Chapter I. On the Nature of the Religious State

137. • The religious state is a stable institute of life approved by the Church for the faithful who, under a certain rule and common mode of living, wish to tend toward perfection by the three perpetual vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience.

I said 1º a stable institute of life; because the Religious by the three vows of religion devotes himself in perpetuity to God.

I said 2º approved by the Church; for since the religious state is a certain sacred community, it ought to be instituted by spiritual power. Formerly indeed this approval was conceded by any Bishop for his own diocese; but afterwards it was established in the Lateran Council under Innocent III that no new Religion be introduced unless it had been approved by the Supreme Pontiff. - St. Ligorius, bk. 4, n. 5.

I said 3º who... wish to tend toward perfection; for a religious, by force of his Profession, is held under grave obligation to study in some way for perfection by the observance of the vows; because by force of his Profession he is held to will to preserve his state, which is a state of perfection. But a Religious is not held by force of his Profession to be perfect, but only to study for perfection. - Thus all.

138. Resolutions. - 1º Solemn vows are not required for the essence of Religion, but simple vows suffice. For all the conditions necessary for the substance of Religion are had even in simple vows, since through them a man can perpetually bind himself to God in an Order approved by the Church ¹. It is established moreover from the Bull of Gregory XIII, Ascendente Domino, in which the Pontiff declared that those also are true Religious in the Society of Jesus who have emitted only simple vows. 2º Those are Religious who in an approved Religion, according to a certain rule, emit the three essential vows. But on the contrary, those who, although they emit these three vows and lead life in common, nevertheless do not profess a rule approved by the Apostolic See, are not Religious properly so called. Hence various Congregations of men or of pious women approved only by the Bishop do not constitute Orders strictly religious. Nevertheless those who in Congregations of this sort emit simple vows and live under a common rule and dependence on a Superior can enjoy the same merit before God as Religious properly so called, since they exhibit the same denial of self to the Lord. But we note that, from today's practice, the Apostolic See does not approve new religious Institutes as Orders properly so called with profession of solemn vows, but only as religious Congregations, or, more strictly from the manner of speaking of the Holy See, as secular Congregations, with simple vows, to which therefore the privileges conceded to solemn vows do not belong per se. - See Analecta I.P.

¹ ** An Order approved by the Church is here distinguished from religious Congregations, which, as the Author warns below, are also called secular. Therefore what Gregory XIII defined concerning the Scholastics of the Society of Jesus, that they are true Religious although they have emitted only simple vows, seems certainly to have to be said also of those who, from the recent disposition of Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius IX, remain bound for some years only by simple vows in religious Orders before they emit solemn profession.

3º Those are not Religious who, having emitted a vow of perpetual poverty and chastity, vow obedience to a Confessor or Bishop. The reason is that by force of this vow they are not subjected to Superiors.

4º From the Decree of Pius IX, promulgated by the encyclical letters of the Sacred Congregation of Regulars given to the Superiors of Religious Orders on 19 March 1857, all Religious of those Orders in which solemn vows are emitted, in the future, the novitiate having been completed, emit only simple vows, at least for a triennium; then they are admitted to solemn vows if they are found worthy by their Superiors. But for just causes solemn Profession will also be able to be deferred longer, though not beyond the completed age of 25 years. - See Analecta I.P., series 2, col. 2954.

But from the declarations of the Sacred Congregation of Regulars given on 23 February 1859, etc., and pertaining to the aforesaid decree, the simple vows about which there is question are perpetual on the part of the one vowing, and dispensation from them is reserved to the Supreme Pontiff. Yet on the part of the Order they can be dissolved through dismissal of the Professed, so that, dismissal having been given, by that very fact the professed become free from every bond of the said vows. But no one will be able to be dismissed on account of infirmity arising after Profession of simple vows ². For the rest, the professed of these vows become participants in all the graces and privileges which the solemnly Professed enjoy in the same Order. - See Analecta I.P., 24 Sept. 1859, col. 4891.

