^_^|;',j*B08TON COLLBS® MBRaRT - tfflESTNUT HILL, MASS. S .1 .w/ / THE ■1 ■V- , CAtiONlCAL STATOS OF PRIESTS IN THE UNITED STATES, BY If- Rev. R. L. BU RTSELLA D. D. . NEW YORK ■jr John J. O’Beien, Steam Book and Job Printer, 397 Fourth Avenue. 1887. BOOTOH 00“*®® OHfiSTKUT HlLIi, THE CANONICAL STATUS OF PRIESTS IN THE UNITED STATES, Rev. R. L. BURTSELL, D. D. I ♦ , c 4 (p ^ J3~7-7x \ ^ 7 • 9 ^ 73 -/ If the receiver of this pamphlet will send One Dollar to Rev. R. L. Bnrtsell, D.D., P. 0. Box 2535, New York, he will use it to aid priests who are deprived of the exercise of the ministry to regain it in accordance with the laws of the Church. INDEX. CHAPTER I, Page. Is there Canon Law in the United States ? A glance at the status of the clergy before and after the Declaration of Independence. The clergy requests the H oly See to appoint a Superior, and afterward by permission of the Holy See selects Baltimore as the first Episcopal See, and nominates the first bishop. Bishop Carroll holds a diocesan synod in 1791. In 1810 Archbishop Carroll holds a meeting of the bishops of the United States. In 1829 Archbishop Whitefield convenes the first provincial Council of Baltimore. Correc- tions of the decrees by the Holy See 5 CHAPTER II. The Propaganda quotes Benedict XIV to restrict an improper extension of the obligations which spring from the obedience promised by priests at ordi- nation . 9 CHAPTER III. The transfer of priests at the will of the bishop supposes the properly regulated will founded upon a conscientious judgment. Canon de Angelis sets forth the principles of natural equity recognized in Canon Law for dealing with priests removable at will. An unfair transfer entitles to a recourse to the Superior, by whom rehabilitation will be required 12 CHAPTER IV. The title of ordination the source of the priest’s maintenance. A glance at the various titles of ordination. The title of mission the usual title in the United States. The Propaganda lays down the principle of collateral obli- gations of priest and diocese which flow from the title of mission. This title of mission is not to be considered ordinary and permanent for the United States, but extraordinary, and allowed as a privilege for a time 17 CHAPTER V. The title of mission prevents entrance to any regular community without the consent of the Holy See. This title sometimes is a source of greater perfec- tion than the profession in a religious order. Comparison between the obedience of a secular priest and that of a member of a religious com- munity. Voluntary transfers from one diocese to another much facilitated by recent concessions of the Propaganda 22 CHAPTER VI. Gradual development of Canon Law after the first provincial Council of Balti- more. This Council gives attention to the proper formation of parishes, and to the relative positions of priests, Yet the rectors’ direction of the assistants is in relation to the parish duties 28 CHAPTER VII. Relations of assistants to the pastors. Controversies on purely ecclesiastical matter between clerics or religious not to be brought before the civil court, No such restriction imposed for purely secular matters. Rome has made concordats with catholic governments allowing ecclesiastics to summon and be summoned before the civil courts^ on secular matters. Rome’s wis- dom in yielding to the needs of the times 31 CHAPTER Vm. Par«, The first plenary Council of Baltimore in 18o2 gives its attention to the status of priests. The second plenary Council urges the formation of parishes. Parochial rights in great measure conceded. The rector must be consulted before the division of a mission 36 CHAPTER IX. Canonical parishes erected in the United States. Irremovable rectors. Their number not to be inconsiderately increased beyond one in ten. The Roman instructions favor an enlargement of this number. Competitive examination requisite for the obtaining a parish. The bishop must select the worthiest of those found to be fit by the Synodal Examiners. An appeal from the bishop’s selection lawful 40 CHAPTER X. All missionary rectors are permanent in office and not to be changed without a serious cause. *^Irremovable rectors are subject to removal, if found by the specified trial to be permanently harmful to the parish. The special causes for removal in the United States specified.-. . . r. Lii- -o ■ • Oil'- 45 CHAPTER XI. No one should ever be condemned unheard. Any one accused has a right to aid of counsel. Various forms of trial of 'priests in the United States. To- day every cleric accused has a right to a trial before chastisement can be inflicted 49 CHAPTER XII. The Propaganda instruction of 1878 called for by the complaints of the clergy, that no trial was offered them when chastisement was inflicted. Counsel must be admitted in any trial. Any priest in good standing may act as counsel. The “Commission of Investigation” superseded by the regular episcopal court by Instruction of I8b4 54 CHAPTER Xm. Cardinal Pecci, Bishop of Perugia, originates a summary procedure for trials of clerics. Pope Leo XIII approves the extension of this form of procedure to Italy, France and the United States. Strict adherence to the form of procedure necessary to impose any obligation of submission on the part of the accused ^ 59 . CHAPTER XIY. Bishops are primarily shepherds, and secondarily judges. The new form of procedure explained. The duties and rights of counsel for the accused clearly announced. The Procurator fiscalis must be an expert in law and in sifting testimony • • 63 CHAPTER XV. The Vicar-general must be qualified to act ns judge. In the United States the bishop’s qualifications are founded on better presumptive evidence. Htnce the Instruction for the United States differs somewhat from the summary procedure for Italy. The Roman, civil and ecclesiastical, forms of trial compared with the modern forms.e. The judge bound by the law as much as the accused CHAPTER XVI. • Page.. Penalties inflicted on clerics. Clerical prisons. Suspension, Excommunication, Interdict. A censirre pronounced after a legitimate appeal, or founded upon an intolerable mistake need not be heeded 71 CHAPTER XVII. Appeal not necessary even from an injustice. The people have an acknowledged right to complain of excessive burdens or other grievances. Kestrictions ‘ gradually placed on bishops’ authority. Appeal first to the Metropolitan and then to Propaganda the ordinary way. Appeal prevents execution of sentence of removal. Yet American bishops obtain a serious innovation upon this rule of Canon Law. Church property safeguarded by the civil courts ' 76' CHAPTER XVin. Consultors proposed to take part in the administration of dioceses, and to designate candidates for bishoprics, also to act as judges of causes of clerics. The Propaganda in 1883 recommends the establishment of chap- ters. ^The American hierarchy objects. The Propaganda yields ; and the American Council proposes still further modifications.. which are accepted The true method of appointing consultors as determined by the Council often neglected 82: CHAPTER XIX. '' .‘i When the advice of the consultors is necessary. The bishop obliged to hear the advice, but not bound to follow it. Action taken without this advice null and void, in certain defined matters. Serious modifications in the con- sultors’ duties from the recommendations of the Propaganda. The consul- tors appointed for three years only. How far the contracting of debts for church purposes is allowed 86’ CHAPTER XX. The designation of candidates for bishoprics by the Consultors and irremovable rectors. System of election of bishops in different periods of the history of the Church 90- CHAPTER XXI. Principles guiding the present selection of candidates for bishoprics. Method to be followed by the consultors and irremovable rectors in designating candidates. Independence required in the designation of candidates. Hence the irremovability of electors is important. Instruction from Rome of 1887 to safeguard the position of all missionary rectors if:. 94 CHAPTER XXII. Translations of bishops and rectors discountenanced by the laws of the Church, No removal'as punishment without the right to a trial. Wrong should not be done that good may come. Motives for a transfer. Hardships that may occur in transfers 99- CHAPTER XXIIL Summary of the subjects treated of in this pamphlet. The legislation of the Propaganda consistent from its emendation of the first Provincial Council of Baltimore, in 1829, to the last declaration of March, 1887, that no one can be removed without a just cause. -No one to be punished without a trial. The Propaganda facilitates the hearing of complaints, Roman legis- lation founded on natural equity 102.’ PREFACE. Many friends, clerical and lay, wlio gave their attention to a series of articles published by me in the New York Tablet during the current year on “The Canonical Status of Priests in the United States,” have persuaded me to put them together in pamphlet form. They are an abridgment of the conclusions reached by me after a careful study of the legislation of the Propaganda, and of the Baltimore Provincial and Plenary Councils for the Church in the United States. I have thought it wise to reproduce them exactly as they were published. It would have been a pleasure to amend any error into which I might have fallen, but none has been pointed out to me. No serious unfavorable criticism was, to my knowledge, made upon them, whilst theologians of ability, even high in posi- tion, have thought that these statements of the laws in a concise form would be very useful to the clergy. The laity will no doubt be also glad to have a plain statement of the enactments made for the equitable treatment of those who have the direct care of their spiritual welfare. Obedience to properly framed laws is conducive to manliness, submission to caprice and whim, or merely personal standards of i:)ropriety, leads to fawning, flattery, meanness and worldly motives for the fulfillment of even priestly duties. Hence the clergy will derive real profit from the knowledge of the safeguards of law, with which their position is protected by the legislation of the legitimate Ecclesiastical Authority. The laity will have more confidence in their clergy, when they realize that their positions are not acquired or retained by worldly methods, but that the laws of the Church are directed constantly to promote real merit, and to guard the meritorious in their rights. No disrespect and no disobedience can be charged against one who properly appeals to the law for the maintenance of his rights and it is only individual weakness that resents the submission of any action detrimental to a man and a priest, to the scrutiny of the forms of law prescribed by the Church, which is necessarily guided by the principles of natural equity. K. L. BUKTSELL. THE CANONICAL STATUS OF PRIESTS IN THE UNITED STATES. CHAPTER I. Is there Canon Law in the United States ? A glance at the status of the clergy before and after the Declaration of Independence. The clergy requests the Holy See to appoint a Superior, and afterward by permission of the Holy See selects Baltimore as the first Episcopal See, and nominates the first bishop. Bishop Carroll holds a diocesan synod in 1791. In 1810 Archbishop Carroll holds a meeting of the bishops of the United States. In 1829 Archbishop Whitefield convenes the first provincial Council of Baltimore. Correc- tions of the decrees by the Holy See. The precise position in ecclesiastical law of priests in the United States cannot be very accurately defined, especially at the present time, when modifications are gradually being introduced by the concurrent action of the bishops and of the congregation of the Propaganda, which, for this country, is the mouthpiece of the Holy See. A loose way of speaking has brought in vogue among the clergy, even reaching the bishops, the expression that “there is no Canon Law in this country.” This principle, if it could be true, would annihilate all ecclesiastical legislative power, even that of the bishops. The fact of our not being able to carry out many of the regula- tions of Canon Law has given rise to this misconception. All human, and therefore the purely ecclesiastical law, may be modi- fied by the law-giver or by circumstances preventing the thorough execution of the law, or by custom. Where there has been no such excuse for modification, the Canon Law has full sway throughout the whole Church. A glance at the position of priests and clerics in the United States at the beginning of the revolution against England will help our investigation. The clergy in Maryland, and the other missions of the original United States had been directed by the Vicar Apostolic of the London district in England, who had ap- pointed a Vicar General, a Father Lewis, Superior of the Jesuits over the missions in the colonies. 6 The greater part of the priests in the countiy were ex- Jesuits, the society having been suppressed in 1773. Father Lewis con- tinued to act as Superior to those who wished to live by the rules of the Society, and as Yicar General over all. Father Carroll, on February 20, 1782, wrote to Father Plowden, his friend in Eng- land: “ I regret that indolence prevents any form of administra- tion from being adopted which might tend to secure posterity a succession of Catholic clergymen and secure to them a comfort- able subsistence. I said that the former system of administration, that is, everything being in the power of a Superior, continued ; but all those checks upon him, so wisely provided by our former constitutions, are at an end.” Father Lewis called, on June 27 and November 26, 1783, general meetings of the priests to delib- erate on the state of religion. At the latter .meeting the clergy, in view of the acknowledged political independence of the United States from England, addressed a memorial to the Holy See to solicit the nomination of a Superior in ‘‘ spiritualibus,” to be chosen from among themselves. They appointed also a committee to draw up a regulation “ to establish a form of government for the clergy and lay down rules for the administration and government of their property.” On October 11, 1784, they adoj)ted the regulation reported by the committee establishing a regular chapter and district chapters, appointing a Procurator distinct from the Superior in Spirituali- bus, subjecting the latter’s measures to the approval of the dis- trict chapters. Father Farmer comments on this regulation in a letter to Father Carroll on January 19, 1785: “We' may have a voluntary union among ourselves, I allow, but it cannot constitute us a canonical body of clergy unless declared and appointed as such either by the Supreme Pastor or rather by a bishop set over us by him. Our association, even in temporalibus, I am afraid will be looked upon rather as a combination.” Meanwhile the Holy See had already watched the end of the struggle for independence, and as early as July 28, 1783, through the Nuncio at Paris, had taken steps to release the churches in the United States from spiritual subordination to England, and asked Franklin, then Ambassador to Paris, to obviate any difficulty to the appointment of a Vicar ‘Apostolic with the dignity of a bishop. The clergy, in the meeting of October, 1784, having heard of this letter and of the steps taken to obtain the consent of Con-' gress, which had declared the matter not within its jurisdiction, formulated the following curious resolution: It is the opinion of the majority of the chapter that a superior m spiritualibus with powers to give confirmation, grant faculties, dispensations, bless oils, etc., is inadequate to the present exi- gencies of religion in this country. Resolved therefore. First — That a Bishop is at present unnecessary. Second — That if one be sent, it is decided by the majority of the chapter that he shall not be entitled to any support from the present estates of the clergy. Third — That a committee of three be appointed to prepare and give an answer to Home conformable to the above resolution. Fourth — That the best measures be taken to bring in six proper clergymen as soon as possible, and the means be furnished by the chapter out of the general fund, except when otherwise provided. On May 12, 1784, the Nuncio at Paris wrote to Father Carroll for the information necessary for the guidance of the Holy See in the establishment of a bishop to be appointed in the quality of Vicar Apostolic, and on June 19, 1784, the Holy See, in accord with the early request of the missionaries, appointed one of themselves Superior of the Mission, and selected for this position Father Carroll. The missionaries, ascertaining the determination of Rome to appoint a bishop for the mission, requested that he should not be a mere Vicar Apostolic, but a bishop with a title from a regularly fixed See in this country. Pius VT. acceding to their wish by decree of the congregation of the Propaganda of July 12, 1789, directed the priests exercising the ministry in the United States to assemble and determine in what city the See. should be, and who of themselves seemed most worthy to' be raised to the Episcopacy — a privilege granted as a favor, and for that time only. The officiating priests nominated Father Carroll. This choice was ratified at Rome on November 6, 1789, when Pius VI. founded the Episcopal See of Baltimore, instituting Father John Carroll as first Bishop. He was consecrated at Lul- w*orth Castle Chapel by Right Rev. Bishop Walmsley, Father Charles Plowden delivering the sermon on the occasion. In the first diocesan synod of 1791, in the fourth session, priests, regular or secular, are forbidden to hear confessions without previous approbation of the bishop, or after it has been withdrawn. Priests are also forbidden, under threat of suspen- sion, to abandon the congregation assigned them, to transfer themselves to another without Episcopal consent, and fixing there a residence to attempt to exercise parochial functions. 8 In the third session, 7th decree, it is ordered that the offerings made at the service on Sundays and festivals by the people shall be divided into three parts, one for the support of the priests, the other for the poor, and the third for the Church. And in the fifth session. No. 23, the faithful are taught their obligation of supporting the Church and pastors under mortal sin. In the first meeting of the Archbishop and bishops of the United States, in 1810, some articles of ecclesiastical discipline were drawn up, in which it was ordained, first, that priests ap- proved in any diocese of the United States may exercise faculties in the neighboring dioceses and if they left their own diocese with- out an Exeat they are not allowed to use these faculties beyond two months from the time of their departure, unless they shall have received them anew from the bishop into whose diocese they have passed; and secondly, that superiors of regular or secular congregations were not to be allowed to withdraw, against the bishop’s wish, their subjects when the bishop had entrusted them with the care of souls. In 1829 Archbishop Whitefield convened the first Provincial Council of Baltimore, to which all the bishops in the United States, then forming the one Ecclesiastical Province of Baltimore, were called. We find an important declaration made in this Council with regard to the relations of bishops and priests in the United States and of priests toward one another. It will be well for us to transcribe it, as it is the first formal attempt to define these relations. The Provincial Council in its decrees as approved by the Holy See declares In No. 1. “ As it has been called into doubt by certain persons whether the prelates of the Church in these United States had the right to send the priests to any part of the diocese to exercise the sacred ministry, and to recall them as they judged fit in the Lord: we admonish all priests dwelling in these dioceses, whether or- dained therefor, or adopted therein, that remembering the pro- mise of their ordination, they decline not to go to the mission designated by the bishop, if the bishop should judge that therein a sufficient and decent support could be had, and that said office suited the health and strength of the priests.” (They declare that they do not wish to interfere with the privi- leges of religious, nor to make any innovation with regard to parochial benefices, of which they say one only is so far known in these United States, in the city of New Orleans.) In No. 2. “We decree and declare that any priest ordained for 9 any diocese of this province, is bound by force of the oath taken at his ordination to remain in the same diocese, and to obey his Prelate till he has been canonically released. We decree also that by this obligation is bound any priest adopted into any dio- cese: we declare to be thus adopted any priest coming from an- other diocese as soon as his testimonials and the dismissory letters of the prelate to whom he had been subject, are shown by the priest himself to the ordinary to whom he wished to become sub- ject, and by him are definitely accepted. By these decrees we do not in any way wish to contradict whatever Benedict XIV clearly teaches in regard to priests who may wish to pass to some reli- gious order.” No little light will be thrown upon our subject by calling atten- tion to the corrections made by the Holy See to the decrees as originally drafted by the Fathers of the Council. They had in the first decree said that “priests by the virtue of the promise taken in ordination were obliged to obey the bishop commanding them to attend to any mission within the diocese, and thence re- calling them as he thought fit in the Lord.” On this we have a most important declaration from the Holy See through the con- gregation of the Propaganda: “In the first decree of the Balti- more Council it is decreed that priests who exercise the ministry in the dioceses of the United States are removable at w*ill from the churches and missions which they serve. It is in accord with the Council of Trent that priests should not be ordained unless attached to a church or ‘ sacred institution ’ (loco pio) for whose need or utility they are appointed. Generically the church which the priests must serve is the diocese to which they belong, speci- fically it is the establishment (locus) to which they are assigned by the bishop.” CHAPTER IL The Propaganda quotes Benedict XIV to restrict an improper extension of the obligations which spring from the obedience promised by priests at ordi- nation. The Propaganda in its instruction upon the decrees of the first Provincial Council of Baltimore of 1829, (GoUectio Lacensis Tom III, page 22) continues to comment upon the original draft of the two first decrees to indicate the extent of the obedience resulting from the promise made by priests at their ordination, pointing out that this promise does not entail the strict obligation of going Avher- ever the bishop may direct; nor does it suppose the right of the bishop to remove a priest from any place to which he has already 10 been assigned. The general law supposes that every priest shall be attached to a determined diocese, and also to a special position which carries with it fixity of tenure, unless there arise a serious and just cause for change. The Fathers of the Council were in- clined to exaggerate their authority even to the infringement of the spirit of the universal legislation of the church, and they are told to revise their decree so as to place it in conformity with, or at least to avoid contradiction of the general practice. The Pro- paganda says: “The Baltimore Council declares this removability to proceed from the solemn promise of obedience made by priests to the bishops when they are ordained, and therefore it is determined in the first decree that ‘ by virtue of the promise taken in ordination they are held to obey the bishop commanding them to attend any mission within the diocese.’ Benedict XIV, speaking of this pro- mise of obedience, says; ‘Neither do we think that the solemn promise of obedience and reverence Avhich the priest makes in the hands of the ordaining bishop, according to the very old custom of the Church, is to be held as a merely meaningless form. Bather we willingly recognize that the priest by virtue of that promise is bound by the law not to depart from the Church to which in ordi- nation he was assigned without permission from the bishop.” “ This being so, it seems to the Sacred Congregation that the Baltimore bishops speaking about that obedience have attached more {graviori modo iltam explicasse) serious meaning to it than Benedict XIV. For that most wise Pontiff affirmed that that pro- mise produced the effect that a priest without the bishop’s per- mission cannot depart from the church to which he was assigned in ordination; but the Baltimore Council decrees that ‘by virtue of the promise taken in ordination priests are obliged to obey the bishop commanding them to attend to any mission in the diocese.’ Therefore it would please the congregation that these words should be used in the decree; We admonish priests that remember- ing the promise taken in ordination they should not decline to at- tend to any mission designated by the bishop.” “ The second decree establishes that a priest ‘ by virtue of the promise taken in ordination is obliged to remain in a diocese and obey the bishop until he has been canonically released.’ This is more in accord with what has been above shown to have been taught by Benedict XIV. Some words might, however, be added to show that in regard to priests wishing to pass to a religious order those things are to be observed which in the above consti- tution are taught by Benedict XIV.” 11 We may here consider that the Propaganda wishes to keep be- fore the eyes of the bishops in the United States the general dis- cipline of the Church in such a way as to prevent their narrowing its interpretation by local utility or even necessity. The promise of obedience in ordination is too general an ac- companiment of ordination to allow the narrow and strict inter- pretation which circumstances of local needs tempted the bishoj^s then to attribute to it. It will suffice to recall the title of patri- mony alone on which ordination is very frequently given, yet those ordained with this title, though making the identical pro- mise of obedience to the bishop, are not obliged to do more than fulfill certain obligations of the priesthood without devoting them- selves directly to the care of souls. Any such obligation in this country would more naturally spring from the “title of the mission” under which priests are generally ordained, and which derives much of its force from the oath made by the priest to devote himself to the care of souls and to serve the diocese for which he is ordained. Though even here the Propaganda applauds and recommends “that priests be admonished (not commanded), that remembering the promise taken in ordination (not by virtue of the promise), they should not decline to attend to any mission designated by the bishop.” Yet its calling attention to the fact that it is in accord with the Council of Trent, that usually in ordination there is a fixed place assigned to the priest in the shape of a special “ sacred establish- ment” {locus pius) let this be a parish church, a chaplaincy or a vicariate, or other similar appointment, shows that it is supposed that in every case this assignment is to be permanent (though not strictly perpetual), because not to be changed without a grave and serious reason; and even then the Sacred Congregation will use no word implying the obligation of accepting another local appointment. The obligation of obedience of a secular priest is entirely different from that of a religious bound by the vow of a religious community, whereby he subjects himself to do all com- manded by the superior that is not sinful, and has renounced the right to a choice or the exercise of his own will, though even the superior of a religious community is restricted in his commands by the constitution of the order. The secular priests’ obedience, promised at the reception of Holy Orders is almost negative in its character, forbidding him to leave the diocese or his charge without permission of the bishop; but not obliging him (above all if he has a just cause to decline) to accept any in pirticular at his ordination. 12 If Archbishop Carroll had been the presiding genius of this. Provincial Council, he would not have been misled into narrow- ing too stringently this obligation of obedience, remembering the frank way in which he had stated it in a letter of 1779, quoted in De Courcy Shea’s History of the Church in the United States. He writes: “I have care of a xerj large congregation. * * * Yet because I live with my mother, for whose sake alone I sacri- ficed the very beat j)lace in England, and told Mr. Lewis (the Yicar-General), that I did not chose to be subject to be removed from place to place, now that we had no longer the vow of obedi- ence to entitle us to the merit of it, he does not choose to bear any part of my expenses.” He understood and makes clear the distinction between the obligation by which he w^as held when a Jesuit to go wherever sent by the superior from the obedience which he owed the Yicar- General, even though he had full powers to govern the Church in the United States from the Yicar Apostolic of the London Dis- trict, w'ho was really the bishop without the direct title. Benedict XIY. in Lib. III. De Serv. Dei Beatif. cap. XLI., par. 9, says of members of regular communities, bound even by the solemn vow of obedience: “ The Superior is to be obeyed in w^hatever belongs to the rule of the Order, and in those things that ma}" be deductions of the rule, but in other things that are not deducible from the rule the obedience is not necessary but a matter of greater perfection.” The general law^s of the Church, as also the diocesan statutes, w’hen conformed to the general law, are the guides and limits of the obedience of the secular priests, those having the care of souls having sj^ecial duties w^hich spring from their office wdiich they assume voluntarily, or as is the case in this country, they prom- ise to assume wdien ordained. CHAPTEK III. The transfer of i3riests at the will of the bishop supposes the properly regulated will founded upon a conscientious judgment. Canon De Angelis sets forth the principles of natural equity recognixed in Canon Law for dealing with priests removable at will. An unfair transfer entitles to a recourse to the Superior, by whom rehabilitation will be required. The Propaganda, while insisting wdth the Fathers of the Balti- more Council of 1829, upon a moderate interpretation of the obedience of a priest to his bishop in view of the promise made at 13 liis ordination, took occasion to call attention to tlie reciprocal and equitable obligation contracted thereat by the bishop to deal with the priest not according to whim but with mature judgment, remembering the account that the bishop will be called to give to the Lord of the j^roper administration of his diocese. When the will of the bishop is mentioned as the guide for his action, he is not allowed to follow his whim or caprice, or even his pleasure, but a judicious determination to provide for the welfare of both priest and people, whence is derived the expression of the limita- tion of his will: “As he determineth in the Lord.” Hence the Propaganda emphasized first the generic relation of the priest to the diocese. As he is not free to leave it without permission from the bishop, so the bishop is not free to cut him off from it. This reciprocal obligation is made still stronger in this country where the title of mission, under which priests are generally ordained, is not derived from the bishop but from the Propaganda : whence even where there should arise serious cause for cutting off a priest from a diocese, it cannot be done without the Propaganda’s consent. j After mentioning the generic relation to the diocese, the Prop- aganda reminded the bishops of the general church legislation, whereby each priest at his ordination is assigned to a particular church or pious establishment to which he is to be attached per- manently, that his temj)oral maintenance may not be in jeopardy. The bishop is not supposed to remove him from the one to which he has been assigned and which has been accepted without a serious and a just cause, that is, from the welfare of religion and of souls, or to use the accepted formula, “prout in Domino judi- caverit.” At any time if the bishop should deal arbitrarily in his removal in regard to any priest, the latter has a right to have recourse to the canonical superior of the bishop, who may claim the right of deciding upon the sufficiency of the cause for removal, and if not satisfied of its reasonableness, will insist upon his restoration to his charge or office. We deem it proper to fortify this position with the opinion of a Canonist who died but recently and was fully alive to all the circumstances of Catholic and Missionary countries that might have tended to do away with the former discipline of the Church in this regard; cir- cumstances to which, especially in Missionary countries, appeal is made to suggest an utter variance from the former equity of Canon Law. Very often this comes from the false notion that Canon Law does not bind Missionary countries, that therefore everything is left to the will of the Superior or Bishop, who may 14 mistakingly consider himself in these circumstances the source of all law. If the bishop was always wise in his judgment, less inconvenience would result from this notion. The Pope does not deem himself the capricious originator of natural equity; but as the Canon law is the outcome of natural equity, so the Pope deems himself bound to act in accord with it. One of these first equitable princqiles of natural law compels the law-giver not to take away from individuals their personal rights, except where their exercise is incompatible with the general good. All law is made for the common welfare. Hence the Pope never gives a l^rohibition, nor makes a removal, nor obliges the taking of a burden except where the public good prompts his action, and hence has always a serious and just cause for which he knows how to give an account to the Just Judge. But as soon as it is said that a “ certain occupant of a position is removable at will ("‘amoviblis ad nutum ”) — some think that the “adnvtum'' means the pleasure, the whim, the caprice,* aye, and sometimes even the spite of the superior. Canon He Angelis was professor of Canon Law in the Homan Seminary and a consultor of Propaganda. His book is therefore a useful guide for Catholic and missionary countries. In tom. 1, part 2, page 55, he says: “Temporary vicars, that is, removable at will, have not canonical institution, but simple ‘ deputation nor is such vicariate apt to become a title for ordination because of the want of perpetuity, for they can of their own accord renounce it, nor must the renunciation be necessarily subject to the acceptation of the Bishop. But here it may be asked: ‘ Can movable vicars be removed without cause, so that it is in the power of the senders to remove them in what- soever manner, and so that they have no remedy in law to arbi- trary dealings against them ? To this question to-day principally is required a direct and full reply, because the question is red hot. The answer in my judgment maybe thus given: In the first place I remark that against the decree of removal of a mov- able vicar there is no true appeal but a recourse to the Pontiff, for as their position is not determined by law as is that of titular parish priests and perpetual vicars, hence the ordinaiy remedy of law does not belong to them whereb}^ to complain of their denied rights, but only a recourse which in all cases belongs to these removed clerics from ‘a certain unwritten equity,’ as Cardinal de Luca says in Part 1 He Benef, Disc 97, No. 13. And this unwrit- ten equity will be explained below. It is to be remarked, how- ever, that the bishop or other person removing, is not obliged to explain to the removed vicar the cause of his removal, but only to* 15 make known his wish to effect the removal; but he is obliged to reveal this cause or motive to the Supreme Pontiff, to whose tribunal recourse is had; or at least to indicate the whole process of removal, that he may admit or reject the recourse. It is thirdly to be remarked that there is a great difference between the simple removal of a temporary vicar and his susjjension ‘ ex informata conscientia.’ For though even for the suspension ‘ex informata conscientia ’ the bishop is not obliged to reveal to the suspended one the motives which induced him to proceed; yet it is certain that they are to be made known to the Supreme Pontiff to whom recourse has been had, and on the other side, unless there were serious reasons, this suspension ‘ ex informata consci- entia ’ does not hold, as it is a real punishment which is not admitted except for crime.” On pages 58 and 59 he writes: “As to bishops’ dealings with regard to secular clergymen, who are ‘ vicars removable at will,’ I consider the following to be held from the answers of the Sacred Congregations: “ 1. If the recall of the vicar takes place from ‘ hatred and malice,’ then there is the case of rehabilitation or retention of these vicars in the office from which they have been deposed. This is most openly admitted by Cardinal De Luca (in cit. dis. 97 num®, and by the ‘Kota,’ in Causa Hispalens, 21st June, 1641, Coram Pentingero, even though the Kota held that the bishops could remove said temporary vicars wdthout cause. * * * 2. If likewise the recall should cause loss of honor or disgrace, or be seriously prejudicial to the vicar, then the recall without cause should be annulled and the vicar retained in his office, as is held by Cardinal De Luca loco cit. 3. Illness or old age is not sufficient cause for the removal of the vicar, “temporaneus in beneficio,” — apjDointed temporarily to a benefice — if wdien young and in health he attended to his duty. In this the laws make no distinction between perpetual and tem- porary benefices, as is shown by Fagnanus in cap Consultationi- bus de clerico Aegrotante num, 45; and that this is carried out in mere offices in accord with the practice of the Apostolical curia is shown by the same author. The same is felt by Keiffenstuel, in Commentar, ad lit de Clerico Aegrotante, not only in regard to benefices but also as to Ecclesiastical administrations and offices. And this is the decision of Cardinal De Luca (in disc, 20 de re- galibus admateriam officiorum.) This is shown by the authors, to be the decision of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, which on May 25, 1822, retained all the income to a temporary vicar, who on account of very advanced age w^as powerless to give 16 his service to the cure of souls, though the ordinary had explained that thus no provision could be made for the ministry. 4. If no cause of recall has been brought and made known to the Sacred Congregation, it has been the custom to annul the re- call and retain the temporary vicar in the office from which he has been deposed. Giraldi (in addit ad Tract, de Officio et Pot. Par. cap 115), speaking of temj)orary vicars says: “And though removable parish priests may be removed as often as their re- moval is needed, yet it must be understood that in fact they are not to be removed without legitimate cause.” (Sacred Congrega- tion Council, 11th July, 1626, S. Cong, of Bish. and Reg. in Sul- monensi, 24 May, 1645, and 16th May, 1653), and a little further on he says: “All removable curates can be removed at the will of the diocesan bishop. But they must not be removed except for reasonable and just cause. For the rule of justice is to be fol- lowed, and the honor consulted of those who are to be removed, and this is the “unwritten equity” of which Cardinal de Luca spoke above in Part I, Disc. 97, De Benef, and from which a re- course or complaint to the Superior is allowable against the ex- ercise of whim; at least involving a certain summary judgment of the cause for which the removal takes place, as there hardly happens a case without some hatred, or without a prejudice resulting in one’s reputation or otherwise.” He cites the decisions of the Sacred Congregation insisting upon this rehabilitation, where no cause was adduced, reversing, as he says, the excessive rigor shown by the Rota in the case cited above; and concludes that “temporary vicars may be re- moved for a serious cause, but whilst not properly an appeal, still a recourse for redress to the Superior is always open to them.” While, therefore, from grave reasons of administration, there may at times be allowed a transfer of a movable priest from one church or establishment to another, there is the right of com- plaint to the superior, if this transfer be not made so as not to imply any blame or fault in the one so removed. Hence a fair similarity, as far as possible an equality of positions must be clear in the transfer. The priest’s reputation must be protected from any arbitrary act. If his good name is at all touched, he has a positive right to the proper process and trial in self-defence. And if any such injury should unfairly or unjustly be attached to the transfer, the Equity of the Church requires his reinstatement. 