Article I: On Those Who Can Enter Religion

2137. • Principles. I. "All and only those can enter Religion who are of their own right and not bound to others; but those who are bound to others CANNOT do so without their consent."¹ Each is clear of itself.

Hence: 1. Entrance is not licit for IMPUBERES, because they are subject to parents or guardians as regards the disposition of life. To them are to be numbered servants properly so called, if their masters refuse; and in many places, on account of civil laws, minors, unless with the consent of parents, which, for preventing future troubles, is prudently required to be set down in letters.

2. Entrance is not licit, regularly, for CHILDREN, even those bound by a vow of Religion, who would have to leave parents constituted either in extreme necessity or merely grave necessity. - But otherwise, if their necessity were common, or if they would suffer only a moderate diminution of state, or if the son, although he should remain in the world, nevertheless could in no way aid their necessity; otherwise also, if he himself could not remain in the world without grave and proximate danger of sin; because his spiritual salvation must be preferred to the temporal life of the parents.²

You will ask: Is a son already professed bound TO LEAVE Religion ON ACCOUNT OF THE NECESSITY OF PARENTS? - Resp. 1. If the necessity is only grave, he is not bound, nor can he; because just as a wife already taken, so also Religion already assumed must be preferred to parents. - 2. But if the necessity is extreme, he is bound, in the case in which he cannot aid them from the cloister. In doubt concerning the gravity of the necessity, judgment belongs to the Superior.³

"Outside the case of necessity," Luther used to say, "children sin by entering Religion without the consent of parents. - But the opposite has been taught by all the Holy Fathers and all Catholics, while it is certain, as the Angelic Doctor says,⁴ that children are free concerning the election of State. And although it is fitting, as the Doctors say, that children not depart unless they have first received the father's blessing; nevertheless this is understood when there is no danger that the father will turn them aside from a holy purpose; but because this danger is almost always present, therefore St. Thomas absolutely exhorts children not to use the counsel of blood-relations when the matter is about a religious vocation. But from this counsel, says the Saint,⁵ first indeed relatives of the flesh must be removed. But relatives of the flesh in this proposal are not friends, but rather enemies."⁶

3. Entrance is not licit for PARENTS who have children constituted in grave necessity or destitute of sufficient education, "unless it has been provided how they can be educated," as St. Thomas speaks.⁷ But this is not understood of emancipated children, unless they are in grave necessity.⁸

4. Entrance is not licit for THOSE who would have to leave brothers or sisters in extreme necessity. If their necessity is only grave, in this case, a brother who has vowed Religion needs dispensation so that he may defer entrance for a long time. - Otherwise, if he has not vowed; because "by reason of charity someone could defer and even omit the state of Religion in order to aid brothers gravely in need."⁹

5. Entrance is not licit for SPOUSES, when matrimony has already been consummated, unless with the consent of the other party, or unless because of his or her notorious adultery; for the matrimonial bond belongs to the order of justice, against which the virtue of religion does not prevail. That a ratified marriage is dissolved by solemn profession, and that two months are conceded to spouses for deliberating concerning entrance into Religion, or into an Order strictly regular, we have already said in the Treatise on Matrimony, n. 1981.¹⁰

6. Finally, entrance into Religion is not licit for BISHOPS. - For they cannot, without a just cause, leave their Churches, both on account of the vow which they emitted in accepting them, of serving them perpetually, and on account of the spiritual marriage with their own Church, which, as Innocent III says, "is dissolved not by human, but rather by divine power." But if a just cause intervenes, the Supreme Pontiff certainly can permit them entrance into Religion.¹¹

2138. • II. All clerics, parish priests, or beneficiaries CAN licitly enter Religion, even if the Bishop contradicts, unless they are held by another bond. This is clear both from the canon Duae sunt leges,¹² in which Pope Urban II established: "If any of these clerics holds people in his church under a Bishop and lives secularly, if, inspired by the Holy Spirit, he should wish to save himself in some monastery ..., even with his Bishop contradicting, let him go free by our authority"; and from the unanimous opinion of the Canonists, which Benedict XIV reports in the Bull Ex quo dilectus.¹³

Nor does the obedience promised to the Bishop stand in the way; because this is promised according to the liberty given by Christ the Lord and according to the laws of the Church. Nevertheless a parish priest, because he is about to resign his office, is bound, from natural law, to make the Bishop more certain concerning the counsel he has taken up, lest the flock be abandoned without a keeper. Clerics and other Beneficiaries are held to the same from decency and office, unless they are excused on account of reverential fear.¹⁴ Yet the benefice is not vacant except after profession. Indeed, if the benefice is not residential, it can be retained, but without use and administration, by those who emit simple vows.¹⁵

We have said: unless he is held by another bond, e.g. of justice, by which that cleric would be held who had been educated gratuitously under the condition that afterward he would exercise ministry in the diocese for a determined time; or by the bond of charity, for example if the Church would suffer grave damage from his departure; indeed, in such a case, the Bishop could recall a priest of this kind from Religion.¹⁶ Thus likewise those are prohibited from deserting missions who were ordained by title of mission with an oath (cf. n. 1923).

2139. • IT IS ASKED. Can those burdened by DEBT enter Religion?

Resp. 1. Considering natural law, the opinion which seems more probable to St. Alphonsus teaches that such persons cannot licitly enter if there is probable hope that in a short time, e.g. within two years, they will be able to satisfy creditors. - But if this hope is absent, or if from that brief stay in the world there threatens a probable danger of falling into grave sins or of losing vocation, they can enter immediately, a cession of their goods having been made to the creditors. "The reason is that the natural precept does not oblige when the debtor cannot satisfy except with so great a detriment to his liberty, and with the burden of undergoing danger to eternal salvation." But if the debts are uncertain, so that they can be restored to the poor or to pious places, he is not bound to wait even the least little while, since nothing is so pious as to dedicate oneself and all one's own things to God in Religion.

Resp. 2. From canonical law, the profession of those who, through the squandering of their goods, have fallen into enormous debt is indeed valid, but illicit; and also that of those who must render accounts, e.g. guardians, procurators, executors of a testament, if the accounts to be rendered are very litigious, intricate, fraudulent, and about to furnish occasion for lawsuits.