Chapter I: On The Nature Of The Religious State

2128. Three things must briefly be weighed, namely the notion, origin, and distinction of the RELIGIOUS STATE.

DEFINITION. In general, State is a certain condition of life in which someone persists perpetually, or for a time. - Of this kind is the state of innocence, the state of fallen nature, the state of grace, the state of sin, the ecclesiastical state, the lay state, etc.

In a stricter manner, STATE is an immovable condition of life by which someone is firmly bound to another. Immovable absolutely, or movable only with difficulty; for state signifies persistence and a certain stability. - A state of this kind is THREEFOLD: episcopal, religious, and conjugal. For Bishops are obliged to service of their Church; Religious to divine service; married persons to mutual service. The two prior states are spiritual; and the first of them is the state of perfection acquired, the second of perfection to be acquired, but the third is a secular state.²

Now then,

The RELIGIOUS STATE is incomplete or complete, namely according as it is taken in a broad or strict sense.

The INCOMPLETE religious state, and taken in the broader sense, is the state of the faithful tending to the perfection of divine charity. - Under this definition not a few Institutes called Religious improperly are comprehended, as will be clear from the things to be said.

The COMPLETE religious state, and strictly so called, is defined: A stable manner of living by which one tends to the perfection of divine charity through the three perpetual vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, under a rule of common life approved by the Church.³

It is said 1. a stable manner of living; otherwise it would not be a state properly so called, as we have already noted.

It is said 2. by which one tends to the perfection of divine charity; for the end of the religious state is CHARITY, not indeed that common charity which belongs also to imperfect Christians who are in the state of grace, but that eminent charity by which someone is proximately disposed to act easily and ordinarily according to the precepts and counsels of God,⁴ namely in imitation of Christ the Lord saying (John 8:29): I always do those things which are pleasing to Him (cf. n. 467, III, and 690).

It is said 3. through the three perpetual vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience; because, according to all theologians, a complete religious state is not understood unless it makes one tend completely and permanently to perfection. But indeed, that a human being tend completely to perfection, it is required both that he remove from the midst all things which forestall this perfection, namely the concupiscence of the eyes, the concupiscence of the flesh, and the pride of life, and that he offer to God in perpetuity as a holocaust all that he has, namely external and internal goods, body and soul. But each is done, as is clear, through the observance of the three evangelical counsels, namely of voluntary poverty, chastity, and obedience. Then, that he tend permanently and firmly to perfection, a VOW is required; for since the prementioned perfection is of free election, scarcely any other means of stability can be thought of than a perpetual vow, which, from the virtue of religion, establishes a truly perseverable law.⁵

Hence, those are not Religious properly so called who indeed observe the three evangelical counsels, but who have pronounced no vow concerning them; nor those who have vowed only one or two of the three; nor those who have vowed all three, but only for a time. - Suarez indeed dissents,⁶ teaching that with the vow of conjugal chastity alone there can exist a religious state properly so called, so that the essence of the religious state remains in the case in which the Supreme Pontiff should dispense someone, in part, from the solemn vow of chastity, with the faculty of using matrimony already contracted, or of contracting future matrimony. But Doctors more commonly oppose this doctrine.⁷

It is said 4. under a rule of common life. And in this consists the accidental or secondary element by which the religious state is constituted. - For although the three vows by which the observance of the evangelical counsels is promised, accepted in the name of God by someone having power for this, suffice of themselves for the essence of the religious state, nevertheless, considering present ecclesiastical law, that state does not exist before the Church except in common or cenobitic life, under one head and under one rule which fittingly conduces to pursuing perfection.

Hence: "Those are not Religious who, after the vow of perpetual poverty and chastity has been made, vow obedience to a confessor or Bishop;⁸ nor are Hermits reputed such, unless they have a common prelate and rule with other members of the same Institute, according to the present custom of the Church."

