—Requiem Mass in Cemetery Chapel
What privilege, if any, is enjoyed by a cemetery chapel for the celebration oj
Requiem Masses on days when such are permitted by the rubrics in other churches ?
These chapels have permission for Requiem Masses as directed in Addit,
et Variat., Ill, 8: “dummodo non occurrat Dominica, aut Festum de prae
cepto, licet suppressum, Duplex I vel II classis, etiam translatum, aut aliqua
cx feriis, Vigiliis, vel Octavis privilegiatis”. Privileged ferias are Ash
Wednesday and the first three days of Holy Week; vigils are those of
Christmas, Epiphany and Pentecost; octaves are those of Christmas,
Epiphany, Easter, Ascension, Pentecost, Corpus Christi and the Sacred
Heart. The days correspond to the exceptions in III, 6: “In die iii, vii,
xxx et anniversaria ab obitus vel depositione”. Induits may be obtained
extending the concessions of the Missal rubrics.
For the purpose of this direction, those churches or chapels are excluded :
(a) which arc not attached to a cemetery, even though bodies are buried
within them; (b) those which were formerly cemetery chapels, but are no
longer strictly such owing to funerals no longer taking place there; (c) those
which, though surrounded by a cemetery, are in use for choral offices or
for the care of souls.
53.—Requiem Mass Formula
Is there an obligation to say “ Missa Quotidiana de Rjqtiie,” when permitted by the
rubrics, if the Mass is for a deceased person ?
There is an obligation to say a Requiem Mass, if the donor of the stipend
has so stipulated. Canon 833: “Praesumitur oblatorem petiisse solam
Missae applicationem; si tamen oblator expresse aliquas circumstantias in
Missae celebratione servandas determinaverit, sacerdos eleemosynam
acceptans, cius voluntati stare debet.” If the offering is transferred to
another priest, the obligation is transferred with it.1
If die donor has made no stipulation, the obligation is fulfilled by saying
the Mass of the day. 5.R.C., 13 June, 1899, n. 4031.4: “Sacerdos cui
erogatur eleemosyna ad celebrandam Missam pro uno vel pluribus defunctis
. . . satisfacitne obligationi suae Missam faciendo Officio conformem, cum
aliunde petitam Missam ritus diei non permittat, dummodo applicet iuxta
intentionem dantis eleemosynam ? Kesp. Affirmative, sed consultius est,
ut quantum fieri potest, intentioni eleemosynam erogantis satisfiat per
Missam ... de Rcquie.” A later question which mentioned the fact,
beyond all doubt, that the donor had not expressly asked for a Requiem
Mass was answered by a reference to the decree just cited.2
Whether it is more fitting, although not of obligation, to say a Requiem
Mass in these circumstances, is decided affirmatively in the latter part of the
decree: “consultius . . . quantum fieri potest”. We think it must be left
to the priest to decide for himself whether, in any given instance, it is
advisable. The liturgically-minded people, especially in places where
Requiem Masses occur, perhaps, to excess, are in favour of saying the Mass
of the day, so as not to be deprived of the special prayers and lessons
appointed by the Church. This preference would apply particularly to
Lent, when a priest may rightly prefer to say the proper Mass even though
free to say a Requiem Mass on one day of the week. But on days when
the appointed Mass is a very familiar Common it is preferable to say a Re
quiem Mass, in our opinion. There can be no rigid rule about the matter,
since “quantum fieri potest” is sufficiently wide to take in other considera
tions besides the permission of the rubrics. The day might be a festive
occasion, when black vestments would appear quite out of place.8
If the intention is for someone living, may one nevertheless say the “Missa Quoti
diana” ?
1 Cf. S.C. Coru., 16 April, 1921, which applied this rule to a novena of Masses or to
Gregorian Masses.
1 ii April, 1902. 15. It is not in the Décréta Authentica. Cf. Croegaert, Di Rubricir
Mitralis, p. 242.
• Cf. Q.liutions Diturgijucj et Parvitria1er, 1921, p. 65.
ηη
REQUIEM MASS
qq.
54, 55
An affirmative reply, J.R.C., 13 October, 1856, is sometimes quoted,
though it is not in the Décréta Authentica, but there can be no doubt that the
obligation is satisfied by applying the Mass, no matter what the text of the
Proper may be, unless the donor has expressly stipulated that it shall be of a
particular kind. The reason is that saying Mass for someone means applying
the ministerial fruit for the intention desired, and this fruit is the same no
matter in what form the Mass may be said. Thus Cappello, De Sacramentis,
§690, ad 3, and all the writers.
Nevertheless, on analogy with the decision, n. 4031, quoted above, it is
more fitting not to say a Requiem Mass when the intention is for the living.
54.—Orationes Pro Defunctis
Wbat is the meaning to be given to “congregatio” in the second prayer oj the
“Missa Quotidiana” ? May the prayer “pro parentibus” be used if they were non
Catholics ?
(i) The prayer Deus veniae largitor was originally found in monastic
missals dating at least from the eleventh century, and referred in its original
context to a Benedictine family or community. “Congregatio” has this
meaning in the Rule of St. Benedict, as at the end of cap. iv, and in the title
to cap. Ixiii, “De ordine congregationis”. Etymologically it can mean any
assembly or group, a flock gathered together. The prayer has been in
the Roman Missal since the fifteenth century, and persons reciting it may
now give any meaning they choose to the word “congregatio”, e.g. the
people present, the parishioners, the members of a college. This is the
explanation given by a writer in Ephemerides Eiturgicae, 1928, p. 47.
(ii) From canon 2262, §2, one may deduce that Mass may be offered
“privatim ac remoto scandalo” for non-Catholics. It would therefore
seem evident that a prayer for them within the Mass is certainly permitted
with the same reservations.
β *ζ
Y
K
55.—Communion before Requiem
Holy Communion is distributed before a Requiem Mass, should the bless
ing be given at the end ?
Rituale Romanum, Tit. iv, cap. ii, n. 13: . . . omissis tamen semper
alleluia et benedictione in fine, si paramenta nigri coloris adhibeantur.
5.R.C., 26 November, 1878, η. 3465, directed that the appropriate versicle
and prayer arc to be said, in these circumstances, during Paschal time, but
the Alleluia omitted as the rubric of the Ritual determines.
If distributed whilst not vested for Mass on AH Souls' Day, wbat colour should
the stole be ?
S.R.C., 19 April, 1912, n. 4289: Utendum colore violaceo, aut albo.
Of the two Rituale Romanum, Tit. iv, cap. ii, n. i seems to prefer the first:
QQ. 56, 57
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
78
“stola coloris semper albi vel Officio diei convenientis (mutato tamen
colore nigro in violaceum die Commemorationis Omnium Fidelium De
functorum)”.
56.—The Benedictus Chant
In sung Requiemsit is the cssstom in many places to sing the “Benedictus” immedately after the “Sanctus”, so that the whole chant is finished before the elevation, and
the period between the elevation and the “Pater Noster” is left free for a motet. Is
this correct ?
This was certainly the custom in the past, and it appeared to receive
some approval from a rubric in the 1907 edition of the Vatican Gradual,
n. 7 : “Finita Praefatione Chorus prosequitur Sanctus, etc. Dum autem eleva
tur Sacramentum, silet Chorus et cum aliis adorat”. The Congregation of
Rites, however, 14 January, 1921, n. 4564, directed this rubric to be changed
and to be printed as follows in future: “Finita Praefatione Chorus prose
quitur Sanctus, etc., usque ad Benedictus qui venit, etc., exclusive: quo finito,
et non prius, elevatur Sacramentum. Tunc silet Chorus et cum aliis adorat.
Elevato Sacramento, Chorus prosequitur cantum Benedictus.” The decree
proceeds: “Haec autem Rubrica inviolabiliter observetur, quibuslibet con
trariis non obstantibus, in omni Missa cantata tum vivorum, tum defunct
orum, sive cantus gregorianus, sive cantus alterius cuiusvis generis adhi
beatur.”
57.—Funeral Pall
Is it necessary for the coffin, during a funeral Mass, to be covered with a pall?
If so, are there any directions concerning the colour?
The pall is customary, and where the custom exists it should be fol
lowed, according to the teaching of the writers on the subject. But there is
no explicit direction, so far as we are aware, making the use of a pall obli
gatory in places where it is not customary.
If it is used, the colour for adults must be black. There are several
decrees of the Congregation of Rites forbidding the use of a white pall, as
a sign of virginity, in the case of unmarried girls. The most recent decree
insisting on black is dated 4 August, 1905, n. 4165.5: “Colorem panni
emortualis esse debere nigrum, ornamenta autem sobria esse oportere.”
The sober ornamentation may be purple or gold or, what is most effective
and suitable, a deep yellow, the colour of unbleached wax. The orna
mentation usually takes the form of a large cross stretching across the
whole length and width of the pall. It is fairly clear, therefore, that the
pall of violet colour, sometimes provided by non-Catholic undertakers, is
wrong. Only in the case of children who have died before coming to the
use of reason should the pall be of white. Some sanction the use of the
national flag, instead of a pall, for soldiers and sailors, and this custom mav
be followed.
9
VARIOUS RUBRICS
q.
58
§4. VARIOUS RUBRICS
58.—Asperges: Method of Sprinkling
What is the correct procedure for this rite: to sprinkle the people from the altar
rail, or by passing along the aisles ? In the latter case, on which side should the cele
brant begin ?
Rituale Romanum, Appendix I, gives no specific directions on the point
raised: interim celebrans aspergit clerum, deinde populum.
Cacrem, Epp., II, xxxi, 3: . . . deinde Canonicos, Bénéficiâtes, et
clericos ex utraque parte chori, omnesque alios in choro permanentes, et
populum asperget.
J\R.C., 27 September, 1698, n. 2013.4: . . . populum demum a sacerdote
ter, scilicet in medio, a dextris et a sinistris aspergendum.
7 December, 1844, n. 2867.1: An celebrans diebus Dominicis
chorum aditurus ad aspergendum clerum aqua lustrali, accedere debeat
per latus Epistolae atque circulum perficiens post aspersionem redire debeat
ad altare per latus Evangelii, vel potius ire ac redire debet per latus Evangelii? Rfj·/). Affirmative ad primam partem; Negative ad secundam.
22 March, 1862, n. 3114: An tolerari possit mos in multis ecclesiis
existens, quo sacerdos ante Missam Convcntualcm graditur per ecclesiam,
incipiens a part Epistolae et rediens per partem Evangelii, interim aspergens
populum cum aqua benedicta ? An potius aspersio aquae benedictae
facienda omnino sit per sacerdotem stantem in aditu sanctuarii, et inde ter
populum in medio, a dextris et a sinistris aspergentem ? Resp. In casu
servandam consuetudinem.
12 September, 1884, n.3621.4: Diebus Dominicis aspersio aquae
benedictae super populum fierine debet a Celebrante extra chorum gradiente
usque ad ianuam ecclesiae; vel a choro conversus ad populum debet asper
gere populum, iuxta praescripta tum in Cacremoniali Episcoporum, tum in
Decretis ? Resp. In Dominicis apersio populi cum aqua benedicta facienda
est a sacerdote ad cancellos presbyterii; juxta Decreta alias edita.
These are the only official directions, of which we are aware, explana
tory of the method of blessing the people, though there are others dealing
with the choir, precedence, genuflexions, etc. It will be seen that the
normal rule docs not provide for walking round the church in order to bless
the people—they arc blessed from the altar rails; but the custom, where it
exists, should be retained: inasmuch as n. 3114 permitting this use still
remains in the authentic collection, it cannot be said that it is revoked by
n. 3621. Whether it is or not, the commentators we have been able to
consult tolerate cither method.
If the method of sprinkling from the altar rails is maintained, there is
some little uncertainty as to which side shall be sprinkled first. Does “a
dextris” in this text mean to the right of the celebrant, which would
be the gospel side, or to the right of the people, which would be the epistle
side? l’Ami du Clergé, 1928, p. 527, and some others prefer the gospel
side first; Fr. O’Connell interprets it to mean the epistle side first1; others,
1 CtkbraSion of Mass. Ill, p. 9.
q.
59>
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
80
more prudently, simply translate the rubric “to the middle, to the right and
to the left”. Either method may be followed.
We arc of the opinion that, in passing down the church, the aspersion
should be first on the cpisde side, as is clearly indicated in n. 3114. The
instruction in n. 2867 is a bit puzzling, since the alternative, which is for
bidden, consists in going and returning on the gospel side. The explana
tion, no doubt, is that the ministers being on the gospel side, in order to
sprinkle the presiding prelate, were accustomed to pass up and down the
choir on that side only. Whilst admitting the explanation that the cele
brant sprinkles towards his left because the clerk is on his right with the
holy water, we think that there is, perhaps, a more natural explanation still.
It is a natural movement to sprinkle in this way (at least for the normal
right-handed person). An effort to sprinkle on the right is rather ungainly
and difficult unless it is done, as it were, with a back-handed movement,
which would appear to be unseemly.
Fr. O’Connell recommends that, if the priest goes down the middle
aisle and returns the same way, he ought to sprinkle the people on each side
alternately on the way down, and return with joined hands, since it is un
becoming to sprinkle people on the back unseen by them. In a large
church, however, when the celebrant passes around it, through the side
aisles, beginning on the epistle side and returning on the gospel side, this
unbecoming action cannot be avoided.
59.—Asperges in Convent Chapels
On appointment as chaplain to a convent school, I found that the community
were accustomed to sing the Asperges before a low Mass on Sunday. Am 1 right
in holding that this is incorrect: first, because it is not in a parish church: and, secondly,
because it is not followed by a sung Mass ?
S.R.C., 15 December, 1899, n. 4051.1: Utrum in Ecclesiis Collegialibus
aspersio aquae benedictae de praecepto sit praemittenda Missae Conven
tual! quae canitur in Dominicis, sive cum Diacono et Subdiacono, sive absque
sacris Ministris ? Et utrum in Ecclesiis non Collegialibus eadem aspersio
praefatis diebus fieri saltem possit ? Resp. Affirmative ad utramque partem.
By the common law of the Church the Asperges is obligatory on Sunday
before the conventual Mass in cathedral and collegiate churches. Else
where it is not obligatory except by a particular law, e.g. in England the
bishops require it in all parish churches.
Though not obligatory it is always permissible in other churches before
the principal Mass. TheJ.R.C. states that it is permitted “in Ecclesiis noncollegialibus”, without any restriction, and the writers on the subject
deduce that the phrase includes oratories. In fact, the Ritual regards it
as the normal practice before the Sunday Mass; and De Herdt says: “in
dominicis pertinet ad missae principalis caeremonias”.1
It is therefore irrelevant whether the chief Mass is sung or not. The
Memoriale Rituum, for example, directs it on Palm Sunday and 2 February,
which may fall on a Sunday, it being taken for granted that the Mass fol
lowing is a low Mass.
1 Sarrae Ufurgiae Praxis, III, §132..
VARIOUS RUBRICS
60.—Asperges Before Requiem
What is the correct procedure for the Asperges, when by special permission the
principal Mass is a Requiem ?
S.R.C., 31 August, 1872, n. 3268. 1 and 2: Aspersionem . . . fieri
debere, iuxta rubricas Missalis et praescriptum a Rituali Romano, omnino
post Tertiam ante Missam Convcntualcm ; ideoque tolerari non posse con
suetudinem eam transferendi post Nonam ante Missam votivam SSmi
Sacramenti ... si legitima adsit consuetudo canendi Missam Dominicae
vel Festi post Nonam . . . tunc aspersio fieri debet post Nonam ante
Missam.
Rs/br. Missalis and Rituale Romanum, De Benedictionibus, I: Sacerdos
celebraturus, indutus pluviali coloris Officio convenientis, accedit ad
altare. . . .
(i) Though not obligatory in parish churches from the common law,
in England the bishops require the Asperges in these churches, “prout in
Missali praescribitur”.
From innumerable decrees of the Congregation of Rites, explained by
the writers,1 the Asperges must in principle be given before the chief Mass
on Sundays, by the celebrant of the Mass, vested in stole and cope corre
sponding with the colour of the office.
(ii) In conventual and cathedral churches there will be no difficulty on
the occasions when a Requiem is ordered on a Sunday: following the rule
of n. 3268, the Asperges will take place before the Mass of the Sunday,
even though a greater concourse of people will, perhaps, be present at the
votive Requiem.
In parish churches where more than one Mass is celebrated, one may
hold the view that the principal Mass is the Mass applied by the parish
priest pro populo—the parochial Mass in one of the senses of this
term. The Asperges will then precede this Mass, which, on analogy with
n. 3268, should more correctly be the Mass of the Sunday. Or one may,
alternatively, hold the view that the parochial Mass, the principal Mass, on
this Sunday at least, is the special votive Requiem.
In churches where there is only one Mass and a votive Requiem legiti
mately takes the place of the Mass of the Sunday, there can happily be no
dispute about it being the principal Mass. We know of no reason why the
Asperges should not precede it, except the anomaly of praying for the
living, apart from prayers in the Ordo Missae, vested in black. Anomalies
of this kind must be expected, inasmuch as a Sunday votive Requiem is
an anomaly. The only reference we can find to the difficulty is in I’Ami
du Clergé, 1912, p. 208, which recommends violet vestments for the Asperges
when it precedes a Requiem.
Failing any directions from the Ordinary, there remains a third alterna
tive which is often advised in all cases of perplexity arising from conflict
between two laws: the Asperges may be omitted altogether, on a principle of
epikeia.
1 E.g. O’Connell, Celebration of Mats, ΠΙ, p. 5; Ephemerides Uhtrpcat, 1925, p. 276.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
If the titular is omitted for various reasons, should the name of St. George be
recited in its place in the Missal prayer, “A cunctis” ?
The induit by which the name of St. George was mentioned in the
prayer A cunctis, in place of the titular as directed by the rubrics, may be
seen in Appendix X to the IVth Westminster (Diocesan) Synod. It is
dated 24 May, 1863, and was conceded in order to remove doubts concern
ing a previous decree of 1749, and because there were very few conse
crated churches in England with a titular. The rescript directed that the
name of St. George alone was to be mentioned, except in the case of regulars
who could add the name of their founder, and the induit was to continue
“donec S. Sedes declaraverit propter mutata Angliae adiuncta decreta
ordinaria esse observanda”. The Holy See has since decided, in a rescript
of i December, 1938, that the time has come for observing the common
liturgical law, and the name of the titular is restored.1
The former use had at least the advantage of great simplicity. The use
of the titular’s name offers no difficulty in the majority of cases, but doubts
will occasionally arise as to the correct observance of the lengthy rubric
found at the prayer in Orationes Diversae, n. z, of the Roman Missal. The
following notes are restricted to this rubric of the Missal, since in the equiva
lent prayer of the Breviary the rule is not precisely the same.
(i) From canon 1168, §1, every church which is consecrated or blessed
must have a titular, and the divine offices may not be celebrated therein
until the building is at least blessed. The blessing is that contained in the
Rituale Romanum, Tit. viii, cap. xxvii, and the rite presupposes that the church
has a titular. Public oratories are subject to the same law as churches from
canon 1191, §1. Domestic or private oratories may not be consecrated or
blessed in the manner of churches. Semi-public oratories may be blessed
with the rite in the Ritual, and it is fitting that the more permanent ones
should be, but this solemn blessing is not of strict obligation : the Benedictio
Loci may be used, as implied in canon 1196, §2, and as the writers commonly
teach.2 The distinction between these various classes of oratory is clearly
noted in canon ri88.
Accordingly, in the case of private or domestic oratories, and of semi
public oratories which have merely received the Benedictio Loci, and not the
constitutive solemn blessing of the Ritual, the question of the titular to be
mentioned in the A cunctis does not arise, since they have none.
(ii) In churches or oratories which have a titular, the rule requiring a
mention of the name is subject to the following exceptions :
(d) It is omitted if the titular is a Divine Person or a Mystery connected
with Our Lord, c.g. the Holy Ghost, the Sacred Heart, the Transfiguration.
The reason for this is that the word “intercedente” which precedes the
various names in the prayer is not applicable in these instances.
(Z>) It is omitted likewise if the Mass happens to be of the titular or
containing a commemoration of the same, the reason being that the same
1 Tbt Cltrgy
XVH, 1939, p. 77.
’ Coronata, Institutions, Π, §767, c. Cf. Q. 356.
VARIOUS RUBRICS
8}
Q. 62
saint or angel should not be invoked twice. It is on this principle that
we arc given an alternative formula of A cunctis when there is a Mass or
commemoration of Our Lady.
(<·) For the same reason it is omitted if the name is already mentioned in
the A cunctis prayer. Thus it is always omitted in churches dedicated to
Our Lady.
(iii) In certain cases a question of precedence in naming the titular arises,
which the rubric provides for on the basis of the relative position of the
names in the Litany of the Saints. We are directed, accordingly, to name
angels and St. John the Baptist immediately before St. Joseph. The prayer
would then read: “... Dei Genetrice Maria, cum beato loanne Baptista, beato
loseph, atque beatis Apostolis tuis Petro et Paulo et omnibus sanctis . . .”
(iv) In all cases in which, according to the above rules, the name of the
titular is omitted, we are of the opinion that the name of some other saint,
e.g. the patron of the country or town, should not be put in its place, unless
the practice is justified by a lawful custom. Confusion has arisen from the
practice of using the word “patron” as a synonym for “titular”, as may be
seen in certain replies of 5.R.C.; the two are now quite distinct, as in canon
1168, dealing with the titular, and canon 1278, dealing with the patron. Also
certain replies, as the one for Prague, n. 4055.3, direct that the patron’s
name be included, but it is not obligatory; others, as that for Bruges, n.
2814.1, direct that the local patron must be named in oratories which have
no titular; others, as n. 4193.9, permit the naming of the local patron, if the
titular is not named, provided there is a custom of so doing. This n. 4193.9
is the latest direction, dated 23 November, 1906, and it applies the rule of
n. 4043.8 in a decree regulating the A cunctis in the Office, which states:
“Praeter commemorationem de titulo seu Patrono Ecclesiae (et regulares
etiam de proprio Fundatore) nulla de Patrono loci, vel Dioeceseos, Provinciae
aut regni, vi Rubricae facienda est, nisi contraria vigeat conscutudo.”
(v) From5.R.C., nn. 3417.3 and 405 5.3, a church may have more than one
titular, and they each enjoy the privileges accorded by the rubrics, including
a mention in the prayer A cunctis, unless they are to be omitted according
to the rules already outlined. Thus, if the titular is “Sacred Hearts of Jesus
and Mary”, neitheris mentioned; if it is “SS. John Fisher and Thomas More”,
both are mentioned; if it is “Our Lady and St. Edward”, the latter alone is
mentioned.
62.—“A Cunctis”: Founder’s Name
In reciting this prayer regulars are accustomed to add the name of their religions
founder to that of the name of the saint reauired by the rubrics', occasionally they
substitute the founder’s name in place of the latter. Putting aside all cases in which
a special induit has been obtained, what is the correct liturgical practice in this matter ?
S.R.C., 2 December, 1891, n. 3758: Regulares (in Missa) in oratione A
cunctis posse ad litteram “N” nominare proprium S. Fundatorem, dummodo
Titularis (si nominari queat) non omittant; servato tamen ordine dignitatis
•
· · ·
·
in rubricis praescripto.
14 May, 1926.2: An qui pertinent ad praefatas Congregationes
seu Instituta, orationi A cunctis addere valeant nomen Patroni praecipui
U'AX'V'I)
j
— y - ,
/ Z
Ο
\
Z
q.
63
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
84
propriae Religionis, in ecclesia ubi Missam celebrant, post recitatum nomen
sancti Titularis eiusdem ecclesiae ? Resp. Negative sine speciali Induito
Apostolico.
(i) There would appear to be, at first sight, a contradiction between the
reply of 14 May, 1926,1 and the earlier reply n. 3758. Actually there is no
conflict between the two, since the later one refers to the religious “patron”
and the earlier one to the religious “founder”. The question answered
14 May, 1926, was sent from India by the superiors of the Missionaries of
St. Francis de Sales, and there could be no question of their founder, since
he was not canonized; the religious desired to apply to St. Francis de Sales
the rubrics referring to religious founders, a request which was not granted.2
Very likely this reply is responsible for raising doubts about the propriety of
regulars adding the name of their founder. There is clearly no room for
doubt, as regards the general principle; regulars are entitled to add their
founder’s name: in the Office from n. 4043 and in the Mass from n. 3758.
(ii) Some doubts may arise in applying this principle. It may be queried,
for example, whether the founder’s name should be mentioned by regulars
officiating at Mass or Office in churches other than their own. Since the
decrees make no distinction or reservation, and the privilege is a personal
one, we are of the opinion that the practice of naming the founder may be
followed everywhere.3
We can see no justification whatever for omitting the titular and replacing
it by the founder, nor can we sec any reason justifying this practice in the
Office but not in the Mass. From the wording of n. 3758 one may deduce
that the inclusion of the founder’s name is permissive, not obligatory. For
the rest, the whole question is not materia gravis, and n. 4043.8 allows for
a customary interpretation of the law.
63.—Alternative to “A Cunctis”
Seeing that the "A cunctis
**
(Orationes Diveversae, n. 2) has the same title as
“Concede, quaesumus*
*' (as Q. 61, n. 1), namely “Adposcenda suffragia Sanctorum'
*
,
may the latter be substituted whenever “A cunctis
*'
is ordered by the rubrics ?
The Concede, quaesumus may be chosen for the prayer ad libitum, which
is occasionally directed by the rubrics. But when the rubric expressly
directs A cunctis to be recited, one has to use this prayer, and the alternative
is not permitted, in our opinion.
An exception to this rule is still permitted by some writers, e.g. Aertnys,
Compendium Uturgiae Sacrae, §89.6, relying upon 5.R.C., 15 May, 1819, n.
2597.3, which directed that, in a votive Mass of the titular of the Church,
the name of the saint was to be omitted from the A cunctis or, alternatively,
the prayer Concede, quaesumus was to be used instead. But, since it is clear
from the rubrics of the modern missal that in certain votive Masses of saints
the third prayer A cunctis is to be said with the saint’s name omitted, as in
the votive Mass of St. Joseph, other writers, as l'Ami du Clergé, 1929, p. 270,
think that 5.R.C., n. 2597, is no longer operative.
1 It is not in Décréta Authentica but in A.AS., XVIII, 1926, p. jio.
* Cf. I’Ami du Cltrgi, 1926, p. 5 JI.
1 Perioeùca, 1912, p. 16.
VARIOUS RUBRICS
64.—‘Oratio Imperata” Ceasing
Some hold the view that “oratio imperata pro re gravi" cannot of its nature last
indefinitely ; otherwise it could scarcely he styled ‘ 'pro re gravi ”. If this view is correct,
may priests cease reciting the prayer after it has been said for a month or so ?
S.R..C., n. 2613.2: An liceat clerico ... ab iis recitandis cessare pro
lubitu, antequam Ordinarius id iusserit ? Resp. Negative.
The recitation of this prayer, whether ordered pro re gravi or not, ceases
when the purpose for which it was enjoined ceases, e.g. if ordered during
time of war it ceases when peace is declared. Otherwise it must always be
said according to the rubrics in Addit, et Variat., VI, 4, as explained by the
rubricians. The period during which it is said may certainly continue
indefinitely, if the Ordinary so desires, and we know of no authority for
the view given above. Cf. l'Ami du Clergé, 1920, p. 63; O’Connell,
Celebration of Mass, I, pp. 185-188.
Does the obligation of reciting at Mass an “oratio imperata" cease with the
death of the bishop who ordered it ?
Canon 24: Praecepta, singulis data, eos quibus dantur, ubique urgent,
sed iudicialiter urgeri nequeunt et cessant resoluto iure praecipientis, nisi
per legitimum documentum aut coram duobus testibus imposita fuerint.
Canon 335, §2: Leges episcopales statim a promulgatione obligare inci
piunt, nisi aliud in ipsis caveatur; modus autem promulgationis ab ipsomet
Episcopo determinatur.
(i) The question is of some general interest, for an oratio imperata is
an example of an ordinance which is neither a law, since it is lacking stability,
nor merely an order placed upon an individual. It is a general precept,
the exact notion of which is nowhere dealt with in the Code; but the com
mentators tend to interpret its meaning as though it were a law in all respects
except permanence. Of these canonists the most satisfactory is Ondin:
“Praeceptum in casu particulari communitati datum . . . lex vocari
non potest, cum doctrina constans hoc nomen semper reservaverit
iussioni quae aliqua saltern gencralitatc gaudeat; sed, cum communitati
ipsi ac toti detur, quoad vim a lege non differt ac legi aequiparari
debet. Solum praeceptum singulare, quod nempe singulis datur, non
potest legi aequiparari. Igitur, dum praeceptum singulis datum, ad
normam canonis 24, generatim cessat resoluto iure praecipientis et vim
personalem semper habet, nisi aliud a praecipiente determinetur, prae
ceptum commune in casu particulari latum, non secus ac lex, vim non
amittit resoluto iure praecipientis. . . . Sane Codex aliter statuere potuisset;
sed cum nihil de hac quaestione decernat, ac solis praeceptis singularibus
vim personalem agnoscat, haec solutio . . . admittenda est.1
The oratio imperata will usually have all the constituents of law,
except permanence: imposed by one with power of jurisdiction in the
1 De Territoriali vel Personali Tegis Indole, p. 369. Cf. also Van Hove, De Legibus, §97;
Bestc, Introductio, p. 90; Maroto, Institutiones, I, §268.
Q. 65
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
86
external forum; ordered for the common good and not merely for the
private guidance of individuals; promulgated as an authoritative official
order in some printed journal or communication. Since, from canon 24,
even a personal precept, if given with some legal formality, continues after
the prelate’s death, still more so, it would seem, does a general precept,
unless the contrary is clear from its wording, e.g. “ad beneplacitum nos
trum”1.
Our own view, therefore, is that an order to recite an oratio imperata
continues to be of obligation until withdrawn by the Vicar Capitular.
(ii) Before the Code there were many who held that not only episcopal
general precepts, but even episcopal laws ceased to be of obligation on the
bishop’s death, unless promulgated in a diocesan synod.2 From the terms
of canon 335, §2, this view about episcopal laws is obsolete.
Since the publication of the Code, inasmuch as its legislation about
general precepts is indeterminate, a few manualists will be found who,
without arguing the point very thoroughly, hold that they are of obligation
only during the life of the prelate.3
We have found only one writer who states, though unsupported by any
reasons, that the oratio imperata ceases to be obligatory after the death
of the prelate who has ordered it: l’Ami du Clergé, 1921, p. 400. Inasmuch
as the legal principles about general precepts are not clearly formulated,
one may perhaps follow this opinion, though personally we think it is
incorrect.
(iii) In actual practice, the obligation can easily be discovered and all
doubts removed by ascertaining the will of the Vicar Capitular. Some
suggest that, if a Vicar Capitular imposes a fresh oratio imperata, with
out any reference to the one ordered by the late bishop, it is to be assumed
that his intention is to replace the former one, which is thereby removed.
Applying the principles on laws, which are the only ones available at the
moment for general precepts, we cannot agree; canon 22: “lex posterior,
a competenti auctoritate lata, abrogat priori, si id expresse edicat, aut sit
illi directe contraria . .
Thus a prayer ordered “Ad postulandam sereni
tatem” necessarily removes the previous one “Ad petendam pluviam”
without expressly mentioning it. But two episcopal orationes imperatae
are permitted by the rubrics; the first one may be held, perhaps, to cease for
the reasons given in (ii): “resoluto iure praecipientis”; it will also cease, of
course, if the need which occasioned it ceases. Otherwise it remains of
obligation until authoritatively removed, as decided by 5.R.C., n. 2613.
■« I
65.—Homily on the Gospel
<
Is there any express law which requires the sermon at the chief Mass on Sunday
to be explanatory of the gospel of the day rather than an exposition of some other
portion of Christian doctrine ?
(i) Liturgically it is quite evident, from the fact that the sermon at
Mass follows immediately after the gospel, that the matter of the discourse
1 Cf. The Clergy Review, XXIII, 1943, p. 467.
* Cf. d’Annibalc, Tbeol. Moralis, I, §199.
• Cappello, Summa luris, I, §102; Chclodi, De Personis, §70.
VARIOUS RUBRICS
Q. 65
should be on those portions of Holy Scripture read during the Mass. It
was the custom of the early Church and has been preserved
preserve for centuries.1
C
■
.
.
.
.
(ii) Canon
1344, §1: “Diebus dominicis
ceterisquc
per annum festis de
praecepto proprium cuiusque parochi officium est, consueta homilia, praeprae
I
sertim intra Missam in qua maior soleat esse populi frequentia, verbum Dei
populo nuntiare.” The meaning of the words “consueta homilia” is
1usually taken to be an explanation of the gospel: “Homilia dicitur potissi
mum pastoralis adhortatio ex explanato textu evangclico deprompta. ”2
···
·
·
·
—
...
.
“Homilia vocatur praesertim concio in qua textus Evangelii explanatur et
ex illo exhortationes morales eruuntur.”3 Other canons of the Code, e.g.
canons 1332, 1333, deal with a parish priest’s obligation to impart a know
ledge of Christian doctrine in general. It is therefore implied that the
obligation of canon 1344, §i, concerns something more specified and deter
mined, and an indication of this may be seen in a letter sent by the Congrega
tion of the Council to the Ordinaries of Italy, 31 May, 1920, which invited
them, amongst other things, to say whether all parish priests of their dioceses
(o) explain the gospel to the people on Sundays and Holy Days of Obliga
tion, (Z>) explain Christian doctrine to adults on those same days.4
(iii) But this law is widely interpreted, both by the commentators and
by custom. The authors quoted above state that the discourse should be
chiefly or generally on the Gospel, but it is agreed that the law is observed
even though, on occasion, some other subject is taken. Liverpool Synod,
1934, n. 215, reflects this interpretation: “Potest quandoque consuetae
homiliae, non tamen habitualiter, concio de alia re idonea substitui.” For
tescue observes that it is permissible to preach also on the epistle,6 and
many are accustomed to take the collect or some other part of the Proper.
Fanfani gives the widest possible interpretation of “homily” in this canon:
“in forma homiletica: id est, per modum facilis commentarii ad sanctum
■ Evangelium, vel per modum instructionis et exhortationis super uno vel
alio capite doctrinae et moralis christianae”.6
Our conclusion is that the sermon of the parish priest at the chief Mass
on Sundays should normally and habitually be based on the gospel, but it
is a very clastic rule and it is permitted to depart from it, on occasion, and
speak of something which cannot be connected, even remotely, with the
lesson or words of the gospel. The objection to the rule is that the people
get to know very intimately certain portions of the gospel, and certain
lessons to be drawn from them, but remain uninformed about other points
of doctrine, since they do not come at those times when Christian doctrine
in general is explained to them. The objection is a valid one, but seeing
that there is a law—elastic though it is—which specifies the subject-matter
of the discourse at the chief Mass in parish churches, we think it should not
be habitually disregarded unless such a practice is countenanced by the
Ordinary.7
1 Cf. Fortescue, The Mass, p. 284.
1 Vcrmccrsch-Crcusen, Epitome, II, §679.
1 Clacys-Bouuacrt, Jus Canonicum, II, §140.
4 Zl.zl.J., XII, 1920, p. 299.
* Op. tit., p. 285, note 1.
4 De lure Parochorum, §220.
7 Cf. Jansen, Canonical Provisions for Catechetical Instruction, p. too.
QQ. 66,67
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
88
66.—Vernacular Scripture at Sunday Mass
Is there a strict obligation to read in English, on Sundays and Holy Days, the epistle
and gospel of the Mass ? May other scriptural extracts be substituted in order to
widen the people’s knowledge ?
Canon 1344, §1: Diebus dominicis ceterisque per annum festis de prae
cepto proprium cuiusque parochi officium est, consueta homilia, praesertim
intra Missam in qua maior solet esse populi frequentia, verbum Dei populo
nuntiare.
Canon 1345: Optandum ut in Missis quae, fidelibus adstantibus, diebus
festis de praecepto in omnibus ecclesiis vel oratoriis publicis celebrantur,
brevis Evangelii aut alicuius partis doctrinae Christianae explanatio fiat. . . .
(i) We cannot discover any certain written precept in the common law
ordering the epistle and gospel to be read at the public Masses on Sundays
and Holy Days. Canon 1345 recommends an explanation of the gospel at
all public Masses, and canon 1344, §1, declares it to be the duty of the parish
priest to give a homily at the chief Mass.
(ii) Local written law very frequently imposes a strict obligation of
reading the epistle and gospel at all Sunday Masses. Thus Lancaster Statuta,
1935, n. 184; Middlesbrough Decrees, 1933, n. 230; Liverpool Synod, 1934,
n. 220. Other texts, as Westminster Synod, 1915, p, 13, assume that this is
the practice everywhere, and direct that the portions may be read by another
priest whilst the celebrant is reciting them in Latin at the altar.
(iii) In those dioceses which have no local written law on the matter
it will usually be found that the practice has been customary from time
immemorial, and it must, therefore, in our view, be regarded as a legitimate
custom praeter legem. The law on custom is difficult to interpret, and for
that reason is made precise in many places by a written law. It is our
opinion that the parish priest may not, on his own authority, discontinue
the custom of reading the epistle and gospel in English at the Sunday Masses.
But he may, of course, in addition to these extracts, read other portions
of the Scriptures if he so desires. This is, in fact, recommended for cate
chetical instruction by I Westm., Dec. VIII, n. 3 : “copiosis et aptis sacrae
Scripturae locis”.
67.—Prayers with the Notices
T
«Jl
It is the practice of some priests, before they read the parish notices after the
&OiPe^ °f fbe Sunday Masses, to recite with the congregation prayers, a decade of the
Rosary, for instance, for the sick, and the “De profundis” for the dead. This seems
to be contrary to the ruling that no prayers must be said in the Mass except those
prescribed by the rubrics. Is this practice quite in order? Or can custom make it
tolerable ? Or can it be tolerated at all ?
It is dearly forbidden to add prayers to those prescribed by the rubrics
during the Mass itself, and the Holy See has more than once forbidden such
additions, even when imposed by the Ordinary, as in J.R.G, n. 182, which
forbids prayers for rain to be inserted after the Pater Noster, and in n. 1588.9
89
VARIOUS RUBRICS
q. 68
which declares the practice to be a scandalous abuse, “iis maxime qui amant
observantiam bonorum rituum”.
But the time between the gospel and Creed, used at public Masses for
preaching and for a variety of other things such as notices, banns of marriage,
and commemorations of the departed, cannot be regarded in quite the
same light. It is an interlude, the use of which is not strictly determined by
the rubrics. Nevertheless, everything even during this interlude should
be done, as St. Paul says, “decently and according to order”, since it is
connected with the sacrifice of the Mass.
Failing any written directions as to what may or may not be done,
we must rely, firstly, as our correspondent suggests, on what is customary.
We cannot find any author who discusses the point, but it appears to us
that the custom of reciting some vernacular prayers is not contra legem.
Custom permits at this time announcements of dances, whist-drives, and
other social events; financial appeals et hoc genus omne arc mingled with the
notices. Some may think that all this is decent and in order, because neces
sary for the support of religion, and others may think it undesirable. With
out taking sides in this dispute, we merely observe that these practices
exist, and, that being so, it would be extremely odd to maintain that a
vernacular prayer at this time is out of order. Moreover, a short prayer
commending the souls of the faithful departed to God is, we believe, a
universal custom when the names of the dead are announced; some preachers
often conclude with a prayer, and there is no reason why a prayer should not
form part of the sermon
We are therefore of the opinion that where the custom of reciting certain
prayers at this time exists it may be tolerated. But, if there is any doubt on
the point, it is open to the Ordinary to give a decision on the general prin
ciple of canon 1259, §1. Thus Liverpool Synod, 1954, n. 196, states: “Nullo
modo licet novas devotiones in ecclesias inconsultis Nobis inducere”;
Middlesbrough Decrees, 1935, n. 194: “On Sundays and holidays of obligation,
let short acts of faith, hope, charity and contrition be recited in English
before rhe principal Mass.”
68.—Collection by Mass Celebrant
Does there exist any certain law forbidding
celebrant to leave the altar during
Mass in order to take the collection for some special object, for example, on the occa
sion of the yearly collection for the education of candidates for the priesthood ?
The solution to this question is to be sought in an application of the rules
de interruptione Missae. Any interruption of the action of the Mass requires
a proportionately grave reason, e.g. giving out notices or banns of marriage.
After the consecration the gravest of reasons is required, for example, to
administer the last sacraments to a dying person, or a sudden illness on the
part of the priest.1
If a collection is made by the celebrant, it would presumably take place
after the gospel or sermon. We can find no text of the common law
expressly declaring that it is unlawful for the celebrant to do this. The
1 Cappello, De Sacramentis, <582$.6
q.
69
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
90
practice is obviously undesirable for all sorts of reasons, and some writers
unequivocally condemn it, e.g. Cardinal Gasparri: “Nos putamus esse re
probandam consuetudinem, qua celebrans, deposita post evangelium casula,
eleemosynam a fidelibus per ecclesiam sollicitat, nec episcopum posse id
praecipere.”1 On the other hand, lawful custom in many places justifies
the practice. Thus, Γ Ami du Clergé 1909, p. 640, and 1921, p. 416, assuming
the correctness of the practice, gives directions about the removal of
vestments.
It is clearly within the province of local law to make explicit what the
common law leaves an open question. The practice is condemned in the
severest terms by III Provincial Council of Baltimore, Tit. Lx, n. 293 : “Damnavit
perversam agendi rationem illorum sacerdotum, qui ipsa intra missarum
solemnia ab altari recedunt, aedemque sacram circumeunt, a singulis fidelibus
eleemosynam petentes. Tanta vero apparet quorumdam pertinacia ac
in observandis etiam strictissimis legibus socordia, ut qui constituti sumus
legum ecclesiasticarum custodes, alta voce decretum antecessorum nostorum
inculcare constringamur.”2 We have examined the collections of English
diocesan laws at our disposal and can find no express prohibition.
Our own view is that of Cardinal Gasparri, particularly as regards
collections which are personal to the priest, as the Easter offerings. But
there are, no doubt, many priests who see no objection to this practice, and
it is ultimately a matter for the conscience of each individual to decide,
except in places where such collections are forbidden by local law, taking
into account local customs, necessity and the avoidance of scandal.
Génicot sets out what is, we believe, the usual attitude of priests: “Con
suetudinem ecclesiae circumeundae post evangelium ad eleemosynas corro
gandas cum Gasparri (n. 847) aliisque reprobandam ducimus. Interrum
pitur enim Missa ob causam quam Ecclesiae consuetudo non recipit, immo
vix recipere posset, cum turpis lucri speciem habeat celebrantem ab altari
discedere ut pecuniam corroget. Attamen si vera necessitas ad id cogeret,
quia vere constaret aliud medium non suppetere quo pecunia alendo
sacerdoti vel cultui exercendo necessaria congregaretur, ad tempus id
licitum censeremus.”3
69.—Celebrant with Defective Sight
A priest who, because of defective sight, says always, by a dispensation granted to
him, the votive Mass of Our Lady, is sometimes appointed to say at the high altar the
public Mass on Sundays as well as on other days. Some have questioned, with good
reason, the legality of such a priest being appointed to say a public Mass, since there
are at least two or three priests, in the large community to which he belongs, who could
say, without any great inconvenience, the Mass proper to the day. Is there a ruling
on the point ?
The rules which determine the rubrics to be observed in these cases
are formulated in an Instruction, 5.R.C., 12 January, 1921, n. 4363, but none
of them deals with the above question; nor is the point mentioned in the
1 Dr Eucharistia, §847.
’ Cf. Ecclesiastical Pinins, XXXVII, 1907, p. 523.
• Casus, n. 769.
VARIOUS RUBRICS
q. 69
91
faculty enjoyed by Apostolic Delegates and others as printed in Periodica
*
1923, p. 139.
But it seems to us, on general principles, quite certain that the public
Mass on Sundays should conform with the calendar, and that the afflicted
priest should not say a votive Mass when other priests arc easily available.
This opinion is supported by the explicit directions occurring in the text of
rescripts granted by the Congregation of Rites
*
e.g. “dummodo, si fuerint
parochi, per alium sacerdotem missam officio occurrenti respondentem
celebrare faciant, quoties pro populo applicare tenentur” j1 “dummodo . . .
celebret in oratorio privato, aut, si in ecclesia publica, hora a populo minus
frequentata”.2
It is mentioned more than once in the official documents that the
conditions attached to such induits bind in conscience.
Should a priest
*
who by induit recites daily a votive Mass of Our Lady, use
always white vestments in a public church
*
or those corresponding to the Office of the
day?
The Instruction of the Congregation of Rites “pro sacerdote caecutiente”,
12 January, 1921, n. 4363, modifies previous instructions, in some respects,
in order to make the votive Mass tally, as far as possible, with the Mass of
the day. Thus, whenever Gloria and Credo are to be said in the Mass of the
day according to the calendar of the church, they are to be said in this votive
Mass of Our Lady. One is free to argue that the same principle must apply,
with much more reason, to the colour of the vestments, particularly as it is
agreed that the use of the liturgical colour corresponding with the Mass
said does not bind sub gravi. It is a point which could properly be put to
the Sacred Congregation. Our own view is that the rule given by S.R.C.
*
2560.1, and 3146.2, which requires always white vestments for these Masses,
is still in force, and this is maintained by those who have commented on
the subject since 1921, e.g. Aertnys, Compendium Liturgiae *Sacrae §152.
A good solution satisfying everyone is to use cloth of gold vestments, if
they are obtainable, for white, red and green, as permitted from J.R.C.,
3646.2.
May a blind priest
*
who has obtained the usual induit for a votive Mass of Our
*
Lady
recite this Mass three times on Christmas Day ?
S.R.C. 26 January, 1920, n. 2356.1 : (i) An Sacerdos, qui ob debilitatem
*
visus aliamvc justam causam ex Induito Sedis Apostolicac celebrat aliquam
ex Missis votivis aut Missam quotidianam Defunctorum, possit in die
Commemorationis Omnium Fidelium Defunctorum ter Sacrum facere,
eamdem Defunctorum Missam quotidianam repetendo ?
(ii) An idem Sacerdos, qui pariter ex Apostolicac Sedis Induito Missam
Deiparae votivam aut aliam votivam celebrat, valeat in posterum die Nativi
tatis Domini eamdem prorsus Missam ter dicere ?
1 Dc Herdt, Sacrae Uturgiae Praxis. I, §68, iv.
1 Aertnys, Compendium Liturgiae Sacrae. §151.
Q. 7o
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
92
Et Sacra eadem Congregatio, audito specialis Commissionis suffragio,
omnibus perpensis, rescribendum censuit: Affirmative ad utramque quaes
tionem.
The question has the words “in posterum”, since, from previous decrees,
nn. 2802.3 and 3146, the practice now indulgently permitted was forbidden.
70.—First Friday Votive Mass
Under what conditions may one have a votive Mass of the Sacred Heart on the
first Friday of the month ?
.
’
.1
S.R.C., 28 June, 1889, n. 5712 : In iis vero Ecclesiis et Oratoriis, ubi Feria
VI, quae prima unoquoque in mense occurrit, peculiaria exercitia pietatis in
honorem divini Cordis, approbante loci Ordinario, mane peragentur:
Beatissimus Pater induisit, ut hisce exercitiis addi valeat Missa votiva de
Sacro Corde lesu; dummodo in illam diem non incidat aliquod festum
Domini, aut duplex primae classis, vel Feria, Vigilia, Octava ex privilegiatis;
de cetero servatis rubricis.
This votive Mass, like other popular devotions introduced during the
pontificate of Leo XIII, is suigeneris, though resembling in many respects the
solemn votive Mass “pro re gravi et simul publica causa” which is regulated
in Addit, et Variat., II, 3.
(i) Since the decree makes no distinction, the Mass—which may be
even a low Mass—may be celebrated in any church or oratory, public,
semi-public or private, but only one votive Mass is allowed, unless the
rubrics happen on that day to permit votive Masses in general, in which
case the additional votive Masses must follow the ordinary rules of such.
The Mass is Cogitationes as found in all Missals since 1929 on the Friday
following the Octave of Corpus Christi; the Gloria and Credo are said, and
of course the proper preface.
(ii) The idea underlying this privilege is that the votive Mass is part of
the devotions which are taking place in the morning in honour of the Sacred
Heart. In this respect it somewhat resembles the Leonine October devo
tions, concerning which the decrees sometimes refer to Mass being cele
brated during the recitation of the Rosary. It is, therefore, a sina qua non
that special devotions to the Sacred Heart shall take place either immediately
before or immediately after the Mass. The exact nature and extent of these
devotions are not defined, but the point offers no particular difficulty, since
the Ordinary’s previous approbation is required: usually the Litany and
some Acts of Reparation would be considered the minimum; the appro
bation is given in some dioceses for all churches and chapels, in others at
the request of individuals.
(iii) It will be found, generally speaking, that it is the exception for this
votive Mass to be forbidden by the rubrics: like all matters of this kind,
it is governed by a mass of detailed rules. Many diocesan calendars indi
cate when any modifications occur owing to the exceptions formulated in
the above decree, or one could obtain the universal calendar and adapt it
to the local one. Failing this, it will be necessary to consult some modern
expert on the subject, such as O’Connell, Celebration of Mass, I, pp.
ioi-ioj, or Croegaert, De Rubricis Missalis, pp. 148-152.
93
MISSA PRO POPULO
§5.
Q· 71
MISSA PRO POPULO
71.—Missa Pro Populo: Justice
Is it permissible, under any circumstances, for one bound to the “Missa pro Populo'"
to take an honorarium from the parochialfunds ?
Canon 359, §1 (cf. can. 466, §1): Debent quoque . . . omni exiguitatis
redituum excusatione aut alia quavis exceptione remota, omnibus dominicis
aliisque festis diebus de praecepto, etiam suppressis, Missam pro populo
sibi commisso applicare.
Benedict XIV, Cum semper oblatas, 19 August, 1744; Fontes, n. 545, §2:
Et quamvis minime defuerint, qui per inanes, et frivolas interpretationes
huiusmodi obligationem a Sancta Synodo (Tridentina) memoratam de medio
tollere, vel saltem extenuare contenderint; quum tamen relata Concilii verba
satis clara et perspicua sint, quumque praedicta Congregatio eiusdem Con
cilii interpretationi privative praeposita, constanter edixerit, eos quibus ani
marum cura demandata est, non modo Sacrificium Missae celebrare, sed illius
etiam fructum medium pro Populo sibi commisso applicare debere, nec
illud pro aliis applicare, aut pro huisusmodi applicatione eleemosynam
percipere posse. . . .
(i) This grave obligation, which die Council of Trent, Sess. ΧΧΠΙ, cap. i,
De Ref., traces to a divine precept, is clearly determined by the Church, and
is also held to arise from a quasi-contract between parish priest and people;
the application of these Masses is due to the people in justice, on the sup
position that the parish priest is receiving from his benefice that measure of
support to which he is legally entitled. Since it is an obligation of justice,
he clearly may not take a stipend for the Missa pro Populo from the parish
funds or from any other source whatever; similarly, because it is an obliga
tion of justice, the law of canon 824, §2, forbids him to accept a stipend for a
second Mass except only on Christmas Day. Papal induits may be obtained
which modify the law in certain directions, but the principle remains intact:
accepting a stipend for the Missa pro Poptdo is forbidden for the same reasons
as accepting two stipends for one Mass; canon 825.2: “Nunquam licet
eleemosynam recipere pro Missa quae alio titulo debetur et applicatur”.
(ii) The law is not, perhaps, so clearly perceived in this country, because
the constitution of a parochial benefice is, to some extent, in dispute.
Let us suppose, without in any way attempting to define what constitutes a
benefice in England, that a parish priest has settled the question according to
his conscience, and is receiving everything to which he is entitled as the
fruits of his benefice. It is then completely certain that he is forbidden to
take anything further from the parochial funds ratione Missae pro Populo.
(iii) But what happens sometimes, in our experience, is this: the parish
priest is receiving less than his due—he is, for example, either taking no
salary at all or considerably less than local law or custom sanctions. Instead,
he takes from the parochial funds a sum for the Missae pro Populo equivalent
to what he would have received if he had accepted manual stipends on those
days. There is clearly no substantial illegality in this procedure, no violation
q.
72
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
94
of the law, no injustice of any kind. At the most it is a slight irregu
larity of a purely academic character. Instead of debiting in his parish
account books a sum ratione Missae pro Populo, he should debit this same
sum as salary’ taken by him. Everything is then correct, and inasmuch
as the account books are open to inspection at the periodical visitation, this
latter method should always be followed, in order to avoid any misunder
standing on the part of the visiting prelate.
(iv) In some dioceses the number of Masses to be said has been reduced by
papal induit. It is the custom, nevertheless, with the Ordinary’s sanction,
for those parish priests who desire to say the full number (as prescribed by
the common law) to supplement their salary from the parish funds. In such
cases the principle explained in (i) and (ii) is not assailed. For, if a parish
priest enjoys an induit permitting him to satisfy his obligation in this respect
by saying, let us suppose, twenty Masses annually for the people instead
of the full number required by the common law, it follows that he is not
bound on a title of justice to say Mass for them on those days on which
the obligation has been extinguished. He is, therefore, free to accept a
stipend on those days. As the administrator of the parochial funds, and
with the Ordinary’s sanction, he takes the appropriate stipend from the
funds which he controls.
Or, if desired, the matter may be regarded from another point of view:
the constitution of an English benefice being, at the moment, radier vaguely
determined, it is for the Ordinary to fix it in terms of a salary due to the
parish priest from the parochial funds which he administers. The additional
sum taken in the above circumstances is then to be regarded as legitimate
beneficial fruits, namely, a certain number of Mass stipends due to the
beneficiary’ and to be applied for the people, though not technically Missae
pro Populo.
72.—Missa Pro Populo: Indult
Why is it that the number of days on which parish priests are bound to a “Missa
pro Populo” varies in different parts of England?
The common law of the Church, as contained in canons 466 and 539,
obliges parish priests to offer Mass for the people on all Sundays of the year,
on the Holy Days of obligation enumerated in canon 1247, and on the sup
pressed Holy Days of obligation, which were accurately determined by the
Congregation of the Council, 28 December, 1919.1 Release from this obliga
tion, either wholly or in part, may be obtained by individual priests on the
score of poverty; a personal indult from the Holy See is needed. More
commonly, the Ordinary obtains the faculty to reduce the number for all
parish priests within his jurisdiction, or for those who are in special need of
this favour. Thus, in 1919 priests of Westminster were informed that they
could obtain a reduction by presenting a detailed financial statement onerata
conscientia to the Ordinary; the faculty was not widely used and, we believe,
has now ceased altogether. In Middlesbrough all were dispensed from the
obligation on Sundays and feasts, except on the eleven feasts mentioned in
canon 306? In 1924 the rule in Nottingham was that each priest in charge
1 Cf. The Clergy Rerim·, V, 1953, p. 238.
* Synodal Decreet, 1933, n. 44.
95
MISSA PRO POPULO
QQ· 73» 74
of a parish was to say one Mass each week, on any suitable day, to be an
nounced on the previous Sunday.1 l ienee the number is bound to differ
in each diocese according to the faculties obtained by each Ordinary, or
the measure in which he sees fit to use them.
73.—Missa Pro Populo: Care of Souls
Does the obligatio» of saying the “Missa pro Populo” bind a chaplain to a private
family, whose priestly ministration extends not only to the staff of the house, and
Catholic residents on the estate, but includes the service of a district with its own church,
and with its own boundaries distinct from those of the local parishes ? The chaplain
is quite independent of the jurisdiction of any neighbouring priest.
On the question of law the answer is simple. The obligation binds
every priest who, by reason of his office, actually exercises the chief spiritual
care of souls within a territory erected as a parish. This includes not only
parish priests (parochi), whether removable or irremovable, but also priests
in charge of a parish pending the appointment of a parochus (vicarii oeconomi,
can. 475, §i), those in charge of a parish belonging to a moral person, such
as a religious order (vicarii paroeciales, can. 471, §1), and those who are
taking charge of a parish, together with the obligation of the Missa pro
Populo, by arrangement, during the absence of the parochus (vicarii sub
stituti, cann. 466, §5, and 474). Priests with care of souls within a parochial
unit, and who do not belong to one of the categories mentioned, are not
bound by this obligation, e.g., the assistant priests attached to a parish
(vicarii cooperatores) ; chaplains of convents, hospitals and prisons; superiors
of colleges.
On a question of fact, it is certain that our correspondent is under no
obligation as a chaplain of a private family. Whether he is bound by reason
of his care of souls in the district, with its own church and boundaries, is a
question of fact which can easily be ascertained by communicating with the
diocesan curia. If the district has been erected into a parish there will
exist some documentary evidence.
It may happen that, for various reasons, the district has not been canonic
ally erected into a parish, although, for practical purposes of priestly
administration, some territory has been assigned to the priest, in much the
same way as a chapel of ease and its surrounding district may be admin
istered by a curate of the parent church. If the district served is not a parish,
it belongs canonically to some neighbouring parish, no matter how in
dependent the chaplain conceives himself to be from the control of the
neighbouring parish priests. Cf. S.C. Consist., 1 August, 1919, A.A.S.t'XI,
p. 346; Fanfani, De lure Parochorum, §361 seq.
74.—Missa Pro Populo: Army Chaplains
Are military chaplains under the obligation of saying the “Missa pro Populo” in
view of the fact that they are granted the faculties of parish priests in favour of
members of the Forces ?
‘ Dtcrrta tt Precepta, p. 17.
q.
♦
75
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
96
Canon 451, §2: Parochis aequiparantur cum omnibus iuribus et obliga
tionibus paroecialibus et parochorum nomine in iure veniunt:
1. Quasi-parochi, qui quasi-paroecias regunt, de quibus in canon
«6, §3;
2. Vicarii paroeciales, si plena potestate paroeciali sint praediti.
§3. Circa militum cappellanos sive maiores sive minores, standum pecu
liaribus Sanctae Sedis praescriptis.
Some reason for supposing that army chaplains arc bound to say the
Missa pro Populo may be deduced from their status, which is equivalent
to that of “personal” as distinct from “territorial” parish priests, and the
pagella of their faculties states that they are given “facultates omnes
paroeciales”. Thus Dr. Brys, in attempting a definition which will include
all who are bound by the obligation, writes in Collationes Brngenses, 1928,
p. 461: “Attamen non qualiscunque cura animarum sufficit ad iUam
obligationem inducendam, sed illi tantum obligantur qui principaliter et
immediate certum populum vi officii sui in spiritualibus regunt, seu omnes
qui actu verum officium paroeciale exercent.” Before the Code the point
was in some dispute, though most canonists, e.g. Many, De Missa (1903),
§90, held that army chaplains were not bound by this obligation. A
resolution S.C. Cone., 22 May, 1909, decided that the Spanish military
chaplains were not bound, a legal text which is the locas classicus on the
subject.
Our present law is contained in canon 451, §3, on which Cappello,
De Sacramentis, §642, writes: “Num vero parochis aequiparentur, an non,
peculiaria Sanctae Sedis praescripta sunt inspicienda, uti expresse habet cit.
can. Quare pro singulis statibus seu nationibus, circa militum cappellanos
sive maiores sive minores, standum est peculiaribus Sedis Apostolicac
praescriptis. In Italia iurisdictione vere paroeciali fruuntur, at nihilominus
Sacrum applicare non tenentur.”
We may say the same of our army chaplains as Cappello says of those
in Italy: they have parochial jurisdiction but are not bound to say the Missa
pro Populo because there is no reason to suppose, either from their faculties
or from any other known document, that the Holy See recognizes the exist
ence of such obligation. There is no doubt that the army chaplains fre
quently apply Masses for the souls entrusted to their care, but a strict obliga
tion to do so on Sundays and other days named in the law is a burden which
requires to be proved; it may not be presumed to exist solely because they
enjoy a parish priest’s jurisdiction.
75.—Missa
pro
Populo: Supply Priest
A parish priest is legitimately absent for the period of the war as an army
chaplain, bis place being taken, with the Ordinary’s express approval, by a sub
stitute. Is this latter priest bound to say the “ Missa pro Populo” ?
Canon 466, §1: Applicandae Missae pro populo obligatione tenetur
parochus ad normam can. 339, quasi-parochus ad normam can. 306.
Canon 466, §5: Legitime absens parochus potest Missam pro populo
applicare vel ipse per se in loco in quu degit, vel per sacerdotem qui eius
vices gerat in paroecia.
97
MISSA PRO POPULO
q.
76
Canon 474: Vicarius substitutus qui constituitur ad normam can. 465,
§§4, 5, et can. 192.3, §2, locum parochi tenet in omnibus quae ad curam
animarum spectant, nisi Ordinarius loci vel parochus aliquid exceperint.
(i) This obligation is one of the details which the law assumes will be
settled either by the Ordinary or by the parish priest who is legitimately
absent. For it is ultimately a question of the just remuneration due to the
vicarius substitutus for his services, since he will be the poorer by the
equivalent number of Mass offerings if he is bound to the Missa pro Populo.
It may well be, considering the nature of our parochial benefices in this
country, that the vicarius substituitis will have assigned for his support
whatever the parish priest was himself accustomed to receive; in this case
it would not be unreasonable for the absent parish priest to require his
substitute to undertake, without any special remuneration, the obligation
of saying these Masses. It is entirely a matter of arrangement between the
two priests concerned, and the Ordinary would be well within his right in
assuring himself that the obligation is being discharged by one or other of
these priests.
(ii) Supposing, however, that the matter has not been expressly deter
mined, it is the view of some canonists, based on the terms of canon 474,
that the presumption is for the obligation to rest on the vicarius substitutus-,
thus Claeys-Bouuaert in Jus Pontificium, 1927, p. 80. We do not agree
with this view. The presumption more correctly is that the absent parish
priest is bound by the obligation as long as he retains the right to return to
his parish, and this appears to be the commoner view amongst the writers.
Wernz-Vidal, Ius Canonicum, II, §742: “. . . parochus absens poterit sibi
reservare applicationem Missae pro populo, quae reservatio, attento canone
466, §5, supponenda est, nisi substituto expresse Missae applicationem com
miserit”. Fcrreres, Tbeol. Moralis, II, §466: “Non autem per se ad id tenen
tur vicarii substituti in absentia parochi aut pendente recursu contra senten
tiam privationis paroeciae, nisi ex conventione cum parocho aut ex disositionc Ordinarii aliud fuerit statutum.” Cf. also Fanfani, De lure
'arochorum, §382; Collationes Brugenses, 1923, p. 409; 1928, p. 461.
Ç
76.—Missa Pro Populo: Delegation
Are exceptionally grave reasons required before a parish priest may bave the
“Missa pro Populo” said by an assistant priest instead of by himself personally ?
Assuming that he unlawfully transfers the obligation in this way, is he bound to say
the Mass again personally?
Canon 339, §4: Episcopus Missam pro populo diebus supra indicatis per
se ipse applicare debet; si ab cius celebratione legitime impediatur, statis
diebus applicet per alium; si neque id praestare possit, quamprimum per se
vel per alium applicet alia die.
Canon 466, §1 : Applicandae Missae pro populo obligatione tenetur
parochus ad normam can. 559.
§4. Parochus Missam pro populo applicandam celebret in ecclesia paroeciali, nisi rerum adiunc:a Missam alibi celebrandam exigent aut suadeant.
§5. Legitime absens parochus potest Missam pro populo applicare vel ipse
per se in loco in quo degit, vel per sacerdotem qui eius vices gerat in paroecia.
D
I
q.
I
77
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
98
(i) The obligation is personal and local as well as real·, real because its
neglect involves a violation of justice; local since the people who have a
right to this Mass also have the right to be present when it is offered; per
sonal for reasons closely connected with the position of the parish priest, as
one having the care of souls and the office of mediating between them and
God. The real obligation is, indeed, fulfilled substantially if the Mass is said
by any priest, since its fruit is ex opere operato·, but its personal fulfilment, and to
a lesser degree its celebration before the people in the parish church, have a
fruit ex opere operantis which may not lawfully be disregarded except for
proportionately grave reasons. The Congregation of the Council has refused to
admit the reasonableness of custom contrary to the personal fulfilment of
the obligation.
(ii) Legitimate absence, for example during holidays, is mentioned in
canon 466 as justifying the transference of the personal obligation. Local
laws, as in IV Malines, n. 150, frequently determine more closely the meaning
of “legitime impediatur” in canon 339, §4, in so far as it affects the parochial
clergy; such reasons are the occurrence of an exequial Mass or some other
similar obligation which cannot be transferred to a free day. The writers
suggest other lawful reasons as, for example, the poverty of the priest who
would otherwise be deprived of a Mass offering.1 If the Ordinary’s sanction
is obtained for the transference of the obligation, the act is obviously lawful,
and this consent may often be presumed for individual cases when there
exists a reasonable cause. Bearing in mind, however, that the personal
obligation is a certain one, the Ordinary’s sanction must always be obtained
if the parish priest proposes habitually, and not merely on occasion, to have
this Mass said by an assistant priest.
(iii) Assuming that the obligation has unlawfully been transferred, it is
conceivable that a priest may be guilty of a grave violation of the law:
various opinions are possible, as Cappello notes in De Sacramentis, §656, and
the matter must be left to the individual conscience. One thing is quite
certain, namely that if the Mass has been said by some priest, and the real
obligation thereby discharged, the parish priest who has wrongly excused
himself from saying it personally is not bound to offer this Mass again.
Cf. Cappello, loc. cit. ad 3.
§6. MASS OFFERINGS
77.—Nature of the Mass Offering
The ordinary l ien', which appears to be accepted by most of the modern manuals,
regards the obligation of saying Mass for the intention of the donor of a stipend as
arising from a contract of commutative justice. This explanation is open to many
objections and 1 would like to know whether another, and I believe older theory, can
be held, namely, that the stipend is an offering on the part of the donor, which on
acceptance gives rise to certain obligations on the part of the priest, which obligations
arise not strictly from commutative justice but from the law of the Church.
‘Cf. Fanfani, De litre Parochorum, §587, viii; Ecdesiastial Review, November 1041,
p. joj ; Collation*! Brugemei, 1928, p. 467.
'
'
MASS OFFERINGS
Q· 77
Keller, in his study of the mass stipend, after remarking that almost every
author who has written on the subject has thought out his own hypothesis,
states that “the most common, as well as the most satisfactory explanation
of the nature of Mass stipends is the theory of the innominate contract, which
was proposed by Suarez and defended by Cardinal Gasparri.” This is, as
our correspondent states, the common view, and it is practically taken for
granted by many writers. It belongs to the class of innominate contracti
known as “do ut facias”, and gives rise to an obligation of commutative
justice.1 But the commonly accepted view on a disputed topic is not always
the correct one. There have always been authorities who, for serious
reasons, have not accepted this solution, and have regarded the Mass offering
as a gift rather than a matter of contractual obligation.
(i) In the first place, the notion of a strict contract in the matter appears
to be foreign to the mind of the Church. Interpreting the instructions of
the Council of Trent, Sess. XXII, De Observandis, the Code does not here
speak of a contract but simply “licet stipendium recipere”2 and “A stipe
Missarum quaelibet etiam species negotiationis vel mercaturae omnino
arceatur”3 But all sorts of other ecclesiastical obligations and sendees, for
example, capitular distributions, are dealt with on a strict contractual basis.
An adequate support is due to the priest, and if it is not forthcoming he has
a grievance; in places where ecclesiastical revenues which provide his living
are chiefly collections from the people, he can explain to them that they are
not giving sufficient. On the other hand, the administration of these funds
is supervised by the Church, and the priest is under a grave obligation
to apply any superfluity to charitable purposes.4 But the Mass offering is
not included in ecclesiastical revenues, and it remains in the free disposal of
the priest. He has no legitimate grievance if these offerings are not forth
coming, and he would be altogether in the wrong if his complaint took the
form of telling parishioners that they were wanting in their duty towards
him, in not giving sufficient Mass offerings.
Moreover, far from regarding the Mass offering as a sum to which the
priest is entitled in return for saying Mass for a given intention, the Church
requires parish priests and others to say Mass for the people on Sundays and
certain feasts without a stipend, and the acceptance of such is gravely for
bidden even for the second Mass which might be celebrated on those days5.
In addition, the bishop has the power of adding to these obligations
of the common law by requiring Mass to be said occasionally without a
stipend.
An obvious objection to this view turns on the very serious obligations
which arise, once a stipend is accepted; for the easiest way of explaining
them is by supposing that their non-observance is a violation of commutative
justice. But another explanation is forthcoming: the obligations arise from
obedience to the positive laws of the Church.
. . the obligation on the
part of the priest towards the person who makes the offering is not generated
by the acceptance of the stipend, nor direcdy by any agreement between the
1 Keller, Mass Stipends, page 27; Prümmcr, 'Tbtol. Moralis, III, §265 ; Collationis brugtnsts
1922, p. 378.
’ Canon 824.
* Canon 827.
4 Canon 1475·
• Canon 824, §2.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
100
parties, but solely by the will of the Church.”1 The reasonableness of this
view is supported by the fact that smallness of matter does not make the
Ill·»
obligation light, as it does in every other contract of commutative
justice;
it is always sub gravi to say the Mass or return the stipend. From this rule,
and from innumerable other legislative details, it does seem that the ordinary
contractual obligation is so superseded by positive law that we may rightly con
clude that the obligations themselves depend on these positive enactments.
(ii) Secondly, the intention of the donor may have some bearing in
deciding the nature of the Mass offering, although, seeing that the pro
fessional canonists are not agreed, we might expect to find a bewildering
choice of ideas in the minds of the faithful. No doubt, in many cases, the
offering is made with the intention of setting up a contracted debt of justice;
in some cases, a very ignorant person’s intention might be, in perfect good
faith, frankly simoniacal. But if we look at the subject in the generality of
cases, it is usually true to say that the faithful make these offerings distinctly
as gifts, as something over and above the support they are bound to give in
justice to the clergy. Many people, though contributing most generously to
the support of their pastors, never make a Mass offering at all. Even in
cases where the person’s mind is primarily fixed on the application of Mass for
his intention, it does not follow that the offering is regarded as a necessary
condition for obtaining this benefit. Everyone experiences a certain re
luctance in seeking a purely gratuitous favour, and it is a natural thing, when
asking for it, to make a gift to the priest, an alms, “eleemosyna”. Another
example might make the point clearer. If a priest is wanted to say Mass in a
country house at some distance, the financial arrangements might properly
take the form of negotiation between the householder and the priest or the
diocesan authorities; but even “species negotiationis” is forbidden with
regard to the Mass offering. In the one case it is a matter of commutative
justice, in the other it appears not to be. The priest in question, over and
above what is strictly his due, on a title of justice, may take an alms, an
offering, for the application of the Mass.
(iii) Lastly, an argument in favour of the view we are explaining may be
drawn from the nature of the Mass offering itself : “. . . sacerdos non
accipit pecuniam quasi pretium consecrationis . . . sed quasi stipendium
suae sustentationis”.2 Various suggestions have been made, both by
ancient and modern authors, in order to avoid even the suspicion of simony
in the acceptance of Mass offerings. De Lugo sees an analogy with the
painter who paints a picture gratuitously, yet accepts money for his daily
sustenance and for the necessary materials.3 Laymann suggests that the
money is paid for the extrinsic labour incident on the celebration of Mass4;
and various other subtle distinctions have been employed, any one of which
we are free to accept. Generally the authors who admit that there is a con
tract of commutative justice do not hesitate to regard the offering and the
application of the Mass as being the two terms of the contract.
Fr. M. de la Taille, S.J., proposes an explanation which is somewhat
new, though based on ancient practice.5 In the Old Law, in the case of
1 Ecclesiastical Rcvitu. XXXIX, 1908, p. 239.
1 Summa Tbcol,. Il-II. ico. 2.
• Viva. IV, p. 275.
4 Cf. Grcgprianum, IV, p. 570.
1 Mysterium Fidci. p. 539; Grtgorianum. IV, pp. 355, 557.
ÎOÏ
MASS OFFERINGS
q.
78
those sacrifices which were not entirely destroyed by fire, the priest shared
in what was offered to God, and in the New Law the same is true mutatis
mutandis. The resemblance was more close in early days, when the offerings
of the faithful were made in kind, but there are still traces of the rite in the
Roman liturgy, for example, the bread and wine offered in the Mass of
episcopal consecration. In modern times a gift of money takes the place of
offerings in kind. It is not a contract “do ut facias” but a mandate accepted
by the priest offering Mass “do ut des (scilicet Deo).” The priest is re
munerated by God to whom the gift really belongs. On this explanation
the part of the faithful is dignified: they are a priestly race offering gifts
to God. The part of the priest is dignified: he is not the stipendiary of the
faithful but of God, and he must either offer the gift as requested or return
it to the donor. All the details of ecclesiastical legislation fit in easily with
this rather fine and satisfactory theory, and it would appear to be the idea
actually in the minds of the faithful, in a confused manner, when making an
offering?
As opposed to all these explanations there is the very simple theory that
the offering is a gift to the priest. Van Espen amongst the older canonists
prefers this to any other solution “Hodiernum missarum honorarium speciem
quamdam esse voluntariae oblationis . . . sicut laici illud tanquam Deo
acceptam oblationem sacerdoti offerre debent, ita quoque illud sacerdotes
non tanquam pretium missae, sed ut voluntariam oblationem grato animo
accipere tenentur, unaque ostendere se velle Deo voluntarie sacrificare.”2
Scotus teaches a similar doctrine: “Nec intelligo strictam obligationem per
conventionem legalem, sive per commutationem spiritualis ut orationis pro
temporali ut eleemosyna quae data est: quia illa videtur simonia. Nec
valet dicere, quod sacerdos commutaret pro aliquo temporali suum laborem
corporalem: quia non est verisimile quod aliquis vellet sibi tantum dare pro
labore corporali in illo actu. Sed eleemosyna liberaliter offertur, cum
mendicatione orationis, et recipiens eleemosynam . . . liberaliter,
scilicet, sine conventione et commutatione, obligat se ad orandum pro
benefactore.”3
Throughout this discussion the ordinary manual Mass has been kept in
view. If it is a question of a benefice to which the application of a number
of Masses is attached by the pious founder, there is scarcely room for
regarding the obligation as anything else but a debt of strict justice.
78.—Time for Discharging Mass Obligations
What is the present law regarding the time within which Mass obligations must be
discharged 1
Canon 834, §1 : Missae pro quibus celebrandis tempus ab oblatore
expresse praescriptum est, eo omnino tempore sunt celebrandae.
§2. Si oblator nullum tempus pro Missarum manualium celebratione
expresse praescripserit: 1. Missae pro urgenti causa oblatae quamprimum
1 A. somewhat similar view is held by del Giudice, E.T.L., ΙΠ, p. 393.
» Jus. Eccles. Universum, P. II, t. iv, c. 6, p. 295, ed. Ï729.
* Quodlibet XX, cd. 1755, p. 278.
q,78
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
102
tempore utili sunt celebrandae. 2. In aliis casibus Missae sunt celebrandae
intra modicum tempus pro maiore vel minore Missarum numero.
§3. Quod si oblator arbitrio sacerdotis tempus celebrationis expresse
reliquerit, sacerdos potest tempore quo sibi magis placuerit, eas celebrare,
firma praescripto can. 835.
Canon 855 : Nemini licet tot Missarum onera per se celebrandarum
recipere quibus intra annum satisfacere nequeat. See also canon 841.
(i) The terms of the law in canon 834 are perfectly clear, and in fact de
ducible from the natural law, with the exception of the phrase in §2.2, “intra
modicum tempus”. The majority of the commentators interpret this
phrase according to the rule of U7 Debita, 11 May, 1904, n. 2, a decree which
was circulated in an English version to the clergy at the time: “Whatever
may have been the teaching of theologians in the past as to the time within
which Masses were to be said, whether for the living or for the dead, the
Holy See now lays down a definite rule for all Masses. The rule is that the
time available for the celebration of one Mass is a month, for the celebration
of a hundred Masses six months, and for the celebration of a larger or a
smaller number of Masses than a hundred, a proportionately longer or shorter
space of time. No priest is at liberty to accept more than he can probably
say within the space of a year.” The Holy See*1 in the following year de
clined to impose a more specified determination of this time limit, answering:
“Rem relinqui discreto iudicio et conscientiae sacerdotum iuxta decretum,
*t regulas a probatis doctoribus traditas.” Applying the rule of canon 6.4,
the following hold that the time limits of Ut Debita are still of obligation:
Cappello, De Sacramentis, §685; Marc-Gestermann, Theol. Moralis, II,
§1611 ; Noldin, Theol. Moralis, III, §189; Génicot-Salsmans, Theol. Moralis, II,
5230. It is, in fact, such a usual interpretation of the law by the manualists
'hat most priests take it as being obviously correct and certain, and there is,
of course, every reason for preserving a mode of reckoning which makes
for the prompt discharge of Mass obligations.
(ii) It is, nevertheless, somewhat remarkable that the Code uses the
vague phrase “intra modicum tempus”, instead of the precise reckoning of
Ur Debita, and it can, we think, be safely held with Keller2 that the Code
omitted the latter phrase intentionally in order to deprive the old decree
of its binding character. It would have been quite simple to have pre
served “infra mensem”, as in other canons, if the legislator had so desired.
Accordingly, not only Keller—a recognized authority on the subject—but
some other writers of repute are of the opinion that the time reckonings of
U/ Debita are now merely directive, not preceptive. Thus Priimmer, Theol.
Moralis, III, §266: “Quae igitur hac de re statuta fuerant Decreto Ut Debita
iam amplius non habent nisi valorem directivum.” Cf. also in almost
identical terms Aertnys-Damen, Theol. Moralis, 1939, II, §209; and less
clearly Vcrmeersch-Creusen, Epitome, II, §106, and Wcrnz-Widal, Ins
Canonicum, IV, §85: “Prudenter censeri potest tempus unius mensis pro
una Missa, etc.”
1 S.C. Cons., 27 February, 1905; Fontes, n. 4J22·
1 Mass Stipends, p. ijx.
MASS OFFERINGS
10J
Q· 79
79.—November Masses
Is it permitted to say a novena of Masses for the intentions of those who, at the
priest's invitation, send in names of the deceased together with whatever offering they
care to make ? If local legislation forbids this practice and requires the number of
Masses to correspond exactly with the diocesan stipend, what are the obligations of a
priest who, in ignorance of the legislation, has disregarded it ?
Canon 830: Si quis pecuniae summam obtulerit pro Missarum appli
catione, non indicans earundem numerum, hic supputetur secundum
eleemosynam loci in quo oblator morabatur, nisi aliam fuisse eius inten
tionem legitime praesumi debeat.
Canon 832: Sacerdoti fas est oblatam ultro maiorem stipem pro Missae
applicatione accipere et, nisi loci Ordinarius prohibuerit, etiam minorem.
(i) From these canons and from many other legal texts it is certain
that a priest may lawfully accept as Mass offerings a sum which is not the
usual diocesan stipend; there is a decision S.C. Cone., 16 January, 1649, re
versing an episcopal injunction which prohibited the acceptance of offerings
in excess of the diocesan stipend.1 But it is always necessary to establish
that the intention of the donor was to give a larger sum. If there is no local
law to the contrary, the practice described by our correspondent is lawful,
provided a novena of Masses is said no matter what the collective offering
may be: if it is less than the diocesan stipend the Ordinary’s sanction is re
quired as in canon 852, or where the custom of November Masses exists it
may be presumed as in canon 831, §2. It is evident, from the circumstances,
that in November Masses the donors agree to offer a wholly indeterminate
sum. Smith in Ecclesiastical Eaw, Vol. I, p. 532, quotes for America a
decision—S.C. Cone., 27 January, 1877—which expressly sanctions the custom
of saying one Mass for an indeterminate collective offering, it being under
stood that the donors so desire: “. . . tantum apponatur tabella in ecclesia,
qua fideles doceantur, quod illis ipsis eleemosynis una canitur Missa in die
Commemorationis omnium fidelium defunctorum”.
(ii) The practice is liable to abuse, for although it is open to any of the
faithful to have whatever Masses they desire said according to the diocesan
stipend, and to disregard the collective offering, many may be under the
impression that the offerings over and above those destined for the novena
will be applied to additional Masses according to the diocesan stipend.
Therefore, in many dioceses, the indeterminate collective Mass offering,
whether during November or at any other time, is forbidden, and the
clergy are required to say the number of Masses which strictly corresponds
to the diocesan stipend. A regulation of this kind is within the competence
of the local Ordinary. S.C. Cone., 16 January, 1649, refers not to these
indeterminate collective offerings but to manual stipends in the ordinary
sense of the term. The reply of 27 January, 1877, was for the diocese of
Rochester, sanctioning the local custom.
If a priest is ignorant of the law which, as our correspondent states, has
been promulgated in the diocesan synod, the common opinion would be
that it is culpable ignorance. Whether it is or not, he is bound, in our
1 Fontes, n. 2691.
q.
8o
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
104
opinion, to say or get said for all former offerings received a number of
Masses corresponding to the diocesan stipend; if this is a morally impossible
burden, his only remedy is to seek condonation from the Holy Sec. This
may appear a rather strict solution, but die legislation on Mass offerings is
extremely strict and can be enforced by grave penalties as in canon 2324.
80.—Mass Obligations: Rifled Box
The contributions of the faithful placed, at the parish priest's invitation, in the
Holy Souls' Box have been stolen. Is the parish priest bound in principle to get the
Masses said ? If so, how many ? Coidd the obligation be discharged when saying the
second Mass on days when duplication is permitted ?
Canon 824, §2: Quoties autem pluxies in die celebrat, si unam Missam
ex titulo iustitiae applicet, sacerdos . . . pro alia eleemosynam recipere
nequit.
Canon 829: Licet sine culpa illius qui onere celebrandi gravatur,
Missarum eleemosynae iam perceptae perierint, obligatio non cessat.
It was commonly taught before the Code, e.g. by Gasparri,*
1 that the
obligadon ceased if the Mass offering was stolen or lost through no fault of
the priest, and this may still be held in regard to foundation Masses when the
capital has disappeared through no fault of the trustee. It is now certain,
from Canon 829, that in the case of manual Masses the obligation does not
cease: res perit domino·, no matter what theory is held concerning the nature
of the Mass offering, the priest who has accepted it is regarded as the owner
and the loss is his. Nevertheless, we think that in the circumstances of the
above case equity demands that a way should be discovered for releasing the
parish priest from the full rigour of the law, and it may be done in two
ways.
(i) It could be held, indeed, with plausibility that the priest has not
actually received (perceptae) the offerings until he has emptied the box.
“Vi cnim pcrceptonis stipendiorum”, writes Cappello,2 “et non antea, per
ficitur contractus inter celebrantem et oblatorem.” Whilst lying in the box
the offerings arc in process of reaching him, in rather the same way as they
would be if sent by any other channel.
On the other hand, he has charge of the box and they are placed therein
at his invitation. If, as is likely in some cases, he intends himself to say
these Masses, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that he is the owner
of the contents of the box, and that he is consequently bound by the law
of canon 829. He could, of course, seek condonation from the persons who
made the offerings, or from the Holy See, but this is sacrccly worth while
for what is a relatively small sum.
Having therefore decided that he is bound to say the Masses or get the
obligation discharged by other priests, he could lawfully, in our opinion,
use tpikeia, and either say the Masses when duplicating—which is normally
forbidden by canon 824, §2; or get them said at a reduced stipend—which is
normally forbidden by canon 840, §1.
The only manualist known to us who gives support to this view is
1 Di Enchéristia, §588.
1 De Sacramentis* I, §679.
toj
MASS OFFERINGS
q.
Si
Wouters:1 “Potest tamen qui eleemosynam c.g. amisit, curare, ut alius pro
minore stipendio Missam celebret.” He does not, indeed, deal expressly
with canon 824, §2, but the reasons of equity which lead him to disregard,
in this case, the law of canon 840, §1, seem to apply equally to disregarding
the law of canon 824, §2. For the reason behind all these regulations about
stipends is to prohibit negotiations and practices by which a priest, in apply
ing or disposing of Mass offerings, might grow richer: in the case we are
discussing he is not enriched at all, and the solution we favour, though by no
means certain, seems to be probable and reasonable, namely, that the
obligation may be discharged when duplicating.
The number to be said can only be decided on a rough estimate from
what the box usually contains, or from what is expected on a special occasion.
(ii) In many churches, however, it is customary for the parish priest to
get these Masses said by other priests, and the offerings of the faithful are
invited and accepted on this understanding; he does not undertake to
burden himself with them either expressly or by implication. We think
that, in these circumstances, quite a strong case can be made for the view
that the parish priest is not the owner but merely the bailee (depositarius,
mandatarius) of the contents of the box. In
Γ English law a bailee is not
answerable if goods are stolen through no fault of his own, and the same
must be said, in principle, of canon law. Cf. d’Annibale, Theol. Moralis,
II, §524. An exception in favour of Mass stipends might be discerned,
perhaps, in canon 859, but it can be interpreted as applying to the disposal
of offerings which have actually passed into the possession of the person
disbursing them. Accordingly, Vermeersch, commenting upon canon 829,
writes: “Si autem de eo ageretur qui non foret nisi mandatarius (de quo in
can. 857) qui mere stipendia transmittere deberet at nunquam stipendia
acquisivisset, is ad nihil teneretur si stipendia ista casu fortuito apud ipsum
petiissent. Haec enim patrimonium ipsius non essent ingressa; et obligatio
mandati impossibilitate exsecutionis cessare dicenda est.”2
81.—Second Mass Intention
A person asked a priest to apply Mass for bis intention and gave him the usual
stipend. Before Mass was said, another person asked the same priest to offer the
second intention of the same Mass on bis behalf and gave him a stipendfor it. May
the priest accept the second stipend and apply the second intention for the Mass for the
second donor?
