§ 3. On The Vow Of Obedience

2165. "Poverty indeed is great, but integrity is a greater good; obedience is greatest, if it is kept uninjured. For the first dominates things, the second the flesh, but the third the mind and soul." Thus John XXII, in Extrav. Quorundam, de verbor. signif., v. f.¹

Principle. A Religious from the vow of obedience is obliged to all things which the Superior commands according to the Rules and Constitutions of the Order, whether directly and expressly, or indirectly and implicitly.² The reason is that a Religious has subjected himself by vow to the power of the Superior, namely both of jurisdiction, which the Superior has as quasi-episcopal from the Pope, Vicar of Christ, in exempt Orders; and dominative power, which the Superior has in every Institute, as father of a family, for the political governance of the house. Hence, a professed Religious, acting against a precept of obedience, more probably commits two sins: one against RELIGION by reason of the vow, the other against the VIRTUE OF OBEDIENCE, by reason of the promise and handing over made concerning himself in profession, on account of which, of itself, even without a vow, he is bound to obey a legitimate Superior³ (cf. n. 690).

It is said 1. He is obliged to all things which the Superior COMMANDS; for a precept is the proper object of obedience, nor can sin be committed where there is not a law or precept. - Whence: 1) If the Superior manifests his will or his desire only by optative words, there is of itself NO obligation of obeying; although the subject can sin from another source, for example by saddening him, by not preserving the reverence owed to him, by omitting a thing already prescribed of itself, etc. - 2) If the Superior commands simply, e.g. by using these words: I order, I command, the subject is held UNDER VENIAL sin to obey; because there is now a precept, although the Superior does not intend to use his whole power. - 3) If the Superior, in commanding in matter certainly or doubtfully grave, uses these words: in virtue of holy Obedience..., in the name of the Lord..., in the name of Jesus Christ..., under formal precept..., under penalty of excommunication ipso facto, or similar words, the subject is held, and indeed UNDER GRAVE sin, to obey; because from formulas of this kind it becomes known that the Superior wishes to use his whole authority.⁴

It is said 2. according to the Rules and Constitutions; for a Religious, by vowing obedience, wished to oblige himself only to living and obeying according to the Rules of the Order to which he freely consecrated himself. Whence the Superior CANNOT command things which are against the rule, unless he can dispense in it and a just cause of dispensing is present;⁵ or above the rule, i.e. graver things, e.g. that the subject accept an Episcopate, a benefice with cure, or even a simple benefice, or exercise himself in great austerities, etc.; or below the rule, i.e. more lax or vain things. - Nevertheless, he CAN command things which pertain only indirectly to the rule, or which make for fuller observance of it. Indeed, at times he can, if necessity or the spiritual or bodily utility of the subject himself requires it, command things which are against or above the rule: e.g. fasting as a punishment for some fault, assistance to be furnished to the sick of his own Order infected with a contagious disease; or even to outsiders, if those are lacking who would minister the necessary Sacraments to them⁶ (cf. n. 155).

2166. St. Alphonsus further NOTES the following: 1. A Prelate can probably command internal acts under sin, although this is not customary nor advisable;⁷ likewise, "he can command under grave sin what has been commanded by the rule only under light sin, if it is feared that otherwise the rule will not be observed."⁸ - 2. He can prohibit subjects from emitting vows without himself having been consulted; nevertheless vows emitted within the limits of the rule are not of themselves invalid, although they can be irritated; for the matter of the vow is accepted by God, although the mode displeases Him (cf. n. 638).⁹ - 3. He cannot command the revelation of a secret committed to some Religious, unless such revelation is necessary for averting harm to oneself, or to the monastery, or to a third party (cf. n. 1187, q. 2).¹⁰ - 4. LICENSE denied by a Prelate but conceded by a Superior of lower order is probably valid as often as the Prelate has not expressed that he wishes to derogate from the authority of the inferior; indeed it is licit if he has not positively prohibited the subject to execute the thing and the inferior Superior to give license (cf. n. 2158, q. 2).¹¹

2167. • Questions. QUESTION 1. Whom are Religious and nuns bound to obey?

Resp. By force of the vow, they are bound to OBEY: - 1) The Supreme Pontiff, as supreme Prefect of all Religions, from whom all power of religious jurisdiction emanates. 2) Their own Superiors, namely the Superior General, Provincial, and local Superior; but nuns, the Abbess: with this order being observed, that if different Superiors command, they obey rather him who is of higher grade.¹² - 3) The Ordinary of the place, if they are not exempt, but according to the rules approved by the Holy See (cf. n. 2190).

