home. The Parochus in question bequeathed the residue of his property to the Catholic poor of the parish in which he lived and died. The questions to which an answer is required are as follows:

1. Did this nun, who left her convent through no fault on the part of those in authority, lose all right to the money paid by her when entering ? 2. If not, is it to be given back to her as her absolute property, after all necessary expenses for maintenance, etc., have been deducted, or rather should it be distributed amongst the residuary legatees-the Catholic poor?

VICARIUS.

The difficulty, in this particular case, is to determine whether the testator's intention was that the money should be given absolutely to his niece when she became a nun, or merely conditionally on the condition, viz., that she should remain a Religious. The words of the will, as far as we can make them out from our correspondent's letter, indicate that the money was to be given her absolutely there is no evidence of any condition having been placed. Besides, it is a rather rare thing for a nun, once she has been professed, to leave the religious state, and hence it is quite unlikely that the testator had this possibility before his mind or that his intention was influenced by it. We conclude, therefore, that the bequest was absolute.

vows.

The position of the nun in regard to the money will differ in accordance as the Institution of which she was a member was an Order in the strict sense, with solemn vows, or a Congregation, with merely simple In strict Orders the dowry of members becomes the property of the Institution, when profession is made, and hence there is no strict obligation to restore it when a nun leaves the Order. In certain cases, however, claims of equity will arise; and hence canonists point out that the Holy See is accustomed to command, at least, a partial restoration of the dowry in the following cases: (1) When the Order itself has been to blame for the departure of the nun; (2) when she leaves for the purpose of joining another Order; (3) when she is otherwise unable to support herself.1

In Congregations the dowry does not become the property of the Institution at profession, but only at death; and hence, if any member leaves, she is still the owner of her dowry. Some compensation may, however, be due to the Congregation on account of expenses.2

We may now proceed to answer directly our correspondent's queries. 1. If she belonged to a strict Order, she lost all strict right to her dowry; but, in accordance with what we have already said, the Order may be sometimes bound in equity to at least a partial restitution. If she belonged to a Congregation, she retains full right to her dowry, but she may be bound to make compensation for expenses undertaken by the convent in her regard.

2. It is to be given back to her as her absolute property.

1 Vermeersch, De Rel. Just. et Personis, n. 181.

2 Ibid. n. 182.

AN INTERPRETATION OF THE DECREE 'CUM DE
SACRAMENTALIBUS'

We beg to call attention to an interpretation of the decree Cum de Sacramentalibus given by the Congregation of Religious, and published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis of June 1st.

The fifth article of the decree states: If any Religious for the peace of her soul or greater progress in spiritual perfection ask for a special confessor or spiritual director, the Ordinary has readily to grant her demand. The Ordinary, however, will see to it that abuses do not arise from such concession, and if abuses should come, let him cautiously and prudently remove them, always safeguarding liberty of conscience."

Two doubts in connexion with this article were proposed for solution to the Congregation:

I. The first query was 'Whether the special confessor or spiritual director deputed for any Religious in accordance with Article V of the decree Cum de Sacramentalibus can remain perpetually in his office, or is rather to be granted for a fixed time.' The answer was that the special confessor or spiritual director should be granted, not for a fixed time, but for as long as there was a continuance of the just cause of spiritual necessity or utility on the part of the Religious who made the request, as regulated by the decree Cum de Sacramentalibus, under Article 13.'

This reply needs scarcely any comment. It is certainly not extensive. The decree commands that the appointment be made when a nun demands it for her spiritual necessity or utility, and the natural conclusion is that it should endure as long as the necessity or utility endures.

II. The second doubt was 'Whether one who has discharged for two years the office of ordinary confessor can be appointed special confessor or spiritual director of any Religious, even though a year has not yet elapsed from the expiration of his term of office.'

The answer was in the affirmative.

The trouble on this particular point arose from the fact that in Article 9 of the decree it is stated that a person in this position may not be appointed extraordinary confessor; and hence some were prone to conclude that the same thing was true in regard to the appointment of a special confessor. This conclusion was, in our opinion, by no means justified, as the parity between the two cases was altogether incomplete. Anyhow, the reply of the Congregation has set the question completely at rest.

