Admission Itself into Religion

As, therefore, the observance of the counsels is not only lawful but a more perfect state of life, anyone may enter into religion who is not prevented by some obstacle. Those who have not possession of their faculties, and children who have not arrived at the age of puberty, and are still subject to their parents, cannot enter into religion. In former times parents used occasionally to present their children to be brought up in monasteries with the intention of their becoming religious when they reached the proper age. This custom, however, has long been abandoned.

Besides safeguarding what the constitutions of each institute prescribe on the point, the Code declares that the following cannot be validly admitted to the novitiate: Those who have formally belonged to a non-Catholic sect.

Those who have not the age required for the novitiate.

Those who enter religion induced thereto by violence, grave fear, or deceit, or whom the superior receives from the same motives. A spouse while the marriage lasts.

Those who are bound or who have been bound by the bond of religious profession.

Those over whom hangs a penalty on account of committing some grave crime of which they have been or can be accused.

A Bishop, whether residential or titular, although only designated by the Roman Pontiff.

Clerics who, by an arrangement of the Holy See, are bound by an oath to work for the benefit of their diocese or mission, for the time during which the obligation of the oath lasts.

The following are admitted unlawfully but validly: Clerics in sacred orders without the local Ordinary being consulted, or against his will, because their departure would be to the great loss of souls, and this loss cannot otherwise be avoided.

Those in debt who are not solvent.

Those who are liable to render accounts or who are implicated in other secular business from which religion may have to fear lawsuits and troubles.

Children who ought to assist parents—that is, father, mother, grandfather, or grandmother—placed in grave necessity, and parents whose care is necessary for the support and education of children.

Those destined for the priesthood in religion, but who are debarred from it by irregularity or other canonical impediment (Can. 542).

A twofold admission is distinguished, namely to the novitiate and to religious profession. Now the Code declares these things about each admission: Any Catholic can be admitted into religion who is detained by no legitimate impediment, is moved by a right intention, and is suitable for bearing the burdens of the religion (can. 538). Then it speaks specifically: first about the postulancy which in some religions must be placed before the novitiate; then about the novitiate; then about religious profession.

“1. In any Order, Congregation, Society, Institute, Monastery, or House whatsoever, whether solemn or simple vows are emitted in them, and even if Orders, Congregations, Societies, Institutes, Monasteries, and Houses are in question which, by a particular privilege contained even in the body of the law, or by any other title, are not comprehended in general decrees unless special, individual, and express mention is made of them, no one shall be admitted to the habit without testimonial letters both from the Ordinary of origin and also from the Ordinary of the place in which the Postulant, after completing the fifteenth year of his age, has remained for more than one year.

“2. In the aforesaid testimonial letters, after they have diligently inquired, even through secret information, into the qualities of the Postulant, the Ordinaries must report concerning his birth, age, morals, life, reputation, condition, education, and knowledge; whether he is under investigation, bound by some censure, irregularity, or other canonical impediment, burdened by debt, or liable to render an account of some administration. And let the Ordinaries know that their conscience remains burdened concerning the truth of the things set forth; nor is it ever free for them to deny testimonial letters of this kind; in the same letters, nevertheless, concerning each of the foregoing articles they must attest only those things which they shall judge in conscience that they can affirm in the Lord.

“3. The observance of this decree is strictly enjoined, even in virtue of holy obedience, upon all and each Regular Superior and other Religious whom it concerns, of whatever rank they may be and even of an exempt and privileged Institute and one requiring express mention; and whoever, contrary to the tenor of this decree, shall receive anyone into the religious habit shall by that very fact incur the penalty of deprivation of all offices and of active voice, and of perpetual incapacity for obtaining others thereafter, from which he can be dispensed only by the Apostolic See.

“4. By force of any privilege, faculty, indult, dispensation, or approval of rules and constitutions even in specific form which any Order, Institute, Superior, or Religious may obtain from the Apostolic See, it shall never be considered that derogation has been made from this decree unless derogation from it is made expressly and by name, even if general derogatory clauses, however broad, are appended in the concession. But if it should happen that a dispensation from the same decree is at any time granted expressly and by name to some Institute, it cannot be extended to others by force of any privilege or communication of privileges.

“5. On the first day of January in every year, this decree shall be read in the public refectory under penalty of deprivation of office and of active and passive voice, to be incurred by the Superiors by the very fact.

“But lest the observance of this decree be impeded by any reason, title, or pretext, His Holiness derogates wholly from any constitutions operating to the contrary...and any other things whatever to the contrary, and declares that derogation has been made from them.” Decree Romani Pontifices of the Sacred Congregation on the State of Regulars, 25 January 1848.

The qualities required in those to be admitted are those which are prescribed “in the Constitution of Sixtus V Cum de omnibus, with the moderation of Gregory XIV, and in the Decree of Clement VIII Cum ad regularem disciplinam, as well as in the rules and Constitutions of the respective Order.” Sacred Congregation on the State of Regulars, 1 May 1851. In the aforesaid Decree of Clement VIII one has Instructions concerning the reception and education of novices in monasteries and convents designated or to be designated. Bizzarri, Collect., pp. 843 ff., 867 ff.

“Conversi shall not be received before the twentieth year of their age, and unless they know at least the chief heads of Christian doctrine.” Instruction concerning the reception and education of novices, issued by command of Clement VIII, 19 March 1693; Sacred Congregation on the State of Regulars, 1 May 1851, to the seventh; Encyclical Letter Neminem latet, 19 March 1857.

To n. 262 bis.

Errata: 262 bis, Note: No one can licitly be admitted to the habit, or to beginning the novitiate, and then to profession, whether in an Institute of men of solemn vows, or in an Institute of men and women of simple vows, but by no means in an Institute of women of solemn vows, without testimonials, etc.

