I. On the Nature of the Religious State

What is the religious state? - The religious state, considered as regards its intrinsic essence, is defined: A stable institute of life, approved by the Church for the faithful, who under a certain rule and common manner of living wish to tend to perfection through the three vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, with a handing over of themselves made to God and accepted by him. Therefore religious do not necessarily belong either to the hierarchy of jurisdiction or to the hierarchy of order; but they are, or can be, simple faithful in the Church, and therefore of either sex. - Suarez, de Relig. tr. 7, l. 2, c. 1, n. 1.

Their state is a state of perfection. There is indeed a twofold state of life: one of common life, which intends nothing other than the observance of the commandments of God; another of perfection, which adds the observance of the counsels. The perfection of Christian life is in charity. "Each thing is said to be perfect insofar as it attains its proper end, which is the ultimate perfection of the thing. But charity is that which unites us to God, who is the ultimate end of the human mind." St. Thomas 2. 2, q. 184, a. 1. Therefore the perfection which constitutes the state of perfection, distinct from the state of common life, is the perfection of charity.

Moreover a threefold perfection of charity can be considered. The first is absolute, by which "God is loved as much as he is lovable, and such perfection is not possible for any creature, but belongs to God alone." Another, by which "the affection according to its whole power always actually tends toward God; and such perfection is not possible on the way, but will be in the fatherland." The third, by which "those things are excluded which are repugnant to the motion of love toward God.... And such perfection can be had in this life. And this in two ways: in one way insofar as from the affection of man is excluded everything which is contrary to charity, such as mortal sin; and without such perfection charity cannot exist, whence it is of the necessity of salvation; in another way insofar as from the affection of man is excluded not only that which is contrary to charity, but also everything which impedes the affection of the mind from being totally directed to God, without which perfection charity can exist." St. Thomas 2. 2, q. 184, a. 2. Hence precepts pertain to that former charity; counsels to this latter.

Therefore that perfection of charity is certainly not in merely essential charity, but in a certain peculiar superabundance of charity, which surpasses the common and necessary charity of Christians. But this excess of charity is not situated in some one or several transitory acts of charity, even if they are of great or greatest intensity; but in such charity, in preparation of soul and habitual disposition, that a man is proximately prepared and disposed to act easily and ordinarily according to the precepts and counsels of God. St. Thomas q. 184, a. 2, 3, 4. And thus the same Angelic Doctor, q. 186, a. 1 ad 4, says: "The state of religion is principally instituted for acquiring perfection through certain exercises by which the impediments of perfect charity are removed." And a. 2: "He who assumes the state of Religion ... is held to tend to this and to give labor to it, that he may have perfect charity."

Now the state of perfection is twofold: one is the state of acquired perfection, another of perfection to be acquired. The former is proper to Bishops, the latter to religious. Indeed the state of Bishops is the state of exercising charity in a more notable grade, and of moving others to it by chosen works of zeal. But the state of perfection to be acquired is one thing incomplete or begun, another complete. For the former the three principal evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity, and obedience are not required; but some counsel is sufficient, whether it is one of those three principal ones or another, for the counsels are very many in number. But for the latter the three evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity, and obedience are required and suffice, to be observed from obligation; and consequently they must be confirmed by vow. For by these three vows almost all impediments of charity are removed. But the religious state is the complete state of perfection to be acquired. - St. Thomas q. 184, a. 4-8; q. 186, a. 3-7; Quodl. 3, a. 17; Quodl. 4, a. 24; Quodl. 5, a. 19.

Those three vows, although nevertheless of themselves they ought to be perpetual, for this is required by the very nature of the state; by no means is it required from the intrinsic nature of the thing that they be solemn, but it is enough that they be simple. This is openly established from the Constitution Quanto fructuosius of Gregory XIII, 1583, and Ascendente Domino, 8 Kalends of June 1584, where it is established that those who have emitted the three simple vows in the Society of Jesus are truly and properly religious. Moreover Leo XIII, Decree of March 16, 1886, established that knights of the Teutonic Order continue to become true religious, but emit only simple vows.

