Enclosure

In order to safeguard the chastity of religious, and to enable them to lead more quiet and tranquil lives, the law of enclosure has been introduced. The enclosure in a religious house is all the space within which the religious may move freely, but which they may not leave without the required permission, and to which others are denied access.

The law of enclosure is laid down in detail in the new Code of Canon Law, Can. 597 ff.

Papal enclosure should be kept in the houses of regulars, whether of men or women, if they are canonically erected, even though less than six professed religious live there.

Enclosure should also be kept in the houses of religious congregations whether of pontifical or diocesan law. The bishop has authority in this matter, and can enforce his regulations by censure.

Even societies of men or women who live together under a superior like religious, but without vows, are subject to the law of enclosure according to Canon 679, sec. 2.

In divinis —In divine worship, not in secular matters. Canon 2341 IV. Si quis contra praescriptum [privilegii fori] ausus fuerit ad judicem laicum trahere . (If anyone, against the prescription of the privilege of the forum, shall have dared to drag before a lay judge) . . alium Episcopum etiam mere titularem, aut Abbatem vel Praelatum nullius, vel aliquem ex supremis religionum juris pontificii Superioribus excommunicationem latae sententiae Sedi Apostolicae simpliciter reservatam incurrit. (another Bishop even merely titular, or an Abbot or Prelate nullius, or one of the supreme Superiors of religious orders of pontifical right, incurs an excommunication latae sententiae simply reserved to the Apostolic See.) See above, p. 272 f. Canon 2342 Y. Plectuntur ipso facto excommunicatione Sedi Apostolicae simpliciter reservata: (There are punished ipso facto with an excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See:)

As regards enclosure. "Bishops are delegates of the Apostolic See for protecting the enclosure of monasteries of nuns, even exempt ones, and of those which are subject to regulars." L. 66, 67. And as regards Institutes of simple vows, it also belongs to the Bishop to care that enclosure be rightly observed, and to restrain whatever fault creeps into it. Leo XIII, C. Conditae a Christo, VI Id. Dec. 1900.

What about enclosure? - For the greater custody of chastity enclosure was introduced, by force of which nuns cannot go out from the monastery except by license of the Pontiff or Bishop, which can also be given only in extraordinary cases. But religious men cannot be absent from the house without the license of the prelate. Nor indeed can women enter the enclosure of regular men, nor persons of whatever sex or age enter the enclosure of nuns. Likewise frequent access to nuns is prohibited, and to regulars, as is fitting, more severely than to others, both secular clerics and laymen. - C. 20, caus. 18, q. 2; Trent s. 25, c. 4, 5 de Reg.; Benedict XIV, Decretal Letter Gravissimo, October 31, 1749; C. Quamvis iusto, April 20, 1749; Clement VIII, C. Nullus; Ferraris v. Moniales a. 3; E. M.

Enclosure is also to be observed in hospices, stations, and houses of regulars in places of missions; and its norm and limits are constituted by the Decree of the S. C. de Propaganda Fide, August 26, 1780, Collect. n. 410.

As regards modern Religious Institutes of simple vows, they have enclosure, indeed not strict, but partial, determined in the Constitutions themselves, which requires at least that in all houses some part be reserved for the Sisters themselves, into which no other is admitted. Norms of the S. C. Bishops and Regulars for more recent Institutes, n. 170. It will belong to the Bishop to take care that this partial enclosure be rightly observed, and to restrain whatever defect creeps into it. Norms n. 172.

Sisters seeking alms must have the license of the Ordinary, and are held to observe the prescriptions established by the Decree Singulari quidem of the S. C. Bishops and Regulars, March 27, 1896, and also the norms which were promulgated by the S. C. of Religious, Decree De eleemosynis, November 21, 1908, both for mendicant Orders and for non-mendicant religious Orders or Institutes. A. A. S. v. 1, p. 153. From this Decree the Friars Minor are exempted as regards collections customarily made in favor of the Holy Land. S. C. of Religious, October 1, 1909.

As regards Sisters who provide assistance to the sick either in public Hospitals or in private houses, works of charity are by no means approved which seem unbecoming to virgins dedicated to God and clothed in ecclesiastical habit. Norms art. 15, 291.

Confraternities are prohibited in Convents of Religious women, whether of solemn or simple vows; but by no means pious Associations of women only, the things to be observed having been observed. But if it is a question of erecting pious Associations of either sex, the matter is remitted to the Ordinaries. S. C. Bishops and Regulars in Tirasonensi, November 9, 1595; January 18, 1907. - Lugo, Resp. Mor. l. 4, d. 40.

Without a special faculty, male and female Religious cannot receive outside persons as guests in their own house, except by reason of charity when some case occurs. - Outside youths cannot live in Convents of men by any title or pretext unless they have completed the twenty-first year of age. - S. C. Bishops and Regulars, May 16, 1675.

The use of the telephone is now permitted by common custom to all religious, men and women. Yet due cautions, as is clear, must be used.

What sort of sin is it to go out from the monastery without license? - For nuns living within enclosure it will always be grave, since the Church prohibits it under a most grave penalty, namely excommunication. - For religious men it will be grave if it is done rather often with scandal, or furtively at night; but only venial if someone goes out once or twice, or only sometimes during the day. - Clement VIII, on the Reform of Regulars, art. 19, prohibited a general license from being given, or one without a companion; but it is not certain whether the ordinances of Clement VIII are all preceptive, or at least some directive. Cf. Salm. tr. 15, c. 5, n. 163. Yet one can stand by legitimate custom, and by the Constitutions of each order approved by the Holy See. - The prescription of a companion is still in force from the practice of the S. C. Bishops and Regulars and now of the S. C. of Religious in the approval of more recent Institutes, especially as regards nuns. Norms a. 174. - L. 37; Suarez, de Relig. tr. 8, l. 1, c. 6, n. 8.