Canon 825: Nunquam licet. ... 2. Eleemosynam recipere pro Missa
quae alio titulo debetur et applicatur; 5. Duplicem eleemosynam pro eius
dem Missae applicatione accipere.
Canon 828: Tot celebrandae et applicandae sunt Missae, quot stipendia
etiam exigua data et accepta fuerint.
Alexander VII, Prop. Damnata, Denz. no8: Duplicatum stipendium
potest sacerdos pro eadem missa licite accipere, applicando petenti partem
etiam specialissimam fructus ipsimet celebranti corrcspondentcm, idque
post decretum Urbani VIII.
1 Theol. Moralis, II, §224.
* Theol. Moralis, ΙΠ, §298.2.
q.
82
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Io6
(i) At certain periods in the past, when the law was not crystallized as
it now is, a priest could accept more than one Mass offering: the whole
notion of the Mass stipend as we now have it has developed from the prac
tice, still referred to in some of the Secret prayers, of the faithful offering
gifts at Mass.
We must exclude from our consideration the acceptance of two or more
stipends in circumstances other than those which accompany the acceptance
of an ordinary Mass offering of the amount fixed by diocesan law. Thus
Fontes, n. 338, §10, and n. 4691, xvi, refer to “secundae oblationes” in cases
where there is a co-celebration of the Holy Sacrifice by several priests;
or the rules of a Religious Institute, whilst prohibiting the acceptance of
Mass stipends, may permit offerings or alms other than those contemplated
in canons 824 seq., or the “second” offering may be accepted, according to
the terms of canon 825.4, not for the application of the ministerial fruit of the
Mass, but for its celebration merely.
Obviously we exclude from this discussion a “second” intention in the
sense that the celebrant, whilst accepting only one offering, intends the minis
terial fruit to be applied for a second purpose if, for any reason, the first is
not operative.
Lastly, we must exclude the case where two or more offerings are to
gether not in excess of the diocesan stipend, and the donors are willing that
one Mass should satisfy them all collectively; in given conditions the prac
tice may be tolerated even when the collective offering is in excess of the
diocesan stipend, as explained in Q. 79.
(ii) Leaving aside, for the moment, the question of accepting a second
honorarium for a second intention, what meaning is to be given to this
additional intention when a Mass is being applied under the rules of canons
824 seq. ? It can mean, firstly, a “memento”, cither in the sense that the
prayers are chosen, when the rubrics so permit, as an impétration for a
special object; or in the sense that the priest intends to include others in the
application of the ministerial fruit, in so far as it may be done without preju
dice to the rights of the donor for whom the ministerial fruit is being in
justice applied. Or it may refer, secondly, to that portion of the fruits of
the Mass which arc personal to the priest (pro innumerabilibus peccatis, et
offensionibus, et negligentiis meis), regarding which it is the common view
that it is not communicable to others.
(iii) By accepting a stipend or offering for a second intention, as ex
plained in (ii), it is our opinion that the celebrant violates the law of
canons 825 and 828 and becomes liable to the sanctions of canon 2324. We
have heard the opposite view maintained, indeed, but, given the plain terms
of the law and the severe penalties attached to its non-observance, it is for the
proponents of this liberal view to justify it. For if a second offering may be
accepted and justified, why not a third or a thirtieth ?
82.—Mass Offering in England
When exactly was the amount of the usual Mass offering fixed in this country ?
Canon 851, §1: Ordinarii loci est manualem Missarum stipem in sua
dioecesi definire per decretum. . . .
MASS OFFERINGS
107
q.
83
§2. Ubi desit Ordinarii decretum, servetur consuetudo dioecesis.
The earliest reference we can find to the amount in this country of a
Mass offering is in the Monita et Statuta
*
signed by the four Vicars Apostolic,
4 May, 1838, in which, after referring to a “Synod” held by the bishops in
that year, it is stated on page 5 : “Aequum quidem nobis videtur, omnibus
perpensis, et statuimus, ‘quinque solidos pro stipendio Missae accipi posse,
habita ratione praesentis pretii rerum ad vitam victumque necessarium’.”
We can find no reference to the subject in the decrees of the Westminster
Provincial Councils, but diocesan synods held since have frequently sanc
tioned this sum, which appears originally to have been fixed by custom.
Cf. Liverpool Synod
*
1934, n. 116; Lancaster Statuta
*
1955, n. 91; Middlesbrough
*
Decrees
1933, n. 112.
83.—Masses for Deceased Clergy
Would it be safe to hold that a priest is only bound to say these Masses so long as be
is personally able to do so? A priest may be bed-ridden or otherwise unable to say
Mass foryears before his death
*
and to procure the saying of bis Pact Masses by other
priests may be to him a serious hardship. In most cases it will happen that
*
during a
priest's last illness
*
other priests belonging to the Pact die. Is his executor bound to
provide for the saying of such Pact Masses ?
Any secular priest in England, within three years of his ordination, may
join a society whose members undertake to say one Mass for each de
ceased priest member. At one time it used to include the priests of the
whole country, but, owing to the increased number of clergy, the society
was divided by a rescript of Propaganda, 22 April, i860, into the dioceses of the
North and those of the South. At that date the North contained 567 priests
and the South 363. It will be noted that, at the present time, the larger
dioceses now contain almost as many priests as a whole district in the
division of i860. The result is that the obligation of saying the Masses
became, we will not say a burden, but more exacting than it was seventy
years ago, and a further division was sanctioned by S.C. Cone.
*
3 December,
1938.
We can find no exact definition of the obligation assumed. Our
diocesan register contains a statement that members “bind themselves for
life to say one Mass, etc.”, a rendering of the phrase in the document of 1860,
“come obbligandosi a celebrare durante il corso della vita una Mcssa, etc.”
A more exact understanding of the obligation can be obtained indirectly,
from the teaching of the authors and from certain Instructions of the Holy
See touching upon the lawfulness of saying one of these Masses when
duplicating.
(i) According to Cardinal Gasparri it is not an obligation which binds
sub gravi.1 His reason is that the members do not intend to bind themselves
sub gravi when joining, and he is speaking of these associations in a general
manner. Personally we cannot help feeling that the secular clergy of
England, when joining, do certainly intend to assume a grave obligation.
This can be deduced from the gravity of the subject matter, and from the
1 De Encharis/ia, I, §644.
q.
84
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
108
fact that there is a bilateral aspect involved. Each priest receives the
benefit of a number of Masses on the supposition that he has himself ren
dered this service to his brethren. We agree with Many1 that the obligation
is a grave one.
(ii) It is not a strict obligation of commutative justice. This may be
inferred from the various directions of the Holy See, which have decided
that an association Mass may be said when duplicating.2 The reason given
in the first of these directions is that the priest does not receive a stipend for
these Masses, either directly or indirectly, and that they are due more on a
title of charity than of justice. Therefore they do not come under the rule of
canon 824, §2. Accordingly, no question of restitution arises, even though
a member may be burdened with a grave obligation in conscience to say these
Masses. It is the common teaching that restitution refers only to obligations
arising from commutative justice.
(iii) Owing to the bilateral character of the pact, it would appear that
the obligation is more than “ex caritate”, more even than “ex fidelitate vi
promissionis”. It is, as Cardinal Gasparri states, “ex justitia ratione quasicontractus”.
(iv) With regard to the time limit within which the obligation must be
fulfilled, only one thing can be said with any degree of certainty, namely
that the rules of canon law requiring manual Masses to be applied within a
certain period do not apply strictly to these association Masses. It is a
question that must be left to the conscience of individuals.
(v) On careful consideration of the above data, and failing any definite
legal ruling, contained, perhaps, in articles of the association which we have
not seen, it would appear that a priest who, in his last illness, cannot say Mass
at all, is not bound to get these Masses said by others. For the obligation,
whatever its character may be, is clearly a personal one. It is also an
obligation to be interpreted by the intention of those who assume it. We
think that there would be a general consensus of opinion amongst all the
members that, in joining the association, they undertook to say these
Masses only as long as they were able to do so in person. A sick priest is
under no obligation, whether of justice, fidelity or charity, to get them said
by others, and, accordingly, his executor is similarly not bound.
(vi) At the time of the latest division of dioceses, 3 December, 1938,
the clergy were informed that those who were prevented by sickness from
celebrating for more than three months, may satisfy their obligation by the
application of one Mass for those associated who died during the period.
§7. DUPLICATION
Γ*
84.—Duplication: Visiting Priest
May permission to say Mass on Sunday be lawfully refused io a visiting priest, unless
be undertakes to say one of the parish Masses, in order to prevent the necessity of
duplicating on the part of the parish priest or of bis assistants ?
Df
§67.
»5.C. Cone., 14 September, 1878; 6 August, 1881; 5 March, 1887. Collationes Brueenses
j8q8, p. 641.
.
!O9
DUPLICATION
q.
84
Canon 804: Sacerdos extraneus . . . exhibens authenticas et adhuc
validas litteras commendatitias ... ad Missae celebrationem admittatur,
nisi interim aliquid eum commisisse constet, cur a Missae celebratione
repelli debeat.
Canon 806, §2: Non licet sacerdoti pluries in die celebrare missas, nisi ex
apostolico induito aut potestate facta a loci Ordinario. Hanc tamen
facultatem impertiri nequit Ordinarius, nisi cum, prudenti ipsius iudicio,
propter penuriam sacerdotum die festo de precepto notabilis fidelium pars
Missae adstare non possit.
The conditions for duplication arc three: (1) that a notable portion of the
people will otherwise miss Mass; (2) that there is a lack of sufficient priests
to provide for the necessities of the people; (3) that the faculty cannot be
given except for use on Sundays and Holy Days of obligation.
The permission will be given either in the pagella of diocesan faculties,
or by special concession from the Ordinary. But, in both cases, the re
quisite conditions for its proper use will generally be expressly mentioned;
if they arc not mentioned, it must be taken for granted that the faculty may
only be used according to the terms of canon 806, §2.
There has always been some obscurity in interpreting the exact force of
“penuria sacerdotum”. It is not really capable of exact definition, and it
must be left to the prudent judgement of the Ordinary, as the canon directs,
to decide whether the lack of clergy is serious enough to justify the use of
the privilege. There is bound to be some difference of opinion and prac
tice, varying with the customary interpretation of the law in different
localities. Thus, a writer in Collationes Brngenses, 1929, p. 69, estimates
that “penuria” is to be understood not merely with reference to a church,
or to a parish, but even to a whole city if it contains several parishes. The
professors of a city college, if able to assist the parishes without grave in
convenience, should do so rather than allow the parochial clergy to dupli
cate. On the other hand, a writer in the Irish Ecclesiastical Record, XX,
1922, p. 627, notes that there are “many parishes, in town or country·, in
which there is a religious house with, perhaps, several priests, having no
Sunday obligations, whilst the parish clergy have to duplicate regularly.
Nobody would maintain that the priests in such a religious house would be
bound to offer their services or even to comply with a request to assist.”
To quote one more example, a writer in rAmi du Clergé, 1928, p. 363,
refers to certain diocesan statutes which expressly withdraw the permission
to duplicate, whenever a visiting priest is able to say one of the parish
Masses without serious inconvenience.
These differences of interpretation arise from the differences of local
custom and necessity. In the Instruction issued by Propaganda, 24 May,
1870, the widest powers arc left to local authorities to decide whether the
faculty of duplication may be used in any given instance: “. . . lay aside all
anxiety and, without being disturbed at the strictness of the terms, trust to
your conscience and prudence to judge what cases, account being taken of
the circumstances of your diocese, arc to be considered to possess sufficient
reasons ... a necessity of this kind must be understood to be a real but
still a moral and not an absolute necessity”.1 The directions do not, indeed,
refer explicitly to the question we arc discussing, but the same principle and
1 IV Westm., p. 395; English Tn, p. 94·
q.
8$
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
no
the same spirit certainly is to be applied in answering it: the situation out
lined in the question is to be dealt with prudently, reasonably, charitably.
(i) In the event of a visiting priest declining to say a parish Mass at a
reasonable hour, the parish clergy need have no scruple whatever in dupli
cating as usual. Their faculty is held for the benefit of the people, and the
breach of the law, if any, is on the conscience of the visiting priest. We
say “at a reasonable hour” because the unreason is very often on the side of the
parish priest, who expects a priest on holiday to say a very late Mass.1
(ii) The circumstances of the visiting priest must be taken into account
before trying to compel him to say a parish Mass. A complete stranger,
staying in the place for one or two nights, is in rather a different situation to
one who is making a long stay of several weeks. The latter could rightly be
expected to assist. The former could not: he might be resting for a night or
two on a journey and, in fact, many parish priests would not care to rely on
such a one, even if he were willing to accept the obligation. Similarly, a
priest belonging to the diocese could rightly be expected to be more accom
modating than one from another diocese. Moreover, a priest taking a
necessary rest, or convalescent, should not be expected to celebrate publicly;
freedom from public services is the essential part of a holiday to many
priests.
(iii) Where there are diocesan statutes regulating the position of visit
ing priests, permission to say a private Mass could and must be refused, if the
case is manifestly within the terms of the statute or the directions of the
Ordinary. Otherwise, in our opinion, the parish priest must not refuse
permission to a visitor, who has a celebret, to say Mass privately, even though
his refusal to say a public Mass is unreasonable, according to what has been
said under (i) and (ii). We do not think that the proviso “nisi, etc.,” in
canon 804 covers the action of one who unreasonably refuses a public Mass.
The parish priest’s remedy is to bring the matter to the notice of the Ordinary
who could, if he thought fit, decline to endorse the celebret of the visiting
priest. It would hardly be worth while taking this trouble except in the
case of a visitor who is staying for a long time in the parish.
85.—Duplication in Different Parishes
A visiting priest is asked by two neighbouring parish priests, both having the
facility of duplicating, to say one Mass for each of them in their respective parishes.
Is this permissible ?
Canon 806, §1 : ... non licet sacerdoti plurcs in die celebrare Missas,
nisi ex apostolico induito aut potestate facta a loci Ordinario.
llanc tamen facultatem impertiri nequit Ordinarius, nisi cum,
prudenti ipsius iudicio, propter penuriam sacerdotum dic festo de praecepto
notabilis fidelium pars Missae adstare non possit. . . .
(i) The question cannot arise unless the usual conditions justifying
duplication are verified. The power to duplicate may be granted to certain
individuals by Apostolic induit, but more usually it is obtained from the
local Ordinary, whose province it is to judge whether the practice is
du Ckrgi, 1928, p. 364.
in
DUPLICATION
Q. 86
necessary. In many places local diocesan regulations determine exactly when,
and by whom, the faculty may be used, in which case one has merely to
observe the ruling of the local Ordinary.
(ii) In other places, however, there are no explicit local laws on the
subject; the parish priest or his predecessor has received the faculty both
for himself and for his assistant clergy, and normally they themselves
duplicate every Sunday, except when there is a visiting priest who is willing
to say one of the public Masses. Is this faculty personal or local ? Unless
the Ordinary who concedes it determines otherwise, as it seems he has the
right to do, the faculty must be regarded as local; it is not an induit or a
dispensation, but a remedy which the common law leaves in the hands of
the Ordinary to apply. Thus Brys in Collationes Brugenses, 1929, p. 71:
“Facultas binandi ab Ordinario concessa non est personalis, sed realis in
remedium pro necessitate, ita ut quicunquc vices agat eius cui facta est, ea,
remanente necessitate, uti possit.” Cf. also Gasparri, De Eucharistia, I,
§381; Noldin, Theol. Moralis, III, §208.2; The Jurist, 1942, p. 285. This
interpretation of the law is, we think, quite certain, and is often expressly
formulated in local laws. Thus Middlesbrough Decrees, 1933, n. 104: “The
faculty to binate, granted by the bishop, is to be considered a local privilege,
attached to the parish.” Accordingly, a parish priest who for any reason
is not himself duplicating may authorize a visiting priest to do so.
(iii) We can see no reason why the practice just described must be
restricted to the case where the visitor is saying both Masses within the
territory of one and the same parish priest. The faculty consists in the
right to depart from the rule which forbids more than one celebration daily
by each priest, and, provided the conditions for duplication are verified
in both parishes, the respective parish priests may lawfully authorize the
visiting priest to celebrate in each parish. It is necessary for the conditions
to be verified in both places, for otherwise the situation cannot be said to
come within the terms of canon 860, §2, and the practice seems to be ex
pressly forbidden by S.C. Cone., 10 May, 1897; Fontes, n. 4303, ad II: “z\n
liceat huiusmodi licentiam concedere presbytero ambas Missas celebraturo
in diversis ecclesiis eiusdem civitatis vel loci, in quo et alii sacerdotes
celebrant, et hoc etiam si una ex Missis celebranda sit in ipsa ecclesia, in qua
et alius sacerdos sacrosanctum Sacrificium eadem dic litat. Resp. Non
licere; et Ordinarius, quatenus in aliquo ex cnunciatis casibus necessarium
iudicet ut Sacrum iteretur, recurrat ad Apostolicam Sedem.”
86.—Duplication in Convent Chapel
A community of fourteen religious, without enclosure, including one who is too
infirm to leave the place, is served by a religious house, the superior of which
possesses the faculty to permit duplication whenever necessary. If Mass is not
said at the convent, Holy Communion is given, and the majority of the sisters
are accustomed to come to the church for a second Mass, whether Mass is said in
their chapel or not. Is this a case where duplication is permitted by the common
law ?
Canon 806, §2: Hanc tamen facultatem impertiri nequit Ordinarius, nisi
cum, prudenti cius iudicio, propter penuriam sacerdotum dic festo de
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
praecepto notabilis fidelium pars Missae adstare non possit; non est autem in
eius potestate plurcs quam duas Missas eidem sacerdoti permittere.
It is apparent that practices are tolerated at the present day which arc,
to say the least, a most liberal interpretation of the canon. The Ordinary is
the person with whom a decision rests, and what we have to say is not by way
of suggesting what he should or should not do. The point is rather to
decide whether a priest, already in possession of the faculty, may use it with
a good conscience in the above circumstances, without referring the case
to the Ordinary’s decision. The only argument which might favour the
lawfulness of duplication, in the above circumstances, is that the Ordinary
has given tacit consent, inasmuch as it is the custom to use duplication
faculties in favour of a religious community; the commentators agree that a
priest may follow the local custom in using this faculty. It will certainly be
found that, in most cases of the kind, the community cannot hear Mass else
where without grave inconvenience, which is the meaning to be given to the
words “non possit” in the canon. Thus Cappello, De Sacramentis, I, §732:
“. . . si monasterium, domus pia vel religiosa secus careret Missa, nec in ea
commorantes possent sine gravi incommodo ad aliam ecclesiam accedere,
nec adsit alius sacerdos”. But we cannot detect, in the circumstances out
lined above, anything which could be called a grave incommodum. Therefore,
it is our opinion that the case should be referred to the Ordinary’s decision,
in order to discover whether or not it is considered to come within the
common law.
87.—Duplication on Board Ship
A priest enjoying the privilege of a portable altar, which includes its use on board
ship, finds that the Catholics on board cannot bear Mass on Sunday unless he cele
brates twice. But he has no faculty for duplicating and it is obviously impossible to
seek it from bis Ordinary. May be, in the circumstances, say two Masses ?
Canon 806, §1: Excepto die Nativitatis Domini . . . non licet
sacerdoti plurcs in die celebrare Missas, nisi ex apostolico induito aut potesttate facta a loci Ordinario.
§2. Hanc tamen facultatem impertiri nequit Ordinarius, nisi cum, pru
denti ipsius iudicio, propter penuriam sacerdotum die festo de praecepto
notabilis fidelium pars Missae adstare non possit. . . .
The opinions of some writers are not, strictly speaking, interpretations
of the conditions set out in canon 806, but applications of a wider rule which
permits the non-observance of a positive law in order to avoid some grave
injury. The principle applies to all cases where the appropriate superior
cannot be reached for a dispensation, and the present case provides a good
illustration.
Dr. Brys, an authority on the law of dispensations, applies this familiar
principle of epikeia to duplication as follows: “Cum ad Ordinarium pertineat
judicare tum de vera necessitate, tum de possibilitate canonica remedia
applicandi, licentia huiusmodi per se non potest praesumi. In casu tamen,
plane extraordinario et repentino, ut si alter duorum sacerdotum qui in
paroecia celebrare solent subito aegrotaverit, nec alius suffici possit, modo
nj
DUPLICATION
q.
88
revera urgeat necessitas supra descripta et recursus ad Ordinarium sit im
possibilis, praesumi potest Episcopi licentia.”1
In the case we are discussing recourse to the Ordinary is impossible, and
it may be assumed that the situation was not foreseen before the voyage
began. The priest has only, therefore, to decide whether there is a real
necessity such as canon 806 presupposes to exist. The law forbidding a
priest to say more than one Mass is unusually grave and its non-observance
may be punished with suspension f.s. from canon 2321; some authors arc
accordingly unusually severe in determining the kind of necessity which
would justify duplication without a faculty, but we cannot find the precise
circumstances of this case discussed by any of them.
If the ship has no public chapel, and Mass is being celebrated by a priest
with a personal induit of the portable altar, it is agreed that the faithful on
board have no strict obligation to obey the precept of hearing Mass, though
they may be exhorted to do so; in these circumstances it would be unlawful
to duplicate, since canon 806 permits this only in order that the faithful
may fulfil their obligation. But if the ship has a permanent chapel, as many
of the larger liners have, it enjoys the status of a public oratory and the
faithful are bound to satisfy the Sunday precept therein. We are of the opinion
that, in this latter case, there is present the kind of necessity which the law
contemplates, and that the priest would act rightly in duplicating without
express permission from the proper authority.
There is just one other consideration. It may be said, in principle,
that the prevention of grave scandal suffices for die non-observance of a
positive law, and on this principle a priest might consider himself justified
in duplicating without permission in order to avoid giving scandal. But
actually we cannot discern this clement in the case as outlined above, since
the situation could easily be explained to the faithful and the possibility of
scandal removed.
88.—Duplicating: Number Present
It is usually considered that duplication is not permissible except for the purpose
of allowing at least twenty people to satisfy their obligation of hearing Mass on Sundays
and Holy Days. Is this interpretation too strict ? If not, how accountfor the practice,
in some places, of duplicating for less serious reasons ?
The diversity, of practice is accounted for, chiefly, by remembering that
certain localities have induits which considerably extend the occasions when
duplication is permitted by the common law; there is also, from the nature
of the case, a certain diversity even in applying the common law, since it is
left to the Ordinary’s judgement to determine when permission shall be
given, i.e. to decide that the conditions required by the common law arc
present. Probably the best way of dealing with the above question is first
to indicate the most liberal interpretation of the common law permitted by
commentators; secondly to give instances of papal induits.
(i) From canon 806, §2, the Ordinary may grant permission provided
the three contingencies mentioned therein are all present:
() On Christmas Day after the first and second Masses, if the three are
being said without the priest departing from the altar. It suffices “si
dumtaxat peragantur quoties ab altari disceditur, sive discessio post primam
Missam, aut post secundam, aut demum post tertiam fiat.”2 Moreover,
they are to be omitted even after the last Mass on Christmas Day, if it is a
sung Mass and follows immediately after the second Mass.3
G") After a votive Mass of the Sacred Heart on the first Friday of the month,
when it is celebrated “cum privilegiis Missae votivae solemnis pro re
gravi”.4
(d) After Masses celebrated according to the Memoriale Rittatm in small
churches. There appears to be no definite ruling of the S.R.C. on this
point, but the omission on such occasions as Candlemas Day is consistent
with the principle governing all the other authorized exceptions, i.e. the
low Mass is in place of a solemn Mass or it is accompanied by some external
solemnity.5
t
(e) After a Mass which has been celebrated with some unusual solemnity.
The decree n. 4505, in addition to the matter just discussed, answers affir
matively to the query: “An attentis 5.R.C. Decretis η. 5697, Ordinis Min.
Capuccinorum, 7 Decembris, 1888, ad VII, de Missa Convcntuali sine cantu,
et n. 4271 Baion. 8 Junii, 1911, ad II, de Missa votiva lecta SS Cordis Jesu,
prima feria cuiusvis mensis, etiam aliqua similis Missa lecta, ex. gr. occasione
primae communionis generalis, sacrae confirmationis aut pro sponsis, haberi
possit ut solemnis, eique applicari valeant praefata decreta quoad preces in
fine Missae, a Summo Pontifice praescriptas, omittendas.” It is clear that
the S.R.C. docs not wish to give a list of the occasions of “some solemnity”
when these prayers may be omitted. Therefore, in addition to the examples
cited in the query, one may rightly include such occasions as the first Mass
of a newly ordained priest, or the Mass of a sacerdotal jubilarian.
(f) lichen the Mass is immediately followed by some sacred function·. “Si Missa
cum aliqua solemnitate celebretur, vel Missam, q tin celebrans ab altari
recedat, immediate ac rite subsequatur aliqua sacra functio seu pium
1 J.R.C., n. 5697.7. The parochi.il Mass is not includcil unless it is immediately
preceded by recitation of the Office: n. 5858.
*N. 5705.
• N. 5936, i.
4 N. 4271. Cf. Q. 70.
* Cf. I’Ami du Clergi, 1934, p. 220, quoting Ephemerides Ltturgicae, 1929, p. 121; 1951,
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Q. ÎOO
130
exercitium.”1* This rule certainly applies to a Requiem Mass which is
followed immediately by the Absolution, but the wording is not decisive
and has given rise to many doubts concerning what is “pium exercitium”
and “sacra functio”.
Some functions and exercises are not included, namely :
(i) The distribution of Holy Communion immediately after Mass.’
(ii) The occurrence of community prayers or meditation or spiritual
reading after Mass.3
(iii) The recital of De Profundis or other prayers for the dead.4
Explanatory of n. 4505 there is a decree, 25 November, 1932, which has
not been officially published but has been reprinted in various journals from
Ephemerides Eiturgicae, 1935, p. 537. After citing the contradictory tenor of
some previous decrees two questions were put: I. An decretum diei 20 Junii,
1913, η. 43ο5> interpretationi authenticae diei 23 Novembris, 1887, n. 3682,
derogaverit ? II. Et quantenus negative, num decretum diei 2 Junii, 1916,
veluti abrogatum censendum est, an vero vigeat etiamnum tum hoc ultimum,
tum praecedens anni 1887? Resp. ad I. Negative. Ad II. Negative ad
primam partem, affirmative ad secundam.”
A further decree on the subject is printed by Ephemerides Eiturgicae,
Jus et Praxis, 1959, p. 102. It is dated 16 May, 1939, and we read ad XX:
“luxta decretum n. 4305, diei 20 Junii, 1913, post Missam lectam si adsit
occasio specialis circumstantiae vel immediate post Missam lectam sequatur
aliqua functio sacra, omitti possunt preces a Summo Pontifice Leone Papa
XIII praescriptae. Quia sunt, qui de omittendis precibus his diversam
teneant sententiam, quaeritur:
Possunte omitti post Missam lectam illae preces, si sequatur:
(1) Praedicatio ex ambone; (2) cantus hymni: Te Deum', (3) preces
novemdiales ad Spiritum Sanctum ante Pentecosten iuxta decretum n. 4271,
ad 6; (4) Litaniae Laurctanae, quae iussu S. Patris Leonis Papae XIII integro
mense octobri recitato infra Missam s. Rosario statim post Missam a cele
brante dicendae sunt; (5) preces pro sanctificatione cleri prima feria quinta
vel primo sabbato cuiuslibet mensis; (6) quando aliquae preces ab Excmo
RR. DD. Ordinario loci post Missam institutae sunt ? Resp. Consulat
probatos auctores.
The Holy See refers the questioner to approved authors, and the com
mentator of Ephemerides Eiturgicae suggests the following answers: “Ad
I. Negative; Ad 2. Negative; Ad 3. Affirmative; Ad 4. Affirmative;
Ad 5. Affirmative; Ad 6. Quaenam sunt preces ab Ordinario imperatae?
Si agitur de vera functione affirmative, secus negative.”
The writers in Ephemerides Eiturgicae arc certainly of great authority
and these solutions may be followed. But we may be permitted to query
the reply to the first instance, deciding that the Leonine Prayers may not be
omitted if a sermon follows immediately after low Mass. A consultor of
the J.R.C., in Ephemerides Eiturgicae, 1933, p. 558, gave a description of
what is meant by a sacred function and it included preaching: “decretum
4305 permittit (ut preces omittantur) in fine missae privatae quae celebratur
1 N. 4joj.
1 N. 3682, and 2 June, 1916.3.
4557-.
>
* Cf. 2 June, 1916.2.
•N. 3805.
This portion is not reprinted in Deirefa Autbentiea, n.
PRAYERS AFTER MASS
ÏJ>
Q. ÏOT
occasione extraordinariae circumstantiae, ... si immediate post Missam idem
sacerdos, quin ab altari in sacristiam redeat, aliquam sacram functionem seu
pium exercitium peragat, c.g. sermonem ad populum habeat”.
101.—Method of Reciting Leonine Prayers
It is agreed that it is more becoming for the priest to take the chalice from the altar
after reciting the prayers, but can it be said that he is breaking some law or rubric in
reciting the prayers whilst holding the chalice ?
Without suggesting that the celebrant is guilty of a grave negligence of
rubrics in reciting the prayers whilst holding the chalice, it appears to us that
the practice is wrong, not merely because it is unbecoming, but because the
rubrics cannot thereby be rightly observed. If the priest needs the card to
read these prayers, the rubric, R/7. Celcbr. Miss., XII, 6, is broken by holding
the chalice with the left hand and the card with the right: "sacerdos accipit
sinistra, calicem, dexteram ponens supra bursam, ne aliquid cadat”. If
this objection is avoided, when the priest knows the prayers by heart, the
practice is still unrubrical; for prayers are always to be recited with hands
joined, failing directions to the contrary, for example, in those parts of the
Mass where the hands arc extended. All the writers on rubrics, so far as we
are aware, reprobate the practice of holding the chalice whilst reciting the
prayers.1
Supposing that the priest follows the more becoming procedure, should he descend
directly from the gospel corner, or should be first go to the middle of the altar and bow
to the cross ?
“Sacerdos, expleta Missa, debetne se inclinare Cruci Altaris, antequam
descendat ad praescriptas preces recitandas? Ikesp. Inclinationem, de qua
in casu, non praescribi neque prohiberi. . . .”2 Some commentators, as
Aertnys, direct the celebrant not to go to the middle of the altar, though he
may, if he wishes, do so and bow to the crucifix. They rely for this direction
on the above reply of the T.R.C. Actually the reply deals solely with bowing to the crucifix or not bowing, and it appears to many to be more fitting,
and in accordance with the rule at the beginning of Mass, for the priest to
descend from the middle of the altar; he may bow or not as he pleases.
Ar
<
A
r
<
If be has to five Holy Communion immediately after the last gospel, should the
prayers be said before or after distributing 1 loly Communion ?
“Utrum preces praescriptas in quibusdam casibus, nempe vel alicuius
parvae functionis vel Communionis distribuendae, peracta demum ista
Missae ceremonia, recitare liceat; an subsequi Missam semper immediate
1 Aertnys, Compendium, §45; Croegaert, Caeremcniale, 11, p. 128; Periodica, 1956, p. 154.
•XR.C., 18 June, 1885, n. 3657.8.
qq.
102, 103
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Ip
debeant? Resp. Preces . . . recitandae sunt immediate expleto ultimo
Evaogelio.”1
»
102.—Leonine Prayers: Russia
Is it obligatory, or at hast permissible, to add to the accustomed prayers the
invocation “Saviour of the world. Save Russia” ?
The prayers were first introduced for the papal territories by Pius IX,
in 1859, at the time of the spoliation; they consisted of a triple Ave,Salve
Regina, and the first prayer. Leo XIII, 6 January, 1884, made these prayers
obligatory throughout the world, except after sung Masses, for the liberties of
the Church. The second prayer was added, and the order repeated in 1886.
Pius X, 17 June, 1904, permitted the triple invocation to the Sacred Heart.
Since these prayers had in view the liberties of the Roman Church, many
expected or desired that they would be allowed to cease once the Latcran
Treaty came into force. But Pius XI, in a secret Consistory, 30 June, 1930, '
made the following declaration in his allocution: “Christo igitur humani
generis Redemptori instandum, ut afflictis Russiae filiis tranquillitatem
fideique profitendae libertatem restitui sinat; atque ut instare omnes, modico
sane negotio atque incommodo, queant, volumus quas fel. rec. decessor
Noster Leo XIII sacerdotes cum populo post sacrum expletum preces
recitare jussit, caedem ad hanc ipsam mentem, scilicet pro Russia, dicantur;
idipsum Episcopi atque uterque clerus populares suos, vel sacro adstantes
quoslibet, studiosissime moneant, in eorumdemque memoria saepe numero
revocent.”2
We are therefore directed to recall the purpose of these prayers to the
faithful assisting at Mass, but we are not ordered to recite any invocation.
The invocation “Salvator mundi, salva Russiam” is indulgenced with three
hundred days,3 and it may be that this indulgenced invocation is ordered in
some dioceses, or it may have been introduced and become customary as a
method of observing the papal direction: “adstantes quoslibet studiosissime
moneant”. We have no information on these points. If not ordered
locally, or if it is not customary, we are of the opinion that it should not be
introduced, since the indulgence contains no reference to reciting it after
Mass, and there does not appear to be any general authorization permitting
this to be done.
103.—Leonine Prayers: Indulgence
Is there an indulgence attached to these prayers ? If so, it would appear that the
faithful do not gain the indulgence unless they actually recite the prayers, since it is the
rule that prayers to which indulgences are attached must be saia vocally.
On 30 May, 1934, the Sacred Penitentiary issued a decree stating that the
1 5.R.C., 25 November, 1887, n. 3682.
1 A.A.S., XXII, 1950, p. 301.
• 5. Ptxnif, 24 November, 1924; Preces et Pia Opera, n. 584.
PRAYERS AFTER MASS
q. 104
D3
Holy Father had attached to these prayers an indulgence of ten years: “ad
incitamentum quoque fidelium qui Missae intersunt, ne ab Ecclesia dis
cedant antequam sacerdos omnia compleverit quae Sacra Liturgia ipsi
absolvenda mandat, et antequam ipsi simul cum sacerdote easdem per
solverit orationes”. The decree stated, further, that the indulgence of
seven years attached by Pius X to the triple invocation “Most Sacred Heart
of Jesus, have mercy on us” remained in force.*
1
The doubt arises from the fact that, in most places, the priest alone recites
the prayers. It is true that mental prayer does not, as a rule suffice for
indulgences, though it may be noted that a recent decree of the Sacrea
Penitentiary, η December, 1933, makes an exception for ejaculatory prayers.
But canon 934, §3, resolves this point and the ruling has often been repeated,
for example, in the instructions given for prayers to be recited during
Jubilees. “Ad indulgentiarum acquisitionem satis est orationem alternis
cum socio recitare, aut mente cam prosequi, dum ab alio recitatur.”
104.—Sacred Heart Invocation after Mass
May it be said that, in principle, this triple invocation is obligatory whenever the
Leonine Prayers are obligatory, and that it should be omitted when the latter art
omitted ? May all these prayers be recited kneeling on the predella ?
S.C. Indnlg., 19 August, 1904: Quamvis obligatio proprii nominis a
Summo Pontifice imposita non sit, vult tamen Beatissimus Pater, ut unifor
mitati consulatur, ac proinde singuli sacerdotes ad cam invocationem
recitandam adhortentur.
Canon 28: Consuetudo praeter legem, quae scienter a communitate cum
animo se obligandi servata sit, legem inducit, si pariter fuerit rationabilis et
legitime per annos quadraginta continuos et completos praescripta.
(i) The triple invocation, to which an indulgence is attached3, was
sanctioned by Pius X, through S.C. Indnlg., 17 June, 1904: “. . . precibus,
quae iussu s.m. Leonis XIII post privatam missae celebrationem persolvi
solent, ter addi possit sequens invocatio .. .”. From this phrase, and from
the express declaration, 19 August, 1904, no strict obligation exists, because
no law was made ordering the triple invocation. But priests everywhere
naturally did what they were exhorted by the 1 loly Father to do, and it
would probably be true to say that most priests have always thought that
the triple invocation was of the same obligation as the Leonine Prayers.
Having recited it for forty years, it would appear that we have now made the
custom a law from canon 28, though it is arguable whether the clause “cum
animo se obligandi” is verified.
On the principle “accessorium sequitur principale” we think that the
invocation is to be said when the Leonine Prayers arc said, and omitted when
they are omitted.
(ii) 0\R.C., 18 June, 1885, n. 3637.8: “in recitatione precum genuilcctendum pro lubitu sive in suppedaneo, sive in infimo gradu Altaris”.
1 Preces et Pia Opera, n. 628.
1 Ibid.
QQ. 105, 106
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
<34
105.—Domine Salvum Fac Regem
Can you state whether the “ Domine salvum fac Regem” is ordered to be said or
sung after the principal Mass on Sundays·, or is it only recommended by the Bishops?
If the principal Mass on Sundays is not a sung Mass, is the order or recommendation still
in force ?
The prayer for the King is obligatory unless the local Ordinary allows it
to be omitted. We are not aware of any document, applicable to the whole
of England, ordering the prayer to be said. Before Cardinal Wiseman’s
time various unliturgical practices were current in this country. In some
places the name of the king was placed in the Canon of the Mass, in other
places a special Post-communion prayer was added. Cardinal Wiseman
objected to these usages and introduced, with Roman sanction, the prayers
to which we are now accustomed. Ward, in his account of the subject,
says that they were made obligatory, but no official document is mentioned
and the subject is not dealt with by the Provincial Councils.1 But even
though there is no formal decree on the subject, we are of the opinion that
the recitation of the prayer is now a custom which has all the force of the
law. In addition, its place in the Ritus Servandus, issued with the authority of
the English bishops, argues that it is of obligation.
It is, in many places, a diocesan law. Thus, Westminster Synod, XXXII,
1895, made the following direction: “The Prayers for the Queen arc to be
said or sung, in Latin or in English, after the principal Mass on every Sun
day, but not on other days of obligation. These prayers are not left to the
discretion of the clergy; but are of strict obligation in every public church
throughout the diocese.” Liverpool Synod, 1934, directs in n. 198: “Diebus
dominicis post Missam principalem, in omnibus ecclesiis et oratoriis publicis
aut semi-publicis pro rege dicendus est vel cantandus, sive latine sive anglice,
versiculus Domine salvum fac cum responsorio et oratione consueta.” The
folium of Nottingham decrees, issued in 1924, directs the prayer to be in the
vernacular, the one “O God by whom kings reign” in the Manual of Prayers.
It will be seen from these texts that the obligation is after the principal
Mass, whether sung or not.
1
I
$10. SERVER AND CONGREGATION
106.—Celebrant Without Server
What are the chief modifications in the words and actions of the celebrant when he
is celebrating Mass without a server ?
The rite to be observed on these occasions is described in the following
official texts:
* T2* Stqud to Catbolic Emancipation, I, p. 201.
SERVER AND CONGREGATION
q.
107
Kit. Celcbr. Miss. IV, 2: Si minister, vel qui intersunt, Celebranti non
respondeant (Kyrie eleisonypse. solus novies dicit.
Ibid., VII, 7: (Orate Fratres) . . . alioquin per seipsum, dicens: Sacrifi
cium de manibus meis.
Ibid., VI, i : Quibus dictis (Graduale, etc.) Sacerdos, si privatim celebret,
ipsemet, seu minister portat librum Missalis ad alteram partem Altaris
in cornu Evangclii, et dum transit ante medium Altaris, caput Cruci inclinat.
. . . 2: Locato Missali in Altari, Celebrans redit ad medium Altaris . . .
dicit secreto Munda cor meum. . . .
5.R.C., 4 September, 1S75, n. 3368.1 : Si Sacerdos celebrat sine ministro,
debetne bis dicere Confiteor ante Introitum ? Kesp. Negative.
14 January, 1898, n. 3975.2: Utrum etiam in Missa privata debeat
Sacerdos genuflcctere quando, defectu ministri, ipse transfert Missale. . . .
Kesp. Negative.
From these instructions, or on analogy drawn from them, the principle
is that the priest himself recites the server’s responses, modifying the
Suscipiat as indicated, and saying the Confiteor, etc., as the Breviary directs
when office is recited alone, omitting vobis fratres and vos fratres and saying
Misereatur nostri. In addition, it will be necessary to prepare the altar
furniture by placing the cruets and communion plate within reach. For
the ablutions there are no official instructions: the priest may purify the
fingers of each hand separately by changing the cruet to the left hand, or
he may purify the fingers of the right hand by dipping them in the chalice;
for the Lavabo a small vessel filled with water is convenient. Cf. O’Connell,
Celebration of Mass, II, p. 212.
107.—Weekday Mass without a Server
May a priest say Mass on a weekday in the presence of some of the faithful, none
of whom is able to serve or even answer the responses ?
Canon 813, §1, formulates the law which forbids a priest to celebrate
without a server. It is a grave law, but like any other positive precept it
does not bind cum gravi incommodo, and such things as the necessity of Viaticum
or observance of the Sunday precept are universally admitted as providing
a sufficient reason for not observing the law; also special occasions as, for
example, a nuptial Mass, or a First Friday Mass at which there is a large con
course of people. An ordinary weekday Mass, attended by a few devout
people, docs not normally present any contingencies which would justify
the non-observance of the law, in our opinion.1 But it is ultimately a matter
for the conscience of the priest to determine whether a grave incommodum
exists, e.g. fear of scandal.
As in many questions of this kind, the quandary is theoretical rather than
practical. For, in practice, it should be possible to find a man who could
Serve even though unable to make the responses, which all the authors
permit for any reasonable cause; or it should be possible to find a woman
who could respond to the best of her ability at the altar rails. 1Y. for the
sake of argument, neither of these courses is possible, and a server is
1 Cf. Ecclesiastical Review, September, 1954, p. 299.
Ii
q.
108
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
υ6
habitually lacking on weekdays, the priest should seek an induit for cele
brating without a server. This could, doubtless, be obtained through the
Ordinary, and in foreign missions the faculty is granted in the usual formula
which all Ordinaries enjoy in those places. We imagine that most priests,
rather than go to the trouble of applying for an induit, would find it more
convenient to teach the Mass responses to those few devout persons who
assist at Mass during the week.
108.—Mass Without Anyone Present
Does the faculty granted to army chaplains, permitting them to celebrate without a
server, mean that thy may do so without anyone at all present ?
We always try, if possible, to give a liberal solution to doubts and pro
blems presented, and the army chaplain is particularly entitled to any
justifiable interpretation of the law which will make smooth his difficult
path. We have, therefore, made an investigation of all the available com
mentaries on canon 813 and De Defectibus, X, 1, and have found only one
writer—an anonymous contributor to the Ecclesiastical Review, X, 1919, p.
550—who favours the liberal view to some extent: “The same reasons,” he
writes, “which allow a priest to dispense with a server also permit the cele
bration of Mass without any other person present in the church.” It will
be observed, however, that he is not commenting on the meaning of an
induit permitting Mass “absque ministro inserviente”, as in n. 7 of the
faculties, but simply applying the common principle that no positive law
binds sub gravi incommodo·, that is to say, any priest would be entitled to say
Mass not only without a server but with no one present, if it were necessary,
for example, in order to give Viaticum to the dying. There is no doubt
whatever that army chaplains may often be confronted with this emergency,
in which case they would rightly say Mass alone, even though the permission
to celebrate without a server were not contained in the faculties.
All the other writers we have consulted do not advert to the point:
they discuss the reasons permitting the absence of a server, and appear to
take it for granted that there will be some other persons present.
The following are the reasons which lead us, with regret, to adopt the
stricter view. Induits similar to that contained in n. 7 of the faculties arc
often obtained by individuals, and an example may be seen in Periodica,
1913, p. 43: “. . . benigne induisit (S. Rituum Congregatio) ut, ob de
fectum ministri et in casu necessitatis supradictus sacerdos religiosus et
parochus celebrare valeat missam sine ministro. Curet tamen idem orator
habere aliquem puerum vel famulum quem instruat saltem pro responsis
celebranti, aut saltem aliquem virum aut mulierem qui intersit sacrosancto
missae sacrificio et populum repraesentet.” It is clear that this induit to
celebrate without a server does not mean celebrating alone; Vcrmccrsch
states that all similar rescripts contain this clause,1 and we think that n. 7
of the faculties must be interpreted, as stated in canon 20, “a stylo et praxi
Curiae Romanae”.
There is no reason, indeed, why persons should not obtain induits pcr1 Tbeol. Moralis, ΙΠ, §3 2.3.
iJ7
SERVER AND CONGREGATION
qq.
ro9, no
mitting them to celebrate entirely alone, outside the cases of urgent necessity
which the commentators have always permitted. But this is rather unusual,
whereas faculties for celebrating without a server are common and are in
cluded in the customary formula issued by Propaganda for missionary coun
tries. An example of the wider faculty is cited in The Clergy Review, II,
1951, p. 286. If the Holy See desired to concede this ampler kind of faculty
to army chaplains, it seems to us that the wording of the text would have
been so framed instead of the more restricted wording of n. 7, “absque
ministro inserviente”.
109.—One Server for Two Masses
Assuming that no additional server is obtainable, and that two Masses are cele
brated at neighbouring altars, may one server respond for both ? Or is it preferable
for one celebrant to answer the responses himself and generally act as be is instructed
to do when no server is present ?
By a judicious timing it is quite possible for one server to answer the
responses for several Masses, and when there is no necessity for so acting
the practice must clearly be regarded as unlawful. If, however, the situa
tion is due to a real necessity, one has then to make a choice of the lesser
of two evils. It is preferable, in our view, for the server of a neighbouring
celebrant to do what is possible for the assistance of a second celebrant,
rather than leave the latter to answer and serve himself. This is the solu
tion given by I*
Ami dn Clergé, 1912, p. 1072, the only reference we can find
to the case. It appears to be correct, for if, as all are agreed, the celebrant
may fulfil the office of two persons by acting as server whilst celebrating,
there is nothing startlingly absurd in a server also taking a double office
by acting as server to a second Mass whilst serving a first. But it is
not easy to imagine circumstances justifying this practice, since it will
usually be possible for the two priests to say Mass successively instead of
simultaneously.
110.—Mass Server: Vesture
If the Mass server is not a cleric, is he required to vest in cassock and sterp/ice ?
Is it correct for altar servers to wear white gloves, or for the laity to receive the
sacraments with gloved hands ?
Rit. Celebr. Miss., II, 1: ministro praecedente . . . superpelliceum
induto.
S.R.C., 25 November, 1906, 4194.2: An omnes qui vestem talarem in
duunt, sint vel non tonsurati, debeant, iuxta Rubricas Missalis . . . super
pelliceum induere, dum Missae privatae inserviunt? Resp. Affirmative,
nisi pro laicis alicuius Familiae Religiosae obstent specialia statuta appro
bata.
8 June, 191T, n. 4271.1: Utrum laico Missae inservienti ministrari possit
Sacra Communio intra Presbyterium et in ora suppedanei Altaris, etiamsi
non sit indutus habitu clericali ? Resp. Affirmative.
q.
in
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
υ8
It is clear from these texts that the Mass server is not permitted to be
vested in cassock alone; but it is not clear whether the lay server is strictly
bound to wear a cassock, since n. 4271.1 assumes that he is not so vested.
From the historical point of view, the necessity of having a cleric to serve
Mass appears to have been stressed from the IXth to the XHIth centuries;
the requirement is indicated in De Defectibus, X, 1. A recent writer has
shown that it was not the discipline anterior to the IXth century.*
1 It could
be maintained, indeed, since he makes the responses for the body of the
faithful, that a lay server is more fittingly attired as a lay person.
In the present state of the law, accordingly, no rule is violated in serving
a private low Mass in lay attire: local custom should be followed, but we
believe it is more usual in the parish churches of this country for the lay
server to vestas a cleric when serving at Mass. Thus O’Connell, Cele
bration of Mass, II, p. 199: “When at all possible, the servers should wear a
cassock and surplice—even if he be not a cleric—but if this be not possible,
he may serve Mass in his ordinary dress.”
Amongst the sacred ministers and other assisting on the sanctuary, the
only one entitled to wear gloves, as an ornament or vestment, is the bishop
on the occasions when their use is directed by the rubrics. It is certainly
incorrect for altar servers to wear gloves, girdles, capes, skull-caps or any
other ornament beyond cassock and surplice; they take the place of clerics
and are vested accordingly.
As regards the laity, it is incorrect to approach the sacraments with
gloved hands, not precisely because gloves are an ornament or vestment,
but because social etiquette regards the ungloved hand as a mark of respect
in the presence of a superior. The rule should, therefore, be observed, not
only when receiving the sacraments, but on every occasion when the laity
take part in some divine service.
111.—The Server’s Confiteor
Is it permittedfor a tertiary serving Mass to insert in the "Confiteor" St. Dominic,
St. Francis, St. Benedict, etc., thus using a formula differentfrom that which the priest
bas used?
The rule is that, without a special indult, no extra names may be added
to the Confiteor at Mass.2 The induits, however, arc many.3 Moreover,
the rubrics of the Missals used by certain religious Orders, which have been
approved by the Holy See, direct that the appropriate Saint’s name should
be added to those in the Confiteor of the Roman Missal.4 As explained in the
official commentary of the Decreta Authentica the addition is to be made by
all who use the Breviary of a given Order.
No difficulty arises if a server, whether a tertiary or not, is serving the
Mass of a priest whose rule permits the insertion of a name. But we can
find no clear ruling anywhere concerning the correct practice, in the case of
a tertiary serving the Mass of a priest who enjoys no permission to depart
* Periodica, 1959, p. 370.
15.R.G, nn. 1532 and 2142.
» Cf. nn. 2297, 2387, 2972, 2983
* N. 2587.2.
j39
SERVER AND CONGREGATION
q.
112
from the usual formula of the Roman Missal. On the axiom accessorium
sequitur principale, it seems to us that the server should recite the Confiteor
exactly as it is in the rite of the priest whom he is serving. This interpre
tation is confirmed in the text of the Prayer Book for Dominican Sisters,
Collegio Angelico, Rome, 1925. At the end of the book is given the
manner of serving a Dominican’s Mass and the manner of serving a priest
who is not using the Dominican rite; the latter contains no variation in the
Confiteor. But as it is a question of indult, it might well be that certain
tertiaries are permitted to depart from the rule.
112.—Standing During Credo
The server at Low Mass, if well-instructed, kneels during the “Credo”, but the
people commonly stand. Is there any reason for this anomaly, or are there any
definite rides on the subject ?
(i) During a solemn Mass or a Missa Cantata the people act correctly if
they follow the choir on the sanctuary, in sitting, kneeling and standing;
e.g. during the Credo they stand whilst the celebrant recites it, and are seated
when he and the choir are seated. But it is usually conceded that these
rubrics which are preceptive for the choir are merely directive for the people.
Nevertheless, it makes for order and stresses the unity of the people with the
ministers at the altar, in assisting at the sacrifice, if these directive rubrics
are observed at sung Masses. So far as our observation goes, they are
observed in this country, and a foreign ecclesiastic who is a liturgist of re
pute records his satisfaction at what he saw here: “Considérez ces belles
assemblées des Catholiques anglais assistant à la Messe à la Cathédrale de
Westminster. Quelle vivante ‘leçon de *choses
,
quelle puissante affir
mation de solidarité, de foi et de pieté.” So writes Canon Croegaert of
Malines in an article on the correct ritual action of the faithful, the substance
of an address given in 1953 at the Louvain Semaine Liturgique.1
(ii) During low Mass the only rubrical direction on the subject is in
Rubricae Generales, XVII, 2: “Circumstantes autem in Missis Privatis semper
genua flectunt, etiam Tempore Paschali, praeterquam dum legitur Evan
gelium.” Relying on this rubric, the server at low Mass is generally taught
to kneel during the Credo, and there is not the slightest doubt that this is
correct. But there is a custom in many places in this country for the server
to stand, and many think it is a justifiable custom. Thus Dr. Calnan writes
that it is the custom for the server to stand in England and it is not exactly
wrong.2 Others say the practice of standing is “corrupt”, a strong word to
use for a fairly innocent action.3 Assuming that the rubric quoted is prepre
ceptive and not merely directive, we arc of the opinion that kneeling is
correct.
The application of this argument to the people in the church is not so
easy. The rubric is directive in their regard, and to observe it strictly would
mean that they should be kneeling all the time except during the Gospel.
1 Participation Active des 1 'idtles au Culte, p. 129.
1 Correct Mass-serving Afade Easy, Widdowson (1956), p. 14.
• Cf. Fr. Page, Practical Guide for Servers, Bums Oates (1954), p, x8.
q.
113
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Mo
No provision is made for being seated, but there is a universal custom of
being seated from the Offertory to the Preface, and it would require a very
brave and hopeful person to remove it. There is likewise a custom of stand
ing during the Creed, and it seems proper to preserve this practice, not
because of any express obligation from the rubrics, but for the sake of uni
formity. In many places it is customary also for the people to rise whilst
the celebrant is going to and from the altar. Canon Croegaert is in favour of
the people standing both during the Creed and during the entry and exit
of the celebrant. In addition, he suggests that they should stand during
the Preface, but it would be unwise, in our view, to introduce any practice
which is not usual in England.
113.—The Laity’s Offertory
One hears occasionally of the following practice : after reciting the Offertory the
celebrant receives hosts from the faithful intending to communicate·, they are taken
from a box held by the celebrant and placed on the paten. Is the rite permissible ?
I
t
I
j
«
This was, of course, the custom in earlier ages, and all the details of its
observance may be studied in a ninth-century Ordo Romanns and in other
liturgical sources. It is reflected in many of the Secret prayers in our present
Missal, e.g. Fifth Sunday after Pentecost: “Propitiare, Domine, suppli
cationibus nostris: et has oblationes famulorum famularumque tuarum
benignus assume; ut quod singuli obtulerunt ad honorem nominis tui,
cunctis proficiat ad salutem.” The actual offering of gifts continues uni
versally at the Mass of Ordination, and in certain localities at Requiem
Masses praesente cadavere. It is not, therefore, in dispute that the custom
has its roots deeply embedded in the liturgy, and it cannot be doubted that
an active participation of the faithful in the Mass will be encouraged by a
rite such as that described above. But the question we have to answer is
whether it is in accordance with the rubrics of the Missal and our modern
liturgical rules.
(i) Many evidently think that it is permissible, though the reasons
alleged in its favour are not very strong. The most favourable direction
of the Holy See is 5.R.C., 30 December, 1881, n. 3535.1, amplified and
explained 15 June, 1883, n. 3579.1, which accepted and authorized the
custom existing in the diocese of Urgel, whilst modifying the manner in
which the oblations (unspecified) were received by the celebrant: he is for
bidden to say Oblatio tna accepta sit a Deo, and the veneration of a relic
of the True Cross at this time is also forbidden; but the faithful may kiss
either the hand of the celebrant or the fringe of his stole or maniple. It
is evident that in determining for this locality the mode of offering to be
observed, which is henceforth to be based on Caeremoniale Episcoporum,
I, xviii, 16, the Holy See is taking it for granted that the substance of the
rite is lawful. Nothing is specified, cither in the question or the reply, as to
the nature of these oblations.
Relying on this text, a writer in Questions Liturgiques et Paroissiales, 15,36,
p. 281, answered affirmatively to a query from an American priest whether
the custom of receiving a host in this way, from each of twelve religious, was
lawful. A ruling had been sought from the local Ordinary; but, on this
ϊ4ϊ
SERVER AND CONGREGATION
q.
n4
occasion, the answer given, though prudent, was not helpful: “Hacc omnia
tolerari possunt, si leges ecclesiasticae non obstant.” Those who are
familiar with the liturgical movement will have noticed that the practice is
often encouraged.1
(ii) Our own view is that the re-introduction of this ancient rite is, in
principle, against the rubrics, unless it can be shown that a contrary’ custom
exists in certain localities. Not only is there no rubrical direction authoriz
ing it to be done, except on special occasions such as the Mass of Ordination
when candles are offered by the newly ordained, but the present rubrics
expressly direct in R/7. Celebr. Miss., II, 3, that the hosts for the communion
of the faithful are to be prepared and placed upon the corporal (or in solemn
Masses on the credence) before the beginning of Mass. The new rite,
moreover, constitutes technically an “interruption” in the movement of the
Mass, an interruption which is always unlawful in principle unless it can be
justified cither by some liturgical requirement, as the nuptial blessing, or
by some other kind of necessity such as St. Alphonsus discusses in Theol.
Moralis, VI, n. 352. It is for those who desire to introduce this practice to
show that some necessity justifies the interruption. S.R.C., nn. 3535.1 and
3579.1, are decrees for places where the custom is already in possession, as it
certainly is in many parts of the Continent at the funeral Mass. The custom
is itself a justification for the practice, but one is not permitted to transplant
such rites from the locality which enjoys them, no matter how pleasing and
picturesque they may be. So far as we are aware, the custom does not
exist in this country’-, and a desire to promote the active participation of the
faithful at Mass cannot, in our view, be regarded as an adequate reason
either for interrupting the Mass or for disregarding the plain direction of
the rubrics. The participation of the faithful is abundantly expressed in
many Secret prayers, in the Orate Fratres, in the offering at the collection on
Sundays, and in membership of altar societies which exist for providing the
material for the sacrifice.
114.—Pray the Mass
Can the exact reference be given to the words ascribed to Pitts X: "You must not
pray at Mass·, you must pray the Mass”? It is sometimes quoted in the form :
"You must not pray at Mass ; you must say Mass,” which appears to be capable of
serious misunderstanding if applied to the laity.
Pray the Mass is a good motto, short and pregnant with meaning, and is
very widely used bv those who have at heart the liturgical revival, particularly
in the form of the Dialogue Mass, in which the people join with the server
in answering the responses at Mass.
It must be confessed that, as far as one can discover, the exact origin
of these words is difficult to trace. And if we take the words “say Mass’’
as the equivalent of “celebrate Mass”, it is unlikely that ti c Pope would have
used a phrase of this sort which would be likely to confuse the minds of the
people. A suggestion by a writer in The Acolyte, 14 October, 1955, that
1 La Participation Active des Fidèles auCtdte.
Semaine Liturgique, Louvain, 195 3· Ρ· 2·|Ο·
q.
115
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
142
“. . . the Pope’s advice to ‘sing the Mass’ has been converted into ‘say
Mass’ appears to be quite a good explanation of the phrase.”
As regards the phrase “Do not sing at Mass; sing the Mass” the words
were used by Pius X, on the testimony of Fr. J. Kramp, S.J., during a Con
ference on Church music.1 But there is hardly any need to establish the
authenticity of the words. Even though the Pope did not actually use them
in the circumstances mentioned, they do express not only the earnest wish
of Pius X, but of subsequent Popes, that the laity should join in singing the
liturgical responses. “Active participation in the Holy Mysteries and in the
public and solemn prayer of the Church is the primary and indispensable
source of a true Christian spirit.”2 “To spread among the faithful an exact
knowledge of the liturgy ... a delight in the prayers, rites and chants
. . . an active part in the Holy Mysteries . . . would nourish their piety,
strengthen their faith, and teach them to lead lives of perfection.”3 “The
faithful, not as outsiders or mute spectators, but as understanding the liturgy
and penetrated by its beauty, should assist at sacred functions and join in
the choral responses.”4
It is an easy transition from “sing the Mass” to “pray the Mass”, and the
words express the part of the laity in the sacrifice without any of the mis
understanding that might accompany the words “say Mass”. According
to the writer in Orate Fratres already quoted, the words were used by Pius X
in an interview with Camille Bellaigue, a French journalist, but no authority
even for this unsatisfactory authentication is given. But the words have
since been attributed to Pius X in official ecclesiastical documents, Roma
face»..
115.—The People Answering: Dialogue Mass
What is the official guidance of the Church concerning the practice of all the faithful
present at Mass reciting certain parts aloud with the server or with the celebrant ?
*
I
Kit. Celebr. Miss., Ill, 9 and 10: Cum minister et qui intersunt (etiamsi
ibi fuerit Summus Pontifex) respondent Confiteor. . . . Facta a circum
stantibus Confessione . . .
IV, 2: Si minister vel qui intersunt celebranti non respondent, ipse
solus novies dicit.
VII, 7: Et responso a ministro vel a circumstantibus Suscipiat . . .
Ordo Missae: Minister seu circumstantes respondent: alioquin ipsemet
sacerdos Suscipiat . . .
Rituale Romanum, Tit. iv, cap. iv, nn. 17 and 19: Postea facta de more
confessione generali, sive ab infirmo, sive cius nomine ab alio. . . .
In the dialogue preceding the Preface and in other portions of the Mass
it was the ancient custom for the people to respond, as the above rubrics
from our current Missal direct. The custom ceased, not because it was
prohibited, but through circumstances which made the practice difficult
to observe, such as the size of the churches and their congregations,
1 Orate Fratrts, June, p. 580, quoting Slimmer der Zeif, 1927, p. ,jj.
* Pius X, Motu Proprio, 22 November, 1905.
1 Benedict AV, Julv 1915, quoted by Lefèbvre, Catholic Lthergy, p. 272
♦ Pius XI, Dirini Cultus, 20 December, 1928.
j45
SERVER AND CONGREGATION
q.
ri5
simultaneous celebrations by other priests, and ùït^inconvtnientia et perturbationes
of which the following decrees speak.
(1) 5.R.C., 25 February, 1921; Periodica, 1956, p. 59:
(t) An liceat fidelibus qui Missae intersunt se adjungere ministro, elata
voce respondendo sacerdoti celebranti quoties minister respondere debet ?
(2) Si affirmative ad 1, an liceat populo una cum celebrante elata voce
recitare Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Agnus Dei ?
(3) Licetne fidelibus ante communionem, tum in Missa tum extra
Missam, recitare seu canere Confiteor et sacerdoti respondere una vel loco
ministri ?
Communicetur votum: Quae per se licent, non saepe expediunt ob in
convenientia quae facile oriuntur, ut in casu nn. 1-2-3, ct servetur praxis
communis.
(ii) S.R..C., 27 April, 1921 ; ibid., p. 58: Datur Rescriptum in Mantuana
die 18 febr., 1921, super dubio: An liceat inducere vel tolerare morem
aliquibus in locis incipientem, quo fideles vel religiosae conjunctim respon
deant sacerdoti Missam celebranti, et cum illo etiam recitent elata voce
Gloria, Credo, etc. ?
Pesp.
Ad Rmum Ordinarium, ct ad mentem.
Mens est: Quae per se licent, non semper expediunt ob aliquod inconveniens,
uti v. gr. si uni vel pluribus sacerdotibus celebrantibus confusionem et dis
tractionem ejusmodi mos afferat, ut in casu, juxta alias similes responsiones
ad similes petitiones. Praeterea, praedictus mos differt a praxi communi ct
vigenti.
(iii) d'.R.C., 4 August, 1922, η. 4375 :
(1) An liceat coetui fidelium adstanti sacrificio Missae, simul et con
junctim respondere, loco ministri, sacerdoti celebranti ?
(2) An probandus sit usus, quo fideles Sacro adstantes, elata voce
legant Secreta, Canonem, atque ipsa Verba Consecrationis, quae paucissimis
in Canone verbis exceptis, juxta Rubricas secreto dici debent ab ipso sacerdote ?
Et Sacra Rituum Congregatio, audito specialis Commissionis voto,
omnibus mature perpensis, ita respondendum censuit:
Ad i. Ad Rmum Ordinarium juxta mentem. Mens autem est: Quae
per se licent, non semper expediunt ob inconvenientia quae facile oriuntur,
sicut in casu, praesertim ob perturbationes quae sacerdotes celebrantes ct
fideles adstantes experiri possunt cum detrimento sacrae actionis et rubri
carum. Quapropter expedit, ut servetur praxis communis, uti in simili
casu pluries responsum est.
Ad 2. Negative; neque permitti potest fidelibus adstantibus quod a
Rubricis vetitum est sacerdotibus celebrantibus, qui Canonis verba secreto
dicunt, ut sacris Mysteriis maior reverentia concilietur, ct in ipsa Mysteria
fidelium veneratio, modestia et devotio augeantur; idcoque mos enuntiatus,
tamquam abusus, reprobandus est, ct, sicubi introductus sit, omnino amo
veatur.
The instruction n. 4375 gave rise to much discussion, particularly in
Belgium and parts of Italy which have become centres of a liturgical revival,
and some authors of repute have decided that “expedit ut servetur praxis
communis” is an indication that the Church looks with unqualified dis
favour on the custom. But a more careful examination of the whole ques
tion will reveal that this is not a correct conclusion to draw from the words of
the reply.
Some have interpreted the instruction rather neatly by seizing on the
q.
II5
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
144
words “loco ministri”. What is forbidden, they say, is for the congregation
to answer instead of, or in place of the server. But what happens in the
Missa Dialogata, as commonly practised, is for the people to answer together
with the server, and there is no question of breaking the very grave liturgical
rule of canon 813, §1, requiring a priest to have a server when celebrating
Mass. This is the explanation given in The Month1 by Father Martindale,
and it is found in many other commentaries on the decree.2
The J.R.C., if it wished to do so, might have forbidden the practice
altogether and in all circumstances; but, instead, the judgement in individual
cases is left to the Ordinary. The phrase “Ad Rntum Ordinarium” bears
this sense in replies from the T.R.C., as may be seen in other instructions,
e.g. 30 June, 1932, n. 4371. To introduce the practice everywhere, and at
all Masses, would cause endless confusion and annoyance; but the Missa
Dialogata could be started, with no inconvenience and very many advantages,
in small parishes, communities and chapels, provided the consent of the
Ordinary is obtained. In some dioceses, as in Bruges and Malines, there
exists synodal authority for the practice.
(iv) The only later Roman reply of which we have any knowledge is
that given in Italian, 30 November, 1955, to the Archbishop of Genoa,
printed in Periodica, 1936, p. 43, and Ephemerides Liturgicae, 1936, p. 95.
It is on the same lines as that given in 1922, but is more favourable to the
practice, which is now described as “praiseworthy” in itself—per sè lodevole—and not merely “lawful”. We give the Latin version of the text:
(1) In Seminariis, in Congregationibus, in aliquibus paroeciis inolevit
usus quo populus una cum ministro respondet in Missis privatis, modo nihil
confusionis afferat. Quaeritur utrum hic usus sustineri possit, imo
propagari.
(2) In nonnullis locis, in Missis privatis, populus una cum sacerdote
celebrante, alta voce et concorde, recitat Gloria, Credo, Sanctas, Benedictas et
Agnus Dei. Propagatores huius usus hanc rationem reddunt: Missa privata
est abbreviatio Missae decantatae. Atqui in missa decantata populus
decantat Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Benedictus et Agnus Dei. Ergo hoc fieri potest
per recitationem etiam in missis privatis.
Quaeritur utrum sustineri possit et usus et ratio adducta.
Haec sacra Congregatio, audita quoque sententia Commissionis liturgicae, respondet ad normam decreti n. 4375 pertinere ad Ordinarium iudicarc
num in singulis casibus, spectatis omnibus rerum adiunctis, videlicet loco,
populo, numero missarum quae simul celebrantur, etc., usus propositus,
etsi per se laudabilis, inferat turbationem potius quam foveat devotionem.
Quod facilius accidere potest in usu in altero dubio proposito, etiam prae
termisso iudicio de ratione quae affertur, videlicet: Missa privata est abbre
viatio Missae decantatae.
Secundum praedictam normam Eminentia Vestra Reverendissima pro
prudentia sua plenum ius habet temperandi hanc pietatis liturgicae formam.
The decision, therefore, regarding this practice and all its details rests
with the Ordinary’, who will no doubt take into consideration the desires of
the local priest. Questions Liturgiques et Paroissiales, 1938, p. 168, prints from
La Croix, 13 March, 1938, a useful clarification of the subject by the Master
1CLXT, 1933, p. 145.
» Cf. Collationes Brngenses, 1922, p. 436; 1952, p. 226; Palaestra del Clero, 1933, p. 199.
i4j
SERVER AND CONGREGATION
q.
115
of Ceremonies to the Cardinal Archbishop of Paris. It is not a law of the
Archbishop for his diocese, but it may be taken as a good interpretation of
the law, since the text was approved by the diocesan liturgical commission.
After stating that the Missa Dialogata is praiseworthy but is not permitted
except with the Ordinary’s approval in each case, the writer cites various
Instructions of the Holy See in order to eliminate what is forbidden:
Recitation of the Gloria, etc., by saying aloud with the celebrant alternate
verses or stanzas. (J.R.C., n. 3248.5.)
The recital aloud with the celebrant of those parts of the Mass which
must be said by him secreto. (S.R.C., n. 4375.)
The invocation aloud at the elevation of the words “My Lord and My
God”. (J.R.C., n. 4397.1).
Reciting those prayers which are reserved to the celebrant, such as
Orate Fratres, Domine non sum dignus·, but the people may be authorized to
say aloud the Domine non sum dignus, etc., which precedes the communion of
the faithful.
The epistle and gospel may be read aloud in the vernacular by a male
religious catechist or teacher, whilst the celebrant recites them in Latin.
Rites not prescribed by the rubrics, c.g. each of the faithful bringing a host
at the offertory, or introducing into a low Mass ceremonies proper to a
solemn Mass, arc always forbidden. For it is not the purpose of the Missa
Dialogata, he continues, to solemnize a low Mass, but to prepare the way for
the full participation of the faithful in a sung Mass.
Q. „6
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
u6
IV. HOLY EUCHARIST: COMMUNION
RITES OF HOLY COMMUNION
116.—Dividing the Sacred Host
//, owing to an unfortunate error, there are insufficient small particles in the
ciborium, is it lawful to divide not only these latter but also the large Host reservedfor
Benediction and the large Host consecrated in the Mass ?
The rule is contained in a decree S.C. Cone., i 2 Feb., 1679, which forbade
various abuses in the administration of Holy Communion: “Insuper ad
moneant, nulli tradendas plures Eucharistiae formas seu particulas, neque
grandiores, sed consuetas.” The text of this decree in Fontes, n. 2848,
contains a footnote quoting Benedict XIV, who explains the reason of the
prohibition: an abuse existed in some French convents where the nuns
received several particles “maioris devotionis gratia”. A more explicit
direction may be seen in Gardellini’s Commentary on the Clementine
instruction for the “Forty Hours” Exposition, xxxi, n. 24: “Per hoc docemur
cam neque integram, neque in partes sectam fidelibus posse distribui.”
That the rule admits of exceptions is expressly allowed by 5.R.C., 16
March, 1835, n. 2704.1: “Num tuto sequi valeat Regula Ritualis ParisicnsLs, sic expressa: Si, quando Communio danda est, inventus non fuerit
sufficiens numerus Hostiarum, poterunt aliquot Hostiae dividi in plures
Particulas, quae singulis distribuantur ? Et quatenus non sit sequenda, num
quibusdam saltem in circumstantiis temporis, locorum et personarum, sequi
possit ? Rfj·/». Servetur consuetudo dividendi consecratas particulas, si
adsit necessitas.”
It is clearly wrong to adopt the practice of dividing Hosts without neces
sity and, although some of the older writers give as an example the necessity
of administering Viaticum, there is now complete agreement that far
less than this extreme need suffices. “In casu necessitatis, si nempe
particulae conccratac non habeamur pro numero fidelium communicantium,
particula dividi potest in duas, ties, aut etiam quatuor partes juxta eiusdem
particulae magnitudinem, sed cavendum ne particula nimis parva c\radat
et vix sensibilis in ore communicantis.”1 The fact that a number of people
present themselves for Holy Communion is, therefore, a sufficient reason for
dividing the particles in the ciborium.
May the same be said for breaking off a portion of the priest’s Host ?
Gasparri answers in the affirmative: “Quod si particulae consecratae
desint, etiam ex maiori hostia sacerdoti reservata detrahi potest una aliavc
pars distribuenda fidelibus qui diu cxpectarc non possent.” Cappello,
citing this text, adds “licet ex mera devotione communicet”.2 A fortiori,
‘ Gasparri, D/ Ejabaristia, II, §1098.
* De \u·, III, 1952, p. 451.
q.
126
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
ÏJ4
mundum became universally regarded as used in order to safeguard the
Sacred Host from falling on the ground, and a stiff card covered with linen
was considered by rubricians to be a proper observance of the rubric. In
this country wc were accustomed to the linen card, rather resembling a large
pall, until the new regulation of 1929 directed that a communion plate was
to be used.
It can easily be understood that, since the card was replaced by the plate,
the use of a linen cloth seemed to many unnecessary. It has been discon
tinued in many places, but the only possible justification for this practice
would be that it is a lawful custom contrary to the rubrics. In our view
this plea cannot easily be justified, for the Instruction of 26 March, 1929,
expressly directs that the plate is to be used in addition to the linen cloth:
“Ne autem fragmenta in humum decidant quoties sacerdos Christi Corpus
fidelibus praebet, sive ipsa directe, sive ex distenta mappa prolabantur,
prudentissime dimidio fere praeterito saeculo mos fuit inductus, parva
utendi patina, ex metallo confecta, subter eorum mentum apponenda.
. . . Quapropter Sacra Congregatio . . . haec praescribenda esse censuit:
(5) In diribenda fidelibus sacra Communione, praeter, ante communicantes
extensum, linteum albi coloris, iuxta rubricas Missalis, Ritualis, et Caercmonialis Episcoporum, patina erit adhibenda, etc.”
The position, as we understand it, is that previous to this Instruction
the custom of using a linen card instead of a linen cloth was permissible;
since the Instruction, a cloth is of obligation in addition to the metal plate.
This cloth, whatever its origin in antiquity may have been, is no longer
for the purpose of preventing the Sacred Host from falling, but is of a
purely ceremonial character.
126.—Purification after Communion
Is it permitted, for proportionate reasons, to restore the purification of wine and
water which the rubrics of our present Missal direct to be given to all communicants ?
Rit. Celebr. Miss., X, 6: Minister autem dextera manu tenens vas cum
vino et aqua, sinistra vero mappulam, aliquanto post sacerdotem eis porrigit
purificationem, et mappulam ad os abstergendum. Cf. also n. 9 in Ponti
fical Masses.
J’.R.C., 16 March, 1591, η. 9, and 18 June, 1689, n. 1812: Consuetudines
quae sunt contra Missale Romanum, sublatae sunt per Bullam Pii V in
principio ipsius Missalis impressam, et dicendae sunt potius corruptelae
quam consuetudines . . . consuetudines contra Rubricas Missalis sublatae
per decretum.
Canon 818: Reprobata quavis contraria consuetudine, sacerdos cele
brans accurate ac devote servet rubricas suorum ritualium librorum . . .
(i) The question has to be decided by applying the principles of custom
ary law to the rubric, and it is the more difficult, in this instance, since the
custom of not giving the purification of wine and water is not one secundum
legem or praeter legem but manifestly contra legem. Some older writers main
tained that there could never be a legitimate custom contra rubricas unless
expressly approved by the Holy See. But this view, though theoreticallv
consistent with the above texts, cannot be sustained in practice, since the
155
RITES OF MOLY COMMUNION
q.
126
distinction between preceptive and directive rubrics is now universally
admitted. Moreover, it could be held that the exclusion of custom refers to
notable modifications of the rubrics.
An article on the subject of custom as affecting liturgical law's appeared
in Ephemerides Eiturgicae, 1917, pp. 430 and 557, and the writer, P. Victorius
ab Appcltcrn, O.M. Cap., establishes a distinction which is important. His
point is that the reprobation in canon 818 of all customs against the rubrics
refers to the actions of the priest celebrating Mass. “Quum nobis Codex per
canonem 818 illam reprobationem consuetudinum contra rubricas Missalis
Romani et aliorum ritualium librorum solummodo limitaverit seu restrinx
erit ad Sacerdotem Missam celebrantem, et consequenter ita ius antiquum, per
Constitutiones Summorum Pontificum et decreta 5.R.C. quoad Rubricas
Missalis Romani stabilitum, correxerit, idcirco concludendum est alias
consuetudines, etsi Rubricis Missalis Romani contrarias, a Novo Codice
tanquam iuris corruptelas non esse reprobatas, et consequenter, si sint
centenariae aut immemorabiles, ab Ordinariis iuxta locorum et personarum
adiuncta tolerari posse, si ipsi existiment eas prudenter submoveri non posse.”
Whatever the explanation, the Holy See has frequently left it to local
Ordinaries to decide w'hethcr a given custom is to be continued. Modern
commentators hold that canon 818 docs not exclude every custom contra
rubricas, and that canons 25 to 30, which formulate the lawr on custom, may
be applied to liturgical laws.*1 The implied consent of the competent
authority, required from canon 25, is certainly present with regard to the
custom of not observing the purification rubric.2 It is almost universally
disregarded, except in the Ordination Mass, and it is the exception for any
of the authors explaining the rite of Communion even to advert to the
rubric. Alone amongst those in common use we find that De Herdt per
mits its use in solemn Masses “si velint et usus habeat”.3
(ii) Other examples of rubrics which have fallen into disuse are the
Sanctus Candle and the use of a cushion for the Missal.4 The obligation
of this candle no longer exists, but the rubric may be followed if so desired,
and the Ordinary can direct its use. The same may be said of the Missal
cushion.
We think, however, that the purification rubric is not only obsolete
but that it is no longer permitted to restore it; the custom of not observing
the rubric now has the force of law. Or, if this seems an unreasonable view
to take of a rubric in the editio typica of our present Missal, it may be said that
its observance w'ould cause bewilderment, if not scandal, to the faithful,
since it has been obsolete for so long. In other matters of a rather similar
character the 5\R.C. has directed the observance of a rubric, in spite of a
contrary local custom, provided it can be done without scandal. Still more
should this rule of avoiding scandal apply in the case of a rubric which has
fallen into disuse nearly everywhere. We arc of the opinion, therefore, that
it would be wrong to start observing this rubric without the permission of
the Ordinary. These remarks apply to the re-introduction of the practice.
If, as De Herdt notes, its observance still continues in certain instances and
1 Cf. Van Hove, Commentarium Lovaniense, De Consuetudine, §§227, 228; CaUewacrt·
Utargicae Institutiones, ξι39.
1 Gaspard, De Eucharistia, §1184.
• Sacrae Liturgiae Praxis, I, §33I.
♦ K/7 Celehr. Miss., VIII, 6; fl, 4-
q.
127
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
156
localities, the practice should be continued. It is done, we believe, in
Westminster Cathedral at the solemn Mass on Maundy Thursday, when the
purification is given to the clergy communicating and to the lay servers.
§2.
DISPOSITIONS OF COMMUNICANT
127.—Refusing Communion Before Mass
It is the custom here for Holy Communion to be given before the first Mass on
Holy Days, and many communicants leave the church between the first gospel and the
elevation—thereby missing Mass. They go home for breakfast and then proceed to
work. Is it not the duty of these people to rise early enough to get breakfast before
Mass, omitting I loly Communion, and then proceed to work ? Under these circum
stances ought not the clerg\ to refuse Holy Communion before Mass? To me it
seems a grave scandal which ought to be stopped.
The first contention is, we think, correct. The precept of hearing Mass
is a grave one and should be fulfilled, if it is morally possible, in preference
to receiving Holy Communion without hearing Mass. It is a matter which
should be explained to the people from the pulpit occasionally.
But we cannot agree that the faithful, in this case, should be refused Holy
Communion. Public refusal of the sacraments is a most rare occurrence and
is lawful only in the case of public sinners. Even though we assume that
the communicants arc certainly going to miss Mass, this is not the kind of
conduct which puts a person into the category’ of public sinners. Moreover,
the priest cannot be quite certain that it is their intention to miss Mass—
they may fulfil this obligation later at some other church; nor can it be said
with certainty that the obligation of hearing Mass on Holy Days of obligation
is binding upon working people at the cost of going without breakfast,
or of deferring it to the forenoon, or of bringing it with them to church.
It is a matter to be settled by the conscience of each individual in consulta
tion, if necessary, with a confessor.
»
AM)· a parish priest insist on the faithful receiving Holy Communion immediately
after the priest’s communion during all Masses, instead of immediately before, except
only in the case of persons who hare a good reason for communicating at this less
correct time ?
The normal rule is that the faithful should communicate during Mass.
This is certainly the tradition of the Church and may even be said to repre
sent the mind of Christ: “accipite ex co omnes”. The Postcommnnion prayer
of the Mass presupposes and takes for granted that the faithful have just
received Holy Conununion. Canon 863 : “Excitentur fideles ut frequenter,
etiam quotidie . . . utque Missae adstantes non solum spirituali affectu,
sed sacramentali etiam sanctissimae Eucharistiae perceptione, rite dispositi,
communicent.” Also, canon 846, §1, expresses the normal rule: “Quilibet
sacerdos intra Missam et, si privatim celebrat, etiam proxime ante et statim
DISPOSITIONS OF COMMUNICANT
q.
128
post, sacram communionem ministrare potest, salvo praescripto can. 869.”
The exception for a private Mass establishes the rule for Masses which are
not private; canon 869 permits the distribution of Holy Communion in any
place where Mass may lawfully be said. The practice of receiving Holy
Communion just before Mass needs special consideration, because the priest
is vested for Mass and the rite has the appearance of being connected with
Mass. It is open to any priest to point out repeatedly to the people the
importance of the normal liturgical rule.
But there have always been occasions, even in ancient practice, when the
Holy Eucharist could be received outside of Mass, on the supposition that
there existed some necessity for it. The practice has undoubtedly spread
to cases where there is really no shadow of necessity whatever. This abuse
the Church has checked by forbidding the practice of communicating before
Mass, except only in Masses styled “private”. Unfortunately the term
Missa Privata can be used in more than one sense: it may mean a Mass at
which the faithful are not invited to be present—for example, a Mass in a
private oratory or a non-oflicial Mass said by a visiting priest in a church;
it may also mean, and this is the commonest sense, a Mass which is not a
sung Mass nor a conventual Mass. It is in this latter sense that the terms
of canon 846, §1, are to be interpreted, as may be deduced from 5.R.C.,
n. 4177-3It must, therefore, be admitted that as long as the custom of communi
cating before Mass is not expressly forbidden, the faithful seeking Communion
at this time are seeking it reasonably; they may not be refused, except in the
circumstances of n. 4177.5: “. . . (non potest) administrare S. Com
munionem, etiam data rationabili causa, ante vcl post Missam solemnem
aut cantatam aut etiam convcntualem, sicut permittitur ante vel post Missam
privatam”.
128.—Evening Communion
Is it lawful for the faithful to receive ΙΊο/y Communion at any time of the day,
if they are fasting, and their request is reasonable ?
The custom of communicating outside of Mass is unliturgical but not
forbidden. The restrictions as to the time of reception are, firstly, that
Holy Communion may not be administered, even with a reasonable cause,
immediately before or after Missa Solemnis, Missa Cantata, and Missa Conventualis. This is permitted only before or after Missa Privata.
Secondly, unless there is a reasonable cause for acting differently, Holy
Communion should be received only at those times at which Mass can
be celebrated—that is to say, before midday. Canon 867, §4, which formu
lates this well-understood rule, allows for exceptional circumstances: “nisi
aliud rationabilis causa suadeat”. It is not a very practical provision, since
it would rarely happen that a person would be keeping the fast through
the afternoon or evening. But it is possible, for example, in the case of a
worker on a night-shift, who has been sleeping during the morning, that
the afternoon is not merely a convenient time but the only time. There is
a reasonable cause, and the only precaution necessary is to avoid the scandal
which might arise if it were thought that Holy Communion was being
QQ. 129, 130
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
158
received not fasting. “Justa existence causa communicare possunt fideles
ieiuni non tantum horis matutinalibus, sed etiam post-meridianis, dummodo
tamen inde non oriatur scandalum aut admiratio populi. Prohibitio non
celebrandi Missam post-meridiem non ita stricte se extendit ad dispen
sationem communionis.”1
129.—Communion During Sung Mass
Should those in white choir who are about to receive Holy Communion kneel or
standfrom the “Ecce Agnus Dei” onwards ?
(i) During the Confiteor only those who arc about to communicate
should kneel. “Diaconus vero stans in cornu Epistolae . . . cantabit
confessionem in tono et notis consuetis, stantibus Canonicis et clero,
exceptis his qui sunt communicandi, qui genuflectere debent, et tunc per
Caeremoniarium vocantur.”2 In these days, normally everyone in white
choir will be receiving Holy Communion. Rubricists direct that these
communicants shall kneel in twos in the middle of the choir,3 but this may
not always be possible if there is a large number; they will then presumably
be kneeling in their places in choir.
(ii) Not only the communicants but everyone in white choir should
kneel whilst Holy Communion is being distributed. Some authors, in
cluding Martinucci, direct that it is more correct to remain standing, basing
this view on the rule that the white choir is standing, at a solemn Mass,
during the communion of the celebrant.4 But an instruction of 5.R.C. is
uite explicit: “An Canonico, post sumptionem Corporis et Sanguinis,
ispensante Corpus Christi clericis . . . debeant Canonici genuflectere ?
Rat/». Affirmative.”5 The reason is evident: during the Communion of the
celebrant the Blessed Sacrament is not visibly exposed, but during the dis
tribution of Holy Communion it is. Those in white choir should, there
fore, be kneeling from the moment the celebrant faces them with the words
Ecce Agnus Dei until the distribution of Holy Communion is concluded.
This is the solution given in Ephemerides Eiturgicae, 1904, pp. 674, 675,
summarized by l’Ami du Clergé, 1930, p. 527.
3
130.—Mass or Communion
Owing to bis business and the hour of Mass in the church, a parishioner of mine
finds that on weekdays he can either hear Mass or receive Holy Communion, but it
is impossible to do both. He asks which of these is preferable, and has received
contradictory answers from priests consulted.