The solemnity of vows is from the disposition of the Church; hence it is a certain force added to them, of constituting one as religious properly and strictly such from canonical institution, and of making certain acts of a religious, concerning the matter of the same vows, void or at least voidable, and of dissolving ratified marriage, and of rendering the vows themselves altogether firm and stable. And that force is absolute, and not merely relative to a certain time, or until the religious, free from vows, is dismissed. Hence for the solemnity of vows it is not sufficient that there be just any force of producing the aforesaid effects; but that force must be absolute, i.e., so perpetual and immutable that neither the religious nor even the religion itself can suspend or remove that force and the vow itself. But it is by no means required, as is clear, that that force of the vow and the vow itself cannot be removed by the Roman Pontiff; for that force is of ecclesiastical law, and therefore the Pope can dispense both from the effect of the solemnity of vows, while solemn vows remain, Decree of the S. C. of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, July 31, 1878, and from the solemn vows themselves. Therefore the solemnity of a vow is in its complete dependence on and subjection to the Supreme Pontiff, in the full acceptance and approval of the Church as regards the being of the vow, its force, and the said canonical effects. And thus Busembaum, l. 3, n. 195, says a solemn vow "is that which is accepted as such by the Church.... But simple is every vow which does not have such solemnity," namely such acceptance of the Church as regards the aforesaid canonical effects. And the S. Penitentiary in the year 1820 declared: "a solemn vow is that which is accepted as such by the Church, and renders the one vowing perpetually and immovably incapable of contracting marriage and of acquiring or retaining dominions of things." "And this is," says Cajetan on 2. 2, q. 88, a. 7, "what Boniface VIII determined in the Sixth, saying that the solemnity of a vow was found by the institution of the Church alone." And St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 189, a. 5: "The vow of religion is twofold. One is simple, which consists in the promise alone made to God, which proceeds from interior deliberation of the mind, and this vow has efficacy from divine law.... But another is the solemn vow, which makes a monk or religious; and this indeed is subjected to the ordering of the Church because of the solemnity which it has annexed," a solemnity not extrinsic from extrinsic ceremonies, but intrinsic by reason of the object insofar as it extends broadly, and of the immobility of the vow itself. And from this ordering of the Church the Angelic Doctor immediately repeats that a vow made before puberty "does not have its effect, so that it makes the one professing already to be religious," and consequently that it is not solemn, "however much someone may have full use of reason, or be capable of fraud, namely because the Church regards that which is in the majority of cases." Therefore the solemnity of a vow is not from the nature itself of the vow, but from the constitution alone of the Church, accepting and approving the vow, and by that acceptance and approval implicitly blessing the person and perfectly, totally, and stably consecrating him in order to observe chastity, obedience, and poverty, in the profession of a certain rule, "by which through renunciation of the world and of one's own will someone assumes the state of perfection, and totally subjects himself to divine service." St. Thomas 2. 2, q. 83, a. 7. "The solemnity of a vow consists in a certain spiritual blessing and consecration, which is done through the ministry of the Church; therefore the solemnization of a vow falls under the disposition of the Church." St. Thomas l. c. a. 9; C. Quod votum un. de Vot. et vot. red. in 6. - St. Thomas 2. 2, q. 88, a. 7, 9; q. 133, a. 1; q. 134, a. 4, 5; q. 186. Cf. here vol. 1, n. 571.

Hence a distinction is especially had between Religion properly and strictly said, according to canonical institution, and a religious Congregation. For by Religions properly and strictly said are to be understood institutes which have the essence of the religious state with solemn vows; but by Religious Congregations are to be understood institutes which have the essence of the religious state, but with simple vows only, approved however by the Holy See, and so approved that the vows which are emitted in such a Congregation are not private vows, but public, i.e., are accepted by someone in the name of the Congregation or of the Apostolic See, whence they are said to be made into his hands. Otherwise it is not a religious Congregation, but a secular one. Benedict XIV, Brief Quo magis, December 18, 1742; S. C. Bishops and Regulars, August 11, 1889; Enchiridion Morale 248, ed. 4, p. 224.