VI. Those violating the enclosure of nuns, of whatever kind or condition, sex or age they may be, by entering into their monasteries without legitimate license; and likewise those introducing or admitting them; likewise nuns going out from it outside the cases and form prescribed by St. Pius V in the constitution Decori.

Those violating the enclosure of nuns are, as is established from what follows, those who enter into their monasteries without legitimate license. Enclosure is called that whole space which is contained by the enclosures of the monastery. Of nuns, i.e., those who profess religion strictly by true and proper profession. For the discussion here is of that enclosure of which the Council of Trent speaks, sess. 25, de Reg., chap. 5, and Pius V in the constitution Decori. Hence more recent nuns are not bound to canonical and pontifical enclosure, nor are they liable to this censure. S.C. Bishops and Regulars, August 1, 1839. Of whatever kind or condition. Persons of the royal family do not seem also to be comprehended, who by reason of their supreme dignity are worthy of more special mention; nor do prelates, whether secular or regular, seem to be comprehended if entering without necessity, for it cannot be said of them that they enter without faculty. Sex or age. Hence not only men, but also women; not only adults, but also seven-year-old children capable of malice. Monasteries: by the name of monastery is understood a house in which religious women gathered together regularly live. L. 231.

Without legitimate license. Therefore it does not seem that, by reason of incurring this excommunication, it is necessarily required that this license be obtained in writing, as is held in Trent, l.c.; and it seems that even a general license suffices. And indeed he who enters with license received from the superior, although neither had in writing nor special but general, does not indeed enter without legitimate license. This license can be granted: 1. Bishops by their own authority, or delegated authority, according as the monasteries are subject to the Bishop or immediately subject to the Supreme Pontiff. 2. Vicars General, only as regards monasteries subject to the Bishop. 3. Capitular Vicars, the see being vacant, both as regards monasteries subject to the Bishop and also as regards those which are subject to the Apostolic See. 4. The Bishop, and besides him the regular prelate, i.e., General, Provincial, or immediate Superior of the monastery, as regards monasteries subject to regulars, unless a contrary custom is in force, that it be given by the Bishop alone. Benedict XIV, De Synodo, book 13, chap. 12, n. 23. 5. The Abbess, confessor, or another prudent man by delegation or commission of the Bishop. S.C.C., November 26, 1722; L. 223, 224, 228.

But this license cannot be given except in necessary cases, and therefore for a grave cause; and a lesser cause is required for the entrance of a woman than of a man, for daytime entrance than nighttime, of a female blood relative than of a stranger, and for entrance into the outer enclosures than into the inner. But in urgent necessities which do not suffer delay, as in the case of death, fire, violence, etc., no license is required for entering. L. 225. The ordinary physician cannot enter except with license renewed every three months; nor ought he to be accompanied by two senior nuns and enter alone. An extraordinary physician cannot enter at the pleasure of the nuns, but only in defect of the ordinary physician, or when a consultation must be had with the ordinary. Moreover craftsmen and other necessary persons can enter with license, who must exercise their craft within the enclosure. L. 226. A confessor can enter to administer to the sick the sacraments of penance and Eucharist, not only in danger of death, but as often as Communion is distributed by prescription of the rule, and as often as that nun is accustomed to communicate; likewise to administer extreme unction, and to commend the souls of the dying, vested in stole and surplice, S.C. Bishops and Regulars, January 1714, but not to perform the exequies of a deceased nun. A secular confessor must enter without a companion, but a regular must have a companion of approved life and mature age. But while he hears Confession, female attendants must stand by at the door, so that they see him. L. 227. Finally Bishops can enter the monasteries of nuns in case of necessity or visitation, but accompanied by a few persons, and those senior and religious; likewise regular prelates for the sake of visitation, once in the year, and if he is General, he can himself have with him two companions of his order, who are exemplary and of mature age; but if another, only one; and moreover four nuns from the senior ones must assist, who are not separated from the Visitor. L. 221; Bizzarri, Collectan., p. 262, ed. 1885. Although one who entered the monastery with license and, after the business is finished, does not immediately go out, does not incur the censure, nevertheless he sins mortally if the delay is notable.

By entering: to enter is to go inside, to stay inside, and not only to put a foot inside. Introducing are those who cooperate positively toward entrance by sending inside, or by opening the door to one wishing to enter. Admitting are those receiving, who do not prohibit entrance when they can and ought by office, namely the Prefects and Portresses. Likewise those introducing or admitting them: them, namely those violating. Outside the cases, etc. From the cited constitution of St. Pius V, "going out is excused if there is a just cause, namely (as is said there) of great fire, or illness, leprosy, or epidemic." Hence similar causes suffice for going out, such as imminent war, attack by robbers, flooding of a river, or ruin of a building. And form, etc. For when access is available, and time, namely if the danger suffers delay, from the aforesaid Bull of St. Pius V license had in writing from the Bishop is altogether required for going out, and also from the regular prelate if the monastery is exempt. But even in the aforesaid cases it is not lawful to remain outside the monasteries except for the necessary time. Going out, i.e., going out beyond the enclosure with the whole body. St. Alphonsus with others does not admit smallness of matter. Therefore, if a nun goes out from the enclosure, or someone enters the enclosure, even by one step, he incurs this excommunication. Yet others cited by the same Holy Doctor deny this, n. 229. Gregory XIII, constitution Dubiis, December 23, 1581; Alexander VII, constitution Felici, November 10, 1664; Giraldi, Exp. Iur. Pont., part 2, sec. 140; Lugo, Resp. Mor., book 3, disp. 18; E.M.

