Religious Profession

PROFESSION is the promise lawfully made and accepted by which a religious binds himself to observe the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, according to the constitutions of his order.

For the validity of any religious profession whatever it is required: (1) That he who makes it be of the legitimate age, so that he must have completed for the temporary profession, his sixteenth year, and for the perpetual profession whether solemn or simple, his twenty-first year.

(2) That the legitimate superior according to the constitutions admit him to profession.

(3) That it be preceded by a valid novitiate according to the terms of Canon 555.

(4) That the profession be free from violence, grave fear, or fraud. -(5) That it be expressed in formal terms.

(6) That it be received by the legitimate superior according to the constitutions, either personally or by delegate.

(7) For the validity of the perpetual profession, whether solemn or simple, it is required besides that it be preceded by a temporary simple profession. Except in the case of a professed religious who joins another institute, in every order with solemn vows both of men and of women, and in every congregation with perpetual vows, the perpetual vows, whether solemn or simple, must be preceded by the profession of simple vows, which the novice on the completion of his novitiate shall make in the novitiate house itself, this profession is valid for three years, or for a longer period if the subject requires more than three years to attain the age prescribed for perpetual profession, unless the constitutions require annual profession (Can. 572-574).

Simple profession, whether temporary or perpetual, renders acts contrary to the vows illicit, but not invalid, unless it be otherwise formally expressed; while solemn profession renders such acts also invalid if they can be nullified (Can. 579).

I. Requisites for the validity of profession. 1. For the validity of any religious profession it is required that: 1st, the one who is going to emit it have the legitimate age according to the norm of can. 573;¹ 2nd, a legitimate Superior admit him to profession according to the constitutions; 3rd, a valid novitiate according to the norm of can. 555² have preceded; 4th, the profession be emitted without force or grave fear or fraud; 5th, it be expressed; 6th, it be received by a legitimate Superior according to the constitutions, either personally or through another³ (can. 572, § 1).

2. But for the validity of perpetual profession, whether solemn or simple, it is required besides that simple temporary profession have preceded according to the norm of can. 574 (can. 572, § 2). Now in canon 574 it is declared:

¹ Can. 573 establishes: Anyone who is going to emit religious profession must have completed the sixteenth year of age, if there is question of temporary profession; the twenty-first, if of perpetual profession, whether solemn or simple.

² Cf. n. 1225.

³ Therefore religious societies in which vows are not accepted by a Superior, such as the Congregation of the Daughters of St. Vincent de Paul, do not pertain to religions properly so called (Fanfani, n. 185). - When in the Constitutions of a Religious Congregation of pontifical right no mention is made of the Abbess or Superior in the formula of profession, but only of the Bishop or his delegate, then the Bishop or his delegate is to be held the legitimate superior according to the Constitutions for receiving profession, as having a legitimate mandate (Pontifical Commission, 1 March 1921, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, p. 178).

II. Necessity of placing temporary profession before perpetual profession. In any Order, both of men and of women, and in any Congregation which has perpetual vows, after the completed novitiate, in the house of the novitiate itself, the novice must place before perpetual vows, whether solemn or simple, with the prescription of can. 634 preserved, a profession of simple vows to be valid for three years, or for a longer time if the age required for perpetual profession is farther distant, unless the constitutions require annual professions (can. 574, § 1). Nevertheless note:

1. When the time for which temporary profession was emitted has elapsed, the legitimate Superior can extend the time to be passed before perpetual profession, but not beyond three years (can. 574, § 2).

2. In the case in which the Superior extends the time to be passed before perpetual profession, the religious, when the time for which the vows were pronounced has elapsed, should renew profession at once (can. 574, § 2; 577, § 1). Nevertheless Superiors have the faculty, for a just cause, of permitting the renewal of temporary vows to be anticipated for some time, though not beyond a month (can. 577, § 2).

3. The Pontifical Commission¹ declared that three years of temporary vows are not to be placed before profession in those institutes of simple vows in which vows are emitted under this or a similar appended condition: "As long as I live in the congregation," so that the alumnus, whether he departs voluntarily or is dismissed by the superiors, by that fact becomes free from the vows.

4. With regard to young men to be enrolled in military service, compare the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Religious Inter reliquas;² likewise the response of the same Sacred Congregation dated 15 July 1919.³

¹ 1 March 1921 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1921, p. 177).

² 1 January 1911 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1911, p. 37).

³ Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1919, p. 321.

III. Prescriptions when the time of temporary profession has elapsed. When the time of temporary profession has elapsed, the religious, according to the norm of can. 637,¹ should either emit perpetual profession, solemn or simple according to the constitutions, or return to the world. But even during the time of temporary profession, if he is not considered worthy to pronounce perpetual vows, he can be dismissed by the legitimate Superior according to the norm of can. 647 (can. 575, § 1). The vote of the Council or Chapter for first temporary profession is deliberative; for subsequent perpetual profession, solemn or simple, it is only consultative (can. 575, § 2).²

Here, however, note with regard to solemn perpetual profession to be emitted: One who is going to emit a solemn vow, within sixty days before solemn profession, with particular indults granted by the Holy See preserved, must renounce all goods which he actually has, to whomever he wishes, under the condition that profession will follow (can. 581, § 1). Once profession has followed, all things should immediately be done which are necessary so that the renunciation may obtain effect also in civil law (can. 581, § 2).

¹ Can. 637 declares: One professed by temporary vows, when the time of the vows has elapsed, can freely leave the religion; likewise the religion, for just and reasonable causes, can exclude the same person from renewing temporary vows or from emitting perpetual profession, but not by reason of infirmity, unless it is certainly proved that it was fraudulently concealed or disguised before profession.

² With regard to suffrages, it was asked whether they have force "even if constitutions previously approved by the Holy See provide otherwise." The Pontifical Commission, on 16 October 1919, responded: "Affirmatively and according to the mind. The mind is: Orders and religious Congregations can prescribe suitable and the same suffrages for all ... temporarily professed and professed of solemn vows or professed of perpetual simple vows, in their constitutions to be amended and presented for approval to the Sacred Congregation of Religious, according to the norm of the same Sacred Congregation's Decree of 26 June 1918."

IV. Effects of profession. It is enough to note the effects:

1. With regard to graces. Those professed by temporary vows enjoy the same indulgences, privileges, and spiritual graces which those professed by solemn vows or those professed by perpetual simple vows enjoy; and if they are overtaken by death, they have a right to the same suffrages (can. 578, 1st).

2. With regard to obligations. Those professed by temporary vows are held by the same obligation as those professed by solemn vows or those professed by perpetual simple vows of observing the rules and constitutions; but where the obligation of choir is in force, they are not bound by the law of reciting the divine office privately, unless they are constituted in sacred orders or the constitutions expressly prescribe something else (can. 578, 2nd).

3. With regard to acts. Simple profession, whether temporary or perpetual, renders acts contrary to the vows illicit, but not invalid, unless something else has been expressly provided; but solemn profession, if they are capable of being invalidated, renders them also invalid (can. 579).

4. With regard to the right of retaining and acquiring goods and of disposing of goods, n. 1245 should be compared.

5. Finally, after a year from any religious profession emitted, parochial benefices become vacant; after three years, other benefices (can. 584). One professed by perpetual vows, whether solemn or simple, loses by the law itself the proper diocese which he had in the world (can. 585).

V. Convalidation of an invalid profession. Religious profession invalid because of an external impediment does not become valid by subsequent acts, but it is necessary that it be sanated by the Apostolic See, or emitted anew legitimately, once the nullity is known and the impediment has been removed (can. 586, § 1). But if it was invalid because of a merely internal defect of consent, once this has been supplied, it becomes valid, provided consent on the part of the religion has not been revoked (can. 586, § 2).

Dangers of Profession of Unbelief.—The principal dangers of making external profession of false religion, if not of losing faith itself, are the following: (a) membership in forbidden societies; (b) communication in sectarian services; (c) cooperation in activities whose tendency or principles are erroneous.

Does a law founded on presumption always oblige? - To presume is to opine; and presumption is a probable conjecture of an uncertain thing, that is, a judgment likely arisen from certain signs or indications. It is either of man or of law. The former is placed wholly in the estimation of a good man, and does not pertain here: for it is a private act. The latter is introduced by laws, and therefore without express law it is not to be admitted. For the law itself conjectures or orders one to conjecture. - Presumption of law is twofold: one of danger, the other of fact. Of danger, when the legislator, noticing from those things which frequently happen that something is not done or omitted without danger, forestalling dangers of this kind, forbids the former or commands the latter. Of fact, when, holding something as certain to have been done because it is commonly accustomed to be done so, from that supposed fact, as if it had really been done, he constitutes rights and obligations. This latter, if in law it receives contrary proof, is usually called of law; but if not, of law and by law. - On presumption of danger, for example, rests the law which forbids reading books of an unapproved edition, contracting marriages with non-Catholics; of fact, the law which holds that one was baptized who, born from Christian parents among Christians, grew up in Christian fashion, C. 3 at the end de Presb. non bapt. Of law, for example, that the man is the father whom marriage shows; of law and by law, for example, is that those who contracted marriage in a prohibited degree, denunciations having been disregarded, did not ignore the impediment. C. ult. de Cland. despons.; Trent sess. 24 de R. M. C. 5; Sanch. De Matr. l. 8. d. 25. n. 32; De Iustis l. 3. c. 16. n. 11. - C. 30 de Spons.

Thus a law which rests on presumption of danger always obliges, even if the danger ceases in the present matter. The reason is that the law does not cease as long as the end of the law has not ceased adequately. On the contrary, a law which rests on presumption of fact, if the fact does not really underlie it, does not oblige in the forum of conscience. Hence the axiom: Presumption yields to truth, whether it be only of law, or of law and by law. For although a presumption of law and a presumption of law and by law is taken for truth, it is not on that account truth itself. For this reason, notwithstanding a presumption of law and by law, a regular who, coerced by force, made profession, even after five years is not obligated by it; a debtor absolved by the sentence of a judge, even after this has passed into res judicata, remains a debtor. But as long as it does not appear manifestly that the presumption rests on a false fact, it is held as truth in each forum. - C. I. 1349 seq.; C. G. 1350 seq.; C. H. 1249 seq.; S. Th. 2. 2. q. 88. a. 9; Schmalz. l. 2. t. 23. n. 1; L. 100. 150. 151; Ithur. Cas. 39. n. 25. 26, Cas. 53. n. 23; Wirceburg. c. 4. a. 5.

Is a novice held to regular discipline? - The Rules and precepts of the order do not of themselves oblige novices. For Novices have not yet professed the Rule, and are only in the way of probation. C. Ad Apostolicam 16 de Regular. But although the prelate cannot command a novice by reason of vows, as is clear, nevertheless he can command by reason of the power which any superior naturally has in any community, and by reason of ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the novice. C. Recolentes de statu monachor. Hence several infer that he can bind novices by precepts under sin and under censures, and reserve cases with respect to them. But several other grave theologians teach the contrary as regards this last point, namely that novices, without license of the prelates of the order, can validly confess to any Confessor approved by the Ordinary of the place for seculars, and be absolved by him, even from cases reserved in the religion. But generally novices enjoy all privileges, indulgences, protection of the canon, etc., which the professed of the order which they intend to embrace enjoy; for from R. I. 55 in 6: "He who feels the burden ought also to feel the advantage." Schmalz. tit. de Regular. n. 85 ff.; Ferraris v. Novitiatus n. 13-16, 20, 21.

Only the Master of Novices hears the Confessions of these. Yet it is lawful for the Superior, even the local one, to hear them once or twice in the year. Thus from the Constitution Quum ad Regularem of Clement VIII, March 19, 1603, apud Bizzarri, Collection, at the end. But at present Novices, as all other Religious, can freely confess to any Confessor approved by the Ordinary of the place. S. C. of Religious, May 3, 1914, A. A. S. v. 6, p. 232.