17 CHAPTER IV. The title of ordination the source of the priest’s maintenance. A glance at the various titles of ordination. The title of mission the usual title in the United States. The Propaganda lays down the principle of collateral obli- gations of i^riest and diocese which flow from the title of mission. This title of mission is not to be considered ordinary and permanent for the United States, but extraordinary, and allowed as a j)rivilege for a time. Anciently the church building was called a “ title,” and as there was a rule that no one should be promoted to orders who was not attached to a special church, there arose the formula that “ a cleric was not to be ordained without a title.” Thus the ordained were assigned to a special service connected with their church or title, and from it drew the means of maintenance. Soglia (Just. Jur. Priv. Cap. VI de Sac. Ord., § LIV, de Tit. Ord.) says; ‘‘As the cleric was bound to the perpetual service of his church, so he acquired the right to obtain from its revenues according to his office a competent maintenance. The title thus produced a double obligation: the cleric was bound to a perpetual service of the church, and the church was bound to provide for the maintenance of the cleric.” The original title of ordination was that of the service of the church, “Servitii Ecclesise.” This was the only title for many centuries. But in course of time the property of the churches was divided and the portion belonging to the clergy was also apportioned in so many parts according to the various offices assigned to the clergy. These portions received the name of benefices; whence the expression to be ordained with a title be- came equivalent to that of being ordained with a benefice. This benefice was necessary even for the reception of the minor orders (D’Angelis Prael Jur. Can, Lib. I, Tit. XI, pp. 2^8 et seq.). By neglect of the church discipline many were ordained without a benefice or title, though they were considered to have incurred irregularity and were thereby unfitted to attend to the ministry of the Church. They very often took part in secular business to the lowering of the clerical order and to the scandal of the faith- ful. The abuse had become so great that the third Council of Lateral! could only see its way to the prohibition where there was not sufficient support from a special church to confer the orders of deaconship and the priesthood unless it were shown that the applicant for these orders had sufficient means from his own or the paternal estate. Innocent III, sought to extend this rule to all clerics but failed. Since the time of Innocent IV, a title of ordination has been required for sub-deaconship ; but, already patrimony was deemed a sufficient title for ordination. Thence arose another abuse that some bishops would confer orders on 18 those who would promise not to trouble them for their support. The Council of Trent sought to recall the early discipline of re- quiring that every cleric should be attached to a special church or pious institution (loco pio) and made the rule that no one should receive sacred or major orders if not provided with a benefice sufficient for a proper support; limiting the right of the bishops to confer orders on the holders of patrimony or a pension only when the needs of' the diocese required it. The pension here mentioned is a fixed revenue assigned to the holder in perpetu- ity in sufficient amount for the support of the ordained, whether it be derived from possessions of the Church or from the laity. The Council declared any bishop to incur suspension, reserved to the Pope, from conferring orders for three years who should or- dain any one not having the title of benefice or of patrimony, with the compact that the ordained should not require his support from the bishop. This is still in force. By the Council’s decree any one so ordained incurred suspension from the exercise of the order conferred; but since the Bull “Apostolicse Sedis”ofPius IX, in 1869, this is considered to be no longer in force; nor do those now ordained with a false title incur censure. In favor of the religious life, a special title, that of ‘‘Poverty,” was attached to the solemn j)rofession in an approved religion, giving to the professed a right to their maintenance from the pos- sessions of the order or from the alms given by the piety of the faithful to the community. Akin to this is the title of “Common Table” (Mensse Communis), granted to certain communities recognized by the Holy See which either have no vows or only simple vows, and whence the members may pass to the secular priesthood. The community is held responsible for their maint- enance until they are canonically detached from the community. The precise purpose of the Church in requiring a title of ordina- tion is to avoid the lowering of those constituted in sacred orders, that they may have no excuse to engage in secular pursuits or be compelled to beg for their maintenance; hence the principle that has always guided the Church required that those to be ordained should in perpetuity be provided with a sufficient and decent sujDport. One of the many disciplinary matters to be adjusted at the General Council of the Vatican was, it is well known, the question of the title of the ordination. Throughout Europe, even in Cath- olic countries, the confiscation of ecclesiastical possessions by the civil governments has well nigh done away with ecclesiastical benefices; and the pensions that are allowed by some of them to 19 priests actually in service of tlie churches are not gTaiited till after ordination. Hence it has been necessary, where the title of patrimony or pension cannot be had, to apply to the Holy See for a relaxation of the law of the Council of Trent. It has been the custom of the Holy See to avoid granting an indefinite relax- ation, but it has limited the dispensation to a fixed number of persons, or to a fixed body or community of persons, placed in specially mentioned circumstances. (Lucidi, De Visit Sac. Lim., Part la, Yol. 10, p. 461.) A special provision was established with the express sanction of the Holy See for the countries subject to the sacred congregation of the Propaganda that sacred orders might be conferred with the title of Mission, which imposes the obligation of their main- tenance upon the Apostolic Vicariates or Dioceses for which they are ordained, and which they bind themselves by oath to serve for life. “ They obtain the necessaries of life from the sacred ministry to which they are attached.” As this is the usual title under which sacred orders are usually conferred in the United States, we shall consider this title at some length. The ordination under this title was granted as a privilege to certain Pontifical Colleges, among which pre-eminent is the Urban College of the Propaganda, established and endowed with this privilege by Urban VIII. in 1638. An oath is an obligatory accompaniment of the title of mission; which is in this form: “ I N., son of N., of the diocese or vicariate of N., promise and swear that after I have been promoted to sacred orders, I shall not enter any religion, society or congregation, nor make therein a profession without a special permission of the Apostolic See, or of the Sacred Congregation for the propagation of the faith. “ I vow likewise and swear that in this diocese or vicariate or (as they have to swear who are not as yet affiliated to a mission) in the mission to which it will please the Holy See or the Sacred Congregation for the propagation of the faith to assign me, I shall during life work and labor in the administration of sacred things for the salvation of souls under the entire direction and jurisdiction of the reverend prelate, who is for the time the ordinary : I shall also do so, if by permission of the Holy See I shall enter any religion or any society or community of regulars, even if I shall have made therein my profession. “ I vow and swear that I understand this oath and its obliga- tion, and that I shall fulfill it — so may God help me and these holy gospels of God.” 20 Very often tlie administering of this oath was neglected. The fathers of the First Provincial Council of St. Louis even asked the Holy See to remit the obligation of taking the oath binding per- petually to the service of a specified diocese ; but in vain. As the ordained under the title of the mission is bound to the perpetual service of the specified mission, diocese or vicariate, this mission or diocese is most reasonably obliged to provide for his support as long as by fault of his he does not render himself unfit for the administration of sacred things. The Congregation of the Propaganda has always taken upon itself the duty of enforcing the mutual obligation. It denies to the priest the j)rivilege of leaving the exercise of the ministry in that diocese or vicariate, nor will it allow him to be dismissed without its per- mission, or that of the Holy See. A decree of the Eighth Pro- vincial Council of Baltimore, held in 1855, stated “ that priests who are ordained under the title of the mission, or should after- ward acquire it, lose their title, when they receive from their bishop a dismissorial letter absolving them from all obligation of serving the mission of that diocese, and by this fact they are deemed suspended from their order until they recover it or obtain another canonical title: the same is to be held of those 23romoted to orders under another canonical title who afterwards lost it. They do not recover the title of the mission until being ado 2 )ted into another diocese they take an oath binding them to l^eiq^etually serve its missions.” The Congregation of the Propa- ganda sent at once notice that it was 23re2)aring an instruction on the Title of Ordination, wherein It would lay down the 2 )rinci 2 :)les which govern the Proj^aganda, and must be followed by the lates having subjects ordained or acce]3ted under this title. This was x^ublished on A^Dril 17, 1871. In it is laid down that this is an extraordinary title, under the special suj^ervision of the Sacred Congregation of Pro^^aganda, which Avill not grant its use 2 >erma- nently, but only for a restricted number of cases, or at most for a fixed 23eriod of time. It cautions the bishoj^s, when wishing to use the title for ordination, to have in mind the serious duties that this title imj^oses of working for life in the arduous tasks of the sacred ministry. Hence only those are to be allow^ed this title whose endowments fit them for and whose character promises l^erseverance in this imj^ortant labor. The chosen ones are to be obliged to take the oath to serve for life the mission to wdiich they are to be attached. This title may be obtained before actual presence in the mis-* tion, but requires the readiness to go to the mission, when the 21 superiors desire it. And as private good must cede to the public welfare, those ordained under this title are forbidden to enter religion (a regular order) until the Holy See, after consultation with the Ordinary, may deem it allowable. This title, as the other titles of ordination, according to the rules laid down in canon law, may be lost by the priest or may be withdrawn by the Ordinar- ies, but only with the consent of the Propaganda, to which belongs the right to absolve from the obligation of the oath. The loss of any title does not involve the suspension of the priest, though the ordinaries must oblige the ordained to substitute another title, as is laid down in the Canons. Pirrhing states (Lib. III., Tit. VIII., De Concess Praeb. § III.) that privation, even of a benefice, is decreed in some cases by the violation itself (ipso jure) of the law; and in other cases by the sentence of the Judge for certain crimes specified by the law as homicide, perjury, sacrilege, sodomy, adultery, etc. Any regular priest absolved from the solemn vows, or a priest leaving any congregation, must be compelled to obtain another title before they depart; and if they remain in the missionary country they must prove that they have the means for their decent support. Any one raised to sacred orders under the title of the mis- sion who gives up the office of missionary loses his title and must seek another. If he wfishes to devote himself to the service of another mission, to obtain the title from this mission it will be necessary to have recourse to the Holy See. The privilege of ordaining under this title given the prelate of this mission does not avail for the case of adopting a missionary priest from , another mission. The Oi'dinaries of missions are exhorted to avail themselves of the services of those having other titles, in accordance with the laws; nor can they compel them to take the title of the mission. In fact the congregation exhorts the Ordinaries to introduce as far as possible the other lawful titles for ordination.. Undoubtedly the Sacred Congregation wishes to relieve itself of the burden j)laced upon it by this title of mission, which is un- der its sj^ecial supervision and imposes upon it responsibilities toward the priests ordained under it. As long as the bishops use this extraordinary title they must be prepared for the exercise of the Sacred Congregation’s ordinary right to inquire directly into the ca^e of each priest whose title or right to maintenance derived therefrom is in any way touched. If the other titles were substituted the Sacred Congregation Avould 22 consider itself called uj)on to interfere in those cases onl}^ where a formal appeal is lodged against an alleged arbitraiy act of a bishop. This certainly has the advantage in behalf of the priest that he has always a right if aggrieved to have recource to the Sacred Congregation, which is guided by the fixed rules and traditions of the church and free from any personal whim or even from any private peculiar standard of right and wrong. Even after a trial by the bishop’s court, though suspension and other disciplinary corrections and even removal from office may be inflicted, the privation of the title of the mission can only take effect by consent of the Propaganda. Yet as the very obligation of maintenance of missionaries springs from their working for the welfare of souls, or in the words of the Propaganda, “they who are ordained under the title of the mission obtain their support from the Apostolic ministry in the mission to which they are attached,” the Propaganda in 1879 in its supjflement to its Instruction of 1878 declares that it had not intended in any way to affect or weaken the juridical effects of Decree 77 of the second Plenary Council of Baltimore, which enacted that all who having by their own fault rendered themselves unfit for the work of the ministry and were by the bishop’s sentence deprived of its exercise could have no just claim to demand their support from the bishop); saving of course the right of appeal to the Metropolitan and to the Holy See. This would not however be the case if by illness or other cause without moral fault the joriest were incapacitated from the exer- cise of the ministiy. The title of the mission burdens the diocese or apostolic vicariate with the obligation of his maintenance. The title gives birth to the two-fold obligation — on the part of the priest to serve the mission for life, and on the part of the mission to secure him for life a proper maintenance. CHAPTER V. The title of mission prevents entrance to any regular community without the consent of the Holy See. This title sometimes is a source of greater perfec- tion than the profession in a religious order. Comparison between the obedience of a secular priest and that of a member of a religious com- munity. Voluntary transfers from one diocese to another much facilitated by recent concessions of the Propaganda. The title of ordination gives permanent security of maintenance to all priests whetner they have the care of souls or not, whether they are rectors of defined districts and congregations, chaplains 23 of institutions or assistants whose clut}' it may l)e to aid others, wherever their services are required. In this country the title of mission makes this adequate provision for all the priests belonging to the prefecture apostolic, vicariate aimstolic or dio- cese, and the first duty of the Ordinary, who is the bishop, is toward the clergy, that while they devote themselves to the care of souls, they may obtain a decent and honorable maintenance. If at any time this is unattainable where the priest is located, he has a just claim upon the bishop for such arrangements as will enable him to attain what is his due. “ They who are ordained under the title of mission obtain their support from the Apostolical Ministry to which they are attached.” This title therefore carries with it the obligation of attending to the care of souls, which is not necessarily attached to the other titles. Thus there are communities of priests having for their title that of “Poverty,” supported by alms, whose object is a life of contemplation and self-sanctification, who are not called upon for the exercise of any duties connected with the charge of the people. Many secular priests ordained under the title of j)atri- mony or benefice never hear confessions nor preach, nor are called upon for any Avork directly in behalf of the souls of others. There is undoubtedly more vagueness in the title of mission and less stability of maintenance, than is attached to the other titles, yet the Propaganda when granting the use of this title emphasizes the importance of making this stability sufficient to take away from the priest all excuse for greed or unworthy begging, or anything which may be improper in a clergyman or has the tendency to lower the clerical order in the eyes of the people. But a reasonable stability is given by burdening the whole diocese, or vicariate, or i)refecture apostolic with the main- tenance of the priest, and the obligation deA^olves upon the bishop or ordinary to provide for the wants of any priest who has spent himself in the ministry, nor can the bishop condition this support upon any unreasonable restrictions, or such as do not really sjmng from the care of souls. Nor can this support be denied any one who has not been legally, that is by the proper forms of law, deprived of his title. There is no greater intensity of obedience arising from the title of mission than from the promise of obedience given at ordination, and to which the Propaganda prevented the Fathers of the First Council of Baltimore from attaching more importance than was allowed by Benedict XIY. In fact, one of the main purports of the title of the mission was in accord with the moderation attributed to that obedience 24 as explained by Benedict XIV., viz: that a j^riest should not leave a charge to which he was assigned without permission from the Ordinary. Not a few ordained as apostolic missionaries, because of the vagueness of the title, thought themselves free to go from one bishop to another without giving proper notice, to offer their services where they thought there was greatest need, or deemed themselves most welcome ; hence the Propaganda required that they take an oath to work for life in that special diocese or vicariate for which they were ordained, or else in that to which they would afterwards with their own consent be assigned by the Propaganda. The Propaganda never claimed the right under this oath of sending any one from one diocese to another, nor does the Holy See ever claim the right of sending priests from one diocese to another, unless this is expressly stipulated at some time before they have bound themselves to the Ecclesiastical state for life. Even in religious Orders where there is the solemn vow of obedience, no member of the community may be sent without his consent away from the special district or province to which he belongs when he takes the vow, unless he adds a special j^roviso of his willingness to go wherever his superiors may choose to send him. The title of mission therefore is to prevent a priest from going from one vicariate apostolic or diocese to another. In that vicariate or diocese it binds him to devote him- self for life to the care of souls, and this obligation is imposed because the diocese or vicariate apostolic is subjected to the bur- den of providing for his temporal wants. This title is perpetual in its effects or permanent for life, wherein the title of mission does not differ from any of the other titles of ordination. With the consent of the Propaganda a substitute title may be obtained. Thus one from Europe who has given many years of his life to the missions may be authorized to return to his native soil, where he may obtain the title of benefice or even of patrimony, and un- doubtedly the same privilege would be accorded to any native of this country if he were able to present the title of patrimony as a substitute. The Propaganda has repeatedly warned our bishops not to decline the other titles accepted by the Church. Another may be permitted to enter a religious order in which the title of “ common table ” or of “ poverty ” is the regular title. Yet the Propaganda reserves to itself the right of directing those ordained under the title of the mission to give their services to the care of souls, even if they have been permitted to take the solemn vows in any Order. In fact the oath required by the title of mission had for its 25 main purpose the remedy of an evil that arose to the great detri- ment of the people. Some missionaries, either because they found their temporal maintenance to be too precarious while depending upon their own individual exertions in a restricted locality, to provide shelter, food and raiment for themselves, sought the protection of an organized religious body of which the members could, in case of need, be relieved by funds stored else- where, and hence were willing to make even the solemn jmofes- sion of the “Yow of Poverty,” which at any rate secured for them from the community, the necessaries of life and very often luxuries compared with the meagre results of their own indi- vidual exertions. Others being in missionary fields alone at great distances from the consolations of the spiritual help and direction of their brethren in the priesthood were alarmed for their own salvation, or at any rate they dreaded the loss of greater sanctification resulting from their state of isolation, and yearned to become members of a religious community whose members need not be limited to any one particular field for too prolonged a period of spiritual destitution, but were habitually recalled at intervals to partake of the spiritual as well as temporal inter- course with their brethren. The general discipline of the Church allows priests ordinarily to renounce even grave and important charges after due notice to, but even without the consent of the bishop, that they might enter a religious community to devote themselves to a more secure way of preserving themselves from the temptations and cares to which contact with the world might render them liable ; or also to obtain for themselves better oppor- tunities of prayer, of direction and