Question II: Whether solemn vows are necessary to the religious state

RELIGION is commonly defined as The state of men tending toward perfection, through chastity, poverty, and obedience. It is gathered from D. Thomas 2. 2. last question, and D. Bonaventure in the Diaeta, tit. 4. cap. 1. and in the exposition of the rule of the Minors. And it is reported by Bellarmine Tom. 2. lib. 2. de Monachis, cap. 1.

IT IS SUPPOSED, however, rather than what I would wish to prove from D. Bonaventure in the Diaeta loc. cit., that for religion three vows are necessary, Chastity, by which the goods of the body are consecrated to God: Poverty, by which external goods; and obedience, by which the most precious good of the soul, namely the will, is consecrated to God. So it is had in cap. cum ad Monasterium related above. So D. Thomas 2. 2. last question, art. 3. 4. and 5. Bellarmine Tomo 2. lib. 2. cap. 9. and from cap. 20. as I shall show in quaest. 4.

The REASON of D. Bonaventure loc. cit. of the Diaeta, and of the rule, is, because the state of religion is a way to perfection; and therefore those things must be removed which impede it most, namely dietetic pleasures, as the Apostle has, first Timot. 6. The root of all evils is covetousness. Chastity takes away venereal things, which tickle most with the itches of pleasure, and plunge into filth, and add the care of a household and of children: and obedience takes away one's own will, without which there would be no hell, as D. Bernard says serm. 3. de resurrect. Domini before the middle. These things D. Bonaventure, whom Sanchez imitates lib. 5. cap. 1. num. 16.

NOTE, as regards poverty, that it is enough if goods are so retained that they may not use them without the license of a superior. So Gregory XIII. Extrau. Ascendente de Biennalibus Religiosis Societatis Iesu.

THESE, however, must be confirmed in some way, as D. Bonaventure teaches loc. cit. from D. Thomas 2. 2. last question, art. 6. The reason is, because the state demands immobility.

MOREOVER it is required that the vows be emitted in a Religion approved by the holy Roman Apostolic See. This S. Doctor indicates at the beginning of the exposition of the Rule, and the Gloss in Clem. cum ex eo, V. tertio, de sentent. excom. Abbas Rubr. de regul. num. 1. and others.

FINALLY it is required that the one vowing be constituted under the power of someone, which arises either from Ecclesiastical institution, or from the nature of the thing according to what was said in quaest. 1.

WHAT is to be inquired here is, whether solemn vows are of the essence of Religion.

IT WAS the opinion of those saying that solemn vows are of the essence of Religion. So D. Thomas seemed to think 2. 2. last question, art. 2. ad 1. The Gloss cap. 1. verb. dedicanda de relig. domib. D. Antonin. 3. part. tit. 16. cap. 3. Sylvest. votum 4. quaest. 5. and verb. religio beginning and 3. Angelus verb. religiosus, Armilla religio. and there. Tabiena, Caietanus 2. 2. quaest. 188. art. 1. ad 4. Sotus lib. 7. de Iustitia, quaest. 5. art. 1. concl. 8. Nauarr. cap. non dicam 12. quaest. 1. num. 25.

BUT IN TRUTH already in our age the most holy Pope Gregory XIII. of his own motion declared, that the Biennials of the Society of Jesus, by mere simple vows, are religious, no less than the professed of any religion whatsoever: So all the Jesuit Fathers, and so it must be held.

NEVERTHELESS, because so many holy and eminent Theologians must not be condemned, among whom is also D. Bonaventure in 4. d. 38. art. 2. quaest. 1. who acknowledge only the solemn vow of religion, and assert it to be distinct from the simple vow,

IT MUST be noted with Caietanus 2. 2. quaest. 88. art. 7. col. 2. that the state of Religion can be constituted by the Church in a simple vow, which however will not be from the nature of the thing, but from a privilege against the common law, as the most learned Sylvester shows V. Privilegium at the beginning. This I prove thus, point by point, against Sanchez.

Those things which by the ancient law were not such, and became such only after Ecclesiastical law, are not such by their nature, from Sanchez disput. 25. of the seventh book de matrimonio, num. 2. and proportionally they are not simply from Ecclesiastical law, if before, by Ecclesiastical law they were not such: but simple vows before the decree of Gregory XIII. did not constitute Religious, nor did they dissolve marriage, which was granted to the solemn vow alone cap. unico de voto in 6. Therefore they are not such from the nature of the thing, or simply from Ecclesiastical law, but from a new privilege.