What is the force of religious profession? - Religious profession is distinguished in two ways; for one is such broadly, another strictly. The former is had through simple vows, the latter through solemn vows. But where the word profession is used without addition, it is customarily understood of profession strictly taken. - Solemn profession frees the professed from paternal power, because the professed passes into the full power of the regular superior and is fully subjected to him. But understand this concerning burdens, not concerning favors. For this is a benefit, and what is conceded in favor of someone is not to be turned to his disadvantage, R. I. 16 in 6. Hence the professed retains rights of succession, and if goods come to the son after profession, they pertain to a quasi-military peculium, all of which, although he does not acquire them for himself, he nevertheless acquires for the monastery. Schmalzgr. l. 3, t. 27, n. 67 ff. - Solemn profession dirimently impedes marriage to be contracted and dissolves a ratified marriage. - Solemn profession induces the vacancy of benefices. Indeed even perpetual profession in Institutes of simple vows induces the vacancy of residential benefices. S. C. Bishops and Regulars, August 25, 1903; March 30, 1908. Likewise profession frees from irregularity coming from birth, in relation to receiving sacred orders; not likewise to prelacies. C. 1 de Filiis presbyt. - Other vows previously emitted are commuted into religious profession, unless they have been made in favor of a third party and accepted by him. C. Scripturae 4 de Vot. et vot. redempt.; C. Qui post 5 de Reg. et trans. in 6. - St. Thomas 2. 2, q. 88, a. 12 ad 1; q. 189, a. 3 ad 3; E. M.

More recent male and female religious emit only profession of simple vows, first for a time and then in perpetuity. But they can never remain without vows; rather, when the time of temporary vows has elapsed, these are at once to be renewed. Indeed nuns also belonging to regular Orders in several regions emit only simple vows, and are subjected to the jurisdiction of Ordinaries, so that Superiors no longer have any jurisdiction over them. Four monasteries of the Visitation in the United States of North America and the Monasteries of Savoy retain solemn vows. - S. C. Bishops and Regulars, March 23, 1869.

What things are required for religious profession? - For the value of profession there is required: 1. That the person be fit for entering religion. - 2. That the one professing has completed the sixteenth year, computing this time mathematically from moment to moment. For thus Trent decreed, s. 25, c. 15 de Reg., according to the S. C. and all the doctors. Laymen or conversi cannot be admitted to profession before they have arrived at the age of twenty-one completed years, from Clement VIII, C. Regularis disciplinae, March 19, 1603. But now from the Decree of the S. C. of Religious, January 1, 1911, they are admitted to solemn vows only when the thirtieth year of age has been completed, after a six-year period of simple vows, a year of Novitiate, and two years of Postulancy. Cf. 267 bis. - 3. That a whole year of probation has preceded. Trent ibid. - 4. That it be done with the intention of making profession; for it is a certain spiritual marriage with religion, which, just as carnal marriage, is itself lacking when consent is lacking.

5. That profession not be emitted because of fraud or deceit; otherwise true consent would be lacking. - 6. That it not be done from force or grave fear, unjustly inflicted from without to extort profession. C. 1 de His quae de vi metusve, etc.; C. ult. Qui clerici vel voventes; Trent s. 25, c. 18, 19 de Reg. - 7. That the three substantial vows be emitted; otherwise the essence of the religious state will not be present. - 8. That profession be made in some approved religion. - 9. That profession be accepted by one having power for this. Cf. Ferraris v. Moniales a. 1, n. 101 ff.; C. Ad Apostolicam de Regular. - 10. That the one professing attach no condition repugnant to the substance of religion. - 11. That express profession be made; for tacit profession as regards men has been abrogated by Pius IX, Decree of the S. C. Regular Discipline, June 12, 1858. Cf. Ferraris l. c. n. 109. By custom it has also been abrogated as regards nuns, and as regards more recent Institutes of simple vows. - 12. That both men and women first emit simple vows and remain in them for three whole years before solemn profession is to be emitted. From just and reasonable causes these vows can be extended up to the completed twenty-fifth year of age. Pius IX, Brief In universalis Ecclesiae, February 7, 1862; S. C. Bishops and Regulars, May 3, 1902. Meanwhile they must remain in houses of the professed and of studies, and observe perfect common life, and they are held to the observance of the rule of the order as solemnly professed men and women are; and they enjoy the privileges and indulgences of the order or monastery as these do. The active and passive voice is computed from the day of emission of simple vows. Yet they do not have a suffrage in admission to solemn profession, and can be elected only to lesser offices, not also to offices of superiority. S. C. Regular Discipline, August 6, 1858; S. C. Bishops and Regulars, May 3, 1902; February 20, 1905. By this profession of simple vows, which precede solemn vows, residential benefices do not become vacant. S. C. Bishops and Regulars, March 30, 1908. - 13. If one vow, e.g., of poverty, is not solemn, neither are the other two solemn. S. Penitentiary 1820 to the Bishop of Limoges. - 14. As regards nuns, solemn profession is not had without papal enclosure, C. Periculoso un. de Stat. reg.; St. Pius V, C. Cura pastoralis, May 29, 1566. - Lugo, Resp. Mor. l. 4, d. 14, 18, 21, 43; l. 3, d. 16.

Concerning Religious bound to military service. - "... The S. C. of Religious ... decreed the following:

I. In Regular Orders in which solemn vows are emitted, young men who are not certainly established to be exempt from active military service, namely from that service which they, when first called to the military, must perform for one or more years, cannot be admitted to Sacred Orders or to solemn profession until they have completed military service and, this having been completed, have remained at least for a year, according to what is to be said below, in simple vows, with the decree Sacrosancta Dei Ecclesia, edited on this same day, observed as regards Laymen.

II. In Institutes of simple vows, the young men concerning whom in the preceding article will be able to be admitted only to temporary vows up to the time of military service; nor is it lawful for them, while they give service to the military, to renew profession. When they have been dismissed from military service, they will again emit profession, at least for a year, before they bind themselves by the bond of perpetual profession.

III. But let young men serving in the military take care lest they lose the gift of holy vocation, and let them always converse with that modesty and caution which befits religious men. Wherefore let them shrink from suspect places and little gatherings; let them abstain from theaters, dances, and other public spectacles; let them avoid the commerce of the bad, slippery conversations, things discordant with religion, men professing suspect doctrines, readings contrary to morals or faith according to the dictates of the Holy See, and other dangers of sinning; let them not omit, as much as is lawful for them, to frequent churches and the sacraments; let them approach Catholic circles or meetings for recreation and instruction of soul.

IV. Wherever their station is placed, if there is there a house of their Religion or Institute, let them frequent it and be under the immediate vigilance of the Superior. But if the aforesaid house is not present, or they cannot conveniently frequent it, let them approach a priest designated by the Bishop, and use his counsels and company, so that when it is necessary to leave the same station, they may be able to receive from him written testimony concerning the observance of all those things which are prescribed in the preceding article. But if a priest designated by the Bishop is not had, let them choose for themselves a prudent priest, to be indicated at once to their Superiors, who will procure for themselves from the Ordinary information about his morals, doctrine, and prudence. Furthermore, let them establish correspondence by letters and, as far as can be done, diligently pursue it with their respective Superior or another religious or member of their Institute designated for this, whom they are to make more certain concerning the manner and condition of their life, concerning each change of their station, and especially let them notify him of the name and domicile of that priest whose company and direction they use, as was prescribed above.

V. Superiors General or Provincial, even local according to the custom of each Institute, by themselves or by a delegated member, who in clerical Institutes is to be marked with the priestly order, are altogether held to inquire concerning the life, morals, and conduct of the pupils while military service lasts, especially by the work of the priest or priests concerning whom above, through secret letters if there is need, so that they may be made more certain whether these have preserved the right way of faith and morals, observed the cautions prescribed above, and shown themselves faithful to the divine vocation, their conscience being gravely burdened.

VI. When they have been definitively dismissed from active military service, let each one be held to return by a straight path to his own religious houses, and there, if it is certainly established concerning their good conduct, as was said in the preceding article, some days of holy recollection having been premised, those who are assigned to Institutes of simple vows are to be admitted to renewing temporary profession; but in Regular Orders, let them be placed among the younger clerics or professed, or at least in a house where perfect regular observance flourishes, under the special vigilance and direction of a religious commended for piety and prudence, who in clerical Institutes must be a priest. In that state they must complete the whole time, which, according to what has been said in articles I and II, will not be able to be less than a year, to be premised to solemn or perpetual vows according to the path of the Apostolic Prescriptions and of the Constitutions of their own Religious Family, yet in such a way that the time spent in simple or temporary vows from the first emission of vows up to departure from the religious house because of military service is indeed computed, but not that which was given to military service.

VII. At that time, let them give attention to studies and regular observance; but let the immediate Superiors and the members placed over the direction of the younger men consider them most diligently, investigate their morals, fervor of life, opinions, doctrines, and zeal for persevering, so that concerning them before the last profession they may be able to render an account under faith of oath to the higher Superiors.

VIII. If any, during military service or after it has ended, before they are admitted to solemn or perpetual profession, have given doubtful signs of perseverance, or have not obeyed the cautions prescribed during the time of military service, or have turned aside from purity of morals or faith, let them be dismissed by the Superior General with the consent of his Counselors or Definitors, and let their vows be held as dissolved by the very act of dismissal.

But if the young men themselves desire or spontaneously ask to be relaxed from the bond of vows, the faculty is given to the aforesaid Superiors, as delegates of the Apostolic See, of dissolving the vows, if it is a question of clerical Institutes; but if the matter concerns Institutes of laymen, let the vows be judged dissolved by letters of the Superiors, by which license is given to them to return to the world.

IX. Ecclesiastical Societies also are held by these prescriptions, which, although they do not use vows, neither solemn nor simple, nevertheless have simple promises by which their pupils are bound to those Societies.

X. If anything new, not foreseen in this Decree, or if anything doubtful in understanding it should occur, recourse is to be made in individual cases to this S. Congregation.... Anything contrary whatsoever notwithstanding." S. C. Religious, Decree Inter reliquas, January 1, 1911.

Declarations concerning the Decree Inter reliquas on the military service of religious. - "I. Whether perpetual vows emitted before the promulgation of the Decree Inter reliquas cease ipso facto when active military service is assumed?

II. Whether temporary vows likewise cease ipso facto when the same service is assumed?

III. Whether solemn profession in Orders, and perpetual profession in Institutes of simple vows, emitted in good faith by one who falsely thought himself exempt from military service, is valid?

IV. Whether solemn profession in Orders, and perpetual profession in Institutes of simple vows, emitted before a year has been completed from the day active military service was completed, is valid?

V. Whether a whole year must flow before he who was assigned to active military service for only three months is admitted to solemn or perpetual profession?

VI. Whether those Religious can be admitted to solemn or perpetual profession who, subject to active military service, nevertheless have and manifest the firm intention of giving themselves to foreign Missions, and of remaining in them up to the time established by civil law for obtaining perpetual exemption from military service, as, for example, in Italy it is the thirty-second year of age?

R. To I. In the negative. - To II. In the negative of itself, or, the vows do not cease ipso facto at the beginning of military service; nevertheless Religious can ask for dispensation from vows from the first day of military service, according to Art. VIII of the Decree Inter reliquas, if they do not intend to persevere; if they intend to persevere, in no case can they emit a new profession of vows unless military service has been completed, even if the time of profession has expired during military service. - To III. In the negative. - To IV. In the negative. - To V. In the negative; but it is necessary and sufficient in the case that there be three months, or a space of time shorter than a year, corresponding to the time spent in military service. - To VI. In the negative of itself. Yet the Sacred Congregation concedes that in the last year of the course of studies it is lawful to admit to solemn profession, or respectively to perpetual profession, and to promote to sacred Orders, young men about to set out for sacred Missions within a year, after an oath has first been emitted on the part of the candidate concerning service to be rendered to the Missions up to the time predefined by civil law for obtaining exemption, and with the conscience of Superiors burdened concerning its execution.

Concerning religious Profession in the article of death. - "... In any Order, or any Congregation or religious Society, or monastery whether of men or women, or even in Institutes in which, although vows are not emitted, nevertheless common life is lived after the manner of Religious, it is lawful thereafter to admit Novices or Probands, who by the judgment of the physician are gravely sick, so that they are judged to be constituted in the article of death, to profession or consecration or promise according to their own Rules or Constitutions, although they have not yet completed the time of novitiate or probation.

Yet, in order that novices or probands may be admitted to the above-said profession or consecration or promise, it is necessary:

1. That they have canonically begun the novitiate or probation.

2. That the Superior who admits the Novice or Proband to profession or consecration or promise be the one who actually governs the monastery or house of novitiate or probandate.

3. That the formula of profession or consecration or promise be the same which is in use in the Institute outside the case of sickness; and vows, if they are pronounced, are to be pronounced without determination of time or perpetuity.

4. That he who has emitted profession, consecration, or promise of this kind will be a participant in absolutely all the indulgences, suffrages, and graces which Religious truly professed dying in the same Institute obtain; and to the same there is mercifully conceded in the Lord plenary indulgence and remission of his sins in the form of a Jubilee.

