VII. On the Vow of Obedience

What is the object of the vow of obedience? - A Religious from the vow of obedience is obliged to all things which the superior commands according to the rule and constitutions of the order, whether directly and expressly, or indirectly and implicitly. This is established from the very nature of the vow of obedience made in such a religion; for the object of this vow is this: to obey the superior commanding according to the rule of such an order. No religious superior has power above or against the rule. The former power exceeds the limits of promised obedience; the latter would tend to the destruction of religion. - C. 6 de Statu monach.; Suarez, de Rel. t. 3, l. 10, c. 8; St. Thomas Quodl. 10, a. 10; 2. 2, q. 88, a. 5 ad 3; q. 104, a. 5 ad 3; Lugo, Resp. Mor. l. 3, d. 3; S. C. of Religious, May 3, 1914, A. A. S. v. 6, p. 231; E. M.

You will resolve: The Superior generally does not have the right of imposing under precept that which from the Institute is not commanded under sin. For this would openly be against the rule. He can do this only when a special reason is given, in certain particular cases. L. l. 1, n. 141. If regular observance has been relaxed, superiors can recall it to its former state. For this was implicitly promised by professing the rule, unless altogether another state of the religion has already come forth, and those professing it wished to embrace it only thus relaxed. L. 44. - Obedience is sometimes to be offered even with danger of life, when the dangerous action is necessary and consonant with the Institute. Thus the Superior can command that a professed member assist other professed members infected with plague; that he administer sacraments to others if secular priests are lacking, especially when the Institute proposes for itself, as its special end, the procuring of the salvation of souls. - Obedience is not owed by force of the vow to a subordinate official. - Lugo, Resp. Mor. l. 5, d. 16, n. 2, 3; l. 4, d. 35; l. 3, d. 4, 5; S. C. of Religious, May 3, 1914, A. A. S. v. 6, p. 231.

Note: "Unless the prelate explains the command, for example by saying, I order, I command, etc., the subject is not held to obey. And when the prelate says: I order, I command, etc., the subject would not even be held to obey under grave obligation unless there is added: In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, or in virtue of obedience, or unless the penalty of excommunication is added, not only to be imposed, but also latae sententiae." For thus it has already been introduced by common practice for avoiding anxieties and doubts. - "Those things which indirectly pertain to the rule, Sylvius, etc., extend to those things which conduce to its fuller observation; Sanchez, however, restricts it to things very necessary, without which the rule cannot conveniently be observed, for otherwise the superior could command any macerations of the body whatsoever; for they are ordered to the fuller observation of the rule." L. 38, 39, 40; St. Thomas 2. 2, q. 104, a. 5 ad 3; 2 d. 44, q. 2, a. 3; Bouix v. 2, p. 429 ff. - Rarely, cautiously, and prudently should superiorissas command in virtue of holy obedience, or under formal precept, and only from a grave cause. It is expedient besides that they impose a formal precept in writing, or at least before two witnesses. Norms art. 136. - A gravely disobedient Religious more probably sins gravely both against the virtue of religion and against the virtue of obedience. For how otherwise could a grave transgression against the vow of obedience be had, unless at the same time grave disobedience is had? L. 46. - Lugo, de Poenit. d. 16, s. 4, § 4; de Iust. d. 36, n. 90, 92; L. 6, n. 313; Ithur. Cas. 8; Escobar tom. 5, lib. 43, s. 2, dub. 17-20; E. M.

Religious missionaries are bound by a twofold bond of obedience, namely: by force of canonical obedience, as missionaries they are subject to the ecclesiastical Superior; by force of the vow, as religious they are under the religious Superior.

The general rule is that all things which regard the sacred ministry and the temporal administration of the mission must be directed by the ecclesiastical Superior; but those things which protect religious life and discipline pertain to the duty of the religious Superior. Cf. the Statute or Manner of Living to be observed in the missions of the Congregation of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary and also of the perpetual Adoration of the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar, Rome 1907; Decree of the S. C. de Propaganda Fide, August 18, 1913, for the Ruthenians in the Canadian region, art. 21; Supplement to the Enchiridion Morale, ed. 3, p. 21.

Regulars have the habitual faculty of obtaining academic degrees in biblical studies. S. C. Bishops and Regulars, Prefect, April 19, 1904.

In all Italy and especially in the kingdoms of both Sicilies, Abbesses and Superiorissas of Monasteries are to be elected only for a three-year period. Gregory XIII, Constitution Exposcit debitum, January 1, 1583. Yet outside Italy, Rules and Constitutions approved by the Holy See and immemorial customs are to be observed. S. C. of Religious, June 3, 1910; S. C. Bishops and Regulars, May 4, 1901; A. S. S. v. 34, p. 397; Ferraris v. Abbatissa n. 55. "In elections of an Abbess or Prioress, whether the Monastery is subject to the Bishop or to a Regular Prelate, the individual votes of the nuns are to be collected in a closed urn and opened by the Prelate presiding with two priest scrutineers. But if for a grave cause the votes are given orally, this is to be done before the Prelate, with priest scrutineers nevertheless assisting. The priests about whom there is question are to be of mature age and approved virtue. Yet the ordinary confessors of the nuns themselves are not to be admitted as scrutineers or associates of the Bishop or Prelate." S. C. of Religious, August 27, 1910.