all other things conducive to a higher state of individual sanctification. The Propaganda had a long struggle to do away- with this privilege even on the part of missionaries, and found itself com- pelled to invoke the aid of the Supreme Pontiff to remind them that they were procuring their own greater sanctification by the sacrifices that they were making in behalf of souls, whilst the Lord would provide a supply of extraordinary graces for their isolated condition. Whilst not attaching to the oath an absolute engagement not to enter a regular order, the Propaganda under- took to require an examination of the motives that prompted the missionaries to abandon their post for the religious state. If the temporal needs were at the bottom of the desire for change. It proposed to provide for their maintenance. Even if It allowed the entrance into some religious order. It required ordinarily 26 that an order should be selected of which the care of souls was a primary object. The direction of the bishop or vicar apostolic, of which the oath makes mention, as binding the ordained under the title of the mission, extends to all those things that are connected with the care of souls ; and hence the obedience of a missionary priest is more extensive in its scoj^e than the promise of obedience made by every j^riest at his ordination to his bishop. As we have seen, this general promise of obedience only subjects the priests to the general laws of the clerical state made by the church, as devel- oped in the diocesan statutes, whilst he that receives a charge of souls is bound to observe all the laws reasonably connected with the welfare of those under his charge. As the strict obliga- tion of obedience of a religious according to Benedict XIV. extends and is limited to those things which are reasonably deducible from or justly reducible to the rule of his Order so also a priest in care of souls has special obligations derived from his special office. Yet the obedience of a secular priest is not of the same kind or at all as extensive as that required of a member of a reg- ular community (a community under rule). It does not affect his daily routine of life, nor suppose curtailment of personal liberty, where this does not really interfere with the welfare of souls. Anything that would entail neglect of one’s duty may reasonably be forbidden. But beyond this a secular priest is free to give his time to legitimate intellectual work or lawful amusement of his own choosing. He cannot be obliged to follow monastic regula- tions or constant personal direction, concerning which he had no anticij)ation and made no engagement when ordained. It is well also to call attention to the new provisions made at the instance or with the consent of the Propaganda by the Third Plenary Council .of Baltimore concerning this title of mission. The voluntary change from one diocese to another is much facili- tated, especially within the ecclesiastical province to which he belongs. An ecclesiastical province is formed of a certain number of dioceses, whose bishops are called suffragans of an archbishop. Thus the States of New York and New Jersey are one ecclesiastical l^rovince, of which the Archbishop of New York is the Metroj^oli- tan, or holder of the chief See. The New England States are another ecclesiastical province, having Boston for the Metropolis. The Propaganda has relaxed the restriction of the oath imposing the obligation for life to any one diocese, so as to allow a priest, with the consent of his bishop, to make arrangements with another bishop within the same province to become attached to the latter’s 27 diocese, to whom the same subordination is to be given, and who undertakes the same burdens in behalf of the i:)riest, to which the former bishop was subject, and all this can be done without the necessity of having recourse to the Propaganda. This is a great convenience to the priest who desires a change and does not often know how to go about getting the permission of the Proi)aganda, a far off Ordinary Superior with whom, however, priests are not in easy correspondence. It is also of advantage to the bishops who thus are relieved of the necessity of waiting for a long period for instructions for their guidance in the minor minutim of the government of their dioceses. If the change is to be made outside of the ecclesiastical pro- vince to which the priest belongs, he must apply to a bishop, who is exj^ected to require a three, or even may exact a five years’ probation before admitting him as one of the diocesan clergy. If the aj^plicant had been ordained under the title of Mission the Propaganda must be asked by the bishop ado 2 :)ting him to release him from his obligation to his former diocese, and then the bishop is to administer to him the oath binding him in the same way to the diocese into which he is permanently taken, of which fact the former bishop is to be notified. If there should be anj^ neglect or omission upon the part of the bishop to comply with his j^art of these requirements, the priest will not suffer, because if he has gone through the three years’, or when properly notified of its requirement through the five years’ j^robation, he will be considered b}' the law as incorporated into the new diocese, in spite of the omission of any technicality. Greater difficulties are put in the way of those who belong to a regular community with the obligation of perpetual vows, and who wish to obtain 23ermission to join the ranks of the secular clergy. The bishops are expected to come to a private understanding with the superiors of the orders before admitting them to the three or five years’ probation. The Church, in the true spirit of equity and charity that per- meates her laws, is most anxious to see that not only the lambs of the flock but the sheej) and the inferior and higher grades of shepherds are all properly sheltered and cared for. Hence her priests are or should be secured for life from all necessity of beg- ging for their personal supj^ort and of sordid greed or of taking- part in manual labor, and the material business of life in order that they may properly devote themselves to the duties of religion and of charity. Even where human frailty may have allowed to be broken some of the vessels, where precious treasures have been 28 placed by the Good Shepherd, His church is always willing to gather up and unite the fragments, to make anew good use of them as a source of life to souls famishing for the bread that came down from heaven. VI. Gradual development of Canon Law after the first provincial Council of Balti- more. This Council gives attention to the proj)er formation of parishes, and to the relative positions of priests. Yet the rectors’ direction of the assistants is in relation to the parish duties. Canon De Angelis (Lib. 1, Tit. XI, page 234) tells us that the question of the title of ordination was one of the serious matters prepared to be submitted to the Vatican Council for new adjust- ment and adaptation to the circumstances of the times. Certainly throughout the Catholic world to-day the fewness of benefices, consequent upon the confiscation of church property by so-called Catholic governments, and the dearth of patrimony on the part of the great majority of those promoted to sacred orders have seriously upset the former arrangements made by the Church concerning this title of ordination. To supply the spiritual needs of the faithful, and to secure for them the ministration of a suffi- cient number of priests, it has been found necessary to undo the stringency of the regulations of the Council of Trent, and to show a great leaning to a return to the primitive practice in the Church of making the Apostolic Ministry, or the service of a special church the usual title. In Catholic countries the times have brought about an enlarge- ment of Church legislation in this regard. In the- United States we are still in the formative process tending as fast as the Holy See can sefely induce us, and as our bishops’ dread of stringent declarations of limitations of their authority will permit, toward the development of the principles of canon law, whose germs the Propaganda has insisted upon planting in the legislation of the Provincial and Plenary Councils. These are the only legislative bodies that obtain any recognition from the Holy See. Diocesan synods are very rarely submitted to the judgment of the supreme authority, and in hardly any case are honored by its approval. Legislative authority is recognized in them for the special diocese for which their statutes are framed, but are not in any way a guide for the conduct of others. They very often contain the special standards of right and wrong of an individual whose suc- cessor is as likely to eliminate as to endorse them, or at least to let them become dead letters if they are not actually expunged 29 from the code. This unfortunately is one of the great evils of too much law-making, and of the establishment of too many regu- lations. They become, in the course of time, a snare to the feet of the governed, and where many laws and regulations are allowed to go into desuetude, the famous epithet of “innocuous” cannot be always applied to them, if their existence on the statute book is used as the crook is used by the shepherd to trip or hold fast some unwary lamb, who in j^erfect innocence is gambolling too friskily near by, whilst the shepherd is peevish from indigestion or sleej^lessness, or from other cause. Whenever there should be diocesan statutes that conflict with the welfare of souls, or imposing unreasonable burdens upon the clergy, or inimical to the spirit of the general laws and customs of the church it has always been considered to be within the right of the diocesan clergy to offer resj^ectful remonstrance to the bishop, and if he refuses to take their objections into considera- tion, to have recourse to the Supreme Authority to seek their amendment. There can be no want of respect charged against any subject who aj^peals to the common superior for a judgment 1123011 the acts of the intermediate authority. Any objection on the 2 )art of the latter to admit of such a recourse or ap23eal, or to submit to a higher authority’s decision would make manifest that the law or regulation or decision in question was the offs23ring of 23ersonal views, and not the outcome of the wish to i^rocure the general welfare, from which desire alone arises the value of any regulation or law. The very essence of a law is that it be made for the general welfare ; and no law made otherwise has any binding force in conscience. Our sco23e, however, leads us not to sxiecial attention to diocesan regulations where the suxireme sanction is not suxix^osed to be even tacitly given them, even though as a compliment they might be forwarded to the Proxiaganda. They are not authori- tatively submitted and much less authoritatively accepted, though at times a x^olite note of receipt and a general exx3ression of x^raise may be given for the x^astoral solicitude and wisdom disx3layed in the holding of a synod. Our scox3e leads us to give more special attention to the Provin- cial and Plenary Councils whose decrees are required to be sent to the Propaganda, whidi eliminates what it clearly x)erceives to be 0X3X30sed to the general spirit of the laws and x^i’actices of the Church, as we have seen it do in regaiyl to the imx3rox3er extension by the first Council of Baltimore of the obligation of the x^romise of obedience made by the x^i'iest to the bishox) at ordination. This 30 first Council of Baltimore of 1829 had before it the difficult task of making the first decrees for the bringing into line with the spirit of the Universal Church the discipline of this missionary country entrusted to its charge. We have seen the bishops state that they only knew of one properly called parish and parish priest in the whole country, and “ the happy land ” of this privil- eged one was New Orleans. The fourth decree of this Council plants the germ qf the remedy for this want of the full organiza- tion which the Holy See has always been most anxious to promote in the Church of the United States as elsewhere. “ As it is repugnant to the laws and custom of the Church and to the good government of souls to grant to several priests to- gether equally the pastoral authority to rule the same church or district, and as great discord and confusion have arisen in this province from the claim of several priests to exercise equallj^ (ej^- aequo) this pastoral authority without any dependence upon one another, we decree and determine that each prelate must at his earliest convenience designate in the places where there are sev- eral priests, one as pastor of each place, to whom one or more as- sistants may be assigned as will seem advisable to the prelate. In the places moreover in which no such special disposition shall have been made by the prelate, we decree that the priest, who after this decree shall have been deputed by the prelate to fulfill this office, shall be considered the pastor ; and the other priests after- wards deputed are to be held as assistants, until otherwise decreed by the prelate !” The extent of the abuse that had arisen may be surmised from the peremptory fashion of giving no room for the temporizing of any of the bishops that took part in the council, and of passing over their heads to put into execution, the law made by the coun- cil. It is clear that for the proper direction of the Church services, the timely administration of the sacraments, the economical care of the Church temporalities, the peace of the priestly household, one should be held responsible for the good order, lest there should be introduced the Garden-of-Eden fashion of throwing the blame on some one, or two or more, for the omission of proper duties. The enforcement of the pastor’s directive authority in what concerns the welfare of the parish and of souls, has been found to work admirably for the peo23le. Yet the bishops did not intend, nor would it be wise, to confer upon the pastots legisla- tive authority to make regulations for the personal direction of the assistant priests, whose duties are sufficiently defined by their 31 clerical state, their care of sonls and the general church and spe- cial diocesan laws. The semi-conventual life led by the priests in the large cities of this country, where pastor and assistants live together in the same house and eat at the same table is a source of edification, and en- tails a certain reasonable direction on the part of the pastor, if he has found any individual abuse that needs correction for the avoiding of scandal. Yet the attempt to impose peculiar stand- * ards of morality, or special forms of priestly devotion would but tend to make men restive, and quickly lead them to resent inter- ference with their personal right. Even if a pastor should take offence at smoking, or should become a strict prohibitionist of any kind of wine, even in moderation for the stomach’s sake, or think that his neighbor ought to rise or go to bed at his special hour, and be within doors when the pastor finds it convenient not to be out, the bishops did not and should not attempt to curtail the as- sistants personal rights, but only to subject them to the control and direction of the pastor, in whatever concerns the welfare and edification of the people, in the promotion of whose spiritual con- cerns they are called to aid the pastor. The assistant’s reputation must become an object of deep concern to the pastor, who is oblig- ed to take no action that would cast unjust reflection upon, or show unkindness to him, especially before the flock. And the Propaganda’s serious admonition to the bishops concerned, the assistants as well as pastors, viz : that “ they are to be careful not to transfer priests against their will from one place to another without a grievous and reasonable cause.” CHAPTER VII. Eelations of assistants to the pastors. Controversies on purely ecclesiastical matter between clerics or religious not to be brought before the civil court. No such restriction imposed for purely secular matters. Eome has made concordats with Catholic governments allowing ecclesiastics to summon and be summoned before the civil courts on secular matters. Eome’s wis- dom-in yielding to the needs of the times. The determination of the bishops, under guidance of the Pro- paganda, to gradually enforce the division of the dioceses into various fixed districts with certain limits, or parishes under one responsible rector was manifest in the fourth decree of the first Council of Baltimore of 1829. The enforcement of the authority of the pastor with regard to the administration of the parish, was further developed in the second decree of the fourth Council of Baltimore held in 1840. Whilst not making any innovation about 32 the authority of bishops, as explained in the first decree of the first Provincial Council of Baltimore, with regard to the appoint- ment and removal of pastors, and wishing to add strength to the fourth canon in its determination of a single pastor for each con- gregation, we declare that this pastor alone has the right of ad- ministration of the church and congregation, and that it is not lawful for the other priests sent to assist him in the ministry, to undertake anything without his wish.” Upon the pastor’s shoul- ^ ders is the serious responsibility of seeing that the part of Christ’s flock assigned to his charge, be proj^erly provided with spiritual pastures necessary for their sj^iritual welfare. Aid is furnished him by other priests however, under his direction. It is his privi- lege and duty to see that what he cannot do personally, thej" faith- fully perform. The administration of the sacraments of Baptism, Holy Eucharist, Matrimony and .Extreme Unction are apart of the assistant’s ordinary functions, no less than the instruction of the people — ^adults or children. Yet the rector is indued with the authority of direction in all these and similar exercises of the min- istry in behalf of the people, so that the assistants maj^ not under- take any of them without the ajDproval of the pastor. The bishops wisely omitted the mention of any interference with the mere per- sonal direction of the assistant priests. Yet knowing that there might arise a cause of disagreement from a spirit of greed on the part of either pastors or assistants, the fathers in the third decree enact: “Lest greed should infect the priestly ranks, and discord arise between the priests dwelling together, on account of the off- erings customarily made on occasions of the administration of the Sacraments of Baptism and Matrimony, we warn the bishops either in a Diocesan Synod or otherwise, if they should so determine in the Lord, after consultation with the clergy, to fix a just rule of distribution, not omiting a consideration of the heavier burdens and the greater authority of the pastor.” In the third Provincial Council of Baltimore, held in 1837, a partial jorovision had been made, or rather suggested, for the set- tlement of controversies among priests or religious persons, by a recourse to the bishop, whose judgment should be mature. This is the wording of the decree : “As serious scandal is given the faithful, with discredit to the Ecclesiastical body, if Ecclesiastical cases are brought before the civil courts, we exhort all whom it may concern, to amicably set- tle questions about Ecclesiastical things or persons, or at least to submit them to the bishop’s decision. If any Ecclesiastical per- son or member of a religious body, male or female, should cite an 33 Ecclesiastic or a religious before a civil court, on a question of a purely Ecclesiastical character, he should know that he falls un- der the censures decreed by the Canon Law.” In this matter we have a proof of the great experience and wis- dom of the Propaganda. The bishops had at first so worded their decree as to lay down that the mere citation of an ecclesiastic or a religious by another such person before a civil court Avould sub- ject the latter to the penalties of Canon law. The Propaganda, however, reminded the bishops of the serious modifications that are required in the old customs or laws of the Church by the cir- cumstances of modern times, and while hoping and exhorting a settlement of all such controversies either privately or before the bishop’s tribunal, the Propaganda would not allow it to be under- stood that these penalties were to be incurred unless the question were so purely and strictly of an ecclesiastical character as to preclude all right of the civil '.court to pass judgment on the mat- ter. Questions of money, of the interpretation of wills^ of the right and amount of interest, arehnainly purely secular and belong to the civil domain and the civil courts, and to-day the Church universally on such and analogous matters permits and sanctions recourse even by ecclesiastics, to the civil tribunals against other ecclesiastics in high or low’ station, especially where the ecclesiasti- cal courts are unw’illing to] fairly undertake the consideration of them or are unable to properly enforce their decisions when un- dertaken. The Holy See wishes in all such cases that the proper precautions be taken to avoid 'disrespect and to prevent wanton suits from often being brought by ecclesiastics against ecclesiastics, and hence to-day that one ecclesiastic may bring another before a civil court in this country it is necessary to apply to his bishop or superior to obtain if possible a proper