Correct: 262 bis, Note: No one can licitly be admitted to the habit, or to beginning the novitiate, and then to profession, whether in an Institute of men of solemn vows, or in an Institute of men of simple vows, but by no means in an Institute of women of solemn vows and of women of simple vows, without testimonial letters of the Ordinary of origin and of the place in which the postulant has dwelt for more than a year after the completion of his fifteenth year of age, under penalty of deprivation of all offices and of active voice, and of perpetual incapacity for obtaining others in the future.

Sacred Congregation on the State of Regulars, January 25, 1848, by the Decree Romani Pontifices, to be read publicly every year on the first day of January, under penalty of deprivation of office and of active and passive voice, to be incurred ipso facto by Superiors. This Decree cannot be derogated from unless expressly and by name. A dispensation granted to one Institute is not communicable to others. Cf. also the Declarations of the same Sacred Congregation, May 1, 1851; February 25, 1863; Enchiridion Morale, 4th ed., p. 239 ff.

But another Decree is also had of the same Sacred Congregation for Regular Discipline, January 25, 1848, concerning the reception of Novices to the habit and profession, to be observed also under penalty of deprivation of all offices and of active voice, and of perpetual incapacity for obtaining others in the future, and to be read publicly on January 1 and the first Sunday of July, likewise under penalty of deprivation of office and of active and passive voice. Nor can this Decree be derogated from except expressly and by name; and a dispensation granted to one Institute is not communicable to others. Cf. nn. 268, 277 bis.

1. Caius, a novice, having obtained dismissal, put off the habit and the intention of remaining in religion. But at night, while still sleeping in the monastery, led by repentance, he asked again to be admitted into religion, which he immediately obtained.

Question. Was the novitiate interrupted in the case?

R. Many deny this because of the brevity of the time and the smallness of the matter; others more probably affirm it, because the continuity of the annual time according to the Council of Trent is no longer had. La Croix, bk. 4, n. 18. “But if Caius was not dismissed, although, having put off the habit and the intention of remaining, he hid in the monastery while awaiting an opportunity of going out, Suarez and Castropalaus rightly say against Diana that no interruption was made; as also not then, if the superior had wished first to dismiss him clothed in secular dress. For in these cases he is judged still to have remained in the order, since he was not dismissed by the will of the superiors; and at least by this there is not judged to be a full interruption, unless it was at the same time completed by actual departure.” Thus La Croix, loc. cit., n. 20.

And Ferraris, v. Annus probationis, n. 10 ff.: “The year of probation or novitiate ought to be continuous, so that a novice interrupting the year of probation with the intention of deserting the religion, and going out, although for only two hours, is bound to begin the year of novitiate anew from the Decree of S. C. C. ... If, however, says Fagnanus, the novice had not gone out from the monastery, but with the intention of fleeing had hidden for a little while within the cloister, the year of probation would not on that account be judged interrupted. ... Indeed the year of novitiate is not interrupted even if the novice, retaining the habit, goes out secretly for the sake of hiding himself, provided that he has the intention of returning. And concerning one who remained for the space of twenty hours outside the monastery without the habit, S. C. EE. et RR., 11 August 1626, declared that it could be tolerated concerning departure with the habit and with the intention of returning.” — I. M. 268, 269.

2. A certain novice, after nine months of novitiate, from the error of a physician thinking that he was laboring under a grave infirmity which rendered him unfit for the ministries and discipline of religion, was dismissed by the superiors. Nevertheless, a more accurate examination being applied, the error of the former physician appeared, and the young man was free from suspicion of such a disease; and therefore after six days he was again admitted to the novitiate.

Question. Was the novitiate interrupted in the case?

R. In the affirmative. For there is no doubt that interruption of the novitiate for six days interrupts the required continuation of the novitiate. It is added that, in the case, although from a false cause, that is, from the physician’s error, the novice was truly dismissed by the superiors, and the dismissal was accepted by the novice, and therefore the novice went out from the religion. Wherefore, the dismissal given and accepted in the case, and the departure of the novice standing, the novitiate was altogether interrupted. Hence the aforesaid novice, having again entered religion, will not be able to be admitted to profession after three months; but it is necessary that he again begin the novitiate and complete an entire year of novitiate. Lugo, Resp. Mor., bk. 4, d. 3; I. M. 269.

3. Benedictus, after six months of novitiate, is compelled to depart from religion because of military service. Three years having been spent in the military in a very praiseworthy manner, the master of novices judges that Benedictus can be admitted to vows after another six months have elapsed, since, he says, with that necessity standing of a wholly involuntary departure, the year of novitiate has not been morally interrupted.

Question. What is to be said in the case?

R. It does not seem that the master of novices judges rightly. For although the departure of Benedictus was altogether necessary and compelled, and Benedictus conducted himself well and laudably during the whole three years of military service, nevertheless the year of novitiate is truly interrupted, and the novitiate is at present to be continued for an entire year. The reason is first, because that new condition of Benedictus in military service renders him altogether secular, and therefore the novitiate is altogether interrupted. For as surely in that new condition of a soldier the novitiate does not endure, nor is it continued, so neither consequently, with this new condition and notable change of state standing, can the novitiate afterwards be continued; rather it must be begun anew. Moreover, the space of three years is altogether notable, and morally speaking it truly cannot be said that the former six months of novitiate are continued with the later six months, that notable intervening space of time having elapsed. And each reason holds even if the military service had lasted for only one year. Likewise each reason remains wholly intact, although the departure in the case was not voluntary, and although Benedictus conducted himself very praiseworthily.

