Subquestion II: In what ways the enclosure of religious men is violated by the entrance of outsiders

Then D. Bonavent. says, lib. 4. Pharet. cap. 18: Good honor is in the Church, if women are far from the company of Clerics, as D. Hieronymus admonishes in the S. Doctor there: Let the feet of women tread your little hostelry rarely, or never. But before the Pontificates of Pius V and Gregory XIII, various women of various even states could enter the cloisters of men, either by force of the faculties of prior Pontiffs, or by virtue of the Constitutions of certain Convents: But since from this occasions of scandals easily arose, the aforesaid Pontiffs issued their own Motus proprii (since in the law nothing express exists on this matter), by which entrance is interdicted to all women presuming under pretext of whatever faculty, under penalty of excommunication latae and reservatae, that they no longer attempt to enter the Houses of the Mendicants, or of the Carthusians, or of other whatever Regulars by force of any faculty: The Motus of Pius V is had in Bullario Roman. Constit. 22, and begins: Regularium personarum, in the year 1566, in which moreover the local Prelates are strictly prohibited, under the penalties of suspension from Divinis, privation of offices, and incapacity for them, that they do not receive the said women: But the Motus more properly of Gregory XIII is had in Constitut. 36, beginning: Ubi gratis.

But a grave doubt arose after those decrees were issued, whether also women entering the Monasteries of men, not by force of any faculty, would incur the censures; since Gregory XIII says, Inhibiting the same to those who obtained them. With which words Pius V issued other not dissimilar ones: Prohibiting the women pretending the aforesaid faculties and licenses, etc. On account of which words Suarez judged that the censuras regard only the women there noted, not others: But this Doubt was threshed out by another Decree, issued by the same Pius V, where he declares that he comprehends under the censuras the said women and all others whatever; which, when Suarez had seen this, he sang the palinode of the prior opinion, as P. Elizeus noster notes in methodo rerum Criminal., tract. 10, quaest. 23, where he teaches that the Decree begins, Decet Romanum.

Hence the assertion is certain, that a Prelate, and a fortiori any other Religious, sins by introducing into interior houses, or into the cloisters themselves, women comprehended in the said Decrees. It is evident from the penalties there indicted; which suppose a grave sin, and from the Council of Trident. granting the faculty of absolving from those censuras when they are occult, sess. 24, de reform., cap. 6. Therefore it supposes sin through the censuras.

Although in the aforesaid motus proprii women are specified of whatever status, grade, order, condition, and endowed with whatever dignity and pre-eminence, whether they be Comitissae, Marchionissae, or Ducissae; nevertheless it is not gathered from that that it is prohibited to admit Queens, and their daughters, or granddaughters, or even Foundresses of Coenobia. And this is true to such an extent, although Gregory XIII says, To whatever even Comitissae, Marchionissae, Ducissae, and others of whatever status, where the particle others (aliis) is ridiculously interpreted by descending, but is rightly understood by ascending to the higher grades, according to the rigor of the law, as Suarez aduerts, lib. 1, tract. 9, de Relig., cap. 7, num. 5. For since both Pontiffs speak in nearly the same mode, it is a sign that the intention of each is equal as to the specification of persons: But from Pius V it is in no way gathered that he comprehended foundresses, much less Queens, or their daughters, or granddaughters; since there he named the special persons whom he intended to be understood. Besides, Gregory XIII, below, treating the matter which pertained to Kings and Queens, names them. Moreover, the rule of law is, that in a general clause those things are not comprehended which require a special reason, especially when others of inferior note are specified in the same clause.

But that Queens and Foundresses have a special cause is evident first of all from the custom, which custom seeks out these Monasteries.

Then, Suarez verifies, according to the mind of the moderns, that after the Religious of the Order of Minimorum had consulted the Supreme Pontiff and the S. Congregation of Cardinals whether the aforesaid Decrees would exclude Queens and foundresses, they received the answer that no derogation had been made from the privileges which Queens and foundresses enjoyed.

Reason also favors these privileges as regards foundresses (for as regards Queens it is nowhere disputed). For since they are in a certain manner the Dominae and Patronae of the Monasteries which they themselves built, and since the Ius patronatus enjoys privileges in many places in law, it was becoming that they not be involved in the same prohibition as other women: But this presses more among the Minores, since the places constructed for them are under the Dominion of those who took care that they be constructed, unless by special mention such dominion be abdicated, and thus pass into things whose property pertains to the Pontiff; but the use alone pertains to the Brothers themselves.

And although the Monasteries be in the dominion of those Brothers who can truly possess them in common, nevertheless laws are not to be so interpreted as to wish benefactors to be withdrawn from benefacting, or the Brothers themselves to incur so great a note of ingratitude.

Hence one may conclude that women entering, with fraud, malice, presumption, or temerity set aside, do not violate the law of enclosure; because the Pontiff in the said Decrees uses the particle presuming (praesumentes), so that if they enter even from culpable ignorance, they are not judged to sin, and therefore to undergo no censure, as Pater Elizaeus notes excellently in the place cited, numero 2; a fortiori, say the same, if they enter on account of the infirmity of some Religious whom they can succor, or for Masses, sermons, and similar things: they are held, however, to go and return by the straight way, as the cited Elizaeus has, saying that even an ingested boy not pubescent does not violate this law, since in them the end of the law ceases, and the occasion of impudicity, against which these things are statutes.

But by CONSUETUDINE it is received that, the cloisters being destroyed, or lying open through grave fracture, that rigor is not observed; although it is advisable that, with the greater diligence that can be done, every access be precluded to seculars on account of the decency of the Religious state. Which decency also can oblige Prelates, that they do not admit even men into the interior houses at fixed times; although no special precept is given about this.