There arc many considerations, relative to the person’s circumstances,
which might assist in coming to a decision. For example, he may, perhaps,
1 PrQnuncr, Vbcol. Moralis, III, §221.
’ Caerem. Epp^wL xxix,
3 Cf. Fortcscuc-O’Connell, Ctrcmomts of /Ar Rweu Rj/e, p. 119.
4 Rjibrirar Gtnrralts, XVII. 5; Catrtm. Epp., II, vlii, 71.
» 9 March, 1711, n. 2209.)·
iJ9
DISPOSITIONS OF COMMUNICANT
Q. 151
assist at Mass with greater devotion or vice versa·, or he may have a personal
preference for one rather than the other; or he may desire to gain an in
dulgence or do the Nine Fridays. Obviously he is at liberty to please
himself.
But such considerations do not really touch the question, if we suppose
that these circumstances do not affect the case, and that he is simply desirous
of doing the better of two good actions. It is a quandary which could not
have arisen in an earlier age when it was not the custom, except in the case
of the sick, to communicate apart from Mass. But in these days, pace the
liturgical purists, it is permitted, and it is the desire of the Church that
the faithful should communicate daily. Certainly it can be shown that
Pius X had in mind daily Communion during daily Mass, and canon 865
urges all who assist at Mass not to be content with spiritual communion but
to communicate sacramentally. But we cannot find any opinion on the
point raised, apart from a short discussion in l’Ami du Clergé, 1912, p. 361,
which actually leaves the difficulty unsolved.
Our own opinion is that Holy Communion is preferable; firstly, because
it brings grace to the recipient ex opere operato·, secondly, because the most
excellent way of participating in the Sacrifice is to partake of it. The Host
is consecrated through a Sacrifice and we participate in the Sacrifice by
Holy Communion, a point which should never be forgotten even when
Holy Communion is received at a time when Mass is not said.
On the other hand, it could be pointed out that the Church commands
weekly assistance at Mass but Holy Communion only once a year, which
would appear to argue that assisting at Mass, without receiving Holy
Communion, is more important than receiving Holy Communion without
assisting at Mass. Probably the best practical advice to give, though it
does not solve the point raised, is that the person should hear Mass and
receive Holy Communion on alternate days.
131.—Communion on Holy Saturday
In some religious communities it seems to be the custom not to receive Holy
Communion on Holy Saturday, since this apparently used to be the liturgical rule.
Should one inform them that nowadays the whole community ought to communicate ?
Canon 867, §3: In Sabbato Sancto sacra communio nequit fidelibus
ministrari nisi inter Missarum sollemnia vel continuo ac statim ab iis expletis.
Canon 869: Sacra communio distribui potest ubicunque Missam celebrare
licet. . . .
S.C. Cone., 20 December, 1905, quoted in S.C. Sacram, 8 December,
1938: Si quae Instituta, sive votorum solemnium sive simplicium, quorum
in regulis aut constitutionibus, vel etiam in calendariis Communiones
aliquibus diebus affixae et in iis iussae reperiantur, hae normae mere dircctivae non tamquam praeceptivae putandae sunt.
(i) Notwithstanding directions such as T.R.C., n. aj6t, some pre-Code
authors, including Cardinal Gasparri,1 held that the faithful should not
communicate on this day unless there was a custom to the contrary'; but it
1 De Eucharistia, §1090.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
160
should be noted that, long before the Code, certain decrees which required
a custom to justify the practice were not included in the Decreta Authentica.
The question is now beyond all discussion from canon 867, §3, but a relic of
the ancient discipline still survives in the rule which prohibits the recep
tion of Holy Communion on this day except during Mass or immediately
afterwards. Hence, in chapels where Mass on Holy Saturday is not
authorized, Holy Communion may not be distributed; where authorized its
distribution is permitted only in connexion with the Mass. Canon 867, §3,
is, therefore, an exception to the general rule of canon 869.
(ii) Bearing in mind the Instructions of the Holy See against unduly
urging frequent Communion on the faithful, especially in communities,1
one should be averse to telling a community that they all ought to com
municate at the Holy Saturday Mass. Some may, perhaps, be unwilling,
owing to the length of the Mass or for any other reason whatever. The
phrase in Sacra Pridentina Synodus, 1905, was directed against community
rules restricting the reception of Holy Communion to certain days; the same
phrase quoted in the 1938 Instruction, within a section discouraging general
Communions, is inserted for an exactly opposite purpose. But in both
documents the point is that the practice of frequent Communion is an
invitation, not a command. The community may, therefore, be told that
there is no longer any prohibition against communicating on Holy Saturday;
but, if they prefer to continue the old custom of not communicating on that
day, they may properly do so.
132.—Communion Twice on Christmas Eve
Christmas Eve falling on Sunday, a person who enjoys the faculty of assisting at
afternoon Mass intends to assist at the Sunday Mass in the afternoon, and to
fulfil the Christmas obligation by assisting that same afternoon at a second Mass,
the anticipated Christmas midnight Mass. May Holy Communion be received by that
person at both Masses?
Canon 857: Nemini liceat sanctissimam Eucharistiam recipere, qui eam
eadem die iam receperit, nisi in casibus de quibus in canon 8j8, §1 (. . . nisi
mortis urgeat periculum, aut necessitas impediendi irreverentiam in
sacramentum).
Canon 867, §4: Sacra communio iis tantum horis distribuatur, quibus
Missae sacrificium offerri potest, nisi aliud rationabilis causa suadeat.
Motu Proprio, 1 December, 1940, ad VI: Ac praeterea christifideles
omnes, qui pridie Natalem Domini sub vesperam Eucharistico Sacrificio
intererunt, etiamsi iam mane Eucharistico pabulo sesc enutrierint, ad Sacram
tamen Synaxim accedere poterunt, dummodo rite expiati riteque dispositi
quatuor itidem iam horas nihil cibi vel potus sumpserint.
The faithful arc bound to satisfy the Sunday obligation on Christmas
Eve,2 in addition to being present at the afternoon midnight Mass, and it
seems to us that an inevitable conclusion follows: they may communicate
at both Masses no matter at what hour the Sunday Mass takes place. The
1 S.C. Sarram, 8 December, 1958.
i6i
DISPOSITIONS OF COxMMUNICANT
q.
133
only reason for denying them this freedom would be that the law permits
the reception of Holy Communion only once a çlay. But the Motu Proprio
itself, by expressly sanctioning a second reception in the afternoon, makes
it clear that the anticipated Christmas Mass is reckoned as a separate day.
We think, therefore, that it makes no difference whether the first reception
was in the morning, as stated in the Motu Proprio, or in the afternoon; for,
in both cases, the Mass at which Holy Communion is received is legally on
a day distinct from Christmas Day. The document mentions the morning
because, in the common law, anyone who received Holy Communion at
the Christmas Eve Mass would do so in the morning of that day: the
contingency of the Mass proper to Christmas Eve being in the afternoon is
not considered, because it is, even in war time, only lawful by indult.
133.—Non-Catholic Seeking Communion
A priest distributing Holy Communion observes a youth at the altar rail whom
be knows with certainty to be a non-Catholic. What is the correct procedure ?
S. Poenit., io December, i860; Fontes n. 6426.20: An possit SSma
Eucharistia notorie censura innodatis ministrari, quin prius fuerint, ut par
est, cum Ecclesia reconciliati ? Negative.
Canon 731, §2: Vetitum est Sacramenta Ecclesiae ministrare haereticis
aut schismaticis, etiam bona fide errantibus eaque petentibus, nisi prius,
erroribus reiectis, Ecclesiae reconciliati fuerint.
If the non-Catholic status of the youth is known, not only to the priest
but to the rest of the faithful in the church, the priest must obviously refuse
him Holy Communion; the circumstances are similar to the case of a public
sinner publicly seeking the sacraments.1
The same answer must, in our view, be given, even though it is assumed,
firstly, that the youth is in good faith, therefore not a public sinner; secondly,
that he has not incurred the censure attached to heresy; thirdly, that his
status is unknown to the faithful in the church. The accepted doctrine of
all the moralists permits the administration of the sacraments to the un
worthy, who are not publicly known to be such, on a principle of natural
law requiring a person’s good name and reputation to be preserved. But, in
these days at least, no ill-repute normally attaches to being publicly regarded
as a non-Catholic; nor is the censure usually incurred by such, notwithstand
ing our practice of ritually absolving from excommunication when receiving
them into the Church. Canon 731, §2, it will be observed, is a prohibition
quite distinct from that implied in the penalty of canon 2314. It is not merely
an ecclesiastical law, nor is it exclusively based on the necessity of avoiding
scandal; it is a divine positive law, an application of the principle that all
the sacraments are external signs of the unity of faith existing between all
the members of the visible Church, and therefore to be given only to such,
even though quite conceivably others might be capable of receiving them
validly and fruitfully. Cf. Q. 20.
The only exception to this rule of canon 731, §2, apart from the case
where the priest’s knowledge is obtained from the confessional, is the
1 De Smet, De Sacramentis, §161.
Q. !34
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
tôz
modern teaching, supported by some Roman decisions, which permits
servatis servandis the administration of Penance and Extreme Unction, but
never of the Holy Eucharist, to non-Catholics in danger of death who
are destitute of their senses.
The correct procedure in the above case is for the priest to pass over this
youth, and afterwards explain to the congregation, if it is feared that other
wise the youth’s reputation may suffer, that he was not a Catholic and had
approached the altar rail through a misunderstanding.
134.—Women Communicating Hatless
Does a priest act rightly or not in refusing Holy Communion to women com
municants with uncovered heads ?
I Cor. xi, 13, 16: You yourselves judge: doth it become a woman to
pray unto God uncovered ?... But if any man seem to be contentious,
we have no such custom, nor the Church of God.
Canon 1262: Viri in ecclesia vel extra ecclesiam, dum sacris ritibus
assistunt, nudo capite sint, nisi aliud ferant probati populorum mores aut
peculiaria rerum adiuncta; mulieres autem, capite cooperto et modeste
vestitae, maxime cum ad mensam Dominicam accedunt.
(i) The law is certain that women must receive Holy Communion with
head covered. It was the custom in St. Paul’s day, in itself a sufficient reason
for the Apostolic injunction, even apart from the teaching of the whole
passage in I Cor. xi, 1-16, which is a difficult text to interpret. Clearly, like
any other positive law, a reasonable necessity excuses its observance. Women
often prefer to go about hatless nowadays, but this preference cannot be
regarded as a sufficient reason in itself for not observing the law in so sacred
a matter as receiving the Holy Eucharist, a rite which is carefully regulated
by the Church in its smallest details. Accordingly, even in parts of the world
like China, the Vicars Apostolic are directed to do their best to enforce the
rule “sensim sine sensu”,1 and the Congregation of Rifes directs that women
assisting at sacred rites, “per fenestram (vulgo Coretto') quae intus Ecclesiam,
interiectis transennis, inspicit”, must have their heads covered.2
A priest acts rightly in securing, by every lawful means, the observance
of the law, e.g. by reproaching delinquents, or by explaining—if he feels
equal to the task—the mind of St. Paul. The hatless brigade should bring
with them a mantilla for use in church, as many do.
(ii) We do not know of any instance, but it is conceivable in some
localities that the non-observance of the law is regarded generally as a
grave scandal, and local law may direct the clergy to refuse Holy Com
munion to women with uncovered heads.
Failing any such law or direction from the Ordinary, it is our opinion
that a priest must not refuse Holy Communion to those who, even with
no justifying reason of any kind, approach with uncovered heads. It will
be seen from the wording of canon 1262 that “capite cooperto” is a separate
item from “modeste vestitae”. With regard to women and girls immodestly
attired we have the Instruction of the Congregation of the Council, 12 January,
1 Fontu, n. 4905,
• N. 5402.4«
163
DISPOSITIONS OF COMMUNICANT
q.
135
1930, chat they arc to be refused Holy Communion. But no matter how
strongly one feels about the subject, the lack of any headgear obviously
cannot be regarded as immodest, nor is there anything in the Instruction
leading us to suppose that it can be construed as such. It is an extremely
grievous affront for the faithful to be denied the Sacraments, and it is
well merited by public sinners or by persons known to be excommunicated.
Refusal is so grave a matter that the discipline must be reserved for those
who are publicly known to be in a state of mortal sin.
The writers generally arc reticent about the gravity of this law; they
reserve their space, quite rightly, for discussing the serious matter of
communicating in immodest attire. Two canonists, however, of undoubted
authority, give us the assurance that the law binds sub lev's only, and they do
it rather neatly, and no doubt to the complete satisfaction of the devout
sex, by viewing a hatless woman in exactly the same light as a skull-capped
man.
Gasparri, De Eucharistia, §1132: “Ceterum quae diximus de corporis
ornatu in Ecclesia pro Missae adsistentia, a fortiori repetenda sunt pro
sacra communione. . . . Proinde vir pileolum non gerat; quod tamen
veniale peccatum non excedit et omni culpa vacat si rationabilis causa sit
et absit scandalum. Id et de mulieribus, velatum caput non habentibus,
repetendum est . . . sacerdos neminem exinde a sacra mensa repellere
debet aut potest.”
Cappello, De Sacramentis, §519: “Vir nudo capite communicare debet.
Quare pileolum gestare nequit; id tamen culpam venialem non excedit. . . .
Quod et de mulieribus, velatum caput non habentibus, dicendum est.”
135.—Communicants and Cosmetics
It is not, 1 suppose, ever permitted to refuse Holy Communion io a communicant
whose face is made up beyond all reason. But couldyou indicate some motives which
could be suggested to women, inducing them to refrain from this objectionable practice,
and particularly from the use of lip-salve, when approaching Holy Communia-, ?
It is the rule of canon 1262, §2, that women should be modestly apparelled
in church, and especially when approaching Holy Communion. The Holy
See has further directed that those who gravely offend in this matter arc
to be refused Holy Communion.’ But by no stretch of the imagination may
one regard a startling and garish make-up to be so gravely sinful in itself as
to justify refusing the Sacraments. “Lex naturalis et ecclesiastica iubet ut
Eucharistia reverenter accipiatur: quod etiam de externa reterentia intellegen
dum est. Attamen, cum haec varia ratione pro variis regionibus et person
arum condicionibus exhiberi soleat, nullus vestitus vel agendi modus
arguendus est peccati, etiam venialis, nisi, in his concretis adiunctis, com
muniter aestimetur debitae reverentiae vel modestiae contrarius.”3
The matter is discussed, either directly or by implication, by manualists
and others under the heading of scandalum and ornatus mulierum. The compiler
of the vast index to the works of Suarez, twenty-eight quarto volumes, was
1 S.C. Cone., 12 January, 1030.
’ Génicot, Theol. Moralii, II, §204,
q.
i
I
êï ·
iM
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
164
so impressed by the connection between these two things that he gives only
three words to the important subject of woman: “Mulier—vide scandalum
XII”.1 St. Thomas in II—II, 169, 2, ad 2, explaining the rather severe attitude
of St. Cyprian to the practice of painting the face, states a principle which is
still valid:
. mulierum fucatio, de qua Cyprianus loquitur, est quaedam
species fictionis, quae non potest esse sine peccato . . . non semper tamen
talis fucatio est cum peccato mortali, sed solum quando fit propter lasciviam,
vel in Dei contemptum; in quibus casibus loquitur Cyprianus; sciendum
tamen, quod aliud est fingere pulchritudinem non habitam, et aliud occultare
turpitudinem ex aliqua causa provenientem, puta aegritudine, vel aliquo
huiusmodi; hoc enim est licitum. . . .” The practice is gravely sinful if
done with lascivious intent, and in certain periods of the past it was restricted
to women of loose character. But, at the present time, in many countries,
it is done without any evil intention. It is the fashion at the moment, and
many contend that, on certain occasions at least, a woman is not appropriately
“dressed” without it. We may not like the fashion and must await the time
when it will become outmoded. But granted it is the fashion with us, at
the present day, cosmetics may be used without any suspicion of lascivious
ness: for covering up defects, as St. Thomas teaches; for pleasing a husband
or for securing one; or simply for the purpose of being in the fashion.
Provided due moderation is observed in the language employed, and the
practice is not described as in itself even venially sinful, we think that the
clergy could, with perfect propriety, urge women to refrain from the use
of cosmetics, and particularly from lip-salve, when approaching Holy
Communion. Fashion or no fashion, it is clearly, as St. Thomas says,
“quaedam species fictionis”. If there is one moment in our lives when we
should put away all pretence, it is at the time of receiving Holy Communion.
Grace is given in the sacraments ex opere operato, but also in accordance with
the dispositions of the recipient, amongst which humility must hold the
first place. “O res mirabilis ! manducat Dominum pauper servus et humilis.”
Studiously to appear more handsome than we really are, at the moment of
receiving One who is content, for our sake, to appear less than He really is,
can be described, restrainedly but effectively, as an elementary lack of
humility.
The desire to please the opposite sex is perfectly legitimate and good,
but no Catholic woman is presumably occupying her mind with this when
going to Holy Communion. She is not only banishing it from her own
mind, at so sacred a moment, but is also presumably not desiring to be the
occasion of desire to men who are approaching Holy Communion at the
same time. It was the question of scandal to others that St. Paul dealt with
in the Eucharistic doctrine of I Corinthians xi, and his words can easily
be applied to this topic: “What shall I say to you ? Do I praise you ? In
this I praise you not.”
There is, finally, the positive law of the Church regarding contact with
the Sacred Species. The Holy Eucharist should not come in contact with
lip-salve. The danger of it doing so is, perhaps, slight, and we think the
emphasis should be rather on other considerations than this. But it is a
point which would very likely carry weight with some women com1 Optra. Vivés cd 1878. The devout sex will find a suitable reply in the Index to the
VFtstminster Provincial Councils, “Avaritia—vide Rectores”·
i6j
DISPOSITIONS OF COMMUNIC/XNT
q.
136
municants, who might be disposed to contest the validity of the other
considerations we have mentioned.
It is clearly within the competence of the Church to make a fresh positive
law on the subject, but it is not open to a parish priest to do so on his own
authority, since the people enjoy the right, in the common law, to receive
Holy Communion wherever Mass is being celebrated, unless they are
excluded on some certain title
136.—Precedence in Receiving Communion
It is my custom, in a nuptial Mass, to communicate the bride and bridegroom
before the servers, since they have the place of honour on this occasion. Some, however,
maintain that the server, even if a layman, always precedes everyone else, including
clerics who are not serving.
Rituale Romanum, Tit. iv, cap. ii, n. 4: Postea ad communicandum
accedit, incipiens ab iis qui sunt ad partem Epistolae; sed primo, si Sacer
dotibus, vel aliis ex Clero danda sit Communio, iis ad gradus altaris genuflexis praebeatur. ... N. 11 : Intra Missam autem communio populi statim
post communionem Sacerdotis celebrantis fieri debet. ... N. 12: Itaque,
si qui sint communicandi intra Missam, Sacerdos ... porrigit communicandis
Eucharistiam, incipiens a ministris altaris, si velint communicare.
Missa Votiva pro Sponso et Sponsa'. Sacerdos . . . postquam sumpserit
Sanguinem, communicet Sponsos : et prosequatur Missam.
J.R.C., 15 July, 1658, n. 1074: In casu praedicto ministrum sacrificii
non ratione praeeminentiae, sed ministerii, praeferendum esse ceteris
quamvis dignioribus.
30 January, 1915, n. 4528: Nomine ministri altaris vel sacrificii
Missae venit quilibet clericus vel laicus, Missae ad altare inserviens,
qui praeferendus est ceteris in distributione sacrae Synaxeos; cauto
tamen, ut laico inservienti praeferantur clerici, et clericis minoris
ordinis alii in maiore ordine constituti, aut personae quae superiori polleant
dignitate liturgice attendenda per se (uti regum) vel per accidens (uti
sponsorum in Missa pro benedicendis nuptiis).
The liturgical texts quoted above do not expressly solve the difficulty
proposed. The writers generally deduced from them that the lay server
should precede all others, although some allowed an exception for priests
or deacons communicating, e.g. on Holy Thursday, in surplice and stole.
The reply, 5*.R.C., n. 1074, does not expressly consider the presence of
clerics in major orders: it directed in general terms that the server preceded
“monialibus vcl ceteris ibidem praesentibus”; but the conclusion could
rightly be drawn that the server preceded everyone, including the clergy.
The last direction, T.R.C., n 4328, makes the rule now perfectly clear,
namely that the server has precedence only over others of the same liturgical
rank as himself. Therefore, when clerics arc communicating they take
precedence over the lay server; likewise, the bride and bridegroom at a
nuptial Mass have the same precedence. If the server at a nuptial Mass is
a cleric in major orders, the point is not expressly decided, but wc agree
with a commentator on this decree in Periodica, 1919, p. 249, that an exception
QQ. 137,
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
166
to the usual rule of clerics preceding the laity is here established in favour
of bride and bridegroom. Another fairly common case indicated by the
same writer, on analogy with the exceptions mentioned in the decree, is
the precedence to be given to the parents of a newly ordained priest at his
first Mass.
137.—Genuflecting at Communion
Should the faithful who have just received Holy Communion bow or genuflect
when retiring from the communion rails? Some maintain that they should bow
only, for the reason that they bave just received Holy Communion. Others, however,
assert that they should genuflect, because a priest celebrating ‘ ‘coram Sanctissimo
exposito" also genuflects before turning to say the last “Dominus vobiscum" and before
giving the last blessing. What if only one or two persons receive Holy Communion
and the priest bas already reached the altar before the communicants go back to tbeir
place?
(i) It is certain that persons in white choir who are communicating should
genuflect after receiving Holy Communion. From this it may be deduced
that the laity communicating at the altar rail act correctly if they likewise
genuflect after receiving. This is the decision given twice in l'Ami du Clergé,
1912, p. 64, and 1927, p. 590. Authorities quoted for this view are De
Amicis, I, p. 259, and J. Barberis, Manuale di Sacre Ceremonie, p. 422.
For the most part the writers do not advert to the point, though there is
complete agreement concerning the genuflexion by those in white choir.
We think that, if the priest has returned to the altar before the communicants
depart from the altar rail, a genuflexion is not required.
(ii) It may well be, in a crowded church, that the genuflexion is impossible
owing to the throng of people coming to the altar and meeting those depart
ing. The laity cannot be marshalled in the same way as persons in white
choir. Therefore, in spite of the decision given above, we think that the
custom of not genuflecting, where it exists, may be continued. The custom
has, no doubt, arisen owing to the grave inconvenience of genuflecting, and
this is always recognized as a sufficient reason for not observing a positive
law. The 5.R.C. has often directed that a custom of not genuflecting, in
other circumstances, may be continued. Cf. 26 September, 1868, n. 3182,
a reply tolerating such a custom on the part of certain canons, which was
clearly opposed to the rubrics of the Missal.
138.—Nine Fridays and Good Friday
bl
Since the first Friday in certain years falls on Good Friday, what would be the
best answer to give to the faithful who ask whether the series must be started again,
seeing that Holy Communion may not be received on Good Friday ?
The text of what is known as The Great Promise, which St. Margaret
Mary narrates with great humility, requires the Communions to be pn nine
consecutive Fridays. The writers on the subject all agree that if the nine
Fridays are interrupted, even through no fault of the communicant, the
novena must be started again by those who piously desire to comply with
ïbl
THE EUCHARISTIC FAST
q.
139
the conditions attached to the promise. This interpretation is recommended
by a writer in Collationes Bnigenses, 1896, p. 150, as, at least, the safer course
to pursue, even when the interruption is caused by the occurrence of Good
Friday. “Ex quibus verbis sequitur probabiliter interruptionem etiam
coactam non esse admittendam, nisi velimus adhuc extendere amplissimum
jam privilegium quod nimia caritate Christus dicitur promisisse. Tutius
proinde est adhortari fideles ut novam seriem incipiant. Idquc eo magis
suadendum est quod certe non eo fine inducuntur SS. Cordis cultores ad
hanc piam praxim, ut revolutis novem mensibus, jam abstineant a S.
Communione, sed potius ut facilius huic sanctae consuetudini inhaerentes,
perveniant ad gratiam perseverantiae finalis, cooperando gratiis abundantioribus quas SS. Cor Jesu cultoribus suis larga manu elargitur.” The same
conclusion is reached by the anonymous author of an admirable work
entitled The Nine First Fridays.1 The series, he asserts, must be started
again if one wants to be on the safe side.
No doubt a case could be made out for the view that it suffices to com
municate on Holy Thursday or Holy Saturday, arguing analogously from
such practices as the Gregorian Masses, the scries of which is certainly not
interrupted by the omission of a Mass on Good Friday. But we are of the
opinion that this view should not be spread amongst the people, even though
it may be probably correct. For it is clearly because they wish to be on the
safe side that the faithful undertake to observe the conditions attached to
the promise.
§3.
THE EUCHARISTIC FAST
139.—Mass Not Fasting
Through a misunderstanding the priest fails to arrive for the Sunday midday
Mass at which 200 people are present. May the parish priest celebrate Mass not
fasting in order to enable the people to fulfil their obligation ?
(i) This familiar difficulty was discussed by Mgr. Cronin in The Clergy
Reveiw, II, 1931, p. 90. The answer to the question, as it stands, is usually
given in the negative, since it is the practically unanimous teaching of all
the authorities that the law of observing the fast is graver than that of hearing
Mass. Quite often we find that a reply of the Holy Office, 2 December, 1874,
is quoted in this sense, namely as expressly comparing the gravity of the
two laws and declaring in favour of the fasting law. The text, as contained
in Fontes, n. 1034, is as follows: “Sc per ragione di scandalo o di ammirazionc
si possa giammai celebrare la seconda messa dopo la prima quando già è
stato infranto il digiuno. R. Negative.” It is pointed out, and we think
rightly, that in this context “scandal” is not to be taken in the strict
theological sense of being the occasion of another’s sin, but in the looser
sense of “admiratio”; the necessity of avoiding grave scandal, in the strict
sense of the word, is a sufficient reason for celebrating non-fasting.
The law is an unusually grave one, but it cannot be claimed, from the
1 Bums Oates (1934), p. 74; also C.T.S. pamphlet, Do, 146, p. 12.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
ιό8
direction of the Holy Office, that we may never apply to it the principle that
no positive law binds aim gravi incommodo. The kind of scandal which
sometimes may be feared, as the writers note, includes the danger of stirring
up animosity and ill-feeling against the priest. It would seem that this
could easily be removed by explaining the circumstances to the people,
though even here one must go warily. In Mgr. Cronin’s recollection, a
priest who explained that he could not say Mass because he had taken the
ablution was understood to have frankly admitted that he could not get
absolutioni A commoner and more actual example of real scandal would
be the fear that many people would not attend Mass elsewhere, though they
could easily do so and are bound to do so.
(ii) It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that what all the argumentation
and theological dexterity of the writers amounts to is that one may say
Mass not fasting, in order that the people may fulfil their Sunday obligation,
a principle which is, in theory at least, almost universally rejected. But,
since it is a matter of positive law, it may well be questioned in these days
when priests occasionally obtain, for purposes of public utility, permission
to celebrate Mass after taking liquid nourishment, whether the older doctrine
concerning the relative gravity of the fasting law as compared with that of
the Sunday precept can be sustained. Thus Dr. Mulders, after discussing
the doctrine given above, writes in *N.K.5
.,
1933, p. 5 5 : “Humiliter vero
censemus hodie, mitigata cum sit praxis dispensandi in iciunio naturali,
etiam in favorem sacerdotis celebrantis, alias quoque causas excusantes tuto
posse admitti. Speciatim, cum iam ob solam causam privatam utilitatis
vel devotionis sacerdotis obtineri possit dispensatio, nullo modo auderemus
damnare parochum, qui ob solam rationem quod notabilis fidelium pars
dic dominica vel festo de praecepto secus Missae adstarc nequiret, Sacrum
iteraret.” We are in agreement with this opinion.
(iii) The circumstance usually supposed in this question is that a priest
has inadvertently taken the second ablution. If he has taken a breakfast
of solid food, Mass may be said for any of the very urgent reasons outlined
by the commentators on canons 808 and 858, §1. But, even at the risk of
appearing illogical, we are not prepared to extend the opinion given under
(ii) to this case, and to concede that Mass be said after a solid breakfast
solely in order that a notable number of the faithful may fulfil their obligation.
For, whatever may be the developments at some future time, the usual
induits at the moment permit only liquid nourishment for appropriate
reasons before Mass, and the opinion of Dr. Mulders, which we think
reasonable, is based on the present practice.
140.—Eucharistic Fast—Time Computation
In a recent discussion on the computation of time it was held that the liberty
allowed by canon 33, §1, would justify a priest saying his first Christmas Mass at
midnight {legal time'), breaking bis fast, and then saying the other two Masses. Is
this opinion probable?
Canon 53, §1: In computandis horis diei standum est communi loci
usui; sed in privata Missae celebratione, in privata horarum canonicarum
recitatione, in sacra communione recipienda et in iciunii vel abstinentiae
i69
THE EUCHARISTIC FAST
Q. 140
lege servanda, licet alia sit usualis loci supputatio, potest quis sequi loci
tempus aut locale sive verum sive medium, aut legale sive regionale sive
aliud extraordinarium.
Canon 6.4: In dubio num aliquod canonum praescriptum cum veteri
iure discrepet, a veteri iure non est recedendum.
(i) The interpretation of canon 53 always raises some dispute owing to
the very wide liberty allowed by the law itself, and the still wider opinions
held by probabilists in its application. The view may now safely be followed
that one is not bound to adhere inflexibly, for different actions or obliga
tions, to one reckoning of time: one may choose the legal time for one
obligation and mean time for another, even within the same twenty-four
hours. Thus, Office for the following day may be said at twelve midnight
legal time (11 p.m. mean time) and the Eucharistic fast on the same day
is not broken by taking food before 1 a.m. legal time (12 midnight mean
time): legal time is chosen for the breviary obligation and mean time for
that of the Eucharistic fast. We do not say that there is a chorus of agree
ment on the lawfulness of this interpretation; read the controversy, for
example, in the Ecclesiastical Review, 1952, December, p. 634; but the writers
who defend it include such authorities as Michiels, Normae Generales, II,
§140 seq.; Vermeersch-Crcusen, Epitome, I, §148; Chelodi, lus de Personis,
n. 89; Van Hove, Commentarium Eovaniense, I, iii, §298. It is solidly probable
even when extended to two diverse laws affected by one action, e.g. eating
meat which on one computation does not break the Friday abstinence and
on another computation does not break the Eucharistic fast.
Maroto, Institutiones, I, §258, and many others dissent from this view,
relying on the accepted teaching even of thorough-going probabilists
forbidding the use at the same time of a double probability, since one would
be certain to break one law or the other. But the answer, as given by
Chelodi, seems absolutely sound: in this matter of choosing a computation
of time according to canon 33, it is not a question of choosing probable
opinions but of using the liberty which the law itself permits.
(ii) On the above reasoning it does seem, at first sight, that food could
be taken after midnight Mass without breaking the Eucharistic fast for the
following day, assuming that the reckonings of time were favourable;
for the law requiring a fast from midnight before receiving the Holy
Eucharist (canon 858) is quite distinct from the law regulating the hour
when Mass may be said (canon 821): one computation is chosen for deter
mining the hour of beginning midnight Mass and another for the Eucharistic
fast on the following day.
But actually none of the writers quoted draws this conclusion, and the
reason is that their doctrine—liberal though it is—is subject to this limitation
at least: we may never use different computations of time for settling an
obligation arising from one and the same law: that is to say, there are not
actually two diverse laws but only one in our present problem—the law’ of
the Eucharistic fast.
To take another example, the ecclesiastical fast binds from midnight to
midnight for twenty-four hours; if one could juggle with the computations
at either end, the time could be reduced to twenty-three hours or less, which
would make the law absurd. Unless, therefore, the law is to be made absurd
and contradictory, the following rule must always limit one’s choice of
reckoning: if one computation is chosen for the fulfilment of one and
q.
i4I
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
170
the same precept, that reckoning must be retained for the whole time
within which the precept binds. The law of the Eucharistic fast is of
obligation from midnight: if midnight legal time is chosen for the first
Mass, it must be retained for the other Masses because the three Masses
belong to one day.
The only possible method of allowing liberty to break the fast would
be to fast for the whole of Christmas Eve I There arc liturgical objections
to regarding Midnight Mass as a Vigil Mass, but there would be no intrinsic
absurdity or contradiction in this procedure. In any case it is wholly un
attractive and we have not seen it suggested by anyone. Very few of the
writers, in fact, advert to the problem we have been discussing. Those who
do mention it are agreed in disallowing the interpretation suggested in this
question. Cf. TAmi du Clergé, 1957, p. 278; Van Hove, op. cit., §300, quoting
Weigert, “leiunium naturale und die drei Weinachtmesse”, TheologiscbprakiisebeQuartalschrift, 1927, p. 335.
141.—Eucharistic Fast: Saliva
Is tbe natural fast, required before Holy Communion, broken by swallowing
(/) particles offood left in the teeth; (ii) a fen1 drops of water whilst cleaning teeth;
(Hi)juice or minute particles of tobacco whilst smoking; flow of saliva caused by holding
an empty pipe between the teeth ?
The answer to each of these questions is that the fast is not broken.
The authority for this is, for the most part, the teaching of the moral
theologians on the subject, who rightly tend to a liberal solution in order not
to encourage a foolish scrupulosity. Often there is complete agreement,
and we can, at least, rely on their opinions being “probable”. The following
solutions occur in most of the manuals. We have chosen that of GuryTummolo-Iorio, Compendium Theologiae Moralis, ed. 5, Vol. II (1935).
(i) The fast is not broken by swallowing particles of food left in the teeth.
This is certain from De Defectibus, IX, 3: “Si reliquiae cibi remanentes
in ore transglutiantur, non impediunt communionem, cum non transglu
tiantur per modum cibi, sed per modum salivae . . .” The same answer
applies even though these particles are swallowed voluntarily.1 We are of
the opinion that the use of false teeth makes no difference, even though they
are replaced without being previously cleansed. Ubi lex non distinguit, etc.
(ii) The fast is not broken. Cf. rubrics ibid'. “ ... si lavando os deglutiatur stilla aquae praeter intentionem”. If swallowed voluntarily and
unmixed with saliva the fast is broken “quia tunc nihil deest ut rationem
cibi aut potus habeant”.2 If mixed with saliva the fast is not broken even
if swallowed voluntarily.
(iii) The fast is not broken by taking snuff, nor by smoking tobacco in
its various forms, nor even by chew’ing tobacco.3 It is, of course, agreed
that these practices are unbecoming unless done for some reasonable cause.
Swallowing minute particles of tobacco should be regarded, in our opinion,
in the same way as swallowing drops of water as in (ii). If saliva mixed with
1 Tununolo-Iorio, op. cit., §352.
• loc. cit.
• loc. cit.
I7J
THE EUCHARISTIC FAST
q.
142
tobacco juice does not break the fast, a fortiori the use of an empty pipe
does not.
142.—Eucharistic Fast: Lozsnge
If one takes a cough lozenge five minutes before midnight and keeps it in the mouth
until it is wholly dissolvedhalf an hour later, is the Eucharistic fast broken ?
The fast is broken by taking after midnight into the mouth, and subse
quently into the stomach, digestible substances, not as saliva or in the process
of breathing, but in the ordinary manner of taking food or drink. Each of
the points in this definition, which now represents the common teaching, is
open to discussion, and the proper attitude in solving doubts is to favour a
liberal interpretation, wherever possible, in order to discourage scrupulosity
about trifles. But we may never adopt the view, no matter how small may
be the quantity taken, that smallness of matter is of no account; for a person
is either fasting or not fasting, and the fast is broken by any quantity of food
or drink taken within the terms of the above description.
From De Defectibus, IX, 3, it is quite certain that the remnants of food
remaining in the mouth are to be considered as being swallowed per modum
salivae, and although this text has in mind an involuntary action, most of
the commentators rightly decide that the fast is not broken by voluntarily
swallowing these particles of food.
It would seem to follow from this teaching that a cough lozenge, or
any other kind of soluble sweet, is to be considered as a remnant of food
remaining in the mouth. But I cannot find any writer who draws this
conclusion. On the contrary, even those who are well known for liberal
views, as Gcnicot-Salsmans, Institutiones, II, §200, hold that the fast is
broken: “Jejunus non est qui post mediam noctcm trajicit cibum, ante illud
tempus in os immissum et lente saliva solvendum, puta electuaria.” Cf. also
Tummolo-Iorio, Theologia Moralis, II, §354, or Davis, Moral and Pastoral
Theology, III, p. 215, amongst the manualists; and in current periodical
literature: Koerperich in Collationes Namurcenses, 1939, p. 4; Twomey in
Ecclesiastical Review, May 1940, p. 414. The latter writer records that this
is the view of practically all authors, the implication being that there are
some who dissent; but they are not named, and failing sufficient data on
which to form a judgement, the conclusion must be that the dissenting
opinion is not solidly probable.
The reason given for the stricter solution, which we think is the correct
one, is that a soluble lozenge is of its nature a substance which is swallowed
continuously per modum cibi, and cannot therefore be regarded as a remnant
of food swallowed per modum salivae.
The only exception permitted by many is in the case of a substance, such
as chloride of potassium, which is found to be still in the mouth, practically
intact, after several hours; or in the case of any lozenge which is normally
expected to dissolve before midnight and has not done so owing to some
accidental or inexplicable reason. In these cases, what has actually been
swallowed may be regarded as per modum salivae, and if the substance is
removed immediately the fast is not broken. Cf. Van Hove, De Eucharistia,
Ρ· <7θ·
For the view that other kinds of lozenges arc permitted it might be said
q.
143
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
,72
that their solution is a continued digestion rather than a continued eating.
Physiologists may, indeed, regard the reduction of food in the mouth as
part of the digestive process. But it seems to us inconclusive for the purpose
of proving the contention that the fasting law permits the absorption of
lozenges and sweets in the mouth after midnight. For, in the first place,
the canon law considers the common estimation in things of this kind, not
the scientific definition: for example, what constitutes valid matter for
baptism is not a substance which has the chemical constituents of water, but
water in the common estimation. We think it beyond dispute that the
popular and common notion of digestion refers it to nourishment which has
been swallowed: a man who is unable to masticate his food is not said to be
suffering from indigestion.
In the second place, this is precisely the difference between n. 2 and n. 3 in
De Defectibus IX, for in n. 2 we arc told, perhaps unnecessarily, not to worry
about undigested food, and in n. 3 not to worry about fragments of food
remaining in the mouth. The reason for the latter assurance is not that these
fragments are in process of digestion, as in n. 2, but that they arc considered
to be swallowed per modum salivae. The rubric is taken, as Many points out
in Praelectiones de Missa, §176.3, almost verbally from St. Thomas Summa
I'beol., Ill, 80, 8 ad 4: “reliquiae tamen cibi remanentes in ore, si casualiter
tranglutiantur, non impediunt sumptionem huius sacramenti, quia non
trajiciuntur per modum cibi, sed per modum salivae”. The purpose of the
rubric is to allay foolish scrupulosity, and we think every reasonable person
would come to this conclusion even though no rubric existed.
143.—Eucharistic Fast: Liquid Paraffin
Can it be safely held that liquid paraffin, taken in a small quantity on rising in
the morning, does not prevent reception of Holy Communion ?
We must confess that our first reaction to this question was a decided
negative, since food and drink must be understood, as in all these questions,
according to the common estimation. The smallness of the quantity is
absolutely irrelevant, and it would appear that even a spoonful of this
consumable liquid is drinking in the common estimation, and is therefore
not permitted before Holy Communion.
But, on examining the authorities, it was found that in order to formulate
some principle which will eliminate scrupulosity over such minutiae as
swallowing small pieces of wood, the criterion employed is whether the
material swallowed is capable of being assimilated or digested, and a decision
is reached not merely from the common estimation but from chemical
considerations. It is maintained, from the chemical point of view, that
certain substances such as vaseline or paraffin are not assimilated into the
body, but are purely lubricating, so to speak, and their medicinal value is
precisely as such. If this is so (and there is no ground for contesting the
scientific fact) it would follow that they are to be permitted on the criterion
enunciated.
St. Thomas in III, 80, 8 ad 4, states: “et ideo neque post assumptionem
aquae, vel alterius cibi, aut potus, vel etiam medicinae, in quantumcumque
parva quantitate, licet hoc sacramentum accipere: nec refert utrum aliquid
THE EUCHARISTIC FAST
175
huiusmodi nutriat, vcl non nutriat, aut per se, aut cum aliis, dummodo
sumatur per modum cibi vcl potus”. St. Alpbonsus, however, argues that
St. Thomas’s phrase, “nec refert utrum nutriat vcl non”, does not clearly
show that he is referring to materials which cannot be assimilated.1 We
cannot quite follow St. Alphonsus in this interpretation. Neither writer,
as a matter of fact, has in mind the question of taking liquid lubricant. But
the modern manualists who expressly discuss it agree that, arguing on a
chemical basis, the fast is not broken. Tummolo-Iorio: “Non frangit
ieiunium id quod nullo modo est altcrabile seu assimilabile . . . sive hoc
chemice demonstretur sive ex hominum communi aestimatione ita reputetur.
Hinc olea quaedam mineralia, oleum paraflînae, vaselinae, etc. . . .”2
Vcrmcersch: “Quare quod chcmicc demonstretur nullo modo intus in aliud
converti posse sed non mutatum per corpus transire (v.g. paraffine) impune
ante communionem sumi potest”.3 Davis : “What is thought to be food, but
which, as the science of chemistry proves, cannot be changed or digested,
is not food at all, and will not violate the fast, as paraffin.”4
Accordingly, there is ample authority for the view that medicinal paraffin
does not break the fast, and individuals may frame their own conscience on
this opinion. Personally, we think that, viewing the matter from what the
common estimation of men regards as drink, paraffin is not permitted. It
is a point which could usefully be submitted to the Roman Curia for a
decision.
inadvertently had not been properly purified. What is the proper procedure to adopt,
assuming that the altar has a tabernacle? Shoidd the particles be placed in the
ciborium within the tabernacle or consumed immediately by the priest ?
The point is explicitly settled in De Defectibus, VII, 2: “Quod si depre
hendat post sumptionem Corporis et Sanguinis aut etiam post ablutionem,
reliquias aliquas relictas consecratas, eas sumat, sive parvae sint sive
magnae, quia ad idem sacrificium spectant.” The notion of pertaining to
the same sacrifice is applied by St. Alphonsus and the writers generally,5
even to the case where the particles arc not perceived until the priest has
returned to the sacristy: if he is still vested they should be consumed; if he
has unvested they should be placed in the tabernacle and not consumed,
except for one of the causes justifying Communion not fasting, e.g. fear of
irreverence.
The words “sive parvae sint sive magnae” in the above rubric need to
be interpreted in the light of the following rubric, n. 3: “Si vero relicta
sit Hostia integra consecrata, cam in Tabernaculo cum aliis reponat, etc.”
The two rubrics distinguish between “reliquiae magnae” and “hostia
integra”. If the fragment, though not a complete Host, is sufficiently large
to serve as Holy Communion for the laity, we are of the opinion that it should
1 TbtoL·
1 Tbcol.
1 Tbsol.
• Moral
1 7btol.
Moralis, VI, §395.
Moratis, II,
Moralis, ffi, S393Theology, III, p. 215.
Moralis, VI, ^251 ; Marc-Gcstcrmann, Tbcol. Moratis, II, §1542, ad Iv.
QQ. 145, 146
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
I74
be placed in the tabernacle as being the equivalent of a host and not simply
a fragment. Thus Cappello: “Quod vero de fragmentis dicitur, non potest
intclligi de integra hostia, aut tali parte, quae commode distribui possit in
lidclium communione; nam ut haec sumi queat a non iciuno, requiritur,
ut post ultimam missam desit locus decens, etc.”1 What has been said applies
only to a priest consuming particles remaining from his own Mass; other
particles must be dealt with on the usual principles justifying a non-fasting
Communion.
145.—Eucharistic Fast: Ablutions
A priest has obtained an induit enabling him to take some liquid nourishment
before Mass. Should he or should he not take the ablutions at the first Mass when
duplicating ?
S. Off., 2-3 May, 1923: Supremae Congregationi S. Officii propositum
fuit quaesitum: “An sacerdotes dispensati a ieiunio eucharistico ante
secundam missam, sumere possint ablutionem in prima.” Et S. Congregatio,
feria iv, die 2 Maii 1923, respondendum mandavit: Affirmative. Insequenti
vero feria v, etc. . . . Romae, die 16 Nov., 1922.
The conditions which must be verified before an induit for the non
fasting celebration of Mass will be granted by the Holy See were explained
by the Holy Office, 22 March, 1923, and 1 July, 1931. The above declaration
was called for, firstly, because of the doubt arising from the prohibition of
alcoholic liquids which is always contained in the induit; secondly, because
of the necessity of avoiding scandal to the faithful. For both of these reasons
it would appear that the ablutions should not be taken: wine is forbidden
by the induit, and the more observant members of the congregation are
accustomed to seeing a priest who is duplicating refrain from taking the
ablutions at the first Mass.
The Holy Office, nevertheless, has given an affirmative answer to the
question, and the reason can only be that the necessity of fully observing
the rubrics of the Mass is held to be of greater importance than the above
considerations. It will be noticed that the wording of the declaration is
merely permissive—“possint” not “debeant”—but we agree with the writer
in Periodica, 1922, p. 144, that, since the appearance of the above declaration,
there is an obligation to take the ablutions in such cases; the obstacle to the
observance of the rubrics being removed, they not only may but should
be observed; an induit is, indeed, a privilege which one is not bound to use,
but a subsequent declaration which makes it possible to observe the rubrics
is in no sense a privilege, and one should act in accordance with its pro
visions.
146.—Eucharistic Fast: The Infirm
(/) There are some people who remain in a permanent state of weakness after an
illness. For how long can they continue to exercise the privilege of canon 8 5 8 ?
(ii) What of the first month? A person may be ill without being in danger oj
1 De Serramentii, I, §458, 7.
175
THE EUCHARISTIC FAST
Q. 146
death. Must such a one, because unable to fast, be deprived of Holy Communion
during the first month? 1 here is often a difficulty in hospitals where medicine is
ordered, say, every two hours.
(Hi) There are others who suffer permanently from some interna! disorder which
makes the fast impossible. Is their case covered by canon 858? The case I have
in mind is that of a man, apparently healthy and strong, who on account of an internal
trouble has to have a drink in the middle of the night. I le sometimes manages with
great pain to make a monthly Communion, but more often than not he has to miss.
(iv) Are those included who are just well enough to visit a church for
Communion, though infirm and unable to observe the fast ?
Canon 858, §2: Infirmi tamen qui iam a mense decumbunt sine certa
spe ut cito convalescant, de prudenti confcssarii consilio sanctissimam
Eucharistiam sumere possunt semel aut bis in hebdomada, etsi aliquam
medicinam vel aliquid per modum potus antea sumpserint.
The terms of this principle are such that almost every word affords some
consideration of a casuistical kind. A confessor’s approval is essential before
the privilege may be used, and he will rightly give a liberal interpretation of
the law, since it is in favour of sick and suffering people: favores sunt ampliandi.
Before dealing with these questions, we may first observe that they
appear to take it for granted that the privilege may be used only by those
sick people whose illness makes it impossible for them to fast. Actually
the law does not make this a condition, since a decision on such a question
would, no doubt, be a cause of scrupulosity both for the sick person and
for the confessor. Persons otherwise qualified may use the privilege, even
though they arc able to fast: “Concessio non requirit ut praedicti infirmi in
ea conditione sint, ut ieiunium naturale servare non possint. Unde tales
possent etiam quotidie communicare: bis scilicet non ieiuni; ieiuni vero
reliquis diebus.”1 All agree, nevertheless, that it is desirable, out of
reverence for the Holy Eucharist, to observe the fast, if it is possible, even
though the law permits the taking of drink. The outlook is rather the same
as the counsel given to the faithful to fast before midnight Mass.
(i) The law does not require the illness to be grave. “Grave” as distinct
from “extreme” infirmity (in periculo mortis) is mentioned, for example,
in canon 525, in reference to the confessions of nuns. Usually the kind of
illness which causes a person to be laid up, decumbens, confined to the room if
not actually in bed, is serious or grave. But it may happen that it is not
grave from a medical point of view, and yet necessitates being “on the sick
list”; if the other conditions are present, we agree with Cappello2 that the
privilege may be used; there is no need to require gravity in the illness
(which, after all, is rather relative and difficult to determine), since the law
says nothing about it. The law itself describes the condition of the sick
person as one in which there is no certain hope that health will be quickly
restored, “sine certa spe ut cito convalescant”. The common interpretation
defines cito as three or four days. Convalescant does not quite mean the same
as convalescence, a stage in which the symptoms of disease have disappeared,
though the patient may still be enfeebled and unable to perform the ordinary
duties of life; it means the regaining of health, and the privilege may be used
as long as the person is still regarded as being laid up; cnfecblement after
1 Tununolo-Iorio, Theol. Moralis, II, §jj8.
* Ptriodiea, 19} 5, P- az·
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
176
an illness is itself a species of sickness, like old age. This point is further
determined in the answer to the third question.
(ii) It is certain that this privilege of the common law cannot be used
until a person has been ill for a month. There has been some discussion as
to the computation of the month, and an unofficial reply of the Code Com
mission decided that it was not necessary to compute it mathematically, i.e.
according to the strict legal rules of canons 31 seq.x
(iii) The cases of people who suffer from some disorder which makes
the fast impossible arc not included under this canon, unless the disorder
reduces them to the condition described above in (i). On the data given the
case appears not to be included. The notion of being confined to the house,
lying ill, is consistent with the interpretation given in (iv) infra, namely
that ability to reach a church docs not deprive a person of this privilege.
But it is not consistent with the condition of a person who, though suffering,
is able to go about his ordinary duties. The only remedy for such, and for a
sick person before a month’s illness is completed, is to seek a personal induit.
(iv) When the decree of the Congregation of tbe Council, incorporated in
canon 858, §2, first appeared in 1906, it was commonly maintained that the
privilege could not be used by sick persons in churches, but was to be
restricted to the Communion of the sick in their homes. Ferrcrcs always
held the opposite view, which has gradually obtained favour amongst
the authors. Pending any decision from the Holy See, the law of canon
858, §2, can be interpreted so as to include those sick people who are able
to walk to the church for Holy Communion, provided all the other con
ditions arc verified. This view is held by the following writers, who have
discussed the point:
Iorio, Theol. Moralis, II, §338: “Quodsi tales infirmi ad propinquam
ecclesiam accedere valeant (vel etiam ad distantem curru aliove modo
deferantur) non est ratio cur hac concessione frui non possint, dummodo
aliae omnes conditiones in casu verificcntur.”
Vermeersch-Creusen, Epitome, II, §124: “Attamen usus quidem
invaluit benigne intelligcndi vocem decumbentes. . . . Moralitcr autem
decumbunt etiam ii qui per aliquot horas e lecto surgunt, vel qui ipso morbo
usu lecti prohibentur. Nec obstat quod in ecclesia vicina communicent.”
Cf. also Davis, Moral Theology, III, p. 216, and Cappello reaffirming his
interpretation in Periodica, 1935, p. 29.
There are many, on the other hand, who hold that canon 858, §2, does
not apply in these cases, e.g. Noldin, De Sacramentis, §158; Priimmer,
Theol. Moralis, III, §203; Mcrkclbach, Theol. Moralis, III, §283. We think
that the liberal opinion, as taught by Vermcersch, Cappello and Iorio, may
safely be followed.
147.—Breaking Fast “Per Modum Potus”
In these days a number of people obtain a dispensation from the Eucharistic
fast which permits them to take non-alcoholic liquid nourishment before Holy
Communion but not solid food, and I have heard it maintained that such things as
uncooked eggs, or solids dissolved in tbe mouth {e.g. sweets'), are to be regarded as
liquid. Is this correct ?
1 24 Nov., 1927; Periodica, 1954, p. 234.
THE EUCHARISTIC FAST
I
q. 147
A much more generous interpretation of liquid nourishment is permitted
as regards the Eucharistic fast than in the case of the ecclesiastical fast. It
is a subject, we fear, which encourages the worst kind of casuistical hair
splitting, but people ask questions and our answers should be based on
some kind of reasonable principle, not on mood or instinct. A certain
support was given to liberal interpretations by a reply of the Ho/j Office,
7 September, 1897, quoted in all the manuals, to the effect that one is per
mitted to take soup, coffee and other liquid foods in which has been mixed
some substance such as wheat, grated bread and the like, provided the
resulting mixture retains the nature of liquid: “Respondeatur ad mentem,
ut in Abellincn., 4 Junii 1893: La mente e che quando si dice per modum potus
s’intende bensi che si possa prendere brodo, caffe, od altro cibo liquido, in
cui sia mescolata qualche sosunza, come p.e. semmolino, pangrattato ecc.,
purchè l’insicme non venga a perdere la natura di cibo liquido.”*1*
All nourishment is divided, from a culinary point of view, into three
categories : solid, slops and liquid. The term per modum potus clearly excludes
the first and includes the last, but occasionally the second is doubtful, since
from the canonical point of view food is either solid or liquid. The certain
test of a liquid is that it will pour or run, and there is complete agreement
that if the nourishment can be brought within this description at the time it
is introduced into the mouth, it is taken per modum potus. What the description
of the food is during the various stages of its preparation is irrelevant;
solids can be reduced to liquids, as beef tea, which is permitted, or liquids
can be turned into solids, as cheese, which is forbidden. Accordingly such
preparations as ovaltine, which is solid in the tin but liquid when ready for
consumption, are certainly permitted. Raw eggs beaten up with milk are
permitted, and many of the Latin versions of the above decree expressly
mention “ovum dilutum”; whereas a hard-boiled egg is certainly forbidden.
A raw or a lightly boiled egg is a good example of the second category of
food, and if it is to be permitted at all, it will be because it is reckoned to
be more of a liquid than a solid. There is sufficient authority for allowing
it.1
The views of commentators on the phrase per modum potus is best
examined in their interpretation of canon 858, §2, which permits nourish
ment of this kind to sick people under certain conditions. It will be found
that a few authors go far beyond the above explanation by including in the
term “liquid” whatever is swallowed as such, even though it is certainly
solid when introduced into the mouth. On this criterion anything whatever
which is not swallowed in its solid state, but dissolved in the mouth, is
reckoned to be taken per modum potus, e.g. hard sweets. This opinion has,
at least, external probability, and the faithful who wish to do so cannot be
forbidden to adopt it.
Our own view is that, in the ordinary use of language, no one could
possibly refer to toffee, for example, as a drink, and we are in agreement
with those authors who forbid anything which is clearly solid before being
introduced into the mouth. Amongst these writers is Cardinal Jorio,
Prefect of the Congregation of the Sacraments, a commentator of great authority.3
1 Fontes, n. 1192.
1 E.g. Vcnncersch-Crcuscn, Epitome, Π, §124.
’ Communion des Malades, p. 52.
Q. 148
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Ιγ8
148.—Eucharistic Fast: Indults
Is it possible to get permission for an infirm person to communicate daily after
bating broken the fast, it being understood that the person's state of health makes it
morally impossible to observe the lan< ?
(i) Local Ordinaries in many places have obtained from the Congregation
of the Sacraments a triennial faculty, which they may sub-delegate to certain
priests or to all within their jurisdiction, by which the terms of canon 858,
§2, arc considerably extended. All persons who have completed their
fifty-ninth year, pregnant mothers and those suckling their infants, may
communicate, even daily, after breaking the fast by taking medicine or
liquid nourishment.*
1 This induit is for Hol'and.
Here is the text of another induit obtained by the Archbishop of Malines,
15 December, 1936:
. Sacra Congregatio de disciplina Sacramentorum,
vigore specialium facultatum sibi a SSmo Domino Nostro Pio XI tributarum,
attentis expositis ab Ordinario Mcchliniensi, Eidem benigne tribuit facultates
juxta petitas, ad triennium, ut tum fidelibus in sexagesimo anno constitutis
et adversa valetudine laborantibus, tum mulieribus praegnantibus, tum
aegrotis in nosocomiis degentibus, veniam largiatur aliquid sumendi per
modum potus vel medicinae ante SS.Eucharistiae Communionem, bis vel
ter in hebdomade de consilio confessariorum durante male affecta valetudine,
praegnatione et commoratione in nosocomio, remota quacunque scandali
et admirationis occasione. Contrariis quibuscunque minime obstantibus.
D. Card. Jorio, Praef." Unlike the Dutch induit mentioned, it is only for
two or three times a week (canon 828, §2, is “semcl aut bis”), but the persons
to whom it is extended are much more numerous than in the canon.
(ii) If the Ordinary has not obtained any special faculties, it will be
necessary for the sick person to obtain an induit from the Holy Sec. A
petition should be addressed to the Ordinary stating exactly what is
requested, and it should be accompanied by a medical certificate. Some say
that the petition should mention that a confessor’s sanction has been
obtained, but this may, no doubt, be presumed if a priest is forwarding the
petition. Cardinal Jorio, the Prefect of the Congregation, writes, in his
useful work on the subject, that it is quite easy to obtain an induit permitting
medicine or liquid nourishment even daily.2 Canon Magnin, secretary at
the Paris curia, states that he has forwarded hundreds of these petitions
without ever having one refused.3 It will normally be necessary to make
an offering for curial expenses.
(iii) Liquid nourishment, c.g. such things as ovaltine or a beaten egg
in milk, should usually suffice, and solid medicine in the form of tabloids is
permitted both by canon 858, §2, and by the indults granted to Ordinaries.
But if permission to take solid food is desired, it seems that it will not easily
be obtained. Cardinal Jorio mentions one case where such permission was
granted, in 1918, for the purpose of enabling a person to fulfil the Easter
precept. The sickness of this person made it impossible, for various reasons,
to communicate until late in the afternoon.
* Cf. N.K.5., XXXVI, 1956, p. 581.
1 Communion des Malades, p. 46.
1 Quoted in Que trions Liturgiques ft Paroissiales, 1936, p. 41
179
THE EUCHARISTIC FAST
9 <49
i49.—Eucharistic Fast: Priests' Indults
On what conditions may a priest expect to obtain an mdnlt permitting, bim to
celebrate Mass or receive Holy Communion after breaking the fast ?
The law of canon 808 requiring a fast from midnight before celebrating
Mass has its counterpart in canon 858, §1, with regard to receiving Holy
Communion. Canon 858, §2, however, permits the reception of Holy
Communion under certain conditions after taking liquid nourishment or
medicine. The common law of the Code permits no similar exception for
priests celebrating, though they may, of course, always communicate more
laicorum in the circumstances of canon 858, §2. To celebrate Mass after
breaking the fast, apart from the exceptional cases which the moralists have
always noted, an induit is required.
(i) The Holy Office, 22 March, 1923,1 in a letter addressed to Ordinaries,
permitted a certain mitigation of the law in the case of priests celebrating
Mass. The leading principle in this document is that the law may be relaxed
solely for the spiritual good of the faithful and not for the private devotion
or advantage of the priest: “Gravissimae demum huius legis relaxationem
solum concedendam scias, quum spirituale fidelium bonum id exigat, non
vero ob privatam ipsius sacerdotis devotionem aut utilitatem.” The induit
can be obtained from the Holy See by Ordinaries in favour of a priest who
is unable strictly to observe the law, owing to infirmity or excessive fatigue
(infirmae valetudinis causa, vcl propter nimium sacri ministerii laborem,
aliasve rationabiles causas), as often as he is under the obligation of dupli
cating or of saying Mass at a late hour. Liquid nourishment alone is
permitted and intoxicants are absolutely excluded. The normal procedure
is for each case to be sent to the Holy Office by the Ordinary, but habitual
faculties are sometimes given to Ordinaries, though we do not find these
included in the usual formula of quinquennial faculties printed in the
books, e.g. Bouscarcn, Digest, II, p. 5. In urgent cases an Ordinary may
himself grant the permission personally, not through a vicar general, and
afterwards acquaint the Holy See of the fact.
The same Congregation, 1 July, 1951, issued a more closely determined
list of rules to be observed in applying for this induit. The document did
not appear in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, but it was printed in the journals,
e.g. Periodica, 1932, p. 106. The points to be included in the petition are
the age and ecclesiastical office of the priest, a medical certificate concerning
his state of health, the hour of celebration and any other circumstances in
the case of duplicating, and information concerning the possibility of
getting another priest to do the work of the petitioner. In the case of secular
clergy the petition must be sent through the Bishop together with his votum \
in the case of religious with care of souls, the intervention of the Superior
General is also required. These normae do little more than make more
precise the Instruction already issued in 1923.
But nn. i and 2 of these rules note an important distinction between
“per modum potus ad vires physicas reficiendas” and “per modum verae
medicinae ad morborum effectibus occurrendum”, and this distinction makes
1 A.AS., XV, 1925, p. iji.
Q. i jo
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
180
the conditions on which an induit may be obtained far less strict. For the
taking of medicine is not limited to cases where a relaxation of the law is
desirable for the spiritual good of the faithful, but may be permitted for the
private advantage of the priest: “Cum ratio dispensationis per modum potus
publicum sit bonum spirituale fidelium, ab iis tantummodo sacerdotibus
impetrari potest, qui animaram curae sint addicti; dispensatio per modum
verae medicinae, cum in commodum etiam privatum sit inducta, ceteris
quoque sacerdotibus potest concedi; prima pro diebus tantum festivis vel
fetialibus conceditur, in quibus missae sacrificium hora tardiore (post horam
decimam) ratione ministerii est celebrandum; altera etiam pro omnibus
diebus.”
(ii) Priests may receive Holy Communion more laicorum as often as the
conditions of canon 8 5 8, §2, are verified. In addition, those sick priests who
belong to the “Association of Priest Adorers”, commonly known amongst
us as the “Priests’ Eucharistic League”, have been granted the privilege of
communicating daily under the terms of this canon, not merely “semel aut
bis in hebdomada” like the rest of the faithful. The text of the rescript
granting this privilege, dated 29 March, 1926, may be seen in Collationes
Brugenses, 1927, p. 14, n. 2; Periodica, 1927, p. 87; Adoremus, xyi-], p. 25.
It has not, we believe, been published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. The
important clause in this rescript requires the permission of the Ordinary
“praemonito Ordinario loci eiusque obtenta venia” which has been officially
interpreted in the sense that the Ordinary cannot give this permission
“semel pro semper ac modo generali”, but he may subdelegate others to
act in his name.1
150.—Eucharistic Fast—Night Workers
Is it at all possible to obtain permission for night workers to receive Holy Com
munion occasionally after breaking the fast ?
>
IM
μ
A papal indult is necessary, in this and similar cases, which may be
granted if a petition is sent to the diocesan chancellor explaining fully the
reasons which seem to urge a relaxation of the law in some particular case.
The common law permits a relaxation in favour of the sick under certain
conditions, upon which the confessor must give a prudent judgement, and
induits are easily obtained permitting an extension of this law to nurses and
others—persons not contemplated in canon 858, §2. Extension of the law
may also be granted permitting non-fasting Communion more than twice a
week, and during the war induits have been extended in all directions.
Ordinaries may obtain faculties from the Holy Sec enabling them to
deal with applications without recourse each time to Rome. The Bishop
of Münster, for example, was granted in 1938 by the Congregation of the
Sacraments what is, we think, an unusual faculty, inasmuch as its use has no
relation to the sick or those in attendance upon them. The text, as printed
in Theologisch-praktiscbe Quarialschrift, 1939, p. 139, is as follows:
Num. 2177/38.
Beatissime Pater,
Episcopus Monasterien. ad pedes S. V. provolutus, humiliter postulat
1 S.C. Sacram., 4 February, 1927; Periodica, 1927, p. 170.
i8i
THE EUCHARISTIC FAST
q.
151
facultatem permittendi operariis metallis addictis, qui operas fabriles in
officina praebent per totum annum, nocturno tempore, ut semel in mense
aliquid per modum potus sumere possint ante Sanctissimam Eucharisticam
Communionem.
Ex Audientia SSmi dici 24. Maii 1938.
Sanctissimus Dominus Noster Pius Papa XI, audita relatione infrascripti
Card. Praefecti Sacrae Congregationis de Sacramentis, attentis expositis,
Episcopo Monastcrien. facultatem tribuere dignatus est juxta petita, ad
triennium ut praefatis fidelibus veniam largiatur aliquid sumendi per m >dum
potus semel in mense de consilio confessariorum, ante SSmam Eucharisticam
Communionem, remoto quocumque scandalo et periculo admirationis.
Contrariis quibuscumque non obstantibus.
sign. D. Card. Jorio Praef.
151.—Non-Fasting Evening Communion
An induit has been granted a person engaged in work of national defence during
the war, by which Holy Communion may be received three hours after taking even
solid nourishment. May this privilege be used, provided the other conditions are
observed, during the afternoon or evening ?
Canon 867, §4: Sacra communio iis tantum horis distribuatur, quibus
Missae sacrificium offerri potest, nisi aliud rationabilis causa suadeat.
A similar induit which was granted to bishops and apostolic adminis
trators in Russia, 25 November, 1929, expressly stated that it could be used
in the afternoon or evening, provided the fast was observed for four hours.1
In some respects it is wider than the induit to which the question refers,
e.g. it includes permission to say Mass in the afternoon; in cth r respects it
is mo e restricted, e.g. it can be used only on Sundays and Holy Days of
obligation.
The answer to the above query is affirmative, wc think, for the following
reasons. As explained in Q. 128, Holy Communion may be received fasting
in the afternoon or evening for any reasonable cause, “qua causa extante,
nil vetat quominus Eucharistia ministretur noctu vel sub vesperis, et quo
citius ante auroram vel serius post meridiem distribuatur, eo vel maior
quoque, uti patet, requiritur causa”.2 If it is found that a just cause exists
for fasting Communion in the evening, there seems no reason why a person
who, for other reasons, enjoys an induit for non-fasting Communion should
not use it at that time. To be quite accurate, all that is required is a reason
other than the reason for which the induit has been obtained, for the fasting
law is quite distinct from the law which permits Holy Communion normally
to be distributed only during those hours in which Mass may be said. The
induit has been obtained for night-workers, to take one example, enabling
1 Documentation Catholique, XXXIII, 1935, col. 1465: “Induit obtenu du Saint-Père par
le président (de la Commission pontificale pour la Russie) accordant aux évêques et ad
ministrateurs en Russie de permettre, tant que dureront les conditions actuelles, le dimanche
et les jours d’obligation, aux prêtres de célébrer et aux fidèles de communier l’après-midi
ou le soir, pourvu qu’on observe un jeûne eucharistique d’au moins quarte heures à
partir de midi, afin de faciliter aux ouvriers obligés de travailler ces jours-là l’accomplisse
ment de leurs devoirs religieux.”
* Cappello, De Sacramentis, I, §437·
Q. JQUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
t8a
them to communicate at the usual time even though the fast has not been
observed. But the case must be far from uncommon where the worker
cannot communicate in the morning, after he has left his work, but can
easily do so in the afternoon or evening before beginning work.
§4.
COMMUNION OF THE SICK
152.—Communion of the Sick: Rites
Can you describe briefly the chief points to be observed by the priest when taking
Holy Communion to the sick? There seems to be considerable diversity of practice
in this country.
.ί«
l·
Rituale Romanum, Tit. iv, cap. iv, n. 29: Quando, ex justa et rationabili
causa, privatim sacra communio ad infirmos defertur, Sacerdos saltem stolam
semper habeat propriis coopertam vestibus; in sacculo seu bursa pyxidem
recondat, quam per funiculos collo appensam in sinu reponat; et nunquam
solus procedat, sed uno saltem fideli, in defectu Clerici, associetur. Cum
autem ad infirmi cubiculum pervenerit, Sacerdos superpelliccum quoque
induat cum stola, si illud antea non induerit.
\\”c have taken this concise rubric from the Roman Ritual, since our
Ordo Administrandi needs bringing up to date with the latest typical edition.
It is assumed, firstly, that Holy Communion is taken privately to the sick,
since from Tit. iv, cap. iv, n. 10 of the Ordo . Administrandi episcopal permission
is necessary in this country for taking it publicly. Secondly, it is assumed
that there is no special urgency warranting the non-observance of the
ordinary rules.
(i) In taking the Blessed Sacrament from the tabernacle the priest should
be vested in cassock, cotta and white stole, and two candles should be alight
on the altar. A sacred particle is transferred from the ciborium to the small
pyx with the accustomed genuflexions and ablution of the fingers.
If the sacred particle has already been transferred to the small pyx and
left in the tabernacle, it is held by many that a cotta is not necessary when
removing this pyx. The chief authority for this is O’Kanc-Fallon, Rubrics
of the Roman Ritual, 1958, §775, but the author seems to assume that the
Blessed Sacrament is being taken privately from the priest’s house and not
from the church. In this country’ it is normally taken from the church, and
we think a cotta should always be worn whether the pyx is already prepared
or not, as directed in n. 12; there seems no adequate reason for dispensing
with this mark of reverence, the lack of which is likely to cause surprise to
the faithful who may be in the church; and we read in n. 8: “Quando
privatim sacra communio infirmis ministratur, reverentiae ac decentiae tanto
Sacramento debitae sedulo consulatur.”
(ii) Going from the church to the house of the sick person, the priest
will recite the Miserere and other psalms and canticles as directed in n. 13.
He will wear the usual outdoor clerical attire, but a stole must be worn
beneath the coat; some hold that there is a contrary custom in many places
,83
COMMUNION OF THE SICK
Q- « 5 3
which dispenses with the stole, but, relying again on n. 8, we cannot under
stand why this simple mark of reverence should be neglected.
Securing the attendance of one of the faithful to accompany the priest
is not so easy, perhaps, but it is a service which many would be glad to give,
and we think an effort should be made to observe the direction of this rubric.
It is customary in England for the burse containing the Blessed Sacrament
to be hung round the neck by a cord and to be placed securely within a
pocket of the coat or vest, a method which appears to be in accordance with
n. 29: “per funiculos collo appensam in sinu reponat”. But in η. 13 the
direction is: “Quod si longius aut difficilius iter obeundum sit, et fortasse
etiam equitandum, necesse erit vas, in quo Sacramentum defertur, bursa
decenter ornata, et ad collum appensa, apte includere, et ita ad pectus
alligare, atque obstringere, ut neque decidere, neque pyxide excuti Sacra
mentum queat.” The observance of this rubric would mean that, in addition
to the neck cord, the burse must be fastened to the breast by two cords
attached to its base, in much the same way as the amice is fastened at Mass.
The first edition of O’Kane’s book contained a passage which sanctioned the
use of a coat pocket instead of these cords, and the Congregation of Rites
objected: “adamussim servetur quod praescribit Rubrica”. Cf. op. cit.,
p. 147, and the prefixed decree. We agree with Fr. Dunne that this was a
private answer given to the author, and that the custom of using a pocket
instead of the fastening cords is tacitly sanctioned by the bishops in this
country and may be continued.1
(iii) Having entered the sick-room, the priest should vest in cassock,
cotta and stole, and observe everything else directed by the rubrics. It may
be noticed that it is no longer directed that the water used for purificating
the fingers must be consumed by the sick person. Instead we read in n. 22:
“Postea sacerdos abluit digitos in vase cum aqua parato, nihil dicens, et
abstergit purificatorio; aqua vero ablutionis suo tempore mittitur in sac
rarium, vel, si hoc desit, in ignem.”
153.—Communion of the Sick: Vesture
At a certain convent, one of the nuns is a permanent invalid. Holy Communion
is taken to her each day before Mass. The other nuns also receive Holy Communion
before Mass. Is it permissible for the priest to vest completely, take Communion
to the sick nun and then give it to the others ? Or should he go out of the sacristy
vested only in alb and stole, and after the Communion of the nuns return and vest for
Mass ? If the first manner of acting is considered right, should the blessing with the
Blessed Sacrament be given in the sick-room when the vestments are black ?
(i) The instructions of S.R.C., permitting a priest to leave the altar
during Mass to communicate a sick person, apply equally to Communion
given immediately before by a priest fully vested for Mass. It is lawful if
the priest docs not lose sight of the altar or, as some think, if his voice can
be heard from the place where the sick person is assisting at Mass.’
Inasmuch as, in these circumstances, the sick person is morally united to the
1 The Ritual Explained, p. 56.
•Cf. Q. 154.
q.
iJ4
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
184
recipients at the altar, Communion is administered to the former with the
usual Corpus Domini, etc., and without any of the ceremonies or prayers which
accompany the rite of administering Communion to the sick in Rituale
Romanum, Tit. iv, cap iv. When vested for Mass in black, the priest’s blessing
is not given at the end.1
(ii) If, however, the sick person is so far distant that moral unity, on the
above criterion, is not preserved, Communion must be administered as a
rite altogether separate from that accompanying its distribution at the altar
before Mass. The priest simply follows the directions of the Ritual, as in
any other case of administering to the sick in their rooms. He should be
vested in surplice and white stole.
The question whether it is correct to give the accustomed Benediction
vested in black does not arise: not in (i), since the person is communicating
with the others; not in (ii), since the priest should not be wearing a black
stole.
(iii) A slight variation from the rules given above in (i) might occur
when Holy Communion is not distributed immediately before or after Mass,
e.g. the priest has returned to the sacristy and someone requests Holy
Communion. The alb may be retained instead of the surplice. Chasuble
and maniple should be removed and the stole may be white or the colour of
the day, except on All Souls’ Day, when it may be either white or violet,
preferably violet?
154.—Communion of the Sick: Blessing
A convent chaplain administering Holy Communion “extra Missam” proceeds
immediately to the infirmary, and gives the blessing with the ciborium on his return.
Should the blessing “Benedictio Dei Omnipotentis, etc.” also be given ? If so, when
exactly is the correct time forgiving it ?
IM
I
The solution of this doubt turns upon a decision whether the Com
munion of the sick in this case forms one rite with the Communion of the
nuns in the oratory, or whether it must be considered a separate rite.
(i) On an analogy with the rules permitting the priest’s departure from
the altar during Mass to communicate a sick person, a similar departure
is permissible when the rite is not Mass but administering Holy Com
munion outside Mass. Canon 868 : “Sacerdoti celebranti non licet Euchar
istiam intra Missam distribuere fidelibus adeo adstantibus ut ipse altare e
conspectu amittat.” In addition to this criterion of the altar being within
sight, 5.R.C., 5522.2, sanctions departure from the altar when Holy Com
munion is to be given “in aliquibus cubiculis, ex quibus, etsi Altare non
videatur, tamen vox Sacerdotis celebrantis auditur”. This latter instruction
is not mentioned amongst the sources of canon 868 and may, as many think,
be abrogated. The principle, however, remains intact: the priest may leave
the altar to communicate persons at a distance provided they may be
considered as morally united with the recipients at the altar.
If, therefore, the infirmary in the above case is judged to be of this
character, e.g. a tribune overlooking the chapel, the priest proceeds there,
1 N. 5465.
i8j
COMMUNION OF THE SICK
qq.
155, 156
after communicating the nuns at the altar rail, and on his return completes
the rite as in Rituale Romanum, Tit. iv, cap. ii. The blessing is not with
the ciborium but with the words benedictio Dei Omnipotentis, etc.
(ii) If, on the other hand, the infirmary is totally distinct from the chapel,
it will be necessary to keep the rite of communicating the sick in Tit. iv,
cap. iv, absolutely distinct from that in cap. ii. To avoid replacing the
ciborium in the tabernacle, the sick should be visited first and the rite
completed with the ciborium benediction, as in cap. iv. Removing the
humeral veil, the priest communicates those in the chapel as in cap. ii,
concluding with the blessing benedictio Dei Omnipotentis, etc.1
155.—Communicating the Sick in Church
Is it quite in order for a priest, after communicating the faithful at the altar
rail, to descend into the body of the church in order to communicate an infirm person
seated in the benches who is unable to approach the altar rail ?
Canon 868: Sacerdoti celebranti non licet Eucharistiam intra Missam
distribuere fidelibus adeo distantibus ut ipse altare e conspectu amittat.
We have not found this situation discussed by the writers, but in our view
it is covered by the existing rules which regulate the distribution of Holy
Communion during Mass to the sick in an infirmary contiguous to the
sanctuary. Cf. S.R.C., nn. 2672.1, 2885, 3322, 5448.8; O’Connell, Celebration
of Mass, II, p. 164.
The criterion of canon 868 is that of n. 2672.1, namely that the sick
person must be in a place within view of the altar, which is clearly verified
in the above case. To be quite correct the Blessed Sacrament, if carried
outside of the sanctuary, should be accompanied by two lights and the
ombrellino, as directed in n. 3322, 1 and 2. But, in a case where the sick
person is very near to the altar rail, in the front bench for example, it seems
to us that this ceremonial could reasonably be omitted on the principle
pe minimis non curat lex.
156.—Communicating Expectant Mothers
May a priest fake Holy Communion to an expectant mother shortly before the
child is expected, if she finds it difficult or inconvenient to come to the church ?
Holy Communion may be taken to expectant mothers as to any other
person in a condition of sickness or infirmity. Apart from the danger of
death, the obligation of doing so cannot easily be determined; both the
canons and the ritual assume that there is an obligation to communicate the
sick in their homes, but its existence in an individual case must be determined,
as decided in Q. 160, by the circumstances of distance, the number of sick
people in the parish, and the time at the priest’s disposal; in other words,
by deciding whether a request for the sacraments is reasonable. In view of
all we do, or ought to do, to encourage motherhood, it is obviously desirable
to communicate expectant mothers who arc unable to come to the church.
1 Cf. O’Connell, Celebration of Masi, Π, p. 164,
QQ. 157,158
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
l86
Induits, moreover, are easily obtainable permitting expectant mothers to
communicate non-fasting in accordance with the conditions of canon
858, §2, a practice which supports the view that they are equivalent to sick
persons.
157.—Plural Communion of the Sick
Wbat is the correct procedure to be observed when Holy Communion is administered
to several sick persons in the same house or hospital, but occupying different rooms ?
Up to 9 January, 1929, it had been necessary to repeat the whole rite in
each room. On this date the Congregation of Rites' issued the following
instruction, which will, no doubt, be incorporated in the next typical edition
of the Ritual:
Quo breviori et faciliori ratione sacra Communio pluribus infirmis
ministrari valeat, Sacra Rituum Congregatio sequentem instructionem
probari posse censuit; nimirum:
Quando sacra Communio distribuitur pluribus infirmis, qui in eadem
domo, vel in eodem hospitali, sed in distinctis cubiculis degant, Sacerdos
vel Diaconus ministrans, in primo tantum cubiculo recitet plurali numero
omnes preces ante infirmorum Communionem dicendas juxta Rituale
Romanum, Tit. iv, cap. 4; in aliis autem cubiculis dicat tantummodo preces:
Misereatur tui . . . Indulgentiam . . . Ecce Agnus Dei ...» semel Domine
non stem dignus . . . Accipe frater (soror) . . . vel Corpus Domini nostri Jesu
Christi . . .; et in ultimo cubiculo addat versum: Dominus vobiscum, cum suo
responsorio et cum sequente oratione plurali numero dicenda: Domine
sancte . . ., ibique, si qua particula consecrata superfuerit, benedictionem
eucharisticam impertiatur, ac tandem reliquas preces praescriptas in Ecclesia
de more persolvat.
Facta postmodum de his omnibus Sanctissimo Domino nostro Pio
Papae XI per infrascrintum Cardinalem Sacrae Rituum Congregationi Pro
Praefectum relatione, Sanctitas Sua praefatam instructionem ratam habuit
et confirmavit; eamque pro opportunitate adhibendam benigne concessit.
Contrariis non obstantibus quibuscumque.
A table with a corporal and two lighted candles will be required in each
room; also a purificating vessel, unless there is a server who can carry it
when accompanying the priest. A humeral veil will be used on the
journey between the rooms.
158.—Communicating Others in the House
May a priest, on the occasion of taking Holy Communion to a sick person, also
communicate other persons in the household who are prevented, owing to the distance
from a church and other reasons, from communicating in the normal way ?
►Μ
Canon 869: Sacra communio distribui potest ubicunque Missam celebrare
licet, etiam in oratorio privato, nisi loci Ordinarius, iustis de causis, in
casibus particularibus id prohibuerit.
Canon 822, §4: Loci Ordinarius aut, si agatur de domo religionis
—* -— -
II
1 A.A.S., XXI. 1929. P· 6?.
187
COMMUNION OF THE SICK
Q. 15 8
exemptae, Superior maior, licentiam celebrandi extra ecclesiam et oratorium
. . . nunquam autem in cubiculo, concedere potest iusta tantum ac
rationabili causa, in aliquo extraordinario casu et per modum actus.
S.C. Sacram., 5 January, 1928: An fideles in montanis pagis habitantes,
quoties ad infirmos Sacra Eucharistia deferatur, possint Sacra Synaxi refici
in loco sacro, vel etiam, cum agatur de re tam sacra, in loco decenti et
honesto qui in itinere exstet, non valentes ea die ecclesiam petere ? R«/>.
Affirmative, ad normam can. 869, iuncto canone 822, §4, seu dummodo
Ordinarius loci id concedat ad normam cit. praescriptionis, scilicet pro
singulis casibus et per modum actus.
(i) The decree of the Congregation, which merely applies the existing
law, was accompanied by the official annotations of the secretary to the
Congregation, and the law is quite plain. One has simply to decide whether
Mass may lawfully be said in the place where it is proposed to give Holy
Communion to persons who arc not sick. The Ordinary may permit Mass
to be said in any suitable place except a bedroom, and it is therefore necessary
to have the permission of the Ordinary to distribute Holy Communion
in such places. A supplementary reply of the Congregation makes it clear
that, if the other conditions are observed, the house of the sick person
may be considered a suitable place.
(ii) The official annotations to the above decree point out that, from canon
199, §i> tbe Ordinary is permitted to delegate the powers he possesses in
this matter to other priests, provided he judges that the delegation will not
be abused, and provided he specifies what constitutes a just or reasonable
cause and what cases are to be considered as coming within the terms of the
delegation. Therefore, a priest to whom it seems expedient often to com
municate people in these circumstances may apply to his Ordinary’ for a
delegated power to decide on its lawfulness in each case. The delegation
may be granted or refused, as the Ordinary sees fit, and if it is refused it
will be necessary for the priest to apply on each single occasion.
(iii) The unofficial commentators go further and discuss the situation
which arises when there is no time to have recourse to the Ordinary.
Applying the principle of epikeia, they have no difficulty in permitting Holy
Communion to be given within the terms of the above reply, namely7 “in
loco decenti et honesto”, even without permission from the Ordinary. But
whether this friendly principle may be applied to distributing Holy Com
munion in a bedroom to those who are not sick is by no means so clear.
For the rule, as explained by the Holy Sec, restricts the practice to places
where Mass may be said, and the law of canon 822, §4, denies even to the
Ordinary the power to permit Mass in a bedroom.
Nevertheless, some writers tolerate the application of epikeia to com
municating another person in the sick-room itself.1 The commonest case
would be that of the nurse tending the sick person, of whom Cardinal
Jorio writes: “Mais dans le cas où l’infirmière ne pourrait absolument pas
quitter son malade pour aller communier à l’église et se trouverait ainsi
obligée de se priver de la communion, il nous semble qu’on pourrait
admettre une interprétation bénigne du droit et que l’infirmière en question
pourrait communier dans la chambre de son malade”?
1 Periodica, 1928, p. 127; Tummolo-Iorio, l'beol. Moralis, II, §509 bis.
* Communion des Malades, p. 41.
QQ. 159, 160
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
188
159.—Communion: Non-Catholic Servers
In a non-Catholic institution, are members of the stiff permitled to accompany
the Blessed Sacrament with lights when I lo/y Communion is brought to the sick ?
When it is a question of a Catholic participating in the religious rites of
non-Catholics, doubts are easily solved, if the participation proposed is an
active part in a purely religious rite, it is intrinsically wrong, as being an
implied external denial of the Catholic faith, and cannot be permitted for any
reason.
The participation of heretics in Catholic rites is on a different footing.
Speaking generally, we desire them to be present at Catholic functions in
order to further their conversion. But they have to be refused the sacra
ments, which are given only to those who are in communion with the
Church. Nevertheless, in the hour of death, it is now the common teaching
that they may servatis servandis receive absolution and Extreme Unction.
The discipline in this respect has, in fact, relaxed considerably. For
example, from canon 1149 they may receive sacramentals, a practice
which was formerly forbidden by the Hol)' Office, 22 June, 1859.
The guiding principle, which can never be changed, is that scandal must
be avoided in permitting heretics actively to communicate with Catholics
in religious rites; the scandal is in encouraging the belief amongst heretics
and amongst ill-instructed Catholics that it is a matter of little consequence
whether one is a member of the visible Church or not. The matter has a
special application to permitting heretics to serve the priest at sacred
functions, since this is an office belonging properly to clerics and is only
conceded to Catholic laity as a privilege.
Therefore the Holy Offce, 20 November, 1850, decided that heretics could
not be permitted to minister to the priest celebrating the divine mysteries,
nor to carry' torches and lights. We think that this direction should apply to
the above query and that non-Catholics should not be permitted to serve the
priest in the two instances mentioned. But they should be encouraged to
attend the rites in the same way as they are encouraged to join the congre
gation at any Catholic function.
160.—Communion of the Sick: Frequency
What is the teaching and practice of the Church in regard to the frequency of
administering Holy Communion in their homes to invalids who are not in any danger of
death ?
In this reply we may eliminate not only those in danger of death, but also
religious and others living in community, for whom explicit arrangements
arc usually made between the chaplain and the superior.
The general principle is that a priest is bound, either in justice or in
charity, to administer the sacraments to those who seek them reasonably.
It is a question of defining what is reasonable, and the manualists do not
attempt to determine the number of times, since what is reasonable in one
case may be unreasonable in another, owing to the scarcity of priests or the
i89
COMMUNION OF THE SICK
q.