According to the Norms, local Superiorissas in more recent Institutes of simple vows regularly last in office for one three-year period, and only for a grave cause can they be confirmed for another three-year period; but not beyond this term in the same house, art. 309.

Can an abbess command nuns in virtue of obedience, obliging in conscience? - R. In the affirmative. The reason is that through the vow of obedience nuns are obliged to obey all their legitimate superiors. But the abbess in her monastery must be called legitimately and truly a superior. This is established both from the very nature of society and community, which certainly is in a monastery, and from the approval of the Constitutions by the Holy See. For the Holy See, approving Constitutions, certainly approves the order of superiorissas and subjects, the superiority of the former and the subjection of the latter. Otherwise, how could the monastery and regular observance be preserved? Therefore, although the abbess lacks ecclesiastical jurisdiction, she nevertheless does not lack economic and dominative power; this must also be said of male superiors not having ecclesiastical jurisdiction. But from the Norms the matter has been placed beyond every question. Cf. preceding number. - L. 52; E. M.

Can merely internal acts be commanded by force of the vow of obedience? And what also about the other vows? - Almost all agree concerning the vow of poverty, that it touches only external acts of ownership as its proper object. This does not exclude, as is clear, that someone can sin against the vow of poverty also by an internal act, e.g., by a desire of exercising an act of ownership; for that desire is specified by such an object, which by hypothesis is against the vow of poverty.

As regards the vow of chastity, Salmanticenses tr. 15, c. 6, n. 20, Sanchez in Decal. l. 5, c. 6, 9, Busembaum apud St. Alphonsus 37, Gury 165, and several others affirm that its object is both exterior acts and interior acts, because, they say, the vow of chastity is commonly understood thus. But this does not demonstratively prove the assertion, since in several Constitutions of Orders and Congregations this explanation is not found, and religious who vow very often have not given their work to theological studies in such a way that they can have knowledge of this matter. They are content to vow as the others vow according to the mind of the Church approving the Constitutions of the Order and Congregation. Nor indeed can they have another intention. Hence there are not lacking those who think that the vow of chastity touches only external acts and is violated by these. For they say that the Church is not accustomed to command merely interior acts; and therefore neither do vows of religion, approved by the Church, extend themselves to merely internal acts. But it is answered, and thus the common opinion is maintained at the same time, namely, that the vow of chastity in religion is certainly more perfect than a vow outside religion. Moreover the vow of chastity outside religion, since it is understood as a vow of perfect chastity, comprehends both internal and external acts; for chastity extends itself to both. It is confirmed from the Norms art. 129: "Through the vow of chastity the sister emitting profession binds herself to preserving celibacy, and besides, by a new title, that is, of the vow itself, to abstaining from any act whatsoever opposed to chastity."

As regards the vow of obedience, there are various opinions. For some think that the vow of obedience touches only exterior acts and the exterior execution of the mandate of the superior, which Gury 169 also has; others, on the contrary, judge that that vow extends itself even to merely internal acts. St. Thomas 2. 2, q. 186, a. 5 ad 4, although he says this vow of obedience has a certain universality, nevertheless says that it does not extend to all particular acts, and seems to exclude, besides others, also internal acts, concerning which there is discussion in the objection, for he refers himself to q. 104, a. 5, where he positively excludes acts of this kind from obedience to be offered to men. The Angelic Doctor indeed has these things at the aforesaid q. 104, a. 5: "in those things which pertain to the interior movement of the will, man is not held to obey man, but God alone." And ibid. ad 3, he says of religious: "as regards those things alone they are held to obey which can pertain to regular conduct." And q. 186, a. 7 c., he says that through the vow of poverty the good of exterior things is offered to God, through the vow of chastity the good of one's own body, through the vow of obedience one's own will. And ibid. ad 1 he says: "The vow of religion is ordered as to its end to the perfection of charity, to which all interior acts of virtues pertain.... And therefore interior acts of virtues ... do not fall under the vow of religion, which is ordered to them as to its end." Yet obedience is to be offered from the soul, since the vow is about the virtue of obedience, not merely about material compliance. - Lugo, Resp. Mor. l. 6, d. 7.

Therefore there is a difference between the vow and the virtue of obedience. The former regards only the external execution of the precept of the superior. The latter extends itself to perfect submission of the will both to the precept of the superior and to his simple manifested will, and also to the Rules or Constitutions. The virtue of obedience certainly commands submission of the will to the will of the superior commanding, and altogether prohibits contempt of him.