Indeed, from the common opinion, even a much shorter time in the present matter is held to be notable and sufficient for interruption of the novitiate. And thus Cardinal Lugo, Resp. Mor., bk. 3, d. 2, n. 3, says: “although some judge that a brief interruption does no harm, nevertheless Suarez and Sanchez reject this, and in our case the matter is beyond controversy, since the interruption was for seven days, which is judged a small interruption by no one.” And the same Cardinal Lugo, loc. cit., bk. 4, d. 2, n. 1, speaking of an interruption of six days, says, “there seems no doubt that in every opinion it interrupts the required continuation.” The resolution of the case set forth can be confirmed from the resolution to the fifth doubt of the following case proposed by the praised Cardinal Lugo, loc. cit., bk. 3, d. 2.

4. “A certain novice, after 21 days from his entrance, having left the habit, departed with the intention of not returning; but when seven days had elapsed he returned, and, having again obtained the habit, pursued the novitiate. And when eleven months and ten days had elapsed, which with those 21 days made a whole year, in good faith he emitted profession, and afterwards remained in the order for fifteen other years. ... It was asked: 1. Whether the profession was valid? — 2. Whether at least afterwards tacit profession intervened? — 3. Since he doubts that the convent will not now easily give new consent, whether, without new consent being required, he can now ratify the first profession at least before the prelate and witnesses? — 4. What finally shall he do, so that he may profess validly? — 5. Whether for this it is necessary to put forward again an entire year of probation, or whether without a new year of novitiate the prior profession can be ratified immediately?

To the first. The response was that that profession without doubt was invalid ... since the interruption of the novitiate was for seven days, which is judged a small interruption by no one.

To the second. It also seems certain that that profession was not yet healed and made valid, because for the value of profession the positive consent of the one professing is required; for this it is necessary either that the one professing know the defect of the profession and will to bind himself anew, or at least that he have a conditioned will, by which he says: if perhaps I am not truly professed, from now I will to bind myself anew. However, mere perseverance in religion, and the exercise of acts which professed do, does not suffice; for one who thinks that he is professed, by persevering in religion, does not will to profess, but to fulfill the profession which he thinks he has emitted.

To the third. Although Suarez says that in this case new consent is required on the part of the religion, knowing that the prior acceptance was invalid, which also Sanchez followed and confesses to be more probable, nevertheless the same Sanchez says that it is safe and probable that new knowledge and consent are not required on the part of the prelate or convent, as long as its prior consent was not revoked. ... And it seems to be gathered from the Council of Trent, sess. 25, c. 19, de Reg., where after five years a protest against profession is not admitted, because at that time it is supposed to have been ratified, and therefore by the consent of the one professing alone, even without any new acceptance standing on the part of the religion. Therefore the religious in our case could embrace this opinion; this indeed would proceed well insofar as only the revalidation of profession is considered. Yet it can with difficulty be sustained in order to the novitiate, or to supplying a part of it, as will be clear from what is to be said.

To the fourth. It is clear from what has been said that this religious, by embracing this last opinion, can ratify the profession either alone or before the prelate or some witness; which ratification, as Suarez notes, ought to be made by some external sign, explicitly, or at least implicitly, signifying the will to bind himself, such as remaining in the habit and obedience with the intention of binding himself, which permanence endures for the time required for inducing tacit profession. ... Or, if according to the other opinion he wishes to have new consent of the prelate and convent, he may secretly disclose the whole matter to the prelate, and the prelate, the name of the petitioner being kept silent, may propose it to the convent; or he may seek a dispensation from the Pontiff for ratifying the profession. ... These things, however, proceed insofar as the discussion is about the revalidation of profession. But in our case there is a peculiar difficulty concerning the time of probation, as will be able to be clear from the response to the fifth point.

To the fifth. Therefore concerning repeating the novitiate it must be known that some think that the entire year of novitiate ought to be repeated, because the prior novitiate was morally interrupted by the invalid profession. Once it had been made, that religious already thought himself professed, and therefore he was not in probation; for probation requires the liberty of remaining or departing, which liberty he did not have while thinking himself professed. And although afterwards, when the defect of profession has become known, he begins now to have liberty and is constituted again in the state of novice, nevertheless this time is not continued with the prior novitiate, which was interrupted by the profession thought valid. Since therefore the year of probation ought to be continuous, the consequence is that an entire continuous year of probation ought to be made anew. Thus Suarez. He thinks it probable, however, that the preceding time can be counted, the days which are lacking to the year being afterwards added, because a moral interruption does not seem to occur, since the state and religious habit were always continued. ... He warns, however, that it is necessary that the defect of the past profession be known to the prelate himself and to others to whom it pertains to admit to profession, and this before the time of novitiate begins to be continued. ... For the same knowledge is required on the part of each, so that the novice may prove the religion, and so that the religion itself may be able to prove the novice.

Yet it does not easily appear how consistently this was said by Father Suarez, who, as a reason of doubting against the obligation of manifesting it to the religion, objects the Tridentine Decree (sess. 25, c. 19, de Reg., in which it is established that those are not to be heard who after five years allege the nullity of their profession because of force or fear, or because of defect of age, or something similar), in which, without a preceding manifestation of this kind, the profession is supposed to have been validly ratified in the subsequent five years. Yet to this objection he confesses that in that Decree the discussion is about alleged nullity of profession made through force and fear, or before due age, or something similar, that is, such causes that afterwards the profession could be tacitly ratified by the will of the religious himself, without new consent of the religion. And therefore our case is not comprehended, in which knowledge and will on the part of the religion itself were necessary, except only with a certain accommodation, so that even in these cases the religious is not heard after five years, except when the presumption of ratified profession ceases on the part of the religious and also on the part of the religion; or certainly he is not heard unless he wishes to prove that the profession could not have been ratified during that time, from whatever source this impossibility proceeded. And thus it seems to me that one must consistently speak.” Lugo, loc. cit.