161
distance to be travelled. If it is asked how often Holy Communion may
be taken to a sick person, the answer is that it may be taken daily. Frequent
or even daily Communion, recommended to all the faithful, is to be recom
mended a fortiori to sick people whose need of divine assistance is greater
by reason of their sickness.1
If it is asked how often a priest is bound to take Holy Communion to the
sick, the law is too flexible for a mathematical definition. Canon 468:
“Sedula cura et effusa caritate debet parochus aegrotos in sua paroecia,
maxime vero morti proximos, adiuvare, eos sollicite Sacramentis reficiendo
eorumque animas Deo commendando.” The rubrics of the Rituale Romanum,
Tit. v., cap. iv., De Visitatione ct cura infirmorum, are in similar general terms.
Owing to the difficulty, if not impossibility, of determining the obligation
more closely, we do not know of any particular laws which define the
frequency of this obligation. They stress the obligations already existing
in the common law, e.g.: IV Malines. 1920, n. 199: “Parochi et sacerdotes
curam animarum habentes sciant se praeclarum caritatis—immo justitiae
munus adimplere, quum sanctissimam Eucharistiam ad infirmos deferunt.”
Liverpool Synod, 1954, η. 122: “Hortamur sacerdotes ut inhaereant optimae
illi consuetudini iam in hac dioecesi inveteratae, ut infirmis occasiones
omnino crebras SS. Eucharistiam sumendi praebeant.”
We are of the opinion that monthly Communion may be taken as a useful
normal rule. It is an opinion deduced, by analogy, from canon 858, §2,
which permits the strict rule of fasting to be relaxed in the case of sick people
who have been lying ill for a month. Their need is considered sufficiently
urgent, after being deprived of Holy Communion for a month, for the
serious law of fasting to be relaxed. It would therefore seem that a priest
should take them Holy Communion after they have been ill for a month,
and subsequently at monthly intervals, even at the cost of some in
convenience to himself. It is a rule which, from the nature of the case,
cannot be taken as absolute but as relative. A priest might reasonably be
expected to go more often to houses near the church, less often to those at
a distance.
161.—Obligation of Viaticum
Is the obligation of receiving I loly Communion at the hour of death, or tn danger
of death from any cause, a positive precept imposing a moral obligation on Catholics ?
If so, where is this teaching to be found in the English Catechism of Christian
Doctrine ? May a dying Catholic refuse to go to confession, though willing to receive
Holy Communion and Extreme I inefion ?
The command of Christ in John vi, 54, is considered generally
(probabilissime) to be binding in danger of death. It is certainly a moral
obligation on all Catholics from canon 864, §r: “In periculo mortis, quavis
ex causa procedat, fideles sacrae communionis recipiendae praecepto ten
entur.” It is mentioned explicitly in some larger catechisms, e.g. Gasparri,
Q. 410, but not in our “Penny” catechism. It is not possible to formulate
every grave law in small catechisms, but it is contained implicitly in such
questions as n. 228, which teaches the obligation of obeying the Church.
1 Jorio, Communion des Malades, 1933, p. 36.
q. ï02
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
I90
The obligation of confession docs not arise unless the person in danger
of death is conscious of mortal sin. That the obligation arises ex iure divino
is implied in canon 6, Sess. XXIV of the Council of Trent; that it binds in
danger of death is certain because, otherwise, there is a risk of dying without
observing the law, formulated in canon 901 of the Code, which requires all
post-baptismal mortal sins to be submitted directly to the power of the keys.
Therefore, for a person conscious of mortal sin, there exists perse an obliga
tion ex iure divino to go to confession when in danger of death. Per accidens
there is also an obligation arising, in such circumstances, from the law of
receiving Holy Communion. Very likely ex iure divino, from I Cor. xi, 28,
and certainly ex iure ecclesiastico from canon 856, confession is imposed before
Holy Communion on every person conscious of mortal sin.
Refusal to confess might, however, indicate that a person receiving the
last sacraments is not conscious of mortal sin, in which case the priest cannot
insist on confession.
<
162.—Viaticum Before Operations
Could it not be said that, generally speaking, ihe danger which justifies a serious
operation justifies Extreme Unction, in which case the patient should be anointed and
receive Holy Communion by way of Viaticum ?
(Μ
i
if
1
η
|ΐ
il
With regard to Extreme Unction it is necessary to examine the patient’s
condition at the moment of its reception. Usually, if a serious operation
is pending, the patient is seriously ill and should be anointed. If a person
is sufficiently ill to be anointed, it follows that Holy Communion per
modum Viatici may also be administered to him not fasting.
But it might easily happen that there is no danger of death at the moment
from sickness, and that a serious operation is being voluntarily accepted in
order to prevent some permanent disability. After the operation the patient
might well be in sufficient danger to receive Extreme Unction, but before the
operation he is, relatively speaking, in good health. In this case Extreme
Unction cannot validly be received.
May he receive Holy Communion not fasting per modum Viatici owing to
the danger of the impending operation ? The solution of the doubt depends
entirely on forming the judgement that the operation is a serious one from
which death may, perhaps, result. If an affirmative judgement car. be given
it follows that Holy Communion may be received not fasting. Dr. V.
Couckc, writing in Collationes Brugenses, 1934, p. 383, admirably expresses
the point at issue: “Non debet jejunium servare: (<2) propter periculum mortis,
qui Viaticum recipit, etiam ex devotione tantum et, quod advertere velis,
etiam si hac occasione extremam unctionem non recipit, aut recipere nondum
potest. Non jejunus communicare quis potest, sive periculum mortis ab
intrinseco proveniat (ratione morbi) et quidem quousque illud periculum
manet, sive ab extrinseco oriatur, dummodo probabile sit ultimam sumi
communionem, puta propter proelium instans, aut urgentem operationem
chirurgicam periculosam, aut propter instantem exccutioncm capitalem.”
There will always be a margin of doubt concerning the impending danger
of death, and it is to be resolved in favour of the patient, according to the
teaching of all the writers: “Periculum mortis incipit, ubi gravis ratio adest,
i9!
COMMUNION OF THE SICK
Q. 163
infirmum moriturum cssc; non sufficit mera possibilitas, quae semper adest,
sed nee requiritur moralis certitudo. Quamdiu hoc periculum durat, manet
exemptus. Si dubium est, utrum infirmus sit in probabili mortis periculo,
utrum morbus revera letalis sit necne, Viaticum nihilominus administrare
potest non jejuno, tum quia obligatione jejunii non constat, tum quia recte
praesumitur ecclesiam in hoc casu favere aegroto, ne exponatur periculo
decedendi sine Viatico.”1 The solution is clear enough in cases of danger ab
intrinseco and the same applies to danger ab extrinseco.
Is Viaticum permissible if the person has aready communicated that day <
Canon 864, §1 : In periculo mortis, quavis ex causa procedat, fideles
aacrae communionis recipiendae praecepto tenentur.
§2. Etiamsi eadem die sacra communione fuerint refecti, valde ramen
suadendum, ut in vitae discrimen adducti denuo communicent.
That there is no obligation of receiving Holy Communion again as
Viaticum is clear from this canon, although previous to the Code many
followed St. Alphonsus2 in teaching that there was an obligation at least in
those cases where the danger of death arose ab extrinseco. The precept
of receiving Viaticum is fulfilled by the previous Communion, even though
the person was not conscious of any danger. The force of the words
“valde suadendum” cannot, therefore, refer to persuading the person to
fulfil this precept again; their meaning must refer to something other than
the fulfilment of a precept. The situation is that the person who has already
communicated is made aware, in the course of the day, that he is in danger,
and in this condition the grskce and solace of the sacrament would be of
great assistance in preparing for the possibility of death. It is right that he
should be persuaded to neglect nothing that the Church can offer. It might
be said that the danger existed at the time of the first reception of Holy
Communion, in the morning, and that it was, as a matter of fact, Viaticum
which should not be repeated on the same day. But the person was not
conscious of the danger at that time and, although the precept is fulfilled,
a second reception is to be advised.
163.—Viaticum: Parochial Right
Is it a correct interpretation of the law that any priest may take Holy Com
munion to the sick "per modum Viatici" provided that it has been administered once by
the parish priest or bis delegate ?
Canon 462.3: Functiones parocho reservatae sunt, nisi aliud ture
caveatur: . . . Sanctissimam Eucharistiam publice aut privatim tanquam
Viaticum ad infirmos deferre atque in periculo mortis constitutos extrema
unctione roborare, salvo praescripto can. 597, n. 3, 514, 848, §z, 938, §2.
Canon 850: Sacram communionem per modum Viatici sive publice
sive privatim ad infirmos deferre, pertinet ad parochum ad normam can.
848, salvo praescripto 397, n. 3 et can. 514, §§, 1-3.
1 Noldin, Tbeot. Moralis, III, §ij).
* Tbtol. Moralis, VI, n. j8j.
164
q.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
r9z
Canon 864, §3: Perdurante mortis periculo, sanctum Viaticum, secun
dum prudens confessarii consilium, pluries, distinctis diebus, administrari
et licet et debet.
The exceptions mentioned in canons 462 and 850 refer to the rights of a
Chapter to administer Viaticum to the bishop, the rights of superiors of
clerical religious Institutes in regard to their subjects, and the rights of the
ordinary confessor in the case of nuns.
Almost universally the authors interpret this law by drawing a distinction
between Viaticum stricte dictum, by which is meant the observance of the divine
and ecclesiastical law of receiving the Holy Eucharist when in danger of
death, and Viaticum latius dictum, by which is meant the repeated reception
in the same illness as provided for in canon 864, §5. The former, it is
maintained, is a parochial right, but not the latter. The reasons given for
this interpretation are, firstly, the custom of most places by which any priest
takes Viaticum to the sick in the latter sense; secondly, the terms of canon
864, §5, which allow Viaticum to be received repeatedly on the prudent
advice of a simple confessor who need not be the parish priest; and, thirdly,
the desire of the Church that the faithful, including the sick, should com
municate often, which argues that it is not intended to make this more
difficult by making the act a parochial right. This is the interpretation given
by most of the manualists we have consulted, both regular and secular:
Priimmer, Tbeol. Moralis, III, §219; Tummolo-Iorio, Theol. Moralis, II,
§107; Claeys-Bouuaert, Jus Canonicum, II, §106.
In particular, Fanfani, who in an earlier edition of De lure Parochorum
conceded the point with some hesitation, is quite explicit in the current
1936 edition, §300: “Intelligendum est autem de Viatico prima vice ministran
dum; non autem de Communione quae, perdurante periculo mortis, pluries
ex devotione saepe saepius ministratur infirmo etiam non ieiuno. Patet ex
ipso can. 864, §3, ubi iudicium de opportunitate S. Viaticum iterandi, non
ad Parochum sed ad Confessarium remittatur. Igitur, post Viaticum prima
vice receptum, quilibet sacerdos potest deferre privatim S. Communionem
infirmo, etiam per modum Viatici.”
§5.
THE PASCHAL PRECEPT
164.—Time of Paschal Precept
Can it be maintained that the pre-Code time, namely Ash Wednesday to Low
Sunday, is for us in England the lawful period for fulfilling the Easter precept ?
Canon 859, §2: Paschalis communio fiat a dominica Palmarum ad
dominicam in albis; sed locorum Ordinariis fas est, si ita personarum ac
locorum adiuncta exigant, hoc tempus etiam pro omnibus suis fidelibus
anticipare, non tamen ante quartam diem dominicam Quadragesimae, vel
prorogare, non tamen ultra festum Sanctissimae Trinitatis.
I. Westm., Appendix ΧΓΠ : Attenta paucitate Missionariorum per Angliam,
cumque Hiberni, quorum plures in Anglia degunt, extensionem temporis ad
Paschale preceptum adimplendum obtinuerint, Archicpiscopus et Episcopi
I95
THE PASCHAL PRECEPT
Q· i6j
Concilii Provincialis Angliac petunt pro toto Angliac extensionem temporis
Paschalis a fcria I Va Cinerum ad Dominicam in Albis. . . . Pius PP. IX
benigne annuit, contrariis quibuscumque, etc. 14 Maii, 1853.
Canon 4: lura aliis quaesita, itemque privilegia atque indulta quae,
ab Apostolica Sede ad haec usque tempora personis sive physicis sive
moralibus concessa, in usu adhuc sunt nec revocata, integra manent, nisi
huius Codicis canonibus expresse revocentur.
The induit obtained by the English bishops in 1853 was still decidedly
in use at the time of the promulgation of the Code, and since it is not
expressly revoked by canon 859 it seems inevitably to follow that it is still
in force. The only reason for doubting whether this is a correct conclusion
is that, in some dioceses, the Lenten induit promulgates the new reckoning
according to the terms of canon 859, §2, and Ordinaries extend the time either
to Trinity Sunday or to a lesser extent as each judges expedient. At present,
somewhat to the confusion of the laity, the time for fulfilling the precept
differs in various parts of England.
Had no change been introduced in 1919, the induit granted in 1855 would
still have been operative, beyond all doubt. As the matter stands there is an
element of doubt, since it might be held that some bishops have renounced
the induit obtained in 1855 and reverted to the common law. But, on the
usual principles of interpreting laws, we think it could rightly be maintained
that it is open to the faithful to make their Easter Communion from Ash
Wednesday, relying on the induit of 1853, or to extend it to Trinity Sunday
or other day, relying on whatever prorogation is granted by the local
Ordinary using the powers of canon 859, §2.
This view is confirmed from the similar situation in the United States
which enjoyed, since 1830, an induit extending the paschal period from the
first Sunday in Lent till Trinity Sunday.*
1 Woywod and other writers make
no mention of this induit and refer to the common law of canon S59 as
being operative in America.2 But recently the induit appears to have been
resurrected, as it were, and canonists of the greatest authority declare,
without any hesitation, that the induit of 1850 is still in force.3
In practice there is, of course, no difficulty. It is for the Ordinary of
each diocese to determine the local extension for all the faithful within his
jurisdiction.
165.—Easter Communion in Parish Church
What rightt if anyy has a parish priest to insist that his parishioners should
either communicate at Jiaster in the parish church or inform him if they have made
their Easter Communion elsewhere ? Onr current “Ordo Administrandi" directs the
priest to send non-parishioners to their own parish priest for I loly Communion on
Easter Sunday. Is this an obligation ?
Canon 859, §3, and Rituale Romanum, Tit. iv, cap. iii, n. 2: Suadendum
5 Cf. Kcnrick, Tbcol. Moralis (i860) I, p. 132.
1 Woywod. A Practical Commentary (1952) I, p. 413.
* Bcstc, Introductio in Codicem (1938) p. 495; Bouscaren, Digest, Π, p. 89; both refer
to Ecclesiastical Review, XCVI, 1937, p. 78; it appears that a private reply has been received
from Rome supporting the induit of 1830.
G
• I
q.
ïGj
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
i94
fidelibus ut huic praecepto satisfaciant in sua quisque paroecia; et qui in
aliena paroecia satisfecerint, curent proprium parochum de adimpleto
praecepto certiorem facere.
The matter will best be understood by considering separately (i) the
duty of communicating at Easter in the parish church ; (ii) the duty of inform
ing the parish priest; (iii) the rubric in our Ordo Administrandi.
(i) There is no longer any law requiring the faithful to communicate
at Easter at the hands of their own parish priest, and even when the law
existed grave inconvenience excused one, of course, from its observance.
The obligation, which used to be quite strict, has gradually become relaxed,
so that what was once a law is now a counsel—“suadendum est fidelibus”;
good Catholics anxious to obey the guidance of the Church in everything
will gladly respond. The canon clearly refers to the parish, not to the parish
church, it being considered, no doubt, that the purpose of the law is thereby
secured, and that the parish priest, as well as the faithful in general, can easily
discover who have made their Easter duties, if Communion is received
publicly within the parish. As a pendant to the modern relaxation of the
older law, we find the Holy See deciding in 1912 that the prohibition against
distribution of Holy Communion on Easter Sunday in the non-parochial
churches of regulars is no longer in force.1
(ii) There arc canonists of repute2 who think that it is also merely a
counsel to inform the parish priest when the Easter Communion has been
made outside the parish. Others hold that it is a precept, though clearly
not binding sub gravi,2 and this seems to us the correct interpretation, since
the canon docs not use the word “suadendum”, but “curent”, a word which
in some canons means rather more than a counsel. r\ parish priest is,
therefore, well within his rights in telling the people that he should be
informed if any of them make their Easter duties outside the parish.
(iii) Ordo Administrandi, Tit. iv, cap. iii, n. 3 : “Dabit quoque operam
Parochus, quoad cius fieri potest, ut in ipso die sanctissimo Paschae com
municent (parochiani) ; quo die ipse per se, nisi legitime impediatur, parochiae
suae fidelibus Sacramentum ministrabit. Alienae vero parochiae fideles ad
proprium Parochum remittet, praeter peregrinos et advenas, et qui certum
domicilium non habent, quibus ipse sacram praebebit communionem, si ad
illam accesserint rite parati: vel ubi est ea consuetudo, eos ad cathedralis
Ecclesiae Parochum remittet.”
We think that the text dates from times when the old law was in full
possession and that it will, no doubt, be modified when a new edition appears.
In the meantime the common law of the Code must take precedence over
the rubrics of local rituals which are at variance with it. As we have shown
above, the faithful break no law in communicating outside their parishes
at Easter, nor would the parish priest be justified in refusing Easter
Communion to those who belong to another parish.
1 S.C. Cone., 28 November, 1912; Fontes, n. 4363.
* Cappello, De Sacramentis, I, §475.5.
• \ ermccrsch-Creuscn, Epitome, II, §128.
195
THE PASCHAL PRECEPT
QQ. 166, 167
166.—The Sick and Paschal Precept
Are those who are unable to receive Holy Cornmunion in church, owing to sickness
or old age, though not in danger of death, bound, from canon 859, § 1, to be given an
opportunity to communicate at home ?
Canon 859, §1 : Omnis utriusquc sexus fidelis . . . nisi forte de consilio
proprii sacerdotis, ob aliquam rationabilem causam, ad tempus ab cius
perceptione duxerit abstinendum.
Canon 468, §1 : Sedula cura et effusa caritate debet parochus aegrotos in
sua paroecia, maxime vero morti proximos, adiuvare, eos sollicite Sacra
mentis reficiendo eorumque animas Deo commendando.
Rituale Romanum, Tit. v, cap. iv, n. 1 : . . . non cxpectabit ut ad cum
vocetur, sed ultro ad illum (aegrotum) accedat. . . .
(i) In principle it must be held, we think, that, the obligation of canon
s59>
being grave on the part of the faithful, there is a proportionately
grave obligation on the part of the priest to facilitate its observance. But,
like any other positive law, one is excused by grave inconvenience, and the
canon itself permits the priest to defer the reception of I loly Communion
for any reasonable cause: it is an application of the general rule that one is
bound to administer the sacraments to those who seek them reasonably.
By “proprius sacerdos” in this context is meant any priest with confessional
jurisdiction over the person. Cf. Fanfani, De lure Parochorum, §28 5.
(ii) The conscience of the priest must be his guide in individual cases,
unless there is some local law which makes his obligation more explicit.
Thus, in the case of the aged or of the sick who arc permanently unable to
come to the church, we can conceive of no adequate reason for not offering
them the opportunity of annual Communion; at the most, the priest might,
for just reasons, defer the time beyond the period of the Paschal precept.
For those who arc incapacitated for a short time, which happens to
be the period of the Paschal precept, the faculty of canon 859, §1, may be
used: if there exists a reasonable cause for not communicating them at
home or in the hospital, they should be told that they are bound to observe
the precept before the next Easter period begins; for once the paschal
time has elapsed there is no strict obligation of the positive law to
communicate quamprimum.
In other cases the priest may be willing and anxious to do his part
towards the sick, but he doubts their dispositions, since they have habitually
missed the Easter duty when well. He should, in our opinion, do what is
possible to secure proper dispositions, for the period of illness is ven,’
frequently an occasion of true repentance; if he is unsuccessful, the faculty
of canon 859, §i, may be used.
167.—Paschal Precept and Sanctions
A curate, on opening the notice-book shortly after Easter, finds the following,
written by the P.P. for reading to the people: “The time for In filling your Laster
duties is now past. If there are any who have failed in this obligation, they are out of
tbe Church, and all we can do is to pray for tbeml
*
Synodal law in the diocese
q.
168
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
196
concerned orders that all notices written by the P.P. are to be read out in full to the
congregation. The curate in question carne across the notice very shortly before Mass
was due to begin·, it had already been read, with emphasis, at two previous Masses.
It was impossible to consult the P.P., who lived at a distance from the church. What
was the curate's obligation in the matter? Was be bound to correct the false
impression given ?
The sanctions which used to be attached to this precept have long since
been abolished; nor does the neglect of Easter Communion necessarily place
the delinquent in the category of public sinners, unless it is qualified by some
other aggravating circumstance.
The curate is in the awkward position of having to choose between
disobeying a Synodal law or making a declaration which is false, since these
people are not “out of the Church”. In all such cases of perplexed conscience
one should choose the lesser evil, which, in this case, is to disobey the Synodal
law by omitting to give out the notice. But, in our view, he has no right or
obligation to contradict publicly the parish priest’s erroneous opinion. l ie
should discuss the matter with him privately, express regret that he docs not
sec his way to give out the notice, and leave it to the parish priest to have
recourse to the Ordinary if he sees fit.
168.—Dispensing From Paschal Precept
i’
Μ »
H I
•I
ill
IP
Pl
►*<
If
May a parish priest, for proper reasons, dispense the faithfulfrom observing this
precept during the appointed time, that is to say by deciding that the Piaster Com
munion may be received at some time after Trinity Sunday, or after whatever day is
determined by local law ?
Canon 859, §i: Omnis utriusque sexus fidelis . . . nisi forte de consilio
proprii sacerdotis, ob aliquam rationabilem causam, ad tempus ab cius
perceptione duxerit abstinendum.
The canon repeats the words of the Fourth Latcran Council. Clearly,
if reception during the stated times is morally impossible, owing to illness or
distance from a church, no special permission or dispensation is required.
The time having elapsed, anyone who has not observed the precept is bound
to do so within the year, that is to say before next Easter; for there are really
two laws: annual reception and Easter reception. If the paschal time has
elapsed, there is no strict obligation of the positive law to communicate
quamprimum.1
Actually it is not easy to envisage examples or reasonable causes to which
the words of the above canon would apply. An instance might be that of a
sick or convalescent person, unwilling to fast though able to do so; or the
case of a person not having the proper dispositions for communicating.
By proprius sacerdos in this context is meant not merely the parish priest but
any priest with confessional jurisdiction over the person in question.
“Rcctc intclligendum est de omni sacerdote qui ordinariam vel delegatam
jurisdictionem habeat in illum fidelem pro sacramcntali foro; unde non
tantum de proprio parocho vel Ordinario, sed etiam de confessario.”2
1 Cf. Clacys-Bouuacrt, ]ur Canonicum, II, §114.
* Faniani, De lure Parochorum, §28 j.
'97
HOLY EUCHARIST: EXPOSITION
Q. 169
V. HOLY EUCHARIST: EXPOSITION
169.—Origins of Benediction
IP7w/ proof is there that the origin of Benediction is io be sought in the practice
of devout people during the Middle Ages, who were accustomed to sing at Our Lady’s
statue in the evening and afterwards to visit the Blessed Sacrament? ’ .VL;· it be held
that the coalescing of these two practices has restdled in our rite of Benediction? Is
it of obligation to sing the Litany of Our Lady or some other anthem in her honour
at the present day?
There is some dispute about the origins of Benediction, many putting
the stress on the evening devotions to Our Lady, others bidding that
Exposition and Benediction were already in possession. It is agreed that
the two have coalesced.
(i) Fr. Thurston, S.J., following the conclusions of the Bollandist De
Buck, dealt with the question in The Month, XCVII, 1901, p. 587, and
XCV1II, 1901, pp. 5 8,186, 264. It was the subject of an interesting paper read
by him at the London Eucharistic Congress, 1908, and printed in the Ltport
of the Congress, p. 452. Later, in The Montb,CXXyW, 1916, p. 500, during
the course of an historical study of the Salve Regina, his conclusions were
again summarized: “The main interest of this Salve Regina service, already
several years ago discussed in these pages, is the fact that it has undoubtedly
given us the evening Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament which is so
familiar at the present day.” Examples of this development are cited,
particularly in Belgium and France, and the common French name for
this service, “salut”, is itself a strong argument for connecting Benediction
with the Salve. Another link with the past is the custom still existing in
some colleges of singing Our Lady’s antiphon before Benediction on
Saturday evening, a practice brought from abroad when the colleges returned
to England at the end of the eighteenth century. This explanation of the
origin of Benediction is adopted by many, e.g. Canon Van de Velde in
Questions Liturgiques et Paroissiales, 1925, p. 289, and it is the usual one found
in the text-books, e.g. Lefebvre, Catholic Liturgy, p. 74.
(ii) More recent writers, however, arc inclined to seek the origin of
the rite in specifically Eucharistic devotions, and in the course of two welldocumented articles on The Development of Devotion to the Blessed Sacrament,
contributed by Fr. J. Murphy, S.J., to The Cletgy Review, XI, 1956,
pp. 353, 449, this opinion is reckoned to be more probably correct: “Others
say that although these Marian devotions were the universal practice, the
addition of a blessing with the Blessed Sacrament was the custom only
where exposition during the Office closing with Benediction was already in
practice. . . . Since Benediction is specifically a Eucharistic service,
such a view seems the more probable.”
Fr. P. Browe, S.J., seems to have been the first to expound this theory',
in Die Verehrung der Eucharistie im Mittelalter, Munich, 1953, and in some
earlier contributions to periodical literature, notably in “Der Segen mit
q.
i
,1 ‘
r
170
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
198
Rcliquien dcr Patène une! Eucharistie”, Ephemerides Eilurgica, 1931, p. 583.
He shows that the mediaeval custom of blessing the faithful with relies, for
example, on the occasion of a procession, was imitated, when the feast and
procession of Corpus Christi were introduced, by blessing them with the
sacred Most; when Expositions took place on days other than Corpus Christi
the same custom of blessing the people continued; there are several examples
of this practice in France, Spain and Italy during the sixteenth century', and
in Germany as early as the fourteenth. The practice of Exposition was
itself prepared by the popular desire to look upon the Host, and by the many
prayers expressly composed for use whilst so doing. In fact, the elevation
of the Host at Mass is due to this popular demand rather than, as used
to be thought, to ecclesiastical authority, which was supposed to have
ordered the rite as a protest against the heresy of Bcrengarius.
(iii) A writer in Ephemerides Uturgica, 1927, p. 125, mentions the view,
held by some liturgists, that the rite of Benediction was, perhaps, introduced
by St. Antony Maria Zaccaria. He certainly introduced the “Forty Hours”
at Vicenza, as recorded in Lectio vi of his Office, 5 July, but Benediction
existed long before his time. The truth seems to be that it was a popular
and spontaneous growth in various parts of Europe, deriving its essential
characteristics from the Corpus Christi rites. In those places, especially
in France, where the custom of evening devotions or stations in honour of
Our Lady existed, the rite of Exposition and Benediction became detached
from the Mass and attached to the hour when Marial devotions took place.
A good summary of the whole question may be seen in two contributions
by Dr. Dumoutet in Revue Apologiti'que, LII, 1931, pp. 409 and 529.
Unfortunately, owing to the war, we have not been able to consult recent
fascicules of Cabrol’s Dictionnaire d’Archéologie·. there will, no doubt, be a
fresh examination of the subject s.v. “Salut”.
(iv) Except for the portion of the rite from Tan turn Ergo to the prayer
Deus Qui no very explicit directions exist in the common law as to what
may or may not be sung during this rite. The Roman custom is for the
priest to expose the Blessed Sacrament and to reappear vested in a cope at
the Tantum Ergo, the period of Exposition being used for any authorized
popular chants or devotions. There is certainly nothing in the common
law requiring a litany or anthem of Our Lady always to be sung or recited,
though the practice is extremely fitting for traditional reasons. Our Riftis
Servandus similarly contains no direction in this sense, but local Ordinaries
sometimes require a prayer or anthem in honour of Our Lady on Sundays
and Holidays, as in the Middlesbrough Decrees, 1953, n. 295.
170.—Benediction: Sign of the Cross
« k
*
’ ;,
W !·.
kA !
•FM
'i
u!
In giving Benediction with the monstrance some maize a very large sign oj the
cross, lifting it above the head and using a wide sweep from left to right·, others appear
to omit the vertical movement altogether, merely moving it slightly from side to side.
[j the correct method determined by any rubrics ?
J.R.C., 21 March, 1676, n. 1563: Sacerdos. . . . Ostensorium ante
pectus tenet, tum elevat illud decenti mora non supra caput, sed tantum
usque ad oculos, ct eodem modo illud demittit infra pectus, et deinde ad
i99
HOLY EUCHARIST: EXPOSITION
q.
i7r
sinistrum humerum ducit, et reducit ad dexterum, et rursus ante pectus
reducit, ibique aliquantulum sistit quasi peracta ad omnes mundi partes
Cruce, eam etiam venerandam omnibus praebet: tunc gyrum perficiens,
collocat Ostensorium super Altare. Resp. Si ei placet, potest observare
supradictum modum ... sin minus, servandus est modus dispositus in
Caerem Epp., lib. ii, cap. 33, n. 27, ubi requiritur tantummodo, ut cum
eodem SS. Sacramento Celebrans producat Crucis signum super populum.
Ritus Servandus, §9: In impertienda benedictione, sacerdos manibus velo
coopertis accipit manu dextera nodum, sinistra vero pedem ostensorii, et
convertens se dextrorsum ad populum summa cum reverentia signum crucis
facit cum ostensorio (quin sacram hostiam supra oculos elevet) et dextrorsum
se convertit ad altare perficiendo gyrum.
Everyone is agreed that, in principle, a blessing given to the people with
the hand, the monstrance, or with any other object, follows the method of
making the sign of the cross on one’s self.1 It is therefore clearly incorrect,
from the above directions, to lift the monstrance above the head or to extend
the lateral movements beyond the shoulders.
(i) In the common law, however, an alternative method of completing
the benediction is permitted from n. 1563. The priest, before replacing the
monstrance on the altar, may bring it again for a moment before his breast,
a method recommended by Bauldry and others; or he may, after completing
the sign of the cross, continue the lateral movement to the right, and replace
the monstrance on the altar.
The official commentator, in Vol. IV of Decreta Authentica, p. 115, argues
that the first method is merely permissive; the second, which is based on
Caerem. Epp. is preceptive, and is the usual method observed in Rome:
“Communis usus Ecclesiarum Urbis est, ut postquam sacerdos reduxit
Ostensorium ad latus dexterum, non debet rursus ante pectus reducere. . . .”
(ii) In those dioceses which are required to use the English R/7w Serrandus
it appears to us quite certain that the second method is to be followed:
“dextrorsum se convertit ad altare perficiendo gyrum”. The best descrip
tion we have seen is that given by Augustine, Eiturgical Lan1, p. 352, which
seems correct in all particulars: “. . . then he turns to his right on the
epistle side towards the people, raises the monstrance up to his eyes, brings
it down lower than his breast, then raises it in a straight line as high as his
breast, afterwards brings it to his left shoulder, and completes the circle,
turning himself to the altar to his right, on the gospel side.”
171.—Method of Incensation
“R/7//J- Serrandus,” 1928,/). 14, contains the following direction'. “. . . statim
SS. Sacramentum incensat ter duplici ductu (quae verba non idem significant ac lter
duobus ductibus”) . . .” What is the difference between "ter duplici ductu” and
"ter dtiobos ductibus” ?
The numerous directions of the Congregation of Rites distinguish between
ictus and ductus in describing incensation, e.g., n. 4048.9: “Thurificatio
1 Cf. Ephemeriti·! IJ/urgùa, 1932, p. 405.
q.
■«
*■ I
··<
■
172
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
zoo
SSmi Sacramenti facienda est duplici ictu in triplici ductu”; n. 3110.20:
“In thurificatione duplex ductus ... ita intelligendus est, ut unusquisque
ductus perfici debeat duplici ictu”; n. 4057.2: “Thurificatio SSmi Sacra
menti publice expositi, et Canonicorum, perficienda est duplici ictu in
quolibet ductu”; the same reply gives a negative answer to the question:
“Pcrficine debent duplici ictu ductus in thurificatione Altaris, et in solemni
benedictione Candelarum, Cinerum et Palmarum ?”
The action is well explained in Collationes Tornacenses, 1955, p. 349,
quoting a Roman Caeremoniale. “Ductsis et ictus thuribuli distinguendi sunt.
Ductus enim thuribuli in eo consistit quod thurificans ipsum thuribulum,
ad altitudinem cinguli fere sustentum, versus rem vel personam inccnsendam
attollendo ducit et reducit. Idus vero qui insuper pro singulo ductu praes
cribitur, in eo consistit ut statim ac thuribulum usque ad altitudinem
superioris pectoris elevatum fuerit, quidam motus ulterior cum ipso
thuribulo ad objectum thurificandum perficiatur. Quando igitur pro
unoquoque ductu thuribuli duplex ictus fieri debeat, iste motus thuribuli
elevati bis sine mora peragitur, quo peracto thuribulum infra pectus
demittitur, ut pro secundo vel et tertio ductu iterum attollatur (ductus) et
bis eodem modo moveatur”.
Crocgaert’s description in Caeremoniale, I, p. 17, reads: “. . . thuribulum
elevatur usque ad faciem, vibratur duplici ictu, et statim deprimitur, scilicet
refertur ante pectus. Haec constituunt unicum ductum. . . .” There is
a difference in these two descriptions as regards the height to which the
thurible is lifted, a difference observable in other writers and in the
preferences of the individual using the thurible. But there is no disagreement
about the distinction between ictus and ductus. We may use the word
“swing” in English for both actions; usually the ductus in English is not
expressed at all: we say “three double swings”, for example, in describing
the coriect way of incensing tue Blessed Sacrament.
We think that the direction in the Ritus Serrandus, if it were expressed in
the style employed by the Congregation of RJtes, would read: “. . . statim
SS. Sacramentum incensat duplici ictu in triplici ductu”. The words in
brackets would not then be necessary, but they can only mean “quae verba
non idem significant ac triplici ictu in duplici ductu”.
•F
172.—Incensation by Served
Should a server incense the Blessed Sacrament whilst the celebrant is giving the
Benediction ?
brl
I’
5.R.C.,7 September, 1861, n. 5108.6: In expositione SSmi Eucharistiae
sacramenti, dum a Sacerdote benedictio fidelibus impertitur, debet nec ne
Thuriferarius incensarc SSmum ? Rcsp. Non praescribi; et servandam
consuetudinem locorum. Λ previous reply, η. 2956.9» was merely “Non
praescribi”.
Commentar}' on the Clementine Instruction, Decreta Authentica (1900),
IV, p. 117: Silentium quod tenent Caeremoniale, Rituale, Instructio Clementina,
et auctores fere omnes, qui ceteroqui nihil omiserunt de iis, quae in sacra
hac actione servanda sunt, plane suadet hanc incensationem esse omittendam:
nihilominus Cavalcrius et Tetamus . . . innixi quodam Decreto, quod
201
HOLY EUCHARIST: EXPOSITION
Q. 173
dicunt Romae datum 16 March, 1746, ct Rubrica Missalis tit. 13 existimant
faciendam esse, vel saltem in arbitrio relinqui. Videtur tamen magis
congruere contrariam sententiam consentencam silentio Caeremonialis,
Ritualis ct instructionis.
To the above liturgical books, which say nothing about this inccnsation,
should be added our English Ritus Serrandos. Fortescue holds that inccnsa
tion is the custom with us in this country, in which ease we have merely to
continue the custom as directed by n. 5108. The mode of incensing should
then be, it seems, with three double swings as explained in Q. 171.
If there is no settled custom the authors are, on the whole, against
introducing it, and we arc in agreement with them for the reasons outlined
by the commentator on the Clementine instruction. No one has ever succeeded
in tracing the alleged decree of 16 March, 1746, which is probably only a
private reply given by some Roman rubrician. Nor does the rubric of the
Missal provide an argument in favour of the practice: the thurifer performs
the incensation because deacon, sub-deacon and ceremoniarius are occupied:
in Requiem Masses the sub-deacon is directed to do it since he is not holding
the paten as in other Masses; this is the only occasion on which the Sacred
Species arc incensed during Mass and the thurifer does it faute de mieux·,
but during the rite of Benediction this inccnsation has already been per
formed by the celebrant, and it is unfitting that it should be repeated by
another person of lower dignity. The chief argument, however, against
the practice is the silence of the rubrics on the subject.
173.—Assistant Priest at Benediction
In churches served by more than one priest, is there a strict obligation for a second
priest to be present on the sanctuary to assist the celebrant? If he does sc, is it more
correct for the celebrant to take the monstrance from the altar or to receive it from the
hands of the assistant priest ?
I Wests»., Dec. IV, n. 4: In expositione et benedictione exacte servetur
ritus iam ab episcopis approbatus, et typis impressus. . . .
Ritus Servandus (1928), Praemonenda 5: In ritu hic descripto supponitur
assistentia alterius prebyteri, praeter principalem sacerdotem. Huiusmodi
assistentia ita praescripta habeatur, ut in Ecclesiis quibus plures inserviunt
sacerdotes nunquam deesse permittatur.
Rubric 9: Deinde aut presbyter vel diaconus assistens ostensorium
icelebrant stans stanti tradit; aut celebrans ostensorium super altari positum
pse accipiit.
(i) Apart from the Clementine Instruction for Exposition, upon which the
rite of Benediction is based, there appears to be no express direction of the
common law on the necessity for an assistant priest or deacon. In England,
the obligation is certain from the text of the Ritus Servandus, and Ordinaries
occasionally declare that the observance of all the details of this Rj7w is a
condition attached to their permission for Benediction at stated times.1
Also, diocesan laws frequently define more closely the word “plures”.
1 E.g. Middlesbrough Decrees, 1933, n. 192·
*
G
Q. I74
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
202
Thus, in Lancaster the rule is to be applied in churches served by three or
more priests.1 In Liverpool, an assistant priest is required in churches
served even by two priests.2 If there is no local law, we are of the opinion
that the rule is obligatory in churches served by at least three priests.
Like any other positive law it docs not bind sub gravi incommodo, but some
idea may be formed of the binding force of the regulation from the fact
that the rubric continues: “Potius ad hunc sacrum ritum, in festis praesertim
solemnioribus, omnes, si fieri potest, devote conveniant sacerdotes.” It
is for the rector of the church to decide whether there is a sufficiently grave
cause for departing from this rule in any given instance. In making a
decision, it could be remembered that Benediction is far more frequently
given nowadays than it probably was when the rule of the Bahts Servandus
was first formulated, and the difficulty of always securing an assistant priest
is accordingly increased. Some wonder whether an increase in the number
of Benedictions necessarily implies an increase of devotion towards the
Blessed Sacrament. Gardellini has an account of the divergent views of
some writers on this point, in his commentary on n. xxxvi of the Clementine
Instruction, but he prudently declines to reveal his own opinion: “Quis
autem sum ego, qui velim in hac me ingerere controversia ?”
(ii) The alternative method of taking the monstrance is allowed since
Carem. Epp. II, xxxiii, 27, has no reference to the intervention of
the deacon at this point: “accedet ad altare, et accepto tabernaculo, seu
ostensorio . . . iterum deponit sanctissimum Sacramentum super al
tare . .
but the Roman use, as instanced in n. xix of the Clementine
Instruction, directs the deacon to place the monstrance in the hands of the
celebrant: “il diacono . . . prenderà il Sacramento, e siando in piedi, lo
consegnerà al celebrante gcnuflesso”. Hence S.R..C., n. 3975.4: “Aut
servatur Ritus a Cacremoniali Episcoporum praescriptus; aut iuxta praxim
Romanam, Diaconus Ostensorium celebranti tradere vel ab eodem recipere
potest, utroque stante.”
174.—Deacon Touching Holy Eucharist
If a deacon, exposing at Benediction, finds it necessary to touch the Blessed
Sacrament, should he do this himself or summon the celebrant ?
Μ “
r· «
Our modern law, as in canons 741, 845, §2 and 1274, §2, requires some
grave or just cause for the performance by a deacon of certain functions.
It is therefore our opinion that it is unlawful for a deacon to touch the
Blessed Sacrament when a priest is present, notwithstanding the fact that,
as regards exposing the Blessed Sacrament, he is the ordinary minister and
requires no special permission. For the act of Exposition does not nor
mally include touching the Blessed Sacrament; even in earlier days, when
he always administered the chalice, this was forbidden, as St. Thomas
explains in III, 82, 5, ad 1: “ergo dicendum quod diaconus quasi propin
quus ordini sacerdotali aliquid participat de eius officio, ut scilicet dispen
sat sanguinem . . . quia sanguis continetur in vase, unde non oportet quod
1 Statuta, 1956, n. 165.
* Sjnod, 1954, n. 204.
RSBDM
2°3
HOLY EUCHARIST: EXPOSITION
Q. 175
It appears, therc-
tangatur a dispensante, sicut tangitur corpus Christi.”
fore, that permission is necessary from canon 845, §2, precisely because
administering Holy Communion nowadays involves touching the Holy
Eucharist. Nor, in the above case, is there any real necessity, since the
celebrant can easily ascend the altar steps without causing any surprise to
the people present. Cf. I* Ami du Clergé, 1910, p. 944.
175.—Ciborium Benediction
What are the rules to be observed regarding Benediction with the ciborium and the
frequency of the rite ?
Whatever may have been the use of the terms before the Code, Exposition
of the Blessed Sacrament is called “public” if the monstrance is used, and
it is permitted on Corpus Christi, during the Octave, and during October;
at other times for a just and grave cause, provided the permission of
the Ordinary is obtained. It is called “private” if the Blessed Sacrament
remains in the tabernacle, the doors of which arc opened, and it is permitted
for any just cause without the permission of the Ordinary.1 The just or
reasonable cause is not closely defined. It is forbidden, for example, for
the priest to open the tabernacle merely for his own private adoration of the
Blessed Sacrament.2 But the devotion of pious persons, or the desire
to offer special prayers during times of sickness, would be sufficient
reason.
It appears lawful to place the ciborium, veiled, near the opening of the
tabernacle,3 but it is forbidden to remove the ciborium from the tabernacle
in order that it may be more easily seen by the faithful.4 The logical
conclusion of this rule would be that Benediction with the ciborium on
these occasions is not allowed, as Benedict XIV decided; ancient liturgical
practice is restricted to two Benedictions given with the ciborium: to the
sick, after receiving Holy Communion in their homes, and to the people
who accompany the Blessed Sacrament back to the church. But the custom
has become universal of concluding a pyx Exposition with Benediction and
it is now sanctioned by the Holy See.6
The use of incense is not strictly forbidden but “omissio incensationis
conformior est Ecclesiae praxi in benedictione cum pyxide”.6 The priest
wears cotta and stole; the humeral veil, entirely covering the ciborium,
must be used for the Benediction.’ As the function is not liturgical,
writers on ceremonial differ with regard to the minimum number of candles
to be lighted, some requiring six, others only two. Any approved prayers
may be said and it is customary to conclude with the Tantum Ergo and the
Divine Praises.
It is absolutely forbidden to have Exposition of this kind at an altar
1 Canon 1274.
• N. 3832.2.
• Augustine, IJ/urgitat Law, p. 328.
* Nn. 3394.1 and 4180.2.
*N. 3875.3; Gasparri, De Ewbaristia,
* N. 2957.
’ Nn. 3780.1 and 3888.
QQ. 176, 177
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
2O4
where Mass is being said or sung. In making this decision the T.R.C.1
reaffirmed the law which forbids the celebration of Mass at an altar upon
which the Blessed Sacrament is exposed, except in eases of necessity, for
example, in chapels where there is perpetual adoration of the Blessed
Sacrament, and no other available altar. The reason, of course, is to prevent
the attention of the faithful being drawn away from the sacrifice of the
Mass. There is no small danger of this happening through the multiplication
of Benedictions, even when given with the ciborium, and a priest should
bear this in mind before yielding too frequently to the popular desire.
176.—Repeated Benedictions
Is Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament permitted more than once a day in the
same church ?
S.R.C., 12 January, 1878.5: An liceat in una eademque die atque in
eadem Ecclesia pluries cum Sanctissimo Sacramento benedici populo ?
Resp. Affirmative de licentia Episcopi.
The only principle governing the number of times Benediction with
the monstrance may be given is that, apart from the common law for Corpus
Christi and Octave contained in canon 1274, §1, and during October, the
permission of the local Ordinary is required. It is open to him to refuse
permission for the rite more than once a day if he so desires.
During a procession of the Blessed Sacrament is the celebrant permitted to give a
blessing with the monstrance to sick people on the way ?
Caerem. Epp., II, xxxiii, 22, makes it quite clear that the halts during
a procession of the Blessed Sacrament were originally for the purpose
of providing a rest for the celebrant in a long procession; they arc restricted
to two, and in each case the Blessed Sacrament is incensed and the prayer
sung. In many places it became customary, in addition, to give a Benediction
at each of these halts; it was sanctioned by S.R.C., n. 2609: “non toties
pausatio fiat et benedictio elargiatur quoties Altaria occurrant, sed semel
vel iterum’’. Cf. nn. 5488.2 and 5621.3, confirming n. 2609; and the official
commentary in Vol. IV of Decreta Authentica, p. 81, η. 15, and p. 200.
Considering, therefore, that the practice of halting and giving Benediction
is itself a departure from rule, and may not be permitted more than twice, it
seems clear to us that additional Benedictions arc not permitted even in
favour of sick persons en route. No doubt an indult has been obtained for
this practice at Lourdes, but wc can find no authoritative information on
the point
177.—The Number at Benediction
There is a widely spread persuasion that Benediction is not permitted unless at
least twelve persons are present. If such a law exists it would be convenient io know
where it is to be found.
*A.A.S., XIX, 1927, p. 289.
:ί' 'Ρ··;ΙΙ· ' ·.
20 J
' ifci
HOLY EUCHARIST: EXPOSITION
Q· J 77
(i) The Code Commission, 6 March, 1927, ad 5, decided that Benediction
with the monstrance is included in the law of canon 1274, §1, relating to
public Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament. By implication, Benediction
must also be regulated by other laws affecting public Exposition, and notably
by the Clementine Instruction in so far as it is applicable.
Amongst a great mass of detail two things stand out prominently:
permission is required, which is given de itéré on certain occasions, and by
the local Ordinary on other occasions;1 due reverence is also required,
which includes the proper observance of the ceremonies prescribed, singing
of chants, etc. These two things are connected, since the law prescribes
the intervention of the Ordinary precisely in order to secure the measure of
reverence which is demanded in the nature of things. Before the Code, the
law required a public cause, for example, the spiritual utility of a number
of the faithful, but canon 1274 is more liberal: “ex iusta gravique causa
praesertim publica et de Ordinarii loci licentia”.
There is no legal definition of what constitutes a “public” assembly or
a “number” of the faithful. ?\rguing from analogous instances, Vermeersch
gives this satisfactory solution: “ratio populi inest in omni communitate
quae decem saltem sociis componatur”.2 Anxiety about the number of
people present was a proper preoccupation of a priest in days when a public
cause was always required; it is less so now since the law permits other causes
as well. But it is to be noticed that due reverence must always be secured,
and this cannot exist without a certain number of people assisting. It is
not permitted to expose the Blessed Sacrament, even privately (expositio
privata seu cum pyxide), merely for the satisfaction of a priest’s devotion.
(ii) In the common law there is nothing determined about the number
present, and there is certainly no law prescribing twelve.3 Since, for the
most part, the Ordinary’s permission is required for Benediction with the
monstrance, it is absolutely within his competence to withhold it unless a
certain number are present. The Archbishop of Bologna made regulations
in 1936 restricting the occasions of Benediction in various ways, but the
number present is not determined.4 The conviction that twelve persons
must be present is very widely spread in England, but we can discover
nothing in this sense in the Westminster Councils or in more recent collections
of episcopal laws. One suggestion is that we have got confused with the
number of candles required! It is diflicult to account for so precise and
definite a rule unless it was imposed by some authority, and we suspect that
it originated, perhaps, at a meeting of the bishops who communicated it to
the clergy. Whatever its origin, the rule is in possession and is, if you like,
a customary interpretation of the number required for securing a due measure
of reverence. From every point of view, it seems to us that the rule should
prudently be maintained.
1 Cf. Gardcllini in §36 of the Instruction.
* Periodica, 1950, p. 84.
’Cf. Pastoralia, 1895, p. *2; Fanfani, De lure Parot Lorum, §27;; Γ Amt du C/ergi, 1921,
p. 80, and 1922, p. 575. Irish Ecclesiastical Record, May and June, 1908, pp. $45, 544;
Ecclesiastical Review, XXV, 1901, p. J48.
* Ephemerides Uturgicae, 1957, p. 55·
Q. U8
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
206
178.—Camp Benediction
Maj the Blessed Sacrament be taken from the church to a building in a camp,
wherein the Blessed Sacrament is not reserved, for the sole purpose of Benediction ?
•I *
b
h·
H1
M
»
4
*t I
M
bH
H
k;
•f 1
Canon 1274, §1 : In ecclesiis aut oratoriis quibus datum est asservare
sanctissimam Eucharistiam, fieri potest expositio privata seu cum pyxide
ex qualibet iusta causa sine Ordinarii licentia; expositio vero publica seu
cum ostensorio dic festo Corporis Christi et intra octavam fieri potest in
omnibus ecclesiis inter Missarum solemnia et ad Vesperas; aliis vero tempori
bus nonnisi ex iusta et gravi causa praesertim publica et de Ordinarii loci
licentia, licet Ecclesia ad religionem exemptam pertineat.
Code Commission, 14 July, 1922, x: Utrum ecclesiae, in quibus, ad nor
mam can. 1274, §1, . . . sint illae tantum quibus datum est asservare sanc
tissimam Eucharistiam? R. Affirmative, firmo praescripto can. 1171.
Rituale Romanum, Tit. iv., cap. iv., n. 5 : Sed alicui ad adorandum solum,
vel devotionis seu cuiusvis rei praetextu, ad ostendendum ne deferatur.
J.R.C., 12 June, 1638, η. 640: Delationem SS. Sacramenti extra Ecclesiam
non esse permissam, nisi occasione solemnis processionis . . . necnon
occasione infirmorum.
Propaganda, 25 February, 1859; Fontes, n. 4846: . . . talia edas decreta
ex quibus delatio SS. Sacramenti ad urgentes tantum causas, atque ad actuale
ministerii sacerdotalis exercitium coarctetur. . . .
(i) It is certain that a priest may not on his own authority, not even a
parish priest within his parish, take the Blessed Sacrament to another place
where it is not reserved, solely for the purpose of giving Benediction.
The reason is the rule of canon 1274, §1, and the prohibition of canon 1265,
§3, against journeying with the Blessed Sacrament, except of course in an
authorized public procession or for the purpose of communicating the sick.
The documents cited in the footnote to this canon expressly forbid certain
practices, such as blessing the scene of a fire or other calamity with the
Holy Eucharist.
5.R.C., nn. 2690 and 3059.19, tolerate in one case, and permit with the
Ordinary’s approval in the other, a practice of giving Benediction to the
people of a house or city on the occasion of taking the Blessed Sacrament to
the sick. But we can find no express directions about the lawfulness of
Benediction in other circumstances.
(ii) Neither can we find it anywhere expressly stated that the Ordinary
may not give this permission. We have been told on the best authority,
though the text is not available, that the bishops of Australia assert their
power to permit such Benedictions in n. 151 of the Third Plenary Council.
Liturgical writers are usually content with stating what we have recorded
under (i) above, but two, at least, without giving their reasons, hold that
the Ordinary may authorize the practice: Γ Ami du Clergé, 1920, p. 560, and
Ecclesiastical Review, LXI, 1919, p· 96. We think, therefore, that a priest
could quite properly seek permission from his Ordinary for Benediction in
camps and other places at the present time: it will be granted or refused
at the Ordinary’s discretion.
207
HOLY EUCHARIST:
EXPOSITION
Q. 179
179.—O Salutaris
The "Ritus Servandus'
*
directs the “0 Salutaris" to be started at the moment
the Blessed Sacrament is exposed. Does it not follow, therefore, that the custom
of singing it when the tabernacle is opened is against this rubric ?
We think that the existing custom is not actually against the direction
of this rubric. The Blessed Sacrament is exposed, though not yet en
throned, when the tabernacle is opened; a previous direction reads “ostensorium super corporale in throno collocat”, and it would appear that
if the rubric directed the singing of the hymn to start when the Blessed
Sacrament was enthroned it should read “in ipso momento SS. Sacramenti
in throno collocandi”. Nor can the word ‘ ‘solemniter” be applied exclu
sively to the action of enthroning the Blessed Sacrament; "solemn” and
“simple” in this context are synonyms for “public” and “private” as in
canon 1274, §1, and it is the use of a monstrance which constitutes public
Exposition, not the use of a throne: a throne is in fact unnecessary if the
altar has a canopy, as the first paragraph of the rubrics states. Therefore,
by applying the word “solemniter” to the whole rite when a monstrance is
used, instead of restricting it to the act of enthronement, our custom of
starting the hymn when the tabernacle is opened is not contrary to the rubric
but rather in accordance with it. “In ipso momento SS. Sacramenti
solemniter exponendi” means at the moment of exposing, i.c. removing the
Blessed Sacrament from the tabernacle in order to place it in the monstrance
for a solemn or public Exposition.
Is it strictly of obligation to sing this hymn always at the beginning of Benediction ?
I. Westm., Dec. XVIII, n. 4: In expositione et Benedictione exacte
servetur ritus jam ab episcopis approbatus et typis impressus. . . .
Ritus Servandus, Praemonenda: Quo vero accuratius novus haec omnia
Ritus exprimeret, placuit cum, antequam typis exscriberetur, S. Rituum
Congregationis Consultori exhibere, qui eiusdem Congregationis viris rei
liturgicae componendae delectis a Secretis est. Porro sancitus est a Sacra
Rituum Congregatione.
Rubric 6: Consuetudo omnino servanda est quae apud nos invaluit
cantandi hymnum 0 Salutaris Hostia in ipso momento SS. Sacramenti
solemniter exponendi.
The doubt arises from the fact that there is no common law prescribing
this hymn to be sung, and it is not the usual practice in Rome. Nevertheless,
since the details concerning what shall be sung or said are left to the local
Ordinary to determine, it is quite certain, from the above quotations, that
in all dioceses where the use of the Ritas Serrandus is of obligation the 0
Salutaris must be sung whilst the Blessed Sacrament is being exposed.
Should the incensation be delayed until the first verse is finished ?
The doubt is probably due to the rule which prescribes the second
QQ. 180, I8i
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
208
inccnsation to take place “ad initium sequentis strophae Genitori
Genitoque . . .” There is no similar direction for the second verse of the
0 Salutaris. On the contrary, the rubric n. 6 states that the first inccnsation
should take place immediately after the Blessed Sacrament is exposed; it
is therefore correct to perform the inccnsation without any reference to
the stage reached in the singing of the hymn.
180.—Prayers During Corpus Christi Octave
A ruling of S.R.C. is quoted in some books to the effect that, during the Octave
of Corpus Christi, no prayers except those addressed io Our Lord in the blessed
Sacrament may be recited during Exposition. Should one, therefore, omit the prayer
to Our Lady for the conversion of England ?
(i) The rule is no longer, we think, the common liturgical law throughout
the Church. Certain authors used to teach that it was more fitting to exclude
other prayers during the Octave of Corpus Christi,1 and J.R.C., 25 November,
1906.11, adopted this rule: “An in functione Benedictionis SS. Sacramenti,
praeter orationem de eodem, alia cantari possit ? Resp. Affirmative,
priusquam cantetur Tantum Ergo, quando aliae dicendae sunt preces.
Negative in casu opposito, necnon in festo et infra Octavam SS. Corporis
Christi.”2 But when this series of answers under the date of 23 November,
1906, appeared in Decreta Authentica η. 4195, published in 1912, the ex
ception previously made for Corpus Christi and its Octave was omitted, and
the answer to the question ad x (not xi) is “Affirmative . . . preces.
Negative, nisi aliter Apostolica Auctoritate statutum fuerit”. One com
mentator on the authentic form of the decree writes: “Haec prohibitio
canendi in laudibus vespertinis orationem B.V.M., in festo et infra Octavam
SS. Corporis Christi sat singularis videbatur et certe contra usum in nostris
regionibus acceptum. Nihil mirum proinde si fuerit sublata.”3
(ii) Either relying on local custom, or because the liturgists who had
heard of the decree only in its original unauthentic form continue to abide
by it, the local law at present in many places preserves the original ruling of
S.R.C. It is given, for example, in our Ritus Servandus, p. 14, and the
diocesan Ordo occasionally inserts a reminder with a reference to the Ritus
Servandus. We think that, in principle, one must obey the local law of the
Ordo and the Ritus Servandus in places where they are obligatory, unless
Ordinaries issue directions to observe the common law.
181.—Divine Praises
Wbat is the origin of the Dit ine Praises usually recited at Benediction, and
on what principle is the list compiled? May they be recited after low Mass in
addition to the Leonine Prayers?
1 E.g. Hacgy, Cirè/nonial, 1902.
* Periodice, 1911, p. 32.
* Ibid.. 1914, p. 32.
209
HOLY EUCHARIST: EXPOSITION
Q. 182
(i) Apart from two later additions, these Divine Praises were composed
by Fr. Felici, S.J., in 1797, as part of his campaign in Rome against blas
phemy. Indulgences were granted for their recitation from 23 July, 1801,
onwards, as recorded in Preces et Pia Opera, η. 646, and the devotion spread
from Rome to the papal States and throughout the world; Cf. Beringer, Les
Indulgences, I, §197. It is clear, therefore, that the selection was made, in
the first instance, on a principle of making reparation for certain common
blasphemies, and if this is remembered it will be understood why the list
has no particular doctrinal coherence: the Holy Spirit, for example, is not
mentioned.
Though the devotion is still described in the current Preces et Pia Opera
as “Laudes in Blasphemiarum Reparationem”, it is likely that the original
purpose is forgotten or obscured, owing to further Praises being added
for reasons, perhaps, other than reparation for blasphemy. Since, however,
the idea of reparation is an essential element in devotion to the Sacred Heart,
the fifth Praise, added by Leo XIII, is well within the original purpose of
this devotion. J.R.C., 23 February, 1921, n. 4365, in ordering the addition
of St. Joseph, recalled the original purpose of the devotion, but the addition
itself was part of the Jubilee commemoration of St. Joseph being named
Patron of the Universal Church.
(ii) In principle it is not permitted the celebrant, after low Mass, to
recite publicly any prayers except those ordered by a competent authority,
or, what amounts to the same thing, those which custom has authorized:
^.R.C., 31 August, 1867, n. 3157.7: “An possint praecipi, aut saltem per
mitti aliquae preces recitandae ad Altare post Missam, non depositis sacris
vestibus ? Obstare videtur Decretum in Conversanen., diei 31 Augusti,
1669. Resp. Affirmative, dummodo preces dicantur assentiente Ordinario.”
The 1669 decision directed the priest to remove his Mass vestments before
the recitation of certain prayers.
Amongst the indulgences attached to this devotion, the older collec
tions record “two years” for their recitation after Mass (2 February, 1897),
from which it could be concluded that, though not ordered, the Divine
Praises could lawfully be recited after Mass. We think, nevertheless, that
uniformity is desirable, and that priests should not add the Divine Praises to
the Leonine Prayers, except in places where it has become customary.
This view is further supported by the fact that the current Preces et Pia
Opera, η. 646, has no reference to the recitation after Mass; instead we
read: “Indulgentia trium annorum. Indulgentia quinque annorum si
publice laudes recitatae fuerint. Indulgentia plenaria suetis conditionibus,
dummodo quotidiana laudum recitatio in integrum mensem producta
fuerit.”
182.—Forty Hours: “Missa Pro Pace”
During the “Forty Hours” prescribed by the bishop during Lent for a church
which may be classed as one of the “ ecclesiae minares” of Rubricae Generales, XIX,
7, a question is raised concerning the vestments of the assistant ministers in the “Missa
pro Pace”. Should they wear folded chasubles or dalmatic and funicle ? If the latter,
and toe church does not possess these vestments, could the deacon assist in alb, girdle,
maniple and stole, and the sub-deacon in alb, girdle and maniple ?
Q. 182
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
210
Attached to the “Forty Hours” arc many indulgences and liturgical
Erivilegcs, the enjoyment of which requires a due observance of the regu
tions imposed by the Holy Sec. The doubt formulated above arises from
the difficulty of observing one of the requirements of the Clementine Instruc
tion—the solemn votive Missa pro Pace on the second day.
(i) It is certain that the indulgences may be gained even though the
Clementine Instruction is not fully observed, c.g. when the Exposition is dis
continued during the night. This is expressly stated in Preces et Pia Opera,
η. 140, b, provided the Ordinary’s permission is obtained for a simplified
rite of Exposition for three days. The text of this decision repeats that of
the Holy Office, 22 January, 1914, and of the Sacred Penitentiary, 24 July, 1933.
A modified form of “Forty Hours” is always styled ad instar to distinguish
it from the forma propria carried out strictly according to the Clementine
Instruction. The rite ad instar does not necessarily require a solemn Mass on
the second day.
(ii) The liturgical privileges, which may be studied in any liturgical
manual, in The Clergy Retiew, VI, 1933, p. 186, and particularly in Fr.
O’Connell’s English translation of the Clementine Instruction, include the use
of votive Masses during the Exposition on days when such are not normally
permitted by the rubrics. The Holy Office and the Sacred Penitentiary have
decided that the spiritual privileges continue in the form ad instar·, but the
liturgical privileges arc regulated by the Congregation of Rites, which has
never, so far as we know, permitted any general deviation from the require
ments of the Clementine Instruction·, the reply, n. 4268, given to an inquiry
from Westminster, 27 May, 1911, was: “. . . circa Missas Votivas serventur
Rubricae et Decreta, nisi extet vel obtineatur speciale indultum”. Accord
ingly, the liturgical privileges may not be enjoyed unless the rite is carried
out in forma propria, e.g. the votive Masses must be solemn. Obviously, the
possession of an induit from the Holy See may modify7 the Clementine Instruc
tion in many directions; otherwise a votive low Mass or a sung Missa pro
Pace is permitted only when the rubrics permit votive Masses, and no
special privileges may be claimed by reason of the Exposition.
In practice, a parish priest who is unable to have the full rite in forma
ropria must follow the local Ordo or obtain the sanction of the Ordinary for
what he proposes to do. The Ordinary’s permission certainly safeguards
the spiritual privileges as we have seen, and if permission is also obtained
for certain liturgical privileges, it may7 be assumed that the Ordinary has an
induit for the purpose, or is using the powers he enjoys in the common
law, e.g. from Addit, et Variat., II, 3, for a solemn votive Mass “pro re
gravi et publica simul causa”, or from canon 1292 for a procession.
(iii) The position of the questioner is that he is able to have the Exposi
tion in forma propria except that the church possesses no purple dalmatic and
tunicle for the solemn Missa pro Pace. Our opinion is that the celebration of
this Mass with ministers improperly apparelled would be an unjustifiable
departure from the Rubricae Generales, XIX, 5: “Dalmatica et Tunicclla
utuntur Diaconus et Subdiaconus in Missa solcmni . .
a fortiori it would
also be against the Clementine Instruction, §xv, which in prescribing a solemn
Mass directs that it shall be celebrated according o ’he rubrics “cum ministris
paratis”.
The liturgical writers do not usually consider the lawfulness of cele
brating Mass without the appropriate vestments, but the moral theologians
zu
HOLY EUCHARIST: EXPOSITION
qq.
183, 184
—concerned as they are with human frailties and necessities—discuss the
kind of grave necessity which might justify a priest saying Mass without
this or that vestment. But none, so far as can be discovered, considers the
assistant ministers acting in this manner; for the kind of necessity a theo
logian has in view is, for example, the need of administering Viaticum or of
providing Mass for a concourse of people on a feast day. The desire for a
solemn Mass rather than a low Mass, or for a votive Mass rather than the
proper of the day, would be considered a liturgical luxury rather than a
necessity.
(iv) Finally, the use of folded chasubles at the Missa pro Pace would, in
our opinion, be wrong, since this Mass is a solemn votive Mass, even
though it occurs during Lent; but the folded chasuble is used only at Klasses
de tempore during Lent, Advent and some other occasions, as set out in
Rubricae Generales, XIX, 6.1 The following rubric, n. 7, does perhaps lend
some support to the view that a solemn Mass may, for appropriate reasons,
be celebrated with neither dalmatics nor folded chasubles; but it will be
observed that the circumstances are there limited and specified, since on the
one hand the folded chasuble is not permitted in the lesser churches men
tioned in this rubric, and on the other hand dalmatics are forbidden at Masses
de tempore on certain occasions. The rather obscure reasons for these
distinctions in the use of folded chasubles are examined by Dr. Callewaert in
Ephemerides Eitnrgicae, 1936, p. 69.
183.—Forty Hours “Ad Instar”
When Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament takes place on three successive days
without night watching, should the rubrics prescribed by the Clementine Instruction
be observed regarding votive Masses, processions and litanies ?
The indulgences attached to this devotion may be gained whenever,
with the Ordinary’s permission, three successive days of Exposition (“Forty
Hours” ad instar) take the place of the devotion as determined in the Clemen
tine Instruction (“Forty Hours” in forma propria).
The Congregation of Rites has not sanctioned the use of the liturgical
privileges, particularly the votive Masses, for the form ad instar, nor has it
directed that there shall be processions and litanies on these occasions. But
local induits have been obtained and, in many places, the Ordinary explicitly
directs what has to be done. Cf. Preces et Pia Opera, η. 140, b.
184.—Collection During Exposition
Is there, strictly speaking, any law forbidding the usual church collection to be
made daring Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament ? If there is a law, it appears to
be generally disregarded, not only in churches but in convent chapels where the Blessed
Sacrament is permanently exposed.
The law is found in §xxviii of the Clementine Instruction, translated in the
» Cf. S.R.C., nn. 9.9 and 2646.4.
Q. x8j
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
212
English edition as follows: “During the Exposition collecting plates arc
not to be placed in the church, nor are collectors—clerical or lay—to collect
in the church. Nor are beggars to be permitted to seek alms within the
church.” Gardcllini writes in his commentary on this section: “huius finis
praecipuus est, quod nulla praebeatur occasio fidelibus avertendi mentem
et animam ab oratione”. He decides, in the case of poor churches, whose
means arc unequal to the expenses of the function, that a collection may be
made at the doors of the church: “Verumtamen magna cum cautela id fieri
oportet, cum ne distrahantur ab oratione fideles, tum ne aliquibus eleemo
synarum collectio offensioni et scandalo sit.”1 His ruling is also that of
S.R.C., n. ji 57.10: “prope scilicet ecclesiae januam et absque rumore”.
The Instruction also forbids collections in the church during a “par
ticular” Exposition “delle Esposizioni anche particolari”, i.e. Exposition
for a shorter period than that of the “Forty Hours”. As far as we are aware,
the collection is usually taken before the Blessed Sacrament is exposed or at
the end of the rite, thus observing the law.
185.—October Devotions: Obligation
Is there any ground for supposing that these devotions, introduced by Leo XIII,
are no longer of strict obligation ? Also why must ire continue October devotions up
to and including 2 Novesaber?
(i) The devotion must obviously be continued in those dioceses in which
the practice is enjoined locally; and even in places where there is no explicit
direction on the subject the devotion must be continued, since it is a form
of public worship enjoined everywhere.
The reason which has led many to suppose that it is no longer obligatory
to recite the rosary publicly, during Mass or Benediction in October, rests
on the fact that the Roman question is now happily settled by the Lateran
Treaty. Just as prayers ordered tempore belli will cease, without further
directions, when peace is declared, so also should these special devotions—
peetdiares preces as they were styled in the Encyclical, 1 September, 1883—
cease to be of obligation when the purpose for which they were ordered has
been obtained. That indulgences continue to be attached to the devotions
is no argument for their continuance as a strict obligation.2
The chief objection in the minds of many is the recitation of the rosary
aloud during Mass, and this can be met by reciting it during Exposition of
the Blessed Sacrament, as the original Encyclical and many subsequent
decisions have made clear: “eodem tempore vel sacrum ad altare fiat, vel
Sacramento augusto ad adorandum proposito, etc”.3 We have noticed a
curious inversion in a few of the subsequent decrees on the subject, which
refer to Mass being said during the recitation of the Rosary: “quod si mane
fiat Missa inter preces celebretur .... quod si mane Rosarium cum litaniis
recitetur, Sacrum inter preces peragatur”.4
1 Decreta Authentica, IV, p. ιοί.
1 Cf. Questions Liturgiques et Paroissiales, XV, 1950, p. toi.
3 Supremi Apostolatus, 1 September, 1885.
•i’.R.G, 20 August, 1885, 16 January, 1886, n. 3650.5.
HOLY EUCHARIST: EXPOSITION
Q. 186
(ii) An examination of the many Encyclicals and later decrees has not
revealed why the devotions have to be extended to 2 November. We should
expect that it has something to do with the Holy Souls, and in the only
reference we can find this is accepted as the reason : “Perbene igitur Rosarium
applicatur defunctis . . . En quare ipsa Ecclesia voluit ut indulgentiae
omnes rosarianac applicabiles sint defunctis, ct etiam quod exercitium mensis
in honorem SS. Rosarii Octobris finiatur ipsa die Commemorationis om
nium fidelium defunctorum.”1
186.—October Devotions: Morning Exposition
Is one permitted to expose the Blessed Sacrament immeditaely after Mass during
October, and to recite the prescribed prayers then instead of during Mass, when it is
found inconvenient to bave Exposition during the afternoon or evening ?
S.R.C., 16 January, 1886, n. 3650.5: Quum eodetn decreto prae
cipitur quod si mane Rosarium cum Litaniis recitetur, Sacrum inter preces
peragatur; quaeritur: Num haec verba ita intelligi debeant ut Rosarium uno
codcmquc tempore dicatur quo Missa celebratur; vel potius Missa antea
celebranda sit, ac postea Rosarium cum Litaniis recitetur, quemadmodum
fieri solet in Palentina Diocesi? Resp. Affirmative ad primam partem;
Negative ad secundam.
20 August, 1885: Decernit itaque et mandat ... ut quinque saltem
Mariani Rosarii decades, cum Litaniis Lauretanis quotidie recitentur:
quod si mane fiat, Missa inter preces celebretur: si a meridie, Sacrosanctum
Eucharistiae sacramentum adorationi proponatur, deinde fideles rite lus
trentur.2
(i) Supposing that the rector of the church prefers to have these devo
tions during Exposition instead of during Mass, the question put is whether
this Exposition may, in the common law, take place before midday. The
answer must be, we think, that this is not permitted, since the directions of
T.R.C., 20 August, 1885, arc quite clear and explicit: if the devotions take
place before midday the prayers are to be recited during Mass. That this
text was not printed in the Decreta Authentica of the Congregation is not, we
think, of any moment, since it was concerned substantially with decreeing
the continuance of the devotions “hoc pariter anno et annis porro sequenti
bus”, a law which has been established in a number of other texts; the mode
in which the law is to be observed is accidental to the main question and
obligation. We find, accordingly, in Ephemerides Eiturgicae, 1928, p. 46,
that the rule given by T.R.C., 20 August, 1885, is fully sustained: “Equidem
iuxta Encychcas Leonis PP. XIII et decreta S.R.C. . . . expositio SS.
Sacramenti nonnisi post meridiem facienda ibi praescribitur.”
(ii) So far the common law. S.R.C., 26 August, 1886, n. 5666, decided
that the Ordinary could prudently permit the observance of the law by a
pyx Exposition and Benediction, in churches where solemn Exposition
with the monstrance, as required by the former decrees, was found too
difficult to observe. The law, therefore, permits the Ordinary to sanction a
, 1 Fanfanl O.P., Dt Rosario, p. 30.
• Thl» decree was not reprinted in the Decrf/a Authentica of the Congregation, but it
is referred to in nn. 3650 ana 3666. Cf. A.S.S., XVIII, p. 95; Leeds Sjnods, 1911, p. 22.
Q. 187
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
214
mode of Exposition which differs from that in the common law. In our
view the same may be held when it is desired to perform these devotions at a
time other than that determined by the common law, namely by reciting the
rosary, etc., before the Blessed Sacrament exposed immediately after Mass.
The Ordinary’s permission should first be obtained either for private (pyx)
or public (monstrance) Exposition at this time, and everything will then be
in order.
187.—October Benedictions: Ordinary’s Sanction
If it is preferred, during October, to recite the rosary before the Blessed Sacrament
exposed instead of during Mass, is it necessary to obtain the Ordinary’s permission for
parish churches to bave public Benediction, i.e. with the monstrance ?
The reason for the above doubt is contained in canon 1274, §1, which
directs that the Ordinary’s permission is not required for private Exposition
(concluding with the pyx Benediction), but that it is required for public
Exposition with the monstrance except on Corpus Christi and throughout
the Octave. On the other hand, the legislation of Leo XIII permits public
Exposition as an alternative to reciting the rosary during Mass. The
question has often been raised whether the Leonine legislation is still in
force, and we hold the view that it is. The papal permission for Benediction
daily in October has at least never been expressly revoked, and from canons
2, 4 and 6 it still remains in force, even though it is not mentioned in canon
1274, §1. Accordingly, the correct solution of the doubt raised seems to be
that the Ordinary’s permission is not required for solemn Benediction in
parish churches during October. Cf. Cappello, De Sacramentis, §417, v.
215
CONFESSOR’S JURISDICTION
Q. 188
VI PENANCE
§1.
CONFESSOR’S JURISDICTION
188.—Faculties of Seminary Rector
May the rector of a seminary
*
who is accompanying some of his students on a
pilgrimage outside the diocese
*
hear their confessions
*
if no other confessor is available ?
Parish priests enjoy this power, and it would seem that the seminary rector should also
bare it.
Canon 1568: Exemptum a jurisdictione paroeciali Seminarium esto;
et pro omnibus qui in Seminario sunt, parochi officium, excepta materia
matrimoniali et firmo praescripto can. 891, obeat Seminarii rector eiusve
delegatus, nisi in quibusdam Seminariis fuerit aliter a Sede Apostolica
constitutum.
Canon 891 : Magister novitiorum eiusque socius, Superior Seminarii
collcgiive sacramentales confessiones suorum alumnorum secum in eadem
domo commorantium ne audiant, nisi alumni ex gravi et urgenti causa in
casibus particularibus sponte id petant.
Canon 873, §1 : Ordinaria iurisdictione ad confessiones excipiendas
potiuntur pro suo quisque territorio Ordinarius loci, et parochus aliique qui
loco parochi sunt.
Canon 881, §2: Qui ordinariam habent absolvendi potestatem, possunt
subditos absolvere ubique terrarum.
If it is decided that the rector of a seminar}’ possesses ordinary jurisdic
tion for hearing the confessions of his subjects, it will immediately follow
that, for urgent reasons, he may absolve them wherever they may happen
to be. Whilst they arc in the seminary the point is rather theoretical than
practical, since the rector will certainly enjoy, like all the clergy of the
diocese, at least delegated jurisdiction from the Ordinary.
(i) Many commentators, including some on whom we are most accus
tomed to rely, such as Cappello, De *Poenitentia §§387, 480, deny most
emphatically that the seminary rector possesses ordinary jurisdiction for
confessions. It is, they consider, almost absurd to say that a person pos
sesses ordinary jurisdiction and is at the same time forbidden to exercise it
except in urgent cases. In seminaries confessional jurisdiction is enjoyed by
the ordinary and extraordinary confessors as provided for in canon 1561.
Nothing certain can be deduced from the fact that the seminary is extraparochial, since no mention is made of the rector in canon 451, §2, dealing
with persons who arc equivalent to a parish priest; moreover, as in canon
464, §2, the Ordinary may withdraw a religious house from the care of the
local parish priest and appoint a chaplain for the care of souls therein, but
no one maintains that this chaplain possesses ordinary jurisdiction.
(ii) Those canonists, however, who have made a more detailed examina
tion f the question, notably Ciprotti in *Apollinaris 1935, p. 282, and
I
-—
q.
189
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
216
Onclin in Jus Pontificium, 1956, p. 70, arc equally certain that the seminary
rector docs enjoy ordinary jurisdiction, and we think their view is correct.
For the restriction in canon 891 is on the use of his powers, and the fact
that he is forbidden to use them except in certain contingencies argues that
he possesses them; otherwise it would have to be said, wc suppose, that
jurisdiction is conferred by the student who for urgent reasons approaches
the rector for confession. That the law provides for confessors, ordinary
and extraordinary, in seminaries arises from the desire of the modern
legislator that the faithful should have abundant facilities for going to
confession. The seminary' rector is not mentioned in canon 451, §2,
because he is not fully equivalent to a parish priest, since he enjoys no
power for assisting at marriages, whereas the others mentioned in that
canon arc fully equivalent. It is true that the chaplain of an extra-parochial
religious house has no ordinary jurisdiction; but there is no reason for
supposing that he has got it, whereas very good reasons exist in the wording
of canon 1368 for supposing that the seminary rector has.
(iii) In any case, it is evident that canon 209 can be invoked in this
dstbinm inris, and the answer to the above question is thereby affirmative,
not only in the application of canon 881, §2, but as regards any other equiva
lent powers as in canon 899, §3.
189.—Confessions on Shipboard
What powers for bearing confessions are possessed by priests on a sea voyage ?
1»
► ' »
if i
I
Il I
r;;
it
H’
h!
IMMl
H
»
Canon 883, §1 : Sacerdotes omnes maritimum iter arripientes, dummodo
vcl a proprio Ordinario, vel ab Ordinario portus in quo navim conscendunt,
vel etiam ab Ordinario cuiusvis portus intcriccti per quem in itinere transe
unt, facultatem rite acceperint confessiones audiendi, possunt, toto itinere,
quorumlibet fidelium sccum navigantium confessiones in navi excipere,
quamvis navis in itinere transeat vcl etiam aliquandiu consistat variis in
locis diversorum Ordinariorum iurisdictioni subiectis.
§2. Quoties vero navis in itinere consistat, possunt confessiones excipere
tum fidelium qui quavis de causa ad navim accedant, tum eorum qui ipsis ad
terram obiter appellentibus confiteri petant eosque valide ac licite absolvere
etiam a casibus Ordinario loci reservatis.
The very full faculties enjoyed by priests on sea voyages, as set out in this
canon, are further explained by two replies from the Code Commission.
(i) The one essential thing is that the priest should already possess
faculties for hearing confessions, and he is given the widest possible choice
of Ordinary from whom these faculties may be obtained: his own Ordinary
or the Ordinary of any port from which the ship sails or at which a call is
made.
From the wording of the canon it is fairly evident that “Ordinarius
loci” is meant, whose rights in granting confessional faculties, established
by the Council of Trent after much dissension, arc codified in canon 874.
The major superior of an exempt clerical Institute is also styled “Ordinary”
in canon 198 and throughout the Code, and he may grant confessional
faculties to any priest for the purpose of absolving his own subjects, as
determined in canon 875 and 514, §1. The view was defended by some
2I7
CONFESSOR’S JURISDICTION
Q. 190
canonists, including no less an authority than Vcrmcersch in Periodica, 1934,
p. 33, that in canon 883 the word “Ordinarius” included the major superior
of an exempt religious Institute. The chief reason for this view was that
the canon has “Ordinarius” and not “Ordinarius loci”, and further reasons
are suggested in Commentarium pro Religiosis, 1934, p. 357. The Code
Commission, 30 July, 1934, rejected this wide interpretation of canon 883. A
religious, therefore, who merely has faculties from his own superior
may not validly hear confessions on board ship, except in the ease of
persons in pericido mortis and of those who are subjects of the religious
superior.
(ii) Canon 883, §2, extends the faculty of hearing confessions to include
those penitents who approach the voyaging priest whilst he is incidentally
on shore at a port of call. The meaning of “obiter” is clarified by a decision
of the Code Commission, 20 May, 1923, ad iv, in the sense that he may not
hear confessions in these circumstances beyond a period of three days if the
local Ordinary can easily be reached; the same reply decided that the faculties
could validly be used ashore, whether the priest was returning to the same
ship from which he disembarked or was waiting at the port for another
ship.
190.—Meaning of Sea Voyage
Can it be safely held that the sea journey from England to Ireland, e.g. from
Liverpool or Holyhead to Dublin, suffices for the purpose of receiving confessional
faculties 11 a here” in the sense of canon 883 ?
This interpretation can safely be held, since the law does not determine
the length of the voyage. From canon 200, §1, the faculty is of strict
interpretation and cannot, therefore, be obtained by those who arc in a boat
on the sea for some purpose other than making a journey, e.g. fishing, even
though they spend several hours or even days in this pursuit. Thus Vermeersch-Crcuscn, Epitome, II, §153: “Maritimum iter dicit plus quam
maritimam quamdam ambulationem qua, recreationis vel piscationis causa,
quispiam per aliquot horas a portu solvit.” Nor can it apply, with cer
tainty, to a journey across the mouth of a river. Chretien, De Poenitentia,
p. 363 : “An mare late intelligendum sit etiam de canalibus marinis vcl de ore
fluminum, v.g. canal de Corinthe, canal de Suez, Garonne depuis Bordeaux,
Escaut depuis Anvers, non constat.” We think that canon 209 could be
used in order to obtain jurisdiction in all these doubtful cases.
But there is no doubt at all concerning the sea voyage between England
and Ireland. The best and fullest commentary’ on this useful canon is that
given by Fr. Berutti in Jus Pontificium, 1934, pp. 61-66, in the course of which
the point raised is defined as follows: “Facultates de quibus in can. 883 .. .
omnibus ct singulis sacerdotibus competunt qui qualibet ex causa (etiam
solummodo ad animi solatium et forte absque licentia Superioris) iter
maritimum reapse perficiant: dummodo utique aliqua jurisdictione audien
darum confessionum i idem actu potiantur, ad normam in can. 885, §1,
praestitutam. Iter maritimum perficere ii dici non possunt, qui diutius
quoque—forte etiam per unum vel plurcs integros dies—in mari vagantur,
quin tamen proprie ex uno ad alium terminum terrestrem praefinitum se
π
1»
II
Ii
I»
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
QQ. 191, njZ
218
transferant per mare, saltem ad brevissimum tempus: minime enim exclu
ditur iter, quod arripiatur cum intentione statim redeundi ad cumdem locum
ex quo discessus fit.”
As supporting the above interpretation, it will be found that the Holy
See, in granting special faculties to priest pilgrims going to Lourdes or
Loretto, takes for granted the application of canon 883, no matter how short
the sea journey may be, and extends the faculties beyond the limits of the
canon.
191.—Faculties in Aeroplanes
May it be held that thefaculties conceded “a fare” in canon 883, "Sacerdotes omnes
maritimum iter arripientes . .
apply also to a journey across the sea not in a ship
but in an aeroplane ?
IIu · !,
ll( ii
Canon 20: Si certa de re desit expressum prasescriptum legis sive
generalis sive particularis, norma sumenda est, nisi agatur de poenis appli
candis, a legibus latis in similibus; a generalibus iuris principiis cum aequi
tate canonica servatis; a stylo et praxi Curiae Romanae; a communi con
stantique sententia doctorum.
Canon 883 codifies and extends a concession which was first given by
the Holy Office, i-j May, 1869,1 long before aeroplanes were thought of. We
arc of the opinion that the point is covered by the first part of canon 20, and
that, if the other conditions are verified, faculties arc delegated a fare to a
priest travelling across the sea in an aeroplane exactly as they arc to a priest
voyaging in a ship. The canon refers, in the last clause, to the common
opinion of experts, but we have been able to trace only two who deal
expressly with the question, and unhappily they do not agree: Chretien, De
Poenitentia, 1935, p. 363, holds that faculties are enjoyed as in a ship: “Quid
de machinis in acre volantibus (avions) ? Deficiente dispositione positiva
Ecclesiae, nostro sensu distinguendum est: in itinere supra terras sacerdos
iurisdictione gaudet sicut in curru viae ferratae; in itinere supra mare, sicui in
navi ad normam canonis 885. Cf. can. 20.” Tummolo-Iorio, Theol.
Moralis, II (1935), §545, teaches that canon 883 cannot be applied; but he
takes the gloomy view of the prospects of anyone travelling by air and
permits the application of canon 882 (in periculo mortis).
Whatever doubt there may be is removed by the application of canon
209—jurisdiction is at least supplied “in dubio positivo et probabili sive
iuris sive facti”.
192.—Faculties in Wartime
Can it be held, during war, that everyone in the country is in danger of death
from air raids, and therefore that every priest has faculties to absolve them in the
internalforum from all sins and censures?
Canon 882: In periculo mortis omnes sacerdotes, licet ad confessiones
1 pontes, n.
1009.
n9
CONFESSOR’S JURISDICTION
q.
r92
non approbati, valide et licite absolvunt quoslibet pocnitcntcs a quibusvis
peccatis aut censuris, quantumvis reservatis et notoriis, etiamsi praesens sit
sacerdos approbatus, salvo praescripto can. 884, 2252.
5. O/., 15 September, 1859; Fontes, n. <>55, ad 1: Λ probatis auctori
bus iudicandi normam sumat (Archiepiscopus) quibus in casibus revera
dici possint poenitentes versari in articulo vel periculo mortis. . . .