Moreover the opening of conscience to be made to a superiorissa or superior, in institutes of nuns of either solemn or simple vows, and in congregations of men of profession and rule wholly lay, is altogether not obligatory. Minor Superiors who dare to induce to this are to be denounced to superiors, and Major Superiors doing this are to be denounced by their own subjects to the S. C. Likewise the right of permitting or prohibiting access, or more frequent access, to sacred communion in no way pertains to Superiors, but only to Confessors, and indeed by reason of mere counsel. But the reason for the prohibition that was made of rendering an account of one's own conscience was not only the violation of secrecy most greatly to be preserved in that matter, but also and chiefly because of the abuse by which, "although manifestation of conscience had been permitted so that pupils might more easily learn from experienced superiors in doubts the arduous way of perfection, on the contrary from some of these there was introduced an intimate scrutiny of conscience, which is reserved solely to the sacrament of penance." S. C. Bishops and Regulars, December 14, 1890. That Decree is to be read publicly once in the year. E. M. Cf. C. Nova 10 de Poenit. et remiss.

And this reason of abuse, as is clear, is universal, and consequently, by reason of the matter, the reported Decree, on this side, regards all religious Institutes, as was also twice declared to me by the Secretaries of the S. C. Bishops and Regulars. And indeed it does not appear how Superiors could oblige their own subjects, by reason of rendering an account of conscience, to make an extra-sacramental confession before them, since already after the Decree of Clement VIII, May 26, 1593, they could not oblige them to make sacramental Confession itself to them; and much less does this seem possible today, after the Decree of Pius X, August 5, 1913, concerning sacramental absolution to be imparted to religious members, by force of which all religious can freely confess to any confessor approved by the Ordinary of the place. - Furthermore, Regular Superiors can in no way know the causes of their subjects which pertain to the Holy Office.

And as regards Religious women, if ever they ask to confess to some extraordinary Confessor, in no way can they be impeded by their own Superiorissas under pretext of any reason whatsoever, as has already been declared several times by the S. C. S. C. Bishops and Regulars, August 5, 1904.

If the Rule of an Order obliges under sin, is its transgression against the vow of obedience? - Suarez, de Rel. tr. 8, l. 1, c. 2, denies it. For the vow does not oblige one to observe the rule, but to obey superiors according to the rule. And therefore the proper obligation of the rule as such is not from the vow of obedience, but from the proper character of law. Busembaum apud St. Alphonsus 41 affirms it, because such a rule is no less preceptive than the voice of the superior. Yet in order that there be a sin not only against obedience, but also against the vow, it is required that either someone by a special vow, or by a special reason, has promised observance of the rule containing true law and precepts, or that in the rule there is expressed a precept of superiors by force of the vow of obedience; for then in reality it is the same as if the precept were imposed on all orally, or in writing through the rule, in virtue of the vow of holy obedience. And this seems to agree with the doctrine of the Angelic Doctor 2. 2, q. 186, a. 9; Quodl. 1, a. 20; S. C. Bishops and Regulars in the Norms 132, 133, 134. - Suarez tr. 7, l. 10, c. 6, n. 6; c. 7, n. 1, 6, 8.

From the aforesaid Norms the matter is now certain. From the Norms art. 133, "it would not be said exactly that the Constitutions of the Institute are to be observed by force of the vow, so that the sister sins against the vow of obedience whenever she acts against some point of the Constitutions."

How does the solemn vow of obedience differ from the simple vow as regards its proper effect? - The simple vow of obedience induces only the obligation of a promise of obeying the prelate, which of itself, or from the nature of the thing, or from positive law, is not sufficient for invalidating the will in matter not contrary to the vow, the rule, religion, or its prelate. Therefore it indeed renders illicit an obligation which is contracted by a subject independently of the consent of the superior, but by no means of itself makes it invalid. Norms 132. And indeed how could such a superior ever in advance invalidate or afterwards rescind either a marriage or a sale validly but illicitly made by a religious who sold his own thing?

But the solemn vow of obedience of itself renders invalid an obligation undertaken by a subject independently of the will of the superior, unless however the matter is one which is by no means subject to the power of the superior, as can be seen in the secret of confession, in a committed secret, etc. For a Regular through solemn profession so fully hands over his will to God that he is said to have neither to will nor not to will. C. Religiosus 2 de Testam. in 6; C. Religiosi ult. de Sepult. in 6; C. Si Religiosus 27 de Elect. in 6. - Suarez, de Rel. tom. 3, l. 2, c. 12, n. 8 ff.; St. Thomas Quodl. 1, a. 15, 16; Quodl. 4, a. 12; L. 48.

303 bis. Note: Superiors General and Superiorissas General in New Institutes must every third year transmit to the S. C. Bishops and Regulars a Report on the personal, disciplinary, material, and economic state, according to the Instruction of the same S. C. - S. C. Bishops and Regulars, July 16, 1906. "Monasteries and other religious houses of women which are in the City are subject to the authority and ordinary jurisdiction of one Cardinal Vicar, privileges of exemption being suppressed, with only the duty of protection preserved to the Most Eminent Cardinals." Pius X, Constitution Etsi nos concerning the Vicariate of the City.