5. This profession or consecration or promise, besides the graces declared in the preceding article, produces altogether no other effect. Therefore:

A) if the Novice or Proband after profession or consecration or promise of this kind dies intestate, the Institute will be able to claim for itself no goods or rights pertaining to him;

B) if he recovers before the time of novitiate or probandate expires, he is to be in altogether the same condition as if he had emitted no profession; and therefore: a) freely, if he wishes, he will be able to return to the world; and b) Superiors are able to dismiss him; c) he must complete the whole time of novitiate or probandate defined in individual Institutes, even if beyond a year; d) this time having been completed, if he perseveres, a new profession or consecration or promise will have to be emitted.

Anything contrary whatsoever notwithstanding." S. C. of Religious, September 10, 1912.

277 bis. What form of admission is to be observed? - When Novices are to be admitted to profession, "the Conventual Chapter ... is to declare by secret votes whether the Novice can be admitted to profession.... Then the Provincial and the Examiners (Provincial, at least three) are to define by secret votes whether the Novice ... can safely be admitted to profession. If the Novice has been approved, the Provincial is to render the Superior General instructed concerning everything, who ... is to revoke or confirm the approval ... yet so that he can never permit the profession of a Novice who has been rejected by the Provincial Examiners.... If the Constitutions and rules of some Order and Institute further require anything in admitting Novices to profession, that also will have to be observed only in that part which is by no means contrary to the tenor of this Decree." Decree Regulari disciplinae of the S. C. on the State of Regulars, January 25, 1848.

As regards nuns of solemn vows, those things are to be observed which are established in their proper Constitutions. As regards more recent Institutes of simple vows, the Norms of the Sacred Congregation and their own Constitutions approved by the Holy See are to be observed.

As regards the rite of making profession and renewing vows, the General Decree of the S. R. C., August 14, 1894, n. 3836, and June 5, 1896, n. 3912, is to be observed. - E. M.

Can someone desert religion whenever he wishes because of nullity of profession? - R. In the negative. For he must object in the first five-year period, unless he is restored in full by the Holy See. But the cause of nullity must be examined by his own prelate and by the Ordinary of the place. While appeal is pending, he cannot go out after the first sentence. Trent s. 25, c. 19 de Reg.; Benedict XIV, C. Si datam, published on March 16, 1748; Ferraris v. Professio religiosa n. 65 ff.; Lugo, Resp. Mor. l. 3, d. 21.

Can a superior expel some religious? - R. In the affirmative, if however he has this power proper or delegated, according to the various constitutions of religious orders. For generally speaking, besides the major superior, other inferior superiors do not have this power. Bizzarri ed. 1855, p. 856. But a canonical process and judgment, and a legitimate cause, are required. Such is: to have kept silent about an essential impediment, or a defect harmful to the community; to have committed "grave external and public fault, and that the guilty one is also incorrigible" in grave sins. S. C. Bishops and Regulars, November 4, 1892. - St. Thomas Quodl. 12, a. 36; Benedict XIV, de Syn. l. 13, c. 11, n. 15 ff.; Ferraris v. Apostasia n. 8.

Infirmity is not a just cause for dismissing a professed person, nor is the sole petition of a professed person asserting that he does not have, or has lost, the mind and vocation for the religious state. S. C. on the State of Regulars, June 12, 1858; S. C. Bishops and Regulars, November 19, 1886.

The simple vows which are emitted before solemn vows for men are perpetual on the part of the one vowing, and can be dissolved on the part of the Order in the act of dismissal of the professed, after an examination has been held. For nuns [source print damaged here], these vows are likewise perpetual on the part of those vowing; dispensation concerning them is reserved to the Roman Pontiff. And for dismissing them, recourse is to be made to the Holy See. S. C. on the State of Regulars, March 19, 1857; June 12, 1858; February 7, 1862; S. C. Bishops and Regulars, May 3, 1902; July 15, 1902.

As regards more recent Institutes, for the dismissal of a religious or sister of temporary vows, a grave cause is required; a graver cause and incorrigibility, if they have perpetual vows. The dismissal of a Nun or Sister of perpetual vows is to be confirmed by the S. C. of Religious. Moreover, for a religious who has solemn, or perpetual, or temporary vows, but at the same time is bound to sacred orders, a threefold admonition or correction and a summary process are pre-required according to the Decree Auctis admodum of the S. C. Bishops and Regulars, November 4, 1892, and the Decree Quum singulae of the S. C. of Religious, May 16, 1911, which is reported here in the following number. - Norms 192 ff.; E. M.

279 bis. Decree - On the method to be observed in rendering a sentence of expulsion or dismissal from orders and religious institutes. "... 1. The competent Curia or competent Tribunal for rendering sentence is constituted by the Superior or Moderator General and the Definitors or Counselors or Assistants, not fewer than four; if any are lacking, in their place the same number of Religious are to be chosen by the President of the Curia or Tribunal, with the consent of the other Counselors.

In Congregations of Monks, the Tribunal is constituted by the Abbot General with his Council. If some Abbey is attached to no Congregation, recourse is to be made to the Holy See in individual cases.

2. In any Curia or Tribunal let there be constituted by the General Council a Promoter of Justice for the protection of right and law, who is to be a Religious of the same Order or Congregation.

3. Hereafter only a Summary Process is to be instituted in expelling or dismissing Religious who either have professed solemn vows in Orders, or perpetual vows in Congregations or Institutes, or, if they have emitted only temporary vows, are nevertheless constituted in Sacred Orders; special privileges by which some Order or Institute may enjoy being saved.

4. One cannot proceed to instructing the Process unless after a threefold admonition has been given and correction inflicted in vain, saving the exceptions under numbers 17 and 18.

5. The admonition is to be made by the legitimate Superior, even local, yet by mandate or license of the Provincial or quasi-Provincial Superior; he will join to the last admonition the threat of expulsion or dismissal. For the effect of expulsion or dismissal, an admonition or correction has no force unless it has been given for some grave delict.

6. Admonitions cannot be repeated unless the delict has been repeated; but in continuous or permanent delicts it is necessary that between one admonition and another there intervene a space of at least two whole days. After the last admonition, six whole days are to be awaited before progress is made to further steps.

7. From the Process there must be established the guilt of the accused, as well as the gravity and number of the delicts, the fact of the threefold admonition, and the defect of repentance after the threefold admonition.

8. In order that the guilt of the accused be established, such proofs are to be brought forward as would move the mind of a prudent man. These proofs can be taken from the confession of the accused, from the deposition of at least two trustworthy witnesses, confirmed by oath and strengthened by other supports, and from authentic documents.

9. The gravity of the delict is to be taken not only from the gravity of the law violated, but also from the gravity of the penalty sanctioned by law, from the gravity of the deceit, and from the gravity of the harm, whether moral or material, inflicted on the Community.

10. For the effect about which there is question, at least three grave crimes of the same species are required, or, if of different species, such that taken together they manifest a perverse will obstinate in evil, or only one permanent crime which by a threefold admonition virtually becomes threefold.

11. In order that the fact of the threefold admonition be established, ordinarily an authentic document must be brought forward concerning this. Therefore it is necessary: a) that this be done either before two witnesses, or by a letter registered by public record-keepers, with faithful proof of reception or rejection having been sought; b) that a document be drawn up concerning the admonition carried out, signed by the said witnesses and to be preserved in the Registers or Archive; or that a copy be made of the above-said letter, likewise signed before dispatch by two witnesses as testimony of conformity, and likewise to be kept in the Registers or Archive.

12. A new crime committed after the threefold admonition, or the obstinate and hardened manner of acting of the delinquent, proves the defect of repentance.

13. The Provincial or quasi-Provincial Superior of the delinquent Religious, after the admonitions and corrections have fallen out in vain, will diligently collect all acts and documents which exist concerning the guilt of this Religious and will transmit them to the Superior General, who must hand them over to the Procurator of Justice, so that he may examine them and propose his accusations, if he judges that any are to be proposed.

14. The accusations proposed by the Procurator of Justice and the results of the Process must be notified to the accused, and a suitable time, to be determined at the discretion of the Judge, must be conceded to the same, in which he may be able to present his defenses, either by himself or through another Religious of the same Order or Institute. But if the accused himself has not presented his own defenses, the Curia or Tribunal must constitute ex officio a defender who is a member of the respective Order or Institute.

15. The Curia or Tribunal, having diligently weighed the allegations both of the Promoter and of the Accused, if it has indeed judged them to be adverse to the accused, will be able to pronounce the sentence of expulsion or dismissal; nevertheless, if the condemned person has duly appealed to the Sacred Congregation of Religious within ten days from notification of the sentence, it cannot be handed over to execution until judgment has been rendered by the same Sacred Congregation.

16. But notwithstanding the appeal, the guilty one can be sent back to the world at once by the supreme Moderator or Abbot General, with the consent of his Chapter or Council, if from his presence there threatens danger either of very grave scandal or likewise very grave harm to the community and their members. In the meantime let him put off the habit and remain suspended, if he is constituted in Sacred Orders.

17. He who has been guilty of even only one delict, from which danger of grave public scandal or very grave detriment to the whole Community threatens, can likewise be sent back to the world even by the Provincial Superior or Abbot, the religious habit being immediately laid aside, provided that the delict itself and the guilt of the Religious to whom it is imputed have certainly been established; and meanwhile let the Process be instituted for rendering the sentence of expulsion or dismissal. Those who are constituted in Sacred Orders are likewise to remain suspended.

18. Likewise against certain delicts the penalty of expulsion or dismissal is judged as if brought by law. These delicts are: a) public apostasy from the Catholic Faith; b) apostasy from an Order or Institute, unless the Religious has returned within three months; c) flight from a Monastery, having taken a woman with him; d) and much more the contract, as they say, civil, or the attempt or celebration of marriage, even valid, or when the vows are not solemn or do not have the effect of solemn vows.

In these cases it is enough that the Superior General or Provincial, with his respective Council, issue a declaratory sentence of the fact.

19. A sentence of expulsion or dismissal, in whatever way brought, if it is a question of a Religious in Sacred Orders, is to be communicated at once to the Ordinary of origin and the Ordinary of the place where he is staying, or where he is known to wish to establish his seat.

20. All Religious about whom there is question, constituted in Sacred Orders, who have been expelled or dismissed, remain perpetually suspended until they have obtained dispensation from the competent Authority after amendment of life. Religious or Clerics not in Sacred Orders, expelled or dismissed, are prohibited from ascending to higher Orders without leave of the Holy See. But all expelled or dismissed, even if they have truly amended themselves, will not be able to be admitted to their own or to another Order or Congregation without special license of the Apostolic See.

21. For expelling Nuns who have professed vows, whether solemn or simple, in an Order properly so called, and for dismissing Sisters who have emitted perpetual vows in Religious Institutes, grave external causes are required, together with incorrigibility, by the judgment of the Abbess or Superiorissa with her Council, respectively to be manifested by secret votes, an experiment having first been had, so that hope of repentance has vanished and from the continual faults of the incorrigible Nun or Sister harms threaten the Monastery or Institute. Less grave causes are required for dismissing Sisters of simple vows in Religious Orders. Just and grave causes must be proved by the Ordinary of the place and, if the Monastery is subject to Regulars, also by the Regular Superior. Furthermore it is necessary that confirmation of the Sacred Congregation be added, so that expulsion or dismissal on the part of the Order or Institute does not obtain juridical effect before it has been confirmed by the Sacred Congregation. Only in the case of grave external scandal, the Bishop of the place approving, can a Nun or Sister be sent back to the world at once, yet in such a way that the confirmation of the Holy See be sought without delay." S. C. of Religious, May 16, 1911.

Those constituted in sacred orders and bound by simple vows, whether perpetual or temporal, who have spontaneously sought and obtained dismissal from the Apostolic See, or otherwise have been dispensed from simple, perpetual, or temporary vows by Apostolic privilege, cannot go out from the cloister until they have found a Bishop as benevolent receiver and have provided for themselves concerning an ecclesiastical patrimony; otherwise they remain suspended from the exercise of the orders received. This is extended to pupils of temporal vows who would already have been released from any bond of profession because of the elapsed time for which vows were pronounced by them. Decree Auctis admodum of the S. C. Bishops and Regulars, November 4, 1892.