(i) The familiar rule authorizing any priest to absolve persons approach
ing death, restricted by the Council of Trent to those “in articulo mortis”,1
was soon extended to people “in periculo mortis” and stands thus in our
present law. The difference between the two is that, in the first, death is
practically certain, whereas in the second there is merely a prudent fear
that it might happen. The teaching of approved authors notwithstanding,
it will often be doubtful whether a penitent’s condition places him in periculo
mortis, in which case the defect of jurisdiction, if any, is supplied from canon
209. If, however, it should transpire that the person was certainly not in
danger of death, i.e. that a judgement to that effect was imprudent and
precipitate, absolution will be valid only on a title of “common error”.
For “danger of death” is a fact which has to be verified before jurisdiction
is supplied by the Church.
(ii) One of the commonest situations, mentioned by all the writers, is
the case of the armed forces mobilized for war. Thus, in the previous war, the
Sacred Penitentiary reaffirmed, z9 May, 1915, that these troops could be
absolved by any priest, the assumption being that they were liable at any
moment to be engaged in battle, and many other equivalent decisions were
given by the Holy See. This well-established common law was recorded,
at the outbreak of the present war, in the army chaplain’s faculties granted
8 December, 1939, and it has been liberally extended in various directions.
There is no particular difficulty in the case of the armed forces, since what
ever doubts there may be about the common law “in periculo mortis” are
removed by the delegated faculties possessed by army chaplains.
(iii) But there is some obscurity about the civil population. For the
approved authors have not previously contemplated a situation in which,
to use the common expression, the whole population of a country is in the
front line. Moreover, unfortunately, we are denied during war the com
mentaries of these authors in the current Roman periodicals, and, having no
certain means of discovering what their teaching is, we are left to our own
slender resources. We would not, therefore, criticize any priest who gives
an affirmative answer to the above question; it is a matter for his own
judgement, for it is at least doubtful whether the conditions arc verified
or not.
(iv) The reason why we are, personally, unable to give, without any
qualification, an affirmative answer may be stated as follows. It would,
firstly, appear far too sweeping to regard every man, woman and child, in
every country at war, as being “in periculo mortis”; many places have never
experienced an air raid, and arc not very likely to; danger of death from
traffic is, perhaps, just as imminent, and no one would regard this as included
in canon 882. Moreover, rather complicated faculties have been given for
non-fasting Communion which would be unnecessary’, from canon 858, §1,
if we arc all in danger of death within the meaning of the law; other faculties,
» Scss., XIV, cap. vii.
IH h
H
L-i
■
q.
I95
QUESTION'S AND ANSWERS
220
for example those given to interned priests to absolve fellow-prisoners,
would likewise be so much waste paper if they enjoy these faculties already
a sure from canon 882.
We are of the opinion, therefore, without prejudice to the liberty con
ceded in (iii), that it is not possible to give an unqualified affirmative answer
to the question. There are times and places, for example, during an actual
bombardment, when the conditions for the application of canon 882 are
certainly present, as the faculties given 8 December, 1939, explicitly state:
“instante mortis periculo durantibus praefatis incursionibus” ; the same could,
no doubt, prudently be said of any town, such as Dover, which is habitually
subject to bombing, and of any place from the moment air raid warning has
been given. But it cannot, we think, be said indiscriminately of the whole
country.
193.—Supplied Jurisdiction
Ij somejust cause necessary before one can invoke tbe title of suppliedjurisdiction in
canon 209 ?
ιΓ
Λ 1!
P
I*
•·
HI
«H
m
I·
0
hi
Hl
4
l{ *
fa
Canon 209: In errore communi aut in dubio positivo et probabili sive
iuris sive facti, iurisdictionem supplet Ecclesia pro foro tum externo, tum
interno.
(i) The canon provides a written law for what previously was largely
a matter of custom or interpretation. There is no question of the validity
of absolution given with supplied jurisdiction within the terms of the
canon; nor does the question of lawfulness arise when coming to a decision
about an action already performed in good faith. But in deciding, before the
event, whether one is entitled lawfully to give absolution with the supplied
jurisdiction of canon 209, the point at issue is whether some just cause is or
is not necessary. In the case of common error the writers are agreed that
a just cause is required: Cappello, De Poenitentia, §493; Noldin, Theol.
Moralis, III, §347.
(ii) In the case of positive and probable doubt our own preference is
for the necessity of some justifying cause, following St. Alphonsus, Theol.
Moralis, VI, §573; Wouters, Theol. Moralis, I, §104. Others, as Tanquerey,
Theol. Moralis, I, §431, require a just cause “in dubio facti” but not “in dubio
iuris”. The reason for our preference, notwithstanding the fact that the
Code makes no mention of the necessity of a just cause, is that the Church
is not presumed to supply jurisdiction ad liceitatem unless there is some
reason for so doing.
(iii) But the opposite and more liberal view which requires, indeed,
a just cause for invoking common error, but not in cases of positive and
probable doubt, is very widely held, though no very satisfactory reason is
given for distinguishing between the two cases. Cf. Cappello, De Poenitentia,
§499; Tummolo-Iorio, Theol. Moralis, II, §542; Noldin, Theol. Moralis, III,
§547. This teaching may certainly be followed. Gougnard, De Poenitentia,
1939, p. 268, and Prümmer, Theol. Moralis, III, §414, whilst holding that no
just cause is required, recommend that certain jurisdiction should be obtained
from the ordinary channels as soon as possible.
·
221
CONFESSOR’S JURISDICTION
Q. 194
194.—Faculties in Common Error
A priest in a country occupied by anti-Catholics forces takes refuge in a place out
side bis own diocese. There he gathers Catholics for Mass and tbe sacraments.
After some time be realises that he has no faculties in that place, and wonders whether
he may continue to give absolution, since it is impossible for him to get in touch with
the local Ordinary.
(i) If he is a parochus he may, from canon 881, §2, continue to absolve
those of his parishioners who have fled with him into the neighbouring
diocese.
Moreover, the state of the country may be such that all the inhabitants
are reckoned to be in periculo mortis, and may be absolved by any priest in
virtue of canon 882.
(ii) When neither of the above titles actually exists it is clearly necessary
to exercise all one’s ingenuity to discover another one. Precisely in order
to meet the needs of the faithful the Holy Sec has given faculties to all
interned priests,1 but we arc not aware of any similar faculty granted to
cover the above emergency. Accordingly, we must have recourse to the
title of common error in canon 209, and though none of the authors we have
consulted has the above difficulty in mind, it will be seen from the following
quotations that the priest may lawfully and validly claim jurisdiction on this
ground, even though he himself is quite aware that he is lacking it from the
usual channels.
Cappello, De Poenitentia, §492: “Stante errore communi, Ecclesia supplet
etiam si sacerdos probe cognoscat se iurisdictione carere, quia non in cius
favorem, sed in communem utilitatem fidelium ipsa supplet in casu.”
Chrétien, De Poenitentia, §224: “Si autem mala fide absolvat, i.c. cum
conscientia se non habere iurisdictionem, de se graviter peccat, praesertim
si se fingat approbatum et errorem communem provocet. Attamen a gravi
peccato excusatur ob gravem causam. . .
Berutti in Jus Pontificium, 1934, p. 61: “. . . ii quoque, qui forte ceno
sciant quod in confessario iurisdictio solummodo ab Ecclesia suppletur
ratione erroris communis, ab ipso absolutionem valide impetrare possunt,
si sint rite dispositi; manifestum est autem quod iidem illicite absolutionem
ab eo peterent, si absque vera seu gravi necessitate id facerent.”
Periodica, 1928, p. 91, applies this doctrine to the case of a missioncr for
whom the parish priest has forgotten to secure faculties.
(iii) There is a wide field of doubt, both of law and fact, in deciding
that the conditions for common error are verified, but whatever doubt there
may be is removed by the same friendly canon 209. We think that it is
scarcely conceivable that common error can be absent in the case of a priest
in the situation described by our correspondent.
But it is not absolutely inconceivable. Imagine, if you like, a number
of refugee theologians accompanying a priest, all of them well aware that
he has no jurisdiction, and no other persons present. There cannot possibly
be common error in such a case, and it is impossible to detect any title to
jurisdiction apart from that given in danger of death. The necessity of
the power of jurisdiction, in addition to that of orders, is iure divino, and
15. Poenit., 22 February, 1941.
q. i9j
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
2U
not merely an ecclesiastical requirement which one might consider as being
inoperative in urgent necessity. This company, so far as absolution is
concerned, is in the same position as a body of the faithful without a priest
at all: they would have to be content with an act of perfect contrition.
195.—Army Chaplains Absolving Civilians
May it not be held, from n. 13 of the faculties issued to chaplains, that civilians
in this country may validly and lawfully be absolved by them, even though they possess
no faculties from the local Ordinary ?
»
I
;
► · :
*
♦·
ii
•I I tr *4
iH ' 1
*
I x
U J ·
S. C. Consist., 8 December, 1939: Excipiendi sacramentales confessiones
omnium fidelium, qui in exercitu militant vel exercitui quovis modo sunt
addicti ... et, in locis bellici territorii tantummodo, omnium fidelium ad
se accedentium. . . .
T. Pocnit., 4 December, 1915: . . . declarat praedictas facultates in illis
locis territorii bellici (vulgo %ona di guerra) tantummodo adhiberi posse, in
quibus difficile sit fidelibus pro sacramentali confessione peragenda recurrere
ad sacerdotes adprobatos a locorum Ordinariis, simulque sacerdotibus ad
exercitum pertinentibus eosdem Ordinarios adire ad adprobationcm obtin
endam. . . .
(i) If the very liberal view is held that all the population of every country
at war is in periculo mortis, any priest can absolve them, whether an army
chaplain or not, whether possessing faculties from an Ordinary or not,
from the common law of canons 882, 892, §2, and 2252; we are reminded
of this fact in n. 14 of the faculties issued from S.C. Consist., 8 December,
1939. We do not hold the view, without many reservations, that the
whole population of England, Wales, and Scotland is in danger of death at
all times during the war. Cf. Q. 192.
(ii) zXssuming they arc not in danger of death, chaplains may, from n. 13
of their faculties, validly and lawfully absolve all civilians in these islands,
provided that the locality in which the confession is heard can be described
as “in locis bellici territorii”. A similar phrase was used by the Sacred
Penitentiary, 4 December 1915,1η the previous war, but with a further reserva
tion that neither the faithful nor the chaplain confessor were able to observe
the ordinary practice. This limitation does not occur in the present
faculties, and though it is a useful clause to bear in mind, as will be noted in
,
(iii)
wc need consider only the phrase “in locis bellici territorii”. Cf.
Nouvelle Revue Théologique, September, 1959, p. 968. The words certainly
apply to places like North Africa and Holland during the course of fighting
in those territories, and some may think, as they are entitled to do, that
England, Wales, and Scotland are included, owing to the possibility of air
warfare breaking out at any time over these territories. In the actual course
of an air raid the point is irrelevant, since all priests have faculties from the
common law in periculo mortis.
At other times, we cannot agree that the whole country' is “in locis
bellici territorii”. For the faculty in n. 13 is sharply distinguished from
that in n. 14, and the point of it is that civilians living in a country’ which is
the scene of military operations, even though not themselves in danger of
death, arc subject to so many restrictions and inconveniences that the
225
CONFESSOR’S JURISDICTION
Q. 196
ordinary rules about confessional jurisdiction are to be suspended in their
regard for the time being. The phrase would certainly apply to those
areas, such as certain coastal towns, which arc practically under military law
so far as the movements of the civilians are concerned. But it could not,
wc think, be applied unreservedly to the whole country.
(iii) Priests are entitled to take a more liberal view, if they wish, for the
faculty in n. 15 is not restricted in its wording.
In our view, the best solution is to regard the point discussed in (ii) as
a dubium iuris, to be interpreted as in Q. 193 (ii). There is, indeed, authority
for using the supplied jurisdiction of canon 209 without any special cause,
but the safest course is to use this jurisdiction only in the circumstances
mentioned in J. Poenit, 4 December, 1915.
The above solution is given without prejudice to instructions which may
have been issued to certain chaplains by their own military’ superiors.
In order to remove all uncertainty, the Belgian bishops declared in 1939
that all priests in the army could absolve civilians anywhere in Belgium
provided they were in possession of faculties from some Ordinary.
196.—Army Chaplains Absolving Priests
In most English dioceses the clergy are empowered by the local Ordinary to com
municate faculties to a priest belonging to another diocese, and holding faculties therein,
for the purpose of bearing their own confessions. If a priest of diocese “.-1” becomes
an army chaplain, with faculties from the army Ordinary, but ceases to hold diocesan
faculties in diocese “A”, may a priest in diocese “B”, relying on the above concession,
validly and lawfully confess to the chaplain ?
(i) This concession to communicate faculties varies in different dioceses.
Thus Liverpool Synod, 1934, n. 131: “Sacerdotes cuiusvis dioecesis pro
vinciae Liverpolitanae et dioecesis Salopiensis, pro confessionibus approbati,
iurisdictione in hac dioecesi pro confessionibus sacerdotum huius dioecesis,
pollent”. Middlesbrough Decrees, 1933, η. 119, and Lancaster Statuta, 1935,
η. 99 : “We hereby grant faculties to any priest of another diocese in England,
holding faculties in his own diocese, to absolve any priest, his servants and
teachers, on occasion of a visit to this diocese”. Westminster has a similar
faculty extended to Welsh priests, promulgated each year in the Ordo. In
Liverpool, it will be noticed, the concession is more restricted than in the other
dioceses mentioned.
(ii) If the phrase in the chaplains’ faculties, n. 13, which authorizes
them to absolve all civilians “in locis bellici territorii”, is liberally interpreted,
the question does not arise: a priest penitent will be in the same condition as
any of the faithful. Cf. Q. 195.
(iii) Assuming, however, that the chaplain’s faculty, n. 15, is not univer
sally applicable in these islands at the present time, we think that the faculties
mentioned in (i) may be used, within the territorial limits indicated in each,
even though the chaplain ceases to hold diocesan faculties from his own
local Ordinary. Thus faculties may be communicated by’ a Liverpool priest
to a chaplain who used to enjoy faculties in any diocese of the Liver
pool Province or in the diocese of Shrewsbury; by’ Middlesbrough and
Lancaster priests to one similarly approved in any English diocese; be
q. I97
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
224
Westminster priests to one approved in England and Wales. This view is,
we think, properly deduced from canon i8: “Leges ecclesiasticae intclligendae sunt secundum propriam verborum significationem in textu et con
textu consideratam; quae si dubia et obscura manserit, ad locos Codicis
parallelos, si qui sint, ad legis finem ac circumstantias et ad mentem legisla
toris est recurrendum.” Whatever doubt exists on the correctness of this
interpretation will be covered by canon 209.
197.—Faculties of Suspended Priest
What is the effect of suspension with regard to the validity of an absolution, given
by a priest who has incurred a censure of suspension and who, at the same time, is
bound to hear confessions by reason of his parochial office ?
M
ΐ
ÜI
14
kLl b
IM ’
►H li
H ·’
il
Putting aside as irrelevant a discussion of the conditions necessary before
the censure of suspension can be incurred, and putting aside also the details
of interpretation in such a suspension as that incurred in England by going to
theatres, we will suppose that a censure (not a vindicative punishment) of
suspension “a divinis” has been incurred latae sententiae by a priest engaged
in parochial work; that the law does not expressly state that the power of
valid confessional jurisdiction is withdrawn by the suspension; and that
there has been no subsequent condemnatory or declaratory sentence by the
Ordinary.
Canon 2278: “Suspensio est censura qua clericus officio vel beneficio vel
utroque prohibetur.” As the canon indicates, the prohibition may be
general or partial. The term “suspensio a divinis” implies a partial pro
hibition; the suspended priest retains the use of his benefice but is pro
hibited from using the sacred powers conferred upon him by ordination:
he may neither say Mass nor administer the sacraments, including the sacra
ment of Penance, since the grant of absolution is an exercise of the power of
Orders as well as of jurisdiction.
Unlike excommunication, however, suspension docs not deprive
the censured person from receiving the sacraments. If he is otherwise
rightly disposed he may be absolved from his sins, including the sin for
which the censure has been incurred, and he may receive Holy Communion.
Moreover, he may be absolved from the suspension itself, from canon 2254,
§1, with the obligation of having recourse to the competent superior within
a month, under pain of reincurring it. This canon is more often applied to
excommunicated persons but it can certainly be used with regard to suspen
sions latae sententiae “. . . si, nempe, censurae latae sententiae exterius
servari nequeunt sine periculo gravis scandali vel infamiae. . . .”
Supposing he is alone and cannot reach a confessor, the situation is met
by the following canons :
Canon 2232: Poena latae sententiae, sive medicinalis sive vindicativa,
delinquentem qui delicti sibi sit conscius, ipso facto in utroque foro tenet;
ante sententiam tamen declaratoriam a poena observanda delinquens excu
satur quoties eam servare sine infamia nequit, et in foro externo ab eo
eiusdem poenae observantiam exigere nemo potest, nisi delictum sit notorium
firmo praescripto canon 2223, §4.
Canon 2284: Si incursa fuerit censura suspensionis quae vetat adminis-
zz]
CONFESSOR’S JURISDICTION
q. j98
trationcm Sacramentorum et Sacramen talium, servetur praesciptum can.
2261; si censura suspensionis quae prohibet actum jurisdictionis in foro seu
interno seu externo, actus est invalidus, ex. gr. absolutio sacrament alis, si
lata sit sententia condcmnatoria vel declaratoria, aut Superior exoresse
declaret se ipsam jurisdictionis potestatem revocare; secus est illicitus
tantum nisi a fidelibus petitus fuerit ad normam mem. can. 2261, §z.
Canon 2261, §2: Fideles, salvo praescripto '2, possunt ex qualibet justa
causa ab excommunicato Sacramenta et Sacramentalia petere, maxime si
alii ministri desint, et tunc excommunicatus requisitus potest eadem minis
trare neque ulla tenetur obligatione causam a requirente percontandi.
§5. Sed ab excommunicatis vitandis nccnon ab aliis excommunicatis,
postquam intercessit sententia condcmnatoria aut declaratoria, fideles in solo
mortis periculo possunt petere tum absolutionem sacramentalcm ad normam
cann. 882, 2252, tum etiam, si alii desint ministri, cetera Sacramenta et
Sacramentalia.
198.—Jurisdiction of Orthodox Priests
17 is well understood that the priests belonging to separated Eastern Churches
inasmuch as they are validly ordained, administer valid sacraments. In those sacra
ments for which no jurisdiction is required this can be readily perceived, but it is
difficult to understand how their absolutions can be valid, since, being separated from
the unity of the Church, they appear to lack the necessaryjurisdiction.
The principle underlying this question is unassailable, namely: “Praeter
potestatem ordinis, ad validam peccatorum absolutionem requiritur in
ministro potestas jurisdictionis, sive ordinaria sive delegata, in poenitentem.” This rule of canon 872 is much more than an ecclesiastical law; it
is founded on the nature of the sacrament of Penance which was instituted
by Christ in a judicial form. “Quoniam igitur natura et ratio judicii illud
exposcit ut sententia in subditos dumtaxat feratur, persuasum semper in
Ecclesia Dei fuit, et verissimum esse synodus haec confirmat nullius momenti
eam esse debere, quam sacerdos in cum profert, in quem ordinariam aut
subdelegatam non habet jurisdictionem.”1 Therefore, if the absolutions in
question are valid, and the whole trend of this reply will be to *how that they
arc, their validity is due to the fact that the absolving priest enjoys juris
diction granted to him, in some way or other, by the Church.
(i) It is granted, to take one well-known instance, “in periculo mortis”
to every priest; any priest validly absolves from all sins and censures in the
hour of death, not because absolution is valid without jurisdiction in such
cases, but because the Church expressly concedes the faculty to those priests
who may not habitually possess it.
Further, it has appeared to many that, outside the danger of death, these
absolutions arc valid, because jurisdiction is supplied by the Church on the
ordinary title of “common error” (canon 209). On this hypothesis the
Eastern schismatic priest docs not habitually enjoy jurisdiction. He
possesses it merely “per modum actus” on the occasion of giving absolution,
provided that the rather intricate conditions for invoking the title of
“common error” arc present in each case.
1 Cone. Trid., Scss. XIV, cap. 7.
H
"
’l
Q. 198
I'
• I
»
«*
IM
id
HI
Ί
kt I
W It
M ■·
I ii
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
226
Against this view, which is simple and easy to understand, it must be
pointed out, we think, that the title of “common error” is a familiar notion in
Western canon law, but we cannot conclude straightway that the title has an
equal validity in Oriental canon law. On the contrary, the first canon of the
Code expressly excludes the Oriental Church from the provisions of the
Code “nisi de iis agatur, quae ex ipsa rei natura etiam Orientalem (Ecclesiam)
afficiunt”. Probably this title is as valid in the East as in the West. Prob
ably, too, the terms of the first canon of the Code allow us to conclude that
this portion of Western canon law applies also to the East. Even granted
that the validity of this title is beyond dispute amongst Oriental Christians,
the most it offers is a supplied jurisdiction granted, for grave reasons affect
ing the common good, to each individual priestly absolution, whenever the
requisite canonical conditions are present.
(ii) May we say more than this ? May the proposition be defended that
the priests of the schismatic Oriental Churches possess true habitual juris
diction, and that there is, consequently, no need to invoke any fortuitous
title of supplied jurisdiction, whether in the hour of death or in “common
error” ? Many theologians and canonists in the past have been distinctly
adverse to any admission of this kind, but the view which predominates
nowadays is in favour of upholding the proposition as just stated.
One way of proving its truth is by showing that the priests of the schis
matic Oriental Churches are not really excommunicated, since they are not
guilty of formal heresy or schism, nor have they’ sufficient knowledge for
incurring censures even if they are formally guilty. This method of demon
stration involves us in all the tortuous paths of the treatise on censures, and
there is, in addition, the radical objection that we have no right to assume
that our laws concerning censures are to be applied to Oriental Christians.1
A far better line of argument is to hold, with recent writers, that Oriental
schismatic priests enjoy jurisdiction for absolving from sins, because the
Church, for the gravest reasons affecting the salvation of souls, has not with
drawn the necessary jurisdiction from them. This seems rather a sweeping
statement, at first sight, but it is strongly supported by two arguments
which, though indirect, have nevertheless very great force.
The first is drawn from the universal practice observed in reconciling
Oriental schismatics to the Church. The rule, very familiar to us in recon
ciling non-Catholics, requires a general confession from the newly reconciled
person, the reason being that every post-baptismal sin must be absolved by
direct absolution. Now, it is not the practice of the Church to demand
a general confession from these schismatics when they are reconciled, the
inference being that their previous confessions arc valid.
The second argument is concerned with the Oriental practice of priests
administering the sacrament of Confirmation immediately after Baptism.
The Church rarely re-confirms converts from schismatic bodies who have
already been confirmed in infancy. There is required, indeed, a special act
of the sovereign Pontiff to enable a simple priest to act as the extraordinary
minister of this sacrament; or, at least, it is essential that the powers used by
Oriental priests from time immemorial have not been expressly withdrawn.
The point is elucidated in a rescript from the Holy Office, 5 July, 1853:
“Non expedire quod confirmati a sacerdotibus schismaticis denuo liniantur
1 Cf. Ecbof d'Oricnt, 1927, pp. 585-590.
2z7
CONFESSIONS OF RELIGIOUS
Q. 199
post reditum ad unitatem; et ad mentem: La menteè chc nci casi particolari
s’informi il Vescovo del luogo prcciso ove i convcrtiti furono crcsimati.
Che se fosse in Bulgaria od in Cipro ... o in altro luogo ove espressamente sia revocata tal facoltà, debba riconfermarli absolute. Se in Valachia
. . . o in altri luoghi in cui non fu espressamente nvocata, acquiescat."^ Thus
the Church considers schismatical confirmation by a simple priest to be valid
in those places where his powers have not been withdrawn. The argu
ment is that if the Church has not withdrawn from schismatical priests their
power to confirm, it follows that their power to grant absolution has not
been withdrawn either; for the latter is more necessary for souls than the
former.2
These schismatical priests accordingly draw their jurisdiction from
the Church, through their bishops and patriarchs, exactly as they
did before the schism. The Church has not wished to deprive them
of jurisdiction for the greater good of souls, and one can discover
no act on the part of the authority of the Church which can be inter
preted as a deprivation of those powers. There is no real objection
to this doctrine in the fact that Catholics arc forbidden to receive
absolution from schismatical priests; it is forbidden because it is an act of
communicatio in sacris with schismatics, not because the absolution would be
invalid.
To sum up what has been said: it seems better to hold that Oriental schis
matics retain their jurisdiction, because the Church has never expressly with
drawn it, rather than to rely on a title of “common error”. This is the con
clusion of so well known an authority as Maroto : “Tandem, certum est, uti jam
ab antiquo in S. Otficio receptum fuit, quod schismatici Orientales, qui pariter
ut scimus, non ex uno tantum capite haeretici sunt et quidem notorii, retinent
veram jurisdictionem ita ut valide sacerdotes a competentibus superioribus
approbati, absolvant, valide parochi et Ordinarii adsistant matrimoniis et ita
porro. Haec, si subtiliores explicationes quae necessariae certe non viden
tur, excludamus, suadent non jure divino, sed humano a quo in quibusdam
casibus propter bonum publicum prudenter dispensentur, haereticos et
schismaticos etiam notorios, jurisdictionem sive delegatam sive etiam
ordinariam retinere et exercere posse.”3 In addition to the references
given cf. Irénikon, 1928, p. 142; Souarn, Memento de Théologie Morale,
p. 134; N.K.S., 1927, p. 354, analysed in Jas Pontificiam, 1929, p. 232.
§2. CONFESSIONS OF RELIGIOUS
199.—Ordinary Confessor
A priest who is appointed to hear the confessions of novices in a religious house
never, as a matter offact, hears the confessions of the same religions for more than two
years, since they are continually changing. Would it not, therefore, seem that the law
requiring him to be changed every threeyears does not apply in this case ?
1Fontes, n. 924.
ll‘Ami du Clergi, 1927, p, 569.
• Institutiones luris Canonici, I, §376, p. 671,
q.
199
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
228
It is held by many of the commentators on canon 5 26 that the triennial
change is not strictly required in the case of the ordinary confessor of
novices, for the reason suggested in the question. The purpose of the law
is to secure that the religious shall have a change, and normally this is done
by changing the confessor: he may continue to act as a confessor to some
other community. Hence it appears reasonable that he should continue to
act as ordinary confessor for successive groups of novices.1 The confessor
can continue validly in his office, but we agree, nevertheless, with Sobradillo:
“Non desunt auctores opinantes praescriptum in can. 526 non afficere
confessarium ordinarium pro solis novitiis deputatum, eo quod hae ordinarie
singulis annis mutationi sint obnoxiae; existimamus tamen curandum esse nc
huiusmodi confessarius, nisi justae causae aliter suadeant, per diuturnum
tempus in munere permaneat, nc abusus ex parte ipsius confessarii facile
oriantur; immo credimus magis congruere cum disciplina ecclesiastica ut
huiusmodi confessarius singulis triennis mutetur. . . ,”2
The ordinary confessor of a community being absent, through illness, the superior
of the community requested the extraordinary confessor to visit the house instead of the
ordinary. Is this permitted? If not, who should lawfully take the place of the
absent ordinary?
if >
4 h.
y
• k
• r"
*
,4 Al.
Μ
>
9
It
The Code does not explicitly make any provision for a confessor to take
the place of the ordinary who may be prevented from fulfilling his office.
But there should normally be a number of supplementary confessors within
reach of the community, and one of these may be invited to hear the con
fessions of the community in these circumstances. Canon 521,§1 : “Ordinarii
locorum, in quibus religiosarum communitates existunt, aliquot sacerdotes
pro singulis domibus designent, ad quos pro sacramento poenitentiae in
casibus particularibus recurrere eae facile possint, quin necessarium sit
ipsum Ordinarium toties quoties adire.” These supplementary confessors
may be summoned, in a particular case, for the benefit of the whole com
munity.3 The extraordinary is not permitted to take the place of the
ordinary as such, but canon 521, §1, directs his visits to take place four times
a year at least, and as many as six times may be permitted. He may, there
fore, visit the house once or twice as the extraordinary confessor in the
circumstances of this question.
’
Can the ordinary confessor validly continue, after three years, without being
explicitly appointed again ?
a $
W UJi·
ia
He continues to hear confessions validly but unlawfully after the lapse of
the appointed time.4 In fact, it is scarcely possible for the confessions of
religious to be invalid, owing to the non-observance of the law, since the
confessor, whether ordinary, extraordinary or supplementary, will usually
1 This interpretation is given, amongst others, by Wemz-Vidal, lus Canonicum, III,
§172, and l'Ami du Clergé, 1953» Ρ· 572·
* De Religiosarum Confessoriis, p. 179.
* Cf. Q. 201
4 Cf. Wemz-Vidal, toc. cit., and canon 207, §2.
229
CONFESSIONS OF RELIGIOUS
qq.
200, 201
be in possession of the faculties given to all approved confessors from canon
522.
200.—Extraordinary Coniessor
An extraordinary confessor, visiting the convent io which he is appointed four
times ayear, finds that certain members of the community do not make their confession
to him. Is it not the law that they are bound to do so, and, if so, what steps should he
take in the matter ?
Canon 521, §1: Unicuique religiosarum communitati detur confessarius
extraordinarius qui quater saltem in anno ad domum religiosam accedat et
cui omnes religiosae se sistere debent, saltem benedictionem recepturae.
By this law, all the religious, including their superior, are bound to
present themselves before the extraordinary confessor, but they are not
bound to confess their sins to him, unless they wish to do so.
The regulation, which goes back to the Council of Trent, has for its
purpose to safeguard peace of conscience amongst the religious. Benedict
XIV, in explaining the law, points out that if some visited this confessor,
and others did nor, it might result in certain suspicions and undesirable
comparisons.1 It is quite certain that all are bound to obey the law. But
whether the matter is of such moment that the confessor should take steps
to secure its observance must be left to his discretion. PAmi du Clergé advises
the confessor to bring the matter to the notice of the Ordinary,2 and there
may be circumstances in which this course is to be followed. But, in our
opinion, the confessor is not bound to take on himself this rather onerous
task, unless he knows that some harm is resulting to the community from
the non-observance of the law. Probably it would suffice to discuss the
matter with the local superior: more likely than not the religious, who do
not present themselves, know that they are not bound to confess to the
extraordinary confessor and wrongly conclude that they need not appear at all.
201.—Supplementary Confessor
From canon 521, §2, in addition to the ordinary and extraordinary confessors,
local Ordinaries should appoint certain confessors for each religious house who ar·, to
hold themselves ready to hear confessions “in casibus particularibus”, if requested to
do so. Does the phrase “a particular case” refer to circumstances in which the whole
community desire his sen ices, for example, because of the indisposition of the ordinary
confessor ?
The formula employed in the wording of the canon is taken, with a few
changes, from the decree Cum de Sacram:ntalibus, 5 February, 1915. The
earlier decree Quemadmodum, 17 December, 1890, had “ut propriae con
scientiae consuleret”, which was explained as follows: ‘Moneat Ordinarius
moniales et sorores de quibus agitur, dispositionem articuli IV Decreti
Quemadmodum, exceptionem tantum legi communi constituere pro casibus
1 Cf. Sobradillo, De Religiosarum Confessoriis, p. 148.
* 1927» P· 6J5·
q.
202
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
2J0
dumtaxat verae et absolutae necessitatis.”1 Therefore, if the law is regarded
in its historical sources, it is fairly clear that, in these documents, the Church
had in mind the ease of a particular nun who, for a just cause, desired one
of the special supplementary confessors. The motive, also, of the legislator,
supports this view, namely the suppression of abuses on the part of religious
superiors who were sometimes inclined to forbid Holy Communion to
individual subjects whom they judged unfit.
Nevertheless, the text of the canon makes no distinction between indi
viduals and the community. We may therefore conclude that these con
fessors may validly and lawfully use their special faculties, when requested,
for the benefit of the whole community, provided they do not do so habitu
ally. The habitual use of these faculties would make the supplementary'
confessor, in effect, an ordinary confessor, and for this office special per
mission is required. This is the solution given, amongst other authors, by
Sobradillo, De Religiosarum Confessionibus, p. 159, and Cappello De Poeni
tentia, §468; cf. the authorities cited for both interpretations in Collationes
Brugenses, 1925, p. 471. Pending any official solution the liberal interpre
tation may safely be followed.
202.—Gravely Sick Religious
The junior assistant priest of this parish says Mass at a large convent of nnns and
takes Holy Communion to those who are sick in the infirmary. May he, if requested
by a nnn to do so, “ad quietem conscientiae," hear a confession in the infirmary ?
If the penitent is in periculo mortis, any priest may hear her confession,
even though he is not approved by the local Ordinary, or by any Ordinary.
This well-known rule of canon 882 certainly applies to nuns: they are in
cluded in “quoslibet pocnitentcs”, although canon 876, which enumerates
the exceptions to the law requiring specially approved confessors for nuns,
makes no mention of in periculo mortis.
But canon 523 provides especially for sick nuns: “Religiosae omnes cum
graviter aegrotant, licet mortis periculum absit, quemlibet sacerdotem ad
mulierum confessiones excipiendas approbatum, etsi non destinatum religiosis
arcessere possunt eique, perdurante gravi infirmitate, quoties voluerint,
confiteri, nec Antistita potest eas sive directe sive indirecte prohibere.”
The canon repeats, with the exception of the last few words, a law of 1915,
and it calls for some little comment. It is essential that the priest should be
approved for women’s confessions, whereas “in periculo mortis” this is not
necessary. In this country', owing to the comparative scarcity of priests,
approbation is not commonly restricted in any way, and faculties arc usually
given for all the faithful.
From the nature of the case, doubt often arises in determining the mean
ing of “cum gi . iter aegrotant”. Some are, perhaps, rather too exacting in
estimating the meaning of “grave”. A writer in jtts Pontificium states: “Si
vero periculum mortis absit quidem actu, sed facile induci potest aut ratione
qualitatis infirmitatis, aut ratione diuturni temporis ex quo aegrotus infir
mitate jam detinetur, idem infirmus graviter aegrotare dicitur.”2 The
* Fontes, nn. 2017 and 2019.
’ »9)3. P· 73·
231
CONFESSIONS OF RELIGIOUS
Q. 203
generality of authors consulted require much less than this degree of gravity,
in order to use the privilege of canon 523; the official English translation
reads “seriously ill”, which appears to be something less than the English
“gravely ill”. Crcusen writes: “On peut considérer comme grave toute
maladie qui, de sa nature ou à cause des circonstances spéciales, affaiblit
considérablement les forces du malade.”1 A study of the subject, based on a
wide reading of commentators concludes: “in genere dicere possumus
aliquam religiosam graviter aegrotare, si infirmitate laborat quae eius saluti
notabile detrimentum affert, v.g. si febri in lecto detinetur per aliquot dies,
si operationem, licet non multo periculosum, subire debet vel debuit; non
esset tamen, per sc loquendo, infirmitas gravis, v.g. catarrhus, capitis dolor,
etc. Attamen si aliqua religiosa existimatur graviter aegrotare et postea
comperitur infirmitatem non esse revera gravem, nihilominus confessio
sacerdoti ad normam canon 523 forsitan peracta, fuit valida et licita”.2
A generous and liberal interpretation commends itself as being in
accordance with the mind of the legislator, for all the recent legislation has
been in the direction of facilitating the choice of confessor on the part of
nuns. If it is doubtful whether the illness is sufficiently grave, jurisdiction
is supplied from canon 209. Superiors who place obstacles in the way of a
subject wishing to use the privileges of this canon are liable to punishment
as stated in canon 2414.
Owing to the liberal interpretation officially given to canon 5 22, the force
of canon 523 is considerably weakened. Cf. Q. 204.
203.—Gravely Sick Religious: Approbation
Is it necessary for the confessor who may be askef in the circumstances of canon
523, to hear a confession, to possess faculties from the Ordinary of the place, or does
it suffice if he is approved for women s confessions, though not in the place where the
convent is situated? Also, is any farther permission required in order to enter a
convent of cloistered religious ?
Canon 523: Religiosae omnes, cum graviter aegrotant, licet mortis
periculum absit, quemlibet sacerdotem ad mulierum confessiones excipi
endas approbatum, etsi non destinatum religiosis, arcessere possunt eique,
perdurante gravi infirmitate, quoties voluerint, confiteri, nec Antistita potest
eas sive directe sive indirecte prohibere.
This canon, together with the other canons which extend the facilities
of nuns, has given rise to many doubts, and all the official interpretations
have been in a liberal direction.
(i) The question concerning the cloister has been settled by the Holy
Sec: “Confessarius, vel qui cius vices gerit, potest, cum debitis cautelis,
ingredi clausuram ad ministranda sacramenta infirmis aut ad assistendum
morientibus. Haec facultas respicit confessarium ordinarium monasterii,
vel qui cius vices gerit, quibus ex can. 514, §2, competit administratio et
adsistentia morientibus in monasteriis monialium; in horum defectu alius
etiam sacerdos clausuram ingredi potest.
“Ad excipiendas confessiones aegrotantium ingredi clausuram potest,
1 Religieux et Religieuses, §96.
a Sobradillo, De Religiosarum Confessoriis, p. 232.
>r '.
L
zX
r<
q.
T ’·
Γ
Ii I
nl
rI
iv|
Li
w
·
(f
i
n’ ;
hl V
1A
M
M
>·
'
i{ J "!
ii *·<.
203
*U.
*?
ii j*I.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
23:
quoties requiratur, non solum confessarius ordinarius, sed etiam extra
ordinarius vel adjunctus aut confessarius quilibet a graviter aegrotante
acccrsitus, de quo in can. 523 fit sermo.”1
(ii) The doubt concerning the confessor’s jurisdiction has not been
officially decided, namely whether it is strictly necessary for him to be
approved for the place in which the confession is heard. Many com
mentators do not advert to the difficulty; others simply assume that “appro
batum ab ordinario loci” is evidently to be understood.2 The reason for
the doubt arises from comparing canon 522 with our canon 523 : canon 522
expressly mentions “ab ordinario loci”, but canon 523 docs not.
Before coming to any judgement on the matter it may be noticed that an
answer of the Code Commission
*
has decided that “locum legitime desti
natum” for a confession, under the law of canon 522, includes any place
lawfully chosen “per modum actus” as in canon 910, §1. It would seem
that this liberal official interpretation of the law of canon 522 adds some
further weight to the opinion of the few writers who, with Marc-Gestermann, give a liberal interpretation to the point we are discussing in canon
523. For, unless the confessor of canon 523 is to be taken as any approved
confessor, even though not approved by the Ordinary of the place, it is
difficult now to see the force of canon 323. Following the recent official
interpretation, a sick nun may confess in the infirmary “ad conscientiae
tranquillitatem” to any confessor approved by the Ordinary of the place;
if, in the still more pressing circumstances of grave illness, a confessor
approved by the Ordinary of the place is necessary, it is difficult to see what
concession is granted by canon 523 which is not contained now within
canon 522.
The question, therefore, resolves itself into deciding whether, pending
the resolution of the doubt, jurisdiction is supplied from canon 209 to a
priest with faculties in another diocese to hear the confessions of a religious
who is gravely ill, even though he possesses no faculties in the diocese in
which the convent is situated.
For the view that canon 523, in so far as it may be thought to require a
confessor approved by the local Ordinary’ is a dnbinm inris, we rely on the
authority of a certain number of authors:
(a) Wouters is mentioned as teaching this view in N.K.S., 1918, p. 200.
Woutcrs later records this view as being held by some, but dissociates him
self from it in Theol. Moralis, II, §373.
(b) Raus, Institnliones Canonicae, §181: “a quolibet Ordinario.”
(c) Marc-Gestcrmann, Thcol. Moralis, II, §1764: “licet plcrique auctores
negent, sufficere jurisdictionem in alia dioecesi obtentam, idque propter
can. 874, §1”.
(d) Cappello, De Poenitentia, §456, docs not deal expressly with the point
but this statement may be noted :
“Praescriptum can. 523 benigne seu late interpretandum est, perspecto
fine legis. Nam pia mater Ecclesia vult religiosis filiis suis aegrotis maximam
confitendi libertatem largiri, ut salus animarum efficacissime promoveatur.”
(e) The Rcdcmptorist author, with whom a writer in Periodica disagrees,
*
ip
15.C.
6 Feb., 1924, ad f & g.
1 E.g. Bht, Avgtlicum, 1935» p. 32, and most of the manualists
3 12 February, 1935.
41955» P· Io6·
2JJ
CONFESSIONS OF RELIGIOUS
q.
204
regards the liberal view as more probable: “ipsum ut probabiliorem tenere
sententiam quae admittit competentem esse in casu quemlibet sacerdotem ab
aliquo Ordinario approbatum”.
We do not hold it as more probable but we regard the point as a dubium
iiiris calling for the application of canon 209.
204.—Sick Religious
Is it correct to bold that any priest with J acidties from the local Ordinary for
women s confessions may absolve a sick nun in the convent infirmary, even though she is
not gravely ill? 1 have heard it maintained that, if she is not gravely ill, absolution
given under canon 522 must be in a confessional to be valid.
Owing to the accumulation of official texts explaining this canon, we
cannot print them here in extenso. Those not familiar with the question
must observe that the law of canon 876, requiring special jurisdiction for the
confessions of religious women, is modified in many directions: in danger of
death (canon 882); in grave illness (canon 523); as a privilege of Cardinals
(canon 239, §1.1); lastly, for the relief of conscience (canon 522).
Canon 522: “Si, non obstante praescripto cann. 520, 521, aliqua religiosa,
ad suae conscientiae tranquillitatem, confessarium adeat ab Ordinario loci
pro mulieribus approbatum, confessio in qualibet ecclesia vel oratorio etiam
semi-publico peracta, valida et licita est, revocato quolibet contrario privilegio ;
neque Antistita id prohibere potest aut de ea re inquirere, ne indirecte
quidem; et religiosae nihil Antistitate referre tenentur.”
This canon has been officially explained by the Code Co mmission in liberal
terms:
(i) Any place lawfully assigned for the confessions of women is equiva
lent to a church, oratory or semi-public oratory for the purposes of this law;
24 November, 1920.
(ii) “Adeat” is to be understood as including the case where a religious
herself requests the confessor’s attendance in a place lawfully assigned for
the confessions of women; 28 December, 1927, ad II.
(iii) “A place lawfully assigned” is to be understood as including a place
assigned “per modum actus” even though it is not so assigned habitually; it
includes also a place assigned in accordance with the terms of canon 910,
§1: “Feminarum confessiones extra sedem confcssionalcm ne audiantur,
nisi ex causa infirmitatis aliave verae necessitatis et adhibitis cautelis quas
Ordinarius loci opportunas indicaverit”; 12 February, 1935.
(iv) The reason for this meticulous definition of the “place” is that the
clause defining the locality affects the validity of the absolution. This has
always been held by canonists. It was asserted by the President of the Code
Commission in a private reply, 16 January, 1921, mentioned by Bouscaren,
Digest, I, p. 295; and it was re-asserted publicly by the Code Com
mission, 28 December, 1927, ad I.
Briefly, then, it is now quite certain that a priest with faculties from the
local Ordinary for the confessions of women may validly absolve a sick nun
in the infirmary even though she is not gravely ill.
H*
Q. 20J
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
*34
§3. RESERVED CASES
205.—Juveniles and Censures
There is an opinion that girls as well as boys are liable to incur ecclesiastical
censures only after the completion of fourteen years of age, and consequently that a
girl convert under that age need not be absolved from censure. Can that opinion be
safely followed, at least in the diocese of Liverpool, in view of a decision of the Holy
Office of 3 June, 1908, addressed to the then Bishop of Liverpool, which explicitly
states that girl converts who have completed twelveyears must make the abjuration of
heresy and be absolvedfrom censure ?
I
r·
ik »
I *'
«<
;
», » <
(‘1 ( : ,
h* b }
M
The decision of the Holy Office, 3 June, 1908, answered affirmative to the
following question: “Utrum puellae, quae maiores sint duodecim annorum,
minores vero quatuordecim, haeresis abiurationem facere et absolutionem a
censuris recipere debeant ? Regula enim Albitii {Collectanea, S.C.P.F. 1680)
tantum de pueris loqui videtur ‘Si debba esigere dai giovanni l’età di 14 anni
la sola professione della fede cattolica’. Lex vero communis puellas maiores
duodecim annorum censuris ligari affirmat.”
(i) The question whether the age of 14 applies to girls as well as to boys,
in this connection, has long been in dispute amongst canonists both before
and after the Code. Probably the best and most exhaustive study of the
subject is by Fr. Berutti, O.P., in Jus Pontificium, 1936, p. 26, who holds it to
be certain, from canons 2230 and 88, §2, that girls can incur censures from
the age of 12, and he quotes a dozen post-Code canonists of the same view
including Maroto, Chelodi, Blat, Ojetti, Raus and Coronata.
On the other hand, with the care to be expected in so distinguished a
writer, he quotes ten others who are equally certain of the opposite view
that the age of 14 is the same for girls and boys, and these include Sole,
Cappello, Cocchi, Michiels and Robert!; moreover, he cites a number who
think that this more liberal view is probable: Gcnicot-Salsmans, Prümmer,
Vcrmeersch-Creuscn, to which names may be added many others, e.g.
Gougnard, Collationes Theologicae, fasc. ii, 1936, p. 140; Tummolo-Iorio,
Theol. Moralis, II (1936), §582, q. 27 and §909 n. 1. Cf. also Pontes, n,
1073.
(ii) Tummolo-Iorio states: “Ad effectus legis poenalis feminae, quoad
pubertatem acquiparantur, saltem probabiliter, maribus, ita ut pro utrisque
attendenda sit aetas 14 ann. expletorum (canon 88, §2). Nec obstat resp.
particulare S.Off., 3 Jun. 1908.” He is one of the few authors who arc
aware of the Liverpool rescript, which is not found or mentioned in any of
the collections we have consulted. Its force is limited to the particular
persons for whom it was given, according to canon 17, §3: “Data (inter
pretatio authentica) autem per modum sententiae iudicialis aut rescripti in re
peculiari, vim legis non habet et ligat tantum personas atque afficit res pro
quibus data est.” In our view, accordingly, the terms of the rescript affect
the diocese of Liverpool, but in other places the more liberal opinion may
safely be followed.
RESERVED C/\SES
QQ. 200, 207
206.—Re-incurred Censure
A censure reserved to the Ordinary but absolved under canon 2254, §1, is
re-incurred if the penitent fails to have recourse to the competent superior within a
month. May this re-incurred censure also be absolved wider the same canon ?
We have not Found this precise situation discussed by the commentators,
but the solution seems quite clear. It will be necessary, in the first place, for
the second confessor, who is dealing with a case of non-compliance with
the law, to decide whether, as a matter of fact, the censure has been again
incurred. He will come to a decision exactly as he would in examining any
other delictum to which is attached a censure l.s., and he will make a special
point of discovering whether the penitent knew that a censure was attached
to culpable non-compliance with the law of recourse within a month.
If the decision is that the censure has been re-incurred, there is no
reason against its absolution according to the procedure of canon 2254, §1,
for the law contains no exception and in poenis benignior est interpretatio
facienda. The penitent must again be warned that the censure will be
re-incurred unless recourse to the competent superior is had within a month.
If, on the other hand, the decision is that the censure has not been
re-incurred, there remains the obligation of recourse to the competent
superior arising from the previous absolution; the time limit is “ad urgen
dam, non ad finiendam obligationem”.1
207.—Doubtfully Reserved Censure
Does the rule of canon 2245, §4, apply even to censures reserved “specialissimo
modo” in the case where absolution has been obtained and, later, it is established that the
censure was not doubtfully but certainly incurred 1
Canon 2245, §4: Censura latae sententiae non est reservata, nisi in lege
vel praecepto id expresse dicatur; et in dubio sive iuris sive facti reservatio
non urget.
In interpreting the latter part of this law the commentators, both before
and after the Code, are agreed that, if absolution has been obtained ad
cautelam in cases of doubt, the censure is not re-incurred when, later on, the
doubt is removed. Cf. canons 19; 2219, §1; 2228; 2242, §1; 2246, §2;
2248, §3. “Nec retractatur absolutio si postea vel peccatum, vel censura,
vel reservatio indubia apparuerint et manifesta. Ratio est, quia in casu
iurisdictio suppletur a iure, uti probatur ex can. 209: in errore communi au
in dubio positivo et probabili sive iuris sive facti, iurisdictioncm supplet
Ecclesia pro foro tum externo, tum interno. Quia igitur Ecclesia supple,
iurisdictioncm, perinde est ac quis ea praeditus sit.”2
In other matters censures reserved specialissimo modo arc often distin
guished from the rest, e.g. canon 2247, §5, with regard to absolving in
ignorance. But no similar distinction exists in cases of censure doubtfully
incurred, and the familiar rule must be held to apply: ubi lex non distinguit, etc.
1 Vcrmccrsch-Crcuscn, Epitome, 111, §454.
• Sole, De Delictis, § 176.
5 7
QQ. 208, 209
Sr *5^4-.
/45
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
236
208—Censure and General Absolution
During an air raid a person is absolved by general absolution. In his repentance
at that time was included a sin to which a censure reserved to the Ordinary is attached.
When this sin is confessed orally what should the confessor do about the censure ?
1
Ii
r
Assuming that the censure was incurred, the situation is that it was
absolved in periculo mortis. From canon 2252 the obligation of recourse to
the competent superior arises, in such cases, only when the censure is one
which is reserved ab homine, or reserved specialissimo modo to the Holy See.
The fact that the absolution in this case was a general one does not
modify the doctrine, but any doubt there may be is removed by the explicit
statements in the formula of faculties issued to chaplains, 8 December, 1939,
14 b. It will be seen that the faculty to absolve from reserved censures in
n. 13 of this document is extended to general absolutions, but everyone
absolved in this manner must be instructed to mention the sins absolved by
general absolution when next they go to confession: “Ne omittant vero
poenitentes docere absolutionem ita receptam non esse profuturam, nisi rite
dispositi fuerint, eisdemque obligationem manere integram confessionem
suo tempore peragendi.”
The duty, therefore, of the confessor who receives this confession is
quite clear. No recourse to the Ordinary is required, but he must assure
himself that the penitent is willing to comply with the requirements of
the church—conveniently described as iniunctis de iure iniungendis—which
will differ according to the case. The censure, for example, incurred from
canon 2319, §1.3, through educating one’s children as non-Catholics,
requires for its absolution that the children shall henceforth be educated
as Catholics. If the penitent seriously promises to do this, everything
is in order; if he culpably refuses to do so, he is under the censure and
must be refused absolution; and, indeed, if he was in this state of mind
at the time when general absolution was received, it was wholly ineffective.
Γ
ΐ Γ
) I
W
1
IM it-irî
I?
R ·
Canon 2243, §2: Censura ab homine est reservata ei qui censuram tulit....
Canon 2252: Qui in periculo mortis constituti . . . receperunt absolu
tionem ab aliqua censura ab homine vel a censura specialissimo modo Sedi
Apostolicac reservata, tenentur, postquam convaluerint, obligatione recur
rendi, sub poena reincidentiac. . . .
S.C. Consist., 8 December, 1939, n. 13: (facultas) absolvendi ab omnibus
casibus et censuris quomodocumque reservatis . . . cum onere tamen . . .
sub poena reincidentiae recurrendi, si de censuris specialissimo modo Sedi
Apostolicae reservatis, atque de illa, de qua in Decreto J. Poenitentiariae
“Lex Sacri Caelibatus” dici 18 Aprilis 1936, agatur.
n. 14: Imminenti aut commisso proelio: (a) meminerint sacerdotes se,
licet ad confessiones non adprobatos, facultate gaudere omnes milites . . .
2}7
RESERVED CASES
Q. 210
absolvendi ... a quibusvis peccatis ct censuris, iniunctis de iure iniungendis.
Quoniam vero . . . ipsae civitates . . . aereis incursionibus expositae
inveniuntur . . . liceat sacerdotibus eosdem (Christifidcles) a quibusvis
peccatis et censuris reservatis et notoriis, etiam formula generali
absolvere. ...
·
(i) The reason is, we think, that army chaplains have received faculties
which arc even wider than those given by the common law in canon 2252.
N. 14 is no more than a reminder, with liberal interpretations, of the powers
all priests possess by the common law in canons 882, 892, §2 and 2252. The
powers of n. 15, on the other hand, arc enjoyed only by those who have
received them from the military authorities. When a chaplain, who pos
sesses the faculty of n. 13, absolves in the circumstances of n. 14, his abso
lution from ab bonifie censures is wider than that given by a civilian priest
who is relying on the common law alone; no recourse is necessary, since
n. 13, a faculty restricted to army chaplains, makes no mention of this
obligation, except for censures reserved specialissimo modo and one other.
Cf. Nouvelle Revue Théologique, March 1940, p. 309.
(ii) It must be remembered, however, that all these faculties, whether in
n. 13 or n. 14, are for the internal forum of the sacrament of Penance. Thus,
a person absolved from a censure reserved ab bomine, by a priest enjoying the
faculty of n. 15, is under no obligation of recourse in the sacramental forum.
But in the external forum the superior’s rights remain intact and can be
enforced according to the terms of canon 2251, an important definition of
the relations between the internal and external forum.
210.—Absolution from Heresy
A penitent incurs the censure of excommunication for heresy by an act which has
all the qualities of a delictum, but is entirely occult. Is the abjuration prescribed by
canon 2314, §2, necessary before such a person can be absolved?
Canon 2514, §2: Absolutio ab excommunicatione de qua in §1, in foro
conscientiae impertienda, est speciali modo Sedi Apostolicae reservata. Si
tamen delictum apostasiae, hacrcsis vel schismatis ad forum externum Ordi
narii loci quovis modo deductum fuerit . . . praevia abiuratione iuridica
peracta aliisque servatis de iure servandis, sua auctoritate ordinaria in foro
exteriore absolvere potest; ita vero absolutus, potest deinde a peccato
absolvi a quolibet confessario in foro conscientiae. Abiuratio vero habetur
iuridicc peracta cum fit coram Ordinario loci vel eius delegato et saltem
duobus testibus.
The process for the external forum, with which this canon is principally
concerned, is followed whenever a convert is received into the Church.
Accordingly Tit. iii, cap. iv of our Ordo Administrandi mentions the abjura
tion of heresy before two witnesses in n. 5 ; the priest who applies for the
faculty is delegated by the Ordinary to absolve from the censure; and
usually the rescript states that the convert may choose any confessor for
sacramental absolution. Cf. Q. 20, which meets the objection that converts
may often be excused from censure, and are therefore wrongly regarded as
excommunicated.
q.
an
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
238
The ordinary power of a bishop in absolving from the censure attached
to heresy is wholly restricted to the external forum, as described above.
Absolution in the internal forum is reserved speciali modo to the Holy Sec,
and even those cases which arc not entirely occult are not excluded from this
method of absolution, the rights of authority in the external forum being
provided-far in canon 2251: “Si absolutio censurae detur in foro externo,
utrumque forum afficit; si in interno, absolutus, remoto scandalo, potest uti
talem se habere etiam in actibus fori externi; sed, nisi concessio absolu
tionis probetur aut saltem legitime praesumatur in foro externo, censura
potest a Superioribus fori externi, quibus reus parere debet, urgeri, donec
absolutio in eodem foro habita fuerit.”
Cases which are entirely occult are clearly to be absolved in the internal
forum by a confessor who has either obtained the necessary faculty or who
is using the powers of canon 2254. In their quinquennial faculties Ordinaries
are accustomed to obtain from the Sacred Penitentiary delegated jurisdiction
over this reserved case, which they may sub-delegate to a confessor. An
example of this induit may be seen in Collationes Brngenses, 1923, p. 161:
“Absolvendi quoscumque poenitentes (exceptis haereticis haeresim inter
fideles e proposito disseminantibus) a quibusvis censuris et poenis ecclesi
asticis ob haereses tam nemine audiente vel advertente quam coram aliis
externatas incursis; postquam tamen pocnitens magistros ex professo
haercticalis doctrinae, si quos noverit, ac personas ecclesiasticas et religiosas,
si quas hac in re complices habuerit, prout de iure denunciaverit; et qua
tenus ob justas causas huiusmodi denunciatio ante absolutionem peragi
nequeat, facta ab eo seria promissione denunciationcm ipsam peragendi cum
primum et quo meliori modo fieri poterit, et postquam in singulis casibus
haereses coram absolvente secrete abjuraverit; iniuncto pro modo excessuum
gravi poenitentia salutari cum frequentia sacramentorum, et obligatione se
retractandi apud personas coram quibus haereses manifestavit, atque illata
scandala reparandi.”
Accordingly the abjuration of heresy, required in the nature of things
before absolution, and expressly mentioned in the above faculty, is made
secretly before the priest whenever the censure is absolved in the internal
forum of Penance. No special formula is required. Gougnard, Collationes
Theologicae, 1936, p. 99, suggests: “haereses quascunque ab Ecclesia damna
tas ego pariter damno et rejicio”.
H
r
‘H
ui
kJ
i. ; ·
I* 1
;
211.—Canon 2350: Co-operation
Does the person who assists financially in this crime incur the censure ? May it be
absolved when a censured person would otherwise stiffer loss of reputation’,for example,
a patient lying in a hospital ?
>n t[.
i*.
Canon 2209, §5: Non solum mandans qui est principalis delicti auctor,
sed etiam qui ad delicti consummationem inducunt vel in hanc quoquo modo
concurrunt, non minorem, ceteris paribus, imputabilitatem contrahunt, quam
ipse delicti executor, si delictum sine eorum opera commissum non fuisset.
§4. Si vero eorum concursus facilius tantum reddidit delictum, quod
etiam sine eorundem concursu commissum fuerit, minorem imputabilitatem
sccumfert.
2J9
RESERVED CASES
<2. ziz
Canon 2231: Si plures ad delictum perpetrandum concurrerint, licet
unus tantum in lege nominetur, ii quoque de quibus in canon 2209, §§ 1-3,
tenentur, nisi lex aliud expresse caverit, eadem poena. . . .
Canon 2350, §1: Procurantes abortum, matre non excepta, incurrunt,
effectu secuto, in excommunicationem latae sententiae Ordinario reser
vatam. . . .
The absolution of this censure differs in no way from others, and is
subject to the procedure of canon 2254, if the appropriate conditions are
verified.
It is incurred by those who procure the commission of the crime by the
various ways indicated in canon 2209, of which §3 certainly covers the
case of financial assistance, if it is established that the crime would not
have been committed unless this financial assistance had been given. The
censure is incurred by the person who furnished the money, provided the
usual conditions for incurring any censure are present.
Quite often, however, a person already resolved upon this crime may
be seeking financial assistance in order to commit the offence with greater
security or secrecy, a situation covered by §4 of canon 2209. According to
the wording, indeed, of canon 2350, compared with the terms of canon 2229,
§2, diminished imputability does not necessarily excuse. But canon 2251
so clearly excludes the contingency of canon 2209, §4, that we think it must
be held that the censure is not incurred. It is, at least, extremely doubtful,
in which case the law on censures always favours the delinquent. Cf,
Michiels, De Delictis, pp. 310, 324; Cappello, De Censuris, §27; WernzVidal, Ius Canonicum, VII, §§116; 121, iv; 472.
212.—Cases Reserved to the Ordinary
What is the sense to be given io the words of canon 883, §2, “etiam a casibus
Ordinario loci reservatis” ?
Canon 883 §2: Quoties vero navis in itinere consistat, possunt con
fessiones excipere tum fidelium qui quavis de causa ad navim accedant, tum
eorum qui ipsis ad terram obiter appellantibus confiteri petant, cosque
valide ac licite absolvere etiam a casibus Ordinario loci reservatis.
The obscurity arises because the words may be taken in two senses.
They can mean the cases reserved propter censuram which the common law
of the Code reserves to Ordinaries; or they can mean those cases, generally
propter peccatum, which Ordinaries may reserve to their own tribunal, from
canons 895 seq., in addition to those which arc already reserved to them by
rhe common law.
The commentators do not usually discuss this point, and the two we have
consulted do not agree. Fr. C. Berutti, O.P., writes in Jus Pontificium, 1954,
p. 66: “Manifeste patet proinde quod agitur exclusive de casibus, quos
ibidem Ordinarius loci sibi ipse reservaverit (ad normam can. 895 et seqq.):
quorum sane notitiam, ut plurimum, habere nequeunt. Ceterum, si compre
henderentur etiam censurae quae iure communi Ordinario loci reservantur,
explicari non posset, cur eadem facultas sacerdotibus navigantibus non
tribuatur etiam in can. 885 §1. Itaque, a casibus iure communi reservatis,
itemque a censuris ab homine inflictis, sacerdotes navigantes absolvere
q.
zij
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
240
nequeunt, nisi servatis praescriptis quae in iurc communi ad rem generaliter
statuuntur.”
Fr. Vermeersch, S.J., on the other hand, writing in Periodica, 1930,
p. 119, holds that both classes of reservations are included in canon 883, §2:
“. . . valide et licite absolvere possunt a casibus Ordinario loci reservatis:
sive reservatio ista a iurc vel ab ipso Ordinario procedat. Haec est enim
naturalis et consueta vis verborum ‘a casibus Ordinario loci reservatis’.”
In our view, the interpretation of Fr. Berutti is to be preferred, particu
larly as the document on which the law of this canon is based1 reads “a
casibus Ordinario loci forte reservatis”, a phrase which has no exact mean
ing except for reservations which the Ordinary has himself added to those
of the common law. The opinion of Fr. Vermeersch may, nevertheless, be
followed as at least probable: it is a dubium iuris and jurisdiction is supplied
from canon 209.
213.—Reservations in Internment Camps
Does the jurisdiction for confessions, conceded by the “Sacred Penitentiary”, 22
February, 1941, to ail priests in internment camps, include the power to absolve
from cases reserved to the Ordinary ?
(i) The question is an interesting one for those who are attracted rather
than repelled by the complicated subject of reservations. It is our opinion
that the jurisdiction enjoyed by priests in concentration camps is subject to
all the limitations accompanying jurisdiction which is obtained in any other
way by the common law: that is to say, they have per se no jurisdiction over
the censures reserved in the Code to Ordinaries, and afortiori they have none
over those reserved in the Code to the Holy See.
But, in addition to these reservations in the common law, local Or
dinaries may themselves reserve cases to their own tribunal both propter
peccatum (canon 893 scq.) and propter censuram (canon 2245, §4); there
may also be cases reserved to the Ordinary by Provincial law in the district
where the concentration camp is situated. It is our opinion that the camp
confessors enjoy jurisdiction over all these cases.
(ii) Whether the above opinion is speculatively correct or not, it will be
found in practice that the camp confessor enjoys the power of absolving
validly in the internal forum of conscience practically any case which is
brought to his tribunal. For the absolution of all censures l.s. he can use
canon 2254, §1, and if recourse to the appropriate superior within a month
is morally impossible, §3 of the same canon releases the penitent from
this obligation. Similarly, for the absolution of reservations propter pecca
tum, canon 900, §2, declares that reservation ceases whenever the superior
cannot be reached without grave inconvenience—which would be the case.
If the confessor does not know which cases are withdrawn from his juris
diction, and having no means of finding out absolves in ignorance, the
absolution of a reservation propter peccatum is valid but indirect and the
penitent is theoretically under the obligation of presenting it again, when
the occasion offers, for direct absolution; in similar circumstances the
confessor’s absolution from reservations propter censuram is valid, except
1 S. Off., 15 December, 1906; Fontes. n. 1281.
241
RESERVED CASES
q.
214
for reservations ab homine and those reserved to the Holy Sec specialissimo
modo (canon 2247, §3). Moreover, from canon 209 jurisdiction is supplied
by the Church “in errore communi aut in dubio positivo et prohabih sive
iuris sive facti”.
(iii) In spite of these liberal provisions of our modern canon law, all
designed to make it possible for penitents to be absolved without needless
delay, certain extremely unusual cases might arise which are not covered
by them, e.g. a penitent “notoriously” under a declaratory sentence of
excommunication. An unprivileged confessor cannot validly absolve him
except in danger of death (canon 882); very likely this danger could be
reckoned present owing to air raids or other perils of modern warfare.
If it is impossible, even with a most liberal interpretation, to discern any
danger of death, the confessor can do nothing more than assist the penitent
to make a perfect act of contrition, pending recourse to the appropriate
supcrio’
214.—Reservation “Respectivo Ordinario”
What ground is there for the common interpretation which regards the suspension
Is· °f I Wutm.' Dec. ΧΆ71Ζ, as being reserved to the proper Ordinary of the delin
quent ? If this is correct, there appears to be no difference between this censure and a
censure “ab homine”.
(i) This is certainly the accepted interpretation. The suspension itself
has a long and varied history. In 1753 Bishop Petre and his coadjutor,
Bishop Chailoner, adopted the suggestion of Benedict XIV12and prohibited
the secular clergy from frequenting certain places of amusement under pain
of suspension ferendae sententiae. In 1805 the VV.AA. of the four districts,
after a long discussion during their meeting at St. Edmund’s College,
decided that the censure should be latae sententiae, but it was not reserved?
The First Council of Westminster applied it to all clerics in sacred orders
and added the reservation “cum reservatione respectivo Ordinario”, which
was repeated in the Fourth Council.34
* In Guy’s English translation the
version for this reserving phrase is in one place “reserved to each one’s
Ordinary”, in another place “with reservation to the respective Ordin
aries”.1 In Bishop Myers’s valuable historical notes on the history of this
suspension, the accepted interpretation of the nature of the reservation is
recorded: “A new sanction was added to the existing suspension by reserving
it to the Ordinary of the culprit.”6
(ii) In the common law of the Code, canons 2245 and 2253 determine
the classes of reservation amongst censures, and the superior who may
absolve from them:
Canon 2245, §2: “Censura ab homine est reservata ei qui censuram inflixit
aut sententiam tulit, eiusvc superiori competenti, vel successori aut
1 Apostolicwn Ministerium, § 18 ; Fontes, n. 425.
2 Facultates et Observandae in Districta Londiniensi, x8oj, Q. xiv.
1 Dec. XJ> n. 9.
4 The Synods in English, p. 150, n. 2; p. 176, n. 9.
• The Clergy
111, 1932, p. xox.
'/
q.
214
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
r
|0
hl.»
np
ill .*
ml·
üi '·
IM ·[-
242
delegato; ex censuris veto a inre reservatis aliae sunt reservatae Ordinario, aliae
Apostolical Sedi.”
Canon 2253: “Extra mortis periculum possunt absolvere: ... 2. A
censura ab homine, ille cui censura reservata est ad normam can. 224$,
§2; ipse autem potest absolutionem concedere etiamsi reus alio domicilium
vel quasi-domicilium transtulerit; 3. A censura a inre reservata, ille qui
censuram constituit vel cui reservata est, eorumque successores aut com
petentes superiores aut delegati. Quare a censura reservata Episcopo vel
Ordinario, quilibet Ordinarius absolvere potest suos subditos, loci vero
Ordinarius etiam peregrinos. . . .”
Hence the common law does not recognize a class of censure a inre
reservata Ordinario “proprio”, such as the suspension we arc discussing would
be, if the accepted interpretation is followed.
(iii) One solution of the difficulty might be that we have here an alto
gether special kind of reserved censure, unknown to the common law and
operative only in England. The Consistorial Congregation, 2 August, 1918,
determined that the decrees of the Westminster Councils are, after the
promulgation of Code, still operative in the new Provinces “salvis tamen
novi codicis praescriptionibus si et in quantum legibus et decretis dictorum
Conciliorum derogaverint”. In a private reply of the same Congregation
it is explicitly asserted that a priest of any English Province who breaks the
law of 1 Westm., Dec. XXIV, is still subject to the penalty: “poenae suspen
sionis ipso facto incurrendae, hactenus ubique in Anglia vigenti, cum reservatione respectivo Ordinario”.1
(iv) But it may be doubted whether this is the correct solution and
whether it is necessary to see in this reservation, cither before or after the
new arrangement of the Provinces, anything peculiar to England. For the
jhrase used is “respectivo Ordinario”, not “proprio Ordinario”. The
atter is certain and unambiguous and is used in other decrees of the West
minster Councils. “Respectivo Ordinario” is certainly patient of the
meaning attributed to it by Fr. Guy in one place, namely “to each one’s
Ordinary”. But it is also patient of the meaning “to the Ordinary whom it
may concern”, and may be understood in the sense that it is meant to include
the competent religious superior, in the case of religious who come under
the censure, for it was not apparently until the First Westminster Council
that religious in sacred orders came within the law. “Ordinarius”, as wc
learn from canon 198, has a wider meaning than “Ordinarius loci”. If we
adopt this interpretation the theatre suspension will then be in line with
the common law regarding reservations. What the Fathers of the Council
intended could be discovered, perhaps, from the minutes of the Council, if
they still exist. But we arc entitled to interpret the law from its text. In
our opinion, there is a grave doubt whether the suspension is reserved to
one’s own Ordinary, and our conclusion must be that not only the proper
Ordinary of the delinquent, but any Ordinary in whose territory the delin
quent happens to be, as a peregrinus, can validly and lawfully absolve from this
censure.
i
η
ΛΊ
> ?t< citrgy Rtvitw, Ill, 1952, p. 224.
243
CONFESSOR’S OBLIGATIONS
Q. 215
§4. CONFESSOR’S OBLIGATIONS
215.—Passio Domini, etc.
A priest has adopted the following practice, justifying it by arguments as to the
importance of the prayer and the value of bringing it home to tbe penitent: after tbe
formula of absolution be recites aloud tbe prayer “ Passio Domini, etc.”, in an English
translation. To the objection that the sacrament may not be administered in English,
be replies that this prayer is not essential io the absolution and that, therefore, he may
say it even in the vernacular. Can his practice be followed?
Canon 885 : Etsi preces, ab Ecclesia formulae absolutionis adiunctae, ad
ipsam absolutionem obtinendam, non sint necessariae, nihilominus, nisi
justa de causa, ne omittantur.
Rituale Romanum, Tit. iii., cap. ii, n. 4: Justa de causa omitti potest
Misereatur, etc., et satis est dicere: Dominus noster Jesus Christus, etc., ut
supra usque ad illud: Passio Domini nostri, etc.
Ordo Administrandi, Tit. iii, cap. iii, n. 4: In confessionibus frequentioribus et brevioribus omitti potest Misereatur, etc., et satis erit dicere. . . .
(The rest is the same as the Roman Ritual (Joe. cif.'). Our Ordo Administrandi,
in the previous words, repeats the reading of the Roman Ritual before 1925.)
Cone. Trid., Scss. XIV, cap. 5 : . . . Ego te absolvo, etc., quibus quidem de
Ecclesiae sanctae more preces quaedam laudabiliter adjunguntur, ad ipsius
tamen formae essentiam nequaquam spectant, neque ad ipsius sacramenti
administrationem sunt necessariae.
(i) Any necessity, such as a large concourse of penitents, justifies the
omission of the prayers before and after Dominus noster Jesus Christus, etc. If
they are omitted without a corresponding necessity, the writers for the most
part say that there is no sin, not even venial sin. This is the doctrine of St.
Alphonsus quoting De Lugo and a number of contemporaries,1*and it is
based on the words of the Council of Trent “laudabiliter adiunguntur”.
The opposite view of Chretien, “leve peccatum est”,- and of a few others, is
not, in our opinion, correct.
(ii) If it is no sin to omit these words, and yet praiseworthy not to omit
them, the conclusion must be that their recitation is recommended as a
counsel, not as a precept. It is an act of charity, at least, to recite them. St.
Thomas teaches that the formula has a special efficacy in elevating the acts
of the penitent to the status of sacramental satisfaction,3 which would be a
serious reason for not omitting them. But there are difficulties in accepting
this view,4 since the words refer to future acts of the penitent, whereas the
sacramental satisfaction or penance refers to past sins just remitted. Never
theless, it can readily be admitted that the words, coming as they do within a
formula for administering the sacraments, have an efficacy superior to that
of a purely private prayer. They arc said in the name of the Church and
can rightly be described as constituting a sacramental. It is praiseworthy,
1 TbeoK Moratis, VI, §450, ad 5.
1 De Poenitentia, §70.
• Ouodl., 1Π, art. 28; Parma, IX, p. J05.
4 Cf. Cappello, De Poenitentia, §80; Gougnard, De Poenitentia, p. 88.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
because an act of charity, not to deprive the penitent of the effect of this
formula.
fiii) The position of the priest referred to in the above question is
evidently that of a confessor who wishes ex caritate to assist the penitent.
As we view the matter, the question is really whether the same effect, what
ever it may be, is caused by reciting the formula in the vernacular. The
question is not of vast importance, and it is open to anyone to form his own
view from the above data. Our own view is that it should be recited in
Latin. This is based on the assumption that the formula is a sacramental,
and canon 1148 requires the rite of a sacramental to be accurately observed.
It is, in fact, the common teaching that the effect of a sacramental is not
caused unless the rite, as determined by the liturgical books, is properly
observed. Our conclusion, therefore, is that it may be omitted without any
sin; but that it should be said in Latin, if the penitent is to profit by the full
spiritual effect the Church intends. We also think it is an excellent suggestion
to recite the formula in English as well, as an additional benefit to the
penitent ex caritate.
No writers, so far as we can discover, deal with the question raised. If
it were ever submitted to the Congregation of Rates, we would anticipate the
same reply as that given to the query whether the apparently useless word
“deinde” might be omitted: “nihil esse innovandum”.
216.—Absolution Form for Children
Is it lawful, when hearing the confessions of children who have not reached the age
of puberty, to omit the words of the form containing absolution from censures ? To
shorten the form would be convenient occasionally when a large number of children
have to be heard in one session.
From canon 2230 compared with canon 88, §2, children not of the age of
puberty are excused from incurring censures/./., and the words of the form “ab
omni vinculo excommunicationis suspensionis et interdicti” are apparently,
in their case, useless. There exists no express law that the whole form must
nevertheless be said for ritual or ceremonial reasons. Therefore one may
omit absolution from censure following the teaching of certain writers, e.g.
Cappello, De Poenitentia, §80, and Gougnard, De Poenitentia, p. 91. None, so
far as we can discover, describes how the form should then read, but we are
of the opinion, on the principle of canon 88 5, that the absolution form must
be retained exactly as given in the rituals, and that the only words which
may be omitted arc the seven words quoted above.
The common practice of confessors, however, is never to omit anything
in the sentence “Dominus noster . . . Spiritus Sancti”, except “suspen
sionis” when the penitent is not a cleric. Without questioning the right of
confessors to avail themselves of the opinion given above, our own pre
ference is for the unabbreviated form. The words are not utterly senseless,
for children may incur censures ferendae censure in theory, and, moreover, the
phrase “in quantum possum et tu indiges” saves the judgement from being
meaningless. As is well known, the words Misereatur, etc., and Passio
Domini, etc., may be omitted for appropriate reasons; if, in addition, the
phrase Dominus noster, etc., is also reduced, it would mean dismissing peni-
CONFESSOR’S OBLIGATIONS
217.—General Absolution
Is a general absolution valid if given by a priest in the presbytery to all the Catholics
(i) A general absolution to be valid must conform to the requirements
of this sacrament inre divino, which arc all contained within the teaching
of the Church in the Council of Trent, Scss. XIV, can. 9, that priestly abso
lution is a judicial act. The essentials of this act, as well as the conditions
for the valid reception of any sacrament, are certainly observed when a
general absolution is given to a regiment or to a church full of people:
(a) the penitents have the requisite intention and manifest it externally by
reciting the act of contrition; (Z>) the judicial sentence is pronounced by the
priest in the words of absolution, after reminding the people, as ordered by
the Holy See,1 that the absolution is of no avail unless they are rightly
disposed, and that an integral confession of their sins must be made on a
future occasion; (r) the recipients arc present at this judgement.
(ii) In the circumstances of the above question, the faithful could be
previously instructed to form an intention and make an act of contrition
immediately the sirens sound. At the same moment the priest could
pronounce the words of absolution, having previously instructed the
people on the conditions attached to its reception, thus securing some
degree of simultaneity between the matter and form of the sacrament.
If, in addition, it could be said that the recipients are, in some probable
sense of the word, present at the priestly absolution, it would follow that
the act is probably valid and therefore permissible at least conditionally.
It is under this aspect of the matter that many disputed questions have been,
and still are, discussed: absolution by letter is invalid; by telephone extremely
doubtful; pronounced over one who has precipitately left the confessional,
it will depend on the distance. Whether examined on theological principles
or subjected to a tiresome casuistical method, a correct solution of all these
questions turns on establishing the presence or absence of the penitent at the
moment of absolution.
If it were merely a matter of ecclesiastical law, as in the absolution
of censures and other penalties, the judgement could validly be given in a
variety of ways: by letter, messenger, telephone, telegraph or wireless.
Nor is there anything in the nature of a judicial sentence which necessarily
requires the presence of the penitent at the moment of absolution. This is
required in the sacramental absolution of sin because, from the teaching
of the Church, Christ has willed that the judgement shall be given in words
and words alone: “Docet . . . sacramenti poenitentiae formam, in qua
praecipue ipsius vis sita est, in illis ministri verbis positam esse: Ego te
absolvo, etc.” “Forma huius sacramenti sunt verba absolutionis.”2
This verbal form, in which the penitent is mentioned by the personal
pronoun, necessarily implies that he is present when it is uttered, and
the theologians, therefore, restrict their discussions to determining the
outside limit of distance within which “presence” is verified. They write,
1 S.C. Consist., 8 December, 1959. 5. Poenit., 25 March, 1944.
1 Trent and Florence: Denz. 896, 699; Cf. also the judgement of Clement VLll on
absolution by letter: Denz. 1088.
q.
218
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
246
indeed, of “moral” presence, but we agree with Chrétien,1 that “physical”
presence would better express their meaning; a person would be morally
present in his deputy or proxy, which is clearly insufficient. It may be held
with St. Alphonsus, that penitents are present if they can be seen by the
priest,2 but it accords better with the vocal form if we require the voice of
the priest to be heard. Thus a well-established probabilist like Noldin
advises that, in giving general absolution to an army, the men should be
divided and absolved in separate groups if some are too far distant to hear
the priest’s voice.3
We cannot find any writer who expressly deals with the above question,
and we arc not aware of any arguments proving that these scattered penitents
may be considered present. It could be maintained, we suppose, that they
are present as a body of parishioners. But in country districts the parish
ioners might be spread over a vast territory, and if these can be absolved,
why not the whole diocese or the whole nation? Since we can find nothing
to justify the view that penitents in these circumstances may validly be
absolved, nor even a probability in its favour, it is our opinion that absolu
tion may not lawfully be given even conditionally. Cf. writers De Poeni
tentia: de modo proferendi absolutionem, e.g. Cappello, II, §92; MarcGcstermann, II, §1665.
218.—Confessional Seal
•j
h:
·«
£
r
A
uî:
t
“•I
* Γ
>*1
5*V
■i :y
111 '· “
hl
M
An Anglican clergyman, who has not Sacred Orders, hears the confessions of his
people regularly. They think, as they are taught to think, that their confessions and
the absolutions which they receive are valid. Is the said clergyman bound by the
sacramental seal ?
Canon 889, §1 : Sacramentale sigillum inviolabile est; quare caveat
diligenter confessarius ne verbo aut signo aut alio quovis modo et quavis de
causa prodat aliquatenus peccatorem.
§2. Obligatione servandi sacramcntalc sigillum tenentur quoque interpres
aliique omnes ad quos notitia confessionis quoquo modo pervenerit.
Canon 2569, §1: Confcssarium qui sigillum sacramentale directe violare
praesumpserit, manet excommunicatio specialissimo modo Sedi Apostolicae
reservata . . .
§2. Quicunque praescriptum can. 889, §2, temere violaverit, pro reatus
gravitate plectatur salutari poena, quae potest esse etiam excommunicatio.
It is not in dispute that he is under the grave obligation of preserving a
natural, professional or committed secret. In addition, it seems to us, the
secret in this case is the confessional secret in the strict sense of the term,
and comes within the law of canon 889, a conclusion which is readily
perceived when we remember that the seal exists even in cases when absolu
tion is not given. For the confession of the penitent is a sacramental one,
namely made with a view to getting absolution, even though absolution is
not received owing to the defect of orders or jurisdiction in the minister.
“Confessio est sacramentalis, licet poenitens recedat sine absolutione quia
1 Ds Potnitmtia, p. 116, n. >7.
1 Ibtol. Moralis
*
VI, §429.
3 TbcoL· Moralis, III, §258, c.
4
247
DISPOSITIONS OF THE PENITENT
qq.
2t9, 220
indispositus; sufficit ut ipse se accusaverit in ordine ad absolutionem.
Proinde confessio non est sacramentalis si fiat scienter laico vel sacerdoti
iurisdictione carenti.”1 Therefore the case is included under canon 889,
§2, with the appropriate sanction of canon 2369, §2.
But it does not come within §1 of the canon, nor consequently does the
graver sanction of canon 2369, §1, apply to the clergyman who directly
violates the seal. For the word “confcssarius”, particularly when there is
question of a sanction, must be taken in the strict sense, and only a priest
validly ordained can be such. Thus, in explaining the censure of canon
2322, §1, incurred by one not in priestly orders presuming to hear confes
sions, Gougnard notes in De Poenitentia, p. 358, that a direct violation of
the seal in this instance is not liable to the penalty of canon 2369, §1, though
gravely sinful and punishable under canon 2369, §2.
219.—Vesture in the Confessional
One frequently sees a priest in the confessional wearing a violet stole without a
surplice', frequently also one sees a surplice being worn as well as the stole. Is it a
breach of law not to wear a surplice ?
PJtuale P^omanum, Tit. i, n. 7, and Tit. iii, cap. i, n. 10: In omni Sacra
mentorum administratione superpelliceo sit indutus, et desuper stola eius
coloris, quem Sacramenti ritus exposcit; nisi in Sacramento Poenitentiae
administrando occasio, vel consuetudo, vel locus interdum aliter suadeat....
Superpelliceo et stola violacei coloris utatur, prout tempus, vel locorum
fieret consuetudo.
It can readily be admitted that, in cases of necessity, not merely the surplice
but the stole may be dispensed with; also that regulars vested in the habit of
their Order need wear only a stole.
But, outside of these cases, the principle certainly is that a surplice should be
worn. Decrees of the Congregation of Kites, n. 3426.4, and 5 542.3, merely refer
the questioner to the Ritual which, as is evident, directs the use of a stole in
principle and, as it were, tolerates its absence only if there is a contrary" custom.
In many places local law settles the point by expressly requiring the use
of a surplice, e.g. : I. \Cestm., Dec. XIX, n. 2 : “In confessionali sedeat sacerdos,
superpelliceo et stola violacea indutus.” Liverpool Synod, 1934, η. 155:
“Saltem in sede confessionali sacerdotes confessiones audiant non tantum
stola sed etiam superpelliceo induti.” If no such law exists, we are of the
opinion that the principle should be maintained of wearing a surplice. At
any rate, the onus of proving that there is a contrary local custom rests upon
those who wish to dispense with the surplice.
§5. DISPOSITIONS OF THE PENITENT
220.—Purpose of Amendment
Titius has sinned gravely and habitually with Sempronia, who is now dead.
Though resolving not to sin for the future with other persons, and realising the
1 Cappello, De Centurie, §190.
q.
221
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
248
impossibility of ever sinning again with Sempronia, be says that be would continue bis
manner nf life with ber if sbe were still alive. Is be disposedfor absolution ?
ir *
Cone. Trid., Denz. 897: Contritio . . . animi dolor ac detestatio est de
peccato commisso, cum proposito non peccandi de cetero.
Summa Tbeol., III, 84, 10, ad 4: . . . ille enim est irrisor, et non pocnitens, qui simul dum poenitet, agit quod poenitet, vel proponit iterum se
facturum, quod gessit.
(i) The phrase “he would continue his manner of life with her” could
be held to mean that Titius foresaw, notwithstanding his repentance, that
he would commit the same sin again. It would be an act of the intellect based
on past experience of repeated falls. Thus Prümmer, Tbeol. Moralis, 111,
§356: “Recte plures auctores animadvertunt, solum propositum firmum non
peccandi de cetero requiri, non autem necessario persuasionem poenitentis
se non amplius esse peccaturum, aut hoc vel illud peccatum non amplius
patraturum. Potest enim quis vere dolerc et detestari peccatum, ac vere et
absolute proponere se de cetero non esse peccaturum, tametsi valde timet,
immo certo credit, se ob expertam voluntatis inconstantiam suam denuo
relapsurum esse.” If this is the penitent’s state of mind, the confessor’s
duty is to persuade the penitent to trust in God’s grace rather than in his
own feeble powers; having removed what may be, perhaps, the beginnings
of despair, the confessor may regard the penitent as sufficiently disposed
for absolution.
(ii) On the other hand, the above phrase may mean that rhe penitent has
not detested the past sin, because, supposing that his partner were alive
again, he is resolved to continue his sinful manner of life. It would be an
act of the will revealing quite clearly an affection for the sinful act which is
quite inconsistent with the detestation required for true repentance. “Firmum oportet esse propositum saltem quoad praesentem affectum voluntatis,
licet forte sit infirmum quoad futurum eventum.”1 In this state of mind,
with the will inclined still towards the sinful act, the penitent is not disposed
for absolution.
221.—Contrition During Absolution
Is it necessary for tbe penitent to make an act of contrition whilst absolution is
being pronounced ? If not necessary, is it important ?
»»< >(<·”.
hl··*'
Rituale Romanum, Tit. iii, cap. i, n. 1 : ... illius quidem remota materia
sunt peccata, proxima vero sunt actus poenitentis, nempe contritio, confessio
et satisfactio.
N. 18: Demum, audita confessione ... ad dolorem ct contritionem
efficacibus verbis adducere conabitur . . .
