Images de page

by no means insurmountable. How, it will be asked, is it contended that laws similarly worded, as those of 1850 and 1875 were, would have a different objective, and that, whilst under the one, there is claimed freedom for foxhunting, under the other no such liberty may be enjoyed. The older hunting clerics supply the answer. They tell us that, in the later sixties and the earlier seventies, hunting hal become very common, so common as to amount to an abuse; indulgere was its note; they tell us, furthermore, that there were notable individual acts of indiscretion and clerical indecorum in the hunting-field, so much so that those who loved the old sport and who never sullied the cloth, even in the huntingfield, felt that the death knell of foxhunting, as a pastime for clerics was sounded and that it only awaited the forthcoming Synod to give effect to the inevitable. The 1875 statutes became law, and whether it was the atmosphere of expectancy in which they were promulgated, or whether it was that individual Bishops, in their respective dioceses, made known their full import, it is quite certain that, with the advent of the law, foxhunting among clerics became a thing of the past.

May I, then, respectfully suggest that, as there is good reason for thinking again in the words of the Fathers-that as the hunting prohibited by the statute has nothing in common with the venatio clamarosa of the canons, we are justified in regarding the statutes of Maynooth, and indeed of Westminster, in so far as they are directed against foxhunting, as constituting leges praeter legem. Such a view of the case will, I think, satisfactorily explain the powers of dispensing, vested in the Bishops by the 1900 statute, and will, it is to be hoped, help to dispel the misgivings-if any-of those who may be timorous of their privileges in consequence of the publication of the new Code.


When discussing the question of hunting, in our article on the obligations of the clergy, we felt that much could be said for the view that venatio cum equis et canibus, as practised in Ireland, was not clamorosa. Had we any doubts upon the point, however, they would have been most effectually removed by the contributions of 'Dubius' and of our present correspondent. We do not doubt that the considerations which they have so ably urged will appeal to a considerable number; we hope, indeed, that they will, as we have not the slightest desire to impose our views on the public-our leanings, in fact, are all in the other direction. So far, however, as we ourselves are personally concerned, we do not find in them sufficient justification for withdrawing from, or even modifying, the position which we originally took up. A brief examination of the present contribution will suffice, as many of the points suggested by it have been already dealt with in our article and in our reply to 'Dubius,'

I. In regard to the action of the Bishops in the Maynooth Synod of 1900 and the conclusions to be derived therefrom, the only point which need be touched upon is our correspondent's contention that, in the decade which immediately preceded 1900, there was no custom against the hunting law. We must say that from inquiries which we made in different parts of the country we were led to the opposite conclusion; but, unfortunately, we are unable to speak from personal

experience. The point, however, is not very material, either as an explanation of our position or of the statute of the 1900 Synod. The argument against our position is that, if foxhunting and staghunting were clamorosa, the Bishops could not claim the power-as they do in the statute of giving the clergy permission to take part in them. We pointed out that they could, if there was a custom against the general law, and we suggested that such a custom had arisen between 1875 and 1900; and now doubts are raised as to whether this suggestion is really in accordance with facts. Now, the episcopal claim is quite as valid, if the custom was in existence prior to 1875 our correspondent states that it was. In that case, the law of the 1875 Synod, even though it called hunting, as practised in Ireland, clamorosa, was yet purely national, and could be changed, or even withdrawn altogether, by the Fathers of the 1900 Synod. We were inclined to think that custom had not arisen before 1875, as we learned that Bishops, for the most part, refused to dispense during the period from 1875 to 1900, and that some priests actually had recourse to Rome for permission. Perhaps, the episcopal refusal was rather an insistence upon the observance of the law, than a confession of inability to dispense. On this hypothesis, however, or on the hypothesis that venatio cum equis et canibus in Ireland is not clamorosa, we fail to see the reason for the great enthusiasm displayed in the Synod of 1900 at the change in the canon. In either theory, the Bishops could dispense from the 1875 law, and, though there is a technical distinction between such a dispensation and the permission ob rationes speciales required by the statute of the 1900 Synod, the practical difference is immaterial. On the hypothesis that venatio cum equis et canibus in Ireland is clamorosa, and that the custom against the general law prohibiting it arose only after 1875, the enthusiasm would be intelligible.