It must be noted here: 1. that Suarez, tom. 3, de Relig., bk. 7, c. 1, n. 20, requires on the part of the monastery new knowledge and consent for accepting the ratification of invalid profession, precisely because he is speaking of profession invalid from a defect holding on the part of the religious professing and of the religion itself, namely when the year of probation was lacking. But when the defect holds only on the part of the one professing, and especially when the defect was because of fear, he expressly admits, nn. 6 ff., that new consent is not required on the part of the religion, because the prior consent always remains as long as it is not revoked. Cf. Lugo, Resp. Mor., bk. 3, d. 16, n. 21.

2. Although some essential thing is lacking for the validity of profession, nevertheless if during the whole immediately following five years the professed, knowingly and willingly, did not protest, from Trent, sess. 25, c. 19, de Reg., he is presumed to have had the profession ratified. He is presumed, namely by a presumption of law and concerning law, Benedict XIV, Constitution Si datam. But in the internal forum the truth is to be inspected. Suarez, de Relig., tom. 3, bk. 7, c. 4, n. 6. For the Church cannot supply consent. Fagnanus on c. Si quis, n. 32, de Regul.

3. At present, for validly emitting solemn vows after simple vows, express profession is required; and therefore tacit profession has been altogether abrogated.

4. As regards the consent of the monastery at present, from the Decree of Pius IX, Regulari disciplinae, 25 January 1848, the conventual Chapter of the Convent or House must be convoked, “so that the capitulars may declare by secret votes whether the novice can be admitted to profession.” Then an examination must be made by the Provincial and by at least three Provincial examiners, that “they may define whether the novice is furnished with the necessary qualities so that he can safely be admitted to profession.” And the Superior General “can never permit the profession of a novice who has been rejected by the Provincial examiners.” Moreover, from the Decree of the same Pius IX, 7 February 1862, where there is question of admission to solemn profession, in the aforesaid Chapter those professed of simple vows do not have a voice. And “for admission to solemn vows after the completion of the three years of simple vows, the conventual Chapter indeed must be heard for the instruction of the mind of the superiors; but the Superior General, or his subdelegate, by no means will have to stand by the resolution of that Chapter.” I. M. 268, 269, 277, 278.

5. Norbertus committed an occult homicide. Sincerely converted to God, he enters religion, remaining silent about the homicide committed. Hence, after simple vows have been completed, he then solemnly professes.

Question. Did Norbertus emit profession licitly and validly?

R. Norbertus indeed emitted simple and solemn vows illicitly and invalidly, if he entered a religion in which a homicide previously committed is a substantial impediment according to the Constitutions approved by the Apostolic See, as in fact it is in the Society of Jesus. Exam., c. 2, § 2, 6; Const., pt. 6, c. 3, § 4, and C.

But if he entered another religion in which an impediment of this kind is not had, he professed validly. For Sixtus V, by the Bulls of the year 1587 and of the following year, rendered homicides and others guilty of certain crimes incapable of religious profession. But Clement VIII in the year 1602 moderated the aforesaid Constitutions of Sixtus and restored the value of profession. Wherefore there is no doubt that the profession of Norbertus was valid.

But did Norbertus act illicitly by saying nothing about the occult homicide? He indeed acted illicitly, generally speaking, if some grave detriment could come to the religion from it. He also acted illicitly if, when interrogated by the prelates about impediments of this kind, he said nothing. For then fraud and deceit intervened in a grave matter. For it cannot be denied that homicide according to itself, even if it was not brought into judgment, even if it is altogether occult, is a matter of such moment that the religion could prudently be wholly unwilling to accept one who labors under such a defect. If finally Norbertus was incautiously not interrogated about this matter, perhaps he can be excused, because the aforesaid homicide is not of itself an invalidating impediment impeding entrance into religion and profession in it; and since it is altogether occult, Norbertus is not bound to defame himself, nor does grave damage seem thence to threaten the religion. Nevertheless it must not be denied that, although the homicide is occult, there always remains the danger that sometime it may be manifested with grave disgrace to the religion itself. Wherefore Norbertus will be able to be excused only when the circumstances are such that a danger of this kind is wholly improbable. — Lugo, Resp. Mor., bk. 1, d. 1.

6. Euphemia, from grave fear of her father, well known to her relatives, entered religion and emitted solemn profession. But after some years Euphemia’s father died. Then her relatives, in order that they might obtain the inheritance through her, protested against the validity of the profession. The Ordinary of the place, in order to take cognizance of the litigation that had been moved, sent to Euphemia his Vicar General with two witnesses, so that they might examine her. But Euphemia, lest she stir up scandals, told the Vicar General to abstain from any examination whatever, because she herself of her own accord yielded to any litigation, and “if before,” she said, “I was not a nun, today I wish to be a nun.”

Question. Is the aforesaid ratification of Euphemia’s profession valid?

R. The ratification of Euphemia’s profession could seem invalid, because profession, in order to be made validly, ought to be made into the hands of the abbess or of a prelate able to accept profession. But that ratification of Euphemia was not made into the hand of anyone able to accept it, but before a certain delegated judge, to whom it did not pertain to grant or accept profession. But in the case the ratification of profession did not need for its value some new acceptance, but only the consent of the same nun, wishing validly to profess. The reason is that for the value of the preceding profession, invalid because of fear, only the free consent of the nun herself professing was lacking; when that accedes at any time whatever, the profession becomes valid, even if the ratification is not made with a new solemnity into the hands of the abbess or prelate. Nor does this seem able to be denied, given the doctrine of the Council of Trent, sess. 25, c. 19, de Reg., where, after five years have elapsed from the day of the profession made, a regular alleging the nullity of his profession because of fear is denied a hearing, because, namely, tacit ratification is presumed, and one sufficient for the value of profession, even without new solemnity or acceptance of the prelate or Chapter, whose acceptance had already preceded and was not revoked. How much more, therefore, in the case, will express ratification before a delegated judge and witnesses suffice?

