recent decree on Reservation in the Irish Theological Quarterly. We are unable to agree, however, with either of the conclusions put forward by our correspondent.

I. The first contention is that neither under the old legislation nor the new do Provincial or National Councils possess the power to reserve

cases.

To our mind there is no doubt whatsoever that under the existing discipline reservation is quite within the competence of these bodies. The best proof of this, we think, is the practice of the Councils themselves. Thomasinus 1 and Benedict XIV 2 mentioned several Provincial Synods of ancient and medieval times in which reservations were made; and in recent years the practice has been still more general.3 Clearly, then, these bodies are quite competent to reserve cases from custom, even if there be no written law on the point.

The silence of authors is intelligible when we consider that for the most part they deal with this question only in very general terms. That the silence, however, is not absolute is evident from the fact that our correspondent is able to adduce two very eminent writers who expressly admit the power of Provincial Councils, viz., Bouix and Benedict XIV. Nor is the silence of the Council of Trent a bit more conclusive. The Tridentine Fathers do not profess to give a complete enumeration of the active subjects of reservation; their failure to mention Provincial and National Synods need, therefore, cause us no surprise.

We have no doubt that this power continues under the new Code. Canon 290 is certainly wide enough to embrace it: Patres in Concilio plenario vel provinciali congregati studiose inquirant ac decernant quae ad fidei incrementum, ad moderandos mores, ad corrigendos abusus, ad controversias componendas, ad unam eandemque disciplinam servandam vel inducendam, opportuna fore pro suo cujusque territorio videantur.' There can be no question that the power of 'regulating morals' and 'correcting abuses' involves that of reservation, unless there is an express exception to the contrary; and nowhere do we find any trace of such exception.

But the Code supplies an even clearer proof of our contention. The first section of canon 893 states that those who jure ordinario can give jurisdiction to hear confession or can impose censures, can also make reservations, with the exception of a Vicar-Capitular or a Vicar-General without a special mandate. In accordance with canon 2220, § 1, the power of making laws involves also that of sanctioning them with punishments. Now, nobody can deny that National and Provincial Councils have legislative jurisdiction: canon 291 speaks expressly of the approbation of their decrees or laws. The natural conclusion, therefore, is that they can not only impose censures, but also make reservations.

1 Vet. et Nov. Ecclesiae Disc., par. 1, lib. 2, cap. 14, n. 4 & 5.

2 De Synodo Dioc., Lib. v. c. 4, n. 3.

3 Synod of Maynooth, Canons 170 and 180; First Council of Westminster, xxiv. 1; Fourth Council of Westminster, xi. 9; Third Council of Baltimore, n. 124 & 127; Prov. Council of Cashel, 1907, viii. 2, etc.

4 Sess. 14, De Sacram. Poenit., c. 7.

Our correspondent states that the wording of the definition of reservation in the new Code supposes the power to vest in an individual not in a corporate body.' To show that this is not the case we need only quote canon 893, the one which contains the definition :

§1. Qui ordinario jure possunt audiendi confessiones potestatem concedere aut ferre censuras, possunt quoque, excepto Vicario Capitulari et Vicario Generali sine mandato speciali, nonnullos casus ad suum avocare judicium, inferioribus absolvendi potestatem limitantes.

§2. Haec avocatio dicitur reservatio.

Not only do these sections not suppose the power of reservation to vest in an individual, but, as we have shown, when examined in the light of other canons, they demonstrate that Plenary and Provincial Synods possess it.

Nor is there any better foundation for the claim that a Council cannot have power in the sacramental forum. The Council of Trent certainly thought itself possessed of this power, when it granted all priests jurisdiction to absolve in danger of death. What is true in this connexion is that a Council cannot, by itself, exercise jurisdiction in the sacramental forum: this would involve the administration of the sacrament of Penance, which is reserved exclusively to priests.

