Records Volume 67: Elizabethan Casuistry

CATHOLIC RECORD SOCIETY

PUBLICATIONS

(RECORDS SERIES) VOLUME 67

Editorial Committee: A. F. Allison

D. M. Rogers

P. R. Harris

M. Hodgetts

ELIZABETHAN CASUISTRY

By P. J. HOLMES

CATHOLIC RECORD SOCIETY

K.

Appendices

Part II. The Allen-PersonsCases Preface

Chapter1.Mattersaffecting Priests travellingto England

Chapter2. Part 1. Matters concerning Confessors and Priests Chapter 2.

J. L. R.

ABBREVIATIONS

Collectionof caseswith decisionsattributedto CardinalWilliam Allen and RobertPersons, S.J. DouaiBibliothèqueMunicipaleMS.484

Collectionofcases discussed at the English College , Douai (which wasat Rheims from 1578 to 1593)

Bodleian MS Jones53

LambethPalaceLibrary MS 565

Bodleian MS Rawlinson D. 1351

Forthekeytothe abbreviations used inrespectofthe worksofcanonistsand theological writersreferred to in thetext, see pp 12-13 ofthe Introduction

INTRODUCTION

Both ofthetwo late sixteenth centurycasuisttexts edited inthis volumewere probablyused in the trainingofseminarypriests. The first certainlywas, since one manuscript version ofitdeclaresthatit isareportofdiscussionsheld atthe Rheims seminary, andtheother principal manuscript version came originally fromthe archives of that seminary. The second text is not quite so clearlyassociated with a seminary, but it was written in part by William Allen and Robert Persons, and according to a nearlycontemporary source (and another datingfrom the early eighteenth century) a copyofit was kept in the English College at Rome . The study ofcases of conscience at the seminaries formed an important part of the training of missionary priests At Douai-Rheims the principal authorities used were the Enchiridion of Martin ab Azpilcueta (Navarre), a work first published in Latin in about 1575, and the Summa ofThomas deVio (Cajetan), a slightly olderwork.³Writing in 1578 or 1580, Allen saysthat two lessons ofNavarre were givento the students every week, the bookbeing read to them andthenthe students asking questions of the master or the master testing the students. But these general works did not deal specifically with manyofthe moral problems whichmight face a Catholicpriestin England, and thereforeguides such as the texts edited here were drawnupto instructpriests howto deal with situations theywould encounterwhen theycame on the mission. In the letterjust cited Allengoesonto say: 'Thecaseswhichoccur more ofteninEngland and whichapriestis more often askedto resolve there and inother places are examined separately and have been broughttogetherin one bookfrom whichtheyare read or even copied bypriests who are aboutto be sent onthe mission . "5

The leaders ofEnglishCatholicism were clearly moved bytwo considerations when they drew up these texts Thefirst was the

1. See below, pp 6-7.

2. See below, 7-10; C. Dodd, Church historyII (Brussels, 1739), 53, 407; R. Walpole, A brief, and cleereconfutation (Antwerp, 1603),212-2v

3. W. Allen to DrVendeville, 16 September 1578 or 1580 , T. F. Knox, The letters and memorials of William Cardinal Allen (London, 1882), 66 (I am gratefulto Dr John Bossy for bringingthis reference to myattention ); T. F. Knox, Thefirst and second diaries ofthe English College, Douay (London, 1878), 304 (cf. 109 , 123 , 222 , 224, 248) ; 'Confessions ofJohn Hambly, priest, 18 August1586' , ed.J.L.Whitfield , inC. R.S., Miscellanea VII(London , 1911), 169; J. H. Pollen, 'Arelicofthetimes of persecution , 'The MonthXCVI(1900),46-51

4. Knox, Letters ofAllen, loc cit.

5. Ibid

6. I discuss these issues at greater length in my unpublished dissertation , 'The political thought oftheElizabethan Catholics'(Cambridge Ph D., 1976),Chap 3. A greatlyrevised version ofthe thesis will be published Cf. generally, J. Bossy The English CatholicCommunity1570-1850 (London, 1975), Part 2; J. C. H. Aveling, The Handle and theAxe (London, 1976), Chaps. 1-6.

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

obligation on Catholics to avoid heresy and shun heretics as excommunicates andenemiesofthefaith.Thesecond, running tosome extent counter to the first, was the need for Catholics to adapt themselves to the situation in England in orderto survive. Wesee the interplayofthese considerations in boththe textsprintedhere. The need for separation from heretics was perhaps the more strongly stressed, especially in the Douai-Rheims cases . Thus the casuistsdecide that a Catholicshould avoid marriage with aheretic or schismatic, and that Catholicparents should avoid givingtheir children in marriage to heretics It was better to marry someone lower in the social scale than oneself than to marry a heretic. " Marriage between Catholics in Protestant churches was also forbidden , even if the Catholicrisked bringingthe taintofillegitimacy on his childrenby refusing to be married there. "ACatholicparent should not have his child baptized bya heretic minister, even if he sawthatithad the Catholicbaptism as well." Thecasuistssaidthatit was notlawfulto pray forthe soulsofthosewho died in schism, nor to prayfor excommunicates " Childrenshould be encouraged by their Catholicparents to become recusants, and should be brought up to hate heresy; children who became heretics should be disinherited. A Catholic should not employ heretic servants . " The whole household must observe the fasts and days of abstinence together, and guests in the house should be persuaded to fast as well. A Catholicpatronmight not present a heretic ministertohis benefice , but hecould deprive a parson who was already incumbent of his income, and, by the same token , he could deprive a heretic ministerofhis tithe.13 A Catholicmust not become ajusticeofthe peace, a mayor, constable or bailiffif he would have to prosecute Catholics in the course of his duties.14 Catholics should not endow colleges in England , but should reservethe money forthefutureor use ittosupporttheseminariesabroad. 15 Catholics were advisedby the casuists not to show too much familiarity towards heretics; Protestants were far worse enemies ofChristthan Mohammedans orJews and hence, since it waswrong to be on familiar terms with suchinfidels, itwasworse in the case ofheretics . 16

Though much emphasisis placedon the needforseparation from heretics , the contrary impulse, towards accommodation to the

7. See below Douai-Rheims, cases C4, D1 (subsequently cited as D-R ); AllenPersons, chap. 2, 2, case 8 (subsequently cited as A-P .)

8. Seebelow, D-R . , case C2; A-P ., chap 2, 2, case20

9. Seebelow, D-R , case E1; A-P . , chap 2, 2, case1

10. Seebelow , D-R . , case B7.

11. Seebelow , D-R . , case B10; A-P ., chap 2, 2, case 5.

12. Seebelow , D-R . , case F4; A-P chap 2, 2, case 6

13. Seebelow , D-R . , cases H2, H3, Appendix2; A-P., chap. 2,2, cases4, 14, 15 , 16 , 19

14. Seebelow, D-R . , case 17; A-P ., chap 2, 2, cases 5, 23, 24 .

15. Seebelow , D-R. , case K7; A-P . , chap 2, 2, case 21.

16. Seebelow, A-P , chap 2, 2, case 29

ELIZABETHAN CASUISTRY

existing situation in order to survive, plays an important part in these texts. Thus, approvalalbeit rather hesitant is given to occasional conformity in Protestant churches, especially in the second collection of cases which dates probablyfrom after 1581 when the monthly fine of £20 for recusancywasintroduced . Even the (earlier) Rheims text allowed a nobleman or noblewoman to accompany the Queen to chapel while acting as a courtier in attendance upon her, and said that servantscould alsoaccompany theirmasters to church in the same spirit." Itwas also decided at Rheims that attendance atProtestant churchesmight be justifiedto a certainextentby fearofpersecution, and thatthose whowentto church for such a reason were not to be considered schismatics . 18 In the later document, the casuists gave an eloquent defence of occasional conformity, onthe practical groundsthatitprotectedthe Catholiccommunityfrom the loss of its richest and most powerful members, and declared 'that many of those who go to heretic churches at present in England, not only among the Catholics but even among the heretics are Catholics and most Catholic"19

Inotherwaysthecasuists allow Catholic laymen in the interestsof survival to bend the rules requiring separation from heretics and resistance totheElizabethan settlement Thus, a Catholicneednot dismiss heretic servants, or disinherit heretic children, ifitmight harm him to do so and increase the risk of his discovery and ill-treatment.20 Heretic servants need not be forced to fast, and hereticvisitors(especially those fromwhom the Catholichas something to fear) may be given prohibited foods on fast days . 21 A Catholicmay himselfbreak thefastwhen travellingwithhereticsor staying inan inn, ifhe has to do so to avoid detection 22Inthesame circumstances the Catholic(priest or layman) may joinin a heretic grace and other heretic prayers, and may remain silent when the heretics utter blasphemiesagainstGod, the Pope, the Saintsandthe Church. 23A Catholicmayalsoentertain heretic bishopsorjudgesin order to soften their hearts towards Catholics and may use other actsofkindness to mollify powerfulProtestants. 24 Catholicservants of heretic masters and Catholic wives of heretic husbands may perform various heretical services for them, like preparing pro- hibited foods on fast days . 25 Catholics may repair the churches in England, if requiredto do so, and may carry their tithes into

17. Seebelow, D-R., cases 16 , 18.

18. See below , D-R., cases B8, 12

19. Seebelow, A-P. , chap 1 , case 6; chap 2, 1 , cases 4, 14 , 18; chap 2,2, case26.

20. See below, D-R. , case B10; A-P , chap 2, 2, case5

21. Seebelow, D-R , cases F2, F4, K1; A-P . , chap 2, 2, cases 6, 29 .

22. Seebelow , D-R , case F5; A-P , chap. 1 , case 4

23. Seebelow, D-R. , case I1; A-P , chap 1 , cases 5, 6

24. Seebelow , D-R , case K1; A-P , chap 2, 2, case 29 .

25. See below , A-P . , chap 2, 2, case 22

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

the church for payment;26 they may buy the produce of church land from heretic ministers and may rent church property from heretics . 27 Catholics may use legal documents which contain or suggestroyal ecclesiastical supremacy in the Queen's title given at the head ofthedocument 28

Many of the cases describe how the Catholic priests wererequired to modify their behaviourin heretic England in order to avoid discovery as priests, or simplyto adapt to a situationwhere , for example, altars, ornaments and vestments mightbe lacking. Thus , the casuists decide that a priest could perform most ofhis functionswithout hisfullvestments, and could say mass on portable altars, even (if necessary) on unconsecrated altars 29A priestwho had notbeen confessed(because hewasmiles fromanother priestin afar-flungmission) could say mass even ifhefelt he wasinastateof mortal sin 30 A priest could say mass without having recited the morning hours, and he could leave his breviarybehind him when coming to England in order to avoid being discovered with such palpableevidence of his priesthood . 31 Similarly, priests comingto England were forced totravelin disguise, to use pseudonymsandto mix freely with heretics; all ofwhichwas justifiedby the casuists Priests, the casuists felt, could not lie if they were directly asked abouttheir religion or profession, but they could equivocate with their questioners The doctrine of equivocation was common in sixteenth century casuistry, and it is not surprising to find Elizabethan Catholics using it A priest could avoid telling the truthequivocate - if questioned about his profession even by the highest officers of the state, the second of our textsdecided (although the othertextopposesthis), onthe groundsthattheyhad no just jurisdiction over a Catholicpriest and were not therefore endowed with the authority to question him . 32 Similarly, a priest could bribe his guards into allowinghim to escape from custody, andcouldbreaka promise he mighthave madenotto escape . 33

Not allthe cases fall into the categoriesjust described. Some of them, especially from the Douai-Rheims collection , concern marriage; not justthe question of'mixed' marriages, but technical matters ofbetrothal, the degreesof consanguinity and affinity and so on 34 Others are concerned with land, dealing with suchmatters as eviction, rack-renting, 35 the possessionof monastic property.

26. Seebelow , D-R . , cases B12, B19, Appendix2; A-P , chap. 2, 2, cases 4 , 11 .

27. See below , D-R , case H5; A-P., chap 2, 2, case10 .

28. See below , D-R , case 19; A-P . , chap 2, 2, case 28.

29. Seebelow , D-R . , cases A1, B1, B3, B4; A-P , chap 2, 1 , cases 2, 7,8.

30. Seebelow, D-R. , case B5; A-P . , chap 2, 1 , case1

31. Seebelow, D-R . , case B20; A-P . , chap 1 , case 3

32. Seebelow , D-R , case J5; A-P ., chap 1 , case 1 .

33. Seebelow, D-R , case J1; A-P ., chap 3 , cases 1 , 3.

34. Seebelow ,D-R , cases C1, C3, D2, D3 , D4, D5, D6, D7, D8; A-P , chap 1 , 1 , case 10

35. Seebelow, D-R., cases G1, G3, G4.

The casuistsadopt a rather strict theoretical line on abbey lands, holding-incontradictiontoCardinal Pole's message fromthe Pope on this subject during Mary's reignthat they still belong to the monasteries and must be restored in some way when England returnstothefold But in practice Catholics areallowed tobuy, sell and holdmonastic land, provided they realize that theyhavenotrue property in it and providedtheyuse any profit above a reasonable level that they make from it to help the Catholiccause . 36 Itis also interestingtosee the seminaristsat Rheims being drilledonhowto answer interrogatorieslike the 'bloody questions' before English judges; and perhaps worth recalling that theanswersofthepriests, when actually asked such questions, were sophistical in rather a similar way to those given in these cases of conscience . 37 The interestingmatterof exorcism is discussed in two cases 38 Someof the cases defyclassification, like the question ofwhetherCatholics can teach theart ofwar,39 and the matterofthe dog whichwentto mass in Spain;40 and others are difficult to understand, like the questionofwhether'bone viage' (whichIcannot translate andmay have mistranscribed ) was lawful; but nearly all reflectin some degree (as they were intended to do) the state ofCatholics under persecution in England . Finally, itmightbe noticed thatinsofaras these cases reflect on the question ofthe allegiance ofCatholics to the Queen, their doctrineis that ofpolitical non-resistance .Tothe questionofwhetherthe Queen can be deposedbythePopepriests are encouraged to answer in an evasive fashion in the DouaiRheims collection. 42 In the other document the straightforward questionof whetherCatholics might obey the Queen despite the Bull Regnans in excelsis was answered almost directly in the affirmative.43There is no evidence from these casuist documents that the Catholic clergy were secretly preparing the laityforsome sort of rebellion. On the other hand, of course, the cases ofconscience reveal a Catholic community in England which was an adaptable and resiliant underground movement dedicated to the eventualreversal of the English Reformation, and onlyinterested in co-existence with heretics in so far as it helped its long-term purposes

36. Seebelow , D-R . , cases B21, G2; A-P ., chap 2, 1 , case 21 & chap 2, 2, case 13

37. Seebelow, D-R., case J2 It may be a possibility that the government usedthe bloody questions so much in the knowledge (gained from a copyofthese casesof conscience in their possession) that priests were trained to give evasive (hence traitorous)answers; thediscussionofthese cases antedatesthewidespread use ofthe bloodyquestions in England (from 1581).

38. Seebelow, D-R. , case A3; A-P , chap 2, 1 , case 11 .

39. Seebelow, D-R ., case K2.

40. Seebelow, D-R. , case Appendix1 .

41. See below, D-R . , case K4

42. See below, D-R., case J2 .

43. Seebelow, A-P , chap 2, 2, case 27

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

THE TWO COLLECTIONS OF CASES AND THEIR MANUSCRIPT SOURCES

1. The 'Douai-Rheims'cases

These cases were first discussed at the seminary which wasthen atRheims, in 1578 and 1579, and later, asWilliam Allensays, were arranged into a bookfor use by seminarists preparing to leave on the mission. Richard Bristow and afterwards Lawrence Webbe taughtcasuistry atthe college and may be supposedto havecontributed to the discussion of these cases, while the opinionofAllen himselfis actuallymentioned during the courseofthediscussion . 44

There are two main manuscript sources . The first is in the BodleianLibrary, Oxford, MS Rawlinson D 1351, ff 4-23v; a little booklet, measuring 634 x9% ins, bound upwith a number ofother documents of the period. Rawlinson's collection came to the Bodleianin 1755.The earlier historyofthis MS is not known . 45In theRawlinsonmanuscript this collection is headed (f. 4)'Responsa ad varios Casus conscientiae e Seminario Anglorum pontificio: recitataetexaminata in refectoriocoram omnibus studiosisRhemis .1578. hec examinari caepta, mensae Junio .die 13. adquestiones' ('Answers to various cases of conscience from the pontifical seminary of the English, recited and examined in the refectory beforeall the students at Rheims, 1578. These questions began to beexamined 13 June') Near the endofthe booklet(f 22) iswritten 'hec quae sequuntur examinari caepta sunt Ianuarij .22. 1579' ('examination ofcaseswhich followcommencedJanuary22, 1579'). Two folios (10-11v) are unfortunately missing from this manuscript; itis written in a ratherantiquated sixteenth century hand;the cases are almostalways stated in English and always resolved or answered in Latin; the document contains 64 separate cases . It seemstobe a fairly close copy of a record (oreventhe record itself) ofthediscussion ofthesecases at the seminary at Rheims. Thesecondsource is inMS 484(pp. 408-426) atthe Bibliothèque Municipale of Douai in France MS 484 is a large volume (29 x 19 cm), containing four other separate items connected with ElizabethanCatholicism , bound in calf and bearing thisinscription on its title-page: 'P.. . et P. Anselmus dederunt hunc librum Nicolao de Ona . 46Manyofthe manuscripts atthe LibraryofDouai came originally from the English College, being seizedwith other ecclesiastical property by order of the NationalAssembly in 1791 and passingtothe Library on 18 February 1794;wemay assume that

44. T. F. Knox, Thefirst and seconddiaries of the English College, as citedabove , note 3

45. F. Madan, A summary catalogueofWesternManuscripts intheBodleian Library at Oxford(Oxford, 1895), III, 177-179 .

46. Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques des départements publiésouslesauspicesdu ministre del'instructionpublique Tome VI. Douai(Paris, 1878), 287-8

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

this was the origin of our manuscript. 47 The Douai manuscript corresponds perhaps to the bookwhichAllen in his letter said was being prepared , since it is a rearranged version of the cases discussed at Rheims in 1578-1579 (as set out in the Rawlinson MS), andalso becauseof its original location 48A clerkwentthroughthe cases asfound in the Rawlinson manuscript and rearranged them under a number of headings ("Questions concerning baptism' , 'Questions concerning the mass' , 'Questions concerning matrimony' etc.), which would facilitate reference to them. He went about his task methodically , working through the text from beginning to end . He omitted (at least) three cases, whichperhaps werenotfelttoconcernpriests in England sufficiently closely, orfor otherreasons,and perhapsotherswere deliberately shortened. The manuscript contains 88 cases and is entirely in Latin It is the methodicalarrangement of the cases which made and make the Douai documentuseful; it is also superior to the Rawlinson manuscript because the latter has lost two of its folios. Alone of the manuscriptcollections of cases of conscienceused to prepare this volume, the Douai manuscript has been mentioned in printbya historian; by J. H. Pollen in a footnote to his edition of Robert Persons''Memoirs' , and brieflyin an article in TheMonth . 49

Finallyafew ofthesecasesofconscienceare alsofoundin asmall casuist collectionin the Bodleian Library, MS Jones 53, ff 239253v Jones 53 is a small volume (4% x 4 ins) of 391 leaves, with three separate items of English Catholic interest in it(including other cases of conscienceat ff 193-211).50 The Rev. HenryJones bequeathed the collection to the Bodleian in 1708.51 Its earlier history is unknown It contains the first twenty cases as they are found in the Douai manuscript. It is entirely in Latin and has no heading.

2. The 'Allen-Persons' cases

This collection is drawn almost entirely from a manuscript at Lambeth Palace Library, MS 565, ff 16-55v. It is entitled 'Resolutiones quorundamcasuum nationis Anglicanae' ('Theresolutionofcertaincases ofthe English nation') andiswrittenentirely in Latin . 52It is the main part of a booklet (bound up now with

47., C. Dehaisnes, 'Avertissement ' , in Catalogue (utsupra),viii

48. Seeabove, p 1. It probablydatesfromslightlylater than Allen'sletter, however (atleast in the form ittakes in this MS), sinceit follows in one ortwo ofits resolutions theLambethPalace MS (ofperhaps 1582); see below ,esp. p.9.

49. J. H. Pollen , S.J., 'The Memoirs ofFather RobertPersons, ' Catholic Record Society , Miscellanea II (1906), 25-6, notes, where Pollen said it 'well deserves publication'; cf. Pollen , 'Arelicofthe times ofpersecution, 'TheMonth XCVI (July, 1900) , 46-51

50. F. Madan, A summary catalogueofWesternmanuscripts in the Bodleian Library atOxford, III (Oxford, 1895), 42-3

51. Madan , op. cit., 28 .

52. Cf. H.J. Todd, A catalogueofthe Archiepiscopal manuscripts in the Library at Lambeth Palace (London, 1812),72

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

a separate work) which also contains an incomplete listand index of faculties given to Elizabethan Catholic priests before 1585 (ff 71-6), a very dull discussion of marital cases (64-66v) and a number of blank pages (67-70v) The booklet is 10.5 x 16 cm , bound in octavo, the eight gatherings marked with signatures in most cases . The last gathering is incomplete and seems alsoto have had a leafwhich waswritten on torn from it. The first page ofthe booklet (f. 16) is discoloured , presumably becauseit formed for some time the front cover ofthe pamphlet. MS 565 is one ofthe original 'codices manuscripti Lambethani ' of Lambeth Palace Library, that is, part not of a collection bequeathed tothe library whose former ownership is certainlyknown, but a document which formed part of the library in the late seventeenth century. The scrivenerwho copied this manuscript failed to complete his work and the blank pages bear witness to the fact that this collection is incomplete , lacking perhaps as much as a fifth of its length (although probablyless) At the foot off 55v where thecollection ends is written in a laterhand: 'a q:want [in]g' Ihaveunfortunately not been able to find another document whichwouldsupplythe deficiency ofthe Lambethmanuscript , although there is evidence that a copy existed in the Archives of the Venerable English College , Rome. 53 As it standsthe LambethPalace collection contains60cases , the last ofwhichis unfinished Tenofthesecases are also to be found in Latin in shortened form at the end ofthe Jones manuscript in the Bodleian (Jones 53) which we have just described.54

TheAllen-Personscollectionofcasesofconscience is insomeways more interestingthan the Douai-Rheims collection , becauseit is longer and the cases are given much fuller treatment. It has a Preface in which the general principles on which the cases are considered are set out, it contains farfewerreferencesto canonists, and is generallyrathermore polished. Moreover, it gives not one decision on each case, but two. The final(and usually ratherbrief) decisions at the end of each case are attributedto RobertPersons and William Allen This suggests thattheydid notwrite the whole ofthe booklet , and Protestant sourcessuggest GregoryMartin as another co-author . 55 In some cases thefinal solution of Allen and Persons is at variance with the decision given in thefirst decision , butwecanprobablyassume that Allen andPersonsapproved ofthe doctrineofthe rest ofthe document, and might in somewayshave

53. Dodd(inChurch history,II(Brussels, 1739), 53, 407) speaksofthe existenceofa copyof the document in theArchivesofthe Venerable English College, Rome. I have written to the Archivist, the Rev. C. P. F. Chavisse, who was kind enough to search for the document , buttoldme thatitwasnot there now.

54. Seeabove, p. 11

55. T. Morton, An exact discouerie (London, 1605), 140; Bodleian Library, MS Rawlinson D 858 , f 144 .

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

supervised its preparationas a whole. As to the date ofthedocument'scomposition , there seems to be no precise evidence.Robert Persons, in his 'Memoirs' , mentions writing'the particularcasesfor Englandto be discussed forthat mission' between 1578 and 1580 , but his memorymay be atfault. " One wouldnotexpect himto be many years out, however ; although he may refer to a different document. The cases seem to me to have been written afterthe severe anti-recusant legislation of 1581; Persons returned to the Continent from the mission in England in 1581; he and Allen were togetherat various times after 1582; Martin died in 1582;57 andthe documentis referred to in the prefatory matterto Bilson'sTrue difference between Christian subjection and unchristian rebellion, published in 1585.58 The Allen-Persons cases were, therefore, probably written at some time in the early 1580's, possibly in 1582 and certainlybefore 1585. The problems discussed inthis collection are in many cases the same as those discussed at Rheims and the compilersofthe secondDouai-Rheims bookletclearly worked with acopyofthe Allen-Persons manual before them, since in oneortwo cases they use its decisionsverbatim.

The Allen-Persons collection achieved a certain fame in the Elizabethanand Jacobean period Bilson first used them as antiCatholicpropaganda (although he seems to have been referringto the cases inadifferentformfromhowwe havethem in the Lambeth Palace manuscript ) Sir Francis Hastings took up Bilson's reference , 59 and the Anglican controversialists , MatthewSutcliffeand Thomas Morton, atthe beginning ofthe seventeenthcenturymade quite extensive use of the cases as evidence of Catholicdisloyalty, bad-neighbourliness and hatred of heretics . 60 A Catholic work of 1603 attributed to Richard Walpole also refers to this casuist booklet, quoting (in response to a Protestant attack) from the 'authentic' copy of the cases in the English College at Rome (the quotation corresponding word for word with the reading in the Lambeth manuscript). A Catholiccasuist collectiondatingfrom aboutthe time ofthe GreatCivilWar refers to the Allen-Persons cases with respect as an authority on a number of moral diffi61

56. J. H. Pollen (ed ), 'TheMemoirsof Father RobertPersons, ' Catholic Record Society, vol II(1906), 25-6

57. Ontheir biographies see (forPersons) L. Hicks (ed.), Letters and memorials of Father Robert Persons, S.J., vol 1 (C. R. S. 39, London, 1942), Introduction; (for Martin) G. Martin, Roma sancta (ed G. B. Parks, Rome, 1969), Introduction; DictionaryofNationalBiography

58. T. Bilson, Thetrue difference (Oxford, 1585), sig A4v.

59. Ibid; F. Hastings, An apologie (London, 1600), 141

60. M.Sutcliffe, A new challenge (London, 1600), 54, 112, 115-6, 117 , 121, 94(vere 122), 132; T. Morton, An exactdiscouerie (London, 1605), 2, 4, 6, 40, 42; Bodleian Library, MS Rawlinson D 858 , f 144 .

61. R. Walpole, Abriefand cleereconfutation (Antwerp, 1603),212-2v.

ELIZABETHAN CASUISTRY

culties, 62 and Dodd in the eighteenth century mentions the collection, saying there is a copy at theEnglishCollege, Rome.63

PREPARATION AND PRESENTATION OFTHE TEXT

The text as here presented was established by collating the available manuscript sources. The Douai-Rheims text is collated from the Bodleian MS Rawlinson D 1351 , Douai MS 484, and BodleianMSJones 53. The Rawlinson MS is closer to the original verbaldiscussionsor notes madefrom thesediscussions; the Douai MS is intendedto be slightlydifferentfromthe originaldiscussions , and misses out some pieces in Rawlinson , but is not really less 'reliable' , since it- or its textualancestorwasdrawn up deliberatelyin a different way to suit a differentpurpose. Mycriteriafor collationwere: (1) to make the textas full as possible; (2) generally to follow Douai first. The JonesMS supplied virtually nothing of value in terms ofcollation. The Allen-Personscollection was easier to collatesince therewas reallyonlyone text, theLambeth Palace MS 565, althougha few cases were also in Bodleian MSJones53 . These few cases were collated with those in Lambeth , and were found to add oneor twosentences to the text, which haveherebeen included. After collation, the textwastranslated intoEnglish. In presentingthese two collections I have, therefore, given a translated, collated edition of the manuscript sources, but do not follow exactlythe order in which the cases were laid out in the manuscripts . The Douai-Rheims collection is set out generally according to the order and pattern used in MS Douai 484. The reference figures by each case are editorial additions . The first number is a serial number to each case Then follow figures and letters which give the page or folio reference to the three manuscripts concerned. Here, R stands for MS Bodleian , Rawlinson D 1351; D for MS Douai 484; and J for MS Bodleian , Jones 53. Thus, D408 meansthe case is to befoundon page408ofMSDouai 484, and R4-4v meansthe case is to be foundon folio4-4vofMS Bodleian, RawlinsonD 1351. In some instances there follows a reference to the case in the Allen-Persons document whichmost closely corresponds to it: forexample, 'cf. A-P. 2, 1 , 2.' Here A-P. refers to the Allen-Persons document, and the figures referto the chapter, part of the chapter (in the case of chapter 2), and finally casein it. The headings between cases (e.g. 'Questions concerning baptism' etc.) are taken from the Douai MS 484 and are not editorial additions It will be noticed that the titles or questions at the beginning ofeachcase are sometimesgiven in inverted commas

62. 'Casus aliqui ad Angliam pertinentes' , Ampleforth Abbey, MS 131, f 11; BodleianLibrary, MSSancroft 37, f. 12. I am at present engagedin workonthese documents and hope to publish a description oftheirdoctrine

63. C. Dodd, Church history, II (Brussels, 1739), 53, 407

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

and Elizabethan spelling, sometimes not. In the formercase ,they are directlytakenfrom MS Rawlinson D 1351, wherethequestions are usually set in English. I have kept the original spelling and (usually) punctuation, but expanded abbreviations Every case whichhas anEnglishheading inMSRawlinson D 1351 is given that heading in this edition In other cases I give a translation of the Latin heading from MSDouai484. In some instancesit seemedto me helpful or interesting to give both the English heading and a translation from the Latin title in the Douai manuscript, but generallythis was not necessary. The resolution (as it is called)of each case is simplya translation ofthe collated Latintext;additions to thetext ofDouai MS 484 from MS Rawlinson D 1351 are putin square brackets followedby'-R'. Theonlyother editorialdeviation from the original manuscript text is that references to authorities have been takenfrom the bodyof the resolution , put attheend of the case and translated into code. The code is explained atthe end of this Introduction. I have followed the references given in the manuscripts veryclosely, and have notcorrected what appeartobe theirerrors

The Allen-Persons text needs less explanation . It is simply a translationof allofMS LambethPalace565, ff 16-55v Additions from BodleianMS, Jones53 are in squarebracketsfollowedby'-J' The cases are numbered as in the original At the beginning ofeach case, afteritsnumber, are figureswhichshowwhere thecase istobe found in the two manuscripts. Here L means LambethPalace MS 565, and J (as before) means Bodleian MS Jones 53; and the numbers after these letters indicate on whichfolio (or folios) the cases areto be found So, L17-19vmeansthe case concerned is on folios 17-19v oftheLambethPalaceMS 565. Then followsinsome instances a reference back to the case in the Douai-Rheims collection which most closely corresponds to it: for example, 'cf. D-R . A2' , meanscompare case A2 in the Douai-Rheims collection.With one exception(where the copyist-or a previous copyist-obviously misplaced a large section of a case andI haverectified hiserror, see chap.2, 1, case 21) the Allen-Persons textgoes straight throughMS LambethPalace565from beginning to end Referencesaretreated inthe samewayas intheDouai-Rheims text. Tohelpthereaderto follow the cases which are often rather long, I have sometimes numbered (insquarebrackets) the separatesections.

It may be of interestto give one casethe first in the DouaiRheims textasit standsinthe manuscripts; first fromMSDouai 484, with variant readings from the other two manuscripts as footnotes.Ihave expanded abbreviations insquarebrackets

1. An liceat administrare Sacra[menta] vlla vel sacrame[n]talia absq [ue] vestibus sacerdotalibus?

Stola et sup[er]pelliceu[m] requirunt[u]r in o[mn]i obsequio

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

diuino: gloss: ca. dignissimu[m] de reliquijs et venerandis factis² in Co[n]stit: Anglie Et habent[u]r facillime³ Sacra[menta] et sacramentalia (de quibus interrogas) et o[mn]i tempore et o[mn]i loco administrari possunt: tame[n] faciat vnusquisq[ue] quod prudentia pro loco et tempore etc suadet ad aedificatione[m] et no[n] ad destructione[m] "

RawlinsonMSD 1351 has variantreadings (apart fromdifferences in spelling, punctuation and abbreviation ): 1. Omits and substitutes English question (see below). 2. Reads venerabilis. 3. Adds et 4. Omits 6. Omits 7. Adds the following: 'Ad quaestiunculam de mutando missali: depone scrupulositatem, et no[n] erit questio : ea autem remanente, p[ro]babile est quod mutationo[n]satisfaciet tibi Certum est obseruanti ordinatione[m] eccl[es]iae in quocu[n]q[ue] missali nullamin esse debere scrupulositatem. D. Tho. 3a. p[ar]te q. 83. art 6. si tantu[m] duxeris digitu[m] per totam patena[m] semel atq[ue] iter[um] sup[er] Cacice[m][sic], indubie nullo[sic] mica remanebit . '

Jones MS 53 has variant readings: 3. Adds et 5. Reads 'locoet temporeetc. quodprudentiasuadet' .

WORKSREFERRED TO IN THE COLLECTIONSOFCASES

In the course of the discussion of these cases of conscience , especially in the Douai-Rheims document, frequent reference is made to the works of canonists and other theological authorities . These are made in the courseofthe text, in highlyabbreviated (and often erroneous) notes I have counted 279 such references in the Douai-Rheims text, but a mere twenty-sixreferencesinthe (longer) Allen-Personsdocument. Igive below a listofthe authors andtheir worksused bythe casuists, with the number oftimes theyare used. Thelist also gives a key to how I have abbreviated the referencesin the editedtext. Inthe listthe Douai-Rheims collection is referred to as(1) and theAllen-Personscollectionas (2)

A. Martin ab Azpilcueta, 'Navarre' , (1491-1586), Enchiridion: 143 references in (1) and 1 reference in (2). First the chapter numberisgiven andthen thatofthe section .

B. TheCanon Law: 44 references in (1) and 3 in (2) The Gloss: 1 reference in (1) and 1 in (2) The Commentary of Nicolaus de Tudeschis, 'Panormitanus' , (1386-1445): 17 referencesin (1) and2 in(2). Othercommentators (Felinus MariaSandeus and Hugguccio ofPisa): 2 references in (2).

