ace, the trouble is not avoided. First, they may
think that he speaks thus in order to go ahead with his oldtime custom;
second, because even though the cause of removing him be not a fault,
it can easily be alleged to be one, and the fact that he does not offer
more explanation in that case comes to be the same as manifesting
its gravity by his silence. Finally, honor is very delicate and is
lessened by rumor and suspicion. Since God made the religious exempt
from the secular judges, and the apostolic see exempted them from
the ordinaries, the religious, when they have not professed as curas,
will find themselves without courage to assume that charge with so many
dangers and burdens. And will the apostolic see force them to that?

732. The fact that common law decides that the regular parish priest,
as such, is subject to the visit of the ordinary furnishes no argument
against my statement. For, leaving aside the fact that the supreme
pontiff may abolish such a law--as in fact was done by Pius V, after
the holy Council of Trent, while Urban VIII confirmed this action
afterward; and various statements of the most eminent cardinals
favor this when there is a lack of secular priests as happens in the
Philipinas--it is answered that common law which orders such subjection
is only in point when they wish to persevere in being parish priests;
but does not order that they be so under compulsion. If a secular
priest to whom the curacy has been given permanently by canonical
institution can resign it, and the law does not therefor disqualify
him, why cannot the regulars make that same resignation in order not
to live with the risks from having so many superiors? The regulars
are not curas for justice, but for charity, and they have taken
charge of the missions for lack of other ministers. They do not
administer them through right of proprietorship, but are removable
at will. Consequently, they can be deprived of those missions even
though they live like saints. Is it possible that when the will of
another is sufficient to remove them from their curacies, their own
volition will not suffice with the knowledge of the dangers which
will follow from such a charge? Further, is the regular incapable
of being a proper parish priest, or is he not? If he is, why, if the
secular cura is perpetual--so that, if he does not become unworthy,
neither the ordinary nor the vice-patron can remove him--will not the
regular also remain a cura, sup