(i) By “necessary” in the above question wc understand “essential for
the validity of absolution”. The act of contrition must necessarily precede
absolution and be related to it at least virtually and implicitly; it is on this
assumption that an unconscious person may be absolved. But it is taught
by all that it is not necessary for the validity of the sacrament that the
1 Prümmer. loc. at.
î'M· Æ'-i)-'?· .,.·
249
DISPOSITIONS OF THE PENITENT
q. 222
penitent should verbally or mentally make an act of contrition in the con
fessional, either immediately after the confession of sin and before absolu
tion, or whilst absolution is being pronounced. The kind of simultaneity
between the matter and form, required for the unity of the sacramental
sign in other sacraments, is not necessary in the sacrament of Penance
which has been instituted in the form of a judgement; there is nothing in
the form of a judgement which requires the admission of guilt to accom
pany the sentence, or even to be made in the place where judgement is
given. It suffices if it precedes the judgement and is related to it. Thus a
person making an act of contrition over-night and determining to go to
confession the next morning is validly absolved without an actual renewal
of sorrow at the time; it is present virtually in the act of seeking or accepting
absolution.1
Normally, whenever a person thinks of his sins and resolves to confess
them he also makes an act of contrition, but it is strongly recommended
that all penitents should explicitly make this act before entering the con
fessional; otherwise, owing to mental wandering or distraction, it may be
omitted, perhaps, at the moment of absolution or immediately preceding
it, and a necessary part of the matter of the sacrament may be lacking.
(ii) The Ritual directs the confessor, after hearing a confession, to stir
up sorrow in the penitent, and confessors usually observe this rubric by at
least saying: “Make a good act of contrition and I will give you absolu
tion.” Accordingly the practice of explicitly renewing one’s sorrow at
this time is rightly insisted upon, and children are always taught to do so
when being prepared for their first confession, even though it is not
necessary for the validity of the absolution if it has been done before entering
the confessional. The practice should certainly continue because the
rubric requires it, the penitent is thereby better disposed for receiving
sacramental grace, and certainty is obtained that this necessary act of the
penitent has preceded absolution.
222.—Generic Confession of Past Sins
Devout people who confess regularly often have no sins to mention. May they be
permit ted', after confessing merely imperfections, to add: “i confess again all tbe sins
of my past life,” or must they specify what these past sins are, e.g. “all tbe sins of
anger in my past life” ?
It is a question of what the writers call “free” matter, by which is meant
venial sins not directly remitted, and all sins, mortal or venial, committed
in one’s past life and already remitted by absolution. Obviously without
matter of some kind the absolution is of no avail.
(i) For the validity of absolution there is practical unanimity amongst
all the modern writers in teaching that the confession of past sins, whether
mortal or venial, as “free” matter, suffices even when the accusation is
generic, e.g. “I am sorry for all the sins of my past life.” The proof of this
is that since generic confession suffices, for grave reasons, even when the
matter is “necessary”, e.g. at a general absolution of troops or when a
1 Cf. Gougnard, De Poenitentia, p. 102; Prümmer, Tbeol. Moralis, III, §550.
q.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
2J0
dying person can do no more, it must be held to suffice a fortiori when the
matter is “free”.
(ii) But the writers are not agreed whether it is lawful to confess “free”
matter generically unless there is some excusing cause. For the most part
they consider the practice to be wrong, because there is some danger that
the penitent will not have contrition for sins mentioned generically, and
because the confessor cannot rightly form a judgement therefrom; more
over, it is not the common practice of the faithful to confess past sins in this
way. Thus Prümmer, Theol. Moralis, III, §325.
The opposite view is, nevertheless, taught by writers of repute, e.g.
Gcnicot, Theol. Moralis, II, §262, and it may be accepted as probable, the
reason being that the Tridentinc law of specific confession refers only to
mortal sins not yet directly remitted.
(iii) Our own view is that, in publicly instructing the faithful, this
probable opinion should not be taught: they should follow the common
practice and from motives of humility, when having nothing except “free”
matter to present, should confess more specifically some past sins for which
they are really sorry.
But, since the tribunal of Penance is one of mercy and peace, it is unwise
to disturb the minds of penitents by refusing to accept a generic accusation
of past “free” matter. The obligation of being more precise, if any, is
admittedly not a grave one, and it is admittedly not binding if there is some
excusing cause: a sufficient cause exists, we think, in the desire not to
question a penitent unduly and thereby, perhaps, discourage the habit of
frequent confession. Moreover, it cannot too easily be supposed that
what are commonly called “imperfections” contain no trace of venial sin:
there is usually some sloth or vanity attached to them which may be regarded
as sufficient matter for sacramental absolution.
A scrupulous confessor could, in practice, evade the whole difficulty by
saying before absolution: “Renew your sorrow for these things and for the
sins against charity in your past life.”
: a.
Is
♦
223
»
223.—Non-Catholic’s Absolution
A priest bearing confessions gave absolution to all the penitents who had confessed.
Afterwards one of thetn saw him and told him that she was an Anglican, and thought
that she could always confess to him. Was the absolution which the priest bad given
to her valid ?
η;:
!r| ■’ ;
h| P * 1
in
hi
hl
·
Canon 731, §2: Vetitum est Sacramenta Ecclesiae ministrare haereticis
aut schismaticis, etiam bona fide errantibus caquc petentibus, nisi prius,
erroribus reiectis, Ecclesiae reconciliati fuerint.
Canon 2202, §1 : Violatio legis ignoratae nullatenus imputatur, si ignor
antia fuit inculpabilis; secus imputabilitas minuitur plus minusve pro
ignorantiae ipsius culpabilitatc.
(i) Even though it may be held, for the internal forum of conscience,
that a baptized non-Catholic has not incurred the censure of canon 2314, it
is nevertheless forbidden to administer the sacraments to him from canon
73b §*·
,
The ecclesiastical law forbids it, but it cannot make the unlawful admin
25Î
DISPOSITIONS OF THE PENITENT
q.
224
istration of a sacrament invalid; if the conditions fare divino for a sacrament
arc verified, it is validly administered, even when the recipient is under a
censure which deprives him of the rights enjoyed by the rest of the faithful,
or should be denied the sacraments under the rule of canon 731, §2.
(ii) The chief condition for the valid reception of sacramental absolution
is, in addition to Baptism and the requisite intention, that the penitent be
rightly disposed, and it is precisely the lack of the necessary dispositions
which will render the sacramental absolution invalid in the case of a penitent
who is conscious of having incurred a censure, or who is conscious of the
law of canon 731, §2. But, owing to inculpable ignorance, it is quite
possible for a penitent to be unconscious of these laws, in which case the
absolution is valid though gravely unlawful, except in danger of death, when
it may also be lawful according to the opinion of many theologians.
224.—Deaf-Mutes and Confession
Is a deaf-mute strictly bound to confess bis sins by signs or writing in order to
secure the material integrity of his confession ?
I
The position of deaf-mutes as discussed by the older authors1 needs some
modification in these days, when enormous progress has been made in
teaching even deaf-mutes from birth to communicate their thoughts.
(i) One may say, firstly, that an integral confession, by writing or by
other means, is usually to be urged for the advantage of the penitents them
selves. That is to say, the law requiring integrity of a confession always
binds in the sense that the confession must be made at some future time,
when the reasons excusing one at the moment no longer hold: in making
a confession by means of writing or signs, all anxiety about future obliga
tions is removed, and the penitent is enabled to receive the sacrament more
fruitfully.
(ii) Secondly, it is not established with certainty that there is an obligation
to confess by writing, if an integral confession cannot otherwise be secured.
Numbers of authors, ancient and modern, hold the view that the penitent
is bound to write down his sins, provided the danger of breaking the seal is
removed, and various methods arc suggested for removing it. St. Alphonsus says that this view is “probabilior et communior”. But the milder view
is also defended by many others, and it is, at least, solidly probable. The
reason is put by Gcnicot as follows: “. . . scripturam ad confitendum esse
medium extraordinarium et quod minus cohaereat cum iurc penitentis ad
secretam confessionem. Nam scriptura est de se perpetua, ideoque ob
casum quemdam, puta morbum confessarii, in cuiuslibet manus venire
potest. Neque apparet cur ad scribendum adigatur mutus dum omnes ab
hoc medio adhibendo excusant eum qui, ob labilem memoriam, peccata
aliter recordari non possit”.2 The stress should be placed not on the act of
writing, which, after all, is not so extraordinary a way of conveying our
thoughts to others, but on the danger of public revelation of the sins
enumerated, however remote this danger may be.
The view that such persons arc expected to write their confession is
1 E.g. St. Alphonsus, Tbeol. Moralis, VI, §479.
* TbtoL Moralis, Π, §292.
LI I
Q. 225
il1
*<
r15
h
iH
/
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
2J2
defended by Fr. S. Klopfer, whose opinion is worthy of the highest con
sideration, since he has been many years a chaplain at a large institution
for deaf-mutes in America.1 This was also the view of Er. Charles Jones, a
deaf priest who was for many years in charge of the deaf and dumb in
London, and earned the admiration of all by his self-sacrificing life. “The
deaf and dumb are accustomed to write their confessions, and give them to
the priest, who asks by writing what is necessary, or points to the necessary
questions in some of the forms of examination of conscience; then gives
them to read some short ferverino to excite sorrow, with the Act of Contrition
to recite before absolution. This little extra care will not be time wasted;
it will ensure a more fruitful reception of the sacrament of Penance on the
part of the deaf and dumb penitent who really needs this extra care.”2
In giving a probable solution to a question which is in dispute, it is
always preferable to rely on the opinion of persons skilled and experienced
in the matter under discussion, rather than upon the speculative opinions of
authors. It is the Aristotclian-Thomistic notion of “probable” which has
gone rather out of favour in these days.
Nevertheless, whilst insisting on the advisability and usefulness of
writing, in the case of deaf-mutes, and whilst urging the practice as strongly
as possible, it cannot be said to be a certain obligation.
(iii) Lastly, if the deaf-mute is trained to communicate his thoughts by
signs which the confessor can understand, he is bound to confess his sins
in this manner. “Inactu sacramenti,” writes St. Thomas,3 “ad manifesta
tionem ordinarie assumitur ille actus quo maxime consuevimus manifestare
scilicet, proprium verbum; alii enim modi sunt inducti in supplementum
ipsius ... et ideo quando non possumus uno modo, debemus secundum
quod possumus, confiteri.” St. Thomas’s argument supports the view
that the penitent is bound to confess by writing. We have seen that, in the
opinion of a number of theologians, writing cannot be insisted upon because
of the possible danger of public revelation of sin. But the text is quoted
here because of the phrase “ordinarie assumitur ille actus, quo maxime con
suevimus manifestare”. To the uninitiated it is baffling to witness the ease
with which trained deaf-mutes can communicate with others by lip-reading,
as well as by the old manual alphabet. The point is that, for such people,
this method of communication is that which they normally and ordinarily
employ in everyday use. The teaching of the authors who excuse deafmutes from the obligation of writing a confession is always given on the
assumption that they cannot explain themselves by signs, either because
they are unskilled or because the confessor does not understand the system.
if
,ι
sh'
W ·*
I
225.—Annual Confession
A person who is not conscious of mortal sin makes his Easter Communion at the
beginning of the paschal season. Is he bound to go to confession during this season if
after making bis Easter Communion, he is guilty ofgrave sin ?
The law of annual confession is contained in canon 906, the law of
Ecclesiastical Review, LVII, 1917, p. 79.
A Circular recommended by His Eminence Cardinal Bourne, 7 December, 1919.
Supplementum, 9, 3.
253
DISPOSITIONS OF THE PENITENT
Q. 225
paschal Communion in canon 859. Both laws have their origin in the decree
of the IVth Latcran Council, which unites both obligations in one text:
“Omnis utriusque sexus fidelis, postquam ad annos discretionis pervenerit,
omnia sua solus peccata saltem semel in anno fideliter confiteatur proprio
sacerdoti, et iniunctam sibi poenitentiam pro viribus studeat adimplere,
suscipiens reverenter ad minus in Pascha Eucharistiae sacramentum—nisi
forte de consilio proprii sacerdotis ob aliquam rationabilem causam ad
tempus ab eius prcccptionc duxerit abstinendum. . . .”
The faithful who are content to obey the law by communicating annually
go to confession at the same time as a matter of course, and the erroneous
notion is fairly common that there is a law which requires both confession
and Communion during the paschal period. There is no point whatever in
going out of one’s way to upset this conviction, since confession is quite
likely to be of obligation from the law of canon 856.
However, from a purely technical point of view, the law of annual con
fession may be considered as a positive precept of the Church quite distinct
from that of Communion at Easter; quite distinct, also, from the law of
canon 856, which requires a person who is conscious of mortal sin to confess
before communicating; and obviously quite distinct from obligations in
conscience which might arise on various other headings. We must pre
scind from all these considerations and examine the law of annual confession
ratione sid, which entails determining, firstly, who are bound by the law, and,
secondly, the reckoning of what is meant by “yearly” in this context.
(i) It binds those who, after reaching the age of discretion, arc conscious
of mortal sin not directly remitted in the sacrament of Penance. It is
certain that a person who has committed only venial sins is not bound by
this law. For the positive ecclesiastical law determines more precisely
what is already iure divino, as the Council of Trent noted: “Neque enim per
Lateranense concilium Ecclesia statuit, ut Christi fideles confiterentur,
quod iure divino necessarium et institutum esse intellexerat, sed ut prae
ceptum confessionis saltem semel in anno impleretur . . ,”1 It is this
divine law to which canon 901 refers, whereas the positive law determining
it is in canon 906. The latter is to be interpreted according to the terms of
the former, namely “peccata” in canon 906 means “mortalia” as in canon
901. Moreover, the Council of Trent in the same context declares that one
is not bound to confess venial sins.2 There is now complete unanimity
that the law of annual confession refers only to persons who have com
mitted mortal sin, but it by no means follows that this is one of the truths to
be proclaimed to the faithful in season and out of season.
(ii) There is not the same agreement in determining the meaning of
“annual”. Some reckon the time from the first lapse into mortal sin com
mitted since the last confession. Others think it should be reckoned by
whatever style is current in deciding the first day of the year, which has been
at various times 25 March, 25 December and Holy Saturday; on this view,
with our present style of reckoning, the law of annual confession begins on
i January and recurs on the following 1 January. Either of these opmions
may be followed. .
Personally we prefer a third view, which reckons the beginning of the
1 Dcnz. 901.
3 Ibid., 899.
q.
zzG
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
254
year for the observance of this law to be that day on which the obligation of
Easter Communion begins, whatever may be the local usage. Thus, if Ash
Wednesday is this day, the time for fulfilling the precept of annual confession
is between Ash Wednesday and the Shrove Tuesday of the following year.
This reckoning has the advantage of associating both precepts with the
Easter period, and is so interpreted by Eugenius IV : “terminum statuisse a
Pascha ad Pascham; cum dicit (canon) semel in anno”.1
226.—“Quamprimum” in Canon 807
Is there any agreed period of time witbin which a priest is bound to go to
confession in the circumstances of canon 807 ?
I'.’
»1
h
υ:
f
•
/
U <
o;;
H 11
hl.. ·>··.
U|
•k
hi r i;
>
•
Canon 807: Sacerdos sibi conscius peccati mortalis, quantumvis sc
contritum existimet, sine praemissa sacramentali confessione Missam cele
brare nc audeat; quod si, deficiente copia confessarii et urgente necessitate,
elicito tamen perfectae contritionis actu, celebraverit, quamprimum con
fiteatur.
The canon restates the law of the Council of Trent.2 The equivalent
law affecting all who wish to communicate is in canon 856, but it should be
noted that the “quamprimum” clause applies only to a priest celebrant.
If the priest, in such a case, has to celebrate again—let us suppose, on the
same day—he is bound to go to confession immediately before the second
Mass, unless excused by the same circumstances “deficiente copia confessarii
et urgente necessitate”. He is bound by the law of the first part of canon
807. He is also bound to confess at once, if he is about to administer the
sacraments and is unable to make an act of perfect contrition.
The force of “quamprimum”, therefore, can only be rightly perceived
by supposing that he is not going to celebrate again for some days, and that
he is not being called upon to administer the sacraments. Two condemned
propositions eliminate erroneous interpretations of the phrase: “Man
datum Tridentini factum sacerdoti sacrificanti ex necessitate cum peccato
mortali, confitendi quamprimum, est consilium, non praeceptum.”34 “Illa
particula ‘quamprimum’ intelligitur, cum sacerdos suo tempore confitebitur.”1
There is agreement amongst the authors in holding that this clause of the
law is obeyed if the priest goes to confession within three days.5* This
estimate of the meaning of the clause is arrived at chiefly from the authority
of St. Alphonsus,® but there is also an intrinsic reason to be seen in the
canonical interpretation of “quamprimum” in other texts of law.7
If the priest has communicated more laicorum he is not bound by this
clause, nor, according to Gasparri, if he has celebrated the Mass of the
Presanctified, which is not a Mass in the ordinary sense of the word.
1 Fontes, n. 53, §2.
I Denz. 880.
1 Alexander VII, Denz. 1138.
4 Denz. 1x39.
1 E.g. Noldin, Theol. Moralis, III, §143 c.; Prüinmcr, ΎΙχοΙ. Moralis, ΙΠ, Ç194.
• Tbtol. Moralis, VT,§z66.
7 Gasparri, De Eucharistia, I, §449.
—
255
GENERAL RULES REGARDING INDULGENCES
VIL
q.
227
INDULGENCES
GENERAL RULES REGARDING INDULGENCES
227.—Indulgences: Usual Conditions
Does the phrase "on the usual conditions”, which often occurs in plenary indul
gences, imply that a visit to a church is necessary in addition to receiling the sacra
ments and praying for the Pope's intentions?
Misunderstandings about the conditions necessary for gaining indul
gences are wont to arise from the efforts of writers or editors of pious books
to simplify and co-ordinate indulgenced prayers. In some earlier collections,
including official ones, the simplification took the form of stating that a
visit to a church or public oratory was not required unless expressly stated
in the rescript granting the indulgence. In some cases this visit is required,
in others it is not required. This is still the situation, but the rule is now
stated rather differently, namely that a visit to a church or public oratory
is required and is included in the term “suetis conditionibus”, unless it is
expressly stated that it is not required. Praenotandum 4 of the most recent
official collection is as follows: “Conditiones, quae pro acquirendis plenariis
indulgentiis, in hac collectione contentis, ordinario praescribuntur, quaeque
per notam clausulam ‘suetis conditionibus’ designantur, sunt: Confessio,
Communio, visitatio ecclesiae aut publici vel (pro legitime utentibus ad
normam can. 929) scmipublici oratorii et oratio ad mentem Summi Pontificis.
In casibus vero, in quibus omnes recensitae conditiones non requiruntur, eae,
quae necessariae sunt, singulatim in propriis locis adnotantur.”1
The reason, no doubt, for the slight verbal change is that the great
majority of plenary indulgences do require the visit, and it is the exception
for it not to be required. Some collections, e.g. Plorilegium, Bruges (1955),
indicate in each instance whether three or four conditions are required,
according to whether the visit to a church is included or not. For the
purpose of simplifying a matter which is becoming most intricate and
confusing for the faithful, we are of the opinion that it is better to follow
the phrasing of the recent official Roman collection, and to explain to the
faithful that the usual conditions arc four, not three. The commentators
are all agreed that a visit to a church or public oratory is sufficiently fulfilled
on the occasion of receiving the sacraments therein. Also the terms of
canon 929 should be noted, by which the inmates of religious houses are
permitted to visit their own chapel for the fulfilment of this condition, even
though it is not a public oratory.
1 Preces et Pia Opera, p. viii.
QQ. 228, iz<)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
256
228.—Indulgences: Reception of Sacraments
The Church has attached a plenary indulgence once a month (i.e. within thirty
days), on the usual conditions to the daily recital of very many prayers. A person says
daily sixty of these prayers, and in the course of each month (or thirty days) makes
sixty visits to a church and says the “ Pater”, “Ave” and “ Gloria” sixty timesfor the
Pope's intention. He goes regularly to confession about once a fortnight and to Com
munion every Sunday, and he holds that he can gain all these indulgences (and indeed all
ordinary plenary indulgences during the years) because all the days of indulgences—
whether of the Church's or of his own fixing—come within the nine days allowed by
canon 951, §i,for Communion and the sixteen days allowed for confession. Is he
right ?
1
Canon 931, §1: Ad quaslibet indulgentias lucrandas confessio forte
requisita peragi potest intra octo dies qui immediate praecedunt diem cui
indulgentia fuit affixa; communio autem in pervigilio eiusdem diei; utraque
vero etiam intra subsequentem octavam.
Canon 935: Uni eidemque rei vel loco plures ex variis titulis adnecti
possunt indulgentiae ; sed uno eodemque opere, cui ex variis titulis indul
gentiae adnexae sint, non possunt plures acquiri indulgentiae, nisi opus
requisitum sit confessio vel communio, aut nisi aliud expresse cautum
fuerit.
Canon 933 explicitly permits more than one indulgence to be gained by
fulfilling the condition of confession and Communion which may be com
mon to them all. Most of us are more familiar with the rule of §3 in canon
931, by which a fortnightly confession or daily Communion suffices for gain
ing all indulgences except the Jubilee. A person may be so circumstanced that
daily Communion is not desired, in which case he is entitled to compute the
tempus utile for the reception of these sacraments according to canon 931, §1.
Applying to the case the rule of canon 933, it must follow that several indul
gences can be gained by fulfilling once the condition of confession and
Communion within the terms of that canon. Cf. Tummolo-Iorio, Theol.
Moralis, II, §1055; Gougnard De indulgentiis, p. 5 8.
229.—Confession and Indulgences
Am I correct in holding that, for a daily communicant, the fortnightly confession
is not absolutely necessary for gaining the ordinary indulgences to which confession is
attached as a condition ?
This is a correct deduction in the case of a daily communicant who is
not conscious of grave sin. It is deduced, firstly, from the terms of canon
95 U §5: “Christifideles qui solent, nisi legitime impediantur, saltern bis in
mense ad poenitentiae sacramentum accedere, aut sanctam communionem
in statu gratiae et cum recta piaque mente recipere quotidie, quamvis semel
aut iterum per hebdomadam ab eadem abstineant, possunt omnes indul
gentias consequi, etiam sine actuali confessione quae ccteroquin ad eas
lucrandas necessaria foret, exceptis indulgentiis sive iubilaei ordinarii et
257
GENERAL RULES REGARDING INDULGENCES
q.
230
extraordinarii sive ad instar iubilaei.” It is clear from the wording of the
canon (ant} that daily Communion is an alternative to bi-monthly confession.
The terms of the canon recall a decree of 1763 by which Clement XIII
declared that weekly confession sufficed; in order to encourage daily
Communion, Pius X, S.C. Indnlg., 14 February, 1906, decreed that daily com
municants could use the Clementine induit without going to confession
weekly.
Noldin, accordingly, does not hesitate to draw the rigidly logical con
clusion that there is now absolutely no time limit between confessions, in
the case of daily communicants who desire to gain indulgences to which
confession is attached as a condition: “Ad lucrandas igitur indulgentias per
hebdomadam occurrentes pro iis, qui fere quotidie communicant, confessio
non amplius requiritur: non ea, quae alternis hebdomadis, nec ea quae
singulis mensibus; immo nec ea quae singulis semestribus vel annis fiat.”1
230.—Jubilee Confession and Communion
May we not now hold that a Jubilee confession can be made on the eighth day before
the beginning of the Jubilee, the Jubilee Communion on the vigil of the opening day, and
both confession and Communion within the octave of the Jubilee closing day ?
Many of the general principles concerning indulgences given in the Code
and reprinted in the collection Preces et Pia Opera apply also to the Jubilee.
But the Code itself provides for certain exceptions, as in canon 931, §3, and
we are all aware of the disturbance and commotion caused by a Jubilee in
such things as the suppression of many usual indulgences, and consequently
of the general rules applying to them. Taking the Holy Year as the pattern
of all Jubilees, it seems evident from the ceremony of opening and closing
the Holy Door that all the conditions must be fulfilled during the period
assigned, and many of the earlier bulls make this quite certain. In the more
recent Jubilee bulls which we have examined the phrase used is not quite so
explicit, nor is it expressly stated that the rule of canon 951, §1, is not applic
able to the Jubilee confession and Communion. Whatever doubts there
may be, having regard to the words of canon 931, §1 : “Ad quaslibet indul
gentias lucrandas” and such familiar axioms as “favores sunt ampliandi”, we
can find only one author who draws the conclusion suggested by the question.
Ferreres, after explaining canon 931, observes that the Jubilee exception
in §3 is not mentioned in §1: “Cum haec exceptio non habeatur in §1, ea
quae . . . dicuntur valere videntur etiam pro indulgentiis iubilaei, maxime
cum illic canon dicat: ad quaslibet indulgentias lucrandas.”2 Personally,
we would not act on this opinion, but it is a logical interpretation of the law
and those who care to do so may accept it.
Most of those who advert to the matter do not agree with Ferreres.
Gcnicot-Salsmans: “Confessio in vigilia iubilaei facta non certo prodest ad
lucrandas indulgentias quia non constat iubilaeo applicari posse canon
931”3; Gougnard “Confessio requiritur omnino specialis infra tempus
iubilaei peragenda; ita ut, nisi aliud concedatur, non sufiicat confessio . . .
1 Theol. Moralis, 111, §321.
* Theol. Moralis, II, §795.
• Theol. Moralis, II, §412.
q.
231
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
258
quae ante tempus iubilaeo praefixum, etiamsi tantum pridie, nec die ipsa
ante primas vesperas, quando agitur de anno sancto, institueretur.”*1
231.—Indulgences: Foreign Missions
IPZw/ indulgences are granted by the Holy See to those who assist the work of the
Foreign Missions ?
I
*
Im
I
i »·■
*
ΜI1.7
*i
(i) In the first place there are the very considerable indulgences granted
to all the faithful who become members of the A.P.F., the Holy Childhood,
and other missionary associations. Since the foreign missions cannot
function without material assistance, the indulgences are given to induce the
faithful to join, and they continue in this respect a custom existing for many
centuries. Some of the commonest indulgences in the ages of faith were
granted to those who assisted in the building of churches, bridges and other
works of public utility. In modern times the indulgence is granted to
associations which exist for a charitable purpose, and the grant is made to
members who fulfil the conditions, not specifically to those who give money
to the charitable purpose.
(ii) Indulgences which may be gained by any of the faithful, whether
they belong to a missionary association or not, are set out in Preces et Pia
Opera, nn. 563-574:
Confession and Communion, prayer for the missions, and a visit to a
church or public oratory. (Plenary indulgence monthly, n. 564.)
On the penultimate Sunday of October, A.P.F. day: Confession and Com
munion, prayer for the missions, and presence at any one of the sacred
functions specially held on that day for the work of the missions. (Plenary
indulgence, n. 565.) In places where no missionary functions are held it
suffices to visit a church or public oratory. Those who do not receive the
sacraments may gain seven years’ indulgence by observing the other con
ditions alone.
There are, naturally, a number of prayers to which partial indulgences
are attached, and a plenary indulgence may be gained monthly, on the usual
conditions, in the case of certain of these prayers said daily. Thus: “St.
Teresa of the Infant Jesus, Patron of the Missions, pray for us.” (100 days,
n. 531.) A longer prayer to the same saint recited daily, n. 573, gains a
monthly plenary indulgence on the usual conditions.
(iii) Of particular interest to the clergy is the “Pia Unio Cleri pro Missioni
bus”, erected by Propaganda in 1926, membership of which obtains many
indulgences and other privileges. Like those attached to the A.P.F. and
other associations, these privileges were curtailed in 1933 with respect to the
faculties enjoyed for attaching indulgences to religious objects.2 Members
joining after 1 April, 1933, no longer have these very full privileges. But
those still in force arc considerable, and they include plenary indulgences,
on the usual conditions, obtainable on the following occasions: The Epi
phany; feasts of the Apostles; St. Michael; St. Francis Xavier; once a month
on any selected day; in articulo mortis.
1 Tractatus De Indulgentiis, p. 71.
1 Cf. Tbe Clergy Review^ ΧΧ1Π, 1945, p. 42.
259
GENERAL RULES REGARDING INDULGENCES
q.
232
This Association has no immediate connection with collecting funds for
the missions. Its purpose is to encourage interest and zeal amongst the
clergy for the work of the foreign missions, and through the clergy to
influence the laity in the same direction. The statutes were revised by
Propaganda, 14 April, 193 7.1
232.—A.P.F. Indulgences
Seeing that the indulgences granted to members of the A.P.F. may be gained only
by those who are members, does it not follow that those who do not observe the con
ditions of membership, including the payment of a small annual sum, are not able to
obtain the indulgences 1
Canon 692: Ad fruendum associationis iuribus, privilegiis, indulgentiis,
aliisque gratiis spiritualibus, ncccsse est ct sufficit ut quis in eam valide
receptus sit, secundum propria associationis statuta et ab ea legitime non
expulsus.
The canon summarizes a decision S.C. Indulg., 25 Jan., 18422: “Dummodo
sodalitates sint canonice erectae, et sodales adimpleant opera iniuncra a
Summis Pontificibus pro lucrandis indulgentiis suae respectivae Confraternitati adnexis, ipsique sodales legitime adscript! fuerint in Confratcrnitatem, inobservantia partialis, seu generalis statutorum non obest acqui
sitioni indulgentiarum, ex eo quod statuta sunt potius ad regimen et ad
rectam Sodalitatis administrationem data, minime vero tamquam iniuncta
opera ad indulgentias acquirendas.” Lest the meaning of this decision
should be misunderstood, a further phrase was added when the ruling was
repeated the following year, 12 May, 18433: “. . . ad indulgentias acauirendas; quod si nonnulli statutorum articuli aliqua peragenda opera sodalibus
proponant, quae ex Pontificia concessione ditata sint indulgentiis, ipsi
tamquam essentiales habendi sunt, ut nullo modo variari possint, ne tali
spirituali emolumento sodales sint fraudati”. Therefore the observance of
the statutes of the A.P.F. is not necessary for enjoying its privileges, except
when the statutes determine that certain pious works are to be performed by
those members who desire to gain indulgences.
A person who has become a member ceases to enjoy the indulgences and
other privileges only by ceasing to be a member. This can happen in two
ways. Firstly, he may be expelled by the association, according to the
terms of canon 696, for a just cause. Secondly, he may renounce member
ship for any reason, but this docs not take effect until the resignation has
been accepted: canon 72, §1: “Privilegia cessant per renuntiationem a
competente Superiore acceptatam.”
These canons, which arc applicable to all associations in the Church,
clearly govern membership of the A.P.F. That the association should
ever want to cast any member out is extremely' unlikely, even though crimes
may be committed which are a just cause for expulsion. Similarly, that any
member should go to the trouble of getting his resignation accepted is also
1 The Clergy Review, XIV, 1938, p. 77. Eng. Tr. of the Statutes, Ecclesiastical Revie».
January 1938, p· 52.
* Fontes, n. 5022, ad 2.
3 Ibid., r.. 5050·
/
Q. 233
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
260
unlikely. Usually the member, who does not pay the minimum annual
subscription determined by the statutes, neglects this duty either because he
has forgotten or because he has lost interest in the A.P.F. and in its privileges.
A person who deliberately neglects the statutes while, at the same time,
enjoying the privileges of membership, including the gaining of indulgences
offered, cannot be accused of any sin, since the statues do not bind under sin.
§2. STATIONS OF THE CROSS
233.—Erecting Stations of the Cross
Since tbe regulations are often modified considerably, would yon state what for
malities are now necessary for tbe valid erection of tbe Stations of the Cross in a new
(secular) parish church ?
In order that the indulgences attached to the Stations may be obtained it
has always been necessary (1) to enjoy the requisite faculties of erection;
(2) to use a lawful form of blessing, which includes the blessing of the
wooden crosses. There is no particular difficulty about the latter condition,
and it is usually held that the general sanatio given from time to time by the
Holy See refers only to defects in the former condition, namely the faculties
of erection.
Until 12 March, 1938, the consent or delegation of various people was
required under pain of nullity: a faculty from the Holy See or from the
Franciscans (Friars Minor); the permission of the local Ordinary; the
consent of the rector or religious authority of the Church. Usually a
printed formula containing these documents on one sheet was employed,
since it was also necessary for validity that the various faculties, etc., should
be in writing.
In order to facilitate the erection of Stations and minimize the risk of
invalidity, the Sacred Penitentiary, 20 March, 1938, simplified the procedure,
declaring: “abrogatis singulis conditionibus hactenus vigentibus, benigne
decernere dignatus est ad validam stationum ‘Viae Crucis’ erectionem
sufficere ut sacerdos, idcirco rogatus, debita facultate sit praeditus, iuxta
Decretum ‘Consilium suum persequens’ datum dic 12 (20) Martii, 1933”.
So far as the validity of the act is concerned, the only necessary preliminary
is to have obtained the faculty of erection, which some ecclesiastics possess
by the common law and others must obtain by delegation. The use of the
prescribed form, and particularly the necessity of having wooden crosses,
are in no way changed by this decree.
The people most seriously affected are the Friars Minor. Since 20
March, 1933, the faculty which they used to enjoy of delegating any priest to
erect the Stations has been withdrawn, and their power in this respect is
restricted to their own preachers and confessors.
Cardinals, from canon 239, §1.6, possess the faculty, which also entitles
them to erect Stations “sub unica benedictione”, that is to say without
using the formula in the PJtuale Romanurn.
All bishops, including titular bishops, have the faculty, from canon 349,
ζόΐ
STATIONS OF THE CROSS
§i.i : “ritibus tamen ab Ecclesia praescriptis”; that is to say they must use
the form in the Rituale Romanum, Benedictiones Propriae, n. i, and the use
of this form is a fortiori obligatory on all others who obtain a delegated
faculty. The vicar general does not enjoy the faculty, nor may bishops
delegate their powers even per modum actus.1
The major superiors and local superiors of the Friars Minor, by an
ancient privilege, enjoy the faculty, and priests of the Order may obtain
delegated faculties from their superiors.
All other priests must obtain the faculty from the Holy See. Bishops
may not, indeed, by the common law, delegate their priests, but the power to
do so is often obtained. It is included, for example, in the faculties granted
by Propaganda.2
The new decree says nothing about the necessity of delegation being in
writing, and we may conclude that it is no longer absolutely necessary for
the validity of the act. This is, at least, the official view taken by the
authorities of the Franciscans: “Delegatio tamen, quae fieri potest a Superiori
bus Ordinis nostri erga proprios subditos, quando ipsi personaliter facultate
hac uti nolunt, non amplius requiritur ut sit in scriptis data ad validitatem
delegationis et subsequentis erectionis; cum nec ullibi in Codice, nec in
citato decreto S. Poenitentiariae hoc praecipiatur.”3 Nevertheless, for the
lawful erection of Stations, delegation should be in writing, and likewise the
act of erection should be recorded in writing, in order to establish these facts
beyond all doubt.
The written approval of the local Ordinary, formerly required for
validity, is now required as a proper measure of order and discipline. As the
recent decree states: “prorsus tamen decere, ratione praesertim ecclesiasticae
disciplinae, ut singulis vicibus, nisi agatur de locis exemptis, accedat venia
Ordinarii loci, ubi facultas exercetur, saltem rationabiliter praesumpta,
quando Ordinarius facile adiri nequeat’’.
The rector of a secular church may, accordingly, seek the faculty himself
from the Holy See through the Ordinary, or permit the act of erection to be
performed by a Franciscan delegated by his superiors. Nothing more is
required for validity. To be lawful, the Ordinary’s permission should
also be obtained, and a document should be drawn up, signed and dated,
containing the delegation, the Ordinary’s permission, and a record of the
fact of erection.
234.—Erecting Stations: Delegation
On applying to the episcopal curia for a faculty to erect tbe Stations, I was informed
that it would be necessary to obtain it from the Holy See·. the Ordinary enjoys this
privilege but he may not delegate it even “per modum actus,” and by “Ordinary” in
this connection is meant the bishop but not tbe vicar general. What is tbe canonical
reason for these restrictions?
Canon 349, §1.1: Ab accepta authentica notitia peractae canonicae
1J. Poeni/., 10 November, 1926.
* Vromant, Facultates Apostoticae, 1938, §122.
* Acta Ordinis Minorum, LVII, 1938, pp. 206-7, quoted in Collectanea Mecbliniensta, 1938,
p. 266.
q.
uh
*to
I
234
QUESTIONS
AND ANSWERS
26z
provisionis, Episcopi sive residentiales sive titulares: praeter alia privilegia
quae suis in titulis recensentur fruuntur privilegiis de quibus in can. 239, §τ,
nn. 7-12; nec non . . . nn. 5, 6, ritibus tamen ab Ecclesia praescriptis.
(Canon 239, §1, 6, contains the privilege of erecting Stations.)
Canon 66, §2: Nisi in earum concessione electa fuerit industria personae
aut aliud expresse cautum sit, facultates habituales . . . concessae Episcopo
competunt quoque Vicario Generali.
Canon 368, §1: Vicario Generali, vi officii, ea competit in universa
dioecesi iurisdictio in spiritualibus ac temporalibus, quae ad episcopum iure
ordinario pertinent, exceptis iis quae Episcopus sibi reservaverit, vel quae ex
iure requirant speciale Episcopi mandatum.
Canon 913: Inferiores Romano Pontifice nequeunt facultatem con
cedendi indulgentias aliis committere, nisi id eis a Sede Apostolica expresse
fuerit ind ultum.
S. Poenit., 10 November, 1926: S. Poenit. Apost. die 18 Julii, 1919,
declaravit, non licere Episcopis communicare Presbyteris suae ditionis
habitualiter potestatem benedicendi Rosaria, etc., de qua in can. 349,
§1, n. i, Codicis iuris canonici, cum Indulgentiarum applicatione; nunc
quaeritur:
1. Licetne Episcopis communicare, saltem per modum actus, Sacer
dotibus suae ditionis facultates, de quibus in can. 349, §1, n. 1, Codicis iuris
canonici ?
2. Eaedem facultates competuntne etiam Vicario Generali ?
Et eadem Sacra Poenitentiaria, re mature perpensa, respondendum
censuit: Ad utrumque Negative.
(i) A faculty is necessary for erecting Stations because of the indulgences
attached thereto. In so far as the privileges mentioned in canons 349 and
239 concern indulgences, it is quite clear that the law of canon 913 forbids
their communication to any person whatever without an Apostolic induit
for the purpose.
But there is a further reason applicable to all the privileges of canon
349, §1.1, and not merely to those which are concerned with indulgences.
It is to be discerned in the fact that the powers conferred on bishops in this
canon are “privileges” not “ordinary” powers: they are given as a mark
of honour to one who has received episcopal consecration and therefore
apply to titular as well as to residential bishops. The Sacred Penitentiary
as early as 18 July, 1919, decided that these powers could not be com
municated habitually to other priests,1 and the reply of 10 November, 1926,
declares that they cannot be given even per modum actus? because the same
principle applies in each case. If these powers were enjoyed from “ordinary”
jurisdiction it would follow automatically from canon 199, §1, that they are
capable of delegation, “nisi aliud expresse iure caveatur”. From the
definition of “ordinary” jurisdiction in canon 196, it appeared to many, before
the point was settled by the Holy Sec, that certain of the powers in canon
349, §1.1, could be delegated, and it must be admitted that there is a very
thin line of difference between powers which are “ordinary” and those
which are annexed de iure to an office as a “privilege”. However, the clause
in canon 199, §1, “nisi aliud, etc.”, makes ample provision for restrictions
1 A.AS., XI, 10x9, p. 332; Periodica, 1921, p. 95.
• A.AS., XVIH, 1926, p. 500; Periodica, 1926, p. 234.
ϊ<··4·
263
STATIONS OF THE CROSS
q.
235
on the communication even of powers which arc indisputably “ordinary”,
and these restrictions are now expressly established.
(ii) Exactly the same line of reasoning must be employed with regard to
the vicar general. Canon 368 declares his competence to exercise what
ever powers the Bishop possesses through “ordinary” jurisdiction; but
the list in canon 349, §1.1, is an enumeration of “privileges” not of “ordin
ary” powers; therefore they are not enjoyed by the vicar general.
But, it may be objected, canon 66, §2, is within a title headed “De
Privilegiis” and it asserts the vicar general’s competence to exercise
faculties, e.g. the quinquennial faculties, granted to his bishop. It does so,
however, with the clause “nisi aliud, etc.”, which is now clearly verified in
the reply of the Sacred Penitentiary, 10 November, 1926.
235.—Crosses of the Stations
If is understood that the crosses of the Stations should be of wood. Is this abso
lutely necessary for their valid erection with a view io gaining the indulgences ? There
are many examples in which the wooden cross is absent. In other examples the wood
is disguised so as to look like some other material.
The only absolute requirement in the material of the Stations is that the
cross must be of wood. It is the prescription of the Rjtuale Romanum con
tained in the rite of erection: “Benedicit quatuordecim cruces, quae ex ligno
esse debent,”1 and the rule has been insisted upon repeatedly by the Holy
See. That this rule must be observed sub poena nullitatis is certain from a
decision of S.C. Indulg., 23 November, 1878: “An illud ex ligno debent esse
cruces quod legitur in Appendice ad Rituale Romanum . . . obliget sub
poena nullitatis. Resp. Affirmative.”2
If the wooden crosses are hidden or concealed beneath the material of
the picture or carving, so that they cannot be seen by the faithful, it is com
monly taught that the same consequence of invalidity follows.3 It is per
mitted to gild or paint the wood, provided that it is not so camouflaged as to
appear to be of some other material. One would hesitate to say that the
non-observance of this rule invalidates the erection. The practice is, at
least, risky and undesirable: “cruces debent esse visibiles qua ligneae et haec
est ratio cur color aut ornamenta apposita debeant moderate apponi. Secus
cruces jam non viderentur ligneae, et esset periculum nullitatis erectionis”.4*
To gain an indulgence the conditions must be observed, and the indulgence
is by the direction of the Church attached to the blessed wooden crosses,
and to no other part of the Stations, no matter how artistic and precious they
may be.
In answering the complaint of a curé who, with many others, had erected
a stucco set of Stations containing a cross of the same material, a writer in
^Ami du Clergé
*
offers some consolation in the reflection that devotion to the
1 Appendix to Roman Ritual, Benedictiones Propriae, η. i.
* This decree is cited as n. 442 of the Decreta Authentica of the Congregation. It is not
in Fontes, VII, but it may be seen in such collections as Ferraris, Bibliotheca, Supplement, IX,
P· 756·
* Cf. Gougnard, De Indulgentiis, p. 101.
4 Collationes Brugenses, 1926, p. 231.
» 1929, p. 67.
q.
236
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
264
Passion of Christ may be fostered, even though the indulgence is certainly
not gained. That is true. But it also seems that Church furnishers should
be acquainted with the law, and that they would have no grievance if these
defective sets were returned in order to be properly constructed. The
simplest method of sanatio is to erect wooden crosses, properly blessed, over
an existing set of Stations which are invalid so far as gaining the indulgence
is concerned. It is for this reason that the Holy See does not usually dis
pense from this requirement, though examples are cited permitting the
retention of non-wooden crosses for the purpose of the indulgence.1
236.—Removal of Stations
The Stations were removed from a church during the total renovation of the
interior, and it is now proposed to erect them in a different order, i.e. beginning from
the gospel side. Is it necessary to re-erect (canonically) the Stations if they have all
been temporarily removed, or if they are replaced in a different order ?
WIKI
71 k
(i) If the greater part of the crosses has been removed, that is to say
more than seven, the faithful cannot gain the indulgences during the time of
their absence,2 nor can the indulgences be gained if the Stations are tempor
arily erected in a different building during the period of church renovation.
But, once they are replaced in the building from which they were taken, no
second blessing or re-erection is necessary': “Si cruces primitus benedictae
omnino pereunt, iterum canonica erectio necessaria est; si pereant ex minori
parte, licet alias illis substituere absque ulla benedictione; si penitus tolluntur
aliqua peculiari ratione, et ad tempus tantum, ut denuo eidem loco restitu
antur, nec erectione, nec benedictione opus est ad indulgentias lucrifacien
das.”3
(ii) It is permitted to change the position of the Stations, as one desires,
provided they remain within the original church. Whilst it is being reno
vated, for example, they could be placed temporarily in a side chapel.4 It
follows from this principle, which connects the indulgence with the building
and not with any particular spot within it, that the position of the Stations
may be changed without loss of the indulgences.5
Usually they are placed around the walls of the church, the first one being
near the chancel, but we cannot discover any ruling as to the correct point of
departure. It appears that in Ireland the gospel side is preferred,® and we
believe this to be the common practice in England also. In our view the
point must be decided in each case from the position of the painted or carved
figures which usually accompany the crosses; and if this is not relevant (as
when the Stations are on the nave pillars facing the worshippers), the gospel
side near the chancel, the place of greater dignity, should be chosen for the
first Station rather than the epistle side.
xE.g. 18 September, 1880; A.S.S., XIII, p. 319.
* S.C. Indtdg., 16 December, 1760; 20 January, 1836; Fontes, nn. 4988.2 and jooj.i.
• 30 January, 1839; Fontes, n. jon.j.
4 22 August, 1842; Fontes, n. 3028.4.
* 20 September, 1839; Fontes, n. 5013.3.
• Irish Ecclesiastical Record, XXVII, 1926, p. 534.
26j
STATIONS OF THE CROSS
Q'
W
237.—Kissing a Stations Crucifix
The Sacred Penitentiary, 22 September, 1942, has decided that the plenary
indulgence obtained by kissing a crucifix is operative only at the hour of death. Does
this rule apply even to a Stations crucifix 1
S. Poenit., 22 September, 1942; A.A.S., XXXIV, p. 303: Aliquo iam
tempore, magna cum fidelium admiratione, Crucifixi imagines praebentur,
auibus asseveratur Indulgentiam plenariam adnexam esse, ab infirmis lucranam quotiescumque i idem, corde contrito et amoris dolorisque actum
elicientes, unum ex hisce Crucifixis osculavcrint; quos quidem dicunt ab
aliquo Praelato, ex peculiari a Summo Pontifice accepta facultate, fuisse
benedictos.
Nec desunt qui praesertim ad hoc sacrum Tribunal recurrerint, ab eodem
postulantes utrum haec gratia reapse, ut exponitur, concessa fuerit; itemque
significantes rem, utpote omnino extraordinariam, haud mediocrem commo
visse admirationem.
Quamobrem hoc sacrum Tribunal—cuius est de Indulgentiarum con
cessione et usu iudicare—ad falsam praecavendam interpretationem circa
S. Matris Ecclesiae hac in causa benignitatem, non modo opportunum,
sed necessarium ducit illas Declarationes in omnium memoriam revocare
hac super re iam editas; illam nempe Supremae S. Congregationis S. Officii
d. d. 10 mensis lunii a. 1914 {Acta Apost. Sedis, Vol. VI, pag. 347), et
alteram Sacrae huius Poenitentiariae d. d. 23 mensis lunii a. 1929 {Acta
Apost. Sedis, Vol. XXI, pag. 510). Atque iterum declarat Crucifixos, qui
nostris etiam hisce temporibus eiusmodi gratia ditati distribuuntur, ad
normam harum Declarationum benedictos censendos esse; ita ut Indul
gentia plenaria solummodo in articulo mortis lucrifieri possit, necessariis
habitis conditionibus.
Preces et Pia Opera, n. 164, b: Easdem indulgentias (plenarias etc. fidelibus
qui pium exercitium Viae Crucis peregerint concessas) lucrari valent: Infirmi,
qui vi morbi absque gravi incommodo vel difficultate pium exercitium
Viae Crucis nec in forma ordinaria nec in forma supra statuta scilicet per
recitationem viginti Pater, Ave et Gloria peragere possunt, dummodo cum
affectu et animo contrito osculentur vel etiam tantum intueantur in Cruci
fixum ad hoc benedictum, eis a sacerdote vel ab aliqua persona exhibitum,
et recitent, si possint, brevem aliquam orationem vel precem jaculatoriam in
memoriam Passionis et Mortis lesu Christi Domini Nostri.
This interesting query arises from the fact that the Stations indulgence
may be gained on merely kissing the crucifix, if the sick person is unable to
recite any prayer at all. The 1942 decree limits the indulgence gained from
kissing a privileged crucifix to the moment of death, and it would appear,
therefore, that the Stations crucifix is similarly affected.
We would not, personally, draw this conclusion. For the above decree
refers to crucifixes which are said to be (quos quidem dicunt) so privileged,
whereas the concession attached to the Stations crucifix is most explicitly
formulated in the official Preces et Pia Opera. The riches of indulgences have
become, perhaps, embarrassing, and the Holy See has, in recent years,
reduced them in many directions. But, on the ordinary principles of
determining the sense of papal documents, the restriction of the above decree
I*
Q. 238
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
266
is not to be applied, in our opinion, to the latter part of n. 164, b. It remains
in force toties quoties pending a declaration that the indulgence in this abbrevi
ated form may be gained only in articulo mortis-, or, what would amount to
much the same thing, pending the deletion of the words “si possint”.
§3. VARIOUS OTHER INDULGENCES
238.—Privileged Altar “Pro Defunctis”
May the privileged altar indulgence, obtained by a priest as a personal induit, be
applied independently of the application of the Mass ?
S.C. Indulg., 19 December, 1885: Utrum Indulgentia Plenaria altaris
privilegiati personalis debeat a sacerdote qui Actum heroicum charitatis
emisit, applicari animae pro qua Missam celebrat ? Pesp. Affirmative.
25 August, 1897: An Indulgentia altaris privilegiati separari possit
ab applicatione seu fructu sacrificii, quando sacrificium est celebratum pro
defunctis ? Pesp. Negative.
J. Poenit., 10 June, 1942: Utrum privilegium personale, in Motu Proprio
Summo Solacio, d.d. 12 Mensis Maii vertentis anni, Sacerdotibus concessum,
intelligendum sit ad tramitem Declarationis 3*. Poenit. Apost. d.d. 8 Martii,
1829, ita ut sacerdotes, Sacrum litantes, in quolibet Missae sacrificio plen
ariam Indulgentiam lucrari et applicare possint, independenter a Missae
applicatione, uni animae, in Purgatorio detentae, ab ipsis ad libitum desig
natae. Pesp. Affirmative.
As is customary in all indulgences at the present time, there are various
species of the same concession, each species has its own conditions, and
these conditions themselves arc liable to frequent change. A privileged
altar may be local, personal or even mixed', the indulgence granted may be
“pro defunctis”, “pro vivis”, “pro vivis et defunctis” or “pro agonizantibus”. The present question is limited to the personal privileged altar “pro
defunctis”. There are certain decrees in the same sense as the two quoted
above, issued by S.C. Indulg., which clearly answer the question negatively,
namely that the indulgence cannot be separated from the application of the
Mass; there arc also other decrees in the same sense as that issued by J.
Poenit., 10 June, 1942, to the effect that the separation is permissible.
The apparent discrepancy may be removed by adopting the following
solution: it is the will of the Holy See, in principle and as a general rule,
that the two things may not be separated; but occasionally this separation
is permitted. Some may think that the permission to separate the two things
is now so common that it has become a general principle, and that the
previous general principle has become obsolete. But, in our view, based on
the commentators we have consulted, the correct answer is that separation
is never permitted unless the induit dearly makes this concession. It is not
usually conceded, for example, in the faculty priests obtain by joining various
pious associations; but the conditions for each of these vary considerably,
and to be quite certain it will be necessary to examine carefully the original,
authentic and current rescript granting the privilege to members of an
207
VARIOUS OTHER INDULGENCES
q.
239
association. Cf. Collationes Brugenses, 1897, p. 599; 1926,9. 51. Gougnard,
De Indulgentiis, p. 126; Ecclesiastical Review, November, 1934, p. 510.
239.—Papal Blessing
Maj any priest who has preached a retreat or mission give the papal blessing at its
close without previously obtaining special faculties for tbe purpose ?
The practice of closing a mission or retreat by imparting the papal
blessing with a plenary indulgence is so common that it is sometimes
supposed that anyone possesses this power ipso facto provided a retreat or
mission has been given. This is erroneous, and the blessing with indul
gence cannot validly be given unless the faculty has first been obtained,
through some channel or other, from the Holy Sec.
It is easy to become confused in the matter of indulgences and the faculties
of imparting them; and this particular one resembles others so closely and
may be obtained in such various ways that the error of supposing that it
may be granted without a faculty is, to some extent, excusable. In the first
place it must be noticed that this papal blessing is something quite distinct
from that which may be given by any priest to persons in articulo mortis from
canon 468, §2; quite distinct also from that which may be given by bishops
and other prelates from canon 914, and from that which all regulars may give
in the circumstances of canon 915.
(i) The papal blessing with which we arc here concerned is that con
tained in the Appendix to the Rituale Romanum, n. 4: “Formula Benedictionis
Papalis cum indulgentia plenaria in fine concionum.” It may be used at the
close of any retreat, mission, or series of sermons, and the rubric directs:
. fiat unicum signum crucis cum Crucifixo, adhibita formula: Bene
dictio Dei omnipotentis, Patris et Filii Φ et Spiritus Sancti, descendat super
vos, et maneat semper. R. Arnen”.
(ii) The faculty to impart this blessing is usually enjoyed by all regulars
who give missions and retreats. It could formerly be obtained by secular
priests, together with other spiritual privileges, by joining some pious asso
ciation such as the Propagation of the Faith, the Apostolic Union, or the Sodality
of Our Eady of Sorrows. Unhappily for many of the younger clergy, this
simple and attractive method of acquiring faculties was abolished by the
decree Consilium suumprosequens, which came into force 1 April, 1933. The
decree is not, however, retrospective, and all secular priests who obtained
the faculties before that date retain them.
The spiritual favours enjoyed by members of the A.P.F. who joined
before 1 April, 1933,1 are contained in the papal constitutions dated 20 Feb
ruary, 1924 and 25 March, 1924. The faculty under “D”, n. 10, reads:
“Facultas denique sacerdotibus zelatoribus, qui, de licentia Ordinarii, in
forma exercitiorum sacrarum concionum seriem impleverint, impertiendi,
novissima ipsorum concionum dic, Apostolicam christiano populo bene
dictionem, cum adnexa plenaria indulgentia, ab iis lucranda, qui saltem
1 The faculties attached to this and other associations are conveniently set out in the
Ploriltgium edited by Schrevcl and Legrand iDcscléc, 1933), ΡΡ· 297» 348, 364.
q.
i
I
240
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
268
quinque adfuerint concionibus, et confessi ac sacra Synaxi refecti ad mentem
S.P. oraverint.” The word “impleverint” primarily applies to the priest
who has himself preached the sermons, but we are of the opinion that it
applies also to any priest who effectively supervises the spiritual exercises.
All favours are to be liberally interpreted, and the equivalent faculty, n. 99,
granted to missionary countries clearly includes the supervisor.
It may well be that, in spite of the above decree of 1933, this faculty and
others can still be obtained by joining some association or other which has
come into being, with special privileges, since that date. Changes in indul
gences and the methods of obtaining them are so frequent and so baffling
that it would be rash to assert that the method is no longer existent. How
ever, supposing this channel to be closed, a priest who desires the faculty
habitually must apply for it through his Ordinary to the Sacred Penitentiary.
Lacau gives an example of a particular induit of this kind which runs as
follows: “Impertiendi, cum Crucifixo et unico signo crucis, in postrema
concione, papalem benedictionem cum adnexa plenaria indulgentia, etiam
animae alicuius fidelis in Dei gratia vita functi applicabili, ab iis Christifidelibus confessis ac sacra synaxi refectis lucranda, qui postremae eidem
concioni adfuerint, et quatuor saltem alias ex praecedentibus audierint, ac
insuper ad mentem Summi Pontificis pie oraverint.”
Finally, a faculty may be obtained by any priest per modum actus, that is to
say for use on some specified occasion. The power to grant it is in n.
xxxvi of the faculties (Formula Tertia) given to Ordinaries subject to Propa
ganda, and the power to grant the indulgence—though not the papal blessing
—is found in the quinquennial faculties given to Ordinaries in these parts of
Europe.
(iii) The conditions are not uniform, and to be quite correct one should
consult the document granting the privilege. In all of those we have
examined the faithful desiring this indulgence must go to confession, receive
Holy Communion, visit a church or public oratory and pray for the Pope’s
intention, for which one Pater, Ave and Gloria suffices: these are what is now
meant by “suctis conditionibus”, and they will usually be observed by the
mere fact of attending a retreat or mission. In addition, seeing that the
concession is for the people who have attended, the faculty usually requires
that they shall have been present at a certain number of the sermons
given.
‘î/M,
240.—Indulgenced Crucifix
'W
If a crucifix has been indulgencedfor a happy death, is it true that it can be of use
only to one person, and must therefore be re-indulgenced before being given to another?
a’*
4'
As in the whole matter of indulgences, various types of indulgenccd
crucifix exist, their origin dating mostly from times when the common law
did not permit, as it now docs from canon 468, §2, the Apostolic blessing
with plenary indulgence to be granted by any priest assisting the dying.
Individuals obtain crucifixes so indulgenced for their own use; priests
obtain the faculty of blessing a crucifix for the use of the person to whom it
is given; even religious superiors of hospital nuns obtain the faculty of
attaching to the crucifixes carried by the religious a plenary indulgence for
269
VARIOUS OTHER INDULGENCES
q.
241
the sick under their care. All such indulgences are more personal than real,
and they still exist.
The more familiar kind, with which the above query is concerned, is a
real indulgence; to a crucifix blessed by the Pope, or by a priest possessed of
the faculty, is attached a plenary indulgence in the hour of death toties
quoties. On the friendly principle, we suppose, of “favores sunt ampliandi”,
the belief became current that a plenary indulgence was gained as often as
anyone at any time kissed the crucifix. This interpretation was rejected
by the Holy Office, 10 June, 1914, and at the same time the true nature of
these concessions was explained in a text which was later reissued by the
Sacred Penitentiary, 23 June, 1929, and referred to in the decree, 22 September,
1942: “Facultas benedicendi Crucifixos cum indulgentiae plenariae appli
catione, toties quoties nuncupatae, sive personaliter a Summo Pontifice, sive
quomodocumque ab Apostolica Sede, per tramitem cuiuslibet Officii vel
personae obtenta, ita et non aliter est intelligenda, ut quicumque christifidelis,
in articulo mortis constitutus, aliquem ex huiusmodi Crucifixis benedictis,
etiamsi illi non pertineat, osculatus fuerit vel quomodocumque tetigerit,
dummodo confessus ac sacra Communione refectus, vel, si id facere nequi
verit, saltem contritus, SSmum nomen lesu ore, si potuerit, sin minus corde
devote invocaverit, et mortem, tamquam peccati stipendium, de manu
Domini patienter susceperit, plenariam Indulgentiam acquirere valeat.
Contrariis quibuscunque, etc.” The indulgence is gained once, in articulo
mortis, by any persons whatsoever, including, of course, the priest who owns
the crucifix, provided the above conditions are observed. Cf. A. Legrand
in Collationes Brrgenses, 1927, p. 288; Gougnard, De Indulgentiis, p. 147;
Q. 237.
241.—Faculty for Rosary Indulgences
To whom must rosaries be sent for an indulgenced blessing?
There are at least seven different rosaries to which indulgences of various
kinds may be attached. The most familiar is that associated with St.
Dominic, composed of a set of beads representing a third part of the devo
tion, which consists of fifteen decades of the Ave Maria, each beginning with
a Pater Noster. Their recitation is accompanied by meditation on the
mysteries they recall. In order validly to attach to a rosary the full indul
gences conceded by the Church, it is necessary for the article, properly con
structed, to be blessed by a priest enjoying the faculty and with a prescribed
form. We say “the full indulgences” because very ample indulgences may
be gained without having the rosary specially blessed. The details of these
indulgences may be seen in Preces et Pia Opera, η. 360, and it would serve, we
think, no useful purpose to reprint them here. It is not necessary to advert
explicitly to the precise indulgences one is gaining. From canon 925, §2,
it suffices to have a general intention of acquiring whatever indulgences are
conceded.
What indulgences can be attached to the crucifix ?
The indulgences attachable to a crucifix are, of course, quite distinct
q.
242
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
2?0
from the rosary indulgences, though there is no reason why an indulgenced
crucifix should not be permanently united to a rosary. The indulgence may
take the form of attaching to a properly constructed crucifix the indulgences
of the Stations of the Cross, or it may take the form of attaching to it a
plenary indulgence to be gained at the hour of death. Cf. QQ. 237 and 240.
Can secular priests obtain powers to indulgence rosaries'? Where are these
powers to be obtained ? Is the permission of the Ordinary requiredfor the lawful use
these powers ?
Any secular priest can obtain the powers referred to in the previous
questions. Up to 1953 some of these faculties were most conveniently
obtained by joining a pious association, such as the A.P.F. A decree of the
Sacred Penitentiary, 20 March, 1933, abrogated these privileges in large
measure, but priests already in possession of them retain their powers; the
law was not retrospective.
Subsequent to this decree, any secular priest may obtain the requisite
faculties by applying, through his own Ordinary, to the Sacred Penitentiary.
It is no longer permitted to obtain certain of them from the Religious Order
to which they were originally granted, e.g. the Dominicans in the case of the
rosary, the Franciscans in the case of the Stations crucifix.
Except that his intervention is required in forwarding a petition to the
Holy See, no special permission of the Ordinary is necessary, once the
powers have been duly obtained through him. It is recommended, there
fore, that a secular priest desiring these faculties should send a list of the
things he desires to his Ordinary, and whatever is usual or possible will be
obtained for him; very likely there will be a small tax for curial expenses.
In using the faculties the formula of the Ritual must be employed, for
validity, unless it is expressly conceded that a simple sign of the Cross
suffices.
242.—Additions to The Rosary
7i
Is it true that the Holy See has discountenanced the custom of adding certain words
to tbe first part of the “Ave Maria”, an addition which is common in some parts in
order to recall the mystery to mind ? Also, is it permitted, without endangering the
indulgences, to recite “Requiem Aeternam, etc.” in place of the “Gloria Patri”
when saying tbe Rosary during November for the dead ?
(i) It is true that the Sacred Penitentiary, 27 July, 1920, gave a negative
answer to the query whether, in view of canon 934, §2, the custom of adding
words to the Ave Maria could be continued without prejudice to the indul
gences attached. The concluding words of canon 934, §2, state that an
indulgence attached to a prayer ceases “ob quamlibet additionem, detrac
tionem, vel interpolationem”. The custom in question is very widely
spread in some parts, especially in Germany and in German-speaking
Switzerland; it consists in adding, for example, to each Ave Maria in the last
sorrowful mystery the words: “Der für uns ist gekreuzigt worden”—“Who
was crucified for us”.
27j
VARIOUS OTHER INDULGENCES
q.
243
Certain German and Swiss bishops, when this reply became known,
informed the Holy See that the custom was of such long standing that it
could not be removed without causing scandal and disturbance. The
custom, in fact, goes back to the beginning of the fifteenth century and is of
Carthusian origin.1 It was sanctioned by Pius IX in 18 5 9. Receiving these
observations of the bishops, the Sacred Penitentiary issued another declaration,
22 January, 1921, which, practically speaking, revoked that of the previous
year: “Itaque Sacra Poenitentiaria re mature perpensa censuit: (1) declaran
dum esse canonem 934, §2, Codicis luris Canonici continere legem generalem,
quae indultum pianum nullimode revocat; (2) supplicandum SSmo pro
extensione eiusdem indulti, favore omnium qui iuxta praedictum morem
in quibuslibet locis SS. Rosarium recitare consueverint. Facta autem de
praemissis relatione SSmo Dno. nostro Benedicto. . . . Sanctitas Sua
enuntiatam declarationem approbavit, et indulti extensionem, uti supra,
benigne concedere dignata est.”2
(ii) An excellent definition of the rosary is that of the fourth lesson
for the Feast of the Rosary in the Roman Breviary: “Est autem Rosarium
certa precandi formula, qua quindecim angelicarum salutationum
decades, oratione Dominica interiecta, distinguimus, et ad carum singulas
totidem nostrae reparationis mysteria pia meditatione recolimus.” It
is beyond all dispute that the addition of Gloria Patri to each decade,
to say nothing of the other additions at the beginning and at the end of
the devotion, does not pertain to the integrity of the exercise and is not
required for gaining any indulgences attached.3 It is, nevertheless, an
excellent custom, and is in conformity with the addition of Gloria Patri to
the recitation of the psalms. But, since it is not essential, we are not for
bidden to replace Gloria Patri by Requiem Aeternam, etc.; that is to say the
rosary remains the rosary with all its indulgences.4*
What is lawful is not always expedient, particularly in public prayers and
devotions which the faithful arc accustomed to perform in one particular
way. In giving these replies to the queries we are not recommending any
changes in the public recitation of the rosary; on the contrary, nihil innovetur.
243.—Rosary of the Five Wounds
This tndttlgenced rosary is not mentioned in the recent “Preces et Pia Opera".
May one conclude that it has been abrogated?
This rosary consists of five sections, each of which includes five Gloria
Patri in memory of the Five Wounds of Our Lord, and one Ave Maria in
honour of Our Lady of Sorrows. If the rosary is blessed by a priest enjoying
faculties granted through some channel by the Holy See, various partial
indulgences and, on certain days, a plenary indulgence, may be gained.6
The official collection of indulgences entitled Preces et Pia Opera is
prefaced by some general rules, and n. 2 states that prayers and pious works
1 Beringer: Les Indulgences, I, p. 516.
* A.A.S., XIII, 1921, p. 163.
8 Gougnard, De Indulgentiis, p. 231.
4 Cf. Fanfani: De Rosario, 1930, p. 3, n. 2.
6 Cf. Bcringcr, Les Indulgences, I, p. 498.
q.
244
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
z7z
not included in this collection no longer enjoy indulgences; the rosary of
the Five Wounds is not included. But the indulgence attached to it is not
abrogated because the new collection is concerned only with general indul
gences “pro quibus lucrandis non requiritur neque benedictio ab aliquo
sacerdote regulari vel saeculari, facultate pollente, pietatis objectis impertita,
neque visitatio alicuius pii loci determinati, neque inscriptio alicui piae
sodalitati”. An important application of this rule is in n. 360, which,
after setting out the general indulgences attached to reciting the rosary
(i.e. the common one of fifteen decades), adds: “Si in recitatione rosarii
fideles de more utantur corona, ab aliquo religioso Ordinis Praedicatorum
vel ab alio sacerdote facultate pollente benedicta, praeter supradictas indul
gentias, alias acquiri possunt.” Similarly, indulgences attached, for
example, to a sodality such as St. Stephens Guildfor Altar Servers, remain in
force, even though they are not mentioned in Preces et Pia Opera.
244.—Prayers Before and After Mass
Assuming that one says all the prayers in the Breviary and Missal assigned before
and after Office or Mass, what must one do in order to gain the indulgences attached to
tach one separately ?
»
I
I
The question has reference to the indulgences contained in Preces et Pia
Opera, nn. 688—693, which are now to be printed in Breviaries and Missals.
By reciting all of these prayers many partial and plenary indulgences may be
gained on the same day. In many cases a partial indulgence is granted for
the single recitation of a prayer, and a plenary indulgence if it is said daily
for a month: for example, the Adoro Te Devote obtains five years for a single
recitation, and a plenary indulgence, on the usual conditions, if recited for a
month; if a person desires both the partial and the plenary indulgence, what
is the minimum that he must do ?
Canon 933 : “Uni eidemque rei vel loco plures ex variis titulis adnecti
possunt indulgentiae; sed uno eodemque opere, cui ex variis titulis indul
gentiae adnexae sint, non possunt plures acquiri indulgentiae, nisi opus
requisitum sit confessio vel communio, aut nisi aliud expresse cautum
fuerit.” An example of the application of the last clause in this canon is
found in the rosary, which may be blessed with both Dominican and Crozier
indulgences, both obtainable by one recitation.1 In this case the rule of
canon 933 is suspended by an express declaration to the contrary. Other
cases which lack this express provision are governed by the rule that, apart
from confession and Holy Communion, one and the same pious work will
not gain several indulgences.
In the indulgences under discussion, confession and Communion
suffice for all according to the directions of canon 931. The other con
ditions must be repeated for each indulgence one desires to gain. For
example, if prayer for the Pope’s intention is required, Pater Ave and Gloria
must be recited not once, but as many times as there are indulgences.
With regard to the cumulation of a partial and a plenary indulgence
attached to the same prayer, various views are possible. It could be main1 S.C. Indulg., 12 June, 1907.
273
î
VARIOUS OTHER INDULGENCES
Q. 24s
tained, wc think, that the last clause of canon 933 is verified in the terms of
the grant, c.g. Adoro Te Devote: “Indulgentia quinque annorum; plenaria
suetis conditionibus, quotidiana rythmi recitatione in integrum mensem
producta.” Five years arc gained each day, and a plenary indulgence at the
end of the month. Or it could be said that a person intending to gain the
plenary indulgence does not obtain each day the partial one, owing to canon
933; if for any reason he does not persevere for a month, he then gains the
partial indulgence. Another view might be that he gains each day the
partial indulgence, and at the end of the month a plenary indulgence, not
precisely for the prayers already said but by accomplishing a distinct good
work, namely persevering in the prayer for a month.
People often ask questions about indulgences, dealing with methods
for gaining as many as possible with the minimum of pious work. It is a
perfectly legitimate mental exercise and appears, at first sight, to be encour
aged by the wealth and variety of indulgences offered for our choice, and the
notable differences of proportion between them. The Church has always
directed certain prayers to be said by the priest before and after Mass,
although the precise nature of the obligation may be in dispute. It would
be interesting to know whether any of the clergy, who have not been accus
tomed to recite them, are now doing so in order to gain the new indulgences
which have been more publicly promulgated.
245.—“En Ego” Indulgence
a
The plenary indulgence may be obtained each time the conditions are fulfilled.
Does this mean that it may be obtained several times a day? If so, would it be
necessary on each occasion to say, for the Pope's intention, six times the Pater, At e
and Gloria ?
Canon 928, §1: Indulgentia plenaria, nisi aliud expresse cautum sit,
acquiri potest semel tantum in die, etsi idem opus praescriptum pluries
ponatur.
Preces et Pia Opera, 1938, n. 171: Fidelibus, supra relatam orationem
coram lesu Christi Crucifixi imagine pie recitantibus, conceditur: indulgentia
decem annorum ; Indulgentia plenaria, si praeterea sacramentalem confessionem
instituerint, caelestem Panem sumpserint et ad mentem Summi Pontificis
oraverint (S.C. Indulg., 31 July, 18 5 8 ; Ύ. Poenit., 2 February, 1934).
P. xv, note ()> but not to nn· 96 and 544- The reason for our view
is that, otherwise, the qualification in nn. 96 and 544, i.e. the added words
“vel (pro legitime utentibus) semipublicum”, would have no particular
force or meaning. Therefore, we think the answer to the first question
is that the religious may visit either their public church or their semi-public
oratory.
(ii) Those commentators, e.g. Ecclesiastical Review, October, 1932,
p. 405, who think that “legitime utentibus” is a reference to canon 929,
necessarily exclude all the faithful except those mentioned in the canon.
If, however, the interpretation given above is correct, the phrase “legitime
utentibus” must mean all the faithful who, with the permission of the
superiors, visit the semi-public oratory: they may gain an indulgence therein
exactly as they may satisfy the Sunday obligation of hearing Mass. Cf.
Chretien, De Poenitentia, 1935, §383-3: “Visitatio oratorii scmi-publici de
se non valet, nisi interveniat vel concessio expressa, v.g. pro die 2 No
vembris, vel privilegium canonis 929 pro personis vitam communem
agentibus.”
(iii) It is, unhappily, to be admitted that the view we have given is as
likely as not to be wrong, because indulgences and the conditions for
obtaining them are not subject to any easily discernible logical principles.
Therefore, if one desires to be on the safe side, the answer to the two ques
tions put is that of canon 929: religious may not use their semi-public
oratory unless no church or public oratory is attached to their religious
house, and the faithful who may use this semi-public oratory’ for gaining
indulgences are exclusively those mentioned in the canon. There is, how
ever, a simple solution of the problem from canon 935: a confessor may
sanction, for appropriate reasons, a visit to the semi-public oratory, by
using his powers of commuting the works required for gaining indulgences.
247.—Indulgence for Converts
When a convert doubtfully baptised is received into the Church he may, if he
wishes, make bis confession after reception to some priest other than the one who receives
him. In this case how is the plenary indulgence to be granted to the convert ? Can
the priest who hears the convert's confession impart the indulgence? Or can the
priest who receives the convert sub-delegate the confessor for this part of the ceremony ?
Or can the priest who receives the convert at some time after his confession impart ibis
indulgence omitted in the actual ceremony ?
(i) There is good reason for doubting whether this indulgence still
exists everywhere in England. In the prc-Code faculties given, for example,
in Westminster, the power to grant it, together with a plenary indulgence in
the hour of death, was contained under n. vi. On the promulgation of the
Code, priests were informed that this n. vi was omitted and they were
referred to canon 468, §2, which grants the faculty to all priests in the hour
of death but makes no mention of converts. Moreover, this particular
grant is not contained in the usual pagella of quinquennial faculties granted to
Ordinaries. It can be obtained, and it is included in the faculties given by
I
q.
247
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
276
Propaganda for missionary countries. Vromant, commenting on these
faculties for Missions, notes that it can be delegated to priests by Ordinaries
and requires the conditions of confession, Communion, and prayer for the
Pope’s intention. Our Ordo Administrandi, cap. iv, n. 4, suggests a form to
be used “if the priest enjoys the faculty”. If the priest has the faculty from
his Ordinary it would be mentioned in the pagella', it is not mentioned in some
of these documents, but it may be in others. The whole matter of indul
gences is exceedingly difficult owing to their multitude, to the constant
changes and modifications, and to the manner in which so many of them
overlap.
(ii) Supposing every priest has the faculty from his Ordinary to grant
this indulgence, we arc of the opinion that, the faculties being for the
internal forum, the grant must be made by the priest in the confessional. If,
on the other hand, the concession is given with the document permitting
the reception of a convert, and which grants the faculty to absolve from
censure in the external forum, the indulgence must be given by the priest
who reconciles the convert publicly. Cf. Q. 19.
13»-
EXTREME UNCTION
q.
248
VIII. EXTREME UNCTION
248.—Hospitals and Spiritual Provision
Though canon law has its regulations concerning the rights of parish priests to
bury subjects who have died outside the parish, I do not know of any provision for duties
of parish priests towards their sick whilst they are in other parishes. The major
part of the work in a parish in this country may be due to a hospital in the parish
providing for the sick from neighbouring parishes, but not providing anything towards
the maintenance of a chaplain. Is there no provision in the Church for some equitable
distribution of these duties? Or does the liability fall on the parishioners of the
particular parish to maintain a priest whose time may be mainly occupied, if he does
the work conscientiously, in tending in the hospital the sick subjects of other parishes ?
Canon 467, §1: Debet parochus officia divina celebrare, administrare
Sacramenta fidelibus, quoties legitime petant . . . pauperes et miseros
paterna caritate complecti. . . .
Canon 468, §1 : Sedula cura et effusa caritate debet parochus aegrotos in
sua paroecia, maxime vero morti proximos, adiuvare, eos sollicite Sacra
mentis reficiendo eorumque animas Deo commendando.
Canon 2182: Parochum qui officia paroecialia de quibus in canon 467,
§1, 468, §1 . . . graviter neglexerit aut violaverit, Episcopus moneat, in
memoriam eius revocans et strictam obligationem qua eius conscientia
oneratur et poenas in haec delicta iure statutas.
(i) The obligation of visiting the sick, which is an extremely grave one
when they arc in danger of death, belongs in principle to the parish priest
of the place where they happen to be, unless the hospital is exempt from his
pastoral care. Frequently it will be found that local law supplements the
Code by determining more in detail the obligations of the respective parish
priests, when the parishioner of one is taken to a hospital in the parish of
another. Thus the Decreta et Praecepta, 1924, of Nottingham, p. 30, directs
the last sacraments to be given, if possible, before a person who is danger
ously ill is taken to the hospital, and the chaplain of the institution is to be
informed whether this has been done.
The wording of canon 468—“aegrotos in sua paroecia”—clearly includes
all sick persons and not merely those who, by reason of domicile or quasi
domicile, arc “parishioners”. This is the interpretation given by those
canonists who advert to the point; Cocchi, Commentarium, II, §348: “Quae
diximus se extendunt ad omnes aegrotos quos parochus in sua paroecia
habet, etsi non sint de suo grege ratione domicilii vel quasi-domicilii”.
Fanfani, De Iure Parochorum, §342: “Obligatio ista, saltem quoad Sacra
menta ministranda in periculo mortis, est gravis in parocho; et urget etiam
erga eos qui parochiani stricto sensu non sunt, dummodo in territorio
paroeciae habitent, neque sint exempti”.
(ii) The complaint of our correspondent is reasonable, namely that it
appears to be unjust that the priest, say, of a county town should have to
q.
3
u.B
249
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
provide for the spiritual needs of the sick from all the parishes of the county,
since their contributions towards the support of the clergy go normally to
their own parish priest. But when one remembers that the grave obligation
of ministering to those in danger of death, who are not parishioners, arises
not from justice, but from charity towards them, the complaint can be fully
admitted whilst, at the same time, sustaining the principle that, nevertheless,
his obligation is clear. The priest is bound to assist any person in extreme
spiritual necessity, no matter what the inconvenience or even the risk to his
own life, and the fact that the sick person has no title in j ustice to his services is
not relevant. The canon docs not clearly draw this distinction between
justice and charity, but it is well known to the theologians and is often noted
by the canonists: Claeys-Bouuaert, fus Canonicum, I, §572: “Quis fit paroecianus ratione domicilii vel quasi-domicilii; inter paroecianos recensentur
vagi quoque pro tempore quo actualiter in tali paroecia commorantur. Erga
peregrinos nulla iustitiae obligatione ligatur parochus; sed ex caritate debet cis
rationabiliter petentibus administrare sacramenta. . .
(iii) It is our impression that the parochial clergy do not occupy their
minds in the least with this distinction between justice and charity, but
willingly, and as a matter of course, attend to the spiritual needs of all and
sundry, particularly of the sick in hospitals within the parish; and it would,
we think, be a serious criticism of the parochial system, if the obligations of
the priestly office ever came to be weighed exclusively in the strict scales of
justice. But there are only twenty-four hours of the day, and even a parish
priest needs to eat and go to sleep now and then.
What is the remedy if the charitable work of the hospital is of such
magnitude that the priest cannot attend to the just requirements of the
parishioners who are supporting him ? His remedy is, firstly, to put the
facts before the Ordinary whose office it is, from canon 355, §1, to regulate
a matter of this kind. It could be done, where possible, by withdrawing the
hospital from the care of the parish priest and attaching it, for example, to
a convent chaplaincy; or by requiring parish priests to attend to their sick
parishioners before they enter the hospital.
Secondly, if the Ordinary can do nothing to relieve the situation, the
parish priest would be entitled to limit his visits to those in the hospital who
are dangerously ill, leaving the others to the care of nuns or of charitable
lay people. It is certain that, in such circumstances, a priest has no grave
obligation in charity except towards those in extreme spiritual necessity.
But it is equally certain that those who are in such necessity have the first
call upon him, and other parochial duties would have to be left undone to
enable proper attention to be given to the dying.
249.—Ministration
to the
Dying
Couldyon recommend some literature which would be useful to a priest whose work
is largely concerned with administering to the dying in a hospice ?
Dogmatic treatises De Novissimis may be read in more popular form, e.g.
the volume on “Death” by the late Abbot Vonier in the Treasury of the Faith
(B.O.W., I/.). The same writer deals with the subject in his larger books
c.g. in chapters xii-xv of The Christian Mind (Herder, jr. Gdi).
’
279
EXTREME UNCTION
q.
250
The moral theologians usually put their advice to confessors attending
the dying in the treatise De Poenitentia, explaining the method of approach
in assisting different kinds of penitents. An old but well-tested book which
deals more fully with the practical side of hearing confessions is NeoConfessarins by Rcuter-Lehmkuhl (Herder, jr.); chapter vi, “Quomodo
confessario agendum cum infirmis et moribundis”, assembles the advice
given by most moral theologians and presents it in a simple and logical
order.
The liturgical texts in the administration of the last sacraments, and in
the order of commending a soul to God, provide a precious epitome reflect
ing the mind of the Church and its traditions. Besides the usual works of
liturgists commenting on these texts, a history of their development is
briefly narrated in chapter v of Villien’s History and Litura of the Sacraments
(B.O.W., 8r. 6iZ). More popular commentaries are found in Fr. Martindale’s
Last Sacraments and Prayers for the Dying (C.T.S., zd.}, or in a similar pamphlet
by Fr. Ronan, The Last Sacraments (C.T.S. of Ireland).
Closely allied to the liturgy, because of its official character, is the col
lection of indulgenced prayers entitled Preces et Pia Opera (Marietti, Turin,
jr.). Chapter vi, nn. 5 89-604, is headed Pro bona morte, and contains numer
ous indulgenced prayers and pious exercises for the use of the dying.
Lastly, there is a large amount of pamphlet and devotional literature
which may be used, for example : A Devotional Exercise to prepare the Soulfor
Death, by Fr. Hornyhold, S.J. (B.O.W., 6J.); A Hospital Prayer Book, by a
Priest of the Oratory (C.T.S., zdf
250.—Healing Effect of Extreme Unction
When the primary end of matrimony is impossible for the contracting parties in
matrimony, the marriage is not to be impeded. On the contrary, they may get married
for the secondary ends of matrimony. Why is it then that Extreme Unction cannot
be given validly for its secondary end, i.e. the restoration of bodily health, when the
recipient has not come to the use of reason as in infancy, or in the case of the insane who
never have had nor ever will have lucid intervals ?
St. Thomas, Comment. In Sent, IV, q. ii, a. z, ad 4; Parma, VII,
p. 881: Videtur quod debeat dari pueris, quia eisdem infirmitatibus quan
doque laborant pueri et adulti. Sed eidem morbo debet adhiberi idem
remedium . . . Praeterea, hoc sacramentum datur ad purgandum reliquias
peccati, ut praedictum est, tam originalis quam actualis. Sed in pueris sunt
reliquiae originalis peccati . . . Sed contra est quod nulli debet dari
sacramentum cui non competit forma sacramenti. Sed forma huius sacra
menti non competit pueris, qui non peccaverunt per visum et auditum, ut
in forma exprimitur. . . . Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod non datur
contra reliquias originalis peccati, nisi secundum quod per actualia peccata
quoadammodo confortatas; unde principaliter contra actualia peccata datur,
ut ex ipsa forma patet, quae non sunt in pueris. Ad secundum dicendum,
quod infirmitates in pueris non sunt ex peccato actuali causatae, sicut in
adultis; et contra illas praecipue infirmitates hoc sacramentum datur quae
sunt ex peccato causatae, quasi peccati reliquiae.
(i) In addition to the usual authorities on the subject, e.g. Cappello,
q.
il
f
I i
4
250
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
280
De Sacramentis, II, §195 seq., Revue Pratique d*Apologétique,
XIV, 1912,
p. 81, contains an excellent study by Dr. Andrieux on the accepted doctrine
that Extreme Unction not only may not, but cannot, be administered to
those who have not reached the age of reason. Apart from Nicholas of Cusa
(pb. 1464) and Maldonatus (pb. 1585) there is practically unanimity on this
point amongst all the theologians from the thirteenth century onwards, and
it is enshrined in the teaching of the Council of Trent1 that this sacrament is
the complement of Penance. Of the various arguments or principles
adduced as reasons for the doctrine, the most satisfactory is the one St.
Thomas uses, namely that the form of the sacrament necessarily excludes
those who have not reached the age of reason. The form, as preserved in
the tradition of the Church, demonstrates that such was the will of Christ
in instituting this sacrament. The precise measure or extent of the healing
virtue of the rite cannot easily be determined by any principle, but the one
suggested by St. Thomas in the above text is very satisfactory.
(ii) We have not found any writer who deals explicitly with the objection
raised from the primary and secondary purposes of marriage. The analysis
of any action or institution into purposes or ends which are primary and
secondary has its chief value in deciding upon the lawfulness, and in some
cases the possibility, of having the latter without the former. It must be
taken as axiomatic that the enjoyment of the secondary purpose always pre
supposes that the primary one is at least not positively excluded. Thus,
retaining a Mass stipend is a lawful secondary purpose in offering Mass:
it is retained on a just title of living by the altar which is served; but it pre
supposes that the sacrifice which is the primary purpose of the act is validly
offered, nor may the stipend be retained by reason of the secondary purpose
if it is discovered that the Mass was, for some cause or other, invalid.
Similarly, in marriage, the secondary purpose may be predominant in a
person’s mind, but it may not lawfully be enjoyed except in relation to an
action which is of its nature fitted for the generation of children. As in
every human action ethically considered, we regard chiefly its immediate
object, not the subsequent effects. People may marry induced thereto
(finis operantis} by its secondary ends, but they cannot validly make
the contract except by giving a consent in accordance with the terms
of canon 1081, §2: “jus in corpus in ordine ad actus per se aptos ad prolis
generationem”.2
The “healing” effect of Extreme Unction may conveniently be called
its secondary or subordinate end. Some modern Anglican schools of
thought seem to make this the primary end, and the sacrament becomes
almost indistinguishable from “faith healing”, but the Catholic doctrine
insists that it is primarily and essentially the complement of Penance. What
ever healing effects it may have only arise on the supposition that the subject
receiving it is at least capable of committing actual sin, the relics of which
it is in the power of this sacrament to remove, and amongst these relics are,
as St. Thomas teaches, the bodily infirmity caused by actual sin.
1 Scss. XTV, cap. ix.
* Cf. 5. O#. “De Finibus Matrimonii”, i April, 1944; A. A.S., XXXVI, 1944, p. 105.