By this pronouncing of the three vows, with attention to their nature, there is had a total handing over of oneself to God, St. Thomas q. 186, a. 7, a. 6 ad 2; yet this is accepted not immediately by God himself, but by some man in his name. And thus it was always judged by the Fathers that the religious state is a donation and handing over of oneself made to God. But God, "according to ordinary providence, does not receive a peculiar care of governing a private person immediately by himself, nor does he need these sensible things, so that he may use them immediately and without the intervention of secondary causes. And therefore a donation thus made to God either would be vain and idle, or as if tempting God by demanding immediate governance from him: and for this reason it does not please him, nor is it accepted immediately by him." Suarez, de Relig. l. 2, c. 4, n. 7, 8. By the acceptance and approval of these vows on the part of the Church, a blessing and consecration of the person is implicitly had, whence the person becomes sacred, i.e., irrevocably devoted to God. And then the vows are solemn. St. Thomas 2. 2, q. 184, a. 4. - And if the acceptance on the part of the Church is not for every effect of the aforesaid vows, but only for some, and therefore the vows are not solemn but simple, then there is not had a blessing and consecration of the person, but a certain simple blessing, which does not devote the person to God so immovably. Hence a dismissed person is ordinarily accustomed also to be dispensed from vows, and ceases to be dedicated to God. - Consequently, as by the profession of solemn vows a certain handing over and donation of oneself is had, so by simple vows a simple promise is had. St. Thomas Quodl. 3, a. 17, 18; Quodl. 8, a. 10; Quodl. 10, a. 11.

Hence it is entirely clear that the approval of the Church is needed for the religious state in the face of the Church. But the Church no longer approves eremitical life in the religious state, but common life under a certain rule and under certain constitutions. C. fin. de rel. dom.; C. un. e. t. in 6; Benedict XIV, Notification 105, n. 59 ff.; St. Thomas 2. 2, q. 188, a. 8; E. M.

248 bis. The approval required, for Orders of solemn vows, is the approval of the Supreme Pontiff; for Institutes of simple vows, the approval is first of the Bishops and then of the S. C. of Religious, as can be seen in the Norms edited for institutes of this kind by the S. C. Bishops and Regulars, June 28, 1901. - The approval of New Institutes and of their Constitutions is now done according to the Particular Norms established by the S. C. of Religious, March 24, 1914. "No Bishop or Ordinary of any place, unless the license of the Apostolic See has been had by letters, is to found a new Sodality (Religious) of either sex, or permit one to be founded in his Diocese." Pius X, Motu Proprio, July 16, 1906.

The Constitution of Supreme Pontiff Leo XIII Conditae a Christo Ecclesiae, 6 Ides of December 1900, and the Norms of the S. C. Bishops and Regulars, June 28, 1901, constitute the current Law according to which the Holy See is accustomed to approve New Institutes of simple Vows, for women and for men. At present they are accustomed to be approved only with simple vows, by a threefold Decree: of Praise, of Approval of the Institute, and of definitive Approval of the Constitutions. Regularly Religious Institutes without their own habit, and whose members do not live in Community, are not approved by the Holy See. Yet there are not lacking some Institutes approved by the Holy See without a special habit, and whose members, some live in Community and others outside Community.

From this approval of the Church, finally, depends the truly religious state and religious order or religion. To the point Benedict XIV, C. Quamvis iusto, Pridie Kalends of May 1749, § 13: "For if," he says, "for the essence of the truly religious state it is required that religion or an order in a state of this kind be established by the confirmation of the Apostolic See, according to canonical sanctions, concerning which in C. un. de Relig. dom. in 6, and it is not sufficient to have obtained merely from the same Apostolic See the approval and confirmation of rules which some society of men or women has prescribed for itself to be observed; if the vows of poverty, obedience, and chastity emitted by the English Virgins according to the form of the rules approved by Clement XI cannot be said to be joined with express or tacit profession in some order approved by the Apostolic See in the state of true religion, as is stated above, it is clearly evident both that the state of the English Virgins is not the state of true religion, and that the vows which are made by them must be judged at most simple vows, but not solemn ones, according to the paths of the Decretal of Pope Boniface VIII, which alone exists under the title de Voto et voti redempt. in 6." Cf. ib. § 14. Hence it is clear that religious vows are solemnized through the very profession of a rule fully approved by the Apostolic See in the state of true or strict religion.