It is said 5. approved by the Church, namely by the Holy See, to which today the matter is reserved, as being of greater moment. For although this approbation is not of itself of the essence of the religious state, as most theologians think against some, nevertheless it is required from ecclesiastical law. In antiquity indeed, for founding religious Institutes, e.g. of St. Basil, St. Augustine, St. Benedict, etc., the express institution and approbation of the proper Bishops sufficed, the Roman Pontiff not opposing but rather commending; but in the Fourth Lateran Council,⁹ and then in the Council of Lyons,¹⁰ it was established that a new Order could not be introduced, nor the habit taken in it, unless it had been expressly approved by the Supreme Pontiff.

Now the approbation of the Church imports two things, namely judgment concerning the honorableness and utility of the Order or rule, and power conceded to Superiors of receiving Candidates to the habit and profession, and of performing the other things which are according to the Rule or Institute.¹¹

Hence: 1. Those are not Religious properly so called who, although they emit the three vows and lead life in common, nevertheless do not profess a rule approved by the Holy See; such are the pupils of various Congregations which Bishops have instituted by their own authority alone. Although their merit before God can be plainly the same as the merit of the others who are properly Religious, since they exhibit to the Lord the same abnegation of themselves.

2. An Institute which would be reproved or prohibited by the Holy See would by that very fact be void and would exclude the essence of the religious state. For it would no longer be a state of perfection, but rather a state of rebellion, since God can never hold as accepted what the Church disapproves.

2129. Questions. QUESTION 1. What is the difference between SOLEMN and SIMPLE vows, and do simple vows SUFFICE for the essence of the state of religion?

Resp. 1. Authors do not agree concerning the difference which intervenes between solemn vows and simple vows. According to the opinion of St. Thomas,¹² Bellarmine, etc., which St. Alphonsus teaches as the more probable,¹³ the solemnity of the vow of chastity is from ecclesiastical law as regards the rite, i.e. the form essentially required that it be held by the Church as solemn, but from positive divine law as regards the essence and effect, i.e. of invalidating matrimony. The reason is, "because in a simple vow the body is promised only to God, but in a solemn vow through the legitimate acceptance of Prelates, the body is besides handed over to God." These are the words of St. Alphonsus.¹⁴ And a similar reason can be adduced for the vow of poverty and obedience.¹⁵ Nevertheless, the contrary opinion seems today to have become the more common among canonists. Philip de Angelis testifies to this,¹⁶ saying: "This is the canonical doctrine, that solemnity is not intrinsic or essential to vows, so that the simple and solemn vow differ in species; but that it is extrinsic and accidental to vows, proceeding from the disposition of the Church." And a demonstration having been added from various documents, the distinguished Canonist concludes "that the SOLEMNITY of the three vows consists in the force added to them by the disposition of the Church, of making void, or at least voidable, certain acts contrary to the accidental perfection of the vows of a Religious." But whether this opinion is also intrinsically more probable, let others judge. Cf. the things to be said in n. 2156, 2160, 2176.

Resp. 2. "For the essence of Religion solemn vows are not required. The reason is that those who in the Society of Jesus make simple vows are true Religious, as Gregory XIII defined in the Bull Ascendente Domino."¹⁷ And Benedict XIV writes: "By the authority of the Roman Pontiff it can be brought about that that also is a true Religion in which only simple vows are emitted."¹⁸

Nor does it stand in the way that the bond of solemn vows is greater; because, as Suarez rightly observes,¹⁹ greater and lesser do not vary species. And indeed, although simple vows do not induce of themselves, as solemn vows do, inability for matrimony, incapacity of dominion, and absolute or immutable stability, nevertheless they render matrimony illicit in perpetuity, strip the one vowing of every independent use and every arbitrary disposition of temporal things, which is the same as if the Religious possessed nothing at all; finally, they induce sufficient stability, while it is established that the professed can never withdraw by his own will, and the Order ought not to dismiss him except for a grave and just cause.²⁰

QUESTION 2. Whether for the essence of the religious state strictly taken, there is required a HANDING OVER OF ONESELF made to God and ACCEPTED in the name of God by some human being?