Note: For the greater custody of chastity, frequent access to speak with nuns at the grates without special faculty and without reasonable and manifest cause, and where there is no legitimate custom to the contrary, is prohibited under grave obligation both to clerics and to lay persons. But this frequency consists in this, that someone goes to the monastery on three continuous days, or four times in a week, or once in each month for about a year. But for regulars, this conversation with nuns is specially prohibited, even if it is done once and for a quarter of an hour and a half, indeed "for any small space of time whatsoever, they sin mortally." Thus the Sacred Congregation, May 1, 1669. "Regulars approaching to speak with nuns without license sin mortally; even from a reasonable cause, when license is not present," etc. Sacred Congregation, November 26, 1672. But from the Decree of the Sacred Congregation issued by order of Sixtus V in 1590, on regulars speaking with any nuns whatsoever, whether of their own or of another order, or with any woman living in a monastery, there is imposed the penalty of deprivation of office, of active and passive voice, to be incurred by the very fact. More probably an abbess outside Rome is excepted. But those joined in the first and second degree of consanguinity are exempt from this prohibition, after permission has first been obtained from the Ordinary, who can give it in the prescribed form and for four times at most in any year. S.C. Bishops and Regulars, 13 Kalends of December, 1623. C. Monasteria, de Vit. et honest. cleric.; C. Periculum, de Stat. regul., in VI; L., book 6, nn. 332-243; Bonacina, tome 1, de Claus., q. 3; Lezana, Summa Quaest. Regular., vol. 2, v. Moniales, n. 17 ff.

From Trent, sess. 25, chap. de Reg., a secular magistrate is excommunicated, with excommunication reserved to no one, if, at the request of the Bishop, he does not furnish help against the disobedient and those contradicting the enclosure of nuns. Bonacina, disp. 2, q. 10, part 7, de Clausura, q. 4; Ferraris, v. Moniales, arts. 3, 4; Lucidi, de Visit., etc., vol. 2, chap. 5, sec. 2; vol. 3, Document LV ff., 4th ed.; Bizzarri, Collect., pp. 301, 311, 319, 329, 347, 410, 438, 454 ff., 546 ff., 596 ff., 723 ff., ed. 1885; Benedict XIV, De Synodo, book 9, chap. 15; Schmalzgrueber, book 3, title 35; Reiffenstuel, ibid.

"1. Whether, if there are not solemn vows, nuns nevertheless are bound to observe the enclosure which they vow by a simple vow, under the censures enacted by Trent, where the Bishop has restored the enclosure. 2. Whether he also incurs the penalty of excommunication who without license enters the precincts of the monastery, where the enclosure has been restored by the Bishop? Resp. To the 1st, negatively as regards the penalties prescribed by the sacred canons and apostolic constitutions. To the 2nd, affirmatively with relation to censures perhaps imposed by the Bishop." S. C. EE. and RR. 1 Aug. 1839.

1. Since a certain nun violated enclosure for an evil end, and the case is occult, the bishop of the place asks whether he can absolve the aforesaid nun by virtue of the Tridentine faculty, Cap. Liceat.

R. The difficulty in the Case is from a certain Declaration of Gregory XIII, by which he decreed that the bishop cannot absolve a nun breaking enclosure from an occult excommunication reserved to the Pontiff on account of the Bull of St. Pius V. St. Alph., l. 6, n. 594. The difficulty likewise is from the Responses of the Holy Office, July 18, 1860, where it is also affirmed that the reserved case of the enclosure of nuns is not comprehended in the aforesaid Tridentine faculty. G. 645, 646. But, notwithstanding these things, it seems that at present the bishop can absolve even from that occult case by virtue of the Tridentine faculty. For this faculty, by virtue of the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis, persists unmoved as regards all cases simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff in the same Constitution, excepting only those which in the aforesaid Constitution are reserved in a special mode to the Supreme Pontiff. But the violation of the enclosure of nuns is reserved in that Constitution only simply. Therefore it must be said that the bishop, in the Case, can absolve the nun. Cf. Bertagna, de Casuum reservatione, pag. 100 seqq. and the authors cited there; Thesaurus, de Poenis, p. 1, c. 23, Dico VI; Commentar. de Censur. n. 6; Commentar. de C. Apostolicae Sedis n. 51 seqq.; I. M. 801, 1101, 1188.

989. • 1. All the faithful of either sex entering monasteries of Nuns, and the Nuns admitting them, incur the reserved excommunication mentioned above at no. 975, VI. In France, however, excommunication for those entering monasteries of women does not now appear admissible according to the things said concerning States, since there are not there Religious in the strict sense, or solemnly Professed women.

2. Likewise, women entering monasteries of men for any cause, except Queens or others from the families of Princes; likewise, Religious admitting or introducing them, incur the reserved excommunication mentioned above at no. 975, VII. But this must be understood only of monasteries or houses of Regulars who emit solemn vows. For with regard to Congregations in which they bind themselves only by simple vows, it is nowhere provided in the Sacred Canons that they are subject to the aforesaid law of enclosure. The following can enter monasteries of Nuns: 1. Bishops in a case of necessity or visitation, but accompanied by a few mature persons; 2. Regular Prelates once a year, for the sake of visitation; 3. the ordinary Confessor for administering the Sacraments in necessity, but vested with surplice and stole; 4. the ordinary physician, who must renew his permission every three months, and an extraordinary physician in the absence of the ordinary one; 5. artisans and other necessary persons who cannot exercise their craft outside the enclosure.

The Bishop, or anyone else delegated by him, for example, the Vicar General or the Confessor of the Nuns, or the Abbess herself, etc., can grant permission to enter monasteries; but a grave cause is required, though a lesser one for a woman than for a man, for entrance by day than by night, and for the entrance of relatives than of strangers.