II. We can resolve our correspondent's doubts regarding the force of the approval usually given to the decrees of National and Provincial Councils. Whilst it confers a certain amount of external authority, all canonists are agreed that it leaves the nature of the decrees unchanged, and gives no certain guarantee of their validity and orthodoxy. But, again, this point is immaterial. Even though venatio cum equis et canibus in Ireland is clamorosa, it does not by any means follow that this statute of the 1900 Synod is invalid, or that in it the Bishops claim, as our correspondent assumes, the power to dispense from a general law of the Church. On the hypothesis that a custom against the general law had arisen, the statute, as we have already pointed out, is quite valid, and the Bishops' claim is merely to dispense from their own legislation.

III. With all due respect to the probity and intellectual acquirements of our correspondent's informants, we fear we could never force ourselves to adopt their theory in regard to the statutes on hunting in the Synod of Thurles and the Maynooth Synod of 1875, or to believe that it was ever generally accepted. Venatio cum equis et canibus in the Ireland of 1850 meant practically what it means at the present day, viz., foxhunting and staghunting; yet the Bishops are supposed to have com.e together in the Synod of Thurles at that date, and to have issued a

prohibition against venatio cum equis et canibus which did not affect at all the forms of it existing in this country, but referred merely to bcarhunting and other forms of sport practically unknown in Ireland. Why, if it were permissible to interpret laws in this way, it would be just as well not to make them at all! The statute covers the foxhunting and staghunting of the period almost as plainly as a law could. Let it be remembered, too, that it comes between two very practical regulations -the prohibitions to attend race meetings and theatres. Evidently, the Fathers of the Synod were not altogether divorced from the realities of Irish life in this particular section. It would be almost as legitimate to hold that the race-meetings and theatres interdicted were the chariot races and scenic representations of ancient Rome, as that the prohibited venatio was the boar-hunting of the Black Forest and the Apennines. But the most remarkable part of the theory has yet to come. In 1875 the Bishops again met, and a prohibition against venatio cum equis et canibus was again issued in practically the self-same words as those used in 1850; but now, strange to say, the law includes foxhunting. Such a position, we fear, violates the most fundamental canons of interpretation.

IV. Finally, our correspondent seeks to enlist the authority of Benedict XIV in support of the view that venatio cum equis et canibus, as practised in Ireland, is not clamorosa. To avoid misapprehension, let us give the distinguished Pontiff's definitions again: Alia siquidem est clamorosa, alia quieta, illa magno armorum, canum, accipitrum apparatu et tumultu exercetur . . . altera solis laqueis et retibus, aut etiam armis, sed paucis adhibitis canibus . . . sine ullo strepitu instituitur.' The clause which defines clamorosa, if taken by itself, is ambiguous. It may imply either that display and noise must arise from a combination of arms, dogs, and falcons, or that it would suffice if they were derived from any one of them. The context makes it abundantly clear that the latter is the implication. Evidently, the author intended to make a complete division; and, if a combination of arms, dogs, and falcons was required for clamorosa venatio, the division certainly would not be complete. Besides, it is clearly insinuated in the second member of the sentence that, if many dogs are employed, the venatio is clamorosa.

Another consideration which leads to the same conclusion is that, if the combination were required, venatio clamorosa would be a purely imaginary sport, at least, in modern times, and its strict prohibition in the Code would be unintelligible. It seems clear, therefore, that the teaching of Benedict XIV, which is typical, favours the view which we have been propounding.

Perhaps enough has now been said on this question. Our present correspondent and 'Dubius' have very ably put forward one side of it; and we have done our best to throw some light upon the other. The clergy, therefore, have sufficient data to enable them to make up their minds on the matter. Further discussion, we fear, would be merely a repetition of points already dealt with.

DIOCESAN CONSULTORS. THE CEREMONY OF PROFESSION DEAR REV. SIR,-Would you kindly reply to following queries in your next issue of the I. E. RECORD:

A. 1°. In dioceses in Ireland where there is no diocesan Chapter, is it the diocesan Consultors who have the right to appoint the VicarCapitular now?

2o. If so, who has the right to convoke the diocesan Consultors for the meeting?

