Chapter VIII — How grave is the obligation of Prelates of bringing in community. What Regulars ought to do who dwell in cloisters where, the common life being driven out, private purses creep in. And whether young men can lawfully receive the religious habit in these places

I. QUESTION I. Are the Prelates of Regulars in a continual state of mortal sin who do not with sincere mind and with all their strength endeavour to restore the common life where it has collapsed? ANSWER. All the Fathers affirm it, and all the monastic Rules, and all the Councils, and at last from the pontifical constitutions adduced by me it is most luculent. If I should confirm it by reasonings however valid and unconquered, I should not decline the censure of rigorism and of exaggeration. Wherefore I shall adduce into the midst what not only holy men but other theologians of no such great estimation teach.

II. St. Antoninus, part 3, title 16, chapter 1: I sufficiently believe that those who betake themselves to Monasteries where the common life is not lived, if they be Prelates and do not do what is possible to them without notable scandal, that the common life may be lived, are not in a safe state.

III. John Excuria, On Reformation, part 3, article 2: All Prelates, both major and minor — each namely respectively according to his dignity, office, commission, or faculty — are bound by a debt of justice to reform their deformed religious subjects to the observance of the regular life. For from their hands the blood of their subjects is required.

IV. Sylvester, under the word Religious 6, § 7: If a Prelate does not do what he can without great scandal, that the common life be lived, he is not in a safe state.

V. Ludovicus Lopez de Texeda, Book 2, tract 2, controversy 7, doubt 2, no. 24: I add that Prelates of Religions are bound by the merits of their office to employ due diligence that their religious subjects pass their life in common; and therefore they are held to be exceedingly solicitous concerning those things which are necessary for food and clothing. Wherefore if they do not bestow them, when they conveniently can, they sin mortally, and are unworthy of the office of Prelates, and ought to be deposed: because they afford a handle to Religious to seek private purses and to infringe the laudable vow of poverty.

VI. Thomas Sánchez, On the Decalogue, Book 7, chapter 19, no. 27: It is deduced thirdly that a Prelate is not in a good state who, so far as he can without grave scandal, does not strive that Religious live in common, and that superfluous uses be avoided.

VII. Valentia, 2-2, disputation 3, question 4, no. 2: It follows fourthly that both Prelates and subjects are in a bad state who do not lead the common life, when from the common revenues they can sufficiently live.

VIII. Francis Pellizarius, Tract on Nuns, chapter 4, section 1, question 4: It is gathered from Sánchez, asserting with St. Antoninus and Sylvester, that just as a Prelate of Regulars is not in a good state if, so far as he can without grave scandal, he does not strive that Religious live in common and avoid superfluous uses; so also that subjects resisting are not in a good state, when they cannot sufficiently live, but when they wish to abound and to dispose more freely. For this is adverse to the vow of poverty.

IX. John Baptist Lezana, Regular Questions, chapter 18, no. 14: Prelates who, so far as they can, do not take care that their subjects live the common life without a private purse or property, and avoid superfluous uses, are not in a good state. The reason is, because the vow of poverty requires this, and the Councils and Supreme Pontiffs prescribe it.

X. Gabriel of St. Vincent, On the Religious State, disputation 3, question 10, no. 132: A Superior sins gravely by not providing his subjects with necessaries, both because he affords an occasion of the relaxation of Religion by giving occasion of introducing a private purse, and because he deprives subjects of the right which they have to the goods of the Monastery.

XI. Thomas of Jesus, Mirror of Religious, part 4, chapter 2: I conclude that a Prelate sins mortally who does not take care that the manner of the common life be observed in Monasteries. Let the same judgment be of him who does not, so far as in him lies, endeavour to reduce the common life, already relaxed, to its pristine observance. Nay even those subjects themselves who contradict Prelates willing to restore the common life are to be punished with the same fault. First, because they contravene by that very deed the decrees of Councils and of Pontiffs, by which the observance of this life is strictly prescribed. Secondly, because where the common life is not observed, the souls of monks are exposed to various dangers concerning the transgression of the vow of poverty. Thirdly, because Prelates neglecting to reform the observance of the common life contravene legal justice, since by office they are bound to consult the common good. Moreover they abuse the dispensation committed to them, and sin against fidelity, and often against distributive justice.

XII. Servatius Lairvelz, a most grave and at the same time most pious author, in his Optics of Regulars, mirror 12: It is certain to me that those Prelates are in continual mortal sin who, so far as they can, do not reform their own Monasteries, and who do not, so far as they can, reduce their own Religious to the common life.

