B.

Power to Bless Beads, Crosses, etc., and attach Indulgences to them.

Another rather important question has also been settled quite recently by the Holy See. According to Canon 349, § 1, n. 1, Bishops have the privilege of blessing, by merely a sign of the cross, chaplets, rosary beads, crosses, medals, statues, and scapulars, and of attaching to them thereby all the indulgences usually granted by the Holy See. There was some uncertainty as to whether they could communicate this power to their priests. The doubt has been solved, at least partially, by a reply given to the Most Rev. Dr. Hanna, Archbishop of San Francisco. The Archbishop's query was to the following effect: 'Is it lawful for Bishops to communicate habitually to priests of their territory the power of blessing and indulgencing rosary beads, etc., of which there is question in Canon 349, § 1, n. 1, with the observance of all the rites prescribed by the Church? ' The reply was in the negative.1

Although the power to grant indulgences is of a jurisdictional nature, still, prior to the publication of the Code, it was disputed whether the ordinary rules governing delegation were applicable to it or not. Many, indeed, maintained that they were; yet, not a few held that, without the permission of the Holy See, ecclesiastical superiors generally were incapable of conferring this power upon others.2 The Code has adopted this latter view. Canon 913 states that 'Those who are inferior to the Roman Pontiff cannot commit to others the power of granting indulgences, unless this has been expressly conceded to them by the Holy See.' It is in this canon, we think, not in the fact that the power granted in Canon 348, § 1, n. 1, is a privilege, that we must seek for the reason of the decision just quoted. Jurisdictional power granted by the Holy See for ever, or for a long period, is a privilege; and yet, as a general rule, it may be subdelegated without any express concession to that effect.

The decision deals only with habitual communication or delegation; but from Canon 913 it is clear that delegation, even in a particular case, is likewise forbidden. From the decision, too, we can conclude only to unlawfulness of such delegation liceat is the word employed. The word nequeunt, however, in Canon 913, makes it clear that the delegation would be also invalid.

C.

The Sacred Congregation of Religious orders certain books in religious institutes of women with Papal approval to be submitted to it for revision and correction.

A couple of rather important pronouncements in regard to religious institutes of women have also made their appearance quite recently. In a decree published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis of last June, the Congregation of Religious ordered every religious institute and pious society

1 Vide Acta Ap. Sedis, August, 1919, p. 332.

2 Cf. Ojetti, Synopsis, n. 2304; Ferraris, Bibliotheca, Indulgentia, Art. ii. n. 12,

of women with Papal approval, to submit to it for revision and correction, within a period of one year from the promulgation of the Decree, all books containing customs and usages practised in the institute, and all prayers proper to it and recited in common by its members.

It will be remembered that the Code itself declares, in Canon 489, that the rules and constitutions of individual institutes which are opposed to the prescriptions of the new legislation are abrogated. A subsequent Decree of the Congregation of Religious required that rules and constitutions of all institutes with Papal approval should be revised, and should be submitted for approval to the Holy See on the occasion of the next quinquennial report.1

The differences between the two decrees are quite clear. The recent one is intended only for institutes of women, and has reference to customs and prayers; whereas the one issued last year embraces institutes of men also, and is concerned only with the constitutions. Again, whilst the latter requires the emendated constitutions to be submitted to the Congregation on the occasion of the next quinquennial report; the former specifies one year as the time within which customs and prayers proper to an institute have to be brought under the notice of the Roman authorities.

D.

The Rites to be observed in the Profession of Nuns.

In the August issue of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis there is a declaration regarding the rites to be observed in the religious profession of women. As, however, it does not affect sisters, its practical importance for this country is not nearly so great as that of the Decree with which we have just been dealing.

To understand the declaration, it is necessary to recall that the Decree Perpensis, published in 1902, extended to nuns the regulation, binding in strict Orders of men since 1857, in virtue of which it was required that simple triennial vows should precede the solemn profession. Though called triennial, the vows were such only in regard to the institute; for the members themselves they were perpetual. Hence it was that, in accordance with replies given subsequently to the publication of the Perpensis, the formula and ceremonies of profession gave expression to the idea of perpetuity, when these simple triennial vows were being taken. Now, in accordance with Canon 574, these simple triennial vows are temporary, not merely on the part of the institute, but also in regard to the individuals who make them; and, hence, of course, it would be quite incorrect to retain any formula or ceremony which would convey the notion that they were perpetual.