C. William Lyndwood(1375?-1446), Provinciales: 19 referencesin (1).

D. The Bible: 8 references in (1), 1 directreference in (2).

E. The Civil Law: 1 reference in (1). Commentators (Alexander

Tartagnide Imo, JasonMaynus, JohannesCalderinus, andPaul de Castro):4 references togetherin (1)

F. St Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), Summa theologica: 6 referencesin (1)

G. St Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the 'Sentences' of Peter Lombard: 1 reference in(2).

H. Thomas de Vio, 'Cajetan' , (1469-1534), Commentary on Aquinas''Summatheologica': 6referencesin (1), 1 referencein(2).

I. Thomas de Vio, Summa: 2 referencesin (1)

J. Dominic Soto (1494-1560), Commentary on the 'Sentences'of Peter Lombard: 8 referencesin (1).

K. DominicSoto, De iustitia etiure: 4 referencesin(1)

L. Franciscus Toletus , 'Toledo' , (1532-1596) , Commentary on Aquinas''Summatheologica': 3 referencesin(1)

M. FranciscusToletus , Summa: 3 referencesin (1)

N. TheDecrees ofthe CouncilofTrent: 3 referencesin (1).

O. The TridentineCatechism: 1 reference in(1)

P. The Decrees ofthe Councilof Eliberitanum (a d. 305 , Mansi III): 1 reference in (1)

Q. TheDecrees of the Provincial Synod ofMilan under StCharles Borromeo(1538-1584) : 2 referencesin (1)

R. The Rubrics ofthe Missal : 2 referencesin (1)

S. Silvestro Mazzoloni da Prierio, 'Sylvester' , (1460-1523), Summa summarum : 4 references in (1), 2 referencesin(2)

T. Carletus Angelus de Clavasio, 'Angelus' , (1411?-1495), Summa Angelica : 2 references in(2).

U. Pope Adrian VI (1459-1523), Commentary onthe 'Sentences'of Peter Lombard: 1 reference in (2).

V. St Antoninus ofFlorence (1389-1459), Summa: 2 referencesin (2)

W. Nicolaus de Auximo (d 1453) , Supplement to the 'Summa Magistrutia' ofBartolommeo Granchi Pisano (1260-1347): 1 reference in (2).

X. Astesanus de Ast (d 1330), Summa: 1 reference in (2).

Y. Cicero , The Offices: 1 reference in (2).

Z. Diego de Covarruvias Y Leyva (1512-1577), Opera omnia: 1 reference in (2).

AA. Henricus de Segusio, 'Hostiensis' , (c 1200-1271), Summa: 2 references in (2). BB St Optatus (d 387?), Libri septem: 1 referencein (2). :

CC. 'Pater Robertus ' , Commentary on Aquinas' 'Summa theologica' 1 reference in (1) It is not known that Robert Persons wrote a commentary on Aquinas , so I suppose that this is the commentaryofSt RobertBellarmine (1542-1621) This existsonly in manuscript(e.g. Lambeth Palace LibraryMS 123, 124, 126, 405); see J. Brodrick, The life and work of Blessed Robert Francis CardinalBellarmine , S. J. 1542-1621(London, 1928), I, 71-2

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The editor wishes to thank for their permission to use the manuscripts translated below: His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Trustees of Lambeth Palace Library; the BodleianLibrary,Oxford; andMadame Y.Duhamel, Conservateur of the BibliothèqueMunicipalede Douai His thanks are also due to: Professor G. R. Elton, for his helpful advice on many matters connected with the subject; Rev. C. P. F. Chavasse , Archivistofthe Venerable English College, Rome and Dom Placid Spearritt of Ampleforth Abbey for their help with a number ofenquiries; and the Editors of the Catholic Record Society, Philip Harris and Antony Allison, for their hard work in preparingthe text for publication.

PART I. THE DOUAI-RHEIMS CASES

A. QUESTIONSCONCERNING BAPTISM

A1 D408, R4-4v, J239

Cf. A-P 2, 1 , 2 ; 2, 1 , 8. Is it lawful to administer any of the sacraments or sacramental rites without priestly vestments? 'Whether Baptisme, Extreame vnction, mariage, purificatiomulierum, makynge of holie water&c.maybe administered or done sine vestibus sacerdotalibus, bycause suche thingsare notpresent in the same howse: oryfthey bepresent,yett somme littele feare by hauinge them may growe, which without themmightbe more easelieavoyded.'

Thestoleand surplice are required foreveryreligious ceremony' and may easily be had The sacraments and sacramentals(which you are asking about) may be administered in anyplace and at any time; but everyone must be careful, as far as time and place are concerned, that what he does is edifying and not offensive. [As concerns theminor question about the change in themissal: ifyou were less scrupulous then there wouldbeno difficulty, although itis probablethat the change will not satisfy a scrupulous person. Itis certainthatifyoufollow the ordinance ofthe Church youneedhave no scruples about using any sort of missal . Ifyou merely pass a finger once right over the paten and again over the chalice, then without a doubtno crumb will remain . -R.]

1. C. iii 26. 2 . 2. F. 3aq 83, a 6

A2 D408, R5, J239v 'Whether a Catholicke man be bund in conscience to Christen his neyghbors childe, yf hisneyghbour be a Schismaticke , yet contented there wythe: or lett the minister christen , yt[sic]fearingthatyfhe should be godfather, heshoulde also be bounde to looke to the childe when yt comethetoyearesyf theworldeamende not.'

Heis notbound under pain ofmortalsinto do so, because itisnot absolutelynecessarythat he should baptize the child, northatthe child should be baptized in this way. But he is perhapsbound under pain of venial sin when it can be done easily. For the extentto whichthose ofa high socialpositionare bound to performworks of mercy, seeNavarre . As to his fearsforthe future, theyarewithout foundation, forhe willnot sin unless he is very negligentofhisduty to instructthe child.³

1. A. 24, 23. 2. A. 24, 5 3. A. 21 , 57

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

A3 D408, R6, J240-240v . Cf. A-P. 2, 1 , 11. 'Whetherwe may Exorcise personsthat are suspectedto be possessed ofevillSpirits. yfwe may, what Exorcisme shoulde we vse? here is great needeof suchhelpe. Somme do practise, butI knowe notthere maner.'

A synod ofthe province of Milan under Cardinal(as he nowis) Borromeoprohibited the use byexorcists of books whichhad not been approved by a bishop;' there are, for example, it is said, prayers of exorcism in a Roman manual recently published in France The office of exorcist, the synod wenton, should be performed only by one admitted to it by a bishop; and the bishop shouldnot allowanyone - not even a priest -to exercisethatoffice without having tried and approved his age and moral standing Although these provincial constitutions have no force in England, they show that a priestwho wishes to exorcize and is in any doubt aboutthemattershould constult a prudent andpiousconfessor,and also ask him whatexorcismsshould beused.

1. Q. Part 2, § deministris

A4. D408, R6v, J240v Cf. A-P. 2, 1 , 12. 'Whethershould any Ceremonies of baptisme be supplied in them thatwere baptised in kynge Edwards dayes, and knowe not perfectlie whether theywant any ceremonies or not, for at the Churche some hade them and some had them not.'

When it is certain that a person has not had the exorcism and catechism, they should be added ' When there is doubtaboutthe baptism itself, he should be baptized in this manner: 'Ifyouare not baptized , I baptize you etc. But I would not dare to add these ceremonies ifthere were any doubt.³

1. C. iii. 24. 2. § ult 2. Ibid. 3. Ibid

A5. D408, R9v, J241 Cf. A-P, 2, 1 , 6. 'Whatshalbe donne with the water and vessell that the childeren be baptized in, and the Chrisonafterthe purificationofthewoman?"

Thewaterinwhichthechild was baptized shouldbepoured onto a fire or taken to a Catholic church to be poured away in the baptisteryand the vesselshould be burnt or adapted tobeusedin some otherway in the church. ' Chrisoms can onlybe changedinto church ornaments.²

1. C. iii.24. 1. § si vero puer. 2. C. i 6. 1

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

A6. D408-9, R19, J241-2 Cf. A-P. 2, 1 , 17. 'Whethermay the priests in England vse the Romane manuell?'

Itis not lawfulto neglect the customary rites ofthe Church inthe administrationof the sacraments, and a priest may not substitute new and different rites for them ' But a diversityofcustomsconcerning the way in which the sacraments are administered is not prohibited Priests in England should not, therefore, use the Romanmanual ifit is differentfromours, because it is notlawfulto go against custom.³It is no argument to saythatthe Roman maunal is reformed, because a new Papal constitutiondoes not over-ride regionalcustomsunlessthe Popeexpresslyforbids theiruse . "Noris it an argument to saythat the Roman breviaryis read in England, becausewhatevermay bethe case forthosethatarebeneficed-and Ithinkthey may read the Roman breviarywhen not in thechoirthose who are not beneficed and have no title in any church may read anybreviarythathas been approved, butthey maynot break a laworcustom .

1. N. Sess vii desacramentis , c xiii

2. B. D. xii, c 3 & deConsecr D. iv, c 80 .

3. B. i. 4. 11

4. B. VI, i 2. 1

5. A. 25, 107

A7 D409, J242-242v Cf. A-P 2, 1 , 14. Is it lawful to give consecrated bread andotherblessed things to Catholics who arenot reconciled totheChurch?

Itis a mostserious sinto give anything which has beenblessedto those whowilltreat it with derision, as the example of Balshazar shows , ' but itis not a sin to give blessed objects to sinnerswhoare guiltyofother sorts of sin, and theydo not sin by askingforthem. Those whoare in a stateofmortal sinareonlybound tocontritionif theywantto administer orreceive the sacraments, oratthemoment ofdeath, or when the great need of the people requires that they makeaferventprayer.²

1. D.Daniel5 2. A. 1 , 31

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

B. QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE MASS

B1 D409, R4, J242v243 Cf. A-P 2, 1 , 7. 'Whatshould be don with bedd hingings, or Curtynes of bedds, cusshians , stageplayers clothes made of vestements, copes, and otherchurche clothes: and whatrestitutioneto be made?'

The consecration of ecclesiastical vessels and vestments is indelible. The prophane use ofthem is, in itself, mortalsin.²Butthey arenot held to be pollutedbysuchprophane use and therefore do not require any special treatmentwhen theyare returned.³Those vestments, therefore, which are still in their old shape or can be restored to it should be returnedto their former use because they remain consecrated. When they cannot be restored to their old shape in any way, they are to be put to some other use in the church; but they should not be converted to prophane uses, but should rather be burnt "[If some vestments have beenspoilt,they should , when it is possible, be returned with the unharmed vestments, tothe church from whichtheycame. But if theyhave been converted, before this is done, to some other holy and pious use elsewhere, theChurch will considerthemattersettled anditwillbe heldto be lawful. -R]

1. J. In4, d 13, q.2, a. 5.

2. Ibid.

3. B. i 16.2.

4. Ibid.

5. B. de Consecr D. i, c 38.

6. B. deConsecr D. i, c . 39

7. Ibid.

B2. D409, R4v, J243v Cf. A-P 2, 1, 9. May those delegatedby the President [Allen] grant dispensations concerning irregularity incurred by priests in England? Whether may we admitt to the Altar preists afterdewepenancedone forther synnes andSchisme. bycause (as I remember) no mentione ys madeofSuspensione,but as excessibus etc.'

After penance has been done for certain offences, priests still remain suspended from the exercise of their orders; and this is becausethesecrimes make them irregular. 'They, therefore ,needa dispensation from irregularity, and the President and those to whom he has delegated the powermay grant one, providedthatthe irregularity arose becausethe priest administered the sacraments when bound bythe censuresofthe Church nottodo so .

1. B. i 11, 17

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

B3 D409, R7v, J244 Cf. A-P.2, 1, 2

'Whethernowein England apreistmay saymasse in vestiments notblessed.'

It is notmortal sin to celebrate mass in unconsecratedvestments ifitisdone unwittinglyorwithoutwishing to showcontempt. 'Butif a priest knows that the vestments are not consecrated, he sins mortally by celebrating mass in them.²

1. J.In4, d 13, q 2, a. 3.

2. A.25, 84

B4 D409-410, R7v, J244-244v Cf. A-P 2, 1 , 2. 'Alteres once blessed when are they prophaned, or whetherare reliquies necessarelyrequiredin there consecration ' It is laid down that relics must of necessity be placed in every altar.' Butit is not necessarynowto observe this canon, nor is it necessarythat relics be kept in altars. In portable altars, the relics are prophaned when the seal of the reliquaryis removed.3 Altars which never had any relics are prophaned when theyare so badly broken as to losetheirshape.

1. B. de Consecr. D. i, c 26

2. J. In4, d 13, q. 2, a 3

3. B. Panormitanus iniii 40. 1 .

4. B. Panormitanus in iii 40. 6

B5 D410, R7v, J244v245 Cf. A-P 2, 1 , 1. 'Whethera preist committingemortall synnemay saymasse before he beconfessed' A priestwho has sinned mortallymust not celebrate mass before he has confessed. ' But if some necessity forces him to celebrate mass -forexample, hemay be afraid thathewill givescandaltothe people if he does not - and there is no confessorwithin reach , he may celebrate if he is contrite.²

1. C. iii 73.8 § prohibemus .

2. C. Gloss in ibid

B6 D410, R7v8, J245 Cf. A-P. 2, 1 , 3 massenot hauinge one to helpe hym:' 'Whetherone maysay A recluse or anyone else who has no assistant availablemay

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

celebrate mass alone . 'Soto adds thesenotes: itshouldbedone only in cases ofnecessity, for example if on a feast day a priestcannot himselfgetto hear mass; and, he adds, a priest is considered to be alone ifthereare onlywomen present.²

1. B. Gloss in deConsecr. D. i, c 61

2. J.In4, d 13, q 2, a 5

B7 D410, R8, J245v. Is it lawfultoprayforthosewhohavedied in schism? 'Whetheryt be lawfull to pray for suche as dye without the Sacraments ofthe Churche?'

It is notlawful to pray for those who die in schism and consequently have not received the sacraments ' But it is lawfultopray for those who die without having received the sacramentsforsome other reason , unless they are excommunicated by name or are knowntohave murdered clergymen.³

1. B. v 17.2

2. B. iii 28. 11 .

3. A. 27, 56 & 57

B8 D410, R8, J245v246v Cf. A-P 2, 1, 4; 2, 1 , 19. Is itlawful to admit to mass those who are not reconciled to the Church? 'Whethermay the Catholickes admittto hearemass ,sucheasgooto hereticallservice?'

Those who are true Catholics but who frequent thechurches of heretics outoffearare not excommunicated,' but iftheyholdfirmly to an error in faith they are excommunicated becausethey are 'exterior heretics' Excommunicates who participate in religious serviceswith Catholics sin, but the Catholics with whom theyparticipate do not sin unless the excommunication has been publicly denounced. Although Catholics sin very seriously byfrequenting the churches of heretics, since suchCatholics are not excommunicated theydonot sinby merely participatingwith us inourservices , nor do we sin by participatingwith them But priests do not sin by refusing to admit them to mass, because they are not their parishioners , and, moreover, experience teaches us that to refuse them admittance is more conducive to their correction and the

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

edificationof others, and is also more respectful tothe sacrament which is celebrated there .

1. A. 11, 23

2. A. 27, 35

3. B. iii 29. 2 .

B9 D410, R9v in part, J246v7. Cf. A-P .2, 1,5. 'Whethermaya Tynne Chalice be vsed in England?"

Chalices should not be made of bronze or brass becausethey react with thewine to form a mouldwhichcan cause vomiting. No onehasdared to singmass with a wooden orglass chalice . 'A bishop is forbidden to bless a tin chalice, but this canon is not in force where, through poverty, a church has not got a gold or silver chalice, and especially in England at present in cases of great necessity

1. B. de Consecr. D. 1 , c. 45.

2. C. iii 23. 6

3. C. Gloss in i 1.2.

B10. D411, R9-9v, J247-247v. Cf. A-P. 2, 2, 5. 'Whether Catholickemen doe not sinne in sufferinge there Childeren to goo to churche or not in prouidinge them to haue the Sacraments Catholickely. '

As long as childrenare lacking in the use of reason, theyare as dependent on the father as iftheywere a partof hisbody. Hemay not, therefore, permit them to do anything not permittedhim . He mayallowchildrenwho have the intelligence to govern themselves togo tothe churches of heretics; and may allowhis servantstodo so , when he cannot prevent them withouttrouble, 'orifitwouldbe dangerous for him to tryto do so. In the same way eventhe magistratemaylawfully allowmany sins to be committed ifhehas agood reason for doingso But the father should be careful that he does not participatein the sinbyallowingit.³

1. P. Can 41

2. F.2a 2ae q 10, a 11

3. H.In ibid

ELIZABETHAN CASUISTRY

B11 D411, J247v248 Is it lawful to give communion to those who have not been confirmed?

No one (unlessheis on the pointof death) should be admittedto communion unless he has been confirmed, or was actually prevented from receiving confirmation' The sacrament of the Eucharist may, however, be ministered to someone who has not been confirmed, ifhewasnot confirmed due to a lackofbishops.2

1. C. i 6. 5

2. C. Gloss in ibid

B12 D411, R12-12v, J248-249 'Whether it be lawfull for Catholickes tocontributeto the byinge ofCommunion Bockes, and suche lyke?'

It is certainthat to provide prayerbooks, communion tables or other things whichitwouldbe mortalsin to use is mortalsin itself, because it gives an opportunityfor sin to be committedand helps sin. Tosue forthe privilege ofnot paying this tax fromthetyrants ortheirsubordinates in sucha case is not sin, since it is lawfulto seek honest favours from them . It is lawful to pay taxes with one's fellow-citizens to cover futurepublicexpenses , even ifonebelieves that the taxes are to be used for some evil purpose, but does not know exactlywhat it is at the time of payment;³ but to pay one's shareofatax whichis specifically assigned to the provisionofprayer booksand suchthings is directlyto helpheretics and is mortalsin as hasbeen saidabove. Itis no argument tothecontrarytosaythatitis permissiblefor a man to buyoffpersecution when itis inflictedon him, becausein this case todoso is to help sin Nor is itanargument topointoutthatwe have saidthatit is lawfultopaytithes evenifwe paythem toheretics , because it is lawfultogive money toahereticif it is not given for some hereticalpurpose, and also becausethe payment oftithes is a matterofpositive law . "Itis not, therefore, sin to pay tithes if one has a reason fordoingso, and sucha reason is thefearwhichforces Catholics to pay tithes in England. "

1. A. 14, 31

2. I.s . v . Tyrannus

3. A. As 1 .

4. A.27, 56

5. A.21, 28

6. A. 18, 45.

7. A. Praeludium 7 , 12.

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

B13. D411, R12v, J249-249v Cf. A-P. 2, 1 , 15. 'Whether [sic] is tobeobserved inreservinge the b. Sacrament now in England?"

First, it should be put in a very beautiful pyx adorned with the whitest linen cloth in such a way that it may be taken in and out without fear ofloss Second, it should be renewed every Sunday. ' Lastly, it should always be reserved under lockand key in a secret place since there is alwaysdanger that it may be abused.²

1. C. iii 25. 2

2. B. iii 41. 10.

B14 D411-410bis, R12v13 . 'Inwhat placemay masse be sayde noweinEngland?'

On a portablealtar, ifthe other things necessaryforthemassare present, in any place except at seaor on a river ' But a prudentman willchoose the most suitable place he can, and in the absenceofa church will not even shrinkfrom a bridal chamber ifit is themost suitable place becauseit is notpollutedsince it is notachurch.²

1. A. 25, 82

2. A.27, 252

B15 D410 bis, R16v17. Cf. A-P 2, 2, 9. 'Whetherthe[y] who absent them selves voluntari[ ...]vpon festivalldaieswith outiust occasione in England, beinge in place or neare where theymaye heare masse, doe breake the Commaundemen[t]ofthe Churche, and howe farre a man is probabliebunde to goeto hearemasse?"

Ifone has a real reason fornot hearing mass, it is always agood enoughexcuse; but onlya good reasonis sufficient ' Forexample, if goingtomassinvolveddoingseriousharm to one'ssoul,one'sbody, one's honour, one's own or a neighbour's property, thatwouldbea good enough excuse. If, therefore , through meanness, a man will not maintaina priest or otherwise make provisionto hear mass, he commitssin; forit is then his own fault ifhe cannot hearmass .The fact that mass is prohibited by Parliament is no excuse for not hearing it on a feast day, even ifthe penalty is death, becausethe command ofa princein contempt ofthe faith does notexcuse.²Nor are men excused from makingsuitable provision for theupkeep of priests in England just becausethey pay tithes to otherclergy.For

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

theywouldnotbeexcusedfrommaintaining priests ifthey lived ina countrywhere Saracenshad captured allthe Church's wealth.³

1. A. 21 , 3

2. A. 13, 7

3. A.25 , 27.

B16 D410 bis, R17-17v. Cf. A-P. 2, 1 , 17. 'Whetheritbelawfull to vsetheoldeLatin primers printedinLatyn andEnglishe?'

Thehoursofthe BlessedVirgin according to the Sarum use are not mentioned in the bull authorizing the new primers and are not, therefore, withdrawn; no more than the Sarum breviary is mentionedin the Bull of Breviaries . Nor is it sin to use primersin the vernacular as long as they are in Catholic translations, becauseI knowofnolawwhichtouchesonthatmatter.' Butinmyjudgement it is stupid to want to read those editions which carry no indulgences, and to refuse to read those books which have indulgences; and itis certain that someofthesebooks are lacking in indulgences

1. A. 25 , 41 [?]

B17. D410 bis, R19v20 Cf. A-P 2, 1 , 17. 'Whetherpreists in Englandfindingea Sarum myssall, beyngewonted totheRomaine , may vse yt, kepinge the Ceremonies of the Romane, and suplinge byhartorotherwyse wherein the[y] differandsimilitereconverso?"

No member of the clergy should use prayers or orations while performingmass other than thosesanctioned bytheChurch;'forall prayers arefullofmysteries Priests, therefore , dowrongiftheyadd anythingto the mass, as many priests do in the Confession.² To celebrate masswithout a missal is a sineven if the priestknows the mass he intends to sayfrom memory. Butthe missalis satisfactory if it has the Canon from 'Te igitur' to the Communion Since, therefore, the Canon ofthe mass is the same in bothbooks it does notmatterwhetherone uses the Roman orthe Sarummissal.Noris a priestbound tochangethe ceremonieswith the book, becausehe must under pain of sin have a missal not for the sakeof the ceremonies but for the sake of the words of the canon Moreover, everyone should know the ceremonies from memory Although theceremonies are nowdiverse, perhapsinthe beginning theywere the same . I think it best if in these times we follow certain and

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

correctceremonies since we have no inferior ordinaryto turntoif there happens to be something in the ceremonies that should be corrected

1. J. In4, d 1 , q 2, a 4

2. J. Ibid.

3. R. Rubricae generales, De defectibusX.

4. A. 25, 83

5. R. Rub Sarum

6. J. In4, d 1 , q 2, a.5.

B18. D410 bis, R21v Cf. A-P 2 ,2, 12. Isit a sintocarrygrasses into churches in England to decorate them? 'Whetherdo Catholikessynne in bearing Russhes totheChurche nowe inEngland?'

To carrystraw, rushes orflowers into churchesseems tometobe a matterwhich mainlyconcerns the comfortof the people and not the equipment of the church; those who carry such things, therefore, with the former intentiondonot sin, because it is not a sinto come to the help of a sinner if one does not show approval of his sins. '

1. A. 19, 16.

B19. D410 bis411 bis, R21-21v Cf. A-P 2, 2, 11. 'Whether mayCatholickes maintaine and vpholde the ChurchesinEnglande, beingbounde vnto it byferminge of landsthat doe owe that servitudeto repare theChurches sooftentymesas neyderequirethe . '

The use of consecrated churches by schismatics or heretics for their sermons and otherfilthy practices does not prophane them; they remainconsecrated as before. ' To repairthe churches, therefore, is not ofitself a sin, because the churchesdo notbelong tothe heretics , butremainthe propertyofCatholics .NordoCatholics sin by repairingthem even if they know for certain thatpeoplewill commitsin inthem, because these people sin outofmalice and the Catholicshave a good reasonforrepairing the churches.³

1. B.i 16.2

2. A. 14, 31.

3. A. 21, 24.

ELIZABETHAN CASUISTRY

B20 D411 bis, R23-23v Cf. A-P 1 , 3. 'Whether may preists goinge into Englande, leave the breviaries behinde them one this syde the seas for feare of the Searchers; and likewise beinge in Englande leavinge them in some place forfeare, maye saymasse?"

Thelackofabreviary, whether it happensthrough thefaultofthe priest or not, excuses him from sayingthe hours . A priestwhois performing a dutywhichhe cannot leavewithoutgivingscandalor causing serious damageto himselfor a neighbour is alsoexcused.² Priests in England, therefore , who are doingsuch useful workfor their neighbours, areexcusedfromsayingthe hours whenever they thinkthey really cannot do so and dotheir work properlyas well. Thissort ofreasonfor not sayingthe hours alwaysexcuses , ifitisput forward in good faith. In cases ofdoubt, however, theirconfessors can grant them a dispensation, as we said concerning fasting. It follows from this that when priests come to England to do such useful work for their neighbours they do well to leave their breviariesbehind them lest they are discovered to be priests as a resultofbeingfound with breviaries in their possession Indeed, I thinkthat they are not bound to keep their breviaries with them when they are travelling any longer than the breviaries are ofany use to them . Accordingto all authorities , povertyexcuses a priest from havinga breviaryand therefore a priest can legitimatelysell his breviary. Hence, our priests, who are all poor, need not keep their breviaries a day afterthere is no possibility ofusingthem orif thereis any danger thattheymay be lost. Apriestsins mortallyifhe celebrates mass before he has recited the morninghours, unless some unexpected necessity arises " Priests, however , who celebrate masswithout having recited the morninghours do not sin if they are excused the recitation When, therefore , priests in England whoareexcusedthe recitationofhoursfinditnecessaryto celebrate mass, theycan do so despite nothaving recited the hours, and need not recite them afterwards. "

1. A. 25, 101

2. M. Lib 2, ca. 14

3. A.25, 45

4. K. Lib. 10, q 5, a 5

5. A. 25, 85

6. K.Lib 10 , q. 5, a 4.& M.As2 .

7. K. As 6

B21. D411 bis Cf. A-P 2, 1 , 21 ; 2, 2, 13. What is to be done with monastic churches and other churches which have been abandoned?

Churches which are unharmed and in the same condition as

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

beforemust not be prophaned orputto prophane uses, evenbythe Pope Those who possess suchchurches, therefore, no matter how theyhave been altered, should restorethem to theirformerstate or should applyto the Pope for permission to demolish them.²After their demolition the Pope can give permission for them to beput to prophane uses, just as in the time of Queen Mary he gave permission , itis said, foran Englishman to use a large housemade from the stones of a monastery that had been destroyed bythe Lutherans , provided that the Catholic abbot agreed to it.³ For the most part, churcheswhichhave been burnt down ordestroyed donot need to be kept as churches and by the dispensation ofthe Pope although not otherwisecan be put to prophane uses.4

1. A. 17 , 10 [?]& B. C. 12, Q. 2, c 43 [?]& F.2a2ae, q 88 , 10.

2. B. C. 12, Q.2, c 70.

3. A. As 1

4. B. deConsecr D.i, c . 42

B22 . D411 bis Arewe bound to read the litanies? No: thereis no canonwhichobliges ustodoso .

B23 . D411 bis . Are those who were ordained when Henry VIII washead ofthechurch irregular?

I do not think that those ordained in the time ofHenryVIII are irregular First because the bishops were Catholics then even thoughtheyswore an oath againstthe Pope outoffearoftheKing. Second, to be irregular priests must have been denounced as excommunicates ' Lastly when the whole kingdom was solemnly reconciled tothe Church in the time ofMary all such priests would have had their ordinations confirmed then.

1. A. 25 , 69 & 27 , 241 .

B24. D411 bis -412

What about someone who was ordained at thewrongtimeofthe year or at the wrongage; or ifhetookseveral holy orders, or one holyorderand otherminororders togetheron thesameday?

Toreceive orders at the wrongtime and at the wrongageleadsto

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

suspension, andtouse the orderis to be irregular ' ButthePresident [Allen] and his delegates can dispense with that irregularity To take minor orders and the subdiaconate together is not a sin and does not involvesuspensionwhere it is customary to conferthem togetheronthe same day, and I think that suchwasthecustom in England. But takingtwoholyorderstogether leadstosuspensionin thehigherorder, and iftheyare used, this leads toirregularity;³but even inthisthePresident andhisdelegatescan grant adispensation.

1. A.25, 70

2. A. 25, 71

3. Ibid

C. QUESTIONS CONCERNING MATRIMONY

C1. D412, R5v. Cf. A-P 2, 1 , 10. Can priests in England granta dispensation concerning the fulfilmentofconjugal obligations? Theright torequest that conjugal obligations be fulfilled is lostif one partytothe marriage makesa vowofchastity withtheconsent' oftheother, and a priestcannot dispensein that case;² and italso lost as a result ofadultery. But ifthe spouse pardonstheadulteryor commitsa similar act himselfthen the fulfilment ofthe obligations maybe asked for again and the otherparty must complywith it.³ Butevenwhen the otherpartycan legitimatelyrefuse ,itisnotsinto askfor it.4

1. A. 12, 59 & 60

2. A. 12, 79.

3. A. 16, 28.

4. A. 22, 25.

C2. D412, R6v Cf. A-P. 2, 2, 20. Is the solemnization of matrimony by a schismatical priestvalid and what should bedone when the husband andwifeare reconciled tothe Church? 'Whether in Schismaticall mariags any thinge be wantingthatvnderpayne of

deadlie synne must be had. And yfyt so be, what is requisite tobe done therein.'

Marriages performed in schism are against the custom ofthe Church' and, therefore, must be repeated when the parties concerned return tothe unity of the Church . You can findtheform in whichtodothis in the manual Buttheyare not obliged to undergo the second ceremony under pain of mortal sin ifthere is no contempt Itisnever mortalsinto live asman andwifeifthere has been a nuptial blessing.2 Pius V has granted that Catholics in England may contractmarriage in the presenceof a priest and two witnesses without banns

1. B.C. 1 , Q. 1 , c.54&c.57. 2. A. 16, 38

C3. D412, R8v. 'Whethermaymaried wyvesgeve ani thingether husbands vnwittinge?"

Out oftheirdowry and paraphernalia wives may give property away or bequeath it ' Moreover, out of the property of their husbands, wives may pay debts whichthe husbandsdonotwantto pay, even against the expresswill of the husbands. It followsthat Catholicwives may maintainpriests who administer thesacraments tothem;fortheir husbandsshould providethem withpriests.They can also dispose freelyof whatever propertytheypossessoverand above the dowryfor similar purposes.³

1. C. iii. 13. 5.§ alij& Gloss 2. A. 17, 117 . 3. A. 17, 155 & C. Gloss as1

C4. D412 Cf. A-P 2, 1 , 13. Is it lawful to solemnize marriage when only one party is reconciled totheChurch?

To contract marriage with a heretic or a schismatic is to sin mortally The reconciled party, therefore , should notbeabsolved unlessthe otheris also absolved beforethe marriage is contracted , becausehe isencouraging sin .Althoughpriests are notministers of this sacrament as theyare of others, they are neededin this sacrament above all so that the marriage may be said to have been

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

contracted in the face ofthe Church and so that a priest canbe said to have given his assistance to the marriage. Priests, therefore, should notbepresent atweddings unless bothparties areCatholic , ³ for otherwise theyare givingassistance to sin.

1. A.22, 49.

2. B. iv 3. 3

3. A. 11 , 12

D. CONCERNING CERTAIN ABUSESIN MARRIAGES WHICHARE ALREADY CONTRACTED ORABOUT TO BE CONTRACTED.

D1. D412-13 , R15-15v Cf. A-P 2, 2, 8. Is it lawful to give Catholics in marriage to heretics? 'Nor husband nor wyfe almost dothe or knowethe their dewty, and semethe to make small accompte ofthe Sacrament abvsed, orbreakynge theirpromise.To marry for riches sake onlye quantumvis moribus et ingenijsdissideant, with whomsoever thoughe Schismatickes and perhappes heretickes is nowe a dayes made no matter of Conscience, or a Trifle '

To contract marriage with a heretic or a schismatic is to sin mortally Parents, therefore , sin in not prohibiting such marriages. Christ made the sacrament of matrimony and He wanted all husbands and wives to be reminded that marriage agreements should not be based on transitory goods, on large dowries and such things, which easily come to ruin, buton virtue alone wich is the guardian of perpetual conjugal happiness and love. Parents sin, therefore , if they look principally for wealth when their childrenget married, and they sin much moreiftheydo not leavetheirchildren freeto refuseto marrywhentheyhavea just reason for doing so This attitude to marriage results in the evil relationshipwhichso oftenexists thesedaysbetween husband and wife,whenthehusband does not knowhow to rule the wifeandthe wife is ignorantofhow to obey her husband, and bothare guiltyof sin . Thereisnofaith kept between them and the resultisthatthey

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

seek lust in marriage and not God, and then the Devil has power overthem.6

1. A. 22, 49

2. A. 14 , 18

3. J. In4, d 16, q.2, a 2

4. A. 14 , 15.

5. A. 14, 19

6. D. Tobit, 6

D2 D413, R16v 'Whether in those who maried within the degrees prohibited, after dispensatione a new actuall contractis necessaryand before whome is itto be made?'

A marriage which is null because of an impediment cannotbe made goodagain after a dispensation has been obtained merelyby cohabitationand the consequentcopulation It is necessarythatthe contract of marriage be made again, ' and if they had previously contracted marriage in theface ofthe Church it is sufficient now if theycontractsecretly with no one elsepresent.²

1. A. 22, 86

2. A. 22, 70

D3. D413, R21v22. [How is a priestto judge carnal copulation between a couple who are betrothed ? The point open to doubt is whetherthis copulationshould be considered fornicationorthe act of a marriedcouple -R.]

Those who haveactuallycommitted fornicationshould confessit without beingasked, even if theyhave been married a longtime. ' Setting fornicationaside, itmakes no difference asfar as changinga betrothal into a marriage is concerned, whether theyintended to know each other as man and wife . It makes no difference, because their 'virtual intention' is a sufficient guide, and this wasto commit carnal copulation if they contracted their betrothalsincerely and had maintained the intentionexpressedinthe betrothal; it iscarnal copulation by virtue of their betrothal. In doubt the 'virtual intention' of the couple is considered. The law presumes that thosewho have contracted betrothal and then committed carnal copulationare now truly married.²

1. A. 16, 23

2. B. iv 1. 16.

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

D4. D413-14 Can the offspringbe legitimate although thereis an impedimentsufficientto break the marriage oftheparents?

There is no difference between legitimate and illegitimate children where the impediments to marriage are concerned; the consanguinity of legitimateand illegitimatechildren is considered to bethe same and marriage in the same degreesisprohibitedto both. A spiritual kinship is contracted between parents and godparents, which is a valid impediment and breaksupa marriage after it hasbeen contracted Similarlythere is kinship betweensomeone who baptizes a child and its parents, so that if a man baptized the child of a female friend in a case of necessity, he couldnot later marryher. Nor could the baptized personmarrythe daughterofthe person whobaptized him orofhisgod-parent, andthis impediment is present in illegitimatechildren Butwhere the CouncilofTrentis accepted the impedimentbetween the children of god-parents is removed. As far as inheritance is concerned, propertyin England can be leftafter marriage to all children borntotheparents before the marriage iftherewas no impedimentto the marriage sufficient to render it null, even if the children were born between the betrothal and the marriage."A child bornin a marriage contracted inthefaceoftheChurch is legitimate even ifthere isan impediment between hisparents sufficient to render theirmarriage null, as along as bothor one ofthem is ignorant ofthe impediment : a reasonable ignorance ofthe law and facts excuses . If, therefore, a woman is decieved by ignorance of the facts and law and she marries the husband of another woman inthe face oftheChurch; orifthe man married the woman while his wife was still alive, thinkinghewas free to marry by the dissolution ofthe previous marriage; inthese cases, since they have bothsinned in good faith, their children are legitimate . 10

4

1. B. ii 19. 10 & Panormitanus & B. Gloss in Arbor consang et affin

2. B. iv 11. 6

3. A. 16, 34

4. B. iv 11. 7& 8

5. B. Panormitanus in iv 11. 8

6. N. Sess xxiv dereform matrimonii, c ii

7. B. iv 17. 6 & Panormitanus .

8. B. iv 3. 3. § siquis & iv 17. 14 .

9. B. Panormitanus in 17. 13

10. A. 22, 83

D5. D414. Isit lawfulfor a man to go back on hiswordwhen he has agreed tomarrya woman?