Third Orders: Tertiaries, some are religious, living in community; others are secular, living in the world. As Confraternities imitate chapters and collegiate bodies of churches, so these secular third orders imitate religious congregations. Religious of solemn and simple vows cannot be enrolled in these secular Third Orders. S. C. Indulg., July 16, 1887; January 31, 1893. And the faithful regularly can be enrolled in only one Third Order. S. C. Indulg., June 21, 1893. Secular Tertiaries do not enjoy communication of privileges and indulgences with Regulars of the first and second Order, and with other Tertiaries. S. C. Indulg., July 18, 1902. But Tertiaries living in community, and bound by simple vows, legitimately aggregated to Orders, enjoy the indulgences of the first and second Order. S. C. Indulg., August 28, 1903. - Secular Third Orders have precedence in processions above any Sodalities whatsoever, provided they proceed collegially, in their proper habit, and under the cross.

You will resolve: From the profession of the religious state there results a reciprocal obligation between the religious and the community, namely by which not only is the religious held to remain in the order and to live in it according to his own rule and constitutions, but the order in turn is held not to cast him out without a just cause. The reason is that "a religious becomes a member of one mystical body, which is the religion itself; but this cannot be done except through mutual union between the whole and the part; and that union, since it is moral, is made through mutual obligation." Suarez, de Relig. l. 2, c. 4, n. 10.

A religious, by force of his profession, is not held to be perfect, but is held under grave obligation to devote himself in some way to perfection. St. Thomas q. 186, a. 1. But he must tend to perfection primarily through the essential means of the religious state, namely through observance of the three vows, poverty, chastity, and obedience; secondarily through accidental means, namely through the proper rules of the order, at least by not despising those helps. St. Thomas q. 186, a. 2, 7. Hence he sins gravely who firmly resolves not to tend to perfection, or in no way to care about it. And against this obligation of tending to perfection he does not sin gravely who only sometimes would sin gravely, but would not be habitually so disposed that he does not attend to it.

But whether a religious sins gravely who intends to observe only the commands under grave obligation, and as for the others, resolves to transgress them all, or not to care about them, is disputed. The first opinion probably affirms it, because a religious of this kind no longer tends to perfection. The second opinion, however, more common and more probable, denies it. The reason is that the obligation of tending to perfection is from religious profession, which consists in vows. From vows there is not a grave obligation of observing all things, but all things which gravely regard the vows themselves.

But to profess a rule, or according to a rule, is not to vow to observe all things which are in the rule, but to oblige oneself to regular life, against which nothing is gravely contrary except only that which is gravely against a grave precept expressed in the rule. But contempt of both is directly contrary to the profession of perfection and of regular life. L. 11; St. Thomas 2. 2, q. 186, a. 9; Quodl. 1, a. 20; Sanchez, in Decal. l. 6, c. 5, n. 5.

Therefore he also sins gravely who transgresses rules, even those obliging only to venial fault, or to none, from formal contempt, namely when he transgresses them with the mind of not being subject to them, or to the precepts of prelates. But otherwise if he transgresses them led by concupiscence, or because he thinks they are not necessary for salvation, or if he judges that they are not commanded under grave obligation. - Therefore to transgress rules in matters of small matter, even from custom, of itself does not exceed venial sin. Of itself, for it can be grave by reason of scandal, or if it were gravely pernicious to Religion by inducing others by bad example to laxity of the rule, or by reason of proximate danger of sinning gravely in some particular case, and if from it he were constituted in such a state that he must be expelled as incorrigible. St. Thomas q. 186, a. 9. - Yet not rarely there is no sin in transgression of rules, because rules do not oblige under fault, and the religious either places the act without advertence, or indeed places it with advertence, but from a just and reasonable motive. L. 10; Trent s. 25, c. 1, 22 de Reg.; E. M. - Ferraris v. Religiones Regulares et Militares.

Does the Rule always oblige and how? - Whether there is an obligation of observing the Rule, and how great it is, is ordinarily explained in the Rule itself. If nothing is determined in it, custom is to be attended to, which is the best interpreter of laws. Moreover no obligation is to be imposed unless it is certainly established concerning it. But sometimes in the Rule and in the Constitutions a grave obligation is imposed; sometimes only a light obligation of observing them; and sometimes there is had only an obligation of accepting or executing a penalty. If some Rule or Constitution contains no such obligation, then that Rule or Constitution is not properly a law or statute, but a mere counsel, by which a certain determined manner of perfection is proposed, to which the religious ought to aspire. Sanchez, in Decal. l. 6, c. 4, n. 9.