990. • I. On the Part of Nuns.

1. Nuns departing from a monastery without the most urgent necessity incur a reserved excommunication, even if it is done secretly.

The Constitution, however (see above, no. 975, VI), excepts the cases and form prescribed by St. Pius V in the Constitution Decori. But this Constitution of St. Pius (section 2) has the following: We will, decree, and ordain that henceforth none of the Abbesses, Prioresses, or other nuns... of any Orders whatever... be permitted, even on the occasion and pretext of illness, or of visiting other monasteries, even those subject to them, or houses, parents, or other blood relatives, or on any other occasion and pretext, to depart from the aforesaid monasteries, except from the cause of a great fire or an illness of leprosy or epidemic; which illness, however, besides being known by the other Superiors of the Orders upon whom the care of the monasteries would be incumbent, must also be known and expressly approved in writing by the Bishop or another Ordinary of the place, even if the aforesaid monasteries are found to be exempt from the jurisdiction of Bishops and Ordinaries; nor even in the aforesaid cases is it permitted to remain outside them except for the necessary time. Moreover, that cases of fire or epidemic disease are mentioned here by way of example and not exclusively with respect to cases inducing a similar danger, see demonstrated apud St. Alphonsus (book 7, no. 229).

St. Alphonsus (loc. cit.), with Sanchez and Bonacina, holds as more probable that there is no paucity of matter in this matter, and therefore that excommunication is incurred both if a nun departs even one step from the enclosure or if someone enters even one step within the bounds of the enclosure. Others apud the same St. Alphonsus (ibid.) nevertheless deny this.

991. • II. On the Part of Male Religious.

1. By custom and by the end of their state, Religious are so bound to enclosure that they cannot depart from their own convent without permission.

2. Nevertheless, they are not subject to the penalties of Apostates unless they depart after laying aside the habit and with the intention of not returning. But a furtive departure by night is a case capable of being reserved.

3. Departure is a grave sin of its kind because it disturbs the order and end of religious life; by reason of matter it can be venial, for example, if it is done by day and for a brief time, etc.

992. • 1. Laics frequenting monasteries of Nuns incur a ferendae sententiae excommunication, or in various places a latae sententiae excommunication.

2. Clerics, however, incur a suspension to be imposed by the Bishop.

3. Regulars, moreover, undergo deprivation of voice and office ferendae sententiae, even if the conversation takes place once and for a quarter-hour and a half-quarter, according to the Decree of the Sacred Congregation in the year 1669. St. Alphonsus, no. 236. According to the earlier Decree of Sixtus V in the year 1590, deprivation of office and of every voice is incurred by the act itself if they presume to frequent the place in order to converse with any woman dwelling there. St. Alphonsus, no. 232. The Abbess outside Rome is probably excepted.

4. Frequency consists in this: that someone approaches a monastery on three continuous days, or once in each month for about a year, or four times in a week.

— Cloister, taken formally, is, in the fuller sense, the sum of canonical sanctions by which religious are prohibited from freely going out themselves, or outsiders from freely entering, a defined space which is designated by the name of cloister taken materially. In this full sense it is customarily taken among nuns, and in a certain measure among Sisters; while among men attention is paid almost only to the admission of outsiders, so that material cloister, understood more strictly, is taken of the space from which outsiders are prohibited.

Indeed with varying force and sanction, the Code nevertheless has imposed the common law of cloister upon all religions, indeed upon the very societies where life is lived in common without vows. Cf. cc. 597, 598, 604, 679, §2.

— 1. By the special name of papal cloister is called the cloister which, from c. 597, §1, is to be observed in the canonically constituted houses of regulars, whether of men or of women, even non-formed houses.

From c. 488, 7° and 2°, regulars are only those who have pronounced vows in a religion in which solemn vows are in fact emitted. Wherefore houses of nuns where only simple vows are emitted are not subject to papal cloister, so that in cc. 600-602 and 2342 there is question of nuns strictly so called.

2. The cloister of regulars necessarily affects, morally speaking, the whole house, with the public church excluded together with the adjoining, that is, contiguous, sacristy, the lodging for guests, if there is one, and the parlor, which, as far as can be done, ought to be established near the door of the house (c. 597, §2); yet among men this strictness is tempered by the necessity of living arrangements for students or of other works proper to the religion (c. 599).

3. Among men, only women, of whatever age, class, or condition they may be, are prohibited from entering the cloister. The wives, with their retinue, of those who hold supreme rulership are excepted (c. 598). The prohibition is sanctioned by an excommunication latae sententiae simply reserved to the Apostolic See, by which pubescent women who enter the cloister are punished, and whoever introduce or admit women of any age into the same cloister.

Concerning the going out of men, the Constitution Nullus omnino, §§18-21, of Clement VIII, which permitted going out only for a just cause, from special license, and with a blessing imparted, is no longer confirmed or extended. But c. 606, §1, inculcates upon Superiors the accurate observation of the prescriptions of their own religion, both concerning the going out of subjects and concerning outsiders to be received or approached. But that subjects be absent from the house of their own religion beyond six months for another cause than studies, the permission of the Apostolic See is always required (c. 606, §2). Yet this seems to be tacitly contained in the approval of ministries which of themselves can demand a more prolonged absence.

4. Excepted are Cardinals and those who actually hold the supreme rulership of peoples, and their wives with retinue; excepted also are the local Ordinary or the regular Superior as Visitor, the Confessor, or one acting in his place, for the service of the sick, physicians, and those whose work is necessary. Apart from these, no one of whatever class, condition, sex, or age can be admitted within the cloister of nuns without license of the Holy See (c. 600). Yet postulants themselves are received within the cloister and are held by the law of cloister, though not by its sanction (c. 540, §3).