Although betrothalis not indissoluble, as marriage is,' yetifone of the parties does not wish to consummate the marriage to the

prejudiceof the other party and without cause, and if he marries anotherwhile the betrothal remains, he has sinned But this case concerns marriage , because betrothal becomes marriage when a declarationofconsent 'forthe present'isclearly andopenlymade ? In conscience a contract of this sort is bindingwithoutanyverbal agreement, but as far as the Church is concerned, words are needed. A man sins, therefore , if he marries another while still bound by a contractofthis sort; butwhen the first wife is deadand the secondis certain about the nullity ofthe firstmarriage orevenif she is ignorantof the first marriage, she and the man maycontract marriage again.4

1. A. 16, 25

2. A. 16, 28

3. B. iv 1. 25

4. B. iv 7. 1. & A. 22 , 47 .

D6 D414. What should a man do if he has contracted marriage secretlyand if his wife leaves him for some reason or other and publicly contracts marriage with another , especially iftheirparents did notwantto consent to the marriage?

Ifhe gave reasonable cause for his wife to leave him , he sinned gravelyand is boundafterwards to abstain from givingsuchcause , becausehis wife's great love for him turnedto great hatred as the resultofthisfault of his. ' The wifewouldalsosin bymarrying again while hewasstill alive. She wouldalsohavesinnedifhe hadwanted to consummate their marriage and she had refused on account of the disapproval of her parents, because she nowowedobedienceto herhusband and notto her parents. Asfar asthe impediment tohis wife'sprojectedmarriage to another is concerned, he shouldinform hisparishpriestor the ordinary;itwouldbe bestto telltheordinary andhe can forbid themarriage.TheChurch wants tooblige people to observe the impediments to marriage and hence the custom of reading banns was instituted. Everyone is bound under pain of mortalsin to denounce marriage impediments, and mayeven doit in schismatical congregations, for that is not to participate with schismaticsbecausethesebannsarenotpartoftheirdivine service. But one should be careful not to give scandal by going into their congregations, and, as I have said, it would be better to tell the ordinary, which can cause no scandal

1. A. 14, 31

2. A. 22, 53

3. A. 14, 20

4. B. iv 3. 3

5. A. 22, 65

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

D7. D414. Isa marriage contracted on conditionthatthefather should consent to it valid ifthe father dies before he has given his consent?

Ifa betrothal is contracted with conditions attached toit, when those conditions are fulfilled the betrothalis valid Thesameistrue withmarriage 'forthe present' contracted under certain conditions; when those conditions are fulfilled the marriage is good.' When , however, a marriage is contracted with the conditionthatthefather must consent to it before a certain date to make itvalid, but he dies beforethat date; then ifthe son ignoresthe factthat no consentwas given, what is done is not valid, because conditions cannot be fulfilled byadead manhecannot consent ordissent.Orifthetime ofdecision arrives and the fatherdies before he is asked abouthis consent, I think in that case thecontractdoes notbindbecausethe father'sintentionwasnot to contract forthe present, buttodeferhis decision until thefuture.³

1. B. iv 5. 3

2. A. 22, 64

3. S. S. v matrimonium ,3, q.4.

D8 D415. Concerning the faculties which our priests have for dispensing with the impediments tomarriage. Those delegated bythe President [Allen] can dispensein a consummated marriage when one spouse is of the seconddegree and the otherofthe third; orbothofthe third; oroneofthe third andthe otherofthefourth; or bothof the fourth. They caneven dothisif the impedimentis duplicated ; that is, if the spouses are not only consanguineous in those degrees butalsorelated bymarriage.They can also dispensewith spiritualrelationships in everyoneexceptthe person who baptized and the baptized, and the god-parentand the baptized. It is not necessarythat the impediment be secret, butifit is public theyshould see that no scandal arises from the dispensation; the marriage partners may be able to do this by givingtheir confessor permission to reveal the dispensation that has been granted, becauseotherwise he could notdoso withoutbreaking the seal of confession which he must not do. ' A new relationship by marriage whichoccurs afterbetrothal or marriage doesnotdissolve a betrothal 'for the present' , and much less a consummated marriage . But the culpable party should not discharge his marital obligationunlessit is demanded A manwho has known twoblood relatives carnallycannot have either as a wife."Butifhecontracted and consumated marriage with one, the delegatescan dispensewith that as wesaid before; that is, ifone ofthem is ofthe seconddegree

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

and the other of the third But if both are of the second degree or they are two sisters , or mother and daughter, or a sister and grand-daughter, or two grand-daughters, he should abstain from copulationuntil it can bedispensedwithbythe Pope, who so farhas not given them a commission to dispense in those degrees

1. A. 22, 59 [?]

2. B. iv 13. 6

3. B. iv 13. 1

4. Ibid.

5. B. iv 13. 8

E. QUESTIONS CONCERNING CONFESSION .

E1. D415, R4v5 Cf. A-P 2, 2, 1. 'Whether a Catholicke that hathe notfullpurpose togett hischilderen christenedritu catholico , maybe restored to the vnitieofthe Catholicke Churche , hauingfull mynde to stande yf he be called hym selfe for any matter of Religione . If he should go about to haue his childeren christened Catholikely, his fatherin law, his wyfe, his frendes and neighbours wouldcri outvponhym and perhappeswitholdeperforce hischilde frome him, and heveriebashefull to resistethem beyngebutyonge and tymorous, and in some danger to fall him selfe yf he resiste them. he hathe yet full purpose to get a Catholicke mydwife, and she toChristenit, or may he absenthimselfefor danger?'

As long as a child is not the master of his own actions, heis as mucha part ofhis father as your arm is a partofyou. The father , therefore, can do nothing and permit nothingto be done in the baptism ofhis child which he could not permitin his own baptism if he himselfwere to bebaptized : so, ifit were absolutely necessaryhe mightallowthechildto be baptized in thisway,butnototherwise.It isthesamewithall other acts ofreligion Forthe fathernottoattend the baptism ofhis child because it was dangerousto do so wouldbe as ifhedeliberatelysleptwhilehe himselfwasbaptized by a heretic A midwifecannot baptize except in cases of necessity, thatisatthe momentofdeath: and, therefore, thefathercannot arrangeforitto bedone orconsent to it exceptatsuchatime.

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

E2. D415, R6. 'Howe shall the ghostlie father or penitent be excused in revelinge other mannes sinnes , when ofnecessitythey mustbe confessed, and the parties all well knowen to the ghostlie father, as the louerwith hislove, the wyfe withherhusbande , which are Interrogatoriessome timenecessarieto be asked , oraltogeather tobeleftvnconfessed. Surelie me thinkethitis verihard (seingethe ghostliefather wouldratherprofitethe parties then otherwyse) to saye nothinge, or to seeke to an other he can not tell where nor when to have. and yf in this cases or such likethe penitentmay be boldeto confesses all, then why notin an other?"

Navarre says that nothing need be confessed if it involves exposing a thirdparty.' But it is safer to follow the more common opinion, which is that one should confessit.

1. A. 7,2

2. A. 27, 286

E3 D415-416, R16

Whethera ghostlie fatheris bounde toaske of his gostlye childe suche sinnes as he knowethe he hathe committed, and doethe not confessethem voluntarilie and whatisthe mostconvenient way in this case , to avoyde synneofhisparte?'

It is a sin for a priestnot to ask questions of penitents when he thinkstheyhave not completed their confession When , however , the confessor sees that the penitentwants to hide his sins , or he thinks it probable he has forgotten them, or he suspects thatthe penitent thinks that they are not mortal sins, he should gently persuade him to reveal them, and teach him that theyare deadly sins . A priestwould dowell to observe, in the questions he asks, the three things mentioned in Navarre Or in our case , he could persuadethepenitenttoconfessbyasking him whatcommandment he had sinned against He should alsobeware lest he tellssomeone who has already been excuseda sin on account ofignoranceoffact, thatwhathe has done is a sin, for in sucha case the pentitentwould be scandalized; this could happen with impediments tomarriage.

1. A. 5,2

2. A. 10, 7.

3. A.5, 3

4. A. 10, 6& 7 [?]

5. A. 22, 85

E4. D416, R16. 'Whether a gostlie father may secretlie

admonishe his gostlie childe, when he seeth him redie to fall into suchea deadlie Synne, as he hathe before confessedtohim?"

Aconfessor maynotbreak the seal ofconfessionon anyoccasion unlessthe person who confessedto him giveshim permission. ' He would sin, therefore, if he refused to minister the Eucharist to someone becauseof a sin he had heard about in confession , evenif he wereasked to give the sacrament in secret . In our case , therefore, the priest would sin because he would break the seal of confession without the consent of the penitent, even thoughhe wouldpreventa sin just as in the othercase .

1. A. 8,2. 2. A. 21, 56

E5. D416. Cf. A-P. 2, 1 , 18. Is a confessorbound to demand an oathinwhichheretics promise nottofall back into heresywhen he reconciles them to the Church?

It is lawful todoso , as it seems, in conscience.

E6 D416. Cf. A-P 2, 1 , 19. Is it lawful to admit to confession those who are not firmlyresolved to abstain from thechurches of heretics?

Theycan be admittedto confession, butnotto absolution.

F. QUESTIONS CONCERNING FASTING

F1 . D416. Is it lawful for confessorsto grant dispensations concerning faststotheir penitentialchildren?

A bishop and, in his absence , a parish priestmaygrant dispensations concerning fasts. ' By Papal indult all Catholic priests in Englandare the parish priests oftheir spiritualchildren. Theycan therefore grant dispensations to their children in penance They should grantdispensations onlyto thosewho havea good reasonfor

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

needing them,butotherwise should act in a kindandcompassionate way.2

1. A. 21 , 21

2. A. 21, 22

F2 D416 Is it lawful for the head of a household to allow his servants whoare not labouringthemselvesto eat withthe labourers on fastdays?

Itis not a sin for a man to invitepeople to eat with himon afast dayiftheyare ready to eat elsewhereifthey do noteat withhim It is much less a sin, therefore , forhimto toleratethe breakingofthe fastwhen he should prohibit it; forthese men are alsoready to eat elsewhere.

1. A. 12, 24

F3 D416. Cf. A-P 1 ,4. Whatshould a man do ifheisinvitedfor a mealand when he is there a ministerreadsschismaticalprayers in hispresence?

He must not participate in any way in these prayers or feign participation, ' following the example of Eleazar, becausetheyare the publicprayers ofthe heretics But he is notbound to leaveifhe has a goodreasonforstaying there, or if it is the case thatbybeing present in suchplacesmen arenotpresumed toparticipate indivine worshipwith heretics, forthen no scandalwould be given to other Catholics .

1. D. 2 Maccabees 6, 18ff

2. A. 27, 56 $5.

F4. D416-17. Cf. A-P.2, 2, 6. Isitlawfulfor Catholics toprovide mealsfor theirguestson fast daysorto give them prohibitedfoods; and whatabouttheservantswho prepare thefood?

Those who directlyinvitetheirfriends to break a fastorwho serve them while they do so, sin mortally, becausethey are co-operating intheir sins. ' This is the casewith innkeeperswhocompelthe guests intheirinnstoeaton fast days and who servefood to anyone who

asksforitwithout enquiringwhetherhe has a good reasonfornot fasting. Onthe other hand, thosewho invitepeopletoeatas akind gesture, presuming that those they invite are mindful oftheir own salvation, donot sin; nordo they sinifthey give certainfoodsoutof politeness to those who askfor them during the courseofa meal.³ Moreover, itisnot a sintoinvitesomeoneto a mealifheisprepared toeatelsewhereifhedoes noteatwithyou "This is the casewiththe innkeeper, who is excusedifheinvites people to eatinhisinnrather than in another. " Heretics often try to get meat on fast days out of contempt, because they have little respect for the law and the Church; to prepare meat for such peopleat least to prepareit mainlyfor them (and partlyfor others with differentmotives)isto obey them in contempt oftheChurch, whichis mortalsin; and in such a case thepermission of a superior to do so is no excuse . To prepare meat for those who ask for it for some reason otherthan contempteven if in theircompany there are some whodoeatout ofcontemptissin or not according tothe circumstancesdescribed above . But it is only a sin against human law and inferiors canbe excused by the permission of a superior : that is, the wife bythe permission of her husband; the servant by the permission of his master etc.

1. H. In2a2ae q 249, a 4

2. A. 21 , 26

3. As 1 .

4. A. 21, 24

5. As 1

6. A. 23, 42

7. A. 13, 7

8. Ibid

F5. D417,R12 inpart Cf. A-P. 1 , 4; 3, 3. Is it lawfulforCatholics going on a journey to have a meal and eat prohibitedfoods when theyare afraid to showthemselvestobeCatholics by not doing so;is italso lawfultodothisinprison?

All Christianfastsare instituted byhuman law;' a mandoesnot, therefore, sin against the lawofthe Church whichconcernsfastsif he eatsmeat onfast dayswhen 'just fear'compelshim to do so.²Itis just fear' in our case ifthe man has reasonablecause forhisfear.It is not a sign of heresy, constituted by the law or the custom of heretics, to eat meat on fast days; if a man eats meat, therefore , when itisservedto him inan inn onfast days, he does notpretend to beaheretic. Itwouldnotmattereven ifit hadbeenmade a signof heresy, unless it had also been made a meansby which men were understood to profess their faith. To eat meat on fast days if

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

heretics demand that it be done in contempt of the Church is a mortalsin. But ifan innkeeper wants a mantobreak thefastmainly out ofgreed,even thoughthe innkeeper is a heretic, as long as there is noscandalgiven by it, Icannot condemn a man ifhecomplies out of 'just fear' , becauseon this occasion there is no contempt tothe Church, and ifthere is no contempt orscandal, itis nota sinforthe reasons given above Innkeepers more often wantthe fast to be broken for reasonsof greed than for reasonsofheresy, since their interests are more commonlymonetary than religious. Onthe other hand, however, ministers and people of that sort are mainly motivatedbyheresy Isaid'ifone has reasonablecause forfear'and 'aslong as thereis no scandalgiven byit' , because not alllandlords who demand that meat or otherfood be eaten on fastdaysinspire just fear' .On the contrary, I think that as a rule innkeepers donot inspire'justfear' Firstbecausethey are inferiorpeople who cannot frighten firm men (which, according to all writers, is a condition which the concept of 'just fear' requires); second because they may be placated by being treated prudently, curteously and with liberality They can , however, cause 'just fear' in certain circumstances; for example if pursuivants or similar people ready to arrestCatholics are present But even if there is 'just fear' a man should not eat prohibited food in public, because it would cause scandal unless he could inform ignorant bystanders of his reasons , whichIthinkitwouldbe difficult todo. '

1. A.21, 12

2. A. Ibid.

3. H.In2a2ae q 3, a.2

4. Ibid

5. A. 13, 7

6. A. 23, 42

7. A. 14, 31 §L

F6. D417-8, R18-18v. 'Whether is it lawfull to eate eggs on fridayes in England?'

The canon law only requires abstinence from meat on Fridays. ' But fast daysare more a matterof custom than law , and therefore abstinence fromeggs on Fridays, although notrequired bylaw, may berequiredbycustom. Acustomobligeseveryone ifthe majorityof the peoplefollows it, but does not oblige if only a minority does. The majority, Isay, agreeing together areable to introduce a law or a custom; and it does not matter what women or children do , 4 becausetheycannot make a law. This is trueof the customofevery provinceor diocese. As far as abstinence from eggs on Fridays is concerned, I doubtwhether it was ever the custom in the South of Englandbecausethe devout eateggs there on Fridays, andtheyate

them when this robberheresy was first beginning, when those who ate dairy products in Lent or who did not fast on fastdays were called 'Lollards' . In the North of England, however, the devout observethecustom ofnoteating eggs andIwouldnotdaretoexcuse those whofollowedtheiniquity ofour times byeatingeggs,because heretics can never institutea custom " When, however, those who live in theNorthof England go South or those from theSouthgo North, theyshould observethe customofthe area in whichtheyfind themselves. Norcan I praise the excessivediligence ofthose who practice abstinence during the ordinary months when they may legitimatelyeat eggs, because ifyoudo notfollow the custom ofthe area in which youfindyourself, youdo notknowwhetheryoucause anyone scandal, and others do notknowifthey scandalizeyou.

1. B. Panormitanus iniii 46. 3

2. I. S. v. Ieiunium

3. B. Panormitanus in i. 4. 11

4. Ibid

5. Ibid

6. S. S. v Ieiunium, q 8

7. Ibid

8. A. 25, 120

9. B. i 4. 11 .

F7 D418 Do innkeepers sin by providing drink for drunken men?

Innkeepers whoprovide a house, a table, candles orotherthings forthose engagedinevilpastimessinmortally;'because bydoingso they tacitly and oftenexpressly- invitethem to engage in this sort ofdeadlywickedness, they help them directlyorindirectlytodoso , and they show approval of their sins But, on the other hand, they can provide drink, and strong drink, for drunken men, provided that theydo not show approval oftheir sins, just as theycangivea meal on a fastday to those who are obliged to fast. An innkeeper may helpthem todrink in so far asdrinkingis a good, orindifferent, act, and not in so far as it is a sin.

1. A. 19 , 15.

2. A. 21, 26 [?]

F8. D418, R15v16 'Whatfastinge dayes are in vse inEnglande, and whoare exempted from them ?"

All the daysgiven byNavarre,' and, inadditiontothem, the vigils

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

of all the fasts of the Blessed Virgin on which no servile work is done, and everyFriday. The parish priest used to announcevigils in advance and ordereveryone ofboth sexes and oftwelveyears and upwardtofast; and the usual customwasforeveryone who fellinto these categories to observethe fast on those days, even iftheywere labourers . Those labouring were, however, excused the fast on Fridaysatthetimeofthe hayand corn harvests(although notonthe vigilsoccurring at those times) and in Lent(except on Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent) There are, therefore , very few inEngland who are exempt from fasting; but there are many who have a good reason to be given a dispensation and, even if theyshould notbe excused all the fasts, the ancient rigourofthe fast can in their cases be moderated , as Navarre allows The best course of action for priests to take is to induce men of a delicate sort, partlybydispensation and partlybyadmonition, to keep the fastslaid down bythe Church Itis certain that unlessthose of a delicate sort(and there are many in England) are treated kindly, itwillbe most difficult for them to keep the fasts of the Church, and the intention of the Churchis thattheyshould be treated kindly.³

1. A. 21, 11 .

2. A. 21, 12& 13.

3. Ibid

G. QUESTIONS CONCERNING CONTRACTS OF PURCHASE, SALE, LEASEHOLD AND TENANCY.

G1. D419, R5-5v. 'Whethera landlorde maytake fineslaw-fullie ofhis Tenaunts yf not, what restitutionys to be made , yfhe haue taken alreadye Explicabene: If the Londlord after the decease of the Tenaunt displace the Tenaunts childeren, and put in some younger soneofhis owne, whether then the lonlords sonnebebund to make any satisfaction to the Tenaunts childeren. the Tenant belonged to an Abbey, and this Londelord bought suche Abby landes. &c. Whetherlandlords may raiserents, or(as theytermeyt) racke their landes . '

Totakean entryfineand to increasethe rent is nottocommitthe sin of injustice - although the landlord may commit the sin of

avarice just as others engaged in business may - provided thatthe landlord does not act againstthe lawsor againstthecustomswhich have theforceoflaw in a particular country' Nor should he letata higherpricethan the'rigorous just price'.2 [Fora discussionofwhat the just price is , see Navarre . -R.] The landlord is bound togive backto the tenantwhat he acceptsfrom him above thejustprice, although those who let land seldom sin in this way becausethey seldom are able to deceivetheirtenants andthere areusually others ready to pay a similar rent When the tenancy has expired, the tenanthas nomore rightto the land than he hadbefore hebecamea tenanthe has acquired no new right since then; and there is no obligation on the landlord to give the land back to the tenant. * (Navarre also says in the place just cited that it is thesamewitha man who actsbadly- like a master whodismisses a servant -heis also free of any obligation in that respect, but not before the servant's contract has expired ) In the case of thosewho hold monastic property, however, they are bound to restore both the property and the profit made from it to its rightful owner. But the Pope has grantedpermission for those who are reconciled to the Churchtocontinueto hold monastic propertywithoutsin, aslong as they are resolved and havepromised to abide bywhatever decision theChurchmaymakein the future on thematter .

1. A. 17, 187

2. A. 17, 87 [?]

3. A. 17, 78.

4. A. 17, 69

5. A. 17, 70.

G2. D419, R8v9 Cf. A-P 2, 1 , 21; 2, 2, 3; 2, 2, 13. Is it lawful for Catholics to buymonastic property, to sell it, or to keep it? It is lawfultobuystolen propertyifone intends to restore ittoits ownerand in the same way it is also lawfulto buy monastic property with the intention of restoring it to the monasteries. If the purchaser is likely to help the monasteriesbybuyingtheirproperty, he may recoupthe price he paid forthe propertyfrom its income . Catholics do not sin by returningmonastic propertyto those who stole it or to those from whom, either in good or bad faith, they boughtit, inordertorecover the price whichtheypaidforit,evenif they could restore itto the monasteries; and theyarenot bound to make restitutionlateron. But theyare bound to restoretheprofit made from thepropertytothemonastery ifthey were possessors in bad faith; and even those who held the propertyingood faithare bound to restore the amount by which the property made them

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

richer. A man is said to have good faith in this matter, if he firmly believes (whichveryfew in England canbelieve) thatheboughtthe propertyfrom someonewhohadthe righttosellit Justastheycan return the property to those who stole it, as has been said, sothey mayalsopass it onto someoneelse, selling to this purchaserat a just pricethe claim, whichthey have against the thieffrom whom they bought theproperty, forthe recovery ofthe price they firstpaid for it. But, apart from theseexceptions, a man who buystheproperty or who acceptsitfor nothingcan on no account sellit becauseno one can sellwhat is not his to sell; and this is not his tosell . Inthe samewayheisboundto restore the propertytothe monastery itself or to the Pope, even without recovering the price he gaveforitto thethief; and he is bound to restore it immediately , ifheisableto do so. But becausehe cannot restore the propertyimmediately he should look after it wellforthe timebeing and meanwhile hemay even leaveitto hisheirs orto anyone else thathefirmlybelieveswill restore ittotheChurch when the timecomes; andhecanevensellit foras much moneyasthe purchaser will freelygivehimforit,buthe shouldnot sell itbycontract because it is someoneelse's property.

1. L. In 2a2ae, q. 62, a 6. & S. S. v Restitutio, 3, q.7 .

2. L. As 1 & A. 17 , 9.

3. B. Panormitanus inii 13. 11 .

4. A. 17 , 7 & 8 .

5. A. 17, 10

6. A. 17 , 7 & 8

7. A. 17,54

G3. D419, R9v 'Whetherit be vsury to lett FermeswithStockes hauinge thefermerbounde to maintaine the Stocke , andintheende to deliver it, or the valewe ofit: The fermer payinge rentforthe Stocke?' Itwouldbe entirelywrongto collect a rentwhichtookaccountof the value ofthestock and was setso highthatthe landlord'scapital was keptabsolutely safe. '

1. Q. Part 2, § deusuris

G4. D419-420. May a man whoinheritsanestateevicttenants if the necessarylegal formalitiesaremissingfromtheircontracts;and iftheyare evicted whatrestitutionmust be madetothem? Everyone agrees that it is within the proper authority of the

princeto regulate the transference ofpropertyby law, ifhedoesit for the goodofthe whole commonwealth A contract whichlacks the legal formalitiesrequired bythe law of the land is null,even in conscience. ' Toledodeducesfromthis thatanheirnotmentioned in a will can in consciencedemand an inheritance from the heirwho was mentioned in the will if the will lacksthe necessaryformalities, and having got the inheritance he can retain it with a good conscience; and Toledothinksthatmost theologians agreeon this.But Father Robert thinks that it is the individual opinion of Soto , ² althoughhe himselfcites others apart fromhim. If, therefore , in a contractof tenancy madebythe fatherthe just legalformalities are lacking(I say'just' , becausenowadays there are many lawswhich do not oblige in conscienceand which cannot be obeyed without sinning), and as a result the contract is null, then the son may, ifhe wishes ,renderthe tenancy agreementvoid, because thejustlawsof thelandcan regulate land ownership. Then, byevictingthetenant, hecanrecover his own land But the tenant does notsinanddidnot sin in the pastwhen he madeuse ofthe propertyalthough itdid not belong tohim, becauseit was not againstthe willofthe landlordbut with his approvalthat he did so: the tenant, therefore, can keepthe landuntilit is reclaimed at law and he is notbound torestore ituntil it is reclaimed Moreover, the son would sin by rendering the contractnull ifitwashisfather's faultthatthe deedhadbeendrawn upincorrectly, becausethe fatherhadbeenunwillingto use a better form of contract or because he had persuaded the tenant to be contentwithsucha form;for inthatcase the fatherwould havebeen the causeofthetroubleorwould have caused itindirectly, and the obligationofthefatherpasses to his successors. The same istrueif the contractwas drawn up according to the custom ofa particular area , becausecustom canoverrule law . "Where it is saidabovethat 'the heir does not sin etc.' , must be understood with reference to sins against justice whichmake restitutionnecessary;foritis certain that many have sinned against charity when they have evicted tenants in thisway. A notary who omits the clauses necessaryin a contractout of malice or because he is very ignorant sins and is bound torepair the damage caused by his ignorance Itis certain , therefore, that the tenant should first seek to recover from the notary the interest lost on his capital; and also seekthe repayment ofhisentryfine from the landlordorhisheir, because what was paid forsome reason should be returned when that reasonislacking.

1. L. In2a2ae, q 65, a 2

2. K. Lib 4, q 5, a 3

3. E. AlexanderTartagni de Imo , JohannesCalderinus [?], JasonMaynus & Paulde Castro in D, 26, 4, 5.

4. B. iii 28. 14

5. B. i 4. 11 .

6. A. 25, 58

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

G5. D420 Cf. A-P. 2, 2, 23. Is it lawfulfor a Catholicto sellhis officewhen he cannot exerciseit at present without sin?

Iwouldnotlightly condemn anyone whosold suchanoffice. The office is itself good and legitimate, but has something evil or contrarytotheCatholicfaith connectedwith it, as a resultnotofthe office itself but ofthe evil ofour times and of the office-holderwho misusestheoffice.

H. QUESTIONS CONCERNING BENEFICES.

H1 D420, R6v. 'whatrestitutione preists wyvesorsuchelikeare boundetomakethat haue childeren with othermen butfatheringe them vpon the preists, that so they be maintayned with churche goods: orsainge not suche childeren be alive they beindeede . '

Anadulterous woman mustrepairthe injury caused byherchild. ' Inour case she may repay the money to the priest himself , ²ortothe Church,or seekpardon fromthe Church.³

1. A. 16, 47

2. A. 17, 29

3. Ibid

H2 D420, R14-14v Cf.A-P. 2, 2, 7; 2, 2, 14; 2, 2, 16 ; 2, 2, 19. 'In what case are they that haue hade the personage and benefice impropriate to ferme, and for the tyme put in a Curate, and payed his wages: where bothe personage and Vicarage are yet improperat?'

Thefunction of a ministeris to teach heresy and performother hereticalworks. To appoint anyone as a minister, therefore , or to payhim is tohelphim in heresy, and anyone who appoints orpays a minister sins mortally and is excommunicated Nor are they excusediftheydo it in someone else's name.²

1. A. 11 , 25

2. A. 17, 19

H3. D420-421 , R14v. Cf. A-P 2, 2, 7; 2, 2, 14. 'Whatoffense is it for a Catholicke man to present an heretike into a benefice iure patronatus after the decease of an other hereticke his predecessour?'

Presentationto a benefice is the first step towards obtainingthe institution ofa bishop, ' and without the consent of thepatronno one can take possession of a church. To present to a benefice , therefore, in England at the moment is to favour heresy,becauseit helps heretics by givingthem a minister who will act in a heretical manner. Consequently anyone who presents to a benefice is excommunicated.³

1. B. Panormitanus iniii 38.5

2. B. iii 38. 14

3. A. 27,55

H4. D421, R17v Cf. A-P 2, 2, 18. 'Whethera preyste havinge a benefice to the which he was lawfully presented in Quene maries dayes maylawfully gyve ofthe goods risynge vpon thefruts ofthe seayde benefice, to any of his kynsfolk in any other respect then poverty. and whetherone that commethe vnlawfullietohisbenefice intheisdayesmay gyve any thinge to any at his departure,ormust reserve allto the dispositione ofthe popesholinesse?"

Menwho are beneficed may, according to English custom , make wills. Those who are the true possessors ofbeneficesinEngland ownthe income from the beneficesand may give itto whomsoever they wish, and if they die without a will, their kin inherit the propertyacquired withthe income fromthebenefices.²Asforthose whoholdbeneficesat this present time ofschism, they areveritable robbersand are bound to restore the income theyreceive fromthe benefices. Nor can a kinsman inheritanything fromsucha personif that person had no other property than the propertyhe acquired with the income from the benefice.³ If, however, a poor man receives anythingfrom sucha personbywayofcharity,hemay, asa poor man, keep it, because restitutionmust be made tothepoor according to the decision ofthe Pope.

4

1. C. iii 13.7

2. C. iii. 13.5

3. A. 17, 168

4. A. 25, 123

H5 D421, R19-19v . Cf. A-P 2, 2, 10. 'WhethermayCatholickes bye of mynisters corne and suche like beinge the fruits of there benefice, and alsofarme theirbenefice?'

ELIZABETHAN CASUISTRY

It is forbidden to give churchesin farmto laymen;' but this does not apply to all church property. A man who holds a benefice without having received canonical institutionhas no title to it.³Our ministers , who possess their benefices without anyright to do so , should leave themand restore the income they havereceived from them . But since it is difficult for them to do so, theydo not sin if theydonot restore this income, andthey can sell allthe produce of thebeneficeand letthe housesbelonging toit because itwoulddono goodtokeep them Catholics may, therefore , buycorn ,hayand so on, and rent housesfrom ministers Houses are considered in the same way as the other produce of the benefice and anyone who holds theminbad faith is obliged to restore the income hereceives at present from them and the income he may receive in thefuture from them The tenant of these houses is free to pay renttothe ministeras long as this is partofhiscontract with the minister. But when it is a questionof receiving a heretic into one's home or of appointing a minister to officiate in the church our judgement is different

1. C. Otho tit 8

2. C. Gloss in 1 & B. Panormitanus in iii 50. 6

3. B. VI, v. 12. 1

4. A. 25, 124 .

5. A. 17 , 55

6. E. C. 5.37

7. B. Panormitanus in ii 13. 11 .

8. Ibid.

I. QUESTIONS CONCERNING SCHISM .

11. D421, R9v Cf. A-P 1 , 4. Is it lawful to say grace at table in Englandat present? 'Whether a man may saygrace with them nowe in England, and that when he knowethe theywyllpray for excommunicate personsbyname?'

Grace is not a public prayer performed in the name of the Church Consequently one doesnot incurschismby participating in it. In a private prayer it is lawful to pray with [for -R.] an excommunicate.²

1. A. 27, 56 $ 5.

2. A. 27, 56 § 1

12. D421-422, R18 'Who is properliecalled a Schismatike , and so, per consequens, excommunicated?'

Schism , in the strict sense, is the sin by which a man separates himselffrom the unity of the Church, denying that he is underits authority or under the authorityof any of its members in sofaras theyaremembers ofthe Church, eventhough hebelievesthatthere isonly oneChurchandone supremeVicarofChrist 'Whenhedoes not wishto recognize the Vicar ofChristout of malice or passion but still believes that there is such a person it is schism alone without heresy. Thosewho recognize another headofthe Church in England, where it is considered a crime to believe that the Popeis the Vicar ofChrist, are heretics. Those whoparticipate withthem , participatein heresy andnot merely in schism , which is itselfavery serious sin, buttheyare not heretics, nor do I thinkthat, according to the definitions given above, they are schismatics, unless their hearts are turned against the faith and against the unityof the CatholicChurch. It is to be noted here that [at present one should use practical considerations to judge the present practice in England, and that-R.] many confessorshavethe power to absolve even from schism and the censures incurred as a result of schism ; and itiscertainthat'justfear', although it does not actually stopone beinga schismatic, nevertheless excuses one fromall censure.²

1. A. 27, 57 & M. Lib 1 , cap 18 etseq .

2. A.27, 63 $7

13. D422 Cf. A-P 2, 1 , 16. Concerning the permission which missionary priests have been given to read prohibitedbooks . You must not read or possess themoutofcuriosity, norin order to study them . You will discover when and how far it is useful to others foryou to have them by lookinginto yourconsciences .For example, if you must meet a heretic in order to satisfy curious people or to refute his heretical arguments and thereby edify Catholics : for such purposes the President [Allen] gives you permission to read and possess them.

14. D422, R16v. Is it lawfulto readCatholic books ofcontroversy written in the vernacular ?'Whetherpeople may reade Catholicke bockes ofControversies , wherein hereticall argumentsare set outat large and ansured, without licence, or whether preists that goe nowe into Englande may gyve licenceat there discretione?' As a resultofthe supplication of MrMorton [Norton -R.] the

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

Pope gave permission for Catholics in England to read books of controversywritten in the Low Countries bythose in exile there for the sakeofthe Catholicfaith.

15. D422, R17. Cf. A-P. 2, 1, 16. 'Whether a Catholicke preist mayreade an englishe byble , to thende that he may sheweone the false translatione init, who willnot otherwyserefraine thereadynge ofit, ore reas[on]inge with an heretike may readesuchplaces as he allegeathe outofCalvin, Jewell, etc. that he mayerefutethesame?"

Noone incurs theexcommunication prescribed byacanon unless he sins mortally. ' If, therefore, a man reads a prohibitedbook in goodfaith, thinkingthathe has a good reasonfor doingso , sincehe does not sin mortally, he does not incurthis censure.²Ifa man saw that it was a matter of extreme necessity that, in order to be of assistance to someone else, he read such a book, he would be justified in doing so Even if it were slightly less than 'extreme' necessity, he would be justified in doing this; and many people in Englandare insuch a situation.A man who is learned and sensible can presume that ifthe legislator were present hewouldnotforbid him to read suchbooks, forsucha man knows that men ofhis sort are given permission to read prohibited books merely on the grounds ofutility

1. A. 27,9

2. A. 27, 43

16. D422. Cf. A-P 2, 1 , 20; 2, 2, 25. What about servantswho accompany their mastersto church?

It seemsthat it is not always mortal sin ifthese servantsdonot give scandal by going tochurch Itwould, however, be more satisfactoryiftheylookedforothermasters, oriftheyentirelyrefusedto perform that sort ofservice .