But again the ratification in the case could seem invalid from those words of the nun: “if before I was not a nun, today I wish to be a nun.” For those words do not seem to signify present profession, but the will and intention of ratifying the profession afterwards. But first, those words, in those circumstances in which there was question of examining the nullity of the profession, and in which they were uttered to impede this examination, cannot be understood in another sense except of profession to be revalidated in the present. Besides, those words, “today I wish to be a nun,” signify the intention of ratifying the religious profession in the present. For the word “I wish,” with another verb of the infinitive tense, e.g., “I wish to sell,” “I wish to buy,” can indeed signify only an intention disposed toward doing, but it can also signify the intention of doing in the present; and thus by the aforesaid words, “I wish to sell,” “I wish to buy,” the contract of sale and purchase can well be perfected in the present. Indeed, if to the verb “I wish” there is joined a verb signifying the very exercise and execution of the thing, then it signifies the intention of doing in the present, as, e.g., “I wish to have you as wife,” because for having as wife marriage is necessarily presupposed. But that nun did not say, “I wish to make profession,” but “I wish to be a nun,” for which profession is necessarily presupposed. Nor could it be understood of a novice nun, since the doubt to be examined was not this, but whether she was a professed nun. Accordingly those words, “if before I was not a nun, today I wish to be a nun,” signified nothing else than, “if up to now I have not been professed, now from this moment I wish to be professed.” And that word “today” must also be weighed, opposed to the past time, “if before,” by which the present ratification of the profession is openly manifested, as if she were saying: if up to this day I was not a nun, from this same day henceforth I wish to be a nun; by which locution a present will and consent is certainly signified. — Lugo, Resp. Mor., bk. 3, d. 16; I. M. 277, 278.

7. Brother N., a cleric religious, petitioned for dispensation from the simple vows emitted on 6 March 1887, asserting that, because of weak health, he could not remain in the order. On 4 September 1888, the Sacred Congregation on Regular Discipline benignly granted the Father Minister General for the effect concerning which in the prayers; and he, on 8 September 1888, by these words, “We dispense, and from every bond and obligation of the said vows we restore him free to secular life,” committed the Rescript to execution. Meanwhile, however, on 4 September, Brother N. had written to the Minister General that, deceived by the devil, he had set forth a false cause in the petition, and that therefore he wished to die in the order, and he begged that the dispensation from simple vows not be intimated to him. The Provincial Minister heard his prayers, informed the Minister General of his repentance, and on 6 April 1890, the three years having elapsed, admitted him to solemn vows.

Question. Whether Brother N., notwithstanding his petition of 4 September, really was dispensed from simple vows by the Rescript of 4 September, or by its execution on 8 September 1888, and whether his solemn profession must be judged invalid?

R. In the negative as to each part. S. C. EE. et RR., 15 March 1892; M. E., vol. 7, pt. 2, p. 75.

8. Benedictus, his religious profession having been pronounced invalid, asks doubtfully whether at least now he is still bound by the vow of chastity. For the confessor told him so, namely that the solemn vow of chastity passed into a simple vow of chastity. But Benedictus, not greatly trusting that confessor, goes to another and sets forth his doubt to him, asking its solution.

R. When religious profession has been pronounced invalid, regulars return to their former state, as if profession had never been issued. Wherefore the solemn vow of chastity does not remain, nor does it pass into a simple vow of chastity. How indeed can a vow pass into a simple vow when it never existed? And, if there is question of profession of simple vows, not solemn vows, the vow of chastity simply is not, because it was not, whence that which never began cannot continue. The reason is that the acts of agents do not operate beyond their intention. But a restrictive clause is not accustomed to be added, nor can it be, when religious profession is declared null, e.g., from defect of consent or from defect of prior novitiate; for then no vow was truly present. That clause is accustomed to be added only as regards the vow of chastity, the vow of chastity remaining, when those vows are dispensed; for then the vow was present and consequently can remain. That confessor perhaps made a confusion between dispensation and declaration of invalid profession. I. M. 262.

9. A religious Provincial granted dispensation from simple vows emitted by a certain nun in a community under the rule which that religious himself professed. Hence the Bishop asked whether the said Provincial could validly dispense from the simple vows of the nuns of whom there is question.

R. The preceding case was proposed to the Sacred Congregation, and, a report on it having been made to the Supreme Pontiff, “His Holiness ordered that it be rescribed that the Father Provincial could not dispense from the aforesaid vows, although simple, emitted in the said monastery, according to the things handed down by Benedict XIV in the Bull Convocatis, 27 November 1749, § 32.” Bizzarri, Collectan., ed. 1885, p. 133.

Now Benedict XIV, loc. cit., has these things: “As regards vows, let them know that they [the Penitentiaries] must abstain from their commutation in those cases in which there is question of prejudice to a third party. Wherefore in that which pertains to vows, although simple, whether of perseverance, or others customarily emitted in some Congregation or Community and into vows obligatory accepted by a third party, let them not involve themselves.”

Hence it appears that simple vows which are emitted in some Institute or Congregation or House approved by the Holy See are reserved to the same Holy See, because those vows are received by the Institute or by the Congregation or by the House, and they assume the nature of a contract and reciprocal obligation. Whence dispensation of those vows introduces prejudice to a third party, and therefore is to be granted only by the Supreme Pontiff.