QUESTION 2. What power belongs to an ABBESS or SUPERIORISSA over nuns?

Resp. 1. An Abbess, or Superiorissa, CAN, by reason of the dominative power handed over to her by vow, or at least as minister of regular observance, demand, even in virtue of obedience according to the absolutely more probable opinion, that nuns fulfill that which is commanded by the rule, or that which conduces to their progress according to the rule. Likewise, although she is not capable of jurisdiction, nor can she, in an authoritative manner, dispense concerning vows and observances of Religion against the rule; nevertheless she can dispense in these from commission of the Prelate, or even, from a just cause, declare in her own name that such a precept, say fasting, is not obligatory on such a day or hour. Finally, by reason of dominative power, if she truly possesses this, she can irritate the vows of nuns, whether concerning supererogatory matter or concerning a thing about the rules; but the vows of novices she can suspend as regards execution, if they are an obstacle to probation.¹³

2. She CANNOT oblige nuns to receive Holy Communion more frequently or more rarely than has been defined by their ordinary confessor. Nevertheless she can, e.g. on account of some scandal given and not yet repaired, forbid them Holy Communion on some day, "if otherwise a penalty of this kind, as Suarez speaks,¹⁴ is conformable to her rule, does not exceed the ordinary mode of religious discipline ... and is not inflicted properly as a spiritual privation, but as it induces some mark or shame."¹⁵ - If, by force of the rules, she exacts from them an account of conscience, they are not bound to manifest to her their sins, whether present or past. Further, the Sacred Congregation of BISHOPS AND REGULARS (10 March 1860), "on account of abuses which have crept in, at present is by no means accustomed to approve the opening of conscience to the Superiorissa; but it is only permitted that Sisters, if they wish, can disclose defects in the observance of the rule and progress as regards virtues; for concerning other things they must treat with their own confessor."¹⁶

In various Institutes, with the Holy See approving, the Moderatrix general "must seek the deliberative vote of the Consultors in graver matters; especially for foundations and suppressions of houses, for contracts, for the vestition and profession of members, and other things of this kind."¹⁷

QUESTION 3. Is a subject bound to obey IN DOUBT concerning the power of the Superior, or concerning the licitness of the thing commanded?

Resp. 1. If the doubt is concerning the legitimacy of the Superior, he is not bound to obey unless that one is in peaceful possession, and is commonly held as Superior. - And the same must be said if there is doubt concerning the imposition of the precept (cf. n. 52, 693).

2. If it is doubted whether the thing commanded is licit or not, or whether it exceeds the power of the Superior, he is bound to obey, even if the opposite opinion seems to him more probable.¹⁸ EXCEPT 1) "if the thing is very difficult and troublesome; because then the difficulty of the work together with the probable opinion that the thing commanded is illicit, or that the precept exceeds the power of the Superior, prevails over that one's possession. - 2) If by obeying the subject would expose himself or another to danger of undergoing grave inconvenience in life, reputation, honor, or goods. The reason is that the subject is not then bound to deprive himself of his certain right which he possesses concerning such goods of great moment, lest the Superior be deprived of his possession, which in that case is in some way uncertain."¹⁹

2168. • From these things you will resolve: 1. A professed Religious SINS gravely against the VOW of obedience: 1) when he refuses to obey, in a grave matter, a Superior commanding in virtue of holy obedience, according to what was said n. 2165; 2) when he responds to a commanding Superior: I do not wish to obey, I do not wish to do it, I will not do it, or something else similar, which smells of formal contempt of the authority commanding; 3) when from disobedience there follows grave scandal, whether of subjects or of seculars, or grave inconvenience, whether for the community or for others, e.g. for the salvation of souls, etc. - In other cases, disobedience does not exceed venial fault²⁰ (cf. n. 693, q. 2).

2. A Religious SINS only against the VIRTUE of obedience, generally only venially: 1) when he refuses to obey Superiors of lower grade with whom there is not power of commanding from the vow; 2) when in the external execution of a precept he murmurs in heart, or internally does not submit himself. - Likewise, novices, oblates, and all others who live common life in pious Institutes without the bond of vows offend against the virtue of obedience alone, gravely or lightly according to the gravity of the precept²¹ (cf. n. 690 sqq.).

3. If the rules order that in all things one obey the Superior, or in all things in which sin does not appear, "this is understood not of the obligation of the vow, but of the perfection of obedience."²²