Hence in Rules and Constitutions prescriptions are to be distinguished from spiritual documents, which are often contained in them. - And although the Rules of Religious Institutes of themselves do not always oblige to sin, nevertheless sometimes of themselves and by accident they can oblige by force of the virtue of obedience; but they always oblige by force of a higher natural law, unless they present themselves as mere counsels. Practically speaking, however, in their transgression some fault is rarely absent. Rules of this kind are now customarily called Constitutions. Cf. Cases of Conscience, ed. 6, vol. 2, App. XI.

Besides the Rules, all Religious are evidently held to observe the laws of the Church with great submission. Several Apostolic Constitutions and Decrees gathered into one concerning the discipline of Regulars are to be read by the same Regulars at public table or in Chapter at stated times. But it is most highly commended to Bishops that they effectively spread among Religious Families and also diocesan Institutes the knowledge of the Decrees of the Holy See which regard religious life. S. C. of Religious, July 3, 1910.

Do religious, dispersed by force, remain bound by the obligations of religious life? - R. In the affirmative. For they remain true religious. Hence they are by no means to be judged released from their solemn vows; yet by reason of the peculiar condition in which they are found, some modification is to be attended to as regards obedience and poverty, for as regards chastity there can be no difficulty.

As regards obedience, from the accident of the suppression of the religion, the professed do not become seculars, nor are they released from vows, by which they still remain bound; but only it is permitted to them by the Sacred Congregation to live in the world and in the habit of a secular cleric, nevertheless carrying inwardly something proper to the regular habit, under the obedience and jurisdiction of the Ordinary. Yet they always remain subject to their own superiors. As regards poverty, dispersed regulars can licitly and validly procure for themselves useful or necessary things, but by no means superfluous ones, have money with them, and enter various contracts of buying, selling, and donation. For religious can do all these things from the license and deputation of prelates; moreover in the case of dispersion a deputation of this kind is rightly presumed. For then each one, by the fact itself, is deputed as if steward of himself, at least for all cases in which recourse to a superior cannot be had. L. 65 Note; Cardinal De Luca, Works tom. 14, Annot. ad S. Conc. Trid. disc. 36, n. 1-4; de Regul. p. 1, disc. 28, n. 16; E. M.

Does a religious promoted to a parish or episcopate remain bound by the obligations of religious life? - R. To the first: In the affirmative, and therefore he is held to wear the habit of the religion and to observe the rule in all things which can stand with his office, unless a contrary legitimate custom excuses. But if he acquires anything from the parochial office, he acquires it for the parish. - The Superior of a religious Order cannot exercise the office of pastor. S. C. Regular Discipline, May 28, 1715; Ferraris v. Parochus, art. 2, n. 85.

R. To the second: In the affirmative, according to the form of the Constitution Custodes of Benedict XIII, S. C. Bishops and Regulars, May 6, 1864. He is indeed held by the vow of obedience, but to the Roman Pontiff alone. He is also held by the vow of poverty; but first, after confirmation, he becomes capable of dominion and recovers rights of succession, even those which he had renounced, which are deferred to him after promotion; second, he does not acquire for himself, but for his cathedral church; and titular Bishops must distribute these things into pious works. Therefore he can neither dispose of these acquired goods by legacy, nor make a testament concerning them. Yet he can use and enjoy them, and dispose of his revenues among the living, as secular Bishops do. Likewise he is held by the Rules, but only by those which, in his judgment, are not repugnant to episcopal dignity and office. Yet he must wear the habit, at least as regards color, as before, and he can use the form which secular Bishops use. - Those promoted to the Cardinalate are judged to have the same law. C. Statutum est 1, causa 18, q. 1; C. Clerici 15 de Vita et hon. cler.; Ferraris v. Episcopus, a. 7; Suarez tom. 4, tr. 8, l. 3, c. 17, n. 5; c. 18, n. 4; L. 4; Lugo de Iust. et Iur. d. 3, n. 232, 233; Resp. Mor. l. 5, d. 1, 12; St. Thomas 2. 2, q. 185, a. 8; E. M.