2143. • The NOVITIATE is the probation of religious life, or the mutual experiment, by which Religion examines the qualities and disposition of the Novice, and the Novice examines the austerity or observance of the Order. - Hence there are diverse obligations, looking on the one side to the Superiors of the Order who admit novices, but on the other side to the novices themselves who ask to be admitted. Concerning these obligations only a few things are to be said. For it suffices here briefly to explain the common principles of the Law of Regulars, which can be modified by particular Statutes or Indults.¹¹

I. The RIGHT OF ADMITTING novices belongs to the ORDER which one desires to enter, in such a way namely that it is to be exercised not by the Prelate alone, but by the Convent, or capitularly. Now then,

1. As regards MEN, it is of common law that Religions approved by the Holy See, even those not exempt, do not depend on the Bishop in admitting novices; for the faculty of admitting them is contained in the approbation itself.¹²

But in the decree of the Sacred Congregation SUPER STATU REGULARIUM (25 Jan. 1848, Romani Pontifices)¹³ Pius IX established, and indeed under penalty of privation of offices, though not under penalty of nullity of profession, that: "In any Order, Congregation ... whether solemn vows or simple vows are emitted in them, no one be admitted to the habit without testimonial letters both of the Ordinary of origin and also of the Ordinary of the place in which the postulant, after the completion of the fifteenth year of his age, has stayed beyond a year; after they have diligently inquired concerning the qualities of the postulant, the Ordinaries must report concerning his birth, age, morals, life, reputation, condition, education, knowledge." And it is added: "Let the Ordinaries know that their conscience remains burdened concerning the truth of the things set forth, nor is it free to them to deny letters of this kind."

If the Ordinary refuses to testify concerning the qualities of the postulant, either because he does not know him, or because he is impeded by the civil authority, etc., it must be supplied by another accurate information, and the postulants, before they are admitted to the habit, are to remain at least for three months in the Convent, and there they are to be diligently proved. Thus the Sacred Congregation super Statu Relig., on 1 May 1851.¹⁴

But in another Decree of the same day (Regulari disciplinae), the same Supreme Pontiff enacted a twofold law concerning things to be observed: 1. in proving those who ask to be admitted to the Religious habit; 2. in admitting Novices to Profession. - The reason for the decree is that "it seemed necessary that in the admission of Novices to the habit and profession the parts to be conceded should belong not only to inferior Prelates and Superiors general, but also to certain other Religious men ... outstanding in counsel and gravity, so that they might accurately examine the disposition, talent, morals, and other necessary gifts of those who are about to give their name to the religious family," etc.

This second decree was issued only "for Italy and the adjacent islands"; but it furnishes an excellent norm also for other regions.

2. As regards NUNS, the Tridentine law (Sess. 25, de Regul.) continues to have force. - Therefore the Bishop, either by himself or through another, is bound, both before the reception of the habit and before profession, even in exempt monasteries, to examine the will of the virgin: "whether she has been forced, whether she has been seduced, whether she knows what she is doing, whether she is suitable for the monastery, whether this monastery is suitable for her."¹⁵ - This EXAMINATION is indeed commanded under grave obligation, at least before profession. Nevertheless, profession, if the examination has been omitted, is valid.

And here it must be NOTED that the aforesaid examination binds only nuns of solemn vows; but it is expedient that it also be instituted with nuns who pronounce only simple vows, although, at least from positive law, it is not commanded under grave obligation.

Furthermore it must be noted that nuns, although not exempt and professing only simple vows, can never be compelled by the Ordinary to admit some novice; nor can they be compelled to manifest the cause why they have not admitted someone.¹⁶ But they themselves sin, and indeed gravely, if they admit someone evidently not suitable; or if they exclude someone who "has had the conditions required according to the rule of the monastery and Order."

Note. From Trent, loc. cit., novices could be admitted to the habit when the twelfth year had been completed. - But today, from the decree of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars issued on 23 May 1659, it is required that the fifteenth year be completed. Then indeed a name of a saint, not of a gentile woman, must be imposed on a nun ...; likewise, she is to be called by the title of sister, and not lady.¹⁷

2144. • II. NOVICES, before they are admitted to profession, must stand in probation for at least ONE YEAR, and this whole and continuous, and indeed in the religious habit and in houses destined for this, under penalty of nullity of profession. - Thus from Trent.¹⁸

A novice must observe the rule of Religion during the time of probation, at least from decency; he enjoys the privileges of Religion; nor can he be dismissed without a just cause, although he himself always enjoys full liberty of abandoning the proposal begun and returning to the world.¹⁹

Indeed, to provide for his liberty, the Council of Trent, under penalty of anathema, PROHIBITS that he himself, and his parents and relatives, give anything to the monastery, except food and clothing; and at the same time it commands that, to him when he departs, all things which were his be restored. - It further forbids, under penalty of nullity, that after vestition he make any irrevocable renunciation or contract an obligation, even in favor of whatever pious cause and even if an oath has been added, unless with the license of the Bishop, within the two months immediately before profession, and provided that profession follows. - And these things were most wisely established, lest on account of the said renunciations and obligations he be despoiled of his goods, and so be compelled against his will to dwell in the monastery, when, despoiled, only begging would remain for him in the world.²⁰ See more among the Canonists.

2145. • IT IS ASKED. When is the year of probation judged to be INTERRUPTED?

Resp. 1. It is judged to be interrupted chiefly when the novice goes out from the monastery without license, with the intention of not returning, even if he immediately returns, as is clear from a decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council;²¹ when he is dismissed absolutely by the Superiors and afterward is again admitted; when he departs by private authority so that he may enter another house, or another province, although of the same Order.