Resp. Affirmatively, according to the common opinion of authors. For the religious state properly so called has always been held in the Church of God as a true handing over or donation, by which a human being wholly binds himself to God, namely by abdicating that natural right which each one, the precepts being observed, has of disposing of himself and his things according to his will. And although the aforesaid handing over is customarily joined to the very emission of vows, nevertheless it is something different from the vows, which is superadded to them. For a vow, by its nature, is nothing except a promise, by force of which not the dominion of the thing itself, but only a right to having it, is conferred; but a handing over which is legitimately accepted in the name of God by someone is a true and perfect donation, which effects that the thing or person offered is irrevocably transferred under the dominion of the one accepting.

But that an acceptance of this kind is necessary is gathered from this, that through a donation of goods, right is not yet transferred to another unless the donation is accepted by the donee, as we saw in the Treatise on Contracts (n. 1063 sqq.). "But indeed a handing over or donation, although it can immediately be made in view of God, nevertheless is not accepted by Him, nor is it pleasing to Him, unless it is made to some human being by whom it can be accepted or repudiated, and who acquires a right over the thing handed over for using it or for commanding it and for bearing care of it. The reason of this is that God, according to His ordinary providence, does not assume the peculiar care of governing a private person immediately by Himself, nor does He need sensible things, so that He may use them immediately and without the intervention of secondary causes. And therefore a donation thus made to God would either be vain and odious, or as though tempting God by demanding immediate governance from Him; and for that reason it is not pleasing to Him, nor is it immediately accepted by Him."²¹

2130. From these things you will gather: 1. Vows which are made to God alone and are accepted by no one do not induce the essence of the Religious State. - And hence it was why Pope Alexander VII, in the Constitution Ex commissa issued on 22 Sept. 1655 in favor of the Congregation of the Mission, or Lazarists, which, although it intended to emit three vows, and these perpetual, nevertheless did not wish to be numbered among religious Orders, established these things most worthy of note, namely: "that, in the emission of their vows, no one be present who accepts them in the name of the Congregation, or in Our name and in the name of the Roman Pontiff existing for the time ... And that the said Congregation not on this account be judged among the number of religious Orders, but be of the body of the secular clergy." But unless the Pontiff had added this clause, the Congregation of the Lazarists would not be secular, but properly religious, namely having the essence and truth of the Religious State.²²

2. The handing over of oneself, concerning which we have spoken, does not necessarily presuppose the emission of solemn vows. And this is confirmed from the Bull Ascendente Domino of Gregory XIII, § 18, where the Pontiff notes: "that the three vows of the Society, i.e. of Scholastics, although simple, have been admitted by this See as substantial vows of Religion, and that those emitting them are truly constituted in the State of religion, since by them they dedicate and actually hand over themselves to the Society, and bind themselves to divine service in it."

3. On the part of the Order there can be some acceptance, without for that reason a reciprocal obligation arising between it and the Religious. - To the point, Schmalzgruber speaks thus:²³ "It must be said that, for someone to be truly and properly a Religious, it suffices if at least on the part of the one vowing there is given the obligation of remaining perpetually in Religion, although Religion does not have in turn the absolute obligation of retaining him perpetually." - And this is confirmed by the example of the Society of Jesus, in which "Scholastics bind themselves by vows to remain perpetually in the Order; but the Society reserves to itself the power of dismissing them, if this seems more expedient to it."²⁴

2131. • Some writers have taught that the religious State is of merely ecclesiastical institution, and consequently belongs in no way to the essence or integrity of the Church. Thus especially the Innovators, most hostile to Religious, against whom we establish the following:

Principles. I. The religious State, AS TO SUBSTANCE, although not as to accidental forms, was instituted by Christ the Lord; whence it must be said to be of DIVINE LAW, not commanding but COUNSELING.

