Case 5. The Obligation of the Rule

To Caius, a religious of the Society of Jesus, those Doctors seem to sin against the express words of the Holy Founder, who established that no Constitutions, Declarations, or any order of living can induce an obligation to mortal or venial sin, when they teach that a religious who transgresses the rule, notwithstanding the said declaration of the Holy Founder, sins venially at least when he does so frequently. By their glosses, wholly unfounded as it seems to Caius, the said Doctors introduce a snare of sin, into which the legislating Father took the greatest care that his sons should not fall through violation of the rule. Against Caius, Titius, another religious, urges that St. Ignatius wished all the Constitutions, Declarations, and the order of living to be observed exactly, so that they should impose at least some obligation, lest they be regarded as mere counsels; and furthermore, that the nature of the religious state and of the matter itself must be weighed. Hence it is asked:

1. What is the rule of a religious Order?

2. What ordinarily is the obligation of the rule of religious Orders?

3. What is required for a human act to be good, and what suffices for it to be evil?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. What is the Rule of a Religious Order?

The Rule of a Religious Order in the strict sense is distinguished from the Constitutions. In the older Orders the Rule was a brief method of life drawn up by some of the great founders of Religious Orders, SS. Basil, Augustine, Benedict, and Francis, in order to guide their followers in the striving after the perfection proper to their state. The Constitutions were added subsequently and further developed and explained those Rules. In the Society of Jesus the Constitutions were drawn up by St. Ignatius, and the Rules were added subsequently. In the following case Rule is used widely to designate both Constitutions and Rule in the strict sense.

2. What is ordinarily the obligation of the Rule of Religious Orders?

Certain precepts which are often contained in the Rule bind under grave or venial sin according to the matter and the intention of the lawgiver. What immediately concerns the vows also binds under sin. Rules merely prescribing external discipline bind according to the will of the legislator. In most Religious Orders these rules do not bind directly under pain of sin, but only under the penalty imposed by authority.¹

1 Normae S. C. EE. et RR., 1901, n. 320; S. Thomas, Summa, II-II, q. 186, a. 9.

3. What is required that a human act be good, and what is sufficient that it be evil?

The object, the end, and all the circumstances must be good that the action may be good; any defect will make it at least partially evil.

4. The case. Caius does not distinguish what certainly requires distinction. The rule of silence, for example, does not bind under sin, so. that a Religious who breaks it does not sin against the Rule. But if a Religious talks when he should keep silence, there will generally be some fault in what is said, or in the manner of saying it, or in the motive for breaking silence. There will generally be something said against charity or obedience, some loss of time on one side or on the other, some weakening of discipline, some indulgence of the spirit of curiosity, grumbling, or idleness, so that often there will be venial sin committed. This follows from the nature of things, and could not be prevented even if the founder wished to prevent it. Actions that are inordinate can not be made ordinate at the will of the legislator. This is what St. Thomas ( l.c.) means, and other theologians after him, when they say that frequently religious commit sin by violating their Rule, even when it does not directly bind under sin.