Case LV: Simple Vows and Reserved Cases

Applied correction from Woywod's opening insert: Case LV.—The conclusion of this case, viz., that simple professed members in Orders that have solemn vows are not held to the reserved sins of the Order while they are in simple vows cannot be upheld any more. Canon 615 says that the members of Orders, including the novices, are exempt from the jurisdiction of the bishop except in some cases specified in the Code. They are therefore subject to the authorities of the Orders in the same manner as the solemn professed for the time they stay under the jurisdiction of the Order.

At a gathering of regular clergy the point was argued: “whether those simply professed incur cases reserved in the Order?” As no generally satisfactory answer was given I will essay to present a few data which may contribute toward elucidation and solution of this question. To set aside all doubt as to who is included in the term simpliciter professi I would preface my remarks with the following quotation: “Pius IX, by the encyclical letter of March 19, 1857, of the Sacred Congregation concerning the state of Regulars, on the profession of simple vows, beginning ‘No one is unaware,’ established and decreed that in religious communities of men in which solemn vows are emitted, after the probation and novitiate prescribed by the holy Council of Trent, the Apostolic Constitutions, etc., novices should emit simple vows after completing sixteen years of age, etc.... After three years, computed from the day on which they emitted simple vows, the professed, if found worthy, are to be admitted to the profession of solemn vows” (Bizzarri, Collectanea in usum Secretariae s. Congr. Episc. et Regul., p. 854).

In these Litterae Encycl. there is only mention, therefore, of simpliciter professi who, in regular orders for men with solemn vows, take after their novitiate the simple vows ad triennium.

The solution of our question appears to depend chiefly upon the fact whether these simpliciter professi vere et proprie are to be regarded as religiosi, and whether they are consequently bound to all obligations and duties of the same, unless special privileges or dispensations in the rules of that order permit of mitigation or exception.

This matter is dealt with by Bizzarri (apud Piatum Montensem; Praelectiones Juris Regularis, tom. I, ed. II, p. 9) as follows: “At the general meeting of June 15, 1856, before the Sacred Congregation concerning the State of Regulars, it was debated whether those who in religious Orders of solemn vows must first make profession of simple vows were to be declared true Religious or only participants in privileges. Some of the Most Eminent Fathers thought that the first part of the proposition should be approved, because the matter concerned simple vows perpetual on the part of the one vowing, inasmuch as they tend toward the subsequent emission of solemn vows, in which they will receive perfection and completion, as occurs in the Society of Jesus. Others, however, thought that only a sharing of privileges should be granted, since it was not expedient to extend the singular privilege of the Society of Jesus to other Orders, lest a new State of Religion be established generally contrary to the prevailing discipline of the Church. Amid this difference of opinions, Our Most Holy Lord Pius IX approved the following article, which is read under number VI in the declarations given by the aforesaid Sacred Congregation: Those professed under the said simple vows shall participate in all the graces and privileges which those professed under solemn vows in the aforesaid Order lawfully use, enjoy, and possess.”

Upon this article of Pius IX Petrus a Monsano, in his Collectio Indulgentiarum, theologice canonice ac historice digesta, p. 580, comments correctly: “Nor have those very members who in religious Orders must first make profession of simple vows for three years been declared true religious, although they have been made participants in all the graces which those professed under solemn vows enjoy.”

This opinion gains weight, and is confirmed, by the declarations of the S. Congr. Super Statu Regul., and by the views of the authors of the law of regulars, from which it is evident that on the one hand (A) there are not conceded to the simpliciter professi certain rights and faculties of the solemniter professi, or that special rules apply for the same in regard to certain functions, as for instance in the Dispositio in temporalibus, etc.; and that, on the other hand, (B) they are exempted from certain duties or penalties of the solemniter professi:.

A. (a) The Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars declared on June 6, 1836, that the goods of a deceased religious who had emitted only simple vows belong to his heirs, whether they succeed by intestacy or by testament.

(b) The solemniter professi vi temporalis vel perpetui indulti saecularizati are usually subjected to various clauses and conditions (Piatus M., tom. I, p. 175), whereas those dismissed while under simple vows are free from every bond and obligation (Bouix I, 516). This is doubtful if it concerns those who in truly religious Orders must remain under simple vows for three years (decl. s. Congr., d. 12 Jun., 1858).

(c) Regular Superiors can grant dimissorial letters to professed persons of this kind, but only for first Tonsure and minor Orders, with the requirements of law being observed (decl. s. Congr., 12 Jun., 1858).

(d) Those simply professed cannot be promoted to sacred Orders under the title of poverty (S. Congr., 12 Jan., 1860).

(e) In the act of reception to profession of solemn vows, those simply professed do not have a vote (decl. s. Congr., die 7 Febr., 1862).

(f) Those simply professed are excluded from casting a vote for admission to the profession of simple vows juxta declarationem s. Congr., de die 1 Sept., 1875.

(g) Those simply professed can be elected neither licitly nor validly as Prelates or Superiors in the same Order (decl. die 16 Jan., 1891).

(h) To the question whether those bound by a simple vow of poverty validly dispose of their own goods without the permission of the Superior, Piatus M. replies: the more common opinion affirms it; they indeed sin gravely against the vow by acting thus; nevertheless they are capable of transferring ownership, for nowhere has the Church established an incapacity of this kind.

(Ita etiam apud eundem auctorem; Suar., Sanch., Lugo, Schmalz, Ferraris.)

B. (a) Those simply professed are bound to attend choir, although they are not bound to the private recitation of the divine office (del. s. Congr. super statu Regul., 6 Aug., 1858).

(b) Among the conditions for apostasy properly so called, it is required that the one withdrawing have emitted substantial vows in a religious institute properly so called and approved by the Apostolic See. Hence one who withdraws during the three years of simple vows is not a true apostate, because he has not yet emitted substantial vows (cited by Piatus M., p. 195, Suar., Sanch., Reiff.). Therefore he incurs neither Excommunication nor the other penalties.

(c) Among the conditions for incurring an excommunication latae sententiae, though reserved to no one, because of laying aside the religious habit, this also is included: that the laying aside of the habit be done by a professed religious, because the cited canons speak of a religious. Furthermore, in the strict sense only truly professed religious come under this name (Ita apud Piatum M., p. 302, Passerini (O. Pr.) Pellizarius, S.J., Rotario Barn).

(d) To the question whether lay brothers incur Excommunication and the other penalties if they introduce women into monasteries of men, Piatus M., p. 360, replies: it must be affirmed if they have now emitted solemn vows, since they are true religious; therefore they would not incur these penalties while under simple vows.

If, and because, the simpliciter professi must not be regarded as veri religiosi, and for this reason are not partakers of various rights, faculties and privileges of the solemniter professi; if further they are not bound to all the duties and obligations of the solemniter professi, not even incurring papal reservations, just because they are only simpliciter, and not solemniter professi, I think I am justified in drawing the conclusion: Those simply professed do not incur cases reserved in the Order; for the matter concerns a penal and burdensome law which is to be strictly interpreted, and therefore applied only to those who are undoubtedly religious,

P. Antonius, O. Fr. M.