"This," says Suarez,¹ "is the opinion of all Catholics who think rightly" (cf. n. 133). And in truth Christ must be called the author of the religious State as to substance, if He Himself is the author of religious perfection, to be acquired through the observance of poverty, chastity, and obedience; for the whole matter or substance of the religious State consists in this. Now then, that the matter is so is clear from the three oracles of the Lord; the first of which is: "If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven" (Matt. 19:21); - the second: "And there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He who can take, let him take it" (ibid. 19:12); and the Apostle explains the mind of the Savior (1 Cor. 7); - finally the third: "If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me" (Luke 9:23); which same counsel of obedience was given also in these words: "And come, follow Me" (Matt. 19:21).

The same is proved from the Holy Fathers; for they, Suarez bearing witness,² commonly teach that the state of Christians was distributed by Christ into two orders: into the order of those professing the common life of the commandments, i.e. the conjugal or secular life; and into the order of those professing the higher and angelic life of the more sublime counsels, i.e. the religious life. - And this was the life which the Apostles professed, as St. Thomas testifies,³ writing: "The Apostles are understood to have vowed the things pertaining to the state of perfection, when, having left all things, they followed Christ."

From these things you will gather: 1. Although the Pope, as Vicar of God, can dispense in the vows of Religion, he nevertheless cannot effect that someone be at once a Religious and loosed from the substantial vows; because these belong to the essence of the religious State divinely instituted.⁴

2. No Authority on earth is able to abolish the religious State without by that very fact wounding divine right.⁵

2132. II. The religious State is, as to substance, connatural to the Church and so NECESSARY that it must be said to belong to her integrity. - This is drawn not only from the evangelical words, but from the very nature of the Church. For Christ implanted in His Church the property and note of sanctity, namely so that she would be adorned not only with internal sanctity through sanctifying grace and the gifts of the Holy Spirit, but that she would shine also with external and public sanctity, by which she could easily be discerned from all false and spurious religions. Now then, this note of Sanctity comprises not only the exercise of those virtues which suffice for attaining salvation, but also the observance of the counsels and public profession, or the religious State. - Another argument can be taken from the necessity of evangelical workers; for St. Alphonsus⁶ does not hesitate to assert that Bishops and parish priests are unequal to supplying all the spiritual necessities of peoples. Hence, if God did not send to them other priests by whom they might be helped, He would not have sufficiently provided for His Church.

Hence: 1. In every age Religious have existed in the Church, although perhaps they were bound by no peculiar and common discipline during the first two centuries.

2. The religious State is indefectible in the Church, although some Order or Congregation in particular can fail.⁷

Note. The Ascetical writers discuss the EXCELLENCE of the religious State.⁸

2133. • For the greater decorum and utility of the Church, various religious Orders have been raised up by God, which for that reason can be divided into various species.

I. By reason of their PECULIAR END, Religious are said to be contemplative, who principally tend to their own sanctification through prayer and solitude; - active, who principally apply themselves to works of charity toward the neighbor; - mixed, who with equal zeal tend to attaining both ends.⁹

The CONTEMPLATIVE life excels the ACTIVE, according to that word of Christ the Lord: Mary has chosen the best part. But the MIXED LIFE is most perfect, in which a Religious so gives himself to contemplation that, from the fullness of this, those things flow forth which through doctrine and other spiritual offices he expends in helping neighbors. For just as it is more excellent both to shine and to illuminate: so it is more excellent to join action with contemplation, and from charity to pour out into others, for procuring their salvation, the things which are drawn in contemplation. This was the life of the Apostles and of our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, than which none more perfect can be thought.¹⁰

2134. II. By reason of VOWS, they are divided into Religions, into religious Congregations, and into Religious Institutes.