Resp. 2. But it is not judged to be interrupted if the novice is sick in the monastery, even for a notable time, although he can by no means take part in the exercises of novices; - if he departs from the monastery compelled by violence; - if, license having been received, he goes aside to parents or others for a brief time for the sake of recovering health or conducting business; - if he is dismissed on account of a false accusation, and afterward, the truth having been known, is again admitted; - if he makes a journey ordered by his Superiors, because then he remains under their dependence.²²

1156. • Novitiate is a mutual experiment, by which Religion, on the one side, tries the morals and qualities of the novice, so that it may see whether it is expedient to admit or reject him; and the novice, on the other side, tries the austerities and Statutes of Religion, and his own disposition, so that he may see whether it is expedient for him to profess it. - Thus Billuart.²

1157. Questions. - Query 1° Who are not to be admitted into the Novitiate?

Resp. 1° On account of defect of mind, those who are not masters of themselves, as is clear of itself.

2° On account of defect of liberty.

a) Slaves, on account of the injury which would be done to masters.

b) Those joined in Matrimony, concerning whom it will be treated in the Treatise on Matrimony.

c) Bishops, even only confirmed, unless with the permission of the Supreme Pontiff, on account of the bond by which they are bound to their Church in perpetuity.³

d) Those professed in some Religion, unless either they are previously dispensed from the vows emitted in it, or they pass to a stricter Religion, that is, such that its actual observance, not merely its primary institution, is stricter. Yet this transition must not be made rashly or from levity, or with grave damage to the Religion to be left. Besides, the permission of the Superior or of the Pope is to be sought, and, in the case of a privilege granted to the Order which is being left for this, it must also be obtained. But transition to a laxer Religion cannot be made except with permission of the Supreme Pontiff; but to an equal one by the same permission, or also, but with just cause, by permission of the Superior.⁴

3° Those whose parents are in grave or extreme necessity would be admitted illicitly, though not invalidly, if they can assist that necessity without being exposed in the world to proximate and grave danger of falling into mortal sin. Only grave necessity of brothers or sisters does not impede admission; indeed dispensation from the vow of entering is also necessary for someone to be able to defer entrance for a long time on account of it. But parents would illicitly enter Religion if they had unemancipated children constituted in grave necessity or destitute of sufficient education.¹

4° By natural law (concerning the dispositions of positive law, see n. 801. q. 4°), those burdened with debts would be admitted illicitly, if they were able to pay them in a notable part at least, and in a short time (say within two years), and without great difficulty or probable danger of sin or of losing vocation. - Thus St. Alphonsus² as more probable, although the opinion which denies absolutely and the opinion which affirms absolutely are also probable to him.

5° Those also would be admitted illicitly and most imprudently whom public acts show to have been accused or investigated before the secular court concerning some graver crime, unless they have been dismissed by the judge as innocent.³

6° Those are not to be admitted whose infirmity is such that they are not equal to bearing the burdens of common life and fulfilling the obligations of the Order.

7° Those would be admitted illicitly to the habit who had not sought and waited for a suitable time (three months) for testimonial letters both from the Ordinary of origin and from the Ordinary of the place in which, after the completion of the fifteenth year of their age, they stayed beyond a year, unless nevertheless the Institute which admits them has been dispensed by a special and non-communicable privilege from the Decree of Jan. 25, 1848,⁴ in which this disposition is contained.

8° The prepubescent (n. 911), against the will of parents or guardians.

1158. • Query 2° Whether clerics, especially those having care of souls, can be admitted to Religion without the permission of their own Ordinary?

Resp. Affirmatively, as is clear both from the unanimous opinion of the Doctors, and especially from the authority of Benedict XIV, Brief Ex quo, Jan. 14, 1747. Yet a priest exercising care of souls must make the Bishop more certain concerning his plan, lest the flock be left without guardianship. Besides, in the case in which the Church which the priest serves would suffer grave damage from his transition to Religion, the Bishop could recall him, even after profession, as is clear from the Brief just cited. - Which of our clerics are not absolutely able to enter Religion, see n. 374. 8°.

D. Bonaventure appends a third mirror, in which his Novices fashion their conduct exactly to it, and the Fathers destined to admit candidates to profession anatomically examine the life of the novices. A work indeed heavenly.

He appends another similar work. On the Institution of Novices; a work truly golden. But he gathers all things more fully discussed in the Rule of Novices.

Again, he appends another little work for nuns, on the perfection of life.

The holy Council of Trent decrees session 25. chapter 15. that the profession is not valid if the novice has not completed 16 years, and has not completed a full year of probation; and this our Rule observes, as S. Bonav. on chapter 2.

The year must be completed in the civil manner, so that if it be a bissextile year, two days count as one.

If a dying novice is admitted to profession by privilege, the parents succeed ab intestato, whatever Diana says with others part. 3. de dub. reg. resol. 17. and part. 5. tract. 5. resol. 139. The reason is, because it is granted only for spiritual solace, therefore it cannot in the external forum prejudice the legitimate heirs, and devolve the inheritance upon the monastery, where there is no right; and equally no debt.

The year must be whole and continuous, not interrupted; Rodriquez tomo 2. cap. 8. et tomo 3. qq. quaest. 15. art. 8. Sa V. Religio n. 9. Azor tract. 1. lib. XII. cap. 2. quaestio 8. Bonacina de claus. quaest. 2. puncto 10. diff. 2. Nauar. de reg. consil. 32. et 33. Henriquez lib. XIII. de excomm. cap. 40. Syluester V. religio 5. q. 4. D. Anton. 3. part. tit. 16. cap. 3. §. 2. Faust. in th. f. lib. V. quaest. 163. et 164. Sanchez lib. 5. cap. 4. Bassaeus V. Religio 3. num. 5.

