§ II. On the Obligation of Observing the Rule

1176. Questions. - Query 1° How great is the obligation of the rule?

Prelim. Under the name of rule in this question also come Constitutions or Statutes which proceed from the Prelates alone or the Chapters of Religions.

Resp. 1° "Rule ... is not mere counsel," says Suarez; since violations of rule can be punished by the Superior. See Bouix.³

2° There can be a rule which obliges under mortal sin, or under venial sin, or only to penalty.

"If the rule obliges under sin, its transgression is against the vow and sacrilegious; the reason is that such a rule is not less preceptive than the voice of the Superior; ... therefore ... a Carthusian, for example, eating meats, or a Franciscan not fasting on Friday, sins against obedience and against temperance." - Thus Busembaum apud St. Alphonsus.⁴

3° If in the rule it is expressly said that it obliges as much as it can, its violation will be a mortal or venial sin according as the matter is grave or light; because the rule is not less obliging than the voice of the Superior, and the Superior can oblige according to the gravity of the matter.

4° Rule of itself does not oblige even under venial sin if this is declared in it. But if the rule is altogether silent concerning this, it is disputed. The opinion is to be preferred, says D. Bouix after Suarez, which holds that the rule then does not oblige under grave sin, and that it must be discerned from circumstances and from the interpretation received in each Religion whether it obliges under light sin or only to undergoing penalty:¹ but if someone from a good end transgresses some rule, for example of silence so that he may console a sad companion, he in no way sins.²

Yet several Doctors rightly note that transgressions of this kind rarely lack every fault, on account of negligence, contempt, or another inordinate affection; indeed he would sin gravely who frequently and almost by custom transgressed the rule, gravely disturbing religious discipline, for example if he were never willing to observe silence, nor to pray, nor to walk modestly; if he were to enter the rooms of all the religious, and transgress similar statutes of Religion.³ - He also sins gravely who infringes the rule from formal contempt of the Superior, as, for example, that he may show the Superior to be despised by him and held as nothing; likewise if he does this from hatred against Religion or its persons, or from the will of resisting the Prelate; likewise if he exposes himself to the proximate danger of falling into mortal sin, or foresees that he will for this reason be expelled. But if someone proposes never to observe the rule, it can scarcely happen that contempt is not present. Thus Suarez apud D. Bouix,⁴ and St. Alphonsus.⁵ - But the mere frequency of infractions does not seem sufficiently to prove contempt, since this frequency can arise from great sloth, in which nevertheless the slothful man can still hold the rules, Superiors, and Religion in great esteem.⁶

1177. • Query 2° Whether those professed according to a mitigated rule are held to reformation if it is introduced?

Resp. Affirmatively, if the reformation is made through statutes at least indirectly pertaining to the mitigated rule, or is necessary for the conservation of the Order, for example because with the present observance either very few strive to arrive at perfection, or the religious live with scandal of secular persons, or the essential vows and other statutes of Religion would not otherwise be observed. Otherwise negatively, because profession is made according to the rule, whether primitive or mitigated. Thus as certain, if the mitigation was introduced by the Pope; as probable, if by custom.¹

1178. • Query 3° Whether a Prelate gravely sins at some time by neglecting to correct light defects of subjects?

Resp. Affirmatively, with St. Alphonsus² and the common opinion against Lorca, in the case in which there were several defects and such (for example concerning silence, fasts, etc.) that they can relax discipline: whence concerning these he must inquire in order to correct them, yet without excessive solicitude: sometimes prudently dissembling, if the defects do not bring scandal, or if he foresees that the subject will become worse from correction, or if a more opportune time must be awaited. - But just as the Superior is held to correct, so he who has the office of Zelator is held to warn him concerning the transgressions of others.