J. KINANE.

LITURGY

CALENDAR TO BE FOLLOWED IN CERTAIN INSTITUTIONS

REV. DEAR SIR,-In a city where the Redemptorist Fathers have charge of a parish in which there are two chapels, open to the public, and they have Mass there every day, what Mass should they offer in these chapels the Mass of their own Ordo or the Mass of the diocesan calendar? Of course they follow their own Ordo in their own parish church. By an open chapel' I mean one where lay people may attend Mass, as in the 'Orphan Girls' Home' and in the chapel of the 'Little Sisters of the Poor."

6

A REDEMPTORIST MISSIONARY.

In such cases as those mentioned in the query the diocesan Ordo should be followed. As the point is of some importance, it may be desirable to quote authorities:

(a) In the year 1896 the question was asked: 'Utrum (post Decretum Generale diei 9 Julii 1895: De Missa conformi Officio Ecclesiae vel Oratorii publici), Calendario loci, an vero Calendario celebrantis respondere debeant Missae, quae celebrantur in Capellis Episcoporum, Seminariorum, Collegiorum, piarum Communitatum, Hospitalium, et Carcerum?' The answer was: Dummodo agatur de Capella principali (quae instar Oratorii publici, ad effectum memorati Decreti, habenda est), Affirmative ad primam partem; Negative ad secundam.'1

(b) The case of Religious who say Mass in such Institutions is expressly touched upon in the following question and answer: Ubi unus tantum Sacerdos, quoad Missae celebrationem, addictus sit Oratoriis competenti auctoritate erectis in Gymnasiis, Hospitalibus ac Domibus quarumcumque piarum Communitatum, hic si Saecularis teneturne sequi Calendarium Dioecesis in qua extat Oratorium? et si Regularis Calendarium Ordinis, si proprio gaudeat, relinquere? R. Affirmative in omnibus, si Oratoria habenda sint ut publica; secus, Negative.' It is pretty clear from the first answer quoted that the principal Oratory of such Institutions is to be regarded as a public Oratory for the purpose of the decree of 1895.

(c) We will quote one more answer of the Congregation of Rites 3:

In eadem Civitate. . . est domus Sororum scholis addictarum, apud quas multae puellae bonis litteris instituendae degunt. In domo hac

1 Decreta Auth. S. C. R., n. 3910.

2 Ibid., 3919 ad XVII.

3 Decreta Auth. S. C. R., n. 4248, ad III, 11 Feb., 1910. The substance of the reply to another query, proposed in the same occasion, is thus given in the Index to Vol. vi. of the Authentic Decrees: Calendarium Regularium nequit adhiberi in Sacello Nosocomii licet Nosocomium extructum fuerit a Parocho Regulari, ejus administratio, juxta statuta suae fundationis, penes Parochum pro tempore Ecclesiae Regularis resideat, et unus ex Regularibus quotidie ibidem Missam celebret.'

duo habentur Sacella, in quibus Sacrum peragitur, et quae a duobus Canonicis Regularibus supradictae Abbatiae S. Floriani inserviuntur, cum ipsis demandata fuerit ab Episcopo Linciensi cura spiritualis tam Sororum quam puellarum. Hisce expositis, quaeritur: An . . . in casu adhiberi valeat Directorium seu Calendarium proprium Canonicorum Regularium Lateranensium praefatae Congregationis?

The reply was: 'In Sacello principali publico vel semipublico, negative; in altero Sacello, utpote privato, affirmative.'

(d) Hence, with good reason, Van der Stappen writes1: 'Itaque Sacerdos, sive Saecularis sive Regularis, celebrans, esto ex caritate, in Sacello piae Congregationis, tenetur dicere Missam loci Kalendario conformem, si Capella uti publica, aut semipublica tenenda est.' And in the same connexion he uses words which are directly applicable to the case put by our correspondent: 'Etenim ex eo quod aliqua Religiosa Familia onus suscipit, aliquem e suo gremio mittendi ad aliquod Oratorium publicum, vel semipublicum, alicujus servitii causa, puta pro Missa celebranda, non inferri potest, dictum Oratorium ejusdem Familiae proprium vel quasi proprium evadere.' We do not think that the fact that the Institutions in question are in the parish administered by the Redemptorists makes any difference. The Institutions do not belong to the parish as a parish. They are not at all on the same footing as a chapel of ease, for instance. The priest who says Mass does so 'non tamquam Parochus, aut Rector, sed ex commissione Ordinarii.'