Nor, after profession, is it lawful for any nun, without a special indult of the Holy See or the faculty of a Legate of the Roman Pontiff, even for a short time, under any pretext, to go out from the monastery, except in the case of imminent danger of death or of some other most grave evil. This danger, if time allows, is to be recognized in writing by the local Ordinary (c. 601).

And this cloister is placed under the vigilance of the local Ordinary.

Those violating the cloister of nuns by entry, and those introducing or admitting them, and nuns illegitimately going out from the cloister, are punished with an excommunication latae sententiae simply reserved to the Holy See (c. 2342, 1° and 3°).

Observe, when there is question of nuns, contrary to what is said concerning men, that not the introduction or admission of all excluded persons is punished by excommunication, but only of those who are of such age and state of mind that, if they themselves entered, they would contract censures.

— In the houses of religious Congregations, whether of pontifical or diocesan law, a similar discipline of cloister is to be observed, yet in such a way: a) that it is protected by no papal censure; but in peculiar circumstances and for grave causes, the bishop can fortify that cloister by censure, unless there is question of an exempt clerical religion; b) that among Sisters, entry is prohibited not to persons of every sex, but only of the male sex; c) that because of residence of students or other works of religion, even among Sisters, partial cloister is admitted, comprehending that part of the building which is reserved for the habitation of the religious (c. 604); d) that no general law prohibits going out, even of Sisters; but superioresses and Ordinaries of places must watch lest, apart from necessity, individual Sisters go outside the house (c. 607); e) that for just and reasonable causes, Superiors can admit other persons within the cloister.

Caramuel discusses this question in part, in sua Theologia moral., epist. 34, art. 8. But the difficulty is not about those promising perpetual enclosure under the fourth vow; for whatever we said above about the law by which vows obliges militates for them: truly, it also seems that the same law can be adduced for those vowing Chastity anew, where enclosure is observed by custom; for since means and end are prescribed by the same law, and by natural and divine precept one is bound to stand by one's vow, and since enclosure is the most efficacious means of conserving Chastity, it follows that enclosure obliges by an equal law.

That enclosure is a most efficacious means for professing the vow of unspotted Chastity the Seraphic Doctor demonstrates excellently, de professu Relig., lib. 1, cap. 39, et lib. 2, cap. 54. For the alienation and separation of women from men; and the companionship of the chaste, by whose example one is led by the hand to purity, is a most present remedy against the allurements of luxuriating flesh: But this is furnished by enclosure, in which no occasion either of touching or of seeing meets one, by which modes chastity is especially assailed; for as the S. Doctor notes excellently, lib. 2 cited: A coal, which seems extinguished, covered with a little ash, if touched, burns; but if left solitary, at last it is extinguished; truly if joined to another, both are kindled.

Besides, natural reason has always so persuaded all peoples that the wanderings of girls be curbed, that they may dwell more securely within than without; nor did the very Ethnici, or Heretics, who assailed the other rights of nature, praise the exits and excursions even of secular virgins; nor have the sectaries of our own time, who heaped the crimes of all centuries into the impiety of their heresies, inveighed against enclosure, insofar as it is a seal of Chastity; although against it, insofar as it casts aside every hope of future marriage so that the vow may be kept, they ejaculate not a few insults.

I assert, however, with the scandal of one's neighbor set aside, and the danger of falling, that enclosure is in precept only by Ecclesiastical law; it is evident from the Councils and Fathers to be cited below.

It is proved, because besides the solemnity of the vow, which pertains to the Church, the obligation before God is equal in the simple and in the solemn vow: But to the simple vow enclosure is not required. Therefore. It is confirmed, because although enclosure is a means conducive to this, we are not held to employ every means.

It is proved secondly from the various and frequent dispensations of this enclosure, by which nuns are indulged so as to remain for whole months and years in the houses of their parents for congruous causes only; indeed, some even, devoted for their whole lifetime to works of piety, serve in Zenodochia and other places.

As to the time at which enclosure was joined to the life of Monks, although it is most ancient, as is evident from the Rules of D. Basilii, D. Augustini, S. Benedicti, and the ancient Fathers; as we saw, d. 1, q. 2, nevertheless it does not seem to be a precept of any law other than legal justice, by which a subject is bound to stand by the mandates of his Superior; for thus all the Rules are interpreted by long custom. There are nevertheless held certain decrees of Councils which speak more strictly of this matter, as of the Council of Chalcedon, cap. 4, where it commands Monks, to remain in the places to which they have dedicated themselves to God, to which words it adds below: But those passing beyond these, we decree to be outside communion, lest the name of the Lord be blasphemed. To these consonant is the Decree of Alexand. II, cited in Suarez, tom. 4, tract. 8, lib. 1, cap. 6, in which it reads thus: According to the tenor of the excellent Council of Chalcedon, we command Monks, though Religious, to remain within the cloister according to the norm of S. Benedicti; we prohibit them to wander through villages, castles, cities.

Although these things are so, nevertheless no one has said that a Religious is held by common law, from which his Prelate cannot dispense, to perpetual enclosure: This is evident if we inspect somewhat more diligently the end and motives of those decrees: For since from the beginning Monks were ordained to a merely contemplative life to be spent perpetually in their cells, and were subject to no Ecclesiastical ministries, since for the most part they were not Priests, some began gradually to withdraw themselves from that discipline, and to lead the active life more freely in villages and districts for the sake of gain, rather to the ruin than to the edification of the people, because they were usurping Ecclesiastical ministries, being destined to them by no authority either of character or of mission: Whence Pope Eugenius, cap. placuit, 2, 16, quaest. 2, thus rescribed: It pleased our common Council that no one of the Monks should presume, with most nefarious daring, to go out of the Monastery for earthly gain, where the ministries then illicit for Monks are touched upon in the depraved end, namely earthly gain, and the nefarious motive or means, namely arrogating to themselves the Ecclesiastical ministry: But if the exit from the cloisters had been simply prohibited, it would have been intimated simply, also without specification of end or means.

