Note 30 — The Camacho Ecclesiastical Controversy, 1697–1700

The religious also consider that although the virtue of justice is one for all, and alike for all, and the efficacy of canonical institution is also one for persons who are qualified for the same office, to the secular cleric with the onerous duty of parish priest is given all that can favor him; but to the religious, while the entire burden is laid upon him, all his energy is checked on account of not giving him all which can relieve that burden. This is all placed upon the religious, for his responsibility for the feeding of his sheep confines him to a district in such a way that his own provincial cannot, by his own agency alone, change his district without first resorting to the ordinary and the vice-patron, to secure their consent. In this way there is a notable decrease of obedience, and the regular observance of the rule which he professed is greatly disturbed; and many, continual, and insupportable annoyances are heaped upon the provincials. The religious loses in great part the privilege of his exemption; he remains subject, in so far as he is a cura, to investigations, complaints, visitations, and penalties from the ordinary; and with all these burdens he has not the comfort of being secure in his parish, even if his conduct do not render him unworthy of it, because he does not hold it in perpetuity, as the secular does. He is not master of the emoluments which the curacy yields, nor are they in justice due to him as to the secular, unless he pretends that he is dispensed from the essential vow of poverty. Then, if the religious is capable of being a parish priest, and that by title of law, as is the secular, who has given to justice and to canonical collation such efficacy as with them to furnish to the secular what is honorable30 and favorable, yet has so divided it as to impart to the regular what is detestable, while yet denying him what may console him?