If a novice runs away for two hours with the habit, and returns, the year is interrupted, according to the decision of the Cardinals in Barbosa de iur. can. lib. 1. c. 42. n. 139. Vecch. disp. 11. dub. 3. num. 6. et 15.

The year must be completed with the habit of Religion, as Sylvester teaches V. Religio 5. quaest. 5. Angel. V. novitius, Vecchius disp. 11. dub. 7. and others in Bassaeus num. 7.

If the novitiate was null, it must be repeated, because there is no cause, and there is no potency toward the past. Thus Nauar. and Rodriquez in Bassaeus num. 9.

Those receiving candidates to profession among the Mendicants, before the year is complete, are excommunicated, and suspended ipso facto from the faculty of admitting to profession chapter Non solum de reg. in 6. the same censure binds those who throughout that whole year impede the novice from freely passing to another order, unless he has made profession being over 16 years of age. In other Orders, however, they sin gravely against the precept of the Council of Trent session 25. de regul. cap. 15.

Superiors can for a cause prolong the profession, by the old law, from which the Tridentine Synod in this does not derogate. It is conceded indeed by Pius V, in Rodriquez in the place cited, and Bassaeus num. 10. provided that within six months he may be hoped to become fit.

NOVICES are not bound by the statutes of Religion, since they are not yet members. See Bassaeus n. 11. and 13.

They enjoy the privilege of Canon and Forum, Sanchez lib. IV. cap. 39. num. 17. et lib. VI. cap. 10. Layman lib. IV. tract. 5. cap. 4. Diana de dub. regular. Resol. 73.

ONE RETURNING to the world does not fall back into the censures or irregularities from which he was absolved in Religion by force of the privileges which Vecch. disp. 9. dub. 25. brings forward. See Suarez tract. 5. in 3. part. disp. 7. sect. 5. num. 35. Diana cit. resol. 44. Bonacina de leg. disp. IV. quaest. 2. puncto 7. §. 4. num. 28. This is the more probable opinion, says Bassaeus num. 16.

I. Before young men profess a Religion with solemn rite, they ought for an entire year to wear the habit of Religion openly. But this reception of the religious garment must needs be free and not forced. Those who compel girls to this reception sin mortally, and contract excommunication, as Trent, session 25, chapter 18, established. But those who compel male youths by threats sin mortally, but do not incur excommunication. Youths who having been compelled had performed their noviceship, if they freely emitted profession, the noviceship would have been valid. The year of this noviceship ought to be entire, as Trent, session 25, chapter 15, prescribes, continuous and not interrupted. He who for a day should lay aside the habit, or go out of the cloister with the mind of not returning, although after a day he returned, would be said to have interrupted the noviceship; otherwise if for some hours he laid it aside without going out of the monastery.

II. Unfit for this noviceship by the right of nature are the decrepit, the demented, those habitually infirm with a grave disease, slaves truly such with their master resisting, spouses after matrimony consummated without mutual consent, and the professed of another Order without the licence of superiors. By positive right there cannot be received bishops and archbishops, who without the express faculty of the Supreme Pontiff cannot profess a regular Religion. But the rest of ecclesiastics are altogether free, even those assigned to the care of souls, to profess the regular life.

III. The Supreme Pontiffs have published several constitutions in which they determine the conditions of those to be received into the regular Orders. Sixtus V by his constitution Cum de omnibus forbade that men who had passed the sixteenth year be received unless a severe inquisition were sent before concerning their birth, past life, and the quality of their parents. And if it were found that they had perpetrated robberies or other like crimes, or that they were suspected of the same, or condemned, or that it be prudently feared that they will be condemned; if they be burdened with debt above their strength, or bound to render accounts, whence suits and troubles are foreseen — he forbids that they be received, and declares null the profession emitted by them. But Prelates who shall have knowingly received such men he deprives of active and passive voice, of grades and prefectures, and constitutes them unfit for future dignities and grades. This constitution he tempered by another constitution whose beginning is Ad Romanum Pontificem, not as regards the penalties, but as regards the crimes. Gregory XIV by another constitution called Circumspecta partly took away, partly increased the moderations of the Sixtine constitution. And at last Clement VIII reduced profession to the terms of common law: so that unless some impediment of common law stand in the way, the profession is valid. But he left the penalties against transgressors in their force. Now nevertheless by force of the constitution of the same Clement VIII Regulars can receive youths even beyond the nineteenth year, an oath being exacted that they are neither criminal, nor obnoxious to the rendering of accounts, nor guilty of theft or homicide, nor bound by the other impediments recounted in the Sixtine constitution. Prelates who neglect scrutiny of this kind gravely offend and are subject to the penalties of the Sixtine Bull. The profession nevertheless will be valid, provided nothing repugn against common law.

IV. Novices are partakers of all the privileges of Regulars, since they are under the power of the Religion and sustain its burdens. Wherefore they are immune from the jurisdiction of the bishop and enjoy the privilege of the forum. The superiors of the Religion can dispense with them upon the precepts of the Church and upon their vows, which nevertheless they ought to fulfil if they lay aside the habit of Religion. On the contrary if they be absolved from censures, irregularity, or reservation, if they go out of the Religion which they had in good faith embraced, they remain absolved.

V. If in the year of noviceship a novice die, the heir ab intestato succeeds to his goods. Free donations between the living, lucrative contracts, and renunciations of temporal goods, offices, and dignities are void and null, unless they be made with the licence of the bishop or of his Vicar within two months before profession, as Trent determined. Goods which a novice hopes will come to him he can renounce to the Religion which he is about to profess, even while his father lives; otherwise to another determinate person. To the goods which come to a novice by right of blood, unless he himself dispose according to the prescript of Trent before profession, the Order which he has professed succeeds, if it be capable of immovable goods.