XIII. QUESTION II. Are regular subjects resisting the introduction of the common life, private purses being driven out, in the state of mortal sin? ANSWER. From the things which have been said the resolution of the proposed question is evidently plain. Nevertheless for the greater confirmation I shall subjoin what the cited and other authors teach.

XIV. St. Antoninus, part 3, title 16, chapter 1: If subjects are, and resist this good when it is attempted — not because they cannot live sufficiently, but because they wish to abound and to do with their own after their own mode — they seem to be in a bad state, since they live in a secular manner and wish to persevere in a bad state.

XV. Cardinal de Turrecremata on the Rule of St. Benedict, tract 94: Most gravely do they sin who rashly resist the reformation of abuses of this kind in Monasteries, and defend themselves and others lest they be purged of a stain of this kind.

XVI. Sylvester, under the word Religious 6, § 7: But subjects resisting the said community, not because they cannot live sufficiently but because they wish to abound, seem to be in a bad state.

XVII. Thomas Sánchez, Book 7, chapter 22, no. 27: Similarly subjects sin mortally who give cause of a private purse by resisting the common life, when necessaries are ministered to them; similarly those who murmur gravely and pour forth complaints the more.

XVIII. Lezana, Regular Questions, chapter 6, no. 60: It is nevertheless to be added, and greatly to be noted, that Religious ought to be prepared for receiving the reformation and introduction of the common life, if it be newly instituted or restored by Prelates, and that they cannot in any other way resist under a most grave mortal sin. The reason is because, since the common life obliges under mortal sin, all Religious cannot be excused from it, save because the Prelates of the Monasteries do not provide them with the necessaries for food: whence, the aforesaid necessities being established as to be sufficiently provided for, no reason of excuse will remain. And this is the common reason of theologians.

XIX. Thomas of Jesus, Mirror of Religious, part 4, chapter 2: I said that they sin gravely, because they are unwilling to acquiesce in the reformation of the common life, namely on account of the grave harm emerging from their contradiction.

XX. Francis Lopez, Book 2, tract 2, controversy 7, doubt 7, no. 24: But Religious are bound by the merit of their profession and state to live in common, and to be content with those things which are ministered by the Religion.

XXI. Angelus Pistachius Castelli, tract 4, On the Vow of Poverty, chapter 4, no. 5: Subjects resisting the common life sin mortally.

XXII. Alteserra, Origins of Monasteries, Book 1, chapter 17: Monks can be compelled to a reformation according to the prescript of the rule which they have professed. Nor can they defend themselves by the observance of a long time, because against those things which are of the substance of the regular life there is no prescription of time, nor dispensation.

XXIII. Emmanuel Rodriguez, Vol. II, question 65, article 3, where, the Tridentine decree being reported (session 25, chapter 2), he infers these things: From which Decree you will gather that Religious ought and are bound to reform themselves to the prescript of the rule which they have professed; article 4: Superiors sin who neglect to instruct or to reform, and still more those who contravene those willing to be reformed, and even singular persons hindering those things which contravene the mind and the words of the Council; which is a sin.

XXIV. Caramuel on the Rule of St. Benedict, no. 650: Those who have emitted vows in an irregular Monastery — that is, where abuses have crept in against the rule — are bound to lie subject to reformation, and to obey a Superior eliminating unlawful abuses. So speaks Caramuel; and in this controversy he is so consistent with himself that in his Regular Theology, no. 651, he writes thus: How perilously do they deceive themselves who reckon that by force of the vow they are not bound to the common life, because at the time of their profession it was not observed in the Monastery.

XXV. In the last place I adduce the Chapter of the Premonstratensian Order celebrated under the most learned John le Paige, which is had inserted in the Premonstratensian Library, Book 5, page 1019: Let the Reverend Lord Abbot reduce his Religious to the common life, and recall them … lest anyone flatter himself in this and obtrude the licence of Superiors, let him hear Innocent III in chapter Cum ad Monasterium: Nor let an Abbot esteem that he can dispense with any Monk upon having property; and the Council of Trent, session 25, in the decree on Regulars, and so forth. Whence it follows that both Prelates and subject Religious are in a bad state and fall basely, through whom it stands that all in the Monastery do not lead the common life. What more? Scarcely can one find even a single theologian of any name who teaches the opposite.