Do apostates and fugitives remain bound by the same obligations? - R. In the affirmative, for they are released by no obligation legitimately. - If these and those acquire anything, when they have died it belongs by right of spoil to the Apostolic Camera. Gregory XIII, C. Officii nostri, January 27, 1577. - Lugo, de Iust. et Iur. d. 3, n. 235; Resp. Mor. l. 4, d. 37; Ferraris v. Apostasia, n. 21 ff.; L. 80, 82.

For apostasy from an Order or Institute, unless the Religious has returned within three months; and for flight from a Monastery, taking a woman with him, "the penalty of expulsion or dismissal is judged as if brought by law." S. C. of Religious, May 16, 1911.

Are those cast out and dismissed free from the said obligations? What about those secularized? - R. To the first: In the affirmative as regards merely regular observances; for by sentence, separated from religious life, they are no longer bound by the observances proper to religious life. Religious solemnly professed, not yet initiated in sacred orders, who are cast out or return to the world from Indult of the Holy See, are also released from the burden of the breviary. Cf. n. 112. - R. In the negative as regards vows, if it is a question of those solemnly professed; for by ejection they by no means cease. Hence they are held under grave obligation to amend themselves. Those cast out must walk in clerical habit and tonsure and be subject to the Ordinary of the place, also by force of the vow of obedience. Urban VIII, Decree de Apost. et eiect., 1624. They cannot make a testament, and whatever they acquire, by right of spoil, when they have died, pertains to the Apostolic Camera, excepting those things which they have preserved or acquired from goods of the religion. Gregory XIII, C. Officii nostri, 1577. In the meantime they have administration and use of goods, nor is it inspected how they expend them; but they can claim no dominion for themselves. St. Pius V, C. Grave nobis, May 26, 1560. - R. In the affirmative as regards vows, if it is a question of simple vows. For those dismissed and cast out are ordinarily accustomed also to be dispensed from simple vows, either by their own superiors, if they have such faculty, or by the Holy See. Bishops in France can dispense nuns of the ancient orders, who emit only simple vows, while the vow of chastity remains firm. S. Penitentiary, December 23, 1835. - Innocent XII, July 24, 1674; L. 79 ff.; St. Thomas Quodl. 12, a. 36; Ferraris v. Eiicere; Benedict XIV, de Syn. l. 13, c. 11, n. 19, 20; L. 142; E. M. "All Religious constituted in sacred orders, expelled or dismissed, remain perpetually suspended.... Clerics not in sacred orders are prohibited from ascending to higher orders. But all who have been expelled or dismissed, even if they have truly amended themselves, will not be able to be admitted to their own or another Order or Congregation without special license of the Holy See." S. C. of Religious, May 16, 1911.

R. To the second: Secularization contains the faculty for a Religious of living in the world. He is still held by vows. He is held, by force of the vow of obedience, to obey the Ordinary of the place. S. C. of Religious, September 1, 1912. He can make honest and licit expenses; but he does not acquire dominion of those things which are given to him. Hence he cannot dispose of them, and when he has died, they pass to the Camera of spoils. Nor indeed can he obtain ecclesiastical benefices without a new Indult.

Indults of perpetual or temporary secularization, or of relaxation of perpetual vows, or even only of temporary vows, or of the oath of perseverance, or of certain particular promises, granted to priests and clerics constituted in sacred orders, are always understood with the following clauses, even if not expressed, dispensation from which is reserved to the Holy See, namely: They are forbidden, without a new and special indult of the Holy See: 1. any office, and, as regards those who are habilitated for benefices, any benefice in cathedral basilicas; 2. any teaching office and office in major and minor clerical seminaries and other Institutes in which clerics are educated, as well as in Universities and Institutes which enjoy apostolic privilege of conferring academic degrees in philosophy, theology, and canon law; 3. any office or function whatsoever in episcopal Curias; 4. the office of Visitor and Moderator of Religious houses of either sex, even if it is a question of merely diocesan congregations; 5. habitual domicile in places where there exists a convent or religious house of the Province or Mission to which the secularized priest or cleric, or the one released from perpetual vows, as above, was enrolled. S. C. of Religious, June 15, 1909.