Is an exception given as regards the aforesaid firmness of marriage? - A threefold case must be excepted. 1. Ratified and non-consummated marriage of Christians can be dissolved, for a grave cause, by dispensation of the Pope, from the power divinely conceded to him. This is clear from the fact that the Supreme Pontiffs have already used this power many times, as St. Gregory VII, Paul III, etc.; Benedict XIV, Const. Dei miseratione. Cf. Perrone, de Matr., t. 3, s. 2, c. 6, a. 4. Moreover, this faculty is to be extended to marriages consummated in unbelief, if the spouses after baptism, by which the union becomes ratified, have not again consummated it; and likewise to marriages consummated in unbelief, when the spouse converted and baptized is permitted, by Apostolic Authority, to remain with the wife who was converted and baptized with him, as with a legitimate wife, the others having been dismissed, although she is not his first wife; or, because the absent unbelieving spouse cannot be warned, when it is permitted by Apostolic Authority that the spouse converted to the faith and baptized contract marriage with any faithful person. Indeed this marriage is valid and firm, even if afterward it becomes known that the prior unbelieving spouse could not justly declare his or her will because of an impediment, and had also been converted to the faith at the time the second marriage was contracted. This is most clearly established from the Letters of St. Pius V, August 2, 1571; Gregory XIII, January 25, 1585; Urban VIII, October 20, 1624; September 17, 1627. - Non-consummated, namely by an act of itself suitable for the effect of generation; and consequently, St. Alphonsus 1036, St. Thomas, 4 D. 41, q. 1, a. 1, q. 4, ad 2, by an act perfect on both sides. - Consummated marriage of Christians can in no way be dissolved, Matt. 19:6; Trent, sess. 24, C. 7, de M., and the same must be said if marriage is contracted by a faithful person with an unbeliever from dispensation of the Roman Pontiff. Clement XIII, August 2, 1759; Holy Office, August 1, 1753. - L. 955, 956, 959; Collectanea S. C. de P. F., n. 1308.

Dispensation from ratified non-consummated marriage is to be obtained exclusively from the Supreme Pontiff. The Bishop in this cause cannot, without a special faculty obtained from the S. C. of Sacraments, institute the process. But in other causes the Bishop is the competent judge in first instance.

2. Ratified and non-consummated marriage can be dissolved through the solemn religious profession of one spouse, and this from a special privilege conceded by Christ and declared by the Church. C. Verum, C. Ex parte, de Convers. coniugat.; Trent, sess. 24, c. 6. Solemn: i.e., not of simple vows, even in the Society of Jesus, but solemn vows. Profession; not mere entrance into Religion. - But so that the spouses may deliberate about the use of this privilege, by the law itself they have two months conceded to them after the nuptials, during which time they are not bound to render the debt. C. Verum, C. Ex publico, de Convers. coniug. And "either spouse can licitly deny the debt within the two-month period, although he does not have the intention of entering Religion, because he uses his own right." L. 956. Indeed after that two-month period also, if the marriage has not been consummated even through illicit denial of the debt, this privilege remains. Nor is it impeded by fornication had between the spouses before the celebration of marriage, unless the marriage is necessary for legitimating offspring, or for repairing scandal, or the honor of the bride. If within the two-month period violence is applied, and the marriage is thus consummated while the bride was in fact thinking about embracing religion, although the marriage is now indissoluble, nevertheless the bride can even in this case enter Religion. But he sins who contracts marriage with the intention of entering Religion without warning the other party. - L. 870, 958; St. Thomas, Suppl. q. 61, a. 2, 3; Schmalzgrueber, l. 3, t. 32, n. 11 ff.

There are those who judge that a right of this sort is not conceded except to those who, after nuptials have been contracted and not yet consummated, deliberate about entrance into religion. But in this sense that right would be void, for then immediately after the contract of marriage each one would be bound to render the debt. For who is so mad that, while deliberating about entrance into religion, he would contract marriage?

3. Even consummated marriage of unbelievers can be dissolved from divine concession, when either spouse is converted to the Christian faith, although not Catholic but heretical, through reception of baptism, and the other refuses to cohabit peacefully with him, or does not cohabit except with injury to the Creator and contempt of the Christian Religion, or makes an attempt to draw the faithful party into mortal sin. This divine concession is drawn from the words of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 7:12-15, where he says: If any brother has an unbelieving wife and she consents to dwell with him, let him not dismiss her...; but if the unbeliever departs, let him depart, for the brother or sister is not subject to servitude in such matters; but God has called us in peace. Innocent III explains the same more fully in C. Quanto 7, de Divortiis. - L. 955, 956; St. Thomas, Suppl. q. 59, a. 3-6; E. M.

Interpellation of the unbelieving spouse is to be made, if the other, while that one remains in unbelief, is converted and wishes to enter a new marriage. Provided it is clear that the spouse is unwilling to live peacefully from that one's response, or from a process at least summary that he or she was unwilling to give any response, or dispensation from making interpellation has been obtained from the Holy See, marriage can be contracted.

What is the impediment of vow and order? The vow which dirimently impedes marriage is only the solemn vow of chastity, emitted by profession in an approved religion. C. 10, de Conv. Coniug.; C. un., de Voto, in VI. Chastity, not a religious vow as such, because religious profession dirimently impedes marriage for this reason and to this extent, insofar as it includes the solemn vow of chastity. Therefore vows, although solemn, of certain Equestrian Orders do not dirimently impede marriage, since these profess only conjugal chastity. Schmalzgrueber, book 4, tit. 6, n. 45. Solemn; for a simple vow of chastity, even perfect and perpetual, even emitted in religious Congregations of men and women, does not dirimently impede marriage, but only impedes it. By special privilege of Gregory XIII, the simple vows which are emitted after two years of novitiate in the Society of Jesus are to be excepted.

Order dirimently impeding marriage is sacred order, namely priesthood, diaconate, and subdiaconate. C. De Diacono 1; C. Ex Litterarum 2, Qui cler. vel vov.; Extravag. Antiqua, de Voto; Trent, sess. 24, chap. 9. Sacred order even among the Greeks and Italo-Greeks, Ruthenians and Maronites, dirimently impedes marriage. But the certainty is not the same for all. For as regards Italo-Greeks, Benedict XIV declared invalid such a marriage attempted by subdeacons, deacons, and priests. For Ruthenians, the Synod of Zamosc in 1720, approved in specific form by the Apostolic See, and for Maronites, the Synod of Lebanon in 1736, likewise approved by the Apostolic See, declared invalid, the former the marriage of a priest, the latter that of a deacon, priest, and bishop. As regards other Greeks, there is not yet an express definition of the Apostolic See; but the opinion is consonant both with the opinion of the Tribunals of the City and with the ancient Law itself of the Eastern Church. Benedict XIV, Const. Eo quamvis tempore, secs. 38, 39; Const. Anno vertente, sec. 13; Const. Etsi pastoralis, sec. VII, n. 27; Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, March 24, 1858. Collectanea S.C. de Propaganda Fide, n. 1572. As regards Ruthenians in North America and in the Canadian Region, cf. here nn. 97 and 377.

Now as regards the vow, it must have been emitted: 1. voluntarily and deliberately; 2. with the true intention of obliging oneself; otherwise the vow would not be valid. As regards order, it is required: 1. that it have been received validly; 2. that it have been received voluntarily, and therefore not from grave fear.

The impediment of order, according to the common opinion, dirimently impedes only by ecclesiastical law. The reason is that on the one hand order of itself is not repugnant to the conjugal state; nor, on the other hand, is there any divine prohibition which is found in the Scriptures or in Tradition. L. 1059. But since the solemnity of a vow is of ecclesiastical law, for that very reason the Pope can dispense, provided that there is a sufficient cause, that is, one proportionate to the gravity of the matter. That the Pontiff can dispense from this impediment is the very commonly received opinion of the doctors, whom Sanchez, de Matr., book 8, disp. 8, n. 7, alleges in a long series; and examples of this dispensation having been granted are everywhere available, as can be seen in Schmalzgrueber, book 3, tit. 35, n. 48; Albitus, de Inconst. in fide, chap. 36, n. 132 ff. This is confirmed from the Decree of the Holy Office, February 20, 1888, by which Leo XIII granted to Bishops the faculty of dispensing, "either by themselves or through an ecclesiastical person well pleasing to them, the sick established in the gravest danger of death, when there is not time to have recourse to the Holy See, from impediments, however public, dirimently impeding marriage by ecclesiastical law, except the sacred order of priesthood and affinity of the direct line arising from licit copulation." Benedict XIV, de Syn., book 2; L. 808, 1025, 1026, 1059, book 3, n. 256; Mansella, de Impedim., etc., p. 92 ff.; St. Thomas, II-II, q. 88, a. 11; Suppl., q. 53.

Modern laws are those which admit even those ordained in sacred orders to marriage. There is indeed no law forbidding this in the Italian Civil Code and the French Civil Code. Hence they leave a free way for such persons to most shameful and sacrilegious concubinages. But it is otherwise in the Austrian Civil Code, 63, and the Spanish Civil Code, 83. E.M.

“Those professed in simple vows must remain in houses of profession and studies and observe perfect common life. For validly emitting solemn vows after simple vows, express profession is required, and therefore tacit profession is wholly abrogated.” Sacred Congregation on the State of Regulars, 12 June 1858. “His Holiness…established and decreed that, notwithstanding the Apostolic Letters of Clement VIII and any other contrary things whatsoever, those professed in simple vows can lawfully and freely emit the profession of solemn vows at the proper time in the convent or house in which they are found, with the other things to be observed by law nevertheless being observed, without being bound to profess in the house in which the novitiate was completed.” The same Sacred Congregation, 9 December 1859. Cf. Decrees of Clement VIII Regularis disciplinae, 12 March 1596; Sanctissimus in Christo Pater, 20 June 1599; Nullus omnino, 25 June 1555; Constitution of Urban VIII Sacra Congregatio, 21 September 1624.

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.

"... As regards religious families of whatever Order, Congregation, and Institute in which solemn vows are emitted, we establish and decree that the profession of solemn vows will be entirely null, void, and of no force, whether knowingly or ignorantly, in whatever way, pretext, and color, made by any novices whatever, even lay and conversi, who, although they have completed probation and novitiate as by law, do not first emit the profession of simple vows and remain in it for a full three years; although either by the Superiors, or by the novices, or by each, there is held respectively the intention of receiving to solemn vows and emitting them, and all the rites prescribed for the profession of solemn vows are employed." Brief of Pius IX Ad universalis Ecclesiae, 7 Feb. 1862. Solemn profession can for just causes be further deferred by the Superior General or Provincial, not however beyond the age of completed 25 years. Encyclical Letter of the S. C. over the State of Regulars Neminem latet, 19 March 1857, to which for the dominion of the Austrian empire this Instruction was added: "... But particular circumstances of things require that in religious houses constituted in the announced dominion the profession of solemn vows be deferred according to the custom and practice introduced there for some years now. Wherefore this is the mind and will of His Holiness, that Regular Superiors should use the faculty attributed to them in the said decree, namely of deferring the profession of solemn vows, according to the above-mentioned custom and practice." Cf. Francis Sentis, Clementis Papae VIII Decretales, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1870, p. 81.

"Those who perhaps have put on the habit of Religion when already older than 25 years, or near this age, can, when the year of Novitiate has already been completed, be admitted to solemn vows and profession, or must the three-year period of further probation also be awaited with such persons? Resp. In the negative to the first part; in the affirmative to the second." S. C. over the State of Regulars, 20 Jan. 1860.

"Whether in the case in which a secular priest, who has long since passed the year 25, has sought and obtained the habit, solemn profession, namely of solemn vows, can be deferred for him, after the profession of simple vows has been emitted, beyond the customary three-year period, if namely within the three-year period of simple vows he has not given sufficient arguments concerning his vocation? Resp. In the negative, namely, that it cannot be deferred." S. C. 16 Aug. 1866. "They declared nevertheless that recourse must be had to the Sacred Congregation in particular cases in which some peculiar cause concurs." Bizzarri, Collectanea, p. 867, ed. 1885.

"Those professed of simple vows must remain in the houses of the professed and of studies, and observe perfect common life. For the valid emitting of solemn vows after simple vows, express profession is required, and therefore tacit profession is entirely abrogated." Same Sacred Congregation, 12 June 1858. "The Most Holy Lord... established and constituted that, notwithstanding the Apostolic Letters of Clement VIII and any other contrary things whatever, those professed of simple vows can lawfully and freely emit the profession of solemn vows in their time in the Convent or House in which they are found, the other things to be observed by law nevertheless being observed, without being bound to profess in the house where the Novitiate was completed." Same Sacred Congregation, 9 Dec. 1859. Cf. Decrees of Clement VIII Regularis disciplinae, 12 March 1596; Sanctissimus in Christo Pater, 20 June 1599; Nullus omnino, 25 June 1555; Const. of Urban VIII Sacra Congregatio, 21 Sept. 1624.

