Article IV: On The Obligation Of Stability

2171. • The obligation of remaining in the religious state arises both from the nature of the thing (for state is so called from standing); and from the perpetuity of the vows; and finally from canon law, as regards Regulars and nuns of solemn vows. Hence that saying: once a monk, always a monk. - But as regards Institutes of simple vows, the firmness which is not had from canon law is sometimes supplied, as in the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer, by the vow and oath of perseverance. For by this vow and oath a peculiar mutual contract is entered upon, by force of which the Religious binds himself to persevere in the Congregation until death; and conversely, the Congregation obliges itself not to dismiss the professed member except from a supervening cause which would be most grave.¹⁵

To stability are opposed, or seem in some way to be opposed: 1. Apostasy and flight; 2. ejection; 3. dispensation from vows; 4. transfer to another Religion; 5. translation to the Episcopate. - Concerning each, now a few things.

2172. • An apostate (from Religion) is he who departs from the monastery or Religion with the intention of totally deserting the Order and not returning to it. But he is called a fugitive who departs without license with the intention of returning. Whence, from Trent (sess. 25, c. 4, de Regul.), among fugitives are also numbered those who, without license of the local Superiors, flee to the major Superiors, unless they have been sent or called by them.

I. APOSTATES and FUGITIVES (whether the habit has been laid aside or retained, according as provision is variously made by the constitutions of Religions), incur, besides the guilt of lethal sin, excommunication ipso facto.¹⁶ - They are deprived besides of all privileges of Regulars, and are subjected to the Ordinaries of places, from Trent, l.c., cap. 19, de Reg. - Yet they are not released from the obligations of the state deserted, but are bound to observe their vows and all the constitutions of their Order, namely lest they obtain an advantage from fraud. - See the other things among the Canonists.¹⁷

II. Prelates ARE BOUND to SEEK OUT fugitives and apostates, because by divine and natural law they must provide for their salvation. - Except if this could not be done without grave harm of the Order, or if they were incorrigible; "because, if for a just cause they can be ejected, for the same also, after they have gone out, they will be able not to be received."¹⁸

2173. • By the name of ejection or dismissal is understood the perpetual separation of a Religious from his Order, made by the authority of a competent judge. The process of ejection must be made both according to the Canons and according to the Constitutions and style of each Order.¹⁹

I. Regulars solemnly professed can be ejected for three causes: 1) if in admission they concealed a very grave impediment, e.g. leprosy; 2) if they can no longer be tolerated without infamy of the Order; 3) if they are notoriously incorrigible in a grave and pernicious crime. Formerly it was lawful to eject Religious from the Order on account of any grave offense, even if admitted once; but Urban VIII (21 Sept. 1626, § 6) declared that no one (except a member of the Society of Jesus), unless he is incorrigible, can be ejected; but that those throwing off discipline can be punished by fasts and prison: which must always be observed with incorrigible nuns, where civil power does not obstruct.²⁰

The one ejected remains always a Religious and bound by vows, which he must observe, insofar as circumstances permit it. - Hence, 1) as regards poverty, he has only the use of the things which he acquires, but not dominion, which remains with the monastery, if this is capable of dominion;²¹ otherwise, with the Apostolic Camera. - 2) As regards obedience, the Divine Office (if he is not in Sacred Orders), and the other rules, he is now bound by no obligation, since he has been juridically dismissed by the Prelate. But he is bound to obey the Bishop, by whom nevertheless he cannot be ordained; indeed he remains suspended from every exercise of Orders, nor can he preach, nor teach (cf. n. 1365). - 3) He is bound to amend himself, so that he may merit being admitted again; for since he is held by vows, he must seek again that state in which he can carry out his vows. Yet if, although amended, he is not admitted, he can remain in the world with a safe conscience, and receive the Sacraments in the manner of clerics.²²

2174. • II. Religious of simple vows can be ejected for several causes, which are determined both by natural law and by the approved rules of each Institute. - Those ejected or dismissed in this case are commonly exempted from the obligations of the religious state, whether these come from a vow or from a rule, and are reduced to secular life; they belong to the jurisdiction of the Bishop to whom they were subject before inscription in the Institute.²³ - See concerning the Dispensed (n. 2177).