17. D422 Cf. A-P 2, 2, 24. MayCatholics act as magistrates?

I do not see why it should be wrongfor Catholics in England at present to become or to remain magistrates if they do not do anything againstthetruefaith eitherbytakingthe oath against the Pope themselves or by giving it to others to take , or by doing anything else against Catholics To do so is not at all lawful since

it leads to very serious excommunication by the Bull In Coena Domini. For Catholic judges to summon, examine, condemn or imprisonCatholicpriests or laymen is a most serioussin, not only when theydoso themselves, but alsowhen they allow itto be done by others and perhaps show their approval ofit by their presence and authority The twelve jurymen who condemn priests commit the samesin and areexcommunicated in the same wayandsoareall others who in any way co-operate of their own free will in such things. If a Catholicmagistrate really did nothing ofthis sort , but onlyexecuted just laws, then it seems that hewould notsin.

18. D422-423 Cf. A-P 2, 2, 26. Is it lawful to accompanythe Queen to herchapel?

In this special case it is further asked whetherit is lawful for noblemen and noblewomen who serve the Queen tofollow herto church and to sermons to perform some servicefor her and notin order to listenwhiletheyare there. Forexample, ifa noble should carry a sword before the Queen as an honour on an important occasion,orifhe should carry books or cushionsorsuchthings.Itis not easytocondemn suchnobles ifthey onlydo itoutofdutytothe Queen But itwouldbe better ifthey openly imploredtheQueen to beexcusedsuchservice on account oftheir consciences

19. D423 Cf. A-P. 2, 2, 28 Is it lawfultowrite the Queen's title, 'Defenderofthe Faithetc.'in documents? Itwouldbehardto condemn as a sinner someonewhoaccepted that customary title without using it himself, butthosewhoactually add the title sindamnably.

J. QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE LAW-COURTS .

J1. D423, R13 Cf. A-P 3, 1. Is it lawful for a man to buy off persecution when heretics are about to arrest him or after he has been caught? 'Whether is it lawfull to give monny to hereticall Catchepoles, to lett one passe vnapprehended?'

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

Thepersecution whichheretics inflict upon Catholics isunjust.It isthereforelawfulto buy itoffbecause it is lawfulfor anyonetobuy offunjustpersecution inwhatever form oftemporal ill-treatmentit takes. I think, however, that a man who is called totheprofession of his faith and ought not to flee, like a priest, cannot buy off persecution inflictedon him. Forwhen he is in this position ifhisuse ofbribery is not a denial offaith, it is at leastflight, because he does not actuallyprofess the faith byword or deed, and now isthetime forconfession.2

1. B. v. 3. 28 & Panormitanus . 2. F. 2a2ae , q 15 , a. 2 [?]

J2. D423-424, R13-14 . 'Howe may the Catholicke convented before heretickes answere without synne, either sworne or not sworne tothe Interrogatores ?'

He answers best who is not ashamed to answer all questions which concern faith and fact clearly, because in that way the Catholicfaith is exalted and God is glorified Anyonewhoiskilled becauseheconfesses thefaith is a truemartyr ' Ifa judgewholacks judicial competence asks a man to take an oath, it does not oblige him , or only obliges him as far as he intended itshould oblige him whenhetook it. This applies toallwho are nowin England under ecclesiasticaljurisdictionbecause they run andarenotsent,children without fatheror mother. Consequently when a Catholic isdragged beforethe heretics he can eitherrefuse to take the oath (which is moreprudent) or he can swearsophistically, or can replysophistically to their individual questions, except in so far as he is asked aboutmattersoffaith,³for if a manis askedtyrannously about faith he ought to make a reply A man who swears that he will do something wrong with the intention of doing it, sins twice. " If, therefore, a Catholic is asked to inform against Catholics and is sworn, and, using the oath as a pretext, gives some information about Catholics , he sins twice; and even if he gives the names of Catholics without having taken an oath, he sins mortally, because he is givingassistance tomortalsin . "

['nowe asconcerning certaine particularinterrogations :when did you say or heare masse last?" -R.] When have you said massand with whom? Have you reconciled anyone to the Church?

Let those who have anythingagainst sacrificing or hearing mass show themselves! I, for my part, think that those who sacrifice or hearmassin the proper way are worthy of praise Consequently I wouldcommita mortal sin ifI accused people who dosoofacrime, becauseasfaras I am concerned they are innocent men. Iam much

less obliged to accuse myself than to accuse others: but if others accuse me of this , let them come forth. Do not let yourselfbe moved from this positionhowever much theyquestion you, and do not answereven thevaguestquestions.

['Whetheris thequene ane hereticke or schismatike. '-R ]

In answer to this question : What about you? Whogaveyouthe right tojudgeher? Although everyone must denounce hereticsand bring them tobookif heresyisgoing to harm the Church , 'Iam not bound to accuse or denounce anyone to a judge whohasno juris- diction in matters of heresy [Ifyou say she is a heretic, you have your laws, judge according tothem!-R.]Ifanyone saysIhavecalled her a heretic, let him appear and accuse me!

['Whether is the Quene still notwithstandinge the popes Excomunicatione ?"-R.]

Ifyou wanttoenquire into particularmatters you should prove that Ihave committeda crime. Meanwhile let me liveinpeace.

[Whether may the quene be deposed for any facte by any authorityhereafter ?"-R .]

I cannot answer this question unless youfirst decidewhethershe has committeda crime worthy of deposition, whois her judgeand what are her crimes Or: kings and queenscannot be deposedfor any crime Unless these things are certain the question is captious becauseit is not based on a sure foundation ['Well, we sayforno fact, and bynon authority. '-R.]

1. A. 12 , 40

2. A. 12, 8

3. Ibid

4. F.2a 2ae q 3, a.2

5. A. 12, 12

6. A. 12 , 13.

7. A.25, 32& 35

8. B. v. 1. 24 .

J3. D424, R14v15 Cf. A-P . 1, 2. Concerning the value of blessedgrains Is it lawful to bringthem into England? 'There be that thinkethe hallowed graynesno thingworthe, orverylittell, as contrariwisesome supposethe verie hauinge them , and externall vsyngeofthem withoutcontritioneandConfessionne, to avayleand suffice fortheverisafegardeoftheir soules , viz vtliberenturaculpa et paena??

Those who saythat indulgencesare useless or that itisnotinthe power ofthe Churchtogrant themarecondemnedbytheCouncilof Trent as anathema. ' But we are advised to rejoice in indulgences because no one is bound to make full satisfaction in this life.2

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

Although a lot has been written by many authors about the true nature ofindulgences, we must follow whatis acceptedin the city and in theworld. We see that theseblessedgrains are received in the city and the world and we hear them praised everywhere as valuable , especially byverylearned and holymen, inparticularby Jesuits. Iwouldnot therefore dare to doubt their usefulness norto excusethose whohavesuchdoubts Those, however, who arenot in a state ofgrace err if they think that indulgenceswillbeofuse to them, because, according to all theologians, what is requiredfor indulgences to be efficacious is authorityin those who grantthem , charityinthosewho receivethem andpietyinthe matterasawhole. Itis alsonecessarythat the recipient shoulddo everything laid down in theinstrumentgranting the indulgence.4

1. N. Sess xxvdeindulgentiis ..

2. A. 26, 20

3. Ibid

4. A. 26, 31 §1

J4 D424, R22 'Whether constables may receve processes sent vnto them frome heretickes to convent Catholickes they not myndynge to servethem?'

Idonot see howitcan be sinbecausethey areacting forthegood of Catholics and not to their detriment; and they are not participating with the heretics, for whom they work in whatis merelya subordinate capacity, ifthey do not actually carry outtheirorders.

J5. D424-425, R22v23 Cf. A-P. 1 , 1; 1 , 7. In what ways is it lawful for priests to equivocate about theirnamesorchangethem? 'Whethermaypreists or other Catholikes in England beyng asked wheather theybe priests orCatholikes holde there peace, ordelude the askerswith there ansuringe?' If they are interrogated by the highest royal officials or their pursuivantsand are asked whetherthey are priests (and they are priests), or are askedwhethertheyare Catholics, they sinmortally if they are silent or equivocate, because they are questioned by these men outofhatredfortheir religion, in which case everyone is bound to confesshis faith 'Imean by'pursuivants' notonly those whoactuallyhold that office but also any men who are prepared to arrest priests out of hatred fortheir religion, like the female slaves whoquestioned StPeter.²

ELIZABETHAN CASUISTRY

I doubt whetherthis includes men who collect tolls at sea ports becausetheyare intentnotso much on advancingthe heretic sectby arresting Catholics as on filling their own pockets. Those who are asked, therefore, by them in a simple sort of way whethertheyare priests or laymen or are asked about their religion and who are silent or equivocate, do not sin, because they are not bound to confessthefaith iftheyare askedforsome reasonreasonother than hatredof religion, and it is no more probable that these men are asking them out ofhatred ofreligionthan forany other reason, for examplebecausetheywant money. [Wehave said abovewhen itis lawful to buy off persecution. -R.] If asked on the road byfellowtravellers or at table by fellow-diners about their profession or religion theymaybe silent or equivocate because thesepeople are asking out of curiosity, and the need to confess one's faith is a positivecommand whichobliges onlyat certain times andin certain places, and here nohelp will be given to a neighbour, norhonour to God, byconfessing the faithor at leastno harm willbedone toa neighbouror God if one does not do soandthus the commandto confessthefaith doesnot oblige .

1. D. Mark 8, 38& Luke9, 26.

2. D.Luke 22, 56

3. CC In 2a 2ae, q 5, a 1 , d.2 [?].

4. SeeIl above

5. F. As in 3.

J6 D425 Cf.A-P. 3, 3. Is a Catholic in prison bound tokeep his word?

Itseems tobe , generally speaking, a sinto breakone'sword.But to breakone's word or promise in this case is a slight or serioussin depending on thecircumstances and on whether any scandalmight arise from it. Faith should be kept, therefore, unless othermore serious matters persuadeto the contrary.

K. UNCLASSIFIED QUESTIONS.

K1 D425, R7. Cf. A-P 2, 2, 2. 'Whether a Catholicke may haue in his howse for a [guest] at Table an hereticke that is a

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

Commissioner againstCatholickes , and in his chamber some ofhis men reade Schismaticall service dailie, but yet openlie nether he nor anie of his speake anithinge, onlesse they be provoked by Catholickes; he hathe and doethe saue the Catholickes fromecost and troble.'

A Catholicis not bound to avoid him by reasonof excommunication or by the command of the Church, unless he is excommunicated by nameand I doubt ifhe is - or is notoriouslyknown tobe guilty ofmurderinga clergymanand Iwould be astonished ifhe werenot. ' Bythe precept of God it is not a sin to let a houseto a sinnerforsomeotherpurpose apart fromsin, forexampletopublic harlots , money-lenders and so on But your case is more difficult because it is in one's own home and matters of religionare connected with it. Ifthere were no scandal, no danger to souls and no hypocrisyinvolved, I would not dare to condemn the Catholic, although the President [Allen] inclines rather towards theview that itis mortal sin.

1. A.27, 85.

2. A. 17 , 195 & 196.

K2 D425, R22 'Whether a Catholike may teache feates of warres?'

Theartofwar is, ofitself, lawful, and oneneednotcease toteach itbecausemanymen fight in unjust wars ' It is good to teach such men in which wars it is lawful to fight and in whichwars it is not lawfultofight.

1. A. 14 , 31 .

K3 D425. What is to be considered when a servant has defrauded his master?

The servant who has cheated his master by telling him thathe boughtsomething atmore than he actually paid foritis notboundto restore the money to him if he received as much ofthecommodity he was senttobuy as the sumofmoney he was given would usually have boughtand he keptthe extra money, or if the man selling the goods made a present to him, but not to his master, ofthe extra.¹ The same is true if he did it to pay off a debt in the interests of justice, and if hedefrauded himgradually over a longperiod.³Ifhe defrauded him in otherways he should consider whetherhehas a

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

reason whichmay excuse himfromrestitution Butifallthis isnot the case, the cheating servant should be advised to restore the money or seekapardonwhichexcuses himfromrestitution, even if hehad nointentionof giving backthe money when hetook it. "Itis different ifhe is rich

1. A. 17,96

2. A. 17, 154

3. A. 17 , 140

4. A. 17, 75

5. A. 17 , 77 .

K4 D425. Is 'bone viage'[?] lawful?'

It is not a contract for a loan when one gives fifty in order to receive a hundred in return from the other party [?], but it is a contrct 'without a name' , according to the formula'Igive inorder that you may give' and that contract is in itself lawful. ' But one should be careful that no harm comes of it; and that is how one should judgethematter.

1. A. 17 , 222. Navarre discusses here -among otherthings - shipping finance and thiscasemayrefertothat

K5. D425 Cf.A-P 1,4; 1, 5. Whatshould a Catholicdowhenhe isattablewithheretics and he hearsthem blaspheme?

He is notbound to replywhen he thinks that byspeaking he can do nogood, unlessthereis fearofgiving scandalif he is silent, for example if there are some people present who know that heisa Catholicor a learned manor a priest; forthen it seems probable that he is bound to reply. Myown advice in such a case is thatheshould atleast leave thetable.

K6 D426 Cf. A-P 2, 2, 21. Is it lawful for Catholics to build collegesthesedays?

Itis now lawful at present to build collegesifdivine services will be performedin them byheretics or ifhereticswillbebroughtupin them . Since it is difficult, indeed nearly impossible, at present to avoid this, it seems most dangerous to undertake such work. It wouldbemuch betterto spendthe money onmaintaining Catholic

scholars across the sea instead, forthis redoundsgreatly tothe glory ofGod, tothe reliefofour native land and to the benefit ofthe souls ofthese benefactors, since the studentscelebrate masses for them.

APPENDICES: CASES IN RAWLINSON BUTNOT IN DOUAI.

Appendix 1. R7

'As concerninge the littell dogg which goeth to the churche in Spayne, but not in Englande lett his master be remembered thatis written of balams asse Subiugale mutum animal prohibuit prophetae insipientiam . ' speciallie this goynge with heretickes as maledictionem deo, as is certainlie insipientia , as was balaams goinge withthe madianites ad maledicendum filijs Israell:whether itbe amiraclein the doggasytwas inthe Asseornoe,maniestrange things are nowa dayesshewedfromegod, asweare ofolde likewise intymes ofpersecutions by panymmes or heretickes, and thatalso in brute beasts The donatists castingethe B. Sacrament to there doggs, were by and by them selues devoured of them.²the lions , beares, bulles, etc, knew gods servants as daniel, the martyrs etc, fromegods enemies.'

1. D. 2 Peter 2, 15-16 . 2. BB Lib 2, cap 19 .

Appendix2. R9 Cf. A-P 2, 2, 4. 'WhetherCatholickes maypay theyrtythes without incurringSchisme?"

A man may pay tithes withoutbeing involved in schism .Inpaying tithes , moreover, he is boundto observe the custom.' By custom they are either left in the fields or in the church and it does not thereforeconstituteparticipationwith heretics to do thelatter.Itis not sin to pay tithes because a man is not bound to refuse to pay them ifitwill put him indanger.²

1. A.21, 30. 2. A. 17, 20

Appendix 3. R20-21 'howe maye preists in Englande best occupy them selves vpon festivall dayes , and likewyse other Catholickes , andinwhat caseseither thone orthotherdoeth sinne?'

Private devotions on feast daysare notlaid down by orderofthe Church , but only exterior worship which consists in hearing mass and in abstaining from all servile work ' There are certain virtues whichwecan imitatein the Saintswithout sin; such as charity, joy, peace, patience , longanimity, goodness, benignity, gentleness, faith, modesty, continence, and chastity. There are also other things which, according to the judgement ofa certain prudent man² we should imitate in the Saints; such as fasting, vigils, reading, prayers, and other exercises of this sort. The activities in which Christians should engage on feast days are as follows: theyshould gotothe church ofGodand when there should, with asincereand piousmind, be present at the holysacrificeofmass; theyshould do frequent penance to heal the wounds of their souls; theyshould frequently take the holy sacrament of the Eucharist; they should attendcarefullyto a holysermon inordertolearn todothosethings which lead one to live a Christian life; andfinallythey should spend some time saying prayers and praising God, and sedulously do worksofmercy.3

Ifa prudentman doesnot hear the whole mass or ifhe isabsent from some notable part ofit on a feast day, he sins mortally. Itis probable that in England people are also bound to hear other offices, especially vespers But those who do not hear them , contrary to custom, without reason, only sinvenially. But those who hear theoffices ofthe BlessedVirgin or anyotherofficesapart from the offices ofthe day do not act according to custom and consequently it is no sin not to hear such offices. Indeed, I woulddisapprove ofanyone who was soover-diligentas to wish to introduce such offices into the custom: he should compare his ideaswith the injunction ofthe Fathers who foresaw suchan attitude and taught thatweshould notfollow singularities and thatwe should flee from scandal . Nor would it be helpful now to introduce more offices, becausepeople at present fail to hearthe customary officesthrough fear and too much laxity and not becausethe offices atpresent are shorterthan theywant! Suchan attituderequires compassion. For thetimid itis,therefore, bestto prepare more secret placesforthem to hear the offices, and forthe lax or delicate shorter offices, while exhortingthem in a kind way to follow the custom . For although timidity and laxity are not sufficient to excuse men from hearing mass, theycan be excusedfromtheotheroffices forthesereasons, becausethe law whichorders us to hear mass obliges more strictly thanthe custom whichorders usto hear the other offices. "Fortrue contrition one does not have to intend to abstain fromvenialsin, 8 such as itis in this case, ifit is sinatall. Priests do best if, by teaching and exhortation, they induce

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

Catholics to do everything recommended for feast days in the Tridentine Catechism. But theyshould be careful not to be misled bypeople who zealously advise everyone to undertake fasts, vigils, prayers and otherthings which it is customary fortheperfectalone toperform. Theseexercisesare more dangerousthan useful unless theyare overseen bya priest experienced in suchthings;forhewho loves danger will perish in it. "Theyshould also be carefulnot to forbid all games automatically , since games are, as a rule, quite lawful on feast days, 10 even gambling games " It is easy to find things done on a feast daywhich can be condemned as transgressions of the law, but it is best to give all one's attention to encouraging frequentconfession, for everything else willfollow of its own accord from that

1. A. 13, 2

2. Sus [?] in praefatione .3 tomi[?] '

3. O. On3rd commandment .

4. A. 21, 2.

5. Ibid

6. B. VI, iii 22. unic. [?]

7. As4

8. A. 1 , 15.

9. D. Eccles 5[?]

10. A. 13, 11 11. Ibid.

PART II. THE ALLEN-PERSONS CASES

THERESOLUTION OF CASES OFTHE ENGLISHNATION .

Preface. L16-17.

It should carefullybe noted before we proceed totheresolution ofthecases proposed below thatthe difficultiesto be found in them are matters ofdivine, human, and canonlaw, andthatontheselaws the resolution of such cases depends. What is against divine law cannot be made lawful by any Papal dispensation or concession , although , by authority of the plenitude ofpowerwhich residesin him, the Pope may declare something to be or not to be against divine law, of which he has been made true and legitimate interpreter by Christ. But what is against divine law can be made lawfulinonlyoneway; thatis, onlybymeansofthe divine law itself, whentwo divineprecepts have a bearing on a particularcase and it is necessaryto violate one ofthem. In suchcircumstancesthe more important precept prevails and the othergivesway to it; so that,by the observance ofthe more importantprecept, the transgressionof the less important is made lawful. For example, if the precept binding a man to restore money owing to his lord conflicts in some circumstances with the precept which binds him to protect his reputation or his life, and he cannot give the money to hislord without losing his honour or his life, it is lawfulforhim notto give themoneybackin orderto save hishonouror life

As far as human law is concerned, a dispensation maybe granted by the Pope for a good and honest reason, and I thinkthatthe unhappy stateofthe unfortunateCatholics ofEngland constitutes a very good and most honest reason; for in England Catholics are, with strongand constant bravery, prepared to die a thousand times in the most holywayfor the defence of the holy church ofGod. It would be most holytogrant dispensationsto English Catholics,for, bydoing so , the holy mother, the Church, wouldreward themost deserving effortsmade on her behalfby theseher sons. Moreover , by granting dispensations conferring benefits on them, they, the members of the Church, will be kept unharmed in the future. For without dispensations they may easily throw their lives into a thousand dangers, intheireffortstoavoid endangeringtheireternal salvationby breakingthe law ofthe Church Once thesemen have gone, moreover, religion in England will be finished, or virtually finished Furthermore, dispensations are given to weaker and feeblermen and still considered most holy. Tograntdispensations would help Catholics in England to carryon the business ofmain-

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

taining religion there. By the kindness and leniency of the holy mother Church their minds may be made more inclined towards her; and, well affected towards their holy mother, they may embrace her more firmly, they may be freed from many perils, scruples of mind, perplexities and dangers, and they may learn finally thegreatdifference there is between their holymother, the CatholicChurch, and the stupid tyranny ofimpious heresy. Human law and the holy canons of the Church cease to be of force, ipso facto, immediately divine and naturallaw conflictwith them . The consequence of this is that the law of the Churchcan never of itself oblige a man to put his life in danger, becausethe conservation of life is enjoinedby natural law Everyone agrees, therefore, that sick men are not bound to fast nor to abstain from food; and ifaman kills a priest in orderto defend his own life, heis notexcommunicated ; not does a priest incur irregularityby killing someone in order to defend his life. It must be noticed, however , thatI have said the law of the Church never 'ofitself obliges' , for human lawoftendoes oblige a manto put his life in danger,notofits own force, but becausethe force of divine or naturallaw is joined with it. If, for example, a precept of human law is joined to the precept binding a man to protect the faith and religion or ifit is joined to othersimilarprecepts; or ifwe cannot breaka human law without giving scandal; or if to break that law would result in damaging the faith and religion;then, evenifthere were athousand dangers to our lives, we should suffer death in orderto observethe human law becausewe are bound by divine law to avoid scandal. Thus, if someone with a drawn sword forces me to eat prohibited foodwhichhas been set before me, I may lawfullyeat iteveninLent ifI give no scandal to him and show no contempt for the Church But ifI should give scandalto the weak-mindedbydoingsoorifI should be forcedto do it in contempt ofthe Church , Iam bound to sufferdeath ratherthan eat suchfood.

Casesproposed by some Men ofthe English Nation

These cases are dividedinto three chapters. In the first chapter those cases which concern Catholics returningto England are contained. In the second chapter are contained those cases which concernmen who have already gone into England and are staying there; and the first [sic] section of this chapter deals with matters which concern penitents In the third chapter cases concerning Catholics who have already been captured bythe heretics and are detained by them are to be found: many matters arise then which need thesober advice ofanintelligentman .

CHAPTER I.

THOSE CASES WHICHCONCERNPRIESTS TRAVELLINGTO ENGLAND .

Case1. L17-19v. Cf. D-R J5; J6. Can a priest change hisclothes and appearance; mayhe evengrow hishairandchangehisname?If heis asked in a port orelsewhere about hisformernamebypeople who suspecthim, may hedeny it to be hisname?Whatifheisasked abouthisplaceoforigin, hisparentsandfriends onthejourney,but not as partof a judicial interrogation?

Resolution . Inthis first case three dificulties are proposed [1]The first is whetherit is permissible for a priestto changehishabitand clothes , and to changehis nameandgrow hisbeard orhair [2]The next is whether, when interrogated by someone about his former name, he can deny that it is his name. [3] Thirdly, whetheritis judgedtobe the same ifhe is interrogated about hisplaceoforigin, parents, friendsetc.

[1]Tothe firstdifficulty Ireplythat ifit is assumed to belawfulto change one's clerical habit, it must be equally lawfultogrowone's hair, forbothare enjoined bythe same human law; andpriesthood is hidden less by a change of hair than by a change of clothes, especially since doctors do not wear the clerical habit. Itis much morelawfultochange one'sname since this is prohibitedbynolaw , and on enteringreligion people often change their names out of devotion Since this is the case, why can it not be done for a similar goodreason; sothat these priests whose holyaim is to confirm the faithful in their faith and reduce heretics to the faith may protect their lives and avoid danger? If you are doubtful about our assumptionthatitis lawfulto changethe clerical habit, Ireplythatit is, bycommon consent, most lawful, because the habitandtonsure of a priest are enjoinedby human law; and, therefore , for a good reason theycanbe omitted.

Youobjectthatto make thesechanges is implicitlytolie, because in doing this a man declares and implicitly says that he is nota clergyman but a secular, although he reallyis a cleric Ireplythatit is not lying, but pretence. Pretence, however, is lawful, foreven Christ pretended that he would go further to those two men who methim at Emmaus,' and in Galatians it is said that Barnabaswas 'carriedaway by their dissimulation ' Moreover, in a justwaritis lawful to set ambushesforanenemy, asJoshuadid atthecityofAi.³ Finally, Adrianus demonstrateswellthat pretence is lawful.4

[2] To the second difficulty I reply that a man must decide whetherhe isasked as partof a judicial interrogationor not; and if he is, whether his interrogators are actually possessed of lawful authority or not Next he must decidewhetherany scandalmay be given byhis replyor not

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

[a]I say firstly that,whether Iam interrogated by lawfulauthority or not, ifscandalis given bymypretence andbythefactthatImake afalsereplyinwhichI suppress mytrue name,Icannot use pretence at all, butIam bound to confess the truth. Forexample, if a priestis askedinthepresenceofother young Catholics who knowhisformer name and are rude and simple, being ignorant of the difference between pretence and lying, they will immediatelythink thatthe priest is denying the faith if he uses pretence and they will be confused and inwardlydespair iftheysee a priest dosuchathing.

[b]Secondly, if these priests are interrogated by anyone about their names,theymay replybyusingthe namesthattheytookwhen theyentered religionand say thattheyare their own names.

[c]Thirdly, if a priestis asked about his formernameoriscalled byit, beingaskedwhether itis, forexample, Peter, orsomething of the sort, sincethe question concernsthe presenttime, andthe priest isnolongercalled bythatnamebecause he has changedhisname,it seemsto me probable thathemaydeny sucha nametobehisname , meaning that it is not his name at present, although he was previouslycalled byit. This denial does not seem to me to be lying,for he does not really deny what is at present true but what is false , because now he is not called Peter For further proof: it is most difficulttotake equivocation out of human intercourse,sinceweare often askedmany things towhichit is notexpedient to replyandto whichitisbest to avoid making a replybyusing equivocation .Itis no objectionto say thatby sucha replywe deceivethe questioner, because he is not deceived by our reply but becauseof his own simplicity. Forsince we are asked about the present we make our replyaboutthe present; but in reality, although he isasking about the present, he understands our reply to be aboutthe past; he understands usto say that wewere not called, norhad beencalled, bythatname .

[d] Fourthly, if this man is askedwhetherhe ever had thisname before and the objection is raised that he was indeed previously called bythat name and nowhe has changedit; then to answerthis objection itmust bedecided whetherhe is being askedas partofa judicial enquiry. If so, then it iscertain that he cannot deny that he had this name becausehe would be lying byexpressly denying the truth inthisway. This lie, however, is made in the lineofdutyandis only a venial sin. A man who is interrogated in this way may, however, avoid makinga reply in two ways: first, by replyingto something else; second, by givingin reply some othername which hehadbefore. Forexample, if he was previously called bothPeter and John, orJohn and Peter, andnowis called Simon, and is asked whether he was called Peter, he may say, 'I was, indeed, called John, but now Iam called Simon, ' and hewouldsaynothing about Peter. If, moreover, he is questioned in some form of judicial enquiry, thenifthe enquiryis legitimate he isbound totellthetruth,

butifit has nolegitimateauthority, then he can simply denythat he was Peter or was ever called by that name . The interrogationofa judge, by its very nature , means this: 'Accordingto the powerI have and the jurisdictionIhave in this case , Iaskyoutoconfessto me astoyoursuperiorwhetheryou are Peter ' Wherefore , ifheis not a legitimate judge , myreply is to a man, not a judge;and so , by denying that I was ever called by that name, I donot simplydeny that Iwasever called by that name, but Ideny that Iam .... Peter whoisboundtoreplytoyouas to a judge endowed withthesortof power and jurisdictionwhich youhave "

The whole problem, therefore , is this: whether ministers of the Queen have the authority to interrogate these priests; and it seemsto me that an interrogationby them is never done bylawful authority. Firstly, becausea heretic queen is not legitimate queen: whetherthis is trueis treated in another case where the declaration of Pius V made in England against the Queen is discussed. Secondly, because in this matter at least she does not conduct herselflike a queen but exercisestyranny by persecuting religion. Thirdly, because a clergyman is not bound to answer to a secular judge, butonlyto anecclesiasticalone Fourthly, becausethejudge proceeds in his judgement from suspicion and often from insufficient conjectures which cannot be provedand often from conjectures which he has as a private person and notby the authoritywhichhe has as a judge

[3]To the third difficulty I replythat the question ofourplace of origin, parents and friends is a more seriousdifficulty, becauseitis not in ourpowerto changetheseinthe same waythat, as I have said above, it is in ourpowerto changeour names .

[a]I say, therefore, firstly that ifthe replymaybe dissimulated in anyhonestway (in the manner Ihavedescribedin the fourthsection ofthediscussion ofthe previous difficulty), onemighttrytodoitin thatway.

[b] Secondly, if we were born in one place and brought up in another, or ifwelived fora long time in another placeso thatweare thoughtofas citizens ofit; then, whenwe are asked about ourplace oforigin we may replyby naming either oftheseplaces ; so, ifweare asked , 'Areyoufrom sucha place?' we can reply absolutely (without denyingit), 'I am from elsewhere - from sucha place. 'Inthe samewaySt Paul said that he was a Roman citizen "Ifaman were asked , 'Isthis yourhome-town?'Ithinkthatifthewholeofthetown or the greaterpart of it were heretic he could deny that itwashis home or saythat he did not recognize it as hishome, meaning that because it was heretic he did not consider it a home nor did he recognize himselfto be bound to the place as to a home .

If asked about parents, he can reply in the same way. If his parents were heretic , he wouldbe tellingthe truth by denying them to be his parents, meaning the sort of parents that he ought to

ELIZABETHAN

accept. This is becausemen are accustomed to do this, as parents disown their children on account of religion and children disown their parents. This reply, therefore , seems to contain a pious equivocation If he is asked about these matters in a judicial enquiry, Isaythathemay denythe truth in the manner describedin thefourth section ofthe answer to the preceding difficulty and this is nottodeny something to bethe truth, butonlytodenyittobe'the truth as far as I am bound to reply to you as to one havingno legitimateauthorityto askme' .

Solution ofAllen and Persons It seems that he can , although the matter is doubtful;for one can keep quietabout the truth or hideit as longas one doesnot directlydeny it

1. [D. Luke 24 , 13.]

2. D. Galatians 2, 13

3. [D.Joshua8.]

4. U. In4, q. 1 .

5. [D.Acts22, 25.]

Case 2. L19v20. Cf. D-R J3

May a man carry into England witha good conscience and give to others those things whichare prohibited under pain ofdeath andare notbythemselvesnecessary tothe practiceofthe Catholicfaith there: for example, agnusdei, blessedmedals andgrains, andthings ofthis sort.The reasonforthe doubt aboutthe matteris that a man puts himselfin realdanger of death by possessing them and he puts the others to whom he gives them in danger ofdeath or at leastofthe loss ofalltheirgoodsand theirliberty.

Resolution . In this second case two difficultiesare touched upon. [1] The first iswhethera man may take with him agnus dei, blessed medals etc. [2] The second is whetherhe may give them to others . The reason forthe difficulty is said to be the real danger of death which results from possessingthem and the danger ofdeathorof lossofgoods and libertyforthoseto whom theyaregiven Ireplyby assigning two rulesto these two difficulties. The first rule satisfies thefirst difficulty; the secondsatisfiesthesecond . [1] For the the first difficulty this is the rule : priests returningto England are following an impulse and internal command ofthe Holy Spirit. The corollary of this rule is that to put oneself in manifestdanger of death for such reasonsis neitherofitself good nor of itself bad, and is therefore neither laudable nor blameworthy. For ifapriestof God is inspired by hiszealousdesire toincreasethe devotionof the people or bythe pious affectionhe feels for agnus dei etc. and forthe ApostolicSee, and he decidestobring

these things into England , feeling that they will be most useful there, let him do so. But if he feels that it will dolittle good, it is better ifhe doesnot puthimselfin suchdanger Forexample, ifhe has doubts about his ability to withstand torture, or experiences other feelings of this sort, and he comes to the conclusion thathe should not take such things into England, or at least noton this occasion, heshould notdoso Whatever he does as the resultofthe internalpromptingofthe Holy Ghost, after having commendedthe matter to God and having considered his eternal salvation, is tobe considered better and more acceptable to God than any other course of action. The advice of a confessor or of another person learned inspiritualmatters should bebrought to bearonthematter and the internalfeelingofthe mind, the impulse whichtheperson underdiscussionfeels, describedtohim.

[2]For the second difficulty, this is the rule: the constancy, piety andfervourofthe people towhomthesethings areto begiven isto be considered; and on the basis of this rule it is bothlawfultogive and lawful to deny these things. To the objectionwhich is made aboutthe realdanger of possessing these things, Ireplythat aman may put himselfin danger of death not onlyforthose things which are absolutely necessaryto faith, butalsoforthe sake ofthosewhich can contribute substantiallyto his salvation. These grains and blessed medals can be most useful, because they turn people's mindstowardsthe ApostolicSee andwarmmen's cold charity, and becausetheycanproduce many other spiritualbenefits.

No one can be accusedof rashness in this matter ifhe maturely considers theprobleminthe lightofthe rules given above, and ifhe follows these rules and the promptings of the HolySpirit But the priests ofChristwill be guided betterbytheir own experience than byourwords.

Solution ofAllen and Persons. He may, but should onlygive them tothose whowantthemandaskforthem. Piousthings arenotto be neglected becauseof danger. Aboveall, ifthe Spirit of God moves themtodoit,then itis oftenthe casethatthe greater the danger, the greater themerit to begained fromanaction.

Case3. L20-21v Cf. D-R. B20 May a priestcoming toEngland leave his breviarybehind him on account ofthe dangerofcarrying it, and consequently completely neglect to say the divine office? Moreover, it is notonlydangerousto havea breviaryonthe journey into Englandbut it is veryoften also dangerousto have one while staying there .Again, can a priestomitmass outoffearofdangeron those dayswhenthe law oftheChurch obliges him eitherto hearor tosayit?