settlement. If the bishop neglects or does not wish to try the case, or if it is clear that no settlement made by the bishop could be enforced, the bishop is not at liberty to prevent recourse to the Civil Court. If a priest had a case against a bishop, recourse is now to be had to the Holy See for permission to sue, on account of the greater fear of scan- dal and the greater precautions to be used to preserve the due respect to the Episcopal order. Yet the Holy See has over and over again recognized that this permission is to be granted tor the safeguarding of the”, temporal rights of the inferior Ecclesi- astics, when it is clear that only through a complete knowledge of the civil laws of a country can complete justice be done, and when their interpretation and execution' are avowedly not within the domain of the Church. The privileges of the Ecclesiastical 34 Courts formerly so fully recognized by Civil Governments have now dwindled almost into insignificance, and hence the Church is ordinarily content with enforcing her control only over those things which belong to her by divine right. We see this accept- ance of the modifications introduced into modern society in the wording of the Propaganda’s emendation of the third Baltimore Council’s decree, (Collectio Laccens, Vol. Ill, page 56.) ‘‘With regard to the sixth clause in which there is mention of avoiding* the bringing of Ecclesiastical questions before the Civil Courts, the Sacred Congregation decides that the decree should be modi- fied, and if a cleric sues another cleric before a lay judge, espe- cially if he be an heretic, upon a matter of (the italics are the Propaganda’s) Ecclesiastical right, the Council says truly that any one so acting incurs the censures enacted in the law. But in mixed cases where the persons may be Ecclesiastical, but the thing about which there is question may be temporal or of one’s household, the Council must deal more leniently, especially in countries in which the Civil Government is not in the hands of Catholics and where unless recourse is had to the Civil Courts there is not the means or the power of enforcing an Ecclesiastical decision for the guardianship or recovery of one’s own.” To-day, on account of the gradual process of separation of Church and State even in Catholic countries, we find concordats accepted by the Holy See whereby while strictly ecclesiastical matters, such as concern faith, the sacraments, morals, sacred functions, and the rights connected with the Sacred Ministry are reserved to the ecclesiastical tribunals, it is permitted that the civil cases of clerics and all questions of the property and temporal rights of churches, even benefices and other ecclesiastical founda- tions be treated before the civil courts. This even in Catholic countries where the privilege of the Ecclesiastical Court (privi- legium fori), is recognized! The circumstances of the organization of our country have precluded the possibility even of this privi- lege ever having a footing here in regard to matters not of strict ecclesiastical right. An instruction of the Propaganda of May 17, 1886, gives us the information that the Sacred Congregation will not accept any appeal or recourse of priests who should bring before lay judges a cleric, whether on an ecclesiastical question or otherwise, without the permission of the bishop or a bishop without the permission of the Holy See unless they first withdraw the suit from the civil court. The bishops are permitted to exact this withdrawal even by the infliction of penalties and censures- after trial (ferendse sententise), especially by suspension from the ministry, with the care to use the proper rules prescribed for such sentences and where the case is serious enough to call for it, as they must decide before God. But if the permission to enter suit be asked of the bishop, he will never refuse permission if the parties have ineffectually attempted a settlement before him. By a special declaration of the Propaganda of Sept. 6th, the transfer by a cleric of a claim to a layman for the purpose of evad- ing the censures, is checked by the requirement of the consent of the bishop to such transfer if made for the purpose of the suit. Yet the very declaration that a bishop cannot refuse the consent, where he cannot effect a proper settlement, obviates any neces- sity of an attempt to evade the law, which is couched in terms that really recognize to-day the right of a cleric to cite a cleric before a civil court, in matters not strictly Ecclesiastical whenever this is the only decisive tribunal with the power to enforce its decision. One of the most prominent canonists to-day in Borne, Canon Menghini, writes on page 28 of his celebrated opinion on Bev. John Carmont’s case in Scotland, where the circumstances are similar to ours: ‘‘The permission in question is merely intended to safeguard the respect and reverence due to certain persons, and need be asked only when it can be obtained conveniently, successfully and without prejudice to one’s rights. Here at Borne, as elsewhere, it is most readily granted when the contending parties cannot agree among themselves.” We can easily realize that all such prescriptions limiting the liberty acquired in this country by immemorial custom and pre- scription are to be narrowed to their strictest meaning. Thus a clergyman without the formality of asking such permission might easily sue vgr. the trustees of Calvary Cemetary on a question of a right of burial, or of limits of a plot, even though the Arch- bishop be a member of the board. In the same way a priest holding a mortgage upon church property need not use such formality of asking such permission to sue for his claim a church corporation even though there should be one or three or more clerical or religious persons as members of the board. The church cor- poration in our courts has but a civil entity, and it would be false to imagine that any one or more members of it, whoever they may be, can change the entity accepted by the Church, and which subjects it necessarily to the action of the civil authority which gives it being. This acceptance of legal restrictions and privileges is more than equivalent to a concordat, and establishes as the 36 civil law puts it, a right iu the corporation to sue and to be sued, to sue any one against whom there is a legal claim, and to be sued by whomsoever ma}^ have a just claim against it. In all these matters we cannot but admire the knowledge, experience and wisdom of Eome, so slow to place itself in conflict with the civil authorities or the customs of nations anywhere. Tenacious of what belongs to the Church by divine right, as es- sential to its being, the Holy See has known how to exercise man}" temporal added rights when entrusted to her by the confidence of the people, and at other times to drop their exercise or to lay them aside, if found conflicting with or hampering in any sub- stantial way, the direct purpose of her existence which is the salvation of souls. Where she recognizes her inability by her own direct action to protect the rights of her own direct represen- tatives in the clerical order, she does not hesitate to allow them the use of the civil protection of the governments, whose laws they are bound to obey and abide by when they do not come in conflict with the divine rights of the Church and the law of God. CHAPTER YIII. The first plenary Council of Baltimore in 18 '>2 gives its attention to the status of priests. The second plenary Council urges the formation of parishes. Parochial rights in great measure conceded. The rector must be consulted before the diAUsion of a mission. The first provincial Councils of Baltimore were attended by the bishops of the dioceses throughout the United States on this side of the Rocky Mountains, which formed one Ecclesiastical Province, of which the Archbishop of Baltimore was the Metro - ^Dolitan. At the convocation of the seventh in 1849, there appeared as the Metropolitan of the new ecclesiastical province of St. Louis, the veteran Archbishop, Peter Richard Kenrick, who still holds firmly this authority, though several new provinces have since been formed of part of the territory that was subject to his direc- tion at that time. The first Plenary Council of Baltimore Avas held in 1852. This title of Plenary Council indicates that all the bishops of the several ecclesiastical proAunces of the Church in the United States, were gathered in the council, but now no longer under the usual direc- tion of a Metropolitan, but under a Delegate Apostolic. The See, or Diocese of Baltimore, having been the first Episcopal See created 37 in the order of time in the original thirteen States of the Union, was honored by the Holy See with aright of precedence or 23riniacy of honor among all the bishoprics or archbishoprics of the whole country. This privilege did not confer any right of jurisdiction, or attach to the See of Baltimore, even by courtesy, the right of being the channel through which the call to the bishops to assemble in Plenary Council should be communicated. This call could only be effective through a special delegation from the Holy See, which is free to make its own, choice of a delegate, even to send as its representative one not belonging to the United States. The Council may be convened anywhere deemed proper by the delegate. The first Plenary Council began its -work by renewing and accepting all the acts of the seven preceding provincial councils of Baltimore ; hence all the legislation that we have here- tofore considered was ratified and is held to be in 'force except where expressly modified by subsequent plenary councils. No provincial council can recall the legislation of a plenary councib which derives its higher authority from the delegation, and much more from the modifications and the ratifications of the Holy See, given in a much more direct and authoritative form than is accorded even to provincial councils. We find the first plenary council of 1852 giving direct consid- eration to the status of priests of the United States. The tenth decree lays down that “it is very expedient that the ordinaries designate ecclesiastical districts with defined limits, as also rules about the jurisdiction and privileges of priests as soon as possible. The bishops, however, can change these districts, and it is theirs to decide to which churches, and to which priests the various positions are to be assigned.” However in the sixth decree the bishops are exhorted “to choose priests whose age, knowledge, excellent life and administrative ability commend them as consult- ors whose judgment they will seek, when needful. A praiseworthy custom of some dioceses is highly commended, of having a fixed day every month for these consultors to meet for the discussion of matters connected with the diocese,” and in the fifteenth decree they lay down the important recommendation “that each year the bishop himself, or through a priest appointed for the purpose, shall call for an account of the temporalities of the church from the administrators, be they lay or clerical.” The division of the dioceses as far as possible into settled and defined districts or parishes, was very emphatically prescribed in the second plenary council of Baltimore, held in 1866. The name mission attributed even to these districts to-day, does not in any way exclude the 38 idea of a truly constituted parish. The word mission is used because more generic, and is applicable either to a parish with the exactly defined territory with fixed limits or to undefined territory, oftentimes a series of scattered villages, even hamlets, perhaps in several counties, to which the bishops could not easily give exact boundaries. Hence the Second Plenary Council, while wishing the establishment of parishes, took care not to make its decree too exacting. The 124th decree is quite positive, however. “We therefore wish that throughout all of these provinces, especially in the larger towns, where there are several churches, that certain districts as parishes be assigned to each church with clearly defined limits ; and that to the rector there be given parochial rights.” Canon De Angelis, who in his work on Canon Law (Tom I, part 2d, Lib. 1, tit. XXVIII, pp. 52-53) makes special reference to the status of parishes in the United States, writes : “A parish is a de- termined church of a diocese designated by a bishop which has a population within distinct and circumscribed limits, to which a priest as rector by virtue of his office and to the exclusion of others administers the Sacraments, the word of God and other spiritual things. Whenever, therefore, a bishop has appointed a special church and assigned to it a population within certain cir- cumscribed limits and appointed one designated rector, then, by vii’tue of the 13th chapter of the Council of Trent, there is the canonical erection of a parish. This is a matter entirely within the competency of the bishops, especially in the first establish- ment and partition, and is their duty as is clear from the quoted chapter of the Council of Trent ; no other solemnity is required for the making of this partition.” Once parishes have been formed in accord with the Canon Law of the Church, they cannot be altered except by the process of the same law, for as Canon De Angelis remarks (on page 54 as above), “ The Canons require a reasonable stability.” The parishes in the United States, wherever the requirement of the council was carried out, as it actually was in almost all the larger towns, have been established by virtue of legislation of the most competent authority that of a Plenary Council of the bishops of the United States, sanctioned by the Holy See. These districts having fixed limits are under one appointed rector who has received parochial or quasi parochial rights. Parochial rights, as laid down by Canon Law, are to baptize, to marry, to administer to the sick the Holy Eucharist and Extreme Unction within the limits of a parish. The funeral services in the church and at the 39 cemetery form part of these rights, where circumstances have not required one or more central burial places. Also a parochial right is that of maintenance by the parishioners. And finall}^ there is the parochial right of preventing an infringement of the limits of the parish. To these rights it of course is needless here to remark that there are attached very onerous duties. Lest there should be any misconception, it is also well to state at once that even where a canonical parish has been established, and parochial or quasi parochial rights conceded, it does not necessarily follow that the right of irremovability is granted to the rector. In fact, the Second Plenary Council, with the assent tacit at least of the Holy See, excluded the canonical right of strictly called irremova- bility from those attributed to the rectors of these parishes. Al- ready something has been said to indicate what extent of per- manence may justly attach to the appointment to a rectorship of any parish. A clearer statement may be of interest after a further consideration of one of the canonical effects that result from the establishment of a parish. The rector, whether removable or not, becomes the guardian of the spiritual and temporal interests of the parish in subordination to the authority of the bishop. He has to guard these interests from unjust aggression from any source ; he is obliged to seek by all due diligence to hold fast his people’s rights. The bishop has from Canon Law the right of establishing and even dividing established parishes ; but a part of the process required of the -bishop in taking such action is a serious consultation with the representatives of the parishes whose interests are involved. With our rapidly increasing and changing- populations these alterations are much more needed, and the serious reasons for the changes are much more frequent than in the more settled communities of the Old World. Even here, how- ever, the rectors of parishes from which portions are to be taken for the formation of a new parochial district, are entitled to have their views taken into serious consideration, and their objections carefully weighed before the dismemberment of any part of their parish is made. The Third Plenary Council of 1884 has explicitly (in chap. 2d, par. 20), decreed that the rector of a mission of which the dismemberment is suggested by the bishop to the consultors of the diocese is to be heard before it is determined upon. The reasonableness of this provision is very apparent, since no one is better calculated to point out any evils consequent upon the j)roposed partition, than he who is familiar with the ground. Even if his objections turn out not to be deemed of suf- ficient weight, now that he knows that his reasons are to be sub- 40 mitted to the authoritative examiuatiou of the cousultors required by the law, he will the more readily acquiesce in the final decision of the bishop who has been aided by the conscientious advice of impartial men. Yet even then if he attaches such serious im- portance to the matter, that he thinks that it requires further consideration, any aggrieved party has a right of appeal to the higher authority. Yet the Church has provided that in a question that involves so directly the immediate welfare of souls to be pro- vided for by the proper administration of the sacraments and of the word of Grod, the bishop who has followed the proper process of the law may proceed with the establishment of the new parish, subjecting himself to the risk of making due indemnity for any injury done to the aggrieved party, if the higher authority, which in this case is the Holy See, reverses his decision. CHAPTER IX. Canonical parishes erected in the United States. Irremovable rectors. Their number not to be inconsiderately increased beyond one in ten. The Roman instructions favor an enlargement of this number. Competitive examination requisite for the obtaining a parish. The bishop must select the worthiest of those found to be fit by the Synodal Examiners. An' appeal from the bishop’s selection lawful. The erection of a canonical parish does not necessarily carry with it the strict canonical right of irremovability on the part of its rector. The Council of Trent’s enactment, which the second Plenary Council of Baltimore had in view when it decreed that districts should be set apart as parishes in the larger towns of the United States, made special provision for exceptional cases. The decree of the Council of Trent ( Sess. XXIV. De. Ref. chap, 13 ) reads : “ In those cities and places where the parish churches have not any certain boundaries, neither have the rectors thereof their own proper people to govern, but administer the sacraments to all indiscriminately who desire them, the Holy Synod enjoins on bishops that for the greater security of the salvation of souls committed to their charge, having divided the people into fixed and proper parishes, they shall assign to each parish its own perpetual and peculiar parish priest, who may know his own parishioners and from whom alone they may licitly receive the sacraments, or the bishops shall make such other provision as may be more bene- ficial, according as the character of the place may require. They shall take care that the same be done as soon as possible in those 41 cities and places where there are no parish churches, privileges and customs, even though immemorial, to the contrary not- withstanding.” The bishops of the second Plenary Council availed themselves of the special privilege granted them by the Council of Trent, even though they thought ' that the time had come to carry out without further delay the provisions of the law that alfected the people themselves. Hence after decreeing in par. 124 that through- out all the ecclesiastical provinces of the country these parishes should be created, and their rectors endowed with parochial or quasi parochial rights, they add at once : ‘‘ By the use of words parochial right, parish and parish priest, we do not purpose to convey to the rector of each church the so-called right of irremov- ability, or in any way to lessen the power which from the accepted practice in these* provinces the bishop has of depriving a priest of his office or of transferring him elsewhere. We however warn and exhort bishops not to avail themselves of their power except for serious reasons, and ever keeping in view the various deserts.” The Fathers of the Plenary Council did not wish to hurry in the conferring of any privileges upon priests ; they yet had in par. 123 expressed the wish to conform as far as circumstances permitted, to the universal legislation of the Church as reflected in the above chapter 13th of the Council of Trent. In par. 125, wishing to note in what matter they would refrain from accepting in its fullness, the applicability to our circumstances of the Trentine decree, they call attention to their having wished to grant the other parochial or quasi parochial rights, but not the strict right of irremovability on the part of the rector. There is a familiar illustration of the existence of a canonical parish without the canonical right of irremovability of the rector in all parishes under the control and supervision of any regular Order, where the rector’s removal is subject to the wish of the superior of the Order, even without the necessity of consultation with the bishop. The districts set apart as parishes in the towns of the United States in accord with the decree of the Second Plenary Council