this case the explicit intention of the donor may not be known or expressed, still his implicit intention, one would think, is quite clear and manifest. For we must suppose that a donor, with any fair amount of common sense, would far prefer to have the Masses said for his intention gradatim, from month to month, than to have them said in globo, at the end of four or five months. That is to say, we should suppose that to be the implicit intention of any ordinary donor, of any man in his senses. Quaeso, quid sentis?

SUBSCRIBER.

We are in full agreement with 'Subscriber' in everything he has stated. It seems to us quite absurd to suppose that the priest's action in transferring the honoraria can have any effect on the obligation attached to them by the definite laws of the Church. As soon as he accepts the honoraria, a contract is concluded between himself and the donor, and that contract must be carried out strictly, according to the terms imposed either by the donor or, if the latter says nothing expressly or implicitly, by authoritative Church legislation. Whether the priest fulfils the contract himself or has it fulfilled by deputy does not affect the matter in the least. The obligation is attached to the honoraria, and no private individual in the world-the donor, of course, excepted-has any power to modify it in the slightest. These are the principles on other contracts, and we fail to see how, in connexion with this special contract, anyone can introduce any peculiar principle of his own that would stand examination for a

moment.

There can be no justification, therefore, for the policy outlined in 'Subscriber's' opening paragraph. If the priest merely said the 100 Masses within six months-without saying any during the first month, etc. he would not fulfil his obligation. The donor of 100 honoraria is surely in as favourable a position as if he were the donor of one: and in the latter case, he would be entitled to have the Mass said within the month, and further postponement would be a distinct violation of Church regulations. The priest has no right himself to postpone celebration in the manner indicated. And, as we learned long ago in our Philosophy course, and have never found reason since to deny, a man cannot give another what he has not got himself.

The distribution must, therefore, be made in such a way that some one at least of the recipients will discharge the obligations attaching to the separate months.

The new legislation does not say that 10 at least should be said within a month.' That is only a canonist's comment.

NOTE. We regret that we must hold over another query from Subscriber' and several communications from other quarters.

M. J. O'DONNELL.

CANON LAW

LAW ON PREACHING PECULIAR TO CERTAIN DIOCESESNATURE OF THE OBLIGATION IT IMPOSES

REV. DEAR SIR,-In some dioceses of Ireland there is a law obliging a priest to preach three Sundays in the month under pain of suspension ipso facto. Now, it sometimes happens, as it did last July, that there are five Sundays in the month, and the question arises, is a priest bound to begin the first Sunday and preach the two Sundays following also when he foresees that he will not be able to fulfil his duty if he waits till the last three, because, v.g., he has to go on vacation, say, after the third?

Some hold that he would not be bound to begin on the first Sunday, because, they say, the law has the appearance of a penal one, and should be strictly interpreted, and hence does not bind until the last moment, when it is beyond the power of the priest to fulfil the law.

Others maintain that he is bound to begin on the first Sunday and finish his obligation on the third, as he will have time to do so, because, foreseeing the impediment, if he defers it until after the third, he is bound to anticipate being subject to and gripped by the law from the first Sunday.

The case seems similar to that of the Paschal Communion, which, if a person foresees at the beginning of the time that he will be unable to fulfil it later on, he is bound to communicate when he can. The same holds good with regard to the hearing of Mass on a Sunday. If on that morning a man wants to go on a journey, and he finds he must start before the last Mass, say at eleven o'clock, he is bound to hear an earlier one, say at eight o'clock. It may be said that the censure makes a difference in the case of preaching, but the manifest reply to that is, that there is also a censure ferenda sententia in the case of non-fulfilment of the Paschal duty. And it may be added that the law of preaching is not a penal but an ecclesiastical one, and the censure is placed only to ensure its fulfilment.

Your decision will be thankfully received by me.

A SUBSCRIBER.