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

Resolution . Inthe third case three difficultiesaretouched upon [1] First, whether a priesttravellingto England can leavehis breviary behind him, and consequently neglect to say the divine offices during the journey. [2] Second, whether, while staying for a long time in England , he may completely stop observing thecanonical hours. [3]Third, whetherhe may omitthe mass onthosedayswhen thelaw requires it It is tobenoticed that allthesethings are matters ofhuman law.

[1]To the first difficulty Ireplythat a man may omittorecitethe hoursbecauseof sickness and, indeed, according tothejudgement ofmany, a preacher may give a sermon instead ofsayingthe hours, when he cannot do both. So, much more, this priestmay leavehis breviary behind him and neglect to say the office. As for the journey, itpresents no difficulty, forit lasts onlya few days; so ifhe hopes to have a breviaryafterwards in England, he should have no doubtsaboutthematter. Iadd thatif he could not take hisbreviary withhimwithout very probable dangerofdeath, evenifheknew for sure thathewould never saythe office again, he could stillleaveit behind him. Asproof we may say that if a man took his breviary with him in similarcircumstancesand while he was crossingariver orthe sea itfell into thewater, and he could notrecover itwithout probabledanger of death, he wouldnotbebound toexposehimself tothat danger.Forthe same reason, therefore , leaving a breviary can be excused in the present case Moreover, a priestcan sellhis breviary if he is in great need of money while making such a journey; therefore, in this case he can leave his breviary behind him. To confirmthis: the law of nature whichenjoins theconservation oflife removes the obligationofthe human law which enjoins therecitationofthe office .It does notmatterthatthe priestmaybe powerless afterwards to say the office again, ifhisinabilitytosay the office proceeds from an action whichis, in itself, licit.

[2] To the second difficulty I replythat if the prieststopssaying the officeout of necessity, becausehe cannot obtain a breviaryas long as hestays in England, then, ifhe is nottoblameforthisstate ofaffairs- and he is not, since, as we have said, he left hisbreviary behindonthejourneybecauseofthe probable dangerofpossessing one,orsinceitwastaken from him bythe heretics -without a doubt in that casehe is safe in conscience But it may bethe case thathe could obtain a breviary in England, but because of the danger of death or because of the serious harm whichwould befall him by keeping the breviaryor by reciting the office, he does not keep it anddoes not recite the office. In that case , I advisethe holypriests whoare goingto England todosuchdivinework there, thatbefore theyleave theyaskfor a dispensation from the Popeconcerning the recitation ofthe hours; or ask him to grant a commutation ofthe hours intoother prayers, the chaplet or rosary, forexample , which they could counton their fingers, or somepsalms, whichcouldbe

recitedfrom memoryor read This would be a most justthingfor the Pope graciously to concede, lest these labourers, beginning their arduous workin this arid vineyard, areexposedperpetuallyto thedanger ofdeath Thosewhoarein Rome couldrequestthesame dispensation or licence from the Pope for those who are nowin England Nor should itseem tobehard to grant them such a licence , for a dispensation has beengranted that in the wholeofFrance and Germany butter may be eaten in lent, and in Spain the use of intestines andoffal is allowed on some Saturdays. Iftheseandother similarthingsare granted to the idle people, howmuch more fairly can this dispensation be concedeto assist the workofpious priests, whose burdenit is necessaryrather to lightenthan to increase . If anyone, therefore, out of a reasonable fearof death, never recited the office nor possessed a breviary in England, provided he said some other pious prayers to God instead, I should never condemn himofmortalsin. NotethatIsaid, 'provided he saidotherprayers, ' becauseitisnotentirelyimprobable thatpriests are bound bydivine lawtosaysome sort ofprayers. The canonical hoursareimposedon priests bythe lawofthe Church, and although the command ofthe Church cannot be fulfilled, the obligationof divinelaw remains The prayers said should be such as correspond to the canonical hours and are, more or less, equal to them, unlessthemultitudeof the priests' pious duties and the common benefitor necessityof Christians meansthat they must beshortened [3]To the third difficulty I replythat it is lawfultoomitthemass out of reasonable fearof danger of death, even on Easter dayand even if a priest had neither said nor heard it for a whole year, becauseit is a human injunctionto celebrate mass on the principal feast days; or, if it is a divine precept, since it is an affirmative precept, it does not oblige a priest toput hislife indanger. Solution ofAllenand Persons. Hemay do all thesethings.

Case 4. L21v-23 Cf. D-R. F3; F5; K5; 11. Isit lawful, inorderto avoid danger when travelling into England and elsewhere, to be present at table with heretics when grace is being saidin the heretic manner ? Everyone listens with bare headsand if a man does not uncoverhis head, he falls under suspicion. In suchcircumstances , may a Catholic uncover his head as a sign of reverence and afterwards eatmeat at the same table ondayswhen meat is prohibitedby theChurch?

Resolution . In the fourth case three difficultiesare touched upon.

ELIZABETHAN CASUISTRY

Thefirst iswhetherit is permissible, to avoid dangerof death while onthejourney into England, to be present atthe tables ofheretics when they say grace in the heretic manner. Secondly, when these heretics recitetheir prayers bareheaded, may one listen tothemas the restdo, toavoid showing oneself to be a Catholicand putting one's life in danger? Thirdly, is it lawfulfora Catholictoeatmeatat these tables with heretics on dayswhen its use is forbiddenbythe Church-on Fridays and Saturdays, forexample?

To these difficulties I say first that if all the things mentioned above occurseparately, and not all at once, then there is nodoubt that they are, in that case, all lawful, and no one can have any reasonable doubt about them individually. For where thereare no othertables toeat atI am notbound to starveinorderto avoid being atthe tables ofheretics; andwhere there are other tablestobehad , but only with probable danger of death, it is the same . Forthe injunction to avoid the tables ofheretics andexcommunicatesdoes not oblige, not only when necessity, but even when one's own well-being, demands otherwise, according to the common maxim , 'Vtile, lex, humile, res, ignorata, necesse . '[?]

Secondly, when grace is said, the Lord is blessed . The graceused byheretics is takenfrom the psalms and it is therefore lawfuleven for a Catholic to be present with a bare head when it is said , especially ifno heresy is expressedin the blessing.Ithinkthatitis even lawfulforaCatholicto make responses during the blessing,for mortal danger is an excuse evenforcommunication with heretics in prayers in which nothingis said againstthefaith.

Thirdly, outofmortalfear it is alsolawfultoeat meat on Fridays, ifno scandal or injuryto the faith results. Thus, it seems that the actions mentioned above can in individualcases be done lawfully when thereis noscandalor injury tothefaith.

Itis amoredifficult question whether allthesethings are lawfulif they occur together, and the reason forthe difficulty is that individually these things are unimportant, but once combined they are often deadly sins . Thus these individual actions by themselvesdo not smack ofanythingagainst the faith, but iftheyoccur together theydomuch more harm to the faith, and thus itwouldbedifficult to say they were not sin. If, therefore, all these acts proper to heretics are joined together they seem to declare and show a Catholic, ifhe commits them, to be a heretic more than theywould individually.

InreplyIsaythatallthesethings done together at onetimedonot make a man guilty of mortal sin because even all these actions committedatonce do notdeclare him to bea heretic, since they are not intrinsically acts ofheresy, nor do they suggest heresy Firstly because a bad Christian often does all these acts, and worse Secondly because if these actions, when joined together, become bad in themselves, although they are not bad when done individu-

ally, then it is either because of the scandalthey cause or because they show a man to be a heretic But there is in the case under consideration no scandal, nor, as I have said, is it a declaration of heresyto dothesethings You then saythathereticsthink a manis a hereticifhe does all these things Ireplythat this is notbecauseof thenatureoftheacts, butbecause ofthe ignoranceandblindnessof heretics: forthey do not know that it is possible to eat meatoutof necessity and that it is lawfulto bare one's headwhen Godisbeing praised byanyone, whoever he is. Theseactions do notshowthata man is a heretic, butthat he is eithera heretic or a carefulCatholic. Thus, todothese things is not to deny the faith, butto concealitas time and place require.

Moreover, to bare one's head as others do when grace is being said by heretics can be excused for another reason, that is, out of civility and politeness. For not to bare one's head when everyone else is bareheaded is a sort of incivility and the act ofa bumpkin. Finally, these things are not done by heretics to showtheirheresy nor todistinguish heretics fromCatholics, since they arenotbytheir nature signs of heresy; nor do heretics declare that theyare done forthat purpose. Heretics do what they do -for example, theyeat meatbecausetheyare accustomedto doso , andtheyreciteheretic blessingsbecauseit is their custom. Theseactions do not meanthat theyare heretics andthereforeneitherdo they meanthatthemanin our case is a heretic. You askwhatis the case ifthe heretics should declare thattheydo these things in order to distinguish men oftheir own religionfrom Catholics, and hence they supposethattheman in our case is a heretic . I reply that the heretics could make a declarationto this effectin two ways First, by saying, 'Todaywe shallsee at table whoare ofourreligion, 'orsomething ofthatsort Second, by trying actuallyto separate the men at table, bysaying, 'Whoeveris a heretic, let him stand up and take offhis hatduring grace, or let him eat meat 'If, therefore , they make the firstdeclaration, thenifa man does all the things we have mentioned hedoes notsin mortally, nor does he show himselfto be a heretic, because none ofthese things, eitherseparately oralltogether, isacceptedas being in itselfdeclaratoryofheresy: so inthatcase hemaydothem . Ifthe heretics saytheywant to knowwho is a heretic by using the second method , I think that it is not lawfulfor a Catholictodoit, becauseitis nowset out asa declaratory sign ofheresy, andbydoing ittheCatholicwoulddeclare himself, orat leastwouldbesupposed to declare himself, to be a heretic in nearly the same way asifhesaid verballythathewas a heretic, because this signis acceptedasaclear indicationofheresy

Solution ofAllenand Persons It is lawfulfor a manto barehishead and to say hisownblessingsecretly Astothe secondpointconcerningmeat, it is permissible to eat itifthere is great dangerinrefusing it

Case 5. L23-24. Cf. D-R K5 Is it lawful for a priest or other Catholicto be silentwhen at table oratothertimes inconversation with heretics he hears horrible lies and blasphemies expressed against God, the saints, the Church andmostofallagainstthe Pope, especially ifthereis no hope ofdoingany good if he speaks outbut onlyofbetraying himself?"

Resolution . In this case there is only one difficulty, as is clear by considering the matter. My reply to it is: [1] firstly, a man is not bound to say anything when he hears such blasphemies [2] Secondly, in general it is betterthat he should bequiet [3] Thirdly, althoughthis isthe case in general, inthe particularcase that aman feels himselfmoved by a special impulse and command oftheHoly Spirit, then it would be a most saintlyact to make some reply[4] Fourthly, it is equallythe case that, iffeeble-hearted men present should abandon the cause or should be down-castin mind and the matter should redound to the detriment of the faith becausethe priest puts up in silence with the blasphemies, then the priest,or other Catholicpresent should, ifhe is a learned man, make a reply and rebuke the blasphemersand convincethem oftheirerrors, even ifitmight mean puttinghis life in danger.

[1]The pointsIhavemade can beproved asfollows: first,Iprove that a man is notbound to say anythingin this precisecase , because ifhe is bound to do so by any law, it is by the law which enjoins fraternal correction But, according to most people, this lawdoes not obligewhen there is no reasonable hope of correction; therefore, he isnotbound to speakout.You say that heisbound to speak out becauseof his love of God; for a man is bound to defend the honourofsomeone he loves. Ireplythat he is not bound to do this unlesshe can actuallyprevent the blasphemies, and thatifa man is obligedto do anythingwhen he hears blasphemies against Christ and His saints, he is only obliged, with God's approval, to do something toshow his sorrow and displeasureatthem , inthesame waythat a man should at leastbe sorrowfulabout an injurydone to a friend whichhe cannot prevent ifhe trulyloves hisfriend

[2] Second, I prove my second statement, that generally it is betterinsucha case to besilent and to dissemble Where there is no hope ofconvertinganyone and the needto avoid scandaland harm to the faith does not force one to speak, then it is generally a sort of temeritytoput oneself intoopen danger ofdeath Noteveryone can claim for himself the honour of being a martyr, only one who is called tobe a martyr by God. When, therefore , necessitycompels usto speak out in orderto avoid scandalor tomaintainthefaith of theweak,itcan reasonable be believed thatGodcallsus tomartyrdom. Butwhere neitherofthesetwo circumstancesis to be found, weshould notpresume thatGodwants us to be martyrs, and so,to speak out in that case is directly to rush into martyrdombefore receivingthe vocation of God. Moreover, this boldness is justly

censured becauseit is the action ofa manwho has no vocation ,but nevertheless throws himself into something which he is perhaps unworthy to perform; and also because you presume you will be firm but perhaps will be deficient in braveryunder torture .For ,I can assure you, Godis on hand to help boththose he calls as well as those whorashlyoftheir own accord pushthemselvesforward, but sometimes he takes awaygrace frombothsortsofmen , ordoesnot grant enough ofit

[3] Third, I prove the third statement by saying that the Holy Spirit is an infallible rule. Hence, whatever is done byitscommand is infallibly good, pious and holy The Holy Spirit sometimes inspires men tothrow themselves into mortal dangereven ifthereis no necessity, in order to confirm the infirm and those who are hesitant in the faith, by setting before their eyes the prospect of bravemen who, even though they are not sought, offerthemselves joyfullytotorment There are many examples of this inthelives of the saints But we must take notice of one thing here: we should beware lestwe are toocredulous, according tothe advice-orrather thecommand ofthe Apostle, 'Do notbelieve every spirit,buttestit to see whether it comes from God " Not everything, therefore, whichcomesinto themind is the vocation and election ofGod . You askhowthevocationofGod is to be recognized. Ianswerthatitis difficultto say and that this is a matterrequiringlonger treatment thanispossible here,forno art is more difficultthan thatrequiredin judging the genuinenessofvocations But onewordofadvice:you should pay attentiontowhether any great good for the benefitofall can comefromwhatyoudo, for itmust beconsideredthattheSpirit of God does nothing in vain. When it does happen, a man feels himselfcarriedaway witha great sweetness , peace andtranquillity ofheartand amotionofthe spirit, which noone knowsunless hehas experienced it. Ifa man feels thesethings in himself, lethimfollow thiscallingand the sweetdirectionoftheSpirit.

[4] Fourthly, I prove the last statement by saying that a man is bound to put the public good before his own private good and especially the publicspiritualgood before his own private corporal welfare. Secondly, I saythat a man is bound in any case to uphold thefaithin thepresence ofa tyrant, and thatit is forthatpurpose that the sacrament of confirmationis chiefly given; it is especially true, therefore, in this case where the salvation andfaith ofmanyis putin danger . This is mainlytheduty ofthe bishop andthepriest, who aremade pastors ofthe flockaccording toChrist'swords: 'The goodshepherd gives his heartfor his sheep, when theyare missing or hiding.'2 But anyone who notices this danger is bound to take action, in the same way that a private person who sees enemies threateningtobetraythe commonwealth withno oneelsetoprotect itis bound, bywhatever method he can, evenwithdangertohisown life, toprotectthe commonwealth Moreover,withreference tothis

ELIZABETHAN CASUISTRY

case God's injunction to take care of one's neighbour must be remembered.3

Solution ofAllen and Persons. He is not bound to do sowhenhe thinksthatbyspeaking outhecando no good, unless there isfearof causing scandal by being quiet. For example, if there are some people present whoknowthat he is a Catholic, a learned man ora priest, then it seems that he is bound to speak out, and atleast he wouldbe well advisedtoextricatehimselffrom thecompany.

1. [D. 1 John4, 1.]

2. D.Matt 18 , 12-13 etc.]

3. D.Mark 12, 33.]

Case 6. L24-26. When a Catholicis in the companyofhereticson a journey or elsewhere and he cannot leave their companywithout danger ofgivinghimselfaway to them, what should he doifthey suddenly begin, as theysometimesdo, to singpsalmsorlitanies and to recite other heretical prayers on bended knee, and theyexpect everyone to kneel down as well, and he wouldimmediately reveal himself to be a Catholic if he did not also do so? Similarly, if the heretics want to take the Catholicwith them to one of their churches , or to hear a sermon andhe cannot separatehimselffrom them without danger, whatshould hedo?

Resolution . Twodifficultiesare contained in this sixth case [1]The first iswhethera Catholic, whiletravellingwith heretics, may kneel downwhenthey are kneelingand recitingtheir litanies orpsalms, because ifhe does not kneel down he will declare himselfto bea Catholic and put his life in danger [2] The otherdifficulty is this: if his hereticcompanions wantto go into a heretic church orwantto listen to a sermon in a church andthey invitethe Catholictodosoas well, mayhelawfully go intothe heretic church andhearasermonif hecannot honestly make any excuse to them fornotgoingwithout showing himselfto be a Catholic.

[1] To the first dificultythe matter of hearing those prayers, litaniesand psalms, and kneeling down when theyare said -Ireply inthesamewayas I replied to the first and seconddifficultiesofthe fourthcase above. Butnote carefullywhatI said in thecourseofthe discussionthere: that ifthere is nothing in thoseprayerscontraryto faith, then itislawful to saythe responses to the prayers andsing withthe heretics . But if the prayers docontain actual heresy, then, althoughitislawfulto bepresent and kneel down, itis now lawfulto make the responses, norto singwiththe heretics Butitseems tome that itwould be difficult tofind prayers and psalmsusedbyheretics whicharefreefrom heresy,sincethe corruptionofHolyScripture is

thechiefconcern ofheresy. The reasonthatitis notlawfulin such a case to recite such prayers with heretics is that there is manifest heresy contained inthem Consequently, they cannot be recited, in thefirstplace becauseofthe many excommunications threatened in the Index and the Bull In Coena Domini against those who read heretic books, and secondly because by publicly reading them a man professes heresypublicly and declareshimself to be a heretic.

[2] To the next difficulty I say [a] firstly that cases ofthis sort often happen and disturbthe consciences of Catholics very much, especially the consciencesof noblemen and gentlemen who cannot reveal themselves to beCatholics without great dangertotheirlives and without riskingthe utter ruinoftheir families. It would, therefore, be agood idea to consult the ApostolicSee on this matterand to askfor a licence enabling people to go into heretic churchesand be present at their sermons, not onlywhen they are travellinginto England, but also while they are travelling within England itself when they are staying in the country, at least when they are importunately invited to do so by heretics and if they refused they would showthemselves to beCatholics, as in this case . This request mightperhaps seem atfirstglancenot to bejustandhonest , because it would seem that by such a concession the Pope would show approval of behaviourof this sort in Catholics and would enable them to live in a heretic way, for Catholics are principally distinguished from heretics bythe twothings which the licencewould allow. But if the matter is considered a little more carefullyand maturely by His Holiness I think that he would acknowledge that there is no more honest or just petition, and I think he wouldbe persuaded to grant sucha licence The honesty ofmaking a petition for sucha licence canbe seen from the followingfour arguments.

[i] Firstly, this is no simple unconditionalrequest that everyone maybe allowed to go voluntarilyto heretic churchesand sermons, for that would inevitably be in some way evil. This is simply a request that when, as a result of the importunaterequests of his companions, a man cannot avoid going to churchwithoutendangering his life or his family, he may lawfully go ThePope mayatthe sametimeburden the consciencesofCatholics whoare not in sucha predicamentwith the obligationof takinggreat care not togo to hereticchurches except in such cases ofnecessity.

[ii] Secondly, we are bound to avoid heretic churches and sermons by human law; therefore, His Holiness can , for a good reason , granta dispensation Butwhatreasonis better than the fact that a man's life is in danger and his family risks calamity? This is especiallythe case in a kingdom like England where itisimportant to keep noble and rich families in their formerpositions ofhonour and dignity, sothat, afterthe death ofthe Queen, theycanstand up for the faith with their full authority and protect it with their strengthand power againsttheaudacity ofheretics Moreover,itis

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

incredible how bad it is for the Catholic religion when a noble is discovered to be a Catholicand is punished, foroften as a resultof his ruin some heretic is advanced and nearly all the Catholic's dignitiesandtitlesofhonourpass to heretics, to the greatdetriment oftheChurch .

[iii]Itmight be objected that such a concessionis againstdivine law, by whicha man is bound to abstainfromthe company ofthose bywhom he can be perverted , or who he sees may directlycause him to commit mortal sin It seems, moreover, to be clear that a hereticsermon willbe very pernicious to aCatholic.

[iv]Ireplyfirstly that this onlyproves thatthose who havefound outthattheywill be harmed bygoing to heretic churchesarebound by thelaw ofnatureto avoid doing so, but there will notbemany people ofthis sort Byand large, thosewho arephysicallypresent in these churcheswill not pay attentiontowhat is said, oriftheydopay attention theywill oftenbe more strongly confirmed in the faith by hearingthe nonsense of heretics Secondly, familiar conversation and normal social intercourse hurt more than publicsermons , but familiar social intercourse with heretics has been made lawful, soit is much more reasonable to make listening to a sermon lawful. Through the benignity of the Apostolic See, therefore , this concessionmaybegranted Thirdly, Elisha allowed Naamanthe Syrian to go into the temple; therefore these Catholics may be given permission todo so Fourthly, manydo go to heretic churchesin suchacase witha bad consciencebecausethey do notdare toreveal themselves to be Catholics and are alienated from the Churchand thinkher too strict, and as a result, having begun in this way, they graduallyslipinto heresy.

[b]Secondly, Isaythat a Catholicwhosometimesgoes toheretic churches oris evenpresent attheir sermons, but onlyincaseswhen itis absolutelynecessarytodoso to avoid riskto his lifeortheruin of his family, does not sin mortally, ifhe does it in certain circumstances, whetherhe has obtained a licence fromtheApostolicSee or not. For I think that when it is absolutely necessary, a man is justifiedbythe law ofnature in the followingcircumstances Firstly, if he does not do it frequently, but only rarely and when it is absolutely necessary, as I have said before The second circumstancesis that, before he goes there, he prepares his mindforthe temptationby commending himselfto Godwith prayers and other piousworksandbyasking GodearnestlythatHemaynotallowhim to bepervertedby the inane and stupid sermon while he is there; and that hegoesto the sermon infearandtremblingas onegoingto fight a duel with the Devil. Thirdly, that as longas he is present at the sermon , ifhe is an uneducated person, he avoids, as faras he can, paying any attention to it, and he mourns when he hears blasphemies against God, the saintsetc. Fourthly, that, ifhe hears anythingwhichhe feels is upsetting hisfaith, or, ifhefeelsthatany

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

difficulty in matters offaith has been implanted in him as a result of whathe has heard, or, ifhismind is turned in anysmallwayfromthe Church, then he should go immediately to a priestor other learned Catholic sothat by talkingto him hemay be confirmed in thefaith. Ifhe doesthese things, hedoes not, without a doubt, actcontraryto the law of nature, at leastin most cases, and therefore he does not sin mortally. But, you say by way of objection that a man shows himself to be a heretic by going to their churches . I replyin the negative, for a Catholic can go to their churches and sermons in ordertoridiculewhattheysayanddo.

Solution ofAllen and Persons All these things are lawful sometimes. Perhaps they can be done without great sin although the contrarywasalways the practice ofthe Church, andCatholics were never allowed tojoinheretics intheirpublicorprivate prayers.Nor is it allowed in England at the moment, for it is a means ofdistinguishing Catholics from heretics

1. [D.IV Kings5.]

Case 7. L26v Cf. D-R. J5 . If while a priest is travellinghe is interrogatedabout the placesfrom which he has comeorabouthis religion whether he is a Catholic or not- may he avoid the questionbytrickery, usingan ambiguousreplyofsome sort,orishe bound to tell thetruth?

Resolution . Inthe seventh case there is no difficulty, for noone is boundtoconfesshis faithto someonewho questionshim ifitmeans endangering his life, but is only bound not to deny his faith . He should remember the text: 'Whoever will confess me before men etc." Provided , therefore, that he does not deny hisfaith anddoes not lie, it is lawful for himto do anything he can - usingequivocation, silence, returning the question, or any method he likes -to avoidmakinga reply, as long as he neitherdenieshisfaith norlies , as I have havesaid.

Solution ofAllenand Persons . Hemay delude.

1. [D. Matt 10, 32.]

CHAPTER II PART I. MATTERS WHICH CONCERN CONFESSORS AND PRIESTS

Case 1. L26v28v Cf. D-R. B5. Ifa priest who is a longdistance from a confessor falls into mortal sin what should he do when he cannot avoid saying mass withoutgivingscandal? Resolution. In the first case there is only one difficulty: whethera priest, being in mortal sin and having no confessoravailable, can , without having confessedbeforehand, celebratemass whenscandal would follow if he did not do so The difficulty arises becausethe holyCouncilofTrentdeclaredthatthe commandofStPaul,'Butlet a man examine himselfetc.' , was to be understood to refer tothe examination which is done throughthe sacrament ofconfession. ' Moderntheologians haveconcluded fromthis that it is also declared and determinedthere that by divine law confessionmustbe made beforecommunion, and that it is nottherefore permissible to communicateor tosay mass without having first confessed . Ireplythat in suchacase it is permissible for a priest to celebrate mass ifhe has previouslymade a renunciation of sin and is trulycontriteorthinks he is contrite, even ifhe has not confessedhis sins to a priest.Note that I have said two things: [1] the first, that previous contrition is necessary; [2] the second, that in such a case confession is not necessary.

[1]

This is proved First because some sort of examinationis plainly necessary according to the Apostle: 'For he that eats unworthily, eatsdamnationtohimself' Butbythe sameauthoritythe examination needed is not confession (as will be shown in our second section), therefore it must be contrition. This is confirmed: the Apostle certainlydemands some examination , and this surely must be an examinationwhich is in our power; therefore , ifthis examinationis not confession (because that is not in our power to have since it requires a priestwhichwe cannot alwayshave wheneverwe wantone) then surely it must be contrition, whichisinour power. Note that I do not mean by'in ourpower' somethingwhich wecan dothroughour own unaided human efforts, forevencontrition is a giftofGod and it cannot be acquired by ourownunaided human efforts But I mean by 'in our power' what we can do by ourselves without the helpof another man. Thus, according to this definition, confession is not in our power, becausewe cannot per- form it without the helpof a priest; but contrition is in our power becausewedonotnecessarilyrequire the helpofanyonetoperform it, although , as Iadmit, itis agift ofGod, which hegives withoutfail asa most generous fatherto all those who want itand toallwhodo whattheycan to deserveit. You say: what if a man cannot achieve contrition and does not think himselfto be contrite, but is knownto be merely attrite and

scandal would follow if he did not celebrate mass? Is attrition enough, and mayhe lawfully celebrate? I reply: by no means As long as he knows or thinks he is attrite, he sins mortallyby celebrating massorby going otherwise to communion . Thereasonfor this is that no one in a state ofmortalsin, whoknows in conscience that he is in mortal sin, should partake in any of the sacraments unless they are the sacraments ordained to take away mortal sin , which are, of course, baptism and penance (which are, of themselves, first and foremost ordained for the remission of sin). In addition the attrite person has not 'examined' himselfyet, for he is still ina stateofmortal sin just as hewas before.You saythat itisthe same with contrition, and that he cannot achievecontrition.Ireply that it is not necessary that he should actually be contrite, but merelythat he should think he is . It is sufficient to have asmuch grief as one thinks, and is convinced in conscience, iscontrition,for a man cannot know for certain whether he is contriteornot . You saythatgreaterthan the evil ofsaying mass when onlyattriteisthe scandal that willfollow if one does not say mass . I replythat evil mustnot be done in orderthat good may come ofit, and so , much less, are lesserevils to be done so that greater evilsmaybeavoided. You saythat onemust choosethe lesser oftwo evils. Ireplyfirstthat this rule canbefollowedwhen one must do one eviloranother, but that in this case both evils may be avoided if a man is contrite. Second, it is not easyto say that scandal is a worse evilthanthe irreverenceto a sacrament shown when someone in mortal sin communicates. Third, evenifit is a lesserevil, andeventhough one shouldavoid the greater evil by celebrating, it is still mortalsin to celebrate mass

[2] Secondly, I prove my second statement, that in sucha case confession is not absolutely necessary, even if it is enjoinedby divinelaw.Firstly, because two divinepreceptsareinconflictinthis case: the first is that requiring confession before communion;the secondthatwhichtells us to avoid scandal. Ofthesetwo,theformer is less important andthe lattermore serious.The firstprecept canbe sufficiently observed, when necessary, if a man is contrite, for contrition is in someways equivalent to confession , but the second preceptcannot be satisfiedin anyway, for scandalwillinevitablybe given The firstprecept must, therefore , giveway to thesecond .My second proof is that a man who is on the pointof death and has no confessor , or is not able to speakas a result of an illness, may take the Eucharistwithout having confessed It can, therefore , alsobe done inthiscase, forit is not a lesser evilto give the people scandal thantodiewithout having received the sacramentoftheEucharist. Thirdly, everyone agrees that a priestwho has begun mass without beingconsciousof any mortalsinandwho remembersinthemiddle ofmass some mortal sin whichhe has not confessed can finishthe masswithout scruple if he is contrite, and is not bound to confess ,

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

even ifthereis aconfessorpresent.The onlyreasononecangivefor this is thatscandalmust be avoided, but the same reasonapplies in ourcase - hence, ourpriestshould be ableto celebrate mass .Nor is ittruethat, inour present example, the priest has begun the mass , and hence this case onlyproves that a man who has begun the mass should finishit lest he leaves the sacrificeimperfect , forin that case he could first goto a confessor , confess, and then finishthe mass , especially if there were a confessor available. No: all theologians agreethat even ifthere were a confessoravailable, thispriestwould notbe bound to confesslest he should scandalize the people. The need toavoid scandal, therefore , canexcusea priest from making a confession before mass. Lastly, a man sufficiently'examines' himselfbycontrition when itis impossible for him to confess;therefore contrition is sufficient

To the decrees of the Councilof Trent, therefore , I replythat confession must be made when confession is possible. You sayby way ofobjection that it will, therefore , be lawfulfor a man to go to communion and communicate as often as he wants without previously having confessed if there is no confessor available .I reply that when I am not bound by any law to communicate, but only want to communicate outofdevotion, then itis amortalsinto doso without a previous confession, because it is not lawfulto act against the divine law whichcommands usto confess beforecommunion. WhenIam actually bound byhuman law tocommunicate , as perhaps one is bound to take communion once ayearatEaster , then by virtue of human law alone I cannot communicate without having previouslymade a confession, but if there is no confessor available , I must omit communion I have said, however, that itis 'perhaps' enjoinedby human law to communicate once a year at Easter, because many theologians think that it is evenenjoinedby divine law to communicate once a year. Iwould not, therefore, suggest that a man was guilty of mortal sin if he did not have a confessor available for awholeyear and if, atthe end oftheyear, in order to obey this requirement , he communicated without having confessed. But neitherwouldI advise him to communicate in such circumstances, nor urge himto do so, butIwould allow everyone to interpret thematter as he thought best When I am actuallybound to communicate by divine law, as on the pointof death orto avoid the danger ofgivingscandal, then without any doubt it is lawfulto communicate without having confessed, for in this case one divine lawyieldsto anotherthe lesserto thegreater. Solution ofAllen and Persons Itis lawfulforCatholics tocelebrate mass, or communicate, iftheyare contrite and iftheycannot omit doing so without giving scandal, or if they are bound by law to celebrate or communicate . Otherwise , it is not lawful unless confession has previouslybeen made. 1. [D. 1 Cor 11 , 28-9 & N. Sess xiii, cap. vii]

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

Case2. L28v30 Cf. D-R. A1; B3; B4 May a priestcelebrate mass at present in England on an unconsecrated altar, orwithout relics, or withoutholyvestments?

Resolution . In this second case three difficulties are setforth. [1] The first is whetherit is lawfulto celebrate mass inEngland on an unconsecrated altar [2] The second is whether it is lawfulto celebrate mass without relics, that is, if there are no relics kept in the altar. [3]Thethird is whetherit is lawfulto celebrate mass without holy vestments

First ofall, I will lay down this rule on all three points: thatthey are allenjoinedbyhuman law .Forit is nottobebelieved thatatthe beginning, in the days ofthe primitive church, altars were consecrated, or that theywere consecratedexactly according tomodern rites, orthat there were relics in the altars.Mysecondgeneralpoint isthatthismatter is worthy to be proposed to the Pope and some remedy sought from him, for His Holiness can provide for this difficulty in many ways Firstly, he could grant a licenceforpriests to celebrate mass without a consecratedaltar etc., at leastin casesof necessity Secondly, he could give to mere priestseithertoallof themortosome ofthem in Englandthe power to consecratealtars and to blessvestmentsetc. There is no doubt that thisfacultycanbe granted to priests, forthefacultyof blessingcorporals was granted to abbots and to certain other religious superiors; GregoryIX, unless I am mistaken, granted the facultyof conferring the sacrament of confirmation to priests in England; and the faculty of conferring the order of subdeacon was granted to certain abbots Thirdly, His Holiness can solve the problem byconsecrating some priests in Englandtitular bishops, giving them as their titles some English diocese or other dioceses in partibus. I now come to the individual points.

[1]To the first individualdifficultyIreplythatifIamaskedwhat shouldbe done in the future, I cannot praise anyone whomightin the future celebrate mass on an unconsecratedaltar , especially ifit were not done out of necessity, but my advice is that the matter should be putbefore the Holy See andthe Pope'sdecisionshouldbe followed If, however, it is a question ofwhat has been done in the past, I would not dare to condemn priests of mortal sin if, after trying as hard astheycould tofindconsecratedaltars and notbeing abletodo so, theyhad celebrated mass in a case of necessityonan unconsecrated altar: for example, if they had celebrated mass in order to give the Eucharist at Easter, when the people must communicate;orto prepare a viaticumfor someonewhowasaboutto go out of this world. As concerns those who have celebrated mass outofdevotion, without any necessityto do so, although itis a little more difficult to give an answer, Iwouldnot evendareto condemn them ofmortal sin, if they did it in good faith, thinkingthatitwas allowed. Myreason is that, although the lawofthe Churchistobe

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

obeyed where serious necessitydoes notforce us to dothecontrary, thespiritual distressand suffering ofthe priests in England must be considered They live amid so many difficulties and dangers and amid so muchdesolation and have hardlyanyhuman consolation , and as a resulttheir devotionto the celebration of the mass is in some ways a sort ofnecessityforthem, for it prevents their spirits being entirelyoverwhelmed , as theywould be iftheyweredeprived oftheuse oftheholy sacrifice . Forthe future, Iwouldadvisethem to abstain from it, except in casesofnecessity.