II. Our correspondent is evidently sceptical about his first conclusion: he, therefore, makes an alternative suggestion. Even if they have power,' he says, 'they wish to make reservations, not as a body, but as individuals, for the several dioceses they govern.' Neither can this contention, we fear, be admitted. Plenary and Provincial Councils, when reserving cases, give not the slightest indication that their procedure differs from that which they follow in other matters: we must, therefore, conclude that reservation is a conciliar act. Besides, when a reservation is embodied amongst the approved acts and decrees of any Council, it is a clear sign that it is the work of the corporate body, not of single individuals.

The fact that Plenary and Frovincial Councils usually reserve their cases, not to themselves, but to Bishops or Ordinaries, is no proof that reservations are not conciliar. Nobody, for example, would contend that, when the Holy See reserves cases to Bishops, the reservations are not papal but episcopal acts. The reason why these Synods do not reserve cases to themselves is quite evident. They meet only after long intervals; and if, in the meantime, there were no existing authority to grant absolution, the gravest inconveniences would result.

It is the ideal thing, of course, that reservation should be under the moderating influence of a continually existing authority. But it is quite another thing to say that this is an absolute necessity. Reservations do not usually require to be changed very quickly. For example, those of the Bull Apostolicae Sedis have undergone scarcely any modification since their publication in 1869. The difficulty suggested by 'Parochus ' is, therefore, sufficiently obviated by the fact that Councils, though not continually existing, are still held from time to time.

Bishops have an entirely different position at their annual meetings from that which they occupy in Plenary and Provincial Synods. At their annual meetings they have no jurisdictional status whatsoever as a body. They cannot make laws or exercise any other act of jurisdiction in their corporate capacity, but only as individuals. Whereas, on the contrary, in Synods their legislative power as a corporate body is fully recognized by Canon Law. There is no strict analogy, therefore, between the two ca ses.

DELEGATION OF CURATES

REV. DEAR SIR,-In the diocese of X, previous to Ne Temere, the power of curates was defined in two diocesan statutes:

A.D. 1847- Vicariis . . . prohibetur matrimonium celebrare, inscio vel dissentiente parocho nisi ipsi forsitan . . . consuli non posset.'

A.D. 1895—It is hereby declared that a curate has no jurisdiction at a marriage, except in the parish in which he is actually ministering. If a curate assist at a marriage in the parish in which he ministers as curate inscio vel dissentiente parocho (nisi ipsi forsitan . . . consuli non possit) valide assistit sed ipse videat.'

No change has been made in these statutes.

...

Now, the question arises what are the powers of curates in the diocese of X since 1908? Am I not correct in maintaining that their powers now are exactly what they were since 1895-in other words, they have episcopal delegation to marry validly in their own parishes until the Bishop withdraws their delegation? The Ne Temere does not affect that delegation at all

An answer-monosyllabic, if you like to this question, would set many doubts at rest.

S. O. B.

The decree Ne Temere has made no change in these faculties.

THE RIGHT OF PRECEDENCE ENJOYED BY VICARS-GENERAL REV. DEAR SIR,-I request you to be so kind as to reply to the following questions in the I. E. RECORD. I write as a member of an English Chapter.

In the new Canon Law, Canon 370 lays down the following: 'Praesente etiam episcopo, Vicarius Generalis, publice privatimque praecedentiae jus habet super omnibus dioeceseos clericis, non exclusis dignitabus et canonicis ecclesiae cathedralis, etiam in choro et actibus capitularibus, nisi clericus charactere episcopali praefulgeat, et Vicarius Generalis eodem caret.'

The constitution for English Chapters was laid down in the First Synod of Westminster held about seventy years ago. There it is laid down, Decree xxix. n. 15, pretty much the same as in the new Canon. In the Chapter of which I am a member, the Provost was nearly always a Vicar-General. Now it is different. I respectfully ask replies to the following questions :

1. Should the Vicar-General preside at the recitation of that portion of the Office which we are bound to say in choir ?

2. Should the Vicar-General preside at capitular sessions when capitular meetings are held? We are bound to hold one every

month.