1159. Principles. - I. For valid profession there is required:

1° Aptitude of the one vowing, namely that he have no impediment which is judged substantial either from divine law, or from canon law, or from statutes confirmed by the Supreme Pontiff.

2° Consent and acceptance of the Prelate of the Order, or, where it is required, of the Chapter. (B) p. 477. But error concerning the substance, both on the part of the one professing and of the one admitting, makes the Profession void.

3° Liberty of the one vowing, that is, that Profession be made spontaneously, grave fear being excluded, or even reverential fear joined with importunate prayers often repeated, flatteries, command, or grave offense or indignation of blood-relatives continued for a long time, also with threats added concerning subsidies to be denied if he leaves Religion. For these things singly, or certainly joined together, considered with the condition of a rude and timid man, can induce just fear and invalidate profession; as Laymann teaches with others.¹ (l) p. 477.

II. From religious Profession is born the obligation, of itself perpetual, 1° of observing the vows; 2° of observing the rule; 3° of tending to perfection. I say: of itself perpetual; because, as we shall say below, it can either cease or be changed.

1160. • From the present discipline of the Church, the proper and necessary object of the vow of poverty is not 1) life, nor honor, nor reputation, nor knowledge, nor the right of conferring by election, presentation, or collation a regular benefice; 2) abdication of imperfect dominion (n. 590); but 3) dependent use, or only use of fact, of temporal goods, insofar as of themselves they are estimable by price (n. 675), is necessary. This is clear 1° from the fact that the possession of temporal goods estimable by price alone constitutes a man rich, in the proper sense of this word, and that from the lack of these alone he properly becomes poor. - 2° from those things which we taught with De Angelis n. 1149 under III; indeed also from the Pontifical Decree given by our Most Holy Lord Leo XIII for the Regulars of Belgium. - 3° from the fact that today there is no truly so-called religious Institute in whose rule independent use is permitted. Cf. Craisson¹ and St. Alphonsus.² Hence:

1161. • I. The following are not comprehended by the vow of poverty:

1. Manuscripts, whether one's own or accepted from another. For they are offspring of the intellect, which do not fall under the vow of poverty. Besides, common usage bears this, and it is clear from the Brief Postulat of Benedict XIII, year 1724, and the Declaration of Clement VIII. The continuator Tournely with others excepts if the contrary has been defined in the constitutions of the Order.³

2. Relics, since they are spiritual things.

3. Paintings, although offspring of the intellect, nevertheless cannot be made by a Religious, while the vow is preserved, with the intention of keeping them for himself, nor even (if they are made either by a lay-brother at the time in which he is held to work for the convent, or by any professed one with colors, etc. handed over by the convent) with the intention of giving them to outsiders.⁴

4. Peculium, that is, a temporal good destined for the uses of an individual and not for the common uses of the monastery, and this not only when necessaries are not supplied by the community, as is clear of itself; but also when they are supplied, provided in this case 1° it already exists by custom; 2° it is held dependently on the Superior, and therefore 3° with a mind prepared to renounce it at the nod of the same Superior; and 4° it is kept either in common, or in the cell even of the religious, but with permission of the Superior, and not locked with a key or so hidden that it is withdrawn from the free disposition of the Superior; 5° it is applied to uses neither illicit nor superfluous. - The first is required so that the prescription of Trent,¹ by which peculia are more probably prohibited,² may cease; the second, third, and fourth, that use of right, or independent use, may be guarded against; the fifth, as will be clear from what must soon be said.

5. An ecclesiastical benefice, for example an Episcopate, legitimately conferred. Namely he will be able to administer it and to dispose of its revenues independently of the Superior, since the thing is annexed to a spiritual thing; yet he cannot do this licitly except for his own support and pious uses.⁴

1162. • II. All acts of use independent of the rule or Superior, concerning temporal things, are comprehended by the vow of poverty, and therefore a Religious sins:

1. If he spends or lends something from things granted to him for use into another use without permission, or culpably loses, destroys, or makes it worse.⁵

2. If he accepts anything without permission, whether as a gift, or as a loan for consumption, or as a loan for use, or as a properly so-called deposit (n. 924), or refuses what is owed to Religion from a title of justice, for example inheritance, wages. Resolve otherwise concerning gifts, since the vow of poverty does not oblige one to acquire for Religion. Yet he who without just cause refused gifts of this kind would sin against charity toward the convent by impeding its good.⁶

3. If he buys anything without permission, even for the community.

4. If he asks or accepts something from an outsider to be spent on pious works not determined by the donor in the lowest species.⁶

5. If he hides something in such a way that it is withdrawn from the free disposition of the Superior.⁷

6. If a Procurator or Superior expends anything otherwise than the rule, the will of the Superior, custom, or reasonable cause permits. The reason is that these are not masters of common goods, but only administrators.¹

1163. Questions. - Query 1° What permission is required and suffices so that use is not independent?

Resp. to 1st. There is required: a) True permission, that is, not extorted by fear nor obtained by fraud, for example by feigning necessity. b) Reasonable permission, that is, not for illicit or vain uses, nor for superfluous, precious things unbecoming the religious state. For the Superior cannot give greater permission than he himself has; but he, since he is not master of the goods of Religion, cannot expend them at his own discretion and uselessly, but only for the necessity and utility of Religion.² Hence the opinion altogether pleases St. Alphonsus (although he does not dare to condemn the opposite) teaching that such permission is not merely illicit, but also invalid, except if it is a question either of superfluous things without notable excess, because otherwise the matter would be exposed to great scruples, or of a small sum to be exposed to a licit game, that is, not merely fortuitous.³

Resp. to 2nd. Tacit permission suffices, and more probably also permission presumed from certain probability of future concession; for each takes away independent use. Yet such presumption ordinarily is not without venial fault, because for the most part Superiors, at least as to the mode, are unwilling. (A) p. 477. Permission sought, but unduly denied, unless there is danger of grave damage in delay, does not excuse from transgression of the vow.⁴

Hence, that is, from presumed permission, a religious can assist a poor man laboring under great poverty when access to the Superior does not lie open; he can bestow moderate alms on the poor if with due permission he is living outside the convent; give them something edible when he is in the convent; make light donations to friends and blood-relatives as a sign of gratitude or due friendship, or for conciliating love toward Religion; make remunerative donations from goods granted to him for use, indeed give more than he received, up to an excess of a fourth part, because gratitude demands that more be returned than had been accepted; more probably also give those things which by living more sparingly he withdrew from himself from things granted to him for use, if a fixed quantity is assigned to him in such a way that neither the monastery is held to furnish more, nor he himself to render an account of what was assigned;¹ unless the contrary will of the Superior is clear; accept from outsiders something to be handed over to the Superior;² buy a thing if he knows that it will be very pleasing to the Superior and easy recourse to him is not open, for example on a journey; generally accept or expend something when the Superior cannot be approached and the occasion is urgent;³ give something to Peter, if he has permission of giving to Paul, unless the Superior gave permission for Paul on account of a peculiar reason, being going to deny it if it had been sought for Peter.⁴ Yet presumption would be illegitimate in a religious who, while traveling, turned aside to other places outside the way to see curious things, unless perhaps the distance were very short and no or very slight expenses had to be made, or unless in the particular case the permission of the Superior could rightly be presumed from the nature of the cause.

1164. • Query 2° What matter must be judged grave in violation of the vow of poverty?

Resp. 1° In sins which are at the same time against religion and justice, generally speaking, that is to be held as grave matter which constitutes mortal sin in theft.⁵

Moreover, that one may judge concerning the gravity of matter in thefts of this kind, it must be noted that moderately wealthy monasteries are commonly equated with quite wealthy private owners. Hence generally the same measure as for these constitutes grave matter. But if they are very wealthy, a greater quantity is required. A greater quantity is also required if a Religious usurps things of the Monastery for his own use, or gives them to others of the same Community, than if he spends the same things on outsiders, because thus they remain at home. Greater also in minute thefts, which besides, when a notable interval has intervened (see n. 698. q. 6°), do not coalesce into grave matter. Greater again in eatables, provided they are not reserved and the damaging of the convent is not excessive and in a more extraordinary and more precious thing.⁶

Resp. 2° In sins committed against Religion alone, or against the vow alone, the difficulty increases, and there is greater disagreement of Theologians. Yet more commonly they require no greater matter for mortal sin than in the preceding case, where justice is violated; because the act of proprietorship seems to be of the same gravity. Yet not improbably some grave Doctors require a greater quantity for grave sin. - Thus Elbel,¹ the Salmanticenses.²

But commonly they agree that a much greater value is required for sinning gravely when gifts are accepted from outsiders to be spent on others; because then the act of proprietorship is much less than if these were retained for one's own use.³

But generally a religious does not sin gravely by secretly accepting some thing from the Community, for example a book for his own use even for a long time (but not in perpetuity), unless he so hides it that it cannot be found by the Superiors; because then the Prelate is not judged unwilling as to the substance, but only as to the mode.⁴

As to things accepted or handed over by loan for consumption or loan for use without the permission of the Prelate, generally speaking he will not sin gravely against the vow of poverty if he gives the thing to outsiders for his own use or even other uses by loan for consumption or loan for use, provided he is certain of recovering them and does not therefore inflict grave damage on the Community, which for this reason, for example, lacks the use of a thing gravely necessary here and now. Much less will he sin gravely if he lends by loan for consumption or loan for use things granted to him for use to other religious of the same monastery. The reason is that although he posits some act of proprietorship in these things, nevertheless he does not sin gravely, according to the common interpretation of Theologians.⁵

1165. • Query 3° Whether a religious who has violated the vow of poverty is held to restitution, and whether one unable to restore is held to withdraw something from himself from the things granted to him for use?

Resp. to 1st Affirmatively, if by violating the vow he also violated justice at the same time. The reason is clear.

Resp. to 2nd. The negative opinion is truly probable to St. Alphonsus⁶ if the things granted for use are necessary. The reason is that it is not to be presumed that the Superior wishes to oblige the subject to this with so great an inconvenience.

1166. • Query 4° What is the difference between the vow and the virtue of poverty?

Resp. The vow regards only external acts of proprietorship; but the virtue also extends to internal affections of the heart. For the object of the vow is to despoil the Religious externally of temporal goods. But the virtue has as its end wholly to cut away every inordinate affection of the heart toward earthly things. Therefore the vow of poverty is like the means to the virtue, which is the end to be obtained. This being posited, everyone sees that the virtue of poverty extends much more widely than the vow; for as often as someone infringes the vow, at the same time he wounds the virtue also; but not vice versa.

I said that the vow affects only external acts of proprietorship; yet the vow could be violated by an internal act which regarded and touched an external act, namely by the desire of acting externally against the vow; since desire puts on every malice and species of the external act, as was said n. 228.

1167. • The vow of chastity must be judged much more excellent than the vow of poverty, since through it the Religious renounces not goods extrinsic to himself, but intrinsic, namely pleasures of the body and of the senses.

Its object embraces two things, namely those things which by natural and divine law are already prohibited, and also those things which could be done licitly in legitimate matrimony. Therefore this is the efficacy of the vow of chastity, that what otherwise could be licit becomes illicit for the Religious; but those things which are prohibited to all, he must avoid from a double obligation, namely of chastity and of Religion.

1168. Questions. - Query 1° Whether sins of lust even merely internal are opposed to the vow of chastity?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is that a Religious by force of the vow of chastity is held to abstain from every voluntary venereal delectation, whether internal or external, so that if he wounds chastity, he incurs a double guilt, namely of lust and of sacrilege.¹

1169. • Query 2° What is the gravity of sins committed against the vow of chastity?

Resp. This general rule must be established. The gravity of sin against the vow is entirely the same as against the Sixth and Ninth precept of the Decalogue, namely sin is mortal or venial against Religion according as it is mortal or venial against chastity. But smallness of matter is not to be admitted in sins of lust, nor can the fault be light except from imperfect consent, according to the things said n. 484, 485.

1170. • Query 3° Whether or what difference there is between the virtue and the vow of chastity?

Resp. 1° No difference is given by reason of object, since the vow extends as widely as the virtue itself. Yet they differ in this, that in those things which are prohibited by the virtue, two sins are given if the vow is violated, while one sin is committed in that which is interdicted by the vow alone. For if someone bound by a simple vow of Religion were to contract matrimony, he would perpetrate one sin, namely against Religion, in the use of marriage. Therefore the vow can sometimes be violated without the virtue itself being wounded.