Rota decision, toram Wynen, 22 January, 1944, A.A.S., XXXVI, 1944, p. 184 stq.
ζ8ι
EXTREME UNCTION
q. 251
251.—Plural Extreme Unction
When administering Extreme Unction to several sick people in one hospital,
is it necessary to repeat the whole rite for each person ?
Rituale Romanum, Tit. v, cap. i, n. 22: Quando plurimis simul infirmis hoc
sacramentum ministratur, Sacerdos singulis aegrotis crucem pie deosculan
dum porrigat, omnes preces quae unctiones praecedunt plurali numero semel
recitet, unctiones cum respectivis formis super singulos aegrotos efficiat,
omnes vero preces, quae unctiones subsequuntur, plurali numero semel
dicat.
This rubric of the current editio typica of the Ritual was not contained in
the previous editions, and is not accordingly in our Ordo Administrandi·,
the writers previous to the appearance of the rubric sanctioned what is now
in the text of the Ritual. It is in fact an application of a principle which has
long been explicitly contained in other rites, such as Baptism, by which
prayers accompanying actions are to be said “singulariter pro singulis” and
those unaccompanied by actions said only once.
Obviously, in a case of necessity, all that is required for each person
is the short form of anointing once on the forehead, as directed in cap. i, n.
21. Also the rubric in cap. ii, n. 6, allows the omission or shortening of the
prayers preceding the Misereatur, etc., “si tempus non patiatur”, which clearly
refers to some reasonable necessity short of that which justifies using the
brief form and one anointing.
In the case of a plural administration of Holy Communion to the sick,
we have the explicit rubrics of Rituale Romanum, Tit. iv, cap. iv, n. 17, for
sick people “in eodem cubiculo vel loco”. In explaining these words the
writers used to require a moral unity, which extended to cases where the
priest could be heard or seen, even though the sick people were in different
rooms, and with the advent of frequent Communion a liberal interpretation
of this moral unity was quite common in practice. This is now no longer
necessary, since the Congregation of Rites issued on 9 January, 1929, explicit
directions concerning the procedure of administering Holy Communion to
persons lying in different rooms of the same building; these directions are
not yet incorporated in the text of the Ritual. Cf. Q. 157.
Previously to this instruction, many writers dealt, at one and the same
time, with plural Extreme Unction and plural Holy Communion, applying
the same principle to both. It may be asked whether it is not now permitted
to interpret the rite for plural Extreme Unction according to the new rules
regulating plural Holy Communion, that is to say, whether it is lawful to use
the plural form of anointing when sick people arc lying in different parts of
the same hospital. We cannot find this point discussed by any recent writer.
In our view it is not permitted, since the rubric of cap i, n. 22, presupposes
that the sick people arc together in one room, or arc, at least, morally united
as already explained. What is permitted is the omission of the preceding
prayers, as directed in cap. ii, n. 6, whenever time is pressing, and this rubric
could often rightly be followed if there are many sick people to be anointed
in various wards. No doubt, in course of time, the rules for plural anoint
ing may be brought into line with those for plural Holy Communion, but
we may not anticipate a ruling; the new rule was called for owing to the
03.252,253
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
282
number and frequency of Holy Communions, and it may not be applied
arbitrarily to another Sacrament which is administered far less frequently.
252.—Subject of Extreme Unction
Having baptised absolutely a dying person, it appeared doubtful whether he could
validly receive Extreme Unction immediately after Baptism, since he could not
actually have committed any sins, and, in that respect, would be equivalent to a newly
baptised infant. I anointed him conditionally and wondered afterwards whether the
right coarse would have been to return and administer the sacrament after a day or two 1
■ '
*14
it tn
The reason for the doubt in the priest’s mind is summed up in the form
of the Sacrament : Indulgeat tibi Domunus quidquid . . . deliquisti. There is no
strict comparison between such a person and a newly baptized infant, since
the latter is not even capable of actual sin, whereas the former is.
It is the common doctrine that capability to commit sin is all that is
required, and this applies even to young children. The decree Quam
Singulari, 10 August, 1910, ad viii, noted, amongst other abuses, the custom
of not anointing children who had reached the age of discretion. The form
must be understood, as it were, in this potential or conditional sense, as,
indeed, is indicated in the text of St. James: “and if he. be in sin”. The
sacrament in the above case was validly administered, of course, but the
condition was unnecessary. From canon 941 the contingencies in which it
may be administered conditionally are: “Quando dubitatur num infirmus
usum rationis attigerit, num in periculo mortis rcipsa versetur vel num
mortuus sit.”
Accordingly, a reply of Propaganda, 26 September, 1821, directed that an
adult pagan who is baptized when dying should also be anointed, and a
reference is made to a decree of the Holy Office, 10 May, 1703, ad viii1 which
stressed the necessity of some intention in such cases: “saltern idem habeat
aliquam intentionem recipiendi Sacram Unctionem in beneficium animae,
pro mortis tempore, ordinatam”. There could be added, we think, to the
instances mentioned in canon 941, when the Sacrament is to be conferred
conditionally, the case in which the minister is in doubt concerning the
subject’s intention, e.g. the dying person may be uninstructed and uncon
scious.
253.—Anointing Air Raid Victims
Slay the modem teaching which permits the conditional anointing of persons
whose death is only “apparent” (since life is probably not extinct} be applied to those
killed in air raids, no matter what the extent of their injuries may be, even decapi
tation?
The principle covering the conditional administration of the sacraments
is that it may be done whenever they will be exposed to the danger of nullity
if administered absolutely and, at the same time, a person will suffer grave
injury if refused. The doctrine is now well established in the manuals that
* Fontes, nn. 4728 and 765.
28
EXTREME UNCTION
this principle may be applied to those in whom life is not certainly extinct,
even though they may be “dead” in the sense that, short of a miracle, they
can never come to apparent life again. The best manualist treatment of the
subject is Ferrcres, Tbeol. Moralis, II, §856, which summarizes the author’s
classical book La Morte Reale et la Morte Apparente.
Dr. Michel, in the course of his article “Mort” in Dictionnaire de Théo
logie Catholique, X, col. 2495, writes: “Dans ces cas de morts violentes
. . . on doit admettre le fait d’une mort relative, même après la cessation
des battements du cœur. Et cette persistance latente de la vie existe, semblet-il, dans le plupart sinon dans la totalité des cas de mort violente.” Among
these instances of violent death he includes decapitation, the example
mentioned above in querying the application of the modern teaching to such
a case. Fr. Dunne, on the other hand, in his valuable commentary, takes an
opposite view: “In a few cases—e.g. of decapitation, or of a person who has
been entirely crushed to death—there is little doubt that real death is im
mediate, but in all other cases we may conclude that life is probably present
for some time after, and consequently that Extreme Unction may be
administered.”1
It must be remembered, of course, that the modern teaching with regard
to administering the sacraments in such contingencies does not claim to be
certain or anything like certain; the efficacy of their administration is
extremely dubious for a variety of reasons. Nor can it be said, with any
certainty, that a priest is bound to follow this modern teaching; the Rituale
Romanum and our Ordo Administrandi take no account of it whatever, and it
is evident that the existing rubrics of these books are, if anything, against the
practice. We know of only one local ritual (Cambrai, 1927) approved by
the Holy See which has included it: “Hic animadvertere oportet mortem
veram cum specie mortis non necessario congruere, ac proinde extremam
unctionem quibusdam esse ministrandam qui spiritum iam emisisse
videntur.”
We are of the opinion that if a sacrament can be administered with some
probability of benefiting the recipient, a priest is bound to administer it.
We think, moreover, that there is no good reason for excluding cases
of decapitation from the application of the modern teaching; that is to say,
whatever value this teaching possesses, there seems to be no radical difference
between a person who has died from a broken neck and one whose head
has been severed from the body. If life is held tc be latent in the former
case, why not in the latter also ? Accordingly, wc see no valid objection to
applying the modern teaching to air raid victims, no matter what their
injuries may have been. There is no agreement as to the length of time
within which the sacraments may be administered—in the case of sudden
death many permit two or three hours.
254.—Religious and Last Sacraments
Whose duty is it to administer the last sacraments to a religious ? There appears
to be some uncertainty whether it is the parish priest, the chaplain to tbe nuns, or tbe
ordinary confessor.
1 Tbt Ritual Explained, p. 80.
q.
255
QUESTIONS AND /ANSWERS
284
Canon 514, §1 : In omni religione clericali ius et officium Superioribus est.
§2. In monialium domo idem ius et officium habet ordinarius confcssarius
vel qui eius vices gerit.
§3. In alia religione laicali hoc ius et officium spectat ad parochum loci
vel ad cappellanum quem Ordinarius parocho suffecerit ad normam can.
464, §2.
Canon 464, §2: Potest episcopus iusta et gravi de causa religiosas familias
et pias domos, quae in paroeciae territorio sint et a iure non exemptae, a
parochi cura subducere.
There is happily in this question no uncertainty whatever about the law,
and whatever doubts arise are due to the lack of English equivalents for the
Latin words describing various categories of religious. These are accur
ately given in canon 488.
If the nun in question is “monialis”, i.e. a member of an Order which
from its constitutions has solemn vows, as have Carmelites or Benedictines,
the last sacraments are to be administered by the ordinary confessor.
All religious women who are not “moniales” are “sorores”, i.e. members
of a Congregation having simple vows; both “moniales” and “sorores”
belong to religious Institutes which are styled “religio laicalis”, as distin
guished from “religio clericalis” whose members include priests. Hence
canon 514, §3, includes religious Institutes of women whose members are
“sorores”, and to this category belong the majority of religious women.
In their case the parish priest should administer the last sacraments, unless
the Ordinary has withdrawn them from his pastoral care and appointed a
chaplain instead. If it is not clear whether they have been so withdrawn, the
Ordinary is the only person who can solve the doubt. Usually it may be
said that, if the religious are served by a curate (vicarius co-operator)
attached to the parish church, the religious are not withdrawn from the
pastoral care of the parish priest; if, on the other hand, the religious have
their own chaplain living on the premises, it is quite likely that he has been
appointed according to the terms of canon 464, §2, in which case he should
administer the last sacraments.
It must be observed that the last sacraments are Extreme Unction and
Viaticum. In going to confession before receiving them, all religious, no
matter what their legal status may be, have the fullest liberty of choice from
canons 882; 892, §2; 522 and 525.
h.S
255.—The Last Blessing
U ίβ
ta Id
According to the manualists, it would seem that Extreme Unction may be re
peated during the same illness provided the person has been convalescent and again bad a
relapse, whereas the last blessing may be given only once during the same illness.
On the other hand, Canon Dunford, in his book, “ Suggestions for the Newly
Ordained” (J). 66), seems to suggest that the last blessing may be given as often as the
anointings are repeated. His words are·. “There is no need to give the last blessing,
sinlessyou have to anoint again.”
uΛ
I
I
«
S.C. Indnlg., 20 June, 1856, ad 7: Licetnc, aut saltern convenitnc iterum
applicare indulgentiam in articulo mortis, (i) quando aegrotus accepit
applicationem in statu peccati mortalis ? (ii) quando post applicationem in
285
EXTREME UNCTION
q.
255
peccatum relapsus est ? (iii) quando post applicationem diuturna laborat
aegritudine, uno verbo, quando Rituale permittit aut praecipit iterationem
Extremae Unctionis, aut confessarius iudicat iterandam esse absolutionem ?
Resp. ad (i) and (ii) Negative; ad (iii) prout iacet, Negative pariter in
omnibus.1
24 September, 1838, ad 2: Utrum Benedictio Apostolica pluries impetiri possit infirmis, novo mortis periculo redeunte ? Resp. Negative,
eadem permanente infirmitate etsi diuturna; Affirmative, si infirmus con
valuerit, ac deinde quacunque de causa in novum mortis periculum redeat2
The formation of some rule about repeating Extreme Unction is a wellknown practical difficulty. The principle is in canon 940, §2: “In eadem
infirmitate hoc sacramentum iterari non potest, nisi infirmus post susceptam
unctionem covaluerit et in aliud vitae discrimen inciderit.” Canon 468
contains no similar rule with regard to the Apostolic blessing, but it should
be noted that the same word “convaluerit” is used both in canon 940
(Extreme Unction repetition) and in the reply of 24 September, 1838 (Apostolic
blessing repetition). It is, therefore, easy to perceive that Fr. Dunford
formulated a simple and general practical rule, namely that the blessing
should be given whenever the sacrament is given, and repeated when the
sacrament is repeated.
But it cannot be said that the two sets of conditions are necessarily and
always coincident. They coincide in the case where the sick person has
recovered and fallen again into danger. But other situations which justify
repeating Extreme Unction are dealt with by the manualists, in addition to
the “convaluerit” of canon 940, e.g. the time element in a prolonged illness,
which may often be considered as indicating, morally speaking, that a fresh
danger has intervened. Extreme Unction is then repeated, since a new
danger justifies repetition and the sick person should not be deprived of that
sacramental grace. But a sick person is not deprived of anything by non
repetition of the Apostolic blessing, since the indulgence is not gained until
the actual moment of death. The manualists, therefore, usually differentiate
between the two things, and teach, with greater accuracy than Fr. Dunford,
that we cannot always act on the principle that the Apostolic blessing is to
be repeated whenever Extreme Unction is repeated. Like every other
indulgence the conditions attaching to it are largely a matter of positive
law, and the Church has directed that it is not to be repeated except in the
case where the sick person has recovered and fallen again into danger of
death.
1 Fontes, η. 5005.
» Ibid., n. joo8.
»
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
286
IX. HOLY ORDERS
256.—The Minister of Holy Orders
Wbat explanations are offered concerning the bull of Boniface IX which granted to
an abbot the power of ordaining priests within the monastery ?
nW
The theoretical aspect of the question was discussed by mediaeval canonists
and theologians, and it is intimately connected with the controversy amongst
biblical scholars concerning the hierarchy of the early Church. The weight of
argument and authority, in this discussion, has always been heavily on the
side of the theological view which requires episcopal consecration for the
valid conferring of the diaconatc and priesthood, a view which is strongly
supported by can. 7, Sess. XXII of the Council of Trent: “Si quis dixerit,
episcopos non esse presbyteris superiores, vel non habere potestatem con
firmandi et ordinandi;
di; vel eam quam habent illis esse cum presbyteris com
com-
munem. . . . A.S.”1 It is admitted, of course, by all that the minor
orders and the subdiaconate can be validly conferred by a priest, provided he
is delegated by the Holy See.2 With regard to the diaconatc, there exists a
bull of Innocent VIII, 9 April, 1489, conferring on the Cistercian General and
his successors the power to ordain deacons, and some other examples of this
faculty are quoted.3 Doubts exist whether this bull of Innocent VIII is
authentic and an excellent summary of the controversy may be seen in
ΓAmi da Clergé, 1928, p. 370.
In 1911 the text of a bull of Boniface IX, discovered in the Vatican
Archives4, was published in the English Historical Review, XXVI, p. 125.
This bull is certainly authentic and renders the bull of Innocent VHI of
secondary importance, for Boniface IX granted the faculty of ordaining
priests to the abbot of the Augustinian Canons of St. Osithe in the diocese of
London.5 The text of this bull, 1 February, 1400, has been reprinted in
various periodicals.8
The essential portion is as follows: “Hinc est quod nos ipsorum Abbatis
et Conventus in hac parte supplicationibus inclinati ut idem abbas et suc
cessores sui in perpetuum abbates eiusdem monasterii pro tempore existentes
omnibus et singulis Canonicis praesentibus et futuris professis eiusdem
monasterii omnes minores nccnon subdiaconatus diaconatus et presbyteratus
ordines statutis a iure temporibus conferre libere et licite valeant et quod
Canonici sic per dictos abbates promoti in sic susceptis ordinibus licite et
libere ministrare possint, quibuscunque contrariis . . . nequaquam
obstantibus, eisdem Abbati et successoribus suis ac eorum Canonicis
auctoritate apostolica tenore praesentium indulgcmus.” Three years later,
1 Denz. 967.
’ Gasparri, De Sacra Ordinatione, §781.
• Cf. Tixeront, LlOrdre, p. 192.
4 Rcg. Lat., 81, fol. 26;.
4 Butler gives a notice of St. Osithe Virgin and Martyr under 7 October. She was
beheaded about the year 870 and her relics were brought to Cnich or Chtck, in Essex,
near Colchester, where an Abbey of Regular Canons was built under her invocation
• E.g. Periodica, 1924, 18; /’ Ami du Clergé, 1926, p. 469.
287
HOLY ORDERS
Q· *57
6 February, 1403, Boniface IX recalled this bull at the instance of the Bishop
of London, who rightly claimed that his jurisdiction was thereby damaged:
“Litteras et indulta huiusmodi auctoritate apostolica ex certa scientia tenore
presentium cassamus et irritamus ac nullius esse valoris vel momenti.”
There is clearly abundant material in this bull and its retractation to
exercise the minds of canonists and theologians for a long time. Some
think that the concession supports the theory that a priest, by virtue of his
priestly ordination, possesses the radical capacity to ordain other priests. To
do so validly he needs papal delegation. One could, I suppose, cite, in
support of this view, the fact that priests impose hands at every ordination,
but the weight of theological authority is against such a solution.
We may adopt, with regard to the present bull, the judgement of Pesch
on the bull of Innocent VIII: “Genuinitatc concessionis supposita, estne
quaestio dogmatica, de qua hic agitur, soluta ? Non videtur; nam unum
factum pontificium non facit legem neque dogma. Potuit pontifex opin
ionem sequi, quae a multis doctoribus defendebatur, non eo ipso definiens
hanc opinionem. Cum enim in tota historia ecclesiastica nullum aliud
simile exemplum occurrat, videtur ecclesia sentire se non posse talem faculta
tem concedere; nam si qua in re pontifices censebant se habere potestatem
concedendi similia privilegia, saepissime ea usi sunt et utuntur.”1
Is there any method of explanation which will leave intact the common
theological doctrine, and at the same time prevent one from saying that
Boniface IX exceeded his powers ? For, although the infallibility of the
Pope is not implicated, it is better, if possible, to avoid the conclusion that
the Pope erred in exercising, in so solemn a manner, his jurisdiction. One
way is to suppose that the abbot in question possessed episcopal consecration,
a pure hypothesis which is not supported by the text of the bull, which grants
the same power to his successors. Another solution, and one which
commends itself as the best, is to see in the concession a complete and total
exemption from the jurisdiction of the local Ordinary, in the sense that the
abbot could secure the ordination of his subjects by any bishop whatever,
without reference to the Bishop of London and without seeking his per
mission.2 This solution is, perhaps, supported by the fact that the bishop, in
protesting to the Pope, did so on the score of damage to his own jurisdiction.
Whatever the solution, the question is extremely important and in
teresting, and no completely satisfactory explanation exists. It has been
pointed out that canon 951 leaves the question more or less open: “Sacrae
Ordinationis minister ordinarius est Episcopus consecratus; extraordinarius,
qui, licet charactere episcopali careat, a iure vel a Sede Apostolica per pecu
liare indultum potestatem acceperit aliquos ordines conferendi.”3
A good manualist survey of the questions raised bp both bulls may be
seen in Cappello, De Sacra Ordinatione, §§301-512.
257.—Ordination Days
May we in this country regard thefeasts of the Immaculate Conception and St. Joseph
as lawful occasions for ordination, seeing that they are not days of obligation with us ?
lDe Sacramento Ordinis, Prop. LII, §668; Cf. also Gasparri, op. cit., §798.
* Cancc: Lr Code de Droit Canonique, II, p. 373, quoting de la Bcllacasa, S.J., and Hugon,
O.P.; Diet. Thiol., XI, col. 1386.
1 Cf. Jus Pontificium, 1929, p. 162.
Q. 258
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
288
<;
Canon 1006, §2: Ordinationes in sacris celebrentur intra Missarum
solemnia sabbatis Quatuor Temporum, sabbato ante Dominicam Passionis,
et Sabbato Sancto.
§3. Gravi tamen causa interveniente, Episcopus potest eas habere etiam
quolibet die dominico aut festo de praecepto.
Code Commission, 15 May, 1956: An sub verbis festo de praecepto, de
quibus in canone 1006, §5, veniant etiam festa per Codicem in universa
Ecclesia suppressa ? Resp. Negative.
(i) Actually the Code did not suppress any Holy Days of obligation.
On the contrary, in canon 1247, §1, two were restored which were not
in the previous list of Pius X’s Motu Proprio, 2 July, 1911, namely Corpus
Christi and the Immaculate Conception. The suppressed feasts, often
known as days of devotion, on which the obligation of saying Missa pro
populo still exists, are those contained in the list issued by S.C.Conc., 28
December, 1919, A.A.S., XII, 1920, p. 42.
(ii) Before the Code Commission gave its decision, 15 May , 1936, it
was held by many canonists that “festum de praecepto” in canon 1006, §2,
included the suppressed feasts, because in many other connexions the term
“festum de praecepto” was taken to include those which had been sup
pressed, and it was observed that even episcopal consecration could take
place, from canon 1006, §1, on feasts of the Apostles, many of which had
been suppressed. Moreover, no distinction is made in canons 339, §1,
and 466, §1, between days of obligation and suppressed feasts, in so far as
Missa pro populo must be said on all these days; the Church desired to preserve
the solemnity of these suppressed feasts, the obligation of hearing Mass
excepted, and the holding of an ordination was in harmony with this desire.
These reasons notwithstanding, the Code Commission in 1936 decided
in the opposite sense, the principle being—if these matters are subject to a
principle—that the term “festum de praecepto” for ordination purposes
means a feast which is of obligation in the universal Church. Accordingly,
the directions of J.R.C., n. 2682.1 and 2852, permitting ordination on
suppressed feasts, are now obsolete. On the other hand, in places where
the external solemnity is transferred to the following Sunday, ordinations
may take place on the feast day itself as decided by 5.R.C., n. 3890, I, 1.
(iii) We have, lastly, the situation where, as in England, certain of the
feasts enumerated in canon 1247, §1, are not of obligation: they are the
Immaculate Conception and St. Joseph. Applying the same principle
on which the decision of 1936 is apparently based, it seems to us certain
that ordinations are permitted on these two days because they are feasts of
obligation in the universal church. As is evident, the only authorities of
any value are those who have written after 1936, and the only one we can
cite in support of this solution is the eminent canonist Roberti in Apollinaris,
1936, p. 592: “Sequitur ex eodem principio generali: si quod ex vigentibus
festis alicubi sit dispensatum, eodem die festo licet nihilominus ordines
sacros conferre, quia etsi in peculiari loco dispensatus sit, nihilominus dies
festus manet pro universa Ecclesia.”
258.—Ordination Preface
<
What is the exact meaning to be given to the phrases 11secundis praedicationibus”
and “secundi meriti munus" in the preface recited during the rite of ordaining priests ?
289
HOLY ORDERS
Q· *59
The phrases are obscure and, perhaps, in need of emendation, but the
meaning is clear from the whole context of the preface: God chose lévites
to assist the high priest, and seventy wise men to assist Moses in the wilder
ness, and companions to assist the Apostles; the ordaining bishop, protesting
that he has more need than these men of old, asks God for similar assistance,
and prays—amongst other things—for those about to be ordained priests:
“ut acceptum a te, Deus, secundi meriti munus obtineant”.
The meaning of “secundum” is here “subordinate” or “lesser”, as
earlier on in the preface “secundae dignitatis” is used of the assistants of the
high priests, and “secundis praedicationibus” for the ministry of those who
assisted the Apostles. Classical examples of this meaning of “secundus”
are given by Lewis and Short under A.z.b.
“Meritum” has here the less usual meaning of "rank” or “dignity”, to
which the classical examples in Lewis and Short under 3.B. approximate.
We are familiar with this use of the word in the Secret prayer of the Missa
Quotidiana for the dead: “ut, quibus in hoc saeculo pontificale seu sacerdotale
donasti meritum”, and other examples from the fourth and fifth century are
given by Dom Bottein, Questions Liturgiques et Paroissiales, 1956, p. 86. The
same scholar considers that “praedicationibus” is a corrupt reading for
“praedicatoribus” as found in the Leonine, Gelasian and Gregorian Sacramentaries. He also suggests that this insistence on the subordinate char
acter of the priesthood was by way of protest against the views of St.
Jerome and others, who regarded a bishop as merely “primus inter pares”.
This meaning of “secundi meriti” is rather missed in the C.T.S.
translation, Tbe Ordination of a Priest: “that they may keep the rank in thy
service which they have received from Thee”; it is rightly expressed in
The Conferring of Orders published by the Art and Book Co.: “that they may
hold from Thee, O God, the second rank in thy service”. Both translations
miss the force of “secundis praedicationibus”: “by which their words were
spread throughout the whole world” (C.T.S.), “by means of whom they
filled the whole world with their preaching” (A. & B. Co.),
259.—Application for Holy Orders
Is it necessary for a candidate desiring Holy Orders to make tbe application and
declaration in his own handwriting ? Or does it suffice to type it or merely to sign a
printed formula?
S.C. Sacram., 27 December, 1950, §2.1: scriptam ipsi exhibeant . . .
sua manu exaratam et subscriptam . . . §3.1. Hic scribere debebit sua manu
declarationem . . .
S.C. Relig., i December, 1931, II, 17: manu propria candidati sub
scriptam . . .
These two documents contain instructions from the Sacred Congre
gations on the preliminary scrutiny before admitting candidates to Orders.
Amongst other things, each candidate is required to make a personal written
application declaring that he is fully aware of all the obligations to be
assumed and particularly that of celibacy.
The practice in some places is to provide the candidates with a printed
formula which is returned duly signed, and it would appear that the sub
stance of the law is thus observed; for in other matters of similar importance,
qq.
260, 261
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
290
for example, the mixed marriage guarantees, which from canon 1061, §2,
must be in writing, the use of printed forms is taken as a matter of course.
But it will be noticed that, in the above texts, the instructions determine
the mode in which the application and declaration are to be made: they must
be written in the candidate’s own handwriting. The point is made quite
certain in the text of the formula given in n. 17 of the second document,
which concludes “N.N. manu propria”: there is no meaning in requiring a
man’s signature to be “manu propria”, for it cannot be anything else; there
fore the phrase must be taken as referring to the whole document. The purpose
of the law is to ensure complete knowledge and freedom in the candidate, and
to provide documentary proof of the same. This is more effectively obtained
if he writes out the document himself. For the same reason, in our view,
the candidate docs not properly comply with the law by using a typewriter,
for there can be no assurance that it was typed by the person who signed it.
We have not seen this point argued by any of the commentators on the
above instructions, but they all assume that the document will be in the
handwriting of the candidate applying. Periodica, 1931, p. 2 5 6 : “autographae
autem declarationes a singulis scribi et tradi debebunt”. Apollinaris, 1931, p.
210: “declaratio propria ipsius manu subscripta . . . propria manu scriptam
ac subscriptam”. Cf. also Cappello, De Sacra Ordinatione, §397.
260.—Theology Before Ordination
Is permission often given for ordination before the completion offour years' study
of theology?
Canon 876, §2: Firmo praescripto can. 975, subdiaconatus, ne con
feratur, nisi exeunte tertio cursus theologici anno: diaconatus, nisi incepto
quarto anno: presbyteratus, nisi post medietatem eiusdem quarti anni.
This law, like any positive law, may be dispensed for proportionate
reasons, e.g. the advanced age of the candidate, but it is not, we believe,
often granted in the case of secular clerics. It is not uncommon for religious
orders to obtain a general permission to present all their subjects for ordina
tion, under certain conditions, before the canonical time. An example of a
papal induit conceding this favour is printed in Theologisch-praktische Quartalsebrift, 1934, p. 835. It is granted to the Abbot General of the Cistercians:
“Ex Audientia SSmi diei 13. Novembris 1933, Ssmus D.N. Pius PP.XI infrascripto Cardinali Praefecto S. Cong. neg. Relig. praepositae, attentis
expositis, benigne annuit pro gratia juxta preces, ut alumni ad Presbyteratus
ordinem non promoveantur nisi expleto tertio anno cursus Theologici,
atque S. Theologiae sedulo operam dare pergant, saltem usquedum prae
scriptum quadriennium rite compleatur, vetito interim quocumque animarum
ministerio, id est ne destinetur concionibus habendis aut audiendis con
fessionibus aut exterioribus religionis muniis, super quibus Superiorum
conscientia graviter onerata remaneat, servatisque de i ure servandis. Con
trariis quibuscunque, etc. C. Card. Laurenti.”
hr
h
•À
261.—Ex-Religious in Minor Orders
4
A religions in an exempt clerical Institute received the tonsure and minor orders
whilst under temporary vows. The time of these vows being expired, the superiors
λ9ι
HOLY ORDERS
q.
261
would not pennit him to renew them or to make his perpetual profession. Since be
desires to proceed to the priesthood, what rights has he got against the Institute which
dismissed him ? If he has none, what is his position as a cleric ?
The situation with regard to a dismissed religious is clearly provided for in
canon law. Λ refusal to permit vows to be renewed at their expiration is
spoken of above as “dismissal”, which is incorrect. Dismissal is lawful,
in the case of a religious under temporary vows not yet expired, when the
procedure (grave reasons and the rest) of canon 647 has been duly observed.
From §2.4 of this canon the religious has the right of recourse to the Holy
See, and pending a decision the dismissal is of no effect. If his recourse is
unsuccessful, the dismissal takes effect and he is reduced to the lay state from
canon 648: “ipso facto solvitur ab omnibus votis religiosis . . . clericus autem
in minoribus ordinibus constitutus eo ipso redactus est in statum laicalem”.
But there is a difference between leaving a religious Institute on the
expiration of vows and being dismissed from it. In the latter case a grave
cause is required, in the former merely just and reasonable causes (canon
637); in the latter case a cleric in minor orders is ipso facto reduced to the lay
state, in the former case this is not expressly contained in the law; in the
latter case canon 647, §2.4, provides for recourse “in suspensivo” to the Holy
See, in the former there is no such provision.
Has then a religious no remedy if he considers that he has been pre
vented unjustly and unreasonably from renewing his vows ? Certainly, he
has the right which every member of the Church possesses of appealing to
the Holy Sec to remedy an alleged injustice. But seeing that the law gives
the religious superiors the widest discretion in refusing a renewal of vows,
we are of the opinion that the chance of any appeal succeeding is slight,
except in the case mentioned in canon 657, namely when renewal of vows is
refused owing to ill-health which was not concealed before the emission of
temporary vows. If the appeal is successful the religious would be rein
stated in the Institute, but pending a decision he must leave it; unlike the
appeal of a dismissed religious, under canon 647, §2, an appeal against the
decision taken by superiors in canon 637 is not “in suspensivo” but “in
devolutivo”.
A religious in major orders who, for any reason, is lawfully severed
from his Institute, is governed by canons 641, 642, 648, but the status of one
in minor orders is not clearly defined by the Code. It cannot be said with
certainty that he is reduced ipso facto to the lay state, unless he has been dis
missed from the Institute; and if he is still a cleric, it appears that he must
belong to some Ordinary, from canon 111.
One view is that he comes under the jurisdiction of the Ordinary of his
domicile or quasi-domicile, not indeed with that dependence which arises from
incardination, but on a par with the rest of the faithful, from canon 94. This
Ordinary has the power to reduce him to the lay state from canon 211, §2.x
Another view is that he becomes incardinated to the diocese to which he
belonged before entering the religious Institute, and the Ordinary may
reduce him to the lay state, or receive him amongst his own clerics, or
excardinatc him to another diocese.3
Neither of these views seems correct, since it is not equitable that an
du Cltrgi, 195S P· 5°9·
1 Cf. Bcstc, In/rodwtio in Codictm, p. 172.
QQ. 262, 263
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
z92
Ordinary should be burdened with the responsibility of disposing of a
cleric, for whose entry into the clerical state he was in no way responsible.
Moreover, under canon 94, the ex-religious would have the choice of more
than one Ordinary, whereas the diocese of incardination, from canon 111, §2,
is that diocese for the service of which a cleric becomes ascribed by receiving
the tonsure, a description which by no means fits the above case. Our
opinion is that this cleric is reduced to the lay state on leaving his Institute,
just as though he had been dismissed.1
If this ex-religious is unwilling to regard himself as reduced to the lay
state, he must find an Ordinary willing to receive him and promote him to
major orders, observing mutatis mutandis the terms of canon 212, §1. There
is not, strictly speaking, any injustice in his position, since no one has any
right to ordination, and not being in major orders he has no claim on any
Ordinary for the means of subsistence.
262.—Sacerdotal Anniversary
Is there any special Mass which may properly be said on the anniversary of a
priest's ordination 1
If the day is one on which a votive Mass may be said, a priest may choose
any votive Mass he pleases, according to Rubricae Generales, IV, 3. The
only limit to the phrase “pro arbitrio Sacerdotum” is the concluding
monition: “id vero passim non fiat, nisi rationabili de causa”.
When the typical edition (1920) of the Missal was being prepared, the
Commission considered a rubric to be included, conceding to the sacerdotal
anniversary liturgical privileges similar to that of bishops. But the sug
gestion was not accepted, and all that we have is the permission to add the
prayer, pro seipso sacerdote, which is n. 20 among Orationes Diversae, on days
permitted by the rubric in Addit, et Variat., VI, 3.
263.—Newly Ordained Priest
Could you supply the details of indulgences at present obtainable which are
connected with tbe first Mass and blessing of a newly ordained priest ?
(i) Seven years' indulgence to all the faithful devoutly assisting at a
priest’s first Mass. A plenary indulgence to his relatives (consanguinei) to the
third degree inclusive, provided they go to confession and Communion and
pray for the Holy Father’s intention (16 January, 1886; 18 March, 1932), n.
629 (a).
(ii) One hundred days to all who kiss the hands of a newly ordained priest
either on the ordination day or on that of his first Mass (29 April, 1934), n.
629 (b). As far as we know, there is no indulgence attached to the blessing
given by a newly ordained priest.
(iii) A plenary indulgence to the priest himself on the occasion of saying
his first Mass, provided he goes to confession and prays for the intention
of the Holy Father (16 January, 1886), n. 684.
The numerical references above refer to Preces et Pia Opera, Vatican
Press, 1958, which must now be taken as the only authentic list of indulgenced prayers and good works for the whole Church.
1 Palombo, De Demirrione V^ligiosortm, §214.
293
MARRIAGE PRELIMINARIES
qq.
264, 265
X HOLY MATRIMONY
§1. MARRIAGE PRELIMINARIES
264.—Form of Betrothal
A couple who have become engaged want to solemnise the occasion.
special form which must be used?
Is there any
Canon 1017, §1: Matrimonii promissio sive unilateralis, sive bilateralis
seu sponsalitia, irrita est pro utroque foro, nisi facta fuerit per scripturam
subsignatam a partibus et vel a parocho aut loci Ordinario, vel a duobus
saltem testibus.
No special form of the document is prescribed by the common law,
though some dioceses may have an authorized form. Ne Temere required
the document to be dated, but the Code does not do so expressly; neverthe
less, it should be dated like any other document. Suggested forms are
given in the books. We give one in English taken from Cronin, New
Marriage Legislation (1908), p. 18:
We, the undersigned, possessing sufficient knowledge of the obligations
to be assumed, do hereby, freely and unsolicited, mutually promise to enter
into Holy Matrimony before the..........day of........... 19....
James M. Smith of....................................
Mary R. King of.........................................
JP7Aw£t: W. J. Stanton, parish priest of....................................................
265.—Breach of Promise
For just and conscientious reasons Titius refuses to keep his promise of marriage
to Berthay and is contemplating marriage with someone else. Bertha considers herself
entitled to damages. As the parties are good Catholics, the question arises whether,
in the event of them failing to reach an amicable settlement, an action for damages
in a civil court is permitted by canon law.
It must first be observed that, from canon 1017, a promise of marriage
is not reckoned to exist in the eyes of the Church unless it was canonically
effected in writing, signed by the parties and by the parish priest or local
Ordinary, or by two witnesses. If this was not done, it is an informal
engagement, of which the Church takes no cognizance.
If the promise of marriage was validly effected according to canon 1017,
a diriment impediment of public honesty used to exist before the Code,
between each party and the blood relations of the other to the first degree
in the direct and collateral line. This was abolished by the Code and the
law now recognizes no action arising from breach of promise, except an
action for damages; canon 1017, §3: “At ex matrimonii promissione, licet
q.
266
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
294
valida sit nec ulla iusta causa ab eadem implenda excuset, non datur actio
ad petendam matrimonii celebrationem; datur tamen ad reparationem
damnorum, si qua debeatur.” A reply of the Code Commission, 5 June, 1918,
decided that this action for damages was of mixed forum, that is to say, it
pertained to the competence of both civil and ecclesiastical courts; to the
ecclesiastical because of its connexion with the sacrament of marriage, to
the civil because of the temporal loss. The rule concerning such “mixed
forum” cases is in canon 1553, §2: c<^n causis in quibus tum Ecclesia tum
civilis potestas aeque competentes sunt, quaeque dicuntur mixti fori, est
locus praeventioni.” Praeventio means that whichever court first accepts
the complaint has the right to judge the case. It is rather unlikely, in this
country, that an ecclesiastical court would care to deal with such matters.
266.—Previous Investigation: Whose Duty?
It is understood that more than one parish priest may be competent validly and
lawfully to assist at marriages. But which of these priests has not only the right but
the obligation to make all the preliminary investigations? For example, in the
event of a bride in parish “A” electing to get married in parish “B”, which is that of
the bridegroom, may the parish priest of “A” insist on all the preliminary investi
gations being made by the parish priest of“B” ? In other words, may it be said that,
in principle, the ultimate responsibility rests with the parish priest of the place where
the marriage is contracted?
Tî
» I ·
Uflt
tld
'U
?
Canon 1020, §1 : Parochus cui ius est assistendi matrimonio, opportuno
antea tempore, diligenter investiget num matrimonio contrahendo aliquid
obstet.
§5. Ordinarii loci est peculiares normas pro huiusmodi parochi investi
gatione dare.
Canon 1029: Si alius parochus investigationes aut publicationes pere
gerit, de harum exitu statim per authenticum documentum certiorem reddat
parochum qui matrimonio assistere debet.
Middlesbrough Decrees, 1953, η. 147, and Lancaster Statuta, 1935, η. 113:
The duty of inquiring into the status liber belongs, as a rule, to the parish
priest of the bride; but when the marriage takes place in another parish,
the responsibility of investigating rests with the parish priest who assists
at the marriage—ad normam can. 1020.
(i) It is true that, in the common law, the ultimate responsibility rests
with the priest who assists at the marriage, for he is required from canon
1097, §1.1, to assure himself that the parties are free to marry. But, unless
local law determines otherwise, he will naturally prefer the previous investi
gation to be in the hands of the parish priest of the bride, to whom it nor
mally belongs, and will be very content to accept an assurance from this
priest that everything is in order. The commentators agree that, if the
bride has a plurality of proper parish priests, she may choose whom she
pleases to conduct the investigation, and it is evident on general principles
that this priest may not refuse to investigate the proposed marriage of his
subject, even though the marriage is being contracted elsewhere, unless local
law has relieved him of this obligation.
(ii) Canon 1020, §3, assumes that a local law exists, and we personally
295
MARRIAGE PRELIMINARIES
Q. 267
have no doubt that the regulation made for Middlesbrough, Lancaster and
other places could very suitably be made the rule everywhere in this country.
For when several persons have a legal obligation which can be performed
by any one of them, it often happens, in human affairs, that none does it.
It is possible for both parties to have more than one proper parish priest
for the purpose of marriage, from canon 1097, §1.2; and even the rule of
§2 of the same canon, which gives the preference to the parish priest of the
bride—a rule which is of very slight force1—does not exclude a plurality
of parish priests of the bride. In addition to parish priests, other than that
of the bride, who may lawfully assist at her marriage in their own right
from the common law, there are those who may be authorized to do so
by obtaining the necessary permission, as provided for in canon 1097,
§1.3. Whatever emoluments are customary will go to the priest who
assists at the marriage, unless forfeited by a flagrant violation of the law,3
and it is in accordance with natural justice that the work of previous investi
gation shall be done by this priest. The labour involved may be con
siderable, and the tendency of the law is to increase it, as may be seen from
examining S.C. Sacram., 29 June, 1941; in addition, nearly everywhere in this
country, the work includes giving special instructions to the non-Catholic
party of a mixed marriage.
(iii) We read in 5.C. Sacram., 2.9 June, 1941, n.4 (a), a recommenda
tion that the parish priest of the bridegroom shall conduct a separate
examination of the man: “Quod ad parochum attinet: qui habet ius et onus
inquirendi, is est cui competit assistentia matrimonii, et hic, nisi iusta
causa excuset, est parochus sponsae (can. 1097, §2). Vcrumtamcn, etiam
parochus sponsi, vel proprio marte vel instante sponso ipso vel sponsae
parocho, examen peragat ad libertatem sponsi in tuto ponendam, et peractae
huius inquisitionis documentum ad sponsae parochum quam primum mittat,
una cum ceteris documentis necessariis (testimonio baptismi, etc.) in suo
paroeciali archivo forte exstantibus.” This is already the custom or the
local law in some places.3
267.—Freedom to Marry: Meaning
What is meant by “status liber" in relation to the preliminary investigation of
marriages ? Docs the law require the formality of a certificate or document declaring
the freedom of the parties before marriage may lawfully be contracted ?
Canon 1019,
Antequam matrimonium celebretur, constare debet
nihil eius validae ac licitae celebrationi obsistere.
Canon 1020, §1: Parochus loci cui ius est assistendi matrimonio,
opportuno antea tempore diligenter investiget num matrimonio contra
hendo aliquid obstet.
Canon 1097, §1.1: Parochus autem vel loci Ordinarius matrimonio
licite assistunt, constito sibi legitime de libero statu contrahentium ad nor
mam iuris.
Freedom to marry in the strict sense refers to what is required in the
»Cf. Q. 314.
1 Cf. αιηοη 1097, §j.
• Cf. De Smet, De Matrimonio, §679.
^■1
q.z67
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
296
parties that they may validly and lawfully marry. Apart from local diocesan
regulations which may exist (the law presumes that there will be some in
canon 1020, §3), and apart from special circumstances to be mentioned below
under (ii), the common law does not require freedom to marry to be attested
by any formal document as such, except when the parties are from different
dioceses. Cf. Q. 268.
(i) The documents or certificates or formalities which the law does
require will be found to include or imply that the parties are free to marry.
There is, in the first place, testimonium baptismi required by canon 1021, §1:
“Nisi baptismus collatus fuerit in ipso suo territorio, parochus exigat
baptismi testimonium. . . .” This is a grave law, and its obligation has often
been reaffirmed by the Congregation of the Sacraments. The surest testimony
of baptism is an extract from the register signed by the parish priest, and
local law often requires this. In addition to proof of baptism, it contri
butes to the proof of freedom to marry, since, from canons 470, §2, 1103, §2,
and 1988, the facts of marriage, orders, religious profession and nullity
decree are to be entered in the baptismal register: in the event of a proposed
marriage subsequent to these entries, the relevant facts will be recorded on
the baptismal certificate. To be effective as a precaution against an invalid
or unlawful marriage, the certificate must be issued within six months of the
date on which marriage will be contracted, and local legislation may deter
mine this point more strictly, as for example Liverpool Synod, 1934, n. 148:
“Ne admittatur baptismi testimonium ad partem liberam probandam, si
ante tres menses scriptum fuerit.’**
Secondly, the observance of the law regarding the publication of banns
offers a contributory proof of freedom to marry. It is not necessary to
record here the details of this law, contained in canons 1022-1030, except
to notice that its observance may sometimes require a certificate from a
parish priest other than that of the parish in which the marriage is taking
place; canon 1029: “Si alius parochus investigationem aut publicationes
peregerit, de harum exitu statim per authenticum documentum certiorem
reddat parochum qui matrimonio assistere debet.” Canon 1023, §2, leaves
it to the Ordinary to determine the proof of freedom required in the case of
parties who, for six months after reaching the age of puberty, have lived in
places other than those in which the common law requires the banns to be
published; he may require the banns to be published in all these places of
six months’ residence, or he may order other proofs to be obtained, including
affidavits from the parties concerned.1 We conclude, therefore, that a priest
who observes the common and local law concerning baptismal certificates
and banns, and who examines and instructs the parties according to canons
1019-1034, does not require any further certificate of freedom to marry,
except in special circumstances.
(ii) Special cases calling for some document or other arise, for example,
when the possibility of an impediment is suspected, and the doubt has to be
removed by consulting the Ordinary,3 or when proof of the grant of a
dispensation is required. If a marriage has been previously attempted,
even merely civil marriage, no matter how certain its invalidity may appear
to be, a declaration of freedom to marry must first be obtained from the
1 Cf. Code Commission, 3 June, 1918; Liverpool Synod, 1934, n. 149; Q. 270.
• Canon 1051.
297
MARRIAGE PRELIMINARIES
q.
268
Ordinary.1* In cases of widows and widowers, the death certificate of a
former spouse is the obvious proof of freedom. Except in cases of necessity,
a priest may not assist at the marriage of a vagus, one who has nowhere a
domicile or quasi-domicile, until the matter has been referred to the Ordinary.3
Even though they may not be technically vagi, emigrants from foreign
countries are to be treated as such, according to the Instruction of 4 July, 1921,
which forbids priests to assist at their marriages, except in cases of necessity,
before previously consulting the Ordinary. This is also the rule of I Westm.,
Dec XXII, n. 7.
268.—Freedom to Marry: Diocesan Certificate
May it not be held that the obligation of communicating certain pre-matrimonial
documents through the diocesan chancery, as set out in the 1941 Instruction, refers to
cases where one of the parties belongs, or has recently belonged, to a diocese in a foreign
country, not to dioceses of the same country ? Where the dioceses are contiguous, or
even with a boundary line in the same city, it is a needless labour to transmit these
documents through the chancery.
S.C. Sacram., 29 June, 1941, n. 4 (a) ; A.A.S. XXXIII, p. 299:
Haec S. Congregatio valde exoptat ut, antequam parochus ad matrimonii
assistintiam procedat, licentiam suae Curiae, quam nihil obstat nuncupant,
consequatur: id vero praecipit cum nupturientium parochi sunt diversae
diocesis.
Quo accuratius in re tam gravi procedatur, Curia Episcopalis prorsus
exigat ut parochus, cui licentia (nihil obstat} danda est, ad Curiam ipsam
mittat opportuno antea tempore documenta omnia praematrimonialia una
cum exemplari, cuius specimen in Appendice (Alleg. Iz) invenitur, omnibus
notitiis ibi requisitis praedito. Hoc autem exemplari, prout in eadem cautum
est, utatur sive Curia in concedendo nihil obstat, sive parochus in concedenda
sacerdoti, legitima ceterum facultate praedito, licentiam assistendi matri
monio extra paroeciam forte contrahendo; illudque dcin caute asservetur in
archivo paroeciali loci, ubi nuptiae initae sunt.
It is our opinion that this new regulation contained in the Instruction of
the Congregation of the Sacraments, 29 June, 1941, need not be observed until
the clergy have been so directed by their own Ordinaries.
With this reservation, it is quite clear that the interchange of documents
in question is not restricted to the cases of persons belonging to another
country, but applies equally to different dioceses within the same country.
A previous Instruction, 4 July, 1921, which is now mentioned in all the
manuals, was meant chiefly for foreign emigrants “in exteris dissitisque
regionibus ad quas frequentes demigrant ex Europa opifices”, and n. 5 of
this document contained in substance the direction now found in that of
29 June, 1941, n. 4 (a). But in the 1941 Instruction the direction occurs
within a section dealing with the obligations of all parish priests of different
dioceses, and neither in this place nor in the suggested “form” is it implied
that the regulation is restricted to dioceses in different countries. Indeed,
the Instruction given in 1921, though chiefly for the cases of foreigners,
1 Cf. canon 1990; Q. 337.
* Canon 1032.
: :·υ
211
q.
269
•
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
_ .
298
could be understood as a recommendation for all cases, and was so inter
preted by the writers, e.g. Gougnard, De Matrimonio, 1937, p. 70: “. . . ex
pedit ut sit recognitum curia episcopali . . . quod non est urgendum,
nisi documentum mittendum sit extra patriam.” It is quite evident that
the 1941 Instruction is an advance upon that of 1921, just as the latter is an
advance upon that of 6 March, 1911, which contained no mention of the
episcopal curia, except an admonition to Ordinaries urging them to secure
the observance of the law by the priests subject to them. Festina lente is
a well-known Roman rule, and we may doubtless expect, say in 1961, a
further Instruction which will convert “valde exoptat” into “id praecipit”
and make the diocesan nihil obstat necessary even for the marriages of parties
living within the same diocese.
If the new Instruction is observed, it will mean, of course, more work
for everyone concerned, and more often than not the labour involved will
be needless; that is to say, there will be many cases where one is already
certain that the parties are free to marry, and the interchange of documents
will not increase this certainty. But the same applies to the publication of
banns which is often unnecessary, yet no one may for this reason neglect to
publish them unless a dispensation has been obtained from the Ordinary.
269.—“S.C. Sacram;” 29 June, 1941
With reference to the 1941 Instruction on Marriage Preliminaries is the method
of issuing an Instruction a new departure or not ? What is the binding force of an
Instruction ?
H
Ί
». b
MM
tld
The method was employed long before the Code, particularly by Pro
paganda, e.g. the Instruction to the English bishops on University Education
6 August, 1867, Fontes, n. 4868. It is clearly defined in the Motu Proprio of
Benedict XV, 15 September, 1917, printed among the prefaces to the Code:
“II. Sacrae Romanae Congregationes nova Decreta Generalia iamnunc ne
ferant, nisi qua gravis Ecclesiae universae necessitas aliud suadeat. Ordi
narium igitur carum munus in hoc genere erit tum curare ut Codicis prae
scripta religiose serventur, tum Instructiones, si res ferat, edere, quae iisdem
Codicis praeceptis maiorem ct lucem afferant et efficientiam pariant. Eiusmodi vero documenta sic conficiantur, ut non modo sint, sed appareant
etiam quasi quaedam explanationes et complementa canonum, qui idcirco
in documentorum contextu peropportune afferentur.” It is apparent in
the Instruction of 1941 how closely the Sacred Congregation has kept to the
text of the Code.
The binding force of an Instruction can be perceived from the terms
used in the document. Thus in the Instruction from the Congregation of
Rjeligiotis on the second year of the novitiate, 23 November, 1921: “Sanc
titas porro Sua sententiam probavit simulque mandavit, ut hac de re instruc
tio ederetur, cui omnes et singulae congregationes religiosae . . . integre
se conformare teneantur.” In the Instruction on Marriage Preliminaries a
very clear distinction is drawn between the desires (valde exoptat) and the
commands (id vero praecipit) of the Congregation. Cf. text in Q. 268.
What then is the difference between an Instruction so expressed and a
new general decree issued as determined in n. Ill of the Mo tn Proprio,
15 September, 1917? Apart from the less solemn form in which it is
299
MARRIAGE PRELIMINARIES
q.
27o
issued, the difference is that the preceptive portion of an Instruction is not
a new law but a determination of the mode in which an existing law is
to be observed. It is the law, for example, that the death of a former partner
to a valid marriage must be proved before a second marriage is permitted;
various Instructions, as far back as that of the Holy Office, 13 May, 1868,
and as recent as that issued by S.C. Sacram., 15 August, 1936, determine the
method of proof. The law has always required proof of freedom to marry,
as in canon 1020, §1; the recent Instruction prescribes that the exchange of
documents to this end, when the parish priests concerned are of different
dioceses, shall be done through the diocesan curia.
It must be conceded that a point may be reached when the preceptive
part of an Instruction is of such a character that it appears to be a new
decree rather than the determination of an existing one. If this should
happen it is a matter for the respective bodies of the Roman curia to settle
amongst themselves, since n. Ill of the Motu Proprio, 15 September, 1917,
requires a definite procedure to be observed by a Roman Congregation before
a new general decree may be issued.
Is there any difference between the binding force in conscience of a
preceptive Instruction and that of a new decree ? In our opinion there is
none, apart from the fact that, as in all laws, the disregard of lawful au
thority is graver according to the gravity of the matter. Though it may
be stated, therefore, in principle, that a decree is obligatory but an Instruc
tion merely directive, as in Vcrmeersch-Creusen, Epitome, I, §152, an
exception must be made for those points within an Instruction which, from
their wording, are clearly preceptive. “. . . instructiones per se habent
vim declarativam et directivam; quandoque tamen legem dant vel leges
praeexistentes complent et mandante vel approbante Papa leges universales
sunt”*
1. “Licetne istis Instructionibus quaedam, non contra sed ultra
Codicem praecipere ? Quod affirmandum est, cum a S. Pontifice dicantur
esse complementa canonum. . . . Quid tunc Instructiones a novis legibus
differunt ? Novae leges per se stant; Instructiones accedunt ad legem,
eam circumdant et quasi vestiunt . . . Sic in iure civili hodierno, usus
habet ut, post latam a Parlamento legem, Rex seu princeps rei publicae
decretum conficiat quo, per varia iussa, exeeutioni legis consulit?
270.—Banns: Six Months’ Residence
The directions of canon 1023, §2, are generally disregarded.
binding force ?
What is their
Canon 1023, §2: Si pars alio in loco per sex menses commorata sit post
adeptam pubertatem, parochus rem exponat Ordinario, qui pro sui pru
dentia vel publicationes inibi faciendas exigat, vel alias probationes seu
conjecturas super status libertate colligendas praescribat.
Canon 1028, §1 : Loci Ordinarius proprius pro suo prudenti iudicio potest
ex legitima causa a publicationibus etiam in aliena dioecesi faciendis dispensare.
Code Commission, 3 June, 1918; A.A.S., X, p. 345 : Si pars post adeptam
pubertatem plusquam per sex menses commorata fuerit in longissimis
et dissitis oris, a quibus ut habeatur regularis attestatio libertatis status,
1 Sipos, Enchiridion, p. 34.
1 Periodica, 1929. p. 18.
I
Q. 27I
wW
'V
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
500
longius tempus requiritur, cum tamen urgeat celebratio matrimonii, sufficitne in casu ad certiorandam libertatem status iuramentum partis cum
testimonio duorum, vel, si non possint haberi duo, saltem unius, qui secum
commorati fuerint illis in regionibus ? Rwp. Rem committi prudenti
iudicio Ordinarii, qui alias probationes, non excluso iuramento suppletorio,
praescribere potest ad normam canonis 1023, §2.
S.C. Sacram., 4 July, 1921, n. 4; A.A.S., XIII, p. 348: Quod si de vagis
non agatur, tamen difficulter quoad alios emigrantes abest dubium de
existentia impedimenti, ideoque, iuxta can. 1031, §1, n. 3, parochus eorum
matrimonio assistere nequit inconsulto Ordinario; habito etiam prae oculis
praescripto can. 1023, §2.
29 June, 1941, η. 6 (Z»); A.A.S., XXXIII, p. 303: Proclamationes
peragantur matrimoniales etiam in locis ubi nupturientes per semestre
saltem post adeptam pubertatem morati sunt, si id prudenter censeat
Ordinarius (can. 1023, §2), neque ab iisdem dispensetur nisi legitima causa
comprobata (can. 1028), neque facile, ceteris neglectis probationis argumentis,
procedatur ad iusiurandum suppletorium partibus deferendum (can. 1829,
1830).
The direction of canon 1023, that the case must be put to the Ordinary,
whenever the parties have dwelt in some other place for six months after
puberty, is disregarded in many dioceses of this country, and one could
argue that there exists a custom contra legem which local Ordinaries tolerate
in accordance with the terms of canon 5. In these days, when people move
about frequently, the observance of the law would entail a lot of corres
pondence. But it is not a valid objection to the observance of the law that
the parish priest of a six months’ residence would not know the parties:
for the purpose of banns is to acquaint local inhabitants of a proposed mar
riage, and amongst these people some would very likely remember a person
who had lived there for six months.
It is for local Ordinaries, knowing that the law is not observed, to take
whatever steps they consider necessary and opportune. Thus in Liverpool
Synod, 1934, n. 149, we read that banns are to be published “in paroecia
ubi nupturientes immediate antea habitarunt, si per sex integros menses
ibidem permanserint”. In the Province of Malines, with the approval
of the Holy See, the following interpretation of canon 1023, §2, is sanc
tioned by the Council, 1920, n. 206: “Parochi est in singulis casibus, dili
genter investigare an aliquid matrimonii celebrationi obsistat. Quodsi,
facta inquisitione, ipsi constat, per documenta publica sive ecclesiastica sive
civilia, per privata testimonia vel documenta fide digna, una cum affir
matione jurata ipsorum contrahentium, nihil matrimonio obstare ac prae
sertim nupturientes liberos esse, parochus non tenetur rem Ordinario
exponere, nec publicationes in aliena paroecia faciendae sunt. Si vero, post
diligentem investigationem dubium vel suspicio sit de existenti impedi
mento, Ordinarium consulat ejusque praecepta sequatur.”
271.—Confession Before Marriage
May a parish priest insist on confession before marriage, for the purpose of
avoiding scandal to the rest of the faithful, in the case of a Catholic who has foryears
neglected bis religious duties ?
JOI
MARRIAGE IMPEDIMENTS
q.
272
Canon 1066: Si publicus peccator aut censura notorie innodatus prius
ad sacramentalem confessionem accedere aut cum Ecclesia reconciliari
recusaverit, parochus eius matrimonio ne assistat, nisi gravis urgeat causa,
de qua, si fieri possit, consulat Ordinarium.
Canon 1033: . . . cosdcmque vehementer adhortetur ut ante matri
monii celebrationem sua peccata diligenter confiteatur, et sanctissimam
Eucharistiam pie recipiant.
(i) The general principle of the moral theologians, that public sinners
must be refused the sacraments, rests on the obligation to avoid co-operating
in a sacrilegious act as well as on the necessity of avoiding scandal. The
first of these reasons is the more important, but in the case of marriage it is
actually of lesser weight, since the priest is not the minister of the sacrament.
The directions of the canon are quite clear. The priest should, if possible,
have recourse to the Ordinary and abide by his decision, but if there is no
time to do this, he may assist at the marriage provided there is an urgent
reason. Amongst urgent reasons justifying Lis assistance, all the commen
tators mention the danger of civil marriage. Therefore, even in the case
of a public sinner, it cannot be said that the priest’s assistance at marriage
is to be refused as a matter of course.
(ii) The fact of refusing to go to confession before marriage obviously
does not put a person in the company of public sinners; for one thing he may
not be burdened with grave sin. Nevertheless, to make sure that the reci
pients of this sacrament arc in a state of grace, they arc to be urged to receive
the sacraments previously. The “vehementer adhortetur” of canon 1033
has its counterpart in the rubric of Rituale Romanum, Tit. vii, cap. 1, n. 14,
and in Cone. Trid., Sess. XXIV, De Ref cap. 7. In all of these texts con
fession is urged before marriage, but it is not made a positive law, as it is, for
example, in the case of a person conscious of grave sin in approaching Holy
Communion.
In some French dioceses, it appears that the local statutes order confes
sion sub gravi.1 Such rules probably date from a distant period when dis
cipline was more strict, and it is the common view that they can no longer be
enforced, e.g. Chelodi: “Plura tamen iura particularia, quoad confessionem,
veram et strictam obligationem statuerant, etiam sub poena denegatae
benedictionis nuptialis. Qui rigor minus probandus videbatur et nunc,
certissime, standum est C. qui habet ‘vehementer adhortetur’.”2
§2. MARRIAGE IMPEDIMENTS
272.—Chastity and Marriage Consent
Bertha, a Catholic, is married invalidly to Titius, a Jew, before the civil registrar.
Her first two children were delivered by Cesarean section, and she is advised by the
doctors either to be sterilised or to use contraceptive instruments, since a further
pregnancy might be fatal. She declines this advice, being anxious to return to her
duties as a Catholic, and resolves to refuse the use of marriage to her busbandfor the
future. Can this marriage be revalidated?
1 CL Γ Ami du Clergi, 1927, p. 294.
’ lus Matrimoniale, §23.
* I'
"r
q.
III
■Î
hit
273
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
3Ο2
This case is of great interest as regards the validity of the consent to the
marriage contract. The marriage is invalid, firstly because of defect of
form, and secondly because of the impediment of difference of worship.
On both these headings its revalidation could be quite easily effected by
renewing consent with the usual form, after obtaining a dispensation from
the impediment. It appears quite certain that Bertha is entitled to refuse
the marriage debt in such circumstances, and the difficulty is whether a
renewed consent, conditioned by a resolve to refuse the marriage debt,
would be valid.
The object of marriage consent, as expressed in canon 1081, §2, is “ius
in corpus, perpetuum et exclusivum, in ordine ad actus per se aptos ad
generationem”. It is, namely, the right to marital intercourse which is the
object of the contract, which right can be validly given and received, even
though its use is, rightly or wrongly, withheld. This rather subtle dis
tinction between the right and its use enters very closely into the marriage
laws of the Church. It may be examined in a number of Rota judgements
in which the validity of consent turns entirely on discovering whether an
immoral intention contra bonum prolis is concerned with excluding the right
to normal intercourse, or merely with the non-use or the afiuse of rights
contracted; if the former, the consent is invalid; if the latter, it is valid.
A distinction of this kind, which might escape the notice even of a
theologically minded person, is nearly always unknown to the parties at the
time of their contract. What they actually intended has to be deduced from
various attendant circumstances, and certain legal presumptions are in use
in order to arrive at a decision. For example, the perpetual exclusion of
normal marital actions creates a presumption that the right is excluded, since
it is scarcely possible to conceive a right being granted and yet qualified
by a condition that it will never be used. On the other hand, the merely
temporary exclusion of normal marital relations is presumed to mean that the
use, not the right, is excluded in making the contract. These legal presump
tions have to yield to the truth, if the opposite is certainly established, and
the instance which has long been in dispute is the possibility of a valid
matrimonial contract to which is attached a vow of perpetual chastity.
Provided the notions of marriage and virginity are accurately defined, it
can be shown that marriage with a condition to preserve perpetual chastity
is a true marriage.1
It is possible, therefore, to revalidate the above marriage. Since it is
proposed to marry with a condition, the Ordinary should be informed of this
circumstance when application is being made for the dispensation; and
Bertha should be instructed that she will be conceding marriage rights, when
her marriage is revalidated, but withholding their use until, at least, she
reaches an age when further child-bearing is impossible.
7
273.—Divorce and Marriage Consent
To what extent is the validity of marriage affected in the case of non-Catbolics,
whose religions convictions may be quite definite that the divorce of a Christian marriage
is permittedfrom Matthew xix, 9 ?
1 Cf. Ford, The Validity of Virginal Marriage.
3o3
MARRIAGE IMPEDIMENTS
q.
274
From canon 1084 it is clear that a simple error concerning one of the
essential properties of marriage docs not invalidate the consent, even when
the contract would never have been made except for this error, i.e., even in
the case of a Protestant who feels so strongly on the subject, that he would
under no circumstances marry except for his conviction that the marriage
can, in certain contingencies, be dissolved. Inasmuch as consent at the
moment of making the contract effects the marriage sacrament—matrimonium
facit consensus—the Church considers only what a person intended to do at
that moment. For the consent to be judged invalid by an ecclesiastical
court, the evidence offered must prove that at the time the contract was made
there was a positive act of the will excluding its indissolubility. This defect
is, indeed, more easily proved if it can be shown to exist from the words of
the marriage rite, or from a previous agreement entered upon by the parties,
or even by an express condition made only by one party; but a positive act
of the will excluding this essential property of marriage alone suffices,
though it is difficult to prove.
The law is well stated in a Rota judgement1: “Cum simplex error circa
matrimoni indissolubilitatem, etsi dat causam contractui, consensum
matrimonialem non vitiet, valide matrimonium contrahunt, nisi aliud obsit,
protestantes aliique qui falso putant matrimonii vinculum solvi posse.
Praevalet scilicet generalis voluntas de matrimonio iuxta divinam institu
tionem ineundo, eaque privatum illum errorem quodammodo absorbet.
... Si vero alterutra vel utraque pars positivo voluntatis actu excludat
matrimonii indissolubilitatem, invalide contrahit. Cum enim vel unus c
contrahentibus intentionem habeat huiusmodi: ‘volo contrahere matri
monium, sed nolo tradere alteri parti ius perpetuum’, positivo voluntatis
actu indissolubilitatem, quae est ex essentialibus proprietatibus matrimonii,
excludens, ipse positive vult matrimonium, et simul positive non vult, ita
ut duo contrarii positivi actus mutuo se elidant, vel posterior, utpote speci
ficus, priorem destruat.”
Accordingly, the answer to the above question, as it stands, is that the
validity of the contract is not affected by a non-Catholic’s religious beliefs.
The point to be examined is whether these errors positively affected the
consent at the time it was made.
274.—Safe Period and Marriage Consent
Is there a valid marriage consent when the parties agree to limit their marital
right to the safe period ?
Canon 1081, §2: Consensus matrimonialis cstactus voluntatis quo utraque
pars tradit ct acceptat ius in corpus, perpetuum et exclusivum, in ordine ad
actus per sc aptos ad prolis generationem.
Canon 1086, §2: At si alterutra vel utraque pars positivo voluntatis
actu excludit matrimonium ipsum, aut omne ius ad coniugalcm actum, vel
essentialem aliquam matrimonii proprietatem, invalide contrahit.
Decisiones 5\R. Rotae, XVI, p. 108; coram Chimcnti, 14 March, 1924,
n. 2: Ita in Codice (canon 1086, §2), simulatio huiusmodi partialis aequiparatur totali ad effectum nullitatis matrimonii. ... Ut patet, verba
1 Derisiones, XVI, p. 64; coram Maximo Massimi.
d.i-jt
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
3O4
Gasparri probe conveniunt cum citato canone. Apud Gasparri: “Si con
trahens excludit vel limitat (iuris coeundi) ordinationem ad prolem, vcl
perpetuitatem, vel unitatem”; et in Codice: “Si pars excludit omne ius ad
coniugalem actum” aequivalet formulae “excludit vel limitat (iuris coeundi)
ordinationem ad copulam”. Habetur igitur nullitas matrimonii, si quis non
concedit omne ius ad coniugalem actum, sed hoc ius limitat. . . .
n. 3: Revera, ut dictum est, simulatione partiali invalide contrahit non
tantum qui excludit, sed etiam qui limitat matrimoniale ius. (Cf. Lehmkuhl,
Theol. Moralis, II, n. 680.) Quod ceteroquin ipsa sententia appellata concedit
cum dicit: “Non est dubium quin et huiusmodi propositum per se valet
coniugii vires dispendere, si ipsum ius fuerit plane subductum ad rectum
usum coniugalis actus, tempore quo proles excluditur; propositum enim, his
in adiunctis, circumscriberet ius matrimoniale perpetuo concedendum.
The publicity given, in recent years, to the new computation of the safe
period, has introduced a doubt whether the intention of restricting inter
course to those times which arc not favourable to conception is such as to
invalidate matrimonial consent. If the new discovery enters to any extent
into the marriage relations of Catholics, which may be doubted, it will usually
be on the part of people who have married without any reference to perio
dical abstention. Or, if the idea of limiting conjugal intercourse in this way
has preceded marriage, the parties will usually have made the contract with
the general intention of entering upon matrimony as the Church under
stands it, in which case this intention will prevail over any other imperfectly
formulated ideas. But it is quite otherwise if, by a positive act of the will,
consent is given with definite limitations to the right of intercourse at certain
times, especially if this is made a condition sine qua non or if it is reduced to an
explicit agreement. There is room for doubting the validity of a marriage
so contracted, and the doubt can be removed only by applying the principles
which govern any intention contra bonum prolis.
Those authors who have given their attention to this subject all agree
on the principle that an intention excluding the fertile period invalidates the
consent, if the right itself is excluded.
Noldin: “Qui contrahunt sub condicione nonnisi diebus infecunditatis
congrediendi, invalide contrahunt, si excludere volunt ipsum ius continuum
in corpus coniugis, similiter ac si solum pro aliquot annis tradere vellent
ius in corpus. Si autem volunt continuum ius tradere et mere non uti
quibusdam temporibus, valide contrahunt.”*
1
Salsmans: “In dies autem magis concordes sunt auctores affirmantes
matrimonium invalidum si sponsi stricte voluerint restringere ius matri
moniale ad dies infecundos.”2
Vermecrsch: “Si alteruter coniugum aut uterque ita matrimonium con
trahere voluerit ut ius ad copulam non daretur nisi tempore ageneseos,
fecerint matrimonium nullum. Substantiale enim est ut uterque coniux ex
contractu hauriat ius perpetuum et continuum ad copulam. Conventio
autem qua, illaeso jure essentiali, usum limitarint ad tempus sterilitatis cum
vera matrimonii natura stare potest.”3
Mancini: “Vel enim restrictio illa in ipsam contractus substantiam transit,
et tunc deficit in contractu consensus qui vere matrimonialis sit, scilicet
1 Tbtol. Moralis, III, §631.
1 E.T.L., 1934, p. 568.
• Periodica, 1934, p. 241.
joy
MARRIAGE IMPEDIMENTS
q.
275
‘actus voluntatis quo utraquc pars tradit et acceptat ius in corpus perpetuum’
(can. 1081, §2); illa igitur limitatione temporis ligatum sub hac ratione in
validum esset matrimonium etiamsi restrictio non fuerit ad dies infoecundos;
Vel restrictio est ad modum contractus vel pacti contractui matrimoniali
adiccti, quoad usum iurium quatenus in potestate relictum voluntatis, quod
consensus matrimonialis valorem haud infirmat.”1
There can be no doubt whatever about the principle that the positive ex
clusion of the right to intercourse, even temporarily, invalidates the consent.
The principle is an integral part of our matrimonial jurisprudence and has
been formulated repeatedly in official judgements. It is perfectly possible,
in these days, when anyone may study the theory of the safe period from
books and pamphlets, for a person deliberately to exclude not only the use
of marriage but the right itself during stated periods. The practical difficulty
is how to discern whether this has actually been done in a given case, since
parties getting married are either ignorant of this legal distinction between
jus and usus, or are incapable of appreciating its force. Presumptions arc
useful and all the presumptions favour the validity of consent, namely that
the parties excluded only the use of marriage.
Nevertheless, every praesumptio iuris is accompanied by the qualification:
“nisi aliud constet”. We think that in nearly every case the presumption
will hold because there will be no indications to the contrary’ forthcoming.
It will be found that the safe period intention, condition or pact, is attached
to the use of the rights contracted not to the rights themselves. The truth
of this statement is deduced from the very’ special type of temporary ex
clusion exemplified in a safe period intention. In all the published cases,
examined by the present writer, in which temporary exclusion of intercourse
enters, the exclusion refers to a continuous period, e.g. for the first years
of the marriage, and it is easy to see that the right itself could be excluded
during this period. As the parties conceive their contract, they do not
consider themselves as fully and properly married, i.c. as possessing the
rights and obligations of marriage, during these years. But it would be
extremely odd for any normal person to regard himself as properly married
only for certain days in each month! This is really what would be implied,
if matrimonial consent is partially simulated by restricting the deliverance
and acceptance of marriage rights and obligations to the infertile periods.
An exclusion of right can easily be imagined for a temporary continuous
period, but it is difficult to imagine it in the case of the monthly safe period.
It is difficult but not impossible, for the presumptions hold “nisi aliud con
stet”. In days when all kinds of fantastic ideas about marriage are current,
matrimonial consent could be so limited by a safe period intention as to
exclude during certain times the rights which belong to marriage. Not
easily, indeed, but quite possibly, the result would then be an invalid
marriage.
275.—Ignorance of Natural Law Ixîpediment
Noldin, “Theol. Moralis,” III, §607, states: “Si impedimentum indispensabile
est (e.g. ligaminis), matrimonium omitti debet, quidquid incommodi ex omissione
1 Pa/aeestro dei Clero, 195 J, p. 71.
Τ’"
q.
275
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
}o6
sequatur, nisi adiuncta sint eiusmodi, tit impedimentum nupturientibus sine gravissimo
incommodo tertii revelari non possit.” How is the lawfulness of this to be explained,
particularly the lawfulness of the priest's assistance ?
»1
1.1
’’J
■ 'J
kW
UV!
(i) It used to be discussed before the Code, and still is to some extent,
whether ignorance exempted one from the incidence of an impediment juris
ecclesiastici, and whether the same ceased in grave necessity from epikeia.
Canon 16, §1, has settled the point of ignorance as regards diriment im
pediments in favour of the law, and canons 1043-1045 have to a large extent
provided for necessitous cases. Cf. Cappello, De Matrimonio, §§198,
199; Payen, De Matrimonio, §§ 566, 567.
(ii) When the impediment is of the natural law, as ligamen (the bond of a
previous marriage), it is certain that it cannot be dispensed and that no kind
of ignorance or necessity can ever make the marriage canonically valid. If
a case occurs, as Noldin contemplates, the solution must be sought, not in
canonical principles, but in theological ones which are applicable to the
internal forum of conscience alone, and doubtful cases will be solved with
the aid of probabilism. It is from this latter angle that Noldin is viewing the
case. It means that a judgement is formed that the parties are to be left in
good faith, if all the conditions for such are present, about the invalidity of
their marriage; and when it is a question, indeed, of applying this principle
to a putative marriage already contracted, there is no particular difficulty.
It is the solution which Tennyson adopts for his hero in Enoch Arden, and
the common example cited by theological writers in explaining the principle
of leaving people in good faith.
(iii) For the assisting priest in a similar case, when the marriage is not
yet contracted, the difficulty is greater, because he is not ignorant of the
invalidity of the marriage which is being attempted. If time permits, he
will have recourse to the Ordinary, but, if this cannot be done, there are
sufficient reasons, we think, justifying his assistance. He may certainly do
so when his knowledge has been obtained from the confessional, and the
reasons which justify his action in this extreme case of necessity may also
be invoked in other contingencies. For he is not himself administering an
invalid sacrament but merely co-operating by his assistance; it is for this
reason that a priest is not absolutely forbidden to assist at the marriages of
public sinners, as in canons 1065, 1066. In the case Noldin mentions the
parties are not formal sinners, being excused by ignorance; they are persons
requiring the priest’s assistance as part of a legal form which, in their case,
is absolutely invalid. If a priest may give this assistance to persons who arc
public sinners, there seems no reason why he should not do so in favour
of persons invalidly contracting marriage, provided that there arc justifying
causes of the gravest kind.
The point, raised by Noldin in his section on dispensing impediments,
is usually discussed by the writers when explaining the causes which excuse
one from revealing impediments. Cf. Cappello, op. cit., §179; Gougnard,
De Matrimonio, p. 109; De Smet, De Matrimonio, §67; Payen, De Matrimonio,
§480.
3°7
MARRIAGE IMPEDIMENTS
Q. 276
276.—Non-Catholics and Impediments
At a recent clericalgathering, a parish priest stated that be was instructing a con
vert who had married her first cousin—also a non-Catholic—in a register office, and he
asked the opinion of those present as to what ought to be done about the marriage.
“A” thought that the marriage was invalid on account of the impediment of con
sanguinity. He was contradicted by “B” who ventured to assert that non-Catholics
are not bound by matrimonial impediments of ecclesiastical origin. “C”, submitting
that only baptised persons, whether Catholics or not, were bound by such impediments,
was of the opinion that in this case the marriage was to be presumed validfrom canon
1014, on account of the doubtful baptism of both the Protestant parties. What is
the true solution of this case ?
The solution depends on the validity of the previous baptisms.
(i) All validly baptised non-Catholics are bound by the laws of the
Church unless they are expressly excluded, as they are, for example, with
regard to disparity of worship.1 Whatever may have been the law in earlier
times, it is now certain that all baptized non-Catholics are so bound. It is
not explicitly stated in the Code, but it is there implicitly in such canons as
1099 or 1070. It may also be deduced from clauses in various pagellae of
faculties permitting Ordinaries to dispense from certain impediments at the
reception of converts.2 In the above case, B’s solution is incorrect. “Id
certissimum est, ac illi A.A. catholici qui de hoc dubitant, nesciunt quid
dicant.”3
(ii) The unbaptfcçed arc indirectly bound by the matrimonial impediments
when they contract marriage with a baptized person. When contracting
marriage with another unbaptized person they are not bound by those im
pediments which are of purely ecclesiastical law; this is deduced from canon
1038, §2, which declares the right, inherent in the supreme authority of
the Church, to establish impediments for the baptized. In §1 the canon
states that it belongs to the same authority to declare authentically the
impediments which are of divine law. The unbaptized, therefore, are
bound by those impediments which are declared by the Church to be of
divine law, whether natural or positive, for example, ligamen and impotence.
The impediment of consanguinity between cousins is certainly ecclesiastical
not natural law. “Matrimonium in secundo et tertio gradu lineae trans
versae est certe validum, nisi lex civilis illud irritet, quia infideles consti
tutionibus canonicis non arctantur. . . ,”4* The Holy Office, in a reply
dated 18 December, 1872, directed that those converts were not to be dis
turbed who had contracted marriage before baptism within the forbidden
degrees.
(iii) The doubtfully baptised. The Code has introduced a new presumption
for deciding the validity of marriages already contracted by doubtfully
baptized persons.8 Under the Code, that is to say from 19 May, 1918, the
presumption favours the validity of the marriage. Assuming that the
1 Canon 1070.
* Cf. Cappello, De Matrimonio, §66
■ Gaspard, De Matrimonio, §257.
4 Ibid., §711.
• Cf. Q. 293.
q.
277
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
}o8
marriage ia the above case had been contracted since this date, it is to be
regarded as valid. “Saltem si agitur de matrimonio contracto communior
sententia tenet, in jure ecclesiastico post Codicem in dubio de baptismo non
amplius vigere praesumptionem de valore baptismi, sed unice extare prae
sumptionem de valore matrimonii.”1 It is, however, a presumption which
must yield to the truth. In order to meet the possible contingency of the
baptism of one of the parties being established as valid at some later date,
it is advisable ad cautelam, but not strictly necessary, to revalidate the
marriage at the time the convert is received into the Church.
TH.—The Unbaptized
and
Impediments
Is it witbin the competence of the State to institute diriment impediments for the
marriages of unbaptiyed persons, for example, by declaring marriage between an un·
baptised subject of the State and a Jew to be invalid ?
»
hill
*
M·!
bi
In Q. 312 (i) a similar point is discussed, namely the power of the State
to impose a certain form to be observed, under pain of invalidity, whenever
unbaptized persons contract marriage amongst themselves. It is shown
that the Church fully recognizes this power as lawful and necessary.
In principle the same must be said of diriment impediments in general,
provided these positive laws are reasonable and not opposed to the natural
law. Gougnard in De Matrimonio, pp. 597-406, briefly summarizes the
conclusions of modern Catholic writers regarding the power of the State
over the marriages of all its subjects in three propositions:
(i) Prorsus reiiciendae sunt theoriae quae societati seu principi civili
tribuunt potestatem circa valorem matrimonii fidelium.
(ii) Potestas auctoritatis civilis quoad matrimonia fidelium reducitur ad
effectus qui vocantur mere civiles.
(iii) Auctoritas seu princeps civilis habet exclusivam potestatem re
gendi matrimonia subditorum infidelium.
The attitude of the Holy See and of canonists concerning this last pro
position is evident in a number of documents giving instructions, or solving
doubts, in cases which have come indirectly under the authority of the
Church owing to the subsequent marriage of the parties with baptized
persons; a judgement on the validity of marriage contracted in infidelity is
often necessary. The clearest of these instructions is that quoted in Q. 312,
which is given by most of the canonists writing on the subject, and the only
doubts that can arise are on the individual applications of the principle
given under (iii) by Gougnard; it may often transpire that the civil impedi
ment is against the natural law or, what amounts to the same thing, is un
reasonable. Thus, Cappello quotes an answer given by Propaganda in 1674
declaring, amongst other things, that “loquacity” in a woman was not a
diriment impediment to marriage, notwithstanding the belief of Confucius
that it was?
In applying the principle to a civil law declaring marriage between an
unbaptized subject and a Jew to be invalid, we have the authority of St.
Thomas for our guidance. In discussing the marriage of infidels in his
1 Periodica,. 1936, p. 153.
1 De Matrimonio, §76.5.
5o9
MARRIAGE IMPEDIMENTS
Q. 278
Commentary on the Sentences he puts the objection, on analogy with the canoni
cal impediment of disparity of worship, that a gentile cannot marry a Jew
because their worship is different. The answer is instructive, since the
point is admitted provided the positive law of the State has so determined:
“Ad tertium dicendum, quod inter fideles est matrimonium, ut dictum est,
prout matrimonium est in officium naturae. Ea autem quae pertinent ad
legem naturae, sunt determinabilia per ius positivum; et ideo si prohibentur
ab aliquo iure positivo apud cos infideles contrahere matrimonium cum
infidelibus alterius ritus, disparitas cultus impedit matrimonium inter eos.”1
The use of the words “prohibentur” and “impedit” in this text does not
imply that St. Thomas merely concedes to the State the power to institute
what the canonists call “prohibiting impediments”. He is not here con
cerned with the distinction between diriment and prohibiting impediments;
moreover, it is not strictly relevant to the point at issue which is wholly
concerned with the State’s power over marriage in general.2
By decrees dated 15 September, 1935, and 14 November, 1935, the Nazi
government in Germany forbade marriages between Aryans and Jews under
pain of nullity.3 The law affects, of course, all Germans irrespective of their
religion, and as such we must regard it as an invalid and bad enactment,
since it pretends to determine the validity of the marriages of Christians,
which is the province of the Church alone. Whether a law of this kind, if
restricted to the unbaptized, may be regarded as valid on the principles we
have been discussing, raises an interesting point. All human actions must
be judged according to their circumstances, and this Nazi law is merely one
practical consequence of a theory of racialism which the Holy See and
Catholic theologians condemn. We have not seen the question discussed,
but it appears to us that the circumstances of this law are such that it should
properly be regarded as invalid, even if it were wholly restricted to the un
baptized. The question may be settled at some future date when an ecclesias
tical court is called upon to decide a marriage cause, which turns upon the
validity or invalidity of a marriage contracted by two unbaptized Germans
in defiance of the Nazi law.
Apart however from the present circumstances, and supposing that the
law is judged to be necessary for the peace and welfare of the communit}’,
it must follow from the doctrine outlined above that the State is not exceeding
its powers in declaring marriages of its unbaptized subjects with Jews to be
invalid.
278.—Ligamen: Presumed Death
An airman, missing for threeyears, is presumed by the Ministry to be dead, since
his aeroplane was known to have been shot down·, his wife is receiving the pension payable
in such cases. Are these facts sufficient canonical prooffor requesting the Ordinary's
permission for the woman to marry again ?
S.OJf., 13 May, 1868; Fontes, n. 1002: . . . probatio obitus ex coniecturis,
praesumptionibus, indiciis et adiunctis quibuscunque, sedula certe et
1IV Dist, XXXIX, q. 1, art. z, ad 3; Panna, VII, p. iozj.
* Cf. Cappello, De Matrimonio, §79 ad finem.
» Apollinaris, 1936, p. 188; Jus Pontificium, 1936, p. j.
q.
r>
h
1 f
»
* w
I*
hit
hW
if
*78
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
310
admodum cauta investigatione curanda erit, ita nimirum ut pluribus hinc
inde collectis, eorumque natura perpensa, prout scilicet urgentiora vel
leviora sunt, seu propriore vel remotiore nexu cum veritate mortis coniunguntur, inde prudentis viri iudicium ad eamdem mortem affirmandam
probabilitate maxima, seu morali certitudine, promoveri potest.
20 July, 1898: Dummodo agatur de viris qui certo adstiterunt pugnae
de Adua, et peractis opportunis investigationibus, indubitanter dignosci
nequeat, an vir reapse mortuus ceciderit, attentis specialibus circum
stantiis in casu exposito occurrentibus, et valida praesumptione obitus,
Ordinarius permittere poterit transitum ad alias nuptias.1
28 June, 1865, Fozr/fj·, n. 984: Utrum provisiones legis civilis de
absentibus coniugibus, locum certitudinis moralis de eorum morte tenere
possint, ac consequenter utrum derelicti coniuges, perfectis et impletis istis
provisionibus, aliud matrimonium legitime contrahere valeant? Rw/.
luxta expositum Negative, et expendendos esse casus particulares. . . .
The highest kind of probability, approximating to moral certainty, is
required in establishing a presumed death, because the impediment is one of
divine law. The Instruction of 1868 is the locus classicus on the subject and is
still referred to by the Congregation of tbe Sacraments in deciding cases sent
to Rome; an English version of the document maybe seen in Leeds Synods,
1911, p. 102. The decision given in 1898, after the Italian military dis
aster at Adowa, is also frequently cited. The force of Fontes, n. 984, is to re
assert the accepted rule that a civil act is not the same as canonical proof;
but it is agreed that it is corroborative proof, and it may be cited, at least, as
evidence of “common report of death” referred to in n. 8 of the 1868
Instruction; similarly, as in n. 7, the fact that an insurance company has
accepted its liability can be used as an indication arguing the fact of a person’s
death.
The chief objection to be answered in all cases of “missing, presumed
dead” during a war, is the possibility that the person is a prisoner, either
unidentified, or unable to communicate with his relatives and friends;
absolute certainty will probably be unobtainable until some little time after
the end of the war. Absolute certainty is, however, not required, as is
evident from the above texts, but all the information which can possibly
be obtained should be forwarded to the Ordinary; for example, whether the
whole crew of the aeroplane is believed to have perished; if some were
saved, whether every enquiry has been made, without result, through the
\ratican, the Red Cross or other agencies; whether the former marriage was
happy; whether there is any suspicion that the man was unwilling to return
to his wife.
