The second reason that the religious in Filipinas have for refusing to be parish priests by title, subject to the ordinary, is that no exact idea of this virtue of justice has been formed in considering the method in which efforts have been made to constrain the religious by it. For either they are or they are not capable of being really parish priests, like the secular clerics. If they are, they do not accept the parish under any obligation of justice; and even when this is conferred on them with canonical institution, they nevertheless do not remain ordinaries, as are the secular clerics; for in the latter, in order to secure a proprietary benefice, the only points considered are the ability to serve as cura, the obligation of law [justicia] to which they submit, and the canonical collation with which they are inducted into the parish. Including all this in the said supposition, the religious cannot well understand why, after all that, they do not remain proprietary parish priests. As little do they understand how the said ability, obligation of law, and canonical institution can make a secular priest a perpetual cura--so that if his conduct does not render him unworthy the curacy cannot be taken from him, either by ordinary or vice-patron alone, or by both together; while a religious who enters the curacy with the same formalities is not competent for the same perpetuity, but only for such tenure, even in his own territory, that even if he conduct himself as a saint the ordinary and vice-patron can, if agreed, deprive him of his benefice and give it to another; that is, even after that obligation and solemnity he is a parish priest removable ad nutum.