We agree with the second view mentioned by our correspondent, viz., that the priest is bound to discharge his obligation in the early portion of the month, if he foresees an impediment to its fulfilment in the later. It is a general principle that temporal obligations, such as this, are to be complied with immediately, if it be foreseen that their fulfilment will afterwards become impossible. The reason is manifest. A law of its very nature binds those who are subject to it to take reasonable precautions to obtain its fulfilment; and this condition would certainly not be complied with were it neglected until a period when its fulfilment became impossible.

1' Itaque si hoc tempus in lege definitum est, lex intra id tempus implenda erit, nempe ex quo cessit usque dum venerit dies. Nihilominus si medio tempore immineat aliquod impedimentum perinde habendum erit, ac si eo superveniente dies venerit.'-D'Annibale, Summ. Th. Mor., vol. i. n. 167.

:

The analogy made by our correspondent with the obligations of Paschal Communion and hearing Mass on Sundays and Holidays is very appropriate these bear a close resemblance to the obligation under discussion and follow fully the principle which we have enunciated. In fact, as far as we are aware, there is only one obligation of this nature in which the application of the principle is subject to any doubt; and that is the obligation of reciting the Divine Office. If an impediment to the recitation of the Divine Office in the afternoon is foreseen, all are agreed that Matins, Lauds, and the Small Hours should be said in the forenoon. Although most writers maintain that Vespers and Compline should be also anticipated, a minority hold that this is not the case, as the rubrics prescribes the afternoon as the time for the recitation of this portion of the Office. The trouble about this particular obligation is that there are two prescriptions in regard to time: one commanding the whole office to be said within the twenty-four hours; and the other assigning particular portions of it to different parts of the day. The correct solution of the difficulty is immaterial to the present case, as there is no strict analogy between them. In the law under consideration there is only one regulation in regard to time: the sermons are not attached to particular Sundays in the month.

The rule that penal laws are to be strictly interpreted is not applicable in the present case. Such a rule is very useful when doubts have to be cleared up. The principle, however, in regard to the fulfilment of temporal obligations is quite certain.

The distinction which our correspondent, in the latter portion of his query, makes between penal and ecclesiastical laws is not correct. The two classes are not mutually exclusive, penal being merely a division of ecclesiastical laws. The law in which we are interested is undoubtedly penal, and it is, of course, also ecclesiastical.

STUDY DURING THE NOVITIATE

REV. DEAR SIR,-I have heard that during my absence abroad a decree, or its equivalent, was issued regarding the amount of time to be spent daily in secular studies by novices. I have also heard that a later decree increased the number of hours. Will you kindly state the present legislation on this point, where it may be found, and if it is obligatory in Institutes devoted to education.

SUBSCRIBER.

The only recent decree on this matter, of which we are aware, was published by the Congregation of Religious on the 27th August, 1910; it is to be found, amongst other places, in the second volume of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, page 732. Previous to the publication of this decree formal study

1' Qui tempore pomeridiano impeditus est, saltem tenetur mane eas horas dicere, quae secundum hodiernam praxim in choro mane jam dici solent, i.e., totum officium usque ad Nonam inclusive (imo tempore Quadragesimae etiam Vesperas). Plerique etiam tenent eum debere quolibet anni tempore sub gravi etiam Vesperas et Completorium recitare at num haec rigorosa obligatio existat, merito videtur dubitandum esse.'-Lehmkuhl, Th. Mor., vol. ii. n. 628, 5.

was, as a general rule, entirely forbidden, if the novitiate lasted only one year. If, however, the novitiate was of two years' duration, some study might be undertaken during the second year. It will suffice to refer to the Normae. After an enumeration of the various works in the performance of which the first year of the novitiate must be passed, and amongst which study finds no place, § 73 continues: In secundo autem novitiatus anno, semper sub directione et vigilantia magistrae studiis vel aliis operibus instituti moderate vacare poterunt, sed in ipsa novitiatus domo, et non extra eam, nisi graves rationes aliter suadent.'

The decree already referred to has considerably modified this discipline. For the convenience of our correspondent, and also of others who may not have an opportunity of reading the decree itself, we shall give briefly its main provisions.