We are now in a position to understand the following query and the reply given to it by the Congregation for Religious:

Are the resolutions of the S. C. of Bishops and Regulars of the 18th July, 1902, to I, and of the 15th January to I and II, in regard to the method to be observed in the simple and solemn profession of Nuns after

1 Acta Ap. Sedis, July, 1918, p. 290.

the publication of the Decree Perpensis, of the 2nd May, 1902, still in force after the introduction, by the Code of Canon Law, of profession of temporary vows, which should precede solemn vows.

The Sacred Congregation, after mature consideration of all the circumstances, deemed that the reply should be: In the negative and ad mentem. The intention is that all the rites and ceremonies which have reference to perpetuity of state should be reserved to the solemn profession; as regards the temporary profession, it is sufficient that, in conformity with Canon 577, § 1, n. 6, it be received by the legitimate superior according to the constitutions, either personally or through another.'

E.

The present issue of the I. E. RECORD contains four replies of the Pontifical Commission for the interpretation of the Code of Canon Law, given to queries submitted by His Eminence Cardinal Logue.1

I. The first query asks, who is the "proper" Bishop for the ordination of those who have no domicile'; and the reply is that 'it is the Bishop of the place in which the ordination takes place, provided, however, the person to be ordained previously acquires a domicile and takes an oath, in accordance with Canon 956.' This, it must be confessed, is a rather strange reply. If a person has acquired a domicile, it is clear that he is no longer in the category of those who have no domicile. Whilst the query seeks light on the position of candidates for Orders who are without a domicile, the reply deals merely with those who at the moment of ordination have already acquired one. The possibility of candidates for Orders being without a domicile at the moment when it becomes necessary to ordain them is evident from the very notion of domicile itself; that in actual fact cases of this kind are sometimes met with, the superiors of our ecclesiastical seminaries can amply testify.

The words in the reply, Prout dubium exponitur, lead one to think that the Commission did not really grasp the difficulty which presents itself in a country like this in which there is one National College for the Irish Church, in addition to several foreign missionary Colleges. One naturally tries to envisage, then, the circumstances which the Commission had in view when it gave this reply. It seems to us that it was thinking of a system in which each diocese has its own seminary for the education and ordination, of all the priests required for its service; and that it further implies that students, by residence in such a seminary with a view to ordination, can thereby acquire a domicile. But even this explanation is not without its difficulties. It is agreed that a conditional intention to remain permanently in a place is not sufficient for the acquisition of a domicile, if the condition is suspensive. The classical example is that of the lady who takes up her residence in a place with a view to marriage, and who intends to remain there perpetually if the marriage is contracted. Even though it is morally certain that the marriage will be contracted, the lady does not acquire a domicile. There is an almost exact parallel between this case and that of a student who takes up residence in a diocese

1 See below, p. 330.

with a view to ordination for its service. The territorial unit for the acquisition of a domicile in pre-Code days was the parish; and, moreover, there were many other titles in virtue of which a Bishop might become the competent minister of Orders. We can well understand, therefore, that this point was hitherto of very little practical importance. Notwithstanding this, the matter was actually submitted to the Congregation of the Council, and its decision was against the existence of the domicile.1 One of the reasons put forward in the preliminary discussion was this defect in the intention which we have been discussing. We should like very much to see an official solution of the difficulty, and also a satisfactory answer to the original query.

II. The second query has reference to the incardination which results from ordination. According to Canon 112, § 2, a cleric, by the reception of first tonsure, is incardinated in the diocese for the service of which he is ordained. Canon 969, § 2, on the other hand, declares that a Bishop may ordain-ordination of course includes promotion to tonsure-a subject for the service of another diocese, but that afterwards excardination and incardination are necessary. Between these two prescriptions there is a contradiction, and we were inclined to think that the latter, being the more specific, should prevail. There are indications, moreover, in Canon 956, which lead to the same conclusion. The Commission, however, has decided in a contrary sense. According to the answer to the second query, a person who is ordained for the service of another diocese by his 'proper' Bishop, is incardinated in this other diocese, not in the diocese of his 'proper' Bishop. A rather curious anomaly will result from this decision. As far as we can see, the candidate for Orders in these circumstances need not take an oath to devote himself permanently to the service of the diocese for which he is ordained; whereas an oath of this nature is necessary when a Bishop promotes to Orders for the service of his own diocese, a subject who, though he has a domicile in the diocese, has not been born there.