² ** Others extend a law of this sort more broadly, so that, unless some fault intervenes, he cannot be cast out for any other cause.

139. Questions. - QUESTION 1º. What things are required for the validity of Profession?

Resp. The following conditions are required:

1º Aptitude of the one vowing, namely that he has entirely completed the sixteenth year of his age; that he has spent at least a whole year of Novitiate with the religious habit ³; that he has no impediment which, from statutes confirmed by the Supreme Pontiff, is judged substantial.

³ ** Understand this according as the Constitutions of each Order require or do not require it, or also according as the circumstances of times or places demand or allow.

2º Consent and express or tacit acceptance of the Prelate of the Order, or of the Chapter, where it is required. But error concerning the substance, both on the part of the one professing and of the one admitting, makes the Profession invalid.

3º Liberty of the one vowing, that is, that the Profession be made spontaneously, grave fear being excluded, or even reverential fear joined with importunate requests more often repeated, blandishments, command, or grave offense or indignation long continued of blood relatives. - St. Ligorius, n. 7, and de Matr., n. 1056 ⁴.

⁴ ** Concerning reverential fear St. Alphonsus more clearly says thus (bk. 4, n. 7): Profession should be made spontaneously, with grave fear not compelling, such as would be... Likewise reverential fear, not indeed by itself, but with the importunity of requests, blandishments, and command often repeated acceding, or grave offense, or indignation long continued of blood relatives, with threats also of denying support if he departs from Religion. For these things individually, or certainly joined together, with the condition of a rude, timid man considered, can instill just fear and invalidate profession, as Laymann with others, etc.

140. • QUESTION 2º. To what is the Bishop held as to girls about to enter Religion?

Resp. He is held under grave obligation, from the statute of the Council of Trent, to explore by himself, or, if he himself is impeded, through a Vicar or deputy, the will of those girls, both before the reception of the habit and before Profession. Nevertheless the omission of one of the two examinations would not be regarded as grave. For the rest, the Profession would not be invalid if each examination were omitted, provided the girls were free in emitting Profession. An examination of this sort is required even if the monastery which the girl is about to enter is exempt from episcopal jurisdiction; because the Bishop then acts as one delegated by the Holy See for this. - St. Ligorius, n. 4.

QUESTION 3º. Is the integrity of the year of Novitiate required for validity?

Resp. Affirmative, so that in a leap year the lapse of the day which is to be added must be awaited. Thus the Sacred Congregation of the Council of Trent expressly declared. But the time of Novitiate begins from the moment of reception of the habit ⁵.

⁵ ** This can have force with those Orders which use a peculiar habit. For example, the Society of Jesus, which by force of its Constitutions does not use any proper habit, is not held by this law.

141. • QUESTION 4º. Does interruption of the Novitiate harm the validity of Profession?

Resp. Affirmative. It is established from the decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, which established that a Novice who had departed from the monastery in order to enter another Religion, and, after only two hours had been spent in another convent, repenting of the deed had returned, was held to begin the year of probation again.

QUESTION 5º. When is the year of probation judged to be interrupted?

Resp. 1º It is judged to be interrupted chiefly 1º whenever the Novice goes out from the monastery without permission with the intention of not returning, even if he immediately returns, as is established from what has just been said; 2º whenever he is dismissed absolutely by the Superiors and is then admitted again; 3º if he departs by private authority in order to enter another house or another province even of the same Order.

Resp. 2º But the Novitiate is not judged to be interrupted 1º if the Novice is sick in the house, even for a notable time, although he can by no means be present at the exercises of the Novices; 2º if, compelled by violence, he departs from the house; 3º if, with permission accepted, he turns aside to parents or others for a brief time for the sake of recovering health or conducting business; 4º if he is dismissed by false accusation, and afterwards, when the truth has been known, is admitted again; 5º if he makes a journey ordered by his Superiors, because then he remains under their dependence. - There are several other doubtful cases, which can be seen apud the authors.

