Article III: On The Obligation Of Observing The Rule

2169. • A RULE is that norm of living by which Religious are so directed in their operations that, in a due and congruent manner, they may strive toward the perfection of their state. - Under the name of RULE are also understood the Constitutions and Statutes which emanate from the Founders or Chapters of Religions.¹

Now indeed: 1. Rules which define the matter and conditions of vows impose the same obligation as the vows themselves: concerning these we have already said enough above. 2. Rules which regard regular discipline can oblige in various ways. Hence the following:

Questions. QUESTION 1. How great is the OBLIGATION of rules which regard discipline?

Resp. 1. "A rule," says Suarez,² "is not a mere counsel," since its violation can be punished by the Superior. - Except, however, those rules which are expressed by way of counsel or exhortation.

Resp. 2. There can be rules which oblige under mortal sin; others, which oblige under venial sin; finally others, which oblige to a penalty. 1) If a rule obliges under mortal sin, its transgression is against the vow and is sacrilegious: the reason is that such a rule is not less preceptive than the voice of the Superior; whence, for example, a Carthusian eating flesh meats, or a Franciscan not fasting on Friday, sins against obedience and against temperance.³ - 2) If a rule expressly declares that it obliges as much as it can, its transgression is 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; but the Superior can oblige according to the gravity of the matter.⁴ - 3) If a rule declares that it does not oblige under sin, its transgression is of itself neither mortal nor venial; because a rule which is not preceptive is judged to be only an ordinance or admonition, obliging only to a penalty, if one is imposed.⁵ - Yet many Doctors rightly note that transgressions of this kind are rarely free from every fault, on account of negligence, contempt, or some other disordered affection; indeed, he would sin gravely who frequently and as it were by custom transgressed the rule, gravely disturbing religious discipline: e.g. if he "would never wish to observe silence, nor pray, nor walk modestly; if he entered the rooms of all the Religious, and transgressed similar statutes of Religion."⁶ He also sins GRAVELY who violates the rule from formal contempt of the Superior, as, for example, to show that the Superior is despised by him and held for nothing; likewise, if he does this from hatred against the Religion or its persons, or from the will of resisting the Prelate; likewise, if he exposes himself to proximate danger of falling into mortal sin, or if he foresees that he will therefore be expelled. But if someone proposes never to observe the rule, it can scarcely happen that contempt is not present. Thus Suarez (apud D. Bouix⁷) and St. Alphonsus.⁸ - 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 person can still esteem the rules, Superiors, and Religion highly⁹ (recall what was said n. 2153).

QUESTION 2. Are Religious bound to submit themselves to a REFORMATION of the Rule?

Resp. 1. Affirmatively, if the reformation regards substantial things; because everyone must obey in those things which are necessary for salvation; nor can any custom prevail against natural or divine law. Whence the obligation of submitting oneself would press, if the Religion were such that, "unless it were reformed, it would be rather for harm to Religious than for utility."¹⁰

Resp. 2. If the reformation does not regard substantial things, a DISTINCTION must be made: either the mitigation was introduced by the Supreme Pontiff, and in such a case each one can conform himself to it, for it is a new law; or it was introduced by custom, and in this case, although those introducing it sinned, nevertheless their successors can follow it with a safe conscience. - But if the general Chapter or the greater part of the professed should establish a reformation, there are Authors who deny that private persons are bound to submit themselves to such a reformation; because they emitted profession according to the state of the rule as it was at the time of their profession, and therefore they are judged not to have wished to oblige themselves to more than the relaxed rule. This opinion is indeed probable; but the more probable opinion teaches that they are bound to obey.¹¹

QUESTION 3. Does a Prelate, sometimes neglecting to correct the LIGHT DEFECTS of subjects, sin gravely?

Resp. "Affirmatively (against Lorca) with Lugo and others commonly, in the case in which the defects are many and such (e.g. concerning silence, fasting, etc.) that they can relax discipline. The reason is that, although each Religious fails in a light thing by transgressing a light rule, nevertheless the Superior, neglecting to impede, when he can, the relaxation of observance, fails in a grave matter. And therefore he is bound not only to correct, but also to inquire into, defects of subjects which tend to the harm of the whole Community, so that he may correct, as St. Thomas teaches, yet without excessive solicitude.... But it is expedient that he sometimes dissemble in correcting, if the defects do not bring scandal, or if he foresees that the subject will become worse from the correction, or if a more opportune time must be awaited. And here it must be adverted that, if it is necessary for correcting, the Superior can even strike the subject and rebuke him with reproaches, from St. Thomas,¹² provided he does not act from anger, or before seculars or novices. And just as the Superior is bound to correct, so he who has the office of zealator is bound to admonish him concerning the transgressions of others."¹³

Note. At the time of a CANONICAL VISITATION Religious (or nuns interrogated by the Bishop or by the Prelate of the Order) are bound to open the truth to the visitor concerning the observances of the rule, even if the transgressions are light; because ordinarily from these begins the relaxation of the whole rule. - "Except if the delinquents have already come to their senses, or if the offense is occult, or known under a natural secret, or could be hidden without common harm, or if it has already been manifested by others, or if it is foreseen that the revelation would not be profitable or would be harmful to himself, and the concealment would not be to the harm of the Community"¹⁴ (cf. n. 1198).