Sanchez RESPONDS, that no law provided that no one should be a Religious without solemn vows, though those alone invalidate marriage. But this is disproved by cap. minimus ubi qui Clerici, vel vou. where the one vowing solemnly is compelled to the Monastery; but the one vowing with a simple vow is not compelled to pass over, as is certain, which is because he is not a Religious.

I prove the SAME by cap. ex parte tua, de conuer. coniugat. where it is had, that a certain woman, who was withdrawing from a ratified marriage, is compelled either to consummate the marriage, or to vow religion; nor is a private vow of chastity judged sufficient for this: Therefore a private vow does not make a Religious by the ancient law.

THEREFORE since this privilege was given whole centuries after D. Bonaventure, for it was given in the year 1572, it is a sign that this is not to be said simply the common Ecclesiastical law, which before, with the contrary practice, persevered down to these times.

WHENCE I do not see by what right Sanchez strikes terror lib. 5. of the summa, cap. 1. num. 26. lest anyone assert that simple vows constitute the state of Religion by a privilege alone, since never before the times of Gregory XIII. did it do so.

Sanchez PRESSES, that Gregory defines these to be religious, no less than the others. Let them enjoy my good will: he does not say, by the same law; but, no less, which indicates a likeness. It is confirmed from Valentia 4. part d. 10. quaest. 5. puncto 3. where he says, that the Biennials in the Society of Jesus are indeed truly religious, yet not in that perfect degree of the religious state, as the solemnly professed. Henriquez thinks the same lib. 12. de matrim. cap. 5. num. 3. with the commentary joined, litt. N, and num. 6.

Sanchez PRESSES num. 16. That by those simple vows a perfect donation is made.

IT IS ANSWERED, that these are raised to that which before they did not effect. Moreover, they fall short of perpetuity by the nature of the thing, because they can be expelled, whence the donation is not accepted with that perfection with which the solemn donation. Add, that they retain the ownership of goods, which the solemnly professed do not retain.

IT IS CONFIRMED, for the Cardinals of the Congregation of the holy Inquisition, gathered together with Sixtus V. decreed, that the substance of religion consists regularly in solemn vows: but that the Supreme Pontiff can indulge, know, and determine otherwise, as Rebadeneira reports de suo Instituto, cap. 17. ad 3. Therefore those emitting those vows by a privilege alone are true religious, even in the opinion of those saying that the solemnity of vows is of Ecclesiastical law. If you wish to say, that solemn vows constitute a religious from the nature of the thing, but this from Ecclesiastical faculty, still the privilege must be judged. On this account Sixtus V. decrees with the Cardinals, that the Church can indulge, or determine otherwise, that is, grant a privilege, and determine, which is not a simple decree, according to the common law, as Sanchez believes num. 26. at the end, saying, that to indulge signifies to determine; for it was something superfluous to premise indulge, and afterward determine. Therefore these two words are rightly joined, by the one of which the Privilege of the indulgence granted to the religion would be expressed; by the other, however, the firm decree, or law, by which all were so held.

Therefore let these Reverend Biennials be CONTENT to be numbered as truly religious with the rest; but without prejudice to the solemnly professed, who, as clearer than light shines forth, are in a more perfect state; and without distinction of the Holy Doctors, who did not venerate the state of religion in simple vows, because it had not yet been granted by the Church.

WHETHER, however, by those vows after the biennium a ratified marriage is invalidated, the more probable part is the negative, which is upheld by Vasquez d. illa 165. cap. 10. Rebad. cap. 19. Instituti Societatis, Henriquez lib. 11. de matrimonio, cap. 8. Sanchez lib. 2. de matrimonio, d. 18. for the laws speak of solemn vows alone cap. desponsatam, and cap. decreta Regalia 27. quaest. 2. Extrav. Ioan. XXII. Antiqua de voto, cap. Ex publico, and cap. ex parte de conver. coniug. and the Council of Trent sess. 24. de matrim. can. 6. Nay, neither is this granted to a solemn vow of fact of Order, as is decided in that Extravag. Antiqua. Yet I do not think it improbable, that the Church, by whose law the solemnity of vows is required, could have defined those private vows to be enough of law, as many teach.