5

In a

from civil authority is one of the consequences (1160). In a general way, this means that the sacred place may not be employed for illicit or profane purposes, and the prohibition is pretty extensive-witness the decree of Pope Pius X against the introduction of cinematograph exhibitions into churches for any purpose whatever.1 special way it involves the right of sanctuary.' But not quite to the same extent as before. The right itself is based on the natural instinct of religious men, was recognized in pagan times as attaching to the shrines and temples of the gods, was claimed by Christian churches from the earliest days and acknowledged even by the Roman Emperors. But with modifications as time went on. At one period we find the number of refugees restricted, at another the number of places extended, at a third restrictions imposed even on the churches to meet the abuses that the claim tended to encourage. In some localities custom had so far prevailed against the ancient practice that many questioned whether the law, or the censure attached to it in the Constitution of 1869,6 was still in force; and the reply of the Holy Office," that the regulation must still be observed substantially,' was probably too vague to check the scepticism of the querists. If they lived to see the Code, they got the answer that most of them probably expected. The censure is nowhere mentioned in the new legislation, and must, therefore, be regarded as a thing of the past (6, 5°). And of the right itself, all that remains is conveyed in Canon 1179: 'a church enjoys the right of sanctuary, and those who come to it for refuge are not to be torn from it, except in case of necessity, without the assent of the Ordinary, or at least of the rector of the church.'

Churches. In the definition given (1161) it is stated that a church is intended chiefly for the purpose of serving all the faithful for the public exercise of divine worship. This does not at all imply that the church may be utilized occasionally for secular purposes (1160, 1178).

1 Dec. 10th, 1912, Acta A. Sedis, iv. 724.

2 Soglia, Inst. Jur. Priv., 132.

3 Cf. Bened. XIV, Ex quo divino, 8th June, 1725.

4 Cf. Wernz, Jus. Decret, iii. 448.

e.g. by Popes Pius VII and Gregory XVI.

The

The fifth excommunication 'simply reserved to the Pope in the Apostolicae Sedis.

7 Dec. 22nd, 1880.

emphasis is laid on the terms 'all' and 'public'; and the intention is to mark off the characteristics that distinguish a church from an oratory, public, semi-public, or private (1188).

First, we have a few regulations that must be taken account of before the building of a church is undertaken. The express and written consent of the local Ordinary is an absolute essential; and, in this case, the Vicar-General is disqualified, unless he has got a special mandate. The consent will not be granted unless there is a fair probability that from some source or other a sum of money will be available, sufficient to erect the building and cover subsequent expenses (1162). The protests of neighbouring rectors are taken into account, but are not necessarily decisive the objector lays his complaint and is allowed two months, more or less, to establish his case; in the meantime, the work may be allowed to continue at the builder's risk, but, as a rule, should be suspended till the point at issue is decided (1676). When Religious Orders are concerned, permission to erect a new house in the diocese or city will not be enough: before erecting a church or public oratory, they must secure the approval of the local Ordinary for the particular locality selected (1162, § 4). Finally, the Ordinary is to see that the plans of the building are in conformity with Christian art1; and no windows or doors, opening into lay people's dwellings, are to be tolerated (1164).

The church, when built, is not to be employed for divine service until it has been blessed or consecrated. If it be a cathedral church it must be consecrated; if parochial, collegiate, or conventual, consecrated, if possible; if a church of any other kind, blessed at least. But there are exceptions. A wooden or metal church cannot be consecrated, though it may be blessed; and neither blessing nor consecration is allowed, when the probabilities are that the building will be turned to secular uses later on (1165). Previous rules are repeated substantially in regard to the consecration ceremony, the observance of anniversary days, the 'title' of the church, and the blessing or consecration of bells-it being added expressly that the use of the latter is subject to ecclesiastical authority exclusively, and that they may be employed for profane purposes only when the donor, with

1 Cf. Maynooth Statutes (1900), 327-8.

the Ordinary's consent, has imposed a condition to that effect, or when custom, necessity, or the Ordinary's permission demand or allow the proceeding (1166-9). When the church has been duly blessed or consecrated, sacred functions of every kind may be performed-in so far as they are compatible with vested or parochial rights. The Ordinary may fix the hours for the various services; but, in the case of exempt Religious churches, this is to be understood only in the sense that he may insist on the exclusion of such services as interfere with the giving of catechetical instruction or the preaching of the Gospel in parochial churches (1171, 609).