had all the characteristics required by Canon Law, in canonically erected parishes. To-day the Third Plenary Council of 1884 has made provision for endowing the rectors of a certain number among these parishes with several of the substantial canonical rights, of which all were left shorn by the earlier legislation. The bishops were instructed to select, after taking the advice of their consultors, these parishes whose rectors should be enriched by the 42 right of irremovability or strictly canonical permanence. The •conditions appointed as necessary requisites for this selection were that these parishes should have a respectable church, a school for boys and girls, a proper rectory or pastoral residence, and that the income or reliable revenues of the j)arish should be sufficient to meet without great difficulty the expenses of the rectors and the church’s maintenance, as also the support of the school. The first appointment of these irremovable, or canonically permanent rectors, is left to the bishops, whose conscience or judg- ment before God is made responsible for the selection of those whom they decide to be the more worthy and fitted for the honor. The number of these irremovable rectors is for the present deter- mined by the proportion of one to every ten of the missionary rectors in a diocese. This proportion is of strict obligation in the sense that one at least in ten should be made irremovable. The limitation on the other side is clearly not of the same strictness, as it is laid down merely that within the twenty years following the council that proportion should not be inconsiderately exceeded. If in any special province of the country, the bishops should deem it wise to extend the proportion, or even if a bishop should by advice of his consultors, and especially with the further co-oper- ation of his clergy gathered in a diocesan synod, come to the mature conclusion that a greater number of such appointments would be more conducive to the \velfare of the diocese, there is nothing in the wording of the decree to discountenance it. There is in it but a serious caution against hasty, inconsiderate action. It is notoriously within the spirit of the legislation highly recom- mended by the Propaganda, to enlarge the number of these canonically irremovable rectors. The caution of our own bishops prompted them in new local legislation to discountenance as great a multi j)lication of these privileged rectors as the Propaganda instructions seemed to encourage. One at least of every ten was recommended by the Propaganda. One in ten is now prescribed, but this proportion while not necessarily fixed must not be hastily or inconsiderately exceeded. Certain qualifications are required on the part of the rectors to be endowed with this privilege. The}* must have given evidence of their ability to administer to the temporal and spiritual affairs of a parish, and the period of ten years in the exercise of the ministry is required as a necessary groundwork for these proofs and evidences of administrative ability. For the successorship of these first appointees by the bishop, a serious competitive ■examination in the various kinds of theological lore required by 48 a parish priest will be necessary in 2 )resence of certain examiners called Synodal Examiners because ordinarily appointed by the bishoj) as satisfactory to and apj^roved by the clergy gathered in diocesan synod. There rests upon the bishop the obligation of selecting the more worthy one of those examined, so much so that if any one should feel seriously aggrieved at being passed over, while he knew that his examination was easily the most brilliant of all, and the other requirements of administrative ability and moral conduct are clearly present, the law gives him the right of appeal from the siq^posed partiality of the bishop. This examination extends to moral, dogmatic and liturgical theology as also to canon law and to the method of popular instruction of the people in the Christian doctrine. There is a consideration of all the various qualifications required in a pastor of souls, and the various offices and experiences of the examined are thoroughly weighed by the Examiners, of whom at least three are required to be i:)resent along with the bishoj) or his Vicar- general. Neither of the latter has any voice in determining the result of the examination. The Synodal Examiners alone determine which of the examined have the requisite qualifications and are therefore fitted for the vacant place ; and the bishop is bound in conscience before God to select the one who has clearly given the best evidence of fitness, and who is the most worthy of all who stood the examination. A vote is in the matter of examination allowed to the bishoj) or vicar-general, whenever there should be a tie, or each examiner should differ from the other. The absence of this competitive examination as required by the Council of Trent and explained by Benedict XIV for the selection of a canonical parish priest was in great measure the motive of denying, in 1866, this right of irremovability. This examination once undergone gives an implicit right of contract and strict jus- tice to the successful candidate to enjoy its fruit till circumstances should warrant the canonical method for removal. A kind of ex- amination was suggested, but I believe nowhere adopted or even put into any repeated practice. . In par. 126 the Fathers of the Second Plenary Council stated that the circumstances of our country would not at that time permit the carrying out the wise provisions of the Council of Trent for a thorough examination as a preliminary to the selection of canonical parish priests, even where there should be any. The difficulty was probably twofold; on one side the required number of examiners was hard to find and bring together, and on the other Ihe rapid increase of Cath- olics in this country and the need of rectors to push forward the 44 material development to meet the preliminary wants of the people were found sufficient excuses for putting aside the mild sugges- tion made at that time as a substitute for the Trentine Com- petitive examination. The Fathers “ thought that no one should be placed over a parish church without undergoing an examina- tion before the bishop and two priests appointed by the bishop, nor should any one be admitted to this examination who had not exercised the sacred ministry for five years in the diocese where the parish was situated.” The competitive examination is not an essential requirement for acquiring either the position of parish priest or the privilege of canonical permanency, called irremovability. Thus we find in one case the first appointment left to the deliberate determination of the bishop. Thus also in the case of patrimonial presentations in Catholic countries to a parish, notwithstanding the plain requirements of the Council of Trent, the custom has done away with the obligation of a competitive examination, if the candidate presented is found to be fit by the bishop of the diocese. We find also that even in the matter of this competitive exam- ination as required for the obtaining of one of these parishes to which the right of irremovability is attached to the rector’s posi- tion, a variance has been permitted where deemed opportune and necessary from the form laid down by the Council of Trent. The Trentine Law would demand that this competitive exam- ination should be held directly for each local vacancy, as it oc- curred ; but a privilege has been granted for dioceses of great extension, or wherever serious difficulties should be in the way of priests assembling there and then for a special vacancy, that the examination in the matter of theological learning might be kept separate from the investigation into the other needful qualifica- tions. Hence it is permitted that once a year a general examina- tion may be had of all those whose learning would be likely to be adequate for the position, and the declaration of fitness which would result therefrom, would have effect for five years as suffi- cient proof of the required ability in the theological dej)artment. Even then, however, the fitness of the various candidates in the other requisites is still subjected immediately before the filling of any vacancy to the judgment of the Synodal Examiners appointed for the purpose, wffiile to the bishop is left the decision of which is the most worthy among the candidates, whose rights are secured always by the canonical right of appeal if they should feel reasonably aggrieved. On appeal the evidences of their ex- aminations are submitted to the higher authority, while the- 45 bishop has the right and the obligation to make known to the appellate authority any good reasons, public or private, which may have induced him to put aside one who may have given the most brilliant proofs of his knowledge in the theories and prac- tices of the position. CHAPTEE X. All missionaiy rectors are permanent in office and not to be changed vdthout a serious cause. Irremovable rectors are subject to removal, if found by the specified trial to be permanently harmful to the parish. The special causes for removal in the United States specified. The irremovability or canonical permanence granted to a sjjeci- hed number of rectors of 2 :)arishes in this country is a great advance in security of tenure for them over the state of missionary rectors, which is the title of the rectors of all other parishes or missionary districts. The gist of the difference is found in this that a serious administrative cause or deemed such by the bishop, Avhere there is no circumstance pointing to the change as a pun- ishment for moral delinquency, may authorize a bishop to transfer the ordinaVy missionary rector from the charge of one parish to that of another, without any special form of law. There, has been no legislation on the j^art of any Plenary Council nor, as far I can see, on the part of Eome to interfere with this power of the bishops with regard to the missionary rectors. Both the Plenary Coun- cils and the Propaganda have time and again warned the bishops not to exercise such a i:)ower without the certainty of a serious reason, and to be sure to keep before their eyes the services and deserts of those transferred, lest injustice be done them. The Third Plenary Council renews the admonition of the second by repeating its words : “We warn and exhort bishops not to make use of this power except for serious reasons and keep- ing in view the various deserts.” In its supplement to its instruc- tion of 1878 the Propaganda gave the distinct rule according to which bishojDS are expected to deal with all priests: “The bishops should be careful not to' transfer priests against their Avill from one place to another without a serious and reasonable cause.” A special clause was added that if any crime were charged against a missionary rector, he should not be subjected to final deposition from his charge of rector Avithout the form of trial pre- scribed in the law. This did not, in uny opinion, prevent a bishoj) for serious administrative reasons Avhich should not in any Avay 46 involve or suppose criminality of any kind, from transferring a missionary rector to another charge of practically equivalent standing. If any one be sent from an honorable place to one clearly lower, the impression upon the peojDle would be that there was some guilt, and hence if the one so treated should in his con- sciousness of innocence demand an investigation or trial, both na- tural equity and the law concede it to him, and the change must not be made if it really does create such suspicion, if he is not proved guilty. He has the certain right to his good name, which no one has the right to take from him or to put in jeopardy till he is shown to have forfeited it. There is nothing in the Third Plenary Council to change the standing of ordinary missionary rectors. They were in the technical language of the law “ movable at will,”^ and are so still ; but we have seen how natural equity and the Plenary Councils and the ProjDaganda have interpreted that this “ will ” must be determined by serious motives and be guided by anxious care to save the good name of any one affected by the removal. As the deposition from the charge of a missionary rector to the position of an assistant or of a chaplain or the like against his will, must almost necessarily be construed into a punishment for some guilt, the law, which is made in view of what ordinarily happens, insists upon the form of trial in vogue if the one so dealt with demands it. This is certain if any public suspicion of wrong- doing is aroused by the transfer. Not a word is found in the Third Plenary Council nor in any published or properly known Koman instruction to do away with the principle involved in the express prescription of the Propaganda in 1879. Any change in the form of trial, leaves intact the principle that such a deposition, if it implies guilt in the deposed one, must not be definitely car- ried out without a trial in the old form, where it is still tolerated or in the new which may have superseded the former one. On the other hand, the newly granted irremovability to some of the rectors is not of an unlimited extent. It might turn out to be a curse both to the rectors and to the people. This irremova- bility is not of such a character as to necessariH fix a rector in a 2 )arish in such a way that he may not have any chance of a trans- fer to another, if he should earnestly seek it. There is nothing in the law to prevent an irremovable rector from seeking another j^arish, whether its rector were irremovable or not. The irre- movability follows the j)arish and if he were to become rector of a parish to which the privilege is not attached, he loses his privilege of irremovability. As long as there is such a disproportion as one in ten between the “movables” and “irremovables,” it is very 47 likely that many of the most experienced of the movables will not renounce their technically “movable” position for some of the parishes designated as irremovable, and some rectors of the latter may think that their privileges are too costly. No one can be compelled to labor and toil for a privilege which he may not ap- preciate very highly. There are not a few good men to whom fixity of tenure, that ties them down too closely, becomes more irksome than all the variety and changes to which the greatest caprice might subject them. There is a great variety of characters among priests. Some need the stimulus of change to keep up their spirits, not to say their flagging zeal ; and hence very wisely the law permits for serious reasons the transfers and only dis- countenances them when made against their will. But the trans- fer or deposition or permanent material diminution of authority of the irremovable rector is not allowed at any time, for however good reason, administrative or otherwise, against the rector’s wish without the form of trial prescribed by the law. To-day the form jDrescribed since 1884 by the Propaganda for the United States is , substantially identical with that which to-day is followed in Italy and France, and in this we are ahead of England which still has the form of^ a judicial “commission of investigation,” laid down for the English bishops as early as 1852, which was extended with some modifications to the United States in 1878, but which here has now been superseded by the new form. It is necessary for the welfare of the people that no rector, in fact no superior of even the higher grades should have a fixity of tenure or irremovability that would seriously conflict with the good of the souls, of whom the care has been assigned him. Hence Canon law provides that any one having this canonical irremovability especially when connected with the care of souls, may be deprived of it on account of certain specified delinquen- cies mentioned in the law. The Third Plenary Council states very clearly that all serious misdeeds involving a serious breach of ecclesiastical discipline and notably jeopardising the temporal or spiritual rights of the mission, if brought home to the rector in proper trial, are sufficient and ample motives for his deposition from the charge of a parish to which irremovability is attached. The bishops, with the sanction of the Holy See, have specified a certain number of these misdeeds, which they deemed especially requiring such removal in this country. The first is an obstinate disobedience in a matter of great im- portance to the rules established by the bishop for the temporal 48 administration of tlie mission or for the carrying of the temporal burdens of the diocese. The second is an open refusal, after repeated warnings, to obey the bishop’s commands with regard to the support of Catholic schools to their great detriment, or to erect those which the bishop after mature consideration and due weighing of the resources of the mission declares to be within its power and obligation. The third is the rash and after due warning the repeated assumption of debt for the church or parish or for the priest him- self without permission of the bishop ; or a clearly wilful dis- obedience in the matter of not paying the debts already assumed. The fourth is a collusion with the la}" trustees to give a false note of indebtedness to the rector. The fifth is a wilful deceiving of the bishoj) by a deliberate false statement in the annual account of the temporal or spiritual condition of the parish in a matter of such importance as to be likely to involve the parish in serious damage. The sixth is a public and lasting defamation in the matter of sacerdotal purity, entailing a serious loss to souls. The seventh and last cause mentioned for this removal by the* Plenary Council is one that is suggested by the material work that is constantly required in the United States by the universal increase and development of every part of the country. Hence it was provided that if one who has become an irremovable rector should afterwards even without any fault of his turn out or be found to be totally, notoriously and permanently unfit for the ad- ministration of the j)arish, he should if possible be persuaded to resign. If the resources of the parish should permit the remedy suggested by Canon Law of appointing a vicar with a proper sal- ary, one should be appointed to supervise the department where the necessary fitness is seriously lacking. Yet if the resources of the parish should not allow of the double appointment, the bishop is permitted to take the legal steps to demonstrate this complete incapacity, and if it is shown he may proceed to remove a rector who is unreasonably unwilling. However, in either case, whether the resignation or removal has been voluntary or forced, the bishop must see that a suitable pension, deemed adequate by the bishop’s consultors, be given for his maintenancOy and also that the title of Honorary Hector be given him. The whole system of ecclesiastical government is so thoroughly arranged, that it is most certainly found that the more this express and legally guarded fixity of tenure' is extended, the more devoted the rectors are to the material and spiritual inter- 40 ■ests of tlieir parishes. Hence the church general legislation is always pointed in the direction of the rational stability of all appointments, whilst in those that are connected with the care of souls, the canons breathe a i^ositive dislike and repugnance to capricious changes. In all cases nothing is left to the sole judg- ment of any one superior. Ordinarily there is a definite way of appeal to a recognized higher court from any judicial unfairness. Certain well defined forms of procedure are laid down, the sub- stantial omission or violation of which alone is sufficient reason for putting aside the decision of the lower authority. In all cases there is always open a recourse or extra judicial appeal against any grievance inflicted by any superior whatsoever ; and if the superior’s action is not found to be in accord with the law or with equity, the higher authority is obliged in consequence to reverse it and bring the proper remedy for the grievance inflicted. And this recourse or appeal, judicial or extra judicial, can never, if properly brought, be interpreted as a want of respect for any church authority ; rather it is a thorough recognition of the great truth that the church wishes our reasonable homage to her teach- ings and a rational obedience to her commands, and that the higher we go towards the supreme rulers in the church, the more confidence we have in their love of the right, and in their following •of the equities of the Eternal Law, to which all men however en- dowed with power are forever subject. CHAPTER XI. No [one should ever be condemned unheard. Any one accused has a right to aid of counsel. Various forms of trial of priests in the United States. To- day every cleric accused has a right to a trial before chastisement can be inflicted. In every diocese the ordinary judge in ecclesiastical cases is the bishop, whose control extends both to cases of delinquents upon whom correction or chastisement is to be inflicted, and to the set- tling of differences that may arise between ecclesiastics or clerics in matters strictly ecclesiastical, or in Catholic countries wherever the full and anciently acknowledged privileges of the Ecclesiasti- eal Court are recognized, to any case wherein an ecclesiastic is involved. The purpose now in view is to consider the bishop’s relation to clerics, and especially to