Resp. 2° The virtue of chastity, besides the obligations which it imposes, also counsels mere counsels leading to greater perfection; while the vow affects only the matter of obligation.

1171. Principles. - I. A Religious from the vow of obedience is held to all things which the Superior prescribes according to the rules and constitutions of the Order, whether directly and expressly, or indirectly and implicitly.² Yet that there be sin against the vow, it is required that the Superior truly prescribe, and not merely advise; and this indeed will be clear from the words, mode of speaking, and various circumstances of things.

II. The Superior has the right of prescribing not only those things which are had explicitly in the rule or constitutions, such as abstinence, silence, etc., but also whatever things are implicitly contained in them, such as penalties against transgressors, and whatever pertains to the offices of the Community to be fulfilled rightly, or to its right administration. The reason is that a religious binding himself to observing the special constitutions of the Order obliges himself to all those things which are wisely established or prescribed for obtaining this end.

III. A Religious by force of his vow is not held to obey a Superior prescribing a thing a) impossible, or b) evidently illicit (as to reveal a secret which he is not held to reveal from another reason), or c) gravely harmful to himself. - And indeed he could not oblige himself to an impossible thing, since no one is held to the impossible; nor to a thing certainly illicit, since a vow cannot be a bond of iniquity; nor finally to a thing gravely harmful to himself, because this is foreign to the mind of Religion, and heroic acts commonly and implicitly do not fall under a vow, just as they do not fall under a precept. Yet except if it is a question of offices to be fulfilled within the limits of religious life, for example of caring for pestiferous religious of the same Order, etc.

Hence a subject is not held to obey a Prelate commanding that he walk upon waters, etc.; but if examples are reported by which it is clear that such obedience was approved by God and confirmed by miracles, it must be said that then the divine good pleasure had been manifested by a singular and supernatural light both to the one prescribing and to the one obeying.

1172. Questions. - Query 1° What difference intervenes between the virtue and the vow of obedience?

Resp. The same as was indicated above n. 1166 concerning poverty; namely the object of the vow is the external execution of the mandate of the Superior, while the virtue reaches even to internal submission, and effects perfect obedience itself.

But not only sins against the vow, but also against the virtue, must be carefully avoided by a Religious; and this indeed is usually wounded more frequently. For it happens (would that it were more rarely!) that a subject indeed obeys the mandate of the Prelate integrally by external action, but with a reluctant, sad, and bitter will. Then indeed, although he satisfies the vow, yet he recedes far from the virtue.

Therefore a Religious disobedient to a Superior truly prescribing more probably² commits a double sin, one against the natural precept which prescribes submission to a legitimate Superior, and the other against the vow. Hence in pious Congregations of men or women living a common life under the same Rule without the bond of vows, the disobedient are not exempted from sin if they are rebellious against Superiors, but they commit one sin.

1173. • Query 2° Whether a religious is held to obey in doubt whether the thing prescribed is licit, or exceeds the power of the Superior?

Resp. Affirmatively, because then presumption favors the Superior. Besides, the opposite opinion would disturb order in religious families. Except if the thing prescribed is either very difficult, or exposes the subject or a third party to danger of grave damage, provided that in this double case the subject acts from an opinion solidly probable. The reason is that then the morally certain right of the subject prevails over the uncertain right of the superior.¹

1174. • Query 3° When does a religious sin gravely against the vow of obedience?

Resp. He sins gravely in the following cases, which rarely occur, namely: 1° when he refuses to obey in grave matter a Superior prescribing in virtue of holy obedience, or in the name of Jesus Christ, or through other similar formulas, which must be used very rarely by Superiors; 2° when to a Superior prescribing he responds: I do not wish to obey, I do not wish to do it, I will not do it, or some other similar thing which smells of formal contempt of the authority prescribing; 3° when from disobedience there follows grave scandal of others, whether of subjects or of secular persons, or grave inconvenience either for the Community or for others, for example for the salvation of souls, etc.

In other cases disobedience does not exceed venial sin; but since the aforesaid cases of mortal sin rarely occur, commonly the sins of religious against obedience are to be reputed as venial. - Much more rarely still do sins committed against the virtue alone become mortal. - But a Rule ordering obedience in all things is to be understood of the perfection of obedience, not of obligation from the vow.²

1175. • Query 4° To whom must obedience be given?

Resp. Obedience must be given not only to greater Superiors, but also to lower ones, or ministers, or superiors prescribing from the mandate of Superiors, since the authority which enjoins the mandate is the same.

Query 5° How must obedience be given?

Resp. That the full perfection of obedience may be clear, obedience must be given: 1° from a supernatural motive, as the Apostle prescribes:¹ Not serving to the eye, as pleasing men.... Serve the Lord Christ. - 2° Cheerfully, or with joy and a willing soul: For God loves a cheerful giver.² - 3° Promptly, that is, either immediately, or at the prescribed time, and with due care, without sluggishness. - 4° Entirely, or by completing the whole prescribed work.

1176. Questions. - Query 1° How great is the obligation of the rule?

Prelim. Under the name of rule in this question also come Constitutions or Statutes which proceed from the Prelates alone or the Chapters of Religions.

Resp. 1° "Rule ... is not mere counsel," says Suarez; since violations of rule can be punished by the Superior. See Bouix.³

2° There can be a rule which obliges under mortal sin, or under venial sin, or only to penalty.

"If the rule obliges under sin, its transgression is against the vow and sacrilegious; the reason is that such a rule is not less preceptive than the voice of the Superior; ... therefore ... a Carthusian, for example, eating meats, or a Franciscan not fasting on Friday, sins against obedience and against temperance." - Thus Busembaum apud St. Alphonsus.⁴

3° If in the rule it is expressly said that it obliges as much as it can, its violation will be a mortal or venial sin according as the matter is grave or light; because the rule is not less obliging than the voice of the Superior, and the Superior can oblige according to the gravity of the matter.

4° Rule of itself does not oblige even under venial sin if this is declared in it. But if the rule is altogether silent concerning this, it is disputed. The opinion is to be preferred, says D. Bouix after Suarez, which holds that the rule then does not oblige under grave sin, and that it must be discerned from circumstances and from the interpretation received in each Religion whether it obliges under light sin or only to undergoing penalty:¹ but if someone from a good end transgresses some rule, for example of silence so that he may console a sad companion, he in no way sins.²

Yet several Doctors rightly note that transgressions of this kind rarely lack every fault, on account of negligence, contempt, or another inordinate affection; indeed he would sin gravely who frequently and almost by custom transgressed the rule, gravely disturbing religious discipline, for example if he were never willing to observe silence, nor to pray, nor to walk modestly; if he were to enter the rooms of all the religious, and transgress similar statutes of Religion.³ - He also sins gravely who infringes the rule from formal contempt of the Superior, as, for example, that he may show the Superior to be despised by him and held as nothing; likewise if he does this from hatred against Religion or its persons, or from the will of resisting the Prelate; likewise if he exposes himself to the proximate danger of falling into mortal sin, or foresees that he will for this reason be expelled. But if someone proposes never to observe the rule, it can scarcely happen that contempt is not present. Thus Suarez apud D. Bouix,⁴ and St. Alphonsus.⁵ - But the mere frequency of infractions does not seem sufficiently to prove contempt, since this frequency can arise from great sloth, in which nevertheless the slothful man can still hold the rules, Superiors, and Religion in great esteem.⁶

1177. • Query 2° Whether those professed according to a mitigated rule are held to reformation if it is introduced?

Resp. Affirmatively, if the reformation is made through statutes at least indirectly pertaining to the mitigated rule, or is necessary for the conservation of the Order, for example because with the present observance either very few strive to arrive at perfection, or the religious live with scandal of secular persons, or the essential vows and other statutes of Religion would not otherwise be observed. Otherwise negatively, because profession is made according to the rule, whether primitive or mitigated. Thus as certain, if the mitigation was introduced by the Pope; as probable, if by custom.¹

1178. • Query 3° Whether a Prelate gravely sins at some time by neglecting to correct light defects of subjects?

Resp. Affirmatively, with St. Alphonsus² and the common opinion against Lorca, in the case in which there were several defects and such (for example concerning silence, fasts, etc.) that they can relax discipline: whence concerning these he must inquire in order to correct them, yet without excessive solicitude: sometimes prudently dissembling, if the defects do not bring scandal, or if he foresees that the subject will become worse from correction, or if a more opportune time must be awaited. - But just as the Superior is held to correct, so he who has the office of Zelator is held to warn him concerning the transgressions of others.

1179. Principle. - A religious is held, not indeed to be perfect, but to tend in some way to perfection.

I say: 1° He is not held to be perfect, as a Bishop, who by force of his duty is obliged to acts of perfection, for example to laying down life for the sheep, since a religious per se, or by force of his state, is not held to acts of this kind.

I say: 2° He is held in some way to tend to perfection. For obligation to the evangelical counsels implies obligation of tending to perfection, since once these are observed, by that very fact you tend to this. For by exercising himself in these counsels, on the one hand he removes from himself the obstacles of charity or perfection, namely the threefold concupiscence, of the eyes by poverty, of the flesh by chastity, and the pride of life by the exercise of humble obedience; but on the other hand the observance of the same counsels disposes man so that he may become wholly God's, by handing over to Him all the things which he has, namely the goods of fortune by poverty, the body by chastity, the soul by obedience.

1180. Questions. - Query 1° By what means is a religious held to tend to perfection?

Resp. 1° He is held to tend primarily through the essential means of the religious state, namely through the observation of the three vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience.

Resp. 2° He is held to tend secondarily also through accidental means, namely through the proper rules of the Order, at least by not contemning those helps. But then the religious is judged to omit the rules from contempt when he transgresses them with the mind of not subjecting himself to them or to his Prelates; or if he holds them as empty.¹

1181. • Query 2° When does a religious sin gravely against the precept of tending to perfection?

Resp. In this he offends gravely: 1° If he infringes the vows very often in a grave matter, as is clear; because he omits means essential and consequently altogether necessary for preserving this obligation. - Thus all. 2° If he generally transgresses the rules from contempt, as has just been said. But otherwise, if he violates them led by concupiscence, or because he thinks they are not necessary for him for salvation, or if he thinks that they are not prescribed under grave obligation. For to transgress rules in matters of slight moment, even from custom, contempt being set aside, does not exceed venial sin. - Thus expressly St. Alphonsus.²

1182. • Query 3° Whether a religious sins gravely who intends to observe only the mandates obliging under grave obligation, and to care in no way concerning the rest?

Resp. The denying opinion is the more common, and to St. Alphonsus³ the more probable. The reason is that by the very fact that the religious wishes to fulfill those several things which oblige under grave obligation, he already tends to perfection, since he wishes to fulfill several things which with respect to others do not oblige, but are of mere counsel.

Moreover the Holy Doctor rightly notes that a religious so disposed can be living in grave danger of sinning mortally under other heads, for example by reason of danger of transgressing the vows, or of inflicting grave damage on Religion as to discipline, etc.

1183. • Although obligations existing from valid Profession are by their nature perpetual, yet they can cease, or even be changed.

They cease by dispensation of the Supreme Pontiff, or of him to whom this power has been given by the Supreme Pontiff, for example through the Rule. This is clear from those things which we said in the Treatise on Laws n. 158 and on the Second Precept n. 391. - Indeed even in solemn vows the Supreme Pontiff can dispense for a most grave cause. The reason is that solemnity of vows was instituted from ecclesiastical Law alone, as is clear from the Extravagant of John XXI, tit. 6, and from the bull Ascendente Domino, in which Gregory XIII says: "We considering that the solemnity of the vow was invented by the constitution of the Church alone," etc. Therefore the Supreme Pontiff can dispense in solemn vows, just as in simple vows, since that by which the former differ from these is of mere ecclesiastical institution. But according to all he can dispense in simple vows. Therefore, etc. This is also clear from various examples related in ecclesiastical history, that several Supreme Pontiffs used power of this kind. Especially in most recent times Pius VII granted several dispensations of this kind to solemnly professed monks and nuns for revalidating marriages sacrilegiously entered.