142. • QUESTION 6º. By what means is a Religious held to tend toward perfection?

Resp. 1º He is held to tend primarily through the essential means of the religious state, namely through observance of the three vows, poverty, chastity, and obedience. For if he does not observe these at least for the most part, he can be called Religious only in name and habit, but not in reality ⁶.

⁶ ** Understand this as to the manner of life; for as to the state he both is and must be called Religious also in reality.

Resp. 2º He is held to tend secondarily also through accidental means, namely through the proper Rules of the Order, at least by not contemning those helps. But then a Religious is judged to omit the rules from contempt when he transgresses them with the intention of not being subject to them or to his Prelates; or if he holds them as vain ⁷. - St. Ligorius, n. 10. - Laymann. - Busembaum. - Sanchez. - Lessius, etc.

⁷ ** To hold rules as vain does not always imply contempt of the true name. It is surely one thing to contemn the authority of the one commanding, another to hold of little account the thing prescribed as if useless or imprudent, etc. In the former case you have truly formal contempt, but not likewise in the latter. Make sure that you have this before your eyes for rightly understanding also those things which are read in the following Question 7.

143. • QUESTION 7º. When does a Religious sin gravely against the precept of tending toward perfection?

Resp. In this he gravely offends: 1º if he violates the vows very often in a grave matter, as is plain; because he omits the means essential for observing this obligation, and consequently altogether necessary. - Thus all. 2º If he transgresses the rules generally from contempt, as was just said. But otherwise, if he violates them led by concupiscence, or because he thinks that they are not necessary for him for salvation, or if he thinks that they are not prescribed under grave obligation. For to transgress rules in matters of slight moment, even from custom, contempt being excluded, does not exceed venial sin. - Thus expressly St. Ligorius, n. 10, with St. Thomas, the Salmanticenses, and others commonly.

Yet there are not lacking those who contend that a Religious sins gravely against the obligation of tending toward perfection if he frequently, or at least for the most part, violates the rules; because they are efficacious means, although secondary, for directing a Religious in the way of perfection. But the prior opinion, which is common, appears truer, provided the omission of the rules does not lead into grave and frequent violation of the vows ⁸.

⁸ ** I think it rarely happens that that relaxation of soul in observing lighter rules, even directly voluntary, is from this title alone a mortal sin; because that negligence, speaking per se, is only a remote disposition, unless some peculiar circumstances accede which in some matter consummate a proximate occasion. Thus Suarez (De Relig., tr. VIII, bk. 1, ch. 4, n. 18). See also Card. De Lugo (De Poenit., disp. 15, nn. 49-50).

144. • QUESTION 8º. Does a Religious sin gravely who intends to observe only commandments obliging under grave obligation, and to care in no way about the rest?

Resp. There is a twofold probable opinion:

I. The first opinion affirms absolutely, because the very purpose of not caring about the rules, even those not prescribing under sin, is virtual contempt of the same. - Lacroix, bk. 4, n. 57. - Elbel. - Sylvius, etc.

II. The second opinion denies. The reason is that by the very fact that the Religious wishes to fulfill those many things which oblige under grave obligation, he already tends toward perfection, since he wishes to fulfill many things which, with respect to others, do not oblige, but are mere counsels. - Thus Sanchez. - Salmanticenses, etc. And St. Ligorius, n. 10, calls this opinion the more common and more probable.

For the rest, St. Ligorius, n. 11, rightly notes that a Religious so disposed can be in grave danger of sinning mortally from other heads, for example, by reason of the danger of transgressing the vows, or of inflicting grave harm upon Religion as to discipline, etc.

145. • QUESTION 9º. Whether and to what extent does a rule taken distributively, or with individual rules attended to in particular, oblige under sin?

Resp. In most Orders, the rule, speaking generally and per se, does not oblige under sin, not even venial sin. This is established from the constitutions themselves of various Orders and from the common interpretation of Theologians. Orders are to be excepted in which the constitutions expressly establish the opposite.

