an investigation to be made by one having due authority, with the result of establishing a reasonable basis for the suspicion. Upon slender foundation the superior should not even admonish, unless the suspected person has given on previous occasions serious motive for fault-finding. Admonitions may be either paternal or legal (canonical), If the grounds are such as to produce a serious likelihood, or half-proof, they will suffice for a paternal admonition, which is administered after the following manner: The prelate either personally or through a confidential delegate informs the suspected person of what has been said about him, without mentioning the source of information, and without threat, but urges amendment. If the party suspected can at once show that there is no basis for suspicion, nothing further is to be done in the matter. If his denial does not banish the doubts about him, the prelate should try by persuasion, exhortation, and beseechings to induce him to avoid whatever may be a near occasion of wrong, and to repair the harm or scandal given. If this is not effective, the prelate may begin the judicial procedure. If the proofs at hand are inadequate, this is not advisable; he should rather be content with watchfulness, and with using negative penalties, such as withholding special offices and, where no slur could be manifest on the suspect's reputation, by withdrawing those before held. If the suspect does not answer to the summons, the prelate's suspicion reasonably increases, and he should then depute a reliable person to seek an interview with him, and to report to him the result. If he should refuse to deal with the delegate, the latter in the name of the delegating prelate should through another or by letter send a second and a third peremptory call, and give proof of the further refusal, with evidence that the summons has been received; now the suspect is presumed guilty. Thus the way is paved for the above-mentioned canonical or legal admonition. The assumed half-proof is strengthened, first, by the contumacy of the suspect; secondly, by his confession of the charge in question. An accusation issuing from a reliable person, as also a prevalent evil reputation, may supply for the defect of proof needed for indictment. For the paternal admonition it is enough that this evil reputation should be spread among less responsible persons, but for the legal admonition the evil reputation should emanate from serious and reliable persons. The legal admonition is to a great extent akin to the summons to judgment. It is always desirable for the suspect, and for the honour of the Church, that the prelate should arrange the matter quietly and amicably. Hence he should, by letter or through a delegate whose authority is made known, summon the suspect, informing him that a serious charge has been made against him. The summons, if not responded to, should be made a second and a third time. If contumacious, the suspect gives ample ground for an indictment. If there be any urgency in the case, one peremptory summons, declaring it to take the place of the three, will suffice. The prelate may still feel that he has not enough evidence to prove the delinquency. He may allow the suspect to purge himself of the suspicion or accusation by his oath and the attestation of two or more reliable persons that they are persuaded of his innocence and that they trust his word. If he cannot find such vouchers for his innocence, and yet there be no strictly legal proof of his guilt (though there are grave reasons for suspicion), the prelate may follow the legal admonition by a special precept or command, according to the character of the suspected delinquency. The infringement of this precept will entail the right to inflict the penalty which should be mentioned at the time the command is given. This must be done by the prelate or his delegate in a formal legal way before two witnesses and the notary of his curia, be signed by them, and by the suspect if he so desires. The paternal admonition is to be kept secret; the legal admonition is a recognized part of the "acts" for future procedure.
Pierantonelli, Praxis Fori Eccl. (Rome, 1883); Droste-Messmer, Canon. Proced. in Crim. and Dioc. Cases (New York, 1886); Smith, Elements of Ecclesiastical Law (New York, 1877).
Admont, a Benedictine abbey in Styria, Austro-Hungary, on the river Enns, about fifty miles south of Linz. St. Hemma, Countess of Friesach and Zeltschach, is regarded as its foundress, for upon entering the convent at Gurk she left her lands for the building of a monastery near the salt works of Hall. The foundation, however, was not begun until 1072, more than a quarter of a century after the Saint's death, and two years later the abbey church was consecrated by Gebhard von Helfenstein, Archbishop of Salzburg, in honour of St. Blasius. This prelate also brought twelve Benedictines from Salzburg as a nucleus for the new community. During the first century of its existence, Admont rose into prominence particularly under the Abbots Wolfhold and Gottfried of Venningen; the former founded a convent for the education of girls of noble families while under the latter thirteen of its monks were chosen abbots of other monasteries. A period of decline followed after the middle of the thirteenth century, when war and rapine did much injury. A new era opened under Abbot Henry VII (1275–97), and the work of restoration was completed by Engelbert (1297–1331). The abbey suffered again in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries from the inroads of the Turks and the prevailing social disturbances, and the Reformation made itself felt within the cloister. The Abbot Valentine was even forced to resign on account of his leaning towards the new doctrines. With the return of more peaceful times the educational work of the abbey extended and a faculty of philosophy and theology was added to the gymnasium, of which the cloister school had been the germ. The gymnasium, however, was afterwards transferred to Leoden and later to Judenburg, when it became independent of Adrnont. In 1865 the abbey and church were burnt, but were soon rebuilt. The first abbot was Isingrin. Not a few of his successors were men of great learning and zeal, and under their guidance Admont became an important factor in the history of Styria. The second abbot, Giselbert, introduced the reform of Cluny. Engelbert was the author of a number of works, chiefly theological. Albert von Muchar, who taught at the University of Graz and is known for his historical works, may also be mentioned.
Wichner, Geschichte d. Benedictinerstiftes Admont (Graz, 1874–80); Wolfsgruber, in Kirchenlex., I, 235–237; Chevalier, Topo-bibl. (Paris, 1894–99) s. v.
Ado of Vienne, Saint, born about 800, in the diocese of Sens; d. 16 December, 875. He was brought up at the Benedictine Abbey of Ferrières, and had as one of his masters the Abbot Lupus Servatus, one of the most celebrated humanists of those times. By his brilliant talents and assiduous application Ado gained the esteem of his masters and schoolmates, while his ready obedience, deep humility, and sincere piety foreshadowed his future holiness. Though urged on all sides to enter upon a career in the world, to which his nobility of birth and great intellectual abilities entitled him, he consecrated himself entirely to God by taking the Benedictine habit at Ferrières. When Markward, a monk of Ferrières, became Abbot of Prüm near Trier, he applied for Ado to teach the sacred sciences there. His request was granted. Soon, however, certain