XXVI. From all these things I thus conclude. According to the common judgment of theologians, the Prelates of Regulars are bound under a most grave mortal sin to bring in with all their strength a common life void of a private purse. This first proposition is most certain. The second: All subjects are bound by a law obliging to mortal sin to be prepared in mind for receiving a common life void of a private purse, as commonly all, even the kindlier, teach. Therefore one or the other necessarily follows. Either Prelates are engaged in the extreme peril of damnation, because they do not endeavour with all their strength to fulfil the most grave precept of introducing the common life; or subjects are true proprietaries, because they resist their Prelates busying themselves to bring in the community of goods, or betray a contumacious will of resisting, on account of the scandal of whose repugnance the Prelates desist from fulfilling their office. No place for tergiversating remains here. If you desire more, read the Apostolico-Monastic Discipline, part 3, dissertation 5, chapter 4.

XXVII. QUESTION III. How ought Regulars to bear themselves who dwell in those Convents where, the common life being taken away, the pest of private purses creeps, that they may consult their own conscience? ANSWER. Scarcely can I designate a way of directing one's own conscience and of having a private purse. I shall transcribe what the most celebrated John de Turrecremata, Cardinal, teaches in his Commentaries on the Rule of St. Benedict, chapter 94, in these words:

XXVIII. Most gravely do they sin who rashly resist the reformation of abuses of this kind, and defend themselves and others lest they be purged of such a stain. The reason is, because these are formally contemning the remedies of their own salvation; and such a sin is against the Holy Ghost. Whence those who live in deformed Monasteries are of a fivefold kind. For some are of a grieving and bitter soul that they do not live in observance, yet from their soul they aspire to reformation. Others are those who are unwilling to live otherwise, and prefer to remain as they are, yet would be unwilling to resist Superiors if they wished to reform. The third are those who positively will so to live under deformity that they pertinaciously resist all reformation. The fourth are found neutral, careless on every side of living either thus or otherwise. The fifth are those who appear of good will, and intend to reform; but either from a certain fragility of soul, or because they intend for themselves no congruous mode of reformation, they defer it and seek delays.

But of all these Religious, those of the second and third kind, who deliberately are unwilling to be reformed, whether they resist or not, if they persist thus unto the end, are in a state of damnation. Of Religious of the fourth kind it is said that they are under peril of salvation, in that they do not profit in the school of religion, nor tend to perfection according to the exigency of their own state, and are careless of their own salvation. Of Religious of the fifth kind the peril of their own salvation appears on account of their tepidity and affections, because they expose themselves to hazard and scandalize the little ones.

Religious of the first kind, who live in deformed places where the rule is not observed, with a purpose of reforming themselves if they could, are bound to do all these things, that they may live more securely and more safely consult their own salvation:

1. To labour for another Convent where they can live regularly, and to transfer themselves thither, unless perhaps they should have a certain hope of reforming their own place by their presence.

2. If they cannot have a reformed place, or for some worthy cause have omitted it, let them grieve over this, and always do what in them lies for the inducing of reformation.

3. Let them not live in a singular manner. Let them dispose of the goods granted them, only with the Superior's licence, unto necessary use, with an ever-present purpose of resigning them at the Superior's pleasure; nay, giving away every superfluous thing, or rather receiving the provision of things from another without any money.

XXIX. Each man is bound to decline the proximate occasion of violating his own vow. But when the occasion is necessary, then opportune remedies are to be employed for the avoiding of the law's transgression. To very many the occasion of having a private purse is necessary, since they cannot remove it. Let these therefore, that they may consult their own good, observe their own rule in food and clothing, abstinence, fasts, and roughness of garments. So much of a private purse is lawful to them as is required for procuring those things which the Religion would supply, if in it an exact community flourished. What is over, let them deliver to the Religion, to be confounded with the other goods of the monastery.

XXX. QUESTION IV. Is it lawful for young men to receive the habit of Religion, and to make profession, in those cloisters where the community of things and the other chief rules are not observed? ANSWER. All the graver theologians commonly deny it. St. Antoninus, part 3, title 16, chapter 2, says: And when anyone from ignorance or error should intend to enter it (the Religion) in which men do not live well, it would be cruelty not to make him cautious and to recall him from his purpose. That I might decline the crime of this cruelty, I have willed to admonish readers upon this matter.