[2]To the second difficulty I reply that many canonistsholdthat relics are notabsolutely necessaryforthe consecration ofaltars,and that it is even possible to consecrate altars without any relics ' Astensis² is ofthe opinion that this is true of a portable altar, but thereisnoreasonwhyitshould be true ofa portable altarand notof a fixed one . This judgement is supported by a canon, and by an annotationon the text of the missal whichmaintains that in the prayer which is said at the beginning of the mass, 'Oramus te , Domine, permeritaSanctorum etc.,' the words, 'quorum reliquiae hic sunt' should be omitted when there are no relics in the altar. Therecanthereforebe altarswithoutrelics, becausetheannotation mentioned suggests that relics cannot always be had and cannot always be put in altars (as theywould be iftheywere available) In England, moreover , relics cannot be put in altars becauseatthe momentthere is a lack of them, eitherbecausethere are none or because they cannot be dug out of the graves of saints without danger to life. I think, therefore, that altars can be consecrated without relics and that it is not necessaryto put any particles of the Sacrament of the Eucharist in the altar instead of relics. Panormitanus says that a part of the corporal and part of the consecrated host might be placed in the altar instead ofrelics ."But Hostiensis reports that he consulted Pope Innocenton thismatter and the Pope replied that in his opinion it was not lawful For further proof: firstly, things should be used for the purposes for which theywere intended, but the Eucharist was intended tofeed and refresh the faithful and not for the consecration of altars. Secondly , the species that are in the particles which are put in the altar will, with the passage of time, rot away and so the bodyof Christ will cease to be there Since, therefore, it is not perpetually conserved there, as the relics of saints are, there is no needtoput it in thealtar.

[3] To the third difficulty I replythat to celebrate mass without vestments which have been blessed is not in itself a mortal sin , becausethe blessing ofvestments is not so importantas theconsecration of altars It will not in any way be a mortal sin therefore, becauseofthe lack ofbishopsthere. Moreover, itshouldbe noticed that I say 'without blessed vestments' and not simply without priestlyvestments, for Ithink thatto celebrate mass withoutpriestly

vestments would be a mortal sin One could not easily excuseit because it is hardly very difficult to obtain suchclothes. Provided therefore that the priest is wearing sacerdotal vestmentsthat is, the alb, amice, stole, maniple and chasubleeven iftheyare not blessed , then Ithink thathe does not sin in England wherethereare suchgreat problems.

Solution of Allen and Persons Firstly, it is not at all lawful to celebrate mass without a consecrated altar , or at least without a portablealtar. Secondly, one candefinitelycelebrate mass without relics, and so there is no need, ifthere should beany doubt whether thereare relics inanaltar, to enquire curiously ifthere areorarenot any there, becausethat part ofthe prayer'quorum reliquiae hic sunt' - may be omitted Thirdly, mass must not be celebrated without all the vestments It is perhaps permissible to celebrate mass without vestmentsthathavebeen consecrated,butIwould not advise it except in cases ofnecessity.

1. B. HugguccioofPisain deConsecr D. i, c 15. & AA Lib 3 , deconsecratioeccl velaltaris, §3.

2. X. Lib 6, $39

3. B. de Consecr D. i, c 30

4. T. S. v altare §3

5. B. Panormitanus in iii 40.4

6. AA. As 1

Case3. L30-30v. Cf. D-R. B6. Is itlawfultocelebrate masswhen thereis no assistantavailable to servethemass? [Resolution ] In this third case onlyone difficulty is touched upon: whetheritis lawfulfora priestto celebratemass withoutanassistant when there is none available. I replythat this can happen in two ways First, when there are people there who wantto hearmass but do not know how to act as assistants ; second, when a priest celebrates mass alone andthere is no oneto hearmass and,aboveall,no one to act as an assistant. Inthe first case I say thatwithouta doubt a priest may celebrate mass, for the function of an assistant is to respond to the priest in the place of the people, to show that the whole people is celebrating and communicating and mentally following the priestas he celebrates Itwouldtherefore be sufficient if there were someone in the congregation who could sometimes respond 'Amen' or something of the sort The second case ismore difficult becausethe sacrifice ofthe mass is a sacrificeofunion and therefore it seems to require the presence of the people or of someone intheplace ofthe people I replythatit is onlyaccording to the custom ofthe Church that we are bound to haveanassistant, and so , out of necessity, I think that a priestcan be excusedifhe

ELIZABETHAN CASUISTRY

celebrates mass without an assistant But if it were not a case of necessity Iwould not dare to do this without at least the consent of the Holy See . It follows from this that when a priest is atwork during a plague and has no one to give him the lastrites and noone toact as an assistant, hemay celebrate withoutanassistantandtake communion, for his difficulties and the danger to his lifeprovide him with an excuse .

Solution ofAllen and Persons First, everyone should normallysee that he hasan assistant Second, ifthere were no assistantandifthe people present did not knowhowto respond, I think that a priest couldcelebrate mass, at least if some people said 'Amen' , because the assistant takes the place of the people Third, if there wereno one present, a priest should not celebrate mass at all, except in a case ofthegravest necessity, for then Ithink that itwouldbelawful; for example, ifa priestwere alone in prison atEaster orindangerof death.

Case 4. L30v31v Cf. D-R B8 May a priest admitpeopleto hearmass iftheyare notyetreconciled tothe Church;mayhe admit those whoare Catholics butstill continue to attend thesermonsand other offices ofthe heretics out offear; or must the priest abstain from the celebrationof mass when sucha personispresent?

Resolution. In this fourth case two doubts are touched upon [1] First, whethera priest may celebrate mass in the presenceofthose who are not yet reconciled to the Church, and who previously behaved like heretics [2] Second, whetherhe may also celebrate mass inthepresence of thosewhoareCatholics butstillcontinue to be present atthesermonsand otheroffices ofthe heretics .

[2] In the latter case there is no difficulty since thesepeopleare not heretics, are not excommunicated and do not behave as ifthey were heretics, but sometimes go to heretic churchesout offearof death.

[1]The main difficulty is in the first caseanditis, indeed, aserious difficulty and one on whichcanonists seriously disagree. The controversy takes its origin from a constitution of the Councils of Constance and Basel which is variously interpreted by different commentators ' This constitution , according to all reports, gives everyone thepowerto communicate orparticipate with all heretics not only in civil affairs but also in the administrationor reception of the sacraments, and in certain other divine offices, with the exception of two cases The first case is when the sentence of excommunication is published or denounced individuallyand expressly, that is when a manis individuallydeclaredexcommunicate; and all writers agree on this Second, those who have murdered clergymen are also excepted. In the second case there is much

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

disagreement among canonists: Antoninus² only includes in this classa man whois so notoriouslyknown to havelaid violenthands on a clergyman that it cannot be concealed by any tergiversation, not excused by the intercession of any man; his only exception, therefore, is someone who is publicly known to have murdered a clergyman . On the other hand, otherwriters put into this second category all those who are publicly excommunicated, and not simplysomeone who is publiclyknown to have murdered a clergyman. They also say that anyone who commits a sin to which excommunication 'latae sententiae' is annexedlike a public simoniac, a publicharlotetc.is automatically tobeavoided.³ We can now see the difficulty of this question: for if we follow the account given by Antoninus we are not bound to avoid heretics , whethertheyare reconciled to the Church or not, sincethey are not individually declared excommunicate But ifwe followtheaccount ofPanormitanus , wearebound to avoid anypeoplewho wereatany time public heretics and who consequently are publicexcommunicates Covarruvias tries to reconcile this disagreement,pointingout that Antoninus says that his account is based on a decisionmadeat Constance, while the others say that theirs is based onthedecision takenat Basel.He goes on to say thatsince the CouncilofBaselwas held after Constance, its decision must be accepted because it corrected the constitutionofthe CouncilofConstance. ButIthink thatCovarruvias says all this in vain, for Antoninushimselfsays in the same place that the constitutionwhich he says was made at Constance wasapproved at Basel, and many ofthosewhointerpret the constitutionin a different way say it datesnot onlyfrom Basel but alsofrom Constance.Moreover, no ancient doctor says thatany changewas made to it, but all reportthatit was made atConstance and approved at Basel. I conclude, therefore, that Antoninus's report of the matteris to be believed Hence, we are not bound to avoid an excommunicate except in two cases: first, when a man is specifically declared excommunicate ; second, when he is publicly knownto have murdered a clergyman.

Iprovethis: first, this seems to be the universal practice.Second, it is in conformity with the aim ofthe constitutionitself, because the consciences of all Catholics in England , Flanders, Germany, Poland and Francewouldcertainly beunquiet ifthey werebound to avoid all public heretics Third, because this interpretation is clearer and has to support it grave, ancient, and holy authors especially StAntoninus, who says in the placecited thathetookhis account of the constitutionfrom Julian, Cardinal of St Angelus, whowas a legate at the saidCouncil -

It follows, therefore, that a priest may celebrate mass in the presence ofthose whoare notyet reconciled to the Church without anyscruple. Itwouldbe good if they could bepersuadedbyadvice , encouragement and prayerto abstain from going to mass untilthey

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

were reconciled , out of reverence for such a holy sacrifice, butif theydonotwantto do so , we are not bound to stopthem. Solution of Allen and Persons It is lawful, according to the circumstances ofindividualcases, and the priest isto act prudently andmakeuphis own mindon each case . For, ifitisthoughtthatby prohibition a man will conceive a greater desireto bereconciled , he should be prohibited, but if the contrary is the case he may be admitted, at leastfor a few days.

1. [J. D. Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, vol 29 (Venice, 1788), 103, vol 32 (Paris, 1902), 958-9; R. Naz, Dictionnairede droitcanonique ,I (Paris, 1935), 250-2 .]

2. V. 3a, tit xxv, c ultimo.

3. W. S. v Clericus, 3 & B. Panormitanus in Clem, v 10. 2. & Z. Almamater, pars 1a, §2, n 7. & B. Felinus Sandeus[?] ini 3. 35

Case 5. L31v32 Cf. D-R B9 May a tin chalice be used for sayingmassinEngland at the moment?

Resolution Inthefifth case there is no difficulty at allforwehave the express decision of a canon,' where it is laid down thatthe chalice ofthe Lord andthe paten should bemadeofgold,or, ifthat is not possible, of silver. In cases ofgreat poverty, a chaliceshould atleastbemade oftin. But chalicesshould not be madeofbronze or brass becausethey react with the wine to form a mouldwhichcan cause vomiting No one has dared to sing mass with a wooden or glass chalice . Lo, there you have every material ofwhicha chalice mayormaynotbe made, anditmaybe madefromtin, especially in England where the most perfect tin is to befound. Solution ofAllenand Persons Itmay.

1. B. deConsecr D. 1 , c 45

Case 6. L32. Cf. D-R . A5 Whatshould apriest dowith thewater and vessel with which children have been baptized, or withthe chrismal clothafterthe purificationofwomen?

Resolution. In this case there is no difficulty. For the sake of decency thesethings should notbe coverted to prophane uses.The water can be thrown away in a place where it cannot easily be trodden underfoot. The vessel can be kept to be used for future baptisms, or can be adapted to some other uses inthe church;itis

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

the custom in some places to give it back to its owner after ithas been washed.

SolutionofAllenand Persons Exactlyas has beensaidabove .

Case 7. L32, J249v Cf. D-R B1

What should a priest do with chasubles, dalmatics andotherconsecratedchurch vestmentswhich have been converted to prophane uses?

Resolution . There is no difficulty in this case, for all these vestments can beput again to their former uses becauseIdo notthink they have losttheir blessingunlesstheir shape has beencompletely changed.Iftheyhave lost their shape [forexample, ifacushionhas been made from a chasuble-J.], the same orothervestmentscan be made from theclothand then blessed again.

Solution ofAllen and Persons The same as has been saidabove.

Case 8. L32-32v, J249v-50 in part

Cf. D-R. A1. May a priest perform baptism, extreme unction, matrimony, the purificationof women, the blessing of water and so on, without sacerdotal vestments ,whensuchvestmentscannot conveniently behad?

Resolution. A priest can perform baptism without any of the priestly vestments, because he may do it as an ordinary person rather than with the solemnity ofa priest Manypriests blesswater while wearingonly a stole on their shoulders and it can therefore clearlybe done in this way in England. I think that it is notmortal sin for a priest to perform the blessing of matrimony and the purificationofwomen withoutall the vestments, butI would advise him to put at least a stoie on his shoulders The giving ofextreme unction, both by common custom and out of devotion and reverence for the sacrament, requires one to wear a surplice or a tunic and a stole .Ifit is administered in secret and, due to probableor manifestdanger of death or of some graver evil than not wearing vestments , thepriestcannot wear thesevestments, itis lawfultodo without them But it is verydifficultto conceiveofsuchacase ,forif thepriestis able to administer thesesacraments, whatprevents him from taking a stole in a bag with himand puttingiton hisshoulders when he isabouttogivethe sacrament?

Solution ofAllen and Persons. Ifthesevestmentscannot be hadat all, everything of this sort can be done without vestments, but our advice is that the stole should be used.

ELIZABETHAN CASUISTRY

Case 9. L32v -33v, J250 in part

Cf. D-R B2. Mayschismatic priests, immediately after their reconciliation to the Church , be allowed to come to the altar and celebrate mass?

Resolution The soundadvice ofmany theologians is thata sinneris notto be admittedto communion immediately after confessionifhe has committed mortal sin, but that he should exercise himself instead in pious works for a short time- say two or three days-out of reverence for the sacrament It follows therefore that a schismaticorexcommunicated heretic priest shouldbe advisedindeed, he should usually be commanded-to abstainfromcelebrating mass for a few days, out of reverence, so that he can better realize his unworthiness to celebrate such a sacrifice. Two things should be considered. First, the nature ofhiscrimes:whether hefellintoerror out ofmaliceand perversityof mind, or outofsimplicityand fear; whetherheexerted himselfagainstthe Church and Catholics after leavingthe Church; whether he conducted himselfscandalously, or lived quietly minding his own business; whether he did, or was beginningto do, anygreat servicesforthe heretics, orwhether , on the contrary, he favoured the Catholics in some way. For anyone who acted in a scandalous way or caused rumours to circulate should not be admittedfor many days, until many Catholics had made certain ofthe genuinenessof his conversion andhe had made satisfaction, his confession had been completed, and hispenitence had been proved Indeed, a case might occur where a man should not be admittedfor manyyears Secondly, the natureofhis conversion and penitence must be considered: with what ardour of mind, piety, devotion, alacrity, penitence andhatred ofhispast life it is made, and withwhatzeal he compensatesthe Church forthe harm done to it and to its head. The more of these qualitieshe displays, the more easily he may be admitted . Itmust, however , be noticed that no one can admit heretic priests to the exercise of ordersexceptthe Pope alone and others appointed byhis express and special licence, because a heretic priest is irregularaccordingto the general opinion oftheologians,' who rely on a canontojustify this view . Only the Pope can dispensewith thatirregularity, as the authors cited above and others show. Thus, although a priest in England may have the facultyof absolving heretics from the crime ofheresyand itspenalties andofreconciling them to theholymother Church, this does not mean that he can give anyone who has been reconciled permission to celebrate mass The person absolved, moreover, should not think himselffree to celebrate: he must obtain a dispensation from the irregularity contracted through heresy, andthis dispensation canbeobtained fromthePopehimself orfrom someone to whom, as I havesaid, thePope has specially or expressly granted permission to dispensewith suchirregularity. If no one in Englandhasor veryfew havethis faculty, thePope should be petitionedto grant it to some others, andwefeelthatthis

wouldnotbeadifficult concessiontoobtainthrough thekindnessof theApostolic See. Solution ofAllenand Persons It is not absolutely necessary that he should abstain afterhis reconciliation , but he should be advisedto dosofor a time, outofreverence.

1. V.Pars 3, tit 28, c 6 & A. 27 , 205 & S. S. v irregularitas & T. S. v. irregularitas. 2. [A gap ofabout an inch in theMSa reference toB. is missing ]

Case 10. L33v. Cf. D-R. C1 . May a priestgrant a dispensation enablingthose who have lost the right to ask forthefulfilment of marital obligations bytheir spouses to exercisethatrightagain? Resolution. A mere priestcannot grant a dispensation concerning thefulfilment ofmarital obligations to thosewhohavelost the right to ask forthem because a relationship by marriage has arisen , or if one partner has takena vow of chastity, or for similar reasons. If this case only concerns one who has lost his rights by breaking faithwithhisspouse-bycommittingadultery, orif hehas another wife living-Isaythatin this case there is no needfor a dispensation, for a man who commits adulterydoes not lose the rightto askfor fulfilment ofmarital obligations , but does lose the powerto oblige his wife to give them. So, by her husband's adulteryawifeisfreed from fulfillinghermarital obligations. The husbandmay, however, ask for them . The same applies if the wife commits adultery If, however , both parties commitadultery, eithersecretly orwiththe otherpartyknowing, then they are equal and eachisbound tofulfil his obligationtotheother. SolutionofAllen and Persons A mere priestcannot, unlesshehas a particularfaculty.

Case 11. L33v34v . Cf.D-R. A3. Mayexorcismbeperformed on those whoare possessed by a devil ? There maybe some dangerthat the faith of bystanders will be weakened if the exorcism is not successful. Ifit can be done, whatceremoniesshould be used? Resolution. For the resolution of this case it is to be noted that the freeing of those possessed by devils depends on divinewill; exorcism does not impose on God any obligationto chasedemons away from thepossessed person when thewords andceremoniesof exorcism are offeredupto Him When Christwasalive intheflesh, and hisdiscipleswere sentto preach the gospel, after they hadfreed manyfrom the possession of devils, Christ said to them, 'Do not

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

glorythat thedemons are subject to youetc." But on oneoccasion they could not free a man, and this comment was made: 'AndI brought him toyour disciples and theycould not cure him 'When Christ had cured him, His disciples asked Him whytheycould not turnthe devilout and they received from Him this reply: 'Thissort of demon is not turned out except by fasting and prayers " The faithful, therefore, should be taught this truththatallexorcisms are only effective ifthe divinewill is pleasedto make them so , and that God does not always freelydo so, formany reasons. First, out of consideration for the spiritual salvation of the man who is possessed , ifGodperceivesthat his possession willbe good forhim and thathis deliverance would do himharm . Second,becauseofthe unfitness oftheexorcist , forwe readinthe Acts oftheApostles that whensomeone tried tofree a devil from a man who waspossessed, the devil leap into the exorcist Third, because ofthe incredulity and hostility ofthe bystanders, and for many otherreasonswhich are tobefoundin the divine mind. Because ofallthis, the scandalof thosewhoarescandalizedwhen someoneis notcuredbyexorcismis passive-it is scandal taken and not intended. We are notbound , therefore, to abstain entirely from exorcism, but it is true thatit wouldbepraiseworthyto abstain forthe timebeing fromexorcism , and in the meanwhile work hard to teach people thetruthofthe matter, especially to show them that if there havebeen one ortwo failures, there has been no lackofsuccesses Meanwhile , itcould be done in a secret place. The ceremonies and forms that shouldbe used are those which are to be found in Catholicbooks and those whichare accepted as the use oftheChurch. Solution of Allenand Persons. In thesetimes exorcism is not to be practised except very cautiously, prudentlyand rarely, becauseit does not always have effect, fornot even the Apostles themselves couldcastoutalldevils.

1. [D. Luke 10, 20.1

2. D.Matt 17 , 16-21 & Luke9, 39-43 ] 3. D. Acts 19, 13-16 ]

Case 12. L34v35 Cf. D-R. A4

Can or should the Catholic ceremonies whichought to be used in baptism be added conditionally by a priest if he knows or thinks that they might have been omittedin baptism ? Similarly, should any ceremoniesbeaddedtoa marriage ceremony contracted according tothe schismaticalrite? Resolution. Tothis case Ireplythat in casesofcertaintythe solemn ceremonies of baptism should be added, but it should be done unconditionally, because the conditionalform is notusedexceptin

cases ofdoubt As concerns ceremoniesabout which there is some doubt, itis not necessaryto add them, sincethey arenotessentialto thesacrament Butit is good sometimesto addthem, andifthey are added unconditionallyIthink that it is notmortalsinsincetheyare not essential to baptismthe priest does not commit the sin of repeating the baptism, of rebaptizing, forthese ceremoniesdonot leave an indellible mark. But out ofreverence forthe ceremonies and in order to show that we do not wish to detract from these ceremonies , it is better perhaps to add them conditionally. A marriage contracted according to the schismatical rite constitutes a good marriage contract 'for the present' and so nothinghastobe added to it inorder to validate the marriage. Ifno priestly blessing was given, it should be given, in order to impress on people the sanctity of marriage . But if a true blessing was given in a schismatical marriage ceremony, that is satisfactory, although ifit is considered that the blessing was notcorrectlygiven, afresh onecan begiven.

Solution ofAllen and Persons. The ceremonies ofbaptism must be added inthecase ofchildren when itcan bedone conveniently,butI wouldnot advisethatitbe done withthose ofa more advancedage, lestit causescandal orgive rise to the idea that the formerbaptism was not valid.Inmarriage it does not seem necessaryto add these ceremonies, but it would do no harm to add the blessing of a Catholicpriest

Case 13. L35 Cf. D-R. C4. Is it lawful for a Catholicpriestto perform a marriage ceremony when one party to it is a heretic or schismatic?

Resolution Since a CatholicChristian sins mortallyby contracting marriage with a heretic or schismatic, as all theologians and schoolmen hold, ' a priest who performs such a marriage sins mortally himselfby co-operating in the mortal sin of the parties to the marriage, even though such a marriage is valid, as thesame theologians maintainin the placescited.

SolutionofAllenand Persons Exactlythesame as above .

1. B.Gloss inC.28, Q. 1 , c 16. & G. In4, d 39

Case 14. L35. Cf. D-R A7 May a priestgive holywater, agnus dei, blessed grains and such things to Catholics who are not yet reconciled to the Church from schism?

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

Resolution . There is no difficulty here, for on the assumption that weare notboundto avoid them (ashas beenshowninthe resolution ofthe first doubtofthe fourthcase in this chapter), wecangivesuch things to them, especially if there is no danger thattheywill abuse them

Solution ofAllen and Persons. He may if there is no danger that theywill abusethem.

Case 15. L35-35v. Cf. D-R B13 May a priest in England atthe moment keep the Blessed Sacrament in his bedroom or in some other secret place, or even carry it into remote areas , when no permission has been granted to keep itinthat place?

Resolution Inthis case Isayfirstthat ifanyone keepstheEucharist athome ortakes it somewhere with himforhisown devotions heis notto bepraised, butitwouldbebetterifhewere nottodoit,outof devotionfor so holy a sacrament. Ifhe does it in orderto minister the last rites to the sick, the following points occur. First, there is no doubt that this practice was followed in the primitive church , especially in times of persecution. Second, my advice is that a licence should be requested fromthe Pope to keep itathome , since itoughttobekept in a church, and at the CouncilofTrent itwas forbiddento keep it even in oratories or in a monastery ' Third, it does not seem to me that anyone who has done this in the past or should doitinthe futuretoministerto the requirements ofthesick is to be condemned of mortal sin, provided that no irreverence results from it and there is no danger that it mayfallinto thehands oftheenemy.Forin suchacase reverenceforso holya sacramentis moreimportantthan the well-being ofthe sick,towhosesalvation it is notabsolutelynecessary: it is for thesame reasonthattheChurch withholds the Eucharist from the sick if they are in danger of vomiting.

Solution ofAllen and Persons. When itis necessarytodosotohelp other people, especially the sick, it is lawful to take theSacrament to them, but it must be done with great care.

1. [N. Sess xxv, c x.]

Case 16. L35v36. Cf. D-R. 13; 15. Is it lawful for a priest or other person who does not have permission to read prohibited books toread those passages whicha heretic mentions inthecourse of his argument?

Resolution. Ireplyto this case that onecannot readthe passages in hereticalbooks cited by heretics, becauseevenwhat is good in such books cannot be read, since a book of this sort is itself bad and heretical. A man who reads heretical books containing heresy or dealing with religion incurs excommunication bythe BullIn Coena Domini, and if he reads other heretical books or Catholic books whichcontainheresy, he incurs the excommunication ofthe Index ofProhibited Books Those whowantto read thesebooks should, therefore, ask the Pope's permission But in this particularcase , when ahereticsays something or refers to an authorand as a result makes a listener have doubts about the faith, or whengreatscandal might be given to men of weak faith unless a very learnedCatholic 'shouldrefutetheheretic word forwordorin some otherway, either immediatelyor in a few days after reading the bookinquestion , then I thinkthat it would be lawful to read sucha book and that therewould beno danger of sin or censureeven withouta licence to do so. For we are requiredto protect religion by naturaland divinelawand must obey this law , while the prohibitionofreading hereticalbooks is a human law .Iwould give thesame judgementifa heretic should publish an evil book intended for simple people to read and no learned Catholicwith a licence to read heretical books was on hand; it might be dangerous to send to Rome fora licence , and so a learned man could quitelawfullyread this bookandattack itinwriting orbywordofmouth, because, as we saidabove,divine and naturallaw requireit

Solution of Allen and Persons. This could be done, especially in England, if there were any hope ofhelpingthosepresent

Case17. L36-36v Cf.D-R. A6; B16; B17 Is it lawfulforapriest in England atpresent to usethe old missalaccording totheolduse , and the old Roman Breviary, and other such books when others cannot be had?

Resolution If there are no others, and others cannot be had without danger tolife orwithout some seriousdifficulty,priests may lawfully use old missals If possible, the passages omitted or corrected in the new ones should be changedin the old. But, ifthis cannot be done, the superstititous rubrics should be deleted; for example, those concerning the number of candles or of masses When these superstitious passages have been removed from these books, theyare not bad, although the new onesare better Solution ofAllen and Persons. Itwouldbe entirelylawfulto do so in Englandeven if there were enough of the newbooks available there. Thereasonis thatthe Roman BreviaryandMissal arenotyet in use in England and the Bull of Pius V prefixed to the Roman

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

Breviary has not been accepted there. But it is advisable to introduce the use of the Roman Breviary into England, becauseit is stricter, and in the interests ofuniformity.

Case 18. L36v Cf. D-R . E5. Is it lawfulfor a priestto reconcile heretics or schismatics to the Church and admit them to the sacraments ofpenance and communion without asking them to take an oaththat theywill notdesert thefaith?

Resolution . There are canonswhichclearlydefine what oath and agreement must be made by heretics and schismatics' The canon says that they must promise to keep firmly to the Catholicfaith in the future and to remain always in communion with the Pope. Moreover, this must be observed byeveryone. Itwould be bestto askwhatthepractice ofthe Roman Curiais now, andthatpractice can be followed without any doubt at all Ifthe Curiadoes require suchanoath,thenthe priests inEngland arebound toaskthosewho wantto bereconciled to the Churchto take it and theyshouldnot admitthem totheChurchuntil they havemade it.

Solution ofAllen and Persons . It seems to be lawfulin conscience

1. B. deConsecr D. ii, c 42 & C. 1 , Q. 7, c 9

2. S. S. v haeresis, 1 , q 19

Case 19. L36v37. Cf. D-R. B8; E6 May a priest admit to confession those who feel that theyare Catholics butwhoarenot yet firmly resolved in themselves to abstain entirelyfrom going to heretic churches and sermons, but only to abstain from taking communion with them?

Resolution The resolution of this case depends on whetherthose who have not yet decided firmlyto abstain from heretic churches and sermons are in a state of mortal sin or not It is certain that if theyare ,theycannot beabsolved They may, however,beadmitted to confession, and perhaps duringconfession, God the most merciful may change and soften their hearts so that they do decide definitelytostop going to heretic churches Butit is difficulttojudge whethertheyare in a state of mortalsin. Itmightbe said in theirdefence:first, that ifa mandoesnotoften gotothesechurches andsermons, butonlyattendsthem veryrarely and as often as is necessaryto avoid dangers to his life and other serious difficulties, and ifhe goes under the circumstancesdescribed above in reply to the last difficulty in the sixth case of the last

chapter, then he is not in a state of mortal sin Toconfirm this: I thinkthat it is most certain that many of those who go to heretic churches at present in England, not only among the Catholics but even among the heretics, are Catholic and most Catholicand they donot show themselvesto be heretics by going intothesechurches , but simplydonot reveal themselvesto be Catholics, as theyarenot bound todo, except in cases ofnecessity.

Second, I say that those who go very frequently to heretic churches, especially ifthey arealsopresent at heretic sermons, may beexcusedfrom sin onlywithdifficulty, because theybreakthelaw oftheChurchwithout urgent necessityto doso andalsoactcontrary tothelawofnature byexposing themselvesto the dangeroflosing theirfaith and by frequentingplaces which are, by their nature , sufficientand efficientcauses ofvery gravemortalsin.

Third, Isaythatit is a sensiblepiece ofadvice to sue fora licence or dispensation from the ApostolicSee enabling Catholics,atleast in cases of necessity, to go into heretic churches; a licence which wouldremove the human law which regulatesthematterandwould leave itin the fieldofnaturallaw .Myconclusion toallthathas been said isthatifaman doesthis rarelyandwhen he is forced todosoby serious difficulties, he may be absolved by a priest becauseheisnot in a state ofmortal sin as Ihaveshownalready. Solution ofAllen and Persons. He may be admitted toconfession , but notto absolution .

Case 20. L37v. Cf. D-R. 16. May a priest admit servants and underlings who have been reconciled to the Church to communion if they still accompany their masters to heretic churches and sermons , but immediatelyleave them as soon as theyarrive, orif, when they are forced to remain, they do not listen, but think of other things?

Resolution Concerning these servants, I think that if they are pious in conscience and mind, they should try, iftheycan , tofind masters whowouldnot take them to these churches, at leastnotso frequently While theylookfor suchmasterstheycan beadmitted to the sacraments If they really do not want to change masters then I would make a distinction between two sorts of servant. First, those who accompany their masters rarely and are rarely forced to stay in the church or at a sermon, and it seems probable to me that servants of this sort are not in a state of mortalsin and consequently can go to the sacraments Second, there are those whoare detained in church frequently; in this case the matterseems tome to be most doubtful. If they really could find othermasters whowouldnot force themto do this and they do notwanttochange

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

masters out of pure wilfulness, and if they are endangering their salvation while they stay at the sermons or they feel thattheir faith is disturbed by them , I believe that they are, without a doubt, in a state ofmortal sin Iftheyremain there without being insuch danger and do not usually payattentiontothe sermonsand donot feel disturbed by them, although the matter is doubtful because they are breaking the law of the Church without serious need , perhaps they are not to be condemned ofmortal sin , especially if theyhave served those mastersformany years and itwouldbevery difficult for them to leave their service, or ifthey aresobeloved by their mastersthattheyexpect a large reward fromthem .

Solution ofAllen and Persons It seems thatit is notalwaysmortal sin ifsuch servants do not give scandalbycoming tochurch , but it wouldbebetterfor them to lookforothermastersor to refuse this sortofservice entirely.

Case21. L38& L49v51 (partof2, 2, 18, misplacedbythecopyist), J250-250v in part. Cf. D-R. G2

What should apriestin England do with those who have ecclesiastical property and buildings monastic houses, forexample - andimpropriatedtithes, which they cannot at present restore except to the heretics? Moreover, since many Catholics now live in the grounds of monasteries and other derelict religious houses , in which, as most often happens, new buildingshave been erected or started, should they be warned not toproceed with thebuilding?

Resolution . In this case there are three difficulties [1] First, how should a priest in England treat those who own ecclesiastical property and houseswhichtheycannot restore, if theywanttodo so, except to heretics? [2] Second, how should priests treat those who own impropriated tithes which they cannot restore , ifthey wanttodoso, except to heretics? [3] Third, howshould priests treat those who live at present in the grounds of monasteries and other religious houses in which newbuildings have been put up or have been started? Should the priestadmonish them, or forcethem , to stopbuilding,or can he allowthem tobuild;andwhatiftheydonot wanttostop?

[1 & 2] In answer tothe difficultiesof this case , I sayfirst tothe first two difficulties, that priests should begin by persuading these penitentsto consult the Apostolic See about this matter and by instructingthem to be ready to obey its orders when theydo.They shouldconsulttheSee individually, or some priest orlayman could do it in the name of the rest, and priests who happen to come to Rome could ask the advice of the Apostolic See while they are there. Meanwhile, Ithink that if a man promises and swearsto

seek Papal advice he can be absolved Second, if a man buys this propertywithgood intentoraccepts itasa giftinordertopreserveit for the churches and monasteries and to prevent itfalling into the handsoftheheretics, andifhe is readytogive itbackwhenEngland returnsto Apostolic obedience, he will not have sinnedbybuying it or in any other way. Consequently, absolution should not be denied him if he persistsinwantingto return this church property, especially if he swearsbefore witnessesthathewillreturnit orifhe declares in a solemn written statement that it is his intentionto return itif the price he paid for it is returned him bythe Church. Third, ifhe bought the propertyor exchangeditforotherproperty ofhis, he may keep the income from it with a good conscience,at least the income equivalent to what he would have made ifhehad bought some other propertywhichwas on the marketatthetime , and he maykeep whathe madefromhisinvestment ifheboughtthe property as a business investment, because in this case the rule allowinga reasonable profit from investment applies, and a manis not obligedto keep this church propertyifitwould involve theloss ofmoney But, if he was given the propertyor tithes as a gift,orif the income from them greatlyexceeds the income hecouldmake from themoney hepaid forthem ifhe bought other propertywithit, thenthis income seems to be liableto restitution You askto whom itmust berestored Ireplythatwhen it cannot be given back tothe Churchorspent for its use, the best adviceis to distributeitamong poor Catholics , especially in that particular parish in which the property is situated, becausepart of the property belongs tothe poor and the poorofthe parish take the placeofthe parishchurch in present circumstances Indeed, many saintsare oftheopinionthat even a church's sacredvessels themselvesshould besoldto maintain the poor. This is especially the case in England these days, when poor Catholics are sorely persecuted everywhere, excluded from their ownhomes, and afflicted withmany troubles Myadviceisthat the Pope should beaskedto allow either all or part oftheirproperty tobe converted totheuseofthe poor, although somepartofitmay also be left, with his permission, in the possessionof the noble Catholics who nowholdit.

[3] To thethird difficulty I replyfirst thatifCatholics reasonably thinkthat unlessthey build on the land ofmonasteries or religious houses the heretics may be induced to build there themselves , or will suspect the Catholics of preserving the land fortheirmonasteriesand, asa result, the Catholics will be endangered, then they may with a clear consciencebuild, and complete unfinished buildings, becauseifthe derelict monastic buildings came intothehands ofthe heretics, they would be damaged, and if as a result of not building there the Catholics fell under suspicion they would be exposed to many dangers. Second, I say that Catholics should be advised not tobuild veryluxurious buildings there, because ifthey

do, the monasteries willnotbe able tobuythem back formonks to live in. Third,Isaythattheyshould above allbe advisedtobuild in the grounds of monasteries as far as possiblein suchawaythatthe housesorbuildingstheyerect can bereconverted withfewchanges, and as far as possible without going to the trouble of doingany building, into someformofmonastery Fourth, I say thattheymust keep a note of the expensesthey incur in making the building, deductingthe value of the foundations , stone, wood, partly ofthe walls, and everythingusable they take from the derelictbuildings, so that when Englandreturns to the faith and the monks reclaim their monasteries, they are only bound to repay to the Catholics who held their land as much as the Catholics spent on them; and everythingfrom the derelict monasteries whichthe Catholics use shouldbe restored freely to the monasteries whose propertyit is It would help ifCatholics who were about to build on these ruins had anestimate madeofthe value of what they take from the ruins. For example, suppose a man takes the entire foundations of a monastery, valuedat - saya thousand piecesofgold tomake his newhouse , and he spendsa further twothousand piecesofgoldon thebuilding; in this case , a third ofthe value ofthe whole building must begivenbackwhen the church ormonastery wantstobuyback its buildings . Finally, the ApostolicSee maygive somepartofthese derelict monasteries to a particular person or put it to the use of certainCatholics as necessityrequires or the positionoftheperson concerned suggests isgood. Solution ofAllen and Persons. They can keep the property and impropriated tithes if theypromise that theywill acceptwhatever decision the Church and Pope may make on the matter in the future.Thereisno needto prohibitbuildingsince theseplaceshave already been pollutedand prophaned.