1. A Religion, or religious Order, in the canonical and stricter sense, is constituted by solemn vows alone, so that only those who emit vows of this kind are strictly to be called Regulars.

2. For a religious Congregation there is required and suffices the essence of the religious State with simple vows, as is clear from what was said in n. 2129, q. 1. The members of such Congregations are sometimes comprehended under the name of Religious in Pontifical documents.

3. The word religious Institute extends more broadly than religious Congregation; for it is extended even to those modes of living which imitate the religious State without vows, e.g. the Oratory of St. Philip Neri.¹¹

From these things the manner of SPEAKING of the Supreme Pontiffs becomes clear, who name religious Institutes with simple vows sometimes religious Congregations, religious families, etc.; sometimes secular Congregations, according as they use those words either in the natural sense or in the canonical sense. - But the canons by which the common law of Regulars is constituted suppose and regard Religions properly so called, so that neither the laws nor the privileges given to Regulars belong of themselves to Institutes of simple vows.

2135. III. By reason of the Rule, there are FOUR principal SPECIES of Orders, according as they follow the rule of St. Basil, or of St. Augustine, or of St. Benedict, or of St. Francis. Most founders of religious Orders have embraced one of these four, with peculiar statutes added, by which each might direct his Institute more fittingly to its proper end.

2136. • Note. Religious Orders strictly so called, in which SOLEMN vows are emitted, are reduced to these supreme species:

1. MONASTIC Orders, which, by force of their own institute, are not ordered to the ministries of clerics, but profess in the first place a contemplative and solitary life. - Of this kind are: Basilians, Cassinese, Camaldolese, Vallumbrosans, Cistercians, Trappists, Olivetans, Sylvestrines, Hieronymites, Carthusians, Antonians, etc.

2. CLERICAL Orders, which by their own institute are held to spiritual ministries, to which they are deputed by ecclesiastical ordination. Such are: Canons Regular, e.g. of the Lateran Basilica, and Clerks Regular, e.g. Theatines, Barnabites, Somaschans, Jesuits, Minor Clerks, Ministers of the Sick, Clerks of the Mother of God, and of the Pious Schools.

3. MENDICANT Orders, under which name are comprehended those to whom, from the rule or constitutions approved by the Apostolic See, it is forbidden to have revenues and possessions in common, although they have them by dispensation of the Pontiff, as today, from Trent, sess. 25, de Regul. cap. 3, a dispensation is made with all Mendicants, except the Minors of the Observance and Capuchins. - Wherefore, to the Orders of Mendicants belong the four more ancient Orders of St. Dominic, the Minors, the Hermits of St. Augustine, and the Carmelites, of whom mention is made in cap. unic. § sane, de Relig. domibus in 6; and besides these the Orders of the Servants of Mary, of the Minims of St. Francis of Paola, of St. Jerome, as St. Pius V declared in Constit. 35a Romanus Pontifex, and 48a Apostolicae Sedis; the Society of Jesus, from the Bull Dum indefessae. Likewise, the Trinitarians reformed by Blessed J. B. of the Conception (Paul V, 15 Dec. 1609); the Mercedarians (Benedict XIII, 8 July 1725); the Discalced Carmelites (Clement VIII, 20 Aug. 1603), etc.¹²

4. MILITARY Orders, as the Knights of St. John and the Teutonic Knights, who are ordered to military service for the defense of the Church against Infidels and other enemies of the same.

5. HOSPITALLER Orders, e.g. St. John of God, who from the scope of the Institute are ordered to the exercise of hospitality, as regards the reception of pilgrims, care of the sick, etc.¹³

NB. To various Orders, especially those of St. Francis, St. Dominic, and the Blessed Virgin Mary of Mount Carmel, are joined Tertiaries, who live either in common under a rule, or privately in the world. - Concerning the Third Order of St. Francis of Assisi, see the Constitution of the Most Holy Pope Leo XIII, Misericors Dei Filius, issued on 30 May 1883.¹⁴