CANON.

I. The reference to the constitution of English Chapters is the following: Vicarius Generalis Episcopi in choro in ecclesia, et ubique, praecedere debet omnibus canonicis et praeposito' (S.R.C., in Nicien., Octobris 2, 1677). This statute is not peculiar to the English Chapters, it is really the existing general law upon this question. Canon 370 of the new Code is, therefore, merely a confirmation of the old discipline. Both the English statute and Canon 370 of the Code refer, however, to precedence or priority of place; whereas our correspondent's two queries are concerned with the right of presiding. Now Canon 397 contains the following provision regarding the person who is to preside at meetings of the Chapter:-'Nisi aliud in statutis capitularibus caveatur, dignitatibus et canonicis secundum ordinem praecedentiae jus et Officium est. . . .

6

4°. Convocare capitulum eique praeesse ac praescribere et ordinare quae ad chori directionem referantur dummodo dignitas sit de gremio capituli.'

The words eique praeesse clearly indicate that it is the right and duty of the first Dignity to preside over the (hapter on all occasions, both at choral and other meetings. As the Provost holds the premier position in English Chapters, it is he, therefore, who should preside at the choral recitation of the Office, and at other capitular meetings. Consequently, our answer to both queries is in the negative.

RECENT 'MOTU PROPRIO' REGARDING THE NEW CODE OF CANON LAW

The current issue of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis contains a very important Motu proprio1 regarding the new Code of Canon Law. Its purpose is to obviate a twofold danger which will threaten the stability of the Code from the very beginning. The first arises from private commentators. There is no doubt that there are many rather difficult points in the new legislation, and that upon these there is certain to be a diversity of opinion. Unless, then, some corrective be applied, there is bound to be considerable uncertainty, sometimes on very essential points. The second danger, however, seems to us to be the more serious of the two: it is connected with the legislative powers enjoyed by the Roman Congregation. Hitherto these powers were exercised rather freely. Each year saw a considerable amount of legislation added to that already in existence. If this procedure were allowed to continue unchecked, the Code was bound to be out of date in a comparatively short period; and all the difficulties which it was meant to obviate would again arise.

1 For text see pp. 431-32 of this number of I. E. RECORD.

To prevent these evils from ensuing, our Holy Father Pope Benedict XV has made the following enactments:

I. He has established a Council or Commission of Cardinals to give authentic interpretations of the canons of the Code. In any matter of great importance, however, before an interpretation is given, the particular Congregation interested in the point at issue must be consulted. II. For the future the Congregations are forbidden to issue new general decrees without grave necessity on the part of the entire Church. Their ordinary functions in relation to the Code will be to see that its prescriptions are religiously observed, and to issue, when necessary, Instructions which will throw more light upon its canons and render them more effective. These Instructions are to take the form of explanations or complements of the canons, and must be inserted at the first opportunity amongst the documents attached to the Code.

III. The good of the universal Church will sometimes require a new general decree; and, of course, in such a contingency, the interested Congregation will be quite competent to issue one. Should it differ from the prescriptions of the Code special notice of the discrepancy must be given to the Pope. In any case, whether it disagrees with, or is merely a complement of, the Code, his approbation will be always required. When the approval of the Holy Father has been obtained, the new decree should be transmitted to the Commission with a view to a revision of the canon or canons involved. When the new law differs from the old, the Commission must indicate the canon or canons which are superseded. When it is merely a complement, then it will be the business of the Commission to arrange the place in the Code in which it is to be inserted. The insertion is made by repeating the number of the canon which immediately precedes twice, thrice, etc., as the case may require; so that no disarrangement in the numbers will be involved. Whatever revision has been made in the canons must be published in Acta Apostolicae Sedis immediately after the decree itself.

J. KINANE.