1184. • Change in obligations existing from profession can happen in three ways, namely: 1° through ejection from Religion, in which case those ejected are undoubtedly bound per se by both the substantial vows of Religion and the other peculiar vows of their Order, yet in such a way that the vow of chastity indeed must be guarded by them without change, but the remaining vows of poverty, obedience, and any others annexed to their profession undergo a certain moderation in use and practice itself, which is adapted and congruent to the peculiar circumstances of each; but they must be subject to the jurisdiction of the Ordinary of the place and obey his commands. Cf. Benedict XIV;¹ 2° through transition to another Religion (n. 1157. 2°. d); 3° through indult of secularization, which sometimes for a just cause is granted by the Supreme Pontiff, yet for the most part with the caution that, as far as can be done, the three vows emitted be observed, and that some trace of the religious habit be continually worn in the world. - But a Religious who is assumed to the Episcopate is not by that very fact released from the vows (since personal vows accompany the person), although their observance is modified under these circumstances. For the one promoted can legitimately acquire goods; but he acquires the use for himself, and the property for the church over which he presides and of whose goods he is dispenser. Likewise the vow of obedience does not cease, since he obtains the Supreme Pontiff as Superior.¹

As regards the Rule, a regular Bishop, according to the prescription of the Constitution of Benedict XIII Custodes, is held to observe the rules of his Religion which determine the matter of the vow of poverty; likewise he is held to observe other rules and observances not repugnant to Episcopal dignity and office, with the same obligation, grave or light, by which he was held before he attained Episcopal dignity: yet in such a way that in particular cases he can prudently bring judgment whether they agree with dignity and office.² But he is held to recite the divine Office according to the rite of his diocese.³ Say almost the same concerning observance of the Rule concerning a regular promoted to a parish. (t) p. 483.

2146. • DEFINITION. Religious profession, in the canonical sense, is customarily defined: "A promise freely made and legitimately accepted, by which someone constituted in due age, the time of probation having been completed, binds himself perpetually to a certain Religion approved by the Church, with solemn emission of vows." In a broader and improper sense, even the emission of simple vows is called Profession.

DIVISION. Profession is either express, which is enunciated by words; or tacit, which is expressed by deeds, e.g. when a novice, the time of probation having elapsed, knowingly wears the habit of profession and exercises acts proper to the professed. Today this is almost unusual; indeed, it has been expressly abrogated, if there is question of the emission of solemn vows to be made by male Regulars.¹

2147. I. For the VALIDITY of the profession either of Religious or of Nuns, THREE things are required, namely the aptitude of the one vowing, free consent, and the acceptance of the Superior.²

There is required 1. the aptitude of the one vowing, namely: that he not be of another's right, that he have completed the sixteenth year to the moment of the hour, that he have stood in probation for a whole year (in a leap-year the lapse of 366 days must altogether be awaited); that he have no impediment which, by Statutes confirmed by the Roman Pontiff, is judged substantial in that Order.³

There is required 2. free consent, i.e. that there be present in the one vowing the intention of making profession, free from every deceit, fraud, or error concerning substantial things; and that force or grave fear be absent, both on the part of the one professing and on the part of the monastery accepting (cf. n. 1044 sqq.). - And here there comes to be noted the Tridentine decree, by force of which they incur excommunication reserved to no one "whoever shall have forced some virgin, or widow, or any other woman, except in the cases expressed in law, to enter a monastery, or to receive the habit of any Religion whatever, or to emit profession"⁴ (cf. n. 1359, where concerning cases expressed in law, or excepted).

There is required 3. Acceptance of the Superior of the Order, with the consent or at least with the counsel of the Chapter, according to the Statutes of each Religion; for religious profession consists in a certain bilateral contract, for which true and legitimate consent is necessary on each side.⁵

In ITALY, the Decrees of the Holy See, concerning which n. 2143, must moreover be observed.

Further, a Religious unjustly denying a vote to a novice not only sins, but besides is held to restitution, as they most commonly say, unless there is present a grave cause for reproving, namely a cause of infirmity, bad disposition, defect of talents, and the like, so that the novice is thought going to be grave, i.e. burdensome, to Religion. Thus St. Alphonsus.⁶

2148. II. For the validity of the profession of MEN with SOLEMN vows, there is further required, according to the present discipline, that they first have emitted SIMPLE VOWS. - Namely, from the decrees of Pius IX (19 March 1857 and 7 Feb. 1862):⁷ all Religious of those Orders in which solemn vows are emitted, in the future, the tyrocinium having been completed, emit only simple vows, at least for three years; then, after at least the nineteenth year of their age has been completed, they are admitted to solemn vows, if they are found worthy by their Superiors. But for just causes solemn profession can also be deferred longer, although not beyond the age of twenty-five completed years. The decree does not regard nuns.

But from the declarations of the Sacred Congregation SUPER STATU REGULARIUM given on 12 June 1858, and regarding the aforesaid decree of 19 March 1857, the simple vows of which there is question are perpetual on the part of the one vowing, and dispensation from them is reserved to the Supreme Pontiff. - On the part of the Order, however, they can be dissolved by dismissal of the Professed, so that, dismissal having been given, by that very fact the professed become free from every bond of the said vows. But no one can be dismissed because of infirmity arising after profession of simple vows. - Moreover, the professed of these vows become participants of all the graces and privileges by which the solemnly professed in the same Order enjoy.⁸

2149. III. Concerning the profession of NUNS, the following things especially must be noted:

1. A novice CANNOT LICITLY be admitted to profession: 1) If the Bishop, by himself or by a delegate, even in an exempt monastery, has not examined her beforehand; wherefore the Superiorissa is bound, under penalty of suspension from office, to warn him at least one month before profession; but the Ordinary is bound, within fifteen days from the day of notification, to institute the examination according to the Tridentine rules (cf. n. 2143, 2).⁹ - 2) If, the year of probation having been completed, the Ordinary has deferred profession from a just cause. - 3) If the dowry of a choir nun, assessed by the Bishop and which is to be paid in money, has not been furnished (cf. n. 589, 5). But the dowry cannot be alienated, nor, if the nun is transferred into another monastery, be transferred to the same, unless this monastery is compelled to admit the nun. But it is to be restored to one departing from the monastery if only simple vows are emitted in it. - Nevertheless it is equitable that expenses incurred be deducted (cf. n. 2144).¹⁰

2. Profession is INVALID if a novice, having departed from the monastery because of infirmity, and, after she has recovered, having returned, has not begun the novitiate anew. - If a novice of sixteen years and constituted in danger of death wishes to emit profession, she can certainly emit it; but if she recovers, once the year of her profession has been completed, she must profess anew.¹¹

3. The profession of nuns must be made principally into the hand of the Ordinary or his delegate, not into the hand of the Superiorissa. - Nevertheless it is valid if it is made into the hand of the Superiorissa, with the consent of the greater part of the Chapter. Except if custom or approved Statutes of the Order require something else.¹²

2150. Questions. QUESTION 1. Can one RECLAMATE who has emitted an INVALID profession?

Resp. He can, from the Council of Trent,¹³ provided he does this within a five-year period; once this has elapsed, he is no longer heard, unless he is restored in full by the Apostolic See. - But the process must be made both by the local Prelate and by the Ordinary of the diocese, with the assistance of a defender of profession. Further, the professed, although he has the first sentence in his favor, cannot therefore withdraw from Religion, but must await the second, if an appeal is pending. But if he has already taken flight, he is repelled from judgment until he has resumed the habit of Religion. Thus Benedict XIV, Bull Si datam hominibus.¹⁴ See more among the Canonists.

QUESTION 2. What are the EFFECTS of valid profession?

Resp. The principal effects are the following:¹⁵

1. Remission of sins as regards penalty, if the professed is in grace and immune from every depraved affection, even lightly sinful; for profession is a holocaust offered to God, and exceeds every kind of satisfaction.¹⁶ 2. Extinction of vows previously emitted, as though through a certain commutation into something better.¹⁷ 3. Liberation from paternal power, notwithstanding civil law; whence it happens that parents who, relying on secular law, draw a son or daughter from the convent after profession has been emitted, stain themselves with grave sin. - 4. Dissolution of betrothals, according to what was said n. 1957. 5. Dissolution of a ratified marriage already contracted, and inability for contracting matrimony, if the profession is solemn (cf. n. 1981). 6. Cessation of irregularity from defect of birth; but only to the effect of receiving Orders, not however as regards obtaining Prelatures or Dignities (cf. n. 1935). - 7. Vacancy of Benefices, according to what was said n. 2138. 8. Participation in all privileges of Regulars, especially exemption, if the monastery has the required conditions (cf. n. 2183). 9. The obligation of tending to perfection and of observing vows, concerning which now at greater length.

Question 8. What is required for the validity of profession?

Resp. §1. For the validity of any religious profession it is required that:

1st. The one about to emit it have the legitimate age according to the norm of can. 573;

2nd. A legitimate Superior admit him to profession according to the constitutions;

3rd. A valid novitiate according to the norm of can. 555 have preceded;

4th. The profession be emitted without force or grave fear or fraud;

5th. It be expressed;

6th. It be received by a legitimate Superior according to the constitutions, by himself or through another.

§2. But for the validity of perpetual profession, whether solemn or simple, it is moreover required that temporary simple profession according to the norm of can. 574 have preceded (Can. 572).

I. Monastic profession, as I have indicated elsewhere, is a contract by which a man offers himself to God in some approved Religion, emitting with solemn rite the three vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience before a consenting Prelate, who in God's name accepts these vows. It is twofold: express, which is made by words before a superior; and tacit, which is performed by signs and actions determined by law — as if a novice, the sixteenth year and the entire year of his noviceship being completed, exercise the actions of the professed and wear their habit, he emits a tacit profession, provided nevertheless that the Prelate consent, and that the novice himself do it freely, not compelled, or induced by no fear gravely struck in from without, and that he advert that by actions of this kind he incurs a tacit profession, and have the mind of professing. But although this profession be named tacit, in fact it is express in its own way.

II. That the profession of Regulars be lawful, there is required a lawful power, which resides either in the Roman Pontiff or in the superior of the Religion according to the peculiar rules of each Order. In this or that Order the superior alone does not suffice, but the consent of the greater part of the Fathers of the council, or of the Chapter, is necessary. If the greater part of those Fathers resist, neither the superior of that convent in which the noviceship is, nor the major superiors can admit a novice to profession; but the immediate superior resisting, and the consent of the greater part of the Fathers of the council acceding, the major superiors, as a Provincial or a General, can admit a novice to profession. For the rest, every Order ought to consult its own laws.

III. There are several impediments which can render a profession null: 1. Age before the sixteenth year completed; 2. If the year of noviceship be not entire, or be interrupted; 3. Defect of liberty, as if a slave profess with his master resisting; 4. Matrimony consummated with the other spouse resisting; 5. The episcopate, the Pontiff's licence not acceding; 6. Excessive old age, or a grave and incurable disease hindering the observance of the Rule; 7. Diversity of sex, as if a man profess in a Monastery of women, or conversely; 8. Grave fear unjustly struck in; 9. Error concerning the essence of the religious state; 10. If the mind of obliging oneself be lacking, or if he be accepted with a feigned mind by the superior, it is null in the forum of conscience; 11. Lastly if there happen some defect which by force of the Constitutions of the Order annuls the profession.

IV. That a profession null on the part of each — of the accepting superior and of the professed — may be reintegrated, the reciprocal consent of each party is required. But if it be null from a defect of the consent of the professed alone, then it suffices that he alone renew his consent, and let the profession emitted stand ratified. But some profession can be null from an impediment which admits no remedy by which it could be healed.

V. The effects of regular profession are: 1. The remission of all sins, even as regards the penalty, as St. Thomas teaches, II-II, q. 189, art. 3, reply 3, to whom the rest of the theologians subscribe; 2. It is a taking away of irregularity from defect of birth for the receiving of sacred Orders, but not for exercising a prefecture; 3. It takes away the ingratitude of a son toward his father, who can no longer disinherit the son; 4. It dissolves a ratified and unconsummated matrimony; 5. It commutes vows made in the world: which commutation is made by the profession itself. Wherefore even if a professed man should frequently neglect the observance of the fasts and other austerities of the Order, nevertheless the commutation made stands; 6. It is a provision of food and clothing, which the Religion is bound to minister to the professed, healthy and infirm, and it is bound to educate them in studies according to their own vocation.

VI. Trent, session 25, chapter 19, imparts to Regulars the faculty of protesting against a profession emitted, three conditions being added: 1. That the protest and the cause of rescinding the profession be instituted before a five-year period has elapsed from the day of the profession emitted; 2. That the protester lay not aside the habit of Religion while the cause of protest is pending; 3. That the cause of rescinding the profession be instituted before his own superior and the ordinary, who ought to pass sentence.

