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, supposing the incumbrance of collation and canonical institution? Why does that institution give all favorable things to the secular and deprive the regular of all relief? It imposes upon the regular the duty of feeding the sheep. It binds him to the territory, so that the provincial cannot remove him without the consent of the vice-patron and of the ordinary. He loses in great measure the privilege of the exemption, and with those duties does not have the comfort of being secure in his curacy, for he does not hold it for life. Neither is he master of the emoluments which the parish yields, unless it be imagined that he be dispensed from his vow of poverty. Consequently, he only gets the burdens by reason of the collation, and nothing to his advantage. If it be said that he is not capable of being a parish priest, why the pledge in this new form of administration?