1. Novices are to study in private one hour each day with the exception of Sundays and holidays.

2. These studies are to be under the direction of the Master or ViceMaster of Novices, or some professor of literature. It is the duty of whoever undertakes the direction of studies to instruct the novices in class not more than three times each week and for an hour each time distinct, however, from the hour devoted to private study.

3. The study is not to be regarded as merely a work of mortification, but as study in the real sense of the term from which intellectual progress is to be derived, and is to be directed by the Superior in such a way that this end will be obtained. The nature of the study to be undertaken will depend a good deal on the duties which the novices will be afterwards called upon to fulfil as determined by the rules and constitution of each individual Order or Congregation. The study of the vernacular, and of Latin and Greek as circumstances permit, is, however, recommended. Written exercises are also declared to be of great utility.

4. The director of the studies is bound to take note of the diligence and progress of each novice and to give a written testimony of them to the Superior-General or Provincial at the expiration of the novitiate.

We are unaware of any more recent legislation on this subject, and we have searched the Acta Apostolicae Sedis pretty closely; we presume, therefore, that there is none.

Institutes devoted to education are certainly bound by this decree, as there is no exempting clause in their favour.

SELECTING DEPUTIES FOR GENERAL CHAPTERS

REV. DEAR SIR,-The following is an extract from a decree, 'Datum Romae ex aedibus S. C. Propa. Fide, die 24th Aprilis, An. 1906. 'FR. G. M. CARD. GOTTI, Praef. LUIGI VECCIA, Secret.

' Ad tramitem legum canonicarum, inde a die indictionis Capituli Generalis singulis religiosis sodalibus machinari omnino interdicitur ad aliquem confratrem excludendum ab officio deputati ad Capitulum Generale ac pari ratione interdicitur ne quis ad praedictum deputati officium aut se aut quemlibet alium eligendum moliatur.'

Which, in your opinion, does omnino refer to-machinari or interdicitur? What, for the purposes of this decree, is the exact force of the terms, machinari omnino interdicitur, and moliatur?

The vast majority of my confrères would feel most grateful for a short statement explaining what is allowed to each Religious to do, and what he is forbidden to do, in correspondence having for object the making of representations to confrères as to the suitability or otherwise of members who are spoken of as likely deputies.

DOUBTFUL ONE.

Omnino, in our opinion, qualifies interdicitur; the point, however, is not very material to the interpretation of the decree.

The term machinari usually implies the use of underhand, illicit contrivances, and we have no doubt that the word has this meaning here. This decree involves a restriction of liberty, and consequently should be strictly interpreted. The term moliri, too, has sometimes a similar implication; and, on account of the restriction of liberty involved and the parallelism with machinari, we are convinced that it is the one intended.

In general terms, then, it may be said that this decree forbids each member of the Order to scheme or intrigue either for the exclusion of a fellow-member from the office of deputy or for the appointment of himself or some other member.

An enumeration of all the various forms which correspondence might take in connexion with these appointments would be very difficult and by no means necessary. It will suffice to deal with a few of the principal.

1. We think it would be quite lawful for a Religious to seek advice by letter from a confrère as to the suitability or otherwise of an individual or individuals for the office of deputy, and this confrère would be quite free to give his honest views on the individual or individuals named, in reply.

2. Neither do we think it opposed to the prohibition contained in this decree to send a list of suitable candidates to confrères.

3. If a Religious knows that a certain candidate has certain defects which would render him quite unsuitable for the office of deputy, he is, in our opinion, at liberty to communicate his views to a confrère or confrères.

4. To make false representations with a view to procuring or preventing the election of an individual or individuals is, of course, quite unlawful.

A WILL CASE

REV. DEAR SIR,-May I trouble you for an answer to the following questions in the next issue of the I. E. RECORD: Some few years ago a Parochus bequeathed by will a certain sum of money to his niece, which was to be given to her on condition of her becoming a nun. She entered a convent and was professed in the month of October, 1915. She received her legacy, which was duly handed over to the Superioress of the convent. This nun has recently left the convent and returned to her parental