As before, a church loses its blessing or consecration (exsecratio) only when the greater portion of the walls has fallen, or when, having become so unfit for sacred functions that its repair is out of the question, it has been, in accordance with the power conferred in Canon 1187, turned to appropriate secular uses by the local Ordinary (1170). But the rules governing violation' violation' (violatio, pollutio) are slightly modified. Instead of the

effusio

seminis humani of the old law, we now read 'unholy or sordid uses to which the church has been subjected' (1172, § 3)-partially more strict, since it extends the classes of acts that may lead to the result: partially more liberal, since it implies that the acts must have been performed repeatedly. Instead of the 'vitandus' of previous legislation we now find one excommunicated by sentence' (§ 4), but a comparison of Canons 1873, 1876, and 2258 of the Code with the corresponding regulations of the past will show that the difference is merely verbal. In the remaining canons on the matter the liberal tendency is obvious. All sacred rites are, as before, forbidden, until the church is duly 'reconciled' (1173). But the violation of a church does not involve that of a cemetery 1 (1172, § 2): exhumation is not to be insisted upon when it entails serious inconvenience 2-an exception that, in modern circumstances, will tend to become the rule (1175): any priest may, with the rector's presumed consent, reconcile a church that has been merely blessed (1176, § 1)3: a consecrated church may be reconciled by the delegate of the

1 Contrast Cap. un., de cons. ecc. in VIo.

2 Contrast Sacr., 12, de sepult.

3 Delegation by the Bishop used to be required, outside the case of necessity (Ritual, S.C.R., 8th July, 1804, etc.).

Bishop or (in certain cases) of the Religious Superior (1156, 1176, § 2); and, in case of grave and urgent necessity, when the Ordinary cannot be approached, the rector of the church may act in all cases and inform the Ordinary afterwards (1176, § 3). Even in regard to the water employed, there is a new concession: for the blessing by the Bishop, required by the Ritual when there is question of reconciling a consecrated church, gives place in the Code to a blessing by the officiating priest (1177).

As regards the administration of property intended for the repair and upkeep of the church and for the exercise of public worship, the mutual relations of Canons 1182-6 and 1519-28 must be kept in view (1182). In the second of the two sections we are told that the local Ordinary, in addition to appointing a diocesan Council of Administration (1520), is to select suitable men to manage the property of any church for which law or the terms of foundation have not provided an administrator already (1521). The duties of these men, both before (1522) and after (1523-5) assuming administration, are carefully specified, also their dependence on the local Ordinary (1526), and the consequences of their failure to comply with the prescribed rules or with the natural obligations of their office (1527-8). But, for the specia' property mentioned above, we find that the first section has provided an administrator, viz., as a rule, the Bishop and Chapter in the case of a cathedral church, the Chapter in the case of a collegiate, and the rector in ordinary cases (1182). It would seem, therefore, that the circumstances contemplated in Canon 1521 do not exist, and that there is no strict obligation to appoint any committee whatever-and this, perhaps, explains the hypothetical form of Canon 1183. But the committee may be appointed: if appointed, it is known as the 'Council of the Fabric' of the church (1183), and its rights and duties are specified (1184-6).

The institution is a common feature of parochial life on the Continent-also, we understand, in portions of the New World affected by Continental practices-but has been introduced only in a very tentative form into this country as yet. If it be ever widely established in our parishes,

1A priest used to require an apostolic privilege (Ritual). Exempt Religious were granted it by Leo X (3rd Febr., 1514).

For the hesitating recommendations in pre-Code days, see, e.g., Lehmkuhl, ii. 306; D'Annibale, Summ., iii. 15, etc.

priests will be interested in consulting the extent and limits of the Committee's powers-as indicated in Canons 1184-5. They will also notice that it is given a prominent position in Canon 1186, which—without prejudice to particular customs and agreements, or to the prescriptions of the civil law-arranges that the expenses of repair are to fall primarily on the property of the Committee, next on the patron, then on those who have a revenue from the church, and finally, in a mild form, on the people of the diocese or parish. When, as mostly with us, the patron and Committee have no existence, the second and third classes become liable for the whole amount. The order and method indicated in the canon represent perhaps pretty accurately, in fact if not in theory, the system actually followed. In so far as there may be a slight discrepancy, the opening clause will effect a reconciliation.

But, whether the Committees be established or not, there is one little canon that does affect us: 'entrance to a church for (the purpose of assisting at) sacred rites is to be entirely gratuitous, and every custom to the contrary is reprobated' (1181). This also is thoroughly in harmony with Continental practice; though, as those who have lived on the Continent will testify, there appears to be no rooted objection to collecting money with all pomp and circumstance, once the congregation has been admitted. How the two practices differ essentially it is hard to see the moral compulsion, the difficulty of refusing without letting others know, the consequent temptation to remain away, and the association of money-changers with sacred worship, are quite as considerable in the second case as in the first. Whatever about that, the purpose of the law is obviously to make it as easy as possible for the faithful to attend church services, and to prevent scandal and abuses. On the first point, we have our own statutes1 forbidding, 1° the exclusion of any one on the score of his being unable or unwilling to contribute money for sacred purposes (112), and, 2°, the holding of collections for secular purposes in the neighbourhood of the church and in such a manner as to cause the congregation inconvenience or annoyance (115). So far as the second purpose is concerned, we think it will be generally admitted that the custom, as followed in this country, gave little or no scandal to any

1 Maynooth Statutes (1900), pp. 68, 69.