If it be said that the provincial need not state the offense, but in general terms assert only that he has cause for removing the cura, even that would not avoid the difficulty: First, because the authorities may think that the provincial says so, in order to carry a point for a custom of long standing. Second, even though the cause for removing him is not a fault, it will be readily said [that it was one]; and if the person himself does not make further explanation, in such case the result will be that the fault will be made public by his silence. And finally, one’s honor is a very delicate thing, and is usually much injured by rumors and suspicions alone. And since God renders the religious exempt from the secular judges, and the Apostolic See from the ordinaries, the regulars represent that, as they have not professed to be curas, they do not feel courage to fill that office with so many risks and burdens.

The sixth reason: The object for which the religious are in the curacies is the salvation of souls; and there is no room for doubt that for such a purpose the religious will be all the more fit and competent an instrument the more he shall unite with the office of cura the regular observance. This greater union, it is certain, lies in the method of being curas which has hitherto prevailed, and not in that which the archbishop is attempting; for with subjection to him the cura does not depend so much on the regular superior, nor can the latter freely command him as before, and thus the obedience [of the religious] is greatly diminished and injured, without which no one deserves the name of religious. [Also the observance of] poverty is at great risk; for since the cura ministers through the obligation of justice and canonical institution, and this is not given to him by the religious order but by the ordinary, some of the curas might argue that since the order permits this to them, it also permits them to be masters, in whole or in part, of all the emoluments; and that with entire freedom, without subjection to or permission from their superiors, they can spend or dispose of these revenues as they please. This is a danger which is most prolific of innumerable others, and in all lines. Their chastity also is much less secure, because it is attacked by solitude, by the license which this occasions, by the natural compliance of the Indians, and by that almost perpetual tenure which in many ministries in America is experienced through the obligation of justice and canonical institution under which they are administered; and on account of the difficulty which thus arises in securing removals, sensuality does not find that remedy of flight which St. Paul lays down so prompt and easy as it would be if the parish priest depended only on his provincial.

And, finally, the religious do not, by assuming the habit as such, strip themselves of the passions of men. There might be one or more for whom the subjection and mode of life in a religious community becomes wearisome; and such men, knowing that a cura cannot be removed from the mission parish without the agreement of the ordinary and the vice-patron, undertake to gain the good-will of those authorities by letters and other means, and for the same object to win the friendship of officials and dependents, so that these may exert influence in order to preserve them in the curacies. And thus gradually they become rooted in their liking for a life that is solitary and independent, and will reach a state in which they give up the mission parish with grief, because they hold it through love for the conveniences of life, and more as very secular men of the world than as religious or as ministers to souls. In that case the religious orders could say that they had lost fervent sons, and the ordinaries that they had not made zealous curates.

All this is avoided when the regulars serve as parish priests in the same manner as they do now in the Filipinas; for they are wholly dependent on their superiors, and cannot dispose of anything without their permission. If it be expedient for them to go to some other place, there is no difficulty in changing their residence; and as they have not that security of perpetual tenure, their only care is for their ministries, the door being closed to unworthy measures and claims. Hence it follows that this mode of holding curacies is more in accordance with the three vows and the other statutes that aim at the perfection that is proper for the regulars, and consequently at the salvation of the souls[31] for whom they care.

The seventh and last reason—omitting others, either because they are included in those already mentioned, or because they may readily be deduced from those—is supported by authority. Let the histories of the Indias be read, and the laymen and ecclesiastics who have written about them; all agree in raising very serious doubts whether the regulars should be parish priests or not, and much more whether they should be so with title. [These writers] noted many decisions, in which entire provinces—composed of religious who were influential, experienced, learned, and zealous—resolved in their chapter-meetings that the mission curacies should be given up; many [opinions by] generals of those same orders, who approved that proceeding; and others, by various distinguished men, who expostulated against the acceptance of such an encumbrance by their religious order. [They have also noted] faults which they contemplated with tears—interminable discords, which banished all tranquillity and peace; and innumerable other damages, which, even the secular writers on the Indias admit, have made the regulars tremble.

If he who sees from

With these reasons, three arguments of which the reverend archbishop entertains a high opinion lose their force. One is, to argue [thus] in this dilemma: Either the regulars who are parish priests conduct themselves well and fulfil their obligations as such, or they do not. If this last, it is not right that it be permitted, nor that there be any failure to reform with the visitation which he is trying to enforce. If in all respects they fulfil their obligations, what matters it if he visits them, approves their proceedings, and praises them in his report to the king? And with this mode of argument he casts suspicion on the regulars, as if they had faults or failings as parish priests to conceal.

Answer is made, first: that the religious who are curas conduct themselves well in their ministries, and strive so far as their powers extend, for the salvation of their parishioners; and that what holds them back from being parish priests subject to the reverend archbishop is not the fear caused by [the question of] behavior, but dread of the inconveniences and dangers above recounted, which it is not easy to explain.

Answer is made, second: that in Manila and Cavite—which is distant two leguas from this city, and where only the secular priests are curas—the reverend archbishop has precedents very effectual for ascertaining the consequences of the way in which the religious behave in their curacies. For in those two places, where they have no obligations as curas, they are the ones who carry the burden of the day and of the summer’s heat; they alone (or almost alone) are the ones who administer throughout the year the sacraments of penance and communion—to Spaniards, Indians (Tagálogs, Pampangos, and Visayans), mestizos, Cafres, and other peoples who resort thither; they alone keep laborers set aside for this task; they alone preach frequently. It is they who carry on missions; they who dispense the divine word and explain the Christian doctrine in the guard-rooms of the soldiers and [among those stationed] at the gates of the city; they to whom the slaves from the foundry resort; [they who minister to] the prisoners in the jail, and the poor in the hospitals, and the seminaries of La Misericordia and Sancta Potenciana. It is they who in their churches have separate sermons for the Spaniards, for negroes, and for Indians; it is they who are almost continually going forth, by day and by night, to the sick and the dying, whatever the weather may be. Then who can imagine that where the religious, without being curas, have the inclination and zeal to aid the secular curas and the reverend archbishop themselves, relieving so greatly the burden of their obligations, they will neglect their duties in the villages, where the souls have been entrusted to their care alone?

Answer is made, third: that just as the reverend archbishop by his arguments strives at Madrid and Roma to subject the regulars to his visitation in what concerns them as parish priests, he may also plan to subject them in all that concerns morals and life. “For if they behave ill, it is not right to permit such conduct; and if their conduct is exemplary, what matter is it if he visits them, and approves them, in order to report on them with praises?” The reply which the reverend archbishop will make to this argument can with more reason be applied as the reply and solution to his own. The religious orders add that, even though the praises of the reverend archbishop are and always will be worthy of the utmost appreciation, yet they set a much greater value on following the counsel of the apostle about each man abiding in his own calling[32]—which was not to be curas—than to be curas and obtain those praises with the risk of the troubles that have been considered.