XXXI. Cardinal Cajetan, 2-2, question 189, article 9, writes these things: That act which is to induce to the conventual life is an act evil of its own kind, since a man is induced to a reprehensible life. But every reprehensible life is evil. … Whence it is blameworthy not only to induce, but even to enter, and to receive persons of either sex to an irregular life, although the Church tolerate this permissively. But the Church after Cajetan's death moved every stone that she might hinder the reception of young men where an exact common life and regular observance do not flourish, as we have seen above from Clement VIII and Innocent XII. The opinion of Cajetan is confirmed in part 2, Book 3 On Regulars, canon Cum virum, no. 48, by Prosper Fagnanus. Martin Navarrus, part 1, On the Decretals, chapter 12, no. 45, from the cited doctrine of Cajetan concludes: He who persuades another to enter a Religion so relaxed as we now describe, where the rule is perversely observed, sins. Graver things teach Nazarius, Nider, and the rest commonly.

XXXII. Ludovicus Lopez in his Instruction of Confessors, chapter 43, teaches: To induce to a Religion, or to enter one, where men live ill as regards regular discipline, is a sin.

XXXIII. Sánchez, Book 4 On the Decalogue, chapter 16, no. 14, says: It is unlawful to enter a Monastery so collapsed and not proximately to be reformed, although it be tolerated by the Church.

XXXIV. Paul Layman, Book 4, tract 5, chapter 6, no. 5, writes: He who has vowed Religion absolutely is not bound, nay nor even can he lawfully enter an Order whose regular discipline has collapsed, and most of whose professed live ill, so that they do not observe even the substantial vows; and therefore a danger of perversion threatens the one entering, as Cajetan, Major, Navarrus, Valentia, Rodriguez, Sánchez, and Lessius teach.

XXXV. And Leander teaches these things, tract 1 On Justice, question 14, no. 35: Whether the aforesaid person vowing, by entering a Religion collapsed as regards substantials, not only does not satisfy his vow, but even sins mortally? I answer that it must be said that not only would he not satisfy his vow, but that he would moreover sin mortally on account of the danger of perversion.

XXXVI. The Salmanticenses, tract 15, chapter 1, point 1, no. 2, say these things: For the rest, we hold it discovered that one does not satisfy a vow (of entering Religion) by entering a relaxed Religion, collapsed as regards its principal obligations, unless perhaps a proximate hope of reformation underlie. Because such a Religion does not deserve the name of a Religion, nor does it conduce to perfection, but to perdition; nor by entering it would dangers be fled, but perhaps greater ones would be embraced. The same teach Paderinus, Martínez de Prado, Lezana, Cassianus of St. Elias, Rorarius, Bonacina, and commonly all. Consult also the Apostolico-Monastic Discipline, dissertation 6, chapter 13, and the Defence of the Decrees of the Council of Trent, dissertation 2.

XXXVII. Religion is a school of evangelical perfection, in which one arrives more easily at the desired prize. Religious walk as it were drawn by a chariot for attaining the palm. Christians in the world go their journey on foot, hedged about on every side by rocks and snares. If the chariot be excellently ordered, well closed and strong, religious men walk most happily. On the contrary, if the chariot be disturbed, injured, and half-broken, then they are more unhappy who ride in such a chariot, and are engaged in a graver danger of breaking legs, arms, and heads, than Christians who walk on foot.

XXXVIII. QUESTION V. Whether to have redundant revenues in common fights with the vow of poverty? ANSWER. St. Thomas, II-II, q. 88, art. 7, answers that to have superabundant riches in common, whether in movable or in immovable things, is an impediment to perfection, although it does not totally exclude it; but to have of exterior things in common, whether movable or immovable, as much as suffices for simple food, does not impede the perfection of Religion, if poverty be considered by comparison to the common end of Religions, which is to be free for divine services.

XXXIX. Extreme diligence and the highest caution are to be employed in this matter. Superiors ought to afford food and clothing to the norm of their own Rule: charity in this provision ought to shine forth. Food ought not to be delicate, but diligently and opportunely prepared, as befits regular sobriety. Clothing likewise is to be promptly delivered. Great care is to be had of the infirm. The other extreme, of riches to be possessed even in common, is to be avoided. Not on account of poverty but on account of riches have all Religions suffered shipwreck. Shall they be called poor men of Jesus Christ, and his disciples and companions, who possess proud buildings, splendid palaces, and vast revenues? If they should perform such things, beyond doubt they would induce the relaxation and perversion of Religion. For the Religion of Christ Jesus and redundant riches are opposed by contradiction.