It is confirmed efficaciously from the same chapter, where it is added, that the Brothers are not to bury anyone except him who has lived with them in the same convent, even if it should chance that another brother, who arrived there, die there; which supposes that the brothers had the faculty of receiving arrivals, as also of peregrinating. But if I were even to concede that enclosure, or the observance of the cloister, is of common law, and therefore indispensable by one's own superior; who would not admit the prescription of so many centuries against such a law, since even common law, by a similar custom duly introduced, lies proscribed: Let these things be said in passing of this matter, which many assail with taunts, but few with arguments.

As to the time at which the enclosure of Nuns began, the same must be stated as of the solemn vow of Chastity, insofar as it dissolves a preceding ratified marriage, or a subsequent one even consummated, as was said in the two preceding questions; for this laudable custom seems to have the very Apostles as its institutors; for in the Council of Carthaginense I, in the year 340 according to Baronius, or 330 according to others, it was declared, cap. 3: Those who wish to marry, and choose the better part of continence, ought to avoid these things, and not only not dwell together, but not even have access to themselves, but here by the particle ought (debent) it is declared what before seems to have been statutes; before this council, however, no other exists which speaks so expressly of this matter; see what was said of the origin of this vow, disput. 2, quaest. 3.

There follows the Council of Carthaginense III, in which it is enacted that the Bishop take care of those virgins who have vowed Chastity, and contain them in a Monastery, lest, wandering abroad, they be a scandal to the Church.

The same thereafter many Pontiffs renewed, as Leo III in the Council of Foroiuliense, or Adrianus III, as some will. Likewise Bonifacius in cap. periculo, de statu regular. enjoins a strict enclosure upon the Chastity of Nuns with these words: Wishing to provide for the perilous and detestable state of certain Nuns, we sanction by the present constitution, to prevail perpetually and irrefragably, that all and singular Nuns, present and future, of whatever Religion or Order they be, existing in whatever parts of the world, must remain under perpetual enclosure in their Monasteries, etc.; by which last words he indicates that only those are held by this precept who have emitted their vows in Monasteries where enclosure is kept.

But whatever the Councils and ancient Pontiffs left statutes about this, it was strictly renewed again in the Council of Trident., sess. 25, cap. 5, de regular., and more strictly in a certain Diplomate of Pius V, given the Calend. of June, in the year 1566, which begins: Circa Pastoralis officii, where he enjoins that they be held to observe rigid enclosure, although by force of the emitted promise they were not obliged to such observance, with these words: Although by force of the emitted, etc., he shows this enclosure to be for them Ecclesiastical, and able to be separated from the vow; as it is truly separated in male Religious.

And this precept is now observed with such rigor that neither is it licit for Nuns to go out without grave cause with the license of their superiors, nor is it permitted by law for others to suffer to enter them; whence there exists in Chrysostom. Henriquez, num. 35, pag. 321, a decree granted to the Mendicants 17 Calend. Septemb. 1567, where the Bishops are gravely reprehended, who are accustomed frequently to grant this license, or unduly seize it for themselves, since it pertains to other superiors; and these last words were said on account of the Monasteries of S. Clarae, which are subject to Regulars; the tenor of the Decree itself is thus described in Caramuel, loco cit.: The Bishops, or their Vicars, dare to give at their pleasure a license to whomsoever to enter whatever Monasteries of Nuns, even of S. Clarae, although they be subject to the care of Regulars; somewhat below the words of inhibition thus follow: Since it is dishonest for anyone to send a sickle into another's harvest, and since no one should presume to enter the Monasteries of Nuns except by the license of the Bishop or Superior, and in necessary cases, in sess. 25, can. 5 (supply: of Tridentini), it is prohibited, we will that this hold only in those Monasteries which are subject to the very Ordinaries by full law, in which in necessary cases they themselves can give the license, and not in other Monasteries, etc.

And indeed, although these things have been thus statutes in the service and custody of Chastity, S. Bonavent. shows that other advantages accrue to Nuns from the cloister, in libello Apolog., quaest. 18. For better and more easily are the spouses of Christ governed in one society, and are excited to the exercises of virtue by mutual examples; and the longer they are removed from the fruition of the age, the more ardently are they kindled in pious desires.

This question touches both Monks and Nuns, since enclosure has been enjoined upon both in favor of Chastity, although it has been prescribed by stricter law to women on account of the greater urgency of danger, and Suarez notes, tom. 4, de Religione, tract. 9, lib. I, cap. 12, num. 3. But the difficulty can be divided in two for each sex, because enclosure is violated not only by the exit of those dwelling in the cloister, but by the entrance of others to whom it is prohibited. And first indeed I shall speak of the exit of Religious; afterwards I shall touch upon some things about the entrance of women to the cloisters of men; I shall also discuss similar things regarding the exit and entrance to Nuns.