III. The third query was put on the hypothesis that the candidate for Orders, in the circumstances mentioned in the preceding question, was not incardinated in the diocese for whose service he was ordained. As the hypothesis was not admitted, no answer was necessary.

IV. The reply to the fourth query declares that a peregrinus is bound by the reservations of the place in which he is. Before the publication of the Code, very many maintained that a peregrinus was bound by the reservations of the place in which he was, only when the same reservations existed in his own diocese. For this reason there was a tendency in some quarters to advocate the same view under the new discipline. Others went even a step further, and maintained that a peregrinus was bound by none of the reservations of the place in which he was. The view now authoritatively confirmed by this reply of the Pontifical Commission is the one which was advocated by the Theological Correspondent in the I. E. RECORD.2 We, therefore, need not comment further on this decision. 1 Acta S. Sedis, vol. xxxviii p. 775.

2 See I. E. RECORD, April, 1919, Fifth Series, vol. xiii. pp. 324-31; also pp. 313-14 of this issue.

WITHDRAWAL OF DELEGATED JURISDICTION

REV. DEAR SIR,-Can a Bishop validly withdraw delegated faculties to hear confessions without a just cause? In this connexion Father Arregui, in a footnote, makes the following statement:- Revocatio sine justa causa jurisdictionis praevio examine concessae probabiliter est invalida dicta enim concessio non tam favor ex beneplacito quam jus ex juridica sententia est; unde nequit ex injusto beneplacito cessare.' In support of this view he also makes appeal to the authority of Ferreres and of the authors cited by him. Do you think Arregui's opinion is solidly probable?

INQUIRER.

A Bishop, in our opinion, can, without a just cause, validly withdraw delegated faculties, even though they have been given after examination. Canon 207 states that delegated jurisdiction ceases by withdrawal on the part of the person delegating, when the withdrawal is intimated to the delegate. As no distinction whatever is here made, it follows that the jurisdiction ceases, even though it has been granted after examination, and even though the withdrawal has been made without any cause. This, of course, will hold of all forms of jurisdiction, unless in any particular case some express exception is made; and in case of delegated faculties to hear confessions no such exception exists. In fact the contrary is pretty clearly implied in the section on Penance. Canon 877 requires that, as a general rule, jurisdiction to hear confessions should be granted only to those who by examination have demonstrated their fitness to receive it. Immediately afterwards, in Canon 880, you have the following regulation:-'A Local Ordinary or a religious Superior should not withdraw or suspend jurisdiction or permission to hear confessions unless for a grave cause.' Clearly, then in accordance with the rule in Canon 11, on invalidating and merely prohibiting laws, the withdrawal or suspension is valid even without a just cause; and, considering especially the prescription in Canon 877, to which we have just referred, this must hold also of those who have received their faculties after examination.

Arregui's reason for his deduction is not conclusive. An examination for faculties is not in the nature of a concursus; there is no contract, express or implied, that jurisdiction will be granted if the examination is successfully passed; and, consequently, its concession will remain a favour, not a strict right. The object of a faculty examination is to determine whether the candidate is worthy to receive jurisdiction; but worthiness and strict right are two totally different things.

The reason given by Ferreres is the same. The authors cited by him, Lugo, etc., gave expression to this view in regard to approbation, not in regard to jurisdiction. Thus the pertinent passage in De Lugo is the following: Whence it is sufficiently probable that such withdrawal without cause of approbation already previously granted in an unlimited way, is not valid.'1 As is well known, before the publication of the Code,

1 De Pocn. Disp. xxi, sec. 3, n. 64: 'Unde satis probabile est, revocationem talem sine causa approbationis jam prius sine limitatione collatae, non esse validam.'