The decision is left to the prudent judgement of the Ordinary who, if not
satisfied, may refer the case to the Holy See; if he refuses the petition alto
gether, the woman may herself appeal to the Holy Sec. We think, there
fore, that a correct answer to the above question is that a petition may
properly be addressed to the Ordinary, in cases where the Ministry presumes
death, provided some additional indications are given, or—what amounts to
much the same thing—provided the reasons on which the Ministry has come
to a decision are also given in each case as fully as possible.
It is, of course, quite certain that, before a second marriage, these rases
Quoted by Cappello, Dt Matrimonio, §400.
511
MARRIAGE IMPEDIMENTS
qq.
279, 280
must be referred by the parish priest to the Ordinary’s judgement.
canons 1019, §1; 1097, §1.1; 1031, §1.3.
C£
279.—Ligamen and Civil Divorce
A Catholic woman, validly married to a convert, on being deserted by him obtained
a civil divorce, thereby causing considerable scandal in the district. There is no
likelihood of her returning to her husband, who is known to be living with another
woman. She understands, of course, that she may not marry again whilst her busband
is living. May she be admitted to the sacraments ?
Civil divorce was regarded by Cardinal Gasparri and others as intrin
sically evil, and therefore never to be permitted for any reason. In more
recent times the theory favoured by most theologians and canonists is that,
for extremely grave reasons, civil divorce may sometimes be permitted,
since it may be regarded as a disruption merely of the civil effects of marri
age, and therefore not intrinsically evil; the bond of marriage remains, and,
though in the eyes of the State legally free, neither of the parties is able
to contract a fresh marriage.
It is attended, nevertheless, by so many evils (not the least being the
scandal caused to the body of the faithful who do not, or cannot, appre
ciate the exact point at issue) that it is gravely wrong to petition for a civil
divorce unless permission is first obtained from the Ordinary, who alone
is competent to decide whether the reasons justify it. This doctrine,
deduced from certain directions of the Holy See, is expressed in Decretum
81 of the IVtb Provincial Council of Malines, 1920 as follows: “Inde sequitur
gravis piaculi reatum incurrere coniuges catholicos qui, stante matrimonio
coram Ecclesia valido, sine urgentissima et gravissima causa, ab Ordinario
cognoscenda, divortium civile qua actores sollicitare non dubitant.” This
was modified in the Vth Council, 1937, Decretum 53, and now reads: “Sed
gravis piaculi periculum incurrunt si divortium civile plenum sollicitare
non dubitant.” The reason for the slight change appears to be that a civil
law of 1927 provided by “separation” all the civil advantages which formerly
could only have been enjoyed by “divorce”. The principle, however,
remains intact, and an Ordinary may permit a petition for a civil divorce,
when the rights of “separation” due to the innocent party cannot otherwise
be obtained, or for any other grave reason.
The Catholic woman in the above case must, in our view, obtain the
Ordinary’s sanction, which should have been sought before she instituted
proceedings for divorce. Having obtained it, the scandal can be removed
by explaining exactly what her present condition is: it is the condition,
namely, of one who is lawfully separated but enjoying no right to marry
whilst her husband is alive. She may then be admitted to the sacraments,
it being assumed that she repents of her action and of the scandal caused.
Cf. Collationes Brugenses, 1931, p. 372.
280.—Crimen: Promise of Marriage
Since, Jrom canon 1017, the promise of marriage lacks all juridical effect unless
it is drawn up in canonicalform, does it not follow that tbe impediment of crimen does
not arise unless the promise of marriage is exactly as described in canon 1017 ?
I
q.
28o
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
ju
Canon 1017, §1: Matrimonii promissio sive unilateralis, sive bilateralis,
irrita est pro utroque foro, nisi facta fuerit per scripturam subsignatam a
partibus et vel a parocho aut loci Ordinario, vel a duobus saltem testibus.
Canon 1075.1 : Valide contrahere nequeunt matrimonium : Qui perdurante
eodem legitimo matrimonio, adulterium inter se consummarunt et fidem
sibi mutuo dederunt de matrimonio ineundo vel ipsum matrimonium, etiam
per civilem tantum actum, attentarunt.
The necessity of a canonical form1 for a valid promise of marriage did not
arise till Ne Temere, 19 April, 1908, and the legislation of that decree is
contained in canon 1017, §1. Consequently, the doubt we are asked to
solve could only have arisen since Ne Temere, but it was not, it appears,
till Boudinhon wrote on the subject in Jus Pontificium, 1951, p. 56, that
any canonist adverted to the point. He defended the view that for the
impediment of canon 1075.1 it is necessary to have a formal engagement
to marry, or the attempt at such, as described in canon 1017, §1. His
argument is that a private, informal marriage contract—such as was recog
nized to be valid before the Tridentine Tametsi decree—is insufficient for
the impediment of crimen in the latter part of canon 107 5.1 : there is required
at least the attempt to make a formal contract, be it merely a civil one.
Similarly an informal promise of marriage—recognized as valid before
Ne Temere—must now be reckoned insufficient for the impediment of
crimen which arises from a promise: there is required an attempt, at least,
to enter upon a formal betrothment as described in canon 1017, §1. Before
the Council of Trent no form was necessary for consent whether de praesenti
(marriage) or de futuro (betrothment). A canonical form for marriage was
introduced by Tametsi, and for betrothment by Ne Temere', therefore, since
Ne Temere, the impediment of crimen is not constituted by a private informal
engagement to marry.
There are obvious difficulties against this view, but we have not found
any writer who discusses them adequately: the criticism of Boudinhon
in Periodica, 1932, p. 237, does not, we think, fairly meet the historical
argument. What we have found is that every canonist, whether aware or
not of Boudinhon’s point, simply takes it for granted that by “fidem sibi
mutuo dederunt” in canon 1075.i is not meant exclusively “per scripturam
subsignatam, etc.,” as in canon 1017, §1. The most authoritative of these
commentators is Gasparri, writing the year after Boudinhon, in De Matri
monio, I, §674, f. He does not mention him by name but he could hardly
be unaware of the view propounded by a colleague, which he expressly
rejects: “Tandem ad impedimentum inducendum sufficit privata matri
monii promissio et non requiritur sponsalitia ad normam can. 1017. . . .”
Similarly, Chrétien, De Matrimonio (1937), §168 : “. . . nec necesse est, ut
singulariter opinatur Boudinhon, fidem intclligi de sponsalibus.” Cf. also,
Vermeersch-Creuscn, Epitome (1934), §351; Cappello: De Matrimonio (1939),
§482: “opinio quae tenet . . . requiri promissionem factam ad normam
can. 1017 iuridico fundamento destituitur”.
The manualists, generally speaking, are of the same mind, but occa
sionally they express it with far less assurance than some of the above
writers, e.g. Noldin, TheoK Moralis, III, §581 : “Quaestio, num adsit im
pedimentum, si in promissione non servantur condiciones per decretum
1 Cf. Q. 264.
DISPENSATIONS
313
q.
281
Ne Temere praescriptae, co vel magis affirmanda videtur, quod Codex ad
contrahendum impedimentum non exigat sponsalia sed simplicem pro
missionem matrimonii.”
Faced with so many authorities we have no option but to reject Boudinhon’s interpretation. That the Holy See is accustomed to issue dispen
sations from this impediment, even when the promise of marriage is private
and informal, is a strong point against it; but we cannot see any great value
in the objection that, if Boudinhon is correct, the first degree of the impedi
ment would practically vanish from the list. This, it would seem, is rather
a point in its favour. The history of impediments records their gradual
reduction from the Council of Trent onwards, and seeing that the Con
gregation of the Sacraments has recently lamented the number of invalid
marriages arising from occult impediments being undetected,1 it would be a
step in the right direction if the first degree of crimen, always difficult to
detect and usually quite unsuspected by the parties themselves, could
be reduced by adopting a stricter interpretation of the law, as Boudinhon
suggests.
§3. DISPENSATIONS
281.—Implied Dispensation From Crimen
A woman divorced from her first busband and civilly united to a second has
obtained a certificate offreedom to marry the second, owing to the presumed death of
the first during the war. What, if anything, should be done about the impediment of
crimen in the case ?
Canon 1053: Data a Sancta Sede dispensatio super matrimonio rato et
non consummato vel facta permissio transitus ad alias nuptias ob prae
sumptam coniugis mortem, secumfert semper dispensationem ab impedi
mento Drovcniente ex adulterio cum promissione vel attentatione matri
monii, si qua opus sit, minime vero ab impedimento de quo in can. 1075,
nn. 2, 3.
(i) If the certificate of freedom was obtained from the Holy See, as is
often necessary when the death of a former partner cannot be established to
the satisfaction of the local Ordinary, it is certain from the above canon that
a dispensation from the first degree of crimen, not, however, from the other
two graver degrees, is thereby implied. It is one of the few implied dis
pensations remaining in the law of the Code. The dispensations formerly
implied in a dispensation from disparity of worship have now certainly
ceased.
(ii) But a certificate of freedom obtained from the local Ordinary does
not include a dispensation from the first degree of crimen. This may not
be quite clear from the wording of canon 1053, but it is certainly so in the
decree S.C. Sacram., 3 June, 1912, on which this canon is based; the text is
in A.A.S., IV, 1912, p. 403, and in Fontes, n. 2106. Cf. Payen, De Matri
monio, §§717 & 724; Gougnard, De Matrimonio, p. 463. Unless the local
Ordinary expressly dispenses the impediment of crimen, either from his
1 29 June, 1941, n. 5.
QQ. 282,283
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
μ4
delegated faculties or from the powers he may possess in canon 1045, the
second marriage is invalid and must be revalidated servatis servandis like any
other.
282.—Untrue Canonical Cause
A priest when applying for a dispensation front mixed religion gives “peri
culum matrimonii civilis” as the canonical cause. What should he do if he discovers,
either before or after the marriage, that this alleged reason is certainly untrue ?
Canon 1054: Dispensatio a minore impedimento concessa, nullo sive
obreptionis sive subreptionis vitio irritatur, etsi unica causa finalis in preci
bus exposita falsa fuerit. (Mixed religion is not in the list of minor impedi
ments in canon 1042, §2.)
Canon 1061, §1 : Ecclesia super impedimento mixtae religionis non
dispensat, nisi: i. urgeant iustae ac graves causae. . . .
(i) The question can be answered only by deciding whether mixed
religion is a minor impediment, about which there is some dispute. Cf.
De Smet, De Matrimonio, §464, 8, n. 4; Cappello, De Matrimonio, §206. It
seems to us quite certain that it is not a minor impediment and is not there
fore subject to the indulgent rule of canon 1054: firstly, because it is notin the
list given in canon 1042, §2; secondly, because a grave cause is required for
its dispensation. The distinction between major and minor impediments
is based entirely on the difficulty of getting them dispensed, and the fact that
mixed religion is merely a prohibiting impediment does not for that reason
place it in the category of those which are minor: we all know that, in many
dioceses, it is not at all easy to get a dispensation.
A further point, well summarized in Jus Pontificium, 1929, p. 238, is that
the distinction between major and minor has no reference to the prohibiting
impediments at all; mixed religion is neither major nor minor, and the
rule, therefore, of canon 1054 is inapplicable. Thus in a decree, S.C.
Consist., 25 April, 1918, certain Ordinaries are given faculties to dispense
specified major impediments, minor impediments and the prohibiting
impediment of mixed religion.
(ii) If the error is detected before the marriage takes place, a fresh
dispensation must be obtained, since the first was invalid; if afterwards,
there can be no question of revalidating the marriage since it is already
valid, but the married condition of the parties is unlawful and this can be
rectified only by dispensation. Assuming that the guarantees are in order,
it would suffice to inform the Ordinary of the circumstances, since a certain
grave cause for dispensation now exists—marriage already contracted.
283.—Periculum Matrimonii Civilis
This is the canonical cause most frequently alleged by the priest applying for a
dispensation. Is it verified when the priest considers that, in the circumstances, it
would be a very grave hardship for the parties to abandon the marriage ?
<
Propaganda, 9 May, 1877, n. 13; Pontes, n. 4890: Periculum matrimonii
civilis. Ex dictis consequitur, probabile periculum quod illi, qui dis-
3i5
DISPENSATIONS
q.
184
pensationem petunt, ea non obtenta, matrimonium dumtaxat civile, ut aiunt,
celebraturi sint, esse legitimam dispensandi causam.
This document, which sets out sixteen causes, is the locus classicus on the
subject. There is a further list of causes which are admitted in practice
by the Holy See and may also, therefore, rightly be called “canonical”.*1
(i) It suffices if the danger of civil marriage is considered to be probable.
The priest from his knowledge of the parties must be able truthfully to
assert that this is so, and it is clearly not permitted him to construe every
case of grave hardship, if the dispensation is refused, as being always
equivalent to the danger of a civil marriage. All cases of refusal entail
severe disappointment and resentment; if, in addition, it is judged that
the parties will take a refusal so badly that they will probably get married
in a register office, the canonical cause is verified. Otherwise it is not, and
there must be many cases in which the danger is improbable, because the
Catholic petitioner is a faithful and loyal member of the Church, who would
never go to the length of contracting a civil marriage. In such cases one or
more of the remaining canonical causes must be cited: “operae pretium
erit imprimis animadvertere, unam aliquando causam seorsim acceptam
insufficientem esse, sed alteri adiunctam sufficientem existimari: nam quae
non prosunt singula, multa iuvant”.2
(ii) Since the quinquennial faculties obtained from the Holy Sec leave
it to the discretion of the Ordinary whether he will use them or not, one
must know his requirements, and local legislation frequently makes more
explicit the kind of cause which must be verified before a dispensation from
mixed religion will be considered. It is true that this impediment is not
diriment of marriage; on the other hand, the faith of the Catholic party or
of the offspring is always endangered to some extent, though made more
remote by the guarantees, and the multiplication of these unions is likely
to result in a general religious laxity; therefore canonical causes which
might suffice for other impediments, even diriment impediments, are not
necessarily held to be adequate in the case of mixed religion.
284.—Angustia Loci
May “ Angustia Loci” be urged as tbe sole canonical cause in a petition for a
dispensation when tbe man whom the petitioner desires to marry is tiring outside of
her district?
Propaganda, 9 May, 1877; Fontes n. 4890, ad 1: Angustia loci sive ab
soluta sive relativa (ratione tantum oratricis), cum scilicet in loco originis
vel etiam domicilii cognatio feminae ita sit propagata, ut alium paris con
ditionis, cui nubat, invenire nequeat nisi consanguineum vel affinem, patriam
vero deserere sit ei durum.
(i) It seems from the concluding words that, in a strict interpretation of
the phrase, one of the conditions for this canonical cause is not verified in
the circumstances of the above case; it would be verified, however, if
angustia loci applies also to the place in which the man is living, in which case
1 Cf. Q. 288.
1 Propaganda, loc. cit»
q.
z8j
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
316
it is more correctly styled angustia locorum. Thus Noldin, Theol. Moralis, III,
§610: “Si locus sponsi idem est vel si alius est, sed pari modo angustus, id
in libello indicari potest . . .” Cf. Payen, De Matrimonio, §740: “Altera
conditio est ut oratrici durum sit patriam deserere. Itaque cessat causa
... si nequaquam durum sit feminae egredi e loco parentum, atque simul
paris conditionis virum extraneum invenerit qui illam petierit.”
(ii) But the list of causes summarized in the document of 1877, and
which most commentators regard as the only ones which are “canonical”,
are often widely interpreted; in addition, other causes not catalogued therein
arc accepted by the Holy See. Accordingly, there is nothing irregular in
mentioning angustia loci as a cause, even though one or other of the circum
stances set out in the above text are lacking. For example, it may be urged
as a cause in seeking dispensation from an impediment other than relation
ship. The point is that the petition is for a favour, and the dispensing
authority may decline to grant it even though all the conditions are verified.
Since angustia loci is not among the graver causes, it is always advisable to
add some others if they can be discovered.
285.—Dispensation Refused
;l
»1
Ml
I
There is a law invalidating the grant of a dispensation by one authority if it has
already been refused by another. (/) Does not a change of circumstances in the
petitioner s condition regularise the grant of a petition by a fkjoman Office which has
already been refused by another ? Does not ignorance of the law create an exception to
the usual rule? (77) Is the situation “mutatis mutandi's'’ the same in regard to a
dispensation sought from one Ordinary after its refusal by another ?
Canon 43: Gratia ab una Sacra Congregatione vel Officio Romanae
Curiae denegata, invalide ab alia Sacra Congregatione vel Officio aut a loci
Ordinario, etsi potestatem habente, conceditur sine assensu Sacrae Con
gregationis vel Officii quocum vel quibuscum agi coeptum fuit, salvo iurc
S. Poenitentiariae pro foro interno.
Canon 44, §1: Nemo gratiam a proprio Ordinario denegatam ab alio
Ordinario petat, nulla facta dencgationis mentione; facta autem mentione,
Ordinarius gratiam non concedat, nisi habitis a priore Ordinario denegationis rationibus.
(i) The situation, as between two Congregations or Offices of the Holy
See, can rarely arise in practice, since the competence of each is now very
carefully determined. It could arise only through error or in cases of doubt
ful competence. Ignorance of the law, even invincible ignorance of a
petitioner in good faith, does not affect the situation. This is clear from
canon 16, §1: “Nulla ignorantia legum irritantium aut inhabilitantium ab
eisdem excusat, nisi aliud expresse dicatur,” and it is applied by the com
mentators to canon 43, e.g. Claeys-Bouuaert, Jus Canonicum, I, p. iij;
“Regula c. 43 est absoluta: gratia sic obtenta est invalida, etiamsi nulla mala
fides interveniat.”
Nor does length of time, as such, affect the issue, though it could easily
happen that, with the passage of time, an entirely different motive or final
cause appears in support of the petition. This is an interesting develop
ment which most of the commentators do not explain, and a good example
3i7
DISPENSATIONS
q.
286
of it occurs in applying canon 1043 (matrimonial dispensations by the Ordi
nary in periculo mortis) to a case which has previously been rejected by the
Holy See. We agree with Van Hove that the circumstances of this canon
create an exception to the rule of canon 43: “Tribuendo Ordinariis facul
tatem dispensandi etiam in iis impedimentis in quibus sola Sancta Sedes
dispensare potest, immo in quibus non solet dispensare, derogatur, propter
supremum bonum ainimarum, regulae de repulsa per Congregationem forte
alio tempore et aliis in adiunctis facta.”1 The reason indicated is the change
of circumstances of such a character as to constitute a new and different
final cause or motive; a further reason, of course, is deduced from the wellknown rules which concede the fullest possible jurisdiction in periculo mortis.
But the difference of final motive, in our view, is the chief element to con
sider, and we can see no reason why the principle cannot be applied to other
different final motives. Berutti, an unusually clear and satisfactory commen
tator, is the only author amongst those we have consulted who points this
out: “Non iam de eadem gratia proprie ageretur si nova causa motiva adsit,
qua rescriptum rationabiliter concedi possit; et idcirco prioris repulsae
denuntiatio necessaria non esset si in casu gratia ab alio superiore competenti
impetrari velit.”2 Canon 43, limiting the exercise of rights, must certainly
be interpreted strictly, according to canon 19, and all the commentators so
interpret it in dealing with some other contingencies not raised in the above
question.
(ii) In the only really important respect the situation as between two
Ordinaries (canon 44) is entirely different. The law prohibits the practice
but not, as in canon 43, under pain of invalidity. Cf. e.g. Berutti, op cit. ;
Van Hove, op. cit., p. 161, and canon 11.
286.—Dispensation Ceasing
Five years ago the parties in a proposed mixed marriage obtained a dispensation.
They afterwards disagreed and the marriage was broken off. Now the breach is
healed and they have married before a civil registrar. In order to revalidate this
marriage, is it necessary to obtain a fresh dispensation from the impediment of mixed
religion ?
(i) The principle about the cessation of dispensations is contained in
canon 86: “Dispensatio quae tractum habet successivum, cessat iisdem
modis quibus privilegium, nec non certa ac totali cessatione causae motivae.”
Canon 76 states: “Per non usum vel per usum contrarium privilegia aliis
haud onerosa non cessant. . . .” These canons refer not to a dispensation
given absolutely and for use once, but to a dispensation, for example, from
fasting owing to ill health, the use of which is recurrent. It ceases when the
motive for its concession ceases, namely when the person is no longer in ill
health. It does not cease by not being used.
Therefore, a dispensation from a marriage impediment granted abso
lutely does not cease to exist even though it is not used, and even though the
motive for its concession is no longer present. The law on this matter has
1 De Rescriptis, 1936, p. 159.
* Institutiones luris Canonici, I, p. 134.
q.
Il
287
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
P8
not been changed by the Code, and many of the earlier authors held that a
marriage dispensation could be used even though another marriage inter
vened: it could be used after the death of the other party in the first
marriage.1 The post-code authors give a similar interpretation, e.g.
Vermccrsch-Creusen, Epitome, I, §205; Noldin, Theol. Moralis, I, §188;
Clacys-Bouuaert, Jus Canonicum, I, §236. Iorio, Theol. Moralis, I, §118,
states: “Dispensatio quae non habet tractum successivum, semel concessa,
nunquam cessat, quamvis cessat motiva ob quam concessa est, etiam ante
usum dispensationis. Ratio est quia quod conceditur absolute, nequit ulla
susbequenti conditione infirmari. Effectus praeterea talis dispensationis est
indivisibilis. Sic dispensatus super impedimento matrimoniali vel irregu
laritate, non iterum afficietur eodem impedimento vel irregularitate, eo
quod forte matrimonium vel ordinatio non habuerit locum.”
(ii) But it must be observed that these authors all speak of a dispensation
conceded absolutely, as most matrimonial impediments would commonly
be. There is this possibility, in applying the interpretation for impediments
in general to a dispensation from mixed religion, namely that the grant
may conceivably be given with the condition that the parties do not marry
coram lege civili before marrying coram ecclesia. Canon 1063 forbids them to
appear before a non-Catholic minister either before or after the marriage
coram ecclesia, and Ordinaries are directed, in their quinquennial faculties,
to warn the parties of this law. Van Hove, citing a dispensation form
issued by the Holy Office, notes that the word “dummodo” is used: “Dum
modo neque ante, neque post matrimonium coram parocho catholico initum
partes adeant ministrum acatholicum.”2 From canon 39 the effect of this
word is to make the acceptance of the condition essential for the validity of
the rescript. It is quite possible, though we can find no example, that an
Ordinary might see fit to issue a dispensation with a “dummodo” clause
relating to civil marriage before the canonical rite. The doubt raised can
be solved only by examining the terms of the original rescript of five years
ago. If it contains no invalidating condition concerning civil marriage, the
interpretation given for impediments in (i) above will apply equally to a
dispensation from the impediment of mixed religion.
287.—Priest Dispensing Impediments
i'
>i2
Ebe law relating to a priest's power of dispensing marriage impediments is
difficult to understand and remember. Cotdd it be set out in the form of a chart ?
It must be remembered that the powers may be used only when the
Ordinary cannot be reached; there is also considerable danger of coming
into conflict with the civil law, if the parties are not already civilly married.
Very few priests, accordingly, have ever used the faculties they possess,
and it will usually be possible to get penitents in danger of death disposed
for receiving the sacraments without rectifying their marriage status. In
any case, a priest should be very sure of his ground before using these
taculties in dispensing marriage impediments, and for this purpose a
1 Ojcttl, Sjnofuis Rerum Moralium, col. 1608; D’Annibale, Tbeol. Moratis, I, §23 j.
• De Reseri bits, p. 12 j.
DISPENSATIONS
319
q.
287
thorough acquaintance with the terms of canons 1043, 1044, 1045, 1046
is required, and it is a necessary preliminary for the right understanding of
the following chart:
Public (3)
Form of
Impedi
Marriage (2) ments (4)
Occult (f)
Impedi
ments (4)
Validfor
External
Forum (5)
A. DANGER OF
DEATH (1) :
Canons 1043, 1044.
Parochus (6) or Dele- 12
3
gate (7)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Undelegatcd Priest (8)
Canon 1098.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Confessor (9)
Yes
Yes (10)
Yes
No
B. URGENT CASES (1):
Canon 1045.
Parochus (6) or Dele
gate (7)
No (11)
No
Yes
Yes
Undelegated Priest (8)
Canon 1098.
No (11)
No
Yes
Yes
Confessor (9)
No (11)
No
Yes
No
%
Explanatory Notes
(1) A priest’s powers, when the Ordinary cannot be reached, are limited
to cases in periculo mortis and to the two urgent cases of canon 1045. Cf.
The Clergy Review, XX, 1941, p. 77; Periodica, 1931, p. 28; Apollinaris,
1928,9.245.
The Ordinary has wider powers in cases of urgency from canon 81.
Cf. Code Commission, 27 July, 1942.
(2) Dispensing from the form of marriage (canon 1094) means dis
pensing from the presence of parish priest, or his equivalent, and two
witnesses
(3) The distinction between a public and an occult impediment, from
canon 1037, turns on whether it is provable in the external forum or not, a
notion confirmed by the Code Commission, 25 June, 1932, ruling that
an impediment is public if the fact from which it arises is public.
But canon 1045, §3, deals with occult “cases”, and does not use the
term “occult impediment”. The Code Commission, 28 December, 1927,
decided accordingly that the faculty may be used for dispensing impedi
ments which are de facto occult even though they are public by nature.
I
__
q.
ri
II
Vs
288
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
J20
Cf. Cappello, De Matrimonio, §237, 2, d.; Jus Pontificium, 1928, p. 36;
Irish Ecclesiastical Record, March 1942, p. 270; Gougnard, De Matrimonio,
p. 586.
Notwithstanding the Code Commission replies, there is still consider
able doubt as to the meaning of “public” and “occult” in certain contin
gencies, and canon 209 must be used.
(4) Impediments of divine or natural law may never, of course, be
dispensed by any human authority. All impediments of ecclesiastical law
may be dispensed except the priesthood and affinity in the direct line arising
from a consummated marriage. If mixed religion is dispensed, the guarantees
must be obtained even in periculo mortis. Cf. Q. 296.
(5) Dispensations granted by a confessor in the sacrament of Penance
have no validity whatever in the external forum, since the details cannot
be recorded in any register. In all other cases the Ordinary must be
informed, and the fact of a dispensation being granted must be entered
either in the ordinary register (canon 1046) or in the special register for
the internal non-sacramental forum (canon 1047).
(6) By “parochus” is meant all the persons mentioned in canon
451, §2·
(7) It may be taken as probable that priests with delegated faculties
for marriages, e.g. the assistant priests of a parish, are also included in
the term “parochus” for the purpose of dispensing impediments. Cf.
Q. 290. If one prefers not to act on this probability, such priests may
function only as confessors, or as the assisting priest of canon 1098 with the
limitations attached.
(8) The priest referred to is any priest whatever who is present at a
marriage contracted before witnesses alone, as explained in canon 1098.
If the conditions for the exercise of his powers are not verified, he may
function only as a confessor.
(9) As confessor the priest’s powers are limited to the internal forum of
Penance. In given circumstances, however, a confessor automatically
becomes the priest of canon 1098.
(10) It is disputed whether in periculo mortis a confessor may dispense
from a public impediment; cf. Apollinaris, 1928, p. 64; Cappello, De Matri
monio, §238; Jus Pontificium, 1928, p. 64; 1929, p. 62. In our view he can,
since it is possible to have a public impediment dispensed for the internal
forum alone, as in canon 1031, §2.2. It is for the penitent to regulate the
matter for the external forum when the danger of death ceases.
(11) The priest’s power of dispensing the form outside of danger of
death is much in dispute. Cf. Apollinaris, 1928, p. 524; Jus Pontificium,
1927, p. 87. In our view he certainly cannot dispense if the lack of form
is publicly known; cf. 1045, §3, “in casibus occultis”. Even if the case is
occult, we think it only slightly probable that this power is enjoyed; for
unlike canon 1043, canon 1045 makes no mention of the form.
288.—“Omnia Parata” a Cause
A canonical cause is required for a dispensation from any marriage impediment.
In the circumstances of canon 1045 may one hold that "omnia parata, etc", alone
suffices as a canonical cause ?
321
DISPENSATIONS
q.
288
Propaganda, 9 May, 1877; Forties, n. 4890: . . . facile quis intclligir,
tanto graviorem causam requiri, quanto gravius est impedimentum.
Idcirco opportunum visum est in praesenti Instructione paucis perstringere
praecipuas illas causas . . . opere pretium erit imprimis animadvertere,
unam aliquando causam seorsim acceptam insufficientem esse, sed alteri
adiunctam sufficientem existimari. . . . There follows in this document the
sixteen causes which all the manuals give as canonical. But from the use
of the word “praecipuas”, and from the general tenor of the instruction, it is
evident that the list is not absolutely complete. Λ second list of causes was
published by the Dataria in 19011 of which some extend or modify the list
of 1877; others are not in the former list and used to be included under the
general formula “ex certis et rationabilibus causis”. In η. 8 of this second
list published in 1901 stands: “si omnia iam parata sunt ad nuptias”.
There results from this double list a certain confusion in the use of the
term “canonical cause”. Some call the first list alone canonical and the
second non-canonical;2 others regard the causes in both lists as canonical;3
others think that some in the second list are to be called canonical others
non-canonical.1 Our view is that if the cause is just and reasonable, and the
Holy See is accustomed to grant dispensations when such cause exists, it
should be called canonical even though it does not appear in the first
list.5
It seems clear to us, therefore, that “omnia parata, etc.”, is a canonical
cause, though this docs not mean that it suffices for dispensing any impedi
ment. Canon 84, §1 : “A lege ecclesiastica ne dispensetur sine iusta et
rationabili causa, habita ratione gravitatis legis a qua dispensatur; alias
dispensatio ab inferiore data illicita et invalida est.” The third degree of
crimen, for example, is rarely dispensed and requires the gravest cause,
which “omnia parata, etc.”, taken by itself is not. The dispensing authority,
however, is presumed to know for what reasons the Holy See is accustomed
to dispense from certain impediments, and it may be held, as a general rule,
that the invalidity of a dispensation on the score of an insufficient cause will
only arise when the cause alleged in a petition is false.
This intricate point does not strictly come within the above question.
Let us assume that the impediment which is being dispensed under canon
1045 is a minor impediment (canons 1042, 1054). “Omnia parata, etc.”,
alone certainly suffices as a cause for dispensation. It could properly be
used when applying to an Ordinary for a dispensation to be granted, cither
from his own quinquennial faculties, or from canon 81, or from canon
1045, §1. If there is no time for recourse to the Ordinary, this cause could
certainly be accepted by a priest using the dispensing powers of canon 1045,
§3; in his case “omnia parata, etc.”, is not only the canonical cause but also
a necessary condition for the valid use of his dispensing powers.
>
XXXIV, p. 34.
1 Gasparri, De Matrimonio, §31.
8 De Sinct, De Matrimonio* §826.
4 Cappello, D: Matrimonio, §268.2.
1 Cf. Ô’.R. Rotae Decisiones, XV11I, p. 167,
Q· *89
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
522
289.—Meaning of “Omnia Parata”
Does the étatisé “omnia parata, etc?', mean that the priest may use his powers
of dispensation only when the impediment is discovered after the parties have arrived
in the church ? Also, may he dispense under this canon when he hasforgotten to apply
to the Ordinary ?
il
» I
U
K7
Canon 1045, §5: In iisdem rerum adiunctis (i.e. quoties impedimentum
detegatur, cum iam omnia sunt parata ad nuptias, nec matrimonium, sine
gravis mali periculo differri possit usque dum . . . dispensatio obtineatur)
eadem facultate gaudeant omnes de quibus in can. 1044 (i.e. tum parochus,
tum sacerdos qui matrimonio ad normam can. 1098, n. 2, assistit, tum
confessarius, sed hic pro foro interno in actu sacramentalis confessionis
tantum) sed solum pro casibus occultis in quibus ne loci quidem Ordinarius
adiri possit, vel nonnisi cum periculo violationis secreti.
(i) We assume that all the other conditions are verified for the valid and
lawful grant of a dispensation by a priest, as formulated in canons 1045-1047
and in the decisions given on dubious points by the Code Commission. It is
a vast subject, as a matter of fact, and most of us, even if we know these
canons by heart, hope that the occasion for applying them may never come
our way.·
The kind of urgency which arises when an impediment is not discovered
until everything is ready for the marriage is verified when the discovery
takes place after the parties have arrived at the church, but it is not restricted
to these circumstances. All cases are included in which there is danger,
even a probable danger, of people suffering grave injury through postponing
an arranged marriage for the time required in seeking a dispensation through
the usual channels. The usual way of obtaining dispensations from the
Ordinary is by letter, not by telephone or telegram, nor by attending
personally upon the Ordinary. Priests may use these extraordinary methods,
if it can be done without endangering a person’s good name, and most
priests would prefer to do so, particularly if they are not feeling too sure
about their knowledge of the law in these canons; but there is no obligation.
Normally a transaction by letter within a diocese takes about two days, but
it might take a week or more under war conditions.
The law is explained in a Rota judgement of 25 May, 1925,1 in which
the parties unsuccessfully sought a decree of nullity on the grounds that a
dispensation from affinity was invalidly given by the Ordinary; its appli
cation to a dispensation given by a priest in similar circumstances is evident.
“Verba autem ‘cum omnia parata sunt ad nuptias’ bifariam intclligi possunt;
vel coarctantur nimirum ad nuptias hic et nunc, paucas post horas, cele
brandas, et hic sensus nullam latitudinem intervalli moraliter patitur; vel
dilatantur ad nuptias post aliquod intervallum temporis celebrandas, v.g. post
duos, post viginti dies, quod utique variari potest pro circumstantiis. Sed
ex contextu liquet intervallum non fixum esse debere sed variabile in casu;
nam celebrandae nuptiae supponuntur absque possibilitate adeundi S. Sedem
pro dispensatione obtinenda, quae possibilitas exclusis telcgrapho et telcphono diversimode profecto dimetienda est pro finitimis Urbi et pro dissitis
1 Duisionu, XVII, p. 199, coram Manucci.
323
DISPENSATIONS
q.
290
Orbis plagis; quin etiam ex §3 eiusdem canonis possibilitas longe diverse
dimetienda opponitur iisdem verbis ‘cum omnia parata sunt ad nuptias’
nempe adeundi Ordinarium. Fieri itaque non potest quod in novo iure
locutio illa servet univocum inflexibilemque valorem quem habet in sacris
Litteris (Matt, xxii, 4). . . . Quod denique spectat probabile periculum
gravis mali cum dilatatione coniuncti, res, ut patet, remittitur aestimanda
arbitrio Ordinarii, dummodo ratione regatur, quod praesumitur. Non
sufficit quidem mera possibilitas, sed nec requiritur certitudo futuri periculi;
agitur enim dc sola praevisionc, nam probabile dicitur periculum si iuxta
humanam praevisionem imminere timetur.”
The law, therefore, is not to be restricted to the case where the wedding
party has arrived at the church, and cannot be dismissed without causing
grave vexation to everyone. It includes other contingencies occurring on
the eve of the marriage.
(ii) The faculties conceded by the common law may be used only in
occult cases, when the Ordinary cannot be reached, and if an impediment is
discovered when everything is ready for a marriage which cannot be delayed
without grave harm. The definition of what is meant by occult in this
connexion is a well-known difficulty, but it does not come within the terms
of this question. Assuming that it is an impediment which can be dispensed
in these circumstances, the doubt arises from the clause: “in quibus (casibus)
ne loci quidem Ordinarius adiri possit”, since the Ordinary could have been
reached except for the negligence of the priest.
We think that the faculties can be used, for they arc meant to be applied
in every case of grave and urgent necessity occurring when everything is
ready for a marriage. All the priest need do is to decide whether he would
use these faculties if the impediment had only just come to his notice,
irrespective of the fact that the urgency is due to his own forgetfulness.
This is the solution given in Periodica, 1953, p. 43, and even if it appears to
be somewhat doubtful, canon 209 can be used for the necessary jurisdiction.
290.—Canon 1043: Qualified Priest
Λ parish priest may, in certain contingencies, dispense from occult impediments,
when there is not time to have recourse to the Ordinary. Is it a correct interpretation
of the law that not only the parish priest may dispense, as canon 1045, §3, compared
with canon 1044 expressly states, but also the curate or any priest who enjoys delegation
for marriages ?
Canon 1045, §3, declaring that in certain contingencies an occult
impediment may be dispensed when it is not discovered until everything is
prepared for marriage, states that the power of dispensing is enjoyed by the
persons mentioned in canon 1044, namely, (λ) the parish priest; (Q the
priest who may be present at marriages contracted before two witnesses
according to the law of canon 1098, n. 2; (r) the confessor for the internal
sacramental forum only. The question raised by our correspondent is
whether in category (a) is included not only the parish priest but any priest
who is validly and lawfully delegated to assist at marriages.
From canon 1044 any priest may dispense qua confessor, for the internal
forum only and in the act of sacramental confession. It must also be said
q.
♦*l
r!
ii
VF
xU
291
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
324
that any delegated priest would act wisely in referring the matter to the
parochus if he can easily be reached, before using the powers contained in
canon 1045, §3, since it is a matter of unusual complexity and involves a
correct registration of the dispensation conceded. Λ further reason why he
should, if possible, refer the case to the parish priest is that a certain answer
to the above question cannot be given. It is a dubhrm iuris, and the prudent
solution is to secure the dispensation from one who can give it with certainty.
Some canonists arc of the opinion that a priest delegated for marriages
is not included under the designation “parochus” in this canon, unless the
dispensing power is also delegated. Thus, De Becker: “Cum parochus
ordinariam habeat potestatem, eam delegare valet suis vice-parochis. At
plane est abstinendum ab absurda et singulari opinione quod parochus
delegans suum vicarium pro assistendo matrimonio, eo ipso censeatur ei
concessisse potestatem dispensandi in casibus quibus potest.”1 WernzVidal also inclines to this view;2 likewise Vermeersch-Crcuscn.3
When a canonist describes the view he is rejecting as “absurd”, one
hesitates to give any support to the absurdity. Nevertheless, we agree with
those who concede to any priest validly assisting at a marriage the powers of
dispensation which the canons expressly grant to a parish priest. The
reasons for this view arc concisely expressed by Chelodi: “Quid vero de
sacerdote e.g. de vicario cooperatore ad assistendum matrimonio legitime
delegato ? Sunt qui tenent eum potestate dispensandi esse destitutum nisi
parochus eam ipsi delegaverit. Alii censent applicandum in tali casu Can.
200, §1, ita ut delegatio ad assistendum sccum ferat potestatem dispensandi.
Alii tandem putant nomine parochi venire etiam sacerdotem delegatum cum
Codex omnes enumerare debeat sacerdotes qui hic intervenire possunt.
Et recte quidem cum secus sacerdos ad assistendum delegatus minore facul
tate polleret quam quilibet sacerdos matrimonio mere assistens ad normam
Can. 1098 n.2.”4 This is also the opinion of authorities such as De Smet,
Praxis Matrimonialis, 1959, n. 29; and Cappello, De Matrimonio, 1939, n. 237 e.
It might well happen that, if the point is ever decided by the Code
Commission, the solution will be that, just as an Ordinary may dispense
when the Holy See cannot be reached, and a parish priest when the Ordinary
cannot be reached, so likewise a delegated priest may use the powers of
canon 1045 only when the parish priest cannot be consulted. This is
what we have suggested, as a measure of prudence, above; but it is not the
law, and most of the writers who incline to the stricter view admit that the
opposite opinion is solidly probable.
§4.
MIXED MARRIAGES
291.—Disparut
of
Worship: Non-Catholics
A child, born of a mixed marriage, is baptised in the Catholic Church but
educated from infancy in a Nonconformist sect. Is the marriage which he contracts
with an tmhaptigedperson in a register office a valid marriage ?
1 De Matrimonio. p. 175.
1 Jus Canonicum. V, §425» n. 90.
3 Epitome. II, §311.
4 Ins Matrimoniale. n. 44.
32.5
MIXED MARRIAGES
q.
291
Canon 1070, §1: Nullum est matrimonium contractum a persona non
baptizata cum persona baptizata in Ecclesia catholica vel ad eandem ex
heresi aut schismate conversa.
Canon 1099, §1: Ad statutam superius normam servandam tenetur:
i. Omnes in catholica Ecclesia baptizati et ad eam ex haeresi aut schismate
conversi, licet sive hi sive illi ab eadem postea defecerint, quoties inter se
matrimonium ineunt. 2. iidem, de quibus supra, si cum acatholicis sive
baptizatis sive non-baptizatis . . . contrahant.
§2. Firmo autem praescripto, §r, n. 1, acatholici sive baptizati sive non
baptizati, si inter se contrahant, nullibi tenentur ad catholicam matrimonii
formam servandam; item ab acatholicis nati, etsi in Ecclesia catholica
baptizati, qui ab infantili aetate in haeresi vel schismate aut infidelitate vel
sine ulla religione adoleverunt, quoties cum parte acatholica contraxerint.
Code Commission, 29 April, 1940, ad II: An ab acatholicis nati, de quibus
in canone 1099, §2, ad normam canonis 1070 subiieiantur impedimento
disparitatis cultus, quoties cum parte non baptizata contraxerint ? Resp.
Affirmative.
(i) All baptized persons, unless expressly exempted, are in principle
subject to the laws of the Church, including therefore the diriment impedi
ments which are inn's ecclesiastici, and also other matrimonial laws. There
is no doubt whatever about this principle. It is implied in such canons as
12, 87, 1058, §2, and in the two canons quoted above which do expressly
exclude baptized heretics from the impediment of disparity of worship and
from the form of marriage
(ii) The validity of the marriage, in the above case, is assailable on two
separate grounds: that the form was not observed and that the diriment
impediment of disparity of worship was not dispensed. With regard to the
form, the Code Commission decided, 20 July, 1929, that the phrase ab acatholicis
nati in canon 1099, §2, includes those persons born of parents of whom one
only is a non-Catholic, even in cases where the usual guarantees required
in mixed marriages have been given.1 Therefore, the person in this case is
not bound to the form of marriage, and could be validly married in a register
office if not prevented by some diriment impediment.
(iii) With regard to the impediment of disparity of worship it was held
by many canonists that the phrase persona baptizata in Ecclesia catholica of
canon 1070, §1, was subject to the same interpretation as that contained in
canon 1099, §2, namely that the impediment does not affect persons born
of non-Catholics and educated from infancy in heresy, even though they
were technically Catholics owing to their being baptized as such.
Others were of the opposite opinion—namely that for the purpose of
observing the form of marriage they are to be regarded as non-Catholics,
but as regards the impediment of disparity of worship, from which baptized
non-Catholics arc exempted, they arc to be regarded as Catholics. This
stricter view is the one now adopted by the Code Commission. It is in
harmony with a private reply of the Holy Office, 1 April, 1922, a ruling which
caused some difficulty for those who held the former and more liberal view.
Cf. Q. 292.
1 A.A J., XXI. 1929, p. 57j.
QQ. 292,293
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
J2g
292.—In Ecclesia Catholica Baptizata
A person in 1920 was baptised privately by a Catholic nurse in infancy, Hath
parents are non-Catholies and the child was educated as a non-Catholic. Is this
person bound by the impediment of disparity of worship ?
Canon 1070, §1: Nullum est matrimonium contractum a persona non
baptizata cum persona baptizata in Ecclesia Catholica vel ad eandem ex
haercsi aut schismate conversa.
Code Commission, 29 April, 1940, ad II: An ab acatholicis nati, de quibus
in canone 1099, §2, ad normam canonis 1070 subiieiantur impedimento
disparitatis cultus, quoties cum parte non baptizata contraxerint ? Resp.
Affirmative.
Propaganda, 1 April, 1922 (private): Quidam vir, nomine Thac, anno
1898 ex parentibus infidelibus natus, in infantili aetate a medico quodam
catholico, periculo mortis imminente, insciis parentibus baptizatus, postea
in infidelitate omnino educatus, matrimonium more patrio contraxit, circa
finem anni 1918, cum puella, pagana, cui nomen Nam. . . .
S.C. respondit: Amplitudini tuae communico S. Congregationem S.
Officii examinasse casum matrimonialem Thac-Nam istius Vicariatus, et
respondisse matrimonium hoc Thac-Nam a te declarandum esse nullum,
ob impedimentum disparitatis cultus. (Text in Sabetti-Barrett, Theol.
Moralis, p. 1158.)
It is now quite certain from the Code Commission reply, 29 April, 1940,
that the exception of canon 1099, §2, which releases from the observance of
the form a person baptized a Catholic but educated in heresy, does not apply
to the impediment of difference of worship. Cf. Q. 291.
But there is still some obscurity concerning the phrase “baptized in the
Catholic Church”. The view is fairly common that, in the circumstances of
the above case, the offspring of non-Catholic parents, baptized privately
by a Catholic in an emergency, or against the law of canons 750 and 751, is
not to be considered a Catholic for the purposes of the law of canon 1070,
§1 ; such a person is not, therefore, bound by the impediment of difference
of worship since the promulgation of the Code, 19 May, 1918. Against
this view stands the reply of the Idoly Office given through Propaganda, 1
April, 1922, which clearly asserts that such a person is bound by the im
pediment. Even though this reply has not been promulgated, it has found
its way into the books, and some of the writers who are aware of it have
modified their teaching on the subject. Cf. Gougnard, De Matrimonio,
p. 468. The reply, being private, has not obtained the force of law
(canons 17, §3, and 49), and we think with Cappello, Periodica, 1931, p. 76,
that the impediment in such a case is at least doubtful and, therefore, in
practice to be considered non-existent (canon 15). The correct procedure
would be to seek a dispensation ad cautelam.
293.—Marriage and Doubtful Baptism
Hertha, a reputed Catholic, married Pitins, a Protestant, in a Nonconformist
chapel. But there is a positive doubt about Hertha's baptism. If she is not baptised
327
MIXED MARRIAGES
the marriage
neither party
invalid from
conditionally.
q. 293
would be valid, since Titius is not held by disparity of worship and
is bound to tbe Ne Temere form. If she is baptised the marriage is
defect of form. On the Ordinary s direction Hertha is re-baptivyd
Is it necessary to revalidate the marriage ?
The solution, in our opinion, will depend on the date of the marriage,
whether it was before the promulgation of the Code or after, since the Code
has introduced a new presumption for deciding marriages contracted with
doubtful baptism.
(i) Assuming it was contracted after 19 May, 1918, the date when the
Code came into force, the doubt is to be solved from canon 1070, §2: “Si
pars tempore contracti matrimonii tanquam baptizata communiter habebatur
aut eius baptismus erat dubius, standum est, ad normam can. 1014, pro
valore matrimonii, donec certo probetur alteram partem baptizatam esse,
alteram vero non-baptizatam.” The prc-Code presumption reckoned a
doubtful baptism valid in relation to marriage, but this canon simply declares
a presumption in favour of the marriage. Owing to this new presumption,
mi
Bertha’s doubtful baptism is reckoned to be invalid in order to favour
the validity of the marriage.*
1 As Bertha is presumed to be unbaptized and
Titius is a non-Catholic, the marriage is valid: fora baptized non-Catholic is
not held, since the Code, by the impediment of disparity of worship, and the
Ne Temere form is not necessary. If it is objected that the presumption of
canon 1070, §2, refers to the previous §1 and not to the Ne Temere form, the
answer is that, even so, the validity of the marriage is established by the
general presumption of canon 1014, as many authors expressly note, e.g.:
“Quoad dubie baptizatos applicandum est praescriptum can. 1014, scii,
matrimonium sine forma iuridica celebratum a parte dubie baptizata cum
parte infideli vel dubie baptizata aut cum parte acatholica vcl catholica
orientali, habendum est ut validum.”2 “Quoad spectat dubie baptizatos:
cum, juxta can. 1014, in dubio standum sit valori matrimonii, donec con
trarium probetur, validum videtur habendum matrimonium sine forma
praescripta celebratum a parte dubie baptizata cum parte, etc.”3
We think therefore that, from canon 1070, §2, it is not necessary to re
validate such a marriage until the defect is certainly proved. Gasparri,
De Matrimonio, §584: “Demum ex dictis facile intelligitur quid agendum, si,
contracto matrimonio, quaestio enascatur circa baptismum partis catholicae
... si de baptismi validitate dubitatur, matrimonium possidet, sed pars
est quamprimum baptizanda sub conditione, quin ncccsse sit consensum
renovare aut sanationem in radice obtinere.” The necessity of baptism is
iure divino, but the impediment is iure ecclesiastico and is to be interpreted
according to ecclesiastical law. For the relief of conscience, in the case
of a scrupulously minded person, the marriage could be revalidated con
ditionally ad cautelam. This course is not, I think, to be recommended: it is
not the practice to re-marry converts conditionally, unless their previous
marriage is invalid.
(ii) But, if we assume that the marriage was contracted before 19 May,
1918, it is practically certain that the decision would have to be against the
validity of the marriage. It has been for a long time a matter of dispute
1 Cf. Periodica, 1929, p. 157.
1 Cappello, Dt Matrimonio, §700.
1 De Smet, De Matrimonio, I, §140.
H
q.
294
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
p8
whether a pre-Code marriage cause of this kind, upon which a decision is
sought after the Code, is to be judged by the new presumption of canon
1070, §2, or by the older presumption which was in force when the marriage
was contracted, namely: “baptismus dubius, in ordine ad validitatem
matrimonii, censendus est validus”. The latter view has seemed to many
to be the most likely, on the principle of Canon 10: “leges respiciunt futura
non praeterita”. This view is now strengthened by a decision of the Holy
Office, 15 May, 1936,1 which decided the following case. An unbaptized
man married a baptized non-Catholic in 1900; was later civilly divorced;
was baptized and received into the Church in 1908 and now desired to marry
a Catholic. The baptism of his first wife was doubtful and his petition to
the Holy See prayed for the dissolution of the natural bond of the first
marriage infavorem fidei. Instead, the Holy Office declared that the first marriage
was invalid owing to the impediment of disparity of worship. It seems,
therefore, the mind of the Holy See that the presumption of canon 1070, §2,
is not to be applied to a marriage contracted before the Code.
294.—Disparity of Worship: Guarantees
A dispensation from this impediment was granted by a superior with delegated
powers, bitt owing to an error the guarantees were not obtained, and it is quite certain
that the ttnbaptiered party will not make good this defect. Is the marriage invalid?
If so, may the parties be left in goodfaith ?
It is certain that obtaining the guarantees is a necessary condition for
the validity of the dispensation. This is deduced from the strictness of the
law in canons 1060, 1071, and from the terms of the faculties used by
delegates of the Apostolic Sec; the clause requiring guarantees is introduced
by the word “dummodo”, the force of which is clearly explained in canon 3 8 :
“Conditiones in rescriptis tunc tantum essentiales pro eorundem validitate
censentur, cum per particulas si, dummodo, vel aliam eiusdem significationis
exprimuntur.”
Accordingly, the Holy Office, 21 June, 1912, gave the following reply:
“Utrum dispensatio super impedimento disparitatis cultus, ab habente a
S. Sede potestatem, non requisitis vel denegatis praescriptis cautionibus
impertita, valida habenda sit an non ? I^esp. Dispensationem prout exponitur
impertitam esse nullam.”2
A similar reply, given on 2 August, 1932, to the Chinese Apostolic
delegate3 concludes by pointing out that, in such cases of invalid marriage
owing to the lack of any guarantee, three courses are open to an ecclesiastical
authority: revalidation of the marriage, declaration of its nullity according
to the procedure of canon 1990, or leaving the parties in good faith.
The third course provides a good example of the principle concerning
the lawfulness of leaving persons in good faith about actions which are
merely material sins: there is no practical possibility of securing observance
of the law, and there is no scandal since the parties and the public in general
think that the marriage is valid, a dispensation having been obtained.
h
r
■4
«9
1 Periodica, 1936, p. 154.
* Fontes, n. 1293.
<
329
MIXED MARRIAGES
Q. W
295.—Guarantees: Certainty
What is the minimum required for the morn! certitude of canon 1061, §1.3?
Does this certitude have to extend to the case where, after the death of the Catholic
party, the children are left in the care of the non-Catbolic party? If the majority
of clergy of a particular diocese are accustomed to give little attention to establishing
this moral certainty, would all the priests of that diocese be justified in following this
custom ?
Canon 1061, §1.3: Ecclesia super impedimento mixtae religionis non
dispensat, nisi. . . . Moralis habeatur certitudo de cautionum imple
mento.
(i) Since the decision that there is moral certitude is a judgement of
the mind, prudently made after reviewing all the circumstances, it is not
capable of very exact definition. Ter Haar, De Matrimoniis Mixtis, p. 60
seq., discusses fully the nature of this moral certainty, and his conclusion may
be taken as safely representing the minimum required: “Profecto non
requiritur de futuro cautionum implemento certitudo moralis stricte dicta
seu perfecta, quae est assensus firmus uni parti contradictionis praestitus sine
formidine partis oppositae: hanc quippe certitudinem in nostra materia
acquiri semper impossibile est. Sufficit autem et requiritur certitudo moralis
late dicta seu imperfecta, quae scilicet prudentem quidem erroris formidinem
admittit, sed dubium positivum, grave ac prudens excludit.” It will be
found, we think, that this description is in accord with the instructions
of the Holy See, and of local Ordinaries, on the subject.
(ii) The judgement is made relying on the data obtainable at the moment,
especially on the guarantees. It seems to us that to require this certitude
to cover possible hypothetical situations in the future would be to make it
what Ter Haar calls “certitudo moralis stricte dicta seu perfecta”. The
non-Catholic has given a solemn promise, generally in writing, guaranteeing
the requirements of canon 1061, §1.2, and this promise covers the case
where, after the death of the Catholic party, the children are left in the care
of the non-Catholic. It is not necessary to exact an express guarantee
covering this contingency, unless the local Ordinary requires it, or unless
the priest has grounds for suspecting that the guarantee is thus limited
in the mind of the person who gives it. The Ordinary may, if he sees
fit, add to the requirements of the common law before granting a dispensa
tion, since it is left to his conscience to grant or withhold it; and, if the
priest has grounds for suspecting a defective guarantee, he must correct it
by obtaining a more detailed and explicit undertaking, exactly as he is
instructed to do when investigating a marriage, if he has grounds for
suspecting a defective marriage consent. Cf. T. C. Sacram., 29 June, 1941,
n. 9. .
(iii) It is the right and the duty of ever}' priest who forwards a petition
for a dispensation to observe both the common law and the directions of
the local Ordinary, and he is not justified in following any custom to the
contrary. We suspect, however, that the questioner is himself, perhaps,
too strict, and that the majority of the diocesan clergy are acting
correctly.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
296.—Guarantees in Danger of Death
From canons 1043, 1044, 1045, ample powers are given to priests for dispensing
from matrimonial impediments “inpericulo mortis". In the case of mixed religion and
disparity of worship the law requires the usual guarantees to be given before a dis
pensation is granted. What is to be done if the non-Catholic party refuses to give
these guarantees ? A “sanatio in radice" could be obtained in ordinary circumstances,
but tbe use of the powers conceded by canons 1045 and 1044 supposes that there is no
time to have recourse to tbe Ordinary. May tbe priest validly and lawfully dispense
without obtaining tbe guarantees ?
To appreciate the detail raised in this query it is necessary to examine
the background on which it is placed. From canons 1043 and 1044
Ordinaries may sometimes grant dispensations both from the form of
marriage (priest and two witnesses), and from any ecclesiastical impediment,
whether public or occult, except the priesthood and affinity in the direct
line arising from a consummated marriage; when a dispensation is granted
from disparity of worship or mixed religion the usual guarantees must be
exacted. If the Ordinary cannot be reached, this dispensing power may
be used by any priest who is competent to witness marriages and also, but
only for the internal sacramental forum, by a confessor. In order to eliminate
difficulties which do not directly bear on the terms of the question, we will
suppose that the priest in the case is competent for marriages, i.e. he is the
parish priest or possesses delegated powers. The situation is that he enjoys
ad hoc exactly the same powers as the Ordinary in granting dispensations,
and the limits of his jurisdiction will, therefore, be ascertained by discovering
what are the limits of the Ordinary’s jurisdiction.
It is hardly necessary to remark that the requirement about guarantees
finds a place in this canon because the powers conceded are restricted to
purely ecclesiastical impediments, whereas the impediments of disparity
of worship and mixed religion, unless the danger of perversion is removed,
may be granted unless the danger of perversion is made remote; iure
ecclesiastico no dispensation may be granted unless the guarantees of canon
1061 are given. “Igitur dispensatio semper et necessario supponit atque
exigit ut praevie sublata fuerit prohibitio juris divini, quatenus proximum
perversionis periculum partis catholicae cessaverit simulque cautum sit
catholicae educationi universae sobolis. Praedictae conditiones jure ipso
divino requisitae in tuto poni debent. Id autem fit per cautiones, quas vocant,
legitima forma praestandas, ut inde moralis certitudo habeatur conditiones
essentiales ad exccutionem demandatum iri.
Nonnulli confundunt seu
promiscue usurpant conditiones et cautiones. Sed, proprie et accurate loquendo,
istae ab illis probe distinguuntur, Nam conditiones sunt juris divini, dum c
contra cautiones sunt juris ecclesiasticae, et dici possunt media sive assccurationes, quibus in tuto ponitur earundem conditionum implementum.”1
A decree of the Holy Office, 13 January, 1932, seems to leave no loophole
whatever: “Emi ac Rcvmi Dni Cardinales . . . strictu sui muneris esse
duxerunt, omnium Sacrorum Antistitum nccnon parochorum aliorumque,
1 Cappello, Periodica, 1932, p. 102.
331
MIXED MARRIAGES
Q. 296
de quibus in canone 1044, qui super mixtae religionis ac disparis cultus
impedimenti facultate aucti sunt, attentionem excitare et conscientiam
convenire, ne dispensationes huiusmodi unquam impertiantur, nisi praestitis
antea a nupturientibus cautionibus . . . secus ipsa dispensatio sit prorsus
nulla et invalida.” In commenting upon this decree Cappello*
1 underlines
its conclusions: “Dispensatio concessa, sine cautionibus antea praestitis a
nupturientibus ‘prorsus nulla et invalida declaratur’. Ex dictis id valet de
dispensatione quovis in casu et a quocunque data, sive extra sive in periculo
mortis, sive mala sive bona fide impertita.”
Nevertheless, the same writer in the current edition of his treatise De
Matrimonio appears to modify this judgement to some slight extent: “In
periculo mortis, item invalida dicenda est, attento praesertim Decreto
S.Officii 13 Jan., 1932, nisi forte verificentur peculiaria adiuncta de
quibus supra. . . .” The reference is to the following exception: “Si
pars catholica sit bene disposita et serio spondeat se conditiones servaturam,
licet pars acatholica illarum adimplcmentum promittere renuat, putamus
posse dispensari in casu urgentissimae necessitatis, ex. gr. in periculo mortis,
si aliter quam per matrimonii celebrationem, conscientiae aut forte etiam
prolis legitimationi consuli nequeat, dummodo, quod absolute requiritur,
remotum factum fuerit perversionis periculum.”2
There appears to be a contradiction between these two judgements, and
they can be harmonized only by bearing in mind the distinction between
the conditions inre divino and the guarantees inre ecclesiastico. Provided the
priest assisting at a death-bed marriage is satisfied that the danger of per
version is removed, he may grant a dispensation even though the non
Catholic party refuses to give the guarantees required by ecclesiastical law.
The use of the word “cautiones” in the decree of the Holy Office is a serious
objection to this solution of Cappello, and some other commentators upon
the document do not make any exception or reservafion. “Imo decreti vis
ad id pariter protenditur quod scilicet, etiam in periculo mortis, dispensatio
ipsa sit prorsus nulla et invalida si quando vel cautiones non praestantur
(secus ac quidam mitius opinati erant) vel speciales illi modi seu formae
negligantur sine quibus fidelem cautionum exeeutionem aliquis valeat
praepedire. Namque verba decreti efferentia nullitatcm earum dispensa
tionum, plane generalia ideoque tangunt omnes et singulos, ad quos fertur
decretum ipsum.”3
In our opinion, it is open to any priest to adopt the solution given by
Cappello, who is one of the most authoritative writers on the difficulty.
It is true that the document speaks of “cautiones”. But, as Ter Haar notes,
the distinction between “condition” and “guarantee” is often not observed,
even in papal documents: “The condition is the removal of the danger of
perversion from the Catholic party, and also from the offspring by a Catholic
baptism and education. The guarantee is the formal and public pTomise
made to the Church before the Marriage, that the condition will be ftulfilled.
. . . The Church can never dispense from the conditions, which must
be fulfilled because they arc imposed by the divine law.”4
It is reasonable, moreover, to suppose that the Church does not demand
1 Periodica, 1952, p. 102.
1 Ed. 1939. §§312 and 310, 6.
8 Maroto, in Apollinaris, 1932, p. 11.
♦ Mixed Marriages, p. 78.
q.
297
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
J}2
more for a dispensation in periculo mortis than is demanded on the grant of a
sanatio. The faculty accorded to Ordinaries, conceding the power of sanatio,
is meant precisely to meet such a situation: “Sanandi in radice matrimonia
attentata . . . cum impedimento mixtae religionis aut disparitatis cultus,
dummodo consensus in utroque conjuge perseveret, isque legitime renovari
non possit . . . sive quia pars acatholica ad renovandum coram Ecclesia
matrimonialem conscnsusm, aut ad cautiones praestandas, ad praescriptum
Cod. I.C. can. 1061, §2, ullo modo induci nequeat; exceptis casibus: 1. in
quo pars acatholica adversatur baptismo vel catholicae educationi utriusque
sexus natae vel nasciturae.”*1 The matter is not, indeed, beyond dispute, but
it docs appear that a too rigid insistence on the letter of the ecclesiastical
law requiring the “guarantees” even in periculo mortis, before a dispensation
may be validly granted, would nullify the benevolent legislation of the
Church, which is accustomed, at such a time, to be as liberal as the law of
God allows.
297.—Guarantees: The Third Promise
In some dioceses the formula granting a dispensation states that a three-fold
“cautio" or “guarantee" is required under pain of the instrument being invalid.
How does this harmonise with the Code discipline, which reqtiires merely a two-fold
guarantee 1
(i) The common law of the Church, previous to the Code, required a
three-fold undertaking from the parties of a mixed marriage: a promise from
both parties to bring up all the children in the Catholic religion; a promise
from the non-Catholic to allow the Catholic the free exercise of religion;
a promise from the Catholic to secure, as far as possible, the conversion of
the non-Catholic.
These three are mentioned in the instruction of the Holy Office, 12
December, 1888,2 and in some of the other documents cited in the sources
of canon 1061, §1. They are mentioned expressly for England by Propaganda,
25 March, 1868,3 and insisted upon in Decretum XIII of our First Provincial
Council.4 The common law gradually introduced some mitigation, to
the extent of not requiring expressly the third promise. As far back as 1910
it was noted, in a case before the Rota, that the Holy See could remit, or at
least not demand, this promise expressly as a condition for granting a
dispensation.8 It is evident that the Code sustains this mitigation. The
two first promises are conditions sine qua non in canon 1061, §1.2: “Ecclesia
. . . non dispensat nisi . . . cautionem praestiterit conjux acatholicus de
amovendo a conjuge catholico perversionis periculo, et uterque conjux de
universa prole catholice tantum baptizanda et educanda.” The third
promise of the older legislation appears now in canon 1062 as a simple
statement of the person’s obligation: “Conjux catholicus obligatione tenetur
conversionem conjugis acatholici prudenter curandi.”
1 Formula A, Facultates Additionales S.Off., n. 5.
1 Fontes, n. uti, ad 5.
• IK iFestnr., App. xiii. Guy, Eng. Tr., p. 61
‘Eng. Tr , p. 146.
* A.AS., II, 191°» P· 595
3}3
MIXED MARRIAGES
q.
297
The Ordinary, therefore, in granting a dispensation, may now be silent
about this third promise, on the assumption that the priest knows the law
of canon 1062 and will sec that the Catholic becomes aware of this obligation.
In some dioceses the acceptance of the obligation is not required in writing
but may be given to the priest viva voce. Generally speaking, it is an obli
gation of charity on the part of the Catholic, and the priest must see that the
obligation is understood.
(ii) But the Ordinary may, if he wishes, secure the acceptance of the
obligation of canon 1062, by requiring an express promise to that effect from
the Catholic party. Quite apart from the fact that this is the practice in many
dioceses, a practice which cannot properly be criticized, there is not the
slightest doubt that, in making this third demand, an Ordinary is acting
within his rights. Mixed religion is an impediment of divine law as long
as there is danger to the faith of the Catholic party. The bishops are, by
their office, bound in conscience to preserve the faith of their flocks:
“episcopi semper fuerunt et sunt suarum dioecesium nativi inquisitores et
catholicae fidei defensores et conservatores”.*1 There is no need to demon
strate the intimate connexion between mixed marriage and heresy, or the
favouring of heresy. Therefore, the permission of mixed marriages and,
consequently, the conditions on which dispensations may be granted,
remains within the competence of the Ordinary. In reserving to the Holy
See certain causes relating to heresy, including mixed marriage dispensations,
the Popes and the Holy Office have never deprived the bishops of the powers
native and inherent in the episcopal office.
A dispensation from the impediment of mixed religion, a prohibition
contained in the common law of the Church, is reserved per se to the Holy
See, and the use of powers conceded by induit must, of necessity, be in
accordance with the terms of the common law. But this does not mean that
Ordinaries who use the papal induit may not also use their own native
powers. On the contrary they are warned of their obligations, not only in
canon 1064, but in the terms of their quinquennial faculties, Appendix A:
“Dispensandi . . . super impedimento mixtae religionis . . . quatenus
ante nuptias pars acatholica ad veram religionem adduci aut catholica ab
ipsis nuptiis absterreri nequiverit, dummodo prius regulariter ad praescrip
tum Cod. I.C. can. io6ï, §2, cautum omnino sit . . . declarata insuper parti
catholicae obligatione qua tenetur prudenter curandi, etc.” Ter Haar
gives, amongst other documents, the letter accompanying a particular
dispensation from this impediment, in which the point is even more strongly
expressed by the Holy Office', “monita parte catholica, ut onus, quod sibi
sumpsit curandae conversionis alterius partis . . . maximi faciat, sciatquc
ni illud sedulo adimpleat, maximo se piaculo obstringi”.2
It rests with the conscience of the Ordinary to determine whether the
delegated powers he enjoys shall be used and under what circumstances.
Thus, in most dioceses, a dispensation is not granted by the bishops unless
the non-Catholic party consents to receive some previous instruction on the
Catholic religion, a condition which is not in the common law of the Code.
De Becker, whose familiarity with English speaking peoples mikes his
treatise of unusual value for us, comments as follows: “Quaeri ulterius
potest, utrum Ordinarii quasdam valeant ulteriores addere cautelas ita ut
1 Gird. de Luca quoted in Jus Pontifidum, 1927, p. 151.
1 Dt Matrimoniis Mixtis; p. 152.
q.
298
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
334
iis recusatis a parte acatholica, etiam recusetur dispensatio. Et evidens est
Ordinarios plene uti jure suo sic agendo: oportet enim eos agere tanquam
bonos dispensatores, maxime in praesenti negotio.”1
(iii) Finally, it follows as a necessary consequence from what has been
said, that an Ordinary may so express this clause regarding the third
promise that the validity of the dispensation depends upon its observance.
For he has an indult to grant dispensations if he judges it expedient, in his
conscience, to do so. He may elect not to use the power he possesses, even
though the parties are prepared to make, not only three, but a dozen
promises; a fortiori, therefore, it seems that he can use these powers with an
invalidating clause.
Canon 1039 does not modify this doctrine. It is concerned with the
power of an Ordinary to forbid the marriage of a particular subject, thus
constituting a special impediment outside those of the common law of the
Church. Section 2 of the canon states that the Holy See alone can add to
this prohibition an invalidating clause, i.e. make it a diriment impediment.
The canon is not relevant to the subject we have been examining.
Ayrinhac, quoting Canoniste Contemporain, July 1912, p. 502, says that
the third promise, if required, must be exacted “at least for the licitness of
the dispensation, and probably for the validity.”2 There is no need to
qualify the statement, we think, by the word “probably”. It is certain,
provided, of course, that the will and intention of the Ordinary are certainly
expressed. “Ergo, obligatio quidem imponitur parti catholicae ‘conver
sionem conjugis acatholici prudenter procurandi’ ad quam jam ex prccepto
divino caritatis tenetur, sed nec susceptio obligationis ponitur ut conditio
ad dispensationem, nec cantio de tali obligatione implenda a conjuge catholico
exigitur (canon 1062). ... At ex tali silentio iuris communis non sequitur
a parocho non esse inculcandam illam obligationem atque adeo non posse
exigere promissionem etiam scripto consignatam, si jure particulari aut legitimo
praescripto Ordinarii id cautum fuerit. Conditiones cum nitantur iure
naturali et divino, a R. Pontifice neque remitti possunt neque unquam de
facto sunt remissae. Quodsi de illis conditionibus rite cautum non sit,
exccutio rescripti dispensationis, in qua reperitur clausula: ‘Dummodo,
etc./ omnino est invalida.”3
298.—Guarantees in Writing
Canon 1061, §2, directs : “Cantiones regulariter in scriptis exigantur
,
**
conclude that, in exceptional cases, a verbal promise suffices ?
May n>e
(i) It may be useful to state, at the outset, that the conditions on which
a dispensation from mixed religion is granted depend, not only on the
common law of the Code, but on the will of the Ordinary who enjoys
delegated powers in this matter. His use of these powers must be in accord
ance with the common law, but this does not mean that he may not insist
on additional formalities which are not contained, perhaps, cither in the
common law or in local provincial law. His indult permits him to dispense
1 De Matrimonio, p. 92.
1 Marriage Legislation, canon 1062.
’ Wemz-Vidal, Ius Canonicum> V, p. 191.
■
335
MIXED MARRIAGES
q.
298
from the impediment if he thinks it expedient. If this fact is borne in mind,
the variety of practice in different dioceses is at once apparent1
(ii) In most English dioceses the parties are required, not only to give
a written promise, but to sign a form in the presence of the priest In
other places the Ordinary requires two witnesses, or even that the promise
should be subscribed under oath. These arc diocesan regulations and it
is clearly open to the Ordinary to dispense from them for any reason.
Occasionally it will be found that the regulations have their origin in
a provincial law. In this case, an Ordinary who wishes to do so may
dispense from them in particular cases only. Canon 291, §2: “Decreta
Concilii plenarii et provincialis promulgata obligant in suo cuiusque
territorio universo, nec Ordinarii locorum ab iisdem dispensare possunt,
nisi in casibus particularibus et iusta de causa”. Thus the Provincial Council
of Utrecht, 1924, requires “duplex instrumentum, quorum alterum continet
cautiones a parte catholica, alterum cautiones a parte acatholica praestitas,
utrumque subscriptione respcctivi sponsi, duorum testium et ipsius
parochi”.2 In the First Provincial Council of Westminster, Decretum
XXII, ad 6, nothing is determined concerning the legal form of the
promises, nor is it even directed that they must be given in writing.
(iii) The common law of the Church, from which no Ordinary may
dispense, except in the rare contingencies of canon 81, directs the guarantees
to be in writing “regulariter”, but nothing is directed concerning the form
of this written document. Cardinal Gasparri explains the force of the word
“regulariter” as follows: “Pariter scriptura jure communi non est absolute
necessaria, sed regulariter cautiones in scriptis exigantur nisi justae gravesque
causae obstent, tum quia promissio scripta maiorem vim habere solet, tum
quia cautiones scriptae deinde in archivo parocciali aut etiam in Curia
episcopali diligenter custodientur.”3
Apart, therefore, from the case where the faculties of the Ordinary are
expressly qualified by a phrase requiring the guarantees in every case to be
in writing, a dispensation may be granted on a verbal promise, even outside
the contingencies of canon 81, if all the other conditions arc verified—par
ticularly the moral certainty of the promises being observed. The mind of
the Holy Office was explained 10 December, 1902: “Quod si in aliquo casu
extraordinario talia concurrunt adiuncta, ut episcopus valeat sibi comparare
moralem certitudinem tam de huiusmodi cautionum sinceritate pro
praesenti, quam de earum adimplemento pro futuro, spccialesque omnino
adsint rationes impedientes ne consueto modo cautiones praestentur,
ipsius conscientiae et prudentiae.”4
Mgr. Nau admirably seizes the point at issue: “Ordinarily the guarantees
must be given in writing, wherefore there must be a serious reason to accept
merely a verbal promise before witnesses. The refusal to sign the guarantee
is not necessarily an indication of insincerity. Some, especially among the
less educated, are afraid to sign any document lest some material harm come
to them. Some non-Catholics fear lest the document be published with their
signature. Others again because of their prejudices constantly suspect some
afterthought in the minds of Catholics. However, if there be any founded
1 Cf. Q. 297
a Clacys-Bouuaert, Jus Canonicum, 11, §268, n. (4).
• De Matrimonio, §452.
4 Fontes, n. 1262.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
336
suspicion of insincerity concerning the reason for such refusal, the dispen
sation cannot be granted.”*
1
Hence, the decision rests entirely with the Ordinary. The priest applying
for a dispensation can only represent, as strongly as he pleases, the view that
there exist the gravest reasons why the guarantees should not be required
in writing. Of far greater importance is the moral certainty concerning the
fulfilment of the guarantees, and experience leads us to believe that this is
sometimes wanting, even though the promises are solemnly given in writing,
and witnessed by the priest.
299.—Guarantees and Sanatio
the wording of the formula granting quinquennial faculties to Ordinaries,
a “sanatio in radice” may be applied to marriages contracted civilly, whenever, amongst
other reasons, the non-Catholic party refuses to give the guarantees required by canon
1061, §2. How does this harmonise with the rule of canon 1060 which states that
such marriages are forbidden by divine law, unless the danger of perversion to the
children is removed f
The formula referred to, which is now superseded, may be seen in
Bouscarcn, Digest, I, p. 63, Collationes Brugenses, 1923, p. 411, or Wernz-vidal
Ius Canonicum, V, p. 503, n. 67: “Sanandi in radice matrimonia attentata
coram officiali civili . . . cum impedimento mixtae religionis aut disparitatis
cultus . . . sive quia pars acatholica ad renovandum coram Ecclesia
matrimonialem consensum, aut ad cautiones praestandas, ad praescriptum
Cod. I.C. 1061, §2, ullo modo induci nequeat; dummodo aliud non obstet
canonicum impedimentum, super quo Ipse dispensandi aut sanandi facultate
non polleat.” The formula requires the Ordinary to warn the Catholic
party of the obligation of safeguarding “pro viribus” the faith of the children.
This formula was certainly capable of being read in the sense that a
sanatio could be obtained, even though the non-Catholic was opposed to
the Catholic education of the children, provided the Catholic undertook to
do all in his or her power to have them educated in the Catholic faith. This
view was, in fact, held by many canonists interpreting these faculties.2
Others were of the opinion that a sanatio could not be granted, under these
faculties, if the refusal of the non-Catholic party constituted a danger to
the faith of the children; for the marriage would then be forbidden by
divine law.3
However, as a writer in Apollinaris notes,4 the Holy See in recent years
has expressed more strictly the conditions under which a sanatio in these
circumstances may be granted. In a later formula, between the words
“nequeat” and “dummodo”, the following clause is added: “exceptis
casibus: (1) in quo pars acatholica adversatur baptismo vel catholicae
educationi prolis utriusque sexus natae vel nasciturac; (2) in quo ante
attentatum matrimonium, sive privatim sive per publicum actum, partes se
obstrinxerunt educationi non-catholicae prolis, uti supra”.6 Whatever
1 Marriage lean’s of She Code, p. 74.
1 Cf. Ter Haar, Mixed Marriages, p. 96.
* Cf. Irish Ecclesiastical Record, March, 1933, p. 302.
1 Cf. Ter Haar, ibid.’, Ecclesiastical Review, July 1932, p. 7 y
1
—__
337
MIXED MARRIAGES
—
________
q.
300
therefore may have been held about the earlier formula, it is now quite
certain that there is no possible contradiction between canon 1060 and
the formula of quinquennial faculties. The divine law requires that there
should be moral certainty concerning the removal of the danger of perver
sion, and this may exist even though the non-Catholic party refuses to sign
the guarantees, since a prudent judgement may be formed that, in spite of
this, the Catholic education of the children will de facto be secured.
300.—Lapsed Catholic’s Marriage
Titius, baptised and educated as a Catholic till the age of ten, when bis parents
died, was brought up by Protestant relatives and attended a Protestant school and
church till early manhood, when he gave up the practice of religion. He now says (bat
if he wanted to belong to any religious body, which he actually does not, he would be a
Catholic. Is a dispensation from mixed religion necessary? If not, may he be
regarded as a Catholic for the purpose of marriage and its accompanying rites ?
Canon 1065, §2: Parochus praedictis nuptiis (cum iis qui notorie
catholicam fidem abiecerunt) ne assistat, nisi consulto Ordinario . . .
Canon 1066: Si publicus peccator . . . cum Ecclesia reconciliari
recusaverit, parochus eius matrimonio ne assistat, nisi gravis urgeat causa,
de qua, si fieri potest, consulat Ordinarium.
(i) Many very dubious points converge in cases of this kind. It could
be urged, in favour of the man retaining the rights of a Catholic to be
married like any other, that there exists no certain obex, impediment or
censure which deprives him of these rights; cf. canon 87. His rejection
of the Catholic faith is not notorious: if he belonged at one time to a
non-Catholic sect, which is doubtful, he is no longer in this condition, nor
is he a member of an atheistical society which is equivalent for legal purposes
to a sect.1
Ignorance of Christian doctrine is not in itself a bar to marriage; cf.
Code Commission, 2-3 June, 1918, quoted in the Instruction S.C. Sacram.,
29 June, 1941, n. 8. Similarly a refusal to frequent the sacraments is not
in itself an obstacle; cf. canon 1035. The penal sanctions formerly attached
to neglect of Easter duties are now abrogated.
(ii) On the other hand, it must always be remembered that a marriage
which endangers the faith of the Catholic party or of the children is forbidden
by divine law, and the danger must be removed before any such union may
be permitted. The requirements of canons 1065 and 1066 are precisely for
the purpose of bringing these dangerous cases to the Ordinary’s judgement,
and even though it could be maintained, perhaps, in the strict interpretation
of the positive law, that the above case just fails to come clearly within either
of these canons, it is obviously the prudent course to submit it to the
Ordinary’s decision.
(iii) If we may assume that the circumstances are those of canon 1066
and that the priest has himself, with proper precautions, decided in favour
of the marriage, there remains the question of rites, namely whether the
nuptial blessing with or without Mass is to be given.
1 Code Commission, jo July, 1954.
q.
301
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
3j8
Seeing that the prohibition of canon 1102, §2, is not contained in canon
1066, some hold the view that a nuptial Mass is not forbidden, c.g. De Smet,
De Matrimonio, §196, and the view is supported by a reply of the Holy
Office, 2i February, 1883, Fontes, n. 1079. Others, relying on an earlier
reply, 5 July, 1878, which is not in the Fontes, refuse to permit any sacred
rites at all.1 On the whole, we prefer the liberal view of De Smet, provided
always that scandal to the faithful is avoided.
301.—Disparut op Worship : Implied Dispensation
Before the Code it was the law that a dispensation front this impediment included
dispensation from any other ecclesiastical impediment affecting the non-Christian
party. Some authors affirm that, at the present time, this law is still in force, at least
in missionary countries·, others affirm that it is everywhere abrogated. What is your
opinion ?
The pre-Code law rested on a decision of the Holy Office, iG September,
1824, ad 2.2 After the Code was promulgated some writers, as De Smet,
considered that this rule was abrogated since it was not mentioned in the
Code, whereas other virtual or implied dispensations were mentioned, as in
canon 10$3. Others, as Cappello and Wcrnz-Vidal, relying on canon 6
and the stylus curiae of canon 20, held that it was not abrogated.
This latter view, namely that a dispensation from disparity of worship
virtually included a dispensation from other impediments, received the
strongest official confirmation in two ways: (<-/) from a reply of Propaganda to
a Chinese bishop;3 (/>) from the approved text of the law in Primum Concilium
Sinense, 1924, n. 396: “. . . dispensatio super disparitatc cultus, etiam a
S. Sedis delegato concessa, semper importat dispensationem super aliis
impedimentis iuris ecclesiastici relativis, super quibus Ecclesia aliunde
dispensare solet”.
Nevertheless, the Holy Office, 16 April, 1931,4 and again, 30 June, 1932,
decided in the stricter sense that a dispensation from other impediments is
not virtually included in a dispensation from disparity of worship. The text
of this final decision, conveyed through Propaganda to the Chinese Apostolic
Delegate, is as follows:
“Utrum in Sinis valere pergat dispositio primi Concilii anno 1024
celebrati, vi cuius secundum antiquam praxim in dispensatione super cultus
disparitatc Ecclesia dispensare intclligcbatur etiam ab impedimentis, a
quibus pars infidelis erat exempta; an potius standum sit Decreto S. Officii
dici 16 Aprilis 1931, iuxta quod Ecclesia in talibus casibus non intclligitur
dispensare ab impedimentis a quibus exempta est pars acatholica.”
“Essaminato accuratamcnte il dubbio proposto, questa Suprema S.C.
... ha ordinato di respondere: Negative ad primam partem; Affirmative
ad secundam partem. Et ad mentem: Mens est ut corrigatur can. 396
Concilii Sinensis anno 1924 celebrati.”0
I
τι
T«
I ,
J
u :
« 1
kï
II
<
1 Chclodi, Ita Matrimonial·, §67.
* Fonta, n. 866.
* 2 December, 1922; Syllogt, n. 107, ad 2.
'SlHoy, n. IJ7.
* Slllogt, o. 169.
339
MIXED MARRIAGES
Q. 302
302.—Dispensation “Ad Cautelam”
A dispensation it obtained throng}) the diocesan curia from the impediment of
mixed religion and, since the validity of the non-Catholic baptism was doubtful,
the document contained in addition the words “etiam, ad cautelam, super disparitate
cultus". After the dispensation was executed by the priest who applied for it,
it transpired beyond all doubt that the person was not baptised. Is ii necessary to
apply again for a dispensation from the impediment of disparity of worship ?
Canon 15 : Leges, etiam irritantes et inhabilitantes, in dubio juris non
urgent; in dubio autem facti potest Ordinarius in cis dispensare, dummodo
agatur de legibus in quibus Romanus Pontifex dispenare solet. Cf. also
canon 81.
Canon 209: In errore communi aut in dubio positivo et probabili sive
juris sive facti, juridictionem supplet Ecclesia pro foro tum externo tum
interno.
Vacuitates Additionales S. Cong. S. Officii (A): (i) Dispensandi, justis
gravibusque accedentibus causis, cum subditis etiam extra territorium, aut
non subditis intra limites proprii territorii, super impedimento mixtae
religionis, et, si casus ferat, etiam super disparitatc cultus, ad cautelam. . . .
(ii) Dispensandi, justis gravibusque accedentibus causis, cum subditis etiam
extra territorium, aut non subditis infra limites proprii territorii, super
impedimento disparitatis cultus (excepto tamen casu matrimonii cum parte
judaica aut mahumentana), . . ,
Dispensation from impediments obtained from a diocesan curia, by virtue
of faculties granted to them by the Apostolic See, arc usually issued in forma
gratiosa·, that is to say, the impediment is dispensed at the moment the
document is issued. What the priest docs is not to execute the dispensation
but merely to acquaint the parties of the fact that the dispensation has been
granted.
It is evident that the formula issued for mixed religion, including
ad cautelam disparity of worship, will not suffice for a case which is certainly
disparity of worship, and known so to be at the time of its issue. But, it
the dispensation is properly granted, in a case of doubtful baptism, with the
formula ad cautelam, the subsequent marriage is most certainly valid, even
though it is discovered that de facto the non-Catholic was not baptized.
In other words, for the validity of the marriage, no further dispensation is
required. The situation is amply covered by the wording of the quinquennial
faculties, and even without these faculties it is covered by canon 15, not to
mention the “supplied jurisdiction” of canon 209. “In cases of doubt of
fact, the Ordinary may dispense, that is the Ordinary is always empowered
to dispense, at least ad cautelam, though a dispensation may not always be
required. A dispensation is undoubtedly required in a dubium facti concern
ing a matrimonial impediment. For the law of the impediment being an
invalidating law, strictly speaking obtains, and if later the existence of the
impediment is really established, the Church regards such a marriage as
invalid. . . .” Thus writes Cicognani on canon 15.1 Later on in this
treatise, p. 843, commenting on canon 82, he writes, “However, when, for
1 Canon I-aw, Hng. Tn, p. 589.
QQ. 303, 304
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
54O
example, the matter concerns a doubtful diriment matrimonial impediment,
which becomes certain later on, the marriage should be regarded as valid if
the Bishop dispensed, otherwise invalid.”
303.—Ordinary for Dispensation
Titius dwelling in diocese “X” desires to contract a mixed marriage in diocese
“Y”. The Ordinary of “X” refuses a dispensation, and Titius, concealing this
refusal, seeks and obtains a dispensation from the Ordinary of “ Y”. Is this pro
cedure valid and lawful ?
*
(i) “Ex generali regula (potestas dispensandi) tam ordinaria quam
delegata exercetur in subditos ratione domicilii vel quasi-domicilii aut
actualis commorationis si agitur de vago, non ad alios nisi expressa fiat
extensio potestatis.”*
1 Exceptions to the general rule, in the common law,
may be seen in canon 1045: “in proprio territorio actu degentes” and in
canon 1313, n. 1: “etiam ad peregrinos”. Other exceptions may be
established from the terms of the delegated faculties enjoyed by an Ordinary.
In the case of mixed religion, the ordinary formula in the quinquennial
faculties expressly mentions that the dispensation may be extended to those
who are not subjects of the Ordinary: “Dispensandi, iustis gravib