VI. On the Vow of Chastity

What is the object of the vow of chastity? - The object of the vow of chastity comprehends two things, namely those things which by natural and divine law are already prohibited by the virtue of chastity, and also those things which can licitly be done in legitimate marriage.

What is the gravity of sins committed against the vow of chastity? - R. There is exactly the same gravity or lightness of sin against the virtue of chastity as against the vow in those things which are prohibited by the virtue; and in these two sins are given, if the vow is violated. One sin is committed in that which is forbidden by the vow alone. But the gravity or lightness is to be taken from the virtue itself of chastity, namely if it would also be opposed to that virtue.

What is the difference between the solemn and simple vow of chastity? - The solemn vow of chastity invalidates subsequent betrothal and marriage, and likewise antecedent betrothal, and also antecedent ratified but non-consummated marriage. And note the difference with the vow of chastity in the reception of sacred orders, for this latter indeed invalidates betrothal and marriage contracted afterwards, but it does not invalidate marriage contracted before, although not consummated. A simple vow of chastity by common law does not invalidate marriage, whether subsequent or antecedent. By common law, because the Supreme Pontiff can decree that the simple vow of chastity dirimently impede marriage, just as if it were solemn. And thus it was really established as regards subsequent marriage for the simple vows of scholastics of the Society of Jesus. Furthermore, through the simple vow of perpetual chastity, subsequent betrothals are void, for the promise of marriage then concerns an illicit thing. More probably, antecedent betrothals are also dissolved. The reason is that the promise of betrothal is always judged to have been made under the tacit condition: unless a better state be chosen. - C. Rursus 6 Qui cler.; Trent s. 24, c. 6, 9; L. l. 6, n. 812, 958, 1059; Lucidi ed. 3, p. 93, 148.

What about enclosure? - For the greater custody of chastity enclosure was introduced, by force of which nuns cannot go out from the monastery except by license of the Pontiff or Bishop, which can also be given only in extraordinary cases. But religious men cannot be absent from the house without the license of the prelate. Nor indeed can women enter the enclosure of regular men, nor persons of whatever sex or age enter the enclosure of nuns. Likewise frequent access to nuns is prohibited, and to regulars, as is fitting, more severely than to others, both secular clerics and laymen. - C. 20, caus. 18, q. 2; Trent s. 25, c. 4, 5 de Reg.; Benedict XIV, Decretal Letter Gravissimo, October 31, 1749; C. Quamvis iusto, April 20, 1749; Clement VIII, C. Nullus; Ferraris v. Moniales a. 3; E. M.

Enclosure is also to be observed in hospices, stations, and houses of regulars in places of missions; and its norm and limits are constituted by the Decree of the S. C. de Propaganda Fide, August 26, 1780, Collect. n. 410.

As regards modern Religious Institutes of simple vows, they have enclosure, indeed not strict, but partial, determined in the Constitutions themselves, which requires at least that in all houses some part be reserved for the Sisters themselves, into which no other is admitted. Norms of the S. C. Bishops and Regulars for more recent Institutes, n. 170. It will belong to the Bishop to take care that this partial enclosure be rightly observed, and to restrain whatever defect creeps into it. Norms n. 172.

Sisters seeking alms must have the license of the Ordinary, and are held to observe the prescriptions established by the Decree Singulari quidem of the S. C. Bishops and Regulars, March 27, 1896, and also the norms which were promulgated by the S. C. of Religious, Decree De eleemosynis, November 21, 1908, both for mendicant Orders and for non-mendicant religious Orders or Institutes. A. A. S. v. 1, p. 153. From this Decree the Friars Minor are exempted as regards collections customarily made in favor of the Holy Land. S. C. of Religious, October 1, 1909.

As regards Sisters who provide assistance to the sick either in public Hospitals or in private houses, works of charity are by no means approved which seem unbecoming to virgins dedicated to God and clothed in ecclesiastical habit. Norms art. 15, 291.

Confraternities are prohibited in Convents of Religious women, whether of solemn or simple vows; but by no means pious Associations of women only, the things to be observed having been observed. But if it is a question of erecting pious Associations of either sex, the matter is remitted to the Ordinaries. S. C. Bishops and Regulars in Tirasonensi, November 9, 1595; January 18, 1907. - Lugo, Resp. Mor. l. 4, d. 40.

Without a special faculty, male and female Religious cannot receive outside persons as guests in their own house, except by reason of charity when some case occurs. - Outside youths cannot live in Convents of men by any title or pretext unless they have completed the twenty-first year of age. - S. C. Bishops and Regulars, May 16, 1675.

The use of the telephone is now permitted by common custom to all religious, men and women. Yet due cautions, as is clear, must be used.

What sort of sin is it to go out from the monastery without license? - For nuns living within enclosure it will always be grave, since the Church prohibits it under a most grave penalty, namely excommunication. - For religious men it will be grave if it is done rather often with scandal, or furtively at night; but only venial if someone goes out once or twice, or only sometimes during the day. - Clement VIII, on the Reform of Regulars, art. 19, prohibited a general license from being given, or one without a companion; but it is not certain whether the ordinances of Clement VIII are all preceptive, or at least some directive. Cf. Salm. tr. 15, c. 5, n. 163. Yet one can stand by legitimate custom, and by the Constitutions of each order approved by the Holy See. - The prescription of a companion is still in force from the practice of the S. C. Bishops and Regulars and now of the S. C. of Religious in the approval of more recent Institutes, especially as regards nuns. Norms a. 174. - L. 37; Suarez, de Relig. tr. 8, l. 1, c. 6, n. 8.

What about the obligation of wearing the habit? - In those Institutes in which a certain habit is ordered to be worn as a sign of religious profession, speaking of itself, the formal putting off of the habit, i.e., by changing the habit so that one is not recognized as a religious, if done rashly, is a mortal sin. C. Ut periculosa 2 Ne clerici vel monachi in 6. - Bouix v. 2, p. 585 ff.