2175. • IT IS ASKED. Can Religious of simple vows be licitly and validly dismissed WITHOUT CAUSE?

Resp. 1. If in the Institute at least the essentials of the religious State are found, a professed subject can never be dismissed without grave cause, even if he himself should consent to his own dismissal; because, where the religious state exists, there intervenes in profession a handing over: by which, on the one part, the Religious has devoted himself to God and to the Institute in perpetuity, and by which, on the other part, the Institute in turn, through the acceptance of profession, has obligated itself, at least implicitly and from a quasi-contract, never to dismiss him without a just cause. But a just cause is not had in this alone, that the Religious acquiesces in his own dismissal. Although in this case a lesser cause will be able to suffice; for the subject can yield his own right.²⁴

Resp. 2. If in the Institute there are not found those things which are of the essence of the religious State, and the subject consents to his own dismissal, it seems that he can be dismissed without grave cause: e.g. on account of weak health; because in the circumstances of such things, neither the religious state nor the reclamation of the subject stands in the way.¹ - Yet advert that a just cause is always required if the Religious himself wishes to be dispensed from his vows, as is known.

Resp. 3. If a vow or oath of perseverance is emitted by the one vowing, there arises a special obligation on both sides of standing by the promises, whether a true religious state is found in the Institute or not; because such a vow or oath, accepted by the Congregation, has the character of a true bilateral contract: from which it happens that, just as the subject cannot, upon any new circumstance whatsoever arising, leave the Institute (unless for passing over into a stricter Order), so neither can the Institute, while the subject stands by his promises, dismiss him.²

2176. • I. As regards SOLEMN vows. Formerly, indeed, many thought that no one could be dispensed from solemn vows, and that the bond of religious profession was indissoluble by divine law. But this opinion has become less probable; for the common opinion today teaches that a Religious, even solemnly professed, can be released from his obligations, either in part or in whole. And the practice of the Supreme Pontiffs favors this opinion; for more than once, although generally only on account of a public cause, they have granted a dispensation of this kind (cf. n. 135, 642).³ - Thus the Roman Pontiff sometimes dispenses Religious even solemnly professed, so that true dominion of temporal goods may be in their possession; or so that at least they may be able to exercise acts of proprietors, namely when their incapacity is not recognized by the civil power. Yet in Indults of this kind the substance of the vow always remains safe, for the reason that the dispensed cannot do more than what is permitted by the Pontiff, and they need besides the permission of Superiors.⁴ Thus likewise, in the time of the French disturbance, the Pope dispensed not a few priests, both secular and regular, from the vow of chastity, at least in part. We say in part, i.e. in order to a marriage already contracted invalidly; for generally clauses of this kind were added to the dispensation: "with the same woman only, but not for contracting with another, nor for entering upon second nuptials, and if... outside the licit use of marriage he shall have offended, let him know that (the petitioner) will act sacrilegiously against the sixth precept."⁵

By common law, when there is dispensation in the solemnity of one vow, the other solemn vows cease to be solemn, unless the Pope shall have established otherwise.⁶

2177. • II. As regards SIMPLE VOWS. These vows are emitted either in Institutes approved by the Holy See, or in Institutes approved by Bishops. - If the first, dispensation is granted by the Roman Pontiff alone, although, from apostolic privilege, the same power can also belong to the Superior General, if there is question of a Congregation of men. The reason is that the vows were made as it were into the hand of the Pontiff.⁷ If the second, either those Institutes, distributed into various houses, are subject to a general Superior or Superiorissa; and in this case the several Bishops cannot dispense in the houses subject to themselves, because they would violate the right of the general Superior; or the individual houses subsist by themselves, and in this case the Bishop can release subjects from the vows of poverty and obedience, but not from the vow of perpetual chastity, as being reserved to the Holy See. - From the Response of the Sacred Penitentiary, 2 Jan. 1836⁸ (cf. n. 2190 and 2194).