I suppose first that the obligation is grave in those who live a cenobitic life under the government of some Prelate, that they do not go out without his license; it is evident from the common practice and custom of all religions; and it is moreover confirmed from the Council of Tridentino, sess. 25, cap. 4, where it is thus had: It is not licit for Regulars to depart from their convents, even under pretext of approaching their Superiors, unless they have been sent or called by them. Hence Suarez says, loco citato supra, that, supposing the institution of this custom and of the Religious life, this obligation of not withdrawing oneself from the custody of the Prelate is not merely positive, but seems natural and divine, even if no depraved intention, or apostasy, or occasion of other danger should arise from it; and he exemplifies in a girl, who by a law more than positive is held, even with danger set aside, not to withdraw herself from the custody of her father or mother; and he concludes that Religious Chastity and its decency are not to be kept less. Besides, as S. Bonavent. says, lib. II. Pharet. cap. 32, from D. Bernardo: Nothing is more shameful than a Monk running about through cities and castles, unless charity compels this.

Hence the determination of Navarrus does not please me, which also displeases Suarez, by whom it is cited in the place cited, that an exit from the cloister has in its nature only a venial fault, and becomes mortal only per accidens by reason of scandal or other similar harm; for the Council of Tridentinum speaks under precept: It is not licit, and although it is specified there: Even under pretext of approaching their Superiors, that particle even (etiam) a fortiori denotes that other modes or pretexts of going out are less licit.

I suppose secondly that in this matter levity of matter can exist, by which the exit of a Religious without the license of the Prelate is reduced to a venial fault, as if it be done for a short time with the mind of soon returning; and this is true a potiori when it is established from the benignity of the Superior, who easily grants pardon, or if he is accustomed to know of the unlicensed exit and not disapprove: Suarez brings the reason of this thing, num. 10, because the withdrawal from the will of the Prelate is not grave; these things being supposed.

I assert that a Religious cannot go out of the Monastery publicly or furtively, for flight or apostasy, without mortal fault.

It is evident in itself, for there the grave observance is broken, and grave injury is inflicted on the Prelate; just as enormous scandal also threatens the others; wherefore among the cases reserved to the Supreme Pontiff by Clem. VIII, the third is placed: Nocturnal and furtive exit from the Monastery, even if done without the intention of apostatizing; but where there is a reserved case, there the commission of a mortal fault is supposed. But Suarez extends this case, num. 7, even to a diurnal exit, done with the intention of passing the night abroad; because in that decree of the Pontiff not the furtive mode of exiting, but the reason of existing outside furtively is reserved.

Hence you have that a Religious going out without license, on some hasty occasion of succoring a neighbor suffering grave spiritual or temporal necessity, does not sin, because in this case license is rightly presumed; although it ought to be asked, if time permits, at least if it be necessary to go farther away and be absent, because then scandal may impend over the other brothers.

In these cases, however, the custom of each Religion must be weighed: For among the Fratres Minores, on account of the frequent necessity of begging, as also of serving one's neighbor, enclosure is not observed so strictly; indeed often some, destined to such offices, go out at their pleasure, a general license for this having been given.

But a stricter reason must be had of Carthusians, Camaldulenses, and similar ones, serving only God and themselves: For with these one must stand by the rules and constitutions.

Then D. Bonavent. says, lib. 4. Pharet. cap. 18: Good honor is in the Church, if women are far from the company of Clerics, as D. Hieronymus admonishes in the S. Doctor there: Let the feet of women tread your little hostelry rarely, or never. But before the Pontificates of Pius V and Gregory XIII, various women of various even states could enter the cloisters of men, either by force of the faculties of prior Pontiffs, or by virtue of the Constitutions of certain Convents: But since from this occasions of scandals easily arose, the aforesaid Pontiffs issued their own Motus proprii (since in the law nothing express exists on this matter), by which entrance is interdicted to all women presuming under pretext of whatever faculty, under penalty of excommunication latae and reservatae, that they no longer attempt to enter the Houses of the Mendicants, or of the Carthusians, or of other whatever Regulars by force of any faculty: The Motus of Pius V is had in Bullario Roman. Constit. 22, and begins: Regularium personarum, in the year 1566, in which moreover the local Prelates are strictly prohibited, under the penalties of suspension from Divinis, privation of offices, and incapacity for them, that they do not receive the said women: But the Motus more properly of Gregory XIII is had in Constitut. 36, beginning: Ubi gratis.

But a grave doubt arose after those decrees were issued, whether also women entering the Monasteries of men, not by force of any faculty, would incur the censures; since Gregory XIII says, Inhibiting the same to those who obtained them. With which words Pius V issued other not dissimilar ones: Prohibiting the women pretending the aforesaid faculties and licenses, etc. On account of which words Suarez judged that the censuras regard only the women there noted, not others: But this Doubt was threshed out by another Decree, issued by the same Pius V, where he declares that he comprehends under the censuras the said women and all others whatever; which, when Suarez had seen this, he sang the palinode of the prior opinion, as P. Elizeus noster notes in methodo rerum Criminal., tract. 10, quaest. 23, where he teaches that the Decree begins, Decet Romanum.

Hence the assertion is certain, that a Prelate, and a fortiori any other Religious, sins by introducing into interior houses, or into the cloisters themselves, women comprehended in the said Decrees. It is evident from the penalties there indicted; which suppose a grave sin, and from the Council of Trident. granting the faculty of absolving from those censuras when they are occult, sess. 24, de reform., cap. 6. Therefore it supposes sin through the censuras.