CHAPTER II PART II. CASES WHICHCONCERNTHE PENITENTSTHEMSELVES

Case1. L38-38v, J250vin part Cf. D-R . E1. Does aCatholicin England sin by allowing his children tobe baptized accordingtothe hereticrite?May he allow his children to be baptized first athome with the Catholicrites andthen taken to a heretic churchtoundergo outwardlytheheretic ceremony there, in the same waythatchildren who have been baptized at home bymidwives are baptized againin church? The reasonforthedoubtis that ifthe fatherdoesneitherof thesethings heputs himselfingreat dangerofsuffering persecution. Resolution . In order to resolve this case it is necessaryto know what rites the heretics use. Theymay use two sorts of ceremony: first, the ceremony may include a statement of their errors and heresies and an attackon the Church; second, theymay not add anythingevil but merely leave out either all or some of the rites whichthechurch is accustomedtoperform. In the secondcase itis not sin to allow this, except perhaps if it gives scandal. But ifthe heretics use thefirst sort of ceremony I donot see how thefather can be excusedfrom mortalsin, for if an adultallowed himself to be baptizedwith suchceremonies hewould sin mortally;butthefather is just as guilty of sin in this case, becausethe care of his son and his son's religious education are entrusted to him Secondly, it is sin because it is to permit and co-operate in the sins of another; thirdly,becausebydoingthis a man appearstobelieve intheerrors ofthe heretics; fourthly, because the matter is, by its very nature , scandalous.

Solution ofAllen and Persons He sins in bothcases: bypermitting his childrento be baptized by heretics, forit would be better ifhe had them baptized at home or by a layman; and by allowinghis children to be taken, after a Catholic baptism, to undergo the heretic ceremonies, for if an infant is baptized by a hereticitis as valid as ifthechildwere baptized bya Catholic.

Case2. L38v39. Cf. D-R. K1. May a Catholicreceivea bishop, hereticpreachers or judges as guestswhen theycome intothearea to preach or to perform anythingelse against the faith or against Catholics ?

Resolution . Ifwe are talkingabout entertainingthe preachersetc. in a limited and precise way, then it is not in itself evil to receive themas guests, whatever evilthey come to do, becausebydoingso one doesnotco-operate in the evilthey do. Toprove thiswecan lay

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

down this rule: good may be done in manyways. For example, if Catholics donotentertain thesepeople, theymaybeentertained by heretics, whomayinduce them, with prayers andgood hospitality, to do great harm to the Church, to be exasperated withCatholics and to persecute them. Indeed, the Catholics may hope tomollify these people byentertainingthem andpersuadethemnottoattack Catholics To entertain them is not, therefore , in itself evil. But if we are talkingaboutentertainingthem in its totality and according to everycircumstance ofplace and time, in this case it canoftenbe evil Those who want to entertain them, therefore , with a clear conscience should make sure that some good results from entertaining them ; that, for example, it at least persuades the Queen not to persecute Catholics Catholics should also be careful that, in giving hospitality, they do not co-operate with these heretics in their wicked actions againstCatholics, because suchactions are in themselves evil

Solution ofAllen and Persons The best advice is that when itcan conveniently be avoided such people should not be accepted as guests, muchless invitedto be guests When, however,suchpeople cannot be rejected without dangerorwithout causinggreatharm,it does not seem to be a sin to have them as guests , especially if one does not praise or encourage their sins, and does not co-operate in anywaywith them .

Case 3. L39-40, J251-251v in part

Cf. D-R. G2. Is it lawful at present for Catholics in England to buyformer monastic property when it is put up forpublicsale, and may theysell suchpropertyif theyor their ancestorshave boughtit?

Resolution It is lawful for Catholics to buy monastic property wheneversuch a purchase would be ofbenefitto the monasteries . For example, ifthe propertyis sold at a much lower price than itis worth and a Catholicbuys it in orderto returnthe profit he makes on hisinvestmenttothe monastery Or, to take another example, if thepropertyis in dangeroffallingintothe handsofhereticswhowill destroy and devastate it, and a Catholic sellshis own best property and buys the monastic property at virtually any price in order to preserve itforthemonasteries Insucha case the purchasewouldbe lawful, because: first, the Catholic does not buy the property in order toalienate itfrom the churchesand monasteries, butinorder to preserve it for them; second, to buy the property is an act of charityand thereforegood and lawful.

Asfor selling suchproperty, I say that a Catholic can sell itontwo conditions: one is that he should declare to the purchaser, ifthe latteris unaware ofit, that the propertybelongs totheChurchand

thatitismonastic property; the otheristhathe should notincrease the priceofthe propertyexcept to recoup the costofany improvements he mayhave made. But notice that I say'that he may have made' , because if the improvements have been made out of the income ofthepropertyitself, he should notincreasetheprice atall. For example , if he boughtsome monastic propertyat a thousand goldpieces, and the income from itwere three hundred gold pieces per annum, he could keep at most one hundred gold pieces per annum himself, whichrepresents a fairreturnon capital The other two hundred gold pieces per annum should be returnedto the monastery or distributedtothe poor If, therefore , heimproves the property out of this excess profit, he may not increase the price whenhesellsit; and if he does increasethe price, he may notkeep the profitfor himself, but must put it aside for the monastery or disposeofitas thePope may decideis best Buthe certainlycansell this propertybecausehe is not bound to keep itforthemonastery if itwill harm him to do so; and if he tells the purchaser that it is monastic property, he does not deceive him If, therefore , he has the opportunity to buy other property more useful to him or if he does not want to keep the monastic property becausehe has scruplesofconscience, it is in his power tosellit.Youobjectthatthe property is not his, and therefore he cannot sell it: Ireplythatitis not his, but the money he paid for it was his; therefore , he can exchange hispropertywithanother inorderto recover his money. Solution ofAllenand Persons Inthe first case , Catholicsshould be advised nottomixthemselvesupinanywaywithmonasticproperty and nottobuyit, butif a Catholic buys some monasticpropertywith theintentionofreturningittothe monasterywhen he has recovered the money he paid for it, it does not seem that he should be condemned. In the second case, it seems that anyone may sell ecclesiastical property, providedthat he does not sellitatagreater pricethan he paidforit; and if he has recovered the money hepaid for the property or some partof it, he should sell it ataproportionallylowerprice. Itwould be better , however, to keep the property sothat he may returnit to the monastery when a favourable opportunityto do so presents itself; meanwhile , he should make large charitabledonations; and ifhehas recovered allthe money he spent ontheproperty,it does not seem thathe shouldsell it atall.

Case 4. L40-41 Cf. D-R. Appendix 2. Do Catholics sin by paying tithes and other ecclesiastical dues ofthat sort to heretics whohold benefices; may theylawfully defraud them of anything in orderto distributeitlater for the pious use ofCatholics?

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

Resolution . Inthefourth case there are twodoubts First, is it a sin to pay tithes and other ecclesiastical dues to heretics who hold benefices? Second, may a Catholiclawfully defraud theheretics of tithesand use them forthe benefit ofCatholics?

In the first case, if the tithes are paid purely as a result of compulsionor out offear ofthe awful consequencesofnot paying them, then I do not think it is a sin, because in such a case topay tithesistobuyoff persecution, which is lawfulbythelaw ofnature and is justified bythewords ofthe Gospel: 'If a man wants totake away your coat, give him alsoyourcloak." But, on theotherhand , ifthe tithes are paid voluntarily, without evenbeing askedfor,then ifthis is done ingood faith it is not a sin, butifit is done inorderto helpthe heretics in someway it is a sin, although Ithinkthathardly anyCatholics pay tithes inthisway.

In the second case I say that it is most lawful and most holyto defraud heretics of such payments, not only to use them forthe relief ofCatholics , which is a most holyactandworthyofallpraise, but also simplyto take them from heretics lest theyare keptbythe heretics to be used against Catholics in the future, and even if Catholics keep the money themselves for the use of their own families; indeed, for whatever reason they do it, so longas itisnot actuallyevil in itself The reason is that this isnot anaction whichis in itselfevil and whichmaybecomegood according totheresults it produces and the circumstances surrounding it, but itis anaction which is initselfgood, unless it is vitiatedby circumstancesand by its results . Forit is an act of justice to protectone's ownproperty and tofree oneself from undeserved persecution Hereis proof:to paythese tithes is to buyoffpersecution, therefore they arenotpaid indischarge ofany justobligation, and therefore it is lawfultokeep asmuchofthe moneyas possible for ourselves It does not make anydifferenceifthe heretics haveletor sold the right to receive the tithes to someone else, and thus a Catholicseems to defraud this third person of the money. This,I say, does notmatterbecausethe purchaser ofthe tithes should blame himself , becauseheshould not buy the right to vex others unjustly: even if you have bought the right to collect tithes, I do not have to give up theright Ihave to protectmyproperty. There is onlyone wayinwhichitseemstome that to defraudthe heretics can be considered evil, that is ifthere were anydanger thatCatholics asa whole mightsuffer seriously asa result. If, for example, it were probable that the fraud might be discovered and that as a resultCatholics and the faithwouldsuffer In that case the common good should be put before one's own privategood and the spiritualwell-being ofthe faith and Catholics put before one's temporal financial benefit When defrauding , therefore, Catholics should act most cautiously. Solution ofAllen and Persons. In the first case , theymay paytithes because they do not pay them to heretics but to the church, also

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

becausetheyare buyingoff persecution in thatway.Inthesecond case , thereis no doubt thatanyone may lawfully defraud them.

1. [D. Matt5, 40.]

Case 5. L41-42 Cf. D-R B10. Does a Catholic sinbypermitting hischildrenand servantsto gofreelyto the churchesandsermonsof heretics? May a father leave an inheritance to a heretic son or daughter ?Similarly, is hebound to compel hischildren andservants to fast according to the lawsoftheChurch?

Resolution . In the fifth case three difficulties are mentioned: [1] first, whether Catholic heads of families sin by permitting their children and servants to go freelyto the churches and sermons of heretics; [2] second, whether a fathermay make his hereticson or daughter his heir; [3] third, whether heads offamilies arebound to compel their sons and servantsto fast according to the law ofthe Church . First, I say in general to all these questions that Catholicheads offamiliesare bound bythe law of nature to be good guardians of their households and to arrange for the honest education oftheir children. Hence theyare alsobound to lookforgood servantsand , above all, virtuousCatholic servants, forifthe servantsarebadthey often pervertthe children and the wholefamily. Hence I thinkthat the head ofa family cannot be excusedfrom the most grave sin if he accepts heretics as male or female servants when he can conveniently have Catholics, or if he acceptscriminals and villainsas servants when he can havevirtuous andhonestmen With regard to his children, a fathershould workduringtheiryouthasdiligentlyas he can to make them inclined in religious matters towards God, piety, virtue and zeal forthe faith, and he should accustomthemto prayer and other devotions. He should teach them from the very beginning to protectreligionand the holyChurch, and in England and elsewhere among heretics, he should labourmost diligentlyto make them think badlyof heretics and avoid theircompany, andto be well-disposed towards theCatholicfaith. The resultofsuch an education is oftenthatwhen the children grow oldertheyfollowthe faith and religion of their parents of their own accord and detest everythingcontrary to it. The negligence of parents in educating their childrenproperlyis the reasonwhy, withincreasingage, some childrenrush headlong into all kinds ofwickedness.

Having laid this foundation, I can now answer the particular questions. [1] To the first difficulty: if the children are still very young, the parents sin mortally if they do not preventthem by employing every means - promises, presents and so onfrom

ELIZABETHAN CASUISTRY

frequenting heretic churches and sermons. If the children are already older, parents should try to stop them by lecturingthem, pleading with themand byusing any method theycan - bykeeping them occupied in business which will involve them in goingless frequentlyto heretic churches, for example. Ifthe children continue to frequent the churches after all this, I think thatthe parents are not bound to prevent them, since there is a risk of the parents endangering themselves and others by doingso and littlehopeof doing much good as far as the children are concerned. As for servants , I say that if there is any hope of reformingthem , their masters are bound to tryto do so, by urging them, teaching them and arguingwith them. But ifthere is no hope ofthis,thesemasters should, ifthey can, find Catholicservantsor other servantsbetter than theirold servants, and dismissthe latter Ifthey cannot do this, theyshould givethem harder work andgive this as anexcusefornot allowingthem togo to church. Lastly, ifthis fails, thesemastersmay turn a blind eye to it all becausethey are not bound toforcetheir servantsto be virtuous.

[

2]To the seconddifficulty, Ireplythat the heads offamilies may make their heretic sons and daughters their heirs, for several reasons First, becausetheymightnot be allowed todootherwise , since the heretics are dominant in England. Second, because ifthe heretics ever discovered that Catholics disinherited theirchildren forreligious reasons, itwould cause a tragicoutbreakofpersecution against Catholics . I also think that it would be most holyforthe Catholic head of a family to make his heretic son his heir, but to impose onhim , in his will, the obligationofmaking paymentstoone or more Catholics , without making any mention ofthe Catholic religion, but only giving the names of the Catholics and some plausible explanation forthe legacy.

[3]To the third difficultyI replythatthe headof a familyis bound todo his utmostto encourage and persuadebywordand example the whole family to fast, and children should from childhoodbe made accustomed to fasts As forservants, because the head ofthe familyis not bound to treat them betterthan he treats himself , he may deprive them of food, and when he fasts no food should be prepared in the home and the servants should be given bread and wine. But if the servantsdonotwant to fast, he maygive them food without sinning,especially ifhedoes so to avoid attractingattention tohimself.

Solution of Allen and Persons First, it is not lawful to employa hereticservant in one's household unless it is obviously dangerous to dismiss him or unless there is some hope of convertinghim. Second, it is not lawfulfor a master to command orto persuadehis childrenor servants to go to a heretic church. Third, settingaside thechildrenand the more faithful servants, ifthe master allows the restthose who are less amenable to make up theirown minds

whethertheywill go to church or not, and ifhe teaches them , byhis ownexample, thatit is betternotto go, Iwouldnotcondemnhimof sin. But it would be better if everyone in the household were reconciled and theyall, therefore, abstained fromgoing to church Fourth, if a man has a heretic son who does not want to be converted, and if the man is free and has the right to dispose ofhis property as he wishes, he would be bound to disinherithis son , becausebythe holy canonsa heretic is incapable ofall inheritance . Ifhoweverhecould notdisinherithis son bythe laws ofthe kingdom ofEngland, then he wouldbe betteradvisedto take away as much ofthe inheritanceas he could from his son byimposing on him the obligation of paying money to Catholics, or in some other way. Fifthly, the head of a family is bound, it seems, to dohis utmostto force all his children and servants to keep the fasts of the Church according tothe custom ofhisparticulararea.

Case6. L42-42v. Cf. D-R. F4. May a Catholic , out ofduty as a host, prepare and serve meat to a heretic friend or relationwho is visiting him on dayswhen it is prohibitedto eat meat; may he also allowthehereticor his servantsto prepare the meat in his house? Resolution . In the sixth case there are two problems. One is whether a Catholic may, out of duty as a host, prepare meatand otherforbiddenfoods for a heretic friend or relationwho isvisiting him . The other difficulty is whether he may permit the heretic himselfor his servants to prepare thesefoods. Iwillreplytothese two problems together First, if there is reasonablefearthat some greatmisfortune will befall the Catholic , his family or the whole Catholiccommunityas a resultofhis refusal to prepare forbidden foods for the heretic, then without any doubt he could prepare them. As proof: in suchdangerouscircumstances, anyCatholiccan eat such food himself, so, with far greater reason, he can prepare it for others . The same would be true, in my judgement, ifthe Catholicin our case merelyfeared giving offence tothe heretic and thus provokinghisenmity, because as a result ofthis somethingbad mightbefallthe Catholic Butifthe Catholichadnothing tofearand the hereticwas not concerned and felt in nowayoffended by not beingofferedprohibited foods, then myadvice is thattheCatholic should not prepare them forhim. But Iwouldnot daretocondemn himofmortal sinifhe did prepare them, at leastifthehereticasked for them, although I have seriousdoubts about anyone whooffers such food of his own accord, for it does not seem to me to be ill-mannered foraguestin a Catholichouseto beexpectedtoeatthe same food as the rest of the household Moreover, perhaps the 'heretic'inoutwardappearanceis a Catholic at heart andwouldlike

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

toeatfood which is not forbiddenif it were served him , and only eats forbidden foods when they are served him to avoid revealing whatheis.

Solution of Allen and Persons First, if the heretic is a familiar friend or the social equal ofthe host, the latteris bound torefuseto give him meat and must persuade him to abstain from food If, however, the heretic is more powerfulthan the hostand the host maysuffersome harm ifhe refusesto give him meat , thenthehost mayperhaps grant himwhathewants withoutsinning, especially if theheretichas it prepared for himby hisown servants.

Case 7. L42v43, J251v252v in part Cf. D-R. H2; H3. Many Catholics in England possess impropriate benefices and have possessedthem for many years with the Catholic Church agreeing that they and their successors may lawfully do so; whatare theyto do when they must appoint a parish priest and can find no one except a hereticorschismatic?

Resolution. Tothis Ireplythatthey are bound toshow alldiligence in lookingfor a Catholicpriestto present to the benefice as parish priest. Iftheycannot find one theyshould leavethe church without a priest rather than appoint a heretic, for it is betterto leave the sheep without a shepherd than to put a wolfin charge ofthem as shepherd Itseems that it is always a sin to allowa heretic priestto be appointed, becauseit is intrinsicallyevil and against thelaw of nature. But ifthe heretic magistrates or bishops appoint such a person tothe church, then Catholics may pay him the stipend that theyshould pay a Catholicpriest , ifit is dangeroustorefuse topay it, because they are buying off persecution by doing so and not actuallyco-operatingin this evilaction.

Solution ofAllen and Persons. First, a Catholicmust notpresent a hereticto the beneficeorputhimin chargeofthe flock, fora heretic will infect it with heresy Second, the Catholic may not choose someone who is not a priest, even if the man he chooses is nota heretic, because he is obliged to present a priestand this wasthe intention oftheChurchwhen it imposedthatburden on him andhis successors Third, he may not appoint anyone as parish priestifthe priest must perform schismatical or hereticaloffices in thechurch , for that wouldbe to induce him to sin Fourth, ifa Catholicsimply wants, as far as he is able, to fulfil his obligation to present a Catholicto the church, without being concerned about what office the priest recites there once he has been appointed, since thatis nothingtodowith himasthe patronofthe benefice , [forhisconcern and function is only to appoint a Catholicpriest to thechurch and

what sort ofoffice the priest recites there is not his businessand never has been -J .], but is the affair ofthe bishop [or othermagistrate -J.]; and if he does not induce the schismaticalpriestto sin in anyway, [that is, bymakinghim recite the schismatical office -J ]; and if he appoints the priestintending that the priestshould saythe Catholic service, and the priest also has the same intention, then I thinkthathedoesnot singreatly.

Case 8. L . 43-44 Cf. D-R. C5

Do parents sin mortallyby giving their sons and daughters in marriage to heretics or schismaticswhen itis difficult to findCatholics forthem to marry? Resolution. These sons and daughters sin mortally by marrying heretics; their parents, therefore, commitwhat is often a worse sin by arranging such marriages and by persuading the children to marry heretics rather than forbidding them to do so , whichthey should do ifit is in their power It is sin because , by doing so, they directly cause their children to sin . I said 'ifit is in their power' , because ifthe children are already adults and the parents cannot prevent them from marryingheretics, the parents are excused , as longas they do not consent to the marriage It is no excuse to say that it is difficult tofind other Catholics for them to marry, because they are underno compulsion to get marriedand in the course of time theywillfind Catholics tomarry.It isbetter to marrysomeone oflower social class than oneselfthan to marrya heretic, bythe law ofnaturewhich commands us to avoid familiarity with evil-doers , forifany familiarity willcorruptit is surely maritalfamiliaritywhich makes one flesh oftwo. AlthoughtheApostleallowed aconverted gentile to cohabitwith his pagan wife, ' this has notbeen theusual practice , and contact with heretics is much worse, for they have declared war on the faith Whetherthe Pope can grant a dispensation inthis case isvery difficultto say Itshouldbe noted thatsuch a marriage, if both parties consent to it, is valid according to all theologians Ithink that the Pope can indeed grant a dispensation, but not in everycase; onlywhen the heretic is verysimple, humble and mild and will not hate and persecute the faith, and when the Catholic is veryfirm in the faith, and thereforethere is no danger thattheCatholicwillbeperverted bythe heretic, butratheragreat probability that the heretic will be converted by theCatholic. In such a case , once a Papal dispensation has beenobtained,marriage could lawfully be contracted, and I think that in a case ofthissort the Pope could reasonably grant a dispensation, especially incircumstances of great necessity, because in such a case the law of naturewould cease to applyand, therefore, the human law could reasonably be broken as well; therefore , if the Pope granted a

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

dispensation it would be lawful But in other cases , even witha dispensation, it wouldbe a serioussin to contract such a marriage, because the Pope can only remove the obligations of human law , and the naturalanddivine lawstill remain in force .Myconclusion is that it is notexpedient for the Pope to grant permission for such marriages in all cases, because as a result everyone wouldthinkthat itwas lawful to marryheretics and the Pope would see the sonsof God marrythe daughters ofmen becausetheywere beautiful, and asa resultthefleshwouldcorruptthe Pope'sway andhisholyfaith, and thewholeofEngland wouldrapidlybe lostentirelytothefaith. Solution ofAllen and Persons It seems that it is alwaysmortal sin for parents to induce their children to marry heretics, orforthem not to forbid it if they can . But it is not always sin in the case of schismatics, except in certain circumstances, forexample ifthere is danger oftheCatholicspouse fallingback into schism as a resultof themarriage, orfor othersimilarreasons.

1. D. 1 Cor7, 12-14 .]

Case 9. L44-44v. Cf. D-R. B15. How far are Catholics in Englandbound to go at present to hear mass onfeastdaysinorder to avoid incurringsin fornot hearing mass, and when mass is often not said within a distance ofmany miles?

Resolution . No precise length can be laid down for the journeythat should be undertaken , since men differ in age, wealth, healthand occupation, and the obligationtogo a longor a shortwaydepends onthesequalities Moreover, the journeyitselfmustbeconsidered: is it over flat country or throughmountains; what dangerswill be encountered on the journey, and so on? On the whole this rule seems mostreasonable: people should go as far to hear mass asis possible without suffering serious harm, danger or inconvenience. But I would encourage our Catholics frequentlyto put themselves and their families to some trouble to hear mass, lest Catholics appear more slack in their laws than heretics. ForI myselfhave oftenseenheretics go ten or twelve miles to hear sermons, goingas acrowdand ingreat numbers andtakingtheirfamilies withthem. O that Catholics wentso diligentlyto hear mass andsermons! Solutionof Allen and Persons. Nothing definitecan be said here: thematteristobe judged inthelight ofthe difficultyofthejourney and other circumstances Catholics should be encouraged to be diligent andtosuffersomepersonal inconvenience, andnottoallow their diligence to be exceeded by that of the heretics, whotakea great deal oftroublein suchmatters.

Case 10. L44v45, J252v3 in part

Cf. D-R H5 MayaCatholic in Englandbuy corn and other things of that sort whicharethe produceofchurch land,when the ministers sellingthemdonothave the righttodoso? Is it lawfultorentchurch land?

Resolution. In this case there are two doubts. First, whetheritis lawful inEnglandtobuycorn andotherthings ofthat sortwhichare theproduce ofchurch land from heretic ministers. Second , whether it is lawful torentchurch land and church propertyfromthem. The dificulty ofthe case is that these men hold this land in violationof everycanon, the produce ofthe land is not theirs and theydonot have the right to alienate or sell it Anyone, therefore , who buys it from them isbound to restore itto the particularchurch towhich it belongs, just as a man must restore propertybought from a thief; and to buy it is as illegalas itwould be to buy something knowingly from a thief. I say in reply that it is lawful at present in England, considering the state of affairs there, both to buy and to rentthis property. For I think that if something is stolen in very remote regions and is dividedup and given outto severalpeople so that its ownercannotrecover it, it can be lawfullybought This isespecially true if it will perish in time or with use, and, therefore, even ifno one at all buys it, it will be lost as much to its trueowneras to the thief. For example, ifTurkishpirates take a great bootyofcheese, corn and men , return to their own countries to Alexandriaor Constantinopleand put this merchandiseup for sale , Ithink that anyone may buyitwith a good consciencebecause its owner has lost it and even ifno one in the wholeworld bought it, itwould stillbe lost, becauseitwouldperish andbe lost simply inthe courseoftime. Moreover, this example is even more to the point: if the same pirates take free men as booty, come to neighbouring Christian countries and put them upforsale, it is lawfulforChristians tobuy them to buy a Christian made a slave by the Turksand the Christians are not bound to give up these goods until the money theypaid forthem is restored to them. It is, therefore , lawfulto buy corn etc. from ministers in England even thoughtheyare notthe legitimateowners ofthesethings.

Concerningthe leasing and rentingof land, I say thatit iseven morelawful torent it than to buyproduce from ministers, because the land is kept in good conditionand improved bythepractice of agriculture. Since the Church cannot have her land back at the moment , it is good that in the meanwhile it be cultivated , lest it become wooded over, and so that, when God grants that the Church recover her land, she will find it well cultivated and improved

Solution ofAllenand Persons. Wethink thatitis lawful, becauseof the present state of England, to buy such things from ministers , even though theyare thieves; alsoto take church propertyon lease, especially land.

ELIZABETHAN CASUISTRY

Case 11. L45-45v. Cf. D-R. B19. AreCatholics bound atpresent in Englandto keep the churches in good repair? For example, it is quite often necessary to replace the glass of the church, and Catholics are often bound to do this by tenancy contracts lawfully entered into by their ancestors. If they are not bound to do this, whatshould theydowith the income fromthis land, anddotheysin byrepairingthe churches, even though hereticspreach inthem?

Resolution To this case I reply that Catholics who hold ecclesiastical land of this sort are bound to keep the churches in good repair, rebuildthem andstop them fallinginto ruin, aslongas there isthe slightest hope of England returningto its originalfaith and religion. It should be noticed, however, that there are two sorts of thing which may need repair in a church . Firstly, there are those things (if there actually are any) whichare directlyassociatedwith heretic worship and superstition Secondly, those which concern the fabric and good repairofthe church itself: the roof, walls, floor, windowsand doors Catholics , therefore , are not bound to repair things ofthefirst sort, becausetheydo notconcernthe maintenance ofthe church itself and are not strictly necessaryto it. Butinthe second case they are bound to repair and conserve these things becausetodosotends tothe welfare andbenefit ofthe churchitself, which, itishoped will, God willing, in a short time , berestoredtoits former state when the faith is re-established in England, although unfortunatelyat the moment the churches are in thehands ofthe heretics. But if there were no reasonable hope ofthis, Ithink that Catholics would not still be bound to make these repairs, because when thereisnohope that to dosowillredound tothe benefitofthe CatholicChurch, it seems to be done forthe benefitofheretics and isthereforeintrinsically evil Whenthe profit fromthis land isnot spentforthebenefitand repairofthe church itshould bedistributed either among the poorCatholics ofthe parish or spentaccording to thewill ofthePope.

Solution of Allen and Persons. They are bound to maintainthe churches because they still belong to the Catholics, although the heretics nowholdthem byforce

Case 12. L46 Cf. D-R. B18. Do Catholics sin by taking the trouble to decorate the churches in the old way with branches, flowers and grasses?

Resolution . In this case ifCatholics carrytheseflowers into church inexactlythe samewayas theyusedand onthe samefeastdaysof Christ, theVirgin Mother ofGod, orthe saints, theydonotseemto me to sin in any way. Such action does not of itselfexcite scandal and does notfavourthe heretics in heresy. Indeed, itratherfavours

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

the Catholic religion, for Catholics do honour to the Catholic religionbydecorating the churchesin the old way. The churchesare the churches of the true God and of Christ, whom even heretics worship; it doesnot matterthat the churchesare atpresent heldby theheretics, becauseCatholics do notbringthe decorationstothem forthatreason but in honourofChristand the saints IfCatholics carry these decorations into church on otherdays, onheretic feast days, itseemsthat they co-operate in the errors andsuperstitions of the heretics.

Solution ofAllen and Persons. Catholics should be advisednotto dothisexcepttoavoid troubleoriftheyareforced todoso .

Case 13. L46-47v, J253-253v in part Cf. D-R. G2; B21. A Catholic has been reconciled to the Church and has promised athis reconciliationto abide by the judgement ofthe Church and ofthe Pope when thePope shall make anydecision about the ecclesiastical property which he holds; may this Catholic sell, give, devise or exchange this property? What if he or his ancestorshave bought suchproperty? Maymen be reconciled to the Church iftheycannot make this promise about abiding by the decision ofthePope etc.? May someonewho has not madethis promise sellhisproperty? Resolution In thiscase there are two difficulties. [1]First,whether someone who has made this promise may afterwards sell this property [2] Second, whether people should be forced totakethis oath when they are reconciled [1]With reference to the firstdifficultymyfirstpoint is thataman maysell thispropertyandnotkeep hisoath. The Catholicmayhave bought the property to help the Church, which has been greatly defrauded in the past, by preventingthe propertypassinginto the possessionof heretics I think that in this case the Catholic is not bound torestore this propertytothe Church unless the price hepaid for it is given back to him, nor is he bound to give back the income hegotfromthepropertyifitrepresented a reasonablereturnon the investment, that is, six or seven per cent per annum Ontheother hand, theCatholicmay have bought this propertywithoutneeding todosoto helpthe Church. In this case he is bound toreturnitto theChurch, togetherwith the income whichhe got fromitand the money hemade as a resultofhiswork on the property. Ifhebought the property in this way and did not take an oath to follow the command ofthe Pope on the matterit seems that he maysellthe property, as long as the purchaser knows that theproperty, and houses etc. are ecclesiastical property The reason hemaydothis lawfully is that he harms neitherthe Church nor the purchaser by doingso. Thevendordoesnot harm the purchasereventhoughthe ownershipofthe property is not transferred to the purchaser as a

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

resultofhis purchase-just as the vendorhimselfwasnotownerof itbecausethevendordoes notdeceivethe purchaserifhe tellshim that itis church land, according tothe maxim, 'Ifa manknows andis willing there is no injury. ' The vendordoes not harm the Church becausewhen the Church regainspower in England, itmay recover the property as easily from the secondpurchaser as from the first Moreover [as has been said], ifthe Catholicbought the propertyto helpthe Churchthenhe may sellitto a willingpurchaserwhoknows the nature of the property, because the Catholicis not boundto keep theproperty ifit is harming himtodoso .

The doubt still remains: if a Catholicpromised at his reconciliationtoabidebythecommand ofthe Pope, may he sell theproperty afterwards ? Mysecondpoint is that onemust considerthe intention of the man who took the oath. First, he might have intended to oblige himself to keep the property until the Pope decided what shouldbedone withit; hencehewasready to disposeofitaccording tothewillofthePope. Thus ifthe Popeordered him togive itfreely to a Catholic priest or to distributethe income from these lands among thepoor, he would be bound to do this byvirtueofhisoath, and by sellingthe propertyhe would be failing to fulfil his obligation It seems , therefore, that he must not sell, give away or otherwisealienate the propertyexcept perhaps if he sellsitoutof necessity and obliges himselfto give back to the Church from his ownpropertythe value ofthe land he sells, givesawayoralienates. On the other hand, he mighthavetaken the oath with nointention ofobliginghimselftokeep the property, butonlyofcarrying outthe commandof the Pope about church property if it should bemade whilst the property was in his hands In this case he mightsellthe propertywith aclear conscienceandwithout breaking hisoath.But asfarasthe lawof the Church is concerned, unlesshe actuallyhad expressed this condition in words he would be presumed to have hadthe intentonofbeing obliged inthefirst sense .

But by keeping thispropertyratherthan selling it, if the revenue from itgreatlyexceeds a reasonablereturnonhisinitial investment, a man maygraduallybecome greatlyindebted as he continues to collect the income and spend it on himself His debts maysoon exceed the money he paid for the property and the value ofall his other property as well, and the Pope may still have made no decision on the matter In sucha case, especially if the man bought the property forthe benefitofthe Church, it seems hardto oblige him to suffer such trouble, when he could easily find others who wouldimmediatelyfree him from this burden and thesetroublesby buyingthisproperty. So it is perhaps reasonable if, aftertakingthe necessary pains to get a Papal dispensation, and if, after waiting sufficient time for one, the dispensation had not yet appeared, a man should then be free and releasedfrom his obligation. Thisis reasonable I maintainbecause I think that when this man took his

oath he did not foresee, nor could he have easily foreseen, the difficultieshewouldhave, and ifhe had foreseenthem he wouldnot have takenthe oath Since the oath has caused him such harm , it was an imprudent and foolish oath and cannot, therefore , oblige him to keep the property perpetually if it causes him so much trouble.

[2]

TotheseconddifficultyIreplythatitdoes not seem tomethat when Catholics are reconciled to the Church they should have to take this oath, becauseit does not concern faith but morality. A man may be Catholicand most Catholicas far as faith is concerned even ifhe is morallyverybad; so if a man wants to persist in some mortal sin, as longas the sin isnotagainstfaith, it is noimpediment tohisreconciliationto the faith. Forevensomeonewho openlylives witha concubine can be reconciled tothe Church, even ifherefuses to leave his concubine. Moreover, there are not lackingamong CatholicChristians in the most Catholicregionsthosewho seize and keep largeamounts of church propertyand try to separateitfrom the Church . Moreover, this oath is a matter rather for the confessional than forthe ceremony ofreconciliation Inthesameway that a man cannot be absolved from sin unless he proposes to improve himself, so anyone who sins mortally by keeping church land should not be absolved unless he promises or, if necessary, swears, that he will accept the Papal decision on the matter. Even then I think that this oath should not be asked for at confession unlessthepenitenthad made this promise onanother occasionand had afterwards, having beengiven the Papal decisiononthematter , shown no inclination to carry it out For on the first occasion a simple promise made in conscienceis usually enough, becausethe penitentmustbe believed when there is no reason (like a previous violation offaith) notto trusthim. Itis true, however, thatifhedoes not agree that the propertybelongs to the Church orusedtobelong to it, he should be obliged to make a written declaration to that effect, so that the Church and Pope could come to somedecision aboutthe matter.