To prevent misunderstanding, it may be well to state that what we have written does not apply to the case of a community of nuns having a right to a proper Ordo.

LIGHT BEFORE THE BLESSED SACRAMENT IN A PRIVATE

HOUSE

REV. DEAR SIR,-There is a certain parish in which the parish priest and curate live together. The parochial house is situated about ten yards from the church. In the parochial house there is an oratory in which there is no light, and has been no light for the last six months. The parish priest and curate keep their pyxes containing the Blessed Sacrament in this oratory. The curate knows that it is wrong to keep the Blessed Sacrament in a place without the proper light, but for the sake of domestic peace raises no objections, in the belief that he does not consider himself responsible for the violation of the rubric. What is to be done?

In this same parish the Blessed Sacrament is kept in a ciborium in the Tabernacle of the parochial church which stands, as said before, about ten yards from the parochial house. In this church there is a light kept burning. Is the curate bound to remove his pyx from the oratory in the parochial house to the Tabernacle in the church?

I shall be grateful for replies to these question in the next issue of the I. E. RECORD.

HARASSED CURATE.

By the general law of the Church the Blessed Sacrament is to be

1 Vol. ii. n. 387.

kept in the church with a light burning constantly before it die noctuque. And theologians commonly hold that it would be a grave sin to allow the lamp to remain extinguished during a whole day and night.

Only by a special privilege are priests allowed to keep the Blessed Sacrament in their houses; and we must see under what conditions the privilege is granted. According to the Formula VI, and the corresponding powers given at the present time, Irish Bishops have power to give their priests faculties 'Deferendi sanctissimum Sacramentum occulte ad infirmos sine lumine, illudque sine eodem retinendi pro eisdem infirmis, in loco tamen decenti, si ab haereticis aut infidelibus sit periculum sacrilegii.' One might argue from this that just as the Blessed Sacrament is carried to the sick without a light It may also be kept in a priest's house without a light. The former practice is universal in Ireland, although the danger of sacrilege from heretics is often non-existent.

The National Synod,1 however, has defined the matter more strictly : 'SS. Sacramentum, quando in domo sacerdotali asservatur, sit tabernaculo inclusum ; et lampas coram ipso semper colluceat, nisi forte in casu, qui rarus erit, in quo minus tuta hujus ritus observantia, idque judicio Episcopo, censeatur.' The words used are practically those of the Roman Ritual. There can be no doubt, we think, that this regulation is binding in conscience; reverence towards the Blessed Sacrament demands the use of a light in a private oratory as well as in the church. O'Kane, however, seems to take a more lenient view of the obligation in the former case.

It would seem [he says 2], from the first Synod of Westminster, that in England permission is not given to keep the Blessed Sacrament anywhere without a light. It would be impossible to observe the same strictness in Ireland, where the priest is, in some cases, so badly lodged. At the same time, no one doubts that every priest who has permission to keep the Blessed Sacrament in his house, should aim at providing, as far as circumstances permit, and on a scale commensurate with the place in which he keeps It, everything that the rubric prescribes for Its custody in parish churches.

At any rate, to come to our correspondent's special difficulties, the parish priest is the person responsible for the maintenance of the light. Nor do we think that the curate is bound, in the circumstances, to remove his pyx to the church.

TABERNACLE VEIL

REV. DEAR SIR, Will you kindly explain the rubrics regarding the necessity for using the tabernacle veil. Is the veil needed when there is an inner or second door on the Tabernacle ?

ENQUIRER.

We discussed this matter at some length in a rather recent issue of the I. E. RECORD. Not only the Roman Ritual but several answers of

1 Acta et Decreta, p. 64, d. 77, 3°.

2 N. 617.

See I. E. RECORD, Fifth Series, vol. viii. (Dec. 1916), pp. 510-11.