priests, whenever there is a complaint against them for breach of the law, which is under his guardian- 50 ship. No one should ever he condemned unheard. Natural equity and justice which hind the highest ecclesiastical no less than the highest civil rulers require that every one shall have a chance to exculpate himself, if accused, before any sentence of condem- nation he passed upon him. The Church has always thoroughly recognized this principle, and no heed need in conscience he ever given to any action that is at variance with it. In a matter of such vital importance the Church has always laid stress upon the substantial observance of certain forms in any trial, and doubly so where there is a question of inflicting serious chastisement up- on any one for alleged delinquency. It must he properly proved that the alleged action he really a delinquency in the eyes of the law; then that the accused deliberately and with malice did what has been proved to be a delinqueney and is directly charged against him. His explanations are to be heard before sentence is passed. He has invariably a right to the aid of counsel to defend him. Any judge who, in a trial, should oppose the right of an ac- cused to the aid of counsel, shows that he is wanting in the first principle of justice. Nearest to him in this lack of natural equity is the judge who considers it a personal grievance if any lawyer is prepared to undertake the defense of the accused. There is no need of any statute to allow counsel. The church always recog- nizes this as an immediate outcome of the natural equities which can never be put aside, and must always be taken for granted. The Church provided also that the bishop though judge be never left alone in a matter that concerns the rights of a third party, and, above all in the matter of reputation, which to honorable men is oftentimes as dear as life itself. Hence, It requires a thorough sifting process, made by others besides the bishop, of the charges, even before they are formally brought against any one. A sketch of the various procedures designed for use in the United States will have the advantage of keeping our interest alive in the elucidation of a theme suited to make known justice and peace as always hand-in-hand, or rather in eternal embrace. The first formal attempt to call legislative attention in the United States to the established forms for the serious chastise- ment of any priest, such as is always the privation of the exercise of his sacerdotal powers, appears in the Provincial Council of St. Louis, held in 1855, under the presidency of the Metropolitan, Archbishop Peter Eichard Kenrick. The Provincial Council of St. Louis could have no authority of itself in the other provinces of the United States but when this decree was, in accord with the rule, laid down for provincial 51 councils, submitted to the Propaganda for revision and emenda- tion, the Propaganda required certain important modifications to bring it in accord wiih the legislation of ,^the Universal Church, and then instructed the Metropolitan to send the decree so modi- fied to the other Metropolitans of the country with the expressed desire of the Propaganda that it should be adopted in their provinces also. This was formallj^ done by all the bishops when assembled in the second Plenary Council of Baltimore, in 1866 (No. 77), which made its own this amended and modified decree, and declared it to be the law for the Church in the United States, adding a recommendation that “ Judges of Causes ” should be permanently established by the bishops. It reads as follows : “Priests to whom the exercise of the sacred ministry m’ay have been forbidden by sentence of the Ordinary have no right to ask support from him, as through their own fault they have rendered themselves unfit to work upon the missions However, that all causes of complaint may be taken away, the Fathers deem it pro- per that the Ordinaries in all cases of delinquencies of clerics or l^riests follow a determined form of trial, that may conform closely to the requirements of the Council of Trent prescribed for the Visitation of the Chapter, viz : “That the bishop or his vicar-general, with authority from the bishop should choose two of the bishop’s consultors, of those appointed in accord with the decree of the earlier Council of Baltimore for the treatment of the important affairs of a diocese, nor should he always choose the same two ; and they are to assist the bishop when he is to sit in the trial of a priest charged with a delinquency, and the bishop’s notary must also be there. The two deputies shall, however, have but one vote ; but either of them may give his vote in unison with the bishop. But if both shall differ from the bishop or his vicar he shall from the afore- said consultors choose a third, and the case will be decided in accord with the opinion enunciated by this third one. If it should happen that all three consultors chosen by the Ordinary should differ from his opinion, then the case should be referred to the Metropolitan, to whom will be given a formal document properly sealed and authenticated by the proper signatures stating the whole case as presented in the lower court ; he will inquire into the reasons of the divergent opinions, and give his decision. If the trial should be of one who is a subject of the Metropolitan, who may be charged with a delinquency, and the three assessors (assistants) of the Metropolitan appointed as above should differ from his opinion, the appeal should Ue taken to the senior bishop 52 of the province, whose decision will settle the matter, with due regard however to the privileges and authority of the Holy See. ” For to the Holy See there is always the right of recourse and appeal ; its authority and decision alone can be considered as giving a really final settlement of any question either of dis- cipline, of morals or of faith. I am not aware of any cases that were ever settled in accord with this decree. In the Eastern (and probably in the other) provinces of the country it never took the definite practical shape of the appointment of permanent delegate judges. An Instruction of the Propaganda was issued in July, 1878, which positively prescribed “ the procedure to be followed by the bishops of the United States of North America in examining and deciding criminal and disciplinary causes of clerics.” It is well to remark that the above quoted decree of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, as well as the Propaganda Instruc- tion of 1878, were framed not merely for the trial of missionary rectors, nor are they confined to priests’ cases. Both also men- tion the causes of clerics, indicating that all clerics who are charged with delinquency have a right to a trial before the Ecclesiastical Court before serious chastisement is inflicted upon them. This Instruction of the Propaganda did not contemplate the establishment of a court in each diocese in which all matters pertaining to the clergy were to be tried and adjudged, or where the complaints of one cleric against another were to be sifted and decided, and much less where the grievances that a priest might have against his bishop were to be weighed. This Instruc- tion was given to the bishops by the Holj’’ See to fix their mode of action in dealing with clerics who were charged with crime or any misdeed that should require disciplining or chastisement of a serious nature. Its object was to have carried out certain forms, the observance of which should give the proper oppor- tunity to the innocent to make known their innocende, lest they should be improperly subjected to punishment, and on the other hand to keep the proper record and proofs of guilt ; so that the neglect of the proper forms should not be used by the guilty, as a means of escape from the proper correction and chastisement. There was no attempt made in this instruction, as was clearly afterward made known in a supplement in 1879, to legislate about or alter the character of the missions as defined in No. 125, or to weaken or change the juridicial effects mentioned in Nos. 77 or 108 of the decrees of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, of the removal from office of missionary rectors. In other words. 53 these rectors were not made canonically irremovable, and when deprived juridically of the exercise of their ministry, they could not claim from the bishop a right to maintenance, from the obtain- ing of which they had debarred themselves by fault of theirs proven in a proper trial. The instruction, hoAvever, clearly pre- supposes that natural equity recognized fully by the Church alwaj's secures to priests, in fact to all clerics, viz. : the right to be protected in their person, their honor and their temporal and spiritual endowmeuts from all caprice or whim, and much more from personal dislikes,- prejudice or hatred. Clerics are with a distinct purpose mentioned by the Propaganda’s Instructions, and the form of trial for a delinquency is laid down for all who belong to the clerical state. This right is not extended only to priests, nor only to those who are in sacred or major orders, but to all clerics, and therefore to those who have received the sacred ton- sure upwards through all the minor and major grades to their complement in the priesthood. Undoubtedly the right is intensi- fied for those who by positive law of the Church are cut off from the secular state, viz. : subdeacons and all belonging to the higher grades. Any one who has received the sacred tonsure has thereby been admitted by the proj^er ecclesiastical authority into the ecclesiastical state, because he has undertaken to consider the portion of the Lord as his inheritance, and has started out with the intention of going forward to administer at the Lord’s altar as far as he will be found worthy. At no time can he be deprived of any of the rights which he may justly have acquired, unless guilty of serious delinquency, and therefore not without a proper hearing of his case, and the form of this hearing was provided by the Roman Instruction for any cleric as well as for a priest. Sub- deaconship, however, is of such a character as to cut off the or- dained from the secular state for life, and in the United States the preliminary of the reception of this first of the major or sacred orders is the acceptance of the title of the mission, which derives its force from the oath taken by him to devote himself in a special diocese or vicariate apostolic to the care of souls, whence there devolves upon that diocese or vicariate the obligation of providing him wuth the necessary means of subsistence as long as it is not juridically proven that he is unworthy of exercising the sacred ministry. So much importance is attached by the Propaganda to the bi- lateral character of this obligation, that in the Pontifical Colleges under its direction It prohibits the dismissal of an alumnus or one who has taken the missionary oath,' even though at times not a 54 cleric, from the college under any pretence, without a written authorization from the Cardinal protector, who is one of the Car- dinals of the Propaganda, if the college be located anywhere in Italy, or without a similar written authorization from the Aposto- lic Nuncio, if the college be out of Italy. This is a very clear proof of the equity which is intended should underlie all church dealings with all who have in any way bound themselves to her service. This same principle of a thorough investigation, before the punish- ment, of all charges made against any cleric, and above all there- fore against any one who has attained the vested rights of Sacred Orders is always obligatory upon the rulers of the Church. The Koman Instruction of 1878 laid down an excellent way of ascertaining the truth of any charges made against priests or other clerics. This was the appointment of five, or where so many could not be had, at least three of the most upright priests who should also, if possible, be experts in canon law, whose business it should be to thoroughly sift the proofs and the testi- monies in favor or against the accused; no action to be taken if there were not solid grounds for the charges. This concerned all clerics or priests. More particular and detailed attention were naturally to be given where a rector was to be removed from his position of rector,* as any such removal in the eyes of the public would attract very great notice and would naturally be deemed to presuppose some serious misdeed or delinquency. The option was always to be afforded the rector of resigning his position rather than go through the ordeal of a trial. The cause therefore that prompted the bishop to remove him was to be clearly set be- fore him to allow him to decide whether he should resign or not. If he should determine to stand trial, the bishop was to appoint his vicar-general or another priest to make out the charges in writing, with the statement of whatever inquiries had been made and of the circumstances that led up to the trial. CHAPTEE XII. The Propaganda instruction of 1878 called for by the complaints of the clergy that no trial was offered them when chastisement was inflicted, ’ Counsel must be admitted in any trial. Any priest in good standing may act as counsel. The “Commission of Investigation” superseded by the regular episcopal court by Instruction of 1884. . The special attention required by the Propaganda Instruction of 1878 to the case of a missionary rector whose deposition from his office might be aimed ‘at through the bringing of charges 55 against him was founded on the fact of such deposition bringing a very severe and permanent disgrace upon the accused. It may be assumed as a certainty that such deposition, involving disgrace, wdll never be allowed by the law without a formal trial. Yet the infliction of an}^ serious punishment upon any cleric, and much more upon a priest required, in accord wdth this Koman Instruc- tion, the substantial observance of the same form of trial. Before this trial was begun five, or where so many could not be had, at least three uj)right priests. Versed in canon law, were to investi- gate whether there was ground for such action, they were to in- vestigate the facts alleged against the cleric or priest, examine through their chairman the witnesses for and against, give a full hearing to the accused in his own behalf; and then they were to determine w^hether anything further was to be done. It was only in case the majority of the Investigating Commission decided that there was sufficient evidence of the alleged charges that any further step should be taken. Their office gave to the Commission of Investigation a strictly judicial character, their investigation being directed to aid the bishop in giving his final decision. Then it was laid down that the decision of a majority of the Commis- sion that there was sufficient .ground work for the charges, was necessary to allow further action upon the part of the bishop. It they were persuaded that there was sufficient foundation for the charges, they w^ere to proceed till they were morally certain of their truth. Even then they were not to come to any conclusion before putting in wTiting and separately the grounds on which their distinct and separate opinion was formed; and only then w'ere they to compare notes and to weigh each other’s arguments for a conviction ; the opinions kept distinct and separate with their variety of grounds and motives were to be a part of the acts wffiich w^ere to be submitted to the bishop for his final decision. The bishop’s decision to be lawful must be shown to be founded on the acts and the evidence that appears in the acts; otherwise it would be null. It seems incredible that anybody should suspect that counsel might be refused to the accused in any trial, and much more where punishment is to be inflicted. It can hardly be believed that any one should strive to prevent perfect freedom in the choice of counsel. If the accused chooses to select poor aid, he must be responsible for his choice; if the lawyer were foolish enough at any time to show contempt of court, the judge has easily the powder to prevent the outrage. Any priest in good standing called upon by the accused to aid him should at once be 56 accepted by any fair-minded judge; and the rejection of any one as counsel without a very serious reason is very strong evidence that passion, dislike and prejudice, not zeal for souls or God’s- glory, are at the bottom of the charges made. It is very impor- tant that an accused person should be always authorized to take as counsel one in whom he places perfect confidence. It were absurd for him to have to rely for his defence upon one suggested to him by the judge, especially where the judge is at the same time the one to spur on the prosecution. Any acceptance or ap- proval ascribed to the bishop in this selection must necessarily be limited to the mere right of rejecting one, whose name may be offered in open derision of the court. The Propaganda took the precaution in a supplement to its Instruction to assert the right of the accused to the aid of counsel, which, strange to say, had actually been called into question. In case the accused should fail to answer to a formal citation before the court, provision was made that a second formal notice should be sent him to appear within a fixed and reasonable time, and then, if he failed to answer and had no sufficient and legiti- mate excuse for his absence, he might be condemned as contuma- cious. There was only one exceptional case in which it was allowed to* bishops to dispense with the formal trial, viz., when a shepherd or pastor of souls had practically become a wolf to destroy a member or members of the flock, and had succeeded in covering' up his tracks in such a way as to prevent his misdeeds being' proven in a juridical manner before a court of law, though the* bishop might be able to obtain positive knowledge of them, which could not be used in a trial, for instance, because the witnesses through fear of personal harm to themselves refused to appear publicly before the ecclesiastical court, or because the public manifestation of a secret delinquency, though sufficiently known to the bishop, might shock the faithful. The bishop is directed to* have not only moral certainty of the truth of the alleged charges,, but such sufficient evidence as will be likely to convince as well the higher authority, to whom recourse may be had by the accused when the punishment is inflicted upon him. This exceptional judgment is said to emanate “ from the informed conscience,” or for reasons known to the bishop ; and in this exceptional sentence the bishop is obliged to state that he is pronouncing it in virtue of the exceptional legislation for this special purpose made by tho Council of Trent. The only sentence that can be pronounced in accord with this special legislation is a suspension from the exer- 57 cise of orders already acquired, or a prohibition to ascend to a higher grade. It must be limited as to time, which must be stated in the sentence. The motive of the sentence sliiould ordi- narily, but not necessarily, be made known to the suspended one. There is not in this matter the ordinary appeal to the usual next higher court, but the Holy See insists upon the declaration that any one accused or punished has a right, if aggrieved, to have recourse to this Supreme Tribunal, which will always require clear evidence of the guilt for which the chastisement is inflicted. It is also understood clearly that this extra judicial sentence may never be inflicted where there is any publicity of any kind about the charge brought, for then the formal trial is required, when the requisite evidence sufficient to induce moral certainty from the acts of the court must be had to lead to a sentence of punish- ment. We see wh 9 ,t safeguards the Church insists upon for the care of clerics’ reputation in the one exceptional case, where it permits exceptional legislation deemed necessary for the good of souls,, which is the supreme guide of the Church’s laws. Even where a charge is notoriously true, the Church does not wish it to be punished, till the truth of this very notoriety is properly sifted in a juridical form. Not merely the notoriety of a fact must be proved, but the notoriety that the alleged fact is a delinquency must be clearly evidenced. In the case of a sentence by a bishop ‘^from his informed conscience,” or for reasons known to himself, the only penalty which he is allowed to inflict is the suspension from the exercise of the ministry. This does not at all imply that the person is re- moved from his office of missionary rector or any other position which he may hold, but only suspends for a time to be specified from some portion, which must also be mentioned, of the exercise of his spiritual functions. Provision is to be made for a sub- stitute in whatever portion may be curtailed from his spiritual faculties. Under no consideration can an irremovable rector be removed from his rectorship by any such procedure ; for this re- moval there must always be the formal trial. Yet even the irremovable rector might become subject under the given con- ditions to this temporary suspension from the exercise of the spiritual faculties, from the informed conscience of the bishop ; and then an administrator may be appointed for the interval. The form of investigation or trial that has just been considered had been granted to England as early as the meeting of the first Provincial Council of Westminster in 