In conclusion Isaythatwhen someoneis forced to swearthathe will obey the Papal command on this matter, he does not oblige himself, norneed others compel him, to keep the propertyuntilthe Pope makes a decision Heonly agrees that, aslongasthe property is inhis possession, he is prepared to carryout the command ofthe Pope with respect to that property, that he will not sellitwithout declaringto the purchaser that the propertybelonged tosuch-andsuch a church; and that he will obey the Pope's command as faras the income he illegally received from the property, for the whole period he owned it, is concerned I say 'illegallyreceived' because sometimes the income, either in whole or part, is legallymade, asI said atthebeginning ofthis resolution. SolutionofAllenand Persons. Firstitseems thatsuchamanshould

ELIZABETHAN CASUISTRY

not alienate , sell or devise this property except to someone he thinks will be as ready as he is to uphold the judgementof the Churchwhen it shall decide what to do on the matter; that is , to a good man, or to his own children if they are informedofwhathe wants in hiswill.

Case 14. L48 Cf. D-R. H2; H3 . May a man who has the advowson ofabenefice present a minister to the beneficewhen itis vacant,or may he sell the advowson, or what must he do?

Resolution. In this case there are two doubts . The first is whethera patroncan present a heretic ministertoa beneficeofwhich heowns the advowson; the second is whether he can sell his advowson . To thefirst doubt I replythat he absolutely must not present a heretic ministerbecauseit is a mortalsinto present someoneunworthy.Itis thereforemuch worsetopresent a heretic andsomeoneunfitforthe benefice; to present a wolf, rapacious and thirstingforthebloodof the flock, and noxious to the church in charge ofwhichhe is put.I thinkthattheseconddoubt is putforwardto avoidthedifficultiesof thefirst,for ifthepatroncannot present a heretic, hemust sellthe advowson lest he is forced to present sucha person.

Solution of Allen and Persons First it is not lawful to presenta hereticor aschismatic. Secondit seems to be lawfulto selltheright ofpatronage, althoughtheCouncilofTrent prohibitsit, for it isa spiritual rightand henceitis simony to sell it "

1. O. Sess. xxiv dereformatione , c xiv.

Case 15. L48-48v, J253v in part. There are manyCatholics in England who keep part of the income from their benefices for themselves, whiletheyshould use itto pay the heretics whom they ortheirparents presented to these benefices; what should bedone withthisincome and may theykeep itwith a good conscience?

Resolution . To this doubtIreplythatthis income mustbereturned totheChurch, given topoorCatholics or spentotherwise according tothewillofthe Pope. The patronofa benefice has norightto keep the least part ofits income forhimself, nor to reserveforhimselfa pension out ofthe income of the benefice of whichhe owns the advowson, nor to receive any money or goods not even the smallest amount in return for presenting anyone. He should presenttothebeneficefreeofcharge, and ifhe receivesanything in return it is liabletorestitution Ifhe receivesitfrom a Catholiche is -

nottobeexcusedfrom simony. Butifhe receivesthe money froma heretic, he may easily be excused of simony, if he keepsitwiththe intention of preventing at least some part of the income ofthe benefice reaching the heretic and of divertingitto the use ofpoor Catholics, even if he cannot prevent the heretic unjustlyobtaining thebenefice . SolutionofAllen and Persons He is bound to restore this income, butcertainlynotto the ministers,rathertopoorCatholics.

Case 16. L48v49 Cf. D-R. H2

May a Catholicin England at present who has the rightof patronage, that is the right ofpresentingto abenefice, make an agreement withthe heretic orschismatic ministerwhom he presents bywhichthe lattergiveshim a pension or some part of the benefice, and he then distributes it to poor Catholics ? For example, he mightuse itto maintain thepriests who are sent from the seminaries to England, or perhaps to helpthe priest who was unjustly deprived ofthe benefice for the sake of religion. If this is not absolutely lawful, may the Pope grant a dispensation for a Catholicto present sucha ministerandcome to an agreement withhim?

Resolution . The case to be answered is this : although a Catholic cannot present a heretic minister as I have shown above in the fourteenthresolution, it is nowaskedwhether, ifhe does present a heretic, he can reserve to himself a part of the income or the property of the benefice . I replythat the more he takes from the minister the better he does since the minister is not a pastor but a ravaging wolf, and therefore no maintenance is owed him . But whatever he takes away from the minister he must return to his churchor its poor, because the publicgoodshould always be put beforeone's own privategood. Ithinkthatifthe moneywere spent ontheeducation ofscholarswho study in the Catholicseminaries,it would certainlybe spent for the common good in the bestpossible way; it could also be given to the Catholicpriest who held that benefice before and was deprived ofit because ofhisfaith . Tothe lastpart ofthis case I replythat in my judgement thePope cannot grant a dispensation for a Catholic patron to present a heretic minister, becauseit is againstnaturalanddivine law to do so Butif a Catholic should sin and and present a ministerthe Pope could grant a dispensation for the patron to keep a pension from the income of the benefice; indeed, I think that this could be done without a dispensation, although it would be betterand safertoget such a dispensation.

Solution ofAllen and Persons First, the patron of a church must not present a heretic or schismatic because to do so would beto

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

recognize the pseudo-bishop towhomthe patronmust present the heretic, and itwould be to acknowledge thathehadthe authorityof a true bishop; and for other reasons. Second, if the patron or anyone else made an agreement with the heretic or schismatic ministerto receive a shareofthe benefice, intending onlyto defraud the heretic who was the unjust possessor of the benefice, and distributethe moneyto the poor, itdoes notseem tobesimonyand hence itis not a sin But the past and future income whichresults from this agreement must be putto the charitable use ofCatholics , andanyone whorefusesto restore the money to theChurch inthis wayshould notbe reconciled to the Church . Third, the Popecannot granta dispensation forthe presenting of a heretic or schismatictoa benefice.

Case 17. L49-49v. May a priestorministerwho has abeneficein England andwants to leaveit andbe reconciled tothe Church make an agreement with another minister so that the latter has the reversion ofthe benefice in returnforpaying the former a pension? Moreover, may he make an agreement with the patron of the benefice so that, in returnforsomemoney or a pension, heresigns the benefice tothe patronwho can then present someoneelse? Resolution. Thereare two doubts here: first, whether he canmake anagreement with his successor ; the second, whether he can make an agreement with the patronhimself Myreplytothefirstdoubtis that a priestwhowants to be reconciled to theChurch cannotresign orgiveup his benefice to a heretic minister, but onlyallowhimself tobe deprived. Butifhe is deprived and is a poorman hecanaccept something from the minister for his maintenance, or, as I said in the previous resolution, keep a pension to be spent onsomepious works, becausesince a heretic cannot acquire a justright to holda benefice, thewholeof the benefice may legally be takenfromhim, and henceitis much more justifiableto take apartofitfromhim.To the second problem I reply that it is not in any way waylawful to come to an agreement with the patronbecause itwouldbesimony todo so and itwouldbe unjust to acceptanything fromthepatron forresigning the benefice to him, since he gave it, or shouldhave given it, Solutionfreelytotheincumbent ofAllen and Persons Hecannot make an agreementwith the minister , nor with the patron. But if the priestorministerhad wrongfully made some money from this benefice whichis unjustly held by heretics, the Pope could grant permission for it not tobe repaid.

Case 18. L49v, 51. Cf. 2, 1 , 21 above; D-R. H4. After a priest

ELIZABETHAN CASUISTRY

whohasheldabenefice in England for manyyearsandwhoomitted to say theoffice has been reconciled to the Church, to whom is he boundto repay the income he receivedfromthe beneficeduringthis period? Moreover, what about ministers andlaymenwhohaveheld benefices for a long time, what restitutionmust theymake, and to whom , when theyare reconciled totheChurch? Resolution. The income fromthe beneficeshouldberestoredtothe church , or initsplaceto the poorofthe parish, orforthepublicand common good of the Catholics ofEngland, or, finally, according to the will of the Pope who usually agrees to settle for a third ofthe total, and may easily waive the whole suminthe case ofpeoplefrom areas infected with heresy. Such Papal judgements are easily obtained

Solution ofAllen and Persons . Itis to be restored andgivenforthe pious use ofCatholics , andthe Popehas already grantedpermission for restitutionto be excusedwhere the minister is poorand cannot pay.

Case 19. L51-51v. Cf. D-R H2

May a man who has the advowson of a benefice (that is, the right of presenting himselfor anotherperson when the benefice is next vacant, oron subsequent occasions) sell the right to present before the benefice is vacant or even when itis vacant; and may he do so with orwithoutthe licence ofthePope?

Resolution . Inthis case only one thingis asked: whether a mancan sell the right which he has of presenting himselfor another to a benefice when it is next vacant, with or without a dispensation .I reply that it is certain that this right cannot be sold without a dispensation since it is a sort of spiritual right and it is therefore manifestsimonyto sell it. Whether, however, someonewhohasa Papal dispensation can sell it depends on a further question: whetherthis simony is prohibitedby divine law or, indeed, bycanon law.Ifitisprohibitedbydivine lawitcannotbedispensedwith,butif itisprohibitedbycanonlaw a dispensationmaybegranted It seems tome thatitisprohibitedbydivine law inthe same way asthe saleof a benefice is Indeed, evenifitwereonlyforbiddenby human law ,it seemsthat a dispensation could not begranted, because ithas never been granted before, it has the look of evil about it, and even the faithful would be shocked tohearofit. Solution ofAllen and Persons It is not at all lawfultosellit

Case 20. L51v. Cf. D-R. C2. MayCatholics who arereconciled to theChurchcontract marriage in England in a heretical church with

ELIZABETHAN CASUISTRY

hereticalceremonies? The reasonfor the doubt is that unless they do this they will be held to be fornicators byeveryone and willbe punished bythe law ofthe land asfornicators ; moreover, whatcan they do about theirchildren, who may be consideredillegitimatein this case?

Resolution. Theresolutionof this case seems most difficult to me and needsgreater consideration and furtherinformation

Solution of Allen and Persons First, it does not seem lawfulfor Catholics totake that sacramentfromhereticsforanyreason,norto celebrate matrimony in a heretic church, even if they suffergreat damage to their property or reputationby not doing so . Second, they can easily avoid the unpleasantness of being suspectedof adultery becausethey can easily call witnessesto testifythat they have been legitimatelymarried Theyonlyriskshowing themselves to be Catholicsif they follow this course, and may avoid this by seeking alicence to be married where theywish without solemnity.

Case 21. L51v-52 Cf. D-R. K6. Is it lawful for Catholics in Englandto build and endow collegesin the universities atpresent, intendingCatholicscholars to be educated in them inthefutureby God'sgrace, although at present heretics may be broughtupthere to preach against the Catholicfaith? The reasonforthequestion is that unless the Catholics do it now, theymay notbeabletodoso afterwards .

Resolution . In this case there is no difficulty because, as the Apostle says, evilmust notbedonenot eventhe leastevilsothat goodmaycome ofit ' Since, therefore, building collegesin which heretics willatpresent be maintained and instructed inheresyisnot only evil but pernicious , it cannot be made lawful by its future outcome, bythe fact thatitwillin the future redound tothe benefit ofCatholics , especially when the immediate evil outcome iscertain and the future good outcome ofbuildingcollegesis most uncertain . You say that there may be no opportunityto build collegesinthe future Ireply:first,the mattershouldbeleftin God's hands ,forHe willprovide. Second, itwillbe much more easytofoundcollegesin thefuture aftera Catholicrestoration , when spiritualardour begins to show itself again. But ifyou are absolutely determined tobuild and endow collegesnow,youcould do so outside England. Solution ofAllen and Persons It is not at all lawfulat the moment to build colleges in which heretic services will be performedand in which heretics will be maintained , and since it would be very difficult-indeed, practicallyimpossible -to avoid this happening in newly founded colleges, it seems dangerous to undertake such worksatthe moment It is much better,therefore , touse the money

whichwould have been spent on such projects tomaintainCatholic students abroad, forthat is more conducive to the honourofGod , the good of our country and the good of one's own soul, since masses are saidfor thosewho helpthestudentsabroad

1. [D. Romans 3 , 8.]

Case22. L52-52v. Is it lawful for wives, children , or servantsto serve their husbands, fathers ormastersin theirheretical activities, forexample to prepare meat for them on fast days,tobuyheretical books forthem; orwhat should be done in this matter?

Resolution. I reply that it is lawful for inferiors to obey their superiors in thisway; for a servant to serve his master , a child his father, and a wifeher husband. They are allowed to do this because oftheirsubjection to their superiors and it doesnot seem thatthey co-operate in the sins of their superiors by doing these services , unless they are harmed by doing so, and even then such cooperation does not carrywith it the blame which attachestotheir superiors . But, on the other hand, superiors sin if they helptheir inferiors in these things; if instead ofprohibiting them from doing such things, as is their duty, they actively encourage them to perform them, unless, that is, some great necessity or the fearof comingto some harm compels the superiors to do this. Itmustbe noticed, however, that mentionis made here oftwo very different things: the preparationof food , whichis prohibitedbyhuman law , and the purchase of heretical books, whichis evil by natural and divine law becauseit could be the sufficient cause of a child losing hisfaith . WhatIhavesaid is trueonlyin the formercase .Itwouldbe rather difficult, therefore, to excuse a superior , like a father, who boughtfor his child a heretical bookwhich seducedthe childfrom the faith. I myselfwould not dare to do so, however necessaryit seemed . Iwould instead give money to the child to spend as he wanted, for in that way I would only co-operate passively in his error. ButIdonot think it is lawfulto give money tochildren when we reasonably suspectthattheywillbuy suchbooks, but onlywhen agreat necessityforces us to do so .

SolutionofAllen and Persons It does not seem thatthose whodo this becauseoftheirsubjection to their superiors or to avoid other evils befallingthemshould be condemned out of hand ,butitwould bemuch betteriftheyrefused to do this sort ofservice.

Case 23. L52v Cf. D-R. G5 If a Catholic has an office example, as notaryto a bishopwhich he cannotexerciseatpresent

1 for

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

without harmingCatholics , having perhapsbought the right to itin Catholic days, may he sell it nowor transfer it to a schismatic to exercise while he keepsa pension forhimself?

Solution of Allen and Persons. [Almost exactly the same as the solutiontoD-R. G5.]

Case 24. L52v53 Cf. D-R 17. Can Catholics in England at present holdcivil magistracies: forexample, cantheybethe mayors of towns, bailiffs, constables, or justices? May they hold these offices ifthey do not have to take the customary oathagainst the Pope, for even though they do not swear this oath, they willbe compelled toenforce iniquitous lawsagainstCatholics?

Resolution I reply that Catholics cannot be civil magistrates in England (eventhoughtheyshould obtain such postswithouttaking an oath against the Pope, and even though they should be askedto accept them bytheheretics themselves), if such a magistrate is ever expected to deal unjustly and enforce iniquitous laws against people; for the magistracy becomes unlawful to hold when such injusticeis connected with it.

Case 25. L53 Cf. D-R. 16. Is it lawful for Catholics who are reconciledto the Church to go on any pretextto the churches or sermons ofheretics: forexample, may servants, underlings, orsons accompany theirmastersorfathers tochurch ifthey aredetermined notto pay attentiontowhatthe heretics say there?

Resolution. I reply that, as has been said above, it is lawful by naturallaw, togo occasionally in the circumstanceslaid down inthe nineteenth and twentiethcases ofthe second chapter. Solution of Allen and Persons They refer themselves to the following case .

Case 26. L53-53v Cf. D-R. 18. In this special case itis further asked whetherit wouldbe lawfulfor noblemen and noble-women whoservetheQueen to accompanyher to church andtosermonsin order to perform some service for her and not in order to listen while they are there? For example, if a nobleman should carrya sword infront ofthe Queen as an honour on animportantoccasion , orifhe should carrya book, some cushionsorsomethingofthesort forher.

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY 121

Resolution Ireplythat it is lawfulby natural law fornoblemenand noble-women to accompany their Queen and remain with her in church, providedtheydo notfeel that their faith is endangeredby doing so , becauseif it were endangered itwouldnotbe lawfulfor them to continueto do so. But if they habituallyaccompany the Queen to church andtosermonsandifthe Queen goes frequentlyto them , itis difficult to excuse them.

Solution of Allen and Persons. I would not lightly condemn such nobles iftheyonlydid it out ofdutyto the Queen But itwouldbe betteriftheyopenlyimplored the Queen to beexcused suchservice on account oftheir consciences.

Case 27. L53v. Is it lawful for Catholics in England to obey the Queen in all political matters after the Bull of Pius V in the same way as theydidbefore?

Resolution. The resolution of this case depends rather on the judgementof Catholics in England who know allthe facts ofthe matterwell. But it seems to me that although they are perhapsnot boundtodo so, Catholics may lawfully obey her in everything ofa purely political nature which does not involve the persecution of Catholics , at least to avoid worse evils befalling them. The Bullof Pius V did not withdraw from Catholics permission to obey the Queensince itdid notproperlyachieveits purpose.

SolutionofAllen and Persons It is lawful to do so , but there is a furthercomment on this case whichmust be given in secret.

Case28. L53v54. Cf. D-R. 19. Is it lawfulforCatholics to allow the title 'Elizabeth, Queen of England, France andIrelandetc. , 'to beused in their legal documents, understanding bythe last phrase (etc. ) the ancient title of the Kings of England , although the heretics understand by 'etc.' the phrase added by HenryVIII, 'the supreme head on earth of the Church of England'; and ifthe last part is actuallywritten out in full in the documents, whatis to be done? The reason for the question is that without using this title nothing can be sold or bought and nothing can be confirmed by publicauthority.

Resolution . I reply that the phrase can be tolerated without any scruples because it sets out nothing and expresses nothing against the faith, and to accept it shows no assent to anything against the faith. It is exactlythe same phrase, word for word, as was used beforeheresy brokeoutin England, anditis notimportanthowthe heretics understand the phrase, for it is through malice that they

ELIZABETHAN CASUISTRY

-

interpret it in that sense and not by virtue of the word'etc.' itself, and Catholics should continue tounderstand itinthe properway. the last part ofthe title is actuallywritten out as 'thesupremehead on earth of the Church of England' , which is how the heretics understand the word 'etc.' , then I say that those who write this phrase sin mortally and are guilty of heresy. If a Catholicwho is engaged in saleorpurchasecan, he should trytopreventthephrase beingwritten down , but ifit is written down, Ithink thatCatholics may, strictly speaking without sin at least without mortal sin, practise dissimulationwith reference to the phrase. By dissimulatingin this matterthey donotco-operate in the other man'ssinbut ratherdotheymake use ofthe sinwhichthe otherman commits of his own accord and whichthe Catholichas no hope ofpreventing, justas I canborrowmoney froma usurer andpay himinterest .You say that a man who makes a contract whichcontains that phrase seemstogivehis assent to the phraseand to approve ofit-to agree in effectthat she is the Queen ofEngland, France and Irelandand thesupreme head on earth ofthe English Church, andsincethisisa hereticaltitle he gives his assent to heresy. I replythat he doesnot give his assent to the whole of the phrase, because muchofit is unnecessary to the present civil contract , which does not receive authority because Elizabeth is Queen of France and Ireland nor because she is head ofthe Church of England, as she calls herself, but onlybecauseshe is Queen ofEngland: hence, a manwhomakes a contractonly assents to what concerns his own business . Moreover, even if she were not legitimate 'Queen of England' , as she calls herself, even that phrase could be dissimulated in a contract, because whether she really is Queen or not is not a matter for privatepersonsbutforthe commonwealth Solution of Allen and Persons If a man simply allows this customary title to beused and is notthe cause ofits use, itseems that heisnoteasilytobe condemned of sin But ifa man adds thetitleon his own initiative, he sins damnably.

If

Case 29. L54-54v. Is it lawfulforCatholics to give presents and bribes to powerful heretics so that they are persuaded to protect Catholics from persecution? Moreover, is it lawful to act in a charmingwaytowards them , sendingthem letters, conversingwith them , inviting them to parties and showing them other signs of friendshipand treatingthem inevery way asiftheywereCatholics? Resolution. I replythatwhenever heretics arein positions ofpower Catholics may do all these things to make the heretics benevolent towardsthem and to preventthe heretics persecuting thefaithor Catholics . I make only one exception from the things mentioned above, that is where it says 'treatingthem with familiarity in every

ELIZABETHANCASUISTRY

way',for Ithink it is notlawfulto be toofamiliarwith them , norto associate frequentlywith them, unless it is absolutely necessaryto do so in order to avoid danger to the faith, because we are easily infectedwith heresy through familiarity with heretics. Butwecan showthemagood dealoffamiliarity andloyaltywithoutitbeingtoo muchfamiliarity.

Solution of Allen and Persons. It is lawful, except with those who are excommunicated by name With others, however, too much familiarity must be avoided because of the dangerofinfection , and also because in a way it does injuryto Christ if His enemies are treatedwith too much familiarity. When a Christian wants totreat Jewsor Turkswith familiarity and itis notabsolutely necessarythat he should do so, it is considered wrong, but it is much worse with Protestants since they are more grievous enemies of Christ and much moretobehated.

CHAPTER III. CASES WHICH ARISE AFTER CAPTURE

Case 1. L54v55 Cf. D-R. J1 Is it lawful for Catholics , either beforeoraftertheir capture, to bribe guards, escortsormagistrates inordertoescape?

Resolution . It is certain thatheretic escorts, guardsandmagistrates are not bound to keep faith with the Queen when it comes to guarding and capturing Catholics for the sake of religion, even if theyhave sworn an oath thattheywill. It is sinfulforthem toswear todosomething whichis unjust, andtheiroath, therefore , doesnot bind them, just as, according to all theologians, the oath which Herod made did not bind him to committhe injusticeofkilling John.' Hereticsoften do not knowthat they are notbound to keep theiroaths , but think they are obliged to do so Catholics, therefore, who want to bribe these officers should first teach them the truthbyshowing them that they are not bound by theiroaths . It would be enough if a Catholic showed then why he thoughtthey were not bound by their oaths, and then he could offer a bribe without sinning, for then the heretics would not sin bybreaking their oaths, and the Catholicwould not sinbypersuadingthem todo so . You say that he sins by persuading them to accept money in return for givinghim freedom . I replythat it is not a case ofhim persuading them, but of him substituting , with their help, a lesser for a greater injusticeto substitute briberyforwrongfulimprisonment; or it is to buy off their persecution by committingbribery, whichis a lesserevilthan persecution. ForImayofferagreatdealof moneytosomeone who is about to kill me violentlyinordertostop him doingso.

Solution ofAllen and Persons . Itis lawfulfor a man todothis, just as he can lawfully run away unless he has promised or sworn notto doso

1. [D.Mark 6, 23-7; Matt 14, 7-9 ]

Case 2. L55-55v. Cf. D-R F5 Is it lawful to eat food indiscriminatelyin prison, especially sincetheguards areoftensoharsh thattheywillnotgive the appropriate foodatthe timeslaiddownby the Churchfor abstinence and fasting, or theywill charge a great deal ofmoney forit?

Resolution Ireplythatifother foodabsolutely cannotbeobtained

for a suitable, normalmeal, or cannot be had without great difficulty and without expensegreatlybeyond my purse, while, asyou say, Iamin prison, I may lawfully eat meat and otherfood which is prohibited. We should not, however, do this easily, regularly, casually and indifferently, as heretics do; but we should often ask forfood whichis allowed and should show , byother outward signs, that we eat thisfoodnotbecausewewant to, butbecause wemust . SolutionofAllen and Persons. It is lawful when thereis noother food tobe had, although this case hardlyever arisesinEngland.

Case3. L55v. Cf. D-R. J7. Is a Catholic alwaysbound tokeephis word when hepromises heretics thathe willnotrun away;orcanhe run away in any case?

Resolution In this case we must decidewhether the manwhogave hiswordandpromised notto run awayintended to obligehimselfto dowhatthe person to whom he promised thoughthe meant byhis promise , or whether his promise was deceitful and made with 'mental reservation' . For example, he might havepromised, 'Iwill neverrunaway' , adding mentally, . . . in yourpresence'; or, 'Iwill not runaway' , adding, ... ifI cannot' , or somethingofthesort.If hepromised in the firstway, then heisdoubtlessbound tokeepfaith becauseit is generally agreedthat a man must keepfaith evenwith his enemies. It is true that Cajetan thinksthat the straightforward promise is a matter of moral truth and that to break a promise merelyto sin by lyingand, therefore , tocommita venial sin, unless there are other circumstances whichmake it a worse sin.' Buta truer and more generally held opinion is that it is a matter of commutative justice, because the essence ofa promise isnotthata man says something is true, but that he gives his word to another that it is true;and Cicero says thatto keep faithisnotonlyamatter of justice, but is the foundationof justice itself, onwhichallcontracts andagreementsarebased. From whichit is clear that ifa man makes apromisewith the intentionof obliging himselftokeep the promise, he is obliged to do so on pain of mortal sin and consequently a man must not break his promise, except in certain cases. For example, when circumstancesalter so that the promise cannot be kept without sin; or when something happens which had not been foreseen and ifithadbeenforeseenwouldhavemeant thatthe promisewould not have been made; or when the promise is about anevilthing; orwhen itprevents a greater good occurring;butthese exceptions should be discussed in another place If, however , the man promised with simulation , that is with the intention of deceiving and not of obliginghimself, he may have done this intwo

ELIZABETHAN CASUISTRY

ways First, he may have promised with the intentionofobliging himselfto keep the promise, but without the intentionof actually doingso, and this .... [At the footofthis, the finalpageofthe MS is written , inanotherhand, 'a q: wanting' .]

1. H.In2a2aeq 88& q 113

2. Y. Book 1

INDEX OF WORKSREFERRED TO

Forthe key tothe authors and titles ofthe works referred tointhetext, seepp. 12-13 .

A. 15, 17, 19-50, 53-4, 56-7, 60

B. 17-21 , 23, 25, 27, 29-35, 41, 44-5, 47-8, 52-3, 60, 83, 86 , 91 , 94

C. 15-16, 19, 21-3, 29, 47-8

D. 17 , 31, 38, 55, 58, 60, 66, 74, 77 , 80, 90, 103, 119, 124

E. 45, 48

F. 15, 21, 52-3,55

G. 91.

H. 21 , 39-40, 126

I. 22, 41

J. 18-20 , 25, 31

K. 26, 45

L. 44-5.

M. 26

N. 17, 32, 54, 92

O. 60, 114.

P. 21

Q. 16, 44.

R. 25

S. 34, 41 , 89 , 94

T. 83, 89

U. 66

V. 86, 89

W. 86

X. 83

Y. 126

Z. 86.

AA. 83

BB. 58

CC 55

GENERAL INDEX

Absolution , from schism , 49

Adrian VI, Pope, 63.

Adultery, 28, 46, 89

Ai, 63

Agnus dei, 66-7,91-2

Alb, 83

Alexandria , 105

Allen, CardinalWilliam, 1 , 6, 8-9, 18,

28, 34, 56

Altars, 19, 23, 81-3

Amice , 83

Anselmus, 6

Antoninus, ofFlorence , 85

Assistant , to serve mass , 19-20, 83-4.

Astensis, 82.

Attendance atheretic churches, 20-1 , 33, 37,50-1, 58, 74-7, 84-6, 94-6, 103-5 , 120-1 .

Azpilcueta , Martin ab, see Navarre

Bailiff, 120.

Balaam's ass, 58

Balshazar, 17

Baptism, 15-16 , 35, 79, 86-7,90-1,99

Barnabas, 63 .

Basel, Councilof, 84-5.

Benefices, 46-8, 106-7, 114-17 .

Betrothal, 31-4

Bilson, Thomas , 9.

Bishops, 22, 37, 81-2, 99-100

Blasphemy, ofheretics , 57, 72-4 .

Blessed Sacrament, reservation of, 23 , 92

Bodleian Library, MS Rawlinson D1351, 6-7, 10-11 ; MS Jones 53, 7, 10-11

Bone viage (?), 57 .

Books , of controversy , 49-50; pro-

Churches, their repair and decoration , 25,110-11

Cicero , 125.

Colleges, endowmentof, 57-8, 118-19

Commissioners against Catholics, 56

Communion , 22, 59, 78-81, 88

Concubines, of priests, 46

Confession, 19 , 36-7,59-60, 94-5.

Confession offaith, 52, 55 , 73-4, 77 .

Confirmation, 22, 81

Constables, 54 , 120

Constance, Councilof, 84-5.

Constantinople , 109

Copes, 18

Corporals , 81 Covarruvias , Diegode, 85

Dalmatics , 87 .

Daniel , 58

Defender ofthe Faith, 51, 121-2

Degrees, prohibited, 31, 32, 34-5, 89

De Ona, Nicolaus , see Ona.

Dispensations, granted by priests, 18,26, 28, 31, 34, 37-8, 89 ; Papal, 27, 35, 61-2, 68-9, 75-7, 81, 84, 88-9, 92, 95-6, 107-8, 111-17

Dodd, Charles , 10. Donatists , 58

Douai , 1 ; Douai Municipal Library, MS 484, 6-7, 10-11

EdwardVI, King, 16

Eleazar , 38 Elisha, 76

Elizabeth I, Queen, 51, 53, 65,75, 120-2, 124

Emmaus, 63.

Equivocation , 54-5, 63-6, 77 , 122 , hibited, 49-51,92-3 , 119

Borromeo , Saint Charles , 16.

Bread , blessed, 17

Breviary, 17, 24, 26, 67-9,93-4

Bribery, 52, 124

Bristow, Richard, 6

Cajetan , CardinalThomas de Vio, 125

Calvin, John , 50

Catechism, in baptism , 16; Tridentine, 60

Chalice , 15, 21 , 86

Chaplet , 68

Chasuble, 83, 87 125-6

Excommunication , 20, 46-8, 50-1 , 53 , 56, 62, 84

Exorcism , in baptism , 16; ofdevils, 16, 89-90

Fasting , 26, 37-9, 42, 59-60, 62, 69-74, 105-6, 119 , 124-5

Fear, just, 39-40, 49, 69

Feastdays, 20, 23, 59-60, 108, 110-11

Flanders , 85 France, 85, 122 .

Children, 21 , 65-6, 99, 103-5 , 107-8, Galatians , Epistleto, 63 119-20

Chrisom , 16, 85.

Churchland , its produce, 109 .

Games, on feast days, 60

Germany , 69, 85.

God-parents, 15, 32

ELIZABETHAN CASUISTRY

Grace beforea meal, by heretics, 38, 48, Navarre (Martin ab Azpilcueta), 1 , 36 , 69-71.

Grains, blessed, 53-4, 66-7, 91-2.

Gregory IX, Pope, 81.

Guests, heretic, 55-6, 99-100, 105-6

Hastings, Sir Francis, 9

41-3

Noblemen and noblewomen, 51, 75-6, 120-1

Norton, 49.

Notary, 119

Heresy and heretics, 22, 29,49, 53, 57-8, Oaths, 52, 124-6; concerning not re63-6, 76, 84-5,88, 122-3

Holywater , 15 , 87 , 91-2

Hours, recitationof, 26, 67-9.

Illegitimacy, 32

In CoenaDomini , Bull, 51, 75 , 93

Index Librorum Prohibitorum , 75, 93 Indulgences, 24 , 53-4.

Inheritance , 103-5.

Inn-keeper, 39-41

lapsing into heresy, 37; ofSupremacy, 50-1, 120

Offices ofB.V.M., 59; public , 46, 50-1, 119-20

Ona, Nicolaus de, 6

Panormitanus , 85

Participation, in heretic prayers, 38 , 48, 69-71, 74-7

Paten, 15.

Interrogation, answers to, 52-5, 63-6, Paul, Saint, 65 , 78 .

77

Ireland, 121-2.

Irregularity, 18, 28 , 62 , 88

Israel, 58

Jesuits, 54.

Jewel, John, 50.

Jews , 123. Joshua, 63

Judges, heretical, 52-3, 64-5. Julian, CardinalofStAngelus, 85 . Jurymen , 51 .

LambethLibrary, MS 565 , 7-8, 10-11

Laws, hierarchyof, 61-2, 68-9 . Litanies , 27. Lollards, 41 LowCountries , 50

Persecution, buyingoffof, 22, 51-2, 55, 102-3 , 124 .

Persons, Robert, 1 , 6, 8-9.

Peter, Saint, 54

Pius V, Pope, 29, 65, 121

Poland , 85

Prayers , for dead, 20; for schismatics, 20

Price, just, 43

Priests, maintenance of, 29; appearance and names of, 63-6

Primers, Latin and English, 24

Prison , 39, 55, 124-6

Property, inheritance of, 32; ownership of, 42-5

Pursuivants , 40, 54-5

Pyx, 22

Reconciliation to Church , 52, 84-6, 88-9, 94, 111-13, 116-17 . Relics, in altars, 19, 81-3.

Marriage, 28-34, 36, 87, 89 , 91 , 107-8, Restitution , 46-7, 57, 117

Maniple, 83 Manual, 16-17 , 29 117-18

Martin , Gregory, 8,9. Martyrdom, 72-3.

Mary I, Queen, 27, 47.

Mass, 19-21, 23-6, 50, 52, 58-9, 67-9,

Mayor, 120

Rheims, seminary at, 1 , 6

Robert , Father, 45

Rome, Venerable English College, 8,9.

Rosary, 68

Sacramentals, 15.

Sacraments, 17 , 20, 29

Ministers, heretic, 38, 40, 46-8, 102, Seminarists and seminaries, 58, 115-16, 78-80, 81-6, 88-9, 108.

Medals , blessed, 66-7. Milan, 16 109 , 114-16

Schism and schismatics, 18, 20, 28-9 , 48-9, 58, 88-9.

119. Sermons, 59, 68 , 74-6.

Monastic property, 26-7, 42-4, 96-8, Servants and masters, 39, 43, 50, 56,

Missal, 15, 24-5, 82 ,93-4. 100-1, 111-14

Morton, - , 49; Thomas, 9

Naaman, theSyrian , 76

95-6, 103-5, 119-20

Soto, Dominic, 45

Spain, 58, 69

Stole, 15, 83 , 87

ELIZABETHAN CASUISTRY

Subdiaconate, 28.

Surplice , 15, 87

Suspensionofpriests, 18 , 28, 88

Sutcliffe , Matthew, 9

Table , with heretics at, 55, 57 ,72-4.

Taxes, 22

Tithes, 22-3, 58 , 96-8, 101-2 .

Toledo, 45

Tonsure, ofpriests, 63-6.

Torture, 67

Travelofpriests, intoEngland , 26, 54-5, 63-9; within England , 39-40, 69-71 , 74-7

Trent, Councilof, 32, 78-80, 92 , 114

Tunic, 87

Turks, 109, 123

Unction , extreme , 15 , 84, 87

Usury, 44, 57

Venerable English College, seeRome

Vessel, baptismal , 16, 86-7.

Vestments, 15, 18, 19, 81-3, 87 .

Viaticum , 81.

Vio, Thomas de, Cardinal, see Cajetan.

Walpole , Richard, 9

War, feats of, 56.

Webbe, Laurence , 6

Wills, ofclergy,47

Women and wives, 20, 29 , 39 , 119; churching of, 16, 86-7.

Work, abstinence from, 59