Although in the aforesaid motus proprii women are specified of whatever status, grade, order, condition, and endowed with whatever dignity and pre-eminence, whether they be Comitissae, Marchionissae, or Ducissae; nevertheless it is not gathered from that that it is prohibited to admit Queens, and their daughters, or granddaughters, or even Foundresses of Coenobia. And this is true to such an extent, although Gregory XIII says, To whatever even Comitissae, Marchionissae, Ducissae, and others of whatever status, where the particle others (aliis) is ridiculously interpreted by descending, but is rightly understood by ascending to the higher grades, according to the rigor of the law, as Suarez aduerts, lib. 1, tract. 9, de Relig., cap. 7, num. 5. For since both Pontiffs speak in nearly the same mode, it is a sign that the intention of each is equal as to the specification of persons: But from Pius V it is in no way gathered that he comprehended foundresses, much less Queens, or their daughters, or granddaughters; since there he named the special persons whom he intended to be understood. Besides, Gregory XIII, below, treating the matter which pertained to Kings and Queens, names them. Moreover, the rule of law is, that in a general clause those things are not comprehended which require a special reason, especially when others of inferior note are specified in the same clause.

But that Queens and Foundresses have a special cause is evident first of all from the custom, which custom seeks out these Monasteries.

Then, Suarez verifies, according to the mind of the moderns, that after the Religious of the Order of Minimorum had consulted the Supreme Pontiff and the S. Congregation of Cardinals whether the aforesaid Decrees would exclude Queens and foundresses, they received the answer that no derogation had been made from the privileges which Queens and foundresses enjoyed.

Reason also favors these privileges as regards foundresses (for as regards Queens it is nowhere disputed). For since they are in a certain manner the Dominae and Patronae of the Monasteries which they themselves built, and since the Ius patronatus enjoys privileges in many places in law, it was becoming that they not be involved in the same prohibition as other women: But this presses more among the Minores, since the places constructed for them are under the Dominion of those who took care that they be constructed, unless by special mention such dominion be abdicated, and thus pass into things whose property pertains to the Pontiff; but the use alone pertains to the Brothers themselves.

And although the Monasteries be in the dominion of those Brothers who can truly possess them in common, nevertheless laws are not to be so interpreted as to wish benefactors to be withdrawn from benefacting, or the Brothers themselves to incur so great a note of ingratitude.

Hence one may conclude that women entering, with fraud, malice, presumption, or temerity set aside, do not violate the law of enclosure; because the Pontiff in the said Decrees uses the particle presuming (praesumentes), so that if they enter even from culpable ignorance, they are not judged to sin, and therefore to undergo no censure, as Pater Elizaeus notes excellently in the place cited, numero 2; a fortiori, say the same, if they enter on account of the infirmity of some Religious whom they can succor, or for Masses, sermons, and similar things: they are held, however, to go and return by the straight way, as the cited Elizaeus has, saying that even an ingested boy not pubescent does not violate this law, since in them the end of the law ceases, and the occasion of impudicity, against which these things are statutes.

But by CONSUETUDINE it is received that, the cloisters being destroyed, or lying open through grave fracture, that rigor is not observed; although it is advisable that, with the greater diligence that can be done, every access be precluded to seculars on account of the decency of the Religious state. Which decency also can oblige Prelates, that they do not admit even men into the interior houses at fixed times; although no special precept is given about this.

I SUPPOSE the rigid precept given to Nuns, that once professed they contain themselves within the cloister, as was proved in quaest. 4, both from the ancient Constitutions of the Church and from the Council of Tridentino, which thus precepts: But let it be licit for no one of the Sanctimoniales after profession to go out of the Monastery, even for a brief time, under whatever pretext, except for some legitimate cause to be approved by the Bishop, any indults and privileges notwithstanding. Hence you have that only Nuns who have emitted the three vows are comprehended in this decree, not Tertiaries, or even Novices, as Suarez shows at length above; although regarding Tertiary Nuns there must be observed the Constitutio of Pius V, beginning: Circa pastoralis officii, namely that they be admonished by Prelates to emit the essential vows of Religion, and thereupon to observe enclosure; but if they should refuse to render this, let them be interdicted from admitting any more into their Congregation.

You HAVE also that Convers Sisters, duly professed, are included by that decree; since they are truly Nuns, differing from the others only as to certain servile ministries and the want of the Veil.

Yet Pius V, by the said Constitution, limited certain things around these, namely that in places where the other Nuns have need of being sustained by the alms of the faithful, certain ones from the conversae be deputed to collect those alms, and therefore may go out and dwell in a certain contiguous house, four conditions being kept. The first is, that they be at least in their fortieth year. The second, that the place in which they dwell be very near to the other nuns. The third, that they do not enter the Cloister of the Nuns (whom they are accustomed to call Choriste by difference from the Conversae) except in the cases named in that constitution. The last is, that they do not go out of their domiciles except with the license of the Superiors.

But if the religious women cannot be sustained otherwise than by the collection of alms, this faculty of going out ceases: wherefore Gregory XIII in his Constitution, beginning: Deo sacris, enjoins upon the Bishops or Ordinaries that they provide: for as S. Bonavent. relates, lib. 1, phar., cap. 37, from D. Cypriano: She is not to be counted a Virgin of Christ who so lives and goes about that she can be loved by men.

From these you have it concluded that a Nun going out against the tenor of the Decree of Tridentino and the limitations of Pius V sins most gravely; and that this is true also of the militant Orders, as P. Elizzus notes, tract. 10, de poenis et delictis, cap. 23, and Rodriguez, tom. 1, quaest. 49, art. ult., and Lezana, tom. 1, cap. 25, num. 19; for the Virgin seeking Christ (says D. Bonav., cited below, from D. Ambrosio) ought not to be vulgar, ought not to be in the forum, not in the streets.

But the CAUSES of going out are specified by Pius V in Constitutio 100, Decori, and are reduced to a great fire and infirmity, which is there called Epidemia, under which name Suarez understands not only that sickness which for the most part infects and kills others by its contagion, but any other whatsoever which can be a scandal or danger to the community. Likewise under the name of fire other dangers cognate to this can come, as war impending, a sudden inundation, and similar ones, which are scarcely met otherwise than by exit.