1852. The Propaganda 58 extended it to the United States in 1878, alleging* that the form that had been adopted by the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore had been found insufficient to put an end to the com- j)laints of the clergy that a proper investigation had not been made before they were subjected to great disgrace, humiliation and very severe punishment, while on the other hand when recourse was had to the Holy See about these complaints, and the Holy See had sought for the grounds on which they had been punished, no proiDer records had been kept of the alleged offences or of the evidence which had been brought against them; hence the Holy See found itself forced on this ground alone, to require their re-instatement, and sometimes even the guilty were thus en- abled to escape their just deserts. The fact was that the form of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore had not in reality been put into execution at all throughout the immense majority of the dioceses of the country. As a matter of fact, in this country the limitations which the canon law places upon the power of bishops had never been realized by them and nowhere else has there ever been such dependence upon the bishops’ will as in this country. Borne found it necessary to take occasion from the frequent complaints against arbitrary measures to lay down a precise form, no longer of their own option, but made out in accord with the recognized equity of the Church, to which all bishops should be obliged to conform whenever they undertook to discipline or chastise any cleric of whatsoever grade, this obligation naturally becoming the greater in proportion to the greater importance of the grade and the vested rights acquired by those who were to be brought to an account. It is well to state that a great advantage in the form presented by the Propaganda was the selection as prescribed of the Com- mission of Investigation by the bishop after an opportunity was given to the clergy to suggest the candidates, and the bishop was supposed only to reject the nominees of the clergy if he had good reasons thoroughly known to himself for the rejection. It was ex- pressly provided that if the first court decided against the accused he had a right of apjDeal to the Metropolitan, whose tribunal, ap- pointed in the same wa^^ was to use the same method for investigat- ing the charges and adjudicating upon them. An appeal again from the Metropolitan’s decision to the Propaganda Avas always reputed to be proper and lawful. In case the first trial took place in the Metropolitan Court, an appeal from it to the nearest Metropolitan, and then to the Propaganda was supposed to be the ordinary 59 ■course. Throughout this country this instruction is allowed to be still in force, wherever it has not been siq^erseded by the regular canonical erection of the Diocesan Curia or Court, which carries with it a new form of procedure in accord with the canon law’ of the church. The Curia or Ecclesiastical Court is being rapidly introduced into almost all the dioceses throughout the country in accord with a special instruction from Kome, issued in 1884 for adoption by the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore. CHAPTEK XIII. Cardinal Pecci., Bishop of Perugia, originates a summary procedure for trials of clerics. Pope Leo XIII approves the extension of this form of procedure to Italy, France and the United States. Strict adherence to the form of procedure necessary to impose any obligation of submission on the part of the accused. The Propaganda instructed the bishops of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore to substitute wherever it w^as possible, for the former procedure in clerical trials imposed upon them in 1878 another method of procedure which is founded upon the canon- ical establishment of the regular Curia or Ecclesiastical Court in each diocese. This method commended itself greatly to the bish- ops of Italy because of its august source and originator, who was no less a personage tlian the present Pope, Leo XIII, though it was framed by him whilst Bishop of Perugia. He thought that during the present friction between the Church and the civil authorities of Italy, the strict adherance to the prolonged forms required by Canon Law for the trial of clerics w^as liable to be hampered by probable conflicts with claims made by the civil authorities and very often would lead to ■ the preventing by the civil authority under one specious pretext or another, of the trials of clergymen whom the civil authorities might choose for any reason to favor. It w^as suspected that clergymen per- haps worthy of censure, might shield themselves then behind the usual delays allow’ed by the Canon Law if they w^ere not in some way curtailed, till there w’as a good opportunity for the civil authorities to intervene. He hit upon a more expeditious and summary procedure, which would contain all the substantial forms Avhich he thought were required by equity and justice, w^hilst a number of technical details were eliminated, whose effect seemed more to prolong the trial, than to promote the interests of justice, whilst the delay might cause serious detri- ment to souls. 'When the Cardinal Bishop of Perugia was GO elevated to the Chair of Peter, attention was called to this form of procedure which had guided him in dealing with the clerics of his former diocese, and other bishops of Italy wished to make use of it for their diocese. The Congregation of Bishops and Begulars, which has under its control the management of the principal Ecclesiastical matters of officially-called Catholic countries, determined, with the sanc- tion of the Holy Father, to confer upon all the bishops of Italy the right to substitute this form of procedure, for the lengthy forms of Canon Law where it was supposed that these could not be properly carried out. The Congregation in its publication of this form of iDrocedure in Italian on June 11th, 1880, makes this preliminary statement : “This Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars after maturely considering the present condition of the Church which is impeded almost eveiTwhere from bringing her external action to bear on Ecclesiastical things and persons, and taking also into- account the lack of proper facilities for the regular organization of the Ecclesiastical Courts, has decided to expressly authorize the bishops to use a more summary form of procedure in the exercise of their authority to discipline clerics, and in order that every right of justice may be secure, and canonical regularity and uniformity of procedure be maintained, it considers proper to ap- point the following rules to which the Ecclesiastical Courts must adhere.” We are told in a letter signed by the Cardinal Prefect and the Secretaiw of this Congregation, dated January 14, 1882, that some bishops of France requested that this same method of procedure be granted for use in their dioceses, and that the Holy Father then extended the right to use it to all the bishops of France. At the meeting of the Archbishops of the United States, held in Rome,, in November, 1883, to receive the jireliminary instructions from the Holy See which were to guide them in framing the legislation for the Church in the United States in the Plenary Council which was to be held in the following year, the Committee of Cardinals of the Propaganda presented to them this same form of procedure as a substitute for the instruction which had been given for their guidance in 1878. With some modifications suggested by the American archbishops and bishops, to which our attention will be naturally called, this new procedure is prescribed, according to its title, as “ the established form for taking cognizance of and decid- ing the cases of delinquency of and for the disciplining of clerics in the United States of North America.” Hence, while for Italy ()1 and France this new form was somewhat of a departure from the ancient and universal usage, it had the effect of bringing the far greater part of the dioceses of the United States into greater con- formity with the universal law by the positive requirement of the establishment of the Curia or Ecclesiastical Court in each diocese. The only means left to any bishoi^ to escape this requirement was to make a special petition to the Holy See for exemption, detail- ing the reasons which prompted the request for such exceptional privilege. Even then the understanding must be that for that diocese the prescriptions of the instruction of 1878, with its sup- plement of 1879, were to be -held in force. It is well, also, to note that while this Instruction for Italy and France was a departure from the universal canon law the very n natural equity. ' i Koman legislation is traditionally founded on natural equity, and a principle once laid down very seldom needs recall. From the beginning the Propaganda watched with careful eye all the legislation that was being gradually framed for this developing country, and as has been seen It put a limitation to the exagger- ated views taken at times of the obligation of priests. Thus It pointed out in revising the First Council of Baltimore that Bene- 108 diet XIY had emphasized the ineaniug of the obedience promised by the priest at the reception of Sacred Orders to be that he will ‘ fulfill the duties attached to the position to which he was assigned at the reception of Sacred Orders, and remain under the jurisdic- tion of the bishop among whose clergj- he is enrolled. The obligation of obedience was primarily in connection with the place (locus pius) to which he was then attached; and it is understood that he should not abandon it without the permission of the bishop. This very obligation of obedience therefore sup- poses his permanent assignment to that place, till he is willing to be parted from it, or till some weighty reason occurs for his transfer. The weight of this reason in some cases must be tested in a •certain defined way,^ in others a certain amount of leeway is allowed to the conscience of the superior, but his action, if not founded on justice and on the real welfare of souls, will be read- ily put aside by the higher authority to whose consideration a properly formulated and substantiated complaint is submitted. The duty of a priest to lead a clerical life comes from his recep- tion of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, and in this his life is to be regulated in accord with the general laws of the Church concern- ing the clerical state, v I'r The special duties of' ;the individual priest spring from the spe- cial office to which he is assigned when admitted to the priest-' hood. He also promises obedience to his ordinary, ‘whereby, as the First Council of Baltimore in its second decree under the'' guidance of the Propaganda r explains, the priest is obliged to remain in the same diocese and to be subject to its bishop, till canonically released. The special duties of a priest in the United States spring from the oath to the Propaganda that without its permission, or that of the Holy See, he will not^goin a' religious order, and that for his life he will' devote his labors to the salvation of souls under the entire direction and jurisdiction of the Ordinary, for whose diocese he is ordained. In a strictly legal sense this oath binds the priest directly to the Propaganda, whence the “title of mis- sion ” emanates, and the Propaganda thus is the ordinary guardian , of the rights that come to each priest from' this assumed title of ordination. The Propaganda makes a condition that this “title of mission ” will not be used as an excuse for wandering from one diocese to another, and therefore requires that the missionary will swear to Tvork for souls under the entire direction and juris- diction of the bishop, for whose diocese he is ordained. This 104, C • oath of the priest dpes not give a bishop in a missionary country any more extensive^power than a bishop has elsewhere. The extra duties imposed by the oath devolve upon the priest to devote himself for life in that special diocese to the work of saving souls. For the proper understanding of this it is impor- tant to keep in mind that many of the other titles of ordination do not exact or even suppose any direct work for the salvation of others. The title of poverty ” in religious orders, of benefice and patrimom" for secular priests, are often entirely disconnected from any work for the care of souls, nor is the promise of obedi- ence to the ordinary made by all priests, ever invoked to impose upon them am" obligation to hear confessions, to administer the sacraments even to the sick and dying. There is not any strict obli- gation for a priest ordained under the title of mission, by virtue of his oath, to accept the charge of a parish, however much the bishop may deem it desirable that he should do so. As long as he devotes himself to the care of souls, subject to the rules and regulations of the diocese for which he was ordained, he com- plies w-ith the obligation contracted by his oath. He may have excellent reasons, which may not even be appreciated by the bishop, for not undertaking a task of managing a parish, which may be seriously distasteful to him. We have seen that for weighty administrative reasons, which are not in any way connected with the accusation of reasonable suspicion of wrong doing, a bishop is authorized in the United States to transfer certain movable rectors from one mission to another. It is well to recall the earnest admonition and exhorta- tion of the Second Plenary Council that bishops do not undertake to act upon this authorization except after weighing carefully the merits of those transferred and only for serious reasons. In other words, they are to be guided not by favor or personal likes and dislikes, but in view of the past labors and zeal of those transferred, and for the promotion of the welfare of souls. This was more and more emphasized by the Propaganda in the supplement to its instruction for trials of clerics of 1878, when in 1879, recognizing the occasional utility of these transfers of movable rectors without the procedure of law. It laid down clearly that ‘‘bishops must be careful not to transfer priests from place to place against their will, except for serious reasons. But if there be question of removing definitely a rector from his office on account of delinquency, this must not be done without .a hearing before the Commission of Investigation.” 105 We see that the Propaganda far from receding from the principle of ordinary permanency on the part of all rectors always recognized here confirms again the law of equity that no one shall be punished without a thorough investigation and full opportunity of explan- ation on the part of the accused. And while to-day the “ Commis- ion of Investigation” has given way to the regular “ Episcopal Court,” these principles of justice are shown to be maintained in their integrity and to be more explicitly developed in the newest and latest decision of the Propaganda, which insists expressly that the form of procedure laid down in the Third Plenary Council for clerics be used whenever a charge involving wrong-doing is made against a movable rector with a view to his removal or deposition. At the same time a specific arrangement is made that where a transfer is considered not to excite a suspicion of wrong-doing, but yet is deemed to be a serious hardship by the movable rector, he is to transmit his complaint to the Propaganda, which will depute the Metropolitan to act upon it if the complaint is against a bishop, and the neighboring Metropolitan, if the complaint is made against a Metropolitan. This valuable document is so clear and precise as to deserve being transcribed in its entirety. Its title is “ on the way of proce- dure in changing the movable rector.” It is dated May 20th, 1887, and is signed by Cardinal Simeoni as Prefect and Archbishop Jacobini as Secretary, but in the name of the whole Congregation, and thus it gives most authoritatively the latest explicit pronounce- ment of the Roman authorities for the equitable treatment of movable rectors. It is directed to His Eminence Cardinal Gibbons for transmission to all the archbishops of the United States, that they ma}' in turn communicate its contents to the bishops of their respective j^rovinces. “In the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, tit. X, chap. 3, §§ 1, 2, as also in the instruction of this Sacred Congregation which begins ‘‘Gum magnopere'' for trials o^ clerics, the rules and regulations were prescribed by which clerics are to be tried. It was not, however, defined and decreed in what cases the bishops were held to follow the legal process when there.was question of depriving movable rectors of missions of their office, or of trans- ferring them to another office. Now, however, the Most Eminent Fathers placed over the Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda, meeting in General Assembly on the 28th of March, 1887, have decreed thus: “In the case of the removal or of a total privation of the office of rector in punishment of crime or guilt which requires disciplining, the 106 canonical procedure in accord with the aforesaid instruction {Cummagnopere) and with the decrees of the Third Plenary Council must be followed. If there be question of the transfer of a rec- tor from one mission to another, or even to an inferior office, the ordinaries are not bound to follow the canonical procedure; it is, however, necessary, that there should be serious reason for such action, and full account taken of the past merits, as laid down in the Third Plenary Baltimore Council, tit. 11, chapt. V, § 32. If in the case of such transfer a complaint is made to the Sacred Congregation, the Sacred Congregation will remit it to the Metro- politan, or where there is question of a Metropolitan, to the neigh- boring Metropolitan.” This last provision will be very much welcomed as an easy way of settling on the spot grievances which can only be thoroughly appreciated by those who can take proper cognizance of the local hardships, so easily inflicted by hasty transfers from place to place. The arguments for and against the transfer will need to be accurately noted and recorded for inspection by the Propa- ganda. The equity of the decision of its deputy will be thor- oughly scanned by the Sacred Congregation, which will nojt fail to reverse it if not in accord with the right. Definite rules and standards of equity in such matters will soon be the consequence. The result will probably be the extension in the not distant future to almost all the parishes of the strictly legal irremovability which is now granted to the favored few. We cannot but recog- nize that this was the desire of Home -when it suggested that not merely one in ten, but at least one in ten, should be the adopted rule for the number of irremovable rectors. Practically it will be seen that the transfer of a movable rector against his will, will be found so often in conflict with the rules of equity recognized in Borne, that it will be deemed more- fair to put almost all on a par with the irremovable parishes. iToduD-Ufioi Jilt aiiw Liouoa ill tJ'iirbaooiq iiJDin6£W0 iioonoO faidT adi l:o aeaiaeb adt dfnr has wm J) :>Qi fl lo 'taiaaiiil adi 'to noriaoi/p ad »iad^ .bov/ollol od iewoi 4ili ^aatfto 'loha'tni iiii oi fiava lo ^ladiona oi uoiaahn OJio.crrofi lot tf .a-u/haoo'iq liiOaiO£Ur> aiii >^7oIlo\ ot biwod Jon oi« aohnailno iloi/e 10*1 flOH-oof anoi'foa a(f blnoda aiailt twdt .vrnaHooeii ,iavaY/od Jxii irwbb biid 8/’ athoiix odJ to ii'3>bd Jnnoo'jij Hut brui «nodo5 fAull 1*8^ *7 J«|6do ,ri dl) .lioui.o’-/ vjotnitl^tl v'cxjnaM bii JT adJ odJ c>i w ji Tel-itimJ lioua to adJ -\.ui 9 M oiit ot ji Hr?/ odt ,£iojU‘:§3't!;noU b^ian adtoj ,n«tdr:)qoitaK a toi'ioitaanp m aieilJ aiadTi- to aii^Jiicq '■ * ' - ' ^ >\nrxoc; boinoda.w iltjn.-r riav ad Hfw inda/'^o'iq taad aid'i fld^i/o^odt f»d vlflo am dwh/ aaannvofi’^ ioqi? »dt no tc iijooi ad^ to oafui.vrn^'oa -fajjQTq 9il«t nfio odw'asodJ T/i betiiioeiqq;; oj 90idq flio-it M*jat8n«*it vd heKitias yjiaHO or ,mi.hlnsd ot bsan niw 79't8ai^jTt edt bn^^ lot eJnamn^'fiJ adT .eofilq -aqo-i^ adt vrd ifoitoaqaiii lot bob'iooai has botoa /laiBiuoDB ad -nodJ ad niw' Yhiqab atr to aoiabob edj ‘to xiiupe adT .abflflB liijt iofl Iliv/ iloidvj^ .iioi4i3:g.a'i:gnoO baiojiB adt y;‘*~ banmioa 'cld^uo has aahri aircffte*! iiijih adi dtiw bioaos nr ioif ti h aa'ioyei OJ .aaaatfpaBifoa ad^^ ad nooa iri’^Vie-tliiin doi/8 ai y/iupe to gb'fxsbn^fe omtnt inntaib ton odt nr aowdaSra odt ad fjdsdoiq lliw tlngai edi rtrlrdavom-rrti bi^al vltoni? oiLt to Hadahsq odi Hfi aaonilfi oJ ^oaat‘dud ioaaso aV/ wst boiovxd i^dtot hamurg won si doidw ;7on a*i aldu^fom li to lataiunt adt iadt neaa b^srn^^ooai -^.tini^to aoluy ad^t dilyr doiBnoa at natto oa bnoot ad ib no.dls iao£f^iirte{ oi irijt.aiom bontaab sd Hiw ii tadi ,amoR ai t , . . .sada’tisq aldifvotiioTn adi djiw lijq Ivv i^MUnCk j'-^stsil M>aMfed <' - ..jii.^m''^xir> ’*'»-* .«&»«« WiKO'S. J5.?»s«r' -rli'.o f* .<;# Smthss-m; ->»*»i4*fo- mtH MatH s^-jp ^-.mS^ds, » '■ ^ fi', . •il ^li'f 'f.iv •III HjlT'IAHD ' t ■'• ; liomiQli U;T>Vfr..^ ■*' ^ ii .r/ .T xr.-. .u>' ) ^o . _ . - - .iT9fa»TobrvfrU,>i#yfti'^ ■/> fhii»i9r} srlfT ♦:te*f:- ■ • y»Y«Tfc C^W#fi v> 97iM^ ^dJ i$i .Hfyihfh us as a/cu^^ if/ Htiri/ji } .lAio-; y.y ^ .;i i i^fund od j-(^ /htmi nil joc/'r^/y^a^ 'yikdifs:. ”*’ "P.-Jy - tvs jyftwOo ^Sjd*vi (rHJjiiUi'SfSfe if*f-Lilx <1 Septan fliSi l<5 Jsl»4f3/i Hi %iili>i'Ji.’^ Hi t'tSi^fr ^- :4