It MUST BE NOTED: 1. For a valid dispensation of simple vows a lighter cause is required than for a dispensation of solemn vows; likewise, a lighter cause on the part of the Institute than on the part of the subject: either because in many Institutes the bond is not obliging equally on both sides, or especially because the common good of the Institute must always be preferred to the private good of the subject.

2. If any alumnus of such an Institute, without just cause, has sought and obtained dispensation from vows, the dispensation must be judged valid, although it was illicitly sought. The reason is that although a just cause was lacking on the part of the one seeking, nevertheless an excellent one was present on the part of the one granting, to whom belongs the right and office of procuring the common good by dismissing subjects who are not of good example to the others.⁹

2178. • Let only the following be NOTED: 1. By common law (i.e. from the Decretal Licet of Innocent III) passage from a more lax Religion to a stricter (or more austere) one is licit; provided it is done from a just cause, without grave harm of the Religion to be left, and provided that the license of the Superior or of the Pope is sought, indeed also (if the Order which is left enjoys a privilege specially conceded for this) provided that it is obtained.¹⁰

2. Passage to an Order of equal rigidity is also licit, but with a greater cause and with the license of the Superior; or, if this greater cause is lacking, with the permission of the Supreme Pontiff;¹¹ which must always be had if the passage is made to an Order of more lax observance, or if there is question of a cloistered nun.¹²

In any of these cases, from the Constitution Pastor bonus of Benedict XIV, the Major Penitentiary can grant the passage, "for just and grave causes respectively, however, to be approved by the same Major Penitentiary; the Superior of the Order from which the passage is to be made having first been heard, and with the consent of the Superior of the Order to which it is to be made."¹³ - Recall what was said n. 638. Hence 1 and 642, 3.

2179. • A Regular assumed to the Episcopate (or Cardinalate)¹⁴ is not exempted from profession, nor from all rules generally; but only from those obligations which do not agree with his new office or dignity. For to the question, "whether and how a Regular Bishop is bound to observe the rule which he has professed:" - the Sacred Congregation of BISHOPS AND REGULARS, on 6 May 1864, judged that it should respond: "Affirmatively, according to the prescription of the Constitution of Benedict XIII beginning Custodes, namely, a Regular Bishop is bound to observe the Rules of his Religion which determine the matter of the vow of poverty. Likewise he is bound to observe the other rules and observances not repugnant to episcopal dignity and office, with the same grave or light obligation by which he was held before he obtained the episcopal dignity: yet so that in particular cases he can prudently make a judgment whether those things agree with episcopal dignity and office."¹⁵

Hence. - 1. A Regular Bishop cannot, except by license of the Pope, make a testament, and take inheritances or legacies for himself. Yet he can legitimately acquire goods; namely, the use for himself, but the property for the Church over which he presides and of whose goods he is the dispenser.¹⁶ Nor does the vow of obedience cease in him, since he obtains the Supreme Pontiff himself as Superior.

2. If he is of the Family of the Minims, he is still bound to the vow of Lenten diet; if of the Family of St. Francis, to the fast of Friday, etc., unless he has been specially dispensed by the Apostolic Holy See.

3. As regards the Divine Office, he is bound, from the declaration of the Sacred Congregation of Rites made on 11 June 1605,¹⁷ to recite it, not indeed according to the rite of his Religion, but according to the rite of his diocese.

4. As regards the habit, he must indeed preserve the color of his Order; but in the form of the habit he can be vested in the manner of secular Bishops, as Clement VIII conceded.¹⁸

NB. Decisions of the Sacred Congregation of BISHOPS AND REGULARS issued for Regular Bishops must be extended to Religious Bishops of simple vows, yet with the due restrictions being made, e.g. as regards poverty.¹⁹