VII. That a man may lawfully protest against his own profession, he ought to have certain and evident foundations. For he who is doubtful cannot lawfully protest, because in doubt the presumption stands for the profession. Several things would have to be said of this protest. But since all these things pertain to the external forum, and are treated by not a few canonists, therefore I pass them over.

VIII. This only I would have Masters of novices gather hence, with how great diligence and vigilance they are gravely bound to weigh the vocation of candidates. The chief cause of relaxed regular discipline is a defect of divine vocation to the professing of that sublime state. Since indeed very many, not God calling — as Cardinal Bellarmine adverts, Book 2 On the Groaning of the Dove — but by reasons which cannot be explained, give their names to this sacred warfare. Others who preside over novices, if they close their eyes upon this most grave business lest their own cloisters remain empty, admit to profession those not called. This first foundation of heavenly vocation being lacking, what wonder if the whole edifice fall in ruins? Is chastity not a special gift of the Holy Ghost? That it may be preserved unstained, it is required not as a human grace, expecting strength from infirmity, but as flowing from God, victorious and triumphant. The divine vocation being taken away, that most singular grace is lacking; and those destitute of this grace sacrilegiously pollute, dishonour, and corrupt chastity. Behold the root of all evils exposed. Let Masters of novices therefore be most cautious in weighing their vocation.

IX. It is not hidden from me what these men are wont to object, namely that the world is set in wickedness, and the morals of Christians relaxed and daily more corrupt. From this soil, they say, the plants must be transferred into the gardens of Regulars, which, if they have been struck by hail before the olives are grafted in, can scarcely bear fruits worthy of eternal life. Wherefore the sound plants are to be separated from the infected. But the sound, you reply, are few, and the multiplied cloisters must be filled. I should be too long if I wished to discuss this objection according to its dignity. See the Apostolico-Monastic Discipline, part 2, dissertation 1, chapter 15, where you will find the difficulty discussed at large. The propagation of Regulars and their perennial succession is not carnal but spiritual, descending from God. Do thou receive only those called to profession, and leave the care to God, that he may send labourers. If thou shalt do otherwise, thou wilt expose thyself and others to the danger of perishing eternally.

I assert that a Vow emitted in grave fear justly struck is valid.

It is proved by the reason of D. Bonavent. there, because then no fear falling upon a constant man is struck into him by another, but he rather strikes fear into himself, as is found in leg. si mulier 21. at the beginning, ff. de eo, quod metus causa. For he is himself to himself the cause of fearing sin, or the evil of penalty, one of which looms to be chosen. Which reason Sanchez uses, lib. 4. de matrimonio, disp. 13. num. 3.

This doctrine destroys the foundation of the adversaries; for the vow is voluntary, since the fear was struck from within, duly, and is therefore not coercing; for coercion and force are from without.

From these you can gather that Vows extorted by light fear are valid; for liberty is not gravely assailed thereby.

Here Sanchez discourses at greater length on the excommunication of the holy Council of Trent, sess. 25. de regul. cap. 18., which is fulminated first against those compelling women to enter a monastery, or to take on the habit of Religion, or to make profession.

Secondly, against those giving aid or favor to that end.

Thirdly, against those who, knowing that a woman does not enter or take the habit or emit profession spontaneously, interpose in any way whatever power, or consent, or authority to that act.

Fourthly, against those impeding, without just cause, the voluntary act of the woman willing to emit Vows and enter religion. On this Suarez, Tom. 5. in 3. part. disp. 23. sect. 5., where he treats of Censures, which is the place of this disputation, and which will be treated by us in the 3. part. Tom. 2. Tract. de Censuris.

PROFESSION of this kind is one thing when expressed, another when tacit.

¶ Profession is expressed when it is made in express words, in writing, or by signs: it is tacit, however, when it is presumed to have been made: first, if upon completing the year of probation you wear the habit of the professed, distinct indeed from the habit of novices, for three days. cap. ad Nostram de regul. Secondly, if, having received such a habit, before the three days you also do something proper to the professed, for instance cast a vote in the chapter elections. Thirdly, if you wear the habit of the professed for a whole year, once the year has passed you are presumed to have professed. Clement. eos, de Regul. See Manuel treat. 2. sum. cap. 8. num. 13. Azor. lib. XII. cap. 4. question 2. Sanchez lib. V. cap. 3. Miranda treat. 1. quest. 24. art. 1. Layman lib. IV. tract. 5. cap. 5. Lessius lib. II. cap. 41. num. 57. Vecchi disp. 13. dub. 8. Bassaeus V. Religio 4. num. 1. Thus by any one of these modes you will have professed tacitly.

The Council of Trent notes, in truth, that it neither changed nor took away these modes, but only added them, so that the year of probation may be completed, and a full sixteen years of age, complete to the point. The reception also of Sacred Orders from such an order induces profession, as the Sacred Congregation declared in 1619, in Tamburini de iure, Abbot disp. 6. quest. 13. num. 12.

Note also that profession, according to the constitutions, cap. fin. quest. 3., must be signed in writing by the one professing, if he knows how to write.

BESIDES the conditions related from the Council of Trent as necessary, wherever the Council is received, others are required.

THE FIRST, that it be made in a monastery of one's own sex. Thus a hermaphrodite, being equally of both sexes, professes nowhere. Portela V. Professio, who says that a woman professed, if she bursts forth into a male, is bound to pass over to the religion of men. But this does not please me; for precisely her profession is that of Nuns. See Diana part. 5. tract. 14. Resol. 49.

The SECOND condition is, that one be received by a power that has authority. These are the General, the Provincial, and the immediate Prelate of the place with his family: for without the consent of the greater part of the family the Prelates cannot admit anyone, nor can the family, if the Prelate resists; Rodriguez tract. 5. qq. 17. art. 7. Vecchi disp. 12. dub. 1. and Sanchez lib. V. 14. from num. 62. with Bassaeus num. 3. Moreover the reception belongs properly to the Prelates, as it is commended to the more prudent, and the consent of prudent brethren is added to the reception, as the Holy Doctor says on cap. 2 of the Rule of the Minors. Wherefore the General, or Provincial, can command the superior of the Novitiate not to admit anyone without his license, under a declaration of nullity, Navarro lib. II. conf. reg. 62. Rodriguez tract. 3. qq. quest. 17. art. 7. for his power is eminently in the greater Prelate.

All are bound, in truth, not to exclude a suitable candidate, Suarez tract. 3. de relig. lib. IV. cap. 3. num. 7. Vecchi disp. 12. dub. 1. Portela V. Novitius, num. 55. and in the addition num. 17. Miranda treat. 1. quest. 25. art. 1. and 2. Diana part. 7. tract. 11. resol. 26. Bassaeus V. Religio, 4. num. 3. And the Holy Doctor indicates this on cap. 2 of the Rule of the Minors.

The REASON is, because a great evil is inflicted upon him, while he is deprived of so great a good; just as a grave evil is inflicted upon the Religion, whether suitable men are driven out, or the guilty and unfit are admitted. For this reason it is entrusted to them that, endowed with the fishing art, they cast good fish into vessels, sending the bad and unfit outside, as the Holy Doctor discusses.

But if, even after vows are given, the Fathers of the convent find or uncover some grave fault in the novice, they can still expel him: for the year is given for approval, cap. ad Apostolicam. And as it is permitted in a ratified marriage, so also in the spiritual marriage, cap. Inter corporalia, de transf. Episcop. So Bassaeus num. 3. Vecchi disp. 12. dub. 7. who in disp. 5. says that private persons by voice cannot give a vote.

THIRDLY, a mind free from violence, grave fear, or importunate pleadings, and from the displeasure of parents, etc. is required in the one professing. cap. Perlatum de his, quae vi. Sanchez de matrim. lib. IV. disp. 6. num. 18. and disp. 7. num. 7. Coninck disp. 28. dub. 2. num. 35. Lessius lib. II. cap. 17. num. 35. Vecchi disp. 13. dub. 12. Bassaeus num. 5. But in doubt as to whether the fear was grave, judgment must be given in favor of the profession itself that holds possession, thus Sanchez lib. IV. moral. cap. 3. Bonacina de leg. disp. IV. quest. 2. puncto 3. §. 1. num. 11.

An invalid profession can be ratified, unless it was made in a Religion not approved. See Bassaeus.

The Council of Trent, sess. 25. de reg. cap. 19., grants that one who presumes he has professed invalidly may protest only within a period of five years, unless he was impeded within that time. But let him bring his causes for protesting before his own superior.

Note, however, that if the profession was invalid, it is not ratified once the five years have elapsed, for what does not subsist by law from the beginning is not strengthened by the lapse of time; thus Diana part. 6. tract. 7. Resol. 56.

For the causes of protesting see the rest in Bonacina de claus. quest. 2. puncto 10. Sanchez de matrim. lib. VII. disp. 37. Suarez de relig. tract. 3. lib. VII. cap. 3.

I shall enumerate the effects of the obligation when I treat of each of the vows.

But it brings many goods. The first good that it carries with it is the restoration of baptismal innocence: Thus D. Thom. q. 189. art. 5. Navarro tract. 2. de reg. num. 60. Peyrino tract. 2. de prael. quest. 3. cap. 1. num. 154. Sà V. religio, num. 17. Layman lib. IV. tract. 5. cap. 10. Villalobos tom. 2. tract. 35. diff. 26.

Some add that he who has placed an obstacle in the profession, if he repents, recovers innocence; But I do not see from where they prove this from the work wrought, where such a promise is found, as Cajetan notes on the cited place of D. Thom. art. 3. ad 3. Azor tract. 1. lib. XII. cap. 5. quest. 11. Navarro de indulg. not. 20. num. 17.

Next, profession removes the irregularity arising from defect of birth with respect to orders and simple benefices, cap. 1. de filiis Presbyt.

As for stains affecting temporal acts, from Ambrose de monach. collat. 1.

Moreover, one is freed from the power of his country with respect to burdens. See Sanchez number 29. Finally, a profession made before the death of a parent wipes out the mark of ingratitude, on account of which he could have been disinherited. See Layman lib. 4. tract. 5. cap. 10.

The Holy Doctor enumerates many reasons, quest. 10. in Reg. why not all are to be received into Religion.

He heaps up very many motives why suitable men are to be received into religion, quest. 15. in Regulam, But those reasons, like these motives, since they are evident of themselves from common practice, I pass over here.

Case.—Anthony had made his solemn profession as a lay brother of a religious Order, having taken simple vows three years before, upon completing his novitiate. At that time he gave evidence of being quite scrupulous, otherwise he was perfectly satisfactory. Soon however he began to suffer so severely from melancholy that he had to be placed in an insane asylum. After two years in that institution the officials declared him in condition to leave, but warned against his resuming the religious life. Anthony now petitioned the Ordinary to obtain for him a dispensation from the vows, asserting that he made his profession unwillingly, and that ever since he had been troubled with great scruples. He could not possibly stay in the Order. It was ascertained, moreover, that both his father and his sister had died as inmates of an insane asylum.

The Ordinary made application to the Holy See, submitting full details of the case, stating also that Anthony had correctly made his solemn vows, and had testified in writing that he was acting without compulsion, and fully conscious of what he was doing. Nevertheless, he may have been suffering even then from a hereditary taint of insanity; it was stated, also, that the physicians feared that he would again incur his melancholy if he returned to the Order.

Question.—May solemn vows be dispensed?

Solution.—Solemn vows may be dispensed, but the dispensationis reserved to the Holy See. Infirm health is considered a sufficient reason for granting the dispensation from simple vows. A graver reason is required to dispense from solemn than from simple vows.

But if the nature of an infirmity were very serious, it might constitute the very grave cause that is required for a dispensation from solemn vows. In the present case the S$. Congr. Inquisitionis, by virtue of papal authority, granted to the Ordinary power to dispense the lay brother from his solemn vows, so that he could enter the married state, with a Catholic, lawfully and validly. The condition was imposed that in case his wife died before him a second marriage was prohibited; he was to be informed also that every violation of chastity, outside of marriage, would be a sin at the same time against the vow of chastity.

As special penance the Bishop was to impose upon him for life (1) to say the rosary of five decades at least once a week; (2) to approach the sacraments at least five times a year, at Christmas, Easter, Pentecost, the Assumption B. V. M., and All Saints; (3) to fast strictly on two days of his own selection, once in honor of the Immaculate Conception, and once in honor of St. Joseph.