3o. When and where is the meeting to be held?

4°. Has new Code effected any change in method of electing Bishops in Ireland?

B. In regard to profession of religious, before profession with perpetual vows takes place, there must precede it a temporary profession of three years, at least, with simple vows (Canon 574, new Code). What changes will it be necessary to introduce into the ceremony of profession to meet the requirements of Canon 574?


A. 1°. The diocesan Consultors have the right of appointing the Vicar-Capitular. This is evident from Canons 427 and 432, § 1. According to Canon 427 diocesan Consultors take the place of a cathedral Chapter, and have, therefore, all the latter's powers in regard to the government of the diocese, not only when the see is filled, but also when it is vacant; whilst Canon 432, § 1, states that the Chapter of the cathedral church, when the see becomes vacant, within eight days from the time that news of the vacancy has been received, should appoint a VicarCapitular to govern the diocese in its place.'

[ocr errors]

2o. In the special regulations regarding diocesan Consultors there is no statement as to who should convoke this meeting. In accordance with general principles, however, it should be convoked by the president or head of the Consultors (c. 162, § 1); and the position of president will, we think, be occupied by him who takes precedence of all the others. In this particular case precedence will be determined by seniority in appointment, or, if appointments have been made at the same time, by seniority in ordination, or finally, if ordinations have taken place at the same time, by seniority in age (c. 106).

3o. The meeting is to be held within eight days from the time that notice of the vacancy has been received (c. 432, § 1). In regard to place there is no special prescription, and hence it will suffice to fulfil the general regulation that it should suit the convenience of the Consultors (c. 162, § 1).

4°. Generally speaking, the Code has effected no change in the method of electing Bishops in Ireland; none of its canons are in opposition to the special decree on this subject. In dioceses, however, in which there are no chapters, we are of opinion that in future diocesan Consultors, even though they are not parish priests, will have the right of taking part in the meetings in which the three names are selected. The selection of a permanent ruler for the diocese has evidently a very intimate connexion with its government, and, as we have already seen Consultors have, in this matter, all the powers of a cathedral Chapter.

It is true, indeed, that the Chapter's right to intervene in those meetings arises from a particular law; but the Code itself makes no distinction, and ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemus.

The conclusion that all diocesan Consultors have the right of taking part in these meetings is somewhat confirmed by analogy with the method of appointing Bishops in Australia, as prescribed in Plenary Council held in that country in 1887, in accordance with which diocesan Consultors and irremovable rectors are put on the same footing.1 In the United States, too, since the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore until the publication, a couple of years ago, of a new decree on the appointment of Bishops, diocesan Consultors have had the same rights as in Australia. 2

B. Our correspondent, of course, is concerned with institutes in which temporary profession did not previously exist. Well, in such institutes it will now be necessary to have a temporary profession of at least three years at the expiration of the novitiate. The ceremony for this temporary profession will be the same as that hitherto required for perpetual profession, except that the formula of profession must indicate clearly its temporary character. The ceremony for perpetual profession is unchanged.




We have recently received more than one communication regarding this subject, and it may therefore be useful to state the liturgical laws which govern it. The position which the Titular holds in the liturgy of the Church does not seem to be sufficiently recognized, at least in these countries.

I. What is meant by the Titular of a church? The answer may best be given in the words of the Congregation of Rites: Titularis . . . is dicitur sub cujus nomine seu titulo ecclesia fundata est et a quo appellatur.' The Titular is sometimes also called the Patron of the church, but the modern tendency is to connect the word Patron with a territory, such as a parish, diocese, etc., reserving the term Titular for the saint or mystery to whom a church or oratory is dedicated. The distinction is of considerable importance. A Patron is regarded as a special intercessor with God for some locality, and as a consequence must be an angel or a saint, including of course the Blessed Virgin. A Titular, on the other hand, is the object of special veneration and devotion in the church. or oratory to which it gives a name. Hence, not only an angel or a saint, but also a Divine Person, a Mystery, or a sacred thing, such as the Cross, may be selected as a Titular. Angels, collectively or individually,

1 Coll de Prop. Fide, n. 44.

2 l. c., n. 43.

« PrécédentContinuer »