I said 1º speaking generally; because whatever things fall under vows or express precepts of Superiors are not without fault, and indeed grave fault according to the gravity of the matter, as below we shall say concerning vows.

I said 2º per se; because Theologians agree that transgression of the rule is very rarely free from all fault because of extrinsic reasons. St. Ligorius, n. 10, says that such a transgression is scarcely ever to be excused from venial sin, because almost always there will be some fault by reason of negligence, concupiscence, scandal, sloth, or any other inordinate motion ⁹. - Thus also Laymann. - Suarez. - Busembaum. - Sanchez, etc.

⁹ ** In these things, as is plain, reasonable use of epieikeia is not comprehended.

146. • QUESTION 10º. Does a Prelate sin gravely by neglecting to correct slight defects of subjects?

Resp. Affirmative, if the defects are several and such that they can notably relax discipline. Therefore the Prelate is held not only to correct the defects of subjects tending toward the harm of the whole Community, but also to inquire so that he may correct, excessive solicitude nevertheless being excluded. Sometimes, however, it is expedient that he dissemble, if the defects do not bring scandal, or if he foresees that the subject will come out worse from correction, or if a more opportune time must be awaited. For prudence persuades this for obtaining a greater good or removing an evil. - St. Ligorius, n. 13, and others commonly.

QUESTION 11º. Whether and what obligation of reciting the divine Office arises from religious profession?

Resp. 1º There is no obligation by force of religious profession considered in itself; and in fact there are several religious Orders in which the Professed are by no means obliged to the Hours, unless they have been constituted in sacred orders.

Resp. 2º A grave obligation urges all Religious of Orders who emit solemn vows and are destined to choir to recite the divine Office immediately from the time Profession has been made, so that those impeded from choir ought privately to satisfy the canonical Hours, whether they are Clerics or laymen, whether men or women; Conversi nevertheless excepted. - Thus most commonly. - St. Ligorius, bk. 4, n. 141, against a few.

Yet in Orders in which only the Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary is recited, this recitation does not oblige under grave obligation, although solemn vows are emitted in those Orders, for example, in the Order of Nuns called of the Visitation, as has several times been decided.

Moreover, in Communities in which, besides the Office of the day, the Office also of the Blessed Virgin or of the Dead, or the seven penitential Psalms, must be recited, the obligation does not affect those privately reciting the Office outside choir; indeed not even those reciting in choir itself, at least commonly, as was said above, n. 60. - St. Ligorius, n. 143.

147. • QUESTION 12º. Can the Pope dispense from solemn vows?

Resp. Affirmative, from a most grave cause. The reason is that the solemnity of vows was instituted from ecclesiastical Law alone, as is established from the Extravagant of John XXII, tit. 6, and from the Bull Ascendente Domino, in which Gregory XIII says: "We, considering that the solemnity of a vow was invented by the constitution of the Church alone," etc. Therefore the Supreme Pontiff can dispense in solemn vows, just as in simple vows, since the reason of the difference which intervenes between them is from merely ecclesiastical institution ¹⁰. But according to all, the Pontiff can dispense in simple vows. Therefore, etc. It is established also from several examples related in Ecclesiastical history that Supreme Pontiffs have sometimes used power of this sort. Especially in more recent times Pius VII conceded several dispensations of this kind to Monks and Nuns solemnly professed, for revalidating marriages sacrilegiously entered. - Thus Bouvier, who says that the opinion of Theologians is now most common, against Billuart and some others.

¹⁰ ** Therefore the dispensation would be valid even if it were conceded without cause; nevertheless this must be understood of the solemnity of the vow, but not of the bond of the vow; for this, that it may be dissolved, requires a cause. Therefore a professed religious dispensed in this way would indeed validly contract matrimony, because the force of diriment impediment depends not simply on the vow, but on the solemnity of the vow, which in the present hypothesis would be taken away; nevertheless he would enter upon nuptials illicitly, as one still bound by the vow, although only simple.